The notice of Deborah is in many ways perplexing. The nurse who
accompanied Rebekah (2459) is nameless, and there is nothing to lead us
to expect that she was to be an important figure in Hebrew legend.
How she could have come into Jacob's family is quite inexplicable; and
the conjectures that have been advanced on this point are all puerile.
Moreover, the sacred tree referred to is in all probability identical with
the palm-tree of Deborah 'between Ramah and Bethel' in Ju. 44f..
There seems to have been a confusion in the local tradition between the
famous prophetess and the nurse; and the chief mystery is how the
name of Rebekah got introduced in this connexion at all. If we could
suppose with Cheyne (417 f.) that (
Hebrew characters) should be (Hebrew characters) and that this is an
alternative form of (Hebrew characters), so that the real name of the tree was 'Tree of
Rebekah,' we might be a step nearer a solution. The identity of the
two trees would then have to be abandoned. It is, however, an unsafe
argument to say that a 'nurse' could not have been conspicuous in
legend: cf. the grave of the nurse of Dionysus at Scythopolis, in Pliny,
HN, v. 74 (De. Gu.).
9, 10. Jacob's name changed (P).—Comp. 3228f. (J).—when he came from Paddan 'Ărām] On Gu.'s rearrangement
(p. 423 above), there is nothing to suggest Bethel as the
scene of the revelation. It is a faint echo of 3225ff. from
which every element of local tradition, down to the name of
the sanctuary, has been eliminated.
6a, 11-13, 15. The blessing transmitted to Jacob: P's parallel to 2810ff..—'11, 12. Ēl Shaddai] see on 171.—For other expressions in the vv., cf. 176. 8. 16 283. 4 4626 484.—13a. God went up from him] as 1722.—13b is an awkward continuation, and has probably arisen through dittography from v.15.—15. The naming of the place, as 2819.
That the section refers to Jacob's outward journey, and that 9f.
describe a different theophany on his return, is probable from the following
considerations: (1) The analogy of the older tradition (JE). (2) (Hebrew characters)
and no ritual worship of any kind before the Sinaitic legislation. As a
part of the Bethel-narrative, it is unintelligible in E, who has already
described the origin of the maẓẓebāh there (2818), and still more in J,
who does not sanction maẓẓebās at all. The impression that the scene
is Bethel depends solely on the words (Hebrew characters)—(Hebrew characters), which can easily be
excised, as a gloss from 15. The suggestion that the v. continues 8 is due
to Cornill (ZATW, xi. 15 ff.), and seems the most satisfactory solution
of the problem.—(Hebrew characters)] 2 Ki. 1613. 15 is the only other instance of the word
before Jeremiah, though the vb. appears in 2 Sa. 2316, Ho. 94. In Jer.,
Ezk. (2028), and II Isa. it is an accompaniment of heathenish worship; its
legalisation for the worship of the temple appears in Ezk. 4517 and P.
Its mention here is a proof of the great antiquity of the notice (Corn. l.c.).
