Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/391



we have the word, 'jaw-bone' (Ju. 15$17$), and in the second an obsolete animal name: hence 'Well of the antelope's (?) jaw-bone.' V. Gall (CSt. 40 ff.) goes a step further and distinguishes two wells, , and, the former peculiar to J and the latter to E (cf. G of 24$62$ 25$11$).—(2) , whatever its primary significance, is of a type common in the patriarchal narratives (see p. 291). Of the suggested restorations of $13b$, by far the most attractive is that of We. (l.c.), who changes to, reads  as , inserts  between and, and renders, "Have I actually seen God and lived after my vision?"—an allusion to the prevalent belief that the sight of God is followed by death (Ex. 33$20$, Ju. 6$23$ 13$23$ etc.). The emendation has at least the advantage of giving a meaning to both elements in the name of the well. Gu.'s objection that the emphatic 'here' is indispensable, is of doubtful validity, for unfortunately does not mean 'here' but 'hither.'

—The Covenant of Circumcision (P).

To Abram, who is henceforth to be called Abraham ($5$), God reveals Himself under a new name ($1$), entering into a covenant with him ($2-8$), of which the sign is the rite of circumcision ($9-14$). The heir of this covenant is to be a son born to Sarai (whose name is changed to Sarah) in the following year ($15-22$). Abraham immediately circumcises all the males of his household ($23-27$).—To the writer of the Priestly Code the incident is important (1) as an explanation of the origin of circumcision, which in his day had become a fundamental institution of Judaism; and (2) as marking a new stage in the revelation of the true God to the world. The Abrahamic covenant inaugurates the third of the four epochs (commencing respectively with Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses) into which the Priestly theory divides the history of mankind. On the ethnic parallels to this scheme, Gu.'s note (p. 233 ff.) may be consulted.

Source.—The marks of P's authorship appear in every line of the chapter. Besides the general qualities of style, which need not again be particularised, we may note the following expressions: (throughout, except v.$1$, where is either a redactional change or a scribal error);, $1$; , , $2. 7. 19. 21$; , $2. 6. 20$; , $7. 8. 9. 10. 19$;, $7. 9. 12$; , $8$; , $8$; , $8$; , $10. 12. 23$; , $12. 13. 23. 27$; , $12. 27$; , $14$; , $20$; , $20$; , $20$; , $23. 26$; see Di. Ho. Gu. References to the passage in other parts of P are 21$2. 4$ 28$4$ 35$12$, Ex. 2$24$ 6$3f.$ (Lv. 12$3$ ?).