The birth, circumcision, and naming of Isaac are briefly recorded in a section pieced together from the three sources (1–7). Then follows a notice of the weaning festival (⁸), to which, by a finely descriptive touch (⁹), is linked the Elohistic version of the origin of the Ishmaelites (10–21). A comparison with the Yahwistic parallel (chapte 16) will be found below (page 324).
Analysis.—2b–5 are from Priestly-Code (who by the way ignores altogether the expulsion of Ishmael [see on 25⁹]): observe the naming by the father and the exact correspondence with 16¹⁶ in ³, circumcision (⁴), the chronology (⁵); and the words אֱלֹהִים, 2b. 4; מוֹעֵד, 2b (compare 17²¹); מְאַת שָׁנָה, ⁵. 2a is to be assigned to Yahwist (בֵּן לִזְקֻנָיו, v.i.); and also, for the same reason, ⁷. There remain the doublets 1a ∥ 1b and 6a ∥ 6b. Since the continuity of Priestly-Code is seldom sacrificed, 1b is usually assigned to that source (יהוה, a scribal error), leaving 1a to Yahwist (יהוה, פָּקַד). 6b goes with ⁷ (therefore Yahwist: v.i.); and there remains for Elohist the solitary half-verse 6a (אלהים), which cannot belong to Priestly-Code because of the different etymology implied for יצחק. So Holzinger, Gunkel; Dillmann, Strack differ only in assigning the whole of ⁶ to Elohist.—The Yahwist fragments 1a. 2a. 7. 6b form a completely consecutive account of the birth of Isaac; which, however, is not the sequel to chapter 18 (see on 6a), and therefore belongs to YahwistBeersheba rather than YahwistHebron (Gunkel).—8–21 is wholly Elohistic: אלהים, 12. 17. 19. 20; אמה, 10. 12. 13; שים לגוי, 13. 18 (Yahwist עשה ל׳, 12²; Priestly-Code נתן ל׳, 17²⁰); and rare expressions like חמת, 14. 15. 19; מטחוי קשת, ¹⁶; רבה קשת, ²⁰. Further characteristics are the revelation of God by night (12 f.), and in a voice from heaven (¹⁷).
1–7. The birth of Isaac.—2. a son to his old age] so verse ⁷ 24³⁶ 37³ 44²⁰ (all Yahwist). All the sources emphasise the fact that Isaac was a late-born child; but this section contains nothing implying a miracle (contrast chapters 17, 18).—3–5. The naming and circumcision of Isaac, in accordance with 1719. 12 (Priestly-Code).—6a. God has made laughter for me] Both here and in 6b laughter is an expression of joy, whereas in 1812 ff. 17¹⁷ it expresses incredulity.—6b, 7 is the Yahwistic parallel. It has been pointed out by Budde (Die biblische Urgeschichte 224: so Kittel, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger) that the transposition of 6b to the end of ⁷ greatly improves the sense, and brings out the metrical form of the original (in Hebrew 4 trimeters):
Who would have said to Abraham,
“Sarah gives children suck”?
For I have borne him a son in his old age!
Every one that hears will laugh at me!
1a. פקד] never used by Priestly-Code sensu bono (Strack).—2. אלהים] LXX יהוה—3. הנולד־] pointed as perfect with article (18²¹).—6a. צחק] The √ צחק never occurs outside of Pentateuch, except Judges 16²⁵ (where יִשְׂחַק should probably be read) and Ezekiel 23³² (but see Cornill and Toy), the Qal being used only in connexion with Isaac (17¹⁷ 1812. 13. 15 21⁶), while Piel has a stronger sense (19¹⁴ 21⁹ 26⁸ 3914. 17, Exodus 32⁶). The other form שׂחק (not in Pentateuch) is mostly later than Jeremiah (except Judges 16²⁷, 1 Samuel 18⁷, 2 Samuel 2¹⁴ 65. 21): in four cases (Amos 79. 16, Jeremiah 33²⁶, Psalms 105⁹) even the name יִצְחָק appears as יִשְׂחָק. It will be seen that in Genesis we have no fewer than 4 (17¹⁷ 18¹² 216a. 6b) or 5 (21⁹?) different suggestions of a connexion of יִצְחָק with √ צחק. Analogy would lead us to suppose that in reality it is a contraction of יִצְהָקֵאל, in all probability the name of an extinct tribe (compare יְרַחְמְאֵל ,יִשְׁמָעֵאל, etc.).—6b. יִצֲחַק] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 10 g.—7. מִלֵּל] Aramaic; in Hebrew rare and poetic.—On the modal use of perfect (‘would have said’), compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 p; Driver A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 19.—בנים] plural of species; compare Exodus 21²², 1 Samuel 17⁴³, Canticles 2⁹ (Dillmann). LXX has singular.—לזקניו LXX ἐν τῷ γήρει μου.
8–10. Sarah demands the ejection of Ishmael.—8. The occasion was the customary family feast of the weaning of Isaac (Benzinger Hebräische Archäologie² 131). The age of weaning in modern Palestine is said to be 2 or 3 years (ib. 116); in ancient Israel also it must often have been late (1 Samuel 122 ff., 2 Maccabees 727 f.).—9. playing with Isaac her son] The last words are essential to the sense, and must be restored with LXX, Vulgate (see Jubilees xvii. 4, with Charles’s Note). It is the spectacle of the two young children playing together, innocent of social distinctions, that excites Sarah’s maternal jealousy and prompts her cruel demand. The chronology of Priestly-Code, according to which Ishmael was some 17 years old, has for uncritical readers spoiled the effect; and given rise to the notion of Ishmael as a rude lad scoffing at the family joy, or to the still more fanciful explanations current in Jewish circles.¹—10. with my son] If this presupposes an equal right of inheritance as between the sons of the wife and the concubine (Gunkel), it also shows a certain opposition to that custom: compare the case of Jephthah, Judges 111 ff. (see Benzinger Hebräische Archäologie² 296).—this slave girl (אָמָה)] In Elohist, Hagar is not Sarah’s maid, but simply a household slave, who has become her master’s concubine.
9. מְצַחֶק LXX παίζοντα μετὰ Ἰσαακ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἑαυτῆς; so Vulgate (compare Zechariah 8⁵). The sense ‘mock’ (‘play with’ in a bad sense) would require a following בְּ, but it is doubtful if it actually occurs. 3914. 17 may be explained after 26⁸; in 19¹⁴ it means simply ‘play’ as opposed to serious behaviour (compare Proverbs 26¹⁹). See above on verse ⁶.—On the pausal ־ֶ , see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 52 n.
11–13. Abraham’s misgivings removed.—11. on account of his son] whom he loves as his own flesh and blood; for the mother, as a slave, he has no particular affection.—12. It is revealed to him (by night: compare ¹⁴) that Sarah’s maternal instincts are in accord with the divine purpose.—shall a seed be called to thee] i.e., ‘in the line of Isaac shall thy name be perpetuated’ (Isaiah 41⁸, compare Romans 9⁷, Hebrews 11¹⁸). The same idea otherwise expressed in Priestly-Code (1719. 21).—13. Hagar’s child (still unnamed) is also Abraham’s seed, though his descendants are not to be known as such.—a great nation (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå)] compare 17²⁰.
11 end] LXX + Ἰσμαηλ (wrongly).—12. יֵרַע] LXX + τὸ ῥῆμα.—13. The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX read האמה הזאת לגוי גדול: גָּדוֹל also in Vulgate, Peshiṭtå.—לְגוֹי [ג׳]—שֵׁים] so verse ¹⁸ 46³ (Elohist).
14–16. Mother and child in the desert.—The sufferings and despair of the helpless outcasts are depicted with fine feeling and insight.—14. a skin of water] חֵמֶת (v.i.), the usual Eastern water-bag, answering to the of the ǧirby of the modern Bedouin (Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta i. 227, ii. 585).—and the boy he placed on her shoulder (v.i.)] compare 15. 16.—the wilderness of Beersheba (see on ³¹)] implying that Abraham dwelt near, but not necessarily at, Beersheba.—15. she cast the boy (whom, therefore, she must have been carrying) under one of the bushes] for protection from the sun (1 Kings 194 f.). To save Priestly-Code’s chronology, Delitzsch and Strack make cast = ‘eilends niederlegen’—with what advantage does not quite appear.—16. a bowshot off] out of sight of her child, but within hearing of his cry.—The last clause should be read with LXX; and the boy lifted up his voice and wept (verse ¹⁷): the change of subject being due to the false impression that Ishmael was now a grown lad. Hagar’s dry-eyed despair is a more effective picture than that given by Massoretic Text.
14. חמת] Only here (15. 19) = Arabic ḥamīt (√ ḥamita, ‘rancid’?). On the forms חֵמַת, חֵ֑מֶת, or חֶ֑מֶת, חֵמֶת, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 95 l.—שם על־ וגו׳] The transposition וְאֶת־הַיִּלֶד שָׂם עַל־שִׁכְמָהּ was suggested by Olshausen, and is by far the best remedy for an awkward construct. In Massoretic Text it would be necessary to take וְאֶת־ה׳ as second object to וַיִּתֵּן, and שם על־שכמה as a parenthetic circumstantial clause (so Dillmann, Delitzsch, Strack). It is an effort to evade the absurdity of a youth of 17 being carried on his mother’s back.—15. השיחם] ‘desert shrubs’; see on 2⁵.—16. הרחק] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 h.—כמטחוי קשת] literally ‘as (far as) bowmen do’; LXX ὡσεὶ τόξου βολήν, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word), hardly imply a different text. On מְטַֽחֲוֵי (participle Palestinian √ טחה,—only here), see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 kk.—ותשא וגו׳] LXX וַיִּשָּׂא [הַיֶּלֶר] אֶת־קֹלֹה וַיֵּבְךְּ.
17–19. The Divine succour comes in two forms: a voice from heaven (17 f.), and an opening of Hagar’s eyes (¹⁹).—17. God heard] (twice) preparing for an explanation of יִשְׁמָעֵאל.—While God Himself hears, the medium of His revelation is the Angel of God (as 28¹² 31¹¹ 32², Exodus 14¹⁹), who by a refinement peculiar to Elohist (22¹¹) speaks from heaven. This goes beyond the primary conception of the Angel: see on 16⁷.—18. Hagar is encouraged by a disclosure of the future greatness of her son.—19. opened her eyes] compare 35. 7. The tact of the narrator leaves us in doubt whether the well was now miraculously opened, or had been there all along though unseen. In any case it is henceforth a sacred well.
17b. אל־קול] MSS and The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch את־קִ׳.—19. באר מים] LXX + חַיִּים,—attractive! (compare 26¹⁹).
20, 21. Ishmael’s career.—Here we expect the naming of the child, based on verse ¹⁷: this has been omitted by Redactor in favour of Yahwist (16¹¹).—20. The boy grew up, amidst the perils and hardships of the desert,—a proof that God was with him.—he became a bowman] (pointing רֹבֶה קַשָּֽׁת: v.i.), the bow being the weapon of his descendants (Isaiah 21¹⁷).—21. The wilderness of Pārān is et-Tīh, bounding the Negeb on the South.—His mother took him a wife from the land of Egypt] her own country (verse ⁹): see page 285 above.
Comparison of chapter 16 with 211–21.—That these two narratives are variations of a common legendary theme is obvious from the identity of the leading motives they embody: viz. the significance of the name Ishmael (16¹¹ 21¹⁷); the mode of life characteristic of his descendants (16¹² 21²⁰); their relation to Israel; and the sacredness of a certain well, consecrated by a theophany (167. 14 21¹⁹).¹ Each tale is an exhaustive expression of these motives, and does not tolerate a supplementary anecdote alongside of it. Chapter 21, however, represents a conception of the incident further removed from primitive conditions than 16: contrast the sympathetic picture of nomadic life in 16¹² with the colourless notice of 21²⁰; in 16, moreover, Hagar is a high-spirited Bedawi woman who will not brook insult, and is at home in the desert; while in 21 she is a household slave who speedily succumbs to the hardships of the wilderness. In Elohist the appeal is to universal human sympathies rather than to the peculiar susceptibilities of the nomad nature; his narrative has a touch of pathos which is absent from Yahwist; it is marked by a greater refinement of moral feeling, and by a less anthropomorphic idea of God.—See the admirable characterisation of Gunkel, page 203 f.
20. ויהי רבה קשת] ‘and he became, growing up, an archer’; Vulgate juvenis sagittarius (so TargumOnkelos). But קַשָּׁת is ἅπαξ εἰρημένον, the syntax is peculiar, and, besides, the growing up has been already mentioned. The true text is doubtless that given above and implied by LXX ἐγένετο δὲ τοξότης. Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) also implies קֶשֶׁת; but there are further divergences in that Version. רבה = ‘shoot’ (not so elsewhere), might be a by-form of רבב (see on 49²³; and compare רַב = ‘shooter,’ in Jeremiah 50²⁹, Job 16¹³); but it may be a question whether in these three cases we should not substitute רבה for רבב, or whether in this passage we should not read רֹמֵה קֶשֶׁת with Ball (see especially Jeremiah 4²⁹, Psalms 78⁹). The rendering ‘a shooter, an archer’ (Delitzsch), is clumsy; and the idea that קַשָּׁת is an explanatory gloss on רֹבֶה (Kautzsch-Socin) is not probable.
Two distinct narratives, each leading up to a covenant at Beersheba, are here combined. (A) In the first, Abraham, acceding to a request of Abimelech, enters into a covenant of permanent friendship with him, from which the place derives its name ‘Well of the Oath’ (22–24. 27. 31).—(B) In the other, the covenant closes a long-standing dispute about springs, and secures the claim of Abraham’s people to the wells of Beersheba, where Abraham subsequently plants a sacred tree (25. 26. 28–30. 32. 33).
Sources.—The passage, except some redactional touches in 32–34, has usually been assigned to Elohist (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Dillmann, Holzinger, Strack). Its disjointed character has, however, been felt, and tentative solutions have been proposed by several critics (compare Kautzsch-Socin Anm. 92, 93; Kraetzschmar Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament 14, 31; von Gall, Altisraelitische Kultstätten 46 f.; Oxford Hexateuch ii. 30 f.). The most successful is that of Gunkel, who assigns 25. 26. 28–30. 32–34 to Yahwist, the rest to Elohist: the reasons will appear in the notes. The analysis rests on the duplicates (27a ∥ 3Oa, 27b ∥ 32a) and material discrepancies of the section; the linguistic criteria being indecisive as between Yahwist and Elohist, though quite decisive against Priestly-Code (חֶסֶד, הֵנָּה, ²³; כָּרַת בְּרִית, ²⁷; בַּֽעֲבוּר, ³⁰). But the connexion with chapter 20, and אֱלֹהִים in 22. 23, prove that the main account is from Elohist; while יהוה, ³³, and בַּֽעֲבוּר, ³⁰, show the other to be Yahwist. Since the scene is Beersheba, the Yahwistic component must be YahwistBeersheba.—32–34 have been considerably modified by Redactors. Procksch (10 ff.) holds that in the original Elohist verses 22 ff. preceded 1–20; his detailed analysis being almost identical with Gunkel’s.
22–24. Abimelech proposes an oath of perpetual amity between his people and Abraham’s, and the latter consents (Elohist).—22. Pîkōl (v.i.), his commander-in-chief, seems here merely a symbol of the military importance of Gerar: otherwise 2626 ff., where Pîkōl is a party to the covenant.—23. Swear to me here] in the place afterwards known as Beersheba (³¹). Abraham’s departure from Gerar, and Abimelech’s visit to him in Beersheba, must have stood in Elohist between 20¹⁷ and 21²² (compare 2613. 26).—24. This unreserved consent is inconsistent with the expostulation of—25, 26 (Yahwist), which presupposes strained relations between the parties, and repeated disputes about the ownership of wells. Note (1) the frequentative וְהוֹכִחַ, (2) the plural ‘wells’ (retained by LXX), (3) the fuller parallel of 2615. 18 ff., which shows that the right to several wells had been contested.—And as often as Abraham took Abimelech to task about the wells ... Abimelech would answer]—that he knew nothing of the matter (so Gunkel).—27. Continuing ²⁴ (Elohist). Giving (or exchange?) of presents seems to have been customary when a covenant was made (1 Kings 15¹⁹, Isaiah 30⁶, Hosea 12²). The action would be no suitable answer to verse ²⁶.—28–30 (Yahwist). the seven ewe lambs are set apart for the purpose explained in ³⁰; but the article shows that they must have been mentioned in the previous context. It is clear from ³⁰ that the lacuna is in Yahwist, not in Elohist; while Abimelech’s question ²⁹ proves that the lambs were not an understood part of the ceremony (Dillmann).—30. that it (the acceptance of the present) may be a witness, etc.] so that in future there may be no quarrel about Beersheba.—31. belongs to Elohist: נִשְׁבְּעוּ, compare 23 f.; שְׁנֵיהֶם, compare ²⁷.—בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע = ‘seven wells,’ is here explained as ‘Well of the Oath,’ the oath being the central feature of the berîth. The etymology is not altogether at fault, since נִשְׁבַּֽע may mean literally to ‘put oneself under the influence of seven,’ the sacred number (Herodotus iii. 8; Homer Iliad xix. 243 ff.; Pausanias iii. 20. 9).—32a. Yahwist’s parallel to 27b.¹—33. The inauguration of the cult of Beersheba (Yahwist: compare 26²⁵). Among the sacra of that famous shrine there must have been a sacred tamarisk believed to have been planted by Abraham (see on 12⁶). The planting of a sacred tree is no more a contradictio in adjecto (Stade in von Gall, 47) than the erecting of a sacred stone, or the digging of a sacred well. The opinion (Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger) that the subject is Isaac, and that the verse should stand after 26²⁵, rests on the incorrect assumption that no stratum of Yahwist puts Abraham in connexion with Beersheba.—’El ‛Ôlâm] presumably the pre-Israelite name of the local numen, here identified with Yahwe (Gunkel: see 16¹³). Canaanite analogies are Ἦλος ὁ καὶ Κρόνος (Eusebius Præparatio Evangelica i. 10, 13 ff.), and Χρόνος ἀγήρατος (Damascius Difficulties and Solutions of First Principles 123).—34. The assumption that Beersheba was in Philistine territory being incompatible with 32b, the verse must be an interpolation.—On the historical background of these legends, see after 26³³.
Beersheba is the modern Bi’r-es-Seba‛, in the heart of the Negeb, some 28 miles South-west from Hebron, and 25 South-east from Umm el-Ǧerār. Its importance as a religious centre in the Old Testament appears not only from its frequent mention in the patriarchal history (22¹⁹ 2623 ff. 31 ff. 28¹⁰ 461 ff.), but still more from the fact that in the 8th century its oracle (compare 25²²) was resorted to by pilgrims from the northern kingdom (Amos 5⁵ 8¹⁴). Von Gall (44 ff.) questions the opinion that it was originally a group of 7 wells, holding that there was but one, whose name meant ‘Well of the Oath.’ But that “among the Semites a special sanctity was attached to groups of seven wells” is shown by Smith (Lectures on the Religion of the Semites², 181 f.: compare Nöldeke Archiv für Religionswissenschaft., vii. 340 ff.); and the existence of a plurality of wells at Bi’r es-Seba‛ has never been disputed. See Robinson Biblical Researches in Palestine, i. 204 ff.; Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 284 f.; Robinson, Biblical World, xvii. (1901), 247 ff.; Gautier, ib. xviii. 49 ff.; Driver The Expository Times, vii. (1896), 567 f.; Joel and Amos² (1901), page 239 f.; Trumbull, The Expository Times, viii. 89.
22. ופיכל] LXX prefix καὶ Ὀχοζὰθ ὁ νυμφαγωγὸς αὐτοῦ (from 26²⁶). Spiegelberg (Orientalische Litteraturzeitung, ix. 109) considers this one of the few Egyptian names in Old Testament = p<Ḫ-r(j), “the Syrian.”—23. אם] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 149 c.—נין ונכד] (proles et soboles) an alliterative phrase found in Isaiah 14²², Job 18¹⁹, Sirach 41⁵ 47²²†.—25. והוכח] “must be corrected to וַיּוֹכַח” (Ball, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 112 tt): The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ויוכיח. But Massoretic Text is probably right, with frequent sense of perfect given above. For the following ויאמר (instead of ואמר), see Driver A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 114 β.—באר] LXX φρεάτων, ut sup.—28. הצאן] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (which also omits את־) צאן. Delitzsch thinks this one of the few cases (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 e) where article determines only its own word, and not the whole expression.—29. Read הכבשת with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (³⁰).—לבדָּֽנָה (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch לבדהן)]. On suffix compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 f. The form is chiefly pausal; and though the only other example in Pentateuch (Genesis 42³⁶) is Elohist, 30⁴¹ (־ֶנָּה) is Yahwist, and the form cannot be considered distinctive of Elohist.—31. באר שבע] LXX Φρέαρ ὁρκισμοῦ, but in ³² Φρέατι τοῦ ὅρκου. The construction (number in genitive after singular noun) has been supposed by Stade to be Canaanite idiom (compare קִרְיַת אַרְבַּֽע, 23²).—33. אֵשֶׁל] Arabic ’aṯl, Aramaic אתלא, Assyrian ašlu; 1 Samuel 22⁶ 31¹³ [in 1 Chronicles 10¹² אֵלָה]†, in both cases probably denoting a sacred tree. The word seems to have been strange to versions: LXX ἄρουραν, Aquila δενδρῶνα, Symmachus φυτείαν, Vulgate nemus, etc. The substitution of אֲשֵׁרָה proposed by Stade (v.s.) is uncalled for, though see Encyclopædia Biblica, 4892 f.—עולם] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch העולם.—34 is wanting in TargumJonathan (edited by Ginsburger).
The only incident in Abraham’s life expressly characterised as a ‘trial’ of his faith is the one here narrated, where the patriarch proves his readiness to offer up his only son as a sacrifice at the command of God. The story, which is the literary masterpiece of the Elohistic collection, is told with exquisite simplicity; every sentence vibrates with restrained emotion, which shows how fully the author realises the tragic horror of the situation.
Source.—The original narrative consists of verses 1–14. 19. In spite of יהוה in 11. 14, this belongs to Elohist: compare [הָ]אֱלֹהִים, 1. 3. 8. 9. 12; עַד־כֹּה ⁵]; the revelation by night, 1 ff.; the Angel calling from heaven, ¹¹.—On 15–18 see below. Compare Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel.
1–8. Abraham’s willing preparation for the sacrifice.—1. God tempted Abraham] i.e., tested him, to “know what was in his heart” (Deuteronomy 8²),—an anthropomorphic representation: compare Exodus 16⁴ 20²⁰, Deuteronomy 8¹⁶ 13⁴ 33⁸ etc. This sentence governs the narrative and prepares the reader for a good ending.—2. thy son—thine only one—whom thou lovest—Isaac] emphasising the greatness of the sacrifice, as if to say that God knows right well how much He asks.—the land of Mōriyyāh (הַמֹּרִיָּה)] All attempts to explain the name and identify the place have been futile.♦—which I will name to thee] When this more precise direction was imparted, does not appear.—3. While the outward preparations are graphically described, no word is spared for the conflict in Abraham’s breast,—a striking illustration of the reticence of the legends with regard to mental states.—4. saw the place afar off] The spot, therefore, has already been indicated (verse ²). We are left to imagine the pang that shot through the father’s heart when he caught sight of it.—5. Another touch, revealing the tense feeling with which the story is told: the servants are put off with a pretext whose hollowness the reader knows.—6. “The boy carries the heavier load, the father the more dangerous: knife and fire” (Gunkel). It is curious that the Old Testament has no allusion to the method of producing fire.—7, 8. The pathos of this dialogue is inimitable: the artless curiosity of the child, the irrepressible affection of the father, and the stern ambiguity of his reply, can hardly be read without tears. Note the effect of the repetition: and they went both of them together (6. 8).—God will provide] יִרְאֶה, literally ‘look out’; as 41³³ [Deuteronomy 12¹³ 33²¹], 1 Samuel 161. 17. The word points forward to verse ¹⁴.
The prevalent Jewish and Christian tradition puts the scene on the Temple mount at Jerusalem (הַר הַמּוֹרִיָּה, 2 Chronicles 3¹; τὸ Μώριον ὄρος, Josephus Antiquities of the Jews i. 224, compare 226). But (a) the attestation of the name is so late and unreliable that it is a question whether the Chronicler’s use of it rests on a traditional interpretation of this passage, or whether it was introduced here on the strength of his notice. (b) Even if [הַ]מֹּרִיָּה were a genuine ancient name for the Temple hill, it is not credible that it was extended to the land in which it was, and still less that the hill itself should be described as ‘one of the mountains’ in the region named after it. There is reason to suspect that the name of a land may have been modified (either in accordance with a fanciful etymology [verse ¹⁴], or on the authority of 2 Chronicles 3¹) in order that the chief sanctuary of later times might not be altogether ignored in the patriarchal history. The Samaritan tradition identified Moriah with Shechem.¹ This view has been revived in two forms: (1) that the name is a corruption or variant of מוֹרֶה in 12⁶ etc. (Bleek, Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1831, 520 ff.; Tuch, von Gall [see LXX infinitive]); and (2) that it is a corruption of חֲמֹרִים (‘land of the Ḥamorites’ [33¹⁹]) (Wellhausen). But both these names are too local and restricted to suit the context; and the distance is perhaps too great. Of the attempts to recover the original name, the simplest is א׳ הָֽאֱמֹרִי, which would be a natural designation of Palestine in Elohist:² see on 10¹⁶. If the legend be very ancient, there is no certainty that the place was in the Holy Land at all. Any extensive mountainous region, well known at the time, and with a lingering tradition of human sacrifice, would satisfy the conditions. Hence, Cheyne’s suggestion that the land of ‘Muṣri’ is to be read (Encyclopædia Biblica, 3200; Winckler Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, ii. 44), is not devoid of plausibility. On Gunkel’s solution, see below.
1. אחר הד׳ הא׳ 15¹.—והאלהים נסה] The reluctance of grammarians to admit that this can be the main sentence, and apodosis after time determination, is intelligible (Delitzsch, Dillmann, Gunkel), the order being that of the circumstantial clause; but it is difficult, without sophistical distinctions, to take it any other way. As circumstantial clause it could only mean ‘when God had tempted Abraham,’ which is nonsense; and to speak of it as a Verumständung of the following ויאמר (Delitzsch) is to deceive oneself with a word. The right explanation in Driver A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 78 (3).—אברהם] repeated in LXX, Vulgate; compare ¹¹.—2. המריה] The word was no doubt popularly connected with √ רָאָה as used in ¹⁴ (compare The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch המוראה, Aquila τὴν καταφανῆ, Symmachus τῆς ὀπτασίας, Vulgate visionis), though a real derivation from that √ is impossible. LXX τὴν ὑψηλήν (compare 12⁶). Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac word), TargumOnkelos-Jonathan פולחנא (‘worship’).—3. את־שני נ׳] So Numbers 22²². The determination is peculiar. That it means the two slaves with whom a person of importance usually travelled (Gunkel) is little probable. It is possible that in this legend Abraham was conceived as a man of moderate wealth, and that these were all the servants he had.—5. עד־כה] On כֹּה as demonstrative of place, see Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v. (‘rare, chiefly in Elohist’); compare 31³⁷.—7. הנני בני] ‘Yes, my son’; the ‘Here am I’ of English Version is much too pompous. LXX, Vulgate excellently: τί ἐστιν, τέκνον; Quid vis, fili?—8. השה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX omit article (Ball).
9–14. The sacrifice averted.—9, 10. The verses describe with great minuteness the preliminary ritual of the עוֹלָה in highly technical language (עָרַךְ, עָקַד, שָׁחַט); v.i.—11, 12. At the extreme moment Abraham’s hand is stayed by a voice from heaven.—11 is certainly from Elohist; יהוה must therefore be a redactional accommodation to verse ¹⁵ (compare Peshiṭtå infinitive).—The repetition of Abraham expresses urgency; as 46², Exodus 3⁴ (Elohist), 1 Samuel 3¹⁰.—12. The Angel speaks in the name of God, as 16¹⁰, 21¹⁸.—now I know, etc.] Thus early was the truth taught that the essence of sacrifice is the moral disposition (Psalms 5118 f.).—13. The substitution of the ram for the human victim takes place without express command, Abraham recognising by its mysterious presence that it was ‘provided’ by God for this purpose.—14a. The naming of the place is an essential feature of the legend, and must therefore be assigned to Elohist.—יהוה יִרְאֶה alludes to verse ⁸; but that any sanctuary actually bore this name is scarcely probable. In truth, it seems to be given as the explanation, not of a name, but of a current proverbial saying (Stade Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 450), which can hardly be the original intention (see below).—14b. The words בְּהַ֥ר יהו֖ה יֵֽרָאֶֽה yield no sense appropriate to the context.
Massoretic Text might be rendered: (a) ‘In the mount of Yahwe he (it) is seen’ (Strack), or (b) ‘In the mount of Yahwe men appear’ [for worship] (Driver 220, compare TargumOnkelos infinitive), or (disregarding accusative) (c) ‘In the mount where Yahwe is seen’: in this case the saying would be יהוה יִרְאֶה (14a), and 14b would merely mean that it was used in the Temple mount. All these are obviously unsatisfactory. With a slight change (בָּהָר for בְּ׳) the clause would read ‘In the mount Yahwe appears’ (so LXX), or (with יִרְאֶה for יֵֽרָאֶה) ‘In ... Yahwe sees’ (Vulgate, Peshiṭtå).—The text has probably been altered under the same tendency which gave rise to מֹרִיָּה in verse ²; and the recovery of the original is impossible. Gunkel, with brilliant ingenuity, conjectures that the name of the sanctuary was יְרוּאֵל (2 Chronicles 20¹⁶); this he inserts after הַהוּא; and restores the remainder of the verse as follows: אֲשֶׁר אָמַר הַיּוֹם בָּהָר יִרְאֶה אֱלֹהִים = ‘for he said, “To-day, in this mountain, God provideth.”’
9. ערך] of the arranging of the wood on the altar, 1 Kings 18³³, Numbers 23⁴, Isaiah 30³³.—עקד] (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον) in New Hebrew means to ‘bind the bent fore- and hind-legs of an animal for sacrifice’ (Driver): LXX συμποδίσας—10. שׁחט is technically to cut the throat of a sacrificial victim (Jacob, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xvii. 51).—11. יהוה] Peshiṭtå אֱלֹהִים; so verse ¹⁵.—13. אַיִל אַחַר] ‘a ram behind’; so Tuch, Dillmann, Delitzsch, Strack, (TargumOnkelos, Symmachus in temporal sense). The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, TargumJonathan, Jubilees and Hebrew MSS have א׳ אֶחָד, ‘a [certain] ram’; which may be nichtssagend, but is preferable to Massoretic Text (Holzinger, Gunkel).—Read also (with LXX, Peshiṭtå) נֶֽאֱחָז (participle) for perfect.—בסבך] LXX ἐν φυτῷ σαβέκ, Symmachus ἐν δικτύῳ (בִּשְׂבָכָה), Aquila ἐν συχνεῶνι, Vulgate inter vepres.—14. The paraphrase of TargumOnkelos is interesting: ‘And Abraham worshipped and prayed there שָׁם for שֵׁם), in that place, saying before the Lord, Here shall generations worship. So it is said at this day, In this mountain Abraham worshipped before the Lord.’—בְּהַר יהוה יֵֽרָאֶה] LXX ἐν τῷ ὄρει Κύριος ὤφθη, Vulgate in monte Dominus videbit, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word).
15–19. Renewal of the promises: Conclusion.—15. The occasion seemed to a Jehovistic redaction to demand an ampler reward than the sparing of Isaac; hence a supplementary revelation (שֵׁנִית) is appended.—16. By myself I swear] compare Exodus 32¹³ (also RedactorJehovist), elsewhere Isaiah 45²³, Jeremiah 22⁵ 49¹³†.—נְאֻם יהוה] literally ‘murmur of Yahwe,’ an expression for the prophetic inspiration, whose significance must have been forgotten before it could be put in the mouth of the Angel. Even Priestly-Code (Numbers 14²⁸) is more discriminating in his use of the phrase.—17. occupy the gate of their enemies] i.e., take possession of their cities (LXX πόλεις); compare 24⁶⁰.—18. by thy seed ... bless themselves (Hithpael)] So 26⁴; compare Deuteronomy 29¹⁸, Isaiah 65¹⁶, Jeremiah 4², Psalms 72¹⁷†. See on 12³.—19. The return to Beersheba is the close of Elohist’s narrative, continuing verse ¹⁴.
The secondary character of 15–18 is clear not only from its loose connexion with the primary narrative, but also from its combination of Elohistic conceptions with Yahwistic phraseology, the absence of originality, the improper use of נְאֻם יהוה, etc. Compare Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 20; Dillmann 291; Holzinger 165.—The view of Delitzsch (324 f.) and Strack (82), that 14–18 are from a Yahwist parallel to 221–14, is untenable.
The difficult question of the meaning of this incident is approached from two sides. (1) Those who regard it as a literal occurrence in the life of a man of eminent piety, holding views of truth in advance of his age, are undoubtedly able to give it an interpretation charged with deep religious significance. Familiar with the rite of child-sacrifice amongst the surrounding heathen, the patriarch is conceived as arrested by the thought that even this terrible sacrifice might rightly be demanded by the Being to whom he owed all that he was; and as brooding over it till he seemed to hear the voice of God calling on him to offer up his own son as proof of devotion to Him. He is led on step by step to the very verge of accomplishing the act, when an inward monition stays his hand, and reveals to him that what God really requires is the surrender of the will—that being the truth in his previous impression; but that the sacrifice of a human life is not in accordance with the character of the true God whom Abraham worshipped. But it must be felt that this line of exposition is not altogether satisfying. The story contains no word in repudiation of human sacrifice, nor anything to enforce what must be supposed to be the main lesson, viz., that such sacrifices were to find no place in the religion of Abraham’s descendants. (2) Having regard to the origin of many other Genesis narratives, we must admit the possibility that the one before us is a legend, explaining the substitution of animal for human sacrifices in some type of ancient worship. This view is worked out with remarkable skill by Gunkel (211–214), who thinks he has recovered the lost name of the sanctuary from certain significant expressions which seem to prepare the mind for an etymological interpretation: viz. אֱלֹהִים יִרְאֶה, ⁸ (compare ¹⁴); יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים, ¹²; and וַיַּרְא [והנה] אַיִל, ¹³. From these indications he concludes that the original name in ¹⁴ was יְרוּאֵל; and he is disposed to identify the spot with a place of that name somewhere near Tekoa, mentioned in 2 Chronicles 20¹⁶ (יְרִיאֵל in 1 Chronicles 7² is excluded by geographical considerations). Here he conjectures that there was a sanctuary where the custom of child-sacrifice had been modified by the substitution of a ram for a human being. The basis of Genesis 22 would then be the local cultus-legend of this place. Apart from the philological speculations, which are certainly pushed to an extreme, it is not improbable that Gunkel’s theory correctly expresses the character of the story; and that it originally belonged to the class of ætiological legends which everywhere weave themselves round peculiarities of ritual whose real origin has been forgotten or obscured.—An older cultus-myth of the same kind is found in the Phœnician story in which Kronos actually sacrifices his only son Ἰεούδ (יחוד = יָחִיד?) or Ἰεδούδ (יָדִיד?) to his father Uranus (Eusebius Præparatio Evangelica i. 10, 29). The sacrifice of Iphigeneia, and the later modification in which a hind is substituted for the maiden, readily suggests itself as a parallel (Euripides, Iphigenia in Aulis 1540 ff.).
16. end] Add מִמֶּנִּי as verse ¹²: so LXX, Vulgate.—18. עקב אשר] elsewhere only 26⁵, 2 Samuel 12⁶.