Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/430

 as a sacrifice at the command of God. The story, which is the literary masterpiece of the Elohistic collection, is told with exquisite simplicity; every sentence vibrates with restrained emotion, which shows how fully the author realises the tragic horror of the situation.

Source.—The original narrative consists of vv.$1-14. 19$. In spite of in $11. 14$, this belongs to E: cf. [Hebrew **], $1. 3. 8. 9. 12$; $5$]; the revelation by night, $1ff.$; the Angel calling from heaven, $11$.—On $15-18$ see below. Comp. Di. Ho. Gu.

1-8. Abraham's willing preparation for the sacrifice.—1. God tempted Abraham] i.e., tested him, to "know what was in his heart" (Dt. 8$2$),—an anthropomorphic representation: cf. Ex. 16$4$ 20$20$, Dt. 8$16$ 13$4$ 33$8$ etc. This sentence governs the narrative and prepares the reader for a good ending.—2. thy son—thine only one—whom thou lovest—Isaac] emphasising the greatness of the sacrifice, as if to say that God knows right well how much He asks.—the land of Mōriyyāh ] All attempts to explain the name and identify the place have been futile.

The prevalent Jewish and Christian tradition puts the scene on the Temple mount at Jerusalem (, 2 Ch. 3$1$;, Jos. Ant. i. 224, cf. 226). But (a) the attestation of the name is so late and unreliable that it is a question whether the Chronicler's use of it rests on a traditional interpretation of this passage, or whether it was introduced here on the strength of his notice. (b) Even if were a genuine ancient name for the Temple hill, it is not credible that it was extended to the land in which it was, and still less that the hill itself should be described as 'one of the mountains' in the region named after it. There is reason to suspect that the name of a land may have been modified (either in accordance with a fanciful etymology [v.$14$], or on the authority of 2 Ch. 3$1$) in order that the chief sanctuary of later times

1. 15$1$.—] The reluctance of grammarians to admit that this can be the main sent., and apod. after time determination, is intelligible (De. Di. Gu.), the order being that of the circumst. cl.; but it ifs difficult, without sophistical distinctions, to take it any other way. As cir. cl. it could only mean 'when God had tempted A.,' which is nonsense; and to speak of it as a Verumständung of the fol. (De.) is to deceive oneself with a word. The right explanation in Dri. T. § 78 (3).—] repeated in GV; cf. $11$.—2. ] The word was no doubt popularly connected with [root] as used in $14$ (cf. [E], Aq. , Σ. , V visionis), though a real derivation from that [root] is impossible. G (cf. 12$6$). S has [Syrian: **], T$OJ$