Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/316



5 ff.). "Keftiu is the old Eg. name of Caphtor (Crete), Keptar a Ptolemaic doublet of it, taken over when the original meaning of Keftiu had been forgotten, and the name had been erroneously applied to Phœnicia" (Hall, Man, Nov. 1903, No. 92, p. 162 ff.). In OLz., M. questions the originality of the name in this passage: so also Je. ATLO$2$, 275.

15-19. The Canaanites.—The peoples assigned to the Canaanitish group are (1) the Phœnicians, (2) the Ḥittites , and (3) a number of petty communities perhaps summed up in the phrase in $13f.$. It is surprising to find the great northern nation of the Ḥittites classed as a subdivision of the Canaanites. The writer may be supposed to have in view offshoots of that empire, which survived, as small enclaves in Palestine proper; but that explanation does not account for the marked prominence given to Ḥeth over the little Canaanite kingships. On the other hand, one hesitates to adopt Gu.'s theory that is here used in a wide geographical sense as embracing the main seats of the Ḥittite empire (p. 187). There is evidence, however, of a strong settlement of Ḥittites near Ḥermon (see below), and it is conceivable that these were classed as Canaanites and so inserted here.

Critically, the vv. are difficult. We. (Comp.$18b$ 15) and others remove $2$ as a gloss: because (a) the boundaries laid down in $16-18a$ are exceeded in $19$, and (b) the mention of a subsequent dispersion of Canaanites ($17. 18a$) has no meaning after $18b$. That is perhaps the most reasonable view to take; but even so $16-18a$ does not read quite naturally after $18b$; and what could have induced a glossator to insert four of the most northerly Phœnician cities, passing by those best known to the Hebrews? Is it

15. ] cf. 22$15$ (J).—18. ] adv. of time, as 18$21$ 24$5$ 30$55$ etc. = can hardly, even if the clause be a gloss, denote the Phœn. colonies on the Mediterranean (Brown, EB, ii. 1698 f.).—19. ] 'as one comes' (see G-K. § 144 h) might be taken as 'in the direction of' (so Di. Dri. al.); but there does not appear to be any clear case in which the expression differs from = 'as far as' (cf. 10$21$ 13$19$ 25$4. 8. 9$ [all J], 1 Sa. 15$30$ with Ju. 6$10$ 11$18$, 1 Sa. 17$7$, 2 Sa. 5$4$, 1 Ki. 18$33$).—] G.
 * see BDB, 29 f.—] Niph. fr. [root] ; see on 9$52$: cf. 11$25$.—]]