are vividly depicted.—26. It is not so done] cf. 347, 2 Sa. 1312. Laban no doubt correctly states the local usage: the objection to giving a younger daughter before an older is natural, and prevails in certain countries (Lane, i. 201; cf. Jub. xxviii., Ju. 151f., 1 Sa. 1817).—27, 28. Fulfil the week of this one] i.e., the usual seven days (Ju. 1412, To. 1119) of the wedding festival for Leah. For the bridegroom to break up the festivities would, of course, be a gross breach of decorum, and Jacob has no alternative but to fall in with Laban's new proposal and accept Rachel on his terms.—30. Laban's success is for the moment complete; but in the alienation of both his daughters, and their fidelity to Jacob at a critical time (3114ff.), he suffered a just retribution for the unscrupulous assertion of his paternal rights.
In Jacob's marriages it has been surmised that features survive of
that primitive type of marriage (called beena marriage) in which the
husband becomes a member of the wife's kin (Rob. Sm. KM2, 207).
Taken as a whole the narrative hardly bears out that view. It is true
that Jacob attaches himself to Laban's family; but it does not follow
that he did not set up a house of his own. His remaining with Laban
was due to his inability to pay the mōhar otherwise than in the way of
personal service. As soon as the contract expired he pleads his right
to 'provide for his own house' (3030 J). On the other hand, Laban certainly
claimed the right to detain his daughters, and treated them as
still members of his family (3126. 43 E); and it might be imagined that the
Elohistic tradition recognised the existence of beena marriage, at least
among the Aramæans. But it is doubtful if the claim is more than an
extreme assertion of the right of a powerful family to protect its female
relatives even after marriage.
XXIX. 31-XXX. 24.—The Birth of Jacob's Children (JE).
A difficult section, in which the origin of the tribes of Israel is represented in the fictitious form of a family history. The popular etymologies attached to the names are here extremely forced, and sometimes unintelligible; it is remark-*
(
Hebrew characters) ([E]TO); see v.29.—26. (Hebrew characters)] distinctive of J; see v.16.—27. (Hebrew characters) is
rather 3rd f. s. pf. Niph., than 1st pl. cohort. Qal (as most). [E]GSV
read (Hebrew characters).—28b. (Hebrew characters)] The double dative is characteristic of P, to
whom the whole clause may be assigned along with 29.—30. The second
(Hebrew characters) has no sense, and should probably be deleted (GV).
