missing.'—40. heat by day and frost by night] Jer. 3680. Under the clear skies of the East the extreme heat of the day is apt to be followed by intense cold at night (see Smith, HG, 69 ff.).—41, 42 (E). the Fear of Isaac] The deity feared and worshipped by Isaac (53† ). That (
Hebrew characters) meant originally the terror inspired by Isaac, the local deity of Beersheba (Meyer, INS, 254 f.), is a hazardous speculation.—43. Laban maintains his right, but speedily adopts a more pathetic tone, leading on to the pacific proposal of 44.—The question what shall I do to . . .?] means 'what last kindness can I show them?' (Gu. Dri.); not 'how can I do them harm?' (Di. and most).
44-54. The treaty of Gilead.
Evidences of a double recension appear in every circumstance of the
narrative. (a) Two names are explained: Gilead (48b), and Miẓpāh (49a);
(b) two sacred monuments are erected, a cairn (46. 48. 51. 52), and a
monolith (45. 51. 52); (c) the covenant feast is twice recorded (46b. 54);
(d) the terms of the covenant are given in two forms: (1) Jacob will not
ill-treat Laban's daughters (50), and (2) the cairn is to mark the boundary
between two peoples (52); (e) God is twice called to witness (49f. 53). To
arrange these duplicates in two parallel series is difficult, because of the
numerous glosses and dislocations of the text; but some connecting
lines can be drawn. Since J always avoids the word (Hebrew characters) (p. 378), we
assume first of all that the monolith (and consequently Miẓpāh) belongs
to E, and the cairn to J. Now the cairn goes with the frontier treaty
(51. 52 [removing glosses], J), and Miẓpāh with the family compact (49, E).
To J we must obviously assign 46. 48, and also (if we may suppose that
only the (Hebrew characters) was spoken of as an (Hebrew characters)) 44; while E as naturally claims 45.
At the end, 53b is E ((Hebrew characters), cf. 42), and likewise 54 (the feast, 46, J).
53a is probably J: note the difference of divine names. Thus: 44. 46. 48.
51-53a = J; 45. 49. 50. 53b. 54 = E.—The analysis is due to Ho. and Gu.;
Pro. practically agrees, with the important difference that the parts of
J and E are (quite wrongly, as it seems to me) interchanged. It is
superior to the schemes of We. Di. KS. al., which assign the cairn and
the maẓẓebāh to the same sources.—The principal glosses (many of
which excite suspicion apart from the analysis) are (Hebrew characters) in 45 and 46;
75 oo.—(Hebrew characters) is probably an archaic technical phrase, preserving
an old case-ending (G-K. § 90 l).—40. On the syntax, see G-K.
§ 143 a.—41. These twenty years] The repetition (v.38) would, as Di.
says, not be surprising in animated speech; and is not of itself evidence
of a change of source. But Jacob's oratory is more dignified if relieved
of this slight touch of affectation.—(Hebrew characters)] not here a pron. but used
adverbially, as 2736 etc. (see BDB, 261 b).—42. (Hebrew characters) may be a gloss
(Gu.): G om. (Hebrew characters).
