Chapter 14 cannot with any show of reason be assigned to any of

the recognised sources of the Pentateuch, and has accordingly been omitted from the above survey. The question of its origin is discussed on pages 271 ff. below.

CHAPTERS XII. XIII. _The migrations of Abram_ (Yahwist and Priestly-Code).

Leaving his home at the command of Yahwe, Abram enters Canaan and erects altars at Shechem and Bethel (12¹⁻⁸). From Bethel he migrates to the Negeb, and thence, under stress of famine, to Egypt; where by a false representation he enriches himself, but imperils his wife’s honour (12⁹‒13¹). Laden with wealth, he returns to Bethel, where an amicable separation from his nephew Lot leaves him in sole possession of the promise of the land (13²⁻¹⁷). Abram journeys southward and settles in Hebron (¹⁸).

_Analysis._――The slender thread of Priestly-Code’s narrative is represented by 12⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵ 13⁶ᐧ ¹¹ᵇᐧ ¹²ᵃᵇ{α}: note the date in 12⁴ᵇ; the form of 12⁵; רָכַשׁ‎, רְכוּשׁ‎, 12⁵ 13⁶; נֶפֶשׁ‎, ‘person,’ 12⁵; אָרָץ כְּנַעַן‎, ‎ 12⁵ 13¹²; נָשָׂא‎, 13⁶; עָרֵי הַכִּכָּר‎, 13¹²; and see on the verses below. These fragments form a continuous epitome of the events between the exodus from Ḥarran and the parting of Abram and Lot. With a slight and inherently plausible transposition (12⁵ᐧ ⁴ᵇ; Budde page 432) they might pass for the immediate continuation of 11³², if we can suppose that the call of Abram was entirely omitted by Priestly-Code (see Gunkel 231).――The rest of the passage is Yahwistic throughout: observe the consistent use of יהוה‎; the reference to Paradise, 13¹⁰; the anticipation of chapter 19 in 13¹⁰ᐧ ¹³; and the following expressions: מוֹלֶדֶת‎, 12¹; ‎ נִבְרַךְ בְּ‎, 12³; כֹּל מִשְׁפְּחֹת הָֽאֲדָמָה‎, 12³; הִנֵּה נָא‎, נָא‎, 12¹¹ᐧ ¹³ 13⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁴; בַּֽעֲבוּר‎, ‎ 12¹³ᐧ ¹⁶; מַה־זֹּאת ע׳‎, 12¹⁸; כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן‎, 13¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹. It falls naturally into three sections: (a) 12¹⁻⁴ᵃᐧ ⁶⁻⁸; (b) 12¹⁰‒13¹; (c) 13²ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁷⁻¹¹ᵃ ¹²ᵇ{β}⁻¹⁸; 12⁹ and 13³ᐧ ⁴ being redactional links (Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ) uniting b to a on the one side and c on the other. The purely mechanical connexion of b with a and c was first shown by Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 24 f.).¹ The removal of b restores the direct and natural sequence of c upon a, and gets rid of the redactor’s artificial theory of a double visit to Bethel with a series of aimless wanderings between. In the main narrative Abram’s journey is continuously southward, from Shechem to Bethel (where the separation from Lot takes place), and thence to his permanent abode in Hebron. In the inserted episode (b), Abram simply moves down to Egypt from his home in the Negeb and back again.――As to the _origin_ of 12¹⁰⁻²⁰, see page 251 below.

¹ So Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel.

=XII. 1‒8. The journey to Canaan and the promise of the Land.=――=1.= The opening verse strikes a note peculiarly characteristic of the story of Abram――the trial of faith. There is intentional pathos in the lingering description of the things he is to leave: _thy land, thy kindred, and thy father’s house_; and a corresponding significance in the vagueness with which the goal is indicated: _to a land which I will show thee_. Obedience under such conditions marks Abram as the hero of faith, and the ideal of Hebrew piety (Hebrews 11⁸ ᶠᐧ).――=2, 3.= The blessings here promised express the aspirations of the age in which the narrative originated, and reveal the people’s consciousness of its exceptional destiny among the nations of the world. They breathe the spirit of optimism which is on the whole characteristic of the Yahwistic treatment of the _national_ legends, as contrasted with the primitive and cosmopolitan mythology of chapters 2‒11, whose sombre tone is only once (9²⁶ ᶠᐧ) relieved by a similar gleam of hope.――_and will make thy name great_] It has been noticed that the order in which the names of the patriarchs emerge in the prophetic literature is the reverse of that in Genesis, and that Abraham is first mentioned in Ezekiel 33²⁴. The inference has been drawn that the figure of Abraham represents a late development of the patriarchal legends (compare Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 317 f.). But from this promise we may fairly conclude that even in the pre-prophetic period the name of Abraham was famous in Israel, and that in this particular the religious ideas of the people are not fully reflected in prophecy (1 Kings 18³⁶ has also to be considered).――The antiquity of the name is now placed beyond doubt by an archæological discovery made by Erman in 1888, but first published by Breasted in 1904. In the Karnak list of places conquered by Sheshonk I., the contemporary of Rehoboam, there is mentioned _pa-ḫu-q-ru-’a ’a- ba-ra-m_ = חקל אברם‎, ‘Field of Abram.’ It has not been identified; but from its place in the list it must have been in the South of Palestine (see Breasted, _American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures_, xxi. 35 f.; and compare Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 266).¹――_and be thou a blessing_ (compare Zechariah 8¹³)] Rather: _and it_ (the name) _shall be a blessing_ (point וְהָיָה‎, _v.i._) _i.e._ ‘a name to bless by,’ in the sense explained by ³ᵇ.――=3b= has generally been rendered _through thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed_] _i.e._ the blessings of true religion shall be mediated to the world through Abram and his descendants (so all Versions; compare Sirach 44²¹, Acts 3²⁵, Galatians 3⁸). The better translation, however, is that of Rashi, adopted by most modern commentaries: _by thee shall all ... bless themselves_] the idea being that in invoking blessings on themselves or others they will use such words as ‘God make thee like Abram,’ etc. (see 48²⁰, Isaiah 65¹⁶, Psalms 72¹⁷; and the opposite, Jeremiah 29²²). “So the ancient mind expressed its admiration of a man’s prosperity” (Gunkel). The clause is thus an expansion of ²ᵇ: the name of Abram will pass into a formula of benediction, because he himself and his seed will be as it were blessedness incarnate. The exegetical question is discussed below.――=4a.= The mention of Lot (see on 11²⁷) establishes a literary connexion with the Lot narratives of chapters 13. 19.――=5.= is Priestly-Code’s parallel to ⁴ᵃ (_v.i._); the last sentence supplying an obvious gap in Yahwist’s narrative.――_and they came, etc._]. This time (contrast 11³¹) the goal is actually reached. On the probable route from Ḥarran to Canaan, see Driver 146, 300 ff.――=6, 7.= Arrived at Shechem, Abram receives, through a theophany, the first intimation that he has reached the goal of his pilgrimage, and proceeds to take possession of the land in the name of Yahwe by erecting altars for His worship. It is, however, a singular fact, that in Yahwist there is no record of actual sacrifice by the patriarchs on such altars: see page l.

¹ See, further, pages 292 f. below.

The original motive of this and similar legends is to explain the sacredness of the principal centres of cultus by definite manifestations of God to the patriarchs, or definite acts of worship on their part. The rule is that the legitimacy of a sanctuary for Israel is established by a theophany (Exodus 20²⁴ [Elohist]). The historic truth is that the sanctuaries were far older than the Hebrew immigration, and inherited their sanctity from lower forms of religion. That fact appears in verse ⁶ in the use of the word מָקוֹם‎, which has there the technical sense of ‘sacred place,’ as in 22⁴ 28¹¹ 35¹ (LXX), Exodus 3⁵, 1 Samuel 7¹⁶ (LXX ἡγιασμένοις), Jeremiah 7¹² (compare Arabic _maḳām_).――Shechem is the first and most northerly of four sanctuaries――the others being Bethel, Hebron (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ), and Beersheba (Elohist, Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ)――connected with the name of Abraham. The name (_Skmm_, with plural termination)¹ occurs in an Egyptian inscription as early as the 12th dynasty. It was an important place in the Tel-Amarna period (see Steuernagel, _Einwanderung_, 120 f.; Knudtzon, _Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft_, iv. 127), and figures prominently in Old Testament legend and history. On its situation (the modern _Nābulūs_) between Mts. Ebal and Gerizim, see _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iv. 4437 f.――The אֵלוֹן מוֹרֶה‎ (= ‘oracle-giving terebinth’) was evidently an ancient sacred tree from which oracles were obtained, and therefore a survival of primitive tree-worship.² Besides Deuteronomy 11³⁰ (a difficult passage, see Driver _ad loc._, and von Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 107 ff.), it seems to be mentioned as one of the sacra of Shechem under other names: ‎ הָאֵלָה‎, הָאַלָּה‎, (a mere difference of pointing, _v.i._), Genesis 35⁴, Joshua 24²⁶; אֵלוֹן מְעוֹנְנִים‎ (‘terebinth of soothsayers’), Judges 9³⁷; and א׳ מֻצָּב‎ (‘terebinth of the pillar’ [הַמַּצֵּבָה‎]) Judges 9⁶. The tree is not said to have been planted by Abram (like the tamarisk of Beersheba, 21³³),――an additional indication that Abram was not originally the patron or _welī_ of the shrine. The sacred stone under the tree (the מֻצָּב‎ of Judges 9⁶?) was believed to have been set up by Joshua (Joshua 24²⁶). The sanctuary of Shechem was also associated with Jacob (33¹⁸ 35⁴), and especially with Joseph, who was buried there (Joshua 24³²), and whose grave is still shown near the village of Balâṭa (_ballûṭ_ = ‘oak’): see von Gall, 117.

¹ It is possible that this (שׁכמם‎) is the oldest form in Hebrew also; since LXX often has the plural Σίκιμα (33¹⁸ 35⁴ᐧ ⁵ etc.).

² “Where a tree is connected with a _welī_ it was probably the original object of honour” (Curtiss, _Primitive Semitic Religion to-day_¹ 91). On the obtaining of oracles from trees, see William Robertson Smith _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 195. Compare Judges 4⁵, 2 Samuel 5²⁴; and the oak of Zeus at Dodona.――Duhm’s brilliant generalisation (_Isaiah_¹, 13 f.), that Abraham was traditionally associated with sacred trees, Isaac and Ishmael with sacred wells, and Jacob with sacred stones, though not literally accurate, has sufficient truth to be suggestive; and may possibly correspond to some vague impression of the popular mind in Israel.

* * * * *

‎ =1.= לֶךְ־לְךָ‎ (22² [Elohist]; compare Canticles 2¹⁰ᐧ ¹³)] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 _s_.――On מוֹלֶדֶת‎ (LXX συγγενεία) see 11²⁸.――=2.= וֶֽהְיֵה בְּרָכָה‎] imperative expressing consequence (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 110 _i_) is here questionable, because the preceding verbs are simple futures. The pointing as consecutive perfect (וְהָיָה‎) was suggested by Giesebrecht (_Die Alttestamentliche Schätzung des Gottesnamens und ihre religionsgeschichtliche Grundlage_, 15); see Gunkel _ad v._――=3.= ‎ מְקַלֶּלְךָ‎] singular; but the plural of some MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå (־ֶיךָ‎), is more probable; compare 27²⁹, Numbers 24⁹.――וְנִבְרְכוּ בְךָ‎] LXX καὶ εὐλογηθήσονται ἐν σοί, and so all versions. The rendering depends on the grammatical question whether the Niphal has passive or reflexive sense. This form of the verb does not occur except in the parallels 18¹⁸ (with בּוֹ‎) and 28¹⁴ (בְּךָ――וּבְזַרְעֲךָ‎). In 22¹⁸ 26⁴ it is replaced by Hithpael, which is, of course, reflexive, and must be translated ‘bless themselves’; the renderings ‘feel themselves blessed’ (Tuch, Kautzsch-Socin, Strack), or ‘wish themselves blessed’ (Delitzsch) are doubtful compromises. These passages, however, belong to secondary strata of Yahwist (as does also 18¹⁸, and perhaps 28¹⁴), and are not necessarily decisive of the sense of 12³. But it is significant that the Pual, which is the proper passive of בֵּרַךְ‎, is consistently avoided; and the presumption appears to be distinctly in favour of the sense given in the text above. The idea is well expressed by Rashi: וזהו פשוטו אדם אומר לבנו תהא כאברהם וכן כל ונברכו בך ‎ שבמקרא וזה מוכיח בך יברך ישראל לאמר ישימך אלהים כאפרים וכמנשה‎ (Genesis 48²⁰).――=4.= ‎ וַיֵּלֶךְ‎] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (= וַיַּעַשׂ‎), adopted by Ball.――=5.= The parallel to ⁴ᵃ in the distinctive form (see on 11³¹) and phraseology of Priestly-Code. The verb רָכַשׁ‎ is peculiar to Priestly-Code (31¹⁸ 36⁶ 46⁶); רְכוּשׁ‎ is a word of the later language, found in Priestly-Code (7 times), in Genesis 14 (5 times) and as a gloss in 15¹⁴; in Chronicles, Ezra, Daniel (15 times): see Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 347. It is supposed to denote primarily ‘riding beasts,’ like Hebrew ‎ רֶכֶשׁ‎, Aramaic (‡ Syriac word), רִכְשָׁא‎ Assyrian _rukušu_ (Haupt, _Hebraica_, iii. 110); then property in general.――נֶפֶשׁ‎] in the sense of ‘person’ is also practically confined to Priestly-Code in Hexateuch (Holzinger 345).――עָשׂוּ‎] = ‘acquired,’ as 31¹, Deuteronomy 8¹⁷, Jeremiah 17¹¹ etc. The idea of ‘proselytising’ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ) is rightly characterised by Rashi as Haggada.――אָרָץ כְּנַעַן‎] “ein fast sicheres Kennzeichen für Priestly-Code” (Holzinger 340). In Jehovist כנען‎ appears never to be used in its geographical sense except in the story of Joseph (42. 44‒47. 50⁵) and Joshua 24³.――וַיָּבֹאוּ――כְּנַעַן‎] LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ omitted, probably from homoioteleuton.――=6.= בָּאָרֶץ‎¹] so LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ, but LXXᴬᐧ ᵃˡᐧ, read לְאָרְכָּהּ‎ (13¹⁷).――For מוֹרֶה‎, Symmachus and Peshiṭtå read מַמְרֵא‎. The _convallem illustrem_ of Vulgate is an amalgamation of LXX (τὴν δρῦν τὴν ὑψηλήν [מָרוֹם‎?]) and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ (מישרי מודה‎ = ‘plains of Moreh’); the latter is probably accounted for by aversion to the idolatrous associations of the sacred tree. Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ has מישר דהוו מיירי‎; on which see Levy, _Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und Midraschim_ 33. The absence of the article (contrast גִּבְעַת הַמּוֹרָה‎, Judges 7¹) seems to show that the word is used as a proper noun――אֵלוֹן‎] unlike its Aramaic equivalents (‡ Syriac word), אִילָן‎), which mean tree in general, is never used generically, but always of particular (probably sacred) trees. In the versions ‘oak’ and ‘terebinth’ are used somewhat indiscriminately (see von Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 24 ff.) for four Hebrew words: אֵלוֹן‎, אַלּוֹן‎, אֵלָה‎, אַלָּה‎, (only Joshua 24²⁶). The theory has been advanced that the forms with _ê_ are alone correct; that they are derivatives from אֵל‎, ‘god,’ and denote originally the ‘sacred tree’ without distinction of species.¹ The אַלּוֹן‎ of Genesis 35⁸ is called a palm in Judges 4⁵, and אֵילִם‎ (plural of אֵלָה‎?) (Exodus 15²⁷ etc.) derived its name from 70 palm-trees. But though the Massoretic tradition may not be uniformly reliable, אֵלָה‎ and אַלּוֹן‎ appear to be distinguished in Hosea 4¹³, Isaiah 6¹³ (Dillmann); and the existence of a form אַלּוֹן‎ is confirmed by _allânu_, which is said to be an Assyrian tree-name (Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴ 36 b). It is probable from Zechariah 11², Ezekiel 27⁶ etc., that ‎ אַלּוֹן‎ is the oak. With regard to the other names no convincing theory can be formed, but a connexion with אֵל‎ (_ĭlu_) is at best precarious.――=6b.= is probably a gloss: compare 13⁷ᵇ.――=7.= וַיֹּאמֶר‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå add לוֹ‎.――הַנִּרְאֶה אֵלָיו‎] so 35¹ (Elohist).

¹ Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 234; Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 455; von Gall, _l.c._; compare Schwally, _Theologische Litteraturzeitung_, 1899, 356.

* * * * *

=8.= Abram moved on, nomadic fashion, and _spread his tent_ (26²⁵ 33¹⁹ 35²¹) near _Bethel_, about 20 miles from Shechem; there he built a second altar, and _called by the name of Yahwe_; see on 4²⁶. Luther’s rendering: ‘predigte den Namen des Herrn,’ is absolutely without exegetical warrant; and the whole notion of a monotheistic propaganda, of which Abram was the Mahdi (Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 328), is a modern invention unsupported by a particle of historical evidence. It is noticeable that no theophany is recorded here, perhaps because the definite consecration of Bethel was ascribed to Jacob (chapater 28).――Here the parting from Lot took place (chapter 13).

On Bethel (_Beitīn_), see on 28¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 35⁷; compare Joshua 7². Dillmann distinguishes the site of Abram’s altar (East of Bethel and West of ‛Ai) from that of Jacob’s pillar, which he takes to have been at Bethel itself. The more natural view is that the local sanctuary lay East of the city (so Gunkel), perhaps at _Burǧ Beitīn_, the traditional scene of Abram’s encampment (George Adam Smith _Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 552).――On the somewhat uncertain situation of הָעַי‎ (always with article = עַיָּה‎, Nehemiah 11³¹, 1 Chronicles 7²⁸; and עַיַּת‎, Isaiah 10²⁸), see Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 177.

* * * * *

‎ =8.= וַיַּעְתֵּק‎] introductory Hiphil as 26²² (Yahwist).

* * * * *

=XII. 9‒XIII. 1.――Abram in Egypt.=――The first of three variants of what must have been a very popular story in ancient Israel (compare 20. 26⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ). Whether the original hero was Abraham or Isaac we cannot tell; but a comparison of the three parallels shows that certain primitive features of the legend are most faithfully preserved in the passage before us: note the entire absence of the extenuating circumstances introduced into the other accounts,――the whole subject being treated with a frank realism which seems to take us down to the bed-rock of Hebrew folklore.――=9.= _to the Negeb_] The ‘dry’ region between the Judæan highland and the wilderness of _et-Tīh_, extending from 10 or 12 miles North of Beersheba to the neighbourhood of Ḳadesh (_v.i._). It is still a suitable pasture ground for camel-breeding Bedouin, and the remains of buildings and irrigation works prove that it was once much more extensively cultivated than at present.――=10.= _the famine was severe_ (literally ‘heavy’)] emphasising the fact that the visit to Egypt was compulsory. The Nile valley, on account of its great fertility and its independence of the annual rainfall, was the natural resort of Asiatics in times of scarcity; and this under primitive conditions involved an actual sojourn in the country. The admission of Semites to the rich pastures of Egypt is both described and depicted in the monuments (see Guthe, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, 16).¹ The purchase of corn for home consumption (42¹ ᶠᶠᐧ) was possible as a temporary expedient at a somewhat more advanced stage of culture.――=11‒13.= The speech of Abram to his wife is an instructive revelation of social and moral sentiment in early Israel. The Hebrew women are fairer than all others, and are sure to be coveted by foreigners; but the marriage bond is so sacred that even a foreigner, in order to possess the wife, will kill the husband first. Hence the dilemma with which Abram is confronted: if Sarai is known as his wife, her life will be safe, but he will probably be slain; if she passes as his sister, her honour will be endangered, but his advantage will be served. In such a case the true Hebrew wife will not hesitate to sacrifice herself for her husband: at the same time she is a free moral agent: Abram’s proposal is not a command but a deferential request. Lastly, it is assumed that in the circumstances lying is excusable. There is no suggestion that either the untruthfulness or the selfish cowardice of the request was severely reprobated by the ethical code to which the narrative appealed.――=14, 15.= The stratagem succeeds beyond expectation. Sarai attracts the notice of the courtiers, and is brought into Pharaoh’s harem. The incident is characteristic of Oriental despotisms generally: Ebers (_Ägypten und die Bücher Moses_, 262 f.) cites from the d’Orbiney papyrus an example of the zeal of Egyptian officials in matters of this kind.――=16.= _he treated Abram well, etc._] compare verse ¹³. This feature of the _reward_ is a standing element of the tradition; but in chapter 20 it is only bestowed after the misunderstanding has been cleared up, and in 26¹² ᶠᶠᐧ its connexion with the incident is loosened.

¹ Compare _Authority and Archæology_, page 59; _A Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 531ᵇ (note ‡), 774ᵇ.

The gifts enumerated constituted the riches of the patriarchs: 20¹⁴ 24³⁵ 30⁴³ 32¹⁵ ᶠᐧ (compare Job 1³ 42¹²), and were perhaps regarded by this narrator as the foundation of Abram’s subsequent wealth. The animals mentioned were all known in ancient Egypt (Ebers, 265 ff.), except the camel, which is neither represented nor named in the monuments before the Greek period.¹ This, Müller supposes, was due to a religious scruple; but, of course, the difficulty remains of thinking that a religiously unclean animal should have been bred in Egypt, or have been gifted by Pharaoh to Abram. The order also――slaves between he-asses and she-asses――is strange; the explanation (Holzinger, Gunkel) that the slaves were intermediate in value between these animals is jejune, and is, besides, contradicted by 24³⁵ 30⁴³. It is possible that אֲתֹנֹת וּגְמַלִּים‎ has been added at the end by a glossator; but see 24³⁵ 30⁴³, and compare _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ below.

¹ Compare Exodus 9³ (Yahwist); and see Sayce, _The Early History of the Hebrews_, 169 (the notice unhistorical); Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 493. Ebers’ statement as to the name is corrected by Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 142, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 634.

* * * * *

‎ =9.= הָלוֹךְ וְנָסוֹעַ‎] Davidson § 86, _R._ 4; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 _u_. The idea of continuous journeying lies not in נסוע‎ (see on 11²), but in הלוך‎ (compare Judges 14⁹).――הַנֶּגְבָּה‎] LXX ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ: Aquila νότονδε: Symmachus εἰς νότον. The word, from a √ meaning ‘dry,’ occurs as a proper name of South Palestine (_Ngb_) in a document of the reign of Thothmes III. (Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 148; Meyer _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, vi. 1). Its use to denote the South direction is rare in Jehovist, and apparently confined to later additions (13¹⁴ 28¹⁴, Joshua 18⁵). The geographical limits of the region can, of course, only be roughly determined, chiefly from the list of its cities in Joshua 15²¹⁻³²: on this, and its physical characteristics, see Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3374 ff.; Palmer, _Desert of the Exodus_, ii. 351 f. ‎ (1871).――=10.= לָגוּר שָׁם‎ (Jeremiah 42¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ)] properly ‘dwell as a client or protected guest’ (גֵּר‎ = Arabic _ǧār_: compare _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_², 342¹). The words, however, are often used in the wider sense of temporary sojourn (15¹³, Jeremiah 14⁸), and this may be the case here.――=11.= הִנֵּה־נָא‎] 16² 18²⁷ᐧ ³¹ 19²ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ 27² (all Yahwist). The free use of נָא‎ (_c._ 40 times in Genesis) is very characteristic of Yahwist (Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 110).――=13.= אֲחֹתִי אַתְּ‎] _oratio obliqua_ without כִּי‎, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 157 _a_. LXX, on the contrary, ὅτι ἀδελφὴ αὐτοῦ εἰμί.――בִּגְלַל‎] In Hexateuch only 30²⁷ 39⁵ (Yahwist) and 3 times in Deuteronomy: elsewhere 4 times.――=15.= פַּרְעֹה‎] The title of all Egyptian kings mentioned in Old Testament except Shishak (1 Kings 14²⁵) and Sevé (2 Kings 17⁴). It corresponds exactly to Egyptian _Per‛o_ (‘Great House’), denoting originally the palace or court, and is not applied to the person of the king earlier than the 18th dynasty (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 58; Griffith, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 819; Müller _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iii. 3687). It is needless to go further in search of an etymology, though Renouf, _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, xv. 421, may be consulted. A confusion of the name here with the “Pir‛u king of Muṣuri” mentioned by Sargon (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 55, etc.), is too readily suspected by Cheyne (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3164, and _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 223; compare Winckler _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, iii. 2 ff.). Even supposing it proved that this is the proper name of a North Arabian prince, the narrative here must be much older than the time of Sargon; and it is inconceivable that the Hebrew designation for the kings of Egypt should have been determined by an isolated and accidental resemblance to a native word.――=16.= After וּבָקָר‎ _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ inserts מקנה כבד מאד‎, and puts וַעֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחֹת‎ before וַֽחֲמֹרִים‎.

* * * * *

=17.= The story reaches its climax. Yahwe interposes at the extreme moment to save Sarai and avert calamity from the patriarchal house. It is noteworthy that Yahwe’s intervention is here purely providential: in 20³ ᶠᶠᐧ it takes the form of a personal communication, while in the attenuated version of 26⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ it has become superfluous and is omitted.――_smote with great plagues_] severe bodily maladies; compare 20¹⁷, Exodus 11¹, Psalms 39¹¹ etc. How Pharaoh discovered the cause of his sickness we are left to conjecture; Josephus (_Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 164 f.) pretty nearly exhausts the possibilities of the case when he mentions sacrifice, inquiry at the priests, and interrogation of Sarai. Gunkel is probably right in suggesting that something has been omitted between ¹⁷ and ¹⁸.――=18, 19.= To the vigorous expostulation of the Pharaoh, Abram is unable to reply. The narrator evidently feels that morally the heathen king is in the right; and the zest with which the story was related was not quite so unalloyed by ethical reflexions as Gunkel (151) would have us believe. The idea of God, however, is imperfectly moralised; Yahwe’s providence puts in the wrong the man who is justified at the bar of human conscience; He is not here the absolutely righteous Being proclaimed by the prophets (Amos 3²).――=20.= _Pharaoh gave men charge concerning Abram_] _i.e._ provided him with an escort (שִׁלַּח‎ as 18¹⁶ 31²⁷). The thought of ignominious expulsion is far from the writer’s mind; the purpose of the escort is to see that no further injury is done to the patriarch or his wife (Abraham Ibn Ezra), bringing fresh judgements on the realm.――=XIII. 1.= The narrative closes with the return of Abram to his home in the Negeb (compare 12⁹).

_Source of 12¹⁰⁻²⁰._――It has already been pointed out (page 242 f.) that, though the section breaks the connexion of the main narrative, it is Yahwistic in style; and the question of its origin relates only to its place within the general cycle of Yahwistic tradition. Three views are possible: that it is (1) a secondary expansion of Yahwist by a later hand (Wellhausen); (2) a misplaced chapter of Yahwist’s main narrative belonging properly to a subsequent stage of the history; or (3) an excerpt from a separate Yahwistic collection (Gunkel, [Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ]). To (1) and (2) there are distinct objections: (a) the style and moral tone of the narrative, which are those of racy popular legend, and produce the impression of great antiquity; (b) the absence from the character of Abram of those ideal features which are prominent in the main narrative, and which later ages tended to exaggerate (_e.g._ chapter 14); especially (c) the fact that the home of Abram is not at Hebron but in the Negeb. Gunkel’s theory, which is not open to these objections, seems, therefore, to mark an advance in the analysis of Yahwist.

* * * * *

‎ =17.= וַיְנַגַּע‎] The Piel only of smiting with disease: 2 Kings 15⁵, 2 Chronicles 26²⁰ (Pual Psalms 73⁵).――גְּדֹלִים‎] LXX + καὶ πονηροῖς.――וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ‎] possibly a gloss from 20¹⁷ ᶠᐧ (Kautzsch-Socin al.); see on 2⁹.――=19.= וָאֶקַּח‎] ‘so that I took’; Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 74 α, § 116, _Obsolete_ 2.――אִשְׁתְּךָ‎] LXX + לְפָנֶיךָ‎.――=20.= _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX add at the end וְלוֹט עִמּוֹ‎, as in Massoretic Text of 13¹: the phrase is interpolated in both places.

* * * * *

=2‒18. Separation of Abram and Lot.=――=2, 5, 7.= The great wealth of the two patriarchs leads to bickering among their retainers. The situation reflects the relations of tribes rather than of private families, quarrels about pastures and watering-places being a common feature of nomadic life and a frequent cause of separation: compare 21²⁵ 26²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=2.= _Silver and gold_] 24³⁵ 20¹⁶ 23¹⁶.――=5.= Lot’s substance, on the other hand, is purely nomadic: _flocks, herds, and tents_. The last word appears to have the sense of ‘people,’ ‘families’; compare Arabic _’ahl_, Sabæan אהל‎ (Müller, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvii. 341; Hommel _Süd-arabische Chrestomathie_ 121).――=3, 4.= A redactional addition (page 243), bringing the narrative back to Bethel, the traditional scene of the separation.――=6.= Priestly-Code’s account of the parting: compare 36⁷. It has often been noticed that he makes no mention of a quarrel; just as Yahwist says nothing of the straitness of the land (_v.i._)――=8, 9.= The thought of strife between relatives (אֲנָשִׁים אַחִים‎) is intolerable to Abram, who, though the older man, renounces his rights for the sake of an amicable settlement. The narrator has finely conceived the magnanimity which springs from fellowship with God. The peaceable disposition ascribed to the patriarchs is characteristic of the old narratives. Jacob substitutes guile for force, but Abraham and Isaac conquer by sheer reasonableness and conciliation.――=10, 11a, 12bβ=. Lot’s choice.――_lifted up his eyes and saw, etc._] The _Burǧ Beitīn_ (page 247), a few minutes South-east from the village, is described as “one of the great view-points of Palestine” (George Adam Smith _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 552), from which the Jordan valley and the North end of the Dead Sea are clearly visible.――_the whole Oval of the Jordan_] compare Driver _A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy_ 421 f.

‎ כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן‎ (only here and 1 Kings 7⁴⁶ = 2 Chronicles 4¹⁷), or חַכִּכָּר‎ simply (verse ¹² 19¹⁷ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁸ ᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 34³, 2 Samuel 18²³), is not (as Dillmann 230) the whole of the ‛Arābāh from the Lake of Galilee to the Dead Sea, but the expansion of the Jordan valley towards its South end, defined in Deuteronomy 34³ as ‘the plain of Jericho’ (see _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 505 ff.; Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 112). The northern limit is indeterminate; the southern depends on the site of Zoar (verse ¹⁰), whether North or South of the Dead Sea. It is thus not quite certain whether the term includes the Dead Sea basin; and on this hangs the much more important question whether the writer conceives the Sea as non-existent at the time to which the narrative refers. That is certainly the impression produced by the language of verse ¹⁰. Apart from the assumption of a radical transformation of the physical features of the region, the words _before Yahwe destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah_ have no significance. As a mere note of time they would merely show the connexion of the story with chapter 19, and might very well be a gloss (Olshausen, Dillmann). See below, pages 273 f.――_Ẓô‛ar_ is the South limit of the _Kikkār_, and, if situated at the South end of the Lake (as is most probable), would not be seen from Bethel.

* * * * *

‎ =3.= לְמַסָּעָיו‎] simply ‘by stages’; not by the _same_ stages by which he had come (LXX, Vulgate, Rashi): compare Exodus 17¹ 40³⁶ᐧ ³⁸ etc.――=5.= אֹהָלִים‎ (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 93 _r_, 23 _h_)] LXXᴬ κτήνη, probably Greek corruption of σκηναί (so many MSS).――=6.= ‎ נָשָׂא‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ נשאה‎――better. Compare 36⁷ (Priestly-Code).――=6bβ= is by some (Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger) assigned to Yahwist, but on insufficient grounds (compare Hupfeld _Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_ 21 f.)――=7b.= ישֵּׁב‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ישבים‎‎.――הַפְּרִזִּי‎] The name is coupled with הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי‎ in 34³⁰, Judges 1⁴ᐧ ⁵ (Yahwist), and often appears in enumerations of the pre-Israelite inhabitants (15²⁰ etc.). If, as is probable, it be connected with פְּרָזִי‎ (Deuteronomy 3⁵, 1 Samuel 6¹⁸, Esther 9¹⁹), ‎ פְּרָזוֹת‎ (Ezekiel 38¹¹, Zechariah 2⁸, Esther 9¹⁹), it would mean ‘hamlet-dwellers’ as distinguished from Canaanites, occupying fortified cities (see on הַחִוִּי‎, 10¹⁷). That the Priestly-Code were remnants of a _pre_-Canaanite population is hardly to be inferred from the omission of the name in 10¹⁶ ᶠᐧ, or from its association with the Rephaim in Joshua 17¹⁵: this last notice is wanting in LXXᴬᴮ and is perhaps a gloss (Moore, _Judges_ ‎ 17).――=9.= הֲלֹא‎] LXX, Peshiṭtå וְהִנֵּה‎.――הַיָּמִין――הַשְּׂמֹאל‎‎] Ball suggests the pointing הַשְׂמְאֵל‎, הֵימֵין‎ (infinitives absolute). _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ reads אם השמאלה והימינה ואם הימינה ‎ השמאלה‎.――=10.= כֻּלָּהּ‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ‎ כלו‎; LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ omitted.――מַשְׁקֶה‎] in the sense of ‘watered region’ only again Ezekiel 45¹⁵ (where the text is corrupt) and Sirach 39²³. Should we read מָשְׁקָה‎?――בֹּּֽאֲכָה‎] see 10¹⁹.――צֹעַר‎] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) = Tanis (צֹעַן‎) in Egypt (Numbers 13²², Isaiah 19¹¹ᐧ ¹³ etc.), which is preferred by Ball, but is rather an error caused by the preceding מִצְרַיִם‎.――=11.= מִקֶּדֶם‎ (compare 11²)] LXX ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν, Vulgate _ab oriente_. But the only possible sense here is ‘eastward’; hence Stade (_Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_, 292) and Gunkel emend to קֵדְמָה‎.――=11b=, in spite of its resemblance to ⁹ᵃ{β}, must be assigned to Priestly-Code, being necessary to the completeness of that account, and because it disturbs the connexion of ¹¹ᵃ with ¹²ᵇ{β}.

* * * * *

♦_like the land of Egypt_] coming after _like the garden of Yahwe_ (2¹⁰⁻¹⁴; compare Isaiah 51³) it is an anti-climax, which might be excused (as Dillmann thinks) because the first comparison was pitched too high. But the last half of the verse seems greatly overloaded, and it is not improbable that both לִפְנֵי――עֲמֹרָה‎ and כא׳ מ׳‎ are to be removed as glosses.――On the luxuriant fertility and abundant water-supply of the district, see _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 483 f.; Buhl, 39; Seetzen, _Reisen_, i. 417.――=11a.= _Lot departed eastward_] see on 11² and the footnote _infra_.――=12bβ=. The immediate continuation (in Yahwist) of ¹¹ᵃ: _and moved his tent up to Sodom_] the intervening words being from Priestly-Code (compare עָרֵי הַכִּכָּר‎ instead of כּ׳ הַיַּרְדֵּן‎).――=13.= This notice of the sinfulness of Sodom is another anticipation of chapter 19; but it is introduced here with great effect as showing how Lot had over-reached himself by his selfish conduct.――=14‒17.= The promise of the land is now confirmed to Abram.――=14.= _Lift up thine eyes, etc._] the contrast to Lot’s self-interested glance (verse ¹⁰), while Abram, by his magnanimous surrender of his claims, had unconsciously chosen the good part.――=15.= It is very doubtful if the ‎עַד עוֹלָם‎ can be considered (with Dillmann) a new element of the promise as compared with 12⁷.――=16.= _the dust of the earth_] 28¹⁴.

♦ Probable missing text in book.

This solemn assurance of the possession of the land (¹⁴⁻¹⁷) is somewhat of a contrast to the simple promises of 12²ᐧ ⁷; and has affinities with a series of passages which appear to represent a later phase of religious reflexion (see on chapter 15, page 284). Other reasons are adduced for thinking that ¹⁴⁻¹⁷ are the work of a younger hand than the original Yahwist. (a) It is not the habit of Yahwist to cite divine oracles without a specification of the circumstances under which the theophany takes place (but see 12¹ ᶠᶠᐧ). (b) The conception of Abram as wandering over the land is not that of Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, who fixes his permanent dwelling-place at Hebron. (c) While Bethel commands a view of the Jordan valley, it affords no wide prospect of the land as a whole. Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 25 f.) admits that these ‘general impressions’ are not such as to procure universal assent. In point of fact they are rather overstated; and Dillmann’s answers may satisfy those who refuse to carry critical operations further than is absolutely necessary. Nevertheless, Wellhausen’s impression is probably correct, and has commended itself to Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.¹ The verses may be omitted not only without injury to the context, but with the obvious advantage of bringing out the reference of ¹⁸ to ¹² ᶠᐧ. The redactor has rightly seized the point of the story, which is that by his selfish choice Lot left Abram the sole heir of Canaan.

¹ The only point on which it is impossible to follow Wellhausen is his assumption that Hebron is the fixed residence of Abram in _all_ strata of Yahwist, and that the notion of his migratory life arose from the amalgamation of Elohist (which puts Beersheba in the place of Hebron) with Yahwist. There was probably a whole cycle of Yahwistic legends, in which he is represented as living in the Negeb (see already on 12⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ). So far as mere literary criticism goes, there is no reason why the addition should not be prior to Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ.

* * * * *

‎ =16.= אֲשֶׁר‎] = ‘so that’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 166 _b_).――=17.= LXX adds at end καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,――approved by Ball.

* * * * *

=18.= Abram moves his tent to the _terebinth(s) of Mamre_, in Hebron, and inaugurates the local sanctuary there. In the main narrative of Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ the statement was immediately followed by chapter 18; and it is possible that the theophany recorded at the beginning of that chapter is that which marked the place as holy (see on 12⁷).

The site of the tree (or trees, _v.i._) is not known. There was a Terebinth of Abraham about 15 stadia from Hebron, which was the scene of mixed heathen and Christian worship, suppressed by order of Constantine (Sozomen, _Ecclesiastical History_, ii. 4). Josephus (_War of the Jews_, iv. 533) mentions a very large terebinth said to have existed ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως μέχρι νῦν, 6 stadia from the city. In spite of the discrepancy as to distance, it is probable that these are to be identified; and that the site was the _Ḥarām Rāmet el-Ḫalīl_, 2 miles North of Hebron. The difficulty in accepting this, the oldest accessible, tradition is that the distance is inconsistent with the statement that the sanctuary was _in_ Hebron. And if we suppose the ancient Hebron to have been at _er-Rāme_ in the vicinity of the _Ḥarām_, this conflicts with the tradition as to the cave of Machpelah, which has as good claims to be considered authentic. The present ‘Oak of Abraham,’ about 2 miles North-west, is as old as the 16th century. See Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 216; Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 160, 162; Baedeker, _Palestine and Syria: handbook for travellers_³ 138, 142; Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 224 f.; von Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 52.

* * * * *

‎ =18.= אֵלֹנַי מַמְרֵא‎ (14¹³ 18¹)] see on 12⁶. LXX τὴν δρῦν τὴν Μαμβρήν. Peshiṭtå also reads the singular, which may be right, though 18⁴ cannot be cited in support of it. In Yahwist, Mamre is said to be _in_ Hebron, in Priestly-Code (where the tree is never mentioned) it is a name of Hebron, and in 14¹³ᐧ ²⁴ it becomes the name of an Amorite chief, the owner of the trees. So Peshiṭtå here, as shown by the addition of (‡ Syriac word).

* * * * *