• The difTerencea in the n.%me8 and parentage of E.'8 wives, as given In Gn 2ti»* 28^ and 3ti2 are due, perhaps, not to divergent traditions (for these passages are all assi^^ed to the same * source,' P), but (1) to aouble names, (2) to errors in transcrip- tion by the editor of the documents.
t The worda in Gn 2'^ may mean either (partitively) that E.'s dwelling would be ' of the fatness * or (privatively) ' away from the fatness.' Tlie latter suits better the character of Seir.
: Gn '30 (P) suggest*, when taken by itself, that E.'s departure to Seir took place only after Jacob's return to Canaan, not before it, as 323 (J) intimates ; but if we suppose that, so long as Isaac lived, E., while dwelling much in Seir, retained an abode in Can., the discrepancy disappears.
i If wofiit; 'fornicator' m this verse refer to E. (which is doubtful), the ref. is either to his marriages with idolatresses, or to Heb. traditions e his gross immorality.
growth through which Jacob, originally far lest amiable, is transformed from a tricky ' supplanter into Israel, a prince of God. Even E.'s natural frankness and generosity fail him, when he tries, witliout Jacob's knowledge, to obtain the blessing virtually forfeited, and resolves to slay his brotlier, not in tlie first heat of resentment, but prudently, in cool blood, after Isaac's death has removed the peril of paternal curse. His later pacification — the out- come, directly, of atJ'ectionate impulse — was prob- ably due also to the conWction that the head of a host of 400 had, after all, lost nothing through being supplanted by one whom the coveted blessing, after twenty years, had made only a successful cattle-breeder.
Some modern critics * regard the history of E. and Jacob as more or less mythical. Ewald supposes the details about E. were suggested by the rough nature of IduniEea (Tyer Seir = rough), and by the later relations of Edom and Israel. Kuenen lays stress on the representation of E. and Jacob (with other personages in Gn) as ' pro- genitors of tribes ' — a ' theory of the origin of nations ' which ' the historical sense of the present day rejects.' Families, he declares, become nations, not so much by multiplying as by conquest of and combination with other populations. For discussion of the general question, see Tkibe. As regards Esau in particular, (1) the roughness of Edomite territory may be reasonably traced to the disposition of a progenitor whose rougli strength prompted him to choose an abode suited to his habits. (2) Nothing in Gn precludes tlie supposition that the Edomites (as well as the Israelites) included within their communities the descendants of retainers and immigrants. (3) It is difiicult to believe that legends containing so much that is derogatory to the venerated Jacob, and favourable (comparatively) to the ancestor of unfriendly Edomites, should grow up among the Jews. Of the stories and features of character which would naturally cluster round E.'s name in Heb. circles, we have specimens in Rabbinical writings which represent E. as thief, fornicator, blasphemer, etc., as committing five heinous sins in one day, as giving his father dog's flesh for venison, and biting Jacob after the latter's return. t The impartiality of Gn in revealing much that is attractive about E. and repulsive (even to an Eastern mind) about Jacob, suggests a substanti- ally historical record which could liold its ground in spite of its (to the Jews) unpalatable character.
LiTERATUHB (in addition to works quoted above). — Kalisch, Dilhnann, and Delitzsch on Gerwsig ; Yonge in Exponitor for 1884 ; Farrar in Fall of Man ; Doda, Igaac^ Jacob, and ./osrph ; Cox, Hebrew TroiTis ; Lightfoot, Carniyridge .^ennowi. 3 ; Moinet, Gre<tt Alternative, 119; Welldon, Fire upon Aitar, 79, 92; Jacobs, Studies in Bibl. Archaeology, 4S-63.
2. CHffoi;), 1 Es 5»=ZlHA, Ezr 2", Neh V".
H. Cowan.
ESCHATOLOGY (t4 ((rxara, the last things).— Eschatology gives an account of the final condition of man and the world as this is represented in scripture. The idea of a final condition of man- kind and the world rests on the other idea that history is a moral process, with a jjoal towards which it is moving. In scripture this moral pro- cess is specifically a redemptive process, of which the author and the finisher is God, He Himself being the end towards which mankind is being dra\vn, for the perfection of man lies in full fellowship with God ; and the perfection of man is reflected in, and subserved by, a new condition of the world, which is transfigured with his redemption. In this view
• Ewald. nist. 0/ /«r. bk. i. sec. i. O ; Kuenen, Rfl. of 1st. oh. ii. ; more moderately. Kittel, UiKt. of Hebrews, Enu'- tr. i. li;9.
\ See instances collected by Wetetein, on He 1210, and bj Stanley, Jewish Church, i. p. 47.
ESCHATOLOGY
ESCHATOLOGV
r35
the Messianic idea and hope becomes an important element in eschatology ; but in OT, at least in its earlier portions, tlie Alessianic is not yet so de- veloped as to be a constant feature in the eschato- logieal picture, much less that which gives its whole colour to the picture. The redeemer is God — 'salvation belongetn unto the Lord' (Ps 3) ; and if the Messiah anjwhere be redeemer or king of the redeemed people, he is so in virtue of the divine in him, as bein" in some way God in mani- festation (Is 9-''). Tne nomenclature, therefore, of some writers, who employ eschatological and Messianic as synonymous terms, is somewhat confusing; for, though this terminology be more and more justified as revelation advances, there are many eschatological passages even in late writings in which there is not only no mention of the personal Messiah, but in which there is no reason to suppose that the idea of a personal Messiah lay a.s a presupposition in the background of the autlior's thought. The OT reveals its con- ceptions piecemeal. Its writers are like subordin- ate workmen, each absorbed in his own particular task, in polishing a comer or carving a chapiter or WTeathing a pillar ; it is only when the master- builder appears, with the full idea of the house in his mind, that each of the separate parts takes its place in the building. While, therefore, every Messianic passage i.s eschatological, there are many eschatological pa.isages not Messianic.