Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/392

 The close parallelism with ch. 15 makes it probable that that chapter, in its present composite form, is the literary basis of P's account of the covenant. Common to the two narratives are (a) the self-introduction of the Deity (17$1$ 15$7$); (b) the covenant (17 pass.  15$9ff.$); (c) the promise of a numerous seed (17$4$ pass. 15$5$); (d) of the land (17$8$  15$18$), (e) of a son (17$19. 21$ 15$4$); (f) Abraham's incredulity (17$17$  15$3. 8$). The features peculiar to P, such as the sign of circumcision, the etymology of in v.$17$, the changes of names, etc., are obviously not of a kind to suggest the existence of a separate tradition independent of J and E.

1-8. The Covenant-promises.—These are three in number: (a) Abraham will be the father of a numerous posterity ($2b, 4-6$); (b) God will be a God to him and to his seed ($7b. 8b$); (c) his seed shall inherit the land of Canaan ($8a$). We recognise here a trace of the ancient religious conception according to which god, land, and people formed an indissoluble triad, the land being an indispensable pledge of fellowship between the god and his worshippers (see RS$2$, 92 f.).—1. appeared to Abram] i.e., in a theophany, as is clear from v.$22$. It is the only direct communication of God to Abram recorded in P. P is indeed very sparing in his use of the theophany, though Ex. 6$3$ seems to imply that his narrative contained one to each of the three patriarchs. If that be so, the revelation to Isaac has been lost, while that to Jacob is twice referred to (35$9$ 48$3$).—I am 'El Shaddai] The origin, etymology, and significance of this

1. ] For a summary of the views held regarding this divine name, the reader may be referred to Baethgen, Beitr. 293 ff., or Kautzsch in EB, iii. 3326 f. (cf. Che. ib. iv. 4419 f.); on the renderings of the ancient Vns., see the synopses of Di. (259), Dri. (404 f.), and Valeton (ZATW, xii. 11$1$).—It is unfortunately impossible to ascertain whether was originally an independent noun, or an attribute of : Nöldeke and Baethgen decide for the latter view. The traditional Jewish etymology resolves the word into =  and ,—'the all-sufficient' or 'self-sufficient' (Ber. R. § 46: cf. Ra. ). Though this theory can be traced as far back as the rendering of Aq. Σ. and Θ. , it is an utterly groundless conjecture that P used the name in this sense (Valeton). On the other hand, it seems rash to conclude (with Nö. al.) that the Mass. punctuation has no better authority than this untenable interpretation, so that we are at liberty to vocalise as we please in accordance with any plausible etymological theory. The old derivation from [root] = 'destroy,' is still the best: it is grammatically unobjectionable, has at