In the singular form of a report brought to Abraham, there is here introduced a list of 12 tribes tracing their descent to Nāḥôr. Very few of the names can be identified; but so far as the indications go, they point to the region East and North-east of Palestine as the area peopled by the Naḥorite family. The division into legitimate (20–23) and illegitimate (²⁴) sons expresses a distinction between the pure-blooded stock and hybrid, or perhaps alien and subjugated, clans (Guthe, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 5).
The verses bear the unmistakable signature of a Yahwistic genealogy: compare גַּם הִיא 20. 24, with 422. 26 10²¹ 19³⁸; 21a with 10¹⁵; 23b with 9¹⁹ (10²⁹ 25⁴); יָלַד ²³ (see page 98). Of Priestly-Code’s style and manner there is no trace; and with regard to ‛Aramæan,’Ărām, there is a material discrepancy between the two documents (verse ²¹ compared with 1022 f.). The introductory formula אחרי הד׳ הא׳ is not exclusively Elohistic (see on 15¹), and in any case would be an insufficient reason for ascribing (Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 29 f.) the whole section to Elohist. See Budde Die biblische Urgeschichte 220 ff.—The genealogy appears to have been inserted with reference to chapter 24, from which it was afterwards separated by the amalgamation of Priestly-Code (chapter 23) with the older documents. Its adaptation to this context is, however, very imperfect. Here Abraham is informed of the birth of Nāḥôr’s children, whereas in the present text of 24 the grandchildren (Laban and Rebekah) are grown up. Moreover, with the excision of the gloss 23a (v.i.), the only point of direct contact with chapter 24 disappears; and even the gloss does not agree with the view of Rebekah’s parentage originally given by Yahwist (see on 24¹⁵). Hence we must suppose that the basis of the passage is an ancient genealogy, which has been recast, annotated, and inserted by a Yahwistic writer at a stage later than the composition of chapter 24, but earlier than the final redaction of the Pentateuch.
20. מִלְכָּה] see on 11²⁹.—לנחור אחיך] 11²².—21. עוּץ] in 10²³ a subdivision of Aram, is here the principal (בְּכוֹר) Naḥorite tribe (compare 36²⁸).—בּוּז (Βαύξ, Βαύζ, etc.)] mentioned in Jeremiah 25²³ after Dĕdān and Têmā, is probably the Bâzu of Esarhaddon’s inscription (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, ii. 130 f.), an unidentified district of North Arabia (so Job 32²).—קְמוּאֵל] unknown; see Praetorius, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 1903, 780.—אֲבִי אֲרָם (πατέρα Σύρων) is possibly a gloss (Gunkel), but the classification of the powerful Aramæans (see on 10²²) as a minor branch of the Naḥorites is none the less surprising: see page 334 below.—22. כֶּשֶׂד] The eponym of the כַּשְׂדִּים. But whether by these the well-known Chaldæans of South Babylonia are meant is a difficult question. Probability seems in favour of the theory that here, as in 2 Kings 24², Job 1¹⁷, an Arabian (or rather Aramæan) nomadic tribe is to be understood, from which the Babylonian כַּשְׂדִּים may have sprung (Winckler Altorientalische Forschungen, ii. 250 ff.; Gunkel). The result has a bearing on the meaning of Arpakšad in 10²² (see also on 11²⁸).—חֲזוֹ (Ἀζαῦ)] probably the Ḫazû mentioned after Bâzu in Esarhaddon’s inscription (above).—פִּלְדָּשׁ and יִדְלָף (Ἰελδάφ, Ἰεδλάφ) are not known. With the former have been compared Palmer פלדשו (Levy, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xiv. 440) and Sin. פנדשו (Cook, A Glossary of the Aramaic Inscriptions 98; Lidzbarski Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik 352), both personal names.—בְּתוּאֵל] as personal name 2415 ff. (Yahwist), 25²⁰ 282. 5 (Priestly-Code).—23a. is a gloss (Dillmann, Gunkel) excluded by the general scheme of the genealogy and by the number 8 in 23b. The last consideration is decisive against Dillmann’s view that the original text was וְאֶת־לָבָן וְאֶת־רִבְקָה.—24. וּפִילַגְשׁוֹ] casus pendens: Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 111 h, 147 e. פִּילֶגֶשׁ = παλλακίς (see Stade Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 380): a Ḥittite origin is suggested by Jensen (Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xlviii. 468 ff., developing a hint of Ewald).—רְאוּמָה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch רומה, LXX Ῥεύμα, Ῥεηρά, etc.—טֶבַח] rightly read by LXX, Peshiṭtå in 2 Samuel 8⁸ (Massoretic Text בֶּטַח ∥ טִבְחַת 1 Chronicles 18⁸), a city of ’Ăram-Ẓôbāh, probably identical with the Tubiḫi of Tel-Amarna Tablets Number 127, and Papyrus Anastasi, near Ḳadesh on the Orontes (but see Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 173, 396).—גַּחַם (Τααμ, Γααμ, etc.)] unknown.—תַּחַשׁ (Τοχος, Θαας, etc.)] probably Egyptian Teḫisi, on the Orontes, North of Ḳadesh (Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 258; Winckler Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, i. 207).—מַֽעֲכָה (Μααχα, Μωχα, etc.)] Deuteronomy 3¹⁴, Joshua 12⁵ 1311. 13 2 Samuel 106. 8, 1 Chronicles 196 f.; an Aramæan tribe and state occupying the modern Ǧōlān, South of Hermon, and East of the Upper Jordan.
To the discrepancies already noted (page 333) between the genealogy and chapter 24, Meyer (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 239 ff.) adds the important observation that the territorial distribution of the sons of Nāḥôr fits in badly with the theory of Yahwist, which connects Nāḥôr and Laban with the city of Ḥarran. He points out that the full-blooded Naḥorites, so far as identified, are tribes of the Syro-Arabian desert, while those described as hybrids belong to the settled regions of Syria, where nomadic immigrants would naturally amalgamate with the native population. Now the Syro-Arabian desert is in other parts of the Old Testament the home of the Bnê Ḳedem; and according to Elohist (see on 29¹) it was among the Bnê Ḳedem that Jacob found his uncle Laban. Meyer holds that this was the original tradition, and finds a confirmation of it in the geographical background of the list before us. In other words, the Israelites were historically related, not to the civilised Aramæans about Ḥarran, but to nomadic Aramæan tribes who had not crossed the Euphrates, but still roamed the deserts where Aramæans first appear in history (see page 206). Yahwist’s representation is partly due to a misunderstanding of the name ‘Aramæan,’ which led him to transfer the kinsfolk of Abraham to the region round Ḥarran, which was known as the chief seat of Aramæan culture. The genealogy is therefore an authentic document of great antiquity, which has fortunately been preserved by a Yahwistic editor in spite of its inconsistency with the main narrative. It may be added that the Palestinian view-point will explain the subordinate position assigned to the name Aram. It can hardly be denied that Meyer’s reasoning is sufficiently cogent to outweigh the traces of the names Nāḥôr and Milkah in the neighbourhood of Ḥarran (pages 232, 237 f.). Meyer’s explanation of Nāḥôr as a modification of Nāhār (the Euphrates) is, however, not likely to commend itself.
On the death of Sarah at the age of 127 years (1. 2), Abraham becomes, through formal purchase from the Ḥittites, the owner of the field and cave of Machpelah (3–18), and there buries his dead (19. 20).—This is the second occasion (compare chapter 17) on which the Priestly epitome of Abraham’s life expands into circumstantial and even graphic narration. The transaction must therefore have had a special interest for the writer of the Code; though it is not easy to determine of what nature that interest was (see the closing note).
Source.—That the chapter belongs to Priestly-Code is proved (a) by allusions in later parts of the Code (259 f. 4929 ff. 50¹³); (b) by the juristic formalism and redundancy of the style; (c) by the names בני חת, מכפלה, קרית ארבע, ארץ כנען; and the expressions תושב, ⁴; אחזה, 4. 9. 20; נשיא, ⁶; קוּם, 17. 20; מקנה, ¹⁸ (see the notes; and compare Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel). Against this we have to set the אנכי of verse ⁴, which is never elsewhere used by Priestly-Code.—At the same time it is difficult to acquiesce in the opinion that we have to do with a ‘free composition’ of the writers of Priestly-Code. The passage has far more the appearance of a transcript from real life than any other section in the whole of Priestly-Code; and its markedly secular tone (the name of God is never once mentioned) is in strong contrast to the free introduction of the divine activity in human affairs which is characteristic of that document. It seems probable that the narrative is based on some local tradition by which the form of representation has been partly determined. A similar view is taken by Eerdmans (Die Komposition der Genesis 88), who, however, assigns the chapter to the oldest stratum of Genesis, dating at latest from 700 B.C. Steuernagel (Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1908, 628) agrees that chapter 23 is not in Priestly-Code’s manner; but thinks it a midrashic expansion of a brief notice in that document.¹
1, 2. The death of Sarah.—2. Ḳiryath-’Arba‛] an old name of Hebron, v.i.—וַיָּבֹא] not ‘came,’ but went in—to where the body lay.—to wail ... weep] with the customary loud demonstrations of grief (Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode, 20; A Dictionary of the Bible, iii. 453 ff.).
1. After ויהיו it is advisable to insert שְׁנֵי (Ball, Kittel: compare 479. 28). The omission may have caused the addition of the gloss שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי שָׂרָה at the end (wanting in LXX).—2. קרית ארבע (LXX ἐν πόλει Ἀρβόκ)] The old name of Hebron (Joshua 14¹⁵, Judges 1¹⁰), though seemingly in use after the Exile (unless Nehemiah 11²⁵ be an artificial archaism [Meyer Die Entstehung des Judenthums 106]). The name means ‘Four cities’ (see on בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע, page 326). The personification of אַרְבַּֽע as heros eponymus (Joshua 14¹⁵ 15¹³ 21¹¹) has no better authority (as LXX shows) than the mistake of a copyist (see Moore, Judges 25). Jewish Midrash gave several explanations of the numeral: amongst others from the 4 patriarchs buried there—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Adam (Bereshith Rabba; P. R. Eliezer, 20, 36; Rashi)—the last being inferred from הָאָדָם הַגָּדוֹל in Joshua 14¹⁵ (Jerome, Onomastica Sacra, 84¹²). The addition of The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch אל עמק (LXX ἥ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ κοιλώματι) seems a corruption of אבי ענק (Ball) or (with LXX) אֵם ע׳ in Joshua 15¹³ 21¹¹.—לספד] In Hebrew usage, as in that of all the cognate languages, ספד means ‘to wail’; see Micah 1⁸.
3–7. The request for a burying-place.—The negotiations fall into three well-defined stages; and while they illustrate the leisurely courtesy of the East in such matters, they cover a real reluctance of the Ḥittites to give Abraham a legal title to land by purchase (Gunkel). To his first request they respond with alacrity: the best of their sepulchres is at his disposal.—3. arose] from the sitting posture of the mourner (2 Samuel 1216. 20).—the sons of Ḥēth] see on 10¹⁵.
Priestly-Code is the only document in which Ḥittites are definitely located in the South of Canaan (compare 26³⁴ 36²); and the historic accuracy of the statement is widely questioned. It is conceivable that the Cappadocian Ḥittites (page 215) had extended their empire over the whole country prior to the Hebrew invasion. But taking into account that Priestly-Code appears to use ‘Ḥēth’ interchangeably with ‘Canaan’ (compare 26³⁴ 27⁴⁶ 362b with 281. 8 362a), it may be more reasonable to hold that with him ‘Ḥittite’ is a general designation of the pre-Israelite inhabitants, as ‘Canaanite’ with Yahwist and ‘Amorite’ with Elohist (compare Joshua 1⁴, Ezekiel 16³). It may, of course, be urged that such an idea could not have arisen unless the Ḥittites had once been in actual occupation of the land, and that this assumption would best explain the all but constant occurrence of the name in the lists of conquered peoples (see page 284). At present, however, we have no proof that this was the case; and a historic connexion between the northern Ḥittites and the natives of Hebron remains problematical. Another solution is propounded by Jastrow (Encyclopædia Biblica, 2094 ff.), viz., that Priestly-Code’s Ḥittites are an entirely distinct stock, having nothing but the name in common with either the ‘conventional’ Ḥittites of the enumerations or the great empire of North Syria. See Driver 228 ff.
4. a sojourner and dweller] so Leviticus 2535. 47, Numbers 35¹⁵, and (in a religious sense) Psalms 39¹³ (compare 1 Peter 2¹¹). The technical distinction between גֵּר and תּוֹשָׁב is obscure (v.i.).—6. O if thou wouldst hear us (read לוּ שְׁמָעֵנוּ, v.i.)]. The formula always introduces a suggestion preferable to that just advanced: compare 11. 13. 15.—נְשֵׁיא אֱלֹהִים is more than ‘a mighty prince’ (as Psalms 36⁷ 68¹⁶ 104¹⁶ etc.); it means one deriving his patent of nobility straight from Almighty God.—Not a man of us will withhold, etc.] therefore there is no need to buy. Behind their generosity there lurks an aversion to the idea of purchase.—7. The verse has almost the force of a refrain (compare 12). The first stage of the negotiations is concluded.
4. תּוֹשָׁב] Abraham Ibn Ezra הוא הגר היושב בארץ. According to Bertholet (Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den fremden 156–166), the תּ׳ is simply a gêr (see on 12¹⁰) who resides fixedly in one place, without civil rights, and perhaps incapable of holding land; see Encyclopædia Biblica, 4818.—5. לֵאמֹר לוֹ (so verse ¹⁴) is an abnormal combination, doubtfully supported by Leviticus 11¹. The last word must be joined to verse ⁶, and read either לֹא (as verse ¹¹: so The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX), or לוּ (as ¹³). The last is the only form suitable in all four cases (5. 11. 13. 15). On לוּ with imperative, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 110 e.—6. יִכְלֶה] = יִכְלָא, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 qq.
8–12. The appeal to ‛Ephrôn.—In his second speech Abraham shows his tact first by ignoring tacitly the suggestion of a free gift, and then by bringing the favourable public opinion just expressed to bear on the individual he wishes to reach.—9. On the cave of Makpēlāh, see at the close.—in the end of his field] Abraham apparently does not contemplate the purchase of the whole field: that was thrust on him by ‛Ephrôn’s offer.—for full money] see page 335 above (footnote). The same expression occurs in 1 Chronicles 2122. 24.—10. entering the gate, etc.] i.e., his fellow-citizens, with the right of sitting in public assembly at the gate (compare יֹצְאֵי שׁ׳ ע׳, 34²⁴).
8. את־נפשכם] ‘in accordance with your [inner] mind.’ Compare 2 Kings 9¹⁵, 1 Samuel 20⁴: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 661 a.—9. הַמַּכְפֵּלָה] Elsewhere only 25⁹ 49³⁰ 50¹³; always with article, showing that it retained an appellative sense. LXX (τὸ σπήλαιον τὸ διπλοῦν), Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, TargumOnkelos-Jonathan are probably right in deriving it from √ כפל, ‘double’ (see page 339).—10. לכל] לְ = ‘namely’ (see on 9¹⁰: compare Brown-Driver-Briggs, 514 b); in ¹⁸ it is replaced by בְּ = ‘among.’—11. For לֹא point לֻא: see on ⁵.—נתתי לך] LXX omitted.—נְתַתִּיהָ is perfect of instant action: ‘I give it’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 m.
13–16. The purchase of the field.—With the same tactful persistency, Abraham seizes on ‛Ephrôn’s expression of goodwill, while waving aside the idea of a gift.—13. If only thou—pray hear me!] The anakolouthon expresses the polite embarrassment of the speaker.—14, 15. ‛Ephrôn’s resistance being now broken down, he names his price with the affectation of generosity still observed in the East.¹—land [worth] 400 shekels ... what is that...?] The word for ‘land’ is better omitted with LXX; it is not the land but the money that ‛Ephrôn pretends to disparage.—16. Abraham immediately pays the sum asked, and clenches the bargain.—current with the merchant] The precious metals circulated in ingots, whose weight was approximately known, without, however, superseding the necessity for ‘weighing’ in important transactions (Benzinger, Hebräische Archäologie² 197; Kennedy, A Dictionary of the Bible, iii. 420; Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, iii. 391 f.).²
13. For לוּ, LXX, TargumOnkelos-Jonathan (? Peshiṭtå) read לִי, mistaking the idiom.—14. לוּ: לֵאמֹר] as ⁵.—15. LXX (Οὐχί, κύριε, ἀκήκοα γάρ) does not render אֶרֶץ, but the γάρ is odd.—ואת־] better וְאַתָּ (LXX).—16. עבר לסחר] The only other instance of this use of עבר (2 Kings 12⁵) is corrupt (read עֶרֶךְ, LXX).
17–20. Summary and conclusion.—17, 18 are in the form of a legal contract. Specifications of the dimensions and boundaries of a piece of land, and of the buildings, trees, etc., upon it, are common in ancient contracts of sale at all periods; compare e.g. Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, iv. 7, 17, 33 (1st Babylonian dynasty), 101, and 161 (8th century B.C.), 223–5 (6th century); the Assouan Papyri (5th century); and especially the Petra Inscription cited in Authority and Archæology, page 135.
The traditional site of the Cave of Makpēlāh is on the East side of the narrow valley in which Hebron lies, and just within the modern city (el-Ḫalīl). The place is marked by a sacred enclosure (the Ḥarām), within which Christians have seldom been admitted. The South-east half is occupied by a mosque, and six cenotaphs are shown: those of Abraham and Sarah in the middle, of Isaac and Rebekah in the South-east (within the mosque), and of Jacob and Leah in the North-west: that of Joseph is just outside the Ḥarām on the North-west. The cave below has never been examined in modern times, but is stated by its guardians to be double. There is no reason to doubt that the tradition as to the site has descended from biblical times; and it is quite probable that the name Makpēlāh is derived from the feature just referred to. That the name included the field attached to the cave (verse ¹⁹ 49³⁰ 50¹³) is natural; and even its extension to the adjacent district (see on ¹⁷) is perhaps not a decisive objection.—For further particulars, see Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 75 ff.; Baedeker, Palestine and Syria: handbook for travellers³ 141 f.; Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly Statements, 1882, 197–214; Warren, A Dictionary of the Bible, iii. 197 ff.; Driver, The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes 228.
Whatever assumption we make as to the origin of this narrative, Priestly-Code’s peculiar interest in the transaction is a fact that has to be explained. The motive usually assigned is that the purchase was a pledge of the possession of the land by Abraham’s descendants; that view is, indeed, supported by nothing in the passage (see Gunkel 241), but it is difficult to imagine any other explanation. It is just conceivable that the elaboration of the narrative was due to a dispute as to the possession of the sacred place between Jews and Edomites in the age of Priestly-Code. It has been held probable on independent grounds that the Edomites had advanced as far north as Hebron during the Exile (see Meyer Die Entstehung des Judenthums 106, 114), and from Nehemiah 11²⁵ we learn that a colony of Jews settled there after the return. We can at least imagine that a contest for the ownership of the holy place (like those which have so largely determined the later history of Palestine) would arise; and that such a situation would account for the emphasis with which the Priestly jurists asserted the legal claim of the Jewish community to the traditional burying-place of its ancestors. So Gunkel¹ 251; Students’ Old Testament, 99: otherwise Gunkel² 241 f.
17. קוּם] = ‘pass into permanent possession,’ as Leviticus 25³⁰ 2714. 17. 19 (Priestly-Code).—אשר במכפלה] LXX ὃς ἦν ἐν τῷ διπλῷ σπηλαίῳ is nonsense; but Vulgate in quo erat spelunca duplex suggests a reading אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ הַמּ׳ which (if it were better attested) would remove the difficulty of supposing that the name ‘double cave’ was applied to the district around.—לפני] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch על פני as in ¹⁹ = ‘in front of,’ perhaps ‘to the East of.’
Abraham on his death-bed (see below) solemnly charges his house-steward with the duty of procuring a wife for Isaac amongst his Mesopotamian relatives (1–9). The servant is providentially guided to the house of Nāḥôr, in whose daughter (see on verse ¹⁵) Rebekah he is led to recognise the divinely appointed bride for Isaac (10–49). Having obtained the consent of the relatives, and of the maiden herself (50–61), he brings her to Canaan, where Isaac marries her (62–67).
The chapter is one of the most perfect specimens of descriptive writing that the Book of Genesis contains. It is marked by idyllic grace and simplicity, picturesque elaboration of scenes and incidents, and a certain ‘epic’ amplitude of treatment, seen in the repetition of the story in the form of a speech (see Driver 230). These artistic elements so predominate that the primary ethnographic motive is completely submerged. It may be conjectured that the basis of the narrative was a reinforcement of the Aramæan element in the Hebrew stock, as in the kindred story of Jacob and his wives (see Steuernagel, Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 39 f.). But if such a historical kernel existed, it is quite lost sight of in the graphic delineation of human character, and of ancient Eastern life, which is to us the main interest of the passage. We must also note the profoundly religious conception of Yahwe’s providence as an unseen power, overruling events in answer to prayer. All these features seem to indicate a somewhat advanced phase in the development of the patriarchal tradition. The chapter belongs to the literary type most fully represented in the Joseph-narrative (compare Gunkel 220).
Source and Unity of the Narrative.—From the general character of the style, and the consistent use of the name יהוה, critical opinion has been practically unanimous in assigning the whole chapter to Yahwist. It is admitted, however, that certain ‘unevennesses of representation’ occur; and the question arises whether these are to be explained by accidental dislocations of the text, or by the interweaving of two parallel recensions. Thus, the servant’s objection that the maiden may not be willing to follow him (5. 39), is met by Abraham in two ways: on the one hand by the confident assurance that this will not happen (7. 40), and on the other by absolving him from his oath if his mission should miscarry (8. 41). In 29 f. Laban twice goes out to the man at the well (29b ∥ 30b); ²⁸ speaks of the mother’s house, 23b of the father’s: in ⁵⁰ the servant negotiates with Laban and Bethuel, in 53. 55 with the brother and mother of the bride; in ⁵¹ the request is at once agreed to by the relatives without regard to Rebekah’s wish, whereas in 57 f. the decision is left to herself; in ⁵⁹ Rebekah is sent away with her nurse, in 61a she takes her own maidens with her; her departure is twice recorded (61a ∥ 61b). These doublets and variants are too numerous to be readily accounted for either by transpositions of the text (Dillmann al.) or by divergences in the oral tradition (Students’ Old Testament, 96); and although no complete analysis is here attempted, the presence of two narratives must be recognised. That one of these is Yahwist is quite certain; but it is to be observed that the characteristically Yahwistic expressions are somewhat sparsely distributed, and leave an ample margin of neutral ground for critical ingenuity to sift out the variants between two recensions.¹ The problem has been attacked with great acuteness and skill by Gunkel (215–221) and Procksch (14 f.), though with very discordant results. I agree with Procksch that the second component is in all probability Elohist, mainly on the ground that a fusion of YahwistHebron and YahwistBeersheba (Gunkel) is without parallel, whereas YahwistBeersheba and Elohist are combined in chapter 21. The stylistic criteria are, indeed, too indecisive to permit of a definite conclusion; but the parallels instanced above can easily be arranged in two series, one of which is free from positive marks of Yahwist; while, in the other, everything is consistent with the supposition that Abraham’s residence is Beersheba (see page 241 above).
The Death of Abraham.—It is impossible to escape the impression that in verses 1–9 Abraham is very near his end, and that in 62–67 his death is presupposed. It follows that the account of the event in Jehovist must have occurred in this chapter, and been suppressed by the Redactor in favour of that of Priestly-Code (257–11), according to which Abraham survived the marriage of Isaac by some 35 years (compare 25²⁰). The only question is whether it happened before or after the departure of the servant. Except in 14bα, the servant invariably speaks as if his master were still alive (compare 12. 14bβ. 27. 37. 42. 44b. 48. 51. 54. 56). In ⁶⁵, on other hand, he seems to be aware, before meeting Isaac, that Abraham is no more. There is here a slight diversity of representation, which may be due to the composition of sources. Gunkel supposes that in the document to which 14bα. 36b and ⁶⁵ belong (YahwistBeersheba), the death was recorded after ⁹ (and related by the servant after ⁴¹); while in the other (YahwistHebron) it was first noticed in connexion with the servant’s meeting with Isaac (before ⁶⁶). Procksch thinks Elohist’s notice followed verse ⁹, but doubts whether Abraham’s death was presupposed by Yahwist’s account of the servant’s return.—Verse 36b is thought to point back to 25⁵; and hence some critics (Hupfeld, Wellhausen, Dillmann, al.) suppose that 251–6 (11b) originally preceded chapter 24; while others (Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel) find a more suitable place for 25⁵ (with or without 11b) between 24¹ and 24². See, further, on 251–6 below.
1–9. The servant’s commission.—1. had blessed, etc.] His life as recorded is, indeed, one of unclouded prosperity.—2. the oldest (i.e. senior in rank) servant, etc.] who, in default of an heir, would have succeeded to the property (152 f.), and still acts as the trusted guardian of the family interests; compare the position of Ziba in 2 Samuel 91 ff. 161 ff..—put thy hand, etc.] Only again 47²⁹)—another death-bed scene! It is, in fact, only the imminence of death that can account for the action here: had Abraham expected to live, a simple command would have sufficed (Gunkel).
The reference is to an oath by the genital organs, as emblems of the life-giving power of deity,—a survival of primitive religion whose significance had probably been forgotten in the time of the narrator. Traces have been found in various parts of the world: see Ewald Antiquities of Israel 19⁶ [English translation]; Dillmann 301; Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 395; and especially the striking Australian parallel cited by Spurreil (²218) from Sir G. Grey.¹ By Jewish writers it was considered an appeal to the covenant of circumcision (TargumJonathan, Jerome Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim, Rashi; so Tuch, Delitzsch). Abraham Ibn Ezra explains it as a symbol of subjection, (adding that it was still a custom in India); Ewald, Dillmann, Holzinger, al. as invoking posterity (יֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ, 46²⁶, Exodus 1⁵, Judges 8³⁰) to maintain the sanctity of the oath.
3. God of heaven and of earth] an expression for the divine omnipresence in keeping with the spiritual idea of God’s providence which pervades the narrative. The full phrase is not again found (see verse ⁷).—thou shalt not take, etc.] The motive is a natural concern for the purity of the stock: see Bertholet, Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den fremden 67.—5–8. The servant’s fear is not that he may fail to find a bride for Isaac, but that the woman may refuse to be separated so far from her kindred: would the oath bind him in that event to take Isaac back to Ḥarran? The suggestion elicits from the dying patriarch a last utterance of his unclouded faith in God.—7. God of heaven] v.i.—send his Angel] compare Exodus 2320. 23 33², Numbers 20¹⁶. The Angel is here an invisible presence, almost a personification of God’s providence; contrast the older conception in 167 ff..
3. לבני] LXX + Ἰσαάκ (as verse ⁴); so verse ⁷.—4. כי] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch כי אם.—At the end LXX, Vulgate add מִשָּׁם as verse ⁷.—5. אָבָה] always with negative, except Isaiah 1¹⁹, Job 39⁹ (Sirach 6³³).—7. אלהי השמים] appears only in late books (Jonah 1⁹, 2 Chronicles 36²³ = Ezra 1², Nehemiah 14 f. 24. 20: אֱלָהּ שְׁמַיָּא is frequent in Aramaic parts of Ezra and Daniel). The words are wanting in one Hebrew MS (see Kittel), and may be deleted as a gloss. Otherwise we must add with LXX ואלהי הארץ (compare ³).—ואשר נשבע לי] probably interpolated by a later hand (Dillmann); see page 284 above.—8. אחריך] LXX + εἰς τὴν γῆν ταύτην.—לא תשב (but The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch תשיב)] jussive with לֹא; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 109 d.
10–14. The servant at the well.—On the fidelity of the picture to Eastern life, see Thomson, The Land and the Book, i. 261.—10. ten camels] to bring home the bride and her attendants (⁶¹). But “such an expedition would not now be undertaken ... with any other animals, nor with a less number.”—goodly things] for presents to the bride and her relations (22. 53).—On ’Aram Naharaim, see the footnote.—the city of Nāḥôr in Yahwist would be Ḥarran (compare 27⁴³ 28¹⁰ 29⁴): but the phrase is probably an Elohistic variant to ’Aram Naharaim, in which case a much less distant locality may be referred to (see on 29¹).—12–14. The servant’s prayer. The request for a sign is illustrated by Judges 636 ff., 1 Samuel 148 ff.: note הִנֵּה אָֽנֹכִי [אֲנַחְנוּ] in all three cases. A spontaneous offer to draw for the camels would (if Thomson’s experience be typical) be unusual,—in any case the mark of a kind and obliging disposition.—13. the daughters ... to draw water] compare 1 Samuel 9¹¹.
10. Unless we admit a duality of sources, it will be necessary to omit the first וַיֵּלֶךְ (with LXX).—וכל־] better וּמִכָּל־ (LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå).—ארם נהרים] Deuteronomy 23⁵, Judges 3⁸, Psalms 60², 1 Chronicles 19⁶†. TargumOnkelos ארם דעל פרת. The identity of the second element with Egyptian Naharin, Tel-Amarna Tablets Naḫrima (79¹⁴ [rev.], 181³⁴, 119³²) is beyond dispute; but it is perhaps too readily assumed that geographically the expressions correspond. The Egyptian Naharin extended from East of the Euphrates to the valley of the Orontes (Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 249 ff.); all that can be certainly affirmed about the biblical term is that it embraced both sides of the Euphrates (Ḥarran on the East; Pethor on the West [Deuteronomy 23⁵]). Since there is no trace of a dual in the Egyptian and Canaanite forms, it is doubtful if the Hebrew ending be anything but a Massoretic caprice (read נהרִים?), or a locative termination, to be read -ām (Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 45¹; Meyer, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, iii. 307 f.: compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 88 c, and Strack page 135 f. with reff.). There would in this last case be no need to find a second river (Tigris, Chaboras, Baliḫ, Orontes, etc.) to go with Euphrates. The old identification with the Greek Mesopotamia must apparently be abandoned. See, further, Dillmann 302; Moore, Judges 87, 89; Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 28 f.—12. הקרה] ‘make it occur,’ 27²⁰ (Yahwist).—14. הַֽנַּעֲרָ֯] Ḳrê. הנערה; so verses 16. 28. 55. 57 343. 12, Deuteronomy 2215 f. 20 f. 23–29. הנערה is found as Ke. in Pentateuch only Deuteronomy 22¹⁹, but The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch reads so throughout. It is hazardous to postulate an archaic epicene use of נַעַר on such restricted evidence: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 655 a; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 17 c.—אשקה] LXX + ἕως ἂν παύσωνται πίνουσαι.—הֹכַחְתָּ] decide, adjudicate, here = ‘allot’; so only verse ⁴⁴. Contrast 20¹⁶ 21²⁵ 3137. 42† (Elohist), Leviticus 19¹⁷† (Priestly-Code).—ובה] ‘and thereby’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 p.
15–27. The servant and Rebekah.—15. who was born to Bethuel, etc.] compare 24. 47.
The somewhat awkward phrasing has led Dillmann al. to surmise that all these verses have been glossed, and that here the original text ran אֲשֶׁר יָֽלְדָה מִלְכָּה וגו׳, Rebekah being the daughter of Milkah and Nāḥôr. Compare 29⁵, where Laban is described as the son of Nāḥôr. The redactional insertion of Bethû’ēl would be explained by the divergent tradition of Priestly-Code (25²⁰ 282. 5), in which Bethû’ēl is simply an ‘Aramæan,’ and not connected with Nāḥôr at all (see Budde 421 ff.). The question can hardly be decided (Holzinger 168); but there is a considerable probability that the original Yahwist made Laban and Rebekah the children of Nāḥôr. In that case, however, it will be necessary to assume that the tradition represented by Priestly-Code was known to the Yahwistic school before the final redaction, and caused a remodelling of the genealogy of 2220 ff. (see page 333). Compare, however, Bosse, Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1908, 2, page 8 f.
15. After טרם read יְכַלֶּה (compare ⁴⁵); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 107 c.—The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate inserts אֶל־לִבּוֹ after לְדַבֵּר (⁴⁵).
16. Taking no notice of the stranger, the maiden went down to the fountain (עַיִן) ... and came up] In Eastern wells the water is frequently reached by steps: contrast Exodus 2¹⁶ (וַתִּדְלֶנָה), John 4¹¹.—19, 20. The writer lingers over the scene, with evident delight in the alert and gracious actions of the damsel.—21. The servant meanwhile has stood gazing at her in silence, watching the ample fulfilment of the sign.—22. The nose-ring and bracelets are not the bridal gift (Gunkel), but a reward for the service rendered, intended to excite interest in the stranger, and secure the goodwill of the maiden. See Lane, An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians⁵ ii. 320, 323; compare Lectures on the Religion of the Semites², 453².—23–25. In the twofold question and answer, there is perhaps a trace of the composition of narratives; v.i.—24. See on ¹⁵. Read the daughter of Milkah whom she bore to Nāḥôr (as 34¹).—26, 27. The servant’s act of worship marks the close of the scene.
18 end] LXX + ἕως ἐπαύσατο πίνων, omitting the first two words of verse ¹⁹.—20. השקת] the stone trough for watering animals, found at every well (30³⁸, compare 30⁴¹, Exodus 2¹⁶).—21. משתאה] not ‘wondering’ (√ שׁאה; so Delitzsch), but ‘gazing’ (by-form of √ שעה) as Isaiah 41¹⁰. Construct state before preposition: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 130 a.—22. משקלו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch + וישם על אפה, a necessary addition (compare ⁴⁷). נֶזֶם accordingly is here a ‘nose-jewel’ (Isaiah 3²¹, Proverbs 11²²), in 35⁴, Exodus 322. 3 (Elohist) an earring.—בקע] = ½ shekel (Exodus 38²⁶).—23–25. The theory of two recensions derives some little support from the repeated ותאמר אליו of 24. 25. A mere rearrangement such as Ball proposes (23a. 24. 23b. 25) only cures one anomaly by creating another; and is, besides, impossible if the amendment given above for verse ²⁴ be accepted.—25. ללון] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ללין, as verse ²³; but infinitive elsewhere is always לוּן.—27. אנכי emphasises the following accusative suffix (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 143 b, 135 d, e). Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) implies perhaps כִּי אִם (Ball) or כִּי (Kittel); if not a mistake for (‡ Syriac word).—אחי] Point אֲחִי (singular) with versions.
28–32. Laban’s hospitality is inspired by the selfish greed for which that worthy was noted in tradition.—28. her mother’s house cannot mean merely the female side of the family (Dillmann), for Laban belongs to it, and 53. 55 imply that the father (whether Bethuel or Nāḥôr) is not the head of the house. Some find in the notice a relic of matriarchy (Holzinger, Gunkel); but the only necessary inference is that the father was dead.—31. seeing I have cleared the house] turning part of it into a stable.—32. he (Laban) brought the man in (v.i.) ... and ungirt the camels] without removing the pack-saddles.¹—to wash his feet, etc.] compare 18⁴.
28. אִמָּהּ] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (wrongly).—30. כראותו (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch) is better than Massoretic Text כראת.—והנה עמד] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 116 s; Davidson § 100 (a).—31. פִּנִּיתִי] ‘cleared away,’ as Leviticus 14³⁶, Isaiah 40³ etc.; compare Arabic √ fanaʸ IV. = effecit ut dispareret.—32. וַיָּבֵא] (Vulgate) avoids an awkward change of subject, and is to be preferred (Olshausen, Kautzsch-Socin, Gunkel). The objection (Dillmann al.) that this would require to be followed by אֶת־ is answered by the very next clause. Irregularity in the use of אָת־ is a puzzling phenomenon in the chapter, which unfortunately fits in with no workable scheme of documentary analysis.
33–49. The servant’s narrative.—A recapitulation of the story up to this point, with intentional variations of language, and with some abridgment. LXX frequently accommodates the text to what has gone before, but its readings need not be considered.—35. Compare 12¹⁶ 13².—36b. has given him all that he had] This is the only material addition to the narrative. But the notice is identical with 25⁵, and probably points back to it in some earlier context (see page 341 above).—40. before whom I have walked] Compare 17¹. Gunkel’s suggested alteration: ‘who has gone before me,’ is an unauthorised and unnecessary addition to the Tikkûnê Sōpherîm (see 18²²).—41. אָלָה (bis) for שְׁבוּעָה, verse ⁸. On the connexion of oath and curse, see Wellhausen Reste arabischen Heidentums² 192 f.—45–47. Greatly abbreviated from 15–25.—the daughter of [Bethû’ēl the son of Nāḥôr; etc.] see on 15. 24.—48. daughter of my master’s brother] ‘Brother,’ may, of course, stand for ‘relative’ or ‘nephew’ (2912. 15); but if Bethuel be interpolated in 15. 24. 47, Rebekah was actually first cousin to Isaac, and such marriages were considered the most eligible by the Naḥorites (29¹⁹).—49. that I may turn, etc.] not to seek a bride elsewhere (Dillmann), but generally ‘that I may know how to act.’
33. וַיּיּשַׂם֯] Ḳrê and The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ויושם (Hophal √ שׂום), LXX, Peshiṭtå וַיָּשֶׂם. But Kethîb recurs in Massoretic Text of 50²⁶ (וַיִּישֶׂם), again with passive significance. The anomalous form may be passive of Qal (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 73 f), or metaplastic Niphal from ישׂם or ושׂם (Nöldeke, Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 39 f.).—ויאמר²] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå וַיֹּאמְרוּ, which is perhaps better.—36. זקנתה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX זִקְנָתוֹ.—38. אִם לֹא never has the sense of Aramaic אֶלָּא (sondern), and must be taken as the common form of adjuration (Delitzsch), The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (London Polyglott) has כי אם.—41. מאלתי] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 95 n.—The verse contains a slight redundancy (aα ∥ bβ), but nothing is gained by interposing a clause between aβ and bα (Kautzsch-Socin).—46. מעליה] LXX ἐπὶ τὸν βραχίονα αὐτῆς ἀφ’ ἑαυτῆς (conflate?); Vulgate de humero (compare ¹⁸).
50–61. Departure of Rebekah, with the consent and blessing of her relatives.—50. The relatives, recognising the hand of Providence in the servant’s experiences, decline to answer bad or good: i.e., anything whatever, as 3124. 29, Numbers 24¹³ etc.
The verse as a whole yields a perfectly good sense: ‘we cannot speak, because Yahwe has decided’; and ⁵¹ is a natural sequel. It is a serious flaw in Gunkel’s analysis of 50 ff., that he has to break up ⁵⁰, connecting מִיהוה יָצָא הַדָּבָר with ⁵¹, and the rest of the verse with 57 f. (‘we cannot speak: let the maiden decide’).—On the other hand, לָבָן וּבְתוּאֵל in ⁵⁰ is barely consistent with אָחִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ in 53. 55. Since the mention of the father after the brother would in any case be surprising, Dillmann al. suppose that here again ובתואל is an interpolation; Kittel reads וּבֵתוֹ, and Holzinger substitutes וּמִלְכָּה. Gunkel (219) considers that in this recension Bethuel is a younger brother of Laban.
51. Here, at all events, the matter is settled in accordance with custom, without consulting the bride.—53. The presents are given partly to the bride and partly to her relatives. In the latter we may have a survival of the מֹהַר (34¹², Exodus 22¹⁶, 1 Samuel 18²⁵†) or purchase-price of a wife; but Gunkel rightly observes that the narrative springs from a more refined idea of marriage, from which the notion of actual purchase has all but disappeared. So in Islam mahr and ṣadaḳ (the gift to the wife) have come to be synonymous terms for dowry (Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 93, 96): compare Benzinger, Hebräische Archäologie² 106.—55. The reluctance to part with Rebekah is another indication of refined feeling (Gunkel). On יָמִים אוֹ עָשׂוֹר, v.i.—56. The servant’s eagerness to be gone arises from the hope of finding his old master still alive.—57, 58. The question here put to Rebekah is not whether she will go now or wait a few days, but whether she will go at all. The reference to the wishes of the bride may be exceptional (owing to the distance, etc.); but a discrepancy with ⁵¹ cannot easily be got rid of.—59. their sister] compare ‘your daughter,’ 34⁸, the relation to the family being determined by that to the head of the house. But it is better to read אַחֶיהָ (plural) in 53. 55 with Vulgate, Peshiṭtå and MSS of LXX.—her nurse] see on 35⁸.—60. The blessing on the marriage (compare Ruth 411 ff.), rhythmic in form, is perhaps an ancient fragment of tribal poetry associated with the name of Rebekah.—possess the gate] as 22¹⁷.—61a and 61b seem to be variants. For another solution (Kautzsch-Socin), see on ⁶².—her maidens] parallel to ‘her nurse’ in ⁵⁹.
53. מגדנת (Ezra 1⁶, 2 Chronicles 21³ 32²³†)] ‘costly gifts,’ from √ מגד, Arabic maǧada = ‘be noble.’—55. וְאָחִיהָ] LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate read וְאַחֶיהָ; and so Peshiṭtå, Vulgate and many Greek cursives in ⁵³.—ימים או עשור] ‘a few days, say ten,’ is a fairly satisfying rendering (LXX ἡμέρας ὡσεὶ δέκα); ‘a year or ten months’ (TargumOnkelos, Rashi) is hardly admissible. But the text seems uncertain: The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ימים או חדש; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (compare 29¹⁴). In deference to The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Peshiṭtå we may insert חֹדֶשׁ before יָמִים: ‘a month or at least ten days’ (Olshausen, Ball).—תֵּלֵךְ] probably 3rd feminine (so all Versions).—59. מנקתה] LXX τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτῆς = מִקְנָתָהּ, a word of Priestly-Code.—60. אַתְּ is appositional vocative, not subject to אֲחֹתֵנוּ (soror nostra es, Vulgate).—הֲיִי] with abnormal ־ֲ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 63 q).—שנאיו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch איביו, as 22¹⁷.
62–67. The home-bringing of Rebekah.—62. Now Isaac had come ...] What follows is hardly intelligible. The most probable sense is that during the servant’s absence Isaac had removed to Beer-laḥai-roi, and that near that well the meeting took place.
The difficulty lies partly in the corrupt מִבּוֹא (v.i.), partly in the circumstantial form of the sentence, and partly in the unexplained disappearance of Abraham. Keeping these points in mind, the most conservative exegesis is that of Delitzsch: Isaac (supposed to be living with his father at Beersheba) ‘was coming from a walk in the direction of Beersheba’, when he met the camels; this, however, makes וַיֵּצֵא (⁶³) pluperfect, which is hardly right. More recent writers proceed on the assumption that the death of Abraham had been explicitly recorded. Holzinger suggests that Isaac had removed to Laḥairoi during his father’s life (transposing 2511b before 24²), and that now he comes from that place (reads מִמִּדְבַּֽר) on hearing of Abraham’s death. Dillmann reads 62a ויבא[יצחק] אל מדבר ב׳, and finds in these words the notice of Isaac’s migration to Beersheba.—Kautzsch-Socin, reading as Dillmann, but making the servant implicit subject of ויבא, puts the chief hiatus between 61a and 61b: the servant on his return learned that Abraham was dead; then (61b) took Rebekah and went further; and (62a) came to Laḥairoi.—Gunkel (operating with two sources) considers ⁶² the immediate sequel to 61a in the document where Abraham’s death preceded the servant’s departure, so that nothing remained to be chronicled but Isaac’s removal to Laḥairoi (reads מְבוֹא, ‘to the entrance of’). This solution is attractive, and could perhaps be carried through independently of his division of sources. For even if the death followed the departure, it might very well have been recorded in the early part of the chapter (after ¹⁰).
62. מִבּוֹא] cannot be infinitive construct with מִן; the French il vint d’arriver (Hupfeld 29) has no analogy in Hebrew idiom. Nor can it readily be supposed equivalent to מִלְּבוֹא (1 Kings 8⁶⁵; Delitzsch v.s.); for the direction in which Isaac took his walk is an utterly irrelevant circumstance, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch and LXX (διὰ τῆς ἐρήμου) read במדבר, from which a fairly suitable text (מִדְבַּֽר or מִמּ׳) could be obtained (compare Dillmann and Holzinger s.). Gunkel’s מְבוֹא (as accusative of direction) has no parallel except the very remote one of מבואת ים, Ezekiel 27³ (of the situation of Tyre). Other suggestions are to delete the word as an uncorrected lapse of the pen; to read מִבְּאֵר with omission of the following בְּאֵר (Lagarde, Procksch); to substitute מבא[רשׁבע] (‘from Beersheba to’: Ball).—באר לחי ראי] LXX (here and 25¹¹) τὸ φρέαρ τῆς ὁράσεως, omitting לחי; refer to page 289 above.
63. לָשׂוּחַ] a word of uncertain meaning, possibly to roam (v.i.).—toward the approach of evening] (Deuteronomy 23¹²), when the Oriental walks abroad (compare 3⁸).—camels were coming] In the distance he cannot discern them as his own.—64. At the sight of a stranger Rebekah dismounts (נָפַל as 2 Kings 5²¹), a mark of respect still observed in the East (The Land and the Book, i. 762; Seetzen, Reisen, iii. 190); compare Joshua 15¹⁸, 1 Samuel 25²³.—65. It is my master] Apparently the servant is aware, before meeting Isaac, that Abraham is dead.—The putting on of the veil (compare nubere viro), the survival of a primitive marriage taboo, is part of the wedding ceremony (see Lane, An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians⁵, i. 217 f.).—67. brought her into the tent] The next phrase (שָׂרָה אִמּוֹ) violates a fundamental rule of syntax, and must be deleted as a gloss. Isaac’s own tent is referred to. This is the essential feature of the marriage ceremony in the East (see Benzinger Hebräische Archäologie² 108 f.).—comforted himself after [the death of] his mother] It is conjectured (Wellhausen al.) that the real reading was ‘his father,’ whose death had recently taken place. The change would naturally suggest itself after Yahwist’s account of the death of Abraham had been suppressed in accordance with Priestly-Code’s chronology. The death of Sarah is likewise unrecorded by Yahwist or Elohist.
63. לָשׂוּחַ] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον commonly identified with שֵׁיחַ = ‘muse,’ ‘complain,’ ‘talk,’ etc.; so LXX (ἀδολεσχῆσαι), Aquila (ὁμιλῆσαι), Symmachus (λαλῆσαι), Vulgate (ad meditandum: so Tuch, Delitzsch), TargumOnkelos-Jonathan (לצלאה: Rashi); Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, al. think the sense of ‘mourning’ (for his father) most probable; but? Abraham Ibn Ezra (‘to walk among the shrubs’) and Böttcher (‘to gather brushwood’) derive from שֵׁיחַ (21¹⁵). Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) is thought to rest on a reading לָשׁוּט (adopted by Gesenius al.), but is rather a conjecture. Nöldeke (Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 43 f.) suggests a connexion with Arabic sāḥa = ‘stroll’ (point לָשׁוּחַ).—הגמלים of The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch is wrong (v.s.).—65. הַלָּזֶה] 37¹⁹†; The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch הלז.—הצעיף] 3814. 19† (Yahwist). On the article compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 s. After Lagarde’s brilliant note (Semitica 23 ff.), it can scarcely be doubted that the word denotes a large double square wrapper or shawl, of any material.—67. ויבאה] LXX εἰσῆλθεν δέ.—האהלה שרה] article with construct is violently ungrammatical; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 f.—For אִמּוֹ² read מוֹת אָבִיו (Kittel) v.s.