chapter 20, and אֱלֹהִים‎ in ²²ᐧ ²³, prove that the main account is

from Elohist; while יהוה‎, ³³, and בַּֽעֲבוּר‎, ³⁰, show the other to be Yahwist. Since the scene is Beersheba, the Yahwistic component must be Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ.――³²⁻³⁴ have been considerably modified by Redactors. Procksch (10 ff.) holds that in the original Elohist verses ²² ᶠᶠᐧ preceded ¹⁻²⁰; his detailed analysis being almost identical with Gunkel’s.

=22‒24.= Abimelech proposes an oath of perpetual amity between his people and Abraham’s, and the latter consents (Elohist).――=22.= _Pîkōl_ (_v.i._), _his commander-in-chief_, seems here merely a symbol of the military importance of Gerar: otherwise 26²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, where Pîkōl is a party to the covenant.――=23.= _Swear to me here_] in the place afterwards known as Beersheba (³¹). Abraham’s departure from Gerar, and Abimelech’s visit to him in Beersheba, must have stood in Elohist between 20¹⁷ and 21²² (compare 26¹³ᐧ ²⁶).――=24.= This unreserved consent is inconsistent with the expostulation of――=25, 26= (Yahwist), which presupposes strained relations between the parties, and repeated disputes about the ownership of wells. Note (1) the frequentative ‎וְהוֹכִחַ‎‎, (2) the plural ‘wells’ (retained by LXX), (3) the fuller parallel of 26¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, which shows that the right to several wells had been contested.――_And as often as Abraham took Abimelech to task about the wells ... Abimelech would answer_]――that he knew nothing of the matter (so Gunkel).――=27.= Continuing ²⁴ (Elohist). Giving (or exchange?) of presents seems to have been customary when a covenant was made (1 Kings 15¹⁹, Isaiah 30⁶, Hosea 12²). The action would be no suitable answer to verse ²⁶.――=28‒30= (Yahwist). _the seven ewe lambs_ are set apart for the purpose explained in ³⁰; but the article shows that they must have been mentioned in the previous context. It is clear from ³⁰ that the lacuna is in Yahwist, not in Elohist; while Abimelech’s question ²⁹ proves that the lambs were not an understood part of the ceremony (Dillmann).――=30.= _that it_ (the acceptance of the present) _may be a witness, etc._] so that in future there may be no quarrel about Beersheba.――=31.= belongs to Elohist: נִשְׁבְּעוּ‎, compare ²³ ᶠᐧ; שְׁנֵיהֶם‎, compare ‎²⁷.――בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע‎ = ‘seven wells,’ is here explained as ‘Well of the Oath,’ the oath being the central feature of the _berîth_. The etymology is not altogether at fault, since נִשְׁבַּֽע‎ may mean literally to ‘put oneself under the influence of seven,’ the sacred number (Herodotus iii. 8; Homer _Iliad_ xix. 243 ff.; Pausanias iii. 20. 9).――=32a.= Yahwist’s parallel to ²⁷ᵇ.¹――=33.= The inauguration of the cult of Beersheba (Yahwist: compare 26²⁵). Among the _sacra_ of that famous shrine there must have been a sacred tamarisk believed to have been planted by Abraham (see on 12⁶). The planting of a sacred tree is no more a _contradictio in adjecto_ (Stade in von Gall, 47) than the erecting of a sacred stone, or the digging of a sacred well. The opinion (Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger) that the subject is Isaac, and that the verse should stand after 26²⁵, rests on the incorrect assumption that no stratum of Yahwist puts Abraham in connexion with Beersheba.――_’El ‛Ôlâm_] presumably the pre-Israelite name of the local _numen_, here identified with Yahwe (Gunkel: see 16¹³). Canaanite analogies are Ἦλος ὁ καὶ Κρόνος (Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10, 13 ff.), and Χρόνος ἀγήρατος (Damascius _Difficulties and Solutions of First Principles_ 123).――=34.= The assumption that Beersheba was in Philistine territory being incompatible with ³²ᵇ, the verse must be an interpolation.――On the historical background of these legends, see after 26³³.

¹ ³²ᵇ would be a natural conclusion to Elohist’s narrative (compare ²²), but for the fact that that source never speaks of a Philistine occupation of Gerar. The last three verses, however, seem to have been altered by a compiler.――It is probable that Yahwist gave an explanation of the name of the well, connecting it with the seven lambs; so Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ‎ (בירא דשבע חורפן‎).

Beersheba is the modern _Bi’r-es-Seba‛_, in the heart of the Negeb, some 28 miles South-west from Hebron, and 25 South-east from _Umm el-Ǧerār_. Its importance as a religious centre in the Old Testament appears not only from its frequent mention in the patriarchal history (22¹⁹ 26²³ ᶠᶠᐧ ³¹ ᶠᶠ 28¹⁰ 46¹ ᶠᶠᐧ), but still more from the fact that in the 8th century its oracle (compare 25²²) was resorted to by pilgrims from the northern kingdom (Amos 5⁵ 8¹⁴). Von Gall (44 ff.) questions the opinion that it was originally a group of 7 wells, holding that there was but one, whose name meant ‘Well of the Oath.’ But that “among the Semites a special sanctity was attached to groups of seven wells” is shown by Smith (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 181 f.: compare Nöldeke _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, vii. 340 ff.); and the existence of a plurality of wells at Bi’r es-Seba‛ has never been disputed. See Robinson _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 204 ff.; Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 284 f.; Robinson, _Biblical World_, xvii. (1901), 247 ff.; Gautier, _ib._ xviii. 49 ff.; Driver _The Expository Times_, vii. (1896), 567 f.; _Joel and Amos_² (1901), page 239 f.; Trumbull, _The Expository Times_, viii. 89.

* * * * *

‎ =22.= ופיכל‎] LXX prefix καὶ Ὀχοζὰθ ὁ νυμφαγωγὸς αὐτοῦ (from 26²⁶). Spiegelberg (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_, ix. 109) considers this one of the few Egyptian names in Old Testament = _p{<}Ḫ-r(j)_, “the Syrian.”――=23.= אם‎] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 149 _c_.――נין ונכד‎] (_proles et soboles_) an alliterative phrase found in Isaiah 14²², Job 18¹⁹, Sirach 41⁵ 47²²†.――=25.= והוכח‎] “must be corrected to וַיּוֹכַח‎” (Ball, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 112 _tt_): _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויוכיח‎. But Massoretic Text is probably right, with frequent sense of perfect given above. For the following ויאמר‎ (instead of ואמר‎), see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 114 β.――באר‎] LXX φρεάτων, _ut sup._――=28.= הצאן‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (which also omits את־‎) צאן‎. Delitzsch thinks this one of the few cases (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 _e_) where article determines only its own word, and not the whole expression.――=29.= Read הכבשת‎ with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (³⁰).――לבדָּֽנָה‎ (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ לבדהן‎)]. On suffix compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 _f_. The form is chiefly pausal; and though the only other example in Pentateuch (Genesis 42³⁶) is Elohist, 30⁴¹ (־ֶנָּה‎) is Yahwist, and the form cannot be considered distinctive of Elohist.――=31.= ‎ באר שבע‎] LXX Φρέαρ ὁρκισμοῦ, but in ³² Φρέατι τοῦ ὅρκου. The construction (number in genitive after singular noun) has been supposed by Stade to be Canaanite idiom (compare קִרְיַת אַרְבַּֽע‎, ‎ 23²).――=33.= אֵשֶׁל‎] Arabic _’aṯl_, Aramaic אתלא‎, Assyrian _ašlu_; 1 Samuel 22⁶ 31¹³ [in 1 Chronicles 10¹² אֵלָה‎]†, in both cases probably denoting a _sacred_ tree. The word seems to have been strange to versions: LXX ἄρουραν, Aquila δενδρῶνα, Symmachus φυτείαν, Vulgate _nemus_, etc. The substitution of אֲשֵׁרָה‎ proposed by Stade (_v.s._) is uncalled for, though see _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 4892 f.――עולם‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ העולם‎.――=34= is wanting in Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (edited by Ginsburger).

* * * * *