1.
(o)
Some
traditions,
sucli
as
those
concerning
kinship
with
non-Palestinian
tribes,
the
deliverance
from
Egypt,
and
concerning
Moses,
were
brought
into
Palestine
from
the
desert.
(6)
Others,
such
as
the
traditions
of
Abraham's
connexion
with
various
shrines,
and
the
stories
of
Jacob
and
his
sons,
were
developed
in
the
land
of
Canaan,
(c)
Still
others
were
learned
from
the
Canaanites.
Thus
we
learn
from
an
inscrip-tion
of
Thothmes
iii.
about
B.C.
1500
that
Jacob-el
was
a
place-name
in
Palestine.
(See
W.
M.
Mflller,
Asien
und
Europa,
162.)
Israel,
as
will
appear
later,
was
a
name
of
a
part
of
the
tribes
before
they
entered
Canaan.
In
Genesis,
Jacob
and
Israel
are
identified,
probably
because
Israel
had
settled
in
the
Jacob
country.
The
latter
name
must
have
been
learned
from
the
Canaanites.
Similarly,
in
the
inscription
of
Thothmes
Joseph-d
is
a
place-name.
Genesis
(48''')
tells
how
Joseph
was
divided
into
two
tribes,
Ephraim
and
Manasseh.
Prob-ably
the
latter
are
Israelitish,
and
are
so
called
because
they
settled
in
the
Joseph
country.
Lot
or
Lulen
(Egyp.
Ruten)
is
an
old
name
of
Palestine
or
of
a
part
of
it.
In
Genesis,
Moab
and
Ammon
are
said
to
be
the
children
of
Lot,
probably
because
they
settled
in
the
country
of
Luten.
In
most
cases
where
a
tradition
has
blended
two
elements,
one
of
these
was
learned
from
the
Canaanites.
(,d)
Finally,
a
fourth
set
of
tradi-tions
were
derived
from
Babylonia.
This
is
clearly
the
case
with
the
Creation
and
Deluge
narratives,
parallels
to
which
have
been
found
in
Babylonian
and
Assyrian
literature.
(See
KIB
vi.)
2.
Classified
according
to
their
content,
we
have:
(o)
narratives
which
embody
the
history
and
movements
of
tribes.
(6)
Narratives
which
reflect
the
traditions
of
the
various
shrines
of
Israel.
The
stories
of
Abraham
at
Bethel,
Shechem,
Hebron,
and
Beersheba
come
under
this
head,
(c)
Legendary
and
mythical
survivals.
Many
of
these
have
an
aetiological
purpose
;
they
explain
the
origin
of
some
custom
or
the
cause
of
some
physical
phenomenon.
ThusGnlS.
19
—
the
destruction
of
Sodom
and
the
other
cities
of
the
plain
—
^is
a
story
which
grew
up
to
account
for
the
Dead
Sea,
which,
we
now
know,
was
produced
by
very
different
causes.
Similarly
On
22
is
a
story
designed
to
account
for
the
fact
that
the
Israelites
sacrificed
a
lamb
instead
of
the
firstborn,
(d)
Other
narratives
are
devoted
to
cosmogony
and
primeval
history.
This
classification
is
worked
out
in
detail
in
Peters'
Early
Hebrew
Story.
It
is
clear
that
in
writing
a
history
of
the
origin
of
Israel
we
must
regard
the
patriarchal
narratives
as
relating
largely
to
tribes
rather
than
individuals,
and
must
use
them
with
discrimination.
3.
Historicalmeaning
of
the
patriarchal
narratives.
—
Parts
of
the
account
of
Abraham
are
local
traditions
of
shrines,
but
the
story
of
Abraham's
migration
is
the
narrative
of
the
westward
movement
of
a
tribe
or
group
of
tribes
from
which
the
Hebrews
were
descended.
Isaac
is
a
shadowy
figure
confined
mostly
to
the
south,
and
possibly
represents
a
south
Palestinian
clan,
which
was
afterwards
absorbed
by
the
Israelites.
Jacob-Israel
(Jacob,
as
shown
above,
is
of
Canaanitish
origin;
Israel
was
the
name
of
the
confederated
clans)
represents
the
nation
Israel
itself.
Israel
is
called
an
Aramsan
(Dt
26'),
and
the
account
of
the
marriage
of
Jacob
(Gn
29-31)
shows
that
Israel
was
kindred
to
the
Aramaeans.
We
can
now
trace
in
the
cuneiform
litera-ture
the
appearance
and
westward
migration
of
the
Aramaeans,
and
we
know
that
they
begin
to
be
men-tioned
in
the
Euphrates
valley
about
B.C.
1300,
and
were
moving
westward
for
a
little
more
than
a
century
(see
Paton,
Syria
and
Palestine,
103
ff.
)
.
The
Israelites
were
a
part
of
this
Aramaean
migration.
The
sons
of
Jacob
are
divided
into
four
groups.
Six
—
Reuben,
Simeon,
Levi,
Judah,
Issachar,
and
Zebulun
—
are
said
to
be
the
sons
of
Leah.
Leah
probably
means
'wild
cow'
(Delitzsch,
Prolegomena,
80;
W.
R.
Smith,
Kinship^,
264).
This
apparently
means
that
these
tribes
were
of
near
kin,
and
possessed
as
a
common
totem
the
'wild
cow'
or
'bovine
antelope.'
The
tribes
of
Manasseh,
Ephraim,
and
Benjamin
traced
their
descent
from
Racliel.
Rachel
means
'ewe,'
and
these
tribes,
though
kindred
to
the
other
six,
possessed
a
different
totem.
Judah
was.
In
the
period
before
the
conquest,
a
far
smaller
tribe
than
afterwards,
for,
as
will
appear
later,
many
Palestinian
clans
were
absorbed
into
Judah.
Benjamin
is
said
to
have
been
the
youngest
son
of
Jacob,
born
in
Palestine
a
long
time
after
the
others.
The
name
Benjamin
means
'sons
of
the
south,'
or
'southerners':
the
Benjamites
are
probably
the
'southerners'
of
the
tribe
of
Ephraim,
and
were
gradually
separated
from
that
tribe
after
the
conquest
of
Canaan.
Four
sons
of
Jacob
—
Dan,
Naphtali,
Gad,
and
Asher
—
are
said
to
be
the
sons
of
concubines.
This
less
honourable
birth
probably
means
that
they
joined
the
confederacy
later
than
the
other
tribes.
Since
the
tribe
of
Asher
can
be
traced
in
the
el-Amarna
tablets
in
the
region
of
their
subsequent
habitat
(cf.
Barton,
Semitic
Origins,
248
ff.),
this
tribe
probably
joined
the
confederacy
after
the
conquest
of
Palestine.
Perhaps
the
same
is
true
of
the
other
three.
4.
The
beginnings
o£
Israel.
—
The
original
Israel,
then,
probably
consisted
of
the
eight
tribes
—
Reuben,
Simeon,
Levi,
Judah,
Issachar,
Zebulun,
Manasseh,
and
Ephraim,
though
perhaps
the
Rachel
tribes
did
not
join
the
confederacy
until
they
had
escaped
from
Egypt
(see
§
6).
These
tribes,
along
with
the
other
Abrahamidae—
the
Edomites,
Ammonites,
and
Moabites—
moved
westward
from
the
Euphrates
along
the
eastern
border
of
Palestine.
The
Ammonites,
Moabites,
and
Edomites
gained
a
foothold
in
the
territories
afterwards
occupied
by
them.
The
Israelites
appear
to
have
been
compelled
to
move
on
to
the
less
fertile
steppe
to
the
south,
between
Beersheba
and
Egypt,
roaming
at
times
as
far
as
Sinai.
Budde
(,Rel.
of
Isr.
to
the
Exile,
6)
regards
the
Khabiri,
who
in
the
el-Amarna
tablets
lay
siege
to
Jerusalem,
as
Hebrews
who
made
an
incursion
into
Palestine,
c.
B.C.
1400.
Though
many
scholars
deny
that
they
were
Hebrews,
perhaps
they
were.
5.
The
Egyptian
bondage.
—
From
the
time
of
the
first
Egyptian
dynasty
(c.
B.C.
3000),
the
Egyptians
had
been
penetrating
into
the
Sinai
tic
Peninsula
on
account
of
the
mines
in
the
Wadi
Maghara
(cf
.
Breasted,
Hist,
of
Egypt,
48).
In
course
of
time
Egypt
dominated
tlie
whole
region,
and
on
this
account
it
was
called
Musru,
Egypt
being
Musru
or
Misraim
(cf.
Winckler,
Hibbert
Jour.
ii.
571
ff.,
and
KATn4:ia.).
Because
of
this,
Winckler
holds
(KA
T^
212
ff.)
that
there
is
no
historical
foundation
for
the
narrative
of
the
Egyptian
oppression
of
the
Hebrews
and
their
exodus
from
that
country;
all
this,
he
con-tends,
arose
from
a
later
misunderstanding
of
the
name
Musru.
But,
as
Budde
(Rel.
of
Isr.
to
the
Exile,
ch.
i.)
has
pointed
out,
the
firm
and
constant
tradition
of
the
Egyptian
bondage,
running
as
it
does
through
all
four
of
the
Pentateuohal
documents
and
forming
the
back-ground
of
all
Israel's
religious
and
prophetic
conscious-ness,
must
have
some
historical
content.
We
know
from
the
Egyptian
monuments
that
at
different
times
Bedu
from
Asia
entered
the
country
on
account
of
its
fertility.
The
famous
Hyksos
kings
and
their
people
found
access
to
the
land
of
the
Nile
in
this
way.
Prob-ability,
accordingly,
strengthens
the
tradition
that
Hebrews
so
entered
Egypt.
Ex
1"
states
that
they
were
compelled
to
aid
in
building
the
cities
of
Pithom
and
Raamses.
Excavations
have
shown
that
these
cities
were
founded
by
Rameses
ii.
(b.c.
1292-1225;
cf.
Hogarth,
Authority
and
Archceology,
55).
It
has
been
customary,
therefore,
to
regard
Rameses
as
the
Pharaoh
of
the
oppression,
and
Menephtah
(Meren-ptah,
1225-1215)
as
the
Pharaoh
of
the
Exodus.
This
view
has
in
recent
years
met
with
an
unexpected
difficulty.
In
1896
a
stele
was
discovered
in
Egypt
on
which
an
in-scription
of
Menephtah,
dated
in
his
fifth
year,
mentions
the
Israelites
as
already
in
Palestine
or
the
desert
to
the
south
of
it,
and
as
defeated
there,
(cf.
Breasted,
Atic.
