(Yaḳub-ilu, Yašup-ilu) is true; but that only establishes a possibility, hardly a probability; for it is more likely that the individual was named after his tribe than that the tribe got its name from an individual.—The name Abram stands by itself. It represents no ethnological entity, and occurs historically only as the name of an individual; and though it is capable of being interpreted in a sense appropriate to deity, all analogy is in favour of explaining it as a theophorous human name. The solitary allusion to the biblical Abram in the monuments—the mention of the 'Field of Abram' in Shishak's inscription (see p. 244)—is entirely consistent with this acceptation.—It is probably a mistake to insist on carrying through any exclusive theory of the patriarchal personalities. If we have proved that Abram was a historical individual, we have not thereby proved that Isaac and Jacob were so also; and if we succeed in resolving the latter into tribal eponyms, it will not follow that Abraham falls under the same category.
There is thus a justification for the tendency of many
writers to put Abraham on a different plane from the other
patriarchs, and to concentrate the discussion of the historicity
of the tradition mainly on his person. An important element
in the case is the clearly conceived type of character which
he represents. No doubt the character has been idealised
in accordance with the conceptions of a later age; but the
impression remains that there must have been something in
the actual Abraham which gave a direction to the idealisation.
It is this perception more than anything else which
invests the figure of Abraham with the significance which it
has possessed for devout minds in all ages, and which still
resists the attempt to dissolve him into a creation of religious
phantasy. If there be any truth in the description of legend
as a form of narrative conserving the impression of a great
personality on his age, we may venture, in spite of the lack
of decisive evidence, to regard him as a historic personage,
however dim the surroundings of his life may be.[1]
- ↑ Cf. Höffding, Phil. of Rel. 199 ff.: "Its essence [that of legend consists in the idea of a wonderful personality who has made a deep impression on human life—who excited admiration, furnished an example, and opened new paths. Under the influence of memory, a strong expansion of feeling takes place: this in turn gives rise to a need for intuition and explanation, to satisfy which a process of picture-making is set in motion. . . . In legends . . . the central interest is in the subject-matter, in the centripetal power, which depends on an intensification of memory rather than on any naïve personification and colouring. . . ."
