_Joseph reveals himself to his Brethren_
(Elohist, Yahwist).
The crisis so slowly matured and so skilfully led up to is at last
reached, and in a scene of inimitable power and tenderness Joseph
makes himself known to his brethren (¹⁻⁸). In a message to his father
he discloses his plans for the future, inviting the whole family to
settle in Egypt while the famine lasted (⁹⁻¹⁵). The invitation is
confirmed by the king (¹⁶⁻²⁰); and the brethren depart laden with rich
gifts and provision for the journey (²¹⁻²⁴). Jacob, after a momentary
incredulity, is cheered by the prospect of seeing Joseph before his
death (²⁵⁻²⁸).
The _sources_, Elohist and Yahwist, are here so intimately
blended that a complete analysis is impossible. The main fact is
the preponderance of Elohist, which appears both from language
(אלהים, ⁵ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹; יעקב, ²⁵; חרה בעינֵי, ⁵ [31³⁵]; צדה, ²¹ [42²⁵]; בר,
²³; perhaps also מזון, ²³; and טענו את־בעירכם, ¹⁷ [contrast Yahwist’s
ויעמס על־חמרו, 44¹³]), and representation: contrast verse ³ with
43²⁷ ᶠᐧ, ¹⁷⁻²⁰ with 46³¹‒47⁵ (Yahwist), where Joseph’s kindred
are apparently brought under Pharaoh’s notice for the first time.
Indubitable traces of Yahwist are found in ⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵ᵃ (the _selling_
of Joseph), ¹⁰ (Goshen,――see the notes), ²⁸ (ישראל); these are
supported by the expressions, התאפק, ¹ᵃ (as 43³¹); נעצב, ⁵ᵃ;
הוריד, ¹³; נפל על־צוארי, ¹⁴. Thus far in the main Wellhausen and
Dillmann. More subtle and less reliable criteria are applied
by Gunkel (402 f., 406), and (with very different results)
by Procksch (52 f.). It is probable that ³ (Elohist) is ∥ ⁴
(Yahwist), and (against Procksch) ⁹ (Elohist) ∥ ¹³ (Yahwist).
But it is very doubtful if the dismissal of the attendants (¹)
be inconsistent with the overhearing of the weeping (²), or
if the latter be necessarily connected with the Pharaoh’s
invitation (¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ).――Some minor questions, such as the ‘waggons’
of ¹⁹ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁷ (compare 46⁵), and the authorship of verses ¹⁹⁻²¹,
must be reserved for the notes.
=1‒8. The disclosure.=――=1, 2.= Joseph’s self-restraint gives way
before Judah’s irresistible appeal.――It is pressing matters too far
to say that the dismissal of the attendants is a device to keep his
relation to the strangers a secret from Pharaoh (see on the sources
above).――=3.= _is my father yet alive?_) The question is slightly
less natural in the context of Yahwist (see 43²⁶ ᶠᐧ 44²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ) than
in Elohist, where the absence of any mention of Jacob since the
first visit (42¹³) might leave room for uncertainty in Joseph’s
mind. But since he does not wait for an answer, the doubt can
hardly be real.――_were troubled before him_] Compare 50¹⁵⁻²¹ (also
Elohist).――=4.= Yahwist’s parallel to verse ³,――probably the immediate
continuation of verse ¹ (compare 44¹⁸).――=5‒8.= With singular
generosity Joseph reassures them by pointing out the providential
purpose which had overruled their crime for good; compare 50²⁰. The
profoundly religious conviction which recognises the hand of God,
not merely in miraculous interventions, but in the working out of
divine ends through human agency and what we call secondary causes, is
characteristic of the Joseph-narrative amongst the legends of Genesis:
see Gunkel 404 (compare chapter 24).――=7.= שְׁאֵרִית] ‘remnant,’ perhaps
in the sense of ‘descendants’ (2 Samuel 14⁷, Jeremiah 44⁷). But the
use of פְּלֵיטָה (strictly ‘_escaped_ remnant,’ compare 32⁹) is difficult,
seeing the whole family was saved (_v.i._).――=8.= _a father to
Pharaoh_] Probably an honorific title of the chief minister (compare
1 Maccabees 11³², Add. Esther 3¹³ 8¹²); see, further, _inf._
* * * * *
=1.= התודע] Numbers 12⁶† (Elohist?).――=2.= מצרַיִם] LXX
כל־המצרִים. The pointing מצרִים _without_ article (Gunkel) is no
improvement.――וישמע] LXX, Peshiṭtå וַיִּשָּׁמַע, as in verse ¹⁶; so
Holzinger, Gunkel. The clause, however, is best regarded as
a doublet of the preceding, in which case Massoretic Text
is preferable.――=3.= יוסף²] LXX + ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν, ὃν ἀπέδοσθε
εἰς Αἴγυπτον (as verse ⁴).――מפניו] LXX omits.――=4a.= LXXᴬ omits
entirely.――=5.= ואל־יחר בעיניכם] (compare 31³⁵) is Elohist’s variant
to אל־תעצבו (6⁶ 34⁷ Yahwist).――מִחְיָה] In Judges 6⁴ 17¹⁰ the word
signifies ‘means of subsistence’; in 2 Chronicles 14¹² perhaps
‘preservation of life’; and so here if the pointing be right.
Ball plausibly emends מְחַיֶּה, ‘preserver of life’ (1 Samuel
2⁶).――=6.= חריש וקציר] Exodus 34²¹ (Yahwist?).――=7.= החיות לפליטה] The
want of an object after הח׳ is harsh (compare 47²⁵ 50²⁰). The
omission of the ל (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
LXX, Peshiṭtå, Olshausen, Ball, al.) improves the grammar, but
the sense remains unsatisfying (_v.s._).――=8.= אב ... אדון] That
the words are used in their Hebrew sense (‘father’ ... ‘lord’)
is not to be questioned; in spite of the fact that Brugsch has
compared two Egyptian titles, identical in form but altogether
different in meaning (see Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_,
ii. 774; Strack, page 157 f.).
* * * * *
=9‒15. Joseph’s message to his father.=――That both Yahwist and Elohist
recorded the invitation may be regarded as certain, apart from nice
questions of literary analysis: Eerdmans’ suggestion that, in Yahwist,
Jacob conceived the project of going down to Egypt “auf eigene Faust”
(_Die Komposition der Genesis_ 65, 70) being contrary to every natural
view of the situation. We may therefore be prepared to find traces of
the dual narrative in these verses.――=10.= On _the land of Goshen_,
see the footnote.――_be near to me_] The clause is not inconsistent
with the preceding; for, as compared with Canaan, Goshen was certainly
‘near’ to where Joseph dwelt. Nevertheless it is best regarded as a
variant from Elohist, continued in ¹¹ᵃ. It is only in Yahwist that the
Israelites are represented as dwelling in Goshen.――=12‒15.= The close
of Joseph’s speech, followed by his affectionate embrace, and the free
converse of the brethren.――=13= and =14= (Yahwist) are respectively
parallel to ⁹ and ¹⁵ (Elohist).
* * * * *
=10.= גשן] LXX Γέσεμ Ἀραβίας (as 46³⁴). The name is peculiar
to Yahwist (46²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³⁴ 47¹ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ²⁷ 50⁸, Exodus 8¹⁸ 9²⁶ †);
Priestly-Code has ‘land of Ramses’ (47¹¹), compare Exodus
1¹¹ 12³⁷, Numbers 33⁵); while Elohist uses no geographical
designation. That Priestly-Code and Yahwist mean the same
locality is intrinsically probable (though Naville considers
that the land of Ramses was a larger area than Goshen), and
is confirmed by recent excavations. The city of Pithom (see
on 46²⁸) has been identified by Naville with the modern _Tell
el-Maskhuṭa_, 12 miles West of Ismailia, in Wādī Ṭumīlāt, a long
and narrow valley leading “straight from the heart of the Delta
to a break in the chain of the Bitter Lakes,” and therefore
marking a weak spot in the natural defences of Egypt (Erman,
_Life in Ancient Egypt_, 525 f.). In the same region, though
not quite so far East, excavations at the village of _Ṣafṭ
el-Ḥenneh_ have established its identity with _Pa-soft_ (also
called on local inscriptions _Kes_), which is stated to have
been the capital of the 20th Nome of Lower Egypt. A rare name of
this nome is _Kesem_; and it is at least a plausible conjecture
that this is the same as the biblical גּשֶׁן (Γέσεμ); and if so
the situation of Goshen is fixed as a part of Wādī Ṭumīlāt
surrounding Saft el-Ḥenneh. A confirmation of this may be found
in the Ἀραβία of LXX, for this in Græco-Roman times (Ptolemy iv.
5, 53) was the name of one of the 23 nomes of the Delta, whose
capital Φακοῦσσα (compare Strabo, XVII. i. 26) has long been
conjectured to be the ancient _Kes_, preceded by the article
_pa_.――See Naville, _Land of Goshen_, etc. (Fifth Memoir of EEF,
1887), 15 ff., 20; _Store City of Pithom_, etc. (⁴ 1903), 4 ff.;
Spiegelberg, _Der Aufenthalt Israels in Aegypten im Lichte
der aegyptischen Monumente_ etc. 52; Müller in _Encyclopædia
Biblica_, 1758 ff.; and Griffith in _BD_, ii. 232 f.――=11.=
כלכל] compare 50²¹ (Elohist).――פן־תורש] ‘lest thou come to want’
(literally ‘be dispossessed’); compare Judges 14¹⁵, Proverbs
20¹³ 23²¹ 30⁹.
* * * * *
=16‒20. Pharaoh’s invitation.=――This, as already explained, is
peculiar to Elohist. It is just possible (though hardly probable) that
in this source Joseph’s invitation (⁹⁻¹¹) extended only to his father,
while the idea of transplanting the whole family emanated from the
king.――=16a.= Compare verse ².――=18.= _the best of the land (v.i.) ...
the fat of the land_] The expressions are not altogether inapplicable
to Goshen (Wādī Ṭumīlāt), which was rendered fertile by a canal,
and is still spoken of as the best pasture-land in Egypt (Robinson,
_Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 53 f.). But since Elohist never
mentions a separate location in Goshen, there is no need to force that
sense upon them; the meaning is general: the best of everything that
Egypt can afford (_v.i._).――=19.= The opening words (_v.i._) throw
some doubt on the originality of the verse; and there certainly
seems no more reason for ascribing it to Yahwist (Gunkel) than to
Elohist.――The _baggage- waggon_ (עֲגָלָה) is said to have been introduced
into Egypt from Canaan, with its Semitic name (Egyptian _‛agolt_):
Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 491.¹――=20.= _Let not your eye pity_]
The phrase is Deuteronomic, and seems a very strong one for concern
about household implements. According to Yahwist (¹⁰ᵇᐧ ¹¹ᵇ 46¹ᐧ ³²)
they brought ‘all they possessed,’ which, if they were half-nomads,
would be possible without waggons.
¹ Compare Heyes, _Bibel und Ägypten: Abraham und seine
Nachkommen in Ägypten_ i. 251.
* * * * *
=17.= טען] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Aramaic); contrast עמס, 44¹³
(Yahwist).――בעיר Exodus 22⁴, Numbers 20⁴ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹¹ (Elohist), Psalms
78⁴⁸†.――=18.= טוּב] = ‘best things,’ as verses ²⁰ᐧ ²³ 24¹⁰, 2 Kings
8⁹; LXX πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν.――For ‘the best _part_,’ Priestly-Code
uses מֵיטָב (47⁶ᐧ ¹¹).――=19.= ואתה צֻּוֵּיתָה] The passive is awkward in
itself, and has no syntactic connexion with the following זאת עשו
[hence Peshiṭtå inserts (‡ Syriac phrase)]. Dillmann, Kittel
emend ואתה צַוֵּה אֹתָם; Ball ואתה צוה את־זאת (after LXX Σὺ δὲ ἔντειλαι
ταῦτα; compare Vulgate); Gunkel וְאֹתָהּ צִוֵּיתִי: the first is best. But
it is still difficult to understand the extreme emphasis laid
on this point; and a suspicion remains that either the whole
verse (Dillmann), or the introduction, is due to a scribe who
wished to make it clear that the waggons were not sent without
Pharaoh’s express authority: see on verse ²¹.
* * * * *
=21‒28. The brethren return to Canaan.=――=22.= Presents of expensive
clothes are a common mark of courtesy in the East: compare Judges
14¹² ᶠᐧ ¹⁹, 2 Kings 5⁵ᐧ ²² ᶠᐧ.――_changes of raiment_] such as were
substituted for ordinary clothing on festal occasions (see on
27¹⁵).――Benjamin receives _five_ such suits: see on 43³⁴.――=23.= _of
the best_ (produce) _of Egypt_] A munificent return for Jacob’s modest
complimentary present (43¹¹).――_corn and bread and sustenance for
the journey_] compare verse ²⁰.――=24.= _Do not get excited by the
way_] _sc._, with mutual recriminations,――a caution suggested by
42²².――=25‒28.= Jacob’s reception of the tidings.――=26.= _his heart
became cold_, or _numb_] unable to take in the startling intelligence,
as too good to be true.――=27.= But gradually, as they rehearse _the
words of Joseph_, and show him the _waggons_ as a pledge of his power,
_his spirit revived_] he recovered his wonted energy of thought and
action.――=28.= From Yahwist.――_It is enough_] The father’s heart
is indifferent to Joseph’s grandeur ⁹ᐧ ¹¹) and princely gifts; the
fact that his son lives is sufficient consolation for all he has
endured (compare 46³⁰). The psychology of old age could not be more
sympathetically or convincingly treated.
* * * * *
=21.= ויעשו――ישראל] The statement is premature, and furnishes
an additional indication that this part of the narrative has
been worked over. The repeated ויתן also suggests a doublet or
interpolation. In ¹⁹⁻²¹, Dillmann leaves to Elohist only ויתן להם י׳
עגלות ויתן להם צדה לדרך; Kautzsch-Socin only the second of these clauses,
the rest being redactional.――צדה לדרך] as 42²⁵ (Elohist).――=23.=
כְזאת] (so pointed only here): ‘in like manner’ (Judges 8⁸).――מזון)
(2 Chronicles 11²³†) from an Aramaic √ זון = ‘feed.’――Of the
three nouns, בר, לחם, and מזון, LXX expresses only לחם. Peshiṭtå
has (‡ Syriac word), ‘wine,’ for לחם, but perhaps through
dittography of (‡ Syriac word), ‘asses.’――=24.= אל תרגזו] LXX μὴ
ὀργίζεσθε, Vulgate _Ne irascamini_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word),
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ לא תתנצון (‘quarrel’). But the Hebrew verb denotes
simply agitation, by whatever emotion produced.――=26.= פּוּג] In
Arabic and Syriac the √ means to be or grow ‘cold,’ in Syriac,
also, and New Hebrew, figuratively ‘grow inactive,’ ‘fail,’
‘vanish’; in Old Testament the prevailing idea seems to be that
of numbness (Br own-Driver-Briggs); compare Habakkuk 1⁴ (of
_tôrâh_), Psalms 38⁹.――=28.= רב] As an exclamation = ‘enough!’;
compare Exodus 9²⁸, Numbers 16³ᐧ ⁷, Deuteronomy 1⁶ 2³ etc.
* * * * *
XLVI. 1‒XLVII. 12.
_The Settlement of Jacob and his Family in Egypt_
(Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly-Code).
Jacob, encouraged by a night vision at Beersheba, takes his departure
for Egypt (¹⁻⁷): (here is inserted a list of the persons who were
supposed to accompany him, ⁸⁻²⁷). He sends Judah to announce his
arrival to Joseph, who proceeds to Goshen and tenderly welcomes his
father (²⁸⁻³⁰). Having instructed his brethren in the part he wishes
them to play (³¹⁻³⁴), Joseph presents five of them before Pharaoh, and
obtains permission for them to settle for a time in Goshen (47¹⁻⁶).
Jacob’s interview with Pharaoh closes the account of the migration
(⁷⁻¹²).
_Sources._――The narrative of Jehovist is several times
interrupted by excerpts from Priestly-Code, whose peculiar style
and viewpoint can be recognised in 46⁶⁻²⁷ 47⁵ᐧ ⁶ᵃᐧ ⁷⁻¹¹ (but see
the notes below, page 439 ff.).――Disregarding these verses, we
have a continuous Yahwist narrative from 46²⁸‒47⁶: note ישראל,
²⁹ᐧ ³⁰; _Goshen_, ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³⁴ᐧ ¹ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁶ᵇ; the leadership of Judah, ²⁸;
the ignoring of Pharaoh’s invitation (45¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ Elohist); נפל על צוארי,
²⁹; הפעם, ³⁰; מנעורינו, בעבור, ³⁴.――46¹⁻⁵ is in the main from Elohist,
as appears from the night vision, the form of address, ²;
Jacob’s implied hesitation, ³ (contrast 45²⁸); the name _Jacob_,
²ᐧ ⁵ᵃ; אלהים, ²; אֵל, ³.――¹ᵃ (ישראל) and _possibly_ ⁵ᵇ belong
to Yahwist.――47¹² is doubtful,――probably Elohist (כלכל, as
45¹¹).――See Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 60 f.; Dillmann,
Holzinger, Gunkel, Procksch, 54 f. (who assigns 47⁷ to Elohist
instead of Priestly- Code and 47¹² to Yahwist).
=1‒7. Jacob bids farewell to Canaan.=――=1.= _came to Be’ersheba‛_]
There is in Elohist no clear indication of where Jacob lived after
his return from Laban (see on 35¹). If at Beersheba, the above clause
is redactional, written on the assumption that he started from Hebron
(37¹⁴ Yahwist). The point would be determined if ⁵ᵇ were the original
continuation of ⁵ᵃ, for it is absurd to suppose that the waggons were
first put to use in the middle of the journey (Wellhausen). But even
apart from that, the natural view undoubtedly is that Jacob would not
start until his misgivings were removed in answer to his sacrifice,
and that consequently his dwelling-place at this time was Beersheba.
That he sacrificed at the last patriarchal sanctuary on the way is
a much less plausible explanation.――_the God of ... Isaac_] Isaac is
apparently regarded as the founder of the sanctuary, as in chapter
26 (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ); an Elohistic parallel to that tradition may
have existed though in 21³¹ (Elohist with Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ) its
consecration is attributed to Abraham.――=2‒4.= The last of the
patriarchal theophanies. Compare 12¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, where the theophany
sanctions the occupation of Canaan, as this sanctions the leaving of
it (Dillmann); and 26², where, under circumstances similar to Jacob’s,
Isaac is forbidden to go down to Egypt.――=3.= _the God of thy father_]
As elsewhere in Genesis, אֵל denotes the local _numen_, who here
distinguishes himself from other divine beings,――a trace of the
primitive polytheistic representation (compare 31¹³ 35¹ 33²⁰ 21³³
16¹³).――_Fear not, etc._] The purpose of the revelation is to remove
the misgiving natural to an old man called to leave his hearth
and his altar. The thought is confined to Elohist (contrast 45²⁸
Yahwist).――_for ... nation_] The words, if genuine, should follow
the immediate grounds of comfort in verse ⁴. They are probably to
be regarded (with Kautzsch-Socin, Gunkel, al.) as an expansion of
the same character as 13¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ 22¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 28¹⁴ etc.――=4.= _I will go
down with thee_] So in 31¹³ the _’Ēl_ of Bethel is with Jacob in
Mesopotamia.――_bring thee up_] The reference must be to the Exodus
(Exodus 3⁸ 6⁸ etc.), not to Jacob’s burial in Canaan (47²⁹ ᶠᐧ
50⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ).――_lay his hand upon thine eyes_] _i.e._, close them after
death; for classical parallels, compare Homer _Iliad_ xi. 453,
_Odyssey_ xi. 426, xxiv. 296; Euripides _Phœnician Women_ 1451 f.,
_Hecuba_ 430; Virgil _Aeneid_ ix. 487, etc. (Knobel-Dillmann).――=6,
7.= Priestly-Code’s summary of the migration (_v.i._).
* * * * *
=1.= באר שבע] LXX here and verse ⁵ τὸ φρέαρ τοῦ ὅρκου (see page
326).――=2.= לישראל] The word has crept in from verse ¹ through
an inadvertence of the redactor or a later scribe: “‘God said
to Israel, Jacob! Jacob!’ is a sentence which no original
writer would have penned” (Wellhausen).――On the form of
the verse, see on 22¹¹.――=3.= מַֽרְדָה] From רֵדָה, the rare form
of infinitive construct of פ״י verbs, peculiar to Elohist:
see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 69 _m_²; Holzinger _Einleitung in
den Hexateuch_ 190.――=4.= גם עלה] See on 27³³ 31¹⁵. LXX εἰς
τέλος.――=5.= יעקב ²] LXX omits.――פרעה] LXX Ἰωσηφ.――=6, 7.= Compare
12⁵ 31¹⁸ 36⁶ (Priestly-Code). Further marks of Priestly-Code:
רכש, רכוש, זרעו אתו (17⁷ᐧ ⁹ ᶠᐧ 35¹²), and the redundant phraseology.
* * * * *
=8‒27. A list of Jacob’s immediate descendants.=――The passage
professes to give the names of those who went down with Jacob to Egypt,
but is in reality a list of the leading clans of the Israelite tribes,
closely corresponding to Numbers 26⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ. These traditionally numbered
_seventy_ (compare the 70 elders, Exodus 24¹ᐧ ⁹, Numbers 11¹⁶). Closely
connected with this was another tradition, that the number of the
Israelites at the settlement in Egypt was 70 (Deuteronomy 10²²). In
the more careful statement of Exodus 1⁵ (Priestly-Code), this means
all the _descendants_ of Jacob at the time: _i.e._, it includes Joseph
(and presumably his sons, though they were in Egypt already) and,
of course, excludes Jacob himself. In the mind of the writer of the
present passage these two traditional schemes appear to have got mixed
up and confused. As it stands, it is neither an accurate enumeration
of Jacob’s descendants (for the number 70 includes Jacob and excludes
Er and Onan), nor a list of those who accompanied him to Egypt (for
it embraces Joseph and his sons: see on ²⁶ ᶠᐧ). When cleared of certain
obvious accretions (יעקב ובניו ⁸; ¹²ᵇ{α}; ¹⁵ᵃ{γ}; ובנתיו ¹⁵ᵇ; ששים ושש ²⁶ and
the whole of ²⁷ except the last word שבעים), we find as its nucleus
a list of Jacob’s sons and grandsons, originally compiled without
reference to the migration to Egypt, on the basis of some such
census-list as Numbers 26⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ
That the section belongs in general to the Priestly strata
of the Pentateuch is seen from its incompatibility with the
narrative (and particularly the chronology) of Jehovist; from
its correspondence with Numbers 26⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ, Exodus 6¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ; and from
literary indications (ואלה שמות, ⁸ [compare 25¹³ 36¹⁰]; פדן ארם, ¹⁵;
נפש ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁵⁻²⁷; יצאי ירך, ²⁶). As regards its relation to the
main document of Priestly-Code, three views are possible: (1)
That the list was originally drawn up by Priestly-Code, and
afterwards accommodated to the tradition of Jehovist by a later
editor (Nöldeke, Dillmann, al.). This implies the perfectly
tenable assumption that Priestly-Code did not accept the
tradition as to the death of Er and Onan, or that of Benjamin’s
extreme youth at the time of the migration; but also the less
probable view that he numbered the sons of Joseph amongst those
who ‘went down’ to Egypt. (2) That the interpolations are due to
Priestly-Code, who thus turned an older list of Jacob’s children
into an enumeration of those who accompanied him to Egypt
(Driver). The only serious objection to this theory is that it
makes Priestly-Code (in opposition to Exodus 1⁵) reckon Jacob as
one of the 70. It is nevertheless the most acceptable solution.
(3) That the whole section was inserted by a late editor of
the school of Priestly-Code (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Gunkel, al.).
Even on this hypothesis, the original list will have had nothing
to do with the migration to Egypt.――The discrepancy in the
computation lies in the first section (⁸⁻¹⁵). The 33 of verse
¹⁵ was in the original list the true number of the _sons_ of
Leah. The interpolator, whoever he was, had to exclude Er and
Onan; to make up for this he inserts Dinah (¹⁵ᵃ), and reckons
Jacob amongst the sons of Leah! Another sign of artificial
manipulation of the figures appears in the proportions between
the number of _children_ assigned to each wife: Leah 32,
Zilpah 16, Rachel 14, Bilhah 7 (in all 69); each concubine-wife
receiving just half as many children as her mistress. The text
of LXX presents some important variations _v.i._.
=8a.= The heading is identical with Exodus 1¹ᵃ, except the
words יעקב ובניו, which are obviously interpolated (see introductory
note).――=8b‒15.= The sons of Leah: viz. _four_ sons of Reuben
(verse ⁹), _six_ of Simeon (¹⁰), _three_ of Levi (¹¹), _five_ sons
and _two_ grandsons of Judah (¹²), _four_ sons of Issachar (¹³), and
_three_ of Zebulun (¹⁴).――=15.= _thirty-three_ is thus the correct
number of sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of Jacob by Leah. To
preserve this number intact with the omission of Er and Onan, the
interpolator was obliged to add Dinah, and to include Jacob himself
(see below).
=9.= Exactly as Exodus 6¹⁴, Numbers 26⁵ ᶠᐧ.――חנוך is also a
Midianite tribe (25⁴); the Reubenites occupied Midianite
territory (Joshua 13²¹).――חצרון] and כרמי] also Judahite clans (see
verse ¹² and Joshua 7¹).――=10.= (= Exodus 6¹⁵). Numbers 26¹² ᶠᶠᐧ
omits אהד and reads נְמוּאֵל for ימואל, and זרח for צהר.――צהר] The
name of Ephron’s father in 23⁸.――_the son of the Canaanitess_]
representing a clan of notoriously impure stock.――=11.=
(= Exodus 6¹⁶).――=12.= As Numbers 26²⁰ ᶠᐧ.――The note on the
death of Er and Onan is an interpolation (see above).――חצרון]
(see on verse ⁹) was a town in Judah (Joshua 15²⁵).――חמול] _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ חמואל; LXX Ἰεμουήλ.――=13.=
(= Numbers 26²³ ᶠᐧ.――תולע] Compare the judge of the same name,
son of פואה, of the tribe of Issachar (Judges 10¹).――פֻּוָּה] _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå פואה, as 1
Chronicles 7¹, Judges 10¹.――יוב] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ and LXX (Ἰασουβ[φ]) read ישוב as Numbers 26: Winckler
connects with _Yašub-ilu_ under the 1st Babylonian dynasty
(_Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, ii. 68³).――=14.= (Numbers
26²⁶).――אלון a Zebulunite judge in Judges 12¹¹.――=15.= ואת דינה בתו
and ובנתיו are glosses.
=16‒18.= The sons of Zilpah (Leah’s handmaid): _seven_ sons of Gad
(¹⁶), _four_ sons, _one_ daughter, and _two_ grandsons of Asher (¹⁷):
_sixteen_ in all (¹⁸).
=16.= (As Numbers 26¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ, with textual differences).――צפיון]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX צפון, as Numbers
26¹⁵.――אצבן] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אצבעון,
LXX Θασοβαν, stands for אזני in Numbers 26¹⁶.――=17.= ישוה, a
variant of the following ישוי (?), does not appear in Numbers
26⁴⁴ ᶠᐧ.――The two grandsons חבר and מלכיאל have been connected with
the _Ḫabiri_ and the (chief) _Milkili_ of the Amarna Tablets
(Jastrow, _Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, xi.
120).
=19‒22.= The sons of Rachel: _two_ of Joseph (²⁰) and _ten_ of
Benjamin (²¹), in all _fourteen_.
=20.= וַיִּוָּלֵד] LXX + υἱοί. But the relative clause אשר――אן was
probably added by the glossator, in which case the בנים of LXX
is superfluous.――LXX adds, in partial agreement with Numbers
26²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ, five names as sons and grandsons of Manasseh and
Ephraim.――=21.= In LXX only the first three names are sons of
Benjamin, the next six being sons, and the last a grandson, of
Bela‛. Still another grouping is found in Numbers 26³⁸⁻⁴⁰.――בכר]
(LXX Χόβωρ): compare Sheba‛ _the Bichrite_ in 2 Samuel 20¹: in
Numbers 26 בכר is an Ephraimite.――גרא] omitted in Numbers 26, is
the clan of Ehud (Judges 3¹⁵) and Shimei (2 Samuel 16⁵).――For
the two names אחי וראש, Numbers 26³⁸ ᶠᐧ has אחילם, for מפּים, שפופם
or שופם, and for חפּים, חוּפָם (see Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper
Names_, 35).――נעמן and ארד are sons of בלע in Numbers 26⁴⁰.――=22.=
ילּד] MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX ילדה.
=23‒25.= The sons of Bilhah (Rachel’s maid): _one_ of Dan (²³, in spite
of בני), and _four_ of Naphtali (²⁴): _seven_ in all.
=23.= בני] So Numbers 26⁴², where for חושים we find שׁוּחָם.――=24.=
(as Numbers 26⁴⁸ ᶠᐧ).――שלם] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ שלום (as 1 Chronicles 7¹³), LXX Συλλήμ.
=26, 27.= The final summations.
The original computation (70 = 33 + 16 + 14 + 7) included Er
and Onan, but excluded Dinah and Jacob. The secondary figure
66 (= 32 + 16 + 11 + 7) excludes Er and Onan, and Joseph and
his two sons, but includes Dinah. To make up the original 70
it was necessary to reckon not only the family of Joseph (3),
but Jacob himself.――LXX, with its 5 additional descendants of
Joseph (see on verse ²⁰), makes the total 75 (so Acts 7¹⁴), but
inadvertently substitutes ἐννέα, instead of ἑπτά, for the שנים
of Massoretic Text ²⁷, overlooking the fact that both Jacob and
Joseph have to be reckoned in the 75.――=26.= יצאי ירכו] 35¹¹, Exodus
1⁵.――=27.= ילּד] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ילדו.
=28‒30. The meeting of Jacob and Joseph.=――=28.= _to direct before
him to Goshen_] The Hebrew here gives no tolerable sense. The meaning
cannot be that Judah was to guide the travellers to Goshen, for he
is sent straight to Joseph; and for the idea that Joseph was to give
the needful instructions for their reception in Goshen (Dillmann),
the expression would be extremely harsh. The only natural purpose of
Judah’s mission was to bring Joseph to meet his father; and the least
difficult course is to read (with versions _v.i._): _to appear before
him in Goshen_, which had already been indicated by Joseph as the goal
of the journey (45¹⁰).――=29.= _went up_] Goshen lying somewhat higher
than the Nile-valley.――=30.= The verse prepares us for the death-bed
scenes (47²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ), which in Jehovist must have taken place soon after,
not as in Priestly-Code at an interval of 17 years.
* * * * *
=28.= להורות] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX?
Peshiṭtå לְהֵרָאוֹת (Wellhausen לְהֵרָיֹת), which is confirmed by וַיֵּרָא
in the next verse. There is no need to take the לפניו in a
temporal sense. The construction is pregnant, but otherwise
unobjectionable; the tone of superiority assumed by Jacob
towards Joseph is hardly a serious difficulty. Ball thinks that
the συναντῆσαι of LXX implies a reading לְהִקִּרְאוֹת (‘to meet’); but
the Niphal of קרה would rather mean ‘to come upon unexpectedly’
(Deuteronomy 22⁶, 2 Samuel 18⁹).――גשנה――גשן] LXX καθ’ Ἡρώων πόλιν
εἰς γῆν Ῥαμεσσή. Heroöpolis has been shown by the excavations
of Naville (_Store City of Pithom_, etc.⁴, 5 ff.; compare
Gillett in _Journal of [the Society of] Biblical Literature and
Exegesis_, December, 1886, page 69 ff.) to be Pithom (Exodus
1¹¹), now _Tell el-Maskhuṭa_ (see page 488 above). The Bohairic
version substitutes _Pethom_ for the Ἡρώων of LXX. LXX thus
makes the meeting take place at the frontier town in the
Wādī Ṭumīlāt towards the desert (so verse ²⁹). The reading is
noteworthy textually as containing Priestly-Code’s name for
Goshen.――ויבאו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
Vulgate, Peshiṭtå ויבא (better).――=29.= על־צואריו עוד] LXX κλαυθμῷ
πίονι (variation πλείονι).――The עוֹד is strange; but compare
Psalms 84⁵ (Ruth 1¹⁴ is not in point).――=30.= פניך] Peshiṭtå + בני.
* * * * *
=XLVI. 31‒XLVII. 12.――Joseph obtains Pharaoh’s permission for his
brethren to settle in Goshen.=――=31‒34= (Yahwist). He prepares his
brethren for an introduction to Pharaoh, in the expectation that by
laying stress on their herdsmen’s calling they may have the desirable
frontier district of Goshen assigned to them. It is evident that
in Yahwist the migration was resolved on without the invitation,
or perhaps the knowledge, of the king.――=32.= _for they were
cattle-breeders_] a more comprehensive category than _shepherds_.
Gunkel thinks that the representation made to Pharaoh cannot have
been strictly true, or Joseph would not have made such a point of
it;¹ and we must at least suppose that he advises them to emphasise
that side of their life which was most likely to gain the end in view.
Unfortunately, while he bids them say they are cattle-breeders, they
actually describe themselves as shepherds (47³), and yet Pharaoh would
make them cattle-overseers (47⁶ᵇ). Some confusion of the two terms
may be suspected, but as the text stands, nothing can be made of
the distinction.――=34.= _that ye may dwell, etc._] What motive in
the mind of the king is appealed to is not quite clear. If the last
clause――_for every shepherd, etc._――be genuine, it was the Egyptian
abhorrence of the class to which they belonged. But such a feeling
would be more likely to exclude them from Egypt altogether than to
procure their admission to the best pasture-land in the country, where
Pharaoh’s herds were kept (47⁶ᵇ). Moreover, while there is evidence
that swine-herds (Herodotus, ii. 47) and cowherds (Erman, _Life
in Ancient Egypt_, 439 f.) were looked down on by the Egyptians,
the statement that shepherds were held in special abhorrence has not
been confirmed; and the clause (³⁴ᵇ{β}) is probably an interpolation
suggested by 43³². See, further, on 47³ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=XLVII. 1‒5a, 6b=
(Yahwist). Pharaoh grants the request.――=1.= _and behold ... Goshen_]
It is evident that in this narrative Joseph relies on the _fait
accompli_ to procure a favourable response from Pharaoh. The idea
that Pharaoh decided such matters in person may be naïve (Gunkel);
it is certainly a curious restriction of the absolute authority
elsewhere assigned to Joseph.――=2.= _he had taken five, etc._] On
the significance of the number, see on 43³⁴.――=3, 4.= The anticipated
question (46³³) is answered in accordance with Joseph’s instructions,
though the phraseology differs by the substitution of רֹעֵי צֹאן for
אַנְשֵׁי מִקְנֶה.――It is possible that the repeated ויאמרו is due to the omission
between ³ and ⁴ of a further question by Pharaoh as to the reasons
for their coming to Egypt (so Ball, Gunkel). The whole leads up to
a straight-forward request for a temporary domicile in Goshen; and
the point may be simply that as herdsmen they had brought their means
of subsistence with them, and needed nothing but grazing land, which
must have been obtainable in spite of the famine. There is no hint
of any aversion to the strangers or their manner of life.――=6b.=
_Let them dwell, etc._] is the continuation of ⁵ᵃ in LXX (_v.i._),
whose arrangement of these verses is obviously more original than
that of Massoretic Text.――As an additional favour, Pharaoh offers to
take any capable members of the family into his service as _cattle
superintendents_ (שָׂרֵי מִקְנֶה),――an office frequently mentioned in the
monuments as one of high dignity (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_,
94 f., 108, 143). The breeding of cattle was carried to great
perfection in ancient Egypt (_ib._ 436 ff.).
¹ So Eerdmans (_Vorgeschichte Israels_, 42; _The Expositor_,
August, 1908, page 124 f.), who draws the conclusion that,
as the Israelites here represent themselves as nomads, they
cannot have really been so!
The admission of pastoral tribes within the frontier of Egypt
is an incident twice represented in Egyptian inscriptions of
the period here supposed. Under Ḥor-em-heb of the 18th dynasty,
some barbarians have a definite district assigned to them by
a high officer; and reference has already been made (page 437)
to the Edomite nomads who in the time of Merenptah were allowed
to pass the fortifications and feed their flocks in “the great
pasture-land of Pharaoh”――probably this very Wādī Ṭumīlāt
where Goshen was (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten
Orients_², 393; Driver, 372).
* * * * *
=31.= ואל־בית אביו] LXX omits, perhaps rightly.――=32.= כי――היו]
regarded as a gloss by Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger,
Gunkel, al.――=34.= גשן] LXX Γεσεμ Ἀραβίᾳ.――רעה] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ (Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ)
רעי.――=2.= מקצה] = ‘from the totality of,’ as 1 Kings 12³¹, Exodus
33² (otherwise Genesis 19⁴).――לקח] (pluperfect) _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ + עִמּוֹ.――=3.= אחיו] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ
אחי יוסף.――רעה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ רעי (as
46³⁴).
* * * * *
=5, 6a, 7‒11.= Jacob before Pharaoh (Priestly-Code).――=5.= The text of
LXX (_v.i._) supplies the following opening to Priestly-Code’s account
(continuing 46⁷): _And Jacob and his sons came to Egypt to Joseph;
and Pharaoh king of Egypt heard it_ (⁵ᵃ), _and Pharaoh said to Joseph,
etc._――It is plain that ⁵ᵇ continues _this_ conversation and not that
between Pharaoh and the five brethren.――=6a.= Here Pharaoh himself
selects _the best_ [part] _of the land_ for the Hebrew family to dwell
in (see verse ¹¹).――=7.= Joseph introduces his father to Pharaoh,――an
impressive and dignified scene.――_blessed_], _i.e._ ‘saluted’ on
entering (compare 1 Samuel 13¹⁰, 2 Kings 4²⁹, 2 Samuel 13²⁵ 19⁴⁰),
but recorded, no doubt, with a sense that “the less is blessed of the
better” (Hebrews 7⁷).――=9.= _few and evil_] The expression shows that
Priestly-Code must have recorded Jacob’s long exile with Laban and his
protracted sorrow for the loss of Joseph; it is still more interesting
as showing that that writer could conceive a good man’s life as spent
in adversity and affliction.――=11.= _the land of Ra‛mses_] The name
only here and LXX 46²⁸ (see on 45¹⁰), so called from the city built
by Ramses II. (Exodus 1¹¹) and named after him ‘the house of Ramses,’
in the East of the Delta (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 48). The
situation is still uncertain; Naville (_Goshen_, 20) was inclined to
identify it with Ṣafṭ el-Ḥenneh (see page 488); but Petrie now claims
to have discovered its site at _Tel er-Reṭabeh_, in the middle of Wādī
Ṭumīlāt, 8 mile West of Pithom (_Hyksos and Israelite Cities_, 1906,
page 28 ff.)――=12.= Probably from Elohist ∥ ²⁷ᵃ (Yahwist).
* * * * *
=5, 6.= The overlapping of Yahwist and Priestly-Code at this
point can be proved and corrected from LXX. After ⁵ᵃ (omitting
לאמר) LXX reads ⁶ᵇ; then ἦλθον δὲ εἰς Αἴγυπτον πρὸς Ἰωσὴφ Ἰακὼβ
καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἤκουσεν Φαραὼ βασιλεὺς Αἰγύπτου (= ויבאו
מצרימה אל־יוסף יעקב ובניו וישמע פרעה מלך מצרים); then ⁵ᵃ (repeated) ⁵ᵇᐧ ⁶ᵃᐧ ⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ.
It will hardly be disputed that the text of LXX is here the
original, and that Priestly-Code’s narrative commences with
the additional sentences quoted above. The editor of Massoretic
Text felt the doublet to be too glaring; he therefore omitted
these two sentences; and then by transposition worked the two
accounts into a single scene. A further phase is represented by
Hexateuch Syriac, where ⁵ᵇ and ⁶ᵃ are omitted. We have here an
instructive example of the complex process by which the sources
were gradually worked into a smooth narrative, and one which
deserves the attention of those writers who ridicule the minute
and intricate operations which the critical theory finds it
necessary to attribute to the redactors.――=6b.= ואם ידעת וְיֶשׁ־] See
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 120 _e_. The היש of _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ is certainly not preferable (Ball).――=11.=
מיטב] verse ⁶, Exodus 22⁴, 1 Samuel 15⁹ᐧ ¹⁵†. The identification
of מ׳ הארץ with the ‘land of Ramses’ probably rests on a
misunderstanding of Elohist’s טוב הא׳ (see on 45¹⁸), and a
combination of it with Yahwist’s גּשֶׁן.――=12.= הטף] apparently
including here the women: compare 50²¹.
* * * * *
XLVII. 13‒27.
_Joseph’s Agrarian Policy_
(Yahwist?).
Joseph is here represented as taking advantage of the great famine
to revolutionize the system of land-tenure in Egypt for the benefit
of the crown. In one year the famishing people have exhausted their
money and parted with their live-stock, in exchange for bread; in the
next they forfeit their lands and their personal freedom. Thus by a
bold stroke of statesmanship private property in land (except in the
case of the priests) is abolished throughout Egypt, and the entire
population reduced to the position of serfs, paying a land-tax of 20
per cent. _per annum_ to the king.
_Source._――The section ¹³⁻²⁶, dealing as it does with
matters purely Egyptian and without interest for the national
history of Israel, occupies an anomalous position among the
Joseph-narratives, and cannot be confidently assigned to
either of the main documents (Wellhausen _Die Composition des
Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_²
61). Linguistic indications are on the whole in favour of
Yahwist: כבד, ¹³; נחיה ולא נמות, ¹⁹ (42² 43⁸); ידות, ²⁴ (43³⁴);
מקנה הצאן ומקנה הבקר, ¹⁷ (26¹⁴); מצא חן בעיני, ²⁵ (see Gunkel and
Dillmann). But there are also traces of Elohist’s diction: חזק,
²⁰; הבה, הבו, ¹⁵ ᶠᐧ (29²¹ 30¹,――differing from 11³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁷) (Dillmann,
Holzinger); besides some peculiar expressions very unusual in
Pentateuch: להה, ¹³; אפם, ¹⁵ ᶠᐧ; תשם (Qal), ¹⁹; הֵא, ²³ (Dillmann).
It is possible that Holzinger (251 f.) and Procksch (54 f.) are
right in thinking the passage composite; but no satisfactory
analysis can be effected. That it is out of place in its present
connexion is generally admitted, but that it finds a more
suitable position between chapters 41 and 42 (Dillmann, Gunkel,
al.) is not at all obvious. It is not improbable that a piece
of so peculiar a character is a later addition to the original
cycle of Joseph-legends, and belongs neither to Yahwist nor
Elohist.――Verse ²⁷ appears to be from Priestly-Code, with
glosses (see the notes).
=13, 14.= Joseph takes up all the money in Egypt and Canaan. _Canaan_
is bracketed with Egypt as far as verse ¹⁵, after which the situation
is purely Egyptian. It is natural to suppose that the references to
Canaan are interpolated (Holzinger, Gunkel); but considering the close
political relations of the two countries, it would be rash to assume
this too easily.――_15‒17._ The live-stock is next exhausted.――_horses_]
See on 12¹⁶.――=18‒22.= The people surrender their lands and persons
for bread. This is the decisive stroke of Joseph’s statecraft, making
a return to the old conditions impossible; and it is noteworthy that
(as if to relieve Joseph of the odium) the proposal is represented as
coming from the people themselves.――=18.= _that year ... the second
year_] Not the first and second years of the famine (for we can hardly
suppose that the money and cattle were exhausted in a single year),
but simply two successive years.――=19.= _buy us and our land_] The
only basis of personal independence in a state like ancient Egypt
being the possession of land, the peasants know that in parting with
their land they sacrifice their freedom as well.――_give seed, etc._] A
temporary provision (see verse ²⁴) for the time of famine, or perhaps
for the first sowing after it was over (Holzinger). It is in any case
most natural to suppose that these drastic changes took place towards
the end of the 7 years.――=21.= _and the people he reduced to bondmen_]
Read so with Versions, _v.i._ (Knobel, Dillmann, Delitzsch, al.).
The Massoretic Text: ‘he brought them over to the cities’ appears
to mean that he brought the rural population to the cities where
the corn-magazines were (41³⁵ᐧ ⁴⁸); but the emphasis on the object
leads us to expect a parallelism to the appropriation of the land in
verse ²⁰ (Dillmann). A universal redistribution of the inhabitants
(Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Tuch, al.) could not be expressed by the words, and
would, moreover, be a senseless measure.――=22.= The priests’ property
was exempted, because they had a statutory provision of food, and
did not need to sell their lands. So the writer explains a privilege
which existed in his day (see page 501 below). Compare Erman, _Life
in Ancient Egypt_, 129, where Ramses III. is said to have given
185,000 sacks of corn annually to the temples.――=23‒26.= Institution
of the land-tax.――=23.= _Here is seed for you_] The gift is not
to be repeated; hence the incident naturally belongs to the end of
the famine.――=24.= _a fifth part_] According to Oriental ideas, and
considering the fertility of Egypt, the impost is not excessive;
a much higher percentage being frequently exacted under Eastern
governments (compare 1 Maccabees 10³⁰, and the authorities cited by
Dillmann page 444). On the severities of taxation under the New Empire,
see _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 122.――=25.= The people gratefully accept
the terms.――=26.= The arrangement is fixed by administrative decree,
and survives to the time of the writer.――=27.= (Priestly-Code, _v.i._)
is the conclusion of the settlement of Israel in Egypt (verse ¹¹).
The system of land-tenure reflected in verses ¹³⁻²⁶ is supposed
by Erman to have actually arisen through the extermination of
the old landed aristocracy which followed the expulsion of the
Hyksos and the founding of the New Empire (_Life in Ancient
Egypt_, 102 f.). The same writer thus sums up what is known or
surmised of social conditions under the New Empire: “The landed
property was partly in the hands of the state, partly in those
of the priesthood; it was tilled by peasant-serfs; there seem
to have been no private estates belonging to the nobility, at
any rate not under the 19th dynasty. The lower orders consisted
mostly of serfs and foreign slaves; the higher, of officials in
the service of the state and of the temples” (_ib._ 129). The
peculiar privileges of the priests (and soldiers) are attested
by Diodorus, i. 73 f.; Herodotus, ii. 168 (but compare ii. 141):
the latter says that every priest and warrior possessed 12
ἄρουραι of land tax-free. Of the amount of the land-tax (one
fifth) there appears to be no independent confirmation.――The
interest of the biblical account is ætiological. The Hebrews
were impressed by the vast difference between the land-tenure
of Egypt and that under which they themselves lived; and sought
an explanation of the ‘abnormal agrarian conditions’ (Erman)
prevailing in the Nile-valley. Whether the explanation here
given rests on any Egyptian tradition, or is due to the national
imagination of Israel, working on material supplied by the story
of Joseph, remains as yet uncertain (see Gunkel 410 f.).
The close connexion between Egypt and Palestine in the matter
of food-supply is illustrated by the Amarna letters, where
a powerful minister named Yanḫamu is frequently mentioned as
holding a position somewhat corresponding to that of Joseph.
Yanḫamu, whose name suggests Semitic extraction, was governor of
an unknown province called Yarimuta, which some have tried (but
on the slenderest grounds) to identify with the biblical Goshen
(Winckler, _Altorientalische Forschungen_, iii. 215; Jeremias
_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_, 391³). The
references imply that he had control of the state-granaries;
and complaints are made of the difficulty of procuring supplies
from the high-handed official; in particular, it is alleged that
the people have had to part with their sons and their daughters,
and the very woodwork of their houses, in return for corn (see
Knudtzon, _El-Amarna Tafeln_, page 407). That this historic
figure is the original of some features in the portrait of
Joseph (a combination first suggested by Marquart, and approved
by Winckler, Cheyne, Jeremias, al.) is conceivable enough;
though definite points of contact are very restricted, and the
historical background of Yanḫamu’s activity has completely faded
from the biography of Joseph.
An equally striking, and equally unconvincing, parallel is
pointed out by Eerdmans (_Vorgeschichte Israels_, 68) from a
much later period――the end of the 19th dynasty,――when, according
to the Papyrus Harris, Arisu (_’I-’ir-sw_), a Syrian, “in years
of scarcity” which followed “the abundant years of the past,”
“made the whole land tributary to himself alone” (see Petrie,
_A History of Egypt_ iii. 134). The resemblance vanishes on
closer inspection. Arisu is simply a Syrian chief, who, in a
time of anarchy, gets the upper hand in Egypt by the help of
his companions, oppresses the people, and engages in a crusade
against the native religion. To say that “the circumstances
of this time correspond in all respects [ganz und gar] to the
statements of the Joseph-stories,” is a manifest exaggeration.
* * * * *
=13.= ותלהּ] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ותלא. The
√ להה is Aramaic ἅπαξ λεγόμενον = לאה, ‘languish.’ It is one of
several rare expressions which occur in this section.――=14.=
שֹׁבְרִים] LXX + ויכלכלם (verse ¹²).――=15.= אָפֵם] The verb only here
(and verse ¹⁶) in Pentateuch: elsewhere poetic (Isaiah 16⁴ 29²⁰,
Psalms 77⁹†).――כסף] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
הכסף, LXX כספנו (so verse ¹⁶).――=16.= לכם] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate + לֶהֶם.――=17.= נהל] Only here in
the sense of ‘sustain’ [with food]; elsewhere, if the √ be the
same, it means ‘lead’ (to watering-place, goal, etc.): see page
414.――=18.= כי אם] may be rendered equally well (with LXX) ‘that,
if’ (protasis to לא נשאר), or with Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘but’ [_sondern_]
(Delitzsch, Holzinger).――=19.= גם אנחנו גם אדמתנו] LXX avoids the
bold zeugma, and substitutes καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐρημωθῇ, as at the end
of the verse.――ונחיה] LXX ἵνα σπείρωμεν (ונזרע?).――=21.= העביר――לערים]
Massoretic Text is supported by Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ,
while _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX read
העביד――לעבדים, as does the loose paraphrase of Vulgate.――=23.= הֵא]
Only Exodus 16⁴³ and Aramaic Daniel 2⁴³.――=24.= בתבואת] It seems
necessary here to take ת׳ as a noun of action: ‘at the bringings
in’ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Delitzsch, Dillmann), though elsewhere it
always means ‘increase’ or ‘produce.’ To omit ב (with LXX) does
not yield a natural construction.――לאכלכם] Ball happily emends
לְאֹכֶל לָכֶם.――ולאכל לטפכם] Better omitted with LXX.――=26.= לחמש] LXX לְחַמֵּשׁ.
חֹמָשׁ is not found, and the expression is very awkward. A good
sense might be obtained by transposing לְחַמֵּשׁ לפרעה (with LXXᴬᐧ ᵃˡᐧ);
but whether that is the original text is very doubtful.――=27.=
The verse is usually divided between Yahwist and Priestly-Code;
but ישראל is no sure sign of Yahwist, since it denotes the nation.
The only characteristic of Yahwist is בארץ גשן, which may be very
well excised as a gloss: the rest may then quite suitably be
assigned to Priestly-Code (compare נאחז, פרה ורבה).
* * * * *
XLVII. 28‒XLVIII. 22.
_Jacob’s last Interview with Joseph_
(Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly-Code).
The death-bed scenes of Jacob are described in great detail by all
three narrators, because of the importance of the dying utterances of
the last ancestor of all Israel. There are four main incidents: (1)
Jacob’s charge to Joseph with regard to his burial (²⁸⁻³¹); (2) the
blessing of Joseph and his two sons (48); (3) Jacob’s oracles on the
future of all the tribes (49¹⁻²⁸); and (4) his instructions regarding
his burial in Machpelah (²⁹⁻³³).――The first two may be conveniently
treated together.
_Sources._――The triple thread of narrative is shown by the
three beginnings: 47²⁸ (Priestly-Code), 47²⁹ (Yahwist), and
48¹ (Elohist). To Priestly-Code belong 47²⁸ 48³⁻⁶: note the
chronology and syntax of 47²⁸, the connexion of 48³ ᶠᐧ with
35⁶ᵃᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹²; אל שדי, ³; הפרה והרבה, ⁴; קהל עמים, ⁴; אחזת עולם, ⁴; הוליד,
⁶.――Equally decisive are the indications of Yahwist in 47²⁹⁻³¹;
ישראל, ²⁹ᐧ ³¹; אם מצאתי וגו׳, ²⁹; שים נא ידך וגו׳, ²⁹ (24²); חסד ואמת, ²⁹ (24⁴⁹
32¹¹); שכבתי עם־אבתי, ³⁰.――The analysis of 48¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁸⁻²² is more
doubtful: formerly the passage was treated as a unity and
assigned to Elohist (Hupfeld, Wellhausen, _Die Composition des
Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_²
61 f., Driver al.), but the evidences of double recension are
too numerous to be overlooked. (See Budde, _Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, iii. 56 ff.) Thus, while יעקב,
²ᵃ, and אלהים, ⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁰ ᶠᐧ, and האמרי, ²², point to Elohist, ישראל,
²ᵇᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ ᶠᐧ ¹³ ᶠ, and הצעיר, ¹⁴, point to Yahwist. A clue to the
analysis is supplied by (a) the double presentation of Manasseh
and Ephraim, ¹⁰ᵇ ∥ ¹³ (ויגשׁ); and (b) the obvious intrusion of
¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ between ¹⁴ and ¹⁷. ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ hang together and are
from Yahwist; ¹⁵ links on to ¹², and ¹³ ᶠᐧ presuppose ¹⁰ᵃ. Taking
note of the finer criteria, the analysis works out somewhat as
follows: Elohist = ¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᵇᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{βγ}ᵇᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²²;
Yahwist = ²ᵇ{?}ᐧ ¹⁰ᵃᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{α} (to ההוא);――deleting ישראל
in ²ᵇ{?}ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ²¹ as a redactional explication. So in general
Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel; also Procksch, who,
however, places ²¹ᐧ ²² before ⁷ in Elohist’s narrative.――The
source of ⁷ is difficult to determine; usually it has been
assigned to Priestly-Code or Redactor, but by Gunkel and
Procksch to Elohist (see the notes).
=28‒31. Joseph promises to bury Jacob in Canaan.=――=28=
(Priestly-Code). Jacob’s age at the time of his death; compare
47⁹.――=29‒31= (Yahwist). Compare the parallel in Priestly-Code,
49²⁹⁻³².――=29.= On the form of oath, see on 24².――=30.= _lie with my
fathers_] _i.e._, in She’ôl (see on 25⁸); compare Deuteronomy 31¹⁶,
1 Kings 2¹⁰ etc.――_in their burying-place_] But in 50⁵ (also Yahwist)
Jacob speaks of “my grave which I have digged for myself.” The latter
is no doubt the original tradition, and the text here must have
been modified in accordance with the theory of Priestly-Code 49³⁰ ᶠᐧ
(Wellhausen).――=31.= _bowed over the head of the bed_] An act of
worship, expressing gratitude to God for the fulfilment of his last
wish (compare 1 Kings 1⁴⁷). Holzinger’s conjecture (based on 1 Samuel
19¹³), that there was an image at the top of the bed, is a possible,
though precarious, explanation of the origin of the custom. The
mistaken rendering of LXX (_v.i._) may have arisen from the fact
that the oath over the staff was an Egyptian formality (Spiegelberg,
_Recueil des Travaux_, xxv. 184 ff.; compare _Encyclopædia Biblica_,
4779¹; Sayce, _Contemporary Review_, August, 1907, 260).
* * * * *
=29.= ויקרבו――למות] Compare Deuteronomy 31¹⁴ (Yahwist), 1 Kings
2¹.――=30.= ושכבתי] must be taken as protasis to ונשאתני (Strack,
Holzinger, Gunkel, al.).――בקברתם] Kittel בקברתי, to resolve
the contradiction spoken of _supra_. But where intentional
manipulation of the text is to be suspected, small emendations
are of little avail.――=31.= המטה] LXX τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ, Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word) (= מַטֵּהוּ); compare Hebrews 11²¹. Other Versions
follow Massoretic Text, which is undoubtedly right: see 48² 49³³.
* * * * *
XLVIII.
Adoption and blessing of Joseph’s two sons.
=1, 2.= The introduction to all that follows: from Elohist.――_took
his two sons._] It seems implied in verse ⁸ that Jacob had not yet
seen the lads,――so soon did his last illness follow his arrival
in Egypt.――=3‒6.= Priestly-Code’s brief account of the adoption of
Ephraim and Manasseh. Dillmann thinks the verses have been transferred
from their original connexion with 49²⁸ᵇ, where they were spoken
in presence of all the brethren.――=3, 4.= The reference is to the
revelation at Luz (35¹¹ ᶠᐧ), where the promise of a numerous offspring
was coupled with the possession of Canaan. On the phraseology,
see above.――=5.= _And now_] In view of these promises he elevates
Ephraim and Manasseh to the status of full tribes, to share with
his own sons in the future partition of the land.――_Ephraim and
Manasseh_] The order is the only hint that Ephraim was the leading
tribe (compare verse ²⁰ Elohist); but it is not that usually observed
by Priestly-Code (see Numbers 26²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ 34²³ ᶠᐧ, Joshua 14⁴ 16⁴ 17¹;
otherwise Numbers 1¹⁰).――_as Reuben and Simeon_] The two oldest are
chosen for comparison.――=6.= Later-born sons of Joseph (none such,
however, are anywhere mentioned) are to be _called by the name of
their brethren, etc._] _i.e._, are to be counted as Ephraimites and
Manassites.――=7.= The presence of Joseph reminds the dying patriarch
of the dark day on which he buried Rachel on the way to Ephrath. The
expressions reproduce those of 35¹⁶⁻²⁰.――עָלַי] _to my sorrow_; literally
‘(as a trouble) upon me’ (compare 33¹³).
The notice――one of the most pathetic things in Genesis――is very
loosely connected with what precedes, and must in its original
setting have led up to something which has been displaced in the
redaction. But it is difficult to find a suitable connexion for
the verse in the extant portions of any of the three sources.
In Priestly-Code (to which the word פַּדָּן at first sight seems to
point), Delitzsch, Dillmann, al. would put it immediately before
[ועתה] אני נאסף in 49²⁹; but that view relieves no difficulty, and
leads nowhere. A more natural position in that document might be
after the mention of the burial of Leah in 49³¹ (verse ³² may be
an interpolation); but the form of the verse is not favourable
to that assumption, and no good reason can be imagined for the
transposition. (See Budde _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, iii. 67 f.) Bruston (in _Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, vii. 208) puts forward the
attractive suggestion (adopted by Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel,
Procksch, al.) that the verse introduced a request to be buried
in the same grave as Rachel. Such a wish is evidently impossible
in Priestly-Code; and Bruston (followed with some hesitation by
Ball, Kautzsch-Socin) accordingly found a place for it (with the
necessary alterations of text) between 47²⁹ and ³⁰ (Yahwist):
against this 50⁵ᐧ ¹¹ seem decisive. Gunkel and Procksch assign
it to Elohist, the latter placing it after verse ²², which is
certainly its most suitable position in Elohist. But is the idea
after all any more conceivable in Elohist than in Priestly-Code?
The writer who recorded the request, whoever he may have
been, must have supposed that it was fulfilled; and it is not
just likely that any writer should have believed that Jacob
was buried in the grave traditionally known as Rachel’s.
No satisfactory solution can be given. Hupfeld and Schrader
consider the verse redactional; so Budde, who thinks it was
inserted to correct Priestly-Code’s original statement that
Rachel was buried in Machpelah (see on 49³¹).
* * * * *
=1.= ויאמר] So 1 Samuel 16⁴ 19²². The plural ויאמרו is more usual
in such cases (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 _d_²): we might also
point as Niphal וַיֵּאָמֵר (Joshua 2²).――At end of verse add with
LXX ויבא אל־יעקב.――=2.= ויגד] Better וַיֻּגַּד.――=2b= is usually assigned to
Yahwist because of ישראל. But the clause comes very naturally
after ²ᵃ; and as there are three other cases of confusion
between the two names in this chapter (⁸ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ²¹), the name is not
decisive.――=4.= קהל עמים] 28³; compare 35¹¹.――לזרעך] LXX לך ולז׳.――אחזת
עולם] 17⁸.――=7.= פַּדָּן] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
LXX + אֲרָם, as in every other case where the name occurs (see on
25²⁰). That the difference is documentary, and points to Elohist
rather than Priestly-Code, is a hazardous assumption (Gunkel);
and to substitute חרן, for the sake of accommodation to Yahwist
(Bruston, Ball), is quite arbitrary.――רחל] LXX + ἡ μήτηρ σου (so
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_).
* * * * *
=8, 9.= Elohist’s narrative is resumed.――Observe that Jacob _sees_ the
boys (who are quite young children [41⁵⁰]), whereas in ¹⁰ᵃ (Yahwist)
he _could not see_.――=9b= is usually assigned to Yahwist, but for
no very convincing reason.――=10b, 11= (Elohist). _I had not thought,
etc._] The words are charged with deep religious feeling: gratitude
to the God in whose name he is to bless the lads, and whose marvellous
goodness had brought his clouded life to a happy end.――=12= (Elohist).
_from between his_ (Jacob’s) _knees_] There must be a reference to
some rite of adoption not described, which being completed, Joseph
removes the children and _prostrates himself_ to receive the blessing
(continued in ¹⁵).――=10a, 13, 14= (Yahwist). Whether this is a second
interview in Yahwist, or a continuation of that in 47²⁹⁻³¹, does not
appear; in either case something has been omitted.――=10a.= See on
27¹.――=13 f.= The crossing (_v.i._) of Jacob’s hands has a weird
effect: the blind man is guided by a supernatural impulse, which
moves unerringly in the line of destiny. The right hand conveys the
richer blessing.――=15, 16.= The Blessing (Elohist).――The three-fold
invocation of the Deity reminds us of the Aaronic benediction (Numbers
6²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ), which has some resemblance to a feature of Babylonian
liturgies (see Jeremias, _Hölle und Paradies_, 30): “in such cases the
polytheist names all the gods he worships, the ancient monotheist all
the names and attributes of the God he knows” (Gunkel).――_before whom
... walked_] compare 17¹.――_who shepherded me_] Compare 49²⁴, Psalms
23¹ 28⁹, Isaiah 40¹¹. The image is appropriate in the mouth of the
master-shepherd Jacob (Dillmann).――=16.= _the Angel ... evil_] The
passages in Jacob’s life where an angel or angels intervene (28¹¹ ᶠᶠᐧ
31¹¹ 32² ᶠᐧ) all belong to the source Elohist; they are not, however,
specially connected with deliverances from evil; and the substitution
of ‘angel’ for ‘God’ is not explained.――_let my name be named in them_]
‘Let them be known as sons of Jacob,’ and reckoned among the tribes
of Israel.――=17‒19.= Continuing ¹⁴ (Yahwist).――Joseph thinks his
father had counted on the elder being on his left (Joseph’s right)
hand, and will now correct his mistake.――=19.= But Jacob, speaking
under inspiration, declares his action to be significant.――_the
fulness of the nations_] A peculiar expression for populousness.
Compare Deuteronomy 33¹⁷ (‘myriads of Ephraim’; ‘thousands of
Manasseh’).――=20.= The clause _And he blessed them that day_] is (if
not redactional) the conclusion of Yahwist’s account: the words of
blessing are not given. The rest of the verse concludes the blessing
of Elohist (¹⁵ ᶠᐧ).――_By thee_ (LXX _you_) _shall Israel bless_] The
formula must have been in actual use, and is said to be still current
amongst Jews (Strack).――_he put Ephraim before Manasseh_] If the
words are original (Elohist), they call attention to the fact that
in the benediction Ephraim had been named first, and find in that
slight circumstance an augury of the future pre-eminence of Ephraim
(Gunkel).――=21, 22.= Closing words to Joseph (Elohist).――=21.= A
prediction of the return to Canaan, in terms very similar to 50²⁴
(also Elohist). The explicit anticipations of the Exodus are probably
all from this document (15¹⁶ [?] 46⁴ 50²⁴).――=22.= _one shoulder_]
The word שְׁכֶם may very well (like the synonymous כָּתֵף) have had in common
speech the secondary sense of ‘mountain-slope,’ though no instance
occurs in Old Testament. At all events there is no reasonable doubt
that the reference is to the city of Shechem, standing on the ‘slope’
of Gerizim, the most important centre of Israelite power in early
times (see page 416), and consecrated by the possession of Joseph’s
tomb (Joshua 24³²). The peculiar value of the gift in Jacob’s
eyes is that the conquest was a trophy of his warlike prowess,――a
tradition which has left no trace whatever except in this verse (see
below).――_With my sword and with my bow_] Contrast Joshua 24¹².
Verses ²¹ᐧ ²² stand in no organic connexion with each other,
or with what precedes. Verse ²², in particular, not only
presupposes a version of the capture of Shechem different from
any found elsewhere¹ (see page 422 above), but is out of harmony
with the situation in which the words are assumed to have been
uttered. For it is scarcely credible that Jacob should have
referred thus to a conquest which he had subsequently lost, and
which would have to be recovered by force of arms before the
bequest could take effect. But further, the expression ‘above
thy brethren’ naturally implies that the portions of the other
sons had been allotted by Jacob before his death. The verse,
in short, seems to carry us back to a phase of the national
tradition which ignored the sojourn in Egypt, and represented
Jacob as a warlike hero who had effected permanent conquests in
Palestine, and died there after dividing the land amongst his
children. The situation would thus be parallel to the so-called
‘Blessing of Jacob’ in chapter 49, which is also independent of,
though not quite incompatible with, the final recension of the
patriarchal history and the migration to Egypt. For the first
statement of this theory, see Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre
Nachbarstämme_, 227, 414 f.
¹ Attempts to bring the notice into line with the recorded
history, by inserting לא before בחרבי and בקשתי (as Joshua
24¹²) (Kuenen), or by taking לקחתי as a future-perfect (Tuch,
Delitzsch, Strack, al.), are obviously unsatisfactory.
* * * * *
=8.= מי אלה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX +
לך.――=9.= ויאמר²] LXX + Ἰακώβ.――ואברכֶם (Baer-Delitzsch, page 80).
On the pausal seghol, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 29 _q_, 60
_d_.――=11.= רְאֹה] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _n_ (compare 31²⁸).――פללתי]
Literally ‘had not judged’; only here = ‘opine.’――=12.= וישתחו]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå have
the plural.――לאפיו] hardly makes sense. Read with LXX, Peshiṭtå
לוֹ אַפַּיִם.――=14.= את־ימינו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
inserts יד.――שֵׁכֵּל] Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ אחכימינין, deriving from √ שׂכל, ‘be
prudent’ (whose Piel does not occur); but LXX ἐναλλὰξ, Vulgate
_commutans_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ פרג.
These Versions may be guessing at the sense; but most moderns
appeal to Arabic _šakala_, a _secondary_ meaning of which is
to ‘_plait_ two locks of hair together and _bind_ them to the
other locks.’ In spite of the philological equivalence, Driver
is justly sceptical of so remote an analogy.――כי מנשה הבכור] LXX
omits.――=15.= את־יוסף] LXX אתם] wrongly, the original connexion
being with ¹²ᵇ.――מעודי] (Numbers 22³⁰†) ‘ever since I was.’ LXX,
Peshiṭtå, Vulgate ‘from my youth’ (מנעורי ?).――=16.= For המלאך,
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ reads המלך.――=19.=
ואולם] ‘but for all that’ (compare 28¹⁹).――=20.= בך] LXX בכם.――יְבָרֵךְ]
LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå יִבָּרֵךְ (Niphal; see on 12³). The most natural
form would be Hithpael יתברך.――=22.= שכם אחד] LXX Σικιμα ἐξαίρετον,
Aquila ὦμον ἕνα. For אַחַד instead of אֶחָד, see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 130 _g_. On כָּתֵף in the sense of ‘mountain-slope’ (_v.s._), see
Numbers 34¹¹, Joshua 15⁸ [Isaiah 11¹⁴?], etc.
* * * * *
XLIX. 1‒28a.
_The Blessing of Jacob._
This important and difficult section――one of the oldest pieces of
Hebrew poetry which we possess――consists of a series of oracles
describing the characters and fortunes of the twelve tribes of Israel,
as unfolded during the age of the Judges and under the early monarchy.
That it was composed from the first in the name of Jacob appears
clearly from internal indications (verses ³ ᶠᐧ ⁹ᐧ ⁽¹⁸⁾ᐧ ²⁶); but that
it was actually uttered by the patriarch on his death-bed to his
assembled sons is a hypothesis which several considerations combine
to render incredible. In the first place, the outlook of the poem
is bounded (as we shall afterwards see) by a particular historical
situation, removed by many centuries from the supposed time of
utterance. No reason can be imagined why the vista of the future
disclosed to Jacob should open during the settlement of the tribes
in Canaan, and suddenly close at the reign of David or Solomon; why
trivial incidents like the maritime location of Zebulun (verse ¹³),
or the ‘royal dainties’ produced by Asher (²⁰), or even the loss of
tribal independence by Issachar (¹⁵), etc., should be dwelt upon to
the exclusion of events of far greater national and religious
importance, such as the Exodus, the mission of Moses, the leadership
of Joshua, or the spiritual prerogatives of the tribe of Levi. It is
obvious that the document as a whole has historic significance only
when regarded as a production of the age to which it refers. The
analogy of Old Testament prophecy, which has been appealed to,
furnishes no instance of detailed prevision of a remote future,
unrelated to the moral issues of the speaker’s present. In the next
place, the poem is animated by a strong _national_ sentiment such as
could not have existed in the lifetime of Jacob, while there is a
complete absence of the family feeling which would naturally find
expression in the circumstances to which it is assigned, and which, in
fact, is very conspicuous in the prose accounts of Jacob’s last days.
The subjects of the oracles are not Jacob’s sons as individuals, but
the tribes called by their names (see ²⁸ᵃ); nor is there any allusion
to incidents in the personal history of Jacob and his sons except in
the sections on Reuben and on Simeon and Levi, and even there a tribal
interpretation is more natural. Finally, the speaker is not Jacob the
individual patriarch, but (as is clear from verses ⁶ᐧ ⁷ᵇᐧ ¹⁶) Jacob
as representing the ideal unity of Israel (see Kohler, page 8 f.).
All these facts point to the following conclusion (which is that of
the great majority of modern interpreters): the poem is a series of
_vaticinia ex eventu_, reflecting the conditions and aspirations of
the period that saw the consolidation of the Hebrew nationality. The
examination of the separate oracles will show that some (_e.g._ those
on Issachar and Dan) are certainly pre-monarchic; and that indeed
all may be so except the blessing on Judah, which presupposes the
establishment of the Davidic kingdom. The process of composition must
therefore have been a protracted one; the poem may be supposed to have
existed as a traditional document whose origin dates from the early
days of the Israelite occupation of Palestine, and which underwent
successive modifications and expansions before it took final shape
in the hands of a Judæan poet of the age of David or Solomon. The
conception of Jacob as the speaker belongs to the original intention
of the poem; the oracles express the verdict of the collective
consciousness of Israel on the conduct and destiny of the various
tribes, an idea finely suggested by putting them in the mouth of the
heroic ancestor of the nation. Ultimately the song was incorporated
in the patriarchal tradition, probably by the Yahwist, who found a
suitable setting for it amongst the dying utterances of Jacob.
_Literary Parallels._――Before proceeding to consider the more
intricate problems arising out of the passage, it will be useful
to compare it with (1) the Song of Deborah (Judges 5), and
(2) the Blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33).――1. The former is
like an instantaneous photograph: it exhibits the attitude and
disposition of the tribes in a single crisis of the national
history. It resembles Genesis 49 in the strong feeling of
national unity which pervades it, and in the mingling of
blame and commendation. It reveals, however, a very different
historical background. The chief differences are: the entire
ignoring of the southern tribes Judah, Simeon, and Levi; the
praise bestowed on Issachar; the substitution of Gilead for Gad;
and the division of the unity of Joseph into its constituents
Ephraim and Machir (= Manasseh). The importance of these and
other divergences for the determination of the relative dates
of the two documents is obvious, although the evidence is
frequently of a kind which makes it very difficult to form
a confident judgement.――2. The Blessing of Moses shows signs
(especially in the section on Joseph) of literary dependence on
Genesis 49; it is therefore a later composition, written very
probably in North Israel after the division of the kingdom (see
Driver _A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy_
388). It is distinguished from the Blessing of Jacob by its
uniform tone of benediction, and its strongly religious point
of view as contrasted with the secular and warlike spirit
of Genesis 49. Simeon is passed over in silence, while his
‘brother’ Levi is the subject of an enthusiastic eulogium;
Judah is briefly commended in a prayer to Yahwe; the separation
of Ephraim and Manasseh is recognised in an appendix to
the blessing on Joseph. All these indications point more or
less decisively to a situation considerably later than that
presupposed by the oracles of Jacob.
_Date and Unity of the Poem._――That the song is not a perfect
literary unity is suggested first of all by the seemingly
complex structure of the sections on Dan (two independent
oracles) and Judah (with three exordiums in verses ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰).
We find, further, that a double motive runs through the series,
viz., (1) etymological play on the name of the tribe (Judah,
Zebulun?, Dan, Gad, Asher?), and (2) tribal emblems (chiefly
animal) (Judah, Issachar, Dan, Naphtali, Joseph, Benjamin): one
or other of these can be detected in each oracle except those on
Reuben and Simeon-Levi. It is, of course, not certain that these
are characteristic of two independent groups of oracles; but the
fact that both are represented in the sayings on Judah and Dan,
while neither appears in those on Reuben and Simeon-Levi, does
confirm the impression of composition and diversity of origin.
The decisive consideration, however, is that no single period
of history can be found which satisfies all the indications of
date drawn from the several oracles. Those on Reuben, Simeon,
and Levi refer to events which belong to a remote past, and were
in all probability composed before the Song of Deborah, while
these events were still fresh in the national memory; those
on Issachar, Dan, and Benjamin could hardly have originated
after the establishment of the monarchy; while the blessing of
Judah clearly presupposes the existence of the Davidic kingdom,
and must have been written not earlier than the time of David
or Solomon. A still later date is assigned by most critics
since Wellhausen, (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_³ 320) to the blessing
on Joseph, which is generally considered to refer to the kingdom
of North Israel and to the Aramæan wars under the dynasties of
Omri and Jehu. It is argued in the notes below that the passage
is susceptible of a different interpretation from that adopted
by the majority of scholars, and may, in fact, be one of the
oldest parts of the poem. As for the rest of the oracles,
their character is such that it seems quite impossible to
decide whether they originated before or after the founding
of the kingdom. In any case we hardly get much beyond a broad
chronological division into pre-Davidic and post-Davidic oracles;
but at the same time that distinction is so clearly marked as
to exclude absolutely the hypothesis of unity of authorship.――It
has been supposed by some writers (Renan, Kuenen, al.) that
the poem consists of a number of fugitive oracles which had
circulated independently among the tribes, and were ultimately
collected and put in the mouth of Jacob. But, apart from the
general objection that characterisation of one tribe by the
rest already implies a central point of view, the inadequacy of
the theory is seen when we observe that all the longer passages
(Reuben, Simeon-Levi, Judah, Joseph) assume that Jacob is the
speaker, while the shorter pieces are too slight in content
to have any significance except in relation to the whole.――An
intermediate position is represented by Land, who distinguished
six stages in the growth of the song: (1) A primary poem,
consisting of the two tristichs, verses ³ and ⁸, written at the
time of David’s victories over the Philistines, and celebrating
the passing of the hegemony from Reuben to Judah: to this
verse ⁴ was afterwards added as an appendix. (2) A second poem
on Judah, Dan, and Issachar (verses ⁹ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁴ ᶠᐧ: distichs),
describing under animal figures the condition of these tribes
during the peaceful interval of David’s reign in Hebron: to
which was appended later the verse on Benjamin (²⁷). (3) The
Shiloh oracle (verses ¹⁰⁻¹²), dating from the same period. (4)
The decastich on Simeon and Levi (verses ⁵⁻⁷), from the time of
the later Judges. (5) The blessing of Joseph (²²⁻²⁶), a northern
poem from about the time of Deborah. (6) The five distichs on
Zebulun, Dan, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali (in that order: verses
¹³ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²¹), commemorating the victory of Deborah and Barak
over the Canaanites. The theory rests on dubious interpretations,
involves improbable historical combinations, and is altogether
too intricate to command assent; but it is noteworthy
nevertheless as perhaps the first elaborate attempt to solve
the problem of the date and integrity of the poem, and to do
justice to the finer lines of structure that can be discovered
in it.――On the whole, however, the theory of the ‘traditional
document’ (_v.s._), altered and supplemented as it was handed
down from one generation to another, while sufficiently elastic,
seems the one that best satisfies all the requirements of the
problem (so Gunkel, 420 f.).
The _order_ in which the tribes are enumerated appears to be
partly genealogical, partly geographical. The six Leah-tribes
come first, and in the order of birth as given in chapters
29 f., save that Zebulun and Issachar change places. Then follow
the four concubine or hybrid tribes; but the order is that
neither of birth nor of the mothers, the two Zilpah-tribes,
Gad and Asher, coming between the Bilhah tribes, Dan and
Naphtali. The Rachel-tribes, Joseph and Benjamin, stand last.
Geographically, we may distinguish a southern group (Reuben,
Simeon, Levi, Judah), a northern (Zebulun, Issachar, Dan?, Gad
[trans-Jordanic], Asher, Naphtali), and a central group (Joseph,
Benjamin). The general agreement of the two classifications
shows that the genealogical scheme itself reflects the tribal
affinities and historical antecedents by which the geographical
distribution of the tribes in Palestine was in part determined.
The suggestion of Peters (_Early Hebrew story_, 61 ff.), that
the ages of Jacob’s children represent approximately the order
in which the respective tribes obtained a permanent footing in
Canaan, is a plausible one, and probably contains an element
of truth; although the attempt to reconstruct the history of
the invasion and conquest on such precarious data can lead to
no secure results. It is clear at all events that neither the
genealogical nor the geographical principle furnishes a complete
explanation of the arrangement in Genesis 49; and we have to
bear in mind the possibility that this ancient document may have
preserved an older tradition as to the grouping and relations
of the tribes than that which is given in the prose legends
(chapters 29. 30).――On the question whether a sojourn in Egypt
is presupposed between the utterance and the fulfilment of the
predictions, the poem naturally throws no direct light. It is
not improbable that in this respect it stands on the same plane
as 48²² (34. 38), and traces the conquest of Palestine back to
Jacob himself.
_Metrical Form._――See Sievers, _Metrische Studien_, i. 404 ff.,
ii. 152 ff., 361 ff. The poem (verses ²⁻²⁷) exhibits throughout
a clearly marked metrical structure, the unit being the trimeter
distich, with frequent parallelism between the two members. The
lines which do not conform to this type (verses ⁷ᵇᐧ ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁸, and
especially ²⁴ᵇ⁻²⁶) are so few that interpolation or corruption
of text may reasonably be suspected; although our knowledge of
the laws of Hebrew poetry does not entitle us to say that an
occasional variation of rhythm is in itself inadmissible.
_Source._――Since the poem is older than any of the Pentateuchal
documents, the only question that arises is the relatively
unimportant one of the stage of compilation at which it was
incorporated in the narrative of Genesis. Of the primary sources,
Elohist and Priestly-Code are excluded; the former because
of the degradation of Reuben, which is nowhere recognised by
Elohist; and the latter by the general tendency of that work,
and its suppression of discreditable incidents in the story
of the patriarchs. The passage is in perfect harmony with
the representation of Yahwist, and may without difficulty be
assigned to that document, as is done by the majority of critics.
At the same time, the absence of literary connexion with the
narrative leaves a considerable margin of uncertainty; and it
is just as easy to suppose that the insertion took place in
the combined narrative Jehovist, perhaps by the same hand which
inserted the Blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy (see Wellhausen
_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher
des Alten Testaments_² 62). That it was introduced during the
final redaction of the Pentateuch is less probable, especially
if ²⁸ᵇ{β} (ויברך) was the original continuation of ¹ᵇ in
Priestly-Code (see on verse ¹).
Monographs on the Song: Diestel, _Der Segen Jakob’s in Genesis
xlix. historisch erläutert_ (1853); Land, _Disputatio de carmine
Jacobi_ (1858); Kohler, _Der Segen Jakob’s mit besonderer
Berücksichtigung der alten Versionen und des Midrasch
historisch-kritisch untersucht und erklärt_ (1867); compare
also Meier, _Geschichte der poetischen National Literatur der
Hebräer_ (1856), pages 109‒113; Peters, _Journal of the Society
of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, 1886, pages 99‒116; and
see the copious references in Tuch or Dillmann.
=1, 2. Introduction.=――The poem begins with a preamble (verse ²)
from the hand of the writer who composed or collected the oracles and
put them in the mouth of Jacob. ¹ᵇ is a prose introduction, supplied
probably by the editor who incorporated the Song in the narrative
of Yahwist or Jehovist; while ¹ᵃ appears to be a fragment of
Priestly-Code divorced from its original connexion with ²⁸ᵃᵇ{β} by
Redactorᴾᵉⁿᵗᵃᵗᵉᵘᶜʰ.――=1b.= _that I may make known, etc._] The poem is
expressly characterised as a prophecy (not, however, as a _blessing_
[as ²⁸ᵇ]), which it obviously is as ascribed to Jacob, though the
singer’s real standpoint is contemporary or retrospective (page 508
above).――_in the after days_] The furthest horizon of the speaker’s
vision (_v.i._).――=2.= A trimeter distich, exhibiting the prevalent
metrical scheme of the poem:
Assemble, ye sons of Jacob,
And hearken to Israel your father!
With the call to attention, compare 4²³, Deuteronomy 32¹, Isaiah 1¹⁰
28¹⁴, etc.――Whether in the mind of the poet Israel is the literal or
the ideal father of the nation may be doubtful: compare verse ⁷, and
page 509 above.
* * * * *
=1.= באחרית הימים] The phrase occurs 13 times in Hebrew Old
Testament (Numbers 24¹⁴, Deuteronomy 4³⁰ 31²⁹, Isaiah 2²,
Jeremiah 23²⁰ 30²⁴ 48⁴⁷ 49³⁹, Exodus 38¹⁶, Hosea 3⁵, Micah 4¹,
Daniel 10¹⁴†), and its Aramaic equivalent in Daniel 2²⁸. In the
prophets it is used technically of the advent of the Messianic
age; here and elsewhere (Numbers 24¹⁴ etc.) it has the general
sense of the remote future (like Assyrian _aḫrat ûmi_: _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_², 143). That the
eschatological sense is primary, and the other an imitation
of prophetic style (Gunkel), cannot be proved; and there is no
justification for deleting either the phrase itself (Staerk,
_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xi. 247
ff.), or the whole clause in which it occurs (Land).――=2.=
The repetition of ושמעו is against the rules of parallelism. We
may either omit the word in ²ᵃ (Gunkel, Sievers), or vary the
expression (ועאזינו, והקשיבו) in ²ᵇ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Ball). Metrically,
either expedient would be admissible, but the former is much
easier. In LXXᴮᐧ ᵃˡᐧ ἀκούσατε is used thrice.
* * * * *
=3, 4. Reuben.=
³ Reuben! My first-born art thou:
My strength and best of my vigour.
Exceeding in pride and exceeding in fury,
⁴ Impetuous as water, thou may’st not excel.
For thou wentest up to thy father’s bed;
There thou profanedst ⸢the⸣ couch....
The original presents both obscurities and niceties not reflected in
the translation; but the general sense is clear. As the first-born,
Reuben is endowed with a superabundant vitality, which is the cause
at once of his pre-eminence and of his undoing: his energy degenerates
into licentious passion, which impels him to the crime that draws down
the curse. As a characterisation of the tribe, this will mean that
Reuben had a double share of the ‘frenetic’ Bedouin nature, and wore
out his strength in fierce warfare with neighbouring tribes. If the
outrage on his father’s honour (verse ⁴) have historic significance
(see below), it must denote some attack on the unity of Israel which
the collective conscience of the nation condemned. It is to be noted
that the recollection of the event has already assumed the legendary
form, and must therefore reach back to a time considerably earlier
than the date of the poem (Gunkel).――=3b, 4a.= _exceeding ... excel_]
No English word brings out the precise force of the original, where
the √ יתר occurs three times in a sense hovering between ‘exceed’
and ‘excel.’ The idea of excess being native to the root, the
renderings _pride_ and _fury_ are perhaps preferable to ‘dignity’ and
‘power,’ ³ᶜ as well as ⁴ being understood _sensu malo_, as a censure
of Reuben.――=4b.= _Then ... went up_] A corrupt text: for various
suggestions, _v.i._ Gunkel’s translation ‘Then I profaned the couch
which he ascended,’ at least softens the harsh change from 2nd person
to 3rd.
The ‘birthright’ of Reuben must rest on some early ascendancy
or prowess of the tribe which has left no traces in history. Its
choice of a settlement East of the Jordan (Numbers 32, etc.),
shows an attachment to nomadic habits, and perhaps an unfitness
for the advance to civilised life which the majority of the
tribes had to make. In the Song of Deborah, Reuben is still
an important tribe, but one that had lost enthusiasm for the
national cause (Judges 5¹⁵ ᶠᐧ). In the Blessing of Moses it
still survives, but is apparently on the verge of extinction
(Deuteronomy 33⁶). It was doubtless exhausted by struggles
like those with the Hagarenes (1 Chronicles 5¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ), but
especially with the Moabites, who eventually occupied most of
its territory (compare Numbers 32³⁷, Joshua 13¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ with Isaiah
15, Jeremiah 48 _passim_, and Moabite Stone).――The incident
to which the downfall of Reuben is here traced (⁴ᵃ{β}ᵇ) is
connected with the fragmentary notice of 35²², and is variously
interpreted: (1) According to William Robertson Smith, _Kinship
and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 109², Steuernagel, _Die
Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_ 16, Holzinger,
it records the fact that Reuben had misused its power as the
leading tribe to assail the independence of a weaker member
of the confederation (Bilhah, or one of the Bilhah-tribes),――a
rather hazardous speculation. (2) Another theory, not
necessarily inconsistent with the former (see William Robertson
Smith, _l.c._), finds a reference to the persistence in
Reuben of an old Semitic custom of marriage with the wives or
concubines of a (deceased!) father (Dillmann, Stade, _Geschichte
des Volkes Israel_, i. 151 f.), which the general moral
sense of Israel had outgrown. In this case we must suppose
that 49⁴ contains the germ of the legend of which 35²², with
its particular mention of Bilhah, is a later phase. (3) It
is probable that the _form_ of the legend has been partly
determined by a mythological motive, to which a striking
parallel is found in the story of Phœnix and Amyntor (_Iliad_
ix. 447 ff.: quoted above, page 427).――_Metrical Structure._
The oracle is better divided as above into three distichs, than
(with Massoretic Text) into two tristichs (so Land, who assigns
each to a separate author). The trimeter measure is easily
traced throughout (except line 3) by following the Hebrew
accents, supplying Maqqeph after כי and אז in verse ⁴. Line 3 may
be scanned uu´|u´|u´ (Sievers).
* * * * *
=3a.= ראשית אוני (Deuteronomy 21¹⁷, compare Psalms 78⁵¹ 105³⁶)]
Not ἀρχὴ τέκνων μου (LXX, Theodotion), still less _principium
doloris mei_ (Vulgate from אָוֶן, ‘trouble’; so Aquila, Symmachus);
but ‘best part of my virility’ (Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ).
On ראשית, see page 12; און as Hosea 12⁴.――=3b.= LXX σκληρὸς
φέρεσθαι καὶ σκληρὸς αὐθάδης; Vulgate _prior in donis, major
in imperio_.――יֶתֶר (abstractum pro concreto) might mean ‘excess’
(Aquila, Symmachus), or ‘superiority’ (Vulgate), or ‘remnant’
(Peshiṭtå; so Peters, page 100): whether it is here used in
a good sense or a bad (for the latter, compare Proverbs 17⁷)
depends on the meaning assigned to the next two words.――שאת]
Literally ‘lifting’ (LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion,
Peshiṭtå), several times means ‘exaltation’; but in Habakkuk 1⁷
it has distinctly the sense of ‘arrogance,’ the idea preferred
above. To read שְׁאֹת, ‘turbulence’ (Gunkel), is unnecessary,
and שֵׁאת, ‘destruction’ (Peters), gives a wrong turn to the
thought.――עָז] Pausal for עֹז, ‘power,’ but the sense of ‘fury’ is
supported by verse ⁷, Isaiah 25³.――=4.= פחז――תותר] LXX ἐξύβρισας
ὡς ὕδωρ, μὴ ἐκζέσῃς; Aquila ἐθάμβευσας ... περισσεύσῃς;
Symmachus ὑπερέζεσας ... οὐκ ἔσῃ περισσότερος; Vulgate _effusus
es sicut aqua, non crescas_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). The
comparison to water is ambiguous; and it is doubtful if we may
introduce the simile of water ‘boiling over’ (Symmachus, LXX
and many moderns). The image may be that of a wild rushing
torrent,――a fit emblem of the unbridled passion which was
Reuben’s characteristic (so Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ).――פהז] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ פחזת. Though the other Versions also
have 2nd person, we cannot assume that they _read_ so; and the
analogy of verse ³ leads us to expect another abstractum pro
concreto. The noun is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; the particle occurs Judges
9⁴, Zephaniah 3⁴, with the sense ‘reckless’ or ‘irresponsible’
(compare פחזות, Jeremiah 23³²). In Arabic the √ means ‘be
insolent,’ in Aramaic ‘be lascivious’: the common idea is
perhaps ‘uncontrollableness’ (_ut s._).――אל־תותַר] For the pausal
_a_, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 53 _n_, and compare Ruth 2¹⁴.――=4b.=
No very acceptable rendering of this difficult clause has been
proposed. If we follow the accentuation, יצועי is object of עלה,
and יצועי עלה a detached sentence: ‘Then thou actedst profanely. He
went up to my bed’; but apart from the harsh change of person,
this is inadmissible, because חִלֵּל is never used intransitively.
To read עָלִיתָ with LXX is perhaps a too facile emendation; and
to omit עלה with Vulgate is forbidden by rhythm. On the whole it
is best (with Gunkel) to point חִלַּלְתִּ, and take עלה as a relative
clause (_v.s._). Other suggestions are: ח׳ יצועַי עֹלֶה (Land); יצועֵי בִלְהָה
(Geiger, Kittel); י׳ יוֹלֶדְךָ (Ball); but all these are, for one reason
or another, objectionable.
* * * * *
=5‒7. Simeon and Levi.=
⁵ Simeon and Levi――brothers!
Weapons of ruth are their daggers (?).
⁶ Into their council my soul would not enter,
In their assembly my mind would not join:
For in their anger they slaughter men,
And in their gloating they disable oxen.
⁷ Accursed be their wrath for it is fierce,
And their rage for it is cruel!
I will divide them in Jacob,
And scatter them in Israel.
=5a.= _brothers_] Hardly ὁμόγνωμοι (scholium in Field) = ‘true
brother-spirits’ (Tuch al.), or ‘associates’ in a common enterprise.
The epithet is probably a survival from an old tradition in which
Simeon and Levi were the only sons of Leah (see 34¹ᐧ ²⁵; compare Meyer,
_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 286¹, 426). It is universally
assumed that that incident――the treacherous attack on Shechem――is the
ground of the curse here pronounced; but the terms of the oracle are
perfectly general and in part unsuited to the supposed circumstances;
and it seems to me to be the habitual character of the tribes which
is denounced, and not any particular action.――=5b.= The translation
is doubtful, owing partly to uncertainty of text, and partly to
the obscurity of the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον מְכֵרָה (_v.i._). The rendering
above gives a good sense, and Ball’s objection, that daggers are
_necessarily_ implements of violence, has no force.――=6a.= _council
... assembly_] The tribal gatherings, in which deeds of violence
were planned, and sanguinary exploits gloated over. The distich
expresses vividly the thought that the true _ethos_ of Israel was
not represented in these bloody-minded gatherings.――=6b.= _men ...
oxen_] The nouns are collectives.――_slaughter ... hough_] Perfects of
experience. The latter operation (disable by cutting the sinew of the
hind-leg) was occasionally performed by Israelites on horses (Joshua
11⁶ᐧ ⁹, 2 Samuel 8⁴); to do it to a domestic animal was evidently
considered inhuman. No such atrocity is recorded of the assault on
Shechem (see 34²⁸).¹――=7b.= _in Jacob ... in Israel_] The speaker is
plainly not the individual patriarch, nor the Almighty (Land), but the
personified nation.
¹ Zimmern (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vii. 162 f.) finds
in ⁶ᵇ a reminiscence of the mutilation of the celestial
Bull by Gilgameš and Eabani in the Babylonian Gilgameš-Epic.
Simeon and Levi, like Gilgameš and Eabani, represent the
Gemini of the Zodiac; and it is pointed out that the Bull in
the heavens is ἡμίτομος, _i.e._ only its fore-half appears
as a constellation. The אישׁ then corresponds to the tyrant
Ḫumbaba, who was slain by Gilgameš and Eabani; and Jacob’s
curse answers to the curse of Ištar on the two heroes for
mutilating the Bull.――Whatever truth there may be in this
mythological interpretation, it does not relieve us of
the necessity of finding a _historical_ explanation of the
incidents.
The dispersion of these two tribes must have taken place at a
very early period of the national history. As regards Simeon,
it is doubtful if it ever existed as a separate geographical
unit. Priestly-Code is only able to assign to it an inheritance
scooped out of the territory of Judah (compare Joshua 19¹⁻⁹
with 15²⁶⁻³²ᐧ ⁴²: see also 1 Chronicles 4²⁸⁻³³); and so-called
Simeonite cities are assigned to Judah as early as the time of
David (1 Samuel 27⁶ 30³⁰, 2 Samuel 24⁷; compare 1 Kings 19³).
In the Blessing of Moses it is passed over in silence. Traces of
its dispersion may be found in such Simeonite names as Shime‛i,
Shāûl, Yāmîn in other tribes (William Robertson Smith, _The
Journal of Philology_ ix. 96); and we may assume that the
tribe had disappeared before the establishment of the monarchy
(see Steuernagel, 70 ff.; Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre
Nachbarstämme_, 75 ff.).――Very different was the fate of Levi.
Like Simeon, it lost its independence and, as a _secular_ tribe,
ceased to exist. But its scattered members had a spiritual
bond of unity in the possession of the Mosaic tradition and the
sacred lot (Deuteronomy 33⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ), in virtue of which it secured a
privileged position in the Israelite sanctuaries (Judges 17 f.),
and was eventually reconstituted on a sacerdotal basis. The
contrast between this passage, where Levi is the subject of a
curse, and Deuteronomy 33, where its prerogatives are celebrated
with enthusiasm, depends on the distinction just indicated:
here Levi is the secular tribe, destroyed by its own ferocity,
whose religious importance has not yet emerged; there, it is
the Priestly tribe, which, although scattered, yet holds the
_sacra_ and the Tôrāh of the Yahwe-religion (Wellhausen, _Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments_⁶ 136 ff.).――The _Metre_ is regular, except that
in the last two lines the trimeters are replaced by a binary
couplet. That is no sufficient reason for deleting them as an
interpolation (Sievers).
* * * * *
=5b.= LXX συνετέλεσαν ἀδικίαν ἐξ αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν (Old Latin
_consummaverunt iniquitatem adinventionis suæ_); Aquila
σκεύη ἀδικίας ἀνασκαφαὶ [αὐτῶν]; Vulgate _vasa iniquitatis
bellantia_ [Jerome _arma eorum_]; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase);
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ בארע תותבותהון עבדו נבורא; Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ [מאני] זיינא שנינא למחטוב
היא אשתמודעותהון.――כלי] So Aquila, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ;
but _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ כִּלּוּ: ‘they accomplished.’――מכרתיהם] As to the
consecutive text, that of LXX cannot be certainly restored;
Kethîb is supported by Aquila, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ (מְכֻרֹת׳:
compare Exodus 16³ 21³⁵ 29¹⁴), by Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (from √
נכר, see Abraham Ibn Ezra), and probably Vulgate. The textual
tradition must therefore be accepted as fairly reliable. Of the
many Hebrew etymologies proposed (see Dillmann, 459), the most
plausible are those which derive from √ כרר, or (reading מִכְרֹ׳)
from √ כרה, ‘to dig.’ No √ כרר, ‘dig,’ is actually found, though
it might perhaps be assumed as a by-form of כרה: this would give
the meaning ‘digging instrument’ (compare _gladio confodere_),
which Vollers (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xiv. 355) tries
to support from Assyrian. The √ כרר means in Arabic ‘to turn’
or ‘wheel round’; hence Dillmann conjectured that מְכֵרָה may be
a _curved_ knife or sabre. Some weapon suits the context, but
what exactly it is must remain uncertain. How far the exegesis
has been influenced by the resemblance to the Greek μάχαιρα (R.
Johanan [died, 279 A.D.], cited in _Bereshith Rabba_ § 99; Rashi)
we cannot tell. Ball and Gunkel take the word to be מִכְרָה, the
former rendering ‘plots’ (from Arabic _makara_, ‘to plot’) and
the latter ‘pits’ (compare מִכְרֶה, Zephaniah 2⁹); but neither כִּלּוּ חֲמַס
מִכְרֹתָם (Ball) nor כִּלַי וְחָמָס מִכְרֹתֵיהֶם [‘knavery and violence are their
pits’] (Gunkel) is so good as the ordinary interpretation. Ball,
however, rightly observes that מִכְרֹתָם yields a better metre than
תֵיהֶם――(so Sievers).――=6a.= כבדי] Read with LXX כְּבֵדִי, ‘my liver,’ the
seat of mental affections in Lamentations 2¹¹ (compare Psalms
16⁹ 30¹³ 57⁹ 108²: Massoretic Text כָּבוֹד): compare _kabittu_,
‘Gemüth,’ in Assyrian.――תחד] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ יחר. Since כָּבֵד is masculine, read יֵחַד.――=6b.= רצון]
‘self-will,’ ‘wantonness’; compare Nehemiah 9²⁴ᐧ ³⁷, Esther 1⁸ 9⁵
etc.――עִקֵּר] On certain difficulties in the usage of the word, see
Batten, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,
xxviii. 189 ff., where it is argued that the sense is
general――‘make useless.’――שׁוֹר] Aquila, Symmachus, Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ read שׁוּר, ‘wall,’ perhaps to avoid the
supposed contradiction with 34²⁸ ᶠᐧ. Hence the correct ταῦρον
of LXX is instanced in _Mechilta_ as a change made by the LXX
translators (see page 14).――=7.= ארור, ועברתם] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ אדיר, ועברתם.――עָֽז] Here pausal form
of עַז (contrast verse ³).
* * * * *
=8‒12. Judah.=
⁸ Judah! Thee shall thy brethren praise――
Thy hand on the neck of thy foes――
Bow down to thee shall thy father’s sons.
⁹ A lion’s whelp is Judah,
From the prey, my son, thou’rt gone up!
He crouched, he couched like a lion,
And an old lion――who shall arouse him?
¹⁰ Departs not the sceptre from Judah,
Nor staff from between his feet,
Until ... come ... (?),
And to him the peoples obey.
¹¹ Binding his ass to the vine,
And his foal to the choicest vine!
He washes his raiment in wine,
And his clothes in the blood of the grape!
¹² With eyes made dull by wine,
And teeth whitened with milk!
=8.= _Thee_] The emphasis on the pronoun (see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 135 _e_) is explained by the contrast to the preceding oracles: at
last the singer comes to a tribe which he can unreservedly praise.
Nowhere else does the poem breathe such glowing enthusiasm and such
elevation of feeling as here. The glories of Judah are celebrated
in four aspects: (1) as the premier tribe of Israel, ⁸; (2) as the
puissant and victorious lion-tribe, ⁹; (3) as the bearer (in some
sense) of the Messianic hope, ¹⁰; (4) as lavishly endowed with the
blessings of nature, ¹¹ ᶠᐧ.――יְהוּדָה, יוֹדוּךָ] The same fanciful etymology
as in 29³⁵.――_thy hand ... foes_] The image seems to be that of a
defeated enemy, caught by the (back of the) neck in his flight, and
crushed (Exodus 23²⁷, Psalms 18⁴¹, Job 16¹²).――_thy brethren ...
thy father’s sons_] The other tribes, who acknowledge the primacy of
Judah.――=9.= A vivid picture of the growth of Judah’s power; to be
compared with the beautiful lyric, Ezekiel 19²⁻⁹.――_a lion’s whelp_]
So Deuteronomy 33²² (of Dan). The image naturally suggests the ‘mighty
youth’ of the tribe, as its full development is represented by the
_lion_, and _old lion_ of the following lines. Hence the clause
מִטֶּרֶף――עָלִיתָ is rendered by some (Gunkel al.): _On prey, my son, thou
hast grown up_ (been reared), which is perhaps justified by Ezekiel
19³. But it is better to understand it of the lion’s ascent, after
a raid, to his mountain fastness, where he rests in unassailable
security (⁹ᵇ).――_he crouches, etc._] So (of Israel as a whole)
Numbers 24⁹.――=10a.= Judah’s political pre-eminence.――_sceptre ...
staff_] The latter word (מְחֹקֵק) might be used personally = ‘prescriber
[of laws]’ (LXX, Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ al.); but שֵׁבֶט is
never so used, and parallelism requires that מחקק should be understood
of the commander’s _staff_ (Numbers 21¹⁸, Psalms 60⁹ = 108⁹).――_from
between his feet_] The chieftain is conceived as seated with his
wand of office held upright in front of him. The Bedouin sheikhs and
headmen of villages are said still to carry such insignia of authority.
The question arises whether the emblems denote (a) kingly
authority, or (b) military leadership of the other tribes, or
merely (c) tribal autonomy. Driver (_The Journal of Philology_
xiv. 26) decides for (a), because (1) שבט, without qualification,
suggests a royal sceptre; (2) the last phrase presents the
picture of a king seated on a throne; (3) the word ישתחוו in ⁸ᵇ
most naturally expresses the homage due to a king (compare 37⁷).
But in favour of (c) it might be urged (1) that מחקק never has
this meaning, and (2) that שבט is the word for ‘tribe’ (_e.g._
verses ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁸), and, if the passage be early, is likely to be
used as the symbol of tribal independence. The idea of military
hegemony (b) is in no way suggested, apart from the connexion
with verse ⁸, which is dubious. The point has an important
bearing on the exegesis of the next clause. If (a) be right,
the Davidic monarchy is presupposed, and ¹⁰ᵇ assigns a term to
its continuance; whereas, if (c) be right, ¹⁰ᵇ is possibly (not
necessarily) a prophecy of David and his dynasty. See, further,
the note at the end of this verse.
* * * * *
=8.= ידך] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX
יָדָיךָ.――=9.= מטרף] LXX ἐκ βλαστοῦ, taking the word as in 8¹¹,
Ezekiel 17⁹.――לביא] LXX σκύμνος, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). The
common rendering ‘lioness’ is based on Arabic, but it is by
no means certain that in Hebrew the word denotes specially the
female. It is never construed as feminine; and in Ezekiel 19²
the pointing לְבִיָּא shows that the Massoretes considered לָבִיא as
masculine.――=10a.= שבט and מחקק are found together in Judges 5¹⁴,
where מחקק (∥ משֵׁךְ בש׳) has the personal sense of ‘commander.’ But
in Numbers 21¹⁸, Psalms 60⁹ [= 108⁹] it denotes the commander’s
staff; and since שבט is always the instrument, the impersonal
sense is to be preferred here: hence the ἄρχων of LXX is wrong,
and the personal renderings of מח׳ in all Versions at least
doubtful.――מבין רגליו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
מבין דגליו, ‘from between his banners,’ gives no sense. LXX,
Theodotion, Vulgate interpret after Deuteronomy 28⁵⁷ ‘from
his thighs’; and hence Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘from his sons’ sons,’
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ‘from his seed.’
* * * * *
=10b.= The logical relation of the two halves of the verse is clear:
the state of things described by ¹⁰ᵃ shall endure _until_――something
happens which shall inaugurate a still more glorious future. Whether
this event be the advent of a person――an ideal Ruler――who shall take
the sceptre out of Judah’s hands, or a crisis in the fortunes of
Judah which shall raise that tribe to the height of its destiny,
is a question on which no final opinion can be expressed (see
below).――_and to him_] Either Judah, or the predicted Ruler, according
to the interpretation of ¹⁰ᵇ{α}.――_obedience of peoples_] Universal
dominion, which, however, need not be understood absolutely.
The _crux_ of the passage is thus ¹⁰ᵇ{α}: עד כי־יבוא שילה. For a
fuller statement of the various interpretations than is here
possible, see Werliin, _De laudibus Judæ_, 1838 (not seen);
Driver _The Journal of Philology_ xiv. 1‒28 (and more briefly
_The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 410‒415);
Posnanski, _Schilo Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre_:
1 Theil: _Auslegung von Genesis 49¹⁰ im Alterthume [und] bis zu
Ende des Mittelalters_, 1904; Dillmann 462 ff.――The renderings
grammatically admissible fall into two groups, (i.) Those which
adhere to the _textus receptus_, taking שילה as a proper noun (a)
‘Until Shiloh come’ (Shiloh, a name of the Messiah), the most
obvious of all translations, first became current in versions
and commentaries of the 16th century, largely through the
influence of Sebastian Münster (1534). Although the Messianic
acceptation of the passage prevailed in Jewish circles from the
earliest times, it attached itself either to the reading שֶׁלֹּה (ii.
below) or to the rendering ‘his son’ (שׁיל), or (later and more
rarely) to שֵׁי לוֹ (‘gifts to him’). The earliest trace (if not
the actual origin) of Shiloh as a personal name is found in the
following passage of the Talmud (_Sanhedrin_ 98_b_): אמר רב לא איברי
עלמא אלא לדוד ושמואל אמר למשה ורבי יוחנן אמר למשיח מה שמו דבי ר׳ שילא אמרי שילה שמו שנאמר עד כי יבא
שילה (the words are repeated in _Echa Rabba_, with the addition
שלה כתיב): “Rab said, The world was created only for the sake of
David; but Samuel said, For the sake of Moses; but R. Yoḥanan
said, For the sake of the Messiah. What is his name? Those of
the school of R. Shela say, Shiloh is his name, as it is said,
‘Until Shiloh come.’” The sequel of the quotation is: “Those of
the school of R. Yannai say, Yinnôn is his name, as it is said
(Psalms 72¹⁷), Let his name be for ever, before the sun let his
name be perpetuated (יִנּוֹן). Those of the school of R. Ḥaninah say,
Ḥanînāh is his name, as it is said (Jeremiah 16¹³), For I will
give you no favour (חֲנִינָה). And some say Menahem is his name, ♦as
it is said (Lamentations 1¹⁶), For comforter (מְנַחֵם) and restorer
of my soul is far from me. And our Rabbis say, The leprous one
of the school of Rabbi is his name, as it is said (Isaiah 53⁴),
Surely our sicknesses he hath borne, and our pains he hath
carried them, though we did esteem him stricken (_sc._ with
leprosy), smitten of God, and afflicted.” Now there is nothing
here to suggest that Shiloh was already a current designation
of the Messiah any more than, _e.g._, the verb ינון in Psalms 72¹⁷
can have been a Messianic title. Yet, as Driver says, it is
“in this doubtful company that Shiloh is first cited as a name
of the Messiah, though we do not learn how the word was read,
or what it was imagined to signify.” Subsequently Shiloh as a
personal name appears in lists of Messianic titles of the 11th
century (Posnanski, 40), and it is so used (alongside of the
interpretation שֶׁלּוֹ) by Samuel of Russia (1124). Partly from this
lack of traditional authority, and partly from the impossibility
of finding a significant etymology for the word (_v.i._),
this explanation is now universally abandoned.――(b) ‘Until he
[Judah] come to Shiloh’ (Herder, Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann
[hesitatingly], al.). This is grammatically unexceptionable
(compare 1 Samuel 4¹²), and has in its favour the fact that
שילה (שִׁלוֹ, שִׁילוֹ [originally שִׁילוֹן]) everywhere in Old Testament is
the name of the central Ephraimite sanctuary in the age of
the Judges (Joshua 18¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 1‒4 etc.). At the great
gathering of the tribes at Shiloh, where the final partition
of the land took place (Joshua 18 f.), Judah is imagined to
have laid down the military leadership which had belonged to
it during the wars of conquest; so that the prophecy marks the
termination of that troubled period of the national life. But
all this is unhistorical. The account in Joshua 18 belongs to
the later idealisation of the conquest of Canaan; there is no
evidence that Judah ever went to Shiloh, and none of a military
hegemony of that tribe over the others, or of a subjugation
of ‘peoples’ (¹⁰ᵇ{β}), until the time of David, by which
time Shiloh had ceased to be the central sanctuary. Even if
(with Dillmann) we abandon the reference to Joshua 18, and
take the sense to be merely that Judah will remain in full
warlike activity till it has conquered its own territory, it
is difficult to see (as Dillmann himself acknowledges) how that
consummation could be expressed by a coming to Shiloh.――(c)
The translation ‘As long as one comes to Shiloh,’ _i.e._ for
ever (Hitzig, Tuch), gives a sense to עד כי which is barely
defensible.――(ii.) Those which follow the text underlying all
ancient Versions except Vulgate, viz. שֶׁלֹּה = אֲשֶׁר לוֹ. (a) ‘Until he
comes to that which is his’ (Orelli, Br.) involves an improbable
use of the accusative; and it is not easy to see how Judah’s
coming to his own could be the signal for the cessation of any
prerogatives previously enjoyed by him.――(b) ‘Until that which
is his shall come’ is a legitimate rendering; but the thought is
open to the same objection as ii. (a).――(c). The most noteworthy
of this group of interpretations is: ‘Until he come whose’ [it
is], _sc._ the sceptre, the kingdom, the right, etc.; _i.e._ the
Messiah. This has the support not only of nearly all Versions,
but of Ezekiel 21³² (where, however, the subject המשפט is
expressed). The omission of the subject is a serious syntactic
difficulty; and this, added to the questionable use of שֶׁ־
in an early and Judæan passage, makes this widely accepted
interpretation extremely precarious. The first objection would
be removed if (after a suggestion of Wellhausen [see _Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments_² 320]) we could delete the following ולו as a gloss,
and read ‘Until he come whose is the obedience,’ etc. But
metrical considerations preclude this, as well as the more
drastic excision of שלה as a gloss on ולו (_ib._ 321).――Of
conjectural emendations the only one that calls for notice is
that of Ball (followed by Gressmann), who reads משְׁלֹה: ‘Until his
ruler (_i.e._ the Messiah) come.’
♦ duplicate word “as” removed
With regard to the general scope of the verse, the question
recurs, whether the term fixed by ¹⁰ᵇ{α} is historic or ideal;
whether, in other words, it is a prophecy of the Davidic kingdom
or of a future Messiah. (1) The tendency of recent scholars
has been to regard verse ¹⁰ as Messianic, but interpolated
(Wellhausen, Stade, Dillmann, Holzinger, Driver, al.), on the
double ground that it breaks the connexion between ⁹ and ¹¹, and
that the idea of a personal Messiah is not older than the 8th
century. But (apart from the question whether the subject in
¹¹ ᶠᐧ be Judah or the Messiah) the connexion between ⁹ and ¹¹
is in any case not so obvious as to justify the removal of ¹⁰;
and the assumption that the figure of the Messiah is a creation
of the literary Prophets is based more on our ignorance of the
early religious conceptions of the Israelites than on positive
evidence. (2) Accordingly, Gunkel (followed by Gressmann, _Der
Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie_, 263) finds in
the passage proof of a pre-prophetic eschatology, which looked
forward to the advent of a Ruler who should found a world-empire,
the point of the oracle being that till that great event
Judah’s dominion should not pass away. It is difficult, however,
to believe that the climax of a blessing on Judah is the
expectation of a world-ruler who takes the sceptre out of
Judah’s hands; and though a reference to a Messianic tradition
is quite conceivable, it is probable that it is here already
applied to the Davidic monarchy. (3) It seems to me, therefore,
that justice is done to the terms and the tenor of the oracle
if we regard it as a prophecy of David and his dynasty,――a
_vaticinium ex eventu_, like all the other oracles in the
chapter. The meaning would be that Judah shall retain its
tribal independence (see on ¹⁰ᵃ) against all adversaries until
its great hero makes it the centre of a powerful kingdom,
and imposes his sovereignty on the neighbouring peoples. As
for the enigmatic שילה, we may, of course, adopt the reading
שֶׁלּוֹ, which is as appropriate on this view as on the directly
Messianic interpretation. But if the oracle rests on an early
eschatological tradition, it is just possible that שִׁלֹה is a
cryptic designation of the expected Ruler, which was applied
by the poet to the person of David. Bennett (page 397) calls
attention to the resemblance with שֵׁלָה in chapter 38; and it is a
wonder that those who recognise mythical elements in the story
of Judah and Tamar have not thought of identifying the שלה of
our passage with Judah’s third son, of whose destiny the story
leaves us in ignorance. Is it possible that this connexion was
in the minds of the Jewish authorities (_v.i._), who render שילה
‘his youngest son’? (see Posnanski, 36³).
* * * * *
=10b.= עד――שילה] LXX, Theodotion ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ
[variants ᾧ τὰ ἀποκείμενα ..., ᾧ ἀποκείμενα ... etc.]; Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac phrase); Vulgate _donec veniat qui mittendus est_
(reading שָׁלֻחַ: compare Σιλωάμ (ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Ἀπεσταλμένος), John
9⁷); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ עד עלמא עד דייתי משיחא דדילהּ היא מלכותא; Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ
לד זמן די ייתי מלכא משיחא זעיר בנוי. This last curious rendering (‘the youngest
of his sons’) is followed by Kimchi and others; and apparently
rests on a misunderstanding of שִׁלְיָתָהּ (‘afterbirth’) in
Deuteronomy 28⁵⁷ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ זעיר בנהא).――עד כי־] Only here with
imperfect. With perfect (26¹³ 41⁴⁹, 2 Samuel 23¹⁰) it always
marks a limit in the past (‘until’); but עַד alone sometimes
means ‘while,’ both with perfect and imperfect (1 Samuel 14¹⁹,
Psalms 141¹⁰), and so עַד שֶ־ (Canticles 1¹²), עד לא (Proverbs 8²⁶),
and עד אשד לא (Ecclesiastes 12¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁶): see Brown-Driver-Briggs,
page 725 a. The translation ‘as long as’ is thus perhaps not
altogether impossible, though very improbable.――שילה] MSS
and _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ שלה, probably
the original text. The _scriptio plena_ may have no better
foundation than the common Jewish interpretation שִׁילוֹ, ‘his
son,’――an impossible etymology, since there is no such word as
שִׁיל in Hebrew, and the two forms which appear to have suggested
it (viz., New Hebrew שָׁלִיל = ‘fœtus’ and שִׁלְיָה = ‘afterbirth’
[Deuteronomy 28⁵⁷†]) are obviously superficial and fallacious
analogies. The Massoretic vocalisation is therefore open to
question, and we are free to try any pronunciation of the
_Kethîb_ שלה which promises a solution of the exegetical riddle
with which we are confronted. In spite of the unanimity of the
Versions, the pointing שֶׁלֹּה is suspicious for the reasons given
above,――the presence of――שֶׁ in an early document, and the want
of a subject in the relative sentence. On the other hand, the
attempts to connect the word with √ שׁלה, ‘be quiet,’ are all
more or less dubious. (a) There is no complete parallel in
Hebrew to a noun like שִׁילֹה from a ל״ה root. If it be of the type
_qîtôl_, the regular form would be שִׁילוֹי; although König (ii. page
147) argues that as we find בֶּכֶה alongside of בְּכִי, so we might have
a שִׁילֹה alongside of שִׁילוֹי. Again, if _ô_ be an apocopated form of
the nominal termination _ôn_, the √ would naturally be not שׁלה
but שׁיל (in Arabic = ‘flow,’ whence _seil_, ‘a torrent’) or שׁול.
It is true there are a few examples of _un_apocopated nouns of
this type from ל״ה verbs (קִיִצוֹן, אִיתוֹן, [Ezekiel 40¹⁵?], הֵרוֹן [Genesis
3¹⁶†――probably an error for the regular הֵרָיוֹן, Hosea 9¹¹, Ruth
4¹³†]); and the possibility of deriving the form in _ô_ from
a root of this kind cannot be absolutely excluded (compare אֲבַדֹּה
with אֲבַדּוֹן). (b) But even if these philological difficulties could
be removed, there remains the objection that שׁלה (as contrasted
with שׁלם) is in Old Testament at most a negative word, denoting
mere tranquillity rather than full and positive prosperity,
and is often used of the careless worldly ease of the ungodly.
For all these reasons it is difficult to acquiesce in the view
that שִׁלֹה can be a designation of the Messiah as the _Peaceful_
or the _Pacifier_; while to change the pointing and render
till tranquillity (שֶׁלֶה) ‘come,’ is exposed to the additional
objection that the וְלוֹ of the following line is left without an
antecedent.――יקּהת] (Proverbs 30¹⁷†) _Dagesh forte dirimens_. The
√ appears in Arabic _waḳiha_, ‘be obedient’; Sabaean וקה. That
a verb (יִקָּהֲלוּ, יִקָּווּ?) would be more natural (Ball) is not apparent;
the verbs in Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ paraphrase the sense given
above. The √ was evidently not understood by LXX, Theodotion
(προσδοκία), Vulgate (_expectatio_), Aquila (σύστημα), Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word) all of which probably derived from √ קַוַה (Aquila
from √ קוה, II.: Brown-Driver-Briggs).
* * * * *
=11, 12.= As usually understood, the verses give a highly coloured
picture of Judæan life after the conquest, in a land where vines
are so common that they are used for tethering the ass, and wine
so abundant that garments are washed in it. As a description of the
vine-culture for which Judah was famous, the hyperbole is perhaps
extreme; and Gressmann (_l.c._ 287) takes the subject to be not
the personified tribe, but the Ruler of verse ¹⁰, the verses being
a prediction of the ideal felicity to be introduced by his reign.
Whether this be the original sense of the passage or not is hard to
decide; but Gressman is doubtless right in thinking that it supplied
the imagery for the well-known picture of the Messianic king in
Zechariah 9⁹.――=12.= LXX, Vulgate take the adjectives as comparatives:
‘brighter than wine (_v.i._) ... whiter than milk’: but this is less
natural.
The section on Judah lacks the unity of the first two oracles,
and is very probably composed of strophes of diverse origin
and date. Verse ⁸ opens with a play on the name, like verses
¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁹, while verse ⁹ starts afresh with an animal comparison,
like verses ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ²⁷ (see Introductory Note, page 510). The
impression of discontinuity is partly confirmed by the poetic
form; verse ⁸ being an irregular tristich, and the remainder a
series of 7 perfect trimeter distichs. The dekastich ¹⁰⁻¹² seems
distinct from what precedes (note the repetition of the name
in ¹⁰), but is itself a unity. The proposal to remove verse ¹⁰
as a late Messianic interpolation, and to make verse ¹¹ the
continuation of verse ⁹, does not commend itself; and the
excision of the third line in verse ¹⁰ (Meier, Fripp) merely
avoids an exegetical difficulty by sacrificing the strophic
arrangement.
* * * * *
=11.= אסרי] with archaic case-ending: compare בני below, and
perhaps חכלילי in verse ¹².――שׂרֵקָה] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον = שׂרֵק, Isaiah
5², Jeremiah 2²¹ [שָׂרֹק, Isaiah 16⁸]; probably from the _red_
colour of the best grapes.――סותה] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ כסותה, ‘covering’ (Exodus 21¹⁰ etc.). סוּת
(√ סָוָה?) does not occur elsewhere.――=12.= חכלילי] In Proverbs 23²⁹
חַכְלִלוּת עינים means ‘_dulness_ of eyes,’ the effect of excessive
drinking. This is the only sense justified by etymology
(Assyrian _akâlu_, ‘be gloomy’; Arabic _ḥakala_, IV, ‘be
confused’: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ חכל), and must be
retained here, although, of course, it does not imply reproach,
any more than שׁכר in 43³⁴. LXX χαροποι[οί], ‘glad-eyed’; and
similarly Vulgate, Peshiṭtå.
* * * * *
=13‒15. Zebulun and Issachar.=
¹³ Zebulun shall dwell by the shore of the sea,
And ... shore of ships (?),
And his flank is on Ẓidon.
¹⁴ Issachar is a bony ass
Crouching between the panniers (?):
¹⁵ And he saw that rest was good,
And that the land was sweet;
So he bent his shoulder to bear,
And became a labouring drudge.
=13.= _shall dwell_] An allusion to the etymology in 30²⁰. It is
plausibly conjectured that יִשְׁכֹּן has been substituted by mistake
for the original יִזְבֹּל (Gunkel al.).――The second and third lines are
unintelligible, and the text is probably corrupt. The comparison
of Zebulun to a recumbent animal, with ‘itself’ (וְהוּא) towards the
sea-coast, and its hind-parts towards Ẓidon (Dillmann, Gunkel, al.),
is unsatisfying and almost grotesque. Deuteronomy 33¹⁹ᵇ shows that
it is the advantageousness of Zebulun’s geographical position which
is here celebrated.――_Ẓîdôn_] may be a name for Phœnicia, in whose
commercial pursuits it has been surmised that Zebulun became more and
more involved (Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 171).――=14.=
_bony_] _i.e._ strong-limbed. Issachar had strength enough, but
preferred ease to exertion.――הַמִּשְׁפְּתָֽיִם] The common interpretation
‘sheep-pens’ has no appropriateness here, and may be a conjecture
based on Judges 5¹⁶. Equally unsuitable are the renderings of the old
Versions (‘boundaries,’ etc.), and the ‘fire-places’ or ‘ash-heaps’
which the Hebrew etymology would suggest. The form is dual, and one
naturally thinks of the ‘panniers’ carried by the ass (_v.i._).――=15.=
מְנוּחָה] A technical term for the settled, as contrasted with the nomadic,
life (Gunkel).――_a labouring drudge_] literally ‘became a toiling
labour-gang’; compare Joshua 16¹⁰. מַס is a levy raised under the
system of forced labour (_corvée_). That a Hebrew tribe should submit
to this indignity was a shameful reversal of the normal relations
between Israel and the Canaanites (Joshua 16¹⁰ 17¹³ [= Judges 1²⁸],
Judges 1³⁰ᐧ ³³ᐧ ³⁵).
The two northern Leah-tribes found a settlement in Lower Galilee,
where they mingled with the Canaanite inhabitants. According to
Joshua 19¹⁰⁻¹⁶, Zebulun occupied the hills north of the Great
Plain, being cut off from the sea both by Asher and by the strip
of Phœnician coast. We must therefore suppose that the tribal
boundaries fluctuated greatly in early times, and that at the
date of the poem Zebulun had access at some point to the sea.
The almost identical description on Judges 5¹⁷ is considered by
Gunkel to have been transferred from Zebulun to Asher,――a view
which, if it can be substantiated, affords a reliable criterion
of the relative dates of the two oracles. The district of
Issachar seems to have been between the Great Plain and the
Jordan, including the Vale of Jezreel,――a position in which
it was peculiarly difficult for a Hebrew tribe to maintain its
independence. The tribe is not even mentioned in the survey of
Judges 1, as if it had ceased to be part of Israel. Yet both it
and Zebulun had played a gallant part in the wars of the Judges
(Judges 4⁶ᐧ ¹⁰ 5¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁸ 6³⁵ 5¹⁵). The absence of any allusion to
these exploits lends colour to the view that this part of the
poem is of older date than the Song of Deborah.
* * * * *
=13.= חוף ימים] Judges 5¹⁷; compare ח׳ הים, Deuteronomy 1⁷, Joshua 9¹,
Jeremiah 47⁷, Ezekiel 25¹⁶†: חוף is never found with any other
genitive except in the next line.――והוא וגו׳] One is tempted to
construe prosaically thus: ‘And _that_ a shore for ships, with
its flank on Ẓidon’; but this would entail elision of לְ, to
the detriment of the rhythm: besides, the repetition of חוף
and the unique combination ח׳ אניּת are suspicious. Ball reads
יגור for לחוף (after Judges 5¹⁷), and deletes the last line.――על]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ע͏ד.――=14.= חמר גרם] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ ח׳ גרים, ‘ass of sojourners’ (unless
גָּרִים be an adjective from גרם). LXX τὸ καλὸν ἐπεθύμησεν (= חָמֶד גָּרַם:
Ginsburg, _Introduction of the Massoretico-critical edition of
the Hebrew Bible_ page 254); Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase), Aquila
and Vulgate support on the whole Massoretic Text.――בין המשפתים]
Judges 5¹⁶†, but compare Psalms 68¹⁴. The three passives are
somehow interrelated, although no sense will suit them all.
Versions mostly render ‘territories,’ or something equivalent,
both here and in Judges. But the διγομίας of LXX in Judges (see
Schleusner) is noteworthy, and shows that the rendering above
has some show of authority. So the late Græcus-Venetus ἡμιφόρτια.
For the rest, see Moore on Judges 5¹⁶.――=15.= טוב] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ טובה.――למס עבד] LXX ἀνὴρ γεωργός
(Ginsburg, _l.c._).――On מס, see Brown-Driver-Briggs, and Moore,
_Judges_ page 47.
* * * * *
=16‒21. Dan, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali.=
¹⁶ Dan shall judge his people,
As one of the tribes of Israel.
¹⁷ Be Dan a serpent on the way,
A horned snake on the path,
That bites the hoofs of the horse,
And the rider tumbles backwards!
¹⁸ [I wait for thy salvation, Yahwe!]
¹⁹ Gad――raiders shall raid him,
But he shall raid their rear!
²⁰ Asher――his bread shall be fat,
And he shall yield dainties for kings.
²¹ Naphtali is a branching terebinth (?)
Producing comely tops (?).
=16.= _Dân ... judge_] See on 30⁶.――_his people_] Not Israel, but
his own tribesmen. The meaning is not that Dan will produce a judge
(Samson) as well as the other tribes (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ), nor
that he will champion the national cause (Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann,
al.); but that he will successfully assert an equal status with the
other tribes. Note that in Judges 18²ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁹ the Danites are spoken of
as a ‘clan’ (מִשְׁפָּחָה).――=17.= The little snake, concealed by the wayside,
may unhorse the rider as effectually as a fully armed antagonist: by
such insidious, but not ignoble, warfare Dan in spite of his weakness
may succeed.――שְׁפִיפֹן] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον is probably the _cerastes cornutus_,
whose habits are here accurately described (see Driver, and Tristram,
_The Natural History of the Bible_, 274).――=18.= An interpolation,
marking (as nearly as possible) the middle of the poem (so Olshausen,
Ball, Sievers, al.). The attempts to defend its genuineness as a
sigh of exhaustion on Jacob’s part, or an utterance of the nation’s
dependence on Yahwe’s help in such unequal conflicts as those
predicted for Dan, are inept.――Dan was one of the weakest of the
tribes, and perhaps the latest to secure a permanent settlement
(Judges 1³⁴ ᶠᐧ, Joshua 19⁴⁷, Judges 18). Its migration northward, and
conquest of Laish, must have taken place early in what is known as
the Judges’ period; and is apparently presupposed here and in Judges
5¹⁷.――=19.= Strictly: ‘A marauding band shall attack him, but he shall
attack their heel’ (reading עֲקֵבִם, _v.i._); _i.e._, press upon them
in their flight. The marauders are the warlike peoples to the East,
specially the Ammonites (1 Chronicles 5¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, Judges 10 f.), who at
a later time dispossessed the tribe (Jeremiah 49¹). As yet, however,
Gad maintains its martial character (compare 1 Chronicles 12⁸⁻¹⁵),
and more than holds its own.――=20.= Asher settled in the fertile strip
along the coast, North of Carmel. The name occurs as a designation
of Western Galilee in Egyptian inscriptions of the time of Seti
and Ramses II. (see Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen
Denkmälern_, 236 ff.).――_fat_] Probably an allusion to the
oil (Deuteronomy 33²⁴) for which the region was, and still is,
famous.――_royal dainties_] fit for the tables of Phœnician kings
(compare Ezekiel 27¹⁷).――=21.= The verse on Naphtali is ambiguous.
Instead of אַיָּלָה, ‘hind,’ many moderns read אֵילָה (‘a spreading terebinth’).
The following clause: ‘giving fair speeches,’ suits neither image; on
the one view it is proposed to read ‘yielding goodly lambs’ (אִמְּרֵי), on
the other ‘producing goodly shoots’ (אֲמִרֵי). No certain conclusion can
be arrived at.
* * * * *
=17.= שפיפן LXX ἐνκαθήμενος, taking the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον as an
adjective.――ויפל Ball וַיַפֵּל (after Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word)).――=19.=
גָּד] The name is here (otherwise than 30¹¹) connected with גדוד,
‘band’ (1 Samuel 30⁸ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²³, 1 Kings 11²⁴, 2 Kings 5² 6²³ etc.),
and with √ גוד, ‘assail’ (Habakkuk 3¹⁶, Psalms 94²¹†).――עקב] Read
עקבָם, taking the ם from the beginning of verse ²⁰.――=20.= מאשר]
Read with LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate אָשֵׁר.――שמנה] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ שמן.――=21.= אִיָּלָה שלחה] So Aquila,
Vulgate (Jerome, _Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in
Genesim_). Peshiṭtå and Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ probably had the
same text, but render ‘a swift messenger.’ On Jerome’s _ager
irriguus_ (_Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_)
and its Rabbinical parallels, see Rahmer, _Die Hebräischen
Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus_ page 55. LXX στέλεχος
seems to imply אֵילָה; but Ball dissents.――הנתן] After either אַיָּלָה
or אֵילָה, נֹתְנָה would be better.――אִמְרֵי] ‘words,’ is unsuitable, and
caused Peshiṭtå and Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ to change the metaphor to
that of a messenger. An allusion to the eloquence of the tribe
is out of place in the connexion. The reading אֲמִרֵי, ‘topmost
boughs,’ has but doubtful support in Isaiah 17⁶ (see the
commentary). אִמֵּר, ‘lamb,’ is not Hebrew, but is found in Assyrian,
Phœnician, Aramaic, and Arabic. LXX ἐν τῷ γενήματι is traced by
Ball to בִּפְרִי; but?――שֶׁפֶר] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον.――Ball argues ingeniously,
but unconvincingly, that אַיָּלָה belongs to verse ²², and that the
פרת of that verse stood originally in ²¹. His amended text reads:
נפתלי פֹּרָת שְׁלֻחָה
הנתנה פְּרִי שפר
_Naphtali is a branching vine,_
_That yieldeth comely fruit._
* * * * *
=22‒26. Joseph.=
²² A fruitful bough (?) is Joseph――
A fruitful bough by a well (?).
* * * * *
²³ And ... dealt bitterly with him,
And the archers harassed him sorely.
²⁴ Yet his bow abode unmoved,
And nimble were the arms of his hands.
Through the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob,
Through the ⸢name⸣ of the Shepherd of the Israel-Stone,
²⁵ Through thy father’s God――may he help thee!
And El Shaddai――may he bless thee!
Blessings of heaven above,
Blessings of Tĕhôm ⸢ ⸣ beneath,
Blessings of breast and womb,
²⁶ Blessings of ... (?),
Blessings of the eternal, ⸢mountains⸣,
⸢Produce⸣ of the everlasting hills――
Be on the head of Joseph,
And on the crown of the consecrated one of his brethren.
The section is full of obscurities, and the text frequently
quite untranslatable. Its integrity has naturally not passed
unquestioned. We may distinguish four stages in the unfolding of
the theme: (1) The opening tristich (²²), celebrating (as far as
can be made out) the populousness and prosperity of the central
double-tribe. (2) Joseph’s contest with the ‘archers’ (²³ᐧ ²⁴ᵃ).
(3) A fourfold invocation of the Deity (²⁴ᵇᐧ ²⁵ᵃ{αβ}). (4)
The blessing proper (²⁶ᵃ{γδ}ᵇᐧ ²⁶), which closely resembles
the corresponding part of the Blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy
33¹³⁻¹⁶), the two being probably variants of a common original.
Meyer (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 282 ff.)
accepts (1), (2), and (4) as genuine, but rejects (3) as a
later addition, which has displaced the original transition
from the conflict to the blessing. Fripp (_Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 262 ff.) would remove
(3) and (4) (²⁴ᵇ⁻²⁶), which he holds to have been inserted by
an Ephraimite editor from Deuteronomy 33: Holzinger seems in the
main to agree. Sievers also (II. 362) questions the genuineness
of ²⁴ᵇ⁻²⁶ on metrical grounds. But we may admit the northern
origin of some of the verses, and the resemblance to Deuteronomy
33, and even a difference of metre, and still hold that the
whole belongs to the earliest literary recension of the Song to
which we have access. The warm enthusiasm of the eulogy, and the
generous recognition of Joseph’s services to the national cause,
are no doubt remarkable in a Judæan document; but such a tone
is not unintelligible in the time of David, when the unity of
the empire had to be maintained by a friendly and conciliatory
attitude to the high-spirited central tribes.
=22.= On the ordinary but highly questionable rendering, the image
is that of a young thriving vine planted by a fountain and thus well
supplied with water, whose tendrils extend over the wall.――_a fruitful
bough_] Or ‘A young fruit-tree’: literally ‘son of a fruitful [tree’
or ‘vine’]. There is probably an etymological allusion to Ephraim (פְּרָת
= אֶפְרָת: Wellhausen).――=23, 24.= The figure is abruptly changed: Joseph
is now represented as beset by troops of archers, whose attack he
repels.――_dealt bitterly ..._] The following word וָרֹבּוּ requires some
amendment of text (_v.i._).――=24.= _abode unmoved_] or ‘constant.’
Taken with the next line, this suggests a fine picture: the bow held
steadily in position, while the hand that discharges the arrows in
quick succession moves nimbly to and fro (Gunkel). The expressions,
however, are peculiar, and a different reading of the second
line given in some Versions is approved by several scholars
(_v.i._).――_Strong One of Jacob_] A poetic title of Yahwe, recurring
Isaiah 49²⁶ 60¹⁶, Psalms 132²ᐧ ⁵, and (with Israel for Jacob) Isaiah
1²⁴. See, further, the footnote below.――_Through the name_] מִשֵּׁם,
the reading of Peshiṭtå and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, though not entirely
satisfactory, is at least preferable to the meaningless מִשָּׁם of
Massoretic Text.――_the Shepherd of the Israel-Stone_] A second
designation of Yahwe as the Guardian of the Stone of Israel,――either
the sacred stone of Bethel, or (better) that of Shechem (Joshua
24²⁶ ᶠᐧ), which was the religious rendezvous of the tribes in
early times (see page 416): so Luther, _Die Israeliten und ihre
Nachbarstämme_, 284¹. Both text and translation are, however,
uncertain (_v.i._).――=25, 26.= The construction is ambiguous: it is
not clear whether the lines beginning with _Blessings_ are a series
of accusatives depending on the וִיבָרְכֶךָּ of ²⁵ᵃ (‘may he bless thee
_with_ blessings,’ etc.), or subjects to תִּֽהְיֶין in ²⁶ᵇ. The second
view is adopted above; but the ambiguity may be an intentional
refinement.――=25aαβ.= _’Ēl Shaddai_] For the reading, _v.i._;
and see on 17¹.――=25aγδb, 26a.= The blessings, arranged in three
parallel couplets,――the first referring to the fertility of the
soil.――_Blessings of heaven above_] Rain and dew, the cause of
fertility (so Deuteronomy 33¹³ emended).――_Tĕhôm ... beneath_]
The subterranean flood, whence springs and rivers are fed: see
on 1². ――_Blessings of breasts and womb_] Contrast the terrible
imprecation, Hosea 9¹⁴.――=26a.= Passing over the first four words
as absolutely unintelligible (_v.i._), we come to the third pair of
blessings: _... of the eternal mountains ... of the everlasting hills_
(Deuteronomy 33¹⁵, Habakkuk 3⁶)] In what sense the mountains were
conceived as a source of blessing is not clear,――perhaps as abodes of
deity; compare the ‘dew of Hermon’ (Psalms 133³).――The word rendered
_produce_ is uncertain; we should expect ‘blessings,’ as LXX actually
reads (_v.i._).――=26b.= _Be on the head_] as in benediction the hand
is laid on the head (48¹⁴): compare Proverbs 10⁶ 11²⁶.――נְזִיר אֶחָיו] So
Deuteronomy 33¹⁶. The נָזִיר is either the _Nazirite_――one ‘consecrated’
to God by a vow involving unshorn hair (Judges 13⁵ᐧ ⁷ etc.)――or the
_prince_ (so only Lamentations 4⁷). For the rendering ‘crowned one’
there are no examples. The second interpretation is that usually
adopted by recent scholars; some explaining it of the Northern
monarchy, of which the Joseph-tribes were the chief part; though
others think it merely ascribes to Joseph a position of princely
superiority to his brethren. The other view is taken by Sellin
(_Beiträge zur israelitischen und jüdischen religionsgeschichte_ ii. 1,
132 ff.) and Gunkel, who conceive the ancient Nazirite as a man like
Samson, dedicated to single-handed warfare against the foes of Israel
(compare Schwally, _Semitische Kriegsaltertümer_, 101 ff.), and hold
that Joseph is so designated as being the foremost champion of the
national cause. The interpretation is certainly plausible; but it
derives no support from the word קָדְקֹד (∥ ראשׁ), which is never used in
connexion with the Nazirite, and is quite common in other connexions
(see Deuteronomy 33²⁰).
The opinion confidently entertained by many scholars (see
Wellhausen, _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen
Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 321), that the Blessing of Joseph
presupposes the divided kingdom, rests partly on this expression,
and partly on the allusion to an arduous struggle in ²³ ᶠᐧ. But
it is clear that neither indication is at all decisive. If נָזִיר
could mean only ‘crowned one,’ we should no doubt find ourselves
in the time of the dual monarchy. In point of fact, it never
denotes the king, and only once ‘princes’; and we have no
right to deny that its import is adequately explained by the
leadership which fell to the house of Joseph in the conquest of
Canaan (Judges 1²² ᶠᶠᐧ). Similarly, the ‘archers’ of verse ²³
_might_ be the Aramæans of Damascus, in which case Joseph would
be a name for the Northern kingdom as a whole; but they may as
well be the Midianites (Judges 6 ff.) or other marauders who
attacked central Israel between the settlement and the founding
of the monarchy, and whose repeated and irritating incursions
would admirably suit the terms of the description. The general
considerations which plead for an early date are: (1) The
analogy of the rest of the poem, some parts of which are
earlier, and none demonstrably later, than the age of David
or Solomon. (2) The incorporation of the blessing in a Judæan
work is improbable at a time when Israel was a rival kingdom.
(3) Although Joseph sometimes stands for the Northern kingdom,
it can hardly do so here in an enumeration of the tribes.
Consequently it takes us back to the time when Joseph was still
a single tribe, or when at least the separation of Ephraim and
Manasseh was not clearly recognised: the addition in Deuteronomy
33¹⁷ᵇ is instructive in this regard (see Gunkel, and Sellin,
_l.c._ 134).
* * * * *
=22.= בן פרת] בֵּן is construct state: the rhythmic accent forbids
the usual shortening of the vowel with Maqqeph (בֶּך).――פֹּרָת]
Contracted from פֹּרִיָּת, ‘fruitful’ (Isaiah 17⁶ 32¹², Ezekiel
19¹⁰, Psalms 128³), or פֹּרַיַת, with archaic feminine termination.
פֹּארָה, ‘bough’ (Ezekiel 17⁶ 31⁵ᐧ ⁶), might be thought of, but
would be hardly suitable as genitive after בן.――Down to עין
the Versions have substantially the same text.――בנות צעדה עלי שור]
defies explanation. Literally _filiæ discurrerunt super murum_
(Vulgate). But בנות = ‘tendrils,’ has no analogy; צעד means
‘march’ or ‘stride,’ but not ‘extend’; and the discord of number
is harsh (notwithstanding Gesenius-Kautzsch § 145 _k_). The
Versions reveal early corruption of the text, without suggesting
anything better. LXX υἱός μου νεώτατος (= _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ בני צעירי) πρὸς μὲ ἀνάστρεψον (= עָלַי שׁוּב).
Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase).――Zimmern’s zodiacal theory, which
identifies Joseph with the sign Taurus, finds two tempting
points of contact in the consonantal text: reading פָּרָת = פָּרָה,
‘juvenca,’ at the beginning, and שוֹר, ‘ox,’ at the end. But the
reconstruction of the text on these lines, with the help of
Deuteronomy 33¹⁷ (see _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vii. 164
ff.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 399),
has no title to respect: against it see Ball, page 116.――=23.=
וָרֹבּוּ] From √ רבב, a by-form of רבה,¹ ‘shoot,’ with intransitive
perfect (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 _m_). The simple perfect
between two consecutive imperfects being suspicious, the
least change demanded is וַיָּרֹבּוּ. _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_, LXX (ἐλοιδόρουν) and Vulgate (_jurgati sunt_) read
וַיְרִיבֻהוּ, ‘strove with him.’ Parallelism suggests a noun as subject
to וַיְמ׳; we might read רַבִּים, ‘bowmen’ (Jeremiah 50²⁹), or (since
the line is too short) רֹבֵי קֶשֶׁת (21²⁰)――=24a.= LXX καὶ συνετρίβη
μετὰ κράτους τὰ τόξα αὐτῶν [= וַתִּשָּׁבֵר בְּאֵיתָן קַשְׁתָּם].――ותשב] Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word) = וַתָּֽשָׁב. The sense ‘abide’ for ישׁב is justified
by Leviticus 12⁴, 1 Kings 22¹, Psalms 125¹, and nothing is
gained by departing from Massoretic Text.――באיתן] Literally
‘as a permanent one’ (בְּ _essentiæ_).――ויפזר] 2 Samuel 6¹⁶†. LXX
καὶ ἐξελύθη, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) may represent ויפזרו (see
Ball).――[LXX יָדָם] זרועי ידיו] is a hard combination, but perhaps not
too bold.――=24b.= אֲבִיר] occurs only in the passive cited above.
It is reasonably suspected that the Massoretic changed the
punctuation to avoid association of ideas with אַבִּיר, ‘bull,’ the
idolatrous emblem of Yahwe in North Israel. Whether the name
as applied to Yahwe be really a survival of the bull-worship of
Bethel and Dan is another question; אַבִּיר (strong) is an epithet
of men (Judges 5²², Job 24²² 34²⁰, Jeremiah 46¹⁵, 1 Samuel 21⁸
etc.), and horses (Jeremiah 8¹⁶ 47³ 50¹¹) much more often than
of bulls (Psalms 22¹³ 68³¹ 50¹³, Isaiah 34⁷), and might have
been transferred to Yahwe in its adjective sense. On the other
hand, the parallelism with ‘Stone of Israel’ in the next line
favours the idea that the title is derived from the cult of the
Bull at Bethel, which may have had a more ancient significance
than an image of Yahwe (compare Meyer, _Die Israeliten
und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 282 ff.; Luther, _Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 70 ff.). The
further inference (Nöldeke, Luther, Meyer) that Jacob was
the deity originally worshipped in the bull is perhaps too
adventurous.――מִשָּׁם] So LXX, Vulgate; but Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
מִשֵּׁם.――אבן ישראל] Compare צור יש׳, 2 Samuel 23³, Isaiah 30²⁹; also א׳ הָעֶזָר,
1 Samuel 4¹ 5¹ 7¹². The translation above agrees with Peshiṭtå;
Massoretic Text puts רֹעֶה in apposition with א׳ י׳ (so Vulgate);
LXX ♦ἐκεῖθεν ὁ κατισχύσας Ἰσραήλ omits אבן, and may have read עזר
(Ball). The line is too long for the metre, but אבן is the one
word that should _not_ be omitted.――=25.= ויעזרך ... ויברכך] Compare
Psalms 69³³, and see Ewald § 347 _a_.――ואת־] Read with _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX (ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐμός),
Peshiṭtå וְאֵל: though שֶׂדַּי alone (Numbers 24⁴ᐧ ¹⁶) would be suitable
in an ancient poem.――רבצת] Metrically necessary in Deuteronomy
33¹³, but here redundant; probably, therefore, a gloss from the
other recension (Sievers).――=26.= אביך גברו על־ברכת הורי עד־] There are
two stages of corruption, one remediable, the other not. The
last line is to be restored with LXX ברכת הַרְרֵי עַד, ‘blessings of
the eternal mountains’ (Deuteronomy 33¹⁵, Habakkuk 3⁶). But
the first three words, though represented by all Versions, must
be wrong; for to put ברכת under the regimen of על destroys the
parallelism, and the verb גָּֽבְרוּ cuts off תהיין from its subject. What
is obviously required is a line parallel to ברכת שדים ורחם. Gunkel’s
suggested emendation, though far from satisfying, is the best
that can be proposed: ברכת אָב אַךְ נֶּבֶר וָעֻל = ‘Blessings of father,
yea, man and child.’――אביך] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_, LXX + ואמך, suggested no doubt by the previous
line.――הורי] Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ render
‘my progenitors,’ by an impossible derivation from √ הרה,
‘be pregnant.’――תאות] English Version ‘utmost bound’ (so
Delitzsch, from √ תאה or תוה; see Brown-Driver-Briggs),
has no real philological or traditional justification.
If the text were reliable, it might be the common word
‘desire,’ from √ אוה (LXXᶜᵘʳˢⁱᵛᵉˢ, Old Latin Version, Vulgate,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ), in the sense of ‘desirable things.’
With some hesitation I follow above Olshausen, Gunkel, al.,
reading תבואת after Deuteronomy 33¹⁴. But LXXᴮ ברכת has great
weight (all the greater that the translator has lost the thread
of the thought), and ought perhaps to be preferred.――נזיר] is
not necessarily a derivative from the noun נֵזָר, ‘diadem,’ = ‘the
crowned one’; more probably it comes from the verb directly,――נזר
= ‘dedicate’ (compare נדר)――which admits various shades of
meaning. Of the Versions LXX, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ represent the
idea of ‘prince’ or ‘ruler,’ Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘the separated one,’
Vulgate, Saadya ‘the Nazirite,’ Peshiṭtå ‘the crown’ (נַזָר).
¹ But see above on 21²⁰.
♦ “κεῖθεν” replaced with “ἐκεῖθεν”
* * * * *
=27. Benjamin.=
²⁷ Benjamin is a ravening wolf:
In the morning he devours the prey,
And at eve divides the spoil.
Benjamin is praised for its predatory instincts, and its unflagging
zest for war. The early history contains a good deal to justify the
comparison: its fight with Moab (Judges 3¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ), its share in the
struggle with the Canaanites (Judges 5¹⁴), its desperate stand against
united Israel (Judges 19 f.); it was famous for its skill in slinging
and archery (Judges 20¹⁶, 1 Chronicles 8⁴⁰ 12², 2 Chronicles 14⁷ 17¹⁷).
But a special reference to the short-lived reign of Saul is probable:
the dividing of spoil reminds us of the king who clothed the daughters
of Israel with scarlet and ornaments (2 Samuel 1²⁴).――The contrast
between this description and the conception of Benjamin in the
Joseph-stories is an instructive example of how tribal characteristics
were obscured in the biographical types evolved by the popular
imagination.
* * * * *
=27.= זאב יטרָף] Descriptive imperfect, see Davidson § 44, _R._ 3,
§ 142. On pausal _ā_ see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 29 _u_.――עד] =
‘booty,’ Isaiah 33²³, Zephaniah 3⁸ [? Isaiah 9⁵]; LXX ἔτι.
* * * * *
=28abα= (to אביהם) is the subscription to the poem; the remainder of
the verse belongs to Priestly-Code, and probably continued ¹ᵃ in that
source.――_the tribes of Israel, twelve_ in number] The division into
12 tribes is an artificial scheme, whose origin is uncertain (see
Luther, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi.
33 ff.; Peters, _Early Hebrew Story_, 55 ff.). It obtained also
amongst the Edomites, Ishmaelites, and other peoples; and in Israel
betrays its theoretic character by the different ways in which the
number was made up, of which the oldest is probably that followed in
the Song of Jacob. In Deuteronomy 33, Simeon is omitted, and Joseph
divided into Ephraim and Manasseh; in Priestly-Code (Numbers 2) Joseph
is again divided, to the exclusion not of Simeon, but of Levi.