Chapter XXVI (2)

_Analysis._――Fragments of Priestly-Code’s narrative can be
easily recognised in verses ²⁴ᐧ ²⁹, and probably also in ²⁸ᵇ.
The separation of Yahwist and Elohist is uncertain on account
of the close parallelism of the two documents and the absence of
material differences of representation to support or correct the
literary analysis. Most subsequent critics agree with Dillmann
that verse ¹ belongs to Elohist (see the notes), and ²⁻¹⁴ to
Yahwist: compare רוץ לקראת, ¹³ (18² 24¹⁷); עצמי ובשרי, ¹⁴ (2²³). In
¹⁶ ᶠᐧ Rachel appears to be introduced for the first time; hence
Dillmann regards Elohist as the main source of ¹⁵ (or ¹⁵ᵇ) ⁻³⁰,
excluding, however, verse ²⁶, where צְעִירָה and בְּכִירָה reveal the hand
of Yahwist: characteristic expressions of Elohist are משכרת, ¹⁵
(31⁷ᐧ ⁴¹); גדלה and קטנה, ¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸; יפת תאר וגו׳, ¹⁷. So Gunkel, Procksch
nearly. Ball and Cornill assign all from ¹⁹ onwards to Yahwist.

=1‒14. Jacob’s meeting with Rachel.=――=1.= _the sons of the East_] Since the goal of Jacob’s journey is in Yahwist, Ḥarran (28¹⁰ 29⁴) and in Priestly-Code, Paddan Aram (28⁷), it is to be presumed that this third variation comes from Elohist (Dillmann). Now the בְּנֵי קֶדֶם are everywhere else the tribes of the Syro-Arabian desert, and 31²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ certainly suggests that Laban’s home was not so distant from Canaan as Ḥarran (see on 24¹⁰ ᶠᐧ [city of Nahor]). It is possible, therefore, that in the tradition followed by Elohist, Laban was the representative of the nomadic Aramæans between Palestine and the Euphrates (see page 334 above).――=2.= The well _in the open country_ is evidently distinct, even in Yahwist, from the town-well of Ḥarran (compare 24¹³).――_For ... they used to water, etc._] To the end of verse ³ is an explanatory parenthesis describing the ordinary procedure. The custom of covering the well with a heavy stone is referred to by Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 490; Thomson, _The Land and the Book_, 589; Palmer, _The Desert of the Exodus_ ii. 319 f.; compare also Diodorus ii. 48, xix. 94.――=4.= Jacob accosts the shepherds, and learns that they come _from Ḥarran_. There is nothing else in the narrative to suggest the proximity of a great city; Laban is no city-dweller as in chapter 24, but a nomad sheikh; and the life depicted is everywhere that of the desert. All this confirms the impression that the topography of Elohist (verse ¹) has been modified by Yahwist in accordance with the theory that Ḥarran was the city of Nahor.――=5.= _the son of Nāḥôr_] see on 24¹⁵.――=7, 8.= Jacob is puzzled by the leisurely ways of these Eastern herdsmen, whom he ironically supposes to have ceased work for the day. He is soon to show them an example of how things should be done, careless of the conventions which they plead as an excuse.――=9.= _a shepherdess_] compare Exodus 2¹⁶. The trait is in accordance with the freedom still allowed to unmarried girls among the Bedouin. Burckhardt found it an established rule among the Arabs of Sinai that only girls should drive the cattle to pasture (_Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys_, i. 351).――=10.= The removal of the stone is a feat of strength which has been thought to belong to a more primitive legend, in which Jacob figured as a giant (Dillmann, Gunkel, al.): compare 32²⁶.――=11.= _wept aloud_] ‘after the demonstrative fashion of the Oriental’ (Bennett),――tears of joy at the happy termination of his journey.――=12.= _brother_] as in verse ¹⁵ 13⁸ 14¹⁴ (24⁴⁸?).――=13.= _kissed him repeatedly_ (Piel)] The effusive display of affection, perhaps not wholly disinterested, is characteristic of Laban (compare 24²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ).――=14.= _my bone and my flesh_] as 37²⁷, Judges 9², 2 Samuel 5¹ 19¹³ ᶠᐧ. It is an absurd suggestion that the exclamation is called forth by the recital of Jacob’s dealings with Esau, in which Laban recognised a spiritual affinity to himself! The phrase denotes literal consanguinity and nothing more.

* * * * *

=1.= The curious expression ‘lifted up his feet’ is found only
here.――LXX, Vulgate omit בְּנֵי; and LXX adds to the verse πρὸς
Λαβὰν κτλ., as 28⁵ᵇ.――=2.= והאבן גדלה can only mean ‘and the stone
was great’: it is perhaps better to omit the article (with
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_).――=3.= העדרים]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ הרעים, needlessly
substituted by Ball. So also verse ⁸, where _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ is supported by LXX.――=6.=
Before והנה, LXX inserts ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος (as verse ⁹). An
assimilating tendency reappears at the end of the verse; and
the variations have no critical value.――=9.= ב֫אה] perfect;
contrast the participle בא֫ה in verse ⁶.――רעה הוא] LXX + τὰ πρόβατα
τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῆς.――=10.= ויגל] with original _i_ in imperfect Qal
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 _p_).――=13.= שמע (LXX שֵׁם) = ‘the report
concerning,’ followed as always by genitive objective.――=14.=
חדש ימים] ‘a whole month’; see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 131 _d_.

* * * * *

=15‒30. Jacob’s double marriage.=――=15.= Laban’s character begins to unfold itself as that of a man ostensibly actuated by the most honourable motives, but at heart a selfish schemer, always ready with some plausible pretext for his nefarious conduct (see verses ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁶). His apparently generous offer proves a well-laid trap for Jacob, whose love for Rachel has not escaped the notice of his shrewd kinsman.――=16‒18a.= An explanatory parenthesis. The manner in which Rachel is introduced, as if for the first time, is thought to mark the transition to another source (Dillmann al.).――On the names _Lē’āh_ and _Rāḥēl_, _v.i._――=17.= Leah’s eyes were _weak_ (רַכּוֹת, LXX ἀσθενεῖς, Aquila, Symmachus ἁπαλοί): _i.e._ they lacked the lustrous brilliancy which is counted a feature of female beauty in the East.――=18b.= Jacob, not being in a position to pay the purchase price (_mōhar_) for so eligible a bride, offered seven years’ service instead. The custom was recognised by the ancient Arabs, and is still met with (Wellhausen _Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen_, 1893, 433 f.; Burckhardt _Travels in Syria and the Holy Land_, i. 297 f.).――=19.= The first cousin has still a prior (sometimes an exclusive) right to a girl’s hand among the Bedouin and in Egypt (Burckhardt, _Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys_, i. 113, 272; Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵ i. 199).――=22.= Laban proceeds to the execution of his long meditated _coup_. He himself arranges the marriage feast (contrast Judges 14¹⁰), inviting _all the men of the place_, with a view doubtless to his self-exculpation (verse ²⁶).――=23.= The substitution of Leah for Rachel was rendered possible by the custom of bringing the bride to the bridegroom veiled (24⁶⁵). To have thus got rid of the unprepossessing Leah for a handsome price, and to retain his nephew’s services for other seven years (verse ²⁷), was a master-stroke of policy in the eyes of a man like Laban.――=25.= Jacob’s surprise and indignation are vividly depicted.――=26.= _It is not so done_] compare 34⁷, 2 Samuel 13¹². Laban no doubt correctly states the local usage: the objection to giving a younger daughter before an older is natural, and prevails in certain countries (Lane, i. 201; compare _Jubilees_ xxviii., Judges 15¹ ᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 18¹⁷).――=27, 28.= _Fulfil the week of this one_] _i.e._, the usual seven days (Judges 14¹², Tobit 11¹⁹) of the wedding festival for Leah. For the bridegroom to break up the festivities would, of course, be a gross breach of decorum, and Jacob has no alternative but to fall in with Laban’s new proposal and accept Rachel on his terms.――=30.= Laban’s success is for the moment complete; but in the alienation of both his daughters, and their fidelity to Jacob at a critical time (31¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ), he suffered a just retribution for the unscrupulous assertion of his paternal rights.

* * * * *

In Jacob’s marriages it has been surmised that features survive
of that primitive type of marriage (called _beena_ marriage) in
which the husband becomes a member of the wife’s kin (William
Robertson Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 207).
Taken as a whole the narrative hardly bears out that view. It
is true that Jacob attaches himself to Laban’s family; but it
does not follow that he did not set up a house of his own. His
remaining with Laban was due to his inability to pay the _mōhar_
otherwise than in the way of personal service. As soon as
the contract expired he pleads his right to ‘provide for his
own house’ (30³⁰ Yahwist). On the other hand, Laban certainly
claimed the right to detain his daughters, and treated them as
still members of his family (31²⁶ᐧ ⁴³ Elohist); and it might be
imagined that the Elohistic tradition recognised the existence
of _beena_ marriage, at least among the Aramæans. But it is
doubtful if the claim is more than an extreme assertion of the
right of a powerful family to protect its female relatives even
after marriage.

* * * * *

=15.= הכי] see on 27³⁶.――מַשְׂכֹּרֶת] 31⁷ᐧ ⁴¹ (Elohist), Ruth 2¹²†;
שָׂכָר is common to Yahwist (30²⁸ᐧ ³² ᶠᐧ) and Elohist (31⁸, Exodus
2⁹).――=16.= גדל and קטן are in such connexions characteristic of
Elohist (verse ¹⁸ 42¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³⁴); see Holzinger _Einleitung
in den Hexateuch_ 104.――רָחֵל means ‘ewe’ (Arabic _raḫil_ =
she-lamb); hence by analogy לֵאָה has been explained by Arabic
_la’āt_, ‘bovine antelope’ (see Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der
deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 167; Stade
_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, i. 112
ff.), and the names are cited as evidence of a primitive Hebrew
totemism (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 254 f.).
Others prefer the derivation from Assyrian _li’at_, ‘lady’
(see Haupt, _Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften zu Göttingen_, 1883, 100).――=18.= ברחל] בְּ _pretii_
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 _p_); so ²⁰ᐧ ²⁵.――=20.= ויהיו――אתה]
LXXᴬ omits.――=21.= הב֫ה] _Milra‛_ before א (Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 69 _o_).――=24.= שפחה] better לְשִׁ׳ (_The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ); see verse ²⁹.――=26.= הצעירה]
distinctive of Yahwist; see verse ¹⁶.――=27.= וְנִתְּנָה is rather 3rd
feminine, singular, perfect, Niphal, than 1st plural cohortative
Qal (as most). _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,
Peshiṭtå, Vulgate read וְאֶתֵּן.――=28b.= לו לאשה] The double dative is
characteristic of Priestly-Code, to whom the whole clause may be
assigned along with ²⁹.――=30.= The second גּם has no sense, and
should probably be deleted (LXX, Vulgate).

* * * * *

XXIX. 31‒XXX. 24.
_The Birth of Jacob’s Children_
(Jehovist).

A difficult section, in which the origin of the tribes of Israel is represented in the fictitious form of a family history. The popular etymologies attached to the names are here extremely forced, and sometimes unintelligible; it is remarkable that, with hardly an exception, they are based on the rivalry between Jacob’s two wives. (The names are bestowed by the mothers, as is generally the case in Jehovist.) How far genuine elements of tradition are embodied in such a narrative is a question which it is obviously impossible to answer with certainty. We cannot be wrong in attributing historical significance to the distinction between the tribes whose descent was traced to Jacob’s wives and those regarded as sons of concubines; though we are ignorant of the actual circumstances on which the classification depends. It is also certain that there is a solid basis for the grouping of the chief tribes under the names of Leah and Rachel, representing perhaps an older and a later settlement of Hebrews in Palestine (Stade _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, i. 112 f.). The fact that all the children except Benjamin are born in Mesopotamia may signify that the leading tribal divisions existed before the occupation of Canaan; but the principle certainly cannot be applied in detail, and the nature of the record forbids the attempt to discover in it reliable data for the history of the tribes. (For a conspectus of various theories, see Luther, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 36 ff.; compare Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 291 f., 509 ff.)

The _sources_ are Yahwist and Elohist, with occasional clauses
from Priestly-Code.――29³¹⁻³⁵ is wholly from Yahwist (יהוה,
³¹ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³³ᐧ ³⁵; עֲקָרָה, ³¹; הַפַּעַם, ³⁴ᐧ ³⁵), with the possible exception
of ³²ᵇ{γ}.――30¹⁻⁸ is mainly Elohist (אלהים, ²ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸; אָמָה, ³ᵃ);
but ³ᵃ{β} reminds us of Yahwist (16²), ⁴ᵃ is assigned to
Priestly-Code (שִׁפְחָה and compare 16³), and in ⁷ שִׁפְחָה must
be either from Yahwist (Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel) or
Priestly-Code (Holzinger).――30⁹⁻¹³ is again mostly from
Yahwist (שִׁפְחָה, ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²; compare ⁹ᵃ with 29³¹ 30¹ 29³⁵). ⁹ᵇ is
Priestly-Code.――30¹⁴⁻²⁴ presents a very mixed text, whose
elements are difficult to disentangle; note the double
etymologies in ¹⁸ᐧ (compare ¹⁶) ²⁰ᐧ ²³ ᶠᐧ The hand of Elohist
clearly appears in ¹⁷ᵃᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{αβ}ᐧ ²²ᵇ{α}ᐧ (²²ᵃ may be
from Priestly-Code: compare 8¹) ²³. Hence the parallels
¹⁴⁻¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{γ}ᐧ ²⁴ must be assigned to Yahwist, who is further
characterised, according to Gunkel, by the numeration of the
sons (¹⁷ᵇᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{γ}). ²¹ is interpolated.

=31‒35. The sons of Leah.=――=31.= _hated_] The rendering is too strong. שְׂנוּאָה is almost a technical term for the less favoured of two wives (Deuteronomy 21¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ); where the two are sisters the rivalry is naturally most acute, hence this practice is forbidden by the later law (Leviticus 18¹⁸). The belief that Yahwe takes the part of the unfortunate wife and rewards her with children, belongs to the strongly marked family religion of Israel (1 Samuel 1² ᶠᶠᐧ).――=32.= _Rĕ’ûbēn_] The only plausible explanation of the etymology is that it is based on the form רְאוּבֵל (_v.i._) = רְאוּ־בַעַל, and that יהוה is substituted for the divine name בַּֽעַל. Most commentaries suppose that the writer resolves ראובן into רָאָ[ה] בְ[עָ]נְ[יִי]; but that is too extravagant for even a Hebrew etymologist.――=33.= _Šim‛ôn_] derived from שָׁמַע, ‘hear,’ expressing precisely the same idea as Rĕ’ûbēn.――=34.= _Lēvî_, as the third son, is explained by a verb for ‘adhere’ (Niphal √ לוה), on the principle that a threefold cord is not easily broken.――=35.= _Yĕhûdāh_] connected with a word meaning ‘praise’ (הוֹדָה: compare imperfect יְהוֹדֶה, Nehemiah 11¹⁷). So in 49⁸.

* * * * *

=32.= רְאוּבֵן] LXX Ῥουβην, etc.; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word);
Josephus Ῥουβηλος. The origin of the name has given rise to an
extraordinary number of conjectures (see Hogg, _Encyclopædia
Biblica_, 4091 ff.). We seem driven to the conclusion that the
original form (that on which the etymology is based: _v.s._)
was ראובל. In that form the name has been connected with Arabic
_ri’bāl_, ‘lion,’ or ‘wolf,’ in which case Reuben might have to
be added to the possibly totemistic names of the Old Testament.
Another plausible suggestion is that the word is softened from
רְעוּ־בַעַל a theophorous compound after the analogy of רְעוּאֵל――=33.=
After בֵּן, LXX inserts שֵׁנִי, which may be correct (compare
30⁷ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁴).――שִׁמְעוֹן] Another supposed animal name, from
Arabic _sim‛_, a cross between the wolf and hyæna (see William
Robertson Smith _The Journal of Philology_ ix. 80). Ewald
regarded it as a diminutive of יִשְׁמָעֵאל, and similarly recently
Cheyne (_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 375).――=34.=
קרא] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ,
Peshiṭtå קָֽרְאָה; LXXᴬ ἐκλήθη.――לֵוִי] Wellhausen’s conjecture that
this is the gentilic of לֵאָה is widely accepted (Stade, William
Robertson Smith, Nöldeke, Meyer, al.). Hommel, on the other
hand, compares South Arabian _lavi’u_ = ‘priest,’ Levi being
the priestly tribe (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated
by the Monuments_, 278 f.; compare Benzinger _Hebräische
Archäologie_² 56).

* * * * *

=XXX. 1‒8. Rachel’s adopted sons.=――=1, 2.= A passionate scene, showing how Rachel was driven by jealousy of her sister to yield her place to her maid. Her petulant behaviour recalls that of Sarah (16⁵), but Jacob is less patient than Abraham.――_Am I in God’s stead?_] So 50¹⁹, compare 2 Kings 5⁷.――=3.= _bear upon my knees_] An allusion to a primitive ceremony of adoption, which here simply means that Bilhah’s children will be acknowledged by Rachel as her own.――_obtain children by her_] see on 16².――=6.= The putative mother names the adopted child.――_Dân_] The etymology here given (√ דִּין, ‘judge’) is very probably correct, the form being an abbreviated theophorous name (compare, _Abi-dan_, Assyrian _Asshur-dan_, etc.).――=8.= _wrestlings of God I have wrestled_] The words are very obscure (see Cheyne 376 ff.). Either ‘I have had “a veritable God’s bout” (Ball) with my sister,’ or (less probably) ‘I have wrestled with God (in prayer) like my sister.’――_and have overcome_] This seems to imply that Leah had only one son at the time (Gunkel); and there is nothing to prevent the supposition that the concubinage of Bilhah followed immediately on the birth of Reuben.

On the ceremony referred to, see Stade _Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, vi. 143 ff.; Holzinger 196;
Driver 274. Its origin is traced to a widespread custom,
according to which, in lawful marriage, the child is actually
brought forth on the father’s knees (compare Job 3¹²; _Iliad_
ix. 455 f.; _Odyssey_ xix. 401 ff.); then it became a symbol
of the legitimisation of a natural child, and finally a form
of adoption generally (50²³). Gunkel, however, thinks the rite
originated in cases like the present (the slave being delivered
on the knees of her mistress), and was afterwards transferred to
male adoption.

* * * * *

=3.= בִּלְהָה] (of unknown etymology) is probably to be connected
with the Ḥorite clan בִּלהָן (36²⁷).――=6.= דָּנַנִּי] On the form, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 26 _g_.――=7aβb= must be assigned to Yahwist,
on account of שׁפחה and בן שני (note also the expression of subject
after _second_ verb).――=8.= נפתולי] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. The verb has
nowhere else the sense of ‘wrestle,’ but means primarily to
‘twist’ (compare Proverbs 8⁸, Job 5¹³, Psalms 18²⁷†); hence נַפְתָּלִי
might be the ‘tortuous,’ ‘cunning’ one (Brown-Driver-Briggs).
But a more plausible etymology derives it from a hypothetical
_Naphtal_ (from נֶפֶת [Joshua 17¹¹†,――if correctly vocalised],
usually taken to mean ‘height’: compare כַּרְמֶל from כֶּרֶם), denoting
the northern highlands West of the Upper Jordan (Meyer _Die
Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 539).――The Versions render
the verb more or less paraphrastically, and give no help to the
elucidation of the sense.

* * * * *

=9‒13. Leah’s adopted sons.=――=11.= _Gad_ is the name of an Aramæan and Phœnician god of Luck (Τύχη), mentioned in Isaiah 65¹¹ (see _Cambridge Bible_, _ad loc._; compare Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins_ 76 ff. 159 ff.). There is no difficulty in supposing that a hybrid tribe like Gad traced its ancestry to this deity, and was named after him; though, of course, no such idea is expressed in the text. In Leah’s exclamation the word is used appellatively: _With luck!_ (_v.i._). It is probable, however, that at an earlier time it was current in the sense ‘With Gad’s help’ (Ball, Gunkel).――=13.= The name _’Āšēr_ naturally suggested to Hebrew writers a word for happiness; hence the two etymologies: בְּאָשְׁרִי ‘_In my happiness_,’ and אִשְּׁרוּנִי ‘(women) _count me happy_.’ It is possible that the name is historically related to the Canaanite goddess _’Ašērāh_ (Ball, Holzinger), as Gad is to the Aramæan deity. _Aser_ appears in Egyptian monuments as the name of a district in North-west Palestine as early as Seti and Ramses II. (Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 236 ff.).

* * * * *

=10.= Both here and verse ¹² LXX gives a much fuller text.――=11.=
בְּגד] So _Kethîb_, LXX Ἐν τύχῃ, Vulgate _Feliciter_. But _Qrê_
בָּא גָ֑ד is ancient, being presupposed by Syrian (‡ Syriac phrase)
and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ. These Versions render ‘Good fortune
comes’ (so Rashi): another translation, suggested by 49¹⁹, is
‘A troop (גְּדוּד) comes’ (Abraham Ibn Ezra).

=13.= אשֶׁר is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον.――אִשְּׁרוּנִי] perfect of confidence
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 _n_). It is to be noted that perfects
greatly preponderate in Elohist’s etymologies, and imperfects
in those of Yahwist; the two exceptions (29³² ᶠᐧ) may be only
apparent, and due to the absence of definite stylistic criteria.

* * * * *

=14‒24. The later children.=――=14‒16.= The incident of the love-apples is a piece of folklore, adopted with reserve by the writer (Yahwist), and so curtailed as to be shorn of its original significance. The story must have gone on to tell how Rachel partook of the fruit and in consequence became pregnant, while Leah also conceived through the restoration of her marriage rights (see Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 38 f.). How much of this stood in Yahwist and has been suppressed in the history of the text we cannot say; we here read just what is necessary to explain the name of Leah’s child.――=14.= דּוּדָאִים (_v.i._) is the round, greenish-yellow, plum-like fruit of _mandragora vernalis_, which in Syria ripens in May――_the days of wheat harvest_――and is still eagerly sought in the East to promote conception (see Tuch’s note, 385 ff.). Reuben is named, probably as the only child old enough to follow the reapers in the field (compare 2 Kings 4¹⁸). The agricultural background shows that the episode is out of place in its present nomadic setting.――=15.= _he shall lie with thee to-night_] Jacob, therefore, had wrongly withheld from Leah her conjugal rights (עוֹנָה, Exodus 21¹⁰).――=16.= _I have hired thee_ (שָׂכֹר שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ)] Obviously an anticipation of Yahwist’s lost etymology of Issachar.――=18.= Elohist’s interpretation of יִשָּׂשׂכָר, which is, of course, independent of the story of the mandrakes. The name is resolved either into אישׁ שָׂכָר, ‘man of hire,’ or into יֵשׁ שָׂכָר, ‘there is a reward’ (Tuch, Dillmann); or else the י and quiescent ש are simply dropped (Gunkel): _v.i._――=20.= Two etymologies of _Zĕbûlûn_; the first from Elohist (אלהים), and the second, therefore, from Yahwist: both are somewhat obscure (_v.i._).――=21.= _Dînāh_] The absence of an etymology, and the fact that Dinah is excluded from the enumeration of 32²³, make it probable that the verse is interpolated with a view to chapter 34.――=22‒24.= At last Rachel bears a son, long hoped for and therefore marked out for a brilliant destiny――_Yôsēph._――=23b, 24b.= Elohist derives the name from אָסַף, ‘take away’; Yahwist more naturally from יָסַף, ‘add’: _May Yahwe add to me another son!_

* * * * *

=14.= דּוּדָאִים (Canticles 7¹⁴†)] LXX μῆλα μανδραγόρου, Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ יברוחין (= Arabic _yabrūh_,
explained to be the _root_ of the plant). The singular is
דּוּדַי, from the same √ as דּוֹד, ‘lover,’ and דּוֹדִים ‘love’; and very
probably associated with the love-god דודה (_Meša_, 1. 12). Cheyne
plausibly suggests (379) that this deity was worshipped by the
Reubenites; hence Reuben is the finder of the apples.――=15.= לָהּ]
LXX לֵאָה, Peshiṭtå לה לאה.――וְלָקַחַת (infinitive)] Driver _A Treatise
on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 204; but וְלָקַחַתְּ (perfect
future) would be easier.――=16.= תָּבוֹא] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_, LXX + הַלַּיְלָה.――בַּֽלַּיְלָה הוּא] see on 19³³.――=17a= is
from Elohist; but =17b= probably from Yahwist, on account of the
numeral.――=18aβ=, while correctly expressing the idea of Elohist,
contains the word שִׁפְחָה, which Elohist avoids; and is therefore
probably redactional.――=18b.= יִשָּׂשכָר] So Ben Asher regularly,
with _Qrê perpetuum_ יִשָּׂכָר: B. Naphtali has יִשְׂשָׂכָר, or יִשְׁשָׂכָר (see
Baer-Delitzsch _Liber Genesis_ 84 f.; Ginsburg, _Introduction of
the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible_ 250 ff.).
The duplication of the ש cannot be disposed of as a Massoretic
caprice, and is most naturally explained by the assumption
that two components were recognised, of which the first was אִישׁ
(Wellhausen _Der Text der Bücher Samuelis_, page v). For the
second component Wellhausen refers to the שָׂכָר of 1 Chronicles
11³⁵ 26⁴; Ball compares an Egyptian deity _Sokar_; while Meyer
(_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 536) is satisfied
with the interpretation ‘man of hire,’ corresponding to the
description of the tribe in Genesis 49¹⁴ ᶠᐧ.――=20.= זֶבֶד, זְבָדַנִי] The
√ (except in proper names) is not found in the Old Testament,
but is explained by Aramaic (compare (‡ Syriac word), ‘dowry’),
and is common in Palmer proper names (Brown-Driver-Briggs,
_s.v._). The interchange of ל and ד is probably dialectic
(compare _dacrima_ = _lacrima_), and hardly justifies Cheyne’s
view that the name in the writer’s mind was זַבְדּוֹן] (_l.c._
380).――יזבלני] Another ἅπαξ λεγόμενον apparently connected with זְבֻל,
poetical for ‘abode’: Versions ‘dwell with’ (as English Version).
This gives a good enough sense here, and is perhaps supported
by 49¹³ (see on the verse); but זְבֻלוּן remains without any natural
explanation. See Hogg, in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 5385 ff.
Meyer (538) derives it from the personal name זְבֻל (Judges
9²⁸).――=21= end] LXX + ותעמד מלדת (as 29³⁵).――=24.= יוֹסֵף] Probably a
contraction of יוסף־אל, though the _Yšp’r_ of the list of Thothmes
III. (Number 78) is less confidently identified with Joseph
than the companion _Y‛ḳb’r_ with Jacob (compare page 360
above; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 262;
Spiegelberg, _Randglossen_, 13 f.; Müller, _Mittheilungen der
vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1907, i. 23, and _Journal of
Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, 1909, 31). But _Yašupili_
has been found in contract tablets of the Ḥammurabi period
along with _Yaḳub-ili_ (Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition
as illustrated by the Monuments_, 96 [from Sayce]).

* * * * *

XXX. 25‒43.
_Jacob enriched at Laban’s Expense_
(Jehovist).

Jacob, having accomplished his 14 years of service for his wives, is now in a position to dictate terms to Laban, who, in his eagerness to keep him, invites him to name the price for which he will remain with him. It is interesting to contrast the relative attitudes of the two men with their bearing in ¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ Jacob here shows a decision of purpose which causes Laban to adopt an obsequious tone very unlike his former easy assurance. He is overjoyed to find his nephew’s demands so reasonable; and correspondingly mortified (31²) when he discovers how completely he has been deceived by Jacob’s apparent moderation.――The story, as Gunkel reminds us, was originally told to shepherds, who would follow with keen interest the various tricks of their craft which Jacob so successfully applies (and of which he was probably regarded as the inventor). To more refined readers these details were irksome; hence the abridged and somewhat unintelligible form in which the narrative stands.

_Sources._――In the earlier verses (²⁵⁻³¹) several duplicates
show the composition of Yahwist and Elohist: ²⁵ ∥ ²⁶ᵃ; ²⁶ᵇ ∥ ²⁹ᵃ;
²⁸ ∥ ³¹ᵃ; ויאמר in ²⁷ and ²⁸; אתה ידעת, ²⁶ᵇ and ²⁹ᵃ. Here ²⁵ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ
²⁹⁻³¹ are from Yahwist (יהוה, ²⁷ᐧ ³⁰; מָצָא חֵן, ²⁷; בִּגְלַל ²⁷), and ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸
from Elohist,――each narrative being nearly complete (compare
Dillmann, Gunkel, Procksch).――In ³²⁻³⁶ it is quite possible, in
spite of the scepticism of Dillmann and others, to distinguish
two conceptions of Jacob’s reward (Wellhausen _Die Composition
des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments_² 40 ff.). (a) In the first, Jacob is that very day
to take out from Laban’s flock all abnormally coloured animals:
_that_ is to be his hire (³²). On the morrow (or in time to
come), Laban may inspect Jacob’s flock: if he find in it any
normally coloured animals, Jacob is at once convicted of fraud
³³. This account belongs to Elohist (compare שְׂכָרִי, ³², with ²⁸),
though it is doubtful if to the same stratum of Elohist as
31⁷⁻¹². (b) In the other, Laban himself separates the flocks,
leaving the _normally_ coloured sheep and goats in Jacob’s
keeping, and removing the others to a distance of three days’
journey, under the charge of his sons (³²ᵃ{β} [from הָסֵר ³⁵ ᶠᐧ).
Thus Jacob receives for the present nothing at all (³¹ Yahwist).
The narrative must have gone on to explain that his hire was
to consist of any variegated animals appearing in the normally
coloured flock now left in his charge (³⁶ᵇ); Laban’s precautions
aim at securing that these shall be few or none. Hence we
obtain for Yahwist ³²ᵃ{β}ᐧ ³⁵ᐧ ³⁶, and for Elohist ³²ᵃ{αδ}ᵇᐧ ³³ᐧ
³⁴.――³⁷⁻⁴⁵ is the natural continuation of Yahwist’s account,
but with numerous insertions, which may be either from variants
or glosses.――The text here is very confused, and LXX has many
variations.

=25‒31. Jacob proposes to provide for his own house.=――A preliminary parley, in which both parties feel their way to an understanding.――=26= (Elohist). _thou knowest with what kind of service, etc._] Elohist always lays stress on Jacob’s rectitude (compare ³³).――=27= (Yahwist). _If I have found favour, etc._] followed by aposiopesis, as 18³ 23¹³.――Laban continues: _I have taken omens_ (נִחַשְׁתִּי; compare 44⁵ᐧ ¹⁵, 1 Kings 20³³) _and_ (found that) _Yahwe has blessed me, etc._]――an abject plea for Jacob’s remaining with him.――=28= (Elohist). Laban surrenders at once (the answer is in verse ³²), whereas――=29,30= in Yahwist, Jacob presses for a discharge: his service has been of immense value to Laban, but he has a family to consider.――=31.= _anything at all_] See introductory note above.――_this thing_] which I am about to mention.――_resume herding thy flock_] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 120 _g_.

* * * * *

=26.= ואת־ילדי] Not necessarily a gloss; the children might
fairly be considered included in Jacob’s wages.――=27.= On נִחַשׁ,
_verb_ 44⁵.――בגללך] LXX τῇ σῇ εἰσόδῳ, Armenian _in pede tuo_ =
לרגלך (³⁰).――=28.= LXX, Vulgate omit ויאמר, smoothing over the
transition from Yahwist to Elohist.――נקבה] ‘designate’ (literally
‘prick [off]’): compare the use of Niphal in Numbers 1¹⁷,
1 Chronicles 16⁴¹ etc.――=29.= את אשר] ‘the manner in which’
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 157 _c_); but Peshiṭtå reads as in verse
²⁶.――=30.= לרגלי] contrasted with לפני above. Prosperity has
followed Jacob ‘wherever he went’ (compare Isaiah 41², Job 18¹¹
etc.). It is unnecessary to emend בִּגְלָלִי (Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ,
Cheyne).――=31.= אשמר] (LXX, Peshiṭtå prefix וְ) must be deleted on
account of its awkward position.

* * * * *

=32‒36. The new contract.=――The point in both narratives is that parti-coloured animals form a very small proportion of a flock, the Syrian sheep being nearly all white (Canticles 4² 6⁶, Daniel 7⁹) and the goats black or brown (Canticles 4¹ᵇ). In Elohist, Jacob simply asks this small share as his payment.――=32.= _and it shall be my hire_] The rendering ‘and of this sort shall be my hire’ (in future), is merely a violent attempt to obliterate the difference between Yahwist and Elohist.――=33.= _my righteousness shall testify against me_] _i.e._, the proposal is so transparently fair that Jacob will be as it were automatically convicted of theft if he violates the compact. צְדָקָה, ‘unimpeachable conduct,’ here means ‘fair dealing,’ ‘honesty.’――_in time to come_] whenever Laban chooses to make an investigation.――=35, 36= (Yahwist). _And he_ (Laban, see ³²ᵃ{β}) _removed that day, etc._] Laban’s motive in removing the variegated animals to a distance of three days’ journey is obvious; he wishes to reduce to a minimum the chance that any such animals should henceforth be born amongst those now entrusted to Jacob.――_white_] Hebrew _lābān_, perhaps a play on Laban’s name.

* * * * *

=32.= אעבר, הסר] To get rid of the change of person (and
the division of sources) many construe the latter as
infinitive absolute (‘removing’); but the only natural
rendering is imperative (compare ³⁵). LXX has imperative both
times.――כל־שה――עזים] LXX πᾶν πρόβατον φαιὸν ἐν τοῖς ἀρνάσιν καὶ
πᾶν διάραντον λελυκὸν καὶ λευκὸν ἐν ταῖς αἰξίν, a smoother
and therefore less original text. The Hebrew seems overloaded;
Gunkel strikes out וְכָל־שֶׂה־חוּם בַּֽכְּשָׂבִים, and the corresponding clauses
in ³³ᐧ ³⁵.――נָקֹד וְטָלוּא] ‘speckled and spotted,’ ‘parti-coloured.’ The
words are practically synonymous, both being distinct from עָקֹד
(³⁵ᐧ ³⁹ᐧ ⁴⁰ 31⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²†), which means ‘striped.’ If there be a
difference, נ׳ (³⁵ᐧ ³⁹ 31⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²†) suggests smaller spots than
ט׳ (compare Ezekiel 16¹⁶, Joshua 9⁵, the only places where the
√ occurs outside this passage).――חוּם] only in this chapter: =
‘black’ or ‘dark-brown.’――=33.= ענה ב] ‘testify against’ (see
1 Samuel 12³, 2 Samuel 1¹⁶, Isaiah 3⁹). An easier sense would
be obtained if we could translate ‘witness _for_,’ but there
seem to be no examples of that usage. Driver’s interpretation:
‘there will be nothing whatever to allege against my honesty,’
seems, on the other hand, too subtle.――ביום מחר] ‘in time to
come’ (Exodus 13¹⁴, Deuteronomy 6²⁰). If we could insist on
the literal rendering ‘on the morrow,’ the proof of divergence
between Yahwist and Elohist would be strengthened, but the sense
is less suitable.――כי――לפניך] LXX ὅτι ἐστὶν ὁ μισθός μου ἐνώπιόν
σου.――=36.= בינו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
LXX בינם.――_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ follows ³⁶
with a long addition based on 31¹¹⁻¹³.

* * * * *

=37‒43. Jacob’s Stratagem.=――The main account is from Yahwist, to whose narrative the artifice is essential, but there are many interpolations.――=37‒39.= The first step is to work on the imagination of the females by rods of poplar, etc., peeled in such a way as to show patches of white, and placed in the drinking troughs.――=38, 39.= Removing glosses, Yahwist’s account reads: _And he placed the rods which he had peeled in the runnels ... in front of the flock, and they bred when they came to drink.... And the flock brought forth streaked, speckled, and spotted_ (young).

The physiological law involved is said to be well established
(Driver), and was acted on by ancient cattle breeders (see the
list of authorities in Bochart, _Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum
opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ_ ii. chapter 49; and compare
Jerome _Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_ _ad
loc._). The full representation seems to be that the ewes saw
the reflexion of the rams in the water, blended with the image
of the parti-coloured rods, and were deceived into thinking they
were coupled with parti-coloured males (Jerome, Wellhausen _Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments_² 41).

* * * * *

=37.= לבנה (Hosea 4¹³†)] the ‘white’ tree; according to some,
_populus alba_ (Dillmann al.), but very probably _styrax
officinalis_ (Arabic _lubnaʸ_, so called from its exuding a
_milk_-like gum), (Gesenius, Delitzsch, Driver, al.).――לוּז†]
= Aramaic לוּזָא, ‘almond tree.’――עַרְמוֹן (Ezekiel 31⁸†)] _platanus
orientalis_ (Assyrian _irmeânu_).――Instead of the last three
words LXX has ἐφαίνετο δὲ ἐπὶ ταῖς ῥάβδοις τὸ λευκόν, ὃ ἐλέπισεν
ποικίλον,――a very sensible comment, but hardly original. The
whole clause ‘(with) a laying bare (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 _r_)
of the white on the rods,’ is superfluous, and certainly looks
like a variant.――בהן] plural; מקל being collective.――=38 ff.= The
text of Yahwist, as sifted by Wellhausen, commends itself by its
lucidity and continuity. It is impossible to tell whether the
interpolated words are variants from another source (Elohist?)
or explanatory glosses.――=38.= רַהַט (verse ⁴¹, Exodus 2¹⁶†)]
either ‘trough,’ from Arabic _rahaṭa_, ‘be collected,’ or
‘runnel,’ from Aramaic רהט = רוּץ (see Nöldeke _Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie_, xii. 187).――שִׁקֲתוֹת] construction plural of שֹׁקֶת,
24²†.――The words בשקתות――לשתות divorce לנכח הצאן from its connexion,
and must be omitted from the text of Yahwist. LXX appears to
have changed הצאן ויחמנה to המקלֹות, rendering thus (³⁸ᵇ) ἵνα ὡς ἂν
ἔλθωσιν τὰ πρόβατα πιεῖν, ἐνώπιον τῶν ῥάβδων [καὶ] ἐλθόντων
αὐτῶν εἰς τὸ πιεῖν, ἐνκισσήσωσιν (³⁹) τὰ πρόβατα――וַיֵּחַמְנָה] On
the unusual preference of 3rd person feminine plural, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 47 _k_.――=39a= is a doublet to the last
three words of ³⁸.――ויחמו] _ib._ § 69 _f_; _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויחמנה.

* * * * *

=40.= _And (these) lambs Jacob set apart ... and made separate flocks for himself and did not add them to Laban’s stock_ (Wellhausen).――=41, 42.= A further refinement: Jacob employed his device only in the case of the sturdy animals, letting the weakly ones gender freely. The difference corresponds to a difference of breeding-time (_v.i._). The consequence is that Jacob’s stock is hardy and Laban’s delicate.

* * * * *

=40.= ‘He set the faces of the flock towards a (_sic_) streaked
and every dark one in Laban’s flock,’ is an imperfect text,
and an impossible statement in Yahwist, where Laban’s cattle
are three days distant. LXX vainly tries to make sense by
omitting לָבָן, and rendering פְּנֵי = ἐναντίον, and אֶל־עָקֹד = κριὸν (אַיִל!)
διάλευκον.――=41.= בּכל־] LXX, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, supply
עֵת.――=42.= הקשרים, העטפים] LXX ἐπίσημα, ἄσημα; but Symmachus
(paraphrasing) πρώϊμα ὄψιμα, and similarly Aquila, Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ. It is the fact that the stronger sheep
conceived in summer and yeaned in winter, while the weaker
conceived in autumn and yeaned in the spring: Pliny, _Naturalis
Historia_, viii. 187 (‘postea concepti invalidi’).

* * * * *

XXXI. 1‒XXXII. 1.
_Jacob’s Flight from Laban: their friendly Parting_
(Yahwist, Elohist).

Jacob perceives from the altered demeanour of Laban and his sons that he has outstayed his welcome (¹ᐧ ²); and, after consultation with his wives, resolves on a secret flight (³⁻²¹). Laban pursues, and overtakes him at Mt. Gilead (²²⁻²⁵), where, after a fierce altercation (²⁶⁻⁴³), they enter into a treaty of peace (from which Gilead receives its name), and separate with many demonstrations of goodwill (31⁴⁴‒32¹).

_Sources._――¹⁻¹⁶ is an almost homogeneous (though perhaps
not continuous) excerpt from Elohist: אלהים, ⁷ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁶; מַשְׂכֹּרָת,
⁷ (compare ⁴¹ 29¹⁵); מֹנִים, ⁷ (⁴¹); מַצֵבָה ¹³; the revelation by
dream, ¹⁰ ᶠᐧ; the summons and answer, ¹¹ (22¹ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹¹); and the
explanation of Jacob’s wealth ⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ; compare also the reference
to 28²⁰⁻²². ¹ and ³ are from a Yahwist parallel: יהוה, ³; מוֹלַדְתְּךָ, ³;
the ‘sons’ of Laban, ¹ (compare 30³⁵).――In ¹⁷⁻⁵⁴ Elohist still
preponderates, though Yahwist is more largely represented than
some critics (Dillmann, Kuenen, Kautzsch-Socin, Driver, al.)
allow. The detailed analysis is here very intricate, and will
be best dealt with under the several sections.――¹⁸ (except the
first four words) is the only extract from Priestly-Code.

=1‒16. Preparations for flight.=――=1, 3= (Yahwist). The jealousy of Laban’s sons corresponds to the dark looks of Laban himself in Elohist (verse ²); the divine communication is a feature of both narratives (verse ¹³).――=4‒13.= Jacob vindicates his conduct towards Laban, and sets forth the reasons for his projected flight. The motive of the speech is not purely literary, affording the writer an opportunity to express his belief in Jacob’s righteousness (Gunkel); it is first of all an appeal to the wives to accompany him: compare the question to Rebekah in 24⁵⁸.――=6.= _Ye yourselves know, etc._] Compare 30²⁶ᐧ ²⁹. But to repeat the protestation after the work of the last six years implies great hardihood on Jacob’s part; and rather suggests that the passage belongs to a stratum of Elohist which said nothing about his tricks with the flock.――=7.= _changed my wages ten times_] Perhaps a round number, not to be taken literally.――=8.= A sample of Laban’s tergiversations, and their frustration by God’s providence.――=9.= _And so God has taken away, etc._] The hand of God has been so manifest that Laban’s displeasure is altogether unreasonable.――=10‒12.= Jacob receives through a dream the explanation of the singular good fortune that has attended him.

In the text verses ¹⁰⁻¹² form part of the same revelation
as that in which Jacob is commanded to depart (¹³). But, as
Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen
Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 39) asks, “How could two such
dissimilar revelations be coupled together in this way?” Verse
¹⁰ recalls an incident of the past, while ¹³ is in the sphere of
the present: moreover, ‘I am the God of Bethel’ must surely open
the communication. Wellhausen solves the difficulty by removing
¹⁰ and ¹² (assigning them to an unknown source), and leaving
¹¹ as the introduction to ¹³: similarly Dillmann, Holzinger,
_Oxford Hexateuch_, al. Gunkel supposes parts of Jacob’s speech
to have been omitted between ⁹ and ¹⁰ and between ¹² and ¹³.――It
is scarcely possible to recover the original sense of the
fragment. If the dream had preceded the negotiations with Laban,
it might have been a hint to Jacob of the kind of animals he was
to ask as his hire (Strack, Gunkel); but that is excluded by ¹²ᵇ;
and, besides, in verse ⁸ it is Laban who fixes the terms of the
contract. We can only understand it vaguely as an assurance to
Jacob that against all natural expectations the transaction will
be overruled to his advantage.

* * * * *

=2.= איננו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אינם (so
verse ⁵).――=6.= אתנה] only here and thrice in Ezekiel (compare
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 32 _i_).――=7.= והחלף] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויחלף.――עשרת מנִים] LXX (‘nescio qua
opinione ducti’ [Jerome]) τῶν δέκα ἀμνῶν (so ⁴¹――probably a
transliteration, afterwards made into a Greek word). מֹנִים (⁴¹†)
from √ מנה, ‘count,’ for the usual פְּעָמִים.――אלהים] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ יהוה (so ⁹ᐧ ¹⁶ᵃ).――=9.= את־]
LXX אָת־כָּל־.――אביכם] for אביכן (_The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 _o_.

* * * * *

=13.= _I am the God of Bethel_] links this theophany with that of 28¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, and is (in Elohist) the first assurance given to Jacob that his vow (28²⁰⁻²²) had been accepted.――=14‒16.= Jacob’s appeal has been addressed to willing ears: his wives are already alienated from their father, and eagerly espouse their husband’s cause.――=14b.= Compare 2 Samuel 20¹, 1 Kings 12¹⁶.――=15.= _has sold us_] like slaves.――_consumed our money_] _i.e._, the price paid for us (compare Exodus 21³⁵). The complaint implies that it was considered a mark of meanness for a man to keep the _mōhar_ for himself instead of giving it to his daughters. A similar change in the destination of the _mahr_ appears in Arabia before Islam (Wellhausen _Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen_, 1893, 434 f.).――=16.= _is ours and our children’s_] Elohist never mentions sons of Laban; and apparently looks on Leah and Rachel as the sole heiresses.

* * * * *

=13.= האל ביתאל] The article with construct violates a well known
rule of syntax (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 _f_); and it is doubtful
if the anomaly be rightly explained by supposing the ellipsis of
אֵל or אֱלֹהֵי. The original text may have been הָאֵל [הַנִּרְאָה אֵלֶיךָ בִּמְקוֹם] בֵּיתְאֵל;
(so [but without ביתאל] LXX, adopted by Ball); or האל[――ב]ביתאל
(Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Kittel).――ארץ מולדתך] see on 11²⁸. It is
the only occurrence of מ׳ in Elohist.――LXX adds καὶ ἔσομαι μετὰ
σοῦ.――=15.= נכריות] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate כְּנָ׳.――גם אכול] see on 27³³.――=16.= עשר] LXX +
καὶ τὴν δόξαν.

* * * * *

=17‒25. The flight and pursuit.=――=18.= _and drove away all his cattle_] Hence the slowness of his march as compared with Laban’s (33¹³ᵇ).――The rest of the verse is from Priestly-Code (compare 12⁵ 36⁶ 46⁶).――_to Isaac his father_] 35²⁷.――=19.= _Now Laban had gone to shear his flock_] Sheep-shearing was the occasion of an important festival in ancient Israel (38¹² ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 25² ᶠᶠᐧ, 2 Samuel 13²³).――With Rachel’s theft of the _tĕrāphîm_ (the household idol: _v.i._), compare Virgil _Aeneid_ ii. 293 f., iii. 148 f.――=20.= _stole the heart_] (²⁶, 2 Samuel 15⁶†) ‘deceived’; the heart being the seat of intelligence (Hosea 4¹¹): compare ἔκλεψε νόον, _Iliad_ xiv. 217.――_the Aramæan_ (only here and ²⁴)] The emphasising of Laban’s nationality at this point is hard to explain. That it is the correction (by Elohist²) of an older version (Elohist¹), in which Laban was not an Aramæan (Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 236), is not probable. Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 422¹) regards it as a gloss, inserted with a view to verse ⁴⁷――=21.= _crossed the River_ (Yahwist)] the Euphrates (Exodus 23³¹, Joshua 24² etc.).――=23.= _his brethren_] his fellow-clansmen. In the sequel Jacob also is surrounded by his clansmen (³⁷ᐧ ⁴⁶ᐧ ⁵⁴),――a proof that tribal relations are clothed in the guise of individual biography.――_seven days’ journey_] The distance of Gilead from Ḥarran (_circa_ 350 miles as the crow flies) is much too great to be traversed in that time.

If the verse be from Yahwist (Gunkel, Procksch), we must assume
(what is no doubt conceivable) that the writer’s geographical
knowledge was defective. But it is a strong reason for assigning
the verse to Elohist, that in that source nothing is said of
Ḥarran or the Euphrates, and Laban’s home is placed somewhere in
the eastern desert (see 29¹).

* * * * *

=17‒25.= A complete analysis of the verses cannot be effected.
The hand of Elohist is recognised in ¹⁹ᵇ (תְּרָפִים, compare ³⁰ 35²
ᶠᶠᐧ), ²⁰, (? הָֽאֲרַמִּי, as ²⁴), and especially ²⁴ (אלהים, חֲלֹם; compare
²⁹ᐧ ⁴²). Yahwist betrays its presence chiefly by doublets:
²¹ᵃ{β} ∥ ¹⁷ (וַיָּקָם), and ²⁵ᵃ ∥ ²³ᵇ (וַיַּשֵּׂג, וַיַּדְבֵּק). The assignment of
²¹ᵃ{β} to Yahwist is warranted by the mention of the Euphrates:
hence ¹⁷ is Elohist. Further than this we cannot safely go.
Gunkel’s division (¹⁹ᵃᐧ ²¹⁻²³ᐧ ²⁵ᵇ = Yahwist; ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᵃ{α}ᐧ ¹⁹ᵇᐧ ²⁰ᐧ
²⁴ᐧ ²⁵ᵃ = Elohist) is open to the objection that it ignores
the discrepancy between the seven days of ²³ᵃ and the crossing
of the Euphrates in ²¹ᵃ (see on ²³ above); but is otherwise
attractive. Meyer (235 ff.) gets rid of the geographical
difficulty by distinguishing two strata in Elohist, of which
the later had been accommodated to the representation of
Yahwist.――¹⁸ (from וְאֶת־כָּל־רְכֻשׁוֹ) is obviously Priestly-Code.――=17.=
_sons and wives_] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
LXX ‘wives and sons.’――=18.= LXX omits the clause אֲשֶׁר――קִנְיָנוֹ (so
Peshiṭtå); and adds after אֲרָ֑ם, καὶ πάντα τὰ αὐτοῦ.――=19.= תְּרָפִים] A
plural of eminence, like אֱלֹהִים, etc.; hence it is doubtful whether
one image or several is here referred to. The teraphim was a god
(³⁰), its form and size were those of a man (1 Samuel 19¹³ᐧ ¹⁶),
it was used in private houses as well as in temples (Judges 17⁵
18¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ, Hosea 3⁴), and was an implement of divination (Ezekiel
21²⁶, Zechariah 10²). The indications point to its being an
emblem of ancestor-worship which survived in Israel as a private
superstition, condemned by the enlightened conscience of the
nation (35², 1 Samuel 15²³, 2 Kings 23²⁴). It seems implied
by the present narrative that the cult was borrowed from the
Aramæans, or perhaps rather that it had existed before the
separation of Hebrews and Aramæans. (See Moore, _Judges_ 379
ff.)――=20.= על־בלי] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, is difficult. על for על אשר is
rare and poetic (Psalms 119¹³⁶: Brown-Driver-Briggs, 758 a);
בלי (poetic for לא) is also rare with finite verb (_ib._ 115 b).
Since the following clause is a specification of the preceding,
‘wegen Mangels davon dass’ (Dillmann) is not a suitable
rendering. We should expect לְבִלְתִּי הַגִּיד, ‘in not telling him
that,’ etc.: _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
has עד בלתי.――=22.= ללבן] LXX + τῷ Σύρῳ.

* * * * *

=24.= God (not the Angel of God, as verse ¹¹) warns Laban in a dream to take heed to his words when he encounters Jacob.――_good or bad_] ‘anything whatever’ (24⁵⁰, 2 Samuel 13²² etc.). Laban did not interpret the prohibition literally (²⁹).――=25.= _in the mountain ..._] The idea suggested being that Jacob and Laban encamped each on a different mountain, we must suppose the name to have been omitted. The insertion of _Miẓpāh_ (verse ⁴⁹) is strongly recommended by Judges 10¹⁷ (see Ball, 88).――On the situation of _Mount Gilead_, see page 402 f.

* * * * *

=25.= אחיו] Better אָֽהֳלוֹ (Ball).

* * * * *

=26‒43. The altercation.=

The subjects of recrimination are: on Laban’s part, (a) the
secret flight, (b) the carrying off of his daughters, and (c)
the theft of his god; on Jacob’s part, (d) the hardships of his
20 years’ service, and (e) the attempts to defraud him of his
hire. Of these, b, c, and e certainly belong to Elohist; a and
d more probably to Yahwist.――In detail, the verses that can
be confidently assigned to Elohist are: ²⁶ (גָּנַב לֵב, as ²⁰), ²⁸
(continuation of ²⁶), ²⁹ (compare ²⁴), ³⁰ᐧ ³²⁻³⁵ (תרפים), ⁴¹ (‘ten
times’), ⁴² (compare ²⁴ᐧ ²⁹) and ⁴³ (because of the connexion
with ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸): note also אֱלֹהים, ²⁹ᐧ ⁴²; אֲמָהֹת, ³³. The sequence of
Elohist is interrupted by ²⁷ ⁽∥ ²⁶⁾ᐧ ³¹ᵇ (the natural answer
to ²⁷), ³⁶ᵃ ⁽∥ ³⁶ᵇ⁾: these clauses are accordingly assigned to
Yahwist; along with ³⁸⁻⁴⁰ (a parallel to ⁴¹ ᶠᐧ). The analysis
(which is due to Gunkel) yields for Elohist a complete narrative:
²⁶ᐧ ²⁸⁻³¹ᵃᐧ ³²⁻³⁵ᐧ ³⁶ᵇᐧ ³⁷ᐧ ⁴¹⁻⁴³. The Yahwistic parallel is all but
complete (²⁷ᐧ ³¹ᵃᐧ ᵇᐧ ³⁶ᵃᐧ ³⁸⁻⁴⁰); but we miss something after ³¹
to account for Jacob’s exasperation in ³⁶. We may suppose (with
Gunkel) that Laban had accused Jacob of stealing his flocks, and
that ³⁸⁻⁴⁰ is a reply to this charge.――Procksch’s division is
slightly different.

=26‒28.= Laban offers a sentimental pretext for his warlike demonstration: in Elohist his slighted affection for his offspring (²⁸); in Yahwist his desire to honour a parting guest (²⁷).――=27.= _with mirth and music_] This manner of speeding the parting guest is not elsewhere mentioned in Old Testament.――=29.= _It is in my power (v.i.) to do you harm_]――but for the interposition of God.――=30.= _Thou hast gone off forsooth, because forsooth, etc._] The infinitives absolute express irony (Davidson § 86).――_stolen my god(s)_] This is a serious matter, and leads up to the chief scene of the dispute.――=32.= Jacob is so sure of the innocence of his household that he offers to give up the culprit to death if the theft can be proved: a similar enhancement of dramatic interest in 44⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=33‒35.= The search for the teraphim is described with a touch of humour, pointed with sarcasm at a prevalent form of idolatry.――=34.= Rachel had hidden the idol in the _camel’s litter_ or palanquin (Burckhardt _Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys_ ii. 85; Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_ i. 437, ii. 304; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 1124), in which she was apparently resting within the tent, on account of her condition.――=35.= דֶּרֶךְ נָשִׁים = אֹרַח כַּנָּשִׁים (18¹¹, Yahwist). Women in this condition were protected by a powerful taboo (compare Leviticus 15¹⁹ etc.).――=36, 37.= Jacob now turns on Laban, treating the accusation about the teraphim as mere pretext for searching his goods.――=38‒40= (Yahwist). A fine picture of the ideal shepherd, solicitous for his master’s interests, sensitive to the least suspicion of fraud, and careless of his personal comfort.――=39.= _I brought not to thee_] as a witness (Exodus 22¹²). Jacob had thus gone far beyond his legal obligation.――_made it good_] literally ‘counted it missing.’――=40.= _heat by day and frost by night_] Jeremiah 36⁸⁰. Under the clear skies of the East the extreme heat of the day is apt to be followed by intense cold at night (see Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 69 ff.).――=41, 42= (Elohist). _the Fear of Isaac_] The deity feared and worshipped by Isaac (⁵³†). That פַּחַד יִצְחָק meant originally the terror _inspired_ by Isaac, the local deity of Beersheba (Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 254 f.), is a hazardous speculation.――=43.= Laban maintains his right, but speedily adopts a more pathetic tone, leading on to the pacific proposal of ⁴⁴.――The question _what shall I do to ...?_] means ‘what last kindness can I show them?’ (Gunkel, Driver); not ‘how can I do them harm?’ (Dillmann and most).

* * * * *

=26, 27.= LXX omits ותגנב את־לבבי, and transposes ²⁷ᵃᐧ ²⁶ᵇ.――=27.= ולא]
LXX וְלֻא, which is perhaps better than Massoretic Text.――=28.= נטש]
usually ‘reject’ or ‘abandon’; only here = ‘allow.’――עשו] for עֲשׂוֹת
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _n_).――=29.= יֶשׁ־לְאֵל יָדִי] Micah 2¹, Proverbs
3²⁷, Sirach 5¹ (Deuteronomy 28³², Nehemiah 5⁵). The meaning is
certain (‘be within one’s power’), but the expression is very
obscure. The current explanations (both represented in the
Versions) are: (1) That אֵל is an abstract noun = ‘power,’ and
יָדִי genitive. (2) That יָדִי is subject of the sentence and אֵל the
word for God: ‘my hand is for a God.’ The first depends on a
singular sense of אֵל; and for the second יש לי ידי לאל would have
been more natural. A third view has recently been propounded
by Brockelmann (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, xxvi. 29 ff.), who renders ‘it belongs to the
God of my hand,’ a survival of a primitive belief in special
deities or spirits animating different members of the body
(compare Tylor, _Primitive Culture_⁴ ii. 127).――עמכם, אביכם]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX have singular
suffix.――=30.= אביך] LXX + ἀπελθεῖν· καί. The וְ should probably
be restored.――=31.= LXX omits כי יראתי.――=32.= The opening words
in LXX וַיֹאמֶר לוֹ יַֽעֲקֹב may be original, introducing the duplicate from
Elohist.――=32b.= is preceded in LXX by the variant καὶ οὐκ
ἐπέγνω παρ’ αὐτῷ οὐθέν.――=33.= לבן] _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_ + זיחבש (read ויחפש); so LXX.――The clause ³³ᵃ{β}
disagrees with what follows, and may be a gloss. LXX reduces
the discrepancy by omissions, and a complete rearrangement of
clauses.――=36.= מַה²] Read וּמַה with Hebrew MSS _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå.――=39.= On אֲחַטֶּנָּה for
אֲחַטְּאָנָּה, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 74 _k_ or 75 _oo_.――גנבתי יום
וג׳ לילה is probably an archaic technical phrase, preserving an old
case-ending (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 _l_).――=40.= On the syntax,
see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 143 _a_.――=41.= _These twenty years_]
The repetition (verse ³⁸) would, as Dillmann says, not be
surprising in animated speech; and is not of itself evidence
of a change of source. But Jacob’s oratory is more dignified
if relieved of this slight touch of affectation.――זה] not
here a pronoun but used adverbially, as 27³⁶ etc. (see
Brown-Driver-Briggs, 261 b).――=42.= אלהי אברהם may be a gloss
(Gunkel): LXX omits אלהי.

* * * * *

=44‒54. The treaty of Gilead.=