forth an aimless wanderer (Di.). It proves that in E, as in J and P, Abraham was an immigrant in Canaan.
14-18. Abimelech makes reparation to Abraham.—14.
The present to Abraham in 1216 was of the nature of
mōhar or purchase-price of a wife; here it is a compensation
for injury unwittingly inflicted. The restoration of Sarah is,
of course, common to both accounts.—15. The invitation to
dwell in the land is a contrast to the honourable but
peremptory dismissal of 1219f..—16. see, I give . . . to thy brother] For injury done to a woman compensation was due
to her relatives if unmarried, to her husband if married or
betrothed (Ex. 2215f., Dt. 2223ff.): Abimelech, with a touch
of sarcasm, puts Sarah in the former category.—1000
(shekels) of silver] not the money value of the gifts in v.14
(Str.), but a special present as a solatium on behalf of Sarah.—a covering of the eyes] seemingly a forensic expression for
the prestation by which an offence ceases to be seen, i.e., is
condoned. The fig. is applied in various ways in OT; cf.
Jb. 924, Gn. 3221, Ex. 238, 1 Sa. 123.—The cl. (
Hebrew characters) is
obscure, and the text hardly correct (v.i.). The general
sense is that Sarah's honour is completely rehabilitated.—
14. (Hebrew characters)] [E] G pr. (Hebrew characters) (fr.16) wrongly.—(Hebrew characters)] probably a gl.
fr. 1216, this being the only instance of (Hebrew characters) in an E context.—16. (Hebrew characters)]
G (Greek characters);
V hoc erit tibi in velamen oculorum ad omnes qui tecum sunt [et quocunque perrexeris]; S (Syriac characters).
The difficulties of the v. commence
here. The suggestion that (Hebrew characters) refers to Abraham (IEz.) may be
dismissed, and also the fantastic idea that Sarah is recommended to
spend the money in the purchase of a veil, so that she may not again be
mistaken for an unmarried woman (2465)! The first qn. is, Whose eyes
are to be covered?—Sarah's own ((Hebrew characters)), or those of the people about her
((Hebrew characters)), or both ((Hebrew characters) [with [E] G])? Di. adopts the second view, taking
(Hebrew characters) as dat. comm. To this De. forcibly replies that dat. comm. before
dat. of reference is unnatural: hence he takes the first view ((Hebrew characters), dat. of
ref., and (Hebrew characters) = bezugs aller); i.e., "Her credit with her household, which
had been injured by her forcible abduction, would be restored, and the
malicious taunts or gossip of men and maids would be checked, when
they saw how dearly the unintentional insult had been atoned for"
(Ba.). A better sense would be obtained if (Hebrew characters) could be taken as
neuter: 'all that has befallen thee' (Tu. Ho. al.). That is perhaps
