The close parallelism with ch. 15 makes it probable that that
chapter, in its present composite form, is the literary basis of P's account
of the covenant. Common to the two narratives are (a) the self-introduction
of the Deity (171 157); (b) the covenant (17 pass. 159ff.); (c) the
promise of a numerous seed (174 pass. 155); (d) of the land (178 1518),
(e) of a son (1719. 21 154); (f) Abraham's incredulity (1717 153. 8). The
features peculiar to P, such as the sign of circumcision, the etymology
of (
Hebrew characters) in v.17, the changes of names, etc., are obviously not of a kind
to suggest the existence of a separate tradition independent of J and E.
1-8. The Covenant-promises.—These are three in
number: (a) Abraham will be the father of a numerous posterity
(2b, 4-6); (b) God will be a God to him and to his seed
(7b. 8b); (c) his seed shall inherit the land of Canaan (8a).
We recognise here a trace of the ancient religious conception
according to which god, land, and people formed
an indissoluble triad, the land being an indispensable
pledge of fellowship between the god and his worshippers
(see RS2, 92 f.).—1. appeared to Abram] i.e., in a theophany,
as is clear from v.22. It is the only direct communication
of God to Abram recorded in P. P is indeed very
sparing in his use of the theophany, though Ex. 63 seems to
imply that his narrative contained one to each of the three
patriarchs. If that be so, the revelation to Isaac has been
lost, while that to Jacob is twice referred to (359 483).—I am 'El Shaddai] The origin, etymology, and significance of this
1. (Hebrew characters)] For a summary of the views held regarding this divine
name, the reader may be referred to Baethgen, Beitr. 293 ff., or
Kautzsch in EB, iii. 3326 f. (cf. Che. ib. iv. 4419 f.); on the renderings
of the ancient Vns., see the synopses of Di. (259), Dri. (404 f.),
and Valeton (ZATW, xii. 111).—It is unfortunately impossible to
ascertain whether (Hebrew characters) was originally an independent noun, or an
attribute of (Hebrew characters): Nöldeke and Baethgen decide for the latter view. The
traditional Jewish etymology resolves the word into (Hebrew characters) = (Hebrew characters) and (Hebrew characters),—'the
all-sufficient' or 'self-sufficient' (Ber. R. § 46: cf. Ra. (Hebrew characters)).
Though this theory can be traced as far back as
the rendering of Aq. Σ. and Θ. ((Greek characters)), it is an utterly groundless
conjecture that P used the name in this sense (Valeton). On the other
hand, it seems rash to conclude (with Nö. al.) that the Mass. punctuation
has no better authority than this untenable interpretation, so that
we are at liberty to vocalise as we please in accordance with any
plausible etymological theory. The old derivation from [root] (Hebrew characters) =
'destroy,' is still the best: it is grammatically unobjectionable, has at
