Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/509

 'tribute' (as often) in acknowledgment of vassalage, but (as 43$11$, 2 Ki. 8$8f.$) a gift to win favour.—17-20. By arranging the cattle in successive droves following at considerable intervals, Jacob hopes to wear out Esau's resentment by a series of surprises. The plan has nothing in common with the two 'camps' of v.$8f.$ in J.—21a. A repetition of $19b$: Jacob lays stress on this point, because the effect would obviously be weakened if a garrulous servant were to let out the secret that other presents were to follow.—21b. Let me pacify him] lit. 'cover' (or 'wipe clean') his face,—the same figure, though in different language, as 20$16$. On , see OTJC$2$, 381; DB, iv. 128f.—see his face] 'obtain access to his presence': cf. 43$3. 5$ 44$23. 26$, Ex. 10$28$, 2 Sa. 14$24. 28. 32$, 2 Ki. 25$19$, Est. 1$14$. The phrase is thought to convey an allusion to Pĕnû'ēl (Gu.); see on 33$10$.—22. spent camp ] cf. $14a$. We. (Comp.$2$ 46) renders 'in Maḥaneh' (i.e. Maḥanaim), but the change is hardly justified.

23-33. The wrestling at Peniel (JE).—23, 24. The crossing of the Jabboḳ. The Yabbōḳ is now almost univers-*

57 f.—] see on 4$3$.—17. (Est. 4$14 †$)] [root], 'be wide' (1 Sa. 16$23$, Jb. 32$20$).—18. On the forms  (Ben Napht.),  (Ben Asher), see G-K. §§ 9 v, 10 g (c), 60 b, [and B.-D., Gen. p. 85]; and on , § 64 f.—20. ] G + .—] irreg. inf. for (G-K. §§ 74 h, 93 q).—21. ] [E] GT$OJ$ +.

23-33. The analysis of the passage is beset by insurmountable difficulties. While most recognise doublets in $23f.$ (v.s.), $25-33$ have generally been regarded as a unity, being assigned to J by We. Kue. Corn. KS. Dri. al.; but by Di. to E. In the view of more recent critics, both J and E are represented, though there is the utmost variety of opinion in regard to details. In the notes above, possible variants have been pointed out in $26a 26b$ (the laming of the thigh) and $28. 29 30$ (the name and the blessing); to these may be added the still more doubtful case $31 32$ (Peniel, Penuel). As showing traces of more primitive conceptions, $26a$ and $30$ would naturally go together, and also $27$ for the same reason. Since J prefers the name Israel in the subsequent history, there is a slight presumption that $28f.$ belong to him; and the of $31$ points (though not decisively) to E. Thus we should obtain, for E: $26a 27. 30. 31$; leaving for J: $26b. 28. 29. 32$: v.$33$ may be a gloss. The result corresponds nearly, so far as it goes, with Gu.'s (318 f.). The reader may compare the investigations of Ho. (209 f.), Procksch (32), Meyer (INS, 57 f.).—23. ([E] )] as 19$33$ 30$16$.— ([E] ) (Nu. 21$24$, Dt. 2$37$ 3$16$, Jos. 12$2$, Ju. 11$13. 22†$) is naturally explained as the 'gurgler,' from [root] (Ar. baḳḳa), the resemblance to (v.$25$) being, of course, a popular word-play.—24b. Insert  before