Jacob, having accomplished his 14 years of service for his wives, is now in a position to dictate terms to Laban, who, in his eagerness to keep him, invites him to name the price for which he will remain with him. It is interesting to contrast the relative attitudes of the two men with their bearing in 2915 ff. Jacob here shows a decision of purpose which causes Laban to adopt an obsequious tone very unlike his former easy assurance. He is overjoyed to find his nephew’s demands so reasonable; and correspondingly mortified (31²) when he discovers how completely he has been deceived by Jacob’s apparent moderation.—The story, as Gunkel reminds us, was originally told to shepherds, who would follow with keen interest the various tricks of their craft which Jacob so successfully applies (and of which he was probably regarded as the inventor). To more refined readers these details were irksome; hence the abridged and somewhat unintelligible form in which the narrative stands.
Sources.—In the earlier verses (25–31) several duplicates show the composition of Yahwist and Elohist: 25 ∥ 26a; 26b ∥ 29a; 28 ∥ 31a; ויאמר in ²⁷ and ²⁸; אתה ידעת, 26b and 29a. Here 25. 27. 29–31 are from Yahwist (יהוה, 27. 30; מָצָא חֵן, ²⁷; בִּגְלַל ²⁷), and 26. 28 from Elohist,—each narrative being nearly complete (compare Dillmann, Gunkel, Procksch).—In 32–36 it is quite possible, in spite of the scepticism of Dillmann and others, to distinguish two conceptions of Jacob’s reward (Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 40 ff.). (a) In the first, Jacob is that very day to take out from Laban’s flock all abnormally coloured animals: that is to be his hire (³²). On the morrow (or in time to come), Laban may inspect Jacob’s flock: if he find in it any normally coloured animals, Jacob is at once convicted of fraud ³³. This account belongs to Elohist (compare שְׂכָרִי, ³², with ²⁸), though it is doubtful if to the same stratum of Elohist as 317–12. (b) In the other, Laban himself separates the flocks, leaving the normally coloured sheep and goats in Jacob’s keeping, and removing the others to a distance of three days’ journey, under the charge of his sons (32aβ [from הָסֵר 35 f.). Thus Jacob receives for the present nothing at all (³¹ Yahwist). The narrative must have gone on to explain that his hire was to consist of any variegated animals appearing in the normally coloured flock now left in his charge (36b); Laban’s precautions aim at securing that these shall be few or none. Hence we obtain for Yahwist 32aβ. 35. 36, and for Elohist 32aαδb. 33. 34.—37–45 is the natural continuation of Yahwist’s account, but with numerous insertions, which may be either from variants or glosses.—The text here is very confused, and LXX has many variations.
25–31. Jacob proposes to provide for his own house.—A preliminary parley, in which both parties feel their way to an understanding.—26 (Elohist). thou knowest with what kind of service, etc.] Elohist always lays stress on Jacob’s rectitude (compare ³³).—27 (Yahwist). If I have found favour, etc.] followed by aposiopesis, as 18³ 23¹³.—Laban continues: I have taken omens (נִחַשְׁתִּי; compare 445. 15, 1 Kings 20³³) and (found that) Yahwe has blessed me, etc.]—an abject plea for Jacob’s remaining with him.—28 (Elohist). Laban surrenders at once (the answer is in verse ³²), whereas—29,30 in Yahwist, Jacob presses for a discharge: his service has been of immense value to Laban, but he has a family to consider.—31. anything at all] See introductory note above.—this thing] which I am about to mention.—resume herding thy flock] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 120 g.
26. ואת־ילדי] Not necessarily a gloss; the children might fairly be considered included in Jacob’s wages.—27. On נִחַשׁ, verb 44⁵.—בגללך] LXX τῇ σῇ εἰσόδῳ, Armenian in pede tuo = לרגלך (³⁰).—28. LXX, Vulgate omit ויאמר, smoothing over the transition from Yahwist to Elohist.—נקבה] ‘designate’ (literally ‘prick [off]’): compare the use of Niphal in Numbers 1¹⁷, 1 Chronicles 16⁴¹ etc.—29. את אשר] ‘the manner in which’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 157 c); but Peshiṭtå reads as in verse ²⁶.—30. לרגלי] contrasted with לפני above. Prosperity has followed Jacob ‘wherever he went’ (compare Isaiah 41², Job 18¹¹ etc.). It is unnecessary to emend בִּגְלָלִי (Peshiṭtå, TargumOnkelos, Cheyne).—31. אשמר] (LXX, Peshiṭtå prefix וְ) must be deleted on account of its awkward position.
32–36. The new contract.—The point in both narratives is that parti-coloured animals form a very small proportion of a flock, the Syrian sheep being nearly all white (Canticles 4² 6⁶, Daniel 7⁹) and the goats black or brown (Canticles 41b). In Elohist, Jacob simply asks this small share as his payment.—32. and it shall be my hire] The rendering ‘and of this sort shall be my hire’ (in future), is merely a violent attempt to obliterate the difference between Yahwist and Elohist.—33. my righteousness shall testify against me] i.e., the proposal is so transparently fair that Jacob will be as it were automatically convicted of theft if he violates the compact. צְדָקָה, ‘unimpeachable conduct,’ here means ‘fair dealing,’ ‘honesty.’—in time to come] whenever Laban chooses to make an investigation.—35, 36 (Yahwist). And he (Laban, see 32aβ) removed that day, etc.] Laban’s motive in removing the variegated animals to a distance of three days’ journey is obvious; he wishes to reduce to a minimum the chance that any such animals should henceforth be born amongst those now entrusted to Jacob.—white] Hebrew lābān, perhaps a play on Laban’s name.
32. אעבר, הסר] To get rid of the change of person (and the division of sources) many construe the latter as infinitive absolute (‘removing’); but the only natural rendering is imperative (compare ³⁵). LXX has imperative both times.—כל־שה—עזים] LXX πᾶν πρόβατον φαιὸν ἐν τοῖς ἀρνάσιν καὶ πᾶν διάραντον λελυκὸν καὶ λευκὸν ἐν ταῖς αἰξίν, a smoother and therefore less original text. The Hebrew seems overloaded; Gunkel strikes out וְכָל־שֶׂה־חוּם בַּֽכְּשָׂבִים, and the corresponding clauses in 33. 35.—נָקֹד וְטָלוּא] ‘speckled and spotted,’ ‘parti-coloured.’ The words are practically synonymous, both being distinct from עָקֹד (35. 39. 40 318. 10. 12†), which means ‘striped.’ If there be a difference, נ׳ (35. 39 318. 10. 12†) suggests smaller spots than ט׳ (compare Ezekiel 16¹⁶, Joshua 9⁵, the only places where the √ occurs outside this passage).—חוּם] only in this chapter: = ‘black’ or ‘dark-brown.’—33. ענה ב] ‘testify against’ (see 1 Samuel 12³, 2 Samuel 1¹⁶, Isaiah 3⁹). An easier sense would be obtained if we could translate ‘witness for,’ but there seem to be no examples of that usage. Driver’s interpretation: ‘there will be nothing whatever to allege against my honesty,’ seems, on the other hand, too subtle.—ביום מחר] ‘in time to come’ (Exodus 13¹⁴, Deuteronomy 6²⁰). If we could insist on the literal rendering ‘on the morrow,’ the proof of divergence between Yahwist and Elohist would be strengthened, but the sense is less suitable.—כי—לפניך] LXX ὅτι ἐστὶν ὁ μισθός μου ἐνώπιόν σου.—36. בינו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX בינם.—The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch follows ³⁶ with a long addition based on 3111–13.
37–43. Jacob’s Stratagem.—The main account is from Yahwist, to whose narrative the artifice is essential, but there are many interpolations.—37–39. The first step is to work on the imagination of the females by rods of poplar, etc., peeled in such a way as to show patches of white, and placed in the drinking troughs.—38, 39. Removing glosses, Yahwist’s account reads: And he placed the rods which he had peeled in the runnels ... in front of the flock, and they bred when they came to drink.... And the flock brought forth streaked, speckled, and spotted (young).
The physiological law involved is said to be well established (Driver), and was acted on by ancient cattle breeders (see the list of authorities in Bochart, Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ ii. chapter 49; and compare Jerome Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim ad loc.). The full representation seems to be that the ewes saw the reflexion of the rams in the water, blended with the image of the parti-coloured rods, and were deceived into thinking they were coupled with parti-coloured males (Jerome, Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 41).
37. לבנה (Hosea 4¹³†)] the ‘white’ tree; according to some, populus alba (Dillmann al.), but very probably styrax officinalis (Arabic lubnaʸ, so called from its exuding a milk-like gum), (Gesenius, Delitzsch, Driver, al.).—לוּז†] = Aramaic לוּזָא, ‘almond tree.’—עַרְמוֹן (Ezekiel 31⁸†)] platanus orientalis (Assyrian irmeânu).—Instead of the last three words LXX has ἐφαίνετο δὲ ἐπὶ ταῖς ῥάβδοις τὸ λευκόν, ὃ ἐλέπισεν ποικίλον,—a very sensible comment, but hardly original. The whole clause ‘(with) a laying bare (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 r) of the white on the rods,’ is superfluous, and certainly looks like a variant.—בהן] plural; מקל being collective.—38 ff. The text of Yahwist, as sifted by Wellhausen, commends itself by its lucidity and continuity. It is impossible to tell whether the interpolated words are variants from another source (Elohist?) or explanatory glosses.—38. רַהַט (verse ⁴¹, Exodus 2¹⁶†)] either ‘trough,’ from Arabic rahaṭa, ‘be collected,’ or ‘runnel,’ from Aramaic רהט = רוּץ (see Nöldeke Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, xii. 187).—שִׁקֲתוֹת] construction plural of שֹׁקֶת, 24²⁰†.—The words בשקתות—לשתות divorce לנכח הצאן from its connexion, and must be omitted from the text of Yahwist. LXX appears to have changed הצאן ויחמנה to המקלֹות, rendering thus (38b) ἵνα ὡς ἂν ἔλθωσιν τὰ πρόβατα πιεῖν, ἐνώπιον τῶν ῥάβδων [καὶ] ἐλθόντων αὐτῶν εἰς τὸ πιεῖν, ἐνκισσήσωσιν (³⁹) τὰ πρόβατα—וַיֵּחַמְנָה] On the unusual preference of 3rd person feminine plural, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 47 k.—39a is a doublet to the last three words of ³⁸.—ויחמו] ib. § 69 f; The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ויחמנה.
40. And (these) lambs Jacob set apart ... and made separate flocks for himself and did not add them to Laban’s stock (Wellhausen).—41, 42. A further refinement: Jacob employed his device only in the case of the sturdy animals, letting the weakly ones gender freely. The difference corresponds to a difference of breeding-time (v.i.). The consequence is that Jacob’s stock is hardy and Laban’s delicate.
40. ‘He set the faces of the flock towards a (sic) streaked and every dark one in Laban’s flock,’ is an imperfect text, and an impossible statement in Yahwist, where Laban’s cattle are three days distant. LXX vainly tries to make sense by omitting לָבָן, and rendering פְּנֵי = ἐναντίον, and אֶל־עָקֹד = κριὸν (אַיִל!) διάλευκον.—41. בּכל־] LXX, Peshiṭtå, TargumOnkelos, supply עֵת.—42. הקשרים, העטפים] LXX ἐπίσημα, ἄσημα; but Symmachus (paraphrasing) πρώϊμα ὄψιμα, and similarly Aquila, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, TargumOnkelos. It is the fact that the stronger sheep conceived in summer and yeaned in winter, while the weaker conceived in autumn and yeaned in the spring: Pliny, Naturalis Historia, viii. 187 (‘postea concepti invalidi’).
Jacob perceives from the altered demeanour of Laban and his sons that he has outstayed his welcome (1. 2); and, after consultation with his wives, resolves on a secret flight (3–21). Laban pursues, and overtakes him at Mt. Gilead (22–25), where, after a fierce altercation (26–43), they enter into a treaty of peace (from which Gilead receives its name), and separate with many demonstrations of goodwill (31⁴⁴–32¹).
Sources.—1–16 is an almost homogeneous (though perhaps not continuous) excerpt from Elohist: אלהים, 7. 9. 11. 16; מַשְׂכֹּרָת, ⁷ (compare ⁴¹ 29¹⁵); מֹנִים, ⁷ (⁴¹); מַצֵבָה ¹³; the revelation by dream, 10 f.; the summons and answer, ¹¹ (221. 7. 11); and the explanation of Jacob’s wealth 7 ff.; compare also the reference to 2820–22. ¹ and ³ are from a Yahwist parallel: יהוה, ³; מוֹלַדְתְּךָ, ³; the ‘sons’ of Laban, ¹ (compare 30³⁵).—In 17–54 Elohist still preponderates, though Yahwist is more largely represented than some critics (Dillmann, Kuenen, Kautzsch-Socin, Driver, al.) allow. The detailed analysis is here very intricate, and will be best dealt with under the several sections.—¹⁸ (except the first four words) is the only extract from Priestly-Code.
1–16. Preparations for flight.—1, 3 (Yahwist). The jealousy of Laban’s sons corresponds to the dark looks of Laban himself in Elohist (verse ²); the divine communication is a feature of both narratives (verse ¹³).—4–13. Jacob vindicates his conduct towards Laban, and sets forth the reasons for his projected flight. The motive of the speech is not purely literary, affording the writer an opportunity to express his belief in Jacob’s righteousness (Gunkel); it is first of all an appeal to the wives to accompany him: compare the question to Rebekah in 24⁵⁸.—6. Ye yourselves know, etc.] Compare 3026. 29. But to repeat the protestation after the work of the last six years implies great hardihood on Jacob’s part; and rather suggests that the passage belongs to a stratum of Elohist which said nothing about his tricks with the flock.—7. changed my wages ten times] Perhaps a round number, not to be taken literally.—8. A sample of Laban’s tergiversations, and their frustration by God’s providence.—9. And so God has taken away, etc.] The hand of God has been so manifest that Laban’s displeasure is altogether unreasonable.—10–12. Jacob receives through a dream the explanation of the singular good fortune that has attended him.
In the text verses 10–12 form part of the same revelation as that in which Jacob is commanded to depart (¹³). But, as Wellhausen (Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 39) asks, “How could two such dissimilar revelations be coupled together in this way?” Verse ¹⁰ recalls an incident of the past, while ¹³ is in the sphere of the present: moreover, ‘I am the God of Bethel’ must surely open the communication. Wellhausen solves the difficulty by removing ¹⁰ and ¹² (assigning them to an unknown source), and leaving ¹¹ as the introduction to ¹³: similarly Dillmann, Holzinger, Oxford Hexateuch, al. Gunkel supposes parts of Jacob’s speech to have been omitted between ⁹ and ¹⁰ and between ¹² and ¹³.—It is scarcely possible to recover the original sense of the fragment. If the dream had preceded the negotiations with Laban, it might have been a hint to Jacob of the kind of animals he was to ask as his hire (Strack, Gunkel); but that is excluded by 12b; and, besides, in verse ⁸ it is Laban who fixes the terms of the contract. We can only understand it vaguely as an assurance to Jacob that against all natural expectations the transaction will be overruled to his advantage.
2. איננו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch אינם (so verse ⁵).—6. אתנה] only here and thrice in Ezekiel (compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 32 i).—7. והחלף] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ויחלף.—עשרת מנִים] LXX (‘nescio qua opinione ducti’ [Jerome]) τῶν δέκα ἀμνῶν (so ⁴¹—probably a transliteration, afterwards made into a Greek word). מֹנִים (⁴¹†) from √ מנה, ‘count,’ for the usual פְּעָמִים.—אלהים] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch יהוה (so 9. 16a).—9. את־] LXX אָת־כָּל־.—אביכם] for אביכן (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 o.
13. I am the God of Bethel] links this theophany with that of 2810 ff., and is (in Elohist) the first assurance given to Jacob that his vow (2820–22) had been accepted.—14–16. Jacob’s appeal has been addressed to willing ears: his wives are already alienated from their father, and eagerly espouse their husband’s cause.—14b. Compare 2 Samuel 20¹, 1 Kings 12¹⁶.—15. has sold us] like slaves.—consumed our money] i.e., the price paid for us (compare Exodus 21³⁵). The complaint implies that it was considered a mark of meanness for a man to keep the mōhar for himself instead of giving it to his daughters. A similar change in the destination of the mahr appears in Arabia before Islam (Wellhausen Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1893, 434 f.).—16. is ours and our children’s] Elohist never mentions sons of Laban; and apparently looks on Leah and Rachel as the sole heiresses.
13. האל ביתאל] The article with construct violates a well known rule of syntax (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 f); and it is doubtful if the anomaly be rightly explained by supposing the ellipsis of אֵל or אֱלֹהֵי. The original text may have been הָאֵל [הַנִּרְאָה אֵלֶיךָ בִּמְקוֹם] בֵּיתְאֵל; (so [but without ביתאל] LXX, adopted by Ball); or האל[—ב]ביתאל (TargumOnkelos-Jonathan, Kittel).—ארץ מולדתך] see on 11²⁸. It is the only occurrence of מ׳ in Elohist.—LXX adds καὶ ἔσομαι μετὰ σοῦ.—15. נכריות] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate כְּנָ׳.—גם אכול] see on 27³³.—16. עשר] LXX + καὶ τὴν δόξαν.
17–25. The flight and pursuit.—18. and drove away all his cattle] Hence the slowness of his march as compared with Laban’s (3313b).—The rest of the verse is from Priestly-Code (compare 12⁵ 36⁶ 46⁶).—to Isaac his father] 35²⁷.—19. Now Laban had gone to shear his flock] Sheep-shearing was the occasion of an important festival in ancient Israel (3812 ff., 1 Samuel 252 ff., 2 Samuel 13²³).—With Rachel’s theft of the tĕrāphîm (the household idol: v.i.), compare Virgil Aeneid ii. 293 f., iii. 148 f.—20. stole the heart] (²⁶, 2 Samuel 15⁶†) ‘deceived’; the heart being the seat of intelligence (Hosea 4¹¹): compare ἔκλεψε νόον, Iliad xiv. 217.—the Aramæan (only here and ²⁴)] The emphasising of Laban’s nationality at this point is hard to explain. That it is the correction (by Elohist²) of an older version (Elohist¹), in which Laban was not an Aramæan (Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 236), is not probable. Budde (Die biblische Urgeschichte 422¹) regards it as a gloss, inserted with a view to verse ⁴⁷—21. crossed the River (Yahwist)] the Euphrates (Exodus 23³¹, Joshua 24² etc.).—23. his brethren] his fellow-clansmen. In the sequel Jacob also is surrounded by his clansmen (37. 46. 54),—a proof that tribal relations are clothed in the guise of individual biography.—seven days’ journey] The distance of Gilead from Ḥarran (circa 350 miles as the crow flies) is much too great to be traversed in that time.
If the verse be from Yahwist (Gunkel, Procksch), we must assume (what is no doubt conceivable) that the writer’s geographical knowledge was defective. But it is a strong reason for assigning the verse to Elohist, that in that source nothing is said of Ḥarran or the Euphrates, and Laban’s home is placed somewhere in the eastern desert (see 29¹).
17–25. A complete analysis of the verses cannot be effected. The hand of Elohist is recognised in 19b (תְּרָפִים, compare ³⁰ 352 ff.), ²⁰, (? הָֽאֲרַמִּי, as ²⁴), and especially ²⁴ (אלהים, חֲלֹם; compare 29. 42). Yahwist betrays its presence chiefly by doublets: 21aβ ∥ 17 (וַיָּקָם), and 25a ∥ 23b (וַיַּשֵּׂג, וַיַּדְבֵּק). The assignment of 21aβ to Yahwist is warranted by the mention of the Euphrates: hence ¹⁷ is Elohist. Further than this we cannot safely go. Gunkel’s division (19a. 21–23. 25b = Yahwist; 17. 18aα. 19b. 20. 24. 25a = Elohist) is open to the objection that it ignores the discrepancy between the seven days of 23a and the crossing of the Euphrates in 21a (see on ²³ above); but is otherwise attractive. Meyer (235 ff.) gets rid of the geographical difficulty by distinguishing two strata in Elohist, of which the later had been accommodated to the representation of Yahwist.—¹⁸ (from וְאֶת־כָּל־רְכֻשׁוֹ) is obviously Priestly-Code.—17. sons and wives] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX ‘wives and sons.’—18. LXX omits the clause אֲשֶׁר—קִנְיָנוֹ (so Peshiṭtå); and adds after אֲרָ֑ם, καὶ πάντα τὰ αὐτοῦ.—19. תְּרָפִים] A plural of eminence, like אֱלֹהִים, etc.; hence it is doubtful whether one image or several is here referred to. The teraphim was a god (³⁰), its form and size were those of a man (1 Samuel 1913. 16), it was used in private houses as well as in temples (Judges 17⁵ 1814 ff., Hosea 3⁴), and was an implement of divination (Ezekiel 21²⁶, Zechariah 10²). The indications point to its being an emblem of ancestor-worship which survived in Israel as a private superstition, condemned by the enlightened conscience of the nation (35², 1 Samuel 15²³, 2 Kings 23²⁴). It seems implied by the present narrative that the cult was borrowed from the Aramæans, or perhaps rather that it had existed before the separation of Hebrews and Aramæans. (See Moore, Judges 379 ff.)—20. על־בלי] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, is difficult. על for על אשר is rare and poetic (Psalms 119¹³⁶: Brown-Driver-Briggs, 758 a); בלי (poetic for לא) is also rare with finite verb (ib. 115 b). Since the following clause is a specification of the preceding, ‘wegen Mangels davon dass’ (Dillmann) is not a suitable rendering. We should expect לְבִלְתִּי הַגִּיד, ‘in not telling him that,’ etc.: The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch has עד בלתי.—22. ללבן] LXX + τῷ Σύρῳ.
24. God (not the Angel of God, as verse ¹¹) warns Laban in a dream to take heed to his words when he encounters Jacob.—good or bad] ‘anything whatever’ (24⁵⁰, 2 Samuel 13²² etc.). Laban did not interpret the prohibition literally (²⁹).—25. in the mountain ...] The idea suggested being that Jacob and Laban encamped each on a different mountain, we must suppose the name to have been omitted. The insertion of Miẓpāh (verse ⁴⁹) is strongly recommended by Judges 10¹⁷ (see Ball, 88).—On the situation of Mount Gilead, see page 402 f.
25. אחיו] Better אָֽהֳלוֹ (Ball).
26–43. The altercation.
The subjects of recrimination are: on Laban’s part, (a) the secret flight, (b) the carrying off of his daughters, and (c) the theft of his god; on Jacob’s part, (d) the hardships of his 20 years’ service, and (e) the attempts to defraud him of his hire. Of these, b, c, and e certainly belong to Elohist; a and d more probably to Yahwist.—In detail, the verses that can be confidently assigned to Elohist are: ²⁶ (גָּנַב לֵב, as ²⁰), ²⁸ (continuation of ²⁶), ²⁹ (compare ²⁴), 30. 32–35 (תרפים), ⁴¹ (‘ten times’), ⁴² (compare 24. 29) and ⁴³ (because of the connexion with 26. 28): note also אֱלֹהים, 29. 42; אֲמָהֹת, ³³. The sequence of Elohist is interrupted by 27 (∥ 26). 31b (the natural answer to ²⁷), 36a (∥ 36b): these clauses are accordingly assigned to Yahwist; along with 38–40 (a parallel to 41 f.). The analysis (which is due to Gunkel) yields for Elohist a complete narrative: 26. 28–31a. 32–35. 36b. 37. 41–43. The Yahwistic parallel is all but complete (27. 31a. b. 36a. 38–40); but we miss something after ³¹ to account for Jacob’s exasperation in ³⁶. We may suppose (with Gunkel) that Laban had accused Jacob of stealing his flocks, and that 38–40 is a reply to this charge.—Procksch’s division is slightly different.
26–28. Laban offers a sentimental pretext for his warlike demonstration: in Elohist his slighted affection for his offspring (²⁸); in Yahwist his desire to honour a parting guest (²⁷).—27. with mirth and music] This manner of speeding the parting guest is not elsewhere mentioned in Old Testament.—29. It is in my power (v.i.) to do you harm]—but for the interposition of God.—30. Thou hast gone off forsooth, because forsooth, etc.] The infinitives absolute express irony (Davidson § 86).—stolen my god(s)] This is a serious matter, and leads up to the chief scene of the dispute.—32. Jacob is so sure of the innocence of his household that he offers to give up the culprit to death if the theft can be proved: a similar enhancement of dramatic interest in 449 ff..—33–35. The search for the teraphim is described with a touch of humour, pointed with sarcasm at a prevalent form of idolatry.—34. Rachel had hidden the idol in the camel’s litter or palanquin (Burckhardt Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys ii. 85; Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta i. 437, ii. 304; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 1124), in which she was apparently resting within the tent, on account of her condition.—35. דֶּרֶךְ נָשִׁים = אֹרַח כַּנָּשִׁים (18¹¹, Yahwist). Women in this condition were protected by a powerful taboo (compare Leviticus 15¹⁹ etc.).—36, 37. Jacob now turns on Laban, treating the accusation about the teraphim as mere pretext for searching his goods.—38–40 (Yahwist). A fine picture of the ideal shepherd, solicitous for his master’s interests, sensitive to the least suspicion of fraud, and careless of his personal comfort.—39. I brought not to thee] as a witness (Exodus 22¹²). Jacob had thus gone far beyond his legal obligation.—made it good] literally ‘counted it missing.’—40. heat by day and frost by night] Jeremiah 36⁸⁰. Under the clear skies of the East the extreme heat of the day is apt to be followed by intense cold at night (see Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 69 ff.).—41, 42 (Elohist). the Fear of Isaac] The deity feared and worshipped by Isaac (⁵³†). That פַּחַד יִצְחָק meant originally the terror inspired by Isaac, the local deity of Beersheba (Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 254 f.), is a hazardous speculation.—43. Laban maintains his right, but speedily adopts a more pathetic tone, leading on to the pacific proposal of ⁴⁴.—The question what shall I do to ...?] means ‘what last kindness can I show them?’ (Gunkel, Driver); not ‘how can I do them harm?’ (Dillmann and most).
26, 27. LXX omits ותגנב את־לבבי, and transposes 27a. 26b.—27. ולא] LXX וְלֻא, which is perhaps better than Massoretic Text.—28. נטש] usually ‘reject’ or ‘abandon’; only here = ‘allow.’—עשו] for עֲשׂוֹת (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 n).—29. יֶשׁ־לְאֵל יָדִי] Micah 2¹, Proverbs 3²⁷, Sirach 5¹ (Deuteronomy 28³², Nehemiah 5⁵). The meaning is certain (‘be within one’s power’), but the expression is very obscure. The current explanations (both represented in the Versions) are: (1) That אֵל is an abstract noun = ‘power,’ and יָדִי genitive. (2) That יָדִי is subject of the sentence and אֵל the word for God: ‘my hand is for a God.’ The first depends on a singular sense of אֵל; and for the second יש לי ידי לאל would have been more natural. A third view has recently been propounded by Brockelmann (Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxvi. 29 ff.), who renders ‘it belongs to the God of my hand,’ a survival of a primitive belief in special deities or spirits animating different members of the body (compare Tylor, Primitive Culture⁴ ii. 127).—עמכם, אביכם] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX have singular suffix.—30. אביך] LXX + ἀπελθεῖν· καί. The וְ should probably be restored.—31. LXX omits כי יראתי.—32. The opening words in LXX וַיֹאמֶר לוֹ יַֽעֲקֹב may be original, introducing the duplicate from Elohist.—32b. is preceded in LXX by the variant καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνω παρ’ αὐτῷ οὐθέν.—33. לבן] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch + זיחבש (read ויחפש); so LXX.—The clause 33aβ disagrees with what follows, and may be a gloss. LXX reduces the discrepancy by omissions, and a complete rearrangement of clauses.—36. מַה²] Read וּמַה with Hebrew MSS The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå.—39. On אֲחַטֶּנָּה for אֲחַטְּאָנָּה, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 74 k or 75 oo.—גנבתי יום וג׳ לילה is probably an archaic technical phrase, preserving an old case-ending (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 l).—40. On the syntax, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 143 a.—41. These twenty years] The repetition (verse ³⁸) would, as Dillmann says, not be surprising in animated speech; and is not of itself evidence of a change of source. But Jacob’s oratory is more dignified if relieved of this slight touch of affectation.—זה] not here a pronoun but used adverbially, as 27³⁶ etc. (see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 261 b).—42. אלהי אברהם may be a gloss (Gunkel): LXX omits אלהי.
44–54. The treaty of Gilead.
Evidences of a double recension appear in every circumstance of the narrative. (a) Two names are explained: Gilead (48b), and Miẓpāh (49a); (b) two sacred monuments are erected, a cairn (46. 48. 51. 52), and a monolith (45. 51. 52); (c) the covenant feast is twice recorded (46b. 54); (d) the terms of the covenant are given in two forms: (1) Jacob will not ill-treat Laban’s daughters (⁵⁰), and (2) the cairn is to mark the boundary between two peoples (⁵²); (e) God is twice called to witness (49 f. 53). To arrange these duplicates in two parallel series is difficult, because of the numerous glosses and dislocations of the text; but some connecting lines can be drawn. Since Yahwist always avoids the word מַצֵּבָה (page 378), we assume first of all that the monolith (and consequently Miẓpāh) belongs to Elohist, and the cairn to Yahwist. Now the cairn goes with the frontier treaty (51. 52 [removing glosses], Yahwist), and Miẓpāh with the family compact (⁴⁹, Elohist). To Yahwist we must obviously assign 46. 48, and also (if we may suppose that only the גַּל was spoken of as an עֵד) ⁴⁴; while Elohist as naturally claims ⁴⁵. At the end, 53b is Elohist (פחד יצחק, compare ⁴²), and likewise ⁵⁴ (the feast, ∥ ⁴⁶, Yahwist). 53a is probably Yahwist: note the difference of divine names. Thus: 44. 46. 48. 51–53a = Yahwist; 45. 49. 50. 53b. 54 = Elohist.—The analysis is due to Holzinger and Gunkel; Procksch practically agrees, with the important difference that the parts of Yahwist and Elohist are (quite wrongly, as it seems to me) interchanged. It is superior to the schemes of Wellhausen, Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, al., which assign the cairn and the maẓẓebāh to the same sources.—The principal glosses (many of which excite suspicion apart from the analysis) are יעקב in ⁴⁵ and ⁴⁶; verses 47. 49aα; והנה המצבה in ⁵¹; ועדה המצבה and ואת־המצבה הזאת in ⁵²: on these v.i. Nearly all are retained by LXX, where, however, the confusion is increased by a complete change in the order of clauses: 48a. 47. 51. 52a. 48b. 49. 50a. 52b,—50b being inserted after ⁴⁴.—The analysis works out in translation as follows (glosses being enclosed in square brackets, and necessary additions and corrections in ⌜⌝):
| Yahwist: ⁴⁴ And now (the speaker is Laban), come, let us make a covenant, I and thou; ... and it shall be for a witness between me and thee. ⁴⁶ And ⌜he⌝ (i.e. Laban) [Jacob], said to his brethren, Gather stones; and they took stones, and made a cairn, and they ate there upon the cairn. [⁴⁷ And Laban called it Yᵉgar Sāhădûthā, but Jacob called it Gal‛ēd.] ⁴⁸ And Laban said, This cairn is a witness between me and thee this day; therefore he called its name ⌜Gil‛ad⌝ [49aα and Miẓpah, for he said]. ⁵¹ And Laban said to Jacob, Behold this cairn [and behold the pillar] which I have thrown up between me and thee—⁵² a witness is this cairn [and a witness is the pillar]: I will not pass this cairn to thee, and thou shalt not pass this cairn [and this pillar] to me, with evil intent. 53a The God of Abraham and the God of Naḥor be Judge between us! [the God of their father]. | Elohist: ⁴⁵ And ⌜he⌝ (i.e. Laban) [Jacob] took a stone and set it up as a pillar. 49aβb ⌜and he said⌝, May ⌜God⌝ [Yahwe] watch between me and thee, when we are hidden from one another. ⁵⁰ If thou ill-treat my daughters, or take other wives besides my daughters, no man being with us, see, God is witness between me and thee. 53b And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac. ⁵⁴ And Jacob offered a sacrifice on the mountain and called his brethren to eat bread; and they ate bread, and spent the night on the mountain. |
44. Compare 2123 ff. 2628 ff.—The subject of וְהָיָה cannot be בְּרִית, which is feminine, and is rather the fact to be witnessed to than a witness of something else. There must be a lacuna before והיה, where we must suppose that some material object (probably the cairn: compare ⁴⁸, Yahwist) was mentioned.—45 (Elohist). And he took a stone] Since it is Laban who explains the meaning of the stone (⁴⁹), it must have been he who set it up; hence יַֽעֲקֹב is to be deleted as a false explication of the implicit subject.—set it on high as a maẓẓebāh] see 2818. 22. The monolith may have stood on an eminence and formed a conspicuous feature of the landscape (Dillmann).—46 (Yahwist). And he (Laban) said, etc.] Here יַֽעֲקֹב is certainly wrong, for Laban expressly says that the cairn was raised by him (⁵¹).—a cairn] גַּל means simply a heap of stones (v.i.), not a rampart (Wellhausen, Dillmann). The idea that the גַּל was originally the mountain range of Gilead itself, Laban and Jacob being conceived as giants (Wellhausen, Gunkel, Meyer), has certainly no support in the text.—they ate upon the cairn] The covenant feast, which may very well have preceded the covenant ceremony; see 26³⁰.—47. In spite of its interesting and philologically correct notice, the verse must unfortunately be assigned to a glossator, for the reasons given below.—48 (Yahwist). Laban explains the purpose of the cairn, and names it accordingly: cairn of witness.] The stone heap is personified, and was no doubt in ancient times regarded as animated by a deity (compare Joshua 24²⁷). גַּלְעֵד is, of course, an artificial formation, not the real or original pronunciation of גִּלְעָד.—49 (Elohist). And [the] Miẓpāh, for he said] The text, if not absolutely ungrammatical, is a very uncouth continuation of 48b, with which in the primary documents it had nothing to do; see further inf.—May God (read so with LXX) watch] Miẓpāh means ‘watch-post.’ On its situation, see page 403.—50. The purport of the covenant, according to Elohist. Jacob swears (53b) that he will not maltreat Laban’s daughters, nor even marry other wives besides them. The latter stipulation has a parallel in a late Babylonian marriage contract (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, iv. 187, Number XI.).—God is witness] The idea is less primitive than that of Yahwist, where the witness is an inanimate object.—We observe how the religious sanction is invoked where human protection fails (compare 20¹¹ 42¹⁸, both Elohist).—51–53a. The terms of the covenant in Yahwist: neither party (people) is to pass the cairn with hostile intent. All the references to the maẓẓebāh (51b. 52a. b) are to be deleted as glosses.—The God of Abraham ... Nāḥôr] Whether a polytheistic differentiation of two gods is attributed to Laban can hardly be determined. The plural verb would not necessarily imply this in Elohist (see 20¹³), though in Yahwist it might.—53b, 54. The covenant oath and feast in Elohist.—The Fear of ... Isaac] See on verse ⁴².—54. his brethren] not Laban and his companions, but his own fellow-clansmen (verse ³⁷).—spent the night, etc.] Is this part of the religious ceremony? (Gunkel).
The Scene of the Treaty.—The name Gil‛ād (often with article) in Old Testament is sometimes applied to the whole region Elohist of the Jordan (Joshua 22⁹ etc.), but more properly denotes the mountain range (הַר הַגִּלְעָד) extending from the Yarmuk to the Arnon (2 Kings 10³³ etc.), divided by the Jabboḳ into two parts (Joshua 12²), corresponding to the modern Ǧebel ‛Aǧlūn and el-Belḳā, North and South respectively of the Wādī ez-Zerḳā. The name Ǧebel Ǧil‛ād still survives as that of a mountain, crowned by the lofty summit of Ǧebel Ōsha‛, North of es-Salṭ, where are found the ruined cities Ǧil‛ād and Ǧal‛aud (Burckhardt. Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, 348). It is therefore natural to look here in the first instance for the ‘cairn of witness’ from which the mountain and the whole region were supposed to have derived their names. The objections to this view are (1) that Jacob, coming from the North, has not yet crossed the Jabboḳ, which is identified with the Zerḳa; and (2) that the frontier between Israel and the Aramæans (of Damascus) could not have been so far South. These reasons have prevailed with most modern authorities, and led them to seek a site somewhere in the North or North-east of Ǧebel ‛Aǧlūn. But the assumption that Laban represents the Aramæans of Damascus is gratuitous, and has no foundation in either Yahwist or Elohist (see the next note). The argument from the direction of Jacob’s march applies only to Yahwist, and must not be too rigorously pressed; because the treaty of Gilead and the crossing of the Jabboḳ belong to different cycles of tradition, and the desire to finish off Jacob’s dealings with Laban before proceeding to his encounter with Esau might very naturally occasion a departure from strict geographical consistency.¹—The site of Miẓpāh has to be investigated separately, since we cannot be certain that Yahwist and Elohist thought of the same locality. East of the Jordan there was a Miẓpāh (Judges 10¹⁷ 1111. 34, Hosea 5¹) which is thought to be the same as מִצְפֵּה גִלְעָד (Judges 11²⁹) and רָמַת הַמִּצְפֶּה (Joshua 13²⁶); but whether it lay South or North of the Jabboḳ cannot be determined. The identification with Rāmôth-Gil‛ād, and of this with er-Remte, South-west of the ancient Edrei, is precarious. The name (‘watch-post’) was a common one, and may readily be supposed to have occurred more than once East of the Jordan. See Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 586; Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina, 262; Driver in smaller A Dictionary of the Bible, s.v.; and on the whole of this note, compare Smend, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1902, 149 ff.
Historical Background of 3144–54.—The treaty of Gilead in Yahwist evidently embodies ethnographic reminiscences, in which Jacob and Laban were not private individuals, but represented Hebrews and Aramæans respectively. The theory mostly favoured by critical historians is that the Aramæans are those of Damascus, and that the situation reflected is that of the Syrian wars which raged from circa 860 to circa 770 B.C. (see Wellhausen Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels⁶ 320 f.). Gunkel (page 312) has, however, pointed out objections to this assumption; and has given strong reasons for believing that the narratives refer to an earlier date than 860. The story reads more like the record of a loose understanding between neighbouring and on the whole friendly tribes, than of a formal treaty between two highly organised states like Israel and Damascus; and it exhibits no trace of the intense national animosity which was generated during the Syrian wars. In this connexion, Meyer’s hypothesis that in the original tradition Laban represented the early unsettled nomads of the eastern desert (see page 334), acquires a new interest. Considering the tenacity with which such legends cling to a locality, there is no difficulty in supposing that in this case the tradition goes back to some prehistoric settlement of territorial claims between Hebrews and migratory Aramæans. It is true that Meyer’s theory is based on notices peculiar to Elohist, while the tribal compact belongs to Yahwist; and it may appear hazardous to go behind the documents and build speculations on a substratum of tradition common to both. But the only material point in which Yahwist differs from Elohist is his identification of Laban with the Aramæans of Ḥarran; and this is not inconsistent with the interpretation here suggested. In any case, his narrative gives no support to the opinion that he has in view the contemporary political relations with the kingdom of Damascus.
44b. The omitted words (v.s.) might be וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה גַל or some such expression (Olshausen, Dillmann, Ball, Gunkel, al.). To the end of the verse LXX appends: εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ Ἰακωβ, Ἰδοὺ οὐθεὶς μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἐστίν· ἰδὲ ὁ θεὸς μάρτυς ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ (from verse ⁵⁰).—46. ויקחו] LXX וַיִּלְקְטוּ.—גַּל] From √ גלל ‘roll’ (stones, 29³, Joshua 10¹⁸, 1 Samuel 14³³, Proverbs 26²⁷). On sacred stone-heaps among the Arabs, see Wellhausen Reste arabischen Heidentums² 111 f. (with which compare Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta i. 26, 81, 431); Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion to-day, 80 (cairn as witness); on the eating upon the cairn, Frazer, Folklore in the Old Testament, 131 ff.—47. יְגַר שָֽׂחֲדוּתָא is the precise Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew גַל עֵד, ‘heap of witness.’ The decisive reasons for rejecting the verse are: (1) It stands out of its proper place, anticipating 48b; (2) it contradicts 48b, where the Hebrew name גַּלְעֵד is given by Laban; (3) it assumes (contrary to the implication of all the patriarchal narratives) that the Naḥorites spoke a different dialect from the ancestors of the Hebrews. It may be added that the Aramaic phrase shows the glossator to have taken גַּלְעֵד as construct and genitive, whereas the latter in 48b is more probably a sentence ‘the heap is witness’ (see Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien, 10 f.). The actual name [הַ]גִּלְעָד is usually, but dubiously, explained by Arabic ǧal‛ad ‘hard,’ ‘firm.’—48. על־כן קרא שמו] so 11⁹ 19²² 2934 f. (all Yahwist), 25³⁰ (Yahwist?).—49. וְהַמִּצְפָּה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch והמצבה, which Wellhausen thinks the original name of the place, afterwards changed to המצפה because of the evil associations of the word maẓẓebāh. He instances the transcription of LXX Μασσηφα, as combining the consonants of the new name with the vowels of the old (Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 44¹). The argument is precarious; but there seems to be a word-play between the names; and since the opening is evidently corrupt, it is possible that both stood in the text. Ball’s restoration והמצבה אשר [הֵרִים קָרָא הַמִּצְפָּה כִּי] אמר has met with the approval of several scholars (Holzinger, Strack); but as the sequence to ⁴⁵ we should rather expect וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמָהּ הַמִּצְפָּה. LXX has καὶ Ἡ ὅρασις, ἣν εἶπεν, following Massoretic Text.—יהוה] LX אלהים must be adopted if the verse is rightly ascribed to Elohist.—51. המצבה] LXX + הַזֹּאת (so verse ⁵²).—אשׁר יריתי] ‘which I have thrown up.’ ירה, ‘throw,’ is most commonly used of shooting arrows, and only here of piling up stones. Once it means to lay (jacere) a foundation (Job 38⁶), but it could hardly be applied to the erection of a pillar. It is an advantage of the analysis given above that it avoids the necessity of retaining the maẓẓebāh as object of יריתי and rejecting the cairn.—52. אם—לא (bis)] The double negative is contrary to the usage of asseverative sentences (compare ⁵⁰), but may be explained by an anakolouthon (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 167 b).—את־הגל הזה] LXX omits.—53. ישׁפטו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå יִשְׁפֹּט.—אלהי אביהם] LXX and Hebrew MSS omit, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch א׳ אברהם, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word). Probably a margin gloss to 53a.—XXXII. 1. וילך וישב] LXX וַיָּשָׁב וַיֵּלֶךְ.