Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/468

 '''17-22. Isaac's wells.—See on 21$25f.$.—17.' Isaac retires to the Wādī of Gĕrār] probably the [Ǧurf el=Ǧerār'', above (SE) Umm el-Ǧ.(20$1$), into which several wādīs converge, including W. er-Ruḥaibeh (v.$22$) and W. es-Seba'.—19, 20. The first well is named 'Ese[k.] ('annoyance'); the name has not been found.—21. Siṭnāh ('hostility') is possibly to be sought in the W. Šuṭnet er-Ruḥaibeh, close to Ruḥaibeh, though v.$22$ seems to imply that the places were some distance apart.—22. Rĕḥôbôth ('room') is plausibly identified with er-Ruḥaibeh, in the wādī of the same name, about 20 m. SW of Beersheba (a description in Palmer, ii. 382 f.).

In the narrative, Isaac himself was represented as the discoverer of these wells, though another tradition (partially preserved in 21$25f.$) ascribed the discovery and naming of them to Abraham. Vv.$15. 18$ are an ancient gloss, inserted to harmonise the two views by the supposition that the wells had been stopped up by the Philistines,—a practice frequently resorted to in desert warfare (2 Ki. 3$25$).

23-25. The theophany at Beersheba.—23. went up] though Bīr es-Seba' lies considerably lower than er-Ruḥaibeh.—24. That an inaugural theophany (see on 12$7$) is meant, is clear from v.$25$. According to this narrative, no patriarch had previously visited Beersheba (cf. 21$33$).—my servant] G reads 'thy father.' Nowhere else in Gen. is Abraham spoken of as the servant of Yahwe.—25a. Note the correspondence of the phraseology with 12$7f.$ 13$4. 18$.—25b. See v.$32$.

17. ] so (of an individual) 33$18$ (E).—18. ] [E]GV, Jub. .—] used in the same sense 2 Ki. 3$19. 25$, Ch. 32$3. 4. 30$. On the masc. suf. (so v.$15$), see G-K. §§ 60 h, 135 o.—19. ] G + .—20. ] . is common in NH, Tg. in the sense of 'be busy, occupied'; in Syr. it means durus, asper, molestus, fuit: hence in Ethpa. difficilem se præbuit.—21. G pr. ] (with following vb. in sing.), as v.$22$: cf. 12$8$.—22. ] GVT$O$, cf. 28$3$.

24, 25a are regarded by Gu. as an interpolation of the same character as $3b-5$; but the linguistic marks of late authorship which abound in $3b-5$ are scarcely to be detected here, and the mention of the altar before the tent is not sufficient to prove dislocation of the text. Nor is it quite correct to say that v.$33$ implies a different origin of the sacredness of Beersheba from $24f.$: the consecration of the sanctuary and the naming of the place are separate things which were evidently kept distinct in J$b$ (21$33$).—25. ] synonymous with in Nu. 21$18$; elsewhere only used of a grave (50$5$) or pit (Ex. 21$33$ etc.).