Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/428

 supposes strained relations between the parties, and repeated disputes about the ownership of wells. Note (1) the frequentative , (2) the pl. 'wells' (retained by G), (3) the fuller parallel of 26$15. 18ff.$, which shows that the right to several wells had been contested.—And as often as Abraham took Abimelech to task about the wells Abimelech would answer]—that he knew nothing of the matter (so Gu.).—27. Continuing $24$ (E). Giving (or exchange?) of presents seems to have been customary when a covenant was made (1 Ki. 15$19$, Is. 30$6$, Ho. 12$2$). The action would be no suitable answer to v.$26$.—28-30 (J). the seven ewe lambs are set apart for the purpose explained in $30$; but the art. shows that they must have been mentioned in the previous context. It is clear from $30$ that the lacuna is in J, not in E; while Abimelech's question $29$ proves that the lambs were not an understood part of the ceremony (Di.).—30. that it (the acceptance of the present) may be a witness, etc.] so that in future there may be no quarrel about Beersheba.—31 belongs to E:, cf. $23f.$;, cf. $27$.— = 'seven wells,' is here explained as 'Well of the Oath,' the oath being the central feature of the berîth. The etymology is not altogether at fault, since may mean lit. to 'put oneself under the influence of seven,' the sacred number (Her. iii. 8; Hom. Il. xix. 243 ff.; Paus. iii. 20. 9).—32a. J's parallel to $27b$. —23. The inauguration of the cult of Beersheba (J: cf.

MT is probably right, with freqve. sense of pf. given above. For the following (instead of ), see Dri. T. § 114 .—] G, ut sup.—28. ] [E] (which also omits ). De. thinks this one of the few cases (G-K. § 127 e) where art. determines only its own word, and not the whole expression.—29. Rd. with [E] ($32b$).— ([E] )]. On suff. cf. G-K. § 91 f. The form is chiefly pausal; and though the only other ex. in Pent. (Gn. 42$22$) is E, 30$J$ is J, and the form cannot be considered distinctive of E.—31. ] G, but in $30$. The constr. (num. in gen. after sing. noun) has been supposed by Sta. to be Canaanite idiom (cf., 23$36$).—33. ] Ar. 'aṯl, Aram.