Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/438

 '''3-7. The request for a burying-place.'''—The negotiations fall into three well-defined stages; and while they illustrate the leisurely courtesy of the East in such matters, they cover a real reluctance of the Ḥittites to give Abraham a legal title to land by purchase (Gu.). To his first request they respond with alacrity: the best of their sepulchres is at his disposal.—3. arose] from the sitting posture of the mourner (2 Sa. 12$16. 20$).—the sons of Ḥēth] see on 10$15$.

P is the only document in which Ḥittites are definitely located in the S of Canaan (cf. 26$34$ 36$2$); and the historic accuracy of the statement is widely questioned. It is conceivable that the Cappadocian Ḥittites (p. 215) had extended their empire over the whole country prior to the Heb. invasion. But taking into account that P appears to use 'Ḥēth' interchangeably with 'Canaan' (cf. 26$34$ 27$46$ 36$2b$ w. 28$1. 8$ 36$2a$), it may be more reasonable to hold that with him 'Ḥittite' is a general designation of the pre-Israelite inhabitants, as 'Canaanite' with J and 'Amorite' with E (cf. Jos. 1$4$, Ezk. 16$3$). It may, of course, be urged that such an idea could not have arisen unless the Ḥittites had once been in actual occupation of the land, and that this assumption would best explain the all but constant occurrence of the name in the lists of conquered peoples (see p. 284). At present, however, we have no proof that this was the case; and a historic connexion between the northern Ḥittites and the natives of Hebron remains problematical. Another solution is propounded by Jastrow (EB, 2094 ff.), viz., that P's Ḥittites are an entirely distinct stock, having nothing but the name in common with either the 'conventional' Ḥittites of the enumerations or the great empire of N Syria. See Dri. 228 ff.

4. a sojourner and dweller] so Lv. 25$35. 47$, Nu. 35$15$, and (in a religious sense) Ps. 39$13$ (cf. 1 Pe. 2$11$). The technical

(unless Neh. 11$25$ be an artificial archaism [Mey. Entst. 106]). The name means 'Four cities' (see on, p. 326). The personification of as heros eponymus (Jos. 14$15$ 15$13$ 21$11$) has no better authority (as G shows) than the mistake of a copyist (see Moore, Jud. 25). Jewish Midrash gave several explanations of the numeral: amongst others from the 4 patriarchs buried there—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Adam (Ber. R.; P. R. Eliezer, 20, 36; Ra.)—the last being inferred from in Jos. 14$15$ (Jer. OS, 84$12$). The addition of [E] (G ) seems a corruption of (Ba.) or (with G)  in Jos. 15$13$ 21$11$.—] In Heb. usage, as in that of all the cognate languages, means 'to wail'; see Mic. 1$8$.—4. ] IEz. . According to Bertholet (Stell. z. d. Fr. 156-166), the is simply a gêr (see on 12$10$) who resides fixedly in one place, without civil rights, and perhaps incapable of holding land; see EB, 4818.—5. (so v.$14$) is an abnormal combination, doubtfully supported by Lv. 11$1$. The last word