CHAPTER XXXVI.
_Edomite Genealogies, etc._ (partly Priestly-Code).
The chapter consists of seven (or eight) sections: I. Esau’s wives and children, ¹⁻⁵; II. His migration to Mount Seir, ⁶⁻⁸; III. A list of Esau’s descendants, ⁹⁻¹⁴; IV. An enumeration of clans or clan-chiefs of Esau, ¹⁵⁻¹⁹; V. Two Ḥorite lists: a genealogy, ²⁰⁻²⁸, and a list of clans, ²⁹ᐧ ³⁰; VI. The kings of Edom, ³¹⁻³⁹; VII. A second list of clans of Esau, ⁴⁰⁻⁴³.――The lists are repeated with variations in 1 Chronicles 1³⁵⁻⁵⁴.
The chapter evidently embodies authentic information regarding the history and ethnology of Edom. Whether the statistics were compiled by Israelite writers from oral tradition, or are the scanty remains of a native Edomite literature, it is naturally impossible to determine; the early development of political institutions in Edom makes the latter hypothesis at least credible (see Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 329, 383 f.).
_Analysis._――A section headed ואלה תלדות would, if homogeneous, be unhesitatingly ascribed to Priestly-Code; but the repetition of the formula (verse ⁹) throws doubt on its unity, and betrays the hand of a redactor. The phraseology of Priestly-Code is most apparent in II. and VII., but can be detected occasionally elsewhere (²ᵃᐧ ⁵ᵇᐧ ¹⁰ᵃᐧ ¹²ᵇᐧ ¹³ᵇᐧ ³⁰ᵇ: _i.e._ in I., III., and V.). The crucial difficulty is the contradiction as to Esau’s wives between I. and 26³⁴ 28⁹ (see on verses ¹⁻⁵). On this point I., III., and IV. hang together; and if these sections are excluded, there remains nothing that can be plausibly assigned to Priestly-Code except II. and VII. (so Wellhausen, Kuenen, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). The argument for reducing Priestly-Code’s share in the chapter to this minimum rests, however, on the assumption that the Code is the compilation of a single writer, who cannot be supposed to lapse into self-contradiction. The facts seem to point to a redactional process and a divergence of tradition within the Priestly school; and I am inclined to think that in I. (?), III., and IV. we have excerpts from the book of Tôledôth incorporated in Priestly-Code, whose main narrative will have included 26³⁴ 28⁹, and in which 35²⁹ 36⁶⁻⁸ 37¹ may have read continuously. VII. must then be rejected as a late compilation in which the style of the Tôledôth is successfully imitated (so Meyer).――As regards V. and VI. little can be said. The former might well have been part of the Tôledôth; the latter is unique in Genesis, and there are no positive reasons for assigning it to Yahwist (so most) or any other source.
=1‒5. Esau’s wives and sons.=――The scheme here projected supplies the common framework of the two Edomite genealogies, ⁹⁻¹⁴ and ¹⁵⁻¹⁹, except that in the following sections the second and third wives exchange places. These marriages and births are said to have taken place _in the land of Canaan_, before the migration to Sē‛îr; but the fact that ’Oholibamah is a Ḥorite (see below), indicates an absorption of Ḥorite clans in Edom which would naturally have followed the settlement in Se‛ir.――Here we come on a difference of tradition regarding the names and parentage of Esau’s wives.
According to 26³⁴ 28⁹ (Priestly-Code), the three wives are (a) _Yĕhûdîth_ bath-Bĕ’ērî, the Hittite; (b) _Bāsĕmath_ bath-’Ēlôn, the Ḥittite (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXXᴬ, Peshiṭtå Ḥivvite); (c) _Maḥălath_ bath-Yišmā‛ēl, sister of Nĕbayôth. Here they are (a) _‛Ādā_ bath-’Elôn, the Ḥittite; (b) _’Ohŏlîbāmāh_ bath-‛Ănāh, the Ḥorite; (c) _Bāsĕmath_ bath-Yišmā‛ēl, sister of Nĕbāyôth. The confusion is too great to be accounted for naturally by textual corruption, though that may have played a part. We can only conjecture vaguely that verses ⁹⁻¹⁴ represent a different tradition from 26³⁴ 28⁹; and that in ²⁻⁵ᵃ a clumsy and half-hearted attempt has been made to establish some points of contact between them. If we accept the החוי of _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, etc., in 26³⁴, the two traditions agree in the main ethnological point, that the Edomite people was composed of Ḥittite (? Canaanite), Ḥivvite (? Ḥorite), and Ishmaelite elements.
_On the Names._――(a) עדה is the name of one of Lamech’s wives: see on 4¹⁹.――(b) אהליבמה (Ὀλιβεμά, Ἐλιβεμά, etc.). Somewhat similar compounds with אהל are found in Phœnician (אהלבעל, אהלמלך) and Sabbatian (אהלעֹתתר, אהלאל) as well as in Hebrew (אהליאב, Exodus 31⁶; אהליבה, Ezekiel 23⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ) (see Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper Names_, 246¹). The first component is presumably Arabic and Sabbatian _’ahl_, ‘family’; the second ought by analogy to be a divine name, though none such is known. It is philologically probable that names of this type were originally clan-names; and אה׳ is taken from the old list of Ḥorite clans (verse ²⁵, compare ⁴¹).――(c) בשמת (for which _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ always reads מחלת, 28⁹), if from √ בשם, ‘smell sweetly,’ is likely to have been a favourite woman’s name, but recurs only 1 Kings 4¹⁵ of a daughter of Solomon. On ענה and צבעון, see on verse ²⁰: the obvious connexion with that verse makes it practically certain that חִוִּי in verse ² is a mistake for חֹרִי.――On the sons, see below.――It is pointed out by Holzinger (187) that both in ⁹⁻¹⁴ and ¹⁵⁻¹⁹ the ’Oholibamah branch holds a somewhat exceptional position. This may mean that it represents hybrid clans, whereas the other two are of pure Edomite stock: that it is a later insertion in the lists ♦is less likely.
♦ Printing error fixed.
* * * * *
=1.= הוא אדום] probably a gloss (compare verse ⁸ᐧ ¹⁹); but the persistency with which the equivalence is asserted is itself instructive. Esau and Edom are really distinct names (see page 359 f.), and Priestly-Code has no legendary identification of them, such as 25³⁰. Hence the connexion is established in two ways: Esau = Edom (¹ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁹); and Esau the father of Edom (⁹ᐧ ⁴³).――=2.= עשו לקח] ‘had taken,’ as already recorded (26³⁴ 28⁹).――בת צבעון] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå בן־צ׳; deleted by Holzinger and Gunkel as a gloss. But in clan names gender is not always carefully distinguished; and the writer probably took ענה as feminine. In verse ²⁵ ’Oholibamah is herself one of the _sons_ of ‛Anah.――החוי] Read הַחֹרִי, _v.s._――=5.= יעישׁ] Kethîb as verse ¹⁴, 1 Chronicles 7¹⁰; Qrê יְעוּשׁ, as verse ¹⁸, 1 Chronicles 1³⁵ 8³⁹ 23¹⁰ ᶠᐧ, 2 Chronicles 11¹⁹†.
* * * * *
=6‒8. Esau’s migration to Se‛ir.=――=6.= Compare 12⁵ (34²³).――_and his daughters_] None are mentioned in ²⁻⁵.――_to the land of Sĕ‛îr_] So we must read with Peshiṭtå.――=7.= The motive for the separation is the same as that which led to the parting of Abraham and Lot (13⁶ᵃ), implying that Esau had lived at Hebron after Jacob’s return; contrast Yahwist, 32⁴ 33 ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶.――=8.= _the mountain of Sē‛îr_] the mountainous country East of the Arabah, the southern part of which is now called _eš-Šera‛_ and the northern _Ǧebāl_ (Buhl, _Geschichte der Edomiter_ 28 ff.). The _land_ Se‛ir includes the whole Edomite territory as far West as Ḳadesh (Numbers 20¹⁶). See on 14⁶ 27³⁹ ᶠᐧ, and below on verse ²⁰.
* * * * *
=6.= אל־ארץ gives no sense, and to insert אַחֶרֶת (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Vulgate) is inadmissible without a change of text. _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX מארץ כנען is possible; but it is simplest to follow Peshiṭtå אל־ארץ שעי͏ר.――מפני] ‘on account of,’ as 6¹³ 27⁴ etc.
* * * * *
=9‒14. The genealogy of Esau.=――=9, 10.= For the double heading וא׳ תלדות followed by וא׳ שמות, compare 25¹² ᶠᐧ.――_Esau the father of Edom_] see footnote on verse ¹. It is strange that except in these glosses _Edom_ is never the eponymus of the nation, although it appears to have been the name of a god (עבד אדם, 2 Samuel 6¹⁰).――=11 ff.= The total number of the tribes, excluding the bastard _‛Amālēḳ_, is 12, as in the cases of Israel and Ishmael (25¹²⁻¹⁶). The sons of ’Oholibamah are, however, put on a level with the grandsons of the other two wives (so verse ¹⁸). The list may be tabulated thus:
(a) Adah. Ĕlîphaz. 1. Têmân. 2.’Ômār. 3. Ẓĕphô. 4. Ga‛tām. 5. Ḳĕnaz. [‛Amālēḳ] by [Timna‛].
(b) Basemath. Rĕ‘û’ēl. 6. Naḥath. 7. Zeraḥ. 8. Šammāh. 9. Mizzāh.
(c) ‛Oholibamah. 10. Yĕ’ûš. 11. Ya’lām. 12. Ḳōraḥ.
_The Names._――(a) אליפז] Known otherwise only as the name of the oldest and wisest of Job’s friends (Job 2¹¹ etc.), probably borrowed from this list.――(1) תימן (Θαιμάν)] Frequently mentioned as a district of Edom (Jeremiah 49⁷ᐧ ²⁰, Ezekiel 25¹³, Amos 1¹², Obadiah ⁹, Habakkuk 3³), famous for its wisdom, the home of Eliphaz (Job 2¹¹) and of the third king of Edom (verse ³⁴). A village bearing the Greek name, 15 Roman miles from Petra, is mentioned in _Onomastica Sacra_, 260; but the site is now lost.――(2) אומר (Ὠμάρ, Ὠμάν), (3) צפו (Σωφαρ, 1 Chronicles צפי), (4) געתם (Γοθομ, etc.) are quite unknown, unless Σωφαρ be the original of Job’s third friend.――(5) קנז] the eponym of the Ḳenizzites, the group to which Kaleb (the ‘dog’-tribe, settled in Ḥebron) and Othniel belonged (Numbers 32¹², Joshua 14⁶ᐧ ¹⁴ 15¹⁷, Judges 1¹³ 3⁹ᐧ ¹¹). The incorporation of these families in Judah is a typical example of the unstable political relations of the southern tribes between Israel and Edom, a fact abundantly illustrated from the lists before us.――The once powerful people of עמלק (see on 14⁷) is here described as descended from תמנע, a Ḥorite clan absorbed in Edom (verses ²²ᐧ ⁴⁰), of which nothing else is known. The reference may be to an offshoot of the old Amalekites who had found protection from the Edomites.――(b) רעואל (Ῥαγουήλ)] ‘Friend of God’ (?) is one of the names of Moses’ father-in-law (a Midianite) (Exodus 2¹⁸, Numbers 10²⁹), also that of a Gadite (Numbers 1¹⁴ 2¹⁴) and of a Benjamite (1 Chronicles 9⁸).――(6) נחת (Ναχοθ, Ναχομ)] compare 2 Chronicles 31¹³.――(7) זרח (Ζαρε)] (compare verse ³³). Also a clan of Judah (38³⁰); compare Numbers 26¹³ (Simeonite), 1 Chronicles 6⁶ᐧ ²⁶ (Levite).――(8) שמה (Σομε)] compare 1 Samuel 16⁹ (David’s brother), 2 Samuel 23¹¹ (one of his heroes); also שֶׂמַּי in Yeraḥmeel (1 Chronicles 2²⁸ᐧ ³²) and Kaleb (2⁴⁴ ᶠᐧ).――(9) מזה (Μοζε, Ὁμοζε, etc.)] only here. It is pointed out that the four names form a doggerel sentence: ‘descent and rising, there and here’ (Kautzsch-Socin _An._ 178); but three of them are sufficiently authenticated; and the fact does not prove them to be inventions of an idle fancy.――(10) יעישׁ (Ἰε[ο]υς, Ἰεουλ, etc.)] _v.i._ on verse ⁵. As an Israelite name, 1 Chronicles 7¹⁰ 8³⁹ (Benjamite), 23¹⁰ ᶠᐧ (Levite), 2 Chronicles 11¹⁹ (son of Rehoboam). The name is thought by some to be identical with that of an Arabian lion-god _Yaġūṯ_ (though LXX must have pronounced ﻋ not ﻏ), meaning ‘helper,’ whose antiquity is vouched for by inscriptions of Thamud (William Robertson Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 254; Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_² 19, 146; Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 168; Fischer, _ib._ lviii. 869; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 351 f.; on the other side, Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xlv. 595; Dillmann 384; Buhl, _Geschichte der Edomiter_ 48 f.).――(11) יעלם (Ἰεγλομ, etc.)] possibly an animal name from יָעֵל = ‘ibex’; but see Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper Names_, 90⁵; compare יָעֵל, Judges 4¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ 5²⁴, and יַעְלָה, Ezra 2⁵⁶.――(12) קרח (Κορε)] a son of Ḥebron, and therefore a Kalebite clan in 1 Chronicles 2⁴³. Meyer (352⁵) traces to this Edomite-Kalebite family the origin of the Ḳoraḥite singers and subordinate officials of the second Temple, who were afterwards admitted to the ranks of the Levites, and received an artificial genealogy (Exodus 6²¹ᐧ ²⁴, Numbers 26⁵⁸, 1 Chronicles 6 ⁷ᐧ ²² etc.).
=15‒19. The clan-chiefs of Edom.=――=15.= On the word אַלּוּף, _v.i._――Since the list is all but identical with verses ⁹⁻¹⁴, we have here a clear proof of the artificial character of the family trees used in Old Testament to set forth ethnological relations. It is not improbable that this is the original census of Edomite ‘thousands’ from which the genealogy of ⁹⁻¹⁴ was constructed.――=16.= _‛Amālēk_ is here placed on a level with the other branches (contrast verse ¹²).
* * * * *
=15.= אלוף] LXX ἡγεμὼν, Vulgate _dux_, whence English Version ‘duke.’ The word means properly ‘chiliarch,’ the chief of an אֶלֶף (= ‘thousand’ or ‘clan’): so Exodus 15¹⁵, Zechariah 12⁵ᐧ ⁶ 9⁷. Elsewhere it signifies ‘friend’; and since the sense ‘clan’ would be suitable in all the passages cited, it has been proposed to read in each case, as well as in this chapter, אָלֶף as the original text (William Robertson Smith _The Journal of Philology_ ix. 90; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 330). Practically it makes no difference; for in any case the ‘chiefs’ are but personifications of their clans.――=16.= אלוף קרח] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ omits, probably a gloss from verse ¹⁸.――=18.= בת――עשו] LXX omits.――=19.= הוא אדום] LXX οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἡγεμόνες αὐτῶν, υἱοὶ Ἐδωμ.
* * * * *
=20‒30. Ḥorite genealogies.=――=20.= _the inhabitants of the land_] (Exodus 23³¹, Numbers 32¹⁷, Judges 1³³); compare 14⁶, Deuteronomy 2¹². These autochthones are described geographically and ethnologically as sons of _Sē‛îr the Ḥorite_, i.e., a section of the Ḥorite population settled in Mount Se‛ir, Se‛ir being personified as the fictitious ancestor of the natives of the country.
The name חֹרִי is now generally regarded as a geographical designation, identical with the _Ḫaru_ of the Egyptian monuments (Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 137, 149 ff., 240; Jensen _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, x. 332 f., 346 f.; Schwally _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xviii. 126; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 330 f.), The older theory that the name is derived from חור and means ‘cave-dwellers,’ is not necessarily discredited by this identification. Even if the Ḥorites were a stratum of population that once covered the region from the Egyptian frontier to the neighbourhood of Damascus, there still seems no reason why they should not have been largely an old troglodyte race, from whom the country derived its name.
_The Classification._――According to ²⁰ ᶠᐧ ²⁹ ᶠᐧ there were seven main branches of the Ḥorites in Se‛ir, represented by Lôṭān, Šôbāl, Ẓib‛ôn, ‛Ănāh, Dîšôn, ’Ēẓer, and Rîšān (see below). Of these, however, ‛Anah and Dišon reappear as subdivisions of Ẓib‛on and ‛Anah respectively. The duplication has been explained by supposing that parts of these tribes had amalgamated with kindred branches, and thus came to figure both as sons and grandsons of the original ancestor (Dillmann, Gunkel, al.). It is more likely that ‛Anah and Dišon were at first subordinate septs of Ẓib‛on (so Meyer 341); that they came into the list of _’allûphîm_ (²⁹ ᶠᐧ) as heads of clan groups; and, finally, obtained a primary position amongst the ‘sons’ of Se‛ir. The relationship as thus reconstructed may be exhibited as follows:
(a) Lôṭān. (Timna‛). Ḥōrî. Hēmām.
(b) Šôbāl. ‛Alwān. Mānaḥat. ‛Ȇbāl. Šĕphô. ’Ônām.
(c) Ẓib‛ôn. ’Ayyāh. ‛Ănāh. Dîšôn (Ohŏlîbāmāh). Ḥemdān. ’Ešbān. Yithrān. Kĕrān.
(d) ’Ēẓer. Bilhān. Za‛ăvān [Zû‛ān]. [Ya]‛ăkān.
(e) Rîšān. ‛Ûẓ. ’Ărān.
_The Names._――(a) לוטן is plausibly connected with לוֹט (also a cave-dweller, 19³⁰), who may have been originally an ancestral deity worshipped in these regions.――Philologically it is interesting to observe the frequency of the endings _-ān_, _-ōn_ in this list, pointing to a primitive _nunation_, as ♦contrasted with sporadic cases of _mimation_ in the Edomite names.――חרי (verse ²²)] The occurrence of the national name (verse ²⁰) as a subdivision of itself is surprising. Meyer (339) suspects confusion with another genealogy in which Lôṭan figured as ancestor of the whole Ḥorite race.――הימם (1 Chronicles הוֹמָם, LXX Αἱμάν)] compare הֵימָן, 1 Kings 5¹¹, 1 Chronicles 2⁶, Psalms 89¹.――תמנע, strangely introduced as the ‘sister’ of Lôṭan, is the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (verse ¹²): probably interpolated in both places.――(b) שׁובל (Σωβάλ)] also a Kalebite tribe settled in Ḳiryath-Ye‛arim, incorporated in Judah (1 Chronicles 2⁵⁰ᐧ ⁵² 4¹ ᶠᐧ). The name was connected by William Robertson Smith with Arabic _šibl_, ‘young lion.’ Arabic ش ought to be שׂ in Hebrew; but the objection is perhaps not final in a borrowed name (but see Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 168; Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper Names_, 109).――עלון (1 Chronicles עלין, LXX Γωλών, Γωλάμ, etc.)] compare עלוה, verse ⁴⁰; otherwise unknown.――מנחת] It cannot be accidental that in 1 Chronicles 2⁵² the ‘half of Manaḥat’ is again represented as descended from Šôbāl. These Manaḥathites are further connected with צָרְעָה (verse ⁵³ ᶠᐧ), a notice which Wellhausen (Bleek⁴, 197) has ingeniously combined with Judges 13², where מָנוֹחַ, the father of Samson, is a native of Ẓor‛ah. It seems to follow, not only that מנוח is originally the eponymus of מנחת, but that this Ḥorite clan lived in early times in Ẓor‛ah and was included in the mixed tribe of Dan (Meyer 340).――עיבל (Γαιβηλ)] Meyer identifies with the well-known mountain East of Shechem, originally a Ḥorite settlement (?).――שׁפו (1 Chronicles שׁפי, LXX Σωφάρ, Σωφάν, Σωφ, etc.)] unknown.――אונם (Ὠμαν, Ὠναν)] A Yeraḥmeelite name, 1 Chronicles 2²⁶ᐧ ²⁸. The name of Judah’s son אונן (Genesis 38⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ) may also be compared.――(c) צבעון (Σεβεγών)] Possibly a hyæna-tribe (_ḍabu‛_, (‡ Syriac word), New Hebrew, צבוע) (Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 254; Gray, 95).――איה] ‘falcon’ (Leviticus 11¹⁴, Deuteronomy 14¹³, Job 28⁷); compare the personal name, 2 Samuel 3⁷ 21⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ.――ענה] unknown.――דישון, דישן (Δησων, Δαισων)] = ‘mountain-goat’ (Deuteronomy 14⁵).――חמדן (Chronicles חַמְרָן) and אשבן are not known.――יתרן] Derived from a widely diffused personal name (Hebrew, Babylonian, Sabbatian, Nabatean), best known in Old Testament as that of Moses’s father-in-law (Exodus 3¹ etc.); also a son of Gideon (Judges 8²⁰), and the Ishmaelite father of Amasa (2 Samuel 17²⁵ etc.).――כרן (Χαρράν)] only here.――(d) אצר] unknown.――בלהן] can scarcely be dissociated from Rachel’s handmaid בלהה, whose Ḥorite origin would be somewhat more intelligible if Ḥorite clans were amalgamated in one of her subdivisions (Dan; see on _Manaḥat_ above).――זעון (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ זוען, LXX Ζουκάμ,Ζαυάν = זוּעָן)] unknown.――עקן (better יעקן, as 1 Chronicles 1⁴²)] The tribe is doubtless to be identified with the בְּנֵי יַֽעֲקָן mentioned in Numbers 33³¹ ᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 10⁶ as the owners of some wells South of Ḳadesh.――(e) דישן (LXX Ρ[ε]ισων)] Read רִישֹׁן or רִישָׁן, to avoid concurrence with the דישן of verse ²⁵ ᶠᐧ.――עוץ (Ὤς)] see on 10²³ 22²¹.――ארן] Perhaps connected with the Yeraḥmeelite אֹרֶן, 1 Chronicles 2²⁵. The reading ארם (Hebew MSS, LXX, Vulgate, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ) is probably a mistake caused by the proximity of עוץ.
♦ “constrasted” replaced with “contrasted”
* * * * *
=20.= ישבי] LXX singular.――=24b.= הַיֵּמִם] The word is utterly obscure. LXX, Theodotion τὸν Ἰαμείν; Aquila τοὺς ἠμίν [ἰμειμ] (see Field); _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ האימים (Deuteronomy 2¹⁰: so Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ גבריא); Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ‘wild-asses’ and ‘mules’; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) (הַמַּיִם ?); Vulgate _aquæ callidæ_. If Vulgate be right (and it is certainly the most plausible conjecture for sense), ²⁴ᵇ is a fragment of an old well-legend, claiming the proprietorship of these hot springs for the tribe of ‛Anah (compare Judges 1¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ). See, further, Haupt, in Ball, _The Sacred Books of the Old Testament_, 118.――=30b= is in the style of Priestly-Code.――שעיר] LXX Ἐδώμ.
* * * * *
=31‒39. The kings of Edom.=――=31.= _before there reigned a king of the Israelites_ (_v.i._)] This may mean either before the institution of the monarchy in Israel, or before any Israelitish sovereign ruled over Edom. The natural _terminus ad quem_ is, of course, the overthrow of Edomite independence by David (page 437 below).――The document bears every mark of authenticity, and may be presumed to give a complete list of Edomite kings. Unfortunately the chronology is wanting. An average reign of 20 years for the eight kings (Meyer) is perhaps a reasonable allowance in early unsettled times; and the foundation of the Edomite monarchy may be dated approximately from 150 to 200 years before the time of David.――The monarchy was obviously not hereditary, none of the kings being the son of his predecessor; that it was elective (Tuch, Knobel, Dillmann, Delitzsch, Driver, al.) is more than we have a right to assume. Frazer (_Adonis Attis Osiris: Studies in the history of Oriental Religion_, 11³) finds here an illustration of his theory of female succession, the crown passing to men of other families who married the hereditary princesses; but verse ³⁹ is fatal to this view. The fact that the kings reigned in different cities supports an opinion (Winckler, _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, i. 192; Cheyne 429) that they were analogous to the Hebrew Judges, _i.e._ local chiefs who held supreme power during their life, but were unable to establish a dynasty. A beginning of the recognition of the hereditary principle may be traced in the story of Hadad ‘of the seed royal’ (1 Kings 11¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ), who is regarded as heir-presumptive to the throne (Meyer).
=32.= בלע בן־בעור (LXX Βάλακ υἱὸς τοῦ Βεώρ)] The name of the first king bears a striking resemblance to בלעם בן־בעור, the soothsayer whom the king of Moab hired to curse Israel (Numbers 22 ff.), and who afterwards died fighting for Midian (Numbers 31⁸ [Priestly-Code]). The identity of the two personages is recognised by (amongst others) Knobel-Dillmann, Nöldeke (_Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_ 87), Hommel (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 153, 222¹), Sayce (_The Early History of the Hebrews_, 224, 229), Cheyne, al., though the legend which places his home at Pethor on the Euphrates (Elohist) is hardly consistent with this notice.――דנהבה (Δενναβα), his city, is not known; according to Jerome, _Onomastica Sacra_, page 115¹, it is _Dannaia_, between Ar Moab and the Arnon, or _Dannaba_ near Heshbon (compare Eusebius _Onomastica Sacra_, 114³¹, [page 249]); Hommel and Sayce suggest Dunip, somewhere in North Syria.――=33.= יובב (Ἰω[α]βάβ, Ἰώβ, etc.)] identified by LXX (Job 42¹⁸) with the patriarch Job.――בצרה] A chief city of Edom (Isaiah 34⁶ 63¹, Jeremiah 48²⁴ 49¹³ᐧ ²², Amos 1¹²), now _el-Buṣaireh_, 20 miles South-east of the Dead Sea.――=34.= חשׁם (Ἁσόμ, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) = חָשׁוּם)].――_the land of the Temanite_] see on verse ¹¹.――=35.= הדד bears the well-known name of an Aramæan deity, whose worship must have prevailed widely in Edom (see verse ³⁹, 1 Kings 11 ¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ).――_who smote Midian, etc._] The solitary historical notice in the list. It is a tempting suggestion of Ewald (_History of Israel_, ii. 336), that the battle was an incident of the great Midianite raid under which Israel suffered so severely, so that this king was contemporary with Gideon (compare Meyer, 381 f.).――עוית] LXX Γεθθαίμ = עִתַּיִם, on which reading Marquart (_Fundamente israelitischer und jüdischer Geschichte_, 11) bases an ingenious explanation of the mysterious name כושן רשעתים in Judges 3⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ (חוּשָׁם רֹאשׁ עִתַּיִם,――a confusion of the third and fourth kings in our list).――=36.= שמלה] LXX שלמה, perhaps the same name as Solomon.――משרקה] A place of this name (Μασρικά) is mentioned in _Onomastica Sacra_, 137¹⁰ (page 277), in Gebalene, the northern part of Mount Seir.――=37.= שאול] The name of the first king of Israel.――רחבות הנהר] so called to distinguish it from other places of the same name (compare 26²²), is probably the Ῥοωβώθ of _Onomastica Sacra_, 145¹⁵ (page 286), a military post in Gebalene. The river is, therefore, not the Euphrates (although a place _Rahaba_ has been discovered on its West side), but some perennial stream in the North of Edom, defined by the city on its banks (compare 2 Kings 5¹²).――=38.= בעל חנן] ‘Baal is gracious.’ The name of the seventh king is the only existing trace of Baal-worship in Edom.――עכבור] ‘jerboa’ (Arabic _‛akbar_): see William Robertson Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 235¹. Here it is probably a clan-name, but appears as personal in Old Testament (2 Kings 22¹⁴, Jeremiah 26²² 36¹²).――=39.= הדר] To be read ה͏͏דד (Hebrew MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå, LXX partly, and 1 Chronicles 1⁵⁰).――For פעו (1 Chronicles פעי), LXX has Φόγωρ, _i.e._ פְּעוֹר, the mountain in Moab (Numbers 23²⁸ etc.).――Why the wife of Hadad II. is named we cannot tell. מהיטבאל (‘God does good’) is a man’s name in Nehemiah 6¹⁰.――For בת מי זהב it would be better to read בן מ׳ (LXX, Peshiṭtå). But מי זהב (gold-water) is more likely to be the name of a place than of a person; hence Marquart’s emendation מן מ׳ (_l.c._ 10) is very plausible, as is his identification of מי זהב with the miswritten די זהב of Deuteronomy 1¹.
* * * * *
=31.= לבני ישראל] Expression of genitive by ל to prevent determination of the governing noun by the following determinate genitive (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 129 _c_), ‘a king belonging to the Israelites.’ The second interpretation given above is the only natural one. LXXᴬ ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ, LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ ἐν Ἰσραήλ,――the latter too readily approved by Ball.
* * * * *
=40‒43. The chiefs of Esau.=――This second list of _’Allûphîm_ presents more features of Priestly-Code’s style than any other section of the chapter, but is of doubtful antiquarian value. Of the eleven names, more than one half are found in the preceding lists (¹⁰⁻³⁹); the new names, so far as they can be explained, are geographical. It is possible that the document preserves a statistical survey of administrative districts of Edom subsequent to the overthrow of its independence (Ewald, Dillmann, Driver, al.); but there is no evidence that this is the case.
=40.= עלוה = עלון, verse ²³.――יתת (Ἱεθέρ, etc.)] probably יֶתֶר = יתרן, verse ²⁶.――=41.= אלה is supposed to be the seaport אילת; see on 14⁶.――פינן (Φινες, Φ[ε]ινων) = פּוּנֹן, Numbers 33⁴² ᶠᐧ, the Φαινών (_Fenon_) of _Onomastica Sacra_, 123⁹ (page 299; compare page 123), a village between Petra and Zoar, where were copper mines worked by convicts. The name (see Seetzen, iii. 17), and the ruins of the mines have been discovered at _Fenān_, 6 or 7 miles North-north-west of Šobek (Meyer, 353 f.).――=42.= מבצר] According to _Onomastica Sacra_, 137¹¹ (page 277), Μαβσαρά was a very large village in Gebalene, subject to Petra.――=43.= מגדיאל and עירם are unknown. For the latter, LXX has Ζαφωεί[ν] = צפו, verse ¹¹. It is probable that in the original text both names were contained, as in an anonymous chronicle edited by Lagarde (_Septuagint Studies_ ii.; see Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_ 12), making the number up to twelve.
It remains to state briefly the more important historical results yielded by study of these Edomite lists. (1) At the earliest period of which we have any knowledge, the country of Se‛ir was peopled by a supposed aboriginal race called Ḥorites. Though remnants of this population survived only in Se‛ir, there are a few traces of its former existence in Palestine; and it is possible that it had once been coextensive with the wide region known to the Egyptians as _Ḥaru_ (page 433).――(2) Within historic times the country was occupied by a body of nomads closely akin to the southern tribes of Judah, who amalgamated with the Ḥorites and formed the nation of Edom.――(3) The date of this invasion cannot be determined. Se‛irites and Edomites appear almost contemporaneously in Egyptian documents, the former under Ramses III. as a nomadic people whom the king attacked and plundered; and the latter about 50 years earlier under Merneptah, as a band of Bedouin who were granted admission to the pastures of Wādī Ṭumīlāt within the Egyptian frontier (_Papyrus Harris_ and _Anastasi_: see Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 135 f.; compare Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 337 f.). Since both are described as Bedouin, it would seem that the Edomites were still an unsettled people at the beginning of the 12th century. The land of _Šêri_, however, is mentioned in the Tel-Amarna Tablets (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 201) more than two centuries earlier.――(4) The list of kings shows that Edom attained a political organisation much sooner than Israel: hence in the legends Esau is the elder brother of Jacob. The interval between Ramses III. and David is sufficient for a line of eight kings; but the institution of the monarchy must have followed within a few decades the expedition of Ramses referred to above. It is probable (though not certain) that the last king Hadad II. was the one subdued by David, and that the Hadad who fled to Egypt and afterwards returned to trouble Solomon (1 Kings 11¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ) was of his family.――(5) The genealogies furnish evidence of the consanguinity of Edomite and Judæan tribes. In several instances we have found the same name amongst the descendants of Esau or Se‛ir and amongst those of Judah (see the notes _passim_). This might be explained by assuming that a clan had been split up, one part adhering to Edom, and another attaching itself to Judah; but a consideration of the actual circumstances suggests a more comprehensive theory. The consolidation of the tribe of Judah was a process of political segregation: the desert tribes that had pushed their way northwards towards the Judæan highlands, were welded together by the strong hand of the Davidic monarchy, and were reckoned as constituents of the dominant southern tribe. Thus it would happen that a Ḥorite or Edomite clan which had belonged to the empire of Edom was drawn into Judah, and had to find a place in the artificial genealogies which expressed the political unity resulting from the incorporation of diverse ethnological groups in the tribal system. If Meyer be right in holding that the genealogies of the Chronicler reflect the conditions of the late post-Exilic age, when a wholesale conversion of Kalebite and Yeraḥmeelite families to Judaism had taken place (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 300 f.; _Die Entstehung des Judenthums_ 114 ff., 130 ff.), a comparison with Genesis 36 yields a striking testimony to the persistency of the minor clan-groups of the early Ḥorites through all vicissitudes of political and religious condition.
* * * * *
=40.= למקמתם] Peshiṭtå לתלדותם.――בשמתם] LXX בארצתם ובגויהם (10²⁰ᐧ ³¹).――=43.= למשבתם] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ למשפחותם (verse ⁴⁰).――הוא עשו] see on verse ¹.
* * * * *
JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN.
CHAPTERS XXXVII‒L.
The last division of the Book of Genesis is occupied almost entirely with the history of Joseph,――at once the most artistic and the most fascinating of Old Testament biographies. Its connexion is twice interrupted: (a) by the story of Judah and Tamar (chapter 38); and (b) by the so-called Blessing of Jacob (49¹⁻²⁸): see the introductory notes on these chapters. Everywhere else the narrative follows the thread of Joseph’s fortunes; the plan and contents being as follows:
I. Chapters 37. 39‒41. Joseph’s solitary career in Egypt:――1. Joseph betrayed by his brethren and carried down to Egypt (37). 2. How he maintained his virtue against the solicitation of his master’s wife, and was thrown into prison (39). 3. His skill in interpreting dreams discovered (40). 4. His interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams, and his consequent elevation to the highest dignity in Egypt (41).
II. Chapters 42‒45. The reunion of Joseph and his brethren:――5. The first meeting of the brethren with Joseph in Egypt (42). 6. The second meeting (43. 44). 7. Joseph reveals himself to his brethren (45).
III. Chapters 46‒50. The settlement of the united family in Egypt:――8. Jacob’s journey to Egypt and settlement in Goshen (46. 47¹⁻¹²). 9. Joseph’s agrarian policy (47¹³⁻²⁸). 10. Joseph at his father’s death-bed (47²⁹⁻³¹ 48). 11. Death and burial of Jacob, and death of Joseph (49⁹⁻³³ 50).
The composition of documents is of the same general character as in the previous section of Genesis, though some peculiar features present themselves. The Priestly epitome (37² 41⁴⁶ᵃ 42⁵ᐧ ⁶ᵃ 46⁶ᐧ ⁽⁸⁻²⁷⁾ 47⁵*ᐧ ⁶ᵃᐧ ⁷⁻¹¹ᐧ ²⁷ᵇᐧ ²⁸ 48³⁻⁶ 49¹ᵃᐧ ²⁸ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ{α}ᵇ 50¹²ᐧ ¹³) is hardly less broken and fragmentary than in the history of Jacob, and produces at first sight the same impression as there, of being merely supplementary to the older narratives,――an impression, however, which a closer inspection easily dispels. Certain late words and constructions have led some critics to the conclusion that the Jehovist passages have been worked over by an editor of the school of Priestly-Code (Giesebrecht, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, i. 237, 266²; Holzinger 234). The cases in point have been examined by Kuenen (_Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds_ i. page 317 f.), who rightly concludes that they are too few in number to bear out the theory of systematic Priestly redaction.――With regard to the composition of Yahwist and Elohist, the most important fact is that the clue to authorship supplied by the divine names almost entirely fails us, and is replaced by the distinction between Israel and Jacob which as names of the patriarch are characteristic of Yahwist and Elohist respectively (exceptions are 46² 48⁸ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ²¹ [50²⁵{?}] 46⁵ᵇ). יהוה occurs only in chapter 39 (7 times); elsewhere אלהים is invariably used, sometimes in contexts which would otherwise be naturally assigned to Yahwist, though no reason appears why Yahwist should depart from his ordinary usage (_e.g._ 42²⁸). It may not always be safe to rely on this characteristic when it is not supported by other indications. Eerdmans, who rejects in principle the theory of a Yahwistic and an Elohistic document, is obliged to admit the existence of an _Israel_-recension and a _Jacob_-recension, and makes this distinction the basis of an independent analysis. A comparison of his results with those commonly accepted by recent critics is instructive in more ways than one.* On the whole, it increases one’s confidence in the ordinary critical method.
* The Israel-recension (I-R) consists, according to Eerdmans, of 37³⁻²⁴ (Yahwist + Elohist), ²⁸ᵃ (Elohist), ²⁹ (Elohist), ³⁰⁻³³ (Elohist + Yahwist), ³⁶ (Elohist); 43 (Yahwist); 44 (Yahwist); 45²⁸ (Yahwist), 46¹ᐧ ²ᵃ (Jehovist), ²⁸⁻³⁴ (Yahwist); 47¹⁻⁵ (Yahwist [verse ⁵, Priestly-Code*]), ¹³⁻²⁷ᵃ (Yahwist), ²⁷ᵇ (Priestly-Code), ²⁹⁻³¹ (Yahwist); 48¹ (Elohist), ²ᵇ (Yahwist), ⁸⁻²² (Yahwist + Elohist); 50¹⁻¹¹ (Yahwist), ¹⁴⁻²⁶ (Elohist*). To the Jacob-recension (J-R) he assigns 37² (Priestly-Code), ²⁵⁻²⁷ (Yahwist), ²⁸ᵇ (Yahwist), ³⁴ (Jehovist), ³⁵ (Yahwist); 40; 41; 42 (all Elohist); 45¹⁻²⁷ (Elohist*), 46²ᵇ⁻⁵ (Elohist*), ⁶ᐧ ⁷ (Priestly-Code); 47⁶⁻¹¹ (Priestly-Code*), ¹² (Elohist), ²⁸ (Priestly-Code); 49¹ᵃ (Priestly-Code), ²⁹⁻³³ (Priestly-Code); 50¹²ᐧ ¹³ (Priestly-Code) (_Die Komposition der Genesis_ 65‒71): the usual analysis is roughly indicated by the symbols within brackets. How does this compare with the generally accepted critical results? (1) No distinction is recognised between Priestly-Code and the other sources; the fragments are mostly assigned to the J-R, but 48³⁻⁶ is rejected as an interpolation (page 27). (2) Eerdmans regards