_Joseph’s Brethren come to Egypt to buy Food_
(Elohist, Yahwist)
One thing is still wanting to the dramatic completeness of the story
of Joseph: the recognition of his greatness by his family, or (in
Elohist) the fulfilment of his youthful dreams. This is the theme of
the second part of the history (chapters 42‒45), where the writers
tax their inventiveness to the utmost in retarding the _dénouement_
of the plot. Two visits to Egypt, and not fewer than four interviews
with Joseph, are needed to prepare for the final reconciliation; and
the hearers’ attention is all the while kept on the stretch by the
surprising expedients adopted by Joseph to protract the suspense and
excite the compunction of his brethren.――In chapter 42 we are told how
the ten brothers are brought to Egypt by stress of famine (¹⁻⁴), are
recognised by Joseph, and denounced and imprisoned as spies (⁵⁻¹⁷);
and how after three days’ confinement they are sent home, leaving
Simeon behind them as a hostage (¹⁸⁻²⁸). Arrived in Canaan, they
relate their adventure to Jacob, who bitterly complains of the loss of
two children, and refuses to trust Benjamin to their charge (²⁹⁻³⁸).
The incident of the money found in the sacks (²⁵ᐧ ²⁷ ᶠᐧ ³⁵) increases
the dread with which they contemplate a return to Egypt.
_Analysis._――Chapter 42 belongs _a potiori_ to Elohist, and
43. 44 to Yahwist (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs
und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 58 ff.). A
distinct difference of representation appears from a comparison
of 42²⁹⁻³⁷ (which, _pace_ Procksch, is an undiluted excerpt from
Elohist) with 43³⁻⁷ 44¹⁹⁻²³ (Yahwist). “In chapter 42, Joseph
secures, by the detention of Simeon, that the brethren shall
return under any circumstances, with Benjamin or without; in
chapter 43 f., on the contrary, he forbids them to return unless
Benjamin is with them” (Wellhausen). In Yahwist, moreover,
the brethren do not volunteer the information that they have
a younger brother, but it is drawn out of them by searching
questions. It is certain (from doublets and phraseology) that
both Yahwist and Elohist are represented in 42¹⁻¹⁴; though the
former is so fragmentary that it is difficult to reconstruct
a narrative consistent with 43³ ᶠᶠᐧ 44¹⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ. Apparently, the
colloquy reproduced in 43⁷ 44²⁰⁻²³ 43³ must have followed the
acknowledgment that they were all one man’s sons (¹¹ᵃ ∥ ¹³ᵃ
Elohist),――a view which seems to fit in with all the literary
indications. Elohist’s account can easily be traced with
the help of ²⁹⁻³⁷: it includes the charge of espionage
(⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ³⁰), the imprisonment (¹⁷ᐧ ³⁰), the detention
of Simeon (¹⁹ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ³³ ᶠᐧ), the command to bring down Benjamin
(¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ³⁴), and the putting of the money in the sacks
(²⁵ᐧ ³⁵).――In ¹⁻¹⁴, the more obvious doublets are ¹ᵃ ∥ ²ᵃ,
⁵ᵃ ∥ ⁶ᵇ, ⁷ᵃ ∥ ⁸, ¹¹ᵃ ∥ ¹³ᵃ; characteristic phrases of Yahwist:
ירד, ²ᐧ ³; ונחיה ולא נמות, ² (43⁸ 47¹⁹); קרא אסון, ⁵ (42³⁸ 44²⁹); ישראל,
⁵; אֹכֶל, ⁷ᐧ ¹⁰. Possibly also לראות את־ערות הארץ, ⁹ᵇᐧ ¹²ᵇ, is Yahwist’s
variant for Elohist’s מרגלים, ⁹ᵇᐧ ¹¹ᵇ etc. (compare ³⁰ᐧ ³¹ᐧ ³⁴)
(Gunkel). Hence we may assign to Yahwist ²ᐧ ³ᵃᐧ ⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵{?}ᐧ ⁷ (except
וידבר אתם קשות, which should probably follow ⁹ᵃ in Elohist [Dillmann,
Kautzsch-Socin, Gunkel]), ⁹ᵇ{β}ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹ᵃᐧ ¹²; and to Elohist all
the rest (so Gunkel nearly: Procksch, however, very plausibly
assigns ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᵃ to Priestly-Code).――After ¹² there is no trace of
Yahwist till we come to ²⁷ᐧ ²⁸ᵃᵇ{αβ}, an obvious duplicate of
³⁵, containing Yahwist’s peculiar word אמתחת.――²⁹⁻³⁷ are from
Elohist: note the name Jacob, ²⁹ᐧ ³⁶; Reuben’s leadership, ³⁷;
and the words הביאו, ³⁴; תסחרו ³⁴ (37²⁸ [? 34²⁰ ᶠᐧ]); כֻּלָּנָה, ³⁶.
We also obtain some new expressions which may be employed
as criteria of Elohist: קשות, ³⁰ (compare ⁷); כנים, ³¹ᐧ ³³ᐧ ³⁴
(compare ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁹); רעבון בתיכם, ³³ (compare ¹⁹); שׂק, ³⁵ (compare
²⁵).――³⁸ belongs to Yahwist, but its proper place is after
43² (see on the verse).――A peculiar feature of this and the
following chapters is the name ארץ כנען, which is elsewhere in
Genesis characteristic of Priestly-Code (see page 245). From
this and some similar phenomena, Giesebrecht and others have
inferred a Priestly redaction of the Joseph pericope; but the
usage may be due to the constant and unavoidable antithesis
between Canaan and Egypt (see page 438 above).
=1‒4. The journey to Egypt.=――=1, 2.= Another effective change
of scene (compare 39¹ 41¹), introducing the deliberations in
Jacob’s family regarding a supply of food; where the energy and
resourcefulness of the father is set in striking contrast to the
perplexity of the sons.――=4.= Benjamin has taken Joseph’s place in
his father’s affection (44²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ); Jacob’s unwillingness to let him
out of his sight is a leading motive both in Yahwist and Elohist.
* * * * *
=1.= שֶׁבֶר] of uncertain etymology, is always used of grain as
an article of commerce (Amos 8⁵, Nehemiah 10³²).――יעקב] LXX
omits.――תתראו] LXX ῥᾳθυμεῖτε (? = תְּאַחֲרוּ, Kittel). Though the
Hithpael occurs elsewhere only in the sense of ‘face one another
in battle’ (2 Kings 14⁸ᐧ ¹¹ = 2 Chronicles 25¹⁷ᐧ ²¹), a change
of text is uncalled for.――=2.= ויאמר] LXX omits.――משם] LXX מעט אכל
(as 43²); read perhaps משם אכל.――=3.= עשרה] ‘ten in number,’
accusative of condition.――=4.= יעקב] LXX omits.
* * * * *
=5‒17. The arrival in Egypt, and first interview with Joseph.=――On =5,
6a=, _v.i._――=6b.= As suspicious strangers the brothers are brought
before the viceroy.――_bowed themselves, etc._] Reminding Joseph of
his dreams (verse ⁹). The original connexion in Elohist is broken by
the insertion of verse ⁷ from Yahwist.――=7= (Yahwist) ∥ =8= (Elohist).
That Joseph was not recognised by his brethren is natural, and
creates a situation of whose dramatic possibilities the narrators
take full advantage. The strange mixture of harshness and magnanimity
in Joseph’s treatment of his brothers, the skill with which he plays
alternately on their fears and their hopes, the struggle in his mind
between assumed severity and real affection, form the chief interest
of the narratives up to the time of the final disclosure. It is
unnecessary to suppose that the writers traced in all this the
unfolding of a consistent ethical purpose on Joseph’s part, and
it is certainly an exaggeration to speak of it as an exhibition of
‘seelsorgerische geistliche Weisheit’ (Delitzsch). On the other hand,
to say that his object was merely to punish them (Gunkel), is clearly
inadequate. To the writers, as to the brethren, the official Joseph is
an inscrutable person, whose motives defy analysis; and it is probably
a mistake to try to read a moral meaning into all the devices by which
his penetrating knowledge of the human heart is exemplified.――=9.=
_Ye are spies_] A charge that travellers in the East often encounter
(see page 484 below). The eastern frontier of Egypt was fortified and
closely watched (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 537 ff.), and a band
of ten men seeking to cross it excited suspicion.――_the nakedness of
the land_] Not its poverty, but its open and defenceless spots.――=11=
(Yahwist) ∥ =13= (Elohist). _sons of one man, etc._] Their eagerness
to clear their character betrays them into a disclosure of their
family circumstances, which in Yahwist is followed up by direct
interrogation and a warning that they need not return without their
youngest brother (page 473 above); while in Elohist, Joseph seizes on
the reference to Benjamin as a test of their veracity, and threatens
that they shall not leave Egypt until he is produced (¹⁵ ᶠᐧ).――_one is
not_] It is a fine instance of literary tact that Joseph never presses
the question as to the fate of the missing brother.――=14.= _This is
what I said_] ‘It is as I have said’ (compare 41²⁸). Joseph maintains
his opinion with well-feigned official obstinacy (Dillmann).――=15, 16.=
_By this shall ye be tested_] The pretext covers a real desire to see
Benjamin, which is explicitly avowed in Yahwist (44²¹ᵇ 43³⁰).――_By the
life of Pharaoh_] In Egypt the king was honoured as a god (Diodorus
i. 90; Erman, _A Handbook of Egyptian Religion_ 36 f.); and the oath
by his life is attested by an inscription of the 20th dynasty. The Old
Testament analogies cited by Knobel (1 Samuel 17⁵⁵, 2 Samuel 11¹¹)
are not in point, since they do not differ from the same formula
addressed to private persons (1 Samuel 20³ 25²⁶).――=17.= The three
days’ imprisonment is rather meaningless after verse ¹⁶ (see page
477). Gunkel remarks on the prominence of imprisonment in the Joseph
narratives, and surmises that a good many Hebrews had known the inside
of an Egyptian jail.
* * * * *
=5a= reads like a new beginning, and =5b= is superfluous after
¹⁻⁴. Procksch is probably right in the opinion that ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᵃ are
the introduction to Priestly-Code’s lost narrative of the visit,
a view which is confirmed by the unnecessary explanation of
⁶ᵃ, and by the late word.――=6.= שליט] only Ecclesiastes 7¹⁹
8⁸ 10⁵ [Ezekiel 16³⁰] and Aramaic portions of Ezra and Daniel
(Kuenen _Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en
de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds_ i. page 318).
The resemblance to Σάλατις, the name of the first Hyksos king
in Josephus, _Against Apion_ i. 77, can hardly be other than
accidental.――הוא²] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ והוא.――=9.= עֶרְוָה] literally _pudenda_, is
only here used of defencelessness. Arabic _‛aurat_ is similarly
used of a ‘breach in the frontier of a hostile country’
(Lane, 2194 c); compare _Ḳoran_ Surah 33¹³ “our houses are
_‛aurat_,”――a nakedness, _i.e._ unoccupied and undefended.
LXX has τὰ ἴχνη (reading perhaps עקבֹת [Ball]); Symmachus τὰ
κρυπτά.――=10.= ועבדיך] compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 163 _a_: _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå omit
ו.――=11.= נחנו] So Exodus 16⁷ᐧ ⁸, Numbers 32³², Lamentations
3⁴²† (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 32 _d_); _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ אנחנו.――כנים] literally ‘right men,’ is used
of persons only in this chapter.――=13.= בני איש אחד] LXX omits,
perhaps rightly; compare the ∥ verse ¹¹.――=16.= האסרו] Improved
expressing a determination, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 110 _c_.――הי פרעה]
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 93 _aa_¹. The distinction between הַי and חֵי
is a Massoretic caprice (Dillmann).――At the end of the verse
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ inserts a refusal of
the condition in the exact terms of 4444²²ᵃ{β} (Yahwist), which
undoubtedly smooths the transition to verse ¹⁷, but cannot be
original.
* * * * *
=18‒26. The second interview.=――After three days Joseph appears to
relent, and to entertain the idea that they may after all be telling
the truth. He now proposes to retain only one of them as a hostage,
and let the rest carry corn for their starving households.――=18.=
_I fear God_] the guardian of ‘international religious morality’
(Gunkel), which is presupposed throughout the patriarchal history; see
on 20³ 39⁹.――=21.= _Nay, but we are guilty_] The confession is wrung
from them by the distress (צָרָה) which has overtaken them, reminding
them of Joseph’s distress of soul (צָרַת נפשו) when they left him to
die,――_when he pleaded with us_] This touch of pathos is not recorded
in chapter 37.――=22.= Reuben had a right to dissociate himself from
the confession of guilt, for he had _meant_ to save Joseph; but like
many another man he claims credit for his good intention rather than
for the temporising advice he had actually given (37²²).――_his very
blood is required_] in spite of the fact that the speaker had kept
them from actual bloodshed.――=23.= _an interpreter_] This is the only
place in the patriarchal history where diversity of language appears
as a bar to intercourse.――=24.= Joseph is moved to tears by this
first proof of penitence.――_Simeon_ is chosen as hostage as the oldest
next to Reuben, of whose attempt to save him Joseph has just learned
for the first time. The effect on the brothers would be the same as
in 43³³.――=25.= The rest are treated with great generosity; though
whether the restoration of the money is pure kindness or a trap, we
can hardly say.――_provision for the way_] Hence in Elohist the sacks
are not opened till the journey’s end (³⁵).
Verses ¹⁵⁻²⁴ show a disconnectedness which is unusual in
the lucid and orderly Joseph story, and which cannot be
explained by discrepancies between Yahwist and Elohist. The
first proposal――to send one man to fetch Benjamin――leads
to no consequences, but is followed, most unnaturally, by
the imprisonment of all the ten. This in like manner serves
no purpose but to give Joseph time to change his mind. And
the colloquy of the brothers (²¹ ᶠᐧ) could hardly find a less
appropriate place than the moment when hope breaks in on their
forebodings. The proper setting for the imprisonment would
seem to be their first encounter with Joseph (as verse ³⁰
LXX); and the confession of guilt would stand in a suitable
connexion there. It is possible that ¹⁵ ᶠᐧ are a variant to ¹⁹ ᶠᐧ,
belonging to a somewhat different recension. If Gunkel (page 387)
be right in thinking that the earliest form of the legend knew
of only one visit to Egypt, it is easy to conceive that in the
process of amplification several situations were successively
invented, and that two of these have been preserved side by side
by an editor, in spite of their imperfect consistency.
* * * * *
=18.= זאת עשו וחיו] See Gesenius-Kautzsch § 110 _f_.――=19.= אחד]
without article (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
האחד) _ib._ § 134 _d_; compare 43¹⁴; contrast 42³³.――=20.=
ויעשו־כן] The words are out of place (compare ²⁵ᵇ). Did they stand
originally after verse ¹⁶?――=21.= אבל] ‘Nay, but――,’ indicating
an affirmation of what one would gladly deny (see on 17¹⁹).――צרת]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ בצרת.――אלינו²] _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ עלינו כל.――=25.= ולהשיב]
Continuation of verb finite by infinitive (as here) is very
unusual (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 120 _f_).――ויעש] ויעשו? compare
Peshiṭtå, Vulgate.
* * * * *
=26‒38. The return to Canaan.=――=27, 28.= Yahwist’s parallel to ³⁵
(Elohist).――To leave room for the latter, the account is cut short
with the opening of the first sack. In Yahwist, _each_ man found
his money at the ‘inn’ (43²¹).――=28.= _their heart went out_] ‘their
courage sank.’ Partly from the anticipated accusation of theft (43¹⁸),
but still more from the superstitious notion that God was bringing
trouble upon them.――אַמְתַּחַת] Yahwist’s peculiar word for ‘corn-sack’
(_v.i._)――The last clause, however, _What has God_ (אלהים) _done to
us?_] is apparently taken from Elohist, probably transposed from the
end of ³⁵ (Kautzsch-Socin).――=29‒34.= They recount their experiences
to Jacob.――=30.= _treated us as spies_] Better, as LXX (_v.i._),
‘put us in ward as spies.’――=35.= See on ²⁷ ᶠᐧ. The incident explains
Jacob’s foreboding (verse ³⁶) that Simeon and Benjamin are as good as
lost.――=36.= _Me have ye bereaved ... upon me all this has come_] The
point of the complaint is that it is _his_ children, not their own,
that they are throwing away one after another: to which Reuben’s offer
to sacrifice his two sons is the apt rejoinder.――=37= is Elohist’s
variant to 43⁹: here Reuben, there Judah, becomes surety for Benjamin.
In Elohist an immediate return to Egypt is contemplated, that Simeon
may be released; hence the discussion about sending Benjamin takes
place at once. In Yahwist the thought of returning is put off to the
last possible moment (43⁸), and the difficulty about Benjamin does not
yet arise.――=38= therefore has been removed from its original context:
see on 43¹ᐧ ².――_bring down ... to She’ōl_] See on 37³⁵.
* * * * *
=27.= שקו] Read אמתחתו with LXX.――מספוא] characteristic of
Yahwist (24²⁵ᐧ ³² 43²⁴), also Judges 19¹⁹†.――מלון] (√ לון) strictly
‘resting-place for the night’ (Exodus 4²⁴) or ‘night encampment’
(Joshua 4³),――perhaps a rude shelter of bushes or canvas
(compare מלונה, ‘hut,’ Isaiah 1⁸ 24²⁰) rather than a khan or
caravanserai.――כספו] Elohist says צרור כספו (³⁵ ᵇⁱˢ); so LXX here,
wrongly.――אַמְתַּחַת] A word recurring 13 times in chapters 43 f.
(Yahwist), and nowhere else in Old Testament: LXX is invariably
μάρσιππος. The √ מתח = ‘spread out’ (Isaiah 40²²), found in
New Hebrew Aramaic Arabic.――=28.= הנה] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_, LXX add הוא unnecessarily.――חרד אל] pregnant
construct; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 _gg_.――=30.= ויתן אתנו] LXX +
ἐν φυλακῇ (= בַּֽמִּשְׁמָר).――=32.= אנחנו אחים] _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå transposed.――=33.= רעבון] Read with
LXX, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ שבר ר׳, as verse ¹⁹.――=34.= את־אחיכם]
LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate prefix ו.――=35.= On the syntax, compare
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 111 _g_.――=36.= כלנה] for כֻּלָּן, as Proverbs
31²⁹ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 _f_). On Elohist’s preference for
these lengthened suffixes, see Dillmann on 41²¹.
* * * * *
CHAPTERS XLIII. XLIV.
_The second Visit to Egypt_
(Yahwist).
The supply of food being exhausted, another family council is held,
at which Jacob’s reluctance to part with Benjamin is at last overcome
by Judah becoming surety for his safe return: the eleven brethren set
out with a present for Joseph and double money in their hand (¹⁻¹⁴).
To their surprise they are received with every mark of honour as
the guests of the viceroy; and their fears give place to convivial
abandonment at his hospitable table (¹⁵⁻³⁴). But Joseph has devised
one more trial for them: his silver cup is secretly placed in
Benjamin’s sack, and on their homeward journey they are overtaken with
the accusation of theft. Brought back to Joseph’s presence, they offer
to surrender their freedom in expiation of some hidden guilt which God
has brought home to them (44¹⁻¹⁶). But when Joseph proposes to detain
Benjamin alone, Judah comes forward and, in a speech of noble and
touching eloquence, pleads that he may be allowed to redeem his pledge
by bearing the punishment for his youngest brother (¹⁷⁻³⁴).
The second journey “brings to light the disposition of the
brethren to one another and to their father, thus marking an
advance on the first, which only brought them to the point of
self-accusation” (Dillmann). That is true of the narrative as
it stands; but since the first journey is taken almost entirely
from Elohist and the second from Yahwist, the difference
indicated is probably due to the different conceptions
represented by the two writers, rather than to a conscious
development of the plot.
_Source._――That the chapters are not the continuation of
42 (Elohist) appears (a) from the more reasonable attitude
attributed to Joseph, (b) from the ignoring of Simeon’s
confinement, and (c) the consequent postponement of the second
journey to the last moment, and (d) the divergent account of
the first meeting with Joseph (page 473). Positive points of
contact with Yahwist are (a) the discovery of the money at the
first halting-place (43²¹), (b) Judah as spokesman and leader
(43³ ᶠᶠᐧ ⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ 44¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ), (c) the name Israel (43⁶ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹¹),
and the expressions: אֹכֶל, 43²ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²² 44¹ᐧ ²⁵; האיש (of Joseph,
without qualification), 43³ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁶ ᶠᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ ᶠᐧ 44²⁶; ונחיה ולא נמות, 43⁸;
התמהמהּ, 43¹⁰; ירד and הוריד, 43¹¹ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²²; אמתחת, 43¹²ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ
44¹ ᶠᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹¹ ᶠᐧ; מלון, 43²¹; מספוא, 43²⁴; קרה אסון, 44²⁹. The only
clear traces of Elohist’s parallel narrative are the allusions
to Simeon in 43¹⁴ᐧ ²³ᵇ. Procksch makes ¹²ᵃᐧ (∥ ¹²ᵇ{α}) ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ
¹⁵ᵃ{β}ᵇᐧ ¹⁶ᵃ{α}ᐧ ²³ᵇ a continuous sequence from Elohist; but the
evidence is conflicting (note האיש, ¹⁴; וירדו, ¹⁵ᵇ): see, however,
on ¹².
=1‒14. The journey resolved on.=――=2.= Jacob speaks in evident
ignorance of the stipulation regarding Benjamin; hence 42³⁸ (Yahwist)
stands out of its proper place. The motive of the transposition is
obvious, viz., to account for the seeming rejection of Reuben’s
sponsorship in 42³⁷.
The original order in Yahwist can be recovered by the help of
44²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ. After verse ² there must have been an announcement,
in terms similar to 44²⁶, of the necessity for taking Benjamin
with them, to which Jacob replies with the resolute refusal
of 43³⁸ (compare 44²⁹). Then follows (³ ᶠᶠᐧ) the more emphatic
declaration of Judah, and his explanation of the circumstances
out of which the inexorable demand had arisen (see Wellhausen
_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des
Alten Testaments_² 59 f.).
=3‒5.= Judah’s ultimatum. On the difference of representation from
Elohist, see page 473 above.――=6.= The reproachful question is
intelligible only on the understanding that Jacob has just heard
for the first time that he must part with Benjamin.――=7.= _according
to the tenor, etc._] In accordance with the governor’s leading
questions.――=8‒10.= Judah becomes responsible for Benjamin’s safety
(as in Elohist Reuben, 42³⁷).――=9.= _I shall be a sinner, etc._] For
the idea, compare 1 Kings 1²¹: guilt is measured not by the moral
intention, but by the external consequences, of an action.――=11‒14.=
Jacob yields to the inevitable; but with characteristic shrewdness
suggests measures that may somewhat ease the situation.――=11.= _the
produce of the land_] its rarer products, as a token of homage. On זִמְרָה,
_v.i._――On צֳרִי, לֹט, נְכֹאת, see 37²⁵.――_honey_] may here mean grape-syrup,
the _dibs_ of modern Syria (see Robinson, _Biblical Researches in
Palestine_, ii. 81, iii. 381); but there seems no reason to depart
from the usual Old Testament sense of the word, viz., the honey of
the wild-bee (see Kennedy’s careful article in _Encyclopædia Biblica_,
2104 ff.).――_pistachio-nuts_ (_v.i._) are highly esteemed as a
delicacy in Egypt and Syria, although the tree is said to be rarely
found in Palestine (according to Rosen, _Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xii. 502, not at all).――=12.= _double
money ... and the money, etc._] can hardly mean double money _besides_
that which had been returned; unless (Procksch) the first clause be
a variant from Elohist, we must take וְ as = ‘namely.’――=14.= _’Ēl
Shaddai_ does not occur elsewhere in Yahwist or Elohist (see on 17¹),
and may be redactional. On the composition of the verse, _v.i._――_as I
am bereaved, etc._] An utterance of subdued resignation: compare 42³⁶,
2 Kings 7⁴, Esther 4¹⁶.
* * * * *
=3.= בלתי] followed by nominal sentence, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 163
_c_.――Instead of אתכם, LXX has ὁ νεώτερος καταβῇ πρὸς μέ.――=5.=
משלח] LXX + τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν μεθ’ ἡμῶν.――=10.= כי עתה] ‘in
that case,’ as 31⁴²; see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 159 _ee_.――=11.=
זִמְרָה] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. LXX καρποί, Vulgate _optimis fructibus_,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ דַּמְשֶׂבַּֽח בארעא, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). The
meaning is obscure. The derivation from √ זמר, ‘praise’ [in
song] (Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Tuch, al.) is perhaps
too poetic to be natural, though it yields a good sense; that
from √ זמר, ‘prune,’ is hardly suitable (see Dillmann). D. H.
Müller (in Gesenius _Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums_¹⁰
page 983) connects with Aramaic (‡ Syriac word), ‘admire’:
‘admirable products,’――practically the same idea as Tuch. (On
Arabic _ḏamara_, _ḏimār_ [agreeing _phonetically_ with Aramaic
and Hebrew], v. Lane, 977 f.)――בטנים] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. Almost
certainly nuts of _Pistacia vera_, belonging to the terebinth
family (hence LXX τερέμ[β]ινθον, so Vulgate), for which the
Syrian name is (‡ Syriac word) (Aramaic בוטנא, Arabic _buṭm_,
Assyrian _buṭnu_); see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._――=12.=
כסף משנה] compare משנה כסף, verse ¹⁵; and see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 131 _e_, _q_.――המושֶׂב] See Baer-Delitzsch page 79 (‘pathachatum
uti expresse ait Masora’), Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 72 _bb_,
93 _pp_.――=14.= אחר] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
LXX האחד. The phrasing is peculiar, and suggests that
Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ may have added to Yahwist the words אחר ואת־בנימין,
at the same time inserting לכם (which LXX omits), to bring about
the desired allusion to Simeon.――שכָֽלתי] Pausal: Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 29 _u_.
* * * * *
=15‒25. In Joseph’s house.=――=15.= They first present themselves
before Joseph at his official bureau, and are afterwards conducted by
the steward to his private residence. The house of a wealthy Egyptian
of the 18th dynasty will be found described in Erman, _Life in Ancient
Egypt_, 153, 177 ff.――=16.= Joseph’s desire to ‘set his eyes on’
Benjamin being now gratified, he rewards his brothers by a display of
kindness which must have seemed excessive.――_slay and make ready_]
In Egypt, according to Herodotus ii. 37, 77, Diodorus i. 70, flesh
was eaten daily by priests and kings, although the former had to
abstain from certain kinds of animal food (Knobel-Dillmann).――=18.=
To the simple-minded peasants all this looks like an elaborate
military stratagem to overwhelm them by main force and reduce them to
slavery.――=19‒22.= To forestall the suspicion of theft, they offer to
return the money found in their sacks.――_in its full weight_] On the
weighing of money, see 23¹⁶.――=23.= _your money came to me_] Therefore
what you found has nothing to do with it. The steward has entered
into Joseph’s purpose, and encourages them to believe that it was a
supernatural occurrence, but of auspicious omen, and not, as they had
imagined, a calamity.――The notice of Simeon’s release is here inserted
as the most convenient place, from Elohist.――=24.= Compare 24³².――=25.=
_they had heard, etc._] In conversation with the steward (compare
verse ¹⁶).
* * * * *
=16.= אִתָּם] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,
Vulgate אֹתָם וְ.――בנימין] LXX + אחיו בן־אמו (verse ²⁹).――טְבֹחַ] The only
case of imperative in _ō_ with final guttural (Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 65 _b_).――=18.= וייראו] LXX וַיִּרְאוּ.――השב] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_, LXX הַמּוּשָׁב (verse ¹²).――להתגלל] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον.
Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ read להתגדל (see Ball). LXX τοῦ
συκοφαντῆσαι ἡμᾶς, Vulgate _ut devolvat in nos calumniam_. The
text is not to be questioned.――=20.= בִּי] Always followed by אדני
(44¹⁸, Exodus 4¹⁰ᐧ ¹³, Numbers 12¹¹ Joshua 7⁸, Judges 6¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ 13⁸,
1 Samuel 1²⁶, 1 Kings 3¹⁷ᐧ ²⁶†). It is commonly derived from √
בעה, ‘ask,’ or (Brown-Driver-Briggs) Arabic _bayya_, ‘entreat’:
might it not rather be regarded as a shortening of אָבִי (2 Kings
5¹³, Job 34³⁶) from √ אבה, ‘be willing’?――=23.= אביכם] _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX אבתיכם.――=24.=
האיש――ויתן] LXX omits.――=25.= יאכלו] LXX more easily יאכל (of Joseph).
* * * * *
=26‒34. At Joseph’s table.=――=27, 28.= Joseph’s courteous inquiries
as to their welfare and that of their father are a studied prelude
to――=29‒31=, his profound emotion at the sight of Benjamin,――_his_
(full) _brother, the son of his mother_. The disparity in age
must have been great (בְּנִי): one wonders whether the narrative does
not presuppose that Benjamin had been born since Joseph had been
lost.――=30, 31.= For the second time (42²⁴) Joseph’s affection
finds relief in tears, and again he restrains himself, that he
may carry out his plan.――The interlude reveals, as Gunkel remarks,
a power of psychological observation which is absent from the
oldest legends.――=32‒34.= The feast brings two more surprises:
the arrangement of the brothers in the order of seniority (see on
42²⁴); and the special favour shown to Benjamin.――=32= affords an
interesting glimpse of Egyptian manners. Joseph’s isolation at table
was perhaps due to his having been admitted a member of the priestly
caste (41⁴⁵), which kept itself apart from the laity (Knobel-Dillmann).
The Egyptian exclusiveness in intercourse with foreigners, which
would have been perfectly intelligible to the later Jews, evidently
struck the ancient Israelites as peculiar (Gunkel). Compare Herodotus
ii. 41.――=34.= The custom of honouring a guest by portions from the
table is illustrated by 2 Samuel 11⁸; compare Homer, _Iliad_ vii.
321 f., _Odyssey_ iv. 65 f., xiv. 437.――_five times_].
It is hardly accidental that the number five occurs so often in
reference to matters Egyptian (41³⁴ 45²² 47²ᐧ ²⁴, Isaiah 19¹⁸).
Whether there be an allusion to the five planets recognised by
the Egyptians (Knobel), or to their ten days’ week (Dillmann),
it is impossible to say. Jeremias (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte
des alten Orients_², 385) connects it with the five intercalary
days by which the Egyptian calendar adjusted the difference
between the conventionalised lunar year (12 months of 30 days)
and the solar year (365 days),――these belonging to Benjamin as
the representative of the 12th month! The explanation is too
ingenious, and overlooks the occurrence of the numeral where
Benjamin is not concerned.
* * * * *
=26.= ויביאׄו] On Daghesh or Mappiq in א, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §
14 _d_.――ארצה] LXX prefix אפים.――=27.= השלום] noun? or adjective?
See Gesenius-Kautzsch § 141 _c_⁴.――=28.= After Athnach _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX insert ויאמר ברוך האיש ההוא
לאלהים,――a parallel to the benediction on Benjamin (²⁹): clumsy
in expression and hardly original.――=29.= אמרתם] LXX + להביא,――an
interesting and perhaps correct addition.――יָחנך] for יְחָנְךָ (as
Isaiah 30¹⁹); see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 _n_.――=30.= וימהר ויבקש]
‘hastily sought,’ though an intermediate clause between the
complementary verbs is very unusual.――אל] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ על.――=32.= למצרַיִם] Better לַמִּצְרִים:
so versions Ball.――LXX adds πᾶς ποιμὴν προβάτων, in mistaken
accommodation to 46³⁴.――=34.= וישא] LXX, Peshiṭtå וישאו.――ידות] =
‘shares’ or ‘times,’ 47²⁴, 2 Kings 11⁷, 2 Samuel 19⁴⁴, Nehemiah
11¹, Daniel 1²⁰†.――וישכרו] hardly ‘got drunk’: שכר of convivial
drinking, Haggai 1⁶, Canticles 5¹.
* * * * *
=XLIV. 1‒17. The cup in Benjamin’s sack.=――=1, 2.= This final test
of the brethren’s disposition is evidently arranged between Joseph
and the steward on the evening of the banquet, to be carried out at
daybreak (verse ³).――=1b.= _each man’s money, etc._] Though this seems
a useless repetition of 42⁵⁵, with no consequences in the sequel, the
clause ought scarcely to be omitted (with Gunkel) before ²ᵃ.――=2.=
_the silver cup_] Joseph’s ordinary drinking-vessel, but at the
same time an implement of divination (verse ⁵): therefore his most
precious possession.――=3‒5.= The trap is skilfully laid: just when
they have emerged from the city, and think all danger is left behind,
exulting in the fresh morning air, and still unwearied by travel,
they are arrested by the steward’s challenge, and finally plunged in
despair.――=4.= _Why have ye ... good?_] LXX adds, ‘Why have ye stolen
my silver cup?’ The addition seems necessary in view of the following
זֶה.――=5.= _and, moreover, he divines with_ (or _in_) _it_] See on
verse ¹⁵.
On the widely prevalent species of divination referred to
(κυλικομαντεία, λεκανομαντεία,), compare Augustine, _De civitate
Dei_, vii. 35; Strabo, XVI. ii. 39; Iamblichus, _De mysteriis_
iii. 14. Various methods seem to have been employed; _e.g._,
amongst the Babylonians oil was poured into a vessel of water,
and from its movements omens were deduced according to a set of
fixed rules of interpretation: see Hunger, _Becherwahrsagung bei
den Babyloniern nach zwei Keilschriften aus der Hammurabi-zeit_
(_Leipziger Semitistische Studien_, 1903, i. 1‒80).――An
interesting modern parallel is quoted by Driver (358¹), and
Hunger (4), from the Travels of Norden (_circa_ 1750), where a
Nubian sheikh says: ‘_I have consulted my cup_, and I find that
you are Franks in disguise, who have come to spy out the land.’
* * * * *
=1.= LXX inserts Ἰωσήφ as subject.――יוכלון שאת] Ball plausibly,
יוכלו לשאת.――=2.= גָּבִיעַ] Used of the golden cups of the candlestick
(Exodus 25³¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 37¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ); elsewhere only Jeremiah 35⁵, along
with the ordinary word for ‘cup’ (כּוֹס), of the ‘bowls’ of wine
set before the Rechabites.――=3, 4.= On the syntax of these
verses see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 142 _e_, 156 _f_; Davidson §§
141, 41, _R._ 3. The addition in LXX runs: ἵνα τί ἐκλέψατέ μου
τὸ κόνδυ τὸ ἀργυροῦν;.――=5.= נַחֵשׁ] The derivation of this verb
from נָחָשׁ, ‘serpent,’ first suggested by Bochartus (_Hierozoicon,
sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ_ i. 3),
is supported by (amongst others) Nöldeke (_Zeitschrift für
Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft_, i. 413) and Baudissin
(_Studien zur semitischen religionsgeschichte_ i. 287); on the
other hand, see Wellhausen _Skizzen und Vorarbeiten._, iii. 147;
and William Robertson Smith _The Journal of Philology_ xiv. 115.
* * * * *
=6‒9.= The brethren appeal to their honesty in the matter of the money
returned in their sacks, and propose the severest punishment――death to
the thief, slavery for the rest――should the missing article be found
with them.――=10.= The servant holds them to their pledge, but offers
easier terms: the thief alone shall be Joseph’s slave.――=11‒13.= To
the dismay of the brethren the cup is found in Benjamin’s sack.――=12.=
_beginning ... youngest_] A calculated strain on the brethren’s
suspense, and (on the part of the narrator) an enhancement of
the reader’s interest: compare 1 Samuel 16⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=13.= Their
submissiveness shows that no suspicion of a trick crossed their minds;
their sense of an adverse fate was quickened by the still unsolved
mystery of the money in the sacks, to which they had so proudly
appealed in proof of their innocence.――=14‒17.= The brethren before
Joseph.――=14.= _he was still there_] had not gone out to his place of
business (see 43¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁷), but was waiting for them.――=15.= _that a man
in my position_ (one of the wise men of Egypt) _can divine_.
It is difficult to say how much is implied in this claim of
superhuman knowledge on Joseph’s part. No doubt it links itself
on the one hand to the feeling in the brethren’s mind that a
divine power was working against them, and on the other to the
proofs they had had of the governor’s marvellous insight. But
whether Joseph is conceived as really practising divination, or
only as wishing his brothers to think so, does not appear. Not
improbably, as Gunkel surmises, the motive comes from an older
story, in which the prototype of Joseph actually achieved his
ends by means of occult knowledge.
* * * * *
=8.= כסף¹] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
הכסף.――=9.= אתו] LXX + τὸ κόνδυ.――ומת] _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_ יומת, equally good.――=12.= החל ... כלה] infinitives
absolute (הָחֵל ... כַּלֵּה) would be more idiomatic than the perfect
(so Ball).
* * * * *
=16.= _God has found out, etc._] The exclamation does not necessarily
imply consciousness of particular guilt (see on 43⁹), and is certainly
not meant as a confession of the wrong done to Joseph: at the same
time we may be sure that that is the crime to which their secret
thoughts gravitate (42²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ).――=17.= Judah’s proposal that _all_
should remain as slaves is rejected by Joseph, who insists on
separating Benjamin’s fate from that of the rest. Did he purpose to
retain him by his side, while sustaining the rest of the family in
their homes?
* * * * *
=16.= Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 60) would omit יהודה
and read ויאמרו; but the text is safeguarded by verse ¹⁴, and the
change is uncalled for. Judah speaks here in the name of all,
in ¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ for himself.
* * * * *
=18‒34. Judah’s plea for Benjamin.=――The speech, which is the finest
specimen of dignified and persuasive eloquence in the Old Testament,
is perhaps modelled on the style of forensic oratory to which the
Hebrews were accustomed in public assemblies at the city gates
(contrast the stilted oration of Tertullus in Acts 24). Sincerity and
depth of feeling are not more remarkable than the skilful selection
and disposition of the points most likely to appeal to the governor:
(1) a recital of the interview in which Joseph had insisted on
Benjamin being brought down (¹⁹⁻²³); (2) a pathetic description of
the father’s reluctance to part with him, overcome only by the harsh
necessity of hunger (²⁴⁻²⁹); (3) a suggestion of the death-stroke
which their return without Benjamin would inflict on their aged parent
(³⁰ᐧ ³¹); and, lastly, (4) the speaker’s personal request to be allowed
to redeem his honour by taking Benjamin’s punishment on himself
(³²⁻³⁴).――The Massoretes commence a new Parashah with verse ¹⁸,
rightly perceiving that Judah’s speech is the turning-point in the
relations between Joseph and his brethren.――=19‒23.= On the divergent
representations of Yahwist and Elohist, see on page 473 above.――=20.=
_to his mother_] See page 449.――=28.= The words of Jacob enable
Judah to draw a veil over the brothers’ share in the tragedy of
Joseph.――_and I have not seen him till now_] Compare the rugged pathos
of Lowell’s
“Whose comin’ home there’s them that wan’t――
No, not life-long――leave off awaitin’.”
The simple words, with their burden of suppressed emotion,
have a meaning for the governor of which the speaker is all
unconscious.――=29.= _in trouble to She’ōl_] Compare 42³⁸ 37³⁵
44³¹.――=30.= _his soul_ (not ‘life’) _is bound up, etc._] a figure
for inalienable affection; as 1 Samuel 18¹.
* * * * *
=18.= כמוך כפ׳] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 161 _c_.――=20.= לאמו] LXX
לאביו.――=24.= אבי] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå אבינו (so LXX, Peshiṭtå in ²⁷, and LXX,
Peshiṭtå, Vulgate in ³⁰).――=28.= ואמר] LXX καὶ εἴπατε.――=31.=
הנער] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå + אִתָּנוּ (as verse ³⁰).――=32.= אבי] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ אביו, Peshiṭtå אבינו.――=34.= אתי] LXX
אִתָּנוּ.
* * * * *