Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/531



26$34$ 28$9$ (see on vv.$1-5$). On this point I., III., and IV. hang together; and if these sections are excluded, there remains nothing that can be plausibly assigned to P except II. and VII. (so We. Kue. Ho. Gu. al.). The argument for reducing P's share in the chapter to this minimum rests, however, on the assumption that the Code is the compilation of a single writer, who cannot be supposed to lapse into self-contradiction. The facts seem to point to a redactional process and a divergence of tradition within the Priestly school; and I am inclined to think that in I. (?), III., and IV. we have excerpts from the book of Tôledôth incorporated in P, whose main narrative will have included 26$34$ 28$9$, and in which 35$29$ 36$6-8$ 37$1$ may have read continuously. VII. must then be rejected as a late compilation in which the style of the Tôledôth is successfully imitated (so Meyer).—As regards V. and VI. little can be said. The former might well have been part of the Tôledôth; the latter is unique in Gen., and there are no positive reasons for assigning it to J (so most) or any other source.

1-5. Esau's wives and sons.—The scheme here projected supplies the common framework of the two Edomite genealogies, $9-14$ and $15-19$, except that in the following sections the second and third wives exchange places. These marriages and births are said to have taken place in the land of Canaan, before the migration to Sē'îr; but the fact that 'Oholibamah is a Ḥorite (see below), indicates an absorption of Ḥorite clans in Edom which would naturally have followed the settlement in Se'ir.—Here we come on a difference of tradition regarding the names and parentage of Esau's wives.

According to 26$34$ 28$9$ (P), the three wives are (a) Yĕhûdîth bath-Bĕ'ērî, the Hittite; (b) Bāsĕmath bath-'Ēlôn, the Ḥittite ([E]G$A$S Ḥivvite); (c) Maḥălath bath-Yišmā'ê̄l, sister of Nĕbayôth. Here they are (a) Ādā bath-'Elôn, the Ḥittite; (b) Oh[)o]lîbāmāh bath-'Ănāh, the Ḥorite; (c) Bāsĕmath bath-Yišmā'ēl, sister of Nĕbāyôthbayôth above]. The confusion is too great to be accounted for naturally by textual corruption, though that may have played a part. We can only conjecture vaguely that vv.$9-14$

1. ] probably a gloss (cf. v.$8. 19$); but the persistency with which the equivalence is asserted is itself instructive. Esau and Edom are really distinct names (see p. 359 f.), and P has no legendary identification of them, such as 25$30$. Hence the connexion is established in two ways: Esau = Edom ($1. 8. 19$); and Esau the father of Edom ($9. 43$).—2. ] 'had taken,' as already recorded (26$34$ 28$9$).—] [E]GS not always carefully distinguished; and the writer probably took as fem. In v.$25$ 'Oholibamah is herself one of the sons of 'Anah.—] Rd., v.s.—5. ] Keth. as v.$14$, 1 Ch. 7$10$; Qrê, as v.$18$, 1 Ch.
 * deleted by Ho. and Gu. as a gloss. But in clan names gender is