Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/527

 The notice of Deborah is in many ways perplexing. The nurse who accompanied Rebekah (24$59$) is nameless, and there is nothing to lead us to expect that she was to be an important figure in Hebrew legend. How she could have come into Jacob's family is quite inexplicable; and the conjectures that have been advanced on this point are all puerile. Moreover, the sacred tree referred to is in all probability identical with the palm-tree of Deborah 'between Ramah and Bethel' in Ju. 4$4f.$. There seems to have been a confusion in the local tradition between the famous prophetess and the nurse; and the chief mystery is how the name of Rebekah got introduced in this connexion at all. If we could suppose with Cheyne (417 f.) that should be  and that this is an alternative form of, so that the real name of the tree was 'Tree of Rebekah,' we might be a step nearer a solution. The identity of the two trees would then have to be abandoned. It is, however, an unsafe argument to say that a 'nurse' could not have been conspicuous in legend: cf. the grave of the nurse of Dionysus at Scythopolis, in Pliny, HN, v. 74 (De. Gu.).

9, 10. Jacob's name changed (P).—Comp. 32$28f.$ (J).—when he came from Paddan 'Ărām] On Gu.'s rearrangement (p. 423 above), there is nothing to suggest Bethel as the scene of the revelation. It is a faint echo of 32$25ff.$ from which every element of local tradition, down to the name of the sanctuary, has been eliminated.

'''6a, 11-13, 15. The blessing transmitted to Jacob''': P's parallel to 28$10ff.$.—11, 12. 'Ēl Shaddai] see on 17$1$.—For other expressions in the vv., cf. 17$6. 8. 16$ 28$3. 4$ 46$26$ 48$4$.—13a. God went up from him] as 17$22$.—13b is an awkward continuation, and has probably arisen through dittography from v.$15$.—15. The naming of the place, as 28$19$.

That the section refers to Jacob's outward journey, and that $9f.$ describe a different theophany on his return, is probable from the following considerations: (1) The analogy of the older tradition (JE). (2)

and no ritual worship of any kind before the Sinaitic legislation. As a part of the Bethel-narrative, it is unintelligible in E, who has already described the origin of the maẓẓebāh there (28$18$), and still more in J, who does not sanction maẓẓebās at all. The impression that the scene is Bethel depends solely on the words —, which can easily be excised, as a gloss from $15$. The suggestion that the v. continues $8$ is due to Cornill (ZATW, xi. 15 ff.), and seems the most satisfactory solution of the problem.—] 2 Ki. 16$13. 15$ is the only other instance of the word before Jeremiah, though the vb. appears in 2 Sa. 23$16$, Ho. 9$4$. In Jer., Ezk. (20$28$), and II Isa. it is an accompaniment of heathenish worship; its legalisation for the worship of the temple appears in Ezk. 45$17$ and P. Its mention here is a proof of the great antiquity of the notice (Corn. l.c.).