---

XXVII. 46–XXVIII. 9.
Isaac’s Charge to Jacob
(Priestly-Code).

This short section records the only action attributed to Isaac in the Priestly Code. Two facts are taken over from the earlier tradition (Jehovist): Isaac’s blessing of Jacob, and Jacob’s visit to Mesopotamia. But the unedifying stories of Jacob’s treachery, which were the essential link of connexion between them, are here omitted; and a new motive is introduced, viz., the inadmissibility of intermarriage with the inhabitants of Canaan. By transgressing this unwritten law, Esau forfeits his title to the ‘blessing of Abraham,’ which is thus transferred to Jacob; and Jacob’s flight is transformed into an honourable mission in search of a wife. The romantic interest of Jacob’s love-story (chapter 29) is largely discounted by this prosaic representation of the course of events (compare Gunkel 341).

Marks of Priestly-Code’s style are abundant: אֵל שֶׂדַּי, ³; אֱלֹהִים ⁴; הָֽאֲרַמִּי, ⁵; פַּדַּן אֲרָם, ^{2. 5. 6. 7}; פָּרָה וְרָבָה, ³; אֶרֶץ מְגֻרִים ⁴; בְּנוֹת כְּנַעַן ^1. 6. 8 (Yahwist בּ׳ הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי, 24^3. 37); קְהַל עַמִּים, ³.

46. is an amplification of 26³⁵ (מֹרַת רוּחַ), but attributes to Rebekah an initiative more in the spirit of Jehovist than of Priestly-Code. It may have been supplied by Redactor to facilitate the transition from chapter 27 to 28 (v.i.).—XXVIII. 1. The language seems modelled on 24^3. 37.—2. thy mother’s father] The earlier affinity between the two families is again ignored by Priestly-Code: see on 25^19 f..—4. the blessing (Vulgate, Peshiṭtå ‘blessings’) of Abraham] Compare 17⁸. Whereas in Jehovist, Isaac is the inspired author of an original blessing, which fixes the destiny of his descendants, in Priestly-Code he simply transmits the blessing attached to the covenant with Abraham.—9. went to Ishmael] Not to dwell with him permanently, but to procure a wife (see 36^6 f.). It is undoubtedly assumed that Ishmael was still alive (Dillmann), in spite of the chronological difficulties raised by Delitzsch.

---

46. The objections to assigning the verse to Priestly-Code (Kuenen, Kautzsch-Socin, Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.) are perhaps not decisive. If Massoretic Text be right, בנות חת agrees in substance with 26^34 f., though in 28^1 ff. Priestly-Code consistently uses ב׳ כנען. LXX, however, omits the words מִבְּנוֹת־חֵת כָּאֵלֶּה.—2. פדנה] (so ^5. 7) compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 i.—3. קהל עמים] 35¹¹ 48⁴ (Priestly-Code), Ezekiel 23²⁴ 32³; = הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם 17^4 f.. In spite of Deuteronomy 33³ (Dillmann), the phrase cannot well denote the tribes of Israel. It seems to correspond to Yahwist’s ‘In thee shall all nations,’ etc. (12³ etc.), and probably expresses some sort of Messianic outlook.—7. ואל־אמו] perhaps a gloss suggested by 27^43 f. (Dillmann al.).—9. אל־ישמעאל] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch omitted.—מַֽחֲלַת] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (compare Targum^Jonathan); see on 36³.

---

XXVIII. 10–22.
Jacob at Bethel
(Jehovist).

On his way to Ḥarran, Jacob passes the night at Bethel, where the sacredness of the ‘place’ is revealed to him by a dream of a ladder leading from earth to heaven. Awaking, he consecrates the stone on which his head had lain, as a ‘house of God,’—at the same time naming the place Bethel,—and vows to dedicate a tithe of all he has, in the event of his safe return.

Analysis.—The section consists of a complete Elohistic narrative (^{11 f. 17–22}), with a Yahwistic insertion (^13–16). For Elohist, compare אלהים; ^12. 17. 20; מַצֵּבָה, ^18. 22; the dream, ¹²; the tithe, ²²; and the retrospective references in 31¹³ 35^3. 7. For Yahwist, יהוה ^{13 (bis). 16}; נִצָּב עַל ¹³, and the resemblances to 12^3. 7 13^15 f. 18¹⁸ 22^15 ff. 26²⁴ 32¹³. To Yahwist belong, further, ¹⁰ (חָרָֽנָה), and (if genuine) ^21b, though the latter is more probably interpolated. ^19a breaks the connexion of ¹⁸ and ²⁰, and may be taken from Yahwist; ^19b is an explanatory gloss. (So nearly all recent critics.) Kuenen (Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds i. 145, 247) considers ^13–16 a redactional addition to Elohist, similar to 22^14–18, etc., on the ground that Yahwist attributes the inauguration of the worship at Bethel to Abraham (12⁸), and nowhere alludes to the theophany here recorded (so Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 236³). But (to say nothing of ^19a) the parallelism of ¹⁶ and ¹⁷ appears to prove a real amalgamation of primary sources (Dillmann). Gunkel regards ¹⁴ as secondary, on account of its stereotyped phraseology.

10–12 (Elohist). Jacob’s dream.—11. he lighted upon the place] i.e., the ‘holy place’ of Bethel (see 12⁶), whose sanctity was revealed by what followed.—he took [at haphazard] one of the stones of the place] which proved itself to be the abode of a deity by inspiring the dream which came to Jacob that night.—12. a ladder] or ‘stair’ (the word only here). The origin of the idea is difficult to account for (see on verse ¹⁷). Its permanent religious significance is expressed with profound insight and truth in John 1⁵¹.—angels of God] So (in plural) only in Elohist (compare 32²) in the Hexateuch. As always in Old Testament, the angels are represented as wingless beings (compare Enoch lxi. 1).

In verse ¹¹ the rendering ‘a certain place’ would be grammatically correct (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 r); but it destroys the point of the sentence, which is that night overtook the patriarch just at the sacred spot (see Exodus 3⁵). The idea expressed by the primitive form of the legend is that the inherent sanctity of the place, and in particular of the stone, was unknown till it was discovered by Jacob’s dream. It is very probable, as Holzinger suggests, that this points to an ancient custom of incubation at Bethel, in which dream-oracles were sought by sleeping with the head in contact with the sacred stone (see Stade Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 475 f.).

---

11. מראשתיו] Accusative of place (literally ‘at his head-place’), as 1 Samuel 19^13. 16 26^7. 11. 16, 1 Kings 19⁶.—12. ויחלם והנה] The usual vivid formula in relating a dream: 37⁷ (LXX) ⁹ 40⁹ 41¹, Judges 7¹³, Isaiah 29⁸.

---

13–16 (Yahwist). The promise.

In place of the vision of the ladder, which in Elohist constitutes the whole revelation, Yahwist records a personal appearance of Yahwe, and an articulate communication to the patriarch. That it was a nocturnal theophany (as in 26²⁴) appears from ^16aα, as well as the word שֹׁכֵב in ¹³. The promise is partly addressed to Jacob’s special circumstances (^13. 15), partly a renewal of the blessing of Abraham (¹⁴). The latter is not improbably a later amplification of the former (see above).

13. Yahwe stood by him (v.i.), and announced Himself as one with the God of his fathers. This unity of Yahwe amidst the multiplicity of His local manifestations is a standing paradox of the early religion of Israel: compare verse ¹⁶.—the land whereon thou liest] a description peculiarly appropriate to the solitary and homeless fugitive who had not where to lay his head.—14. Compare 13^14 ff. 22^17 f. 26^4. 24 32¹³.—On ^14b see the note on 12³.—16. Yahwe is in this place, etc.] The underlying feeling is not joy (Dillmann), but fear, because in ignorance he had treated the holy place as common ground (Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan}). The exclamation doubtless preserves an echo of the local tradition, more forcibly represented in Elohist (verse ¹⁷). It is the only case in Genesis where a theophany occasions surprise (compare Exodus 3³).

---

13. נצב עליו] 18² 24¹³ 45¹ (all Yahwist). LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå take סֻלָּם as antecedent to the suffix; but the idea would have been expressed otherwise (מִמַּעַל לוֹ), and the translation loses all its plausibility when the composition of documents is recognised.—Before הארץ, LXX inserts μὴ φοβοῦ.—14. כעפר הארץ] LXX ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, after 32¹³ 41⁴⁹.—ופרצת] LXX וּפָרַץ: for the word—properly ‘break through’ [bounds],—compare 30^30. 43, Exodus 1¹², Isaiah 54³ etc.—15. בכל] LXX + הַדָּרָךְ.

---

17–19. Consecration and naming of the place.—17 follows verse ¹² (Elohist) without sensible breach of continuity; even the mention of Jacob’s awaking (¹⁶) is not absolutely indispensable (see ¹⁸). The impression of fear is far more powerfully expressed than in Yahwist; the place is no ordinary ḥarām, but one superlatively holy, the most sacred spot on earth. Only a North Israelite could have written thus of Bethel.—a house of God ... the gate of heaven] The expressions rest on a materialisation of the conception of worship as spiritual intercourse between God and man.

The first designation naturally arises from the name Bêth-’ēl, which (as we see from verse ²²) was first applied to the sacred stone, but was afterwards extended to the sanctuary as a whole. When to this was added the idea of God’s dwelling in heaven, the earthly sanctuary became as it were the entrance to the true heavenly temple, with which it communicated by means of a ladder. We may compare the Babylonian theory of the temple-tower as the means of ascent to the dwelling-place of the gods in heaven (see page 226 above). It is conceivable that the ‘ladder’ of Bethel may embody cosmological speculations of a similar character, which we cannot now trace to their origin. The Egyptian theology also knew of a ‘ladder’ by which the soul after death mounted up to ‘the gate of heaven’ (Erman, A Handbook of Egyptian Religion 96). Whether it has any connexion with the sillu, or decorated arch over a palace gate, depicted in Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 13, remains doubtful. That the image was suggested by physical features of the locality—a stony hillside rising up in terraces towards heaven—seems a fanciful explanation to one who has not visited the spot; but the descriptions given of the singular freak of nature which occurs near the summit of the slope to the north of Beitīn (“huge stones piled one upon another to make columns nine or ten feet or more in height ...”) lend some plausibility to the conjecture (see Peters, Early Hebrew Story, 110 ff.).

18. Jacob set up the stone, whose mystic properties he had discovered, as a maẓẓēbāh, or sacred pillar (v.i.), and poured oil on the top of it (35¹⁴), in accordance with a custom widely attested in ancient and modern times (see page 380).—19a gives Yahwist’s account of the naming of the place. If a similar notice occurred in Elohist (as seems implied in 31¹³ 35³), it would naturally have stood later.—19b is usually considered a gloss. From Joshua 16² (18¹³) it appears that Lûz was really distinct from Bethel, but was overshadowed by the more famous sanctuary in the neighbourhood.

---

18. מַצֵּבָה] (‘thing set up,’ Arabic nuṣb, Phœnician מצבת) is the technical name of the sacred monolith which was apparently an adjunct of every fully equipped Canaanite (or Phœnician) and early Hebrew sanctuary (see Vincent, Canaan, 96, 102 f., 140). Originally a fetish, the supposed abode of a spirit or deity,—a belief of which there are clear traces in this passage,—it came afterwards to be regarded as a vague symbol of Yahwe’s presence in the sanctuary, and eventually as the memorial of a theophany or other noteworthy occurrence. In this harmless sense the word is freely used by Elohist (31^{13. 45. 51. 52} 33²⁰ [emphatic] 35¹⁴, Exodus 24⁴); but not by Yahwist, who never mentions the object except in connexion with Canaanitish worship (Exodus 34¹³). But that the emblem retained its idolatrous associations in the popular religion is shown by the strenuous polemic of the prophets and the Deuteronomic legislation against it (Hosea 10^1 f., Micah 5¹², Deuteronomy 12³ etc., especially 16²² [compare Leviticus 26¹]); and Yahwist’s significant silence is probably an earlier indication of the same tendency. It is only at a very late period that we find the word used once more without offence (Isaiah 19¹⁹). See Driver on Deuteronomy 16^21 f.; Lectures on the Religion of the Semites², 204 ff., 456 f.; Moore in Encyclopædia Biblica, 2974 ff.; Whitehouse in A Dictionary of the Bible, iii. 879 ff.—וַיִּצֹּק] On this, the usual form, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 71.—19. ואולם] A strong adversative, found in Pentateuch only 48¹⁹, Exodus 9¹⁶, Numbers 14²¹. For ואו׳ לוז, LXX has καὶ Οὐλαμμαύς; compare Judges 18²⁹ (LXX).—לוז] 35⁶ 48³, Joshua 16² 18¹³, Judges 1²³†. The name Λουζὰ appears to have been known in the time of Eusebius (Onomastica Sacra, 135¹); and Müller (Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 165) thinks it may be identical with Ruṣa on Egyptian inscriptions.

---

20–22 (Elohist). Jacob’s vow.—The vow in Old Testament “consists essentially of a solemn promise to render God some service, in the event of some particular prayer or wish being granted” (Driver);¹ hence it falls into two parts: a condition (^20 f.), and a promise (²²).—20, 21a. The conditions correspond with the divine promise in ¹⁵ (Yahwist)—(a) the presence of God; (b) protection; (c) safe return—except as regards the stipulation for bread to eat and raiment to wear. The separation of sources relieves Jacob from the suspicion of questioning the sincerity of an explicit divine promise. On 21b, v.i.—22. The promise. this stone ... shall be (LXX adds to me) a house of God] i.e. (in the view of the writer), a place of worship. It is to be noted that this reverses the actual development: the stone was first the residence of the numen, and afterwards became a maẓẓēbāh.—22b. He will pay a tithe of all his possessions. This and Amos 4⁴ are the only pre-Deuteronomic references to the tithe (compare 14²⁰).

In its present setting the above narrative forms the transition link between the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban cycle of legends. In substance it is, we can hardly doubt, a modification of the cultus-legend of Bethel (now Beitīn, situated on an eminence about 10 miles North of Jerusalem, a little East of the road to Nābulus), the founding of which was ascribed to the patriarch Jacob. The concrete features which point to a local origin—the erection of the maẓẓebāh, the ladder, the gate of heaven, and the institution of the tithe—are all indeed peculiar to the account of Elohist, which obviously stands nearer to the sources of the native tradition than the stereotyped form of the theophany given by Yahwist. From Elohist we learn that the immemorial sanctity of Bethel was concentrated in the sacred stone which was itself the original Bêth-’ēl, i.e. the residence of a god or spirit. This belief appears to go back to the primitive stone-worship of which traces are very widely diffused over the surface of the globe.¹ The characteristic rite of anointing the stone, originally perhaps a sacrifice to the indwelling numen, was familiar to classical writers.² The most instructive parallel is the fact mentioned by Pausanias (x. 24, 6), that on a small stone in the sanctuary of Delphi oil was poured every day: we may conjecture that a similar practice was kept up at Bethel long after its original significance was forgotten. Though the monolith of Bethel is not elsewhere explicitly referred to in Old Testament, we may assume that, stripped of its pagan associations and reduced to the rank of a maẓẓebāh, it was still recognised in historic times as the chief religious symbol of that great centre of Hebrew worship.

---

21. ושבתי] LXX καὶ ἀποστρέψῃ με, as verse ¹⁵.—21b can with difficulty be assigned either to the protasis or to the apodosis of the sentence. The word יהוה shows that it does not belong to Elohist; and in all probability the clause is to be omitted as a gloss (Dillmann al.). The apodosis then has the same unusual form as in 22¹.

---

XXIX. 1–30.
Jacob’s Marriage with Laban’s Daughters
(Jehovist, Priestly-Code).

Instead of spending a few days (27⁴⁴) as Laban’s guest, Jacob was destined to pass 20 years of his life with his Aramæan kinsman. The circumstances which led to this prolonged exile are recorded in the two episodes contained in this section; viz. Jacob’s meeting with Rachel at the well (^1–14), and the peculiar conditions of his marriage to Leah and Rachel (^15–30). The first, a purely idyllic scene reminding us of 24^11–33 and Exodus 2^15–22, forms a pleasing introduction to the cycle of Jacob-Laban narratives, without a trace of the petty chicanery which is the leading motive of that group of legends.¹ In the second, the true character of Laban is exposed by the unworthy trick which he practises on Jacob; and the reader’s sympathies are enlisted on the side of Jacob in the trial of astuteness which is sure to ensue.

Analysis.—Fragments of Priestly-Code’s narrative can be easily recognised in verses ^24. 29, and probably also in ^28b. The separation of Yahwist and Elohist is uncertain on account of the close parallelism of the two documents and the absence of material differences of representation to support or correct the literary analysis. Most subsequent critics agree with Dillmann that verse ¹ belongs to Elohist (see the notes), and ^2–14 to Yahwist: compare רוץ לקראת, ¹³ (18² 24¹⁷); עצמי ובשרי, ¹⁴ (2²³). In ^16 f. Rachel appears to be introduced for the first time; hence Dillmann regards Elohist as the main source of ¹⁵ (or ^15b) ^–30, excluding, however, verse ²⁶, where צְעִירָה and בְּכִירָה reveal the hand of Yahwist: characteristic expressions of Elohist are משכרת, ¹⁵ (31^7. 41); גדלה and קטנה, ^16. 18; יפת תאר וגו׳, ¹⁷. So Gunkel, Procksch nearly. Ball and Cornill assign all from ¹⁹ onwards to Yahwist.

1–14. Jacob’s meeting with Rachel.—1. the sons of the East] Since the goal of Jacob’s journey is in Yahwist, Ḥarran (28¹⁰ 29⁴) and in Priestly-Code, Paddan Aram (28⁷), it is to be presumed that this third variation comes from Elohist (Dillmann). Now the בְּנֵי קֶדֶם are everywhere else the tribes of the Syro-Arabian desert, and 31^21 ff. certainly suggests that Laban’s home was not so distant from Canaan as Ḥarran (see on 24^10 f. [city of Nahor]). It is possible, therefore, that in the tradition followed by Elohist, Laban was the representative of the nomadic Aramæans between Palestine and the Euphrates (see page 334 above).—2. The well in the open country is evidently distinct, even in Yahwist, from the town-well of Ḥarran (compare 24¹³).—For ... they used to water, etc.] To the end of verse ³ is an explanatory parenthesis describing the ordinary procedure. The custom of covering the well with a heavy stone is referred to by Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, i. 490; Thomson, The Land and the Book, 589; Palmer, The Desert of the Exodus ii. 319 f.; compare also Diodorus ii. 48, xix. 94.—4. Jacob accosts the shepherds, and learns that they come from Ḥarran. There is nothing else in the narrative to suggest the proximity of a great city; Laban is no city-dweller as in chapter 24, but a nomad sheikh; and the life depicted is everywhere that of the desert. All this confirms the impression that the topography of Elohist (verse ¹) has been modified by Yahwist in accordance with the theory that Ḥarran was the city of Nahor.—5. the son of Nāḥôr] see on 24¹⁵.—7, 8. Jacob is puzzled by the leisurely ways of these Eastern herdsmen, whom he ironically supposes to have ceased work for the day. He is soon to show them an example of how things should be done, careless of the conventions which they plead as an excuse.—9. a shepherdess] compare Exodus 2¹⁶. The trait is in accordance with the freedom still allowed to unmarried girls among the Bedouin. Burckhardt found it an established rule among the Arabs of Sinai that only girls should drive the cattle to pasture (Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, i. 351).—10. The removal of the stone is a feat of strength which has been thought to belong to a more primitive legend, in which Jacob figured as a giant (Dillmann, Gunkel, al.): compare 32²⁶.—11. wept aloud] ‘after the demonstrative fashion of the Oriental’ (Bennett),—tears of joy at the happy termination of his journey.—12. brother] as in verse ¹⁵ 13⁸ 14¹⁴ (24⁴⁸?).—13. kissed him repeatedly (Piel)] The effusive display of affection, perhaps not wholly disinterested, is characteristic of Laban (compare 24^29 ff.).—14. my bone and my flesh] as 37²⁷, Judges 9², 2 Samuel 5¹ 19^13 f.. It is an absurd suggestion that the exclamation is called forth by the recital of Jacob’s dealings with Esau, in which Laban recognised a spiritual affinity to himself! The phrase denotes literal consanguinity and nothing more.

---

1. The curious expression ‘lifted up his feet’ is found only here.—LXX, Vulgate omit בְּנֵי; and LXX adds to the verse πρὸς Λαβὰν κτλ., as 28^5b.—2. והאבן גדלה can only mean ‘and the stone was great’: it is perhaps better to omit the article (with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch).—3. העדרים] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch הרעים, needlessly substituted by Ball. So also verse ⁸, where The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch is supported by LXX.—6. Before והנה, LXX inserts ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος (as verse ⁹). An assimilating tendency reappears at the end of the verse; and the variations have no critical value.—9. ב֫אה] perfect; contrast the participle בא֫ה in verse ⁶.—רעה הוא] LXX + τὰ πρόβατα τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῆς.—10. ויגל] with original i in imperfect Qal (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 p).—13. שמע (LXX שֵׁם) = ‘the report concerning,’ followed as always by genitive objective.—14. חדש ימים] ‘a whole month’; see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 131 d.

---

15–30. Jacob’s double marriage.—15. Laban’s character begins to unfold itself as that of a man ostensibly actuated by the most honourable motives, but at heart a selfish schemer, always ready with some plausible pretext for his nefarious conduct (see verses ^19. 26). His apparently generous offer proves a well-laid trap for Jacob, whose love for Rachel has not escaped the notice of his shrewd kinsman.—16–18a. An explanatory parenthesis. The manner in which Rachel is introduced, as if for the first time, is thought to mark the transition to another source (Dillmann al.).—On the names Lē’āh and Rāḥēl, v.i.—17. Leah’s eyes were weak (רַכּוֹת, LXX ἀσθενεῖς, Aquila, Symmachus ἁπαλοί): i.e. they lacked the lustrous brilliancy which is counted a feature of female beauty in the East.—18b. Jacob, not being in a position to pay the purchase price (mōhar) for so eligible a bride, offered seven years’ service instead. The custom was recognised by the ancient Arabs, and is still met with (Wellhausen Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1893, 433 f.; Burckhardt Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, i. 297 f.).—19. The first cousin has still a prior (sometimes an exclusive) right to a girl’s hand among the Bedouin and in Egypt (Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, i. 113, 272; Lane, An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians⁵ i. 199).—22. Laban proceeds to the execution of his long meditated coup. He himself arranges the marriage feast (contrast Judges 14¹⁰), inviting all the men of the place, with a view doubtless to his self-exculpation (verse ²⁶).—23. The substitution of Leah for Rachel was rendered possible by the custom of bringing the bride to the bridegroom veiled (24⁶⁵). To have thus got rid of the unprepossessing Leah for a handsome price, and to retain his nephew’s services for other seven years (verse ²⁷), was a master-stroke of policy in the eyes of a man like Laban.—25. Jacob’s surprise and indignation are vividly depicted.—26. It is not so done] compare 34⁷, 2 Samuel 13¹². Laban no doubt correctly states the local usage: the objection to giving a younger daughter before an older is natural, and prevails in certain countries (Lane, i. 201; compare Jubilees xxviii., Judges 15^1 f., 1 Samuel 18¹⁷).—27, 28. Fulfil the week of this one] i.e., the usual seven days (Judges 14¹², Tobit 11¹⁹) of the wedding festival for Leah. For the bridegroom to break up the festivities would, of course, be a gross breach of decorum, and Jacob has no alternative but to fall in with Laban’s new proposal and accept Rachel on his terms.—30. Laban’s success is for the moment complete; but in the alienation of both his daughters, and their fidelity to Jacob at a critical time (31^14 ff.), he suffered a just retribution for the unscrupulous assertion of his paternal rights.

In Jacob’s marriages it has been surmised that features survive of that primitive type of marriage (called beena marriage) in which the husband becomes a member of the wife’s kin (William Robertson Smith Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 207). Taken as a whole the narrative hardly bears out that view. It is true that Jacob attaches himself to Laban’s family; but it does not follow that he did not set up a house of his own. His remaining with Laban was due to his inability to pay the mōhar otherwise than in the way of personal service. As soon as the contract expired he pleads his right to ‘provide for his own house’ (30³⁰ Yahwist). On the other hand, Laban certainly claimed the right to detain his daughters, and treated them as still members of his family (31^26. 43 Elohist); and it might be imagined that the Elohistic tradition recognised the existence of beena marriage, at least among the Aramæans. But it is doubtful if the claim is more than an extreme assertion of the right of a powerful family to protect its female relatives even after marriage.

---

15. הכי] see on 27³⁶.—מַשְׂכֹּרֶת] 31^7. 41 (Elohist), Ruth 2¹²†; שָׂכָר is common to Yahwist (30^28. 32 f.) and Elohist (31⁸, Exodus 2⁹).—16. גדל and קטן are in such connexions characteristic of Elohist (verse ¹⁸ 42^{13. 15. 20. 32. 34}); see Holzinger Einleitung in den Hexateuch 104.—רָחֵל means ‘ewe’ (Arabic raḫil = she-lamb); hence by analogy לֵאָה has been explained by Arabic la’āt, ‘bovine antelope’ (see Nöldeke Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xl. 167; Stade Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, i. 112 ff.), and the names are cited as evidence of a primitive Hebrew totemism (Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 254 f.). Others prefer the derivation from Assyrian li’at, ‘lady’ (see Haupt, Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1883, 100).—18. ברחל] בְּ pretii (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 p); so ^20. 25.—20. ויהיו—אתה] LXXᴬ omits.—21. הב֫ה] Milra‛ before א (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 69 o).—24. שפחה] better לְשִׁ׳ (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Targum^Onkelos); see verse ²⁹.—26. הצעירה] distinctive of Yahwist; see verse ¹⁶.—27. וְנִתְּנָה is rather 3rd feminine, singular, perfect, Niphal, than 1st plural cohortative Qal (as most). The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate read וְאֶתֵּן.—28b. לו לאשה] The double dative is characteristic of Priestly-Code, to whom the whole clause may be assigned along with ²⁹.—30. The second גּם has no sense, and should probably be deleted (LXX, Vulgate).

---

XXIX. 31–XXX. 24.
The Birth of Jacob’s Children
(Jehovist).

A difficult section, in which the origin of the tribes of Israel is represented in the fictitious form of a family history. The popular etymologies attached to the names are here extremely forced, and sometimes unintelligible; it is remarkable that, with hardly an exception, they are based on the rivalry between Jacob’s two wives. (The names are bestowed by the mothers, as is generally the case in Jehovist.) How far genuine elements of tradition are embodied in such a narrative is a question which it is obviously impossible to answer with certainty. We cannot be wrong in attributing historical significance to the distinction between the tribes whose descent was traced to Jacob’s wives and those regarded as sons of concubines; though we are ignorant of the actual circumstances on which the classification depends. It is also certain that there is a solid basis for the grouping of the chief tribes under the names of Leah and Rachel, representing perhaps an older and a later settlement of Hebrews in Palestine (Stade Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, i. 112 f.). The fact that all the children except Benjamin are born in Mesopotamia may signify that the leading tribal divisions existed before the occupation of Canaan; but the principle certainly cannot be applied in detail, and the nature of the record forbids the attempt to discover in it reliable data for the history of the tribes. (For a conspectus of various theories, see Luther, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxi. 36 ff.; compare Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 291 f., 509 ff.)

The sources are Yahwist and Elohist, with occasional clauses from Priestly-Code.—29^31–35 is wholly from Yahwist (יהוה, ^{31. 32. 33. 35}; עֲקָרָה, ³¹; הַפַּעַם, ^34. 35), with the possible exception of ^32bγ.—30^1–8 is mainly Elohist (אלהים, ^2. 6. 8; אָמָה, ^3a); but ^3aβ reminds us of Yahwist (16²), ^4a is assigned to Priestly-Code (שִׁפְחָה and compare 16³), and in ⁷ שִׁפְחָה must be either from Yahwist (Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel) or Priestly-Code (Holzinger).—30^9–13 is again mostly from Yahwist (שִׁפְחָה, ^10. 12; compare ^9a with 29³¹ 30¹ 29³⁵). ^9b is Priestly-Code.—30^14–24 presents a very mixed text, whose elements are difficult to disentangle; note the double etymologies in ^18. (compare ¹⁶) ^20. 23 f. The hand of Elohist clearly appears in ^{17a. 18. 20aαβ. 22bα}. (^22a may be from Priestly-Code: compare 8¹) ²³. Hence the parallels ^{14–16. 20aγ. 24} must be assigned to Yahwist, who is further characterised, according to Gunkel, by the numeration of the sons (^{17b. 19. 20aγ}). ²¹ is interpolated.

31–35. The sons of Leah.—31. hated] The rendering is too strong. שְׂנוּאָה is almost a technical term for the less favoured of two wives (Deuteronomy 21^15 ff.); where the two are sisters the rivalry is naturally most acute, hence this practice is forbidden by the later law (Leviticus 18¹⁸). The belief that Yahwe takes the part of the unfortunate wife and rewards her with children, belongs to the strongly marked family religion of Israel (1 Samuel 1^2 ff.).—32. Rĕ’ûbēn] The only plausible explanation of the etymology is that it is based on the form רְאוּבֵל (v.i.) = רְאוּ־בַעַל, and that יהוה is substituted for the divine name בַּֽעַל. Most commentaries suppose that the writer resolves ראובן into רָאָ[ה] בְ[עָ]נְ[יִי]; but that is too extravagant for even a Hebrew etymologist.—33. Šim‛ôn] derived from שָׁמַע, ‘hear,’ expressing precisely the same idea as Rĕ’ûbēn.—34. Lēvî, as the third son, is explained by a verb for ‘adhere’ (Niphal √ לוה), on the principle that a threefold cord is not easily broken.—35. Yĕhûdāh] connected with a word meaning ‘praise’ (הוֹדָה: compare imperfect יְהוֹדֶה, Nehemiah 11¹⁷). So in 49⁸.

---

32. רְאוּבֵן] LXX Ῥουβην, etc.; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word); Josephus Ῥουβηλος. The origin of the name has given rise to an extraordinary number of conjectures (see Hogg, Encyclopædia Biblica, 4091 ff.). We seem driven to the conclusion that the original form (that on which the etymology is based: v.s.) was ראובל. In that form the name has been connected with Arabic ri’bāl, ‘lion,’ or ‘wolf,’ in which case Reuben might have to be added to the possibly totemistic names of the Old Testament. Another plausible suggestion is that the word is softened from רְעוּ־בַעַל a theophorous compound after the analogy of רְעוּאֵל—33. After בֵּן, LXX inserts שֵׁנִי, which may be correct (compare 30^{7. 12. 17. 19. 24}).—שִׁמְעוֹן] Another supposed animal name, from Arabic sim‛, a cross between the wolf and hyæna (see William Robertson Smith The Journal of Philology ix. 80). Ewald regarded it as a diminutive of יִשְׁמָעֵאל, and similarly recently Cheyne (Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, 375).—34. קרא] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX^Lucian, Peshiṭtå קָֽרְאָה; LXXᴬ ἐκλήθη.—לֵוִי] Wellhausen’s conjecture that this is the gentilic of לֵאָה is widely accepted (Stade, William Robertson Smith, Nöldeke, Meyer, al.). Hommel, on the other hand, compares South Arabian lavi’u = ‘priest,’ Levi being the priestly tribe (The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 278 f.; compare Benzinger Hebräische Archäologie² 56).

---

XXX. 1–8. Rachel’s adopted sons.—1, 2. A passionate scene, showing how Rachel was driven by jealousy of her sister to yield her place to her maid. Her petulant behaviour recalls that of Sarah (16⁵), but Jacob is less patient than Abraham.—Am I in God’s stead?] So 50¹⁹, compare 2 Kings 5⁷.—3. bear upon my knees] An allusion to a primitive ceremony of adoption, which here simply means that Bilhah’s children will be acknowledged by Rachel as her own.—obtain children by her] see on 16².—6. The putative mother names the adopted child.—Dân] The etymology here given (√ דִּין, ‘judge’) is very probably correct, the form being an abbreviated theophorous name (compare, Abi-dan, Assyrian Asshur-dan, etc.).—8. wrestlings of God I have wrestled] The words are very obscure (see Cheyne 376 ff.). Either ‘I have had “a veritable God’s bout” (Ball) with my sister,’ or (less probably) ‘I have wrestled with God (in prayer) like my sister.’—and have overcome] This seems to imply that Leah had only one son at the time (Gunkel); and there is nothing to prevent the supposition that the concubinage of Bilhah followed immediately on the birth of Reuben.

On the ceremony referred to, see Stade Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vi. 143 ff.; Holzinger 196; Driver 274. Its origin is traced to a widespread custom, according to which, in lawful marriage, the child is actually brought forth on the father’s knees (compare Job 3¹²; Iliad ix. 455 f.; Odyssey xix. 401 ff.); then it became a symbol of the legitimisation of a natural child, and finally a form of adoption generally (50²³). Gunkel, however, thinks the rite originated in cases like the present (the slave being delivered on the knees of her mistress), and was afterwards transferred to male adoption.

---

3. בִּלְהָה] (of unknown etymology) is probably to be connected with the Ḥorite clan בִּלהָן (36²⁷).—6. דָּנַנִּי] On the form, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 26 g.—7aβb must be assigned to Yahwist, on account of שׁפחה and בן שני (note also the expression of subject after second verb).—8. נפתולי] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. The verb has nowhere else the sense of ‘wrestle,’ but means primarily to ‘twist’ (compare Proverbs 8⁸, Job 5¹³, Psalms 18²⁷†); hence נַפְתָּלִי might be the ‘tortuous,’ ‘cunning’ one (Brown-Driver-Briggs). But a more plausible etymology derives it from a hypothetical Naphtal (from נֶפֶת [Joshua 17¹¹†,—if correctly vocalised], usually taken to mean ‘height’: compare כַּרְמֶל from כֶּרֶם), denoting the northern highlands West of the Upper Jordan (Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 539).—The Versions render the verb more or less paraphrastically, and give no help to the elucidation of the sense.

---

9–13. Leah’s adopted sons.—11. Gad is the name of an Aramæan and Phœnician god of Luck (Τύχη), mentioned in Isaiah 65¹¹ (see Cambridge Bible, ad loc.; compare Baethgen, Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins 76 ff. 159 ff.). There is no difficulty in supposing that a hybrid tribe like Gad traced its ancestry to this deity, and was named after him; though, of course, no such idea is expressed in the text. In Leah’s exclamation the word is used appellatively: With luck! (v.i.). It is probable, however, that at an earlier time it was current in the sense ‘With Gad’s help’ (Ball, Gunkel).—13. The name ’Āšēr naturally suggested to Hebrew writers a word for happiness; hence the two etymologies: בְּאָשְׁרִי ‘In my happiness,’ and אִשְּׁרוּנִי ‘(women) count me happy.’ It is possible that the name is historically related to the Canaanite goddess ’Ašērāh (Ball, Holzinger), as Gad is to the Aramæan deity. Aser appears in Egyptian monuments as the name of a district in North-west Palestine as early as Seti and Ramses II. (Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 236 ff.).

---

10. Both here and verse ¹² LXX gives a much fuller text.—11. בְּגד] So Kethîb, LXX Ἐν τύχῃ, Vulgate Feliciter. But Qrê בָּא גָ֑ד is ancient, being presupposed by Syrian ((‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word)) and Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan}. These Versions render ‘Good fortune comes’ (so Rashi): another translation, suggested by 49¹⁹, is ‘A troop (גְּדוּד) comes’ (Abraham Ibn Ezra).

13. אשֶׁר is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον.—אִשְּׁרוּנִי] perfect of confidence (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 n). It is to be noted that perfects greatly preponderate in Elohist’s etymologies, and imperfects in those of Yahwist; the two exceptions (29^32 f.) may be only apparent, and due to the absence of definite stylistic criteria.

---

14–24. The later children.—14–16. The incident of the love-apples is a piece of folklore, adopted with reserve by the writer (Yahwist), and so curtailed as to be shorn of its original significance. The story must have gone on to tell how Rachel partook of the fruit and in consequence became pregnant, while Leah also conceived through the restoration of her marriage rights (see Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 38 f.). How much of this stood in Yahwist and has been suppressed in the history of the text we cannot say; we here read just what is necessary to explain the name of Leah’s child.—14. דּוּדָאִים (v.i.) is the round, greenish-yellow, plum-like fruit of mandragora vernalis, which in Syria ripens in May—the days of wheat harvest—and is still eagerly sought in the East to promote conception (see Tuch’s note, 385 ff.). Reuben is named, probably as the only child old enough to follow the reapers in the field (compare 2 Kings 4¹⁸). The agricultural background shows that the episode is out of place in its present nomadic setting.—15. he shall lie with thee to-night] Jacob, therefore, had wrongly withheld from Leah her conjugal rights (עוֹנָה, Exodus 21¹⁰).—16. I have hired thee (שָׂכֹר שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ)] Obviously an anticipation of Yahwist’s lost etymology of Issachar.—18. Elohist’s interpretation of יִשָּׂשׂכָר, which is, of course, independent of the story of the mandrakes. The name is resolved either into אישׁ שָׂכָר, ‘man of hire,’ or into יֵשׁ שָׂכָר, ‘there is a reward’ (Tuch, Dillmann); or else the י and quiescent ש are simply dropped (Gunkel): v.i.—20. Two etymologies of Zĕbûlûn; the first from Elohist (אלהים), and the second, therefore, from Yahwist: both are somewhat obscure (v.i.).—21. Dînāh] The absence of an etymology, and the fact that Dinah is excluded from the enumeration of 32²³, make it probable that the verse is interpolated with a view to chapter 34.—22–24. At last Rachel bears a son, long hoped for and therefore marked out for a brilliant destiny—Yôsēph.—23b, 24b. Elohist derives the name from אָסַף, ‘take away’; Yahwist more naturally from יָסַף, ‘add’: May Yahwe add to me another son!

---

14. דּוּדָאִים (Canticles 7¹⁴†)] LXX μῆλα μανδραγόρου, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan} יברוחין (= Arabic yabrūh, explained to be the root of the plant). The singular is דּוּדַי, from the same √ as דּוֹד, ‘lover,’ and דּוֹדִים ‘love’; and very probably associated with the love-god דודה (Meša, 1. 12). Cheyne plausibly suggests (379) that this deity was worshipped by the Reubenites; hence Reuben is the finder of the apples.—15. לָהּ] LXX לֵאָה, Peshiṭtå לה לאה.—וְלָקַחַת (infinitive)] Driver A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 204; but וְלָקַחַתְּ (perfect future) would be easier.—16. תָּבוֹא] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX + הַלַּיְלָה.—בַּֽלַּיְלָה הוּא] see on 19³³.—17a is from Elohist; but 17b probably from Yahwist, on account of the numeral.—18aβ, while correctly expressing the idea of Elohist, contains the word שִׁפְחָה, which Elohist avoids; and is therefore probably redactional.—18b. יִשָּׂשכָר] So Ben Asher regularly, with Qrê perpetuum יִשָּׂכָר: B. Naphtali has יִשְׂשָׂכָר, or יִשְׁשָׂכָר (see Baer-Delitzsch Liber Genesis 84 f.; Ginsburg, Introduction of the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible 250 ff.). The duplication of the ש cannot be disposed of as a Massoretic caprice, and is most naturally explained by the assumption that two components were recognised, of which the first was אִישׁ (Wellhausen Der Text der Bücher Samuelis, page v). For the second component Wellhausen refers to the שָׂכָר of 1 Chronicles 11³⁵ 26⁴; Ball compares an Egyptian deity Sokar; while Meyer (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 536) is satisfied with the interpretation ‘man of hire,’ corresponding to the description of the tribe in Genesis 49^14 f..—20. זֶבֶד, זְבָדַנִי] The √ (except in proper names) is not found in the Old Testament, but is explained by Aramaic (compare (‡ Syriac word), ‘dowry’), and is common in Palmer proper names (Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v.). The interchange of ל and ד is probably dialectic (compare dacrima = lacrima), and hardly justifies Cheyne’s view that the name in the writer’s mind was זַבְדּוֹן] (l.c. 380).—יזבלני] Another ἅπαξ λεγόμενον apparently connected with זְבֻל, poetical for ‘abode’: Versions ‘dwell with’ (as English Version). This gives a good enough sense here, and is perhaps supported by 49¹³ (see on the verse); but זְבֻלוּן remains without any natural explanation. See Hogg, in Encyclopædia Biblica, 5385 ff. Meyer (538) derives it from the personal name זְבֻל (Judges 9²⁸).—21 end] LXX + ותעמד מלדת (as 29³⁵).—24. יוֹסֵף] Probably a contraction of יוסף־אל, though the Yšp’r of the list of Thothmes III. (Number 78) is less confidently identified with Joseph than the companion Y‛ḳb’r with Jacob (compare page 360 above; Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 262; Spiegelberg, Randglossen, 13 f.; Müller, Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1907, i. 23, and Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1909, 31). But Yašupili has been found in contract tablets of the Ḥammurabi period along with Yaḳub-ili (Hommel The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 96 [from Sayce]).