Chapter XXVI (3)

Evidences of a double recension appear in every circumstance of
the narrative. (a) _Two_ names are explained: Gilead (⁴⁸ᵇ), and
Miẓpāh (⁴⁹ᵃ); (b) _two_ sacred monuments are erected, a cairn
(⁴⁶ᐧ ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵²), and a monolith (⁴⁵ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵²); (c) the covenant
feast is _twice_ recorded (⁴⁶ᵇᐧ ⁵⁴); (d) the terms of the
covenant are given in _two_ forms: (1) Jacob will not ill-treat
Laban’s daughters (⁵⁰), and (2) the cairn is to mark the
boundary between two peoples (⁵²); (e) God is _twice_ called
to witness (⁴⁹ ᶠᐧ ⁵³). To arrange these duplicates in two
parallel series is difficult, because of the numerous glosses
and dislocations of the text; but some connecting lines can be
drawn. Since Yahwist always avoids the word מַצֵּבָה (page 378), we
assume first of all that the monolith (and consequently _Miẓpāh_)
belongs to Elohist, and the cairn to Yahwist. Now the cairn goes
with the _frontier_ treaty (⁵¹ᐧ ⁵² [removing glosses], Yahwist),
and Miẓpāh with the _family_ compact (⁴⁹, Elohist). To Yahwist
we must obviously assign ⁴⁶ᐧ ⁴⁸, and also (if we may suppose
that only the גַּל was spoken of as an עֵד) ⁴⁴; while Elohist
as naturally claims ⁴⁵. At the end, ⁵³ᵇ is Elohist (פחד יצחק,
compare ⁴²), and likewise ⁵⁴ (the feast, ∥ ⁴⁶, Yahwist). ⁵³ᵃ
is probably Yahwist: note the difference of divine names. Thus:
⁴⁴ᐧ ⁴⁶ᐧ ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵¹⁻⁵³ᵃ = Yahwist; ⁴⁵ᐧ ⁴⁹ᐧ ⁵⁰ᐧ ⁵³ᵇᐧ ⁵⁴ = Elohist.――The
analysis is due to Holzinger and Gunkel; Procksch practically
agrees, with the important difference that the parts of Yahwist
and Elohist are (quite wrongly, as it seems to me) interchanged.
It is superior to the schemes of Wellhausen, Dillmann,
Kautzsch-Socin, al., which assign the cairn and the maẓẓebāh to
the same sources.――The principal glosses (many of which excite
suspicion apart from the analysis) are יעקב in ⁴⁵ and ⁴⁶; verses
⁴⁷ᐧ ⁴⁹ᵃ{α}; והנה המצבה in ⁵¹; ועדה המצבה and ואת־המצבה הזאת in ⁵²: on
these _v.i._ Nearly all are retained by LXX, where, however,
the confusion is increased by a complete change in the order
of clauses: ⁴⁸ᵃᐧ ⁴⁷ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵²ᵃᐧ ⁴⁸ᵇᐧ ⁴⁹ᐧ ⁵⁰ᵃᐧ ⁵²ᵇ,――⁵⁰ᵇ being inserted
after ⁴⁴.――The analysis works out in translation as follows
(glosses being enclosed in square brackets, and necessary
additions and corrections in ⌜⌝):

Yahwist: ⁴⁴ And now (the speaker Elohist: ⁴⁵ And ⌜he⌝ (_i.e._
is Laban), come, let us make a Laban) [Jacob] took a stone and
covenant, I and thou; ... and it set it up as a pillar. ⁴⁹ᵃ{β}ᵇ
shall be for a witness between ⌜and he said⌝, May ⌜God⌝ [Yahwe]
me and thee. ⁴⁶ And ⌜he⌝ (_i.e._ watch between me and thee,
Laban) [Jacob], said to his when we are hidden from one
brethren, Gather stones; and another. ⁵⁰ If thou ill-treat
they took stones, and made a my daughters, or take other
cairn, and they ate there upon wives besides my daughters, no
the cairn. [⁴⁷ And Laban called man being with us, see, God is
it _Yᵉgar Sāhădûthā_, but Jacob witness between me and thee. ⁵³ᵇ
called it _Gal‛ēd_.] ⁴⁸ And And Jacob swore by the Fear of
Laban said, This cairn is a his father Isaac. ⁵⁴ And Jacob
witness between me and thee offered a sacrifice on the
this day; therefore he called mountain and called his brethren
its name ⌜Gil‛ad⌝ [⁴⁹ᵃ{α} and to eat bread; and they ate
Miẓpah, for he said]. ⁵¹ And bread, and spent the night on
Laban said to Jacob, Behold this the mountain.
cairn [and behold the pillar]
which I have thrown up between
me and thee――⁵² a witness is
this cairn [and a witness is the
pillar]: I will not pass this
cairn to thee, and thou shalt
not pass this cairn [and this
pillar] to me, with evil intent.
⁵³ᵃ The God of Abraham and the
God of Naḥor be Judge between
us! [the God of their father].

=44.= Compare 21²³ ᶠᶠᐧ 26²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ――The subject of וְהָיָה cannot be בְּרִית, which is feminine, and is rather the fact to be witnessed to than a witness of something else. There must be a lacuna before והיה, where we must suppose that some material object (probably the cairn: compare ⁴⁸, Yahwist) was mentioned.――=45= (Elohist). _And he took a stone_] Since it is Laban who explains the meaning of the stone (⁴⁹), it must have been he who set it up; hence יַֽעֲקֹב is to be deleted as a false explication of the implicit subject.――_set it on high as a maẓẓebāh_] see 28¹⁸ᐧ ²². The monolith may have stood on an eminence and formed a conspicuous feature of the landscape (Dillmann).――=46= (Yahwist). _And he_ (Laban) _said, etc._] Here יַֽעֲקֹב is certainly wrong, for Laban expressly says that the cairn was raised by him (⁵¹).――_a cairn_] גַּל means simply a heap of stones (_v.i._), not a rampart (Wellhausen, Dillmann). The idea that the גַּל was originally the mountain range of Gilead itself, Laban and Jacob being conceived as giants (Wellhausen, Gunkel, Meyer), has certainly no support in the text.――_they ate upon the cairn_] The covenant feast, which may very well have preceded the covenant ceremony; see 26³⁰.――=47.= In spite of its interesting and philologically correct notice, the verse must unfortunately be assigned to a glossator, for the reasons given below.――=48= (Yahwist). Laban explains the purpose of the cairn, and names it accordingly: _cairn of witness_.] The stone heap is personified, and was no doubt in ancient times regarded as animated by a deity (compare Joshua 24²⁷). גַּלְעֵד is, of course, an artificial formation, not the real or original pronunciation of גִּלְעָד.――=49= (Elohist). _And [the] Miẓpāh, for he said_] The text, if not absolutely ungrammatical, is a very uncouth continuation of ⁴⁸ᵇ, with which in the primary documents it had nothing to do; see further _inf._――_May God_ (read so with LXX) _watch_] Miẓpāh means ‘watch-post.’ On its situation, see page 403.――=50.= The purport of the covenant, according to Elohist. Jacob swears (⁵³ᵇ) that he will not maltreat Laban’s daughters, nor even marry other wives besides them. The latter stipulation has a parallel in a late Babylonian marriage contract (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iv. 187, Number XI.).――_God is witness_] The idea is less primitive than that of Yahwist, where the witness is an inanimate object.――We observe how the religious sanction is invoked where human protection fails (compare 20¹¹ 42¹⁸, both Elohist).――=51‒53a.= The terms of the covenant in Yahwist: neither party (people) is to pass the cairn with hostile intent. All the references to the maẓẓebāh (⁵¹ᵇᐧ ⁵²ᵃᐧ ᵇ) are to be deleted as glosses. ――_The God of Abraham ... Nāḥôr_] Whether a polytheistic differentiation of two gods is attributed to Laban can hardly be determined. The plural verb would not necessarily imply this in Elohist (see 20¹³), though in Yahwist it might.――=53b, 54.= The covenant oath and feast in Elohist.――_The Fear of ... Isaac_] See on verse ⁴².――=54.= _his brethren_] not Laban and his companions, but his own fellow-clansmen (verse ³⁷).――_spent the night, etc._] Is this part of the religious ceremony? (Gunkel).

_The Scene of the Treaty._――The name _Gil‛ād_ (often with
article) in Old Testament is sometimes applied to the whole
region Elohist of the Jordan (Joshua 22⁹ etc.), but more
properly denotes the mountain range (הַר הַגִּלְעָד) extending from the
Yarmuk to the Arnon (2 Kings 10³³ etc.), divided by the Jabboḳ
into two parts (Joshua 12²), corresponding to the modern _Ǧebel
‛Aǧlūn_ and _el-Belḳā_, North and South respectively of the
Wādī ez-Zerḳā. The name _Ǧebel Ǧil‛ād_ still survives as that
of a mountain, crowned by the lofty summit of _Ǧebel Ōsha‛_,
North of es-Salṭ, where are found the ruined cities _Ǧil‛ād_
and _Ǧal‛aud_ (Burckhardt. _Travels in Syria and the Holy Land_,
348). It is therefore natural to look here in the first instance
for the ‘cairn of witness’ from which the mountain and the whole
region were supposed to have derived their names. The objections
to this view are (1) that Jacob, coming from the North, has
not yet crossed the Jabboḳ, which is identified with the Zerḳa;
and (2) that the frontier between Israel and the Aramæans (of
Damascus) could not have been so far South. These reasons have
prevailed with most modern authorities, and led them to seek a
site somewhere in the North or North-east of Ǧebel ‛Aǧlūn. But
the assumption that Laban represents the Aramæans of Damascus is
gratuitous, and has no foundation in either Yahwist or Elohist
(see the next note). The argument from the direction of Jacob’s
march applies only to Yahwist, and must not be too rigorously
pressed; because the treaty of Gilead and the crossing of the
Jabboḳ belong to different cycles of tradition, and the desire
to finish off Jacob’s dealings with Laban before proceeding
to his encounter with Esau might very naturally occasion a
departure from strict geographical consistency.¹――The site of
_Miẓpāh_ has to be investigated separately, since we cannot be
certain that Yahwist and Elohist thought of the same locality.
East of the Jordan there was a Miẓpāh (Judges 10¹⁷ 11¹¹ᐧ ³⁴,
Hosea 5¹) which is thought to be the same as מִצְפֵּה גִלְעָד (Judges
11²⁹) and רָמַת הַמִּצְפֶּה (Joshua 13²⁶); but whether it lay South or
North of the Jabboḳ cannot be determined. The identification
with Rāmôth-Gil‛ād, and of this with _er-Remte_, South-west of
the ancient Edrei, is precarious. The name (‘watch-post’) was
a common one, and may readily be supposed to have occurred more
than once East of the Jordan. See Smith, _Historical Geography
of the Holy Land_, 586; Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_,
262; Driver in smaller _A Dictionary of the Bible_, _s.v._; and
on the whole of this note, compare Smend, _Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, 1902, 149 ff.

¹ It seems to me very doubtful how far Jacob’s route, as
described in chapters 32, 33, can be safely used as a clue
to the identification of the localities mentioned (Gilead,
Miẓpah, Maḥanaim, the Ford, Peniel, Succoth). The writers
appear to have strung together a number of Transjordanic
legends connected with the name of Jacob, but without much
regard to topographical consistency or consecutiveness (see
page 408). The impossibility of the current identifications
(_e.g._ those of Merrill and Conder), _as stages of an
actual itinerary_, is clearly shown by Driver in _The
Expository Times_, xiii. (1902), 457 ff. It is only when
that assumption is frankly abandoned that the identification
of Gilead with _Ǧil‛ād_, of Mahanaim with _Maḥne_ (page 405),
of the Ford with _Muḫādat en-Nuṣrānīyeh_ (page 408), becomes
feasible.

_Historical Background of 31⁴⁴⁻⁵⁴._――The treaty of Gilead in
Yahwist evidently embodies ethnographic reminiscences, in which
Jacob and Laban were not private individuals, but represented
Hebrews and Aramæans respectively. The theory mostly favoured by
critical historians is that the Aramæans are those of Damascus,
and that the situation reflected is that of the Syrian wars
which raged from _circa_ 860 to _circa_ 770 B.C. (see Wellhausen
_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 320 f.). Gunkel (page 312)
has, however, pointed out objections to this assumption; and has
given strong reasons for believing that the narratives refer to
an earlier date than 860. The story reads more like the record
of a loose understanding between neighbouring and on the whole
friendly tribes, than of a formal treaty between two highly
organised states like Israel and Damascus; and it exhibits no
trace of the intense national animosity which was generated
during the Syrian wars. In this connexion, Meyer’s hypothesis
that in the original tradition Laban represented the early
unsettled nomads of the eastern desert (see page 334), acquires
a new interest. Considering the tenacity with which such legends
cling to a locality, there is no difficulty in supposing that in
this case the tradition goes back to some prehistoric settlement
of territorial claims between Hebrews and migratory Aramæans.
It is true that Meyer’s theory is based on notices peculiar
to Elohist, while the tribal compact belongs to Yahwist; and
it may appear hazardous to go behind the documents and build
speculations on a substratum of tradition common to both. But
the only material point in which Yahwist differs from Elohist
is his identification of Laban with the Aramæans of Ḥarran; and
this is not inconsistent with the interpretation here suggested.
In any case, his narrative gives no support to the opinion that
he has in view the contemporary political relations with the
kingdom of Damascus.

* * * * *

=44b.= The omitted words (_v.s._) might be וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה גַל or some such
expression (Olshausen, Dillmann, Ball, Gunkel, al.). To the
end of the verse LXX appends: εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ Ἰακωβ, Ἰδοὺ οὐθεὶς
μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἐστίν· ἰδὲ ὁ θεὸς μάρτυς ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ (from
verse ⁵⁰).――=46.= ויקחו] LXX וַיִּלְקְטוּ.――גַּל] From √ גלל ‘roll’ (stones,
29³, Joshua 10¹⁸, 1 Samuel 14³³, Proverbs 26²⁷). On sacred
stone-heaps among the Arabs, see Wellhausen _Reste arabischen
Heidentums_² 111 f. (with which compare Doughty, _Travels in
Arabia Deserta_ i. 26, 81, 431); Curtiss, _Primitive Semitic
Religion to-day_, 80 (cairn as witness); on the eating
_upon_ the cairn, Frazer, _Folklore in the Old Testament_, 131
ff.――=47.= יְגַר שָֽׂחֲדוּתָא is the precise Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew
גַל עֵד, ‘heap of witness.’ The decisive reasons for rejecting the
verse are: (1) It stands out of its proper place, anticipating
⁴⁸ᵇ; (2) it contradicts ⁴⁸ᵇ, where the _Hebrew_ name גַּלְעֵד is
given by Laban; (3) it assumes (contrary to the implication
of all the patriarchal narratives) that the Naḥorites spoke a
different dialect from the ancestors of the Hebrews. It may be
added that the Aramaic phrase shows the glossator to have taken
גַּלְעֵד as construct and genitive, whereas the latter in ⁴⁸ᵇ is
more probably a sentence ‘the heap is witness’ (see Nestle,
_Marginalien und Materialien_, 10 f.). The actual name [הַ]גִּלְעָד is
usually, but dubiously, explained by Arabic _ǧal‛ad_ ‘hard,’
‘firm.’――=48.= על־כן קרא שמו] so 11⁹ 19²² 29³⁴ ᶠᐧ (all Yahwist), 25³⁰
(Yahwist?).――=49.= וְהַמִּצְפָּה] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ והמצבה, which Wellhausen thinks the original name
of the place, afterwards changed to המצפה because of the
evil associations of the word maẓẓebāh. He instances the
transcription of LXX Μασσηφα, as combining the consonants of
the new name with the vowels of the old (_Die Composition des
Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_²
44¹). The argument is precarious; but there seems to be a
word-play between the names; and since the opening is evidently
corrupt, it is possible that both stood in the text. Ball’s
restoration והמצבה אשר [הֵרִים קָרָא הַמִּצְפָּה כִּי] אמר has met with the approval
of several scholars (Holzinger, Strack); but as the sequence to
⁴⁵ we should rather expect וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמָהּ הַמִּצְפָּה. LXX has καὶ Ἡ ὅρασις, ἣν
εἶπεν, following Massoretic Text.――יהוה] LX אלהים must be adopted
if the verse is rightly ascribed to Elohist.――=51.= המצבה]
LXX + הַזֹּאת (so verse ⁵²).――אשׁר יריתי] ‘which I have thrown up.’
ירה, ‘throw,’ is most commonly used of shooting arrows, and only
here of piling up stones. Once it means to lay (_jacere_) a
foundation (Job 38⁶), but it could hardly be applied to the
erection of a pillar. It is an advantage of the analysis given
above that it avoids the necessity of retaining the maẓẓebāh
as object of יריתי and rejecting the cairn.――=52.= אם――לא (_bis_)]
The double negative is contrary to the usage of asseverative
sentences (compare ⁵⁰), but may be explained by an anakolouthon
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 167 _b_).――את־הגל הזה] LXX omits.――=53.= ישׁפטו]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå יִשְׁפֹּט.――אלהי אביהם] LXX and Hebrew MSS omit, _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ א׳ אברהם, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word).
Probably a margin gloss to ⁵³ᵃ.――=XXXII. 1.= וילך וישב] LXX וַיָּשָׁב וַיֵּלֶךְ.

* * * * *

XXXII. 2‒33.
_Jacob’s Measures for propitiating Esau:
His Wrestling with the Deity at Peniel_
(Yahwist, Elohist).

After a vision of angels at Maḥanaim (²ᐧ ³), Jacob sends a humble message announcing his arrival to Esau, but learns to his consternation that his brother is advancing to meet him with 400 men (⁴⁻⁷). He divides his company into two bands, and invokes God’s help in prayer (⁸⁻¹⁴ᵃ); then prepares a present for Esau, and sends it on in advance (¹⁴ᵇ⁻²²). Having thus done all that human foresight could suggest, he passes a lonely night in the ravine of the Jabboḳ, wrestling with a mysterious antagonist, who at daybreak blesses him and changes his name to Israel (²³⁻³³).

_Sources._――Verses ²ᐧ ³ are an isolated fragment of Elohist
(מלאכי אלהים, פָּגַע בּ, [28¹¹]); ⁴⁻¹⁴ᵃ and ¹⁴ᵇ⁻²² are parallels (compare
¹⁴ᵃ with ²²ᵇ), the former from Yahwist יהוה, ¹⁰; שפחה, ⁶; מולדת,
¹⁰; מצא חן, ⁶; contrast the implied etymology of מַחֲנַיִם in ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹
with Elohist’s in ³): ¹⁴ᵇ⁻²² must therefore be Elohist, though
positive marks of that writer’s style cannot be detected.――On
the complicated structure of ²³⁻³³ (Jehovist), see page 407
below.

=2, 3. The legend of Maḥanaim.=――=2.= _angels ... met him_] The verb for ‘meet,’ as here construed (_v.i._), usually means to ‘oppose.’――=3.= _This is God’s camp_] or _a camp of gods_. The idea of divine armies appears elsewhere in Old Testament (compare Joshua 5¹⁴), and perhaps underlies the expression ‘Host of heaven’ and the name _Yahwe Ẓebā’ôth_.――_Maḥanaim_ is here apparently not regarded as a dual (contrast ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹). On its site, _v.i._

The brief statement of the text seems to be a torso of a legend
which had gathered round the name Maḥanaim, whose original
meaning has been lost. The curtailment probably indicates that
the sequel was objectionable to the religious feeling of later
times; and it has been surmised that the complete story told
of a conflict between Jacob and the angels (originally divine
beings), somewhat similar to the wrestling of verses ²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ
(Gunkel, Bennett). The word ‘camp’ (compare the fuller text of
LXX _inf._), and the verbal phrase פגע ב both suggest a warlike
encounter.

* * * * *

=2.= After לדרכו LXX inserts καὶ ἀναβλέψας τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἴδεν
παρεμβολὴν θεοῦ παρεμβεβληκυῖαν, enhancing the vividness of the
description.――פָּגַע בְּ] = ‘encounter with hostility,’ Judges 8²¹ 15¹²
18²⁵, 1 Samuel 22¹⁷ ᶠᐧ, 2 Samuel 1¹⁵, 1 Kings 2²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ, Ruth 2²²; =
‘intercede,’ Job 21¹⁵, Jeremiah 7¹⁶ 27¹⁸, Ruth 1¹⁶. The neutral
sense ‘meet,’ with personsal objective, is doubtfully supported
by Numbers 35¹⁹ᐧ ²¹, Joshua 2¹⁶, where hostile intention is
evidently implied: elsewhere this is expressed by _accusative_
personsal (Exodus 5²⁰ 23⁴, 1 Samuel 10⁵, Amos 5¹⁹). Genesis
28¹¹ is somewhat different, the object being impersonal (compare
the use in Joshua 16⁷ 17¹⁰ etc.).――=3.= מחנים] an important
East Jordanic city and sanctuary, the capital of Ish-bosheth
(2 Samuel 2⁸), and David’s headquarters during the revolt of
Absalom (2 Samuel 17²⁴ᐧ ²⁷), the centre of a fiscal district
under Solomon (1 Kings 4¹⁴). The situation of _Maḥne_ or _Miḥne_
on _Wādī el-Ḥimār_, some 14 miles North of the Jabboḳ (see Buhl,
_Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 257), suits all the other
references (compare Joshua 13²⁶ᐧ ³⁰――the boundary of Gad and
Manasseh), but is too far from the Jabboḳ for this narrative
(verse ²³). On the ending, which is probably no real dual, see
on 24¹⁰.

* * * * *

=4‒14a. Jacob’s precautionary measures= (Yahwist).――=4.= Isaac’s death and Esau’s settlement in the country afterwards occupied by his descendants are here assumed to have already taken place: otherwise Priestly-Code (36⁶).――=5, 6.= We note the extreme servility of Jacob’s language:――_my lord ... thy servant ... find grace_,――dictated by fear of his brother’s vengeance (27⁴¹). In substance the message is nothing but an announcement of his arrival and his great wealth (compare 33¹² ᶠᶠᐧ) The shepherd, with all his success, is at the mercy of the fierce marauder who was to ‘live by his sword’ (27⁴⁰).――=7.= The messengers return with the ominous news that Esau is already on the march with 400 men. How he was ready to strike so far north of his own territory is a difficulty (see page 415).――=8, 9.= Jacob’s first resource is to divide his company into _two camps_, in the hope that one might escape while the other was being captured. The arrangement is perhaps adverted to in 33⁸.――=10‒13.= Jacob’s prayer, consisting of an invocation (¹⁰), thanksgiving (¹¹), petition (¹²), and appeal to the divine faithfulness (¹³), is a classic model of Old Testament devotion (Gunkel); though the element of confession, so prominent in later supplications, is significantly absent.――=12.= _mother with_ (or _on_) _children_] Hosea 10¹⁴; compare Deuteronomy 22⁶. A popular saying,――the mother conceived as bending over the children to protect them (Tuch).――=14a.= _spent that night there_] _i.e._, at Maḥanaim (verse ²²). We may suppose (with Wellhausen, Gunkel) that an explicit etymology, based on the ‘two camps’ (verses ⁸ᐧ ¹¹), preceded or followed this clause.

Verses ¹⁰⁻¹³ appear to be one of the later expansions of the
Yahwistic narrative, akin to 13¹⁴⁻¹⁷ 22¹⁵⁻¹⁸ 26³ᵇ⁻⁵ 28¹⁴. They
can be removed without loss of continuity, ¹⁴ᵃ being a natural
continuation of ⁹. The insertion gives an interpretation to
the ‘two camps’ at variance with the primary motive of the
division (verse ⁹); and its spirit is different from that of the
narrative in which it is embedded. Compare also חול הים with 22¹⁷,
לא יספר מרב with 16¹⁰ 22¹⁷. See Gunkel 316.

* * * * *

=4.= לפניו] LXX omits――שדה אדום] (compare Judges 5⁴) is probably
a gloss on ארצה שעיר.――=5.= תאמרון] compare 18²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ――וָאֵחַר] for וָאֶֽאֱחַר
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 64 _h_).――=6.= ואשלחה] Cohortative form
with vav consecutive――chiefly late; see Driver _A Treatise
on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 69 _Obsolete_, § 72;
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 49 _e_.――=8.= וַיֵּצֶר] √ צרר intransitive =
‘be cramped’; on the form, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67
_p_.――והגמלים] LXXᴬ omits and transposes ואת־הבקר ואת־הצאן.――שני מחנות]
That this implies an etymology of Maḥanaim, and that Yahwist
located the incident there, cannot reasonably be doubted (as
by Holzinger). The name is obviously regarded as a dual (in
contrast to verse ³), showing that the current pronunciation is
very ancient (Dillmann).――=9.= האחת] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ האחד (masculine), which is demanded by the
context, as well as by prevailing usage (Albrecht, _Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvi. 52).――=11.= קטנתי
מן] ‘too insignificant for’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 133 _c_.――הירדן הזה]
The writer apparently locates Maḥanaim in the vicinity of the
Jordan; but the allusion, in an editorial passage, has perhaps
no great topographical importance.

* * * * *

=14b‒22. The present for Esau= (Elohist).――=14.= _a present_] Not ‘tribute’ (as often) in acknowledgment of vassalage, but (as 43¹¹, 2 Kings 8⁸ ᶠᐧ) a gift to win favour.――=17‒20.= By arranging the cattle in successive droves following at considerable intervals, Jacob hopes to wear out Esau’s resentment by a series of surprises. The plan has nothing in common with the two ‘camps’ of verse ⁸ ᶠᐧ in Yahwist.――=21a.= A repetition of ¹⁹ᵇ: Jacob lays stress on this point, because the effect would obviously be weakened if a garrulous servant were to let out the secret that other presents were to follow.――=21b.= _Let me pacify him_] literally ‘cover’ (or ‘wipe clean’) his face,――the same figure, though in different language, as 20¹⁶. On כִּפֶּר, see _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_², 381; _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. 128 f.――_see his face_] ‘obtain access to his presence’: compare 43³ᐧ ⁵ 44²³ᐧ ²⁶, Exodus 10²⁸, 2 Samuel 14 ²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ³², 2 Kings 25¹⁹, Esther 1¹⁴. The phrase is thought to convey an allusion to _Pĕnû’ēl_ (Gunkel); see on 33¹⁰.――=22.= _spent ... camp_ (בַּֽמַּחֲנֶֽה)] compare ¹⁴ᵃ. Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 46) renders ‘in Maḥaneh’ (_i.e._ Maḥanaim), but the change is hardly justified.

* * * * *

=14.= מן־הבא] Article with participle (not perfect); see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 138 _k_; Driver _Notes on the Hebrew
Text of the Books of Samuel_ 57 f.――מנחה] see on 4³.――=17.=
רֶוַח (Esther 4¹⁴†)] √ רָוַח, ‘be wide’ (1 Samuel 16²³, Job
32²⁰).――=18.= On the forms יִֽפְגָּשְׁךָ (Ben Naphtali), יָֽפִגָֽשֲׁךָ (Ben Asher),
see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 9 _v_, 10 _g_ (_c_), 60 _b_, [and
Baer-Delitzsch, _Liber Genesis_ page 85]; and on ושאֵֽלך, § 64
_f._――=20.= ויצו] LXX + τῷ πρώτῳ.――מֹצַֽאֲכֶם] irregular infinitive
for מָצְאֲכֶם (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 74 _h_, 93 _q_).――=21.=
יעקב] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ + בָּא.

* * * * *

=23‒33. The wrestling at Peniel= (Jehovist).――=23, 24.= The crossing of the Jabboḳ. The _Yabbōḳ_ is now almost universally, and no doubt correctly, identified with the _Nahr es-Zerḳā_ (Blue River), whose middle course separates Ǧebel ‛Aǧlūn from el-Belḳā, and which flows into the Jordan about 25 miles North of the Dead Sea. See Smend, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, 1902, 137 ff.; and the descriptions in Riehm, _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_² 665; Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 583‒5.――The _ford_ referred to cannot be determined; that of _Muḫādat en-Nuṣrānīyeh_, where the road from Ǧeraš to es-Salṭ crosses the deep narrow gorge which cleaves the mountains of Gilead, as described by Thomson (_The Land and the Book_, iii. 583 ff.) and Tristram (_Land of Israel_³, 549), supplies a more fitting background for the weird struggle about to be narrated than the one in the Jordan valley; but on the difficulties of this identification, see Driver _The Expository Times_, xiii. 459.

The passage of the river seems to be twice described, ²⁴ᵃ and
²⁴ᵇ being apparently doublets. The former continues ²³ᵃ, which
belongs to Yahwist (שפחה). Following this clue, we may divide
thus: ²³ᵃᐧ ²⁴ᵃ = Yahwist; ²³ᵇᐧ ²⁴ᵇ = Elohist (so Gunkel). While
Elohist implies that Jacob crossed with his company, the account
of Yahwist is consistent with the statement of ²⁵ᵃ, that after
sending the others across he himself was ‘left alone.’ On any
view the action is somewhat perplexing. To cross a ford by
night, with flocks, etc., was a dangerous operation, only to be
explained by apprehension of an attack from Esau (Wellhausen).
But Esau is represented as advancing from the south; and Jacob
is in haste to put his people and possessions on that side of
the river on which they were exposed to attack. Either the
narrative is defective at this point, or it is written without
a clear conception of the actual circumstances.

* * * * *

=23‒33.= The analysis of the passage is beset by insurmountable
difficulties. While most recognise doublets in ²³ ᶠᐧ (_v.s._),
²⁵⁻³³ have generally been regarded as a unity, being assigned
to Yahwist by Wellhausen, Kuenen, Cornill, Kautzsch-Socin,
Driver, al.; but by Dillmann to Elohist. In the view of more
recent critics, both Yahwist and Elohist are represented, though
there is the utmost variety of opinion in regard to details.
In the notes above, _possible_ variants have been pointed out
in ²⁶ᵃ ∥ ²⁶ᵇ (the laming of the thigh) and ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ ∥ ³⁰ (the name
and the blessing); to these may be added the still more doubtful
case ³¹ ∥ ³² (Peniel, Penuel). As showing traces of more
primitive conceptions, ²⁶ᵃ and ³⁰ would naturally go together,
and also ²⁷ for the same reason. Since Yahwist prefers the name
Israel in the subsequent history, there is a slight presumption
that ²⁸ ᶠᐧ belong to him; and the אלהים of ³¹ points (though not
decisively) to Elohist. Thus we should obtain, for Elohist:
²⁶ᵃᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ³⁰ᐧ ³¹; leaving for Yahwist: ²⁶ᵇᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³²: verse ³³
may be a gloss. The result corresponds nearly, so far as
it goes, with Gunkel’s (318 f.). The reader may compare the
investigations of Holzinger (209 f.), Procksch (32), Meyer
(_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 57 f.).――=23.= בלילה הוא
(_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ההוא)] as 19³³
30¹⁶.――יַבֹּק (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ היבק)
(Numbers 21²⁴, Deuteronomy 2³⁷ 3¹⁶, Joshua 12², Judges 11¹³ᐧ ²²†)
is naturally explained as the ‘gurgler,’ from √ בקק (Arabic
_baḳḳa_), the resemblance to אבק (verse ²⁵) being, of course, a
popular word-play.――=24b.= Insert כָּל־ before אשר (_The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate).

* * * * *

=25.= _a man wrestled with him till the appearing of the dawn_]――Only later does Jacob discover that his unknown antagonist is a god in human form (compare 18² 19⁵).――The rare word (_v.i._) for ‘wrestle’ (אבק) is chosen because of the assonance with יבֹּק――=26a.= _he saw that he prevailed not_] The ambiguity of the subject extends to the next clause, and leaves two interpretations open (_v.i._).――_struck the socket of his thigh_] putting it out of joint.――=26b.= _the socket of Jacob’s thigh was dislocated as he wrestled with him_.

The dislocation of the thigh seems to be twice recorded (see
Kautzsch-Socin _An._ 159), and it is highly probable that the
two halves of the verse come from different sources. In ²⁶ᵃ
it is a stratagem resorted to by a wrestler unable to gain
the advantage by ordinary means (like the trick of Ulysses
in _Iliad_ xxiii. 725 ff.); in ²⁶ᵇ it is an accident which
happens to Jacob in the course of the struggle. It has even
been suggested that in the original legend the subject of ²⁶ᵃ
was Jacob――that it was he who disabled his antagonist in the
manner described (Holzinger, Gunkel, Cheyne: see Müller,
_Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 163¹; Luther,
_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 65
ff.; Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 57). It is
possible (though certainly not probable) that this was the view
of the document (Yahwist or Elohist) to which ²⁶ᵃ belongs, and
that it underlies Hosea 12⁵.

* * * * *

=25.= ויאבק] A verb used only here and verse ²⁶, distinct from
New Hebrew התאבק, ‘make oneself dusty,’ and very probably a
modification of חבק, ‘clasp’ (Delitzsch, Dillmann).――=26.=
ותקע] √ יקע, literally ‘be rent away’ (compare Jeremiah 6⁸):
LXX ἐνάρκησεν, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Vulgate _emarcuit_,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ זע (‘gave way’),――all conjectural.

* * * * *

=27.= _Let me go, for the dawn is breaking_] Compare Plautus, _Amphitryon_ 532 f., where Jupiter says: “Cur me tenes? Tempus est: exire ex urbe priusquam lucescat volo.” It is a survival of the wide-spread belief in spirits of the night which must vanish at dawn (_Hamlet_, Act 1. Scene i.); and as such, a proof of the extreme antiquity of the legend.――But the request reveals to Jacob the superhuman character of his adversary, and he resolves to hold him fast till he has extorted a blessing from him.――=28, 29=. Here the blessing is imparted in the form of a new name conferred on Jacob in memory of this crowning struggle of his life.――_thou hast striven with God_] _Yisrā’ēl_, probably = ‘God strives’ (_v.i._), is interpreted as ‘Striver with God’; compare a similar transformation of יְרֻבַּֽעַל (‘Baal contends’) in Judges 6³². Such a name is a true ‘blessing,’ as a pledge of victory and success to the nation which bears it.――_and with men_] This can hardly refer merely to the contests with Laban and Esau; it points rather to the existence of a fuller body of legend, in which Jacob figured as the hero of many combats, culminating in this successful struggle with deity.――=30.= Jacob vainly endeavours to extort a disclosure of the name of his antagonist. This is possibly an older variant of ²⁸ ᶠᐧ, belonging to a primitive phase of thought, where he who possesses the true name of a god can dispose of the power of its bearer (Cheyne _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 401¹; _A Dictionary of the Bible_, v. 640). For the concealment of the name, compare Judges 13¹⁸ (the same words).――Gunkel thinks that in the original narrative the name of the wrestler was actually revealed.――=31.= _Pĕnî’ēl_] ‘Face of God’ (_v.i._). The name is derived from an incidental feature of the experience: that Jacob had seen “God _face_ to _face_” (Exodus 33¹¹, Deuteronomy 34¹⁰), and yet lived (see on 16¹³).――The site of Peniel is unknown: see Driver _The Expository Times_, xiii. 457 ff., and _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 300 ff.――=32.= _limping on his thigh_] in consequence of the injury he had received (²⁶ᵇ). That he bore the hurt to his death, as a memorial of the conflict, is a gratuitous addition to the narrative.――=33.= The food-taboo here mentioned is nowhere else referred to in Old Testament; and the Mishnic prohibition (_Ḥullîn_, 7) is probably dependent on this passage. William Robertson Smith explains it from the sacredness of the thigh as a seat of life (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 380¹);¹ and Wellhausen (_Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 168³) calls attention to a trace of it in ancient Arabia. For primitive parallels, see Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 419 ff., _Folklore in Old Testament_, 142 f. The precise meaning of גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה is uncertain (_v.i._).

¹ “The nature of the lameness produced by injury to the sinew
of the thigh socket is explained by the Arabic lexicons,
_s.v._ _ḥārifat_; the man can only walk on the tips of
his toes. This seems to have been a common affection, for
poetical metaphors are taken from it.”

In its fundamental conception the struggle at Peniel is not a
dream or vision like that which came to Jacob at Bethel; nor
is it an allegory of the spiritual life, symbolising the inward
travail of a soul helpless before some overhanging crisis of
its destiny. It is a real physical encounter which is described,
in which Jacob measures his strength and skill against a divine
antagonist, and ‘prevails,’ though at the cost of a bodily
injury. No more boldly anthropomorphic narrative is found in
Genesis; and unless we shut our eyes to some of its salient
features, we must resign the attempt to translate it wholly
into terms of religious experience. We have to do with a
legend, originating at a low level of religion, in process of
accommodation to the purer ideas of revealed religion; and its
history may have been somewhat as follows: (1) We begin with
the fact of a hand-to-hand conflict between a god and a man.
A similar idea appears in Exodus 4²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ, where we read that
Yahwe met Moses and ‘sought to kill him.’ In the present passage
the god was probably not Yahwe originally, but a local deity,
a night-spirit who fears the dawn and refuses to disclose his
name. Dr. Frazer has pointed out that such stories as this
are associated with water-spirits, and cites many primitive
customs (_Folklore in the Old Testament_, 136 ff.) which seem
to rest on the belief that a river resents being crossed, and
drowns many who attempt it. He hazards the conjecture that the
original deity of this passage was the spirit of the Jabboḳ;
in which case the word-play between יַבֹּק and אבק may have greater
significance than appears on the surface. (2) Like many
patriarchal theophanies, the narrative accounts for the
foundation of a sanctuary――that of Peniel. Of the cultus at
Peniel we know nothing; and there is very little in the story
that can be supposed to bear upon it, unless we assume, with
Gunkel and others, that the limping on the thigh refers to a
ritual dance regularly observed there (compare 1 Kings 18²⁶).¹
(3) By Yahwist and Elohist the story was incorporated in the
national epos as part of the history of Jacob. The God who
wrestles with the patriarch is Yahwe; and how far the wrestling
was understood as a literal fact remains uncertain. To these
writers the main interest lies in the origin of the name Israel,
and the blessing bestowed on the nation in the person of its
ancestor. (4) A still more refined interpretation is found, it
seems to me, in Hosea 12⁴ᐧ ⁵: ‘In the womb he overreached his
brother; and in his prime he strove with God. He strove (וַיִּשֶׂר)
with the Angel and prevailed; he wept and made supplication
to him.’ The substitution of the Angel of Yahwe for the
divine Being Himself shows increasing sensitiveness to
anthropomorphism; and the last line appears to mark an advance
in the spiritualising of the incident, the subject being not the
Angel (as Gunkel and others hold), but Jacob, whose ‘prevailing’
thus becomes that of importunate prayer.――We may note in a word
Steuernagel’s ethnological interpretation. He considers the
wrestling to symbolise a victory of the invading Israelites over
the inhabitants of North Gilead. The change of name reflects
the fact that a new nation (Israel) arose from the fusion of the
Jacob and Rachel tribes (_Die Einwanderung der israelitischen
Stämme in Kanaan_ 61 f.).

* * * * *

=29.= יִשְׂרָאֵל] A name of the same type as ישמעאל, ירחמאל, etc.,
with some such meaning as ‘God strives’ or ‘Let God strive’;
originally (it has been suggested) a war-cry which passed
into a proper name (see Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung der
israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_ 61). The verb שׂרה, however,
only occurs in connexion with this incident (Hosea 12⁴ᐧ ⁵, where
read וַיִּשֶׂר), and in the personal name שְׂרָיָה; and its real meaning
is uncertain. If it be the Hebrew equivalent of Arabic _šariya_,
Driver argues that it must mean ‘persist’ or ‘persevere’ rather
than ‘strive’ (_A Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 530), which
hardly yields a suitable idea. Some take it as a by-form of
שׂרר, either in a denominative sense (‘rule,’ from שַׂר, prince),
or in its assumed primary significance ‘shine forth’ (Assyrian
_šarâru_: see Vollers, _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft_, ix.
184). Some doubt has even been thrown on the traditional Hebrew
pronunciation by the form _Ysir’r_, found on an inscription of
Merneptah (Steindorff, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, xvi. 330 ff.), with which we may compare Assyrian
_Sir-’-lai_ (= ישראלי) (see Kittel, _SBOT Chronicles_, page 58).
Compare also Cheyne _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_,
404.――שרית] LXX ἐνίσχυσας, Aquila ἦρξας, Symmachus ἤρξω, Vulgate
_fortis fuisti_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
רַב אַתּ.――=31.= פניאל] LXX Εἶδος θεοῦ, _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_, Symmachus, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå read פנואל as verse
³². The formal difference arises from the old case-endings of
genitive and nominative (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 _o_). Strabo
(XVI. ii. 16, 18) mentions a Phœnician promontory near Tripolis
called Θεοῦ πρόσωπον: it is not improbable that in both cases
the name is derived from a fancied resemblance to a face.――=33.=
גיד הנשה] נָשֶׁה is to be explained by Arabic _nasᵃⁿ_ (for _nasayᵘⁿ_),
which means the _nervus ischiadicus_, or the thigh in which
it is found (Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ
Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_ 921 f.). The question
remains whether גיד denotes here a nerve, an artery, a sinew,
or a muscle; the first seems by far the most probable. So it
seems to have been understood by Peshiṭtå ((‡ Syriac phrase) =
tetanus-nerve), and by LXX and Vulgate, which appear to have
connected נשה with the verb for ‘forget’ (Græcus-Venetus, τὸ
νεῦρον τὸ ἐπιλελησμένον!). The modern Jewish restriction applies,
according to Delitzsch, to the “Spannader, d. h. die innere Ader
des sogen. Hinterviertels mit Einschluss der äusseren und der
Verästelungen beider.”

* * * * *