Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/435

 ($24$) sons expresses a distinction between the pure-blooded stock and hybrid, or perhaps alien and subjugated, clans (Guthe, GVI, 5).

The vv. bear the unmistakable signature of a Yahwistic genealogy: cf. $20. 24$, w. 4$22. 26$ 10$21$ 19$38$; $21a$ w. 10$15$; $23b$ w. 9$19$ (10$29$ 25$4$); $23$ (see p. 98). Of P's style and manner there is no trace; and with regard to Ûẓ and Ărām, there is a material discrepancy between the two documents (v.$21$ cpd. with 10$22f.$). The introductory formula is not exclusively Elohistic (see on 15$1$), and in any case would be an insufficient reason for ascribing (We. Comp.$2$ 29 f.) the whole section to E. See Bu. Urg. 220 ff.—The genealogy appears to have been inserted with reference to ch. 24, from which it was afterwards separated by the amalgamation of P (ch. 23) with the older documents. Its adaptation to this context is, however, very imperfect. Here Abraham is informed of the birth of Nāḥôr's children, whereas in the present text of 24 the grandchildren (Laban and Rebekah) are grown up. Moreover, with the excision of the gloss $23a$ (v.i.), the only point of direct contact with ch. 24 disappears; and even the gloss does not agree with the view of Rebekah's parentage originally given by J (see on 24$15$). Hence we must suppose that the basis of the passage is an ancient genealogy, which has been recast, annotated, and inserted by a Yahwistic writer at a stage later than the composition of ch. 24, but earlier than the final redaction of the Pent.

20. ] see on 11$29$.—] 11$22$.—21. ] in 10$23$ a subdivision of Aram, is here the principal Naḥorite tribe (cf. 36$28$).— (,, etc.)] mentioned in Jer. 25$23$ after Dĕdān and Têmā, is probably the Bâzu of Esarhaddon's inscr. (KIB, ii. 130 f.), an unidentified district of N Arabia (so Jb. 32$2$).—] unknown; see Praetorius, ZDMG, 1903, 780.— is possibly a gloss (Gu.), but the classification of the powerful Aramæans (see on 10$22$) as a minor branch of the Naḥorites is none the less surprising: see p. 334 below.—22. ] The eponym of the. But whether by these the well-known Chaldæans of S Babylonia are meant is a difficult question. Probability seems in favour of the theory that here, as in 2 Ki. 24$2$, Jb. 1$17$, an Arabian (or rather Aramæan) nomadic tribe is to be understood, from which the Bab. [LOTE: **] may have sprung (Wi. AOF, ii. 250 ff.; Gu.). The result has a bearing on the meaning of Arpakšad in 10$22$ (see also on 11$28$).— (] probably the Ḫazû mentioned after Bâzu in Esarhaddon's inscr. (above).— and  are not known. With the former have been compared Palm.  (Levy, ZDMG, xiv. 440) and Sin. (Cook, Gl. 98; Lidz. Hdb. 352), both personal names.—] as personal name 24$15ff.$ (J), 25$20$ 28$2. 5$ (P).—23a. is a gloss (Di. Gu.) excluded by the general scheme of the genealogy and by the number 8 in $23b$. The last consideration is decisive against Di.'s view that the original text was .—24. ] cas. pend.: G-K. §§ 111 h, 147 e. =  (see Sta. GVI, i. 380): a Ḥittite origin is suggested by Jensen (ZDMG, xlviii. 468 ff., developing a hint of Ew.).—] [E], G , , etc.*