Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

belong to E in this form, is so clear at the first glance, that already it has not escaped the observation of former unprejudiced critics, who have regarded it, at all events, as a passage of a peculiar kind, though inserted by the Elohist. The fact, that the latest criticism assigns it to E, is based partly on the supposed analogy with the genealogies in xxv.1-6,12-18, which analogy has been already rejected, and so the argument from these genealogies rather proves the contrary, (3) -partly on the Elohistic formula which occur in v.6-8, which verses certainly belong to E; but this proves nothing for the rest of the chapter. Further, on this ground in any case only the two genealogies of the 'sons of Esau' in v.1-19, together with the variation of the second list in v.40-43, can be included, not the two lists of the primitive inhabitants (Horim) of Edom, and the oldest Edomite kings, which have not the most remote connection with the theocratic history of the patriarchs, as E narrates it.(4)

That, however, the list of the sons of Esau also, at least in their present form, must come from the later sources, and not from E, appears directly,-partly from the fact that the names of the wives in v.1-5, which are derived from the data of the genealogies that follow, v.9, &c., v.20, &c. (though the corrupt readings, na and should be corrected into and 7) differ from those of E, xxvi.34,35, xxviii. 9,(5)—partly from the Jehovistic formula, v.10,40,(6) and, perhaps, the number (thirteen) of the chiefs of the sons of Esau; comp. the thirteen sons of Joktan, x.26,(7) &c.

Still, v.1-5 shows distinct signs of E.

(i) It takes up again, in v.2,3, the former dates about Esau's wives, xxvi.34,35, xxviii.9, where, as pluperfect, seems to refer back to the earlier notice; and, in spite of the varying and partly corrupted names, we see glimpses of those accounts being the basis of that here given.

(ii) The form of this genealogy is quite in the style of E, and varies from that of the Jehovist.

[ocr errors]

(iii) The conclusion, v.5, which were born to him in the land of Canaan,' prepares for and introduces the following narrative (belonging to E) of Esau's removing to the land of Edom, v.6-8; as also this last, by the mention of his wives and his sons,'-though it does not of necessity imply the preceding mention of them, (for they might have been left unnamed, as in other cases, and as the daughters are, who are also mentioned in v.5,)—yet, since that mention of them does precede, is probably based upon it.(8)

Since, now, that closing formula in v.8 forms the contrast to the sons who were born in Edom, and this actually appears in the conclusion of the superscription of the second genealogy, v.9, 'in mount Seir,' as well as in the constant refrain, 'in the land of Edom,' v.16, &c., it might seem that this second genealogy also, v.9-14, as the necessary complement of the first, must belong to E. But this is negatived by its contents, which do not supply the complement, but only a repetition, of the first, though with the addition of the grandsons in the case of each son, and are to this extent only a continuation of that,(9)-(but of this second genealogy are then formed thirteen heads of the Edomites, who are VOL. III.

reckoned up in v.15, &c.(10)) This is an amplification, which cannot have lain in the plan of E.(11),

Consequently, only the first section, v.1-8-yet, of course, without the ethnographical notes, 'who is Edom,' v.1, 'Esau is Edom,' v.8,(12) and without the contradictions in the names of the wives, which have been derived from other sources or corrupted,-can have been taken from E. All the rest must have been drawn from later sources by the Jehovist or the Compiler.

265. Let us now consider the force of the above arguments.

(1) This applies only to the account of the Horim in v.20-30; since all the rest of the chapter is concerned with the direct descendants of Esau; and, as we have seen that E expatiates somewhat in xxv.12-16 upon the fortunes of Ishmael (156), as well as Isaac, so he may here have given some account of those of Esau, as well as Jacob. The account about Ishmael is short in proportion to the short E. account about the life of Isaac, xxv.19,20,21,24-26; and the more copious information here given about Esau's descendants may be in like manner proportioned to the more full account which he intends to give of Jacob and his descendants; or it may be more complete, simply because he knew more about the Edomites of his time than about the Arabians.

(2) The list of Esau's descendants, except for its greater length, does not interrupt the course of the history more than that about Ishmael's in xxv.12-16, or Jacob's in xlvi.8-27.

(*) This argument must now, of course, be reversed for us, as regards xxv.12-16, since we assign this passage itself to E(152).

(4) Surely, the account of the Edomite kings, descended from Abraham, would be quite in its place, as a proof of the actual fulfilment of the promises recorded by E in xvii.6,16, as having been made by El Shaddai to Abraham, ‘kings shall come out of thee,' 'kings of peoples shall be of thee.'

Rather, we must expect to find some record of this kind made by E, to show how these promises had been fulfilled, as we have had already in xxv.16,-* twel ve princes according to their folks,'-a record of the fulfilment of the other promise made to Abraham on the same occasion about Ishmael, xvii.20, viz. twelve princes shall he beget.' In fact, 'kings of peoples' out of the loins of Abraham only existed, when both Edom and Israel had kings.

(6) It seems just as reasonable to suppose that the Edomite accounts or traditions about the names may have been uncertain, so that E himself may have written them differently at different times,-viz., in v.2,3, of this chapter and in xxvi.34,35, xxviii.9,-without correcting the earlier notices, as it is to suppose that the Jehovist (or Compiler) changed the original names in v.1-5, in order to make them agree with the following data, without also changing them in the other passages. Uz, for instance, is described here as a Horite, v.28; whereas J makes him the firstborn of Aram, x.23, and he also makes him the firstborn of Nahor, xxii.21, so that here also we have, apparently, a similar instance of uncertain tradition or, perhaps, conjecture.

(6) The formula 'These are the names of &c.,' v.10,40, is not a J. formula. It occurs nowhere, as we believe, in any J. passage, (since we assign xxv.12,16, xlvi.8, to E), and it does occur in E.i.1, which HUPFELD and BOEHMER both give without the least hesitation to E.

The other formula in v.40,43, are (a) 'after their families,' (8) 'after their places,' (7) 'by their names,' (8) ' after their habitations': and of these (a) occurs in x.5,20,31, and is, therefore, so far Jehovistic; but it occurs also in viii.19, (E)— (B) and (8) are found nowhere else in the Bible, and since they do not occur among the numerous formulæ employed by the Jehovist in x.5,20,31,32, (where we have 'after their families,' by their nations,' 'after their tongues,' 'by their lands,' 'after their generations,') they are more probably not Jehovistic,-(7) occurs only once besides, in xxv.13, which we have assigned to E.

[ocr errors]

(7) It might be said that, if there is any imitation here, it is J in x who has copied from E in this passage. But Prof. HUPFELD says only perhaps,' and lays no stress on this argument.

(8) We assent, of course, fully to this reasoning.

(9) Surely, the addition of the grandsons in v.9–14 is a complementary addition or carrying-on of the first genealogy; and, according to our view, it bears just the same relation to the list of the sons of Esau' as xlvi.8-27 does to the list of the 'sons of Jacob.' Jacob's sons, xxxv.226,26, were born in Padan-Aram; his grandsons, xlvi.8–27, were born in Canaan: conversely, Esau's sons, xxxvi.1-5, were born in Canaan; his grandsons, v.9-14, were born in Edom. And in both lists of grandsons the sons of each mother are given at full length with precisely similar formulæ.

(10) No doubt the list of 'dukes,' i.e. probably, clans or tribal divisions, in v.15–19, does belong to the same author as v.9-14, i.e. as we believe to E.

(11) For the reasons stated above in (1), we cannot admit this.

(12) These ethnographic notes in v.1,8, are probably due to E(269.N.B.i), or else to the Compiler or Editor, i.e. as we suppose, the Deuteronomist.

266. BOEHMER gives only v.6-8 to E, and writes thus, p.87:

v.9-14 must belong to the Jehovist, since he introduces the list of the 'sons of Ishmael' in xxv.12,13, with exactly the same formulæ, and prefixes them to the 'generations of Isaac,' v.19, &c. after the account of Abraham's death, just exactly as here he prefixes the 'sons of Esau' to 'the generations of Jacob,' xxxvii.2a.

Ans. It is obvious that, in our view, the above remark, in connection with (152), serves only to fix the passage v.9-14, and therefore also v.15–19, on E.

BOEHMER, however, assigns the whole chapter as follows:v.6-8, to A(E),—v. 1a, 2o,3,9-14,20-24,25-28, to B(J),—v.2a,4,5,15-17,19, to C(E,), -v. 1o, 2o,5*, 18,24,29,31-43, to D (the Compiler), who has also inserted 'the daughter of Zibeon,' v.14, and 'the daughter of Anah,' v.25, and has dropped out of B the clause 2a, 'Esau took wives,' because it was expressed in C, 'Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan.'

Ans. The above appears at first sight exceedingly artificial, and could not be received, unless commended by strong internal evidence,-especially such evidence as fires these passages, or some of them, at all events, on the different writers in question. But, after a careful examination of BOEHMER's reasoning, I am obliged to say that his ingenious scheme does not appear to me to be supported by any sufficiently strong internal evidence. And, in fact, its very basis is destroyed, when it is shown, as above, that v.9–14 does belong to E. Besides which, if the Jehovist gave the sons of Aholibamah' in v.14, what reason can be alleged for his not giving Aholibamah herself in the list of Esau's wives, v.2o, a clause which BOEHMER assigns as above, to E,? But, if one part of his system is disturbed, the whole comes to the ground at once. In fact, it seems to be only an ingenious attempt to maintain the completeness of the three independent original documents, assumed by both HUPFELD and BoEHMER.

[ocr errors]

267. xxxvi.1-43, Elohist, except v.20-30,35".

(i) v.1-5, this list of Esau's sons, following that of Jacob's, xxxv.22 -26, and in connection with the death and burial of Isaac, xxxv.27-29, corresponds to that of Isaac's sons, xxv.24-26, following that of Ishmael's, xxv.13–16, and in connection with the death and burial of Abraham, xxv.7-10. The difference, that in the latter case both lists follow the death of Abraham, and Ishmael's first, while here Jacob's list precedes the death of Isaac, and Esau's follows it, arises merely from the writer's thinking it expedient to sum up Jacob's sons, who had been born in Padan-Aram,' when he returned to the land of Canaan some years before his father's death.

(ii) v.1,9, and these are the generations of Esau,' (2.iii).

(iii) v.2, ‘Esau took his wives out of the daughters of Canaan,' refers to xxvi. 34, xxviii.9.

(iv) v.2, 'daughters of Canaan,' as in xxviii.1,6,8:

J says 'daughters of the Canaanite,' xxiv.3,37.

(v) v.3, 'daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebaioth,' as in xxviii.9.

(vi) v.3, 'Nebaioth,' as in xxv.13,xxviii.9,-only besides in 1Ch.i.29 (copied from xxv.13) and Is.lx.7.

(vii) v.5, 'these are the sons of Esau, which were born to him in the land of Canaan';

comp. 'these are the sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padan-Aram,' xxxv.26.

*(viii) v.6, ‘and Esau took his wives and his sons and his daughters, and all the souls of his house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his wealth which he had gotten in the land of Canaan,' (60.v).

(ix) v.6, 'his cattle . . . and all his wealth';

[ocr errors]

comp. the cattle of his wealth,' xxxi.18:

J has also their cattle and their wealth and all their beasts,' xxxiv.23.

*(x) v.7, 'for their gain was much, above dwelling together; and the land of their sojournings was not able to bear them because of their cattle,'

comp. and the land did not bear them to dwell together; for their gain was much, and they were not able to dwell together,' xiii.6.

*(xi) v.7, 'land of their sojournings,' (95.xxii).

(xii) v.8, and Esau dwelt in mount Seir';

comp. ' and Jacob dwelt . . . in the land of Canaan,' xxxvii.1.

N.B. According to E, Esau was still living in the land of Canaan, when Jacob returned from Padan-Aram, and only went away to the land of Seir because of the multitude of their common stock of cattle; nor does this writer intimate any hostility whatever as having ever existed between Esau and Jacob.

According to J, Esau was already settled in the land of Seir, when Jacob returned from Padan-Aram, xxxii.3, xxxiii.14,16; and he represents Jacob as greatly in dread at first of his brother's anger, xxxii.7,8,11,20, but afterwards promising to come to him to Seir, xxxiii.14.

(xiii) v.9-14, this list of the sons and grandsons of Esau corresponds to the similar one for Jacob in xlvi.8-27, and the very same phrases are employed there as here:

*(a) v.10, these are the names of the sons of Esau';

comp. ' and these are the names of the sons of Israel,' xlvi.8, and see (152.ív)

(8) v.12,13,14, 'the sons of Adah (Bashemath, Aholibamah) Esau's wife';

[ocr errors]

comp. the sons of Rachel, Jacob's wife,' xlvi.19, and the notices in xlvi.15,18, 22,25.

(7) v.12,13, the notices subscribed, v.14, the notice superscribed;

comp. the subscriptions in xlvi. 15,18,22,25, the superscription in xlvi.19.

(xiv) v.31-39, this notice about the 'kings of Edom' seems almost essential

to the plan of E (265.(4)).

(xv) v.39, 'daughter of Matred, daughter of Mezahab';

comp. 'daughter of Anah, daughter of Zibeon,' v.2.

*(xvi) 40, 'these are the names of the clans of Esau,' (152.iv).

(xvii) v.40, 'after their families,'' after their places,' 'by their names,' v.43,

' after their habitations,' (265)).

*(xviii) v.43, пing 'possession,' (95.xxiii).

N.B. In v.16 duke Korah' may be inserted by a mistake of a copyist (KNOBEL, KEIL, DELITZSCH), since this name does not occur among the sons of Eliphaz in v.11,12. Also, the thirteen names in v.10-14, which (with the above correction) are now repeated in v.15-19, may be the names of the Edomite tribes, derived from their heads in former days; while the eleven names in v.40-43, (of which only two, Timnah and Kenaz, agree with those in the former lists,) may be the names of their towns or places of settlement. This last seems to be implied by the accurate definitions of the superscription, v.40, after their families, after their places,' and the subscription, v.43, ‘after their habitations in the land of their possession.'

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
« ZurückWeiter »