^{page 56 note 2} cf. de Vaux, R., ‘Les Patriarches Hébreux et les découvertes modernes’, Revue Biblique, LIII, 1946, pp. 321–47; LV, 1948, pp. 321–47; LVI, 1949, pp. 5–36;Google Scholar translated, idem, Die Hebräischen Patriarchen und Die Modernen Entdeckungen, Düsseldorf, 1961; Rowley, H. H., ‘Recent Discovery and the Patriarchal Age’, BJRL, XXXII, 1949, pp. 3–38Google Scholar; reprinted, idem, The SERVANT of the LORD and Other Essays on the Old Testament, London, 1952, pp. 271–305Google Scholar; Gibson, J. C. L., ‘Light from Mari on the Patriarchs’, Journal of Semitic Studies, VII, 1962, pp. 44–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Bright, J., A History of Israel, Old Testament Library, London, 1960, pp. 60–93Google Scholar; Holt, J. M., The Patriarchs of Israel, Nashville, 1964.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 3} cf. von Rad, G., Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch, BWANT, iv, 26, Giessen, 1938Google Scholar; reprinted, idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, 8, Münich, pp. 9–86Google Scholar; Noth, M., Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Stuttgart, 1948.Google Scholar See also idem, The History of Israel (second edition of Eng. trans.), London, 1960, pp. 121–7Google Scholar; von Rad, G., Genesis: A Commentary (Eng. trans. of first German edition), Old Testament Library, London, 1961Google Scholar; idem, Old Testament Theology, I: The Theology of Israel's Historical Traditions (Eng. trans. of first German edition, I), Edinburgh and London, 1962, pp. 165–75.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 1} cf. Albright, W. F., ‘New Egyptian Data on Palestine in the Patriarchal Age’, BASOR, 81, 1941, pp. 16–21Google Scholar; idem, ‘A Third Revision of the Early Chronology of Western Asia’, BASOR, 88, 1942, p. 36, n. 39Google Scholar; idem, FSAC, second edition with a New Introduction, New York, 1957, pp. 236–43.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 2} cf. Gordon, C. H., ‘Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets’, BA, III, 1940, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 3} cf. Wright, G. E., Biblical Archaeology, Philadelphia and London, 1957, pp. 45–51.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 1} von Rad, G., Old Testament Theology, I, p. 173. Cf.Google Scholaridem, ‘History and the Patriarchs’, ET, LXXII, 1960–1961, pp. 213–16Google Scholar, in reply to Wright, G. E., ‘Modern Issues in Biblical Studies: History and the Patriarchs’, ET, LXXI, 1959–1960, pp. 292–6.Google Scholar The difference between the principles of the Alt school and those of the Albright school, which is the point at issue in these two articles, is reflected in the disparity of space allotted to the patriarchs in the Histories of Israel by M. Noth and J. Bright.

^{page 58 note 2} But contrast Zimmerli, W., ‘Promise and Fulfillment’, in Westermann, C., ed., Essays on Old Testament Interpretation (Eng. trans. edited by J. L. Mays), London, 1963, p. 91.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 1} Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der Israelitischen Religion, BWANT, iii, 12, Stuttgart, 1929; reprinted, idem, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, I, Munich, 1953, pp. 1–78.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 1} cf. Alt, A., Kleine Schriften, I, pp. 32–36.Google Scholar The texts are quoted in extenso by Alt, ibid., pp. 68–77.

^{page 60 note 2} cf. A. Alt, ibid., p. 67, n. 4.

^{page 60 note 3} FSAC, p. 248, n. 71.

^{page 60 note 4} cf. Gen. 24.12, 27, 42, 48 (the god of my master), 26.24, 27.20 (Yahweh thy god), 28.13, 31.5, 29, 42, 53; 32.10 (9), 43.23, 45.1, 3, 48.15, 50.17. See A. Alt, ibid., pp. 14–19. The names of the patriarchal deities are found in Gen. 15.1, 31.42, 53, 49.24. Cf. Gen. 28.13, 31.42, 53 (the god of Abraham).

^{page 60 note 5} May, H. G., ‘The God of My Father—a Study of Patriarchal Religion’, in Journal of Bible and Religion, IX, 1941, pp. 155–8, 200.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 6} ‘Les Textes paléo-assyriens et l'Ancien Testament’, in Revue de l'Histoire des Religions, CX, 1934, pp. 29–65.Google Scholar It is, of course, true that Lewy criticised Alt's theory, believing that ̓Ēl Saddai should be identified with ‘the god of the fathers’, and that Alt was dissatisfied with Lewy's parallels, because of the apparent absence of the name of an individual. But the earlier data really serve to strengthen the original theory. Cf. Albright, W. F., FSAC, p. 249.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 1} cf. Hyatt, J. P., ‘Yahweh as “The God of My Father”’, in VT, V, 1955, p. 131f.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 2} Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. A summary and criticism of the methods and results of the Alt-Noth school can be found in Bright, J., Early Israel in Recent History Writing, Studies in Biblical Theology, 19, London, 1956, pp. 34–55, 79–126.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 3} ibid., pp. 58–62, 86–127, 162–71.

^{page 62 note 1} ibid., p. 61f.

^{page 62 note 2} Old Testament Theology, I, p. 168. See idem, Genesis: A Commentary, p. 184f.

^{page 62 note 3} Die Verheissungen an die drei Erzväter, Leiden, 1956.Google Scholar See Noth's, M. review in VT, VII, 1957, pp. 430–3.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 1} cf. K. Galling, Die Erwählungstraditionen Israels, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 48, Giessen, 1928Google Scholar, who argued that the tradition of Abraham's election is secondary and stemmed from the ‘great Israel’ orientation of the early monarchy.

^{page 63 note 2} cf. Isa. 49.14–21, 51.1–3, 54.1–3.

^{page 64 note 1} Exod. 3.6, 15.2, 18.4. Cf. Hyatt, J. P., loc. cit., pp. 133–6.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 2} The form with the plural ‘fathers’ is found in Exod. 30.13, 15f, 4.5. The promise of land appears in Exod. 13.5, 11 in the phrase ‘he swore to thy fathers’. Cf. Exod. 6.4, 8 (P), 32.13, 33.1; Num. 10.29, 11.12, 14.23, 32.11 (P).

^{page 64 note 3} loc. cit., p. 135.

^{page 64 note 4} cf. Gen. 12.2, 7, 13.14ff, 15.5, 7, 18, 17.4ff, 8, 19 (P), 18.10, 22.17, 24.7, 26.3f, 24, 28.3f (P), 13f, 32.13 (12), 35.11f (P), 46.3, 48.4 (P), 16, 50.24. See von Rad, G., ‘Verheissenes Land und Jahwes Land im Hexateuch’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, LXVI, 1943, pp. 191–204Google Scholar; reprinted, idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, pp. 87–100.

^{page 64 note 5} Gen. 26.24, 28.13, 32.10 (9), cf. v. 13 (12). = I am.

^{page 65 note 1} cf. Gen. 13.16, 28.14 (dust), 15.5, 22.17 (stars), 22.17, 32.13(12) (sand).

^{page 65 note 2} A possible exception is Gen. 15.7, but since Gen. 15.7 and 18 constitute respectively the introduction and conclusion of the covenant pericope, they should be taken together.

^{page 65 note 3} Gen. 15.1-5.

^{page 65 note 4} cf. e.g. Religion und Kultus, Göttingen, 1953, p. 137Google Scholar, where it is urged that striking parallels do not necessarily mean identical ideas (revised German edition of Religion og Kultus, Oslo, 1950).Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 1} cf. idem, Genesis: A Commentary, pp. 13–22; idem, Das fünfte Buch Mase: Deuteronomium, übersetzt und erklärt, Das Alte Testament Deutsch, 8, Göttingen, 1964, pp. 46f, 113fGoogle Scholar, where again stress is laid on the remarkable absence of the Sinai-event from the credo.

^{page 66 note 2} Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, pp. 48–67. The question whether G was oral or literary is left open. See also Weiser, A., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, second edition, Göttingen, 1949, pp. 66–79.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 3} Wright, G. E., ‘Cult and History: A Study of a Current Problem in Old Testament Interpretation’, in Interpretation, XVI, 1962, p. 12f.Google Scholar See also idem, God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital, Studies in Biblical Theology, 8, London, 1952. pp. 70–76.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 4} See especially, Mendenhall, G. E., ‘Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law’, in BA, XVII, 1954, pp. 26–46Google Scholar; idem, ‘Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition’, in BA, XVII, 1954, pp. 50–76Google Scholar; reprinted, idem, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Pittsburgh, 1955Google Scholar; cf. Thompson, J. A., The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament (Tyndale Lecture in Biblical Archaeology, 1963), London, 1964.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 1} Joshua 24.13.

^{page 68 note 1} Joshua 24.25. See Wright, G. E., loc. cit., p. 10, n. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 2} Israel: Its Life and Culture, I–II, London and Copenhagen, 1926, pp. 182–212.Google Scholar Pedersen, however, was apparently unaware of the inconsistency inherent in making the blessing prospective, cf. op. cit., p. 190.

^{page 68 note 3} cf. the phrase TAR beriti ( = Karaṯ b^eríṯ) in texts from Qatna.

^{page 69 note 1} cf. Bright, J., A History of Israel, p. 91Google Scholar; Zimmerli, W., loc. cit., p. 90.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 2} cf. Noth, M., The History of Israel, p. 123Google Scholar, who believes the patriarchs were ‘nomadic shepherds’, and de Vaux, R., Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (Eng. tr. based upon first French edition), London, 1961, p. 4Google Scholar, who thinks ‘the Patriarchs are already becoming a settled people’.

^{page 69 note 3} cf. Gen. 12.10, 24.10, 29.20, 30.

^{page 69 note 4} cf. 2 Kings 10.15–24, Jer. 35.12–19.

^{page 70 note 1} cf. Gen. 34.10, 21, 42.34. See Gen. 37.28 and the account of the transaction between Ephron and Abraham in Gen. 23 (P). Cf. Lehmann, M. R., ‘Abraham's Purchase of Machpelah and Hittite Law’, in BASOR, 129, 1953, pp. 15–18.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 2} cf. Gen. 12.10, 15.13, 19.9, 20.1, 21.23, 34, 23.4 (P), 25.3, 32.5 (4), 35.27 (P), 47.4.

^{page 70 note 3} cf. Gordon, C. H., ‘Abraham and the Merchants of Ura’, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, XVII, 1958, pp. 28–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who draws attention to the root ; Albright, W. F., ‘Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation’, in BASOR, 163, 1961, pp. 36–54Google Scholar, who argues that Abraham was not a seminomad, but a resident alien and caravaneer, pp. 44–54.

^{page 70 note 4} v. 29.

^{page 70 note 5} Gen. 24.60.

^{page 70 note 6} Gen. 24.35, 26.12–14; cf. 25.11a (P), 28.1 (P), 30.27, 30, 32.27 (26), 30 (29); 35.9 (P).

^{page 71 note 1} Some favour the Amama period, cf. Gordon, C. H., loc. cit., p. 31.Google Scholar H. H. Rowley places the terminus ad quem of the patriarchal age ca. 1400 b.c., cf. idem, From Joseph to Joshua (Schweich Lectures, 1948), London, 1950, pp. 109–30.Google Scholar See the discussion in Bright, J., A History of Israel, pp. 74–78.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 2} Gen 17.1 (P), 28.3 (P), 35.11 (P), 43.14, 48.3 (P); cf. Albright, W. F., FSAC, pp. 243ff.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 3} Gen. 14.18ff, 22. Cf. W. F. Albright, ibid., p. 248.

^{page 71 note 4} Gen. 21.33.

^{page 71 note 5} Cf. Gen. 14.18, 21.33. See Gen. 16.13 ('Ēl Ro'i) 31.13, 35.7 ('Ēl Bêṯēl).

^{page 72 note 1} vv. 21, 40, 42, 56. Cf. vv. 1, 27, 31 (√ brk)

^{page 72 note 2} In Anderson, B. W., ed., The Old Testament and Christian Faith, London, 1964, pp. 200–24.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 3} Gen. 12.3, 18.18, 22.18, 26.4, 28.14.

^{page 73 note 1} vv. 27f, cf. vv. 4, 7, 10, 19, 23, 25, 29ff, 33f, 38, 41.

^{page 73 note 2} Jer. 31.33 ( = ‘I will make’, lit. cut) cf. 31.31. See C. Westermann, loc. cit., p. 218f, and also B. W. Anderson, ‘The New Covenant and the Old’, ibid., p. 232.