peninsula of Sinai, which, as it is, are too much thrust into the background; for there can be no doubt that in the earliest history of Israel these tribes were of no small importance.  Nor are apparent contradictions wanting in the ethnographic genealogy.  Ishmael, Edom, and the Cainite tribes first mentioned, come into mutual contact in different ways, which may be quite naturally explained from different views and arrangements of their mutual relationships.  And lastly we may add that the genealogical form lends itself to the reception of every sort of materials.  In the patriarchal legend, however, the ethnographic element is always predominant.  Abraham alone is certainly not the name of a people like Isaac and Lot:  he is somewhat difficult to interpret.  That is not to say that in such a connection as this we may regard him as a historical person; he might with more likelihood be regarded as a free creation of unconscious art.  He is perhaps the youngest figure in the company, and it was probably at a comparatively late period that he was put before his son Isaac. 1

****************************************** 1.  The stories about Abraham and those about Isaac are so similar, that they cannot possibly be held to be independent of each other.  The stories about Isaac, however, are more original, as may be seen in a striking way on comparing Genesis xx. 2-16 with xxvi 6-12.  The short nnd profane version, of which Isaac is the hero, is more lively and pointed; the long and edifying version in which Abraham replaces Isaac, makes the danger not possible but actual, thus necessitating the intervention of the Deity and so bringing about a glorification of the patriarch, which he little deserved.  All the commentators on Genesis indeed, regard chapter xx. as the original of xxvi.; they do not base their judgment, however, on a comparison of the parallel passages, but merely consider that as the father is older than the son, the story about the father is older than the corresponding story about the son; and they regard Isaac generally as a mere echo of Abraham.  The obviousness of this principle is too great, and against it we have to consider that the later development of the legend shows a manifest tendency to make Abraham the patriarch par excellence and cast the others into the shade.  In the earlier literature, on the other hand, Isaac is mentioned even by Amos, Abraham first appears in Isaiah xl.-lxvii.  Micah vii 20 belongs to the exile, and the words “who redeemed Abraham” in Isaiah xxix. 22 are not genuine; they have no possible position in the sentence, and the idea of the salvation of Abraham (from the fire of the Chaldaeans) is of late occurrence.  I certainly do not mean to maintain that Abraham was not yet known when Amos wrote; but he scarcely stood by this time at the same stage as Isaac and Jacob.  As a saint of Hebron he might he of Calibite ordain, and have something to do with Ram (1Chronicles ii.).  Abram may stand for Abiram, as Abner for Abiner and Ahab for Ahiab.  The name Abu Ruham occurs in the Hadith as nomen proprium viri. *************************************