Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/497



could two such dissimilar revelations be coupled together in this way?" V.$10$ recalls an incident of the past, while $13$ is in the sphere of the present: moreover, 'I am the God of Bethel' must surely open the communication. We. solves the difficulty by removing $10$ and $12$ (assigning them to an unknown source), and leaving $11$ as the introduction to $13$: similarly Di. Ho. OH. al. Gu. supposes parts of Jacob's speech to have been omitted between $9$ and $10$ and between $12$ and $13$.—It is scarcely possible to recover the original sense of the fragment. If the dream had preceded the negotiations with Laban, it might have been a hint to Jacob of the kind of animals he was to ask as his hire (Str. Gu.); but that is excluded by $12b$; and, besides, in v.$8$ it is Laban who fixes the terms of the contract. We can only understand it vaguely as an assurance to Jacob that against all natural expectations the transaction will be overruled to his advantage. 13. I am the God of Bethel] links this theophany with that of 28$10ff.$, and is (in E) the first assurance given to Jacob that his vow (28$20-22$) had been accepted.—14-16. Jacob's appeal has been addressed to willing ears: his wives are already alienated from their father, and eagerly espouse their husband's cause.—14b. Comp. 2 Sa. 20$1$, 1 Ki. 12$16$.—15. has sold us] like slaves.—consumed our money] i.e., the price paid for us (cf. Ex. 21$35$). The complaint implies that it was considered a mark of meanness for a man to keep the mōhar for himself instead of giving it to his daughters. A similar change in the destination of the mahr appears in Arabia before Islam (We. GGN, 1893, 434 f.).—16. is ours

G-K. § 135 o.—13. ] The art. with constr. violates a well known rule of syntax (G-K. § 127 f); and it is doubtful if the anomaly be rightly explained by supposing the ellipsis of or. The original text may have been [] ; (so [but without ] G, adopted by Ba.); or [—] (T$OJ$, Kit.).—] see on 11$28$. It is the only occurrence of in E.—G adds .—15. ] [E]GSV .—] see on 27$33$.—16. ] G +.

17-25. A complete analysis of the vv. cannot be effected. The hand of E is recognised in $19b$ (, cf. $30$ 35$2ff.$), $20$, (?, as $24$), and especially $24$ (, ; cf. $29. 42$). J betrays its presence chiefly by doublets: $21aβ 17$, and $25a 23b$. The assignment of $21aβ$ to J is warranted by the mention of the Euphrates: hence $17$ is E. Further than this we cannot safely go. Gu.'s division ($19a. 21-23. 25b$ = J; $17. 18aα. 19b. 20. 24. 25a$ = E) is open to the objection that it ignores the discrepancy between the seven days of $23a$ and the crossing of the Euphrates in $21a$ (see on $23$ above); but is otherwise attractive. Mey. (235 ff.) gets rid of the geographical difficulty by distinguishing two strata in E, of which the later had been accommodated to the representation of J.—$18$ (from