2634 289 (see on vv.1-5). On this point I., III., and IV. hang together; and if these sections are excluded, there remains nothing that can be plausibly assigned to P except II. and VII. (so We. Kue. Ho. Gu. al.). The argument for reducing P's share in the chapter to this minimum rests, however, on the assumption that the Code is the compilation of a single writer, who cannot be supposed to lapse into self-contradiction. The facts seem to point to a redactional process and a divergence of tradition within the Priestly school; and I am inclined to think that in I. (?), III., and IV. we have excerpts from the book of Tôledôth incorporated in P, whose main narrative will have included 2634 289, and in which 3529 366-8 371 may have read continuously. VII. must then be rejected as a late compilation in which the style of the Tôledôth is successfully imitated (so Meyer).—As regards V. and VI. little can be said. The former might well have been part of the Tôledôth; the latter is unique in Gen., and there are no positive reasons for assigning it to J (so most) or any other source.
1-5. Esau's wives and sons.—The scheme here projected
supplies the common framework of the two Edomite
genealogies, 9-14 and 15-19, except that in the following
sections the second and third wives exchange places. These
marriages and births are said to have taken place in the land of Canaan, before the migration to Sē'îr; but the fact
that 'Oholibamah is a Ḥorite (see below), indicates an absorption
of Ḥorite clans in Edom which would naturally
have followed the settlement in Se'ir.—Here we come on
a difference of tradition regarding the names and parentage
of Esau's wives.
According to 2634 289 (P), the three wives are (a) Yĕhûdîth bath-Bĕ'ērî,
the Hittite; (b) Bāsĕmath bath-'Ēlôn, the Ḥittite ([E]GAS Ḥivvite);
(c) Maḥălath bath-Yišmā'ê̄l, sister of Nĕbayôth. Here they are (a)
'Ādā bath-'Elôn, the Ḥittite; (b) 'Oh[)o]lîbāmāh bath-'Ănāh, the Ḥorite;
(c) Bāsĕmath bath-Yišmā'ēl, sister of Nĕbāyôthbayôth above]. The confusion is too
great to be accounted for naturally by textual corruption, though that
may have played a part. We can only conjecture vaguely that vv.9-14
1. (
Hebrew characters)] probably a gloss (cf. v.8. 19); but the persistency with
which the equivalence is asserted is itself instructive. Esau and Edom
are really distinct names (see p. 359 f.), and P has no legendary identification
of them, such as 2530. Hence the connexion is established in
two ways: Esau = Edom (1. 8. 19); and Esau the father of Edom (9. 43).—2.
(Hebrew characters)] 'had taken,' as already recorded (2634 289).—(Hebrew characters)] [E]GS
(Hebrew characters); deleted by Ho. and Gu. as a gloss. But in clan names gender is
not always carefully distinguished; and the writer probably took (Hebrew characters)
as fem. In v.25 'Oholibamah is herself one of the sons of 'Anah.—(Hebrew characters)]
Rd. (Hebrew characters), v.s.—5. (Hebrew characters)] Keth. as v.14, 1 Ch. 710; Qrê (Hebrew characters), as v.18, 1 Ch.
