Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/381

 So all Vns., taking in the sense of 'die' (Ps. 39$14$: cf. Ar. halaka), though the other sense ('walk' = 'live') would be quite admissible. To die childless and leave no name on earth (Nu. 27$4$) is a fate so melancholy that even the assurance of present fellowship with God brings no hope or joy.—2b is absolutely unintelligible (v.i.). The Vns. agree in reading the names Eliezer and Damascus, and also (with the partial exception of G) in the general understanding that the clause is a statement as to Abram's heir. This is probably correct; but the text is so corrupt that even the proper names are doubtful, and there is only a presumption that the sense agrees with $3b$.—3. In the absence of children or near relatives, the slave, as a member of the family, might inherit (Sta. GVI, i. 391; Benzinger, Arch.$2$ 113). is a member of the household, but not necessarily a home-born slave (, 14$14$).—5. The promise of a numerous seed (cf. $3a. 13$) is E's parallel to the announcement of the birth of a bodily heir in J (v.$4$).—the stars] a favourite image of the later editors and Deuteronomy (22$17$

of 'steward,' which may be a mere conjecture like the of Σ. Modern comm. generally regard the word as a modification of (Jb. 28$18$?) with the sense of 'possession'— = 'son of possession' = 'possessor' or 'inheritor' (so Ges. Tu. KS. Str. al.); but this has neither philological justification nor traditional support. A [root] (in spite of, Zeph. 2$9$) is extremely dubious. The last clause cannot be rendered either 'This is Eliezer of Damascus,' or 'This is Damascus, namely Eliezer' (De.). S and T$O$ adopt the summary expedient of turning the subst. into an adj., and reading 'Eliezer the Damascene' (similarly in Field). It is difficult to imagine what Damascus can have to do here at all; and if a satisfactory sense for the previous words could be obtained, it would be plausible enough (with Hitz. Tu. KS. al.) to strike out as a stupid gloss on. Ball's emendation, , 'and he who will possess my house is a Damascene—Eliezer,' is plausible, but the sing. with the name of a city is contrary to Heb. idiom. Bewer (JBL, 1908, pt. 2, 160 ff.) has proposed the reading—ingenious but not convincing—. $2a$ and $3a$ are parallels (note the double ), of which the former obviously belongs to J, the latter consequently to E. Since $3b$ is J rather than E (cf. with v.$4$), it follows that $3a. 2b$ must be transposed if the latter be E's parallel to $3b$.—3. ] in the sense of 'be heir to': cf. 21$10$ (E), 2 Sa. 14$7$, Jer. 49$1$, Pr. 30$23$.—4. (G ?)] of the father, 2 Sa. 7$12$ 16$11$, Is. 48$19$; of the mother, 25$23$ (J), Is. 49$1$, Ru. 1$11$, Ps. 71$6$.—5. ] in J, 19$17$ 24$29$ 39$12. 13. 15. 18$ (Jos. 2$19$?); but also Dt. 24$11$ 25$6$ etc.—