Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/523

 (cf. 2 Sa. 11$25$).—and went out] Evidently this is the close of the exploit.—27. came upon the slain] Cf. V Quibus egressis, irruerunt super occisos cæteri filii Jacob. That is perhaps the sense intended by the redactor. But, to say nothing of the improbability of two men being able to kill all the males of the city, the second narrative (E$x$) must have given an independent account of the attack on Shechem. $25b$ must be transferred to this v.; and another word must be substituted for (v.i.).—28, 29. Cf. the similar phraseology of Nu. 31$9. 11$ (P).—30, 31 (continuing $26$). Jacob rebukes Simeon and Levi, not for their treachery and cruelty, but for their recklessness in exposing the whole tribe to the vengeance of the Canaanites.—I am few in number] it is the tribal, not the individual, consciousness which finds expression here.

The legend at the basis of ch. 34 reflects, we can scarcely doubt, an incident of the Hebrew settlement in Canaan. Shechem is the eponymus of the ancient city of that name, and Ḥămôrămōr prev. page] of the tribe dwelling there; Ḥămôr is the father of Shechem, because the tribe is older than its possession of the city. Jacob, in like manner, stands for the Israelites, who are nomads ranging the country round Shechem, and on friendly terms with its inhabitants. Whether Dînāh was a weak Hebrew clan threatened with absorption by the Ḥamorites is not so certain; it is more natural to suppose that a literal outrage of the kind described was the cause of the racial quarrel which ensued. —There are two historic events which seem to stand in some connexion with the narrative—the Hebrew conquest of Shechem, and the dissolution of Simeon and Levi as tribal entities. (1) The conquest of Shechem is presupposed in Jos. 24; but it is remarkable that it is never mentioned either among the cities captured by the Israelites, or among those which remained independent. The account of its destruction by Abimelech in Ju. 9 appears to imply

possibility that the vv. have been glossed by some one who had Nu. 31 in mind is not to be denied.—27. ] lit. 'pierced,' means either 'slain' (Nu. 19$18$ 31$8. 19$ etc.), or (rarely) 'fatally wounded' (La. 2$12$ etc.); neither sense being suitable here. Gu. suggests, 'sick' , v.$25$.—29. ] Remove athnach to ([root] ) and omit  before  (cf. [E]GS).—] coll.; but S G .—30. ] = Ar. 'akira, 'be turbid,' in Heb. lit. 'make turbid' = 'undo,'—a strong word; cf. Jos. 6$18$ 7$25$, 1 Ki. 18$17f.$—] lit. 'men of number,' numerable, and therefore few; Dt. 4$27$ 33$6$, Jer. 44$28$ etc.