Chapter XXII

_The Sacrifice of Isaac_
(Elohist and Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ).

The only incident in Abraham’s life expressly characterised as a ‘trial’ of his faith is the one here narrated, where the patriarch proves his readiness to offer up his only son as a sacrifice at the command of God. The story, which is the literary masterpiece of the Elohistic collection, is told with exquisite simplicity; every sentence vibrates with restrained emotion, which shows how fully the author realises the tragic horror of the situation.

_Source._――The original narrative consists of verses ¹⁻¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁹. In
spite of יהוה in ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁴, this belongs to Elohist: compare [הָ]אֱלֹהִים,
¹ᐧ ³ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹²; עַד־כֹּה ⁵]; the revelation by night, ¹ ᶠᶠᐧ; the Angel
calling from heaven, ¹¹.――On ¹⁵⁻¹⁸ see below. Compare Dillmann,
Holzinger, Gunkel.

=1‒8. Abraham’s willing preparation for the sacrifice.=――=1.= _God tempted Abraham_] _i.e._, tested him, to “know what was in his heart” (Deuteronomy 8²),――an anthropomorphic representation: compare Exodus 16⁴ 20²⁰, Deuteronomy 8¹⁶ 13⁴ 33⁸ etc. This sentence governs the narrative and prepares the reader for a good ending.――=2.= _thy son――thine only one――whom thou lovest――Isaac_] emphasising the greatness of the sacrifice, as if to say that God knows right well how much He asks.――_the land of Mōriyyāh_ (הַמֹּרִיָּה)] All attempts to explain the name and identify the place have been futile.♦――_which I will name to thee_] _When_ this more precise direction was imparted, does not appear.――=3.= While the outward preparations are graphically described, no word is spared for the conflict in Abraham’s breast,――a striking illustration of the reticence of the legends with regard to mental states.――=4.= _saw the place afar off_] The spot, therefore, has already been indicated (verse ²). We are left to imagine the pang that shot through the father’s heart when he caught sight of it.――=5.= Another touch, revealing the tense feeling with which the story is told: the servants are put off with a pretext whose hollowness the reader knows.――=6.= “The boy carries the heavier load, the father the more dangerous: knife and fire” (Gunkel). It is curious that the Old Testament has no allusion to the method of producing fire.――=7, 8.= The pathos of this dialogue is inimitable: the artless curiosity of the child, the irrepressible affection of the father, and the stern ambiguity of his reply, can hardly be read without tears. Note the effect of the repetition: _and they went both of them together_ (⁶ᐧ ⁸).――_God will provide_] יִרְאֶה, literally ‘look out’; as 41³³ [Deuteronomy 12¹³ 33²¹], 1 Samuel 16¹ᐧ ¹⁷. The word points forward to verse ¹⁴.

♦ reconnected with previous paragraph split in error

The prevalent Jewish and Christian tradition puts the scene
on the Temple mount at Jerusalem (הַר הַמּוֹרִיָּה, 2 Chronicles 3¹;
τὸ Μώριον ὄρος, Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 224,
compare 226). But (a) the attestation of the name is so late and
unreliable that it is a question whether the Chronicler’s use
of it rests on a traditional interpretation of this passage, or
whether it was introduced here on the strength of his notice.
(b) Even if [הַ]מֹּרִיָּה were a genuine ancient name for the Temple
hill, it is not credible that it was extended to the _land_
in which it was, and still less that the hill itself should be
described as ‘one of the mountains’ in the region named after it.
There is reason to suspect that the name of a land may have been
modified (either in accordance with a fanciful etymology [verse
¹⁴], or on the authority of 2 Chronicles 3¹) in order that the
chief sanctuary of later times might not be altogether ignored
in the patriarchal history. The Samaritan tradition identified
Moriah with Shechem.¹ This view has been revived in two forms:
(1) that the name is a corruption or variant of מוֹרֶה in 12⁶ etc.
(Bleek, _Theologische Studien und Kritiken_, 1831, 520 ff.;
Tuch, von Gall [see LXX _infinitive_]); and (2) that it is a
corruption of חֲמֹרִים (‘land of the Ḥamorites’ [33¹⁹]) (Wellhausen).
But both these names are too local and restricted to suit the
context; and the distance is perhaps too great. Of the attempts
to recover the original name, the simplest is א׳ הָֽאֱמֹרִי, which would
be a natural designation of Palestine in Elohist:² see on 10¹⁶.
If the legend be very ancient, there is no certainty that the
place was in the Holy Land at all. Any extensive mountainous
region, well known at the time, and with a lingering tradition
of human sacrifice, would satisfy the conditions. Hence,
Cheyne’s suggestion that the land of ‘Muṣri’ is to be read
(_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3200; Winckler _Geschichte Israels in
Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 44), is not devoid of plausibility.
On Gunkel’s solution, see below.

¹ See _Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins_, vi. 198,
vii. 133.――Von Gall (_Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 112)
seems in error when he says this was a _Jewish_ tradition.

² But it is doubtful if the restoration can claim the
authority of Peshiṭtå, for that version reads (‡ Syriac
phrase) in 2 Chronicles 3¹ also.

* * * * *

=1.= אחר הד׳ הא׳ 15¹.――והאלהים נסה] The reluctance of grammarians to
admit that this can be the main sentence, and apodosis after
time determination, is intelligible (Delitzsch, Dillmann,
Gunkel), the order being that of the circumstantial clause; but
it is difficult, without sophistical distinctions, to take it
any other way. As circumstantial clause it could only mean ‘when
God _had_ tempted Abraham,’ which is nonsense; and to speak of
it as a _Verumständung_ of the following ויאמר (Delitzsch) is to
deceive oneself with a word. The right explanation in Driver _A
Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 78 (3).――אברהם]
repeated in LXX, Vulgate; compare ¹¹.――=2.= המריה] The word was no
doubt popularly connected with √ רָאָה as used in ¹⁴ (compare _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ המוראה, Aquila τὴν καταφανῆ,
Symmachus τῆς ὀπτασίας, Vulgate _visionis_), though a real
derivation from that √ is impossible. LXX τὴν ὑψηλήν (compare
12⁶). Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ פולחנא
(‘worship’).――=3.= את־שני נ׳] So Numbers 22²². The determination
is peculiar. That it means _the_ two slaves with whom a person
of importance usually travelled (Gunkel) is little probable.
It is possible that in this legend Abraham was conceived as a
man of moderate wealth, and that these were all the servants
he had.――=5.= עד־כה] On כֹּה as demonstrative of _place_, see
Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ (‘rare, chiefly in Elohist’);
compare 31³⁷.――=7.= הנני בני] ‘Yes, my son’; the ‘Here am I’ of
English Version is much too pompous. LXX, Vulgate excellently:
τί ἐστιν, τέκνον; _Quid vis, fili?_――=8.= השה] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX omit article (Ball).

* * * * *

=9‒14. The sacrifice averted.=――=9, 10.= The verses describe with great minuteness the preliminary ritual of the עוֹלָה in highly technical language (עָרַךְ, עָקַד, שָׁחַט); _v.i._――=11, 12.= At the extreme moment Abraham’s hand is stayed by a voice from heaven.――=11= is certainly from Elohist; יהוה must therefore be a redactional accommodation to verse ¹⁵ (compare Peshiṭtå _infinitive_).――The repetition of _Abraham_ expresses urgency; as 46², Exodus 3⁴ (Elohist), 1 Samuel 3¹⁰.――=12.= The Angel speaks in the name of God, as 16¹⁰, 21¹⁸.――_now I know, etc._] Thus early was the truth taught that the essence of sacrifice is the moral disposition (Psalms 51¹⁸ ᶠᐧ).――=13.= The substitution of the ram for the human victim takes place without express command, Abraham recognising by its mysterious presence that it was ‘provided’ by God for this purpose.――=14a.= The naming of the place is an essential feature of the legend, and must therefore be assigned to Elohist.――יהוה יִרְאֶה alludes to verse ⁸; but that any sanctuary actually bore this name is scarcely probable. In truth, it seems to be given as the explanation, not of a name, but of a current proverbial saying (Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 450), which can hardly be the original intention (see below).――=14b.= The words בְּהַ֥ר יהו֖ה יֵֽרָאֶֽה yield no sense appropriate to the context.

Massoretic Text might be rendered: (a) ‘In the mount of Yahwe
he (it) is seen’ (Strack), or (b) ‘In the mount of Yahwe men
appear’ [for worship] (Driver 220, compare Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
_infinitive_), or (disregarding accusative) (c) ‘In the mount
where Yahwe is seen’: in this case the saying would be יהוה יִרְאֶה
(¹⁴ᵃ), and ¹⁴ᵇ would merely mean that it was used in the Temple
mount. All these are obviously unsatisfactory. With a slight
change (בָּהָר for בְּ׳) the clause would read ‘In the mount Yahwe
appears’ (so LXX), or (with יִרְאֶה for יֵֽרָאֶה) ‘In ... Yahwe sees’
(Vulgate, Peshiṭtå).――The text has probably been altered under
the same tendency which gave rise to מֹרִיָּה in verse ²; and the
recovery of the original is impossible. Gunkel, with brilliant
ingenuity, conjectures that the name of the sanctuary was יְרוּאֵל
(2 Chronicles 20¹⁶); this he inserts after הַהוּא; and restores the
remainder of the verse as follows: אֲשֶׁר אָמַר הַיּוֹם בָּהָר יִרְאֶה אֱלֹהִים = ‘for he
said, “To-day, in this mountain, God provideth.”’

* * * * *

=9.= ערך] of the arranging of the wood on the altar, 1 Kings 18³³,
Numbers 23⁴, Isaiah 30³³.――עקד] (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον) in New Hebrew
means to ‘bind the bent fore- and hind-legs of an animal for
sacrifice’ (Driver): LXX συμποδίσας――=10.= שׁחט is technically
to cut the throat of a sacrificial victim (Jacob, _Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvii. 51).――=11.= יהוה]
Peshiṭtå אֱלֹהִים; so verse ¹⁵.――=13.= אַיִל אַחַר] ‘a ram behind’; so
Tuch, Dillmann, Delitzsch, Strack, (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Symmachus in
temporal sense). _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
LXX, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, _Jubilees_ and Hebrew MSS have
א׳ אֶחָד, ‘a [certain] ram’; which may be _nichtssagend_, but is
preferable to Massoretic Text (Holzinger, Gunkel).――Read also
(with LXX, Peshiṭtå) נֶֽאֱחָז (participle) for perfect.――בסבך] LXX
ἐν φυτῷ σαβέκ, Symmachus ἐν δικτύῳ (בִּשְׂבָכָה), Aquila ἐν συχνεῶνι,
Vulgate _inter vepres_.――=14.= The paraphrase of Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
is interesting: ‘And Abraham worshipped and prayed there שָׁם
for שֵׁם), in that place, saying before the Lord, Here shall
generations worship. So it is said at this day, In this mountain
Abraham worshipped before the Lord.’――בְּהַר יהוה יֵֽרָאֶה] LXX ἐν τῷ
ὄρει Κύριος ὤφθη, Vulgate _in monte Dominus videbit_, Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac phrase).

* * * * *

=15‒19. Renewal of the promises: Conclusion.=――=15.= The occasion seemed to a Jehovistic redaction to demand an ampler reward than the sparing of Isaac; hence a supplementary revelation (שֵׁנִית) is appended.――=16.= _By myself I swear_] compare Exodus 32¹³ (also Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ), elsewhere Isaiah 45²³, Jeremiah 22⁵ 49¹³†.――נְאֻם יהוה] literally ‘murmur of Yahwe,’ an expression for the prophetic inspiration, whose significance must have been forgotten before it could be put in the mouth of the Angel. Even Priestly-Code (Numbers 14²⁸) is more discriminating in his use of the phrase.――=17.= _occupy the gate of their enemies_] _i.e._, take possession of their cities (LXX πόλεις); compare 24⁶⁰.――=18.= _by thy seed ... bless themselves_ (Hithpael)] So 26⁴; compare Deuteronomy 29¹⁸, Isaiah 65¹⁶, Jeremiah 4², Psalms 72¹⁷†. See on 12³.――=19.= The return to Beersheba is the close of Elohist’s narrative, continuing verse ¹⁴.

The secondary character of ¹⁵⁻¹⁸ is clear not only from its
loose connexion with the primary narrative, but also from its
combination of Elohistic conceptions with Yahwistic phraseology,
the absence of originality, the improper use of נְאֻם יהוה, etc.
Compare Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 20; Dillmann 291;
Holzinger 165.――The view of Delitzsch (324 f.) and Strack (82),
that ¹⁴⁻¹⁸ are from a Yahwist parallel to 22¹⁻¹⁴, is untenable.

The difficult question of the _meaning_ of this incident is
approached from two sides. (1) Those who regard it as a literal
occurrence in the life of a man of eminent piety, holding views
of truth in advance of his age, are undoubtedly able to give
it an interpretation charged with deep religious significance.
Familiar with the rite of child-sacrifice amongst the
surrounding heathen, the patriarch is conceived as arrested by
the thought that even this terrible sacrifice might rightly be
demanded by the Being to whom he owed all that he was; and as
brooding over it till he seemed to hear the voice of God calling
on him to offer up his own son as proof of devotion to Him.
He is led on step by step to the very verge of accomplishing
the act, when an inward monition stays his hand, and reveals
to him that what God really requires is the surrender of the
will――that being the _truth_ in his previous impression; but
that the sacrifice of a human life is not in accordance with
the character of the true God whom Abraham worshipped. But it
must be felt that this line of exposition is not altogether
satisfying. The story contains no word in repudiation of human
sacrifice, nor anything to enforce what must be supposed to
be the main lesson, viz., that such sacrifices were to find
no place in the religion of Abraham’s descendants. (2) Having
regard to the origin of many other Genesis narratives, we
must admit the possibility that the one before us is a legend,
explaining the substitution of animal for human sacrifices
in some type of ancient worship. This view is worked out
with remarkable skill by Gunkel (211‒214), who thinks he
has recovered the lost name of the sanctuary from certain
significant expressions which seem to prepare the mind for
an etymological interpretation: viz. אֱלֹהִים יִרְאֶה, ⁸ (compare ¹⁴);
יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים, ¹²; and וַיַּרְא [והנה] אַיִל, ¹³. From these indications he
concludes that the original name in ¹⁴ was יְרוּאֵל; and he is
disposed to identify the spot with a place of that name
somewhere near Tekoa, mentioned in 2 Chronicles 20¹⁶ (יְרִיאֵל in
1 Chronicles 7² is excluded by geographical considerations).
Here he conjectures that there was a sanctuary where the custom
of child-sacrifice had been modified by the substitution of a
ram for a human being. The basis of Genesis 22 would then be the
local cultus-legend of this place. Apart from the philological
speculations, which are certainly pushed to an extreme, it is
not improbable that Gunkel’s theory correctly expresses the
character of the story; and that it originally belonged to the
class of ætiological legends which everywhere weave themselves
round peculiarities of ritual whose real origin has been
forgotten or obscured.――An older cultus-myth of the same
kind is found in the Phœnician story in which Kronos actually
sacrifices his only son Ἰεούδ (יחוד = יָחִיד?) or Ἰεδούδ (יָדִיד?) to his
father Uranus (Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10, 29). The
sacrifice of Iphigeneia, and the later modification in which a
hind is substituted for the maiden, readily suggests itself as
a parallel (Euripides, _Iphigenia in Aulis_ 1540 ff.).

* * * * *

=16.= end] Add מִמֶּנִּי as verse ¹²: so LXX, Vulgate.――=18.= עקב אשר]
elsewhere only 26⁵, 2 Samuel 12⁶.

* * * * *

XXII. 20‒24.
_The Sons of Nāḥôr_
(Yahwist, Redactors).

In the singular form of a report brought to Abraham, there is here introduced a list of 12 tribes tracing their descent to Nāḥôr. Very few of the names can be identified; but so far as the indications go, they point to the region East and North-east of Palestine as the area peopled by the Naḥorite family. The division into legitimate (²⁰⁻²³) and illegitimate (²⁴) sons expresses a distinction between the pure-blooded stock and hybrid, or perhaps alien and subjugated, clans (Guthe, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, 5).

The verses bear the unmistakable signature of a Yahwistic
genealogy: compare גַּם הִיא ²⁰ᐧ ²⁴, with 4²²ᐧ ²⁶ 10²¹ 19³⁸; ²¹ᵃ
with 10¹⁵; ²³ᵇ with 9¹⁹ (10²⁹ 25⁴); יָלַד ²³ (see page 98). Of
Priestly-Code’s style and manner there is no trace; and with
regard to _‛Aramæan,’Ărām_, there is a material discrepancy
between the two documents (verse ²¹ compared with 10²² ᶠᐧ). The
introductory formula אחרי הד׳ הא׳ is not exclusively Elohistic (see
on 15¹), and in any case would be an insufficient reason for
ascribing (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 29 f.) the whole
section to Elohist. See Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_
220 ff.――The genealogy appears to have been inserted with
reference to chapter 24, from which it was afterwards separated
by the amalgamation of Priestly-Code (chapter 23) with the
older documents. Its adaptation to this context is, however,
very imperfect. Here Abraham is informed of the birth of
Nāḥôr’s _children_, whereas in the present text of 24 the
_grand_children (Laban and Rebekah) are grown up. Moreover, with
the excision of the gloss ²³ᵃ (_v.i._), the only point of direct
contact with chapter 24 disappears; and even the gloss does
not agree with the view of Rebekah’s parentage originally given
by Yahwist (see on 24¹⁵). Hence we must suppose that the basis
of the passage is an ancient genealogy, which has been recast,
annotated, and inserted by a Yahwistic writer at a stage _later_
than the composition of chapter 24, but _earlier_ than the final
redaction of the Pentateuch.

=20.= מִלְכָּה] see on 11²⁹.――לנחור אחיך] 11²².――=21.= עוּץ] in 10²³ a
subdivision of Aram, is here the principal (בְּכוֹר) Naḥorite
tribe (compare 36²⁸).――בּוּז (Βαύξ, Βαύζ, etc.)] mentioned in
Jeremiah 25²³ after Dĕdān and Têmā, is probably the _Bâzu_
of Esarhaddon’s inscription (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,
ii. 130 f.), an unidentified district of North Arabia (so Job
32²).――קְמוּאֵל] unknown; see Praetorius, _Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, 1903, 780.――אֲבִי אֲרָם (πατέρα Σύρων)
is possibly a gloss (Gunkel), but the classification of the
powerful Aramæans (see on 10²²) as a minor branch of the
Naḥorites is none the less surprising: see page 334 below.――=22.=
כֶּשֶׂד] The eponym of the כַּשְׂדִּים. But whether by these the well-known
Chaldæans of South Babylonia are meant is a difficult question.
Probability seems in favour of the theory that here, as in 2
Kings 24², Job 1¹⁷, an Arabian (or rather Aramæan) nomadic tribe
is to be understood, from which the Babylonian כַּשְׂדִּים may have
sprung (Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, ii. 250 ff.;
Gunkel). The result has a bearing on the meaning of Arpakšad
in 10²² (see also on 11²⁸).――חֲזוֹ (Ἀζαῦ)] probably the _Ḫazû_
mentioned after _Bâzu_ in Esarhaddon’s inscription (above).――פִּלְדָּשׁ
and יִדְלָף (Ἰελδάφ, Ἰεδλάφ) are not known. With the former have
been compared Palmer פלדשו (Levy, _Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xiv. 440) and Sin. פנדשו
(Cook, _A Glossary of the Aramaic Inscriptions_ 98; Lidzbarski
_Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik_ 352), both personal
names.――בְּתוּאֵל] as personal name 24¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ (Yahwist), 25²⁰ 28²ᐧ ⁵
(Priestly-Code).――=23a.= is a gloss (Dillmann, Gunkel) excluded
by the general scheme of the genealogy and by the number 8 in
²³ᵇ. The last consideration is decisive against Dillmann’s view
that the original text was וְאֶת־לָבָן וְאֶת־רִבְקָה.――=24.= וּפִילַגְשׁוֹ] _casus
pendens_: Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 111 _h_, 147 _e_. פִּילֶגֶשׁ = παλλακίς
(see Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 380): a Ḥittite
origin is suggested by Jensen (_Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xlviii. 468 ff., developing a
hint of Ewald).―רְאוּמָה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
רומה, LXX Ῥεύμα, Ῥεηρά, etc.――טֶבַח] rightly read by LXX, Peshiṭtå
in 2 Samuel 8⁸ (Massoretic Text בֶּטַח ∥ טִבְחַת 1 Chronicles 18⁸),
a city of ’Ăram-Ẓôbāh, probably identical with the _Tubiḫi_
of Tel-Amarna Tablets Number 127, and Papyrus Anastasi, near
Ḳadesh on the Orontes (but see Müller, _Asien und Europa nach
altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 173, 396).――גַּחַם (Τααμ, Γααμ, etc.)]
unknown.――תַּחַשׁ (Τοχος, Θαας, etc.)] probably Egyptian _Teḫisi_,
on the Orontes, North of Ḳadesh (_Asien und Europa nach
altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 258; Winckler _Mittheilungen
der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, i. 207).――מַֽעֲכָה (Μααχα,
Μωχα,)] Deuteronomy 3¹⁴, Joshua 12⁵ 13¹¹ᐧ ¹³ 2 Samuel 10⁶ᐧ ⁸,
1 Chronicles 19⁶ ᶠᐧ; an Aramæan tribe and state occupying the
modern Ǧōlān, South of Hermon, and East of the Upper Jordan.

To the discrepancies already noted (page 333) between the
genealogy and chapter 24, Meyer (_Die Israeliten und ihre
Nachbarstämme_, 239 ff.) adds the important observation that the
territorial distribution of the sons of Nāḥôr fits in badly with
the theory of Yahwist, which connects Nāḥôr and Laban with the
city of Ḥarran. He points out that the full-blooded Naḥorites,
so far as identified, are tribes of the Syro-Arabian desert,
while those described as hybrids belong to the settled regions
of Syria, where nomadic immigrants would naturally amalgamate
with the native population. Now the Syro-Arabian desert is in
other parts of the Old Testament the home of the _Bnê Ḳedem_;
and according to Elohist (see on 29¹) it was among the _Bnê
Ḳedem_ that Jacob found his uncle Laban. Meyer holds that this
was the original tradition, and finds a confirmation of it in
the geographical background of the list before us. In other
words, the Israelites were historically related, not to the
civilised Aramæans about Ḥarran, but to nomadic Aramæan tribes
who had not crossed the Euphrates, but still roamed the deserts
where Aramæans first appear in history (see page 206). Yahwist’s
representation is partly due to a misunderstanding of the name
‘Aramæan,’ which led him to transfer the kinsfolk of Abraham
to the region round Ḥarran, which was known as the chief seat
of Aramæan culture. The genealogy is therefore an authentic
document of great antiquity, which has fortunately been
preserved by a Yahwistic editor in spite of its inconsistency
with the main narrative. It may be added that the Palestinian
view-point will explain the subordinate position assigned to the
name _Aram_. It can hardly be denied that Meyer’s reasoning is
sufficiently cogent to outweigh the traces of the names Nāḥôr
and Milkah in the neighbourhood of Ḥarran (pages 232, 237 f.).
Meyer’s explanation of Nāḥôr as a modification of _Nāhār_ (the
Euphrates) is, however, not likely to commend itself.