Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/451

 naturally suggest itself after J's account of the death of Abraham had been suppressed in accordance with P's chronology. The death of Sarah is likewise unrecorded by J or E.

XXV. 1-6.—The Sons of Ḳeṭurah (J? R?).

The Arabian tribes with whom the Israelites acknowledged a looser kinship than with the Ishmaelites or Edomites are here represented as the offspring of Abraham by a second marriage (cf. 1 Ch. 1$32f.$).

The names Midian, Sheba, Dedan (see below) show that these Ḳeṭurean peoples must be sought in N Arabia, and in the tract of country partly assigned to the Ishmaelites in v.$18$. The fact that in Ju. 8$24$ Midianites are classed as Ishmaelites (cf. Gn. 37$25ff.$) points to some confusion between the two groups, which in the absence of a Yahwistic genealogy of Ishmael it is impossible altogether to clear up. We. (Comp.$2$ 29$3$) has dropped a hint that Ḳeṭurah may be but a traditional variant of Hagar; Ho. conjectures that the names in $J$ are taken from J's lost Ishmaelite genealogy; and Kent (SOT, i. 101) thinks it not improbable that Ḳeṭurah was originally the wife of Ishmael. Glaser (ii. 450) considers the Ḳeṭureans remains of the ancient Minæan people, and not essentially different from the Ishmaelites and Edomites. See, further, on v.$2-4$ below.

Source.—(a) The genealogy ($18$) contains slight traces of J in, $1-4$,; $3$ (cf. 10$4$ 9$29$); P is excluded by, and the discrepancy with 10$19$ as to Sheba and Dedan; while E appears not to have contained any genealogies at all. The vv. must therefore be assigned to some Yahwistic source, in spite of the different origin given for Sheba in 10$7$.—(b) The section as a whole cannot, however, belong to the primary Yahwistic document; because there the death of Abraham had already been recorded in ch. 24, and 24$28$ refers back to 25$36$. We must conclude that 25$5$ is the work of a compiler, who has incorporated the genealogy, and taken v.$1-6$ from its original position (see on 24$1-6$) to bring it into connexion with Abraham's death. These changes may have been made in a revised edition of J (so Gu.); but in this case we must suppose that the account of Abraham's death was also transferred from ch. 24, to be afterwards replaced by the notice of P. It seems to me easier (in view of $5$ and $36$) to hold that the adjustments were effected during the final redaction of the Pent., in accordance with the chronological scheme of P.