Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

(iii) v.1, 'fear not,' D.i.21,29,iii.2,xx.3,xxxi.6,8—also E,(xxi.17) and J(171.xiv), (iv) v.1, 'I am thy shield'; comp. 'Jehovah, the shield of thy help,' D.xxxiii.29. (v) v.2,8, 'Adonai-Jehovah,' as in D.iii.24,ix.26,-nowhere else in the Pentateuch, (vi) v.3,4,4, win, ‘inherit,' with the acc. of the person inherited, D.ii. 12,21,22, ix. 1, xi.23, xii. 2,29,29, xviii.14, xix. 1, xxxi.3, and also N.xxi.32-nowhere else in the Pentateuch: but the verb occurs 68 times in Deuteronomy, and 29 times in the D parts of Joshua, and only 24 times in other portions of the Pentateuch, of which some at least are due to the Deuteronomist himself, as G.xv.3,4,4, xxii.17. (vii) v.5, 'number the stars if thou art able to number them-so shall thy seed be';

comp. 'I will surely multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the
sand which is on the lip of the sea,' xxii. 17(D);

'I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven,' xxvi.4(D);
'Jehovah hath multiplied you, and behold ye are this day as the stars
of heaven for multitude,' D.i.10;

'Jehovah hath placed thee as the stars of heaven for multitude,' D.x.22;
'ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude,' D. xxviii.62;

comp. also D.vii. 13, xiii.17, xxviii.63, xxx.5:

J has somewhat similar expressions (63.xxv); but he compares Israel with 'the dust of the earth,' xiii.16, xxviii. 14, or the 'sand of the sea,' xxxii. 12,-never with the 'stars of heaven.'

(viii) v.6, ‘and He reckoned it to him as righteousness';

comp. and it shall be to us as righteousness,' D.vi.25;

'and it shall be to thee as righteousness,' D.xxiv.13.

(ix) v.7, 'I am Jehovah, which brought thee out, &c.,' as in D.i.27, iv.20,37, v.15, vi.12,21,23, vii.8,19, viii.14, ix.12,26,28, 229, xiii.5,10, xvi. 1, xxvi.8, xxix. 25, and also E.xx.2, L.xix. 36, xxv. 38, xxvi.13 : and similar, though not identical, phrases occur in numerous passages of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, of which some are certainly D. interpolations). But in Genesis no identical or similar phrase occurs in any other passage than the verse before us; from which it may be inferred that, though very common with the Deuteronomist, the formula in question was not a favourite phrase with the Jeho vist, or with any other of the principal writers of Genesis.

(x) v.7, 'give to thee the land to inherit it,' D.iii.18, v.28, xix.2,14, xxi.1: similar, not identical, expressions occur in G.xxviii.4(E), L.xx.24, N.xxxiii.53. (xi) v.12, ', 'terror,' D.xxxii.25, Jo.ii.9(D), also E.xv.16,xxiii.27. (xii) v.13, ‘a land not theirs (D); comp. D.xxxii.17, ‘not gods,' v.21, 'not god.'

(xiii) v.16, 'Amorites' used in a general sense for 'Canaanite,' D.i.7,19,20,27, Jo.v.1,vii.7,x.5,6,12,xxiv. 15,18, all D. passages-also G.xlviii.22(J).

(xiv) v.18, 'cut a covenant' as always in Deuteronomy, v.2,3, vii.2, xxix.1,1,12, 14, xxxi.16, Jo.ix.6,7,11,15,16(D),—also J(126.ii).

(xv) v.18, 'from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates,' as in D.i.7, Jo.i.4(D); comp. 'from the river. the river Euphrates,' D.xi. 24.

(xvi) v.19-21, comp. the list of Canaanitish nations in D.vii. 1,xx.17, Jo.iii.10. ix.1, xxiv.11—all, most probably, Deuteronomistic passages.

(xvii) the fiery appearance in v.17,—the 'smoking furnace and burning lamps,' which passed between the pieces as the symbol of the Divine Presence-corresponds also to the D. peculiarity noticed in (III.546.vi), as indicated in D.iv.11,12,15,33,36, v.4,5,22,23,24,25,26, ix.10,15, x.4, xviii.16, xxxiii.2.

80. We read in v.2, 'and the heir (P) of my house is this Damascene (P);' and there is generally supposed to be here a play upon the sounds 'ben-meshek,' 'dammesek.' If so, this might account for Damascus being named here at all. The writer wishes to introduce a vision, with a promise of an heir to Abram and the unusual expression for heir, which he here employs, (and which occurs nowhere else in the Bible,) was, perhaps, suggested by its resemblance to the name 'Damascus,' which had occurred in the preceding context as it lay before him, xiv.15, at the end of which he determines to insert his own section. But the phrase 'ben-meshek' was, apparently, so unusual or antiquated, that in v.3 he himself explains it by repeating one born in my house will inherit me.'

6

81. This seems to be the true explanation of the repetition in v.3, which BOEHMER ascribes to the later Compiler, p.199:

It is not very likely that the writer of this chapter in his own time believed that he had expressed himself so indistinctly as to need to explain himself. Nor is it probable that he himself wished to give the correct explanation of that punning speech of Abram, which had then already passed into a proverb in the mouth of the people; at all events, he does not explain to us other strange formulæ, e.g. xx.16. The simplest assumption is to regard v.3, which interrupts the progress of the narrative, as an interpolation of the Compiler, which, however, is right enough as to the fact.

Ans. We do not suppose that Abram's 'punning speech' had passed into a proverb, or was ever really uttered. The whole story seems to us to be manifestly due to the mere imagination of the writer.

[ocr errors]

82. HUPFELD, we have seen, regards v.13-16 as of later origin. BOEHMER assigns v.12-17 to his Compiler' of Josiah's time, and writes as follows, p.200, &c.

That v.13-16 does not really belong to the narrative of C[i.e.E,, to whom BOEHMER assigns the main part of this chapter,] we regard as certain, and, as we shall presently show, not merely because the reference to the Egyptian servitude is here

quite out of place. Nor can it have been taken from either of the other two documents [E and J], in which it finds no fitting point of connection-at all events, between the portions of them in xiii on the one side and xvi on the other; and yet between these chapters it would have to take its place with equal reason for each of them, if the order of the narrative in those two documents has been retained here by the Compiler.

With v.13–16, however, must be taken out also v.12 and v.17a. If these belong to the original text, then Abram,—who in a waking state had spoken with God, had been led out by Him under the starry heavens, had procured and slaughtered the animals, had kept off the vultures from them,—would just exactly not have seen with waking eyes the very climax of the act of making the covenant, viz. the passage of the fiery appearance between the pieces of the animals. This 'passage,' however, is just as much real and actual as is the division of the animals. It would surely be very surprising if this chief point was presented only in a vision, after God had provided everything in the actual outer world for a real procedure. Were we to suppose, however, that Abram had waked up again before that appearance took place, then the notice, that he had meanwhile been sleeping for a time, from shortly before sunset till the sun had actually set, and in this sleep had endured great terror, would be quite useless and superfluous. This sleeping can only have been mentioned for this reason, that the Compiler did not suppose that God in reality passed through the pieces-that could only have been a vision of Abraham's, and so there happened also something superhuman and supremely holy, and revealed itself in the terror which fell on Abram, and in the unusual darkness even before sun-down. What is said about the going-down of the sun becomes subject to suspicion as an interpolation, from the fact that, according to the preceding narrative, we should rather have supposed that Abram had at once, during the night, as soon as God had given him the charge under the free sky, procured and slaughtered the proper animals. It strikes one as strange, after reading attentively up to this point, that it is suddenly said, 'and the Sun was about to go-down.' Was, then, all the rest of that night, and the whole of the next day, needed, in order to procure the five animals, and to divide the heifer, shegoat, and ram, into halves? Not a word is said about any further preparation of them, about eviscerating and burning them. Probably the Compiler had made the sober reflection that all this could not have happened so speedily, and that a day, therefore, must have passed before that appearance of fire passed between the pieces, which, however, had happened probably by night, as God also in the desert appeared only by night as a pillar of fire. The word 'deep slumber,' occurs only once again in the Pentateuch in G.ii.21. But to infer from this fact only that in both passages the same author must be writing, would be a very mechanical kind of criticism. The spirit and connection of this section is decisive against this; and, even if the chapter were wholly from one hand, we should have here a different author from there. From that passage, however, this not very usual word may have remained in the recollection of the Compiler, and so have come to his pen. The prediction about the distinct Egyptian period stands here quite outside this noble

story of Abram's belief in God's promise of a son and a multitudinous offspring. Why Abram should be exactly informed that his descendants will spend 400 years in Egypt, is not very plain. It seems as if this insertion of the duration of the Egyptian sojourn had been suggested by a peculiar interpretation of the animals being commanded to be taken 'three-years old.' DELITZSCH thinks that this points to the three centuries of servitude in a strange land. . . By the analogy of the dreams in G.xl,xli, these three centuries would rather be denoted by the three animals, and not by their being each three-years old. . . Another sign of a different hand from that of the original writer is the fact that in v.16 only the Amorites are named as a Canaanitish people, that should be subdued under the children of Israel; whereas in v.19-21 is set forth the prospect of ten peoples being subjected to them, among whom the Amorites are named only as one of many.

83. The very fact that BOEHMER is dissatisfied with HUPFELD's suggestion, that only v.13-16 is of later origin, and finds it necessary to ascribe v.12-17 to the Compiler, confirms strongly our view that the whole chapter belongs to the later editor. For the story as left by BOEHMER is liable to this objection, that, if the whole took place at night,—and clearly the 'smoking furnace and burning lamp' in v.17 are meant to pass through in the darkness, not in bright daylight-then there was no occasion for Abram to keep off the vultures from the carcases, v.11.

We see no reason, then, to divide the chapter at all. Probably, E, or J would have said in v.10, according to his usual style, after a Divine vision or dream, xx.8,xxi.14,xxii.3,xxviii. 18,

♦ and Abram rose-up early in the morning, and he took to him all these, &c.' But the writer, according to our view, supposes that Abram did not take and slaughter the animals in the night, but in the day-time, and clearly the whole morning after the vision might be supposed to be spent in this work.. Then, during the afternoon, he watched the pieces till towards sun-down, when a deep sleep fell upon him, out of which he waked in a state of terror, to find himself in thick darkness. In this state the voice reached him with the words of v.13-16, which, taken in connection with v.7, contain the terms of the covenant then made by Jehovah with Abram. And then, in ratification of the covenant, the fiery appearance-the Deuteronomistic emblem of the Deitypasses through the pieces. The statement in v.18-21 seems to

be rather a recapitulation of the promise in v.7, enlarged by the writer into a full description of the tribes of Canaan, than to contain the very terms of the covenant.

84. Thus the whole chapter appears to us to have proceeded from one pen. And, if so, since according to BOEHMER, v.13-16, or rather v.12-17a, cannot possibly belong to E, or E, or J, but must be assigned to the later Editor, we are strongly confirmed in the conclusion that the whole chapter belongs to him—that is, to the Deuteronomist, of whose hand we have seen so many indications in the analysis (79). The very fact that in v.16 Amorite' is used as a general name for all the inhabitants of Canaan, is an additional argument for the Deut. origin of the passage; since in only one other passage of thẹ Pentateuch, viz. G.xlviii.22, is Amorite' thus used, except in Deuteronomy or in Deuteronomistic parts of Joshua; and so upon D.i.7,19,20, KEIL notes, Deut. p.395

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The 'mountain of the Amorites' is of like significance with the following 'land of the Canaanites;' since the Amorites are named as the then mightiest people of Canaan, instar omnium, as in G.xv.16.

85. xvi.1,3,15,16, Elohist.

DELITZSCH observes, p.643, that this chapter is— Jehovistic, but with a still recognisable Elohistic basis, especially v.3,15,16. HUPFELD and BOEHMER give also to E only v.3,15,16.

But

it appears to me that v.1 also belongs to him; and such is the judgment of ILGEN.

(i) v.1, 'and Sarai, Abram's wife, did not bear to him,' see (58.v.N.B.) (ii) v.1, ‘Sarai, Abram's wife,' as in v.3, but 'Sarai,' simply, in v.2,5,6,8. (iii) v.1, and she had a maid an Egyptian, and her name Hagar,' seems distinctly referred to in v.3, 'Sarai took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid,' and xxv.12, 'Hagar, the Egyptian, Sarah's maid.'

N.B. HUPFELD says, p.25, note, that the formula, and her name,' is found only in J. passages, xxii. 24, xxv.1, xxxviii.6, comp. and his name,' xxiv.29, xxxviii. 1,2. This is true; but this single fact does not seem sufficient to mark it as peculiar to the Jehovist. We have very similar phrases in xxxvi.32,35,39,39, and comp., and my name,' E.vi.3.

(iv) J has already prematurely mentioned Sarai's barrenness, xi.30, with

« ZurückWeiter »