---

Chapter XXXIV.
The Outrage on Dinah.

Two narratives are here combined:

---

I. Shechem, son of Ḥamor, the native princeling, falls in love with Dinah, the daughter of Leah, abducts her, and keeps her in his house (1–3¹; compare ²⁶). He asks her in marriage from her father and brothers, offering to accept any conditions they may impose (11. 12). They raise an objection on the score of circumcision (¹⁴), but eventually consent on terms not expressed in this recension. Shechem complies with the condition, whatever it was (¹⁹). Simeon and Levi, however, decide that the insult can only be wiped out by blood; they gain access to Shechem’s house, slay him, and depart with their sister (25 f.). Their father, fearing an uprising of the country against him, reproves them for their rash act, which they proudly justify (30. 31).—The conclusion is lost.

II. Shechem dishonours Dinah, but lets her return to her family (1–3¹; compare ¹⁷); but continuing to love her, he appeals to Ḥamor to arrange a marriage (⁴). Ḥamor comes to speak to Jacob (⁶), and finds him and his sons together (⁷). He proposes not only a marriage between Shechem and Dinah, but a general connubium which would legalise all such unions in the future (8–10). Jacob’s sons agree, on condition that all the clan be circumcised (13. 15–18). Ḥamor proceeds to the gate of the city, and persuades his people to undergo the operation (20–24). While the fever is on them, the sons of Jacob rush the city, kill all the males, capture the women and children, and carry off the spoil (27–29).—The sequel is perhaps summarised in 35⁵.

This rough analysis¹ rests mainly on the material incongruities of the narrative, viz.: (a) In II., after the seduction Dinah is still in the hands of her relatives, ¹⁷; but in I. she is in Shechem’s house and has to be rescued by force, ²⁶. (b) The negotiations are conducted by Ḥămôr alone, ^6. 8–10 (II.); but in ^11. 12 (I.) Shechem is abruptly introduced pleading his own cause. (c) Shechem has already fulfilled the compact, ¹⁹ (I.), before the people of the city are consulted, ^20–24 (II.). (d) Simeon and Levi alone avenge the outrage, and are alone held responsible for the consequences, ^{25 f. 30 f.} (I.); but all the sons of Jacob are implicated in the sack of the city, ^27–29 (II.).

Sources.—If style alone were decisive, I. might safely be identified with Yahwist: note דבק ב, ³ (2²⁴); נערָ, ^3. 12; מצא חן בע׳, ¹¹; בכנעני ובפרזי, ³⁰. In II., Cornill has pointed out some linguistic affinities with Elohist (see the notes on דבר על לב, ³; ילדה, ⁴; סחר, ^10. 21 etc.); but they are insignificant in comparison with the strongly marked Priestly phraseology of this recension: נשיא, ²; טמּא, ^5. 13. 27; נאחז, ¹⁰; המל לכם כל זכר, ^15. 22; קנין and בהמה, ²³; כל זכר, ²⁴; כל יצאי שער עיר ²⁴ (bis): compare the list in Kuenen Gesammelte Abhandlungen 269 f. These are so striking that Dillmann and Driver assign the narrative unhesitatingly to Priestly-Code, and all admit that it has undergone a Priestly redaction (Cornill calls attention to a very similar case in Numbers 31).

But there are grave material difficulties in assigning either recension to Yahwist or Elohist. (1) In chapter 34, Jacob’s children are grown up; and this implies a considerable lapse of time since chapter 33. (2) A bloody encounter with the natives of the land is contrary to the peaceful ideal of patriarchal life consistently maintained by Yahwist and (hardly less consistently) by Elohist. (3) Against I. = Yahwist, in particular, (a) In Yahwist the patriarch is generally named Israel after 32²⁸; and here Jacob is used throughout. (b) We have seen reason to believe that in Yahwist, Jacob was not West of the Jordan at all at this time (page 414). (c) The sons of Jacob would not be found quietly feeding their flocks at Shechem (37^12 ff.) if an incident like this had been of recent occurrence. (4) As regards II. = Elohist, there is less difficulty; but on this hypothesis the amalgamation with Yahwist must be due to Redactor^Jehovist; and how does it happen that the assumed Priestly redaction is confined to the one component? Moreover, the incident is irreconcilable with 48²² (Elohist). (5) Finally, if Ḥōrite be the true reading in verse ², we have here a tradition differing from any of the Pentateuch documents.

These objections are urged with great force by Meyer, who also shows that in Genesis there are sporadic traces of a divergent tradition which ignored the Exodus, and traced the conquest and division of the land directly to Jacob and his sons (chapters 38. 48²²). To this (older) tradition he assigns chapter 34. The first recension must have taken literary shape within the Yahwistic school, and the second may have been current in Elohistic circles; but neither found a place in the main document of the school to which it belonged, and its insertion here was an afterthought suggested by a supposed connexion with 33¹⁹ (Elohist). This seems to me the best solution, though it leaves the dual recension, the amalgamation, and the Priestly redaction unexplained riddles.—Calling the two narratives Yahwistˣ and Elohistˣ, we divide as follows:

Compare Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 45 f., 314 ff.; Kuenen Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1880, 257 ff. (= Gesammelte Abhandlungen 255 ff.), Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds i. 315 f.; Cornill Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xi. 1–15; Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 412 ff.; Delitzsch 413; Dillmann 368 ff.; Holzinger 213 ff.; Gunkel 326 ff.; Strack 126 f.; Procksch 35 f.

1–12. Dinah is seduced by Shechem, and afterwards sought in marriage.—2. the Ḥivvite] see on 10¹⁷; LXX the Ḥōrite (v.i.).—3. spoke to (literally over) the heart] 50²¹ (Elohist). The phrase means ‘to comfort,’ not ‘to woo’; compare Hosea 2¹⁶, Isaiah 40², Ruth 2¹³ etc.—4. Compare 21^21. 24 38⁶, Judges 14².—5. kept silence] took no steps to redress the injury (2 Samuel 19¹¹).—7. wrought scandalous folly in Israel] a standing phrase for crimes of the kind here indicated (Deuteronomy 22²¹, Judges 20^6. 10; compare Judges 19^23 f., 2 Samuel 13^12 ff.); though ‘in Israel’ is an anachronism. נְבָלָה is never mere foolishness, but always disgraceful conduct or language.—such things are not done] 20⁹ 29²⁶.—8–10. Ḥămōr, as prince, takes a broad view: not content with arranging this particular marriage, he proposes an amalgamation of the two races; thinking apparently that the advantage to Jacob would be sufficient compensation for the offence.—9. Almost verbally identical with Deuteronomy 7³ (compare Joshua 23¹²).—11, 12. Shechem’s offer relates only to his own private affair.—Ask me ever so much] literally ‘Multiply upon me.’ The Hebrew law of compensation for seduction is given in Exodus 22^15 f.—מֹהַר, the price paid to the parents (Exodus 22^15 f., 1 Samuel 18²⁵), and מַתָּן (so only here), the gift to the bride, are virtually distinguished in 24⁵³.

---

1. בנות הארץ 27⁴⁶ (Priestly-Code or Redactor).—2. החוי] LXX הַחֹרִי. Confusion of ו and ר is common; but LXX deserves consideration as the harder reading; and also because the only other place where LXX has חרי for Massoretic Text חוי is Joshua 9⁷, a passage somewhat similar to this (see Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 331). It is a slight confirmation of LXX that animal names are frequent among the Ḥorite clans (36^20 ff.), and Ḥămôr means ‘he-ass.’—נשיא] a favourite word of Priestly-Code; compare 17²⁰ 23⁶ 25¹⁶.—שכב את (verse ⁷ 35²² etc.)] The Massoretic always point the את in this phrase as not accusative.—3. נערָ] see 24¹⁴.—5. טִמֵּא] in the sexual sense verses ^13. 27, Ezekiel 18^6. 11. 15 22¹¹†; otherwise very frequent in Priestly-Code.—7. כשמעם] occupies an unusual position; and there are other small syntactic anomalies in ^5. 7.—8. חשק ב] Deuteronomy 7⁷ 10¹⁵ 21¹¹, Psalms 91¹⁴†: contrast דבק, verse ³.—On the casus pendens, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 143 b.—9. התחתן] ‘enter into the relation of חֹתֵן and חָתָן’ (1 Samuel 18^21 ff., 1 Kings 3¹), and more generally ‘form marriage alliance’ (Deuteronomy 7³, Joshua 23¹², Ezra 9¹⁴).—10. סחר] as 42³⁴ (Elohist); but compare 23¹⁶ (Priestly-Code).—והאחזו] Niphal in this sense peculiar to Priestly-Code (47²⁷, Numbers 32³⁰, Joshua 22^9. 19).—12. מהר ומתן] LXX τὴν φερνήν.

---

13–17. The answer.—13a. with duplicity] In this recension (Elohistˣ) the requirement of circumcision is merely a pretext to render the Shechemites incapable of self-defence.—14. Here, on the contrary (Yahwistˣ), the family acts in good faith, and the compact is violated by Simeon and Levi alone.—that were a reproach to us] Joshua 5⁹. Circumcision is regarded as a tribal custom, which it would be a disgrace to infringe. That the custom actually existed from the earliest time among the Hebrews is extremely probable (page 296 f.); but the fact that both Yahwist (Exodus 4²⁵) and Elohist (Joshua 5^3 ff.) record its introduction in the age of the Exodus is an additional proof that this chapter follows an independent tradition.—15. Continuing ^13a.—Only on this condition will we consent] referring primarily to the connubium.—16. become one people] A result really desired by the Shechemites, but not seriously contemplated by the sons of Jacob.

---

13b occupies a syntactically impossible position, and must be deleted as a redactional gloss. וידברו joins on to ¹⁵.—14. LXX καὶ εἶπαν αὐτοῖς Συμεὼν καὶ Λευὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ Δείνας υἱοὶ δὲ Λείας κτλ.—an intelligent anticipation of critical results (compare ²⁵)?—Or is this the original text?—א׳ אשר לו ערלה for ‘uncircumcised’ does not recur.—15. נאות] Either (Brown-Driver-Briggs) imperfect Niphal, or (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 72 h) intransitive imperfect Qal of √ אוֹת, ‘consent’ (^22. 23, 2 Kings 12⁹†).—להמל וגו׳] as 17¹⁰.

---

18–24. The condition accepted.—19. the most honoured member of his family] emphasising the greatness of his sacrifice, and the strength of his attachment to Dinah.—21–23. Ḥămōr naturally says nothing of the personal matter, but dwells on the advantages the clan will derive from union with the Israelites. The men are already on friendly terms with them; the land is spacious enough; and by adopting circumcision they will obtain a great accession to their wealth.

---

19. אֵחַר] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 64 d.—21. רחבת ידים (LXX πλατεῖα)] ‘broad on both sides’; Judges 18¹⁰, Isaiah 22¹⁸ [33²¹, 1 Chronicles 4⁴⁰, Nehemiah 7⁴, Psalms 104²⁵]†.—24. Between וימלו and כל־זכר] LXX inserts τὴν σάρκα τῆς ἀκροβυστίας αὐτῶν.—כל־יצאי וגו׳] compare 23^10. 18. The repetition of the phrase is avoided by LXX.

---

25–31. The vengeance of the Hebrews.—25. on the third day] when the inflammation is said, in the case of adults, to be at its height (Delitzsch, Dillmann).—Simeon and Levi, the brothers of Dinah] compare 49⁵. In chapter 29 f., Leah had four other sons who were as much full brothers of Dinah as these two. Was there another tradition, according to which Simeon and Levi were the only sons of Leah (so Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 286¹, 426 f.)?—26. לפי חרב] according to the usage of war: without quarter (compare 2 Samuel 11²⁵).—and went out] Evidently this is the close of the exploit.—27. came upon the slain] Compare Vulgate Quibus egressis, irruerunt super occisos cæteri filii Jacob. That is perhaps the sense intended by the redactor. But, to say nothing of the improbability of two men being able to kill all the males of the city, the second narrative (Elohistˣ) must have given an independent account of the attack on Shechem. ^25b must be transferred to this verse; and another word must be substituted for חֲלָלִים (v.i.).—28, 29. Compare the similar phraseology of Numbers 31^9. 11 (Priestly-Code).—30, 31 (continuing ²⁶). Jacob rebukes Simeon and Levi, not for their treachery and cruelty, but for their recklessness in exposing the whole tribe to the vengeance of the Canaanites.—I am few in number] it is the tribal, not the individual, consciousness which finds expression here.

The legend at the basis of chapter 34 reflects, we can scarcely doubt, an incident of the Hebrew settlement in Canaan. Shechem is the eponymus of the ancient city of that name, and Ḥămôr of the tribe dwelling there; Ḥămôr is the father of Shechem, because the tribe is older than its possession of the city. Jacob, in like manner, stands for the Israelites, who are nomads ranging the country round Shechem, and on friendly terms with its inhabitants. Whether Dînāh was a weak Hebrew clan threatened with absorption by the Ḥamorites is not so certain; it is more natural to suppose that a literal outrage of the kind described was the cause of the racial quarrel which ensued.¹—There are two historic events which seem to stand in some connexion with the narrative—the Hebrew conquest of Shechem, and the dissolution of Simeon and Levi as tribal entities. (1) The conquest of Shechem is presupposed in Joshua 24; but it is remarkable that it is never mentioned either among the cities captured by the Israelites, or among those which remained independent. The account of its destruction by Abimelech in Judges 9 appears to imply that it had been continuously in the possession of the Bnê Ḥămôr down to that time. On the other hand, the poetic fragment Genesis 48²² attributes the conquest to Jacob himself, but as an honourable feat of arms unstained by the treachery which is so prominent in chapter 34. How these conflicting data are to be reconciled, we can hardly conjecture. The differences are too great to justify the opinion that 48²² and 34 are merely legendary reflexions of the historic fact recorded in Judges 9. Yet it is scarcely credible that Shechem was thrice conquered, twice from the same people under circumstances of general similarity. One chief objection to identifying 34 with Judges 9 is the prominence of Simeon and Levi in Yahwistˣ. We may either (with Steuernagel) put back the incident (which may after all have been an unsuccessful attack on Shechem) to the early days of the Hebrew migration, while Simeon and Levi were independent and still migratory tribes; or (with Meyer) assume that the story of Dinah originated near the Simeonite territory in the South, and was afterwards transferred to Shechem because of certain points of affinity with the historic overthrow of that city under Abimelech.—(2) The dispersion of Simeon and Levi is referred to in the Blessing of Jacob (49^6. 7), as the consequence of deeds of violence, disapproved by the conscience of the nation. It is universally assumed by critics that the two passages are variations of the same theme; hence it is held by many (Wellhausen, Stade, Gunkel, Steuernagel, al.) that Yahwistˣ went on to tell how the Canaanites actually retaliated by the slaughter of Simeon and Levi, while the other brothers escaped. That is just possible; but if so, the narrative departs very widely from the prevailing tradition, according to which Simeon and Levi not only survived, but went down into Egypt with the rest of the family. And there is room for doubt whether the curse on Simeon and Levi in chapter 49 is the result of any particular action of these two tribes (see page 516 f.).—The one point, indeed, which stands out with some degree of evidence from these discussions is that there was a form of the patriarchal tradition which knew nothing of the sojourn in Egypt, and connected the story of the conquest with the name of Jacob.

---

27–29 are regarded by Dillmann as a late interpolation; and this is perhaps necessary if the second account is to be identified with Priestly-Code. The possibility that the verses have been glossed by some one who had Numbers 31 in mind is not to be denied.—27. חללים] literally ‘pierced,’ means either ‘slain’ (Numbers 19¹⁸ 31^8. 19 etc.), or (rarely) ‘fatally wounded’ (Lamentations 2¹² etc.); neither sense being suitable here. Gunkel suggests חֹלִים, ‘sick’ ∥ כאבים, verse ²⁵.—29. שָׁב֖וּ וַיָּבֹ֑זּוּ] Remove athnach to שבו (√ שבה) and omit ו before את (compare The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå).—בבית] collective; but Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) LXX ἐν τῇ πόλει καὶ ὅσα ἦν ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις.—30. עכר] = Arabic ‛akira, ‘be turbid,’ in Hebrew literally ‘make turbid’ = ‘undo,’—a strong word; compare Joshua 6¹⁸ 7²⁵, 1 Kings 18^17 f.—מתי מספר] literally ‘men of number,’ numerable, and therefore few; Deuteronomy 4²⁷ 33⁶, Jeremiah 44²⁸ etc.

---

Chapter XXXV.
Jacob in Canaan
(Elohist, Yahwist, Priestly-Code).

The compiler’s interest in the story of Jacob would seem to have flagged after he had brought him safely back to Canaan; and he hurries to a close with a series of fragmentary excerpts from his sources: a second visit to Bethel, with the death and burial of Deborah, ^1–15; the birth of Benjamin and death of Rachel, ^16–20; Reuben’s incest, ^21. 22a; a list of Jacob’s sons, ^22b–26; the death and burial of Isaac, ^27–29.

Sources.—The Priestly-Code sections are easily recognised by their phraseology, viz. ^{6a.* 9–13. 15. 22b–26. 27–29}. The last continuous extract from Priestly-Code was 28^1–9; and the connecting links are 29^{24. 28b. 29} 30^{4a. 9b. 22a} 31^18aβγδb 33^18aβ. The natural position of 35^22b–26 is between 30^22a and 31¹⁸ (see verse ²⁶); and this transposition is adopted by Wellhausen (Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels⁶ 327); but perhaps a still better position would be in 37² (see page 443). A more thorough readjustment is proposed by Gunkel: 28^1–9 35^{6a. 11–13a. 15} 29^{24. 28b. 29} 30^{4a. 9b. 22a} 35^22b–26 31^18aβγδb 33^18aβ 35^{9. 10. 27–29}. This division of the Bethel-theophany into two, one on the way to Mesopotamia and the other after the return (as in Elohist), is very attractive, and relieves some critical difficulties, as shown in the notes on ^9 ff..—To Elohist belong ^{1–5. 6b–8. 14}: compare [ה]אלהים, ^1. 5. 7; אל, ^3. 7; מצבה, ¹⁴; אלהי הנכר, ^2. 4 (compare Joshua 24^2. 20. 23); and the reference in verse ¹ to 28^20 ff..—^16–20 are also from Elohist in the main, though perhaps with Yahwist variants (מצבה, ²⁰; compare the retrospective reference in 48⁷).—The only purely Yahwistic section is ^21. 22a (ישראל bis).

1–8 + 14. Bethel re-visited: the death of Deborah.—1. Jacob is reminded of his vow at Bethel (28^20 ff.), and commanded to build an altar there.—go up] From Shechem to Bethel there is a continuous ascent of over 1000 feet.—and dwell there] It would almost seem that Bethel is to be Jacob’s permanent residence; and this (though contradicted by verse ¹⁶) would be in harmony with the tenor of the Elohistic tradition, which closely associates this patriarch with the chief Ephraimite sanctuary.—2. Jacob purifies his household for a solemn act of worship.—Put away the strange gods] The same words spoken under the same tree by Joshua (24²³ [Elohist]), point, it would appear, to the memory of a great national renunciation of idolatry at Shechem in the early history of Israel (see verse ⁴). A reference to the Teraphim stolen by Rachel (31¹⁹) does not exhaust the significance of the notice.—3. The use of the old name אֵל here and verse ¹ (compare verse ⁷) is noticeable.—4. the earrings (see on 24²²)] Objects of superstition, being used as amulets, and in false worship (Hosea 2¹⁵, compare Judges 8^24 ff.).—the terebinth near Shechem] See on 12⁶. The burial of idolatrous emblems under this sacred tree has some traditional meaning which we cannot now explain.—5. a terror of God] a πανικὸν δεῖμα (Delitzsch); compare Exodus 23²⁷, 1 Samuel 14¹⁵, 2 Chronicles 14¹³ etc.

Verse ⁵ presupposes an incident like that recorded in chapter 34. The intervening verses ^1–4 are not in keeping with this view of the situation; and the change of subject from ‘Jacob’ to ‘the sons of Jacob’ makes it highly probable that verse ⁵ is either redactional (Kuenen), or belongs to a different stratum of Elohist.

---

1. בית־אל] LXX εἰς τὸν τόπον Βαιθὴλ is not unlikely to be original (compare 28¹¹ 12⁶).—3. ואעשה] LXX ונעשה.—4 end] LXX + καὶ ἀπώλεσεν αὐτὰ ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας.—5. ויסעו] LXX καὶ ἐξῆρεν Ἰσραὴλ ἐκ Σικίμων.—יעקב] LXX Ἰσραήλ.

---

6a (Priestly-Code). See below.—7. The designation of the place (i.e. the sanctuary: 12⁶ 28¹¹) as ’Ēl Bêth’ēl is not confirmed by any other Old Testament allusion. Partial analogies may be found in such place-names as Ašterôth-Ḳarnaim, Nĕbô, Baal-Ḥăẓôr, Baal-Gad, etc., where the name of the deity is extended to the sacred precincts (Gunkel 248); but the text is not above suspicion.—there the gods had revealed themselves to him] The plural verb together with the use of the article suggests that the sentence preserves a more polytheistic version of the Bethel-legend than 28¹²,—one in which the ‘angels of God’ were spoken of as simply אֱלֹהִים.—8, 14. The death and burial of Deborah.—below Bêth’ēl] means apparently ‘to the South of Bethel.’—under the oak] or ‘sacred tree’ (see on 12⁶).—tree of weeping] But v.i.—14. For the grounds on which this verse is connected with ⁸, see the footnote ad loc.—set up a maẓẓēbāh] So verse ²⁰ at the grave of Rachel. These monuments came to be regarded as simple grave-stones; but were doubtless originally objects of worship, as the next clause indicates.—poured out a libation on it] The libation was in the first instance an offering to the dead, according to a custom attested among many ancient peoples,¹ and found in Catholic countries at the present day.—poured oil] 28¹⁸.

The notice of Deborah is in many ways perplexing. The nurse who accompanied Rebekah (24⁵⁹) is nameless, and there is nothing to lead us to expect that she was to be an important figure in Hebrew legend. How she could have come into Jacob’s family is quite inexplicable; and the conjectures that have been advanced on this point are all puerile. Moreover, the sacred tree referred to is in all probability identical with the palm-tree of Deborah ‘between Ramah and Bethel’ in Judges 4^4 f.. There seems to have been a confusion in the local tradition between the famous prophetess and the nurse; and the chief mystery is how the name of Rebekah got introduced in this connexion at all. If we could suppose with Cheyne (417 f.) that בכות should be בְּכֹרַת and that this is an alternative form of רבקה, so that the real name of the tree was ‘Tree of Rebekah,’ we might be a step nearer a solution. The identity of the two trees would then have to be abandoned. It is, however, an unsafe argument to say that a ‘nurse’ could not have been conspicuous in legend: compare the grave of the nurse of Dionysus at Scythopolis, in Pliny, Naturalis Historia, v. 74 (Delitzsch, Gunkel).

---

6a. לוזה] See on 28¹⁹. The clause is an amalgam of Priestly-Code and Elohist.—7. למקום] LXX τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ τόπου.—אל בית־אל] LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå ביתאל.—8. ותקבר] LXX omitted.—אַלּוֹן] see on 12⁶.—בכות] ‘weeping.’ The text is perhaps confirmed by בֹּכִים (weepers), Judges 2⁵, which may be the same place. But though בכים might plausibly be regarded as a corruption of בְּכָאִים (2 Samuel 5^23 ff., Psalms 84⁷), it is difficult to think that בכות is so: ‘sacred tree of the baka-trees’ is an improbable combination (see von Gall, Altisraelitische Kultstätten 103).

---

9, 10. Jacob’s name changed (Priestly-Code).—Compare 32^28 f. (Yahwist).—when he came from Paddan ’Ărām] On Gunkel’s rearrangement (page 423 above), there is nothing to suggest Bethel as the scene of the revelation. It is a faint echo of 32^25 ff. from which every element of local tradition, down to the name of the sanctuary, has been eliminated.

---

9. עוד] LXX + ἐν Λοῦζα.—אתו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX + אלהים.—10. LXX simplifies by omitting שמך יעקב and ויקרא את שמו ישראל.

---

6a, 11–13, 15. The blessing transmitted to Jacob: Priestly-Code’s parallel to 28^10 ff..—11, 12. ’Ēl Shaddai] see on 17¹.—For other expressions in the verses, compare 17^6. 8. 16 28^3. 4 46²⁶ 48⁴.—13a. God went up from him] as 17²².—13b is an awkward continuation, and has probably arisen through dittography from verse ¹⁵.—15. The naming of the place, as 28¹⁹.

That the section refers to Jacob’s outward journey, and that ^9 f. describe a different theophany on his return, is probable from the following considerations: (1) The analogy of the older tradition (Jehovist). (2) בבאו מפדן ארם (⁹) is superfluous after we have read (^6a) that he had reached a spot בא׳ כנען. (3) That two consecutive verses (^10. 11) should commence with ויאמר לו א׳ is unnatural even in Priestly-Code (so Kautzsch-Socin). (4) The self-disclosure of the divine speaker (¹¹) must introduce the revelation (compare 17¹). (5) The עוד of verse ⁹ (generally treated as redactional) presupposes a former revelation. The one difficulty in this theory of Gunkel is to imagine an adequate reason for the dislocation of Priestly-Code.

---

12. נתתי] Peshiṭtå נשבעתי (so a scholia in Field).—14. The verse cannot possibly be from Priestly-Code, who recognises no maẓẓebās, and no ritual worship of any kind before the Sinaitic legislation. As a part of the Bethel-narrative, it is unintelligible in Elohist, who has already described the origin of the maẓẓebāh there (28¹⁸), and still more in Yahwist, who does not sanction maẓẓebās at all. The impression that the scene is Bethel depends solely on the words במקום—אתו, which can easily be excised, as a gloss from ¹⁵. The suggestion that the verse continues ⁸ is due to Cornill (Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xi. 15 ff.), and seems the most satisfactory solution of the problem.—נֶסֶךְ] 2 Kings 16^13. 15 is the only other instance of the word before Jeremiah, though the verb appears in 2 Samuel 23¹⁶, Hosea 9⁴. In Jeremiah, Ezekiel (20²⁸), and II Isaiah it is an accompaniment of heathenish worship; its legalisation for the worship of the temple appears in Ezekiel 45¹⁷ and Priestly-Code. Its mention here is a proof of the great antiquity of the notice (Cornill l.c.).

---

16–20. Rachel dies in child-birth (Elohist).—16. The event took place on the journey from Bethel to ’Ephrāth, an unknown locality in the later territory of Benjamin (see after verse ²⁰).—17. This also is a son for thee] So the nurse cheers the dying woman by recalling her prayer at the birth of Joseph (30²⁴).—18. With her last breath Rachel names her son Ben-’ônî; but the father, to avert the omen, calls him Bin-yāmîn. The pathos of the narrative flows in sympathy with the feelings of the mother: a notice of Jacob’s life-long grief for the loss of Rachel is reserved for 48⁷.—19. on the way to ’Ephrāth] The next clause, that is Bethlehem, is a gloss (see Stade Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, iii. 1 ff.).—20. See on verse ¹⁴.

The site of Rachel’s grave is determined by 1 Samuel 10² (on the border of Benjamin, between Ramah and Gibeah) and Jeremiah 31¹⁴ (compare 40¹). Christian tradition places it about a mile North of Bethlehem, in accordance with the gloss at the end of ¹⁹. This, however, rests on a confusion of Ephrath and the better known clan-name אֶפְרָת ־ָה ־ִים, which is always connected with Bethlehem. It is unnecessary to assume a divergence of ancient tradition regarding the site. The beautiful verse of Jeremiah 31¹⁴ shows how vivid and persistent was the hold of these legends on the popular mind.—The birth of Benjamin in Canaan is interpreted by many critics to mean that this tribe, unlike the rest, was formed after the conquest of the country (Wellhausen, Stade, Guthe, al.): Steuern, goes further, and infers that the rise of Benjamin brought about the dissolution of the Rachel tribe. But all such speculations are precarious. The name Benjamin, however, does furnish evidence that this particular tribe was formed in Palestine (v.i. on ¹⁸).

---

16. ויסעו מביתאל] LXX Ἀπάρας δὲ Ἰακώβ + ἔπηξεν τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ πύργου Γαδερ (from ²¹), showing the influence of the theory that מגדל עדר was at Jerusalem, which Jacob would naturally pass on the way to Bethlehem.—כברת הארץ] 48⁷, 2 Kings 5¹⁹† (without article). Apparently a measure of distance (Peshiṭtå a parasang); but nothing is certain. Accusative to Hoffmann (Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1890, 23 ff.), ‘as far as one can see.’—17. בהקשתה (Hiphil) ∥ ותקש (Piel) in ¹⁶,—possibly variants from Elohist and Yahwist.—Another trace of Yahwist is גם זה, pointing back to 30^24b.—18. בן־אוני] ‘son of my sorrow,’ from אָוֶן, ‘trouble.’ Not improbably it is an obsolete proper name, having some connexion with אוֹנוֹ, a city and valley in Benjamin (Bennett 325; Cheyne 420).—בן־ימין] Usually understood as ‘son of good fortune,’ the right hand being in antiquity the lucky or fortunate side. The original meaning is probably ‘son of the south’ (compare 1 Samuel 23^19. 24, Psalms 89¹³ etc.), Benjamin being the most southerly of the Rachel tribes.

---

21, 22a. Reuben’s incest (Yahwist).—21. Tower of the Flock] Such towers would be numerous in any pastoral country; and the place here referred to is unknown. Micah 4⁸ proves nothing; and the tradition which locates it near Bethlehem rests on this passage. The order of Yahwist’s narrative (see page 414) would lead us to seek it East of the Jordan, where the tribe of Reuben was settled.—22a. and when Israel heard] Probably a temporal clause, of which the apodosis has been intentionally omitted.

The story, no doubt, went on to tell of a curse pronounced on Reuben, which explained his loss of the birthright (so Gunkel; otherwise Dillmann). The crime is referred to in 49⁴. The original motive is perhaps suggested by the striking parallel in Iliad ix. 449 ff. (Gunkel):

Note that in 30^14 ff. also, Reuben plays a part in the restoration of his mother’s conjugal rights.—An ethnographic reading of the legend finds its historic basis in some humiliation inflicted by Reuben on the Bilhah-tribe, or one of its branches (Dan or Naphtali). See on 49⁴.

22b–26. A list of Jacob’s sons (Priestly-Code).—In two points the list deviates from the tradition of Jehovist (chapters 29. 30): The children are arranged according to their mothers; and the birth of Benjamin is placed in Mesopotamia. Otherwise the order of Jehovist is preserved: Leah precedes Rachel; but Rachel’s maid precedes Leah’s.—On the position of the section in the original Code, see pages 423, 443.

---

22a. The double accentuation means that ^22a was treated by the Massoretic sometimes as a whole verse, sometimes as a half; the former for private, the latter for liturgical reading (Strack 129; Wickes, Prose Accents, 130). Note the ‘gap in the middle of the verse,’ which LXX fills up with καὶ πονηρὸν ἐφάνη ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ.—ישראל] The name, instead of Jacob, is from this point onwards a fairly reliable criterion of the document Yahwist in Genesis.—26. ילד] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch and Hebrew MSS ילדו.

---

27–29. The death of Isaac (Priestly-Code).—In Jehovist Isaac was at the point of death when Jacob fled from Esau; whereas, according to the chronology of Priestly-Code, he survived for 80 years. An equally remarkable divergence from the earlier tradition is seen in Esau’s living on with his father in Hebron (see on 32⁴), and the unbroken friendship between him and Jacob.—27. Mamrē, Ḳiryath-’Arba‛, Ḥebrôn. See 13¹⁸ 23².—29. Compare 25^8. 9.—Isaac is buried by Esau and Jacob his sons] as Abraham by Isaac and Ishmael (25⁹). Priestly-Code always lays stress on the harmony of the patriarchal family life.

---

27. קרית הארבע] Read perhaps קריתה ארבע (Kittel).—חברון] LXX, Peshiṭtå + בארץ כנען.—28. יצחק] LXX + אשר חי (as 25⁷).—29 end] Syriac (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word).—In Priestly-Code’s chronology, Jacob at his father’s death had reached the age of 120 years (compare 35²⁸ with 25²⁶); he was 40 years old when he set out for Paddan Aram. The interval of 80 years has to be divided between his sojourn with Laban and his subsequent residence with Isaac; but in what proportions we have no data to determine.