I'litiii'liiiifr!;'!;"" ' lit MlHtlMj '- 1 OfartteU Itiitieraitg Siihtarg Sxifata, ^tm ^otk BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF HENRY W. SAGE 1891 Cornell University Library BS1171 .C53 Traditions & beliefs of ancient Israel / Clin 3 1924 029 278 748 Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tlie Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029278748 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL BY THE SAME AUTHOR CRITICA BIBLICA Demy Svo. Cloth. Price 15S. net. OR may be had in separate parts, viz. Part I.— -Isaiah and Jeremiah, price 2s. 6d. net. Part II.- — Ezekiel and Minor Prophets, price 3s. net. Part III — The Books of Samuel, price 3s. net. Part IV. — The Books of Kings, price 3s. net. Part V.- -Joshua and Judges, price 3s. net. Published by A. & C. BLACK, SOHO SQUARE, LONDON TRADITIONS & BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL BY T. 'K. CHEYNE, D.Litt., D.D. ORIEL PROFESSOR OF THE INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE AT OXFORD CANON OF ROCHESTER ; FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY LONDON ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK C- (' k 1 I Q07 UNI ^V I 1 Y I. lUtU^UY TO THE READER The genesis of this book may be interesting. Early in the seventies I was impelled by zeal for progress to prepare the first draft of a somewhat full commentary on Genesis for the use of critically-minded students. The reason why the com- pletion of this work was postponed was my realisation of the large part which Assyriological researches were destined to play in the renaissance of Biblical studies. ' With fresh archaeological and Assyriological evidence I hoped to return some day to a problem which as yet " baffled " me ' {Origin of the Psalter, 1 89 1, Introduction, p. xvii.). But the study was not given up, and contributions were made from time to time to the questions arising out of Genesis, e.g. (in 1877) to a very important one, ' Can the Yahwistic narrative [in the early chapters of Genesis] be safely broken up into several ' ? None of these questions, however, could as yet be adequately answered, and it was the planning (by different scholars) of the International Critical Commentary and the Encyclopcedia Biblica which stimulated me to further study. The word ' international ' (familiar to readers of the original Academy) in connexion with scholarship expresses not only the ideal of these two works (and of Dr. Appleton's Academy), but the spirit in which I resumed the definite plan of a critical commentary. For the editors of the International Com- mentary were good enough to entrust me with the preparation of the volume on Genesis in their series. No scholar, however, can be tied even to his own spoken or written words. As time goes on, he must make progress, and not merely by inches. It became at length clear to me that the editors would have to show me some measure of vi TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL indulgence. I wrote, therefore, to one of them, stating that while the current critical views on Genesis would in my proposed work have the lion's share of representation, yet I could not keep out references to new solutions of problems affected by my own new conclusions as to the Hebrew text and its meaning. I added that I hoped two volumes would not be deemed too much for such an important book as Genesis. I was informed, however, by Dr. Driver in a courteous letter that the American editor (Dr. Briggs) and publishers considered two volumes too much, and that they wished me (since I had offered to retire, if this seemed best) to produce what I had to say on Genesis in an ' independent work.' Certainly my own plan (of giving the lion's share of representation to views which I did not myself hold) appeared to me extremely generous, and the limitation of the Inter- national Commentary on Genesis to one volume seemed highly injurious to the interests of study. But the responsi- bility for the acceptance of my offer does not rest with my friend and colleague Dr. Driver. Anything like a recast, with supplementary additions, of my former unpublished work seems to me to have become unnecessary. Dr. Skinner, who has written so well on Isaiah, will, I hope, do all that his narrow limits allow for Genesis. But there is much, very much, to be done, which I at least cannot, as a friend of progress, omit. In spite of a sore trouble, which visited me as the present work approached completion, I have finished and have now printed the best upon Genesis and Exodus known to me. I trust that something may have been gained both for textual criticism and for the better comprehension of the early traditions and beliefs of the Israelites. It is no mere com- mentary which is now presented to the friends of critical progress. Oxford, April 22, 1907. [The manuscript of this work, apart from the Index, was sent to the publishers in November 1906.] INTRODUCTION The persistent energy and resourceful ingenuity lavished by so many modern critics on the Hexateuch has by no means been unrewarded, but experienced scholars will admit that many of the results are far from final, and that numerous textual and historical difficulties await a more satisfactory explanation. There is therefore ample room for a fresh study of the early Hebrew traditions from a point of view which may perhaps do more justice alike to form and to contents. The problems of various kinds now before us are partly new, partly old questions which have lately become more complicated and difficult. The co- operation of critical scholars is therefore very much to be desired, as well as a more general recognition of the necessity of pioneering work. Unfortunately there is a tendency among members of the older school to misunderstand critical pioneers, and when they see new methods applied they are too often offended. Hence a deadlock threatens us, which I would fain contribute to avert. And as a preliminary to this it is right to mention a piece of doubtless unconscious unfairness which often meets my eye. It seems to be the fashion among some scholars to represent Winckler and Hommel as the only pioneers, the only original workers, in a certain field of study.^ It is time that a protest should be raised against books and articles which convey such a wrong impression to readers. To offer an opinion on the ' North Arabian theory ' without having carefully studied 1 In refutation of this misrepresentation, see Hibbert Journal, July 1903, p. 755, note 1 ; Cheyne, Book of Psalms (1904), introd. p. xiv note I ; Crit. Bib. (1903- 1904). viii TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL the points of view, the facts, and the results of all the investigators, is neither just in itself, nor conducive to the attainment of the great object which we have at heart. As things now are, it is, I fear, only the field of early religious beliefs, of mythology and archaeology, in which some amount of friendly co-operation among critics of all schools is possible, and even here the undue predominance of literary criticism hinders one from feeling that confidence which would otherwise be natural. Besides this, the com- parative backwardness of textual criticism is unpropitious to common study. The value of critical theories as to the contents of an old Hebrew book depends on the soundness of their textual basis, and I wonder how many scholars have a clear conception of the textual work that lies before them ! Of too many of our guild it may be truly said that they ' do not probe the wounds of the text half deeply enough, and lack that wide acquaintance with the textual phenomena, with the habits of the scribes and editors, and with recurring types of corruption, which has to be super- added to the rules applied by earlier scholars.' ^ I do not myself know where to point for as great a monument ot text-critical ability in 1906 as that which Wellhausen gave us in his Der Text der Biicher Samuelis in 1871. But ought we in 1906 to be no further advanced than we were in 1871 ? This neglect and this deficiency are avenged by the tardy progress of the historical investigation of the O.T. Our critics are too much afraid of innovations. This is true even of Eduard Meyer, whose recent work, Die Israeliten und ihre Nackbarstdmme (1906), in spite of its provocative character, it would ill become me to pass over.^ The general moderation of the book will doubtless commend it to not a few English scholars. And yet how peculiar that moderation is! It does not prevent the author from rejecting with insistent dogmatism the fundamental elements of the N. Arabian theory, in spite of the strong critical evidence derived from the O.T. ; and it allows him to repeat 1 Crit. Bib. prologue, pp. 3, 4. 2 See ' Survey of Literature on the History of Israel,' Review of Philosophy and Theology, edited by Prof. Menzies, January 1907. INTRODUCTION ix what he said seventeen years ago, that Nimrod is a very common Libyan name, and that this Libyan name was brought by Egyptians to Palestine, and placed in a new connexion ; ^ also that ' Shur ' means ' the frontier rampart of Egypt,' and that ' Mosheh ' (Moses), the greatest of Israel's heroes, derived his name from the language of the oppressors, a theory than which none can be more violently improbable.^ As a textual critic, Meyer is of the same school as Stade. It grieves me much that neither of these scholars should have as yet cut himself free from the mechanical and superficial criticism which was perhaps unavoidable in the last century. This is how, in 1906, Meyer comments (p. 489, note 5) on the strange statement of the traditional text of Judg. iii. 3 1 : ' According to this passage Shamgar smote the Philistines (!) ' with an ox-goad. So confined was the imagination of these miserable scribes {Scribenten).' Of the names Shamgar, Anath, Ya'el, he can only say (p. 489) that, while he will not guarantee their genuineness, he does not see who could have invented the two latter names. And on Winckler's proposal to explain the corrupt word DtDim (MT., 'their root') in Judg. v. 14 by the Assyrian verb sh&ru ' senken, niederlassen,' he remarks (p. 492) that, though ' ingenious,' it is ' still prob- lematical.' No suggestion occurs to him as a textual critic. Meyer, then, can be a very disappointing critic of the O.T., though, with his stores of varied learning, he cannot help making sometimes direct or indirect contributions to study from one or another point of view. I meet him with the same frankness with which he has met me, and must express the conviction that without a broader conception of method he will not do his best work in the O.T. In 1 Die Israeliten, pp. 448/; cp. ZATW viii. 47, and Gesch. des alien Aegyptens (1887). 2 See E. Bib., ' Moses,' § 2, and below on Ex. ii. 10. I know that Meyer regards the genealogies in Chronicles as 'werthloses Zeug.' Still I will point out here that in i Chr. xxiii. both Mosheh and Mushi occur among names which are demonstrably N. Arabian. The Chronicler knew things which came down from antiquity, though he could not see their bearing. ^ The note of admiration is Meyer's. X TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL criticising him thus, I criticise my former self; I take up no arrogant attitude towards the many-sided author of the Geschichte des Alter thums. From Hugo Winckler, whose brilliant pioneering works I have often commended to advanced students,^ I am partly separated, not only by my own deeper interest in religious ideas, but also by my long -reached conviction of the necessity of an improved textual criticism. As a textual critic, Winckler is no doubt on the whole bolder than Meyer, but he is deficient in method, and singularly incon- sistent. Sometimes one is struck with surprise at his fertility in conjecture, and yet, on turning the page, one finds him unsuspiciously conservative where there is a loud call for methodical correction. The reason may perhaps be that he has not realised the extent of the danger to which all the Hebrew texts, narrative as well as poetical or prophetic, were for centuries exposed. I am not surprised that Baentsch has recently become a decided follower of Winckler.^ Not being himself an advanced textual critic, there was little but educational prejudice to hinder him from doing so, and any educational prejudices his fearless love of truth has overcome. It has been my unpleasant duty to lay repeated stress on the imperfections of our textual criticism. Scholars have hardly yet assimilated the idea that the letters of the traditional text are no more infallible than the points, and that the latest Jewish editors used a large amount of con- jectural emendation. Those editors, however, were as conscientious as they were uncritical, and so, very often, they have left indications of an older underlying text. ' In my own judgment the only way to escape from a deadlock is to study the recurrent types of corruption in the received Hebrew text, and in that presupposed by the LXX., and the habits of the ancient editors in their manipulation of corrupt words, and so to be guided quite simply and naturally to new methods ; and (2) to allow ourselves to receive sug- gestions in the application of our new methods from the 1 See especially 'Babylon and the Bible,' Hibbert Journal^ Oct. 1903; Bible Problems, pp. 143-145, 255-260. 2 AUorientalischer und Israelitischer Monotheismus (1906). INTRODUCTION xi theory that the peoples by which the Israelites as known to us [from the literature] were most directly influenced were [together with the Canaanites] those of the N. Arabian borderland.' ^ According to Ed. Meyer (p. 455) the theory of a confusion between Misrim (the N. Arabian Musri) and Misraim (Egypt) ' has met with very much acceptance, and in many works, e.g. the E. Bib., and in Gunkel's commentary on Genesis, is treated as completely proved and ascertained fact.' This is unfortunately far from correct, and is most unfair to Gunkel, whom such an incorrect statement may possibly provoke to take up an uncongenial attitude. Ed. Meyer himself at any rate is provoked at an attack upon the new critical orthodoxy. The line that he has taken has been to deny the existence of O.T. evidence for the new theory, and to reject the theory itself mainly on the ground of geographical difficulties. Now, it so happens that I have done more for the O.T. side of the question than either Winckler or Hommel, and yet this scholar has not vouchsafed a single line to my investigations. Of his careless treatment of Winckler's evidence I might also speak severely. It would seem that he has begun the study of the question at the wrong end, and that (so far as my own works are concerned) he has not taken account of my express self-limitation. Provisional geographical conjectures I have not indeed avoided, but my main object has been to contribute as largely as possible to the correction of the text. And to avoid that subjectivity which is a critic's besetting danger, I have sought to control my theories by taking hints from the N. Arabian theory in a simple form. My geographical remarks have been designedly vague and undogmatic. I have waited for the help of those who may be willing and able to com- prehend a new and unfamiliar point of view, and for future discoveries. Such hostile and superficial criticisms as those of the orthodox scholar Noordtzij ^ in the Theologisch Tijd- 1 Hibbert Journal, July 1903, pp. 754/ 2 Note his remark on p. 400, ' Whatever the explanation of it iVd may be, at any rate we have here (Hos. v. 12) to do with Assyria.' But •mv. is the name both of a larger and of a smaller N. Arabian xii TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL schrift (July and Sept. 1906) can be of little or no value either to Winckler, or to Hommel, or to myself. I may here perhaps state my own conclusion that a large number of O.T. passages have no satisfactory meaning in their contexts, unless we admit that they refer to Misrim, Kflsh, Ashhflr (Asshur), and Aram or Yerahme'el. It also appears to me undeniable that these references have been discovered by a methodical textual criticism. I need hardly repeat here the list of passages given in Bible Problems (pp. 166-183, 262-270). No doubt what is there said could now be advantageously expanded or corrected, but, at any rate, neither Meyer nor Noordtzij has contributed anything to its amendment. To economise space, therefore, I will call attention to some other passages which are certainly obscure and doubtful, and are most easily explained on the N. Arabian theory. It would not be difificult to add to their number, but with the list already referred to these may perhaps suiifice. («) Gen. xx. 1 1 . DTT^M nNT'-]"'N pn. The difficulty here is in p"i, which is by no means natural, and most probably comes from DpT = am"' (Yarham = Yerahme'el). iV) Gen. XXV. 6. mp pN. That Dip here (and in x:r(p "lai) means neither ' the east ' nor ' the south ' ^ should be clear. It is hardly doubtful that mp is = Dpn. {c) Ex. x. 21. imn ffiO-'"! has probably come from intON 'ctOi Nin, ' that is, Ishmael-Ashhur,' a gloss on Di-|2D pN, ' the land of Misrim.' Geographical glosses like this occur frequently. The sense commonly given is most improbable. {d) Judg. iii. 3 1 (v. 6). n3r-]n niom. ' Shamgar ' and ' Anath ' ^ should be ' Gershom ' (see on Ex. ii. 22) and 'Ethan' respectively. {e) Judg. iv. 2. N"iD''D and ntBin have come from "ntD^ and mnmM respectively ; pi"' = pDi = jDi = ^Nom\ Is there any better explanation ? (/) Judg. xv. 8. Ti^ = hvfV = ^NDriT. Similarly, in the much -tormented name trans- mitted as Beer-lahai-roi (Gen. xvi. 14). (§-) The ni)"ns and n3D^M of 1 K, xi. 26 come respectively from rri"iSD, district, and an' (see E. Bib., ' Jareb' ; Crit. Bib. p. 123) is a corruption of 35;;. 1 Winckler, AOF ■x.-xi. 312, 404, 420. 2 Despaired of by Ed. Meyer (see Die Isr. p. 489). INTRODUCTION xm 'a Misrite,' and n-'S'MDm\ 'a Yerahme'elite.' See Crit. Bib., p. 338. The discovery throws a fresh light on Jeroboam, {h) Ps. iii. 8. There seem to be three read- ings, -rh, ti-rh, and D3n, all pointing to SNDm\ (0 Ps. ix. 2\a. ^rh rrm mni nn^tO.. ® reads the third word m,io. Duhm and Briggs are content with wniD, ' fear.' But surely the whole line is most unsatisfactory. Read ^ndht rv\rv n-'nten. {k) Ps. x. 8, 10, 14. It has not been observed that ^Nom"' underlies both rxhr\ and D"'N3^n. How else can we explain ? {t) Ps. xxiv. 4. The historical colouring is lost. For r\rr\xh read fpNomif? (cp. the proper names noiQ and mcnn). The cultus of Yerahme'el, as practised in N. Arabia, was repugnant to the prophets and psalrnists. {m) Ps. xliv. 12. 'jDnd JNSa Impossible ! Read '^nqHt'? 13ns, ' thy flock to Yerahme'el ' (the people, not the god), {ji) Ps. Ixxxi. 1 7 b. The key is furnished by mSQI. Read DSiJOt* ns^l nisan {Psalms, 1904, ii. 38). (0) Ps. Ixxxiii. 9. 'The mention of Asshur is difficult to explain ' (Bathgen, 3rd ed.), unless, indeed, there be a N. Arabian Asshur! See on Gen. ii. 14, x. 22, XXV. 18. Most of these passages attest ' Yerahme'el ' as a preva- lent N. Arabian ethnic name ; three refer to the Arabian Musri. ' Ishmael ' is a synonym of Yerahme'el ; ' Asshur ' of ' Ashhur ' and ' Ashtar.' That ' Aram ' is = ' Yerahme'el ' will be amply proved in the course of our studies. See e.g. on Gen. xvii. 3 : miM attests Ram ( = ' Aram ') ; omiN, Raham = Raham = Yarham (see above on a). Need I say that the southern tribes, from which the Israelites proceeded, were of different degrees of culture ? The Amalekites repre- sent the less-advanced section of the great Yerahme'elite race ; but there was another section far more cultivated, as indeed we might expect, and as Winckler has to all intents and purposes proved.^ I shall have to return to this later. At present, it may be enough to say that the Yerahme'elites were not a mere petty under-tribe, but a truly great race, which carried its beliefs and sacred usages, its names and its conventional ' See Winckler, Arabisch-semitisch-orienialisch, and cp. Meyer, Die Israeliten, pp. 2i°3 f-i ^^o is by comparison vague. xiv TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL phrases, far away to southern Syria, and its names even to Babylonia. To it the Israelites also are demonstrably much indebted ; their early traditions, which we shall presently study in Genesis and Exodus, are largely due to the Yerahme'elites. Indeed, the very names of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as of the sons^ of Jacob, and of Moses and his family, forcibly suggest this view. I should, of course, not venture to say this if I had not given considerable attention to the study of Hebrew names. I will not repeat what I have said elsewhere (see pp. 32, 43) on the names carried northward by Yerahme'elites in their migrations, but will ask attention to my treatment of apparently totemistic names, such as Hamor at Shechem (Gen. xxxiii. 19, xxxiv. 2), and those of the Horites (Ashhurites ?) in Gen. xxxvi.'^ I hold that it is a mistake to account for the real or apparent animal names in these passages on the theory that the tribes named themselves after those animals which they regarded as of kin to them, as the seats of the spirits of their ancestors, and hence as gods. That the original gods most probably developed out of supposed supernatural animals, I willingly admit, but I do not think that the names referred to can be quoted in connexion either with such a theory or with that once made so plausible by the late W. Robertson Smith.^ But while agreeing very much with Ed. Meyer in opposition to the friend who has gone to a higher school, I cannot think with him that most of the apparent animal names of clans (such as lion, hyena, antelope) are honorific, indicating that the clans either wished or claimed to possess the leading qualities of the particular animals, while others (such as boar, flea) were originally given in derision on account of some physical or moral defect, but in course of time came to be used without any consciousness of their origin. The truth seems to be that the names Shobal, Sibe'on, Dishon, inter- preted as ' lion,' ' hyena,' ' antelope,' and not less the names Hezir, Par'osh, explained as ' boar,' ' flea,' have quite another 1 See E. Bib., ' Shaphan.' 2 'Animal Worship,' eXc, Journ. of Philology, ix. Tiff.; cp. Kin- ship^'^\ pp. 253^, with references in footnote. INTRODUCTION xv origin from that ascribed to them by Robertson Smith or Ed. Meyer. For the former, I may refer to the notes on Gen. xxxvi. 20 f. ; for the latter, I may say here that while Hezir is of somewhat obscure origin, Par'osh appears to be certainly from n^N-ni? (cp. on vnn. Gen. xvi. 12).^ It is surely something to be able to answer Meyer's question, ' How comes the principal gens of Judah by this designa- tion ? ' a question by which both Meyer and Wellhausen, as the former confesses,^ have been baffled. Hezir is, at any rate, not ' boar,' as we see from the company in which this name, as well as Par'osh, is placed in Neh. x. \^ff. Possibly enough, like Zerah, it comes from Ashhur. Those who are accustomed to pursue analogies and parallels will not, I believe, be shocked at this. It will now also be plain what answer should be given to Dr. Buchanan Gray's question, ' Do such words as rrriN, (T^nN, and, if compound, iMli, indicate a transition from the totem conception of kindred with a divine or totem animal to a conception of kinship with a personal God? . . . Whether this be so or not, must depend on the extent to which the totem theory can be independently established ; but, if it be so, it gives a satisfactory explanation of other- wise difficult names: Etymologically, names like rrSN are comparatively straightforward ; theologically, they are most difficult, and that whether we interpret them Father is Yah, or My father is Yah, or Father of Yah.' ^ The answer is that the Hebrew names give no support to the theory of early Israelitish totemism, and can only to a very moderate extent be used as evidence for the inwardness of Israelitish piety. A very large proportion of the O.T. names had originally a geographical meaning. At an early date, however, a number of them were modified so as to assume a religious significance, but I am afraid that names like Abijah, Ahijah, Hamutal, etc., will not bear the meanings 1 Cp. Lucian's cj>aSaa-crovp for MT.'s Pashhur, Ezra ii. 38. Pashhur, which W. M. Miiller interprets 'portion of Horus,' is probably from Parashhur, i.e. Arab-ashhur, and is equivalent, as to its etymology, with Par'osh. Cp. E. Bib., ' Flea,' ' Parosh,' ' Pashhur.' 2 Meyer, Jul. Wellhausen und meine Schrift, etc., 1897, p. 21 (it is Meyer's reply to Wellh.). 3 Gray, Hebrew Proper Names, pp. 2 5 3 yC xvi TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL which I myself formerly, like Dr. Buchanan Gray, put upon them. This, however, will be referred to more at length in the course of our investigations. How far the outlines of early tribal movements can be traced underneath the legends of Genesis and Exodus is another point of equal difficulty and importance. Before we can treat it satisfactorily, we must approach very much nearer than we have hitherto done to the underlying Hebrew text. It is, at any rate, somewhat easier to detect the mythological elements, and here I hope that I may have given some help to scholars such as Winckler, Gunkel, and Ed. Meyer. I am, of course, aware that the Hebrew narrators and editors have done their best to weaken the mythological colouring. But here again their conscientious- ness has preserved material enough for some probable con- jectures. Underneath the r{i,a^ elohtm of Gen. i. 2 ^ it is not difficult to discover the original divine agent, and even in the uncorrected Hebrew text a conscientious scholar like Ed. Meyer can see (as I too, after Winckler, have seen) elements of the Adonis-Tamtiz myth in the Joseph-story. Probably my chief difference from some of the searchers after mythical elements may be that I have not thought myself bound by method to confine my comparison of myths to those which lie nearest at hand. Polynesian myths, for instance, still (as in 1877) seem to me specially iremunerative, and to these I should now add the N. American. I will not, however, anticipate. With regard to my views on the history of Israelitish religion, I am prepared for some reluctance on the part of many scholars to accept them. It is, however, historically very plausible that the Arabians, with whom early Israel was connected, had as their objects of worship a divine duad (or triad), and ' if the Kenites associated an Ashtart with Yahweh, Moses and the Hebrews would inevitably worship her too ' ; ^ i.e. the duad (or triad) must once have included a goddess. 1 think that I have added much to the textual basis for such a theory ; witness, e.g., the new explanation of the compound divine name Yahweh- Seba'oth. I have shown, too, that the Arabian 1 Barton, Semitic Origins (1902), p. 290. INTRODUCTION xvii deity who preceded Yahweh is frequently mentioned in the O.T., and that the Israelites frequently combined the name Yahweh, not only with that of the goddess referred to, but also with that of the great Arabian god ; witness the phrase, now at length restored, Yerahme'el- Yahweh. I have not, however, been able to show who were those individuals of more than average capacities who may have taken the lead in the religious movements referred to. To assert that they were called Abraham and Moses, I have never felt at liberty to admit. I can no more follow Winckler's appar- ently scientific attempt to prove Abraham to be a religious missionary from the references to Ur and Harran ^ than that of Hommel, who thinks that the traditions of the Mosaic period are supported by the Arabian personal names of the Babylonian dynasty of Hammurabi.^ As to Moses, I can sympathise with Giesebrecht's protest against a meagre evolutionary view of Israel's religion. But I cannot see what right we have to extract morsels of history from the legendary and late narratives of the legislator Moses.* That there was a Mosheh-clan is highly probable, but the occasional efforts of narrators to endow a vague representative of that clan with concrete features (Ex. ii. 1 1 - iv. 23, xvii. 3 yi ; Num. xx. 7-1 1) cannot be said to be satisfactory as historical evidence. One may venture to hope that able though somewhat prejudiced critics like Giesebrecht will before long see this. It is, at any rate, neither true religion nor sound criticism which opposes the full and free discussion of the traditional story of the Exodus. Nor can I see that the shock to educational prejudice is mitigated by supposing that Misraim had a wide range of meaning, and included some part of N. Arabia, which was claimed by Egypt. The theory does not seem to me to work easily ; I therefore pass it over as an unsatisfactory makeshift. It may seem strange, but it is most probably true, that S. Syria and Palestine were en- closed between two lands, both independent of Egypt, called Musri. From the southern Musri, according to the original 1 Abraham als Babylomer, Joseph als Aegypter (1903). 2 The Ancient Hebrew Tradition (iZ^"]^. 8 Die Israeli ten, p. 451, note I. xviii TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL tradition,^ came the Israelitish Exodus, or, perhaps one may venture to call it, migration ; such, at least, is the view anticipated, so far as was possible, in 1834 by our countryman, Dr. C. T. Beke, which appears to me the most probable. Perhaps I may, with all modesty, mention the half-way house in which I rested for a time, viz. that there were Israelitish tribes in the N. Arabian Musur who were never in the Musur of Egypt,^ and that those who were in the Egyptian Musur effected a junction with those who were in the Musur of N. Arabia. This, however, appears to me now too hazardous. The scene of the Joseph-story was not originally in Egypt but in N. Arabia, in spite of the fresh plausibility conferred upon the old theory by Marquart.' From a textual point of view, it seems to me difficult to deny that the Exodus of which the original tradition spoke was from a region in N. Arabia. It is a great mistake to suppose that the O.T. in general favours the alternative theory of the Exodus from Egypt. Let us consider this matter awhile textually. (i) I have pointed out a number of geographical glosses in Genesis and Exodus which point distinctly to the new theory. (2) It is true that the Joseph- story and the Exodus-story do in some places present a markedly Egyptian colouring. But this may without violence be ascribed to the activity of a redactor. The four or five Egyptian words, not proper names, which have been thought to exist in the Joseph-narratives (see Driver, Genesis, Introd. p. li, note i) are, even on Driver's showing, some of them doubtful. What I hold them to be myself I have suffi- ciently pointed out ; we have to look behind the traditional text. ' He that seeketh (in the right way) findeth.' (3) Next, as to i K. xii. 28. The land of QinSD there spoken of may just as well have been the N. Arabian Musri as Egypt. (4) Am. ix. 7 is, to say the least, equally vague, but if the other names are Arabian (which may plausibly be argued), so also, presumably, is Dinso. (4) and (S) In Am. ii. 10, iv. 25, we should most probably read ' in the wilderness 1 Winckler himself does not regard the tradition of the Exodus as historical. 2 See E. Bib., col. 1434. 3 See E. Bib., 'Joseph.' INTRODUCTION xix of the Arabians ' (Qini) ; see on xv. 13, xxiii. 2), and in Mic. vi. 4, ' out of the house ( = land) of the Arabians.' The other passages relative to the Exodus and the accompanying events — all of which are post-exilic — may, for the most part, con- ceivably refer to Egypt. They are — Isa. x. 26, xi. 1 5 /i, xliii. 16/, li. 10, Ixiii. 11-13 ; Ps. Ixvi. 6, Ixxviii. 12, 43-53, cv. 23-42, cvi. 7-23, cxiv. 1-8, cxxxvi. io-i6; Neh. ix. 9, ii. Some of these, however, cannot, in my opinion, refer to Egypt ; e.g. in Pss. Ixxviii., cv., cvi., I hold it to be certain that Ham, which is parallel to Misrim,^ is a shortened form of Yarham ( = Yerahme'el). See on Gen. ix. 1 8. This may, I hope, be enough to show that the theory of the N. Arabian sojourn and exodus of Israel is by no means devoid of probability. Into the details of this sojourn and exodus I need not now enter. Before we discuss the amount of the historical element possibly present in the traditions, we have to obtain a somewhat more original text. If, to any one, the results obtained in this work are dis- appointingly negative, I may venture to remind him that ' God is not banished from the history of Israel even if the Exodus was attended by no physical signs and wonders, no slaughter of the Egyptian first-born, no drowning of a hostile king in the Red Sea.'^ I trust, however, that negation has here gone hand in hand with affirmation, and that our new examination of Genesis and Exodus may reveal to us more than a few facts which may serve as useful material for the reconstruction of the history of Israel's religion. The division of the following pages into four parts, relating respectively to the first, the second, the third, and the fourth age of the world, will be explained in full when we come to the investigation of a turning-point in P's version of the traditions — Gen. xvii. The Priestly Writer, at any rate, seems to have grasped with some firmness the theory of the four ages of the world, a theory which is characteristic- 1 See Cheyne, Book of Psalms (1904), on the psalm-passages referred to. ' Soan,' too, points in the same direction. It most prob- ably comes from Sib'on, one of the forms of Ishmael (see on Gen. xxxvi. 20). 2 E. Bib., 'Plagues (the Ten),' § 5. XX TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL ally old Oriental,^ and may therefore suggest a convenient arrangement of our survey of the traditions and beliefs of ancient Israel. I may be allowed in conclusion to recom- mend the constant use of the Index, without which the full range of this work can hardly be estimated. 1 Babylon probably, and Persia certainly, knew of four world-ages. Cp. Enc. BritS^''\ ' Cosmogony,' § 2. Note. — The abbreviations used in the present work are for the most part those adopted in the Encydopadia Biblica. The rest will, I hope, quickly explain themselves to critical readers. ADDENDA Pp. 23, 146. Ashtar, as the name of a god and a locality. Compare the Phoenician name Vv^niyiN (Euting), commonly explained ' the espoused of Baal,' but really miswritten for Svz-nw^. Also B^nmnv (Cooke, p. 129), not 'servant of Ares,' but from -wwin i-\v. Pp. 34 / On the ark cp. Hommel, ' The Ark of Jahveh,' Exp. Times, Jan. 1907, who compares the ark with the parak Hm&ti, i.e. the shrine which contained the tablets of destiny (New Year's Festival). P. 54. Sammael, according to Bousset {Rel. des Jud.''^'^ p. 291, note 2), was ' originally a Syrian god Semil.' But what, pray, is the origin of Sem^l ? Surely some form of ISmael. P. 157/ Bousset (pp. cit. pp. 251-253) remains under the delusion that pss in Ezek. xxxviii. 6 and parallels means 'the north.' He sees the connexion of the ' king of the north ' (Dan. xi. 40-45) with the prophecy of Gog, but gets no further. See my review of Cor- nill's Introduction to the O.T. in The Nation, 2yth April 1907. P. 166. G. Husing too is sceptical as to a Tarshish in S. Spain. The true situation, he thinks, is 'doubtless in the direction of Opir, i.e. Elam, which is reached from Ezion-geber.' In Gen. and i Chr. we should read, not 'Tarshish,' but 'Turshim.' OLZ, Jan. 1907, cols. 26 15, 27 a. TRADITIONS OF THE FIRST AGE OF THE WORLD, BEGINNING WITH THE COS- MOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) There was a time when it was said that the Hebrew cosmo- gony was clearly based upon the Iranian. The view was not unplausible, assuming it to have been proved that the historico-legislative work known to students as the Priestly Code was of the ' post-exilic ' age. And when we study the Zoroastrian Scriptures, especially the Githas, we are struck by the parallelism between the Yahweh of the most advanced Hebrew writers and the Ahura Mazda of the Zoroastrians. Take the Avesta as a whole, and the spirituality of the most high God — His activity, intelligence, and holiness — comes out very plainly. Nor is the famous dualism of the Vendtdad any great objection. When dualism has found its perfect expression, we find it to be neither better nor worse than the dualism of the Apocalypse of John, which is a sound development from earlier Judaism, and to be quite reconcilable with the supremacy of the one true God. In the Gdthas, however — the communings of the prophet Zarathustra with his God in a metrical form, — dualism is not so prominent as in the Vendidad, while polytheism, of which the rest of the Avesta contains so much, is almost or quite absent. We are bound to form a very high estimate of the theism of the Gathas, and it is an honour both to the worship of Yahweh and to that of Ahura Mazda to compare them. At the same time, we have no right to assume that the Jewish circles from which the Priestly Code proceeded were acquainted with the Zoroastrian beliefs in any literary form. All that we can safely say is that ' Zoroastrian ideas were in 2 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL the air in the Persian period of Jewish history, and must have circulated freely throughout the empire.' ^ More especially those Jews who resided in Babylonia must have been open to a breath from the advanced theism of Persia. There is little probability, however, in Lagarde's view (see his Purim, 1887) that the Zoroastrian cosmogony influenced the Jewish.^ In the former the works of the Creator are six in number ; in the latter, eight, if not ten. In the former, pre-existent matter is dispensed with ; in the latter it is pre- supposed. In the former, Angra Mainyu (the evil principle personified) is for a time comparatively successful, not being finally destroyed till the end of the world ; in the latter there is no attempt at opposition to the Creator's will. If the Jewish writers had the slightest degree of acquaintance with the Zoroastrian cosmogony, it was most probably only* by report. And we may be sure that they were much more interested in reports of Babylonian myths, which might serve to revive the fading colours of older Israelitish myths, long since largely indebted, directly or indirectly, to the mythic traditions of Babylonia. But can we venture to endorse the statement of some popular writers that the cosmogony in Gen. i. is borrowed from Babylonia ? Certainly not. It must have required the labour of successive generations to bring the Babylonian myth into the form in which the Priestly Writer and a later redactor have transmitted their cosmogony to us. Nor is it at all certain that we still possess the exact form of the Babylonian myth, on the basis of which the early Israelitish myth was most likely recast. What may be reasonably stated is that it must in many points have resembled the story in the Babylonian creation-epic. As for the older Israelitish creation-story, it may have been derived either from the Canaanites or from that N. Arabian people among whom the Israelites probably sojourned. For obviously many myths may have existed in Canaan and N. and E. Arabia which have now hopelessly vanished. ' These myths doubtless had peculiarities of their own. From one of them 1 See Cheyne, ' The Book of Psalms, its Origin, and its Relation to Zoroastrianism,' Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kokut {i^gy), pp. iii-iig. ^ See E. Bib., 'Creation,' § 9. THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) 3 may have come that remarkable statement in Gen. i. 2 b, " and the spirit of God (Elohim) was hovering over the face of the waters," which, until we find some similar myth nearer home, is best illustrated and explained by a Poly- nesian myth (see below). It is also probably to a non- Babylonian source that we owe the prescription of vegetarian or herb diet in Gen. i. 29, 30, which has a Zoroastrian parallel {Bundahish, xv. 2) and is evidently based on a myth of the Golden Age, independent of the Babylonian cosmogony.' ^ Of the relation between the Israelitish story, whether in its older or in its more recent form, and Egyptian myths not much need here be said. In very early and probably pre - Israelitish times Egypt may have had considerable rf-eligious influence on the land of Canaan or Palestine, and it would be easy to indicate points of affinity between the Egyptian cosmogony and that in Gen. i. The conception of the primeval watery envelope of all things, also that of creation by a word, also the story of the conflict between Re' or Ra the Sun-god and the gigantic dragon Apepi or Apopi, remind us forcibly of the Babylonian and in a wide sense of the Hebrew cosmogony. But while fully admitting the combination of influences to which the Israelites were exposed, I do not think that the influence of Egypt upon the Israelites can be reckoned as at all comparable to that of Babylonia.^ Let us now look more closely at the cosmogony compiled and adapted by the Priestly Writer (P). One of the first things that strike us is the non-mention of the contest between the Creator and the Dragon, which is so prominent in the .chief Babylonian story. P (or his prede- cessor) must have been well aware of the leading incidents in such a widely spread myth ; why did he ignore this ' special point ? * Probably he thought it unseemly to recog- 1 Enc. Brit.'>-^\ ' Cosmogony.' 2 Besides the usual books on Egyptian religion (Brugsch, Wiede- mann, etc.), see A. Grenfell, 'Egyptian Mythology and the Bible,' TAe Monisi (1906), pp. 169-200 ; G. St. Clair, Creation Records (1898). 3 Contrast the author of Ps. viii., at least if Duhm and Cheyne, in their commentaries, may be followed. 4 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL nise such a being as Tiamat, as having power to hinder progress by contending with the God of light and order. Certainly, too, he wished to mention the hovering or brood- ing of riidh elohlm over the waters, a detail inconsistent with the dragon-story. Had he mentioned the monster at all, he would probably have called it by some appellation like tannin, 'serpent' (Isa. li. lo). We cannot, however, feel sure that he would have represented the dragon as slain, for there are passages in the O.T. and elsewhere (see below) in which the monster is only imprisoned. This mode of representation made it possible to speak metaphorically of the dragon (or serpent) as working havoc in creation long after the primeval contest, though, truth to say, the writer of Isa. li. lob virtually makes the dead dragon come to life again in the person of an oppressive king, to harass Yahweh's people. One cannot, however, help regretting the complete omis- sion of the dragon. The primeval physical redemption from the dragon had a typical and prospective significance. This is recognised in Isa. lix. 9, and virtually in the Johannine Apocalypse. For the picture in Rev. xii. of the heavenly woman who bears the Messiah, and is persecuted by the dragon till Michael and his angels overcome the monster, is antitypical. This, however, would have been clearer if the fight with the dragon had found a place at the head of the O.T. One may also add that the picture in Rev. xii. might well have closed the O.T. writings, for it is evidently of Jewish origin, as indeed the whole book is Jewish-Christian. At the same time we may frankly admit that a large part of the Babylonian details respecting Tidmat can well be spared, and among them the grotesque division of the dragon's car- case to produce heaven and earth. ^ This strange mythic detail is indeed hardly original. The true original matrix or envelope of the watery mass of primeval chaos was pre- sumably the cosmic egg.^ It is N. America and Polynesia, the classic lands of mythology, which most clearly show us this (see below), and indeed even one of the poor, pale, com- posite Phoenician traditions expressly states it.^ 1 Jastrow, Rel. Bab. Ass. p. 428. 2 Tiimat and the egg are connected by Robertson Smith (see E. Bib., col. 493, top). ^ Damascius, De Primis Prindpiis, c. 125. THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) 5 What, then, originally was the dragon, if not the watery mass of chaotic matter personified ? He (for the male sex is attested as well as the female) was a mighty preternatural Being, incapable himself of progress, and hostile to all those who might attempt it. The dark ocean was his abode, and the Bundahish (the Parsee Genesis) appropriately says ■^ that when the fiend saw the glory of the light of the Most High, ' he fled back to the gloomy darkness, and formed many demons and fiends,' able and eager to destroy. In short, like the tannlnim (' serpents,' ' dragons ') in Ps. Ixxiv. 1 3, he was not the great water itself, but upon it. Indeed, the dragon is once called ' the dragon in the sea,' at least if the traditional text of Isa. xxvii. i may be trusted. We infer, then, that in the original myth a company of sea-monsters, with one at their head, were imagined to be on the great waters. They were the 'helpers of Rahab' (Job ix. 13), 'the enemies of Yahweh' (Ps. Ixxxix. 11); a late but well- informed source even speaks of ' the dragon and his angels ' (Rev. xii. 7). In the Babylonian myth they are the eleven monsters formed by TiSmat, who with his consort Kingu represent the animal forms of the zodiac. Most probably, however, these monsters had a place in a myth of origins which had no reference to the zodiac or to astral deities, and we may compare the flood-myth (or second creation-myth) of the Algonkins in N. America, in which a prominent part is assigned to the water -serpents. These extraordinary animals, in fact, produce the flood.^ We have already seen that the fate of the dragon was variously related. There is a sufficient reason for this variety. Regarding him (or her) as a symbol of the watery envelope of the earth, he might fitly be said to have been destroyed when those waters dried up (cp. Isa. H. 10). The original myth, however, cannot have said that the waters enveloping the earth dried up. According to Ps. civ. 7 they fled away, scared by Yahweh's battle-cry, and in the paler language of Gen. i. they were ' gathered together into one 1 Bund. i. 10 (SEE v. 6). The Bundahish, though in its present form not earlier than 651 A.D., contains very ancient traditions. '^ Schoolcraft, Myth of Hiawatha (1856), pp. 35-39 ; and cp. Joum. of Amer. Folklore, iv. 210-213. y 6 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL place' at the divine command. Mjjthologically they must have had in their midst a preternaturally gifted Being to control them. The proofs of this are not far to seek. It was a dragon who carved out the channel of the river Orontes, and a dragon who hid within the Nile and devoured its banks ; and it is still, as the people believe, a dragon in St. Mary's well (near Jerusalem) during whose sleep the water gushes forth.^ No wonder, then, that in the Johannine Apocalypse (Rev. xii. 3) the dragon of chaos reappears alive, and perhaps we may add that on Babylonian cylinders older than the time of Hammurabi the dragon is represented as harnessed to a chariot and driven by Bel.* That a dragon hostile to Yahweh exists, appears from Isa. xxvii. I , where the destruction of ' Leviathan,' or the dragon, is a feature of the latter day. At present he is quiet, paralysed by the onset and battle-cry of Yahweh. He is ' in the depths of the ocean, over the fountains of the waters ' (Enoch Ix. 7 ; cp. Amos ix. 3), i.e. the subterranean ocean spoken of in the Prayer of Manasseh (w. 3) as ' sealed by God's terrible and glorious name.' Only specially gifted men can stir him up, such as can be found in Arabia — the home of magic, — for Job says, ' Let the magicians of Yaman * curse it, those who have skill to stir up Leviathan ' (Job iii. 8). We must not, however, quote Job vii. 12 in proof of the continued existence of the dragon. ' Am I a sea or a dragon ' does not make a good sense. We should probably read ' am I a wild-ox or a serpent,' two dangerous but not preternatural animals being put side by side. Nor Isa. xxx. 7 (Gunkel, ' the silenced Rahab '), where ' Rahab ' is not a mythological term, but most probably a sarcastic modification of Raham, the short for Yarham or Yerahme'el.* It may be objected that 'Rahab' is elsewhere (Job ix. 13, xxvi. 12, 1 E. Bib., ' Dragon,' § 4 ; Maspero, Dawn of Civilisation, p. 90. 2 E. Bib., ' Dragon,' § 7. 3 Reading [d' for n[i]'. A friend of Gunkel had already suggested d;. ID' (written 'd>) may be short either for ' Yerdhmeel ' or for ' Ishmael.' So too in Isa. xxvii. 1, d'3, 'in the sea,' should perhaps be [D'n, 'in Yaman,' and in Job ix. 8 we should read 'the high places of Yaman.' See on x. 2 (Yavan). * The reference in Isa. xxx. is to an embassy to Misrim (the N. Arabian Musri) ; see ' Isaiah,' SBOT (Hebrew edition). THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. /^a) 7 Ps. Ixxxix. II, Isa. li. 9) a mythological name for the dragon of chaos. This, however, is an imperfect statement of the truth. 'Rahab' is only a name for the dragon because the dragon is identified by Hebrew writers with Israel's great foe, Misrim (not Misraim) or Yerahme'el, an equivalent for which is the much-tormented word Rahab. And who was the Great One who could vanquish this preternatural but unprogressive Being ? Or, in other words, who was the Creator ? The text of the Hebrew cosmogony suggests that it was a Man, the type and model of the lordly men created on the sixth day {w. 26-28). Like men he speaks ; like men he works ; like men he rests. He loves order and peace {v. 29 implies that the lower animals are not to be killed). He also, even when at work, loves society (cp. ii. 1 8) — ' let us make man." He takes pleasure in his creations (cp. Ps. civ. 31), more especially in his men (' God blessed them ' — ' everything was very good '). Still he preserves a certain distance ; he does not seem to contemplate dwelling on the earth himself; if he has a Paradise, it must be in heaven. So, then, he has a strong human personality. His name, functions, and attributes we shall consider later. At present let us be content with emphasising one great fact, viz. that he is no personification of nature or of any part of nature. He is indeed above nature, even more decidedly than man (unless he be a magician) is above the lower animals. But was he always so ? Was there not a time when the ancestors of the Priestly Writer conceived of the highest Being as a mixture of man and animal ? For not man alone was wonderfully endowed ; the animals them- selves had gifts which compelled both admiration and awe. A Babylonian legend said that the goddess Ishtar contracted brief unions with a lion, a horse, and a bird. So great was still the belief in the kinship between the gods and the animals. Surely, then, the greatest Being of those far-off people must have had an animal side, must at least have had the power of changing at will into a preternaturally gifted animal. If so, must there not, according to an early form of the Canaanitish or N. Arabian creation-myth, have been animals before the ' creation ' ? For this, the Algonkin 8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL creation-story gives us a parallel. It tells us of the creator- hero (Michabo, the ' Great Hare ') as being, with a number of animals, on a raft on the shoreless waters. After succes- sive trials, he induces the musk-rat to dive for a morsel of earth. Of this, Michabo makes an island ; perhaps there is here a notion of America.^ Such a limited creation the early Canaanites too (or their predecessors) may conceivably have imagined. We can now account for the reference in w. 2 ^ to a Being, evidently concerned in creation, and occupying no merely ministering station, who ' hovered (or brooded) over >; the face of the waters.' Must not this Being have had the form of a great and mighty (female) bird ? ^ The fem. part, forbids us indeed to suppose that the Supreme Being himself was intended. But it is not superfluous to point out that in three passages Yahweh, as the Creator and Preserver of Israel, is compared to an eagle (strictly, vulture), and that in a fourth his chariot or vehicle is a mighty bird. The three passages are Ex. xix. 4, Dt. xxxii. 1 1 , and Mai. iii. 20 (allusion to the winged sun-disk ^) ; the fourth is Ps. xviii. 1 1 , where the description favours a conception of the cherub as a bird,* and most plausibly as an eagle. But have we a right to group Ps. xviii. 1 1 with the three former passages ? It seems to me that we have, and I would appeal to an eminent Vedic scholar (Oldenberg) in support of this. His view and my own is that when a particular animal is specially attached to a god, it points to an original incarnation of that god in the animal.^ There is particularly strong evidence for this in the case of the god Indra (originally, it is maintained, an eagle-god), and it seems to me reasonable to suppose that Yahweh was com- 1 See Chamberlain, Journal of American Folklore, iv. 208/, and cp. Brinton, Myths of the New World, pp. 176-179. 2 See the present writer's article 'Cosmogony,' Enc. BritS^\ 1876 ; cp. Gunkel, Schopfung {!?,<)$), p. 8. 2 Cp. Miss S. Y. Stevenson, Papers of the Oriental Club (Philadelphia, 1894), pp. 232 j^ The winged disk was the symbol of the god Ashur. * It is true the conception of the form of the cherub varied. We see this from Ezekiel. But note that in Ezek. i. 10 one of the faces of the cherub is that of an eagle. ' Oldenberg, Die Religion des Veda (1894), pp. 74, 75. THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-ii. 4«) 9 pared to an eagle or vulture, because the god Yerahme'el, his predecessor,^ was imagined to have sometimes taken the form of that bird. That the Arabians worshipped vultures, has been shown by Robertson Smith.^ This implies appearances of gods in vulture-form. Some old hymn to the god Yarham or Yerahme'el may have referred to him as a vulture, and hence may have come the favourite O.T. figure of Yahweh's eagle or vulture wings. Clearly, too, the Creator's assistant might, from the primitive point of view, be equally well imagined as a great bird. In the Kalevala ^ it is a duck which lays six golden eggs and a seventh of iron on the knees of Ether's daughter Ilmatar, in the vast expanse of ocean. Ilmatar shakes her limbs, and the eggs are dashed to pieces, but the pieces come together again transformed. Other Finnish traditions, however, say that it was the eagle that laid the world-egg.* In Polynesia it is as an enormous bird who hovers over the waters, and there deposits an egg, that the heaven-god and creator Tangaloa is imagined,^ while the Athapascans of North America say that it was ' a mighty bird (a raven), whose eyes were fire, whose glances were lightning, and the clapping of whose wings was thunder,' on whose descent to the ocean the earth instantly rose.® It now becomes a question whether, instead of ' hovering,' the earlier myth must not rather have meant ' brooding ' as the form of activity assigned to the Great Being spoken of. The rendering ' hovered ' vav.T, is no doubt supported by Dt. xxxii. 1 1 (see Driver's note), but ' brooded ' is in accordance with the Syriac, and fits the presumed original reference to the cosmic egg. As von Bohlen remarks, to render ' brooded ' in Gen. i. 2 is unfair to the compiler of Gen. i., who deliberately rejects the cosmic egg. But there can be no doubt as to the sense intended in the earlier myth. The 1 To justify this, see below. ^ Kinship''^\ p. 244. Nasr, a vulture-god, was worshipped by the Himyarites (p. 243). ^ Crawford's transl., Rune i. * So Le Due's Kalevala. ^ Waitz-Gerland, Antkropologie der Naturvolker, vi. 236^ ^ Mackenzie, in Brinton's Myths, p. 21 1. On the place of birds in the N. American creation and flood myths, see Brinton, pp. 204, 220. lo TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Bird-creator and the cosmic egg (a figure suggested by the earth with the over-arching vault of heaven) go together. Let us remark next that, as a consequence of the non- mention of the egg, the result of the activity of the ' hovering ' or ' brooding ' has also had to be omitted, for v. 3 clearly begins afresh. Nor does the Priestly Writer state how ' darkness ' was produced ; evidently, like chaos, it pre-existed. We are told, however, that Elohim named the darkness (light and darkness being material entities, cp. Job xxxviii. 19 /), i.e. made it subservient to his purposes. Another writer, however, in the course of a protest against dualism, boldly makes Yahweh style himself the ' creator of darkness' (Isa. xlv. 7). Evidently he has a passion for God, and cannot leave any part of the universe unaccounted for on monotheistic principles. Another question may be raised in this connexion. It is this. Where was the Supreme Being when he began to create the world ? The mythologies say that both heaven and the gods were produced out of primeval darkness. In a Maori legend, for instance, we find darkness (called Po ; cp. "EpejSo?) personified as the begetter both of Light and of Nought.^ In Babylonia, too, the light-gods necessarily arise out of dark chaos. The Priestly Writer of Israel, however, abstains reverently from any statement which might seem derogatory to Elohim. One thinks, however, that he might have said that ' before the hills ' Elohim was, and that his dwelling-place was in those ' uncreated lights ' which have neither end nor beginning. The Parsee Genesis may here supplement the Jewish. ' One is he who is independent of unlimited time, because Afiharmazd and the region, religion, and time of A6harmazd were and are and ever will be.' ^ A Hebrew psalmist, however, also supplements Gen. i., when he says of Yahweh, ' Who wrappest thyself in light as in a mantle (Ps. civ. 2) ; this may reasonably be taken to imply all that the Bundahish says.^ 1 Shortland, in Waitz-Gerland, vi. 267. 2 Bundahish, i. 3. ' 8 See Cheyne, Psalms^'^\ ad loc. The Avesta (Vendidad, ii. 40) says, ' There are uncreated hghts and created lights.' A Vedic hymn ' represents the creation as a ray entering the realm of darkness from THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. \a) n We now turn to the creative works.^ The first is light. ' Elohim said, Let light be ; and light was.' Did Elohim speak light into being? That, however, would be incon- sistent with the rest of the narrative. All that appears in nature would have come from something pre-existent except light. Surely the writer presupposes that the light of day- comes ultimately from the light which surrounds Yahweh. It is worth noticing that, according to the Bundahish (i. 23, 25), Ahura Mazda first of all produced Vohflman (' good thought '), and then the sky, after which Vohtiman produced the ' light of the world ' (see p. 38, note i). The next work is heaven, or, as it is more correctly called, the firmament of the heaven. As Jeremias points out,^ it is the ' bar ' {parku) which, in the fourth tablet of the epic, is placed in front of the half of Tiimat's carcase to keep the upper waters in position ; also the ' highway of the heaven ' {supuk same), as the Babylonians called the firma- ment. In short, it is the zodiac on which, according to vv. i/^ff., the sun, moon, and stars, i.e. planets, are placed as ' signs.' As signs of what ? Of the will of the gods (cp. Jer. X. 3) — a distinctly Babylonian doctrine, which appeared to divest the power that stands overagainst man of its capricious and unintelligible character.^ The Priestly Writer retains the conception of the heavenly bodies as ' signs,' but does not explain how he differs from the Babylonians. He also still permits the belief that the sun rules over the day, and the moon over the night (cp. Tablet V. line 12, probably), but does not guard against polytheistic inferences. That the permission was dangerous appears from Job xxxi. 26 f. In Talmudic times some of the Jews actually sacrificed to the sun, the moon, and the planets, to which is added the almost divinely sacred name of Michael.* Before passing on, let us notice that the present unnatural position of the heavenly bodies, in vv. 14-18, after the earth and the plants, the realm of light' (Max Miiller, Ajtc. Sanskr. Lit. p. 562). The Babylonian Creator, Marduk, was a Light-god. 1 On P's characteristic word for 'create' see E. Bib., col. 954. 2 ATAO, pp. 55, 78. *■ ^ So Winckler often ; see e.g. ' Die Weltanschauung des alten Orients,' Prettss. Jahrbiicher, civ. 231 (1901). * Hullin, 40 a ; Abodah zarah, 42 b. 12 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL must be due to the necessity of bringing the creative works into the scheme of six working days (so Gunkel). The original order was probably what we find in the Babylonian epic. On the distinction between Hebrew and Babylonian cosmology at this point, see Jastrow, RBA, pp. 435 /i Now, as to the other creative works. In z;. 11 Elohim directs that the earth {i.e. the dry land) should bring forth plants, and in vv. 20, 24 that the waters and the earth should cause living beings to come forth, suitable for each. In vv. 26, 27, however, Elohim himself both proposes to create, and actually creates (or rather takes the leading part in the work). Evidently a contrast is intended. As for the plants and the varied animal forms of water and land, their creation can be delegated to lesser beings closely connected with the water or the land (as the case may be). I mean that in the spirit of the earlier narrative, which was distinctly animistic, we may assume that some inferior divine Beings — the future water-gods, plant-gods, and animal-gods — were appointed for this duty.^ This, I take it, is why in vv. 21 and 2 5 it is said that ' Elohim created great sea-monsters (or serpents),' and that ' Elohim made the beasts of the earth,' etc. Possibly in the original text the verbs here were in the plural ; some change, at any rate, seems to have taken place in the text. We may here recall that, accord- ing to Berossus, both men and animals were created at Bel's command by one of the other gods.^ The illustration, I admit, is imperfect, still it is worth something, for it shows that one deity was not supposed in Babylonia to have done everything. One may also refer to the striking representa- tion of the Skidi Pawnees of N. America, which is quite as much a fact as the statement of Berossus. Beyond the clouds, say they, the creator of the universe, Tirawa, together with his consort Atira (maize-maiden), reigns supreme. His mandates, however, are transmitted to men by lesser deities, 1 Cp. the angels appointed over natural objects (Jubilees ii., Slavonic Enoch, xix. 4). " He is said to have mixed with clay the blood which flowed from the severed head of Bel. The opening lines of Tablet VI. show that the blood of Bel-Marduk himself is meant. See Lagrange, Religions s^mitiques, ed. i. p. 341. THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. i,d) 13 and through some of these, once upon a time, he created mankind. The first girl and boy were produced by the Evening and Morning Stars, and by the Sun and Moon respectively, while other human beings were created by the gods of the four world-quarters, who, like the analogous deities in Egyptian mythology, were the supports of the sky.i And who were these men ? Were they a pair, or several pairs? If they were a single pair, how could it be said, ' Let them rule over the fish of the sea,' etc. ? But if they were several pairs, why is it said, 'as the image of Elohim created he him ' ? There seems here to be an incon- sistency, due perhaps to the redactor. That the first man was androgynous is held among moderns, so far as I know, by Schwally alone ^ (changing dhn into iriN). It is, how- ever, more important to remark that these first men were no ordinary men such as we are, but ' the (very) image of Elohim, like unto Elohim ' (w. 26). For humanity no longer answers completely to this description — humanity has fallen. So, at least, later students thought ; the first men must have had endowments which later specimens of the race have lost. Probably they imagined such a being as the Adapa or Adamu (Fossey, Sayce) of Babylonian legend,^ who is, indeed, a man, but so near godship that some myth-makers could ignore the distinction, and identify him with the god Marduk. Indeed, in the O.T. itself we find distinct refer- ences to a first man who was virtually a god. Let us glance at these. One is in Job xv. 7, 8, where Eliphaz sarcastically asks Job if he is the first man, and has caught up the plan of the world in the sessions of the divine council.* 1 Dorsey, Traditions of the Skidi Pawnee (1904), Introd. pp. xviii. _;. 2 Archiv fiir Relig.-wissenschaft, ix. (1906) 173. s Job may, in fact, have been one of the traditional first men, or one of those primeval heroes who were made directly by God. The name ivN (p'N ?) may suggest Ea-bani ( = ' Ea made ') as that of the original hero. Ea was the god of wisdom. See E. Bib., ' Job.' In Am. Tab. ^37; 6, 13 we find Aiab as a pers. name in N. Palestine (Cheyne, Expositor, 1897, b, p. 23). * On Adapa or Adamu, no ' first Adam,' but a special creation, see Lagrange, Jiel. sdm. p. 340. Babylon knows of no ' first man.' 14 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Singularly enough, there is a close parallel to this in Rune iii. of the Kalevala (Crawford), where the young singer Youkahainen brags thus to the ancient minstrel Waina- moinen — I was present as a hero. Sixth of wise and ancient heroes, Seventh of primeval heroes. When the heavens were created. When were formed the ether spaces, etc. Clearly the first man, according to some primitive thinkers, was not short of divine in his wisdom. Another is in Ezek. xxviii. 12-17, where we have a mythological picture of the first man in Paradise, which has some degree of affinity (i) to the Babylonian story of Gilgamesh, (2) to the picture in Gen. i. 26-28, and (3) to the Paradise-story in Gen. ii.-iii. We shall have to return to Ezekiel's picture later ; here I need only remark that underneath the king of Missor (as we must doubtless read instead of Sor) there is the grand form of the First Man, who is ' full of wisdom and perfect in beauty,' and has the attire of a king or a demi-god. In fact, perfect wisdom and beauty are among the signs of godship. Wisdom is necessary alike for making a world, and for ruling over it when it has been made ; beauty either for charming or for awing its inhabitants into obedience. Not for charming alone. For the divine beauty has a special awfulness ; the unworthy may not see it unscathed. Naturally, then, the two first men were both wise and beautiful : the first is nameless in the Priestly Writing ; the second is Han6k (to be restored, as the original reading, for Noah), whose wisdom and beauty are guaranteed by his converse with Elohim. To both, the royal hero of the Babylonian deluge-myth, Xisuthros (Atra-hasis, ' the very wise '), and the equally royal Yima, who once upon a time ruled over pious men in the Zarathustrian Paradise, are in a high degree parallel. The First Man, therefore, may be called a God, just as his maker may be called a Man. In Gen. i. 26 (cp. ix. 6) we are told that he was to be the image and likeness of Elohim, and in v. 3 the same phraseology is used of the first THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. i,d) 15 son in relation to the first father/ And if there is a sexual distinction in the new-made human nature, was there not also, mythologically, a similar distinction in the nature of the Great Beings (cp. above, on i. 2 ^) ? Further, if it be said that to correspond to the preternatural animal-man who long, long ago preceded the glorious divine Man of the Priestly Writer, and indeed of the Babylonian creation- myths, there must afterwards have been animal-men, not in the same degree preternatural, we need not contradict (see on vi. 1-6). Such a phase of belief there was, and why should not the ancestors of the later Canaanites have passed through it ? Heaven and earth, god and man must corre- spond. So felt, till quite recently, the N. American Indians ; so, too, the vastly more cultured Babylonian race. To what marvels of constructive speculation the latter were guided by this conception, no one has shown so clearly as Hugo Winckler.^ We now pass on to the question of the plurality of the Elohim. That the Heavenly Man, called by the Priestly Writer in a special sense Elohim, like the men of earth, loved companionship, we have seen already. ' Elohim said, Let us make man.' Surely there is no figure of speech here, as if Elohim were taking counsel with himself When such a case does arise, it does not appear that the plural is used.* To understand the passage, we must take it with parallel passages, such as (iii. 22,) xi. 7, Isa. vi. 8, to which we may add the story of the visit of the three ' men ' to Abraham in chap, xviii. I venture to think it practically certain that in an earlier form of this story the three ' men ' represented a divine triad or trinity, which acted after deliberating in council, though one of its members was superior in rank to the rest. The notion will perhaps strike some as heathenish. It is, however, in harmony with the 1 The Egyptians elaborated the theory of the humanity of God in a tasteless way (see Maspero, Dawn of Civ. p. no). On Ezek. i. 27 see Gressmann, Eschatologie, pp. 5 1 7C ^ See the essay already mentioned, Preuss. Jahrbiicher, civ. ( 1 90 1 ), especially pp. 261/. ^ Cp. Gen. viii. 21, ' Yahweh said to his heart.' The reference is at any rate valid against a textual conservative like Ed. Konig (Syntax, § 207). 1 6 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL fundamental belief of the Semitic East that heaven and earth are in the closest correspondence. An earthly king had his wider and his narrower circle of councillors, in imitation, as was supposed, of the heavenly pattern. The wider heavenly council consisted of the ben6 Elohim, or inferior divinities (i K. xxii. 19-22, Job i. 6, ii. i, xxxviii. 7 ; cp. Rev. iv. 4). The narrower one was limited to the Divine Three,^ the chief of whom can be no other than the great Yahweh himself, while the second and third are honourably subjected divinities, whose worship the Israelites had learned from the N. or E. Arabians. The names of the latter are Ashhur or Ashtar and Yarham or Yerahme'el (see below) — divinities already closely associated before they were subordinated to Yahweh. In fact, divine duads rather than triads are characteristic of Canaan. It is probable, too, that the inner divine council was often, in the mind of the Hebrew narrators, a duad ^ rather than a triad (see below, on ' Mal'ak Yahweh'). But, whether triad or duad, the Divine Com- panions were doubtless imagined as living together in the fullest harmony. I have here assumed that a time came when progressive Israelites were agreed that among the Divine Three there was no goddess. This may be illustrated by the fact that the Zenjirli (N. Syrian) inscriptions refer only to gods. It is, however, extremely probable that one member of the Divine Company of Gen. xviii. is the transformation of a goddess. The primitive Semitic deity was certainly a goddess — the great ' mother-goddess ' Ash tart. It was this deity who was worshipped at the very ancient Semitic temple, the remains of which Petrie claims to have found at Serabit-el-Khadem.^ For we can hardly fail to agree with 1 Three, because of Gen. xviii. ; cp. also the triads of Egypt and Babylonia. Anu, Bel, and Ea formed a triad as early as 3000 B.C. Later Jewish speculation, however, recognised companies of four and of seven Mighty Ones. Saturninus, the Gnostic, of Antioch, taught that the world was produced by seven angels (Hippolyt. Refut. vii. 28). The Ophites spoke of a holy hebdomad, whose chief was Yaldabaoth, the God of the Jews (Iren. adv. haer. i. 30. 9, 10). 2 So the great unifier of Babylonia recognises specially Anu and Bel (see Jastrow, RBA, p. 147). 3 Researches in Sinai {igo6), p. 192. THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4^) i7 this explorer that the Hat-hor (' Mistress of Turquoise ') here worshipped was really Ashtart. As Barton has shown, the Semitic father-god was but a transformation of the mother-goddess, and the Kenites, whose disciples the tribes led by ' Moses ' were, must have worshipped Ashtart beside the great god commonly known as Yahweh.^ So that even in N. Arabia the Hebrews were the worshippers of a goddess, and when they advanced into Canaan their attachment to this cult would naturally grow and develop. For the Canaanites, like the Phoenicians, were devoted to Ashtart. This appears plainly enough from the results of the excavations. It is true there are many O.T. texts which describe the worship of the Baals and the Ashtarts as apostasy, but such statements are admittedly due to illusion. This is not the place to consider the Baalim. As to the local Ashtarts, the traces of their worship in the O.T. would no doubt be larger* but for the scribes and the redactors, and some of the original evidence of its existence can still (as we shall see) be recovered. From the phrase ' Ashtart, the abomination (goddess) of the Sidonians' (i K. xi. 5, 2 K. xxiii. 13), one might be led to suppose that the cultus was an importation from Phoenicia in the time of Solomon, who, it is said, ' went after Ashtart and Milkom.' This, however, would be an error. From Judg. ii. 13, x. 6, i S. vii. 3, 4, xii. 10, however, as well as from the recent excava- tions, it appears that it is of earlier date than this. Judg. X. 6 deserves special attention, because after ' the Baals and the Ashtarts' come the words 'the gods of Aram and the gods of Sidon.' Now, both Aram and Sidon have two possible meanings. They may refer to regions or districts either on the northern or on the southern border of the Israelites. It is contended here that the most natural view is that which makes them southern regions, and that the settled parts of N. Arabia were the source and centre of the cultus referred to. See, further, on ' Ashteroth Karnaim,' xiv. 5. But besides the passages in which mention is plainly made 1 Semitic Origins, p. 290. ^ Barton, too, remarks on the scantiness of the O.T. references to Ashtoreth (' Ashtoreth,' eic, JBL x., 1891, p. 73). l8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL of Ashtart or the Ashtarts, as worshipped by the backsliding Israelites, there are passages enough in which the goddess Ashtart is referred to under one or another of her titles incorrectly transmitted, (a) One is ' Malkah of Ishmael,' ^ i.e. the heavenly queen worshipped in Ishmaelite or Yerah- me'elite Arabia (cp. ' Ishtar of Nineveh,' ' Ishtar of Arbela '). This title is traditionally misrepresented in Jer. vii. i8, xliv. 17-19, 25, as 'queen of heaven,' precisely as (if I may differ from the prevalent theory) ' Baal of Ishmael ' has been altered into ' Baal of heaven ' by Phoenician priests adopting and sanctioning an error of the scribes or sculptors (cp. p. 45), and precisely as 'the god of Ishmael' has been altered sometimes in the O.T. into ' god of heaven ' (see on Gen. xxiv. 7), and ' the idol of Ishmael ' into ' the abomina- tion that makes desolate' (Dan. xii. 11 ; cp. ix. 27, xi. 3). Malkah is, of course, the feminine of Melek or Malk (see p. 5 1 ). I may notice, however, that the various reading riDNfjo implied by the points, and by many MSS. as well as Besh., may perhaps represent TT'^NDriT, in which case D"'Dt» must of course be rejected. Cp. below, on Mal'ak. {b) Other titles are ' the Ishmaelitess,' ' the Ashka- litess,' ' the Meshek goddess,' ' the Arabian,' which are disguised in MT. as Bosheth,^ Ashmath,* Sukkoth,* 1 D'DB' (ddc) for 'db", as e.g. in Gen xi. 4, xlix. 25. Cp. also So/iij/x- povfioi in Philo of Byblus, a compound of two corrupt forms, one repre- senting 'de", the other onx = 'am\ 2 ner2, as a designation of the consort of Baal, Jer. iii. 23, Hos. ix. 10, is pointed by Jastrow {/BL, 1894, pp. i<) ff.) if a ; he regards it as the name of a Babylonian deity, and compares the personal name Mutibashti, which, however, can be explained otherwise. The usual view is that ' Bosheth ' (as tradition points) means ' shame '■ — a dis- paraging substitute for ' Ba'al.' But how comes the Chronicler to give ' Eshba'al ' (' Ishba'al ' ?) rather than ' Ishbosheth ' ? The truth probably is that rmi = Tfvzer = n''7NVDis". The same explanation may apply to the Phcen. nD3N (Cooke, pp. 69, 91), also to the Heb. nK'3[B']'N. Cp. 3b" and ay often from 'jKyoK". 3 noiyN, Am. viii. 14, is another corruption of 'de". The parallelism shows this (see pp. 46/). Cp. NO'iyN, 2 K. xvii. 30. * nuo (MT. Sukkoth), in the title of the great autumn festival. ' Booths ' is highly improbable, nor is anything said about dwelling in booths in Dt. xvi. 13-15- Originally it was the festival of Ashtart, as the goddess of fruit-producing tre6s. nso comes from o'jse'k, the fem. of '73B'K ( = Asshur-yerahme'el) ; see on Gen. xiv. 1 3. We also find THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. i,d) 19 Zenuth,^ Mazzaloth,^ Tammuz,^ Maskith[o],* Shulammith,^ 'Arbith,® and Seba'oth.'' I must here appeal to fair- minded readers. The objections to the usual explana- tions of the passages referred to are exceedingly strong. If any one can overcome them, I will return to con- servative textual views. But the variety of explanations tried is already so great that I can hardly conceive of new ones. Take for instance the phrase niNlS '^ which Gressmann has lately called 'altogether unintelligible.' It seems indeed to mean 'Yahweh of the hosts.' But we ma n3D (1 superfluous) in 2 K. xvii. 30, as the deity of the N. Arabian Babel (see on Gen. x. 10). nn should no doubt be nnn, the first n omitted, as if dittographed. 'n means 'the Temanite goddess' (see P- 45). 1 mil, Hos. iv. 1 1 (a didactic maxim, clearly corrupt). The pre- ceding word Txh covers over nW ; so also does nui. ' The Ishmaelitess, Yaman, and Ashtar steal the mind.' Cp. r\m nn, Jer. v. 7, where niir comes from nivax ( = Ishmaelitess). Cp. n:ii in Judg. xi. i, and perhaps Josh. ii. I ; also Crit. Bib. on i K. xxii. 38. 2 niViD, 2 K. xxiii. J. Neither 'signs of the zodiac,' nor 'mansions {manzalti) of the great gods ' will suit, 'o should really be combined with Sya. ' Sun and moon ' is a gloss. Read n<'7B'D = 'db". The well- known title again. Cp. (7) and d'didi = cj'^iNVDii" ; also '?nt and y\ii = 'Dti\ 3 non, Ezek. viii. 1 4. ' Women weeping for the Tammuz ' cannot be called probable. We rather expect (Jer. vii. 18, etc.) the worship of the ' queen of Ishmael ' (tradition, ' of heaven '), and this is ratified by textual criticism, iinn, like ni'?iD, comes from 'De/\ Read nianao, not niano. * [i]n'3i!'D, Ezek. viii. 12. Unintelligible in MT. Read n'SBD, i.e. the Meshek-goddess. See on 'Meshek,' Gen. x. 2. 5 Possibly n'D^'iB' (MT. Shulammith), in Cant. vi. 13, represents ntht/ = t\^W]iaa\ on the supposition that Canticles is based on a cycle of songs relative to the myth of Adonis and his sister-spouse. See p. 47. s n'ny, in the phrase m3[n] [ns*, i S. iv. 4, etc., which, like nnyn 'k, is suspicious. Sometimes the Deuteronomist is supposed to have coined the phrase, and later writers are presumed to have interpolated ma or mnn in earlier passages. This, however, is but a makeshift hypothesis. We also find n'mv, miswritten (a) as td'n, given as a gloss on n'j)3s (see 11), and {b) as rmm in Num. x. 357: It is probable, too, that n"u ?5i3 in Judg. viii. 33, ix. 4, and 'a Sk in Judg. ix. 46, are corrup- tions of K'TiV Skdht, the two members of a divine duad being combined. The difficulties of commentators are thus, I hope, removed. Cp. p. 35. ^ Independently Erbt {Die Hebrder, p. 185) has advocated a similar view. He would. read nKax, 'the warrior-goddess,' i.e. Asherah. But the great goddess was not primarily a warrior. Josh. v. 13 throws no real light on the name. 20 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL know from i S. iv. 4, 2 S. vi. 2, that it was the name of the god of the ark (if piN, ' ark,' be correct), and any one can see that such a name as this for such a god is, to say the least, improbable. Analogy suggests that niMns must occupy the place of some proper name ; in short, that '2 '■• is the incorrect form of a compound divine name. What we expect instead of m«3S is the name of a goddess (p. 1 7), and considering («) the evidence of the ' Stone of Job,' * {U) that Mlt& and i>3m are both derivatives of [bN]DOt&% and (c) that 2 sometimes certainly takes the place of © {e.g. in Dii7l2 and □■'N12, pi^ns, \^^'^, ^ych%, it is natural to read TC^'s'yi. ( = n"'32;3i2), and to explain it ' Ishmaelitess.' * It is worth noticing again that, according to Num. x. 35, 36 (the text is corrupt, but can be restored), the name Yahweh might be combined equally well with TVs'y^ and with iT'ni?. That the higher teachers of Israel at an early period induced their disciples to read the safer word (with T instead of "^ can be easily understood. See on '1 T«f?D, pp. ^^ff- A third title most probably underlies the phrase ruah elohlm in Gen. ii. 2 b. We have already seen that the clause as a whole must refer to one of the co-workers in creation, and that this mighty worker was represented in the form of a (female) bird. From this it follows that riiah elohlm cannot be the original reading. What this phrase usually means we know. It denotes a potent divine energy, materialistically conceived, which stirs human nature to its depths, and (in the later books) produces and sustains life (see Driver's note). Here, however, it is an original cosmic power that comes before us hypostasized, and for this there is only one complete parallel, viz. the difficult passage, Isa. xl. 13. Indeed, there is no secure evidence that the ru&h, whatever be its functions, was ever hypostasized, I K. xxii. 19^., Isa. Ixiii. lo, 11, 14, Ps. cvi. 33, as well as Isa. xl. 13, being most probably corrupt.^ 1 The so-called 'Stone of Job,' discovered beyond the Jordan, seems to attest the worship of a Canaanitish goddess called Kana- 2(or s)apant. For the latter part of this compound name (sapant) is surely niss, ' Sephonlth ' = Sib'onlth (' Ishmaelitess'). 2 See on Sibe'on, xxxvi. 20. 3 In I K. nnn represents ^ndht, as the God of prophecy (prophecy most probably came from Arabia). In Isa., wip nn and mri' nn have THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) 21 There is but one adequate solution : ruAh elohim must -.■ represent a compound divine name, one of the elements in which must be the name of a goddess. ' Elohim ' may be either a substitute for ' Yerahme'el ' or (a later usage) an equivalent for ' Yahweh ' ; the latter alternative is preferable. Riiah therefore must have arisen out of the name of a goddess, and we can now see who that goddess must have been — 'Ashtart' (the Bab. Ishtar),^ who, though not the wife of Baal-ishmael (Baal-shamem) or Baal-hamman (Baal- yerahme'el), was at any rate his ' name,' i.e. ' equivalent ' (Eshmunazar's inscription, /. 18). Her sacred animal at Sidon was the cow, in Cyprus the sheep, in Syria the dove. But she could not be confined to these manifestations. As a cosmogonic deity it was fit that she should assume the shape of an eagle. Originally, perhaps (like Anu), a chthonic deity, she rose to the rank of lady of heaven, celestial virgin, and, as Ishtar is styled in a Babylonian hymn, ' mother of the gods, fulfiller of the commands of Bel, producer of verdure, lady of mankind, mother Ishtar.' ^ But surely ruSA cannot have arisen out of ' Ashtart 1 Of course not. But the goddess had various titles, and one of them, we may infer from Gen. i. 2 critically regarded, was Yarhith, the short for Yerahme'el ith. The latter word was probably written Yerak', out of which, by an easy modification, an early editor produced rudh. Parallels for this change lie close at hand. Besides the passages mentioned above (i K. xxii. 19, etc.), I may refer to three other passages in Genesis itself (iii. 6 a, vi. 3, vii. 22), another passage in Kings (i K. xviii. 12, see p. 33), and another in 'Isaiah' (xlviii. 16). In Babylonia, too, the goddess Ishtar had other names ; in fact, the various female goddesses pass into each other so readily that we are led to conclude with Hommel that there was but one Babylonian goddess, viz. Ishtar. One of these apparently distinct goddesses was Ba'u, who is really a double of Ishtar, afid both sprung from .iin' Snom' (note ik^d, v. 9, and see on nw ik'?d, Gen. xvi. 7). Similarly inn in Ps. cvi. is = '' nn, i.e. t\w 'm-. 1 Note that the Mandasans equated the Holy Spirit with Istra-Libat, i.e. Ishtar-Dilbat (Brandt, Mand. Schriften, p. 45). 2 Quoted by Driver in Hast. DB, ' Ashtoreth.' 22 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL whose name may have journeyed to N. Arabia and Canaan — for names journeyed to, as well as from, these countries. Consequently the cosmogonic goddess may perhaps have been known as Ba'u-Yarhith. To justify this, let us look somewhat closely at v. 2 a, tmi inn nriTT pMm. The occurrence of the terms inn and "im is limited to later writings (including Isa. xxix. 21 ; see my Intr. Is. p. 195). inn may be correctly spelt, but hardly ^^^1. This word is surely the Baav of Philo of Byblus, who is the mother of Alcliv and Upwro'yovo^. These two are really but one, viz. chs, i.e. S'N»Da>^ while Baau is the Bab. Ba'u,-^ who is virtually identified with Belit,^ and is called ' daughter of Anu (the heaven-god),' a title also expressly given to Ishtar. That a scribe should have assimilated iNl to "inn, is only natural. ; Thus we get as a near approach to the original form of Gen. i. 2 ^, ' and Yarhith-Yahweh was brooding over the face of the waters.' How the cosmic egg was brought in, can be conjectured. Philo of Byblus says that the egg split and the earth, the heaven, and the celestial bodies emerged. A more first-hand authority for primitive imaginations says — From one half the egg, the lowest. Grows the nether vault of Terra ; From the upper half remaining Grows the upper vault of heaven.* Now, too, we can perhaps see how to read v. 2 «, viz. pwm 'in, ' now the earth was chaos,' to which is added mil, or rather iNl Nin, ' that is, Bau,' a misplaced gloss on TCTKV. Nor can we be surprised that mi should occur only twice elsewhere, viz. Jer. iv. 2 3 (where, however, Duhm and Cornill deny it) and Isa. xxxiv. 1 1 . We see, then, that a time came when it was instinctively felt by the best Israelites that the mother-goddess, who watched over the earth's fertility, belonged to an earlier ^ According to Zimmern and Jastrow, there is no connexion between Ba'u and Bohu. But, then, these scholars think that 'Bohu,' like Tohu, means chaos, which is not here maintained. 2 See Hommel, Gr. p. 114, note 4. 8 The Kalevala, by Crawford, Rune i. THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. i,d) 23 stratum of thought, and that society now demanded a father-god. Such a change, for which there are numerous parallels, corresponds, as Barton has shown, to a new stage of family development. The goddess had been called (neglecting the distinction between n and s)^ Ashtart. The name of the god was Ashtar(?), or Ashhur, or Yeshurun, or perhaps Asher. Let me first speak of Ashhur. The name is traceable not only in the O.T., but also in a hitherto unexplained N. Syrian divine name, viz. Arku- resheph, in the Hadad Zenjirli inscription, /. 1 1 (Cooke, p. 161). Arku is to be grouped with the Phoenician personal name pna (Cooke, p. 88), and with the ethnic -ipi?, Gen. X. 1 7 (see note). The feminine form Ashhoreth ( = Ashtart) was also perhaps known in Phoenicia (see on Melkarth, p. 46). The name can readily be explained on the analogy of compound names such as n"nmN (Ashdod), l3pQ?M (Ash- kenaz), fjaCM (Ashkal ; MT. Eshcol), jlSptDM (Ashkelon), '?»3»M (Ashba'al ; MT. Eshbaal), ]a»N (Ashban ; MT. Eshban) ; in all of which ms takes the place of n^N. The second element, Tin, often occurs in the O.T. as a proper name, and in most of these cases it is evident that the name is N. Arabian. There are also Aramaean names into which the element n~in enters, as we learn partly from Aramaic, partly from cuneiform documents.^ It may be best explained as a weakened form of "ion, which, like men (Gen. xxxiii. 19) and Dm (i Chr. ii. 44), is certainly an offshoot of onT = "?Nam'' (see below). Ashhur will therefore mean Asshur- ' yerahme'el,' a name applied both to a district of the large Yerahme'elite region (see on ii. 14), and to the El or divinity of the district. It was natural, therefore, that on the way to Shur {i.e. Asshur) the forlorn Hagar should meet the friendly divinity known as Asshur- Yerahme'el. See on Gen. xvi. 13/; ^ The distinction referred to is not kept up in the writing of proper names in the O.T. texts. See further, Zimmem, KAiy^, p. 420, with note 5. ^ See S. A. Cook, Aram. Gloss. ; Johns, Ass. Deeds, iii. 537 ; and PEF Quart. St., 1905, p. 240 (on Gezer Tablet). As-hor, however, in the Aramaic papyri of Assuan is an Egyptian name ('belonging to Horus '). * We need not therefore refer to the goddess Ishhara = Ishtar (KAT, p. 432 ; Hommel, Gr. p. 41, note 2). 24 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Note also in the parallel passage, DtU win "itO«n, from 'otD"' Nin n£&M3, ' in Asshur, that is, Ishmael ' (xxi. 1 7 V). Asshur as a divine name is more frequent than Ashhur, and as a regional name is even common. As a divine name it was first noticed by Hommel-' in Dt. xxxiii. 29, where we should read (after • by Yahweh '), ' [Yahweh] is the shield which is thy help, and Asshur the sword which is thy pride.' So in Gen. xvii. i , ' I am El Shaddai ' should be ' I am El Asshur,' and similarly wherever Shaddai occurs we should read, not Shedi, ' my daemon ' (as Noldeke), but ' Asshur ' (see on Gen. xlix. 25) ; ' Yeshurun,' too, is probably a modification of Asshur with a termination indicating attachment. And lastly, in Ex. iii. 14 riTiN both times has probably sprung from "iintON, so that Elohim says to Moses, ' Tell the bene Israel, Ashhur has sent me unto you.' ^ See also Gen. xxxi. 29, 42, 53, where critical emendation is indispensable. The question may perhaps be asked. Was the god Asshur or Ashhur originally a tree-spirit? One thing at any rate is clear. The tree-symbol of the original El-Asshur was the asshur-tree, also known as teas s hur (Isz.. xli. 19, etc.) and probably as 'es rdaman, ' the ra'aman tree' (see p. 33, note 2). In Dt. xvi. 21, where the impossible }>j;-S3 mtO« should be nntpN }*i>"^3, there is a confusion between the asshur-tree planted near the altar of Baal {i.e. Asshur- Yerahme'el) and the symbol of Baal's divine companion, who is often called Asherah. An equally unfortunate mistake occurs in Lev. xvii. 7 and 2 Chr. xi. 15, where a''TSQ>, 'satyrs,' has sup- planted D'^ll&N,^ symbols of the god Asshur, and in 2 K. xxiii. 8, where ' Asshurim ' has become Di12?ffi, ' gates,' also in Dt. xxxii. 17, Ps. cvi. 37, where 'Asshurim' has become D'^'ltO, * demi-gods ' (?). We have also to consider our position with regard to ' Asher,' ' Asherah,' ' Asherim,' and ' Asheroth.' • The most natural view is that ' Asher,' with a plural ' Asherim,' is a collat. form of ' Asshur,' and ' Asherah,' with a plural ' Asheroth,' of ' Asshurith.' * Possibly, however, the 1 Aufsdtze und Abhandlungen, ii. 209 ; cp. Barton, Sem. Or. p. 249. 2 In Ex iii. 1 4 ^DK' .Tn« -wK .tun is a later insertion, partly scribal, partly redactional. See ad loc. 3 Cp. on ' Seir,' Gen. xiv. 6. * Cp. Wellhausen, Comp. des Hex.''^'' p. 1 1. THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4S^D2;. In the O.T. we may refer to Dt. iii. 17, iv. 49, Josh. x. 40, xii. 3, 8, xiii. 20, where we find a word rmtON of which no satisfac- tory explanation is forthcoming (see BDB, and Ges.-Buhl). Its origin, however, ought to be clear ; it comes either from ^ntON or from rmnt2>N. The former is preferable because of 7ffiN in Num. xxi. 15,^ which comes either from iidm or from TDtDN. As in the case of Ashhur, the name was applied both to a district and to the divinity of the district. We also find nntON underlying QJiTin in Hos. iv. 1 1 (see p. 1 9, note i), and the second part of the name ^>^n21 in an Aramaic papyrus (Assuan, A 19), and also underlying nifflN") in an impossible phrase in Am. vi. i, where ■'5)^3 D-ilin n-'ffiNT should be D•'^2>'?l intON •'Spa.^ And further on we shall see that the traditional resting-place of the ark was on the mountains (mountain ?) of Ashtar. We can well believe that the city and district referred to were devoted to the God Ashtar. Nor is it impossible that our method may reveal to us unexpected traces of the primitive importance of this deity, msn pnw (Ex. xxv. 22) and rmsn SriN (Num. ix. 15, xvii. 23) may have come from nnto pnx and 'aji> SrrM respectively, just as isio f?nM (Ex. xxvii. 21, etc.) and isio nn (Isa. xiv. 13) may have come from ]ost ^hm and S nn (Ra'aman = Yerahme'el). Indeed, p^M itself may cover over a divine name (see p. 34). Whether m'm rwh (Ex. xxxi. 18) once meant 'tablets inscribed by Ashtar,' is uncertain. I confess that this theory seems to me not unplausible, though it may be doubted whether mi; or nns has not rather come from the fem. form mntOi;. As we have seen, the ark (if ' ark ' be right) was specially connected with Yahweh-Shema'ith (underlying Y.-Seba'5th), i.e. Yahweh- Ashtart. mnmi) may have been written fra ; such abbre- viations were always natural. I willingly admit that the 1 For ^'hmn -w^ read h^arrf iniyii, dropping the final d in 'jrr as due to a scribe's error. 2 See Hibbert Journal, iii. 831. THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4«) 27 mistaken reading mv or nnr for nntOS or mnms must be ancient ; but how many other mistaken readings must be comparatively ancient ! In Ex. xxv. 16, 21 /, xxx. 6, and in the Psalms, nni' must be the original reading, and must mean 'law.' But there are certain phrases in which the name of a deity seems called for. For instance, in Ex. xvi. 34 ' before the Law ' is not a suitable parallel to ' before Yahweh' {y. 33). Nor is 'ark of the Law,' 'tent of the Law,' ' dwelling-place (]3aJD) of the Law ' nearly as natural as ' ark — tent — dwelling-place of Ashtar or (Ashtart).' ^ Nor is the phrase ' the tablets of Ashtar (or Ashtart) ' at all unsuitable. There is sufficient evidence (see p. 38, note 2) that Ashtart was sometimes regarded as the goddess of wisdom, and we may assume that Ashtar (who grew out of Ashtart), as well as his fellows, Yerahme'el and Yahweh, was also honoured as such. That there should only be well -disguised traces of Ashtar, need not surprise us. He was in fact overshadowed by his divine companion Yerahme'el. Let us now consider the name Yerahme'el. Its original meaning escapes us. But the people no doubt explained it as ' God has com- passion ' ; there is an allusion to this certainly in Hos. i. 6 and ii. 3 (i), where the writer alludes to Yerahme'el as an element in the compound name of Israel's God, and probably in Hos. i. 10, where (to harmonise with the context) Sn ""ai T\ should be corrected into f^NortT' ""^n. It is probable, too, that the ]icn of Damascus and the Ramman of Babylonia and Assyria both come from ^Nom"' through one of the two possible linking forms jorn (popularly, ' compassionate ') and psT (popularly, ' thunderer '). But what was the original meaning of the name ? May it mean ' moon . . . ' ? Hommel {Gr. p. 95, note 3) suggests, 'the moon truly is God,' and explains Abimael similarly as ' my father truly is God' (so too Ulmer). These explanations, however, are forced (see on Gen. x. 28). 'Truly ' for ma is suspicious, and, though ' moon ' for m"' is plausible, the isolated appearance of a moon-god nT on a Phoenician seal^ would be strange, and it should be observed that the god ^lim"' on a 1 The same remark may be made on the phrase r\-^'2.r\ p-iN (see p. 35). 2 Ed. Meyer, E. Bib., 'Phoenicia,' § 11 {TSBA v. 456). 28 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Palmyrene inscription is apparently a sun-god (Cooke, p. 280). It is true, ' Sinai ' is commonly derived from the Babylonian Sin, as if it meant the moon-mountain. But this theory, though cleverly supported by Winckler {E. Bib., ' Sinai '), is an unsound one. Both ' Sinai ' and the ethnic ' Sini ' (Gen. X. 17) have quite another origin (see on Ex. iii. i). Besides, with all deference to Hommel, the m in Yerahme'el has to be plausibly accounted for. It might, indeed, be due to ' mimation ' ^ (so Sayce). But when a letter holds out so firmly in the various derived forms as the m (see e.g: Aram, Ram, Raham, Hamuel, Kemuel, Melah, Lehem, Amalek, Yeroham, Karmel), it is natural to regard it as radical. The final -el (as in all similar cases) is purely formative. Some- times it is neglected ; we find the forms Yirham or Yarham. Other forms are Raham, Rikbo and Rekeb, Melek, Yaman, Yerah.^ The last of these would account for a Phoenician divine name Yerah ; the last but one for the Babylonian god- name Yam ; ^ the last but two for the Phoenician god-names usually read respectively Milk and Mukl (see pp. 50/}. Rikbo (from Rakbul, see on Ex. xv. i) throws light on the difficult ^N13T in the Hadad and Panammu inscriptions (see Cooke). This deity was one of the great gods of Ya'di in N. Syria ; his name means neither chariot nor charioteer of El, but, like the Palmyrene fpiinT^ (Cooke, p. 278), is a corruption of ^Nom"'. Cultus and name were transferred to N. Syria from Arabia. Raham, too, which in the O.T. (i Chr. ii. 44) and in the Assuan papyri (snom = y\i) Dm ?) is only a personal or clan-name, occurs in a (late) Palmyrene inscription as the name of one of the three ' good gods.' But a longer pause is needful at the form Yarham. Yarhamu occurs on contract-tablets dated under Shamshu- iluna (Sayce). We also often find DHT (MT. Yeroham) as a personal name, and at least once as a part of the full name of the God of Israel. This is in Ex. xxii. 19, a passage which rewards a careful study. Holzinger is right in declining to cancel (after Sam.) the closing words ■'nf?! 1 Hommel accounts similarly for ' Milkom ' {Gr. p. 1 63, note 4). 2 Other modifications will be referred to later. 8 Hommel, Gr. p. 130, note i; p. 178, note 4. We find a personal name Yama in Am. Tab. 238, 2. THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) 29 "ni^ mn'^^, though they have no proper connexion with what precedes. His reason is that Din"' is not a suitable word ; in the earlier period it was bodies of men, not individuals, who were devoted by the herem. What we expect is riDV nho. May not mn"' have come from Q-'iriN, the verb at the end having fallen out? This, however, leaves 'in Ti^l unaccounted for. It has not been observed that in^l may, as in Isa. x. 4, have come from f?nn or ^s3nN, i.e. f?NrDtD\ and that in the true text ' Ishmael ' some- times occurs as a gloss on 7ND^^^ the two names being equivalent. In the present case, ^rhy is preceded by mn% and it is a natural suggestion (transposing n and n) that this word is the shortened form of Yerahme'el. To supply DDT" mo is needlessly violent. Prefix n to niT (the pre- ceding group of letters is closed by n), restore mrf for DTT^N, and omit the two glosses (^rho., i.e. "Ji^anw, on am"', and rv^ixh on dTI^n^), and you get this precept, rv\rrh nilD wh Dm'', ' thou shalt sacrifice to Yahweh-Yarham alone.' Can our more conservative scholars suggest an equally adequate remedy ? Where Holzinger has failed, it is not likely that they will succeed. That Yarham sometimes takes the form of Yam, has been already shown (see p. 28). This enables us in passing to suggest a better explanation for the form D'3M in I K. xiv. 3 1 , XV. I, 7 f. The m is not due to ' mimation ' (Kittel). As in the case of the proper names in cuneiform texts closing with ydma or ydnti, or beginning with Yam} it seems best to explain d; as the short either for t^rrv or for JC. The name is really of geographical origin ; it means ' Arabia of Yarham ' ; though of course a conventional religious meaning may, even in Abijam's time, have been attached to the name. On the name which is equivalent to, and often a gloss on, Yerahme'el, viz. Yishmael, not much can be said. Its true meaning appears to be unknown. From the Assyrian name Ishmanni-Adadi ^ one may perhaps infer that there was a god Ishman ; now Ishman certainly is = Ishmael. But this throws no light on the origin of the name, and the theories 1 Including the Ahiyimi ( = Ashhur-yaman) in an important letter found by Sellin at Tell Taannek. 2 Johns, Deeds, p. 398. 30 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL mentioned elsewhere (see on xvi. 1 1 ) are insecure. Tiie people, no doubt, explained it as = ' God hears.' Cp. the Phoenician name f?:?ni;DtO, for which, however, Aioireldri'} is the Greek equivalent ; also the Assyrian name Ishme-iln, which H. Ranke ^ proposes to interpret ' God heard ' or ' God has (this time) heard.' Another form of ' Ishmael ' is probably ^Sl'r:?, a Phoenician name (Cooke, pp. 347, 350), and also underlying the 1S1 (CEr° jSaXa^) of i K. vii. 21.^ That is:x is connected with 'pilt is pointed out in E. Bib. col. 2304. Now Sim is = Sni^odj-i {Crit. Bib. p. 353). Another form is hw(\)3, Lev. xvi. 8 (see on Stin, Gen. x. 27). Yerahme'el (or Ishmael) having become a Pluto, it was natural that Ishmael, in one of its forms, should become the name of a harmful demon in the wilderness. See pp. 53/! The functions and attributes of the divinity called Yarham or Yerahme'el were very various. It is necessary to draw a distinction between the god of the nomadic and the god of the agricultural stage. Some traces of the former are still discernible, {a) It was from this god that the later Yerahme'el, and consequently also Yahweh, derived the titles of ' elohim of the mountains ' and ' inhabitant of Sinai,' ^ probably also (see below) those of ' Baal of the mountains ' (Zeii? opeto^) and ' Ba'al-Lebanon.' (b) He was also the god of the storms which rage in the southern mountains (Isa. xxi. i, Zech. ix. 14), and which seemed to ancient worshippers to declare the presence of their God (Ezek. i. 4, Saphon-Ishmael, i K. xix. 11); also of the fire, whether of lightning (Isa. xxx. 30, i K. xviii. 38) or of an active volcano* (cp. Ex. iii. 2?, xix. 18, Dt. iv. 11, ix. 15). (c) He must also have been, before Yahweh, the god of the 1 Die Personennamen in den Urkunden der Hammurabidynastie (1902), p. 33. 2 The companion-name j'd' probably comes from |D3' = 'DnT. Note that two pillars were dedicated to Melkarth (on this name see p. 46) at Tyre ; see Herod, ii. 44. 8 Dt. xxxiii. 16, reading 'ro for MT.'s hjd. *\See Dr. C. T. Bake, Sinai in Arabia (1878). Independently Gunkel\nd others have taken the same view (see 'on Ex. iii. 2). The reference^o volcanic eruptions have partly been retouched, so that close inspettion is needed. Cp. Gressmann's phrase ' stilisiert ' {Eschat. p. 45)- THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) 31 kerublm, and, if the text-reading pnN is correct, of the ark. When he led his host to battle he was represented by a material object, probably a stone, if we should not say two stones, not too massive to be carried (see below, p. 35), and supposed to be tenanted by the divinity. This stone was called by the name Aron (' ark '), or rather, in this early period, by some other name, such as Armon or Ra'aman, which can still be detected underneath the corrupt Aron (see p. 34). The stone was probably not carved at all. It came down from a remote antiquity, when, not only between human beings and animals, but between animals and plants, and between plants and stones, the separation was not so manifest as it afterwards became, and when the imperfect Being who was older even than the primitive Yerahme'el and the primitive Ashtart could will to reside either in an animal (cp. the kerublm) or in a plant (cp. the sacred trees), or in a stone (cp. Gen. xxviii. 22). Later on, a small rudely carved kirub may have replaced the stone in which the invisible God was supposed to be present (see below), id) He was also a god of few sacrifices and simple sanctuaries. Amos (v. 25) may exaggerate when he looks back on the wanderings of Israel as a time without sacrifices. But this god was certainly distinguished by his not requiring the lavish sacrifices which the prophet Amos saw offered at the comparatively spacious temples {hikdlim) of the settled Yerahme'elites. Thus there are four titles, among others, which may be given to the older Yerahme'el — («) god of the mountains, {b) god of storms and of fire, {c) god of the sacred stone or stones, and id) god of the few sacrifices and simple sanctuaries. As to («), this phrase occurs in i K. xx. 28. It is there used of Yahweh, but he cannot have been the first god to bear the title. Mount Sion would never have suggested it (cp. Ps. Ixviii. 16/, Ixxviii. 68/); the phrase must have come from N. Arabia. Among the Phoenicians the Zeu? Qpuo jloiN (see p. 55), and by I K. ii. 26, where in the phrase mn"' ■'37N jnw the two first words are variants representing jidin. That the religious authorities of a later age should first of all do away with the stone symbols, and then convert 1 Ed. Meyer, E. Bib., col. 3749, referring to the treaty between Hannibal and Philip of Macedon. Cp. W. R. Smith, Rel. SemS^^ P- 37- 2 That ® disregards [nn is unimportant. THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) 35 the word 'Armon or Ra'aman into 'Aron, is intelligible enough. It was one of the principles which guided them in the practical adjustment of past history and literature to present religious needs, gently to manipulate the inherited forms of expression. This 'tiron Yahweh took the place of 'Armon-Yahweh, one of the old compound names of the divine duad. Other such compound names are probably 'Armon-' Ashtar^ and 'Armon-'Ibrith (or 'Arbith),^ under- lying 'Aron-ha'eduth and 'Aron-habberith respectively. We may venture to suppose that two sacred stones (perhaps rudely carved) were originally carried in some kind of open shrine on the shoulders (cp. Isa. xlv. 20) of priestly guardians. I have carefully read what Dibelius has to offer in behalf of his own religions-geschichtlich view of the ark in his Die Lade Jahves (1906), but there are manifest weak- nesses in it such as no archaeological learning and tact can overcome. See Rev. of Theol. and Philos., edited by Prof Menzies, January 1 907 (Cheyne) ; and Theol. Stud. u. Krit. Heft 4, 1906 (Budde). As to the kerublm, it is very possible (see above) that in course of time — on the passage of the Israelites into a new social stage — the sacred stones were carved into some rude resemblance to a lion with a human face (cp. on Gen. iii. 24). For the references to the lion in connexion with Yahweh {e.g. Hos. V. 14, xi. 10, xiii. 7/.) and with Judah (Gen. xlix. 9) justify the supposition that Yahweh, and therefore also Yerahme'el, was (like Nergal) in one of his aspects a lion -god. In the agricultural stage he was naturally represented as a steer-god. But the conceptions of the lion-god and of the eagle-god (see p. 33) are probably older. When I say 'lion -god' I do not, of course, mean that the god was, as it were, bound to the sacred animal, but that in some sense which only a primitive worshipper 1 Passages like i S. iv. 4, 2 S. vi. 2, suggest a close connexion between the 'aron {i.e. the stone symbolic of 'Armon) and the divine name Yahweh- Seba'oth {i.e. yakzveA-SAemaii^ = Ya.)ivieh.-'Ashta.rt). This has long ago been observed, but its full significance has not been recognised. For '^eduth see pp. 26/. ^ Cp. p. 19, note 6. It is possible that in 1 S. iv. 4 nn^v jioin (under- neath ma )nK) and n'VDi? nin' (underneath msas '') are alternative readings. 36 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL could fully realise, he willed to deposit his divine essence in it. Passing on to (aQ, enough has been said elsewhere (see p. 63) on the sacrifices. The sanctuaries of the nomadic period must have been very simple.^ Such temples as those of Shiloh ( I S. i., iii.) were, of course, unknown. The great sanctuary was on Horeb or Sinai. But the whole mountain was sacred ; to what purpose would a temple have been ? We now pass on to the later Yerahme'el, who cannot be altogether distinguished from Yerahme'el- Yahweh. I offer my conclusions with the requisite reserves, but cannot evade the obligation of forming and expressing them. Early in the agricultural period Yerahme'el may, like Marduk,^ have been a god of vegetation. It was he who opened the springs in the mountains, who made the corn to thrive, and filled the trees with sap (cp. Ps. civ. 10, 14, 16). Was he also sometimes regarded as the corn-spirit? Was there a myth in some circles respecting his death and resurrection ? It is very possible. The gods Marduk and Adonis would offer a complete parallel. At any rate (as a member of the divine triad), Yerahme'el was sometimes pictured as a beautiful young man.^ I admit that this is inconsistent with other representations. For the later like the earlier Yerahme'el was a warrior (cp. Ex. xv. 3, of Yahweh), and may even in some circles have been recognised as the slayer of the dragon. He was also, we need not doubt, the wise Creator of heaven and earth, and speculative thinkers may even have ventured to maintain that he would ulti- mately renew his creation (cp. the Iranian frashokereti). This idea may, indeed, appear to some to be too advanced, but in its simplest form it is common in the American myths, and is therefore perfectly possible in early Palestine. Nor was even the underworld considered to be exempt from his far-reaching sway (cp. Isa. vii. 1 1, Am. ix. 2). See further pp. 52/! But his work is not only, nor even primarily, cosmic. To the people at large he is a Na'aman or ' pleasant one,' a 1 See Marti, Die Religion des A.T. pp. 27, 28. 2 See Hehn, Hymnen und Gebete an Marduk, p. 8. 8 See on Gen. xviii.-xix. THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. ^a) yj Rahman or ' compassionate one,' a Dod or ' beloved one.' To their foes, indeed, he sends sicknesses (as Yahweh did to the Misrites and the Philistines), but the diseases of his servants he heals (cp. Num. xii. 13, 2 K. xx. 5, Ex. xv. 26, Hos. vi. I, xiv. 4, Jer. xxx. 17, of Yahweh). He makes their husbandry to prosper ; he multiplies their silver and their gold. In return for their lavish sacrifices he makes them victorious in war. He raises up prophets and sooth- sayers to interpret his purposes, and sages, skilled alike in sacred, speculative, and practical lore. The sacred lore con- sisted largely in magic, but also in legal traditions ; the speculative, in a relatively modest astrology and (as we saw above) eschatology ; the practical, in the rules belonging to the arts and manifold appliances of civilisation. We cannot, therefore, say that he is altogether an unprogressive deity. The weakness of his religion lay simply in its incapacity for throwing off archaic and practically harmful elements. Some of these details will bear elaboration. On the possibility of an Adonis myth I have spoken elsewhere (see pp. 56^). The great gods had various aspects, and might well be represented sometimes as in full youthful beauty. But the Creator of the world is no Adonis figure, rather the ■ ancient of days.' Fear and love may well have contended in the minds of his worshippers, as, indeed, we see in the parallel case of Yahweh. The first step towards crea- tion is the victory over the dragon of chaos, which belongs by right to Yerahme'el. The clearest proof of this is, no doubt, a very late one, but late documents often preserve archaic facts. It is in Rev. xii. (mainly Jewish in origin) where we read {vv. 7, 8) that ' Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not ' ; now ' Michael ' is a popular or perhaps priestly corruption of Yerahme'el (see p. 59), and the tradition is a necessary complement to a parallel tradi- tion of primeval events. With regard to creatorship I shall refer to two passages. One is Gen. xiv. 19, 22, where the God whom the king of Shalem (i.e. Ishmael) and the patriarch Abram recognise as the ' producer of heaven and earth ' is called El-Elyon, ' the Most High Deity.' Now, in the original tradition this 38 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL supreme Deity must have been Yerahme'el (cp. Gen. xxi. 33, where Abraham calls on the name of Yahweh as El Yerah- me'el ; see ad loc). The other is Prov. viii. 22-31, which deserves a close study, because it proves ( i ) that Yerahme'el was a Creator-God, and (2) that, according to his best wor- shippers, Creation was the supreme monument of his wisdom. As to (i), it lifts the cultus of Yerahme'el to a higher place than we might otherwise give it. And as to (2), it enables us to answer the question. How can it be that a non-ethical deity like Baal or Yerahme'el is honoured as the Creator ? The non-ethical view of Baal or Yerahme'el, so common among the Yerahme'elites and Israelites, cannot have been the only one. The wise Creator -God cannot have been tied down, as it were, physically, to a single people ; the conditions of his favour must have been moral. It was the inconsistency of ' Baalism ' (as Harper calls it) which ruined it for practical purposes. Let us now turn to Prov. viii. 22-31. It is a mono- logue of divine Wisdom. Apparently this great attribute is personified, in the style of the Amshaspands (counsellors and assistants of the good God) of Zoroastrianism. Con- sidering, however, that these lofty beings have arisen out of deposed deities,^ it may be assumed that the Wisdom of Prov. viii. (cp. the 'Zo<^La of the Gnostics) has a similar origin, and that the speaker is really a deity, once worshipped side by side with Yahweh, and afterwards subordinated to him, viz. Yerahme'el.^ The poet, who is himself one of the ' wise men,' evidently has a great reverence for ' Wisdom ' {i.e. the God Yerahme'el), and regards him as possessing a derivative deity. He also considers the special attribute of 1 Among the Amshaspands there is one who stands supreme (next to Ahura Mazda), viz. VohOmanj who is represented as the first of Ahura's creatures, and who himself produced the light of the world (see p. 11). In this unique position he corresponds to Michael, or, indeed, to ' Wisdom.' 2 It is less plausible to identify Wisdom with the Zoroastrian Armaiti (the earth-spirit), as proposed by N. Schmidt {The Prophet of Nazareth, 1905, p. 45), or with the 'heavenly Wisdom, Mazda-made' of the Yasna (so Cheyne, Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohut, I go I, p. 112), or, virtually, with Ishtar (Zimmern), who is, indeed, once called ' creator of wisdom ' and ' counsellor of the gods,' and who, as Siduri-Sibuti, is called 'goddess of wisdom ' {KAT, pp. 432, 439). THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 43) 3S this secondary god to be wisdom, i.e. insight into the varied works of creation. Yet he guards himself against being thought a universalist or ' cosmopolitan ' ; like Ben Sira (Ecclus. xxiv. 8-12) he makes Wisdom prefer one chosen people as her (his) habitation, and if he places this people in the N. Arabian borderland, it is because this region was endeared by its associations with the patriarchs, and by its reputation as the home of wisdom. Divine Wisdom, he says, was the assessor of the Most High at creation, but in spite of this, no sooner were the N. Arabian lands in exist- ence than Wisdom chose to concentrate her favour on the N. Arabian peoples. I base this statement on highly probable corrections of the text. It is useless to attempt a mere superficial criticism. The poet has told us that Wisdom is older than the world, and virtually that creation could not have been without her. She is older even than the earliest of the nations, Amalek or Yerahme'el,^ for, as the original text of v. 26 says. Wisdom was begotten, or brought into being, ' when He had not yet made the land of Hazeroth, and Asshur, and the steppes of Ethbaal.' ^ And now that creation is finished, is Wisdom's occupation gone ? No, truly. Henceforth it devolves upon the Creator's assessor,^ standing before his works, to interpret the creative words. But none of her (his) delights can exceed that which she has in her chosen land of Ishmael and her chosen people of Aram.* To sum up. Though the Hebrew poet subordinates Yerahme'el (underlying Wisdom) to Yahweh, he nevertheless places him quite apart from men. Yerahme'el may, indeed, be repre- sented as only the son of the one independent Deity, but is 1 Cp. Num. xxiv. 20, and see Cheyne, Psahn^^\ ii. 75. 2 nism px ; read nnsn px. Haser, Hasor, Haseroth are common N. Arabian names. tivc\, as in Ezek. xxxviii. 2, xxxix. i, etc., should be ^»■^(, the N. Arabian Asshur. San nnsj; ; read SyanK rmy. Ethbaal = Ishmael. Cp. San, Gen. x. 2. — Note that njp in z/. 22 may mean 'to beget'; see Gen. iv. i, Dt. xxxii. 6. For 'naoa, v. 22, see Ps. cxxxix. 13; 'nSSin (v. 24), cp. Dt. xxxii. 18. — In ^i. 25 d«d naai should be d; 'Da: (Job xxxviii. 16). ' Cp. Wisd. Sol. ix. 4 a, ga. * For the improbable jidn iSsn (cp. Toy), read, perhaps, vtdm }"Sd (cp. Job xxxiii. 23). For nj;-Saa visS read vrasSn 'jaS (cp. Ps. Ixxiii. 28). 40 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL not Marduk represented as the son of Ea? The fact is, that the Wisdom of Prov. viii. is precisely parallel to the ' Mal'ak-Yahweh ' of prose narrators (see pp. 58 ff.); he is an honourably deposed deity. But did it require less wisdom to direct than to create the world ? No. Nebuchadrezzar attributes his wisdom, as a ruler, to observance of the way of Marduk and Nabfi {KB iii. 2, p. II, etc.), and similarly in 2 S. xiv. 17, 20 the judicial insight of David is compared to that of Mal'ak- Haelohim, i.e. Yerahme'el-Yahweh. So, too, the wisdom of the Yerahme'elite sages (i K. v. 10, 11 ;^ Baruch, iii. 23)^ comes from their God. Once more, then, we say that the later Yerahme'el was not an unprogressive deity ; only, the theological progress of the few did not make up for the stationariness of the many. It is true we have no specimens of pure Yerahme'elite wisdom. The Book of Job, however, professes to represent Arabian wisdom (see E. Bib., 'Job, Book of), and from the headings in Prov. x. i, xxx. i, xxxi. i, and possibly from the epilogue of Ecclesiastes, we gather that the Yerah- me'elites were the models of the Israelites in proverbial composition.^ It is possible, too, that wise priests of 1 Kedem and Mahol come respectively from Yarham and Yerah- me'el. ^ Merran = Ra'aman = Yerahme'el. Teman = Yithman = Yishmael. ' Mishle Shel6m6h (Prov. x. i) has probably come from Mishit Yishmael, i.e. proverbs in the style of Ishmael (N. Arabia). In Prov. xxx. I Sufxs '7K'n'N^> most probably = ^dk'ni '?y3ni<'? (Ethb. = Ishmael ; Ashkal = Asshur-Yerahme'el) ; hvnih in xxxi. i ='7f in O.T. The ancients, no doubt, interpreted ' Eshmun ' as ' eighth,' ^ there being eight Kd/3eipoi. But this is no better an explanation than that of Kiryath-arba as ' city of four.' In reality Eshmun must have been the supreme head of the Seven (spoken of by Philo of Byblus), and his name marks him out as originally N. Arabian.^ 1 Correct the note in Crii. Bib. on 2 K. xviii. 4 accordingly. 2 See the trilingual inscription, CIS \. 143 (Cooke, p. 109), begin- ning mNO \Dw^S \-y^S, ^scolapio Merre, 'Ao-KXrjWLi^ Mrjppr). mxc is 'enigmatical' (Ed. Meyer, E. Bib., col. 3746). Noldeke explains ' leader ' ; Lidzbarski, ' healer ' ; but these meanings are very question- able. For other theories, see Cooke, I.e. The name must be con- sidered with 'mn in CIS i. 93 (Cooke, pp. 27/). G. Hoffmann takes ID to be a diminutive of mp'^D. It is, however, rather to be identified with m, i.e. dik, just as i3 in proper names often represents m, i.e. y^■s. ; 'n', like in' in I'^nin', represents im' = iDnT. Similarly muD has come, by transposition, from ^xDm\ 3 In the Greek text of the treaty between Philip of Macedon and the Carthaginians (Polyb., vii. 9, 2-3). Cp. Baethgen, Beitrdge, p. 46. * Anmerkungen zicr griech. Uebers. der Proverbien, p. 81 ; cp. W. R. Smith, Rel. 5«;«.'^' p, 469. 5 Baudissin, Studien, i. 276. * Cp. the 'Yasumunu' of a cuneiform inscription {KAT'-^\ p. 357), THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) 43 Few things are historically more interesting than the journeyings of divine names and mythic stories. It is of the former that I would speak especially just now. It is strange how little attention has been given to this point by students of the Phoenician inscriptions. The conclusion at which I have myself arrived is this — that Arabian immigrants very early brought with them names of gods, places, etc., which their descendants in PhcEnicia ^ faithfully preserved and used (often in a conventionalised form), even when no longer understood. It is only by acting on this theory that we can give fairly clear and intelligible explanations of many phrases in the inscriptions. This involves using experience gained in the field of the O.T. in restoring the original forms of god-names and place-names. Take, e.g., the famous inscription of Eshmunazar, comparing with it the recently discovered temple-inscription of Bod-'Ashtart. The name Eshmunazar itself is a combination of Eshmun or Ishmael with the clan-name 'Ezer (see proper names in Ges.-Buhl at end of article Tr:s>),^ while Bod-'Ashtart, one of those old misunderstood names, is made up of Tl ^ = ni = ini? (cp. 13 in ■'^ni) and mntor, which in the original name designated a region, nam, the name of Eshmunazar's father, is the feminine form of jnn = pn = fji^^riN. It may be either the name of a goddess = nan (Tanith) or of a region. In either case a prefixed "Xys has probably been lost ; ^ "vys is a conventionalised form of niD = n^. Esh- munazar goes on to state (/. 3 ; cp. /. 13), among other things, that he was no'jN ]3, and Lagrange makes the feeling comment that ' the deceased does not complain of his own misfortune, it is the grief of the mother which is revealed ; * and Samunu-yatuni, a name on an Assyrian deed (Johns, Deeds, iii. 268), conventionalised from Eshmun-^than. Also jid-b". 1 One might add Palestine, Syria, and (probably) Mesopotamia. 2 Note especially 'Ezer, a son of Hur, the first-bom of Ephrathah, I Chr. iv. 4, and Azrikam, a compound of tv and Dp' = DpT = Dm, in I Chr. iii. 23 (cp. rimp'). ^ 13 has not always the same origin. In a Piraeus inscription (Cooke, p. 94) it seems to be ^3 = nnn, ' council.' * Cp. rumn, CIS i. 165 (Cooke, p. 113). So we find nte beside idSdidj;. On 'Tanith,' see p. 45. 5 Rel. seln.'^'' p. 406. 44 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL i.e. this scholar takes no^N to be = Ass. almattu, ' widow.' Surely it is neither self-pity nor filial sympathy that we have a right to expect here. no^N is a feminine form of f?ND[nT], just as D^ir = ^NIJDffi-' (Gen. xxi. 33), and naD^JN = n-'SNOnT (i K. vii. 14, xi. 26); cp. also Df?^? ICN, on a Phcenician seal (Cooke, p. 361), i.e. 'riT WN, 'a Yerah- me'elite ' (a title of honour). And this gives us the key to the preceding word Dn\ Just as jn"'3DtDN and ^rr^pTli come, respectively from jiT'N-'tDN and jir'N-Ss, so the original of on"' is doubtless Dn"'N, where jrT' and Dni both represent ^"lon niiJ = '?n:>dw T\'s (cp. the traditional Belitan = ^i?n jniN). Similarly, -ync p is probably to be grouped with na)D jn, Gen. XV. 2 (see note), while DniN DO"' probably comes from m^N DD"', i.e. din jp^, and the whole passage (/. 3) runs, 'son (native) of Meshek, Yaman-Aram, Etham, son of Me'elah.' Eshmunazar's scribe appears to have copied unintelligently some older inscription which claimed for the king that he had the ' bluest blood ' in Sidon, being of a Yerahme'elite stock. The passage is repeated in /. 1 2, with the insertion of JTO (Cooke, ' to be pitied '), which comes from )TON, 'we' — a scribe's error. But what of the introductory words Til^ 71 n7tl3, ' I have been torn away, not in my (due) time ' ? Can this be right ? Surely the context, even as usually interpreted, does not favour this pathetic utterance. Should we not read SnriNl rhnx^, ' I showed myself great in Ethbal (Ishmael) ' ? How the king's greatness appeared is not problematical ; he himself boasts (like Nebuchadrezzar) of his temples. First of all, 'Ashtart's house is mentioned. His own mother was a priestess of 'Ashtart (/. 15), and bore the name Am-'Ashtart (/. 14), which most, since Gesenius, have ex- plained ' handmaid of 'Ashtart ' (as if 'mi^DDN). But dn in compounds most probably comes from either mw or D^N,^ just as IN in Hebrew compound names represents y^, while 'Ashtart originally stood for a region. And where was 'Ashtart's house built ? The answer apparently is (/. 16), 'in Sidon, the land of the sea,'^ but the truth 1 The names mnipynDN, nDNnon (Cooke, pp. 61, 77) probably represent Vyno'^N, 'dupd'^n, where no'?)* (a feminine form of Skd = 'jNom') is probably a regional name. ^ So in Bod-Ashtart, d' psi, ' in .Sidon of Yam[an].' THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) 45 probably is that D"', as several times in the O.T. (see p. 6, note 3), represents ]d; ; we should render, therefore, ' in Sidon of the land of Yaman (Yerahme'el).' The passage continues, ' and we made 'Ashtart to dwell D^^NDD»,' i.e. according to Cooke (after CIS\ ' there, making (her) glorious.' Elsewhere, however (p. 402), this same scholar, commenting on the Dm Doro of Bod-'Ashtart's inscription, remarks that ' although High-heavens, Glorious-heavens, do not seem very obvious names for terrestrial localities, yet such they probably were.' Mr. Cooke by no means stands alone, and yet such imperfect criticism does not redound to the credit of our epigraphy. That DOtO (n"'Dm) in the O.T., and also in the presumed Phoenician text of Philo of Byblus, is one of the corruptions of 'tsQ)"', has been seen already ; DDT and D^^N ought to have the same origin, or at least the underlying words ought to be equivalent. The prob- ability is that both words come from DIN. Thus we get DTN 'otO"', ' Arammite Ishmael,' one of those phrases which, as we have seen, were carried northward, miswritten, and misunderstood. In Bod-'Ashtart's inscription it is a gloss on the preceding words, D"' n^l, i.e. Yam or Yaman is explained as = ' Ishmael-Aram.' In /. 17 the building of a house of Eshmun is referred to. The two letters preceding mip are almost effaced. The latter may be T or n. Most probably we should read nay Wip, ' prince of Kadesh,' ^ a phrase which occurs in Bod- 'Ashtart (lines 5, 6), and which confirms the view that the god Eshmun (Ashman?) came from N. Arabia.^ In /. 18 we hear of temples for the ' gods of the Sidonians in Sidon,' including one for 'Ashtart, hs:i DtD. How is this phrase to be read and rendered ? Surely the simplest way is the best (see Cooke's note). 'Ashtart is the ' name ' or ' representa- tion ' of Baal, as Tanith (Tamnith) is ' the face of Baal,' and Yerahme'el (probably) at once the ' name ' and the ' face ' of Yahweh (cp. p. 21). 1 Torrey (Journ. Am. Or. Soc. xxiv. 217), who admits as a general principle that ' we (?) are all in the dark,' and thinks ' prince of Kadesh ' extremely far-fetched ; but names of both gods and peoples often are ' far-fetched.' ' Holy prince ' is indeed possible, but why this specialisa- tion ? ' Kadesh ' is the name of a district. 2 This will be so, even if there was a place in Phoenicia called Kadesh, 46 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Before proceeding, let me call attention to some obscure names and phrases, of N. Arabian origin, relating to Tyre and Sidon. (i) As to DTH, king of the Sidonians {CIS i. 5 ; Cooke, p. 52), it represents DTHS, i.e. D■^^? nntOM, Ashhur- aram. (2) As to El0d)^aXo<; (Jos. c. Ap. i. 18): this should come from ^nin-ni? ; cp. hlW( ( i K. xvi. 3 1 ), from 'ott>'^ ni>. (3) As to mp^D (MeX.KaOpo';, Melkarth), the Ba'al of Tyre: this was not originally mp '^ho, ' king of the city,' but most probably = mntON 'om\ Cp., in O.T., nvip, rm'D, etc., and, in Phoenician, mp in n!D7nmp (Carthage) — all from mntON, a feminine form of nnt&N. (4) In the Amarna letters. No. 152, Abimilki of Tyre calls himself ' servant of Shalmayiti,' and Tyre ' city of Shalmayiti.' As Erbt (Die Hebrder, p. 152) has pointed out,^ Shalmaydti is = iT'D^PtD, the feminine of D^ffi. But they have not seen that the divine name xh^ (e.g. in ' Yahweh-shalom,' Judg. vi. 24) represents 7Ni)DtO"', and that TVth\Q is most probably a title of Ashtart or mnQ?M. The names of Tyre and Sidon themselves come from niJSD and p^2 respectively. See on x. i 5. I venture to hope that the use here made of Phoenician inscriptions, and in particular the identification of the name Eshmun with the name Ishmael, has now been to some extent justified. No student of these inscriptions can refuse fresh light on the poor ground that it issues from an unexpected source. One of the chief aspects of the God Yerahme'el or Ishmael finds expression in the title D6d, i.e. ' beloved,' with which we may compare Isaiah's title for Yahweh — "'T'T' (Isa. V. i). The feminine form of this is D6dah (cp. ' Dido '), which occurs in the inscription of Mesha, /. 22. Here the king of Moab says that he took from the Gadite city of 'Ataroth (the god) Ar'al-dodah', i.e. the symbol of the com- pound deity Yerahme'el-D6dah. By D6dah is most probably meant Ashtart (note that 'Ataroth = 'Ashtaroth). The God D6d was specially worshipped in one of the places called Beer-sheba. This appears from Am. viii. 14, where iTi should be ^V corresponding to the '^NOriT underlying TnfjN, 1 Developing a hint of Winckler's (Avir,'*' pp. 195, 236). 2 G. Hoffmann and H. Winckler have proposed vS but the suffix THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) 47 and the rT'fjNSDtO"' underneath noffiM. It is probable, too (as we shall see presently), that ^^T (D6d, not David) was the original popular name of the Messiah ; also that Tn should be read for 'V'T\ in Zech. xii. 8, producing the sense ' and he that is feeble shall be as D6d,' i.e. as the great supernatural Being called D6d, on which mrf In^joD ( = ' as Yerahme'el Yahweh ') may be a gloss.^ Nor is it probable that these are all the references to D6d in the O.T. May not D"'NTn, Gen. XXX. 14 (see note), be derived from ^^■T, and mean ' D6d's fruits ' ? The frequent occurrence of "r'lT in Canticles is remarkable ; according to Erbt,^ it is TamN ; the allusion is to some siege of Jerusalem (here called ' Ariel ') by the N. Arabian Ashhurites (perhaps that of Shishak, king of Misrim, not Misraim). The name ( = Ass. dMu) apparently means ' beloved.' It should probably be grouped with the reported N. Arabian Wadd and Wudd and the S. Arabian Wadd {y^^ = T^T"), i.e. the god of love, the Bab. Tamiiz.* I think, however, that D6d was also a geographical name, and that as such it is presupposed in the O.T. personal names Dodai, Dodo, Doda- both here and in yrhti just before is unnatural. First, the corrupt yrhx arose ; then, on this analogy, in was read, whence came X". 1 Erbt {Die Hebrder, p. 190) has, independently, made a similar suggestion so far as Tn is concerned. 2 Op. at. pp. i<)bff. ' Thus {a) in Am. ix. II, rn should be -m nsD ( = 'n n'^Drx) ; the context requires a place-name (see Hibbert Journal, July 1905, pp. 828/ (b) and (c) In Am. vi. 5 thd, and in Isa. xxii. 18 hid, represent ■xahi, i.e. -vrvtivchi. In both cases a gloss ; in {b) on infn-'jj (underneath fv-hi), and in (c) on d't 'm px. {d) In Jer. iv. 30 the unexplained ^^^B' should be -mm, a marginal gloss on nap noi, i.e. mncn din, v. 29. (f) In Josh. xi. 2, nnnisj probably comes from -m mns:. * See Winckler, Ar.-sem.-or. pp. l75/;>cp. CI \\. 258, but also Hommel, Gr. p. 1 36. 48 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL vahu, with which cp. Diidu^ in the Amarna letters (44, 45, 52, 151). It is also probable that ' David,' too, indicates that the king of that name was connected with D6d or Asshur-d6d. One may suspect that D6d is a popular creation out of Dadda ( = Hadad), a name which enters into the compound names which now stand as Bedad, Eldad, Medad, Almodad. For the Assyrian names connected with Didu, 'darling,' see Johns, Assyrian Deeds, iii. 95. The name D6d specially belongs to Yerahme'el, and one of the functions which is most closely connected with it is that of restoring Israel's prosperity. As the shadows deepened on its path the people gave this divine helper an increasing share of its thoughts. Later Jewish writers speak of Michael (a modification of Yerahme'el — see pp. 59/) when a mighty champion is felt to be needed ; but when the popular longing is for just government and an expanded empire the expected hero is either D6d or some supernatural representative of Dod, called ' ben-D6d.' Yes, indeed ; the hope of the Messiah as represented in the traditional text of parts of the O.T. is very difficult to comprehend. Who is this ' son of David ' ? How could a supernatural man — the Messiah — be born as the natural descendant of David ? And why need he be so? My limits forbid me to discuss this. For my own part, I hold that the earliest certain literary expression of the Messianic hope is in Ezek. xvii. 22-24, and that before the Exile this hope was cherished by the people, and used by prophets, if at all, only in exceptional circumstances.^ And I add to this the theory (see p. 57) that what the people longed for was a permanent theophany, i.e. the appearance of a God- 1 Zimmern's hesitation {KAT, p. 483) to quote Diidu seems needless. Dudu and Yanhamu were both Egyptian officials, but both (as their names suggest) of Semitic origin. 2 For a near approach to this theory see Cheyne, /elvish Religious Life Before the Exile (1898), p. 94. Volz, however, had already expressed this view {Die vorexil. Jahveprophetie und der Messias (1897), pp. 81^. Gressmann's tempting hypothesis {Der Ursprung der Israel.-Jiid. Eschatologie, 1906, pp. 272-278) seems to me to require some modification. Isa. vii. 14-16 is based on a Messianic prophecy which may be pre-exilic, but the pre-exilic nucleus only extends to ^3n\ THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4«) 49 man,^ perhaps of the divine Being called D6d himself, or perhaps of a man produced by D6d, as Adapa was produced by Ea. It is true our texts (Ezek. xxxiv. 23/;, xxxvii. 24, Jer. XXX. 9, Hos. iii. 5) speak of ' David,' or (Jer. xxiii. 5, etc.) of a descendant of David, or a son of David ; but, like other similar changes, ' David ' instead of ' D6d ' may reasonably be set down to the official guardians of Israelite orthodoxy. It is unfortunate that we know so little of the earlier stages of the popular eschatology. But there is a strong probability that it had its roots in a mythology, the central figure of which was Yerahme'el. It is an attractive view that one of Yerahme'el's mythological titles was D6d, and another ' the son of man ' {i.e. ' the Man '). It was his delight, as we shall see presently, to take human form and visit his people. In primeval times, perhaps, he even died and rose again from death — for whom but for Israel ? This, I admit, is only a hypothesis, but it is a plausible one ^ (see p. 57). At any rate, we may venture to assume that the two favourite titles of the divine deliverer were ' the son of D6d ' (z'.e. of God) and ' the son of man.' It is not surprising that the latter phrase has had various interpretations. One of the most remarkable is that in Ethiopic Enoch Ixxi. 1 4, where Enoch is addressed as ' the son of man who art born unto righteousness, and righteous- ness abides over thee, and the righteousness of the Head of Days forsakes thee not.' In the same composite work, Ixx. i, it is said that Enoch, when translated, found the Son of Man already abiding with the Lord of Spirits (cp. xlviii. 1-3). The statements are formally inconsistent, but reconciliation is possible. For Enoch's translation is a vista of the belief that he came from heaven, and the earlier tradition doubtless recognised him, and not Noah, as the first man of the renewed human race after the flood. Worthily, therefore, might he be called the Son of Man. Another such heavenly man, or demi-god, in Babylonian mythology, is Adapa, the 1 The phrase 'God-man' is not impossible. Winckler {AOF, 3rd ser., ii. 299) quotes a cuneiform testimony to it as a title for Ea (iv. R., 17 a, 38-42, where ila amelu, 'the God-man,' is parallel to belum, ' the Lord,' and b^lu rabU, ' the great Lord '). ^ For another view see Zimmem, KAT^^ pp. 631 _^; Cheyne, Bible Problems, pp. 219-221. 4 50 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL son of the God-man Ea, who actually receives the title zir amelMi, ' seed of mankind,'^ and whom an ingenious scholar^ even calls ' the archetype of the Johannine Logos.' Hardly less interesting are the three next names, hs^, ~\ho, and ""anN. First, hs^ Of the important and much misunderstood title Dom hsi (from 'offii hs'2) I have spoken already. Among the parallels to ' Baal of Ishmael ' are — pQ hax Mesha's inscr., //. 9, 30, Num. xxxii. 38 ='00)"' Si»l ; pD-in '3, Judg. iii. 3 = 'onT '1 ; ps 'n/ Ex. xiv. 2, 9 = '3 p:;12. The expressions may appear to indicate that the god referred to (Yerahme'el or Ashhur) is the proprietor and inhabitant of a particular place or district.* This was doubtless the popular view. Possibly, however, it is a mistake or fiction, and ' Baal ' is really an outgrowth of Yarba'al (cp. Yerub-ba'al), a shortened and corrupt form of Yerahme'el. In connexion with this it may be noticed — (i) that no images of Baal have as yet been found by excava- tion ; and (2) that Addu ( = Hadad, also = Ra'aman, i.e. Yerahme'el) appears as an element in personal names where we might have expected Ba'al ; while (3) in the Phoenician names we never find Hadad, but only Ba'al. In the O.T., too, we constantly find ' the Baals ' spoken of, t.e. the local varieties of Yerahme'el. In Phoenicia DDtO hs'2. was, apparently, not worshipped before the second century B.C. Previously, the most favoured divine names compounded with Ba'al may have been •^hohsi, JDH 'x uh^ 'l.^ Our next divine name is Melek, Malk, or Milk (ifjD). 1 See IC£ vi. p. loi, and cp. Jensen's note, zi. p. 362. 2 Hommel {Exp. T. xiv. 108), who explains Adapad (the fuller form of Adapa) as ' Word of the Father.' Elsewhere this scholar boldly interprets Yampili as = ' the god Yam is the mouth of God.' 8 Saphon often occurs in O.T. for the N. Arabian region (Saphon = Sibe'on = Ishmael), whence an invasion might be expected. For the Phoenician personal names psiay, [ssnj, see Cooke, p. 115. For cuneiform material (including the S. Palestinian place-name Sapuna in Am. Tab.), see KAT^\ p. 879. Of course, such a name might exist wherever N. Arabians had settled (cp. Saphon, Josh. xiii. 27, Judg. xii. i), * See E. Bib., ' Baal.' s ite and pn = SNDm\ dSi? = ^'n^db". Note that in a Phoenician in- scription (Cooke, p. 103) Milk-Ba'al and Ba'al-Hamman are equivalent. Similarly, in another text (Lagrange, p. 102, note 5) pn iVd seems parallel to jon hv^h pn'?. THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) S' For brevity's sake I refer to Moore's comprehensive article ' Molech ' in E. Bib. Its theoretical parts may need much modification, but its store of facts is invaluable, and similar praise is due to Lagrange's section on ' Melek ' in Religions simitiques, pp. 99- 1 09, and Baudissin's article ' Moloch ' in PRES^'^. The name apparently means ' king,' just as Malkah (see p. 18) appears to mean ' queen.' No doubt the people, and not only the common people (see Isa. vi. 5), so interpreted it. But here, as often, the popular is not the original meaning. Such names as 'jsn^^D, jn"'3^D, mnmrD^D, D13^D in the Phoenician inscriptions ought to show this. In none of these cases is the name with which ^^d is compounded originally and primarily an appellative, h's'x comes from ^riT" ; ]n"' from iitin ; 'ffls is a regional as well as a divine name ; m comes from mx. There is a strong probability that ^TD both as a divine and as a local name ^ comes from 'jMom*' ; cp. in Phoen. ^30 V\xsn (see above) and in Heb. nbo (in n^D ^i) and tixh (in nn^ nin), Slon, ^N"iDp, all of which have the same origin.^ It is true, there is almost a consensus of critics for explaining Abi-melek ' Father (or my Father) is (Divine) King,' though Haupt prefers ' Father of counsel (Abi-milki),' and for interpreting parallel names accordingly, but there is strong reason for holding that 3m and i3n in personal names represent ni?, just as HN and "^riM (cp. Ahimelech and Ahimilki) represent nntDM, while ds may represent din. An expanded form of fbo is ds'po, which in I K. xi. 5, 33, 2 K. xxiii. 15, is said to have been the name of the god of the Ammonites ;^ we also find it on an Aramaean seal of the fifth century (Cooke, p 561), where, however, it is a man's name. Melek, then, was the name borne by the god Yerahme'el, at any rate, in certain circles, and in some of his aspects ; Milk-Ba'al, or simply Milk, could in -Phoenician inscriptions be used alternatively with Ba'al-hammin.* And what did the people mean when they used the 1 A local name in compounds only {e.g. in DiDte, and in the famous ^ See below, on Mal'ak Yahweh. ' For references in versions see E. Bib., ' Milcom ' (Moore). * See p. 50, note 5. 53 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL name ^^D ? Doubtless, king. According to Philo of Byblus the Phcenician god Kronos ( = El) reigned veritably upon earth. Later belief must have placed him either in heaven or below the earth. When ' Ba'al-ishmael ' became ' Ba'al- shamayim ' (see p. 21), we might suppose that the meaning of ' Melek ' was similarly transformed. As a fact, however, the sense in which this name was used in the regal period of Israelite history seems to have been ' king of the lower world.' Melek was, in fact, a chthonian deity — like Kronos (El), to whom the Phoenicians offered human sacrifices, and who as an earthly king, according to the old myth, sacrificed his own son in time of calamity. That child-sacrifices were common in pre-Israelitish Caanan we know from the recent excavations at Gezer and Taanak, and the denunciations of the prophets and prohibitions of the legislators prove the prevalence of the horrible rite in Judah in the last half century of the kingdom of Judah. A special place of sacrifice close to Jerusalem is mentioned by Jeremiah — ' the valley of the son (or sons) of d^H (Jer. vii. 31/, xix. 5 /.), where o^rr has arisen, like yar\ in Esth. iii. i, etc., and pan in 'n 71>1, out of ]Dn, which we have already met with in the divine name ]on"Si?l = ' Ba'al Yerahme'el.' ^ If we ask, whence came these child -sacrifices? the answer must be, from N. Arabia.^ There the cultus of Yerahme'el went on without the adaptations and adjustments required by the more enlightened portion of the Israelites. The reactionary section of Israel, however, resorted to child- sacrifices when the state seemed in danger, which was repeatedly the case in the later period. But it was doubtless always in the name of the divine duad, Yerahme'el-Yahweh, that the offerings were made (see on Gen. xxii.). Hence it was possible for the legislator to say, ' Thou shalt not give any of thy sons \_gloss, offering them] to Melek, and shalt not profane the name of thy God '(Lev. xviii. 21). For 1 Duhm (on Jer. xxxii. 25) is not quite right, but at least approaches the truth. He thinks that the local Baals were brought into a ' mysterious connexion ' with Yahweh (as his d'js), and that Melek in the valley of Ben-Hinnom was regarded as a special form of manifesta- tion of Yahweh. 2 See a hypothesis as to the cause assigned for the departure of the Israelites from Misrim (Musri in N. Arabia), E. Bib., col. 3789. THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) S3 Melek, i.e. Yerahme'el, is a part of the full name of Israel's God. Yerahme'el, then, was king, not only of earth and heaven, but of the underworld. Hence that dark side of his worship to which the higher teachers of Israel refer. He became a Semitic Pluto, because he was first of all the god of vegetation. Like Dumuzi and Belili, he was transferred, first of all for a time, and then for a permanence, to the underworld, of which he naturally became the ruler. We may perhaps consider S^-hy ( = the Bab. Belili,^ the sister of Dumuzi, and a goddess of the underworld) as Yerahme'el's viceroy ; h'shil, which seems to mean ' no re-ascending,' is really, no doubt, a corruption of fjNDm"', which very early obtained an independent existence, and became a name for She'ol and its ruler. He could also be called ^ba, and his consort ns^D. In a Punic inscription we find the names of Hawwath, Elath, and Milkath as a triad of infernal deities (Cooke, p. 13s), and in the Korin (Sur. xliii. 17) we find an angelic keeper of hell called Malik. A strange piece of evolution ! That Yarham (popularly explained 'the Compassionate') should become the stern king of She'ol is as startling as the cruelty of a Zeus Meilichios.^ One may suspect that the Babylonian Nergal passed through a similar evolution, for he too was sometimes regarded as a god of the fields.^ A singular fact about the name needs to be again pointed out.* In 2 K. xvii. 30 ' Nergal ' is the name of the god of the men of Kuth. The passage in its context referred originally to N. Arabian places ; Kuth is a fragment of niDD, which comes from nbatON (see on Gen. xxxiii. 17). Nergal, therefore, may be a modification of Yerahme'el ; one linking form would be ' Karmel,' and another 'Gomer' (see on Gen. x. 2). The form may perhaps be very old, and have been carried, like Belili, to Babylonia by Arabians. There a native etymology was invented for it (Ne-uru-gal, ' lord of the great dwelling ').® 1 See E. Bib., 'Belial,' § 3. The hypothesis has been borrowed from me by Hommel. For BeUli, see the Descent of Ishtar, rev. 51. 2 Miss Jane Harrison (Prol. Gk. Rel.) denies the Semitic origin of MetXixios. 3 JCAT'^^\ p. 413. * See Crit. Sib., ad loc. 6 Jensen, Kosmologie, p. 476. 54 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL At any rate, we know from cuneiform sources that Nergal, under various names, was early worshipped in Canaan.^ We also know that Nergal's sacred animal was the lion, and it is probable (see p. 3S) that Yerahme'el too was a lion-god. To this I must add that there are distinct traces of this deity as (like Nergal) a Pluto in the O.T, In Job xviii. 14 it is said of the wicked rich man that he will have to go mn^l ^^Q^, which is rendered ' to the king of terrors,' i.e. Death. Several critics have stumbled at this, and rightly. But what underlies mnbl ? Surely yrhl (so it was probably written) is one of the offshoots of ■?Mam^ and similarly in Job XXX. 2 3 Tl f?D (a weak phrase) should be ■JNom"' ; the linking form is ^im"'. Death {i.e. Deathland) in a and ' the horror of meeting of Yerahme'el ' in b are perfect parallels.^ Nor is this all. The chief names of the demons (except Satan) come either from Yerahme'el or from its equivalent Ishmael. From the former comes Belial or Beliar ; * from the latter Sammael and [Beel-]zebub.* Most probably, too, the much-tormented word She'ol ('jlNto) comes from Ishmael (SNSOtD"'), just as the Bab. arallu (cp. 'jN'^nN, ^nin) most prob- ably comes from Yerahme'el (bMOriT'). Also Azazel (p. 30). Fresh problems for the critic are connected with i37«, Adonai. From the fact that the Septuagint gives Kvysto? for mri"', it is possible that ' Adonai ' originally meant ' my lord(s) ' or ' lord(s),' as a reverential substitute for ' Yahweh.' In Phoenicia, as most believe, ■'2'l« ("ASeoi/t?) was a substitute for the real name of the god, worshipped specially at Byblus, who died and rose again. Since Philo Byblius calls the god' of Byblus {;-\|rt(rTo?, jv'js,^ which probably corresponds to JDtOM ( = DDtD 7Sl), it is conceivable that the true name of Adonis was Eshmun. We know as a fact that myths were current respecting Eshmun and Melkarth (the Tyrian Herakles) similar to that of Adonis. 1 Jensen, Kosmologie, p. 415; E. Bib., 'Nergal.' Note too the legend on a seal-cylinder found by Sellin.at Ta'annek, '(so and so), servant of Nergal.' 2 Cp. on Gen. xi. 9. 3 Cp. Bousset, Antichrist, pp. 99-101. * Cp. Crit. Bib. on 2 K. i. 3. '■' Cp. Baudissin, Stwdien zur semit. Rel.-gesch, i. 299 (cp. 36). THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) 55 Neither view, however, is perfectly natural. Such a compound as i3TN3Qt»N {CIS i. 44 ; Cooke, p. 60) certainly suggests that, if not ■'3^N itself, yet some word out of which ■'3^N has grown is as much a divine name as Eshmun. We have found that seeming appellatives like ^2;1 and ^^D really cover over true proper names of gods. Must not this be the case here? And the same remark is suggested by the Hebrew compound proper name in"'31M. It is usual, no doubt, to explain this name as ' Yahweh is lord,' on the analogy of 'i^D^'lN, ' Father (or, my Father) is king.' Such explanations, however, are artificial. If "in"' be a divine name, so too is ph? ; or if "in"' be a regional name (see p. 66), so too JTN must be. It should also be noted — (i) that ■'3^M occurs 310 times (227 of these in Ezek.) in MT. in combination with mnV (2) that 29 of the instances of ■'3^N in the Psalter occur in the Elohistic psalms, and (3) that late religious syncretists include Adonai in their accumula- tions of divine names. We ask, therefore, is there any divine name which may underlie the ■'3TN both of the Phoenicians and of the Israelites ? And we answer that we cannot point to such a name among the Phoenicians, but that we can among the Israelites. The name among the latter must have been jons (Armon or Arman), that same modification of ^NOm'^ which we have already found under- lying Ti^lD in two well-known O.T. phrases (see p. 26), and which, shortened, became ]1D"i (Rimmon) and perhaps jTix ('ark').^ An alternative for jcnw would be piN (see p. 33, note 2) ; this, written '"i3nN, would easily become i3TM, just as T 1SDQ TTT'rr in Zech. xii. i o may point to a ceremonial lamentation for a dead god (or a dead son of God ?), though the true meaning of the phrase may have been forgotten. Hommel's view,^ that the sacrifice of a lamb in spring-time among the W. Semites is a memorial of the sacrificial death of a god, is bold, but very possibly correct. Then we have the recast story of Isaac in chap. xxii. (see introduction), and I can grant so much as this to Winckler, that there are some few Adonis-elements in the story of Joseph, among which is the mourning so scrupulously related after Joseph's death (cp. on Gen. xxxvii.). I also venture to conjecture that the later Jewish belief in a Messiah ben- Joseph, who was to die by the sword of Gog and Magog," may have 1 It is reverent to accumulate divine names in addressing the Divinity. 2 ' Na'aman ' may have been, for the people, an epithet of the dying god. But really it arose out of ' Ra'aman,' one of the many independent forms of Yerahme'el. 8 Proi. Real-enc}^^ vii. 295 ; cp. Zimmern, /CAT^\ pp. 399, 450. * See Crii. Bib., ad loc. 5 Exp. Times, xiv. 109. ^ See Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, 1888. THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 43) 57 some connexion with an early popular Messianic belief different from what we find in the canonical writings/ and which was itself a development of a still earlier myth of the death and resurrection of a divine Being (see p. 36). For must not the Messiah of the people have been a divine Being? Rev. xii. is indeed of late origin, but these late writings constantly preserve fragments of myths of much earlier date. The Messiah, then, was certainly, according to the early myth, the child of the mother -goddess, and very possibly one of his titles was 'son of D6d,' which translated becomes ' son of God.' He may even have been represented as D6d himself; cp. the Messianic title 'the Beloved,' Eph. i. 6, Ascens. Isaiae iii. 17. Whether Isa. liii. is written in the style of a song of the cult of the dying god^ seems to me more doubtful. Another name which may have been compounded with Yerahme'el and with Ashhur is Resheph. A god of this name was introduced (from Phoenicia ?) into Egypt during the eighteenth dynasty, and, from the dress in which he is represented, he appears to have been in one of his aspects a war-god ; * his name (see the Heb. lex.) suggests that he may have been also a god of pestilence. In a N. Syrian inscription (Cooke, pp. 1 5 9 ff^ we find Resheph, or Arku-Resheph (the fuller form, see p. 23), among the great gods of Ya'di, with Hadad, El, Rekubel ( = Yerahme'el), and Shamash. Whether these names correspond to as many separate gods may indeed be questioned (see p. 68). One of the qualifying words attached to Resheph in the Phoenician inscriptions is 73d, which, like the divine name "j^D, may most easily be derived from f?^?D^V ; certainly the Greek form AvroWwy 'A/iu«\o9 = 'Att. 'A/ii;/c\atos is an assimilation, not an explanation. Elsewhere we meet with pn ?lt&l, where pn denotes certainly not ' arrow ' ( = flash of lightning, cp. Hab. iii. 11, Ps. Ixxvii. 18, and 'Att. eKarij^oXoi), but the regional name nisn (cp. Ba'al-Hasor, 2 S. xiii. 23). In Egyptian we find attested Rshp Sharamana, in which Resheph is equated with Shalman, i.e. Ishmael (cp. chw in 1 Cp. N. Schmidt, TAe Prophet of Nazareth, p. 91. 2 Gressmann, Urspr. Esch. pp. 317-327. 3 For references, see E. Bib., ' Resheph.' 58 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL the Phoen. pr. n. X^^-1T, and ]d^q?, a divine name in a Sidonian inscription, Cooke, p. 42). In a legend on a Phcenician seal (Cooke, p. 361), we find 'Melkarth-Reseph,' where Reseph, i.e. Resheph, is combined with Melljarth (see p. 46). Once, too, in a Sidonian inscription of Bod-'Ashtart occurs v^-\ pN or DDtDT '^M, 'the land of Resheph,' or ' of the Rishpites.' We also find a personal name jrT'aajT (Cooke, pp. 60, 74), i.e. originally Resheph- Ethan (Ethan, another transferred N. Arabian name). It only remains to be added that v\^'\ was perhaps used as the name of an angel (or degraded deity) placed over pestilence.^ It would seem, then, that ' Resheph ' was originally a N. Arabian deity, whose cultus was carried to Canaan and Phoenicia, and thence to Egypt. He was closely akin to Yerahme'el, who was at once a war-god and a god of pestilence equally with another and a greater kindred deity Yahweh (see Ex. xv. 3, Dt. xxxii. 24, Hab. iii. 5). But, so far as we know, the name Resheph did not take much hold of the Israelites, except perhaps as a place-name or a clan-name,^ indicating that the place or clan was placed under the protection of the god Resheph- Yerahme'el, just as a Sidonian king (see above) speaks of the ' land of Resheph,' and as an Egyptian city was called ' house of Reshpu ' (W. M. M., As. u. Eur., p. 311). Let us now pass on to another important divine name which, though it will come before us again (on xvi. 7), cannot be omitted here. I refer to the name Mal'ak Yahweh (or M.-Hael6him). What we have to explain is the fact that the personage so named is not a mere 1 Gressmann, op. cit. p. 85, finds 'Resheph' as the name of a Canaanite god in Ps. Ixxvi. 4, but Houtsma's emendation which he adopts (iB'T ncp) is a poor one (see Cheyne, Ps.^^'<). ^ Inferred from i Chr. vii. 25 (Resheph, brother of nyna, i.e. 'my). Cp. also V. 16, ' And Maakah, wife of Makir, bore a son, and she called his name Peresh ; and his brother's name was Sheresh, and his sons were Ulam and Rekera.' Ulam and Rekem being popular cor- ruptions of Ishmael and Yerahme'el respectively, we may presume that Peresh and Sheresh also have a N. Arabian origin. ' Sheresh ' comes from ' Asshur,' like ' Shemesh ' from ' Ishmael.' ' Peresh,' like ' Shepher' in Num. xxxiii. 2$/., seems to have come from ' Resheph.' THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4«) 59 messenger of Yahweh, but fully represents the Most High. There is nothing in other Semitic religions exactly parallel, at least if we insist on taking Mal'ak to mean ' messenger.' The explanation of the Palmyrene divine name SnD7D ^ as h'X IM^D, ' the messenger or revealer of Bel ' (Cooke, p. 269, from Lidzbarski), as if the sun-god (so the Latin of the bilingual Rom. 2) were regarded as the highest aspect of the supreme God Bel, will hardly stand examination. For ' messenger ' and ' revealer ' are not synonymous. To get the desired sense the name should be 'piotD or 713D. It is almost equally useless to refer to Babylonian. It is true, the principal Gods often have a divine messenger, who is generally an inferior deity, but may be a son {e.g. Nabfl) or a daughter (e.g. Ishtar).* But the fact still remains that a messenger cannot be a full representative, and that in any case the name of the divine messenger would have to be added, lest Mal'ak Yahweh should be interpreted to mean ' an angel (messenger) of Yahweh,' which cannot be right.* The only possible solution is that underneath ^m'pq there is the name of one of the great gods worshipped by the Israelites. Can we doubt what that name is ? We have seen already that the oldest of Israel's gods was called Yarham or Yerahme'el, and a further study of the O.T. names will reveal the fact that hTti, f?«")Dp, Dlpbs, dn^TI, are all corrupt forms of ^Nom\ So also is Is'po, and I would add the conjecture that malahum, a Canaanitish word for God known to the Babylonians,* has the same origin. The name Mal'ak Yahweh thus becomes a desig- nation of the divine duad (see p. 16), either member of which can represent the other. It was natural that at a later time, just as iT'Nia (a title of 'Ashtart, see p. 20) was changed into mN32, so the name SMDn[T], when combined 1 Note that a Roman inscription on a Tripoli senam (Cowper, Hill of the Graces, p. 155) gives the words RRIMO MALLBOLOS, where RRIMO should be = Rimmon. 2 Zimmern (KAT''^'', p. 454) also mentions a rare Babylonian word maldku for ' messenger, servant.' But this does not help us. ^ The personage referred to is not a mere angel, but a God, for he is the repository of the 'name' of Yahweh (Ex. xxiii. 21). * Zimmern, KAT^^\ p. 354. Cp. Sayce, Exp. Times, August 1906, p. 499^. 6o TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL with mn"', became IN^PD,^ and when uncombined assumed the edifying disguise of fjWD.^ Into the subsequent history of this honourably degraded deity I need not enter. Evidently he is a parallel to the ' son of man ' ^ and the so- called Messiah, partly also to the later Logos.* Evidently, too, he absorbed fresh rays of light from Marduk and even in later times from Mithra.^ We must not therefore follow Gunkel, who regards the phrase Mal'ak Yahweh as due to a reverential scruple of a later age, and thinks that the original legends spoke naively of Yahweh himself as appearing, not 'Yahweh's messenger.' It is rather a sign of the growing tendency towards mono- theism, and the increasing repugnance of devout Yahweh- worshippers to elements derived from a lower stage of religion. The higher prophets, as we have seen elsewhere (p. 63), entertained the strongest objection to any display of reverence for Yerahme'el, or any borrowing from his cultus. To them might conceivably be due the precepts, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me' (Ex. xx. 3), and ' According to the practice of the land of Misrim,® and according to the practice of the land of Canaan, shall ye not do' (Lev. xviii. 3). Yahweh, then, was the God of the future. Individuals already ' knew ' him, but the ideal — ' thou shalt know Yahweh' (Hos. ii. 22 ; cp. vi. 6) — was in the dim distance. For the people of Israel thought to bind their God to them by the tie of ritual, thus, according to Hosea, totally mis- '^ In Num. XX. 16, however, Skdht has become ixte, and in Ex. xxxii. 34 'dkVd. 2 The first evidence for the form ^nd'd is in Daniel (x. 13, 21 ; xii. i). But there is no reason why some devout worshipper of Yahweh, some head priest, should not have produced the name earlier. That Mika'el was well known by name when Dan. x. 13 was written is obvious. 3 It was N. Schmidt who first pointed out that the manlike Being in Dan. vii. 13 was Mikael. * The Logos has partly grown out of ^Nom', one of the current corruptions of which is toaa. Only so can we understand Rev. xix. 1 2 and the gloss in 1 3 i, viz., ' And he had a name written that no one knew but he himself . . . And his name is called The Word of God.' 5 See Cheyne, Expositor, April 1906, 'The Archangel Michael.' fl Of course, Misraim (Egypt) is wrong. Cp. Mic. vi. 16 (see p. 63, note 4). THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) 61 conceiving the nature of Yahweh, and by each fresh sacrifice adding to their load of sins. Nor is Amos behind his fellow-prophet. ' Come to Bethel,' he cries, ' and trans- gress ' (iv. 4), And again, ' Did ye offer sacrifices to me in the wilderness,^ O house of Israel?' (v. 25), and ' I hate, I reject your feast-days ' (v. 21 ). Evidently these prophets hold that the nomadic theory of God gave a less incorrect view of religion than that of the far more refined agricultural period. Rather would they see no sacrifices at all than those offered to the God whom his Israelite worshippers called indiscriminately Yerahme'el (Baal) and Yahweh, and to the goddess of the many titles (iroKvdivvfjiO'i) whom we know best as 'Ashtart. Alas for Israel's fatal mistake ! For Yahweh, and he alone, ' gave her corn, and new wine, and oil, and multiplied unto her silver and gold ' (Hos. ii. 10). Thus, according to these prophets, Yahweh does for his people all that they suppose Yerahme'el (Baal) to do, and the return for which he looks is grateful obedience (Am. ii. 9-12, Hos. xi. 1-4). It is quite possible that Yerahme'el too had made a similar claim, but if so, the prophets who advanced the -claim failed to impress, as Amos and Hosea, Isaiah and Micah certainly did impress, at any rate the next age. The probability, however, is that the most progressive prophets of N. Arabia sought a more hopeful field of activity among the Israelites. Circumstances of which we are ignorant — unless, indeed, we accept the traditional account of the Exodus — made the Israelites more susceptible to the higher prophetic teaching than their Yerahme'elite kinsmen. The N. Arabian priests sought occupation among 1 The implied answer is, ' No, not sacrifices, but grateful obedience.' ' Forty years,' as Marti sees, is superfluous, alike for the sense and for the metre. What Marti fails to see is that o'ymK, as often, represents D'aiy, and that mt? comes from pi?' = '7NyDB''. These words are two independent glosses on naiD. nmni (note sing.) is also an interpolation (Marti). The next verse is an interpolated gloss, ' In fact, ye have carried in procession Sakkith your queen, and Yakman (Ishmael) your god, which ye made for yourselves.' On Sakkith, see p. 18, note 4. pa- appears as ii'3, as DD' (after nSs), and as 331D. '^nj/di?', as elsewhere, has become oVs. ®'s panjtav may represent |st = jdt, i.e. SxDm', of which pD' is also a corrupt form. Cp. on npy, Gen. xxv. 26. 52 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL the Israelites (Isa. ii. 6) ; ^ why should we hesitate to believe that some of the N. Arabian prophets did so too, especially when we recognise (see below) the real historical relation of Yerahme'el to Yahweh? Among these prophets were not impossibly Elijah and Elisha.^ The priests, however, were, for the moment, more successful than the prophets. They contributed largely to that distortion of religion of which Amos and Hosea com- plain.^ The Yerahme'el whom they served was not the god of the nomadic period, nor even the not altogether unpro- gressive god of the subsequent age, but the Baal of the capital, the god of Ahab and Jezebel. And they found among the Israelites only too much willingness to lend an ear to their dangerous pleadings. Even without their help it was only too easy for those who were disciples of Canaanitish culture to confound Yerahme'el or Baal with Yahweh. Hence, on the ' days ' or festivals of the Baalim (the local Yerahme'els), the Israelite worshippers ' forgot ' Yahweh (Hos. ii. 15), i.e. forgot that the Yahweh- side of their deity imposed a moral strictness in which the Yerahme'el cultus was greatly deficient — forgot, too, that Yahweh had become too great to be worshipped as a calf (or bull), and could no longer worthily be associated with a goddess. 1 Yahweh has (virtually) forsaken his people, because ' they are full of kemarim.' For mpD read onoD (a technical term, from D'joan). 2 See E. Bib., ' Prophecy,' §§ 7, 9 ; also Crit. Bib. p. 397, where it is pointed out that th'jn, preceded by m,T, in i K. xvii. 12, xviii. 10, covers over an original 'jNDm'. The biographer of Elijah seems to have distinguished a certain Baal (Baal-shimron ?) from ' Yerahme'el,' i.e. Baal par excellence. The less harmful Baal of more conservative worshippers Elijah does not attack. At Sarephath (which belonged to the southern Sidon) Elijah found religious kinsmen, who revered his own God Yahweh, i.e. Yahweh-Yerahme'el. Let us also bear in mind the traditions which underlie i K. xix. 1 5 and 2 K. viii. 7 ff., and which represent Elijah and Elisha as closely connected with the King of Aram (the southern Yerahmeel). 8 Both Amos and Hosea attack image- worship. In Hos. viii. 5, 6, the MT. misrepresents the prophet. Read in a, ' I abhor thy calf, O Shimron ; | my anger is kindled against it ; | to Arabia of Ishmael shall it be brought, | a present to the king of Ashhur.'^ — Gloss, for Ishmael means Ashhur ; for Ishmael means {dittograph). Interpolation, A no- God is the calf of Shimron. W'w'a and D'anu' both represent ^syoo'. THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) 63 The reader will notice that I am anxious not to be unjust to Baal. That the Yerahme'el cultus had always been morally so meagre is improbable. Hosea himself says (iv. 6) that the priest (priesthood) has "forgotten the law of his God.' Some unfavourable impulse — ' a spirit of harlotry' (iv. 12) — has led them astray, and through them the Israelites also. The story of the sons of Eli (i S. ii. 12-17, 22) may illustrate this. Eli and his sons were guardians of the so-called 'ark,' the probable original name ^ of which, and also its traditional connexion with the compound name of the divine duad,^ suggest that its priestly guardians were ministers of the God Yerahme'el, But according to a tradition which may be not entirely incorrect, the sons of Eli indulged in evil practices like those which Hosea has in view in his controversy with the priests. Eli himself was without reproach ; his sons there- fore, like Hosea's priests, had ^forgotten the law of their God,' except, indeed, in matters of sacrificial routine. Now Hosea, like Amos and Isaiah, detests the sacrificial system ; he even calls sacrifices 'the sin of Yahweh's people' (iv. 8). The priests, on their side, abhor what Hosea loves, viz. an ethical, non-sacrificial view of religion. The antithesis, therefore, is complete, irreconcilable. The true Yahweh says (Hos. viii. 12): — I loathe the temples of Yerahme'el,^ (Where) my laws are accounted as (those of) a stranger. And in the next verse the prophet continues : — They sacrifice the sacrifices of Ah'ab,* Yahweh accepts them not ; Now will he remember their guilt, And punish them for their sin. 1 See p. 34. 2 See p. 35, note i. 5 Read '?y3T niSD'.n aips, and, in b, wri. * '3n3n probably comes from ^nhn, a compound of two short geo- graphical designations, one of which (nn) represents "inB'M, the other (2n) DTjj. The same word can be traced in Hos. iii. i, iv. 17, ix. 10, xi. 4, and Mic. vi. 16. In Mic. I.e. we have to read, 'And the statutes of the Arammite are observed, and all the cultus of the house ( = territory) of Ah'ab.' Is this also the explanation of the royal name Ah'ab ? Certainly. The far-fetched explanations of this name (W. R. Smith, Ulmer, etc.) are most improbable. 64 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Of the counter-discourses of the priests we have, unfortu- nately, no record. I have postponed the consideration of the name mrr"', Yahweh, or (see Sayce and Cowley's edition of the Assuan Aramaic papyri) yn^, Yahu, in order not to hinder a compari- son of the partly similar, partly different conceptions of the two related gods, Yerahme'el and Yahweh. The compari- son having now been made, it is possible to take up the important question of the origin of ' Yahweh.' It seems to me very hazardous to assume from Gen. xix. 24 that mn"" (in*') originally meant ' heaven ' ; and to hold that there were two old monosyllabic divine names Ya and Ho, that ha-Elohim is sometimes miswritten for Ho -f the gloss Elohim, and that in Gen. ii. and iii. Yahweh-Elohim has a similar origin. This is Hommel's view {Gr. pp. 177-179). Still, we can hardly now go back to the old conjectures respecting the divine name Yahweh. So much must already be clear, that the name must stand in some connexion with Yerahme'el. I suggest that it may have been origin- ally a dialect-variation of Yahameh, which is related to Yarhamu, precisely as Ham (Gen. v. 32, etc.) is related to Yarham, and Hamath to Rahamath. We may further venture to compare the regional names Yaman and Yamin, where not only the r but the h has disappeared, also the personal name Yahmai (i Chr. vii. 2), for which Lucian gives iayuiv, and the Sabaean name 'PNOn"'. Here, too, I must mention the imagined moon- and sea-god Yim (see p. 28), \}aR yami in Ahiyami (Ta'annek inscription, see p. 29, note i), and ^t yAma which closes some proper names in cuneiform texts of the Persian period^ (cp. p. 29). It is true that Zimmern and other Assyriologists trace this ydma to an original yahwa, but obviously yahwa {yahu) may just as well have come from Ydma (jam), which is the short either for Yarham or for Yiman.^ The evidence is certainly late, but compound proper names, even when recorded late, often 1 Cp. Johns, article in Expositor, October 1903. There are also names beginning with I-am (Hommel, Gr. p. 179 ; cp. p. 130). 2 Johns {Deeds, iii. 414) has found Nat4nu-y4ma several times in Assyrian deeds. '.Natinu ' is probably a modification of the N. Arabian name Ethan ; ' y^ma ' ought to be parallel to it. THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) 65 present very ancient elements. There is also early evidence from proper names that the name Yau (Yahu), whether for a region or for a god — most probably for both — was current in Babylonia, both in the age of Hammurabi, and, later, in the Kassite period, i.e. that it was by no means confined to the land of the Israelites. A fresh chapter in the history of Yahweh is opened by ." the Assuan Aramaic papyri. We learn from these that the Jews in Syene and Elephantine in the fifth century B.C. habitually used the divine name Yahu in commerciali and legal transactions. ' They swore by the name of Yahu, and a chapel or altar of Yahu stood near the houses of their settlement.' The one God has displaced the divine ' duad or triad, and the name Yahu holds its ground against both Yahweh and Adonai.^ What, then, is the relation of the form Yahweh to '• Yau or Yahu? Probably this. A more original form than either is Yahwa or Yahu. In a famous Phoenician inscription (v.-iv. cent. B.C.) we find a royal name "FSDin\ It is usual to explain this as l^airi'^ (' let Milk give life ') ; but should it not rather be ^^o^^; ? ^ Yahu or Yahwa i« appears to be a very old shortened form of nxw ; the linking form is "im\ Out of Yahwa (Yahu) came Yahwa •; (Yahu). The settled Yerahme'elites, or rather their priests, probably made this modification, giving it the sense of ' he who causes to be,' ' the producer.' ^ This step may have >,' coincided with a great reconstitution of myths.* Yarham may, indeed, have been the Creator, but the old creation- myth had probably begun to fade, and its revival called for a virtually new name. From these Yerahme'elites the younger V Israelite people, under the direction of the priestly tribe of Levi and especially the clan of Mosheh, received the cultus of Yahweh. Previously they had worshipped El Asshur > ('El Shaddai') or El Yerahme'el (' El-olam '), but on 1 Aramaic Papyri discovered at Assuan. Edited by A. H. Sayce with the assistance of A. E. Cowley (1906), p. 10. ^ Note that the father of this king is ^jy^in' (so CIS and Lidzbarski \ Cooke, h^ji-w), i.e. Syrm' = '^Nom'. ^ On the diffusion of the name Yahweh in the south, see Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten, p. 378. * Cp. Goldziher, Hebrew Mythology, p. 272. 66 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL passing into a settled life they accepted a virtually new God. Their traditions unhistorically throw back this event into the nomadic stage. The date of the original change of Yahii into Yahu must have been very early, if Jensen ^ is right in making the Abd- hiba of the Amarna letters equivalent to Ti^TV ^^i', "^ being often replaced in Assyrian by k, and T by b. Johns/ too, compares Iba in the name Tba-kame, and a French critic suggests that Yabi-sarru in a newly published Amarna tablet may mean 'Yahweh is king.' But I fear we cannot safely lay any stress on such interpretations, and at any rate behind the conventionalised Yabi-sarru a name of different import exists, if we could find it. Among the many similar cases of conventionalised Hebrew names it is enough here to point out that "in"' in irri'tB"' and similar forms is probably altered from in"', i.e. lom"', which is a shortened form of the geographical name 7Non'T'. Cp. p. 43. It will now be plain exactly how much truth lies in the statement of Winckler {GI ii. 78) that the divine name Yahu, underlying Yahweh, 'is that of the storm -god commonly called by the Canaanite peoples Rammcln.' It requires to be added (i) that the intermediate divine name is Yarhamu or Yahu, (2) that Rammfin is probably a modification of one of the collateral forms of Yerahme'el (Rahman or Ra'aman), and (3) that all these related Gods are more than mere storm-gods, more than the possessors or con- trollers of any single natural force, or even of all of them put together : they are divine men — they are personalities. It is natural to conclude the series of divine names with ' Elohim.' This word is generally rendered ' God ' or ' gods ' ; in the former sense we find ildni {ildniya, ' my gods ' = ' my God ') in the Amarna letters. But Elohim is admittedly often used in the Hebrew texts, both without and with the article, as if it were a divine name. It is also admitted that an apposition generally stands in the singular, though sometimes in the plural ; and that the predicate is generally in the singular, though exceptions (Gen. XX. 13, xxxi. 53, xxxv. 7, Ex. xxxii. 4, 8, 2 S. vii. 23) are not wanting. To illustrate these phenomena, 1 KB vi. 578. ^ Deeds, iii. p. xvi. THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) 67 it has been noticed that the Phcen. d"?n may be used with the singular (even feminine) to denote ' god,' like the Heb. DTT^M ; one may mention (Cooke, p. 99) p!jb:;l d^n, d^n f?n3, XSryprs d^n, dn n-ns xhvK (of the goddess Isis). It is not so easy to account either for the Hebrew or for the Phoenician phenomena. Let us begin with the latter, having regard to typical passages in the Phoenician inscrip- tions in which D^N occurs. Prof. G. Hoffmann has already examined these with his accustomed learning,^ but without fully satisfactory results, owing to his want of a key to the problems. I venture now to build partly on his foundation, hoping that some of my suggestions may be found useful. And, first of all, let me caution the student against trusting appearances. It is true that the names d^nddo {CIS 194. 363) and ofpNTni; (7, 334) appear to mean "gift of God,' ' servant of God.' Experience, however, seems to me to warn us to question these explanations, and to look underneath these names for earlier forms with a non-religious meaning. Then we have in the Ma'sub inscription, /. 2, the strange expression, ' which the dSn, the envoys of Milk- 'Ashtart . . . built.' Prof. Hoffmann takes D^sn here to be a title ('the divine'), and refers to CIS 260-262, 377, where the father is called dSn DpD nn, and the son Dpo D7N alone; also to 227, where the latter phrase occurs in connexion with Suffetes. Hoffmann explains this ' loco divino ' ; it was an official title doubtless, but suggests the fact that its bearers were great nobles, and claimed descent from the gods. Similarly dSn nno f?D1 means, according to him, ' every one of an honoured princely position.'. To these may be added from Cooke (p. 361) the phrase ofjN tD«, which Prof. Ed. Meyer explains ' divine servant,' but Mr, Cooke, in my opinion more plausibly, ' the nobleman.' And what is the explanation which will link these passages firmly and naturally together ? It is this. ofjN in Phoenician, like the same group of letters in Hab. ii. 1 8 (cp. also in the MT. ofpis, f?^DN, d'?''DN, and similar words), is a derivative of ■jNom"' ; and, in passing, the same origin may be suggested for the Phoen. j'pn, 'a god.' Let us apply this to each of the Phoenician passages referred to. 1 Ueber einige phonikische Inschriften (1889), pp. 15-20. 68 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL For instance, a genealogy tracing a man's descent to Yerah- me'elite ancestors was, we may well suppose, a patent of the highest nobility. Eshmunazar, as we know (p. 44), prided himself on his ' blue blood,' and it is highly probable that a Suffete family would do the same. Eshmunazar calls himself vxhv). p, which is not to be read no nj»N J'lS (so Hoffm.), nor ' son of a widow,' but (as the preceding descrip- tion shows) ' son, or native, of Almath ' (a regional name, derived from Q7N = 7NQnT^). In short, the king claimed to be a Yerahme'elite, and so, of course, did other high-placed Sidonians. Similarly all the passages can be explained, provided we grant that D7N may, by a natural licence, be also taken as a plural. We may group the plural D7N in the Mas'ub inscription with the tsh'^'A of Ex. xv. 1 5, Ezek. xvii. 13, 2 K. xxiv. 15 I^r., and the d'i^n of Ezek. xxxii. 21. The Q^N in the seal-legend (Cooke, p. 361) is, of course, not a plural, but means ' of high descent,' or, more strictly, ' of Yerahme'el.' Now we can also understand how Phcen. d'pn can have come to mean ' god.' The case is parallel to that of nergallu for the colossal lions representing the god Nergal, and ishtaru and ishtaritu for ' goddess.' Strictly, D7N means ' Yerahme'el,' but since Yerahme'el was an unique Being, and the one or two other Beings in his Company were sub- ordinate to him, his name, in a shortened form, naturally became a term indicating the highest rank in the hierarchy of Essences.^ It should be noticed that in the Hadad and Panammu inscriptions (Zenjirli), Hadad and El and Rekubel and Shamash are mentioned together. It is possible that El here is but a shortened form of Rekub-el ( = Yerahme'el), which the stone-cutter — a lover of grand titles — gave as a separate name. Indeed, the probability is that by Hadad and Rekubel the same god is meant. There is an alternative view, but it comes practically to the same thing, viz. that ^m has come from f?Ni, a short symbol (cp. ' lolaus') for 'jnohT, like h's'' for ^Mi^offir A similar explana- tion has already been given of Ssi. 1 Philo of Byblus {Fragm., ii. 18) states that the allies of El or Kronos bore the name EAoet/*, as if YipovLoi,. D'n'7N has not been found in Phoenician. THE COSMOGONY (Gen. i.-ii. 4a) 69 The problem of nTl'jN now becomes simple. Our ex- perience with the above vht^ passages suggests that qtt'jm must have been produced out of a shortened form of 'jNDm'', viz. onSiN ; cp. nmiN from nmiN (xvii. 5), and nn'jTT'l from 'riT'TT'l. We see, too, how DTT^N comes to be constructed with a singular verb and a singular adjective, and how the phrase dtt'jm TVSrv was possible. Both in this compound phrase and sometimes when it stands alone {e.g. iv. 25), DTrfpN represents the divine name ^NQnT. Ex. xxii. 19 supplies important evidence of this. For here Dnrr^ is impossible (see p. 29), and plainly represents DriT ( = ^MDm"'), an early gloss on Qin^M. It may be added that hhvk (' idol ') has probably the same origin. See Crit. Bib. on Isa. ii. 6-22, and cp. Hab. ii. 1 8, where q-'D^jn ( = D'^^MDnT) may be a gloss on 'a^'ht^. As to ni^N, I agree with Ewald and Baethgen that it is probably an artificial coinage. We now return to the Priestly Writer's cosmogony, in which he seeks to glorify the weekly Sabbath by placing its origin at the beginning of the world (ii. 2/!). He does not indeed actually name the ' Sabbath,' but it appears evident that he alludes to it as the day of ceasing from work (n2tO). Meinhold has made it very probable that the weekly Sabbath is not pre-exilic, that its author was Ezekiel, and that the name Sabbath (which is, of course, pre-exilic) originally had nothing to do with ceasing from work or resting.^ This scholar thinks that in pre-exilic times it meant ' full-moon day' (like Ass. sabattum). I venture, however, to suggest a different view, which in the light of other results appears to me highly plausible. This is, that it meant the feast of Ashtart, who was symbolised as an ear of corn = Aram. ^rhiyaiKATf^ p. 428). n^n©, in fact, became niffi, which was originally (as it seems) one of the names of the great Semitic goddess. It is, of course, possible that this name was in course of time altered so as to suggest identification with the Ass. sabattum, just as Sab'ith was (probably) altered into Seb&'oth. My own impression, however, is that there "'' was nothing in Babylonia corresponding to the Jewish 1 See Meinhold, Sabbat und Woche im A.T. (1905), and cp. Prof. H. W. Hogg's review in the Review of Theology and Philosophy, i. 70 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Sabbath. Another suggestion is too obviously right to be rejected. It was the Babylonian and old Oriental principle that things on earth correspond to things in heaven. P accepts this. If God ' rested ' on the seventh day, man ought also to rest on that day. The anthropomorphism (cp. Ex. xxxi. 17) harmonises with the view of the gods as extraordinary men, which pervades this cosmogony. The concluding words, mtCib DTl'js Nni lt»« (ii. 3), are stylistically impossible. No good Hebrew writer could have appended majsS, nor can Nil be combined with Tfuvhu. M. Lambert ^ has already suspected corruption in Nil ; the author of @ also took offence at it, and gives rjp^aTo (f?nrr) ; cp. John V. 17,' my Father worketh hitherto.' But the corruption is more deep-seated.^ Probably the last editor of the text had to deal with a title of the following narrative, which he did not understand. The title was l~\s, "i©N, on which there was a marg. gloss 7NDnT' nniON.' Both phrases were already corrupt, and by inserting DTT^N the writer pro- duced what now stands before us. The text is not improved by the appendix. The two phrases ' Asshur of Arabia ' and ' Ashtar of Yerahme'el ' are of course synonymous. They both mean the region in which the gan-Eden was situated, and in which the first men, including Noah, dwelt. Cp. Prov. viii. 26 (pp. 38/!). 1 Revue des etudes juives, janv.-mars 1900. 2 Schwally (Archiv f. Rel.-wiss., ix., 1906, p. 159) feels the ' monstrosity ' of the phrase, but has no suggestion for explaining it. * Probably the document used by P had Sncy, which, like ^iitrB'K, yiDnu'N, and nnnB'N, came from ^DNnrK = 'dht -vwih. PARADISE (Gen. ii. 4M11. 24) Here we have before us the story of the first man and the first woman, of their happy life in the sacred garden, and of their miserable expulsion from it. The story also includes a myth of the origin of the serpent as we see it to-day, but on this we need not pause long. The early Israelites naturally enough applied the key of the imagina- tion, just as the Finns did (see Kalevala, Rune xxvi.). It is Adam and Eve who absorb our interest. The man is produced out of moistened clay (as the myths of Babylon and Egypt — to mention no others — also represent) ; the woman in a singular fashion, which we will refer to later. We need not suppose that this was the only account of the formation of the human pair current among the Israelites. One possible theory is suggested by the traditional phrase ' Mother Earth ' ; ^ the resources of the imagination are not easily exhausted. We notice too that the first woman re- ceives a name (ii. 23 ^, iii. 20), while the first man has none. The difficulty is met in iv. 25 and v. 3-5 by omitting the article in kd-ddam, so that addm appears as a proper name ; ® and Vg. use ' Adam ' in this way more freely. A textual critic, however, is bound to inquire whether an earlier and still discoverable form of the text may not have given the first man a true proper name. For the present, however, we will acquiesce in the make- shift ' Adam,' and proceed to ask, Have we the story of Adam in its original form ? Surely not, is the answer. The story has been altered in order to make it illustrate and explain the facts of ordinary life. It has also received additions, as Stade and Gunkel have partly seen. Elsewhere 1 "^oXA^sA, Archiv f. Rel.-wiss. viii. i6i. 71 72 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL M the first man is described as a king and a demi-god.^ This was the older type of the tradition ; we find it in Ezek. xxviii. 12-19 (xxvii. 3, xxviii. 2, 3, Isa. xiv. 13, 14) and Job XV. 7, 8, and in a pale form in Gen. i. 26-28 (cp. Ps. viii. 5). How natural that such a personage should dwell among the magic trees on the mountain of Elohim, and that his beauty and wisdom should be infinite ! Symbols of his semi-divine character are the precious stones (see p. 83) which form his vesture/ precisely as the Jewish high priest had twelve, and the Babylonian king six precious stones on the breast, indicating the astral connexion of these holy . personages.' This king, this demi-god, however, was deposed, and not only deposed, but hurled {v. 16; see Isa. xiv. Ij) down to She61, because he said, ' I am Elohim,' ' I am like the Supreme,' i.e. because he broke some divine precept, or perhaps conspired against the Supreme.* The myth is incomplete. There must once have been more light on the sin of this great Being. That sin can hardly have been partaking of the food of the gods, for how could one dwell on the mountain of Elohim, be robed like Elohim, and be perfect in wisdom and beauty, and not also eat of that food, which, if taken constantly, warded off decay and death, and imparted a happy sense of unlimited power ? It is remark- able that in Enoch Ixix. 6 the story of the temptation is read in the light of Gen. vi. 1,2. Of the tree nothing is said, and the tempter is represented as one of the fallen angels. Let us now turn to the story in Gen. ii. Here {vv. 8, 15) we are told that Yahweh-Elohim planted a garden for 1 We are reminded of the ' fair shepherd Yima ' of the Avesta {Vend, ii.), the first king and the founder of civilisation, though not the first man like the cognate Vedic hero Yama (see p. 83) ; also of Maui, ' the Adam of New Zealand.' Of the Bab. Adapa (or, as Fossey, Adamu) I have spoken elsewhere. 2 See Ezek. xxviii. 13. Cp. the robe of ceremony offered to Adapa by Anu in the Babylonian myth (KB vi. 99). 2 See Zimmern, KAT, pp. 624, note 3 ; 629, note 5 ; also Gress- mann, Eschatologie, pp. 1 08-1 10. * The passage of Ezekiel closes with a reference appropriate to the king of Missor in N. Arabia, to whom, by a poetical licence, the old myth is applied. ' Sor,' of course, is shortened from Missor (see p. 46_/;). In Ezek. xxviii. 2 d'D' aSi probably comes from d':d; Vm, ' Babel of the Yemanites,' i.e. the Arabian Babel ; a gloss. See on x. i o. PARADISE (Gen. ii. 4^-111. 24) 73 the sake of the man. This view is quite different from that of Ezekiel. Thereupon Adam became his gardener. The notion of an agricultural people. Precisely so the legend of Sargon I. (Rogers, HBA i. 362) makes the king say, ' My service as a gardener was pleasing unto Ishtar, and I became king.' ^ But Adam's life was not perfect, for he was alone, and Yahweh his Maker (see p. 15) loved society. So God said (according to and Jubilees), ' Let us make him a help meet for him,' and then formed out of the ground all the animals, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. What is the object of this singular story ? Is it merely to prepare the way for the formation of Eve, or to answer some curious questions (such as, How came the animals by their names, or. How came language to exist) ? ^ Rather, perhaps, to counteract the shameful vice referred to in Lev. xviii. 23. There may have been stories in existence like that of Ea-bani,^ or like the tales of the Skidi Pawnee in N. America, in which ' people ' are said to marry animals or to become animals (Dorsey, Traditions of the S.P. pp. 280^). At any rate, the writer declares that none of the animals was fit to be the associate of man, because none was sufficiently like him to be a true helper to him (17133 Tis, ' a helper matching him,' as one half of a piece of work matches another). Observe that some practical object, such as is here suggested, must have been before the narrator's mind. It is probable that vv. 19, 20 are a later insertion, suggested by experience. For w. 21 fits on \.o v. 18 much better than to V. 20, and it is not probable that the insight required for naming the animals should have deserted the man when he had to deal with the serpent, who is represented as one of those very animals on whom the man, in virtue of his superior ^ Cp. the legend of Abdalonymus of Tyre (Winckler, AOF \\. 168). ^ The narrator assumes that Adam and Eve had an innate capacity of speech. ^ See Jastrow, RBA, pp. 474-480, and his article 'Adam and Eve in Babylonian Literature,' AJSL xv. 207-268. Jastrow's theory (that the original form of the story in Gen. ii. represented Adam as having originally had intercourse with the beasts) seems to me highly improb- able. The original story represented Adam as a demi-god, — not as an Ea-bani, but as an Adapa. 74 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL wisdom and his divinely given authority, had imposed names. One thing, however, the interpolator forgot, viz. that to obtain his object he had to lower the intelligence of the divinity, whom he represents as having made countless experiments — all failures — before he liit upon the right plan. Strange, indeed, it would have been, if the formation of man succeeded at once, but not that of woman. Observe, lastly, that all trace of a theriomorphic Creator (see pp. 7, 9) has vanished. One may venture, therefore, to hold that the divinity proceeded at once from thought to successful action. Gods, however, do not like to be watched (xix. 26). Hence a deep sleep falls upon Adam, like the sleep of one who is in a trance (Job iv. 13, xxxiii. 15). The God takes one of his ribs and builds it up into a woman. The man is enchanted at the sight, and bursts into rhythmic speech, to which the narrator appends a comment. Why is a woman so irresist- ibly drawn to a man ? It is because of this great event which has permanently determined the relations of the sexes. Observe, the spirit of this passage is in harmony with that of i. 27, 28. It is implied that straightway the man and the woman had a reciprocal longing. V. 25 is due to the later editor or compiler, who connected sexual intercourse with a transgression of a divine command. The story in z/w. 2 1 , 2 2 is surely not merely an ' allegory ' (Driver). It is told as history, and mythic history it is. It is true, the modern man makes a distinction between mythology and genuine history, but primitive man feels no difficulty in combining facts that are real with facts that are merely divined in accordance with mythological theories. Facts of the latter kind will of course differ in various countries, but there will be an analogy between them, and the fundamental ideas will agree. Thus, in the Tale of Two Brothers, the nine gods, making a tour in Egypt, take com- passion on a man called Bitiu, because he is alone, and Khnumu (the divine modeller) makes a companion for him who is more perfect than any woman.^ Here, however, there is nothing like the detail of the rib. Somewhat nearer to 1 Maspero, Contes populaires de I £gypte ancienne, p. 19 ; cp. Good- win, RP ii. 145. PARADISE (Gen. ii. 4*-iii. 24) 75 the Hebrew story is the mythic tradition of the island of Mangaia, which states that the woman at the bottom of the primeval ' cocoa-nut,' being desirous of offspring, plucked a piece of flesh out of her right side, which became Vatea, the father of gods and men.^ Or take the Malagasy myth that the Creator drew seven women out of the body of the first man, who are the mothers of the seven tribes.^ The famous Tahitian story, so suspiciously near the story in Gen. ii., has been criticised by Max Muller,' but not adequately explained. It is not enough to remark that ' Ivi ' (the first woman's name) means ' bone.' The key to the story is probably the fact that at Fakaafo the first man was said to have had his origin in a rock. We must suppose that ' Ivi ' originally meant ' rock,' or something analogous.* A higher origin is given to the first woman in Hindoo mythology. Dividing his own body into two, Brahma is said to have become with the half a man, and with the half a woman, and in her to have created (the commentator says, begotten) Viraj.^ The Iranian story in the Bundahish (chap, xv.) is also remark- able. At first the human pair, Matrd and Matr6yih6, grew up in conjunction with the shape of a plant ; afterwards they changed into the shape of man, and, as we shall see, fell into wickedness. They were produced by the seed of a still earlier man, ' brilliant and white,' ' the righteous man,' Gayomard. Our narrator leaves unsaid that Adam's first care was to tell his wife on what conditions they held their happiness. But evidently she knew from him about the tree in the middle of the garden (iii. 3, 6, 11), the fruit of which, though fruit was their food, they were forbidden to taste. One tree, not two trees ; ii. 9, which speaks of ' the tree of life in the midst of the garden,' but also of ' the tree of knowledge of good and evil,' is certainly not in its correct form.'' What, 1 Lang, Myth, Ritual, and Religion, i. 187. 2 Campbell, Travels in South Africa, 3rd ed., p. 384 (ap. Liiken, Traditionen, p. 61). The parallel will become closer if the first man of Gen. ii. was really the supposed ancestor of a particular race of men. ^ Science of Religion, pp. 302-304. * Waitz-Gerland, Anthropologic der Naturvolker, vi. 326. ^ Muir, Old Sanscrit Texts, iv. 41. ^ Matthes (article in Theol. Tijdschr. xxiv. pp. 365^) and Winckler 76 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL then, is the name of the tree ? Kuenen ^ and Eerdmans '^ reply, The tree of life ; Budde,' Holzinger, Barton,* The tree of the knowledge of good and evil. A better view seems to be that the tree was indifferently called ' the tree of life ' and ' the tree of knowledge ( = insight, wisdom).' ^ This identifi- cation of life and insight is amply attested,* and is in accord- ance with the best Israelite teaching. He who shares God's wisdom must also share his infinite life. Of course, ' know- ledge,' to the writer who inserted 'the tree of knowledge,' consisted largely in ability to use magic arts ; it is in the incantations that we find Marduk referred to as ' he that loves to recall to life the dead.' It is true, a later writer took a very different view of the meaning of ' the tree of knowledge.' 'According to him, the knowledge which the magic fruit conveyed to the human pair was that, in virtue of the sexual relation, they had the godlike power (cp. iv. i ) of producing living beings like themselves. It is plain, however, that this interpretation is not the original one ; it is too special. To limit the divine wisdom to the mystery of the reproduction of life is inadmissible ; it is also contrary to the partly parallel Babylonian story of Adapa. The story of Adapa's (or Adamu's) failure to obtain complete divinity need not be retold at length here (see Prof. Jastrow's well-known historical work). The main point of it is that Adapa, the son of Ea (the culture-god of Eridu), was endowed with divine wisdom, but, through a deception practised upon him by his father, forewent immor- tality. This reminds us forcibly, not only of the infinite wisdom possessed by Ezekiel's first man, but also of the {fil ii. 1 08) retain the two trees. The latter gives both the same name, viz. ' the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,' and compares the two oracular trees in a TrapaSttcros resorted to by Alexander in the legend. Certainly the Slav. Enoch (c. 8) speaks of two special trees in the heavenly Paradise — one the tree, sweet of smell, brilliant, and covering everything (the heaven-tree), and the other an oil-distilling olive-tree. The Zoroastrians, too, know the heaven-tree (see Bousset, Rel. des Judenikums^'''\ p. 556). 1 Theol. Tijdschr. xviii. 136. ^ Ibid. pp. 494^ ^ Die Bibl. Urgeschichte, pp. 53^ * Semitic Origins, p. 95. s See E. Bib., col. 3579. " See Prov. ii. 2, 3, 6, xxiv. 3, 4, xxx. 3. In Eth. Enoch xxxii. 3, 6, the tabooed tree is called the tree of wisdom. PARADISE (Gen. ii. 4*-iii. 24) 77 misrepresentation of the effect of eating the forbidden fruit in the speech ascribed to Yahweh in Gen. ii. 17, iii. 3. For Adapa was actually offered the food and drink of the gods — ' bread (food) of life,' ' water of life/ they are called, — but declined them, in obedience to his father, on the false sup- position that they were food and drink of death. Similarly, Yahweh-Elohim commanded the man not to eat of a special fruit, because to do this would straightway cause his death (ii. 17, iii. 3). If Adapa (Adamu) had disregarded his father's command, he would have become immortal, i.e. he would have experienced such an uplifting of his nature that decay and death would have been for the time impossible, and if he had gone on eating the food and drink of the gods, decay and death would have been for ever averted. Similarly, though in the reverse order, if Adam and Eve had regarded the divine command and abstained from eating the fruit of the magic tree, they would, at however distant a date, have returned to the ground out of which they were taken. The original story doubtless made Adam and Eve take the first step towards an endless life — but only the first step ; and this they did at the cost of offending Yahweh. Can we go behind the narrative and identify the tree of life, or of wisdom ? The attempt was made in comparatively early times. The Mandaeans said that it was the vine, and Pinches, among modern students, holds the same opinion ; in fact, ' wine,' ideographically, according to Pinches and Haupt, means ' drink of life.' It is probable, however, that the vine was not the first fruit-bearing plant which yielded an intoxicant to the Semitic races, and that Enoch xxiv. 4 (cp. XXV. s) is correct when it says of the tree of life that ' its fruit was like the dates of the palm.' Date-wine was, in fact, always the most used intoxicant in Arabia and in early Babylonia and Assyria.^ The palm-tree itself was among the specially sacred trees. The conventionalised sacred tree of the monuments is primarily a date-palm, the artificial fecundation of which was a sacred ceremony. In I K. vi. 29, Ezek. xli. 18, cherubs and palm-trees are put together in the ornamentation of the temple ; and Winckler and Barton plausibly suppose that the palm-tree, which is 1 See E. Bib., 'Wine,' § 25. 78 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL singularly prolific, symbolised Ishtar, one of whose names, indeed, in Canaan, may have been Tamar.-^ The qualities of the fruit of the sacred tree remind us of the qualities ascribed to the juice of the soma or haoma plant. It was a magic fruit, and, like Paradise itself, came down from heaven. Just so the Indians and Iranians affirm that the precious healing plants came from the upper world (Darmesteter, Zend-Avesta, i. 221). The Indians also relate that an eagle, or the God Indra himself, in eagle form, brought the intoxicating and healing drink from the place where it is kept in heaven ; according to Oldenberg, how- ever, the drink was perhaps originally not soma-juice, but honey-mead." The Iranians have a similar tale {Yasna, X. 11). The fruit which Eve partook of, and then gave to Adam, was therefore the equivalent of an intoxicating drink (^Dffl), which the early men, both Semitic and Aryan,* naively supposed to exhilarate even the gods, and to confer immunity from sickness. An analogous symbol or channel of immor- tality is the river of the water of life (as Rev. xxii. i well expresses it) which watered the garden, and on whose banks grew trees with unfading leaves and undecaying fruit (Ezek. xlvii. 12). The Babylonian sages, too, spoke of a 'purifying oil of the gods,' * and later, Jewish and Christian writers of a ' tree of mercy ' distilling the ' oil of life ' ; ^ but also of a tree of life (2 Esd. ii. 12) and trees of life (Rev. xxii. 2, virtually). So in the Slavonic Enoch (c. 8), we read of an olive-tree ' always distilling oil.' The belief is, of course, connected with that of supernatural rivers of wine and of oil in the heavenly Paradise. See, further, pp. 41, 84. 1 Having observed the great part played by transposition of letters in Palestinian names, I would suggest that inn as a name may have come from n'DT For names of Ashtart still traceable in O.T., see pp. 18-20. ^ Die Religion des Veda, pp. 175-176. 3 Judg. ix. 13 ; Rig Veda, ix. 90, 5 (Muir, Same. Texts, iv. 80). ■* Hehn, Hymnen an Marduk, p. 29. 6 Vit. Ad. et Ev. § 36 (cp. 40) ; Apoc. Mos. § 9. Cp. the rite of anointing the sick with oil (Mk. vi. 13, James v. 14). Indeed, all forms of the anointing of persons as a religious rite may have a similar origin. Neither VoUers {Arch. f. Rel.-wtss. viii. 102) nor Spiegelberg {ib. ix. 144) has pointed this out. Cp. Slavonic Enoch xxii. 8, 9. PARADISE (Gen. ii. 4^-111. 24) 79 That there is no exact Babylonian parallel to the ' Paradise-story is well known. ' The park of magic trees seen by Gilgamesh {KB vi. 209), and the kiskanu-tree (palm-tree? oracular tree?) in the sanctuary at Eridu,^ have no myth attached to them like that of Adam and Eve. And though the Gilgamesh-epic tells us of a magic plant (not in that wondrous park) called ' In old age the man becomes young (again),' the plant is not very prominently mentioned ; and though a serpent is introduced, taking the plant away from the bitterly disappointed Gilgamesh,^ this is only an expression of the irony of fate ; there is no trace of any special acuteness on the serpent's part. Quite other- wise runs the story in Gen. iii. A serpent there plays a leading r61e, and his action is dictated by subtlety of intellect. He is evidently no common serpent such as Adam had lately named (ii. ig /•), but either (in accordance with Arabian folklore)^ a manifestation of the tree-spirit (or tree-demon), or a pale form of the serpent manifestation of a divine culture -bringer like the Babylonian Cannes in Berossus. He speaks, not, like Balaam's ass, because Yahweh ' opened his mouth,' but because he is a supernatural Being. The object of his conversation with the woman is not altogether clear. He accuses ' Elohim ' first of cruelty, and then of deception. Obviously he is not friendly to the great Being. Has he some definite hostile project in view ? We cannot tell for certain, because the true sequel of the ' opening of the eyes ' in iii. 7 has perished ; possibly, too, the first part of the serpent's speech in v. i is lost, for ^D f]^?, which is not an interrogative phrase,* comes in very abruptly. It is possible, however, that the serpent was planning a rebellion against the over -strict divinity. This story, the evidence of which is now not existent, would, of course, be independent of the story of the struggle between the Light- god and the Dragon. 1 See Jeremias, ATAO, p. 99 ; Jensen, Kosmologie, p. 249 ; R. C. Thompson, The Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia, i. pp. liii. ff. 2 KB vi. 253; cp. Zim. KAT, pp. 524, 578. There is much mystery about the plant ; see Jensen, KB vi. 516. 3 W. R. Smith, Rel. Sem.'-^> pp. 133, 442 ; E. Bib., ' Serpent,' §§ 3, 4. * See Eerdmans, Theol. Tijdschr. xxxix. (1905), p. 482. 8o TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL I am aware that most scholars regard the story in Gen. iii. as a compact whole, but I cannot share this view. In vv. 1-7 (part), allowing for the later redaction, the original idea was that for a man to eat of the magic fruit would result (as the serpent rightly affirms) in such a heightening of the vitality as would render him ' ageless and immortal.' ' The divine Soma of the Hindus, the Haoma of the Parsis, and the wine of Bacchus had the same result.' ^ We may also fitly compare the apples in the garden of the Hesperides, and those of Idhun in the Icelandic saga.^ The passage has, I think, been cut down by later editors, one of whom inserted the description of the serpent as a ' beast of the field ' {v. I ), and is perhaps responsible for vv. 7 (from ' and they knew ') to 21, which imply a very different view of the tree. In this passage the tree is no longer that of life, but the producer of a special kind of knowledge — that of the difference of the sexes. ' They became sensible that they were naked, and sewed fig-leaves together, and made them- selves aprons (girdles).' The meaning is clear. The 'girdle' or 'apron' (I cry a truce to archaeology)' is the ' garment of shame,' treading on which (according to a non- Biblical saying of Jesus) * will be a sign that there is neither male nor female in the coming age. It is therefore intelligible enough that so much stress is laid in v. 16 on the pains of parturition (contrast i. 28). And the question has excusably been raised whether vv. 1-7 do not give us a veiled description of the first human physical union and its consequences. Among the advocates of this view are Trumbull,* Crawley,® and Whatham,' who seek to interpret the narrative anthropologically. Crawley, 1 Crawley, Tree of Life, p. 216. 2 A. Wunsche, Die Sagen vom Lebensbaum, etc. (1905), pp. 9-12, 105/. ; Worcester, Genesis, etc. (1901), p. 208. 3 I may, however, notice here that in 1696 the men of the Pelew Islands had a leaf-fibre garment round their loins, to which a piece of stuff was attached in front (Foreman, The Philippine Islands, p. 39, quoted by Foote, The Ephod, p. 43). * See Clem. Alex., Strom, iii. 6, 45, and the Oxyrynchus fragments. 5 The Threshold Covenant (1896), pp. 238/, 258/ 6 MR {The Mystic Rose) and TL {The Tree of Life). 7 'The Outward Form of the Original Sin,' A mer. /. of Relig. Psychology, Aug. 1905. PARADISE (Gen. II. 4^-111. 24) 81 e.g., says {^MR 382 /;, TL 64), 'There is an unmistak- able reference to sexual relations in the story, the serpent being the zoomorphic presentment of virility, which, as has been noticed, is a widely spread way of explaining certain sexual phenomena.' ' The common practice of giving and sharing food as a love-charm may be analogous to the story of Eve and the apple. The result, knowledge of good and evil, receives here a psychological parallel in the primitive theory of the union of the sexes.' Whatham (p. 273) adopts Crawley's phrase, 'the demon lover,' and holds that ' the serpent's act was prompted, not by ill-will either to Yahweh or to man, but in pursuance of its own selfish lust it became indifferently the enemy of both,' and he quotes the statement of that great temple- builder, Nebuchadrezzar, about the ' serpents that stood erect,' which he set up on the threshold of the gates. He has also a new and somewhat strange interpretation of the divine curse on the serpent and his seed. As for the trees, they are, he thinks, symbolic of conditions or states, and the fig-leaves are symbolic of sex. To most of this the answer is simple, viz. that the frame- work of the story being mythical, it is unnatural to spoil the myth by treating its details as symbolic or euphemistic. That the last editor misunderstood the capacities of the tree is willingly admitted. But that he extracted a new meaning from the rest of the passage must be denied. The serpent, to the editor, is as free from lustfulness as the erect (because semi-divine) serpents represented in bronze by Nebuchadrezzar. The fruit of the tree, according to him, was a real fruit ; probably he thought of the dudaUm of Gen. XXX. 14, which, as we know, were thought to have aphrodisiac qualities. It is a mistake to trace in Eve's very natural action {v. 6, end) a reference to the primitive custom of offering food as a proposal of marriage ; it is, of course, in such a case the suitor who offers the food.^ Nor is it plausible to suppose that ' knowing good and evil ' involves an allusion to the dangers of sexual taboo, because this does not suit the preceding words, 'ye shall be as gods.' The phrase is, no doubt, a hard one. Perhaps textual criticism 1 Crawley,. RM, p. 378. 6 82 TRADITIONS j^ND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL may presently assist lis in dealing with it. As for the fig- leaves, what evidence is there that the Semitic peoples regarded them as symbols of sex ? Trumbull's reference to the two sacred fig-trees of a strange Indian ceremony is useless. Still it remains true that, according to the later editor, it was not God's will that man and woman should beget children.^ , How came this idea into his head ? The lore of sexual taboo does not help us. The idea was produced by the highly archaic notion that God was jealous of his aspiring creature man (cp. iii. 22, vi. 3?, xi. 1-9). A poor and unworthy conception of the Deity, we are tempted to say. The Yahweh of the Paradise-story, and, not least, of the later insertions, is but a somewhat idealised man. True ; but let us not forget the development that lies behind. How far removed Yahweh already is from the theriomorphic creators of an earlier stage ! How well he understands human nature ! An eagle-god, a raven-god, a lion-god would not have been fitted to judge the delinquents as Yahweh-Elohim judges them in iii. 9-19. I have spoken of the delinquents as if they were all human. I do not forget the serpent. But is not the serpent, as here described, human in three respects — (i) its ration- ality, (2) its capacity of speech, and (3) its moral responsi- bility? Even the divine judgment {vv. 14 f.) presupposes in the serpent something akin to humanity. The serpent- tribe and the man-tribe are indeed separate, but not wholly different, and they have a common consciousness of a primeval tragic event in which their ancestors had a share. This share, it is true, is probably misunderstood by the editor ; the original serpent had no ' enmity ' to the original man. The phrase ' eating dust,' too, could be used of men as well as of serpents ; it is a figure for the deepest humilia- tion.^ The woman and the man are also cursed, but the 1 In the Book of Adam and Eve (translated by Malan), p. 12, God says, ' I made thee of the light, and I wished to bring out cliildren of light from thee, and like unto thee.' The conception is that of luminous matter. Cp. i Cor. xv. 40, ' celestial bodies.' 2 Am. Tablets, 122, 34-36, ' that our foes may see it, and eat dust ' ; cp. Mic. vii. 17. Both quoted by Winckler, AOF \. 291. Cp. also ' Descent of Ishtar,' /. 8, ' where dust is their nourishment ' (said of Hades). PARADISE (Gen. ii. 4i5-iii. 24) 83 curse is mitigated. Reason cannot now be withdrawn from them, nor the solace of mutual help ; they will also have a precious drink, which, though not quite ambrosial, neverthe- less supports man's heart (Ps. civ. 15). True, all high-flying hopes are dispersed ; ' dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return ' {v. igb); ' thou takest away their breath, they die; they turn again to dust' (Ps. civ. 29). Observe, no reference is yet made to the vine (see v. 29, J). Observe, too, that death is not here represented as something alien to human nature. Gen. iii., therefore, is not a myth to account v for the presence of death. Other peoples have had such myths, among which those of the Skidi Pawnee are con- spicuous for interest.^ But if the Israelites had any such story, it has not come down to us. We now pass on to vv. 20-24. The textual difficulties >.• require special treatment. Suffice it to note here that w. 20 and V. 21 seem to be no longer in their original context Vv. 22-24, however, connect fairly well with v. ya. Certainty is unattainable, but it would be not unplausible to restore the original text thus, ' ' And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew all hidden things, and rejoiced. And Yahweh-Elohim said, Truly the man is become as one of us, and now lest he put forth his hand continually, and take of the tree, and live for ever, I will send him forth from the garden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man,' etc. Here the story ends. As we have seen (p. 79), it is very incomplete, and has been much manipulated. Surely the original first man was hurled down to She61, there perhaps to reign, like the Yama of the Rig Veda, who, though originally the sun, became the ' first of mortals,' and ruled the underworld, and who is identical with the royal hero of the golden age, the Yima of the Avesta. Let me now refer more particularly to the subject of ' Paradise.' The Book of Enoch, like Ezekiel, with sure V insight, places Paradise on a supernatural mountain. There are, it says, seven mountains, each composed of some beautiful stone, and on the seventh is the throne of God, encircled with fragrant trees, and among them is the tree of 1 See Dorsey, Traditions of the Skidi Pawnee (\^o/C)- 84 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL life (xviii. 6-8, xxiv.).^ The seven mountains are evidently suggested by the seven planets, each of which was sym- bolised by a different metal or colour.^ We see, therefore, that the Paradise-mountain, like ' that great city, the holy Jerusalem ' (Rev. xxi. i o),^ has come to earth from heaven. It was imagined as of stupendous size (cp. Isa. ii. 2 = Mic. iv. I, Ezek. xl. 2, Zech. xiv. 10, Rev. xxi. 10) ; originally, indeed, it was no other than the earth itself* The Iranian belief was similar.^ The same result follows from the traditions of the four streams of Paradise in Gen. ii., taken together with the phrase, applied again and again to Canaan, ' flowing with milk and honey' (Ex. iii. 8, Num. xiii. 27, etc.). For this description of Canaan is evidently mythological, and refers to the belief in fountains and streams in the heavenly Paradise which flowed with honey and milk, oil and wine (see p. 41, and cp. 2 Esd. ii. 19, Slav. Enoch viii. 5, Vision of Paul, c. 23). •' In fact, the four streams originally flowed in heavenly earth,* and only when the mountain of the gods was transferred to our earth, would mythological geographers think of deciding what country, whether Havilah, or Cush, or Asshur, or Canaan, was watered by the life-giving streams. See, further, E. Bib., ' Honey,' § i , note 3 ; Charles, Secrets of Enoch, p. 8 ; Usener, ' Milch und Honig,' Rheinisches Museum, N. F., Ivii. 177-195 ; Zimmern, KAT'-^\ p. 526. There are, of course, many geographies of Paradise. Wonderland was well known to many peoples ; it is enough to mention here the Iranians, the Polynesians, and the Aztecs. The Iranian tree of immortality, called Gaokerena, grew in the mythic sea Vuru-kasha. By drinking of its 1 Cp. 2 Esd. ii. 19, 'seven mighty mountains, whereupon there grow roses and lilies.' 2 See Zimmern, KAT^^\ pp. 616/ 3 The precious stones, of astral origin, are also mentioned in con- nexion with the new Jerusalem (Isa. liv. 11/, Rev. xxi. 19/). * It was the Babylonian ' mountain of the lands,' which meant origin- ally the earth, and afterwards also the earth within the heavens. Cp. Jastrow, RBA, p. 558 ; Jeremias, ATAO, pp. 11, 12, 28. 5 The Zoroastrian books speak of a heavenly as well as an earthly mountain called Alburz {Bund. xx. i, with West's note). s See above. It was also an Egyptian conception. PARADISE (Gen. ii. t^b-m. 24) 85 juice on the resurrection-day men would become immortal. The heavenly mountain bore the same name as the most famous earthly one, viz. Alburz {Bund. xx. i ) ; from it or from the earthly mountain the rivers of the earth descended. One of the Polynesian Paradises, invisible, but declared to be on a mountain of Raiatea, was called ' the brilliant ' and ' the fragrant ' ; only the highest chiefs could go there.^ The Aztecs placed their (earthly) Paradise on a spot called Tula, about forty miles north of the present city of Mexico. Tula is now but a mean hamlet at the foot of the Serpent Mount, but once upon a time it was a splendid city, founded and governed by the god Quetzalcoatl (' the feathered serpent ') himself. The crops of maize near it never failed. The people had perfect wisdom, and they were not subject to the attacks of disease. The end of this glory came about by a battle of the gods.^ The Wonderland of the Hebrews was placed by them- '■ selves first in Arabia, and then in Canaan. It may seem strange to ask where Canaan was. Certainly in Joel iv. 18 the mountains and hills which are to flow with milk and sweet wine are presumably those of Palestine, and the ' (living) waters,' the ' wine and milk,' spoken of in Isa. Iv. i, are destined for Zion's children. But it is, at any rate, a v possible view (see on x. 6) that Canaan, like Misrim, was originally in N. Arabia ; and even if we suspend our judgment, yet we may reasonably suppose that the S. "•' Palestinian Israelites derived their tales of the primeval world directly or indirectly from Arabia — a theory which does not preclude us from holding that Babylonian in- fluence had made itself strongly felt in these tales. It will be seen presently that Arabian origin is indelibly " stamped on the story before us. It is not so much the description given of the serpent, as the account of the four streams (ii. 1 1 - 1 4), which leaves no reasonable doubt on this point. It is true, t^w. 11-14 form no part of the original story, but if the interpolator understood Paradise to be in Arabia, we may be sure that the earlier writers concerned took the same view. Nor is it superfluous to refer once 1 Waitz-Gerland, Anthropologic, vi. 299. 2 Brinton, Essays of an Americanist, pp. 85-98. 86 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL more to Isa. xiv. 12, 13, where Helal ben Shahar (a cor- ruption of Yerahme'el ben Ashhur) is introduced aspiring to sit on the sacred mountain in the recesses of Saphon. For Saphon, like Siphion (Gen. xlvi. 16) is a dialectal form of Sibe'on (Gen. xxxvi. 2), i.e. Ishmael. As for the rivers and the trees, we may easily grant that in the world's childhood mountain-districts which are now comparatively bare may have been covered with pleasant trees. What are now mere widys may then have been rivers. This is postulated by Hommel for E. Arabia. For my own part, however, I would refer to the mythic geography of the Zoroastrian Bundahish, and lay no stress on such conjectures. The river of Paradise is, in fact, the ocean-stream which girdled the earth, and descended from the sky.-' Cp. Vision of Paul, c. 21, ' The beginning of its {i.e. heaven's) founda- tion was on the river which waters all the earth. And I asked the angel and said. Lord ! what is this river of water ? ' And he said to me, This is Oceanus.' Also the Book of Adam and Eve, translated from the Ethiopic by S. C. Malan, bk. i. c. i, ' On the third day God planted the garden in the east of the earth, on the border of the world eastward, beyond which, towards the sunrising, one finds nothing but water, that encompasses the whole world, and reaches unto the border of heavens.' That this stream parted into four, corresponding to the four quarters of the earth or heaven, may have been an early supposition.^ Cp. Hommel, Grundriss, p. 298, note i, and E. Bib., 'Paradise,' §§ 8-10; and see Peiser on an old Babylonian map of the world, ZA iv. 361-370 ; Barton, in Worcester's Genesis, App. I ; Sayce, Exp. Times, Nov. 1900, pp. 6?>ff. The map represents the world by means of a circle, with the Persian Gulf {Ndr marrdti) surrounding it. This gulf was, in fact, regarded ' as a river which flowed from south to north in two different directions . . ., and as being the ocean-deep, was the source from which all the rivers of the earth were derived.' ' Babylon, under its primitive name of Din-Tir, or rather 1 So, already, Sayce, Academy, Oct. 7, 1882, p. 263. Cp. Slav. Enoch, c. 8 (Charles). 2 Cp. the four angels of the Face in later Judaism ; also the four Hades rivers of the Greeks. PARADISE (Gen. ii. 4*-iii. 24) 87 Tir-Din, occupies a position near the centre or omphalos of the world ' (Sayce). We cannot, however, safely assume that Babylon was the omphalos of the world to the Israelites, or dispense with the aid of a thorough textual criticism. Let us now pass on to textual matters. There seem •• to be many details in the narrative which have not yet been adequately examined. Let us begin with in i^ed) in v. 6, and Jis l^eden) in v. 8. Friedr. Del. explains "tm as a Baby- lonian loan-word {ed{l, flood). Now if, with Haupt, we may read ' upon the earth,' and, with Del.^ and others, take 'eden {v. 8) as = Bab. edinu, ' field, plain, desert,' and, with the vast majority, take Perath and Hiddekel (v. 14) to be the Euphrates and the Tigris, it becomes very plausible to think of Mesopotamia as the home of the first narrators, and we may illustrate^ by the second Babylonian creation -story {KB vi. I, pp. l2> ff.), where it is said that there were no temples, no reeds, no trees, for ' the lands were altogether sea,' till Marduk came in his creative activity. But can these views of the text be accepted ? First, as '•' to is (only here, and in Job xxxvi. 27). Tradition is not ■ certain, and the rendering ' mist ' (see BDE) is unsuitable. In Job, I.e., we must read V1N3^ (Houb., Haupt). Here, however, ' stream ' is the best sense. Accept it, and v. 6 becomes parallel to w. 10;^ at first the earth was dry, but afterwards a stream broke forth (in Eden) which watered the whole neighbouring region, so that grass and trees could grow. The stream is evidently required at this point, for the production of man from moist earth, and for the planting of the trees. But how shall we get this sense ? The true •■ reading seems to be ns-; ; read n^S; nN""i. The reader must, however, not mind the trouble of revising his opinion as to IN"), which probably nowhere means the Nile (see on xli. i). Here (as in the original Joseph-story) it seems to mean one of the chief N. Arabian streams. Observe that the stream called in Dan. x. 4 Hiddekel — not the Tigris (see on v. 14) 1 Parodies (1881), pp. 79/ ; cp. Hommel, Gr. p. 245, note 3. 2 See E. Bib., 'Creation,' § 20 ; 'Paradise,' § 5. 3 Holz. suggests that v. 6 may once have stood where w. 10-14 now stand ; he would make two alterations in the text (see his note). But see E. Bib., ' Paradise,' § 5. 88 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL — is called in xii. 5 nN";n (see on xli. i). For the breaking forth of the stream from underground sources, cp. Job xxxviii. 8, 16. Next as to ;-Ti)3 ja. According to Del.'s theory (see above), this will mean ' a garden (or, plantation of trees) in the desert,' i.e. an oasis. This scholar thinks ^ that by Eden may be meant the part of Mesopotamia from Tekrit on the Tigris and 'Ana on the Euphrates in a southerly direction to the Persian Gulf, and tells us that the nomad tribes which wandered in the pasture-country of that region were called by the Assyrians ' people of the edinu.' This, however, together with all similar views, needs reconsideration. There are grounds for thinking that the bend 'eden in 2 K. xix. 1 2 ( = Isa. xxxviii. 1 2) are a N. Arabian people, and that in Am. i. 5 Beth-'eden is an N. Arabian locality. Ezekiel's Eden too (xxxi. 9, 16, 1 8) may very possibly have been in the N. Arabian land called Missor (see Crit. Bib. on these passages, and for Ezekiel, cp. E. Bib., ' Paradise,' § 3). Note also that in Ezra ii. 15 (cp. Neh. vii. 20) we iind the bend 'Adin (jni; "'31 ; cp. on ' Dinah,' xxx. 21) mentioned among family names which suggest N. Arabian affinities.^ This being the case, there is good reason for regarding Eden here too as N. Arabian ; and all the more when taking this view enables us to account for the D^pD appended to the above phrase. As the text stands, the word merely gives a vague geographical hint that Eden was somewhere to the east of the country of the writer. But is it credible that the writer could name the region of Eden, but not indicate its position ? It so happens that DIpD occurs five times again in the early part of Genesis, and that in three out of the five passages (see on iii. 24, xi. 2, xiii. 11) it gives some trouble to the interpreter; also that Dtp in the O.T. is frequently a corruption of Dpi, i.e. Dm"', a shorter form of ' Yerahme'el ' (see on xxv. 6). Supposing that there are elsewhere strong indications of a N. Arabian background of the narratives, we cannot avoid tracing underneath the improbable D^pD the highly suitable 1 Paradies, p. 80. 2 Such as Pahath-moab = Nephtoah-moab, Elam = Yerahme'el, Adoni- kam = Adon-Yarham, Ater = Ashtar. PARADISE (Gen. ii. /^b-ui. 24) 89 word Dm"'. The statement, therefore, is that 'Yahweh Elohim planted a garden (or park) in Eden of Yerahme'el.' To strengthen our position we must now look closely into the text of vv. 10-14. Certainly Perath looks like ' Euphrates,' and the absence of any descriptive supplement suggests that it was, at any rate, the best known of the four streams. Hiddekel, as Sayce and Driver, Friedrich Delitzsch and Dillmann assert, must be the Tigris. And this being the case, i.e. the Perath and the Hiddekel being known, we can (it is supposed) start from this fixed point in attempting to localise the Hebrew Paradise. On the other hand, let it be considered that while Perath may conceivably be the Euphrates, Hiddekel cannot possibly be the Tigris, (l) because it does not correspond sufficiently to the Bab. name Idiklat,^ and (2) because the descriptive supplement does not suit the course of that river.^ As to the other two names of streams, no one can imagine for a moment that these names have received an approximately certain explanation. To borrow the words of Driver {Genesis, p. 58), 'they elude our grasp.' An account of the different forms of the Babylonian theory will be found in E. Bib., ' Paradise,' § 8. They all seem to presuppose that the geography of the writer was of the most ' childish ' description. To accept any of them involves the assumption that, according to the narrator, the Euphrates and the Tigris come from the same principal stream, and that S. Arabia and Nubia are physically con- nected, the whole of the southern part of the earth being ' a continuous territory stretching from utmost Nubia (Ethiopia) through S. Arabia to India.' ^ Surely we ought to hesitate before, without a sufficiently keen textual criticism, we impute such wild imaginations to the sober-minded Hebrew narrator. Textual criticism, then, must be called in. Only, it must be a methodical criticism, one that takes account of recurrent types of corruption, and in applying it we must not refuse 1 See £. Bid., ' Hiddekel' (Johns). Hommel {AJ/T, p. 315 ; cp. Aufsdtze, iii. i, p. 281) thinks that the first element in S'""! must be the Ar. hadd, i.e. wady. Cannot something better be produced ? ^ The theory of Sayce and Gunkel is referred to later. 3 So Winckler {E. Bib., 'Sinai,' § 7 ; KAT^^\ p. 137), followed by Gunkel {Genesis^''\ p. 7). go TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL to be guided by the only geographical theory which remains to be tried — the N. Arabian.^ Now it so happens that again and again in the O.T. (still, of course, assuming this theory to be in the main correct) we find idlM ' four ' mis- written for lis 'Arabia' (see on vii. 4, xv. 13, xxiii. 2), and tONi for nj&N (see on xlvi. 21). Accepting the correction suggested by these parallels, we get the statement that ' a river proceeds from Eden to water the garden, and from thence it parts itself and belongs to Arabia of the Asshurites.' If these two corrections (in v. 8 and v. 10) be accepted, we no longer have to assume that the creation and the deluge stories (for these certainly go together) have different affinities from the rest of the early legends. Also we are now relieved from the improbable and unintelligible phrase ' four heads.' ^ But is ' Arabia of the Asshurites ' the only correction needed ? Certainly not. inD"' DtDDT (' and from thence it parted ' or ' spread ') is almost as improbable as D"'l&NT rrsmN. Now it so happens that ntl» and DtOD have often come from 'jNSDffii (see e.g. Hos. ii. 17, Isa. Hi. 11), and that nEJi? and jjin sometimes (see on x. 22, and on xvi. 1 2) represent an original l"ir ; also that rtTl some- times represents ^?^^ — the Nin which introduces glosses. I am, for my part, unaware of any explanation of this other- wise hopeless passage so defensible and therefore so probable as this, viz. that only the first half of the verse is genuine, the rest having been constructed by the redactor out of the two glosses — ' that is, Ishmael-'arab,' and ' that is, with reference to Arab-aslurlm.' These glosses should of course go into the margin. They are not, however, to be despised, for they state emphatically that the garden of Eden is situated in Arabian Ishmael, otherwise called Arabia of the Asshurites. Where this lay exactly, we are not called upon to say ; ancient Arabian geography cannot be manufactured to order. Note, however, that ' Asshurim ' occurs again 1 For the main facts which underlie this theory, see Winckler, ICAT^'\ pp. 144/, and Hibbert Journal, April 1904, pp. 571-590; Cheyne, E. Bib., iii. (1902), cols. 3163 ^^.j Bible Problems (1904), pp. 164^^ 2 It is not legitimate to render n't^NT < beginnings of streams ' or (as Konig) ' masses,' and to paraphrase ' arms.' The right meaning ' sources ' being unsuitable here, the word must be corrupt. PARADISE (Gen. ii. 4^-111. 24) 91 in XXV. 3 and ' Asshur ' in w. 1 1 (see note) as the name of a N. Arabian region. It should be the same district which is referred to in xiii. 10 (see note). Hommel's view {Aufsdtze, p. 333) that the nahdr, or ' river,' of w. 10 is the Bab. NAr marrdti} goes together with his location of the four ' streams of Eden ' in E. Arabia, all of which, according to him, flowed into the (ancient) Persian Gulf.^ From our present point of view, however, there were, according to the earlier story, not four streams, but one, the exact position of which I will not attempt to determine. At the same time, I do not deny that the corruption qiqint 'nN, ' four heads,' may have been helped by a floating belief that Paradise was watered by four streams — a belief which may indeed have been primitive.^ It is a consequence of the foregoing conclusion that w. 1 1 - 1 4 are an interpolation. This passage implies the : view that there were four streams of Paradise, which the interpolator endeavours to name. It is, however, a crux interpretum, and is manifestly corrupt. Can we, by a methodical criticism, approximately restore the original text ? With regard to the fourth name, it is not necessarily ' Euphrates ' (Bab. Purattu). A study of Jer. xiii. i -7 reveals the fact that there was a nis much nearer to Jerusalem than the Euphrates. A N. Arabian stream may well have been called by this name, which can easily have arisen out of mSN.* This view becomes more than a mere fancy when we find that it is applicable on a large scale,^ by no means to the disadvantage of exegesis. Another name of the ma in3 (as it is generally called) seems to have been fj'nin '\n:iT1, or, as the underlying text may 1 I.e. the modern Shatt el- Arab, 'which, anciently, was much broader than it is now.' Note that Schrader {KAT'^\ p. 423) and Sayce {Exp. Times, Nov. 1906, p. 72) venture to find ndr marrdti underlying the d'htd of the MT. of Jer. 1. 21. 2 See Vier neue arab. Landschaftsnamen im A. T. nebst einem Nachtrag, etc., in Aufsdtze und Abhandl. pp. 273-343, and cp. AHT, PP- 3I4# 3 See p. 86. * Ephrath or Ephrathah is the wife of Caleb and the mother of Hur or Ashhur (i Chr. ii. 19, 50). 5 The single passage in which it is perhaps easiest to interpret ma as ' Euphrates ' is Jer. Ii. 63. 92 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL perhaps have run, ^^'^^. in? (see on xv. i8, Dt. i. 7). The third river, fjp'in, is no doubt to be combined with rhy^ (x. 27), which name does not mean 'a palm-tree' (so e.g. Hommel), but is a popular corruption of a compound name, viz. either 'm"' nnt^N or 'm"" TTH (cp. xxv. 15). So too is h^rxn. A similar form is fTrn (Zech. ix. i). Hiddekel is here said to flow iltDN nD^p, ' east of Asshur.' But this does not suit the Tigris. Winckler therefore (AOF, 3rd sen, ii. 314) boldly explains ' south,' while Gunkel thinks the Hebrew writer may have known of the city called Ashur, which was the earliest capital of Assyria, and lay west of the Tigris. Attempts to get over nD^p having proved a failure,^ we must apply the Arabian key. If ' Asshur ' is the name of an Arabian region not far from ' Misrim ' (see on Josh. xiii. 3), the statement in ii. 14 « may possibly enough be correct. On Hiddekel, see, further, on xli. i , and on the Arabian 'Asshur,' p. 23, and on x. 22. The second river-name (prrii) is not so easily explained. The latest guess — that it means the Leontes — is a curiosity.^ We know, however, of a son of Gad named lan (xlvi. 1 6) ; the name is coupled with ]'1"'D2, ie. pi>32, a form of ^Ni^OlB"'. Probably pm should be JVin ; the stream may have bounded the territory of Gad in the Sibe'onite border-land. Cp. also •'an, TT^3Ti, rr^an. Remember that the writer Aad to produce four names. A geographical gloss is appended — ' that is it which encircles the whole land of Kush ' — again a N. Arabian region ^ (see on ' Kush,' x. 6). The first name (jltcs) is to be similarly explained ; * transpose letters and read pDB'' = ]EitDi, the name of a son of Shashak, i.e. Ashhur (i Chr. viii. 22). Like iJOQj (Num. xxiii. 10, Judg. v. 21, etc.), jam"' is a corruption of pffii (cp. rmxn, N3nm) = JDffi"' = 7Ni'i3tO\^ The gloss is, ' that is it which encircles the whole 1 See E. Bib., col. 3573, note i. 2 Van Doorninck {Th. T, May 1905, p. 236). The Pishon becomes the Leontes. Havilah and Kush are substitutes for unknown or less familiar names. 8 The Babylonian Kash (Schrader, Sayce, Ed. Meyer?) is certainly not intended. Cp. E. Bib., ' Cush.' * The current explanations of Pishon, not excluding Paul Haupt's (see E. Bib., ' Paradise,' § 8 ; ' Pishon '), are extremely improbable. 5 Cp. jiss (Isa, xiv. 13, Jer. i. 14, etc) = pvas = Snvdb". PARADISE (Gen. ii. 41^-111. 24) 93 land of ha-Havllah.' Now Havilah (elsewhere without the article, and so Sam. here) is certainly a popular corruption of Hamllah, i.e. Yerahme'el (see on x. 7). Then follows in MT. and @ a notice of the presence in that land of gold, and of bedolah and the shdham-stone, and between the references to gold and to the other two products there is a naVvely enthusiastic statement that ' the gold of that land is good.' These notices are unique in this little section ; the definition of a land by its natural products rather than by its geographical position, or by the other names given to it, or by places within it, is surprising. Besides this, to refer, in illustration, to bedolah and the shoham-stone is to carry darkness where once it was, com- paratively speaking, light. ' Havilah ' was apparently a well-known region (see xxv. 18, i S. xv. 7, and cp. Gen. X. 7, 29 ; there is no occasion to suppose two ' Havilahs ' to be referred to here) ; the vague statement ' where there is gold,' etc., is, on this ground, too, highly improbable. Con- sequently there is the strongest reason for criticising the text. First as to the clause containing nf?ll and QntU (Dn©rr I^n)-' The former word occurs again only in Num. xi. 7, where it is corrupt ; the latter occurs again and again as the name of a much-esteemed precious stone. There is no reason, however, why DHtD, not less than ^'?^3, should not be a corruption of an ethnic or place-name, for precious stones were not unfrequently named with reference to the country where they were abundant.^ In 1 Chr. xxiv. 27 it certainly is a corrupt ethnic, as the names close by nnt^ show; cp. n^'toon from DTtfflOT (see on Ex. xiii. 18). We may assume that here too it is so, i.e. that 'q? = nt&Dn, i.e. Aram-Ashhur. n^Tl now reveals its secret. It represents ^Nom"' n.s, and is II to hpin (see above) and to -\\rTy (2 K. ix. 2S) = Dpnni>, ' Rekemite (Yerahme'elite) Arabia.' p» also needs correction. In xlix. 24 the word comes from n3N ; 1 Cp. E. Bib., ' Onyx,' ' Topaz,' ' Gold,' § i b. Peiser {ZA TW, 1897, pp. Si^7 f.) identifies nSia with Bab. bid-li-i, in Babylonian contracts for a minor product of Babylonian husbandry — some kind of spice, (n'j'in he takes to be a portion of Babylonia surrounded by the river jiis"s). G. B. Gray adopts this for Num. xi. 7, but unsuitably. 2 Thus u-Bi-in [3K = inaiN [nx ; d-jn = dik ; 13-13 = opn ('om'). 94 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL here, from T\;s. Thus we get for v. 12, b (reserving DID), 'dQ)"" nni? 'om"' n.i), two readings combined. Next, as to the two clauses respecting the gold, int is one of a group of words (including Nam, NTH, D"'N3S, D''i;!i:s, ]1i>is) which are ultimately traceable to TNi^Dffi"'; see on xxxvi. 39, Dt. i. i. ' Where there is gold,' etc., being unsatisfactory, we must, it would seem, take 3m as a corruption of ms ( = '^xtr) ; intCl] represents a dittograph. Lastly, to complete a successful restoration, DID "iffiN must be corrected into n2)N ^Mi>Da>\ nm into 'ami (cp. on v. 32), and niia into 'nn, i.e. ^lin (see on Judg. xi. 3). The whole passage after nfjiin now becomes [fjNsom-'] 9mn vcrm pNH") [nis] ^Nsam-' i©n, [S'Nl^om"' lij;] fpNonT' n?, ' Asshur-Ishmael [Sobah] ; now that land is Tubal [Ishmael], Arabia of Ishmael.' Glosses and sub-glosses on the interesting name ' Havilah.' Now as to the trees in the garden. All the trees of Eden were glorious (Ezek. xxxi. 8, 9, 16, 18), but the most fragrant were those around the throne of Elohim (Enoch xxiv. 2,3), and of these the chief was the tree of life (Enoch XXV. 3-5, Slav. Enoch viii. 3), or of wisdom (Enoch xxxii. 3). That there were two magic trees, we have seen to be im- probable. The tree of life is also the tree of knowledge or wisdom (p. 76) ; perfect knowledge would of course enable a man to escape death.'' Let us take the chief passages in order. {a) ii. 9. ' And Yahweh-Elohim made to spring out of the ground every tree, etc., and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.' The phrase i>Ti nia ni>^^T }>i> is extremely obscure ; ^ as Kautzsch and Socin remark, ' the closing words of v. 9 drag.' The explanation seems to be that n:>"rrT pi; is a gloss on p Diinn, derived from a second form of the Paradise-story, while i>Tl l"i£3 is probably corrupted from pNrr n^3^3, 'on the navel of the earth' (cp. Ezek. xxxviii. 12, v. 5, Jubilees viii. 12, 19, Eth. Enoch xxvi. i). The mountain of Paradise (like Parnassus, Pind. Pyth. iv. 74) had for one of 1 Cp. the Hebrew story of Enoch ; Adapa (Adamu ?) is different. 2 One would gladly think (with Jastrow, RBA, p. 553, note) that ' good and evil ' meant ' everything,' or perhaps ' the secrets of heaven and earth.' But the phrases in xxiv. 50, xxxi. 24 are not parallel. PARADISE (Gen. ii. 4^-111. 24) 95 its names ' earth's navel.' Probably the words f^t^Tf ninian are the original reading, for which the plainer phrase "jini pn was substituted when the myth was reconstructed without reference to a mountain. In passing, let it be noticed that the original myth which underlies Ezek. xxxviii. /. must have referred to an attack by some hostile power (Tiamat?) on the Divine Beings on the mountain of Paradise (' earth's navel '). Ezekiel (if it be Ezekiel) altered this. The sacred mountain became Mount Zion or Jeru- salem ; its inhabitants became the Jews ; its assailants the typical foes of Israel — the N. Arabian peoples.^ (b) ii. 17. How strange that the hidden virtue of the tree (as communicating a special kind of knowledge) should be already mentioned ! Contrast iii. 3. Budde suggests that ' when the second tree was introduced, the [supposed] proper name of the tree had to be substituted for the phrase " the tree in the midst of the garden." ' ^ Our explanation (see above) is fuller. The original myth had, ' but of the tree on the Navel of the Earth thou shalt not eat.' When the corruption had taken place, the redactor, to make sense, inserted nsin. (c) iii. 5, 'As soon as ye eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and ye will be as Elohim, knowing good and evil.' rT) niJ3 ■'STf is redactional. The godlikeness promised in the original story was partly a strange heightening of the vitality, partly a knowledge of secrets. Cp. Eth. Enoch XXV. 5, 6, 'by its fruit life will be given to the elect . . . the fragrance thereof will be in their limbs ' ; and xxxii. 3, ' the tree of wisdom which imparts great wisdom to those who eat of it.' {d) (e) iii. 7, iii. 22a. It was not in 'knowing good and evil,' nor in ' knowing that they were naked ' (the sexual distinction), that the first men became like Elohim. iTl aiJS TM)lh is redactional. See above (c). (/) iii. 22^, 23 «. The redactor is responsible for the insertion of oa. According to the original text the Deity feared that man might go on constantly taking of the fruit 1 Following, with important modifications, Winckler, .4 Oi^ii. 163/; Gressmann, Eschatol. pp. 183^ 2 Die Bibl. Urgesch. p. 50. So lay, JBL a. (1891), p. 12. 96 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL ' of the tree of life, and so live for ever. Read probably^ i:ino ^^^fpto^? xh^ im ^dnt pno rv^^ ^t •r\s rhm^-xx^ See p. 76 (foot). Two more subjects, seldom treated, but surely not unimportant, still remain — the names of the first man and his wife, and the name of God. What, then, is the name of the first man ? The Yahwist, as the text now stands, generally calls him mNH. In ii. 20, iii. 17, 21, however, we find Dnsf?, and in iv. 25 D"isi, as if D"tn were a proper name.^ In fact, if the first woman had an individualising name, how can the first man have been without one? It would seem to follow that mNH must have displaced some other word, which stood in the original text as the name of the first man, and many parallels suggest that by some slight modification of mNH we can recover that name. Now the more we look into this and the accompanying narratives, the more clearly we see their Yerahme'elite or Arabian origin. Can we hesitate any longer as to the first man's name ? It was not Adapa (Zimmern, Winckler), or perhaps (see Sayce, Exp. Times, June 1906, p. 416) Adamu, though this wise son of a wiser divine father (Ea) is certainly analogous to the first man of the Hebrews, but a name which indicated the race of which he was to be the pro- genitor. In short, it was probably either D^^N or mw (cp. on D^M, Josh. iii. 16, Hos. vi. 7), which of course will imply that the earliest race of men were either the Edomites or the Aramites.^ In illustration of this it may be mentioned that in Ezek. xxviii. 3 ^n3T (like p2^N and psi) most probably comes from htV!T\, i.e. ^ndHT, and in Isa. xiv. 1 2 inm-p ^'jTr from nnt^N-]l ^NorrT^, both, as the contexts show, names of the first man. We may also refer to what has been said already on the wisdom of the Yerahme'elites, 1 Such a word as niv might easily be inserted or omitted, according to the redactor's convenience. Cp. iv. 25, where iiv (omitted by @) is generally admitted to be redactional. 2 Cp. Schrader, Stud, zur Krit. u. Erkldr. der Bibl. Urgesch. (1863), p. 124. 2 Cp. Num. xxiv. 20, ' Amalek ( = Yerahme'el) was the first of the nations.' This is a common form of racial self-esteem. The Egyptians called themselves roinet, i.e. ' men.' PARADISE (Gen. ii. 4^-111. 24) 97 and on the Yerahme'elite elements in the earliest wisdom- literature (Prov. X. I, XXX. I, xxxi. i, underlying text). For a fuller form of the first man's name see perhaps iii. 24 (note). Now as to the name of the first woman. ' This one this time is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh ; this one shall be called Isshah, for from Ish ^ has she been taken.' So runs the text of ii. 23, but how improbably ! Take first DSSrr riNl. Surely riNT cannot be taken adverbially = ' now.' ^ wsUTi (' this time ') is an interpolation consequent on the insertion of vv. ig, 20, which interrupt the connexion.* Omit it, and riNl can have its natural meaning ' this one.' Then take the pronouncement that ' this one shall be called Isshah,' etc. What an insipid remark ! * To deal with it successfully we must first explain the apparently superfluous word riNt at the end. The word is plainly corrupt ; does the doctrine of recurrent types of corruption help us ? Surely it does. Why may not this troublesome nsT, like DtD"' in ix. 21 (see note), have come from int&N? Why, too, may not ©■'s have come from TitDN ? It will be remembered that ' Asshur,' ' Ashhur,' and ' Ashtar ' are different forms of the same Arabian name (see pp. 23, 70). Thus the latter part of the pronouncement becomes, ' for out of Ashhur has she been taken,' with a gloss ' Ashtar.' But before proceeding further, we must consider the text of the parallel passage (for such it really is), iii. 20. The text, rendered literally, runs thus, ' And the man called his wife Hawwah, for she has become the mother of all living.' That n^n and TrT^ are not right, should be clear, (a) Let us begin with TX^. According to most,^ this is an archaistic survival of a formation from Aymn (Phoen. Nin = Heb. rrri). Scholars then proceed to compare the mn inferred from the plural form rtn in Num. xxxii. 41, etc., 'tent- 1 @, Sam., Onk. read w'ns, a poor makeshift. 2 Stade, ZATW, 1897, pp. 210-212. ^ Van Doominck, Th. Tijdschr. 1905, pp. 231 /. Observe that the close of v. 20 awkwardly brings us back to the point reached at the end of z/. 1 8 * Van Doorninck, Th. Tijdschr. 1905, pp. 2^1 f. * E.g. Schroder, Die Phon. Spr. p. 1 8 ; Cooke, North Sent. Inscr. P- 135- 98 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL villages (?),' or 'tents of a clan or kindred,'^ and to explain the name njn as kinship personified (see b). Noldeke, Ed. Meyer, and Wellh., however, have revived the old interpre- tation of Clem. Alex, (also OS 164, 64, and Ber. rabba, par. XX.), o(/)t9 ; cp. Aram. N"'')n, Ar. hayyat, ' serpent.' ^ If tradition had given us a serpent-creator, this might be just plausible ; but the greatest of the serpents is the enemy of God and man. (b) Next, as to Tl'h'j. Robertson Smith, after Noldeke, supposes that JEiawwah was so called ' because she was the mother of every Aayy (female kinship group).' The objection is twofold, (i) In these primitive stories the first man and woman are simply tribal ancestors. And (2) in a passage (i Sam. xviii. 18) in which the same meaning ' clan ' is given to in (in iin [Wellh., Driv.] ; MT., ■^'Tf), we can hardly acquit Noldeke, Wellhausen, and Driver of hastiness. For where is there any parallel for this sense in a plain sentence ? Gen. iii. 20 cannot safely be adduced, for it has suspicious features. The probability is that just as D"'""N repeatedly represents D"'ni?, so in in Gen. and iin in i S. are corrupt fragments of TintCM. Then, as to 73 DN ; ' mother of all Ashhur ' is possible, but not very probable. In Ps. xliv. 1 2 Sdno is a corruption of 'pNonT' : so too, in 2 S. xi. I, ni^N^n has come from Di'jNDmi. Now we know that Ashhur- Yerahme'el or Yerahme'el-Ashhur often occurs as the name of a region of N. Arabia with which the Israelites had close relations. What reading, then, is so natural as this, "nntDN 'pNonT DN nnTT Nin 13, 'for she has become the mother of Yerahme'el-Ashhur ' ; z.e. Ds represents both dn, ' mother,' and the first two letters of 'jDMD = fpsomi ? Thus it is probable that t&iN in ii. 23 should be corrected into -nffiN ( = inmN), and equally so that not only rT)r\ in iii. 20, but ntON in ii. 23, should be rTintON. The two passages — ii. 23 and iii. 20 — will now run thus, 'And 1 See M.ooxe., Judges, p. 275. 2 Cooke, p. 135, compares Hawwath, the name of a Punic goddess of the underworld. See above, p. 53. Ed. Meyer {Die Israelii, p. 427, i), following B. Luther, makes ' Leah' the name of a serpent-demon (cp. on xxix. 16). PARADISE (Gen. ii. 4^-111. 24) 99 Aram said, This one is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh ; this one shall be called Ashhflrah, for out of Ashhur ^ has she been taken ' ; and, ' And Aram called his wife's hame Ashhurah, for she has become the mother of [the race of] Yerahme'el-Ashhur.' The two notices appear to have been taken from different versions of the old story. Lastly, the important question arises. What was the name of the divine Creator, according to the original form of the Paradise-story ? As the text stands it was Yahweh Elohim (dti'jn mrr"'). We should rather have expected ' Yahweh ' alone. The combination occurs throughout the section ii. 4 ^-iii. (note, however, iii. i b, 3, 5 «, where 'Elohim' occurs alone), also in Ex. ix. 30, 2 S. vii. 22, Ps. Ixxii. 18, Ixxxiv. 12, Jon. iv. 6, i Chr. xvii. 16, and according to @ in passages in Gen. iv.-x. and especially in Ezek. xl.-xlviii.^ DTlfjNn '■^ occurs in i S. vi. 20, i Chr. xxii. I, 19, 2 Chr. xxvi. 18, xxxii. 16. Budde' has endeavoured to show that the combination '7N '"' in the Paradise-story is due to the redactor, who combined two Yahwistic strata, in one of which the name of God was Yahweh, in the other Elohim, a view which Gunkel (p. 4) accepts, and Cornill,* who, in Ezek. xl. ff., follows @ in reading '^n '"', regards this reading as a confirmation of Budde's view. But may we not — must we not demand that a theory should be devised which will explain the phrase everywhere, for instance in Ex. ix. 30 and Jon. iv. 6 ? Must we not hold that ' Elohim ' when attached to ' Yahweh ' is a corruption of, or a substitute for, some recognised divine name ? Prof. Barton * comes very near this view when he says that ' Yahweh ' and ' Elohim ' were different tribal names 1 I.e. out of Ashhur-Aram, or Ashhur- Yerahme'el. This was the fuller name of the first man (see on iii. 24). 2 Sievers (p. 171) holds, on metrical grounds, that in chap. i. the name of God was originally, not Elohim, but a compound name, analogous to the Yahweh-Elohim of chaps, ii. and iii. ^ Die Bibl. Urgesch. pp. 232-235. * Ezechiel, pp. 174 / According to Comill, the prophet Ezekiel wished to indicate by the adoption of the compound name of God that his vision of the new Jerusalem was parallel to the story of the lost Paradise. ^ JBL XX. (1901), p. 23. loo TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL of the Deity, and compares Melek-Ashtart, a combination of the names of two deities of kindred origin. Elohim, however, is not a name of any special god, but a generic term for ' god.' And the new suggestion here made is this, that DTIT'M is, in many passages (e.g. iii. i b, etc., iv. 25), a sub- stitute for fpNOTTT', suggested in the first instance by corruptly written forms of that name. ' Yahweh-Elohim ' therefore, it may be held, has come from' Yahweh-Yerahme'el,' a compound name like Ashtar-Kem6sh, Melek-Ashtart, etc. At some undeterminable point of the pre-exilic period this compound name gave offence, and the second element in it was changed into ' Elohim.' But for us the old phrase is more interest- ing than the new. It records the fact that, though the Israelites retained ' Yerahme'el ' as a divine name, they subordinated this god to the greater god Yahweh.'^ We can now throw some light on a phrase (iii. 8) by which one of the keenest of literary critics ^ confesses himself baffled : — ' And they heard the sound of Yahweh-Elohim (-Yerahme'el) walking in the garden Qvrr TTnS, at the wind of the day,' or (as Schultens) ^ ' at the breathing-time of the day.' But why not D"i.a ni3pS>? Indeed, why refer to the evening at all (cp. 2 S. v. 24) ? Considering what has been said on QTrS>N V(T\ in i. 2 3, may we not hold that DTin XV\'h has come from dtiSn SNOnT' (cp. on 'f?N IN^D, xxi. 17), which is a possible variant to D^rrfpN mrr"'? 'They heard the sound of Yahweh-Elohim (or, Yerahme'el - Elohim) taking his walk in the garden.' The last problems are those of iii. 24, which runs in MT., ' and he stationed eastward of the garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flame of the whirling sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.' From this we might infer that one tradition placed Paradise in the far west (cp. iv. 16). So, in fact, Gunkel thinks, adding that the MT. of ii. 8 places it in the east. If, however, we admit that mpD in ii. 8 has come from Dpi * (' Eden of Rekem '), we shall 1 Originally, as stated elsewhere, Yahu (whence Yahweh) was a formation of Yahu, i.e. Yarhu (Yarham, Yerahme'el). 2 Van Doorninck, Th. T., May 1905, p. 227. 3 Liber Jobi (1737), ii. 189, ' Nempe ad vesperam dies quasi suspirat.' * Dpi = om' = SxDm'. PARADISE (Gen. ii. ^b-\n. 24) loi see the choice before us. We may either (i) follow ® (see Ball, and Ges.(^^\ p. 842 b\ making iriN (DTNn) the object of pBf"), and inserting Dto;i (@ koI era^e) before 'D-riN, or (2) pronounce ® to be arbitrary, and read, for pw^ mpo, DpT "intON (Ashhur-Rekem), a correcting gloss on DTNrr, giving the name of the first man as Ashhur-Rekem (Ashhur- Yarham). In either case we should insert DtCI as the verb of which '^rr-riN is the object. Thus we get, ' And he drove out the man [Ashhur-Rekem], and appointed for the garden of Eden the cherubim,' etc. It is singular that the narrative should give us two guardians of the sacred road — the cherubim and the flame of the whirling sword (so there were two traditions) — and that it should not be stated to whom the sword belongs. The cherubim are at once the throne- bearers and the guardians of the sanctuary in Hebrew mythology. The sword is Yahweh-Yerahme'el's sword, which, as Isa.xxxiv. 5 shows, has an inherent vitality, and can ' come down on the people banned by ' the great God. It is not necessary, therefore, to question nn (with Winckler, AOF, 3rd ser. iii. 392). The sword corresponds to Marduk's weapon called mulmul ^ (javelin). In Josh. v. 1 3 _/; it is in the hand of the divine Captain, i.e. doubtless Yerahme'el ( = Mal'ak Yahweh). It is, in fact, the lightning. As to the ' cherubim ' a further statement seems necessary, though a complete discussion here of the Biblical passages is impos- sible.^ In Ps. xviii. 10 we find a 'cherub' parallel to the ' wings of the wind.' Probably there was an early conception of the cherub as a bird. It may well have been suggested by a still more archaic view that the chief Divine Being, from whom came creation and from whom come those storms which seem like acted prophecies of a future new creation, was himself a mighty bird. Mythological analogies abound ; see p. 9, and note further that the Sioux Indians suppose thunder to be the flapping of the cloud-bird's wings. Ezekiel's cherubim are probably in part his own inven- tion. But we can well believe that the bird-cherubim were followed or accompanied by more elaborate composite forms, 1 Jensen, Kosmologie, p. 332. 2 See E. Bib., and E. Brit., ' Cherubim.' I02 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL analogous to the winged figures of bulls and lions with human faces which guarded Babylonian and Assyrian temples and palaces. As to the name, it is remarkable that one of the deities of the land of Ya'di in N. Syria is called fjMlSn,^ i.e. possibly Rekubel/ which seems to be, like other names, of Arabian origin. Comparing the ma in Ezra ii. 59, the nn3 in Ezek. i. i, and the nD"i in 2 K. X. 15, etc., we may probably interpret hak-kerubim 'the Yerahme'els,' i.e. the animals representing Yerahme'el. It is a slight confirmation of this that in Enoch xxiv. Michael (the deputy of Yahweh, and the successor of the ancient Yerahme'el) is stated to be in charge of the tree of life ; * in Ps. civ. 3, however, the psalmist apparently interprets :m3 as meaning ' chariot (of God).' For the application of the divine name to the symbol of the god, we may compare □"'"i^N, underlying the D"'T'i>t2> (see p. 24), and perhaps the colossal lions called nergalli, representing some Babylonian deity, perhaps Nergal. Such lion-forms might well be imagined as guarding the sacred road. Cp. Ezek. xli. 18/. (i K. vi. 29), where it is said that 'every cherub had two faces ' (of a man and of a lion), and that cherubs and palm- trees were combined (the palm-tree may be the tree of life). Strictly speaking, kerub (cherub) should be rekub, which is a shortened form of rekuhel^ 1 See Cooke, N. Sent. Inscr. No. 61, 2; 62, 22 ; 63, 5. Cp. the Sab. name '7x313, Kittel, Konige, p. 52. 2 Most explain ' chariot of God ' or ' charioteer of God ' ; but this may be questioned. ^ It is true that in Enoch xx. 7 (and in the Gizeh Gk.) Gabriel is spoken of as ' over Paradise and the serpents and the cherubim ' ; but Gabriel is only a double of Michael (see Expositor, April 1906, pp. 295, 297). I see no reason to think (with Bousset, Rel. des Jud.^'^\ p. 378) that Gabriel was originally the highest angel, but had to yield the first place to Michael. Michael and Gabriel are both names of the ' degraded ' god Yerahme'el, and the personage referred to, or his ' son,' was probably the ' Man ' of Jewish eschatology. * That 331 is = "7X331 appears from the name of the son of Panammu, viz. Bar-rekub, who speaks in his inscription of 'my lord Rekiibel' (lines 5-7). CAIN AND ABEL (Gen. iv. i-i6) The brothers Kain and Abel (Hebel) ; the latter slain. As Stade {ZATW, 1894, p. 282) has pointed out, vv. i, 2, and 16 b are redactional, i.e. they were inserted to connect the story of Kain and Hebel with that of Paradise. He also thinks that the former story has no connexion with the genealogy of the Kainites. This may be granted, though the Kain of the story is just as much the eponym of the Kenites as the Kain of vv. 17-24. It is plausible to explain Kain ' artificer,' and to regard it as the translation of a title of the divine demiurge, derived ultimately from Baby- lonia {E. Bib., 'Cain,' § i ; ' Cainites,' § 5). Our principle of grouping similar names leads us, however, to suppose that ]'ip (cp. Josh. XV. 57) and ]yp (v. 9) must, equally with lIDn, be connected with ps, p3r, and p2D, all of which appear to be in their origin N. Arabian. That ^'p is specially N. Arabian appears also from the compound name Tubal-kain {v. 22), i.e. Ethbaal-kain (see on x. 2) ; for ' Ethbaal ' is certainly a corrupt form of Ishmael. Next, as to Abel (Hebel). The mother surely said something at his birth which has been lost. It may be presumed that she interpreted the name Hebel ' a breath, vanity.' But what, the critic asks, is the true meaning ? Close to Tubal-kain (vv. 20-22) we find the names Yabal and Yubal — both cognates of Hebel. Evidently all these names are N. Arabian. We must therefore reject Lenor- mant's plausible connexion of hyn with Ass. ablu, aplu, ' son,' as well as the other connexion proposed in E. Bib., ' Abel,' supported though it is by Hommel (Ass. ibilu, ' ram, camel, ass'). The element hi in Hebrew names so often represents fjNO, a fragment of SnottT' or ^nsdO)'' («.^. in 103 I04 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Sil^ii^, SniN, 'pitDM), that we can hardly avoid tracing fjin (bin), as well as hy and ^IV, to 'pNorn"'.^ It is a contest between two Yerahme'elite or Arabian tribes, one nomadic, the other with a fixed abode, of which the legend in its original form appears to have spoken. The Hebel tribe had to pay tribute to the Kain tribe,^ in order to be freed from such raids as are described in Judg. vi. 3-5. The tribute apparently was in arrears ; a struggle naturally ensued, and Hebel perished. In the present form of the legend, the statement respecting Kain's original mode of life (' a tiller of the ground,' v. 2), and all that hangs together with it, is incorrect. It ; now becomes possible to explain mrf-nN ffi'^N •^n"'2p in w. I. Not by reading nai;^ for nM, though it is psycho- logically probable that ' Eve ' congratulated herself on having ' created ' a man. So too Erbt, who inserts ^riNapl, ' and have stirred up to jealousy ' ( Urgesch. pp. 9, 1 9). mri"' riN ©"in (Marti, Zeydner) is surely impossible. The probability is that here, as elsewhere, XX\rv has sprung from 'nT {i.e. hvfarrv). In v. 2 we find 'pin-riN ; 'hT'-dn may be a marginal gloss upon this. Why the offerings of the two brothers were regarded differently by Yahweh does not appear. We should have expected that Kain's would be accepted, and Abel's refused, for surely in the olden times God had more pleasure in the fruits of the field than in bloody sacrifices.* Has the original legend been altered in deference to later beliefs ? Probably, and in any case the text of vv. 6-8 is open to much suspicion. My friend Prof. Driver admits this for V. 7, though he thinks that the text may be so interpreted as to convey ' a profound psychological truth — the danger, viz., of harbouring a sullen and unreasoning discontent.' To avoid ascribing such psychological reasoning to an early narrator, I have tried to feel my way towards an 1 Winckler [Ar.-sem.-or. pp. wo f.) suggests that Heb. hebel and Ar. Hobal (divine name) may be identical. Does this give a clue to the origin of Hobal ? 2 The Kain tribe is not a tribe of smiths as Eerdmans ( Th. Tijdschr. xl. 231) supposes. Cp. on Tubal-kain, v. 22. 3 See ZDMG xxxi. 358. CAIN AND ABEL (Gen. iv. i-i6) 105 earlier text^ (see Exp. Times, vol. x., July 1899; ^- Bib., ' Cain,' § 2). Independently, Prof. Gunkel agrees with me so far as to read Nton for DNto and ^sn for [njns^. But though the text is hardly quite original, it is not clear that it need be altered, provided that v. 7 -is regarded as a late interpolation. It has been overlooked that tr^n is one of the usual introductory formulae of glosses {Cri^. Bid., p. 474). V. 6 and v. 8 then come to stand together, and of course the opening of v. 8 needs to be corrected. Prob- ably for vns we should read TtN, and make the clause run thus, ' And Kain said. Because of my brother Abel.' Some answer of Kain to the divine questioner is certainly needed. The T now attached to tin seems a dittograph. The ' sign ' appointed to Kain seems clear enough ; we can hardly, with Driver, call it ' idle to speculate.' ^ As W. R. Smith says, ' Can this be anything else than the sari or tribal mark which every man bore on his person, and without which the ancient form of blood-feud . . . could hardly have been worked ? ' ^ This also illustrates Isa. xliv. 5, Ezek. ix. 4, and Zech. xiii. 6, where tattooed sacred marks of Yahweh-Yerahme'el appear to be meant. See Stade, 'Das Kainzeichen,' ZATW, 1894, pp. 250-318 ; Bibl. Theol. i. 42, and cp. Jensen's note, KB vi. 377. As the narrative stands, the ' sign ' is an evidence of Yahweh's compassion for Kain. Otherwise the sympathies of the narrator are with Abel. Where were the chief haunts of the Kain tribe when the legend was redacted? In the land of Nod (^^3), is the answer. No good explanation of this name has been offered. No doubt, like so many monosyllabic forms in MT., it is a mutilation of some longer, well-known name. Probably we should read na, i.e. Nadab or Nodab. This was the name of a people of N. Arabian connexions (see E. Bib., ' Nodab ').* ' Eastward of Eden ' is probably a correct gloss ; Eden (see pp. By/.) was a N. Arabian locality. 1 See also Box, £xp. Times, x. 425^, for an excellent suggestion on the closing words of v. 7 (cp. iii. 1 6). ^ ' Speculate,' indeed, is an invidious expression. ^ Kinship, pp. 215/; ed. 2, p. 251 ; cp. E. Bib., 'Cain.' * For another view see E. Bib., col. 4413. CAIN'S GENEALOGY (Gen. iv. 17-24 [26]) Kain's genealogy, which, with vv. 2 5 /! and a prefixed passage now lost, forms the sequel oi v. i. Besides Dillmann, etc., see E. Bib., ' Cainites,' and cp. ' Sethites.' It is hoped that some fresh light can be thrown on these names. First comes the name of the son of Kain (Kenites) — Handk.^ It has been connected or mis- connected with various ancient place-names, but really belongs to the same group as Kain (see above). Note that 'Anak also appears as 'Andk (Josh. xxi. 11), and Kena'an as Kinahhi in Am. Tab. We find Handk else- where as a Reubenite ^ and a Midianite place-name (xlvi. 9, XXV. 4) ; it is also known as a S. Arabian tribe-name (Hommel, Gr. p. 163, note 3). One may suppose that Han6k is one of the cities of the Kenites (i S. xxx. 29). Possibly, however, the 11371 at the end of w. 17 is misplaced, and should stand after ipl"'"!.^ If so, the name of the city will be iTi; (if this form be correct). In fact, we know of no city called Hanok, but we do know of one called Ti? (Josh, xii. 14; cp. Judg. i. 1 6). Very possibly IT^ (the IT of V. I S) should be tU's, another form of Tin. Cp. also tiin, x. 18, Ezek. xxvii. 8 (with notes), niN, Josh. xv. 3. Hommel's derivation from ^i;, ' fire,' and irc, ' to descend,' hardly commends itself. 1 There is no connexion with ^ijn, nor yet with Unuki, the ideo- graphic name of Erech. If Hanok were virtually the Babylonian city Erech, we should have expected to find Gilgamesh referred to, Erech being the city of Gilgamesh. See, further, on v. 23^, and on n:, v. 29. 2 ' Reuben ' was originally a N. Arabian tribe, as we can still dis- cern underneath the present text of i Chr. v. 6, 9/ The 'king of Asshur ' spoken of is an Arabian king ; the river P6rath is an Arabian stream (p. 91). Cp. Crit. Bib. pp. 371/ 3 So in effect Winckler, AOF''\ i. 95. For another view see Budde, Urgesch. pp. \20 ff. 106 CAIN'S GENEALOGY (Gen. iv. 17-24 [26]) 107 ' Mehujael ' and ' Methushael ' have both been terribly misunderstood. Prof. H. P. Smith ^ even renders the former ' wiped out by God,' and the latter (after Redslob) ' man of She61,' and comments ' vanished tribes like 'Ad and Thamfld.' Prof. D. H. Miiller, though more methodical, is just as wrong, when he explains '^^''■'inD ' (the god) ^n"> gives life.' Surely ^N-'ino and fpN^^rro (v. 12, Neh. xi. 4) have the same origin. The former comes from fjNOm"' through 7N''inD, the latter through ^nhd ; cp. thvf, i Chr. vii. 35, and hvhh'n'' (i Chr. iv. 16), also ->^nn, n^no, etc. For the repetition of h cp. hih. Num. iii. 24, and ^Niof?, Prov. xxxi. I, 4. It may be noticed that some cursives {a, b, z) in iv. 1 8 give fioXeXeTjX, and that the Ethiopic has Malaleel, and the Coptic Maleleel.^ As for fpstOino, Lenor- mant's explanation mutu-sa-ili ^ (' liegeman of God,' E. Bib., ' Cainites,' § 7) is at first sight plausible. But the retention of sa is improbable, and it is very doubtful whether no or inn, ' man,' can be supported lexicographically. Certainly it is more in accordance with sound method to explain ino both here and in nf?!D"inD (which @ apparently reads in iv. 1 8 in place of ^^Nmino) as a fragment of ^"inD = Slon * (cp. fjMtOD, ^ririN), le. f7NSDtD\ and to group ^NtO either with 'jlNm (xxxvi. 37, xlvi. 10, see notes), or with ^3mN, i.e. ^NDHT^ inmN (see on xiv. 13). n'jminD (v. 21) probably comes from n^t»3 ^"icn (cp. on ' Casluhim,' x. 1 4). ' Lamech ' too has been a fertile theme of unfruitful discussion. Explanations from the Sumerian {Lamga, a non- Semitic title of the moon-god ; Sayce, Boscawen, Hommel) are as forced and improbable as those from the Arabic (juvenis robusius, Dillm.). Undoubtedly, 1dS>, like "[So (as a divine name), with its feminine n3^D (xi. 29), and htnyop (xxii. 21), has sprung from fjNDHT. The corruption may have arisen very early. Cp. E. Bib., cols. 625 / — Next, as to Lamech's two wives. Evidently mr and rhi are cor- ruptions of well-known names. The latter is the feminine of 7S = D^2, i.e. SsSOtD-i (see on Num. xiv. 19, xxvi. 33). 1 Old Test. History (1903), p. 24. ^ Lagarde {Orientalia, ii. 35) prefers Mahalalel ; cp. Nestle, Marginalien (1893), p. 7. 5 Origines de Phistoire^'^\ i. 262/ * See Crit. Bib. on i S. x. II. io8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Sillah (cp. Sillethai, b. Shimei, i Chr. viii. 20) represents an Ishmaelite tribe. The former should be synonymous with rhi (cp. ' Yabal ' and ' Yubal '). Possibly TTi's re- presents rr^mN or rv-yys. And now as to the two sons of Adah and the son of Sillah {vv. 20-22). Their names respectively are 'pT (Yabal) blY' (Yubal), and )ip-^l"in (Tubal-kain), or, as in (g, ItoySijX, lou/SaX, and ©o^SeX. According to Ball, the first of these, like SiniN (i Chr. xxvii. 30), is connected with Ar. dbW", ' one skilled in the tendance of camels, sheep,' etc. ; the second with Sir, bivn pp (so Dillm.); the third with Sumerian Balgin, Bilgi, the fire-god (cp. E. Bib., ' Cainites '). Dillmann, on the other hand, explains by ' nomadic shepherd ' (cp. ^"'nrr), hiv ' musician ' (cp. Ball), while the ^p appended to the ethnic 'plin marks out the third hero as a smith, and perhaps also as a true descendant of Kain. A more com- prehensive view of the relevant facts will show us that 7T and hT\\ like ^nn (iv. 2), ^iniN (i Chr. I.e.), and 'jnr in ]'\p ^ITTI (Josh. vi. 4), come from fjNOm"', and Snn from ^iiriN (see on v. 2 and on x. 2). At first sight it will appear from the contexts as if these three personages were leaders of culture, and therefore, one may conjecture, semi-divine beings.^ The contexts, however, on which this view depends are liable to grave suspicion. On V. 20, Kautzsch and Socin remark, 'The text is doubt- less corrupt ; probably the Regens of TT2pa has fallen out.' Also on V. 22, 'The context hardly permits a doubt that ■'nN has fallen out before Sd ; mtoh is presumably only an early gloss to min ' (similarly Ball). Such superficial criticism is useless. We must go down deeper, and examine the suspicious words in the light of other passages in which these words occur, but are certainly corrupt. The most suspicious word of all is mssS (v. 22). l&in needs no gloss, and if a gloss Were required, such an un- common word as Wtih would not have been chosen. The key to the word is supplied by xxv. 3, where om^nh, standing between mitON and D^OiS (from QiSNom"'), has, of course, been produced, mainly by transposition of letters, from 1 One might conjecture that there were originally but two — a pair of Semitic Dioscuri. CAIN'S GENEALOGY (Gen. iv. 17-24 [26]) 109 Di^MntON. ioaf? therefore = SsrimN {i.e. '•any nntON, see on V. 25). Considering that Tubal-kain is most naturally- explained as ' Kenite Ethbaal (Ishmael),' we cannot be sur- prised at this result. And what function is discharged by 'bn here? It is a gloss on ]ip, i.e. the eponym of the Kenites. tHn (omit f?3 with ®) has, of course, a similar origin. Like njonn from nnnms (Judg. iv. 2), Nm^^ (Ezra ii. 52), and the name pffinn in the Assuan papyri^ (B 22), it comes from the regional name nntCN (cp. Din and ^^^■'tc). Snn ntcna is also a pair of glosses on j-'p-^nn. nffiTO comes from ]nmn, i.e. Ashhur-ethan, while hr\1, as also probably in Dt. iii. 11, iv. 20, xxxiii. 25, comes from ^NrotO"' n.S,^ ' Ishmaelite Arabia' (cp. ' Barzillai '). Thus the passage becomes ' Tubal-kain [Ashtael, Ashhur, Hashtan, Arab-Ishmael].' Let us now turn back to v. 20. nDpn IB)"' is obviously impossible. Haldvy and Ball would therefore read "hrWi Iffi"' 'o, following and comparing 2 Chr. xiv. 14. But as Hommel has seen, TOpD in 2 Chr. I.e. has sprung from an ethnic, and I think it is possible to restore the right ethnic. rxygn has arisen out of ]Dp^, a form of fpNoriT^ (cp. on xlvi. 32, Judg. X. 5), and the T prefixed to 'o in iv. 20 (MT.) probably comes from Nin (' that is '). That Stin may be a corruption of 'am"' (see on xxxvi. 2), ixtT" of 'om"' (see on Isa. X. 13), and "i^N of ns (see on ix. 18, xxxiii. 19), cannot well be denied. Nin introduces the gloss ; rrn is either redactional or from a dittographed Nin. Thus we get, as the original of V. 20, ' And Adah (?) brought forth Yabal [that is, Arab- Ishmael ; fjHN, that is, Yerahme'el].' And what of Yubal {v. 21)? iin is now plain; ffisn (as in Jer. xlvi. 9) probably comes from riEJtt? (cp. on asto, I K. xix. 1 9), i.e. na2, rsni. 1123 is also corrupt (cp. on Josh. xix. 35, 2 S. vi. 5, Isa. xxx. 32) ; we may restore either ]lpT (Josh. xix. 46), or, better, X^'p'2. ' There was a Zarephathite Ekron, which the Danites may for a time have conquered.' ' In fact, ips probably represents inJDN (cp. on 1 I am sorry that the editor should be puzzled by this name. 2 Cp. Dipi3 (Ezra ii. 53), i.e. si^-any, and the Palmyrene uain, i.e, urmy, parallel to •in[B']N U3, Neh. vii. 33 ; and e/aeni, i.e. 'jNyOB" my. ' Crit. Bib. (p. 433) on Josh. xix. no TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL TIN, X. lo). m» may have the same origin as iis, llN, and ili ; at any rate, like these, it represents some Arabian name. Thus, omitting 7D as in v. 22, we get, 'And his brother's name was Yubal [that is, Arab-sephath, Ekron, and Og].' It is with some surprise that mv. 22b we find the name of Tubal-kain's sister, viz. HDM (cp. Josh. xv. 41). Its origin is not obscure. DM, Hke pi?o, should represent pSDtO or ]DtO-i, i.e. ^NI?DQ)\ It only remains to add that the insertion of ' Lamech's song ' shows that, as there were two Kains, so there were also two Lamechs.^ Also that the song referred to can hardly be archaic. As Winckler remarks,^ no people on earth has poetical echoes of its nomad period. Vv. 2^^ f. are a genealogical fragment (cp. v. 29) which Stade {Akad. Reden, p. 247), after simplifying the form, would place before V. 1 7. What it gives us is an independent record of the birth of a son to the first man. @ is doubtless right in not recognising T^s. But to get further, textual criticism is necessary, and we must assume that ntO and E>12N, not less than D^N[^] and mn, YP and h'Xn, represent well-known ethnics. na> is most probably a fragment of nntCN (cp. on ix. 2 1), as in Num. xxiv. 17 (the par., Jer. xlviii. 45, has pNQ>, i.e. bNTOffli). This is favoured by the words with which the passage about ' Sheth ' must originally have closed, viz. not inN i>Tl, but nntON 'l (cp. on xxii. 13). The whole passage should probably run, ' And Aram knew his wife, and she conceived, and bore a son, and called his name Ashtar.' On this there was an early gloss, ' for (he was) the seed {i.e. offspring) of Asshur,' alluding to the probable fact (see on v. 24) that the fuller name of the first man was Asshur-Aram or A.-Yerahme'el. This involves omitting D-'H^N ■'S-ntZ? and pp i:nn ■'3 hlTi nnn as redactional insertions. The alternative is to read, for -h nm, h-Ti^, and for dttSn (as often) SNDm^ and to take ntD in V. 24 « as a fragment of SwritDN. This does not make much difference, for ^MHtON (Judg. xiii. 25) and pnffiM (i Chr. iv. 11) have probably come from ntOM, a fragment of nntCM ; S'N and p are formative.' This gives us, ' And Aram 1 See E. Bib., ' Sethites,' § 3, and cp. Gunkel, Genesis. 2 Religionsgeschichtler und geschichtlicher Orient, 1906, p. 27. 3 Similarly, 'Eshtemoh' and 'Eshtemoa' have nothing to do with CAIN'S GENEALOGY (Gen. iv. 17-24 [26]) in knew his wife, etc., and she called his name Eshtaol (Ashtael), for (he was) a shoot of Yerahme'el, the seed of Asshur.' To connect fjNDt&N with ^TltO, ' shoot,' ^ would not be worse than to connect the ethnic pp with "iTip, ' to produce.' Cp. E. Bid., ' Seth.' V. 26 is indeed a paradoxical passage. What ? did not the father and mother of Enosh ' call with the name of Yahweh ' ? And if they did not, how can any one have done so before the time of Moses ? The only choice is between the absolutely primitive origin of the solemn use of the divine name Yahweh and the Mosaic. I am well aware of the distinction that may be drawn between acquaintance with the divine name and the organisation of worship. I may be told that it is the latter which is assigned to Enosh as a most important detail in the development of culture (see E. Bib., ' Cainites,' ' Sethites '). But we cannot discuss such a point until the text has been adequately treated, and then perhaps the whole question will appear to us in a new light. First of all, N"ipS Smrr TW is impossible (see E. Bib., ' Enos '). We may, of course (with Wellh., CB^^\ p. 309), alter this into 'h hnrj ni, following @, Vg., Jubilees. But how did nt become Tn and hrtn become f?mn? And we shall find in due time that fjlT'T in ix. 20 and f?nn in x. 8 are both corrupt ; also that formations from tnp are not seldom corruptions of 'pNDm"'. Most probably Smn has come from hnin (i.e. fjNom''), and xip^ from a dittographed '^NDm\^ mn"' ami represents '■> Dffii,^ and this has come from )Qa>-'-ni> {i.e. htiSaW 's) ; the -\s fell out all the more easily after ni. For other instances of a prefixed l representing ni7, see on Ex. xxxi. 2 ; among them are nod and jtBX t013N, as elsewhere (e.g: Jer. xvii. 16, Ps. ix. 20, Ivi. 2), = pm'' = 7NiDtt)\* As for Nirr Di, which reads strangely before T^;', it the 8th Arabic conjugation, but come from ' Ashtar- Yerahme'el.' 'Eshtaol' ('Ashtael') too might have this origin. ^ In the Mandasan writings the three ' helpers ' of Adam are Hibil, Shitil (cp. Aram. nSn't?, ' plant '), and An6sh (Brandt, Die Mand. Rel. p. 122). 2 Nip often represents a fragment of ^NDm>. Cp. D'tthlip, 2 S. xv. 1 1 Ezek. xxiii. 23. ^ @'s Kvpiov Tov Oeov is probably a mere expansion of nw. * Cp. pNif, Jer. xlviii. 45, Hos. x. 14, Am. ii. 2 ; [^^[-n'^], Josh. 112 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL is most probably a fragment of a gloss, which in its entirety ran, lis; sin Dl (cp. on x. 21 ). Read, therefore, ^^mM71 [^Ni^otO-', ' And to Ashtar [he too is Arab] a son was born, whose name he called Ishmael [Arab-Yerahme'el, Arab-Ishmael].' THE DESCENDANTS OF ADAM (Gen. v.) Here we have the second of the two parallel early Hebrew genealogies (J and P respectively), full of huge, ill-explained difficulties. Fragments of the first are to be found in iv. 2$ f., v. 29, and we may reasonably con- i" jecture that the Yahwist's genealogy as well as that of the Priestly Writer originally contained ten names. It is also plausible to suppose that the ten heroes whom P certainly, and possibly also J, placed at the head of early history are ultimately connected with the ten antediluvian kings whom Berossus places at the head of the history of Babylonia,^ and -who correspond to the first ten months of a cosmic year. The names of these kings are "AXfopoi, ' AXdirapo^, 'AnijXcov, Afifi€va>v, MeyaKdTrapo7Q3, the two latter words obviously represent Qif?Q3 d'^T'NDnT, a double gloss on Q-iTiU. It is true, @, with its airo almvo should read, ' and El Yerahme'el was grieved,' and in viii. 21 (omitting the second mn"' as redactional) ' and El Yerahme'el said,' — unless, indeed, ' El Yerahme'el ' is to be taken here as a perfectly correct gloss on 'Yahweh.' For'Yahweh' and 'Yerahme'el,' the early writers held, both in deliberation and in action were one. Certainly infp-^N is absurd. ' Yahweh ' in council speaks not ' to his heart (?) ' but to his fellow (or fellows). We now turn to the hero of the deluge. As we have seen (p. 115), his true name is, not Noah, but Han6k — a well-attested N. Arabian name. The parallelism between V. 2412 and the closing words of vi. 9 is decisive. The ideal righteous man, who alone deserved to be saved, was Han6k. It was he who was ' a righteous man and blameless in his ways,' ^ not Noah. Shem, Ham, and Yepheth, how- ever, are not sons of Handk, but of Noah or Naham (cp. V. 29), the vine-dresser, of whom we read strange things in ix. 20-27. As in the Babylonian deluge-story, the names of the sons of the hero found no place in the original Hebrew narrative. See on xix. 18/^, x. i. We can now offer a better explanation of the obscure word 7^3p,^ supposed to mean 'deluge.' In vi. 17 the God announces that he will bring upon the land qid ^llQrrTiN. According to most scholars, D"'0 (as also in vii. 6) is a gloss on the archaic ^llo, though 'va. v. 17 Sievers takes the reverse course, and Hommel points D^p. ^IDD, however, has not hitherto been satisfactorily explained. May it not have come from h'yaa (cp. Syriac), which is a possible cor- ruption of ^NDHT, Q being duplicated as in snoD? In an earlier form of the Hebrew deluge-story ^"idq (^"l^o) was a 1 For vnmn (hardly ' among his contemporaries ') in vi. 9 we may perhaps read vdtid. This occurred to me before Winckler gave it, with an astral interpretation, in AOFxxi. 396. Surely we must not (with BDB) defend MT.'s reading by Judg. iii. 2, where nm is not only itself difficult to interpret, but occurs in a plainly disordered context (see Crit. Bib. ad loc). The alternative is to read iin'n = niniyNa, 'in Ashtor.' 2 See Cheyne, Psalins'^^\ pp. 379/ ; E. Bib., col. 1061, note i, and especially Zimmem, ZDMG Iviii. 953 / For abubu = mabbill the latter compares 3131 '7s;3 and /SeeX^e/HovX, a comparison which is all the more appropriate if 3131 and '^nt come ultimately from 'ob". See Crif. Bib. p. 353. THE DELUGE (Gen. vi. 5-IX. 17) 145 gloss on Y^v(r\. It was on the land of Yerahme'el that the deluge was sent. Read, therefore, in vi. 1 7 psn-^s Corr-nN, and in vii. 6 'vi'^'s TTI com, in each case with the marginal note fjNDriT. 'pilD has the same origin in x. i, 32, xi. 10, Ps. xxix. 10.^ In the other Genesis passages (vii. 7, 10, ix. 11) it means ' deluge,' through a mistake of redactors, who possibly derived h^ya from ^"Q, supposed by them to mean ' rain.' Cp. also Isa. liv. 9, TO "'D. This result fits in with the probable results of criticism in vii. 4, 12 (cp. v. 17). It is of course possible that the seven days' rain in the best-known Babylonian deluge- story was magnified in the Hebrew story into a rain of ' forty days and forty nights.' But considering how often D''M^N and D"'l"ii' (or lis?) are confounded (see on ii. 10, Judg. iii. 1 1, V. 3 1, viii. 28, etc.),^ DT> and JD-" (see p. 6, note 3), rhh and 'jNDnT (see on 2 K. viii. 21, Ps. Ixxiv. 16), we may venture to read ^NOriT nisi 19^ ^1S) a- combination of two glosses on pNn. Note that in viii. 6 DV 'nw }>pD Trn is due to the redactor, who had before him vii. 4 and 1 2 in their corrupt form, and may also have inserted DT' Sn in vii. 17. See, further, on viii. 6. Another curious word in the Hebrew story is Dip"* (vii. 4, 23), which BDB explains 'substance, existence,' admitting, however, that the word seems to be used in a ' more limited sense ' in Dt. xi. 6. But one may ask. Why should the writer of Dt. xi. 6 have used a word meaning ' existence ' when he only meant ' men ' ? Remembering the names Q"'p'i, ]1Dp, and Dpi, may we not plausibly suppose that Dip'i has come from Dm"' ? The words which follow D1pi[n] are, in v. 23, 'nsn ■'3D-f?S IffiN, but in v. 4, iTT'QJS nffiM Sn ''3£3 fpi^D, and in w. 23 there is a warning Pasek both before and after ntUN. Surely, as often, itp« should be i^n, and iniQJS should be nntDN (a variant to n^w). Probably we should harmonise v. 4 and v. 23,^ i.e. read Dni"'-f?D-nN '~\v(n i^Q-^so, with a double gloss ' Asshur, Ashtar.' It is interesting to notice that probably there is a correct marginal gloss on D1p\ In the strange expression * 1 Read Sidd [bbb']'?. 2 Cp ^ Bib., 'Moses,' § 11. ' The middle part of z/. 23 is a redactional supplement (see Kautzsch-Socin). * ' Der wunderliche Ausdruck,' says Gunkel. 10 146 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL D'^Tf nn nomi (vii. 22), rrn may be a corruption of 'rw, i.e. Dm"' (the original of D"ipi). Cp. on i. 2 b. A still more interesting confirmation of the view that the deluge-story is Yerahme'elite may now be produced. It has been already remarked by Driver {Genesis, p. io6, on viii. 4), ' Why in P the " mountains of Ararat " appear in place of Nisir [see Asurbanipal's legend], must remain matter of conjecture.' And why the vague expression * mountains ' ? Tiele ^ identifies ' Ararat ' with ' Nisir,' and explains the former name as shortened from Hara-berezaiti (the mountain Elburz). Most, however, identify it with Urartu, which, sometimes at least, included most of the later Armenia. Neither view is satisfactory. It is shown on X. 3 that ' Ashkenaz,' which was certainly near ' Ararat ' (see Jer. li. 27), has come from ' Asshur-kenaz,' and is the name of a region of N. Arabia, and a careful study of 2 K. xix. 37 in its context, and in the light of other discoveries, shows that £3-nN must also be a N. Arabian name, and comparing ibn (see on Neh. vii. 45) and m"i£3i> (see on Num. xxxii. 3) we can hardly help tracing ' Ararat ' to ' Ashtar ' ^ (nntCN). That the mountain of the ark should have been placed, in the Hebrew story, in Armenia is certainly most improbable. Possibly ' Lubar,' the name of the mountain in Jubilees, chaps, v. and x., comes from ^nn = 'om\ At any rate, it is as good as certain that the mountain on which the ark rested according to the Hebrew story (P and probably J)^ was Mount Ashtar, for the situation of which, so far as it can be described from the older text, see on Dt. iii. 17. Let us now turn to some of the minor details. In vi. 1 4, KS and Gunkel give us, ' Build thyself an ark {KS, 1 E. Bib., 'Ararat,' § 3. Sanda, however (Untersuch. p. 35, ap. Doller), combines ' Ararat ' with the cuneiform Arardi, a ' mighty mountain range ' in the Kardu region. For the ordinary view see Friedr. Murad, Ararat u. Masis (1900). ^ The bene Ater in Neh. vii. 45 occur among the mjjE', but the original reading doubtless was a--wv., Asshurites. This confirms the view given above of ion. ' Ater ' also occurs in the Assuan Jewish- Aramaic inscriptions, E 3 (fifth century). ^ J too must have said that the ark rested on a mountain. Cp. Wellh. CH, p. 6. THE DELUGE (Gen. vi. j-ix. 17) 147 " ship ") of pine-wood ; of nought but chambers shalt thou make it.' ' Of pine-wood ' is not at all adequate, nni ""SJ must mean the timber of some special tree used in building such large and important objects as the ' ark,' not of Moses, but of Noah (Han6k). We cannot determine botanically what the tree referred to was, unless indeed by some easy text-emendation of the ordinary type we can turn nsi into some word which represents or suggests some ascertained tree, such as would be used for the specified purpose either in Palestine or in N. Arabia. I do not, however, see how this feat is to be performed.^ We must therefore make use of recent experience of the newer textual criticism. We have found that tree-names in Hebrew are often in reality applied names of people or regions. Thus QTitO "'SJ; (Ex. XXV. I O etc.) ultimately comes to mean ' Sephathite timber ' ; of this, according to P, the aron (' ark ') was made. Similarly, Cia'pN iJC? has been shown to mean ' Yerah- me'elite timber,' great quantities of which were brought by Hiram and Solomon, not from Ophir, but perhaps from the N. Arabian mountains (see Crit. Bib. p. 331, cp. 384). And we only really understand the familiar phrase ]3i?T j>i> when we see it to have come from ]Di>T ps, ' tree of Ra'aman,' i.e. ' of Yerahme'el,' with which compare JDQ) }>» (Neh. viii. 15), from ]DtOi p, 'tree of Yishman,' i.e. ' of Ishmael.' ^Q1 then is, at any rate, a corruption of some well-known N. Arabian name, most probably of ^D1," for which cp. on Qinis, 2 K. xix. 35, and on D■'^l^, 2 K. xxii. 14. nDi is one of those numerous corruptions of 7NDnT which early obtained an independent existence (see (on X. 2). — Now as to another critical error. All that the critics dispute about is whether D"'3p should be read only once (as Sievers) or twice (as Olsh., Lag., etc.). It is apparently not questioned that ]p, ' nest,' can also mean ' cell ' or ' chamber.' The truth is, that u^'yp is wrong, and ^ The attempts to illustrate nna from Babylonian-Assyrian, referred to in E. Bib., ' Gopher,' are of no use unless it may be held that the Hebrew deluge-story is directly dependent on a cuneiform record. The probability of this attractive view must, however, I am afraid, now be regarded as very small. 2 The presence of ns3 at the end oi v. 14 may, in the present case, have facilitated the corruption. 148 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL that most probably it represents a very early variant to the word miswritten ^D:l, viz. n[i>]3p\ The existence of a Yokneam (?) in the Arabian border-land is proved. It was in ' Carmel,' i.e. a Yerahme'elite district (cp. on Josh. xii. 22), and probably, we may say, on the border of the southern Zebulun^ (see Crit. Bib. on Josh. xix. 11). In Dt. xxxiii. 1 9 (see note) we find Zebulun spoken of as acquir- ing the mountain -land of the Ishmaelites. 'Timber of Yokneam,' therefore, is a very possible phrase. n!in should probably be nin. The verse thus becomes, ' Make for thyself an ark ; of timber of Gomer [Yokneam] shalt thou make the ark,' etc. (@'s rendering is [e'/c] ^vXcov Terpajcoviov, i.e. 'siiD '■'Si?, which may represent Q-'liD "iSi;, ' timber of the Arabians,' a variant to noi 121?. In vi. 16 a we meet with the hard word nn25. Can it be correct ? Surely the variety of critical theories, and the warning Pasek after nns, may justly awaken suspicion. In E. Bib., col. 2713, I suggested reading rrjlN, i.e. 'window,' a sense which seemed to be required (cp. Jl^n, viii. 6, J). The notion of an opening in the wall running all round above (nSrD^D) was, in spite of Holz.'s Egyptian parallel, too difficult and improbable, and rhsn^id itself was sus- picious (see below). @ renders eTriavvdywv, but ®'s apparent renderings may so often be suspected of corruption that we may doubt whether this is correct ; may it not have arisen out of fragments of Kairvohoyrriv (nilN ?) ? It has been found, however, that nns'^ and nns are frequent corruptions of nnm«, (e.g. Ex. vi. 18, 2 K. xviii. 32, Gen. xlvi. 10, Ezek. xxvii. 18), and it is difficult, in a case where a strong suspicion of corruptness exists, not to correct ins into int^N. If so, a word is wanting before 'tOM. Can we recover it? Surely we can. The next words, nDN-7N> nfpi^o'jo n3^3n, are untranslatable, and must be corrupt, noN-'jNl and n^l'D^Q are presumably corruptions of f?NDm"' (cp. on rroN, 2 S. viii. i, and on 'ho, Josh. iii. 13, 16), which is most probably a gloss on "infflN. n3f?3n is also corrupt ; it covers over the missing word for ' window,' viz, 1 The theory is, that the Israelites, like the Arabian Yerahme'elites before them, carried local and ethnic names with them in their migra- tions. On the name ' Yokneam ' see Crit. Bib. p. 406. THE DELUGE (Gen. vi. 5-ix. 17) i49 ]^nn, a by-form to \hr\ ; cp. Ass. bit-hil{l)dni or btt-htlanni (adopted from western Semitic), 2>. 'window -house ' ; see Muss-Arnolt, Ass. Diet. p. 315. Thus v. 16 a becomes, ' An Ashhurite [Yerahme'elite] window shalt thou make for the ark, and the door of the ark shalt thou put in the side thereof Sievers (pp. 251/) has proposed to bring vi. 16 b into V. 1 4, omitting nt»l>n ; they ' attach themselves well to the preceding D"'3p.' Other critics are content to understand 'p, and explain that the ark was to be made in three stories. But (i) D''3p is too far off, and (2) O'lip cannot mean ' stories ' ; it is corrupt. V. 1 6 5 is also corrupt, but experi- ence suggests a remedy. Numerals have often arisen out of corruptions of ethnics ; mto and w^hvn are both current corruptions of ^nsdqj"' (see Crit. Bib. on Judg. x. 4). A substantive is still wanting before 'am"'. Probably it is ]7nn (see last note) ; h passed into n, and \ into D. We have therefore a second (misplaced) statement respecting the window — ' An Ishmael-window shalt thou make.' ' Ishmael ' and ' Ashhur ' are of course synonyms. Another point may be mentioned here, to confirm the view (see above) that dti '3"in }>pD in viii. 6 is due to the redactor. It is that in Asurbanipal's legend the rescued man sends forth the birds ' when the seventh day arrived.' From the qiqi nj>3te Tis we may infer that in v. 6 it was originally mentioned that Noah (Han6k) waited seven days, and then opened the window, etc. Thus the Hebrew and the Babylonian narratives agree, and 'in }>pa must be redactional. CONCERNING SHEM, HAM, AND YEPHETH (Gen. IX. 1 8, 19) A SHORT closing passage, derived from J, implying the mistaken theory (see on v. 32, vi. 10) that Shem, Ham, and Yepheth were the sons of the hero of the deluge-story. The sons of Noah (Naham) mentioned in the following section were obviously too young to have wives (see vi. 18, vii. 7). The notice respecting Ham {v. 22) deserves close attention. It is not an attempt to harmonise two different traditions as to the relationship of Canaan. ]MD ''3M (so too V. 22) is a corruption of '3 n.5 (see on ■'In, xxxiii. 19, and cp. on xvii. 4 ff!). The note informs us that on is here to be taken as = ' Canaanite Arabia." In fact, on (from fjNDm"') has a somewhat wide application. In Ps. Ixxviii. 52, etc., it is a synonym of Misrim — a remarkable phenomenon which can be paralleled in the story of Joseph. See also on x. 6. NOAH'S CURSE AND BLESSING (Gen. ix. 20-27) A STRANGE narrative derived from a special source, the difficulties of which, both formal and material, are well known to all scholars. Von Bohlen {Genesis, p. 201) long ago found in it an ' evident ' suggestion of a myth of a Semitic Dionysos. The ancient Greek representations of the god holding in his hand a wondrous vine-plant, whose 150 NOAH'S CURSE AND BLESSING (Gen. ix. 20-27) iS' branches wind round the ship in which he voyages, are well known. We know too that the essence of the worship of Dionysos was intoxication conceived of as God-posses- sion.^ It is conceivable that a god or demi-god who brought the vine might have been referred to in the original legends of the Israelites ; but the reference would have been in a very different tone from that which we find here. Winckler^ declares that Dionysos is a sun-god, and consequently not out of place in the deluge-story, which is a solar myth. But there is no probability in this view. It was not the portion of the royal hero of the flood -story to be a cultivator of the soil and to be mastered by wine without any religious compensation. He is the true Noah, or perhaps Naham (cp. 130113'', v. 29, and see E. Bib., ' Noah,' § 3). As to the three great textual difficulties, viz. (i) that Canaan is cursed, while the true offender is Ham ; (2) that V. 24 makes Canaan the youngest son ; and (3) that in the blessing Canaan is called the brother of Shem and Yepheth, they can now be seen in a new light. These, however, are not the only difficulties. For instance, is it legitimate to render v. 20 with Gunkel, ' Noah, the husbandman, also began to plant vineyards ' ? For my part, I doubt this ; no Hebrew narrator could have written thus. Plainly v. 20 consists of two related but independent statements. Plainly, too, 'lart QJiN n3 ^nil is wrong. If Noah (Naham) was really the first husbandman, why is nothing said about the planting of the corn-plant ? The phrasing, too, is certainly unnatural. It is inadequate to emend ©in into ffiinS (Kuenen) or aiiih (Ball), com- paring Ass. eresu, ' to plant, sow, cultivate,' and eresi, ' tillage ' (Am. Tab. 55, 19).^ Experience shows that m^N has often come from -ntDs, i.e. the N. Arabian Asshur, and rrmN sometimes probably from noNn, i.e. either DIN or '?NDm"'. Asshur or Ashhur-Yerahme'el * constantly occurs in these 1 Miss Jane Harrison, Proleg. to Gk. Religion, pp. 425/. 2 Ar.-sem.-or. p. 128. * fnn may perhaps mean ' to till ' in Job iv. 8, Hos. x. 1 3. * ' Asshur- Yerahme'el ' means the Yerahme'elite portion of the wide region called Asshur. It was also apparently the name of the first man (see p. 96) and of the God who befriended Hagar (see on xvi. 13). 152 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL early Genesis narratives. f?rT'"i should apparently be bn^"! (for fprrNil), from the denominative verb ^rrN. Read, there- fore, in V. 20 a, ' and Noah (Naham) pitched his tent (cp. V. 2\ b) in Asshur-Yerahme'el.' That vines anciently grew in this region, is not improbable ; see note on xl. 9, Ps. civ. 15 a. Then in v. 21, what can be made of ' told it to his two brothers without ' ? What was there so much amiss in such an act? The son here spoken of was at any rate not the first-born, and might well consult his brethren. From the sequel, indeed, we gather that Canaan had done something worthy of a curse, but the words of v. 22 do not of themselves imply this ; nt^i and ^:^■''^ are, morally, quite neutral words. Holzinger and Gunkel suppose that some- thing has fallen out or been omitted, e.g. the statement that Canaan took away his father's garment. But how should he have ' told ' this to his brothers, who could not but be angry with him ? Surely something must be wrong in the text ; and it is in accordance with parallels elsewhere to emend THN "'3©^ into "nnmN ■'tt?3N^ (see on vnN, xvi. 12). Thus we get, ' and he told it to the men of Ashhur,' i.e. to the men among whom his father had pitched his tent, with the object (may we suppose ?) of attracting them into the tent, and so bringing public contempt on his father? Cp. Hab. ii. 15. Ver. 24 brings us face to face with the question already mentioned. Is Canaan, in the original text, represented as Noah's youngest son ? This is no doubt more plausible than the view that Ham appears here as the youngest son, since Ham is elsewhere second in the list of sons. It is, however, too bold to cut out ^N Dn (Wellh., etc.), for admittedly p33 "i^N is correct in v. 1 8. And why has the text not been criticised with due reference to Jjap"' in x. 25, and ;ap in Judg. i. 13, iii. 9? It is difficult not to connect ]£3pi in X. 25 with f?Nnp'i in 2 K. xiv. 7, which has probably come from ^NptBN, i.e. -pNOnT nntON (cp. on ^DtUN, xiv. 13). This gives the key to )JDp both in our passage^ and in Judg. l.c. From v. i%b (see note) we learn that Ham is = 'Arab-Kena'an, and from our passage that it is interchange- 1 @ gives o vewrepos, on which see Dillmann. NOAH'S CURSE AND BLESSING (Gen. ix. 20-27) iS3 able with Katan, i.e. Ashhur-Yerahme'el. Read, therefore, for Jispn 131, "131 '^Npt&N, and observe that Ham, with its two synonyms or variants, has here a bad significance ; it refers to the ancestors of Israel's bitter N. Arabian enemies. In vv. 25-27 Noah bursts out into alternate curse and blessing, but the curse is more prominent than the blessing. The object of the curse {v. 25) is Canaan, i.e. 'Arab-Kena'an = Ham {v. 1 8 b\ whose punishment is that he shall be a servant to his brothers, or more probably (correcting ITIN as in V. 22) to Ashhur, a name which is often practically equivalent to ' Ishmael ' or ' Yerahme'el ' ; the first man, for instance, was the ancestor of A sshur- Yerahme'el. It is true that Canaan (or Ham) and Shem have ultimately the same origin ; they are sections of the same race. But in usage Asshur- Yerahme'el does not refer to the whole widespread Yerahme'elite race, but to a portion of it — that portion which is here called ' Shem ' [i.e. ' Ishmael ') and includes ' Israel.' The historical reference in z/. 25 will be to early events of which no clear tradition has reached us. The phrase D■'^l^ Tls for ' lowest servant ' is good Hebrew, but hardly in place here. Possibly n3i> (like lys in Num. xxiv. 24 ?) has come from T^s, which should precede p3D, while D"'7iy ('"Tli') may be an expansion of ^nI?. Thus v. 2 c, should run T2S I p3D ns miN "iintBM^ n^n\ In V. 26 there is another fragment of curse -^' and let Canaan be his servant,' i.e. ' Shem's servant.' ' Shem ' (in a) is certainly not another name for ' Israel,' though it includes Israel. It means Ishmael, and is equivalent to Ashhur in the preceding line. I agree with Holzinger that the most rational reading is neither "ifini (MT.) nor •^^^^h (Gratz, Gunkel, Sievers), but ■Fj^na (Budde). But this scholar's ex- planation of TI^N is hardly adequate ; surely it has come from DTI^N, which is an expansion of mrr"' ; in fact, Yahweh-Elohim (from Yahweh- Yerahme'el) is the full name of the God of Israel and of Shem. In d, IdS seems to be a corruption of a mutilated ^Nom"', a gloss on Dffi. Let us remember that the name of Israel's greatest progenitor makes him out as originally the ancestor of the Yerahme'elites. For sis read inii>. Thus v. 26 becomes [^Nomi] nis 'd ■'H'^'i I am [d^hSn] rr\rr nnn. 154 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL In V. 27 the MT. has introduced a mistaken repetition ; so at least, following de Goeje (^Academy, 1871, p. 398), I venture to think. The alternative is to suppose that the necessary parallel line to 'in p23 Tl"''! has fallen out. The repetition in question is the only textual error in v. 27. The ' dwelling in the tents of Shem ' refers to the occupation of the tents of Shem {i.e. especially Israel) by the Pelistim ( = Pelethites ?) in the time of Saul. It may be noticed that in X. 6 P makes both talD [i.e. ahu or n^D) and p33 sons of on ; also that the blessing of Shem is in accordance with the fact that in xiv. 22 (as originally read) Yahweh is called the ' God of Yerahme'el,' and in xlix. 25 (revised text) the ' Steer of Yerahme'el ' and the ' God of Asshur.' Cp. E. Bib., ' Shem,' § 2, and Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliien, pp. 219-222. TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x) The endless variety of opinions relative to the group- ing of the nations in the so-called Table of Peoples in chap. X. might well discourage a critic from once more trying his fortune on such a hard problem. The difficulty largely arises from the uncertainty of the identifications of the names. For though it is now commonly supposed that a large number of the peoples referred to have been identi- fied,^ it is only too possible that this may be an illusion. We have, it is true, new critical material, derived from Assyriology and Egyptology, but we can only apply this material to the elucidation of particular names, if Babel means Babylon, Asshur Assyria, Kush Ethiopia, and Misraim or Misrim Egypt, and if there is reason to think that J, and 1 Friedr. Delitzsch starts from this (as he thinks) ascertained point in the third of the Vortrdge called Babel und Bibel (1905). TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) 155 in a still higher degree P, were very specially interested in the relations of peoples and tribes outside Canaan to Egypt, Babylonia, and Assyria. It has, however, long been suspected that in an earlier form of J's Table the sons of Noah — Shem, Yepheth, and Canaan (rather than Shem, Ham, and Yepheth) — represented, not, as in the later form, the world known to the Israelites, but certain tribes or clans of the same com- paratively restricted region, presumably in Palestine.^ We cannot doubt that Budde and Wellhausen were on the right track in assuming an underlying text of J, which had a different geographical and political horizon. Accept- ing this theory. Prof Jastrow^ has addressed himself to the problem of interpretation, but, with all his ingenuity, can hardly be said to have succeeded. The field is therefore open for fresh investigations. Not without hesitation I take up the work, assuming (i) that Shem, Ham, and Yepheth had originally an Arabian significance;^ and (2) that here, as elsewhere, tribe-names or place-names, which came down to the latest redactor in a corrupt form, were manipulated by him in accordance with incorrect views of geography and history. The view here taken, and indeed already suggested in the note on ix. i8, is this — that the three sons of Noah are as artificial a product as the three sons of Lamech (iv. 20- 22), and formed no part of the genuine popular tradition. Shem ( = Ishmael) and Ham (Yerahme'el) are really synony- mous ; Yepheth (Yaphlet) represents a population which in J's list of peoples is called Pathrusim (Sarephathim ?) and stands as a son of Misrim, with the gloss 'from whom have proceeded the Pelistim ' (Pelethim ? Sarephathim?). But the Misrim are, according to an early tradition (see on ' Abrech,' xli. 43), a Yerahme'elite race, and the redactor of Gen. X. places the Misrim-section, as well as the Nimrod- section and the Canaan-section, under the heading, derived from P, ' and the sons of Ham were Kush, Misrim, Put, and 1 Wellhausen, CH^ p- 14; Budde, Urgesch. p. 365. 2 'The Hamites and Semites in the Tenth Chapter of Genesis, Proceedings of the Amer. Philosophical Society, xliii. 173-207. 5 Note that to 'Ham,' in ix. 18, is appended the gloss, 'he is 'Arah-Kena'an,' and to 'Shem,' in a. 21, 'he too is 'Arab.' iS6 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Canaan.' Whether, therefore, the Table of Nations be regarded as a whole proceeding from the latest redactor, or in its different parts, the value attached to it by critics is out of all proportion to its real worth. Even Glaser's Arabian researches do not, so far as I can at present see, serve to rehabilitate it to any appreciable extent.^ The Table, as it now stands, opens with words which remind us of ix. 1 8, ' the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, Yepheth.' This passage, however, is redactional, and does not at all prove that f?ilon IHN in X. I ^ is correct. Why, indeed, should we be told that the descendant's of Noah's three sons were born ' after the flood ' ? This is surely a matter of course. There was no need to assume such a very oblivious reader as the ordinary reading of the text presupposes. What we expect is some guid- ance as to the geography of the Table. And we are not doomed to disappointment, for ^"ilD does not mean ' flood ' — this is a pure imagination of ancient redactors ; it is a corruption of ^NDm"" (see on vii. 6), just as ^^M is of in^M. In short, the correction ' in Ashhur-Yerahme'el ' is once more in a high degree probable. See on ix. 28, x. 32, and note that v. i b, with the reference to Ashhur-Yerahme'el, most probably comes from the fragment of the original Table of the Yahwist. Comparing the Yahwist (J) and the Priestly Writer (P) in the present text, we are struck by the fact that both writers give us some names which may plausibly be accounted for by the help of Assyriology, while only J presents any name like Pathrusim (v. 14) which can with a superficial plausibility be explained by Egyptology. It should be remarked, however, that even Pathrusim ( = Pathros) only means Upper Egypt if we accept certain other identifica- tions which, both in Gen. x. and in Isa. xi. 11, are highly problematical (cp. E. Bib., ' Pathros '). Our first object, then, must be to see whether the light which is supposed to be derivable from Assyriology is genuine. Is Asshur Assyria ? Is Babel Babylon ? Is Gomer the Gimirrai of the inscriptions ? It so happens that the last of these names (Gomer) is the first in the list of the 1 See his Skizze der Gesch. u. Geogr. Arabians, chaps, xxvi. etc. TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 157 sons of Yepheth in v. 2. It is convenient to take P's portion of the Table of Nations first, and we naturally make our first halt at this name. If a relatively ancient tradition is to be heard, Gomer (10:1) is a term for certain tribes whose home was in Phrygia (see Dillm.) Later writers, with much positiveness, identify it with the Gimirrai of the Assyrian inscriptions. But is this dogmatism justified ? It is true that Madai, Tubal, and Meshek also occur in the inscriptions, but it would be rash to assume that the identification of these names with names in the inscriptions is necessarily correct. The fact that five of the names of descendants of Yepheth (Gomer, Magog, Tubal, Meshek, Togarmah) also occur in Ezek. xxxviii. ought to give us pause. For whatever be the geographical horizon of some other parts of the book ascribed to Ezekiel, there is reason to hold that, at any rate, in chap, xxxviii. f. the horizon is N. Arabian. I cannot turn aside from Genesis to prove this. It has, in fact, already been shown to be highly probable (see Crit. Bib., ' Ezekiel,' and E. Bib,, 'Prophecy,' § 27), and I claim the right to build upon this result. Gomer, then, and not less the other names mentioned, viz. Magog, Tubal, Meshek, and Togarmah, are presumably N. Arabian. The truth most probably is that Gomer should be grouped with mdgor (Jer. vi. 25, etc.), Migron (i S. xiv. 2), Mag in [A]rab-mag (Jer. xxxix. 3), Regem in Regem-melech (Zech. vii. 2), Garmi (i Chr. iv. 19), Gemariah (Jer. xxxvi. 11), and Gammadim (Ezek. xxvii. 11), which are all best explained (see detailed criti- cism elsewhere) as N. Arabian names. The common original of the names of this group is raJtam ^ (nm = Dm"', the shorter form of ^Nom"'). We can now understand the significant title of the wife of Hosea, ' Gomer bath-Diblaim ' (Hos. i. 3), where D'^SlT most probably comes from ■'^n, i.e. h'sTC- = ^NOmi. See Crit. Bib. ad loc. We have now a starting-point for the investigation of Magog, by which critics have hitherto been baffled. ' The explanation " Scythians " is generally accepted, but no one thus far can say what the real signification is, nor point to this designation elsewhere ' (Dillm.). But the name is even 1 Cp. S« and '7m. 158 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL more insecure than Dillmann supposes. Holzinger sees this, but his only suggestion is that nio should be ni, ' the Anti- christ of Ezekiel,' and proceeds to reproach P with his want of real knowledge. The proposed change, however, is most arbitrary ; why should not ni be a fragment of mo ? And what do the critics give as the origin of ill ? One connects it with the gentilic Gagaya, ' of the land of Gag ' (Am. Tab. i. 38 = ' barbarian ') ; others with Gugu, the Gyges of Lydia ; and again, others with Ass. Gagu, ruler of the land of Sahi, N. of Assyria, in the time of Ashur-bani-pal.^ Ezekiel, however (if it be this prophet), tells us plainly enough, G6g is a prince of certain districts or regions in the farther parts of Saphon, and in Joel ii. 20 he is referred to as ' the Sephonite.' Now Saphon, in Jer. iii. 12, 18, iv. 6, vi. i, 22, x. 22, is the name of the region whence Jeremiah expected an invasion. In Ezek. i. 4 it designates the region whence an appearance of Yahweh came to Ezekiel, and in Isa. xiv. 13 it is there that the mountain of the gods was situated. The study of these passages in their context shows that an Arabian region must be referred to, and the discovery that pi^is (xxxvi. 2) is a corruption of ^Ni>QtD"' leads to the natural hypothesis that pD2 (like ]VDS) is a dialectal variation of llrlS, and designates an extensive Ishmaelite region (extensive because of the phrase 's TiST). ' Gog,' then, as well as ' Togarmah,' which is also in ' the recesses of Saphon ' (Ezek. xxxviii. 6), is an Ishmaelite or Yerahme'elite name. It might of course be equally well used for a country and for a royal personage ^ (cp. ' Asshur ' in Isa. x. $ for the king of Asshur). — And what of the o in n:io ? May we, with Haldvy {REJ xiii. I o) and Sayce {HCM, p. 125) regard it as a fragment of the Ass. mat, ' country ' ? Clearly not, if G6g is an Arabian name ; and even if Gog is equal to Gugu (Gyges), to treat Magog as if it were on an Assyrian tablet is arbitrary.' The 1 See, further, Johns, Ass. Deeds, iii. 161 f. 2 Winckler sees under ' Gog ' the figure of Alexander the Great {AOF i\. 160^); N. Schmidt, that of Mithridates VI. of Pontus {E. Bib., col. 4332). Unsatisfactory speculations. 3 According to Sayce, ' Magog ' = mat-Gugu. HaMvy, however, makes it = mat-Gamgum in Armenia ; m and w being confounded, the Israelites heard this pronounced iJunp, which became (j'ijd, just as in Assyrian mat-Zamua became Mazamua {REJ -xxa. 10). TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) i59 only satisfactory course is to find an Arabian name which will account for the reading ilio, and consequently also for m. For this we must go to Jer. vi. 25, xx. 3, etc., and Jer. xxxix. 3, 13, The n-'lDD nilD in the former passages is plainly a poor conjecture to make sense of an unintelligible and already corrupt phrase ; see Duhm's comment on xx. 3, and his naive remark, ' Jeremiah's " terror all around " much pleased the later writers' (on xlix. 29). The fact is that Tao and I'^lDD often stand for mi'', i.e. ^NSDffi'' (see on X. 1 6) ; niio is doubtless a parallel form to IDI ; i.e. both forms have the same origin (see above). Similarly, in Jer. xxxix. 3, 13, IQ-n comes from niQ-na (or ^m-nni?) ; see above, on ' Gomer,' and cp. o'^lD-m, npto-m, i.e. ' Arab- Asshur,' ' Arab-Ashhur.' The conclusion is that m is a fragment of Dill, or oni, or Dl^:i, or some similar form, ultimately derived from fpNom"'. For the duplication of a radical letter, cp. h^i^^^ch and ^nS^hd from ^ndhT' ; nid'^d and v^-o from iimN ; 1(012? from inajN ; DID, tDTtO, and moto from ^M^^Dffi'' ; nidd from mN ; I'^DN (Ezek. iii. 1 5 ) from IN = ns ; I'llD from Dl"'. We may support this view of the origin of ' Gog ' and ' Magog ' by the name llN, applied to an Amalekite or Yerahme'elite king (i S. xv. 8,^ Num. xxiv. 7). Another form of the same name is ns ; we may also, perhaps, compare IIIN (Prov. xxx. i) and nan (Gen. xvi. i). As to Madai ("'"fo), our experience with ' Gomer ' and ' Magog ' suggests caution. It is true that in Esth. i. 3, Dan. V. 28, vi. 8, viii. 20, ' Madai ' is coupled with ' Paras.' ^ But it is clear that there was a N. Arabian ' Paras ' ; why should there not have been a N. Arabian ' Madai ' ? In Jer. XXV. I 5-26 it is highly improbable that any of the names of peoples refer to regions far away from Arabia. On w. 2 5 (the verse which contains ' Madai ') Cornill gives away his own case by remarking that here ' the catalogue melts quite 1 @ and Pesh. here presuppose 3ij. 2 That Esther and Daniel, like Tobit, have been worked over, scarcely admits of a doubt, ona may come from Diins (see on ' Pathrusim,' V. 14). Cp. also mao, Ezra ii. 55 (with art.), Neh. vii. 57, where note that no'?!? nnv should be S^xsatu^ dij?, ' Ishmaelite Arabia.' See E. Bib., col. 4690. l6o TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL away into unreality {ins Bodenlose)'. The truth is far from this. Zimri (see on xxv. 2), Elam (see on v. 22), and Saphon (see above) we know as Arabian names ; Sheshak too is Ashhur (see above). ' Madai,' then, is most probably an Arabian name. Possibly, however, ■'ID should be •'Id, and one may remember that Mari' is the name of the king of Mat-sa-im^risu (the most powerful state in Syria, whose capital was Di-mas-ki), who paid tribute to the Assyrian king Ramman-nerari (805-803 B.C.). For the names Im^risu and Dimaski are surely of N. Arabian origin, the former being related to idn ( = mN = 'onT), the latter to inmN-Ql-rs. Other names related to ino are iDT', n'^m% rrya, aino, ma. We now come to ]v — a word much discussed, but without any thoroughly satisfactory result. According to Stade,^ ' the word )v designates, in exact accordance with its origin, the people of the lonians, not only with the exilic prophets Ezekiel and II. Isaiah, but also with the post- exilic Joel.' He thinks that the first attempt to use it in a wider sense is in Gen. x. 4. Here different seafaring Mediterranean peoples, certainly the inhabitants of Tartessus, Rhodes, and Cyprus, but probably also the Carthaginians, are subsumed under the conception lonians.' A still further development is supposed. ' In the sense " Hellenes " it is first found in Zech. ix. 13, Dan. viii. 21, x. 20, i.e. in writings of the Hellenistic period.' ^ All this is thoroughly worked out, but upon an unsound textual basis. There is no single passage in which any one of these three meanings is either required or even more than superficially plausible, and sometimes {e.g. in Ezek. xxvii. 1 9) an Arabian reference is irresistibly called for. For a discussion of the O.T. passages see E. Bib., ' Javan,' and note that in Dan. viii. 2oy; the king of Yavan is mentioned directly after the kings of Madai and Paras (see above, on ' Madai '), and in X. 20 the prince of Yavan directly after the prince of Paras 1 Das Volk Javan (1880), reprinted in Akad. Reden u. Abhand- lungen (1899), pp. 123-142. 3 According to Torrey, p' in Dan. viii. 21, x. 20, xi. 2 (as in I Mace, and in the Talm.) means the Greek kingdom of Syria (Jastrow, p. 177, note l). TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) i6i (cp. xi. 2, and see E. Bib., ' Paras '). As to Yavan in Gen. X. 3, it is plain that if the other names in v. 2 are rightly explained, it must refer to an Arabian region. An earlier form of the name is JD^, which has sometimes become po"> (see on ]''0"'33, xxxv. 18). Most probably it is a shortened form of ]o»i ( = f?«SDffi"') ; cp. nnn from inmN, and p-'Hw from 'jNSDQJ-' nnmM, or 'pNonT 'n. With p-i --ai {v. 4) we may compare D"'3T'n "'31, Joel iv. 6, which, in spite of Nowack's ' doubtless,' cannot mean ' the Greeks,' because of the parallel D""Nlt&, ' the Sabaeans ' (cp. Jer. vi. 20), and must mean ' the Arabian Yamanites.' The adventurer Yamani, who displaced the king of Ashdod appointed by Sargon, and who was surrendered by the king of Meluhha (' Yerahme'el ' = N.W. Arabia), may possibly have come, not from Cyprus, but from Arabia. Tubal and Meshek are often combined. It is plausible to connect the names with the Ass. Tabali and Muski (the Tibareni and Moschi of classical writers).^ A close study, however, of the O.T. passages in which they occur (especially Ezek. xxxii. 26, xxxviii. 2 f.) shows that both hlTi or bnn (Ezek. once ; Isa. once) and ^mD are N. Arabian names. The former is a shortened and corrupt form of ^Ni^DtD'', to be grouped with ma (from 'mB = ^nn, Judg. xi. 3, 5), fj^nts (Isa. vii. 6), "in-'blta (i Chr. xxvi. 1 1), n-'b"il£3 (Ezek. xxiii. 1 5), hmyni (Gen. xxii. 22) fjNlT'a (Gen. xxxv. 6), ^i>inN (i K. xvi. 31), ^MQJN (i Chr. viii. 33), ^ntON (Gen. xlvi. 21), Sm» (Gen. xxxvi. 20). In iv. 22 (see note) we meet with the compound form Jip-^mn, ' Tubal of Kain,' and in 2 S. x. 6, 8, ma a)iM, i.e. Smn "iltON, ' Asshur of Tubal ' (cp. on m''M, Gen. ix. 20). It is evident that , the Arabians took the form Tabal or Tubal with them in their early northern migrations ; since we find Tuba'lu as the name of a king of the Phoenician Sidon in the time of Sennacherib {^KB ii. 90). It is also well worth considering whether Sm (usually rendered ' world ') in Prov. viii. 26 and some other passages, and Slon and 7"iDnN often, must not be corruptions of ^Nsoffi"'. Whether Tibal, a Babylonian divine name (Hommel, Gr. p. 164, note 4), has any connexion with f?nn, I know not. ^ See E. Bib., ' Tubal and Meshech.' Ps. cxx. 5 is a sore trial to commentators who have no key. It i62 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL The companion-name ^l!Jo is also no longer obscure. At first one might suppose it to have been produced by a redactor out of D03. Most probably, however, it is a development from nntpN D"1N,^ ' Aram of Ashhur,' just as D3t0 (see on xii. 6, xxxiii. i8) is probably a contraction of mats, i.e. DnN 'wn, ' Ashhur of Aram ( = Yerahme'el).' In fact, ^mD^ is the linking form between 'mw mN and "rmo ; its existence in the original text of several O.T. passages must not be dogmatically denied ; and the question even arises whether itom does not underlie pfflQT wherever this word occurs in the traditional text.^ And where was ^tBa^ ( = pBJOl) or ft&D ? A study of the passages where it occurs shows the high probability that it was somewhere in N. Arabia ; possibly it was the region in which Shimron was situated, for in Am. iii. 1 2 one of two glosses on ' in Shimron ' appears to be ' in Ramshak of Asshur.' ' See, further, on w. 1 1 (' Asshur '), and on ix. 20 (the words under- lying 'in nm'^l). The next name Tiras (dtti) was very likely appended from a pure misunderstanding. The Priestly Writer, like the Chronicler, was very apt to repeat the same name, traditionally received, in different corrupt and independent forms. One might therefore suppose that DTin was origin- ally D^^n, i.e. the Tyrs-eni of classical writers, and that it was a marginal correction of the t&■'t0^n in v. 4. The truth, however, doubtless is that both DTTi and Bjiffiin are corrupt variants, and that the common original of both is n[')]nt!JN. See on ' Tarshish,' v. 4, and E. Bib., ' Tiras.' Cp. also tonnai, the name of a witness to a deed in an Assuan Aramaic document (A. 19), where xsnn comes from nntSN. V. 3 introduces us to the ' sons ' of Gomer. We have to ask whether the names can be at least as well explained on 1 The vocalisation must have been altered, "p must originally have been %^ or rather m \ cp. nnjs', one of the forms of in^x. For the fragmentary d in ib'D cp. the equally fragmentary a {i.e. anj;) in ^sSaa, \tri, d'7I!'3, etc. (see on Ex. xxxi. 2). 2 There can be no a priori objection to supposing that both forms (with d and with r) are, in different places, to be read. Similar problems are raised by mcD (see on xi. 28). 3 See Hibbert Journal, July 1905, p. 831. TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) 163 the Arabian theory as on that which is now prevalent, viz. that the Priestly Writer, to whom w. 2-5 are assigned, had a geographical horizon as extensive as that of the writers of the geographical lists in Asurbanipal's library.-' And the answer is that they can be explained best on the new theory. Take Ashkenaz. Is this really from a hypothetical Asgunza, whence the Asguza of Esar-haddon (see E. Bib., cols. 334, 4331 ; Winckler, KAT^^'>, p. loi)? If so, Ashkenaz would mean the Scythians. But how much more natural is it to take t23 as the well-known tribal name 13p, in the list of the sons of Eliphaz the son of Esau (xxxvi. 11)! ItDJ;, as is shown elsewhere, is most probably a mutilated form of ^^ms ( = nimN), so that it is highly plausible to account for the prefixed JDn as a shortened form of nmw (cp. 'jDt&M from '?MDm"' lE&M, ^^^tDN from TIT ntCN, and ttJNl from n^sa in Jer. xxix. 2 1 , reading also thtsp for thp). In Jer. li. 27 we once more meet with 'Ashkenaz' ; the companion names are ' Ararat ' and ' Minni.' ^ Now we have seen already (on viii. 4) that bins is probably a dis- tortion of nnt&N, and no great skill is required to recognise p-" underlying ■'3D ; can we hesitate, then, to claim the original writer of Jer. li. 27 as a supporter of the view that ' Ashkenaz ' is equivalent to ' Asshur-kenaz ' ? The next name Riphath is ' an insoluble enigma ' (Hal^vy).' But why ? Simply because the critics have taken up a wrong point of view. nD"'T may naturally come from mSM (see on xxxv. 1 9), which, on referring to xv. 1 8 _/ (see note), we shall admit to be rightly grouped with 13p. Togarmah^ which follows, is mentioned again in Ezek. xxvii. 14 between Yavan, Tubal, Meshek {v. 12) and Dedan {v. 15), and in xxxviii. 6, in connexion with Gomer, as a district of Saphon = Sibe'on {i.e. Ishmael). In both passages n"'l is prefixed without apparent reason. Con- sidering that lin (or ma) and nin are liable to confusion ■* Cp. Jastrow, pp. 184/ 2 @ does not recognise 'jd. ^ i?£/xiii. 13. In xvii. 164, however, Halevy connects nsn (m's) with a region called Bit Purutash, mentioned by Sargon, between Moschene, Tabalene, and Cilicia ; sh, he says, is an ' adventitious suffix.' * ® gives Torgama. i64 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL (cp. on '?Mn">l, Gen. xxxv. 6), we may reasonably hold that n*'! here comes from 'lin, i.e. 71171 ; in this case the initial n in nm:in probably comes from 'n, i.e. h'X\T\, on which 'nn would be a marginal correction, nmi is of course = mm, i.e. a feminine form of IDI, which, in Gen. x. 3 and Ezek. xxxviii. 6, precedes. The place-name Tilgarimmu (on the border of the northern Tabal), compared with Togarmah by Friedr. Del. (P«n p. 246), may have a similar origin (cp. Crit. Bib. on Ezek. iii. 15). Winckler identifies it erroneously with the northern Musri {AOF \\. 2, p. 131). It is therefore decidedly the most probable view that Gomer and the connected names refer to people established, not ' in the north-eastern or eastern section of Asia Minor,' ^ but in N. or E. Arabia. To say that they were only of interest to Hebrews in relation to ' the threatening advance move- ment of northern hordes during the seventh century B.C.' is to assert more than can be rendered probable, and is con- nected with the very questionable theory that Jeremiah and Zephaniah anticipated a Scythian invasion. We now pass on to the ' sons of Yavan,' and ask whether the list of names in V. 4 is consistent with the view that the ' Yavan ' of v. 2, as well as of the other O.T. passages, has an Arabian, and more particularly N. Arabian, reference, or whether it rather suggests ' groups to the west and north-west, more par- ticularly the inhabitants of the Grecian islands, and those settled along the coast of Asia Minor.' ^ The Yavanites {v. 4) fall into two groups — {a) Elishah and Tarshish, {b) Kittim and Dodanim. The sound of the name Elishah (jwshvi) has suggested a possible connexion with Elissa, the name of the legendary founder of Carthage ; 'Elishah' might, as Winckler {AOF i. 449) thinks, be the old name of Carthage, and be extended so as to take in the N. African coasts. Jensen (see p. 1 34) even connects ' Elishah ' with the Greek ' Elysium.' Prof F. Brown (£■. Bib., ' Elishah ') hesitates between Carthage and S. Italy and Sicily, where were Greek colonies. Still following the sound, Conder * and W. Max Muller * think of the Alashia of the Amarna Tablets, which MUller, after Winckler, now 1 Jastrow, op. cit. p. 176. ^ Ibid. p. 188. 3 PEF Qu. 1892, p. 45. * OLZ, Aug. 1900, 289/ TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) 165 identifies with Cyprus.^ It is true, nothing is said in the Tablets of purple-blue and purple-red stuffs as the produce of Alashia, and these are just what are mentioned in Ezek. xxvii. 7 as coming from the ' sea-coasts of Elishah.' But copper is mentioned (in v. 13) as supplied by Yavan, Tubal, and Meshek, and ' Lucian ' ^ places Elishah, not only in v. 4, but also in v. 2 (not, however, in Chron.), between Yavan and Tubal. This involves denying that Kittim is = Cyprus, and reading ■>« for i-^n in Ezek. xxvii. 7 (so, in fact, Miiller). It may seem strange that such an archaic name should appear as late as Ezekiel, but it seems to have been resuscitated in Egypt in the Greek period. As to the ' purple ' spoken of, we find purple mentioned as a product of Cyprus in the Greek period.' Much of this is plausible, provided that we do not question the prevalent theory of Yavan, and abstain from a comprehensive study of Ezek. xxvii. 'Yavan,' however, need not anywhere in O.T. mean the Greek peoples, and the central figure of the poem in Ezek. xxvii. is, not S5r (Tyre), but Miss5r, the capital of Missor or Misrim (the N. Arabian Musri). The latter point is of much importance. It is doubtful whether any of the places spoken of as trafficking with this city are outside S. Palestine and Arabia. It follows, then, that nB>'''7M is to be grouped with Xtshv< (Num. xxxiii. 13 /), f?"iNtO (Gen. xxxvi. 37), mh (i S. xviii. 17), nmh (Isa. x. 30), nmS'tD (i S. ix. 4), all Ishmaelite or N. Arabian names. It means some region of Arabia, inhabited, now or formerly, by an Ishmaelite or Yerahme'elite people. The word prefixed to it (i^s ; cp. trrCi 'n, Ezek. xxvii. 6, Jer. ii. 10; DTr 'n, Isa. xi. 11, xxiv. 15, Esth. X. i; D-'lin 'n, v. 5, Zeph. ii. 11, and Ci''X Isa. xl. 15, xli. I, s, and often) is probably a re- dactional alteration of nj?,* and is therefore not to be compared with Ass. nage, plur. of nagu, 'district, land, circuit, island.' Very naturally the next name is Tarshish. Can this 1 Sayce, however, prefers Lycia, or the neighbouring coast of Asia Minor {Exp. Times, Oct. 1900, p. 87). 2 Cp. Nestle, ZATW, 1904, pp. I35# ' MuUer, OLZ, as above. * See e.g. Isa. xi. \\b, where as a final summing-up is added the phrase jD' nypi (underlying o'n "xdi). See, further, on z/. 5. l66 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL name be methodically explained so as to harmonise with the other names in the list? It is still almost universally held that ' Tarshish ' means the mining region in S. Spain. Prof, Haupt has repeatedly defended this view.^ According to him, ffiiQJnn is an infinitive of the intensive stem of ffiffii, ' to strike with a pick, to pound, crush, stamp (ores, etc.).' More plausibly Knobel and Frz. Del. hold that ' Tarshish ' is connected with ' Tyrseni ' (cp. on ' Tiras '). It is plain, however, that this is inconsistent with the view here taken of ' Yavan ' and ' Elishah,' and some better solution ought to be obtainable by comparing ' Tarshish ' with analogous corrupt forms, and by noticing the names near which it is placed elsewhere in the O.T. So then let us compare t&■'m^n with («) pm*'© and {b) NTD"'D. («) can be shown to have come from lIiffiN, and {p) from TijSn.^ Then, turning to Esth. i. 1 4 and i Chr. vii. i o, we find ' Tarshish ' placed near ' Shethar ' (nn») and ' Ahishahar ' (nn»"'nM) ; the former is clearly shortened from ^n^JM,^ and the latter is but slightly modified from lintOM. The original of ffi'^lDin is now seen to be intDN (here a regional name). On the famous phrase ' ships of Tarshish ' see E. Bib., ' Tarshish,' closing section. Kittim (dtid), as the older critics {e.g. Dillm.) think, is Cyprus. Certainly Tia and TQ in Phoenician mean the city of Kition ; but is it likely that the city gave its name to the island ? Gunkel thinks that Cyprus, at any rate, is too narrow a meaning ; Winckler * supposes DTi^ to be the farthest point at which Phoenician colonies were founded ; Jeremias ^ thinks of S. Italy, especially Sicily, but, like Winckler, supposes Kittim in Dan. xi. 30 to mean Rome. W. M. MUller" holds with Winckler, and advises waiting for fresh material. 1 Book of Canticles (Chicago, 1902), p. 40 ; Johns Hopkins Univ. Circulars, No. 163, June 1903. 2 See Crit. Bib. on 1 K. xi. 40 (where, however, 'wid should be ineiN). ' Sisera,' it is too often forgotten, occurs not only in Judg. iv. 2 but also in Ezra ii. 5 3, where it is preceded by f^ira = inE-N and Dipia = e-is 2tj;. ^ inoK, the name of the heroine of the Book of Esther, has the same origin (cp. dth beside c'cin). nmn, Esther's other name, doubtless derives from ini!'[i<]. Esther, like Judith and Tobit, was recast. * AOF\\. 422, note i. ^ ATAO, p. 154. ^ OLZ, as above. TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) 167 But can we not even now throw some fresh light on the name? Let us turn to 2 K. xvii. 24. Here we meet with a place called nn"i3, and close by we find names which admit of being explained as N. Arabian. ' Kuthah ' would seem to have been at some distance from ' Shimron.' The weight of this argument, of course, depends on a wide induction of passages. We may also compare the obscure G^'yn in i K. x. 22 b, which, at any rate, does not mean ' peacocks,' and (see Crit. Bib. ad loc.) may have come from some N. Arabian ethnic ; also the phrase nTi3 JOB?, which probably means 'oil of * ' ; riTiD appears to represent some corrupt place-name, and the duplicated n may probably be explained like the duplicated 1 in nio (see above, v. 2). What, then, is the riD which enters into D'^DD, D"'''3n, and riTiD ? ^ It is a N. Arabian place-name, probably n3i?D (which appears in 2 Chr. ii. 9 as niDo). That Maacah or Maacath designates a region in the N. Arabian border-land is hardly desirable (see on 2 S. iii. 3, and cp. xiii. 37). Ethnics and place-names are often mutilated (cp. Hur from Ashhur) as, according to this view, ' Maacath ' was mutilated into ' Cath.' Very possibly the TO which we find in Phoeni- cian inscriptions as a designation of the place or district called in Greek ' Kition,' on the S. coast of Cyprus, was brought, like other names, by early immigrants from their Arabian home. That Doddnim should be read Rodanim^ (Sam., and Chr. in MT.) and explained ' Rhodians ' ((g ToSiot) is a widespread but questionable theory (see E. Bib., ' Dodanim '). The Hebrews must, indeed, have been acquainted with both Cyprus and Rhodes, but we cannot suppose that these islands would be referred to in a book of Israelitish legends. The right reading is either D"'3"TT (Isa. xxi. i 3, and cp. Crit. Bib. ad loc) or, perhaps better, D"'3~r'T. The form \~r[ would be related to n'^, as \a'h is related to Jolb ; ' Dod ' is not only the name of a god, but the designation of an Arabian district (cp. nintUN, i.e. nil n^w). Cp. on ' Dedan,' v. 7. The four words which open v. 5 are thus rendered by ^ TW in Ps. Ixxii. 14 also probably comes from najD (see Cheyne, /■j.'"' ad loc.) ; cp. rm. ^ It is equally wrong to read yp for \-r in Ezek. xxvii. 15 a. i68 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Kautzsch-Socin, ' From them branched off the population on the islands and coasts of the Goyim.' Evidently the translators feel a difficulty here. To render "'I'M ' the popu- lation on the islands and coasts (of),' and to treat D'''13rT as an ethnographical term, is a bold act. It is true, the phrase a^'iarr ■'■'« may be paralleled by the phrase DTI "''^N (Isa. xi. II, xxiv. 15, Esth. x. i). But is such a phrase as 'the islands and coasts of the sea ' (as Kautzsch presumably would render DTT "'"'n) tolerable? If D"'"'M, as is commonly supposed, means ' islands ' or ' sea-coasts,' can we believe that a Hebrew writer would put it in construction with dtt ? And is it probable that the countries mentioned as the lands of exile in Isa. xi. 1 1 would be described summarily ^ as ' the islands and coasts of the sea ' ? Or that in Isa. xxiv. 1 5 DTI ■''^Nl, if it means ' in the coasts of the sea,' should be parallel to D■'^N^, where it is clear enough that D"""!!!*! should be din? Or that in the original form of Esth. X. I , King ' Ahasuerus ' was really said to have ' laid a tribute upon the land and the [western] coasts of the sea ' ? ^ Into the passages which contain the word d""|N alone {i.e. not DTi "'■'«), we cannot here enter. But even from the three passages containing the phrase DTI "'"'N we may plausibly infer that the MT. is not correct, and in the light of the results won elsewhere, it is probable that ""in DTI is the designation of a region in Arabia ; indeed, as stated already, DTI "'"'N has most likely sprung from ]d> ins, ' Arabia of Yaman,' while D"'"'N, placed alone, appears to have come from D'^ni?, and -in from mi;.* Cp. the name ^3rN, where in = ilN = T\s, and ^li. The result is that the four opening words should be read thus, D"""!!!! ns 1TiQ3 rhvtd. It is true, this cannot be translated as it stands. It is nevertheless correct ; only 3ns should be relegated to the margin, as a gloss on D"'"l3rT or some following word. Is this an arbitrary conjecture? Surely not. See v. 12 (P), D''lin "maa n^NDT (without -"iN 1 Cp. Isa. Ixvi. 19, where (in MT.) Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, Tubal and Javan are described as 'the iax-o^ 'iyyim' ('islands, coasts' ?). 2 In Esth. i. I nn cannot safely be rendered 'India.' Read Tino. In X. I, ID'-DHj?! -mK pn-'jv. 3 See Crit. Bib. on Isa. xx. 6, xli. i, Ezek. xxvi. 18, xxvii. 15 (d3T represents cmy, the original reading of which d"n is the alteration). TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) 169 before 'in). In that passage n^ND refers to the ' sons of Noah,' including their clan-forming descendants, whereas here {y. 5) it refers specially to the 'sons of Yepheth.' It is possible that v. 5 originally agreed very nearly in form with V. 32, i.e. that it ran, 'These are the sons of Yepheth, according to their clans, and from these the nations parted themselves . . .' ; but also that innsD n^ND D"'1irT in V. 5 has been inserted in error, and has displaced ns"' ""an rhtu (' these are the sons of Yepheth '), which must, at any rate, be restored either at the beginning of v. 5 or else after D"'1in. The absence of any reference to the 'parting' of the 'nations' in vv. 20 and 31 favours the former suggestion. The remainder of v. 5 suggests problems which have been too slightly examined. Kautzsch-Socin render, ' (These are the sons of Yepheth) according to their lands, their different languages, their tribes and populations.' No note is attached to this. Yet 13 to'?^ »im and DrTim are strange, and corruption is strongly indicated. It is probable that Q)"'N comes from niJ&N (cp. on ix. 20) and lato'?^ from '7M2;dU)-' (cp. on Josh. vii. 2i(?), xv. 2, xviii. 19, Isa. xi. 15, Ixvi. l8, Ps. Ixiv. 9, cxx. 3, cxl. 12), while orr'^M may represent Dm"' "'Jn, a gloss on nn 131 {v. 6). There still remains Dn2^Nl. This has probably come from SiNl, which was misread 'siNl, i.e. (as was thought) dn2nN3. A marginal gloss (now corrupted into i"'m, see above) ex- plained that ' in the land of Asshur-Yerahme'el ' meant ' (in) Arabia.' The same or similar problems meet us in vv. 20, 31, 32. Note the importance attached to the fact that here, as elsewhere (see on v. i), the Urgeschichte of the Hebrews had for its scene the land of the Yerahme'elite or Arabian Asshur. This, then, is our result thus far. All the names in vv. 2-4 have an Arabian, indeed most probably a N. Arabian reference. This is directly confirmed by the statement in V. 5, which should probably run thus — ' These are the sons of Yepheth (Yaphlet?) in the land of Asshur-Yerahme'el, according to their clans ' {Gloss on ' Assh. Yer.,' Arab ; on bene Ham {v. 6), bend Yarham). We now come to the sons, grandsons, and great- I70 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL grandsons of Ham {yv. 6, 7, 20). The first two on the list are Kush (ffilD) and Misraim or Misrim {v. 6). Although it would be plainj even without extant evidence, that the Hebrews must have been acquainted with Ethiopia and Egypt, yet the context (of J and P combined) forbids us to identify tOia and O'lnso with these regions. In fact. Gen. X. 6 is one of a number of passages in which (as a careful examination shows) these names must refer to countries in N. Arabia.^ Let me venture to speak first of Kush. I can see no occasion to suppose with Jastrow (who develops an idea of Winckler) that the name is 'indefinitely used for the extreme south without a sharp differentiation between S. Arabia and the corresponding district on the African coast.' ^ Surely the existence of a Kus or Kush in N. Arabia is sufficiently proved by the use of Ku-u-si and Melubba (from Yerahme'el ?) together as a designation of N. Arabia. There may, indeed, have been a S. Arabian Kush, but why need we introduce it here ? [On the subject of an Arabian Kush see, further, Winckler, Hibbert Journal, ii. S77 f; and especially his Musri, ii. (1898), and KAT^^\ p. i44_/i; also E. Bib., 'Cush'; BibU Problems, pp. 167, 178-182 ; Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten, pp. 315-317, 463 #•] Can we throw any fresh light on the name Kush? I venture to think that we can. Our study of names such as Q3a>, ntoo, pmD^, r\x>x^ m, nnmD, D"'n^D3, zmyr^ leads to the conclusion that ^tO, pto, ©3, DID, when they occur as elements in proper names, are really corrupt fragments of "intD«, a name which, though the MT. acknowledges it only in I Chr. ii. 24, iv. 5 (in Calebite genealogies), is still recog- nisable in many passages underneath the corrupt, traditional text, and which, in the MT. itself (see on z'. 11, ii. 14), has often been modified into niBJN, sometimes also into Tlffll, Tin["']tO, nifi), and mi. As we have already seen (on ii. 14), the name Ashhur is the designation of a part or parts of Arabia — sometimes of a district bordering on Palestine, sometimes of a more distant region. This sug- 1 See e.g. on ii. 1 3. It should be mentioned that in Am. ix. 7 D"is'3 has most probably come from vr\v2 = a-\-yt>, ' Ashhur-aram ' ^ Article in Proc. of Amer. Philos. Sac, 1903, p. 187, note 2. Cp. Winckler, I, po'^tD. It now becomes clear how the wife of Moses can be at once a Kushite (E) and a daughter of Yithro (J), for "nri"' prob- ably comes from nntos, a synonym of "intDN. Nor need we wonder that a N. Arabian Ashhur or Asshur is not men- tioned in the Assyrian inscriptions ; for Kus is mentioned there, and Kus, according to our theory, comes from Ahrash = Ashhur. (It is worth noticing that in Isa. xi. \\b Kush occurs, not directly after Misrim, but between Sarephath (Pathros) and Yerahme'el (Elam) ; see above, p. 16 5, note 4.) Next to Kush comes D"'lStD, not as if the latter were inferior to its companion, but probably for euphony. How is it to be pronounced ? Misraim ? But we shall find in studying w. 13-14 that J, at any rate, did not think of Misraim {i.e. Egypt), but of Misrim, i.e. the N. Arabian Musri, the existence of which was made out by Glaser and Winckler together with that of the Arabian Kush. As Prof. Kittel well says,^ ' the existence of Musri cannot be con- tested.' Doubtless a larger bulk of external evidence would be more satisfactory, but the internal evidence is abundant. And what is Musri ? According to Winckler,^ Musri is the name of the land which, on the south, adjoins Judaea and Edom, and stretches towards the Sinaitic peninsula and Arabia, and whose northern boundary is the nabal Musri (Assyrian) or D"'isa hm (xv. 18). The exact position of the 'd '3 is disputable. Suffice it to say that the realm of the king of Misrim must apparently have been extensive,^ 1 AT/iT"'^', p. 143. Hommel, however, makes Mosar (Musur or Musri) synonymous with Midian {J/ier neue Landschaftsnamen, p. 277). ^ Netie kirchliche Zeitschr. xiv. (1903), p. 574. 3 See Crit. Bib. p. 336. 172 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL and that he was most probably a vassal of the king of Ashhur (in the larger sense of the word),-' which does not, however, prevent him from joining the king of Kush {i.e. of Ashhur in a narrower sense) in a struggle with the ' great king' of Asshur or Ashhur.^ The view that D'^nSD is equivalent to the N. Arabian Musri, or, at any rate, includes this Musri, is the key to a large number of O.T. passages.^ I say 'includes,' because of Winckler's and Hommel's suggestion that Misraim, if we accept this vocalisation, may include both Egypt and N.W. Arabia, in fact all the country over which the so-called Pharaoh claimed the suzerainty. That I myself am convinced of the correctness of this view would be too much to say.* There are, at any rate, many more cases in which D"'n2Ci, in the mind of the original writer, stood for the N. Arabian Musri than for Egypt. One of the chief difficulties felt by students in accepting this theory is the unproductive character of the soil in the N. Arabian border-land at present. We have no reason, however, in spite of Prof Ed. Meyer, to believe that it was equally unproductive in a remote antiquity. The wadys were not always dry, nor was irrigation deficient, and the culture, both moral and physical, of the land and its inhabitants was very different from what it is to-day. The commentator is not to be blamed for the inevitable lacuna in his information. The Hebrew texts (see e.g. the occur- rences of D■'^SD in Gen.-Ex.) compel him to assume much that needs confirmation from other sources, unless, indeed, we prefer to cover over exegetical problems of the first magnitude. Another form of'Misrim'is the singular form nisp;' see 2 K. xix. 24 (Isa. xxxvii. 25), Isa. xix. 6, Mic. vii. 12. A shortened form of this is TO ; see Am. i. 9, Ezek. xxvi. 2, etc., xxvii. 2, etc., xxviii. 2, etc., Ps. Ix. 9. See, further, 1 See Crit. Bib. p. 382. 2 ji,ia, p. 384. ^ Ed. Meyer actually says (p. 457) that Winckler has not pointed out a single O.T. passage in which the equation DnsD = the asserted N. Arabian Musri (except those referring to 'd Sm) can even be discussed. My own Bible Problems gives a sufficient answer to such a strange mis- statement. See reference further on. * msD may have developed out of dhsd. A locative form, not a dual. 5 The pointing i'isd is due to a faulty conjectural interpretation of the word as 'fortification' or the like (cp. Mic. vii. 12, © and A.V.). TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) 173 E. Bib., ' Mizraim ' ; Cheyne, Bz'dle Problems, pp. 161-178 ; Winckler, KAT^^\ pp. 146/.; Musri, Meluhha, Main; ' North Arabia and the Bible,' Hibbert Journal, April 1 904 ; Hommel, Aufsatze, pp. 302-312 ; Ed. Konig, Fiinf neue arabische Lands chaftsnamen, etc., pp. 19-38 ; A. Noordtzij, 'Musri,'" Theol. Tijdschr. 1906, pp. 379, 454 (like Konig, highly controversial and unprogressive) ; Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten, pp. 45 5^ (chiefly on cuneiform texts; weak on the O.T. side). To what is said in E. Bib., ' Mizraim,' § i , on the forms and meaning of D■'^SD, I would now add a reference (from Johns, Ass. Deeds, iii. 473) to the Assyrian name Musflrai and to the Moabite royal name Musuri (temp. Esarhaddon). ' I am not convinced,' says Mr. Johns, ' that it necessarily means " Egyptian." ' Truly, it is not less unnatural to explain it ' Egyptian ' than to give this meaning to ■'ISO in 2 S. xxiii. 2 1 (see Crit. Bib) and i Chr. ii. 34. Put and Canaan form a couple, like Kush and Misrim. The view of Jastrow (pp. 188, igo f.) that 'Canaan' is a later addition, due to the hostility existing between Hebrews and Canaanites, has no other basis but the erroneous theory that the ' Hamites ' represent ' accursed ' nations. Of course, if Put means the land called Punt {i.e. the Abyssinian and Somali coast) ^ in the Egyptian inscriptions, ' Canaan ' cannot rightly be coupled with it. But is this identification defensible? According to Ezek. xxx. 5, Put was among the supporters of DinSD ; now it cannot be asserted that Punt ever supplied Egypt with warriors. It is more plaus- ible to compare Putu-yaman, a city whose prince was an ally of A maris, king of Egypt. It is true, we require not a city, but a region. But may not a city and a region bear the same name ? Yaman is, to us, a well-known name (see on ' Yavan,' v. 2) ; it means ' Yerahme'el.' ^ So too in Ex. vi. 25 (see note) Putiel is most probably a Yerahme'elite or N. Arabian name. The context certainly favours this view,^ for Drr3''D, or rather Dn3D, most probably represents DTrnhSJ, i.e. Nephtoah of Has ( = Ashhur). Put is therefore to be regarded as a N. Arabian name. And the same result follows if we look at the names compounded with Put in 1 So W. M. MuUer, E. Bib., ' Egypt,' § 48. 2 Otherwise Winckler, AOE'i. 512/ See, further, E. Bib., 'Put.' 174 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Assyrian deeds,^ and at those with which Put is grouped in various O.T. passages.^ Among the former let us notice Puti-Huru and Puti-Mini, where Huru is probably from Ashhur, and Mani from Yamani (Yerahme'elite), and among the latter, Kush, Lud, and ni> (pronounce 'Arab) in Ezek. XXX. 5, and Paras and Lud in Ezek. xxvii. lo. We have therefore to find some well-known (N. Arabian) name out of which Put may have been corrupted. Such a name would be mE3 ( = mDM, see on ii. 14 b, xv. 18), also £3^s (i Chr. ii. 47, Calebite) = n'pD (see on Num. xvi. i). If Put is really N. Arabian, the presumption is that Canaan (Kena'an) is so too, i.e. that originally the latter name did not mean Palestine, or any part of Palestine. But let us put this aside for the moment, and ask ourselves how it has come about that ' Canaan ' (understood in the traditional sense) is represented as a son of Ham, and a younger brother of Kush and Misr(a)im. Various answers have been given (see e.g. Driver, Genesis, p. 118; Jastrow, Hamites and Semites, p. 188) ; but who would say that any one of them is more than provisional ? It is only a deeper study of the names in the O.T. itself which will enable us to give a more satisfactory answer. It may be true that the Kinabhi of the Tell el-Amarna Tablets corresponds to the Rutenu of the Egyptian inscriptions.' But this does not permit the conjecture that Canaan origin- ally meant Syria, and that the combination of Canaan with Misr(a)im is to be explained by the political subordination of Syria and Palestine to Egypt. For the name Canaan is most probably much earlier than the Amarna Tablets, and is one of the names of districts and tribes or clans which the Arabians took with them in their northern migrations (cp. Enc. Brit.'^^''\ ' Canaan '). The identification of ' Canaan ' with the Kinahhi or (the fuller form) Kinahni * may be safely accepted. Kinahni ^ See Johns, Ass. Deeds, iii. 165/ 2 See Nah. iii. 9, Jer. xlvi. 9, Ezek. xxvii. lo, xxx. J, xxxviii. 5. On the names with which Put is here grouped see Crit. Bib. and E. Bib. 8 E. Meyer, Glossen (on the Am. Tablets), pp. 67, 68 note i (1897); cp. PraSek, Exp. Times, xi. 207. * Haldvy, REJ, avril-juin 1890, p. 207. TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) i75 evidently corresponds to p33, and Kinahhi to Xi/a, i.e. i>33, the name under which Phoenicia is personified by Philo of Byblus. To explain M3 and p3D as ' lowland ' ' is out of the question. But we can most certainly venture to say that, on grounds of analogy, jsaD is to be grouped with ps, ]pr, JPi)^ p3», DS3p^ l"'p, p-'p, all of which, as a strict textual criticism shows, are to be regarded as of N. Arabian origin. Such an origin for ;m3 is further suggested by Num. xiii. 29 b, where underneath the present text we may recognise a statement that the Canaanites ' dwell by Yaman and beside the Yarhon ' ; by Ezek. xvii. 4, where ' the land of Can.' is || to ' Arab-Yerahme'el (MT. is wrong) ; and by Zeph. ii. S, where 'Canaan' is || to 'the land of the Pelistim' (cp. on v. 14). Note also that in ix. 18 (re- vised text) ' Ham ' (i.e. Yerahme'el ') is defined as ' Arab- Canaan.' It is still the Priestly Writer who gives us the names of five ' sons ' of Kush (y. 7). The first is Seba (n^d), who is mentioned in Isa. xliii. 3 with Misr(a)im and Kush), and in Ps. Ixii. 10 with Sheba (see on v. 28). See below, on ' Sabta.' — Then comes Havilah (nS"'"in), which we have already met with in the Paradise-story (see on ii. 11), and shall find again in J's list of the Yoktanites (v. 29), very near ' Sheba,' also in an account of the territory of the Ishmaelites (xxv. i8, J). It has, of course, been noticed with surprise that u. 29 makes ' Havilah' a Shemite, whereas in V. 7 he appears as a Hamite. According to Jastrow (p. 180) this inconsistency is to be illustrated by the habits of the later Arabic historians, who are accustomed to put different traditions side by side, the second tradition being introduced by the word ktla, ' others say.' The explanation, however, is incomplete. ' Shem ' and ' Ham ' are, as we have seen, different names for the same imaginary personage ; Ishmael (Shem) and Yerahme'el (Ham) are synonymous. ' Havilah ' itself is a pure Yerahme'elite name ; just as JT^ comes from JD"" (see on v. 2), so nS"'in comes from n'?"'Dn ' So still Hommel, Gr. p. 242. But see G. F. Moore, Proc. Amer. Or. Soc, 1890, pp. Ixvii.^ Winckler (KAT^^\ p. 181) remarks, 'At present there is no prospect of explaining the name etymologically.' But it is something to be able to group it rightly. 176 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL (cp. f?1Dn, xlvi. 12), i.e. ^sonr with the feminine ending.^ Sabta and Sabteka may be shortened forms of the same name, a compound of 3D ( = nId) and Nn3, perhaps = TOSD (cp. on ' Kittim,' v. 4). Rdmah (^Q2^) and his sons. Can we illustrate this name ? The reference is admittedly Arabian (see E. Bib., S.V.), but the origin is still obscure. The essential is to place the name in the right group. The nearest parallel is ddnt (Dt. iv. 43). We may also compare the personal name rrcis'\ (Neh. vii. 7), which corresponds to rrhsi ''' in Ezra ii. 2. All these are derivatives of mw ; the appendix XV in Txh^ has come from in"' = "inh]"*. Ra'mah's two sons are Sheba (Nllffi) and Dedan. The critics have, naturally enough, been puzzled at the repetition of ' Sheba ' in w. 28 (Yoktanites) ; cp. Jastrow, p. 180. Shall we say that there were two Shebas, a northern (see on i K. x. i) and a southern, and that the N. Arabian Sheba was a colony from the south? But why only two Shebas ? and why a colony from the south.^ Surely Nia? is a derivative of i^otD, and simply indi- cates an Ishmaelite or Yerahme'elite settlement. Observe that ' Sheba ' and ' Dedan ' occur again in xxv. 3 (note), and that in Ezek. xxxviii. 1 3 these names occur together with ' Tarshish,' i.e. Ashtar ( = Ashhur) ; see on v. 4. Dedan (n"l)' °''' perhaps J't't (see on ' Dodanim,' v. 4), is a region in N. Arabia. Cp. on xvi. 14, on Isa. xxi. 13, and on Ezek. xxvii. 15 a. Glaser {Skizze, ii. 393) thinks that the neighbourhood of Medina is meant. So far as we know, P had no more to say about the Hamites. The epilogue forms v. 20, the text of which has been harmonised with v. 5, and should be similarly restored. For 'snsl 'mhh we should read ^NSDt»i pN3 (transposing), and for nn"'i:in, Dm"' ■•31 (gloss on an ■'33). 1 This gives us the key to '^in, v. 23. No conne.xion with '^^n, 'sand.' This spoils Glaser's explanation {Skizze, ii. 324). 2 That '?jn in n'^VT represents Snv = ^nx = ^jnoht can hardly be doubted. Cp. on W-\», 2 S. xxiii. 20 ; hy), i S. xvii. 36. .t is explained above. 3 According to Hommel (Gr. p. 142) the Sabasans penetrated as far as S. Arabia in the eighth century B.C. from the N. Arabian Djof (the Aribi of the cuneiform inscriptions, and the ' Yareb ' of Hosea). I agree with him that the ' queen of Sheba ' was a N. Arabian princess. TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) 177 It has been thought strange that P's list of the sons of Shem {v. 22) should begin with Elavt (o^'^i)). To explain this, some refer to the existence of a Semitic population in Elam (the famous Elam) in very early times, .dependent on Babylonia, while others suggest that Elam may have been regarded as including Babylonia, which country was conquered by the ' Anzanite ' lords of Susa and Elam ; and, again, others (preferring more recent history) remind us that parts of Elam were annexed to Assyria by Sargon, or refer to the prominence of Elam in the Persian empire. It is, however, incorrect to suppose that there was only one Elam, and that P must have referred to the Elam with which we are familiar. A study of the other passages in which D^ii^ occurs, notably Isa. xi. 1 1 (already referred to), Ezek. xxxii. 24, and Ezra ii. 7, 31, makes it evident that there was a D^'^i? in the Ashhurite portion of N. Arabia,^ and that it is referred to here. As to the origin of the name, we may — following many parallels — trace it either to T'NSDtD'" or to fjNOm'^ (the names are equivalent) ; cp. on n^pd, xxiii. 9 ; on o'jir, xxi. 33 ; and on ^ds, Judg. v. 26. Of course, the origin of popular corruptions like dS>"'S was early forgotten ; the name quickly obtained independent rights. On Asshur (i^£&n) not much more need be said here. The name (also Ashhur) ^ meets us again and again, both in a narrower and in a wider sense. The first to indicate a southern Asshur (Ashur) was the learned traveller Glaser, who was followed by Hommel.' Apart from the leading idea, I am myself independent of Hommel (see Bible Problems^ pp. 182 f., 262-270), and need not therefore consider Prof. Konig's far too confident criticisms {op. cit. pp. I- 1 9). Among the Asshur passages, note ii. 14, x. 11, xxi. IT b, XXV. 3, 18, Isa. xix. 23-25, Ezek. xxiii. 5, 7, 9, etc., xxvii. 23, Zeph. ii. 13, Ezra ii. 31. In Zeph. I.e. note that Saphon (a region in N. Arabia; see pp. 30, 32) and 1 The confidence of Comill that Elam in Jer. xlix. 34 is Elymais is astonishing. Hommel (Gr. p. 248) suspects an E. Arabian Elam to be referred to in Gen. x. 22. ^ ' Shur ' and ' Hur ' are shortened forms of ' Asshur ' and ' Ashhur ' respectively. ' Ashhur ' has probably come from ' Asshur-yerah ' (cp. Ashdod). * AHT, pp. 239-246. 12 178 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Asshur are parallel, and in Ezra that ' the other Elam ' should be ' Elam of Asshur ' (a phrase which speaks volumes), also that the next names in the list are D"'nn = am"' and ~h = ~ishy (the southern Gilead). Arpakshad ("Tffi3BlN). A controversy between Hommel and myself^ left the former as strongly convinced as before that the name meant ' (Ur-the-) of Chaldeans.' To me it seemed more likely that 5D"i« was the Hebraised name of the Assyrian province Arbaha or {KB ii. 88/) Arabha. In this case ^t!} would be a fragment of ^tO^, i.e., as most think, Chaldaea (see on xxii. 22). V. 22 would then run thus, ' The sons of Shem ; Elam and Asshur and Arpak-kesed and Lud and Aram.' V. 24 is admittedly a redactor's insertion, and the form Arpakshad might also come from the redactor, who misunderstood Arpak-kesed in v. 22. The true reading in xi. \o ff. would, in this case, be lffi3,^ which the redactor (who had already miswritten the com- pound name in x. 22) turned into TtDiDiN. The textual phenomena, however, which have come to light since 1897 suggest a different explanation. It is clear that ms, ' Arabia,' may be miswritten nis (xvi. 1 2, Hos. viii. 9), :)"IS (Gen. xli. 50), and nsi>^ (Prov. viii. 26), and that D"'1B3 has often come from Dntl>3, a popular distortion of QlN'nntCW (see on xi. 31). If consistency is any virtue, we cannot help explaining ntt>3S"iN as a corruption of 'itOD-n-ii;, where S©3 is a short way of writing DIBD.* Thus nm^DnN and ID■'^a>D TIN are different corruptions of the same original. Cp. on xi. 31 (Ur-kasdim) and xxii. 22 (Kesed), and E. Bib., cols. 5231-5234. — The next name IsLMiyh; Sam. l^). Does P here make a sudden spring to Asia Minor? Or 1 Academy, 17th Oct. 1896; AHT, pp. 212, 297; Expositor, Feb. 1897, pp. 145-148 (against Hommel). Prof. Hommel now explains, 'boundary of the Chaldsans' {Gr. p. 184, note i). 2 Gunkel, who finds this theory attractive, remarks that the reading ' Kesed ' would harmonise well with the statement in xi. 3 1 that Terah migrated from Ur-Kasdim. This is true, but the reading which under- lies Arpakshad harmonises perfectly with that form which the corrupt reading Ur-Kasdim has most probably developed. ^ See pp. 38, 70. ^ For other views see Del. Parodies, p. 256 ; Hommel, AHT, pp. 212, 294-298; Exp. Times, xiii. 285, and Gr. pp. 184, 244; Cheyne, Expositor, Feb. 1897, pp. 145^, and E. Bib., cols. 318/. TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) 179 was he really ignorant of the situation of Lydia (Ass. Luddu) ? Or can Jensen and Jeremias be right in tracing Lud to Lubdu, the name of a region between the Upper Tigris and the Euphrates ? No ; neither Luddu or Lubdu is the original of Lud. Analogy (cp. Hur, Mash, Hul, Ram) indicates that Lud is most probably a fragment of some longer name. Not, however, of Rutenu; a well-known early Egyptian designation of Palestine and Syria (Wiede- mann), but, as the context suggests, and as is confirmed by Ezra ii. 33 (Neh. vii. 37), Neh. xi. 35, i Chr. viii. 12} of some Arabian border-name, and most probably of ~fshl, i.e. that southern Gilead which gives us so much to do in explaining some parts of the O.T. (see on ' Ludim,' v. 13, and on xxxi. 21). For ~\sh = Tib compare f?"ni = fshl, V. 21, XV. 18. Aram (D't.n). Is this the great Aramaean people which spread over the N.E. region as far as Mesopotamia ? It is no doubt plausible. But the context, strictly examined, is adverse to this view. Observe (i) that in Num. xxiii. 7 DIN is II to mp innn ; now mp in such passages cannot, so far as I can see, mean ' the east.' ^ Balaam, whose home was in Pethor, could not, if Pethor is really = Ass. Pitru, be said to have come from ' the east.' In all such passages a N. Arabian region is referred to ; mp has arisen out of Dpn = DriT (see on xxix. i). Observe also (2) that in xxii. 2 'it is strange' (as Driver, p. 223, remarks) 'to find him (Aram) subordinated to the unknown Kemuel,' or rather, from our point of view, it is very naturally said that Aram had the closest possible connexion with ' Kemuel,' i.e. Yerah- me'el.' And (3) that in xxv. 20 ' Bethuel ' and ' Laban ' are both called "'En.M. Now ^Mini is certainly to be grouped with 7i?inN and bmn, both of which come from ^NrOB"'. The truth is that din is one of the old names adopted by P, and ^ In all these passages ri^> (presumably = -yh) is mentioned with ijin or \m, a name which is certainly N. Arabian (see on xli. 50, Ezra, I.e., Neh. vi. 2). ^ Ed. Meyer, who knows of only one Aram, and is not as clear as could be wished about Kedem, naturally prefers to read dik for mx (so Hommel). ' As we shall see (on xxii. 21) mn nx comes from mx nnp, i.e. " 3iy, ' Aramaean Arabia,' a gloss on hmop. I So TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL means a large part of the N. Arabian border-land. For the formation of the name, cp. ntD from fpNi^otO"' (note on ix. i8). V. 23. The 'sons' of Aram. Uz (}>^J;). A number of identifications have been offered. Gunkel, for instance, offers cuneiform authority for locating Uz (Us) near Palmyra. The Biblical data are hopelessly conflicting, which ought to incite us to examine the text more closely (see E. Bib. ' Uz '). We know that Job, a typical wise man, was of the land of Uz (Job i. i ) ; also that he was one of the sons of Kedem {v. 3), a name which is plainly a corrup- tion of Rekem, i.e. Yarham (cp. on ' Aram '). Uz is also mentioned as the eldest ' son ' of Nahor, Abraham's brother (xxii. 21), and as the grandson of Seir the Horite (xxxvi. 28). Evidently ' Uz ' is a corruption of some N. Arabian name, but of which? — 7^n, a Yerahme'elite clan (see on rrfp'^in, V. 7 ; ^TT'lN, Num. iii. 3 5 ). — ^^ro. According to Marquart (ZATW, 1885, p. 155), from Aramaic nm, i.e. i^toj, — tCD. A connexion with the name of a mountain, whether the ' mons Masius ' or the M^su (see Jensen, KB vi. I, p. 576; Zimmern, KAT''^\ p. 573; Jastiow, RB A, p. 489) is most improbable. Either a mutilated form of TtDO, & M^^X (^° ^ ^^^- '• ^ 7)' ^°^ which see on &. 2 ; or to be explained as NtOD, v. 30. The Sam. here reads NtCO. F. 31. Epilogue. 'These are the sons of Shem ac- cording to their clans.' Then continue 'in the land of Ishmael ' — 'dW'^ pMl ; and at the end correct DiT'lil as in V. 5, etc., a mistaken interpolation from v. 32. V. 3 2. Final epilogue. orflDil, i.e. QTTV ■'33, Yarhamites or Yerahme'elites, a gloss on n3 "'31. In a wide but strictly correct sense all the ' sons of Noah ' were Yerahme'elites of N. Arabia. This must be taken in connexion with the closing words in their true form, viz. ' in Ashhur-Yerahme'el ' (see on v. i b). We now pass to the Yahwistic Table (J), putting aside all questions as to its original form and subsequent develop- ment. The first problem which concerns us is that of Nimrod. How strange it is that so much should be said about one of the genealogical figures, and one only ! How strange, too, that ' Nimrod,' the real or supposed repre- sentative of Babylonia and Assyria, should be made a TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen x.) i8i Kushite, i.e. a Hamite ! Surely, if the references to Egypt usually supposed to exist in the earlier historical narratives are correct, the Yahwist had quite as much opportunity of learning about Egyptain as about Babylonian and Assyrian cities. And if we further hold with Jastrow (p. 205) that the Babylonians and Assyrians were made ' Hamites,' because Ham, according to J, takes the place of the 'accursed' Canaan, we cannot but find this very perplexing, considering the direct or indirect indebtedness of the culture of Israel to that of Babylonia. It has therefore been suggested that the redactor may have confused Kush = Ethiopia (in P) and Kush = the Kassites who early con- quered Babylonia (see E. Bib., ' Cush,' § i ; ' Nimrod,' § 2)} If, however, we look closely at the account of ' Nimrod,' we shall see that he is not represented solely as a conqueror, but also — and indeed especially — as a great founder of cities. ' Moreover, the difficulties connected with the names of the cities and with the phrase T;2 naa remain, and as a point of method we ought first of all to seek to clear up these names in the light of probable conclusions attained elsewhere in the criticism of traditional names.' ^ Let us take this phrase (in v. 9) first. Assuming it to mean ' a mighty hunter,' some have supposed that v. 9 has been brought from some other context.^ But surely the redactor would not have accepted a ' parenthesis ' (Driver's word) in which 131 was used in a new sense (expressing relation), while in v. 8 nii clearly means ' a hero.' If, then, m in V. 9 can only mean ' a hero,' T12 which follows must be corrupt ; it is most plausible to regard it as a corruption of pii>.* It is true, this undermines the conjecture of the connexion of Nimrod with Gilgamesh, the legendary hunter- king of Uruk,^ perhaps of solar-mythical origin, which has ^ This view is now held by Holzinger (p. 10 1), Ed. Meyer (p. 208, note I), and doubtfully by Gunkel (pp. 78/.). 2 E. Bib., ' Nimrod,' § 3. ' See e.ff. Ox/. Hex. ii. 16; Gunkel, p. 75 ; Driver (a^ loc), 'a parenthesis.' * The alternative is to read \-ii>, 'judge, general, prince.' ' 'Uruk' generally taken to be the Erech olv. lo (but see below). The four legendary achievements of Gilgamesh are his conquest of Uruk, his victory over Humbaba, king of Elam, his killing of the divine bull, 1 82 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL attracted several scholars (including Gunkel, Jensen, and to some extent Zimmern). But if this connexion were real, we should expect the name ' Nimrod ' to have a plausible explanation from Babylonian, and such an explanation adapted to the Hebrew context I cannot find.^ Next, let us attack the problem of ' Nimrod.' The name, to a Hebrew ear, may have suggested ' rebellion,' but this does not help the critic, for all these early names have been worn down and assumed new forms. Nor does Mic. v. 5 suggest any promising solution. ' To the later age,' remarks Gunkel, ' Nimrod was the hero of Asshur (Assyria) ; Asshur is called " Nimrod's land," Mic. v. 5.' But I am afraid that Gunkel is not exacting enough as a textual critic. It is true that the special commentators on Micah are equally disappointing on Mic. v. 4, s ; it has not been observed that D")Sm m is a gloss, and that tih^ has come from ^NSDffi"' (see on D^t&, xxxiii. 18). The gloss therefore means, 'this is Ishmael,' and refers to "nfflN which follows. Now ' Asshur ' and ' Ishmael ' are synonymous terms for the same region in N. Arabia, and tid3, as v. 5 shows, is parallel to it. Two possibilities are open to us, for I cannot see a connexion with ' Marduk ' (Sayce, Wellh.) to be at all indicated, Nimrod not being a solar hero, (i) If we hold that @'s form NgySptoS (~n33) is likely to be nearer to the original form, we may plausibly trace it to Tr31, a modification of TV\1, well known as a N. Arabian name (^KB ii. 222 f.; cp. Winckler, KAT, pp. 133/, note i.^ Or (2), perhaps more and his strangling of the lion. Nimrod's warhke achievements, how- ever, far exceed those of Gilgamesh. See, further, E. Bib., ' Nimrod,' § 2 ; 'Cainites,' § 6 ; A. Jeremias, Izdubar-Nimrod {l%<)l\ and ATAO (1904), pp. 158/; G. Smith, the Assyriologist, TSBA i. 205, etc.; Driver, Genesis; Gunkel, Schopfimg, p. 146. 1 I cannot recognise as such A. Jeremias's explanation, ' babylonisiert nAmir-uddu, d.h. glanzendes Licht' {ATAO, I.e.). Nor can I possibly approve Jensen's suggestion {Das Gilgameseh-Epos, i. 87, note i) that 'Nimrod' may come from Namurd, underlying a name given to the god of light and of the chase (provisionally called Ninib) in the later Babylonian period {Babylonian Expedition, Hilprecht, x., pp. xviii. /, 8 /), '-n-w-sch-t. How unnatural ! ^ The form may have come from tttw, ' Arabia of Dad ' (see on xxxvi. 35), ' Hadad, son of Bedad.' Cp. '^nn from 'cti/-'-r\v, a solution of an old problem which needs a thoroughly candid consideration. TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) 183 probably, niD3 may have come from 1103, miswritten for ]n3l, i.e. pm, a popular modification of ^NonT (]0 frequently represents fjMo) ; cp. on ' Nisrok,' 2 K. xix. 37. ' Nimrod ' is therefore neither a Libyan-Egyptian ^ nor a Babylonian, but a Yerahme'elite, i.e. N. Arabian hero.^ That he is fundamentally no mythical personage, whether Orion or the sun, I have shown elsewhere (see E. Bib., ' Nimrod,' § 4). Then follows, as most hold, a historical notice, to the effect that Nimrod was the first of the great empire-builders known to the Hebrews. But is this correct ? Is ' he began to be a hero in the earth (or, land) ' a natural Hebrew idiom? The nearest parallel is ix. 20, but that has already proved a stumbling-block, and, like iv. 26, must be corrupt. Note also that immediately after 'in hnn Nin comes another clause (v. 9 a) which is also introduced by Nin, and remember that we have already found that for TS 131 we have to read pis 111. Should we not also read pir '3 in v. 8, instead of pMl 113 ? It is now fair to suppose that the first pis ni3 is an interpolation from v. 9, and that f?nrr (cp. on iv. 26, ix. 20) should be f?NDm\ nVH^ may be either a redac- tional insertion, or a corruption of '7NOm% originally, perhaps, a correction of ^nn. Thus vv. 8 and ga become, ' And Kush begot Rahman. [That is, Yerahme'el. He was an awe- inspiring hero nirr"' ■'33^'].' And what can miT' "'3Q7 mean ? It is indeed an exegetical puzzle. Assuming that Nimrod was really repre- sented as a hunter, critics have supposed that the phrase is purely ornamental, ' a great hunter even for God ' (Del., Dillm., etc.), or, to give it more force, have paraphrased ' in defiance of God ' (Budde), while Gunkel (Gen. p. 79) supposes that there may have been a narrative of Nimrod hunting while a god (not originally Yahweh) looked on, and perhaps even helped him. Evidently fresh light is needed ; the greatest admirer of Dillmann must grant this. Now, there is a weird section of Ezekiel (already referred to for Asshur, Elam, ' So Ed. Meyer, after seventeen years, still holds with regard to Nimrod the hunter {L>ie Israel, pp. 448/). ^ Cp. Jeremias, ATAO, p. 158, 'er ist ein Araber.' But see the context. He supposes that the conquests of this Arabian hero lay in the region of the Euphrates and the Tigris. i84 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Meshek, and Tubal) in the course of which (xxxii. 27) we find this singular phrase — D"'f?lSD D"'bn3 D"'nill-nN. Most explain this, ' with the heroes, the giants of old time ' (reading obli^D), but a more penetrating criticism seems to have shown that the second and third words represent glosses on the first. D"'7D3 is the word we find in vi. 4, Num. xiii. 33 ; it can be shown to be applied to a much- dreaded race of Yerahme'elite origin (see notes on those passages) ; most probably it has arisen out of D"'3!J^ = a"'33^ (Lapanites = Labanites). At any rate, it gave the necessary definiteness to D'^llDl, and it was itself explained (as if by an excess of zeal) by a further gloss Q"'7NDnT' (miswritten 0"'f?nsQ). Now have we not the key to ■^asf? ? '^22'? should be pointed ■'3sS ; it means ' Labanite ' ; and mri'' which follows has come from 'm*', i.e. ^nqttT', as in Judg. xix. i (see Crit. Bib.) and many other passages, or rather ■'bNOriT', a gloss. The statement respecting ' Nimrod ' (Rahman) therefore is simply that he was a formidable warrior, of the class referred to as Labanite or {par excellence) Yerahme'elite. The idea that ' when the Hebrews wished to describe a man as being a great hunter they spoke of him as " like Nimrod"' (Driver) would therefore seem to be mistaken. The popular saying was, ' Like Rahman, a formidable hero [a Lapanite, Yerahme'el].' See further, on vi. 4. But who, more particularly, was Rahman ? Is he an individual whose true name has disappeared, but who was remembered as the founder of Yerahme'elite greatness ? Or is he not rather the ' heros eponymus ' of the migratory Yerahme'elite race? The latter view is preferable. Each migration, each conquering band of N. Arabians, had a leader ; these leaders were rolled by tradition into one, and became a single ' formidable hero,' who received, under one of its forms, the common name of his race, Yerahme'el. And what direction did those conquering expeditions take ? There is evidence that the Arabian migrations spread very widely indeed. The founders of the IJammurabi dynasty in Babylonia were Arabians, and, as the names Hammu- rabi and Sumu-abi themselves suggest, Yerahme'elite ( = Ishmaelite) Arabians,^ while the Arabian origin of the 1 See on v. 32, and cp. on ' Shemeber,' xiv. 2. TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) 185 Phcenicians is plain from many of their names.^ Still it may, in the first instance, be presumed that the districts referred to as conquered by the Yerahme'elites were near the southern border of Palestine. It is to this region that the early legends of Genesis thus far relate, and we may expect the statements of vv. 10-12 to refer to it also. Let us therefore now examine the ten names mentioned in the traditional text. These are — Babel, Erech, Akkad, Kalneh, the land of Shinar, Asshur, Nineveh, Rehoboth-'ir, Kelah, Resen. Of these, 1-3, 6, 7, and 9 are supposed to have been identified, while the remaining four are admitted to be still obscure, even with the help of Assyriology. Let us take these four first, and see whether they show signs of belonging to any of those types of corruption which recur so frequently in the text of other O.T. writings. Let us {a) begin with the riddle of Shinar, iWtD, in the traditional text the name of the region in which the four cities first mentioned were situated. It is, from every point of view, bold to trace its origin to ' Sumer ' (S. Babylonia). But it seems still bolder to connect it with the Sanhar of the Amarna letters and the Sangara of the Egyptian inscrip- tions, and to suppose both these forms to be = Karduniash, the Kassite name for Babylonia.^ Those who have noted down a few of the recurrent types of corruption pointed out in Crit. Bib. (see especially pp. 210, 243, 407 f.) will recognise the true solution at once. Just as ]tD3 comes from |t»aN = ]Qm ni7 = ^N:>Dffi-' 's, so ^MB comes from ns jott? = '» 'dB-', ' Arabian Ishmael.' This will suit all the passages in which the name occurs (viz. x. 10, xi. 2, xiv. I, 9, Josh. vii. 21,^ Isa. xi. 11, Zech. v. 11, Dan. i. 2), if a keen and consistent criticism be applied also to the contexts. Note especially that in xiv. i the king of "ii;3m is called by the compound name f?mDN, where ion has come from mw {i.e. the southern Aram = Yerahme'el), and that 1 See p. 43, and elsewhere in ' Cosnnogony.' ^ Ed. Meyer {Glossen, see E. Bib., ' Shinar ') ; so Hommel, Gr. p. 6 ; cp, pp. 257, note 2, 300. On the other side, see Winckler, KAT^*\ p. 238. Cp. Pinches, in Hast. DB iv. 503,5, whose view is, I fear, no better than those which he rejects. ' Both nnx and ihk come from inu'N. 1 86 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL the names 1N3Q> and niMoa? {v. 2) are, from the same point of view, no doubt corruptions of the same original as nsjtB. {h) Ralneh, nabs (Am. vi. 2 ; yh:i, Isa. x. 9), is also difficult ; ^ Jensen would emend it into m73 = KuUaba, an old Babylonian city.^ But in Amos and Isaiah it is the conquest of city after city by the Asshurites in one of their invasions that is referred to. Similarly in Nah. iii. 8 we should perhaps read ]1qn 'i3^3[o] (Calno of Amon, i.e. of Armon or Yerahme'el). The origin, however, of Kalneh or Kalno is not clear. Should we not read, for both forms, rr3:i7? ' Nimrod,' as we have seen, is called a Labanite. {c) Rehoboth-ir (t^s n^m) should mean ' broad places of a city ' ; but how can this be right ? Assyriologists gener- ally equate the name with the rlbit Nina of the inscriptions. The uncertainty of this, however, has been candidly set forth by Mr. Johns {E. Bib., col. 4029), and on this and other grounds we are amply justified in seeking light elsewhere. Now experience shows that "Vs not unfrequently comes from Ti>'^ = 'pNDjnT (see on xxiii. 10, xxxvi. 43), while Rehob and Rehoboth are familiar to us as names of places. One of the Rehoboths (perhaps that in xxxvi. 37) seems to have been called ' Rehoboth of Arabia.' [d) Resen (jDl). A difficult name. Assyriology does not help us [DB iv. 229 ; E. Bib., 'Resen,' § i ; cp. Nestle, Exp. Times, July 1904, p. 476). It is, however, plausible to suppose that it is miswritten for •xsi'D, i.e. ms-^NrotB"' ; cp. on nwto, V. 10, and on T3to (Dt. iii. 9), also pD, ■'2^D, n:D3D (Josh. XV. 31), all from ;DD = ^N:7Dt»\ This is confirmed by the gloss which follows. For underneath the improbable n'pinin TUT] niH ^ it is not hard to recognise -\sh^ "VT Nin, which the redactor doubtless had before him, but failed to understand (T'i;'' = 'jNDm"'). Possibly, then, ]m (imd) is rather a regional than a place name, at least if we are right in questioning JTT in z/. lib (see below). 1 See E. Sib., ' Calneh,' ' Calno ' ; Harper, Amos and Hosea, p. 144. - TLZ, 1895, col. 510 (ap. Jeremias, ATAO, p. 164). 8 This passage seems to have affected the form of Jonah iii. 3, 4. See Crit. Bib. p. 151, the statements of which, however, are not entirely correct. It would seem that in the original text (altered by the redactor) the phrase in Gen. a. i 2, yshi my mn, was taken to refer to Nineveh. TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) 187 Let us now turn to the place-names, which, according to a delightful opinion, have been successfully explained. {a) ^33. Few scholars doubt that, except in Ezra v. 1 3 and Neh. xiii. 6 (where it is supposed to mean the Persian kingdom), this very familiar name means ' Babylon.' But it is not less positively asserted that nitCN always (except where the name is applied to the Babylonian, or the Persian, or the Grseco-Syrian kingdom), means 'Assyria.' When, however, we consider the large number of double or even triple applications of the same name (e.g. Rehoboth, Kush, Musri), we cannot assure ourselves that this is not a mere prejudice. The view here put forward again is that hyy was the name, or one of the names, of the chief city of the great Yerahme'elite empire called Asshur or Ashhur, which included the smaller kingdoms on the S. Palestinian border ; hence f?ll and 11Q)N can be used as equivalents.^ An early legend connected with this f?3l (certainly not with ' Babylon ') is to be found in xi. 1-9, from which narrative it appears that another form of the name for the capital was either nn^l or i)^3 (see on xi. 8). In fact, internal evidence throws much more light on this subject than might be supposed. In Ezek. xxvii. 4, xxviii. 2, 8, the improbable reading q-'D"' l'?! should probably be emended into D"'3Q'' ^11 'Babel of the Yamanites.' From Ezek. xxi. 24 (19), we, further learn that bl3 was in the land of Asshur, for the impossible iriN pNO should of course be intDN 'd.^ This is confirmed by Jer. li. i, where iDp lb comes from DpT Sll Babel of Yarkam ( = Yarham), a gloss on hyy? and by z/. 41, where "[©m (see p. 47) comes from n^mN = int»N (or UTfV 'ffiN), which is parallel to h'yi ; also by Jer. 1.1,8, where bll is parallel to Qnffi3 pN, i.e. mm = QyA ^^tDN ; by Isa. xlvii. i, where hl1 ni is parallel to Dn»3 rQ, i.e. Dltca ni ; and by Ps. cxxxvii. 7, 8, where miN ^31 {tnvi 'l?) is parallel to ^33 na. Note also that in Jer. xxv. 9 731 is presented as the centre of the clans of pas. Here, as often (see p. 50), 1 See Crii. Bid. pp. 81/ ^ Comill, following two MSS. of Kenn., alters into nnn. Cp. Konig, Synt. 318. * 'ii?' (parallel to S^n) is a corruption of SNyD»\ 3b" and vt often represent 'dip'. 1 88 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL JIDS does not mean ' north,' but is a dialectal form of p:»32 = 'DtD\ Babel, then, is an Asshurite or Ishmaelite city, i.e. somewhere in N. Arabia, the ancient geography of which region is very little known. ip) and (c) Erech {Erek, ^^N) and Akkad (tsn). ' Erech ' is generally identiiied with the Bab. Uruk (moderrf Warkd) ; ' Akkad,' with the Agade of the inscriptions, where the more ancient Sargon dwelt.^ It is quite possible, however, that 'iiN and ^^N are merely different ways of writing the same name. The gentilic •'D^N in 2 S. xv. 32 points at any rate to a S. Palestinian connexion (cp. Crit. Bib. p. 289). [•ijnSN in Am. v. 16 may come from •'31N, in the sense of ' sacred chanter.' ^ The origin may be latON (see above). id) Asskur, see p. 177. (e) ma^ia. It is highly plausible to think of the Assyrian Nineveh (Ninua, Nina) ; the redactor himself may indeed have done so. We are compelled, however, to question this view. Since ' Nimrod ' must be a N. Arabian, we cannot well assign to him the foundation or even the conquest of Nineveh. Both here, and possibly in all the other passages in which the name occurs, r?'l3"'3 (or rather some underlying name) must be the designation of a N. Arabian city. To prove this at length would require a critical study which would take us too far from Genesis (see, however, provision- ally Crit. Bib. on the passages). What, then, is n"l3''3 ? How shall the name be accounted for ? One explanation is given in Crit. Bib. pp. 151,1 64, but a better one is forth- coming. m3"'D has almost certainly been produced here and elsewhere by the dittographing of 3 ; the true form is TTSV, from jv, another form of JD^ ( = ^NOm"') ; see on v. 2. We shall find that the O.T., rightly read, continually joins Asshur and Yerahme'el, and the first in the list of the sons of Asher (whose name is a by-form of Asshur) happens to be nao"' (xlvi. 17). {/) Kalah (nf?3), according to most, represents the Ass. Kalhu (see Johns, E. Bib., ' Calah '). Most probably, however, restoring one letter, we should read n^D^, which seems to be the fuller form of the place-name n37D. 1 See Hommel, Gr. p. 400. 3 Cp. DnoD, 'priests,' probably from D'on (see p. 62, note i). TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) 189 ' Salecah ' was a great commercial centre. See on xx. 1 6, and cp. on DTif?D3, v. 14. Only one more problem remains — that connected with ]li"i. It is true, the building of cities might be expected in old traditions.' But why is nothing said of the building of cities in the ' land of Shinar ' ? And if Asshur was not originally a part of the kingdom of ' Nimrod,' why is no mention made of his conquest of this region, especially as he was an ' awe-inspiring warrior ' (see on v. 9) ? Should ■we not, therefore, for JTI read ii'i {E. Bib., col. 3418)? Cp. xiv. 7. Another nest of unsolved problems comes before us in vv. 11 f. If D"'i20 means Egypt, what can ' Ludim,' ' Anamim,' etc., mean ? Pathrusim (n^'Dins) has certainly been explained, with some degree of plausibihty,^ as = ' those of Upper Egypt.' It must, however, be admitted to be strange (1) that 'Pathros' should have a plural termination attached to it, (2) that ' Pathrusim,' thus explained, should rank as only fifth among the sons of Misraim, and (3) that 'Pathrusim' should be reckoned as a 'son' of Misraim at all. A full study of the passages referring to ' Pathros ' (Isa. xi. II, Jer. xliv. i , 15, Ezek. xxix. 1 4, xxx. 1 4) leads to the conclusion that it was only by an ingenious redactor^ that the connexion between the group of letters represented in MT. by Dims and a designation of a portion of Egypt was produced * (see further E. Bib., ' Pathros '). The true reading in our passage is almost certainly DTISIS ; the linking form is D''mDD (cp. on mSD, Neh. vii. 57). Note that in the (as I hope) recovered original text of Jer. xlvi. 9 1 Cp. the second of the Babylonian creation-stories {KB vi. 41-43). ^ The difficuhy in connecting ' Pathros ' with Coptic pto-res, ' land of the south,' is that the only evidence for the name ' Pathros ' is derived from the MT. of the O.T., and from an inscription of Esar-haddon {KAT^^\ pp. 335 /), where that king is described as ' king of the kings of Mu-sur, Pa-tu-ri[?]-si and Ku-si.' Why should not all these names refer to N. Arabian regions ? Ezek. xxix. 14 tells against the common theory, not in its favour (see Crii. Bid.). * Certainly onna and Uadovprj's remind us forcibly of the ' Phaturites ' in the western part of the Thebaid mentioned by Pliny. * This must be qualified by the observation that in @ of Isa. xi. 1 1 the word corresponding to onriB is neither Uadovfnjs nor IlaOoiprjs, but aapvXiiivta. igo TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL D'^nss^ follows immediately on D■'^sf?i (MT. inaccurately ■'©sn QiTiS). This result throws a fresh light on Balaam's Pethor, and on the obscure mSDN of Eccles. xii. 1 1 (see p. 40, note 3). Prof. W. Max Miiller, however {OLZ, 1902, p. 471), gives up ' Pathrusim.' He does not indeed abandon the long current explanation of ' Pathros ' as ' Upper Egypt,' but he wishes to omit ' Pathrusim ' as an inaccurate gloss, and to look for the sons of Misraim, not in the Nile valley, but beside it, like the Libyans. Thus the Kasluhim (cp. Luc's 'xaa'Kcovieiij) become the D''anD3 (cp. Herod, iv. 172), and so on. Ingenious. If, however, QinsD is to be read Misrim, and the Misrites to be located in N. Arabia, the list of names becomes much clearer. Take the first name, Ludiin (D'^Ti^). It is com- monly assumed that ' Ludim,' being a son of CnSD, must be different from the ' Lud ' of w. 2 2. Gunkel's comment on the name is, ' Named beside Egypt and Ethiopia in Ezek. XXX. S and Jer. xlvi. 9, otherwise unknown.' In Ezek. XXX. 5, however, it is not Qiil'? but "vh? Stade {Akad. Reden, pp. 140 /) and W. M. Miiller would change Dm^ into c^'yh- Against this, however, it may be urged that □"■n^ and the parallel misunderstood form D''in^ are most probably (like DiTif?) corruptions of a longer ethnic. The N. Arabian theory gives us a clue to the problem. See on v. 22. — Anamim (D"'D3i)) which follows is ' a not well- known people' (Ges.-Buhl). Yet no great experience is required to produce the correction D"'3SO, a name equivalent to Me'tinim in Ezra ii. 50 (mentioned beside Nephisim in the Hst of Nethinite or Ethanite families), and to Me'onenim in Judg. ix. 37 ; the common original of all these names is We next meet with the Lehabim (D"'inf?), referred to above. No doubt, yrh, like ^in (iv. 2) and rhy in rxrhl (xxix. 29), comes from ^NOmi ; cp. on Qi^nn, Ezek. xlvii. 13, Ps. xvi. 9. — Naphtuhim (DinnD3), according to 1 nsx is an abridged form of nsns (see E. Bib., ' Zephath,' ' Zare- phath '). 2 Stade thinks that -t\^ was only inserted to produce an assonance with BIS. TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) 191 Erman {ZATW, 1890, pp. 118/;) is an old corruption of DTlons, 'those of the north-land.' But the parallel form (as Erman regards it), D"'DinD, has been shown to have no reference to any part of Egypt. Let us then apply the N. Arabian key. gives Netf)6dXeifi. May not the common original both of DTinna and of D"'^nD3 be mnsa (cp. on ' Nephtoah,' Josh. xv. 9) ? This may have been shortened into nQ3 (see on Tn msa, Josh. xi. 2), to which a formative h was attached (7ns3) ; see on xxx. 8. Kasluhim (DTl'jDa), says Prof Francis Brown,^ is 'just as obscure' as Anamim. But Anamim has revealed its secret. There is therefore good hope for ' Kasluhim.' It is a compound name like D[n]3t0. Both names (Kasl. and Shakram) are, in fact, etymologically equivalent, which of course would not justify us in saying that they were also equivalent geographically. d3 is a fragment of 13dn (cp. above, on hyi, end) == nnt2)N ; cp. perhaps noDi;, Josh. xv. 1 6. r?^ has the same origin as Tt^ in Judg. xv. 9, i.e. is = ^Nam"'. n7D3 should probably be restored for nfpU in v. 11, also perhaps in Judg. v. 1 5 (for n^tOp), in Isa. xxxiii. 1 8 (for f?pt»), and in Am. vii. 4 (for pbnrr). The place-names na'pD and DTlfptl?, too, are to be grouped with nf?D3. |As to Kaphtorim, D''ins3, there is a tendency to identify ' Kaphtor ' with Crete.^ A thorough textual criticism, how- ever, seems to me strongly adverse to this view. See Am. ix. 7, where the parallel names are D■'^2iD {i.e. the N. Arabian Musri) and T^p {i.e. Ashhur) ; Jer. xlvii. 4, where the Pelishtim are said to be the ' remnant of 'I-kaphtor ' (read, agreeably to parallels, Arab-kaphtor) ; also Dt. ii. 23, where 'the Kaphtorim who came out of Kaphtor ' (but see ad loc.) are parallel to ' the bene Esau who dwelt in Seir (Ashhur ?) ' in z*. 23 ; and lastly Isa. xi: 14, where ' kaphtor-pelishtim ' (so read, not kathepK) is parallel to ' bene Rekem,' i.e. the Yerahme'elites).^ Further light is thrown on Kaphtor if we may combine ' Kaphtorim ' with ' Kerethim.' The Kereth- 1 E. Bib., 'Geography,' § 15. ^ Cp. Sayce, HCM^^\ p. 173; Exp. Times, Oct. 1900, p. 28; Noordtzij, De Filistijnen, 1905, pp. 29, 39; Francis Brown, E. Bib., ' Geography,' § 12 b. ' no' should be nio', ' towards Yaman ' (see on v. 2). 192 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL ites were certainly of N. Arabia (i S. xxx. 14), whence David naturally drew his bodyguard (see on 2 S. viii. 18). Kerethites and Pelethites are mentioned together ; ' Peleth ' too (see E. Bib., s.v., and introd. to chap, xxvi.) is certainly a N. Arabian name, and best identified with Peleseth (Pelistim). Not impossibly both Qiinsa and DTn3 come from □Tiim. This is forcibly suggested by Ezek. xxv. 16, where, parallel to DTimS'D and DTinD, we find dti f|"in ninsm, or rather ]a^ iim. 'to (cp. on xlix. 13); also by Zeph. ii. 5, where a similar parallelism occurs. Kaphtor, then, should probably be Rehoboth, and Kaphtorim should be Reho- bothim ; there has, in short, been redactional harmonising on a large scale. A still more worn-down form of Rehoboth is possibly maD (see on xxxv. 16). For TT'i'z (i K. xvii. 3), nvip, and n"'^p in place-names, another explanation is to be preferred (see on xxiii. 2). Now as to the gloss, ' whence came out Pelishtim,' which, in the traditional text, is appended to ' Kasluhim.' Probably this is a mistake. The scribe omitted D■'^nDD-nN■l, and supplied it afterwards. It should, however, have preceded the notice respecting the Pelishtim (so Olsh., Budde). The Pelishtim, then, came from Kaphtor (cp. Jer. xlvii. 4) ; i.e. probably from the N. Arabian Rehoboth. Long ago, inde- pendently of Hommel, and going further than he does,^ I came to the conclusion that the ' Philistines ' meant in the original texts of the O.T. were not the Philistines of the sea- coast, and suggested that a N. Arabian ethnic from which DTitoSs might, after several corruptions, have come was DTiDia. On this I do not now lay any considerable stress. Dnto'jEJ, when it refers (as I think that it always does), not to the well-known historical Philistines of the sea-coast, but to a N. Arabian people, is due, most probably, to a confusion between ' Philistines ' and ' Pelethites,' i.e. DTim^D should be D'^n^a (whence came David's Pelethites), cp. £of?D (with gentilic ^nhv) and rhu. At any rate, the Pelishtim (Pelethim ?) were Arelites, i.e. Yerahme'elites (see on i S. xiv. 6, xvii. 26, 36, Ezek. xxxii. ig ff.). For other views of the Philistines, see the learned articles of Moore 1 Cp. Grundriss, pp. 59, 93 (note 3), 158 ; Aufsdtze, p. 285, note i. According to Hommel, they were the population of S. Palestine. TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) 193 {E. Bib.) and Guthe (FR£P^), also Noordtzij, Be Filis- tijnen, 1905. Next come the sons of Canaan {vv. 15-19), who are supposed to represent mostly northern populations. Thus ' Sidon ' is taken to mean Phoenicia. Arkite, Sinite, Arvadite, Semarite, Hamathite are all supposed to point northward ; certainly the familiar Hamath is north even of Phoenicia. It remains to be seen whether a more self- consistent interpretation may not be given, assuming the N. Arabian theory. Here, then, as often, let us venture to suppose that the jits intended is a place in N. Arabia, called more fully iT^s 's (MT. rr3T '2) ; see Crit. Bib. on Josh. xi. 8, xix. 28,^ and op. 2 S. xxiv. 6, @*. But, it will be asked, is it not implied in Isa. xxiii. and in Ezek. xxvii. 8 that the Sidon referred to was a maritime city? One may at first think so. But if Jerusalem can be figuratively repre- sented as a ship (Isa. xxxiii. 23), why should not Sor ( = Missor) be represented as a ship, and her cities (exclud- ing Sidon) and allies as her builders and rowers? And as for Isa. xxiii., I think it will be found that a consistent interpretation is quite possible on the assumption that ni is a popular form of nsD ( = the N. Arabian Musri — see on v. 6), that iD'^min nvat* comes from nnt»N mamN- ('n too will be a popular form), and that D% as often, represents )p^, and that pT«2S too is a N. Arabian place (the name was carried northwards in Arabian migrations). Let us then consider this last name. The theory that there was a Phoenician god of hunting or fishing called ns ^ is a poor makeshift. It is far better, on the analogy of D» from '?NJiD»">, on from Dm"', tON from TitON, etc., to take T2 in pTS and 12 in the Phoenician names ~[TXi., mp^ms, etc. (see Cooke, p. 91), to represent pns. We find this word in the ^ In Josh. xi. 8 Sidon is mentioned with ' Misrephoth-maim,' i.e. Sarephath-yaman. Supplement this by i K. xvii. 8, where, from mj (i.e. mnpN), which fronts jn'n (f.e. pm'n, the stream Yarhon, see on xv. 18), and whose inhabitants are D'mp, 'Arabians'), Ehjah proceeds tO' 'Sarephath which is Sidon's.' In Josh. xix. 28 the (southern) territory of Asher is bordered by ' Arabian Sidon ' (see above) ; cp. Judg. i. 31. ^ See Cooke, p. 91 ; Ed. Meyer, E. Bib., col. 4504. I think Torrey first suggested that ns is = pns. 13 194 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL names Adoni-sedek, and many other parallels (see Zimmern, KATj-^'' pp. 47Zf-)- The Sidkites in N. Arabia may have derived their name from a title of the god of the clan — perhaps it was a title of the god Yerahme'el (cp. o-vSvk in the Phoenician cosmogony; Winckler, KAT, p. 224, note i; Crit. Bib. pp. 410/ ; E. Bib., col. 5374, note i). But why is Sidon called (in MT.) inba? Is it not a suiificient honour to be named first ? The problem has not been fully recognised. Evidently Gen. x. 1 5 must be taken with xxii. 21 and i Chr. ii. 42. In all these places the first problem is text-critical. The probability is that 133T "1131 has come from I13n, i.e. ^IIDT = SNOm*' (cp. on XSn, Ex. XV. i). Thus the name before us becomes Sidon- Yerahme'el. The companion of Sidon is Hetk (nri). It has been asked whether this means the northern Hittites (i K. x. 29, 2 K. vii. 6; cp. Judg. i. 26) or the southern (xxiii. if., xxvii. 46, cp. xxviii. i, 8). According to Driver, 'Heth' may be a designation of the N. Canaanitish offshoots of the great Hittite nation. It is not certain, however, that northern (Syrian) Hittites are ever referred to in the O.T. Wherever ' Hittites ' are mentioned, the surrounding contexts favour the view that a N. Arabian people is intended ; it is not possible to draw any distinction between two classes of passages. The presumption is that nn has nothing to do with Heta or Hatti (as if we had here a reminiscence of ' Hittite ' conquests), but is a fragment of some longer name (cp. the case of on, DtO, IW). Doubtless some very im- portant regional or ethnic name is required, and one thinks naturally either of ' Rehoboth ' or of ' Ashhoreth.' The latter is to be preferred. Cp. on xxiii. 3. It is a hazardous theory of Jastrow {E. Bib., col. 2097) that there were two races or peoples both called ' Hittites,' in N.E. Syria and in S. Palestine respectively, which had nothing in common but the name. But the old view that ' Hittites ' is used vaguely for the pre-Israelitish population of Palestine generally is not less unsatisfactory.' Into the questions connected with the ^ For other views see Sayce, Exp. Times, March 1904, pp. 280- 285; Breasted, AJSL, April 1905, pp. 157 /; Jastrow, E. Bib., 'Hittites'; Jeremias, ATAO, pp. 203-205. TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) 195 great ' Hittite ' empire there is no call upon one to enter here. It is to be hoped that the O.T. passages may in future be critically treated from an O.T. point of view. Vv. 1 6- 1 8 « are, of course, a later insertion. All the names are plainly ethnics with the article prefixed. "'dII"' can- not be a mere local tribe — that inhabiting Jerusalem. It is proved that Dl"*, tDT, and IB"' all occur as corruptions of ^NSOID"' (see esp. on Josh. xv. 8, Judg. xix. 10 ff.). That 'Yebus' in Judg. xix. 10 is a pseudo-archaism, is a widespread error. — Between ■'nax (Amorite), the Egyptian Amar,^ and the Ass. Amurri (Amurre) there is evidently a close connexion. The two latter designations were in early times attached to N. Palestine,^ and only afterwards do we find the Assyrians applying mdt Amurri to the whole of Palestine and Phoenicia, together with a part of Coele- Syria. Scarcely, however, can we deny that the O.T. name "inDN specially belongs to a N. Arabian people, otherwise called id"in and ■'bNDm\ and the probability is that ^nDN has come by a popular transposition of letters from ■'ms ; cp. the clan-name and place-name nOM ; also the pers. name in^'lOM (where in% as usual, comes from "in[n]''), the Sab. ^DNI?n^ and the Palm. NtDIDN. That Arabians in very early times spread into Palestine, Phoenicia, and Syria may be only a hypothesis, but it is absolutely required to explain a large number of facts. That ■>^DN means ' highlanders,' from nbN = T'pN, Isa, xvii. 9,' is a pure imagination. — Next, '^tona. To be grouped with i-nmi (cp. (g's 7a/37aa-6t = ^Tlffia, Dt. iii. 14), mi, I S. xxvii. 8. Note that the Qini ^^T was probably originally located in Arab-Yerahme'el (see on Dt. xi. 29), and that according to 2 S. xv. 8 there was a Geshur in Aram, i.e. in Yerahme'el (see Crit. Bib. p. 284). The original of these names was probably ^^^mN. More than one of the Ashhurite tribes doubtless bore a name derived from Ashhur. — ^^iin (f . 1 7) probably = iin or i-ij-j (from inntON) ; cp. Isa. xvii. 9, where xsnnn = ol Evaioi (@). — Then follow, it is said, five names of city-populations, all pointing to the 1 See W. M. M. As. u. Eur. p. 177. ^ In the Amarna tablets Amurru stands for the Lebanon region and K. Phoenicia. But cp. Hommel, Gr. p. 242. ^ The corruptness of this passage is known from @. 196 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL far north, outside of Palestine. But the truth is that the names are primarily southern, i.e. N. Arabian. '^pii; has probably the same origin as ^DN and ^^N, v. lo,^ viz. nDfflN. There is a Phoen. pers. name pn:? (Cooke, p. 89). — ■'3"'D. That there were northern Sinites or Siyyanites (see E. Bib., ' Sinite '), need not be disputed. The only question is whether a reference to southern Sinites is not most probable. The name means ' Ishmaelite' (see on Ex. xvi. i, Ezek. XXX. I s), just as i3"'d ^^ means ' Ishmaelite mountain.' — ^^TnN (!». 18). Probably to be grouped either with it'It (iv. 18) and "rT (v. 16), or with '\'sn^ (see on Num. xxxii. 34), There is no need to think of the northern Arvad ; see on Ezek. xxvii. 8 (Sidon and Arvad mentioned close to ' Elishah ' or ' Ishmael '). — ■'"ids. Again a southern tribe (see E. Bib., ' Zemaraim '). Has the name come from ■'laa ? — Tion. There may well have been several Hamaths. That there was one in the south appears from Num. xiii. 21, and probably from 2 K. xxiii. 3 3 (see notes). It is plausible to identify the southern Hamath with Maacah. Next, a territorial definition, which, however, is painfully obscure (cp. E. Bib., col. 4672). Apparently the first seats of the Canaanites were the Arabian Sidon and Rehoboth (v. 15). Afterwards (v. 1 9) they extended their range, — in one direction towards Gerar (see on xx. i), in another to- wards ' Sodom and Gomorrah ' ; ' Admah and Seboim ' (see on xiv. 2) seem inserted later. Two more precise state- ments are added — nis-IS and i>t»^-n». ms may be a second name of some strongly fortified city such as Sarephath. svh, like wh and Dlsh, is a mutilated form of ^Ni>Cim\ That ' Sodom and Gomorrah ' were originally located in N. Arabia appears from the true text of xiii. 10. F. 21 introduces us to the sons of Shem (J). For the difficulties of the traditional text see Dillmann (ad loc.) and especially Budde {Urgesch. pp. 304 ff^. It is very strange (i) that "i^;; should not be followed either by ]3 or by D''33r (2) that ' Shem ' should have two explanatory appositional clauses, (3) that the first of these clauses should be so circum- locutory, and (4) that the second should be so ambiguous 1 We must remember that 'piS and lin come from diflferent sources. TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) 197 that (5. followed among moderns by Noldeke, should take an entirely different view of the meaning from Dillmann, Budde, and the great majority of recent critics. It has not, however, been noticed that every one of the words in w. 2 1 b, except ■'33 f?3, is very likely, as experience has shown, to be corrupt. The combination of such words should at any rate give us pause, and if the corrections which experience suggests as possible, and which accord with our results elsewhere, should at once throw a bright light on the passage, we shall be entitled to regard them as practically certain, (i) "'IN (see on iv. 20, ix. 18, xxxiii. 19) and nns (see on in3», xiv. 13, Num. xxiv. 24, i K. v. i, i Chr. viii. 22) often come from n-js. (2) TTN, like ms (xvi. 12, etc.) and ^^N (Ex. iii. i, etc.), and as often in compound proper names, may represent ni;i^M. Cp. on xiv. 13. (3) nD% though elsewhere from \^Tr', may here represent mriDJ, whence DTinai (see on v. 13). (4) f3*ni[n], as in xv. 18, Dt. i. 7, etc., may come from h^TX, i.e. •\:h'X (cp. on v. 12). We can now explain v. 21. Note that i^m should be ins ; it should go with Nirr Dl, so forming a gloss (see on iv. 26). The verse now runs thus, N^n 03.] ~hi ^Ni^oiCT [is'jin mnD3T nntOM] 1-ts-'D1-^3 [nns, ' And Ishmael begot [he, too, is Arabia] all the sons of Arabia [Ashhur and Naphtoah of Gilead].' This is J's account expanded by two glosses. P also recognises Asshur ( = Ashhur) and Gilead (under the form ' Lud ') as sons of Shem, agreeing in this with the glossator. J has mentioned Naptuhim among the sons of Misrim {v. 13). It has been observed by others that ' Aram ' is not mentioned. True, but Yoktan is mentioned in z;. 25 (see below). We now expect to hear about the ' sons of Arab ' ; nor are we disappointed. F. 2 5 gives the names of the two sons of nis, or rather ns (see on v. 21), viz. Peleg and Yoktan. I7Q surely has no connexion with the region 'el-aflag' in Central Arabia (Hommel), nor with the canals (d"'D •':iSd) of the energetic Babylonian king Hammurabi (Sayce). It may be a shortened form of a compound, s representing ^D in pD (see on xxv. 20), and 3^ the ^3 in ~\^1 and the h-'l in /'3"'lN (cp. on xxxi. 47). The explanation which follows may be a late gloss, jap"' has been explained already (see 198 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL on ix. 24, p. 152) as coming from ;pmN = SpQ>N, i.e. 'nT 1£&N. Cp. on ' Yokshan,' xxv. 2. Yoktan's sons follow. Observe that Havilah and Sheba here appear among the Yoktanites, i.e. as Shemltes, whereas in V. 7 Havilah is a son of Kush, and Sheba a son of Raamah and a grandson of Kush, i.e. both are Hamites. But the distinction between Shem and Ham is purely artificial. Now, as to Almodad. Most regard this as the name of a S. Arabian tribe, and the only question is, whether Sn in ^^^o^N is the Arabic article (so still Kon. Lehrgeb. ii. 417) or ^n, 'God.' Glaser {Skizze, ii. 280) remarks, ' Evidently compounded of El or II (God) and inaudad, mawddid, muwaddad, which occurs sometimes in the inscriptions.' Thus we get ' God is beloved,' a meaning as improbable as ' God pities ' for ' Yerahme'el.' But, remembering such a name as Abimael {v. 28), i.e. Arab- Yerahme'el, it is much more probable that we should group the letters a very little differently, and read ^^^-^ND, i.e. Yerahme'el of D6d. ' D6d ' (see pp. 46-49) is the name both of a region and of a god. As to Sheleph (y^^. If ' Hazar- inavetk ' were really = Hadramaut, ' Sheleph ' might be one of the many places in S. Arabia called 5«^ (Glaser, ii. 425). Most probably, however, f\ha, like S]^s (Neh. iii. 30), repre- sents f?Mi>DtO\ The intermediate form is ^IIC (cp. ^liBj). Cp. on nthl, xxix. 24. — As to the form mman, there is no doubt that it occurs in Sabsean inscriptions ; and most critics confidently trace the Hebrew name to S. Arabia, and identify it with mod. Hadramaut, on which see Bent, South Arabia ( 1 900) p. 7 1 ■ We must not, however, infer that when some name in the Hebrew records is identical with a Sabaean name, it has, therefore, the same local reference. Nothing is more common or more perplexing than the reappear- ance of names in widely separated localities. We have first of all to ascertain where the scene of the narrative is laid, or to what region a list of names belongs. On this point of method many critics are too careless. Hence, re- gardless of inconsistencies, they identify D^'^s with ' Elymais,' ifjQ with Phalga in the Euphrates region, and now moiOT with a district a little to the east of Aden. But surely textual criticism has its rights. A wide survey of the texts TABLE OF PEOPLES (Gen. x.) 199 will show that nsn may represent nntD[N], and that mo may be a corruption either of fjion = f?Ni^etOi or of mo'^T' = ^Nom"' (as in Isa. xxv. 8, xxviii. 15, and perhaps Ps. xviii. 5).^ We now approach a result which is consistent with our view of all the rest of this composite Table, moisn repre- sents ^Nom"' nntDM, i.e. some part of the region in the N. Arabian border-land called Ashhur-Yerahme'el. Probably the name suffered at an early date from popular and scribal corruption. Cp. on the one hand fjsito ys^ (Josh. xv. 28), i.e. 'own ^^QJ^?, and on the other niDIS (2 S. xxiii. 3 1 , Neh. vii. 28), where TS probably comes from his, a worn -down and corrupt form of ^NSDtO"' (see on ' Uzal,' v. 27). — m"' is a shorter form of DnT = f?NOnT' (see pp. 27/). The writer seems to have put down all the names he could ; their origin has long since been forgotten. Not impossibly riT^ in the Phcen. name nT 132? {TSBA v. 456) has the same origin, which, presumably, at an early date passed out of remembrance.^ Hadoram (mnn ; cp. Sab. D"mn) is also the name of a son of a king of Hamath ( i Chr. xviii. 10; 2 S. viii. i o ?). Its meaning is not religious (' beloved of the High One,' Baethgen), but geographical. m, as in Dn^M, etc., is = DIN ('DriT); nn, like T-[rt (xxv. is), is a tribal name. Cp. on iin, xxxvi. 35. — bllN ; Sam. ^rw, @ atfJ/X. From f?NSDm\ So f?r (® presupposes f?lN"'), Num. xxiv. 7 ; h\v(\S, Lev. xvi. 8. — xh'^. Probably from n^pnn (see on h[r\T\, ii. 14). 'Palm-land' is out of the question. — f?n». Here, as elsewhere, we are on Yerahme'elite ground. Sam. Sys, a name found in Dt. xi. 29, and probably = ^Mj?aQ>\ Cp. hn^, Dan. viii. 2. — Abimael (^nD'^Im) may be traced to ■JND[mi] m,». ' Father is God ' is untenable.^ — Sheba, see 1 Cheyne, Psalms''^\ p. Ixxvi. ^ nay in such names may be an early corruption of aiy, ' Arabia.' Cp. on ' Eber,' w. 2 1 ; ' Hebrew,' xiv. 1 3. ' ' Father is God ' implies that n is a trace of the ancient ' mimation' ; cp. the early Bab. name Abum-ilu, and the Sab. nnhyDan (as if = ' Father is Attar,' Hal. 148, 4). But 'in so often represents any, and Svd, like K7B, is so often a mutilation of SMom', that the theory referred to is not only in itself improbable but superfluous. Such a name as that Sabaean one has probably been conventionalised. The underlying name will have had a quite different, non-religious meaning. Often the ancient men may have had two forms of names. 200 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL on V. 7. — Ophir (tdin) still awaits explanation (cp. E. Bib., S.V.). — Havilah, see on v. 7. — Yobab (llV). An Edomite (or Arammite?) name, xxxvi. 33; Canaanite, Josh. xi. i ; Ashhurite and Benjamite, i Chr. viii. 9 ; Benjamite, i Chr. viii. 18. Later on, it was identified by the Greeks with Job {Iyydb\ Job xlii. 18. Among (^'s readings are laa^ and i, f?n = Tubal-'arab. A radical duplicated as in mt2) = 'Dte% etc. Jeremias (^Tl/^C, p. 1 70) finds the prophet Hosea's IT underneath mv. But IT', as I have elsewhere shown, must be lis. Glaser, how- ever {Skisze, ii. 303), connects niV with the Sab. tribal name Yuhaibab. Cp. on xxxvi. 33/i — In v. 30 the extent of the Yoktanite country is described. — Mesha (Nffio) comes from 7Ni»otD"' ; cp. on ' Mash,' v. 23, and on ' Massa,' xxv. 14. — ^nsp, possibly from [njDns ; cp. on idd n"'np. Josh. xv. 1 5, and on ^^DD, Obad. 20. There may well have been more than one Sarephath in the Arabian border-land. — DTpn in. Meyer (p. 244), 'the desert mountainous region eastward of Edom." F. Brown, however, thinks that the phrase 'the mountain of the East ' is ' too general an expression to give precision to the undefined geographical terms of this verse ' iE. Bib., ' Sephar '). In fact, the commentators differ as to the reference ; Delitzsch and Driver think of the incense- mountains between Hadramaut and Mahra. The truth most probably is (see E. Bib., ' Rekem,' and on xxv. 6, 13, xxix. I, I K. V. 10), that Kedem (dtp) in a whole group of names (Kadmoni, Kedemah, Kedemoth, bene Kedem) comes from Rekem (Dpi). This modification may have been effected very early, and may perhaps have been known in Egypt as early as the twelfth dynasty. Read DpT ITf (or imrr), and for the phrase see on Num. xxiii. 7. THE INTERRUPTED BUILDING (Gen. xi. 1-9) It would not be strange in any folklore to find a myth accounting for the dispersion of mankind and the variety of languages as due to a divine curse. And if in some country there happened to be some ancient and lofty tower which had been shattered by a storm, we might expect to find traces of a myth ascribing the erection of it to the first human folk, and its shattered condition to the wrath of the gods at the attempt of men to draw near to their own lofty dwelling-place. Moreover, these two myths — that of the curse producing the many languages and that of the divinely injured tower — might conceivably be combined. The question therefore arises : Did this combination take place in Israelitish folklore, so far as can be seen from the scanty fragments of it preserved in Genesis ? An affirmative answer has sometimes been given. It has been supposed that some of the Semitic peoples may have ascribed the curse of many tongues to the bold attempt of early men, not indeed to ascend into heaven (though, besides the Babylonians, the Polynesians, and N. American Indians could offer many parallels for such a tradition), but to produce such a monument of their strength that humanity might have something to boast of even before the gods. As in the case of other myths, the original site of this tower may have been in Wonderland. But when, through a devastating storm, a temple -tower {ziggurraf) in or near Babylon had fallen into disrepair, 'wandering Aramaean tribes may have marked it, and connecting it with the " babel " of foreign tongues in Babylon, may have localised the myth at the ruined temple-tower. Balbel, they would have exclaimed : it was here that God confounded men's 201 202 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL speech, and the proofs of it are the ruined tower and the name of Babel.' ^ The theory here described has the merit of plausibility. The ruined tower spoken of might be the ziggurrat of Borsippa, of which Nebuchadnezzar tells us that it had ' fallen into decay since remote days,' though others have thought' of the ziggurrat of the great temple E-sagila in Babylon itself, which was known to Greek writers as the temple of Belos, and of which the same king tells us that he restored and finished it.^ Further consideration, however, will show that though there are some points in its favour, it labours under great diiificulties. In its favour are the reference to building with bricks and bitumen {v. 3), the mention of a tower 'whose top is in heaven ' (a phrase which might be borrowed from some Babylonian myth or myths), and the name f?ni (Babel) ; but until textual criticism has had its say we cannot venture to assert that these notable points are really decisive. And against the theory are these three notable points, which are independent of textual criticism : — i. The unique position of Babylon, and the vast indebtedness of the surrounding peoples to this focus of culture, which make it inconceivable that, to any of them, the name of Babylon should have suggested the thought of a curse. The Babylonians them- selves explained the name of this chief city as meaning ' the gate of God ' (or ' of the gods '). If the Hebrew story of the tower of Babel has a Babylonian connexion, we may certainly wonder that the idea conveyed in the phrase ' gate of God' (cp. xxviii. 17) does not find expression. 2. A Babylonian ziggurrat possessed extreme sanctity. With its seven stages or terraces it symbolised the heavenly zodiac, which was imagined to consist of seven parallel zones, one upon another,^ or, more simply, the heavenly mountain on whose summit the gods dwelt.* If the tower referred to in 1 E. Bib., ' Babel, Tower of,' § 4. 2 Ibid. § 7, where add reference to Hommel, Gr. pp. 314^ 3 See Winckler, GI ii. 108 /, note 6 ; Zimmern, KAT, pp. 615/; Jeremias, ATAO, pp. 11 f.; Hommel, Gr. p. 363, note 4, cp. p. 126. * The seat of Anu (the divine Father) is to the north of the zodiac, in fact the north pole of the heaven; see Jensen, Kosmol. pp. idff.'. THE INTERRUPTED BUILDING (Gen. xi. 1-9) 203 V. 4 was such, the object of its builders must have been, not to ' make themselves a name,' but to please the gods. To wish to approach the elohim was no impiety, but seemly in the highest degree for devout worshippers. If the early Babylonian king Gudea can speak of the ascending of the temple of the seven tubukati or stages (?) as a work well- pleasing to God, surely the act of these builders must have been so too. And how could it be said that God came down to see the tower, which, if a ziggurrat, was manifestly a copy of the tower-like zodiac from which he himself had come? That the Aramaean tribes would not have known this, is a mere assumption. The influence of Babylonian culture was far-reaching, and Aramaean tribes cannot have been exempt from its operation. 3. The last, not least, of these unfavourable points is the want of an adequate philological basis (see p. 185) for the current identification of the ' land of Shinar ' with Babylonia. The question of the origin of the Hebrew story is complicated by the existence of phenomena which point to a dual authorship, viz. («) the want of connectedness in v. 4 ; {]}) the mention of Yahweh's 'going down' {v. 5) before the council of the elohim at which it was proposed that the elohim, led by Yahweh, should ' go down ' ; (c) the reference to the ' confusion ' of the ' language ' without any mention of the ' dispersion ' of the builders in z*. 7 ; (f?l (from ^nDiIT', like hs'h^ in I S. X. 27, Nah. ii. i), and even hl1 (see on x. 10). I only mention TXrh'y as a very possible name, and the one which best suits the legend. Supposing »^3 (Bela ; cp. xiv. 2) were the name originally used, we might suppose that the earliest legend spoke of the destruction of the city by fire from heaven (cp. Sodom), since the verb svl may perfectly well mean to lay waste in general (cp. 2 S. xx. igf., II n^nmn). It is only fair to add that we are not absolutely bound to suppose that the original narrator had in his mind any inhabited place in N. Arabia. A hint may here be taken from Jubilees (x. 26), where it is said that 'the Lord sent a mighty wind against the tower, and overthrew it upon the earth, . . . and they called its name Overthrow' (naan). There is a class of ruined places in Arabia (called makl&bdt, ■ overturned ') which, according to legend, were destroyed by a divine judgment— such places, according to Delitzsch, are referred to in a famous poetical indictment of the wicked man in Job xv. 28.^ That the passage before us has had textual vicissitudes, should be obvious. Indeed, it must already have been corrupt when the early redactor received it. This person appears to have corrected it under the influence of a pre- conceived idea that no other city but Babylon could have been represented in tradition as the city of ' all the earth.' Though it could not be realised at once, the dream of a world-metropolis was, he may have thought, realised after- 1 Cp. Job XXX. 23, where 'n '73 may have come from nint'3, a corruption (see above) of 'm' ; also am '^vn, the name of an arch-demon in later times, which comes from Snj;db" '^vn. See p. 54. 2 See E. Bib., col. 4670. THE INTERRUPTED BUILDING (Gen. xi.-i-g) 207 wards. And the ' babel ' of languages to be heard in the streets of the later city may have confirmed this writer in his interpretation. Hence a plausible derivation occurred to him for the name Babel. And with much skill he intro- duced a second speech of the builders, with true Babylonian colouring {v. 3, bricks and bitumen). He also inserted a statement on the descent of Yahweh {y. 5), which may have seemed to correct the religiously questionable phrase, ' Let us go down ' (z/. 7). Let us now pass on to the text-critical details. Surely the construction in v. i, for which I can find no complete parallel, is very bold, and all the more improbable in view of D^5^ in V. 6 (at least if that word is correct). An equally bold phrase follows — D■>^^N D'liai. @ seeks to remove the boldness by supplying ah:h {(fxovrj fiia •iraa-iv), but D"'ni"T is not ^covi], and the difficulty of j^^eiXot ev remains. It is now usual to render ' einerlei Redensarten.' But how can D■'^^N mean ' einerlei,' ' the same,' in view of xxvii. 44, xxix. 20, Dan. xi. 20 ? Early rabbis were conscious of the difficulty. Some, e.g., virtually read D"'"7n 'f, ' sharp words (against God) ' ; see Ber. rabba. Par. xxxviii. Clearly there is a call for textual criticism. nstD cannot be right ; let us take a hint from v. 6, where DS and rrstO (or some word underlying it) are parallel, and read nns t&D ; Q and n became illegible, and so rrDtO remained. onnN, if incorrect, may with much probability be corrected into D"'intON ; nJiN or ^^N has often come from nntDN {e.g. Isa. xxvii. 12). D"'"in may represent D'^mr (cp. on XV. I ) ; T or t and i> can be confounded ; cp. MT. and ^ of Dt. xi. 22, xix. 9, xxviii. 58, xxxi. 12 (looj and saa)). Probably, however, we should disregard the plural endings and read inmN-ni?, ' Arab-Ashhur,' which is presumably a gloss on isam pN {v. 2). In V. 2 the commentators usually render mpo, ' east- ward ' ; Kautzsch-Socin prefer ' in the east' Neither render- ing is natural in a passage where geographical distinctness is of importance. We are told where the point was that the first men reached, and we expect to be told where they started from. As Stade has noticed {ZATW, 1894, p. 276), it was from the region of Eden that they started on their journey ; @ is therefore correct in rendering airb avaroXSsv. 2o8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL At the same time, Dillmann's remark that riii,'^ by itself does not mean ' eastern land ' is weighty as against Stade. Only, Dillmann ought to have been led to examine critically into the reading mp. For it is contrary to all sound exegesis to explain d"T|7 133 (Judg. vi. 3, etc.) as a collective term for the eastern Arabs (Dillm., p. 315). The evidence suggests that Dip has been persistently produced by a redactor or redactors out of npT (see E. Bib., ' Rekem,' ' Sela '). The true reading, therefore, is Dpno. Cp. on xiii. 1 1 . The early nomads came to a halt in the land of nMt&, i.e. Ishmael- Arabia (for a gloss see above on v. i ), exactly where the rule of Nimrod (Rahman ?) had its beginning, and there they built a city with a tower. The text (which is sup- ported by @) states that the tower which they planned was to be so lofty that it would seem to touch the sky, a common hyperbole in Assyrian and Babylonian as well as Egyptian descriptions (see .£. Bid., col. 411, note 3). But is it&Nm □"'DtDl at all a likely reading? A rhetorical hyperbole of this kind is out of character with the simple builders (Dt. i. 28 is quite a different case), and if it is not a hyperbole, but meant in sober earnest, it is a boast like that of Isa. xiv. 13, and much more would have been made of it. At the very least, the destruction of the impiously meant tower would have been mentioned, and not merely the breaking- off of the building of the city. Is there no balm for this grievous wound ? Certainly. mwi often (e.g. Ezek. xxxviii. 2 /.), and in 2 S. xiv. 26 ^t&N^, represent ^^^», and D"'DtD often (e.£^. xlix. 25) has come from 7Ni?D{B\ Read most probably ^Mi^DQ)'' n^«3, which seems to be a gloss on f?llD"l TS, stating where city and tower were situated. Asshur-Ishmael was both a region (see on ix. 20, 28, x. i) and a city (see on Dt. i. 4). Not less improbable, as is shown by the variations of the commentators, is nw n»i'31. The MT. not being in- fallible, let us try the effect of a criticism based on parallel instances. In Isa. xxxviii. is,xliv. 23, Ixiv. 3, Ps. xxii. 32, xxxvii. 5, Hi. II, one or another verbal form of nws has displaced a verbal form of Diffin. Beyond doubt this has also been the case here. Read D^ 112^ rr^"'^3"]. V. 6 has to be taken with v. i ; read nriN nnstCD") THE INTERRUPTED BUILDING (Gen. xi. 1-9) 209 [^NDm*']. Q^3^ has arisen quite naturally (cp. "770 often, and 10^3, Ezek. xxvii. 2 3, from 'om"') ; so in 2 K. xix. 35. The duplication of a letter (here f?) is common in corruptions. — ' Let us confound their speech,' etc., in v. 7, betrays the hand of the second writer or redactor. The easiest form of restoration is to read, for 'in nf?131, simply D)7^?31 (cp. Ps. ii. s), and complete the speech by bringing over the three last words of v. 8. To read 'n^'y^ (with s^3 for the name of the city) would involve supposing that the redactor dealt more violently with the original text. V. Z a will then be quite in order. In v. 9 for fsni we may perhaps read TXrhl, Bilhah, or Ballahah (see introd.), and restore the rest of the verse in accordance with the translation given above. Let us remember, however, that the later scribes recognised a second city called ^13 (see on x. 10). SHEMITE GENEALOGY (Gen. xi. 10-26) The scheme of this Shemite genealogy resembles that of the early genealogy (also P's) in chap. v. Shem, Arpak- shad, Shelah, 'Eber, and Peleg we know already. The first-named is said to have begotten Arpakshad ' two years after the mabbul ' ; mabbul is said to mean ' deluge.' The difficulties of this statement are fully set forth by Dill- mann, Budde, and Holzinger. No satisfactory way of sur- mounting them has yet been devised, so that Budde has been compelled to suppose that binon nnN uTCim is a gloss by some one who aimed at a strict chronology, but left ix. 28 / out of consideration. Very arbitrary, but it seemed the last resource. And yet one more remedy remains to be tried, viz. textual criticism, of the kind which has already 14 2IO TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL served us well in similar cases. Acting on this plan we have already restored the reading which underlies nnn fpiion in ix. 28, X. I, 32, viz. bsonT nriQJN. Next, D'^naw has to be studied. ' Two years ' is not at all what we expect. Clearly we require a place-name, and we may presume that the true text had a compound name equivalent to, and suitable as a gloss on, Ashhur-Yerahme'el. Can we be in doubt any longer? I hope no reader will deny that a popular form of Ashtar ( = Asshur and Ashhur) is nt& (see on iv. 25), and that a similar shortened popular form of 'am"" or 'cm"' is jq\ Next, it is not too much to expect that a scribe will have transposed one or two letters. Thus we get, for DTi^m, ]Di nm ( = Ashtar-Yaman), a gloss on '{&« 'cm"'. The preposition 3 has dropped out. A parallel to this corruption exists in Am. i. i, where the closing words should be read nnOJN ^'^jh Joi-nm [^r], ' against Sheth-Yaman, eastward of Ashhur.' The result in xi. 10 is that when ' Arpakshad ' was born, his father (according to P) was still living where Noah had lived (ix. 20, 28) — in Ashhur- Yerahme'el — the favourite land of primitive legendary tradition. The next names are {a) isn, which is not a Meso- potamian divine name (so Mez), but to be explained like ^Mliil and jnxn, i.e. is a relic of ^ndHT' (cp. on xxix. 32); ip) :mm, which is not the Mesopotamian district Sarug, but, by transposition, from iTtOl ( = "ntoriN), primarily a N. Arabian name ; (c) Tin3, which may indeed be connected with the name of a (N.) Aramaean deity (Jensen), but is primarily an Arabian district-name ^ (see on xxiv. 10); {d) mn, which is not from Ass. turahu, 'wild goat' (Del., Jensen), nor an intentional distortion of nT, ' moon ' (WinckL), but, like mitap, pmn, and mn (i S. xxii. 5), probably comes from mntON ; cp. on XXV. i (Keturah) ; {e) mnw, i.e. Ci"iN 3"i», — IN and •^IN often represent I3i), i.e. ans ; see, further, on xvii. 5 ; (/) prr, not ' mountaineer,' but differentiated from ]in (Wellh.), the name of the place where the Terahites halted in their migration, and which, as we shall see 1 Note that Nahor is both the father and the son of Terah. Evidently an important name. Hence, xxxi. 53, 'the God of Nahor.' SHEMITE GENEALOGY (Gen. xi. 10-26) 211 presently, is an Asshurite name. That ' Haran ' is the god of the early light, and identical with Ninib-Tamiiz (Winckler, GI ii. 97), is a theory which cannot stand by itself, and must share the fate of the mythological theory of Abram and Sarai. GENEALOGY OF TERAH (Gen. xi. 27-32) To the statement already made in v. 26 it is now added that Haran begat Lot (talb). This was originally the name of a Horite tribe ; cp. Lotan, Gen. xxxvi. 20, 29. To understand this we must assume results arrived at elsewhere, viz. that Seir and Hori are independent derivatives of Asshur or Ashhur ; and we shall see presently that Haran (whence Haran) is also an Ashhurite name. In fact, Seir ( = Hor) was a part of that wide land of Ashhur, different parts of which were occupied by Esau, Jacob, and Laban respectively (see on xxxii. 4-20). And now as to the name Lot. Plausible as Winckler's explanation, ' one who is taken into the family,' ^ may be — he thinks that a pre-Edomitish tribe was admitted into union with the Edomites, — it is too much out of accord with the general theory of names to be accepted. We want some N. Arabian district-name ; it should presumably be of more than one syllable, and one of the syllables must be either ^sh, or at least capable of being corrupted into xsh. The name required is probably is'?!. This word has become Tshy in I S. xvii. 4, and mf?l in Am. i. 6, Ob. 20. mf? from m^a is like nin from iintON ; n and a are often con- 1 AOF ii. 87/, referring to Ar. Ictta in viii. 212 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL founded (cp. f?NlJa from fjainw). It should also be noted that in the place-name nn m^ or 't i^ ^ (2 S. xvii. 27 ; ix. 4) ^MS or -xh probably represents ~\':hy.. The southern or Arabian Gilead cannot have been very far from Haran (the name is the original of Lot's father's name), as will be shown on chap. xxxi. ; by Haran I mean here the southern Haran, which was in the land of ' the bene Rekem ' (so read xxix. I ), i.e. some part of the region called Asshur-Yerahme'el. Lot {i.e. ' Gilead ' ?) was the son of Haran, and Haran is not really different from Haran. What, then, is the origin of the latter name ? Analogy suggests that pn comes from prrw, i.e. pntON (cp. on Dt. xi. 24). It is therefore an Ashhurite name ; similarly in i Chr. ii. 46 Haran appears as Yerahme'elite, and in I Chr. xxiii. 9 Haran as a son of Shimei ( = Ishmaelite). According to most, Haran is once called 'the city of Nahor.' Most probably, however (see on xxiv. I o), we should read, not ' to the city of Nahor,' but ' to Arab-nahor.' The historical conjectures of Winckler (cp. BiMe Problems, pp. 150-153) depend upon the view that the Haran of Genesis is the Harran of the cuneiform inscriptions, which was for many centuries a centre of moon- worship. These conjectures have at last found acceptance with a ' Saul among the prophets.' According to Prof. B. Baentsch, best known as an able commentator of the pre- dominant critical school, the mere mention of the names of such sanctuaries as Ur-Kasdim, Harran, and On (Heliopolis), could not but suggest to any cultivated Oriental of antiquity a complete world of higher religious ideas.^ From this he infers that if Abram and Joseph were brought by tradition into connexion with these sanctuaries, it was because there was still a consciousness that the 'fathers' (Ex. iii. 15) represented by Abram and Joseph were both acquainted with and influenced by the ideas of the priesthoods of those famous places. A fatal concession, due in the first instance to the prevalent excessive textual conservatism. I fear I must add that the failure to recognise, as at any rate highly probable, the existence of a southern Haran or Haran has led Winckler equally with less ortho- 1 The whole name comes from 3;;; lySa. 2 Altorient. u. altisraelit. Monotkeismus (1906), p. 50. GENEALOGY OF TERAH (GEN. xi. 27-32) 213 dox critics into faulty constructions both in early and in later history.^ We may now inquire, From what district or region did Terah and his family migrate? We are told {v. 28) that ' Haran died before his father Terah {coram eo) in his native land, in Ur-Kasdim,' also (v. 31) that Terah 'took his son Abram . . . and brought them " (Sam., @, Vg.) from Ur-Kasdim to go into the land of Canaan,' and that they 'came as far as Haran, and dwelt there,' and {v. 32) that ' Terah died in Haran.' Terah, then, dwelt in Ur-Kasdim (?), in which district (?) we may conjecture that there was a place which bore the often mutilated name, Ashhoreth, because Terah most probably records the name of a place where his reputed descendants abode, and this not improbably was Ashhoreth (see on ' Kiryath-arba,' xxiii. 2). I am aware that there is a critical dogma which is opposed to this view. It is very commonly supposed ' that ' Ur-Kasdim ' means, not a district, but a city, and no less a city than the old Babylonian Uru, famous religiously by its devotion to the moon-god, and raised by its fortunate situa- tion to a leading place among commercial cities.* I have no doubt that priceless archaeological and literary treasures will reward a thorough excavation of the mounds. I cannot, however, retract what I have said elsewhere {Bible Problems, p. 153): 'As yet no proof at all has been offered for the assumption that Ur-Kasdim is represented by the ruins of el-Mukayyar, six miles south of the Euphrates. Those ruins do undoubtedly represent the ancient Uru, but between Ur-Kasdim and Uru a great gulf is fixed.' The difficulties in the prevalent view have been stated in the article, ' Ur of the Chaldees' in the Encyclopcedia Biblica (1903), to which, for economy of space, I now refer. There, too, a new solution of the problem of Ur-Kasdim was put forward. The word D"'ltDD (not less than -ns) having met with no satis- ^ The familiar but incorrect ' Sanballat the Horonite ' most probably represents ' Shementubal the Haranite ' (Shemen = Ishmael). ^ Unless we should read '?j»DnND ins>i, ' and they went out from Eth- mael,' taking onu to be for 'nuD (iiyDnnD). Ethbaal or Ethmael = Ishmael. * See, however, Kittel {Hist. i. 18; but cp. note 4) and Gunkel {Gertesis^\ p. 145 ; but cp. GenJ^' p. 139). * See Rogers, IfBA ii. 371/, quoted in £. Bib., col. 5232. 214 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL factory explanation/ an appeal was made to textual criticism. We have seen (note on tCiD, x. 6) that tOD and 3tD, as well as ©n, as elements of names, are fragments of nntON ; cp. ^Q>D, D3t&, pOJDT, etc., while Wl may be expected to represent D"nN, as DT represents ms, so that D■'^tDD may conceivably have come from D"nM nnOJN. The parallel of "^XSltn, however, suggests a different theory. The place or district so called is (at any rate in most passages) in Aram, i.e. Yerahme'el. The question therefore arises whether a"'na>3, like ptODT (or rather — see on xv. 2 — ptDD^), may not originally have signified Ashhur-Yaman, and the answer must be in the affirmative. Cp. Isa. iii. 3, reading Dlton Mn,^ and i Chr. iv. 14, Neh. xi. 35, reading mton «■'!. As to "ilN, it is clear that, like Tl' {e.g. in x. 11, Judg. i. 16, I S. XV. 5, Ezek. xvii. 4), it may very well represent ns ; ^ possibly, indeed, an earlier reading (cp. ®, eV tiJ xatpa = Sn1) was nN (from '•^^s). In x. 22 we have already met with mtD^-mi' under the thin disguise of nmaaiN ; it is but a short step further to recognise the same phrase under the impossible reading D■'^tD3 llN. The view to which this leads is that, according to the original tradition, Abram (the Yerahme'elite patriarch) first dwelt in Arab-Kasram (cp. on xv. 7), and thence journeyed to Haran in the (southern) land of Canaan. Geographically, it may be well to remark that Kasram (trad, text, nntDD) cannot have been far from Asshur on the one hand and Canaan on the other, for in Ezek. xvi. 2i f. it is mentioned as in proximity to both (' unto the land of Canaan, unto Kasram ') ; also that * Asshur ' can be used in a large sense, so as to include the southern Canaan (see on xxxiii. 1 8). The passage has been greatly misunderstood, and a precise geographical explana- tion is still in the distance. 1 The latest Assyriological explanation is perhaps that of Homrael {Gr. p. 187, note 4), 'the old KaSdi, the inhabitants of Gu-Edin = KiSad- Edini, the district about Ur and Eridu.' He regards Ur-Kasdim, Kdsed, and Arpa-Kesad (' Chaldasans' boundary ' = MT.'s ArpakSad) as synonyms for Chaldsea. But how does arpa mean ' boundary,' and what has become of edini ? 2 N. Arabia was famed for its ' wisdom.' See pp. 40/ 8 So probably ih in the Phcenician name iSdin (Cooke, p. 18) = Urumilki on the Taylor cylinder of Sennacherib. GENEALOGY OF TERAH (Gen. xi. 27-32) 215 The names of the wives still remain {v. 29). Abram's wife is called "'i©, which may correspond to the name Sa-ra-a (Sarai ?) which is borne by a Mesopotamian woman on a Babylonian tablet (K 1274) of the Sargonide period, translated by Johnston, Ass. Epist. Lit, Baltimore, 1898, p. 174. ■>: may be an archaic Arabising feminine ending.^ The root letters may represent the no? in n©N. See on xvii. 15 (Sarah), xxxii. 29 (Israel). For the views of Jensen and Winckler see E. Bib., ' Sarah,' § 2 ; for those of Meyer, Die Israeliten, pp. 568 y; Nahor's wife is called na'pD, i.e. I^D, a common transformation of fjMOm"', with the feminine ending. Cp. on xiv. 2, xx. 2. To the statement of these names the traditional text adds nSD"' ■'nMI vdl't) ■'ns. The repetition of "'IN is surprising, in spite of the parallel in xiv. 13. What has caused it? May we regard nSD"' as a variant to riD^D (cp. Ball) ? And we must further ask. What can be the object of mentioning a second Milcah ? The truth seems to be that here, as often (see on iv. 20), "ilM comes from nai> = n». What nafjD means, we have seen. As to n3D"', it cannot possibly be another name for ' Sarai,' as some of the ancients thought (see Dillm.), nor a corruption of the Babylonian divine name Nusku. It is rather a corruption," either of TO^D (Dt. iii. 10), or of nD2i> (Josh. xv. 16), both of which names may represent 'jatDN, i.e. hvcaXW n^N.^ So that the double gloss on naSo states that this name is equivalent both to Arab-Yerahme'el ' and to Arab-Ashkal (Asshur-Yerahme'el). For a mythological explanation of Milcah see KAT, p. 364, and E. Bib., s.v. I doubt whether this theory is tenable. Indeed, at this point I may take leave to say that the names in Gen. xi. appear to be all primarily N. Arabian. If any of them are also N. Aramaean or Mesopotamian, it must be because they were carried northward in migrations. 1 Cp. Nestle, ZATW, 1905, p. 363. ^ The only doubt is whether noDji may not represent laoN, and this ' The name 't Sy may underlie the mysterious pSnp tj; in i S. xv. 5. THE THIRD AGE OF THE WORLD, BEGINNING WITH THE CALL AND MIGRATION OF ABRAM. {For another view, see on chap, xvii.) Chap. xii. 1-9. The call and migration of Abram. — 10-20. His temporary sojourn in Misrim, his alarm on account of the supposed danger of his wife, and the wonderful cir- cumstances arising out of his statement respecting Sarai and her being taken into the king's house. Both narratives (which have only an artificial connexion) favour the view that their common hero is in the main an ideal personification of the people of Israel (including the as yet uncorrupted Yerahme'el). The Israelites felt assured of the greatness of their divinely appointed destiny — that is the formative idea of the first narrative. They remembered that they had dwelt for a time in Misrim ; that memory evidently underlies the second story. The great sojourn connected with the name of Joseph and the little one con- nected with the name of Abram are fundamentally the same. With regard to the former narrative, we may accept it as a symbolic expression of the belief that the migration of the bene Israel from Misrim had a religious origin — that it was, in fact, a kind of hejra,^ directed by a prophetic personage, such as Moses or Abraham. It is more hazardous (considering the state of the evidence) to affirm that this religious movement of the bene Israel, believed in at a date long after the real or supposed events, is a histori- cal fact, and even more so to say that it was connected (or supposed to be connected) with a religious revolution in Babylonia which placed Marduk at the head of the 1 Jeremias, ATAO, p. i8i. 217 2i8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL gods.^ It is undeniable, however, that we have in xii. 1-33 religious justification of the occupation of the region called Canaan by the bene Israel, and of their recognition of Yahweh as the god of Canaan. Who Yahweh (historically speaking) was, where the original Canaan was, and whence Abram was supposed to have come, are questions which are not new to us, and the solution of which will become clearer the further we proceed. Another of these questions is that which relates to ' Ur-Kasdim.' We may venture to hold that the solution at which we have arrived clears away a very real difficulty, pointed out by Steuernagel {Einwand. p. 6j'), viz. that whereas elsewhere the figure of Abram is constantly local- ised (as it would seem) in the south of Palestine, he is here ' transferred to the north.' Our solution also throws a new light on the text of the divine speech va. v. i. The ac- cumulation of phrases, ' from thy land, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house ' is unparalleled, and the question arises, both here and in xxiv. 7 (which, though not quite parallel, makes an approach to being one), whether there is an error in the text. Having before us the case of the error in xi. 28, where a gloss is attached to the phrase 'in the land of thy kindred,' we cannot think it unlikely that in xii. I the phrase ' from thy land and from thy kindred ' should receive as an appendix almost the same gloss, viz. 3"i» n"'3p, ' from the Arabian country.' The divine speech certainly gains by the omission of the third expression. (For the change, see on xxviii. 13, xlix. 4, 8). There is yet another restoration which is brought close to us by the solution of the Ur-Kasdim problem. The text of the closing words of v. i suggests that Abram went out into the world not knowing his bourn. Yet if we will but reflect, such blind confidence in a director who withholds necessary information is not natural. Nor, indeed, is the phrase ' to the land which I will cause thee to see ' as plain as we have a right to expect (contrast Ex. xxiii. 20, 23). And if we look at the context, can we avoid seeing that the person whom Yahweh addresses is aware of the name of the 1 See Winckler, Abraham ah Babylonier, etc. (1903), and cp. Cheyne, ' Babylon and the Bible,' Hibbert Journal, Oct. 1903, pp. 65^. THE CALL AND MIGRA TION OF ABRAM (Gen. xii. i-g) 219 region referred to ? Doubtless we require a wide experience of textual phenomena to venture to make a restoration ; but those who have followed me elsewhere have such an experience. We need not doubt that in the original text nms was pronounced, not nmN, but it&w, and that ^N^M, like :»n« in xxiii. 2 and elsewhere, and t^n va v. i, has come from a badly written lis. What the original text made Yahweh say to his servant was this, ' Take thy way from thy land and from thy kindred to the land (read pN) of Asshur- 'arab {i.e. Arabian Asshur^ Before passing on to the narrative, a word may be in place respecting the promise in v. 3^, which is commonly supposed to mean that all races of the world shall recognise the unique position of Abram and of his seed (cp. xviii. 18, xxviii. 14). A study of the prophetic writings in the light of a new textual criticism seems to me to suggest that the ' families ' or ' tribes ' (mn£3toa) meant in the original text were those of the regions bordering on S. Palestine. Cp. Am. iii. 2, which may probably be rendered, 'You only have I known of all the tribes of the land,' and note that in the original text of Ezek. xxxviii. /!, Isa. Ixvi., Joel iv., Zech. xiv. the nations spoken of appear to be those ' round about ' (Joel iv. 12), and that in Isa. xix. 24, Israel, Misrim, and Asshur (the two latter, N. Arabian regions) are represented as forming a triple alliance under the sanction of Israel's God. And what follows next in the narrative? Abram sets out on his journey to that N. Arabian land of Canaan, which became afterwards the border-land of a greater Canaan. Being, according to the original legend, a Yerahme'elite patriarch, he knows the way. It is indeed the road which the merchants took, and one may remark in passing that it must be considerably easier than the route from the con- ventional Haran to the conventional Canaan.^ The land through which he passed {v. 6) was that called, as we have seen, Arabian Asshur. And it is remarkable that, by an archaism such as late writers not unfrequently indulge in, it ■^ Cp. Hos. V. 1 3, where ' Asshur ' and ' Arib ' (so read) are parallel ; also rev. text of chap, xlix., and other passages. ^ For this, see Driver's note on xii. 4^. 220 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL is said of Abram, in Jubilees xiii. i, that he 'came into Asshur, and proceeded to Shechem.' ^ The statement in Genesis (w. 6) is, according to KS, that Abram ' passed through the land as far as to the place where Shechem stood afterwards, as far as to the terebinth of oracles.' The name Shechem often occurs in the early narratives (cp. xxxiii. i8^, xxxiv., xxxv. 4, xlviii. 22, Josh. xxiv. 26). It is usually supposed to indicate the place now called Nablus, eleven hours from Jerusalem on the great north road. That a place called Shechem anciently stood on the same site as Nablus, cannot be doubted ; indeed, according to Knutzon's reading of Am. Tab. 185, 10, there was a ' land of Sakm,' which may have belonged to the realm of Lapaya or Labaya, to the north of the kingdom of Abd-hiba of Jerusalem.^ There are, however, good reasons derived from the contexts of the passages for suspecting that the Shechem of the O.T. narratives referred to was not here, but in the N. Arabian border-land. The singularity of the phrase D3m Dlpo (' the place,' or, as Di., Gu., Dr. render, ' the sanctuary of Shechem ') cannot escape any one. It is only reasonable to criticise the text. The main difficulty lies in Qlpo. Now it so happens that mpQ is several times elsewhere a corruption of ^Nom"' ; see e.g. Isa. xxviii. 8, xxxiii. 21, Ezek. xxxviii. 11 (followed by Dt& = 'nm''), Hos. ii; i, and especially perhaps Ezra viii. 17. This seems to be the case here. We have also (see on x. 2, 14) found that am, mD, and D3 are often fragments of nntDM (the N. Arabian region so called), the tendency of the popular speech being to cut short names which have to be often pronounced, especially in compounds, and on the analogy of names such as "nton for nim-3li» and xhxni for 'tXT' n» (see on Ex. xxxi. 2) it is very possible that D in D3tD may be the remainder of m = DIM. 052) therefore, being necessarily a N. Arabian name, most probably comes from Dn3»,' and 1 Dr. Charles, whose translation I quote, obelizes ' Asshur,' but this simply indicates a too natural prejudice. It is, at any rate, possible that the writer used a text of Genesis which was not in all points adjusted to the geographical theories of later scribes and editors. 2 Cp. H. W. Hogg, E. Bib., 'Ephraim,' § 7. 8 Less probably a^vi is a redactor's substitute for oeis ; see E. Bib., ' Shechem,' § 2. THE CALL AND MIGRATION OF ABRAM (Gen. xii. 1-9) 221 since the prefixed DIpD is a disguise of ' Yerahme'el,' we get the compound name Yerahme'el-Shakram, which is, perhaps, not so much the name of a city as of a district (cp. ' the field of Abram ' in Sheshonk's list ; note on ' Abram,' xi. 27). Shakram itself, as we have seen, is a shortened form of Ashhur-Aram. See, further, on ' Kasdim,' xi. 31. The precise locality visited is called m^i:^ JifjN (cp. Dt. xi. 30). Did the writer really mean by this ' the oracle -giver's terebinth' (or ' sacred tree'), as if the priest attached to this tree knew the way to get oracles from the tree-deity ? I do not, for my own part, deny that miD may mean ' oracle-giver ' ^ (see Siegfried-Stade, Lex., under m"' and mio) ; Mic. iii. 1 1 seems conclusive on this point. But I am not at all sure that we do well to trust the traditional reading. To deny (with the Dutch critic Dozy) that miD can be a proper name, seems to me rash in the extreme. If vcyaa in xiii. 18, xviii. i, is a proper name, it is difficult not to regard rmo too as such. Both these words surely belong to one and the same group with ^■'^D ^ (xxii. 2), rr'no (Neh. xii. 12), nVlQ (Ezra vii. 3), tr^o (Ex. ii. 4), mrn (Josh. xiii. 4) ; also with nanM (Judg. ix. 4 1 ), riDiMT (Gen. xxii. 24), noNT (Josh. xix. 8), Tien (Gen. xxxiii. 19, etc.). The result is that both miD here and MlDD in xiii. 18 come from popular distortions of '?NDm\^ It has been shown elsewhere (on Judg. ix. 37) that c:''33'ii>o (in 'd yhvk) has a similar origin, i.e. the 'Hon of Yerahme'el corresponds to the 'Hon of the Ishmaelites. On the situation of the tree, or trees, see note on Dt. xi. 30. Cp. also on Judg. vii. I. But more sacred sites have still to be claimed for Abram's God. So the patriarch moves camp, and journeys to a spot in the mountain-land, east of ^M-n''l (v. 8). Beyond doubt, there was anciently a northern Bethel 1 That it can mean 'instruction,' i.e. 'knowledge' (Winckler, AOF xxi. 406), and that the cosmic tree of Shechem is referred to, is surely too fanciful. ^ @ evidently connects the two names. In xii. 6 it gives Tr\v Spvv ■n)v v\j/r]Xriv, in xxii. 2 ets Tr]v yrjv Trjv ixj/. Apparently in both places it read nuno (cp. notsi, from mx or 'jNom'). ' This gives the key to Ps. ix. 21, where cnV mio represents doubly SuDnT ; nrfo is a corruption of n'm^n. 222 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL (attested by the modern name Beitln). But is it this place —about ten miles N. of Jerusalem — which is here meant ? Indeed, we may go further and ask whether it is certain that Bethel-Beitin is meant elsewhere, e.g. in xxviii. 19, xxxv. 6, IS, Josh. xvi. 2, Judg. i. 22, iv. 5, xxi. 19, i K. xii. 29, Am. vii. 10, 13 ? Let the reader re-examine these passages in their contexts from our present point of view, and judge. The name itself indicates that a southern position is, in the iirst instance, to be thought of. For such a name as ' Beth-el ' can hardly be still in its original form. ' Beth- Yerahme'el ' might plausibly be suggested as the earlier name,^ but much more probably fjNTT'l should be grouped with 'jMinn (xxii. 22), bira (Josh. xix. 4), rhsi (Josh. xix. 44), mSi^l (Josh. XV. 24), and vcwch (Josh. xv. 32), and all these names should be derived from Ssins = '?NSOffi\^ A strong confirmation of this is furnished by the gloss in Hos. xii. 4 (rev. text), where it is explained that in the short reference to the contest between Jacob and Elohim it is the Arabian or Ishmaelite Bethel that is meant. Observe that according to xiii. 1 3 /! an extensive view over the whole country can be had from ' Beth-el.' This does not accord with facts, if we insist on supposing the northern ' Beth-el ' to be referred to. For the companion -name i»ri, see Crit. Bib. on Josh. vii. 2. The next statement — that in v. 9 — is due to the re- dactor, and with it goes xiii. i, Z /• The redactor supposed Abram to have journeyed southward. We now come to the story of Abram and Sarai in D'^nSD {vv. 10-20), the difficulties of which have long been admitted, though the most important one was first recognised by Winckler {AOF i. 33). The reference to 'going down' into 'd {v. I o), and to nsnD {vv. i S ff) naturally suggests that the scene of the story is in Egypt (oiisp), and yet it is beyond doubt that in the other versions of the same original it is laid in Gerar (chap, xx., Abraham ; chap, xxvi., Isaac). How is this to be explained ? Winckler supposes that in chap. xii. J^ misunderstands, and confounds 120 with 1 See Crit. Bib. on Am. vii. 9/ 2 Notice that Jubilees xiii. 10 states that Abram went 'into the land of the south to Bealoth ' (i.e. Ethbaal). THE CALL AND MIGRA TION OF ABRAM (Gen. xii. 1-9) 223 D'^nSD. I could not deny that this is both possible and plausible. But, on the other hand, it is strange that there is so little genuine Egyptian colouring in the narrative. I know, indeed, that nS^lB (j^apaw) is commonly explained as a Hebraised form of the expression for ' king ' used by the later Egyptians, the early form of which {Per'o) meant ' the great house,' ' the palace.' ^ But there are several objections to this view, (i) The Hebrew vocalisation is not quite what one would expect (see W. M. Miiller). (2) Shishak, So, Tirhakah are without the prefix rrsiQ ; only Necoh and Hophra have it. If ' Pharaoh ' were the adopted Hebrew expression for ' king of Egypt,' why is it omitted in those cases ? To tell us that in Egypt, down to the twenty-second dynasty, the Egyptian term always occurs without a proper name, is not to the point. We are concerned with what is supposed to be an adopted Hebrew term. (3) In numerous passages, e.g. Ex. vi. 11, Dt. vii. 8, i K. ix. 16, Ezek. xxix, 2 f., etc., we meet with the expression ' Pharaoh king of Qinjio,' as if ' Pharaoh ' were a proper name. Cp. also nsns, I Chr. iv. 1 8 3. (4) There are in the O.T. several words resembling ni^ns, such as msna, pnris, ovno, which at any rate suggest the reasonableness of seeking first of all to explain nana from Semitic. (5) The other Semitic languages have not accepted Par'oh (Pharaoh) in any form as an expression for the king of Egypt. From the N. Arabian point of view the origin of ni>nD is not difficult to find. It comes most probably from Pir'u, the name (as we may suppose) of some Misrite king who became famous. At any rate, it was the name of a king of Musri in Sargon's time — the phrase is Pir'u sar Musri, which corresponds exactly to D-iiao I'^o rrriD. Another form of nsin is possibly dnid (Josh. x. 3), where the o may be due, as Hommel suggests, to Arabic ' mimation.' ^ These and all the other parallel names quoted above may ultimately have come from sins = 315 (see on ' Arpakshad,' x. 22); the explanation of Pir'u as ' shoot,' ' offspring,' is less probable. Of course, the view that nsiQ is not a Hebraised Egyptian 1 See W. M. MuUer, E. Bib., 'Pharaoh,' § i. ^ DHT3 may, however, have come from nnsu (on which see note on xii. 52). 224 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL title meaning ' king ' but a N. Arabian personal royal name will only be certain (practically) when it has been shown that Shishak, So, Tirhakah, Necoh, Hophra (whether ex- pressly called ' Pharaoh ' or not) were really kings of Musri.' Next, as to the danger encountered by Sarai in D"'nSD. There is no temptation to deny that a king of Egypt might have coveted the possession of a beautiful Asiatic woman ; a conservative scholar^ refers in this connexion to King Abd-hiba's present of twenty -one female slaves to his Egyptian suzerain. But can we suppose that there would have been less danger for Sarai in an Arabian kingdom? Much more important is the expression ' Abram went down into O'lnSQ ' {v. i o), and the implied statement that 'd is a corn-land. This looks very much like a reference to Egypt. Was it introduced by the redactor ? If so, he left a good deal that is adverse to his theory. And if we admit this, we must also admit that this and other redactors made similar interferences with the text elsewhere (see especially the Joseph-story). Certainly this appears to be the fairest hypothesis that we can frame. It does not require us to deny that there were fruitful parts of N. Arabia, and that the ancestors of the Israelites sojourned there, and it enables us to account for phrases and for elements in the descriptions which can hardly otherwise be explained. And yet even here a doubt forces itself upon us ; for in Num. xi. 5, where the text is plainly wrong, must we not read thus,^ ' We remember the corn (]l"^rT) which we ate in Misrim ' (gloss, D2n, i.e. Yahman, Yerahme'el), and in 2 K. xviii. 32 is it not the king of the N. Arabian Asshur who declares that he will take the Jews away to ' a land of corn and wine ' ? Even if the latter be due to a redactor who knows only of a king of Assyria, yet the former remains. Here is a real problem (see on chap. xl.). At any rate, the claims of D'^nap are upset by the 1 See Crit. Bib. It may be noticed here that yisn (Hophra) in Jer. xliv. 30 is merely a corrupt dittograph of nyis, and that hdj nyis (Ph. Necoh) in 2 K. xxiii. 29 may have come from ^jn ikis. 2 Heyes, Bib. u. Aeg. p. 18 (Am. Tab. 181, 20-22). ^ The second half of the verse consists apparently of miswritten names of peoples. See on Ex. xii. 38. THE CALL AND MIGRA TION OF ABRAM (Gen. xii. 1-9) 225 reference to camels in v. 16, at least if the text reading is correct. For ' the assertion that the ancient Egyptians knew the camel is unfounded.' ^ Most probably, however, D'^fjDl m V. 16 comes from D">f?NQnT ; cp. on xxxvii. 25, Judg. vi. 5, viii. 21 ; also onoi in Ezek. xxvii. 11. This correction, however, is insufficient ; ' he-asses, and men- servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses, and camels ' is an impossible sequence. The difficulty was very early felt, hence in Sam. D^'non is transposed, so as to stand before 'r\vC\. The truth is, however, that nariN (as in Judg. v. 10) represents either D'^arr'N or DiJinN, both of which ultimately come from d^'^nj^diD"'. Thus the last two words in w. 16 are glosses on D"'73r. The slaves given by the king to Abram were, it is stated, Ishmaelites or Yerahme'elites. Thus one more textual difficulty which has long baffled us is explained. Similar corrections are required in the parallel passages, xxiv. 35, XXX. 43. In conclusion, I do not see that this story favours the view that Abram was a missionary or a representative of a higher and purer religion. It is simply a glorification of the great ancestor of Israel, with perhaps a glance (but the parallelism is by no means close) at the plagues pre- ceding the Exodus. At the same time, the fact that Abram and the Misrite king have the same religion (cp. on chap, xx.), as well as apparently the same language, reminds us of the lofty anticipation of a late Hebrew prophet (Isa. xix. 24 /) that Misrim, Asshur, and Israel — the three great Yerahme' elite peoples — should one day become a blessing to all around them, and be blessed in equal measure by Yahweh. I would also add the suggestion that the statement that Sarai was at once Abram's sister and his wife makes it not impossible that Abram was originally represented as nearer than he now appears to the origin of the human race. ^ W. M. Miiller, E. Bib., col. 634; cp. 1209. Heyes disputes this assertion {Bib. u. Aeg. pp. 28^), which, however, is supported by Maspero and Erman. IS THE CHOICES OF ABRAM AND LOT (Gen. XIII. 2, s-i8) The two righteous men — Abram and Lot — are compelled to separate. One of them excels the other in generosity, but this is necessary for the narrative, and we do not find that the more selfish one is blamed. At any rate, when it comes to the point. Lot, like Abram, proves himself a man of faith. It is plausible (cp. on xiv. 12) to hold that originally Abram and Lot were brothers. Pairs of brothers abound in ancient legend ; hardly a people in nearer Asia and in Europe is without its Dioscuri. Often they are hostile {e.g. Romulus and Remus), but we cannot venture to draw a hard and fast line between friendly and hostile brothers.^ Let us begin our closer investigation at two rather important glosses, viz. v. y b and v. i o. The first, which may perhaps be misplaced (Gunkel), reminds us that Abram was only a sojourner among the Canaanites. ' And the Perizzite ' is a gloss within the gloss ; inD (surely not peasant-tribe) probably comes from iqis = insns (cp. Dims, Neh. iii. 32). 'Canaanites' and ' Sarephathites,' then, are synonymous. The Canaanites were, in fact, a branch of the Yerahme'elites, with whom the Sarephathites may be identified. Cp. xxxiv. 30, Judg. i. 4 f.; in Judg. i. 3, ' Canaanites ' occurs alone. Cp. E. Bib., ' Perizzites.' The second gloss (v. 1 o) is twofold ; it consists of two of the four defining clauses, viz. (i) 'in nntU ''^Th, and (2) cnSQ pN3. (Note the warning Pasek after i3D^). Both these are superfluous interruptions, and yet instructive. It is true that Abram and Lot knew nothing of the impending 1 Stucken, Astralmythen, p. 87. 226 THE CHOICES OF ABRAM AND LOT (Gen. xiii. 2, 5-18) 227 catastrophe of the cities. For us, however, the insertion (for such it must be) is of the greatest interest, for taken in connexion with the second clause (mrr' JM) it suggests that Sodom and Gomorrah were in the vicinity of the region in which early tradition located the lost Paradise (see on ii. 4 b, etc.). The second clause itself is altogether in the naive manner of the narrator, who thoroughly believes in the garden of Yahweh, in accordance with the early tradition. The third clause, D'lnSD pN3, though a gloss, is not inane, for the ' land of Misrim," by its relative fertility, probably gave the best idea of what the ' circle (district) of the Yarhon ' might be supposed to have been in the days of Abram and Lot. And at any rate, according to the authority used by P (x. 6), Misrim and Canaan (originally a southern name) were both ' sons ' of Ham (Yerahme'el). Whether the following words, ^s2i TOnI, belong to 'd pN3, is uncertain.^ An aiifirmative answer is possible, for nss (so read, not ]r2J)^ has possibly come by popular corruption from ^"12D (see on xix. 20), i.e. a place-name Missor. Dt. xxxiv. 3, however, suggests a different connexion. That passage, critically revised, closes with the words, ' Arab- ramathim (virtually = Yerahme'el) as far as Soar.' Accord- ing to this. Soar was, in one direction, the limit of the Yerahme'elite region. Can any one reasonably doubt that ninSD here is the land of Musri in N. Arabia? It may be only a gloss which mentions the name, but the glossators in many parts of the O.T. are aware of the N. Arabian connexion of the Israelites. And the mention of Musri confirms the view that other N. Arabian names occur in the preceding gloss. And what, according to the narrator himself, were the 1 Winckler {KAT^'', p. 146) remarks, 'onsn by Zoar; therefore Musri.' See also E. Bib., col. 4672, 'like the land of Misrim in the direction of Missor.' ^ ii'i i^ read by Ebers, Geiger, and Ball (after Pesh.) ; like most moderns they identify ' Zoan ' with Tanis in Egypt. It is not impossible even for us to adopt this reading, for there was a ' Zoan ' in the N. Arabian Musri (see on Num. xiii. 22). jys is, in fact, one of the early popular corruptions of ^xsdv (like jxx in xxxvii. 2, i S. xvi. 11, and pus in Mic. i. 11). The intermediate form may be pyas ; see on xxxvi. 2. 228 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL respective regions of Abram and Lot, or, more strictly, the regions where they respectively sojourned (^v. 10-12)? Lot, deficient in generosity, chose ' all the kikkar of the Jordan.' pii (Jordan), however, must be due to a scribe who lived when the scene of this and many other narratives had become thoroughly misconceived. The original text had ]^■]^ It deserves the attention of critics that, in certain passages, we still find the error and the correction? side by side, e.g. Num. xxii. i, Josh. xvi. i, i Ch. vi. 63, Yarhon appears to have been the name of a border stream (or was it merely a large torrent ?) in the N. Arabian border- land ; cp on XV. 7-18. This region is eulogised as 'well- watered everywhere.' Sodom, then, was in Yarhonite or Yerahme'elite territory. — In v. \o four defining clauses are given ; these we need not consider over again. Geographi- cally, the important point is that the region called the kikkar extended to Zoar (cp. on xix. 20-22). But what does kikkar mean ? As all agree, ' circle ' or ' district ' (# 17 7r6jotYa>/3o?). The question, however, is whether this was- the original meaning. In i K. vii. 46 (viewed in relation to the whole story of the artificer Hiram) it appears that nD3 represents urw or jnT' (pT'n, i.e. jmin, follows 1331),. and elsewhere pi and ppi are corruptions of Dm"' ( = 'pNOn'T'). The probability is that there was a once fertile district in the border-land which bore a name corrupted at an early date from Rakman, i.e. Yerahme'el. This name sometimes, and quite naturally, stood alone, i.e. as "i33[n] ; sometimes, however, pmTr, 'the Yarhon,' was added, to determine the reference more precisely. One is surprised to hear {v. 12) that Lot, after his- separation from Abram, ' dwelt in the cities of the kikkar,' and equally so to be told next that ' Lot pitched his tents (?) as far as Sodom.' An explanation can, however, be given, ■■"il;, as in the same phrase elsewhere (xix. 29), comes from ^y^■s} The original text had ' in Arabia of the kikkar ' (or, perhaps, of Yerahme'el). And in the phrase hrwc'^ DTD-TS, hnvK, as elsewhere {e.g. i K. vii. 45), represents a 1 Note that ® in our passage presupposes tj)3, and that both Ty (cp. Dt. xxxiv. 2" and ny (cp. Judg. xii. 7) occur as corruptions of nny. THE CHOICES OF ABRAM AND LOT (Gen. xiii. 2, 5-18) 229 shortened form of fjNom"' (there is no denominative verb),^ and the prefixed 11 represents Nin, ' that is,' while ^», as e.g. in xix. 37 /, comes from 'n» = m5. V. \7,b therefore runs, ' and Lot dwelt in Arabia of the kikkar ; that is, Yerahme'el ; Arabia of Sodom.' One thing more is said about Lot, but the text is again corrupt. D^pD ai 7 i^CT {v. 11) is usually rendered ' and Lot journeyed eastward,' but anpD can hardly mean * east- ward.' Stade {ZATW, 1894, p. 276, note 2) and Gunkel would read rroij?, but this is arbitrary, and, besides, such an isolated correction is inadequate. £3l'?SD"'i seems to have come from 'jNi^om-' Nirr (•'I = Min, see above), ' that is, Ishmael,' which is a gloss on ' all the kikkar of the Yarhon.' As in ii. 8, D^pD is an expansion of Dip"!, i.e. am'', ' Yarham,' which is an alternative gloss on ' kikkar.' As for Abram, he certainly dwells in the land of Canaan (see on x. 6). Before moving on, he enjoys a wide survey of the promised land, probably from the mountain spoken of in xii. 8. Then he is led on his way by his unseen Guide to the sacred tree (read \hvCi. ; cp. xii. 6, and see on xviii. i) of Mamre, which is by Hebron, and built an altar to Yahweh {v. 18), i.e. the altar which existed there in the time of the narrator (Gunkel). The sequel of w. 18 is the famous narrative (chaps, xviii., xix.) which tells how Abram was visited by the divine ones at Hebron, and Lot at Sodom. And what does Mamre mean ? According to Ed. Meyer, ' the name still mocks at every attempt at explana- tion' (p. 267). Surely this is a mistake. The word midd is no harder to explain than mio (see on xii. 6, and cp. on msD, xxiii. 9). Probably it is a transformation of jQNn, which is a popular corruption of SMOm"'. It now becomes easy to explain the troublesome hnw\ {v. 18; cp. on v. 1 2). It is, again, corrupt, and has come from 'oriT' Nirr, ' that is, Yerahme'el ' ; dnnw, which follows, may either have been transferred redactionally from its original place after m3''"i, or represent a complementary D"'l"ii?. ' That is, Yerahme'el ^ JBDB give this statement, ' Suk, vb. denom., tent, move tent from place to place, Gen. xiii. 12, 18 ; Pi., '^n^, pitch one's tent, Isa. xiii. 20.' But all these passages are undoubtedly corrupt. In the third, S.t comes from 't>,T = ;i^n;; @ SiekOwcriv, cp. Lam. v. 18. 230 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL of Arabia' is a gloss on nido, a word which in xxxv. 27 is again furnished with an explanatory gloss. See also on xiv. 1 3. — For Hebron, see on xxiii. 2. If the name comes ultimately from an ethnic or tribe-name, we may well suppose that there were two Hebrons — one the modern el-Halil, the other in the N. Arabian border-land (cp. Josh. XV. 44, I Chr. ii. 42), — and that each of these had its own sacred tree or trees. A NEST OF NEW PROBLEMS (Gen. xiv.) Abram as a great chief and warrior, a devout worshipper, and a loyal friend and ally. The peculiarities of this narrative, by which it contrasts both with the preceding and with the following narratives of J and E, have often been noted with surprise. No other passage of Genesis, except, indeed, xxxvi. 31-39, has so much the outward appearance of being derived from a national chronicle as xiv. i - 1 1 , so that Kittel ^ has not unnaturally suggested that it may be an uralt Canaanite record, and Ed. Meyer ^ that the historical facts of the setting of the story must have been obtained by the late Jewish author in Babylon. Sayce,' too, has long since expressed the opinion that the whole narrative in Gen. xiv. was ' extracted from the Babylonian archives,' and has given ' an approximate date for the rescue of Lot by Abraham, and consequently for the age of Abraham himself.' He thus sanctions the opinion of Renan * that in Gen. xiv. we 1 Gesch. der Hebrder, i. 158 (1888). 2 GA i. 166 (1884). ^ See Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, pp. 53-59. * Histoire d' Israel, ii. 210. A NEST OF NEW PROBLEMS (Gen. xiv.) 231 have 'sorte de fenetre ouverte sur la plus haute antiquity.' And not only is he still unmoved by adverse criticisms, but he has quite lately developed his view further on the lines of a more advanced cuneiform research.^ The most important of his theses are these : — (i) The Hebrew text of Gen. xiv. is a translation or paraphrase of a cuneiform original. (2) The Babylonian proper names have been handed down with remarkable correctness, indicating {a) that the same care was taken in Canaan in copying older documents as in Babylonia and Assyria, {b) that the Hebrew translator was conscientious, and [c) that the Hebrew text is on the whole to be trusted. (3) As the use of the so-called Phoenician alphabet in Palestine and Phoenicia cannot be traced archseologically beyond the age of David or Samuel, the Hebrew translation of the cuneiform original may have been made then. The official records of Israel may have perished in the destruction of Shiloh by the Philistines. The new alphabet, and probably also the use of the native language, may have been introduced among the Israelites under Samuel, as they seem to have been at Tyre under Abibal and Hiram I. To prove (i), it will be necessary to show that through- out Genesis there are not only names, but expressions, which cannot be adequately explained save by the hypothesis that they have come from Babylonian sources, and in some cases at any rate from cuneiform Babylonian tablets. To prove (2), that the names, or most of them, can be explained, without violence, from Babylonian. To prove (3), or at least make it highly probable, we must find some Israelitish cuneiform tablets prior to the presumed date of the destruction of Shiloh. A somewhat similar view has been put forward by Winckler,^ combined with a remarkable critical analysis of the narrative. According to this scholar, Gen. xiv., in its original form, is based upon a Babylonian historical legend which had probably taken the form of a hymn dealing with 1 'The Archaeology of Genesis xiv.,' Exp. Times, Aug. 1906, pp. 498-503. 2 Gesch. Isr. ii. 26-42; AOF, 3rd ser., i. 165-174; Kritische Schriften, Heft 2, p. 11 6. 232 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Kedorlaomer and Tid'al, the two oppressors of Babylonia, who, after having conquered the Amorites at a place identified by the Hebrew writer as Hasason-Tamar, were themselves defeated by a chief of the Habiri.^ This hymn or legend had some mythological elements, signs of which are the number 318 {^. 1 4), and the names ' the valley of spirits' {vv. 3, 8, 10; Siddim corrupted from shedtm), 'the fountain of judgment ' (£n-Mishpat, v. 7), and ' the king's valley' ('^mek shar^, v. 17). These three mythical localities were identified by the Israelitish author of Gen. xiv. in its original form with places in his native land. Naturally enough, Winckler finds traces of the Babylonian origin of the story, not only in the proper names, but in the vocabulary, e.g. ^^■>1 (MT. "jTl), v. 14, from Ass. idki, 'he mustered'; pSrfl, v. 15, from Ass. haldku, 'to flee' (Piel, 'to fall upon'); rrXH (MT. mm), v. 17, from Ass. sharru, ' king.' As to the use of cuneiform among the Israelites, it ■went on, according to Winckler, in the political sphere most probably till the time of Hezekiah. In literature, however, the use of alphabetic writing began somewhat earlier, for the work of the Elohist, which is referred to the reign of Ahaz, was the first connected specimen of alpha- betic writing of which we know. This, as Winckler thinks, may illustrate the strange phrase in Isa. viii. i, ' Take thee a great tablet, and write on it with an ordinary stilus ' (mi3N Binn), i.e. in Phoenician or Aramaic characters. The antithesis to 'n 'n (lit. ' stilus of men ') is QTi^N £3nn, i.e. hieratic writing (see Ex. xxxi. 18, xxxii. 16).^ I must confess, however, that even Winckler, who else- where {e.g. on Judg. v.) appears so free from the Massoretic superstition, shows a surprising unsuspiciousness in dealing with the received text of Gen. xiv. Surely, before either Sayce or Winckler had propounded his theories, he ought to have given a keen criticism to the traditional text. I have already referred to this subject not long since,* but shall naturally treat it here in more detail. 1 Cp. V. 15,' Abram the Hebrew.' 2 For a rival view, see on Ex. xxxii. 1 6. 3 See Bible Problems (1904), pp. 146-150. A NEST OF NEW PROBLEMS (Gen. xiv.) 233 The first question of importance relates to the names of kings in z/. i. Can any of them, when brought as near as may be to their original form, be identified with the names of historical kings revealed by exploration ? Even upon the Assyriological side some hesitation has begun to be visible.^ To compare the names given by a Hebrew scribe, not contemporary with the events which are supposed to be referred to, with those of a learned Babylonian tablet-writer does indeed appear a somewhat hazardous undertaking. Let us begin with 'jsnoN (© Kfiapt^aX), the bearer of which name is still very commonly identified with Ham- murabi, the great unifier of Babylonia and conqueror of Elam. The difficulty is that no such name has yet been found in the inscriptions. The final h is especially puzzling. Lindl has suggested that it may perhaps represent the Babylonian ilu, 'god.' This, however, would be too far- fetched, even if there were much stronger reason than there is to expect a reference to Hammurabi. Husing, there- fore, who is followed by Winckler and Erbt, proposed to prefix the troublesome ■> to the following word, producing '=1^07, which, of course, involves some other alterations of the text, and is not very plausible. It is necessary, there- fore, to consult a fairly wide experience of the habits of Hebrew scribes. That a and a are often confounded, especially in proper names, will be admitted. It follows that bs, '?rD, may very easily have come from fja, bi?!l ; cp. N1Q, xvi. 12, and nns, xxv. 4, from yra, and see on 'Rephaim,' V. 5. The same confusion of letters accounts for the personal names ^1D, m^a, jntU'^. Nor are these the only changes which these and similar forms have undergone. )DtDi, for instance, is a corruption of ^MSDm^' (cp. jltON, pnn), and both Sn and bs'2. in proper names are not original, but represent fjo and f?i>D (^nq). noN, it is true, may be sup- ' Bezold, for instance, questions the identification of 'Amraphel' with Hammurabi. See also Johns, ' The Name Jehovah,' etc., Expositor, October 1903. This article is highly damaging to the popular views which rest so largely on the authority of Sayce, a gifted scholar whose hypotheses by no means always prove correct. Nevertheless, Sayce reafiSrms his position in his article ' The Chedorlaomer Tablets ' (based on a new transliteration and translation of the texts), PSBA, Nov. 1906, and following numbers. 234 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL posed to have the right letters, but here a popular meta- thesis is at least equally plausible, so that 'jDlON (cp. ^Nm^, Hos. X. 14), through the linking forms SnoN and 'jdidn, may have ultimately come from 'jNoriT. I hold this to be more than slightly plausible. For the repeated o in 'jdidn, cp. on tq'jo, Judg. 3 I iii. {Crit. Bib.). IMID too should now cease to vex the critic. Having seen that ' Amraphel ' is not the name of a Babylonian king, we no longer wonder why such an 'obscure' name as Shinar should be preferred to ' Bibel.' As has been shown (on X. 10), iMm represents ins 'otD"', 'Arabian Ishmael.' Next as to iiiim. Is this really correct ? Can we venture to interpret it as ' servant of the moon-god '?i Does ■jl really come from the Sumerian Aku} A thorough textual criticism compels us to trace ■^v^N to "nntBM (cp. next footnote). The same explanation is required for the ' Ariok ' of Dan. ii. 14 /i, 24/, Judith i. 6 ;^ also in Judith V. 5, etc., for ' Achior,' the leader of all the sons of Ammon, and perhaps in Tobit i. 2 1 for ' Achiacharus,' the cup-bearer of ' Sarchedonus ' at ' Nineveh,' for which name we should doubtless read ' Achicarus ' = npTlM.^ All these parallels are of interest, and if they suggest changes in the received higher criticism, we ought not to mind this. Observe that in Tobit xiv. i 5 n* substitutes ' Achiacharus ' for ' Nabucho- donosor ' (B) or ' Asuerus ' (A), and that ffii-ntcnN almost certainly comes from TintDN (the underlying reading in Esth. i. I, etc., Ezra iv. 6, Dan. ix. i). The only doubt is whether ipTlM, like DpTiN (2 K. xxii. 12, etc.), has not come from 'onT 't»N (Ashhur-Yerahme'el). See note 3. Probably, indeed, this is the origin of Ahikar, but even so the name is partly parallel to TiinN. See next paragraph. 1 ' Whether Ariok goes back to a Sumerian pronunciation, Eri-Aku, of the Semitic-Babylonian name of R6m-Sin, king of Larsa, is extremely uncertain' (Zimmern, KAT^\ p. 367). This is a very moderate state- ment (see Johns, op. cit. p. 285). 2 The underlying texts of Daniel and Judith presuppose a different history and geography from that in the present texts. In Judith I.e. o ^a..'; We now turn to the place-names. First, D^D. An obscure name, which has evidently been worn down from some name both longer and more intelligible. Probably, as in the case of ^a)D (see on x. 2), the initial letter has been lost, and the original form was Dnon, i.e. DIN intON. There is probable evidence that ' Sodom ' was sometimes actually called Yerahme'el-Ashhur, and, more shortly, Ashhur (see on xix. 4, 9) ; also for the existence of a parallel form Kasram. For the latter, see Isa. i. 7^-9. Here several corrections are forced upon us. The words D^D3 Ji)iiD3 have arisen out of moS nSsnoD, and the same account must be given of D'^TI 'anoD, which probably stood in the margin as a correction of mD3 'snD3. The preceding word nooffi'v ^ Sayce has already explained naxDU' as ' perhaps a corrupt reading" for Sumu-abi' {Exp. Times, x. 463). 238 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL probably comes from oStO'iT' Nin, which was a gloss upon pi^-nn {y. 8).^ We have already seen (on xi. 31) that D^illDS is another corruption of D^tD^, i.e. din nntON. — moi?, the companion-name, is, of course, not from Ar. gamara, ' texit rem aqua,' but, like "nas ( i K. xvi. 1 6), msa (xxiii. 9, etc.), and noi^T (x. 7), comes from ms or 'jNoriT. It is therefore virtually = D^D, and may even be the legendary double of that name. — And what of TilTiVK and Qi^^s (Sam. D"'K12) ? Have they come in from Hos. xi. 8, w;here it is not absolutely certain that the legend of Gen. xix. is referred to (cp. E. Bib., ' Admah and Zeboim ') ? Or may they not be variants to moi' and Dno ? For rroTN is clearly = nniN, i.e. nnw ('criT) with the feminine ending, and D"'"'12 (D"'n1s) belongs to a group of words representing ^Ni'QtlJ"' (see on i S. xiii. 1 8). — sh'2, like bi>3, probably comes from a truncated 'omi (see on xi. 9, xxxvi. 32, and on aah"^, Num. xxii. 5). The question is whether shi (perhaps the original of hxi, when this name is applied to a N. Arabian city or region, see on xi. 9) is not, like 1n3QJ and niNDtU, a gloss on ~\S'2W in z/. I. Note the statement in the Book of Jubilees (x. 25, Charles) that the name Bibel was given to ' the whole land of Shinar.' — -^S2-N■^^. The first of the geographical glosses. It is possible, however, to read p2, which is really an Ishmaelite name (see above, p. 227, note 2). Similarly, in the gloss in xxviii. 19, fh, i.e. 'aW' (cp. on Sns, X. 27), is virtually = 'jN-n-'a (from '?sans = ^Nsom-'). As to ?;. 3, it is conceivable that it may be a redactional insertion, consequent on the expansion of v. 2. But the awkwardness of n'jN-Sa (if referred only to the kings in w. 2) and the unexpected ' pregnant construction ' 'jn nin, besides the premature reference to the Dntun pDS, might well give us pause. Is there ' no balm in Gilead, no physician there ' ? Surely there is. Many analogies suggest that Sn ^tyn covers over an ethnic ending in ha, and what should this be but (in the plural, to suit h^m) Qi'jNonT? It is a gloss that we have before us — ' all these (viz. all the kings mentioned in vv. i and 2) are Yerahme'elites.' Qinffin pDS was inserted from v. 8 after ''jNDm"' had become corrupted 1 Cp. Crii. Bid. p. 7. A NEST OF NEW PROBLEMS (Gen. xiv.) 239 into ^M "nan. We will, however, consider it here because of the note, rhon □■> sin, which is supposed to imply the notion that the ' Salt Sea ' at a later time extended itself over the vale of Siddim. There is, however, no parallel for such an expression as ' sea of salt.' The other names for the 'Dead Sea' are nmi^n D"', Dt. iii. 17, etc., and ■'aionpn D-'H, both of which describe the position of the Dead Sea, and it is presumable that n'jDn Qi does so too. The name seems already to have puzzled the early Israelites (was not the ' Great Sea ' itself a sea of salt ?) ; hence we find n^on D'' three times {e.g. Dt. iii. 17) in combination with the more intelligible phrase nni?n a^'. That nSo in the former expression does not mean ' salt ' is plain from the parallel phrases n'pon n (2 K. xiv. 7, etc.) and n'pon T'i? (Josh. XV. 62). That 'on ■'1 is not the great marshy plain at the south end of the Dead Sea is plain ; such ground can never have been chosen for a battlefield. In both phrases, and also in 'on D^ rht> (like arh in on^-rT'n, and -j^d in another place-name, v. 17)^ is undoubtedly a popular trans- formation of ^MDnT'. 0"', too, is highly improbable as a paraphrase of pas. As probably elsewhere {e.g. Isa. xxi. i, title, and Job iii. 8, where DV comes from D"*), it has sprung from 'q-', i.e. ]D"' (see on ]T', x. 2), the short either for 'om"' or for 'otO"'. The name was apparently given to a special district ; hence 'om'' is added, which means the large Yerahme'elite region to which Yaman belongs.^ Now as to the onmn pos, for which @ gives here (eVl) T7)v apayya rfjv oXvktjp, and in w. 8, 10, ^ KoiXav rj dXvic^, i.e. n'jDn 'a. Theod., however (according to Jerome), gave t&v aXa-av, i.e. QiniDMn, and @ may once have had the same reading (the Asherahs gave offence ?). Renan, Wellh., and Winckl. point D^tSn, 'the demons.' But D1^m only occurs twice in O.T. (Ps. cvi. 37, Dt. xxxii. 17), and both times it ^ Winckler {GI \\. 93, 108) retains 'Salt Sea,' and connects the phrase with the widespread Oriental myth of sweet and bitter waters (cp. E. Bib., ' Marah '). But this can hardly be made to account for 'on ': and 'on tv, nor for the many names on the modem map of Palestine compounded with malih, malik, and the like. And why does Winckler, so fond of emending elsewhere, suddenly hold his hand here ? ^ It will be observed that not only the so-called ' Salt Sea ' but the 'bitumen pits' (w. 10) disappear when the text is closely examined. 240 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL is probably an error for D'-nmN (point n-'-i^w), i.e. either the local manifestations of the god Asshur ' (see p. 23) or, as here, the Asshurites (cp. 2 S. ii. 9). This is the most essential correction. Possibly, too, pes is miswritten for n3SD (so perhaps in Josh. vii. 24, xiii. 18, xv. 8, Judg. vii. i, Isa. xvii. 5, Ps. Ix. 8). There was a Maacath (see on 2 S. X. 6) not far from one of the districts which bore a name closely akin to iinmM, viz. Timi. Observe that mv. 17 (rev. text) Tinm pDi> is identified with 'tTTO par, just as here D''7t»n 's is glossed by 'tiTW ]0\ In vv. 5 / we have a nest of problems which have hitherto not been adequately solved. The problems have to do with a series of ethnics and place-names. First comes qin£31. This people is said to dwell in ' Ashteroth-Karnaim ' — a name which does not occur again with the appended Kar- naim, but which is doubtless the Ashtaroth of Og, king of Bashan (Josh ix. 10, etc.), especially as we are told in Dt. iii. 1 3 that Bashan ^ and the connected region were called ' the land of Rephaim.' As to the Rephaim, we have no good reason to suppose that they were a primitive race which became extinct at the Israelitish conquest. Most probably D-'NQT should be grouped with na)3S1N and DilDN, at least so far as the first three letters are concerned (see on xli. 52). If so, it is really a modification of n^yys, ' Arabians.' * The chief city of the Rephaim is called Ashteroth-Karnaim, i.e. apparently ' Ashtaroth of the two horns,' an enigmatical expression variously explained.* But D'31p here, as well as 1 In Hos. xii. 12 amo doubtless represents this same word D"iii'N, not nne;. Again and again (see on xvi. 7) iw represents "iwn. 2 ' Bashan ' most probably comes from Abshan, i.e. Arab-Yishman, 'Yishmanite (Ishmaehte) Arabia.' See on Ex. xxxi. 2, 6. ^ May we identify these Rephaim with those of She61 ? Cp. Lagrange, Rel. s^m. p. 273, 'On considfere comma une punition de n'Stre pas couchd avec les Rephaim ; ce sont done les morts en quelque sorte privildgids. . . . Ce n'est qu'avec le temps qu'on a donn^ le nom de m^nes k tous les morts.' This view accords with Ezek. xxxi. 18, xxxii. 19^, Ps. Ixxxix. 6 (rev. text), 11, cxliii. 3 (rev. text). But cp. E. Bib., ' Dead' ; ' Rephaim.' * See Lagrange, o/>. cit. p. 126 ; also Macalister, Fourth Report on Gezer, PEFQ, July 1903, p. 227, and 'Ashtaroth' in Bible Dictionaries. On the reading of the MT. see Nestle, Marginalien, and G. F. Moore, JBL, 1898, pp. iSSi^ A NEST OF PROBLEMS (Gen. xiv.) 241 in Am. vi. 1 3 (see Crit. Bib. ad loc), is probably miswritten for )Dp^^ i-e. 'pMDnT ; cp. DspT. As for rrnnms, surely we should read TTirifflM. nniDN occurs, though rarely, as equiva- lent to nriffiM and i^m, as the name of a N. Arabian region. The feminine ending is often favoured in place-names. ' Ashtereth (Ashtart) of Yerahme'el ' is closely parallel to ' Arab-'eshterah,' disguised in Josh. xxi. 27 as mntDsl,^ also to ' Ashtereth in Arab- Yerahme'el,' disguised as ' Asht. in Edrei ' in Dt. i. 4 (see note). There were probably several Ashtereths (Ashtarts). ' The Zuzim in Ham ' ! D'^ITI no doubt = QiDlDt i.e. D'l^MSntD"' (see on Dt. ii. 20). A branch of the Ishmaelites is meant, on, like pan* in xvii. 5 (see note), and an in V. 32, I Chr. iv. 40, comes from some short popular form of Smdht. Some MSS. of Sam. read on. Tg. Onk. and Jerus. read Mnom ; Olshausen, npm. — ' The Emim in Shaveh Kiryathaim ' ! did"'N, as in Dt. ii. i o /., represents D''B"1N. Cp. on xxxvi. 24 (ddtt). QTT'np mm comes from DTnnt&N nintDN, two rival readings combined. See on V. 17, xxiii. 2, and note in xxv. 2 m» from nintOs. Cor- ruptions of Ashhur, like those of Yerahme'el, soon became independent of their origin. In V. 6 inn is hardly to be connected with the Eg. Haru (Hommel, Gunkel, Meyer ; see on xxxvi. 20, and E. Bib., ' Horite '), but comes most probably from ■'"inipM ; T^stO from niBs = ^"|ffiM. 'Asshur' and Ashhur are ' equivalent names ; they sometimes have a broader, sometimes a narrower reference, and are variously corrupted. Cp. on xxxii. 4, xxxvi. 20, Dt. ii. 1 2 (the statement in this passage seems doubtful) ; and for Asshur, Ashhur, see on xvi. 7, 1 3 xxv. 18, I Chr. ii. 24, iv. 5. The home of the Horites was T'StD D^^m. Buhl and Gunkel consider 'm to be a gloss. But this is not enough, dt must represent either din (see Num. xxiii. 7) « or d'tn. The ■■'nni of Sam., ®., Pesh. is ' Cp. on Ex. xxxi. 2. ' Cp. also [Dn (of Amalekite origin), Esth. iii. i . ' Dip in Dt. I.e., as usual, has come from Dpn = cm' (|| din). Winckler and Meyer (p. 243) have noticed that Dip often has a limited geographical reference, but do not explain how this came about (see E. Bib., ' East, Sons of the '). 16 242 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL conjectural. — ]nNS ^"'N is hardly correct. Probably ^^n comes from 'jmiin or some similar form, and this from SnohT' ; cp. on nofp^'N, Ex. xv. 27. On pwD, see E. Bib., ' Paran,' but note that pNn has probably the same origin as D'^IDN (xli. 52), and so means the Arabian mountain-land. Thus we get ' and the Horites in the mountains of Aram, as far as Yerahme'el-Paran ('Ebron).' ' Then they turned,' says the traditional text, ' and came to En-mishpat ; that is, Kadesh ' (v. 7). But En- mishpat, ' fountain of judgment,' is not more probable (in spite of the ingenious theorising of Meyer, p. 5S) than M^- meribah, ' waters of controversy.' The similarity of meaning between the two phrases is undeniable ; it even led Tg. ps.- Jon. to substitute ^l■'^o "'Q here, as the better known name. The Targumist was also aware that ' Meribah' and 'Kadesh' were designations of the same place (cp. Num. xx. i, 13), the full name of which (implying that there might be other Meribahs) was Meribath-Kadesh (Num. xxvii. 14). Still our experience with names like 'elm moreh (xii. 6), 'Hon ■me'dnenim (Judg. ix. 37), should inspire us with caution. As a thorough criticism shows, neither Meribah nor Mishpat can be right. The former (see on Num. xx. 13) comes from nciD, cp. DDID, which is a distortion of fpNOm"' (with fem. term.) ; the latter is a modification of nss (cp. on J3Qt&, I K. xix. 16).^ ]ii; should very possibly be Ti>. Thus we get, for jasma pi;-f?N, nas T2;-^n, 'to the city of Sephath'; Sephath is a shortened form of riDIS (see E. Bib., ' Zare- phath'). But clearly Sephath and Merimah are not the same place ; we may therefore suspect something wrong with t07p Nin, which is suitable for Merimah, but hardly for Sephath, at least if ffl^p is here a place-name. But was to^p really intended as a place-name ? Is it not rather a corruptly written form of a longer regional name ? May it not have the same origin as that which we shall have to assign to nm3 (xxii. 22), or rather im3, which has come from mmn, i.e. DnN ^^^N (see on xi. 28). Perhaps, indeed, we should do well, here at any rate, to notice vC\T\ Dltcn as the original form of the gloss. The gloss was most 1 Initial d as in dtbe'd, Gen. xlix. 14, Judg. v. r6 ; nisiE'D, Josh. xi. 8, xiii. 6 (see Crit. Bib., and cp. E. Bib., col. 2650, note S). A NEST OF PROBLEMS (Gen. xiv.) 243 probably misplaced ; we shall see presently where it has most claim to be. Thus, I do not here decide the important question whether or no Kll'\'p, wherever it occurs, is an early corruption of amnn, i.e. onmn ( = Ashhur-Aram). It is worth noticing, however, that Mni (MT. ' Barnea '), which is some- times appended to tinp, is really a corruption either of pns (cp. above on jnNs) or of jDsn, i.e. ^NQm% and that apn, which is given in Tg. Onk. and Jon. for tonp, is a well attested form of DHT = '^NonT; also that in xvi. 14 ' Kadesh ' is mentioned with ' Bered,' a name which may perhaps come from 'Bedad,' i.e. 'Arab-Dad' or ' Arab-Dedan,' again a district name. See, further, on Ex. xvii. 7, Num. xx. 1 3 ; also (for ' Kadesh-Barnea ') on Num. xiii. 26 (' to the wilder- ness of Paran, to Kadesh '). The ' Amalekites ' and the 'Amorites ' are closely akin. At any rate p^DS, like [d'^]3n'7D (2 S. xi. i ), is a corruption of ^MDHT, and iidn probably comes by metathesis from ''DIN (see on x. 16). Different branches of the same great people are meant. The Amorites (or Arammites) dwelt, we are told, in ^Dn ]2S2n. In 2 Chr. xx. 2 this place is plausibly identified with ' En-gedi ' (see E. Bib., s.v.), which, indeed, the Targums substitute for the text-reading.^ The view, how- ever, is not without serious difficulty. It implies that non here means 'palm-tree.' This is no doubt the general opinion. But no one has succeeded in so explaining '^r\ as to suit IDD,^ and elsewhere (see on xxxviii. 6) we have found that both as a place-name and as a personal name ion is probably due to a popular metathesis of ncn, i.e. DT (D"i«) with the feminine ending, also (in Dt. xxxiv. 3, Judg. i. 16, iii. 13, 2 Chr. -xxviii. 15) that D"''lDn[n] T'i^ originally was But we have still to find out the secret of ]2Sn. We ^ Whether na"i'V is the original form may be doubted. "!^']'5! might be thought of; the Gadites seem originally to have been settled in the south. Winckler {KAT, p. 225) takes 'n 'n as = i3 py., i.e. Paneas, but see on 'Baal-gad,' Josh. xi. 17. Or we might perhaps correct tij nnv. ^ Delitzsch unplausibly sees in 'n a reference to an artificial mode of fertilising the female date-palms. The versions make no attempt at translation. ' Probably the ion (non) of 1 K. ix. 18, Ezek. xlvii. 19, xlviii. 28 is meant. 244 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL expect the name of a district, and the duplication of 2 justifies us in assuming that it is a compound name. J2 is not a difficult word. It is a well-known N. Arabian name, and comes, through p2 or ]n2, from pi;32, i.e. ^Ni^atO'^ (see on xxxvi. 20, Num. xiii. 21). The initial letters sn must re- present •\%rt, i.e. nnmN (see on Josh. xi. 1,1 K. ix. 15). We can now see where, most probably, the gloss mtcn Nin belongs. It is a perfectly correct note on non ''S^, which is not a place, but a district, and equivalent to Qiffin. Verse 8 was evidently expanded by the redactor, who also appears to have inserted v. 9, except the closing words, which have grown out of an earlier gloss, and will reward a thorough criticism. The traditional text gives nsnt* ntDonrTDN D"'3Sd, ' four kings with the five.' But surely the traditional context requires, ' five kings with the four.' There is so much corruption in this narrative (see the very next verse) that we cannot help criticising the text of the gloss in the light of previous experience. We know (see on v. 17, xxiii. 2) that snN often comes from "Xs^ and that "[fjQ may represent ^NCm"'. We may conclude that D"'3f7D ni'lIN has arisen, under the hand of the redactor, out of 'tirXV l"ii'[l], ' (in) Arabia of Yerahme'el,' a suitable gloss on cntcn p!Di> (mon nasD). For the addition of ntDDnrrriM the redactor is responsible. It will be remem- bered that in v. 3 there is another gloss on Qiit&rr pD27 which is nearly equivalent to the present one. The gloss ' in Arabia of Yerahme'el ' most probably occurs again in v. lo. And amusing indeed is the disguise which 'cm"' n.i?3 has this time assumed, viz. mNl ['©n pasi] non niNl ' [and the plain (or vale) of Siddim] was pits, pits of bitumen.' How can any supposed grammatical parallel justify such a strange reading ? If the plain of ' Siddim ' were full of pits of bitumen, what general in his right mind would draw up his army there ? It is clearly a very slight palliation to omit one mNl as a dittograph (cp. Judg. v. 22(5), and simply arbitrary to omit ion '1 as a gloss, implying the 'later theory' that the scene of the events was the Dead Sea (Winckler). Beyond doubt, there is textual corruption, and the clue to its origin is furnished by ion, which, like "lion in xxxiii. 19, etc., Judg. xv. 16, comes A NEST OF PROBLEMS (Gen. xiv.) 245 from Dm"' (Yarham = Yerahme'el). If so, niNl has plainly come from n»3 (» and n, n and n confounded.). Thus we get 'nriT' "XXsl, which should join on to mton nDSDl in w. 8 ; in short, the gloss has been given twice over, 'ton pDi;1 (y. lo), or rather Dltort 'oi, resumes after the interruption in V. 9. — Afterwards read m-as I'poT (Sam., @, Pesh.), per- haps a later insertion. — After rrDBJ insert perhaps D"'3n, and in t/. II omit perhaps mos. The way in which Abram is reintroduced is certainly strange, but not stranger than the name Abram itself,^ which marks him out as a kinsman of the defeated chieftains, not to say of the kings on both sides (see on v. 3). By the novel appendage ■'nisn, which Sievers on supposed metrical grounds omits, he is represented as a nomad who has migrated into a land with a settled population, and who has himself taken a step forward in civilisation. According to Zimmern and Winckler, ' Hebrews ' are mentioned in the Amarna letters as Habiri. Not that the Habiri, whose incursions are dreaded by the Canaanite princes of the time, are the tribes which afterwards appear as Israelites ; but they are at least predecessors, and of the same race as Israel (cp. the Goths and the Franks). The term, as Winckler points out, indicates a distinction not only of race, but of culture.^ Whether this identification can be sustained or not is still doubtful,^ but the analogy between the Habiri and the 'Ibriyyim can hardly be denied. The origin of the former is obscure, whereas "iini* appears to be a race-name produced by metathesis (see on iii>, x. 2 1 ) from ■•ns (Arabian), but in later times not recognised as such, and specially applied in the way mentioned above. Assuming that the reader does not know it already, the narrator now states where ' Abram the Hebrew ' dwelt. It was 'by the sacred tree(s) of Mamre' (xiii. 18), and to ' Mamre ' is added the qualification ' the Amorite ' (or ' Arammite'), which must be taken in connexion with v. 7, ■' Abram, as we have seen (on xi. 26), means 'Arabia of Aram' ( = Yerahme'el). ^ See Winckler, GI, i. 16; Kohut Memorial Volume, p. 609; KAT'^\ p. 198 ; Abraham als Babylonier, p. 34. ^ See Stade, Akad. Reden (1899), pp. 120/ 246 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL where ' the Amorites ' (or ' Arammites ') are spoken of as having suffered in the recent raid. A further appendage mentions two persons of whom Mamre was the ' brother,' and adds (as is commonly supposed) that they were the 'confederates,' or perhaps ' patrons,' ^ of Abram. In t". 24 these three are mentioned again as ' the men who went with me' (cp. on v. 14). We must, it would seem, suppose that both Mamre and Eshkol, together with the otherwise un- known Aner, are ' heroes eponymi,' the names being drawn from places. But what a series of difficulties the common view presents 1 First, the ' heroes eponymi ' here and here only. Next, the inconsistency between v. 14 and v. 24 as to those who constituted Abram's warlike force. Next, the strange repetition of TIN in v. 13. And lastly, the difficult phrase 'iN TT'll 'hn'\ vnv. 13. The textual difficulties must be treated first, ia) There is a similar and equally strange repetition of a word indicating relationship in xi. 29, and both passages have to be explained on the same principle. That is, just as ■'3N in that passage represents iny, so TtN (see on X. 21) in our passage represents n^rtffiN. We can now give Mamre, Eshkol, and Aner their proper significance as place-names. Ashhur-eshkol and Ashhur-aner are alterna- tive geographical glosses on Mamre. Winckler's theory that the three names are derived from the cultus of Baal- berith at Shechem is forced. (3) Dogmatism on textual criticism is justified when an extensive experience of corrupt passages lies behind it. Let me, then, point out that it is next door to certain that miN rrinn has come from iT'np D"'3"lS,^ by which phrase is meant the city called in xxiii. 2 snN rr'np, or rather i-is 'p (see note), which is equivalent, as the same passage states, to Hebron. Thus the closing words oi v. 13 are a comparatively late gloss (presupposing the conversion of Mamre, Eshkol, and Aner into individuals), which states that the three persons spoken of were ' lords ' or ' citizens ' of the city near which Abram dwelt. NnoD, as we have seen (on xiii. 1 8), probably comes from JONl, one of the forms of ^NDriT. So also, 1 So Kraetzschmar, Bundesvorstellung, p. 24. 2 I need not here consider whether v.^'ti) may not have come from num or rather mni^N. A NEST OF PROBLEMS (Gen. xiv.) 247 probably, does i3r in the gloss which follows (Sam. actually has cn^iS), M having given place to s} ^DQJn, which Hommel {Gr. pp. loi, 1 84) explains as 'Fire is the protective god,' most probably comes from "j^D 'V&Vi, i.e. ' Asshur-Yerah- me'el.' ^ Cp. on Num. xiii. 23, and note that in Ezra viii. 18 Sdidn is the name which underlies the mysterious h'20 Wn (A.V. ' a man of understanding,' but R.V. mg. ' Ish-sechel '). And now Abram's prompt action (v. 14). We expect a plain prose description, but instead we get the combination of obscurities — 'iO"'2n"nM pT""!, ' he emptied (or unsheathed) his initiated ones.' Sam.'s p^y^, ' he looked closely at,' and Winckler's p^v^ (from an unknown verb np~l = Ass. diku)f 'he set in motion,' are neither of them satisfactory. @'s ^pidfiricre is a mere paraphrase of p-j^i. The easiest and most suitable correction is Nnp"'"l. V3'^3n (avr. \ey.) is equally suspicious. ' Initiated ' into what ? * Into warlike exercises? Into habits of obedience? Into the rites of the family cultus (Holz.)? Nor can one feel sure about "iri"'! ^fh'^, apparently a gloss on V3"'3n. In xvii. 12, 23, Num. xiii. 22 (Josh. XV. 1 4), 2 S. xxi. 16, 18, Jer. ii. 1 4, T^i has probably come from S^t = ^NDm"' (see on Ex. xii. 42) ; cp. also on Dn^TT, xxxiii. 14. irT'l ■'T'f?'' in xvii. 23 (see note) repre- sents 'riT IT'l, and '1 '^ here appears to have the same origin. And now, what as to V3"'3n ? Must it not have come from D''p32?n (Dt. ii. 10, etc.), to which '^nohT' TT'n was originally appended as a gloss, just as in Josh. xv. 14, as a gloss on 'the three sons of Anak,' we find p3srr "'T'f?'', i.e. '^■2^T\ hiVOrw. The 'Anakim ' were, in fact, at once Yerahme'elites and Arabians. It was fitting, therefore, that they should be re- peatedly described as Yerahme'elites ° and their chief city as Kiryath- (or Ashhoreth-) 'arib. Abram's first step, therefore, was to summon the Anakim who dwelt in the neighbouring city to accompany him against the foe. ^ In 1 Chr. vi. 55 njy stands, as a place-name, beside nySa (an ex- pansion of y'73 ; see on v. 2). For less probable views see E. Bib., ' Aner.' ^ iS'N for na-N as □b' for VnyDB", etc. Cp. ■^rwv. from in 'av. (m = mn). ' AOF i. 102, note 2 ; so Gunkel. * Winckler actually sees a play upon najn and TJn (AOF xxi. 407). 5 tV = 'jKDm'. In chap, xxiii. (P) the Hebronites are designated 'o fn. But there is no real inconsistency (see notes). 248 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL The number of the warriors amounted in all to exactly 318. It is surely too large to refer to home-born slaves ; it is also too small to be that of a force brought against a successful army of invaders.^ Hitzig found an explanation of it in Gematria (the value in cypher of 'UH'hvC), Winckler (G/ii. 26f.)'m astronomy (318, the number of the days during which the moon is visible).^ Experience of textual corrup- tions, however, suggests a better explanation. Often and often numerals have sprung up out of corruptions of ethnics (see on xxiii. 2). Such appears to be the case here. Underneath mND m'jffil ~iQ>a n3Qt&, in accordance with parallels, we have to read [mN f?Ni?Dt&"'] nt&N ^NrDtC. Evidently it is a twofold gloss, and most probably it refers to ptDQT (see on w. 15) ; i.e. it is misplaced. For a closely parallel case, one may perhaps venture to refer to the famous passage about the ' number of the beast ' (Rev. xiii. 1 8). Here, too, the right key seems to have been missed. We are told, indeed, that ' the number of the beast ' is ' the number of a man.' This, however, is doubtless due to misunderstanding. Almost certainly the original text had B13M, and this (as frequently in O.T.) came from '?NSDm\' The truth seems to be that dpt6/j.oM, ' Asshur-Ishmael,' the fuller name (as we have seen) of the region commonly called ^ndhT' or 7Ni'Dffi"'.* That the later transmitters of the traditional ' number ' understood the statement, is, of course, not to be supposed. And what success had the Hebrew general ? Two 1 Jeremias (ATAO, p. 215) finds 'no cause for doubt,' and thinks ' the forces on both sides will not have been enormous.' But the king of Elam was surely much mightier than any ' Hebrew.' ^ Gunkel and Baentsch incline to follow Winckler, but the former remarks that there are no other possible traces of a moon-myth in the chapter. Konig rejects Winckler's view, but speaks a word for the Gematria theory, which, however, is not confirmed by Biblical evidence elsewhere. See his Im Ka-mpfe uni das A.T. iv. i,T f. ^ Proved, I hope, for the uvveroi, by xxi. 17, pirpov dvOpiirrov, o eoTTLv dyyeXov, i.e. ^>NDm' mn. e/uk comes from 'dis" through \D, for instance, has the same origin as ptOD~r, but the two names do not necessarily denote the same place (see on tOTp, v. 7). Ramshak or Ramshah was evidently an important place and region near the border of the territory in N. Arabia claimed by the IsraeUtes (cp. Crii. Bib. on i K. xi. 24) ; it belonged to the king of the southern Aram. Until we see this the much-disputed passage i K. xix. 1 5 is a hopeless riddle (see Crit. Bib.). We are also told — but how can I possibly render Thh urvhs jhxp!\'f How can 'he divided himself against them ' be right ? A manoeuvre like that of Gideon would have been otherwise described (see Judg. vii. 1 6). Winckler formerly (he now gives a new mythological theory) proposed to point ps'ri';'!, explaining the verb as a denom. from Ass. huUuku, 'fugitive.' But surely the word is corrupt (Gunkel), and we must read Dn^''"i, ' and he attacked (them).' Vini> should probably be Qiani^m, ' and the Arabians,' i.e. the men of Kiryath-arbim {v. 1 3 b). Of course, the state- ment as to the pursuit of the foe is in its right place in V. 15, not in v. 14. In w. 17 we note the same redactional insertion about 'the kings' as in w. 5. The scene of the meeting of Abram and the king of ' Sodom ' (see on v. 2) is called in the text nitB pDi>, for which Hommel {AHT, p. 151, note i) and Winckler {GI i\. 28) would read mtD pDi? (.'), explaining by 1 See E. Bib., ' Hobah.' 2SO TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Ass. sharru = Heb. melek. Thus the gloss, iSon '», is apparently accounted for. But with mtu in v. 5 before us, which certainly comes from TintON, and with so many other mutilated and corrupt names in this narrative, we may prefer to read TinmN n5i»D (cp. on poi?, v. 3). This seems to be identified in a gloss with Maakath-Yerahme'el (cp. on ' the king's vale,' 2 S. xviii. 1 8). Most critics think that the mention of ' the vale of Shaveh, that is, the king's vale ' in V. ij prepares the way for the meeting of the two high powers in v. 1 8. But is ' Salem ' the short for ' Jerusalem,' and was there a "j'pnn 'p'd's near that city? See the next note, and Crit. Bib. on 2 S. xviii. 18. We are now coming to even greater problems. As the passage, vv. 18-20, stands, it looks at first sight very much like a later insertion.^ And yet the form of Abram's oath in f. 22 clearly presupposes the declaration (by whomsoever made) in vv. igf., to say nothing of the point of contact which has been found between the close of z;. 17 and the beginning of v. 18. We are therefore specially entitled to apply criticism to the text. There is, of course, no doubt at all that some one is referred to in vv. 18-20 who was a priest of El-'elyon (if this reading is correct), but who was he? He was not a king of any of the three Salems (Shalems) which have been suggested north of Jerusalem, for none of them had a special reputation for sanctity. Jerusalem, however, would do excellently for the city of this great priest, and in post-exilic times it would be important to find such an early attestation of its sacredness. But why should ' Jerusalem ' be called here ' Salem ' ? the form Urusalim ( = Jerusalem) goes back as far as to the Amarna tablets ; and though another Biblical passage (Ps. Ixxvi. 3) is usually quoted in behalf of Salem as = Jerusalem, the presence of textual corruption in that passage (admittedly a late one) can hardly be denied. Winckler therefore has a claim to be heard (1902) when he proposes ^ to take D^2? I^o as a variant for pn2-'37D, xhw 1 Whence the sudden appearance of Melchizedek ? and out of what does Abram give tithes? Cp. Oxf. Hex. ii. 21. 2 KAT,'-^^ p. 224. In AOF, I.e., however, he makes Shalem the earlier name of Shechem. A NEST OF PROBLEMS (Gen. xiv.) 251 being (as he holds) a divine name synonymous with pil. But his presuppositions on the formation of names are incorrect, and the old Babylonian name Sa-lim-ahu, which he adduces, has most probably come from Ishmael-Ashhur. By a curious coincidence this very same compound name underlies one of the chief corrupt phrases in v. 18. The reader will see what is meant presently. Just now the point to emphasise is that the two elements in 0710 I^D are synonymous, 'd representing fpNOHT (see on v. 1 7, end) and D^ID being a popular distortion of 'pmsdoJ"' (see on xxxiii. 1 8, and on nxh, Josh. xix. 47). Ab-shalom is precisely analogous; see 2 S. xvii. 26, where Dl'pmilN'l comes from Sn:;^©"' nsn.^ And now as to Malki-sedek. How strange this sudden introduction of this priestly visitor is ! We have seen that he was not ' king of Salem,' but was he really named Malki- sedek ? The name is a very possible one ; ^'7Dp^S occurs on a Phoenician coin (Cooke, p. 349), and we have plS^i^lN in Josh. x. I, 3.^ What it would mean is a matter for discussion. The explanation ' the king (or, my king) is righteousness' is less in favour now than one suggested by the discovery of many hitherto unknown deities, among whom we may very possibly include Sedek.^ The true meaning of Malki-sedek would thus be (so it is held) ' Sidk is king ' or ' Sidk is Milk.' This, however, seems to be a mistake. The Phoenician name Sidki-milk is probably a N. Arabian name carried northwards by immigrants, p^!i is an old clan -name,* and I'pD, as so often, represents ' Yerahme'el.' So much as to the meaning of Malki-sedek, if the name is genuine. But is it genuine, either here or in Ps. ex. 4 b 1 It is true the personal name di'?!?:]^ also comes ultimately from 'd»' aTj;. But the point here is that just as Vdk in 2 S. I.e. seems to be a personal name, but is not, and really designates an Ishmaelite region, so 's'dSd in Genesis is not really a personal name, but designates a Yerahme'elite and Asshurite region. ^ See Crit. Bib., ad loc, and also on Judg. i. 5 ; the form Adoni- bezek in Joshua is not impossible. Neither bezek nor sedek 7teed be a divine name. Sedek, at any rate, became a widely spread clan-name. See E. Bib., 'Zadok,' 'Zedekiah.' ^ Note crv&vK in the Phoenician cosmogony (Philo Bybl.), and see Zimmern, KAT^^\ pp. \Tif.\ cp. also on p-s, x. 15. * See Crif. Bib. on 2 S. viii. 17. 252 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL (see E. Bib., ' Melchizedek '), the only other O.T. passage in which the name is given in the traditional text ? The question is a difficult one. But Gen. xiv. contains so many glosses that we could not be surprised if this name were one, and it certainly appears as if, to obtain an intelligible view of the meaning of the episode in vv. 1 7 ff., we cannot help assuming v. \% a to be a collection of glosses. Hence p72-'DbD1 probably represents either pTS f?MDm"' Nin, or — if we consider pTS to be quite out of place — pns"' 'T' nIH, where pr!^ may be taken as a popular distortion ^ of inffiM. This will be a second gloss on mtD pai> in v. 17, parallel to ifpon pQi>. It should be added that xhxa l^D, i.e. 'otDi 'm'' (see above), is probably a twofold gloss on p^2■> {i.e. pnJS'') ; also that Sievers, loo, holds ' Malki-sedek ' to be intrusive, but supposes that a glossator, out of his own head, devised this as a name for the ' king of Salem ' {Metr. Stud. p. 273). Having mentioned Sievers, it is natural to remark here that he omits not only ' Malki-sedek,' but also the statement that ' he was a priest of El-'elyon ' (as a gloss), with the result that the offering of tithes is made by the king of Salem to Abram, not by Abram to the priest-king of Salem. He also inserts the words (in v. 20, end), 'and Abram said to him,' the true sequel of which is to be found in vv. 22 f., while V. 24 is the sober, prosaic answer of Abram to the equally sober, prosaic offer of the king of Sodom, contained in V. 21. But surely the omission of 'in jn3 Nim as a gloss is unreasonable ; the very solemn benediction in vv. 1 9 /. required some such explanation as the priestly character of the speaker supplies. Nor is the idea that a Canaanitish king gave ' tithes of all ' to Abram, thus acknowledging his political supremacy, at all plausible. Sievers' fresh investi- gation, however, brings into clearer light the difficulties and improbabilities of the traditional text. The highly improbable words p-'l nrh N^'Sirr (for which Dt. xxiii. 4 gives no parallel) are retained by Sievers, and explained by Jeremias ^ as indicating a sacred meal. No 1 See on pns-, xvii. 17 ; and note the use of the equivalent form pnB" for Ashhur in Am. ix. 16 (|| 'Israel,' i.e. probably the territory of Israel in the southern border-land). 2 Babylonisches im NT. p. 77- A NEST OF PROBLEMS (GEN. xiv.) 253 good reason can be offered either from a metrical or from an archaeological point of view. I venture to think that those who have read the O.T. with our present presuppositions must at once see, at any rate, how p-'i orh is best accounted for. They seem to represent an early gloss. For we cannot deny that onS may be = '?NDnT (cp. on n^D, v. 3), and pi may be = iv or jp; (see on p^ xlix. 12 ; \--Ti, Hab. ii. 5). This thoroughly suits the context. The scribe evidently took Min to be the short for N''Sin. The sense of w. 1 7 /. now becomes clear (omitting the glosses, and reserving El-'elyon),— ' And the king of Hasram went out to meet him, after his return from defeating Birdad-armal, to Maakath-Ashhur ; now he was a priest of El-'elyon.' The parallel of Yithro, another priest and prince of N. Arabia, will occur to every one. That the letters of Abd-hiba, prince of Urusalim (under Amenhotep IV. of Egypt), are in any way illustrative of Malki-sedek does not appear to have been made out. Nor does Urusalim mean 'city of (the god) Salim,' but ' city of Ishmael.' ^ The exact meaning of El-'elyon remains to be decided. That this divine name was specially common among the Jews in post-exilic times, is admitted.^ In the context of our passage {vv. ig f-, 22) it is said to have been used both by the great ancestor of Israel and by a neighbouring king presumably of another race. In Num. xxiv. 16 it is put into the mouth of a great non-Israelitish diviner called Bil'am. The question arises whether it may not originally have been a non-Israelitish name of God. This view is confirmed by the fact that Philo of Byblus attests '^\iovv as a Phoenician name for God,^ and also fits in with results at which we have arrived as to the type of religion prevalent among the N. Arabian kinsmen of the Israelites, and adopted from them with modifications by the Israelites. At the same time, it is very possible that yxhs was not the original 1 That ' Ishmael ' took many forms, is certain. See, however, A. Jeremias, ATAO, p. 217. 2 See further Kautzsch, E. Bib., 'Names,' § 118; Charles, Enoch, p. 284; Cheyne, Origin of Psalter, pp. 26/, 51, 83/, 314. ' Fragm. Historicorum Gmcorum, iii. 567 ('EXtow KaXov/xevos 254 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL form of the name in our passage, (i) The parallel divine names compounded with "jn in the Pentateuch, such as ■dy\s Sn, ntD 'PN, fjN-n-'l ^M, jTim-' ^N, when critically- examined, all turn out (see notes) to be names connecting God with the N. Arabian people. And (2) in two passages in the Psalter which appear to contain "^^ as a divine name, the reading is incorrect,-' and should be xh^s (Ps. vii. 18, ix. 3). It seems not improbable, therefore, that, whether through the intermediate form D^IS or not, J'i"'"?i», as a name of God, at any rate in our passage, has come from some form of ^NDm"' or ^NrotO"'. Parallels may be found in pSs fChr. pSiJ;) in xxxvi. 23, and the very singular ■'^''^vSn (i Chr. iii. 23, etc.) or ■'n;"''?^ (i Chr. viii. 20), which (see the occurrences, E. Bib.) evidently represent some N. Arabian ethnic name. The chief divine name in N. Arabia was (to judge from the O.T.) Yerahmeel or Ishmael, and the race of his worshippers took his name for their own. That he was honoured as the maker of heaven and earth, we have seen already (see on chap. i.). The gloss ' Yahweh' in w. 22 is not incorrect, for ' Yahweh ' grew out of ' Yerahme'el ' in the manner and in the sense already described. It is impossible to solve with absolute certitude the riddle of the words ^3iD ia;i?0 "h |ri"''l. The easiest supposi- tion is that the troublesome little clause is a late gloss inserted by some one who took n7tD to mean Jerusalem, and wished to honour the holy city, but did not see what exegetical difficulties he was creating.^ Unfortunately con- jectures like these generally have to give way to more solidly based theories, and this may be the case here. Considering that in vv. 22, 23, there are probably two glosses on the divine name El-'ely5n, one mri"', the other (an earlier one) Ashhur- Yerahme'el (see below), we naturally 1 See Cheyne, PsS'^'' i. 22, Briggs's treatment (1906) of the two psalm-passages ignores the difficulties ; consequently he makes no attempt to recover the true text. 2 See Dillmann's note. Sievers {Metr. St. p. 273), who has already expunged the name Melchizedek, and bidden us be content with a nameless secular king of Shalem, makes 'Abram' the subject of the verb 'he gave.' Erbt {Die Hebr. p. 66) only changes the name of Melchizedek's residence. But he also makes the priest of El-'elyon give the tenth of all (of all what ?) to Abram. A NEST OF PROBLEMS (Gen. xiv.) 255 expect to find at any rate one gloss on the same name on this its first appearance. To the question, Who is El-'elyon ? the words 'in JIT'T may be expected to give an answer. What answer? A twofold one. ^3D '[Ws represents n^N 'jNOnT, i.e. Asshur-Yerahme'el — one of the fuller names of the N. Arabian God ; bsD represents ^NDm\ precisely as do ^'?D and '[■ah, also hra (i S. xviii. 20) and -]iha (xvi. 7). There remains o "h \TV\ It is possible (and here probable) that this was produced by the redactor out of ^NDIT' Nin ; D")^, ie. bio, comes from 'pnd or hi^va (fragments of 'om"', 'offi"' ; cp. on 'piD, Dt. i. I, and on bioriN, Dt. ii. 34, Isa. XXX. 28). The prefixed 1, as often, represents Nin, ' that is.' Thus we get the gloss, ' that is, Ithmael (Ishmael) ; Asshur- Yerahme'el.' Ishmael and Yerahmeel ( = Asshur-Yerahmeel) are, in fact, both names of the great compound N. Arabian deity. On V. 22, Gunkel remarks that Abram intentionally repeats ' El-elyon, possessor (?) of heaven and earth,' that it may be clear that he and Malki-sedek have the same God. It would be more accurate to say that Abram wishes to profess solemnly his recognition of the God of Hashram (Sodom) as his own God. Such was doubtless the view originally presupposed in these narratives (see on chap. i.). But for the purpose of such a profession it is enough that Abram, in framing his oath, makes mention of El-'elyon ( = El-Yerahme'el ; see above) ; pNi D"'Qt2> Tf^ip is probably (as Sievers takes it) an interpolation from v. 19. Certainly nirr is intrusive (as Gunkel and Sievers also see) ; why should Abram insist on a minor point of difference between himself and the king? For a minor difference it would certainly be in those early times. One writes thus from the point of view of later religion. When the narrative arose, niiT' was really only an expansion of ^Nom"' — not the mn"' of the greater prophets or of the later redactors. Note that ® and Pesh. do not recognise ^^^Tr ; Sam. has DTr^Nrr. But nothing anywhere can beat the singularity of the corruption in v. 23, 'from a thread even to a sandal-thong.' What a bathos ! Another almost equally impossible phrase occurs in Am. ii. 6, ' because they sold . . . the poor for a pair of shoes' (d"''?m). Shall we ask Winckler for an 2S6 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL ' Oriental ' explanation ? He is quite ready, and will also show us how TON (v. 24) can mean ' have stolen.' Or shall we apply a keener criticism, and recognise that ^i)^ jairiD dn should be "rhs Ntans'QN, ' surely I will not sin against thee.' The meaning is that if Abram had accepted the offer of the property of ' Sodom,' and so left the inhabitants of the city impoverished, it would be a sin against them and their king which Abram refuses to commit. ^M'TntO can also be accounted for. It is a misplaced gloss on jv^i' fjN, t.e. it represents the fuller name of the N. Arabian God, like the parallel gloss at the end of v. 20. Ill© is a corruption of TintON ; cp. pTim, Judg. xvi. 4, and see on I3t&, xv. i. Similarly, ^i>3, like Q-hs2 in the Amos parallel quoted above, comes from '?NDm"'. In V. 24 it is impossible to tolerate "'"rsf?!, the only legitimate meaning of which is ' without me,' or 'apart from me.' As in the parallel case of xli. 1 6, it comes from some corrupt form of ^Nom"', probably hsTW ' Yerahme'el ' was, of course, a gloss on some preceding difficult word, perhaps on ]yhs. — That ' Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre ' is an incorrect gloss (from V. 1 3) is pointed out by Winckler and Sievers. Cp. on V. 14. Looking back on this narrative in its corrected form we are still struck by its singularity. We have not, indeed, to trouble ourselves about supposed points of contact with Babylonian history, but we should like greater clearness than seems to be attainable respecting the two branches of the Yerahme'elite race between which hostilities are said to have broken out. That Abram should have joined the fray would not be strange, but for the ideality with which the other traditions of this patriarch are suffused. For how could he, as a Yerahme'elite, though of another clan, have kept aloof altogether? What reason had he to fear, being under the divine protection ? We know already that Hebrew narrators of the type of J and E did not mind sometimes leaving archaic elements which they could not venture to excise or to transform. This seems to be the case here. The narrator wished to glorify Abram and his God ; he also wished to emphasise the essential religious unity between Abram and the Yerahme'elite kinsmen whom A NEST OF NEW PROBLEMS (Gen. xiv.) 257 he befriended (cp. pp. Z^ff.). His material he derived from tradition ; the setting of it is all his own. That later editors were not completely satisfied with his work, is not surprising. And, of course, errors of the scribes, as well as a growing haziness respecting the early races, contributed to the sad results which have caused so much perplexity (note e.g. the number 3 1 8 in z/. 1 4) to modern critics. DIVINE ENCOURAGEMENT TO ABRAM (Gen. xv.) Two connected theophanies with promises attached, the one of present deliverance, the other of future possession of the land which Abram is entering (cp. xii. 7). Re- ligiously viewed, the narrative shows less naivete than those in which God shows himself in a bodily form. From a literary point of view, it is obscure, and suffers from some striking inconsistencies. To these we must now direct our attention. The events of the first part (for the principal transition is from w. 6 to v. 7) are supposed to take place by night ; those of the second, at first by day, and after- wards by night. And yet there is no notice of the dawning of a second day. The two parts also appear to have no inner connexion ; v. 6, as the narrative stands, is psychologically improbable. From the same point of view the afflicting statement of the long servitude of the Israelites {v. 13) is mcomprehensible ; would it not have robbed the concluding promise of much of its value ? One may add that the second part is greatly deficient in consecutiveness. Next, as to the colouring of the narrative. The introduction, as the text stands, is singularly pale. There is nothing at all concrete about the opening theophany, nor is it mentioned 17 258 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL where it took place. Moreover, those who interpret the phrase nehar Misr[a\im ^ mv. 1 8 as meaning the Nile must be struck by the unusual south-west boundary given to Canaan. Then as to the forms of representation. The description of Abram as the recipient of a prophetic revelation, the pro- found conception of faith in v. 6, and the reference to a covenant or guarantee iberith) of Yahweh, are not in accord- ance with the earlier tradition.^ The difficulties of the name ' Eliezer-Damascus ' ' and of the four hundred years of bondage are also severe trials to the interpreter. Altogether, criticism has seldom had a harder task than to account for the origin and growth of this strange narrative. Like his predecessors, the present writer has in former days confronted this problem. But one important preliminary both he and his colleagues had pardonably neglected, viz. that keener criticism which depends on the study of re- current types of corruption, and which is restrained from undue subjectivity by the N. Arabian theory rendered possible by Winckler. This omission the writer now desires to repair. The result to which his textual researches point is that the narrative, even in its original form, is comparatively late. The primitive elements which undoubtedly exist cannot neutralise those which are quite as clearly non-primitive. The current literary analysis,* in spite of its imperfectly critical textual basis, sufficiently justifies us in assigning the narrative to a member of the so-called Yahwistic school. The original writing of the Yahwist (J) must have been supplemented at an early date by a redactor, who apparently viewed it as an appendix to chap. xiv. This view of the redactor is of course psychologically impossible. The 1 If we point onsD inj, we must agree with Driver that this can only mean ' the Nile, or at least the easternmost (Pelusiac) arm of it.' The true pointing, however, seems to be msD. 2 See Staerk, Studien zur Religions- und Sprachgeschichte, pp. 43.^ 5 Dillm. supposes that Eliezer had some connexion with Damascus, so that if he became Abram's heir the property would ultimately go to that city. Most improbable, as Driver also sees. * See especially B. W. Bacon, Hebraica, Oct. 1890, and cp. his The Genesis of Genesis (1892), pp. 124-126, besides the more recent works of Holzinger and Gunkel. DIVINE ENCOURAGEMENTS TO ABRAM (Gen. xv.) 259 victory which, according to chap, xiv., Abram had gained could not have put him in the state in which he appears in chap, xv., a state, not of high self-consciousness, but of depression and anxiety. This anxiety can be easily ac- counted for by referring to the parallel case of Isaac in xxvi. 24. It is plain that the patriarch had just crossed the border into a new country. Now, too, we can see the significance of the divine title in v. 2, which, in the original writing, was very possibly, not rX\TV ■'3^N, but mrr"' poiN (see p. 34). ' Armon ' or ' Yerahme'el ' was, in fact, that member of the divine duad (or triad) who took the closest interest in human affairs. It follows from this view that, as Kraetzschmar has pointed out, the original position of the narrative was most probably after xii. "j a (J). It appears that the text had already become somewhat corrupt when the redactor received it. He was, however, still able to recognise and to understand the references of the original writing to the N. Arabians. That writing he expanded, but did not, except in w. i, alter. The original work seems to be comprised within vv. 1-3, 9-11, 17-18. Textual criticism must be called in to restore it to its original form, as well as to correct the textual errors which have crept into the redactor's additions. Let us now consider the textual difificulties of vv. 1-3. («) 7M '1 "I3"T XVT\ [v. I ; cp. V. 4), of prophetic revelation, nowhere else in Genesis, [b) rv\jyG^. Not in J's manner. Besides, if a vision were referred to, rrNno would be the natural word (xlvi. 2, E). ntno only once again in Pent., viz. in Num. xxiv. 4, 16, where it is a corruption of f?Nam\ (c) The two parts of the divine speech do not cohere well. That Abram should be exhorted not to be afraid, and should be assured that his God would shield him, is con- ceivable, but it is not natural that the Speaker should at once turn aside to tell Abram that his reward (for what ?) should be very large, {d) ' What wilt thou give me, seeing that I go (hence) childless ' {v. 2), would not be a natural speech for Abram, even if the words objected to in f. \b were correct. The common -sense view surely is that whoever made Abram say ' what wilt thou give me ? ' was thinking of what is said in w. 18 (Bacon, Hebraica, 1890, 26o TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL p. "jt). This may well make us suspect corruption of the text of V. 2 a. ie) V. 2 b has been explained most variously ; can we say that it has yet been explained at all ? (/) The expression TT'l ]1 (v. 3) for the son of a Hebrew slave by a foreign bondmaid (Bertholet, Stellung, pp. S 5 /i) occurs nowhere else, and the seemingly parallel phrase in""! "'tS"' (xiv. 14) is corrupt, (^g) XITV with the accusative, in the sense of ' to be some one's heir ' {v. 4), is unusual ; Hos. ix. 6 is a precarious parallel. It is hoped that textual criticism has not, even here, been altogether baffled. The key to the situation seems to lie in inDUJ {v. i , end), the accuracy of which, in the interests of a natural exegesis, we are bound to question. In i Chr. xxvi. 4 the personal name iDtO, and in Ps. Ixxii. 10 ^^t»N, certainly represent an ancient district-name, on which see the discussion of the tribe-name natoffii (xxx. 18). nnn and TND have probably come from Dm"' ('jNCm"') and DIJ* respectively. We should therefore read, for ^ND nnn llDl&r 'om"' iDtONl (D^N a variant). An alternative reading is fpNortT'l, underlying mnoi. The fuller phrase, however, is to be preferred. I conjecture that from ^^N to mn"'"in {v. i) is a redactor's substitute for mni NT'1 (see xii. ^'), Having shifted the position of the passage, and introduced prophetic announcements, he thought the substituted words more suitable. He kept, however, 'onT' 'tt>Nl DniN^fpN. Of course, the arbitrary transpositions made by the redactor arose out of exegetical necessities. The last clause of the divine speech still has to be restored. It is represented in MT. (0) by ■'Tli* l^tn ■'D2N1. Now ■'ns is one of the corruptions of lis (xiii. 12), and "'TIS, at any rate, may have come from '"ini) = D"'ni7. 17in, too, is corrupt. It may be illustrated by •^^T?, Hab. iii. 19, which clearly ought to be iSmi. Read, therefore, D''m»[o] ^^^3. (see on vv. 7-18). And this enables us to explain the enigmatical words of v. 2 b. First, as to Trs'ifpN pfflDT NIH- Hitzig (on Ps. cxx. 6), Tuch, Olsh., and Kautzsch-Socin take 'on to be a marginal gloss. But what of nW7N ? It is unusual to mention a slave's name. Indeed, if this slave's name had been handed down, should we not have found it mentioned in chap. xxiv. ? Clearly ^ti>■'7M is corrupt. But DIVINE ENCOURAGEMENTS TO ABRAM (Gen. xv.) 261 so too is 'd"t, which surely cannot be held to explain either ptBD or TT'l. The truth is that both 'fjN 'm and the words on which this is said to be a gloss (TT'n ptOD Jl) need cor- rection. pBD (like lt»a, X. 2) is an abridged form, not of )ptDD, ' client,' a supposed title of Eliezer,^ but of a regional name of which pmoT, or rather ptoan,^ is a somewhat fuller form (cp. on nntOD, xi. 28 ; nt03, xxii. 22 ; ptODD, Zeph. ii. 9). The name referred to is intON-Qn^?. •^^^s■hv^ may be a variant of this. ""fpN, like hvc", may come from fpNom"", while Tts is a well-attested clan-name, perhaps derived from n^N or •^rB's. Tca may be an incorrect expansion of "il, which really comes from an indistinctly written ■'33, a correction of jj. Thus we get (for v. 2 b) ['t»N-'nT'] 'mN-Dn« Nin ptCD ■'^m, ' the sons of Meshek, i.e. of Aram-Ashhur,' which is a gloss on n-'ni> ('thy redeemer from the Arabians'). — In v. 3 5 we find the same gloss transformed anew by the redactor, i.e. T\^:::^^^ TIN ©nv Tin-jn comes from ^MSDm"' ^^mN [133] ]n Sim (tin may represent 'riN, i.e. hisiyrwk), while in v. 2 all between "iom"'! and 'hy and the whole of v. 3 a, is the work of the early redactor. Hence the original passage underlying vv. 1-3 becomes, ' And Yahweh appeared to Abram in Ashhur- Yerahme'el, and said. Fear not, Abram ; I am a shield for thee, I am thy deliverer from the Arabians.' Thus the second part of the speech interprets the first, and the whole gives a much-needed explanation of ' Fear not.' To the same redactor (who was familiar with the abstract conception of ' faith ') are also due vv. 4 and 6 — a linking passage. Verse 5 apparently comes from a later writer, who loved the Deuteronomic image of the stars (cp. on xxii. 17). It is, however, obvious that something must have followed the divine address to the patriarch. We have therefore to ask whether there is any part of w. 7-18 which would form a suitable sequel, and which, of course, we have no reason for excluding ? In reply, ^ Winckler, AOF xxi. 442. Johns {Bab. and Ass. Laws, p. 75) explains mushkinu (with j, not p) as ' a common man.' ^ ' Ramshak ' also underlies pt?: id in the earlier text of i K. x. 2 5 (see Crit. Bib. p. 333). Another form is probably nirDn, underlying the corrupt min of Am. vi. 7. Possibly the form pn-Dn in Cliron. preserves a record of two readings, ps'Dn and pum. 262 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL vv. 7 f. being out of the question (see at a later point), I would indicate vv. 9- 1 1 and 17 f. I do not, however, mean to assert that this is the whole of the sequel. It is probable that what now stands as vv. 4-6 is a substitute for a passage relative to the blessing promised to the seed of the patriarch. The next textual errors in the passage which probably represents the original narrative occur in w. 18 (the limits of the Promised Land). Similar accounts are given elsewhere ; see especially Ex. xxiii. 3 1, Dt. i. 7, xi. 24, Josh. i. 4. In all these passages except that in Exodus ^ the ' stream of Perath ' is mentioned, and in Dt. i. 7 and Josh. i. 4 (as here) h~\yn nrrJiT is prefixed to that phrase (ms irrs), which may possibly be an early gloss. Most probably, as doubtless in Jer. xiii. 4-7, ms = niDN, and refers to a N. Arabian district called Ephrath (see on xxxv. 16). For '7^l[^] we may compare the proper names ^^■'^^l, 2 K. xxv. 22, and b"r3, Neh. vii. 49, 58, Ezra ii. 47, 56, and the D1'?^^l^ of Neh. xi. 14. In all these forms 771 or 'jlTin represents ^i?^l, and in our passage the original reading probably was ^i>f?l ^^3. It is noteworthy that the writer of Dan. x. 4 appears to have identified Perath and Hiddekel, for he uses the latter name (see on ii. 1 4) where we might have expected the former. The writer of w. 18 also mentions a stream of trntQ (read Misrim). More frequently this is called ^TO ; see Num. xxxiv. 5, i K. viii. 65, etc., and cp. the nahal Musri of Sargon and Esar-haddon {E. Bib., cols. 1 249 /. ; Winckl., KAT, pp. 147/). The use of nn3 for hro is remarkable. From xxxvi. 37, Num. xxii. 5, we may perhaps infer that the Israelites in the N. Arabian border-land applied the term ITO to streams which were really no more than torrents {jshr^i). Or was the f?n3 originally a nrr3 ? Possibly the cnSD -\T\1, like the isSl '3, had a second name ; i.e. it may be the same as the stream called (as we seem obliged to hold — see on xiii. 10) priT, a name (derived from nT = SNom^) which sometimes, or even often, underlies the familiar ^ There is, however, no strong reason to doubt that the stream intended in Ex. xxiii. 31 is the 'stream of Ephrath.' Cp. Dt. xi. 24 (rev. text), 'from the stream, the stream of Ephrath.' Winckler, I am aware, makes 's nn: in all such contexts a gloss, and supposes that the real northern boundary was the river Litiny {AOF, 3rd ser. ii. 258/.). DIVINE ENCOURAGEMENTS TO ABRAM (Gen. xv.) 263 HT of the traditional text. There was also, as the MT. itself shows, a stream called the -nn'^m {i.e. TintDw), described in Josh. xiii. 3 as being ' in front of D"'12D ' (Misrim), just as Hiddekel is described in Gen. ii. 1 4 as going ' in front of ntON.' Was this another name for the D■'^SD ^^^^'^ ? Cp. on 1. 10, and see Bible Problems, p. 269. Lastly, may not D"'in3 DIM mean properly ' Aram (Yerahme'el) of the streams,' or ' of the two streams ' (note on xxiv. 10)? See further on Dt. xi. 24. It is, of course, possible to omit ' from the stream of Misrim,' etc., as a later gloss ; but what should we gain thereby? As soon as the story took written form, it would be natural enough to give this brief statement of the limits of the ' land.' The view which it embodied failed to satisfy a later age. Not only had N. and S. Palestine to be brought in, but the territory of Abraham's ' seed ' had to be extended as far as to the Euphrates. An imperialistic ideal was gratifying to the national pride which resisted the depressing influences of the present. And no doubt it seemed to readers of this passage to be specially warranted by the name ma, which in a late and unhistorical age was naturally understood .as 'Euphrates.' The case is just parallel to that of the description of the territory of Solomon. Whether the empire of this king actually reached to the Euphrates, some critics of. mark have already doubted. We now seem to know how the misrepresentation arose. If one cause of it was national pride, another was ignorance of any other stream called par excellence '\T\'Sr\ but that called by the Greeks and Romans Euphrates (see on i K. v. i). As to the ten names of peoples in the appended passage {yv. 19-21, cp. Neh. ix. 8), they may have been already corrupted when the late scribe collected and inserted them. The mysterious '^'yaup (' eastern ones ' !), which only occurs here, has probably sprung from ■'aom, which is a modifica- tion of ■'^NOriT (cp. on xvii. S). On Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, Jebusites, see, on x. iS/i; on Perizzites, on xiii. 7 ; on Rephaim, on xiv. 5. The difficulty as to the ' Hittites ' mentioned by Driver, ad loc, has, I hope I may say, disappeared. Turning now to vv. 7, 8, it may be stated first, without 264 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL hesitation, that they are a later insertion, and that their probable object is to link together the two parts of chap. xv. {vv. 1-6 and vv. 9-18) which the redactor may in some sense be said to have brought into existence. In its original form the passage gives another reference to N. Arabia, iin (see on xi. 28) being most probably a corruption of ns, and Dnma of Dlton, i.e. onM-intpN. We thus get, ' who brought thee out of [Arabia] Ashhur of Aram ' ( = Ashhur-Yerah- me'el, see on ix. 20), which is exactly parallel to ' I am thy redeemer from the Arabians.' The longest insertion {vv. 12-16) requires still closer attention on the part of the student. In the text as it stands there is a troublesome discrepancy between w. 1 3 and V. 16, i.e. the duration of the servitude (four hundred years) specified in w. 1 3 does not tally with the promise of return in the fourth generation in v. 16. Either, therefore, 'four hundred years ' or the whole oi v. 16 must — so critics say — be a late insertion, derived perhaps from another source. The truth, however — from the point of view which many textual facts have forced upon us, — seems to be that the original text said nothing about four hundred years ; ' nam mNo i?nN comes from S'Nsam"' ^NonN d"'1"i^. The onas of MT. actually preserves the true reading, viz. Dins, on which 'ddn ( = 'aw) and 'dw are glosses. See, further, on the parallel, Ex. xii. 40. This is confirmed by @*^ m v. 13 b, koX KaKcoaova-tv auTo[u9] Kol BovXcoaovaiv avTOV<; koX Taireuvcocrovoriv avrov's, i.e. QDN i:i;l mini;! anb "irnm, suggesting that in the underlying text Qins followed DHN 13S1. The unh 1i»"in, presupposed by ®, and the nnb iS pMl of MT., which is also presupposed by @'s eV 717 ovk ISla, are equally corrupt readings, nor is it (from our point of view) hard to recover the true reading, through which both can be accounted for ; 1 On the confusion between numerals and ethnics, due to the corruption of ethnics, or fragments of ethnics, into forms resembling numerals, see Hibbert Journal., vol. i. p. 760 (1903). Note that ymn represents 35!; (or perhaps o'mv) ; see on ' Kiryath-arba,' xxiii. 2. rm: (cp. ViDnx = 'jNDnN) comes from '^njob" ; rav, like ii? ( I S. xiv. 4), from a fragment of d'jdb" = d'^'kj;db'\ Cp. on i K. xviii. 19, xxii. 6, Judg. iii. 8, II, V. 31, etc. That Hebrew writers sometimes reckoned the generation at a hundred years, can hardly be called very probable. DIVINE ENCOURAGEMENTS TO ABRAM (Gen. xv.) 265 surely it is fjNnm"' pN^. It is this which is represented by anf? ih pM3, and it is a dittographed fpNom"' which accounts for the DH^ isin which we have been able to trace in ®. Read therefore — ^ndht^ pwn isni rvrr ^l ''3 ['dqii 'oriN] D'lms DHN 13rr It should be added that the doubtfulness of the text is already indicated in MT. by the Pasek after il •''n {v. 13), and that Winckler's astro- nomical explanation of v. 1 3 ^ is too ingenious by half. V. 1 4 is a fit sequel to w. 13 in its revised form. It alludes first to the plagues of Misrim (Ex. vii.^), then to the departing of the Israelites with their property (Ex. xii. 25/i, 38). V. 15, however, interrupts the connexion, and must be a very late insertion indeed. V. 16 connects with V. 14. It refers (as Gunkel remarks) to the genealogy of Moses, who appears in the fourth generation from Levi (Ex.vi. 16/:). I could wish that this examination might lead to the rectification of much that has been unwisely said about Abraham, the successful leader of a band of warriors, and (as Nikolaus of Damascus, the court-historian of Herod the Great, asserted) the conqueror of Damascus ; ^ also that it might put an end to the worn-out problem of the four hundred years of Israel's oppression in ' Egypt.' We need not, as it seems to me, go on theorising as to the origin of this so-called ' artificial calculation,' simply because in the original text no such chronological statement existed. Cp. on Ex. xii. 41. ^ Arabisch-semitisch-orientalisch, p. 20, note 3 (the number 400, ten times the period of Nergal-Pleiades). "' See Carl Niebuhr, Gesch. des Ebraiscken Zeitalters, i. 123, and cp. Winckler's mysterious hint, KAT^^\ p. 211. THE FORTUNES OF HAGAR (Gen. xvi.) The hard fate of Hagar, the handmaid of Abram's wife, and the handmaid's compensation. Such is the theme of the story, of which another version occurs in xxi. 8-21. To understand it we must ask, first, Who is this Hagar? next, What is her fate? and lastly. What is her compensation ? Other questions will then suggest them- selves, such as the geography of the story, the meaning of Ishmael and Mal'ak-Yahweh, and the true form of the utterance of the friendly divinity, (i) As to Hagar her- self, tradition informs us that she was a Misrite. The commentators affirm that misriitK) both here and else- where means ' Egyptian,' but it has been amply shown that this cannot any longer be taken for granted. It is admitted, however, even by the less advanced school, that ' Hagar ' reminds us forcibly of the ethnic ' Hagrim,' which belongs to a tribe of Arabian origin mentioned in I Chr. V. lo, 19/ (cp. I Chr. xxvii. 31, Fs. Ixxxiii. 7, and, by emendation, Hos. ix. 13, Isa. x. 4).^ 'The case is exactly parallel to that of i Chr. ii. 34, where a certain Yerahme'elite is said to have had a Misrite slave called Yarha. It is plain that Yarha is a corruption of Yerahme'el ; and yet the commentators go on saying that the slave referred to was an Egyptian. So far as I can see, it is absolutely certain that both Hagar and Yarha were, according to the narrators, N. Arabians. Of course, too, in xxi. 2 1 the narrator meant to say that Hagar 1 ' Ephraim is like an asshur-tree planted in a park, | But Yerah- me'el {gloss, Miss&r) bringeth forth his (Ephraim's) sons to Hagar' {i.e. the Hagrite slave-dealers ; cp. Am. i. 6, 9 ; Joel iv. 6, 8). '^Konr is doubly represented — by h 'ti'nt and h d'-i[s]n. See further, p. 268, note i. 266 THE FORTUNES OF HAGAR (Gen. xvi.) 267 fetched Ishmael a wife out of the land of Misrim (not Misraim). There is no evidence whatever that Ishmaelites were ever regarded as partly of Egyptian origin.^ Hagar, therefore, was regarded as a native of Misrim in N. Arabia ; she need not therefore be supposed to have been wandering aimlessly in the wilderness when Mal'ak-Yahweh found her. (2) Now as to the fate of Hagar. Doubtless it was prepared by herself, but it was none the less hard. She had become, by Sarai's own wish, in a qualified sense Abram's concubine, and had borne him a son ; upon this she erred by ' placing herself on an equality with her mistress,'^ and Sarai appealed for justice to Abram. An earlier form of the story may have described the subsequent course of events more definitely. Hammurabi's Code says * that in such a case the mistress may resume her authority over the maid, and ' reckon her with the slave-girls.' Prob- ably a similar law was in force in the region where this story arose. The writer whom we call the Yahwist does not, however, recognise this. He vaguely states that, unopposed by Abram, Sarai punished her maid so severely that Hagar, who could not bear to be a slave again, and apparently had no confidence in her son's future in the family of Abram, fled. (3) Now as to the third point : What was Hagar's compensation ? It would have been a small thing if she had only been able to flee to ' Shur which is in front of Misrim.' This was no doubt the limit of her hopes. She forgot — so the narrative leads us to suppose — that her child would be also the child of Abram, and could not be destined to live in poverty and obscurity. One of the heavenly beings opened her eyes, ruxv Tn'jd found her by the fountain on the way to Shur (the N. Arabian Asshur), and named the expected child ' Ishmael.' At the same ^ Bible Problems^ pp. 167/ ^ A phrase in Hammurabi. ^ Section 146. Mr. Johns translates, 'her mistress shall not sell her, she shall place a slave-mark upon her, and reckon her with the slave- girls.' But is this exegetically possible ? Winckler renders ' zur Sklavenschaft soil er sie thun.' The arrogant maid, whose case is supposed by the law, was a slave at the first ; she did not become a slave. 268 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL time — as the text stands — the heavenly being predicted the future of the child. He should be as free as the desert ass, and in constant war with every one — a worthy son of his untameable mother. Hagar, for her part, if we are to follow the text, gave mn"', who had spoken to her, the additional name, ' Attah El-Roi.' The story before us, together with its parallel in chap, xxi., cannot in its present form (see below) be very old. It is reasonable, however, to admit that the name of Hagar may well be primitive, and that the bene Hagar may have been originally an important section of the Misrite people, though they are not mentioned in the list of the sons of Misrim in x. 13 f., and the only writers (according to the MT.)^ who do mention the Hagrites are the Chronicler and a single psalmist. Ishmael too is probably a very old form, though not, as we shall see (p. 272), the original one. It is difficult, however, not to suppose that in the earliest form of the narrative Ishmael's mother occupied a higher position. Ishmael being Abram's eldest son, his mother cannot always have been represented as a disgraced slave. Once upon a time her flight must have been differently accounted for. Not Abram, whose legitimate wife she must have been,^ nor yet Sarai, but some more formidable being, must have forced her to become a fugitive. Remembering the story of the flight of a still greater mother into the wilderness ^ (Rev. xii. 6, 1 4), may we not with some plausibility suppose the enemy of Hagar in the original story to have been the mythic serpent of darkness and disorder ? We can therefore hardly think that the name ' Hagar ' is derived either from an Arabic root meaning ' to flee,' or 1 With much confidence, however, it may be added that ' Hagar ' is also mentioned, under the thin disguise of Jnin, in Hos. ix. 13, where (see p. 266, note i) it represents the Hagrites as a people of slave- dealers, and also in Isa. x. 4, disguised as [n']:nfT. 2 The later Arabian legend (see Tabari, by Zotenberg, i. 163) accidentally coincides. Hagar (Hajir) is there the legitimate wife of Abraham, and the vast territory of Arabia is given to Ishmael as the eldest son. 2 Cp. Bible Problems, pp. 7 7 # THE FORTUNES OF HAGAR (Gen. xvi.) 269 from a noun ' hagar ' which in Ethiopic and in some dialects of Arabic means ' settlement, village, town ' (Noldeke, E. Bib., col. 1933, note 2 ; cp. Hommel, Gr. p. 163, note 3). Some grander origin is certainly to be presumed. The original name must have undergone some modification. Clan-names generally did get worn down in the popular speech. It is possible that the name was originally com- posite, and that the first element was not Hag, but Hag, which we find in several names which may at first have been clan-names. But we are unable at present to explain Hag. It should be noticed that no one claims ' Hagar ' as an Egyptian name. All that traditionalists can say is that the Egyptian woman who became Sarah's handmaid must have taken a Semitic name when she passed into Asia. But, as we have seen, the traditional theory of Hagar's origin is improbable. See, further, E. Meyer, Die Israeliteny pp. 326-328. We now turn to geographical details. The view that ' Shur ' [v. 7) is a ' wall ' or line of fortresses in the N.E. of Egypt is erroneous.^ Nor is it at all probable that the Egyptian name aneb (' wall ') or anebu (' walls '), borne by a fortress and a tower and a desert-district on the E. border of Egypt,^ was translated into Hebrew as ' Shur.' From our present point of view we cannot doubt that ' Shur ' is a Semitic name for a N. Arabian locality, and bearing in mind the gloss in xxv. 1 8 (where ' Asshur ' takes the place of ' Shur ') and the reading aa-aovp in ©" at i S. xv. 7,* where MT. has Tit», we may safely hold that ' Shur ' is the short for ' Asshur,' just as ' Hur ' is for ' Ashhur ' and ' S6r '' for ' Miss6r.' Asshur or Ashhur was a region of uncertain extent in N. Arabia, on which see further the note on ii. 14, also E. Bib., ' Shur' ; Bible Problems, pp. 26^ ff. ; Hommel, AHT, pp. 241, 244 ; Winckler, Musri, part ii. pp. 6 f. It was therefore on the way to this region, which, as 1 ' All attempts to construct a gigantic line of fortification, shutting off the whole or half of the isthmus of Suez, are baseless ' (W. M. Miiller, As. u. Eur. p. 45). For W. M. M.'s own view, which has phonetic difficulties, see yij. u. Eur. pp. 102, 134. ^ Heyes, Bib. u. Aeg. p. 47. ' Similarly it is most probable that nw in Job v. 21 is not mis- written for -w, but a corruption of nit? = ni6?N ( || hmcvi\ underlying pp'?). 270 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL XXV. 1 8 says, ' fronted Misrim,' that Hagar the Misrite rested, like Jesus in John iv. 6, at a well. It was a well famous in legend — a well at which probably various tribes were wont anciently to hold periodical meetings, and it is called in our texts Beer-lahai-roi {v. 14, xxiv. 62, xxv. 11). Of course, the name is impossible. No one, free from the trammels of tradition, could believe in such a name as 'well of the living one who sees me.' And if we have really worked at the text of the O.T. from the newer point of view, chronicling recurrent types of textual corruption, we shall recognise the true form of name at once, ivh, indeed, has already occupied our attention (see on Judg. XV. 9, and cp. on Tvrh, 2 S. xxiii. 11). It comes by transposition from hlT, i.e. 7NDm'' ; intermediate forms are ^ino and S>m. The last element in the name is isn, which is another corrupt fragment of ^Nom"', which in the original text must have been dittographed (see on v. 13). Thus the true name of the well is ' Well of Yerahme'el.' ^ Next, as to the situation of the well ; ' surely,' says a gloss, ' it is between Kadesh and Bered.' ' Kadesh ' we probably know (see on xiv. 7) ; but what is ^^l ? Nestle {ZATW, 1 901, pp. 329^.) prefers pnn, which is supported both by @'' and by Philo (though not in the edited texts). ' Barak ' seems to have been a southern clan {Crit. Bib. on Judg. iv. 6). This reading, however, looks like a conjecture ; -\~0. may be hard, but will become less so if we compare XX, I (xxi. 14), xxv. 18, and i S. xxvii. 8. P'rom xx. I, compared with xxi. 14, we learn that, according to E, when Abram dismissed Hagar and her son, he was dwelling ' between Kadesh and Shur ' ; from xxv. 1 8, that the centre of the Ishmaelite country was between Havilah and Shur ; and from i S. xxvii. 8 (assuming the results of criticism), that ' Ishmael ' was ' the land which extends from Yerahme'el, in the direction of Asshur, as far as the land of Misrim.' In the latter passage the expression is slightly loose ; ' Misrim ' is used where xxv. 1 8 gives ' Shur,' i.e. ' Asshur.' This, however, does not matter, for Shur, we know, was ' in front of Misrim ' (xxv. 1 8). Taking all this together, it is plain that ^^n must have been very close to, 1 For other views, see E. Bib., ' Beer-lahai-roi.' THE FORTUNES OF HAGAR (Gen. xvi.) 271 or, more probably, a part of Shur or Asshur. The name cannot, however, be quite correct ; it must be either corrupt or imperfect. Eus. and Jer. {OS 299, t6 ; 145, 2) mention a village Berdan in the Gerarite country. This suggests as the possible origin of Tin, \m, or, better, n"7"ll. The initial 13, as often {e.g. Dipin), probably comes from n.i>. In Ezek. xxvii. 20 Dedan is mentioned with m§ (Arabia) ; in Gen. X. 7, as a son of Cush, for which xxv. 3 gives Jokshan (both names probably come from Ashhur). Probably, therefore, ' Bered ' is the name of the region called ' Arab- dedan,' or ' Dedanite Arabia.' It may fittingly be added here that the ' Havilah ' of xxv. 1 8 (MT.) and the ' Yerah- me'el' of i S. xxvii. 8 (revised text) probably mean the immediate neighbourhood of ' Beer-Yerahme'el.' That ' Yerahme'el,' often in a corrupted form, should be applied to places and small districts, as well as to a large region, is no strange phenomenon. It must already be plain that the ' wilderness of Beer- sheba' in the (| (xxi. 14) cannot be right. In x. 10 vdXH and JTT are brothers. Surely mm in xxi. 14 should be N3t» ; or rather, the distinction between Nim and yyn is arbitrary, and both forms are popular corruptions of ^Ni>DQfi. Another doubtful word is ^N3, which in Num. xxi. 16 and Judg. ix. 2 1 appears to be miswritten for n». So probably it is here. The wilderness referred to in xxi. 14 is that of Arab-Ishmael, i.e. Ishmaelite Arabia. This will bring the two accounts of the scene of Hagar's wanderings into harmony. Cp. also introduction to chap. xx. And now as to {a) the racial significance of ' Ishmael,' and {b) the form of the name. («) According to Gunkel, Ishmael is the legendary impersonation of a nomad people, famous for its bowmen (xxi. 20), of which no historical record has come down to us. The name, he thinks, sur- vived in tradition, and was transferred to several N. Arabian tribes of a later age. He refers to Judg. viii. 24 (cp. v. 12), where Midian is reckoned as Ishmaelitish, and to the list of the sons of Ishmael in xxv. 13-15. The last O.T. mention of an Ishmaelite that he can find is in 2 S. xvii. 25, where (cp. I Chr. ii. 1 7) he reads ' Ishmaelite ' for ' Israelite.' This view, however, depends on the theory of the general 272 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL correctness of the traditional text as regards tribal names. It is highly probable that there are many more references to the Ishmaelites than Gunkel supposes, though in the later books the name ' Ishmael ' is doubtless an archaism. A synonym for it is ' Yerahme'el ' ( = 'Amalek'). Taking it as a tribal or regional name, we may group it with Ishma (i Chr. iv. 3), Shema, Sheba, Shemuel, Shebuel, Shunem, Shean (in Beth-shean), also with Shem (see on v. 32), and DOtO in the much-disputed phrase 'a> pptl>, i.e. beyond doubt ' the idol of Ishmael,' Dan. xii. 1 1 (cp. p. 1 8). That the Ishmaelites were merely a nomad people, is too much to assert. The passage referred to by Gunkel (xxi. 20) is corrupt, and there were two sections of Ishmaelites or Yerahme'elites, a more and a less advanced in civilisation. That the race was one of great antiquity may, however, be frankly admitted. Indeed, the superior antiquity of Ishmael or Yerahme'el ( = Amalek) appears to have been admitted by Israelitish writers. Shem {i.e. Ishmael) and Ham {i.e. Yerahme'el) were reckoned as sons of Noah ; originally, however, Shem and Ham were equivalent (cp. on v. 32, x. i). See, further, on Num. xxiv. 20. (3) As to the form of the name ' Ishmael.' At first sight it appears to be a compound of a verb in the imperfect and the most general Hebrew word for ' God,' and means ' God hears ' (z/. 1 1 ) ; cp. liT'^Dfi)'' ( I Chr. xxvii. 1 9), and see Noldeke, E. Bib., ' Names,' § 3 3. Names of this type, however, in the N. Semitic languages are very deceptive. Often they have reached their present form comparatively early by systematic manipulation, and in their original forms were not, as they may appear to be when transformed, expressions of religious faith. This is the case with fpN^DtB"' (and in-'i^DtO"'), ^NDm^ ^s^m^ '?Nptn\ as well as with the shorter forms p^2i^ 3^pi»^ f|DV. Is it possible to trace the original form of Ishmael, and to explain its meaning? If DO) were really a name of the moon-god (Winckler, Ar.-sem.-or. p. 112) we might perhaps base a theory upon this, 'jnIQQ) being certainly a by-form of f?N2>DtB\ and Dm"' possibly equivalent to TTV with ' mimation ' (see p. 28). More plausibly we might hold that 'Ishmael' originally had to do with the sun-god, or, more precisely, that ^N:>at&"' sprang from 'sMffiom, just as afterwards, when THE FORTUNES OF HAGAR (Gkn. XVI.) 27J ' Ishmael ' as the name of a collection of tribes had gone out of use, and when early N. Arabian history had been forgotten, 'otD"' sometimes became tooto — the very same confusion which certainly took place in very early times. If so, the sun and the moon deities would both have been worshipped by the tribes referred to — the sun and the moon,, which are the original Gemini, whose cultus in Canaan and Arabia may have begun very early. The evidence of the confusion of mDBJ and rom in Semitic languages may be here briefly appended. There is first the place-name fflotD iT'a, commonly but wrongly explained ' temple of the sun ' ; really it is = sdQ)"' 'i or ^MrDQJ\ Cp. Jer. xliii. 1 3, where ' Beth-shemesh in the land of Egypt ' is surely impossible ; ^ interpret ' Beth- Ishmael,' and all is plain, for ' Misrim ' (point cnap) was regarded as Yerahme'elite (see on x. 6). We can now understand why, in i S. vi. 1 2, the 'aron (ark ?) goes straight to Beth-shemesh (Beth- Ishmael), for the god ' Ishmael ' was a member of the divine duad represented by the 'aron (see p. 35); also why, in Judg. xiii. 24, Manoah's wife calls her son Shimshon, i.e. ' one belonging to ffloto = hi^SDW^,' for it was the god ' Ishmael ' or ' Yerahme'el ' who had announced the child's birth. Next, there is a Galilaean place-name in the Thotmes-list,^ corresponding to the Hebrew form DlN-tDDffi, which has apparently come from Ishmael-Edom, a transferred name. Nor must we omit the late personal name ''lODtO (Ezra iv. 8), corresponding to o-a/ieWtos (or ae/x. or 0-6/3.) in i Esd. ii. 1 7, i.e. husoVr (cp. E. Bid., ' Shimshai '). Nor must the probability be ignored that in Ps. Ixxii. 5, cxxi. 6, Isa. xlix. 10, the traditional text gives ©oa?, where the sense requires us to interpret ^NsntO\ In Ps. Ixxii. 5, for instance, it is plain that the context requires us to take BDffl-DS as ' the people of . . . ,' and nTi •'33 (■'2n) as ' the sons of . . .' N. Semitic inscriptions reveal similar phenomena. Thus t&DB)S (Lidzb., p. 304; Cooke, p. 275) must be a popular distortion of ^Ni»omi ; cnitDD© (L. 379 ; C. 298) of 101 'offi-' ; and momil (L. 246) of 'oB'' mi? ; while mom DpD 1 See Comill's note, with its eloquent varieties of type. 2 W. M. Miiller, As. u. Eur. p. 316. 18 274 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL (L. 3 1 6) — the name of a city — means probably ' place of Ishmael,' i.e. ' Ishmaelite settlement' Most probably, too, we may add Shamshi-atom, a name on an Egyptian stele of the New Kingdom ; ^ Samsi-iluna, the name of Jlammu- rabi's son and heir ; ^ Samsi, the name of a queen of Aribu, temp. Tiglath-Pileser, and in an Assyrian deed (Johns, Deeds, iii. § 275) ; also Samas-abfia (Johns, ibid. § 680).^ Still I hesitate to explain ' Ishma' ' or Ishma"el ' as 'sun-god,' just as I do not venture to interpret 'Yarham' or ' Yerahme'el ' as ' moon-god.' Of course, these explana- tions may conceivably have been given, but we cannot safely affirm that they are correct. All that can safely be said of this deity (Yerahme'el-Ishmael) has been already collected (see pp. 2'/ ff.). Let me only add that the Ishmaelites or Yerahme'elites were the people which worshipped and perhaps claimed descent from the deity whose name we have been considering. Their land, too, bore the same name. In the narrator's explanation of the name ' Ishmael ' we find the strange phrase ' has heard thy affliction.' Surely this is wrong, and for T'^i* we should read TTT'^M, ' thy sighing,' Greater difficulties meet us in v. 12. As so often, the skill of the redactor in making a plausible sense out of miswritten words may be admired, and yet we cannot profess to be satisfied. The phrases which at once excite suspicion are Q"TN N"i3 and ■<3B"7i». What can the former phrase mean? ' A wild ass of (among) men ' ? 'A wild-ass-man ' (cp. akrabu amtlu, 'a scorpion-man,' in the Gilgamesh epic)? The phrase might be accepted (cp. Konig, Synt. § 337c) if we are at liberty to regard v. 1 2 as a fragment of a tradi- tional song. But ( I ) can w. 1 2 be so regarded ? The last clause in It is weak enough, for xxv. 18 does not permit us to admit that •<3D-^s is a vigorous idiom meaning ' un- pleasantly close to ' (see Gunkel). And (2) does not the 1 W. M. MuUer, As. u. Eur. p. 316 ; Sayce, HCM, p. 331- The name originally meant, not ' my sun-goddess is Edom ' (Hommel), but ' Ishmael-Edom.' 2 The name meant originally ' Ishmael-Yerahme'el.' So the name yammurabi is probably = Yerahme'el-' arib (cp. on ' Ham,' v. 32). ^ Note also the Assyrian name Shashmai (Johns, p. 241), and "DDD, a Yerahme'elite (i Chr. ii. 40) and also (Cooke, p. 80) a Phoenician name. THE FORTUNES OF HAGAR (Gen. xvi.) 275 comparison of Ishmael to a wild ass give a one-sided view of the Ishmaelitish character, and one which was most unlikely to find mention in a consolatory address to Ishmael's mother ? For though one section of the Ishmael- ites (or Yerahme'elites) was unprogressive, the other was by no means behindhand in culture.^ Indeed, a people of mere Bedawis would never have received such a blessing as that in xvii. 20 (cp. xxi. 13, 18), which is as warmly expressed as it could be, and must be to some extent our guide here. Turning now to v. 1 2, we notice that TVXV, like mrr"', is a possible corruption of 'm"" ( = f?Nam"'), that niq in Hos. viii. 9 has sprung from "xvs} that D^N should often {e.g. in Zech. ix. i) be D"in, that f?Di it and u ^3 T resemble a number of certain corruptions [e.g. f?i7iT', and "h ^^^a in Hos. /.c), and that ttim, like irtM, may (as in xxii. 21, 2 S. vi. 3, etc.) have come from nintON, and lastly that Mirr is a common introduction to glosses. If we give due weight to these considerations, we must admit that we have good ground for correcting v.\2 thus — 'm"'] D"im n.J? ['jNOm"'] sin pW mntDM-ba i3D-Ssi ['m\ The several fruitless attempts to write ^NonT ( = dim) correctly need not surprise us ; parallels for this are not exactly rare. Passing over these attempts, we get this statement, ' that is, Arab-Aram ; he dwells to the east of all Ashhur." To illustrate this see on XXV. 18, and cp. i Chr. v. 10, where certain Reubenites are said to have expelled the Hagrites, whose tents were situated "^h'h mtD •'33-^3-^::. Verse 12, then, is no part of the narrative ; it is a gloss which defines Ishmael's proper territory as Arammite Arabia, and as eastward of all the parts of the N. Arabian Ashhur.^ We now address ourselves to the explanation oiv. 13 a. Gunkel has already inferred that the God of whom the legend speaks was originally not Yahweh, but bore some ^ Cp. I S. XXX. 29, 'the cities of the Yerahme'elites.' ^ See also on Kin, Jer. ii. 24 ; ^nv', Hos. x. 2 ; hb-^dik, x. 22 ; D-Nin, XIV. 5 ; yTB, xli. 50 ; d-tuii, xli. 51. It is no objection to the above correction of mn ktb that the text- reading is apparently presupposed in Enoch Ixxxix. 1 1 (the wild ass = Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arabs), for the date of the Dream-visions, as Charles has shown, is the time of Judas Maccabasus. 276 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL other name, and that this name (El-ro'i) was afterwards regarded as a title of the local Yahweh. The first part of this statement appears to be correct, but not the latter. It is true that El-ro'i might be used as a title, but not ' Attah el-ro'i,' which is the name given by Hagar according to the traditional text. What we have to find out now is the text which underlies ■'NT ^N nriN ; that ought to give us the name of the God of whom the legend originally spoke. At once we see that nriM, ' thou,' and ■'ni, ' seeing,' cannot be right.^ The parallels of ^Nli?n, fjllNT (see on xxix. 32), and ^NilN show that ■'N1 has come from 'i^n — i.e. hivorrv? As for hvk nriN, it is probably a corruption of ^nidm = ^NrDC (cp. on ^i;inN, i K. xvi. 31). By a natural error the scribe wrote ' Ethbaal ' (Ishmael) for ' Yerahme'el,' and left the error side by side with the correction. That the true reading is ' Yerahme'el ' appears from the second half of the verse. ' For she said. Have I also seen after him that saw me ? ' Stucken uses this as material for the comparative study of Eastern mythology, in connexion with the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. But where in the narrative itself are we told that Hagar looked after the divinity as he left her? and had she done so, how could she have survived (cp. xix. 1 7, ' look not behind thee')? The Biblical texts should not be used uncriticised. Wellhausen's correction of the impossible DfjiT (which means, not ' here,' but ' hither ') into Q">rr^N is plausible, but, as a whole, his correction just fails to be satisfactory.^ Experience of equally corrupt passages, however, ought not to leave us baffled. 1^^N and njiN are very often miswritten for "int&N, and "int (see above) is a fragment of ■?NDm''. ayn comes from a dittographed ^Mom"'.* ' Ashhur- Yerahme'el ' appears to be the full name of the N. Arabian deity who was combined by the Israelites with Yahweh (see p. 23). Thus we get the sense, 'And 1 It is arbitrary to regard nnn (pibn) as a variant of n^'jn (Ball), and 'in as an archaic name for a kind of antelope, so that 'ni 'n^ {v. 14) would mean 'the Jawbone of the Antelope' (Wellh., Ball, Gunkel). 2 See E. Bib., ' Reuel' ; Winckler, GI \. 210, note 4. 8 Prolegomena (1883), p. 344, note 2. * Cp. d'j.t, the ' Yerahme'elite ' precious stone. THE FORTUNES OF HAGAR (Gen. xvi.) 277 she called the name of (the) Yahweh who spoke to her, Yerahme'el ; for she said, Have I even seen Ashhur-Yerah- me'el'? ' ^ Nor is this the only compound divine name which we find in this chapter. We meet here for the first time with the mysterious Being called mri"' ^N^O. The current attempts to explain this expression not being very satisfac- tory, I may perhaps be excused for renewing the investiga- tion. First, what is the problem before us ? It is to account for the fact that the personage called '■> ^NSD or dti^n 'd is not a mere messenger of Yahweh, but equivalent to Yahweh or Elohim himself. See, in the present narrative, z'. 1 3 and cp. V. 7 ; also xxii. i, cp. 11; Ex. iii. 4, cp. 2 ; xiii. 21, cp. xiv. 19; Judg. vi. 14, cp. 12; Judg. xiii. 23, cp. 3, etc. And this is complicated by the equally certain fact that in some sense the '■> 'o is distinguishable from Yahweh himself (see z*. 1 1, and cp. xix. 13, 24, Num. xxii. 31). Next, as to the solution. The ordinary view (see e.g. Gray, E. Bib., col. 5035) that 'the angel of Yahweh is an occasional manifestation of Yahweh in human form, possess- ing no distinct and permanent personality,' could not be satisfactory, being drawn entirely from exegetical data, without a criticism of the text, and without reference to the history of ancient cults. Taking the latter point first, one must, from a historical point of view, suppose the personage called in our texts maPak Yahweh to have been a divine being with a distinct personality. Let us look round and see if the religious inscriptions of neighbouring peoples supply any confirmatory evidence, (i) There is a Palmyrene inscription (see Cooke, pp. 26?>f.) where mention is made of a deity called ^lafjo. From the Greek and Latin trans- literations, Lidzbarski infers that this represents h'^ ^nSo, "messenger of Bel,' which he supposes to be a title of Shamash the sun-god. The objection is that bamas was the chief god of the Palmyrenes, and that Bel and Samas were the same ; ^naSo seems to await a better explana- ^ Cp. the combination Ashtar-Kemosh in the inscription of Mesha. Note also that Ashur and Ramman made a divine duad in Assyria (Hommel, Gr. p. 87, note 2). 278 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL tion.^ (2) It is an undoubted fact that among the Babylonians the different chief gods, and also the gods collectively, had their respective messengers, who were themselves divine, and, indeed, when the chief gods were concerned, were members of their own families. Thus Marduk was the ' exalted messenger ' ^ {sukkallu siru) of his father Ea, and Nabu of his father Marduk, and there was a god of a lower rank called Papsukkal, who was the ' messenger of the great gods.' Papsukkal, however, is not great enough to be brought into comparison with the matak Yahweh, and if inaFak Yahweh is really a title of a superior divine messenger, the personal name of the messenger would require to be prefixed, or at least given in the context. We might, of course, suppose that the Hebrew writers omitted this name out of reverence for the ' God of gods ' — Yahweh. But is there not a better theory, one which takes account more completely both of Babylonian religious usage and of the facts of the history of Jewish religion ? (3) Considering, first, how often in the traditional texts old and no longer understood names are disguised or transformed by scribes and redactors, and next, that a great superhuman personage, representing Yahweh, is referred to in the later literature, whose name is composed of the same letters as ^N7D, with the addition of another (which may conceivably point to the true origin of the name), we may approach the problem once more with a good hope of success. Let us now turn again to Babylon. There we find the great god Marduk, the son of Ea, placing himself at his divine father's disposal, especially in matters which concern mankind. ' Ea is rarely approached directly. At his side stands his son Marduk, who acts as a mediator. Marduk listens to the petition addressed to him by the exorcising priest on behalf of the victim, and carries the word to Father Ea. The latter, after first declaring Marduk to be 1 S^D^iD is most probably a compound of im = hmn-v and t>3 = '?V3 (a divine title). Cp. ^um', compounded of m', ' moon,' and '713 = ^vx For the inscription see Cooke, p. 268, etc. 2 See the Assyrian lexicons of Del. and Muss-Arnolt, art. sukkallu, and cp. Zimmem, KA T^\ p. 454. On the S. Arabian divine messengers, see Hommel, Gr. p. 86. THE FORTUNES OF HAGAR (Gen. xvi.) 279 his equal in knowledge, proceeds to dictate the cure.' ^ This is specially illustrative of the statement of Mal'ak-Yahweh in Genesis (xvi. 11) that 'Yahweh hath hearkened to thy sighing.' It is not, indeed, stated that Marduk appeared upon earth in human form, but na'fve Israelitish narrators may well have stated that the divine representative of Yahweh, ' in his love and in his pity ' (Isa. Ixiii. 9), did as much. But who was Yahweh's divine representative ? Surely in the original story he must have been mentioned by name ; what, then, was his name ? It must, as we have seen, underlie in^po and ^wd. Now, it is certain that In^d, like "^x^f in the traditional text is sometimes (cp. on Lev. xviii. 21, 2 S. xi. i) either a scribal or a popular distortion of ^NOriT', and in the highest degree plausible that ^nS'^d, the prince-angel in Daniel and later writings, is a degraded (but not dishonoured) god, i.e. is a reflexion (and that a bright one) of the N. Arabian deity known to the Israelites as Yerahme'el (^NOm"'). There is therefore a twofold justification, text-critical and historical, for the view that "^iha in the phrase '■> 'd (or D-'nf?N[rr] 'o) in xvi. 7, xxi. 17, etc., and probably also ^M^on in xlviii. 16, "7n^d in Ex. xxiii. 20, •'asfjo in xxiii. 23, xxxii. 34, Mai. iii i, and 13n^o in Gen. xxiv. 7, 40, have been produced by late redactors out of 7M3"'D, a name which is an edifying transformation of T'NDriT'. The influence of the N. Arabian border-land (for the possession of which Israel strove persistently) on the people of Yahweh was so strong that Yahweh and Yerahme'el came to be popularly combined in a divine duad, or, with the addition of Ashhur ^ (primitively Ashtart), in a triad, and though Yahweh asserted his pre-eminence, yet Yerahme'el was honoured by the title of ' Face of Yahweh ' (Ex. xxxiii. 1 4), and regarded as the repository of the ' name of God ' (Ex. xxiii. 21). ^ Jastrow, Rel. of Bab. and Ass. p. 276; cp. pp. 139, 279, and' Zimmem, ^^T'", p. 419; Jastrow,/. of Am. Theol. i. 474. 2 Cp. iD'7(iv. i8)and '7KIDP, xxii. 21. Note also that nSn in Phcenician and jnalik in Babylonian and Assyrian proper names comes from ' Yerahme'el ' (carried from N. Arabia), and that malaka in the Edomite king's name Kaus-malaka has the same origin. ^ See on v. 13, Dt. xxxiii. 29. Ashhur is equivalent to Ashtor, and Ashtor was originally a goddess (Ashtart). See, further, on i. 26. 28o TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Thus mri"' 'o (the phrase now before us) represents nin*' f?NQm\ The more obvious order 'm*' mri"' is here inverted, perhaps because the deity was spoken of as inter- fering for Israel. It was natural, however, that those who redacted the earlier narratives should seek to guard the supremacy of Yahweh by modifying the word 'om'', and the phrase '■' 'f?n, once produced, would propagate itself further. For the phrase dtt^m '^o see on xxi. 1 7, and for 'Sm •'3n^d on xxxii. 2. I may mention here that Nielsen {Die altarab. Mond- religion, 1904, p. 148) seeks to show exegetically that 'f?D 'f?N in Ex. xiv. 1 9 really means the moon (m"') ; also that Renan {Hist. cT Israel, i. 287), after speaking of the '1 'o as a sort of double of Yahweh, remarks, ' Indeed, it is not certain that the Moloch or Milk of the Canaanite religion does not owe its origin to the same order of ideas.' Moloch or Milk, however, is really Yerahme'el (see p. 51). THE THIRD AGE OF THE WORLD, BEGINNING WITH THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT (Gen. XVII. i-L. 26 ; but cp. on Xll. i, etc.). Chap. xvii. The Abrahamic covenant. Its sign, the rite of circumcision. Change of names of the favoured pair. Promised birth of a son. Abraham's laugh. Promise for Ishmael. The rite performed. The Priestly Writer (P) divides the history of mankind, and more especially of the Arabian peoples akin to the Israelites, into four periods, each introduced by a divine revelation. The first begins with Adam, and the name of God employed in the narrative is Elohim. The second begins with Noah ; the divine name is still Elohim. The third with Abram ; here the divine name is El Shaddai (?). The fourth with Moses ; here the divine name is Yahweh. It is highly probable, though the proof falls short of demon- stration, that the theory is also Babylonian,^ and considering the commanding position of Babylon in the Priestly Writer's time, it is just possible (see, however, below) that he derived it from this great teacher of the nations. At the same time, the division of the history of human affairs into periods is very widely spread, and the sacredness of the number four has sprung from cosmogonic notions familiar to many primitive tribes.^ The Iranians certainly had the theory of ^ See Zimmem, JCAT^% pp. 542/; Gunkel, Genesis^^\ p. 233. Jeremias, however, makes seven periods (ATAO, p. 122). ^ The four corners of earth and heaven had an inherent sanctity. The four specially holy angels of the later Israelites were originally the four gods of the four ' ends ' of the earth and heaven, living pillars of the celestial world. The idea is both Egyptian and N. American, to say no more. 281 282 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL four periods,^ and they, too, had an increasing influence upon the Jews. Daniel's vision of the four beasts and the Priestly Writer's four periods need not, therefore, be of directly Babylonian origin. On the whole, the most plausible view is that the Israelites derived the four-ages theory from the Arabian race, of which they are a junior offshoot, and that in its pre-Israelite form each of the periods was distinguished by the emergence of a fresh divine name or title. Similarly, according to P, the name El-Shaddai (?) was first revealed to Abram, and the name Yahweh to Moses (see Ex. vi. 3). There is great difficulty, however, in the former statement. Neither El-Shaddai nor Shaddai occurs anywhere else in the narratives of the Hexateuch, except, indeed, in xliii. 14 (E), where most recent critics ascribe it, not to E, but to a late redactor. Nor does P give any help in explaining the name. Modern scholars have therefore either acquiesced in nescience, or explained it, with superficial plausibility, from Aramaic or Assyrian. Of these explanations two have found special favour ^ — ' he who pours forth,' i.e. the rain- giver (Aram. N"I0), and ' mountain ' (Ass. mdii) or ' my mountain ' (Ass. sadAd). New varieties of the latter have been produced by Radau {Creation-story of Gen. i. pp. 58/), viz. ' God of the two mountains,' ^ and by Hommel (Gr. p. 177, note 3), viz. sadil Ai, or sadd Ai, i.e. 'mountain -|-moon,' in accordance with his theory of primitive Semitic moon-worship. It is hoped, however, that by applying a key which has proved successful elsewhere, we may attain, if not to certainty, yet to a more satisfactory result. The revelation by which the third stage of human 1 Cp. Bahman Vast, i. 3 {SBE v. 192). 'That root of a tree which thou sawest, and those four branches, are the four periods which will come.' They are (i) of gold; (2) of silver; (3) of steel; (4) mingled with iron. 2 For notices of the conflicting views see E. Bib., ' Shaddai,' and ' Names,' §117; Delitzsch, Hebrew Language, p. 48 ; Zimmern, KAT''^\ pp. 358, 460^; Jastrow, RBA, pp. 56, 278, 500; W. R. Smith, OTJC''^\ p. 424; Cheyne, Prophecies of Isaiah, on Isa. xiii. 6, with crit. note in vol. ii. ^ Identifying Yahweh with EN-HL, the god of the .upper and lower mountain, i.e. heaven and earth {ai the old dual ending). THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT (Gen. xvii.) 283 history is inaugurated is short and simple. The God who reveals himself under the name El-Shaddai (?) demands a life in accordance with his will, and on this condition makes a birtth or 'engagement' with Abram, guaranteeing him certain blessings, and distinguishing him and his posterity from the worshippers of other gods by the sign of circum- cision.^ The blessings referred to are (i) the supernatural multiplication of his posterity, which shall develop into great nations (Israel, Edom, Aram) governed by kings, and (2) the possession by the most favoured race of the land of Canaan. But how is this posterity to be obtained ? A myth may perhaps have been current among the Canaanites that a new race of men arose after the deluge out of stones duly cast by the survivors (see p. 126). Such a myth would have suggested a means of ' raising up children unto Abraham.' Later Jews had certainly been affected by this idea, as Isa. li. i and Luke iii. 8 show. If the narrators pass it over, this may be simply because they are con- sistently adverse to the mythological tendency in Israel. What they tell us is that Yahweh or Elohim pledged his word that Sarah should have a son, also that Sarah (so J) or Abraham (so P) ' laughed ' at the idea of a child under such circumstances, and so find an explanation of the name ' Isaac' The divine communication does not touch this point. And it is worthy of remark that the name is neither modified nor changed by any subsequent revelation. Pre- sumably this would have appeared inappropriate. If ' Abram ' and ' Sarai ' are changed, it is because these names were not in the first instance divinely given. The promises are closely connected with divinely appointed changes in the names of the recipients. ' Abram,' (presumably understood by P as ' high father ') becomes ' Abraham,' i.e. ab hdmon goyim, ' father of a swarm of nations,' as if raham and hdmon had sufficient resemblance to set simple religious minds thinking.^ Such at least is the 1 Of the original meaning and early historical significance of circumcision, the Priestly Writer shows no sense. Cp. E. Bib., ' Covenant,' § 6. ^ For the disregard of 1, it would be unwise to refer to v. 29, where, according to MT., ni is explained by a reference to cm, for ® implies 284 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL ordinary view, though some ^ have ventured on the supposi- tion that P had an intimate acquaintance with rare Arabic words, and identified r-h-m with the word (found in the KamAs) rukam, which, for the sake of ordinary readers, he translated into Hebrew as hdmon. Evidently, neither explanation is better than a makeshift. We shall presently have to examine the text. First, however, we must see what can be done with ' El-Shaddai.' As to the origin of this name,^ if the popular religion of the Israelites arose in N. Arabia, we are bound to assume that the special names of the God of Israel had N. Arabian affinities. That this is the case with the names Yahweh and Elohim, with El-'elyon (xiv. 19, 22), El-'6lam (xxi. 33), and El-beth-el (xxxv. 7), is shown elsewhere ; there is also a strong probability (as we shall in due time see) that ht^o T'lN in xlix. 2 5 is a corruption of ^Mom"' TiaM, ' the Steer- god of Yerahme'el.' The latter restoration suggests, as a correction of nO) in the parallel line, n^i&N ^m, ' the God of Asshur,' where ' Asshur,' of course, is the N. Arabian region of that name, and is virtually synonymous with ' Yerahme'el.' Valuable evidence is also derivable from Dt. xxxiii. 26, 29. In V. 26 we meet with the phrase JTIQ?'^ hi^, where ]na>'' is probably an expansion of ni&M ; in v. 29 with "itDM, which Hommel would point "iffiM (as an alternative name for 'iV\TV), but which should perhaps rather be pointed n©M (see p. 24). Surely it is now not difficult to explain ntO f?N, or, as we sometimes find, ntO (Num. xxiv. 4, 16, and elsewhere), nto has most probably arisen out of an early scribe's error, and represents iitO, i.e. Shuri = Asshurl. It is therefore equivalent to pnm, the Sidonian name for pcnn, which prob- ably comes from im = 1©m, as poin comes from ariT. Note especially that in Jer. xviii. 14 "'nm has evidently come from '■'IB? = pnm. We must also compare p-|t»i, to which in Dt. un':> (see ad loc). Note that Jerome was well aware that the t was otiose if Abraham is = ' father of a multitude.' In the Liber Interpreta- tionis Hebr. Nominum he renders ' pater videns populum,' taking -^ as a fragment of nxi, but in the Quaestiones he gives '■pater multarum gentium.'' 1 Against this see Dillmann, Genesis. 2 See E. Bib., ' Shaddai' ; ' Names,' §117. Meyer, p. 283, note 6, has no suggestion. THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT (Gen. xvii.) 285 xxxiii. 26 ^M is prefixed. Cp. xlix. 25, Dt. xxxiii. 17, Ps. cvi. 37, where D"'ltl> represents D"'n©N, i.e. the various local forms of the god Asshur (see p. 24). Next as to the name Abram. That it was originally a divine name^ cannot safely be inferred from the supposed appropriateness of the meaning, for Abram does not properly mean ' high father,' and we find the name ' Abiram ' (Bab. Abu-ramu) and other names of the same type borne by individual men. Nor may we even assert with Winckler that Abraham has two names in the tradition, unconnected, though the case of Jacob and Israel may well at first sight seem favourable to this view. Stucken,^ followed by Winckler, holds that Abraham corresponds to the mytho- logical Tamftz and Sarah to Ishtar, but this view has at any rate no bearing on the name Abraham, and Sarai's (or Sarah's) relationship to Abram was not necessarily suggested by the Tamiiz and Ishtar myth. Possibly Abraham was originally a first man, in which case Sarah was at once his sister and his wife, a detail which was too firmly fixed in tradition to be displaced. At any rate, the identification of Abraham with the Nabataean god Dusares ^ seems to me to lack any great verisimilitude. It is, of course, a plausible conjecture that in an earlier form of the tradition Abraham had another totally different name, but, if so, we have not the means of recovering it. Ram and Raham both have the same meaning, for the one comes from Aram and the other (through Raham *) from Yarham or Yerahme'el, and Aram and Yarham or Yerah- me'el are virtually the same (see on x. 23). A few parallel names help us greatly. In i Chr. ii. 9, Ram is a brother, and in z/. 2 5 a son, of Yerahme'el. That am or Dm is also 1 On the whole question as to 'Abram' and 'Abraham,' see Noldeke, E. Bib., col. 1182, and essay in Im. neuen Reich, 1871, pp. 508 _^; Winckler, G7ii. 26 ; Baethgen, Beitrage, pp. iS4.^ 2 Asiralmythen, p. 18. ' In spite of Ed. Meyer's renewed able defence of this view, op. cit. pp. 267 ff.; cp. ZATW \\. 16. On 'Dusares,' see further Cooke, pp. 218/ ; Cheyne, Bible Problems, pp. J^f. ^ The weakening of nm into am need not surprise us (cp. on on in xiv. 5). Dmnx might have been mistranslated 'father of the womb.' Cp. TraTTjp oiKTipfiZv (05 i72) = D'Dm 3n. 286 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL another form of DnT^, appears from i Chr. ii. 44, where, in a Calebite list, both nm and Dpi are most easily explained as popular corruptions of oriT ; also from Isa. xxix. 22, where @'s ov a^copia-ev ef AyS/aaa/t represents a misunderstood reading Dmo ms "1Q?M, ' whom he redeemed from Raham ' {i.e. Yarham), and from Gen. xlix. 25, where Dm, as we shall see, represents the divine name Raham or Yarham.^ May we now proceed to explain Abram (and its Bab. and Ass. parallel Abu-rimu = dt'Im) and Abraham as ' father of Aram ' and ' father of Yarham ' respectively ? The interpretation of ad as ' father ' in suth names may indeed be an old one, but it is certainly incorrect. The theory according to which ab or abz, ah or ahi, and hamu or hami in compound proper names refer to the divinity as the close kinsman of his worshipper, plausible as it can in some cases be made, will not cover nearly all the phenomena, and is apparently doubted by such an able scholar as Ed. Meyer. A new theory is therefore sadly wanted. It is in the highest degree probable that 3N and '^IN, like ""aN by itself in iv. 20 etc., and like the ins appended (without Makkef) to DTrr in 2 Chr. ii. 12, iv. 16 (so read — see on Ex. xxxi. 6), are modified shorter forms of niN = 3"j», just as riN and tin more than probably are of nntOM, and yan or •'nn of onT." Thus ' Abram ' and ' Abraham ' mean respectively ' Arammite Arabia ' and ' Yerahme'elite Arabia.' Cp. the Hebrew names Ahiram = Ashhur-Aram, Ah'ab = Ashhur- 'Arib ; ^ also the Babylonian names * Abihar = Arab-ashhar (ashhur), Abi-ikimu = Arab-yarhamu, Ahi-ikimu = Ashhur- yarhamu ; also the Edomite royal name Malik-ramu,^ temp. Sennacherib ( = Heb. and Phcen. nT3^o), and Bilrim 1 That Dm or dht is not only the name of a people, but of that people's God, is shown on chap. i. 2 Cp. Konig's remark as to the ' extraordinary contraction and abbreviation, especially in frequently used expressions ' (Lehrgeb. ii. 448, note 1 a). ^ In spite of all that has been said, e.g. by Ulmer {Die semit. Eigen- namen, Th. i, pp. i^ff.), and by BDB, to explain nunn, few will admit that they are fully satisfied. From our present point of view, however, Ah'ab ( = Ahi'ab, the name of Herod's nephew) is Ashhur-' Arib (p. 63, note 4). * Peiser, KB iv. 15 ; Johns, Deeds, iii. 468, 473. 5 So Winckler, ICAT^^\ p. 232 ; Zimmern, p. 467, Aja-rammu. THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT (Gen. xvii.) 287 ( = Phoen. mfjsl) on a cuneiform tablet found at Tell Ta'annek, where inalik and bil represent ' Yerahme'el ' and r&m or rammu comes from 'Aram.' It should be added that Breasted^ has found in Sheshonk's list of names at Karnak a phrase which may represent miN VpHD, 'the country of Abram,' where ' Abram ' may, if I am right, be a district name, meaning (like the personal name Abram) ' Arammite Arabia.' To suppose that it means the ' field ' on which the sacred tree of Hebron (xiii. 1 8) stood,^ seems to me improbable. Now as to P's explanation — so puzzling to the critics — ' thy name shall be Abraham, for I appoint thee ^xtin 3N D'^ll.' Can this be right? Is it likely that the dignity to which the patriarch, according to the original writing, was appointed was so vaguely described ? It would seem that P must have made use of an earlier writing which he misread. Corruption there is in any case, and the centre of it lies in pen. Now if hycin (xlvi. 1 2) and fjino (i K. v. 11) come from ^ndht, why should not parr have the same origin, for in the change of n into n and of the final ] into h there is certainly nothing violent ? \\'aT[, then, is equivalent to Jiom (jom), and this is a popular modification of the great tribal name already mentioned ; for a parallel compare ' Baal-hamon ' in Cant. viii. 11. This, then," is the original form of the twice-uttered divine promise, ' Thou shalt be (or, I appoint thee) father of Rahman (Yerahme'el),' to which as a gloss is added D"'1Jl (see on 'i, xiv. 2). The meaning is, that the people which was to spread so widely and become so famous should own the patriarch as its ancestor, and that the patriarch himself was to count his ancestorship such an honour that he would resign his earlier name (whatever it may have been) and adopt the name Ab-raham. This suggests that in the earlier form of the narrative Ishmael ( = Yerahme'el), and not Isaac, was the child of promise. Evidently P has dealt very freely with the material before him. Of course, the parallels, xxviii. 3, XXXV. II, xlviii. 4 are based upon the passage as shaped by P. ^ AJSL, Oct. 1904 ; cp. Spiegelberg, Aegypt. Randglossen, p. 14. ^ Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten, p. 266. 288 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL The change of Sarai's name to Sarah {v. 15) was of course necessary to correspond to the change of the name of her husband. To account for the phraseology, we must suppose that what is now v. 6 lay before the writer already in a corrupted form. As for the name '^itB, Ed. Meyer (p. 270) confidently thinks that Sarai represents the divine name Sharayat. A goddess so-called is mentioned in an inscrip- tion at Bosra in the Hauran beside Dflshara or Dusares (cp. ZATW vi. 16). This, however, is in itself difficult and improbable, and it is better to see in Sarai an Arabising form of the Hebrew name Sarah. From our present point of view the root- letters itO would seem to belong to a N. Arabian ethnic, and it is no mere ' neckischer Zufall ' (Meyer) that ■'tom and iiffi stand together in the list of those who (temp. Ezra) put away their Arabian wives (Ezra X. 40), for iffiOJ (see on Num. xiii. 22) is not derived from l^m, ' byssus,' any more than jffite ( i Chr. ii. 31) is derived from ■'QJQ?, but comes from one of the most widely current of the popular corruptions of sotO"' = ^MDom"' (see on xiii. 11). How such a good scholar as Meyer can make such state- ments as occur in Die Israeliten, pp. 264, note 3, and 265, is not easy to say. That "iffito and ■'im stand together is a consequence of the close relations constantly maintained between Judah and N. Arabia. Both are Asshurite or Ishmaelite names. In further support of this view I must not forget to quote the name n"'nto, which Noldeke {E. Bib., ' Names,' § 3S) puts beside fjNnffi-' as meaning 'God contends,' but which, like other names of that type, is compounded of two much abbreviated names. Most probably ntO = nitO = 1imN ; cp. on ' Israel,' xxxii. 29, and note that David's scribe is called both Seraiah and Shavsha (2 S. viii. 17; i Chr. xviii. 16); 'Shavsha' represents Shamsha (=Ishmael), and so throws a light on Seraiah. nf has a similar meaning ; it comes from MV = IJT' = Dm\ The result is that Abraham as the Yarhamite patri- arch, and Sarai or Sarah as the Asshurite, correspond, and it will be noticed that Asshur and Yerahme'el together make up Asshur- Yerahme'el, the primitive home of the early heroes. The same may be said of Jacob THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT (Gen. xvii.) 289 and Israel/ the one name being Yerahme'elite, the other Asshurite (cp. on xxxii. 29). Singularly enough, there is no crisis in the life of the promised son which brings about a change of name. Was he too unimportant for this in the legendary tradition? The view is not unplausible ; Isaac has not unfairly been styled 'Abraham's double.' More probably, however, the name Isaac remained because, unlike the names ' Abram ' and ' Sarai,' , it was given by a direct divine command. And what does ' Isaac ' mean ? Apparently ' one who laughs,' alluding (it might be) to some birth-story resembling that of Zoroaster — that the child laughed aloud as he came into the world.^ Or we might consider that Isaac was originally a thunder-god, and compare the grim laughter spoken of in Ps. ii. 4. But surely it would be extremely odd if the name of any of the patriarchs had come down to us without corruption.^ Must not 'pVtS', like the companion- names, be a worn-down form of the original name, and we may here derive a suggestion from Amos, in one of whose prophecies the ' high places of Isaac ' and the ' sanctuaries of Israel ' are unexpectedly parallel. How can we account for this ? Why ' Isaac ' rather than the seemingly more natural ' Jacob ' ? Surely there must lurk underneath "prw a name of twofold significance — a name which denoted, not only a certain legendary personage, but also some part of that N. Arabian border-land with which all the three great patriarchs were traditionally connected. Now among the place-names which have been found to contain fragments of nrilDM is pffiDT (xiv. IS, XV. 2), where p» (like I© in 1»0, X. 2) represents the nm in inCM ; see especially Am. iii. 1 2, where the unintelligible mys which follows pmoT (mispointed in MT.) is certainly a disguised i^m, z>. the district called d-m-sh-k is, according to this gloss, synonymous with Asshur ( = Ashhur). It is probable that pn»'> (in Amos) 1 Rob. Smith {Kinshi^^\ p. 34, note i) regards Abraham as = Judah, and Sarah as = Israel. * De Harlez, Avesta, introd. p. xxv; A. V. Williams Jackson, Zoroaster the Prophet of Ancient Iran (1899), p. 27, where ample refer- ences are given, e.g. Dinkart, vii. 3, 2 and 25 ; Plin. HNvn. 16, 15. ' It is not enough to suppose with Ed. Meyer {^ZATW -vx. 7) that the original form was Yishakel. «9 290 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL is a more correct form than "pTf^, and that rvsn or pffli has come from nntON,^ the remaining letter p or n being an expansion such as we sometimes find in by-forms of proper names. The same origin may be assigned to ptos, a place- name in the Isaac-story (xxvi. 20), and to the Naphtalite name ^NSrf (xlvi. 24). There are still some textual corrections which call for mention. That T'^"' is often a corruption of some shorter form of ^Nom"', has been pointed out already. See on xiv. 14, and note that in Jer. ii. 16 sound method requires us to read Nin ^mdHT' n-in CiN \h'\ f?N1tOi nnsn, ' Is Israel (as) Arabia unto me ? is he (as) the house of Yerahme'el ' ? Ti^i ('jiT') and rr^n were transposed for an evident reason, and so too in Gen. xvii. 1 2, 1 3, 2 3, nin "rhn, in"'! Thr; and [ijnin ["'JT'^'' represent 'om"' rrin. Observe, too, that there is a parallel phrase indicating that by those who come of the ' house of Yerahme'el' the narrator means us to understand 'pur- chased slaves' (see on xii. 16, assuming that the country where Abram sojourned was Misrim, not Misraim). One of the two parallel phrases is probably a gloss. With regard to other supposed circumcision -legends, see on Ex. iv. 18-26, Josh. v. 2 ff. For ethnological illus- trations I see that Driver and H. P. Smith have already referred to Spencer and Gillen's Native Tribes of Central Australia (1899). See, further, on xxiv. 2, 9, and E. Bib.., ' Circumcision.' 1 Cp. -m'n 1BD (Josh. x. 13, etc.), and n'nw (following napv>) in I Chr. iv. 36, where ne" and nw may both reasonably be traced to ibk or ■nnii'N, ABRAHAM'S HOSPITALITY (Gen. xviii. 1-15) Abraham gives hospitality to three wayfaring men. Who they were he knew not. They were, however, messengers from the higher world ; or rather, if we rightly interpret the meaning of the present narrator, two were messengers, and the third was Yahweh himself.^ Abraham is here depicted as an ideal host (cp. xix. 2, 3). Ad- dressing himself to the chief of the three, he sues for the privilege of entertaining them. There was much to give an edge to his curiosity, for the ' men ' had, as it were, dropped upon him from the clouds. But neither at the opening of the meal (which was worthy of so rich a host and such distinguished guests) nor afterwards did he allow himself to ask questions. It is rather the strangers who permit themselves to do so. His wife Sarah was not in attendance ; she was in her tent (cp. xxiv. 67). The reward of such hospitality must therefore be notified to Abraham in her absence. It is presumably the leader of the party who does this, not, in the original story, in his own name alone. To this Abraham listens in reverent silence. We may compare the story of the announcement of the birth of Samson, where Manoah's wife, who was its privileged hearer, thus describes the event to her husband, ' A man of God came to me ; his countenance was like that of Mal'ak- Elohim, very terrible ; but I asked him not whence he was, nor told he me his name ' (Judg. xiii. 6). We may ask therefore. Did Abraham, as the words fell from the Speaker's lips, guess who he was, viz. at the least ' a man of God,' but ^ Eusebius (Onom. Sacra, 210, 70-72) calls them angels, and says that they were worshipped by the heathen. Cp. Meyer, Die Israel. p. 263. 291 292 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL not impossibly Mal'ak-Elohim himself?^ The point is left undetermined. Sarah, at any rate, gives occasion to the Speaker to show that he is a ' searcher of the heart' She laughs incredulously within herself, and when reproved, timidly denies the fact. But the great Being, who is so thoroughly human (see pp. 7, 15), and yet so free from human limitations, insists that she did laugh (^v. 12-15). In the present form of the story the bright appearance of the three ' men ' is so veiled that at first they are not recognised as divine. In its earlier form the recognition of their true character may have been more complete. The number three would of itself suggest to Abraham the greatest possibilities, and their majestic bearing must soon (cp. Judg. xiii. 6) have produced certainty. Men they were indeed, but god-men ; in short, the members of that supreme council of Elohim of which Yahweh was the president and director.^ For the divine viceroy of earth, best known as Mal'ak- Yahweh, was not always the sole revealer or performer of the purpose of the Heavenly Ones concerning human beings. The divine triad sometimes willed to make a tour of inspec- tion together (cp. Gen. xi. 7). The same germs which produced the beautiful story of the Divine Visit to Abraham developed in a similar way elsewhere. We have already called to mind the journey of the divine Ennead related by an Egyptian tale-writer, which issued in a beneficent act to a lonely man (see p. 74)., Similar things are also said of divine triads. Thus, in the Edda, Odinn, Haenir, and Loki go about in company ; and Ovid^ has retold the myth of Hyrieus, a man of Tanagra in Bceotia, who entertained Zeus, Poseidon, and Hermes, i.e., according to Jensen,* Bel, Ea, and two messengers, and whose wish for a son in his old age was gratified by the gods. The story of Philemon and Baucis* may also be referred to, though it is, of course, most parallel to the 1 See on xvi. 7, where it is shown that Mal'ak is an edifying trans- formation of Yerahme'el. 2 Cp. Isa. vi. 8, and see p. 15. 3 Fasti, V. 495-540; cp. Stucken, Asfralmythen, pp. 211/ * Das Gilg.-Epos, p. 307, note 2. 5 Ovid, Met. vii. 626-721. ABRAHAM'S HOSPITALITY (Gen. xviii. 1-15) 293 story of Lot. There may have been many such tales of journeying deities in N. Arabia and Palestine, though the only one that has come down to us in some fulness (xi. 1-9 having been cut down) is xviii. 1-15. The affinity of the story to tales of the Dioscuri has been pointed out by Stucken {Astralmythen, pp. 83, 21 j) and Rendel Harris (^Cult of the Heavenly Twins). That in the original story three gods must have been spoken of, is convincingly shown by Gunkel, but who the three gods were, this able critic does not tell us. Pre- sumably, however, they were not Yahweh and the Kabiri (as Dr. Rendel Harris supposes),^ but Yahweh, Asshur (or Ashtar), and Yerahme'el ^ (see p. 1 6). The two latter appear to have been often viewed as united (see on xvi. 13 V), just as Yahweh was popularly viewed as united to Yerahme'el. Later Jewish teachers, however, supposed that the ' three men ' were three angels, Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael.' This was in accordance with their funda- mental theory respecting Michael, who was the chief link between a transcendent deity and the world of men. They were really not so far wrong, if ^m3"'Q is virtually a substitute for [niri"'] isfjD, and if both hvCT'ti and TNfjo are trans- formations of the N. Arabian divine name SNOn"i% and the great Being whom they both represent is an honourably degraded deity. When, however, this story was originally written, Yerahme'el was a true and full divinity, second only to Yahweh. It was one of the writers symbolised as J who converted the three divinities of the original story into three messengers, a step which was doubtless approved ^ See the above-mentioned works. Surely Yahweh and the Kabir (in Phoenician mythology) would make a company of eight. ^ To suppose that in the earliest form of the story the company consisted of the Babylonian gods Bel and Ea and two messengers (Gilgamesh and the pilot of the ship of the deluge) is too hazardous for me, but not for Jensen {Das Gilg.-Epos, p. 307, note 2). ' Bereskiik rabba, par. 48 ; cp. Yoina, 37a. The old mosaics in Sta. Maria Maggiore at Rome, according to O. Richter, represented Abraham as visited by the Logos and two attendant angels. The historical connexion between the Logos and the divine Being Yerah- me'el (John i. I, etc., Prov. viii. 22-31), and between the Logos and the Messiah and Michael (Rev. xix. 13, 15/, xii. 7), is clear (see p. 60, with note 4). 294 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL by the religious authorities, and is parallel to the conversion of ' Yerahme'el-Yahweh ' into ' Mal'ak-Yahweh,' i.e. ' Yahweh's messenger.' To a later writer, however, who must also be symbolised as J, this did not appear the best mode of representation. According to him, one of the three was Yahweh ; the other two, who went on to Sodom, were messengers.-' This is the view expressed in xviii. 17-19, 22 ^-33 «. Hence 'the men' 'vi\v. 21a came to mean 'the two men,' whereas originally it meant ' the three men.' A redactor made still further changes, turning the plural in vv. 3, 10, 13, 14, into the singular, and inserting mri'' (xviii. I, 13); ® also f reads koX elirev in v. 5. For a fuller sketch of the various literary phases, see Gunkel's commentary, and for a different view Stade, Alttest. Theol. i. 98. Neither Stade nor Gunkel, however, points out that ■'DtO in xix. I (see below) records an earlier reading of the highest importance. Three or four points have yet to be mentioned. The simplest is in z'. 3, where read ij^n with Dillmann. Simple, too, is that m V. i, where the MT. states that the theophany was ' by the terebinths (or sacred trees) of Mamre,' but where @ (vrpo? tiJ Zpv'C) presupposes, not ■'3^m, but p^N (cp. xii. 6). As V. 4 shows, @'s reading is correct.^ It was the sacred, and perhaps originally oracular tree (cp. Judg. iv. 4, 5), near which Abraham dwelt. The third point is that the second visit to Abraham, announced in xviii. 10, 14, is not recorded. And the fourth is that the story of the promise of a son to Abraham and that of the destruction of Sodom were originally independent. They were brought together by J, who, with artistic economy, made a single visit of the Heavenly Ones suiifice for a twofold object. 1 Sievers, who claims to have separated quite smoothly a Yahweh- version of the story from a Three-men-version, seems to me to have used a wrong clue. 2 Similarly in xiii. 18, xiv. 13, Dt. xi. 30. See Wellhausen in Bleek's Etnleitung,''*^ p; 643. ABRAHAM'S INTERCESSION (Gen. xviii. 16-33) A LINKING passage. Originally it consisted of w. 16, 20-22. Later on, a deepening interest in the general religious problem of the suffering righteous prompted the inserted verses, the style and phraseology of which remind us of Deuteronomy. The writer had the feeling that Yahweh could not have withheld his intention from his friend Abraham, to whom he had already promised such a great future. So the patriarch drew near, and began to plead for guilty Sodom. He would not palliate its offences, but might there not be some righteous men even in Sodom? It would surely be unjust to destroy the righteous with the wicked. Again and again he renewed his pleading, and obtained a promise that even ten righteous men should be enough to save the city. Jensen's view that the intercession is really a reflexion of Ea's intercession with Bel in the Babylonian deluge-story {Gilg.-Epos, p. 300) is far-fetched. As to textual errors, ' I will go down,' etc. (z'. 21), may be put down to the redactor ; the original text may have had ' let us go down ' (cp. xi. 7). Also, with Wellh., Ball, Holz., and Gunkel, we should probably adopt the old Jewish reading, 'ni« 13 D^ 7a» ~ns mn"'"i iy. 22 b). The words were probably altered out of reverence, because ' standing before any one ' might be taken to mean ' serving him.' 295 LOT SAVED (Gen. xix. 1-28) Lot, like Abraham, proves the reality of his religion by his scrupulous regard to hospitality. (Abraham and Lot — were they not the Hebrew Dioscuri, who were specially the guardians of hospitality?) But Lot is worse off than Abraham ; the common feeling of his city is against him. Indeed, not only the inhabitants of Sodom but all the Ashhurites (see below) give hateful proof of their solidarity in wickedness. All that remains is for the divine ones to save Lot and his relatives from the impending catastrophe. At daybreak, then. Lot, being warned, leaves the city, but only his two daughters can be induced to follow him. The divine ones (who have been converted into ' messengers ') urge them to hurry, but Lot, who is fearful of destruction, obtains permission to take refuge in the city of Zoar (so called, from the terms in which Lot framed his petition). After sunrise the blow falls on the guilty city and its neighbourhood. The text of this section is specially corrupt. Apart from the ordinary sources of corruption, the deep interest of the subject for later ages naturally led to alterations. Not only have the original ' three men ' become ' the (two) messengers,' but it is probable that the references to Lot's wife (xix. ij/i, 26; contrast v. 12) and the whole of the Zoar-episode are subsequent insertions. The traditional view of the text of these supposed references needs a close examination. And as to the Zoar-episode, most probably it is no part of the original story, but was inserted, not to account for the escape of a single fruitful piece of land, but to justify the popular etymology of the name ' Zoar.' To these points, however, we shall return presently. 296 LOT SAVED (Gen. xix. 1-28) 297 The main body of narrative relates the awful judicial catastrophe which befell Sodom {v. 13), or, as elsewhere stated {vv. 24, 28 ; cp. xviii. 20, xiii. 10), Sodom and Gomorrah. The description of the phenomena has given rise to various scientific hypotheses, as, for instance, that the calamity began with an earthquake, continued with furious eruptions, and ended with the submerging of the destroyed cities by the waters of the Dead Sea.^ Against this, how- ever, we must urge, with Prof. Lucien Gautier, that ' the text of Genesis speaks of a rain of fire and brimstone, and a pillar of smoke rising to heaven, but neither of an earthquake, nor of an igneous eruption, nor of an inundation.' ^ But the particular details of the catastrophe are of comparatively little importance. The essence of the story does not even lie in. the view that the calamity referred to was a fire-deluge (or, as Stucken calls it, a dry deluge), as opposed to the water-deluge that preceded it. What is primarily meant is that another age of the earth's history {i.e. strictly, of N. Arabian history) came to an end by a supernatural agency, and that that history had to make a fresh start. In Peruvian folklore, it is true, we find the fire-deluge brought pretty close up to the water-deluge. This, however, is not the most thoughtful view, considering what we have found in the case of the deluge. It is, in fact, a waste of catastrophic energy to bring the two great similar events too near one another. Nothing but the experience of the faultiness of the present human race could adequately justify a fresh destruction such as that which has attached itself to the names of Sodom and Gomorrah, and which originally must have been localised in the region of the myth-framers or myth-adapters, viz. the region of Yerahme'el or N. Arabia. Local stories of this kind are extremely common. They are probably weakened versions of stories of a larger scope. They have, however, retained that didactic element which must very early have infused itself into such stories. It was held that in course of time the corruption of the race, or of the population of some particular district, reached so ^ See Blanckenhorn, ZDPV yia.. 1-59 (1896), xxi. 65-83 (1898). 2 E. Bib., ' Dead Sea,' § 7. 298 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL great a height that a portentous judgment had to take place.-* In Arabia the ruined cities or villages of such impious populations are called maklubdt, 'overturned ones,' which is parallel to the technical term mahpekdh, 'over- turning,' used of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in the O.T.^ E. H. Palmer' refers to the great stones at the base and on the summit of Jebel Madara, which are said to have been rained down from heaven to destroy an inhospitable folk. The traces of a deluge-myth in Arabia are, in fact, but few. And yet there is no reason which absolutely prohibits the view that N. Arabia had a true deluge-myth of its own, and that such a myth underlies the present story of Sodom. Certainly the occurrence of ^sn in xix. 25, 29, is not in this way prohibitive, for this verb can be used with much laxity (see Job xii. 15). Before proceeding further, let it be remarked that the story of Sodom is plainly a N. Arabian one. We may infer this, not only from its coming after stories already proved to be Yerahme'elite, but from the impossibility of explaining certain doubtful names and phrases except upon this hypothesis. Note especially the gloss on mo "'103 n in xix. 4, and the most probable form of the account of the judgment in v. 24. D^D has already been explained (see on xiv. 2) ; most probably it comes from Dion, i.e. D'lfj nntpw- Similarly mos, like nasT in x. 7, comes from mw ( = fjNDm"') with the feminine termination. It is just possible, indeed, that the so-called Gomorrah {'yofioppa) may be a legendary double of ' Sodom.' But, however this may be, it will be seen from the criticism of an earlier passage (xiii. 10) that the region supposed to be destroyed by the calamity was located, not beside the Dead Sea, but in the southern border-land, possibly not far from the region in which early tradition placed the land of Eden. Moreover, in dealing 1 See Cheyne, New World, June 1892, pp. 236-245. 2 See E. Bib., 'Sodom,' § 4. On the phrase o'nSn riDSno, see Wellh. on Am. iv. 1 1, who remarks that D'nSn indicates a non-Israelitish origin for the legend. This, however, is only half the truth. The other half is that dtiSn in this phrase has come from '?HDnT (cp. p. 69) ; that is, the original story of Sodom gave the divine Judge the name Yerahme'el. 3 Desert of the Exodus, p. 416. LOT SAVED (Gen. xix. 1-28) 299 with the deluge-story in chaps, vi.-viii. we have found reason to hold that an early form of that tradition represented the deluge as overwhelming Yerahme'elite Arabia, and the ark as settling on the mountain of Ashtar (cp. on Dt. iii. 17). It now becomes natural to conjecture that the original story of the calamity of Sodom was one form of the Yerahme'elite deluge-story. And the conjecture is confirmed by the discovery of a series of parallelisms between the Hebrew and Babylonian deluge -stories on the one hand and the narrative in Gen. xix. (revised text) on the other. Here is the list; it should be added that Jastrow too {RBA 507) has noticed the parallelism between the story of Sodom and that of the deluge. 1. The righteous man ' Noah ' (vi. 9), or rather Hanok, or, as the great Babylonian story said, Ut-napistim. 2. Vexation of Yahweh (vi. 6). Anger of the divinity against the Babylonian city of Surippak. 3. 'AH flesh' had become corrupt (vi. 11-13). The city of Surippak was labtr, i.e. 'impure' (Babylonian story, Zimmern, line 14, if the emendation is correct). 4. The divine revelation to 'Noah' (vi. 13^). Ea's mes- sage to Ut-napiStim. 5. A long-continued, destruc- tive rain-storm (vii. 10-12, 17^) on Yerahme'elite Arabia (vii. 4). A similar storm on the city of Surippak .1 B I. The righteous man, Lot (xix. 1-8). 2 . Anger of the Elohim against the city of Sodom, or Hasram (xix.). 3. The culminating act of wickedness (xix. 4- 11). 4. The divine revelation to Lot (xix. 13 ; cp. xviii. 20 /.). 5. A long-continued, destruc- tive rain-storm (vii. 10-12, t"] ff.), on the cities of the whole of Yerahme'el (xix. 24/). 1 It is assumed here that a tradition of a storm which overwhelmed Surippak has been fused with the tradition of a far larger flood in the deluge-story of the Gilgame§ epic (see Jastrow, Rel. of Bab. and Ass. p. 507, and cp. E. Bib., ' Deluge,' § 22). It is not asserted that even the former tradition is historical, nor denied that the deluge-myth in its earliest form — earlier than the earliest known Babylonian or Yerahme'elite myth or legend — related to the whole earth. 300 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL 6. ' Noah ' and his family 6. Lot and his family delivered delivered (vi. 13, 23^); also of (xix. t-S ff-). Ut-napistim and his household. 7. The ark grounds on the 7. Lot warned to escape to mountain of Ashtar (viii. 4). the mountains [of Yerahme'el] The ship grounds on the (xix. 17). mountain of Ni?ir. It will be noticed that under 643 reference has been given to a passage in the account of the visit of the ' three men,' i.e. the three Elohim, to Abraham (xviii. 20 f.). The reason is that the statement relative to the investigation of Sodom's crimes is practically equivalent to a revelation of the judgment upon the city and neighbourhood. That the matter should be disclosed to Abraham suggests a minor question which for completeness' sake I have to raise, viz. whether there may not have been another version of the deluge-story (I assume that the judgment on Sodom was originally of water, and not of fire), according to which Abraham, and not Hanok or Lot, was the name of the righteous man whom the Elohim delivered. I may also refer to the significant parallelism between ' Elohim remem- bered Noah' (viii. 5) and 'Elohim remembered Abraham' (xix. 29). The theory here suggested is that when redactors adapted or harmonised the story of Sodom, they left these two indications that the story had once had a different form, in which Abraham was the name of the representative of the second human race. And since Abraham now becomes identical with Noah or Hanok, we may perhaps consider ' Abraham ' (Arab- Yerahme'el) to have been originally a cognomen or title of the man to whom deliverance was vouchsafed. However this may be, the original story simply related that a single righteous man, with his family, received timely warning that those among whom he sojourned had displeased Yahweh by a gross violation of his laws,^ and that Elohim saved him from destruction. For a violent rain-storm arose, submerging the whole of the guilty land of 1 Cp. Ezek. xvi. 49 /. It is not improbable that Asmodaeus (Ashmedai), the lustful demon in Tobit, derives his name from 'S6d6m' (Sodom) ; the corrupt reading 'SSdom' had no doubt already arisen. Cp. Lilith, the name of the female counterpart of Ashmedai, which may ultimately come from Yerahme'elith. LOT SAVED (Gen. xix. 1-28) 301 Yerahme'elite Arabia. Such was probably the earliest form of the ' Sodom '-story. The original story, however, underwent various modifica- tions. Lot, the son of Haran (i.e. Haran), otherwise called Lotan, son of Seir the Horite — in either case an Ashhurite (see on xi. 3 1 ) — was substituted for Abraham, and a floating story of mythic origin, but in an altered form, was attached to the story of Lot, to explain and justify the wrath of the Elohim. After this a legend was inserted to account for the name Zoar. Lot had taken refuge there, by permission of the Elohim, because it was a ' little ' city. Lastly, cor- ruption in the text of xix. 24 suggested that the scene of the traditional story must have been in that ' awful hollow,' that ' bit of the infernal regions come to the surface ' which was at the southern end of the Dead Sea. And a fragment of the formations of rock-salt at Jebel Usdum, to which a myth like that of Niobe may already have become attached, was, naturally enough, transferred to the altered legend, and identified with Lot's wife ; the ' looking behind ' ascribed to the latter was also in full accordance with mythology, and fitted in with the strange -looking 'pillar of salt.'^ So urgently necessary is it to examine the textual basis of ingenious and attractive mythological theories. Let us now turn to passages which in their corrected form are important for the theory of the narrative which appears to me the most probable. Much of the text is sound, but there are some very suspicious words and groups of words. {a) First, as to ' the two messengers ' in xix. i . As soon as we grant that v. i is the continuation of xviii. 220:, we see that the original subject of the verb ("in1"'1) must have been D"'Q)3Mn. Dillmann thinks that a later writer substituted n"'3N'?Dn for clearness, but does not account for the prefixed 1316. Why should the narrator say either ' the two men ' or ' the two angels ' ? His view evidently was that one of the three men was Yahweh, and that the other ^ On the affinities of the story see Peters, Early Hebrew Story, PP- 145 / ; E. H. Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, ii. 478 ff. ; W. R. Smith, Rel. SemS'^'' p. 88, note 2 ; and especially Stucken, Astralmythen, pp. 83, no, 231, 240, 388. 302 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL two were angels. To say that the two angels came to Sodom is confusing ; it might conceivably suggest that there had originally been more than two angels. Positive- ness is in this case fully justified ; ^ym is a piece of an indistinct D-'©3N[n]. When in all good faith 13© had been wrongly read, it became natural ' for clearness ' to read {b) Next, as to rx%X>'<^ DOT hz {v. 4). Is it likely that, as BDB affirm, mp is ' a condensed term for what is included between extremities = the whole ' ? E.g., can vriN 'pa, xlvii. 2, mean ' from the entirety of his brethren,' even if we venture further to say that the sense is suitable ? In Jer. li. 3 1 can Td'p'a IT'S be rendered ' the city as a whole ' ? In Isa. Ivi. 1 1 can inspD, literally ' from its end,' mean ' from its whole,' and can this be = ' in a body ' ? The same doubt applies to Di>rr m!ipD, I K. xii. 31, xiii. 33, and to DmspD, Judg. xviii. 2, 2 K. xvii. 32, where BDB explain 'po 'from the whole of.' In accordance with corrections elsewhere, it is best to read nnmN Dr-f?3, ' all the people of Ashhur ' (omitting the second a as dittographed). This may be a gloss on D^D ■'tD3N, for mo (see above) = Ashhur- Aram. The place meant is the capital of a district in Ashhur- Yerahme'el. Cp. z/. 24 (revised text), where the devastated region is called ' Asshur ' or ' Ashhur.' {c) Of nN^rrOJl in v. 9 BDB say, 'literally, approach thither, i^. move away.' This may be theoretically possible, but is not probable. Now it so happens that rrM^n in MT. is often corrupt (see e.gj on xxxv. 21, i S. x. 3, Am. v. 27) ; probably it is so here, as indeed the warning Pasek before 'hn'XH'X suggests, and comes from f7NDnn\ The second "noN"''! is equally suspicious. I have found cases in which this word too must have come from ■JMDm\ I can see no difficulty in supposing that 'ni"i represents a 'riT^ which was a correction of the impossible rrN^jn. Not impossibly too, ^^N^r has been produced out of an ill-written intON ; but more probably the copy before the scribe had inNmnN, and the first three letters fell out through their close resemblance to what followed. Lastly, as to xai. Why may it not, like ■'3tl> in v. I, come from ■'t03N? The result is that it is best to read '"lai nnNH intDN fjNonT' •^©3N "nON'^l, LOT SA VED (Gen. xix. 1-28) 303 'and the men of Yerahme'el-Ashhur said, The single one (there),' etc. The phrase 'the men of Yer.-Ashhur' is synonymous with ' the men of Sodom ' ; see on nspD, v. 4. (d) In V. 15 rnvh^an is really inconsistent with Q-'m3Nn in V. 16. For the latter implies that the persons spoken of were divine. {e) In V. 16, why has no one pointed out the unsuitable- ness of nonon-'l after is-'s-'T ? 'As the morning -grey appeared, they pressed Lot, saying. Rise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters who are here, lest thou perish by the guilt of the city ; and the men seized him by the hand,' etc. After what is said in w. 14 how could Lot have dawdled ? Note the warning Pasek after 'jv\, and read (following the precedent of the correction of 'onn in Judg. iii. 26) D"'^NDm"', a gloss on TJ^n {v. 15). Is a confirmation of this wanted? It is found in the parenthesis T^i? '1 n^oni. It is true, these words are quite susceptible of exegesis. ' They may be meant to convey the impression that the destroyers were but messengers of Yahweh, and that the ministers had to be urgent because Yahweh would be displeased if anything happened to Lot. But is this satisfactory? One would gladly be without the interruption, and who needed to be told that Yahweh showed clemency to Lot? Experience elsewhere suggests as the original C^NOm"' written twice over (in the first, n corresponds to MT.'s :i ; in the second, to 1). A gloss on TS. (/) How comes it that the city is called in v. 22, not llJSn, but nsis? The fact is troublesome, especially when we notice that both ISSD Nirr and Nin 'a N^rr {v. 20) have the appearance of glosses. It would seem that the author of these glosses read the name of Lot's city of refuge as 1S20. But, if so, what geographical or ethnographical connexion has this name? And may we infer that where- ever the name n:;^ or '^^^^s. occurs, it is to be regarded as a popular distortion of ni^so? The truth may be that the only accurate form of the name of the city is nhsp, but that (as in Ps. Ixxxiii. 8, Ixxxvii. S) this was often shortened into T12, and that this again was popularly expanded into ^^'^2. An early scribe who knew this wrote twice over the marginal corrections ' that is, '[Sfa,' and ' is it not (rather) 304 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL issa?' It so happens that •\^l'a in occurs in Ps, xlii. 7, where (though another view may be possible) it is probably a gloss on Qiaionm ]TTi pM, or rather Jionrt pmi pN, where the stream Yarhon and the mountain Hermon (from Dm = 'ari'T'), are in the N. Arabian border-land. {g) Our next question is difficult alike to ask and to answer. Are the critics of to-day satisfied with the usual interpretation of v. 24? 'Yahweh had caused to rain . . . from Yahweh out of heaven.' Can mrr have two meanings in the same sentence, (i) the God who avenges his broken moral laws, and (2) heaven (see Hommel, Gr. p. 177, note 4), as the source of meteorological phenomena? Upon this theory we must at any rate delete d'lntOiTlD, as a prosaic, even if correct gloss. It is improbable, however, that T{^Tr can mean ' heaven ' or even ' the heaven-god.' Ewald {Gesch. ii. 223) compares for the latter meaning Mic. v. 6, but there ' dew from Yahweh ' does not mean ' dew from heaven,' but ' dew which from its preciousness is to be accounted a special gift from God.' Consequently we are led to doubt whether the reading x\-»y hnd is correct. The first mrr' may stand ; it is not likely that it has been sub- stituted by J for ' the men.' ' Yahweh ' may be mentioned as the leader and director of the divine triad ( = ' the men '). (Ji) ' Caused to rain brimstone and fire.' Is this right ? In V. 25 it is said that Yahweh 'overturned' all that region. The word does not accord with brimstone and fire, but does suit water as the destroying agent (cp. Job xii. 15, and Duhm's note). May not one therefore apply methodical criticism to the text? Taking this course, I have been led to this result — [i^Ni m.bs] mos-bs"! niD-bi; T'laon mn-'i □■"Dl&iTja DV n«p, 'and Yahweh had caused it to rain on Sodom and on Gomorrah [Gomorrah and Asshur] a hundred days from heaven.' ninsi may come from mns (cp. 0's Tofioppa) ; so nai from iDl, vi. 1 4 (see note) ; qjn, as in •r33tOM, and like B'^m in ix. 20, etc., from n^M ; mrr' (second time) from n\ and this from Cf ( = nv, as in Phoenician). The plausibility of the view that the Sodom-story is really another version of the N. Arabian deluge-story has been shown already (see introd.). («■) K 2 5 is but slightly more defensible. ' Those cities. LOT SA VED (Gen. xix. 1-28) 305 and the whole kikkar, and all the inhabitants of the cities ' — can this be called good Hebrew style? The gloss-theory may, of course, be applied, but not to the text in its present form. Experience, however, will at once suggest a remedy. Sun (like n^M, see on Isa. x. 10) is a possible corruption of fjKDm'', and ilffi-' (see on iv. 20) of ^NSDtD"'. There remains W'ysTi. Not unfrequently x:r^'s proves to be a corruption, most commonly perhaps of D"'nJ7. It is very possible, however, that the final d has arisen through a wrongly affixed sign of abbreviation ('iirrr), and that an earlier reading was •^nnw. Now iiriN and iriM often represent Tint&M and nntON respectively. Thus we get iDiT'n ' And he overturned Ashhur-Yerahme'el and the whole kikkar^ to which is added, as a gloss on ' the whole kikkar^ 'all Ishmael-Ashhur.' Ishmael- or Yerahme'el-Ashhur was, of course, the name both of a region and of a city, just as Missor, though generally the name of a region, can also be (see on v. 20) that of a city. {K) And now as to the very brief record of the fate of Lot's wife {v. 26). The Hebrew is unexceptionable. It is certain, too, that Wisd. x. 7 speaks of a a-Trj\7j a\o? as, together with the ' smoking waste,' etc., still existing in the writer's day (cp. also Jos. Ant. i. 11, 4). Neither argument, however, proves the correctness of the text. It is no doubt conceivable that the insertion of this episode was made subsequently to the alteration of torrential rain into showers of sulphur and fire, but reason has to be shown why we should not, as in the case of v. 25, seek for an underlying text. A reference to local formations of rock-salt is only plausible at a first glance. Nothing is said about these elsewhere, and if such a phenomenon as a Lot's wife in salt were mentioned, surely it would have been added, 'behold, it is hard by the sea of salt(?) unto this day.' Lastly, both I-'M and rhib elsewhere are corruptions, the one of jisna (so Josh. xv. 43, i S. x. 5 [ins3], xiii. 3 / ; cp. on xxxvi. 24), the other of 'jNonT (see on xiv. 3). Nor is this all that is suspicious. "iiinwD is usually explained 'from following him,' but if the general view implied by the text is correct, we ought rather to read ninrtN (see v. ly); 20 3o6 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL I do not say that this is correct, but that we ought to look underneath the suspicious words, among which I fear I must include "intON, for it appears from vv. 12 and 14 (cp. V. 31, ' our father is old ') that Lot's wife was already dead ; read probably, mno):;. And now, since all the rest is fading away, we must also look beneath isini and inm, which in themselves are unsuspicious, but are not therefore correct. The one may have come from ni^hl., the other from Nin. Thus we get 'rrc' psis Nin 'n-ii Tinms ni:>m, ' and the abomination of Ashtor - Yerahme'el, that is, Sibe'on- Yerahme'el.' It would almost seem that Ashtor-Yerahme'el and Sibe'on-Yerahme'el were two names of the same place (see on Dt. i. 4), where was a sanctuary with a noted idolatrous symbol of the N. Arabian deity. The passage thus read will probably be a later interpolation suggested by the words ' and he overturned Ashhur - Yerahme'el ' (Ashhur and Ashtor, though different forms, have the same meaning). The mistake intON, for 'intCN or 'iniBS, may have led to the interpolated references to Lot's wife in vv. 1 5 and 1 6. ORIGIN OF MOAB AND AMMON (Gen. xix. 30-38) The legend of the origin of the two kindred peoples, Moab and Ammon, and of their respective names. It traces their existence to the marriage connexion of Lot's two daughters with their father, and it accounts for the names ' Moab ' and ' Ammon ' by an etymological play suggested by the preceding story. It was formerly held that the legend was the expression of Israel's hatred and moral contempt for its troublesome neighbours ; that Israel, ORIGIN OF MOAB AND AMMON (Gen. xix. 30-38) 307 while admitting its connexion with Lot and therefore with Abraham, ascribed it to a grossly incestuous act, for which Ed. Bohmer ^ found a parallel in the tracing of the line of Judah's kings to a primitive incestuous connexion between the patriarch Judah and Tamar his daughter-in-law (see Gen. xxxviii.). The explanation, however, is in both cases incorrect. Ancient legend-makers do not pronounce judg- ment upon acts which a later age called incestuous in the pointed way supposed by the older commentaries (see on xxxviii., xlix. 4). The story of the relations between Judah and Tamar is probably a figurative recital of the growth of clans, the form of which is partly suggested by a myth analogous to that of Tamuz and Ishtar,^ and the tale of the connexion between Lot and his two daughters has arisen out of the view that Lot was the second founder of the human race {i.e. virtually, the Yerahme'elite people), just as the representation that Sarai was Abram's sister may have sprung from the by no means absurd notion that Abram was the first man of the Yerahme'elites. In neither narrative is any blame pronounced upon the actors in the drama. Tamar is expressly credited with ' righteousness,' and one's natural impression on reading vv. 31, 32, 36 is that those who told the legend had a feeling of pride in Lot's bold, resourceful daughters.* The view of Stucken * that the story immediately before us is a late transformation of a highly archaic detail of a creation-myth is too difficult to be considered here in passing. The story fits in very well with the myth of the destruc- tion of Sodom. Like the survivors from the deluge in the original story,° the survivors from the catastrophe of Sodom had no sons. Lot must therefore have left Zoar, which seemed too near the destroyed region to be quite safe. A cave in the mountains had to be his home, and since there were ' no men in the land ' {i.e. in the higher regions of that part of the land of Yerahme'el) as husbands for women who 1 Das ersie Buck der Tora, Halle, 1862. ^ ' Tamar,' as we shall see, has been produced out of ' Rimith ' or ' Rammith,'. i.e. the great Yerahme'elite goddess. ^ See Gunkel's exposition. * Astralmythen, p. 223, note. ^ Ibid. 3o8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL had lost their bridegrooms, no other course was open to Lot's daughters than that which they adopted. It is very possible, however, that the Lot who was the traditional father^ of Moab and Ammon belonged to a different cycle of legend from that which included the Sodom-story. Elsewhere^ I have ventured to call him 'the primary Lot,' who would be identical with Lotan, the eldest of the sons of Seir the Horite (see on xxxvi. 20) ; possibly, indeed, the phrase ' the Horite ' (misinterpreted ' the cave- dweller') may have helped to suggest the detail about the ' cave.' However this may be, a confusion between the two Lots was as natural as that between the two Noahs, one of whom, it is true, arose by a scribe's error out of Han6k. One may add that the drunkenness of Lot is curiously parallel to that of Noah (ix. 21), except that it is not made clear how Lot obtained the wine. Let us proceed to textual matters, {a) It can hardly be doubted that z'. 30 has undergone redactorial manipula- tion. ' Dwelt in the mountains ' and ' dwelt in a (the) cave ' can hardly both be correct. The latter may be a gloss. And observe {b) that in v. 37 ® inserts Xerfovaa sk tov iraTpo'i fiov, presupposing IMO (as in Mesha's inscription). So much is right here that the name really is compounded of [i]d and 3n, and should be grouped with names in which IN or i^N is an element. To explain with Hommel {Verhandl. des XIII. Internat. Orient. Kongresses, 1902; Grundriss, p. 1 64), ' his mother is the father ' [i.e. that the father is unknown or not to be mentioned), is as improbable as explaining ONinN ' mother's brother,' ininM ' my mother's brother,' InHN ' father's brother.' ^ I have to the best of my ability shown that In or -laN as an element in names repre- sents ns, ' Arabia ' ; analogous to this is riN or irrN or ^ns from -nnms ' Ashhur,' and dn or n:; or idn from DIN or -yds (cp. mns). The same key must be applied to get the original meaning of not a few personal names preserved in 1 The phrase beni Lot only occurs in Dt. ii. 9, Ps. Ixxxiii. 9, and perhaps in the true text of Isa. xxv. 7 (see Crit. Bib.). 2 See E. Bib., ' Lot.' 8 For the underlying theory, see E. Bib., ' Abi, nanaes with,' and cp. S. A. Cook, in W. R. Smith, Kinship, p. 185, note I. ORIGIN OF MOAB AND AMMON (Gen. xix. 30-38) 309 N. Semitic inscriptions. Thus Ummu-abia and Abi-ummi (Johns, Deeds, iii. pp. 528, 554) spring from corrupt forms of the Canaanitish ' Yerahme'el ' and ' Arab.' So, too, Istar- ummi (Jastrow, Germ, ed., i. 1 60, note 2) and the Phoenician mntDroN ^ and joaJNON come from forms of ' Aram ' and ' Ashtar,' ' Aram ' and ' Ishmael,' respectively. How these names were explained under the influence of a long-continued religious conventionalising tendency can sometimes, not always, be conjectured. See, further, on omiN, xvii. 5 ; I'jD'^lM, XX. 2 ; nirfo:;. Num. i. i o. ' Moab,' therefore, as one can now see, has come from 1n"idn or nslDi;, i.e. l"i^ D^^^, ' Arabian Aram.' Also observe (c) that there has been a great misunderstanding of the clause introduced by Nin. ' He is the father of Moab unto to-day ' is neither satisfactory nor in accordance with the text-critical facts just now referred to. Nin, as so often, means ' that is ' ; INIO ""IN comes from 'o nij?, ' Moabite Arabia.' I shall perhaps be attacked for saying that DTTT ^» is also corrupt. But the bad sense produced ought to excite suspicion, and experi- ence shows us how to correct the words. Both here and in xxxv. 20, where DV^T"^S occurs, as here, without T\vr\^ ^:> (as often) comes either from ttm = ^^^ or (more simply) from 'ni> = mr, and DTTT from 'dht' (SiMOnT^). Thus the gloss is twofold, and states that :in1d is a designation of (i) Moabitish Arabia, and (2) Yerahme'elite Arabia. The two phrases mean the same thing. Further [d), that in v. 38, where MT. has ■'Di> p, @ gives Afi/iav, 6 uto? Tov yivov^ /xov, which Ball follows, only inserting ^DN'? before "^an ]l. This is surely a mistake. ■"DS p. comes from '^QS '^31 (pos 'n), written too soon by mistake. ® combines two readings. The gloss in the Hebrew text on pD», or rather \as (®), should be read, following the || in z;. 37 d, 'qttv T\S ]BS ^31 yiS Nin, ' that is, Arabia of the bene 'Ammin, Yerahme'elite Arabia.' ]as ^ The form mnvsimn (Cooke, p. 62) is due to late modification under the influence of the tendency referred to. For parallels cp. i?a-\2it from ifeaiv ( = 'onT mv), and other names of this type. Note in this con- nexion n'ronnn and n^V'Dnns in Phoenicia. Who would call herself ' Sister ' of a god or goddess ? ^ @ does not mark the difference. Translators tend to assimilate phrases. 310 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL comes, presumably, from or, a contraction of w\S ( = m^w, the southern Aram), and parallel to in for T\'s, with the termination j;, ' belonging to.' In Assyrian, Amminu is = Ammon, both as an ethnic and (see KB iv. 199) as a personal name. Other views may be recorded. According to Hommel, Moab comes from Immo-ab, ' his mother is the father.' As for Ammon, he regards 'Amm, ' uncle,' as a name of the moon-god, so that the ben^ 'Ammon are 'sons of the moon- god ' ; cp. walad 'Amm (children of 'Amm), a designation of the Katabanians.^ Juynboll, however {Th. Ti., 1906, p. 166), learnedly maintains that in this connexion ''ai>-]a can only mean 'the son of my father'; similarly VQi^'^JN, 'to his fathers,' XXV. 8. Learning and sound judgment seem here to be parted. Konig, controverting Hommel, asks how the Ammonites came to forget the god 'Amm (on 'Amm see ZDMG xlix. 525 /), after whom they were named {Hebrd- isch und Semitisch, p. 90). SARAH IN GERAR (Gen. xx.) Here we have the first continuous specimen of E's nar- ratives. It tells of Sarah's adventure in Gerar. Parallel stories are xii. 10-20, xxvi. 6-12 (see notes). The passage has several points of interest. («) Geographically, the question as to the existence of two Gerars (see discussion in E. Bib., ' Gerar ') and whether Abimelech may be called a N. Arabian. (b) Religiously, the prophetic position of Abraham, and the God-fearing character of Abimelech. (^) 1 Verhandlungen des XIII. Intemat. Or. Kongresses, Sekt. v. ; Gr. pp.140, note 2, 163. SARAH IN GERAR (Gen. xx.) 311 Morally, Abraham's mental reservation. {d) Legally, the way in which a double compensation is made to Abraham and to Sarah, {e) Commercially, the reference to standard- shekels, disclosed by textual criticism. With regard to («), a conclusion is rendered difficult by the frequency with which the same names of places or districts are current in different parts ^ {e.g. Misrim and Kush, Bethlehem, Shihor, Sarephath, etc.). Even now we find this the case in Palestine, and it is much to the point that there is, south-west of Ain Gadts, a wady called Jerilr, in the direction of the Wady el-Artsh, and that about five miles south of Gaza, there are also ruins called Umm el- Jerdr. Of the two claimants to be the true Gerar, the latter is the more plausible, because ( i ) the legendary context of the story, and (2) the fact that the parallel version of it in xii. 10-20 places the adventure of Sarah in Misrim, com- pel us to locate Gerar in the N. Arabian border-land (see E. Bib., ' Gerar '). Another passage which illustrates the question is 2 Chr. xiv. g /., I'i f. Zerah the Kushite is there said to have encountered the Judahites under Asa in the valley of Sephathah by Mareshah. Evidently there was a Yerahme'elite Mareshah (cp. Josh. xiv. 13, i Chr. ii. 42) ; at least, we have no reason to suppose that there was a place called Sephath or Sephathah near the traditional Mareshah. Gerar, then, must have been to the south of Mareshah and Sephath ( = Sarephath). Three other geographical notes are given us, besides the information that ' he sojourned in Gerar.' In v. i Abraham is said to have dwelt ' between Kadesh and Shur,' and in xxi. 34, ' in the land of the Pelishtim ' ; and also in xx. i, to have ' journeyed towards the land of the Negeb.' As to the first statement, it favours the view that Abraham's place of sojourn cannot have been far from the well corruptly called Beer-lahai-roi, for ' between Kadesh and Bered ' (xvi. 1 4) cannot mean anything very different from ' between Kadesh and Shur' (see on chap. xvi.). In a connected narrative (xxi. 31) and in the context of the parallel story (xxvi. 33) we meet with the ' well of Beer-sheba,' where ' Sheba ' is a ^ It is also not impossible that "nj should rather be iij (Gedor). Cp. MT. and ®, i Chr. iv. 39. 312 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL corruption of ' Ishma ' or ' Ishmael.' If so, ' Beer-sheba ' (Well of Ishmael) and ' Beer-lahai-roi ' (Well of Yerahme'el) are equivalent, and this is confirmed by a result independ- ently attained elsewhere (on xxxi. 33), viz. that the name of the god of Beer-sheba was El-Yerahme'el. Of course, the name Beer-sheba must have existed in pre-Israelitish days, and the well which bore it (xxi. 31) cannot really have been dug by Isaac, i.e. virtually by Israel. That ' Beer-sheba ' is the place best known to us under that name, cannot be affirmed. See, further, on chaps, xxi. xxvi. As to the second point, it need hardly be said that the true historical Philistines did not dwell in the region referred to. Noordtzij's theory of a ' Philistine vanguard ' is unlucky. It has long ago been shown ■^ that DTitofpD, if the text be thoroughly criticised, never means the Philistines of history, but is due to a confusion between ' Philistines ' and ' Pelethites ' — a thoroughly Yerahme' elite name.^ Consider- ing that in i S. xiv. 6 (cp. xvii. 26, 36) the Pelishtim are called ' these Arelites ' {i.e. these Yerahme'elites), we can well understand that the phrase ' the land of the Pelishtim ' can be used in xxi. 32 in a narrower and in w. 34 in a broader sense, especially (but this is by no means essential) if we hold that n^D and ntoSn ultimately come from riEJns, for ' Sarephathites ' (see on x. 1 4) is certainly capable of a broader and a narrower meaning. Now, too, it becomes clear that fundamentally the same traditional events can, in chap, xii., be placed in Misrim, and in chaps, xx. and xxvi. in Gerar. For Gerar, as we have seen, was south of Sarephath, which is sometimes apparently represented as the most northerly city of Musri (Misrim) in N. Arabia. On the third point it is enough to remark that a traveller whose steps were bent to the land of Gerar would, in the first instance, have to make for ' the land of the Negeb,' and that Kadesh, which, according to Num. 1 See E. Bib., 'Jerahmeel,' § 3, and especially 'Zarephath.' Hommel {Gr. p. 158), too, has long distinguished D-n'jii from dtib'Ss. 2 In I Chr. ii. 33 ' Peleth ' is one of the 'sons of Yerahme'el'; in Num. xvi. I he is the father of On, which (see on xli. 45) is a well- attested southern name. Cp. also, with Winckler {GI ii. 184), the gentilic Palti and the place-name Beth-pelet, a hypothesis which Noordtzij (p. 26) is pleased to call ' untenable.' SARAH IN GERAR (Gen. xx.) 313 xxxiv. 4, was to the north of the southern boundary of the Negeb, was certainly (xx. i ) in the direction of Gerar. Thus the Abimelech of this story (as also of xxi. 22 ff., xxvi. I /".) was a N. Arabian. Ed. Meyer's supposition, that the ' Philistines ' borrowed personal names from their neigh- bours, is needless. The name is N. Arabian, and its bearer is so too. That it is borne by a prince of Arvad in the Annals of Asurbanipal, and by a governor of Tyre in the Amarna letters, is not surprising, because the N. Arabians carried both personal and local names with them in their migrations. Hence its most defensible meaning is not ' Father is king ' (Gray, etc.), nor ' father of a king ' (Frazer, Adonis, p. 1 2), nor ' father of counsel ' (Paul Haupt), but ' Arabia of Yerahme'el.' ^ It is therefore synonymous with Abram, Abraham, Malchiram (inverting), and with the Phcenician names Milk-ram and Ar-milk. It could also be borne by a woman ('7'?[o]in in Sabsean),^ just as the Hebrew names fjTlN and fpia^nN (similar popular corruptions) are given to women.^ This result enables us to explain a very troublesome word in V. w. In the text of Abraham's defence of himself we read, ' Yea, I thought. Only there is no fear of God in this place ' ; pT properly means ' only,' but how can that be right here ? Hence one scholar renders ' certainly ' ; another, ' at least ' ; another, combining it with DTlfpN pN, ' nothing but fear of God there is not in this place.' But surely pT must have come from 'p^, i.e. Dpi, which (see on Num. xxxi. 8) is a popular corruption of DrrT = '?Nam\ ' Rekem ' is a gloss on ' in this place,' Gerar being a Yerahme'elite region. Passing on to {p), we notice that Abraham was not a prophet {y. 7; cp. Ps. cv. ij, reading 'my prophet') as having been called to proclaim a higher view of God (see 1 See on Judg. viii. 3 1 ; and cp. on ' Abraham,' Gen. xvii. J ; ' Milcah,' xi. 29. 2 H. Derenbourg, REJ\. 58. ^ Another ancient transformation (note Abd-milki in the Amarna letters) of i^'omy ('om' 'y) is •{kto.s. Of course, the origin of the name must have been very early forgotten. Similarly, ^'imnv (Palmyrene ; Cooke, p. 274) may have come from "jpa an;;, and hn, in all such names, from Syo, i.e. S«!1D'b\ 314 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Jos. Ant. i. 7, i), but as having a singular degree of intimacy with Yahweh, including the privilege of intercession {v. 7 ; cp. xviii. 223-33). That Abimelech should at once appreciate this, is not strange. Prophetism was specially connected with N. Arabia. So also was the worship of Yahweh. The suspicion expressed by Abraham {v. 11) is dramatically improbable. What he says must really be intended for the Elohist's contemporaries, who (it is implied) ought not to condemn all their N. Arabian neighbours indiscriminately. Just so Elijah finds an excellent wor- shipper of Yahweh at Sarephath (the ' Sidon ' of i K. xvii. 8, if correctly read, is a southern Sidon), and the southern Aramaean Balaam, according to the earlier tradition, was a true prophet of Yahweh. Similarly, Abimelech was a scrupulously religious man, who, though not a prophet, was favoured with a vision of Elohim {vv. 3 ff. ; cp. Num. xxii. 9, ' Elohim came to Balaam '). The plural ^i>n^ in ?;. 1 3 is not used out of regard to Abimelech as a 'heathen' (Dillm.) ; a plural verb with Elohim is again used by E in XXXV. 7. In both cases there is a reference to the council of the Elohim, whose leader and director was Yahweh, and who may in primitive no less than in recent times have been addressed as 13^N (see v. 4), unless indeed ■'3^N is substituted for pDiN = ^NDm"' (see pp. 54-56, and on xv. 2). (c) The mental reservation ascribed to Abraham mv. 12 is an attempt to relieve the patriarch from the shame of a flat falsehood (see xii. 1 3, xxvi. 7). Truthfulness in speech is beginning to be more valued. It is, however, a post- exilic psalmist who places truth-speaking on a level with acting righteously (Ps. xv. 2). {d) The legal interest of t;. 16 has been pointed out by Gunkel.^ But he goes too far in assuming that the com- pensation for an offence to Sarah must have been paid to Abraham, because a wife could not acquire property. It is sounder doctrine that a wife's right of property was confined to what she received as a gift (cp. E. Bib., ' Family,' § 5 (c)). In Babylonia, under IJammurabi, a man could present his wife with land or goods, and if he made a deed of gift, she could enjoy it for her lifetime (Code, § 150, cp. 171). On 1 Cp., however, Winckler, AOF xa. 414/. SARAH IN GERAR (GEN. xx.) 31 5 the same principle, surely, Sarah, with the permission of Abraham, could receive a present of money from Abimelech. The true text oi v, 16 requires this ; T'nN^, ' to thy brother,' is in itself improbable, and on text-critical grounds should be corrected into ^ndhT'. (See below.) {e) In w. 16 (as also in xxiii. 15/) we find a reference to the shekel, just as in xxxiii. 1 9 we may probably find the mina of Salekath. Commercial standards of money were common in the ancient East, not only in Semitic but in Aryan regions (see, for the latter, Meyer, Gesch. Alt. iii. 99). Where Salekath was, cannot be determined ; the name naf^D, however (see on Dt. iii. 10), indicates that it was in the region called Ashkal, i.e. Ashhur-Yerahme'el. It must have been a centre for the Ishmaelite, Yerahme'elite, or Midianite merchants, whose standard of money was most probably accepted both in the N. Arabian border-land and in the land of Judah. A parallel phrase to ' the shekel of Salekath' is 'the shekel of Ashhur' (Ex. xxx. 13, MT. shekel hakkodesJi). I hesitate to add 2 S. xiv. 28, however tempting the passage (see Crit. Bib. pp. 285/^), but I may point out that the ' cubit of Ishmael ' is most probably mentioned in Dt. iii. 11. It is plausible to suppose that the Ishmaelite, Yerahme'elite, Ashhurite, or Salekathite standard was, like the Phoenician, a derivative of the Babylonian. It is also worth stating that several different standards were in use in Assyria (see Johns, Ass. Deeds, iii. 542^). One of these was possibly the Salekathite. To justify our view we must now scrutinise the text of V. 16. As a recent German critic^ has remarked, that difficult passage ' has called forth innumerable explanations.' The trouble begins with ij^ wrr, which the R.V. (with most) renders, ' it is for thee,' but with an alternative version, ' he is for thee ' (so Ibn Ezra and Ewald). The latter rendering is peremptorily rejected by Driver, but is really the most obvious one, for THn^ comes just before. We then get the unusual phrase D-'3"'S niDS ; how shall we explain it ? BDB say, ' covering of the eyes, so that they cannot see the wrong ; fig. of a present offered in compensation for it.' The phrase, however, so understood, is too poetical or 1 J. Wellecz, OLZ, Sept. 1904, col. 336. 3i6 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL rhetorical to be expected here. ' Veil ' (Onk., Ewald, Winckler) would be much more plausible, if there were any parallel for such a use. Still more improbable is what follows — ^3 riNT iriN ~it&N h':h, ' for all who are with thee, and with all ' ? Grammatical subtlety fails us in such cases altogether. The remedy, however, is not far to seek. We have to recognise the twofold fact that certain groups of letters recur in it in the most unlikely manner, and that these groups resemble certain frequently recurring corrup- tions of ^NDm^ ^N:;DtO^ and rchc The first part of this has been noticed by Wellecz,-' who gives a table of the recurring groups of letters, but cannot control or connect his results by the experience won from the application of the Ni Arabian key. And yet it is with this experience that we must begin. It is usual, whenever emphasis has to be laid on the full weight or value, to add to the specification of the amount a reference to the commercial standard (see above). It is therefore a priori likely that such a reference should occur early in v. i6, and that Nin 'r\'2iT[, which has the appearance of being a gloss, should supplement and explain this reference. Now there is one word in v. i6 (just before the gloss) which is in itself so improbable ^ that we must suspect it. It is TTInS, which, like "[TIN'^J; in xlviii. 2 2, has no doubt come from fpNOHT (l and l con- founded) ; the phrase ' silver of Yerahme'el ' occurs again in xxiii. 9 (cp. V. 15). Thus the speech of Abimelech becomes, ' Behold, I give a thousand [shekels] of silver of Yerahme'el ' ; the close of the speech, however, is cut off by the gloss. Passing on now to the gloss {^. 16), we must take "p and mD3 (noS) together. When combined, they represent the place-name Salekath (see above, d) ; mDD in xxxiii. 17 and n£3"'mp in xxxiii. 19 have, beyond doubt, the same origin. D"'3-'i>, as in xxxviii. 14, 21, most probably comes from pQi, i.e. '?Ni>DtC"' (^, as often, passes into ]). hh must 1 See article referred to. 2 We should have expected iii'vh, 'to thy husband.' It is a poor answer that Abimelech wished to emphasise the fact that Abraham had called himself Sarah's brother. Indeed, it is not at all clear that the money would have been handed over to Abraham. See above {d"). SARAH IN GERAR (Gen. xx.) 317 be explained in accordance with the preceding f?3 ; it is a fragment of na^D. imN, as often, should be n^w, and both ■]nN and ^73 riN have come from ^i^lDN, i.e. ^nsdhji. Thus the gloss (which is twofold) becomes, ' surely, that (viz. Yerahme'el) is Salekath of Ishmael, Salekath of Asshur- Ishmael ' ; i.e. this is the commercial centre from which the money-standard is derived. And last of all comes Abime- lech's closing word, JTinpii, 'and so thou art justified (righted).' The whole verse now runs thus, rr^rr "IDN mtcf?1 '•cm" n^« n3f?D ^nsd©'^ na^o mih r]ir\ 'ami rjoa ^^m Tina nn?bi. BIRTH OF ISAAC; HAGAR DISMISSED (Gen. XXI. 1-2 1) The promise is fulfilled, and a son — the rather un- important Isaac ^ — is born by Sarah to Abraham. But maternal jealousy is aroused ; law is appealed to, and Ishmael and Hagar are expelled. Doubtless a fascinating narrative — so graphically told, and psychologically so true. The mother watches Ishmael at his play {^v. 8 f), and finds it intolerable that Ishmael should be joint-heir with Isaac. Abraham, being Ishmael's as well as Isaac's father, is pained at the demand which Sarah makes, but is reconciled to it on receiving a divine oracle (vv. 1 2 f^. Hagar and the child Ishmael are sent away into the wilder- ness (see on vv. 14, 16/, 20). The water is soon spent. Hagar lays her child in the scanty shade of a desert-shrub, ^ Isaac is really a mere duplicate of Abraham. Note that the Beer- sheba of which Isaac is the hero (xxvi. 32/.) is also the dwelling-place of Abraham (xxi. 33). 3i8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL and sits down near him to watch. The child weeps, and the divine director of human affairs is touched at the sound. From heaven he calls to Hagar, and bids her take up and hold her child, for he (as well as Isaac) is destined to become a great people. So Elohim opened her eyes, and she saw a well ; then she filled her water-skin, and quenched the thirst of her child. The narrative is as simple as it is beautiful when glosses have been removed. But we must not be ungrateful for the glosses ; they confirm the view already expressed (see on XV. i), that Hagar was not an Egyptian but a N. Arabian. In fact, the author of the glosses has done all that he could to emphasise the fact that the scene of the legend is in N. Arabia. In spite of this, we cannot say that it contains anything subversive of a belief in its Israelitish origin. As to the contents, much more cannot be said here. The legal aspects of the treatment of Hagar are well treated by S. A. Cook, The Laws of Moses and the Code of Ham- murabi, pp. 1 1 6- 1 1 8. The religious aspects are, for us, more important. That a divine Being should have cared for a bond-woman is a beautiful feature of the Hebrew legend. And who was this divine Being ? He is called both Elohim and Mal'ak-Elohim. ' Elohim ' is probably a substitute for ' Yahweh,' which is the name of the leader and director of the divine duad or triad. It is no objection to this view that ' Elohim ' has probably originated in ' Yerah- me'el,' for the origin of the word was of course forgotten when it came to be thus used. What a great position Mal'ak-Yahweh held, we have seen already (on xvi. 7). But we cannot understand the contents aright without further textual inquiry. On v. 16 a Gunkel remarks thus : ' The mother's eye cannot bear to look upon the death- agony of the child. So she goes a little way off — but oh, thou dear, inconsistent maternal heart ! — not too far,' and, like most other scholars, Gunkel translates nipj:^ "'inBD? pnin ' as far as about a bow-shot.' The literal rendering, however, is ' distant like shooters with the bow.' This does not make sense. Hence @ gives fiaKpoTepov mael to^ov ^oXrjv, chang- ing ' shooters ' into ' shot,' and Konig paraphrases, ' according to the usual distance of the mark from archers' {Synt. BIRTH OF ISAAC J HAGAR DISMISSED (Gen. xxi. 1-21) 319 S 264^). But let us look more closely at the text. A Pilel form of a verb (pnts) found nowhere else can hardly pass unquestioned, and experience shows that ntDp is not seldom corrupt (see v. 20, Hos. vii. 16, Isa. Ixvi. 17, Jer. iv. 29, Ps. Ix. 6, Ixxviii. 9, 57). What ntop represents is plain ; ffip (pto) is often a fragment of "intDN, and nmp in the suspected passages probably represents mntON (the feminine of nntSN). Turning to ■'"inaDD, we must, first of all, divide it into two parts. aDD, like niDD, 2 Chr. ii. 9 (see on i K. V. 25), may well represent roi^D, while -"in may represent either Nirr (' that is '), thus producing the sense, ' that is, Ashhoreth,' or else Tin, a fragment of nintDM, an alternative reading to mntON. The sense of the whole passage becomes, either ' at some distance from Maacath, that is, Ashhoreth,' or ' . . . from Maacath-Ashhur [Ashhoreth].' It is a gloss defining the situation of the well. Cp. xvi. 7, where the fountain is said to have been ' on the way to Shur (Asshur).' The coincidence is complete. The second ^a3D 'm is, of course, redactional (Ball). The result of the insertion was that the ' weeping ' of the next clause was transferred from the child to his mother. But the mother's grief was surely too deep for tears. The speech of the kindly Mal'ak-Yahweh is now plain — all except the closing words, nm Nin itDNl. Again Gunkel disappoints us ; for how can the words mean ' ebenda wo er Hegt,' and how could ' ebenda wo er liegt ' involve a play on the name »it& "iN3 (see Gunkel's note) ? Experience clears up the difficulty. nCN and DQJ often stand respectively for n^« and :>Qm ( = f?NSDB'') ; Nirr frequently introduces a gloss. Thus we get the sense, ' in Asshur, that is, Ishmael,' a gloss most probably on the situation of the well (v. 1 9). Lastly, as to the brief description of Ishmael's subse- quent fortunes. As Knobel and Dillmann have remarked, 71M and n^n together are too much, at least if HIT means ' becoming great ' (Job xxxix. 4). Hence it is proposed to read either nmp nnh or 'p no'i- But observe (i) that ni-j, ' to shoot (arrows) ' is a air. 'Key., and that yyi, a supposed cognate, cannot be proved to exist by xlix. 25 (see note), and (2) that 'p HQl ("'Q'n) in Jer. iv. 29, Ps. Ixxviii. 9, is probably corrupt (cp. on v. 16). Tfl, as often elsewhere, 320 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL comes from Nim. Thus, for 'p '-\ •r^^ we should restore n-nh^M 1141 Mini, ' that is, Arabia of Ashhoreth,' probably a gloss on nnon. V. 21 a is, of course, an alternative read- ing. Need I add that Ishmael's wife was brought, not from Misraim, but from Misrim ? What evidence or probability is there that the Ishmaelites or Yerahme'elites were mixed with Egyptian elements ? ABIMELECH'S COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM (Gen XXI. 22-34) Once more Abraham is glorified ; with what respect he is treated by the lord of Beersheba 1 At the same time, the later occupation of the place by the Israelites is justified, the name ' Beersheba ' (cp. on chap, xx.) is explained, and the fundamental identity of the worship of Yahweh with that of Yerahme'el is affirmed (w. 33). Abimelech we have met with before ; he dwells in the ' land of the Pelishtim ' (z/. 3 2 ; see introduction to chap. xx.). Beside him stands the unexplained figure of Pikol (also xxvi. 26). Was he once upon a time great in the legend (see Gunkel) ? And what means the name ? ' Mouth {i.e. spokesman) of all ' (Ges. B'WB^^'>) is absurd. Stucken (AM, p. 13, note) suggests as the origin Pap-sukal (Assyrian name for a divine messenger). Spiegelberg (OLZ, Feb. 1906) invokes Egyptian help, and explains as pa-Hori, 'the man of Haru ' (Syria and Palestine) ; cp. Pi-nehas, ' the negro.' The comparison, however, is not helpful (see on Ex. vi. 25). ^a-iQ, like l^oiaw, comes from 'pNom"' Tis ; ^ the link is ifjD"'! (cp. hni21 = 'dhT' yis, i Chr. vii. 3 3). It is, therefore, really 1 Cp. also nD3's (Ezek. xxx. 17) from nvDii"3N, and m'n.i-'B (Ex. xiv. 2) from miniyN-ufi. ABIMELECH'S COVENANT (GEN. xxi. 22-34) 321 a variant to l'?a''lM. INIS nt» must be explained as in Judg. iv. 2, where ' Yabin, king of Canaan,' is parallel to iN32i-it2) MlD"'D, or rather pi^nsntn, i.e. 'otD'^ im, ' prince of Ishmael.' Probably there were two early recensions of the story, in one of which the chieftain with whom Abraham had dealings was called ' Abimelech, king of the Philistines ' (as in xxvi. 8), and in the other, ' Bimelech, a prince of Ishmael ' {i.e. one of the princes of the Ishmaelite region). We now come to the etymology of Beer-sheba. n^a S3t&, according to J, means 'well of seven,' i.e. 'of seven lambs,' thus pointing to a great sacrifice in the olden time. Most moderns, however (see e.g. W. R. Smith, RS'-^\ p. 181 ; Noldeke, Arck. Rel.-wiss. vii. 340 ff.), explain it as ' seven wells.' Certainly ' seven ' is a sacred number, either from the planets (including sun and moon), or more probably from the Pleiades. But what right have we to assume the post- position of the numeral (Ewald, Dillmann, Stade) ? ^ We must therefore venture to differ from the majority, even after the collection of fresh parallels for ' seven wells ' in the Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft, viii. 1 5 S /^ Boscawen suggests ' well of the seven allied tribes ' ; Winckler, con- sistently enough, ' well of the Seven-god,' i.e. of the moon- god, one of whose numerical symbols was seven {Gl ii. 83, cp. 48). The key, however, is supplied by Kiryath-arba', where arbd has come from 'ar&b (see on xxiii. 2). i>l© is a corruption of so® = [f?N]ratD'' (see on ' Sheba,' x. 7), so that ' Beer-sheba ' is properly ' well of Sheba 'or 'of Ishmael.' ^ The writer of v. 31, however, interprets 'well of an oath' (cp. xxvi. 33). At this venerated spot (Am. viii. 14, see p. 46) Abraham the Yerahme'elite planted a sacred tree {v. 33), and called with the name Yahweh, ' citing ' him, as it were, to occupy the spot.' But Yahweh was not the only divine name used by the patriarch. He appended the title ofpis ^M, which is neither 'the everlasting God' (Isa. xl. 28), nor 'the ancient ' The travellers' dispute as to the number of wells at Bir 'es-Seba (28 m. S.W from Hebron) does not concern us here. ^ The numerals play sad tricks with ancient texts and traditions. Think of the Phoenician divine name ' Eshmun ' being explained as 'eighth' (see p. 42). ^ Gunkel, Genesi^^\ p. 48. 322 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL God,' nor ' the God of the world ' (the Bab. ' mummu '),^ none of which are natural here, but a combination of ^n with some popular abbreviation of "JNom"',^ such as xs"}^"^ (see on xxxvi. 14). That Yahweh and Yerahme'el together formed a divine duad we have seen already ; also that Yahweh was the supreme director. The latter point also comes out in the title ' El-Yerahme'el.' ^ Compare what has been said on xiv. 1% ff. (pp. 37, 253/), where inter alia some important glosses on the divine name are indicated ; also on xvii. i. Lastly, as to the sacred tree, which here, to our surprise, is called fjffiisi (i S. xxii. 6, xxxi. 13; i Chr. x. 12 sub- stitutes H^n). Most compare the Ar. 'athl, which corre- sponds phonetically, and means 'tamarisk.' But was the tamarisk specially sacred except in Egypt ? * It would seem that @, which has ivTevcrev dpovpav, read fy^s, i.e. n»ni» or ^i>"nr (Jer. xvii. 6, xlviii. 6). This may come either from rrirnM {E. Bib., 'Tamarisk'; Crit. Bib. pp. 238, 247),^ or from ni^w ( = mtONn), an ' Asshur-tree ' (cp. Hos. ix. 13, p. 266). This gives us a hint for f?t&N, which (cp. ^"iNtC and XSi'hvC) may reasonably be traced to f?Ni;at5"'. It is true, the ' Ishmael-tree ' was more often called ;om }>s (i K. vi. 23, 31 /;, Neh. viii. 15, Isa. xli. 19), but this does not exclude another popular corruption of the same name. There are also traces (see on Dt. xii. 2) of a tree or trees of Yerah- me'el. Such was probably the rimmon-tree, i.e. the pome- granate, and perhaps the ' armdn-tr&c, i.e. the plane. Possibly one of these trees is meant. 1 Winckler, AOF laa. 305/, 416. - Cp. vi. 4, Ps. xxiv. 7, 9 (/"j.'"'), where in like manner D(>iy repre- sents 'drt ; also 1 Chr. vii. 1 6, where Ulam and Rekem are brothers. ^ A title, (toSy tro, occurs in a Palmyrene inscription of A.D. 114 (de Vogii^). It is appended to jdb' Syn, i.e. Baal Ishman (Ishmael). The original meaning of the titles was, of course, forgotten. The Xpovos and Oi5Acu;uds of Phoenician mythology may also, perhaps, be similarly explained. * Maspero, Dawn of Civ. p. 28, note 3. ^ Ed. Meyer, with his usual neglect of E. Bib., etc., refers to a scanty communication of Stade's in a letter to von Gall {Die Israeliten, p. 257 ; cp. V. Gall, KultstUtten, p. 47). OFFERING OF ISAAC (Gen. xxii. 1-19) As all will agree, a most interesting but not easily intelligible narrative (see E. Bib., ' Isaac,' ' Jehovah-jireh '). How is it, we may ask, that Elohim issues a command, and then takes it back ? We can understand how the vicarious sacrifice of a ram for a child might be ascribed to an oracle of Elohim, but not how the same Elohim can (according to a widely spread interpretation oi v. 2) have been represented as the author of the practice of child-sacrifice. We should have comprehended if Abraham, like Jephthah, had made a vow which, as things turned out, required him to offer up his own child, and if Elohim had, according to the legend, interposed, ordaining the sacrifice of a ram ; but we are sur- prised when Elohim is stated to have first directed and afterwards forbidden the sacrifice of Abraham's ' only son.' When, however, we look more closely at the story of the offering up of Isaac, we see that the first and principal part of it is bathed in the tender glow of a nascent spiritual faith.-' Nothing is said (as by Philo of Byblus) of the peril of the country requiring such a sacrifice. It is an episode in Abraham's life of faith which is brought before us. ' Elohim,' we are told, ' tried Abraham.' That is, God determined to assure himself how far the loyalty of his servant would reach. Would he remonstrate when so hard a thing was asked as the sacrifice of his ' only son ' ? The narrative appeals to us almost as much perhaps as it can have done to its first readers and hearers. But is it not clear that there must have been an earlier form — indeed, earlier forms — of the story ? Among these we may include ^ Cp. Bishop Warburton, Divine Legation of Moses, Bk. vi. sect. 5 (Works, vi. 37). 323 324 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL the brief tale in Philo of Byblus ; ^ but I must add that, though it may have come ultimately from N. Arabia, it is too recent in its present form to be worth discussing here. There is, I think, another form of the story, which, though not preserved in any literary record, may, with some con- fidence, be assumed, and which is of N. Arabian origin, viz. that once upon a time a Yerahme'elite hero, known as Abraham (his earlier name — see on xvii. 5 — not having been preserved), actually offered up his only son, in obedience to an oracle of the god of the land. And the course of the evolution of religion elsewhere renders it certain that the growth of the spirit of humanity at length led the Israelitish as well as the Syrian priesthoods to ordain the vicarious sacrifice of one of the lower animals. We may also probably assume that this alteration of a sacred custom was justified by the authority of another oracle, the reflexion of which we have in xxii. 1 1-13. A word or two more as to the substitution of an animal. The idea was that the lower animals were closely akin to man, and that therefore the offering of one of them was a possible surrogate for human sacrifice. At the Syrian Laodicea ( = Phoen. Ramitha) it was a stag which was chosen.^ With the Israelites or Yerahme'elites it was a ram. An ox would, of course, not have done ; this animal was sacrosanct, as being a symbol of Yahweh-Yerahme'el. If we ask who the god of the land referred to above probably was, the answer must be — Yerahme'el, the name which at any rate the Israelites recognised as belonging to this god, and which was often corrupted into Melek and Mal'ak.^ And we can now give an answer to the question 1 For the Phcenician story see Muller, Fragm. Hist. Grac. iii. 57°/' It runs thus : — Kpdvos . . . vtov 'i^v /jLovoyevrj, ov Slo, tovto 'leSovo eKakovv, To{i |Uovoyevo{!s ovtus 'in koI vvv KaXovfji,€Vov Trapa Tois ^otvL^t, KivSvvoiv (K TToXejiov fj.ey iCTTiav K:aT£iAij<^oTa)V tijv X'^P"'^ ySatrtXiKcj) Koa-jx'^cras (T')(fjfia,Ti Tov vihv, Puijxhv Se KaracTKeDoo-a/iCVOS KcxTedvcTiv. Cp. Baudissin, Studien zur sewdt. Religionsgeschichte:^, li. I54# 2 The yearly stag-sacrifice at Laodicea continued as late as the second century a.D. Cp. W. R. Smith, Rel. SeinJ^^ pp. 409, 466 i E. Bib., col. 2178. 2 This is the Milk which appears, in composition, both in Phcenician personal names and in the names of deities. For Mal'ak see on xvi. 7- OFFERING OF ISAAC (Gen. xxii. 1-19) 325 asked (after Eerdmans, but more hesitatingly) by Kautzsch, ' whetlier the melek to whom these sacrifices [in Topheth] were offered is not meant to stand for a special form of Yahweh.' ^ Yahweh and Yerahme'el were, in fact, united as the name of the god of the Israelites, though the deity to whom the child-sacrifices were originally offered was the N. Arabian god Yerahme'el, perhaps also to his fellow-deity Ashtart.^ See, further, pp. 50-52 (on Melek). If we further inquire how Isaac can be described as Abraham's ' only son,' ^ with total disregard of Ishmael, a satisfactory answer can now be given. It appears that Isaac has drawn to himself some features of the mythic Tammuz or Adonis. More precisely, he corresponds, at least in part, to the Dusares who, both at Petra and at Elusa, was worshipped as ' the only begotten of the Lord ' * (fiovoyevri^ rov Aea-irorov). Possibly, in another form of the myth, Isaac like Adonis died and rose again (cp. pp. 5 6 /.). Our result is that the Hebrew writer whom we call the Elohist took that older story of Abraham and his sacrifice of his ' only son ' and recast it. Well did he perform his task. The dry and repulsive ancient myth became the beautiful story that we know so well, telling of the journey of the loving father, whose lips are sealed by inward knowledge, and the innocently questioning lad, to the sad and solemn place of sacrifice, the place where Isaac, question- ing no more, suffers himself to be bound upon the wood (i.e. on the altar), when suddenly the voice of Mal'ak-Elohim is heard, proclaiming the divine satisfaction at the moral result of the trial, and the retractation of the command. With this the Elohist connects the traditional story of the sub- A title of this god was probably ' El-Yerahme'el,' 'divinity of Yerah- me'el' ; see on xxi. 33. When Philo of Byblus identifies the Phoenician El with Kronos, he, or rather his authority, means by El ' El-Yerah- me'el,' a title which the Arabians may have taken, with much besides, to PhcBnicia. ^ Kautzsch in Hastings' £>B, extra volume, p. 690 a. ^ Cp. Isaac of Antioch, ed. Bickell, i. 221, 'boys and girls they sacrificed to the star of Venus.' * (§ here gives dyoTr^jTos, but in Judg. xi. 34 /uoi'oyevijs (B), to which A adds avT<^ aya^njTij. * Epiphanius, ffczr. 51 ; cp. Cheyne, BiMe Problems, p. 74. 326 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS .OF ANCIENT ISRAEL stitution of a ram for the child — a poor conclusion, but doubtless necessary for the information of the early readers. Such is perhaps the best theory of the origin and meaning of the narrative before us. The basis of the story is ultimately mythological (see p. 325). Compare, or contrast, the story of Jephthah and his daughter. That story, too, as we find it in Judg. xi. 34-40, is pale enough as compared with what may have been the ancient myth, or with the earliest legendary transformation of it. But it lacks the psychological charm of the story of Abraham and Isaac. It may be remarked here that the note in vv. 39/^-40 relative to the annual mourning of Israelite women, to those who can see below later phraseology, points to a primitive ritual mourning for a divine being, such as most critics (but very possibly — see Crit. Bib. — by an error) have found in Ezek. viii. 1 4 and Zech. xii. 1 1 , and such as may conceivably have existed in the sacred place to which Abraham is said to have journeyed (cp. pp. 4.7 f.). There is yet another narrative besides that of Jephthah which may plausibly be mentioned in this connexion. It is difficult not to think that the tradition on which Ex. xii. 29-36 was based was virtually a protest against child- sacrifices. The slaying of the Misrite (not Egyptian) first- born, may have been represented as the punishment inflicted upon the oppressors of Israel, by the offended Yahweh, to strengthen the Israelites (now religiously in advance of the Misrites) in their resolve no longer to sacrifice human first- born. See the exposition of this view in E. Bib., ' Plagues,' § s- It would, however, be a mistake to regard the author of our narrative as having had the object of directly protesting against such offerings. That he was opposed to them, may safely be assumed, but in his time this kind of sacrifice was apparently not common among the Israelites. It is plain enough that afterwards it began again to fascinate them ; ' the stress of the times, and the increased religious as well as political influence which criticism appears to assign to 1 Cp. Moore, £■. Bii., 'Molech'; Eerdmans, Melekdtensi (lifji); Tiele, Geschiedenis van den godsdienst in de oudheid, i. (1893), pp. 227-229. OFFERING OF ISAAC (Gen. xxii. 1-19) 327 N. Arabia, will account for this. The name Melek (Molek) was, in fact, equivalent to Yerahme'el — that N. Arabian divinity who was (as has become highly probable) combined in the worship of the Israelites with Yahweh. The spirit of the beautiful narrative has had the fullest justice done to it by Gunkel. Uppermost in the narrator's mind was the religious character of the model Israelite. Nothing was too precious for this hero of faith or devotion to give to Elohim, but there was something too precious for Elohim, as Abraham's friend as well as master, to accept. I have assumed that the story is N. Arabian, just as I have assumed that the illustrative story in Ex. xii. 2,g ff. is N. Arabian. The former assumption is justified partly by the N. Arabian scenery of the earlier Abraham-legends ; partly by necessary corrections of corrupt passages in the narrative before us. One of these passages is v. 2, where we meet with the difficult phrase ' the land of Moriah.' Few will any longer maintain that ' Moriah ' was so usual as the name of the temple-hill at Jerusalem that the whole neighbourhood could be named after it ; and the fact that even the editor of JE, who gave xxii. 1-19 its present form, does not make Abraham call the sacred spot ' Moriah,' but (if the text is right) ' Yahweh-yir'eh,' gives a strong argument against the traditional view. The only other passage where n^'Tion occurs (2 Chr. iii. i) may very possibly be no longer in its original form, i.e. the older text on which the Chronicler works may have run differently (see Crit. Bib. p. 312). 'on therefore cannot be right. Sam., (S, and Pesh. all give us hints of a truer reading, if we are wise enough to use them. The first gives nNTion, which reminds us that, in 2 S. xxiii. 21, riNlD (like n"'nN and 7N1n) has come from some form nearer to 'jNnm'' ; the second, tj)z/ v-^\7)v, which it also gives in xii. 6 for rmo (see on xii. 6) ; the third, ' land of the Amorites.' These renderings all suggest nnN or oin as an element in the true reading, and the sense will certainly be given if we read The ' land of Yerahme'el,' then, was the name of the ^ My earlier suggestion, approved by Winckler {GI \\. 6,6,, note i), was onsD (s might have fallen out after p«). 328 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL region whither Abraham was sent. But surely the patriarch needed still more definite instructions. We have seen that in xii. I the idea that Abraham did not know the goal of his journey is a mistake. A similar conclusion is forced upon us here.-^ Following parallels too numerous to mention, D-inrtrr inN should be corrected into am"' inifiN, while the cases of xii. i and (more especially) of xxvi. 2 and xxxi. 49 justify the restoration of '•arr^ D"in 1£!$n for T^i? nON "iffiN (cp. on vv. 3, 9, 14). To avoid mistake, it may be added that each of the three latter words is found elsewhere miswritten for the corresponding word in the suggested combined restoration, and th^t fpNOITT' is, of course, a mere gloss on dlN. It is probable that Ashhur- or Ashtar- Yerahme'el was the name both of a mountain and of a city upon it (see on Dt. iii. 27). It may also perhaps have been called Gibeath-Yerahme'el {Crit. Bib. on Jer. ii. 34, iii. 23). To this spot^ it was that those who steeled themselves against the cries of children appear to have resorted for the most terrible of sacrifices. We can hardly doubt that the words ' on Ashhur- Yerahme'el ' are a gloss ; the effect is heightened if v. 2 is made to close at nSs?. In w. 3 a veil is once more thrown over the name of the sanctuary ; the concealment, however, involves the editor in an inconsistency, for Yahweh had not told Abraham which was the mountain to go to. Instead, therefore, of O-'n^NH "h noN "itON read 'jMonT' n£&M (see on v. 2). "h is not unfrequently miswritten for bN, and D"'n7M[n] may sometimes, with good reason, be taken as a disguise of '7NDn[l]"'. ' Yerahme'el,' it appears, was dittographed. So too in V, 9. And now {v. 8) Abraham himself reveals to the careful reader the name of the sacred place. There were various 1 Gunkel may be referred to here. He thinks that there is a lacuna after v. 2. The mountain must have been referred to (see v. 3 end), but later scribes omitted the reference, because it was inconsistent with their own theory. This is one of those expedients in which literary criticism delights, but which are slight and ineffectual remedies for the imperfections of the texts. 2 It is not meant that this was the only spot. In Palestine proper (e.g. at Gezer) there were no doubt sanctuaries at which this grim rite was practised. OFFERING OF ISAAC (Gen. xxii. 1-19) 329 abbreviations of ' Yerahme'el.' One of them was ' Aram ' (see vv. 2, 3, 9) ; another was fjN^' [y. 13); another was 'Yeruel' (2 Chr. xx. 16) or 'Yeriel' (i Chr. vii. 2). nrh^ "h'TWCV is evidently suggested by the form 'jntt' ; indeed, most probably, "h is "a corruption of hvi (see preceding note), so that DTl'pN will be a late insertion, subsequent to the corruption referred to.'^ Cp. on v. 14. The mediator between Yahweh and mankind is Yerah- me'el. But the old N. Arabian deity has been combined, in Israelitish belief, with Yahweh. So Mal'ak-Yahweh, i.e. Yerahme'el-Yahweh (see on xvi. 7), interposes {vv. 1 1 /!), to communicate the heavenly decree. Gunkel has the right impression, but makes a wrong inference from it. ' The angel speaks,' he says, ' as if God ; this points to an earlier recension in which, not an angel, but God himself spoke.' There is no cause to doubt fj-jN (v. i 3), but very much to suspect iriN. Neither ' behind ' nor ' afterwards ' is a satisfactory sense. Sam., @, Pesh., Jubilees, Onk., Jon., and MSS., besides some moderns (including Konig, Synt. p. 279, top), prefer ~\t\t^. One would like some more expressive word, however, and it happens that both ^^N and irrN often repre- sent nnffiN. This must be the case here with "iriN, and if so, we should probably supply bwDm"' ; i.e. read the compound phrase Yerahme'el-Ashhur, understanding it as a marginal correction of the corruption DVn ^ON1 "imN {v. 14). ^Nom'' was probably written ^m-> (for shortness), and this fell out owing to its likeness to '?■'«. We now come to the riddle — ' Yahweh yir'eh ' {v. 1 4). In view of v. 8 we should most naturally render ' Yahweh selects,' but this does not suit nM"i\ Should the two parts of w. 14 be harmonised (cp. Driver) ? The truth surely is that rrNT' mrr' at the end of v. 8 is repeated in error. DVrr ^0N1 iidm has come from 'jweriT DIN ISM, where 'om% is, of course, a gloss on D"1n (cp. on v. 2). ini, which now follows '"111 ntCN, should certainly precede these words. We ^ Gunkel thinks it likely that the name of the place of sacrifice was 'Yeruel,' and that it was near Tekoa (2 Chr. xx. 16). The origin of ' Yeruel ' has not occurred to him. Oort's criticisms ( Theol. Tijdschr. 1901, pp. 552 f.) and Ed. Meyer's {Die Israeliten, p. 256) are not cogent enough. 330 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL can now, perhaps, solve the opening riddle. The original reading may have been 'jn HnT'. The ^^^Tr prefixed in the traditional text was probably put in after the Sn in ^n rTMii had fallen out (cp. on v. 8). Thus the name ' Yeruel ' {v. 8) is ascribed to Abraham, for Sn rrNTi is a transparent disguise. More disguises await us in v. 17, in the supplementary speech of Mal'ak-Yahweh. It is usually supposed that where a large number of people is compared to the sand it is an Oriental hyperbole. But why should there be two hyperboles — ' as the stars ... as the sand ? ' Looking closer, we find that, either deliberately or because he had to work upon ill-written texts, the redactor has put ' and as the sand ^ which is on the sea-shore ' instead of ' Yerahme'el-Asshur (t©m 'om"') as far as {'\s) the shore of the lake.' Similar corrections have to be made in xxxii. 1 3, Josh. xi. 4, Judg. vii. 12, I S. xiii. 5, 2 S. xvii. 11, i K. v. 9. The restored words, in our passage, are a gloss on D''11S Tt&N, words which underlie the traditional reading, n"'M "is© (see on xxiv. 60). ' The lake ' (D;n) means the Dead Sea (see on rhrsi D^ xiv. 3). Surely the effect of the promise is heightened — ' I will multiply thine offspring as the stars of heaven ' ; what more needs to be said (cp. xv. 5)? And if it be asked, what there is to attract in the closing promise, ' and thine offspring shall seize upon Asshur of the Arabians' (gloss, ' Yerahme'el-Asshur as far as ' etc.), the answer is. Because this region was hallowed by the consecrated traditional legends. 1 For the corrupt ^mi compare n'jD, Gen. x. 11, a'?on, i S. xxiii. 19, and 'i>'t'Dn, Gen. xlix. 12. THE SONS OF NAHOR (Gen. xxii. 20-24) A GROUP of tribes. The ben^ Nahor are here appar- ently planned after the model of the twelve sons of Israel, of Ishmael, and of Esau. Partly they come from a wife, partly from a concubine ; their origin, then, is not equally noble. There were, of course, not really twelve tribes ; the combination is artificial. It is, however, highly probable that ' Nahor ' was the name of a considerable tract of country, the full name of which was Arab-nahor (see on xxiv. 10, xxxi. 53). The names are difficult, but re- munerate a methodical investigation. Let us remember that Milkah as well as Nahor is a N. Arabian name (see on xi. 29). In V. 21 three glosses have intruded into the text. They do not, however, relate to the names which they follow, but most probably to the whole list of names. The annotator meant (cp. xxv. 18) to say that the region of these tribes might be called either Yerahme'el-Ashhur or Arab-Aram. TinmN-^NonT' underlies "iinN "nsn ; Dns-n:; is disguised as din ""In. Similar corruptions abound ; see especially on iv. 20 f., x. 5, xvi. 12, xi. 29. What reason can there be for calling Us ' his firstborn,' or for uniting Us more closely to Buz than to his other brethren (as if they were twins) ? The meaning of Us is obscure (see on x. 23); m, however, originated in tsi, or some similar form, corrupted in the popular speech from 'jNSomr Cp. nm, fjlll, [n]nilj>, all from this widely spread name (cp. on i K. vii. 21). In Jer. xxv. 23 'Buz' occurs after Dedan and Tema, both N. Arabian districts ; in Job xxxii. 2, Elihu, of the family of Ram [ = Yerahme'el], is a Buzite ; on Ezek. i. 3 see Crit. Bib. od loc. There was probably more than one Buz. Esar- 331 332 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL haddon tells us of a land of Bazu — a desolate region {KB ii. 131 ), near N. Arabia, but surely not meant here. Another interesting name (still in v. 21) is ^Miop. In I Chr. V. 1 4 ' Michael ' and ' Buz ' are brought together, precisely as ' Buz ' and ' Kemuel ' here. That 'jn^iq has come from f?NDnT, we have seen (on xvi. 7) ; nor can we reasonably doubt that f?MiDp has the same origin. The occurrences in Num. xxxiv. 24 and r Chr. xxvii. 17 are not opposed to this, Shiphtan and Hashabiah being demonstrably N. Arabian names. Moreover, in i Chr. iv. 26 ^N"iDn occurs with ' Mishma ' and ' Shimei,' both Ishmaelite names ; f?NlDn and 'jNiap are as closely related as npn and dht ; cp. also the names ^w^mp, ^1Dp^ DSDp^ and ]iap, and the scribal corruption bpi?D (Hab. i. 4), all which have the same origin. The appended words qin ^in are surprising ; Dillm. thinks onN must here have a narrower sense than in x. 22/ See, however, above ; ' Aramaean (Yerahme'elite) Arabia ' is a general title for the list. Gunkel's inference (p. 215) from what he confesses to be a gloss (he adheres to 'father of Aram '), that the Nahorites were the ancestors of ' the later historical Aramaeans,' and that after the disappearance of the Nahorite people single tribes persisted as ' Aramaeans,' seems imprudent, because based on an excessive trust in the present redaction of the texts of the O.T. In V. 22 the capacity of the ordinary criticism is not less severely strained. ' We hardly expect,' says Driver, ' to find a tribe [Kesed] belonging to the extreme S. of Babylonia grouped with Aramaic tribes centred at Haran.' Gunkel goes a step further, and says, ' These Kasdim, who are not to be confounded with the Bab. Kasdim, though originally akin to them, are an Aramaean tribe of Beduins, also mentioned in 2 K. xxiv. 2 and Job i. 17.' This is also Winckler's theory. There is, however, better evidence for the view that 0^103 (as also pffion) is miswritten for Dn^?, which, for shortness, was sometimes written StOD, and that the origin of Kashram is Ashhur-Aram. See on xi. 28, also on ' Meshek,' x. 2, and on Isa. x. 9, where the cities mentioned are probably N. Arabian, and where, for ' Kar- kemish ' (Ass. Gargamish), we should rather read ' Kashram. As to "iin (Hazo), the rocky, mountainous land of Haz6i THE SONS OF NAHOR (Gen. xxii. 20-24) 335 mentioned with the arid land of Bdzu by Esar-haddon (see above, on Buz), can hardly be meant. It is surely a clan- name, and may have attached itself to more than one district. We may group it with hi/tm, 'jNi'rn, iT'in, fpN"''rn% mn% and probably also with •'iriN, nnriN, mriN ; probably, therefore, iin has come from mm, i.e. -nnaJN. — The strange name xsrh'Si is obviously a compound. Possibly it comes from nm^n (i Esdr. v. 8) or jm'?! (Ezr. ii. 2, Neh. vii. 7), which, however explained, point to N. Arabia (see on Neh. vii. 7). — ^"V cannot critically be derived from A^/^b^, ' to drop ' ; it may come from SdT', i.e. ^mdT' (see on Josh, xviii. 27). — More certain is the origin of SmrQ. Like h^T^I and Bait-ili (see on xxviii. 1 9), it must have come from 'jllnN, i.e. hv(s'CXCr (cp. on i K. xvi. 31, and on fpioriN, i S, X. 10). So f?l"in, X. 2. Thus Laban and Ribkah were both Ishmaelites, i.e. Yerahme'elites. The situation of Haran, however, must be considered separately. rrDlNl (Reumah) is supposed to be another survival of primitive totemism. According to Holzinger it is the Ds"i, 'wild ox.' But how improbable that the concubine of Nahor should have such a widely different kind of name from the concubine of Abraham ! Method requires us to group rra^NT with nosT and niONT ; i.e. it comes from some popular form of ^NI3m^ — niJi (Tebah) may have come from niim (see on DTI123, xxxvii. 36). This word ( = n23l, 2 S. viii. 8) illustrates the Mibtah-iah of the Assuan papyri. — Dm (Gaham) should probably be Qn3, a Maakathite name (i Chr. iv. 19). — mnn (Tahash) is identified by Winckler {MVG, 1896, p. 207) with Tihis, mentioned in Pap. Anast. i. 22 as in the region of Kadesh on the Orontes. But names have many homes, tonn, like mitan (Ezra viii. 2) and mriN (xxvi. 26), probably comes from mntDN, the feminine form of inffiN. — n3SD, i.e. the southern Maakah. See on Dt. iii. 14, Josh. xiii. 1 1, 2 S. x. 6. ABRAHAM BUYS A GRAVE (Gen. xxiii.) The section before us begins with the death and ends with the burial of Sarah. But whereas a bare record is all that is given of her death and of the subsequent mourning, the elaborate narrative which follows has for its aim to prove by circumstantial evidence that Sarah was interred by Abraham in the land of Canaan as a right that had been conceded by the lords of the country. Here, as everywhere, the Priestly Writer shows himself a lover of precision. He tells how the bend Heth listened graciously to Abraham's proposal to purchase, and how after courtesies given and received Ephron sold him a piece of land in which was a cave. If in an earlier form of the story the forms of legal procedure were at all fully described, the writer who finally shaped the narrative has omitted the description.-' This narrator, at any rate, was contented with having made it clear that Abraham had secured the possession of an inalienable family -grave.^ There is a parallel but much shorter notice in xxxiii. 18-20 (JE), where Jacob purchases a piece of land at Shechem, pre- sumably as a place for a family-grave (see Josh. xxiv. 32). The story in its present form has some peculiarities. Thus (i) Sarah is said to have died 'in Kiryath-arba', that is, Hebron, in the land of Canaan.' Arba' in Hebrew means 'four.' Hence theories have arisen, analogous to those connected with Beer-sheba (see on xxi. 30), explaining the name Kiryath-arba' either as ' a city of four (quarters, or 1 Against Sayce's view that the account is in special accordance with Babylonian usages, see S. A. Cook, The Laws of Moses, etc., 1903, pp. 38/, 208. 2 See W. R. Smith, OTJO\ pp. 417/ 334 ABRAHAM BUYS A GRA VE (Gen. xxiii.) 335 even gods),' or as ' a city devoted to the Four-god,' i.e. to the moon-god, one of whose memorial symbols was four.-^ In illustration of this, Winckler compares the place-name Arba'-ilu,^ ' the Four-god city.' These theories, however, are not in themselves probable. If a numeral came in at all, we should have expected it to be three, corresponding to the three sons of Anak (Num. xiii. 22, etc.). We cannot, therefore, disregard the evidence produced by textual criti- cisms to show that :>mN is not unfrequently miswritten either for ins or for 'n:?, i.e. Qims.^ ' City of Arabia ' or 'of Arabians' would no doubt be a possible name for a place in a Yerahme'elite region (see on ' Mamre,' xiii. 1 8). The question, however, still remains whether TV'ip was originally the first part of the name. The appendix l-j^ is' most naturally taken as a qualification of some place- name of frequent occurrence, i.e. K.-ar^b might mean 'Arabian Kiryath,' if such a place-name as Kiryath were well attested. Most probably, however, TV^p has the same origin as rT'13 (l K. xvii. 3, s) and Tna (i S. xxx. 14), i.e. all these names arose very early * out of some common place- name, such as mnm (n omitted, n converted into 3 or p), or, better, rmntON (cp. iDto« = nntON ; ■'■13 = ''IDJOn, 2 K. xi. 4, 1 9 ; and mn, I S. xxii. 5, from mntos). See xiv. 13 (end), where Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner are referred to as citizens of D"'lli; JVXi, and 1. 5, where Jacob refers to his grave as situated in 'om"' T\'n'2 (the corrections are secure) ; also on X. 14 (Kaphtorim). It is slightly in favour of the reading Rehoboth-'arib that pinn (Hebron), with which Kiryath-arba (?) is here (as also in xxxv. 27, Josh. xiv. 15, xv. 13, 54, xx. 7, xxi. II, Judg. i. 10, but not Neh. xi. 25) identified, may probably be connected with im.^ And it is a plausible 1 Winckler, GI ii. 48 ; cp. Tomkins, Times of Abraham, pp. 102 f. ^ I.e. Arbela, between the upper and the lower Zab, a seat of the cult of Ishtar. Cp. Jastrow, RBA, p. 203, note i. The name may be a trace of the great Arabian migraticJn. Cp. on h^y^, Hos. x. 1 4. ' On miswritten numerals, see on ii. 10, xiv. 14, xv. 13, i K. xi. 3, Neh. vii. 68/ * We may infer this from Egyptian reproductions of rmp (W.M.M., As. u. Eur. pp. 174, 195). ^ Cp. on Dm, Josh. ii. i. Sayce and Hommel, however, suppose a 336 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL hypothesis that Rehobon in course of time supplanted the older form Rehoboth. On the whole, however, I am inclined to prefer, as the original of ninp, mnmN. See, further, notes on xiii. i8 (more than one Hebron), Num. xiii. 22 (Hebron east of Soan-Misrim), and, for ' the land of Canaan,' on xi. 31. Another remarkable feature is the presence of the ben^ Heth in Hebron, which has put it into Winckler's head to transport Kiryath-arba to the far north of Palestine.' It is certainly strange to find southern Hittites in a Genesis narrative, but, as Sayce reminds us, in Ezek. xvi. 3, Jerusalem is tauntingly informed that her father was an Amorite and her mother a Hittite, from which it is inferred that ancient Jerusalem had a mixed popu- lation of Amorites and Hittites. It has been shown, how- ever (on X. 1 6), that ' Yebusite ' comes from ' Ishmaelite.' There must have been a branch of the Ishmaelites, called corruptly ' Yebusites,' which dwelt both at Jerusalem (Judg. i. 21) and probably (cp. 2 S. v. 6) elsewhere also. Indeed, o'jtOIT' itself is marked out as an Ishmaelite town. As Nestle (ZDPV Kxv'n. 155) has seen, it comes from 'ffllTs; to complete this, let it be added that lTii> possibly comes from T'i^"', and ahw certainly from ^M:>oa)i. It may also be noticed that in Josh. x. 5 the king of Hebron and the king of Jerusalem are both represented as ' Amorites ' in MT., but are ' Yebusites ' in @. Perhaps for ■'"idn we should read ■'ons, and similarly in Ezek. xvi. 3 ; ' Arammite ' and ' Yebusite ' are virtually synonymous. Accepting these results, we can understand how the so- called bene Heth (vv. 3, 5, 7, 10, 16, 18, 20) came into the connexion with the Habiri of the Amarna letters. I would rather (with Wellhausen, ZJe Gentibus, 1870, p. 27) compare the clan-name i^n. Heber, in Judg. v. 25, is a Kenite name. 1 GI ii. 39 / It is also noted that Talmai was the name of a king of Geshur in David's time (2 S. xiii. 37). But was there not a southern Geshur (Josh. xiii. 2 ; see Crit. Bib. pp. 284, 416) ? It is much more likely that a son of David would take refuge in a southern district. Cp. the southern refuge of Hadad and of Jeroboam. Both ' Geshur ' and ' Talmai ' were transferred Arabian names. Talmai is beyond doubt, not ' he of the furrow ' (Meyer, p. 264, 'a genius of agriculture '), but from Son (cp. ^non), i.e. 'Ethmaal' = ' Ishmael.' ABRAHAM BUYS A GRAVE (Gen. xxiii.) 337 narrative. ' Hittites ' or ' Hethites ' is = ' Ashhartites ' and ' Kiryath-arba ' = ' Ashhoreth-arab.' The Ashhartites were 'the people of the land,' and the land was probably that called Ashhur-Yerahme'el. We can also appreciate the statement that an important Hittite was called Ephron ben-Sohar, for Sohar has undoubtedly arisen out of Ashhur (cp. on xlvi. 10), and the descriptive title ben-Sohar marks Ephron out as an Ashhurite. The Ashhurites or Ash- hartites were 'the people of the land' {vv. 7, 12, 13), or, as Ephron calls them, ' the sons of my people ' {v. 11 ). Here another problem arises. It is twofold. First, what is the text which underlies an impossible phrase in vv. 10, 1 8 ? and next, what is to be inferred from the recovered text? The phrase is IT'S ^i)to •'nI h"^ (v. 10), or, as in v. 18, ^33, and the problem is to explain how the idea of ' citizens ' came (as commentators assure us that it did come) to be expressed by words meaning ' those who entered the gate of his (Ephron's ?) city,' and if such an expression of that idea is impossible, to recover the underlying original text. So far as I know, no satisfactory justification of the phrase in question exists. The text, therefore, must be wrong, i.e. the latest redactor made the best he could of a miswritten text, and there is a close parallel to this in xxxiv. 24 (twice), where the idea of ' citizens ' is commonly supposed to be expressed by ' those that went out of the gate of his (Hamor's) city.' It would be easy to refer to other passages in which '\SV0, ' gate,' enters into hard and improbable phrases, e.g. in xxii. 17, xxiv. 60, xxxiv. 20, Mic. i. 9, Ruth iii. 11. The first three of these are treated in this work. As for the two latter passages, the reader may easily convince himself of the doubtfulness of the traditional text. Probably the right correction of ids nSQJ in Micah and Ruth is U'lDIN n^M, ' Asshur of the Arammites,' which may be either a district- name or a place-name. Similarly, the right correction of DT:; li^ffl and its nsQ> in xxxiv. 20, 24, is Diir^ n^N, to which in v. 20 "'SS"' (' the counsellors of), not "'nS"', is the right prefix. It follows that IT'S 1SW "'Nl in vv. 10, 1 8 is a corruption of ans'' li&N "hs:!, ' the citizens of 1 For nny cp. on!;' rrnp — hxam' innB'K, and see on xxxvi. 43. 22 338 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Asshur-Yerahme'el ' ? The phrase is probably a gloss on nn ■'31, and states more precisely who the persons referred to were. A new question now arises. It will be observed that in xxxiv. 20, 24, it is Hamor's city which is (according to the preceding criticism) called ' Asshur of the Arabians,' while in xxiii. I o, 1 8 the same name is given to the city inhabited by Ephron, i.e. Kiryath-arba, or rather Ashhoreth-ar^b. This application of the place-name ' Asshur of the Arammites ' must surely be ancient. May we infer that at an early date Ashhoreth-arS.b was identified with the place commonly called Shechem, but originally (see on xii. 6) Shakram, i'.e. Ashhur-Aram ? Surely not. The strong probability is that in the older form of the legends more than one place was called the Arammite or Yerahme'elite Asshur. That Ephron's city Hebron should have borne this name is not surprising, for Ephron was described sometimes as a Hethite (Ashhartite), sometimes as a Soharite (Ashhurite). Next, as to the estate bought by Abraham. It was a field or piece of cultivated land (mto), with a cave in it (mi'D) ; see vv. 9, 11, 17, 19/; We also hear of ' Mak- pelah (or, the Machpelah) before Mamre' (vv. 17, 19). What is Makpelah?^ Clearly not a cave (@, to SiirXovv, as if a double cavern were meant, which involves mistrans- lation of vv. 17 and 19), but the name of the district in which the ' field ' with the ' cave ' was situated. A clue to its meaning is supplied by h>TB, xxi. 22, 32, xxvi. 26, which is presumably a corruption of iSq"'1n (see on xxi. 22), and by DDl-'D (Ezek. xxx. 17), z.e. noT-^li^ = nQtS^TiS. Following these analogies, n7D3D ought to have come from TO^O-'D, le. TTzha-y^S. That -['po is a popular symbol of ^Nom"' has often been pointed out in these researches (cp. on TToho, xi. 29). Another question. Did the original story relate the purchase of a cave, or simply of a piece of land ? It is in a high degree probable that m:;D (usually = ' cave ') has often arisen out of ^roI'^, a popular modification of DIM (Aram = Yerahme'el) ; see on x. 7. This may conceivably have been the case in the writing from which P most 1 ' Makpelah' only occurs in P (here and in xxv. 9, xlix. 30, 1. 13). ABRAHAM BUYS A GRA VE (Gen. xxiii.) 339 probably borrows. If so, however, the text must have fallen into a corrupt state, and P felt obliged to recast it. To him m:;>o was not a miswritten form of T[t:>'s'^, but meant I cave ' — a meaning not at all unsuitable where a grave was spoken of The original text may have resembled the short account of Jacob's purchase of land in xxxiii. 18-20. The piece of land was probably called Bimalkah (cp. 7noD, I Chr. vii. 33, from 'nrxv m.s), and was defined as being ^ before ' ]D»"i (cp. nosn), the probable original of niod (see on xiii. 18). And now as to the purchase. In v. 9 Ephron is to give up the field n'?o ^DDn, ' for full money,' and mv. 15 the land is said to be worth 400 shekels in silver. These readings are most improbable. We can, however, by using our experience of recurrent types of corruption, restore a thoroughly suitable text. It so happens that n^pd (Jer. iv. 12, Nah. i. 10), equally with D"?n and dSs, is a well- proved corruption of ^NoriT' or bwratD"'. n^d fiD31 therefore, if the other references to money consist with this, should be 'm*' fjoai, a phrase which should also be restored in xx. 16 and in i Chr. xx. 24 (where in MT. n^d ;]dD1 corresponds to TTTDn, from 'am'' [^D3]3 in 2 S. xxiv. 24 ; see Crit. Bib. pp. 311 /). It also happens that riNQ and SptO are met with as corruptions of nSD (cp. 2 Chr. ix. 16, where read m3a, comparing i K. x. 17, tryd) and f?D©N = Ashhur- Yerahme'el (as in Lev. v. 15, Isa. xxxiii. 18) respectively. This suggests as the original reading in vv. 1 5 /., nSn i;3lN 93tDN S1D3 ' four minse, in money of Ashkal ' {i.e. Asshur- Yerahme'el ; see on xiv. 13). In w. 16 the mention of the sum of money is followed by ^^□f? -\13, ' passing to the merchant,' i.e. as commentators say, 'current, or accepted, among the merchants.' For this explanation 2 K. xii. 5 f. is quoted, but wrongly. m"'N nils Pjoa in that passage is untranslatable. There is, however, a thoroughly good remedy, and that is to restore as the underlying words liaJN 3"is fjpS.^ The following words are a gloss ; mQ?D3 (written 'it&aa), like mD2, imsa, and lffiD3 elsewhere, and like ^ Unless 121J) has come from h«-y\-v = SxcnT ; see further on in the text. In itself, however, the reading y\v, is plausible. Cp. Cant. v. 5, where nay nio should be njs tio, ' myrrh of Arabia.' 340 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL ptO"'D in ii. 1 1 (see note), represents 'jMi^DQ?'', while "i3in, like ni"i», comes from mi>, ' Arabia.' It is just the same case with our passage. In two different glosses the sum paid by Abraham is described first as ' money of Ashkal,' and then (in an equivalent phrase) as ' money of Yerahme'el- Asshur.' ^ In short, the h in ino^ should be attached to ns, and we should read nntON 'om"'. Cp. the corrupt ^nw in Hos. X. 1 4, also ffi'^^-^DD, Isa. xlv. 1 4, where n3D may represent nnmN, a variant to a>13. It only remains to do one's best to correct some readings which, though ancient, are none the less impossible. Let us turn to vv. 5 f. "idn"?, as in Jer. iii. i and elsewhere,- is a corruption of fjNDriT', and t>, which (as often) represents corruptly the f?M in that word, records a second attempt of the late scribe to write the name correctly (note ®'s reading N7, and cp. the tirh which precedes 1D«7 at the close of Jer. ii). The next word l3i>0B>, followed by a warning Pasek, is surely a corruption of 7«SD2J'^ (as often, 7 became 3). 'djO"' and 'om"' are glosses on nn ''31 (cp. gloss at end of vv. I o, 1 8 indicated above). Similarly, ■'3SQB> in v. 8 is most improbable. Nearly as in V. 6, etc., we should read 1f?NSDm^ a gloss on ' Ephron ben Sohar.' For ' Ephron,' see on ' Epher,' xxv. 4. ' Sohar ' (nna) comes from Ashhur ; group with •\'^n and ins, and cp. on Ezek. xxvii. 1 8. Several other corrections follow as a matter of course, ■^Oi^olC N^? vci V. II (@, however, presupposes 'h, a corruption of 1^) must be explained nearly as in a similar case in vv. 5 f. The peculiarity of the phrase in z/. 1 1 is that N7 is separated from 'otO by lanw. In dealing with vv. 5/ I had to say that n^ (after -yath) represented a dittographed f?NDm^ Here, however, 13^N-Nf? gives us both parts of 'om"' ; only the last part {yh = hvC) is placed first, and am"' has become ■'3^N. Read, therefore, omitting the first 'dhT' (v. I o, end), '^Mi^Dffi-' ^NDm^ a double gloss on nn ''33. — In V. \i 'dio 'h nON^ must, of course, be similarly corrected. A gloss on piwrr Dr. But what of rrriM Dn in, interposed between IDH? 1 When good weight or measure is spoken of, it is usual to mention the standards. See on chap. xx. section (e), also on Hos. iii. 2. ABRAHAM BUYS A GRA VE (Gen. xxiii.) 34i and 'd© "1^ ? Does the anacoluthon express a ' courteous embarrassment ' (Gunkel) ? Much more probably f>Dn has fallen out before nriN (i K. xxi. 6) ; very possibly, too, fN has come from Sm, i.e. -"aTN. — In w. 1 5 the opening words (taken with if? nONS" at the end of v. 14) should be corrected in accordance with words in vv. 10 f. — By way of supple- ment it may be added that Ephron is no ordinary ' heathen,' but, like Abimelech in chap, xx., a worshipper of Elohim, i.e. probably ' Yerahme'el,' who is so near of kin to Yahweh, and that DTrf?M Wtea in V. 6 means, not merely ' a mighty prince,' but ' one who has been set up on high by the god of the land ' ; it marks out Abraham as a natural friend of Ephron and of his clan. THE SEARCH FOR A WIFE FOR ISAAC (Gen. XXIV.) Who can resist the charm of that ' gem of purest ray ' — the story of the wooing and winning of Rebecca? Note above all the Homeric simplicity. We cannot, however, avoid confessing that J's work has been retouched, and that the manipulating process may have begun early. Just as in xiv. 1 9, ' God of Yerahme'el ' has become ' God Most High,' so it is almost certain that in v. 7 (and in the other passages where it occurs — see on Ezra i. 2) D"'Dm "TrfjN has sprung out of 'jNi^DtD'' -rhv^, just as oom ppm in Dan. xii. 1 1 has come from 'dq?"' ppm ; i.e. 'om"*, written short, was misread under the influence of the theory that such a title as ' God of heaven ' was alone worthy of the great God Yahweh ;^ the article, of course, is redactional. Nor ' Sievers [Metr. Stud. p. 301) thinks that the formula 'God of heaven and earth' was brought by the Jews from their exile. It is, however, really due to the late redactor's manipulation of an old phrase. 342 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL is this all. The manipulator wished for a fuller confession of Yahweh's greatness, and so in v. 3 he has given us a still more explicit declaration of Yahweh's universal sovereignty or creatorship (' God of the heaven and God of the earth '). It is remarkable that this title occurs nowhere else in the narrative, and while I do not doubt that Yahweh, to his worshippers, was indeed the God of heaven, yet it seems to me more in accordance with the specially N. Arabian character of the original legends to suppose that here, as well as in ix. 26 and xxi. 3 (see notes), it was as the patron-God of the great Yerahme'elite race that the God of Abraham was originally referred to. That this God was either developed out of, or at least existed, side by side the great mother-goddess Ashtart, must be admitted to be a very probable theory (see pp. 17, 21). In vv. 2, 9 of the present chapter (cp. xlvii. 29) the phrase ' put thy hand under my thigh ' is used by Barton {Sem. Or. p. 281) as a confirmation of this view. The phrase does, in fact, indicate that the organs of reproduction were specially sacred to Yahweh. To be like Elohim was in primitive times to be capable of generating human beings. An Australian parallel occurs in George Grey's Journals of Expeditions, etc. (1841), ii. 342, given by Driver (from Dr. Tylor's reference) in his Genesis (p. 281). Not a word is needed ; the position of one seated upon the thighs of the other, with his hands under them, is sufficient. Among the Arab tribes of the Sinaitic peninsula ' the plaintiff puts his hand in the defendant's girdle, and makes him repeat the name of God three times before giving his evidence.' ^ The district to which, after such a striking formality, the representative of Abraham was sent, was, as the printed text gives the name, Aram-naharaim {v. 10). To this is added a second specification, which at first sight appears more precise, 'Ir-nahor (the city of Nahor). Both phrases are difficult. The former (see Dillmann) is very variously explained, and there are those who would pronounce the second element in the name ' naharlm,' corresponding to the Egyptian Naharin, i.e. northern Syria and the country 1 Gordon Clark, quoting from Lord Cromer's last report on Egypt. See Exp. Tiines, xviii. 46. THE SEARCH FOR A WIFE FOR ISAAC (Gen. xxiv.) 343 eastward.^ Of the four other passages in which the com- pound name appears, one is Judg. iii. 8, where the name Cushan (applied to the oppressor of Israel) points to N. Arabia ; another is the title of Ps. Ix., where it is mentioned with Aram-Soba ^ and with Edom ; the third is I Chr. xix. 6, where it goes with Aram-Maacah and Soba ; and the fourth Dt. xxiii. S, where it is the country of Balaam's town (' Pethor '), which was certainly in the south (cp. on Num. xxii. 5, xxiii. 7). These several passages will be fully treated elsewhere, but it may be said here that the first and third sufficiently justify us in placing Aram- naharaim in the Arabian border-land, to which region also that other compound name, Paddan-aram, may reasonably be considered to point (see on xxv. 20, P). It is possible that ' Naharaim ' may refer to the two border-streams which seem on textual grounds to be most clearly established, viz. those of Yarhon and of Misrim, which may also not improb- ably have borne other names (see on xv. 1 8). And what is 'Ir-nahor'? Does it really mean 'the city which Nahor, after Abraham had migrated to Canaan, still continued to inhabit, i.e. Haran ' (Driver) ? It is true, the city referred to in v. 11 must be Haran (a southern Haran, see on xi. 31). But is it clear that a natural alternative name for this place would be ' Nahor's city ' ? If we sanction this thesis, it may be necessary to hold with Jensen {ZA, 1896, p. 300) and Zimmern {KAT, p. 477) that Nahor was a god's name. When, however, we notice (fl) how completely co-ordinated the two phrases in v. 10, Diin2 Cns-^N and Tin3 T'i^-fjN, are, (J?) the probability that Ti> sometimes comes from '~i^ = 'y^s, (c) the additional fact that there is an Assyrian place-name Til-nahiri,^ i.e. Tubal-nahir,* one is led to conclude that Nahor or Nahar was the name of a district or region, and that 'Arab-nahor (not 'Ir-nahor) was the original reading, a variant to ' Aram- naharaim.' Possibly, indeed, Nahor was differentiated from 1 Cp. W. M. Miiller, As. u. Eur. pp. 249^ ; Ed. Meyer, Gesch. des Alt. i. 219 ; Gesch. Aeg. p. 227 ; Hogg, E. Bib., ' Aram-naharaim.' ^ See E. Bib., 'Zoba' ; Crit. Bib. p. 274. ' Johns, Ass. Deeds, iii. p. 127. * See E. Bib., 'Tel-abib' ; Crit. Bib. pp. 91 / 344 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Nahar ('river'), just as, most probably, Haran (xi. 27) was differentiated from Haran (xi. 31). If so, something must have fallen out between z^. i o and v. \\, relative to the servant's arrival with his train at Haran. See, further, on xxii. 20-24, and on xxxi. 33 (where it is proposed to read ' the God of Arib and the God of Nahor '). Let us now consider three other personal names. It is, of course, possible in the abstract that these names, although of N. Arabian origin, had been carried to the northern Aram by migrating Yerahme'elites ; but the results from the preceding narratives do not seem to favour this. First of all, let us study Ribkah (npn). We cannot get to the bottom of such names without considering the tribal relations of the patriarchs, in so far as these are expressed in and by the names. In reality there is, broadly speaking, but one legend of the ancestry of the Israelites. According to this, the later people of the ben^ Israel was formed by the coalition of two related clans. Abraham, whose name indicates him as the representative of the tribe which was at home in Arab-Yerahme'el, marries Sarai, whose name marks her out as the representative of the closely-related tribe which dwelt in the district of Asshur (Ashhur). Isaac, i.e. probably an Ashhurite tribe, unites with an as yet unknown figure. Jacob, i.e. a Yerah- me'elite tribe, unites with Rachel and Leah, i.e. with another Yerahme'elite tribe ^ (both names having sprung from fragments of ' Yerahme'el ') ; but tradition also gives ' Jacob ' the name of ' Israel,' acquired apparently through a forcible fusion of Jacob or Yerahme'el with a tribe called ' Israel ' or," more correctly, Asshurel (an Asshurite tribe, therefore). The common idea of all these stories (putting aside for the moment that of Isaac) is that the ben^ Israel arose through a combination of tribes of Yerahme'elites and Ashhurites. The name of Isaac's wife ought therefore to be one which expresses in some form the concept of a Yerahme'elite tribe, and the question arises. Are there any of the current popular corruptions of ' Yerahme'el ' which throw light on the name Ribkah ? To justify an affirma- 1 Steuernagel too, though on different grounds, holds that originally only one wife was assigned to Jacob {Einwanderung, p. 39). THE SEARCH FOR A WIFE FOR ISAAC (Gen. xxiv.) 345 tive answer, let me quote 131, 33n, and pnn, all of which (if analogy is our guide) are closely akin to Dpi, i.e. hvtaxxy (see on nan, xlvi. 21). It follows that T\py\ is a strictly Yerahme'elite name, and it is in harmony with this that Ribkah is the daughter of Bethuel (Tubal, i.e. Ishmael), whose mother bears the Yerahme'elite name Milkah (xi. 29), and that Laban, and therefore also Ribkah, are natives of the land of the bene Rekem, i.e. Yerahme'el ; see on xxix. I. It may perhaps be objected that it is P who makes Ribkah the daughter of Bethuel, ' Bethuel ' in vv. 24, 47, 50, as also in xxii. 23, being probably (with whatever belongs to it) an interpolation, while the older narrator (J) makes Laban and Ribkah the children of Nahor (cp. xxix. S, 'Laban ben Nahor'). But P does not write out of his own head. The earlier writer on whom he depends most probably held that Bethuel, i.e. Tubal or Ishmael, and Nahor were alternative names of the same district, and since Tubalite (' son of Tubal ') and Nahorite (' son of Nahor') were equivalent, preferred the former, as the more intelligible. The name Laban (jlf?) is not so easy to explain as it may seem. Does it really mean ' white,' and is it adopted from the Harranian moon-god ? ^ And does Laban the shepherd correspond to the moon as shepherd of the stars ? It would be strange indeed, for the other patriarchal names in these Genesis narratives are not (so far as we have seen) divine names or titles. Nor can we separate this name from the place-names ]1^ (Dt. i. i), Ti^h and mxh (Josh. X. 29, Judg. xxi. 19), the personal or rather clan- names ■'Jib (Ex. vi. 17,1 Chr. vi. 1 7), and the well-known name of a mountain-range pJlb. It is most natural to hold that all these names have arisen out of a great tribal name ' Laban,' whose eponym is the ' Laban ben Nahor,' or ' Laban the Arammite ' of our narratives. A name Lapana is preserved in the Amarna tablets (139, 3S, 37), and we ^ Schrader, KAT'^\ on Gen. xxvii. 43 ; Jensen, ZA, 1896, p. 298 ; cp. Goldziher, Heb. Myth. p. 158; Winckler, GI ii. 57. Dr. J. P. Peters, with a light heart, adopts this view (Early Heb. Story, p. 170). On 'Laban ' see further E. Bib., ' Laban ' ; ' Rachel,' § 2. 346 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL have elsewhere (see on vi. 4) seen reason to think that the D''^D3 of tradition owe their name, equally with the h'yi of I S. XXV. 3, etc., to slight phonetic corruption of [d"']31^. As a compensation for the loss of a supposed lunar god among the patriarchs, let me point out some fresh occur- rences of the name of the friendly director of human affairs, Mal'ak (see on xvi. 7). They can, indeed, as I think, hardly be overlooked, if we direct a trained eye to the text of vv. 7 and 40. In V. 7 (MT.) the patriarch says to his trusty slave, ' he {i.e. Yahweh) shall send his messenger before thee, that thou mayest fetch a wife for my son from thence.' Nothing is said expressly of the fulfilment of the promise ; as Gunkel points out, the divine action is presupposed and not directly brought before us — a mark of the relatively late origin of the narrative. Presumably the fortunate concatenation of circumstances is to be taken as a proof that the promise was carried out. This is perfectly right, but when else- where Gunkel remarks that later writers did not like to say that Yahweh himself accompanied the patriarchs on their journeys, and substituted an inferior divine being — a ' messenger,' — he is not strictly accurate. He ought at least to have added that the name of this ' messenger ' had fallen out or been omitted. But the fact is that the name of the servant's protector still exists, underlying "|3N7D, and that he is no inferior deity. The case is parallel to that of the famous passage, Ex. xxiii. 23, where, instead of 'my messenger,' we should most probably read Yerahme'el (or even ' Michael,' which need not be so late as is usually supposed). This may be shown by Ex. xiv. 19, where the protective function of ' going before ' Israel is assigned to DTT^Nrr '\th'a, i.e. (see again on chap, xvi.) Yerahme'el- Yahweh. Of course, when Yahweh is speaking, it could not be said 'Yerahme'el -Yahweh shall go before thee,' because, to human appearance, the speaker separates himself for the time from the second member of the divine duad (or triad). And for a similar reason, in xxiv. 7, Yahweh could not be represented as sending Yerahme'el- Yahweh before the servant of Abraharn. The patriarch might have said, ' Yerahme'el- Yahweh . . . shall go before thee,' but with THE SEARCH FOR A WIFE FOR ISAAC (Gen. xxiv.) 347 unerring instinct the original narrator preferred the less startling statement, ' Yahweh . . . shall send Michael before thee, that thou mayest fetch a wife for my son.' After all, though Michael (Yerahme'el) was not a mere messenger — for all matters were settled by the divine council, — yet, if represented as separate from Yahweh, he could not but be said to be commissioned by Yahweh.^ Another corroboration of the Arabian theory is fur- nished hy V. 55. The interest of the passage for most scholars lies in the supposed reference to the division of the month into decades (see E. Bib., ' Month,' § 6). The text has, ' Let the damsel remain with us nitoJ? IN D■'P^' The phrase is, at any rate, peculiar.^ The prevalent view that IMOS may be used for ' a decade ' is against usage ; it can only mean ' the tenth day of the month,' or, at any rate, ' the last day of the decade.' But for a moment suppose it otherwise, and let the words be taken to mean what even Kautzsch thinks they do mean — ' let the damsel remain with us some days or ten,' or, as Ball prefers, ' a month or (at least) ten .days ' ; is this natural ? Why trouble the servant with an alternative period ? At this point we must begin to criticise the text, iitos in being exegetically impossible, may it not be corrupt ? And the answer is, Certainly, if we can show that similar corruptions have been traced elsewhere. And this we can show. Similar mistakes to that of "iimi? for nitDN abound. The most complete parallels to the present case are perhaps in Am. iii. 12, where ani; should be "iejm, a gloss on the preceding word pWQl (as to which see on xv. 2), in Am. i. i and Zech. xiv. 5, where msin has come from ninmN ( = ~n£&N). There are also some passages (e.g. Ps. Iv. 4) where a stronger sense is produced by reading "li&N instead of swy As for IN, it is not uncommon to find a simple T where we should expect win ( = that is), introducing a gloss. If so, we could ^ In V. 40 Gunkel alters the text, and reads, ' Yahweh, who has walked before me.' But this effaces the distinction between ' Yahweh ' and ' Mal'ak- Yahweh,' and the reason for the change seems to me very trifling. ^ ® ■qiJ.epas (oo-ei SeKa ; Sam. enn in d'D' ; Pesh. only expresses O'D- nn. Olsh. and Ball, 's in o'd- am. 348 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL not be surprised to find in occurring once instead of Nin. (The case, however, does in fact occur a second time, viz. in Isa. xxvii. 4, where we should read N"in (not ")n) ; but here the pronoun does not indicate a gloss.) Thus we get the gloss Timw Nirr, ' that is, Asshur.' And if we may consider that the tD^^ of Sam. (instead of the Titcs of MT.) is a various reading, it is obviously a confirmation of our view, for tonn, like mnn in Josh. ii. i, onn in Judg. i. 35, viii. 13, Isa. xix. 18 (v. 1. Din), ''Xmn in 2 S. xxiv. 6, and tl>^^ itself in Hos. v. 7 and perhaps elsewhere, both can, and in this particular setting must, represent nnOJN ; now It&M and ^^fflN are slightly different forms of the same name of a N. Arabian district. The gloss which we have now recovered — viz. 'that is, Asshur ' — was inserted, after having suffered corruption, in the wrong place. Originally it stood in the margin. The redactor probably read ^'lt&i»-^i', ' unto the tenth day (of the current month),' and finding a reference in v. 55 to a postponement of Ribkah's journey, he foisted 'i? "75 into the text there. But this is not the whole solution of the textual problem. Is it not highly improbable that the redactor would insert these two words in the middle of a sentence ? Let us then look at the rest oi v. 55, which may, very likely, turn out to be a transformation of something connected with ^^tDi> IS. As the traditional text (MT. and @) now stands, v. l^ closes with "[^n iriNCl]. Now, though this phrase is strangely short and ambiguous, we should not stumble at it, but for the discovery that the preceding words are a corrup- tion of a gloss. Very possibly, therefore, this phrase too may be corrupt. Certainly \ as noted above, often repre- sents Nin, 'that is,' and nnN (like nns) often represents nntON, and l^n, like Ti^n in xxvii. 3, may easily have come from hyr\ (Tuba) in MT.), a form of Ethbaal = Ishmael. The two closing words may therefore have come from Nin 'inw 'mN, ' that is, Ashhur-Ethbaal,' and it would, I think, be inconsistent not to adopt this well-founded theory. Returning now to I3"'0"', it is surely both justifiable and expedient to point Q';p'' (Hos. vi. 2). The sense then becomes, ' And her brother and her mother said, ' Let the THE SEARCH FOR A WIFE FOR ISAAC (Gen. xxiv.) 349 damsel remain two days.' Sievers (p. 304) has already suggested this reading, which, however, is here offered independently of his great work. But Tiffis in he fails to make plausible. ' Two days or a decade ' (assuming ' decade ' to be possible) can, in spite of @, hardly mean ' about ten days.' As we have seen, the verse closes with a twofold gloss, ' that is, Asshur ; that is, Ashhur-Ethbaal,' which is misplaced, and belongs to v. 62 (see below). Another problem. Where was Isaac when he met Ribkah and her escort ? The latter would naturally journey back to Hebron. Nothing is said of this in our present text of vv. 62-67. V- 62, however, is, by common admis- sion, corrupt, and the only question is, how to correct it, having equal regard to critical method and to the require- ments of the whole context. NllQ Nl becomes in Sam. inai Nl (implied too by @). But this is plainly wrong ; cp. Num. xxi. 1 8, where MT. has nnDD, but @ presupposes INlQ (which many prefer). In our passage in30 is prefer- able to niTDl ; the INI which follows is dittographed.^ It is true, we expect to be told not only whence Isaac came, but whither he went. And our text, if treated by the right methods, meets our expectation. \n v. 55 we have already found a misplaced gloss. Let it be added that in v. 63 another misplaced word exists — a word which, without experience of similar phenomena elsewhere, no one could possibly account for, but which we are now happily able to explain. The word is mto^ (for n"'to^). What can this mean ? To complain (to God) ? To meditate ? To pray ? To cut brushwood ? No ; the word is unintelligible (Kautzsch). Hence Gesenius (and perhaps Pesh.) would read ja^tB"?, ' to go about,' ' to make a tour of inspection.' But no such information is required. It suffices to know that Isaac went out into the country towards evening. The word referred to is (i) misplaced, and (2) corrupt. And what can mOJ come from ? Can we hesitate ? In xxv. 2 'tD is a corruption of TinffiN. Most probably it is so here ; read, therefore, mnfflN'?, and restore this to its original place in z/. 62 after ni 'js'^l. Now, too, we can understand the misplaced gloss of 1 So Lagarde ; ' librarius duas literas repetivit.' 350 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL which the correct form is Sin-inmy Nin TitON Nin (see on V. 55). It relates most probably to the corrupt mo^. V. 62. should therefore run thus, 'Now Isaac had come to Ashhur [that is, Asshur ; that is, Ashhur-Ethbaal] from Beer-Yerahme'el ; indeed, he dwelt in the land of the Negeb.' V. 62 b accounts for the mention of Beer- Yerahme'el, which is here placed in the Negeb. By Ashhur, or Ashhur-Ethbaal, is meant the city of Ephron, respecting the various names of which see on chap, xxiii. The death of Abraham seems to have called Isaac to the place where his father had dwelt. Here he remained till the return of Abraham's servant with Ribkah. When the caravan appeared he was taking the air at evening in the open country. Whether the period of mourning for his father was over, we are not told ; even the death of Abraham is omitted, and according to Wellhausen {CH, pp. 2g f.) the original t>:in in v. 67 5 has been changed by a redactor into I cannot myself, however, follow Wellhausen. Indeed, I question whether this scholar has seen the whole problem. That IDN is wrong, I admit ; but is T'3n right ? Ball (p. 79) tries to help by inserting mn before V3N. But this is too bold, and still leaves '^nriN, which is wrong (we expect hs). Both these scholars omit "ion mffl in v. 67 a as a marginal gloss. But what an unnecessary gloss ! And are we sure about nf^riNn ? If a tent is mentioned at all, it ought to be the wife's own tent (xxxi. 33). It is certain, however, that ^PTN sometimes {e.g. in iv. 20) comes from an imperfectly written fpNOm"' ; and possible that idm may have come from '^as, i.e. poi;, and mm from nnt&[N]. I would therefore read [jio:; intCN] nf?NQnT^ 's"' '"'"i, ' and Isaac brought her to Yerahme'el [Ashhur-Ammon].' At the end of V. 67 comes the same geographical gloss dittographed (■iirtN, as often, = nintpM). The reader will remember that Isaac is residing temporarily at Ephron's city, called some- times Ashhur-Yerahme'el (see above). 1 V. 66 implies that Abraham has passed away ; otherwise, why is there no report to Abraham ? Gunkel, who supposes two recensions of the story, thinks that one of these read V3n, ' his father,' instead of idk, ' his mother,' in v. 67. THE SEARCH FOR A WIFE FOR ISAAC (Gen. xxiv.) 351 It only remains to note briefly that in w. 35 the absurd ' camels and asses ' should be corrected as proposed on xii. 16 (cp. on XXX. 43), and that in v. 60, for VN3m li>m n«, we should most probably read Sn^DC-' n©N DN. Cp. on xxii. 17. It is, of course, a region, not a city, which is here referred to. SONS OF KETURAH; DEATH OF ABRAHAM (Gen. XXV. 1-6, 7-1 1 d) The first of these passages {vv. 1-6) is not consistent with chap. xxiv. It speaks of a second wife and more children of Abraham, whereas in chap. xxiv. Abraham is near his end ^ and has only one son. Here, however, we are told of a second wife or concubine (see v. 6, i Chr. i. 32, and cp. xvi. 3, P, where Hagar is called na^N), whose sons are either eleven, if (with Gunkel) we omit the names ending in D or Q-' (v. 3 d), or sixteen. As to the name Keturah, Wellhausen (CH, p. 29, note i) makes it another name for Hagar. One would rather suggest (after Holz.) that ' Abraham ' may have been substituted for ' Ishmael.' It is more important, however, to explain the name Keturah. Glaser {Skizze, ii. 450) finds in it a reference to the ancient road of the Minaean incense-merchants. But if the parallel name Basemath (xxvi. 34) has come from a popular cor- ruption of the name of a N. Arabian district or region, and if ' Ishmael ' has sometimes, or even often, become jotO (misinterpreted ' oil '), we may presume that ' Keturah ' had originally nothing to do with incense, but referred to a district. Plainly the name should be grouped with nmp, imp, rcia, and perhaps even rrpmn, pmn, ma. All these 1 Cp. preceding note. 352 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL possibly, and almost certainly the three first mentioned, come from mntON. That Abraham should have an ' Ashhartite ' wife or concubine is not unnatural (cp. on ' Kiryath-arba,' xxiii. 2). Turning to the names of the ' sons ' (cp. articles in E. Bib^, I remark with some surprise that Ed. Meyer (pp. 313-322) repeats the old errors. ' Leummim,' to him, still means ' peoples ' ; Letushim is ' surely connected with ^Kaah, " to sharpen " ' ; ' Asshurim ' is not to be illustrated by 2 S. ii. 9, because ' Ashuri ' there is, ' I suppose uni- versally,' regarded as a scribe's error. Elsewhere (p. 541) it is even called ' absurd.' Let readers of Ed. Meyer beware. ' Zimran,' he says, is from not, ' a kind of stag.' An investigation of the passages in which ' Zimri ' occurs may put us on a better track. Unless i Chr. ii. 6 (a passage which is not adequately appreciated by Meyer, p. 300), be an exception, all the passages suggest that the name is of N. Arabian origin. It harmonises with this that in an early Babylonian text we find the name Zimri-hammu, which is a transferred N. Arabian name, meaning Zimri- Yarham (cp ^Jammu-rabi, Yarham-arib). We need not therefore appeal to the discoveries of Doughty, Euting, and Huber pointing to the (quite late) occupation of Central Arabia by Aramaic tribes. Yo^shan appears in ^^^ as isKrav, i.e. Jtjp"' (so Tuch and Meyer), which comes from 'am'' nt^M (see on x. 25); a is miswritten for n = m. ' Kishon,' ' Achish,' ' Cush,' may be compared. — Ishbak ; cp. Shobek, Ishbah ; also perhaps Semachiah, Sibbecai. — Shuah. Meyer has not observed that Del. has retracted his identification with the Mesopotamian Suhi {Hiob, p. 139). Shuhah (i Chr. iv. 11) is a Calebite name, derived from iintON. — Sheba and Dedan, in x. 7, are sons of Ra'amah (Yerahme'el) ; in x. 28, Sheba is a son of Yoktan. No serious difference exists. Now as to the (probably) interpolated clause, v. 3 b. The Asshurim, so troublesome to Meyer, are a branch of the tribe or race — once very widely extended — of Asshur or Ashhur. Cp. on ' Shur ' and ' Asshur,' w. 1 8 ; also on 'Sheba, Asshur,' Ezek. xxvii. 23. — Letushim (cp. on B)£07, iv. 22), comes from Ashtulim or (i Chr. ii. 53) Eshtaulim, SONS OF KETURAH; DEATH OF ABRAHAM {G^ri. xxv.) 355 for the origin of which see on iv. 25. Possibly the closing syllable of these first two names should be, not im, but dm. — Leummim, either from D"'^Nam"' or from D"''7«I>DB>'', as probably in Ps. vii. 8, Ixv. 8. See E. Bib., ' Letushim and Leummim,' and cp. on n^d, xxiii. 9. — Ephah, in i Chr. ii. 46, Caleb's concubine. — Epher (lDi»), see on cnsN, xli. 51. — Bandk, see on v. 1 8. — STilN probably = TV TO. For ins, see on xxxiii. 19; for the N. Arabian name ^"V, on 2 K. xi. 4. — TOnbw, perhaps from T\h's1. f?»2 in names may represent the second part of 'atD"' or 'oriT'. — V. 6 tells us that Abraham, in his lifetime, sent the sons of his concubines to the land of Rekem (DpT = nnT") ; TiDIp and 'p pN are variants. Among these sons is Midian (see on xxxvii. 28). With regard to xxv. 7-11 a (P) observe — (a) in v. 7 the corrupt, unbiblical ^n ItON (see on v. 5), which should rather be ii)nfflN, a gloss on Dpi ps, v. 6, revised text (cp. on v. 18); and (d) the recognition, v. 9, of Isaac and Ishmael as both sons of Abraham. THE TRIBES OF ISHMAEL (Gen. xxv. 12-17, P, 18, J) There were probably twelve tribes of Ishmael (cp. xvii. 20, P) before there were twelve of Israel ; see E. Bib., 'Tribes,' § 5. Israel was younger than Ishmael. It is rather strange to read ' the names ... by their names.' Here certainly is an error which ought to be, but has not yet been, corrected. It occurs again in xxxvi. 40, and lies in DnD»3, which, following moB rhvi, is a superfluity such as even P cannot safely be accused of (cp. Gunkel). Both here and in xxxvi. 40 it is a development of DBD, i.e. ^NSDtO"' ms (see on 'Basemath,' 23 354 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL xxvi. 34), a geographical gloss. A scribe mistook Dffl3 (finals slowly became general) for 'otDl. — fpNllM, the name of an Arab chief, temp. Tiglath-Pileser III.^ (^^J,® pp. 58, 145), probably from ttj^ and ^MO[m'']. — D»an and i>(3tOD, expansions of DtDl (see above) and i^DO? ( = 'nt!)i) respectively. — riDTr, connected with d^n? Cp. E. Bib., ' Dumah.' — Nmo, apparently mentioned by Tiglath-Pileser III. with Tema. An Ishmaelite name (see on NffiD, x. 30). — "nn, probably = Trn and mw ; cp. on Num. xxvi. 33 (ins^s). — -v^ts], to be grouped with "nni (Ex. iii. i), nrr^ (Ex. iv. 18), Tini (Josh. XV. 48), but also with naw, or rather "iJON (1. 10), "i£3M (Ezra ii. 16), and names in Assyrian deeds such as Atar-hamu, Atar-kamu, etc.^ As in the case of the goddess Atar-samain, Atar = 'Athtar = Ashtar. Cp. also Nabataean Nim (Cooke, p. 245). The men of Yetflr were Ashtarites (cp. on Dt. i. 4). — te-'D3 ; cp. on ' Nephisim ' (Ezra ii. 50). The origin, of course, was soon forgotten ; but certainly it is an early corruption of ]StOi (cp. ]DtO, 2 K. xxii. 3, 12), i.e. ptC"' (cp. TV^iySi, etc.) = JDffi^ i.e. 'jNifom'' ; cp. pD2 = ]li>3S = 'DtO\ Cp. on xxiii. i 5, Judg. v. 1 8, 21. — ntr^X)- Cp. mmp, Dt. ii. 26, etc. ; Dnpn in, x. 30 ; DTp pN, XXV. 6; i^DTpn, XV. 19. — mp is an early modification of npT = tirvw V. \% (J), which R no doubt meant as the sequel of V. 1 6, is ' full of diflficulties ' to the prevalent criticism, ' for the geographical data do not seem reconcilable ' (Oxf. Hex. ii. 3 7 a). From our point of view, however, it must be clear (see on xvi. 7, and Crit. Bib. on i S. xv. 7, xxvii. 8). that since (i) Amalek is undoubtedly a popular corruption of Yerahme'el, and (2) Ishmael and Yerahme'el are equivalent, the account given of the tribal limits of Amalek must agree with that given of those of Ishmael. It is plain, too, that in I S. XV. 7 and xxvii. 8 (see Crit. Bib.) D"'n!5iD should be read Misrim ; the Amalekite and the Misrite regions were contiguous (see on i S. xxx. g ff.).^ Hence in Gen. xxv. 18 1 The ' Musri ' spoken of is the N. Arabian, as Winckler has shown {Hibbert Journal, ii. 581, April 1904). 2 See Johns, Ass. Deeds, index, p. 551, and cp. Zimmern, KAT'^\ PP- 434/ 8 There are few things in the MT. more improbable than the THE TRIBES OF ISHMAEL (Gen. xxv. 12-17, P, 18, J) 355 it would be the height of rashness to read D"'nSD ' Misraim ' (Egypt).^ Of course, the scribe who wrote ' Asshur ' was not the same who wrote ' Shur.' majN n3Nl is a gloss, and V. 1 8 5 is a gloss upon this very gloss, derived from xvi. 1 2. The first to recognise that the Asshur spoken of is in N. Arabia was Hommel {AHT, pp. 240 /), though he misunderstands both D■'^SD and the closing words ('in las-^s) ; the former he reads Misraim, and the latter 7173 ■'3D""P», ' (that is) before Kelah ' (see on x. 1 1 ). Under the influence of xvi. 12 (the text of which is left) this became what we now read in MT. The objection to this view is twofold, (i) xvi. 12 b and xxv. 18 3 are both corrupt and must be explained together. (2) 'jDJ, ' fell,' i.e. ' settled,' is as im- possible as ITTN 73. Experience of the recurrent types of textual corruption will alone enable us to correct these errors. vriN, as in xvi. 12 b (see note), has come from TintpN (a fuller form of Asshur, not noticed by Hommel). As for 7D3 (Krochmal and Gratz guess pba), we must look out for some name that can be combined with Ashhur. Lapana, mentioned in Am. Tab. 139, 35. 57, in the land of Ubi (Damascus ?), may be the right name ; it is probably ^Laban (see on xxiv. 29). Thus v. iSb will run thus, 'in front of all Ashhur-lapan.' ' Lapanites,' by an easy cor- ruption, became ' Niphlites ' (see on ' Nephilim,' vi. 4). sentence, ' I am a young man of Egypt, the slave of an Amalekite ' (see Bible Probletns, 1904, p. 170). I look in vain for a real explanation of this. 1 A Dutch scholar (A. Noordtzij), however, actually says, 'The ex- pression "before Egypt" is only accurate if Egypt is intended.' He refers to 'the map,' and compares Ex. xv. 22, Gen. xx. i. See Th. Ti., J906, p. 392. I should like to see that wonderfiil map. STORY OF ESAU AND JACOB (Gen. xxv. 19-34) P'S introduction {vv. 19/.) to the Isaac-section is followed by J's account of the birth and upbringing of Esau and Jacob, with a small interwoven fragment of P (v. 26 5). First as to the twins and their struggling in the womb. How large a place twins occupy in mythologies — suggested by the heavenly twins'^ — is well known. Dr. Rendel Harris's recent book on the Cult of the Twins exempts me from the duty of seeking after completeness. I may, however, mention a Polynesian parallel to the story before us, taken from a creation-myth of Mangaia. Tangaroa (see p. 9) and Kongo are the twins ; the former should have been born first, but gave precedence to his brother Rongo.^ And just as Esau is favoured by Isaac, and Jacob by Ribkah, so Tangaroa is the favourite of his father Vatea, and Rongo of his mother Papa. Tangaroa was the cleverer, and in- structed his brother Rongo in the arts of agriculture. A still more complete parallel is the story of Akrisios and Proitos, sons of Abas, king of Argos, who began their rivalry in their mother's womb.^ In Egyptian mythology the nearest parallel is the birth-story of the divine brothers^ Osiris and Set-Typhon.* They were not indeed twins, being born, the one on the first, the other on the third of the ' additional days ' {r\yi,- lirarjoy^kvaC), but equally with Esau and Jacob they belong to the class of hostile brothers, sO' 1 The original heavenly twins were surely the sun and moon. 2 Gill, Myths and Songs from the S. Pacific, p. lo (quoted by Stucken, p. 232). 3 Apollod. Biblioth. ii. 2, i (Stucken, p. 200). Cp. also the story of Kronos and Rhea (Hesiod, Theog. 467-476), also adduced by Stucken). * See Maspero, Dawn of Civ. pp. 172, 208. 356 STORY OF ESA U AND JACOB (Gen. xxv. 19-34) 357 well represented in myths.^ Of Typhon, Plutarch {De. Is. c. 1 2) relates, ' neither in due time, nor in the right place, but breaking through with a blow, he leaped out through his mother's side,' and a similar story is told of the birth of the Vedic god Indra.^ For this we have a closer Hebrew parallel in the birth-story of the twins Peres and Zerah (xxxviii. 27-30 ; see note). We see from this how the early Hebrew stories grew up. Features of mythic origin attached themselves to personages who had not, so far as we can now see, a mythic origin. Had we the Hebrew stories in a more complete and a more original form, we might be able to reproduce the under- lying myths. It is something, however, to discern how these strange features in the stories of the patriarchs arose. Naturally the oracle interprets the struggling in the womb as an omen of a feud between the brothers. In P's highly characteristic contribution we meet with the new and strange geographical name Paddan-aram. Its meaning, according to Winckler, is doubtful, but it is certainly not = Mesopotamia {GI ii. 51). The more familiar name ' Aram-naharaim ' has already (see on xxiv. i o) been shown to point most probably to the southern Aram, i.e. some part of the N. Arabian border-land. As to ' Paddan,' our safest course is to group it with those other O.T. names of which pd forms the kernel (see on Num. i. i o), and with the Assyrian names Padi and Paddfl-ili, and the Punic ilQ.^ Nor must we ignore the fact that ]T[B in Ezra ii. 44 is combined with Dip and Nni>"'D, both ultimately corruptions of mntCN ; also that "n^ma (Num. i. i o) has probably come from "i^nmN ^S. Paddan was therefore presumably in Asshur-Yerahme'el. We may confirm this by Hos. xii. 1 2 ; the present text is plainly wrong, but underneath it we can see ' and Jacob fled to the field of Aram, and Israel served in Ashhur (ntBM from 'ntBN), and in Ashhur he was preserved (lDt&3) ' ; i.e. Aram (Yerahme'el) and Ashhur are parallel, equivalent names for the region where Jacob sojourned with ^ Cp. Cain and Abel, Romulus and Remus, Joskeha and Tawiscara (Iroquois of N. America). ^ Oldenberg, Relig. des Veda, p. 134, note 3. ^ See Johns, Ass. Deeds, iii. 238. 358 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Laban. We may also mention the problem of the title of a Cassite king of Babylonia, ' king of Padan and Alman ' (Hommel, Gr. p. 190). Do these names come from Arabia? We now pass on to J's portion. We must, as usual, give our best attention both to the names and to J's explanations of the names ; the latter may turn out to be suggestive. The names are Esau, Jacob, Seir, and Edom. IffiS (Esau) is taken to mean ' hairy, shaggy ' ; ■^ if this is correct, there must, according to analogies, have been a district to which the name ' hairy,' i.e. perhaps ' wooded,' was applied. Now there was certainly a district called in very ancient times ^ by the name T'i^m (Seir), and it is just conceivable that iffii^ and -csXH may be synonymous and refer to the same district.^ Unfortunately we cannot be at all sure that Ti'tO originally meant 'hairy,' (i) because the allusion to this meaning in xxvii. 1 1 , coming from an old Hebrew writer, is more likely to be wrong than right, and beside it in v. 16 there stands (as Gunkel supposes) an allusion to the possible meaning ' goat ' ; (2) because, now at any rate, Seir is for the most part barren (Noldeke, E. Bib., col. 1 1 84), and (3) because analogy requires that Ti^QJ as a geographical name should be a curtailed form of some longer and more widely-spread name. What that longer name is we can hardly fail to see. For several reasons it is most probably "i^aJN ; note especially how often in the MT. iSQ) has come from -nffiN or TinffiN (see on xxii. 17). Now if the origin of •vsXSi may, on grounds of analogy, be traced to n"imN, so also may that of iffis.* In the case of neither word can any stress safely be laid on to. There is a group of related names, such as itos% ^N■'toJ?^ hvf%^., H'^tes, in 1 On doubtful philological grounds (see E. Bib., col. 1333, note 3). Aware of this, Driver (p. 246) and Hommel {Gr. p. 164, note 3, but cp. p. 167, note 3) would read 'Eshau instead of Esau. 2 See the famous passage in the Harris papyrus (Rameses HI.), and cp. W. M. M. As. u. Eur. pp. 135/ 240. 8 That Esau and Seir are closely connected geographically is plain from xxxvi. 8 and Dt. ii. 5, 8. ^ Cp. on Dt. iii. 17 (nnw and iniPN equivalent), and for the curtail- ment of iiis'V into wv cp. Nil? from •m^ in Isa. v. 20, xxx. 28. In xxv. 34 (see below) a gloss informs us that ' Esau ' is = ' Ashtar.' STOR y OF ESA U AND JA COB (Gen. xxv. 19-34) 359 all of which ^ ■'to seems to have come from iwm, while rrtos in ^Mnto has probably come from nna>M (cp. rriON from 'ntD» in Hos. xii. 12). We can now understand still better how Esau and Seir, and Seir and the Horites respectively, came to be so closely linked, and also how Esau and Jacob came to be represented as brothers. All these names except the last come from Asshur or (in the case of Hor) Ashhur, while the last (Upi'"') ultimately goes back to Dm"'. See on xxxii. 28, and note that the current explanations, ' He follows ' or ' He rewards,' imply an exaggerated confidence in the persistence of the original forms of Hebrew names. On the supposed parallel to v. 26 a in Hos. xii. 4 a, see on xxxii. 23-33. May we connect 'Esau' with the Usoos of Philo,of Byblus (Kms. Prcep. Ev. i. 10. 10? A direct connexion's plausible but unsafe. So far as legendary details go, there is not much similarity between them, and Usoos is much more probably either the personification of the city of USu * (Palaetyrus) or the Graecised form of T'tDS, i.e. Ashhur. Thus an indirect connexion of Usoos. with Esau may perhaps be admitted. The name of his brother Samem- rumos may also be indirectly connected with Jacob, i.e. Yerahme'el, for ' Samem ' almost certainly represents 'pNSCtD'' (see p. 18, note i, and cp. on xxiv. 3), and 'rum' comes from D"js, so that the whole name is = Ishmael-aram. Next, as to J's explanation of 'Esau' (v. 25). Accord- ing to MT. it runs thus — ' and the first came out ruddy, all of him like a hair-mantle ; so his name was called Esau.' It should be plain, in spite of Winckler,^ that ■'3mN cannot mean ' shaggy.' Hence either '"tn must have displaced some word meaning ' shaggy ' (so Budde),^ or ~[SXQ rmtO needs critical correction, so as to produce the meaning ' like a red garment.' The former view is unnatural, for there is no word meaning ' shaggy ' that at all resembles 'tn, and a violent substitution of one word for another is most improbable. IS©, however, may without violence be corrected, so as to 1 Cp. the name vi?j; on a Hebrew seal (Cooke, p. 362). ^ See E. Bib., ' Esau,' § i ; ' Hosah,' and cp. Hommel, Gr. pp. 166/ ^ AOF\. 344/ ; cp. Jeremias, ATAO, p. 235. * Die bibl. Urgeschichte (1883), p. 217, note 2. 36o TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL produce the required sense. How often do we find isB) miswritten for naJw (see on xxii. 1 7, xxiii. i o, xxiv. 60) ! To justify this let. me remark (i) that we are now concerned with a professed explanation of the name "ia>i>, i.e. nifflw, and (2) that (if I am not much mistaken) coloured stuffs are repeatedly spoken of in the true text of the O.T. as special commodities of Ishmaelite (Yerahme'elite) or Asshurite Arabia. Thus, it was a ' mantle of Shinar ' {i.e. of Ishmael- Arabia ; see on x. i o) that Achan coveted under Joshua (see on Josh. vii. 21), and a difficult phrase in Am. ii. 8 should probably be understood as ' Habulite {i.e. Yerah- me'elite) garments.' Lastly, in Ezek. xxxiii. 5 _/; we find the Asshurites referred to as clothed in blue-purple, and in xxvii. 7 (rev. text), blue-purple and red-purple are spoken of as coming from Ishmaelite Arabia.^ These facts make it reasonable to suppose that the colour of Esau's, i.e. oi Asshur's, skin is compared to that of mantles such as were known far and wide through the Arabian merchants. The 'red -purple' of such mantles suggested a comparison for the ruddy skin and blue veins of an infant. The figure derived an additional fitness from the fact that these mantles were ' mantles of Asshur,' ^ which supplied a fresh reason for the child's being called ' Asshur.' It is customary to find a strong dash of humour in the description in w. 25. 'In those witticisms,' says Peters,^ ' one sees before him just the type of wild Edomite which Israel held up to laughter as Esau. The open shirt displays a breast so hairy that it looks like a goat's beard hanging down. The hairy legs below the short shirt might pass for a satyr's limbs. The hair of the head' — but why should I continue ? The description is quite out of place as an illustration of v. 25. Esau is not here represented as 1 For ' Ishmael ' the text has ' Elishah ' ; cp. x. 4, ' Elishah and Tarshish ' (Ishmael and Ashtar). ^ The phrase isa rsrvn. occurs again only in Zech. xiii. 4, where the reading seems correct ; the characteristic garment of a prophet is meant. But how strange it would be if the child Esau were said to have looked altogether like a little prophet ! On ' sackcloth,' see the E. Bib. article. ^ Early Hebrew Story ( 1 904), pp. 131 /. STOR Y OF ESA U AND JACOB (Gen. xxv. 19-34) 361 ridiculously hairy/ nor as having a skin reddened by long exposure to the sun. If Esau is called 'admoni, so also is David (i S. xvi. 12, xvii. 42), in whose case the 'ruddiness' spoken of is a sign of youthful beauty ; a skin burned by exposure to the sun would have been otherwise described (see Lam. iv. 8, and contrast Cant. v. 10). We cannot therefore avoid the conclusion that the account in xxv. 25 represents Esau as a handsome child, with a ruddy hue like the young David. At the same time it must be admitted that with the tradition of the filched birthright in chap, xxvii. there is very distinctly interwoven a reference to a birth-story in which Esau, or rather Seir ( = Esau), was represented as hairy ("T^I^to), and probably the details which contain the reference are meant to be humorous.^ Unfortunately the birth-story in question is lost. The narrator does not leave his story unfinished. We naturally ask how 'the boys' iv. 27) grew up. According to the MT., ' Esau became a man skilled in hunting, a man of the open land (mto), and Jacob was a perfect man, a dweller in tents.' Here, as in w. 2 5 a, we have two double clauses, and Gunkel, as before, assigns them to different writers. Ought he not, however, first of all to have examined the text, having due regard to usage and to recurrent types of correction? Surely the phrase mOJ ©"'n ought to be questioned, (i) because it is too vague, (2) because it occurs nowhere else, and (3) because the phrase which would give the nearest analogy (^D^M^ Wn) occurs only in one passage of MT., and there appears to be corrupt. Observe, too, that the parallel phrase in this description is not (as most suppose) a^'^HN lt»^ but on ©"'N, and we have a right to expect some further light on the names of the twin brothers, an, which critics have found so perplexing,^ ' It is not wise to drag in an Arabic word to explain a very doubt- ful Hebrew word. ^ Cp., however, the archaeological explanation of W. R. Smith and Sayce {E. Bib., col. 1334, note i). ' Some explain on 'simple, plain' (@ ajrXao-Toj; Aq. dirAovs; Vg. simplex) ; others, 'quiet,' or {E. Bib., col. 1334, note 4) 'harmless.' But Dn everywhere else means 'blameless,' or 'devoted to God.' This does not suit here ; textual criticism must therefore be applied. 362 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL must come from fpinn = ^NSatoV for ' Ishmael' is the equivalent of ' Yerahme'el,' and it is the name ' Yerah- me'el ' which underlies the much-worn and corrupted name ' Ya'akob.' ' Esau,' then, must obviously be described as nn^N tD"'M. He was the progenitor of a race which dwelt in a mountainous part of Ashhur known as Seir. Ya'akob, on the other hand, represented the dwellers in a neighbouring but more fertile region known to the Israelites as Yishma"el or Yerahme'el. Thus the names of the brothers are clearly accounted for. Now, too, we can see the genesis of the superfluous ntD"'"l {y. 34), and are relieved from the necessity of endorsing Wellhausen's satirical comment on Hebrew supplementers and redactors.^ It is probably a corruption of 'ntCN Nirr, ' that is, Ashtar' — a gloss on iffii?, which intruded into the text at a very unsuitable place.^ We can also now see the popular justification of the equation, Esau = Edom {v. 30, cp. xxxvi. i). The obscure name Edom was popularly interpreted ' red,' and ' Esau ' (Asshur) by a little ingenuity acquired the same meaning. As to their occupations, ' Esau was a skilled hunter, Jacob a dweller in tents.' No more is wanted, and no more is given. The rest of the passage, as we have seen, is geographical. 1 Cp. 'jjjinN (i K. xvi. 31), and note that in i K. xxii. 34 Sion has become isri^. See also on i S. x. 10. 2 ' When the original stops at the statement " he ate,'' some com- passionate soul among the editors is sure to give the man something to drink' (Wellh. Sam. p. 25), quoted approvingly by Gunkel. 3 So in I S. i. 9 rtnn nnxi comes from twv. ihb'n mn, ' that is, Ashhur [Ashtar],' a gloss on 'Shiloh' ; 'Ashtar' is a variant to 'Ashhur.' In I K. iv. 20 D'Hr (''ni? from ^vm) has a similar origin. ISAAC AT GERAR AND BEERSHEBA (Gen, XXVI. 1-33) Some details (from J and others) respecting Isaac's life at Gerar and Beersheba. Note that Isaac, like Abraham, finds his own moral and religious standards recognised by his hosts and neighbours. All that has to be said here relates to names ; it may be supplemented by what has been noticed in chap. xx. (on geographical points and on 'Pelistim'). Cp. also on xii. 10-20, xxi. 22-31. In the present narrative criticism reveals to us many half-effaced indications of a N. Arabian background. Thus in v. 2 (end) we should certainly read fpNom*' n^N pNl (see on xxii. 2), and in v. 3 riNl pNl nil has probably arisen out of ml pN3, ' in the land of Gerar,' a gloss on the preceding words ' in the land of Asshur-Yerahme'el.' — In v. 20 ptos, like wyvi elsewhere, is one of the many early distortions of mntDN ; cp. ptC1i> from nntCN [Di>], Ps. Ixxii. 4, and see on nSD"', xi. 29 ; pn"^, xvii. 19. — In v. 26 ' Pikol his general' comes from ' Abimelech, prince of Sibeon ' (see on xxi. 22). We may therefore well question the correctness of mns (' Ahuzzath '). Its true origin is plain ; it has come from rini&M, i.e. mnOJN. See on itn, xxii. 22. insiD also needs re-examination. The specialising renderings 'his confi- dential friend ' {BDE), ' his vizier ' (Holz.), cannot be well supported.^ Probably 'o has come from D"i.m nIH, ' that is, Aram (Yerahme'el),' a gloss on intBN. Thus v. 2.6 becomes, 'and Abimelech went to him from Gerar [Ashhur, i.e. Aram ; i.e. Abimelech, a prince of Ishmael].' To connect ' Ahuzzath ' with the Babylonian kakodaemon Ahhazu (Stucken) is rather fantastic. ^ @ o vvfi(f>ay(i}yh? avTov (cp. Judg. xiv. 20 ® [A and Luc.]). 363 ESAU'S WIVES (Gen. xxvi. 34, 35) Singularly enough, the first wife is called rT'Tirr\ originally perhaps IT'lin, Horith, i.e. Ashhorith (cp. on xxxvi. 20 ; also on iii. 20). Her father is inN3, or more probably il"i5 (cp. on Judg. ix. 21). ' Hittite ' should, as usual, be ' Ashhartite ' ; the danger of Esau's marrying a true Hittite wife was small enough. Cp. on ' Ephron,' xxiii. 8. The second is nDQ)3. As in ' Bashan ' and other names (see on Ex. xxxi. 2) the initial n is a fragment of in, i.e. TO (cp. on xvii. 5); nt&, as often, represents JotD"', i.e. ^Ni>Dffi\ No wonder that in xxxvi. 2 ' Basemath ' should be described as ' daughter of Ishmael.' Cp. on '■> DtD3, iv. 26, and on D"'Dtl>l (•'oten), I K. X. 25. JACOB WINS THE BIRTHRIGHT (Gen. xxvn.) We have here an account (from JE) of the crafty device of Jacob (the Hebrew Odysseus) for appropriating the blessing of the first-born, which by rights was Esau's. Morality and religion, as Gunkel well remarks, were not as yet inseparable ; morality, in fact, is a plant of slower growth in ancient than in more recent times. Jacob and 364 JACOB WINS THE BIRTHRIGHT (Gen. xxvii.) 365 Esau may also fitly be regarded as impersonations of the national character of their respective posterities. The story, with its implied approbation of successful shiftiness,^ flattered the national pride of the Israelites, and yet it is difficult not to observe something like a charitable feeling on the part of the narrators (JE) towards the unfortunate Esau. The narrative as revised by them may be inconsistent, but ancient hearers and readers were not as exacting as modern. Nor is this charity towards Esau the only indication that the story has passed through phases. In v. 11 Esau is described as isto tD"'N. Must not the story originally have given the name of Jacob's brother as T'SCp? See above, p. 241, and cp. Gunkel, who suggests that in v. 9, etc. the early narrator gave, not '''Xx, but D"'^» "VsXO. Let us now look at the stratagem of the crafty Ribkah and her apt pupil Jacob. ' She took the choicest raiment of Esau, and put it upon Jacob, her younger son ; she put the skins of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck ' {vv. 1 5 /i). Isaac then felt the hands of Jacob and was deceived, and blessed his younger son Jacob {yu. 21-23). To mitigate the strangeness of this procedure Robertson Smith suggests that, when seeking the paternal benediction, Jacob is invested with the skins of sacrificial animals, as if Isaac were a semi-divine being.^ The explanation is certainly in accordance with facts of archseo- logy. It is more natural, however, to look for illustrations in comparative folklore and mythology. Such illustrations abound, and seem to prove that primitive races everywhere delight in narratives of great results obtained by the craft of favourite heroes, like Jacob. Very near the story of Jacob and Isaac is that of Odysseus and Polyphemus in the Odyssey. Odysseus, after blinding the Cyclops, binds his companions and himself under the rams of the monster. Polyphemus, when he lets out the rams, feels every one of them on the back, unaware that under each of the rams one of his crafty enemies is bound.^ Similarly the Lombards 1 See E. Bib., ' Esau,' § 2. 2 Rel. Sem.^^\ pp. 437, 467 ; cp. E. Bib., col. 1334, note i ; Barlow, The Jonah-legend, pp. 111-118. ^ W. Grimm collected a number of European and Asiatic stories 366 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL told how Godan (Wodan) was induced to bless their ancestors by the artifice of their women, who held their loosened hair before their face, and so deceived the god, who gave them the name of Longibarbi (Longibardi) and promised them the victory. Other specimens of mytho- logical fraud are given by Stucken, Astralmythen, pp. 343 j^ The tale is full of picturesque and circumstantial details which need not here be expounded. I may, however, venture to suggest a small correction of the lexicons. In v. 3 MT. we meet with the unique word T>r\, supposed to mean ' quiver,' to which a pronominal suffix is appended. But is it probable that ' Take now thy weapons (or, thy implements), thy quiver and thy bow,' is correct ? Certainly not. In a narrative the only natural expression is ' thy bow and thy arrows,' and, even if this be doubtful, nEJtON is the only attested word for ' quiver.' Surely T'^n must be corrupt ; like ^^n in xxiv. 55, it most probably represents ^lin, i.e. ^sariM (Ethbaal = Ishmael). T'^a, too, is hardly right. Why should Isaac waste words ? The suffix in T^^a is a dittograph of what may seem like a suffix in T^fjn. Read ■ifj^ and combine it with fjlin ; also omit the T before 'p. Thus we get, ' Take [the weapon of Tubal] thy bow ' ; the bracketed words are a gloss. Tubal = Ishmael ; the ' bow of Yerahme'el ' ( = Ishmael) was the most destructive ; see Jer. xlix. 35, 'the bow of Elam,' [i.e. Yerahme'el), and on Hos. i. 7. closely resembling the story of Polyphemus (see Die Sage von Polyphem, 1857). A similar story exists in the Avesta {Ard Yasht, x. 56). See Stucken, p. 345. JACOB'S JOURNEY (Gen. xxviii. 1-9, 10-22) The narrative in xxviii. 1-9 (P) should follow on xxvi. 34, 35. Isaac blesses Jacob (see on xvii. i, 3), and sends him to Paddan-aram. Esau marries another wife, named n^no, which, of course, like fpino, nfpino, ]"ibno, "hno, represents a fragment of f?NQm\ Cp. on nn3D, xxxvi. 23. Ewald {Gesch. i. 5 S3) would read nQtD3, because of xxxvi. 3. But see ad loc. As Gunkel points out, it was by Esau's marriages that, according to P, he missed the blessing of Isaac. Vv. 10-22 (cp. on xxxv. 9-15). Following his mother's advice, Jacob — the crafty winner of the blessing — leaves Beersheba (see introduction to chap, xx.), and bends his steps towards Haran (see on xi. 28). On the way he sleeps at Bethel, and has a striking vision. Into Prof. Flinders Petrie's interesting conjecture^ I need not enter. Dreams at a sanctuary had, of course, a special value and significance. It is rather (i) the contents of the vision and (2) the religious phraseology that I hope to re-interpret here more correctly. I must, however, first recall to the reader's recollection that the Bethel-story is composite, and that some have supposed that J knew nothing either of the ' ladder ' or of the ' angels of Elohim,' but only of an appearance of Yahweh. This imposes upon me the duty of investigating the two phrases rendered respectively ' a ladder ' and ' angels of God.' And first as to Q^D. If this word is rightly read and rendered, it is difficult not to suspect a kinship between Jacob's ladder and the most glorious of the many mytho- logical ' ladders,' the ' path of the gods,' i.e. the rainbow 1 Sinai (1906), p. 69. 367 368 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL (p. 138). Or, if we preferred it, we might suppose in Assyriological fashion that in the original narrative a gigantic step-tower was meant (see on xi. 1-9), or at any rate that the ' ladder ' consisted of seven gigantic steps, corre- sponding to the seven tubukati of heaven.^ It is difficult, however, to make this supposition very plausible ; as in the case of the ' tower of Babel,' it is best to begin our researches with careful criticism of the text. First, then, as to D^p. It is true that D71d in the Mishna, ndSid in Chald., and sullam in Ar. mean ' ladder ' ; also that in Phoen.^ no^^D is doubtfully conjectured to mean ' ladder ' or ' steps.' If, however, D7D in our narrative meant ' ladder,' we may be sure that it would have a gloss, such as n^SD, attached to it. Further, if we accept d^d, and explain it thus, why is V7i> in v. 13 to be rendered ' beside him ' or ' before him ' ? ' Upon it ' would be so much more natural, however inconvenient for the analysis of the sources. It is true, critical analysis has seemed to show that E's account contained no mention of an appearance of Yahweh, and no revelation beyond that of the peculiar sanctity of the spot, but can this be called probable ? ' Angels of Elohim ' are but a poor substitute for God Himself And what, pray, is the raison cTitre of the ascending and descending angels ? Surely Jacob needs some direct message of help and guid- ance from his God. It may assist us here to consider the second phrase, 'angels of Elohim' (dttSn ■'SnIpd). Can these words be correct? Scarcely. It has, I know, been held that the plurality of angelic beings has grown out of the one QTtSm "[vhti. But in a legend like this we do not expect to find either many angels or a single angel. Besides, such a phrase as W'rhin ■'DM^JD is hardly probable. Except in xxxii. 2 the Qias^PD are not again referred to in pre-exilic literature. And the phrase in question is all the more suspicious because, as we have seen (on xvi. 7, xxi. 17), both mn"' •^tho and d'^hSn '^d have come, through the 1 See Jeremias, ATAO, p. 233, cp. 11/ ; Peters, Anc. Heb. Story, p. 112, and cp. Cumont, Mystires de Mithras, p. 144. 2 Lidzbarski, Hdbuch. der nordsem. Epigr. p. 329 ; Cooke, North- Semitic Inscriptions, p. 73. JACOB'S JOURNEY (Gen. xxviii. 1-9, 10-22) 369 manipulation of a redactor, from mn"' ^NDm"', a compound divine name in which Yerahme'el takes the first place, because intervention in human affairs specially belongs to the second member of the divine duad or triad of the Israelites. May we not now proceed further, and maintain that DTT^M iDn^o has the same origin as 'f?N IN^O, i.e. that the original text had '■> ^Nom"', and that what we now find is due to the redactor? In this case 11 D■'^T'^ xsh^ most probably comes from 'innT X^^ (ll or fjll from hv(Q as in 1331, Ex. XV. i). This will be a gloss on the miswritten word ■'3s^D. By this time our eyes ought to be open to the most probable origin of Q7d. Where should Yahweh be, but standing beside the sacred pillar of Bethel ? This pillar in a correct form of the text would be called ^dd, which, like )Dn, designates a standing stone or pillar sacred to the special deity of N. Arabia, sometimes called ' Yerahme'el,' whence hammdn (see on xxxii. 3) and sometimes ' Ishmael,' whence semel (see on Dt. iv. 16, and Crii. Bib. on Ezek. viii. 3, 5). The statement in z/. 12 that the top of the ' Ishmael-pillar ' (70d) reached to heaven suggests that in the original story it may have been a symbol of the mountain of the gods (cp. on xi. 4). Compare the two enormous pillars of brass,' called respectively Ishmael (Boaz) and Yerahme'el (Yachin), set up in front of Solomon's temple.^ In the historical period a great Ishmael-pillar probably did stand at Bethel. Jacob, however, only saw it in a dream-vision. The words which originally closed the sentence in z*. 12 are not preserved. But the sense may be correctly given by connecting v. 12 and z/. 1 3 thus, ' And he dreamed, and behold, a pillar set up on earth, whose top reached to heaven. And behold, Yerahme'el- Yahweh stood by it, and said, I am Yahweh,' etc. It may be well to add that since the ' name ' of Yahweh is ' in ' the divine being Yerahme'el (see on Ex. xxiii. 21), it is right to make Yerahme'el- Yahweh say, ' I am Yahweh.' But why does the divine speaker continue, ' the God of Abraham thy father ' ? Was not Isaac Jacob's father ? Nor is 'the God of Isaac' the most natural divine title. 1 See p. 30, note 2, and E. Bib., 'Jachin and Boaz.' 24 370 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL We shall meet with the phrase TilN TrfjN again in Ex. iii. 6, T^« fjN in xlix. 2 5 , and the parallel -"nN TT^n in xxxi. 5 (29 @), 42, xxxii. 10, Ex. XV. 2, xviii. 4. Most probably both •^iN and "[i^n in these phrases come from "yrs ^ as does ■ilN sometimes in the narrative books (see e.g. on iv. 20, xi. 29) and often in personal names (see on xvii. 5). Naturally the God whose primary connexion is with the N. Arabian border-land calls himself the God of Arabia. As for the preceding word DmiM, it should probably be Dm"' "y^s (cp. on xvii. 5), a variant to the 115 underlying TIN, and pn^-^ is either a textual or a popular corruption of nntON (see on xvii. 19). The God of Arabia or Ashhur could make an assignment of the land at his good pleasure. It is possible, however, that the original story did not contain the promise of the land. For both in z/. 16 (J) and in w. 17 (E) it is the awe-inspiring theophany, and not a comforting promise of earthly greatness, which fills the mind of the pilgrim. On awaking he says, ' Yahweh is in this place.' ' This is nothing less than the house of Elohim, this is the gate of heaven.' It is the ' stone ' to which Jacob here refers, anticipating the massebak ^ which doubtless stood later at the entrance of the sanctuary to Bethel. May we venture to assume a connexion between the □•^rrfpN nil oi v. 22 (which, in Sievers' hands, becomes ^n JVy) and the Greek ^ai,Tv\o<; and ^airvXiov ? Certainly not on the ground of the apparent resemblance of ^aiTvXo^ to 7« nil, for the correct Greek representation of ht^ n""! is ^aidrfK.^ It is true, however, that thebaityls are represented in Philo of Byblus as XLdov efJL-<^v')(pi, ' animated stones,' * and the fact of the theophany, not less real to Jacob than if he had seen and not dreamed it, proves that the 'stone' was already thought to be pervaded by the material essence of divinity — an essence which Jacob sought to heighten by 1 TnN represents any in xii. i (cp. xxxi. 29), xlix. 4, 8, though not in xlix. 25 (see note). 2 See E. Bib., ' Massebah ' (G. F. Moore), and references in BDB, 1 1 2 5 (5. 8 Lagrange, Rel. se'm.^^^ p. 194. * The baityls were supposed to have come from heaven {i.e. some- times at least they were aerolites) ; this could not be said of Jacob's stone. Cp. E. Bib., col. 2978 (Moore). JACOB'S JOURNEY (Gen. xxvni. 1-9, 10-22) 371 sacrificially pouring oil upon it {v. 18), i.e. some mysteriously sacred oil which was as effectual for its purpose as the ' oil of life' which flows in the heavenly Paradise (see p. 41). We cannot for our present purpose make use of the Baby- lonian divine name of west Semitic origin, Bait-ili, for this (see below) has undergone transformation, much less of the corrupt phrase '?Nitt)"' ]1n in xlix. 24. Nor can I see more than an analogy in the anointing of the foundation-stones of Assyrian temples^ {KB i. 45, ii. 113, 151, 261). Lastly, as to v. 19. The second part is admittedly a gloss, which records the fact that the place now called Bethel formerly bore the name of Luz. These two place- names — the true origin of which was doubtless forgotten when the narrators lived — are really equivalent. Using right methods we find that ^xri"'!, equally with the divine name (KAT, p. 347 ; see above) Bait-ili, is a very early transformation of f?Mnn« = ^Ni^otO"',^ while ^'^h has come by transposition of letters from hy\ = hl1, i.e. 'cDJi ; see on jlfpiT, XXX, 20, and on Judg. i. 26 (yh=vrh). Probably dfjiM, which precedes, is an old variant to vh, and comes from 7NDm"' or from ^MSntB"> (cp. on xxi. 33). At any rate, there is no reason for such a strong antithetic particle as dSin ; the parallel gloss in Judg. i. 23 is quite complete without it. © has already led the way with its OvXa/j,fiav, Judg. viii. 11. All these words come from fragments of ' Yerahme'el.' Lovers of serpent- myths, however, may prefer to regard ' Leah ' as the name of a numen in the form of a serpent. And so we get back to mother Eve the serpent ! This is Ed. Meyer's view ; he also supposes that Leah was originally only the mother of Simeon and Levi. As to the names of the maids, the usual explanations are only poor guesses.^ ns^'r must be grouped with vpl (Neh. iii. 30) and f]'?to (x. 26), which come from hyi and hyti respectively, i.e. represent fpNSatU''. Cp. also ^It (in fjarN) = 'Dm\ and on nnsfjs. Num. xxvi. 33. The fellow- name nrh':! must be grouped with the rhs'y of Josh. xix. 3, for which i Chr. iv. 29 gives nrhl. Cp also jn^l, xxxvi. 27, I Chr. vii. 10, and probably \rry, Josh. xv. 6. The occur- rences are significant, and the common origin of the forms is 'onr or 'otO"' (cp. on xi. 9). Cp. E. Bib., col. 541 8, note 2; Ed. Meyer, Die Israel, pp. 344, 531, who misses the highly probable connexion between ]n3 and yrhl. ^ ®'s aSi\(f>ov prix"-!^ presupposes 33inK, i.e. Ashhur-rekab. ^ Stucken (^Beiirdge, 1902, p. 62) connects ns'^i with ris^\ and nnSa with na^a, and explains by mythology. Cp. also E. Bib. ' Zilpah. BIRTHS OF JACOB'S CHILDREN (Gen. XXIX. 31-xxx. 24) What lies before us here is no genuine tradition, but an artificial link between two series , of popular stories. It was necessary to record the births of the sons and of the daughter of Jacob, of whom so much was to be said later (Gunkel). The names are accompanied by popular explanations. It is customary to look down upon the simple-minded people who derived ji"in"i from i''3M HNT (v. 32), not knowing that Reuben is really cognate with the Arabic ri^idl, ' lion ' or ' wolf,' ^ though some of our wise teachers prefer to speculate on possible meanings of a word re'u. A keener criticism, however, needs to be applied to the names. If we group jnwn with the forms which resemble it, INT ^N (xvi. 1 3), hti^^2}•\ (xxxvi. 4), fjN'^iN (2 S. xxiii. 20), rr'NT (i Chr. iv. 2), ^siT^ (Judg. vi. 32), and in Aramaic inscriptions ht^ll, f?NDT (Cook, Gloss, pp. loy f!), and study these names in the light of our previous experience, we shall be able to give a final solution of the problem of ' Reuben ' (cp. E. Bib., ' Reuel ') ; for it has, I think, been abundantly shown that f?i?n in proper names has frequently come from the second half of ^Ni^offii or ^NDm^ and that "int (like inM and ■'Ni) may also represent a fragment of 7«Dn"i% and no one, I suppose, doubts that the final j has taken the place of an original h. JllNl, therefore, is a corruption (the origin of which was early forgotten) of 7MlD^^^ This will appear still more necessary when we have criticised z*. 32 ^. It appears at first sight as if the closing words, ' for now my husband will love me,' should be a 1 For this and other explanations see Hogg's accurate conspectus in E. Bib., ' Reuben,' § 9 ; and cp. Noldeke's opinion, ibid. ' Names,' § 62. 374 BIRTH OF JACOB'S CHILDREN (Gen. xxix. 31-xxx. 24) 375 second explanation (due to E ?) of the name Reuben. But how is it possible that ■'^iriN"' can have been supposed either to explain or even to illustrate pinn ? Gunkel has remarked that the true word (now supplanted by lains'^) must have contained the n of piNl, and has suggested as the original verb miK, 'to praise,' or ^ST (Dan. ii. 48), 'to magnify.' The objection is that we require a synonym for ■'33nM"', and such a synonym Gunkel has not produced. The only true synonym for the verb now in possession is ■'aon'T' (om, ' to have a warm affection for,' common in Aramaic, and actually used here by Pesh.). This reading 1 would restore. It is true, this implies that the form of the name here explained was not ]niNi but ]D"im (or the like). But may we not assume that different forms of the name were current in early times? In fact, in v. 'iT.a, by the explanation nvn ■'■'3S3, J implies not jnwT but ]"i»m. Just so in xxx. 20 we shall find it probable that the explanations of ' Zebulun ' suggest other forms of the tribal name, viz. Zabdon and Shalmon. Next, as to Shimeon (pi^DB) = jspm), v. 33. Have we here a hyaena-tribe ? ^ Surely not. The name cannot be separated from so©, ' Shema,' the name of a Calebite clan (i Chr. ii. 43 /i), connected genealogically with Rekem, Raham, and Yorkeam, all of which are forms of Yarham or Yerahme'el. Cp. also the tribal name d"'31SD. ]»DQ> is doubtless a form of bsSDlB"',^ for the origin of which see on xvi. II. According to Spiegelberg, a Hyksos king had a name like ' Simeon.' ' Levi ' (ii^) is traced in v. 34 to XX^, ' to be joined ' (cp. Num. xviii. 2, 4, P), a connexion which some moderns also favour, while others prefer to regard ' Levi ' as the gentilic of ' Leah.' ^ Sound method, however, requires us to group "^y? with 'h'\ti, which, in an earlier form of the text of Zech. xi. 15 and Dan. viii. 2, was probably "hnM^ or ■'7ilM, i.e. "haarrw In Dan. i.c. we actually find ■''?1M and f?mN side by side, as alternative readings (cp. the Greek readings, 1 See Hogg, E. Bib., ' Simeon,' § 8. ^ So Land, Be Gids, Oct. 1871, p. 21, 'Simeon, a body of Ish- maelites which attached itself to Israel.' ' Wellh. Prol.'''^ p. 146; Stade, ZATW, 1881, p. 116. 376 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL E. Bib., ' Ulai '). The Yerahme'elites were specially known as priests and diviners ; one of the words for priests (d"'1D3) most probably comes from D"'Dpn, i.e. men of Rekem (Yerah- me'el).^ Hommel's comparison of the S. Arabian laviu, 'priest' {AHT, p. 278), and Ed. Meyer's connexion (p. 426) of ■'17 (and nvh) with ' Liwyathan,' now become unnecessary. We now come to the important name Yehudah, z/. 35. Popular etymology makes this the ' praised (renowned) ' ; cp. xlix. 8. Land {I.e.) defends this ; he regards Yehudah, Reuben (' reconciled, reunited '), and Simeon (' Ishmaelitish ') as late. This, however, will not hold. In Josh. xix. 45 ^^^■' is a Danite place; in Gen. xlvi. 10, Ex. vi. 15, iriN (Ohad) is a son of Simeon ; and in Judg. iii. 1 5 ^, i Chr. vii. 10, Timt (Ehud) is a Benjamite. This suggests that "iriN or nri"' was a deeply rooted Israelite name, and pre- sumably old. I have not yet mentioned 7"in"'lN, i.e. -ilN nin["'] = Arab-Yehfid, indicating that Yehfld was originally a N. Arabian name. Probably we may connect it with iin and nin. The former appears as an Arammite name (xxxvi. 3S), the latter as Ishmaelite (xxv. 15). Aram and Ishmael are practically synonymous. We now come to the children of the handmaids. The first is j^T, Dan (xxx. 6). Plausible as it may be to take ' Dan ' as a shortened theophorous name ( = 'El is judge '), experience is against this view. Shortened, however, the name seems to be ; i.e. it comes from Adon or Addon, Adan or Addan (cp. Ezra ii. 59, Neh. vii. 61), which was probably the name both of a tribe and of a region. This throws a light on a group of Hebrew and Phoenician proper names (see on 2 S. iii. 4, Ezek. xiv. 14). Whether 'Dan' and ' Dinah ' are connected is doubtful. See on t;. 21. The next, -hn^l, Naphtali {vv. 7, 8). The explanation in the text is strange. ' Wrestlings of Elohim have I wrestled with my sister ; I have also prevailed.' Here there are three difficulties, i. The form i^inD3. 2. The mean- ing of the phrase ' wrestlings of Elohim.' 3. The reference of the statement that Rachel had wrestled with and pre- vailed over her sister, which seems opposed to the fact that Leah had already had four children, Rachel only two. 1 Cp. Isa. ii. 6, where Dipo probably comes from D'opi or d'id3. BIRTH OF JACOBS CHILDREN (Gen. xxix. 31-xxx. 24) 377 For the first there is no remedy, there being no Semitic parallel for the form. For the second there is no adequate explanation. Does the phrase ' wrestlings of Elohim ' mean {a) struggles in the divine cause, or {b) struggles brought to a happy end by God, or if) violent struggles,^ or {d') struggles for the divine blessing ? ^ Clearly the fourth interpretation is the best (xxix. 31, xxx. 2). As to the third difficulty, Gunkel suggests that if Rachel ' prevailed ' over her sister, it could only be because, according to E, Reuben thus far was Leah's only son. This, however, involves supposing that E gave the births in a different order from J, which is a purely arbitrary conjecture, and disregards the important fact that DTF^M 'd3 is inconsistent with inriM-Di? ; instead of inriN the sense absolutely requires the name of a deity. Can we throw any fresh light on this problem ? I think that Prof. H. W. Hogg is well advised when he suggests ^ illustrating 'htA 'q3 by the story of Jacob's contest in xxxii. 23-33. In connexion with this, it is not difficult from our point of view to discover the true explanation of the passage.* Here, as often, DTrf?^ is most probably either a corruption or a deliberate modification of ^Nom"' — the name by which the god of the N. Arabian Yerahme'elites was known to the Israelites (see on ii. 4 h). A still worse cor- ruption of another name of the N. Arabian deity, viz. ■nntON, is TiriN, in which n is a corruption or alteration of "i (cp. ®, xxxvi. 40, \edep = MT.'s nni). We may illustrate this by two other passages with nnw (probably) for nnffiN, viz. Judg. ix. 5, 18, nriN pN-f?i», where h's is a redactional insertion, and nriM ps comes from ni^m« "'33, a gloss on ^i^lT" i31 ( = 7NDnT ■'31), and Isa. Ixvi. 17, where nnw (Kr.), equally with inM (Kt.), has most probably come from inms. Again, a third corruption is if?"inD3 from ■'n^np?, after which word di> has fallen out. Thus we get a duplicate reading, Ti^DQa 7NQm'' Di?, and -iirrffis Oi> 'S3. Rachel says that she has wrestled with her god {i.e. by the use of recognised forms of adjuration and the like), whose names are Yerahme'el and 1 Driver compares cn'^n «'»■:, xxiii. 6, but see on that passage. 2 E. Bib., ' Naphtali,' § 2. ' Stucken, as usual, mythologises {Beitrage, 1902, i. 62). But he assumes the faulty reading 'nnx-Dy. 378 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Ashhur, and has ' prevailed.' Literally, Jacob had done so (xxxii. 2 3 ff^ ; metaphorically, Rachel is not behind him. But what is the true origin of ' Naphtali ' ? A plausible suggestion was made by Land {De Gids, Oct. 1871, p. 20), who derived ^nD3, 'highland,' from ns3, 'height,' comparing f50^^ from 013. Most probably, however, nD3, in the phrase TIT nD3 (Josh. xi. 2), comes from mnD3, a tribal name as well as a place-name — the nTinsa of x. 13 (see note). Another form of the name of this tribe was perhaps D"'f?NnS3 or D"'7nD3, where ^n is the common formative ending, as in Gad and Asher. Leah's adoptive children come next {vv. 10-13). On the birth of each Leah utters a similar exclamation, the one to. (Kt.), the other intDNl. nja may, perhaps, have meant to the narrator ' by good fortune ' ^ ((§, ev TV'xri; cp. E. Bib., 'Gad,' §1), but originally it no doubt signified ' by Gad's help.' The name belonged both to a god and to a tribe ; most probably the bene Gad were originally worshippers of Gad.^ Another name for this deity was perhaps jni (miswritten pn, Judg. xvi. 23, etc.), and a fuller form of the name was 11 'jr^, i.e. probably "Xi. htvarrc. The other divine name, ■'3D, in the traditional text of Isa. Ixv. 1 1 should probably be read ]Q"' ^ (Yaman = Yerahme'el ; cp. on x. 2). If 111 means ' by Gad's help,' we may well hesitate to read iiffiNl, ' by my good fortune.' Surely ■'ntCN covers over, and that very lightly, a divine name. Can we doubt what that name is ? If Rachel wrestled with Ashhur, must not her sister have done the same? Read, therefore, iiJ^NB. The inference is justified that there was a second form of the tribal name ' Asher,' viz. ' Asshur.' The existence of a weakened form of the divine name ' Asshur ' appears to be implied in the feminine form Asherah (see pp. 24/ and on Ex. xxxiv. 13). Asshur and Yerahme'el are virtually identical. 1 The Midrash {Ber. rabba, par. Ixxi.), accepting the Kr. iJ 10, understands by Gad the ' Luck ' of the house, the domestic Good Genius (cp. E. Bib., 'Fortune'). 2 We must not support this by 'jnmj. Num. xiii. 10, the ^», as usual in such names, being simply formative. 8 The corruption was caused by "n'mi in ^/. 12; read "n'ipi. BIRTH OF JACOBS CHILDREN (Gen. xxix. 31-xxx. 24) 379 A strange story {vv. 14-16) is now interwoven with the narrative. It relates to the finding of duda'lm, ' mandrakes ' or 'love-apples.' We may compare the shammu-sha-al&di, or 'plant of birth,' in the Etana legend [KB vi. i, 109 ; cp. Jastrow, RBA, p. 520). But why is it, we may well ask, that Reuben is the finder of the ' love-apples ' ? Stucken ^ sets himself to show that the possessor of the apple famous in mythology was the husband of two wives. From this it seems to him to follow that originally Reuben, and not Jacob, was the husband of Leah and Rachel, and the ancestor of the clan afterwards named after Jacob-Israel. The compiler of the traditions took one, but only one, of the special Reuben-traditions, and worked it into the Jacob- story. A simpler solution seems preferable. Gunkel points out that Reuben was now five or six years old ; his brothers would not yet be clever enough to pick the mandrakes and take them home. This remark, however, does not go to the root of the matter. The real reason probably is that Reuben was the worshipper of the god D6d, whose con- nexion with the dudd'im is not indeed affirmed, but, at least to a modern reader, suggested by Cant. vii. 13/. D6d was a title or second name of the god Yerahme'el ; the worship of the feminine deity D6dah is attested for the Gadites, and may be presumed for the Reubenites, who were much mixed up with the Gadites. See further pp. 46-49 (on D6d). Leah's fifth son is called Issachar (iDtD^i), vv. 17 /. The popular wit recognised in the name ipto, ' hire ' (cp. on xlix. 14). Either Jacob received the recompense from Leah {v. 16), or Leah had it for giving her maid Zilpah to Jacob. If names of tribes or heroes were formed on this model, we might explain ipto ffi'^N ' man of hire ' ; but how many will (with Ed. Meyer, p. 536) accept this interpretation?^ Let us frankly reject the second m as due to the popular ety- ^ Beitrdge, i. 58^;; cp. Astralmythen, p. 5, note *. ^ Ginsburg {Introduction, p. 252) explains 15^ »b\, 'he brings reward' (xxx. 18), or 'he takes hire' (xlix. 14/.). But the narrator seems to have found w'n in the name ; cp. •»'«'? xxx. 1 8 (Wellh. TSB, P- 95). 38o TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL mology, and maintain the original form of the name to be n3t»% or rather -i3ffiN.^ And , what is nams ? It might be a corruption of inrnw, but the parallel of pttJOT and D"'"im3 (see on xi. 31, xiv. 15) suggests as the more probable origin, 'am'' ntBM, ' Asshur-Yerahme'el ' (see on ' Eshkol,' xiv. 1 3 ; In3t0, XV. i). See further, Ball's note in Genesis; Hogg, E. Bib., ' Issachar,' §§ 3, 6 (end).^ Leah's sixth and last son is p^n {vv. 19 f.). The two appended explanations are puzzling, for they do not give intelligible, even if popular, etymologies of the name. The first is, ' Elohim has presented me (■'D^:l'^) with a fair present'; this implies the form jmT, 'Zabdon' or 'Zebudun.' The second, ' at last my husband will * me, for I have borne him six sons,' in the Hebrew of which fjir is untranslatable,' and must have arisen by a redactor's manipulation out of some other word. What was that word ? The problem is not quite the same as that in xxix. 32, for there we had to find some synonym for ''a:irrN"' containing the letter i ; here we have to find out a perfectly suitable word, out of which ■'373t"' may have arisen by the ordinary causes of textual corruption. I make bold to say that there is only one such word ; it is ■'2Df7tO\ This implies the form jlofjtD ; but why should there not have been a name Shalmon, belonging to the same clan or body of clans which was more commonly called Zebulun ? As a matter of fact, all the names derived apparently from ^f?lt are really corruptions of "JNl^DtB"' ; the names are hyi, Judg. ix. 28, etc., bl'i["'M] in i K. xvi. 31, and [pl^lT, and the middle form between p'jMi^Dffi"' and p'pit is pfjotO = ]1D^t». To return to the form pnil, presupposed by ■'3^n1. That there was an extensive clan called nil, we may safely infer from the names, Zabdi, Zabdiel, Zabud, Zebudah, Zebadiah, Yozabad ; and in so late a record as i Mace, (xii. 31) we read of an Arabian tribe near Damascus called 1 Cp. the Minaean proper name '?Nn3B", quoted from D. H. Miiller by Hogg {E. Bib., col. 2290, note 4). ^ The present writer's suggestion in ' Issachar,' E. Bib., was a step in the right direction, for both Hares and Zerah appear to have grown out of Ashhur. ^ Some would explain 'j'^ar by the Ass. zab&lu, 'to carry, bring,' but sometimes apparently ' to lift up.' But even ' lift up ' does not give quite a naltural sense. @'s aipeTtei /te seems to be a guess. BIRTH OF JACOB'S CHILDREN (Gen. xxix. 31-xxx. 24) 381 Zabadseans.^ There may have been a confusion between the two independent tribal names j"nit and p^nt. It is remarkable that no account should be given of the feminine name xxm, Dinah. Was the reference inserted by an after-thought (to prepare for chap, xxxiv.), and therefore expressed scantily. One may plausibly connect the word with pis ■'31^ (Ezra ii. 15, viii. 6, Neh. vii. 20) and the Reubenite personal name wis (i Chr. xi. 42), also with JlSliT" and plsiiT (see on 2 K. xiv. 2), and, lastly, with the ethnic n"'3"'T (see on Ezra iv. 9), and, more remotely, the ""^a )1S of 2 K. xix. 12 (cp. on Gen. ii. 8, Am. i. 5, Ezek. xxvii. 23). If the connexion with the last two names is correct, the disappearance of Dinah is not ' absolute ' (E. Bib., col. 1 1 o I ). Cp. on ' Dan,' v. 6. One more birth — that of PjDV, Joseph {yu. 22-24), which E derives from pjdn, ' to take away, and J from fiD\ ' to add.' Noldeke {E. Bib., ' Names,' §5 3) explains ' [Yahweh] increases,' comparing iT'SDV, Ezra viii. 10. Here, however, the full phrase is ' Shelomith ben Yosiphiah,' and Shelomith is to be grouped with Shelumiel (Num. i. 6), Shelomi (Num. xxxiv. 27), etc., all of which are closely connected with Ishmael. This fact creates a presumption that the name Yosiphiah (and consequently also Yoseph) had its origin in the Yerahme'elite or Ishmaelite region of N. Arabia ; in fact, this origin is at once suggested (from our point of view) by the second element in the name Yosiph-iah, which, as in other cases, represents m^ i.e. Yarham or Yerahme'el. Now as to 'Yoseph.' In i Chr. xxv. 2 'Yoseph' is one of the sons of Asaph (^dm), a name to be grouped with the Rephaite name Saph (2 S. xxi. 18) or Sippai (i Chr. xx. 4), and apparently a shortened form of f)D''3N (Ex. vi. 24), the name of one of the sons of Korah, a brother of whom is called TDN, probably a corruption of niffiN (the N. Arabian Asshur).^ Most probably ^dV is a 1 Cp. also the Palmyrene name Zabd-nebu (Cooke, p. 295). ^ In Ezra ii. 1 5 (Neh. vii. 20) the beng 'Adin come after the benS Adonikam ( = Adon- Yerahme'el) ; in viii. 6, 7, they are followed by the benS'Elam (also a Yerahme'elite or Ishmaelite name). ' Cp. Cheyne, Book of Psalms^^\ Introd. p. xlii. In Ezra ii. 41 (Neh. viii. 44) 'the singers, the benfi Asaph,' are grouped with families whose names are certainly N. Arabian. 382 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL popular corruption of PlDN"', a fragment of the Korahite (N. Arabian) name P|DN-'a«.'^ It is true, this implies a faulty analysis of the latter name, as if it were from (^DW-aN, whereas really it is from ^idn-'In, i.e. P]dm n?, ' Asaphite Arabia' (cp. on xvii. S, xx. 2). But such wrong popular analyses are as possible in Hebrew as they appear to be in Sanskrit. That many Asaphites joined the Israelite immigrants follows from Num. xi. 4. — It only remains ( I ) to find instances of names resembling ' Yoseph ' outside the O.T., and (2) to throw the faint light of conjecture on this name. As to (i), I am disinclined to refer to the Palestinian place-name Jsp'r in the list of Thotmes III. (No. 78),^ because this is more probably to be connected with fpNi^DtDi, the linking forms being f?N3aJ"', fjNSlffi"' (cp. iMltO"", £Di>lffi"'). But I see no absolute hindrance to com- paring the ancient Babylonian personal name Yasup-ilu, and the Phoenician royal names given in Assyrian inscrip- tions as Milki-asapa and Baal-iasupu {E. Bib., cols. 2583/). And as to (2), may not Asaph have arisen out of a mutilated form of some well-known N. Arabian name, such as mSD, Neh. vii. 57, the original form of which may be nms (cp. on X. 14). It would certainly not be more strange that one tribal hero should bear a name connecting him with the Sarephathites than that others should be called by names traceable to Yerahme'el, Ishmael, and Ashhur or Asshur. See further, on chap, xxxvii., and cp. E. Bib., 'Joseph.' 1 Another form of this name is iduh (i Chr. vi. 8, etc.). 2 Ed. Meyer now leaves it perfectly open whether JSp'r means Joseph-el or not {Die Israeliten, p. 292). Cp. E. Bib., col. 2582, note i. For Winckler's view see GI ii. 68. JACOB'S CRAFT AND SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS (Gen. XXX. 25-43, xxxi. 1-16) A NEW contract is made, but Jacob turns the tables on Laban, outdoes him in craft, and wins all Laban's best cattle. — Three points have to be noticed. In v. 30, 'hyh, which Dillmann renders, ' at every step of mine ' ; Gunkel, ' since I have been here ' ; but for which the sense requires 'H^yi (v. 27). In v. 37, liois. The plane tree will do as well or as ill as any other tree, but y\D1S probably comes from ]QSl, and means ' the Raamite or Yerahme'elite (tree),' just as ntOND means ' the Asshurite (tree),' and JDtD }>» ' the Ishmaelite (tree).' ]3DT ys has the same origin (see on Dt. xii. 2). In v. 43, ' and camels and asses,' at the end of the list, cannot be right ; see on xxiv. 35. Laban's altered demeanour towards Jacob leads to a conversation (xxxi. 5-16) between that self-righteous hero and his wives, in the course of which he relates two theo- phanies and revelations; the narrative in vv. 10-13 is not at all smooth or connected, but we may ascribe this to the redactor. The wives place themselves entirely on Jacob's side ; his interests have become theirs. ' Whatever Elohim has said to thee, do.' — Something has to be re- marked on the names of God. In v. 5 Jacob tells his wives that their father's displeasure is unreasonable, seeing that 'the God of my father (■'3m Tj^pn) has been with me.' But did Laban really worship a different God from Jacob? How was it that Isaac, in his instructions to Jacob, made no reference to this important point ? We shall see, how- ever, that not only here but elsewhere 3M or ■'3s ' father,' has supplanted I'lS, ' Arabia.' It was the God of the land, and people of the region of Arab-aram whom Jacob, not less than Laban, worshipped, and whose favour was now 383 384 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL turned towards Jacob, — the God whose full name was Yahweh-Yerahme'el. See on w. 29, 42, 53, xxviii. 13, also the following note. And who was it that spoke to Jacob in his dream- vision? From what has been said on xxi. 17 it should be clear that it was no mere messenger, but the friendly, beneficent deity whose name was Yahweh-Yerahme'el or Yerahme'el-Yahweh. The narrator's form is DTrfjNrT isfjo ; but '^D (as we know) comes from f?Nnm% and ninf?Mn is a substitute for mn"'. In the preceding note mention has been made of one of the titles of this deity. V. 13 gives us another ; it is f?Mn"'3 hvK , ' God of Bethel ' (see on xxviii. 1 9). The text, however, has f?Nn ; how is this to be accounted for? Neither by expanding in the manner of @ and Onk. (Olsh., Ball), nor by grammatical subtleties (see e.£^. Driver, Tenses, § 191, obs. 2 ; Ges.-Kau., | 127/), The key is probably supplied by Isa. xlii. 5, Ps. Ixxxv. 9, where hi^n seems to have come from f7NDm^ Here, too, huTt may have the same origin. The final ha, too, may have expelled the essential word ha in the phrase ^Mn""! ha. Thus we shall get, 'l ^« 'onT^ ■'32N. In truth, the ancient name of the God of Bethel was, we can hardly doubt, ^Mom"' ; at any rate, this was the name of the N. Arabian divinity known to the Israelites. See on xxviii. 10-22, also on XXXV. 7. JACOB'S DEPARTURE; GILEAD (Gen. XXXI. 17-xxxii. i) The turning-point has come. Obeying the oracle, Jacob takes a hurried departure from the place where he has laboured for twenty years. He is accompanied by 'his sons and his wives.' Rachel carries away her father's ' teraphim,' and so ensures for herself and her new house- JACOBS DEPARTURE; GILEAD (Gen. xxxi. 17-xxxii. i) 385. hold the protection of the gods of Laban's family. From XXXV. 2 (cp. Josh. xxiv. 2, 14, 20, 23) we gather that the members of Jacob's household also had taken with them religious symbols of the nature of images ; they had also earrings which were regarded as heathenish ; no doubt, they were used as amulets. Laban pursues Jacob, and overtakes him on the mountain -range of 'Gilead' (see below). But Elohim {i.e. Yerahme'el, the common deity of Laban and Jacob) warns Laban not to enter into any controversy with Jacob. Laban therefore enters into a compact with his kinsman on ' Gilead.' They part in peace. Let us first give our best attention to geography. The subject certainly presents some great difficulties. ' That the two narratives, J and E, meant the same part of the Gilead range can hardly be maintained. They both differ from the original story ; they also differ from one another.' So I wrote formerly in the E. Bib. (' Gilead,' § 4), from the point of view which assumes J and E to have meant by 'Gilead' a region on the east of the Jordan. This assump- tion, however, is not as safe as I supposed. J and E, as it now appears, have undergone redactional manipulation. Nor was the geography of the original story, common to J and E, that which is supposed in the Encyclopcedia (' Galeed '). It was plainly necessary to put the student on a track of advanced inquiry ; some step forward had to be taken, otherwise the work would have been antiquated even before it was published. But the first attempt to recover the underlying geographical names was not successful. Nor was it brought out that what the com- posite story (JE) leads to is a contract between two clans both residing in the Arabian border-land to keep each within its own limits. It is not the present writer's duty to clear up all that is geographically obscure in the Genesis narratives. He is prepared for large alterations and im- provements, as they become necessary through the progress of the exploration of Palestine and Arabia. What he claims to have definitely effected is the discovery of a large number of neglected textual phenomena which facilitate the gradual recovery of an earlier underlying form of the text. 2S 386 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL It seems, however, to be extremely probable that by ' the stream ' (in^n) in ?'. 21 the original narrative meant one of the widys of the Arabian border-land (for which see on xv. 18). Perhaps the stream or widy of Ephrath or Perath may be intended, which in xv. 18 (underlying text) appears to be represented as Gileadite. The southern Haran (see on xi. 31), which was in 'the land of the bend Rekem ' (xxix. i , E), seems to have been near this stream or wady. It is now in point to refer to the statement in the traditional text (xxxi. 22 f.) that from Haran to the Gileadite mountains was a journey of seven, or, with flocks and herds, of ten days. From the ordinary point of view, this is plainly impossible. Shall we then suppose that E imagined Laban's home to be much nearer to the trans- Jordanic Gilead than Haran, and that ' he arose and crossed the stream (Euphrates)' in v. 21 comes from the other narrator (J) ? This is Dillmann's view. Or shall we suppose that the number 'seven' in v. 23 is corrupt, i.e. that the original text had some other number? This is Strack's view. Or, considering the parallel of i K. xix. 8 (see Crit. Bib. ad loc), shall we conclude that here, as elsewhere, the numeral covers over an ethnic or a place- name ? Surely, to obtain the best sense, we require, not a numeral, but a place-name. Therefore, instead of myS} "yn QiQ'', let us restore as the original reading Qi^D"' ni^ltO "TTI ; U^vn from D■'3Q^ as xlix. 13 ; cp. on Dt. xxxiii. 23 (n"'), Job iii. 8 (dv), I K. xiv. 3 i (d'^^N = ;o'> ni>, ' Yamanite Arabia '). Thus the direction of Jacob's flight was towards Shibeah of the Yamanites (see on ^v, x. 2) ; Shibeah may be = one of the places called Beer-sheba ^ (see on xxvi. 33, and cp. on chap. XX. and xxi. 14). In this connexion may one venture to exonerate a scribe from Gunkel's accusation of ' pedantry ' ? Certainly nnONH Tim ^nsm in v. 33 represents a gloss, but the glossator cannot have written nnoN ; the context makes it perfectly obvious that the tents examined were those of Leah and of Rachel. nnON must be a corruption of 1 From 2 S. XX. I we may perhaps venture to infer that there was a place called Sheba near the stream Yarhon. In chap, xxxii. n Jacob's passage of this stream is mentioned. JACOB'S DEPARTURE; GILEAD (Gen. xxxi. 17-xxxii. i) 387 n^Qlw. The scribe had a perfectly sensible object. Aram or Yerahme'el was the home of superstition ; by inserting the gloss the late scribe wished to convey instruction and warning to his contemporaries. Note that in vv. 20, 24 Laban is, contrary to custom, described as ' the Aramsan.' At the same time, minor superstitions cannot alter the fact that Laban and Jacob worshipped the same God. One may, indeed, infer from the words ' the God of your father spoke to me' [v. 29) that the contrary was the case, but we should be in error. The Hebrew text is clearly wrong ; the phrase ' the God of your father ' (DriN Sm), addressed to Jacob, is impossible. Seeing this. Ball would read T'DM (so Sam., 0, who also read, rightly, Vfes). But this is not enough. We have seen already that 3N and ■'iN often represent ins. \nw. 5 and 42 this word is the original of i^N ; here (as in xxviii. 13) it is the word which underlies t^N- In the same verse (29), as in 2 K. ix. 26^ and Job XXX. 3,^ mow is also corrupt, as the warning Pasek may indicate. It has probably come from 'i?QtDi (a short way of writing f?NSDtt>"'), on which a scribe gave the marginal gloss ^NDHT, represented by "yath, as in Ex. xv. \f 2 S. v. I.* Thus we get 'the God of Arab-Ishmael [Yerahme'el] said to me ' (cp. on v. 42). The proper force of idnS was not so constantly forgotten that good writers have to be burdened with the awkward phrase "iqn^ tiqn"'"i. We now see how to correct ■>!« TrfjN {y. 42), and the note on xxviii. 1 3 indicates the text underlying the variant omiN '^N (@ simply A/Spaa/i). ' The fear of Isaac ' is surprising.'' Why not the God of Isaac,' as in xxviii. 13? And why ' the God of Isaac ' instead of some title equivalent to ' the God of Arabia ' ? An answer can, I think, be given. We have found (on xvii. 9, xxviii. 1 3) that pns"' ^ Was Naboth really dragged out into the darkness of the night ? Read 'saa/^i, ' in Ishmael,' a gloss on nmn np'?n3. ^ Read ^nvdei', a gloss on n;s. ^ Read 'jkoht, which is wrongly separated from ni,T ; the full divine name was Yahweh-Yerahme'el. * Read '^unm', a gloss on mmn. ^ The current explanations are indeed ' very questionable ' (Gunkel). Schwally (review of Staerk's Studien, Lit. Centr.-blatt, June 17, 1899) even suggests that nna may mean 'dead spirit, ghost.' 388 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL or pntC"' may sometimes be a corruption of TinfflN. This is most probably the case here. And if so, should we not look for some other regional name underneath the very improbable ^^D ? The nearest at hand is nsn, the name of one of the 'sons of Gilead' (Num. xxvi. 33). Hepher- Ashhur might be a gloss on (or variant to) ' Arab-Yarham,' underlying ' Abraham.' The result is that we should omit all but the central part Dm"' n» (as variants or glosses), thus obtaining the sense, ' unless the God of Arab-Yarham had been for me.' The closing word Q)DN, i.e. 'i;DB"', seems to be a gloss on one of the preceding district-names, perhaps on niir (inN). We shall see presently (on vv. 45, 49) that the God of Arabia was called both Yerahme'el and Yahweh, A troublesome error occurs in v. 45 (E), and also, in a complicated form, in v. 46 (J). That Jacob should be the expressed or implied subject of the verb is forbidden by the context. :ipi>"' must be wrong. We must not, however, substitute JD^ for it (cp. Driver), hyp's'' in v. 46 has come from SmdHT (like 3pi>-' in Isa. xvii. 5, etc., and Dl'-^lp in 2 K. XV. I o) ; this word ought to be combined with TintON, thus forming the compound name Yerahme'el- Ashhur. This enables us to account for the impossible 3pS"' in V. 44, which is no mere error of a scribe, but has come from SNOnT" ; and this 'm"' is the very word which is wanting to complete v. 44, which should run, ' And now come, let us make a compact, I and thou, and Yerahme'el shall be witness between us both.' This restoration seems to me a very great boon ; it gives the key to the subsequent statement that the ' heap ' or ' the massebah ' should be witness. For how could a cairn or a stone be a witness unless a divinity were within the cairn or the stone (cp. Gunkel), and who could the divinity be but the God who was common to both parties — Yerahme'el the God of Arabia. — V. 45 (E) and v. 46 (J) also become perfectly clear. They should run thus, ' And he (Laban) took a stone, and set it up as a massebah. And he (Laban) said. Gather stones,' etc. ' Yerahme'el-Ashhur ' remains outside ; it is a gloss on the enigmatical ' Yegar-sahadutha ' in v. 47 (see note). For the equation vnN = lintDN, see on xvi. 1 2, XXV. 18, Hos. xii. 3. JACOB'S DEPARTURE; GILEAD (Gen. xxxi. 17-xxxii. i) 389 Certainly the riddle of ' Yegar-sahadutha ' {v. 47) is a pretty one. Most have supposed that the name, read in accordance with MT., means ' heap of witness,' or ' heap is witness,' ^ and that the cairn received both a Hebrew and an equivalent Aramaic name because it stood on the frontier between Aramaic- and Hebrew-speaking popula- tions, But the Hebrew name of the spot intended was not l?'??., but l^^a, as indeed J, at any rate, surely must mean us to read in v. 48 (see Gunkel).^ And from our present point of view it is easy to make at least a near approach to the true solution of the riddle — a solution which has the twofold merit of being methodical and of harmonising with results attained elsewhere. NrmntD ni"' would, in fact, be a perfectly regular transformation of rmntBN 'm^^ The whole of v. 47 is a gloss on id© Nip IS^l in V. 48. ' Therefore one called its name Gilead,' said the earlier writer ; upon this the glossator's comment is, ' Laban called its name Yerah-Ashharoth ( = Yerahme'el- Ashhur) ; Jacob called it Gil'ad.' We have seen already that rriN ^lpi>i in v. 46 represents TinffiN fpNom"', a correc- tion of 'ntO 11\ The origin of TJ^Sl has, I venture to think, been too hastily traced to an Arabic word {gal' ad) meaning ' hard, strong, brave.' Analogy seems rather to suggest that ^rS3l (like the names read as ' Bashan,' ' Kasdim,' ' Akshaph,' ' Akrabbim ') is a compound. For hi, cp. h^X h-h^ D'hi ; for -js, cp. rrils, f?Nm>, and perhaps b^ns. hi may be a fragment of hai ; cp. ^n-'^di, i.e. ht^i-han (cp. on = DTTV, in ^'?n an). Another riddle is that of 'Mispah' {v. 49). Well- hausen* argues learnedly that Mispah in Gilead may originally have been called Massebah ; he thinks, too, that 1 Nestle, Marginalien, p. 1 1. ^ That there was textual corruption in the Aramaic name was pointed out in E. Bib., col. 1627, though the best solution was not given owing to the prejudice that the scene of the story must be on the frontier of the northern Aram. ' 'm' was very early the short for ^'NDm\ For r\-wxi« cp. on nnii'K, Num. xxi. 15. With nj' we may possibly compare the 'land of Gari,' Am, Tab. 237, 23 (cp. Hommel, AHT, p. 265). « C^, 1889, pp. 43/ 390 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL the connexion of vv. 48-50 is much disturbed by glosses. It may be questioned, however, whether ' Mispah ' has any right of existence here, nnaon should probably be msorr (as Sam. actually reads), and noN ^tDN which follows has come from D"in ^©N^, ' in Asshur of Aram ' (see on xxii. 2). The words thus read are a misplaced appendage to the gloss in V. 47, and state that the massebah was still to be seen in Asshur-Aram. The words XV\r\'' ^ may therefore be a continuation of the speech of Laban in v. 48. V. 5 3 « has also been found perplexing, itasffi"' has been held to indicate a lower mode of thinking character- istic of Laban, and Dn"'lM Thvk to be a gloss ' added for the purpose of softening a polytheistic trait by subsuming the God of Abraham and the God (or gods) of Nahor under a higher unity' (Driver, after Del., Dillm., etc.). This seems a radical error. Laban and Jacob had the same religion, only the former kept up more superstitious practices than the latter. Abraham himself uses a plural verb with 'Elohim' (xx. 13), certainly not to conciliate polytheistic hearers (Dillm., Driver, etc.). Sound method requires us to hold that Dn"'lM in z^. 5 3 « has come either from a dittographed Dm3iN, or from nm"'3N, a correction of DmiN. Referring to what has been said on v. 42, I would read mro TF^NI QHT'-ni' Tl'jN. In z;. 5 3 1^ we must insert •"n^M between l and -\sn (for nns) ; and for '21 T^lN, T\S mntON, which may be a gloss on isn. For ' Nahor ' ( = Arab-nahor) see on xxiv. i o. LEGEND OF MAHANAIM (Gen. xxxii. 2, 3) According to the MT. of this passage, 'angels of Elohim ' met Jacob on his progress, and from his exclama- tion, ' this is a host (camp) of Elohim,' the place Mahanaim derived its name (cp. E. Bib., col. 2902, note i). But surely, if the origin of ' Mahanaim ' were to be explained at all, something more would have been said by the original writer. The text, therefore, must have been mutilated, probably because much that was said was distasteful to a later generation. We most naturally think of a contest between Jacob and a company of inferior divine beings (cp. xxxii. 2 3 ff^. So Gunkel, who is in the main probably right.-^ But can we not improve upon this ? In the only other passage of Genesis in which dttSn lasfpo occurs (xxviii. 12), that phrase appears to be not original, but a development out of niiT^ SNDm\ Probably, therefore, the original story spoke of a hostile onset (sis) of Yerahme'el- Yahweh, and of Jacob's permitted victory over him. After this it may have been said that Jacob erected Yerahme'el- pillars (see on xxviii. 22), and worshipped. In this case the patriarch's exclamation must have been, not rrl 'ht^ TOno, but m rV\rv 'nm"', ' this one is Yerahme'el-Yahweh.' To illustrate this, let it be remarked that p nino in Judg. xviii. 12 is probably not the original place-name, but jon"' n, or the like, where ]DrT' would be a corruption of ^Nom"'. The place-name Q-'ino also, most probably, arose very early out of caon"' or D''3an, i.e. pillars of Yerahme'el.^ Cp. on nreo, xxxvi. 23. 1 Ed. Meyer (p. 275, note 2) dissents, but without giving any reason. ^ See on Lev. xxvi. 30, and cp. Isa. xvii. 8, where D'jon is coupled with men, i.e. sacred symbols of the god Asher or Asshur. 391 392 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Now, as to geography. Mahanaim is commonly sup- posed to have stood in the region beyond the Jordan. There are, however, reasons for thinking that the Mahanaim of the early narratives may have been in some part of the Arabian border-land. Thus (i), it was the residence of Saul's son and successor 'Ishbosheth' (2 S. ii. 8, 12, 29), and there are serious difficulties in placing this king's residence beyond the Jordan {Crit. Bib. p. 253). (2) It was also for a time the residence of David (2 S. xviii. 2/^ff), and though the geography of Absalom's revolt may have been manipulated, there are still some indications that the scene of the events of that episode was originally placed in the Arabian border-land. See e.g. on 2 S. xvi. 14/, and xvii. 26, which shows that the land of Gilead, where Mahanaim lay, was in Arab-Ishmael. (3) It was also the capital of one of Solomon's prefectures ( i K. iv. 1 4). Now it seems to have been shown ^ with no slight probability that the region divided into prefectures was that possessed by Solomon in the Arabian border-land. On these grounds it is probable that the ' Mahanaim ' (Hammanim ?) originally meant was not = Mihne or Mahne in the Jebel 'Ajlun, nor yet the town 'Ajlun itself, but stood on some unrecoverable site far to the south, in the vicinity of the stream called in the present text ]TT', but in the earlier text pm"' (see on ^. 11). It may be assumed that an important sanctuary existed at Mahanaim, and that tales were told there about Jacob, such as that only just discernible in vv. 2, 3, and that still preserved in its main features in vv. 23-33. 1 See Crit. Bib., and E. Bib., col. 4687, note i. JACOB AND ESAU (Gen. xxxii. 4-22) A LINKING passage. A clear picture of the events cannot be obtained from the traditional text. Evidently the narrative is composite (JE), but the difficulties of the chapter are complicated by corruptions of the text and geographical misunderstandings. First, as to the latter. It has already been remarked by Gunkel and Winckler that the land of Edom is too far aw^ay from Mahanaim and Penuel for Jacob's messengers to return so quickly, followed at no great distance by Esau himself. Gunkel has suggested that the domain of Esau may at first have been placed much more to the north, and Winckler even thinks that both Abraham and Jacob were moved from the north to the south by the Yahwist,^ and that the Seir referred to in xxxii. 4, xxxiii. 14, 16, was in N. Israel (cp. Judg. iii. 26), and is the same that is spoken of by Abd-hiba of Jerusalem (Am. Tab. 181, 26) in the phrase 'from (the region of) Sh^ri to (the city of) Ginti-kirmil.' From our present point of view, however, a different view is more plausible. As we have seen (on xiv. 6), ' Seir ' is probably a very early modification of ' Asshur.' It is therefore not impossible that Esau's domain may have been a part of the great Asshurite country, other parts of which were occupied by Laban and Jacob respectively. We may add ( 1 ) that it seems to follow from v. 7 and xxxiii. i (see next note) that the district from which Esau came could also be described as a part of Ishmaelite Arabia, and (2) that one or both of the geographical phrases at the end of V. 4 (as also rrT'i'tD, ' to Seir,' xxxiii. 14, 16) may be due to a supplementing scribe. 1 AOF, xxi. 265, 439. 393 394 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL We now pass on to a great difficulty, of which none of the recent critics, except Steuernagel, attempts any explana- tion. How came Esau to have four hundred men at his beck and call (xxxii. 7, xxxiii. i), and what was his object in bringing so large a band with him? The narrative throws no light on the four hundred. It does not call them either his ' trained ' men or his ' kinsmen,' but simply ' men,' and allows us to infer that Esau's sole object in coming was to greet his brother. Steuernagel {Einwand. p. 105) suggests that the notice of the arrival of Esau and his band has been transferred hither from another context, in which ' Jacob ' meant ' the Jacob-tribe,' and ' Esau ' meant 'the Esau-tribe,' and that Num. xx. 14-21, where the king of Edom refuses to allow Israel to pass, is parallel, in so far as it is based upon an earlier narrative, which must have related a hostile encounter between Edom and Israel. Before making such an arbitrary conjecture, however, it would have been better to examine the text of xxxii. 7 and xxxiii. i more narrowly. Experience shows that numerals are very apt to be the disguise of ethnics. I^IIN m"'N niND should, according to parallels (see on xv. 1 3), be a scribe's production out of the ill-written words ^IDHN TS mt»N,^ while lOi?, which rightly stands first in xxviii. I, probably comes from iro.^ Thus we get as the original reading ' [from] Arabia of Ishmael-Asshur.' (The preposi- tion o has dropped out, and ns has been dittographed.) The reader will now, I hope, recognise the original form of the story of the meeting of the brothers. It must have been to this effect — that, to improve the relations between himself and Esau, the younger brother sent messengers to the elder in Arab-Ishmael, to announce that he was on his way home, having prospered in his years of hard service. The messengers returned, and stated that they had seen Esau, and that with the perfection of courtesy he had started from Arab-Ishmael to meet Jacob half-way. 1 Siarwa and ^>iDn often represent '^nyDu". 2 The meaning is that in xxxiii. i the MS. on which the late redactor rehed gave wrongly, not mVD, but nynyo. This the redactor converted into ymx loyi, while in xxxii. 7 he changed the order of the words, and wrote idv »'!< msD yanxi. JACOB AND ESAU (Gen. xxxii. 4-22) 395 There was nothing in this to perplex one so confident in his superior shrewdness as Jacob, who at once made prepara- tions for sending a large present before him to propitiate Esau, whose wrath he still feared. Jacob's calculated liberality, supported by his extravagant compliments and self-humiliation, took effect on the dull-minded Esau, who genially accepted the present, and, assuming that Jacob would pay him a visit, offered to lead the way. The crafty Jacob, however, found a good excuse (see on xxxiii. 1 3 /i) for getting rid of his dangerous brother, whose fit of generosity might not last long. He proposed first of all to move gently on to Asshur-Yerahme'el, where he was at home, and where he would deposit his family in safety, and then pay the proposed visit (which he hoped would never come off) to Esau. The humorous character of all this will not escape the reader, and Gunkel has well pointed out how strongly the narrative contrasts with the inwardness of the prayer in xxxii. 10-13, which is obviously a later insertion. As to the details of the prayer, there are four points requiring to be mentioned here, (i) The titles given to Yahweh in V. \o are reduced by a keen textual criticism to one, viz. 1"int»N nii; "^n^N, 'God of Arab-Ashhur' (see on xxviii. 13). (2) The name pT should rather be priT (see on xiii. 10). (3) The supposed popular proverb in w. 12 is most probably a corruption of ^NSOtB'' 131 ^ (transposing). On this point it should be added that the phrase ' the sons of Ishmael ' is an interpolated gloss on ' Esau.' The glossator had before him the false reading ' with him four hundred men,' and took these men to be Ishmaelite freebooters. (4) The reference to the sand in z'. 13 presupposes a reading in xxii. 1 7 which has, I think, been shown to be false ; a sufficient proof of the lateness of the inserted passage. 1 Cp. Hos. X. 14 (end), where read 'jnvde'' -mt>» -ja, 'the men of Ashtar-Ishmael.' THE WRESTLING-MATCH (Gen. xxxii. 23-33) Here is a severe test, for we have come to the story of the successful wrestling of Jacob — himself a hero — with an antagonist who is no less than divine. Very naturally it gave offence to some of its ancient readers ; hence it is omitted in the Book of Jubilees. Indeed, except when spiritualised by poet or preacher, it is likely to be equally uncongenial to modern students. Still, we must not, as historical students, be tempted to despise this antique narrative, nor refuse the effort required to comprehend it. Indeed, though antique, it is not strictly primitive ; the mythical element which it contains must have been con- siderably toned down before the Yahwist and the Elohist could accept it. First of all, however, let us examine the geographical framework, remembering, as always, that the letters of the traditional text are no more authoritative than the vowel- points. We have seen already that, if Mahanaim is to be placed in the north-east, the journey to that place from Seir is too long for Esau to have taken, whether out of mere com- plaisance or for any other reason. The stream, therefore, beside which Jacob found himself can neither be the Yarmuk (Wellh.) nor the Nahr ez-Zerka^ (Dillm., Driver, etc.). Its name Yabbok, too, has been much misunderstood. It means neither the ' profuse ' nor the ' gurgling ' stream ; ^ but is to be connected with the name of a place, ip"", men- tioned in Judg. vii. 25, not far from the pT, or rather the 1 See Smend, ZATW, 1902, p. 142, note i ; G. A. Smith, HG, PP- 583/ ; cp. Eus. in OS 266, 80. 2 BDB apparently suggest this. The early narrators are supposed 396 THE WRESTLING-MA TCH (Gen. xxxii. 23-33) 397 priT' (see on xiii. 11), and not far also, though on the other side of the stream, from m3D [i.e. rof?D). Both pn-» and np"' ^ belong to the same group as 3pi?i (see below), and are worn -down forms of orrT (Yarham = Yerahme'el). Now, though it is admittedly quite possible for a place and a stream in N.E. Palestine to have borne a name of N. Arabian origin — for the N. Arabian immigrants carried their names with them, — yet other considerations strongly favour the view that the stream pT was in the N. Arabian border-land, and was a tributary of the stream called Yarhon. Like so many other corruptions of Dm"', the form in question early acquired an independent existence. See further, on Num. xxi. 24, Dt. ii. 37. At a later point we find Jacob arriving at Peniel {v. 31) or Penuel {y. 32) and Succoth (xxxiii. 17 ; cp. Judg. viii. 5, 8, 16 /). Here, too, the name HDD (DIDd) favours, though it does not, strictly speaking, require, the N. Arabian theory. For Succath (Succoth) should be Saccath ; it is most probably identical with Salecath, i.e. Ashcalath.^ It is very possible that the original story referred to the famous Asshurite city called Salecath (cp. on xx. 16, Dt. iii. 10). It is true, the narrator explains the name as ' booths,' and this agrees with the old explanation of in n3D[n] as ' feast of booths.' Originally, however, the ' feast ' was that of Salecath or Salekith, i.e. of the goddess of Ashcal or Asshur- Yerahme'el, properly called Ashtart (see on Lev. xxiii. 34). The origin of Peniel is less easily determined. The name must be old ; it may occur, mis- written, in the name-list of Shoshenk.^ But though it was early explained (see v. 31) as ^n 13s ('face of God') — a possible title of the divine Wrestler, or, as others think, suggested by the appearance of the mountain (if Peniel was on a mountain) * — yet it is practically certain that the {e.g. by G. A. Smith, I.e., and Driver, Hast. DB, p. 350 a, note i) to have interpreted it the ' wrestling ' stream. 1 MT. calls the place am np', but 'i, like lya, in, Si\, comes from Ssynis", and is merely a variant to 3p'. See Crit. Bib. on Judg. vii. 25. ^ Cp. rhjB and 'ti ; \r\o and V. 5 W. M. Miiller, As. u. Eur. p. 168. * The latter view is held by Gunkel (p. 322) ; the profile of a huge face may have been imagined, for which analogies can be offered. 398 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL connexion with D"'3D is illusory, and probable that fpNi^s is an expansion of the old tribal name ^£33, for the probable origin of which see on vi. 4. To fix the sites of these places is entirely beyond us ; even DDtC (again in xxxiii. 18) and ^NJT'l (where Hosea, as we shall see, apparently places the wrestling) cannot be identified. But if we can admit that the localities referred to were in N. Arabia, the general consistency of these narratives will be preserved. It may be added that if the same Saccath ( = Salecath) is referred to in Ex. xii. 37, this place must have been situated not far from the border of Misrim or Musri. Let us now pass on to the story itself. That the wrestling in which Jacob engaged is meant to be under- stood literally, is undeniable ; ^ and from a critical point of view it is only natural to compare the classical passages in which gods and men mingle in the fray, also, more especially, the primitive and wide-spread myth of the halting god.^ Jacob is evidently regarded as the possessor of enormous strength (cp. xxviii. 18, xxix. 10, xxxi. 45). Possibly this story formed the close of a series of tales which recounted the feats of that mighty hero. One may at least say that it well deserved to do so from its ex- ceptional character. And what was the object of the story? Probably it was to show that Jacob had won the favour of the God of the N. Arabian land which he had entered, or, perhaps, that his tribe had full religious sanction for its occupation of it.' These blessings, according to the legend here adopted, were obtained by a successful contest. The event took place at ' Penuel,' where, as well as at Mahanaim, the priests and worshippers at the sanctuary loved to tell the legend. Possibly, as Gunkel (p. 323) suggests, a special rite of dancing (like limping) was Ed. Meyer (after Hal^vy) in E. Bib., col. 3747, thinks that ^n (3 in Phcenician inscriptions is a place-name. It may be this, and yet [s need not mean ' face.' 1 I see no reason for supposing that the original narrator thought of a dream-vision as in xxviii. 12 (Jeremias, ATAO, p. 235). 2 See Folklore, 1902, No. i ; Stucken, Astralmythen, p. 152. 2 This seems better than the view given in E. Bib., ' Wrestling.' THE WRESTLING-MA TCH (Gen. xxxii. 23-33) 399 practised there ^ (cp. v. 32). If so, the Penuel sanctuary- must have had a wide influence, for the prophets of Baal (Yerahme'el ?) in genferal appear to have adopted the rite ' (i K. xviii. 26), and the spring festival called the Pesah (our 'Passover') may have derived its name from such limping or leaping dances.^ It is noteworthy that the term for 'wrestling' (SnE33, see on xxx. 8) does not occur in the narrative ; the word which has probably taken its place (ipw) means 'to use tricks.' The MT., it is true, has (in z/. 25) pa^-'l, but the explanations of the supposed root plN are most precarious, and it is needful to correct the text. The gain is manifest. On this last occasion {v. 29) of Jacob's bearing this name, legend finds a new reason for it. It means ' the tricksome ' (cp. Jer. ix. 3), and the last and greatest of Jacob's artifices, or exhibitions of cleverness, was when he put forth the craft of an Odysseus against a divine Man. Whether the narrator thoroughly sympathises with this, we cannot positively say. The shiftiness of the nomad* was slow to disappear. If the narrator did feel some qualms at Jacob's action (cp. Hos. xii. 4), he did not care to spoil his story by indicating this. His object was not to criticise but to glorify the patriarch, and this he did, not by a modernising fiction of his own, but by adopting an old and venerated legend. At this turning-point in Jacob's career, it was fitting that his name, like Abram's, should be changed. But the old name was not to be thrown aside as ignoble. As W. M. Miiller has pointed out, it was, according to the original story, Jacob who resorted to an artifice, like Odysseus in //. xxiii. 725-727 ; i.e. the subject of the verb in z/. 26 « is Jacob.^ This seems to me to be confirmed by 1 Land {De Gzds, Oct. 1871, p. 20, note i). He thinks (com- paring the Arabic nasd) that the name of the mysterious Being with whom Jacob strove was MenaS^eh, i.e. one who injures the hip- sinew (cp. vv. 26, 33). Surely nom, 'one who tests,' would be more seemly. 2 See references in E. Bib., ' Dance,' col. 1000, note 2. s So Toy ; cp. E. Bib., col. 999. * On the shiftiness of Jacob and David, see Cheyne, Aids to Criticism, pp. Z\f- "°t^ 2. * See W. M. M. As. u. Eur. p. 163, note i, who is followed by 400 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL the parallel account in Hosea (xii. 4, etc.), to which we shall return. And who can Jacob's antagonist have been ? Two Midrashic statements were current in later times. Accord- ing to one, it was the angel-prince of Edom ; ^ according to another, the archangel Michael.^ But the narrative itself answers our question. V. 29 in MT. runs thus, 'And he said, Thy name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for thou hast contended with Elohim and with men, and hast prevailed.' Even without criticising the text, we may venture to guide ourselves provisionally by this statement. It was evidently a superhuman being, though in human form, with whom Jacob wrestled. But must we not allow ourselves to use our already- gained experience in textual criticism ? Plainly QTI^n (god) and D'^t03N (men) ought to be synonymous, and if they are not, D"'mDN at any rate must be corrupt. Both t2)"i3N (see on iv. 26) and cmaN (see on 2 S. vii. 14), equally with JDtO (cp. protO, and see on Isa. x. 27, Ps. xcii. 1 1), are well- established corruptions of ^Ni^DtD"'. Does not this furnish a hint as to the name of Jacob's antagonist? We have seen already that ifih'Q in the phrases mri'' '^o and D'^nfjN 'So has most probably come from 7«DnT', which not only designated the Yerahme'elite race, but was also the name of the god, or one of the gods, whom the race worshipped. It is also approximately certain that in the much-disputed Jacob- passage in Hos. xii. 4, 5 (see below) the antagonist of Jacob is called Ashhur, Elohim, and Mal'ak (or some other form of Yerahme'el). Lastly, we have seen it to be prob- able that Dirr^M itself is sometimes ' either an alteration or a corruption (or half one and half the other) of ^NDm\ or at any rate of some form of that name which had long B. Luther, ZATW, 1901, p. 66, Ed. Meyer and Holzinger. The view is not inconsistent with the fact that v. 26 b distinctly states that it was the hollow of Jacob's thigh which became out of joint. This notice evidently comes from another narrator, and v. 27 connects admirably with ^/. 26 a. In v. 26 b, of course, read iDj; npv.ia, 'when he tried a trick with him.' 1 Bereshith rabba, Ixxvii.y. 2 Targ. Jon. on Gen. xxxii. 24; see pp. 59/ 2 But hardly in the phrase D'n'7K[n] ixte. THE WRESTLING-MATCH {G%n.^yiy.\\. 7.1-2,1) 40i since acquired an independent existence. It follows that no view is so probable as this — that the personage with whom Jacob, according to the original story, contended was the second person of the divine duad or triad — Yerahme'el, also called Ishmael (see on xvi. lo), and that in V. 29 the former name underlies DTI7N, and the latter D"'tB3N. In V. 30 we find Jacob sharing our own curiosity as to the name of his opponent, but receiving, as the text now stands, an evasive answer.^ This is surprising, if we assign the narrative to a single narrator, and if we accept the criticism of DTI7N in the preceding paragraph. For in v. 29, according to our revised text, it is said, ' thou hast contended with Yerahme'el [with Ishmael], and hast prevailed ' ; i.e. the divinity, unasked, communicates his name to his van- quisher. The solution of the problem is that w. 29 comes from one source, and w. 30/ from another. From the latter passage it is plain that though Jacob knows that he has to do with a divinity, he does not know that divinity's name. It is effective dramatically to represent Jacob as asking for the sacred name, and this the narrator enjoys. But he is well aware of the name all the time. Both J and E are fully persuaded that in Israel's heroic age the second member of the divine duad or triad frequently intervened in human affairs (cp. on xvi. 10). And, to confirm this, we find in the parallel passage Judg. xiii. 1 9 (see note) an early glossator appending to the evasive question of the divine Speaker (' why askest thou for my name ? ') the note ' it is Yerahme'el,' which has intruded in a corrupt form irito the text. It was thus no mere local deity — the numen of Penuel ^ — over whom Jacob prevailed, but that great Being ■^ The idea is that to communicate the true name of a god is danger- ous. He who has this name can dispose of the power of its bearer (cp. Dieterich, Mithrasliturgie, p. 112). Hence the deep significance of swearing, e.g. by Ashmath of Shimron (Ashmath in Am. viii. 14 = Ishme'ehth, the feminine side of the god Ishmael). In legends con- nected with cultus either the true name or an effective substitute had to he revealed (cp. on xvii. i). Gunkel thinks that originally v. 30 con- tained a revelation of the true name of the divine wrestler, and compares El ' 01am and El Beth-el. But see note 2. ^ This is against the view of Land, De Gids (above), and apparently 26 402 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL who was first to the Arabians, but only second to the better Israelites, who was conquered by Jacob, only because he willed to be conquered — because he willed to strengthen Jacob's confidence both in himself and in the divinity. Hence Jacob says, ' I have confronted Yerahme'el (later text, Elohim) face to face, and I have come away alive' That Jacob's antagonist is indeed divine appears further from XXXV. i o, where the giver of the new name ' Israel ' is called Elohim (originally Yerahme'el). In this case the gift is connected with the theophany at Bethel,^ and the question arises whether in the original form of the narratives ' Bethel ' or ' Beth-on ' did not mean the same place as Penuel ; for Bethel and Beth-on, as we have seen, are, like Tubal, Nebat, and Beten, merely popular modifications of Ishmael. There is yet another record, besides xxxv. 10, of a traditional statement that the contest with Elohim, or Mikael, or Ashhur, took place at Bethel or Ono. This is in Hos. xii. 4, 5. The passage as handed down in MT. is in many ways strange. What is to be said, e.g., of the statement that ' in the womb he (Jacob) sup- planted his brother ' ? The next line is rendered by Harper, ' and in his man's strength he contended with God ' ; Harper makes this the first line of a later insertion. The complica- tion of the exegesis forced upon those who accept the text ought to be a stimulus to a keener textual criticism. I have ventured to attempt this, and strict application of new methods brings me to this result. In Beth-on he used a trick with Ashhur, In Ono he strove with Elohim. [Gloss I. He strove with Mal'ak (Yerahme'el), and prevailed ; He wept and made supplication to him.] [Gloss 2. Bethel of Ishmael ; Arab- Ishmael.] of Gunkel. The view of Robertson Smith I^Rel. Sent. p. 456) is still less correct. 1 Stade's view {Bibl. Theol. des A.T. i. 58) is that Jacob overcame a Canaanite local divinity named Israel ( = the fighting El). 2 Possibly the account of the theophany was originally much fuller, and resembled that in chap, xxviii. THE WRESTLING-MATCH (Gen. xxxii. 23-33) 403 We see here that even in the time of the glossator the geography of the old legend was understood, and further, that the identity of the divine antagonist of Jacob with Mal'ak ( = Yerahme'el) was realised. The reference to ' weeping and making supplication ' shows that the legend had begun to be spiritualised ; the striving had now become a great upheaval of the spirit in prayer. And now as to the origin of the names Jacob {yp's'^, or [five times] npi?"') and Israel (SniB"'). It is useless to attempt a solution, if we assume the present forms of the names to be correct, and if we adhere to the prevalent theory that a large proportion of Semitic names from the very first embodied statements with regard to the Deity. Sound method requires us to group Dps"' with those Hebrew names which have most of the same letters, or at any rate letters akin to them — such as pT (v. 23), np-^ (Judg. vii. 25), mps (Ezra ii. 42, 45, etc.), n^pi^"' (i Chr. iv. 36), ^NSlp"'^ (Neh. xi. 25), Dp-inw, Dp13^M, ;pi>-' (see on xxxvi. 27), and other similar Semitic names such as fjHllpi^ and X^^^ Ikibum ' (son of Abishar), Akabbi-ili, to which others may be added from Johns, Deeds, iii. 164. Consistently with our results thus far, we cannot doubt that the common origin of all these forms is Dm"', which, with the formative ending, becomes fjNOnT. The study of Phoenician, Aramaic, and Palmyrene names in the light of our discoveries, suggests that the Semitic parallels to lpi>i have the same origin. It is enough, therefore, to record the favourite interpretation (see e.g. Hommel, Gr. p. 167, note 6) of ' Jacob ' as 'he (God) rewards.' But another favourite view seems to be probably correct, viz. that the name once had the fuller form ^N3pH''. Ya'kub-ilu has indeed been found on Babylonian contract-tablets of Hammurabi's time, and a Hyksos king Ya'kub-ilu is admitted by Spiegelberg. Further, in the name-list of Thotmes III. (No. 102) occurs, a name which may perhaps represent Ya'kob-'el. Next as to ^Nim\ This is not 'God rules' (Knob., Dillm.), and 'God strives' (Dillm., Noldeke, E. Meyer, WRS, etc.), or ■* ''Ns, like Vs^f in Zech. xiv. 5, comes from S^a (cp. 'jnvdb") ; see Crit. Bib. on Josh. xv. 21. ^ For pps ( = ^py) see Cooke, p. 404. ^ Cp. on nnDj;, xxxvi. 39. 404 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL ' Let God strive ' (Gray), or ' God flashes ' ^ (Vollers), or ' God persists ' or ' perseveres ' ^ (Driver, Hast. DB, p. 5 30 a). These theories {a) are based upon an erroneous theory of the original or primary meaning of Semitic names, and {F) the best-known of them take their notion of nm from the legend of the wrestling. Independently of Hommel I have long arrived at the conclusion that the second syllable was ^tO. This enables us to make the patriarch's two names entirely parallel, for, comparing SM■'^toN, Num. xxvi. 31, and SiNntCN, I Chr. iv. 16, and nSNItON, i Chr. xxv. 2, it is difficult not to hold that the first letter was n.^ This gives us as the original form ^N-'nj&N or Sn"i^©M. In accordance with this I have long recognised in the famous pntp-) a development of TiiDK, i.e. the N. Arabian region called Asshur or Ashhur, and in ^ffi^^T igD, Josh. x. 13, etc., a distortion of ^^fflN 'd,* a book relating to Ashhur, i.e. to that part of Ashhur which was occupied by Israel. In this con- nexion, too, ltp;i, the name of a son of Caleb, i Chr. ii. 18, and nSNIQJi (another form of 'liDN), i Chr. xxv. 14, may be mentioned. We can now understand how Ahab in an Assyrian inscription comes to be called Sir'lai, and Israel to be represented on the Merneptah-stele by Y-si-ri'l.^ For other views of ' Israel ' see E. Bib., ' Jacob,' | 6, on which note that Yizrah, too, is a deformation of Ashhur ; also Steuernagel, Einwand. pp. 6 1 f. The name ' Seraiah ' may also be referred to here (see p. 288). With regard to the significance of the traditional change 1 Arch. f. Rel.-wiss. ix., 1906, p. 184. ^ Driver would render rc-w in xxxii. 29 ' thou hast persevered.' The sense is unsuitable, and far-fetched (Ar. sariya, in iii., ' to persist or persevere against another'). Surely ' thou hast prevailed ' implies ' thou hast striven.' , 3 ' Asriel' is a son of Gilead (the N. Arabian) ; Asarel', of Yehallelel {i.e. Yerahme'el) ; Asarelah, of Asaph (a N. Arabian name ; see Book of Psalms'-''\ Introd. p. xlii.). * In E. Bib., ' Jasher' and ' Jeshurun,' it is supposed that another form of 'jNiB" was jni?', from which came a shorter form lu" (Yesher?). The ' Book of the Righteous ' has in this case come from ' Book of Yesher ( = Israel).' So Erbt {Die Hebrder), unaware of his predecessor. In Crit. Bib., however, it is shown that -m^r\ comes from •ma^ (Ashhur). 5 Cp. Hommel, Gr. pp. 167 /, note 6 ; Lagarde, Uebersieht, p. 132 ; Kittel, Chronicles {SBOT, Heb.), p. 58. THE WRESTLING-MATCH (Gen. xxxii. 23-33) 405 of name, I think that some recent critics have been too subtle. It does not, e.g., mean that the Jacob-tribe, after becoming fused with the Rachel-tribe, required and received a new name, viz. Israel (so Steuern.), but is simply a legendary expression of the fact that Israel originally dwelt in a land which had the two synonymous designations Yerahme'el and Asshur (cp. on chap. xvii.). Jacob-Israel is the hero of the region called (from its two divinities) Asshur- Yerahme'el, just as Esau (another corruption of Asshur) is the hero of that part of Asshur which was called Seir or Arab-Edom. The question of the analysis of the sources has been treated most recently by B. Luther {ZATW xxi. 65 _^), Holzinger, Gunkel, and Ed. Meyer {Die Isr. pp. 57 /".). The most important variation is that in v. 26 a (see above). The artifice is used there by Jacob ; in z*. 26 b, by the divinity. THE MEETING OF THE BROTHERS (Gen. XXXIII. 1-17) Jacob and Esau meet, after which Esau returns to Seir, and Jacob moves on to Succoth(?). Note the generosity ascribed to Esau, whom Jacob recognises for the first time as his lord {v. 3 ; cp. Am. Tab. 51,3, etc.). The statement suggests that the legend came from a sanctuary visited by Edomites as well as Israelites.^ The narrative in the main is assigned to J. Notice, however, that in z/. 14 all from ■'asS to Q■'^'7■'r7 is due, in its present form, to the redactor, who did his best with a corrupt 1 Holzinger, Genesis, p. 212. 4o6 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL text.^ Originally geographical glosses stood here. ijaN^ (like £3N in i K. xxi. 27, Hos. xi. 4, and £3N^ in 2 S. xviii. 5, I K. xxi. 27, Isa. viii. 6, Job xv. 11) most probably comes from ^DlDM = SNl»na)\ while hxh (cp. 'hrh, Isa. xli. 2 ; ^•hTh, Ex. iv. 25 ; ^^r\1, Judg. v. 15 ; also D^fjn, 2 S. xvii. 27), riDN^JQ (see on i S. xv. 9, and cp. f?WD), and Dn'jTT (cp. on ■n'h', xiv. 14) come from ^ndht. ■'3£}b ntBM is traceable to hvc"^^ l^N. Thus we get — omitting the gloss ' Yerahme'el ' in its various forms, due to the ignorance of the scribes, and the synonym ' Ishmael,' — ' and I will move on slowly (n'^nanN) to Asshur-Peniel (or Asshur-Lapan ? see above), until I come to my lord, to Seir.' Jacob proposes, perhaps, to deposit his family in safety, and then to pay a visit to Esau. He is only too glad to put off the visit till a more convenient time comes — if it ever will come ! I may here offer two minor but not, I hope, uninterest- ing textual corrections. It has been noticed by Gunkel that V. 4 is overfull ; he therefore supposes inplIT'l and inptO"'"! to be isolated fragments of E's writing. The latter word, however, is shown by the six superlinear dots to be a suspicious reading.^ Several MSS. of ® do not recognise it. Obviously it is a miswritten and misplaced dittograph of nnnm^'T (see v. 3). As to 'iTP^, it has hardly less certainly grown out of a miswritten lpi>\^ Dillmann has already noticed that in xlv. 14, xlvi. 29, 'falling on the neck' is followed immediately by ' weeping.' If that is not the case here, it is a sign that the text needs examination. Before proceeding to the very difficult Shechem-narra- tive, the name Sukkoth {v. 17) needs explanation. It can hardly have meant ' booths,' but comes from nsbo, i.e. n732)N (the feminine of ^3tCN, see on xiv. 13, and cp. on x. 14). Salekath was an important commercial centre (see on xx. 16, xxiii. I s f., and below, on v. 1 9). It is possible — if our 1 Gunkel's paraphrase is too bold, nor is BDB at all satisfactory. How can St\ mean ' pace ' ? And 'bn'j, ' according to my gentleness ' ? And does the latter rendering suit the context ? 2 Lagarde (GGA, 1870, p. 1560) in a review of Olshausen's emen- dations, praises this scholar for not excising inpB"i, but admits that either V'l or 'n'l, ' which are suspiciously like one another,' was not read by @. s Gunkel finds a sportive reference to Yabbok. But npy is even nearer to 'an'i than pT, and apv and pT have a common origin. THE MEETING OF THE BROTHERS (GEN. xxxiii. 1-17) 407 restoration o{ v. 1 4 ^ is correct — that Jacob meant Salekath ( = Ashhur-Yerahme'el) in his reply to Esau's invitation to accompany him ; probable, too — if v. ij and v. 1% repre- sent two parallel traditions, — that the same place is meant by Sukkoth (Salekath) m. v. 17 and by whatever place-name we consider the narrator to have used in y. 18 a. See further, on Dt. iii. 10, Lev. xxiii. 34, 40. JACOB'S PURCHASE OF LAND (Gen. xxxiii. 18-20) Jacob arrives at Shechem (or rather Shalem), purchases a plot of ground, and erects a sacred stone. The passage forms the introduction to the Dinah-legend in chap, xxxiv. It is necessary, therefore, that the land should be acquired by Jacob. There is, however, some reason to think that the original tradition may have assigned the acquisition of it to Joseph, who was certainly buried there ^ (Josh, xxiv. 30). That Jacob arrived at Shechem ' safe and sound ' is true enough (cp. xxviii. 21), but the ancients did not make such trivial remarks. And certainly, however the opening clause of w. 18 be understood, the construction is unusual, and may justly excite suspicion. May not — must not — oSffi, in spite of the large dissent of the moderns, be a place-name (so ®, Pesh., Eus., Jen, but not Onk.) ? From our present point of view, two results, already attained, have to be remembered — (i) that in xii. 6 (revised text) Abram is said to have come ' to Yerahme'el-Shakram ' (the exact form of the name may be left open) ; and (2) that dSk) (see on xxxiv. 21, xiv. 18), like D"l'?t2J (see on Mic. v. 4), is likely to 1 Meyer, op. dt. pp. 277, 288. 4o8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL be a corruption of ^n:!D2)\^ Most probably, therefore, we should render, ' and Jacob came to Shalem ( = Ishmael), a city of Shechem (Shakram).' This Shalem must have been an important place, near to, if not even identical with, Sukkoth (Salekath). It was situated in Shakram, i.e. the region called Ashhur-Aram (cp. on xii. 6, on xlviii. 22, and on ptCDT, XV. 2). To this was added from P, ' which is in the land of Canaan ' (see on x. 6). The southern Canaan may, in fact, have been a part of the wide region called Ashhur. Cp. the remark in xii. 6, that ' the Canaanites were then in the land.' Then, in v. ig, what is the meaning of the phrase, 'iD ■'IN nion ■'21 ? Is it correct that ' the aristocracy of the town (Judg. ix. 28) called themselves sons of Hamdr,' i.e. 'of the he-ass ' ? ^ That the phrase ' ben^ Hamdr ' may have been sportively so explained is highly probable. So an important post-exilic Jewish clan was called the bene Par'osh, i.e., superficially viewed, ' sons of Flea.' Knowing, however, that Dm ( i Chr. ii. 44) is an abbreviation of DHT',^ can we hesitate to explain lion (as well as Ass. himdru)^ as = iNon (cp. noNn), i.e. ^noht ? This means that one of the various branches of the Yerahme'elite race took as its name one of the many corruptions of ' Yerahme'el.' In xlviii. 22, instead of Hamdr, we find ilDNrr. Now ■'ION, like ■'OIN, may ultimately come from ■''pNonT. Cp. E. Bib., ' Hamor." And why should D3tO ■'IN be added ? Here the scholars differ. Some say that a later hand must have inserted these words, because in the Dinah-legend (chap, xxxiv.) Ham6r is the name of a person, not, as here, of a clan. Others, that ""IN here means ' founder ' (cp. i Chr. ii. 21, etc., and especially Judg. ix. 28). This compels us to examine the passages in which ■'IN occurs in connexion with a clan- 1 Wellhausen {CIP\ p. 316, note i) arbitrarily changes aha into nai? — ' Jacob came to Shechem, the city of (the person) Shechem.' In 1906, Winckler suggests 'Shalem the city of Shechem,' i.e. Shalem is the earlier name of Shechem. A forced explanation ! 2 Robertson Simth., /ourn. of Philology, ix. 94. s Shema, Yorkeam, and Shammai are as obviously Yerahme'elite or Ishmaelite names. * Johns, AJSL, July 1903, p. 253. JACOBS PURCHASE OF LAND (Gen. xxxiii. 18-20) 409 name or a place-name, and our result is (see on iv. 20, X. 21, xxii. 21, Judg. ix. 28) that ■'IN in such cases has come from "Qs, i.e. ns (cp. on x. 24). Certainly 'm 'n is a gloss, but it has no harmonistic object. It stands for 'tu 3"is, ' Arabia of Shechem (Shakram),' which is a gloss describing where the tribe of the Hamdrites dwelt. So the purchase of the plot of ground where Joseph was to be buried (Josh. xxiv. 32J was effected. And what was the price ? The MT. says na"'top Hnd. Here the old methods of criticism fail us. To make progress, we must follow the parallel of xxiii. \^ f. (see note) and correct hnd into nap ('a minae of), if we should not take a further hint and read nip i'S'iN, ' four minae.' na"'tDp (also in Job xlii. II ;^ Josh. xxiv. 32 is imitative) is traced in E. Bib., col. 2659, to Of OD[nD] ; o and B confounded. But it is more probable that 'p, like m3D, is a corruption of riD^D. Thus the passage becomes, ' And he bought ... for a mina [or, for four minae] of Sakkath.' The mina of Salekath in the south was as much a standard as that of Karkemish in the north. Cp. on xx. 13. The traditional view of kesitah is at any rate very hazardous.^ V. 20 remains. With Wellh. {CH^^^, p. 50, note i) I read niSD (xxxv. 14, 20) for niin and rh for 'h. This is because of is"'1 ; cp. also the ' great stone ' set up by Joshua (Josh. xxiv. 26) at Shechem. Otherwise nmn need not be wrong ; cp. the Syrian inscription beginning Aw yScB/icS fieyaX^? And what was the name of the god and the stone, or the god-stone, in v. 20 ? Can we, in spite of B. Luther,* leave 'mi TrfpN Sn unquestioned ? Sn by the side of TT^N and ^Nitl?i (whether as a personal or a tribal name) are surely improbable.'' Yahweh, indeed, could not be expected from the Elohist ; here B. Luther is right. But is this enough to justify ^n by itself? ^NntD"> appears to ' Read [nnn am npo] inx hd'jo mp ; two competing readings. ^ I fear this will not please Mr. Cowley, who supports the traditional rendering of kesitah, 'Iamb,' by the word V2^ in the Assuan papyri. This is the name of a coin worth 10 shekels, explained by Mr. Cowley 'lamb-coin.' But t>i2 is, like 'ep, a problem. ^ Ed. Meyer, op. cit. pp. 113, 548. * Ibid. p. 295. * @ €7r€Ka\ecraT0 rbv QAv la-parjX, evading the difficulty. 4IO TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL me to be a gloss on 'jNom"' (in xxi. 3 3 disguised as CjSis) , 'dhT' may underlie irr^N as well as D'^n^M. Thus we get I^Nim-'] Snoht^ hin, 'the God of Yerahme'el [of Israel].' Winckler arbitrarily substitutes •n'lp ^n. It is noteworthy that in Judg. viii. 33, ix. 4 (MT.), the God of Shechem is called ' Baal-berith,' underneath which probably lies the compound divine name 'Yerahme'el 'Arbith' (see p. 18, note 4). THE FATE OF DINAH (Gen. xxxiv.) The legend of Dinah is partly parallel to the legends of the fortunes of Sarah and Ribkah in Misrim and Gerar. In all three the purpose of Yahweh to guard the purity of the chosen family seemed in danger of being thwarted ; in all three the attempt of those who opposed it was brought to nought. The Dinah-legend was evidently thought of much importance, both as a proof of the watchful care of Yahweh and because it had to do with Shechem, which was, in early times, at any rate for the tribes of Joseph, a great political centre. It was therefore handed down in two versions. Even an approximately final analysis of the section has not, however, been arrived at. At present many critics hold that in both versions of the story circumcision was a condition either of the marriage of Shechem and Dinah only, or of a general connubium ; i.e. in the first case Shechem alone, and in the second all the male freemen of the city, consented to become like the sons of Jacob and be circumcised. Those, however, who hold this view are confronted by a serious difficulty. How can either J or E (whose work was welded together, and perhaps also THE FATE OF DINAH (Gen. xxxiv.) 411 retouched, by a redactor) have represented Jacob and his sons as circumcised, if Ex. iv. 25^. and Josh. v. 2 ff. really give a tradition of the introduction of circumcision among the bene Israel ? It is not a satisfactory answer that there may have been two different traditions, one representing circumcision among the Israelites as pre-Mosaic, the other as post -Mosaic. It should also be pointed out that xlix. 5-7 (which is clearly connected with the Shechem- tradition) does not favour the view that circumcision had anything to do with this early tradition. The text of this poetic passage may indeed be partly corrupt, but one thing at least is certain — it does not refer to circumcision. And, if possible, still more certain is it that the famous saying of Jacob to Joseph in xlviii. 22 (see note) does not agree with either of the narratives which Wellhausen ^ and others have sought to extract from the current text of chap, xxxiv. It is therefore unwise in the critics to be too confident that circumcision is referred to in the true text of chap, xxxiv. A needful preliminary is to re-examine the text, and in order to do this with much profit, we must more unreservedly adopt the point of view of comparative textual criticism. Now it so happens that, according to the MT., another of the sons of Jacob — besides Simeon and Levi — is accused of having violated the moral usages of their race, viz. Reuben (xxxv. 22, xlix. 3 /i). The passages will be considered later, but I may venture to say here by anticipa- tion that the results of a thorough criticism excite a suspicion that the present form of the Shechem-narratives before us ^ may be partly due to early textual corruption, i.e. that early redactors may have had corrupt texts to work upon, and produced rather surprising results. It is the mention of the circumcision of Shechem or the Shechemites, and all that is most closely connected with this, that I refer to here. Of course, the results of textual criticism outside Genesis must be of high subsidiary value. There are a number of passages in MT. relative to circumcision which may well be suspected of corruptness besides the passages in xxxv. 22 1 C^(i889), 'Nachtrage.' ^ Assuming that J's narrative really did include the requirement of circumcision as a condition of Shechem's marriage with Dinah. 412 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL and xlix. 3 f., and I venture to maintain that by a keener textual criticism a more credible text can in each case be brought to light from underneath the corruption. The passages that I have now in my mind are — Ex. iv. 25, Josh. V. 2 /, 9, Judg. xiv. 3, xv. 18, i S. xiv. 6, xvii. 26, 36, xviii. 25, 27, xxxi. 4, 2 S. i. 20, iii. 14, i Chr. X. 4, Ps. cxviii. 10, Isa. Iii. i, Jer. ix. 24/., Ezek. xxviii. 10, xxxi. 18, xxxii. 19-32, xliv. 7-9. Most of them have been treated by me elsewhere.^ Still I may refer here (i) to Josh, v. 2, etc., where no sense can possibly be made of n»31 m^isrr, whereas D■'S^«^r 'x ' hill of the Arelites,' gives an excellent sense ; ' Arelites ' = ' Yerahme'elites ' (cp. on 2 S. xxiii. 20). And (2) to Judg. xiv. 3, i S. xiv. 6, etc., where f?1», D"'SlJ? are glosses on into'^D, DTiffi^D, i.e. ' Philistine(s) ' is explained as = Arelites ([d'']'?nN), which is a popular abbreviation of ' Yerahme'elites ' ^ (D"''?Nnm"'). Also (3) to Jer. ix. 24, where n'pii'l h^m is incapable of a satisfactory explanation ;^ h')0 (as in Dt. i. i, iii. 29, iv. 46, etc.) comes from bloriN or some other current distortion of SwiJDtt)'' or 'pNOnT, and nbisi from ^1"in (cp. on fjNlIN, Hos. x. 14), z.e. ^Nom"', which was inserted as a gloss on S"|D or 'jlDDN. Also (4) to Ps. cxviii. 10, where the incomprehensible aS^'ON (' I will circumcise them,' i.e. ' all nations ') is certainly from D"'So"iN = D"'^NDnT, a gloss of the utmost value for exegesis. And lastly (5) to Ezek. xxviii. 8, 10, where ' thou shalt die the deaths of those that are slain ' and ' thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised ' admit of no clear explanation, until we see that cbis has come from D"|^^N ( = ' Yerahme'elites ') and ^Sn from fjon = ^NDHT (so in 2 S. i. 22, i K. xi. 15, Ezek. xxxii. 21 /".) ; cp. h^TiQ, i K. v. II, and Di^in D"'lin, ' Habulite or Hablite [Yerahme'elite] garments,' Am. ii. 8, referred to on xxv. 25. At this point it may be well to notice that Kuenen and Cornill have already suggested what, in their respective opinions, may have been the condition on which, in the original J-narrative, Shechem's offer of marriage for Dinah 1 See Critica Biblica, and cp. E. Bib., ' Moses,' § 7. 2 Cp. '^NHN from '^Nom' in the much-disputed passage, 2 S. xxiii. 20. 3 Neither N. Schmidt {E. Bib., col. 2385) nor Cornill {Das Buck Jer., 1905) has any real hght to throw on the passage. THE FATE OF DINAH (Gen. xxxiv.) 413 was accepted by her family. According to the former,^ Jacob and his sons condone the injury done to Dinah in consideration of a heavy fine, upon which they consent to Shechem's marriage with Dinah, which would really have been accomplished if Simeon and Levi had not intervened. According to the latter,^ the condition imposed by Simeon and Levi upon Shechem may have been the cession of a piece of ground near Shechem. That Jacob did acquire, with the due legal forms, a plot of land in this district, appears to have been an essential detail of the tradition (see xxxiii. 19, E), and accordingly the district of Shechem is prominently referred to in the early portion of the Joseph- story (xxxvii. I 2 ff., J). For my part, I am certainly of opinion that some condition must have entered into the original narrative of the negotiations about Dinah. It is clear from xxiv. 3 (J) and xxviii. i (P) that the patriarchs had a strong objection to intermarrying with the Canaanites, and the Shechemites (or Shakramites) were Canaanites. And the condition on which that objection was waived in the case of Dinah must have been something more serious than the payment of a fine or the cession of a piece of ground. It was not, however, the undergoing of circumcision. But it is now time to turn to textual details. Let us first of all repeat that DDtt? is most probably a corruption of a compound name meaning Ashhur-aram. This fact (as I may now venture to call it),^ in combination with the results of the criticism of Ex. iv. 25, etc. (see above), seems to give us the . key to the very ' peculiar ' phrase (Dillm.) — ©"'nS nrxa iVltDN {v. 14). Here, as often, ^©N is mistaken for the relative nms, and iS" has come from the final ^n in names like 'jNOnT ; rhys, as in Ex. iv. 25, Jer. ix. 24, comes from some form of ^Nom"'. The speech of the sons 1 See 'Bijdragen,' vi., in Theol. Tijdschrift, 1880, pp. 257 ^ (especially p. 278). The essay is included in Budde's German edition of Kuenen's Abhandlungen. 2 'Beitrage zur Pentateuchkritik,' ZATW, 1891, p. 13. * Note that in w. 20, 24, 'Shechem' appears to be distinctly called ' Asshur-Aram ' ; also that in Judg. vii.-ix. 'Shechem' is brought into close connexion with Yerubbaal ( = Yerahme'el). See also on xxxiii. 1 8, xii. 6. 414 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL of Jacob in the original E may have been, ' We cannot do this thing, that we give our sister to a man of Asshur- Yerahme'el.' And it is likely that ^lonS (vv. 15, 17), tshtii (v. 22), and iSd"'T {v. 24) have all sprung from a misread f?NDnT, which formed part of some omitted sentence. One of the early redactors (as Wellh. has seen, there were probably two) spun the whole story out of this and analogous corruptions. In vv. 20, 24, we again meet with ' Asshur-Yerahme'el ' (or, more strictly perhaps, with ' Asshur-Aram '). qts "ii>© might perhaps pass in v. 20, but in v. 24 ITS "li;© "'NS^'-fja will certainly not do. The phrase there is supposed to mean ' all the citizens.' Using our experience, however (see on xxiii. 10, 18), we may confidently read mi>i i^n i2S''"'?3, i.e. virtually, ' all the councillors of Asshur - Yerahme'el.' Similarly, in v. 20, D'^s^' 'j&N'Sn and di^i [ns)N] ■'£B3n-Sn. Cp. on xxiii. lO, xxxvi. 43. Note also i"inn,^ i.e. "'"int&Nn, in z". 2 ; Hamor ( = Yerahme'el) was an Ashhurite (0, ' a Horite'). See on xiv. 6, xxxvi. 2, 22. A confirmation of this view may be given. In z;. 21 T UTf D^'O^JD interrupts the connexion. We cannot help connecting "i3nN with IIJI?-' ; this indeed is supported by Sam., @, Pesh.^ But on D"'D^t», if it means ' are peaceable,' cannot dispense with lanw or laai;. But is ' peaceable ' a possible rendering ? and how can we venture to' insert a second l3nN ? Above all, note that q^Q) in xxxiii. 18 is a corruption of ^Ni;OtB\ Surely it is so here ; read certainly DH D'^^Nl^DtO"', ' they were Ishmaelites,' ' a gloss on the corrupt phrase dts ■'2>Dn {v. 20). Thus vv. 20 / (the sequel of V. 18) become, 'And Hamor came to Asshur-Aram, and spoke with the men of [Asshur]-Aram, saying, Let these men dwell with us in the land, etc' F". 22 appears to be a redactional insertion, in the interest of the circumcision- theory. Another confirmation. In the opening words of v. 27 1 Ed. Meyer (p. 331) comes to the right conclusion, but with poor arguments. 2 Geiger, Ball, and Gunkel agree. ^ Geiger (Urschrift, p. 76) and Winckler {AOF im. 442) propose ' Salemites,' taking n^^, xxxiii. 1 8, as the name of a city. THE FATE OF DINAH (Gen. xxxiv.) 415 D'^^^nn, as Gunkel remarks, makes no sense. If the Shechemites were already slain, why do the brothers fall upon them ? Gunkel would read D"'bnn ' the sick,' regarding this as parallel to d"'1nd in v. 25. But, as we have seen, Hyn most probably comes from Son = '7^^Dm^ and as for W1V0 Dnvni in V. 25, '3 is surely a redactional substitute for DTlJal (cp. Judg. viii. 1 1, xviii. 27), made in the interest of a theory (similarly Winckler, AOFxxi. 442). Vv. 25-27 will thus contain a statement that on the third day (i.e. after a short interval ; see Judg. xx. 30) the sons of Jacob took their swords, and fell upon the unsuspecting Yerahme'elites, and spoiled the city. The sense is greatly improved. What, then, is the kernel of the story ? It is an episode in the Israelitish conquest of a portion of the Arabian border-land. A small Israelite clan called ' Dinah ' is in danger of being absorbed by the Canaanite majority in Asshur-Aram (Shakram, Shechem), a city which was at once in the ' land of Canaan ' and in Asshur-Yerahme'el, for the latter phrase was used widely, and so could include the smaller region called Canaan. Other clans (Simeon and Levi), nearly related to Dinah, seek to prevent this, and, probably at dawn, fall upon and massacre the freemen of the city. They have made good their entrance by craft, for they have given their assent, upon a specified condition, to the fusion of the two races, and no watch is kept against them. After they have fallen, the Canaanites of the neighbour- hood gather their warriors, and so nearly destroy Simeon and Levi that these clans only continue to exist in scattered fragments. The latter statement is not merely an inference from V. 30. Chap. xlix. 5-7 (see revised text) shows that a severe vengeance — according to tradition — was taken upon the two Hebrew clans, and that the other Israelite clans recognised its justice. See further, on xlviii. 22. In justice to other views I will add that Stucken (Astralmythen, pp. 76, 144 with notes) compares Dinah to Helena, Simeon and Levi to the Dioscuri. This is plausible ; but what follows ? The mythological key only opens a few of the locks of Genesis, and I can see no sign of its doing so either here or in xlix. 5-7. Also that, according to Ed. Meyer, the ' Canaanites and Perizzites ' did not combine to take 4i6 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL vengeance on Jacob's family {v. 30) or at least on Simeon and Levi ; xlix., as he thinks, refers not to the remote past but to the future, i.e. to the writer's own period. He regards the story as the legendary reflex of the events related historically in Judg. ix. {Die Israeliten, pp. 419, 422). THEOPHANIES; DEATHS OF DEBORAH AND RACHEL (Gen. xxxv.) Composite and ill-arranged. Jacob passes on to Bethel, where he builds an altar, and gives it a name (see below). We also hear that Deborah died, and was buried ; and then that Jacob had another theophany, and called the name of the place Bethel. The notice which now appears in V. I 3, of Jacob's erection of a massebah, and of his drink- offering, is no longer in its original setting. As Cornill has shown,^ it originally came after the account of the death of Deborah ; we must, however, omit the words immediately following niSD npi'"' 121"!, which are a redactional insertion. What we have to treat of now is (i) the true form of the name which appears as El-Bethel {v. 7), and (2) the statement respecting Deborah {v. %). (i) As to El-Bethel, the real difficulty is, not that which seems to have struck (g as such, but the absence of a proper name prefixed to the title El-Bethel. In xxxi. 1 3 we have had to correct MT.'s SmdiI "^Nrr into '1 Sm '?NDm\ It is not improbable that underneath DlpD^ in w. 7 « lies the original reading 'dht 17. That DIpD sometimes comes from 'onT (cp. tisDp\ D^'p"') is clear from xii. 6, etc. (see ad loc). Thus we get, ' And there he built an altar, and called it Yerahme'el, God of Bethel ' (cp. on xxxiii. 20). I ZATIV, 1891, pp. 16-19. So too Gunkel, p, 336. THEOPHANIESj ETC. (Gen. xxxv.) 417 Next, who was the person here called ' Deborah ' ? Was she really the nurse of Ribkah ? But is it likely that the name of a nurse should have been preserved ? J, in xxiv. 5 9, simply speaks of ' her nurse.' And can we imagine that a nurse would have done anything that legend-makers would have deemed of importance ? For, whoever the dead woman was, she must traditionally have been a somewhat con- spicuous figure in her life. How strange, too, that this nurse should have been present in Jacob's train, and that the whole Jacob-tribe should have made a ceremonial mourning over her ! Lastly, how comes it that the allon- tree was not called 'the allon of Deborah' (cp. Judg. iv. 5)? Can the text be correct? The problem is a very difficult one. Let us first of all consider the name ' Allon-bakuth.' 'Tree of weeping' is obviously wrong ; mDl must be an error. There would be nothing to surprise us in this ; the names of sacred trees (hSn, P^n) are often corrupt (see e.g. on xii. 6, xiii. 18, Judg. iv. II, ix. 37, I S. X. 3). Sound method seems to require that we should look for some passages which, besides referring to Bethel, contain some name or names which admit of being compared with Allon-bakuth. There are two such passages. One is Judg. ii. i «, 5 ^, where a divine Being is said to have come up from Gilgal to Bochim (D"'3a[n]), where sacrifices were offered to Yahweh. Evidently ' Bochim ' is equivalent to ' Bethel,' and the form may perhaps best be accounted for as an irregular contraction of n''"iDl ^ (for the clan Beker, see xlvi. 21, 2 S. xx. i). The other is I S. X. 3, where a spot called niin p^N is spoken of as not far from Bethel ; Luc. gives t^? S/3U09 t^9 i/cXeKrfj'i, i.e. Tim p~)N. From these we may safely gather that such a place-name as Bikrath or Bekorath (cp. i S. ix. i) or Bahurath is to be expected near Bethel. The original name of the tree was therefore, probably, not Allon-bakuth, but Allon-Bikrath, for which an alternative form may have been Allon-Ribkath, i.e. Tree of Ribkath (Rebekah). Next, as to Deborah. In Judg. iv. 4 / we find a prophetess and 'judge' called Deborah,^ who dwells under 1 Cp. vra for m^a (2 S. xx. 14), and [ns and jVi' from pynx (xxxvii. 2). ^ On the name ' Deborah' in Judg. iv. 4, see Crit. Bib. p. 450. 4i8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL the palm-tree (?) of Deborah, between Ramah and Bethel. That this Deborah can have no place in a patriarchal narrative is clear. It is quite possible, however, that a reference to this personage may have been interpolated by a gloss-maker into a passage which, properly speaking, referred only to Ribkah. The difficulty arising out of np2''D is not insuperable. That the tradition really gave the name Deborah to Ribkah's nurse is most improbable (see above) ; can the reading npi'io be correct ? For my part, I think not. It has probably arisen by transposition of letters from n^Dp"', which would be, according to analogy, a corrupt form ^ of rr'^NOnT. 'Deborah (min), Yerah- me'elitess,' is possibly an alternative reading to ' Ribkah ' (npn). The Deborah referred to is the prophetess, who, like other prophets, was of Yerahme'elite origin.^ The glossator knew this, and stated it clearly. Later on, the gloss found its way into the text ; a corruptly written JT'DonT' became np3D"', and ultimately, by an ingenious and easy transposition of letters, np3"'D. Deborah — the tra- ditional heroine of another age — became the contemporary of Jacob, and the humble but honoured dependent of Jacob's mother, Ribkah. That the statement in v. 8 (with which V. \if must be connected) is misplaced, is obvious. The death of Ribkah must originally have stood in some other context which is now lost. Her grave was placed at Bethel, because of the place-name Allon-Ribkath (originally Allon- Bikrath).' Probably, with Winckler, we should read 'she was buried under the 'allon in Bethel.' The libation in V. 14, which (apart from R's insertions) refers to Deborah's grave, is probably meant as consisting of wine, and as a refreshment for the dead. The reference to the oil was suggested to R by xxviii. 18 (Cornill).* Verses 16-20 record the death of Jacob's favourite wife, 1 Cp. Dyjp', ovDp'. 2 See E. Bib., 'Prophet,' §§ 9, 35, 43, etc. 5 For another view see E. Bib., col., 1102, note i ; also col. 594 ('Bochim'), overlooked by Ed. Meyer (p.- 273), who can even see in the name ' Deborah ' a vestige of animal-worship. Against this see Crit. Bib. on Judg. iv. 4/! * Against Cornill's view oi v. 14, see Griineisen, Der Ahnenhultus, p. 128/ THEOPHANIESj ETC. (Gen. xxxv.) 419 Rachel. F. 1 6 in the A.V. reads smoothly enough — ' and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath.' The margin, however, warns us that the translators were uncertain about psn miD, for it records the rendering, ' a little piece of ground.' Certainly it is, as Driver remarks, ' a peculiar expression.' According to BDB the word m33 means ' a distance of land, or length of way,' which is illustrated by Assyrian kibrdti, ' a (widely extended) territory, or quarter of the world.' From this Winckler^ derives the supposed meaning, ' border,' ' frontier.' But how this is possible I cannot see (see Muss Arnolt's Ass. Diet. s.v.). The phrase pN 'd is found in 2 K. v. 19, and the two passages must be taken together. It is important to notice that the back- ground of both stories may be, and probably is, N. Arabian," and that in both passages a regional name is not impossible. What, then, is the regional name out of which mn5 may have arisen ? Our choice lies between rrn33 (see above, on V. 8 b) and mim. To the latter word we have already traced the obscure regional name "insD (see on x. 14), which is not far off from miD. It should also be noticed (a) that pNH and pM are little less peculiar than miD ; (b) that there are cases in which pN has probably arisen out of a misunderstood 'in (din) or 'i:> (ni;) ; (c) that in x. 11 T2> mm has come from lis 'l, ' Arabian Rehoboth ' ; and (d) that irT'T has sometimes arisen out of Nim. The result is that 'isn 'n3 T]S 'rl^'^ has most probably come from niH"! 319 nih") 315, ' that is, Arabia ; Arabian Rehoboth,' a gloss indicating the region where the place here called ^Nrril lay. Omitting this, the narrative runs thus, ' And they moved camp from Bethel, in order to come to Ephrath, and Rachel,' etc. Consistency, when it can be had, is pleasing, and cer- tainly the redactor is consistent when he inserts, most prob- ably as a second gloss on nmsN, DVn IS, which (see on ^^^- 37 /■) probably comes from jq; yis, 'Yamanite Arabia.' The first gloss is onf? D'^n N"irr, ' that is Beth-lehem,' ie. ' AOF, 3rd sen, iii. 444. ^ On 2 K. V. see Crzi. Bid. Cp. also E. Bib., ' Naaman,' and ' Rachel's Sepulchre,' articles which pointed the way without being com- pletely accurate. 420 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL ' Beth-Yerahme'el.'^ Both glosses got into the text, the one in v. 19 (end), the other, unfortunately, at the end of V. 20. Before Rachel's death, tradition stated (v. 18) that she gave birth to a son variously called Ben-oni and Binyamln. The former is supposed to mean ' son of my sorrow ' (so @) ; the latter, ' son of the right hand ' {i.e. of good fortune). Cp. the Finnish epic {Kalevala, by Crawford, Rune 1.), When the mother named him, Flower, Others named him, Son-of-sorrow. Tradition, however, was not quite consistent ; Test. xii. Pair. presupposes for ' Binyamln ' the meaning, ' son of days,' i.e. ' of old age.' ^ A more plausible explanation is ' southern son,' a collective term for the people of the southern portion of Amurru^ (Palestine, Phoenicia, and Coele- Syria), or perhaps of the highland district called Ephraim.* For the former view, Winckler compares fpNOto (Sam'al, at the foot of the Amanus mountains) ; for the latter, H. W. Hogg refers to the name pas (Safon), applied to a district of Gilead, and to the Edomite district pTi (Teman). We can hardly doubt, however, that pD"" is really not = the south, but a modification of jo;; (see on xlvi. 10), and that f?NDt& is a corruption of ^NSom-', pS2 of psas = 'otOi (see on xxxvi. 2), and iDTi of pn■' = '^3tD^ Similarly, Oni in Ben-oni is a regional name ; perhaps ' Oni ' should rather be ' Ono ' (see Neh. vi. 2, vii. 37). On, Ono, Onam, Onan are character- istically N. Arabian names ; see on xxxviii. 4, xli. 45, Ex. i. II, Josh. vii. 2, Ezek. xxx. 17, Hos. iv. 15, Neh. vi. 2. The centre of the original Benjamite district may have been called On, and certainly the leading racial element in Benjamite was Yerahme'elite. As to ' Ephrathah, that is, Bethlehem ' (v. 1 9), it may be added that Ephrathah may have been the district in which this Beth-Yerahme'el (there were other places of this name) 1 Both 'Ephrath' and 'Beth-lehem' are primarily N. Arabian names. Other places also came to be so designated. But cp. Ed. Meyer, p. 273 (for the prevalent view). 2 Benj. I ; see E. Bib., col. 534, note I. 3 KAT^^\ p. 180. * E. Bib., col. 534- THEOPHANIES; ETC. (Gen. xxxv.) 421 was situated. See also i Chr. ii. 19, 24, 50, iv. 4, and cp. Crit. Bib. p. 202, foot. In xxxv. 21-22 a J reports what Gunkel calls ' Reuben's shameful deed.' Once, this scholar thinks, the narrative must have gone further. Now, it breaks off in the middle.-' ' God forbid,' thinks the narrator, ' that I should even commit such dreadful things to writing.' Is this really so? Of course, ' and (when) Israel heard of it ' requires to be followed by the words of blame which he must have uttered if sotci hvrxcr is correct, and if this account of ' Reuben's shameful deed ' can be depended upon. But the truth is that textual corruption and a redactor's ill-placed acuteness have com- bined to produce the result now before us, a result which has so shocked the moderns that they have tried to explain it away archaeologically.^ The received text (reserving w. 2 1 ) needs to be corrected as follows — -riN xsl^yT^ jnxi iSi"i vc\rm pNi 'o®-' ]3ton ■'H-'") ['jNlte*' ^Nl>DQ)'' IT.^] yshl, ' And it came to pass, when Ishmael dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and subdued Bilshan [gloss, Arabia of Israel].' Here ' Ishmael ' is transferred from the end of the verse, where bxiOtO"' underlies i>Dt2>"'l, and originally stood side by side with the alternative but inferior reading, hvrm^. miD for id© needs no defence. nnf?l and t»lTQ have the same origin, viz. Jffi■'l^?, i.e. Arab-Ishmael, see Ezra ii. 2 (cp. on Ex. xxxi. 2, Josh. vii. 21, and on ltO"':iN, p. 1 20) ; for nr see on T^N, xlix. 4. ' Bilshan ' {i.e. Ishmaelite Arabia) was the name of a district which the tribe of Reuben conquered, very possibly under circum- stances shocking to the moral sense of a later age. Let us now turn back to v. 21. ^"T»-^^1D^ nsSTrD is doubtless obscure, but the gloom lightens when we remember that riN^n and nN^nc almost constantly represent fjNom"' (see on xix. 9, i S. x. 3, etc.), and that a misunderstood Sin ( = -ismN) may easily have been misread as tts. h'l'ixh may perhaps have come from a dittographed 'jNonT. In this case the statement simply is that ' Israel moved camp, and pitched his tent in Yerahme'el of Edrei.' At any rate, ^ ®, however, adds I'i'vn yTi. 2 See W. R. Smith, Kinship^\ pp. loZ ff. ; Journ. of Phil. ix. 86, note 2 ; Ulmer, Die semit. Eigennamen, p. 1 6. 422 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL ' Edrei ' must be right. In Dt. i. 4 (see note) and elsewhere it appears as a place of importance in ' Bashan,' a name which has come from ' Abshan,' i.e. ' Arab-Ishmael.' It is possible that ' Edrei ' could also be described as being in ' Bilshan ' (see above). This land, we now see, was forcibly taken by Reuben (cp. Nrim. xxxii. 37) from the Ishmaelites or Yerahme'elites who originally dwelt there. The story may have been inserted as a parallel to that in chap, xxxiv. ; possibly it is incomplete. Cp. on xlix. 3 /. The remainder of chap. XXXV. hardly requires any special commentary here. GENEALOGY OF ESAU (Gen. xxxvi. 1-30) We have discussed the name of Esau (see on xxv. 25), also his early fortunes ; we now proceed to his genealogy. Vv. 2, 3 give the names of his three wives. For 'Adah' see on iv. 19, and for ' Basemath,' on xxvi. 34. ' Oholibamah ' has been much misunderstood. It is quite right to compare the Phoenician hs'yhni^, ibn^riN, and S. Arabian ^N^rtN, nnns^rrN, but this, of course, does not show that the name, together with its Hebrew parallels, nN-i^nN, nbrrN, nn-'^HN, hntii, has anything to do with brji^, ' tent,' though BDB actually gives ' tent of the high place,' and similar meanings for the parallel names. A more special inquiry into the meanings of bn and hn in combination with •', n, and D will reveal the secret of ' Oholi- bamah' and the like, by which Ed. Meyer (p. 339) confesses himself baffled. The truth is that Srrx in proper names, and now and then in narratives where at first sight it seems to mean 'tent' (e.g. iv. 20; cp. also on xiii. 12, '?rrN"'"l), is a GENEALOGY OF ESAU (GEN. 'xxxvi. 1-30) 423 popular abbreviation (analogous to din) of ^NoriT'. It is so too with f?n or ^n, hiV or hfv, in the proper names hvhhn'^, I Chr. iv. 1 6, 2 Chr. xxix. 1 2 ; ■'^nx, i Chr. ii. 31, xi. 4 1 ; riM^n, I Chr. iv. 5 (wife of Ashhur) ; fpsfpn"', xlvi. 1 4 (see note), and the presumed adverb riNbrr (see above, on xxxv. 21). rroi, however, is surely impossible. Either n should be 1, or dd!! (if we may read thus) has come from nofflX From z/. 41 it seems that the name underlying Oholibamah is a clan-name, nzs and psis are variants ; see on vv. 20, 24. ' Hivite ' should be ' Horite ' or ' Ashhurite ' (xxxiv. 2). — ID17N (Eliphaz) in v. 4 is familiar to us from Job (ii. 1 1 , etc.). How shall we explain it ? ' My God is pure gold ' is uncritical and sounds irreligious (Job xxxi. 24). May it not have come from jssifjN (Ex. vi. 22, Num. iii. 30) ? A son of Eliphaz is called ^^a1 (v. 11), which is a shortened form of )1S2. This name, equally with pris {v. 2, etc.), comes from ]isom = ^Ni;QtO'^. Different branches of Ishmael or Yerahme'el may bear names which, critically viewed, have the same origin. For ^N"ii>-| see on xvi. 13 (El-roi), Ex. ii. 18. — m-'i?-' {vv. s, 14) or m■^I>^ Kr. (so, too, Kt. v. 18), has been held to be ' the phonetical equivalent of the Ar. lion-god Yaghuth, the protector.' ^ It must, however, be grouped with mi^r (i Chr. vii. 8), and probably Mna. In all these names JCp may come from ~itr:» = TlffiM. — th^'^ is surely neither ' ibex ' ^ (W. R. Sm.) nor ' he who knows,' i.e. the sun (Winckler). Like hs"^ and \r:hs it comes from '?NSDm\ — TVrp seems to have been a widely-spread clan-name. It reminds one of '\'\r\p, Judg. viii. 10; Hp-t]}, Josh. xv. 3; also of DTTpin-p (Neh. iii. 8), which doubtless comes from QnT-p. rrmp in Mesha's inscription (/. 21) may have the same origin ; it was perhaps the acropolis which contained a temple of the supreme god Yerahme'el, also called Kemosh ( = Ashhur-Ishmael). See Crit. Bib. pp. 328, 358). Thus mp is probably an expansion of a fragment of Dm"'.^ Vv. 9-14. The sons of Esau. How, one asks, can ^ Joum. of Phil. ix. 91. But cp. Lagarde, Mitieil. ii. 77; also Winckler, AOF -xxi.. 446. ^ See Gray, HPN, p. 90, note 5. Besides, the ethnic connexion is plain. ^ Cp. Psalms''^\ vol. i. p. xlv. 424 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Esau, in vv. 9, 43, become the ' father of Edom ' ? Else- where {vv. I, 8, 19, cp. XXV. 30) Edom is but another name of Esau. Ulmer^ suggests that '^im in v. 43 may have arisen out of nIH. Most probably, however, '^IN, as so often, has come from "ilN, i.e. TO. In both verses there is a gloss, though only in t/. 43 is it introduced by Nin. In v. 9 it is ' Arab-edom,' a gloss on ' Esau ' ; in w. 43, ' that is, Esau Arab-edom,' a gloss on 'Edom.' — In v. 11, pTi hardly means ' southern ' ; indeed, it is not clear that such an epithet would be correct (see E. Bib., ' Teman '). Rather, it comes from ]oni = JDm% i.e. ' Ishmael.' Cp. Jer. xlix. 7, ' Is wisdom no more in Teman ' ? Yerahme'el or Ishmael was famous for wisdom (i K. iv. 31}. Cp. also the suggestive name Timnath-serah, where ' Serah ' certainly comes from ' Ashhur.' — idin (like DTI?, v. 43) comes from f?NQnT ; note the remark on Yerahme'elite branches, above. — ids. See on ' EHphaz,' V. 4. But reads 1D"|2 (so in v. 15, and in I Chr. i. 36 ; cp. Job ii. 11). — Dni>X Perhaps from now. Cp. ' Sophar the Naamathite,' Job ii. 11. — Wp. See Cooke, p. 144/; IDTI3D probably from pDT t3p, Kenaz- Yerahme'el. 'Timna' (won), in v. 12, like WDi (v. 22), nion, and n^C, all probably have the same origin as JDTI (see on v. 11). See E. Bib., ' Timna,' and cp. Gunkel. Vv. 15-19. List of the chieftains (@ rf'yefiove^) of the sons of Esau. nn3 {v. 17); perhaps from nroo {v. 23). But cp. an3. — mT, like Din, probably from "intDM (see on xxxviii. 30). — nom, i.e. nsoffi (see on i S. xvi. 9). — niD {fiot,e, fio^ai). Cp. noT, I Chr. vi. 5, which, like D"'D'rOT, Dt. ii. 20, comes from SDW or '7Ni?DtO\ It may, indeed, be an inferior variant to rrDtO. (The need of a keener criticism is very apparent in Gunkel's note.) phas is a popular cor- ruption of fjNDm"' ; cp. Meluhha = N.W. Arabia. Vv. 20-30. Two lists of clans of Horites. The latter are not cave-dwellers,^ but Ashhurites). Dt. ii. 12, 22 (see note) contains mistaken archaeology ; Esau himself, as we 1 Die semit. Eigennamen, i. 24, note 2. ^ ' Cave-dwellers ' would not be distinctive enough. Caves were abundant in hilly regions (cp. Macalister, Sidelights from the Mound of Gezer (1906). The Horite names are N. Arabian. GENEALOGY OF ESAU (Gen. xxxvi. 1-30) 425 have seen, was an Ashhurite. Another corruption of Ashhur is Seir.^ How could Seir be a Horite if the Horites were an aboriginal race, unless, indeed, we suppose that ' Seir ' first of all meant an aboriginal race, and then came to mean Esau, for certainly xxvii. 1 1 (see note) originally ran ' my brother is Seir ' ? And even apart from this, the opening names show conclusively that the list is Yerahme'elite. Take, first, Lotan. The origin of Lot (whence Lotan) may be uncertain (see on xi. 27), but Lot was certainly the kinsman of the hero of Ar^b-ArSm or Arib-Rekem, known to us as Abraham. Next, Shobal. Robertson Smith, it is true, took this to mean 'young lion.'^ But even if there were no other objection to this theory,' the occurrence of Shobal in i Chr. ii. 50 among distinctly Yerahme'elite names would be enough to prove my thesis. In fact, hy\X!i like ^Nlim, I Chr. xxiii. 16, comes from ^NrDtO\ Lastly, ]1»3S (Sibeon), which Robertson Smith explained, from Arabic as usual, as 'hyaena,' is really to be grouped with NTS, Nils [D-']Nn:5, 3NT, and ^31, and Sin. ins, all of which are surely corrupt fragments of SNSDffi^ It is true the MT. adds Y^vm ■'Iffi'' (which Gunkel renders ' die Ureinwohner '), and @ agrees, except that it reads im^ and connects it with innn. But with the evidence before us that nt»i (like mn and Dn) is not seldom a corruption of fjNSDtD'' ^ ('ntJJ-' = h'slXSr), we cannot feel sure that the reading of MT. is correct. Suffice it to refer to 2 S. v. 6 and i S. xxvii. 8. In the former passage we find pNrr 3t»V "'DlTT, and so in i Chr. xi. 4. Nowhere else, however, are the Jebusites so called, and if ' Jebusites ' was the name specially borne by the pre-Israelite dwellers in Jerusalem, it would be incorrect to speak of them as ' the inhabitants of the land ' ; in Josh. XV. 63 the only right explanatory phrase is used — - 'the inhabitants of Jerusalem.' The best solution of this problem is that itov has come from 'it»-> {i.e. h^-ysT'), which ^ See on xxv. 25. The corruption is, of course, a very ancient one (cp. on Dt. xxxiii. 2). Rameses III., in the Harris Papyrus (Brugsch, p. 203 ; W. M. MuUer, pp. 135 /, cp. p. 240), claims to have ' destroyed the Saira among the tribes of the Shasu.' According to Miiller, the Saira are the same as the Horites. Cp. E. Bib.., col. 1 182, note 2. 2 Joum. of Phil. ix. 90. 3 Cp Gray, HPN, p. 109. * Cp. E. Bib., ' Zibeon.' 426 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL was given as a variant to idt, and that y\t^r( is a redactional insertion, which arose through a misunderstanding. In I S. xxvii. 8 the same problem emerges. The traditional text has D^li>D ^tt?N pNH mim-' T\-yn 13, which Wellhausen, Driver, and Budde render, ' for these are the populations (cp. the prophetic niffi"') that inhabited the land.' A reference to Gen. xxv. 18, however, will show that mitci is a corruption of blim*' ^ {i.e. ^MSDtO"'), while, as (g suggests, Tfyn is hinneh, ' behold.' See O-2V. Bid. In the present passage (v. 20) the solution of the prob- lem must be a similar one. "'llB"' must represent '^vr, i.e. f?NSDa>% which is a gloss on ■'in (cp. i Chr. ii. 1 , ' Hur,' a Calebite). p^n, as in 2 S. v. 6, is a redactional insertion. ' Zibeon ' and ' Anah ' are closely connected in vv. 2 (25), 21, 24. ms is obscure;^ but cp. Ben-ana, Am. Tab. 125, 37. See on v. 24. — Dishon, Dishan^ should probably be Rishon, Rishan, i.e. pl^N, X^^^; cp. on ' Rosh,' xlvi. 21, Ezek. xxxviii. 2 f., and on ' Sirion,' Dt. iii. 9. See also E. Bib., ' Dishon,' ' Uz ' (middle paragraph). — nsN. Cp. n2N3tO (i Chr. iii. 18), the first part of which represents )Di»% i.e. ^Ni^Dm"' (cp. on lN3a>, xiv. 2). "isn, therefore, is a portion of the great Ishmaelite family. The name may also enter into the disputed iHNTTSini {Crit. Bib. p. 3 95). — In z*. 22 DDTT (in Chr. DQin) should perhaps be pTI (so (g, Vg. in Gen.), which may come from JOTIN (i.e. Ashhur-Yaman), Num. xiii. 22, etc. — In v. 23, for Alwan, see on xiv. 18. — nnSD, for euphony, from riDon, i.e. iDn[T] with feminine ending, like n^no from '?Dn[T]. Cp. nm^o, Judg. xx. 43 ; mn^D, I Chr. ii. 52 ; and E. Bib., ' Manahethites ' ; see also on ' Mahanaim,' xxxii. 3. — hy^s ; see on Dt. xi. 29. — "isffi (in Chr. iDffi), like pffiiQ (ii. 11) and jsm (2 K. xxii. 12), from JE3te-' (i Chr. viii. 22), a corruption of )Da>-' = ^M»l3m^ — D31« ; see on 'Ben-oni,' xxxv. 18. We come now to the ben^ Sibe'on (v. 24). n"'M is thought to mean 'kite'* (Lev. xi. 14, etc.). But thus far the supposed animal names have proved illusory. The word ^ Note how often riN and 'jh are confounded {e.g. in Judg. xix. 18), 2 The Arabists explain 'wild ass' (W. R. Smith, p. 90). ^ A sort of antelope, say some (ibid.). * Ibid. ; E. Bib.,' ' A\a\-\. GENEALOGY OF ESAU (Gen. xxxvi. 1-30) 427 (to which MT. prefixes l) is probably imperfect. And what shall we say of the Midrash-like notice given by MT. ? Shall we, with Gunkel, adhere to it, with the exception of the noirr, which baffles the utmost ingenuity ? Surely not. For nar (in v. 24 at any rate) we should possibly read Onan or Ainan.'^ This, however, is a trifle. The main point is that, where MT. has DDTT, @ has tov lafjsiv [Luc. Eayttti'], i.e. ]"'D"', while Onk. presupposes D"'D"'Nn, which, as we have seen on xiv. 6, represents and ultimately comes from D■'f?Nom^ As a gloss on dqtt (? D"'3p'^n), a scribe or corrector inserted D^'lonrrriN, ' the Hamorites ' (a branch of the Yerahme'elites, see on xxxiii. 19). For ^n2;^l inoi read perhaps rmwl 'di (cp. ' Beeroth bene Yaakan,' a wilder- ness station, Dt. x. 6). mso is suspicious. Thus we get, 'this is the Anah who * the Yemanites (Hamorites) in the wilderness of Beeroth for his father Sibeon.' Some important event in the history of the N. Arabian tribes is thus briefly and inadequately reported. The form of the present text is influenced by the story in i S. ix. 3 ff. In t;. 25 ' Oholibamah ' appears as a man ; ' bath 'Anah ' is an incorrect gloss. Why not, indeed ? Clans are sometimes personified as males, sometimes as females. — In V. 26 pan suggests a pretty problem. Noldeke explains it as 'desirable,' from Ar. hamd&n {E. Bib., ' Names,' \ yy). But must not the original meaning have been different ? npn (Gray, HPN 64) would not be a compound with un, 'father-in-law,' but with a fragment of onT, while ]T would be, not a divine title, but a tribal name.^ The name would thus be = p-n3nD (see footnote on xxxii. 3), and mean ' Danite Yerahme'el ' ; cp. JT'^N, ' Danite Arabia ' (see on Num. i. 11). But Chr. gives pan, which would come from jam, a modification of fjNonT. — Another interesting name is ptDM, which Noldeke ^ finds as obscure as Ahban and Ahiman, but which, from the new point of view, is clear enough, p (as in prop, name ■'31) comes from jn, i.e. ic ; idn, 1 See the @ readings in E. Bib., ' Anak.' Luc. favours reading P'J for my throughout. 2 Hommel, however {AHT, p. 322), connects the element hami with the Minaean hamaya, 'to protect.' 8 E. Bib., ' Names," § 45. 428 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL from -it^N ; JiN and inN from TintOM. — pni ; see on 1^n^ Ex. iii. I. — p3 may be from p3:? (see on Num. i. 13). — V. 2y, jn^a ; see on rirhl, xxix. 29. — )W perhaps = p:)2 (Josh, xix. 33, plur.), i.e. pS, which comes, through p:>ns, from SMI>Dt»^ with final ) as in jiblt. — jpi> ; in Chr. Ipi>\ See on Num. xxxiii. 31/ — V. 28, pr ; see on x. 23, where it is an Arammite or Yerahme'elite name. — pN is not ' ibex ' ^ (Syr. arnd), but Hke pDiN, I3~iN, and pi^l (in S f^), probably comes from ]Ci:?-|, a modification of bsDriT. Similarly \yt in I Chr. ii. 25 (@ apav, apafi). The theory of primitive totemism cannot rightly be supported from the names we have been treating here. LIST OF THE KINGS OF ARAM (Gen. XXXVI. 31-39) Is this really a list of the kings of Edom ? And does the writer really wish to impress upon us that the land of Edom had kings before any king reigned over the Israelites ? The latter question must be answered first, and with a view to this the second part of w. 31 must be criticised. Surely it is not likely that he had any interest in dwelling on the earlier social development of another people. A somewhat similar notice in Num. xiii. 22, where Hebron is, according to most, made inferior in antiquity to the Egyptian Zoan, will prove, on a closer inspection, to say something altogether different.^ More- 1 W. R. Smith, /cam. of Phil. ix. 90; Noldeke, E. Bib., 'Names,' §68. ^ Is the text as it stands at all natural ? How does it help the comprehension of the narrative ? What we expect is surely a topographical, not an archceological, indication. LIST OF THE KINGS OF ARAM (Gen. xxxvi. 31-39) 429 over, from a grammatical point of view, 'n©'' ■'3lf? must be incorrect ; to give the sense required "'33^ should be ■'33-72?. (g, in fact, virtually reads ^Nimil or n^t&IT'n, which, however, is purely arbitrary. Nor is there any real gain to be derived from M. Bruston's conjecture (1892), that the reference is to the Israelitish conquest of Edom ; for this practically requires us to insert ni, ' therein,' or "Pih^, ' over it.' Ex- perience of textual corruption, however, suggests a better remedy for the faults of the text. It shows that ■'33'? may, as in Ps. Ixxii. 5, Ixxx. 3, have been miswritten for -lanf?, and f?M^a)^ as in i S. xvii. 25, Zech. xii. i, and elsewhere, for ^Ni^DtO"' ; also, that the second '^ho may be a dittograph. Accepting these possibilities as probabilities, we get this sense, ' with reference to the sons of Melek, with reference to the sons of Ishmael.' Thus the second part of v. 31 is made up of alternative glosses, stating that the list of kings has reference to the sons of Melek, or, if we prefer this clearer statement, to the sons of Ishmael. ' Melek,' as we know from the phrases l^o[n] pos (xiv. 17), ^^D[^] Jl (Jer. xxxvi. 26), f^on i>Tl (i K. xi. 14), is a popular symbol — perhaps more correctly read nf?o (cp. on xiv. 3) — for SsDnT' ; 'Yerahme'el' and 'Ishmael' are, in fact, equivalent. And now we can answer the first of our two questions. The list is really a list (no longer complete in all its details) of the kings of the southern Aram ; diIN should most prob- ably, as in Num. xx. 14, Judg. v. 4, i S. xiv. 47, i K. xi. 14, 16, 2 K. iii. 8 /., xiv. 7, rather be D"iM. The kings, according to Frazer {Adonis, p. 11, note 3), ' were men of other families who succeeded to the throne by marrying the hereditary princesses,' the blood royal being traced in the female line. But is it not a nearer-lying explanation that the kings arose (as in the cases of Abimelech and perhaps Saul) out of tribal chieftains ? Observe the care taken to specify the district or city of each king (except the seventh, Baal-hanan, see below), which reminds us of the similar notices respecting the Israelite 'judges.' The first in order is Be^a, son of Beor, whose city is called Dinhabah (v. 32), and whom Noldeke^ long ago identified 1 Untersuchungen, ■^. 87; cp. Hommel, p. 153. Marquart, i^K««/. p. II ; Cheyne, E. Bib., 'Bela' ; Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten, pp. 376^ 430 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL with the great diviner Biram ben Beor (Num. xxii. 5). If, as I have sought to show (on ' Pathrusim,' x. 1 4, and on xxiv. I o), ' Pethor,' i.e. Pathros,^ Kedem, i.e. Rekem, and Aram-naharaim are N. Arabian regional names, there are no documentary reasons for not holding that the Edomite or rather Arammite king Bela is the same as the great diviner Bil'am ; for w^l is simply a fuller form of i^a. At the same time, we cannot regard this as certain ; for ^1 is nothing but a clan-name produced out of a fragment of ^NOm"' or of its synonym 'jNi^offii. We find it again in xlvi. 21 (and parallels) and i Chr. v. 8 ; cp. 1^2; in pifjD, 2 S. xxiii. 31, and the name ^iJi, i Chr. v. 5, viii. 30. In xiv. 2 it is the name of a N. Arabian town. Ed. Meyer warns against using these notices, but, as it seems to me, does not understand them (p. 376). Tisi, too, is worth investigating. Probably it comes from "ntO^-n:; (written Tll;l), i.e. Arabia of ' Asshur ' (see on ' Bir'sha,' xiv. 2), so that it is the name of a district, not of an individual. The city-name mrr3T has been variously identified ; see E. Bib., ^ Dinhabah,' and Tomkins, PEFQ St., Oct. 1891, pp. 322/ More probably, however, it is a corruption of irm (Dt. i. i), where 3771 at any rate has probably come from ]li>as = fpsrotD'' (see on v. 39). The second {v. 33) is Yobab (see on x. 29), a Zerahite {i.e. Ashhurite, see on xxxviii. 30), whose city was Bosrah. The place-name occurs in the little oracle, attributed (rightly ?) to Amos (Am. i. 1 1 f), which the text makes out to refer to Edom, but which probably refers really to Aram, because in z/. 12, for the mysterious ^ mm nnmi, we should most probably read ^ndht nrtffiN win, 'that is, Ashhur- Yerahme'el,' a gloss on din. — The third, HUsham (Dtt>n). Again we are warned against comparing Qiffin, xlvi. 23, Num. xxvi. 42, also i Chr. vii. 12, viii. 8, 1 1. Investigation, however, would not be unfruitful ; e.g. in i Chr. vii. 1 2 'n is 1 In Num. I.e. in:n may quite well {Jiace Meyer) mean one of the traditional streams of the border-land (see on xv. 18), and i^ixip^iDy may be a combination of two corrupt forms of 'jnom'. I assume that the reader has registered frequently recurring types of textual corruption. 2 Harper's summary of explanations is very striking. A new and effectual method of textual criticism can alone dispel the mystery. LIST OF THE KINGS OF ARAM (Gen. xxxvi. 31-39) 431 one of the beni Aher (Aher = Ashhur). Husham came from the land of the Temanites. The exact situation of ' Teman ' is admittedly uncertain,^ but we can hardly be wrong in tracing pin to iDrf = f?Ni)Dffi"' (see on v. 11). Perhaps this is the DiintBi^ ]m")3 (so we should read), a king of Aram-naharaim(?),^ in Judg. iii. 10. — The fourth, Hadad (Tin). Properly a divine name (see pp. 33, 56). His father is called tt^ ; @ Ba/)a8 (cp. on the place-name ^^l, xvi. 14 ; TQ in i Chr. vii. 20 is a personal name), ^^l or TO. comes from Bir-dadda, a N. Arabian name {KAT'-^\ p. 148, /. 6). Cp. on inrrp, i K. xv. 18, and on the defeat of Midian, Ed. Meyer, pp. 381/; Winckler, GI i. 49/, 193 / The royal city is n^lS, but ® has iyed6a[i,]f/,, i.e. DTil*. Probably we should read D■'^ntOS (cp. above, on Husham). If so, Marquart is right in supposing that the closing words oi v. 35 belong rather to v. 34. He is of opinion that ' rishathayim ' in ' Cushan-rish,' Judg. iii. 8, should rather be rosh ' attaiml chief of ' Attaim.' But ' Attaim ' is no name. — The fifth, Sanilah ; or rather Salmah (nobto), a N. Arabian ethnic. His city is npltoo ; probably from pBJDT (see on xv. 2). — The sixth, Sha'ul, plainly N. Arabian (see on i S. i. 20). His city is mim irrin. There must have been several Rehoboths (cp. E. Bib., 'Rehoboth'). The ira (Jace Ed. Meyer) ^ should be one of the N. Arabian streams, of which we only know from passages like xv. 18. The seventh is Baal-kanan, where ' Baal ' is not primarily a divine title, but a popular corruption of ' Yerahme'el ' or ' Ishmael.' Hanan (Ezra ii. 46 and parallels) is a clan- name of the Nethinim * or Ethanites ; in Chr. xi. 43 it is 1 See E. Bib., ' Teman.' ^ Marquart (Fund. p. 11) identifies these two names, though he has a peculiar theory of his own for the ' rishathayim ' of Judges. Ed. Meyer (p. 374) naively remarks, How can an Aramaean king from the Euphrates have made a raid into the far south ? From the Euphrates ! ^ This scholar supposes that the phrase 'the river' in the O.T., when by itself, is ' always the Euphrates.' * See Amer. Journ. of Theol. July 1901, and cp. jmoip in Euting's Nabat. Inschr. No. 12, /. I (quoted by W. R. Smith); also Natan-iau in the second Gezer tablet ( = Yonathan). The various elements in these names are all primarily N. Arabian ethnics. 432 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL the name of one of David's heroes, a ' son of Maacah,' i.e. presumably ^ a native of the southern Maacah. In the parallel Phcenician names too (see E. Bib., ' Baal-hanan '), Hanan or Hanun was originally a clan-name (brought from Arabia). This seventh king is called a son of niDi;, a word which Robertson Smith ^ identifies with iXiS, i.e. the male jerboa (Ar. 'akbar). But surely the mouse-clan is as imaginary as the rock -badger clan (Shaphan), the flea-clan (Par'osh), and, one may add, the ' ascent of the scorpions ' (Akrabbim). Experience assures us that both Achbor and Akrabbim are corruptions of some compound clan-name, and we may well widen the group by adding the enigmatical Achshaph and Achzib. To make a long matter short, D'^mp:' is nearer to the original form than 'r\l'ys ; the original form is given almost correctly in a Punic inscription dis- covered at Carthage in 1898, and is Dllp:? (the inscription has D for p), i.e. 'Akab-ram. In treating of ip^i (xxxii. 28) we have already noticed forms like 'yp'a, which is to be regarded as a clan-name.' The second element D"i (as in Baal-ram) represents Aram ( = Yerahme'el). The name of Baal-hanan's city is not given ; the text may be in disorder.* — The eighth, Hadar, or rather, probably, Hadad (II.). His city is called i:;a, or rather mrD (@, Ball), which may be only a variation of y\vi1, which may be the name both of a place and (see on v. 32) of a district. His wife's name, 'pMniaTin, occurs in Neh. vi. 10 as a man's name. What did it originally mean ? Certainly not 'El is a benefactor ' ; that is due to the redactors. We may take a hint from Ssb^pno, which is also both an early and a late name (Gen. v. 12; Neh. xi. 4), and has grown out of ^Nam^ So fjNlBTlD contains one element ('^slja'') which can have come quite regularly from fpNini = SxrotO"' (cp. Si^nriN, i K. xvi. 31). But what shall we say of ttd ? Is it not recalcitrant ? By no means ; experience suggests an explanation. The 1 ' Presumably,' because, as has been shown (by Winckler and by the present writer), David was of Arabian origin. 2 Journ. of Phil. ix. 96 ; Kinship^^\ p. 235, note i. Johns {Deeds, iii. 221) compares Ass. Ugbaru. 3 So Akshaph='Akshaph='Akab- shaphan, and Akzib='Akzib = 'Akab-zSeb, and both names = Jacob-Ishmael. * See Marquart's rather complicated hypothesis {Fund. p. 10). LIST OF THE KINGS OF ARAM (Gen. xxxvi. 31-39) 433 genealogies in Nehemiah (iii. 4, x. 22, xi. 24) contain a name which is even more parallel than ^sf?f?rrD. It is 'jMirtOD. Resisting an obvious but unsuitable interpreta- tion of this name,' and remembering that tDo and dq) are frequently corrupt fragments of i;DO> = 'jNsaffii, I suggest that the form 'iifflD may have arisen out of two competing readings, viz. hvfS'Oar and ^Mir (see on ^irN, ' Jezebel,' p. 46), and similarly that ^snaTTD has arisen out of the two rival readings ^NonT" and ^NirT' (no having come from no = Dn, cp. on ix. 18). Whichever of the two latter we prefer, the result is the same. The wife of Hadad II. is marked out by her name as a N. Arabian woman. She is further represented as ^^^D ns and nrri "'D n3. The impossible Tiao (Winckler and Ed. Meyer, in all seriousness, ^N nao, ' rain of mist ' 1) can now, I hope, receive a natural explanation, n is really a dittographed ^, and lao is = ''nE3D, a gentilic in i S. x. 21, which points to a N. Arabian origin. Cp. on ' Mithredath,' Ezra i. 8. Similarly ini iQ (' gold- water ' !) represents hv^'S'CXH'^li. For other cases of nrri = ''offi'^ see on ii. 1 1 f., Dt. i. i, 2 S. xii. 30. Similar corruptions are nNl (Judg. vii. 25), ni^s (2 S. ix. 2), JISIS (xxxvi. 2, etc.). ni is a scribe's error ; perhaps the archetype had jn (so ®), miswritten for jp. For nnioQ>3 {y. 40) see on xxv. 13, and for v. 43 b, on V. 9. ' Pinon ' ; see on ' Punon,' Num. xxxiii. 42 f. ' Iram ' (pTs), from some form of 'jNonT' (cp. Qinsi niip). See, further, on "ir, xxxviii. 6. 1 Cp. the Ass. MuSezib-Marduk, MuSezib-Nabu, Salm-muSezib. Such an explanation may suit the Aram, name aicoSs (' Salm delivers '), but would be inconsistent with the names with which Meshezabel is grouped, viz. (i) MeshuUam and Berechiah, (2) Zadok and Jaddua, (3) Pethahiah and Zerah. The redactor imposed a fancy meaning on a corrupted form. 28 EARLY STORIES OF JOSEPH (Gen. xxxvii.) There are special peculiarities in the cycle of Joseph- legends which at this point require to be mentioned. It may be assumed that Joseph 'was an old name for all the tribes that settled in Ephraim,' and that Joseph and Ephraim ' are simply two names, older and younger, tribal and geographical, for the same thing.' ^ The geographical name is Ephraim, which is probably (see on xli. 52) a variation of 'Arab-Yaman (Yamanite Arabia). But Ephraim is also a tribal name, and as such it must be later than Joseph. More and more Joseph may have ex- tended its reference, so as to include a confederation of tribes, the centre of which was at Shak-ram, a name which very early became shortened into Shechem (Shekem). Winckler, I know, takes a partly different view. According to him, Joseph is a personification of the northern kingdom just as Israel is the representative of ' the united David- kingdom of the twelve tribes,' which does not prevent him from being at the same time a hero who derives his chief characteristics from Tamflz and from the sun-god {GI ii. 68 ff.). That Joseph was originally the personification of a tribal confederation, I do not see my way to admit, but I fully grant that mythic elements have attached themselves to him (see below). These elements, however, have developed into stories of a novelistic character, and in this form have become attached to the figure of Joseph. As a tribal hero, the materials for a biography were slender indeed. There was, it is true (i) the tradition of the partiality with which his father Jacob treated him, and which excited the envy 1 H. W. Hogg, E. Bib., col. 2583. 434 EARLY STORIES OF JOSEPH (finTii.^^^\ii.) 435 of his brothers; (2) his possession of Shechem (xlviii. 22, cp. on xxxiii. 18-20); and (3) his slavery in Misrim, which issued in good both for himself and for his brethren. But the element which can be plausibly referred to popular tradition is but small, and the chief object of the narrators really seems to be to provide their people with an ideal figure, worthy of equal love and reverence, and to in- culcate a belief in divine providence. It has been well remarked that, full of devoutness as the narrators are, they nowhere introduce Yahweh in person, or as repre- sented by a divine being, as acting in Joseph's behalf. See further, Gunkel, GenP pp. 349-353 ; Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten, pp. 287-293 ; and on the name fDV, see above, on XXX. 23, 24. I now proceed to consider some questions which at once arise from the traditional text. The first have to do with the character of Joseph, and his relations to his brothers and to his father ; and the next, to the geography of this opening scene of our highly dramatic story. Did Joseph really tell tales about his brothers to his father, whose favourite he knew that he was ? The difficult words are n»"i Dni"^ {v. 2), ' a bad report about them, an evil one ' (?). Evidently n?"j is wrong ; but is 'n right ? Joseph is a popular hero ; how could he have been represented as a tale-teller ? Gunkel, indeed, supposes that he told the tales because he was indignant at the wickedness of the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. But the sequel does not favour this supposition, the basis of which is a rather poor conjecture that tin ^^s^i should be bs ir3. 15)3 is not a natural word to express what Gunkel thinks of; such superficial emendations rarely answer. But the only satisfactory answer to make to a critic is to try for a better solution of his problem. In order to do this, I must go back to ]NS$3. Why the preposition ? D3t01 in xxxvii. 1 3 suggests that jnx is miswritten for some place-name, and in fact, in the two parallel cases, i S. xvi. 1 1 and xvii. 34, it has already been suggested to read '?Ni?Dffi-'3 ; ]1»1S3 ( = 'db?''!) would, however, be sufficient, ]N2i and jss being often cor- ruptions of ]"irl2, just as ]Nm and ]m are of ]ii?Dm or jsdbj. The next words, -ns nM Nini, as Gunkel has seen, make 436 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL no sense.^ But it should be remembered that n3i> in xiv.'i3 has come from iMtC, i.e. '-\'s JB) = T^^, IDIC ; it is only natural to explain 1S3 in the same way. Thus we get the gloss, ms 'did-' N"im, ' that is, Ishmael of Arabia.' The Ishmaelite or Yerahme'elite race was widely dispersed; the glossator will have no uncertainty about his author's meaning. He knows that the scene of the story is laid in Arabia. As to 'in r\nh'2. ■'^n-riN and the troublesome nsn, both are late glosses, the latter on the difficult word onn. This last word still awaits correction. BDB explains, ' a (true) report of evil doings ' ; such a highly condensed phrase is scarcely tolerable. But the remedy lies close at hand. A 1 has fallen out (cp. Qiil, 2 S. xx. 1 4, for D-'i3l) ; so that the right word is Dn3ni, 'their present' (cp. xxxiii. 11). The function of the youthful Joseph was to go between his father and his brethren, as the bearer of salutations and presents. How simple and natural (see i S. xvii. 17 f.)\ Next, what was the great object and occasion of the envy of Joseph's brethren (v. 3) ? @ and Vg. here, Pesh. in 2 S., and E.V. here and in 2 S., give ' a coat (p^trcai', tunica) of [many] colours.' This is certainly more plausible than the rival rendering ' a coat (tunic) of the extremities ' ; but how can it be critically justified ? The explanation suggested by such analogies as "ii;3tD TTCit^ (Josh. vii. 21; cp. on tuffi m^, xli. 42) is that D"'DD, in 'o nanD, is a contraction of D"'mno (' Pathrusim '), which we have already seen (on x. 1 4) to be a corruption of nTiDia. From Ezek. xxvii. 7 (cp. on xli. 42) we learn that ' fine linen ' (torn) was one of the productions of Misrim, and Pathrusim is represented in x. 14 as one of the sons of Misrim. Probably, therefore, the ' tunic of Passim ' was made of fine linen. From 2 S. xiii. 1^ f. (critically examined) we learn that this garment was worn by princesses of Israel in their maiden years, and a gloss in that passage states that qidd was equivalent to 'jNoriT' (miswritten wh''ii^). Joseph therefore — as I under- stand the passage — was clad in a tunic of fine linen, as if 1 Winckler (A OF, I.e.) renders, 'in fact, he was as a servant,' etc., and finds a mythological meaning. Joseph plays the part of the younger deities Marduk and Nebo over against the ten older gods. But Nin introduces a gloss. EARLY STORIES OF JOSEPH {GnTH.-saxvii.) 437 he were a king's child, and not intended for the rough pastoral life. It was this which stirred the angry feelings of his brothers, and had such strangely romantic con- sequences. Nor can one avoid raising a question as to the contents of Joseph's second dream. What can be the meaning of ' the sun, the moon, and eleven stars ' {v. 9 3) ? Most scholars regard this as a symbolical expression for Jacob, Rachel (' the unforgotten and un-lost,' Del.), and the eleven brethren, and some find here a confirmation of the supposed actual character of the patriarchs, and of the connexion of the ' twelve tribes ' with the signs of the zodiac.^ The difficulty on this view is fourfold. i. The moon is never feminine in Hebrew. 2. A wife has nothing to do with homage to a ruler. 3. We should have expected both Jacob's wives to be referred to ; and if only one, then certainly not Rachel, who was dead. 4. We are not told what symbolical form Joseph assumed in the dream (contrast v. 7). This is how Winckler meets these difficulties.^ He supposes that the reference to the moon \r\ v. 10 b is a later insertion, that originally the moon was interpreted of Jacob, and Joseph represented as the sun-god, so that the original form of the statement in v. gb would be, ' and behold, the moon and eleven stars bowed down to me.' Only eleven stars, because each month one of the signs of the zodiac comes into contact with the sun, and is, as it were, absorbed by it.' I cannot, however, see my way to accept these suggestions. I have no prejudice against admitting the existence of mythological elements in Biblical narratives. But I cannot think it likely that the actually, existing tribes of Israel (which can never have been really twelve in number) claimed a connexion with the zodiac deities, nor can I attach any weight to the argument of some mythologists (e.g. Zimmern 1 See Winckler, GT\\. 70/; Zimmern, KAT''^\ p. 628 ; Gunkel, Genesis^'^, p. 356, cp. p. 293 ; A. Jeremias, ATAO, p. 240 ; and on the other side Konig, Altorientalische Weltanschauung, etc., pp. 54 y; 2 GI ii. 70; cp. pp. 62/ See also A. Jeremias, ATAO, p. 240; cp. p. 53, note 3. ^ This is one possible explanation of the number eleven in the myth of the making of the eleven monsters (Creation Epic, ist Tablet). 438 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF. ANCIENT ISRAEL and Stucken), derived from the faulty text of the ' Blessing of Jacob ' in Gen. xlix. With regard to the supposed interpolation of "idni (' and thy mother') m. v. \ob,\ would point out that in v. loa the interpolator (perhaps R) of the words, ' and he told it to his father and to his brothers,' has deliberately passed over Rachel. How, indeed, could an interpolator have forgotten that Joseph's mother was dead ? And with regard to Joseph's being represented as the sun-god, may he not much more naturally be identified with the twelfth star? For evidently he corresponds to some extent in our story to the god Marduk, whose sacred number was eleven,^ indicating that he was the leader of the remaining eleven constellations. But the Babylonian god Marduk is something more than the leader of the eleven ' stars.' He is also the sun-god, who dies in winter and sinks into the underworld, and rises again on the return of spring.^ And regarded thus, he has such a close resemblance to TamOz (see E. Bib., ' Tammuz ') — who indeed is also reckoned as a son of Ea — that we cannot be surprised if Joseph, who corresponds (as we are bound to admit) to Marduk, is represented at a later point in the story as if he were a reflection of Tamuz. These statements, it is true, assume that the Babylonian myth of the death of Tamijz-Marduk, due (as it appears) to a wild boar,' had penetrated into N. Arabia, and so become naturalised among the Israelites. They also involve the further assumption that the Arabian and Israelitish priest- hoods had adapted the myth to pre-existent beliefs. The N. Arabian deity parallel to Marduk was the god called Ishmael or Yerahme'el, who in Israel came to be regarded as the beneficent guide and protector of the people.* It was a human manifestation of this deity which died and rose again,^ and for which, under the names of Hadad and 1 Zimmern, KAT'-^\ p. 374. It is an archseological error to represent the number eleven in z/. g as a redactional ornament (C. Niebuhr, Gesch. der Ebr. Zeitalters, i. 169, note i). 2 See Zimmern, KAT, p. 371. ' Hid. p. 398. * See on xvi. 11 (p. 279). ^ '&&^ Bible Problems, pp. 113, 128, 2^2 J\ EARL Y STORIES OF JOSEPH (Gen. xxxvii.) 439 Ramman (Zech. xii. 11), and perhaps also Naaman, there was an annual lamentation in the spot consecrated by his memory. These things I have already (see pp. 56 /.) ventured to assume, trusting in the willingness of the reader to put aside prejudice and adopt a new point of view. It was certainly a great honour which some early narrator (a priest of the tribe of Joseph ?) conferred on the eponym of the Josephites when he enriched the funda- mental tribal legend with details from the story of TamCiz- Marduk or Adonis. It may be useful at this point to sum up the details which seem to commend themselves most to a critical judgment.^ i. The astral-mythological dream {v. 9), just now explained. 2. The story of Joseph in the 'pit' {vv. 22^), which may be suggested by the mythological statement that Adonis went down into the 'pit' TO, 'pit,' 'cistern,' is often = She61.^ 3. The dipping of Joseph's tunic in blood {v. 31), and the cry of the horror- stricken Jacob that ' a wild beast has devoured him ' {v. 33; cp. V. 20). 4. The mourning of Jacob {v. 34), which was evidently an important element of the tradition and reminds us of the yearly bikttu, or weeping, for Tamfiz. 5. The exultant exclamation of the aged father, ' my son Joseph lives' (xlv. 28), which may remind us of the joyous cries of the votaries of Adonis on his resurrection. And 6. the intuitive wisdom and impartial beneficence of the rule of Joseph, which correspond to the same qualities in the god Marduk. I now pass on to the geographical details, with the view of showing how these are affected by a textual criticism which does not disdain to take notice of the N. Arabian theory. It has been pointed out already (see on xii. 6, xxxiii. 18) that Shechem (Shekem) — referred to in vv. 1 2,ff. — is = Shakram, i.e. Ashhur-Aram, while Hebron {v. 14) is possibly^ connected with Rehob (see on xxiii. 2). If so, the 'eme^ of Hebron is presumably the 'emek that belongs 1 Cp. Winckler, GI \\. 75-77; Jeremias, ATAO,^^. 239/, and BNT, p. 40. 2 See Gunkel, Sch'dpfung, p. 132, note 8. ^ ' Possibly,' because some other account of ' Hebron ' may be preferred. The theory given above is only a specimen of possible explanations. See on xxiii. 2. 440 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL to Beth-rehob^ (Judg. xviii. 28). It is doubtless surprising that if Jacob dwelt near Beth-rehob (or RehSbon) he should have sent his idolised younger son on so long a journey alone, and, perhaps one may add, that the brethren of Joseph should have moved with their flocks so far away from their father. But to omit 'n po:;D, with Steuernagel and Gunkel, seems arbitrary. Perhaps we may suppose that different views have been combined.^ According to one, Jacob dwelt near Shechem, and his sons were with the flocks at no great distance off. According to another, based on the tradition in xxxv. 27, Jacob and his two younger sons were at Hebron or Rehobon. Further, that there were at least two views respecting the relations of Jacob and his sons to Shechem. According to one, both parties were on perfectly friendly terms ; according to another, Simeon and Levi had brought the guilt of blood- shed upon their family, which was liable at any moment to be called to account. These different traditions could not be altogether harmonised. But it is at any rate plausible that the distance between Rehobon and Shakram was not so great as that between the best-known Rehobon or Hebron from the most familiar Shechem. Next, as to Dothan (v. 17). Whatever may be said of the Israelitish caravan from Gilead (see below), it is certain that E's ' Midianites,' taken in connexion with the 'cistern in the desert' (v. 22), points to the extreme south. It is true that 2 K. vi. 13, 19 (see Crit. Bib.) suggests that the Dothan of the Elisha-story was not far from iiioffi, and Judith iii. 9, iv. 6 that the Dothan of the Judith-story was near Yizreel. But there are reasons for thinking that the scene of both stories was originally laid in the N. Arabian border-land, and it is quite possible that there was a southern Dothan as well as a southern Shimron and Yizreel. According to Judith iii. g f., Dothsea (i.e. Dothan) was near Scythopolis, i.e. m^D T'S,^ which suggests the question 1 Unless we suppose that pny, both in xxxvii. 14 and in Judg. xviii. 28, has come from nryo. Cp. on Ps. Ix. 8. 2 Gunkel has already suggested this. ^ ni3D, or rather odd, is probably a contraction of r\2ha (see on xxxiii. 17). EARL Y STORIES OF JOSEPH (Gen. xxxvii.) 441 whether ^3^, which occurs after rrDto in Josh. xv. 48 /[, may not be a corruption of ]m, i.e. Dothan. In w. 25 we meet with the name n^'iSD for the first time in the Joseph-story. The presumption is very strong that this word means the N. Arabian Musri, but the pros and cons will be carefully put before the reader. Let us remember that in Gen. x. 6 Misrim appears as a son of Ham, i.e. Yerahme'el, and that the references to the dwelling of Joseph and of the Israelites in Qiiso in the Psalter can be quite well understood on the N. Arabian theory. Indeed, in Ps. Ixxviii. 45 ' the field of Sib'eon ' ( = Ishmael) makes a better parallelism with ' Misrim ' than we get on the supposi- tion that DT|2o means ' Egypt ' and p2 ' Tanis,' while ' the land of Ham' in cv. 23, 27, cvi. 22, is scarcely intelligible, unless ' Ham ' is = ' Yerahme'el,' and in cv. 1 7 to say that Joseph ' was sold for a slave ' is vastly inferior to the state- ment that he ' was sold to the Arabians.' If so, the tradition persisted long. The statement m. v. 25 is that when Joseph's heartless brethren looked up from their meal they saw a caravan of merchants conveying gum tragacanth, mastic, and ladanum to Misrim. These very things are reckoned by Jacob among the ' fruits of the land ' (xliii. 11). Here, however (according to E), the Ishmaelite merchants come from Gilead, which may quite well refer to a southern Gilead (cp. on xxxi. 47). It is equally noteworthy that in v. 28fl(cp. v. 36) the merchants are called Midianites ^ or (v. 36) Medanites. What this involves, we have seen already. We may also note that the Midianites were in a large sense Ishmaelites (see on xxv. 7). With equal truth they might be called ' Yerahme'elites,' and we may hold that an early gloss on the original text actually gave them this name ; i.e. QiboDi most probably came from D"''7on, a short form (cp. on U^->T\, xxxiv. 27) of D"'^NDm"', to which is prefixed the explanatory Waw, thus producing the note, ' that is, Yerah- me'elites.' Parallels to this change occur in xii. i6, Judg. 1 We need not, with Hommel and Jeremias, suppose a confusion between Midianites and Minaeans. Nor does this passage suggest to us that ' Midian ' was the ethnic name for the people of the land of Musri, as Winckler supposes (KAT, p. 143). 442 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL vi. 5, viii. 2 1, 26, Ezra ii. 6^. I do not, of course, dream of denying that there was a demand for fragrant resins in Egypt. But it must surely be admitted that they would also be wanted in the land of Misrim, and Jer. viii. 22, xlvi. 1 1 (see Crit. Bib.), when closely examined, seem to point in this direction. And now Joseph's time in Misrim begins. According to J, he was bought by an unnamed Misrite ; according to E, by a court-officer named id"'E31E3. The same name is given by J in xli. 45 (cp. xlvi. 20) to the priest of On who became Joseph's father-in-law. It is true that in this form the second part of the name is i>-iQ ; but the omission of jr in xxxvii. 36 and xxxix. i is not surprising, if we consider the variations in parallel texts elsewhere in the O.T.^ It has been held by recent critics — and I formerly took this view myself — that, the background of the story being Egyptian, and forms like Poti-phera' (Xlere^/Di;) — ' he whom Re (Ra) has given ' — being frequent in Egyptian only after 700 B.C., we gain thereby a valuable evidence for the date of the story.^ The evidence, however, for the Egyptian background of the original story is precisely that which is becoming doubtful, and the fact that the other supposed Egyptian names in the story (Asenath, Saphenath-pa'neah) cannot be as plausibly explained should suggest the necessity of caution in supporting this view, which is by no means an old and thoroughly seasoned hypothesis.^ In the light of our previous experience of names, we shall suspect Poti- phera' 'to be a combination of two very possibly corrupt place-names or clan-names. Can we recover the original form of these names ? aiQ, certainly, is intelligible enough ; the original which it represents is ms, i.e. mE3N (see on x. 6). And the key to sna is furnished by xvi. 12 and Hos. viii. 9, where nid may with much probability be 1 @ treats the names as identical. 2 See E. Bib., cols. 2588/, 3814/ For the Egyptological theories see E. Bib., 'Potiphar'; also Heyes, Bibel und Aeg. pp. -.105-112. Erman (see Gunkel, p. 361) finds the '1 in 'oia inexplicable at present The examples of Egyptian Aram, names compounded with oa (see S. A. Cook, Aram. Gloss, p. 97) do not help us. 3 See Naville {PSBA xxv. 160/), who finds a name with two articles ' rather strange.' EARLY STORIES OF JOSEPH {Gen. Siyixvn.) 443 viewed as a corruption of ns. If so, the name of the court-officer referred to was equivalent to Ephrath-'arab, i.e. Arabian Ephrath. All, therefore, that E could tell or imagine about this personage was that he held a certain office and that he was a Putite, or Ephrathite of Arabia. See further, on ' Putiel," Ex. vi. 25. And what was Potiphar's office? At first sight we seem to have a twofold account, and we are reminded of the elaborateness with which Egyptian dignitaries describe their offices and functions. The first of his titles is nsiQ D"'"iD, and the commentators discuss the question whether v'^'d here means ' eunuch ' or ' high officer.' ^ It should be noticed, however, that whereas in xl. 2 (E) the chief butler and the chief baker are called D''D"'1D, the DTilton pm (Potiphar) is not called D"'nD in xl. 3 (E). The question now arises whether rT2;nQ D"'"1D in xxxvii. 36 is rightly read. It is quite possible that d"'"id may be a corruption of TitBN. We have an example of this in 2 K. xviii. 17, where D"'nD"n has probably come from niffij« 1"!^ (see Crit. Bib.) ; cp. nidid, Judg. iv. 2, Ezra ii. 5 3, etc., and did and q-'did often {e.g. Judg. v. 22, i K. x. 25), for TiffiM, D-' — . Very possible, too, that [n]i)ns may have arisen in the same way as i?i3 in 'a ibid. And taking a wider view of the state of the text, and of the nature of the textual corruptions and glosses, must we not say that these possibilities are also probabilities, and that instead of ' eunuch of Pharaoh ' we should recognise, as a gloss on Poti-phera', another compound name, Asshur-'ardb. This should not be taken to imply that Joseph's master was not a Misrite. That Misrim was considered an Asshurite region appears from Ezek. xxxi. 3.^ But, if not a eunuch, what was the important personage who became Joseph's master ? The text replies that he was D''n3^[n] ito. It is a natural conjecture that this phrase, here and in 2 K. xxv. 8 ff., Jer. xxxix. 9 ff.. Hi. 12 ff., means ' captain of the bodyguard,' an office in the Egyptian court which in the Ptolemaean age was expressed 1 Cp. E. Bib., ' Eunuch.' ^ That the name Ashhur or Asshur sometimes means a larger,, sometimes a smaller region, need not surprise us. Cp. on a. i i. 444 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL by the term ap^ia-a)fuiToQ is often (cp. on xxiii. 9, i S. /.c.) mis- written for nori = nD«~i, a popular contraction of fj^DHT' (see on X. 7), while x^~['s must surely come either from 'jNmi' = 'jmITn), an Ishmaelite tribal name (xxv. 1 3), or from ^ms (fpNms), i.e. htvavrc. 'ts 'a, therefore, is virtually a doubly written 'omx This view of '-[S is confirmed by the true meaning of mTi, which is obviously (like mn) a corruption of TintDN, with the feminine ending. Ashhur-Yerahme'el (distinctly mentioned in v. 24 — see below) was a N. Arabian region. It was not far from Canaan, for Num. xiii. 29^, tells us that the Canaanites ' dwell by Yaman,' and Gen. x. 6 (see note) that Canaan was a son of Ham, i.e. Yerahme'el. V. 2 tells us that while at Adullam (?) Judah married the daughter of a Canaanite named s^w, i.e. not s^tD, but s^.tp (@ '%ava) or s"im = i?im ; cp. i;ltO-nn, I Chr. iii. 5 ; i>im, of course, is = sotO (see on x. 7). By ' Shua ' or ' Sheba ' Judah has three sons — offshoots of the older clan, presum- ably. The first is called ni? (Er), which must be grouped with Iii! (xlvi. 16), p27 (Num. xxvi. 36), Ti? (i Chr. vii. 12), ITS (i Chr. vii. 7), NTr (2 S. XX. 26, xxiii. 38), ITS (i Chr. iv. 1 5), uvs (xxxvi. 43). All that Noldeke {E. Bib., ' Names,' § 77) can tell us about these forms is that they are 'difficult to explain.' Ed. Meyer has no suggestion. A new point of view, however, can suggest something, and if it does tend 1 Steuernagel's attempt (p. 80) to identify several of them with names in the Amarna letters is too hazardous (the land of Gari = ny). JUDAH AND TAMAR (Gen. xxxviii.) 447 to restore some of the credit of the Chronicler and the Priestly Writer, fair-minded persons will not be vexed at this. So, then, from i Chr. vii. 12 we learn that nii? is an Ashhurite name (for inN see on xxii. 13), and from iv. 15 that "IT'S was a Calebite ; also from Gen. xlvi. 43 that DT'S was the name of a clan of Esau. From lists in 2 Samuel (xx. 26, xxiii. 38) we know that nts was a Yairite or Ithrite name (Yair = Yerahme'el ; Yether = Ashtar). I leave the critical reader to complete the references. Evidently -vv or IS is the kernel of a name widely spread in early times in the N. Arabian border-land, and how can we doubt that the full name was some form (perhaps h'XS ; see on chap, xxxiv.) of 'jMOnT ? — The second, pis (Onan), is also quite a N. Arabian name (see on Ben-oni, xxxv. 18). — The third, nSffl (Shelah), has to be grouped with rh'-^, fp^Ntl), Si'ltl? (see on I S. i. 20, ix. 4) — all connected with bNi;D»\ These three clans, then, were partly Israelite, partly Canaanite ; the two former perished early. At the time of the ' birth ' of the last one, his mother was at lii3 (read N-'m, with @) ; a fuller form of the name is inDN. This place, according to Josh. xv. 44, lay in the far south of the Judahite land, near Ke'ilah and Mareshah. Apparently it was the place occupied by the Shelah clan ; cp. i Chr. iv. 21 f., where ' Shelah ' and ' Cozeba ' (cognate with 'Akzib ') are combined. There was doubtless a northern Akzib (Josh. xix. 29), but the name was carried from the south, and originally meant ' Ashhur-Ishmael' (see p. 432); D« from m3M ( = Ashhur), and l-'i = iNt = ^117 ( = Ishmael). Cp. on i S. xxi. i o (Akish), Judg. vii. 2 5 (Zeeb). Next, the story of Er's wife {v. 6). Her origin is not told us — only her name, ion, which was no doubt under- stood as ' palm-tree.' An appropriate name, doubtless, for a woman (cp. Cant. vii. 8 f.). But we have also the place- names Tamar and Baal-tamar, and we have to find an explanation which will fit both the personal name and the place-names. Such an explanation has been offered by Winckler, according to whom Baal-tamar (Judg. xx. 33) was the place where the men of Benjamin had their tribal sanctuary, dedicated to the goddess Ishtar. When David conquered it, thinks this scholar, its name was changed to 448 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Baal-yehudah (2 S. vi. 2). This, however, as it seems to me, is opposed by a sound textual criticism. The improb- able phrase Di-ian[n] "vv, ' city of the palm-trees ' (Dt. xxxiv. 3, Judg. i. 16, iii. 13, 2 Chr. xxviii. 15), supplies no justification of a city called ' Palm-tree ' (non). Winckler himself (G/ ii. 104) boldly reads D'^nonn Tii>, 'city of the two Tamars,' the deity referred to being androgynous. A most improbable correction ! If we assume metathesis, a much more probable result follows. Just as Sinn (i K. V. 11) comes from ^ndHT, and obm (xiv, 18, xxxiii. 18) from '7MSDm% so ion naturally comes from nOT,^ and tryN\ from DTiDT (i S. i. i).^ Nor can we be surprised that ' Tamar ' {i.e. Ramath or Ramith) should be the name both of a sister and of a daughter of Ab-shalom, for underneath Ab-shalom lies ' Arab-shalem,' i.e. Shalemite (Ishmaelite) Arabia.' That there should be both a Tamar and a Baal- tamar among southern localities is also not more strange than that there should be several Ramahs. And if it should be asked how it came about that mythological motives (see above) should have become attached to the name Tamar (Ramath), the answer is that the southern Ram or Aram was the home of popular superstitions, and that the cult of the great goddess Ashtart, otherwise called Ramith, Shab'ith, etc. (see e.g. p. 18, note 2), was specially flourishing there. From that region, too, the Israelites probably got the ^edeshothf one of whom Tamar (Ramath) appeared to be by her clothing {vv. 14/^). Next come two place-names, — in v. 12, n^on, and in V. \\ WT's nnn. The former is not 'allotment' (^nan), but, like JDTI and wan (xxxvi. 12), a popular modification of ]i?nn'' = SNSDtt>^ with the feminine ending. Naturally there were several Timnahs. Among them notice Din nann, i.e. Timnah of Ashhur (see on Judg. ii. 9). As to the second name, wy^V (cp. 2;3Q^ i Chr. vii. 35) probably comes from ]ri3i = SMrDm\ Can it be the D3"'r[n] of Josh. xv. 34? Not far off occur vh-iV ('jns, see on v. i), and, just before, 1 In Test. XII. Pair., ' Judah,' 10, by a curious coincidence Tamar is actually called ' a daughter of Aram.' 2 Similarly, non's (Ithamar) will come from normj;, ' Yerahme'elite (Ramathite) Arabia.' ^ Stade, Gesck. i. 258. JUDAH AND TAMAR (Gen. xxxvni.) 449 niEJn. Perhaps both here and in Josh. l.c. we should read 'dOJ"' ninS3. See on ' Naphtuhim,' x. 13, and cp. E. Bib., ' Nephtoah,' ' Tappuah,' ' Pahath-Moab.' By a singular fate, a gloss on D"'3"'» (which occurs without nnQ in w. 21) has intruded into v. 24 (beginning). The gloss is TintDN 'qw mm, ' it is (in) Ishmael-Asshur.' It is disguised, no doubt, just as, in v. 5, ' Asshur-Ishmael ' is strangely disguised. The text gives us Q-'mTn ffi'jtDDD 1 TTi (note the warning Pasek). In this there are two difficulties: (i) the double preposition, and (2) nha for nmf?tO. For the first, it is usual to refer to i S. x. 27, but the text there is corrupt (see Cri(. Bid. p. 2 1 4). It is true, however, that a light is reflected from that passage, critically read, on the present. No one can doubt that, as Q?i"inDD TyT represents the original DlB?m Mim (' it is in Hashram '), so the words quoted above represent mon 7MrotD"'l Nim (' it is in Ishmael- Hashram '). In both cases D^CU^ represents Ashhur-Yerah- me'el (cp. on Dnt»3, xi. 3 1 ). Vv. 29 and 30 give the names of Judah's two sons as pD and mT. The former can be explained on the analogy of non ; it is a popular version of P)n2, i.e. nma ; cp. D"'Qn2, Neh. ili. 32, from DTians, and on ' Baal-perasim,' 2 S. v. 20. The latter has no connexion with nTTM, ' autochthonous ' ^ but is a distortion of nnffl = inmN ; note ' Zerah the Kushite ' (2)13 probably comes from tt>3 = intON ; cp. on x. 6). Cp. Tisn, also from nin»N. To the story of the birth of the twins reference has already been made (on xxv. 22). Evidently there was a floating popular myth of the struggle of the Twins (the Gemini) which attached itself to different names. 1 Stade, Gesck. i. 258. 29 FORTUNES OF JOSEPH IN MISRIM (Gen. xxxix.) According to the Yahwist (J), Joseph is sold as a slave to a Misrite (the redactor inserted ' Potiphar,' etc.), who, perceiving his worth, makes him his house-steward. Such an officer, with a short stick or a writing-tablet in his hand, and a pen behind his ear, is delineated in countless Egyptian tomb-chambers. That in some cases the Egyptian steward was a Syrian, can surprise no one. The influx of Semites into the Nile-valley, and the ease with which they rose to high positions, are undeniable facts. But equally undeni- able is it — though monumental evidence is wanting — that N. Arabian Misrites, enriched by commerce, must have required house -stewards, and these may sometimes have been Hebrews. The same narrator (J) tells how the wife of Joseph's master cast her eyes upon the young man, and made immoral proposals to him from which he could only escape by flight. Is this episode specially Egyptian in colouring? It has indeed a novelistic appearance, and, arguing from its unimportance in relation to the plot of the story,^ we may plausibly regard it as a later insertion, and assume that in its original form it had an Egyptian setting. And if we look out for an Egyptian tale from which the Hebrew story may have been derived, we may be tempted, like some of our predecessors, to fix on the often-quoted tale of the Two Brothers.^ 1 Novelistic, because in real life Joseph would have been far more severely punished (see Diod. Sic. i. 78) for the crime imputed to him. Unimportant for the plot, as E's version of the story, which represents Joseph as an overseer of the prisoners, but not as himself a prisoner, sufficiently shows. " See Fhnders Petrie, Ancient Egyptian Tales, ii. 36^; Maspero, 45° FORTUNES OF JOSEPH IN MISRIM (Gen. xxxix.) 451 I doubt greatly, however, whether the original J presented the story of Joseph with an Egyptian setting. It is a well-known fact that similar tales to that of Potiphar's wife occur in widely separated literatures.^ Admittedly the Egyptian women were far from perfect,^ but why should they have been worse than the women of the N. Arabian Musri ? Certainly enough is said of the shamelessness of the adulterous woman in the Book of Proverbs, the sayings in which — there is good reason to think — were modelled on Arabian patterns. It is worth noticing that, in his dealings with his master's wife {yv. 8 /!), Joseph makes his appeal to the same moral and religious standards which he had known at home. This seems to point to N. Arabia. And yet, in spite of this, the Misrite woman, when infuriated by Joseph's resistance, assumes in the other inmates of the house a racial contempt for the Hebrew {yv. 14, 17 ; cp. xliii. 32, xlvi. 34). Are we to ascribe this and other difficult points in the Joseph- story to an editor who cherished the theory that by the name D'>n2D the narrators must have meant Egypt ? Falsely accused to his master, Joseph is put into the beth-hassohar. Yahweh, however, gives him favour with the governor, who in his turn gives Joseph the care of the other prisoners. Is there anything Egyptian here ? Attempts have been made to show that sohar in beth-hassohar (xxxix. 20, xl. 3, s) is the Hebraised form of an Egyptian word, but, as Driver (Hastings' DB, p. 768 a, note ||) admits, unsuccessful ones. Other scholars have suggested as the meaning ' house of roundness,' which is supposed to be confirmed by -^rmTi pN, ' a round bowl (?),' in Cant. vii. 3. We have been so well served, however, by the N. Arabian theory in the case of Potiphar or Poti-phera', that we may well decline to accept this view of the meaning of "ino both in our passage and in Cant. I.e. For nno the Sam. text gives irrD. To those who have some experience of the ways of the scribes, this at once suggests mn (Judg. i. 35, Contes de VEgypte andenne, pp. 3-32. It was written for Seti 11. (nineteenth dynasty), and is handed down in the d'Orbiney papyrus. 1 See A. Lang, Myth, Ritual, and Religion, ii. 303 ff. ^ See Heyes, Bib. u. Aeg. pp. 140^ 452 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL viii. 13), which has most probably come from an original nnmN ; also D"'mD (Am. vi. 4, 7), from DinntDN. Now Ashhur — the name is in such cases disguised as Tarshish-— is described as famous for its silver^ (Jer- ^- 9)j ^-nd Joseph, when grand vizier of Misrim, is related to have had a silver divining-cup (xliv. 2). It is very probable that, just as people spoke of a ' mantle of Shinar ' and the like (see on xxxvii. 3), so they may sometimes have spoken of a ' bowl of Ashhur ' ^ (read in»N ]3iN, Cant, l.c^, and, in a technical sense, of a 'house of Ashhur' ('ms nil). By the latter phrase they would probably have meant the same as N"if?D n^l (probably from 'm^ 'l), which seems to have meant a fortified place at Jerusalem, devoted to the N. Arabian troops — the so-called Kerethites and Pelethites (see on 2 S. V. 9, 2 K. xii. 21). It should be remembered that, if our view is right (see on xxxvii. 36), Potiphar was, in E, ' captain of the Rehobothites,' i.e. of the royal bodyguard of N. Arabians. That the references to 'on '1 {i.e. TinffiN 'l) all belong to J is admitted. It may be added that these references (xxxix. 20, xl. 3, 5) very possibly imply a false interpreta- tion of the phrase — an interpretation which seems based on the reading TiDNn nil, ' house of him who is bound.' The original phrase, however, meant ' house of Asshur,' i.e. of the royal Asshurite bodyguard. Let us not forget the captain's second name, Asshur- arib (see on xxxvii. 36). 1 See E. Bib., 'Silver,' 'Tarshish.' 2 Cp. also Ezra i. lo, where the troublesome d':!!'D is a corruption of D'JDi?' = D'SnyDE''. The whole phrase thus becomes ' bowls of silver of the Ishmaelites.' Cp. on xli. 43. DREAMS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE (Gen. xl.) How Joseph interprets the dreams of two high court officials, who were put ' in ward ' till their case could be tried. Here Winckler' discovers another possible Tamuz- motive in the story of Joseph. Tamuz, as the god of vegetation, may be represented either by the baker, in so far as he suffers a cruel fate, or by the butler, in so far as he is raised out of his humiliation. As to the functions of the butler and the baker in Egypt, much has been learnedly written, but one may remark that these court offices existed in other countries besides Egypt. And if Egypt abounded in vines and in corn, one may venture to say that the country called Missor or Misrim was at any rate not without these precious plants. Misrim (Musri) and the Negeb are not indeed the same country, but it may be well to recall that miles of hill-sides and valleys of the region which E. H. Palmer calls the Negeb are ' covered with the small stone-heaps in regular swathes, along which the grapes were trained, and which still retain the name of teleil&t-el-anab, or grape-mounds.' ^ Apart from this, it is difficult not to infer from the facts of textual criticism ' that there were districts in the N. Arabian border-land and in the kingdom of Musri in which, by the help of irrigation, the soil was enabled to produce both grain and grapes. See e.g. the passages quoted already on xii. 10-20 (Abraham driven by a famine into Misrim), and add to these ^ Arab.-semit.-orient. p. 212, note i ; but cp. Jeremias, Babylonisches im N.T. p. 21. 2 The Desert of the Exodus ; cp. E. Bib., ' Negeb,' §§6/. ^ See Critica Biblica (1904) and The Book of Psalms (1904) on the passages referred to. 453 454 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Ps. civ. 1 5 , which contains the interpolated gloss, ' bringing forth vines in Ishmael, producing bread-corn in Ishmael ' ; also with regard to vine-culture, see Gen. xlix. ii, Judg. ix. 27, XV. 5, and, with special regard to Misrim, the definite language of Ps. Ixxx. 9. ' Of course, there were large tracts in this region which were incapable of improvement ; e.g. in Num. xx. 5 the wilderness of Kadesh is contrasted with Misrim in being " no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates " ; but this does not affect our general statement' ^ That the interpretation of dreams was no exclusive possession of the wise men of Egypt, still less needs to be insisted upon. MORE DREAMS AND INTERPRETATIONS (Gen. xli. 1-32) How the king dreamed, and how Joseph alone was able to interpret the dreams. The first dream attracts us most, because it is full of touches of local colour ; may we add that they are Egyptian ? Certainly the cow was the sacred animal of Isis. But the cow was also sacred to Ishtar, and indeed was a natural symbol of the pro- creative power of nature ^ wherever this most ancient of deities was worshipped. That Ishtar or Ashtar (whence Ashtoreth, Astarte) was worshipped in Arabia as well as in Palestine is beyond question. It is remarkable, however, 1 Cheyne, Book of Psalms '•^^ (1904), i. 120 b. 2 Cp. the mythological cow called in Egyptian mehetuer or meh urt ('the full, the great' ; or 'the great fulness'), who was regarded as the motive power in the cosmogony, and as the source of being to gods and men (Brugsch, Rel. u. Myth. pp. 115/, 168, 340; cp. Heyes, ^z*. u. Aeg. p. 214). The title may originally have referred to the Nile. DREAMS AND INTERPRETATIONS (Gen. xli. 1-32) 455 that seven cows should be spoken of, and that they should be said to have come up out of the river. Is not this Egyptian ? In chap, cxlviii. of the ' Book of the Dead ' we read of seven sacred cows which were called upon to give bread and beer, and abundance of all sorts, to the Osirian soul. The sacred number seven, whatever its origin, represents abundance and completeness, and the choice of the cow, rather than any other animal, was dictated by the sacred symbolism already referred to, while the coming up out of the Nile would suggest that the abundant vegetation of Egypt was conditional on the overflow of the Nile. Still, we must remember that to all the Semitic peoples seven had a symbolic meaning, and that, as we have already found (on ii. 1 1 - 1 4), the rivers of Paradise were identified, by a kind of patriotic Arabian extravagance, with the streams of the N. Arabian border-land, which accounts for the description of the N. Arabian Canaan as a land flowing with milk and honey (Num. xiv. 27). Originally Paradise was in the upper world,^ and the river which watered it was the mythic river of milk and honey, of which we have a monu- ment in the phrase ' the Milky Way.' To transfer the scene of the Paradise-myth to earth involved much geographical difficulty, especially when the single river had become four streams, corresponding to the four quarters of the heaven. What we have before us, however, in the first of the king's dreams seems to be based upon the simpler view that there was but one river of Paradise, which river could indeed be identified with the Nile, but could also by an imaginative licence be identified with the N. Arabian stream called pnT. The Egyptian theory is therefore not the only possible one. And there are certain points in the language which have not been hitherto considered, and which favour the view that in the original text the background was N. Arabian. For instance, it is commonly supposed that the word n^i, or (with article) inTT {v. i, etc.), is the special Hebrew name ^ for the Nile, or (in plural) for branches or canals of the Nile, and that "irtN {v. 2) is the Hebraised form of the Egyptian 1 See on ii. 10-14, s-nd E. Bib., col. 3577. 2 An Egyptian origin is usually supposed {E. Bib., ' Nile,' § i ; cp. BDB, s.v. IX'). The Assyrian name is Yaru'u. 456 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL word for the reeds which grew beside the Nile. Let us devote ourselves first to the former point. It is admitted that there are exceptions to what is held to be the general usage. In Dan. xii. 5, 6, 7 (cp. x. 4) ^N1 is held to refer to the Tigris/ and in Isa. xxxiii. 21 to mean rivers (|| Qinna) such as those by which great imperial cities were erected — a poetical application ; while in Job xxviii. 10 it is commonly rendered ' shafts ' (with reference to mining). But this admission is not enough. The rendering ' stream of the Nile,' ' river Nile,' given by BDB as the usual meaning is not by any means certain. There is good reason to think that the country where the stream called IN"; flowed was not Egypt but the N. Arabian border- land, which the early Hebrew writers, exaggerating, repre- sented as a land of streams and canals or watercourses (see on Gen. xv. 18). Nor must we be too positive that the stories of Joseph and of the plagues which preceded the Exodus, in their original form, referred to the Nile, because, as is here shown, the evidence points in more than one direction. It is highly probable that even in Genesis and Exodus IN";, like tini and iii^i, is a worn-down and corrupt form of fpNon'T', by which is meant the ^SDHT fjna. Another modification of the same name, as applied to a stream, is pm"', which later scribes misread as pT^, the Jordan being familiar to them, but not the Yarhon. For a decisive prooi of this I have already (see on Gen. xiii. 10) referred to the phrase im"' pT" in Num. xxii. i (see Crit. Bib. on Josh, xvi. I ), where "im*' ( = 'inT'), i.e. pm^ is an early correction of JTI\ From the stream we naturally pass on to its banks. The cows which the king sees in his dream feed in the "inn {v. 2). Gunkel renders this word ' marsh-grass,' following Jerome, who, handing on some scholarly tradition, interprets ' omne quod in palude virens nascitur.' Gunkel's version, ^ Tuch {Genesis, p. 442) accounts for this exceptional use by the consideration that Daniel is only a copy of Joseph. But if so, how is it that the model is not more strictly followed ? The riddle cannot be solved from the ordinary point of view. The strong probability is that ^pnn (x. 4) is a corruption of a compound name, the first part of which is either nin or nnfE'tf], and the latter Sp[D], i.e. hmxrv. DREAMS AND INTERPRETATIONS (Gen. xli. 1-32) 457 however, is not strictly accurate. There is indeed a demotic root ' to be green ' with which aku may plausibly be con- nected, but considering Job viii. 1 1 (where iriN is || to ndi) and Sirach xl. 16 (where @'s a;;^et corresponds to riT'cnp), we are bound to render, not ' marsh-grass,' but ' reeds.' But here a grave textual question arises. Is inN in v. 2 the original reading? An editor who wished to give an Egyptian colouring to the story of Joseph would very naturally misread an indistinctly written word so as to favour his theory. And it so happens that there is a word out of which iriN may easily have arisen, and suitable to the supposed original connexion. The dictionaries, based as they are on MT., may only recognise the tree-name TitDNn, but there is good evidence ^ that "iiffiN and mntON, the latter sometimes corrupted into D^^ ^ (see on Neh. viii. 15), were collateral forms of this name, and were applied to the same tree, which, as we learn from Isa. xli. 1 9, Ix. 1 3, grew in a highland district called Lebanon. This ' Lebanon ' can hardly have been the Syrian mountain-region of that name, but was more probably in the N. Arabian border-land,^ and there was apparently much water in its neighbourhood. In Ezek. xxxi. 3 (revised text) Ashhur {i.e. in one of its larger senses, including Misrim) * is compared to an 'erez in Lebanon, a tree of great size, and fond of moisture ; * in Hos. xiii. 1 5 (revised text) ' Ephraim,' i.e. the S. Ephraim (whence the northern Ephraimites must have migrated), is said to 'bear fruit among the asshur-trees,' and from chap, xiv. it is clear that the prophet's imagery is taken from the (southern) Lebanon. Our conclusion, therefore, is that in the original form of the story it was most probably not ^ See Dt. xvi. 21, Ps. civ. 171?, Neh. viii. 15, where nns-N underlies the present reading. ^ In Isa. Iv. 13 Di,T (nncN) is || to a-ra. ' See Crit. Bib. on Jer. xxii. 20, and note that there was a ' Lebanon ' near Carthage, and a cult of \y:h '?y3 in Cyprus (see p. 31). * To preclude the possibility of error — so long as the text should be correctly copied — a glossator inserted ^'nsjd^" nne'N, 'Ashhur of Ishmael ' (see Crit. Bib. ad loc). * Cp. Num. xxiv. 5, 'like ' erez-\x^&5 beside water.' E.V. 'cedar- trees ' ; but ' the cedar of Lebanon does not grow in moist places ' (Post, in Hastings' DB). 4S8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL 'among the reeds' (iriNl) that the seven cows were repre? sented as feeding, but 'inOJKl, i.e. n"'"!intDM3, ' by the ashhur- trees.' The type of corruption is a common one ; cp., for instance, rnw (as in xvi. 12, xxv. 18), irtN (as in ix. 28, xxii. 13, Hos. V. 8), and ^riN irt compound proper names. This may give us a clue to the original text of Isa. xix. 7, where has to ay^ei, and MT. nMS ] underlying both is perhaps rmnmN. I may repeat once more that I do not attempt to expound the geography of the earlier Hebrew narrators. I can only make suggestions which arise naturally out of critically revised texts. So much, at least, appears to be probable — that in a more original and shorter form the story of Joseph had a N. Arabian and not a Palestinian and Egyptian background, and consequently that ' Pharaoh, king of Egypt,' should be ' Pir'u,^ king of Misrim.' The land in which the events related take place was a land of corn and wine, of streams and canals. It was also a land of trees, and as/tAur-trees, which delighted in moisture, grew by the side of the river. And now as to the relations between the Misrites and the Hebrews or ' sons of Jacob.' It is true that the Misrites and the Hebrews could not eat together (xliii. 32) on the ground that the Hebrews were addicted to a mode of life which indicated a far lower degree of culture than that of the Misrites (cp. on xlvi. 34 d). But this did not place a bar on all intercourse, nor on the adoption of a Hebrew as a Misrite. A religious difference there must also have been ; this would be the natural result of a difference of culture. In the time of Joseph, however, there was on both sides less consciousness of religious difference than afterwards. This appears from passages like xxxix. 5, 9, 21, 23, xl. 8, and especially xliii. 23 (where notice the warm religious sympathy manifested by the steward towards the brethren ; cp. xlii. 18). And this view, as I hope, is confirmed by a soundly methodical and intrinsically probable correction ot the strange reading ■'Ti^Sl in xli. 16. The word is generally thought to mean ' not at all myself,' which is taken to be a formula of deprecation ; but the only parallel for such a 1 Or perhaps 'Arab (see on xii. 15). DREAMS AND INTERPRETATIONS (Gen. xli. 1-32) 459 use of the word is xiv. 24, and there, as we have seen, "•"[shl has most probably grown out of ^siT", an incorrect popular form of f?MDm\ The only natural meaning of the phrase is ' without me,' or ' apart from me ' ; cp. T>^s■?a, V. 44. ©, however, connects '^l with DTifjM, and inserts M^ ; plausible, but arbitrary. As it seems to me, the true reading is QTifpN 'oriT, which appears to have been one of the names of the God of Israel (see pp. 99^). In other words, Joseph and the reigning king of Misrim, in spite of a difference in religious customs, at any rate worshipped God under the same compound name. The disputed phrase occurs in a conversation between Joseph and the king of Misrim. It will be seen that from the very first Joseph has no difficulty whatever in his inter- course with the Misrites. In fact, his case is parallel to that of Abram in □"'"iso, and of Abraham and Isaac in Gerar. The only apparent inconsistency is in xlii. 23, where Joseph is said to have spoken to his brethren by an interpreter (lit. ' the interpreter was between them '). But can we suppose that in his dealings with his master and (see on xxxix. 8/) his master's wife, also with his fellow-prisoners, and with the king, Joseph was dependent on a dragoman ? Surely not. It was convenient at this point to assume that Joseph would not understand the free outpouring of the guilty souls of his brethren, and so, just here, the narrator introduced an interpreter ; but the detail was an inconsistency. We may admit that in later times the Arabian invaders spoke a tongue not understood by the people of Judah (Jer. v. 15, Isa. xxxiii. 19), but the early traditions (as it appears to me) represent the Israelites, the Yerahme'elites, the Misrites, and the Philistines (Pelethites ?) as speaking either the same tongue, or dialects of the same tongue which were not too widely different for mutual inter- course. This result is in harmony with the results of my own inquiries into proper names. I fear that Egyptological lore has been a rather doubtful boon to Biblical commentators. One difference, however, between the king of Misrim and Joseph there appears to have been. The king of Misrim believed in oneiromancy ; he therefore sends for ' all the hartummim and wise men.' Joseph, on the other hand. 46o TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL is convinced that the interpretation of dreams is not a matter for learned pedantry, but for direct divine revelation ^ (xl. 8). And who are the hartummiml According to BDB, ' the fact that the word is always applied to Egyptian magicians, except Dan. ii. 2 (late), suggests Egyptian origin, but no agreement [exists] among Egyptologists.' According to Gunkel, ' the etymological and precise meaning is unknown.' Dillmann, it is true, derives from mn, and Tuch from Bin and mn, but this is not satisfactory. It the scene of the story be in Egypt, we must expect the Hebraised form of some Egyptian term, but who can produce a corresponding Egyptian term for 'magicians'? Har-tot, mentioned by Brugsch, means 'warrior (priest).' The expressions quoted by BDB are conjectural. The lepoypafifjLarei<; of Diod. Sic. i. 87 cannot be shown to be hartummim. Let us, then, extend our survey. BDB's description of Dan. ii. 2 as ' late ' need not hinder us from utilising the fact that Nebuchadrezzar, king of Bibel, had hartummim (Dan. i. 20, ii. 2, 10, 27, iv. 4, v. 11). This is another of the striking parallelisms between the story ot Joseph and that of Daniel, and, as in the case of iw, the parallelism points the way to the best solution of the problem. As we have already seen (on x. 10) f?ll is often a corruption of the name (or of one of the names) of the leading N. Arabian kingdom, and though that kingdom was not what is so often called Misrim, yet it must have been equally pervaded by Yerahme'elite culture and super- stition. The ' wise men ' and magicians of N. Arabia were, of course, Yerahme'elites, and ' Yerahme'elites ' became, to the Israelitish writers, a synonym for ' wise men ' and magicians (see on i K. v. 11, and cp. on Isa. ii. 6). Turn now to Dan. ii. 2 and its parallels, which contain a longer list of terms for ' magicians ' than we find in Exodus. One of these terms is clearly an ethnic — D"'^a>^. As we have seen (on xi. 31), this word, spelt mtD3, comes ultimately from DIN "iniDN. The easiest solution of our problem seems ^ It is Joseph's respect for the king which speaks in the phrase ' will give an answer of peace.' The ' answer ' is the dream, which has presumably been preceded by a question. Cp. Winckler, AOF xxi. 447. DREAMS AND INTERPRETATIONS (Gen. xli. 1-32) 461 to be that 'cntD3 (so we should read) was in the original story of Daniel at once a variant to and a correction of D'^oann. The two forms may reasonably be held to be ultimately identical, i.e. □■'OJsnn comes from D^'omnrt (u> and JS confounded ; cp. MT. i S. xiv. 32), and this from D"'DlttJn, i.e. DnM ^^P^i!, with the plural termination added. In fact, not only Yerahme'el (Aram) but Ashhur (under the form Ezrah) was proverbial for wisdom (i K. v. 11). From the expression D"'n20 "'oann in Ex. vii. 1 1 we may infer either that the corrupt ■'oain already stood in the text and was interpreted ' magicians,' or that ' Ashhur-Arammite ' had already obtained an appellative force.^ JOSEPH'S PROSPERITY (Gen. xli. 33-57) The section relates how Joseph made a practical sugges- tion in anticipation of the seven years of famine (cp. z/. 34 with xlvii. 26), and how the king appointed him to carry his suggestion into effect in the capacity of grand vizier. How Joseph married into a priestly family, and had two sons ; also how he amassed a large quantity of corn in the granaries of every city. It is natural that this should have been illustrated from Egyptian sources.^ The directorship of the granaries, for instance, was one of the most important state-offices. Usually, indeed, it was distinct from the viziership, but we cannot be surprised if, under special circumstances, the two offices were combined. 1 Hommel's proposed connexion of 'n with Bab. kardamu, the name of a class of priests (Exp. T. xi. 234) may here be recorded. 2 See E. Sib., 'Joseph,' § 7; Hastings' DB, 'Joseph,' p. 773 a; Tomkins, Life and Times of Joseph, pp. 48/ (Naville). 462 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Next, as to horses and chariots. These first appear on Egyptian monuments under the eighteenth dynasty. It appears, however, that horses were introduced under the Hyksos. We cannot, therefore, say that if the scene of the story be in Egypt horses and chariots cannot have been referred to. The passages affected by this question are fairly numerous. References to horses (beside asses) occur in xlvii. 17, also (beside asses and camels) in Ex. ix. 3, and (with chariots) in Ex. xiv. 9, 23, xv. 19, and references to chariots (without horses) in xli. 43, xlvi. 29, 1. 9, Ex. xiv. 6 yi, 17, 25, 28, XV. 4. I maintain, however, that horses and chariots also existed in the land of Musri, so that, in spite of these references, the scene of the original story may have been in N. Arabia. I am aware of the strong opposition of Prof. Ridgeway ^ to the opinion of the antiquity of the horse in Arabia ; ^ but it seems to me less hazardous to suppose that horses were early known in Arabia than to admit such strange anachronisms on the part of the editor of the Joseph- story. I would also call attention to four points, (i) We are told in xli. 43 that the king caused Joseph to ride rr3a?on niDioi, a phrase which is usually explained ' in the second chariot after that reserved for the king alone,' but which textual criticism shows to be (as also in 2 Chr. xxxv. 24) a corruption or alteration of jott)"' 'oi, 'in a chariot of Ishman ' {i.e. ' of Ishmael '). I fail to see how rrDtDDn can be called a probable reading ; a second-best chariot would have spoiled the whole affair. Besides, the same scribal error which is here supposed occurs (as I think it can be shown) elsewhere.^ Accepting this result, we may fairly ask whether Egyptians would be likely to send for chariots to N. Arabia, and point out that, as if to prevent any mistake, close upon the mention of the chariot we find the gloss Abrek, which cannot be more plausibly and 1 The Thoroughbred Horse (1905). ' See, however, W. S. Blunt's criticisms on Ridgeway in the Nineteenth Century and After, January 1906, pp. 58-71. ^ E.g. in 2 K. xxii. 14, Zeph. i. 10, 2 Chr. xxxiv. 22, Neh. xi. 9. Cp. also o'JDB'D, from d':de", i S. xv. 9, Ezra i. 10, and see on the tribal name rwxs, v. i\. JOSEPH'S PROSPERITY (Gen. xli. 33-57) 463 methodically explained than as a shortened form of Arab- Rekem, ' Arabia of Rekem ' (see below). (2) The next point is that the early tradition states very positively that Yabin, king of Hasor {i.e. of Ashhur) was rich in horses and chariots (Josh, xi. 4 ; cp. Judg. iv. 3). It is, no doubt, commonly held that Yabin's Hasor was in the north, near lake Huleh. The identification, however, of the Waters of Merom with the waters of Huleh is most precarious. Moreover, in i K. ix. 15 we find Hasor mentioned with places in or near the south country, and the other places called in MT. Hasor are decidedly not northern localities. If the king of Hasor had horses and chariots, another southern king — that of Misrim — may be supposed to have had them too. (3) We next have to take account of the results of a close study of I K. x. 2% f} If there were horses in N. Arabia, it would be natural that Solomon should import his horses from thence ; and textual criticism appears to me strongly to confirm this. It is not thereby proved that the horses were bred in Musri. From Ezek. xxvii. 14 we learn that the great commercial country of Missor (shortened into Sor) imported horses from ' Togarmah.' This regional name is probably corrupted from Tubal-gamrah (or the like), a compound name, both • parts of which point in the first instance to Arabia. And (4) for extra-Biblical testimony to the existence of horses in N. Arabia take this from the great Khorsabad inscription of Sargon (/. 27; KB ii. 55) — 'Tribute from Pir'u the king of Mu-su-ri, Samsi the queen of Aribi, It'amara the Sabsean, gold, productions of the mountains, horses, camels, I received.' The evidence quoted on the side of the opposition is not early. If I understand the texts aright, the horses of Asshur were famed for their swiftness (Nah. iii. 2 ; cp. ' Asshur,' V. 18). So also were those of 'Kasdim' (Hab. i. 8 ; cp. ' Kasdim,' v. 6). ' Kasdim ' and ' Asshur ' must have been 1 See Crit. Bib. p. 336. Solomon's horses were imported from Misrim and Maakah ( i K. l.c^. The obscure thdi and n^>j;m come from Dm'3 and Vy^nx mn. The regions intended were 'in Yarham, that is Ethbaal ' ; i.e. N. Arabian. 464 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL rather close together, or rather Kasram (so we should read for Kasdim), i.e. Ashhur-Aram, was probably a part of Ashhur.^ And the poetical picture of the war-horse (Job xxxix. 19-25), so unique in the O.T., comes from a writer who may well be supposed to have resided long in Arabia. And now, what were the honours and rewards of which Joseph was the recipient ? ' Thou shalt be over my house,' says the king {v. 40) ; the parallel line ought by rights to expand this idea. The text runs, "'Qi^-fpD pE^;i TS'^21, which Gunkel translates, ' thy words shall my whole people obey.' In fact, © renders the verb viraicovaeTai. True, but what is the Hebrew phrase presupposed by this? Certainly not h'a plO"'. Possibly @ may have read TtUp-" (cp. ®, Prov. ii. 2) ; but the sense is not strong enough. T'EJ, too, though ® read it, must be wrong.^ In Prov. xv. 14 TiQ should be ^las. So here, while pm"' has probably come from mnna)'^.^ Thus we get, ' and before thee shall all thy people bow down.' Next comes the formal presentation of the insignia of ofifice, specially the royal seals with which all state docu- ments were sealed [v. 42). Does this point to Egypt? Certainly, but not more than to other countries. See Esth. iii. lo, viii. 2, Tobit i. 22, i Mace. vi. 15. We learn too that Joseph was clad in ' garments of shesh] i.e. of fine linen. But even here we are compelled to deny that there is any distinctively Egyptian colouring. First, because in a list of Egyptian honours a particular garment — the so-called shendi-t — would have been mentioned; ' garments of fine linen ' were worn by all Egyptians of rank ; and next, because fine linen was produced, not only in Misrim (Ezek. xxvii. 7), but in Aram, i.e. Yerahme'el in Arabia {ibid. v. 16), and also in Judah (i Chr. iv. 21; cp. Josh. ii. 6, Hos. ii. 7, 11, Prov. xxxi. 13). True, t&ffi is usually supposed to be an Egyptian loan-word, but the support for this view derived from Ezek. xxvii. 7, compared 1 That ' Asshur ' ( = Ashhur) in Nah. iii. 2 is an Arabian region is shown in Crit. Bib. ad loc. For ' Kasdim ' (from ' Kasram ') see on xi. 28. 2 See E. Bib., ' Salutations,' § 2. 3 For a similar confusion see i K. ii. 1 9, where cp. @. JOSEPH'S PROSPERITY (Gen. xli. 33-57) 465 with V. 16, is a precarious one. Those who hold that ctD comes from the Egyptian les ^ are obliged to suppose that there was another mto meaning 'white marble' (Cant. v. 15, ' Esth. i. 6 ; op. m"'t&, i Chr. xxix. 2). From our point of view, however, or© (or X£txti), with which cp. >m\0 (Num. xiii. 22), jmrn (i Chr. ii. 31), NtD-'CB (i K. iv. 3), ^tr'^ (i Chr. V. 14), is a popular distortion of ntDN (cp. vnWD, also from TltDN). Thus ©■'m ■'aiN in I Chr. xxix. 2 means, not ' white marble stones,' but ' Asshur-stones,' and ojm "'lil in our passage (Gen. xli. 42) means ' garments of Asshur-stufif.' For the latter, cp. TitDn mn (Ex. xxxi. 10, etc.) and '1 J&npn, both corruptions of nnms 'l\ also nwm miN, Josh, vii. 21. Another fine textile fabric (hardly silk) was •^mn (combined with tDtD in Ezek. xvi. 10, 13); now it&o, accord- ing to numerous analogies, has possibly come from bNI?DBJ^ Note also the combination, in Prov. xxxi. 22, of tDQ> and jons, and in Esth. i. 6, viii. 15,^ of pi and jonN ; now purple stuffs (jailN) came from nQ)"'f?M = fjNi^om"' (Ezek. xxvii. 7), and in Isa. xix. 9 the troublesome mp'^lto has doubtless arisen out of "'"nntDN, which is a gloss correcting ■'lin ; D'^nNT should be jonMl, so that ' Asshurite purple ' is a second accusative to ■'73s in v. 9 a. For the sake of completeness I venture to point out that pi, the synonym of tBlp, must, according to analogies, have arisen out of pS12, a clear development of 'jNi^otO'' (see on xxxvi. 14). From Ezek. xxvii. 16 one might infer that this was the name given to the fine linen which came from Aram {i.e. the southern Aram), while ©m was the name given to that which came from Misrim. The conclusion is obvious. There is no reason why ©to ■'111 in the passage before us should be supposed to point to Egypt as the scene of the story of Joseph. On the contrary, it points distinctly to Arabia. There is, no doubt, one remarkable omission in the description of Joseph's state dress. We have seen that in Egypt tDtO'^ll did not constitute an exceptional dress. But there was something else which, though not in later times exclusively royal, yet in the age in which Joseph 1 See W. M. M., E. Bib., 'Egypt,' § 35. 2 See E. Bib., ' Purple.' 30 466 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL would be assumed to have lived, and in that of the narrators, would have indicated at any rate a share of regal authority — and that is a purple mantle. Both as the royal deputy and as an adopted member of a priestly family, Joseph could not have been without a purple robe. It is no doubt omitted in our text, but surely by accident. It is true, the insertion of it would not strengthen the case for Egypt For in the story of Daniel (v. 7) we find Belshazzar promising that the reader of the writing on the wall should be clothed in purple ; in that of Zerubbabel (i Esdr. iii. 6) Darius makes the same promise, and adds a head-tire of fine linen ; and in that of Esther (viii. 15), Mordecai wears a crown of gold and a mantle of fine linen (pa) and purple ; cp. also I Mace. x. 20, 62, 64, and other passages. Now, as has been shown above, purple was reckoned as one of the commodities of Arabia ; it was doubtless a Tyrian product, but it was also Arabian. Nor does the presentation of a golden collar to a royal favourite prove the scenery to be Egyptian. It was certainly a highly-prized Egyptian decoration ^ (like the insignia of our orders), but it was also Persian (Herod, iii. 20 ; Xen. Anab. i. 2, 27), and other countries doubtless had it too. Definitely un-Egyptian phrases follow. ' In the second chariot' {v. 43) has been shown already to be corrupt. It was the king's own chariot (t^ ntDN) in which Joseph rode, and the chariot was of the type called ' chariot of Ishmael.' ^ So, too, the words ' and they cried before him, Abrek ' — which have been made to mean almost anything and every- thing' — are also corrupt, and can only be plausibly and defensibly corrected if the N. Arabian theory be accepted. In seeking for a correction we have simply to let ourselves be guided by analogies. "["Qn belongs, in fact, to one of the most numerously attested types of corruption. Just as 1 See E. Bib., col. 2590 ('Joseph,' § 5, Egyptian parallels). 2 For another view see E. Bib., col. 2590. 2 The least unplausible of the many interpretations is that "P^k is the Ass. abarakku, the title of a very high dignitary, which, like so many other Asiatic words, may conceivably have passed into Egypt (see E. Bib., ' Abrech,' where abarakku is favoured ; ' Joseph,' § 6, where another correction, but one less supported by analogy, is offered). The Egyptological explanations continue to multiply. JOSEPH'S PROSPERITY (Gen. xli. 33-57) 467 miM and omiN come from mM-ns and orrT'mi? respec- tively (op. on xvii. 5), and ^^^^ from opn-nnn (p. 92 ; Zech. ix. i), so ^n^N cannot fail to represent Dp^-3^i;, i.e. DnT"n», ' Yarhamite Arabia.' It is true this conclusion does not fit in with the preceding words v:iTh ^N^p^^. But can it be affirmed that a proclamation of any kind is suit- able in the context? Joseph has been told previously that he shall be the second in the kingdom, and that all the people shall bow down to him (v. 40). Has not the right moment come for this act of submission to be carried out ? The new vizier has been presented in royal state to the people ; what ought to follow ? Surely that the people prostrated themselves. By a very small and regular emendation we can obtain the required sense. ^M^p■'^ is manifestly wrong, and "1S^D■'^ as manifestly right. The words "T'2sb 'y^ ought surely to be joined on to D"'nSD pN'^D (here a collective term for the Misrite people). The inter- vening words Ss ins pnai "jniN have most probably come from f?Mi>om-' ]in3 Nin Dpn-mi>, ' Arabia of Rekem, that is, Nathin-Ishmael.' ^ Here Dpi ms is a gloss on 'so pN-^D ; it informs us that by ' all the land of Misrim ' is meant the region otherwise known as Arab-Rekem or Nathin-Ishmael. The existence of an ethnic Nethinim, most probably related to Ethan and Ethanim, has already been pointed out {Amer. Journ. of Theol. v. [1901], p. 440 ; cp. on Neh. iii. 26). A clan of Nethinim was closely connected with the temple- service, and showed remarkable eagerness to return to Jeru- salem (see on Ezra viii. 17, 20). The Book of Jubilees (xl. 7, Charles') has, according to the Ethiopic, El Elwa Abirer, or, according to the Latin, Elel et Habirel, where El El or Elel seems to represent ^MOrtT' and Abirer or Habirel 'riT T^s. At any rate, there is no explanation of these readings which is as capable of critical defence. Thus the Book of Jubilees contributes to the support of a view of Misrim already forced upon us by the phenomena of the traditional text 1 For another text-critical view see Cheyne, Orient. Lit.-ztg., 1900, col. 152; but cp. W. M. Miiller, ibid. col. 325. It was at any rate worth while to point out that in^n still needed explanation, and that the words 'sD pn-^D Sv inn pmi were quite impossible where they stand. Cp. Ball's suggestion in SBOT, which, however, is not satisfactory. 468 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL of the O.T. On the significance of the N. Arabian tribe- name ' Ethan,' see i K. iv. 3 1 and Crit. Bib. ad loc, and cp. E. Bib., ' Ethan.' To rise to a position of high importance in Egypt would necessarily involve, for a foreigner like Joseph, the adoption of a courtly Egyptian name.^ Hence the question, Can the name Saphenath-pa'neah be satisfactorily explained from Egyptian ? To prove that it can be so explained need not, of course, imply that the scene of the original Joseph-story was laid in Egypt ; the mention of Joseph's new name might be due to a later editor. But it is, at any rate, an interesting question to raise, for, in the event of there being no very good Egyptian explanation, it will be our duty to open another question, viz. whether this com- pound name can be explained, in accordance with analogies, on the N. Arabian theory. Many and varied are the explanations of Saphenath- pa'neah (xli. 45) derived from the truly ample sources of Egyptology (see E. Bib., col. 5379). According to Crum in Hastings' DB, p. 665 b, the only transcription which con- forms to Egyptian grammar and usage is jephnoutifonch, ' God speaks and he lives.' This is due to Steindorff {ZA xxvii. 42). Erman, however, interprets ' member of the college of hierogrammatists,' and similarly Naville, by altering one letter, 'head of the college,' etc. (FSB A, 1903, pp. 1 5 7- 1 61). Objections to SteindorfFs view are urged by Lieblein (PSBA, 1898, pp. 202 f.). J. Marquart's view^ is in some respects more, in others less plausible. The decisive objection is that it makes Joseph a co-religionist and official of Amen-hotep IV., who so fanatically promoted the worship of the god of the solar disk, Iten. This is as difficult a view as that of Winckler respecting the religious propaganda made by Abraham (cp. p. 225), and is also opposed by those very numerous textual phenomena which 1 See Heyes, pp. 256^ 2 Philologus, vii. 676/ ; cp. E. Bib., col. 5379, where, too, the present writer's earlier explanation of the text-reading will be found, and OLZ, April and Oct. 1900 (on Joseph's name). On @'s reading see Nestle, ' Miscellen,' ZATW, 1905, Heft i. His suggestion (to transpose s and s) is most unfortunate. JOSEPH'S PROSPERITY (Gen. xli. 33-57) 469 point to N. Arabia. Our present point of view enables us to propose a theory which accords with a large number of phenomena recognised elsewhere. Saphenath-pa'neah ought to be a compound geographical name, like Poti-phera' ( = Put-'arab), Ab-raham ( = Arab-Yarham), Ab-salom ( = Arab-Ishmael), etc. Looking at the first element n3D2, it may possibly be a modification of riEjns, produced under the influence of n3DM ; Sarephath was the name of an important place or district in N. Arabia (cp. on x. 14). It is simpler, However, to regard roBIL as a feminine form ^ of pDS, a name which we meet with in Jer. i. 14 and elsewhere as that of the region from which an invasion might be anticipated, and in Isa. xiv. 13 as that of the district where, for the king styled ' Yerahmeel, son of Ashhur,' ^ was the sacred mountain of his race (cp. p. 50, note 3). It is also found in Judg. xii. i as the name of a Gadite city. Without doubt it is a modifi- cation of ]ii>is (see on xxxvi. 14), i.e. SNi>OQ)^ As to n3i>D, it has been suggested ^ that it is probably a corruption of DTOD or OTOE'S, which in Ex. vi. 2 S is the name of the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron, by one of the ' daughters of Putiel.' The name Putiel cannot be unconnected with Poti- phera' ; and just as the former name occurs in the genealogy of Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, so the latter occurs in that of Manasseh and Ephraim, sons of Joseph (xli. 50-52). Both Aaron and Joseph, then, were traditionally connected with a region called pn3S, and from Josh. xxiv. 33 we may gather that it was in the highlands of Ephraim. But where were those highlands? Perhaps Josh. xvi. i, xvii. 15, xix. 50, XX. 7, Judg. iv. 5 may help us. From («) we learn that one boundary of the original territory of the Joseph- tribe was the Yarhon (JTT' is followed by the correction irT'T, t.e. 'iht) ; from (b), that the original highland of Ephraim was in the same zone as the land of the Perizzites ( = Zarephathites ?) and the Rephaim ( = 'Arbim) ; from (c), that it included Timnath-serah ( = Timnath of Ashhur), where Joshua was held to have been buried ; from {d), that one of its cities was Shechem ( = Shakram, i.e. Ashhur- 1 Cp. Bekorath (i S. ix. i), Harosheth (Judg. iv. 2), Shelomith (Ezra viii. 10). 2 In MT. given as -\rwp %, 1 There is much corruption in the passage. Why refer to boots at all ? pyi, like pfo in xlvi. 21, Ezek. xxxviii. 2, Hab. iii. 13, comes from lyn. 2 There is a difference between ' must ' and ' may.' For ' may ' see W. M. Miiller, Zt. f. Aeg. Spr., 1892, p. 61 (Heliopolis, fivn, i.e. 'own). * See Wellh. HeidS^'' p. 62 ; Cook, Exp. Times, x. 525 / ; Hogg, 472 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL and that NO) is a divine name, also found in NtOi>!l, and that 3Q is a shortened form of ^ya} the god of fortune (Isa. Ixv. 1 1 ), is as wide of the mark as the explanation ' one who injures the hip-sinew ' (Land ; see on xxxii. 33). The vocali- sation of MT. is no doubt a stumbling-block ; it is so alike to those who hold the N. Arabian theory, and to those who discover in rra)30 the two divine names Men and Sha. But this vocalisation may not have been universal in ancient times. It is true that Esarhaddon gives the name of king Menasseh of Judah as Mi-na-si-i, but in the parallel list of kings Asurbanipal gives it as Mi-in-si-i ( = "'tO^a). This at once reminds us^ of 'Jehu, son of Nimshi' (2 K. ix. 20), where ' Nimshi ' is a corruption of ' Ishmael,' like ' Nimrim ' (Isa. XV. 6) for ' Rimmonim ' or the like. Cp. also jntD and D3t0, n^mo {v. 43) and Q-'^mo (Ezra i. 10). Menasseh, therefore, is a distortion of Minshi = Ishman = Ishmael. As to ' Ephraim,' it is remarkable that the moderns so generally accept the narrator's connexion of the name with rrT.Qri, as if ' fertile tract,' while they reject the connexion of nDJ30 with rri^3, 'to cause to forget.' We have a right, however, to expect the name to have sprung from some ethnic or place-name. The nearest ethnic (Palestinian or N. Arabian) to ' Ephraim ' is ' Rephaim ' ; but we have no evidence that ' Rephaim ' is older or more original than ' Ephraim ' ; all that we can say is that they may be presumed to have the same origin. Passing over the two suggestions mentioned by Prof. Hogg^ as unsuitable, we may remind ourselves of the cases (see on ' Arpakshad,' X. 22) in which snQ and DIN have most probably come from 1"15, and on the ground of which we have already (on xiv. 5) derived qinqt from Qini;, ' Arabians ' or ' Arabia.' It would seem that just as the same word for ' to make ' is pronounced episu in Assyrian and ebisu in Babylonian, so in parts of the N. Arabian region from which the Israelites came 3"t^ may E. Bib., cols. 2291, 2921. The theory is untenable. Abishai and Baasha represent different types of corruption from the same original, which is Arab-Ishmael ; Amasa and Amasai both spring from Ishmael. 1 Really 'ro in Isa. I.e. comes from ;D'=^iNDnT (cp. on 'Javan,' x. 3). 2 Cp. Hogg, E. Bib., col. 2921 (top). 3 E. Bib., 'Ephraim,' § 5. JOSEPH'S PROSPERITY (Gen. xli. 33-57) 473 have been pronounced V\-a, whence came ns? (xxv. 4), D''Nm, □"'ISN, mSN. That there was an Ephraimite dialect we know from Judg. xii. 6 (the southern, not the northern Ephraim, is referred to). A word may be said (i) as to the traditional termination d;':, and (2) as to the relation of ' Ephraim ' to ' Menasseh.' As to the first point, we may- admit the improbability of the dual termination, and hold that either -aim should be -dm, or else the final letters c represent a distinct word, viz. d^, shortened from p\^ As to the second, it is possible, as Prof. Hogg remarks,^ that the attempt of an early writer to mark out a geographical boundary for Ephraim is rather arbitrary, and suppose that the whole highland country was ' Ephraimite,' and only certain towns specially ' Menassite.' To this one may add that the full name of the highland country may have been fjNSDBJ"' Dni>, ' Ishmaelite Arabia,' where ms will correspond to D''1DN and 'oJO'^ to na>3Q. So that the question as to the relative position of Ephraim and Menasseh may be purely artificial. JACOB'S TEN SONS IN MISRIM (Gen. xlii.) The brethren ' go down ' to Misrim. One alone would not have been able to bring back enough corn. ' But Benjamin, Joseph's brother, Jacob sent not with his brethren.' The reason is well given by Judah in xliv. 20, 'his brother is dead, and he alone is left of his mother, and his father loveth him' — such favouritism was not repugnant to the 1 Hommel has already analysed □'^^^e into d' isn, but without noticing that in this case d' ('d') will represent \d- (see on xiv. 3). 2 E. Bib., 'Ephraim,' § 5. 474 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL ancients. Indeed, as he himself allows us to see (v. 38), Jacob will run any risk rather than lose Benjamin. So only the ten go ; like the others, they do obeisance to the shallit (viceroy ?) who in this naively conceived narrative sells the corn himself. Thus Joseph's early dreams begin to be fulfilled {v. 9; cp. xliii. 26, 28, xlvii. 31). The brethren, however, are still unconscious of this. Joseph is now a man, and in appearance a Misrite. His suspicious and arbitrary treatment of the little band of Hebrews is in accordance with Oriental manners in all ages ; he also wishes to stir the torpid consciences of the brethren, for, in his own opinion, he is a messenger of God (xlv. 5, J f^, and he is reputed to have a gift of divination (xliv. 5). The issue is that Simeon is left behind in Misrim bound,^ as a guarantee that Benjamin will be brought later. Observe that, as in xxxvii. 22, Reuben takes the precedence {vv. 22, 37); the statement in xxxv. 22 (see note) is a late distortion of the old tradition of Reuben, who was more sinned against than sinning. The brethren find their money in the sacks, restored. A fresh fear besets them, and a fresh sense of bereavement overpowers their father. In the last generation some English writers supposed that a pictorial record had been found of the first meeting of Joseph and his brethren. In truth, on the north wall of the tomb of prince Chnem-hotep on the height of Beni Hasan ^ is a picture of the interview of thirty-seven Asiatics with the Egyptian prince-governor. It is not, however, hunger but trade that brings them to Egypt. They are nomads from Arabia, led by their prince Absha, and they bring, not honey and spices (xliii. 11), but stibium or eye- paint. ' Absha ' is most probably = Abshai (i.e. Arab-shur) or Abshua ( = 'Arab-sheba). For ns iy. 3) read nam with Lagarde. ^^xb {v. 6) is perhaps due to the latest redactor {BDB, after Kuenen). In v. 38 hstn'^ is a very old cor- ruption of 'jlNom = f?NSDm\ ' Ishmael ' ( = ' Yerahme'el) was 1 Winckler finds a mythological (zodiacal) substratum, which in fact is possible {AOF ■x.ya. 459). ^ The tombs of Beni Hasan are of the twelfth dynasty. See Archaol. Survey of Egypt, part i. p. 69 ; [and cp. E. Bib.., 'Egypt,' § 50 ; 'Joseph,' § 8; ' Music,' § 8. JACOB'S TEN SONS IN MISRIM (Gen. xlii.) 475 in one of his aspects the god of the underworld. For the not inconsiderable evidence, see pp. 53/ In w. 18 note that Joseph (supposed to be a Misrite) agrees fundamentally in religion with the brethren. JACOB SENDS BENJAMIN (Gen. xliii.) The second meeting of the brethren, including Benjamin, with Joseph. Note the account of the present, which appears to be made up of things rare and therefore ; costly in Misrim. Cp. Ezek. xxvii. 17, where for 'the land of Israel ' read ' the land of Ishmael ' ; and for ' wheat of Minnith, and Pannag, and honey ' (so A.V.), read ' wheat of Maacath (ddsd) and grape - honey ^ ()Dl iDlTi).' Jacob is now in Canaan, but the land of Yerahme'el, in the larger sense of the word, included both Misrim and Canaan (x. 6). Note also Jacob's prayer (v. 14). He assumes that El-Shaddai, i.e. El-Asshur (see on xvii. i), has power in Misrim. On the arrival of the Hebrews, after the transac- tion of business, Joseph entertains them. There are three separate tables, one for the great noble or grand vizier, another for the Misrites in general, and a third for the Hebrews. In w. 32 (cp. xlvi. 34), the narrator may seem to have introduced a feature which implies that the Misrites are Egyptians. But let us not be too sure. The N. Arabian Misrites were more advanced in culture than the Hebrews, who were still in the pastoral stage. This will account for the statement referred to (see above, p. 458). ^ The modem dibs. Cp. Bliss, A Mound of Many Cities, pp. 69-71. JOSEPH'S POLICY TOWARDS THE BRETHREN (Gen. xliv.) With wonderful self-restraint Joseph continues to exercise his functions as the elect agent of Providence. One trial more is needed to melt the hard hearts of his brethren. Joseph's divining bowl (divination flourished in other countries besides Egypt) is put into Benjamin's sack. In hot haste, as if just aware of the theft, the steward of the vizier recalls them, and they are brought before Joseph. Judah, who now takes the precedence (cp. xliii. 3, 8), attempts no excuse, and accepts the doom of servitude for himself and his brethren. This strange mis- fortune must be the punishment of some unknown sin ; ' God has found out the iniquity of thy servants ' {v. 1 6). Joseph, however, refuses to punish any one but the person with whom the bowl was found. A torturing moment has come ; the brothers feel for Benjamin as they ought formerly to have felt for Joseph. Judah makes a truly great speech, and entreats to be allowed to become Benjamin's substitute {w. 32, 33). The text has one strange peculiarity ; the interpolation of the returned money (v. i b and 2 a part). How strange, if the present text be correct, that the steward makes no mention of the corn-money on opening the sacks (v. 1 2) ! Joseph's bowl, or goblet, is of much interest. (5 renders in V. 2 TO KovBv TO apyvpovv ; the word «. also occurs in (^ at Isa. li. 17, 22. Note that kovSv is not a native Egyptian word. Athenaius (xi. 5 5) defines it as iroT'^piov'AcnanKov, Nicomachus (ap. Athen.) as Persian, Pollux (vi. 96) as Cappadocian. The opinion of Nicomachus seems to be correct.^ Kandfl or Kundii is translated by Vullers 'vas '^ So the late Prof. Aufrecht, in a private letter. 476 JOSEPH'S POLICY TO THE BRETHREN (Gen. xliv.) 477 figlinum frumento recondendo.' A friend, a native of Cumberland, informs me that in that county it used to be common to tell fortunes from the grounds of a tea-cup. The magic mirror of ink in modern Egypt is familiar (Lane, Mod. Egypt, i. 337 ^.). I presume that a similar divining process was known in the N. Arabia of the Israelitish period. At any rate, the vessels of the 'house of Yahweh' included ' silver bowls of the Ishmaelites' (Ezra i. lo; seep. 452, note 2). Joseph's bowl (s"!!! ; Ezra has n"iDD), too, was both Ishmaelitish (N. Arabian), and, by its use, sacred. See further Hunger, ' Becherwahrsagung bei den Babyloniern,' in the Leipzig collection of studies called Semit. Studien, 1903. — Note by the way that in v. 4 the name of the city is not mentioned (cp. Driver on xlvi. 3 i ). RECONCILIATION AND INVITATION (Gen. xlv. 1-24) The speech of Judah brings about a crisis. It has con- vinced Joseph that the selfishness of his brothers has been broken down, and that he can afford to throw off his disguise and give free vent to his feelings. Gently he relieves the mind of his brothers, and lifts them up to the height of God's purpose. ' It was not you that sent me hither, but God ' (w. 8). He sends a loving message to his father by the brothers, and promises him and them a dwelling near himself in ' the land of Goshen ' (J). Another source (E) states that the invitation came from the king, and describes the generous presents, laden with which the brethren departed on their way. The only detail on which we need pause is the arrangement for Jacob's settlement in ' the land of Goshen ' (z/. i o), the notice of which is due to 478 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL the Yahwist (J). It is usual to suppose that the district referred to was within the boundaries of Egypt. It is remark- able, however, that in xlv. i o @ gives, for the ' Goshen ' of MT., Tea-efi 'Apa/St'a? (cp. xlvi. 34, eV yrj Feo-e/i ^Apa^ia; but in xlvii. i , eV 717 reae/j,)} This has been illustrated by the fact that in the Graeco-Roman period 'Apa^ia was one of the twenty-three nomes into which the Delta region was divided ; its capital was ^uKova-aa. According to W. M. Miiller the 'Apa^ia of @ is not the Arabian nome, but a more eastern part of the Arabian district — the Wady et-Tumilit and its western vicinity east of Bubastus. ' Goshen,' in his opinion, represents a rare Egyptian name (Ksm) for the twentieth or western nome.^ Similarly writes Spiegelberg,^ who adds, however, that whether the older Hebrew sources (J and E) thought of this district cannot be proved with certainty, and that the later source (P) placed the seats of the Israelites in the 'land of Ramses,' the present Wady et-Tumilat. Such are the conjectures which at present appear to find the most favour.* Let us now see what can be said for the N. Arabian theory. First, as to the 'Apa^[a<; appended by to Teaefi, it seems to me a plausible view that it represents an original reading yis. ' Arabian Goshen ' is not a whit more peculiar than 'Arabian Kerith (or Ashhoreth') in xxiii. 2 (see note) and elsewhere. The addition of ns may have been simply intended to distinguish this from any other Goshen. And now as to ' Goshen ' (]Wi). There are four reasons why it is unwise to connect the name with the Egyptian Ksm, viz. (i) that though ^=^ in the transcriptions is quite regular, J = a> is not regular ; (2) that the name Ksm is rarely found ; * (3) that P does not use the name ]Wy, and yet can hardly be supposed to mean a different region from J and E ; and (4) that the same name (jt&a) is given in Josh. x. 41, xi. 16 (0 yrjv Focro/i), to a district in the region stated to 1 Quite otherwise in xlvi. 28 (see note). 2 E. Bib., ' Goshen,' § 2. 3 Der Aufenthalt Israels in Aegypten (1904), P- 52. * Jensen, however {Gilg.-epos, p. 152, note 4), thinks that our Goshen is = the Goshen in S. Palestine. 5 (i) and (2) are derived from W. M. Miiller. RECONCILIATION AND INVITATION (Gen. xlv. 1-24) 479 have been conquered by Joshua, and in Josh. xv. 51 to a city in the ' mountains ' of Judah. As Miiller admits, it is plausible under the circumstances to seek for a ' Semitic or at least non-Egyptian origin ' of the name. Certainly ; but it will be vain to search any of the lexicons for the root. The key to ;ma is in the jtDil of i Chr. ii. 47, which is a Calebite, i.e. N. Arabian name, and stands beside ta^Q (cp. 'Peleth,' w. 33) and not far from an ( = DnT). Like D»l (Neh. ii. 19) and "ioaj:i (Neh. ii. 6), it is a worn-down form of tXTfX ; ^ indeed, ®* actually gives 7»?po-«B/t. What, then, is am, which is the essential part of the original name ? Like TitDl, and like ni in rn'^'TSl, it is but a variety of nn?&«. The names Gershon (xlvi. 11), Gershom (Ex. ii. 22), simply indicate that the tribe or (it might be) district which bears it belongs to the great body of Ashhurite clans or to the great region known as Ashhur-Yerahme'el. And since in a wide sense the land of Misrim was a part of Yerahme'el, and again in a narrower sense distinct from it, it is conceivable that Goshen ( = Gershon) might be described either as within or without the region commonly known as Missor or Misrim. We are now able to consider the suggestion of Hugo Winckler,^ adopted by his faithful follower A. Jeremias,* that the reference to 'Goshen' in Josh. x. 41, xi. 16, is interpo- lated, and that the interpolation is due to a learned reader who 'knew' that ' Goshen' and 'Yarmuth' were equivalent, and that the ' Yarmuth ' spoken of in Josh. x. was the ' Yarimuta ' of the Amarna letters, which was the centre of a great corn district, and whose governor was Yanhamu (see p. 115, note 3). It is no doubt obvious that ' all the land of Goshen ' in x. 4 1 is misplaced ; and it may well be a gloss on some part of the specification in v. 40. But it is surely gratuitous to suppose that it is equivalent to ' the land of Yarmuth.' It is probable that there were several Yarmuths, for the word is simply a modification of Yarham.^ In Josh. X. 3 Yarmuth is mentioned between Hebron and Lachish ; 1 This is surely better than Noldeke's derivation from the Arabic {gushamu, ' stout '). Cp. Sinaitic iduj, idhj, and ttni. 2 ^Oi^iii. 215. 3 ATAO, p. 246, note 2. * See E. Bib., ' Jerimoth.' 48o TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL in XV. 35 with Adullam and Socoh. This 'Yarmuth' is clearly distinct from the place referred to \nv. 51 as Goshen, and there is no sufficient reason to suppose that it was the ' Yarimuta ' of the Tell el-Amarna letters/ or the ' Goshen ' of the Joseph-story in Genesis. There may also, of course, have been several Goshens or Gershons. JACOB STARTS FOR MISRIM (Gen. xlv. 25-XLVi. 1-5) Jacob hears the good news of Joseph, and determines to transfer himself and his family to Misrim. He is not, however, free from anxiety, and therefore offers sacrifices at the sanctuary of Beer-sheba, where Isaac had already built an altar (xxvi. 25), and Abraham had planted a sacred tree (xxi. 33 ; see note). The next question that arises is a religious one. By what title did Jacob address the divinity of the place or region ? The text has •pTX^'' 'l"'^>* Tt'jm'?, ' to the god of his father Isaac' But we must regard this in the light of the results gained by a study of xxvi. 24, xxviii. 13, xxxi. 42, 53. In the very instructive account of the journey of Abraham's servant there is a good reason for describing Yahweh as the God of Abraham (xxiv. 12, 27); the speaker owes his religious standing entirely to his master Abraham ; he is also the patriarch's representative in his quest for a wife for Isaac. Here, however, there is no sufficient reason for the phrase ' the god of his father Isaac,' for as soon as Jacob had reached the suitable age he could claim the protection of 1 This Yarimuta was, according to Marquart, in the Fayyum, a natural depression in the Libyan hills ; according to C. Niebuhr however, nearer to Palestine, in the east of the Delta. JACOB STARTS FOR MISRIM (Gen. xlv. 25-XLVi. 1-5) 481 the tribal or family god in his own right. We should there- fore read in v. i (as in the parallels) that Jacob sacrificed to the God of Ashhurite Arabia (intDN l^s). It may be noticed that in xlix. 2 5 (revised text) we find the blessing of ' the God of Asshur' invoked by Jacob upon Joseph. JACOB'S FAMILY (Gen. xlvi. 6-27) P's very precise account (note ' daughters ' and ' sons' daughters') of the migration of Jacob into Misrim, fol- lowed by a list of his descendants (see Driver's note, P- 365), which has evidently passed through various phases. Here we have only to consider the significance of the names. The results will confirm the view that the person- ages of the patriarchal legend are of N. Arabian origin. For 'Jacob ' see on xxv. 26 ; for Jacob's sons, on xxix. 31- XXX. 24, xxxv. 18. («) Reuben. i. That ^^3^ should be variously described as a Reubenite and (xxv. 4) a Midianite is not surprising, for the Reubenites occupied Midianite country (Josh. xiii. 21, PR), and Hanok is a pre- Israelite N. Arabian name (see on v. 1 7) where Hanok is the son of Kain = Kenites). — 2. vthu is a difficult name ; it may, however, be connected with rhu (cp. Num. xvi. i , xxvi. 8). — 3. jnan (cp. v. 12). From nsn, a very early distortion of "intON. Cp. "WW, Ezek. xxvii. 1 8 (regional name) ; also xxiii. 8 (personal name) ; and mt, xxxviii. 30. — 4. iDn3, from ■'DpT = ''DnT' (cp. on D^p, x. 30, xxix. i). No wonder that such a name should also be Judahite. {V) Simeon. i. 2. ^mo"' and po'', both from 'jNonT. Cp. on xxxv. 1 8 (po''). Num. xxvi. 1 2 ('jmoa). — 3. TnM ; cp. TinN, Judg. iii. I S, and Tin, i Chr. vii. 37. Perhaps from 31 482 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL ^^^-'lN, i.e. 'n-ns, ' Arabia of Hadad.' — 4. X'T, probably from py = fpNOHT. See on i K. vii. 21. — 5. nns. See on («), 3. — 6. 'jlNffl. See on xxxvi. 37. (c) Levi. I. jifflil. See on 'Goshen,' xlv. 10; 'Gershom,' Ex. ii. 22. — 2. nnp. Probably to be grouped with b^np^ (Josh. XV. 38), ^MTiip'^ (i Chr. iv. 18), )api (x. 25). — 3. 1^^a. Gesenius, 'bitter, unhealthy.' Rather, like D"'nQ, NIDD, etc., a popular development of Dl = mN. (Qffi"' (see above. Gad, i). Num. xxvi. 16 gives '^aiN, another corruption JACOB'S FAMILY {G-m.^uwi. 6-27) 483 of'otB"' (see on Josh. xix. 34). — 5. "^ns. Cp. on xxxviii. 3. — 6. ■'TnN ; Num. xxvi. 1 7 ^^^N. Cp. •^in, v. 21 ; pTiN, a Calebite name, i Chr. ii. 1 8 ; and see on ttn, Judahite place- name, Josh. XV. 3. — 7. ""^NnN. Connected with Snin, ^NinN, f?NTT', h-iS (cp. on xxxiv. 1 4), all of which come from ^Nani"'. See Crit. Bib. on 2 S. xxiii. 20 (^nin, 3n1d), Isa. xxix. i (^wiN •'in). (A) Asher. i. rr3D'' ; (g"*""- lap^iv (cp. on xxxv. 18). See on won, xxxvi. 12 ; naon, xxxviii. 12. — 2. miD'', and 3. ■'W. Probably the same clan-name. Cp. on ■'it!>% i. S. xiv. 49. — 3. ni^m. Also an Ephraimite clan, i Chr. vii. 23; a Benjamite, i Chr. viii. 13, 16 ; a Levite, i Chr. xxiii. 10/ Comparing i;tDni (for other parallels see on xiv. 2), i.e. l^N Dli>, we may explain ni'"'ll as = snv lis (iTtT, i Chr. ii. 34, =f?NDm"'). In I Chr. vii. 23 /i, Ephraim has a son TMra and a daughter mNt&. — 4. mto, the sister of the pre- ceding sons. Possibly = tonn (Isa. xvii. 9), NtDin (Ezra ii. 52), Din (Judg. i. 35), and, one may add, mNB (see preceding note). All these come from intON. — 5. Iin, also a Kenite name (Judg. iv. 11). To be grouped with irn, 331, pin ; origin, Dni\ — 6. fpN-'abo. lf?o, as often, a form of '?NDni'', which attained an independent existence, and received the formative ending Sn. Cp. Milkili in Am. Tab. In I Chr. vii. 3 1 this Malkiel has a son called nTtll, i.e. not m iNlj (Siegfr.-Stade), but inDJN nis (cp. DTinn rhsn^ from DiinffiNrr 'o, 2 S. xv. 30). {{) Joseph. I and 2. Ephraim and Manasseh. See on xli. ^i f. {k) Benjamin, i. ubl. See on xxxvi. 32, xiv. 2. — 2. 1D3, like 351 and T3n, may ultimately come from Dpi = DHT. Cp. on npni, xxiv. I S ; pil, Judg. iv. 6. — 3. ^ntDN, like f?S3tDM (i Chr. viii. 33) and bmm (xxxvi. 20), from ^^^i;Dm^ — 4. Nil. Also a Benjamite clan (Judg. iii. 15, etc., probably a N. Arabian story ; see Crit. Bib.). — 5. JOM. See on chap, xxxvii. (Adonis-mythy — 6. TIN. In Num. xxvi. 38, DTHN, which may be the true reading ; i.e. din lintBN (cp. on D13N, xvii. 5). I Chr. viii. i, ninN, an expansion of iriN, i.e. intON. — 7. D-'QD »N1. See Gray, HPN, p. 35. The 1 Cp. the name of the Canaanite city Yenu amu = Yinuamma (Am. Tab. 142, 8). 484 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL evidence points to ' Ahiram, Shephupham,' instead of ' Ehi, and Rosh, Muppim.' Another form of the second name is ' Shuphamite,' Num. xxvi. 39; cp. ' Shepham,' Num. xxxiv. 10; ' Shiphmite,' i Chr. xxvii. 27; ' Shuppim,' I Chr. vii. 12 ; ' Siphmoth,' i S. xxx. 28. All these names, in their contexts, seem to point to N. Arabia. See E. Bib., ' Shepham.' — 8. WBTi- Num. xxvi. 39, DDin ; i Chr. viii. 5, DTin. — 9. ■=T'iN. See on ' Arodi,' Gad 6. (/) Dan. D"'t»n. In i Chr. vii. 12 Dton appears to be a son of nriN. But the text is in disorder. Originally DtDn was a son of Dan. In Num. xxvi. 42 ' Hushim ' becomes ' Shuham.' The original of these may be in^N (cp. on nw, XXV. 2). Note that in i Chr. vii. 12, after Dton, comes ^^N ■'33, where ■>31 should probably be "133 (Klost.) and nriN comes from nnmN. {m) Naphtali. i . ^ssn"'. Perhaps from ^Npns"' ; X''^'^ (see on xvii. 19) probably comes from pntD"', and this from ^^©N. — 2. "'3131 occurs as a gentilic in Num. xxvi. 48, and should be read, for ■'3TI3, in i Chr. xi. 34. See E. Bib., 'Guni,' 'Jashen,' and Crit. Bib. p. 362, where a southern ' En-gannim ' is assumed, and this name connected with 'Guni.' — 3. n2\ Cp. ■in2% a Levite name, i Chr. xxv. 11. Perhaps from nns"', a Levite name, Ex. vi. 18, etc., probably from intDN. — 4. oSm. Sam. whxn. A member of the narrower Ishmael-group. See on 2 K. xv. 10, and E. Bib.', ' Shallum.' ISRAEL'S MEETING WITH JOSEPH (Gen. xlvi. 28-34) The climax is at hand. The narrative, which is J's, connects with v. 5 b. P's account of Jacob's arrival is in vv. 6, 7. We learn from v. 2Z that Israel (so J) sends Judah (who has well proved his fidelity both to Jacob and to Joseph) before him with this object — V3Q^ minf? TOtW, i.e. literally, 'to give a direction before him towards Goshen.' The subject to '^rh is omitted ; most presume that Joseph is intended. Sam. and Pesh., however, read mNinf?, where the subject will still be Joseph. But T'aaf? is not natural ; we should expect vfsN, as in V^N NTl, w. 29. @ gives (TVvavTr\aai avrm icaG" 'Upwmv ttoXiv eis yfiv Vajjxa-a-T)} This has been learnedly and acutely explained by Lagarde,^ but not correctly. Nor can I venture to retain my own former reading moT' n!SlN (cp. p. 479), which is too conjectural.^ And yet some place-name positively must underlie minb. Can we not recover it ? Surely there are cases enough in which TinfflM and mintDN are deprived of the initial syllable. If, then, a place-name is wanted, and if trysa is the N. Arabian Musri, it is difficult to suggest any other name but mintON. That the city of Joseph and of the king is without a name, has already been noted. Now, however, we see what the name of the city really was — Ashhoreth; which accords well with the theory that 'Goshen' comes ultimately from Ashhuran. The second T'as'? is a dittograph ; riDBl may perhaps be a gloss. On receiving Judah's tidings, Joseph makes ready his 1 @ omits €is yijv Pa/i. both in xlvi. 28 and in xlvii. 11. 2 Gotf. gel. Ameigen, 1890, p. 119 (justifying @'s Heroopolis). 8 E. Bib., col. 2587, note 4. 48s 486 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL chariot (cp. on xli. 43), and ' goes up ' to the higher ground of Goshen to meet his father. A pathetic word of Israel to Joseph is followed by a clever speech of Joseph to his brethren. He will request from the king that they may be allowed to dwell in Goshen (for parallels from the Egyptian monuments see Driver, p. 372), and mentions the ground on which he will base his petition. ' The men are shepherds,' and in Goshen the cattle of the king are fed (cp. xlvii. 6 b). The brethren themselves are to support this statement when presented to the king. All this seems to us rather overdone, but the narrator had an object — to account for the residence of the Hebrews in the frontier province. The two clauses yn TOpa ^aj2N -id (^v. 32) and 'in Qinso rQi>in-'3 {v. 34) seem to be later insertions, possibly due to a redactor, who under- stood Qi-iso to mean ' Egyptians ' {v. 34) and thought that the Egyptians really had a religious abhorrence for shepherds ; the statement in xliii. 3 2 is quite different. LEAVE TO DWELL IN GOSHEN (Gen. xlvii. 1-4, 6 b) Joseph reports the arrival of his father and his brothers in Goshen, and ' from the whole number of his brothers takes five men ' (to present them to the king) — can this be right ? Following the precedent of xix. 4, we may probably hold r\'^'p to be a corruption of some form of "iintON (cp. on pns"'). nntPM would be a gloss on p:3 J1m[o]- We may then venture to read rv^ vnKD"l, 'and from his brothers he took,' etc., which is quite natural. The section belongs to JE. SETTLEMENT OF ISRAEL (Gen. xlvii. 5, 6 a, 7-1 1, 27 3, 28) P's account of the presentation of Jacob to the king, of the settlement of Israel, of the duration of Jacob's time in Misrim, and of his age at his death. It is note- worthy that the land assigned to the immigrants is described as ' the best part of the land,' and designated not Goshen, but 'the land of DDDi>n' (cp. ® in xlvi. 28; see above). What, then, is ddo:>T ? — In Ex. i. 11, xii. 37, Num. xxxiii. 3, 5, no doubt it is the name of a Misrite city, built by the forced labour of the Israelites. And so too it is here ; the ' land of Raamses,' means the district which had Raamses for its capital. According to Professor Petrie,^ the mound of ruins known as Tel er Retabeh, eight miles distant from Naville's Pithom, is a thoroughly suitable site for the ' store-city ' of Raamses. It is true the place was not actually built by Rameses II. ; indeed, there are twelve to fifteen feet of ruins beneath the buildings of the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties. But Rameses II. was a great builder here ; the temple erected by him still exists in part. If Rameses II. was the 'Pharaoh of the oppression,' why should not the Israelites have been made to build magazines or store-houses for him ? And why should not the place have been then called Raamses ? But this is all conjectural, and it is very strange that the name of the oppressive king, as well as that of the city where the Israelites laboured, should not have been recorded as Raamses. ' Raamses,' be it observed, is a name which admits of more than one interpretation. Moreover, if the ' land of Raamses ' means what Petrie and his predecessors 1 Hyksos and Israelite Cities (1906), p. 28. 487 488 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL think, there is an anachronism. Joseph, as we are assured, lived long before Rameses II. I venture, therefore, to offer another explanation of the name Raamses,^ which I take to be a compound name of a place and region near the frontier of the kingdom of Misrim or Musri. What suggested the idea was the closing syllable (as one may most naturally hold it to be) dd,^ which, like did, mm, and mom, is a very possible representative of SMi^om"' (see on xvi. 15). Accept- ing this, we now understand Dsn, which is a popular form of onN (the southern Aram). Thus Ra'am-sus, as we may perhaps vocalise, will mean ' Aram-Ishmael,' a name equally possible for a district and for a city. Cp. ^Oi»^, x. 7 (son of Kush, the brother of Misrim), and iT^nsn ( = IHT DIn), Neh. viii. 7. That ' Raamses ' is equivalent to ' Ramessu ' is neither proved, nor, in my opinion, probable. PROGRESS OF THE FAMINE (Gen. XL VII. 13-26) This section was perhaps originally the continuation of chap. xli. (Dillm.). Its present position is due to chrono- logical considerations. In v. 18 the narrator speaks of the second year, while chap. xlii. relates to the first year of the famine. The references in vv, 13, 14, 15 to ' the land of Canaan ' are of course insertions, rendered 1 See E. Bib., ' Rameses ' (appended remark). 2 Cp. on Isa. Ixvi. 20, Zech. xiv. 15, Ezra ii. 66 (oid) ; [iJb'B', i Chr. ii. 34, etc. ; 'ddd, i Chr. ii. 40 ; and for e/av, cp. 'p-n'3, and Samsi, queen of Aribu {KAT^^^ p. 256). 'ddd has been rightly connected with the Phoenician ddd (Cooke, pp. 62, 81), but when Ed. Meyer suggests {E. Bib., col. 3747) 'perhaps susim, horses,' and Cooke (p. 62) that DDD was ' a foreign deity, introduced, hke Osiris and Horus, from Egypt,' one must beg for a reconsideration of these scarcely tenable views. PROGRESS OF THE FAMINE (GEN. XLVii. 13-26) 489 necessary by the new context of the section. The object of the story is usually supposed to account for the fact that the soil of Egypt was almost entirely in the hands of the king, the land of the priests alone being exempt from taxation.^ The statements have some affinity to those of Herodotus (ii. 109) and Diodorus (i. 73), which may have had a similar origin. At the same time it must be noticed that the details here given by the narrator are not confirmed by the Egyptian inscriptions. That by the time of the New Empire the landed property had ' passed out of the hands of the old families into the possession of the Crown and the great temples ' ^ is certain, but the details of the process by which this state of things arose have not come down to us. The question, however, must be faced. Is the text of xlvii. 13-26 altogether in its original state? That the style is awkward and marred by repetitions, is evident ; Holzinger plausibly infers that more than one hand has been concerned in the composition. But no scholar has yet inquired whether the original passage may not have referred to the N. Arabian Musri rather than to Misraim. The words which specially suggest such a view are in v. 26, rTi^nsf? Xtdnh. Our English lexicon {BDE) finds nothing better to do than to follow Dillmann. ' Read perhaps mnnn (Pesh.), or t6an^ (®)-' But is there any good in tinkering such an expression ? Surely not. If we read ffianb we must change its position ; it has no business to stand after niJls'?. Add to this that in xli. 34 'o pIN-riN ffiiarn. is equally suspicious. If the general view of the passage is right, why is it not ItOBni'i ? In connexion with this let it be noticed that t^oh and tDQn (verb, denom.) occur nowhere else, and that QitDpn in Ex. xiii. 18, Josh. i. 14, iv. 12, Judg. vii. 11, and also D'^iSOn in I K. xviii. 13, 2 K. i. 9-14, and Isa. iii. 3,^ is most probably a contraction of Qi^offirr or D^'^npn,* the fighting men of Ashhur-Yerahme'el (or Aram-Ashhur) being ^ Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 103. 2 /|j/^_ p_ iq2. ' Stade {TLZ, 1894, p. 68) would read here a-abn ts, and so Winckler in 2 K. i. 9, etc. {Krit. Schriften, ii. 22). * D may be a fragment of m, just as 1 often is of 35V (see on ' Besaleel,' Ex. xxxi. 2). 490 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL specially famed for their warlike energy and discipline (cp. Isa. xiv. 31, Joel ii. 7). It is true D'^tenoi does not figure in the lexicons ; neither does pt&OT ( = Aram-Ashhur) or It&DT (see on xv. 2), whence comes the familar iffiD (see on X. 2). It should also be noticed that in Num. xxxii. 7 we meet with Q-imn, a still shorter form of D'^ffirtDl. The alternative is to read, for □"'tODn, D''3QtDn, comparing Ps. Ixviii. 32, where Qiaaffin and cnSD are brought into close connexion ; jo»n, like JOTIN in Num. xiii. 22, is a distorted, worn-down form of 'om"' intCM. It is therefore probable that whatever is said in xli. 33-36 and xlvii. 13-26 respect- ing a yearly tax of one-fifth on the produce of the land is due to a misunderstanding of tBon on the part of the editor. In xlvii. 26, for 'rh 'ih we should read ntCDlV I'lS^, ' with reference to Arabia, with reference to Aram-Ashhur,' two explanatory glosses on the preceding word D■'^2Q. And in xli. 34, toom has come from JiffiDT Nin, ' that is, Ramshah (Aram-Ashhur).' The following words 'o pM-nw are redactional. JOSEPH'S OATH TO ISRAEL (Gen. xlvii. 29-31, J) Israel desires to be buried in Canaan, not in Misrim. The Hebrew phrase, however, is not without diiificulty. ' Carry me out of Misrim, and bury me in their burying- place' {v. 30). This is supposed to contrast with 1. 5> ' in my grave which I have digged for myself (^h TT'na IIDm) in the land of Canaan, there bury me.' Hence Well- hausen (CB^^\ p. 62) holds that the text of xlvii. 30 (J) was altered by R out of regard to the cave of Makpelah in P (xlix. 29-32). The problem admits, however, of JOSEPH'S OATH TO ISRAEL (GEN. XLVii. 13-29 J) 491 a more adequate solution. The key lies in the observa- tion that TVO in i K. xvii. 3 and rcnp in xxiii. 2 both represent the same place-name, most probably mintDN, and that in the latter passage the reference is to the spot where Abraham purchased land for a burying-place. It is now easy to see what must underlie •'f? ''TVO in 1. 5. That this reading is wrong, ought to be plain. There is no record elsewhere of Jacob's having digged for himself a grave in the land of Canaan ; the grave referred to must be that which receives such elaborate mention in chap, xxiii. In short, "h ^'rr\'2 ntDN must come from -h^ rmnmN[n] "itt^*, and ■>'?■' must be a miswritten form of S'M"', i.e. 'jNtsnT ("'f? and if? often represent Sm). There is therefore no real discrep- ancy between xlvii. 30 and 1. 5. ' In their burying-place ' = ' in my grave which is in Ashhoreth-Yerahme'el.' After Joseph had solemnly sworn to carry out this command, Jacob, we are told, ' prostrated himself ffiNi-'js n^an.' In the ||, i K. i. 47, we have simply 33mDn-^i>. Why, in our passage, is n^iEiri m«n given instead of T[t§ir2ir\ ? Holzinger suggests that a teraphim may have been placed at the head of the bed, so that Jacob bowed himself (as far as was possible) towards (b$) the teraphim. A simpler solution is preferable. Plainly we should read 'on toiS"'??, ' on the couch of the bed ' ; cp. Ps. cxxxii. 3, "'i^lS"' »ns. The reading n^an (®, Pesh.) is wrong, in spite of the Egyptological illustration offered by Chabas, on which see E. Bib., col. 4779, with note i. BLESSINGS OF JACOB (Gen. xlviii. 13-22) First, Jacob, contrary to Joseph's intention, lays his right hand on the younger brother's head. On TTTix b3p in V. 14 Driver remarks, ' The rendering of the text (lit. prudentes fecit ntanus suas : so Ges.) is best ; that of the margin [crossing his hands] is adopted by most moderns,^ but the philological justification from the Arabic is questionable.' This means going back to Onkelos. But, as Dillmann remarks, f?5p = fp'^Dton is unknown, and after this we should expect T1T13. Remembering that the place- name hyiavK is a compound of shorter forms of n^N and fpNom"' (see on xiv. 13), we must admit the probability that Sao (like ffip^ in Am. vii. i) has the same origin. Glosses often intrude into the text at a good distance from the word or words to which they refer. Probably 'patON was given in the margin as a gloss on the district-name in v. 22 (see below). TiTTiN will then represent another gloss, viz. 'mi-riN. Vv. i^f. Next, Jacob blesses Joseph ; three times he names his divine Benefactor. The third time he calls him nx'jDrr ; before, he had said DTT^Nrr. ^N^D^, then, should mark the climax. But how can this be ? Sam. reads ^^a^, which Geiger adopts ^ (altered to avoid resemblance to an idol-god). Much more probably, following precedents (see on xvi. 7, xxxii. 23 f.), we should restore, for iM^on, fpNom"'. The N. Arabian god Yerahme'el has become the second person in a divine duad or triad, and the representative of Yahweh in affairs requiring a direct divine manifestation to men. To Jacob in his present mood the recollection of the interpositions of this gracious 1 (3 evaXka^ ras X^'/OO'S ; so Pesh. Probably a guess. ^ Urschrifi und Uebersetzungen der Bibel (1857), p. 308. 492 BLESSINGS OF JACOB (Gen. xlviii. 13-22) 493 Redeemer gave an exquisite pleasure. That the Arabian Yerahme'el corresponds to the Babylonian Marduk, we have seen already. Cp. Winckler, A OF xxi. 464, ' The " delivering angel " is the conqueror of the monster, i.e. the morning star, Nebo-Marduk.' Vv. 21 f. A further blessing addressed to Joseph. Not only will God bring back Jacob's descendants to the land of their fathers, but Jacob himself already solemnly assigns a special region to Joseph. In the description of this allotment there are three serious difficulties : — ( i ) nnN DpDJ. Some ancient authorities (Pesh., Onk., Saad.) explain mb) 'portion.' So, too, virtually Tuch, who thinks that the double tribe of Joseph is to have a double share of territory, ODtD (like Pjna) meaning, first, ' shoulder,' and then ' tract of country.' Most moderns, however, insist that aato, if interpreted on the analogy of ?)nD (Isa. xi. 14,^ Josh. xv. 8), must mean 'ridge,' 'mountain -tract,' and find in it an allusion to the northern Shechem, which is on the lower slopes of Mt. Gerizim. But is any one of these views acceptable? Prejudice apart, who would dream of translat- ing inw D3tO either ' one portion,' or ' one tract of country,' or 'one ridge'? (2) TTIN-f?:;. According to Konig {Synt. § 308 d), ^i; seldom means ' more than.' ^ (3) Tinp'?. Is this the historic or the prophetic perfect ? Dillmann, Holz., Driver, etc., are for the former, Del. and Strack for the latter. To both views there are objections. If S is the prophetic perfect, we must suppose that Jacob identifies himself with his descendants in the future conquest of Shechem. It is difficult, however, to imagine Jacob doing this, nor is it easy to reconcile the implied assumption with the historical tradition. For most scholars will accept Robertson Smith's inference from the narrative in Judg. ix. that ' Shechem remained Canaanite till its destruction by Abimelech ; then it became Hebrew, but not by any Israelite victory, for Abimelech and his mercenaries were not a Hebrew party.' ' 1 Here, however, qnD should be insn (Kaphtor). See on x. 14. 2 One of the passages quoted (xlix. 26 a) cannot be pressed, the text being on other grounds corrupt s Theol. Tijdschr., 1886, p. 198. 494 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL But, on the other hand, there are great difficulties in following the favourite opinion, represented by Dillmann. If there really were an early tradition that Jacob conquered Shechem, it is not likely that a narrative so flattering to Israelitish pride would have wholly disappeared. The statements of the Jewish Haggada (see Jubilees xxxiv. 1-9 in Charles's edition) cannot be taken in lieu of this. Kuenen, therefore, has some excuse for inserting n^ before '^nnp^.^ But, as Robertson Smith remarks, the expression thus pro- duced is ' not very elegant ' ; ^ in fact, no unprejudiced judge could for a moment accept it. ! Let us now seek to adopt a fresh point of view. Here are two combinations of letters, ^^N DDtO and THM'^S. Having failed to explain them on the assumption that the letters are perfectly right and that nothing has been dropped, let us study them in the light of the theory of ' recurrent types of textual corruption.' Now four points among others have emerged from the new study of the text to which this theory has given rise, (i) MtO belongs to the same group of names — for Ditir, 'shoulder,' no longer comes into considera- tion — as ^mo and ptODT (see on ' Meshek,' x. 2) ; it is, in fact, a modification of DlDtD, which comes from ■^tOD^, i.e. nnmN'ms. (2) iriN, like nriN, may represent a district-name, viz. intDN. (3) S's or Sn, like h^'^ and f?NV, may represent either bsoriT or ^NSDm"'. (4) A final "7 (see on T^N, xlix. 4, 25) may have come from "1, so that tttn may represent ~nnt2N. Let us attempt the application of these results to the present passage. The sense produced is as follows : ' And I give unto thee Shakram [Ashhur, Yerahme'el-Ashhur].' The words in square brackets are glosses, and quite correct ones. Jacob regards Joseph as the irpofjua'^o^ of the Israelites (cp. on xlix. 24), and assigns the land of the patriarchs, i.e. Ashhur-Aram or Ashhur- Yerahme'el, to Joseph in the first instance. But this is only the first part of the verse. There follows ' which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.' How improbable this reading is, we have already seen. Two questions then arise — {a) as to TitOpn ■'mm, and {b) as to Tinp'?. («) Experience shows 1 Op. cit., 1880, p. 271. 2 op. ctt, 1886, p. 197. BLESSINGS OF JACOB (Gen. xlviii. 13-22) 495 that apparently superfluous or unsuitable words, such as these, often arise out of corruptly written place- or district- names, and that an initial 3 is often a relic of ^y^s (see on ' Besaleel,' Ex. xxxi. 2). We can now see into '^nm and Timp:n. The former word most probably comes from ^y^s DHT, ' Yarhamite Arabia,' and the latter (through ptom, cp. npQ>":n, 2 K. xviii. 1 7) from nritDN n», ' Ashhurite Arabia.' These two phrases are meant as glosses on Dl3t0. {b) As to TinpS, it has already been remarked that it must have been Joseph, not Jacob, who was to be the conqueror of Shakram. Read therefore imph, and (probably) iq-in, 'Arammite' (cp. on xiv. 13). THE FORTUNES OF THE TRIBES (Gen. xlix.) A SERIES of poetic descriptions of the characteristics and fortunes of the tribes of Israel in the form of blessings and curses uttered by the aged patriarch ; a parallel to it is the ' Blessing of Moses ' in Dt. xxxiii. Unfor- tunately, the text as it stands is often corrupt, and the methods used by most critics are unequal to the strain put upon them. I have myself endeavoured to supplement the old and inadequate methods by more or less new ones. The text has thus become much simpler and smoother, and that mysteriousness which Gunkel notes as a characteristic of the sayings has largely passed away. We now know, or at least seem to know, who were the actors in the supposed future events. The non-mention of the ethnic names of those actors was not due to the attempt at an obscure, oracular style, but was the natural consequence of 496 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL the corruption or perhaps deliberate alteration of the original text, as when ' Ishmael ' becomes shemen, ' oil' ; ' Yavan,' yayin, ' wine ' ; ' Ashkar,' serekak, ' a choice vine.' The ethnic names are mentioned, and only too frequently for our taste. We must remember, however, that our task is not necessarily in harmony with that of the original Hebrew poet, and that the ethnics assume various forms, so that there was not so much real monotony or irksome repetition as, for the sake of intelligibility, I have been obliged to use in my translation. And what, briefly expressed, is the result here arrived at ? It is that the period to which the sayings in Gen. xlix. refer is that of the conquest of the N. Arabian border-land, and of the original settlement of the tribes there. It is, for us, a fortunate circumstance that a later hand has inserted a number of glosses which illustrate the ethnic names in the text, and, generally speaking, confirm the view here taken of the songs. It is only of late years that critics have become fully alive to the intrusion of glosses into the text. I do not think that the amount of gloss- matter in Gen. xlix. has been realised by my predecessors, and still less do I think that they have made the glosses out correctly. I am quite prepared to be told that I am blind to the evidences of the high antiquity of the sayings, chief among which is precisely the frequent hardness and obscurity of the text. It may further be said that the hardness and obscurity is not greater than that of many parts of the N. Semitic inscriptions. To this I would reply that, as it seems to me, the epigraphic readings referred to have often not been treated with sound critical judgment. I even suspect that when we have learned to apply a keener criticism to the old Hebrew texts we shall find ourselves somewhat better qualified to deal with the difficulties of the inscriptions. Professor Giesebrecht may perhaps call this Jugendlichkeit. If it is, so much the better. I trust that many youthful workers may follow where I have led, and succeed wherever I have failed. Zimmern {^ZA vii. 161-172), who has so often thrown fresh light on the Biblical writings, has attempted to show THE FORTUNES OF THE TRIBES (Gkn. xlix.) 497 that the sayings on the twelve tribes originally corresponded to the twelve signs of the zodiac, and that for some of them this can be fully made out. It is certainly probable that the theory that there were twelve tribes is connected with the zodiac, but it does not follow from this that the series of sayings on the tribes must contain intentional references to the twelve signs. And, as it seems to me, both Zimmern and his able followers Stucken ^ and Winckler '^ have been too venturesome in constructing a theory before the Hebrew text had been at all adequately criticised. That Zimmern's textual criticism is satisfactory will hardly be asserted after C. J. Ball's examination,* nor can A. Jeremias * hope to win much praise except for ingenuity. Those who reject the N. Arabian clue may perhaps be referred to my article on the Blessings of Asher, Naphtali, and Joseph, in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology, June 1899, which, at any rate, seems to repre- sent, however imperfectly, a necessary stage of progress towards truth. In the following new restoration inserted words (glosses) are given at the foot of the page. rrriN ■'133 JIINT ^^^ Reuben ! thou art my first-born, ^■'aiN JT'tDNl"! TlS My might, the first-fruits of my vigour ; intDN-^S D"'DD nsnD ^*^Thou didst break forth as water upon Ashtar, '° Ta maatOD ns^l Didst swallow up the dwellings of Arabia. DTIN "'^^^ pSDOJ ^^^Simeon and Levi are brothers, DTnaoN ^DD^ "I^DN They have torn in pieces Hamsak of the Askartites. ■'tODD N3n-^N DTDl ^*'lnto their council let not my soul come, ■•"733 ^^n-^N obrrpl To their assembly let not my mind be united. ' ^^t!JN ^i^^ DDn3 ■'D For in their anger they have slain Asshur, ' 'Ruben im Jakobssegen,' MVAG, igo2, pp. \(ii> ff. 2 ^Oi^xxi. 465 j^ 3 Genesis (in SBOT), pp. 1 14-116. * ATAO, pp. 248/ ^ tjKSDB" -mas 6 Skdht n\y-f n'j^n ^ -man 32 498 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL TS "'D DON TTIN ips-'i [prom] -phuvk mm"' n^iN nii JT'Ss ■'31 TlttO i3D"'p'' "'D n-'iSdi nTin"'o asm niD-'-N^? VTTi pno ppncn n^-'m D1-' -"D ns - D'^Ds T)nntt>-' 1^1 ^ fpN^DtC"' ■'31 mi3"' n-'nm-' * D-'3i»32 ap-n n-'na-' ]T2 '^NonT 'jMonT' [nato] nam-' D-'naa pi nsi'' nca ■'3 nn3D ktt HDM ■'3 pNn-riNi [In their fury] Arabia of Ishmael. ^^* Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, And their fury, for it was cruel : I will divide [Simeon] in Jacob, I will scatter [Levi] in Israel. ^^^Judah ! thy brethren praise thee; Thy hand is on the neck of thine enemies, ^^'judah is a lion's whelp ; From the prey, my son, thou hast gone up. He bowed down, he couched as a lion, As a fierce lion, who will rouse him? '^"^The champion shall not remove from Judah, Nor the marshal from amidst his bands. Until he treadeth down Shiloh, And to him the peoples pay homage. '^^''^He shall subdue the sons of Ishmael, Rekem of the Sibe'onites he shall destroy. *'^^Zebulun shall subdue Rehob, Yerabme'el of gidon he shall cut off. ^"^Iskar — [his hire is] Yeraljme'el, He shall gather grapes amidst the Sephathites : ^^^^He saw that his resting-place was good. And that the land was pleasant. So he overthrew the dwellings of Ishmael, 1 nij; 'J3 -b iinnB" 2 131!'n'?i TV i:ih iib'n pnK "J3 * {v. 13) D''7KDm' jDe" '33'? d':d' D'jyo' dtSod ^ d'jd' " jDnii mm xm THE FORTUNES OF THE TRIBES (Gen. xlix.) 499 Dips ^r Nim pbn nD2m nms 'jMonT m3DiN inN"' f?^3m n"'nN ■'Snaa ?1DV msN nan mntDN nbmN r\^y:a^'^ DHT' ■'"I23D v<^xrr\ fjsD D''D© n3ni nnn nan mnn* 1-a ■'nnn nann 78 And Ishmael came into vassalage. ('^^Dan shall bring redress to his people, Against Ashhur he shall right Israel. ^^^^Let Dan be a serpent on the way, A viper on the path, Which biteth the horse's hoofs, So that its rider falleth backward. '"'Gad — a troop shall troop upon him, But he shall troop upon their heel. '^"^Asher — Shunemah is his portion. He shall seize the castles of Yerahme'el. '^^'Naphtali is a lion robbed of his whelps, He shall break to pieces the castles of Yerahme'el. ''^'Joseph hath built up Ephrath, Built up Ephrath by Enan. (23)'pjjg Arabians sorely vexed him. The archers gave him provocation. '■^*'But he destroyed the castles of Ashhart, And burned the strongholds of Yarham. (^^>May the Steer of Yerahme'el help thee. May the God of Asshur bless thee — With blessings of the heaven above. Of the ocean which coucheth beneath, '^°>With blessings of the mountains of Arabia, 1 m' minE'N nayo vS - -ne/« 'Sy nys mil " 3pj;' Tan Soo TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Sivarw mi^ni riN^nri Products of the hills of Yerah- me'el ! fjDV msn'? J-'Tin Let it be on the head of Joseph, "ITTN T'la I.YV^^ On the crown of the head of the prince among his brethren. ^la'' iNt I'lCDl ^^'^ Benjamin is a wolf that teareth, ^i' Sdn"' ^pal in the morning he eateth the prey, ^btO p^JT' ni**?! At even he divideth the spoil. V. 3. A singular fate befell the blessing of Reuben. The later view was no doubt that expressed in i Chr. v. i, ' for he (Reuben) was the firstborn ; but, forasmuch as he had defiled his father's couch, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel.' This view of Reuben's forfeiture of his privilege in consequence of a moral offence, is based on the MT. of xxxv. 2.1 f. (J), and is also presupposed in the MT. of xlix. 4. We have already, however, found reason to criticise and correct the text of xxxv. 22, and the same course must be pursued both here and in Dt. xxxiii. 6} In neither of the two latter passages (when duly criticised) is there any sign of a curse, just as little as, in the true text of Gen. xxxv. 22, there is any event recorded which is otherwise than creditable to Reuben. — Observe that v. 3 is not really a trimeter. Nor may we, with W. R. Smith (^Kinship, p. 272), and Gunkel {Schopf. p. 33), take in"' as parallel to tHD. The difficulties of the current explanations of i*. 3 ^ are, in fact, insuperable. Experience justifies us in saying at once that in"' (like "nn% see p. 40, note 3) comes from nntO"' = intBN, and that 'n also underlies the untranslatable nNtO, while 11?, like isi in i K. vii. 21, Ruth ii. i, 3Nt in Judg. vii. 25, and Sit, Judg. ix. 28, represents f?Ni?Dffi\ in"! is dittographed. V. 4. tns cannot be right. It ought to mean ' wanton- 1 In Dt. I.e. read Wvoa^i piNT 'n' ; v. d b contains an useful gloss, D'nins 'de'' mrr, 'that is, Ishmael of the Sarepliathites.' For mr^tt compare bionK, i S. x. 11, etc., for 'ysvaef ; similarly vrD = ten' = 'nv\ 1SDD = DiBD ; cp. msD and nsD-nnp, where -mn = las. For the diffi- culties of interpreters of MT. see Dillmann and Driver, and on the supposed reference of v. 6 b to Simeon (©*'■) see Hogg, E. Bib., ' Simeon,' § 3. THE FORTUNES OF THE TRIBES (Gen. xlix.) 501 ness ' (so BDB ; cp. Aram.) ; the sense of ' bubbling over ' is not suiificiently proved. But ' wantonness ' does not suit, and the verses favour the second person. Having in mind 2 S. V. 20, one is led to expect n^jns. — imn-fjN (' cause not to remain ') is easily corrected. We naturally expect the name of the people which felt the violence of Reuben's attack. Read nnOM'fjs (see on xxxv. 22). — r(h^ 13 should be parallel to nSbn ; read ns^D, which involves reading m33BD for ■'iDtCD, and mi^-'T for ■'i;"t2Ji (cp. Tinn, Lam. iii. 56, for Tims). T'iN must, of course, be corrected as elsewhere (see on xxviii. 13), and In as in iv. 26. Judg. v. 19; read inii (dittographed). rh^, too, is plainly wrong (see Ball) ; Lagarde proposes nrrb^, Reuben n^3. From our point of view, however, ' didst swallow up the dwellings of Arabia ' must be parallel to ' didst profane the tent-curtains of Yerahme'el,' i.e. for rh's read some form of ^NOm"'. One or the other of these lines is a gloss. In V. ^ a it is needless to point dtIM (Ball and Mar- quart), a doubtful word in Isa. xiii. 21. Simeon and Levi form one of those pairs of friendly brothers which are familiar to us in legend (originally the Gemini).'' In b the text is corrupt ; for the contending explanations see Dillmann. Plainly the line ought to close with some ethnic ; DTrmDO therefore must be wrong, cms, ' Kerethites,' would suit (cp. I S. XXX. 14), were it not for the initial o. So at least one may be tempted to say. But the initial D has probably come from d ; read DTnDDN, i.e. 'intOs, ' the Ash- hartites.' Cp. on xxiii. 2. DOn (as Am. vi. 3 and in the Pss.) has probably come from TDOn ^ (or ntDDl), i.e- UTW intDN, and i^D or 'ho (see ®) from lf?Di>. Cp. Ass. ak&lu, ' to tear in pieces ' (hence dkilu, of the wolf). V. 6. Point ■^nna, as in the Pss., for ili3 ; so Dillm., Ball, Buhl, Gunkel. D3211 from D3t»-ni;, D2B being one of the corruptions of 'qxd\ Cp. on smni (xiv. 2). ©""n, as often, comes from "n©N, ^^^ps (like Qljipi') most probably from TintON ; cp. on Josh. xi. 6b; Tito (cp. on xvi. 7) is 1 Cp. Stucken, Astralmythen, i. 76 ; Zimmem, ZA vii. 162. 2 Cp. on xii. 6. Of course, the origin of Hamsak (if this was the form) was not present to the mind of the poet. It was to him merely the name of a district. 502 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL from "ntON — an alternative reading. Both words are cor- rections of tCN. V. db must therefore have lost a word, viz. DmD:>l (see v. 7). In v. 7 metre requires the insertion of the brothers' names. Vv. 8 - 1 1 . To avoid repetition, I refer to the discussion of the blessing of Judah in E. Bib., ' Shiloh.' Some (Wellhausen, Stade, Dillmann, and Holzinger) would excise v. 10 as a later insertion. In truth, this verse, as traditionally read, breaks the connexion in a striking manner. It must, however, be granted that the solemn dignity of the style oi v. 10 favours its originality, and that the connexion between v. 9 and v. 1 1 , as usually read, is by no means good. We are indeed relieved by Wellhausen's theory from the abrupt transition from the period of the conquest to that of the Messianic kingdom. But we still have the hardly less striking change from fierce warfare to idyllic peace. As to rrS"'©, Wellhausen (like some other critics) has changed his mind. But not much is gained thereby, and in both his views he disregards the claims of metre. Gunkel seems to me right in denying that V. 10 is an interpolation. Turning to the text, I am on the side of Sievers in questioning rrriN (v. 8), which is probably an early scribe's error. In v. S b (as in v. 4) Tils should be 1"15 ; b seems to be a gloss (see on Dt. xxxiii. 1 1 b). In v. 10 Driver (with most) renders ppjia ' the commander's staff.' I doubt whether this is right. Elsewhere (see on Num. xxi. 1 8, Dt. xxxiii. 21, Ps. Ix. 9) 'd is either liable to the suspicion of corruptness or has the sense of ' marshal.' Why should it not mean this here? It is true the parallel word is talDJ. But we have instances enough of the confusion of 1 and !3 (see on z/. 11, and Wellh. TBS, pp. 15, 170); indeed, aiti? itself has been miswritten for jagtD in 2 S. vii. 7 (cp. I Chr. xvii. 6), and (g here has apj(a)v (par. ^yovfievo'i, cp. Tg.). See also on v. 16. The mistake naturally arose from the misreading vbl"i (Sam. vhin) for V77:i ; cp. on Num. i. 5 2. Render ' champion ' (' Vorkampfer ') and ' marshal.' — The goal of Judah's ambition is the ' treading down' (read Dli for nT, as Isa. xli. 25) of Shiloh, i.e. the Shiloh where was the chief sanctuary of the divine duad (see pp. 16, 33), and which in i S. i. 9 is (probably) said in THE FORTUNES OF THE TRIBES (Gen. xlix.) 503 a gloss to have been in Ashhur.' The war referred to was for the possession of the N. Arabian border-land, whose ' peoples ' are to become Judah's vassals. For nnp"' read, certainly, nnnm\ In Prov. xxx. 17 nnp"' occurs again; here some other correction must be sought. In w. 11 we expect a suitable continuation. But how ««suitable an one do we get ! ' Very strong hyperboles,' says Gunkel. But this is the refuge of despair. Our clue suggests something better. Which are the subject ' peoples ' ? A gloss tells us. They are ' Asshur, with reference to the Negeb of Ya'ir, or with reference to Ashkar.' •'Idn ; cp. TDN for TitDN (Ex. vi. 24, Isa. x. 4), ^DN (i Chr. iii. 17). pi for ni3, through f)a3 ; cp. antO for bd», v. 10. HTS = T'l)-' ; cp. D"'ni?"' Tr\'p = Ashhoreth of Yerahme'el. rrpltD^ = 13BnS. Ashkar = Asshur -Rekem (cp. v. 11 b ^). — In v. 1 1 ^ we shall hardly regret the phrases, more absurd even than those in v. 11 a, about Judah's washing his garment in wine, etc. The right track will be plain from l3nN "'ai at the end of a. "lariN is, of course, poriN = bsQ»M = '?NSDm\ A similar phrase is n"'3Q)-p'?, in v. 1 2, from \tiW ^yy\. It is therefore a description of Judah's conquest that we have. D33 is naturally a corruption of m33\ p"'3 of 133, and yaxh of ^73110 = fpMSOQ)"' (cp. on Ezek. xxiii. 6). In the next line mil is not quite plain. Possibly, however, 1 is a corruption of p, and we should read DTitD'' D"'3S1S DpTi ; the place-name 335 (Josh. xi. 21) may well come from p32 = 'gw. As for nmo, the word mo, ' garment,' is unknown in Hebrew. Sam. reads nmoa. The true reading is probably V. 1 2. Gunkel renders the text, ' his eyes sparkle with wine.' But this convenient rendering is unjustified. BDB and Ges.-Buhl give ^hjn the sense of ' darkness ' ; the former derives the place-name nS'^Dn from the same root. Now, ' dark in the eyes with wine ' is no eulogy at all (cp. Toy on Prov. xxiii. 29). Gunkel continues, 'his teeth are white with milk.' The only objection to this is that it does not suit the context, unless we abstain from criticising that 1 The words r\m> nnxi ( i S. i. 9) which supply an occasion for Well- hausen's lambent wit, have come from itwk iippn (cp. on Gen. xxv. 34). ' Ashhur ' and ' Ashtar ' are alternative readings. S04 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL context. D''3tlJ, like D3tD and ]om = jom"', probably comes from fjNSQtD"', and if so ]lf? must be an imperfectly written 131'?, and 'tO'^ 'l'? must be a gloss, or a part of a gloss, like a portion of the gloss-material in v. 11. This revives hope for the other words, pi, of course, may have come from )r = iai, and l^n from n^n = SNQnT; mis, as in XX. 16, xxxviii. 14, 21, from pQi ( = 'oQ>i) or Di^l^Qi. "hhyn re- mains. It is plausible to read D"'nS'Dn = the DTlfjD!: of X. 14 (see note). Thus we get as gloss, ' Kasluhim, Yim'anim, Yemanim (a variant), with reference to the sons of Ishmael, Yerahme'elites ' (a variant). The whole string of names (see p. 498, n. 4) is probably a gloss on D^lDi; (^yysT). K 13. ' For Zebulun, which was never prominent, but took a noble share in the national struggles of the Judges, the writer has nothing to eulogise but the favourable situa- tion of its land.' So Dillmann. ' Nim, " he himself." What this antithesis of Zebulun himself and his hinder side can mean is not clear.' So Holzinger. Ball, too, sees the extreme improbability of the present text, but does not touch the roots of the evil. It is certain that both here and in Dt. xxxiii. 1 8 _/ Zebulun ought to be eulogised as a warlike tribe (cp. Judg. v. 18). ptO"' must surely (in spite of w. II b, where the same word underlies dUD) come from toaai, and inST must represent n^lDi. But since w. 1 3 3 can hardly be made into a trimeter, a word ending in (^n) h's must have fallen out, probably SNOriT. pTS is the southern Sidon (see on x. 15). Then, as to nViN V^vh VC\Tf\ ; N"in = id est, and 'in 'n is a gloss on D^oi ^rh. D"'D"' comes from D"'3Q"' (as xxxi. 23), nvaN from joriN ^ (cp. on l3nM, v. \i, and note that in^N, Ethan, probably has the same origin), and V^rh from 3"im (see on Judg. v. 17, i K. ix. 26 /). Vv. 14/. Issachar, or more strictly Ishkar (see on XXX. 18), is also rather badly treated by the final redactor. Dt. xxxiii. 18 creates a presumption that Ishkar and Zebulun once had similar blessings. Let us, then, look closely into the text. ' Ishkar is a bony ass,' or (Ginsburg, 1 Cp. Dt. xxviii. 68, where the very strange nvjN3 (Driver, 'in slave- galleys ') has certainly come from iDnN-3iy ( = 'Arabia of Ishmael ') ; cp. Virvz, xiv. 2, from ys/vry^v. Also Judg. v. 17, where nvMi has come from [H'MH or from pnna (see Crit. Bib. ad loc). THE FORTUNES OF THE TRIBES (Gen. xlix.) 505 Introd. p. 253, after Sam.) 'the ass of strangers'! Not so. non (cp. on xxxiii. 19) and ma (cp. on ' Gomer,' x. 2) are two of the current corruptions of DJIT ; they are variants put side by side. This assumes that a word has fallen out, i,e. probably 'nsto — a play upon the name of the tribe. }>n should probably be njj^^ ; the vintage may be either literal or metaphorical. — DTiamon covers over an ethnic, viz. DT1S2 (see on Judg. v. 16). — For nrep read, with Ball and Holz., n'nso- Seeing that his desired territory was so fair — what did this warlike tribe do ? Surely he conquered the Ishmaelites, and reduced them to vassalage, fjno and 700 are attested corruptions of 'dJC (see on Ps. Ixxxi. 6, Dt. iv. 16). For Issachar as a warrior, see Judg. v. 15. Prof Hogg's suggestion {E. Bib., col. S387), to attach the last couplet of z/. I 5 (Issachar) \.o v. 13 (Zebulun), now loses its object. Vv. 16-18. It is Dan's turn. ' He shall judge his people as (successfully as any) one of the (other) tribes of Israel ' (Driver). How poor 1 And what does ' his people ' mean ? The members of the tribe of Dan (Wellh., Stade, Holz., Gunkel) ? or Israel (Ewald, Del., Dillm. ; cp. Dt. xxxiii. 7) ? The principle of parallelism should be our guide. We require a parallel to pT, and there the parallel is. "'£33t0 should, of course, be tJDtO"' ; see on v. i o. We now see that iriN, as often, has come from nntpN ; the prefixed 3 should be p. The ejaculation in v. 1 8, according to Ball, is a later insertion. But why should a pious scribe put it in just here ? Probably it is a corruption of a string of place- names (cp. on V. II a) — an early gloss, defining the position of Dan. The names seem to be, Laish, Maakath, Ashhoreth, Yerah. TT'lp has surely come from n■'^p (cp. on xxiii. 2). mn"' for XW (as elsewhere). V. 19. Cp. Erbt, Die Hebrder, p. 41. Read with all moderns, Dips, and in v. 20, TBN. — ' Asher, his bread is fat.' A very meagre blessing, even if onS" could be feminine. In Dt. xxxiii. 24 /! a keen criticism shows that the victories of Asher are referred to. Must it not also be so here ? Superficial corrections are useless. Onk. and Pesh. suggest IsnN or inmM. But n^Offl is not less suspicious than "lon^. We expect the name of a district. Now D3Q? (doubtless from ]D© = 'Dar) is a well-known place-name in Issachar. 5o6 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL There may well have been a Shunem or Shunemah ( = an Ishmaelite settlement) in Asher. For yarh read perhaps ipf?n ; Ball, too, suggests either 'n or in'jnj. — 'ill ]ni Nim. ' Dainties of a king ' is as improbable as ' fat bread.' Prob- ably ■j'jQ, as often, represents ^NonT, while "'msQ is an easy corruption of niDonN (a word frequently corrupted), jn"' probably comes from m3, a fragment of the same word. Nim may have come by metathesis from inN"'. V. 2\. And what of Naphtali ? ' A greatly corrupted distich ' (Ball) ; ' not to be explained with certainty ' (Gunkel). Surely the critics are too languid. Ball's elaborate theory is ingenious, but it interferes with the Blessing of Joseph, nor is it safe to refer to i K. iv. 7-19 as proving that Naphtali helped to supply Solomon's table. Remembering the praise of warlike Naphtali in Judg. v. 18, let us read (for the obscure and improbable Twh^ n^"'N) fjIS^ n::"iN (cp. Hos. xiii. 8). For the figure as applied to a conqueror, Jen iv. 7, v. 6, and Isa. xv. 9 (?) supply sufficient parallels. In b, ""nON, like nt3N, D"1N, [^p]^ON, represents f?NDm\ A verb is wanting ; we can find it, however, underneath iQtD. Just as "'BntO {v. 16 b) has come from toDffi"', so may nsm have come from I3tp\ jnarr (which gives no clear sense) must represent some noun in construction with 'm*', most probably m3Q~iN ; the intermediate form may be n3^^. Vv. 22-26 contain the Praise of Joseph, out of which B. Luther separates vv. 24-26 as originally referring to Jacob (Meyer, Isr. p. no). The text, as all admit, is very corrupt ; nor can I think that the corrections as yet offered are very fortunate ; so few critics as yet seem to have taken notice of recurrent types of corruption. Now as to V. 22. The text used by @ must have been nearly the same as the traditional Hebrew text (see Ball). Certainly neither (^ nor the Massorites have made much of the text ; vto? Tjufij/ievo? and ben porath are both absurd. Wellh. {CH, p. 322) deserves credit for suggesting that mo = niDM.^ He further suspects an allusion to the old 1 On the ground of Dt. xxxiii. 17, Zimmern thinks that Joseph must have been compared to an ox ; but mis' in that passage is a corruption of niE'K (Asshur). See further, on v. 25. THE FORTUNES OF THE TRIBES (Gen. xlix.) 507 name of the fruitful highlands in which Benjamin and Joseph dwelt, and from which ' Ephraim ' derived its name. It is true that ms, like Balaam's TinD, may also have arisen out of Dins (see on ' Pathrusim,' x. 1 4). But msN is certainly the more probable origin (cp. on ii. 14, xv. 18). But what as to p ? ' Son of Ephrath ' is not a natural description of Joseph ; it would answer better for Benjamin (Gen. XXXV. 1 8 /!). And unless, with Sievers, we read •^S-^'s 'a ]! Vpv (omitting the initial mo ]l), we shall fail to make up the first trimeter in the distich, if we adhere to the reading ]a. The easiest supposition is that p covers over some verb. The best sense would be produced by rr3p. Ephrath, consecrated by the legend of the tribal mother Rachel, had to be redeemed, and Joseph redeemed it. But roi lies nearer at hand, and may be similarly interpreted. Ephrath, which had been overthrown, was ' built up ' by Joseph. The position of Ephrath is mentioned to dis- tinguish it from other Ephraths ; it was ps-"'^s, or rather perhaps p-'S""''?:;. A place Hasar-'dnin is mentioned in Ezek. xlviii. i (xlvii. 1 7) ; possibly 'endn comes from yim'ean = Yishma"el. It was near the border of Dammesek (if (B and MT. are correct), or perhaps, originally, Ramshak (see on xv. 2). It was in a region which for centuries was a debatable land (see 2 S. viii. 6, i K. xx. 34, Am. iii. 12, vi. ^y This may not impossibly be the Enan referred to (as I conjecture) in the Praise of Joseph. — We next come to nim-if?:? TllSDi man (on versions, see Ball). The commentators say that man means ' branches ' and niS'^L ' mounted ' ; Gunkel rightly questions this, man both in poetry and in legendary prose means, ' dependent towns' ; may not this be the meaning here ? If so, render ' the subject towns of Zoar (read nss) by Shur {z.e. Asshur in N. Arabia).' In V. 23 'inni is 'clearly ungrammatical ' (Ball); and there is no i^yi~i, ' to shoot,' hence Ball prefers the inn"'T"1 of Sam. ( = (§ e\oiS6povv). Hitherto, however, we have 1 The handbooks do not give much light on these passages. The recorded wars of David, of Ahab, and of the king or kings con- temporary with Amos were probably in the south, not in the north. Cp. Hibbert Journal, July 1905, p. 831. 5o8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL found that historical colouring is by no means wanting in these sayings. Comparing the IT of Hos. v. 13 (II TIIDn), let us restore ^■'2-|i?. The reference is to the N. Arabian archers (cp. on Hos. ii. 20, Ps. Ixxvi. 4).^ That the Arammites of N. Arabia were archers is shown in- dependently by I K. xxii. 34. In the next line parallelism suggests 'innp'^"!. — V. 24 is still stranger in MT. Following @, Ball reads ontDp for "intOp, but is not quite clear about ilTiNl ; BDB render ' as a firm one ' {Beth essentice). @ begins with icai avverpi^r], i.e. nimn, which Ball adopts ; but will this reading do ? Surely we must try to go behind @'s text. The n in nitOn may belong to the following group of letters, and underneath ]n"'Nn it is not difficult to discern n"i3Q"iN, a word which we need not be surprised to find so often, because tradition must certainly have preserved a recollection of the castles and fortresses of the foes of Israel.^ 3tOm probably comes from niffii"i. "intOp remains. The word may look innocent enough ; but remembering how often in compound names tDp or ton represents nntBM, we are led to examine a selection of passages containing ntUp, and find strong reason to believe that it may be a corruption of some form of TirttOM, most probably mntCM (cp. nmnn, Judg. iv. 2). — We may now hope to restore the text of the next line, VT "'i'TJ 11S"'1. This is, of course, impossible, especially if we connect it with the following words, ' and the arms of his hands became active through the hands of the Steer of Jacob.' @'s koX i^eXvdr] suggests, for ITQil, 1DT1, which, in fact, I myself formerly adopted, reading Dn"'T ■'S"'2N IDT'l. But we must again look behind @. IDT'T (no less than yiB'^i) may have come from ?]~iQ>"'1, and ■'i>Ti from "^"iS^D. VT is obviously a mutilated form of some word corresponding to mnON, and since by no ingenuity can ■'TD, which follows, be made tolerable, we may venture to hold that iTD and "iiT both represent the same word (dittographed), viz. am"'. But have we not thus made it doubly difficult to explain the rest of this verse ? Certainly, if we have had 1 I am afraid Dr. Briggs does not even see the problem of this passage (see ' Internat. Comm.' Psalms). 2 Cp. E. Bib., 'Fortress.' THE FORTUNES OF THE TRIBES (GEN. XLIX.) 509 no experience in spying out glosses. V. 24 b yS, according to Dillmann, means ' from there, where is the shepherd of the stone of Israel ' ; the accents, however, make ' the shepherd ' and ' the stone of Israel ' two divine titles in apposition. Both views are evidently most improbable. Nor is any fresh light thrown upon the passage by Ed. Meyer and his helper B. Luther. This is what the former says : ^ ' That all four names — the Steer of Jacob, the Shepherd of the Stone of Israel, the God of thy father, and El Shaddai — designate Yahweh, and the three first as the God of Jacob, is clear, so that the " Stone of Israel " can hardly help being the holy stone of Bethel.' The latter, however, according to Meyer, now prefers to identify the stone with that set up, as we are told (Josh. xxiv. 26_/) at Shechem by Joshua. Now, I fully agree that in far- distant times the ancestors of the Israelites may have called their supernatural friend and helper their rock (n^s, S^p) or their stone ^ (|1m), as well as their steer (T'3n), and that these titles (which originally presupposed stone-worship and animal-worship, as a part of primitive animism) may have descended to later times as poetical images. But I deny that ' the shepherd of the stone of Israel ' and ' the stone of Israel ' can be treated as synonyms, i.e. that ni?T can be practically ignored. Textual criticism must be applied. It is not enough to say, with Meyer, that this or that passage as it stands is ' quite impossible ' or ' entirely corrupt.' The honour of our craft requires that we should rectify the impossible and heal the corrupt. How, then, shall we heal the undoubtedly corrupt line StD"' JlN T\^n DtCD ? Several previous attempts are mentioned by Dillmann, to which my own may be added {PSBA, 1899, p. 3). So much is clear, that the line is superfluous. All that we require is a couplet, and this can be obtained from the opening of w. 25. This opening runs in MT. — 1 Die Israeliten, p. 283. 2 Though, as a matter of fact, we never (even in Ps. xviii.) find Yahweh called px. Sio TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL but we shall see presently that the true reading most prob- ably is, Consequently all in MT. that precedes, viz. -^ 3ps"' T3n and the highly corrupt line quoted above, must be an accumula- tion of glosses or variants. 'Ta)"> ]1n is, of course, for '"itD"' T'lN, which, not less than !lpl>"', is a correction of fjNOm"' TIN. DtDD (@ variously read Qa)Q and D^p), like DID (see on ' Shem,' v. 32), represents ^wi^Qtoi (so too atOQ in the highly corrupt passage Isa. Ixv. 20);^ TiT\ probably represents l"is (cp. D"'Sin from D'^nsn, Am. i. 2). Thus we get ' Ishmael-Arab,' a gloss on ' Yerahme'el.' I may note in passing (against Ball, Holz.) that o Kcnitr'^aa^ lap. in @ is simply a para- phrase of StD"' TIN. The variation from Swdarov, just before, may suggest that SKeWev k.t.X. is a later insertion. I now pass on to 'Ti;'' "[■'IN 'pmd. TfnN 'pso can hardly be right. If Abraham is referred to, why is not omiN put? If Jacob, why not simply "hifi? Again and again both iiN and f^iN have come from yis (see on v. 4). The objection to following this precedent here is that the text gives us, not ^m, but ^«d. Is there no other correction of ^■'IN '?«D possible than i-is htio ? There is ; T^lN may have come from T3n. This view harmonises with the most obvious correction of bao, viz. ^Mom"' or f?MSOQf (see on xxi. 33). Let us, then, omitting the "1 prefixed in MT. to the two verbs as redactional, read 'w 'dtiT T'3N, and continue '11 TitON ^Nl ; Sn for nw (following @, Sam. Pesh.), and TitON for ■'^a> (see on xvii. i). If any one hesitates, let him turn to Dillmann, Driver (pp. 392, xvii.), and Gunkel, and ask himself if the critical methods and con- clusions of these scholars and of those to whom they refer in passing, commend themselves as adequate and probable. Cp. Dt. xxxiii. 1 6, where, instead of ' him that dwelleth in the thorn-bush,' we should read ' him that dwelleth in Sinai.' 1 That 2pv comes from '^xdht, has been pointed out (on xxxii. 29). 2 The prophecy appears to be, that in the ideal future no Arabian who adhered to his heathenish rites should any longer defile the Holy City by his presence. THE FORTUNES OF THE TRIBES (Gen. xlix.) 511 The passage is in another Blessing of Joseph, and here too Joseph's God is referred to as an Arabian deity. It is in accordance with this that the blessings showered upon Joseph are not only those of the heaven above (rain, night-mist, sunshine) and of the subterranean iiood ^ (fountains and streams), but of the ' mountains of Arabia ' and the 'hills of Yerahme'el.' Let us now turn to textual details, having also before us the not less corrupt parallel passage, Dt. xxxiii. 13-16. In z^. 25 Gunkel, on metrical grounds, omits the picturesque nsn, which indicates the continued dangerousness of tehotn (cp. Tiamat). I would rather omit T\T\% reading Dinm (Deut. mrrDDI). — We next hear of ' blessings of the breasts and of the womb ' ( 'il omi D■'^tD). The phrase is quite possible, though Deut. xxxiii. 13-17 has nothing parallel. But what is there for a parallel line? Gunkel sees that if there is one, it must underlie ^s "nni T^N DDni, and proposes to read '^n 3n '•^1 h^'s'x 131, ' blessings of a father, yea, of a man and a child.' Similarly, in PSBA (1899) ^ suggested VDHTI non riDll, ' with blessings of his lovingkindness and compassion,' following this up with 3pi>"' T^N 'xi, ' with blessings of thy father Jacob,' and putting the couplet thus produced after that referring to the mountains and hills. If, however, we apply our key consistently, we must regard v. 25 ^ and the opening of v. 26 as a combination of glosses, viz., ' with blessings of Asshur and Yarham,' and ' with blessings of the Steer of Yerahme'el.' Here TitiJN takes the place of D'^^!D, or rather 1^^r (see on xvii. i), and DJiT'l of Qmi, and further b«am"' T'nw of hs in^l T^n. On "jiIm see above, and for hs ^^nl = 'om*' cp. 'pN'^in:! (Dan. viii. 1 6), the name of the archangel who is the double of ^nD"'D.^ Both these names are independent corruptions of ^NDnT. May I add that Wellhausen (TBS, p. 25) is unwisely satirical on the ^qn which he supposes to underlie @'s koI /j.rjTp63D, as we have seen (on xli. 51), is an Ishmaelite or Yerahme'elite name. ti^Q therefore is a name naturally borne by the son of Menasseh and an Arammite woman. Obviously it comes from d^t, i.e. onT ; cp. the Benjamite name iiDD (i Chr. ix. 8), which stands among distinctly N. Arabian names, and must come from ■■mD or ■'DDn, also Dpi (see on xxix. i), a name which occurs later on in the genealogy of Menasseh (i Chr. vii, 16, grouped with Xsy\V<, another undeniable derivative of fpMOnT). This accords well with the position of Makir in the same group with Shobi (cp. Shobal = Ishmael) and Barzillai ( = Arab-Ishmael) in 2 S. xvii. 27. But I must not omit to criticise Ed. Meyer's very different view (p. 516). Makir, according to him, means ' the purchased one, the possession ' ; he compares, from H. Ranke, the Babylonian names Makfir-Sin, Makfir- Nannar. Apparently he means that Makir is shortened from Makir- Yahweh, or the like, i.e. ' the possession of Yahweh.' The objection is that i3o does not mean ' erkaufen ' but ' verkaufen.' The Assyrian dictionary- makers are careful not to derive Makar, ' possession,' from a root makdru, ' to purchase.' There is also abundant 1 See p. 24, ^ See E. Bib., ' Machir.' FUNERAL OF JACOB (Gen. l. i-ii) 515 evidence to show that Semitic names often had two forms, the one (secondary) religious, the other (underlying the first) purely secular. Therefore, even if MakJr could mean ' Yahweh's purchased one,' it would be purely secondary. And last of all, if we insist on giving Maktr its most obvious (but not therefore correct) meaning, 'sold one,' it must surely belong properly to Joseph (see xxxvii. 36), not to Joseph's grandson. THE OPPRESSION OF THE ISRAELITES (Ex. i.) The opening section {vv. 1-5), from P, need not detain us. In the following composite narrative two accounts are given of the oppression of the Israelites. According to one (J), the Israelites are both more numerous and stronger than the Misrites, and a fear comes to the new king of D"'nSD, who is ignorant of the services of Joseph, that the Israelites may some day join some other people and fight their way out of the land. According to the other (E), the Israelites are so mean-spirited that they let themselves be oppressed, and put to compulsory labour on the fortifying of the cities Pithom and Raamses (?). According to the one, the services of midwives are used to destroy the male children of the Israelites (in Goshen) ; according to the other, the Misrites (in whose midst, and not in Goshen ; the Israelites dwell) are commanded to destroy the male children themselves, by casting them into the river.^ We have already (see on xlvii. 11) met with the ' land of Raamses (?),' and found that the name pDD^^T is most probably compounded of dst = Q"in (the S. Aram) and dd = 7M:>DtO\ The city referred to in w. i r and in xii. 37 bore 1 See Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten, pp. 41-44. Si6 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL the same name as the district. DlT'a (Pithom ?) is here men- tioned for the first time. From the meritorious researches of Ed. Naville it is generally supposed to be identical with Tel-el-Mashata in the east of the Widy Tumilit, which closely adjoins the place anciently called Tku, and is identified by Naville with Succoth.^ The Egyptian name of Tel-el- Mashuta is given as P-atum, i.e. ' house (abode) of Atum ' ; Atum is the sun-god of Heliopolis.^ It has been suggested that Pithom and Etham (Ex. xiii. 20) may be the same place.' All that I can accept of these plausible but uncertain conjectures is the connexion of the names nrT'D and OTVi^ ; not that they are designations of the same place, but that they have to be similarly accounted for. In fact, Dn[i]s is best derived on the analogy of h'y^ and riDl "'S from '?1Dn""'lM = ^Ni^otO^'-ns, and oriM on that of fjn'PN from f?oto-i3N = 'DtD"'"11s.* To these two names, commonly read Pithom and Raamses (0 TleiOai and T?afj.ecT<77}), (^ adds ' On (pN), that is, Heliopolis.' From our point of view, ®'s addition of ' On ' is of no great moment. Some N. Arabian place is meant* Note that in Ezek. xxx. 17 pN and noTS ( = 'otD"' T\s) are parallel (see also on Gen. xli. 45). The mention of brick-making (v. 14; cp. v. 7, etc.) is an important feature in the narrative. It does not, of course, necessarily point to Egypt (see Isa. ix. 9), but, considering that elsewhere in the Exodus story D'lisp and D';"i2p are confounded, the most natural conclusion certainly is' that Egyptian, not Arabian circumstances, are here referred to. To quote from Professor W. Max Miiller, ' in Egypt, not only all houses, but also all palaces, many tombs (includ- ing several of the smaller pyramids), and some temples, were constructed of Nile-mud bricks.' ° This suggests the 1 The identification, however, is ' not absolutely certain' (Spiegelberg, Aufejithali, p. 24). 2 See Naville, The Store City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus (1885). 3 W. M. MuUer, E. Bib., cols. 141 1, 3783. * Or perhaps Etham may be = Ethman (Ishmael). ^ ' Beth-aven ' (Josh. vii. 2) may come from 'Beth-on,' and refer to a N. Arabian place. 8 E. Bib., ' Brick,' § I, and cp. the illustration on p. 37 of Spiegelberg's Aufenthalt Israels (captive Asiatic brick-makers in Egypt). THE OPPRESSION OF THE ISRAELITES (Ex. i.) 517 hypothesis that the original story of the Exodus which referred to Misrim or Musri was recast on the hypothesis that the land where the Israelites sojourned, and whence they came out, was Misraim or Egypt. As to the name or title of the oppressing king of □"'nso, no uniformity exists either in J or in E. Both documents use T^vma as a proper name, but not so as to exclude the use of ' king of ciso ' ; I speak here, of course, of the whole narrative, and not specially of chap. i. But in w. 8 a statement is made (by J) which requires examination : ' There arose a new king over QinSD.' mnn I'pD is a singular phrase. It is not enough to say ^ that the statement is vague, and does not warrant the hypothesis that the rule of the Hyksos had come to an end. We have to meet the question whether the original text has been faithfully transmitted. That the king of Misrim who succeeded Joseph's patron (read v. 6 and v. 8 together) should so completely reject that patron's policy towards the Hebrew immigrants needed and surely must have received some explanation. In Judg. v. 8 (see Crzi. Bib?) DitDnn has probably come from D"'^^QJN, and in Josh. xv. 37 ^lD^^ from mnffiM, also in Judg. iv. 2 n£D^^ from mntON. It is possible that B)^^ l^D has come from "'"inmN l^o, and that the original writer meant that a new dynasty had risen which was of Ashhurite origin. That Ashhurites did from time to time hold sway in Misrim appears from i K. xi. 40, if the suspicious ptO"'© ^ or QipmiQJ (® aova-aKeiji) is rightly explained as nntON or 'om"' 'fflN. The Ashhur from which the oppressing king came would presumably be the larger Ashhur. This is why he has no religious sympathy with the Hebrews (cp. p. 458). On the other hand, the two midwives, who are Misrites and not (as Baentsch supposes) Israelites, are god-fearing persons (i. 17 ; cp. Gen. xx. 3, xli. 39) and refuse to comply with the king's cruel command. By ' Misrites ' I mean here not ' Egyptians ' but ' belonging to the land of Musri.' Their names are not Egyptian * — 1 Holzinger, Ex., ad loc. ^ See E. Bib., ' Shishak.' ^ According to Winckler, the midwives are ultimately two forms of Ishtar, the goddess concerned with births (see Zimmern, KAT, p. 428) This is possible ; the names may have been changed. Si8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL which is unfortunate for the Egyptological argument. mEjm has certainly to be grouped with ^Dm, Num. xxxiii. 23, and tons, I Chr. vii. 16, and nsia with riNlD, Judg. x. i. For the former, however, (^ has aeir^apa, i.e., mss (see on ii. 21). The crux interpretum, D'^DlNiT^S {v. 16), should perhaps be n^aoNn"f?N (lON from pnN), i.e. 'to the Yerah- me'elite women,' a gloss on m^^'o'?, v. 1%. Cp. ' Abanah,' 2 K. V. 12. I do not think that any of the other proposed interpretations are natural, nor has Spiegelberg hit the mark. The story of the persecution of the male children is introduced for the sake of Moses (cp. Matt. ii. 1 6 ff^. Omit Ex. i. 15-22 and ii. i-io, and nothing will be lost for the story of the Exodus as a whole. Evidently the oppressing king who plays a leading part in that narrative knows nothing of the cruel command to destroy the male children. ■ THE CHILD MOSES DELIVERED (Ex. 11.) How deliverance came to the child Moses who was placed in a box of papyrus-reeds, and hidden among the rushes of the stream, in order to comply with the letter of the royal edict (i. 22). How his sister watched him, till a great personage — the king's daughter — found the box and had compassion on the weeping child. How, through his sister's clever reply to the princess, the child enjoyed maternal nursing, but was afterwards adopted as her son by the king's daughter, who called his name Mdsheh (Moses). This charmingly told story is of mythic origin. Its central feature — that of the exposing of a divine or heroic infant on water — is also characteristic of the Babylonian, the Greek, the Roman, the German, and even the Japanese THE CHILD MOSES DELIVERED (Ex. ll.) 519 mythologies.^ The nearest parallel, however, is the Baby- lonian story of Sargina. Just as the old mythic story attached itself to the traditional personality of Moses, so, in Babylonia, it was adapted to the tradition of ' Sargina, the powerful king, the king of Agadd.' Originally the story most probably referred to a woman who conceived by divine intervention.^ It might therefore, from a Jewish point of view, have been told even better of Isaac than of Moses, unless, indeed, we suppose that Amram, like Abram (Gen. xvii. 17), was advanced in years. There is, however, one difference between the Moses-story and that of Isaac, viz. that in Ex. ii. i both the father and the mother of the much-favoured child are unnamed. In this respect the Moses-story agrees with that of Sargina.^ ' My mother was poor,' we read, 'my father I knew not. . . . My mother, who was poor, conceived me, and secretly gave birth to me.' The two stories agree further in this — that both the children are committed for safety to an ark or basket of reeds daubed with bitumen (non). Sargina is carried safely by the stream to his destined preserver ; Moses remains where he is placed, among the reeds on the edge of the river. It is singular that there should also be an Indian parallel. The story is no doubt strongly Indian in feeling ; but the motives are the same as in the Moses and the Sargon story. Surya the sun-god appeared to the maiden Kunti (Pritha), and promised her a son like himself. By his ' energy ' a son was actually born to Kunti, without detriment to her virginity. At once, 'in consultation with her nurse, [Kunti] placed her child in a waterproof basket, covered all over with sheets, made of wicker-work, smooth, comfortable, and furnished with a beautiful pillow. And with tearful eyes she consigned it to the (waters of) the river Asva.' We are then told that the basket with the child, ' borne along the waves of the Ganga, arrived at the city of Chamba.' There a member of the Suta tribe and his wife, walking by the 1 See E. Bib., ' Moses,' § 3 ; and for the Japanese story see also Stucken, Astralmythen, pp. 231^.; Beitrdge (1902), p. 3. 2 Winckler, Arabisch-orient.-semitisch, p. 115. ^ Winckler, Gesch. Isr. ii. 91 ; he renders enitu, 'poor.' So Rogers, Hist of Bab. and Ass. i. 362. Others, 'a Vestal.' 520 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL river, beheld and took the basket. They were childless, and the wife ' duly adopted that boy of celestial appearance and birth.' He was, in fact, born with a golden coat of mail, and with two ear-rings which ' sprang from amrita.' How great a part is allotted to him, as Kama the great archer and rival of Arjuna, even the dilettante reader of books about Indian literature is aware.^ The ark (nin) of Moses is parallel to the ark (also TXyvj) of ' gopher-wood ' in which Noah, or Handk, was borne on the mighty waters of the flood. The latter, too, was coated with bitumen ("ijiS). Similarly, the water in which Moses was so nearly drowned is parallel to the ocean-flood which enveloped pre-existent and unorganised matter till the Creator-god overcame it. It may illustrate this that in Ezek. xxix. 3 (if I am not mistaken) the king of Misrim is identified with the great dragon (the personified ocean- flood of the cosmogonic tradition).^ Lastly, of Han6k (the true hero of the deluge-story), we are told (Gen. v. 24, P) that Elohim ' took him,' and of Moses it is stated (Dt. xxxiv. 7, P) that ' his eye was not dim, neither had his vigour fled.' His burying-place, too, ' no one knoweth unto this day ' {v. 6), which suggests that, according to an earlier form of the story, Moses, like Handk, had ascended into heaven. Thus the beginning and the end of this hero's earthly life are full of the supernatural.^ It is a significant fact that there is no Egyptian parallel to the story of the child Moses' deliverance, unless indeed we are content with a late story of an incarnate Horus, son of the negress who was ' found in the reeds.' * That NDJ and ^l^D, and even nin (all in v. 3), may have an Egyptian origin, makes no difference. They are good Hebrew words, and we could not be surprised to find them anywhere in 1 See Dutt's prose translation of the Mahabhirata (vol. iii. 1896, pp. 436 _^). With this Roy's version agrees, but in the account of the wicker box (or basket) it adds the detail that ' its surface was laid over with wax, and it was encased in a rich cover.' ^ See my Bible Problems, p. 249. ^ I cannot follow Winckler (GI ii. 95), whom A. Jeremias (pp. 257/) repeats. * Griffith, Stories of the High Priests of Memphis ; cp. J. H. Wilkinson, Liberal Churchman, 1905, p. 205. THE CHILD MOSES DELIVERED (Ex. ii.) 521 the O.T. Nor does in-; (w. 3 ; cp. i. 22) necessarily imply that the original narrator meant 'the Nile' (see on Gen. xli. i). The mention of bitumen, too, rather suggests, as the place of origin of the story, either Babylonia or the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea. Now as to the name Mdsheh. It is still customary ■* to trace this name to the Egyptian mes or mesu, ' child.' Egyptologists tell us that Min-mes was the name of the chief magician under Rameses II.; was he the Hebrew sage (Acts vii. 22)? But how very improbable this theory is can easily be shown, (i) The Hebrews would surely not have accepted an Egyptian name for their great deliverer ; did Saphenath-pa'neah (if this form may be tolerated), which critics also regard as Egyptian, supplant Joseph ? To this it may be added (2) that the vowel in mes (mesu) is short, whereas in Mdsheh is long,^ and (3) that the other names in the exodus-story (Pinehas, Hflr), supposed to be Egyptian, have quite another origin." If so, then what is the most probable origin of rrt&Q (M6sheh) ? Of course, not ' one who draws forth,' a fit name for Yahweh, but not for Moses. Like iffilD (vi. 19) it must be grouped with the names iffioi^ and '•ffii^D, which either come from 'pNiJDJO'^, or at any rate contain an element (ito) which represents that widely-spread name. It is, in fact, parallel to priN (Aharon, Aaron), which surely has no connexion with piN (Redslob, Ed. Meyer), but comes naturally from pna>N, ' Ashhurftn ' {le. belonging to Ashhur). That ^^N is often = inmN is by this time clear. Cp. also pnriM, in the phrase 'riNrr DTT, from pnt&N. Note the S. Arabian personal names quoted by Hommel (in Ulmer, Die semit. Eigennamen, pp. 35 /.), viz. 'Aharin, H(iri-'ahar, 'Ammi-'ahar, and 'Ahar-il, which, however, Hommel cannot explain. See also on iv. 14. 1 Holzinger and Sayce are exceptions. The name ' Moses,' says the former, is ' unexplained.' It is from the Ass. mdshu, ' hero, leader,' says the latter {Hibbert Led. p. 47 ; but cp. Muss-Amolt, Ass. Diet., s.v.). Jensen also has doubts. 2 W. M. MuUer, E. Bib., ' Moses,' § 2. 3 Ed. Meyer grants this for Hur, but not for the two other names (Die Israel, p. 450). He infers from this admittedly singular fact that there must be ' something true ' in the statement of the relations of Moses to Egypt. In none of these views can I follow Meyer. EARLY LEGENDS OF MOSES (Ex. ii. 1 1-22) Moses, now of full age, goes out, espies a Misrite smiting a Hebrew, and kills the tyrant. The next day he interferes between two Hebrews striving together, but dis- covers that the bold action of yesterday has become known. The king, too, has heard of it, and seeks to kill Moses, who therefore flees to the land of Midian. There is some uncertainty as to the exact position of this region. Our safest plan just now is to keep to the Hebrew texts. From Gen. xxv. 2 (cp. on v. 6), xxxvii. 25, 27 /., Judg. viii. 22, 24, it appears that ' Midian ' was a branch of the great Yerahme'elite or Ishmaelite race, and from Ex. iii. i (cp. Hab. iii. 7) that their country was near Mt. Horeb or Sinai, the true situation of which was not that which later tradition affirmed. The name of the Midianitish place where Moses has arrived is not mentioned. Naturally he rests himself by the well. There he performs another generous act. The seven daughters of the priest (and prince) of Midian have come to draw water, and to fill the troughs for their father's flock ; but ' the Arabians ' (o'lnsn ; ^ not ' the shepherds,' Q■'i»^^) come and drive them away. The object of the Arabians is probably to make a prize of the sheep and goats. But the chivalrous stranger first ' delivers them (the maidens) out of the hand of the Arabians,' and then draws enough water for them and for the flock. The maidens return home. ' How is it that ye are so early ? ' asks the father. For it takes time to ' roll the stone 1 A plausible correction. For how should the shepherds treat the daughters of their priest so badly ? See on i S. xvii. 40, xxi. 8, Jer. vi. 3, Am. i. 2. 522 EARLY LEGENDS OF MOSES (Ex. ll. 11-22) 523 from the well's mouth,' and then to water the flock (Gen. xxix. 8, 10). So Moses is sent for ; he has kept respect- fully in the background. He dwells with ' the man ' — for the name of the priest is not mentioned — and marries his host's daughter Sipporah, by whom he has a son called Gershom. May we fill up the lacunce of this story ? Did Moses take sanctuary with the Midianite priest? Surely the narrator was not thinking of this. His aim was to bridge over the isolated story of the danger and deliverance of the child Moses, and it was another narrative which brought Moses into close connexion with the Midianites. Very possibly, however, more was originally said of the Midianite priest than is here given. The prevalent N. Arabian form of government was probably the theocratic, in which the ruler was God's viceroy and therefore also God's priest.^ To the narrator, however, the host of Moses is simply ' the man ' (w. 2 1 ). J apparently did not give his name ; at any rate ' Reuel ' in v. 1 8 belongs to the redactor. As to the names which do exist, it would be absurd to suppose that they are really historical. They are, indeed, such as might be borne by individuals. But there we must stop ; the early story of Moses is plainly legendary. And just as rm'a (cp. iJinD, vi. 19) is a development of ■'tODi?, or some other popular form of fpMSDQJi, so f?N")i?T [v. 18,^ Num. X. 29), "nn"' (iii. i, iv. 18, xviii. i #), ^n■' (iv. 18), and lin (Num. x. 29, Judg. iv. 11), all of which are in different places assigned to Moses' father-in-law, come respectively from ^nottT' (see on Gen. xxxvi. 4), "nna>N (see on "ilJoi, Gen. xxv. 1 5), and n^j-inT (see on 31T, Gen. X. 29). mD2, like T1S2 (Num. xxii. 2), points to nana ; cp. also ian25 (Neh. iii. 31), and see E. Bib., ' Moses,' § 4. It is J who relates the marriage of Moses, but in Num. xii. i E mentions that Moses had married a Kushite woman (n"'tp5). 1 Cp. the Assyrian patesi, the Sabeean inubarrib, and perhaps the Minaean kabire (Nielsen, Die altarab. Mondreligion, p. 137). There were also, of course, priests confined to the cultus, called in N.-W. Arabia lewi (Hommel, etc.) ; some compare Levi. 2 Not in @ {v. 18). In w. 16 @ twice inserts \oQop. In Gen. xxxvi. 10, Reuel is an Edomite. 524 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Probably, however, bjid (as a N. Arabian regional name) is a shortened form of ffi13N (lB''3N, i S. xxi. 1 1 , etc.), i.e. natUM = nnt»N. We must remember that Sipporah's father is best known as '^^n^ a name which (as we have just seen) means that his home was in Ashtarite (or Ashhurite) territory.-* Her son, too, is called ntoni (cp. Sinaitic imni), i.e. not ' expulsion,' nor ' his name is our guest,' ^ nor ' a stranger, or fugitive, is the moon," but, like ptoni (vi. i6, Gen. xlvi. 1 1), is formed from nnm = nntDN. See also on "iim, xiii. 1 2, and on ]B>Di, Gen. xlv. i o, and note that in i Chr. xxiii. 1 6 the son of Gershom is Shebuel ( = Ishmael) ; also that "ilQtD in Judg. iii. 31 (v. 6) comes from Qffiil and T\ys from jrT'N. Note that N. Arabian names mean N. Arabian legends. One question remains. Did the earliest tradition repre- sent Mdsheh (Moses) as a Levite ? No. Originally he must have been a divinely sent and semi-divine hero, the deliverer of Israel. Very soon, however, the ideal of the hero was fused with that of the priest and the legislator, and a clan traced its origin to the ideal representative of the higher priesthood. A M6sheh - clan arose, which attached itself to the tribe of Levi, the tribe which combined religious enthusiasm with warlike energy, and became the guardian of the sacred objects. The higher priesthood existed side by side with the lower. The work of the former was to report divine oracles, and give decisions in the name of God ; that of the lower, to attend to the cultus, to guard the holy vessels, and, if need were, to fight. M6sheh, as has been noticed by Nielsen, represents the higher style of priest, Ahardn the lower. Both are connected by E with Levi. In ii. i we read respecting the father and mother of M6sheh, ' There went a man of the house of Levi, and took (to wife) the daughter of Levi.' * So at least the text has to be translated, and if the name of the maiden is not mentioned, we must suppose that this is due either to accident or to the redactor. In iv. 14 we are told that 1 In Gen. xxxvi. 36 we find pn", i.e. -w { = txi^) with the ending 1;. Ithran is a Horite (Ashhurite). 2 So Nielsen, op. cit. p. 131. ^ Winckler, .4 OF xxi. 470. * @, however, has os eX.a/3ev T(av dvyaTipiov Aevi, 'I'p niHD, which Baentsch adopts. EARLY LEGENDS OF MOSES (Ex. ii. 11-22) 525 'the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is there not Aaron thy brother the Levite ? ' But whether Moses and Aaron are rightly connected thus with Levi is a question difficult to answer (see p. 232). THE BURNING BUSH (Ex. m. 1-6) How Mal'ak Yahweh (or Elohim) appeared to Moses and declared his name. We have two accounts (E and J) of this great event. According to one, ' Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, and led the flock . . ., and came to the mountain of the Godhead, to Horeb. And Elohim called to him and said, Moses, Moses ! and he said. Here am I. And he said, I am the God . . . And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon Elohim.' Accord- ing to the other, ' Mal'ak Yahweh appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of . . . And he looked, and behold ! . . . burned, and . . . was not consumed. And Moses thought, Let me now turn aside, and see this great sight, why ... is not burnt up. And when Yahweh saw that he turned aside to see, he said out of the midst oi . . .^ Come not nearer, draw thy shoes from thy feet, foi the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.' On J's account the following comment is given by Prof Ed. Meyer : ^ — ' Where this thorn-bush (rrDo) is situated we 1 Arranging the text in accordance with the documentary analysis. 2 Die Israeliten, pp. 3, 4. Unfortunately Gressmann {Eschatol. p. 56) also supposes that njo, 'thorn-bush,' and ':'d must be connected. He admits, however, the ' singularity ' of the idea that Yahweh's holj plant was the thorn-bush, and conjectures that the reason is that there was an overgrowth of this bush on Sinai ( = ' the overgrown with thorn bushes'). A poor sort of mountain ! For Nielsen's view — that the Seneh was a kind of cassia used for sacrifices of incense — see his Altarab Mondreligion, pp. 134/. 526 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL are not told ; the article (jT^vri) shows that it is assumed to be universally known. In the extant literature it only occurs in the old song, Dt. xxxiii. i6, where Yahweh is called n3D 12310, "the inhabiter of the thorn-bush." We have therefore before us an old popular faith, which after- wards became obsolete, according to which Yahweh has his proper and permanent dwelling-place in such a bush sur- rounded by a flame. The name of the bush rT3D — ^the word occurs nowhere else — clearly alludes to Sinai, which the older view placed, not on the " Sinaitic " peninsula, but in Midian.' I am afraid that some of the weakness of our textual criticism reveals itself here. Neither Meyer nor any one else has yet proved that such a word as n3D, ' thorn-bush,' belonged to the old Hebrew Sprachschatz. The lexicons do indeed refer to Dt. xxxiii. i6, but this is plainly dependent on Ex. iii. 2 ; if the latter passage was misread, and rT3D given for some other word, the final redactor of Dt. xxxiii. would take care that the same false reading should be given in the former passage. It is not probable, either that there was a sacred thorn-bush in the land of Midian so universally known to Israelites that it could be referred to by one of their narrators, or that in our narrator's time the idea that Yahweh was the numen of a thorn-bush was widely prevalent. Moreover, had some sacred plant been meant, some tree would surely have been chosen ; one recalls the burning terebinth of Mamre,^ and the burning walnut-tree spoken of to-day at Nebk.^ We may at 'least be thankful that the ' fire ' is not rationalised into the fire-red blossoms.^ No one nowadays is unaware of the meaning of lambent flames. But why is there such true insight into the meaning which the flame about the bush would have if the bush were really mentioned, and such a want of criticism of the word rendered ' bush.' And yet in Dt. I.e. some critics have already discerned iro underneath n3D, and it is only a step further to read "'aiDn (or la^D nn) for n^orr in Exodus. To suppose with Meyer and others an allusion to the name la^D is very far-fetched indeed. 1 W. R. Smith, 7?5'=', p. 193. 2 Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion To-day, p. 1 93. 3 Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon, ii. 13 ; cp. Gray, E. Bib., col. 615. THE BURNING BUSH (Ex. in. i-6) 527 It is J and P who use the name ' Sinai ' for the sacred mountain ; E prefers ' Horeb.' According to Winckler,^ 3in means 'glowing heat,' i.e. the sun at the summer solstice, and "'Jid ' belonging to Sin, the moon-god.' It is very doubtful, however, whether names such as pD (xvi. i, xvii. I, etc.) are really monuments of the wide-spread cultus of the Babylonian moon-god ; the analogies which have been accumulating rather point to an ethnological origin. Perhaps nn should be grouped with the clan-name -C£n (see on Gen. xlvi. 17); at any rate, pD (see on xvi. i, and on Gen. X. 17) comes from jDtD"" = ^Mi>DB>\ like n3D, the name of a well-known rock in i S. xiv. 4. Certainly the pre- Israelitish name of the sacred Arabian mountain was, not Sin's mountain, but ' Yerahme'el's mountain,' which the Israelites changed into ' Yahweh's mountain' (Num. x. 33) or ' the Godhead's mountain ' {v. i ). And where was the sacred mountain situated ? We get most definite information from i K. xix. 3 f., which has, I hope, been cleared up in Crit. Bib. (pp. 347 f^, except that it should be further noticed that l2?Q2-fpN (EV, ' went for his life ') must have come from ]"iom-^M = 'DtD"'-f3N (cp. d[i]"' ■^^^, v. 4, ' towards Yam ( = Yaman or Yerahme'el)).' But even our Exodus-passage speaks plainly enough — ' he led the flock nnon nHN.' ' Behind the wilderness ' is, of course, a wrong reading ; what sort of topographical notice is this ? In order to produce clearness, we have but to recollect one of the commonest textual corruptions, viz. "inN for ^^t»N (cp. I K. /.c), and then transpose the two words of the phrase (omitting n as redactional). Thus imo intUN, 'to the wilderness of Ashhur.' It was here that in its terrible grandeur the holy mountain rose. As the narrative stands, one might suppose that the Hebrew shepherd approached the mountain quite un- suspiciously. The sequel, however, is hardly favourable to this view. Deeply had he been stirred by the fate of his people, and this inward experience must surely (if we may give the reins to our imagination) have prepared him for some change in his outer lot. So, when a divine voice is heard addressing him, he bravely listens. He has not, 1 E. Bib., ' Sinai,' § 3. 528 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL however, heard of the danger of ' touching ' even the border of the mountain (xix. 12 f.) without physical preparation ; the divinity himself, therefore, must tell him what to do. And who is the Great Being who thus communes with Moses ? According to E it is Elohim, by which E means either Yahweh, or perhaps Yerahme'el (see p. 69), who was thought even by the Israelites to have a special interest in human affairs. According to J it was either Mal'ak Yahweh or Yahweh ; there is, however, no difference between the names, for Mal'ak means Yerahme'el, who is, strictly speak- ing, the second member of the divine duad, but may be put first when it is he who specially reveals himself to human eye and ear (p. 369). Now Mal'ak Yahweh, among his other aspects, was a fire-god (see p. 31). This was why he spoke to Moses, as afterwards to the Israelites (Dt. iv. 11, 12), out of the midst of burning Sinai. As Dr. C. T. Beke long ago maintained,^ Sinai was most probably a volcanic mountain, and though it may not have had eruptions within the O.T. period, yet tradition may have told of its pristine activity. That the phenomenon described in iii. 2 is not altogether as terrible as that in Ex. xix. 16, 18, may be admitted. But the narrator is justified in mitigating the terrors of primitive Sinai out of condescension to Moses at the outset of his career. Still, we are told that Moses ' hid his face ' (cp. i K. xix. 13, Isa. vi. 2). Every one knew that to see God was dangerous to life (xxxiii. 20, Gen. xxxii. 31). The language in which this great Being makes himself known {v. 6) appeals to us, as it must also have appealed to all Israelites who knew and loved the stories of the patriarchs. But it does not follow that the present form of words is exactly that chosen by the original writer. Indeed, it is not certain that the words are, strictly speaking, in- telligible. ' I am the God of thy father ' (cp. xv. 2, xviii. 4). What, pray, does this mean ? Is it the father of Moses who is referred to ? But neither E nor J appears to have known who the father of Moses was ; and, in any case, how could Moses' father take precedence of the three great patriarchs ? 1 See p. 563, and cp. Gunkel, Ausgemdhlte Psalmen, p. 160; Gressmann, Eschatol. pp. 42 ff. ; Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten, p. 69. THE BURNING BUSH (Ex. in. i-6) 529 Now it so happens that there are parallel passages in the text of Genesis in which similar stumbling-blocks occur. Let the reader refer to the notes on these {i.e. on Gen. xx«riii. 13, xxxi. 29, xxxii. 9, xlix. 25), and he will see the justification of reading here intDM tf^m Dm''"n» Tt^n, where two variants are put side by side (T'lN = 3"ii>, Dm3N = DriT-ms ; prx^ = inton). After the original reading had been miswritten the redactor (as also in v. 15) added 3ps'' 'hvC\. We cannot blame the redactor ; the sense produced, except as regards T^n, is satisfactory. It will be noticed that in w. 13, 15, 16, ddtiiIn 'h\^ takes the place of T3« '^N (»• 6). THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOOD TIDINGS (Ex. III. 7-15) A GLORIOUS divine promise is next given. By means of Moses the people shall be brought out of Misrim into ' a good land and a large.' Moses hears devoutly, but finds two difficulties, which Elohim considers and removes. The first relates to Moses' qualifications for so great a task ; the second to the name of the God who sends him, for the Israelites will desire to know this name in order that they may duly invoke it in their cultus. In ■w. 8 and \^ (also Lev. xx. 24, Num. xiii. 27, Dt. vi. 3, xi. 9, etc., and in Jer. and Ezek.) the promised land is described as one ' flowing with milk and honey.' The phrase probably comes from old poems or legends tinged with mythology. That the original Canaan (wherever situated) was not deficient in milk and ' honey appears from Gen. xviii. 8, Judg. iv. 19, v. 25, etc.; Gen. xliii. 11, i K. xiv. 3 (honey); Judg. iv. 8/, 18, i S. xiv. 26 / But we 34 530 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL shall not fully realise the charm of the expression unless we trace it to some mythic description of the Golden Age, i.e. of Paradise, and remember that the Paradise of the Hebrews was originally placed in the N. Arabian border-land.^ The ethnics in f. 8 /5 are probably a gloss (see on Gen. x. id f., xiii. yb). Of the two difficulties mentioned by Moses, the second is in much need of an improved explanation. The timid man whom his God is training into a hero is at a loss to know what name to give to his Sender when he goes among his people. He is sure that they will ask to be told the name of his God, and he knows not how to answer them {y. 13, E). Hence a special revelation is given, but what that revelation was is still undetermined. Most critics assume that some new name of God was revealed ; i.e. that the name ' Yahweh ' was here (according to E) for the first time made known to Moses, and through him to the Israelites. nTTN ntON iT^rrN is therefore considered to be an explanation of the name mri'' ; it is rendered either ' I am that which I am,' or ' I am because I am,' or ' I will be that which I will be,' all most unsatis- factory,^ and, as regards the first and the third, leading up to the view of Lagarde and Ed. Meyer that the Speaker endeavours to evade answering the question (cp. Gen. xxxii. 30, Judg. xiii. 18). Difficult, too, in another way, is the second half of v. 1 4. How can riTIN be represented as the name of the God who sends Moses ? Should we not expect rWiV ? ^ Textual criticism, however, may suggest some other explanation. "iQJN, as we have seen already not unfrequently comes from i^n, which is a possible divine name, and nTTN may be a corruption of lintDN, which is 1 See pp. 85 _^, and cp. E. Bib., vol. ii. (1901), 'Honey,' ' Marah,' 'Paradise,' § 9; Usener, RJwin. Museum, n.f., Ivii. 179-192; Stade, ZATW, 1902, pp. 325^; Guidi, Bollettino, 1877, p. 424, and Revue biblique, 1903, pp. 241 ff. (milk and honey the most exquisite drink that a pastoral people could imagine). ^ See Baentsch or Dillm. ad. loc. ; and cp. Driver, in Studia Biblica, i. 15-18 (1885); Kautzsch in E. Bib., col. 3323; also Life of Max Mailer, ii. 279 (supposed Zoroastrian influence). 2 Holzinger and Budde {Religion of Israel, p. 14), also W. R. Arnold, would even read ni,T for n-riK. THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOOD TIDINGS (Ex. in. 7-15) S3i another form of the same divine name. ntON and the second (TTTN {i.e. TintON) may therefore be, the iirst a gloss, the second a dittograph. K 14 thus becomes, ' And Elohim said to Moses, Ashhur ; and he said. Thus shall ye say to the Israelites, Ashhur has sent me unto you.' Out of this, ' Ashhur ' and the attendant gloss and dittograph, together with the following ' and he said,' may safely be cut out as scribal and redactional, so that all that Elohim said to Moses was, ' Tell the bene Israel, Ashhur has sent me to you.' That a redactor has been at work is plain, not only from V. \\} but also from w. 15, which is practically an extended gloss on V. 14, but which has probably supplanted some further statement of E, according to which Yahweh was now combined with the older name Ashhur. That the whole story has superseded a tradition of a contest between Yahweh and Moses, in which the latter won the revelation of the name Yahweh (see on xvii. 1-16), is a needless conjecture. A few phrases may here be commented upon. First, 'Yahweh the God of the Hebrews' (iii. 18 ; cp. v. 3, vii. 16, ix. I, 13, X. 3). The phrase may well surprise us; for if the Israelites had but the other day been made acquainted with Yahweh, how could he at once be called the ' God of the Hebrews ' ? In Ezek. xx. 7 we find a polemic against the devotees of ;Misrite deities. There may have been a tradition in Ezekiel's time of a special Yahwist propaganda. At any rate, the worshippers of Ya:hweh can hardly have been more than a sect, as compared with the worshippers of El-Arab, El-Asshur, or El-Yerahme'el. — In the same passage let us note the modest requirement of a ' three days' journey into the wilderness' (so v. 3, viii. 27). Prof Petrie* thinks this phrase ' unmeaning to one who does not know Sinai ' {i.e. Serbal). ' Three days,' however, is a conventional phrase (see on v. 3) for ' a short journey.' It was enough for the Israelites to remove to a short distance from Misrite territory. 1 Prof. W. R. Arnold's art. on Ex. iii. 14 {JBL xxiv., 1905, pp. 107^) is learned, but textually too conservative. He thinks that w. 14 3 is a Midrashic gloss on v. 14 b. There is indeed an element of truth in this. But n'nn nrn .t.hn is surely corrupt. 2 Researches in Sinai (1906), p. 203. 532 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL — In iv. 14 occurs the phrase 'Aaron the Levite.' Aaron ( Ahar6n, pHN ; see on ii. i o) need not originally have been the brother of Moses ; he seems to belong to a different traditional stratum, according to which he, and not Moses, was the supposed progenitor of the Levites, i.e. of the priests (Dt. xviii. I ff^. To make a distinction between the ' brothers,' Moses was represented as a bad speaker, and Aaron as his spokesman (iv. 16). MOSES GOES TO MISRIM (Ex. iv. 18-26, JE) Moses now sets out on his great enterprise. Fearing lest his father-in-law should seek to detain him, he only speaks of desiring to visit his brethren, i.e. his relatives (Gen. xiii. 8, xxix. 12). The danger to Moses, however, is not as great as it might have been, for the Misrite king who had sought his life is dead (see ii. 15, 23); v. 19 indeed says, 'all the men.' So Moses, either alone (so E), or with wife and child ^ (so J), takes the road to Misrim, carrying with him his wonder-working staff. This 'staff' (n^o) first appears in iv. 1-9 (J). It is a part of the apparatus of an enchanter (vii. 11, 12; cp. Winckler, GI ii. 92). E states (differently from J) that God entrusted Moses with a staff which he had not previously possessed, to perform his wonderful works (iv. 17 ; cp. 20 b\ and that of the five ' plagues ' four were produced by his lifting up or stretching out his staff. Cp. also the Rephidim- story (xvii. 8-12). P, however, attaches thaumaturgic importance to the staff of Aaron.^ See further E. Bib.y col. 3210. ^ Read io3. It is E who gives Moses two sons (see on xviii. i ff.). 2 Cp. 2 K. iv. 29 (Elisha's staff, mpifD). MOSES GOES TO MIS RIM (Ex. iv. 18-26, JE) 533 On the way a wonderful thing happens. In his first night-quarters Yahweh falls upon Moses as if to kill him. A fatal issue is only averted by the promptness of Sipporah, who takes a flint-knife and circumcises her son, so appeasing the angry deity. This is the origin of the expression ' a bridegroom of blood,' first applied by Sipporah to her husband. So at least the present text appears to mean. But what a strange story it is, especially when we recall the great task so lately assigned to Moses.^ It must be old, says Holzinger,^ because of the ' heathenish ' representation of Yahweh. ' Colouring and tone,' says the same critic, ' remind us of the story of Jacob's wrestling.' But there are differences between the narratives. In Gen. xxxii. 25^ the divine ' man ' is unknown to Jacob. But taking vv. 24-26 as they stand, no one would say that Moses and his wife failed to recognise Yahweh in the angry assailant. Nor has Jacob's great antagonist a design upon his life, whereas the god who attacks Moses is like one of the dangerous and malicious Jinn of Arabian folklore. It is a mere guess (i) that Moses has offended Yahweh by omitting to be cir- cumcised, (2) that Sipporah supposes that the circumcision of her son will do instead of the circumcision of Moses, and (3) that the story aims at accounting for the transference of circumcision from the age of youthful maturity to that of infancy (Gen. xvii. 12). The story as it stands is unintelli- gible, and the explanation of u^ni jnn from the Arabic hatana ' to circumcise,' kaian"" ' son-in-law," which has long been prevalent,^ is only justifiable if the context is in the main correct and rightly understood. The latest and not the least eminent of our critics ^ has already affirmed that it has not yet been understood aright. His own explanation, however, is by no means satisfactory, owing to his omission of textual criticism. It is true previous scholars had started on a wrong track. Baentsch, for instance, thus explains T'"?n7 sin') (v. 25), * Carpenter-Harford, Hexateuch, ii. 85. 2 Exodus, pp. 9-16 ; cp. Einl. in d. Hex. p. 133. 3 Wellh. /'ro/.<"pp. 354/ ; Stade, ZATW\\. \^i f.; Enc. BritS^^ ' Circumcision.' * Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliien, p. 59. 534 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL ' beriihrt damit die Fusse, d. h. hier die Scham oder Geni- talien ihres Mannes.' His notion is that Sipp5rah applied circumcision in a roundabout way to her husband, and so appeased Yahweh's wrath. He compares 2 K. xviii. 27, Isa. vii. 20, xxxvi. 12, and Geiger, Urschrift, p. 410. But the later critic goes much further. ' It is clear,' he says, ' that Sipporah applies a charm which is to work on Yahweh.' And he adds, 'also wirft sie die Vorhaut am Jahwes Ge- schlechtsteile, so dass diese blutig werden ; and jetzt ist er ihr Blutbrautigam — das kann nur heissen, dass er sie als Braut heimgefUhrt hat und davon blutig ist.' Our critic further conjectures that in the original legend much more distinct expressions were used. ' It is almost a miracle that J preserved the narrative, and that later scribes did not strike it out.' The wonder, perhaps, rather is that modern critics should have been capable of accepting the story as it stands, and should have supported their interpre- tations by comparing passages, many of which, critically viewed, are equally liable to suspicion.^ The unsatisfactoriness of the current criticism naturally suggests approaching the subject from a new point of view. Prof. H. P. Smith seeks for light from the highly archaic usages of the tribes of Central Australia, as expounded by Spencer and Gillen.^ The underlying theory is that both the blood and the amputated skin of circumcision are power- ful charms, and that in case the actual rite cannot be per- formed, blood obtained from the place of circumcision will be equally effective. Prof Smith conjectures that Moses had delayed to sacrifice his son, and that Sipporah saw that the blood of the (circumcised) boy would be accepted, though his life was spared. The editor was reluctant to preserve such a primitive notion ; hence the 1 I quite admit that i3T-f)33 in Gen. xxxii. 26 a is correctly read, and refers to Yahweh (see p. 399). But the context of that passage is perfectly clear, which is not the case here. As to 2 K. vi. 25, x. 27, xviii. 27, Isa. xxviii. 8, 10, see my Critica Biblica. It may be added that, even morally, a keener and more methodical textual criticism corrects a number of O.T. passages which have been applied to the discredit of N. Semitic manners. Our commentaries and histories seem to need much modification on such points. 2 'Ethnological Parallels to Ex. iv. 24-26,' ySZ xxv. i\ff. (1906). MOSES GOES TO MISRIM (Ex. iv. 18-26, JE) 535 fragmentary form of the story. But however this may be, Prof. Smith is pretty certain that when the Hebrew tradition arose, it was already the custom to 'rub the blood from a young man, or from a child just circumcised, or to rub the amputated piece of skin, on the men of the clan,' and that ' tradition supposed this to have arisen because at one time Moses was very ill, and was saved by the circumcision-blood of his firstborn son.' The original ending of the paragraph before us was probably this, — ' Therefore, to the present day, when a child is circumcised, the foreskin is rubbed on the feet of each man of the family.' But Prof. Smith fully admits that ' the present ending is unintelligible.' It seems to me that we can hardly expect that such a narrative as this acute scholar supposes would have been preserved even in a modified and fragmentary form. That being the case, we must try what textual criticism of the newer sort can do. This strange story ought, it would seem, to be grouped with the equally doubtful narratives in Josh. V. 2 ff. and I S. xviii. 25-27, and with the Dinah-story in Gen. xxxiv. In all these passages the apparent references to circumcision (^D, hyo, n^"i», D"'"?nN) are due to textual corruption. Following these and other precedents (for p^D see on Josh. iv. 3), we may read, for p^D3 ynx jiofpr ^mD3, while mrr' should probably be 'm*' {i.e. hutim-) ; ' Yerah- me'el ' would here be used like pht^s in xvii. I 3 (' Amalek ' comes from ' Yerahme'el '). T\yi rms may come from n'h'\S ""ai, ' the sons of Arel ' {i.e. Yerahme'el).^ The enig- matical T>f?n^ 2>im should perhaps be uhT\ rii^Ui, ' at the hill of Rogelim.' ' Rogelim ' seems to be one of the corrup- tions of ' Yerahme'el ' ; but its origin had, of course, been forgotten when this story took shape (for hy\ see on Gen. xxxiii. 14, Judg. V. IS). D"'m |nn, too, can hardly be right. It may be a corruption of D•'D^[N] TiTID (cp. xvii. 14), and "h rrriN may come from ^nDDN = fpHi^Dm"", a gloss on D"'m[M]. laoD siT"! may be derived from "y^s v(\n whi^Grrc, ' that is, Arabia of the Yerahme'elites ' (cp. on DIN N1Q, Gen. xvi. 12a; lanD occurs sometimes for ahivsi). The final clause, beginning moN In, is virtually a dittograph, 1 Sny = Skdiit has been abundantly proved. See on Gen. xxxiv. and on Ezek. xxxii. i^ff. 536 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL introduced because of n^iof?, which is another explanation of D''m[N], meaning 'with reference to Ethmaal ( = Ishmael).' Cp. 'piDD and 'pioriN, often {e.g. i S. x. 1 1 ) for 'p^^oriN. The story thus understood is a glorification of Sipporah, who, with nothing but a sharp stone, rudely fashioned perhaps into a knife, succeeded in wounding and dispersing a band of Arabian marauders. Both Moses (see on ii. 1 7 «) and Sipporah have, therefore, proved their courage against the Arabians. It is difficult to be quite sure of the text, but one correction (viz. ^NoriN^ for rh^Kh) seems practically certain, and that carries with it others. The text here proposed runs thus, ' And so it fell out that, in the wilderness of Almon, Yerahme'el fell upon him and sought to slay him. And Sipp5rah took a flint-knife and destroyed the sons of Arel at the hill of Rogelim ; and she said, I have blotted out the (A)rammites. [Then she said, I have blotted out the (A)rammites, with reference to Ishmael.] ' FIRST DEALINGS WITH THE OPPRESSOR (Ex. V. I -VI. i) Let me here inquire once more,^ ' Is it likely that two Hebrews should have had colloquies with a king so fenced in by etiquette as the king of Egypt ? . . . There is no evidence that the writer considered Moses to have held a rank in Egyptian society which facilitated his admission, together with Aaron, before Pharaoh.' It may also be asked, Would the phrase mn"' in (cp. v. i, x. 9) have been intelligible to an Egyptian king, the underlying notion of a kag (see E. Bib., ' Dance,' § 3) being specially Arabian ? Another phrase which suggests that Egypt was not originally 1 'Testing Biblical Passages,' .4»2. /. of Theol., April 1905, p. 326. FIRST DEALINGS WITH THE OPPRESSOR (Ex. v. i-vi. i) 537 regarded as the land where the Israelites sojourned underlies the untranslatable sil DDM (w. 19). Most probably this is a scribe's error for 3n» 'jloriN = '^ ^Nro»^ ' Arabian Ishmael,' which seems to be a geographical gloss explaining where the sacrifice {v. 17) was to be held. 'Arabian Ishmael ' was, in fact, the region of Horeb or Sinai. From V. 3 (iii. 18, viii. 27) we gather that the most sacred place of the Hebrews was three days' journey in the wilderness. ' Three days ' may be a conventional phrase for a short journey (cp. Gen. xxx. 36, Num. x. 33), but even so Horeb or Sinai was certainly more than a short journey from the spot where, according to most recent critics, the progress of the Israelites began.^ As to v. 19, it may be well to add that "iNn^l should probably be rendered ' and they (the officers of the bend Israel) feared.' A more radical correc- tion would, however, be welcome. — On the difficulties of the whole story about the straw, reference may be made to W. M. Muller, E. Bib., ' Bricks.' A FRESH DIVINE NAME (Ex. vi. 2 /) This is the Priestly Writer's statement — so important for Jewish theology — respecting the earliest use of the divine name ' Yahweh.' We are now, he tells us, at the end of a period (the third — see on Gen. xvii.) of history, and the beginning of the new period is marked by the revelation of 1 Horeb may, however, have been represented in the primitive story as 'three days' journey' from some point in Misrim in the wilderness of Shur or Asshur. Note that iii. i originally stated that Moses ' led the flock to the wilderness of Ashhur, and came to the mountain of the Godhead, to Horeb' (see on iii. i). Cp. E. Bib., ' Moses,' § 9. 538 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL the name ' Yahweh.' This, it is true, runs directly counter to the evidence of the Yahwist, according to whom the name ' Yahweh ' was known to the patriarchs, but it must be remembered that the Yahwist also represents the deity of the Israelites as a compound of Yahweh and an earlier deity called by the Israelites Yerahme'el. HESITATION OF MOSES (Ex. vi. 10-12; cp. IV. 10-12) Both J and P agree that Moses was not a fluent speaker. P, however, uses a strange and therefore critically interesting expression, Q";nst!) f?ii), ' of uncircumcised lips.' According to Holzinger, this is an edifying reproduction of the sense of iv. 10. Similar phrases are, it is remarked, metaphorically used in Jer. vi. lO, Lev. xxvi. 41, Ezek. xliv. 9, Jer. ix. 25. The last two passages, however, are certainly corrupt ; they are among the numerous passages in which 7ns and 710 are due to corruption (cp. on iv. 24-26, Josh. v. 2_^). More- over, the argument that Moses is not eloquent has already been offered by him in iv. 10 (J) as a reason why he should not be sent to the Israelites, whereas in vi. 12, 30 (P), it is clearly a new and special reason why he should not be sent to the king of Misrim that is given. It should also be noticed that Aaron, in P, never displays his capacity for speech before the king ; indeed, speech is not required, for Moses is (according to P) to come before ' Pharaoh ' clothed with divine omnipotence, and Aaron to be simply his agent. What, then, was a possible reason why Moses should hesitate to go before ' Pharaoh ' ? Surely the fact that he belonged to the oppressed people. Now h'ys in Judg. (xiv. 3, xv. 1 8), I S. (xiv. 6, xvii. 26, 36, xxxi. 4), and 2 S. (i. 20) is a HESITATION OF MOSES (Ex. vi. 10-12 ; CP. iv. 10-12) 539 synonym for Tiffi^D On^Ej), and the Philistines of the O.T. are a N. Arabian people. So too are the Sarephathites or Sephathites. Another form of riDS is 2353 m (see on i K. xix. 1 6). Possibly, therefore, we should read [•^nss] ""Snu "'Dsl, i.e. ' seeing that I am an Arelite [Sephathite].' That Moses in the original story was connected with the Sarephathites is probable from ii. 21 (Sipporah). That he was an Arelite, z.e. Yerahme'elite, follows from his Israelite origin, probably too from his name (see on ii. 10). GENEALOGICAL LIST (Ex. vi. 14-25, P) In w. 17 note ' Libni ' and ' Shim'i ' ; group the one with ' Laban ' (Gen. xxviii. 2), and the other with Shema = Ishmael. — In w. 18 Dnoi?^ should be grouped with mDN. The meaning ' in good condition ' (Noldeke, E. Bib., ' Names,' § "jj^ is surely improbable. For Di' (from -va'S) cp. mos (place-name) and inos (Omri) ; m = DT.N. The name Amramu occurs in an Assyrian deed (Johns, Deeds, iii. 81). — nn2\ See on nns, Gen. xxiii. 8. — hvn^, probably from ■?N''Trs ; study the occurrences of Tis (clan- name), and cp. E. Bib., col. 5240, note i. In «/. 19 ■'^no is transparent ; cp. on n^no, Gen. xxviii. 9. "'IDIQ, cp. on nffiD (ii. 10). Special interest attaches to 'Yokebed,' the aunt of Amram and mother of Aaron and Moses {v. 20, P). The name (^3DV) must go with ^^3D■'^^ (i S. iv. 21). Both probably come from DTlpi'\ ' Jacob of [A]ram ' (see on ' Akbor,' Gen. xxxvi. 38). The usual analysis — v = liT", and 1 Cp. ITDV, Aramaic; nay, Sinaitic (Cooke, p. 199). 540 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL ^aD = ^"llD, 'glory' — has wrong presuppositions^ (cp. Nestle, Eigennamen, pp. 77 ff.; Gray, HPN, p. 156). On ypsn, see on Gen. xxv. 26. — V. 21. mp, see on Gen. xxxvi. 5. — in3l, from the clan-name ~\y\, a variation of mt (Zerah) ; cp. on Gen. xxxviii. 30. — V. 22. f?Na>''D, from f?Ni>otDi; cp. fpN^iQ from ^NDm"'. — p'i^it. hii shortened from Sni = 'onT. |D2, a N. Arabian region (see on xiv. 2). — ■"iriD, like nino (Num. xiii. 13), from ^nDN = ^nmM. — V. 23. i>ltO''S>N, not ' God swears ' (as Noldeke, doubtfully, E. Bib., col. 1 279), but from Sn = ^N"! (see above), and i?3a>"' = f?Ni;QtO\ — m^iQl?, from [n]Di> (see above), and ma = mi3 ( i Chr. v. 1 9). — pmna, either 'little serpent' {E. Bib., 'Names,' § 68), or rather a corruption of jntOTO, i.e. Ashhur-ethan (formative 3 prefixed). Cp. Nnmn3 (2 K. xxiv. 8). — N'in"'lN, perhaps corrupted out of "liT'lM {i.e. Arab-yarhu), so as to produce ' (my) father is He.' @^ however, gives a^iaovp (ni:ii"'3N), and (3^'; a^iovS (Tin-'lN). — Tis'pN from fpN"' ( = 'onT') and the clan-name Tii> (see above). — ^nDniN, parallel to f?3rN and nWN, and therefore = noi-ms (■'N = "'nN). See on Gen. xxxviii. 6. V. 24. First among the sons of Korah stands T>DN (as if ' prisoner '). The name meets us again in i Chr. iii. 17, apparently as an appendage to ^■'3^^ but really it is the first part of the compound name rightly read as ^NntDN mtO«. Similarly, in Isa. x. 4 TDM comes from TitDN, also here. — TOp^N, from ha = ^m% and n:ip, connected with the tribal name pp. Cp. also njp, Num. xxxii. 42. — ^DN"'1«, not ' my father has gathered ' {BDB), but, in accord- ance with parallels (see on Gen. xvii. 5), from ^ON-ns, ' Asaphite Arabia.' J^DM is a N. Arabian clan-name (see on ' Joseph,' XXX. 24). V. 2^ a should be quoted in full. ' And Eleazar, son of Aaron, took him one of the daughters of Putiel to wife ; and she bare him Plnehas.' Putiel occurs only here. It is usual to regard it as half Egyptian, half Semitic. Putiel will thus mean ' he whom El has given ' ; cp. Potiphera', 1 According to Hommel {Gr. p. 95), 'n in I-kabod, I-tamar, I-'ezer, I-sai, represents the Sumerian name of the moon, Ai, which was Semitised into Ydu. Thus 'n in I-kabod and Yo in Yo-kebed will be equivalent. Again, wrong presuppositions. GENEALOGICAL LIST (Ex. vi. 14-25, P) S4i if this really means ' he whom Ra has given ' (but see on Gen. xxxvii. 36). This accords with the explanation of Pfnehas given by Egyptologists. Yet it is to be un- hesitatingly rejected, i. None of the O.T. names given formerly by Nestle and the present writer,^ and lately by Noldeke {E. Bib., ' Names,' § 81), as having an Egyptian origin are rightly thus accounted for. Hur, for instance, is not = Horus,^ but shortened from Ashhur (which, of course, is not = ' man of Horus'). Pashhur (Jer. xx. i, etc.) comes from Pad-ashhur, or the like.' Ahira (Num. i. 15, etc.) is not ' a brother is Ra,' but (see Pesh.) a corruption of Ahida (see on Abida, Gen. xxv. 4). A cultus of Ra as ST among the Israelites would be astonishing ; strong evidence would be needed ; T\ in Hebrew (need one mention ?) means ' evil.' 2. Strong evidence again must be given for explaining jdid in f?N"'J3'lS otherwise than biq elsewhere, which is either a regional or an ethnic name (see on Gen. x. 6). Conse- quently, when we meet with such Semitic names as Puti- Baal, Puti-Huru, Putu-ilu* (an Assyrian royal name = ^N"'£2ia), we are, as it seems to me, bound to interpret Put- Baal ( = Yerahme'el), Put-Hur ( = Ashhur), Put-El ( = Yerah- me'el) as compounds of two place-names or ethnics. With what right, then, does Holzinger declare that ' of the origin of the name Putiel there is no trace ' ? See further, on Gen. xxxvii. 36, etc., and cp. E. Bib., ' Putiel,' ' Phinehas.' — On Pinehas enough has been said already (see on Saphenath- pa'neah. Gen. xli. 45). One may venture to ask Prof. W. M. Miiller and those who agree with him, why on their theory ' Pinehas ' should be preferred to the good Hebrew term ' Kushi.' ^ a estle, Ei£'ennamen, pp. 109-113; Cheyne, PropAedes of Isaiah, ii. 144. ^ The many Aramaic names into which bb and iin enter suggest caution (cp. Johns, Deeds, iii. 166, 537. * See E. Bib., 'Pashhur.' »jna (usually 'the flea-clan'!), Ezra ii. 3, etc., is probably almost the same name (Par-'asshur). * Johns, Deeds, iii. 166. THE PLAGUES AND EXODUS (Ex. vii. 8-xi. lo, XII. 29-40) A COMPOSITE narrative of the wonderful plagues and other occurrences, by which partly the Misrite magicians are proved to be inferior to Moses and Aaron,' partly the king and his people are touched in their live property or in their own persons, till they themselves, to avoid a worse evil, hurry the Israelites out of the land. The text has been worked over by different hands, and the origin is not very easy to discover. Most probably, however, the original idea of the plagues is derived from Babylonia {KAT^^\ pp. 552 /.), where plagues are closely connected with the deluge. Jensen ^ may indeed go too far in tracing the direct origin of the Misrite plagues, but without this theory in a more modest form we can hardly account for the highly improbable narrative in Exodus. Prof Ed. Meyer,^ however, takes a different view. According to him, the earliest narrator confined himself to three plagues * (frogs, insects, and locusts), or even to a single plague — the locusts. He thinks that the story of the first Yahwist ran thus. The king is required to let the people go. He refuses, and the locusts are sent over the whole of D'^lHO except Goshen. The king, under compulsion, gives way, and the land is thereupon freed from the locusts. The Hebrews prepare to set out, the women borrowing festival dresses and ornaments from their Misrite neighbours and housemates, on the pretence that 1 See £. Bib., 'Serpent,' §§ 2, 3 ; PEFQ Statement, Jan. 1905. P- 34- 2 Das Gilgamesch-Epos, pp. 137 ^ ; cp. Gressmann, Eschatol. pp. ^T2. ff. ' Die Israeliten, pp. 30, 31. * Cp. the 'great plagues' in Gen. xii. 17. 542 THE PLAGUES AND EXODUS (Ex. vn. 8-xl io, xii. 29-40) 543 they will very soon return. The king, who knows better, pursues after them, and meets his end. From the fact that iv. 22 f. speaks of 'thy first-born' {i.e. the king's), our critic (p. 37) infers that originally it was only this one child whose death was related — not by the first but by the second Yahwist (J^). I am afraid that this is not a very satisfactory hypo- thesis. Is it not clear that if the people of Israel is Yahweh's ' first-born son,' the Misrite people as a whole is the intended though unexpressed antithesis ? The king's son may, of course, represent his people. Nor can I think it certain either that in the original exodus- story nothing was said of the death of the first-born, or that the drowning of the Misrite king in the ' Sea of Reeds ' (Meyer's rendering of yam-suf) is a historical tradition, or that the land of QilSD from which the Hebrews departed was Egypt. On the second and third of these points I shall speak at more length later. Suffice it to remark here that the drowning of a king of Egypt is not recorded in the Egyptian monuments, and that a N. Arabian sojourn has already found confirmation from the textual criticism of Exodus. That there is something uniquely strange about the last of the plagues (according to J and E) is undeniable. It is difficult not to connect it with the sacrifice of firstlings to the goddess or god of fertility which was customary among the nomadic Semites (cp. Ex. xiii. 11 -16, xxii. 2% f., xxxiv. 19/^). We may presume that this festival was also kept up in Misrim,^ although the Misrites in general had passed out of the pastoral stage into the agricultural ; and further, that among the firstlings sacrificed were those of men. It is not impossible, therefore, that the narrative in Ex. xii. 29-36 is based on a tradition of this fact. 'The clans of Israel, it may have been said, came out from Misrim, from the house of the Arabians (see on xiii. 3), because Yahweh had told them not to go on sacrificing their first-born sons, but to redeem them (Ex. xiii. 1 1 ff^. There was a time when the divine voice had spoken other- 1 I assume here, provisionally, that the N. Arabian reference of the original story has been sufficiently made out. 544 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL wise (cp. Gen. xxii. 2) ; but now that voice bade them leave their native land, like Abraham, rather than persist in an antiquated and undesirable religious practice. When the story of the peaceful exodus from Misrim (Musri) was transformed into the story of an exodus in trembling haste " from the land of Misraim (Egypt), from the house of servants," it became necessary to reshape the old tradi- tion, so as to make the slaying of the first-born of the Egyptian Misrites the punishment inflicted upon the foreign oppressors by the offended Yahweh.' ^ In a word, it is not one of the plagues of the original scheme. A N. Arabian sojourn finds fresh confirmation here and there even in the story of the plagues. The camels, for instance, in ix. 3 would be unsuitable in a tale of ancient Egypt (see on Gen. xii. 16). Then, turning to textual criticism, we cannot omit the famous •h's iNDnn (viii. 5), which we must not, with BDB, paraphrase ' assume the honour over me to decide,' nor, with Baentsch, ' deine Majestat geruhe mir zu befehlen,' as if Moses had the tongue of an accomplished courtier.^ Evidently the text is corrupt, and the only correction which sound method and a due regard for parallels suggest is probably 7i>"' mSN (cp. ' abrek,' Gen. xli. 43). The initial rr in nNDnn I take to be a dittograph ; 'h's comes from h^, which, like "jw, may represent either ^Nrom"' or fpNOm*'. ' Ephrath-Yerahme'el ' may be the name of the region in which the contemplated sacrifice (w. 8) was to be offered. Clearly this and similar geographical terms agree better with a sojourn of Israel in Misrim than in Misraim. It is specially remarkable that the gloss ' Ephrath-Yerahme'el ' should occur in a section (the frogs) which may seem to most marked out as Egyptian.' Nor must I pass over the difficult passage, Ex. viii. 22, which is really made up of two variants. In a, Moses says, ' Shall we sacrifice the abomination of Misrim to our God 1 E. Bib., ' Plagues, the Ten,' § 5. 2 @ could easily have given a Greek court-phrase, but simply renders ra^at Trpos /^e. 2 Cp. Ed. Meyer, p. 30, note 3. Yet if the original narrator, rightly or wrongly, regarded N. Arabia (or part of it) as a well-watered land, he could of course introduce a plague of frogs. THE PLAGUES AND EXODUS (Ex. vii. 8-xi. lo, xii. 29-40) 545 Yahweh ? ' In 3, Shall we sacrifice, etc., to Yerahme'el,' with a gloss, ' Surely Ashkal ( = Asshur- Yerahme'el).' Thus, for urVT:h read ^MonT^, and for 'poi ^^ read ^ptDM vhvi. The jn, which is supposed to be late Hebrew, is non-existent ; 3 is dittographed. Another example of an underlying reference to Yerah- me'el is to be found in x. 21, where BDB renders "[ton tDD"'T ' that one may feel the darkness ' ; indeed, ® has already given ■\jn]Xa^? and ini? respectively.^ Let us assume, reasonably enough, that this is the case here, and read, ' To-day ye come forth (not, in the month Abib, but) from Ashhur-Arib (3"i? intDNO).' The meaning of v. 4 now becomes clear ; it is an explanatory gloss on w. 3 «. ' Remember this day on which ye have come out . . . from the house of the Arabians,' and ' To-day ye come forth from Arabian Ashhur,' are equivalent. V. S attaches itself equally well to either statement, ' When your longings are fulfilled, and ye enter the land of the Canaanites, etc., be sure that ye eat massoth.' The probability is that the Deuteronomistic redactor, whose hand is very visible in v. 5, already read corruptly 1">3n min3, and with reference to this wrote the words {v. 5, end) 1 See E. Bib., col. 3212. 2 The phrase occurs again in a gloss (xvi- 3). THE FIRSTLINGS (Ex. xiii. 11-16) Yahweh's requirement of the firstlings (cp. vv. if., P). One point has been rather too carelessly treated. In v. 12 ^lm 1£33 (separated by Pasek) is plainly not right. A late word nia> may no doubt exist (Ecclus. xl. 19), meaning, perhaps, ' young of beasts,' but in Dt. vii. 1 3, xxviii. 4, etc., T^sfpN nitl) is parallel to "[^ns rmnffir, an impossible phrase, which should certainly be ]"iai2 'tUi?, a regional name. Beyond doubt nito in all these passages comes from n^j, i.e. nnmN, a gloss on nQ7Nn or inonw, and T'dS'N from 'jNlinjT' = f?NQnT'. In our passage (xiii. 12) the superfluous na>l or intCN is most probably a gloss on i^MDH piN (v. 1 1 ), suggesting that the original Canaan was in the far south of Palestine. DIFFICULT PROBLEMS (Ex. xiii. 17-19) DTi©7a may, here at any rate, be correct, although an anachronism (cp. on Gen. xx.). But what of the ^"id D"' ? The difiSculty of this phrase is so great that it is not strange that the correctness of the reading has been doubted. No solution of the problem seems to me so satisfactory as this — that vv. 17-19 have been recast, and that the original DIFFICULT PROBLEMS (Ex. Xlll. 17-19) 551 narrative simply said that when Pir'u (not Pharaoh) had let the people go, Elohim caused them to turn on the way to the wilderness, towards Yaman-Sarephath. It will hardly be denied that the excuse offered in v. 17 is in the manner of later students of Scripture. My proposal to substitute Yaman-Sarephath for the doubtful Yam-Suph is based chiefly on these two grounds, (i) that it has been shown to be probable that the place of sojourn of the primitive Israelites (or of a large part of them) was in the land of Misrim, adjoining the land of Yerahme'el (in its narrower sense), and (2) that Yam-Suph cannot be satisfactorily ex- plained from a conservative textual point of view. Our new Hebrew Lexicon (BDB, s.v. P|1d) does indeed incline to render v\^■D D"' ' sea of rushes, or reeds,' and W. M. Miiller remarks that ' the fresh-water Timsah-lake with its large marshes full of reeds, exactly at the entrance of Goshen, would fulfil all conditions for the exodus and for the Hebrew name.' But our valued Egyptologist adds, that ' still it would be very strange if the Crocodile Lake, or other swamps on the frontier of N.E. Egypt, should have furnished a name to the whole Red Sea, including the .^lanitic Gulf, which was nearer to most Palestinians than the Egyptian lakes,' and that in his opinion ' this theory must be rejected,' so that ' the Hebrew name remains obscure.' ^ As a ' less probable ' alternative to ' sea of rushes ' our new lexicon gives ' sea of (the city of) Suph.' In fact, in Dt i. i (according to MT.) Suph, and in Num. xxi. 14 Suphah, occur as place-names. Both passages, however, are cor- rupt, ?]"iD having probably come from P|nD, and rrEJlD from nsiD ; the ultimate, correct form appears to be n!3"i25.^ It may also be repeated here that D"! is often an abbreviation of JQ"' ( = ^NOm"'), see e.g. Job iii. 6, 8, where nv •^T'noa and DV ■»^^M respectively come from ]©"' "'ip3 and jO"' •^"nn (dv = c). It is quite possible, therefore, that the primitive tradi- tion spoke of some great event affecting the bend Israel in 1 E. Bib., ' Red Sea,' § 2. 2 In Dt. I.e. two readings exist side by side, only there has been a slight transposition ; these are nsrti ^3■ln3 and Sttyav- ansa (^"10 = either Sk»dis" or Smdht). For iiD = n!ns cp. msD, Neh. vii. 57, and nso-nnp, where TSD = Mans. 552 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Yaman-Sarephath. None of the older writers known to us, except J and E, refer to the passage of the Yam-Suph, though right method will not allow us to lay too much stress on such an argument.'' But before passing on, I must at least mention, without giving it my adhesion, the plausible theory of Winckler,^ that the Yam-Suph, like the 'ark of bulrushes' and the waters of Marah, originally had no existence outside the mythic wonder-land to which we are introduced in Gen. ii. Even if we reject this theory (presupposing as it does the correctness of d;;, ' sea ') we need not deny that the legend of the passage of the Yam-Suph is influenced by the myth of the cleaving of the dragon Tiimat. The identification of the king of Misrim with the dragon is, in fact, most probably much older than Ezekiel, the first author known to us who expressly refers to it^ (Ezek. xxix. 3-6, xxxii. 2-8), though later, of course, than the original story under- lying our J and E. Note also an apparent inconsistency. The people are in danger of being terrified at the warlike Philistines. Yet they go up ' in battle array ' {BDB\ But how, we must ask, does this meaning come out for CtDon ? @, here at any rate, renders iriyfrny Dm\ DTT (which, as the narrative now stands, means ' the sea ') comes most probably from jc or Dm\ On ]D!i f?i>n much has been written,* but JDS, as has been shown, is a form of psis (Gen. xxxvi. 2, 20, 24). The geography of the exodus has, in fact, been based largely on misunderstandings. The subject ' Researches in Sinai, 1906, p. 204. See, however, W. M. Miiller, E. Bib., 'Exodus,' § 15 (no such city as Naville's Pe-kerhet). 2 In Jer. I.e. there are two clauses, a long and a short, both introduced by D'3iJ"n ; presumably the latter is a later insertion. It is, however, none the less useful as a list of places in mxD. ^ @, in fact, omits ' Noph ' in the former and ' Tahpanhes ' in the latter passage. Cornill's commentary throws no light on the mystery. * See E. Bib., ' Baal-zephon ' ; KAT'»\ pp. 357, 479; von Gall, Altisraelitische Kultstatten, p. 22; also E. Bib., 'Zaphon,' 'Zephon.' The conjecture of Ebers {Durck Gosen, p. 570) that Phoenician sailors here propitiated the god of the north wind, when starting southwards, is too fanciful. "Von Gall, too, thinks that S6ph6n means the north wind, But see KAT, p. 479. THE PURSUIT OF THE ISRAELITES (Ex. xiii. 20, xiv. 2) 555 has been treated from different points of view in the Enc. Biblica, art. ' Exodus ' (cp. ' Red Sea '). It may be added that Dr. C. T. Bake long ago maintained that Yam-Suph always meant the Gulf of Akabah, and that Mount Sinai lay to the N.E. of the head of that gulf. PASSAGE OF THE YAM-SUPH (Ex. xiv. 5-31) What, we may ask, was the earliest form of this tradition ? An answer is very difficult. Our extant authorities, at any rate, give different accounts. According to J, an east (north-east ?) wind drove back the waters of the sea, so that Israel could continue its journey on dry ground. The Misrites pursue them, but are unable to attack them because of the pillar of cloud. On a sudden Yahweh looks out of the pillar, and the Misrite host turns to flee. Meantime the water returns and swallows up the Misrite host. E and P, however, represent the water as dividing at the sign given by Moses ; the Israelites go through the passage, while Mal'ak Elohim performs a miracle on the chariot-wheels {v. 25), producing a panic among the Misrites, and on a sign given by Moses the waters return, and carry away the Misrites. It is certainly plausible to suppose that current mythic phrases contributed to the formation of this tale of wonders (see p. 552). Let us now examine xiv. 5-9. V. 5 consists of doublets; a says that it was told the Misrite king that the people fled (P), and b that the king and his courtiers repented of their consent to let the people go (JE). The text at any rate is plain. Vv. 8, 9 (P) are also clear, excepting a redactional insertion about horses and chariots. The rest 556 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL seems incoherent. First, in v. 6, we hear of the king's chariot (sing.) ; then, in v. 7, of 600 choice (?) chariots, and of all the chariots of Misrim, on every one of which were shalishim (?). Is it enough to assign the different state- ments to different sources ? Let us first examine the text. Prof Paul Haupt would excise 'hrh's QtO^ffil (0 Koi Tpia-Tdra written nto'ptO, a group of letters which elsewhere is pointed Dtob^ or (i S. ix. 22) Dt^'?!^. Nor can scholars agree as to the meaning of t!)''bQ>.^ Probably 'h\Si is a popular corruption of fjNSDJO'' (see on i S. x. ii, xviii. 6, 2 S. xxiii. 8) ; l^D-^i> seems to be a redactional transformation of a corruptly written fjNms = fpNom"' (a variant), which will be a gloss either on mm or on D'lnsa. I need hardly remark again that numerals are very often corruptions of ethnics (cp. on Q-'lDon, xiii. 18^). 1 Cp. P. Haupt, Beitr. zur Ass. iv. 583,^ DIVINE FIERY PILLAR (Ex. xiv. 19) Here, at any rate, two sources are clear, a coming from E, and b from J. Mal'ak Ha-elohim comes, as we have seen (on Gen. xvi. 7, xxi. 17), from Yerahme'el-Yahweh. The pillar of fire and cloud is therefore a theophany {v. 24 ; cp. xiii. 21 f., Num. x. 34 ff.). The god of the primitive N. Arabians, and therefore of the Israelites, is specially a fire- god (see p. 33). The fiery appearance startles the Misrite host, and works its ruin. SONG OF MOSES AND MIRIAM (Ex. xv. 1-20) It is certainly possible that v. i (cp. v. 21) is the earliest part of the Song. The date of the poem as a whole need not here be considered.^ The original writer was, at any rate, well aware that the scene of the legends of Genesis and Exodus was in N. Arabia. Take e.g. v. i. did 1!13ni, what does this mean — ' the horse and his rider ' (as most), or ' and his charioteer ' (as Haupt) ? Did the warriors referred to really ride on horseback ? @ 1 Cp. my Origin of the Psalter, p. 31 (cp. 177), and especially Bender, ZATW, 1903, pp. 46^; P. Haupt, ^/5Z, xx. 153/ (1904). S57 5S8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL neglects the suffix h ; hence Haupt reads 35Ti> ' ^""^ chariot(s).' Most probably, however, in^T comes from h\'Xr\, i.e. 'pNonT' (cp. on inian, Gen. X. IS, and on TiaSS, Gen. xxxvl. 38), and DID from ^Mi^om"' (cp. on DDDi>l, Gen. xlvii. 11). — In vv. 2 b and 3 there are several errors which can at length be corrected. The first is simple ; i^n = f?Ni = ^NQm\ More difficult are ^IN TT^N and nonf^Q ©•'n. Why should Amram's God be referred to ? And is not 'nf?o ffiiN elsewhere applied to men only (see Josh. xvii. i, 2 S. xvii. 8)? Isa. xlii. 13 is, of course, not parallel. As to •>!« '^n^N, to avoid repetition I may refer to the treatment of phrases in iii. 6, Gen. xxviii. 13, xxxii. 10. We have found that I^IM Tt'pn and •'In 'f?N have come from l-is 'f?M. It is natural to assume that the case is the same here. non^Q tCN is of course = ^NOm"* n^N (many parallels exist). Next, we have im3Nl and ^^^Da^N^. JOIN, as we have seen (P- 5S)) is one of the corrupt forms of 'pNQnT ; 13n1 may also, perhaps, have come either from 'dhT' or from 'offii (3, as so often, = h). "in (twice) represents Nin, ' that is.' Next, nonSo ©"IN, which represents 'om"' n^N, ' Asshur-Yerahme'el," and lastly, lom = ^Ni^affii (as Isa. Ivii. 15, || ^I; = n•^5). Thus V. 2b and v. 3 are both made up of glosses on ' Yahweh ' and on ' Sus we-rakbal ' in z/. i, viz. 'this is Ya'el ; that is, Yerahme'el. The God of Arabia ; that is, Yerahme'el. Yahweh, Asshur- Yerahme'el ; Yahweh-Ishmael.' The com- pound names of the God of Israel have been considered on Gen. i. 26. Miriam, the prophetess, the sister of Aaron (v. 20), answers Moses and the other men who had sung the song (see above). What does her name suggest ? Can the moderns be correct in explaining ' Miriam ' either as ' rebellious ' (■'ID) or as ' fat ' (niid) ? ^ Surely the name marks her out as a Yerahme'elite. The same name is borne by a son (probably) of Yether ( = Ashtar), i Chr. iv. 1 7. Like Deborah she was a prophetess (cp. Num. xii. 2). Her grave was at Kadesh (Num. xx. i). See E. Bib., ' Miriam ' (S. A. Cook) ; Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten, p. 92. 1 Haupt, AJSL XX. 152 (1904). WILDERNESS OF SHUR, ETC. (Ex. XV. 22-27) Critical analysis here is difficult.^ We will not enter into it now ; but the composite origin of the section must be borne in mind. The three days' march in the wilderness of Shur remind us of the three days' journey in iil. 1 8, v. 3, and all the more as soon as we have penetrated the mystery of the name ' Shur.' That this has anything to do with ' wall,' as if it meant ' the frontier-wall of Egypt,' is no doubt still asserted, e.g. by Ed. Meyer, but incorrectly. Undoubtedly it is a shortened form of Asshur (see on Gen. xvi. 7, XXV. 18), just as 'ahar in iii. i is of Ashhur. Horeb or Sinai, the most sacred mountain of the Hebrews, where the festival spoken of by Moses was perhaps to be held, was in the wilderness of Ashhur. It is therefore quite possible that DD, ' there,' in z/. 2 5 (bis) refers, first, to the legislation of the sacred mountain, and then (note ' he proved them ') to the story of Massah. According to Ex. xvii. 7 (if we can trust the statement) Massah and Meribah were the same place, and according to v. 6 the rock of Massah or Meribah was on, or by, Horeb.^ Whether the stories of Marah and Elim originally had their present setting, is very doubtful. Plainly Num. xxxiii. 8, 9, corresponds to vv. 11-14 i" the same chapter (the itinerary), while the bitter waters of Marah are essenti- ally as mythical as the land which flows with milk and honey. Winckler^ has illustrated both by the mythic 1 See Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten, pp. 61-64, 101-103. 2 Bacon {Exodus, p. 92, foot) remarks that ' this Meribah would seem to have been at the foot of Horeb {v. 6; cp. Dt. ix. 21).' Baentsch, it is true, regards 3in3 in w. 6 as a mistaken gloss. 8 Gin. 93, note 3 ; cp. Miicke, Vom Euphrat zum Tiber, pp. 90, 94 ; Budge, Hist, of Alexander, pp. ()(>/. SS9 56o TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL lake (pseudo-Callisthenes, ii. 42) with waters as sweet as honey, beside which Alexander encamped, and parallel to which is the river with waters too bitter to drink (ib. iii. 17). The name mo, however, is not mythical. Like HOT it is really connected with Di[m], i.e. the S. Aram ; while d^J'^n comes from d^ni = ofps"' (Gen. xxxvi. 5). To regard Elim as the plural of ^n, ' God,' ^ is hardly permissible. QUAILS AND MANNA (Ex. xvi.) I MAY be allowed to refer first of all to E. Bib., ' Manna,' ' Quails.' The scene of the events, according to P, is the wilderness of Sin,^ between Elim and Sinai (v. i). Both ' Sin ' and ' Sinai ' refer us, as we have seen (on iii. I, 2), to Ishmaelite territory. In v. 4, 'when we sat by the flesh-pots ' looks like a later insertion ; the account of the quails is worked into the story of the manna. The phrase quoted reminds us, however, of Num. xi. 5, and may possibly be corrupt. Note P's strict conception of the Sabbath (see on Gen. ii. 2, 3). GIFT OF WATER (Ex. xvii. 1-7) Again the names cause difficulty. Rephidim, Massah, Meribah ' — are these places rightly brought together ? And 1 Meyer's view, p. loi. 2 A wilderness of the moon-god is specially improbable. 2 On the critical questions connected with Massah and Meribah, see S. A. Cook's art. in E. Bib. ; cp. also ' Kadesh.' Also Cook, ' Meribath-Kadesh,' yi?«/«'j^ Quart. Review, July 1906. GIFT OF WATER (Ex. xvii. 1-7) 561 what do the names mean ? To the first question the answer is that there is no reason why the same story should not have been connected with different places. Plainly the story in Num. xx. is identical with that in Ex. xvii. It is, however, also, from our point of view, plain that the place- names really mean practically the same thing, so that they might conceivably have attached themselves to the same place. In D^■'Q^, DT* if correct should represent D^^«, or if it should rather be trC" it should stand for D"in. DT prob- ably comes either (like ids) from ins or from mSN (cp. on viii. 9 a). ' Rephidim ' is therefore a comparatively late form, implying that the true meaning had been forgotten. The original meaning was probably either Arab-Edom or Arab- Aram. rroD,^ like NtOD (see on Gen. x. 30), comes from '7NrDt»^ and TTT-ya through ^siino from f7NDm^ The name ' Kadesh,' with which, in Num. xxvii. 1 4 (here, however, ' Meribah in Kadesh '), Dt. xxxii. 5 i [xxxiii. 2], Ezek. xlviii. 28 [xlvii. 19], 'Meribath' is combined, is more difficult to explain. The sense ' holy ' is indeed obvious and familiar, but there is good reason (see on Gen. xiv. 6) to suspect that the original form was Hashram ( = Ashhur-Aram), which became first Kashdam and then Kadesh. Note that in Num. XX. 16 Kadesh is said to be a frontier city of the king of Edom, or rather of Aram ; cp. v. 1 7, where ^'?n^ HIT is probably = ^NOrrT '~\ (cp. 2 S. xiv. 26, Jer. xxxvi. 26). It is possible enough that Kadesh ( = Hashram) was sometimes used as a district -name ; hence the phrase (see above) ' Meribah in Kadesh.' But, of course, Kadesh could be used as a place-name. As S. A. Cook remarks, Kadesh seems once to have been regarded as the permanent centre of the people (/0i?, 1906, p. 750). 1 Cp. n(»3D for nbi?, Judg. xii. 6 ; and j-d from |Db", xvi. i . 36 BATTLE WITH AMALEK (Ex. xvii. 8-16) That Amalekites, i.e. the hostile and less cultivated section of the Yerahme'elites, should be not far off is natural, for ' Rephidim ' (see above) contains, in a corrupt form, the name Aram {i.e. Yerahme'el). It has been over- looked by commentators that the troublesome nno {y. 9) is an incompletely written Dm% which is a gloss on pf?DS (itself an early corruption of T'NDm"'). — In v. 9 the sudden mention of Joshua is strange. He was the hero of Timnath- serah, i.e. Ethman (Ishmael)-Ashhur ^ in Ephraim (Josh. xix. 50, xxiv. 30). His name r£»in% i.e. originally »1t&-inT, also marks him out as a Yerahme'elite, just as H(ir (also xxiv. 14) is not less plainly = Ashhur." Cp. i;ll!)i3N = i>lt&-ns (Sheba = Ishmael). — In v. \\ it is the hand which holds the magic staff (cp. x. 21). And now as to ' Yahweh-nissi ' {y. 15), where most critics neglect the warning Pasek, though Winckler (Krit. Schr. ii. 63) changes •^d3 to vixni, and Ed. Meyer (p. 63) sees a reference to Massah. From our point of view the meaning is clear. Following the parallel of mri'' whxo (Judg. vi. 24 ; see Crit. Bib.), read ;nttJ"' mn\ i.e. Yahweh- Ishmael, equivalent to Yah weh- Yerahme'el, an early name of the God of Israel (see on Ex. xx.). The meaning is that the God whose name is Yahweh-Ishmael has here shown his power over the enemies of his people.^ Moses, however, remembering how Amalek has broken the covenant 1 No trace of sun-worship therefore. 2 A study of the other occurrences of the name Hdr is instructive, and makes a connexion with Horus quite unacceptable. 3 The first attempt to go to the root of the matter is in E. Bib. <:ol. 2354 [1901]. 562 BATTLE WITH AMALEK (Ex. xvil. 8-16) 563 of kinsmen, declares that war with Amalek shall never cease — '^y\ '"h non^D "'D. The words unaccounted for — ^Ti-^a "iV d3-^i> — probably represent nf?D3 ^MOHT, which appear to be two glosses on Ishmael. For the second (n^D3) see on ' Kasluhim,' Gen. x. 1 4, Nielsen's explanation of the text-reading is surely too far-fetched.^ THE SMOKING MOUNTAIN (Ex. xix.) The phenomena of the burning Sinai suggest a volcano. See on iii. 2, with the references to Beke and his successors, among whom it is specially pleasing to notice Prof. Ed. Meyer, because of the frequency with which elsewhere the present writer has had to differ from him. That the burning mountain had been already seen by Moses has, however, been overlooked by this sharp-sighted critic. THE TEN WORDS (Ex. xx.) With regard to the decalogue, several fresh points seem to deserve attention. i.TTlfjN mrr' here, as in some other passages (especially Gen. xxvii. 20, Dt. xxviii. 58, i K. xvii. 1 2, xviii. i o), has been substituted for fpNOm"' '"'. This is particularly suggested by v. 7, taken in connexion with Dt. xxviii. 58. The name which was not to be misused, the ' glorious and fearful name ' which the Israelites were to fear, was not Yahweh-Eloh^ka, but, in its full form, Yahweh- 1 Die altarab. Mondreligion, p. 154. S64 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Yerahme'el (the name of the divine duad). 2. ' Other gods beside me ' (so render with (g, against Tg.) alludes especially to Baal {i.e. Yerahme'el regarded as a distinct deity) and Ashtart. Jastrow {RBA, p. 149) also finds an implied reference to a divine triad, but thinks of the Babylonian. 3. □"'tp ji^ and D"'S3T {v. 5 b) are suspicious. The former only occurs in the same or similar contexts, where the levelling hand of the redactor may be presumed, and also in Gen. 1. 23 ; D"'m is quite unique. That QiffifptO has often come from D"'f?NSDffl"' we have seen already {e.g. on xiii. 40, Judg. X. 4, I S. X. 1 1). It is also clear that i?n in Num. xxxi. 8 has come from l"iB. And it should further be noted that in Dt. vii. 9/^ (a parallel passage) nothing is said of the terribly wide range of the divine vengeance. Most probably, therefore, we should read D"'l"!»-f7i>"i D"''?Ni>Dt&''-'7S, and relegate it to the margin. It tells us that the haters of Yahweh referred to are those hostile Yerahme'elites of whom xvii. 6 declares that Yahweh will war against them from age to age. 4. ' The house of slaves ' should of course be 'the house (territory) of Arabia' ; see on xiii. 3 (p. 549). ABIB; SEETHING KIDS (Ex. xxiii. 15, 19) As Baentsch remarks, from iffiND to d"'12D is redactional, and to be compared with xiii. 4, where MT. has ' in the month Abib,' but the original reading probably was ' from Ashhur-Arab.' In xxiii. 15, however, it is plain that we must read either iiisn VPin (as MT.) or ins m-jh. The latter was probably the original name of one of the months (see on Ezek. iii. 15, ' Tel-abib,' and cp. ■'lM = mi^ in proper names). Other recorded names of months are Ziw (i K. ABIB; SEETHING KIDS (Ex. XXIII. 15) 565 vi. I ), i.e. perhaps piJls ( = 'dB"'), and Ethanim = Ethmannim (i K. viii. 2; also Phoen.), and Bui = Yerahme'el (i K. vi. 38; also Phcen.). Fuller light on these may be hoped for. Let me now venture to repeat a question already asked elsewhere.^ It relates to the command 'Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk' (xxiii. 19, xxxiv. 26, Dt. xiv. 21), which reads so strangely in the context. Can our critics still bring themselves to think that some magical broth is intended, the object of which was to fertilise the fields? Or do they feel quite satisfied with Robertson Smith's idea ^ that the passage refers to a heathen form of sacrifice in which milk took the place of blood ? Holzinger confesses with regret that ' nothing can be made plain.' Why is this? Surely because most of us refuse to supplement old methods by new. Let us look underneath the text reading, and we shall find this — ^^il DJlSn vh nifjMDm'', ' Thou shalt not clothe thyself with the garment of a Yerahme'elite woman.' If the meaning of this be obscure, let critical students refer to Lev. xviii. 3 (point Cisp) and Mic. vi. 16,' and then turn to Lev. xix. 19, Dt. xxii. 9-1 1. The former passages are called forth by the constant danger to Israel from Yerahme'elite heathenism ; the latter are textually more difficult, and, as they stand, perfectly unintelligible. There is, I admit, a perfect forest of attempted explana- tions, but how imperfect they all are ! One of the best is that of Steuernagel. This critic supposes that the forbidden practices stand in some relation to the cults of the powers of nature, and may soon have symbolised the fusion of two deities.* He quite sees that there must be something very definite in the passage, but he cannot find it out. And to all our critics t32ai>m ('perhaps of Egyptian origin,'^ BDB) still remains an unsolved enigma. The solution, reached by a keener textual criticism, is 1 Amer. Joum. of Theol., April 1905, pp. S3°f- ^ Religion of the Semites, p. 221, note. 3 Read, for noy, haanv, and for skok, mrinc'K. ' For the statutes of Yerahme'el are kept, and all the practices of the house of Ashhur-Arab.' * Stade too {BiU. Theol. i. 146) divines a background of cultus. * So Dillmann, ' stammt wohl wie eta aus Aegypten.' But 'avi too is misunderstood (see on Gen. xli. 42). 566 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL in harmony with that of xxiii. 19, offered above. The Hebrew legislators were, profoundly impressed with the religious significance of marriage and of dress. A marriage between the worshippers of different deities would inevitably lead to a fusion of religious practices, and if the wife were a Yerahme'elitess the man would certainly adopt the impure cultus of Ashtart ; very possibly, too, he might have, cere- monially, to adopt women's attire.^ In Dt. xxii. 5 such simulated changes of sex are forbidden in general terms ; in Lev. xix. 19, as well as in Ex. xxiii. 19, etc., the pro- hibition is specific. The true reading of Lev. xix. 19 (Dt. xxii. 9- 1 1 ) appears to be approximately this, 'ton 'prrriN im [f?«DnT'] mnsn-N^ [nncN 'pMonT'] n-'ms in n-'SNonr : T^s rh's'^ vh TryslXH [^mdhT'], ' My statutes shall ye observe. A Yerahme' elite or Arabian woman [Yerahmeel-Ashhur] thou shalt not betroth [Yerahme'el], and a garment of [Yerahme'el] a Shinarite^ woman shall not come upon thee.' We have thus, I venture to hope, solved the riddle, not only of l^^ra) (which should obviously be nilMffi), but also of D''M^3, which is usually interpreted ' two things of diverse kind,' without any very solid basis, but is really, like D"'N37n (Ps. X. 10), D^TT, and dnSh (2 S. x. 16/), from ^wonT. The gloss-makers were well aware of the influence of the Yerahme'elite people on the political and religious history of Israel. Fortunately their glosses found their way into the text. 1 W R. Smith, OTyC'^i, p. 365 ; Driver, Deuteronomy, p. 250. 2 Shinar (see on Gen. x. 10) represents Ishmael-Arib. MAL'AK THE GUARDIAN (Ex. xxiii. 20) It has surprised some that here and in Num. xx. 16 (hot! passages E) fN^o has neither article nor, as in v. 23 (R^ suffix. But ^N^n is quite correctly treated here as a prope name (see pp. 40, 58). It represents "PNortT, the name c the N. Arabian deity who formed a second to Yahweh ii the divine duad of the early Israelites. How great Mal'al is appears from vv. 21, 22, and yet, as a small step toward strict monotheism, he is represented as ' sent ' by Yahweh Contrast ' Let us make man ' (Gen. i. 26) and ' Let us gi down ' (Gen. xi. 7). Abarbanel well remarks, ' The ange who is here mentioned is the great prince Michae [Yerahme'el], the redeemer-angel, whose name is like th name of his Lord [v. 21), and who is called the angel his face.' MOSES ON THE MOUNTAIN (Ex. xxiv. 12, 18) Probably the original story did not concern itself with tb duration of Moses' stay on the mountain. Following thi parallel of i K. xix. 8 (see Crit. Bib., pp. 348/), we shouli read ins nni n©D "TTI, with the glosses (underlying dv an< rhh') Jd; and f7NDm\ Cp. xxxiv. 28, where the words an 567 568 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL added, nnto n^ c^di hys^ ih nth. A most unnatural state- ment, according to Baentsch. Probably, however, it has grown out of glosses containing the names ^Nom"', D"'31D"', and nniDM, and indicating that the mountain was in N. Arabia. It was neither the fasting of Moses nor the duration of his stay, but the fact that Israel's legislator received his laws from God on the sacred mountain, that interested the earliest scribes or editors. The communica- tion of these laws by Yahweh himself reminds us of Hammurabi receiving his Code from the Sun-God. In xxxi. 1 8, xxxii. 1 6, we find the phrases, ' the writing of Elohim,' ' written with the finger of Elohim,' which Winckler ^ takes to refer to cuneiform as opposed to Phcenician script. This, however, appears to be a mistake.^ It is a perfectly naive way of saying that the ' Mosaic ' laws were given by revelation.' FATAL ERROR OF TRANSCRIPTION (Ex. XXVII. 2l) TKIO SriN (note absence of article). The phrase is rendered either ' tent of meeting ' or ' tent of revelation.' Neither rendering is supported by tradition, and it would be strange if the ' meeting by appointment' (xxv. 22) of Yahweh and Moses were originally referred to as a ~[T\'Ci ; none of the passages quoted by BDB affords a parallel for this. If "r:;"lQ is really the original word, it ought to signify primarily 1 AOF, 3rd ser., i. 168 ; Krit. Schriften, ii. 116. 2 It is connected with the incorrect reading i?!:!! onna, Isa. viii. i, which should be idb" 'm, 'with an IshmaeHte pen.' ^ Cp. Dieterich, Eine MHhrasUturgie, pp. ^i> f. FATAL ERROR OF TRANSCRIPTION (Ex. xxvii. 21) 569 a meeting of Yahweh and the other el6him/ In several of BDB's passages, however, ^s'^D has probably arisen by textual corruption ; it is very plausible to extend this supposition to the passages containing the phrase ^:>'1D f?nN, if we should not rather say that there has throughout been a deliberate alteration of the word which originally stood in place of ~[S'ya. What, then, we have to ask, was the original word ? To answer this question, we must take the phrase ^^s^'a hm^ in connexion with ~\s'ya nn in Isa. xiv. 13. In the latter passage we find the king of ' Babel ' boasting that he will take his seat on a mountain in Saphon, i.e. Ishmael (see p. 32), called ^s^D. This arrogant king is (virtually) addressed by the poet as ' Yerahme'el ben Ashhur ' (underlying hSlSl ben-shahar), and made to claim for himself likeness to the Most High. Can we doubt what this mountain is ? Plainly it is Ezekiel's ' mountain of Elohim ' (Ezek. xxviii. 14, 16), and, as we have seen, the God of Paradise (as well as the first man and his descendants), originally bore the name Yerahme'el. Among the shortened forms of this name was pDT (MT. ' Rimmon ') ; others, most probably, were ]Qi)T and pmn. The latter would often be written 'iDlM, or, by the common scribal error of transposi- tion, TM1Q (omitting the sign of abbreviation). An editor, striving after sense, would convert this into TSID, and, being equally bent on uniformity, would harmonise all the passages in which this scribal error nsio could be found. Or the process might be even shorter ; ^D^^? (iqin) might at once be converted into nsin. We can now perhaps see more clearly than BDB has done into the name of Saul's son Armoni (2 S. xxi. 8, BDB, palatinus). But also something much more important, viz., how it came to pass that P converted the traditional tent-sanctuary, pitched outside the camp, into a palatial structure, which was in two senses central, viz. both as regards its relation to the worship of the early Israelites (as imagined by P) and as regards its position in the camp 1 So, tentatively, Zimmern, KAT'^\ p. 592; his earlier view {Ritualtafeln, p. 88, note 2) was different. Cp. also A. Jeremias, BNT, p. 63, note 4 ; Hommel, Gr. p. 170, note i. 570 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL of the tribes. P may, in fact, have interpreted pOIN as ' palace,' whereas the earlier narrator (E) simply took the name 'ohel 'armSn without attempting to explain it. That Tni^ia in XXV. 2 2 proves the writer (P) to have read nslQ f?rrN, and to have interpreted it ' tent of the appointed meeting,' I cannot think probable. THE SHEKEL PROBLEM (Ex. xxx. 13)- The phrase ©"TprT h'gxt is only found in P ; it is supposed to imply that a standard shekel was deposited in the post- exilic temple. It is probable, however, that ffiip has sometimes come either from nnQ)[s] (Ashhur) or from Diffin ( = Ashhur- Aram) ; cp. on xxxi. i o. Gen. xiv. 7. And considering that in Gen. xxiii. 9 (P) the most probable text gives the phrase ' money of Yerahme'el, in Dt. iii. 1 1 ' the cubit of Asshur,' and in Isa. viii. i ' a stilus of Ishmael,' it is not too bold in xxx. 13, 24, Lev. v. 15, etc., to restore the phrase intON hpXO. This is confirmed by Lev. v. 15, where, besides 'pT! hpw, we find the phrase D"'7pa? ?1d3, which is not ' money amounting to two or more shekels,' but a corruption of D'lS'atON ^d3, i.e. 'money in full weight, such as the merchants of Ashkal (see on Gen. xiv. 1 3) recognise ' ; and still more by Neh. v. 15, where the difficulties of MT. still puzzle the critics. Let me quote the words, -;idD nnw D"'snM D"'f?ptO. ' Forty shekels ' is improbable, and nriN cannot mean either 'beside ' (R.V.) or 'at the rate of (R.V. mg.). As often (see on Gen. xxii. 13) "nriM has come from "intDM, and QiriiN (see on xxiv. 18, Gen. xxiii. 2) from D"'ms ; both words are glosses on □"'fjplS = D"'f?3tDN (Ashkalites). Cp. on xxxi. 10. WHO WERE THE ARTIFICERS? (Ex. xxxi. 2, 6) ' What's in a name,' we often say. But names lik( Besalel and Oholiab are of much import. For the former ' in the shadow of El ' seems so edifying a sense, that few besides Haldvy, probably have doubted it. The merit o this keen scholar lies in his having seen ^ that a number o names beginning with 3 are really mutilated forms o: compounds with in ; his error, in interpreting In or ■'nt' as ' father (of),' whereas it is really a shortened form o: llM or liN = IT.?. I append a list of the chief names (not from Hal^vy) : i. ^N^ai ; 2. nmol ; 3. D-hs3.; 4. NtOJ;! 5. i©l; 6. nomi; 7. i^si; 8. amii; 9. niojn; 10. nri-il II. ~ni; 12. ]whl; 13. hrjol; 14. n^mn. Returning now to f?Mf?S3, I would remark that fpsbs is to be grouped with h^h}L (Judg. vii. 13), "hh^ (Jer. vi. 4), fjs'js (Isa. xviii. i) and 0^2 (Num. xiv. 9, Ezek. xxiii. 14, Am. v. 26). A\. these forms are corruptions of ^Ni^otO"'. To these we maj perhaps add Sil in Sil-Bil, the name of a king of Gaza tributary to Esar-haddon ^ (KB ii. 1 49). That both the family of Besalel, according to tradition, and that o1 Oholiab, were considered to be of N. Arabian affinities maj be inferred from the names which follow in their genealogies and the Chronicler confirms it by the statement ( i Chr ii. 19/.) that Hur, the grandfather of Besalel, was the sor of Caleb and Ephrath. Note that Besalel works in silvei and gold, and that silver and perhaps also (see i K. x. 22] gold came from Asshur or Ashhur (Tarshish). As for the name Oholiab, its setting (as regards names" 1 See REJ a. pp. \ ff. ; Gray's criticism (HPN, p. 23, note 4] hardly goes to the root of the matter. 2 Dillm. and Halevy have already compared hvth'ii and Sil-Bil. S7I 572 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL we have seen to be distinctly N. Arabian. Its meaning is, not ' Father's tent ' (so BDE), but Yerahme'el-'Arab. Thus the supposed artificer of the so-called 'tabernacle' (A.V., after Vg.) bears a name nearly equivalent to that of the artificer of Solomon's temple in 2 Chr. ii. 12, iv. 16, ■inM DTTT, i.e. "yys DiTr." The Chronicler too informs us ' T-: that Hiram-abi's tribal connexion on his mother's side was Danite ; the Priestly Writer similarly states that Oholiab was a Danite. The latter is called son of Ahisamak (so MT.), where Ahi = Ashhur, and samak is to be grouped with Semakyahu (i Chr. xxvi. 7) and Sibbekai (2 S. xxi. 18). Plausible reasons can be given for regarding both these names as N. Arabian. CLOTHING OF PRIESTS (Ex. xxxi. 10) The priestly robes of Aaron and his sons are called TVSn -nxi (®, ' garments of service ' ; BDB, ' perhaps garments of plaited work '), and also tOlpn 'l (so too XXXV. 19, xxxix. 41). Lagarde {JJebersicht, pp. 175 /) would delete the "1 in riNl, and regard t0^p^r as an ex- planatory gloss on the loan-word TitO. The objection is that in xxxix. i TitD '1 stands alone. The truth may be that nntrrr is a corruption of "nQ> = ^^a>N, just as tonpn probably is of nntOM. The robes used by the priests in the cultus were possibly, like their knowledge of Yahweh, of N. Arabian origin, and were therefore originally called ' garments of Shur,' or ' of Ashhur. 1 DTn seems more correct than mm. dth (or dthn), probably = DIN -wm^. '3K in compound names (elsewhere prefixed) represents 3i^ (see on Gen. xvii. 5). THE FACE OF YAHWEH (Ex. xxxiii. 14) ' My Face (J>dmm) shall go, and I will give you rest' Cp xxiii. 20 f., and see p. 279. Penuel or Peniel (xxxii. 31 /i^ cannot safely be brought into connexion. The Phoeniciar goddess Tanith, the ' face of Baal,' may, however, justly be referred to, Yerahme'el being most probably a transformatior of a goddess (see pp. 45 /). Here unwillingly a pause in these researches must be made. It seems unwise to attempt the history of Israelitish religion till a much keener criticism has been applied to the text. Should some advanced students have been led tc question the soundness of many of the prevalent critical views, and to combine new critical methods with old, it wil' be a result not wholly inadequate to the long-continued labour represented by the present work. S73 INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES Aaron (Aharon), explained, 521 not always Moses' brother, 532 j4i, AH, in names, 51, 286, 308, 370 Abdalonymus, legend of, 72 (n. *) Abd-hiba, 224 Abel, significance of, 102/. Abi in connexion with clan-name or place-name, 408/. Abib, month, 564 Abijam, explained, 29 Abimael, explained, 27, 199 (with n. ') Abimelech, explained, 51, 55, 313 in connexion with Sarah, 313^, 321 Abishag, explained, 120, 471 («. ') Abi-ummi, explained, 309 Abomination of desolation, 18 Abraham, significance of, 285/. name of hero of flood ? 300 name of first man ? 307 his hospitality, 291 not a missionary, xi. , 225, 468 his intercession, 295 his faith tested, 323 as a warrior, 230 his mental reservation, 314 his purchase of a family grave, 334# his death, 350 Abrek, meaning of gloss, 462, 466/. Achbor, Achshaph, Achzib, Akrabbim, 432, cp. 447 Adam, proper name? 95/., ii5 his creation, 70 and Eve, created mortal ? 76 Adapa, 13 (n.% 49 /, 72 (n^,^). 73 (''■^)' 76 (parallel to Adam), 96 (Adamu ?) Adonai, divine name? 54-56, 314 Adoni-sedek, 194 Adonijah, explained, 55 Adonis, myth of, 30 / , 54, 56 / See Isaac, Joseph, Tamfiz Adullam, origin of, 446 Ages of the world, 126, 2&\ff. Ah and Aki, in names, 29 («. '), 46, 51, 286, 308 Ahab, explained, 63 (n.*), 286 (with n.\ 308 his title in Assyrian, 404 Ahura Mazda. See Zoroastrianism Ahuzzath, explained, 363 Allegory, Gen. iii. 21/, not an, 74 Allon-bakuth, explained, 417 Almodad, 198 Amaiek, explained, 39, 96 [n. '), 424 Amarna tablets. See Inscriptions American myths, creation, 8, 9 (bird- creator) 12 deluge, 5, 127/ gods of the four world-quarters, 13 American peoples or countries, Algonkins, 5, 7, 8, 124/ Caingang, 126 (with n. *) Guatemala, 127 Hare Indians, 128 LenS.pe, 126 Quiches, 127 Sioux, loi Skidi Pawnees, 12, 72, 118, 124/. Tamanaks, 128 Tlatlasiks, 141 Tlinkits, 127/ Am or 'Am, divine name 308 y^ 'Amm, divine name, 310 Amon, explained, 34, 55 («. ^) Amorite, and (Ass. ) Amurri, 195 Amram, 539 Anak, explained, 121 Angel of Yahwe. See Mal'ak Yahweh Angels, 12 (».'), 368 Angels, fall of the rebel, 117 why called Watchers, 117 Animal-gods. See Gods (animal) Animal-men, 15, 117 Animal-names, ^ee Totemism 575 576 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Animals, formation oi j2f. Apepi, mythic Egyptian serpent, 3, 128 Arabia, home of magic, divination, and prophecy, 6, 41 cp. 459-461 Arabia, South, 25 {«. ^) . Arabian beliefs, 2, 9, 33, 47, 79 gods, Hobal 103 (n. ') ; Kuzah, 138 ; Nergal, 53 ; Resheph, 23, 57/., see also Yerahme'el Arabian neighbours of Israel, their language, 459 Aram, the southern, 17, 62 {n.^) Aram-naharaim (?), 263, 342 f., 357, 430 its fine linen, 469 kings of, 428^ Aramaean deities, Hadad, 33, 50, 56 ; Rimmon (Ramman), 25, 27, 55, 66 ; Rekubel, loi ; Resheph, 57 Ararat, geographical meaning, 135, 146 is it correctly read? 135, 141, 144 (with nn. ^, 2, ^), cp. 513 Arbela (Arba'-ilu), 335 Ark, Noah's, 132, 137 ; where it grounded, 131, 135, 144 ; 'gopher'- wood, 148 of Moses, 520 sacred, 27, 31, 33, 35, 55, 63 ; Dibelius' theory on, 34 /. ; artificers of, 571/ Armon (Arman), divine name, 55, 250 Armon-Yahweh, 33-35 Arnold, W. R. 531 (».'), on Ex. iii. 14 Arnon, origin of 33 [n. ^) Arpakshad, 178 Asenath, explained, 471 Ashdod, explained, 23, 47, 177 (h. ') Asher, divine name? 23/1 tribal name, 378 Asherah (Ashratu) a divinity, 24/, 378 Asherim, symbols of Asher, 24 /. As-hor, Egyptian name 23 («. ^) Ashhoreth, regional name, 23, 46, 213, 319. 337. 3S2. 485. and 491 (Joseph- story), etc. Cp. Ashtart. Ashhur, explained, 23, 177 (n. ^) Ashkal (Eshcol), explained, 18 («.''), 23, 40 («.«), 247, 315 Ashkar, explained, 381 Ashkelon, explained, 23 Ashkenaz, 23, 144, 163 Ashtar, a god, overshadowed by Yerah- me'el, 27 the same as Ashhur, 16, 23, 25, 70/ , 362 («.») combined with Yerahme'el, 70 Kemosh, 277 worshipped in Arabia, 454 mountain of, 146 Ashtart, primitive goddess, 16/, 21, 23 goddess of wisdom, 27 feast of, 69 Ashtart — continued royal priestess of, 44 titles of, in true Hebrew text, 18-22, 61 («.'), 448 her sacred animals, 21 development of, 21 a regional name, St Ashtarts, the local, 17 Ashteroth Karnaim, 240/. Asmodeus, 300 (». ') Asshur-Aram, 414/". Asshur or Ashhur, a. regional and a divine name, 23, 355, 357, 530/. (on Ex. iii. 14) Asshur-passages, 177, cp. 360 Asshur tree, 24, 457 Asshur- Yerahme'el, a regional and a divine name, 23, 199, 276, 305, 405, 446 (situation), etc., cp. Baal name of a mountain and a city, 328 Asshurim, 352 Asshurites (Ashhurites) in Arabia, 90 ; in IVIisrim, 517 Ataroth, explained, 46 Atra-hasis, 128 Australia. Deluge-myth, 123 ; circumci- sion, 534/ Azazel, explained, 30, 119 Aztec myth, divine serpent, 84 BDB, recorded or questioned, 120 (thrice), 142 («. ^), 143, 145, 229 [n. '), 286 («. "), 302 (twice), 314, 406 (k.^), 419, 422, 436, 460, 489, 501, 503, 508, 544, 551/, 565, 572 Baal, origin of divine name, 24, 50 Baal-HammSn, 21, 25 («.'), 50 (with Baal-Hazor, 57 Baal-sephon, 554 Baal-shamem, 21, 50 (cp. 45) Baals, the, 17, 50, 62 Babel, does it always mean ' Babylon ' ? 187/ tower of, 201 ff. Babylon, ten antediluvian kings, iii the ' centre ' of the world, 86 step-towers of, 202 Babylonian geography, primitive, 86 gods, myths, and legends, Addu= Hadad, 50 ; Anu, heaven of, 132, 140 ; Arallu, 54 (origin) ; Ba'u = Ishtar, 21/: ; Belili, goddess, 53 ; Belit, 22 ; creation-story, its slow growth, 2 ; chief Babylonian creation-story, two local traditions of, 130 ; creation-story, second Babylonian, 86 ; two other creation texts, 137 ; creation of men and animals (Berossus), 12 ; creation of Adam, 71 ; of heaven, 11 ; Ea, god, 13 (k.8), 40, 49, 132, and 295 INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES 577 (patron of humanity) ; Eabani, 13 («. '), 72 ; Etana, myth of, 33 ; Gilgamesh, 14, 78, 135. 181 ; Ishtar («« Ishtar), 7, 21, 38 (». ^), S9, 77, 136 (bow-star) ; Ishhara = Ishtar, 23 {». ^) ; Kutha, legend of, 118; Marduk, 10 (».'), 13, 36, 4o_/!, 76, 278 ; his weapon, loi ; mountain of the lands,' (83 n. '), Nergal, S3 (origin), 54, 68 ; Oannes, 79 ; Ramm&n, 27, 33 (with n. "), 66 ; Tamflz, a god, 47 ; explained, 19 (».'); Yam, a god, 28/., 50 («. ^). *S^ff Sargina Bacon, B. W., 258/, 559 (».^) Baentsch, B. , 517, etc. Baethgen, 24 Balaam, 40 (n. ^), 41, 179, 190, 314, 430 Ball, C. J., 467 (a.'), 497, SOI, etc. Bar-kos, Bar-nebo, explained, 108 [n. ') Barton, G. A., x, 17, 23, 24 («.'), 2S, 75. 99. "4 Bashan, explained, 340 (n. ^) Baudissin, Graf von, 51, S4 (»■'). 56, 324 («. >) Bdellium (?), 92/ Beel-zebub, Beel-zebul, S4. 144 ("• ") Beer-lahai-roi, 270 Beer-sheba, 311/"., 321 Beke, C. T., xii, 30 [n.% 528 Belial, origin of, 53 / Belitan, explained, 44 Berossus, in (ten kings), 130/ Bertholet, Alf., 136 (n.\ 260 Beth-aven explained, 516 (n. °) Bethel, explained, 371 story of, 367 _^ Bethlejiem, explained, si, 419/ Bethshemesh, explained, 273 Bethuel, explained, 179 Bilhah, 373 Birdad, H. Arabian name, 182 Bod-Ashtart, Phoenician name, 43 ff. Bohu. 5« Babylonian, 'Ba'u.' Booths, feast of, an altered name? — 18 («■*). 397 Bosheth, not a substitute for ' Baal,' 18 Bousset, W., S4 («•')• 75 (»•")• '"^ («.'); 'Addenda.' Bows of war-gods, 138 Bowstar, i.e. Sirius, 138 = Ishtar, 138 («. ^) Briggs, C. A., 2S4 («■'). S08 (a.i) Brinton, D. G., 8. 9, («.«) 84 {n.\ \i25 («».=■,') BrotMers, hostile, 336 Burki^t, F. C, 132 (a.i). Bush, burning, S'^Sff- Camels in Egypt, 22s Canaan, original meaning of, 174/. Canaan — contin ued original situation of land called, 8s, 550 Nergal and Rammin worshipped in, S3. 55 no images of Baal found in, so Canaanitish culture, effect of, 62 Canticles, references in, to Adonis-myth, 19 (h. "), 47, s6 Charles, R. H. , 119 Chemosh. See Kemosh Cherub, cherubim, 8, 31, 35, 100/ Circumcision, 283, 290, 411/., 533.^ Clement of Alexandria, quoted, 80, 97. Cook, S. A., 23 (n.^). 318, 334 («.'), S6i Cooke, G. A., 23, 43^. 59, 6s, 67, 98 («.»), 424. 488 («. 2) Comill, C. H., 99 (b.*), 177 («.'), 412, 416, 418 («.*), 554 («■') Cosmogony, in Gen. i. , earlier phases of, 2 in Gen. i., whence derived, 2 order of created works in, 12 Egyptian illustrations, 3 world-egg, 4, 9/ creative spirit, 3 affinity of, to Deluge-story, 125, 128 Cowley, A. , 65 («. i), 409 (h. =) Cowper, H. S., S9 (»■ ') Craft, quality of ancient heroes, 36s Crawley, E., 79 («.'), 80/., 81 (n. i) Creation, belief in renewal of, 36 in early Canaanitish story, 7, 8 Creation-myth, recast of, 65 Creator, theriomorphic, 7, 9, 124 half-developed, 12s human personality of, 7, 81/. name of, in Gen, ii.-iv. , 98-100 Yerahme'el as, 37/". , 234 Yahweh as, 65, 254 Cults and myths, migration of, a. 32 ("■% 43 Cuneiform writing, is it referred to in Ex., 568 Cush. See Kush Cushan-rishathaim, 431 Dan, 376 Daniel, origin of name, 96 the four beasts in, 282 David, name, connected with Ddd, 48 his Arabian origin, 432 (». ^) his Ishmaelite scribe, 288 wars of, 507 (». ') Deborah, 4i6_^ Decalogue, 363/ Dedan, 176, 332 Delitzsch, Friedr., 86-88, in (a..«), 154 (a- '), 352 Deluge, called abubu, i.e. storm-flood, 134, and light-flood, 142 (n. ^) a Hebrew legend without, 115 37 578 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Deluge — continued duration of, 136/". hero of, 114, 14a of fire or of water, 297 See also Egyptian, Indian, Lithu- anian, Peruvian, Phrygian, Poly- nesian. Deluge-story, an ether-myth, 140 primitive, shorter and simpler, 137- 139 friendly animal in primitive, 126, 138/ Babylonian (in epic), 132-135 ; (in Berossus), I30_^ Babylonian epic, meaning of 'ship' in, 134 development of Babylonian, 137-140 Canaanite or N. Arabian, its develop- ment, 141 differences between Genesis and the epic, 13s, 137 differences between J and P, 135-137 its relation to Sodom-story, 137 references to N. Arabia, 141.^ Dillmann, Aug., 121, 319, 501, 504, 509, etc. Dinah, 381, 410^ Diod. Siculus, quoted, 450 («. ^), 460, 489 Dioscuri, 107 (k. •'), 293 D6d, a god worshipped at Beer-sheba, 37. 46-49. 57. 379 possibly a name of the Messiah, 47 '. a geographical name, 47, 198 meaning of name, 48 D6dah = Ashtart, 46, 379 Dodanim, 167 Dothan, in the south, 440 Dragon-myth, Babylonian, 3, 6, 123 Egyptian, 3, 130 (Apepi) omission of, in Gen. i. , 3 fate of the monster, 5 in Revelation, 4, 37 elsewhere in O. T. , 6 typical interpretation of, 4 Dragon-myths, 6 (in Syria), 41/ Dragon-slayers, also healers, 41 Driver, S. R. , xii, 9, 21 («. ^), 74, 89, 98 104, 144, 258 {nn.^,\ 263, 315, 332, 342, 358 (».'), 377 (».i), 390, 404, 426, 481, 486, 492, 502, 510 Dualism, in creation- and deluge-stories, 125/ of Revelation, i Dfldu, Egyptian official, 48 [n. ') Duhm, B. , 52 [n. ^) Dusares, 325 ' Dust,' the phrase ' eating,' 82 Eagle, divine, 9, 21, 33, 35, 78 ; cp. lOI Earth, limited conception of, 124 Ecclesiastes, supposed Arabian origin of, 40 («.") Edda, divine triad in, 292 Eden, origin of, 86-88 Edom, 358 kings of. See Aram often miswritten for Aram, 429 Eerdmans, B. D. , 75, 79 («.*), 103 ("■"). 325 Egypt, tombs of Beni Hasan, 474 supposed Semitic temple in, 16 horses in, 462 embalming in, 512 brick-making in, 516 the Merneptah-stele (Israel) in, 405 Thotmes III. , place-list of, 273, 380, 403 Shoshenk, place-list of, 221, 397 Rameses II., 487 Rameses III. (Harris papyrus), 358 («.»), 42s (»-M Egyptian beliefs — cosmogony, 3, 454 («. ^) ; creation of man, 70 ; Khnumu, the divine modeller, 74 ; humanity of gods, 15 ; Deluge- story, 128 ; destruction of mankind, 128; Isis, 67, 454 (cow); Resheph, deity, 57 ; birth of divine brothers, 356 ; Tale of Two Brothers, 74, 292 ; incarnate Horus, 520. See Apepi Ekron, explained, 109 El, origin of, 68 El-Elyon, origin of, 37/! Elam, in Gen. x. etc. , 177 Eli and his sons, 63 Eliezer-Damascus (?), 258, 260/ Elijah and Ahab, story of, 41 Elijah and EHsha, N. Arabian origin, 62 : cp. 440 Elishah, where situated, 134, 164 Elohim, origin of, 66-69, 99. 40° constructed with plural verb, 314, 390 El-roi, origin of, 276 Enoch, a 'first man,' 14, 49; solar hero, 115. See Hanok supposed Babylonian parallel to, ii2_/". Enosh, explained, iii Ephraim, explained, 472/ the original mount, 470 Ephrath, 262, 419, 507. See also Perath. Epiphanius, quoted, 325 («■*) E;rbt, W., 19 («.'), 46, 47 («.i), 56, 104, 233, 404 {n. *), 445, 505 Eridu, city of the god Ea, 79, 136 Esau, explained, 358 _^, 405 J's explanation of, ^$9/- his wives, 364, 367 his genealogy, 422^ Esau and Jacob, story of, 356^., %')zff- Eshbaal and Eshban, 23 INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES 579 Esbmun, See Phoenician Eshmunazar, 43^, 68 Eshtaol, 70 {«.'), no Esther, explained, 166 (». ^) Etham, 516, 553/ (explained) Ethan, explained, 58, 64 (k. ^) Ethbaal, explained, 39 (with n. ''') Euphrates, 91, 263 Eve, meaning of (Hawwah), 97/". and the apple, 81 formation of, 73/ ; parallels to story, 74 Ewald, H. , 316, 367 Exodus, the, S45-S47 Face of Yahweh, 279, 573 Finnish mythology. See Kalevala. Firstlings, law of the, 550 Four, sacredness of number, 28 _^ Frazer, J, G. , 429 Gabriel, 102 (». i), 293 Gad, tribal name, 378 Gautier, Luc, 297 Geiger, Abr. , 119, 414 (««. ^, 2), 492 Gemini, the, 273, 356, 501 Gerar, situation of, 311 ; cp. 363 Gershom, explained, 524 Giesebrecht, Fr. , xi, 496 Gihon, river of Paradise, 92 Gilead, 179, 385^ Gilgamesh, hunter-king of Uruk, 181 deputy of sun-god, 135 epic, Elysium or Olympus ? 134 ; magic plant, 78 ; scant respect for minor gods, 133 Girgashites, 195 Glaser, Ed., 156, 176/, 198, 351 Gnostics, on creation, 16 («. ') God— divine duad, 16, 33, 35, 52, 59, 279 ; divine triad, 15/., 279, 292 ; Phoenician triad of deities, 53 ; displacement of early duad or triad, 65; divine jealousy. Si, 118, 125; primitive god, 31; humanity of God, 15, 17 ; the nomadic and the agri- cultural stage, 30 ; Father God, 23 ; Mother-goddess, 16/., 22; 'God- man,' 49 (with ». ') God, in G&thic hymns and in Israel's higher religion, compared, i Gods, animal, 31, 79, 117, See also Eagle, Lion, Sun-god, Tree-god, Moon-god, Animal-men Gog and Magog, 157/ Goldziher, Ign. , 69 (». *) Gomer, 157^ Goshen, land of, 478-480, 485 Gray, G. B., ix, 93 («.'), 277, 313, 423 (re. 2), 425 (b.S), 427, 571 («.i) Greek Deluge - story, Deucalion, 129 (Pindar), 138 (Iris) Grenfell, A. , 5 («. =) Gressmann, Hugo, 15 («.'). 19. 3° (n.% 48 («.»), 57 («■'*). S8(«.^), 72 (k. 3), 94(re.S), j2^ („ S) Griineisen, 372 (on Rachel) Gunkel, H., 8 (re. \ 3o(re.<), 60, 71,99/, 104, 137 («.'), 178 (re. =), 183, 271/, 294, 314, 318/:, 327^, 332, 361, 364/, 367, 377, 379, 391. 39S. 401 («■'). 406, 415, 420, 425, 435, 464, 495, 500, 502, etc. Hadad (II.), 432 Hadrach, explained, 92, 467 Hagar, name, 268/. overlooked mentions of name, 266, 268 fortunes of, 23, 266 ff. Ham, 32 («.'), 150, 152. See Shem, Ham, Yepheth Hammanim, symbols of god Rahman, 25 ; cp. Baal-hamm^n I^ammurabi, 6, 65, 197, 267, 274 (re. ^), 314 (Sarah), 318 (Hagar), 352, 403 Hamor, 408 Handk, Reubenite, Midianite, and S. Arabian name, 105. See Enoch altered into Noah or Naham, 114 explained, 105, 113 parallel Phrygian name, 128 Haoma-plant, juice of, 78, 80 Haran, 210-213 Haran, 210-213, 343 Harper, W. R., 33 (a.'), 38, 402, 430 (re. 2) Harris, J. Rendel, 293 Harrison, Jane, 53 (re. ^) Hashmannim (Ps. Ixviii. ), explained, 490 Haupt, Paul, 51, 77, 87, 166, 556 Havilah, 92/., 175, 198, 271 Hazar-maveth, 198/. Hebrew children, persecution of, 518 Hebron, origin of name, 335 Hermon, Moimt, 119 Herodotus (ii. 109), 489 Hesperides, garden of, 80 Heth. See Hittites Hiddekel, river, 87, 88/., 91, 263 Hinnom, valley of, 51 Hiram, Arabian origin of, 46 Hittites (Hethites), 194, 336 Hoffmann, G., 25, 42 (re. 2), 46 (re. »), 67, 130 (re. 1) Hogg, H. W., 377, 380 (re. 1), 420, 434 ("• ^). 472/ . 5°° ("■ ^) Holzinger, H., 28/, 87 (».'), 333, S02, 521 (re. 1), 565 S8o TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Hommel, Fritz, 21, 22 («. ^), 23 (n.^), 24, 25 (n». ''.''). 27. 28 (».»), so («.»), S3 {«.!), 56, 64, 86, 89 («.'). 91/. i°3. 106. III/-. IIS. 119, 134, 171 (k.I), 177 (k.i), 376, 247. 304. 310. 3SS. 358/-. 178. 403, 461 («. 1), 473 (k.I), 521 («.i) Honey of Paradise, 41 ; cp. 77 of Canaan, 47s Hophra, 224 (with n. ') Horeb, Mount, 31, S27, S37 («•')■ ■S'«« Sinai Horite, explained, 241, 424 (with n.^) Horses in Arabia ? 462 Hut. as a proper name, 23 Hyrieus. myth of. 292 Indian mythology — first woman, 7s; Indra, soma- juice, 78 ; Deluge, 131/.; development of story, 142/I ; exposure of young solar hero, 519/! Inscriptions — Egyptian, 273, 287, 404 ; Assyrian, 404, etc. ; Amarna Tablets, I3(«.3), 28 (k. 3), 46, 48, 5° («•'). 66, IIS (».*). 122. 124 («.'), 249, 313 («■'). 335 (»■'). 345. 355. 392. 405, 426, 480, 483 (iis); Gezer tablet (II.), 431 (».*); Tell Ta'annek tablet, 29 («. '), S4 («■ ') \ Aramaic, 51 ; Aramaic papyri (Assuan), 23 (n.% 26, 28, 65, 109, 146 (n.% 162, 333, 409 (n. ^) ; Moabite stone, 25, 46, so, 423 ; Phoenician, 18 («.^), 21, 23, 26, 27, 30, 42 (ra. ^), 43 ^. (names of Arabian origin), S7. 65, 199, 309, 488 («. 2), etc. ; Palmyrene, 28, 59 109 (m.2), 141/., 273/, 277, 278 («.'), 313 (».2), 322 {nJ) 381 (». ') ; Zenjirli, 16, 23, 28, S7 68, 102 («. ^) ; Minsean, 380 (n. i) Syro-Greek, 409 lolaus, Punic god. See Eshmun, Phoenician Isaac, meaning of name, 289 (cp. 344) birth of, 317 earlier forms of story of, 324 why no change of name, 289 at Gerar and Beer-sheba, 363 connected with Tamflz or Adonis, 32s Isaac of Antioch, quoted, 325 («. ^) Ishmael, theories of the name, 29 / , 272/ sent into the wilderness, 317.^. his Misrite wife, 320 in later legend, 268 («. ^) tribes of, 3S3 pillars devoted to the god, 369 tree of, 322, 383 synonymous with Yerahme'el, 272 often mentioned in the original texts, 272 Ishtar, underlying story of midwives, 517 'Ishtar, descent of,' S3 (»•'). 82 («.'). Ishtaru, ishtaritu, 'goddess,' 68 Israel, explained, 403/. Issachar, tribal name, 379/. Ithamar, explained, 448 {n. ^) Ithobalos, explained, 46 Jachin. See Yakin Jacob, explained, 359, 403 ; cp. 399 his name changed, ^o^f. the Hebrew Odysseus, 364, 399 his journey to Laban's home, 367 his stone not a taiiyl, 370 his compacts with Laban, 383^, 38s. 388 his wrestling match — with whom ? 399/; his nieeting with Esau, 405^ his purchase of land, 407^ his residence near Shechem, 440 his residence at Hebron, 440 sacrifices at Beer-sheba, 4S0 his blessings (chap. xlix. ), 495^. his funeral, 512 # his religion the same as Laban's, 387, 390 his enormous strength, 398 Japanese parallel to Moses-myth, 518/. Jasher. See Yashar. Jastrow, M., 4 (».'), 11, 18, (».'), 22 (».i), 73 (».S), 76, 83 («.■*), 94 (k.*), 131, iss, 170. 173. 279 («• '). 299, 309, 564 Jebusite. See Yebusite. Jensen, Paul, 25 («. '), 66, 78 [nn. *, '), 133 (KB. i,!"), 134 («.i), 140 (n. 2), 182 («.'), 186, 210, 29s Jeremias, A., ii, 78 («.*), 140 («.'). 166, 182 («.i), 248 («.i), 3S9(«-'). 368 (k.I), 453, 479, 497 Jerusalem, the new, 83 Jeshurun. See Yeshurun Jethro. See Yithro Jezebel, explained, 46 Job, myth of, 13 {n. ^) name explained, 13 {n.'?), 116 book of, Arabian afhnities, 40 stone of, religious significance, 20 («.') a first man, 13 (». ') Johns, C. H. W., 23 (b.2), 48, 66, 173, 261 (m.»), 31S, 3S7 (»•'). 403. '432 («. 2), etc. Jordan, 228, 456 Joseph, name explained, 381/. blessing of, 506^ theories of, 434 ; Adonis elements, 56, 439 his ' coat of many colours (?), 436 his second dream, 437 INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES S8i Joseph — continued bought by a Misrite, 440 bought by Potiphar, 440 ; cp. Poti- phar, Potiphera interprets dreams, 453, 454^ fulfilment of his early dreams, 474 grand-vizier, 461 _^ his Misrite name, 468-470 his relation to king, 459 Joseph-tribe, origin of, 470 Josiphiah, 381 Judah, name explained, 376 ; blessing of, 502^ experiences with Tamar, 445 ff. and Tamar, mythic elements in, 445 Kadesh, a district name, 45 (». ^), 561 Israelite centre, 561 name carried to Phoenicia, 45 southern, its situation, 312/. Kain and Kenan, origin of, io2_/. , 113 Bab. parallel to name, 113 sign, 104/ tribe, seat of the, 105 Kalevala (Finnish epic), 9, 14, 22, 41 (n.\ 70, 420 Kaphtorim, 191/. Kasdim, a supposed Bedouin tribe of, 332 Kasluhim, 191 Kemosh (Moabite god), 423 ; cp. 277 Kenites, their influence on Israel, 17 Kesitah, explained, 409 Keturah, 351/ Kids, law as to seething, 565 / Kinship, primitive, 31, 98 Kiryath-arba, 42 ( ' city of four ' !), 334/. Kiryath-yearim, 503 Kittel, R. , 29, 213 (n. ') Kittim, 166/. Konig, Ed., 15 («."), 177, 310, 329 Koran. Angelic keeper of hell, 53 Kraetschmar, 246 («. ') Kuenen, Abr. , 412^; Kush, 90, 170/., 181 Laban, 123, 345 Labanites, 32, 123, 184 Lagarde, Paul de, 2, 42, 106 («.'), 406 {«.^). Lagrange, P6re, 12/, 25, 43, 51, 370/ Lambert, M. , 70 Lamech, explained, 106/. his song, 109 Languages, myth on variety of, 203 Lapana, Lapin, 123, 345, 355, 406 Leah, explained, 373 a serpent demon? 97 («.*), 373 Lebanon, the Punic, 31 («. ') the Arabian, 123, 457 Lenormant, Fr. , 106 Levi, tribal name, 375 ; cp. 523 («■') Life, synonymous with knowledge, 75 Lion, divine, 35, 54^ Lithuanian deluge-story, 127, 138 Logos, the, 50 (with n. ^), 60 (with «. *) Lot, 211, 301, 425 the primary, 308 his wife, 303, 305/ his drunkenness, 306 Lot-story, development of, 300 _^ Lotan, 211 Love-apples, 379 Love-charm, food shared as a, 80 Luther, B., 98 [n.\ 390 (n.»), 405, 409, 44S («. % 506 Maakath, 167, 319, 333 Matbul, origin of, 144/'. Macalister, 424 («. ^) Madai, IS9J^ Mahabh&rata, Indian epic, 129/., 5*0 Mahanaim, legend of, 391/. Makir, 514 Malak the Guardian, 567 Mal'ak Yahweh, 40, 58-60, loi, 277- 280, 291-294, 318, 329, 525, 528 Malkah, divine name, 18, 51 Man, in Jewish eschatology, 102 («.'). See Son of Man life of, how and why shortened, 118 Man, the first, ), 42 (».2), 65 (».S), 67, 97 (».^), IS4. 172. 179 (»-^). 183 (m.I), 269, 285 (».'), 288, 289 («. 3), 313, 352, 373, 382, 391 [ti. 1), 408, 414, (re.i), 415/, 422. 488 {n.\ 509, 513, 521 («.3), 525, 542, 546 (». 1), 563 Michabazo in N. Amer. myth, 125 Michael (Mikael), a heavenly Being, 4, II. 37. 38 (»-'). 48. 59. 60 (with notes), 119, 279, 293 (with?z. ^), 346 compared with Marduk and Mithra, 60, 102 (with n. ^) Midian, 353, 441 (Winckler), 522 Milk and honey of Paradise, 41, 84, 4S5 ; of Canaan, 455, 529, 530 [n. ') Milkah, 215 Milkom (Malkam), 51 Miriam, explained, 558 Misraim (Egypt), extension of meaning ? xi. Misrim (in N. Arabia), xi.-xiii. 6 (».*), 32 («.''), 171-173, 224, 262, 320, 354 («.M in the Joseph-story, 441, 443, 453/. in the Exodus-story, 517, 543^ god of, 32 its fine linen, 436 ; cp. 464 its divining bowls, 476_/". Missor, regional and place-name, 172, 305. See Misrim. Mithraism, 368 (». ^) Moab and Ammon, 306-310 Moon-god, 25 («. 2), 27 Moore, G. F. , 24 Moriah, 327 Moses (Mflsheh) explained, iii. 521 originally a Levite ? 524 hidden among the rushes, 518 parallels to story of child, 518-521 his wife, 171, 523, 533 early legends of, 522 j^ his staff, 532 his song, 557/ how he received the laws, 567/! Enoch (Han6k) compared, 520 clan of, xi. , 65 Mountain of God, 71, 527, 569 Mountains, sanctity of, 30/*. seven supernatural, 83 MUller, D. H., 106, 380 (?j. ») F. Max, 10 («. ^), 75 W. Max, ix. (k. ^), 58, 164, 190, 225, 399 («•'). 425 (»•'). 516 Musri, 262. See Misrim. Naaman, divine name, 36, 56 (with n. 2), 483 Naham ( = Noah), 114, 151 Nahor, 210, 331, 343/. 39° Nahorites, Gunkel's theory of, 332 Nahshon, explained, 540 ' Name,' meaning of, 21, 45 of a god, ineffable, 401 (». ') Naphtah, tribal name, yjdff. Naphtuhim, 190/. Natanu (= Nathan), origin of, 64 (n.^) ' Navel of the earth,' 94/ Naville, Ed., 516 Nebuchadrezzar, the name, 426 wisdom of, 40 a temple builder, 44, 81 Negeb, the, 453 Nehushtan, explained, 42 Nephilim (or Niphlites?), 121-123, 355 Nergalli, colossal lions, 102 Nestle, Eb., 336, 540/. Nethinim, explained, 431, 467 New Zealand myths. See Polynesian Nielsen, D. , 280, 523-525 Nile, the, 455/. Nimrod, problem of, 180-185 Nineveh in Gen. x. , 188 Niobe, myth of, 301 Noah, hero of, deluge - story, 113, etc. See Naham vine-dresser, 142 Noldeke, Theod., 24, 71 (».'), 98, 321, 381, 427, 540 Noordtzij, 173, 193, 312 (with «. ^), 355(«-') Numerals read in error, 264 Oholibamah, origin of, 423 Oil of the gods (or of Paradise), 41, 78, 84; cp. 371 in Christian ritual, 78 (n. ') On, Oni, Ono, 420, 471 Onyx-stone (?), 93 Orpheus and Eurydice, 276 Paddan-Aram, 357/. Palm-tree, 77 Palmer, Prof. E. H., 298, 453 Paradise, the Hebrew, originally in Arabia, 85 #, 90, 455 in the upper world, 84, 455 Mesopotamia ? 86 _^ its river, 78, 85, 455 streams, 41, Za^f. the mountain of, 83 ; crowned by a city, 131 Parnassus, Mount, 94 Par'osh (flea-clan?), viii. / ; 408, 432, 541 [n. ') Pashhur, origin of, ix. («. '), 541 Passover, 399 ; rules of, 548/. Pathros, Pathrusim, ISS/. IS9 l"-^). 189/., 436 Peiser, 86, 93 (k. ') Peleg, 197 INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES 583 Peleth, 312 [n. ') Pelew islanders, leaf-fibre loin-garment, 80 («. 1) Penuel, origin of, 122 Perath, river, giyi, 162/. Perez and Zerah, 357, 449 Persian Gulf, 86, go, 133/. Peruvian deluge-myth, 297 Peters, J. P., 113 (».i), 301 {». i), 345 («■ '). 360 Pethor. See Balaam Petrie, Flinders, 16, 367, 487, 531, 554 Pharaoh (?), 223, 458 Philemon and Baucis, 392 Philistines in O.T. , who are they? 192, 312 Phinehas, 173, 460/., 469/". Phoenician mythology. Cosmic egg, 4, 22 ; Baau^Bab. Ba'u, 22 ; Eshmun, 31 (».'), 42/., 45, 52. 54. 373; Melkarth, 30 (». ^), 46 (origin), 54; Resheph, 57 f. ; Samemrumos, 18 (»• '). 359 ; Tanith, 43, 45, 573 ; Kabiri, 42, 293 («. ') ; Kronos (El), 52, 68 («. 1). See Adonis Phoenicians, Arabian origin of, 43 fetishes of, 34 Phrygian deluge-myth, 128/: Pi-hahiroth, 554 Pikol, explained, 320, 363 Pillar of fire and cloud, 557 Pinches, Theoph., 77 Pishon, river, 92 Pithom, 516 Plagues, the, 542^ origin of story, 542 Plutarch, quoted, 357 Polybius, referred to, 34, 42 [n. ') Polynesian and New Zealand myths ; bird-creator, 9 ; cosmic egg, 9 ; New Zealand cosmogonies, 140 ; cosmo- gonic darkness, 10 ; deluge, 127 ; heaven and earth, separation of, 128 ; parallels to Eve-story, 74/ ; Mani, divine man, 71 (w. ^): Paradises, 84; rainbow, 'path of the gods,' 138 ; twins, rivalry of, 356, 449 Polyphemus, story of, 365 Potiphar. See Joseph his wife, 450/". his second name, 452 Potiphera, explained, 442 Priest-rulers, 523 Priests, Israelitish, 62/. Prophecy, origin of, 20 («.'), 61/. Proverbs, canonical, in Arabian style, 40 (with n. 8) Putiel, 461, 540/. Raamses, 487/. Rab-mag, explained, 159 Rachel, 372/., 418^ Radau, creation-story, 282 Rahab, explained, 6/. Rainbow, origin of, in P, 136 not in J nor in Babylonian epic, 136 parallel to Greek Iris, 136. See Bow, Lithuanian, Polynesian Ranke, H. , 30, 514 Raphael, 293 Ratzel (on N. American myth), 126 Rebecca (Ribkah), 333, 344/ Rehoboth, 186, 335, 431 Rekem, place-name, 179, 200, 312, etc. Renan, Ernest, 280 Rephidim, 561/ Resheph, place-name or clan-name, 58 ; cp. Arabian, Phoenician Reuben, 374/., 420/., 500 Rogers, B. W. , 213, 519 («■ ') Sabbath in the cosmogony, 6g Sabbath, Babylonian, 69 Sacrifices, few in early times, 31, 61 in later times, 36, 61, 63 human, 52, 324, 326 (children) of lambs in spring, 56 of stags, 324 Salekath, 315-3x7, 406/;, 409 Sammael, name of arch-demon, 54 Samsi, queen of Aribu, 488 («, 2) Samsi-iluna, imderlying form, 274 («. ^) Samson, birth announced, 291 Sanballat, explained, 213 (». ') Saphon, origin and use of, 30, 32, 50 («.»), 80 («.^), 8s, 158 Sarah's death, 334 Sarai and Sarah, 215, 288, 307, %^off. Sarephath, the southern, 62 (n. ^),' 312 ; cp. 200 (more than one) Sarephathites, 192 Sargina, story of child, 519 ; cp. Moses Sayce, A. H., 28, 59 [n.% 64, 85 («.i), 86, 96, 133 (».i), 158, 165 (».•), 334 («-M. 361 («-^). 521 (»■') Scandinavian myth. Rainbow, ' bridge of the gods,' 136 Schmidt, N., 38 (s.2), 57 («.•),'■ 60 («.S), IS8(;i.2), 412(».3) Schultens, 100 Schwally, Friedr. , 13, 70 («.^), 387 (».») Scythian invasion, 164 Seir, 211, 241, 358/, 405 Seraiah, 288, 404 Serpent, in Gen. iii., 78/., 80 (a demon- lover), 82. See Apepi, Aztec, Leah Shaatnez, 565 Shaddai, 24, 65, 282/., 475 Shalem, divine name, 46 ; place-name, 407 Shamgar, explained, 524 Sheba, 176 (with n.^), 198, 352 Shechem, 220, 407, 413, 494/. 584 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Shekel problem, 570 Shekels, standard, 311 Shem, Ham, and Yepheth, origin of, 117 ; cp. 150, 155, 164 Sheol, origin of, 54 Sheshak, explained, 187 Sheth, explained, 109 Shihor, explained, 121, 263 Shiloh, 502/ Shimeon, tribal name, 375 ; with Levi, SOI left in Misrim hound, 474 Shinar, explained, 185/, 360 Shishak, 47 Shittim wood, 147 Shur, from Asshur, 23, 121, 269, 559 Shurippak, on the Euphrates (Gilgamesh epic), 132 (with n. ^) Sibeon = Ishmael, 20 («.'), 85, 425 Sidon, origin of name, 193/. the southern, 17, 314, 504 Sievers, Ed., 99 (». 2), 121, 144, 147, 252, 294 {n. 1), 341 («. 1), 502 Sinai, 28, 32, 527/., 562 (volcano) Sippar (in deluge-story), 130 Sipporah. See Moses Smith, G. A., 396/. Smith, H. P., 534/ (on Ex. iv. 18-26) Smith, W. R., viii, 4 («.''), 9, 31 (k.I), 34 («.i). 42 {ri.% 79 (».i), 98, 118 («."), 289 (k.^), 301 (h.I), 324 (». 2), 361 («.2), 365, 421 (b.=), 423 ff., 425, 493 /, 500, Soan, origin of, xiii Soar, place-name, 296, 303, 307 Socotra, island, is it the home of Ut- napishtim? 136 Sodom and Gomorrah, 297/. Sodom-story and Deluge-story compared, 299/ scientific view of, 297 Sojourn, length of the Misrite, S47 Soma-plant, juice of, 77, 79 Son of God and Son of Man, 57 Son of Man parallel to Messiah and to Logos, 60 Sor. See Missor Spiegelberg, E., 320, 375, 516 Spirit, divine, as a cosmic power, 20 Mandasan view of the, 25 («. ') conceived of as an airlike substance, 118 Stade, B. , 71, 96 («.'), 102, 109, 118, 160, 204 («.'), 322 («.'), 402 (».'), 489 («•'). 565 («•*) Steer-god, 35, 509 Steuernagel, C., 218, 344 (k. ^), 394, 404/., 424, 445 (».'), 565 Stones, divine breath in, 128 ; cp. 509 Stucken, Ed., 125, 126 (».","), 128 (k.2), 129 [n.^), 139 (m.2), 276, 285 (n.\ 293, 301 (».'), 307, 366, 373 (»• '). 379. 415. 497 Succoth, 397, no6 jF., 516 (Naville's), 553/ Sumer (S. Babylonia), 185 Sun-disk, winged, 8 Suph, sea of, 551^ ; passage of, 555/ Sword, divine, 100/. Syrian deluge-story (Lucian), 127/. Table of nations, 154^ Budde's and Wellhausen's theory, 155 Taboos, 81, 139 Tahpanhes, 554 Talmai, 336 {n. ') Talmud, 11 Tamar, origin of, 77 («. ^), 307 («. '), 447/ Tamarisk, sacred tree in Egypt, 322 Tamftz, 19 (».»), 47, 434, 438, 453. See D6d, Joseph Tanith. See Phoenician Tarshish, where situated, 134 (Jensen), 165/ origin of name, 166, 571 Teman, origin of, 40 [n. ^), 424 Temples, primitive, 31 Temptation, the, 72 Tent of meeting ? 568/. Terah, 210 Thompson, R. C. , 79 («. ') Ti^mat, 4(withK.'), 11, 140, 511, 552 Tiele, C. P. , 146, 326 {n. ') Timnah, place-name, 448 Tola, 482 Torrey, C. R. , 45 («. ^) Totemism, viii-ix, 333, 375, 423 j^ Toy, C. H., 39 (».*), 95 (».»), 503 Tree-gods, 12, 24, 31 Tree-men, 75 Tree-spirits, 79 Tree of knowledge, 75 Tree of life, 75, 77, 94 (with n. ') Trees (or plants), magic, 41, 71, 78, 133 Triads, Egyptian and Babylonian, 16 («.") Tribes, twelve, 331 (Nahor), 353 (Ishmael) Trumbull, 80/ Tubal and Meshek, 161/. , Tubal-Kain, 103, 107/. Tyre (Sor), origin of Hebrew name, 46, 72 (n.*) Ulmer, 421 (n. ^), 424, 521 Ur-Kasdim, 213/ Usener, 84, 129 («.'), 131 Ut-napishtim, Babylonian hero of the Deluge, ri6, 134/: meaning of name, 133 not a king but a rich citizen, 134 INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES 585 Ut-napishtim — continued properly solar-mythical, 142 his apotheosis, 133 translated whither ? 135-137 Uz, 180, 331 Vine, 77 Virgin, celestial, 21 Volz, Paul, 48 (». 2) Waitz-Gerland, 9/., 75 («.<), 85 (a.'), 128 (».»), 142 (k.2) Water of healing, 133 death, 134 (w. 2) Weeks of ten days (?), 347 Wellhausen, Jul., 24 (».*), no, 120 [n.\ 144 («.3), 276, 351, 362, 379 («■''). 389. 408/., 411, 426, 502, 511, 533 Whatham, A. E., 81 (on Gen. iii.) Wife's right of property, 314/. Winckler, Hugo, iv, xi, 11, 15, 28, 33 {n.\ 46 («.',''), 47. 49 (»-^). 56 65, 75 (a. 8), 89 (a. 3), 94 (a.»), 101, 103 («.■'). 104 {«.^), 118 120, 140 (n.2), 142 (a.'), 158 (a.2) 164, i65, 211, 262 (a.'), 321 /. 3S4 («-^). 359. 371. 393. 410 415, 420, 435 .#. 453. 479. 497. S13. 559 Wine of Paradise, 41,84 Wisdom, mythic representation, 38-40 derived by Israelites from Arabia, 40/. Ea, Babylonian god of, 13 (a. ^) Ishtar, Babylonian goddess of, 38 (a. 2) Woman, the first, her name, ^^ff- Xisuthros, in, 113, 115, 132 (origin of name ; Berossian story) tenth of the early Babylonian kings, 131 Yabal, Yubal, 107, 109 Yabbok, 396/; Yahu, regional name, 66 Yahweh, Yahu, origin of, 64-66, 100 («. 1) ; cp. 530/ Yahweh, worship of, in N. Arabia, 314, 339 Yahweh, a lion-god and a steer-god, 35 Elohim, explained, 99-101, 153 Seba'oth, origin of, 19/., 35 (a.'), 59 Yakin and Boaz, 30 (with a. ^), 369 Yakob, Yakobites. See Jacob Yama, first man, in the Veda. 71 (a. ^), 83 Yaman (or Yawan), 6 («. 3), 160/1, 210 Yamani, adventure at Ashdod, 161 Yanhamu, Egyptian official, 48 (a.'), 115 (a. S), 479 Yarham, Yerahme'el, 16, 27/. (origin of name) no mere storm-god, 66 a lion- and a steer-god, 35 equivalent to Baal, 32, 6i_^ earlier and later, y ff., J,i> ff-\ cp. 32 (a. 2) Creator, 37/ sender of the Deluge, 140/: a Semitic Pluto, 30, 53/"., 206 absolutely wise, 38^ a healer, 37, 41/. his title Sedek, 194 his title ' Face of Yahweh, ' 279 Yarhon, stream, 228, 456, etc. Yarimuta, in Amarna letters, 480 («. ') Yarmuth, place-name, 479 Yashar, Book of, 404 (vnth a. ^) Yebusites, in ch. x. , 195, 336, 425 Yegar-sahadutha, 389 Yehudah, tribal name, 370 Yerahme'el, name of a great race, vii, viii, 18 supposed earliest people, 96 silver of, 316 pillars, 369 tree, 383 Yerahme'el- Yahweh, 369, 391 Yerahme'elites, racial centre of, 32 great archers, 366 weak religion of, 37 reputed wisdom of, 40, 460 priests and diviners of, 62, 376 practices of the, forbidden, 565^ Yeroham, origin of, 29 Yeshurun, 23/., 404 YetQr (Ituroea), 354 Yima, ' fair shepherd, ' 71 king of Paradise, 14, 83, 129 Yithro (Jethro), 40 (a. ') Yobab, 200, 430 Yokebed, 539 Zaphon. See Saphon Zarephath. See Sarephath Zebulun, tribal name, 148, 380 Zerah, 311 Zibeon. See Sibeon Zilpah, 373 Zimmern, H. , 22 (a.'), 48 (a.'), 59 (a. 2), 71 (a."). Ill (a. 5), 113 (notes), 125, 140, 142 (a. *), 280 (a.i), 496/. S69(»-') Zoan. See Soan Zoar. See Soar Zodiac, 5, 11, 437, 474 (a.^), 497 Zoroaster, birth-story of, 289 Zoroastrianism, Gen. i. , supposed Zoro- astrian affinities, 2 ; similarly, Ex. 586 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL iii. 14, 530 («. ^); Angra Mainyu (Ahriman), 2 ; Amshaspands, 11, cp. 38 [n. 1) ; Ahura Mazda (Ormazd), I, II, 38 (n.'), or Afiharmazd, 10; Armarti, 38 {«. ^) ; Iranian Deluge- myth, not original, 129 ; Dualism, I ; Gaokerena, 84 ; Gayomard, 75 ; Gothic hymns, i ; Heaven-tree, 75 [n, ^); Healing plants (heavenly), 'j']^, Herb diet, primitive, 3 ; Light, creation of, 11 ; Lights uncreated, 10 ; Mountain, heavenly, 83 / ; Paradise, earthly, 84 ; Renovation of the world, 36 ; Thrita, a divine healer, 41J; VohUman, see Am- shaspands ; Tree of Life, see Gao- kerena ; Wisdom, heavenly, 38 [n. ^) ; Bahman Yast, i. 3, p. 282 («.i); Ard Yast, x. 56, p. 365 [n. *). See Tree-men, Yima INDEX OF BIBLICAL AND COGNATE LITERARY PASSAGES Genesis i. 2 a, p. 22 2^, pp. 8, 15, 20-22 3-S, 6-8, p. ii II, p. 12 14-18, p. II 20-24, P- 12 21, 25, p. 12 26, p. 14 26-28, pp. 7, II f,, 14, 71 i. 29. PP- 3. 7 1. 31. P- 125 ii. -iii. p. 14 ii. 2/, p. 69/. ii. 4 ^-iii. 24, p. 70 ii. 6, p. 86/ ii. 8, 15, p. 72 ii. 9. PP- 75. 94 ii. 11-14, p. 85 ii. 17, iii. 3, pp. 76, 94 ii. 18, p. 7 ii. 18-21, p. 73 ii. 21/, 25, p. 74 ii. 23, p. 96 iii 1-7. P- 79 iii 3, 6, ri, p. 75 iii 6 a, p. 21 iii 7-21. p. 79 iii 7, 22 a, p. 95 iii 8, p. 100 iii 16, p. 79 iii 17, p. 125 iii 20, p. 97 iii 22, pp. IS, 81 iii 22 b, 23 a, p. 9S iv I, p. 76 iv 1-16, pp. 100^ iv. 17-24 (26), pp. 105^ V. i-S, pp. IIS/. V. 3. P- 14 V. S. p. 116 V. 22, p. 113 v. 29, pp. 116^ vi. 1-6, p. 15 vi. 1, 2, pp. xxbff., 123 vi. 3, pp. 21, 81, 118 vi. 4, pp. 120/ vi. 6, pp. 141/. vi. 9, p. 113 vi. 14, pp. 146/! vi, 16 a, p. 148 vi. 17, pp. 142/ vii. 4, 12, 23, p. 143 vii. 7, 10, ix. II, p. 143 vii. 22, p. 146 viii. 4, p. 13s viii. 6, pp. 143, 149 viii. 21, pp. 141/. ix. 6, p. 14 ix. 12-16, p. 136 X., pp. 154.^ X. I, 32, p. 143 X. s, pp. 167^ -t. 6, p. 32 («. 2) X. 16-18 n, p. 195 X. 17, p. 23 xi. 1-9, pp. 81, 201/ xi. 4, p. 18 (k. ') xi. 7, p. IS xi. 10, p. 143 xi. 10-26, pp. 20gff. xi. 27-32, pp. 211^ xii. 1-9, pp. 217/: xii. 10-20, pp. zzzff. xiii. z, S-18, pp. 2a6ff. xiv., pp. 230^ xiv. 13, p. 436 xiv. 18^, pp. 2S3/ xiv. 19, 22, p. 37 XV., pp. 257.^ XV. 2, pp. 44, s6 xvi. , pp. 266^ xvi. II, p. 279 xvi. 12, p. 274 xvi. 13/, pp. 23, 27S.^ xvi. 14, p. 311 587 xvii. , p. 281 X xviii., p. 15/ xviii. i-is, p. 290^^ xviii. 16-33, p. 29s xix. 1-28, pp. zgbff. xix. 24, p. 64 xix. 26, p. 73 xix. 30-38, pp. 306/ XX., pp. 310^ XX. I, p. 311 XX. II, p. vi XX. 13, p. 66 XX. 16, p. 315 xxi. 1-21, pp. 317/ xxi. 22-34, p. 320/: xxi. 17^, p. 24 xxii. 1-19, pp. 56, 323^ xxii. 2, p. 179 xxii. 17, p. 330 xxiii. , pp. 334^ xxiii. I, p. 121 xxiv. 7, p. 18 xxiv. 7, 40, p. 279 XXV. 3, pp. 90, 108 XXV, 6, p. vi XXV. 18, p. 426 XXV. 25, p. 3S9 xxvi. 20, p. 290 xxviii. 22, p. 31 XXX. 14, pp. 47, 81 .XXX. 14-16, p. 379 xxxi. 17-xxxii. I, p. 32 xxxi. 29, 42, S3, p. 74 xxxi. 34, p. 32 (n. ') xxxi. S3, p. 66 (idiom) xxxii. 2/., pp. 391/ xxxii. 4-22, pp. 393^ xxxii. 23-33, p. 396^ xxxii. 30, p. 401 xxxiii. 1-17, pp. 403^ xxxiii. 18-20, pp. 407 ff. ; cp. 534 (b. 1) xxxiii. 19, p. 23 XXXV., pp. ^16 ff. 588 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL XKXV. I-IS, pp. 416^ XXXV. 2, p. 32 (». ') XXXV. 7, p. 66 (idiom) XXXV. 10, p. 402 xxxvi. 40, p. 353 xxxvii. 2_f., p. 435^ xxxvii. 3, p. 436 xxxviii. 27-30, p. 3S7 xl. pp. 453/ xli. 40, 42/., p. 464 xliii. 32, p. 47S xlvi. 6-27, pp. 481^ xlvi. 16, p. 92 xlvi. 28-34, PP- 485/ xlvii. 30, p. 491 xlviii. 16, p. 279 xlix. s-7, p. 415 xlix. 9, p. 35 xlix. 25, pp. 18 («. '), 286 Exodus i. 8, p. 32(«.2) iii. 2, p. 36 iii. 8, p. 84 iii. 14, p. 530 iii. 18, p. 531 iv. 18-26, pp. 533^ v. 2, p. 32 («. ') vi. 16, p. 265 vi. 25, p. 173 vii. ^, p. 265 viii. 22, p. 544 ix. 13, X. 3, p. 32 (n. 2) ix. 20, p. 32 («. '■') .^. 21, p. vi xii. 29-36, p. 326, 543 xiv. 2, p. 50 XV. 3, pp. 16, 58 XV. 26, p. 37 xvi. 34, p. 27 xix. 4, p. 8 xix. 18, p. 30 xxii. 19, pp. 28/, 69 xxiii. 20, p. 279 xxiii. 21, p. 5, 9 {n.^) xxiii. 31, p. 262 [n.^] XXV. 16, 21/, p. 27 XXV. 22, p. 26 xxvii. 21, p. 26 XXX. 6, p. 27 XXX. 13, p. 315 XXX. 17, p. 70 xxxii. 34, p. 60 (». ') Leviticus xvi. 8, 10, 26, p. 117 xvii. 7, p. 24 xviii. 3, p. 60 xviii. 21, p. 52 xviii. 23, p. 72 Numbers ix. 15, p. 26 X. 35/., p. 19- («.«), 20 xi. 4, p. 546 xi. s. P- 224 xii. 13, p. 37 xiii. 27, p. 84 xvi. ■^, p. 546 XX. 5, p. 454 XX. 16, p. 60 («. ^) xxi. 15, p. 26 xxii. I, p. 456 xxiv. 5, p. 457 (k. «) x.xiv. 4, 16, p. 284 Deuteronomy iii. 10/ , p. 315 iii. 17, p. 26 iii. 24, p. 56 iv. II, p. 30 iv. 49, p. 26 ix. 15, p. 30 xii. 2, p. 33 («. ') xvi. 13-15, p. 18 (». *) xvi. 21, p. 457 (n.') xxviii. 68, p. 504 xxxii. II, pp. 8, 9 xxxii. 17, p. 24 xxxii. 24, p. 58 xxxii. 33, p. 146 xxxii. 38, p. 50 xxxiii. 6, p. 500 xxxiii. 15, p. 512 xxxiii. 16, pp. 30 («. ^), 510, 526 xxxiii. 17, p. 506 (». ') xxxiii. 23, p. 58 («. 2) xxxiii. 24, p. 505 xxxiii. 26, 29, p. 284 xxxiii. 29, pp. 24, 284 Joshua ii. 1, p. 19 (k. ') V. 13, pp. 19 («.'), 101 vi. 4, p. 107 vii. 6/., p. 134 X. 40, xii. 3, 8, xiii. 20, p. 26 xi. 4, p. 463 xi. 8, p. 193 Judges ii. la, si, p. 417 ii. 13, p. 17 iii. 3, p. 50 iii. II, p. 14s iii. 31, iv. 2, V. 6, p. vi (cp. 108) iv. 2, pp. vi, 108 iv. 4/., p. 294 V. 17, p. 504 («.') VI. 3-5, p. 103 vi. 24, p. 46 vii. 12, viii. 10, p. 120 viii. 33, ix. 4, 46, pp. iB (n.'), 410 ix. 5, 18, p. 377 ix. 13, p. 78 («. ') X. 6, p. 17 xi. I, p. 19 («. ') xi. 34-40, p. 326 xii. 6, p. 473 xiii. 6, p. 291 xiii. 19, p. 401 xiii. 20, p. 33 xiii. 24, p. 273 1 Samuel i. 9, pp. 362 (»«. =','), 503 iv. 4, pp. 19 (n.«), 20, 35 («■ ^) iv. 7*, p. 34 vii. 3/, p. 17 xii. 10, p. 17 xviii. 18, p. 98 xxvii. 8, pp. 121, 426 XXX. g Jp, pp. 119, 354 (with n. S) 2 Samuel V. 24, p. 100 vi. 2, pp. 20, 35 (m.i) X. 6, 8, p. 161 xiii. p. 445 xiv. 17, 20, p. 40 xxiii. 21, pp. 32 (».*), 327 1 Kings ii. 26, p. 34 iv. 14, p. 392 V. 10/., p. 40 vi. 29, p. 77 vii. 14, p. 44 X. 25, p. 261 (n. 2) x. 28/, p. 463 (with «. •) xi. 5, pp. 17, SI xi. 26, pp. vi, 44 xii. 28, p. xii xiv. 31, p. 29 xvii. 8, p. 193 («. ') xviii. 12, pp. 21, 33 xviii. 38, p. 30 xix. II, p. 30 xix. 15, p. 62 («. ^) XX. 28, p. 31 xxii. 19^, p. 20 2 Kings viii. 7j^., p. 62 («. 2) xiv. 7, p. 152 xiv. 14, p. 108 BIBLICAL AND COGNATE LITERARY PASSAGES 589 xvii. 30, pp. 18 (b. '), S3 xviii. 4, p. 42 xix. 24, p. 172 xix. 37, p. 146 XX. S. P- 37 xxi. 18, p. 55 (n^) xxiii. s, p. 19 \n. ') xxiii. 8, p. 24 xxiii. 13, p. 17 xxiii. 15, p. 51 1 Chronicles ii. 9, p. 28s ii. 19, 50, p. 91 («.2) ii. 44, pp. 23, 28 ii. 47, p. 479 iii. 23, iv. 4, p. 43 (n. «) iv. 26, p. 382 V. I, p. 500 V. 6, 9/., p. 105 («.') vii. 12, p. 34 vii. 16, 25, p. 58 (n. 2) viii. 22, p. 92 xxiv. 27, p. 93 xxix. 2, p. 465 2 Chronicles -ii. I, p. 327 xi. 15, p. 24 Ezra i. 10, pp. 4S2 (n. 2), 477 ii. 15, viii. 6/, p. 381 11. 41, p. 381 ii. 52/., p. io8 iv. 8, p. 273 viii. 18, p. 247 Nehemiah ▼ii. 33, p. 108 (k.2) vii. 57. P- 382 vii. 45, p. 146 (a. 2) Esther i. 1, A. 1, p. 168 (n. ') Job i. 6, ii. I, p. 16 i. 16, p. 33 iii. 8, pp. 6, 41 iv. 13, p. 73 vii. 12, ix. 8, p. 6 ix. 13, pp. 5/., 124 XV. 7/., pp. 13, 71 xviii. 14, p. 54 xxvi. 12, p. 7 XXX. 23, p.. 206 {n. ^) xxxi. z6f., p. II xxxiii. 15, p. 73 xxxiii. 23, p. 39 («. *) xxxviii. 7, p. 16 xxxviii. 16, p. 39 («. 2) xxxviii. 19/., p. lo xxxix. 19-25, p. 464 Psalms viii. p. 3 (n. ') viii. 5, p. 71 ix. 21, p. 221 xviii. 10, p. loi xxix. 10, p. 143 xxxviii. 16, p. 56 xlii. 7, p. 304 Ixviii. 16/, p. 31 Ixxii. 5, p. 273 Ixxiii. 24, p. 113 (». ') Ixxiv. 13, p. s Ixxvi. 4, p. 58 (n. ') Ixxvii. 18, p. 57 Ixxviii. 51, p. 32 (n. 2) Ixxviii. 68/, p. 31 Ixxxi. II, p. 5 Ixxxix. 13, p. 117 civ. 3, p. 102 civ. 10, 14, 16, p. 36 civ. 15, p. 454 cvi. 33, p. 20 cvi. 37. p. 285 cxx. 5, p. i6i (». ') cxxxvi. 37, p. 14 Proverbs ii. 2, 3, 6, p. 75 (n. 8) viii. 15, p. 131 viii. 22-31, p. 38 ; cp. 70 A. I, p. 40 («. ') xxiv. 3/., p. 75 (».8) XXX. 1, xxxi. I, p. 40 XXX. 3, p. 75 (n. 8) ECCLESIASTES xii. 11/., p. 40 (re. S) Canticles vi. 13, p. 19 («. 5) vii. 3, p. 451 vii. 13/., p. ^^79 viii. II, p. 387 Isaiah ii. 2, p. 83 ii. 6, pp. 41, 162 (witli «.i), 376(«.i) V. i, p. 46 V. 20, p. 358 (n. *) vi. 4. P- 33 vi. S. P- 51 vi. 8, p. 15 vii. II, p. 36 vii. 14-16, p. 48 (a. 2) viii. I, p. 568 (a. 2) , IX. 4, pp. 29, 471 x. 4, pp. 29, 268 (a.') X- 9. P- 332 xi. 1-9, p. 131 (a. 2) xi. II, p. 189 xiv. i^, p. 96 xiv. 12/., p. 85 xvii. 8, p. 25 xvii. 9, p. 19s xvii. 10, p. 50 xix. 9, p. 465 xix. 23-25, p, 32 xxi. X, p. 30 xxiii., p. 193 xxvii. I, pp. 5, 6 xxvii. 4, p. 348 xxvii. 9, p. 25 xxix. T.f., p. 47 xxix. 22, p. 286 XXX. 7, p. 6 XXX. 28, p. 358 (a. «) XXX. 30, p. 30 xxxiv. 5, p. loi xxxiv. II, p. 22 xl. 13, p. 20 xliv. 5, p. 105 xiv. 7, p. 10 xiv. 20, p. 35 xlviii. 16, p. 21 xlix. 10, p. 273 Ii. 9, p. 7 Ii. 10, p. 5 liii. (cult of dying god?), P- 57 liv. 9, p. 143 Iv. I, p. 85 lix. 4, pp. 4, 43 Ixiii. 10, II, 14, p. 20 Ixv. II, pp. 378, 472 Ixv. 20, p. 510 (a. ') Ixvi. 17, p. 377 Jeremiah ii. i6, p. 290 iii. 12, p. 158 iii. 23, p. 18 (a. 2) iv. 23, p. 22 V. 7, p. 19 (a. I) vi. 26, p. 56 vii. p. 18, 18 viii. 22, p. 41 X. 3, p. II xiii. 1-7, p. 91 XXV. 9, p. 187 XXX. 17, p. 37 xliii. 13, p. 273 xliv. 17-19, 25, p. i8 xlvi. 9, p. 109 xlviii. 45, pp. 109, III (a. 8) li. 27, p. 146 Ii. 63, p. 91 (a. 3) S90 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL EZEKIEL i. 4, p. 158 i. 10, p. 8 (n.*) i. 27, p. IS (n. S) i. 28, p. 136 iii. 3/., p. 186 (;J. 3) viii. 12, p. 19 (». *) viii. 14, pp. 19 [n. ^), 326 ix. 4, p. 105 xiv. 14, 20, p. 115 xvii. 13, p. 68 xvii. 22-24, P' 48 xviii. 28/, p. 56 xxvii. 3, p. 71 xxvii. 7, pp. 360, 436, 464 xxvii. 8, p. 193 xxvii. 16, p. 465 xxvii. 17, p. 475 xxviii. , p. 116 xxviii., pp. T.2ff., 116 xxviii. 2, pp. 72 (b. 1), 71 xxviii. 3, p. 96 xxviii. 12, 17, pp. 14, 71 xxxi. 3, p. 457 xxxi. 8, p. 94 xxxii. 21, p. 68 xxxii. 27, p. 121 xxxiii. s, p. 360 xxxviii. 2, xxxix. i, p. 39 xl. 2, p. 83 xli. 18, p. 77 Daniel vii. 13, p. 60 (k. ^) ix. 27, xi. 3, xii. II, p. 18 X. 4, p. 262 X. 13, 21, p. 60 («. ') xii. s, 6, 7, p. 456 HOSEA i. 6, 10, ii. 3, p. 27 ii. 9-12, ii. 10, p. 61 ii. 15, p. 62 ii. 22, p. 60 iii. I, iv. 17, p. 63 (». *) iv. 6, 8, 12, p. 63 iv. II, pp. 19 (k. 1), 26 V- 14. P- 35 vi. 1, p. 37 viii. 5, p. 62 (n. ') viii. 12, pp. 41, 63 viii. 13, p. 63 ix. 10, pp. 18 («.'), 63 IX. 13, pp. 266 (b.I), 268 (k.i) X. 14/, p. 395 (k.I) xi. 1-4, p. 61 XI. 10, p. 35 xii. 12, p. 357 xii. 14/, pp. 400, 402 .xiii. 7/, p. 35 xiu. 15, p. 457 xiv. 4, p. 37 Joel ii. 20, p. 158 iv. 18, p. 8s Amos ii. 8, pp. 360, 412 ii. 10, iv. 25, p. xii. iii. 12, p. 289 iv. 4, V. 21, p. 61 V- 2S, pp. 31, 61 (with ». ) vi. I, p. 26 vii. 7/, ix. I, p. s6 viii. 14, pp. 18 («.'), 46 (with ».'■'), 321, 401 ix. 2, p. 36 ix. 3, p. 6 ix. 7, p. 12. MiCAH V. s. p. 182 V. 6, p. 304 vi. 4, p. xiii. vii. 17, p. 82 (n. ^) Nahum iii. 2, p. 463 (with n. i) Habakkuk i. 4, p. 332 i. 8, p. 463 ii. 18, pp. 67, 69 iii- S. P- 58 ui. II, p. S7 iii. 19, p. 260 Zechaeiah ix. i, p. 91 ix. 14, p. 30 xii. 8, p. 47 xii. 10, p. 56 xii. II, p. 326 xiii. 4, p. 360 (n. 2) xiv. s, p. 403 («• ') xiv. 10, p. 83 Malachi iii. 20, p. 8 NEW TESTAMENT Matthew ii. 16^, p. S16 iii. 9, p. 126 John v. 17, p. 70 I Corinthians XV. 40, p. 81 (». ") Ephesians i. 6, p. S7 Revelation iv. 4, p. 16 xii. pp. 4, s, 6 xii. 4, p. 139 xii. 6, 14, p. 268 xii. 7/., p. 37 xii. IS, p. 138 xxi. 10, p. 83 xxii. i/. , p. 78 APOCRYPHA, etc. 2 ESDRAS ii. 12, p. 78 ii. 19, pp. 83 («.»), 84 Baruch iii. 23, p. 40 Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 8-12, p. 39 Wisdom of Solomon X. 7, p. 30s TOBIT iii. 8, p. 46 Prayer of Manasseh V. 3, p. 6 ASCENS. ISAI.«E iii. 17, p. 57 VlT. Ad. et Ev. 36, 40, p. 78 Apoc. Moses 9. p. 78 Book of Adam and Eve pp. 81, 86 BIBLICAL AND COGNATE LITERARY PASSAGES 591 Vision of Paul t. zi, p. 85 t. 23, p. 84 Enoch (Ethiopic), Book of vi., XV., p. 117 xvii. 10, p. 134 xviii. 6-8, xxiv. , p. 83 xxiv. , p. 102 xxiv. 4, XXV. 5, p. 77 xxvi. 1, p. 94 xxxii. 3, 6, p. 75 (». 8) xlviii. I, p. 115 xlviii. 1-3, p. 49 Ix. 1, p. 116 Ix. 7, p. 6 Ixix. 6, p. 72 Ixx., p. 115 («.3) Ixxi. 14, p. 49 Ixxii. i., p. 131 Enoch (Slavonic) viii., p. 75 (k.2), 78, 85 (».i) viii. s. P- 84 xix. 4, p. 12 (». ') Jubilees, Book of ii., p. 12 {«.') iv. 23, p. 115 v., X., p. 146 viii. 12, 19, p. 94 X. 19-26, p. 203 X. 26, p. 206 xiii. I, p. 220 xiii. 10, p. 222 («. ^) xxxiv. 1-9, p. 494 -xl. 7, p. 467 On Gen. i. 26, p. 73 On Gen. iv. 26, p. 11 1 Omits Jacob's wrestling, p. 396 THE END Printed iSy R. & R. Clark, Limited, Edinburgh. mHHiminii'iiiii;