_Joseph becomes Viceroy of Egypt_
(Jehovist, Priestly-Code).
Two years after the events of chapter 40, the king of Egypt has a
wonderful double dream, which none of his magicians is able to
interpret (¹⁻⁸). The chief butler is naturally reminded of his own
experience, and mentions Joseph, who is forthwith summoned into the
royal presence (⁹⁻¹⁴). Having interpreted the dreams as a prophecy of
a great famine (¹⁵⁻³²), Joseph adds some sage advice on the right way
to cope with the emergency (³³⁻³⁶); and Pharaoh is so impressed by his
sagacity that he entrusts him with the execution of the scheme, and
makes him absolute ruler of Egypt (³⁷⁻⁴⁶). In pursuance of the policy
he had foreshadowed, Joseph stores the surplus of seven years of
plenty, and sells it during the subsequent famine (⁴⁷⁻⁵).
_Analysis._――The connexion of this chapter with the preceding
appears from ¹ᵃ and ⁹⁻¹³: note שר המשקים, ש׳ האפים, ש׳ הטבחים, משמר,
קצף (40²); Joseph the servant of the ש׳ הט׳; the officers confined
in his ‘house’; Joseph ‘with them’ (¹⁰, compare 40³ᐧ ⁴); and
compare ¹¹ with 40⁵. In the first half of the chapter there is
no sufficient reason to suspect a second source except in ¹⁴ᵇ
(Yahwist); the repetitions and slight variations are not greater
than can be readily explained by a desire for variety in the
elaboration of detail. The whole of this section (¹⁻²⁸) may
therefore be safely assigned to Elohist (compare ואין־פותר אותם,
⁸, ופתר אין אתו, ¹⁵ with 40⁸ᵃ; ¹⁶ with 40⁸ᵇ).――In the second
half, however, there are slight diversities of expression and
representation which show that a parallel narrative (Yahwist)
has been freely utilised. Thus, in ³³ Joseph recommends the
appointment of a single dictator, in ³⁴ the appointment of
‘overseers’; in ³⁴ a _fifth part_ is to be stored, in ³⁵ᐧ ⁴⁸
_all_ the corn of the good years; in ³⁵ᵇ{α} the collection is to
be centralised under the royal authority, in ᵇ{β} localised in
the different cities; צבד בר alternates with קבץ אכל (³⁵ᵇ{α}ᐧ ⁴⁹ ∥
³⁵ᵃᐧ ⁴⁸). Further, ³⁸ seems ∥ ³⁹; ⁴¹ ∥ ⁴⁴; and ⁴⁵ᵇ ∥ ⁴⁶ᵇ; ⁴⁵ᵃ פוטי
פרע = פוטיפר can hardly be from Elohist, who has employed the name
for another person (37³⁶). Some of these differences may, no
doubt, prove to be illusory; but taken cumulatively they suffice
to prove that the passage is composite, although a satisfactory
analysis cannot be given. For details, see the notes below; and
consult Holzinger 234; Gunkel 380 f.; Procksch 43 f.――⁴⁶ᵃ is
from Priestly-Code, and ⁵⁰ᵇ is a gloss.
=1‒8. Pharaoh’s dreams.=――=2.= _from the Nile_ (_v.i._)] the source
of Egypt’s fertility (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 425 ff.),
worshipped as ‘the father of the gods,’ and at times identified with
Osiris or Amon-re (Erman, _A Handbook of Egyptian Religion_, 14 f.,
80 ff.).――_seven cows, etc._] “According to Diodorus Siculus i. 51,
the male ox is the symbol of the Nile, and sacred to Osiris, the
inventor of agriculture (_ib._ i. 21).... The Osiris-steer often
appears accompanied by _seven cows_, e.g. on the vignettes of the old
and new Book of the Dead” (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten
Orients_², 389).――=4.= The devouring of one set of cows by the other
is a fantastic but suggestive feature of the dream; the symbolism is
almost transparent.――=5‒7.= The second dream is, if possible, more
fantastic and at the same time more explicit.――=6.= _blasted with the
east-wind_ (LXX ἀνεμόφθοροι)] the dreaded sirocco or, _Ḥamsīn_, which
blows from the South-east from February to June, destroying vegetation,
and even killing the seed-corn in the clods (Ebers, 340; Erman,
_Life in Ancient Egypt_, 9; Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy
Land_, 67 ff.).――=8.= _all the magicians and wise men of Egypt_]
The possessors of occult knowledge of all sorts, including the
interpretation of dreams (see page 461); compare Tacitus, _Histories_
iv. 83: “Ptolemæus ... sacerdotibus Ægyptiorum, quibus mos talia
intellegere, nocturnos visus aperit”; see Ebers, 341‒349. The
motive――the confutation of heathen magic by a representative of the
true religion――is repeated in the histories of Moses (Exodus 7‒9)
and Daniel (chapters 2. 5); compare Isaiah 47¹² etc.
* * * * *
=1.= ופרעה חלם] Participial clause as apodosis; see Driver _A
Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 78 (3).――היאר]
An Egyptian loan-word (_’iotr_, _’io’r_ = ‘stream’), used in
Old Testament of the Nile and its canals (except Isaiah 33²¹,
Job 28¹⁰, Daniel 12⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ); found also in Assyrian in the form
_ya’aru_. See Ebers, 337 f.; Steindorff, _BA_, i. 612 (compare
171).――=2.= אחו (41¹⁸, Job 8¹¹†)] ‘Nile-grass’ = Egyptian _aḥu_,
from _aḥa_, ‘be green’ (Ebers, 338). LXX ἄχει occurs also
verses ³ᐧ ¹⁹, Isaiah 19⁷, Sirach 40¹⁶.――=3.= ודקות] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ ורקות (so verse ⁴). It is naturally
difficult to decide which is right; but Ball pertinently points
to the alliterations as determining the choice: read therefore
ר׳ in ³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁷, but דּ׳ in ⁶ᐧ ²³,――in other words, ר׳ always
of the cows and דּ׳ always of the ears.――אצל] LXX omits, thus
making all the 14 cows stand together.――=4.= ותאכלנה] LXX + שֶׁבַע;
so ⁷ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁴. LXX has many similar variations (which need not
be noted), revealing a tendency to introduce uniformity into
the description.――=8.= ותפעם] ‘was perturbed’; as Daniel 2³ (2¹
Hithpael), Psalms 77⁵.――חרטמים] Only in this chapter, in Exodus
7‒9 (Priestly-Code), and (by imitation) in Daniel 2². The word
is thus practically confined to Egyptian magicians, though
no Egyptian etymology has been found; and it may be plausibly
derived from Hebrew חֶרֶט, _stylus_.――אתם] Read with LXX אֹתוֹ, after
חלמוֹ; the dream is ‘one’ (verses ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶).
* * * * *
=9‒14. Joseph summoned to interpret the dreams.=――=9.= The butler’s
ungrateful memory is stimulated by the opportunity of ingratiating
himself with his royal master, though this requires him to _make
mention of_ his old offence.――=12.= _according to each man’s dream
he interpreted_] Note the order of ideas as contrasted with verse ¹¹
(40⁵): there is a pre-established harmony between the interpretation
and the dream, and the office of the interpreter is to penetrate the
imagery of the dream and reach the truth it was sent to convey.――=13.=
_I was restored ... he was hanged_] Literally ‘Me one restored,’
etc., according to Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 _d_, _e_. To suppose the
omission of _Pharaoh_, or to make Joseph the subject, is barely
admissible.――=14.= _and they brought him hastily from the dungeon_]
is a clause inserted from Yahwist.――_shaved himself_] his head and
beard,――a custom which seems to have been peculiar to the priests
under the New Empire (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 219; compare
Herodotus, ii. 37).
* * * * *
=9.= את־פרעה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ better
אל פ׳.――חטאַי] LXX חטאִי (singular). The resemblance of the clause (⁹ᵇ)
to 40¹ does not prove it to be from Yahwist (Gunkel).――=10.= אתי]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אתם, LXX אתנו.――=11.=
ונחלמה] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 49 _e_.――=12.= ויפתר――פתר] LXX καὶ
συνέκρινεν ἡμῖν.
* * * * *
=15‒24. Pharaoh’s recital of his dreams.=――=15.= _thou canst hear a
dream to interpret it_] _i.e._, ‘thou canst interpret a dream when
thou hearest it’: Hebrew subordinates the emphatic clause where we
would subordinate the condition.――=16.= Compare 40⁸.――The answer (on
the form, _v.i._) exhibits a fine combination of religious sincerity
and courtly deference.――=17‒21.= The first dream.――The king gives a
vivid subjective colouring to the recital by expressing the feelings
which the dream excited. This is natural, and creates no presumption
that a parallel narrative is drawn upon. Similarly, the slight
differences in phraseology (תאר for מראה, דַּלּוֹת, etc.) are due to the
literary instinct for variety.――=22‒24.= The second dream.
* * * * *
=15.= תשמע] _Oratio obliqua_ after לֵאמֹר (without כי),
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 157 _a_; Davidson § 146, _R._ 1.――=16.=
בִּלְעָדַי] literally ‘Apart from me’ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ לא מן חוכמתי), used
as 14²⁴. _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX read
בִּלְעֲדֵי אלהים לא יֵעָנָה = ‘Apart from God, one will not be answered,’
etc.; compare Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase)" (‘Dost thou expect
that apart from God one will answer?’ etc.). Vulgate _Absque me
Deus respondebit_, shifting the accent. There seems a _double
entendre_ in the use of יענה: ‘answer’ and ‘correspond’: ‘God
will give an answer corresponding to the welfare,’ etc.――=19.=
דלות] ‘flaccid’; LXX omitted.――=21.= קרבֶנָה] On the suffix
compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 _f_.――מראיהן] Singular (_ib._ § 93
_ss_).――=23.= צנמות] Aramaic = ‘dried,’ ‘hardened.’ The word is
ἅπαξ λεγόμενον in Old Testament, and is omitted by LXX, Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå.――אחריהם] MSS and _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ הֶן――. The irregular gender of Massoretic Text only
here in this chapter.
* * * * *
=25‒32. The interpretation.=――=25‒27a.= The general outline of the
interpretation: the dream is one; it is a presage of what is to
happen; the number seven refers to years. The methodical exposition
is meant to be impressive.――=27b= brings the climax: _There shall be
seven years of famine_ (so Procksch _v.i._).――=28.= It is uncertain
whether הוּא refers back to ²⁵ᵇ (‘This is what [I meant when] I said
to Pharaoh’), or to ²⁷ᵇ (‘This is the announcement I [now] make to
Pharaoh’). In any case =29= looks like a new commencement, and may
introduce a variant from Yahwist (_v.i._).――=31.= ולא יִוָּדַע goes back to
the ולא נוֹדַע of ²¹.――=32.= If the dream is one, why was it twice repeated?
Because, says Joseph, the crisis is certain and urgent. So he rounds
off his finished and masterly explanation of the dreams.
* * * * *
=26.= פרת] Omission of article may be justified on the
ground that the numeral is equivalent to a determinant
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _x_); but _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ הפרות is much to be preferred.――=27.= הרֵקוֹת]
‘empty.’ The pointing is suggested partly by the contrast to
מלאֹת (²² etc.), partly by the fact that (in Massoretic Text) רַק
has not been used of the ears. We ought undoubtedly to read הַדַּקּוֹת
(_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå).――יהיו וגו׳]
The translation above is not free from difficulty; it omits a
prediction of unusual plenty preceding the famine, which is,
nevertheless, presupposed by what follows. But the ordinary
rendering is also weak: why should the seven thin ears alone
be fully interpreted? Besides, שִׁבֳּלִים is feminine.――=28‒32.= The
critical difficulties of the chapter commence in this section.
Procksch assigns ²⁹⁻³¹ to Yahwist (∥ ²⁷ ᶠᐧ _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_), instancing כִּלִּה (compare 18³³ 24¹⁵ᐧ
¹⁹ 27³⁰ 43² 44¹²), and כָּבֵד (12¹⁰ 43¹ 47⁴ᐧ ¹³) as characteristic
of Yahwist; but they are not decisive. Gunkel limits Yahwist to
²⁹ᐧ ³⁰ᵃᐧ ³²ᵇ{β} (∥ ²⁷ ᶠᐧ ³⁰ᵇᐧ ³¹ᐧ ³²ᵃᵇ{α} Elohist). This is on the
whole more satisfying, since ונשכח and ולא יִוָדַע appear to be doublets
(Dillmann); but a positive conclusion will hardly be reached.
* * * * *
=33‒36. Joseph’s advice to Pharaoh.=――Here Joseph proves himself to
be no mere expert in reading dreams, but a man with a large reserve
of practical wisdom and statesmanship.――=33‒35.= There is an apparent
discrepancy between the appointment of a single official (³³ᵃ) and
that of a commission of ‘overseers’ (³⁴ᵃ); and again between the
fifth part (³⁴ᵇ) and the whole (³⁵ᵃ); we note also the transition
from singular (וחמש) to plural (ויקבצו, etc.). For attempts at division
of sources, see below.――=34.= The taxing of a fifth part of the crop
seems to have been a permanent Egyptian institution (see on 47²⁴),
whose origin the Hebrews traced to the administration of Joseph.――=35.=
_under the hand_ (_i.e._ the authority) _of Pharaoh_] compare Exodus
18¹⁰, 2 Kings 13⁵, Isaiah 3⁶.
* * * * *
=33‒36.= The passage is certainly composite, and can be
resolved into two nearly complete sequences as follows: Elohist
= ³³ᐧ ³⁴ᵇᐧ ³⁵ᵇ{α} (to פרעה) ³⁶ᵃ{βγ}; Yahwist = ³⁴ᵃᐧ ³⁵ᵃᵇ{β} (from
אֹכֶל)ᐧ ³⁶ᵃ{α} ᵇ. Characteristic of Elohist are איש בר, ארץ מצרים, צבר,
against Yahwist’s פקידים (with פִּקָּדוֹן), הארץ, קבץ אכל; and the only
necessary change is יצברו to יצבר. The result corresponds pretty
closely with Gunkel’s analysis; that of Procksch differs
widely.――=33.= יֵרֶ֫א] see Baer-Delitzsch page 78; Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 75 _p_. Strack, however, holds the true reading to be
יֵ֫רֶא.――=34.= יעשה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
ויעש. To the peculiar idiom, Delitzsch compares the Latin _fac
scribas_; יעשה may, however, mean ‘take action,’ as 1 Kings
8³².――וחמש] LXX plural.――=35.= אכל בערים ושמרו] Ball prefixes וְיִתְּנוּ
(as verse ⁴⁸); some such expedient is necessary to make sense
of the last word.――For ושמרו, _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå have ישמרו; LXX συναχθήτω (יצברו?).――=36.=
פִּקָּדוֹן] Leviticus 5²¹ᐧ ²³†; obviously suggested here by פקדים in
verse ³⁴.
* * * * *
=37‒46. Joseph’s elevation.=――=37, 39= (Elohist) ∥ =38=
(Yahwist).――The _thing_ that _was pleasing to Pharaoh, etc._, is not
the interpretation of the dreams, but the practical suggestion with
which it was followed up, though it was the former which proved that
Joseph was truly inspired. The statement that the policy commended
itself comes from Elohist; in Yahwist, Pharaoh improves upon it
by entrusting the supervision to Joseph himself instead of to
the ‘overseers’ he had proposed.――=38.= _the spirit of God_] here
first mentioned in Genesis as the source of inward illumination and
intellectual power. The idea that eminent mental gifts proceed from
the indwelling of the divine spirit, which is implied in Pharaoh’s
exclamation, was probably ancient in Israel, although the proofs of it
are comparatively late (compare Exodus 31³, Numbers 27¹⁸; see Stade,
_Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_ § 43. 1).――=40.= _over my
house_] The dignity may be compared to that of “Mayor of the palace”
under the Merovingian kings; compare 1 Kings 4⁶ 16⁹, Isaiah 22¹⁵
etc.――=41.= _over all the land of Egypt_] The most coveted civic
office in Egypt was that of the _T’ate_, the chief of the whole
administration, “the second after the king in the court of the palace”
(see Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 87 ff., 69). The elevation of
Syrian slaves to such dignities is likewise attested for the age of
the New Empire (_ib._ 106, 517 f.).――=42.= The form of investiture is
specifically Egyptian.――_his signet-ring_] used in sealing documents
(Esther 3¹² 8⁸), and given as a token of authority (Esther 3¹⁰ 8²,
1 Maccabees 6¹⁵ etc.).――_fine linen_] the weaving of which was
carried to extreme perfection in Egypt; Erman, 448 ff.――_the golden
collar_] There is probably an allusion to ‘the reward of the gold,’ a
decoration (including necklets of gold) often conferred in recognition
of eminent service to the crown (Erman, 118 ff.: see the engraving,
208¹).――=43.= _the second-best chariot_] Horses and carriages first
appear on monuments of the 18th dynasty, and must have been introduced
“during the dark period between the Middle and the New Empire” (Erman,
490).――_they cried before him ’Abrēk_] A very obscure word; for
conjectures, _v.i._――=44.= An almost exact parallel (Yahwist) to
⁴¹ (Elohist).――=45a.= Joseph’s marriage.――The conferring of a new
name naturally accompanied promotions like that of Joseph (Erman,
144).――_the high priest of ’Ôn_] was an important personage in the
religion and politics of the New Empire (see Erman, _Life in Ancient
Egypt_, 76, 83, 89, and _passim_), and the priestly college there was
reputed the greatest in the country for learning (Herodotus, ii. 3;
Strabo, XVII. i. 29). _’Ôn_ (Egyptian _Anu_) is Heliopolis, 7 miles
North-east of Cairo, an ancient seat of the worship of the sun-god
Ra.――On the other names in the verse, _v.i._――=45b= and =46b= are
doublets.――=46a= (Priestly-Code). The chronology is altogether
inconsistent with the assumptions of Jehovist regarding the relative
ages of Joseph and Benjamin (see Bennett 360).――_stood before Pharaoh_]
compare 47⁷ (Priestly-Code).
¹ Compare Heyes, _Bibel und Ägypten: Abraham und seine
Nachkommen in Ägypten_ 248 ff.
* * * * *
=37‒46.= _Analysis._――To Elohist we may pretty confidently
assign ³⁷ᐧ ³⁹ (נבון וחכם as ³³) ⁴⁰; to Yahwist ³⁸ᐧ ⁴⁴ᐧ ⁴⁵. Whether
Yahwist’s parallel to ⁴⁰ commences with ⁴¹ (Procksch), or is
delayed to ⁴⁴ (Gunkel), it is hard to decide. ⁴¹ᵇ reads like a
formula of investiture accompanying the action of ⁴²ᵃ, of which
⁴³ᵇ would be the explication. ⁴⁶ᵇ{β} would be a natural sequel
to ⁴³ᵃ (ויעבר). Hence, if a division must be attempted, that of
Procksch may be followed, viz., Elohist = ⁴⁰ᐧ ⁴²ᵇᐧ ⁴³ᵃᐧ ⁴⁶ᵇ{β};
Yahwist = ⁴¹ᐧ ⁴²ᵃᐧ ⁴³ᵇᐧ ⁴⁴ᐧ ⁴⁵.――=38.= הנמצא] 1st plural imperfect
Qal.――=40.= ועל־פיך ישק] LXX ἐπὶ τῷ στόματί σου ὑπακούσεται. The
meaning ‘kiss’ being obviously unsuitable, Tuch, Delitzsch,
Dillmann render ‘arrange themselves’ (from Arabic _nasaḳa_);
others point יָשֹׁק, ‘run’; but no explanation is quite satisfactory.
על־פיך may, of course, mean ‘at thy command’ (45²¹, Exodus 17¹
etc.).――רק הכסא] ‘only as regards the throne’; Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 118 _h_.――=41.= אתך] LXX + σήμερον.――=42.= שֵׁשׁ] Apparently an
Egyptian word (Coptic _šens_), replaced in post-Exilic Hebrew
by בּוּץ. It is disputed whether it means cotton alone, or linen
alone, or both; see Dillmann’s exhaustive note on Exodus
25⁴, and _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 2800 f.――הזהב] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ זהב.――=43.= בְּמִרכבת] Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 85 _h_.――ויקראו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
LXX, Peshiṭtå ויקרא.――אַבְרֵךְ] The word remains an enigma. The
resemblance to Hebrew ברך has misled no ancient Version
except Aquila (γονατίζειν) and Vulgate (_ut genuflecterent_).
Peshiṭtå renders (‡ Syriac phrase); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ דין אבא למלכא;
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ דין אבא למלכא רב בחכמתא ורכיך בשנייא; LXX has κῆρυξ as
subject of verb (Vulgate also has _clamante præcone_). The
speculations of Egyptologists are too numerous to mention:
see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._, or Heyes, 254 ff. The best is
that of Spiegelberg (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ vi. 317
ff.), who considers that it is a call to ‘Attention!’ (Egyptian
_’b r-k_; literally, ‘Thy heart to thee!’). Friedrich Delitzsch
(_Wo lag das Paradies?_ 225) suggested a connexion with Assyrian
_abarakku_ (the title of a high official), which his father
declared to be a “neckischer Zufall”! Radical emendations of the
text have been proposed by Ball ([ל]אמר כ׳ נין) and Cheyne (אַבִּר כינאתן
= ‘Mighty one of Chuenaten’ [Amenophis IV.]: _Orientalische
Litteraturzeitung_ iii. 151 f.); these are wholly unsatisfying,
and the latter has not survived the criticisms of Müller
(_ib._ 325 f.): see _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_,
467.――ונתון] ‘thus placing.’ As continuation of ויתן in ⁴²ᵃ, the
infinitive absolute is grammatically correct (Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 113 _z_); and though the idiom is infrequent, there is no
reason to suspect the text. ――=45.= צָֽפְנַת פַּעְנֵחַ] LXX Ψονθομφανήχ
(transposing צ and פ? [see Nestle, _Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxv. 209 ff.]). The old
interpretations follow two lines: (1) ‘Revealer of secrets’
(Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ ii. 91; Peshiṭtå,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Patr.), connecting with Hebrew צפן; and
(2) ‘Saviour of the world’ (Coptic _p-sot-om-ph-eneḫ_, Delitzsch,
Holzinger); so Vulgate, Jerome _Quæstiones sive Traditiones
hebraicæ in Genesim_. Of modern Egyptological theories the one
most in favour seems to be that propounded by Steindorff in
_Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde_ xxvii.
41 f.: that it represents Egyptian _De- pnute-ef‛-onḫ_, and
means ‘The god speaks and he lives.’ It is said (_ib._ 42) that
personal names of this type (though with the _proper_ name of
a deity) are common from the beginning of the 22nd dynasty.
See the discussion in Heyes, _op. cit._ 258 ff., who prefers
the interpretation of Lieblein (_Proceedings of the Society
of Biblical Archæology_, 1898, 202 ff.): _defenti_ [or
_defenta_]_-pa-anḫ_ = “celui qui donne la nourriture de la
vie.”――אָֽסְנַת] Explained, with some hesitation, as ‘belonging to
(the goddess) Neith’ (Steindorff, Spiegelberg, al.).――פוטי פרע]
(LXX Πετεφρῆ, etc.) is a fuller form of פוטיפר; see on 39¹.――It
is worthy of remark that, except in the case of Asenath,
the suggested Egyptian analogues of these names do not
occur, save sporadically, earlier than the 22nd dynasty
(that of Shishak).――=45b.= LXX omits.――=46.= פרעה מלך מצרים
is an amplification in the style of Priestly-Code (Exodus
6¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ²⁹ 14⁸).
* * * * *
=47‒57. Joseph’s measures for relief of the famine.=――=47, 49=
(Elohist) ∥ =48= (Yahwist). He stores corn during the seven years
of plenty.――=50‒52= (Elohist?). Joseph’s two sons.――_Mĕnaššeh_]
interpreted quite grammatically as ‘causing to forget.’ The etymology
is not to be taken too literally, as if the narrator meant that Joseph
had actually forgotten his father’s house (compare Psalms 45¹¹).――=52.=
_made me fruitful_] The name of the tribe is generally thought to
contain the idea of fruitfulness, from the fertility of the region in
central Palestine which it occupied.――=54‒57.= The beginning of the
famine.――=54, 55= contain a slight discrepancy. According to ⁵⁴ᵇ the
Egyptians had no lack of bread, and consequently no need to apply
to Joseph, though they were indebted to his forethought. In ⁵⁵ they
are famishing, and have to buy their food from Joseph: this view
is connected with 47¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=56.= _opened all that was in them_]
Read with LXX ‘all the granaries,’ though the Hebrew text cannot be
certainly restored (_v.i._)――=57.= prepares for the next scene of the
drama (chapter 42).
State granaries, for the sustenance of the army, the
officials and the serfs, were a standing feature of Egyptian
administration (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 107 f.; compare
433 f.), and were naturally drawn upon for the relief of the
populace in times of scarcity (_ib._ 126). The ‘superintendent
of the granaries’ was a high officer of state, distinct, as a
rule, from the vizier or _T’ate_ (page 469); but a union of the
two dignities was just as easy under exceptional circumstances
as the combination of the Premiership with the Chancellorship
of the Exchequer would be with us (see Erman, 89). We can
readily understand that such a wise and comprehensive provision
impressed the imagination of the Israelites, and was attributed
by them to a divine inspiration of which one of their ancestors
was the medium (compare Gunkel 384).――Besides these general
illustrations of the writer’s acquaintance with Egyptian
conditions, two special parallels to this aspect of Joseph’s
career are cited from the monuments: (1) Ameny, a monarch under
Usertsen I. (12th dynasty), records on his grave at Beni-Hasan
that when years of famine came he ploughed all the fields of his
district, nourished the subjects of his sovereign and gave them
food, so that there was none hungry among them. (2) Similarly,
on a grave of the 17th dynasty at El-Kab: “When a famine arose,
lasting many years, I distributed corn to the city in each
year of the famine” (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
alten Orients_², 390; Driver 346 f.). For the sale of grain to
foreigners, we have the case of Yanḫamu, governor of Yarimutu,
in the Amarna letters (see below on 47¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ).――It is impossible
to desire a fuller demonstration of the Egyptian background
of the Joseph-stories than chapter 41 affords. The attempt to
minimise the coincidences, and show that “in a more original
and shorter form the story of Joseph had a North Arabian and
not a Palestinian and Egyptian background, and consequently that
‘Pharaoh, king of Egypt,’ should be ‘Pir’u, king of Miṣrim’”
(_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 454‒473), tends to
discredit rather than confirm the seductive Muṣri-theory, which
is pushed to such an extravagant length.
* * * * *
=47‒57.= _Analysis._――Starting from the presumption that the
storing of food in the cities and the direct appeal of the
famishing people to Pharaoh are not from the same source, the
best division seems the following: Elohist = ⁴⁷ᐧ ⁴⁹ᐧ ⁵⁴ᵃᐧ ⁵⁵ᐧ ⁵⁶ᵇ;
Yahwist = ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵⁶ᵃᐧ ⁵⁷ (compare Gunkel and Procksch). ⁵⁰⁻⁵²
are universally assigned to Elohist (on account of אלהים) in
spite of the fact that the children are named by the father.
Priestly-Code’s authorship is perhaps excluded by the explicit
etymologies, to which there are no real analogies in that
document. The verses in any case interrupt the context of
Jehovist, and may be a supplementary notice inserted by a late
hand at what seemed the most suitable place.――=47.= לקמצים] The
√ is elsewhere peculiar to Priestly-Code (Leviticus 2² 5¹² 6⁸,
Numbers 5²⁶†); and Ball assigns ⁴⁶⁻⁴⁸ to that source. But the
sense ‘by handfuls’ is doubtful, and is represented by none of
the old versions except the clumsy paraphrases of Vulgate and
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ; so that the text is probably at fault. LXX has
δράγματα; Peshiṭtå and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ (‡ Syriac word) and לאוצרין
[with (‡ Syriac word) and וכנשר for זתעש]――=48.= שנים אשר היו] Read
with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX השנים אשר היה
הַשָּׂבָע.――=50.= שְׁנַת] LXX τὰ ἑπτὰ ἔτη.――=51.= נַשּׁני] Piel only here;
both the form and the irregular vocalisation (Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 52 _m_) are chosen for the sake of assonance with מְנַשֵּׂה.――=54.=
היה] LXX οὐκ ἦσαν; so Peshiṭtå――a natural misunderstanding.――=56.=
אשר בהם] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אשר בהם בר. The
context imperatively demands a noun [LXX σιτοβολῶνας, Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word)]. Lagarde (_Symmicta_ i. 57) suggested a Hebrew
equivalent of Talmud. אישבורא; Wellhausen some derivative of שבר;
Delitzsch, Ball, and Kittel (combining _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ and Peshiṭtå) אוצרות הַבָּר.――וישבר] Pointed וַיַּשְׁבֵּר
(Hiphil); compare 42⁶.――ויחזק וגו׳] LXX omits.――=57.= הארץ¹] Better
הארצות as LXX (compare ⁵⁴).
* * * * *