Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/501

 missing.'—40. heat by day and frost by night] Jer. 36$80$. Under the clear skies of the East the extreme heat of the day is apt to be followed by intense cold at night (see Smith, HG, 69 ff.).—41, 42 (E). the Fear of Isaac] The deity feared and worshipped by Isaac ($53$† ). That meant originally the terror inspired by Isaac, the local deity of Beersheba (Meyer, INS, 254 f.), is a hazardous speculation.—43. Laban maintains his right, but speedily adopts a more pathetic tone, leading on to the pacific proposal of $44$.—The question what shall I do to ?] means 'what last kindness can I show them?' (Gu. Dri.); not 'how can I do them harm?' (Di. and most).

44-54. The treaty of Gilead.

Evidences of a double recension appear in every circumstance of the narrative. (a) Two names are explained: Gilead ($48b$), and Miẓpāh ($49a$); (b) two sacred monuments are erected, a cairn ($46. 48. 51. 52$), and a monolith ($45. 51. 52$); (c) the covenant feast is twice recorded ($46b. 54$); (d) the terms of the covenant are given in two forms: (1) Jacob will not ill-treat Laban's daughters ($50$), and (2) the cairn is to mark the boundary between two peoples ($52$); (e) God is twice called to witness ($49f. 53$). To arrange these duplicates in two parallel series is difficult, because of the numerous glosses and dislocations of the text; but some connecting lines can be drawn. Since J always avoids the word (p. 378), we assume first of all that the monolith (and consequently Miẓpāh) belongs to E, and the cairn to J. Now the cairn goes with the frontier treaty ($51. 52$ [removing glosses], J), and Miẓpāh with the family compact ($49$, E). To J we must obviously assign $46. 48$, and also (if we may suppose that only the was spoken of as an ) $44$; while E as naturally claims $45$. At the end, $53b$ is E (, cf. $42$), and likewise $54$ (the feast, $46$, J). $53a$ is probably J: note the difference of divine names. Thus: $44. 46. 48. 51-53a$ = J; $45. 49. 50. 53b. 54$ = E.—The analysis is due to Ho. and Gu.; Pro. practically agrees, with the important difference that the parts of J and E are (quite wrongly, as it seems to me) interchanged. It is superior to the schemes of We. Di. KS. al., which assign the cairn and the maẓẓebāh to the same sources.—The principal glosses (many of which excite suspicion apart from the analysis) are in $45$ and $46$;

75 oo.— is probably an archaic technical phrase, preserving an old case-ending (G-K. § 90 l).—40. On the syntax, see G-K. § 143 a.—41. These twenty years] The repetition (v.$38$) would, as Di. says, not be surprising in animated speech; and is not of itself evidence of a change of source. But Jacob's oratory is more dignified if relieved of this slight touch of affectation.—] not here a pron. but used adverbially, as 27$36$ etc. (see BDB, 261 b).—42. may be a gloss (Gu.): G om. .