Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

settled there, after the acquisition of the property in xxiii (comp. xxv.9), whereas previously he lived, according to J, xxii. 19, at Beersheba. Accordingly, J here makes Isaac to be just

[ocr errors]

'come from going to the well, Lakhai-roi, for he dwelt in the land of the Negeb,' v.62;

that is, Isaac may have been supposed to have lived with his mother at Hebron till her death, and then, after having taken part in her burial, to have gone for a season to see after affairs at Beersheba, where he afterwards lived according to J(xxviii.10), whereas Abraham removed to Hebron. Isaac may have been supposed, perhaps, to have done this while his servant was gone to Charran; and he has now come back to await his return, and so is ready to receive Rebekah. At first he instals her in his mother's tent, which might still be supposed to be standing in good order, and, perhaps kept ready for her reception; since Sarah died when Isaac was 37 years old, comp. xvii.17, xxiii.1, and he took Rebekah to wife within three years, when he was 40 years old, xxv.20.

143. It must be observed, however, that E mentions no dwelling-place of any of the patriarchs except Hebron,—comp. 'by the terebinths of Mamre, which are in Hebron,' xiii.18(J)— and he seems to assume that this was the settled abode of each of them, at least after the purchase of land recorded in xxiii; for the expression in xxiii.2, ‘Sarah died in Kirjath-Arba, and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her,' implies rather that Abraham was not at that time living at Hebron-unless, as BOEHMER suggests (140), it should be rendered, and Abraham went-in' i.e. into Sarah's tent, &c. However, E makes Abraham to die and be buried at Hebron, xxv.9, at which place, as he also expressly tells us, both Abraham and Isaac sojourned, xxxv.27, and Isaac and Rebekah were buried, xlix.31; and he makes also Jacob say that he buried Leah at Hebron, xlix.31, where also Jacob was living, according to J(xxxvii.14), at the time of Joseph's being carrried off to Egypt.

144. xxiv.59,60.

On v.61 KNOBEL observes, Gen. p.204:

This clause does not fit in well with what precedes, and one and the same writer can hardly have told the story in this way.

Rather, it is v.59 which does not fit in well' with what follows in v.61; that is to say, the statement, and they sent away Rebekah, &c., and they blessed Rebekah, and said,' &c. could hardly have been followed in the original narrative by v.61, ' and Rebekah arose'; they can hardly be supposed to have blessed her, with the words here recorded, before she 'arose' =was ready to start. But v.61a contains the camels,' comp. v.10,11,14, &c. 63,64; and, indeed, they were expressly provided for Rebekah's use in v.10; and there is nothing inconsistent between v.61a and v.61. We conclude, therefore, that v.61 is part of the original J. story; and the following phenomena seem to point to D as the interpolator of v.59,60.. 145. xxiv.59,60, Deuteronomist.

(i) v.59, ‘Abraham's servant and his men'; hitherto we have had, 'the men that were with him,' v.32,54.

(ii) v.59, 'their sister,' v.60, 'our sister': the plural form is not used elsewhere in the story, and the term 'sister' is scarcely suitable to be used by the persons concerned, 'her brother and her mother,' v.53,55, and perhaps her grandfather, v.50.

(iii) v.59, Rebekah's 'nurse' is named, but not her 'maidens,' as in v.61, where nothing is said about the 'nurse,' who occurs again in xxxv.8(D).

(iv) v.60, ten-thousands,' D.xxxii.30, xxxiii. 2,17, L.xxvi.8, N.x.36: in D.xxxiii.17 we have both 'thousands' and 'ten thousands,' as here.

*(v) v.60, 'thy seed shall inherit the gate of his enemies,' (135.xv).

146. xxv.1-6, Jehovist.

This passage evidently corresponds to xxii.20-24, to which it is a kind of pendant.

*(i) v.1, 'added and took' (5.iv).

(ii) v.1, 'and her name Keturah,' (85.iii.N.B.).

*(iii) v.3, 7, 'beget,' (5.xxvi).

(iv) v.4, ‘Asshurim,' 'Letushim,' 'Leummim,' plural names, as in x.13, 14. (v) v.5, ibig, 'all which was his,' (59.xxviii).

[ocr errors]

(vi) v.5, and Abraham gave all which he had to Isaac';

comp. 'and he hath given to him all which he has,' xxiv.36.

(vii) v.6, w, 'concubine,' as in xxii.24.

(viii) v.6, ‘while he was yet alive,' comp. xxv.6, xliii.7,27,28,xlv.3,26,28,xlvi.30(ix) v.6,6, east,' (3.vi).

N.B. By the sons of the concubines whom Abraham had,' J seems to mean Ishmael, the son of Hagar, and the six sons of Keturah: at least, we do not read of any other wives or concubines, which Abraham had besides Sarah.

In v.3 Sheba and Dedan are derived otherwise than in x.7 and x.28. But so, too, the account of their origin differs in x.7 and in x.28: so that all these three notices, notwithstanding these variations, may be due to the same writer, who probably betrays in this manner some uncertainty in his information, or, perhaps, some bifurcation in the tribes themselves.

147. xxv.7-11a, Elohist.

(i) v.7, date of Abraham's death, (10.vii).

*(ii) v.7, ‘and these are the days of the years of the life of Abraham,' (139.iii). *(iii) v.7, ♫♫, ‘hundred,' (10.ix).

*(iv) v.8, and Abraham expired and died, and was gathered unto his people'; comp. and he (Ishmael) expired and died, and was gathered unto his

[ocr errors]

people,' xxv.17;

and Isaac expired and died, and was gathered unto his people,' xxxv.29;

'I shall be gathered unto my people,' xlix.29;

' and he (Jacob) expired, and was gathered unto his people,' xlix.33. comp. also with the expression, 'be gathered unto his people,' the other Elohistic formula, 'be cut off from his people,' xvii.14.

*(v) v.8, ya, 'expire,' (19.xi).

*(vi) v.8, old and full,' comp. ' old and full of days,' xxxv.29.

*(vii) v.9, and his sons, Isaac and Ishmael, buried him ';

[ocr errors]

comp. and his sons, Esau and Jacob, buried him,' xxxv.29;

' and his sons . buried him,' 1.13.

*(viii) v.9,10, the cave of Machpelah accurately described, (139.viii). *(ix) v.10, there was buried Abraham and Sarah his wife';

[ocr errors]

comp. there they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife,' xlix.31.

(x) v.11, 'after the death of Abraham, Elohim blessed Isaac bis son,' (1.v). N.B. The words in v.11, 'after the death of Abraham,' seem to be used with express reference to the special language of the E. promise to Abraham, 'to thee and to thy seed after thee,' (46.xviii), which no other writer in Genesis uses. We have seen that the Elohist does not record any separate appearance of El Shaddai to Isaac (95.xxi.N.B.): he makes him inherit the blessing of Abraham,' xxviii.4.

148. xxv.11b, Jehovist.

According to the Elohist, the three Patriarchs all dwelt by the terebinths of Mamre at Hebron-at least, after the pur

chase of the land there (143). But E, and J show a great desire to connect them closely with Beersheba and the well Lakhai-roi, E,(xx.1, xxi.32), J(xxi.33, xxii. 19, xxiv.62, xxv.11, xxvi.23, xxviii. 10, xlvi.1,5).

(i) the well 'Lakhai-roi,' as in xvi.14, xxiv.62.

(ii) Dy, 'by,' as in xxxv.4.

N.B. HUPFELD, p.208, suggests that v.11 may, perhaps, have belonged originally after xxiv.67. But this would require that we should translate v.62 and Isaac had just come to (comp. il vient d'arriver) the well Lakhai-roi,' of which construction, however, HUPFELD says, p.29, he knows no other instance.' Besides which, Sarah's 'tent,' v.67, would in that case have been at Lakhai-roi, and not at Hebron, as we should infer from xxiii.2.

Upon our view, the insertion of this notice, completely disjoined as it is from the Jehovistic context before and after, is another strong indication of the supplementary character of the Jehovist's work.

149. xxv.12-18.

My judgment upon this passage differs from that of HUPFELD and BOEHMER. It consists only of a very few verses, and is in itself of no material consequence. The decision in this case, however, will be found to affect some other genealogical passages of greater length and importance. It is, therefore, desirable to consider carefully the arguments of these eminent critics before I proceed to explain my own view.

HUPFELD gives to E v.12,16,17, writing as follows, p.59–61:

[ocr errors]

'Far more evident is the derivation from E of the account of Ishmael's sons and of his death, xxv.12-18; since v.17 (age and death) bears distinctly his stamp, and the expression, 'twelve princes,' manifestly refers to xvii.20. Further, the manner in which the two sons follow each other in the superscriptions,-v.12, and these are the generations of Ishmael,' v.19, and these are the generations of Isaac,' immediately after their father's death [and burial, v.7–10],—agrees with what we find in the parallel case of Esau and Jacob,-['and these are the generations of Esau,' xxxvi.1, 'these are the generations of Jacob,' xxxvii.2", immediately after their father's death and burial, xxxv.28,29.] And, if this similarity is due to E, it would secure for this passage a place in the E. story.

But, notwithstanding this, I can only regard the notice in its present form as Jehovistic, for the following reasons:-

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

(i) v.13, these are the names, &c.,' as usual in x, xxxvi;

[ocr errors]

(ii) v.13, 'by their names,' after their generations,' v.16, 'by their villages, and by their kraals,' referring to their mode of dwelling, as in x;

(iii) v.18, the geographical datum as to the extension of their dwelling-place, resembling that about the sons of Joktan, x.30;

(iv) v.18, the verbal reference to the J. prophecy in xvi.12;

(v) v.17, which records the age and death of Ishmael, and belongs to E, interrupts the connection between the tribes, v.16, and their dwelling-place, v.18, (where the first words, 'and they abode,' refer to 'the sons' in v.16,) and thus betrays itself to be a foreign element.

Hence v.17 alone belongs certainly to E. But, since the 'twelve princes' v.16”, who have been already foretold in xvii.20, appear also to belong to it, it is probable that the superscription, v.12, is also a portion of it, which was then followed originally either by the names of the twelve sons, or, perhaps, merely by the general notice about them, with that poetical formula out of xvii.20, as the fulfilment of the prophecy, together with the account of the age and death of Ishmael. Then, upon this foundation, the Jehovist or the Compiler introduced the names, v.13–15,16a, together with the datum as to their dwelling-place, v.18, with a reference to xvi.12.

150. There can be no doubt that v.18 is decidedly Jehovistic, so that (iii) and (iv) of HUPFELD's arguments are at once admitted; but at the same time the break of connection, noticed in (v), disappears, when this foreign element, v.18, is removed. We demur, however, to his other reasons, and reply to them thus:-

[ocr errors]

(i) The phrase 'these are the names' does not occur in x; whereas the complete formula, the same as here, and these are the names of the sons of &c.,' does occur identically in E.i.1, which HUPFELD and BOEHMER assign without doubt to E; and a similar formula occurs in xxv.16a, xxxvi.10,40, xlvi.8,-all which we ascribe to E, and nowhere else in Genesis.

(ii) after their generations' does occur once in x.32, and in no other passage of Genesis; but the word here rendered 'generations' (niin) is very common in E, e.g. ii.4,v.1,vi.9. &c. So that E might very well have used this particular formula, if he uses any formula of this kind at all; and we see that he does use them in vi.9, 'by his generations (in),' xvii.7,9,12,' after their (your) generations,' and xxv.16', ' after their populations (S).

(iii) On the other hand, not one of the other three formulæ here employed, ‘by their names,' by their villages,' 'by their kraals,'—any more than 'after their populations,' v.16—is used in x, where so many different formulæ are employed, viz. ‘by their lands,' v.5,20,31, after their families,' v.5,20,31, 'by their nations,' v.20,32, 'after their tongues,' v.20,31, 'after their nations,' v.31. Hence these three would certainly rather appear not to be Jehovistic formula.

We see no reason, therefore, at present for not assigning

« ZurückWeiter »