Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/347

 Jer. 29$22$). "So the ancient mind expressed its admiration of a man's prosperity" (Gu.). The clause is thus an expansion of $2b$: the name of Abram will pass into a formula of benediction, because he himself and his seed will be as it were blessedness incarnate. The exegetical question is discussed below.—4a. The mention of Lot (see on 11$27$) establishes a literary connexion with the Lot narratives of chs. 13. 19.—5 is P's parallel to $4a$ (v.i.); the last sentence supplying an obvious gap in J's narrative.—and they came, etc.]. This time (ct. 11$31$) the goal is actually reached. On the probable route from Ḥarran to Canaan, see Dri. 146, 300 ff.—6, 7. Arrived at Shechem, Abram receives, through a theophany, the first intimation that he has reached the goal of his pilgrimage, and proceeds to take possession of

sense given in the text above. The idea is well expressed by Ra.:

(Gn. 48$20$).—4. ] S (= ), adopted by Ba.—5. The parallel to $4a$ in the distinctive form (see on 11$31$) and phraseology of P. The vb. is peculiar to P (31$18$ 36$6$ 46$6$); is a word of the later language, found in P (7 t.), in Gn. 14 (5 t.) and as a gloss in 15$14$; in Ch. Ezr. Dn. (15 t.): see Ho. Einl. 347. It is supposed to denote primarily 'riding beasts,' like Heb. , Aram. [Aramaic: **], Ass. rukušu (Haupt, Hebraica, iii. 110); then property in general.—] in the sense of 'person' is also practically confined to P in Hex. (Ho. 345).—] = 'acquired,' as 31$1$, Dt. 8$17$, Jer. 17$11$ etc. The idea of 'proselytising' (T$OJ$) is rightly characterised by Ra. as Haggada.—] "ein fast sicheres Kennzeichen für P" (Ho. 340). In JE appears never to be used in its geographical sense except in the story of Joseph (42. 44-47. 50$5$) and Jos. 24$3$.——] G$L$ om., probably from homoioteleuton.—6. $1$] so G$L$, but G$A, al.$, read (13$17$).—For, Σ and S read. The convallem illustrem of V is an amalgamation of G ( [?]) and T$O$ ( = 'plains of M.'); the latter is probably accounted for by aversion to the idolatrous associations of the sacred tree. T$J$ has ; on which see Levy, ''Chald. Wb.'' 33. The absence of the art. (ct., Ju. 7$1$) seems to show that the word is used as ''nom. pr.''—] unlike its Aram. equivalents ([Aramaic **], ), which mean tree in general, is never used generically, but always of particular (probably sacred) trees. In the Vns. 'oak' and 'terebinth' are used somewhat indiscriminately (see v. Gall, CSt. 24 ff.) for four Heb. words:, , , (only Jos. 24$26$). The theory has been advanced that the forms with ê are alone correct; that they are derivatives from, 'god,' and denote