CHAPTER XLV.

_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