Jump to content

Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/420

From Wikisource
This page needs to be proofread.

that are not done] are not sanctioned by the conventional code of morals: cf. 347, 2 Sa. 1312 etc.—To this rebuke Abraham (as in 1218f.) has no reply, and Abimelech proceeds in—10 to inquire into his motive for so acting.—(Symbol missingHebrew characters) 'What possessed thee?' (v.i.).—11-13. Abraham's self-exculpation, which is at the same time the writer's apology for his conduct, consists of three excuses: (1) he was actuated by fear for his life; (2) he had not been guilty of direct falsehood, but only of mental reservation; (3) the deceit was not practised for the first time on Abimelech, but was a preconcerted scheme which (it is perhaps implied) had worked well enough in other places. Whether 2 and 3 had any foundation in the Elohistic tradition, or were invented by the narrator ad hoc (Gu.), we cannot now determine.—11. There is no piety ((Symbol missingHebrew characters)) in this place] Religion was the only sanction of international morality, the gêr having no civil rights; cf. 4218: see Bertholet, Stellung d. Fremden, 15. Cf. 1212.—12. Besides, she really is my sister] Marriage with a half-sister on the father's side was frequent among the Semites (Smith, KM2, 191 f.), and was allowed in ancient Israel (2 Sa. 1313), though prohibited by later legislation (Dt. 2722, Lv. 189. 11 2017).—13. When God caused me to stray] The expression is peculiar, as if God had driven him


rashly adopted by Ba. Ho. Kit.—(Symbol missingHebrew characters)] G (Symbol missingGreek characters).—10. (Symbol missingHebrew characters) G (Symbol missingGreek characters); so V. Ba. conj. (Symbol missingHebrew characters); Gu. (Symbol missingHebrew characters). The translation given above is taken from Bacher, ZATW, xix. 345 ff., who cites many examples from NH of the idiom (lit. 'What hast thou experienced?').—11. (Symbol missingHebrew characters)] [E] (Symbol missingHebrew characters).—(Symbol missingHebrew characters)] = '[I should act otherwise] only,' etc.: a purely asseverative force (BDB) seems to me insufficiently established by Dt. 46, 1 Ki. 2125, 2 Ch. 2810, Ps. 326.—12. (Symbol missingHebrew characters)] [E] (Symbol missingHebrew characters)[(Symbol missingHebrew characters)?], as 1813, Nu. 2237; but cf. Jos. 720. These are all the occurrences in Hex.—13. (Symbol missingHebrew characters)] [E] (Symbol missingHebrew characters). The constr. of (Symbol missingHebrew characters) (pl. emin.) with pl. pred. is exceptional, though not uncommon (3153 357, Jos. 2419), and does not appear to be regulated in our present text by any principle. A tendency to substitute sing. for pl. is shown by 1 Ch. 1721 cpd. with 2 Sa. 723; and it is probable that the change has taken place in many cases where we have no means of tracing it: see Str.2 77; G-K. § 145 i. A kindred and equally inexplicable anomaly is the sporadic use of the art. with this word (so vv.6. 17). Both phenomena are probably survivals from a polytheistic form of the legend.—(Symbol missingHebrew characters)] [E] + (Symbol missingHebrew characters) (as 121).—(Symbol missingHebrew characters)] determined by following relative clause; so Ex. 2024, Dt. 1124.