question (Lv. 1818) is late; and does not its enactment in the PC rather imply that the practice against which it is directed survived in Israel till the close of the monarchy?—The distinction between the mōhar, or purchase price of a wife, and the gift to the bride (ib.), should not be cited: the mōhar is an institution everywhere prevailing in early pastoral societies; it is known to Hebrew jurisprudence (Ex. 2216); its name is not old Babylonian; and even its transmutation into personal service is in accordance with Arab practice (p. 383 below).[1]—In short, it does not appear that the examples given differ from another class of usages, "die nicht spezifisch altbabylonisch sind, sondern auch spätern bez. intergentilen Rechtszuständen entsprechen, die aber . . . wenigstens teilweise eine interessante Beleuchtung durch den Cod. Ḫamm. erfahren." The "interessante Beleuchtung" will be freely admitted.
Still less has the new knowledge of the political circumstances of Palestine contributed to the direct elucidation of the patriarchal tradition, although it has brought to light certain facts which have to be taken into account in interpreting that tradition. The complete silence of the narratives as to the protracted Egyptian dominion over the country is very remarkable, and only to be explained by a fading of the actual situation from the popular memory during the course of oral transmission. The existence of Philistines in the time of Abraham is, so far as archæology can inform us, a positive anachronism. On the whole it must be said that archæology has in this region created more problems than it has solved. The occurrence of the name Yaḳob-el in the time of Thothmes III., of Asher under Seti I. and Ramses II., and of Israel under Merneptah; the appearance of Hebrews (Ḫabiri?) in Palestine in the 15th cent., and in Egypt ('Apriw?) from Ramses II. to Ramses IV., present so many difficulties to the adjustment of the patriarchal figures to their original background. We do not seem as yet to be in sight of a historical construction which shall enable us to bring these conflicting data into line with an intelligible rendering of the Hebrew tradition.
It is considerations such as these that give so keen an edge to the controversy about the genuineness of ch. 14. That is the only section of Genesis which seems to set the figure of Abraham in the framework of world history. If it be a historical document, then we have a fixed centre round which the Abrahamic traditions, and possibly those of the other patriarchs as well, will group themselves; if it be but a late imitation of history, we are cast adrift, with nothing to guide us except an uncertain and artificial scheme of chronology. For an attempt to estimate the force of the arguments on either side we must refer to the commentary below (p. 271 ff.). Here, however, it is in point to observe that even if the complete historicity of ch. 14 were established, it would take us but a little way towards the authentication of the patriarchal traditions as a whole. For that episode confessedly occupies a place entirely unique in the records of the patriarchs; and all the marks of contemporary authorship which it is held to present are so many proofs
- ↑ See S. A. Cook, Cambridge Biblical Essays, 79f.
