Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/522

 the compact is violated by Simeon and Levi alone.—that were a reproach to us] Jos. 5$9$. Circumcision is regarded as a tribal custom, which it would be a disgrace to infringe. That the custom actually existed from the earliest time among the Hebrews is extremely probable (p. 296 f.); but the fact that both J (Ex. 4$25$) and E (Jos. 5$3ff.$) record its introduction in the age of the Exodus is an additional proof that this chapter follows an independent tradition.—15. Continuing $13a$.—Only on this condition will we consent] referring primarily to the connubium.—16. become one people] A result really desired by the Shechemites, but not seriously contemplated by the sons of Jacob.

18-24. The condition accepted.—19. the most honoured member of his family] emphasising the greatness of his sacrifice, and the strength of his attachment to Dinah.—21-23. Ḥămōr naturally says nothing of the personal matter, but dwells on the advantages the clan will derive from union with the Israelites. The men are already on friendly terms with them; the land is spacious enough; and by adopting circumcision they will obtain a great accession to their wealth.

25-31. The vengeance of the Hebrews.—25. on the third day] when the inflammation is said, in the case of adults, to be at its height (De. Di.).—S. and L., the brothers of Dinah] cf. 49$5$. In ch. 29 f., Leah had four other sons who were as much full brothers of Dinah as these two. Was there another tradition, according to which Simeon and Levi were the only sons of Leah (so Mey. INS, 286$1$, 426 f.)?—26. ] according to the usage of war: without quarter

.—an intelligent anticipation of critical results (cf. $25$)?—Or is this the original text?— for 'uncircumcised' does not recur.—15. ] Either (BDB) impf. Niph., or (G-K. § 72 h) intrans. impf. Qal of [root], 'consent' ($22. 23$, 2 Ki. 12$9$ † ).—] as 17$10$.

19. ] G-K. § 64 d.—21. (G ) 'broad on both sides'; Ju. 18$10$, Is. 22$18$ [33$21$, 1 Ch. 4$40$, Neh. 7$4$, Ps. 104$25$]† .—24. Between and ] G ins. .—] cf. 23$10. 18$. The repetition of the phrase is avoided by G.

27-29 are regarded by Di. as a late interpolation; and this is perhaps necessary if the second account is to be identified with P. The