chapter 27 to 28 (_v.i._).――=XXVIII. 1.= The language seems modelled on

24³ᐧ ³⁷.――=2.= _thy mother’s father_] The earlier affinity between the two families is again ignored by Priestly-Code: see on 25¹⁹ ᶠᐧ.――=4.= _the blessing_ (Vulgate, Peshiṭtå ‘blessings’) _of Abraham_] Compare 17⁸. Whereas in Jehovist, Isaac is the inspired author of an original blessing, which fixes the destiny of his descendants, in Priestly-Code he simply transmits the blessing attached to the covenant with Abraham.――=9.= _went to Ishmael_] Not to dwell with him permanently, but to procure a wife (see 36⁶ ᶠᐧ). It is undoubtedly assumed that Ishmael was still alive (Dillmann), in spite of the chronological difficulties raised by Delitzsch.

* * * * *

=46.= The objections to assigning the verse to Priestly-Code (Kuenen, Kautzsch-Socin, Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.) are perhaps not decisive. If Massoretic Text be right, בנות חת‎ agrees in substance with 26³⁴ ᶠᐧ, though in 28¹ ᶠᶠᐧ Priestly-Code consistently uses ב׳ כנען‎. LXX, however, omits the words ‎ מִבְּנוֹת־חֵת כָּאֵלֶּה‎.――=2.= פדנה‎] (so ⁵ᐧ ⁷) compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 _i_.――=3.= קהל עמים‎] 35¹¹ 48⁴ (Priestly-Code), Ezekiel 23²⁴ ‎ 32³; = הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם‎ 17⁴ ᶠᐧ. In spite of Deuteronomy 33³ (Dillmann), the phrase cannot well denote the tribes of Israel. It seems to correspond to Yahwist’s ‘In thee shall _all nations_,’ etc. (12³ etc.), and probably expresses some sort of Messianic outlook.――=7.= ואל־אמו‎] perhaps a gloss suggested by 27⁴³ ᶠᐧ (Dillmann al.).――=9.= אל־ישמעאל‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ omitted.――מַֽחֲלַת‎] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (compare Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ); see on 36³.

* * * * *

XXVIII. 10‒22. _Jacob at Bethel_ (Jehovist).

On his way to Ḥarran, Jacob passes the night at Bethel, where the sacredness of the ‘place’ is revealed to him by a dream of a ladder leading from earth to heaven. Awaking, he consecrates the stone on which his head had lain, as a ‘house of God,’――at the same time naming the place Bethel,――and vows to dedicate a tithe of all he has, in the event of his safe return.

_Analysis._――The section consists of a complete Elohistic narrative (¹¹ ᶠᐧ ¹⁷⁻²²), with a Yahwistic insertion (¹³⁻¹⁶). For Elohist, compare אלהים‎; ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ²⁰; מַצֵּבָה‎, ¹⁸ᐧ ²²; the dream, ¹²; the tithe, ²²; and the retrospective references in 31¹³ 35³ᐧ ⁷. For Yahwist, יהוה‎ ¹³ ⁽ᵇⁱˢ⁾ᐧ ¹⁶; נִצָּב עַל‎ ¹³, and the resemblances to 12³ᐧ ⁷ 13¹⁵ ᶠᐧ 18¹⁸ 22¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 26²⁴ 32¹³. To Yahwist belong, further, ¹⁰ ‎ (חָרָֽנָה‎), and (if genuine) ²¹ᵇ, though the latter is more probably interpolated. ¹⁹ᵃ breaks the connexion of ¹⁸ and ²⁰, and _may_ be taken from Yahwist; ¹⁹ᵇ is an explanatory gloss. (So nearly all recent critics.) Kuenen (_Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds_ i. 145, 247) considers ¹³⁻¹⁶ a redactional addition to Elohist, similar to 22¹⁴⁻¹⁸, etc., on the ground that Yahwist attributes the inauguration of the worship at Bethel to Abraham (12⁸), and nowhere alludes to the theophany here recorded (so Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 236³). But (to say nothing of ¹⁹ᵃ) the parallelism of ¹⁶ and ¹⁷ appears to prove a real amalgamation of primary sources (Dillmann). Gunkel regards ¹⁴ as secondary, on account of its stereotyped phraseology.

=10‒12= (Elohist). =Jacob’s dream.=――=11.= _he lighted upon the place_] _i.e._, the ‘holy place’ of Bethel (see 12⁶), whose sanctity was revealed by what followed.――_he took_ [at haphazard] _one of the stones of the place_] which proved itself to be the abode of a deity by inspiring the dream which came to Jacob that night.――=12.= _a ladder_] or ‘stair’ (the word only here). The origin of the idea is difficult to account for (see on verse ¹⁷). Its permanent religious significance is expressed with profound insight and truth in John 1⁵¹.――_angels of God_] So (in plural) only in Elohist (compare 32²) in the Hexateuch. As always in Old Testament, the angels are represented as wingless beings (compare Enoch lxi. 1).

In verse ¹¹ the rendering ‘a certain place’ would be grammatically correct (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _r_); but it destroys the point of the sentence, which is that night overtook the patriarch just at the sacred spot (see Exodus 3⁵). The idea expressed by the primitive form of the legend is that the inherent sanctity of the place, and in particular of the stone, was unknown till it was discovered by Jacob’s dream. It is very probable, as Holzinger suggests, that this points to an ancient custom of incubation at Bethel, in which dream-oracles were sought by sleeping with the head in contact with the sacred stone (see Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 475 f.).

* * * * *

‎ =11.= מראשתיו‎] Accusative of place (literally ‘at his head-place’), as 1 Samuel 19¹³ᐧ ¹⁶ 26⁷ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁶, 1 Kings 19⁶.――=12.= ויחלם והנה‎] The usual vivid formula in relating a dream: 37⁷ (LXX) ⁹ 40⁹ 41¹, Judges 7¹³, Isaiah 29⁸.

* * * * *

=13‒16= (Yahwist). =The promise.=

In place of the vision of the ladder, which in Elohist constitutes the whole revelation, Yahwist records a personal appearance of Yahwe, and an articulate communication to the patriarch. That it was a nocturnal theophany (as in 26²⁴) appears from ¹⁶ᵃ{α}, as well as the word שֹׁכֵב‎ in ¹³. The promise is partly addressed to Jacob’s special circumstances (¹³ᐧ ¹⁵), partly a renewal of the blessing of Abraham (¹⁴). The latter is not improbably a later amplification of the former (see above).

=13.= _Yahwe stood by him_ (_v.i._), and announced Himself as one with the God of his fathers. This unity of Yahwe amidst the multiplicity of His local manifestations is a standing paradox of the early religion of Israel: compare verse ¹⁶.――_the land whereon thou liest_] a description peculiarly appropriate to the solitary and homeless fugitive who had not where to lay his head.――=14.= Compare 13¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ 22¹⁷ ᶠᐧ 26⁴ᐧ ²⁴ 32¹³.――On ¹⁴ᵇ see the note on 12³.――=16.= _Yahwe is in this place, etc._] The underlying feeling is not joy (Dillmann), but fear, because in ignorance he had treated the holy place as common ground (Targum ᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ). The exclamation doubtless preserves an echo of the local tradition, more forcibly represented in Elohist (verse ¹⁷). It is the only case in Genesis where a theophany occasions surprise (compare Exodus 3³).

* * * * *

‎ =13.= נצב עליו‎] 18² 24¹³ 45¹ (all Yahwist). LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå take סֻלָּם‎ as antecedent to the suffix; but the idea would have been expressed otherwise (מִמַּעַל לוֹ‎), and the translation loses all its plausibility when the composition of documents is recognised.――Before הארץ‎, LXX inserts μὴ φοβοῦ.――=14.= כעפר הארץ‎] LXX ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, after 32¹³ 41⁴⁹.――ופרצת‎] LXX וּפָרַץ‎: for the word――properly ‘break through’ [bounds],――compare 30³⁰ᐧ ⁴³, Exodus 1¹², Isaiah 54³ etc.――=15.= בכל‎] LXX + הַדָּרָךְ‎.

* * * * *

=17‒19. Consecration and naming of the place.=――=17= follows verse ¹² (Elohist) without sensible breach of continuity; even the mention of Jacob’s awaking (¹⁶) is not absolutely indispensable (see ¹⁸). The impression of fear is far more powerfully expressed than in Yahwist; the place is no ordinary _ḥarām_, but one superlatively holy, the most sacred spot on earth. Only a North Israelite could have written thus of Bethel.――_a house of God ... the gate of heaven_] The expressions rest on a materialisation of the conception of worship as spiritual intercourse between God and man.

The first designation naturally arises from the name _Bêth-’ēl_, which (as we see from verse ²²) was first applied to the sacred stone, but was afterwards extended to the sanctuary as a whole. When to this was added the idea of God’s dwelling in heaven, the earthly sanctuary became as it were the entrance to the true heavenly temple, with which it communicated by means of a ladder. We may compare the Babylonian theory of the temple-tower as the means of ascent to the dwelling-place of the gods in heaven (see page 226 above). It is conceivable that the ‘ladder’ of Bethel may embody cosmological speculations of a similar character, which we cannot now trace to their origin. The Egyptian theology also knew of a ‘ladder’ by which the soul after death mounted up to ‘the gate of heaven’ (Erman, _A Handbook of Egyptian Religion_ 96). Whether it has any connexion with the _sillu_, or decorated arch over a palace gate, depicted in _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 13, remains doubtful. That the image was suggested by physical features of the locality――a stony hillside rising up in terraces towards heaven――seems a fanciful explanation to one who has not visited the spot; but the descriptions given of the singular freak of nature which occurs near the summit of the slope to the north of _Beitīn_ (“huge stones piled one upon another to make columns nine or ten feet or more in height ...”) lend some plausibility to the conjecture (see Peters, _Early Hebrew Story_, 110 ff.).

=18.= Jacob set up the stone, whose mystic properties he had discovered, as a _maẓẓēbāh_, or sacred pillar (_v.i._), and _poured oil on the top of it_ (35¹⁴), in accordance with a custom widely attested in ancient and modern times (see page 380).――=19a= gives Yahwist’s account of the naming of the place. If a similar notice occurred in Elohist (as seems implied in 31¹³ 35³), it would naturally have stood later.――=19b= is usually considered a gloss. From Joshua 16² (18¹³) it appears that _Lûz_ was really distinct from Bethel, but was overshadowed by the more famous sanctuary in the neighbourhood.

* * * * *

‎ =18.= מַצֵּבָה‎] (‘thing _set up_,’ Arabic _nuṣb_, Phœnician מצבת‎) is the technical name of the sacred monolith which was apparently an adjunct of every fully equipped Canaanite (or Phœnician) and early Hebrew sanctuary (see Vincent, _Canaan_, 96, 102 f., 140). Originally a fetish, the supposed abode of a spirit or deity,――a belief of which there are clear traces in this passage,――it came afterwards to be regarded as a vague symbol of Yahwe’s presence in the sanctuary, and eventually as the memorial of a theophany or other noteworthy occurrence. In this harmless sense the word is freely used by Elohist (31¹³ᐧ ⁴⁵ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵² 33²⁰ [emphatic] 35¹⁴, Exodus 24⁴); but not by Yahwist, who never mentions the object except in connexion with Canaanitish worship (Exodus 34¹³). But that the emblem retained its idolatrous associations in the popular religion is shown by the strenuous polemic of the prophets and the Deuteronomic legislation against it (Hosea 10¹ ᶠᐧ, Micah 5¹², Deuteronomy 12³ etc., especially 16²² [compare Leviticus 26¹]); and Yahwist’s significant silence is probably an earlier indication of the same tendency. It is only at a very late period that we find the word used once more without offence (Isaiah 19¹⁹). See Driver on Deuteronomy 16²¹ ᶠᐧ; _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 204 ff., 456 f.; Moore in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 2974 ff.; Whitehouse in _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 879 ff.――וַיִּצֹּק‎] On this, the usual form, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 71.――=19.= ואולם‎] A strong adversative, found in Pentateuch only 48¹⁹, Exodus 9¹⁶, Numbers 14²¹. For ואו׳ לוז‎, LXX has καὶ Οὐλαμμαύς; compare Judges 18²⁹ (LXX).――לוז‎] 35⁶ 48³, Joshua 16² 18¹³, Judges 1²³†. The name Λουζὰ appears to have been known in the time of Eusebius (_Onomastica Sacra_, 135¹); and Müller (_Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 165) thinks it may be identical with _Ruṣa_ on Egyptian inscriptions.

* * * * *

=20‒22= (Elohist). =Jacob’s vow.=――The vow in Old Testament “consists essentially of a solemn promise to render God some service, in the event of some particular prayer or wish being granted” (Driver);¹ hence it falls into two parts: a condition (²⁰ ᶠᐧ), and a promise (²²).――=20, 21a.= The conditions correspond with the divine promise in ¹⁵ (Yahwist)――(a) the presence of God; (b) protection; (c) safe return――except as regards the stipulation for _bread to eat and raiment to wear_. The separation of sources relieves Jacob from the suspicion of questioning the sincerity of an explicit divine promise. On =21b=, _v.i._――=22.= The promise. _this stone ... shall be_ (LXX adds _to me_) _a house of God_] _i.e._ (in the view of the writer), a place of worship. It is to be noted that this reverses the actual development: the stone was _first_ the residence of the _numen_, and _afterwards_ became a maẓẓēbāh.――=22b.= He will pay a tithe of all his possessions. This and Amos 4⁴ are the only pre-Deuteronomic references to the tithe (compare 14²⁰).

¹ But Wellhausen (_Reste arabischen Heidentums_² 190) remarks of the Arabian custom: “Die Araber geloben nicht _in eventum_: wenn der und der Fall eintritt, so will ich das tun; sondern sie übernehmen durch das Gelübde eine absolut bindende Pflicht.”

In its present setting the above narrative forms the transition link between the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban cycle of legends. In substance it is, we can hardly doubt, a modification of the cultus-legend of Bethel (now _Beitīn_, situated on an eminence about 10 miles North of Jerusalem, a little East of the road to Nābulus), the founding of which was ascribed to the patriarch Jacob. The concrete features which point to a local origin――the erection of the maẓẓebāh, the ladder, the gate of heaven, and the institution of the tithe――are all indeed peculiar to the account of Elohist, which obviously stands nearer to the sources of the native tradition than the stereotyped form of the theophany given by Yahwist. From Elohist we learn that the immemorial sanctity of Bethel was concentrated in the sacred stone which was itself the original _Bêth-’ēl_, i.e. the residence of a god or spirit. This belief appears to go back to the primitive stone-worship of which traces are very widely diffused over the surface of the globe.¹ The characteristic rite of anointing the stone, originally perhaps a sacrifice to the indwelling _numen_, was familiar to classical writers.² The most instructive parallel is the fact mentioned by Pausanias (x. 24, 6), that on a small stone in the sanctuary of Delphi oil was poured every day: we may conjecture that a similar practice was kept up at Bethel long after its original significance was forgotten. Though the monolith of Bethel is not elsewhere explicitly referred to in Old Testament, we may assume that, stripped of its pagan associations and reduced to the rank of a _maẓẓebāh_, it was still recognised in historic times as the chief religious symbol of that great centre of Hebrew worship.

¹ See Tylor, _Primitive Culture_³ ii. 160 ff.; Frazer, _Pausanias’s Description of Greece_ iv. 154 f., _Adonis_, 21; _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 204 ff., 232 f. The wide distribution of these sacred objects seems fatal to the theory of Lagrange, that they were miniature reproductions of the Babylonian temple-towers, which again were miniature symbols of the earth conceived as a mountain,――a difficulty of which the author himself is conscious (_Études_², 192 ff.).

² On anointed stones (λίθοι λιπαροί, ἀληλιμμένοι, _lapides uncti, lubricati_, etc.), see Clement of Alexandria _Stromata_ vii. 4, 26; and the remarkable statements of Theophrastus, _Characters_ 16; Lucian, _Alexander_, 30; and Arnobius, _Adversus Gentes_, i. 39,――quoted by Frazer, _Pausanias’s Description of Greece_ v. 354.――For Assyriological parallels see _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 44 f., ii. 113, 151, 261.――A curious development of the ancient belief appears in the name Βαίτυλος, Βαιτύλιον, _Betulus_, applied to small stones (aerolites?), supposed to be self-moving and endowed with magical properties, which played a considerable part in the private superstitions of the beginning of the Christian era (Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10, 18; Photius, _Bibliotheca_ [Migne, ciii. 1292 f.]; Pliny, _Naturalis Historia_, xxxvii. 135, etc.). The existence of a Canaanitish deity _Bait-ili_ (who can only be regarded as a personification of the temple or the sacred stone) is proved by unimpeachable Assyriological evidence (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 437 f.; Lagrange, _l.c._ 196). Since Βαίτυλος is also the name of a god in Philo-Byblius, it seems unreasonable to doubt the etymological and material connexion between the ancient Semitic בֵּית־אֵל‎ and the portable betyl of the Græco-Roman period, which was so named as the residence of a spirit; but see the important article of Moore, _Journal of the Archæological Institute of America_, vii. (1903), No. 2, page 198 ff.

* * * * *

‎ =21.= ושבתי‎] LXX καὶ ἀποστρέψῃ με, as verse ¹⁵.――=21b= can with difficulty be assigned either to the protasis or to the apodosis of the sentence. The word יהוה‎ shows that it does not belong to Elohist; and in all probability the clause is to be omitted as a gloss (Dillmann al.). The apodosis then has the same unusual form as in 22¹.

* * * * *

XXIX. 1‒30. _Jacob’s Marriage with Laban’s Daughters_ (Jehovist, Priestly-Code).

Instead of spending a few days (27⁴⁴) as Laban’s guest, Jacob was destined to pass 20 years of his life with his Aramæan kinsman. The circumstances which led to this prolonged exile are recorded in the two episodes contained in this section; viz. Jacob’s meeting with Rachel at the well (¹⁻¹⁴), and the peculiar conditions of his marriage to Leah and Rachel (¹⁵⁻³⁰). The first, a purely idyllic scene reminding us of 24¹¹⁻³³ and Exodus 2¹⁵⁻²², forms a pleasing introduction to the cycle of Jacob-Laban narratives, without a trace of the petty chicanery which is the leading motive of that group of legends.¹ In the second, the true character of Laban is exposed by the unworthy trick which he practises on Jacob; and the reader’s sympathies are enlisted on the side of Jacob in the trial of astuteness which is sure to ensue.

¹ Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ thinks it necessary to introduce a hint of the coming rivalry into the conversation between Jacob and Rachel (verse ¹³).

_Analysis._――Fragments of Priestly-Code’s narrative can be easily recognised in verses ²⁴ᐧ ²⁹, and probably also in ²⁸ᵇ. The separation of Yahwist and Elohist is uncertain on account of the close parallelism of the two documents and the absence of material differences of representation to support or correct the literary analysis. Most subsequent critics agree with Dillmann that verse ¹ belongs to Elohist (see the notes), and ²⁻¹⁴ to Yahwist: compare רוץ לקראת‎, ¹³ (18² 24¹⁷); עצמי ובשרי‎, ¹⁴ (2²³). In ¹⁶ ᶠᐧ Rachel appears to be introduced for the first time; hence Dillmann regards Elohist as the main source of ¹⁵ (or ¹⁵ᵇ) ⁻³⁰, excluding, however, verse ²⁶, where צְעִירָה‎ and בְּכִירָה‎ reveal the hand of Yahwist: characteristic expressions of Elohist are משכרת‎, ¹⁵ ‎ (31⁷ᐧ ⁴¹); גדלה‎ and קטנה‎, ¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸; יפת תאר וגו׳‎, ¹⁷. So Gunkel, Procksch nearly. Ball and Cornill assign all from ¹⁹ onwards to Yahwist.

=1‒14. Jacob’s meeting with Rachel.=――=1.= _the sons of the East_] Since the goal of Jacob’s journey is in Yahwist, Ḥarran (28¹⁰ 29⁴) and in Priestly-Code, Paddan Aram (28⁷), it is to be presumed that this third variation comes from Elohist (Dillmann). Now the בְּנֵי קֶדֶם‎ are everywhere else the tribes of the Syro-Arabian desert, and 31²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ certainly suggests that Laban’s home was not so distant from Canaan as Ḥarran (see on 24¹⁰ ᶠᐧ [city of Nahor]). It is possible, therefore, that in the tradition followed by Elohist, Laban was the representative of the nomadic Aramæans between Palestine and the Euphrates (see page 334 above).――=2.= The well _in the open country_ is evidently distinct, even in Yahwist, from the town-well of Ḥarran (compare 24¹³).――_For ... they used to water, etc._] To the end of verse ³ is an explanatory parenthesis describing the ordinary procedure. The custom of covering the well with a heavy stone is referred to by Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 490; Thomson, _The Land and the Book_, 589; Palmer, _The Desert of the Exodus_ ii. 319 f.; compare also Diodorus ii. 48, xix. 94.――=4.= Jacob accosts the shepherds, and learns that they come _from Ḥarran_. There is nothing else in the narrative to suggest the proximity of a great city; Laban is no city-dweller as in chapter 24, but a nomad sheikh; and the life depicted is everywhere that of the desert. All this confirms the impression that the topography of Elohist (verse ¹) has been modified by Yahwist in accordance with the theory that Ḥarran was the city of Nahor.――=5.= _the son of Nāḥôr_] see on 24¹⁵.――=7, 8.= Jacob is puzzled by the leisurely ways of these Eastern herdsmen, whom he ironically supposes to have ceased work for the day. He is soon to show them an example of how things should be done, careless of the conventions which they plead as an excuse.――=9.= _a shepherdess_] compare Exodus 2¹⁶. The trait is in accordance with the freedom still allowed to unmarried girls among the Bedouin. Burckhardt found it an established rule among the Arabs of Sinai that only girls should drive the cattle to pasture (_Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys_, i. 351).――=10.= The removal of the stone is a feat of strength which has been thought to belong to a more primitive legend, in which Jacob figured as a giant (Dillmann, Gunkel, al.): compare 32²⁶.――=11.= _wept aloud_] ‘after the demonstrative fashion of the Oriental’ (Bennett),――tears of joy at the happy termination of his journey.――=12.= _brother_] as in verse ¹⁵ 13⁸ 14¹⁴ (24⁴⁸?).――=13.= _kissed him repeatedly_ (Piel)] The effusive display of affection, perhaps not wholly disinterested, is characteristic of Laban (compare 24²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ).――=14.= _my bone and my flesh_] as 37²⁷, Judges 9², 2 Samuel 5¹ 19¹³ ᶠᐧ. It is an absurd suggestion that the exclamation is called forth by the recital of Jacob’s dealings with Esau, in which Laban recognised a spiritual affinity to himself! The phrase denotes literal consanguinity and nothing more.

* * * * *

=1.= The curious expression ‘lifted up his feet’ is found only here.――LXX, Vulgate omit בְּנֵי‎; and LXX adds to the verse πρὸς Λαβὰν κτλ., as 28⁵ᵇ.――=2.= והאבן גדלה‎ can only mean ‘and the stone was great’: it is perhaps better to omit the article (with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_).――=3.= העדרים‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ הרעים‎, needlessly substituted by Ball. So also verse ⁸, where _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ is supported by LXX.――=6.= Before והנה‎, LXX inserts ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος (as verse ⁹). An assimilating tendency reappears at the end of the verse; and the variations have no critical value.――=9.= ב֫אה‎] perfect; contrast the participle בא֫ה‎ in verse ⁶.――רעה הוא‎] LXX + τὰ πρόβατα τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῆς.――=10.= ויגל‎] with original _i_ in imperfect Qal (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 _p_).――=13.= שמע‎ (LXX שֵׁם‎) = ‘the report concerning,’ followed as always by genitive objective.――=14.= ‎ חדש ימים‎] ‘a whole month’; see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 131 _d_.

* * * * *

=15‒30. Jacob’s double marriage.=――=15.= Laban’s character begins to unfold itself as that of a man ostensibly actuated by the most honourable motives, but at heart a selfish schemer, always ready with some plausible pretext for his nefarious conduct (see verses ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁶). His apparently generous offer proves a well-laid trap for Jacob, whose love for Rachel has not escaped the notice of his shrewd kinsman.――=16‒18a.= An explanatory parenthesis. The manner in which Rachel is introduced, as if for the first time, is thought to mark the transition to another source (Dillmann al.).――On the names _Lē’āh_ and _Rāḥēl_, _v.i._――=17.= Leah’s eyes were _weak_ (רַכּוֹת‎, LXX ἀσθενεῖς, Aquila, Symmachus ἁπαλοί): _i.e._ they lacked the lustrous brilliancy which is counted a feature of female beauty in the East.――=18b.= Jacob, not being in a position to pay the purchase price (_mōhar_) for so eligible a bride, offered seven years’ service instead. The custom was recognised by the ancient Arabs, and is still met with (Wellhausen _Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen_, 1893, 433 f.; Burckhardt _Travels in Syria and the Holy Land_, i. 297 f.).――=19.= The first cousin has still a prior (sometimes an exclusive) right to a girl’s hand among the Bedouin and in Egypt (Burckhardt, _Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys_, i. 113, 272; Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵ i. 199).――=22.= Laban proceeds to the execution of his long meditated _coup_. He himself arranges the marriage feast (contrast Judges 14¹⁰), inviting _all the men of the place_, with a view doubtless to his self-exculpation (verse ²⁶).――=23.= The substitution of Leah for Rachel was rendered possible by the custom of bringing the bride to the bridegroom veiled (24⁶⁵). To have thus got rid of the unprepossessing Leah for a handsome price, and to retain his nephew’s services for other seven years (verse ²⁷), was a master-stroke of policy in the eyes of a man like Laban.――=25.= Jacob’s surprise and indignation are vividly depicted.――=26.= _It is not so done_] compare 34⁷, 2 Samuel 13¹². Laban no doubt correctly states the local usage: the objection to giving a younger daughter before an older is natural, and prevails in certain countries (Lane, i. 201; compare _Jubilees_ xxviii., Judges 15¹ ᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 18¹⁷).――=27, 28.= _Fulfil the week of this one_] _i.e._, the usual seven days (Judges 14¹², Tobit 11¹⁹) of the wedding festival for Leah. For the bridegroom to break up the festivities would, of course, be a gross breach of decorum, and Jacob has no alternative but to fall in with Laban’s new proposal and accept Rachel on his terms.――=30.= Laban’s success is for the moment complete; but in the alienation of both his daughters, and their fidelity to Jacob at a critical time (31¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ), he suffered a just retribution for the unscrupulous assertion of his paternal rights.

* * * * *

In Jacob’s marriages it has been surmised that features survive of that primitive type of marriage (called _beena_ marriage) in which the husband becomes a member of the wife’s kin (William Robertson Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 207). Taken as a whole the narrative hardly bears out that view. It is true that Jacob attaches himself to Laban’s family; but it does not follow that he did not set up a house of his own. His remaining with Laban was due to his inability to pay the _mōhar_ otherwise than in the way of personal service. As soon as the contract expired he pleads his right to ‘provide for his own house’ (30³⁰ Yahwist). On the other hand, Laban certainly claimed the right to detain his daughters, and treated them as still members of his family (31²⁶ᐧ ⁴³ Elohist); and it might be imagined that the Elohistic tradition recognised the existence of _beena_ marriage, at least among the Aramæans. But it is doubtful if the claim is more than an extreme assertion of the right of a powerful family to protect its female relatives even after marriage.

* * * * *

‎ =15.= הכי‎] see on 27³⁶.――מַשְׂכֹּרֶת‎] 31⁷ᐧ ⁴¹ (Elohist), Ruth 2¹²†; ‎ שָׂכָר‎ is common to Yahwist (30²⁸ᐧ ³² ᶠᐧ) and Elohist (31⁸, Exodus ‎ 2⁹).――=16.= גדל‎ and קטן‎ are in such connexions characteristic of Elohist (verse ¹⁸ 42¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³⁴); see Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 104.――רָחֵל‎ means ‘ewe’ (Arabic _raḫil_ = she-lamb); hence by analogy לֵאָה‎ has been explained by Arabic _la’āt_, ‘bovine antelope’ (see Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 167; Stade _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, i. 112 ff.), and the names are cited as evidence of a primitive Hebrew totemism (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 254 f.). Others prefer the derivation from Assyrian _li’at_, ‘lady’ (see Haupt, _Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen_, 1883, 100).――=18.= ברחל‎] בְּ‎ _pretii_ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 _p_); so ²⁰ᐧ ²⁵.――=20.= ויהיו――אתה‎] LXXᴬ omits.――=21.= הב֫ה‎] _Milra‛_ before א‎ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 69 _o_).――=24.= שפחה‎] better לְשִׁ׳‎ (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ); see verse ²⁹.――=26.= הצעירה‎] distinctive of Yahwist; see verse ¹⁶.――=27.= וְנִתְּנָה‎ is rather 3rd feminine, singular, perfect, Niphal, than 1st plural cohortative Qal (as most). _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate read וְאֶתֵּן‎.――=28b.= לו לאשה‎] The double dative is characteristic of Priestly-Code, to whom the whole clause may be assigned along with ²⁹.――=30.= The second גּם‎ has no sense, and should probably be deleted (LXX, Vulgate).

* * * * *

XXIX. 31‒XXX. 24. _The Birth of Jacob’s Children_ (Jehovist).

A difficult section, in which the origin of the tribes of Israel is represented in the fictitious form of a family history. The popular etymologies attached to the names are here extremely forced, and sometimes unintelligible; it is remarkable that, with hardly an exception, they are based on the rivalry between Jacob’s two wives. (The names are bestowed by the mothers, as is generally the case in Jehovist.) How far genuine elements of tradition are embodied in such a narrative is a question which it is obviously impossible to answer with certainty. We cannot be wrong in attributing historical significance to the distinction between the tribes whose descent was traced to Jacob’s wives and those regarded as sons of concubines; though we are ignorant of the actual circumstances on which the classification depends. It is also certain that there is a solid basis for the grouping of the chief tribes under the names of Leah and Rachel, representing perhaps an older and a later settlement of Hebrews in Palestine (Stade _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, i. 112 f.). The fact that all the children except Benjamin are born in Mesopotamia may signify that the leading tribal divisions existed before the occupation of Canaan; but the principle certainly cannot be applied in detail, and the nature of the record forbids the attempt to discover in it reliable data for the history of the tribes. (For a conspectus of various theories, see Luther, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 36 ff.; compare Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 291 f., 509 ff.)

The _sources_ are Yahwist and Elohist, with occasional clauses from Priestly-Code.――29³¹⁻³⁵ is wholly from Yahwist (יהוה‎, ‎ ³¹ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³³ᐧ ³⁵; עֲקָרָה‎, ³¹; הַפַּעַם‎, ³⁴ᐧ ³⁵), with the possible exception of ³²ᵇ{γ}.――30¹⁻⁸ is mainly Elohist (אלהים‎, ²ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸; אָמָה‎, ³ᵃ); but ³ᵃ{β} reminds us of Yahwist (16²), ⁴ᵃ is assigned to Priestly-Code (שִׁפְחָה‎ and compare 16³), and in ⁷ שִׁפְחָה‎ must be either from Yahwist (Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel) or Priestly-Code (Holzinger).――30⁹⁻¹³ is again mostly from Yahwist (שִׁפְחָה‎, ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²; compare ⁹ᵃ with 29³¹ 30¹ 29³⁵). ⁹ᵇ is Priestly-Code.――30¹⁴⁻²⁴ presents a very mixed text, whose elements are difficult to disentangle; note the double etymologies in ¹⁸ᐧ (compare ¹⁶) ²⁰ᐧ ²³ ᶠᐧ The hand of Elohist clearly appears in ¹⁷ᵃᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{αβ}ᐧ ²²ᵇ{α}ᐧ (²²ᵃ may be from Priestly-Code: compare 8¹) ²³. Hence the parallels ¹⁴⁻¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{γ}ᐧ ²⁴ must be assigned to Yahwist, who is further characterised, according to Gunkel, by the numeration of the sons (¹⁷ᵇᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{γ}). ²¹ is interpolated.

=31‒35. The sons of Leah.=――=31.= _hated_] The rendering is too strong. שְׂנוּאָה‎ is almost a technical term for the less favoured of two wives (Deuteronomy 21¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ); where the two are sisters the rivalry is naturally most acute, hence this practice is forbidden by the later law (Leviticus 18¹⁸). The belief that Yahwe takes the part of the unfortunate wife and rewards her with children, belongs to the strongly marked family religion of Israel (1 Samuel 1² ᶠᶠᐧ).――=32.= _Rĕ’ûbēn_] The only plausible explanation of the etymology is that it is based on the form רְאוּבֵל‎ (_v.i._) = רְאוּ־בַעַל‎, and that יהוה‎ is substituted for the divine name בַּֽעַל‎. Most commentaries suppose that the writer resolves ראובן‎ into רָאָ[ה] בְ[עָ]נְ[יִי]‎; but that is too extravagant for even a Hebrew etymologist.――=33.= _Šim‛ôn_] derived from שָׁמַע‎, ‘hear,’ expressing precisely the same idea as Rĕ’ûbēn.――=34.= _Lēvî_, as the third son, is explained by a verb for ‘adhere’ (Niphal √ לוה‎), on the principle that a threefold cord is not easily broken.――=35.= _Yĕhûdāh_] connected with a word meaning ‘praise’ (הוֹדָה‎: compare imperfect יְהוֹדֶה‎, Nehemiah 11¹⁷). So in 49⁸.

* * * * *

‎ =32.= רְאוּבֵן‎] LXX Ῥουβην, etc.; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word); Josephus Ῥουβηλος. The origin of the name has given rise to an extraordinary number of conjectures (see Hogg, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 4091 ff.). We seem driven to the conclusion that the original form (that on which the etymology is based: _v.s._) was ראובל. In that form the name has been connected with Arabic _ri’bāl_, ‘lion,’ or ‘wolf,’ in which case Reuben might have to be added to the possibly totemistic names of the Old Testament. Another plausible suggestion is that the word is softened from ‎ רְעוּ־בַעַל‎ a theophorous compound after the analogy of רְעוּאֵל‎――=33.= After בֵּן‎, LXX inserts שֵׁנִי‎, which may be correct (compare ‎ 30⁷ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁴).――שִׁמְעוֹן‎] Another supposed animal name, from Arabic _sim‛_, a cross between the wolf and hyæna (see William Robertson Smith _The Journal of Philology_ ix. 80). Ewald regarded it as a diminutive of יִשְׁמָעֵאל‎, and similarly recently Cheyne (_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 375).――=34.= ‎ קרא‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ, Peshiṭtå קָֽרְאָה‎; LXXᴬ ἐκλήθη.――לֵוִי‎] Wellhausen’s conjecture that this is the gentilic of לֵאָה‎ is widely accepted (Stade, William Robertson Smith, Nöldeke, Meyer, al.). Hommel, on the other hand, compares South Arabian _lavi’u_ = ‘priest,’ Levi being the priestly tribe (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 278 f.; compare Benzinger _Hebräische Archäologie_² 56).

* * * * *

=XXX. 1‒8. Rachel’s adopted sons.=――=1, 2.= A passionate scene, showing how Rachel was driven by jealousy of her sister to yield her place to her maid. Her petulant behaviour recalls that of Sarah (16⁵), but Jacob is less patient than Abraham.――_Am I in God’s stead?_] So 50¹⁹, compare 2 Kings 5⁷.――=3.= _bear upon my knees_] An allusion to a primitive ceremony of adoption, which here simply means that Bilhah’s children will be acknowledged by Rachel as her own.――_obtain children by her_] see on 16².――=6.= The putative mother names the adopted child.――_Dân_] The etymology here given (√ דִּין‎, ‘judge’) is very probably correct, the form being an abbreviated theophorous name (compare, _Abi-dan_, Assyrian _Asshur-dan_, etc.).――=8.= _wrestlings of God I have wrestled_] The words are very obscure (see Cheyne 376 ff.). Either ‘I have had “a veritable God’s bout” (Ball) with my sister,’ or (less probably) ‘I have wrestled with God (in prayer) like my sister.’――_and have overcome_] This seems to imply that Leah had only one son at the time (Gunkel); and there is nothing to prevent the supposition that the concubinage of Bilhah followed immediately on the birth of Reuben.

On the ceremony referred to, see Stade _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, vi. 143 ff.; Holzinger 196; Driver 274. Its origin is traced to a widespread custom, according to which, in lawful marriage, the child is actually brought forth on the father’s knees (compare Job 3¹²; _Iliad_ ix. 455 f.; _Odyssey_ xix. 401 ff.); then it became a symbol of the legitimisation of a natural child, and finally a form of adoption generally (50²³). Gunkel, however, thinks the rite originated in cases like the present (the slave being delivered on the knees of her mistress), and was afterwards transferred to male adoption.

* * * * *

‎ =3.= בִּלְהָה‎] (of unknown etymology) is probably to be connected with the Ḥorite clan בִּלהָן‎ (36²⁷).――=6.= דָּנַנִּי‎] On the form, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 26 _g_.――=7aβb= must be assigned to Yahwist, on account of שׁפחה‎ and בן שני‎ (note also the expression of subject after _second_ verb).――=8.= נפתולי‎] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. The verb has nowhere else the sense of ‘wrestle,’ but means primarily to ‘twist’ (compare Proverbs 8⁸, Job 5¹³, Psalms 18²⁷†); hence נַפְתָּלִי‎ might be the ‘tortuous,’ ‘cunning’ one (Brown-Driver-Briggs). But a more plausible etymology derives it from a hypothetical _Naphtal_ (from נֶפֶת‎ [Joshua 17¹¹†,――if correctly vocalised], usually taken to mean ‘height’: compare כַּרְמֶל‎ from כֶּרֶם‎), denoting the northern highlands West of the Upper Jordan (Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 539).――The Versions render the verb more or less paraphrastically, and give no help to the elucidation of the sense.

* * * * *

=9‒13. Leah’s adopted sons.=――=11.= _Gad_ is the name of an Aramæan and Phœnician god of Luck (Τύχη), mentioned in Isaiah 65¹¹ (see _Cambridge Bible_, _ad loc._; compare Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins_ 76 ff. 159 ff.). There is no difficulty in supposing that a hybrid tribe like Gad traced its ancestry to this deity, and was named after him; though, of course, no such idea is expressed in the text. In Leah’s exclamation the word is used appellatively: _With luck!_ (_v.i._). It is probable, however, that at an earlier time it was current in the sense ‘With Gad’s help’ (Ball, Gunkel).――=13.= The name _’Āšēr_ naturally suggested to Hebrew writers a word for happiness; hence the two etymologies: בְּאָשְׁרִי‎ ‘_In my happiness_,’ and אִשְּׁרוּנִי‎ ‘(women) _count me happy_.’ It is possible that the name is historically related to the Canaanite goddess _’Ašērāh_ (Ball, Holzinger), as Gad is to the Aramæan deity. _Aser_ appears in Egyptian monuments as the name of a district in North-west Palestine as early as Seti and Ramses II. (Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 236 ff.).

* * * * *

=10.= Both here and verse ¹² LXX gives a much fuller text.――=11.= ‎ בְּגד‎] So _Kethîb_, LXX Ἐν τύχῃ, Vulgate _Feliciter_. But _Qrê_ ‎ בָּא גָ֑ד‎ is ancient, being presupposed by Syrian (‡ Syriac phrase) and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ. These Versions render ‘Good fortune comes’ (so Rashi): another translation, suggested by 49¹⁹, is ‘A troop (גְּדוּד‎) comes’ (Abraham Ibn Ezra).

‎ =13.= אשֶׁר‎ is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον.――אִשְּׁרוּנִי‎] perfect of confidence (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 _n_). It is to be noted that perfects greatly preponderate in Elohist’s etymologies, and imperfects in those of Yahwist; the two exceptions (29³² ᶠᐧ) may be only apparent, and due to the absence of definite stylistic criteria.

* * * * *

=14‒24. The later children.=――=14‒16.= The incident of the love-apples is a piece of folklore, adopted with reserve by the writer (Yahwist), and so curtailed as to be shorn of its original significance. The story must have gone on to tell how Rachel partook of the fruit and in consequence became pregnant, while Leah also conceived through the restoration of her marriage rights (see Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 38 f.). How much of this stood in Yahwist and has been suppressed in the history of the text we cannot say; we here read just what is necessary to explain the name of Leah’s child.――=14.= דּוּדָאִים‎ (_v.i._) is the round, greenish-yellow, plum-like fruit of _mandragora vernalis_, which in Syria ripens in May――_the days of wheat harvest_――and is still eagerly sought in the East to promote conception (see Tuch’s note, 385 ff.). Reuben is named, probably as the only child old enough to follow the reapers in the field (compare 2 Kings 4¹⁸). The agricultural background shows that the episode is out of place in its present nomadic setting.――=15.= _he shall lie with thee to-night_] Jacob, therefore, had wrongly withheld from Leah her conjugal rights (עוֹנָה‎, Exodus 21¹⁰).――=16.= _I have hired thee_ (שָׂכֹר שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ‎)] Obviously an anticipation of Yahwist’s lost etymology of Issachar.――=18.= Elohist’s interpretation of יִשָּׂשׂכָר‎, which is, of course, independent of the story of the mandrakes. The name is resolved either into אישׁ שָׂכָר‎, ‘man of hire,’ or into יֵשׁ שָׂכָר‎, ‘there is a reward’ (Tuch, Dillmann); or else the י‎ and quiescent ש‎ are simply dropped (Gunkel): _v.i._――=20.= Two etymologies of _Zĕbûlûn_; the first from Elohist (אלהים‎), and the second, therefore, from Yahwist: both are somewhat obscure (_v.i._).――=21.= _Dînāh_] The absence of an etymology, and the fact that Dinah is excluded from the enumeration of 32²³, make it probable that the verse is interpolated with a view to chapter 34.――=22‒24.= At last Rachel bears a son, long hoped for and therefore marked out for a brilliant destiny――_Yôsēph._――=23b, 24b.= Elohist derives the name from אָסַף‎, ‘take away’; Yahwist more naturally from יָסַף‎, ‘add’: _May Yahwe add to me another son!_

* * * * *

‎ =14.= דּוּדָאִים‎ (Canticles 7¹⁴†)] LXX μῆλα μανδραγόρου, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ יברוחין‎ (= Arabic _yabrūh_, explained to be the _root_ of the plant). The singular is ‎ דּוּדַי‎, from the same √ as דּוֹד‎, ‘lover,’ and דּוֹדִים‎ ‘love’; and very probably associated with the love-god דודה‎ (_Meša_, 1. 12). Cheyne plausibly suggests (379) that this deity was worshipped by the Reubenites; hence Reuben is the finder of the apples.――=15.= לָהּ‎] LXX לֵאָה‎, Peshiṭtå לה לאה‎.――וְלָקַחַת‎ (infinitive)] Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 204; but וְלָקַחַתְּ‎ (perfect future) would be easier.――=16.= תָּבוֹא‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX + הַלַּיְלָה‎.――בַּֽלַּיְלָה הוּא‎] see on 19³³.――=17a= is from Elohist; but =17b= probably from Yahwist, on account of the numeral.――=18aβ=, while correctly expressing the idea of Elohist, contains the word שִׁפְחָה‎, which Elohist avoids; and is therefore probably redactional.――=18b.= יִשָּׂשכָר‎] So Ben Asher regularly, with _Qrê perpetuum_ יִשָּׂכָר‎: B. Naphtali has יִשְׂשָׂכָר‎, or יִשְׁשָׂכָר‎ (see Baer-Delitzsch _Liber Genesis_ 84 f.; Ginsburg, _Introduction of the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible_ 250 ff.). The duplication of the ש‎ cannot be disposed of as a Massoretic caprice, and is most naturally explained by the assumption that two components were recognised, of which the first was אִישׁ‎ (Wellhausen _Der Text der Bücher Samuelis_, page v). For the second component Wellhausen refers to the שָׂכָר‎ of 1 Chronicles 11³⁵ 26⁴; Ball compares an Egyptian deity _Sokar_; while Meyer (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 536) is satisfied with the interpretation ‘man of hire,’ corresponding to the description of the tribe in Genesis 49¹⁴ ᶠᐧ.――=20.= זֶבֶד‎, זְבָדַנִי‎] The √ (except in proper names) is not found in the Old Testament, but is explained by Aramaic (compare (‡ Syriac word), ‘dowry’), and is common in Palmer proper names (Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._). The interchange of ל‎ and ד‎ is probably dialectic (compare _dacrima_ = _lacrima_), and hardly justifies Cheyne’s view that the name in the writer’s mind was זַבְדּוֹן‎] (_l.c._ ‎ 380).――יזבלני‎] Another ἅπαξ λεγόμενον apparently connected with זְבֻל‎, poetical for ‘abode’: Versions ‘dwell with’ (as English Version). This gives a good enough sense here, and is perhaps supported by 49¹³ (see on the verse); but זְבֻלוּן‎ remains without any natural explanation. See Hogg, in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 5385 ff. Meyer (538) derives it from the personal name זְבֻל‎ (Judges 9²⁸).――=21= end] LXX + ותעמד מלדת‎ (as 29³⁵).――=24.= יוֹסֵף‎] Probably a contraction of יוסף־אל‎, though the _Yšp’r_ of the list of Thothmes III. (Number 78) is less confidently identified with Joseph than the companion _Y‛ḳb’r_ with Jacob (compare page 360 above; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 262; Spiegelberg, _Randglossen_, 13 f.; Müller, _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1907, i. 23, and _Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, 1909, 31). But _Yašupili_ has been found in contract tablets of the Ḥammurabi period along with _Yaḳub-ili_ (Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 96 [from Sayce]).

* * * * *

XXX. 25‒43. _Jacob enriched at Laban’s Expense_ (Jehovist).

Jacob, having accomplished his 14 years of service for his wives, is now in a position to dictate terms to Laban, who, in his eagerness to keep him, invites him to name the price for which he will remain with him. It is interesting to contrast the relative attitudes of the two men with their bearing in ¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ Jacob here shows a decision of purpose which causes Laban to adopt an obsequious tone very unlike his former easy assurance. He is overjoyed to find his nephew’s demands so reasonable; and correspondingly mortified (31²) when he discovers how completely he has been deceived by Jacob’s apparent moderation.――The story, as Gunkel reminds us, was originally told to shepherds, who would follow with keen interest the various tricks of their craft which Jacob so successfully applies (and of which he was probably regarded as the inventor). To more refined readers these details were irksome; hence the abridged and somewhat unintelligible form in which the narrative stands.

_Sources._――In the earlier verses (²⁵⁻³¹) several duplicates show the composition of Yahwist and Elohist: ²⁵ ∥ ²⁶ᵃ; ²⁶ᵇ ∥ ²⁹ᵃ; ²⁸ ∥ ³¹ᵃ; ויאמר‎ in ²⁷ and ²⁸; אתה ידעת‎, ²⁶ᵇ and ²⁹ᵃ. Here ²⁵ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ²⁹⁻³¹ are from Yahwist (יהוה‎, ²⁷ᐧ ³⁰; מָצָא חֵן‎, ²⁷; בִּגְלַל‎ ²⁷), and ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸ from Elohist,――each narrative being nearly complete (compare Dillmann, Gunkel, Procksch).――In ³²⁻³⁶ it is quite possible, in spite of the scepticism of Dillmann and others, to distinguish two conceptions of Jacob’s reward (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 40 ff.). (a) In the first, Jacob is that very day to take out from Laban’s flock all abnormally coloured animals: _that_ is to be his hire (³²). On the morrow (or in time to come), Laban may inspect Jacob’s flock: if he find in it any normally coloured animals, Jacob is at once convicted of fraud ³³. This account belongs to Elohist (compare שְׂכָרִי‎, ³², with ²⁸), though it is doubtful if to the same stratum of Elohist as 31⁷⁻¹². (b) In the other, Laban himself separates the flocks, leaving the _normally_ coloured sheep and goats in Jacob’s keeping, and removing the others to a distance of three days’ journey, under the charge of his sons (³²ᵃ{β} [from הָסֵר‎ ³⁵ ᶠᐧ). Thus Jacob receives for the present nothing at all (³¹ Yahwist). The narrative must have gone on to explain that his hire was to consist of any variegated animals appearing in the normally coloured flock now left in his charge (³⁶ᵇ); Laban’s precautions aim at securing that these shall be few or none. Hence we obtain for Yahwist ³²ᵃ{β}ᐧ ³⁵ᐧ ³⁶, and for Elohist ³²ᵃ{αδ}ᵇᐧ ³³ᐧ ³⁴.――³⁷⁻⁴⁵ is the natural continuation of Yahwist’s account, but with numerous insertions, which may be either from variants or glosses.――The text here is very confused, and LXX has many variations.

=25‒31. Jacob proposes to provide for his own house.=――A preliminary parley, in which both parties feel their way to an understanding.――=26= (Elohist). _thou knowest with what kind of service, etc._] Elohist always lays stress on Jacob’s rectitude (compare ³³).――=27= (Yahwist). _If I have found favour, etc._] followed by aposiopesis, as 18³ 23¹³.――Laban continues: _I have taken omens_ (נִחַשְׁתִּי‎; compare 44⁵ᐧ ¹⁵, 1 Kings 20³³) _and_ (found that) _Yahwe has blessed me, etc._]――an abject plea for Jacob’s remaining with him.――=28= (Elohist). Laban surrenders at once (the answer is in verse ³²), whereas――=29,30= in Yahwist, Jacob presses for a discharge: his service has been of immense value to Laban, but he has a family to consider.――=31.= _anything at all_] See introductory note above.――_this thing_] which I am about to mention.――_resume herding thy flock_] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 120 _g_.

* * * * *

‎ =26.= ואת־ילדי‎] Not necessarily a gloss; the children might fairly be considered included in Jacob’s wages.――=27.= On נִחַשׁ‎, _verb_ 44⁵.――‎בגללך‎] LXX τῇ σῇ εἰσόδῳ, Armenian _in pede tuo_ = ‎ לרגלך‎ (³⁰).――=28.= LXX, Vulgate omit ויאמר‎, smoothing over the transition from Yahwist to Elohist.――נקבה‎] ‘designate’ (literally ‘prick [off]’): compare the use of Niphal in Numbers 1¹⁷, 1 Chronicles 16⁴¹ etc.――=29.= את אשר‎] ‘the manner in which’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 157 _c_); but Peshiṭtå reads as in verse ‎ ²⁶.――=30.= לרגלי‎] contrasted with לפני‎ above. Prosperity has followed Jacob ‘wherever he went’ (compare Isaiah 41², Job 18¹¹ etc.). It is unnecessary to emend בִּגְלָלִי‎ (Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Cheyne).――=31.= אשמר‎] (LXX, Peshiṭtå prefix וְ‎) must be deleted on account of its awkward position.

* * * * *

=32‒36. The new contract.=――The point in both narratives is that parti-coloured animals form a very small proportion of a flock, the Syrian sheep being nearly all white (Canticles 4² 6⁶, Daniel 7⁹) and the goats black or brown (Canticles 4¹ᵇ). In Elohist, Jacob simply asks this small share as his payment.――=32.= _and it shall be my hire_] The rendering ‘and of this sort shall be my hire’ (in future), is merely a violent attempt to obliterate the difference between Yahwist and Elohist.――=33.= _my righteousness shall testify against me_] _i.e._, the proposal is so transparently fair that Jacob will be as it were automatically convicted of theft if he violates the compact. צְדָקָה‎, ‘unimpeachable conduct,’ here means ‘fair dealing,’ ‘honesty.’――_in time to come_] whenever Laban chooses to make an investigation.――=35, 36= (Yahwist). _And he_ (Laban, see ³²ᵃ{β}) _removed that day, etc._] Laban’s motive in removing the variegated animals to a distance of three days’ journey is obvious; he wishes to reduce to a minimum the chance that any such animals should henceforth be born amongst those now entrusted to Jacob.――_white_] Hebrew _lābān_, perhaps a play on Laban’s name.

* * * * *

‎ =32.= אעבר‎, הסר‎] To get rid of the change of person (and the division of sources) many construe the latter as infinitive absolute (‘removing’); but the only natural rendering is imperative (compare ³⁵). LXX has imperative both times.――כל־שה――עזים‎] LXX πᾶν πρόβατον φαιὸν ἐν τοῖς ἀρνάσιν καὶ πᾶν διάραντον λελυκὸν καὶ λευκὸν ἐν ταῖς αἰξίν, a smoother and therefore less original text. The Hebrew seems overloaded; Gunkel strikes out וְכָל־שֶׂה־חוּם בַּֽכְּשָׂבִים‎, and the corresponding clauses in ³³ᐧ ³⁵.――נָקֹד וְטָלוּא‎] ‘speckled and spotted,’ ‘parti-coloured.’ The words are practically synonymous, both being distinct from עָקֹד‎ (³⁵ᐧ ³⁹ᐧ ⁴⁰ 31⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²†), which means ‘striped.’ If there be a difference, נ׳‎ (³⁵ᐧ ³⁹ 31⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²†) suggests smaller spots than ‎ ט׳‎ (compare Ezekiel 16¹⁶, Joshua 9⁵, the only places where the √ occurs outside this passage).――חוּם‎] only in this chapter: = ‘black’ or ‘dark-brown.’――=33.= ענה ב‎] ‘testify against’ (see 1 Samuel 12³, 2 Samuel 1¹⁶, Isaiah 3⁹). An easier sense would be obtained if we could translate ‘witness _for_,’ but there seem to be no examples of that usage. Driver’s interpretation: ‘there will be nothing whatever to allege against my honesty,’ seems, on the other hand, too subtle.――ביום מחר‎] ‘in time to come’ (Exodus 13¹⁴, Deuteronomy 6²⁰). If we could insist on the literal rendering ‘on the morrow,’ the proof of divergence between Yahwist and Elohist would be strengthened, but the sense is less suitable.――כי――לפניך‎] LXX ὅτι ἐστὶν ὁ μισθός μου ἐνώπιόν σου.――=36.= בינו‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX בינם‎.――_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ follows ³⁶ with a long addition based on 31¹¹⁻¹³.

* * * * *

=37‒43. Jacob’s Stratagem.=――The main account is from Yahwist, to whose narrative the artifice is essential, but there are many interpolations.――=37‒39.= The first step is to work on the imagination of the females by rods of poplar, etc., peeled in such a way as to show patches of white, and placed in the drinking troughs.――=38, 39.= Removing glosses, Yahwist’s account reads: _And he placed the rods which he had peeled in the runnels ... in front of the flock, and they bred when they came to drink.... And the flock brought forth streaked, speckled, and spotted_ (young).

The physiological law involved is said to be well established (Driver), and was acted on by ancient cattle breeders (see the list of authorities in Bochart, _Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ_ ii. chapter 49; and compare Jerome _Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_ _ad loc._). The full representation seems to be that the ewes saw the reflexion of the rams in the water, blended with the image of the parti-coloured rods, and were deceived into thinking they were coupled with parti-coloured males (Jerome, Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 41).

* * * * *

‎ =37.= לבנה‎ (Hosea 4¹³†)] the ‘white’ tree; according to some, _populus alba_ (Dillmann al.), but very probably _styrax officinalis_ (Arabic _lubnaʸ_, so called from its exuding a _milk_-like gum), (Gesenius, Delitzsch, Driver, al.).――לוּז‎†] = Aramaic לוּזָא‎, ‘almond tree.’――עַרְמוֹן‎ (Ezekiel 31⁸†)] _platanus orientalis_ (Assyrian _irmeânu_).――Instead of the last three words LXX has ἐφαίνετο δὲ ἐπὶ ταῖς ῥάβδοις τὸ λευκόν, ὃ ἐλέπισεν ποικίλον,――a very sensible comment, but hardly original. The whole clause ‘(with) a laying bare (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 _r_) of the white on the rods,’ is superfluous, and certainly looks like a variant.――בהן‎] plural; מקל‎ being collective.――=38 ff.= The text of Yahwist, as sifted by Wellhausen, commends itself by its lucidity and continuity. It is impossible to tell whether the interpolated words are variants from another source (Elohist?) or explanatory glosses.――=38.= רַהַט‎ (verse ⁴¹, Exodus 2¹⁶†)] either ‘trough,’ from Arabic _rahaṭa_, ‘be collected,’ or ‘runnel,’ from Aramaic רהט‎ = רוּץ‎ (see Nöldeke _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xii. 187).――שִׁקֲתוֹת‎] construction plural of שֹׁקֶת‎, 24²†.――The words בשקתות――לשתות‎ divorce לנכח הצאן‎ from its connexion, and must be omitted from the text of Yahwist. LXX appears to have changed הצאן ויחמנה‎ to המקלֹות‎, rendering thus (³⁸ᵇ) ἵνα ὡς ἂν ἔλθωσιν τὰ πρόβατα πιεῖν, ἐνώπιον τῶν ῥάβδων [καὶ] ἐλθόντων αὐτῶν εἰς τὸ πιεῖν, ἐνκισσήσωσιν (³⁹) τὰ πρόβατα――וַיֵּחַמְנָה‎] On the unusual preference of 3rd person feminine plural, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 47 _k_.――=39a= is a doublet to the last three words of ³⁸.――ויחמו‎] _ib._ § 69 _f_; _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויחמנה‎.

* * * * *

=40.= _And (these) lambs Jacob set apart ... and made separate flocks for himself and did not add them to Laban’s stock_ (Wellhausen).――=41, 42.= A further refinement: Jacob employed his device only in the case of the sturdy animals, letting the weakly ones gender freely. The difference corresponds to a difference of breeding-time (_v.i._). The consequence is that Jacob’s stock is hardy and Laban’s delicate.

* * * * *

=40.= ‘He set the faces of the flock towards a (_sic_) streaked and every dark one in Laban’s flock,’ is an imperfect text, and an impossible statement in Yahwist, where Laban’s cattle are three days distant. LXX vainly tries to make sense by omitting לָבָן‎, and rendering פְּנֵי‎ = ἐναντίον, and אֶל־עָקֹד‎ = κριὸν (אַיִל‎!) διάλευκον.――=41.= בּכל־‎] LXX, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, supply ‎ עֵת‎.――=42.= הקשרים‎, העטפים‎] LXX ἐπίσημα, ἄσημα; but Symmachus (paraphrasing) πρώϊμα ὄψιμα, and similarly Aquila, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ. It is the fact that the stronger sheep conceived in summer and yeaned in winter, while the weaker conceived in autumn and yeaned in the spring: Pliny, _Naturalis Historia_, viii. 187 (‘postea concepti invalidi’).

* * * * *

XXXI. 1‒XXXII. 1. _Jacob’s Flight from Laban: their friendly Parting_ (Yahwist, Elohist).

Jacob perceives from the altered demeanour of Laban and his sons that he has outstayed his welcome (¹ᐧ ²); and, after consultation with his wives, resolves on a secret flight (³⁻²¹). Laban pursues, and overtakes him at Mt. Gilead (²²⁻²⁵), where, after a fierce altercation (²⁶⁻⁴³), they enter into a treaty of peace (from which Gilead receives its name), and separate with many demonstrations of goodwill (31⁴⁴‒32¹).

_Sources._――¹⁻¹⁶ is an almost homogeneous (though perhaps not continuous) excerpt from Elohist: אלהים‎, ⁷ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁶; מַשְׂכֹּרָת‎, ⁷ (compare ⁴¹ 29¹⁵); מֹנִים‎, ⁷ (⁴¹); מַצֵבָה‎ ¹³; the revelation by dream, ¹⁰ ᶠᐧ; the summons and answer, ¹¹ (22¹ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹¹); and the explanation of Jacob’s wealth ⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ; compare also the reference to 28²⁰⁻²². ¹ and ³ are from a Yahwist parallel: יהוה‎, ³; מוֹלַדְתְּךָ‎, ³; the ‘sons’ of Laban, ¹ (compare 30³⁵).――In ¹⁷⁻⁵⁴ Elohist still preponderates, though Yahwist is more largely represented than some critics (Dillmann, Kuenen, Kautzsch-Socin, Driver, al.) allow. The detailed analysis is here very intricate, and will be best dealt with under the several sections.――¹⁸ (except the first four words) is the only extract from Priestly-Code.

=1‒16. Preparations for flight.=――=1, 3= (Yahwist). The jealousy of Laban’s sons corresponds to the dark looks of Laban himself in Elohist (verse ²); the divine communication is a feature of both narratives (verse ¹³).――=4‒13.= Jacob vindicates his conduct towards Laban, and sets forth the reasons for his projected flight. The motive of the speech is not purely literary, affording the writer an opportunity to express his belief in Jacob’s righteousness (Gunkel); it is first of all an appeal to the wives to accompany him: compare the question to Rebekah in 24⁵⁸.――=6.= _Ye yourselves know, etc._] Compare 30²⁶ᐧ ²⁹. But to repeat the protestation after the work of the last six years implies great hardihood on Jacob’s part; and rather suggests that the passage belongs to a stratum of Elohist which said nothing about his tricks with the flock.――=7.= _changed my wages ten times_] Perhaps a round number, not to be taken literally.――=8.= A sample of Laban’s tergiversations, and their frustration by God’s providence.――=9.= _And so God has taken away, etc._] The hand of God has been so manifest that Laban’s displeasure is altogether unreasonable.――=10‒12.= Jacob receives through a dream the explanation of the singular good fortune that has attended him.

In the text verses ¹⁰⁻¹² form part of the same revelation as that in which Jacob is commanded to depart (¹³). But, as Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 39) asks, “How could two such dissimilar revelations be coupled together in this way?” Verse ¹⁰ recalls an incident of the past, while ¹³ is in the sphere of the present: moreover, ‘I am the God of Bethel’ must surely open the communication. Wellhausen solves the difficulty by removing ¹⁰ and ¹² (assigning them to an unknown source), and leaving ¹¹ as the introduction to ¹³: similarly Dillmann, Holzinger, _Oxford Hexateuch_, al. Gunkel supposes parts of Jacob’s speech to have been omitted between ⁹ and ¹⁰ and between ¹² and ¹³.――It is scarcely possible to recover the original sense of the fragment. If the dream had preceded the negotiations with Laban, it might have been a hint to Jacob of the kind of animals he was to ask as his hire (Strack, Gunkel); but that is excluded by ¹²ᵇ; and, besides, in verse ⁸ it is Laban who fixes the terms of the contract. We can only understand it vaguely as an assurance to Jacob that against all natural expectations the transaction will be overruled to his advantage.

* * * * *

‎ =2.= איננו‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אינם‎ (so verse ⁵).――=6.= אתנה‎] only here and thrice in Ezekiel (compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 32 _i_).――=7.= והחלף‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויחלף‎.――עשרת מנִים‎] LXX (‘nescio qua opinione ducti’ [Jerome]) τῶν δέκα ἀμνῶν (so ⁴¹――probably a transliteration, afterwards made into a Greek word). מֹנִים‎ (⁴¹†) from √ מנה‎, ‘count,’ for the usual פְּעָמִים‎.――אלהים‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ יהוה‎ (so ⁹ᐧ ¹⁶ᵃ).――=9.= את־‎] LXX אָת־כָּל־‎.――אביכם‎] for אביכן‎ (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 _o_.

* * * * *

=13.= _I am the God of Bethel_] links this theophany with that of 28¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, and is (in Elohist) the first assurance given to Jacob that his vow (28²⁰⁻²²) had been accepted.――=14‒16.= Jacob’s appeal has been addressed to willing ears: his wives are already alienated from their father, and eagerly espouse their husband’s cause.――=14b.= Compare 2 Samuel 20¹, 1 Kings 12¹⁶.――=15.= _has sold us_] like slaves.――_consumed our money_] _i.e._, the price paid for us (compare Exodus 21³⁵). The complaint implies that it was considered a mark of meanness for a man to keep the _mōhar_ for himself instead of giving it to his daughters. A similar change in the destination of the _mahr_ appears in Arabia before Islam (Wellhausen _Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen_, 1893, 434 f.).――=16.= _is ours and our children’s_] Elohist never mentions sons of Laban; and apparently looks on Leah and Rachel as the sole heiresses.

* * * * *

‎ =13.= האל ביתאל‎] The article with construct violates a well known rule of syntax (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 _f_); and it is doubtful if the anomaly be rightly explained by supposing the ellipsis of ‎ אֵל‎ or אֱלֹהֵי‎. The original text may have been הָאֵל [הַנִּרְאָה אֵלֶיךָ בִּמְקוֹם] בֵּיתְאֵל‎; (so [but without ביתאל‎] LXX, adopted by Ball); or האל[――ב]ביתאל‎ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Kittel).――ארץ מולדתך‎] see on 11²⁸. It is the only occurrence of מ׳‎ in Elohist.――LXX adds καὶ ἔσομαι μετὰ σοῦ.――=15.= נכריות‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate כְּנָ׳‎.――גם אכול‎] see on 27³³.――=16.= עשר‎] LXX + καὶ τὴν δόξαν.

* * * * *

=17‒25. The flight and pursuit.=――=18.= _and drove away all his cattle_] Hence the slowness of his march as compared with Laban’s (33¹³ᵇ).――The rest of the verse is from Priestly-Code (compare 12⁵ 36⁶ 46⁶).――_to Isaac his father_] 35²⁷.――=19.= _Now Laban had gone to shear his flock_] Sheep-shearing was the occasion of an important festival in ancient Israel (38¹² ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 25² ᶠᶠᐧ, 2 Samuel 13²³).――With Rachel’s theft of the _tĕrāphîm_ (the household idol: _v.i._), compare Virgil _Aeneid_ ii. 293 f., iii. 148 f.――=20.= _stole the heart_] (²⁶, 2 Samuel 15⁶†) ‘deceived’; the heart being the seat of intelligence (Hosea 4¹¹): compare ἔκλεψε νόον, _Iliad_ xiv. 217.――_the Aramæan_ (only here and ²⁴)] The emphasising of Laban’s nationality at this point is hard to explain. That it is the correction (by Elohist²) of an older version (Elohist¹), in which Laban was not an Aramæan (Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 236), is not probable. Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 422¹) regards it as a gloss, inserted with a view to verse ⁴⁷――=21.= _crossed the River_ (Yahwist)] the Euphrates (Exodus 23³¹, Joshua 24² etc.).――=23.= _his brethren_] his fellow-clansmen. In the sequel Jacob also is surrounded by his clansmen (³⁷ᐧ ⁴⁶ᐧ ⁵⁴),――a proof that tribal relations are clothed in the guise of individual biography.――_seven days’ journey_] The distance of Gilead from Ḥarran (_circa_ 350 miles as the crow flies) is much too great to be traversed in that time.

If the verse be from Yahwist (Gunkel, Procksch), we must assume (what is no doubt conceivable) that the writer’s geographical knowledge was defective. But it is a strong reason for assigning the verse to Elohist, that in that source nothing is said of Ḥarran or the Euphrates, and Laban’s home is placed somewhere in the eastern desert (see 29¹).

* * * * *

=17‒25.= A complete analysis of the verses cannot be effected. The hand of Elohist is recognised in ¹⁹ᵇ (תְּרָפִים‎, compare ³⁰ 35² ᶠᶠᐧ), ²⁰, (? הָֽאֲרַמִּי‎, as ²⁴), and especially ²⁴ (אלהים‎, חֲלֹם‎; compare ²⁹ᐧ ⁴²). Yahwist betrays its presence chiefly by doublets: ²¹ᵃ{β} ∥ ¹⁷ (וַיָּקָם‎), and ²⁵ᵃ ∥ ²³ᵇ (וַיַּשֵּׂג‎, וַיַּדְבֵּק‎). The assignment of ²¹ᵃ{β} to Yahwist is warranted by the mention of the Euphrates: hence ¹⁷ is Elohist. Further than this we cannot safely go. Gunkel’s division (¹⁹ᵃᐧ ²¹⁻²³ᐧ ²⁵ᵇ = Yahwist; ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᵃ{α}ᐧ ¹⁹ᵇᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵ᵃ = Elohist) is open to the objection that it ignores the discrepancy between the seven days of ²³ᵃ and the crossing of the Euphrates in ²¹ᵃ (see on ²³ above); but is otherwise attractive. Meyer (235 ff.) gets rid of the geographical difficulty by distinguishing two strata in Elohist, of which the later had been accommodated to the representation of Yahwist.――¹⁸ (from וְאֶת־כָּל־רְכֻשׁוֹ‎) is obviously Priestly-Code.――=17.= _sons and wives_] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX ‘wives and sons.’――=18.= LXX omits the clause אֲשֶׁר――קִנְיָנוֹ‎ (so Peshiṭtå); and adds after אֲרָ֑ם‎, καὶ πάντα τὰ αὐτοῦ.――=19.= תְּרָפִים‎] A plural of eminence, like אֱלֹהִים‎, etc.; hence it is doubtful whether one image or several is here referred to. The teraphim was a god (³⁰), its form and size were those of a man (1 Samuel 19¹³ᐧ ¹⁶), it was used in private houses as well as in temples (Judges 17⁵ 18¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ, Hosea 3⁴), and was an implement of divination (Ezekiel 21²⁶, Zechariah 10²). The indications point to its being an emblem of ancestor-worship which survived in Israel as a private superstition, condemned by the enlightened conscience of the nation (35², 1 Samuel 15²³, 2 Kings 23²⁴). It seems implied by the present narrative that the cult was borrowed from the Aramæans, or perhaps rather that it had existed before the separation of Hebrews and Aramæans. (See Moore, _Judges_ 379 ff.)――=20.= על־בלי‎] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, is difficult. על‎ for על אשר‎ is rare and poetic (Psalms 119¹³⁶: Brown-Driver-Briggs, 758 a); ‎ בלי‎ (poetic for לא‎) is also rare with finite verb (_ib._ 115 b). Since the following clause is a specification of the preceding, ‘wegen Mangels davon dass’ (Dillmann) is not a suitable rendering. We should expect לְבִלְתִּי הַגִּיד‎, ‘in not telling him that,’ etc.: _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ has עד בלתי‎.――=22.= ללבן‎] LXX + τῷ Σύρῳ.

* * * * *

=24.= God (not the Angel of God, as verse ¹¹) warns Laban in a dream to take heed to his words when he encounters Jacob.――_good or bad_] ‘anything whatever’ (24⁵⁰, 2 Samuel 13²² etc.). Laban did not interpret the prohibition literally (²⁹).――=25.= _in the mountain ..._] The idea suggested being that Jacob and Laban encamped each on a different mountain, we must suppose the name to have been omitted. The insertion of _Miẓpāh_ (verse ⁴⁹) is strongly recommended by Judges 10¹⁷ (see Ball, 88).――On the situation of _Mount Gilead_, see page 402 f.

* * * * *

‎ =25.= אחיו‎] Better אָֽהֳלוֹ‎ (Ball).

* * * * *

=26‒43. The altercation.=

The subjects of recrimination are: on Laban’s part, (a) the secret flight, (b) the carrying off of his daughters, and (c) the theft of his god; on Jacob’s part, (d) the hardships of his 20 years’ service, and (e) the attempts to defraud him of his hire. Of these, b, c, and e certainly belong to Elohist; a and d more probably to Yahwist.――In detail, the verses that can be confidently assigned to Elohist are: ²⁶ (גָּנַב לֵב‎, as ²⁰), ²⁸ (continuation of ²⁶), ²⁹ (compare ²⁴), ³⁰ᐧ ³²⁻³⁵ (תרפים‎), ⁴¹ (‘ten times’), ⁴² (compare ²⁴ᐧ ²⁹) and ⁴³ (because of the connexion with ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸): note also אֱלֹהים‎, ²⁹ᐧ ⁴²; אֲמָהֹת‎, ³³. The sequence of Elohist is interrupted by ²⁷ ⁽∥ ²⁶⁾ᐧ ³¹ᵇ (the natural answer to ²⁷), ³⁶ᵃ ⁽∥ ³⁶ᵇ⁾: these clauses are accordingly assigned to Yahwist; along with ³⁸⁻⁴⁰ (a parallel to ⁴¹ ᶠᐧ). The analysis (which is due to Gunkel) yields for Elohist a complete narrative: ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸⁻³¹ᵃᐧ ³²⁻³⁵ᐧ ³⁶ᵇᐧ ³⁷ᐧ ⁴¹⁻⁴³. The Yahwistic parallel is all but complete (²⁷ᐧ ³¹ᵃᐧ ᵇᐧ ³⁶ᵃᐧ ³⁸⁻⁴⁰); but we miss something after ³¹ to account for Jacob’s exasperation in ³⁶. We may suppose (with Gunkel) that Laban had accused Jacob of stealing his flocks, and that ³⁸⁻⁴⁰ is a reply to this charge.――Procksch’s division is slightly different.

=26‒28.= Laban offers a sentimental pretext for his warlike demonstration: in Elohist his slighted affection for his offspring (²⁸); in Yahwist his desire to honour a parting guest (²⁷).――=27.= _with mirth and music_] This manner of speeding the parting guest is not elsewhere mentioned in Old Testament.――=29.= _It is in my power (v.i.) to do you harm_]――but for the interposition of God.――=30.= _Thou hast gone off forsooth, because forsooth, etc._] The infinitives absolute express irony (Davidson § 86).――_stolen my god(s)_] This is a serious matter, and leads up to the chief scene of the dispute.――=32.= Jacob is so sure of the innocence of his household that he offers to give up the culprit to death if the theft can be proved: a similar enhancement of dramatic interest in 44⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=33‒35.= The search for the teraphim is described with a touch of humour, pointed with sarcasm at a prevalent form of idolatry.――=34.= Rachel had hidden the idol in the _camel’s litter_ or palanquin (Burckhardt _Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys_ ii. 85; Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_ i. 437, ii. 304; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 1124), in which she was apparently resting within the tent, on account of her condition.――=35.= דֶּרֶךְ נָשִׁים‎ = אֹרַח כַּנָּשִׁים‎ (18¹¹, Yahwist). Women in this condition were protected by a powerful taboo (compare Leviticus 15¹⁹ etc.).――=36, 37.= Jacob now turns on Laban, treating the accusation about the teraphim as mere pretext for searching his goods.――=38‒40= (Yahwist). A fine picture of the ideal shepherd, solicitous for his master’s interests, sensitive to the least suspicion of fraud, and careless of his personal comfort.――=39.= _I brought not to thee_] as a witness (Exodus 22¹²). Jacob had thus gone far beyond his legal obligation.――_made it good_] literally ‘counted it missing.’――=40.= _heat by day and frost by night_] Jeremiah 36⁸⁰. Under the clear skies of the East the extreme heat of the day is apt to be followed by intense cold at night (see Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 69 ff.).――=41, 42= (Elohist). _the Fear of Isaac_] The deity feared and worshipped by Isaac (⁵³†). That פַּחַד יִצְחָק‎ meant originally the terror _inspired_ by Isaac, the local deity of Beersheba (Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 254 f.), is a hazardous speculation.――=43.= Laban maintains his right, but speedily adopts a more pathetic tone, leading on to the pacific proposal of ⁴⁴.――The question _what shall I do to ...?_] means ‘what last kindness can I show them?’ (Gunkel, Driver); not ‘how can I do them harm?’ (Dillmann and most).

* * * * *

=26, 27.= LXX omits ותגנב את־לבבי‎, and transposes ²⁷ᵃᐧ ²⁶ᵇ.――=27.= ולא‎] LXX וְלֻא‎, which is perhaps better than Massoretic Text.――=28.= נטש‎] usually ‘reject’ or ‘abandon’; only here = ‘allow.’――עשו‎] for עֲשׂוֹת‎ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _n_).――=29.= יֶשׁ־לְאֵל יָדִי‎] Micah 2¹, Proverbs 3²⁷, Sirach 5¹ (Deuteronomy 28³², Nehemiah 5⁵). The meaning is certain (‘be within one’s power’), but the expression is very obscure. The current explanations (both represented in the Versions) are: (1) That אֵל‎ is an abstract noun = ‘power,’ and ‎ יָדִי‎ genitive. (2) That יָדִי‎ is subject of the sentence and אֵל‎ the word for God: ‘my hand is for a God.’ The first depends on a singular sense of אֵל‎; and for the second יש לי ידי לאל‎ would have been more natural. A third view has recently been propounded by Brockelmann (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxvi. 29 ff.), who renders ‘it belongs to the God of my hand,’ a survival of a primitive belief in special deities or spirits animating different members of the body (compare Tylor, _Primitive Culture_⁴ ii. 127).――עמכם‎, אביכם‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX have singular suffix.――=30.= אביך‎] LXX + ἀπελθεῖν· καί. The וְ‎ should probably be restored.――=31.= LXX omits כי יראתי‎.――=32.= The opening words in LXX וַיֹאמֶר לוֹ יַֽעֲקֹב‎ may be original, introducing the duplicate from Elohist.――=32b.= is preceded in LXX by the variant καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνω παρ’ αὐτῷ οὐθέν.――=33.= לבן‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + זיחבש‎ (read ויחפש‎); so LXX.――The clause ³³ᵃ{β} disagrees with what follows, and may be a gloss. LXX reduces the discrepancy by omissions, and a complete rearrangement of clauses.――=36.= מַה‎²] Read וּמַה‎ with Hebrew MSS _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå.――=39.= On אֲחַטֶּנָּה‎ for ‎ אֲחַטְּאָנָּה‎, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 74 _k_ or 75 _oo_.――גנבתי יום ‎ וג׳ לילה‎ is probably an archaic technical phrase, preserving an old case-ending (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 _l_).――=40.= On the syntax, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 143 _a_.――=41.= _These twenty years_] The repetition (verse ³⁸) would, as Dillmann says, not be surprising in animated speech; and is not of itself evidence of a change of source. But Jacob’s oratory is more dignified if relieved of this slight touch of affectation.――זה‎] not here a pronoun but used adverbially, as 27³⁶ etc. (see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 261 b).――=42.= אלהי אברהם‎ may be a gloss (Gunkel): LXX omits אלהי‎.

* * * * *

=44‒54. The treaty of Gilead.=

Evidences of a double recension appear in every circumstance of the narrative. (a) _Two_ names are explained: Gilead (⁴⁸ᵇ), and Miẓpāh (⁴⁹ᵃ); (b) _two_ sacred monuments are erected, a cairn (⁴⁶ᐧ ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵²), and a monolith (⁴⁵ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵²); (c) the covenant feast is _twice_ recorded (⁴⁶ᵇᐧ ⁵⁴); (d) the terms of the covenant are given in _two_ forms: (1) Jacob will not ill-treat Laban’s daughters (⁵⁰), and (2) the cairn is to mark the boundary between two peoples (⁵²); (e) God is _twice_ called to witness (⁴⁹ ᶠᐧ ⁵³). To arrange these duplicates in two parallel series is difficult, because of the numerous glosses and dislocations of the text; but some connecting lines can be drawn. Since Yahwist always avoids the word מַצֵּבָה‎ (page 378), we assume first of all that the monolith (and consequently _Miẓpāh_) belongs to Elohist, and the cairn to Yahwist. Now the cairn goes with the _frontier_ treaty (⁵¹ᐧ ⁵² [removing glosses], Yahwist), and Miẓpāh with the _family_ compact (⁴⁹, Elohist). To Yahwist we must obviously assign ⁴⁶ᐧ ⁴⁸, and also (if we may suppose that only the גַּל‎ was spoken of as an עֵד‎) ⁴⁴; while Elohist as naturally claims ⁴⁵. At the end, ⁵³ᵇ is Elohist (פחד יצחק‎, compare ⁴²), and likewise ⁵⁴ (the feast, ∥ ⁴⁶, Yahwist). ⁵³ᵃ is probably Yahwist: note the difference of divine names. Thus: ⁴⁴ᐧ ⁴⁶ᐧ ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵¹⁻⁵³ᵃ = Yahwist; ⁴⁵ᐧ ⁴⁹ᐧ ⁵⁰ᐧ ⁵³ᵇᐧ ⁵⁴ = Elohist.――The analysis is due to Holzinger and Gunkel; Procksch practically agrees, with the important difference that the parts of Yahwist and Elohist are (quite wrongly, as it seems to me) interchanged. It is superior to the schemes of Wellhausen, Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, al., which assign the cairn and the maẓẓebāh to the same sources.――The principal glosses (many of which excite suspicion apart from the analysis) are יעקב‎ in ⁴⁵ and ⁴⁶; verses ⁴⁷ᐧ ⁴⁹ᵃ{α}; והנה המצבה‎ in ⁵¹; ועדה המצבה‎ and ואת־המצבה הזאת‎ in ⁵²: on these _v.i._ Nearly all are retained by LXX, where, however, the confusion is increased by a complete change in the order of clauses: ⁴⁸ᵃᐧ ⁴⁷ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵²ᵃᐧ ⁴⁸ᵇᐧ ⁴⁹ᐧ ⁵⁰ᵃᐧ ⁵²ᵇ,――⁵⁰ᵇ being inserted after ⁴⁴.――The analysis works out in translation as follows (glosses being enclosed in square brackets, and necessary additions and corrections in ⌜⌝):

Yahwist: ⁴⁴ And now (the speaker Elohist: ⁴⁵ And ⌜he⌝ (_i.e._ is Laban), come, let us make a Laban) [Jacob] took a stone and covenant, I and thou; ... and it set it up as a pillar. ⁴⁹ᵃ{β}ᵇ shall be for a witness between ⌜and he said⌝, May ⌜God⌝ [Yahwe] me and thee. ⁴⁶ And ⌜he⌝ (_i.e._ watch between me and thee, Laban) [Jacob], said to his when we are hidden from one brethren, Gather stones; and another. ⁵⁰ If thou ill-treat they took stones, and made a my daughters, or take other cairn, and they ate there upon wives besides my daughters, no the cairn. [⁴⁷ And Laban called man being with us, see, God is it _Yᵉgar Sāhădûthā_, but Jacob witness between me and thee. ⁵³ᵇ called it _Gal‛ēd_.] ⁴⁸ And And Jacob swore by the Fear of Laban said, This cairn is a his father Isaac. ⁵⁴ And Jacob witness between me and thee offered a sacrifice on the this day; therefore he called mountain and called his brethren its name ⌜Gil‛ad⌝ [⁴⁹ᵃ{α} and to eat bread; and they ate Miẓpah, for he said]. ⁵¹ And bread, and spent the night on Laban said to Jacob, Behold this the mountain. cairn [and behold the pillar] which I have thrown up between me and thee――⁵² a witness is this cairn [and a witness is the pillar]: I will not pass this cairn to thee, and thou shalt not pass this cairn [and this pillar] to me, with evil intent. ⁵³ᵃ The God of Abraham and the God of Naḥor be Judge between us! [the God of their father].

=44.= Compare 21²³ ᶠᶠᐧ 26²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ――The subject of וְהָיָה‎ cannot be בְּרִית‎, which is feminine, and is rather the fact to be witnessed to than a witness of something else. There must be a lacuna before והיה‎, where we must suppose that some material object (probably the cairn: compare ⁴⁸, Yahwist) was mentioned.――=45= (Elohist). _And he took a stone_] Since it is Laban who explains the meaning of the stone (⁴⁹), it must have been he who set it up; hence יַֽעֲקֹב‎ is to be deleted as a false explication of the implicit subject.――_set it on high as a maẓẓebāh_] see 28¹⁸ᐧ ²². The monolith may have stood on an eminence and formed a conspicuous feature of the landscape (Dillmann).――=46= (Yahwist). _And he_ (Laban) _said, etc._] Here יַֽעֲקֹב‎ is certainly wrong, for Laban expressly says that the cairn was raised by him (⁵¹).――_a cairn_] גַּל‎ means simply a heap of stones (_v.i._), not a rampart (Wellhausen, Dillmann). The idea that the גַּל‎ was originally the mountain range of Gilead itself, Laban and Jacob being conceived as giants (Wellhausen, Gunkel, Meyer), has certainly no support in the text.――_they ate upon the cairn_] The covenant feast, which may very well have preceded the covenant ceremony; see 26³⁰.――=47.= In spite of its interesting and philologically correct notice, the verse must unfortunately be assigned to a glossator, for the reasons given below.――=48= (Yahwist). Laban explains the purpose of the cairn, and names it accordingly: _cairn of witness_.] The stone heap is personified, and was no doubt in ancient times regarded as animated by a deity (compare Joshua 24²⁷). ‎גַּלְעֵד‎ is, of course, an artificial formation, not the real or original pronunciation of גִּלְעָד‎.――=49= (Elohist). _And [the] Miẓpāh, for he said_] The text, if not absolutely ungrammatical, is a very uncouth continuation of ⁴⁸ᵇ, with which in the primary documents it had nothing to do; see further _inf._――_May God_ (read so with LXX) _watch_] Miẓpāh means ‘watch-post.’ On its situation, see page 403.――=50.= The purport of the covenant, according to Elohist. Jacob swears (⁵³ᵇ) that he will not maltreat Laban’s daughters, nor even marry other wives besides them. The latter stipulation has a parallel in a late Babylonian marriage contract (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iv. 187, Number XI.).――_God is witness_] The idea is less primitive than that of Yahwist, where the witness is an inanimate object.――We observe how the religious sanction is invoked where human protection fails (compare 20¹¹ 42¹⁸, both Elohist).――=51‒53a.= The terms of the covenant in Yahwist: neither party (people) is to pass the cairn with hostile intent. All the references to the maẓẓebāh (⁵¹ᵇᐧ ⁵²ᵃᐧ ᵇ) are to be deleted as glosses. ――_The God of Abraham ... Nāḥôr_] Whether a polytheistic differentiation of two gods is attributed to Laban can hardly be determined. The plural verb would not necessarily imply this in Elohist (see 20¹³), though in Yahwist it might.――=53b, 54.= The covenant oath and feast in Elohist.――_The Fear of ... Isaac_] See on verse ⁴².――=54.= _his brethren_] not Laban and his companions, but his own fellow-clansmen (verse ³⁷).――_spent the night, etc._] Is this part of the religious ceremony? (Gunkel).

_The Scene of the Treaty._――The name _Gil‛ād_ (often with article) in Old Testament is sometimes applied to the whole region Elohist of the Jordan (Joshua 22⁹ etc.), but more properly denotes the mountain range (הַר הַגִּלְעָד‎) extending from the Yarmuk to the Arnon (2 Kings 10³³ etc.), divided by the Jabboḳ into two parts (Joshua 12²), corresponding to the modern _Ǧebel ‛Aǧlūn_ and _el-Belḳā_, North and South respectively of the Wādī ez-Zerḳā. The name _Ǧebel Ǧil‛ād_ still survives as that of a mountain, crowned by the lofty summit of _Ǧebel Ōsha‛_, North of es-Salṭ, where are found the ruined cities _Ǧil‛ād_ and _Ǧal‛aud_ (Burckhardt. _Travels in Syria and the Holy Land_, 348). It is therefore natural to look here in the first instance for the ‘cairn of witness’ from which the mountain and the whole region were supposed to have derived their names. The objections to this view are (1) that Jacob, coming from the North, has not yet crossed the Jabboḳ, which is identified with the Zerḳa; and (2) that the frontier between Israel and the Aramæans (of Damascus) could not have been so far South. These reasons have prevailed with most modern authorities, and led them to seek a site somewhere in the North or North-east of Ǧebel ‛Aǧlūn. But the assumption that Laban represents the Aramæans of Damascus is gratuitous, and has no foundation in either Yahwist or Elohist (see the next note). The argument from the direction of Jacob’s march applies only to Yahwist, and must not be too rigorously pressed; because the treaty of Gilead and the crossing of the Jabboḳ belong to different cycles of tradition, and the desire to finish off Jacob’s dealings with Laban before proceeding to his encounter with Esau might very naturally occasion a departure from strict geographical consistency.¹――The site of _Miẓpāh_ has to be investigated separately, since we cannot be certain that Yahwist and Elohist thought of the same locality. East of the Jordan there was a Miẓpāh (Judges 10¹⁷ 11¹¹ᐧ ³⁴, Hosea 5¹) which is thought to be the same as מִצְפֵּה גִלְעָד‎ (Judges 11²⁹) and רָמַת הַמִּצְפֶּה‎ (Joshua 13²⁶); but whether it lay South or North of the Jabboḳ cannot be determined. The identification with Rāmôth-Gil‛ād, and of this with _er-Remte_, South-west of the ancient Edrei, is precarious. The name (‘watch-post’) was a common one, and may readily be supposed to have occurred more than once East of the Jordan. See Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 586; Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 262; Driver in smaller _A Dictionary of the Bible_, _s.v._; and on the whole of this note, compare Smend, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, 1902, 149 ff.

¹ It seems to me very doubtful how far Jacob’s route, as described in chapters 32, 33, can be safely used as a clue to the identification of the localities mentioned (Gilead, Miẓpah, Maḥanaim, the Ford, Peniel, Succoth). The writers appear to have strung together a number of Transjordanic legends connected with the name of Jacob, but without much regard to topographical consistency or consecutiveness (see page 408). The impossibility of the current identifications (_e.g._ those of Merrill and Conder), _as stages of an actual itinerary_, is clearly shown by Driver in _The Expository Times_, xiii. (1902), 457 ff. It is only when that assumption is frankly abandoned that the identification of Gilead with _Ǧil‛ād_, of Mahanaim with _Maḥne_ (page 405), of the Ford with _Muḫādat en-Nuṣrānīyeh_ (page 408), becomes feasible.

_Historical Background of 31⁴⁴⁻⁵⁴._――The treaty of Gilead in Yahwist evidently embodies ethnographic reminiscences, in which Jacob and Laban were not private individuals, but represented Hebrews and Aramæans respectively. The theory mostly favoured by critical historians is that the Aramæans are those of Damascus, and that the situation reflected is that of the Syrian wars which raged from _circa_ 860 to _circa_ 770 B.C. (see Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 320 f.). Gunkel (page 312) has, however, pointed out objections to this assumption; and has given strong reasons for believing that the narratives refer to an earlier date than 860. The story reads more like the record of a loose understanding between neighbouring and on the whole friendly tribes, than of a formal treaty between two highly organised states like Israel and Damascus; and it exhibits no trace of the intense national animosity which was generated during the Syrian wars. In this connexion, Meyer’s hypothesis that in the original tradition Laban represented the early unsettled nomads of the eastern desert (see page 334), acquires a new interest. Considering the tenacity with which such legends cling to a locality, there is no difficulty in supposing that in this case the tradition goes back to some prehistoric settlement of territorial claims between Hebrews and migratory Aramæans. It is true that Meyer’s theory is based on notices peculiar to Elohist, while the tribal compact belongs to Yahwist; and it may appear hazardous to go behind the documents and build speculations on a substratum of tradition common to both. But the only material point in which Yahwist differs from Elohist is his identification of Laban with the Aramæans of Ḥarran; and this is not inconsistent with the interpretation here suggested. In any case, his narrative gives no support to the opinion that he has in view the contemporary political relations with the kingdom of Damascus.

* * * * *

=44b.= The omitted words (_v.s._) might be וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה גַל‎ or some such expression (Olshausen, Dillmann, Ball, Gunkel, al.). To the end of the verse LXX appends: εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ Ἰακωβ, Ἰδοὺ οὐθεὶς μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἐστίν· ἰδὲ ὁ θεὸς μάρτυς ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ (from verse ⁵⁰).――=46.= ויקחו‎] LXX וַיִּלְקְטוּ‎.――גַּל‎] From √ גלל‎ ‘roll’ (stones, 29³, Joshua 10¹⁸, 1 Samuel 14³³, Proverbs 26²⁷). On sacred stone-heaps among the Arabs, see Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_² 111 f. (with which compare Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_ i. 26, 81, 431); Curtiss, _Primitive Semitic Religion to-day_, 80 (cairn as witness); on the eating _upon_ the cairn, Frazer, _Folklore in the Old Testament_, 131 ff.――=47.= יְגַר שָֽׂחֲדוּתָא‎ is the precise Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew ‎ גַל עֵד‎, ‘heap of witness.’ The decisive reasons for rejecting the verse are: (1) It stands out of its proper place, anticipating ⁴⁸ᵇ; (2) it contradicts ⁴⁸ᵇ, where the _Hebrew_ name גַּלְעֵד‎ is given by Laban; (3) it assumes (contrary to the implication of all the patriarchal narratives) that the Naḥorites spoke a different dialect from the ancestors of the Hebrews. It may be added that the Aramaic phrase shows the glossator to have taken ‎ גַּלְעֵד‎ as construct and genitive, whereas the latter in ⁴⁸ᵇ is more probably a sentence ‘the heap is witness’ (see Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_, 10 f.). The actual name ‏[הַ]גִּלְעָד‎ is usually, but dubiously, explained by Arabic _ǧal‛ad_ ‘hard,’ ‘firm.’――=48.= על־כן קרא שמו‎] so 11⁹ 19²² 29³⁴ ᶠᐧ (all Yahwist), 25³⁰ (Yahwist?).――=49.= וְהַמִּצְפָּה‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ והמצבה‎, which Wellhausen thinks the original name of the place, afterwards changed to המצפה‎ because of the evil associations of the word maẓẓebāh. He instances the transcription of LXX Μασσηφα, as combining the consonants of the new name with the vowels of the old (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 44¹). The argument is precarious; but there seems to be a word-play between the names; and since the opening is evidently corrupt, it is possible that both stood in the text. Ball’s restoration והמצבה אשר [הֵרִים קָרָא הַמִּצְפָּה כִּי] אמר‎ has met with the approval of several scholars (Holzinger, Strack); but as the sequence to ⁴⁵ we should rather expect וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמָהּ הַמִּצְפָּה‎. LXX has καὶ Ἡ ὅρασις, ἣν εἶπεν, following Massoretic Text.――יהוה‎] LX אלהים‎ must be adopted if the verse is rightly ascribed to Elohist.――=51.= המצבה‎] LXX + הַזֹּאת‎ (so verse ⁵²).――אשׁר יריתי‎] ‘which I have thrown up.’ ‎ ירה‎, ‘throw,’ is most commonly used of shooting arrows, and only here of piling up stones. Once it means to lay (_jacere_) a foundation (Job 38⁶), but it could hardly be applied to the erection of a pillar. It is an advantage of the analysis given above that it avoids the necessity of retaining the maẓẓebāh as object of יריתי‎ and rejecting the cairn.――=52.= אם――לא‎ (_bis_)] The double negative is contrary to the usage of asseverative sentences (compare ⁵⁰), but may be explained by an anakolouthon (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 167 _b_).――את־הגל הזה‎] LXX omits.――=53.= ישׁפטו‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå יִשְׁפֹּט‎.――אלהי אביהם‎] LXX and Hebrew MSS omit, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ א׳ אברהם‎, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word). Probably a margin gloss to ⁵³ᵃ.――=XXXII. 1.= וילך וישב‎] LXX וַיָּשָׁב וַיֵּלֶךְ‎.

* * * * *

XXXII. 2‒33. _Jacob’s Measures for propitiating Esau: His Wrestling with the Deity at Peniel_ (Yahwist, Elohist).

After a vision of angels at Maḥanaim (²ᐧ ³), Jacob sends a humble message announcing his arrival to Esau, but learns to his consternation that his brother is advancing to meet him with 400 men (⁴⁻⁷). He divides his company into two bands, and invokes God’s help in prayer (⁸⁻¹⁴ᵃ); then prepares a present for Esau, and sends it on in advance (¹⁴ᵇ⁻²²). Having thus done all that human foresight could suggest, he passes a lonely night in the ravine of the Jabboḳ, wrestling with a mysterious antagonist, who at daybreak blesses him and changes his name to Israel (²³⁻³³).

_Sources._――Verses ²ᐧ ³ are an isolated fragment of Elohist ‎ (מלאכי אלהים‎, פָּגַע בּ‎, [28¹¹]); ⁴⁻¹⁴ᵃ and ¹⁴ᵇ⁻²² are parallels (compare ¹⁴ᵃ with ²²ᵇ), the former from Yahwist יהוה‎, ¹⁰; שפחה‎, ⁶; מולדת‎, ‎ ¹⁰; מצא חן‎, ⁶; contrast the implied etymology of מַחֲנַיִם‎ in ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹ with Elohist’s in ³): ¹⁴ᵇ⁻²² must therefore be Elohist, though positive marks of that writer’s style cannot be detected.――On the complicated structure of ²³⁻³³ (Jehovist), see page 407 below.

=2, 3. The legend of Maḥanaim.=――=2.= _angels ... met him_] The verb for ‘meet,’ as here construed (_v.i._), usually means to ‘oppose.’――=3.= _This is God’s camp_] or _a camp of gods_. The idea of divine armies appears elsewhere in Old Testament (compare Joshua 5¹⁴), and perhaps underlies the expression ‘Host of heaven’ and the name _Yahwe Ẓebā’ôth_.――_Maḥanaim_ is here apparently not regarded as a dual (contrast ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹). On its site, _v.i._

The brief statement of the text seems to be a torso of a legend which had gathered round the name Maḥanaim, whose original meaning has been lost. The curtailment probably indicates that the sequel was objectionable to the religious feeling of later times; and it has been surmised that the complete story told of a conflict between Jacob and the angels (originally divine beings), somewhat similar to the wrestling of verses ²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ (Gunkel, Bennett). The word ‘camp’ (compare the fuller text of LXX _inf._), and the verbal phrase פגע ב‎ both suggest a warlike encounter.

* * * * *

=2.= After לדרכו‎ LXX inserts καὶ ἀναβλέψας τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἴδεν παρεμβολὴν θεοῦ παρεμβεβληκυῖαν, enhancing the vividness of the description.――פָּגַע בְּ‎] = ‘encounter with hostility,’ Judges 8²¹ 15¹² 18²⁵, 1 Samuel 22¹⁷ ᶠᐧ, 2 Samuel 1¹⁵, 1 Kings 2²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ, Ruth 2²²; = ‘intercede,’ Job 21¹⁵, Jeremiah 7¹⁶ 27¹⁸, Ruth 1¹⁶. The neutral sense ‘meet,’ with personsal objective, is doubtfully supported by Numbers 35¹⁹ᐧ ²¹, Joshua 2¹⁶, where hostile intention is evidently implied: elsewhere this is expressed by _accusative_ personsal (Exodus 5²⁰ 23⁴, 1 Samuel 10⁵, Amos 5¹⁹). Genesis 28¹¹ is somewhat different, the object being impersonal (compare the use in Joshua 16⁷ 17¹⁰ etc.).――=3.= מחנים‎] an important East Jordanic city and sanctuary, the capital of Ish-bosheth (2 Samuel 2⁸), and David’s headquarters during the revolt of Absalom (2 Samuel 17²⁴ᐧ ²⁷), the centre of a fiscal district under Solomon (1 Kings 4¹⁴). The situation of _Maḥne_ or _Miḥne_ on _Wādī el-Ḥimār_, some 14 miles North of the Jabboḳ (see Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 257), suits all the other references (compare Joshua 13²⁶ᐧ ³⁰――the boundary of Gad and Manasseh), but is too far from the Jabboḳ for this narrative (verse ²³). On the ending, which is probably no real dual, see on 24¹⁰.

* * * * *

=4‒14a. Jacob’s precautionary measures= (Yahwist).――=4.= Isaac’s death and Esau’s settlement in the country afterwards occupied by his descendants are here assumed to have already taken place: otherwise Priestly-Code (36⁶).――=5, 6.= We note the extreme servility of Jacob’s language:――_my lord ... thy servant ... find grace_,――dictated by fear of his brother’s vengeance (27⁴¹). In substance the message is nothing but an announcement of his arrival and his great wealth (compare 33¹² ᶠᶠᐧ) The shepherd, with all his success, is at the mercy of the fierce marauder who was to ‘live by his sword’ (27⁴⁰).――=7.= The messengers return with the ominous news that Esau is already on the march with 400 men. How he was ready to strike so far north of his own territory is a difficulty (see page 415).――=8, 9.= Jacob’s first resource is to divide his company into _two camps_, in the hope that one might escape while the other was being captured. The arrangement is perhaps adverted to in 33⁸.――=10‒13.= Jacob’s prayer, consisting of an invocation (¹⁰), thanksgiving (¹¹), petition (¹²), and appeal to the divine faithfulness (¹³), is a classic model of Old Testament devotion (Gunkel); though the element of confession, so prominent in later supplications, is significantly absent.――=12.= _mother with_ (or _on_) _children_] Hosea 10¹⁴; compare Deuteronomy 22⁶. A popular saying,――the mother conceived as bending over the children to protect them (Tuch).――=14a.= _spent that night there_] _i.e._, at Maḥanaim (verse ²²). We may suppose (with Wellhausen, Gunkel) that an explicit etymology, based on the ‘two camps’ (verses ⁸ᐧ ¹¹), preceded or followed this clause.

Verses ¹⁰⁻¹³ appear to be one of the later expansions of the Yahwistic narrative, akin to 13¹⁴⁻¹⁷ 22¹⁵⁻¹⁸ 26³ᵇ⁻⁵ 28¹⁴. They can be removed without loss of continuity, ¹⁴ᵃ being a natural continuation of ⁹. The insertion gives an interpretation to the ‘two camps’ at variance with the primary motive of the division (verse ⁹); and its spirit is different from that of the narrative in which it is embedded. Compare also חול הים‎ with 22¹⁷, ‎ לא יספר מרב‎ with 16¹⁰ 22¹⁷. See Gunkel 316.

* * * * *

‎ =4.= לפניו‎] LXX omits――שדה אדום‎] (compare Judges 5⁴) is probably a gloss on ארצה שעיר‎.――=5.= תאמרון‎] compare 18²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ――וָאֵחַר‎] for וָאֶֽאֱחַר‎ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 64 _h_).――=6.= ואשלחה‎] Cohortative form with vav consecutive――chiefly late; see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 69 _Obsolete_, § 72; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 49 _e_.――=8.= וַיֵּצֶר‎] √ צרר‎ intransitive = ‘be cramped’; on the form, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 _p_.――והגמלים‎] LXXᴬ omits and transposes ואת־הבקר ואת־הצאן‎.――שני מחנות‎] That this implies an etymology of Maḥanaim, and that Yahwist located the incident there, cannot reasonably be doubted (as by Holzinger). The name is obviously regarded as a dual (in contrast to verse ³), showing that the current pronunciation is very ancient (Dillmann).――=9.= האחת‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ האחד‎ (masculine), which is demanded by the context, as well as by prevailing usage (Albrecht, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvi. 52).――=11.= קטנתי ‎ מן‎] ‘too insignificant for’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 133 _c_.――הירדן הזה‎] The writer apparently locates Maḥanaim in the vicinity of the Jordan; but the allusion, in an editorial passage, has perhaps no great topographical importance.

* * * * *

=14b‒22. The present for Esau= (Elohist).――=14.= _a present_] Not ‘tribute’ (as often) in acknowledgment of vassalage, but (as 43¹¹, 2 Kings 8⁸ ᶠᐧ) a gift to win favour.――=17‒20.= By arranging the cattle in successive droves following at considerable intervals, Jacob hopes to wear out Esau’s resentment by a series of surprises. The plan has nothing in common with the two ‘camps’ of verse ⁸ ᶠᐧ in Yahwist.――=21a.= A repetition of ¹⁹ᵇ: Jacob lays stress on this point, because the effect would obviously be weakened if a garrulous servant were to let out the secret that other presents were to follow.――=21b.= _Let me pacify him_] literally ‘cover’ (or ‘wipe clean’) his face,――the same figure, though in different language, as 20¹⁶. On כִּפֶּר‎, see _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_², 381; _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. 128 f.――_see his face_] ‘obtain access to his presence’: compare 43³ᐧ ⁵ 44²³ᐧ ²⁶, Exodus 10²⁸, 2 Samuel 14 ²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ³², 2 Kings 25¹⁹, Esther 1¹⁴. The phrase is thought to convey an allusion to _Pĕnû’ēl_ (Gunkel); see on 33¹⁰.――=22.= _spent ... camp_ (בַּֽמַּחֲנֶֽה‎)] compare ¹⁴ᵃ. Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 46) renders ‘in Maḥaneh’ (_i.e._ Maḥanaim), but the change is hardly justified.

* * * * *

‎ =14.= מן־הבא‎] Article with participle (not perfect); see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 138 _k_; Driver _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ 57 f.――מנחה‎] see on 4³.――=17.= ‎ רֶוַח‎ (Esther 4¹⁴†)] √ רָוַח‎, ‘be wide’ (1 Samuel 16²³, Job 32²⁰).――=18.= On the forms יִֽפְגָּשְׁךָ‎ (Ben Naphtali), יָֽפִגָֽשֲׁךָ‎ (Ben Asher), see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 9 _v_, 10 _g_ (_c_), 60 _b_, [and Baer-Delitzsch, _Liber Genesis_ page 85]; and on ושאֵֽלך‎, § 64 _f._――=20.= ויצו‎] LXX + τῷ πρώτῳ.――מֹצַֽאֲכֶם‎] irregular infinitive for מָצְאֲכֶם‎ (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 74 _h_, 93 _q_).――=21.= ‎ יעקב‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ + בָּא‎.

* * * * *

=23‒33. The wrestling at Peniel= (Jehovist).――=23, 24.= The crossing of the Jabboḳ. The _Yabbōḳ_ is now almost universally, and no doubt correctly, identified with the _Nahr es-Zerḳā_ (Blue River), whose middle course separates Ǧebel ‛Aǧlūn from el-Belḳā, and which flows into the Jordan about 25 miles North of the Dead Sea. See Smend, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, 1902, 137 ff.; and the descriptions in Riehm, _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_² 665; Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 583‒5.――The _ford_ referred to cannot be determined; that of _Muḫādat en-Nuṣrānīyeh_, where the road from Ǧeraš to es-Salṭ crosses the deep narrow gorge which cleaves the mountains of Gilead, as described by Thomson (_The Land and the Book_, iii. 583 ff.) and Tristram (_Land of Israel_³, 549), supplies a more fitting background for the weird struggle about to be narrated than the one in the Jordan valley; but on the difficulties of this identification, see Driver _The Expository Times_, xiii. 459.

The passage of the river seems to be twice described, ²⁴ᵃ and ²⁴ᵇ being apparently doublets. The former continues ²³ᵃ, which belongs to Yahwist (שפחה‎). Following this clue, we may divide thus: ²³ᵃᐧ ²⁴ᵃ = Yahwist; ²³ᵇᐧ ²⁴ᵇ = Elohist (so Gunkel). While Elohist implies that Jacob crossed with his company, the account of Yahwist is consistent with the statement of ²⁵ᵃ, that after sending the others across he himself was ‘left alone.’ On any view the action is somewhat perplexing. To cross a ford by night, with flocks, etc., was a dangerous operation, only to be explained by apprehension of an attack from Esau (Wellhausen). But Esau is represented as advancing from the south; and Jacob is in haste to put his people and possessions on that side of the river on which they were exposed to attack. Either the narrative is defective at this point, or it is written without a clear conception of the actual circumstances.

* * * * *

=23‒33.= The analysis of the passage is beset by insurmountable difficulties. While most recognise doublets in ²³ ᶠᐧ (_v.s._), ²⁵⁻³³ have generally been regarded as a unity, being assigned to Yahwist by Wellhausen, Kuenen, Cornill, Kautzsch-Socin, Driver, al.; but by Dillmann to Elohist. In the view of more recent critics, both Yahwist and Elohist are represented, though there is the utmost variety of opinion in regard to details. In the notes above, _possible_ variants have been pointed out in ²⁶ᵃ ∥ ²⁶ᵇ (the laming of the thigh) and ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ ∥ ³⁰ (the name and the blessing); to these may be added the still more doubtful case ³¹ ∥ ³² (Peniel, Penuel). As showing traces of more primitive conceptions, ²⁶ᵃ and ³⁰ would naturally go together, and also ²⁷ for the same reason. Since Yahwist prefers the name Israel in the subsequent history, there is a slight presumption that ²⁸ ᶠᐧ belong to him; and the אלהים‎ of ³¹ points (though not decisively) to Elohist. Thus we should obtain, for Elohist: ²⁶ᵃᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ³⁰ᐧ ³¹; leaving for Yahwist: ²⁶ᵇᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³²: verse ³³ may be a gloss. The result corresponds nearly, so far as it goes, with Gunkel’s (318 f.). The reader may compare the investigations of Holzinger (209 f.), Procksch (32), Meyer (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 57 f.).――=23.= בלילה הוא‎ (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ההוא‎)] as 19³³ ‎ 30¹⁶.――יַבֹּק‎ (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ היבק‎) (Numbers 21²⁴, Deuteronomy 2³⁷ 3¹⁶, Joshua 12², Judges 11¹³ᐧ ²²†) is naturally explained as the ‘gurgler,’ from √ בקק‎ (Arabic _baḳḳa_), the resemblance to אבק‎ (verse ²⁵) being, of course, a popular word-play.――=24b.= Insert כָּל־‎ before אשר‎ (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate).

* * * * *

=25.= _a man wrestled with him till the appearing of the dawn_]――Only later does Jacob discover that his unknown antagonist is a god in human form (compare 18² 19⁵).――The rare word (_v.i._) for ‘wrestle’ ‎(אבק‎) is chosen because of the assonance with יבֹּק‎――=26a.= _he saw that he prevailed not_] The ambiguity of the subject extends to the next clause, and leaves two interpretations open (_v.i._).――_struck the socket of his thigh_] putting it out of joint.――=26b.= _the socket of Jacob’s thigh was dislocated as he wrestled with him_.

The dislocation of the thigh seems to be twice recorded (see Kautzsch-Socin _An._ 159), and it is highly probable that the two halves of the verse come from different sources. In ²⁶ᵃ it is a stratagem resorted to by a wrestler unable to gain the advantage by ordinary means (like the trick of Ulysses in _Iliad_ xxiii. 725 ff.); in ²⁶ᵇ it is an accident which happens to Jacob in the course of the struggle. It has even been suggested that in the original legend the subject of ²⁶ᵃ was Jacob――that it was he who disabled his antagonist in the manner described (Holzinger, Gunkel, Cheyne: see Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 163¹; Luther, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 65 ff.; Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 57). It is possible (though certainly not probable) that this was the view of the document (Yahwist or Elohist) to which ²⁶ᵃ belongs, and that it underlies Hosea 12⁵.

* * * * *

‎ =25.= ויאבק‎] A verb used only here and verse ²⁶, distinct from New Hebrew התאבק‎, ‘make oneself dusty,’ and very probably a modification of חבק‎, ‘clasp’ (Delitzsch, Dillmann).――=26.= ‎ ותקע‎] √ יקע‎, literally ‘be rent away’ (compare Jeremiah 6⁸): LXX ἐνάρκησεν, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Vulgate _emarcuit_, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ זע‎ (‘gave way’),――all conjectural.

* * * * *

=27.= _Let me go, for the dawn is breaking_] Compare Plautus, _Amphitryon_ 532 f., where Jupiter says: “Cur me tenes? Tempus est: exire ex urbe priusquam lucescat volo.” It is a survival of the wide-spread belief in spirits of the night which must vanish at dawn (_Hamlet_, Act 1. Scene i.); and as such, a proof of the extreme antiquity of the legend.――But the request reveals to Jacob the superhuman character of his adversary, and he resolves to hold him fast till he has extorted a blessing from him.――=28, 29=. Here the blessing is imparted in the form of a new name conferred on Jacob in memory of this crowning struggle of his life.――_thou hast striven with God_] _Yisrā’ēl_, probably = ‘God strives’ (_v.i._), is interpreted as ‘Striver with God’; compare a similar transformation of יְרֻבַּֽעַל‎ (‘Baal contends’) in Judges 6³². Such a name is a true ‘blessing,’ as a pledge of victory and success to the nation which bears it.――_and with men_] This can hardly refer merely to the contests with Laban and Esau; it points rather to the existence of a fuller body of legend, in which Jacob figured as the hero of many combats, culminating in this successful struggle with deity.――=30.= Jacob vainly endeavours to extort a disclosure of the name of his antagonist. This is possibly an older variant of ²⁸ ᶠᐧ, belonging to a primitive phase of thought, where he who possesses the true name of a god can dispose of the power of its bearer (Cheyne _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 401¹; _A Dictionary of the Bible_, v. 640). For the concealment of the name, compare Judges 13¹⁸ (the same words).――Gunkel thinks that in the original narrative the name of the wrestler was actually revealed.――=31.= _Pĕnî’ēl_] ‘Face of God’ (_v.i._). The name is derived from an incidental feature of the experience: that Jacob had seen “God _face_ to _face_” (Exodus 33¹¹, Deuteronomy 34¹⁰), and yet lived (see on 16¹³).――The site of Peniel is unknown: see Driver _The Expository Times_, xiii. 457 ff., and _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 300 ff.――=32.= _limping on his thigh_] in consequence of the injury he had received (²⁶ᵇ). That he bore the hurt to his death, as a memorial of the conflict, is a gratuitous addition to the narrative.――=33.= The food-taboo here mentioned is nowhere else referred to in Old Testament; and the Mishnic prohibition (_Ḥullîn_, 7) is probably dependent on this passage. William Robertson Smith explains it from the sacredness of the thigh as a seat of life (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 380¹);¹ and Wellhausen (_Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 168³) calls attention to a trace of it in ancient Arabia. For primitive parallels, see Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 419 ff., _Folklore in Old Testament_, 142 f. The precise meaning of גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה‎ is uncertain (_v.i._).

¹ “The nature of the lameness produced by injury to the sinew of the thigh socket is explained by the Arabic lexicons, _s.v._ _ḥārifat_; the man can only walk on the tips of his toes. This seems to have been a common affection, for poetical metaphors are taken from it.”

In its fundamental conception the struggle at Peniel is not a dream or vision like that which came to Jacob at Bethel; nor is it an allegory of the spiritual life, symbolising the inward travail of a soul helpless before some overhanging crisis of its destiny. It is a real physical encounter which is described, in which Jacob measures his strength and skill against a divine antagonist, and ‘prevails,’ though at the cost of a bodily injury. No more boldly anthropomorphic narrative is found in Genesis; and unless we shut our eyes to some of its salient features, we must resign the attempt to translate it wholly into terms of religious experience. We have to do with a legend, originating at a low level of religion, in process of accommodation to the purer ideas of revealed religion; and its history may have been somewhat as follows: (1) We begin with the fact of a hand-to-hand conflict between a god and a man. A similar idea appears in Exodus 4²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ, where we read that Yahwe met Moses and ‘sought to kill him.’ In the present passage the god was probably not Yahwe originally, but a local deity, a night-spirit who fears the dawn and refuses to disclose his name. Dr. Frazer has pointed out that such stories as this are associated with water-spirits, and cites many primitive customs (_Folklore in the Old Testament_, 136 ff.) which seem to rest on the belief that a river resents being crossed, and drowns many who attempt it. He hazards the conjecture that the original deity of this passage was the spirit of the Jabboḳ; in which case the word-play between יַבֹּק‎ and אבק‎ may have greater significance than appears on the surface. (2) Like many patriarchal theophanies, the narrative accounts for the foundation of a sanctuary――that of Peniel. Of the cultus at Peniel we know nothing; and there is very little in the story that can be supposed to bear upon it, unless we assume, with Gunkel and others, that the limping on the thigh refers to a ritual dance regularly observed there (compare 1 Kings 18²⁶).¹ (3) By Yahwist and Elohist the story was incorporated in the national epos as part of the history of Jacob. The God who wrestles with the patriarch is Yahwe; and how far the wrestling was understood as a literal fact remains uncertain. To these writers the main interest lies in the origin of the name Israel, and the blessing bestowed on the nation in the person of its ancestor. (4) A still more refined interpretation is found, it seems to me, in Hosea 12⁴ᐧ ⁵: ‘In the womb he overreached his brother; and in his prime he strove with God. He strove (וַיִּשֶׂר‎) with the Angel and prevailed; he wept and made supplication to him.’ The substitution of the Angel of Yahwe for the divine Being Himself shows increasing sensitiveness to anthropomorphism; and the last line appears to mark an advance in the spiritualising of the incident, the subject being not the Angel (as Gunkel and others hold), but Jacob, whose ‘prevailing’ thus becomes that of importunate prayer.――We may note in a word Steuernagel’s ethnological interpretation. He considers the wrestling to symbolise a victory of the invading Israelites over the inhabitants of North Gilead. The change of name reflects the fact that a new nation (Israel) arose from the fusion of the Jacob and Rachel tribes (_Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_ 61 f.).

* * * * *

‎ =29.= יִשְׂרָאֵל‎] A name of the same type as ישמעאל‎, ירחמאל‎, etc., with some such meaning as ‘God strives’ or ‘Let God strive’; originally (it has been suggested) a war-cry which passed into a proper name (see Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_ 61). The verb שׂרה‎, however, only occurs in connexion with this incident (Hosea 12⁴ᐧ ⁵, where read וַיִּשֶׂר‎), and in the personal name שְׂרָיָה‎; and its real meaning is uncertain. If it be the Hebrew equivalent of Arabic _šariya_, Driver argues that it must mean ‘persist’ or ‘persevere’ rather than ‘strive’ (_A Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 530), which hardly yields a suitable idea. Some take it as a by-form of ‎ שׂרר‎, either in a denominative sense (‘rule,’ from שַׂר‎, prince), or in its assumed primary significance ‘shine forth’ (Assyrian _šarâru_: see Vollers, _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft_, ix. 184). Some doubt has even been thrown on the traditional Hebrew pronunciation by the form _Ysir’r_, found on an inscription of Merneptah (Steindorff, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvi. 330 ff.), with which we may compare Assyrian _Sir-’-lai_ (= ישראלי‎) (see Kittel, _SBOT Chronicles_, page 58). Compare also Cheyne _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, ‎ 404.――שרית‎] LXX ἐνίσχυσας, Aquila ἦρξας, Symmachus ἤρξω, Vulgate _fortis fuisti_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‎ רַב אַתּ‎.――=31.= פניאל‎] LXX Εἶδος θεοῦ, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Symmachus, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå read פנואל‎ as verse ³². The formal difference arises from the old case-endings of genitive and nominative (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 _o_). Strabo (XVI. ii. 16, 18) mentions a Phœnician promontory near Tripolis called Θεοῦ πρόσωπον: it is not improbable that in both cases the name is derived from a fancied resemblance to a face.――=33.= ‎ גיד הנשה‎] נָשֶׁה‎ is to be explained by Arabic _nasᵃⁿ_ (for _nasayᵘⁿ_), which means the _nervus ischiadicus_, or the thigh in which it is found (Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_ 921 f.). The question remains whether גיד‎ denotes here a nerve, an artery, a sinew, or a muscle; the first seems by far the most probable. So it seems to have been understood by Peshiṭtå ((‡ Syriac phrase) = tetanus-nerve), and by LXX and Vulgate, which appear to have connected נשה‎ with the verb for ‘forget’ (Græcus-Venetus, τὸ νεῦρον τὸ ἐπιλελησμένον!). The modern Jewish restriction applies, according to Delitzsch, to the “Spannader, d. h. die innere Ader des sogen. Hinterviertels mit Einschluss der äusseren und der Verästelungen beider.”

* * * * *