Chapter XXIII

_Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah_
(Priestly-Code).

On the death of Sarah at the age of 127 years (¹ᐧ ²), Abraham becomes, through formal purchase from the Ḥittites, the owner of the field and cave of Machpelah (³⁻¹⁸), and there buries his dead (¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰).――This is the second occasion (compare chapter 17) on which the Priestly epitome of Abraham’s life expands into circumstantial and even graphic narration. The transaction must therefore have had a special interest for the writer of the Code; though it is not easy to determine of what nature that interest was (see the closing note).

_Source._――That the chapter belongs to Priestly-Code is proved
(a) by allusions in later parts of the Code (25⁹ ᶠᐧ 49²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ
50¹³); (b) by the juristic formalism and redundancy of the style;
(c) by the names בני חת, מכפלה, קרית ארבע, ארץ כנען; and the expressions
תושב, ⁴; אחזה, ⁴ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ²⁰; נשיא, ⁶; קוּם, ¹⁷ᐧ ²⁰; מקנה, ¹⁸ (see the notes;
and compare Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel). Against this we have
to set the אנכי of verse ⁴, which is never elsewhere used by
Priestly-Code.――At the same time it is difficult to acquiesce
in the opinion that we have to do with a ‘free composition’
of the writers of Priestly-Code. The passage has far more the
appearance of a transcript from real life than any other section
in the whole of Priestly-Code; and its markedly secular tone
(the name of God is never once mentioned) is in strong contrast
to the free introduction of the divine activity in human affairs
which is characteristic of that document. It seems probable that
the narrative is based on some local tradition by which the form
of representation has been partly determined. A similar view
is taken by Eerdmans (_Die Komposition der Genesis_ 88), who,
however, assigns the chapter to the oldest stratum of Genesis,
dating at latest from 700 B.C. Steuernagel (_Theologische
Studien und Kritiken_, 1908, 628) agrees that chapter 23 is not
in Priestly-Code’s manner; but thinks it a midrashic expansion
of a brief notice in that document.¹

¹ Sayce’s contention (_The Early History of the Hebrews_,
57 ff.), that the incident ‘belongs essentially to the early
Babylonian and not to the Assyrian period,’ is not borne
out by the cuneiform documents to which he refers; the
correspondences adduced being quite as close with contracts
of the later Assyrian kings as with those of the age of
Ḫammurabi. Thus, the expression ‘full silver’ (verse ⁹) is
frequent under Sargon and subsequently (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, iv. 108 ff.); under the first Babylonian
dynasty the phrase is ‘silver to the full price’ (_ib._
7 ff.). The formula for ‘before’ (a witness) is, in the
earlier tablets, _maḫar_; in the later, _pân_,――neither the
precise equivalent of those here used (בְּאָזְנֵי and לְעֵינֵי). There
remains only the expression ‘_weigh_ silver,’ which does
appear to be characteristic of the older contracts; but
since this phrase survived in Hebrew till the latest times
(Zechariah 11¹², Esther 3⁹), it is plain that nothing can
be inferred from it. Sayce has not strengthened his case by
the arguments in _The Expository Times_, 1907, 418 ff.; see
Driver 230, and _Addenda_⁷, XXXVII f.

=1, 2. The death of Sarah.=――=2.= _Ḳiryath-’Arba‛_] an old name of Hebron, _v.i._――וַיָּבֹא] not ‘came,’ but _went in_――to where the body lay.――_to wail ... weep_] with the customary loud demonstrations of grief (Schwally, _Das Leben nach dem Tode_, 20; _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 453 ff.).

* * * * *

=1.= After ויהיו it is advisable to insert שְׁנֵי (Ball, Kittel:
compare 47⁹ᐧ ²⁸). The omission may have caused the addition of
the gloss שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי שָׂרָה at the end (wanting in LXX).――=2.= קרית ארבע
(LXX ἐν πόλει Ἀρβόκ)] The old name of Hebron (Joshua 14¹⁵,
Judges 1¹⁰), though seemingly in use after the Exile (unless
Nehemiah 11²⁵ be an artificial archaism [Meyer _Die Entstehung
des Judenthums_ 106]). The name means ‘Four cities’ (see on בְּאֵר
שֶׁבַע, page 326). The personification of אַרְבַּֽע as _heros eponymus_
(Joshua 14¹⁵ 15¹³ 21¹¹) has no better authority (as LXX shows)
than the mistake of a copyist (see Moore, _Judges_ 25). Jewish
Midrash gave several explanations of the numeral: amongst others
from the 4 patriarchs buried there――Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and
_Adam_ (_Bereshith Rabba_; _P. R. Eliezer_, 20, 36; Rashi)――the
last being inferred from הָאָדָם הַגָּדוֹל in Joshua 14¹⁵ (Jerome,
_Onomastica Sacra_, 84¹²). The addition of _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ אל עמק (LXX ἥ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ κοιλώματι)
seems a corruption of אבי ענק (Ball) or (with LXX) אֵם ע׳ in Joshua
15¹³ 21¹¹.――לספד] In Hebrew usage, as in that of all the cognate
languages, ספד means ‘to wail’; see Micah 1⁸.

* * * * *

=3‒7. The request for a burying-place.=――The negotiations fall into three well-defined stages; and while they illustrate the leisurely courtesy of the East in such matters, they cover a real reluctance of the Ḥittites to give Abraham a legal title to land by purchase (Gunkel). To his first request they respond with alacrity: the best of their sepulchres is at his disposal.――=3.= _arose_] from the sitting posture of the mourner (2 Samuel 12¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰).――_the sons of Ḥēth_] see on 10¹⁵.

Priestly-Code is the only document in which Ḥittites are
definitely located in the South of Canaan (compare 26³⁴ 36²);
and the historic accuracy of the statement is widely questioned.
It is conceivable that the Cappadocian Ḥittites (page 215) had
extended their empire over the whole country prior to the Hebrew
invasion. But taking into account that Priestly-Code appears to
use ‘Ḥēth’ interchangeably with ‘Canaan’ (compare 26³⁴ 27⁴⁶ 36²ᵇ
with 28¹ᐧ ⁸ 36²ᵃ), it may be more reasonable to hold that with
him ‘Ḥittite’ is a general designation of the pre-Israelite
inhabitants, as ‘Canaanite’ with Yahwist and ‘Amorite’ with
Elohist (compare Joshua 1⁴, Ezekiel 16³). It may, of course,
be urged that such an idea could not have arisen unless the
Ḥittites had once been in actual occupation of the land, and
that this assumption would best explain the all but constant
occurrence of the name in the lists of conquered peoples (see
page 284). At present, however, we have no proof that this was
the case; and a historic connexion between the northern Ḥittites
and the natives of Hebron remains problematical. Another
solution is propounded by Jastrow (_Encyclopædia Biblica_,
2094 ff.), viz., that Priestly-Code’s Ḥittites are an entirely
distinct stock, having nothing but the name in common with
either the ‘conventional’ Ḥittites of the enumerations or the
great empire of North Syria. See Driver 228 ff.

=4.= _a sojourner and dweller_] so Leviticus 25³⁵ᐧ ⁴⁷, Numbers 35¹⁵, and (in a religious sense) Psalms 39¹³ (compare 1 Peter 2¹¹). The technical distinction between גֵּר and תּוֹשָׁב is obscure (_v.i._).――=6.= _O if thou wouldst hear us_ (read לוּ שְׁמָעֵנוּ, _v.i._)]. The formula always introduces a suggestion preferable to that just advanced: compare ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ ¹⁵.――נְשֵׁיא אֱלֹהִים is more than ‘a mighty prince’ (as Psalms 36⁷ 68¹⁶ 104¹⁶ etc.); it means one deriving his patent of nobility straight from Almighty God.――_Not a man of us will withhold, etc._] therefore there is no need to buy. Behind their generosity there lurks an aversion to the idea of purchase.――=7.= The verse has almost the force of a refrain (compare 12). The first stage of the negotiations is concluded.

* * * * *

=4.= תּוֹשָׁב] Abraham Ibn Ezra הוא הגר היושב בארץ. According to
Bertholet (_Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu
den fremden_ 156‒166), the תּ׳ is simply a _gêr_ (see on 12¹⁰)
who resides fixedly in one place, without civil rights, and
perhaps incapable of holding land; see _Encyclopædia Biblica_,
4818.――=5.= לֵאמֹר לוֹ (so verse ¹⁴) is an abnormal combination,
doubtfully supported by Leviticus 11¹. The last word must be
joined to verse ⁶, and read either לֹא (as verse ¹¹: so _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX), or לוּ (as ¹³). The
last is the only form suitable in all four cases (⁵ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁵).
On לוּ with imperative, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 110 _e_.――=6.=
יִכְלֶה] = יִכְלָא, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _qq_.

* * * * *

=8‒12. The appeal to ‛Ephrôn.=――In his second speech Abraham shows his tact first by ignoring tacitly the suggestion of a free gift, and then by bringing the favourable public opinion just expressed to bear on the individual he wishes to reach.――=9.= _On the cave of Makpēlāh_, see at the close.――_in the end of his field_] Abraham apparently does not contemplate the purchase of the whole field: that was thrust on him by ‛Ephrôn’s offer.――_for full money_] see page 335 above (footnote). The same expression occurs in 1 Chronicles 21²²ᐧ ²⁴.――=10.= _entering the gate, etc._] _i.e._, his fellow-citizens, with the right of sitting in public assembly at the gate (compare יֹצְאֵי שׁ׳ ע׳, 34²⁴).

* * * * *

=8.= את־נפשכם] ‘in accordance with your [inner] mind.’ Compare
2 Kings 9¹⁵, 1 Samuel 20⁴: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 661
a.――=9.= הַמַּכְפֵּלָה] Elsewhere only 25⁹ 49³⁰ 50¹³; always with
article, showing that it retained an appellative sense. LXX (τὸ
σπήλαιον τὸ διπλοῦν), Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ
are probably right in deriving it from √ כפל, ‘double’
(see page 339).――=10.= לכל] לְ = ‘namely’ (see on 9¹⁰:
compare Brown-Driver-Briggs, 514 b); in ¹⁸ it is replaced
by בְּ = ‘among.’――=11.= For לֹא point לֻא: see on ⁵.――נתתי לך] LXX
omitted.――נְתַתִּיהָ is perfect of instant action: ‘I give it’;
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 _m_.

* * * * *

=13‒16. The purchase of the field.=――With the same tactful persistency, Abraham seizes on ‛Ephrôn’s expression of goodwill, while waving aside the idea of a gift.――=13.= _If only thou――pray hear me!_] The anakolouthon expresses the polite embarrassment of the speaker.――=14, 15.= ‛Ephrôn’s resistance being now broken down, he names his price with the affectation of generosity still observed in the East.¹――_land_ [worth] _400 shekels ... what is that...?_] The word for ‘land’ is better omitted with LXX; it is not the land but the money that ‛Ephrôn pretends to disparage.――=16.= Abraham immediately pays the sum asked, and clenches the bargain.――_current with the merchant_] The precious metals circulated in ingots, whose weight was approximately known, without, however, superseding the necessity for ‘weighing’ in important transactions (Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_² 197; Kennedy, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 420; _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, iii. 391 f.).²

¹ “The peasants will often say, when a person asks the price
of any thing which they have for sale, ‘Receive it as a
present’: this answer having become a common form of speech,
they know that advantage will not be taken of it; and
when desired again to name the price, they will do so, but
generally name a sum that is exhorbitant.” Lane, _An Account
of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵ ii.
13 f.

² Cuneiform records recently discovered in Cappadocia seem to
prove that shekels “stamped with a seal” were in use in the
time of Ḫammurabi. See Sayce, _The Contemporary Review_,
August, 1907, page 259.

* * * * *

=13.= For לוּ, LXX, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (? Peshiṭtå) read לִי,
mistaking the idiom.――=14.= לוּ: לֵאמֹר] as ⁵.――=15.= LXX (Οὐχί,
κύριε, ἀκήκοα γάρ) does not render אֶרֶץ, but the γάρ is odd.――ואת־]
better וְאַתָּ (LXX).――=16.= עבר לסחר] The only other instance of this
use of עבר (2 Kings 12⁵) is corrupt (read עֶרֶךְ, LXX).

* * * * *

=17‒20. Summary and conclusion.=――=17, 18= are in the form of a legal contract. Specifications of the dimensions and boundaries of a piece of land, and of the buildings, trees, etc., upon it, are common in ancient contracts of sale at all periods; compare _e.g._ _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iv. 7, 17, 33 (1st Babylonian dynasty), 101, and 161 (8th century B.C.), 223‒5 (6th century); the _Assouan Papyri_ (5th century); and especially the Petra Inscription cited in _Authority and Archæology_, page 135.

The traditional site of the Cave of Makpēlāh is on the East
side of the narrow valley in which Hebron lies, and just within
the modern city (_el-Ḫalīl_). The place is marked by a sacred
enclosure (the _Ḥarām_), within which Christians have seldom
been admitted. The South-east half is occupied by a mosque,
and six cenotaphs are shown: those of Abraham and Sarah in
the middle, of Isaac and Rebekah in the South-east (within the
mosque), and of Jacob and Leah in the North-west: that of Joseph
is just outside the Ḥarām on the North-west. The cave below
has never been examined in modern times, but is stated by its
guardians to be double. There is no reason to doubt that the
tradition as to the site has descended from biblical times;
and it is quite probable that the name Makpēlāh is derived
from the feature just referred to. That the name included the
field attached to the cave (verse ¹⁹ 49³⁰ 50¹³) is natural;
and even its extension to the adjacent district (see on ¹⁷)
is perhaps not a decisive objection.――For further particulars,
see Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, ii. 75 ff.;
Baedeker, _Palestine and Syria: handbook for travellers_³
141 f.; _Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly Statements_,
1882, 197‒214; Warren, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 197 ff.;
Driver, _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 228.

Whatever assumption we make as to the origin of this narrative,
Priestly-Code’s peculiar interest in the transaction is a
fact that has to be explained. The motive usually assigned is
that the purchase was a pledge of the possession of the land
by Abraham’s descendants; that view is, indeed, supported by
nothing in the passage (see Gunkel 241), but it is difficult
to imagine any other explanation. It is just conceivable that
the elaboration of the narrative was due to a dispute as to the
possession of the sacred place between Jews and Edomites in the
age of Priestly-Code. It has been held probable on independent
grounds that the Edomites had advanced as far north as Hebron
during the Exile (see Meyer _Die Entstehung des Judenthums_
106, 114), and from Nehemiah 11²⁵ we learn that a colony of Jews
settled there after the return. We can at least imagine that a
contest for the ownership of the holy place (like those which
have so largely determined the later history of Palestine) would
arise; and that such a situation would account for the emphasis
with which the Priestly jurists asserted the legal claim
of the Jewish community to the traditional burying-place of
its ancestors. So Gunkel¹ 251; _Students’ Old Testament_, 99:
otherwise Gunkel² 241 f.

* * * * *

=17.= קוּם] = ‘pass into permanent possession,’ as Leviticus 25³⁰ 27¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ (Priestly-Code).――אשר במכפלה] LXX ὃς ἦν ἐν τῷ διπλῷ σπηλαίῳ is nonsense; but Vulgate _in quo erat spelunca duplex_ suggests a reading אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ הַמּ׳ which (if it were better attested) would remove the difficulty of supposing that the name ‘double cave’ was applied to the district around.――לפני] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ על פני as in ¹⁹ = ‘in front of,’ perhaps ‘to the East of.’

* * * * *