XI. 27–32.
The Genealogy of Teraḥ
(Priestly-Code and Yahwist).
The verses are of mixed authorship; and form, both in Priestly-Code and Yahwist, an introduction to the Patriarchal History. In Priestly-Code (27. 31. 32), genealogical framework encloses a notice of the migration of the Teraḥites from Ur-Kasdîm to Ḥarran, to which 124b. 5 may be the immediate sequel. The insertion from Yahwist (28–30) finds an equally suitable continuation in 121 ff., and is very probably the conclusion of Yahwist’s lost Shemite genealogy. The suppression of the preceding context of Yahwist is peculiarly tantalising because of the uncertainty of the tradition which makes Ur-Kasdîm the home of the ancestors of the Hebrews (see concluding note, page 239).
On the analysis, compare especially Budde Die biblische Urgeschichte 414 ff.—Verses ²⁷ and ³² belong quite obviously to Priestly-Code; and ³¹, from its diffuse style and close resemblance to Priestly-Code’s regular manner in recording the patriarchal migrations (12⁵ 31¹⁸ 36⁶ 46⁶: see Hupfeld Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung 19 f.), may be confidently assigned to the same source. 28a presents nothing distinctive of either document; but in 28b ארץ מולדת is peculiar to Jehovist (see the footnote on the verse). ²⁹ is Yahwist because presupposed in 2220 ff.; and its continuation (³⁰) brings as an additional criterion the word עֲקָרָה (compare 25²¹ 29³¹), which is never used by Priestly-Code.—The extract from Yahwist is supplementary to Priestly-Code, and it might be argued that at least 28a was necessary in the latter source to explain why Loṭ and not Haran went with Teraḥ. Budde points out in answer (page 420) that with still greater urgency we desiderate an explanation of the fact that Nāḥôr was left behind: if the one fact is left unexplained, so a fortiori might the other.
The formula וְאֵלָּה תֹּלְדוֹת does not occur again till 25¹²; and it is very widely held that in verse ²⁷ it stands as the heading of the section of Priestly-Code dealing with the life of Abraham. That is wholly improbable. It is likely enough that a heading (א׳ ת׳ אברהם) has been somewhere omitted (so Wellhausen, Budde, Holzinger, al.); but the truth is that from this point onwards no consistent principle can be discovered in the use of the formula. The hypothesis that an originally independent book of Tôledôth has been broken up and dislocated by the redaction, is as plausible a solution as any that can be thought of. See, further, on 25¹⁹.
27. On the name Abram, see on 17⁵; on Nāḥôr, verse ²² above.—Haran begat Loṭ] A statement to the same effect must have been found in Yahwist (see 124a). Haran has no significance in the tradition except as expressing the relationship of Lôṭ, Milkah, and Yiṣkah within the Hebraic group.
That הרן is formed from חָרָן (v.i.) by a softening of the initial guttural (Wellhausen Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels⁶ 313) is an improbable conjecture (see Budde 443²). The name occurs elsewhere only in בֵּית־ה׳ (Numbers 32³⁶: compare בֵּית־הָרָם, Joshua 13²⁷)¹ in the tribe of Gad: this has suggested the view that הָרָן was the name of a deity worshipped among the peoples represented by Lot (Mez: compare Winckler Altorientalische Forschungen, ii. 499).—The name לוֹט is also etymologically obscure (? Arabic lāṭ = ‘cleave to’). A connexion with the Ḥorite clan לוֹטָן in Genesis 3620. 22. 29 is probable.
28. The premature death of Haran (which became the nucleus of some fantastic Jewish legends) took place in the land of his nativity; i.e., according to the present text, Ur of the Chaldees, where his grave was shown down to the time of Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews i. 151; Eusebius. Onomasticon, 285, 50 ff.).
אוּר כַּשְׂדּים (verse ³¹ 15⁷, Nehemiah 9⁷: LXX χώρα τῶν Χαλδαίων) is now almost universally identified with the ancient South Babylonian city of Uru, whose remains have been discovered in the mounds of ’el-Muḳayyar, on the right bank of the Euphrates, about 25 miles South-east from Erech and 125 from Babylon (see Hilprecht Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th century, 172 ff.). The evidence for this view is very strong. Uru is the only city of the name known from Assyriology (although the addition of the genitive כשדים suggests that others were known to the Israelites: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 125 h): it was situated in the properly Chaldæan territory, was a city of great importance and vast antiquity, and (like Ḥarran, with which it is here connected) was a chief centre of the worship of the moon-god Sin (Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament², 129 ff.). The only circumstance that creates serious misgiving is that the prevalent tradition of Genesis points to the North-east as the direction whence the patriarchs migrated to Canaan (see below); and this has led to attempts to find a northern Ur connected probably with the Mesopotamian Chaldæans of 22²² (see Kittel, Geschichte Der Hebräer i. 163 ff.). Syrian tradition identifies it with Edessa (Urhåi, Urfa). It is generally recognised, however, that these considerations are insufficient to invalidate the arguments in favour of Uru.—כַּשְׂדִּים] = Babylonian Kašdu, Assyrian Kaldu (Χαλδ-αίοι), is the name of a group of Semitic tribes, distinguished from the Arabs and Aramæans, who are found settled to the South-east of Babylonia, round the shore of the Persian Gulf. In the 11th century or earlier they are believed to have penetrated Babylonia, at first as roving, pastoral nomads (Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 22 ff.), but ultimately giving their name to the country, and founding the dynasty of Nabopolassar.—By the ancients כשדים was rightly understood of Babylonia (Nicolaus of Damascus in Josephus Antiquities of the Jews i. 152; Eupolemos in Eusebius Præparatio Evangelica ix. 17; Jerome, al.); but amongst the Jews אוּר came to be regarded as an appellative = ‘fire’ (in igne Chaldæorum, which Jerome accepts, though he rejects the legends that were spun out of the etymology). This is the germ of the later Haggadic fables about the ‘fire’ in which Haran met an untimely fate, and the furnace into which Abraham was cast by order of Nimrod (Jubilees xii. 12–14; Jerome Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim, ad loc.; TargumJonathan, Bereshith Rabba § 38, Rashi).
28. עַל־פְּנֵי] is coram (LXX ἐνώπιον), rather than ante (Vulgate: so Tuch), or ‘in the lifetime of’ (Peshiṭtå ); compare Numbers 3⁴: see Brown-Driver-Briggs and Gesenius-Buhl s.v. אֶרֶץ מוֹלַדְתּוֹ—.פָּנִים so 24⁷ (Yahwist), 31¹³ (Elohist); compare Jeremiah 22¹⁰ 46¹⁶, Ezekiel 23¹⁵, Ruth 2¹¹. A commoner phrase in Pentateuch is אר׳ ומו׳, 12¹ 24⁴ 31³ 32¹⁰, Numbers 10³⁰ (all Yahwist). From the way in which the two expressions alternate, it is probable that they are equivalent; and since מ׳ alone certainly means ‘kindred’ (43⁷ [Yahwist], compare Esther 210. 20 8⁶), it is better to render ‘land of one’s parentage’ than ‘land in which one was born’ [Peshiṭtå here and 12¹] (compare Budde 419²). Priestly-Code has the word, but only in the sense of ‘progeny’ (48⁶, Leviticus 18⁹ [H]).
29. While we are told that Nāḥôr’s wife was his brother’s daughter, it is surprising that nothing is said of the parentage of Sarai. According to Elohist (20¹²), she was Abraham’s half-sister; but this does not entitle us to suppose that words expressing this relationship have been omitted from the text of Yahwist (Ewald). It would seem, however, that tradition represented marriage between near relations as the rule among the Teraḥites (20¹² 243 ff. 29¹⁹).
With regard to the names, שָׂרַי seems to be an archaic form of שָׂרָה = ‘princess’ (see on 17¹⁵), while מִלְכָּה means ‘queen.’ In Babylonian the relations are reversed, šarratu being the queen and malkatu the princess. It cannot be a mere coincidence that these two names correspond to two personages belonging to the pantheon of Ḥarran, where Šarratu was a title of the moon-goddess, the consort of Sin, and Malkatu a title of Ištar, also worshipped there (Jensen Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, xi. 299 f.; Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 364 f.). It is needless to say that these associations, if they existed, are forgotten in the Hebrew legend.—If, as is not improbable, the tradition contains ethnographic reminiscences, verse 28 f. express (1) the dissolution of an older tribal group, Haran; (2) the survival of one of its subdivisions (Loṭ) through the protection of a stronger tribe; and (3) the absorption of another (Milkah) in a kindred stock.—Of יִסְכָּה nothing is known. The Rabbinical fiction that she is Sarah under another name (implied in Josephus Antiquities of the Jews i. 151; TargumJonathan, Jerome, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, al.) is worthless. Ewald’s conjecture that she was the wife of Loṭ is plausible, but baseless.
29. וַיִּקַּח] singular, according to Gesenius-Kautzsch § 146 f.—30. עקרה] as 25²¹ 29³¹ (Yahwist); not in Priestly-Code (see 161a).—וָלָד] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ילד. Only again as Kethîb of Or. MSS in 2 Samuel 6²³. It is possibly here a scribal error, which eventually influenced the other passages.
31, 32. The migration from Ur-Kasdîm to Canaan is accomplished in two stages. Teraḥ, as patriarchal head of the family, conducts the expedition as far as Ḥarran, where he dies. The obvious implication is that after his death the journey is resumed by Abram (12⁵); although The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch alone gives a chronology consistent with this view (v. supra). Nāḥôr, we are left to infer, remained behind in Ur-Kasdîm; and in the subsequent narratives Priestly-Code (in opposition to Yahwist) seems carefully to avoid any suggestion of a connexion between Nāḥôr and the city of Ḥarran.
חָרָן (with virtually doubled ר: compare LXX Χαρραν; Greek Κάῤῥαι; Latin Carræ, Charra; Assyrian Ḫarrânu; Syrian and Arabic Ḥarrān) was an important centre of the caravan trade in North-west Mesopotamia, 60 miles East of Carchemish, situated near the Baliḫ, 70 miles due North from its confluence with the Euphrates. Though seldom mentioned in Old Testament (124 f. [Priestly-Code], 27⁴³ 28¹⁰ 29⁴ [Yahwist], 2 Kings 19¹², Ezekiel 27²³†), and now ruined, it was a city of great antiquity, and retained its commercial importance in classical and mediæval times. The name in Assyrian appears to be susceptible of several interpretations—‘way,’ ‘caravan’ (Tel-Amarna Tablets), ‘joint-stock enterprise’ (Delitzsch Assyrisches Handwörterbuch s.v., Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 29²)—any one of which might denote its commercially advantageous position at the parting of the route to Damascus from the main highway between Nineveh and Carchemish. Ḥarran was also (along with Ur) a chief seat of the worship of Sin, who had there a temple, E-ḫul-ḫul, described by Nabuna’id as “from remote days” a “dwelling of the joy of his (Sin’s) heart” (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, iii. 2. 97), and who was known in North-west Asia as the “Lord of Ḥarran” (Zinjirli inscription: compare Lidzbarski, Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik 444, An.). See, further, Mez, Geschichte der Stadt Ḥarrân in Mesopotamien; Tomkins, Times of Abraham, 55 ff. etc. This double connexion of Abraham with centres of lunar religion is the most plausible argument advanced by those who hold the mythical view of his figure as an impersonation of the moon-god.
It will be observed that while both Priestly-Code and Yahwist (in the present text) make Ur-Kasdîm the starting-point of the Abrahamic migration, Yahwist has no allusion to a journey from Ur to Ḥarran. His language is perfectly consistent either (a) with a march directly from Ur to Canaan, or (b) with the view that the real starting-point was Ḥarran, and that באור כשדים is here a gloss intended to harmonise Yahwist and Priestly-Code. Now, there is a group of passages in Yahwist which, taken together, unmistakably imply that Abraham was a native of Ḥarran, and therefore started from thence to seek the promised land. In 244. 7. 10, the place of Abraham’s nativity is Aram-Naharaim, and specially the ‘city of Nāḥôr’; while a comparison with 27⁴³ 28¹⁰ 29⁴ leaves no doubt that the ‘city of Nāḥôr’ was Ḥarran. Priestly-Code, on the other hand, nowhere deviates from his theory of a double migration with a halt at Ḥarran; and the persistency with which he dissociates Laban and Rebecca from Nāḥôr (25²⁰ 282. 5 ff.) is a proof that the omission of Nāḥôr from the party that left Ur was intentional (Budde 421 ff.). It is evident, then, that we have to do with a divergence in the patriarchal tradition; and the only uncertainty is with regard to the precise point where it comes in. The theory of Priestly-Code, though consistently maintained, is not natural; for (1) all the antecedents (1110–26) point to Mesopotamia as the home of the patriarchs; and (2) the twofold migration, first from Ur and then from Ḥarran, has itself the appearance of a compromise between two conflicting traditions. The simplest solution would be to suppose that both the references to Ur-Kasdîm in Yahwist (11²⁸ 15⁷) are interpolations, and that Priestly-Code had another tradition which he harmonised with that of Yahwist by the expedient just mentioned (so Wellhausen, Dillmann, Gunkel, Driver, al.). Budde holds that both traditions were represented in different strata of Yahwist (Yahwist¹ Ḥarran, Yahwist² Ur), and tries to show that the latter is a probable concomitant of the Yahwistic account of the Flood. In that he can hardly be said to be successful; and he is influenced by the consideration that apart from such a discrepancy in his sources Priestly-Code could never have thought of the circuitous route from Ur to Canaan by way of Ḥarran. That argument has little weight with those who are prepared to believe that Priestly-Code had other traditions at his disposal than those we happen to know from Yahwist and Elohist.¹ In itself, the hypothesis of a dual tradition within the school of Yahwist is perfectly reasonable; but in this case, in spite of Budde’s close reasoning, it appears insufficiently supported by other indications. The view of Wellhausen is on the whole the more acceptable.
31. כלתו] כַּלָּה (Syrian , Arabic kannat) means both ‘spouse’ and ‘daughter-in-law’: in Syrian and Arabic also ‘sister-in-law,’—a fact adduced by William Robertson Smith as a relic of Baal polyandry (Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 161, 209¹).—ויצאו אתם] gives no sense. Read with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX (καὶ ἐξήγαγεν αὐτούς) Vulgate, וַיּוֹצֵא אֹתָם, or Peshiṭtå, וַיֵּצֵא אִתָּם.—32. יְמֵי־תֶרַח] LXX + Χαῤῥάν.
THE PATRIARCHAL HISTORY.
ABRAHAM.
Chapters XII–XXV. 18.
Critical Note.—In this section of Genesis the broad lines of demarcation between Yahwist, Elohist, and Priestly-Code are so clear that there is seldom a serious diversity of opinion among critics. The real difficulties of the analysis concern the composition of the Yahwistic narrative, and the relation of its component parts to Elohist and Priestly-Code respectively. These questions have been brought to the front by the commentary of Gunkel, who has made it probable that the Yahwistic document contains two main strata, one (YahwistHebron) fixing Abraham’s residence at Hebron, and the other (YahwistBeersheba) regarding him as a denizen of the Negeb.
1. The kernel of YahwistHebron is a cycle of legends in which the fortunes of Abraham and Lot are interlinked: viz. 121–8; 132. 5–18; 18; 191–28; 1930–38. If these passages are read continuously, they form an orderly narrative, tracing the march of Abraham and Lot from Ḥarran through Shechem to Bethel, where they separate; thence Abraham proceeds to Hebron, but is again brought into ideal contact with Lot by visits of angels to each in turn; this leads up to the salvation of Lot from the fate of Sodom, his flight to the mountains, and the origin of the two peoples supposed to be descended from him. In this sequence 12⁹–13¹ is (as will be more fully shown later) an interruption. Earlier critics had attempted to get rid of the discontinuity either by seeking a suitable connexion for 129 ff. at a subsequent stage of Yahwist’s narrative, or by treating it as a redactional expansion. But neither expedient is satisfactory, and the suggestion that it comes from a separate source is preferable on several grounds. Now 129 ff. is distinguished from YahwistHebron, not only by the absence of Lot, but by the implication that Abraham’s home was in the Negeb, and perhaps by a less idealised conception of the patriarch’s character. These characteristics reappear in chapter 16, which, as breaking the connexion of chapter 18 with 13, is plausibly assigned to YahwistBeersheba. (To this source Gunkel also assigns the Yahwistic component of chapter 15; but that chapter shows so many signs of later elaboration that it can hardly have belonged to either of the primary sources.)—After chapter 19, the hand of Yahwist appears in the accounts of Isaac’s birth (211–7*) and Abraham’s treaty with Abimelech (2122–34*): the latter is probably YahwistBeersheba (on account of the Negeb), while the former shows slight discrepancies with the prediction of chapter 18, which lead us (though with less confidence) to assign it also to YahwistBeersheba. With regard to chapter 24, it is impossible to say whether it belongs to YahwistHebron or YahwistBeersheba: we assign it provisionally to the latter.¹ The bulk of the Yahwistic material may therefore be disposed in two parallel series as follows:
The Yahwistic sections not yet dealt with are chapter 15* (see above); and the two genealogies, 2220–24 and 251–6, both inserted by a Yahwistic editor from unknown sources. Other passages (1314–17 1817–19. 22b–33a 2215–18) which appear to have been added during the redaction (RedactorJahwist or RedactorJehovist) will be examined in special notes ad locc.
2. The hand of Elohist is recognised in the following sections: 15*; 20; 211–7*; 218–21; 2122–34*; 221–19 (24*?). Gunkel has pointed out that where Yahwist and Elohist run parallel to one another, Elohist’s ♦affinities are always with YahwistBeersheba and never with YahwistHebron (compare the variants 129 ff. ∥ 20; 16 ∥ 218–21; and the compositions in 211–7 and 2122–34). This, of course, might be merely a consequence of the fact that Elohist, like YahwistBeersheba, makes the Negeb (Beersheba) the scene of Abraham’s history. But it is remarkable that in chapter 26 we find unquestionable Yahwistic parallels to Elohist and YahwistBeersheba, with Isaac as hero instead of Abraham. These are probably to be attributed to the writer whom we have called YahwistHebron, who thus succeeded in preserving the Negeb traditions, while at the same time maintaining the theory that Abraham was the patron of Hebron, and Isaac of Beersheba.
Putting all the indications together, we are led to a tentative hypothesis regarding the formation of the Abrahamic legend, which has some value for the clearing of our ideas, though it must be held with great reserve. The tradition crystallised mainly at two great religious centres, Beersheba and Hebron. The Beersheba narratives took shape in two recensions, a Yahwistic and an Elohistic, of which (it may be added) the second is ethically and religiously on a higher level than the first. These were partly amalgamated, probably before the union of YahwistHebron and YahwistBeersheba (see on chaapter 26). The Hebron tradition was naturally indifferent to the narratives which connected Abraham with the Negeb, or with its sanctuary Beersheba; hence the writer of YahwistHebron, who attaches himself to this tradition, excludes the Beersheba stories from his biography of Abraham, but finds a place for some of them in the history of Isaac.
3. The account of Priestly-Code (124b. 5 136. 11b. 12abα; 161a. 3. 15; 17; 19²⁹; 211b. 2b–5; 23; 257–11a; 2512–17) consists mostly of a skeleton biography based on the older documents, and presupposing a knowledge of them. The sole raison d’être of such an outline is the chronological scheme into which the various incidents are fitted: that it fills some gaps in the history (birth of Ishmael, death of Abraham) is merely an accident of the redaction. Priestly-Code’s affinities are chiefly with YahwistHebron, with whom he shares the idea that Hebron was the permanent residence of Abraham. Of the sections peculiar to Priestly-Code, chapter 17 is parallel to 15, and 2512–17 has probably replaced a lost Yahwistic genealogy of Ishmael. Chapter 23 stands alone as presumably an instance where Priestly-Code has preserved an altogether independent tradition.
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 124b. 5 136. 11b. 12abα: 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 (125. 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 1310. 13; and the following expressions: מוֹלֶדֶת, 12¹; נִבְרַךְ בְּ, 12³; כֹּל מִשְׁפְּחֹת הָֽאֲדָמָה, 12³; הִנֵּה נָא, נָא, 1211. 13 138. 9. 14; בַּֽעֲבוּר, 1213. 16; מַה־זֹּאת ע׳, 12¹⁸; כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן, 1310. 11. It falls naturally into three sections: (a) 121–4a. 6–8; (b) 12¹⁰–13¹; (c) 132. 5. 7–11a. 12bβ–18; 12⁹ and 133. 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 Testaments² 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.
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 f.).—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 f.) 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 Israels⁶ 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.
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. לֶךְ־לְךָ (22² [Elohist]; compare Canticles 210. 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 (= 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 , 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 LXXA, al., 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 (, 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).
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 Orients², 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 ff. 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 ff.). 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 ff.) 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 ff. its connexion with the incident is loosened.
The gifts enumerated constituted the riches of the patriarchs: 20¹⁴ 24³⁵ 30⁴³ 3215 f. (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.
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 ff.)] properly ‘dwell as a client or protected guest’ (גֵּר = Arabic ǧār: compare The Old Testament in the Jewish Church², 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 1827. 31 192. 8. 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 ff. it takes the form of a personal communication, while in the attenuated version of 266 ff. 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 f. (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 ff..—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 1917. 25. 28 f., 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 4036. 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 14. 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 f., 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 = Tanis (צֹעַן) in Egypt (Numbers 13²², Isaiah 1911. 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 9aβ, must be assigned to Priestly-Code, being necessary to the completeness of that account, and because it disturbs the connexion of 11a with 12bβ.
♦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.
This solemn assurance of the possession of the land (14–17) is somewhat of a contrast to the simple promises of 122. 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 ff.). (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 Testaments² 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 f.. 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.
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 travellers³ 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 1413. 24 it becomes the name of an Amorite chief, the owner of the trees. So Peshiṭtå here, as shown by the addition of .