Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/437

 for the writer of the Code; though it is not easy to determine of what nature that interest was (see the closing note).

Source.—That the chapter belongs to P is proved (a) by allusions in later parts of the Code (25$9f.$ 49$29ff.$ 50$13$); (b) by the juristic formalism and redundancy of the style; (c) by the names ; and the expressions, $4$; , $4. 9. 20$; , $6$; , $17. 20$; , $18$ (see the notes; and cf. Di. Ho. Gu.). Against this we have to set the of v.$4$, which is never elsewhere used by P.—At the same time it is difficult to acquiesce in the opinion that we have to do with a 'free composition' of the writers of P. The passage has far more the appearance of a transcript from real life than any other section in the whole of P; and its markedly secular tone (the name of God is never once mentioned) is in strong contrast to the free introduction of the divine activity in human affairs which is characteristic of that document. It seems probable that the narrative is based on some local tradition by which the form of representation has been partly determined. A similar view is taken by Eerdmans (Komp. d. Gen. 88), who, however, assigns the chapter to the oldest stratum of Gen., dating at latest from 700 Steuernagel (SK, 1908, 628) agrees that ch. 23 is not in P's manner; but thinks it a midrashic expansion of a brief notice in that document.

1, 2. The death of Sarah.—2. Ḳiryath-’Arba‘] an old name of Hebron, v.i.—] not 'came,' but went in—to where the body lay.—to wail weep] with the customary loud demonstrations of grief (Schwally, Leben n. d. Tode, 20; DB, iii. 453 ff.).

1. After it is advisable to insert  (Ba. Kit.: cf. 47$9$). The omission may have caused the addition of the gloss at the end (wanting in G).—2. (G )] The old name of Hebron (Jos. 14$12$, Ju. 1$9$), though seemingly in use after the Exile