Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/503

 subj.—set it on high as a maẓẓebāh] see 28$18. 22$. The monolith may have stood on an eminence and formed a conspicuous feature of the landscape (Di.).—46 (J). And he (Laban) said, etc.] Here is certainly wrong, for Laban expressly says that the cairn was raised by him ($51$).—a cairn] means simply a heap of stones (v.i.), not a rampart (We. Di.). The idea that the was originally the mountain range of Gilead itself, Laban and Jacob being conceived as giants (We. Gu. Mey.), has certainly no support in the text.—they ate upon the cairn] The covenant feast, which may very well have preceded the covenant ceremony; see 26$30$.—47. In spite of its interesting and philologically correct notice, the v. must unfortunately be assigned to a glossator, for the reasons given below.—48 (J). Laban explains the purpose of the cairn, and names it accordingly: cairn of witness.] The stone heap is personified, and was no doubt in ancient times regarded as animated by a deity (cf. Jos. 24$27$). is, of course, an artificial formation, not the real or original pronunciation of .—49 (E). And [the] Miẓpāh, for he said] The text, if not absolutely ungrammatical, is a very

(fr. v.$50$).—46. ] G .—] From [root] 'roll' (stones, 29$3$, Jos. 10$18$, 1 Sa. 14$33$, Pr. 26$27$). On sacred stone-heaps among the Arabs, see We. Heid.$2$ 111 f. (with which cf. Doughty, Ar. Des. i. 26, 81, 431); Curtiss, PSR, 80 (cairn as witness); on the eating upon the cairn, Frazer, Folklore in OT, 131 ff.—47. is the precise Aramaic equivalent of Heb. , 'heap of witness.' The decisive reasons for rejecting the v. are: (1) It stands out of its proper place, anticipating $48b$; (2) it contradicts $48b$, where the Heb. name is given by Laban; (3) it assumes (contrary to the implication of all the patriarchal narratives) that the Naḥorites spoke a different dialect from the ancestors of the Hebrews. It may be added that the Aram. phrase shows the glossator to have taken as const. and gen., whereas the latter in $48b$ is more probably a sent. 'the heap is witness' (see Nestle, MM, 10 f.). The actual name [] is usually, but dubiously, explained by Ar. ǧal'ad 'hard,' 'firm.'—48. ] so 11$9$ 19$22$ 29$34f.$ (all J), 25$30$ (J?).—49. ] [E], which We. thinks the original name of the place, afterwards changed to because of the evil associations of the word maẓẓebāh. He instances the transcription of G , as combining the consonants of the new name with the vowels of the old (Comp.$2$ 44$1$). The argument is precarious; but there seems to be a word-play between the names; and since the opening is evidently corrupt, it is possible that both stood in the text. Ball's restoration ]