CHAPTER XXXIII.
_The Meeting of the Brothers: Jacob’s March to Shechem_ (Jehovist, Priestly-Code).
The dreaded meeting at last takes place; the brothers are reconciled, and part in friendship; Esau returning to Seir, while Jacob moves on by slow stages first to Succoth and then to Shechem.――It is difficult to characterise the spirit in which the main incident is conceived. Was Esau’s purpose friendly from the first, or was he turned from thoughts of vengeance by Jacob’s submissive and flattering demeanour? Does the writer regard the reconciliation as equally honourable to both parties, or does he only admire the skill and knowledge of human nature with which Jacob tames his brother’s ferocity? The truth probably lies between two extremes. That Esau’s intention was hostile, and that Jacob gained a diplomatic victory over him, cannot reasonably be doubted. On the other hand, the narrator must be acquitted of a desire to humiliate Esau. If he was vanquished by generosity, the noblest qualities of manhood were released in him; and he displays a chivalrous magnanimity which no appreciative audience could ever have held in contempt. So far as any national feeling is reflected, it is one of genuine respect and goodwill towards the Edomites.
_Sources._――Verses ¹⁻¹⁷ are rightly assigned in the main to Yahwist, in spite of the fact that the only divine name which occurs is אלהים, in ⁵ᵇᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹. In these verses we must recognise the hand of Elohist (compare also ⁵ᵇ with 48⁹, and ¹⁰ᵇ with 32²¹); and, for all that appears, Elohist’s influence may extend further. The chief indications, however, both material and linguistic, point to Yahwist as the leading source: the 400 men (32⁷), the ‘camp’ in verse ⁸ (32⁸), and the expressions: שׁפחות, ¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁶; רוץ לקראת, ⁴; מצא חן, ⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁵; כי־על־כן, ¹⁰. The documents are so deftly interwoven that it is scarcely possible to detect a flaw in the continuity of the narrative.――¹⁸⁻²⁰ are probably from Elohist, except ¹⁸ᵃ{β}, which is taken from Priestly-Code (see on the verse below).
=1‒7. The meeting.=――=1, 2.= Jacob’s fears revive at sight of the 400 men (32⁷). He marshals his children (not the whole company, as 32⁸ ᶠᐧ, though the motive is the same) under their mothers, and in the reverse order of his affection for them.――=3.= _passed on before them_] having previously been in the rear.――He approaches his brother with the reverence befitting a sovereign; the sevenfold prostration is a favourite formula of homage in the Tel Amarna tablets: “At the feet of my Lord, my Sun, I fall down seven and seven times” (38 ff. _passim_). It does not follow, however, that Jacob acknowledged himself Esau’s vassal (Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_, 12; Cheyne _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 405); compare 1 Samuel 20⁴¹.――=4.= _fell on his neck_] 45¹⁴ 46²⁹ (Yahwist); Luke 15²⁰.――=5‒7.= An interesting picture: the mothers with their little ones come forward in groups to pay their respects to the grim-visaged warrior, whose name had caused such terror in the camp.
* * * * *
=2.= אחרנים ... אחרנים] LXX ὀπίσω ... ἐσχάτους Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). Read accordingly אחריהם for the first א׳.――=4.= וׄיׄשׄקׄהׄוׄ] The _puncta extraordinaria_ mark some error in the text. Dillmann observes that elsewhere (45¹⁴ 46²⁹) ‘fell on his neck’ is immediately followed by ‘wept.’ The word should probably be inserted (with LXX) after ויחבקהו (so 29¹³; compare 48¹⁰).――ויבכו] The singular would be better, unless we add with LXX שְׁנֵיהֶם. ויחבקהו וישקהו ∥ ויפל על צוארו ויבך seem to be variants; of which one or other will be due to Elohist.――=5.= הנן] with double accusative, literally ‘has been gracious to me (with) them’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 ff.) = ‘has graciously given’ (so verse ¹¹); compare Judges 21²², Psalms 119²⁹.――=7.= נִגַּשׁ] Niphal for the previous Qal. Point――נָגַשׁ?――יוסף ורחל] LXX transposes as verse ².
* * * * *
=8‒11. The present.=――=8.= Esau remembers another great caval cade――_camp_――which he had met. The ‘present’ of 32¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ (Elohist) cannot be referred to, for Esau must have been told repeatedly what _it_ was for (32¹⁸ ᶠᐧ). The word מַֽחֲנֶה points rather to the arrangement of 32⁸ ᶠᐧ (Yahwist). Gunkel somewhat ingeniously explains thus: Esau had met the first division of Jacob’s company; and Jacob, ashamed to avow his original motive, by a happy inspiration now offers ‘this whole camp’ as a present to his brother.――=9.= Esau at first refuses, but, =10, 11=, Jacob insists on his accepting the gift.――_as one sees the face of God_] with the feelings of joy and reverence with which one engages in the worship of God. For the flattering comparison of a superior to the Deity, compare 1 Samuel 29⁹, 2 Samuel 14¹⁷ 19²⁸. It is possible that the phrase here contains a reminiscence of the meaning of Pĕnî’el in 32³¹ (Wellhausen, Dillmann, al.), the common idea being that “at Peniel the unfriendly God is found to be friendly” (Dillmann). The resemblance suggests a different form of the legend, in which the deity who wrestled with Jacob was Esau――the Usōus of Phœnician mythology (see on 25²⁵; compare _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 278).
* * * * *
=10.= כי־על־כן] see on 18⁵. This and the preceding מצאתי חן mark the verse as Yahwist’s, in spite of the appellative use of אלהים.――=11a= is a doublet of ¹⁰ᵃ, and may be assigned to Elohist.――ברכה] ‘blessing,’ hence the gift which is meant to procure a blessing: 1 Samuel 25²⁷ 30²⁶, 2 Kings 18³¹.――הֻבָאת] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 74 _g_; but _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå read better הֵבֵאתִי.
* * * * *
=12‒17. The parting.=――=12.= Esau, assuming that they are no more to be separated, proposes to march in front with his troop.――=13.= But Jacob has other objects in view, and invents a pretext for getting rid of his brother’s company.――עָלוֹת עָלַי] literally _are giving suck upon me_: _i.e._ their condition imposes anxiety upon me.――=14.= _I will proceed by stages_ (? _v.i._), _gently, according to the pace of the cattle before me_].――_till I come ... to Sē‛îr_] It is, of course, implied that he is to follow in Esau’s track; and the mention of Seir as a possible goal of Jacob’s journey causes difficulty. Meyer (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 275 f.) advances the attractive theory that in Yahwist Jacob does not cross the Jordan at all, but goes round by Seir and the South of the Dead Sea to Hebron. The question has an important bearing on the criticism of chapter 34.――=15‒17.= The offer of an armed escort having been courteously declined, Jacob proceeds but a short distance, and takes up his quarters at _Sukkôth_ (_v.i._). The name is derived from the _booths_, or temporary shelters for cattle, which he erects there.――_built himself a house_] showing that he contemplated a lengthy sojourn.
Here Esau disappears from the histories of Yahwist and Elohist. We have already remarked on the change of tone in this last episode, as compared with the earlier Jacob-Esau stories of chapters 25, 27. Esau is no longer the rude natural man, the easy victim of his brother’s cunning, but a noble and princely character, whose bearing is evidently meant to inspire admiration. Jacob, too, is presented in a more favourable light: if he is still shrewd and calculating, and not perfectly truthful, he does not sink to the knavery of his earlier dealings with Esau and Laban, but exhibits the typical virtues of the patriarchal ideal. The contrast betrays a difference of spirit and origin in the two groups of legends. It is conceivable that the second group came from sanctuaries frequented by Israelites and Edomites in common (so Holzinger 212); but it is also possible that the two sets reflect the relations of Israel and Edom at different periods of history. It is quite obvious that chapters 25 and 27 took shape after the decay of the Edomite empire, when the ascendancy of Israel over the older people was assured. If there be any ethnological basis to 32, 33, it must belong to an earlier period. Steuernagel (_Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_ 105) suggests as a parallel Numbers 20¹⁴⁻²¹, where the Edomites resist the passage of Israel through their territory. Meyer (387¹) is disposed to find a recollection of a time when Edom had a powerful empire extending far north on the East of the Jordan, where they may have rendered assistance to Israel in the Midianite war (_ib._ 382), though they were unable ultimately to maintain their position. If there be any truth in either of these speculations (which must remain extremely doubtful), it is evident that chronologically 32 f. precede 25, 27; and the attempt to interpret the series (as a whole) ethnographically must be abandoned.
* * * * *
=13.= עלות] √ עוּל, of which only the participle is in use (1 Samuel 6⁷ᐧ ¹⁰, Isaiah 40¹¹, Psalms 78⁷¹†).――ודפקום] better with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå וּדְפַקְתִּים. On the syntax see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 159 _q_.――=14.= אתנהלה וגו׳] LXX ἐνισχύσω ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ κατὰ σχολὴν τῆς πορεύσεως. Why Cheyne (405 f.) finds it necessary to resolve the text into a series of geographical glosses is not apparent. התנהל, Hithpael is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, but is a natural extension of the Piel ‘guide [to a watering-place?],’ Isaiah 40¹¹ 49¹⁰. אַט in the sense of ‘gentleness’ (2 Samuel 18⁵, 1 Kings 21²⁷, Isaiah 8⁶, Job 15¹¹), and רֶגֶל in the sense of ‘pace’ are unexceptionable: the לְ of _norm_ with both words (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 516 b). For מלאכה in the sense of ‘property,’ we have examples in Exodus 22⁷ᐧ ¹⁰, 1 Samuel 15⁹.――=15.= אציגה] literally ‘let me set.’ The sense suggested by the context, ‘leave behind,’ is supported by Exodus 10²⁴ (Hophal).――למה וגו׳] The Hebrew is peculiar. The obvious rendering would be, ‘Why should I find favour, etc.?’; but as that is hardly possible, we must translate ‘Why so? May I find, etc.’――a very abrupt transition. We should at least expect אמצא נא.――=17.= ויעקב] The precedence of subject indicates contrast, and shows that the verse continues ¹⁶ (Yahwist).――נסע] see on 11².――סֻכֹּת was East of the Jordan, but nearer to it than Peniel (Joshua 13²⁷, Judges 8⁴ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁸). The site is unknown (see Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 585; Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 206, 260; Driver _The Expository Times_, xiii. 458 a, _n_. 1). The modern _Ain es-Sāḳūṭ_ (9 miles South of Beisan) is excluded on phonetic grounds, and is besides on the wrong side of the Jordan.
* * * * *
=18‒20. Jacob at Shechem.=――=18.= The crossing of the Jordan is not recorded; it is commonly supposed to have taken place at the ford _ed-Dāmiyeh_, a little South of the Jabboḳ, on the road from es-Salṭ to Shechem.――_in safety_ (שָׁלֵם)] after his escape from Esau, Elohist not having recorded the lengthened stay at Succoth. On the rendering of שלם as a proper name, _v.i._――_encamped in front of the city_] in the vale to the East of it, where Jacob’s well is still shown (John 4⁶ᐧ ¹²).――=19.= The purchase of the ground is referred to in Joshua 24³² in the account of Joseph’s burial. It is significant that Israel’s claim to the grave of Joseph is based on purchase, just as its right to that of Abraham (chapter 23).――The _Bnê Ḥămôr_ were the dominant clan in Shechem (chapter 34, Judges 9²⁸).――_a hundred ḳĕsîṭāhs_] an unknown sum (_v.i._).――=20.= _he set up there an altar_] or more probably (since הִצִּיב is never used of an altar) _a maẓẓebāh_.――_called it ’Ēl, God of Israel_] the stone being identified with the deity; compare 28²² 35⁷, Exodus 17¹⁵, Judges 6²⁴. For heathen parallels, see Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 295.
Israel is here the name of the nation: compare Joshua 8³⁰, where Joshua builds an altar on Ebal (East of Shechem) to Yahwe, God of Israel. The stone and its name are undoubtedly historical, and go back to an early time when Shechem (or Ebal?) was the sacred centre of the confederacy of Israelitish tribes (compare 1 Kings 12¹). We cannot therefore conclude with Dillmann that the verse refers back to 32²⁹, and comes from the same document.
* * * * *
=18.= עיר שכם [_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ שלום] שלם] The rendering given above is pronounced by Wellhausen to be impossible, no doubt on the ground that שלם, meaning properly ‘whole’ (Deuteronomy 27⁶), is nowhere else used in the sense ‘safe and sound’ of a person. Still, in view of שלום (compare 28²¹ 43²⁷), and וישלם in Job 9⁴, it may be reasonably supposed that it had that sense. LXX, _Jubilees_, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå take שלם as a proper noun; a view which though it derives some plausibility from the fact that there is still a village _Salim_ about 4 miles East of Nābulus (Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, ii. 275, 279), implies a sense not consonant with usage; there being no case of a village described as a ‘city’ _of_ the neighbouring town (Delitzsch). Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 316¹) emends שְׁכֵם: ‘Shechem the city of (the man) Shechem.’ Procksch accepts the emendation, but regards the words as a conflation of variants from two sources (page 34). LXX distinguishes the name of the city (Σικίμων, see on 12⁶) from that of the man (Συχεμ, verse ¹⁹ 34² ᶠᶠᐧ).――ויחן] as 26¹⁷.――=19.= קשיטה (Joshua 24³², Job 42¹¹†)] apparently a coin or weight; but the etymology is obscure. LXX, Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ render ‘lamb’; and it was thought that light had been thrown on this traditional explanation by the Aramaic Assuan papyri, where כבש (lamb) is used of a coin (of the value of 10 shekels?) (so Sayce-Cowley, _Aramaic papyri discovered at Assouan_, page 23). But Lidzbarski (_Deutsche Lzg._, 1906, 3210 ff.) holds that the word there should be read כרש (found on a Persian weight: _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, 1888, 464 ff.).――=20.= Read מצבה for מזבח, and consequently לָהּ for לו (Wellhausen al.).――ויקרא וגו׳] LXX καὶ ἐπεκαλέσατο τὸν θεὸν Ἰσραήλ.――Except the clause אשר בא׳ כ׳ בבאו מפדן ארם in verse ¹⁸, which is evidently from Priestly-Code, the whole section ¹⁸⁻²⁰ may safely be assigned to Elohist.
* * * * *