(cf. 2 Sa. 1125).—and went out] Evidently this is the close
of the exploit.—27. came upon the slain] Cf. V Quibus egressis, irruerunt super occisos cæteri filii Jacob. That is
perhaps the sense intended by the redactor. But, to say
nothing of the improbability of two men being able to kill
all the males of the city, the second narrative (Ex) must
have given an independent account of the attack on Shechem.
25b must be transferred to this v.; and another word must
be substituted for (
Hebrew characters) (v.i.).—28, 29. Cf. the similar phraseology
of Nu. 319. 11 (P).—30, 31 (continuing 26). Jacob
rebukes Simeon and Levi, not for their treachery and cruelty,
but for their recklessness in exposing the whole tribe to the
vengeance of the Canaanites.—I am few in number] it is the
tribal, not the individual, consciousness which finds expression
here.
The legend at the basis of ch. 34 reflects, we can scarcely doubt, an
incident of the Hebrew settlement in Canaan. Shechem is the eponymus
of the ancient city of that name, and Ḥămôrămōr prev. page] of the tribe dwelling there;
Ḥămôr is the father of Shechem, because the tribe is older than its
possession of the city. Jacob, in like manner, stands for the Israelites,
who are nomads ranging the country round Shechem, and on friendly
terms with its inhabitants. Whether Dînāh was a weak Hebrew clan
threatened with absorption by the Ḥamorites is not so certain; it is
more natural to suppose that a literal outrage of the kind described was
the cause of the racial quarrel which ensued.[1]—There are two historic
events which seem to stand in some connexion with the narrative—the
Hebrew conquest of Shechem, and the dissolution of Simeon and Levi
as tribal entities. (1) The conquest of Shechem is presupposed in Jos. 24;
but it is remarkable that it is never mentioned either among the cities
captured by the Israelites, or among those which remained independent.
The account of its destruction by Abimelech in Ju. 9 appears to imply
possibility that the vv. have been glossed by some one who had Nu. 31 in
mind is not to be denied.—27. (Hebrew characters)] lit. 'pierced,' means either 'slain'
(Nu. 1918 318. 19 etc.), or (rarely) 'fatally wounded' (La. 212 etc.); neither
sense being suitable here. Gu. suggests (Hebrew characters), 'sick' (Hebrew characters), v.25.—29.
(Hebrew characters)] Remove athnach to (Hebrew characters) ([root] (Hebrew characters)) and omit (Hebrew characters) before (Hebrew characters) (cf. [E]GS).—(Hebrew characters)]
coll.; but S (Syriac characters) G (Greek characters).—30.
(Hebrew characters)] = Ar. 'akira, 'be turbid,' in Heb. lit. 'make turbid' = 'undo,'—a
strong word; cf. Jos. 618 725, 1 Ki. 1817f.—(Hebrew characters)] lit. 'men of number,'
numerable, and therefore few; Dt. 427 336, Jer. 4428 etc.
- ↑ A singularly apposite and interesting modern parallel is quoted by Bennett (p. 318 f.) from Doughty, Arabia Deserta, ii. 114.
