Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/486

 are vividly depicted.—26. It is not so done] cf. 34$7$, 2 Sa. 13$12$. Laban no doubt correctly states the local usage: the objection to giving a younger daughter before an older is natural, and prevails in certain countries (Lane, i. 201; cf. Jub. xxviii., Ju. 15$1f.$, 1 Sa. 18$17$).—27, 28. Fulfil the week of this one] i.e., the usual seven days (Ju. 14$12$, To. 11$19$) of the wedding festival for Leah. For the bridegroom to break up the festivities would, of course, be a gross breach of decorum, and Jacob has no alternative but to fall in with Laban's new proposal and accept Rachel on his terms.—30. Laban's success is for the moment complete; but in the alienation of both his daughters, and their fidelity to Jacob at a critical time (31$14ff.$), he suffered a just retribution for the unscrupulous assertion of his paternal rights.

In Jacob's marriages it has been surmised that features survive of that primitive type of marriage (called beena marriage) in which the husband becomes a member of the wife's kin (Rob. Sm. KM$2$, 207). Taken as a whole the narrative hardly bears out that view. It is true that Jacob attaches himself to Laban's family; but it does not follow that he did not set up a house of his own. His remaining with Laban was due to his inability to pay the mōhar otherwise than in the way of personal service. As soon as the contract expired he pleads his right to 'provide for his own house' (30$30$ J). On the other hand, Laban certainly claimed the right to detain his daughters, and treated them as still members of his family (31$26. 43$ E); and it might be imagined that the Elohistic tradition recognised the existence of beena marriage, at least among the Aramæans. But it is doubtful if the claim is more than an extreme assertion of the right of a powerful family to protect its female relatives even after marriage.

XXIX. 31-XXX. 24.—The Birth of Jacob's Children (JE).

A difficult section, in which the origin of the tribes of Israel is represented in the fictitious form of a family history. The popular etymologies attached to the names are here extremely forced, and sometimes unintelligible; it is remark-*

([E]T$O$); see v.$29$.—26. ] distinctive of J; see v.$16$.—27. is rather 3rd f. s. pf. Niph., than 1st pl. cohort. Qal (as most). [E]GSV read .—28b. ] The double dative is characteristic of P, to whom the whole clause may be assigned along with $29$.—30. The second has no sense, and should probably be deleted (GV).