Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/517

 distance, and takes up his quarters at Sukkôth (v.i.). The name is derived from the booths, or temporary shelters for cattle, which he erects there.—built himself a house] showing that he contemplated a lengthy sojourn.

Here Esau disappears from the histories of J and E. We have already remarked on the change of tone in this last episode, as compared with the earlier Jacob-Esau stories of chs. 25, 27. Esau is no longer the rude natural man, the easy victim of his brother's cunning, but a noble and princely character, whose bearing is evidently meant to inspire admiration. Jacob, too, is presented in a more favourable light: if he is still shrewd and calculating, and not perfectly truthful, he does not sink to the knavery of his earlier dealings with Esau and Laban, but exhibits the typical virtues of the patriarchal ideal. The contrast betrays a difference of spirit and origin in the two groups of legends. It is conceivable that the second group came from sanctuaries frequented by Israelites and Edomites in common (so Ho. 212); but it is also possible that the two sets reflect the relations of Israel and Edom at different periods of history. It is quite obvious that chs. 25 and 27 took shape after the decay of the Edomite empire, when the ascendancy of Israel over the older people was assured. If there be any ethnological basis to 32. 33, it must belong to an earlier period. Steuernagel (Einw. 105) suggests as a parallel Nu. 20$14-21$, where the Edomites resist the passage of Israel through their territory. Meyer (387$1$) is disposed to find a recollection of a time when Edom had a powerful empire extending far north on the E of the Jordan, where they may have rendered assistance to Israel in the Midianite war (ib. 382), though they were unable ultimately to maintain their position. If there be any truth in either of these speculations (which must remain extremely doubtful), it is evident that chronologically 32 f. precede 25, 27; and the attempt to interpret the series (as a whole) ethnographically must be abandoned.

18-20. Jacob at Shechem.—18. The crossing of the Jordan is not recorded; it is commonly supposed to have

see on 11$2$.— was E of the Jordan, but nearer to it than Peniel (Jos. 13$27$, Ju. 8$4. 5. 8$). The site is unknown (see Smith, HG, 585; Buhl, GP, 206, 260; Dri. ET, xiii. 458 a, n. 1). The modern Ain es-Sāḳūṭ (9 m. S. of Beisan) is excluded on phonetic grounds, and is besides on the wrong side of the Jordan.

18. E] ] ] The rendering given above is pronounced by We. to be impossible, no doubt on the ground that, meaning properly 'whole' (Dt. 27$6$), is nowhere else used in the sense 'safe and sound' of a person. Still, in view of  (cf. 28$21$ 43$27$), and  in Jb. 9$4$, it may be reasonably supposed that it had that sense. [[G Jub. VS take  as a nom. pr.; a view which though it derives some plausibility from the fact that there is still a village Salim about 4 m. E of Nābulus (Robinson, BR, ii. 275, 279), implies a sense not consonant