Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/505



the Yarmuk to the Arnon (2 Ki. 10$33$ etc.), divided by the Jabboḳ into two parts (Jos. 12$2$), corresponding to the modern Ǧebel 'Aǧlūn and el-Belḳā, N and S respectively of the Wādī ez-Zerḳā. The name Ǧebel Ǧil'ād still survives as that of a mountain, crowned by the lofty summit of Ǧebel Ōsha', N of es-Salṭ, where are found the ruined cities Ǧil'ād and Ǧal'aud (Burckh. Syria, 348). It is therefore natural to look here in the first instance for the 'cairn of witness' from which the mountain and the whole region were supposed to have derived their names. The objections to this view are (1) that Jacob, coming from the N, has not yet crossed the Jabboḳ, which is identified with the Zerḳa; and (2) that the frontier between Israel and the Aramæans (of Damascus) could not have been so far S. These reasons have prevailed with most modern authorities, and led them to seek a site somewhere in the N or NE of Ǧ. 'Aǧlūn. But the assumption that Laban represents the Aramæans of Damascus is gratuitous, and has no foundation in either J or E (see the next note). The argument from the direction of Jacob's march applies only to J, and must not be too rigorously pressed; because the treaty of Gilead and the crossing of the Jabboḳ belong to different cycles of tradition, and the desire to finish off Jacob's dealings with Laban before proceeding to his encounter with Esau might very naturally occasion a departure from strict geographical consistency. —The site of Miẓpāh has to be investigated separately, since we cannot be certain that J and E thought of the same locality. E of the Jordan there was a Miẓpāh (Ju. 10$17$ 11$11. 34$, Ho. 5$1$) which is thought to be the same as (Ju. 11$29$) and (Jos. 13$26$); but whether it lay S or N of the Jabboḳ cannot be determined. The identification with Rāmôth-Gil`ād, and of this with er-Remte, SW of the ancient Edrei, is precarious. The name ('watch-post') was a common one, and may readily be supposed to have occurred more than once E of the Jordan. See Smith, HG, 586; Buhl, GP, 262; Driver in smaller DB, s.v.; and on the whole of this note, cf. Smend, ZATW, 1902, 149 ff.

Historical Background of 31$44-54$.—The treaty of Gilead in J evidently embodies ethnographic reminiscences, in which Jacob and Laban were not private individuals, but represented Hebrews and Aramæans respectively. The theory mostly favoured by critical historians is that the Aramæans are those of Damascus, and that thewith Maḥne (p. 405), of the Ford with Muḫādat en-Nuṣrānīyeh (p. 408), becomes feasible.]