After a vision of angels at Maḥanaim (2. 3), Jacob sends a humble message announcing his arrival to Esau, but learns to his consternation that his brother is advancing to meet him with 400 men (4–7). He divides his company into two bands, and invokes God’s help in prayer (8–14a); then prepares a present for Esau, and sends it on in advance (14b–22). Having thus done all that human foresight could suggest, he passes a lonely night in the ravine of the Jabboḳ, wrestling with a mysterious antagonist, who at daybreak blesses him and changes his name to Israel (23–33).
Sources.—Verses 2. 3 are an isolated fragment of Elohist (מלאכי אלהים, פָּגַע בּ, [28¹¹]); 4–14a and 14b–22 are parallels (compare 14a with 22b), the former from Yahwist יהוה, ¹⁰; שפחה, ⁶; מולדת, ¹⁰; מצא חן, ⁶; contrast the implied etymology of מַחֲנַיִם in 8. 9. 11 with Elohist’s in ³): 14b–22 must therefore be Elohist, though positive marks of that writer’s style cannot be detected.—On the complicated structure of 23–33 (Jehovist), see page 407 below.
2, 3. The legend of Maḥanaim.—2. angels ... met him] The verb for ‘meet,’ as here construed (v.i.), usually means to ‘oppose.’—3. This is God’s camp] or a camp of gods. The idea of divine armies appears elsewhere in Old Testament (compare Joshua 5¹⁴), and perhaps underlies the expression ‘Host of heaven’ and the name Yahwe Ẓebā’ôth.—Maḥanaim is here apparently not regarded as a dual (contrast 8. 9. 11). On its site, v.i.
The brief statement of the text seems to be a torso of a legend which had gathered round the name Maḥanaim, whose original meaning has been lost. The curtailment probably indicates that the sequel was objectionable to the religious feeling of later times; and it has been surmised that the complete story told of a conflict between Jacob and the angels (originally divine beings), somewhat similar to the wrestling of verses 24 ff. (Gunkel, Bennett). The word ‘camp’ (compare the fuller text of LXX inf.), and the verbal phrase פגע ב both suggest a warlike encounter.
2. After לדרכו LXX inserts καὶ ἀναβλέψας τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἴδεν παρεμβολὴν θεοῦ παρεμβεβληκυῖαν, enhancing the vividness of the description.—פָּגַע בְּ] = ‘encounter with hostility,’ Judges 8²¹ 15¹² 18²⁵, 1 Samuel 2217 f., 2 Samuel 1¹⁵, 1 Kings 225 ff., Ruth 2²²; = ‘intercede,’ Job 21¹⁵, Jeremiah 7¹⁶ 27¹⁸, Ruth 1¹⁶. The neutral sense ‘meet,’ with personsal objective, is doubtfully supported by Numbers 3519. 21, Joshua 2¹⁶, where hostile intention is evidently implied: elsewhere this is expressed by accusative personsal (Exodus 5²⁰ 23⁴, 1 Samuel 10⁵, Amos 5¹⁹). Genesis 28¹¹ is somewhat different, the object being impersonal (compare the use in Joshua 16⁷ 17¹⁰ etc.).—3. מחנים] an important East Jordanic city and sanctuary, the capital of Ish-bosheth (2 Samuel 2⁸), and David’s headquarters during the revolt of Absalom (2 Samuel 1724. 27), the centre of a fiscal district under Solomon (1 Kings 4¹⁴). The situation of Maḥne or Miḥne on Wādī el-Ḥimār, some 14 miles North of the Jabboḳ (see Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina, 257), suits all the other references (compare Joshua 1326. 30—the boundary of Gad and Manasseh), but is too far from the Jabboḳ for this narrative (verse ²³). On the ending, which is probably no real dual, see on 24¹⁰.
4–14a. Jacob’s precautionary measures (Yahwist).—4. Isaac’s death and Esau’s settlement in the country afterwards occupied by his descendants are here assumed to have already taken place: otherwise Priestly-Code (36⁶).—5, 6. We note the extreme servility of Jacob’s language:—my lord ... thy servant ... find grace,—dictated by fear of his brother’s vengeance (27⁴¹). In substance the message is nothing but an announcement of his arrival and his great wealth (compare 3312 ff.) The shepherd, with all his success, is at the mercy of the fierce marauder who was to ‘live by his sword’ (27⁴⁰).—7. The messengers return with the ominous news that Esau is already on the march with 400 men. How he was ready to strike so far north of his own territory is a difficulty (see page 415).—8, 9. Jacob’s first resource is to divide his company into two camps, in the hope that one might escape while the other was being captured. The arrangement is perhaps adverted to in 33⁸.—10–13. Jacob’s prayer, consisting of an invocation (¹⁰), thanksgiving (¹¹), petition (¹²), and appeal to the divine faithfulness (¹³), is a classic model of Old Testament devotion (Gunkel); though the element of confession, so prominent in later supplications, is significantly absent.—12. mother with (or on) children] Hosea 10¹⁴; compare Deuteronomy 22⁶. A popular saying,—the mother conceived as bending over the children to protect them (Tuch).—14a. spent that night there] i.e., at Maḥanaim (verse ²²). We may suppose (with Wellhausen, Gunkel) that an explicit etymology, based on the ‘two camps’ (verses 8. 11), preceded or followed this clause.
Verses 10–13 appear to be one of the later expansions of the Yahwistic narrative, akin to 1314–17 2215–18 263b–5 28¹⁴. They can be removed without loss of continuity, 14a being a natural continuation of ⁹. The insertion gives an interpretation to the ‘two camps’ at variance with the primary motive of the division (verse ⁹); and its spirit is different from that of the narrative in which it is embedded. Compare also חול הים with 22¹⁷, לא יספר מרב with 16¹⁰ 22¹⁷. See Gunkel 316.
4. לפניו] LXX omits—שדה אדום] (compare Judges 5⁴) is probably a gloss on ארצה שעיר.—5. תאמרון] compare 1828 ff.—וָאֵחַר] for וָאֶֽאֱחַר (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 64 h).—6. ואשלחה] Cohortative form with vav consecutive—chiefly late; see Driver A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 69 Obsolete, § 72; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 49 e.—8. וַיֵּצֶר] √ צרר intransitive = ‘be cramped’; on the form, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 p.—והגמלים] LXXᴬ omits and transposes ואת־הבקר ואת־הצאן.—שני מחנות] That this implies an etymology of Maḥanaim, and that Yahwist located the incident there, cannot reasonably be doubted (as by Holzinger). The name is obviously regarded as a dual (in contrast to verse ³), showing that the current pronunciation is very ancient (Dillmann).—9. האחת] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch האחד (masculine), which is demanded by the context, as well as by prevailing usage (Albrecht, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xvi. 52).—11. קטנתי מן] ‘too insignificant for’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 133 c.—הירדן הזה] The writer apparently locates Maḥanaim in the vicinity of the Jordan; but the allusion, in an editorial passage, has perhaps no great topographical importance.
14b–22. The present for Esau (Elohist).—14. a present] Not ‘tribute’ (as often) in acknowledgment of vassalage, but (as 43¹¹, 2 Kings 88 f.) a gift to win favour.—17–20. By arranging the cattle in successive droves following at considerable intervals, Jacob hopes to wear out Esau’s resentment by a series of surprises. The plan has nothing in common with the two ‘camps’ of verse 8 f. in Yahwist.—21a. A repetition of 19b: Jacob lays stress on this point, because the effect would obviously be weakened if a garrulous servant were to let out the secret that other presents were to follow.—21b. Let me pacify him] literally ‘cover’ (or ‘wipe clean’) his face,—the same figure, though in different language, as 20¹⁶. On כִּפֶּר, see The Old Testament in the Jewish Church², 381; A Dictionary of the Bible, iv. 128 f.—see his face] ‘obtain access to his presence’: compare 433. 5 4423. 26, Exodus 10²⁸, 2 Samuel 1424. 28. 32, 2 Kings 25¹⁹, Esther 1¹⁴. The phrase is thought to convey an allusion to Pĕnû’ēl (Gunkel); see on 33¹⁰.—22. spent ... camp (בַּֽמַּחֲנֶֽה)] compare 14a. Wellhausen (Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 46) renders ‘in Maḥaneh’ (i.e. Maḥanaim), but the change is hardly justified.
14. מן־הבא] Article with participle (not perfect); see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 138 k; Driver Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel 57 f.—מנחה] see on 4³.—17. רֶוַח (Esther 4¹⁴†)] √ רָוַח, ‘be wide’ (1 Samuel 16²³, Job 32²⁰).—18. On the forms יִֽפְגָּשְׁךָ (Ben Naphtali), יָֽפִגָֽשֲׁךָ (Ben Asher), see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 9 v, 10 g (c), 60 b, [and Baer-Delitzsch, Liber Genesis page 85]; and on ושאֵֽלך, § 64 f.—20. ויצו] LXX + τῷ πρώτῳ.—מֹצַֽאֲכֶם] irregular infinitive for מָצְאֲכֶם (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 74 h, 93 q).—21. יעקב] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, TargumOnkelos-Jonathan + בָּא.
23–33. The wrestling at Peniel (Jehovist).—23, 24. The crossing of the Jabboḳ. The Yabbōḳ is now almost universally, and no doubt correctly, identified with the Nahr es-Zerḳā (Blue River), whose middle course separates Ǧebel ‛Aǧlūn from el-Belḳā, and which flows into the Jordan about 25 miles North of the Dead Sea. See Smend, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1902, 137 ff.; and the descriptions in Riehm, Assyrisches Handwörterbuch² 665; Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 583–5.—The ford referred to cannot be determined; that of Muḫādat en-Nuṣrānīyeh, where the road from Ǧeraš to es-Salṭ crosses the deep narrow gorge which cleaves the mountains of Gilead, as described by Thomson (The Land and the Book, iii. 583 ff.) and Tristram (Land of Israel³, 549), supplies a more fitting background for the weird struggle about to be narrated than the one in the Jordan valley; but on the difficulties of this identification, see Driver The Expository Times, xiii. 459.
The passage of the river seems to be twice described, 24a and 24b being apparently doublets. The former continues 23a, which belongs to Yahwist (שפחה). Following this clue, we may divide thus: 23a. 24a = Yahwist; 23b. 24b = Elohist (so Gunkel). While Elohist implies that Jacob crossed with his company, the account of Yahwist is consistent with the statement of 25a, that after sending the others across he himself was ‘left alone.’ On any view the action is somewhat perplexing. To cross a ford by night, with flocks, etc., was a dangerous operation, only to be explained by apprehension of an attack from Esau (Wellhausen). But Esau is represented as advancing from the south; and Jacob is in haste to put his people and possessions on that side of the river on which they were exposed to attack. Either the narrative is defective at this point, or it is written without a clear conception of the actual circumstances.
23–33. The analysis of the passage is beset by insurmountable difficulties. While most recognise doublets in 23 f. (v.s.), 25–33 have generally been regarded as a unity, being assigned to Yahwist by Wellhausen, Kuenen, Cornill, Kautzsch-Socin, Driver, al.; but by Dillmann to Elohist. In the view of more recent critics, both Yahwist and Elohist are represented, though there is the utmost variety of opinion in regard to details. In the notes above, possible variants have been pointed out in 26a ∥ 26b (the laming of the thigh) and 28. 29 ∥ 30 (the name and the blessing); to these may be added the still more doubtful case 31 ∥ 32 (Peniel, Penuel). As showing traces of more primitive conceptions, 26a and ³⁰ would naturally go together, and also ²⁷ for the same reason. Since Yahwist prefers the name Israel in the subsequent history, there is a slight presumption that 28 f. belong to him; and the אלהים of ³¹ points (though not decisively) to Elohist. Thus we should obtain, for Elohist: 26a. 27. 30. 31; leaving for Yahwist: 26b. 28. 29. 32: verse ³³ may be a gloss. The result corresponds nearly, so far as it goes, with Gunkel’s (318 f.). The reader may compare the investigations of Holzinger (209 f.), Procksch (32), Meyer (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 57 f.).—23. בלילה הוא (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ההוא)] as 19³³ 30¹⁶.—יַבֹּק (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch היבק) (Numbers 21²⁴, Deuteronomy 2³⁷ 3¹⁶, Joshua 12², Judges 1113. 22†) is naturally explained as the ‘gurgler,’ from √ בקק (Arabic baḳḳa), the resemblance to אבק (verse ²⁵) being, of course, a popular word-play.—24b. Insert כָּל־ before אשר (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate).
25. a man wrestled with him till the appearing of the dawn]—Only later does Jacob discover that his unknown antagonist is a god in human form (compare 18² 19⁵).—The rare word (v.i.) for ‘wrestle’ (אבק) is chosen because of the assonance with יבֹּק—26a. he saw that he prevailed not] The ambiguity of the subject extends to the next clause, and leaves two interpretations open (v.i.).—struck the socket of his thigh] putting it out of joint.—26b. the socket of Jacob’s thigh was dislocated as he wrestled with him.
The dislocation of the thigh seems to be twice recorded (see Kautzsch-Socin An. 159), and it is highly probable that the two halves of the verse come from different sources. In 26a it is a stratagem resorted to by a wrestler unable to gain the advantage by ordinary means (like the trick of Ulysses in Iliad xxiii. 725 ff.); in 26b it is an accident which happens to Jacob in the course of the struggle. It has even been suggested that in the original legend the subject of 26a was Jacob—that it was he who disabled his antagonist in the manner described (Holzinger, Gunkel, Cheyne: see Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 163¹; Luther, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxi. 65 ff.; Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 57). It is possible (though certainly not probable) that this was the view of the document (Yahwist or Elohist) to which 26a belongs, and that it underlies Hosea 12⁵.
25. ויאבק] A verb used only here and verse ²⁶, distinct from New Hebrew התאבק, ‘make oneself dusty,’ and very probably a modification of חבק, ‘clasp’ (Delitzsch, Dillmann).—26. ותקע] √ יקע, literally ‘be rent away’ (compare Jeremiah 6⁸): LXX ἐνάρκησεν, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Vulgate emarcuit, TargumOnkelos זע (‘gave way’),—all conjectural.
27. Let me go, for the dawn is breaking] Compare Plautus, Amphitryon 532 f., where Jupiter says: “Cur me tenes? Tempus est: exire ex urbe priusquam lucescat volo.” It is a survival of the wide-spread belief in spirits of the night which must vanish at dawn (Hamlet, Act 1. Scene i.); and as such, a proof of the extreme antiquity of the legend.—But the request reveals to Jacob the superhuman character of his adversary, and he resolves to hold him fast till he has extorted a blessing from him.—28, 29. Here the blessing is imparted in the form of a new name conferred on Jacob in memory of this crowning struggle of his life.—thou hast striven with God] Yisrā’ēl, probably = ‘God strives’ (v.i.), is interpreted as ‘Striver with God’; compare a similar transformation of יְרֻבַּֽעַל (‘Baal contends’) in Judges 6³². Such a name is a true ‘blessing,’ as a pledge of victory and success to the nation which bears it.—and with men] This can hardly refer merely to the contests with Laban and Esau; it points rather to the existence of a fuller body of legend, in which Jacob figured as the hero of many combats,culminating in this successful struggle with deity.—30. Jacob vainly endeavours to extort a disclosure of the name of his antagonist. This is possibly an older variant of 28f., belonging to a primitive phase of thought, where he who possesses the true name of a god can dispose of the power of its bearer (Cheyne Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, 401¹; A Dictionary of the Bible, v. 640). For the concealment of the name, compare Judges 13¹⁸ (the same words).—Gunkel thinks that in the original narrative the name of the wrestler was actually revealed.—31. Pĕnî’ēl] ‘Face of God’ (v.i.). The name is derived from an incidental feature of the experience: that Jacob had seen “God face to face” (Exodus 33¹¹, Deuteronomy 34¹⁰), and yet lived (see on 16¹³).—The site of Peniel is unknown: see Driver The Expository Times, xiii. 457 ff., and The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes 300 ff.—32. limping on his thigh] in consequence of the injury he had received (26b). That he bore the hurt to his death, as a memorial of the conflict, is a gratuitous addition to the narrative.—33. The food-taboo here mentioned is nowhere else referred to in Old Testament; and the Mishnic prohibition (Ḥullîn, 7) is probably dependent on this passage. William Robertson Smith explains it from the sacredness of the thigh as a seat of life (Lectures on the Religion of the Semites², 380¹);¹ and Wellhausen (Reste arabischen Heidentums 168³) calls attention to a trace of it in ancient Arabia. For primitive parallels, see Frazer, Golden Bough, ii. 419 ff., Folklore in Old Testament, 142 f. The precise meaning of גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה is uncertain (v.i.).
In its fundamental conception the struggle at Peniel is not a dream or vision like that which came to Jacob at Bethel; nor is it an allegory of the spiritual life, symbolising the inward travail of a soul helpless before some overhanging crisis of its destiny. It is a real physical encounter which is described, in which Jacob measures his strength and skill against a divine antagonist, and ‘prevails,’ though at the cost of a bodily injury. No more boldly anthropomorphic narrative is found in Genesis; and unless we shut our eyes to some of its salient features, we must resign the attempt to translate it wholly into terms of religious experience. We have to do with a legend, originating at a low level of religion, in process of accommodation to the purer ideas of revealed religion; and its history may have been somewhat as follows: (1) We begin with the fact of a hand-to-hand conflict between a god and a man. A similar idea appears in Exodus 424 ff., where we read that Yahwe met Moses and ‘sought to kill him.’ In the present passage the god was probably not Yahwe originally, but a local deity, a night-spirit who fears the dawn and refuses to disclose his name. Dr. Frazer has pointed out that such stories as this are associated with water-spirits, and cites many primitive customs (Folklore in the Old Testament, 136 ff.) which seem to rest on the belief that a river resents being crossed, and drowns many who attempt it. He hazards the conjecture that the original deity of this passage was the spirit of the Jabboḳ; in which case the word-play between יַבֹּק and אבק may have greater significance than appears on the surface. (2) Like many patriarchal theophanies, the narrative accounts for the foundation of a sanctuary—that of Peniel. Of the cultus at Peniel we know nothing; and there is very little in the story that can be supposed to bear upon it, unless we assume, with Gunkel and others, that the limping on the thigh refers to a ritual dance regularly observed there (compare 1 Kings 18²⁶).¹ (3) By Yahwist and Elohist the story was incorporated in the national epos as part of the history of Jacob. The God who wrestles with the patriarch is Yahwe; and how far the wrestling was understood as a literal fact remains uncertain. To these writers the main interest lies in the origin of the name Israel, and the blessing bestowed on the nation in the person of its ancestor. (4) A still more refined interpretation is found, it seems to me, in Hosea 124. 5: ‘In the womb he overreached his brother; and in his prime he strove with God. He strove (וַיִּשֶׂר) with the Angel and prevailed; he wept and made supplication to him.’ The substitution of the Angel of Yahwe for the divine Being Himself shows increasing sensitiveness to anthropomorphism; and the last line appears to mark an advance in the spiritualising of the incident, the subject being not the Angel (as Gunkel and others hold), but Jacob, whose ‘prevailing’ thus becomes that of importunate prayer.—We may note in a word Steuernagel’s ethnological interpretation. He considers the wrestling to symbolise a victory of the invading Israelites over the inhabitants of North Gilead. The change of name reflects the fact that a new nation (Israel) arose from the fusion of the Jacob and Rachel tribes (Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 61 f.).
29. יִשְׂרָאֵל] A name of the same type as ישמעאל, ירחמאל, etc., with some such meaning as ‘God strives’ or ‘Let God strive’; originally (it has been suggested) a war-cry which passed into a proper name (see Steuernagel, Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 61). The verb שׂרה, however, only occurs in connexion with this incident (Hosea 124. 5, where read וַיִּשֶׂר), and in the personal name שְׂרָיָה; and its real meaning is uncertain. If it be the Hebrew equivalent of Arabic šariya, Driver argues that it must mean ‘persist’ or ‘persevere’ rather than ‘strive’ (A Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 530), which hardly yields a suitable idea. Some take it as a by-form of שׂרר, either in a denominative sense (‘rule,’ from שַׂר, prince), or in its assumed primary significance ‘shine forth’ (Assyrian šarâru: see Vollers, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, ix. 184). Some doubt has even been thrown on the traditional Hebrew pronunciation by the form Ysir’r, found on an inscription of Merneptah (Steindorff, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xvi. 330 ff.), with which we may compare Assyrian Sir-’-lai (= ישראלי) (see Kittel, SBOT Chronicles, page 58). Compare also Cheyne Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, 404.—שרית] LXX ἐνίσχυσας, Aquila ἦρξας, Symmachus ἤρξω, Vulgate fortis fuisti, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), TargumOnkelos רַב אַתּ.—31. פניאל] LXX Εἶδος θεοῦ, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Symmachus, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå read פנואל as verse ³². The formal difference arises from the old case-endings of genitive and nominative (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 o). Strabo (XVI. ii. 16, 18) mentions a Phœnician promontory near Tripolis called Θεοῦ πρόσωπον: it is not improbable that in both cases the name is derived from a fancied resemblance to a face.—33. גיד הנשה] נָשֶׁה is to be explained by Arabic nasan (for nasayun), which means the nervus ischiadicus, or the thigh in which it is found (Gesenius Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti 921 f.). The question remains whether גיד denotes here a nerve, an artery, a sinew, or a muscle; the first seems by far the most probable. So it seems to have been understood by Peshiṭtå ((‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) = tetanus-nerve), and by LXX and Vulgate, which appear to have connected נשה with the verb for ‘forget’ (Græcus-Venetus, τὸ νεῦρον τὸ ἐπιλελησμένον!). The modern Jewish restriction applies, according to Delitzsch, to the “Spannader, d. h. die innere Ader des sogen. Hinterviertels mit Einschluss der äusseren und der Verästelungen beider.”
The dreaded meeting at last takes place; the brothers are reconciled, and part in friendship; Esau returning to Seir, while Jacob moves on by slow stages first to Succoth and then to Shechem.—It is difficult to characterise the spirit in which the main incident is conceived. Was Esau’s purpose friendly from the first, or was he turned from thoughts of vengeance by Jacob’s submissive and flattering demeanour? Does the writer regard the reconciliation as equally honourable to both parties, or does he only admire the skill and knowledge of human nature with which Jacob tames his brother’s ferocity? The truth probably lies between two extremes. That Esau’s intention was hostile, and that Jacob gained a diplomatic victory over him, cannot reasonably be doubted. On the other hand, the narrator must be acquitted of a desire to humiliate Esau. If he was vanquished by generosity, the noblest qualities of manhood were released in him; and he displays a chivalrous magnanimity which no appreciative audience could ever have held in contempt. So far as any national feeling is reflected, it is one of genuine respect and goodwill towards the Edomites.
Sources.—Verses 1–17 are rightly assigned in the main to Yahwist, in spite of the fact that the only divine name which occurs is אלהים, in 5b. 10. 11. In these verses we must recognise the hand of Elohist (compare also 5b with 48⁹, and 10b with 32²¹); and, for all that appears, Elohist’s influence may extend further. The chief indications, however, both material and linguistic, point to Yahwist as the leading source: the 400 men (32⁷), the ‘camp’ in verse ⁸ (32⁸), and the expressions: שׁפחות, 1. 2. 6; רוץ לקראת, ⁴; מצא חן, 8. 10. 15; כי־על־כן, ¹⁰. The documents are so deftly interwoven that it is scarcely possible to detect a flaw in the continuity of the narrative.—18–20 are probably from Elohist, except 18aβ, which is taken from Priestly-Code (see on the verse below).
1–7. The meeting.—1, 2. Jacob’s fears revive at sight of the 400 men (32⁷). He marshals his children (not the whole company, as 328 f., though the motive is the same) under their mothers, and in the reverse order of his affection for them.—3. passed on before them] having previously been in the rear.—He approaches his brother with the reverence befitting a sovereign; the sevenfold prostration is a favourite formula of homage in the Tel Amarna tablets: “At the feet of my Lord, my Sun, I fall down seven and seven times” (38 ff. passim). It does not follow, however, that Jacob acknowledged himself Esau’s vassal (Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien, 12; Cheyne Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, 405); compare 1 Samuel 20⁴¹.—4. fell on his neck] 45¹⁴ 46²⁹ (Yahwist); Luke 15²⁰.—5–7. An interesting picture: the mothers with their little ones come forward in groups to pay their respects to the grim-visaged warrior, whose name had caused such terror in the camp.
2. אחרנים ... אחרנים] LXX ὀπίσω ... ἐσχάτους Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) ... (‡ Syriac word). Read accordingly אחריהם for the first א׳.—4. וׄיׄשׄקׄהׄוׄ] The puncta extraordinaria mark some error in the text. Dillmann observes that elsewhere (45¹⁴ 46²⁹) ‘fell on his neck’ is immediately followed by ‘wept.’ The word should probably be inserted (with LXX) after ויחבקהו (so 29¹³; compare 48¹⁰).—ויבכו] The singular would be better, unless we add with LXX שְׁנֵיהֶם. ויחבקהו וישקהו ∥ ויפל על צוארו ויבך seem to be variants; of which one or other will be due to Elohist.—5. הנן] with double accusative, literally ‘has been gracious to me (with) them’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 ff.) = ‘has graciously given’ (so verse ¹¹); compare Judges 21²², Psalms 119²⁹.—7. נִגַּשׁ] Niphal for the previous Qal. Point—נָגַשׁ?—יוסף ורחל] LXX transposes as verse ².
8–11. The present.—8. Esau remembers another great cavalcade—camp—which he had met. The ‘present’ of 3214 ff. (Elohist) cannot be referred to, for Esau must have been told repeatedly what it was for (3218 f.). The word מַֽחֲנֶה points rather to the arrangement of 328 f. (Yahwist). Gunkel somewhat ingeniously explains thus: Esau had met the first division of Jacob’s company; and Jacob, ashamed to avow his original motive, by a happy inspiration now offers ‘this whole camp’ as a present to his brother.—9. Esau at first refuses, but, 10, 11, Jacob insists on his accepting the gift.—as one sees the face of God] with the feelings of joy and reverence with which one engages in the worship of God. For the flattering comparison of a superior to the Deity, compare 1 Samuel 29⁹, 2 Samuel 14¹⁷ 19²⁸. It is possible that the phrase here contains a reminiscence of the meaning of Pĕnî’el in 32³¹ (Wellhausen, Dillmann, al.), the common idea being that “at Peniel the unfriendly God is found to be friendly” (Dillmann). The resemblance suggests a different form of the legend, in which the deity who wrestled with Jacob was Esau—the Usōus of Phœnician mythology (see on 25²⁵; compare Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 278).
10. כי־על־כן] see on 18⁵. This and the preceding מצאתי חן mark the verse as Yahwist’s, in spite of the appellative use of אלהים.—11a is a doublet of 10a, and may be assigned to Elohist.—ברכה] ‘blessing,’ hence the gift which is meant to procure a blessing: 1 Samuel 25²⁷ 30²⁶, 2 Kings 18³¹.—הֻבָאת] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 74 g; but The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå read better הֵבֵאתִי.
12–17. The parting.—12. Esau, assuming that they are no more to be separated, proposes to march in front with his troop.—13. But Jacob has other objects in view, and invents a pretext for getting rid of his brother’s company.—עָלוֹת עָלַי] literally are giving suck upon me: i.e. their condition imposes anxiety upon me.—14. I will proceed by stages (? v.i.), gently, according to the pace of the cattle before me].—till I come ... to Sē‛îr] It is, of course, implied that he is to follow in Esau’s track; and the mention of Seir as a possible goal of Jacob’s journey causes difficulty. Meyer (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 275 f.) advances the attractive theory that in Yahwist Jacob does not cross the Jordan at all, but goes round by Seir and the South of the Dead Sea to Hebron. The question has an important bearing on the criticism of chapter 34.—15–17. The offer of an armed escort having been courteously declined, Jacob proceeds but a short distance, and takes up his quarters at Sukkôth (v.i.). The name is derived from the booths, or temporary shelters for cattle, which he erects there.—built himself a house] showing that he contemplated a lengthy sojourn.
Here Esau disappears from the histories of Yahwist and Elohist. We have already remarked on the change of tone in this last episode, as compared with the earlier Jacob-Esau stories of chapters 25, 27. Esau is no longer the rude natural man, the easy victim of his brother’s cunning, but a noble and princely character, whose bearing is evidently meant to inspire admiration. Jacob, too, is presented in a more favourable light: if he is still shrewd and calculating, and not perfectly truthful, he does not sink to the knavery of his earlier dealings with Esau and Laban, but exhibits the typical virtues of the patriarchal ideal. The contrast betrays a difference of spirit and origin in the two groups of legends. It is conceivable that the second group came from sanctuaries frequented by Israelites and Edomites in common (so Holzinger 212); but it is also possible that the two sets reflect the relations of Israel and Edom at different periods of history. It is quite obvious that chapters 25 and 27 took shape after the decay of the Edomite empire, when the ascendancy of Israel over the older people was assured. If there be any ethnological basis to 32, 33, it must belong to an earlier period. Steuernagel (Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 105) suggests as a parallel Numbers 2014–21, where the Edomites resist the passage of Israel through their territory. Meyer (387¹) is disposed to find a recollection of a time when Edom had a powerful empire extending far north on the East of the Jordan, where they may have rendered assistance to Israel in the Midianite war (ib. 382), though they were unable ultimately to maintain their position. If there be any truth in either of these speculations (which must remain extremely doubtful), it is evident that chronologically 32 f. precede 25, 27; and the attempt to interpret the series (as a whole) ethnographically must be abandoned.
13. עלות] √ עוּל, of which only the participle is in use (1 Samuel 67. 10, Isaiah 40¹¹, Psalms 78⁷¹†).—ודפקום] better with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå וּדְפַקְתִּים. On the syntax see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 159 q.—14. אתנהלה וגו׳] LXX ἐνισχύσω ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ κατὰ σχολὴν τῆς πορεύσεως. Why Cheyne (405 f.) finds it necessary to resolve the text into a series of geographical glosses is not apparent. התנהל, Hithpael is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, but is a natural extension of the Piel ‘guide [to a watering-place?],’ Isaiah 40¹¹ 49¹⁰. אַט in the sense of ‘gentleness’ (2 Samuel 18⁵, 1 Kings 21²⁷, Isaiah 8⁶, Job 15¹¹), and רֶגֶל in the sense of ‘pace’ are unexceptionable: the לְ of norm with both words (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 516 b). For מלאכה in the sense of ‘property,’ we have examples in Exodus 227. 10, 1 Samuel 15⁹.—15. אציגה] literally ‘let me set.’ The sense suggested by the context, ‘leave behind,’ is supported by Exodus 10²⁴ (Hophal).—למה וגו׳] The Hebrew is peculiar. The obvious rendering would be, ‘Why should I find favour, etc.?’; but as that is hardly possible, we must translate ‘Why so? May I find, etc.’—a very abrupt transition. We should at least expect אמצא נא.—17. ויעקב] The precedence of subject indicates contrast, and shows that the verse continues ¹⁶ (Yahwist).—נסע] see on 11².—סֻכֹּת was East of the Jordan, but nearer to it than Peniel (Joshua 13²⁷, Judges 84. 5. 8). The site is unknown (see Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 585; Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina, 206, 260; Driver The Expository Times, xiii. 458 a, n. 1). The modern Ain es-Sāḳūṭ (9 miles South of Beisan) is excluded on phonetic grounds, and is besides on the wrong side of the Jordan.
18–20. Jacob at Shechem.—18. The crossing of the Jordan is not recorded; it is commonly supposed to have taken place at the ford ed-Dāmiyeh, a little South of the Jabboḳ, on the road from es-Salṭ to Shechem.—in safety (שָׁלֵם)] after his escape from Esau, Elohist not having recorded the lengthened stay at Succoth. On the rendering of שלם as a proper name, v.i.—encamped in front of the city] in the vale to the East of it, where Jacob’s well is still shown (John 46. 12).—19. The purchase of the ground is referred to in Joshua 24³² in the account of Joseph’s burial. It is significant that Israel’s claim to the grave of Joseph is based on purchase, just as its right to that of Abraham (chapter 23).—The Bnê Ḥămôr were the dominant clan in Shechem (chapter 34, Judges 9²⁸).—a hundred ḳĕsîṭāhs] an unknown sum (v.i.).—20. he set up there an altar] or more probably (since הִצִּיב is never used of an altar) a maẓẓebāh.—called it ’Ēl, God of Israel] the stone being identified with the deity; compare 28²² 35⁷, Exodus 17¹⁵, Judges 6²⁴. For heathen parallels, see Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 295.
Israel is here the name of the nation: compare Joshua 8³⁰, where Joshua builds an altar on Ebal (East of Shechem) to Yahwe, God of Israel. The stone and its name are undoubtedly historical, and go back to an early time when Shechem (or Ebal?) was the sacred centre of the confederacy of Israelitish tribes (compare 1 Kings 12¹). We cannot therefore conclude with Dillmann that the verse refers back to 32²⁹, and comes from the same document.
18. עיר שכם [The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch שלום] שלם] The rendering given above is pronounced by Wellhausen to be impossible, no doubt on the ground that שלם, meaning properly ‘whole’ (Deuteronomy 27⁶), is nowhere else used in the sense ‘safe and sound’ of a person. Still, in view of שלום (compare 28²¹ 43²⁷), and וישלם in Job 9⁴, it may be reasonably supposed that it had that sense. LXX, Jubilees, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå take שלם as a proper noun; a view which though it derives some plausibility from the fact that there is still a village Salim about 4 miles East of Nābulus (Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 275, 279), implies a sense not consonant with usage; there being no case of a village described as a ‘city’ of the neighbouring town (Delitzsch). Wellhausen (Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 316¹) emends שְׁכֵם: ‘Shechem the city of (the man) Shechem.’ Procksch accepts the emendation, but regards the words as a conflation of variants from two sources (page 34). LXX distinguishes the name of the city (Σικίμων, see on 12⁶) from that of the man (Συχεμ, verse ¹⁹ 342 ff.).—ויחן] as 26¹⁷.—19. קשיטה (Joshua 24³², Job 42¹¹†)] apparently a coin or weight; but the etymology is obscure. LXX, Vulgate, TargumOnkelos render ‘lamb’; and it was thought that light had been thrown on this traditional explanation by the Aramaic Assuan papyri, where כבש (lamb) is used of a coin (of the value of 10 shekels?) (so Sayce-Cowley, Aramaic papyri discovered at Assouan, page 23). But Lidzbarski (Deutsche Lzg., 1906, 3210 ff.) holds that the word there should be read כרש (found on a Persian weight: Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, 1888, 464 ff.).—20. Read מצבה for מזבח, and consequently לָהּ for לו (Wellhausen al.).—ויקרא וגו׳] LXX καὶ ἐπεκαλέσατο τὸν θεὸν Ἰσραήλ.—Except the clause אשר בא׳ כ׳ בבאו מפדן ארם in verse ¹⁸, which is evidently from Priestly-Code, the whole section 18–20 may safely be assigned to Elohist.