Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/524



that it had been continuously in the possession of the Bnê Ḥămôr down to that time. On the other hand, the poetic fragment Gn. 48$22$ attributes the conquest to Jacob himself, but as an honourable feat of arms unstained by the treachery which is so prominent in ch. 34. How these conflicting data are to be reconciled, we can hardly conjecture. The differences are too great to justify the opinion that 48$22$ and 34 are merely legendary reflexions of the historic fact recorded in Ju. 9. Yet it is scarcely credible that Shechem was thrice conquered, twice from the same people under circumstances of general similarity. One chief objection to identifying 34 with Ju. 9 is the prominence of Simeon and Levi in J$x$. We may either (with Steuernagel) put back the incident (which may after all have been an unsuccessful attack on Shechem) to the early days of the Hebrew migration, while Simeon and Levi were independent and still migratory tribes; or (with Mey.) assume that the story of Dinah originated near the Simeonite territory in the S, and was afterwards transferred to Shechem because of certain points of affinity with the historic overthrow of that city under Abimelech.—(2) The dispersion of Simeon and Levi is referred to in the Blessing of Jacob (49$6. 7$), as the consequence of deeds of violence, disapproved by the conscience of the nation. It is universally assumed by critics that the two passages are variations of the same theme; hence it is held by many (We. Sta. Gu. Steuernagel, al.) that J$x$ went on to tell how the Canaanites actually retaliated by the slaughter of Simeon and Levi, while the other brothers escaped. That is just possible; but if so, the narrative departs very widely from the prevailing tradition, according to which S. and L. not only survived, but went down into Egypt with the rest of the family. And there is room for doubt whether the curse on S. and L. in ch. 49 is the result of any particular action of these two tribes (see pp. 516 f.).—The one point, indeed, which stands out with some degree of evidence from these discussions is that there was a form of the patriarchal tradition which knew nothing of the sojourn in Egypt, and connected the story of the conquest with the name of Jacob.

—Jacob in Canaan (E, J, P).

The compiler's interest in the story of Jacob would seem to have flagged after he had brought him safely back to Canaan; and he hurries to a close with a series of fragmentary excerpts from his sources: a second visit to Bethel, with the death and burial of Deborah, $1-15$; the birth of Benjamin and death of Rachel, $16-20$; Reuben's incest, $21. 22a$; a list of Jacob's sons, $22b-26$; the death and burial of Isaac, $27-29$.

Sources.—The P sections are easily recognised by their phraseology, viz. $6a* 9-13. 15. 22b-26. 27-29$. The last continuous extract from P was 28$1-9$; and the connecting links are 29$24. 28b. 29$ 30$4a. 9b. 22a$ 31$18ab$ 33$18a$. The