XXXVI. Edomite Genealogies, etc. (partly Priestly-Code)…

XXXVI. Edomite Genealogies, etc. (partly Priestly-Code)

The chapter consists of seven (or eight) sections: I. Esau’s wives and children, ¹⁻⁵; II. His migration to Mount Seir, ⁶⁻⁸; III. A list of Esau’s descendants, ⁹⁻¹⁴; IV. An enumeration of clans or clan-chiefs of Esau, ¹⁵⁻¹⁹; V. Two Ḥorite lists: a genealogy, ²⁰⁻²⁸, and a list of clans, ²⁹ᐧ ³⁰; VI. The kings of Edom, ³¹⁻³⁹; VII. A second list of clans of Esau, ⁴⁰⁻⁴³.――The lists are repeated with variations in 1 Chronicles 1³⁵⁻⁵⁴.

The chapter evidently embodies authentic information regarding the history and ethnology of Edom. Whether the statistics were compiled by Israelite writers from oral tradition, or are the scanty remains of a native Edomite literature, it is naturally impossible to determine; the early development of political institutions in Edom makes the latter hypothesis at least credible (see Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 329, 383 f.).

Analysis.――A section headed ואלה תלדות‎ would, if homogeneous, be unhesitatingly ascribed to Priestly-Code; but the repetition of the formula (verse ⁹) throws doubt on its unity, and betrays the hand of a redactor. The phraseology of Priestly-Code is most apparent in II. and VII., but can be detected occasionally elsewhere (²ᵃᐧ ⁵ᵇᐧ ¹⁰ᵃᐧ ¹²ᵇᐧ ¹³ᵇᐧ ³⁰ᵇ: i.e. in I., III., and V.). The crucial difficulty is the contradiction as to Esau’s wives between I. and 26³⁴ 28⁹ (see on verses ¹⁻⁵). On this point I., III., and IV. hang together; and if these sections are excluded, there remains nothing that can be plausibly assigned to Priestly-Code except II. and VII. (so Wellhausen, Kuenen, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). The argument for reducing Priestly-Code’s share in the chapter to this minimum rests, however, on the assumption that the Code is the compilation of a single writer, who cannot be supposed to lapse into self-contradiction. The facts seem to point to a redactional process and a divergence of tradition within the Priestly school; and I am inclined to think that in I. (?), III., and IV. we have excerpts from the book of Tôledôth incorporated in Priestly-Code, whose main narrative will have included 26³⁴ 28⁹, and in which 35²⁹ 36⁶⁻⁸ 37¹ may have read continuously. VII. must then be rejected as a late compilation in which the style of the Tôledôth is successfully imitated (so Meyer).――As regards V. and VI. little can be said. The former might well have been part of the Tôledôth; the latter is unique in Genesis, and there are no positive reasons for assigning it to Yahwist (so most) or any other source.

=1‒5. Esau’s wives and sons.=――The scheme here projected supplies the common framework of the two Edomite genealogies, ⁹⁻¹⁴ and ¹⁵⁻¹⁹, except that in the following sections the second and third wives exchange places. These marriages and births are said to have taken place in the land of Canaan, before the migration to Sē‛îr; but the fact that ’Oholibamah is a Ḥorite (see below), indicates an absorption of Ḥorite clans in Edom which would naturally have followed the settlement in Se‛ir.――Here we come on a difference of tradition regarding the names and parentage of Esau’s wives.

According to 26³⁴ 28⁹ (Priestly-Code), the three wives are (a) Yĕhûdîth bath-Bĕ’ērî, the Hittite; (b) Bāsĕmath bath-’Ēlôn, the Ḥittite (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXXᴬ, Peshiṭtå Ḥivvite); (c) Maḥălath bath-Yišmā‛ēl, sister of Nĕbayôth. Here they are (a) ‛Ādā bath-’Elôn, the Ḥittite; (b) ’Ohŏlîbāmāh bath-‛Ănāh, the Ḥorite; (c) Bāsĕmath bath-Yišmā‛ēl, sister of Nĕbāyôth. The confusion is too great to be accounted for naturally by textual corruption, though that may have played a part. We can only conjecture vaguely that verses ⁹⁻¹⁴ represent a different tradition from 26³⁴ 28⁹; and that in ²⁻⁵ᵃ a clumsy and half-hearted attempt has been made to establish some points of contact between them. If we accept the החוי‎ of The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, etc., in 26³⁴, the two traditions agree in the main ethnological point, that the Edomite people was composed of Ḥittite (? Canaanite), Ḥivvite (? Ḥorite), and Ishmaelite elements.

On the Names.――(a) עדה‎ is the name of one of Lamech’s wives: see on 4¹⁹.――(b) אהליבמה‎ (Ὀλιβεμά, Ἐλιβεμά, etc.). Somewhat similar compounds with אהל‎ are found in Phœnician (אהלבעל‎, אהלמלך‎) and Sabbatian (אהלעֹתתר‎, אהלאל‎) as well as in Hebrew (אהליאב‎, Exodus ‎ 31⁶; אהליבה‎, Ezekiel 23⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ) (see Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, 246¹). The first component is presumably Arabic and Sabbatian ’ahl, ‘family’; the second ought by analogy to be a divine name, though none such is known. It is philologically probable that names of this type were originally clan-names; and אה׳‎ is taken from the old list of Ḥorite clans (verse ²⁵, compare ⁴¹).――(c) בשמת‎ (for which The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch always reads מחלת‎, 28⁹), if from √ בשם‎, ‘smell sweetly,’ is likely to have been a favourite woman’s name, but recurs only 1 Kings 4¹⁵ of a daughter of Solomon. On ענה‎ and צבעון‎, see on verse ²⁰: the obvious connexion with that verse makes it practically certain that חִוִּי‎ in verse ² is a mistake for חֹרִי‎.――On the sons, see below.――It is pointed out by Holzinger (187) that both in ⁹⁻¹⁴ and ¹⁵⁻¹⁹ the ’Oholibamah branch holds a somewhat exceptional position. This may mean that it represents hybrid clans, whereas the other two are of pure Edomite stock: that it is a later insertion in the lists ♦is less likely.

♦ Printing error fixed.

* * * * *

‎ =1.= הוא אדום‎] probably a gloss (compare verse ⁸ᐧ ¹⁹); but the persistency with which the equivalence is asserted is itself instructive. Esau and Edom are really distinct names (see page 359 f.), and Priestly-Code has no legendary identification of them, such as 25³⁰. Hence the connexion is established in two ways: Esau = Edom (¹ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁹); and Esau the father of Edom ‎ (⁹ᐧ ⁴³).――=2.= עשו לקח‎] ‘had taken,’ as already recorded (26³⁴ ‎ 28⁹).――בת צבעון‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå בן־צ׳‎; deleted by Holzinger and Gunkel as a gloss. But in clan names gender is not always carefully distinguished; and the writer probably took ענה‎ as feminine. In verse ²⁵ ’Oholibamah is herself one of the sons of ‛Anah.――החוי‎] Read הַחֹרִי‎, v.s.――=5.= ‎ יעישׁ‎] Kethîb as verse ¹⁴, 1 Chronicles 7¹⁰; Qrê יְעוּשׁ‎, as verse ¹⁸, 1 Chronicles 1³⁵ 8³⁹ 23¹⁰ ᶠᐧ, 2 Chronicles 11¹⁹†.

* * * * *

=6‒8. Esau’s migration to Se‛ir.=――=6.= Compare 12⁵ (34²³).――and his daughters] None are mentioned in ²⁻⁵.――to the land of Sĕ‛îr] So we must read with Peshiṭtå.――=7.= The motive for the separation is the same as that which led to the parting of Abraham and Lot (13⁶ᵃ), implying that Esau had lived at Hebron after Jacob’s return; contrast Yahwist, 32⁴ 33 ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶.――=8.= the mountain of Sē‛îr] the mountainous country East of the Arabah, the southern part of which is now called eš-Šera‛ and the northern Ǧebāl (Buhl, Geschichte der Edomiter 28 ff.). The land Se‛ir includes the whole Edomite territory as far West as Ḳadesh (Numbers 20¹⁶). See on 14⁶ 27³⁹ ᶠᐧ, and below on verse ²⁰.

* * * * *

‎ =6.= אל־ארץ‎ gives no sense, and to insert אַחֶרֶת‎ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Vulgate) is inadmissible without a change of text. The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX מארץ כנען‎ is possible; but it is simplest to follow Peshiṭtå ‎ אל־ארץ שעי͏ר‎.――מפני‎] ‘on account of,’ as 6¹³ 27⁴ etc.

* * * * *

=9‒14. The genealogy of Esau.=――=9, 10.= For the double heading וא׳ תלדות‎ followed by וא׳ שמות‎, compare 25¹² ᶠᐧ.――Esau the father of Edom] see footnote on verse ¹. It is strange that except in these glosses Edom is never the eponymus of the nation, although it appears to have been the name of a god (עבד אדם‎, 2 Samuel 6¹⁰).――=11 ff.= The total number of the tribes, excluding the bastard ‛Amālēḳ, is 12, as in the cases of Israel and Ishmael (25¹²⁻¹⁶). The sons of ’Oholibamah are, however, put on a level with the grandsons of the other two wives (so verse ¹⁸). The list may be tabulated thus:

(a) Adah. Ĕlîphaz. 1. Têmân. 2.’Ômār. 3. Ẓĕphô. 4. Ga‛tām. 5. Ḳĕnaz. [‛Amālēḳ] by [Timna‛].

(b) Basemath. Rĕ‘û’ēl. 6. Naḥath. 7. Zeraḥ. 8. Šammāh. 9. Mizzāh.

(c) ‛Oholibamah. 10. Yĕ’ûš. 11. Ya’lām. 12. Ḳōraḥ.

The Names.――(a) אליפז‎] Known otherwise only as the name of the oldest and wisest of Job’s friends (Job 2¹¹ etc.), probably borrowed from this list.――(1) תימן‎ (Θαιμάν)] Frequently mentioned as a district of Edom (Jeremiah 49⁷ᐧ ²⁰, Ezekiel 25¹³, Amos 1¹², Obadiah ⁹, Habakkuk 3³), famous for its wisdom, the home of Eliphaz (Job 2¹¹) and of the third king of Edom (verse ³⁴). A village bearing the Greek name, 15 Roman miles from Petra, is mentioned in Onomastica Sacra, 260; but the site is now lost.――(2) אומר‎ (Ὠμάρ, Ὠμάν), (3) צפו‎ (Σωφαρ, 1 Chronicles צפי‎), ‎ (4) געתם‎ (Γοθομ, etc.) are quite unknown, unless Σωφαρ be the original of Job’s third friend.――(5) קנז‎] the eponym of the Ḳenizzites, the group to which Kaleb (the ‘dog’-tribe, settled in Ḥebron) and Othniel belonged (Numbers 32¹², Joshua 14⁶ᐧ ¹⁴ 15¹⁷, Judges 1¹³ 3⁹ᐧ ¹¹). The incorporation of these families in Judah is a typical example of the unstable political relations of the southern tribes between Israel and Edom, a fact abundantly illustrated from the lists before us.――The once powerful people of עמלק‎ (see on 14⁷) is here described as descended from תמנע‎, a Ḥorite clan absorbed in Edom (verses ²²ᐧ ⁴⁰), of which nothing else is known. The reference may be to an offshoot of the old Amalekites who had found protection from the Edomites.――(b) רעואל‎ (Ῥαγουήλ)] ‘Friend of God’ (?) is one of the names of Moses’ father-in-law (a Midianite) (Exodus 2¹⁸, Numbers 10²⁹), also that of a Gadite (Numbers 1¹⁴ 2¹⁴) and of a Benjamite (1 Chronicles 9⁸).――(6) נחת‎ (Ναχοθ, Ναχομ)] compare 2 Chronicles 31¹³.――(7) זרח‎ (Ζαρε)] (compare verse ³³). Also a clan of Judah (38³⁰); compare Numbers 26¹³ (Simeonite), 1 Chronicles 6⁶ᐧ ²⁶ (Levite).――(8) שמה‎ (Σομε)] compare 1 Samuel 16⁹ (David’s brother), 2 Samuel 23¹¹ (one of his heroes); also ‎ שֶׂמַּי‎ in Yeraḥmeel (1 Chronicles 2²⁸ᐧ ³²) and Kaleb (2⁴⁴ ᶠᐧ).――(9) ‎ מזה‎ (Μοζε, Ὁμοζε, etc.)] only here. It is pointed out that the four names form a doggerel sentence: ‘descent and rising, there and here’ (Kautzsch-Socin An. 178); but three of them are sufficiently authenticated; and the fact does not prove them to be inventions of an idle fancy.――(10) יעישׁ‎ (Ἰε[ο]υς, Ἰεουλ, etc.)] v.i. on verse ⁵. As an Israelite name, 1 Chronicles 7¹⁰ 8³⁹ (Benjamite), 23¹⁰ ᶠᐧ (Levite), 2 Chronicles 11¹⁹ (son of Rehoboam). The name is thought by some to be identical with that of an Arabian lion-god Yaġūṯ (though LXX must have pronounced ‎ ﻋ‎ not ﻏ‎), meaning ‘helper,’ whose antiquity is vouched for by inscriptions of Thamud (William Robertson Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 254; Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_² 19, 146; Nöldeke Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xl. 168; Fischer, ib. lviii. 869; Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 351 f.; on the other side, Nöldeke Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xlv. 595; Dillmann 384; Buhl, Geschichte der Edomiter 48 f.).――(11) יעלם‎ (Ἰεγλομ, etc.)] possibly an animal name from יָעֵל‎ = ‘ibex’; but see Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, 90⁵; compare יָעֵל‎, Judges 4¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ 5²⁴, and ‎ יַעְלָה‎, Ezra 2⁵⁶.――(12) קרח‎ (Κορε)] a son of Ḥebron, and therefore a Kalebite clan in 1 Chronicles 2⁴³. Meyer (352⁵) traces to this Edomite-Kalebite family the origin of the Ḳoraḥite singers and subordinate officials of the second Temple, who were afterwards admitted to the ranks of the Levites, and received an artificial genealogy (Exodus 6²¹ᐧ ²⁴, Numbers 26⁵⁸, 1 Chronicles 6 ⁷ᐧ ²² etc.).

=15‒19. The clan-chiefs of Edom.=――=15.= On the word אַלּוּף‎, v.i.――Since the list is all but identical with verses ⁹⁻¹⁴, we have here a clear proof of the artificial character of the family trees used in Old Testament to set forth ethnological relations. It is not improbable that this is the original census of Edomite ‘thousands’ from which the genealogy of ⁹⁻¹⁴ was constructed.――=16.= ‛Amālēk is here placed on a level with the other branches (contrast verse ¹²).

* * * * *

‎ =15.= אלוף‎] LXX ἡγεμὼν, Vulgate dux, whence English Version ‘duke.’ The word means properly ‘chiliarch,’ the chief of an ‎ אֶלֶף‎ (= ‘thousand’ or ‘clan’): so Exodus 15¹⁵, Zechariah 12⁵ᐧ ⁶ 9⁷. Elsewhere it signifies ‘friend’; and since the sense ‘clan’ would be suitable in all the passages cited, it has been proposed to read in each case, as well as in this chapter, אָלֶף‎ as the original text (William Robertson Smith _The Journal of Philology_ ix. 90; Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 330). Practically it makes no difference; for in any case the ‘chiefs’ are but personifications of their clans.――=16.= אלוף קרח‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch omits, probably a gloss from verse ¹⁸.――=18.= בת――עשו‎] LXX omits.――=19.= הוא אדום‎] LXX οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἡγεμόνες αὐτῶν, υἱοὶ Ἐδωμ.

* * * * *

=20‒30. Ḥorite genealogies.=――=20.= the inhabitants of the land] (Exodus 23³¹, Numbers 32¹⁷, Judges 1³³); compare 14⁶, Deuteronomy 2¹². These autochthones are described geographically and ethnologically as sons of Sē‛îr the Ḥorite, i.e., a section of the Ḥorite population settled in Mount Se‛ir, Se‛ir being personified as the fictitious ancestor of the natives of the country.

The name חֹרִי‎ is now generally regarded as a geographical designation, identical with the Ḫaru of the Egyptian monuments (Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 137, 149 ff., 240; Jensen Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, x. 332 f., 346 f.; Schwally Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xviii. 126; Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 330 f.), The older theory that the name is derived from חור‎ and means ‘cave-dwellers,’ is not necessarily discredited by this identification. Even if the Ḥorites were a stratum of population that once covered the region from the Egyptian frontier to the neighbourhood of Damascus, there still seems no reason why they should not have been largely an old troglodyte race, from whom the country derived its name.

The Classification.――According to ²⁰ ᶠᐧ ²⁹ ᶠᐧ there were seven main branches of the Ḥorites in Se‛ir, represented by Lôṭān, Šôbāl, Ẓib‛ôn, ‛Ănāh, Dîšôn, ’Ēẓer, and Rîšān (see below). Of these, however, ‛Anah and Dišon reappear as subdivisions of Ẓib‛on and ‛Anah respectively. The duplication has been explained by supposing that parts of these tribes had amalgamated with kindred branches, and thus came to figure both as sons and grandsons of the original ancestor (Dillmann, Gunkel, al.). It is more likely that ‛Anah and Dišon were at first subordinate septs of Ẓib‛on (so Meyer 341); that they came into the list of ’allûphîm (²⁹ ᶠᐧ) as heads of clan groups; and, finally, obtained a primary position amongst the ‘sons’ of Se‛ir. The relationship as thus reconstructed may be exhibited as follows:

(a) Lôṭān. (Timna‛). Ḥōrî. Hēmām.

(b) Šôbāl. ‛Alwān. Mānaḥat. ‛Ȇbāl. Šĕphô. ’Ônām.

(c) Ẓib‛ôn. ’Ayyāh. ‛Ănāh. Dîšôn (Ohŏlîbāmāh). Ḥemdān. ’Ešbān. Yithrān. Kĕrān.

(d) ’Ēẓer. Bilhān. Za‛ăvān [Zû‛ān]. [Ya]‛ăkān.

(e) Rîšān. ‛Ûẓ. ’Ărān.

The Names.――(a) לוטן‎ is plausibly connected with לוֹט‎ (also a cave-dweller, 19³⁰), who may have been originally an ancestral deity worshipped in these regions.――Philologically it is interesting to observe the frequency of the endings -ān, -ōn in this list, pointing to a primitive nunation, as ♦contrasted with sporadic cases of mimation in the Edomite names.――חרי‎ (verse ²²)] The occurrence of the national name (verse ²⁰) as a subdivision of itself is surprising. Meyer (339) suspects confusion with another genealogy in which Lôṭan figured as ancestor of the whole Ḥorite race.――הימם‎ (1 Chronicles ‎ הוֹמָם‎, LXX Αἱμάν)] compare הֵימָן‎, 1 Kings 5¹¹, 1 Chronicles 2⁶, Psalms 89¹.――תמנע‎, strangely introduced as the ‘sister’ of Lôṭan, is the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (verse ¹²): probably interpolated in both places.――(b) שׁובל‎ (Σωβάλ)] also a Kalebite tribe settled in Ḳiryath-Ye‛arim, incorporated in Judah (1 Chronicles 2⁵⁰ᐧ ⁵² 4¹ ᶠᐧ). The name was connected by William Robertson Smith with Arabic šibl, ‘young lion.’ Arabic ش‎ ought to be שׂ‎ in Hebrew; but the objection is perhaps not final in a borrowed name (but see Nöldeke Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xl. 168; Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, 109).――עלון‎ (1 Chronicles עלין‎, LXX Γωλών, Γωλάμ, etc.)] compare עלוה‎, verse ⁴⁰; otherwise unknown.――מנחת‎] It cannot be accidental that in 1 Chronicles 2⁵² the ‘half of Manaḥat’ is again represented as descended from Šôbāl. These Manaḥathites are further connected with צָרְעָה‎ (verse ⁵³ ᶠᐧ), a notice which Wellhausen (Bleek⁴, 197) has ingeniously combined with Judges 13², where מָנוֹחַ‎, the father of Samson, is a native of Ẓor‛ah. It seems to follow, not only that מנוח‎ is originally the eponymus of מנחת‎, but that this Ḥorite clan lived in early times in Ẓor‛ah and was included in the mixed tribe of Dan (Meyer 340).――עיבל‎ (Γαιβηλ)] Meyer identifies with the well-known mountain East of Shechem, originally a Ḥorite settlement ‎ (?).――שׁפו‎ (1 Chronicles שׁפי‎, LXX Σωφάρ, Σωφάν, Σωφ, etc.)] unknown.――אונם‎ (Ὠμαν, Ὠναν)] A Yeraḥmeelite name, 1 Chronicles 2²⁶ᐧ ²⁸. The name of Judah’s son אונן‎ (Genesis 38⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ) may also be compared.――(c) צבעון‎ (Σεβεγών)] Possibly a hyæna-tribe (ḍabu‛, (‡ Syriac word), New Hebrew, צבוע‎) (Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 254; Gray, 95).――איה‎] ‘falcon’ (Leviticus 11¹⁴, Deuteronomy 14¹³, Job 28⁷); compare the personal name, 2 Samuel 3⁷ 21⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ.――ענה‎] unknown.――דישון‎, דישן‎ (Δησων, Δαισων)] = ‘mountain-goat’ (Deuteronomy 14⁵).――חמדן‎ (Chronicles חַמְרָן‎) and ‎ אשבן‎ are not known.――יתרן‎] Derived from a widely diffused personal name (Hebrew, Babylonian, Sabbatian, Nabatean), best known in Old Testament as that of Moses’s father-in-law (Exodus 3¹ etc.); also a son of Gideon (Judges 8²⁰), and the Ishmaelite father of Amasa (2 Samuel 17²⁵ etc.).――כרן‎ (Χαρράν)] only here.――(d) ‎ אצר‎] unknown.――בלהן‎] can scarcely be dissociated from Rachel’s handmaid בלהה‎, whose Ḥorite origin would be somewhat more intelligible if Ḥorite clans were amalgamated in one of her subdivisions (Dan; see on Manaḥat above).――זעון‎ (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch זוען‎, LXX Ζουκάμ,Ζαυάν = זוּעָן‎)] unknown.――עקן‎ (better יעקן‎, as 1 Chronicles 1⁴²)] The tribe is doubtless to be identified with the בְּנֵי יַֽעֲקָן‎ mentioned in Numbers 33³¹ ᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 10⁶ as the owners of some wells South of Ḳadesh.――(e) דישן‎ (LXX Ρ[ε]ισων)] Read רִישֹׁן‎ or רִישָׁן‎, to avoid concurrence with the דישן‎ of verse ²⁵ ᶠᐧ.――עוץ‎ (Ὤς)] see on ‎ 10²³ 22²¹.――ארן‎] Perhaps connected with the Yeraḥmeelite אֹרֶן‎, 1 Chronicles 2²⁵. The reading ארם‎ (Hebew MSS, LXX, Vulgate, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ) is probably a mistake caused by the proximity of עוץ‎.

♦ “constrasted” replaced with “contrasted”

* * * * *

‎ =20.= ישבי‎] LXX singular.――=24b.= הַיֵּמִם‎] The word is utterly obscure. LXX, Theodotion τὸν Ἰαμείν; Aquila τοὺς ἠμίν [ἰμειμ] (see Field); The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ‎ האימים‎ (Deuteronomy 2¹⁰: so Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ גבריא‎); Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ‘wild-asses’ and ‘mules’; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) (הַמַּיִם‎ ?); Vulgate aquæ callidæ. If Vulgate be right (and it is certainly the most plausible conjecture for sense), ²⁴ᵇ is a fragment of an old well-legend, claiming the proprietorship of these hot springs for the tribe of ‛Anah (compare Judges 1¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ). See, further, Haupt, in Ball, The Sacred Books of the Old Testament, 118.――=30b= is in the style of Priestly-Code.――שעיר‎] LXX Ἐδώμ.

* * * * *

=31‒39. The kings of Edom.=――=31.= before there reigned a king of the Israelites (v.i.)] This may mean either before the institution of the monarchy in Israel, or before any Israelitish sovereign ruled over Edom. The natural terminus ad quem is, of course, the overthrow of Edomite independence by David (page 437 below).――The document bears every mark of authenticity, and may be presumed to give a complete list of Edomite kings. Unfortunately the chronology is wanting. An average reign of 20 years for the eight kings (Meyer) is perhaps a reasonable allowance in early unsettled times; and the foundation of the Edomite monarchy may be dated approximately from 150 to 200 years before the time of David.――The monarchy was obviously not hereditary, none of the kings being the son of his predecessor; that it was elective (Tuch, Knobel, Dillmann, Delitzsch, Driver, al.) is more than we have a right to assume. Frazer (Adonis Attis Osiris: Studies in the history of Oriental Religion, 11³) finds here an illustration of his theory of female succession, the crown passing to men of other families who married the hereditary princesses; but verse ³⁹ is fatal to this view. The fact that the kings reigned in different cities supports an opinion (Winckler, Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, i. 192; Cheyne 429) that they were analogous to the Hebrew Judges, i.e. local chiefs who held supreme power during their life, but were unable to establish a dynasty. A beginning of the recognition of the hereditary principle may be traced in the story of Hadad ‘of the seed royal’ (1 Kings 11¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ), who is regarded as heir-presumptive to the throne (Meyer).

‎ =32.= בלע בן־בעור‎ (LXX Βάλακ υἱὸς τοῦ Βεώρ)] The name of the first king bears a striking resemblance to בלעם בן־בעור‎, the soothsayer whom the king of Moab hired to curse Israel (Numbers 22 ff.), and who afterwards died fighting for Midian (Numbers 31⁸ [Priestly-Code]). The identity of the two personages is recognised by (amongst others) Knobel-Dillmann, Nöldeke (Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament 87), Hommel (The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 153, 222¹), Sayce (The Early History of the Hebrews, 224, 229), Cheyne, al., though the legend which places his home at Pethor on the Euphrates (Elohist) is hardly consistent with this notice.――דנהבה‎ (Δενναβα), his city, is not known; according to Jerome, Onomastica Sacra, page 115¹, it is Dannaia, between Ar Moab and the Arnon, or Dannaba near Heshbon (compare Eusebius Onomastica Sacra, 114³¹, [page 249]); Hommel and Sayce suggest Dunip, somewhere in North Syria.――=33.= ‎ יובב‎ (Ἰω[α]βάβ, Ἰώβ, etc.)] identified by LXX (Job 42¹⁸) with the patriarch Job.――בצרה‎] A chief city of Edom (Isaiah 34⁶ 63¹, Jeremiah 48²⁴ 49¹³ᐧ ²², Amos 1¹²), now el-Buṣaireh, 20 miles South-east of the Dead Sea.――=34.= חשׁם‎ (Ἁσόμ, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) = חָשׁוּם‎)].――the land of the Temanite] see on verse ¹¹.――=35.= הדד‎ bears the well-known name of an Aramæan deity, whose worship must have prevailed widely in Edom (see verse ³⁹, 1 Kings 11 ¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ).――who smote Midian, etc.] The solitary historical notice in the list. It is a tempting suggestion of Ewald (History of Israel, ii. 336), that the battle was an incident of the great Midianite raid under which Israel suffered so severely, so that this king was contemporary with Gideon (compare Meyer, 381 f.).――עוית‎] LXX Γεθθαίμ = עִתַּיִם‎, on which reading Marquart (_Fundamente israelitischer und jüdischer Geschichte_, 11) bases an ingenious explanation of the mysterious name כושן רשעתים‎ in Judges 3⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ (חוּשָׁם רֹאשׁ עִתַּיִם‎,――a confusion of the third and fourth kings in our list).――=36.= ‎ שמלה‎] LXX שלמה‎, perhaps the same name as Solomon.――משרקה‎] A place of this name (Μασρικά) is mentioned in Onomastica Sacra, 137¹⁰ (page 277), in Gebalene, the northern part of Mount Seir.――=37.= ‎ שאול‎] The name of the first king of Israel.――רחבות הנהר‎] so called to distinguish it from other places of the same name (compare 26²²), is probably the Ῥοωβώθ of Onomastica Sacra, 145¹⁵ (page 286), a military post in Gebalene. The river is, therefore, not the Euphrates (although a place Rahaba has been discovered on its West side), but some perennial stream in the North of Edom, defined by the city on its banks (compare 2 Kings 5¹²).――=38.= ‎ בעל חנן‎] ‘Baal is gracious.’ The name of the seventh king is the only existing trace of Baal-worship in Edom.――עכבור‎] ‘jerboa’ (Arabic ‛akbar): see William Robertson Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 235¹. Here it is probably a clan-name, but appears as personal in Old Testament (2 Kings 22¹⁴, Jeremiah 26²² 36¹²).――=39.= הדר‎] To be read ה͏͏דד‎ (Hebrew MSS, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Peshiṭtå, LXX partly, and 1 Chronicles 1⁵⁰).――For פעו‎ (1 Chronicles פעי‎), LXX has Φόγωρ, i.e. פְּעוֹר‎, the mountain in Moab (Numbers 23²⁸ etc.).――Why the wife of Hadad II. is named we cannot tell. ‎ מהיטבאל‎ (‘God does good’) is a man’s name in Nehemiah 6¹⁰.――For ‎ בת מי זהב‎ it would be better to read בן מ׳‎ (LXX, Peshiṭtå). But מי זהב‎ (gold-water) is more likely to be the name of a place than of a person; hence Marquart’s emendation מן מ׳‎ (l.c. 10) is very plausible, as is his identification of מי זהב‎ with the miswritten ‎ די זהב‎ of Deuteronomy 1¹.

* * * * *

‎ =31.= לבני ישראל‎] Expression of genitive by ל‎ to prevent determination of the governing noun by the following determinate genitive (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 129 c), ‘a king belonging to the Israelites.’ The second interpretation given above is the only natural one. LXXᴬ ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ, LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ ἐν Ἰσραήλ,――the latter too readily approved by Ball.

* * * * *

=40‒43. The chiefs of Esau.=――This second list of ’Allûphîm presents more features of Priestly-Code’s style than any other section of the chapter, but is of doubtful antiquarian value. Of the eleven names, more than one half are found in the preceding lists (¹⁰⁻³⁹); the new names, so far as they can be explained, are geographical. It is possible that the document preserves a statistical survey of administrative districts of Edom subsequent to the overthrow of its independence (Ewald, Dillmann, Driver, al.); but there is no evidence that this is the case.

‎ =40.= עלוה‎ = עלון‎, verse ²³.――יתת‎ (Ἱεθέρ, etc.)] probably יֶתֶר‎ = יתרן‎, verse ²⁶.――=41.= אלה‎ is supposed to be the seaport אילת‎; see on ‎ 14⁶.――פינן‎ (Φινες, Φ[ε]ινων) = פּוּנֹן‎, Numbers 33⁴² ᶠᐧ, the Φαινών (Fenon) of Onomastica Sacra, 123⁹ (page 299; compare page 123), a village between Petra and Zoar, where were copper mines worked by convicts. The name (see Seetzen, iii. 17), and the ruins of the mines have been discovered at Fenān, 6 or 7 miles North-north-west of Šobek (Meyer, 353 f.).――=42.= מבצר‎] According to Onomastica Sacra, 137¹¹ (page 277), Μαβσαρά was a very large village in Gebalene, subject to Petra.――=43.= ‎ מגדיאל‎ and עירם‎ are unknown. For the latter, LXX has Ζαφωεί[ν] = ‎ צפו‎, verse ¹¹. It is probable that in the original text both names were contained, as in an anonymous chronicle edited by Lagarde (Septuagint Studies ii.; see Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_ 12), making the number up to twelve.

It remains to state briefly the more important historical results yielded by study of these Edomite lists. (1) At the earliest period of which we have any knowledge, the country of Se‛ir was peopled by a supposed aboriginal race called Ḥorites. Though remnants of this population survived only in Se‛ir, there are a few traces of its former existence in Palestine; and it is possible that it had once been coextensive with the wide region known to the Egyptians as Ḥaru (page 433).――(2) Within historic times the country was occupied by a body of nomads closely akin to the southern tribes of Judah, who amalgamated with the Ḥorites and formed the nation of Edom.――(3) The date of this invasion cannot be determined. Se‛irites and Edomites appear almost contemporaneously in Egyptian documents, the former under Ramses III. as a nomadic people whom the king attacked and plundered; and the latter about 50 years earlier under Merneptah, as a band of Bedouin who were granted admission to the pastures of Wādī Ṭumīlāt within the Egyptian frontier (Papyrus Harris and Anastasi: see Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 135 f.; compare Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 337 f.). Since both are described as Bedouin, it would seem that the Edomites were still an unsettled people at the beginning of the 12th century. The land of Šêri, however, is mentioned in the Tel-Amarna Tablets (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 201) more than two centuries earlier.――(4) The list of kings shows that Edom attained a political organisation much sooner than Israel: hence in the legends Esau is the elder brother of Jacob. The interval between Ramses III. and David is sufficient for a line of eight kings; but the institution of the monarchy must have followed within a few decades the expedition of Ramses referred to above. It is probable (though not certain) that the last king Hadad II. was the one subdued by David, and that the Hadad who fled to Egypt and afterwards returned to trouble Solomon (1 Kings 11¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ) was of his family.――(5) The genealogies furnish evidence of the consanguinity of Edomite and Judæan tribes. In several instances we have found the same name amongst the descendants of Esau or Se‛ir and amongst those of Judah (see the notes passim). This might be explained by assuming that a clan had been split up, one part adhering to Edom, and another attaching itself to Judah; but a consideration of the actual circumstances suggests a more comprehensive theory. The consolidation of the tribe of Judah was a process of political segregation: the desert tribes that had pushed their way northwards towards the Judæan highlands, were welded together by the strong hand of the Davidic monarchy, and were reckoned as constituents of the dominant southern tribe. Thus it would happen that a Ḥorite or Edomite clan which had belonged to the empire of Edom was drawn into Judah, and had to find a place in the artificial genealogies which expressed the political unity resulting from the incorporation of diverse ethnological groups in the tribal system. If Meyer be right in holding that the genealogies of the Chronicler reflect the conditions of the late post-Exilic age, when a wholesale conversion of Kalebite and Yeraḥmeelite families to Judaism had taken place (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 300 f.; Die Entstehung des Judenthums 114 ff., 130 ff.), a comparison with Genesis 36 yields a striking testimony to the persistency of the minor clan-groups of the early Ḥorites through all vicissitudes of political and religious condition.

* * * * *

‎ =40.= למקמתם‎] Peshiṭtå לתלדותם‎.――בשמתם‎] LXX בארצתם ובגויהם‎ ‎ (10²⁰ᐧ ³¹).――=43.= למשבתם‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ למשפחותם‎ (verse ⁴⁰).――הוא עשו‎] see on verse ¹.

* * * * *

JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN.

CHAPTERS XXXVII‒L.

The last division of the Book of Genesis is occupied almost entirely with the history of Joseph,――at once the most artistic and the most fascinating of Old Testament biographies. Its connexion is twice interrupted: (a) by the story of Judah and Tamar (chapter 38); and (b) by the so-called Blessing of Jacob (49¹⁻²⁸): see the introductory notes on these chapters. Everywhere else the narrative follows the thread of Joseph’s fortunes; the plan and contents being as follows:

I. Chapters 37. 39‒41. Joseph’s solitary career in Egypt:――1. Joseph betrayed by his brethren and carried down to Egypt (37). 2. How he maintained his virtue against the solicitation of his master’s wife, and was thrown into prison (39). 3. His skill in interpreting dreams discovered (40). 4. His interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams, and his consequent elevation to the highest dignity in Egypt (41).

II. Chapters 42‒45. The reunion of Joseph and his brethren:――5. The first meeting of the brethren with Joseph in Egypt (42). 6. The second meeting (43. 44). 7. Joseph reveals himself to his brethren (45).

III. Chapters 46‒50. The settlement of the united family in Egypt:――8. Jacob’s journey to Egypt and settlement in Goshen (46. 47¹⁻¹²). 9. Joseph’s agrarian policy (47¹³⁻²⁸). 10. Joseph at his father’s death-bed (47²⁹⁻³¹ 48). 11. Death and burial of Jacob, and death of Joseph (49⁹⁻³³ 50).

The composition of documents is of the same general character as in the previous section of Genesis, though some peculiar features present themselves. The Priestly epitome (37² 41⁴⁶ᵃ 42⁵ᐧ ⁶ᵃ 46⁶ᐧ ⁽⁸⁻²⁷⁾ 47⁵*ᐧ ⁶ᵃᐧ ⁷⁻¹¹ᐧ ²⁷ᵇᐧ ²⁸ 48³⁻⁶ 49¹ᵃᐧ ²⁸ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ{α}ᵇ 50¹²ᐧ ¹³) is hardly less broken and fragmentary than in the history of Jacob, and produces at first sight the same impression as there, of being merely supplementary to the older narratives,――an impression, however, which a closer inspection easily dispels. Certain late words and constructions have led some critics to the conclusion that the Jehovist passages have been worked over by an editor of the school of Priestly-Code (Giesebrecht, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, i. 237, 266²; Holzinger 234). The cases in point have been examined by Kuenen (Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds i. page 317 f.), who rightly concludes that they are too few in number to bear out the theory of systematic Priestly redaction.――With regard to the composition of Yahwist and Elohist, the most important fact is that the clue to authorship supplied by the divine names almost entirely fails us, and is replaced by the distinction between Israel and Jacob which as names of the patriarch are characteristic of Yahwist and Elohist respectively (exceptions are 46² 48⁸ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ²¹ [50²⁵{?}] 46⁵ᵇ). ‎ יהוה‎ occurs only in chapter 39 (7 times); elsewhere אלהים‎ is invariably used, sometimes in contexts which would otherwise be naturally assigned to Yahwist, though no reason appears why Yahwist should depart from his ordinary usage (e.g. 42²⁸). It may not always be safe to rely on this characteristic when it is not supported by other indications. Eerdmans, who rejects in principle the theory of a Yahwistic and an Elohistic document, is obliged to admit the existence of an Israel-recension and a Jacob-recension, and makes this distinction the basis of an independent analysis. A comparison of his results with those commonly accepted by recent critics is instructive in more ways than one.* On the whole, it increases one’s confidence in the ordinary critical method.

* The Israel-recension (I-R) consists, according to Eerdmans, of 37³⁻²⁴ (Yahwist + Elohist), ²⁸ᵃ (Elohist), ²⁹ (Elohist), ³⁰⁻³³ (Elohist + Yahwist), ³⁶ (Elohist); 43 (Yahwist); 44 (Yahwist); 45²⁸ (Yahwist), 46¹ᐧ ²ᵃ (Jehovist), ²⁸⁻³⁴ (Yahwist); 47¹⁻⁵ (Yahwist [verse ⁵, Priestly-Code*]), ¹³⁻²⁷ᵃ (Yahwist), ²⁷ᵇ (Priestly-Code), ²⁹⁻³¹ (Yahwist); 48¹ (Elohist), ²ᵇ (Yahwist), ⁸⁻²² (Yahwist + Elohist); 50¹⁻¹¹ (Yahwist), ¹⁴⁻²⁶ (Elohist*). To the Jacob-recension (J-R) he assigns 37² (Priestly-Code), ²⁵⁻²⁷ (Yahwist), ²⁸ᵇ (Yahwist), ³⁴ (Jehovist), ³⁵ (Yahwist); 40; 41; 42 (all Elohist); 45¹⁻²⁷ (Elohist*), 46²ᵇ⁻⁵ (Elohist*), ⁶ᐧ ⁷ (Priestly-Code); 47⁶⁻¹¹ (Priestly-Code*), ¹² (Elohist), ²⁸ (Priestly-Code); 49¹ᵃ (Priestly-Code), ²⁹⁻³³ (Priestly-Code); 50¹²ᐧ ¹³ (Priestly-Code) (Die Komposition der Genesis 65‒71): the usual analysis is roughly indicated by the symbols within brackets. How does this compare with the generally accepted critical results? (1) No distinction is recognised between Priestly-Code and the other sources; the fragments are mostly assigned to the J-R, but 48³⁻⁶ is rejected as an interpolation (page 27). (2) Eerdmans regards chapter 39 (the incident of Potiphar’s wife) as the addition of an unintelligent redactor; mainly on the ground that it contains the name יהוה‎ (the use of the divine names is thus after all a reliable criterion of authorship when it suits Eerdmans’ purpose!). A more arbitrary piece of criticism could hardly be found. (3) Apart from these two eccentricities, and the finer shades of analysis which Eerdmans refuses to acknowledge, it will be seen that except in chapter 37 his division agrees a potiori with that of the majority of critics; i.e., the I-R corresponds in the main with Yahwist and the J-R with Elohist. (4) In chapter 37, on the contrary, the relation is reversed: I-R = Elohist, and J-R = Yahwist. But this divergence turns on a wholly arbitrary and indefensible selection of data. Since the J-R in 45⁵ speaks of a sale of Joseph (to the Ishmaelites), it is inferred that 37²⁵⁻²⁷ᐧ ²⁸ᵇ belonged to it. It is conveniently overlooked that 40¹⁵ (also J-R) refers back to 37²⁸ᵃᐧ ²⁹ ᶠᐧ (the stealing of Joseph), that 42²² (J-R) presupposes 37²² (I-R); to say nothing of the broad distinction that Judah’s leadership is as characteristic of one source as Reuben’s is of the other. If Eerdmans had duly considered the whole of the evidence, he would have seen first that it is absolutely necessary to carry the analysis further than he chooses to do, and next that the two recensions in chapter 37 must exchange places in order to find their proper connexions in the following chapters. With that readjustment, it is not unfair to claim him as an unwilling witness to the essential soundness of the prevalent theory. With the best will in the world, he has not been able to deviate very far from the beaten track; and where he does strike out a path of his own, he becomes entangled in difficulties which may yet cause him to retrace his steps.

The story of Joseph is the finest example in Genesis, or even in the Old Testament, of what is sometimes called ‘novelistic’ narrative. From the other patriarchal biographies it is distinguished first of all by the dramatic unity of a clearly conceived ‘plot,’ the unfolding of which exhibits the conflict between character and circumstances, and the triumph of moral and personal forces amidst the chances and vicissitudes of human affairs. The ruling idea is expressed in the words of Elohist, “Ye intended evil against me, but God intended it for good” (50²⁰; compare 45⁵ᐧ ⁷): it is the sense of an overruling, yet immanent, divine Providence, realising its purpose through the complex interaction of human motives, working out a result which no single actor contemplated. To this higher unity everything is subordinated; the separate scenes and incidents merge naturally into the main stream of the narrative, each representing a step in the development of the theme. The style is ample and diffuse, but never tedious; the vivid human interest of the story, enhanced by a vein of pathos and sentiment rarely found in the patriarchal narratives, secures the attention and sympathy of the reader from the beginning to the close. We note, further, a certain freedom in the handling of traditional material, and subordination of the legendary to the ideal element in the composition. The comparatively faint traces of local colour, the absence of theophanies and cult-legends generally, the almost complete elimination of tribal relations, are to be explained in this way; and also perhaps some minute deviations from the dominant tradition, such as the conception of Jacob’s character, the disparity of age between Joseph and his older brothers, the extreme youth of Benjamin (suggesting that he had been born since Joseph left home), the allusions to the mother as if still alive, etc. Lastly, the hero himself is idealised as no other patriarchal personality is. Joseph is not (like Jacob) the embodiment of one particular virtue, but is conceived as an ideal character in all the relations in which he is placed: he is the ideal son, the ideal brother, the ideal servant, the ideal administrator.

The close parallelism of Yahwist and Elohist, together with the fact that the literary features enumerated above are shared by both, show that it had taken shape before it came into the hands of these writers, and strongly suggest that it must have existed in written form. The hypothesis of BBernhard Luther (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 141 ff.), that the original author was Yahwist, and that he composed it as a connecting link between the patriarchal legends and those of the Exodus, is destitute of probability. The motive suggested is inadequate to account for the conception of a narrative so rich in concrete detail as that before us. Moreover, there is no reason to think that Elohist is dependent on Yahwist; and it is certain that in some points (the leadership of Reuben, e.g.) Elohist follows the older tradition. Nor is there much foundation for Luther’s general impression that such a narrative must be the creation of a single mind. In any case the mastery of technique which is here displayed implies a long cultivation of this type of literature (ib. 143); and the matter of the Joseph-narratives must have passed through many successive hands before it reached its present perfection of form.

It is impossible to resolve such a composition completely into its traditional or legendary elements; but we may perhaps distinguish broadly the three kinds of material which have been laid under contribution. (1) The element of tribal history or relationships, though slight and secondary, is clearly recognisable, and supplies a key which may be used with caution to explain some outstanding features of the narrative. That there was an ancient tribe named Joseph, afterwards subdivided into Ephraim and Manasseh, is an item of Hebrew tradition whose authenticity there seems no good reason to question (see page 533); and the prestige and prowess of this tribe are doubtless reflected in the distinguished position held by Joseph as the hero of the story. Again, actual tribal relations are represented by the close kinship and strong affection between Joseph and Benjamin; and by the preference of Ephraim before Manasseh, and the elevation of both to the status of adopted sons of Jacob. The birthright and leadership of Reuben in Elohist implies a hegemony of that tribe in very early times, just as the similar position accorded to Judah in Yahwist reflects the circumstances of a later age. These are perhaps all the features that can safely be interpreted of real tribal relations. Whether there was a migration of the tribe of Joseph to Egypt, whether this was followed by a temporary settlement of all the other tribes on the border of the Delta, etc., are questions which this history does not enable us to answer; and attempts to find a historical significance in the details of the narrative (such as the sleeved tunic of Joseph, the enmity of his brethren, his wandering from Hebron to Shechem and thence to Dothan, the deliverance of Joseph by Reuben or Judah, and so on) are an abuse of the ethnographic principle of interpretation.――For (2) alongside of this there is an element of individual biography, which may very well preserve a reminiscence of actual events. There must have been current in ancient Israel a tradition of some powerful Hebrew minister in Egypt, who was the means of saving the country from the horrors of famine, and who used his power to remodel the land-system of Egypt to the advantage of the crown. That such a tradition should be true in essentials is by no means improbable. There were ‘Hebrews’ in Palestine as early as the 14th century B.C. (page 218), and that one of these should have been kidnapped and sold as a boy into slavery in Egypt, and afterwards have risen to the office of viceroy, is in accordance with many parallels referred to in the monuments (page 469); while his promoting the immigration of his kinsfolk under stress of famine is an incident as likely to be real as invented. The figure of Yanḫamu, the Semitic minister of Amenhotep IV. (pages 501 f.), presents a partial counterpart to that of Joseph, though the identification of the two personages rests on too slender data to be plausible. The insoluble difficulty is to discover the point where this personal history passes into the stream of Israelite national tradition,――or where Joseph ceases to be an individual and becomes a tribe. The common view that he was the actual progenitor of the tribe afterwards known by his name is on many grounds incredible; and the theory that he was the leader of a body of Hebrew immigrants into Egypt does violence to the most distinctive features of the representation. Steuernagel’s suggestion (Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 67), that the story is based on feuds between the tribe Joseph and the other tribes, in the course of which individual Josephides were sold as slaves to Egypt, illustrates the futility of trying to explain the narrative from two points of view at once. The tribal and the personal conceptions must be kept distinct, each may contain a kernel of history of its own kind; but the union of the two was effected not on the plane of history in either sense, but during the process of artistic elaboration of the theme. (3) There is, lastly, an element of Egyptian folklore, which has been drawn on to some extent for the literary embellishment of the story. The incident of Joseph’s temptation (chapter 39) appears to be founded on an Egyptian popular tale (page 459). The obscure allusions to Joseph as a potent magician are very probably surviving traces of a motive which was more boldly developed in an Egyptian source. The prominence of dreams and their interpretation perhaps hardly falls under this head; it may rather be part of that accurate acquaintance with Egyptian life which is one of the most striking features of the narrative. That in this legendary element there is an admixture of mythical material is very possible; but a direct influence of mythology on the story of Joseph is extremely speculative.――It has been argued with some force that the presence of this Egyptian colouring itself goes far to show that we have to do with genuine history, not with a legend ‘woven by popular fancy upon the hills of Ephraim’ (Driver A Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 771 b). At the same time it has to be considered that the material may have been largely woven in Egypt itself, and afterwards borrowed as drapery for the Israelite hero Joseph. Egyptian folklore might easily have been naturalised in Canaan during the long Egyptian domination, or have been imported later as a result of Egyptian influence at the court of Jeroboam I. It is not difficult to suppose that it was appropriated by the Hebrew rhapsodists, and incorporated in the native Joseph-legend, and gradually moulded into the exquisite story which we now proceed to examine.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXXVII. How Joseph was lost to his Father through his Brethren’s Hatred and Treachery (Priestly-Code, Jehovist)

As the favoured child of the family, and because of dreams portending a brilliant future, Joseph becomes an object of hatred and envy to his brothers (²⁻¹¹). A favourable opportunity presenting itself, they are scarcely restrained from murdering him by prudential and sentimental considerations urged by one or other of their number (Judah, Reuben); but eventually consent to dispose of him without actual bloodshed (¹²⁻³⁰). With heartless cruelty they pretend that Joseph must have been devoured by a wild beast, and witness their father’s distress without being moved to confession (³¹⁻³⁵).――The chapter is not only full of thrilling human interest, but lays the ‘plot’ for the highly dramatic story which is to follow. The sudden disappearance of the most interesting member of the family, the inconsolable grief of the father, the guilty secret shared by the brothers, and, above all, the uncertainty which hangs over the fate of Joseph, appeal irresistibly to the romantic instinct of the reader, who feels that all this is the prelude to some signal manifestation of divine providence in the working out of Joseph’s destiny.

Sources.――Verses ¹ᐧ ² belong to Priestly-Code (v.i.).――The analysis of the rest of the chapter may start from ²⁵⁻³⁰, where evidences of a double recension are clearest. In one account, Joseph is sold to Ishmaelites on the advice of Judah; in the other, he is kidnapped by passing Midianites, unknown to the brethren, and to the dismay of Reuben, who had hoped to save him (see the notes). The former is Yahwist (compare 45⁴ ᶠᐧ), the latter Elohist (40¹⁵). Another safe clue is found in the double motive assigned for the envy of the brethren: ³ᐧ ⁴ (the sleeved tunic) ∥ ⁵⁻¹¹ (the dreams): the dream-motive is characteristic of Elohist throughout the narrative, and ³ ᶠᐧ are from Yahwist because of ישראל‎ (compare ¹³, and contrast יעקב‎ in ³⁴). Smaller doublets can be detected in ¹²⁻¹⁴; in ¹⁸⁻²⁰, in ²¹ ᶠᐧ, and in ³⁴ ᶠᐧ. The analysis has been worked out with substantial agreement amongst critics; and, with some finishing touches from the hand of Gunkel (353 ff.), the result is as follows: Yahwist = ³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ¹³ᵃᐧ ¹⁴ᵇᐧ ¹⁸ᵇᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²³ᐧ ²⁵⁻²⁷ᐧ ²⁸ᵃ{γ} (וימכרו‎ to כ֑סף‎), ³¹ᐧ ³²ᵃ{αγ}ᵇᐧ ³³ᵃ{α}ᵇᐧ ³⁴ᵇᐧ ³⁵ᵃ; Elohist = ⁵⁻¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁴ᵃᐧ ¹⁵⁻¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᵃᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ᵃ{αβ} (to הבור‎) ᵇᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³⁰ᐧ ³²ᵃ{β}ᐧ ³³ᵃ{β}ᐧ ³⁴ᵃᐧ ³⁵ᵇᐧ ³⁶. This may be accepted as the basis of the exposition, though some points are open to question, particularly the assumption that all references to a tunic of any kind are to be ascribed to Yahwist.

=1‒11. The alienation between Joseph and his brethren.=――=1, 2.= Three disjointed fragments of Priestly-Code, of which verse ¹ is the original continuation of 36⁶⁻⁸ (see page 429); and ²ᵃ{α} is a heading from the Book of Tôledôth (see page 40 f.), which ought to be followed by a genealogy,――perhaps 35²²ᵇ⁻²⁶,¹ which we have seen to stand out of its proper connexion (page 423): ²ᵃ{βγ}ᵇ then introduces Priestly-Code’s history of Joseph, which has been mostly suppressed by the redactor.――The clause וְהוּא נַעַר‎ is difficult. As a parenthesis (Driver) it is superfluous after the definite statement of Joseph’s age in ²ᵃ{β}, and leaves us with a wrong identification of the sons of the concubines with the previous אחיו‎. If it be joined to what follows, Gunkel has rightly seen that we want a word expressing something that Joseph was or did in relation to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. The meaning probably is that Joseph, while shepherding with (all) his brethren, fell out with the four sons of the concubines.

¹ Rather than 46⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, as suggested by Kurtz (quoted by Hupfeld Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung 216).

With this change, Dillmann’s objections to the unity of verse ² fall to the ground, and the whole may be safely ascribed to Priestly-Code (note the chronology, the supplementary נשי אביו‎, and the phrase דבה רעה‎).――Short as the fragment is, it shows that Priestly-Code’s account was peculiar in two respects: (1) He restricts the hostility to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, and (2) he traces it to Joseph’s reporting their misdeeds to Jacob. It is plain that Priestly-Code is no mere supplementer of the older history, but an independent author, though his account has been sacrificed to the more graphic narratives of Yahwist and Elohist.

* * * * *

‎ =1.= מגורים‎ (17⁸) and ארץ כנען‎ (but see page 474) are characteristic of Priestly-Code.――=2.= רעה ב׳‎] ‘like verbs of governing’ (Strack); so 1 Samuel 16¹¹ 17³⁴.――והוא נער‎] Gunkel suggests וה׳ נֵעֹר על‎ (Niphal ‎ √ עור‎: compare Jeremiah 6²² etc., and the Hithpael in Job 17⁸), or וה׳ רֹעֶה‎ (= ‘kept company with’),――neither proposal just convincing.――דבתם רעה‎ (so Numbers 14³⁷)] literally ‘brought the report of them evil,’ ר׳‎ being second accusative, or tertiary predicate (Davidson § 76). A bad sense is inherent in דִּבָּה‎, which is a late word, in Hexateuch confined to Priestly-Code (Numbers 13³² 14³⁶ ᶠᐧ).

* * * * *

=3, 4= (Yahwist). Now Israel loved Joseph....] These are evidently the opening words of Yahwist’s Joseph-story, in which the sole motive of the brothers’ hatred is the father’s favouritism towards the son of his old age (16² 44²⁰ Yahwist).――כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים‎] a shirt or tunic reaching to the extremities (פַּסִּים‎), i.e. the wrists and ankles, whereas the ordinary under-garment was sleeveless, and reached only to the knees. That it was an unusual habiliment appears also from 2 Samuel 13¹⁸ ᶠᐧ; but speculations as to its mythological significance (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 384) have no support in either passage.――=4.= could not address him peaceably] or, ‘salute him.’ The text is doubtful (v.i.).――=5‒11.= Joseph’s dreams (Elohist).――=6, 7.= The first dream――a harvest scene――represents Jacob’s family as agriculturists (see on 26¹²); in verses ²ᐧ ¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ 46³¹ ᶠᶠᐧ they are shepherds. There may be some hint of the immediate cause of its fulfilment, a failure of the harvest (Gunkel), though this is questionable.――=8a.= Wilt thou, forsooth, be king over us?] The language points beyond the personal history of Joseph to the hegemony of the ‘house of Joseph’ in North Israel (Judges 1²² ᶠᐧ).――=9.= The second dream presages Joseph’s elevation not only over his brothers, but over his father (Holzinger), i.e. Israel collectively.――eleven stars] Supposed by some to be an allusion to the signs of the Zodiac (Delitzsch, Gunkel, al., compare Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 383), the twelfth being either Joseph himself, or the constellation obscured by Joseph as the sun-god. The theory will stand or fall with the identification of Jacob’s twelve sons with the Zodiacal signs (see pages 534 f.); the absence of the article here makes it, however, at least improbable that the theory was in the mind of the writer.――=11.= envied is the appropriate word for Elohist’s account, as ‘hated’ (verse ⁴) is for Yahwist’s (⁵ᵇ and ⁸ᵇ are redactional).――his father kept the matter (in mind)] LXX διετήρησεν. Compare Luke 2¹⁹ᐧ ⁵¹.

While significant dreams bulk largely in Elohist’s Joseph-narrative (chapter 40 f.), it is characteristic of this section of the work that the dreams contain no oracular revelations (like 20³ ᶠᶠᐧ 31¹¹ᐧ ²⁴), but have a meaning in themselves which is open to human interpretation. The religious spirit of these chapters (as also of chapter 24), both in Yahwist and Elohist, is a mature faith in God’s providential ruling of human affairs, which is independent of theophanies, or visible interpositions of any kind. It can scarcely be doubted that such narratives took shape at a later period of Old Testament religion than the bulk of the patriarchal legends.

* * * * *

‎ =3.= ועשה‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ויעש‎. As the tense can hardly be frequentative, it is best to restore וַיַּֽעֲשֶׂה‎ (Ball, Kittel).――כתנת פסים‎] Compare Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ vii. 171: ἐφόρουν γὰρ αἱ τῶν ἀρχαίων παρθένοι χειριδωτοὺς ἄχρι τῶν σφυρῶν πρὸς τὸ μὴ βλέπεσθαι χιτῶνας. Except LXX (χιτῶνα ποικίλον) and Vulgate (tunicam polymitam [but compare verse ²³]), all Versions here support this sense: Aquila χιτῶνα ἀστραγάλων, Symmachus χιτῶνα χειριδωτόν, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) (‘with sleeves’), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ כיתונא דפסי‎, etc. In 2 Samuel 13, LXX, Vulgate, and Peshiṭtå curiously change sides (χιτὼν καρπωτός, talaris tunica, (‡ Syriac word) [= tunica striata]). The real meaning is determined by New Hebrew and Aramaic ‎ פַּס‎ (Daniel 5⁵ᐧ ²⁴) = אָפְסַיִם‎, Ezekiel 47³; see Bevan, _A Short Commentary on Daniel_ 100.――=4.= אחיו‎²] Hebrew MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX בניו‎; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase).――דַּבְּרוֹ לשלום‎ On the suffix, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 115 c. But no other case occurring of דִּבֶּר‎ with accusative of person addressed (Numbers 26³ is corrupt), Gunkel points דְּבָרוֹ‎ (‘could not take his matter peaceably’), Kittel emends to לְדַבֵּר לוֹ ל׳‎ (the ל‎ might be omitted: see Exodus 2³ etc.).――=5b= is out of place before the telling of the dream, and is omitted by LXX.――=7.= Insert חלמתי‎ at the beginning, with LXX.――אִלֵּם‎] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; ‎ אֲלֻמָּה‎, Psalms 126⁶†.――=8b.= Another redactional addition, though found in LXX; note the plural ‘dreams’ when only one has been told.――=10a.= ויספר――אחיו‎ is an interpolation intended to explain what immediately follows. LXX omits, and seeks to gain the same end by inserting לאביו ו‎ before לאחיו‎ in ⁹.

* * * * *

=12‒17. Jacob sends Joseph to inquire after his brethren.=――=12, 13a, 14b= Yahwist ∥ =13b, 14a= Elohist (see the analysis below). In Yahwist, Jacob is dwelling in the vale of Hebron; the sons have gone to Shechem. If the incident of chapter 34 belonged to the same cycle of tradition, the brethren would perhaps hardly have ventured into the neighbourhood of Shechem so soon (see page 418); though it has been argued that this very circumstance accounts for Jacob’s solicitude. In Elohist we find no indication of either the starting-point or the goal of the journey. =14a= suggests that the flocks were at some distance from Jacob’s home: possibly the narrative is based on a stratum of Elohist in which Jacob’s permanent residence was at Bethel (see on 35¹).――=15‒17.= The man who directs Joseph to Dothan is not necessarily a neighbour of the family who knew Joseph by sight (Gunkel); nor is the incident a faded version of a theophany (Holzinger, Bennett): it is simply a vivid description of the uncertainty of Joseph’s persistent search for his brethren.――Dôthān (2 Kings 6¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ, Judith 3⁹ 4⁶ 7¹⁸) is the modern Tell Dōthān, near Ǧenīn, about 15 miles North of Shechem. Some local legend may have connected it with the history of Joseph.

¹⁵⁻¹⁷ would be a sufficiently natural continuation of ¹⁴ᵇ (Yahwist), and Gunkel’s conjecture (above) establishes no presumption to the contrary. They may, however, be from Elohist: in this case it is probable that Elohist did not mention Shechem at all, nor Yahwist Dothan.

* * * * *

=12‒14= is composite. ישראל‎ shows that ¹²ᐧ ¹³ᵃ belong to Yahwist; and הנני‎ shows that ¹³ᵇ is from Elohist (compare 22¹ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹¹ 27¹ 31¹¹). Hence ¹⁴ᵃ is not a specification, but a variant, of ¹³ᵃ, continuing ¹³ᵇ. ¹⁴ᵇ obviously follows ¹³ᵃ.――=12.= אֹתֹ‎] with puncta extraordinaria, because for some reason the text was suspected.――=14.= מעמק חברון‎ (23²ᐧ ¹⁹)] The words might be a gloss based on Priestly-Code (35²⁷ 49²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ 50¹³); but Steuernagel’s proposal to remove them (Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 36) takes too little account of the fragmentariness of Yahwist’s narrative in chapter 35; and Gunkel’s argument that the journey was too long for a young lad is weak.――=17.= שמעתי‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX שמעתים‎.――דתינה‎, דתן‎] The form with י‎ is the older (compare Egyptian Tu-ti-y-na, Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 88), the other an accommodation to a common nominal termination. The ending ־ַיִן‎ is not dual, but an old (Aramaic ?) locative corresponding to Hebrew ־ַיִם‎ (see pages 342 f.; Barth, Die Nominalbildung in den Semitischen Sprachen, 319⁵; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 88 c).

* * * * *

=18‒30. The plot to murder Joseph frustrated by Reuben= (Elohist), =or Judah= (Yahwist).――=18a, 19, 20= Elohist ∥ =18b= Yahwist. Common to both sources is the proposal to kill Joseph; Elohist develops it most fully, revealing the motive of the crime and the device by which it was to be concealed.――=19.= yon master-dreamer] a mocking epithet; compare ²⁰ᵇ.――=20.= and throw him (his dead body) into one of the pits] The idea would suit either narrative; and we cannot be sure that the indefinite ‘one of the pits’ does not come from Yahwist (see ²²).――=21= Yahwist ∥ =22= Elohist. In ²¹ we must read Judah for Reuben.――and delivered him out of their hand] is premature (verse ²³): the clause might stand more naturally in Yahwist between ²³ and ²⁵, though the rest of the verse must be left where it is (so Gunkel).――we will not kill him outright] Judah has as yet no counter-proposal.――=22.= Reuben, on the other hand, has his scheme ready: he appeals to the antique horror of shed blood, which cries for vengeance on the murderer (4¹¹).――this pit] a particular cistern which Reuben knew to be empty of water (²⁴ᵇ). It is probable that one of the numerous pits round Dothan was traditionally associated with the fate of Joseph (Gunkel): compare the Khan Ǧubb Yūsuf near Safed, incorrectly identified with the Dothan cistern (Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 418 f.).――=24= (Elohist).――=25‒27, 28aβ= (Yahwist). The fate of Joseph is apparently still undecided, when Judah makes an appeal to the cupidity of his brothers (what profit, etc.?), by proposing to sell him to some passing Ishmaelites.――=25.= a caravan ... from Gilead] The plain of Dothan is traversed by a regular trade route from Gilead through Beisan to Ramleh, and thence (by the coast) to Egypt (Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina, 127). Shechem also lies on several routes from the East of the Jordan to the coast.――The natural products mentioned (v.i.) were much in request in Egypt for embalming, as well as for medicinal and other purposes.――=26.= cover his blood] Ezekiel 24⁷, Isaiah 26²¹, Job 16¹⁸.――=28.= twenty (shekels) of silver] compare Leviticus 27⁵ with Exodus 21³² (see Driver).――=28aαb, 29, 30= (Elohist). Joseph is kidnapped by trading Midianites, who pass unobserved after the brothers have left the spot.――=30.= Only now does Reuben reveal his secret design of delivering Joseph. It is interesting to note his own later confusion of the intention with the act, in 42²².

That the last section is from another source than ²⁵⁻²⁷ appears from (a) the different designation of the merchants, (b) the absence of the article showing that they have not been mentioned before, (c) Reuben’s surprise at finding the pit empty. The composite narrative requires us to assume that the brethren are the subject of וימשכו ויעלו‎, against the natural construction of the sentence.

* * * * *

=18a= and =18bα= are obviously doublets; the analysis adopted above gives the simplest arrangement.――ויתנכלו‎] ‘acted craftily,’ only found in late writings (Numbers 25¹⁸, Malachi 1¹⁴, Psalms 105²⁵†), but the √ occurs in Aramaic and Assyrian.――On the accusative, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 w.――=19.= בעל החלמות‎ The rendering above is a little too strong; for the use of בעל‎ as ‘noun of relation,’ see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 127 b.――=21.= ‎ נכנו נפש‎] Second accusative of respect, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 ll.――=22.= אל־הבור הזה‎] LXX εἰς ἕνα τῶν λάκκων, a false assimilation to verse ²⁰.――=23.= את־כתנתו‎] LXX omits. It is impossible to say whether this and the following appositional phrase are variants from Elohist and Yahwist respectively, or whether the second is a (correct) gloss on Yahwist. Vulgate combines both in the rendering tunica talari et polymita.――=25.= וישבו לאכל־לחם‎] Assigned by many critics (Dillmann, al.) to Elohist, and certainly not necessary in Yahwist. But we still miss a statement in Elohist that the brothers had moved away from the pit.――נכאת‎ (43¹¹†)] supposed to be ‘gum-tragacanth’; Arabic naka’at.――צֳרִי = [וּ]צְרִי‎] the resinous gum for which Gilead was famous (43¹¹, Jeremiah 8²² 46¹¹ 51⁸, Ezekiel 27¹⁷†); possibly that exuded by the mastic-tree; but see Encyclopædia Biblica, 465 f.――לֹט‎ (43¹¹†) Greek λήδανον, Latin ladanum, the gum of a species of cistus-rose (Encyclopædia Biblica, 2692 f.). Mentioned amongst objects of Syrian tribute (ladunu) by Tiglath-pileser IV. (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_², 151).――=27.= לישמעאלים‎] LXX + הָאֵלֶּה‎. The word is apparently used in the general sense of ‘Bedouin,’ as Judges 8²⁴ (compare 6¹ etc.): see on 16¹².――בשרנו‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate prefix וּ‎.――=28b= is assigned to Elohist because of ויביאו‎, Yahwist using הוריד‎ in this connexion (²⁵ 39¹ 43¹¹ etc.).――=29.= אין‎] LXX οὐχ ὁρᾷ.

* * * * *

=31‒36. The deceiving of Jacob.=――=31, 32.= Gunkel remarks that the sending of a bloody token is a favourite motive in popular tales. Whether the incident is peculiar to Yahwist, or common to Yahwist and Elohist, can hardly be determined (v.i.)――=33.= an evil beast has devoured him] Exactly as verse ²⁰ (Elohist). A slight change of text in ³² (v.i.) would enable us to take the words as spoken by the sons to Jacob (so Gunkel). =34, 35.= The grief of Jacob is depicted in both sources, but with a difference. Elohist (³⁴ᵃᐧ ³⁵ᵇ) hardly goes beyond the conventional signs of mourning――‘the trappings and the suits of woe’; but Yahwist (³⁴ᵇᐧ ³⁵ᵃ) dwells on the inconsolable and life-long sorrow of the bereaved father. This strain of pathos and subjectivity is very marked in Yahwist in the Joseph narratives.――rent his clothes ... put on sackcloth] On these customs, the origin of which is still obscure, see Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode, 11 ff.; Grüneisen, Der Ahnenkultus Und Die Urreligion Israels, 61 ff.; Engert, Ehe- und Familienrecht der Hebräer, 96 ff.――=34b.= הִתְאַבֵּל‎, chiefly used in reference to the dead, includes the outward tokens of mourning: Exodus 33⁴, 2 Samuel 14²; compare Isaiah 61³, Psalms 35¹⁴.――=35.= all his daughters] There was really only one daughter in the family. A similar indifference to the prevalent tradition in details is seen in the disparity of age between Joseph and his brothers (verse ³), and the assumption that Rachel was still alive (¹⁰).――go down ... as a mourner] Jacob will wear the mourner’s garb till his death, so that in the underworld his son may know how deep his grief had been (Gunkel). The shade was believed to appear in She’ōl in the condition in which it left the world (Schwally 63 f.).――=36= (Elohist) resuming ²⁸ᵇ. See, further, on 39¹.

* * * * *

=31.= The reason for assigning the verse to Yahwist (Gunkel) is the precarious assumption that Joseph’s coat plays no part at all in Elohist. There is a good deal to be said for the view that it belongs to Elohist (Dillmann, Holzinger, al.).――=32.= ‎ ויביאו‎] Gunkel וַיָּבוֹאוּ‎, ‘and they came’ (see on ³³ above), which would be an excellent continuation of ³¹: in Elohist they dip the coat in blood, come to their father, and say ‘an evil beast,’ etc.; in Yahwist they send the coat unstained, and let Jacob form his own conclusion.――In any case ויביאו וגו׳‎ is Elohist’s parallel to Yahwist’s וישלחו וגו׳‎.――הכר־נא‎ (compare 38²⁵), and the disjunctive question (compare 18²¹ 24²¹) point distinctly to Yahwist (Dillmann).――הַכּתנת‎] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 100 l.――=33.= After בני‎, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå insert היא‎.――טָרֹף טֹרַף‎] compare 44²⁸. On infinitive absolute Qal used with Pual, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 w.――=35.= ויקומו‎] LXX συνήχθησαν δέ, adding καὶ ἦλθον before לנחמו‎.――=36.= והמדנים‎] Read with all Versions והמדינים‎ as verse ²⁸.

* * * * *

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXXVIII. Judah and Tamar (Yahwist)

Judah, separating himself from his brethren, marries a Canaanitish wife, who bears to him three sons, ‛Er, ’Ônān and Shēlāh (¹⁻⁵). ‛Er and ’Onan become in succession the husbands of Tamar (under the levirate law), and die without issue; and Judah orders Tamar to remain a widow in her father’s house till Shelah should reach manhood (⁶⁻¹¹). Finding herself deceived, Tamar resorts to a desperate stratagem, by which she procures offspring from Judah himself (¹²⁻²⁶). With the birth of her twin sons, Pereẓ and Zeraḥ, the narrative closes (²⁷⁻³⁰).

The story rests on a substratum of tribal history, being in the main a legendary account of the origin of the principal clans of Judah. To this historical nucleus we may reckon such facts as these: the isolation of Judah from the rest of the tribes (see on verse ¹); the mixed origin of its leading families; the extinction of the two oldest clans, ‛Er and ’Onan; the rivalry of the younger branches, Pereẓ and Zeraḥ, ending in the supremacy of the former; and (possibly) the superiority of these two (as sons of Judah) to the more ancient Shelah (his grandson). See Steuernagel, Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 79 f.; where, however, the ethnological explanation is carried further than is reasonable.――It is obvious that the legend belongs to a cycle of tradition quite independent of the story of Joseph. The latter knows of no separation of Judah from his brethren, and this record leaves no room for a reunion. Although Priestly-Code, who had both before him, represents Judah and his sons as afterwards accompanying Jacob to Egypt (46¹²), there can be no doubt that the intention of this passage is to relate the permanent settlement of Judah in Palestine. Where precisely the break with the prevalent tradition occurs, we cannot certainly determine. It is possible that the figure of Judah here is simply a personification of the tribe, which has never been brought into connexion with the family history of Jacob: in this case the events reflected may be assigned to the period subsequent to the Exodus. It seems a more natural supposition, however, that the legend ignores the Exodus altogether, and belongs to a stratum of tradition in which the occupation of Canaan is traced back to Jacob and his immediate descendants (see pages 418, 507).――On some touches of mythological colouring in the story of Tamar, see below, pages 452, 454.

Source.――The chapter is a pure specimen of Yahwistic narration, free from redactional manipulation. The following characteristics of Yahwist may be noted: יהוה‎, ⁷ᐧ ¹⁰; רע בעינו‎, ⁷ᐧ ¹⁰; ‎ הבה־נא‎, ¹⁶; הכר־נא‎, ²⁵ (37³²); כי־על־כן‎, ²⁶; ידע‎; ²⁶; further, the naming of the children by the mother, ³⁻⁵; and the resemblance of ²⁷ ᶠᐧ to 25²⁴ ᶠᐧ. Since the sequence of 39¹ on 37³⁶ would be harsh, it is probable that chapter 38 was inserted here by Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ (Holzinger).

=1‒5. Judah founds a separate family at Adullam.=――=1.= went down from his brethren] Since the chapter has no connexion with the history of Joseph, we cannot tell when or where the separation is conceived to have taken place. From the situation of ‛Adullām, it is clear that some place in the central highlands is indicated. Adullam is possibly ‛Īd el-Mīye (or ‛Aid el-Mā), on the border of the Shephelah, 12 miles South-west of Bethlehem and 7 North-east of Eleutheropolis (Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina, 193; Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 229). It is marked on the Palestinian Survey map as 1150 feet above sea-level.

The isolation of the tribe of Judah was a fact of capital importance in the early history of Israel. The separation is described in Judges 1³ ᶠᶠᐧ; in the song of Deborah (Judges 5) Judah is not mentioned either for praise or blame; and his reunion with Israel is prayed for in Deuteronomy 33⁷. The rupture of the Davidic kingdom, and the permanent cleavage between south and north, are perhaps in part a consequence of the stronger infusion of foreign blood in the southern tribe. The verse suggests that the first Judahite settlement was at ‛Adullam, where the tribe gained a footing by alliance with a native clan named Ḥîrāh; but Meyer (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 435 f.) thinks it presupposes a previous occupation of the region round Bethlehem, and deals merely with an extension towards the Shephelah. It is certainly difficult otherwise to account for the verb ירד‎ (contrast וַיַּעַל‎, Judges 1⁴); but were Judah’s brethren ever settled at Bethlehem? Gunkel’s emendation, וַיָּרָד‎, ‘freed himself’ (see on 27⁴⁰; compare Hosea 12¹), would relieve the difficulty, but is too bold for a plain prose narrative.

* * * * *

‎ =1.= ויט‎] LXX ἀφίκετο the precise force here of נטה‎, ‘turn aside,’ is doubtful. The change of עד‎ to אל‎ (Ball) is unnecessary (compare 1 Samuel 9⁹).

* * * * *

=2.= A more permanent amalgamation with the Canaanites is represented by Judah’s marriage with or Bath-Shûa‛ or Bath-Sheva‛ (See on verse ¹²). The freedom with which connubium with the Canaanites is acknowledged (contrast 34. 24³) may be a proof of the antiquity of the source (Holzinger, Gunkel).――=5b.= in Kĕzîb, etc.] It is plausibly inferred that Kĕzîb (= ’Akzîb, an unknown locality in the Shephelah, Joshua 15⁴⁴, Micah 1¹⁴) was the centre of the clan of Shelah; though LXX makes all three births happen there.

* * * * *

‎ =2.= וּשְׁמוֹ‎] LXX וּשְׁמָהּ‎. See on verse ¹².――=3.= ויקרא‎] Better as verses ⁴ᐧ ⁵ ותקרא‎ (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Hebrew MSS).――=5.= שֵׁלָה‎] LXX Σηλώμ; compare the gentilic שֵׁלָנִי‎, Numbers 26²⁰.――והיה‎] is impossible, and _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויהי‎ little better. Read with LXX וְהִיא‎.――בכזיב‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ‎ בכזבה‎, compare כֹּזֵבָא‎, 1 Chronicles 4²².――אתו‎] LXX אֹתָם‎.――Nothing can be made of the strange renderings of ⁵ᵇ in Peshiṭtå and Vulgate: (‡ Syriac phrase); quo nato parere ultra cessavit (compare 29³⁵ 30⁹).

* * * * *

=6‒11. Tamar’s wrong.=――=6.= Tamar, the Hebrew word for date-palm, occurs twice as a female name in David’s family (2 Samuel 13¹ 14²⁷). There is therefore little probability that it is here a personification of the city of the same name on the South border of Palestine (Ezekiel 47¹⁹) (so Steuernagel). A mythological origin is suggested on page 452 below.――As head of the family, Judah chooses a wife for his first-born (24³ 34⁴ 21²¹), as he is also responsible for the carrying out of the levirate obligation (⁸ᐧ ¹¹).――=7.= No crime is alleged against ‛Ēr, whose untimely death was probably the only evidence of Yahwe’s displeasure with him (Proverbs 10²⁷).――=8‒10.= ’Onān, on the other hand, is slain because of the revolting manner in which he persistently evaded the sacred duty of raising up seed to his brother. It is not correct to say (with Gunkel) that his only offence was his selfish disregard of his deceased brother’s interests.――=11.= Judah sends Tamar home to her family, on the pretext that his third son Shelah is too young to marry her. His real motive is fear lest his only surviving son should share the fate of ‛Er and ’Onan, which he plainly attributes in some way to Tamar herself.――in thy father’s house] according to the law for a childless widow (Leviticus 22¹³, Ruth 1⁸).

The custom of levirate marriage here presupposed prevailed widely in primitive times, and is still observed in many parts of the world. In its Hebrew form it does not appear to have implied more than the duty of a surviving brother to procure male issue for the oldest member of a family, when he dies childless: the first-born son of the union is counted the son, and is the heir, to the deceased; and although in Deuteronomy 25⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ the widow is said to become the wife of her brother-in-law, it may be questioned if in early times the union was more than temporary. It is most naturally explained as a survival, under patriarchal conditions, of some kind of polyandry, in which the wife was the common property of the kin-group (Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 146 ff.); and it naturally tended to be relaxed with the advance of civilisation. Hence the law of Deuteronomy 25⁵⁻¹⁰ is essentially a concession to the prevalent reluctance to comply with the custom. This is also illustrated by the conduct of ’Onan: the sanctity of the obligation is so strong that he does not dare openly to defy it; yet his private family interest induces him to defeat its purpose. It is noteworthy that the only other historical example of the law――the analogous though not identical case of Boaz and Ruth――also reveals the tendency to escape its operation.――See Driver, A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy 280 ff. (with the authorities there cited); also Engert, Ehe- und Familienrecht der Hebräer, 15 ff.; Barton, _A Sketch of Semitic Origins_¹, 66 ff.

Judah’s belief that Tamar was the cause of the deaths of ‛Er and ’Onan (v.s.) may spring from an older form of the legend, in which she was actually credited with death-dealing power. Stucken and Jeremias recognise in this a common mythical motive,――the goddess who slays her lovers,――and point to the parallel case of Sara in the Book of Tobit (3⁸). Tamar and Sara (šarratu, a title of Ištar) were originally forms of Ištar (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 381 f.). The connexion is possible; and if there be any truth in Barton’s speculation that the date-palm was sacred to Ištar (_A Sketch of Semitic Origins_¹, 92, 98, 102 ff.), it might furnish an explanation of the name Tamar.

* * * * *

‎ =7.= יהוה‎²] LXX ὁ θεός.――=8.= יַבֵּם‎] Deuteronomy 25⁵ᐧ ⁷†; denominative from יָבָם‎, the terminus technicus for ‘husband’s brother’ in relation to the levirate institution.――=9.= ‎ והיה אם‎] ‘as often as’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 159 o.――שִׁחֵת‎ (sc. semen)] in the sense of ‘spoil,’ ‘make ineffective’ (Brown-Driver-Briggs).――נְתָן־‎ for תֵּת‎] only again Numbers 20²¹; compare הֲלֹךְ‎, Exodus 3¹⁹, Numbers 22¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶.――=10.= אשר עשה‎] LXX, prefix הַדָּבָר‎.――=11.= שְׁבִי‎, וַתֵּשֶׁב‎] Ball al. propose שֻׁבִי‎, וַתָּשָׁב‎, after Leviticus 22¹³; but see Isaiah 47⁸.

* * * * *

=12‒19. Tamar’s daring stratagem.=――=12.= Bath-Shūa‛] See the footnote.――was comforted] a conventional phrase for the effect of the mourning ceremonies; see Jeremiah 16⁷.――The death of Judah’s wife is mentioned as a palliation of his subsequent behaviour: “even in early times it was considered not quite comme il faut for a married man to have intercourse with harlots” (Gunkel).――On the sheep-shearing, see 31¹⁹.――Ḥîrāh his associate] (see verse ¹) is mentioned here because of the part he has to play in the story (verses ²⁰⁻²³).――went up ... to Timnah] This cannot be the Danite Timnah (Joshua 15¹⁰ 19⁴³, Judges 14¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁵), which lies lower than ‛Adullam. Another Timnah South of Hebron (Joshua 15⁵⁷), but unidentified, might be meant; or it may be the modern Tibne, West of Bethlehem, though this is only 4 miles from ‛Adullam, and room has to be found for ‛Enaim between them (but v.i. on verse ¹⁴).――=14.= her widow’s garments] Compare Judith 8⁵ 10³ 16⁸.――She assumes the garb of a common prostitute, and sits, covered by the veil (see below on verse ²¹), by the wayside; compare Jeremiah 3², Ezekiel 16²⁵, Epistle of Jeremiah 43.――=15.= for she had covered her face] This explains, not Judah’s failure to recognise her, but his mistaking her for a harlot (see verse ¹⁶).――=17.= a kid of the goats] Compare Judges 15¹. The present of a kid on these occasions may be due to the fact that (as in classical antiquity) the goat was sacred to the goddess of love (Pausanias vi. 25. 2 [with Frazer’s Note, volume iv. 106]; compare Tacitus Histories 2, 3, and Lucian, Dialogi Meretricii 7. 1) (Knobel-Dillmann).――=18.= The master-stroke of Tamar’s plot is the securing of a pledge which rendered the identification of the owner absolutely certain. Seal, cord, and staff must have been the insignia of a man of rank amongst the Israelites, as seal and staff were among the Babylonians (Herodotus i. 195)¹ and Egyptians (Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 228 f.). The cord may have been used to suspend the seal, as amongst modern town Arabs (Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, i. 36), or may have had magical properties like those occasionally worn by Arab men (Wellhausen Reste arabischen Heidentums 166). For illustrations of ancient Hebrew seals, see Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_² 82, 179 f., 228 ff.

¹ Σφρηγῖδα δ’ ἕκαστος ἔχει καὶ σκῆπτρον χειροποίητον· ἐπ’ ἑκάστῳ δὲ σκήπτρῳ ἔπεστι πεποιημένον ἢ μῆλον ἢ ῥόδον ἢ κρίνον ἢ αἰετὸς ἢ ἄλλο τι· ἄνευ γὰρ ἐπισήμου οὔ σφι νόμος ἐστὶ ἔχειν σκῆπτρον.――Similarly Strabo, XVI. i. 20.

* * * * *

‎ =12.= בת־שׁוּעַ‎] Apparently a compound proper name, as in 1 Chronicles 2³ = בת־שֶׁבַע‎ (compare 1 Chronicles 3⁵ with 2 Samuel 11³ etc.), through an intermediate בת־שֶׁוַע‎. LXX, both here and verse ² (but not 1 Chronicles 2³), gives שוע‎ as the name of Judah’s wife.――רֵעֵהוּ‎] LXX, Vulgate רֹעֵהוּ‎, ‘his shepherd,’ wrongly.――=13.= ‎ חָם‎] ‘husband’s father,’ 1 Samuel 4¹⁹ᐧ ²¹†. Smith (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 161 f.) finds in the Arabic usage a distinct trace of ba‛al-polyandry; the correlative is kanna, “which usually means the wife of a son or brother, but in the Ḥamāsa is used ... to designate one’s own wife.”――=14.= וַתְּכַס‎] so Deuteronomy 22¹², Jonah 3⁶. Read either וַתִּכָּס‎, Niphal (Gunkel), or ‎ וַתִּתְכַּס‎, Hithpael, with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (as 24⁶⁵).――בפתח עינים‎] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase), Vulgate _in bivio itineris_, and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ take the meaning to be ‘at the cross-roads’ (of which there are several on the short way from ‛Aid el-Mā to Tibne). The sense is good, and it is tempting to think that these versions are on the right track, though their rendering has no support in Hebrew usage. If עינים‎ be a proper name it may be identical with the unknown עֵינָם‎ of Joshua 15³⁴, in the Shephelah.――וְהִוא לֹא נִתְּנָה לוֹ‎] LXX וְהוּא לֹא נְתָנָהּ לוֹ‎, better.――=15.= end] LXX + καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνω αὐτήν.

* * * * *

=20‒23. Judah fails to recover his pledge.=――=20.= It is significant that Judah employs his fidus Achates Ḥirah in this discreditable affair, and will rather lose his seal, etc., than run the risk of publicity (verse ²³).――=21.= Where is that Ḳĕdēshāh?] strictly ‘sacred prostitute,’――one ‘dedicated’ for this purpose to Ištar-Astarte, or some other deity (Deuteronomy 23¹⁸, Hosea 4¹⁴†).

This is the only place where קדשה‎ appears to be used of an ordinary harlot; and Luther (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 180) points out that it is confined to the conversation of Ḥirah with the natives, the writer using זוֹנָה‎. The code of Ḥammurabi (§ 110) seems to contemplate the case of a temple-votary (ḳadistu, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 423; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 380) separating herself for private prostitution; and it is possible that this custom was familiar to the Canaanites, though not in Israel.――That the harlot’s veil (verses ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁹) was a symbol of dedication to Ištar the veiled goddess (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 276, 432; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 109) is possible, though it is perhaps more natural to suppose that the veiling of Ištar is an idealisation of the veiling of her votaries, which rests on a primitive sexual taboo (compare the bridal veil 24⁶⁵).

* * * * *

‎ =21.= מקמהּ‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå המקום‎ (verse ²²). If this reading be accepted, there is no reason to hold that עינום‎ (if a place-name at all) was Tamar’s native village.――הִוא‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ‎ ההיא‎; but see 19³³ etc.

* * * * *

=24‒26. The vindication of Tamar. =――=24.= As the widow of ‛Er, or the betrothed of Shelah, Tamar is guilty of adultery, and it falls to Judah as head of the family to bring her to justice.――Lead her out] a forensic term, Deuteronomy 22²¹ᐧ ²⁴.――let her be burnt] Death by burning is the punishment imposed in Ḫammurabi, § 157, for incest with a mother, and was doubtless the common punishment for adultery on the part of a woman in ancient Israel. In later times the milder penalty of stoning was substituted (Leviticus 20¹⁰, Deuteronomy 22²³ ᶠᶠᐧ, Ezekiel 16⁴⁰, Jonah 8⁵), the more cruel death being reserved for the prostitution of a priest’s daughter (Leviticus 21⁹; compare Ḫammurabi § 110).――=25.= By waiting till the last moment, Tamar makes her justification as public and dramatically complete as possible. Addressing the crowd she says, To the man who owns these things, etc.; to Judah himself she flings out the challenge, Recognise to whom this seal, etc., belong!――=26.= She is in the right as against me (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 133 _b_³; compare Job 4¹⁷ 32²)] i.e., her conduct is justified by the graver wrong done to her by Judah.

To suppose that incidents like that recorded in ¹²⁻²⁶ were of frequent occurrence in ancient Israel, or that it was the duty of the father-in-law under any circumstances to marry his son’s widow, is to miss entirely the point of the narrative. On the contrary, as Gunkel well shows (365 f.), it is just the exceptional nature of the circumstances that explains the writer’s obvious admiration for Tamar’s heroic conduct. “Tamar shows her fortitude by her disregard of conventional prejudice, and her determination by any means in her power to secure her wifely rights within her husband’s family. To obtain this right the intrepid woman dares the utmost that womanly honour could endure,――stoops to the level of an unfortunate girl, and does that which in ordinary cases would lead to the most cruel and shameful death, bravely risking honour and life on the issue. At the same time, like a true mother in Judah, she manages her part so cleverly that the dangerous path conducts her to a happy goal.”――It follows that the episode is not meant to reflect discredit on the tribe of Judah. It presents Judah’s behaviour in as favourable a light as possible, suggesting extenuating circumstances for what could not be altogether excused; and regards that of Tamar as a glory to the tribe (compare Ruth 4¹²).

* * * * *

‎ =24.= כמשלש‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch more correctly כמשלשת‎.――=25.= On the syntax, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 116 u, v, 142 e; Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 166 ff.――לְאיש‎] construct state with clause as genitive; Holzinger al. point לָאיש‎.――החתמת‎] feminine only here.――הפתילים‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ הפתיל‎ (as verse ¹⁸).――=26.= ‎ כי־על־כן‎] see on 18⁵.

* * * * *

=27‒30. Birth of Pereẓ and Zeraḥ.=――The story closely resembles that of Rebekah in 25²⁴⁻²⁶ (38²⁷ᵇ = 25²⁴ᵇ), and is probably a variation of the same originally mythical theme (see page 359).――=28.= The scarlet thread probably represents some feature of the original myth (note that in 25²⁵ ‘the first came out red’). The forced etymology of Zeraḥ (verse ³⁰) could not have suggested it.――=29.= What a breach hast thou made for thyself!] The name Pereẓ expresses the violence with which he secured the priority.――=30.= Zeraḥ] An Edomite clan in 36¹³ᐧ ³³. On the etymology, v.i.

To the name Pereẓ, Cheyne (Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, 357) aptly compares Plutarch’s account of the birth of Typhon, brother of Osiris: “neither in due time, nor in the right place, but breaking through with a blow, he leaped out through his mother’s side” (De Iside et Osiride chapter 12).――The ascendancy of the Pereẓ clan has been explained by the incorporation of the powerful families of Caleb and Jeraḥmeel, 1 Chronicles ⁵ᐧ ⁹ (so Stade Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 158 f.); but a more obvious reason is the fact that David’s ancestry was traced to this branch (Romans 4¹⁸⁻²²).

* * * * *

‎ =28.= ויתן־יד‎] sc. הַנֹּתֵן‎ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 e); LXX + ὁ εἷς.――=29.= ויהי כְּמֵשִׁיב‎] An ungrammatical use of the participle. Read with Ball ויהי כְּמוֹ הֵשִׁיב‎ (compare 19¹⁵).――פרצת――פרץ‎] cognitive accusative. The rendering as a question (מה‎ = ‘why’: Delitzsch, Dillmann, Driver) is less natural than that given above; and to detach עליך פרץ‎ [The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch עלינו‎] as a separate exclamation (‘A breach upon thee!’) is worse. LXX (τί διεκόπη διὰ σὲ φραγμός;) Vulgate, Peshiṭtå take the verb in a passive sense.――ויקרא‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ותקרא‎ (so verse ³⁰).――=30.= ‎ זֶרַח‎] as a Hebrew word would mean ‘rising’ (of the sun, Isaiah 60³) or ‘autochthonous’ (= אָזְרָח‎). A connexion with the idea of ‘redness’ is difficult to establish. It is commonly supposed that there is a play on the Aramaic זחריתא‎ (which is used here by Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, and is the equivalent of Hebrew שָׁנִי‎), and Babylonian zaḫuritu (so Delitzsch, Driver, Gunkel, al.); but this is not convincing.

* * * * *

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXXIX. Joseph is cast into Prison (Yahwist)

Joseph is sold by the Ishmaelites (37²⁸ᐧ ³⁶) to an Egyptian householder, who finds him so capable and successful that ere long he entrusts him with the whole administration of his estate (¹⁻⁶). But his master’s wife conceives a guilty passion for him, and when her advances are repelled, falsely accuses him of attempted outrage, with the result that he is thrown into prison (⁷⁻²⁰). Here again he wins the favour of his superior, and is soon charged with the oversight of the prison (²¹⁻²³).

Source.――With the exception of a harmonising gloss in ¹ᵇ{α}, and a sprinkling of Elohist variants (discussed in the notes), the whole passage is from Yahwist. It represents the chief divergence between the two recensions of the history of Joseph. In Yahwist, Joseph is first sold to a private Egyptian איש מצרי‎, verse ¹), then cast into the state prison in the way here narrated, where he gains the confidence of the (unnamed) governor, so that when the butler and baker are sent thither they naturally fall under his charge. In Elohist, Joseph is sold at once to Potiphar (37³⁶), the palace officer in whose house the butler and baker are afterwards confined (40³ᵃ); and Joseph, without being himself a prisoner, is told off to wait on these eminent persons (40⁴). The imprisonment, therefore, is indispensable in Yahwist, and at least embarrassing in Elohist.――This conclusion is partly confirmed by the literary phenomena: יהוה‎, ²ᐧ ³ᐧ ⁵; the Ishmaelites, ¹; הוריד‎, ¹; הצליח‎, ³ᐧ ²³; ‎ מצא חן‎, ⁴; בגלל‎, ⁵. It is somewhat disconcerting to find that none of these occur in the central section, ⁷⁻²⁰; and (Wellhausen, _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 56) positively assigns ⁶⁻¹⁹ to Elohist, because of the phrases יפה תאר ויפה מראה‎, ⁶ᵇ (compare 29¹⁷); ויהי א׳ ‎ הדברים ה׳‎, ⁷ (compare 15¹ 22¹ᐧ ²⁰ 40¹ 48¹); ראו‎, ¹⁴; and לאלהים‎, ⁹. These are not decisive (see Dillmann, 403; Holzinger, 231), and on the whole the material argument must be held to outweigh the dubious linguistic evidence that can be adduced on the other side.――Procksch (42 f.) assigns ⁷⁻¹⁰ to Elohist and ¹¹⁻²³ to Yahwist; but nothing is gained by the division.

=1‒6. Joseph becomes the controller of an Egyptian estate.=――=1.= But Joseph had been taken down, etc.] while his father was mourning over him as one dead (37³¹ ᶠᶠᐧ); the notice resumes 37²⁸ᵃ.――a certain Egyptian] who is nameless in Yahwist (v.i.).――=2.= The secret of Joseph’s success: a combination of ability with personal charm which marked him out as a favourite of Yahwe (compare ³ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²³).――remained in the house, etc.] under his master’s observation, instead of being sent to work in the field.――=4a.= served him] i.e., ‘became his personal attendant.’――The phrase is a variant from Elohist (compare 40⁴).――=4b.= In Yahwist, Joseph’s position is far higher, that, namely, of mer-per (mer-pa, mer en peri-t, etc.), or superintendent of the household, frequently mentioned in the inscriptions (Ebers, Ägypten und die Bücher Moses 303 ff.; Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 187 f.).――=6a.= knew not with him] (i.e. with Joseph [verse ⁸]): ‘held no reckoning with him’;――a hyperbolical expression for absolute confidence.――=6b= is introductory to ⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ.

* * * * *

=1.= The words פוטיפר――הטבחים‎ are a repetition by Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ from 37³⁶ (Elohist), in order to harmonise the two sources. But the contradiction appears (1) in the meaningless איש מצרי‎ after the specific designation (this is not to be got rid of by Ebers’s observation that under a Hyksos dynasty a high official was not necessarily a native Egyptian), and (2) the improbability of a eunuch being married (though cases of this kind are known [Ebers, 299]).――פוטיפר‎] LXX Πετεφρη[ς], an exact transcription of Egyptian Pedephrē = ‘He whom the sun-god gives’ (see A Dictionary of the Bible, i. 665b; Encyclopædia Biblica, 3814); but the long o of the Hebrew has not been explained. Compare Heyes, 105‒112.――סריס‎] means ‘eunuch’ in New Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, (as is shown by the denominative verbs = ‘be impotent’), and there is no case in Old Testament where the strict sense is inapplicable (Gesenius, Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti 973 b). That such a word should be extended to mean ‘courtier’ in general is more intelligible than the reverse process (so Heyes, 122), in spite of the opinion of several Assyriologists who derive it from ša rêši = ‘he who is the head’ (Zimmern, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, liii. 116; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 649).――שר הטבחים‎] LXX ἀρχιμάγειρος, a title like ‎ שר המשקים‎ and ש׳ האופים‎ in chapter 40 (Elohist). Compare רב הט׳‎, 2 Kings 25⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, Jeremiah 39⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ 40¹ ᶠᶠᐧ etc., Daniel 2¹⁴. The ‎ טבחים‎ were apparently the royal cooks or butchers (1 Samuel 9²³ ᶠᐧ), who had come to be the bodyguard (Smith, _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_², 262¹).――=2.= איש מצליח‎] The intransitive Hiphil is thought by Dillmann, Gunkel, al. to be inconsistent with Yahwist’s usage (verses ³ᐧ ²³ 24²¹); therefore Elohist.――=4.= בעיניּו‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate בעיני אדניו‎.――וכל־יש־לו‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch inserts אשר‎ as verse ⁵ ᵇⁱˢᐧ ⁸.――=4a= is wholly assigned to Elohist by Gunkel; but וימצא חן‎ pleads strongly for Yahwist.

* * * * *

=7‒20. Joseph tempted by his master’s wife.=――=7‒10.= The first temptation. The solicitation of a young man by a married woman is a frequent theme of warning in Proverbs 1‒9.――=9a.= אֵינֶנּוּ‎ does not mean ‘there is none’ (which would require אֵין‎), but ‘he is not.’――=9b.= sin against God] The name Yahwe is naturally avoided in conversation with a foreigner. All the more striking is the consciousness of the divine presence which to the exiled Israelite is the ultimate sanction of morality.――=11, 12.= The final temptation.――On the freedom of social intercourse between the sexes, see Ebers, 306 f. But the difficulties raised about Joseph’s access to the harem do not really arise, when we remember that Yahwist is depicting the life of a simple Egyptian family, and not that of a high palace official (see Tuch).――=13‒20.= The woman’s revenge.――=14.= A covert appeal to the jealousy of the men-servants against the hated Hebrew, and to the fears of the women, whom she represents as unsafe from insult (to mock us). An additional touch of venom lurks in the contemptuous reference to her husband as ‘he.’――Hebrew may be here a general designation of the Asiatic Bedouin (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 387); but see on 40¹⁵.――=19.= Her distorted account of the facts has the desired effect on her husband.――his wrath was kindled] against Joseph, of course. There is no hint that he suspected his wife, and was angry with her also (Delitzsch, Dillmann).――=20.= Imprisonment would certainly not be the usual punishment for such a crime as Joseph was believed to have committed; but the sequel demanded it, Joseph’s further career depending on his being lodged in the place where the king’s prisoners were bound. That he became a king’s slave (according to Ḥammurabi § 129) is not indicated (against Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 388). The term for prison (v.i.) is peculiar, and recurs only ²¹ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³ 40³ᐧ ⁵.

To this episode in Joseph’s life there is an Egyptian parallel so close that we can hardly fail to recognise in it the original of the Hebrew story. It is the ‘Tale of the two brothers’ in the d’Orbiney Papyrus, assigned by Egyptologists to the 19th dynasty. Two brothers lived together, the older Anpu having a house and wife, and the younger Batu serving him in the field. One day Batu enters the house to fetch seed for the sowing, and is tempted by his brother’s wife, exactly as Joseph was by his mistress. Furiously indignant――“like a panther for rage”――he rejects her advances, out of loyalty to the brother who has been like a father to him, and expresses horror of the ‘great sin’ which she had suggested. Promising silence, he returns to his brother in the field. In the evening Anpu comes home to find his wife covered with self-inflicted wounds, and listens to a tale which is a perfect parallel to the false accusation against Joseph. Anpu seeks to murder his brother; but being at last convinced of his innocence, he slays his wife instead. Here the human interest of the story ceases, the remainder being fairy lore of the most fantastic description, containing at least a reminiscence of the Osiris myth. (See Ebers, 311 ff.; Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 378 ff.; Petrie, Egyptian Tales Translated from the Papyri, ii. 36 ff.; Völter, Aegypten und die Bibel, 50 f. [who takes the story as a whole to be founded on the myth of Set and Osiris].) It is true that the theme is not exclusively Egyptian (see the numerous parallels in Lang, Myth, Ritual, and Religion, ii. 303 ff.); but the fact that the scene of the biblical narrative is in Egypt, and the close resemblance to the Egyptian tale, make it extremely probable that there is a direct connexion between them.

* * * * *

‎ =8.= מה‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch מאומה‎ (verse ‎ ²³).――בבית‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate בביתו‎.――=10.= לשכב אצלה‎ and להיות עמה‎ look like variants; but one swallow does not make a summer, and it would be rash to infer an Elohistic recension.――=11.= כהיום הזה‎] A very obscure expression, see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 400 b. Of the other occurrences (Deuteronomy 6²⁴, Jeremiah 44²², Ezra 9⁷ᐧ ¹⁵, Nehemiah 9¹⁰†) all except the last are perfectly transparent: ‘as [it is] this day,’――a sense quite unsuitable here. One must suspect that the phrase, like the kindred כַּיּוֹם‎ and כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה‎ (compare especially 1 Samuel 22⁸ᐧ ¹³), had acquired some elusive idiomatic meaning which we cannot recover. Neither ‘on a certain day’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 s) nor ‘on this particular day’ (Brown-Driver-Briggs) can be easily justified.――=13.= ‎ וינס‎] MSS, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX + ויצא‎ ‎ (¹²ᐧ ¹⁵).――=14.= לצַֽחֶק בנו‎] see on 26⁸.――=15.= אצלי‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate (_pallium quod tenebam_) read בידי‎,――wrongly, since to have said this would have been to betray herself (Delitzsch, Dillmann).――=17= end] LXX + καὶ εἶπέν μοι Κοιμηθήσομαι μετὰ σοῦ [LXXᴬ Κοιμήθητι μετ’ ἐμοῦ].――=18.= ויהי כהרימי‎] LXX ὡς δὲ ἤκουσεν ὅτι ὕψωσα.――וינס‎] LXX, Peshiṭtå + ויצא‎.――=20.= בית הסהר‎] Only in ²⁰⁻²³ 40³ᐧ ⁵ (Yahwist). The name may be Egyptian (see Ebers, 317 ff.; Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 768 a, n.), but has not been satisfactorily explained.――מְקום אשר‎] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 130 c.――אסורי‎] so The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (and also in verse ²²); but read with Qrê אסירי‎ (²²).

* * * * *

=21‒23.= =Joseph in prison.=――His good fortune and consequent promotion are described in terms nearly identical with those of verses ¹⁻⁶.――In Yahwist, the governor of the prison is anonymous, and Joseph is made superintendent of the other prisoners.

* * * * *

‎ =21.= ויתן חנו‎] (as Exodus 3²¹ 11³ 12³⁶†) genitive of object = ‘favour towards him.’――=22.= עֹשֵׁים‎] On omission of subject, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 116 s.――הוא היה עשה‎] LXXᴬᐧ ᵃˡᐧ omitted.――=23.= ‎ בידו‎] LXX πάντα γὰρ ἦν διὰ χειρὸς Ἰωσηφ.――מצליח‎] LXX + ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ.

* * * * *

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XL. Joseph proves his Gift of interpreting Dreams (Elohist)

Joseph is appointed to wait on two officers of the court who have been put under arrest in his master’s house (¹⁻⁴), and finds them one morning troubled by dreams for which they have no interpreter (⁵⁻⁸). He interprets the dreams (⁹⁻¹⁹), which are speedily verified by the event (²⁰⁻²²). But his eager request that the chief butler would intercede for him with Pharaoh (¹⁴ ᶠᐧ) remains unheeded (²³).

Source.――The main narrative, as summarised above, obviously belongs to Elohist (see page 456 f.). Joseph is not a prisoner (as in Yahwist 39²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ), but the servant of the captain of the guard (compare 37³⁶ 41¹²); the officers are not strictly imprisoned, but merely placed ‘in ward’ (במשמר‎) in Potiphar’s house (³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁷); and Joseph was ‘stolen’ from his native land (¹⁵ᵃ; compare 37²⁸ᵃ), not sold by his brethren as 37²⁸ᵇ (Yahwist).――Fragments of a parallel narrative in Yahwist can be detected in ¹ᵃ{β}ᵇ (a duplicate of ²), ³ᵃ{β} (from אל־בית ה׳‎) ᵇ (Joseph a prisoner), ⁵ᵇ (the officers imprisoned), and ¹⁵ᵇ.――In the phraseology note Yahwist’s המשקה‎, האפה‎, ¹ᐧ ⁵ᵇ ∥ Elohist’s ‎ שר המשקים‎, ש׳ האפים‎, ²ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³; Yahwist בית הסהר‎, ³ᵃ{β}ᐧ ⁵ᵇ ∥ Elohist משמר‎, ³ᵃ{α}ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁷; while שר הטבחים‎, ³ᐧ ⁴, and סריס‎, ²ᐧ ⁷, connect the main narrative with 37³⁶ (Elohist).――That in Yahwist the turn of Joseph’s fortune depended on the successful interpretation of dreams does not explicitly appear, but may be presumed from the fact that he was afterwards brought from the dungeon to interpret them (41¹⁴ᵃ{β} Yahwist).

=1‒8. Pharaoh’s officers in disgrace: their dreams.=――=1.= the butler ... the baker] Yahwist writes as if the king had only one servant of each class: his notions of a royal establishment are perhaps simpler than Elohist’s. In Babylonia the highest and oldest court offices are said to have been those of the baker and the butler (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 54; compare Zimmern, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, liii. 119 f.).――=2.= chief of the butlers ... bakers (Elohist)] The rise of household slaves to high civil dignity seems to have been characteristic of the Egyptian government under the 19th dynasty (Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 105). Titles corresponding to those here used are ‘scribe of the sideboard,’ ‘superintendent of the bakehouse,’ etc. (Erman, 187).――=3a.= The officers are not incarcerated, but merely detained in custody pending investigation (Gunkel).――=3b = (Yahwist). bound] i.e. ‘confined’; compare 39²² ᶠᐧ.――=4.= Joseph is charged with the duty of waiting on them (שֵׁרֵת‎ as 39⁴, 2 Samuel 13¹⁷). =5‒8= is a skilful piece of narration: the effect of the dreams is vividly depicted before their character is disclosed.――=5.= each according to the interpretation of his dream] a sort of idem per idem construction, meaning that the dreams had each a peculiar significance.――=5b= (Yahwist).――=8.= no one to interpret it] No professional interpreter, such as they would certainly have consulted had they been at liberty.――interpretations belong to God] The maxim is quite in accord with Egyptian sentiment (Herodotus, ii. 83), but in the mouth of Joseph it expresses the Hebrew idea that inspiration comes directly from God and is not a ‎מִצְוַת אֲנָשִׁים מְלֻמָּדָה‎ (Isaiah 29¹³).

On the Egyptian belief in divinely inspired dreams, see Ebers, 321 f.; Wiedemann, Religion of the ancient Egyptians 266 ff.; Heyes, 174 ff.: on the belief in classical antiquity, Homer Iliad ii. 5‒34, Odyssey iv. 795 ff.; Cicero, De Divinatione i. § 39 ff. etc.; in modern Egypt, Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵, i. 330. While this idea was fully shared by the Israelites, the interpretation of dreams, as a distinct art or gift, is rarely referred to in Old Testament (only in the case of Joseph, and that of Daniel, which is largely modelled on it). Elsewhere the dream either contains the revelation (20³ ᶠᶠᐧ etc.), or carries its significance on its face (28¹² ᶠᶠᐧ 37¹⁰). See Stade Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments § 63. 1.

* * * * *

‎ =1.= משׁקֵה――והאפה‎] On the syntax, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 128 a, 129 h; Davidson § 27 (b): compare verse ⁵.――=2.= ויקצף‎ is the regular continuation of the time-clause in ¹ᵃ (Elohist).――סָֽריסיו‎] with so-called qamez impurum; so always except in construct state (40⁷ etc.).――=3.= במשמַר‎] Better perhaps במשמָר‎ (compare verse ⁴), with בית‎ as accusative of place. So verse ⁷.――=4.= ימים‎ = ‘for some time’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 139 h.――=6.= זעף‎] ‘be fretful’; elsewhere late (Daniel 1¹⁰, Proverbs 19³, 2 Chronicles ‎ 26¹⁹†).――=8.= פתר אין‎] On the order, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 152 o.――פתרנים‎] LXX פתרנָם‎.

* * * * *

=9‒19. The dreams interpreted.=――=9‒11.= The butler had seen a vine pass rapidly through the stages of its growth; had seemed to squeeze the ripe grapes into a cup and present it to Pharaoh,――a mixture of the ‘realistic’ and the ‘fantastic’ which belongs to the psychology of the dream (Gunkel). It is disputed whether the drinking of the fresh juice is realism or phantasy. “The ordinary interpretation is that the king drank the fresh grape-juice; but as the butler sees the natural process of the growth of the grapes take place with dream-like swiftness, so probably it is taken for granted that the juice became wine in similar fashion” (Bennett; so Gunkel). On the other hand, Ebers (_Durch Gosen zum Sinai_², 492) cites two texts in which a beverage prepared by squeezing grapes into water is mentioned.――=12, 13.= The interpretation: the butler will be restored to his office within three days.――lift up thy head] Commonly understood of restoration to honour. But in view of the fact that the phrase is used of the baker also, it may be doubted if it be not a technical phrase for release from prison (as it is in 2 Kings 25²⁷, Jeremiah 52³¹).――=14, 15.= Joseph’s petition.――remember me] On the difficult construction, v.i.――from this house] Not the prison (as version, below), but Potiphar’s house, where he was kept as a slave.――=15a.= I was stolen] compare 37²⁸ᵃ{α} (Elohist).――the land of the Hebrews] The expression is an anachronism in the patriarchal history. It is barely possible that both here and in 39¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷ (41¹²) there is a faint reminiscence of the historical background of the legends, the early occupation of Palestine by Hebrew tribes.――=15b= (Yahwist) was probably followed in the original document by an explanation of the circumstances which led to his imprisonment.――=16‒19.= The baker’s dream contains sinister features which were absent from the first, the decisive difference being that while the butler dreamed that he actually performed the duties of his office, the baker only sought to do so, and was prevented (Gunkel).――=16.= three baskets of white bread] The meaning of חֹרִי‎, however, is doubtful (v.i.).――upon my head] See the picture of the court-bakery of Rameses III. in Ebers, Ägypten und die Bücher Moses 332; Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 191. According to Ebers, the custom of carrying on the head (Herodotus ii. 35) was not usual in ancient Egypt except for bakers.――=17.= in the uppermost basket] Were the other two empty (Holzinger, Bennett)? or were they filled with inferior bread for the court (Gunkel)?――all manner of bakemeats] The court-baker of Rameses III. “is not content with the usual shapes used for bread, but makes his cakes in all manner of forms. Some are of a spiral shape like the ‘snails’ of our confectioners; others are coloured dark-brown or red,” etc. (Erman, 192).――while the birds kept eating] In real life he would have driven off the birds (compare 15¹¹); in the dream――and this is the ominous circumstance――he cannot.――=19.= lift thy head from off thee] In view of the fulfilment, it is perhaps better (with Ball) to remove ‎מעליך‎ as a mistaken repetition of the last word of the verse, and to understand the phrase of the baker’s release from prison (see on verse ¹³). The verb hang may then refer to the mode of execution, and not merely (as generally supposed) to the exposure of the decapitated corpse. Decapitation is said to have been a commoner punishment in Egypt than hanging, but the latter was not unknown (Ebers, 334). The destruction of the corpse by birds must have been specially abhorrent to Egyptians, from the importance they attached to the preservation of the body after death. For Old Testament examples, see Deuteronomy 21²² ᶠᐧ, Joshua 10²⁶, 2 Samuel 4¹², and especially 2 Samuel 21 ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰.

* * * * *

‎ =10.= והוא כפרחת‎] Not ‘when it budded’ (Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ), for such a use of כְּ‎ with a participle (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 164 g) is dubious even in the Mishnah (_The Jewish Quarterly Review_, 1908, 697 f.). If the text be retained we must render ‘as if budding’ (Driver, _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ page 172²). Ball emends (after LXX καὶ αὐτὴ θάλλουσα) ‎ והיא מַפְרַחַת‎ (compare Job 14⁹, Psalms 92¹⁴); Kittel כְּפָרְחָהּ‎.――נִצָּהּ‎] The masculine נֵץ‎ does not occur (in this sense) in biblical Hebrew, and a contraction of ־ָתָהּ‎ to ־ָהּ‎ is doubtful (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 e); hence it is better to read נִצָּה‎ as accusative: ‘it (the vine) went up in blossom.’ It is possible that here and Isaiah ‎ 18⁵ נִצָּה‎ means ‘berry-cluster’; see Derenbourg, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, v. 301 f.――הבשילו‎] literally ‘cooked’; Hiphil only here.――Note the asyndetous construction, expressing the rapidity of the process.――=13.= יִשָּׂא――אָת־ראשך‎] LXX μνησθήσεται ... τῆς ἀρχῆς σου; similarly Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ.――כֵּן‎] literally ‘pedestal,’ used metaphorically as here in 41¹³, Daniel 11⁷ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ³⁸†.――=14.= כי אם־זכרתני‎] LXX ἀλλὰ μνήσθητί μου, Vulgate tantum memento mei; similarly Peshiṭtå and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ. Something like this must be the meaning; the difficulty is (since a precative perfect is generally disallowed in Hebrew) to fit the sense to any known use of the bare perfect. (a) If it be perfect of certitude, the nearest analogy seems to me to be Judges 15⁷, where כי אם‎ has strong affirmative force, perhaps with a suppressed adjuration, as 2 Kings 5²⁰ (חי יהוה כי אם רצתי‎): ‘thou wilt surely remember me.’ To supply a negative sentence like ‘I desire nothing [except that thou remember me]’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 163 d; Delitzsch, Strack), destroys the idea of perfect of certainty, and is a doubtful expedient for the additional reason that כי אם‎ may mean ‘except,’ but hardly ‘except that.’ (b) It may be future perfect, in which case the אם‎ must have its separate conditional sense; and then it is better (with Wellhausen) to change כי‎ to אַךְ‎: ‘only, if thou remember me.’ The objection (Delitzsch, Dillmann) that the remembrance is too essential an element of the request to be made a mere condition, has no great weight; and might be met by giving אִם‎ interrogative force (Holzinger). See, further, Driver A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 119 (δ).――ועשית־נא‎] The only case of consecutive perfect followed by נא‎ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 105 b).――מן־הבית הזה‎] LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ seem to have read מן־הַבּוֹר הזה‎, or ‎ מִבֵּית הַסֹּהַר הזה‎.――=16.= חֹרִי‎] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, commonly derived from ‎ √ חָוַר‎ ‘be white’; so virtually LXX, Aquila, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ; but Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘of nobility’ (דְּחֵרוּ‎). Others (Rashi, al.) understand it as a characteristic of the baskets: ‘perforated’ (from חוֹר‎, ‘hole’). The βαϊνά (of palm-leaves) of Symmachus seems to rest on Aramaic (Field).――=19.= מעליך‎¹] Omitted by two MSS and Vulgate (Ball, Kittel).

* * * * *

=20‒23. The dreams fulfilled.=――=20.= That it was customary for the Pharaoh to celebrate his birthday by court assemblies and granting of amnesties, is proved for the Ptolemaic period by the tables of Rosetta and Canopus.――lifted the head] see on verse ¹⁹.――=23.= The notice of the butler’s ingratitude forms an effective close, leaving the reader expectant of further developments.

* * * * *

‎ =20.= הלדת את־‎] as Ezekiel 16⁵; compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 69 w, 121 b.――=21.= מַשְׁקֶה‎] is never elsewhere used of the office of butler: perhaps ‘over his [Pharaoh’s] drink’ (as we should say, ‘his cellar’), as Leviticus 11³⁴, 1 Kings 10²¹, Isaiah 32⁶ (so Gesenius, _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_, Dillmann).――=23.= וַיּשכחהו‎] Expressing “a logical or necessary consequence of that which immediately precedes” (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 111 l); compare Davidson § 47.

* * * * *

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XLI. Joseph becomes Viceroy of Egypt (Jehovist, Priestly-Code)

Two years after the events of chapter 40, the king of Egypt has a wonderful double dream, which none of his magicians is able to interpret (¹⁻⁸). The chief butler is naturally reminded of his own experience, and mentions Joseph, who is forthwith summoned into the royal presence (⁹⁻¹⁴). Having interpreted the dreams as a prophecy of a great famine (¹⁵⁻³²), Joseph adds some sage advice on the right way to cope with the emergency (³³⁻³⁶); and Pharaoh is so impressed by his sagacity that he entrusts him with the execution of the scheme, and makes him absolute ruler of Egypt (³⁷⁻⁴⁶). In pursuance of the policy he had foreshadowed, Joseph stores the surplus of seven years of plenty, and sells it during the subsequent famine (⁴⁷⁻⁵).

Analysis.――The connexion of this chapter with the preceding appears from ¹ᵃ and ⁹⁻¹³: note שר המשקים‎, ש׳ האפים‎, ש׳ הטבחים‎, משמר‎, ‎ קצף‎ (40²); Joseph the servant of the ש׳ הט׳‎; the officers confined in his ‘house’; Joseph ‘with them’ (¹⁰, compare 40³ᐧ ⁴); and compare ¹¹ with 40⁵. In the first half of the chapter there is no sufficient reason to suspect a second source except in ¹⁴ᵇ (Yahwist); the repetitions and slight variations are not greater than can be readily explained by a desire for variety in the elaboration of detail. The whole of this section (¹⁻²⁸) may therefore be safely assigned to Elohist (compare ואין־פותר אותם‎, ‎ ⁸, ופתר אין אתו‎, ¹⁵ with 40⁸ᵃ; ¹⁶ with 40⁸ᵇ).――In the second half, however, there are slight diversities of expression and representation which show that a parallel narrative (Yahwist) has been freely utilised. Thus, in ³³ Joseph recommends the appointment of a single dictator, in ³⁴ the appointment of ‘overseers’; in ³⁴ a fifth part is to be stored, in ³⁵ᐧ ⁴⁸ all the corn of the good years; in ³⁵ᵇ{α} the collection is to be centralised under the royal authority, in ᵇ{β} localised in the different cities; צבד בר‎ alternates with קבץ אכל‎ (³⁵ᵇ{α}ᐧ ⁴⁹ ‎ ∥ ³⁵ᵃᐧ ⁴⁸). Further, ³⁸ seems ∥ ³⁹; ⁴¹ ∥ ⁴⁴; and ⁴⁵ᵇ ∥ ⁴⁶ᵇ; ⁴⁵ᵃ פוטי ‎ פרע‎ = פוטיפר‎ can hardly be from Elohist, who has employed the name for another person (37³⁶). Some of these differences may, no doubt, prove to be illusory; but taken cumulatively they suffice to prove that the passage is composite, although a satisfactory analysis cannot be given. For details, see the notes below; and consult Holzinger 234; Gunkel 380 f.; Procksch 43 f.――⁴⁶ᵃ is from Priestly-Code, and ⁵⁰ᵇ is a gloss.

=1‒8. Pharaoh’s dreams.=――=2.= from the Nile (v.i.)] the source of Egypt’s fertility (Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 425 ff.), worshipped as ‘the father of the gods,’ and at times identified with Osiris or Amon-re (Erman, A Handbook of Egyptian Religion, 14 f., 80 ff.).――seven cows, etc.] “According to Diodorus Siculus i. 51, the male ox is the symbol of the Nile, and sacred to Osiris, the inventor of agriculture (ib. i. 21).... The Osiris-steer often appears accompanied by seven cows, e.g. on the vignettes of the old and new Book of the Dead” (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 389).――=4.= The devouring of one set of cows by the other is a fantastic but suggestive feature of the dream; the symbolism is almost transparent.――=5‒7.= The second dream is, if possible, more fantastic and at the same time more explicit.――=6.= blasted with the east-wind (LXX ἀνεμόφθοροι)] the dreaded sirocco or, Ḥamsīn, which blows from the South-east from February to June, destroying vegetation, and even killing the seed-corn in the clods (Ebers, 340; Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 9; Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 67 ff.).――=8.= all the magicians and wise men of Egypt] The possessors of occult knowledge of all sorts, including the interpretation of dreams (see page 461); compare Tacitus, Histories iv. 83: “Ptolemæus ... sacerdotibus Ægyptiorum, quibus mos talia intellegere, nocturnos visus aperit”; see Ebers, 341‒349. The motive――the confutation of heathen magic by a representative of the true religion――is repeated in the histories of Moses (Exodus 7‒9) and Daniel (chapters 2. 5); compare Isaiah 47¹² etc.

* * * * *

‎ =1.= ופרעה חלם‎] Participial clause as apodosis; see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 78 (3).――היאר‎] An Egyptian loan-word (’iotr, ’io’r = ‘stream’), used in Old Testament of the Nile and its canals (except Isaiah 33²¹, Job 28¹⁰, Daniel 12⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ); found also in Assyrian in the form ya’aru. See Ebers, 337 f.; Steindorff, BA, i. 612 (compare ‎ 171).――=2.= אחו‎ (41¹⁸, Job 8¹¹†)] ‘Nile-grass’ = Egyptian aḥu, from aḥa, ‘be green’ (Ebers, 338). LXX ἄχει occurs also verses ³ᐧ ¹⁹, Isaiah 19⁷, Sirach 40¹⁶.――=3.= ודקות‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ורקות‎ (so verse ⁴). It is naturally difficult to decide which is right; but Ball pertinently points to the alliterations as determining the choice: read therefore ‎ ר׳‎ in ³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁷, but דּ׳‎ in ⁶ᐧ ²³,――in other words, ר׳‎ always of the cows and דּ׳‎ always of the ears.――אצל‎] LXX omits, thus making all the 14 cows stand together.――=4.= ותאכלנה‎] LXX + שֶׁבַע‎; so ⁷ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁴. LXX has many similar variations (which need not be noted), revealing a tendency to introduce uniformity into the description.――=8.= ותפעם‎] ‘was perturbed’; as Daniel 2³ (2¹ Hithpael), Psalms 77⁵.――חרטמים‎] Only in this chapter, in Exodus 7‒9 (Priestly-Code), and (by imitation) in Daniel 2². The word is thus practically confined to Egyptian magicians, though no Egyptian etymology has been found; and it may be plausibly derived from Hebrew חֶרֶט‎, stylus.――אתם‎] Read with LXX אֹתוֹ‎, after ‎ חלמוֹ‎; the dream is ‘one’ (verses ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶).

* * * * *

=9‒14. Joseph summoned to interpret the dreams.=――=9.= The butler’s ungrateful memory is stimulated by the opportunity of ingratiating himself with his royal master, though this requires him to make mention of his old offence.――=12.= according to each man’s dream he interpreted] Note the order of ideas as contrasted with verse ¹¹ (40⁵): there is a pre-established harmony between the interpretation and the dream, and the office of the interpreter is to penetrate the imagery of the dream and reach the truth it was sent to convey.――=13.= I was restored ... he was hanged] Literally ‘Me one restored,’ etc., according to Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 d, e. To suppose the omission of Pharaoh, or to make Joseph the subject, is barely admissible.――=14.= and they brought him hastily from the dungeon] is a clause inserted from Yahwist.――shaved himself] his head and beard,――a custom which seems to have been peculiar to the priests under the New Empire (Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 219; compare Herodotus, ii. 37).

* * * * *

‎ =9.= את־פרעה‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch better ‎ אל פ׳‎.――חטאַי‎] LXX חטאִי‎ (singular). The resemblance of the clause (⁹ᵇ) to 40¹ does not prove it to be from Yahwist (Gunkel).――=10.= אתי‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch אתם‎, LXX אתנו‎.――=11.= ‎ ונחלמה‎] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 49 e.――=12.= ויפתר――פתר‎] LXX καὶ συνέκρινεν ἡμῖν.

* * * * *

=15‒24. Pharaoh’s recital of his dreams.=――=15.= thou canst hear a dream to interpret it] i.e., ‘thou canst interpret a dream when thou hearest it’: Hebrew subordinates the emphatic clause where we would subordinate the condition.――=16.= Compare 40⁸.――The answer (on the form, v.i.) exhibits a fine combination of religious sincerity and courtly deference.――=17‒21.= The first dream.――The king gives a vivid subjective colouring to the recital by expressing the feelings which the dream excited. This is natural, and creates no presumption that a parallel narrative is drawn upon. Similarly, the slight differences in phraseology (תאר‎ for מראה‎, דַּלּוֹת‎, etc.) are due to the literary instinct for variety.――=22‒24.= The second dream.

* * * * *

‎ =15.= תשמע‎] Oratio obliqua after לֵאמֹר‎ (without כי‎), Gesenius-Kautzsch § 157 a; Davidson § 146, R. 1.――=16.= ‎ בִּלְעָדַי‎] literally ‘Apart from me’ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ לא מן חוכמתי‎), used as 14²⁴. The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX read ‎ בִּלְעֲדֵי אלהים לא יֵעָנָה‎ = ‘Apart from God, one will not be answered,’ etc.; compare Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase)" (‘Dost thou expect that apart from God one will answer?’ etc.). Vulgate _Absque me Deus respondebit_, shifting the accent. There seems a _double entendre_ in the use of יענה‎: ‘answer’ and ‘correspond’: ‘God will give an answer corresponding to the welfare,’ etc.――=19.= ‎ דלות‎] ‘flaccid’; LXX omitted.――=21.= קרבֶנָה‎] On the suffix compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 f.――מראיהן‎] Singular (ib. § 93 ss).――=23.= צנמות‎] Aramaic = ‘dried,’ ‘hardened.’ The word is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον in Old Testament, and is omitted by LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå.――אחריהם‎] MSS and _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ הֶן‎――. The irregular gender of Massoretic Text only here in this chapter.

* * * * *

=25‒32. The interpretation.=――=25‒27a.= The general outline of the interpretation: the dream is one; it is a presage of what is to happen; the number seven refers to years. The methodical exposition is meant to be impressive.――=27b= brings the climax: There shall be seven years of famine (so Procksch v.i.).――=28.= It is uncertain whether הוּא‎ refers back to ²⁵ᵇ (‘This is what [I meant when] I said to Pharaoh’), or to ²⁷ᵇ (‘This is the announcement I [now] make to Pharaoh’). In any case =29= looks like a new commencement, and may introduce a variant from Yahwist (v.i.).――=31.= ולא יִוָּדַע‎ goes back to the ולא נוֹדַע‎ of ²¹.――=32.= If the dream is one, why was it twice repeated? Because, says Joseph, the crisis is certain and urgent. So he rounds off his finished and masterly explanation of the dreams.

* * * * *

‎ =26.= פרת‎] Omission of article may be justified on the ground that the numeral is equivalent to a determinant (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 x); but _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ הפרות‎ is much to be preferred.――=27.= הרֵקוֹת‎] ‘empty.’ The pointing is suggested partly by the contrast to ‎ מלאֹת‎ (²² etc.), partly by the fact that (in Massoretic Text) רַק‎ has not been used of the ears. We ought undoubtedly to read הַדַּקּוֹת‎ (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Peshiṭtå).――יהיו וגו׳‎] The translation above is not free from difficulty; it omits a prediction of unusual plenty preceding the famine, which is, nevertheless, presupposed by what follows. But the ordinary rendering is also weak: why should the seven thin ears alone be fully interpreted? Besides, שִׁבֳּלִים‎ is feminine.――=28‒32.= The critical difficulties of the chapter commence in this section. Procksch assigns ²⁹⁻³¹ to Yahwist (∥ ²⁷ ᶠᐧ _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_), instancing כִּלִּה‎ (compare 18³³ 24¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁹ 27³⁰ 43² 44¹²), and כָּבֵד‎ (12¹⁰ 43¹ 47⁴ᐧ ¹³) as characteristic of Yahwist; but they are not decisive. Gunkel limits Yahwist to ²⁹ᐧ ³⁰ᵃᐧ ³²ᵇ{β} (∥ ²⁷ ᶠᐧ ³⁰ᵇᐧ ³¹ᐧ ³²ᵃᵇ{α} Elohist). This is on the whole more satisfying, since ונשכח‎ and ולא יִוָדַע‎ appear to be doublets (Dillmann); but a positive conclusion will hardly be reached.

* * * * *

=33‒36. Joseph’s advice to Pharaoh.=――Here Joseph proves himself to be no mere expert in reading dreams, but a man with a large reserve of practical wisdom and statesmanship.――=33‒35.= There is an apparent discrepancy between the appointment of a single official (³³ᵃ) and that of a commission of ‘overseers’ (³⁴ᵃ); and again between the fifth part (³⁴ᵇ) and the whole (³⁵ᵃ); we note also the transition from singular (וחמש‎) to plural (ויקבצו‎, etc.). For attempts at division of sources, see below.――=34.= The taxing of a fifth part of the crop seems to have been a permanent Egyptian institution (see on 47²⁴), whose origin the Hebrews traced to the administration of Joseph.――=35.= under the hand (i.e. the authority) of Pharaoh] compare Exodus 18¹⁰, 2 Kings 13⁵, Isaiah 3⁶.

* * * * *

=33‒36.= The passage is certainly composite, and can be resolved into two nearly complete sequences as follows: Elohist = ³³ᐧ ³⁴ᵇᐧ ³⁵ᵇ{α} (to פרעה‎) ³⁶ᵃ{βγ}; Yahwist = ³⁴ᵃᐧ ³⁵ᵃᵇ{β} (from ‎ אֹכֶל‎)ᐧ ³⁶ᵃ{α} ᵇ. Characteristic of Elohist are איש בר‎, ארץ מצרים‎, צבר‎, against Yahwist’s פקידים‎ (with פִּקָּדוֹן‎), הארץ‎, קבץ אכל‎; and the only necessary change is יצברו‎ to יצבר‎. The result corresponds pretty closely with Gunkel’s analysis; that of Procksch differs widely.――=33.= יֵרֶ֫א‎] see Baer-Delitzsch page 78; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 p. Strack, however, holds the true reading to be ‎ יֵ֫רֶא‎.――=34.= יעשה‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ‎ ויעש‎. To the peculiar idiom, Delitzsch compares the Latin fac scribas; יעשה‎ may, however, mean ‘take action,’ as 1 Kings ‎ 8³².――וחמש‎] LXX plural.――=35.= אכל בערים ושמרו‎] Ball prefixes וְיִתְּנוּ‎ (as verse ⁴⁸); some such expedient is necessary to make sense of the last word.――For ושמרו‎, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Peshiṭtå have ישמרו‎; LXX συναχθήτω (יצברו‎?).――=36.= ‎ פִּקָּדוֹן‎] Leviticus 5²¹ᐧ ²³†; obviously suggested here by פקדים‎ in verse ³⁴.

* * * * *

=37‒46. Joseph’s elevation.=――=37, 39= (Elohist) ∥ =38= (Yahwist).――The thing that was pleasing to Pharaoh, etc., is not the interpretation of the dreams, but the practical suggestion with which it was followed up, though it was the former which proved that Joseph was truly inspired. The statement that the policy commended itself comes from Elohist; in Yahwist, Pharaoh improves upon it by entrusting the supervision to Joseph himself instead of to the ‘overseers’ he had proposed.――=38.= the spirit of God] here first mentioned in Genesis as the source of inward illumination and intellectual power. The idea that eminent mental gifts proceed from the indwelling of the divine spirit, which is implied in Pharaoh’s exclamation, was probably ancient in Israel, although the proofs of it are comparatively late (compare Exodus 31³, Numbers 27¹⁸; see Stade, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments § 43. 1).――=40.= over my house] The dignity may be compared to that of “Mayor of the palace” under the Merovingian kings; compare 1 Kings 4⁶ 16⁹, Isaiah 22¹⁵ etc.――=41.= over all the land of Egypt] The most coveted civic office in Egypt was that of the T’ate, the chief of the whole administration, “the second after the king in the court of the palace” (see Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 87 ff., 69). The elevation of Syrian slaves to such dignities is likewise attested for the age of the New Empire (ib. 106, 517 f.).――=42.= The form of investiture is specifically Egyptian.――his signet-ring] used in sealing documents (Esther 3¹² 8⁸), and given as a token of authority (Esther 3¹⁰ 8², 1 Maccabees 6¹⁵ etc.).――fine linen] the weaving of which was carried to extreme perfection in Egypt; Erman, 448 ff.――the golden collar] There is probably an allusion to ‘the reward of the gold,’ a decoration (including necklets of gold) often conferred in recognition of eminent service to the crown (Erman, 118 ff.: see the engraving, 208¹).――=43.= the second-best chariot] Horses and carriages first appear on monuments of the 18th dynasty, and must have been introduced “during the dark period between the Middle and the New Empire” (Erman, 490).――they cried before him ’Abrēk] A very obscure word; for conjectures, v.i.――=44.= An almost exact parallel (Yahwist) to ⁴¹ (Elohist).――=45a.= Joseph’s marriage.――The conferring of a new name naturally accompanied promotions like that of Joseph (Erman, 144).――the high priest of ’Ôn] was an important personage in the religion and politics of the New Empire (see Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 76, 83, 89, and passim), and the priestly college there was reputed the greatest in the country for learning (Herodotus, ii. 3; Strabo, XVII. i. 29). ’Ôn (Egyptian Anu) is Heliopolis, 7 miles North-east of Cairo, an ancient seat of the worship of the sun-god Ra.――On the other names in the verse, v.i.――=45b= and =46b= are doublets.――=46a= (Priestly-Code). The chronology is altogether inconsistent with the assumptions of Jehovist regarding the relative ages of Joseph and Benjamin (see Bennett 360).――stood before Pharaoh] compare 47⁷ (Priestly-Code).

¹ Compare Heyes, _Bibel und Ägypten: Abraham und seine Nachkommen in Ägypten_ 248 ff.

* * * * *

=37‒46.= Analysis.――To Elohist we may pretty confidently assign ³⁷ᐧ ³⁹ (נבון וחכם‎ as ³³) ⁴⁰; to Yahwist ³⁸ᐧ ⁴⁴ᐧ ⁴⁵. Whether Yahwist’s parallel to ⁴⁰ commences with ⁴¹ (Procksch), or is delayed to ⁴⁴ (Gunkel), it is hard to decide. ⁴¹ᵇ reads like a formula of investiture accompanying the action of ⁴²ᵃ, of which ⁴³ᵇ would be the explication. ⁴⁶ᵇ{β} would be a natural sequel to ⁴³ᵃ (ויעבר‎). Hence, if a division must be attempted, that of Procksch may be followed, viz., Elohist = ⁴⁰ᐧ ⁴²ᵇᐧ ⁴³ᵃᐧ ⁴⁶ᵇ{β}; Yahwist = ⁴¹ᐧ ⁴²ᵃᐧ ⁴³ᵇᐧ ⁴⁴ᐧ ⁴⁵.――=38.= הנמצא‎] 1st plural imperfect Qal.――=40.= ועל־פיך ישק‎] LXX ἐπὶ τῷ στόματί σου ὑπακούσεται. The meaning ‘kiss’ being obviously unsuitable, Tuch, Delitzsch, Dillmann render ‘arrange themselves’ (from Arabic nasaḳa); others point יָשֹׁק‎, ‘run’; but no explanation is quite satisfactory. ‎ על־פיך‎ may, of course, mean ‘at thy command’ (45²¹, Exodus 17¹ etc.).――רק הכסא‎] ‘only as regards the throne’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 118 h.――=41.= אתך‎] LXX + σήμερον.――=42.= שֵׁשׁ‎] Apparently an Egyptian word (Coptic šens), replaced in post-Exilic Hebrew by בּוּץ‎. It is disputed whether it means cotton alone, or linen alone, or both; see Dillmann’s exhaustive note on Exodus 25⁴, and Encyclopædia Biblica, 2800 f.――הזהב‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch זהב‎.――=43.= בְּמִרכבת‎] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 85 h.――ויקראו‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå ויקרא‎.――אַבְרֵךְ‎] The word remains an enigma. The resemblance to Hebrew ברך‎ has misled no ancient Version except Aquila (γονατίζειν) and Vulgate (ut genuflecterent). Peshiṭtå renders (‡ Syriac phrase); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ דין אבא למלכא‎; Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ דין אבא למלכא רב בחכמתא ורכיך בשנייא‎; LXX has κῆρυξ as subject of verb (Vulgate also has clamante præcone). The speculations of Egyptologists are too numerous to mention: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v., or Heyes, 254 ff. The best is that of Spiegelberg (Orientalische Litteraturzeitung vi. 317 ff.), who considers that it is a call to ‘Attention!’ (Egyptian ’b r-k; literally, ‘Thy heart to thee!’). Friedrich Delitzsch (Wo lag das Paradies? 225) suggested a connexion with Assyrian abarakku (the title of a high official), which his father declared to be a “neckischer Zufall”! Radical emendations of the text have been proposed by Ball ([ל]אמר כ׳ נין‎) and Cheyne (אַבִּר כינאתן‎ = ‘Mighty one of Chuenaten’ [Amenophis IV.]: Orientalische Litteraturzeitung iii. 151 f.); these are wholly unsatisfying, and the latter has not survived the criticisms of Müller (ib. 325 f.): see Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, ‎ 467.――ונתון‎] ‘thus placing.’ As continuation of ויתן‎ in ⁴²ᵃ, the infinitive absolute is grammatically correct (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 z); and though the idiom is infrequent, there is no reason to suspect the text. ――=45.= צָֽפְנַת פַּעְנֵחַ‎] LXX Ψονθομφανήχ (transposing צ‎ and פ‎? [see Nestle, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxv. 209 ff.]). The old interpretations follow two lines: (1) ‘Revealer of secrets’ (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews ii. 91; Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Patr.), connecting with Hebrew צפן‎; and (2) ‘Saviour of the world’ (Coptic p-sot-om-ph-eneḫ, Delitzsch, Holzinger); so Vulgate, Jerome Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim. Of modern Egyptological theories the one most in favour seems to be that propounded by Steindorff in Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde xxvii. 41 f.: that it represents Egyptian De- pnute-ef‛-onḫ, and means ‘The god speaks and he lives.’ It is said (ib. 42) that personal names of this type (though with the proper name of a deity) are common from the beginning of the 22nd dynasty. See the discussion in Heyes, op. cit. 258 ff., who prefers the interpretation of Lieblein (Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, 1898, 202 ff.): defenti [or defenta]-pa-anḫ = “celui qui donne la nourriture de la vie.”――אָֽסְנַת‎] Explained, with some hesitation, as ‘belonging to (the goddess) Neith’ (Steindorff, Spiegelberg, al.).――פוטי פרע‎] (LXX Πετεφρῆ, etc.) is a fuller form of פוטיפר‎; see on 39¹.――It is worthy of remark that, except in the case of Asenath, the suggested Egyptian analogues of these names do not occur, save sporadically, earlier than the 22nd dynasty (that of Shishak).――=45b.= LXX omits.――=46.= פרעה מלך מצרים‎ is an amplification in the style of Priestly-Code (Exodus 6¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ²⁹ 14⁸).

* * * * *

=47‒57. Joseph’s measures for relief of the famine.=――=47, 49= (Elohist) ∥ =48= (Yahwist). He stores corn during the seven years of plenty.――=50‒52= (Elohist?). Joseph’s two sons.――Mĕnaššeh] interpreted quite grammatically as ‘causing to forget.’ The etymology is not to be taken too literally, as if the narrator meant that Joseph had actually forgotten his father’s house (compare Psalms 45¹¹).――=52.= made me fruitful] The name of the tribe is generally thought to contain the idea of fruitfulness, from the fertility of the region in central Palestine which it occupied.――=54‒57.= The beginning of the famine.――=54, 55= contain a slight discrepancy. According to ⁵⁴ᵇ the Egyptians had no lack of bread, and consequently no need to apply to Joseph, though they were indebted to his forethought. In ⁵⁵ they are famishing, and have to buy their food from Joseph: this view is connected with 47¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=56.= opened all that was in them] Read with LXX ‘all the granaries,’ though the Hebrew text cannot be certainly restored (v.i.)――=57.= prepares for the next scene of the drama (chapter 42).

State granaries, for the sustenance of the army, the officials and the serfs, were a standing feature of Egyptian administration (Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 107 f.; compare 433 f.), and were naturally drawn upon for the relief of the populace in times of scarcity (ib. 126). The ‘superintendent of the granaries’ was a high officer of state, distinct, as a rule, from the vizier or T’ate (page 469); but a union of the two dignities was just as easy under exceptional circumstances as the combination of the Premiership with the Chancellorship of the Exchequer would be with us (see Erman, 89). We can readily understand that such a wise and comprehensive provision impressed the imagination of the Israelites, and was attributed by them to a divine inspiration of which one of their ancestors was the medium (compare Gunkel 384).――Besides these general illustrations of the writer’s acquaintance with Egyptian conditions, two special parallels to this aspect of Joseph’s career are cited from the monuments: (1) Ameny, a monarch under Usertsen I. (12th dynasty), records on his grave at Beni-Hasan that when years of famine came he ploughed all the fields of his district, nourished the subjects of his sovereign and gave them food, so that there was none hungry among them. (2) Similarly, on a grave of the 17th dynasty at El-Kab: “When a famine arose, lasting many years, I distributed corn to the city in each year of the famine” (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 390; Driver 346 f.). For the sale of grain to foreigners, we have the case of Yanḫamu, governor of Yarimutu, in the Amarna letters (see below on 47¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ).――It is impossible to desire a fuller demonstration of the Egyptian background of the Joseph-stories than chapter 41 affords. The attempt to minimise the coincidences, and show that “in a more original and shorter form the story of Joseph had a North Arabian and not a Palestinian and Egyptian background, and consequently that ‘Pharaoh, king of Egypt,’ should be ‘Pir’u, king of Miṣrim’” (Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, 454‒473), tends to discredit rather than confirm the seductive Muṣri-theory, which is pushed to such an extravagant length.

* * * * *

=47‒57.= Analysis.――Starting from the presumption that the storing of food in the cities and the direct appeal of the famishing people to Pharaoh are not from the same source, the best division seems the following: Elohist = ⁴⁷ᐧ ⁴⁹ᐧ ⁵⁴ᵃᐧ ⁵⁵ᐧ ⁵⁶ᵇ; Yahwist = ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵⁶ᵃᐧ ⁵⁷ (compare Gunkel and Procksch). ⁵⁰⁻⁵² are universally assigned to Elohist (on account of אלהים‎) in spite of the fact that the children are named by the father. Priestly-Code’s authorship is perhaps excluded by the explicit etymologies, to which there are no real analogies in that document. The verses in any case interrupt the context of Jehovist, and may be a supplementary notice inserted by a late hand at what seemed the most suitable place.――=47.= לקמצים‎] The √ is elsewhere peculiar to Priestly-Code (Leviticus 2² 5¹² 6⁸, Numbers 5²⁶†); and Ball assigns ⁴⁶⁻⁴⁸ to that source. But the sense ‘by handfuls’ is doubtful, and is represented by none of the old versions except the clumsy paraphrases of Vulgate and Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ; so that the text is probably at fault. LXX has δράγματα; Peshiṭtå and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ (‡ Syriac word) and לאוצרין‎ [with (‡ Syriac word) and וכנשר‎ for זתעש‎]――=48.= שנים אשר היו‎] Read with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX השנים אשר היה ‎ הַשָּׂבָע‎.――=50.= שְׁנַת‎] LXX τὰ ἑπτὰ ἔτη.――=51.= נַשּׁני‎] Piel only here; both the form and the irregular vocalisation (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 52 m) are chosen for the sake of assonance with מְנַשֵּׂה‎.――=54.= ‎ היה‎] LXX οὐκ ἦσαν; so Peshiṭtå――a natural misunderstanding.――=56.= ‎ אשר בהם‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch אשר בהם בר‎. The context imperatively demands a noun [LXX σιτοβολῶνας, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word)]. Lagarde (Symmicta i. 57) suggested a Hebrew equivalent of Talmud. אישבורא‎; Wellhausen some derivative of שבר‎; Delitzsch, Ball, and Kittel (combining The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch and Peshiṭtå) אוצרות הַבָּר‎.――וישבר‎] Pointed וַיַּשְׁבֵּר‎ (Hiphil); compare 42⁶.――ויחזק וגו׳‎] LXX omits.――=57.= הארץ‎¹] Better ‎ הארצות‎ as LXX (compare ⁵⁴).

* * * * *

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XLII. Joseph’s Brethren come to Egypt to buy Food (Elohist, Yahwist)

One thing is still wanting to the dramatic completeness of the story of Joseph: the recognition of his greatness by his family, or (in Elohist) the fulfilment of his youthful dreams. This is the theme of the second part of the history (chapters 42‒45), where the writers tax their inventiveness to the utmost in retarding the dénouement of the plot. Two visits to Egypt, and not fewer than four interviews with Joseph, are needed to prepare for the final reconciliation; and the hearers’ attention is all the while kept on the stretch by the surprising expedients adopted by Joseph to protract the suspense and excite the compunction of his brethren.――In chapter 42 we are told how the ten brothers are brought to Egypt by stress of famine (¹⁻⁴), are recognised by Joseph, and denounced and imprisoned as spies (⁵⁻¹⁷); and how after three days’ confinement they are sent home, leaving Simeon behind them as a hostage (¹⁸⁻²⁸). Arrived in Canaan, they relate their adventure to Jacob, who bitterly complains of the loss of two children, and refuses to trust Benjamin to their charge (²⁹⁻³⁸). The incident of the money found in the sacks (²⁵ᐧ ²⁷ ᶠᐧ ³⁵) increases the dread with which they contemplate a return to Egypt.

Analysis.――Chapter 42 belongs a potiori to Elohist, and 43. 44 to Yahwist (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 58 ff.). A distinct difference of representation appears from a comparison of 42²⁹⁻³⁷ (which, pace Procksch, is an undiluted excerpt from Elohist) with 43³⁻⁷ 44¹⁹⁻²³ (Yahwist). “In chapter 42, Joseph secures, by the detention of Simeon, that the brethren shall return under any circumstances, with Benjamin or without; in chapter 43 f., on the contrary, he forbids them to return unless Benjamin is with them” (Wellhausen). In Yahwist, moreover, the brethren do not volunteer the information that they have a younger brother, but it is drawn out of them by searching questions. It is certain (from doublets and phraseology) that both Yahwist and Elohist are represented in 42¹⁻¹⁴; though the former is so fragmentary that it is difficult to reconstruct a narrative consistent with 43³ ᶠᶠᐧ 44¹⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ. Apparently, the colloquy reproduced in 43⁷ 44²⁰⁻²³ 43³ must have followed the acknowledgment that they were all one man’s sons (¹¹ᵃ ∥ ¹³ᵃ Elohist),――a view which seems to fit in with all the literary indications. Elohist’s account can easily be traced with the help of ²⁹⁻³⁷: it includes the charge of espionage (⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ³⁰), the imprisonment (¹⁷ᐧ ³⁰), the detention of Simeon (¹⁹ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ³³ ᶠᐧ), the command to bring down Benjamin (¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ³⁴), and the putting of the money in the sacks (²⁵ᐧ ³⁵).――In ¹⁻¹⁴, the more obvious doublets are ¹ᵃ ∥ ²ᵃ, ⁵ᵃ ∥ ⁶ᵇ, ⁷ᵃ ∥ ⁸, ¹¹ᵃ ∥ ¹³ᵃ; characteristic phrases of Yahwist: ‎ ירד‎, ²ᐧ ³; ונחיה ולא נמות‎, ² (43⁸ 47¹⁹); קרא אסון‎, ⁵ (42³⁸ 44²⁹); ישראל‎, ‎ ⁵; אֹכֶל‎, ⁷ᐧ ¹⁰. Possibly also לראות את־ערות הארץ‎, ⁹ᵇᐧ ¹²ᵇ, is Yahwist’s variant for Elohist’s מרגלים‎, ⁹ᵇᐧ ¹¹ᵇ etc. (compare ³⁰ᐧ ³¹ᐧ ³⁴) (Gunkel). Hence we may assign to Yahwist ²ᐧ ³ᵃᐧ ⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵{?}ᐧ ⁷ (except ‎ וידבר אתם קשות‎, which should probably follow ⁹ᵃ in Elohist [Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, Gunkel]), ⁹ᵇ{β}ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹ᵃᐧ ¹²; and to Elohist all the rest (so Gunkel nearly: Procksch, however, very plausibly assigns ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᵃ to Priestly-Code).――After ¹² there is no trace of Yahwist till we come to ²⁷ᐧ ²⁸ᵃᵇ{αβ}, an obvious duplicate of ³⁵, containing Yahwist’s peculiar word אמתחת‎.――²⁹⁻³⁷ are from Elohist: note the name Jacob, ²⁹ᐧ ³⁶; Reuben’s leadership, ³⁷; and the words הביאו‎, ³⁴; תסחרו‎ ³⁴ (37²⁸ [? 34²⁰ ᶠᐧ]); כֻּלָּנָה‎, ³⁶. We also obtain some new expressions which may be employed as criteria of Elohist: קשות‎, ³⁰ (compare ⁷); כנים‎, ³¹ᐧ ³³ᐧ ³⁴ (compare ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁹); רעבון בתיכם‎, ³³ (compare ¹⁹); שׂק‎, ³⁵ (compare ²⁵).――³⁸ belongs to Yahwist, but its proper place is after 43² (see on the verse).――A peculiar feature of this and the following chapters is the name ארץ כנען‎, which is elsewhere in Genesis characteristic of Priestly-Code (see page 245). From this and some similar phenomena, Giesebrecht and others have inferred a Priestly redaction of the Joseph pericope; but the usage may be due to the constant and unavoidable antithesis between Canaan and Egypt (see page 438 above).

=1‒4. The journey to Egypt.=――=1, 2.= Another effective change of scene (compare 39¹ 41¹), introducing the deliberations in Jacob’s family regarding a supply of food; where the energy and resourcefulness of the father is set in striking contrast to the perplexity of the sons.――=4.= Benjamin has taken Joseph’s place in his father’s affection (44²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ); Jacob’s unwillingness to let him out of his sight is a leading motive both in Yahwist and Elohist.

* * * * *

‎ =1.= שֶׁבֶר‎] of uncertain etymology, is always used of grain as an article of commerce (Amos 8⁵, Nehemiah 10³²).――יעקב‎] LXX omits.――תתראו‎] LXX ῥᾳθυμεῖτε (? = תְּאַחֲרוּ‎, Kittel). Though the Hithpael occurs elsewhere only in the sense of ‘face one another in battle’ (2 Kings 14⁸ᐧ ¹¹ = 2 Chronicles 25¹⁷ᐧ ²¹), a change of text is uncalled for.――=2.= ויאמר‎] LXX omits.――משם‎] LXX מעט אכל‎ (as 43²); read perhaps משם אכל‎.――=3.= עשרה‎] ‘ten in number,’ accusative of condition.――=4.= יעקב‎] LXX omits.

* * * * *

=5‒17. The arrival in Egypt, and first interview with Joseph.=――On =5, 6a=, v.i.――=6b.= As suspicious strangers the brothers are brought before the viceroy.――bowed themselves, etc.] Reminding Joseph of his dreams (verse ⁹). The original connexion in Elohist is broken by the insertion of verse ⁷ from Yahwist.――=7= (Yahwist) ∥ =8= (Elohist). That Joseph was not recognised by his brethren is natural, and creates a situation of whose dramatic possibilities the narrators take full advantage. The strange mixture of harshness and magnanimity in Joseph’s treatment of his brothers, the skill with which he plays alternately on their fears and their hopes, the struggle in his mind between assumed severity and real affection, form the chief interest of the narratives up to the time of the final disclosure. It is unnecessary to suppose that the writers traced in all this the unfolding of a consistent ethical purpose on Joseph’s part, and it is certainly an exaggeration to speak of it as an exhibition of ‘seelsorgerische geistliche Weisheit’ (Delitzsch). On the other hand, to say that his object was merely to punish them (Gunkel), is clearly inadequate. To the writers, as to the brethren, the official Joseph is an inscrutable person, whose motives defy analysis; and it is probably a mistake to try to read a moral meaning into all the devices by which his penetrating knowledge of the human heart is exemplified.――=9.= Ye are spies] A charge that travellers in the East often encounter (see page 484 below). The eastern frontier of Egypt was fortified and closely watched (Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 537 ff.), and a band of ten men seeking to cross it excited suspicion.――the nakedness of the land] Not its poverty, but its open and defenceless spots.――=11= (Yahwist) ∥ =13= (Elohist). sons of one man, etc.] Their eagerness to clear their character betrays them into a disclosure of their family circumstances, which in Yahwist is followed up by direct interrogation and a warning that they need not return without their youngest brother (page 473 above); while in Elohist, Joseph seizes on the reference to Benjamin as a test of their veracity, and threatens that they shall not leave Egypt until he is produced (¹⁵ ᶠᐧ).――one is not] It is a fine instance of literary tact that Joseph never presses the question as to the fate of the missing brother.――=14.= This is what I said] ‘It is as I have said’ (compare 41²⁸). Joseph maintains his opinion with well-feigned official obstinacy (Dillmann).――=15, 16.= By this shall ye be tested] The pretext covers a real desire to see Benjamin, which is explicitly avowed in Yahwist (44²¹ᵇ 43³⁰).――By the life of Pharaoh] In Egypt the king was honoured as a god (Diodorus i. 90; Erman, A Handbook of Egyptian Religion 36 f.); and the oath by his life is attested by an inscription of the 20th dynasty. The Old Testament analogies cited by Knobel (1 Samuel 17⁵⁵, 2 Samuel 11¹¹) are not in point, since they do not differ from the same formula addressed to private persons (1 Samuel 20³ 25²⁶).――=17.= The three days’ imprisonment is rather meaningless after verse ¹⁶ (see page 477). Gunkel remarks on the prominence of imprisonment in the Joseph narratives, and surmises that a good many Hebrews had known the inside of an Egyptian jail.

* * * * *

=5a= reads like a new beginning, and =5b= is superfluous after ¹⁻⁴. Procksch is probably right in the opinion that ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᵃ are the introduction to Priestly-Code’s lost narrative of the visit, a view which is confirmed by the unnecessary explanation of ⁶ᵃ, and by the late word.――=6.= שליט‎] only Ecclesiastes 7¹⁹ 8⁸ 10⁵ [Ezekiel 16³⁰] and Aramaic portions of Ezra and Daniel (Kuenen Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds i. page 318). The resemblance to Σάλατις, the name of the first Hyksos king in Josephus, Against Apion i. 77, can hardly be other than accidental.――הוא‎²] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ והוא‎.――=9.= עֶרְוָה‎] literally pudenda, is only here used of defencelessness. Arabic ‛aurat is similarly used of a ‘breach in the frontier of a hostile country’ (Lane, 2194 c); compare Ḳoran Surah 33¹³ “our houses are ‛aurat,”――a nakedness, i.e. unoccupied and undefended. LXX has τὰ ἴχνη (reading perhaps עקבֹת‎ [Ball]); Symmachus τὰ κρυπτά.――=10.= ועבדיך‎] compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 163 a: The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå omit ‎ ו‎.――=11.= נחנו‎] So Exodus 16⁷ᐧ ⁸, Numbers 32³², Lamentations 3⁴²† (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 32 d); The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch אנחנו‎.――כנים‎] literally ‘right men,’ is used of persons only in this chapter.――=13.= בני איש אחד‎] LXX omits, perhaps rightly; compare the ∥ verse ¹¹.――=16.= האסרו‎] Improved expressing a determination, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 110 c.――הי פרעה‎] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 93 _aa_¹. The distinction between הַי‎ and חֵי‎ is a Massoretic caprice (Dillmann).――At the end of the verse The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch inserts a refusal of the condition in the exact terms of 4444²²ᵃ{β} (Yahwist), which undoubtedly smooths the transition to verse ¹⁷, but cannot be original.

* * * * *

=18‒26. The second interview.=――After three days Joseph appears to relent, and to entertain the idea that they may after all be telling the truth. He now proposes to retain only one of them as a hostage, and let the rest carry corn for their starving households.――=18.= I fear God] the guardian of ‘international religious morality’ (Gunkel), which is presupposed throughout the patriarchal history; see on 20³ 39⁹.――=21.= Nay, but we are guilty] The confession is wrung from them by the distress (צָרָה‎) which has overtaken them, reminding them of Joseph’s distress of soul (צָרַת נפשו‎) when they left him to die,――when he pleaded with us] This touch of pathos is not recorded in chapter 37.――=22.= Reuben had a right to dissociate himself from the confession of guilt, for he had meant to save Joseph; but like many another man he claims credit for his good intention rather than for the temporising advice he had actually given (37²²).――his very blood is required] in spite of the fact that the speaker had kept them from actual bloodshed.――=23.= an interpreter] This is the only place in the patriarchal history where diversity of language appears as a bar to intercourse.――=24.= Joseph is moved to tears by this first proof of penitence.――Simeon is chosen as hostage as the oldest next to Reuben, of whose attempt to save him Joseph has just learned for the first time. The effect on the brothers would be the same as in 43³³.――=25.= The rest are treated with great generosity; though whether the restoration of the money is pure kindness or a trap, we can hardly say.――provision for the way] Hence in Elohist the sacks are not opened till the journey’s end (³⁵).

Verses ¹⁵⁻²⁴ show a disconnectedness which is unusual in the lucid and orderly Joseph story, and which cannot be explained by discrepancies between Yahwist and Elohist. The first proposal――to send one man to fetch Benjamin――leads to no consequences, but is followed, most unnaturally, by the imprisonment of all the ten. This in like manner serves no purpose but to give Joseph time to change his mind. And the colloquy of the brothers (²¹ ᶠᐧ) could hardly find a less appropriate place than the moment when hope breaks in on their forebodings. The proper setting for the imprisonment would seem to be their first encounter with Joseph (as verse ³⁰ LXX); and the confession of guilt would stand in a suitable connexion there. It is possible that ¹⁵ ᶠᐧ are a variant to ¹⁹ ᶠᐧ, belonging to a somewhat different recension. If Gunkel (page 387) be right in thinking that the earliest form of the legend knew of only one visit to Egypt, it is easy to conceive that in the process of amplification several situations were successively invented, and that two of these have been preserved side by side by an editor, in spite of their imperfect consistency.

* * * * *

‎ =18.= זאת עשו וחיו‎] See Gesenius-Kautzsch § 110 f.――=19.= אחד‎] without article (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ‎ האחד‎) ib. § 134 d; compare 43¹⁴; contrast 42³³.――=20.= ‎ ויעשו־כן‎] The words are out of place (compare ²⁵ᵇ). Did they stand originally after verse ¹⁶?――=21.= אבל‎] ‘Nay, but――,’ indicating an affirmation of what one would gladly deny (see on 17¹⁹).――צרת‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch בצרת‎.――אלינו‎²] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ עלינו כל‎.――=25.= ולהשיב‎] Continuation of verb finite by infinitive (as here) is very unusual (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 120 f).――ויעש‎] ויעשו‎? compare Peshiṭtå, Vulgate.

* * * * *

=26‒38. The return to Canaan.=――=27, 28.= Yahwist’s parallel to ³⁵ (Elohist).――To leave room for the latter, the account is cut short with the opening of the first sack. In Yahwist, each man found his money at the ‘inn’ (43²¹).――=28.= their heart went out] ‘their courage sank.’ Partly from the anticipated accusation of theft (43¹⁸), but still more from the superstitious notion that God was bringing trouble upon them.――אַמְתַּחַת‎] Yahwist’s peculiar word for ‘corn-sack’ (v.i.)――The last clause, however, What has God (אלהים‎) done to us?] is apparently taken from Elohist, probably transposed from the end of ³⁵ (Kautzsch-Socin).――=29‒34.= They recount their experiences to Jacob.――=30.= treated us as spies] Better, as LXX (v.i.), ‘put us in ward as spies.’――=35.= See on ²⁷ ᶠᐧ. The incident explains Jacob’s foreboding (verse ³⁶) that Simeon and Benjamin are as good as lost.――=36.= Me have ye bereaved ... upon me all this has come] The point of the complaint is that it is his children, not their own, that they are throwing away one after another: to which Reuben’s offer to sacrifice his two sons is the apt rejoinder.――=37= is Elohist’s variant to 43⁹: here Reuben, there Judah, becomes surety for Benjamin. In Elohist an immediate return to Egypt is contemplated, that Simeon may be released; hence the discussion about sending Benjamin takes place at once. In Yahwist the thought of returning is put off to the last possible moment (43⁸), and the difficulty about Benjamin does not yet arise.――=38= therefore has been removed from its original context: see on 43¹ᐧ ².――bring down ... to She’ōl] See on 37³⁵.

* * * * *

‎ =27.= שקו‎] Read אמתחתו‎ with LXX.――מספוא‎] characteristic of Yahwist (24²⁵ᐧ ³² 43²⁴), also Judges 19¹⁹†.――מלון‎] (√ לון‎) strictly ‘resting-place for the night’ (Exodus 4²⁴) or ‘night encampment’ (Joshua 4³),――perhaps a rude shelter of bushes or canvas (compare מלונה‎, ‘hut,’ Isaiah 1⁸ 24²⁰) rather than a khan or caravanserai.――כספו‎] Elohist says צרור כספו‎ (³⁵ ᵇⁱˢ); so LXX here, wrongly.――אַמְתַּחַת‎] A word recurring 13 times in chapters 43 f. (Yahwist), and nowhere else in Old Testament: LXX is invariably μάρσιππος. The √ מתח‎ = ‘spread out’ (Isaiah 40²²), found in New Hebrew Aramaic Arabic.――=28.= הנה‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX add הוא‎ unnecessarily.――חרד אל‎] pregnant construct; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 gg.――=30.= ויתן אתנו‎] LXX + ἐν φυλακῇ (= בַּֽמִּשְׁמָר‎).――=32.= אנחנו אחים‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå transposed.――=33.= רעבון‎] Read with LXX, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ שבר ר׳‎, as verse ¹⁹.――=34.= את־אחיכם‎] LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate prefix ו‎.――=35.= On the syntax, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 111 g.――=36.= כלנה‎] for כֻּלָּן‎, as Proverbs 31²⁹ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 f). On Elohist’s preference for these lengthened suffixes, see Dillmann on 41²¹.

* * * * *

CHAPTERS XLIII. XLIV. The second Visit to Egypt (Yahwist).

The supply of food being exhausted, another family council is held, at which Jacob’s reluctance to part with Benjamin is at last overcome by Judah becoming surety for his safe return: the eleven brethren set out with a present for Joseph and double money in their hand (¹⁻¹⁴). To their surprise they are received with every mark of honour as the guests of the viceroy; and their fears give place to convivial abandonment at his hospitable table (¹⁵⁻³⁴). But Joseph has devised one more trial for them: his silver cup is secretly placed in Benjamin’s sack, and on their homeward journey they are overtaken with the accusation of theft. Brought back to Joseph’s presence, they offer to surrender their freedom in expiation of some hidden guilt which God has brought home to them (44¹⁻¹⁶). But when Joseph proposes to detain Benjamin alone, Judah comes forward and, in a speech of noble and touching eloquence, pleads that he may be allowed to redeem his pledge by bearing the punishment for his youngest brother (¹⁷⁻³⁴).

The second journey “brings to light the disposition of the brethren to one another and to their father, thus marking an advance on the first, which only brought them to the point of self-accusation” (Dillmann). That is true of the narrative as it stands; but since the first journey is taken almost entirely from Elohist and the second from Yahwist, the difference indicated is probably due to the different conceptions represented by the two writers, rather than to a conscious development of the plot.

Source.――That the chapters are not the continuation of 42 (Elohist) appears (a) from the more reasonable attitude attributed to Joseph, (b) from the ignoring of Simeon’s confinement, and (c) the consequent postponement of the second journey to the last moment, and (d) the divergent account of the first meeting with Joseph (page 473). Positive points of contact with Yahwist are (a) the discovery of the money at the first halting-place (43²¹), (b) Judah as spokesman and leader (43³ ᶠᶠᐧ ⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ 44¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ), (c) the name Israel (43⁶ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹¹), and the expressions: אֹכֶל‎, 43²ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²² 44¹ᐧ ²⁵; האיש‎ (of Joseph, without qualification), 43³ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁶ ᶠᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ ᶠᐧ 44²⁶; ונחיה ולא נמות‎, 43⁸; ‎ התמהמהּ‎, 43¹⁰; ירד‎ and הוריד‎, 43¹¹ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²²; אמתחת‎, 43¹²ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 44¹ ᶠᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹¹ ᶠᐧ; מלון‎, 43²¹; מספוא‎, 43²⁴; קרה אסון‎, 44²⁹. The only clear traces of Elohist’s parallel narrative are the allusions to Simeon in 43¹⁴ᐧ ²³ᵇ. Procksch makes ¹²ᵃᐧ (∥ ¹²ᵇ{α}) ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁵ᵃ{β}ᵇᐧ ¹⁶ᵃ{α}ᐧ ²³ᵇ a continuous sequence from Elohist; but the evidence is conflicting (note האיש‎, ¹⁴; וירדו‎, ¹⁵ᵇ): see, however, on ¹².

=1‒14. The journey resolved on.=――=2.= Jacob speaks in evident ignorance of the stipulation regarding Benjamin; hence 42³⁸ (Yahwist) stands out of its proper place. The motive of the transposition is obvious, viz., to account for the seeming rejection of Reuben’s sponsorship in 42³⁷.

The original order in Yahwist can be recovered by the help of 44²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ. After verse ² there must have been an announcement, in terms similar to 44²⁶, of the necessity for taking Benjamin with them, to which Jacob replies with the resolute refusal of 43³⁸ (compare 44²⁹). Then follows (³ ᶠᶠᐧ) the more emphatic declaration of Judah, and his explanation of the circumstances out of which the inexorable demand had arisen (see Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 59 f.).

=3‒5.= Judah’s ultimatum. On the difference of representation from Elohist, see page 473 above.――=6.= The reproachful question is intelligible only on the understanding that Jacob has just heard for the first time that he must part with Benjamin.――=7.= according to the tenor, etc.] In accordance with the governor’s leading questions.――=8‒10.= Judah becomes responsible for Benjamin’s safety (as in Elohist Reuben, 42³⁷).――=9.= I shall be a sinner, etc.] For the idea, compare 1 Kings 1²¹: guilt is measured not by the moral intention, but by the external consequences, of an action.――=11‒14.= Jacob yields to the inevitable; but with characteristic shrewdness suggests measures that may somewhat ease the situation.――=11.= the produce of the land] its rarer products, as a token of homage. On זִמְרָה‎, v.i.――On צֳרִי‎, לֹט‎, נְכֹאת‎, see 37²⁵.――honey] may here mean grape-syrup, the dibs of modern Syria (see Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 81, iii. 381); but there seems no reason to depart from the usual Old Testament sense of the word, viz., the honey of the wild-bee (see Kennedy’s careful article in Encyclopædia Biblica, 2104 ff.).――pistachio-nuts (v.i.) are highly esteemed as a delicacy in Egypt and Syria, although the tree is said to be rarely found in Palestine (according to Rosen, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xii. 502, not at all).――=12.= double money ... and the money, etc.] can hardly mean double money besides that which had been returned; unless (Procksch) the first clause be a variant from Elohist, we must take וְ‎ as = ‘namely.’――=14.= ’Ēl Shaddai does not occur elsewhere in Yahwist or Elohist (see on 17¹), and may be redactional. On the composition of the verse, v.i.――as I am bereaved, etc.] An utterance of subdued resignation: compare 42³⁶, 2 Kings 7⁴, Esther 4¹⁶.

* * * * *

‎ =3.= בלתי‎] followed by nominal sentence, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 163 c.――Instead of אתכם‎, LXX has ὁ νεώτερος καταβῇ πρὸς μέ.――=5.= ‎ משלח‎] LXX + τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν μεθ’ ἡμῶν.――=10.= כי עתה‎] ‘in that case,’ as 31⁴²; see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 159 ee.――=11.= ‎ זִמְרָה‎] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. LXX καρποί, Vulgate optimis fructibus, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ דַּמְשֶׂבַּֽח בארעא‎, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). The meaning is obscure. The derivation from √ זמר‎, ‘praise’ [in song] (Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Tuch, al.) is perhaps too poetic to be natural, though it yields a good sense; that from √ זמר‎, ‘prune,’ is hardly suitable (see Dillmann). D. H. Müller (in Gesenius _Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums_¹⁰ page 983) connects with Aramaic (‡ Syriac word), ‘admire’: ‘admirable products,’――practically the same idea as Tuch. (On Arabic ḏamara, ḏimār [agreeing phonetically with Aramaic and Hebrew], v. Lane, 977 f.)――בטנים‎] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. Almost certainly nuts of Pistacia vera, belonging to the terebinth family (hence LXX τερέμ[β]ινθον, so Vulgate), for which the Syrian name is (‡ Syriac word) (Aramaic בוטנא‎, Arabic buṭm, Assyrian buṭnu); see Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v.――=12.= ‎ כסף משנה‎] compare משנה כסף‎, verse ¹⁵; and see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 131 e, q.――המושֶׂב‎] See Baer-Delitzsch page 79 (‘pathachatum uti expresse ait Masora’), Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 72 bb, 93 pp.――=14.= אחר‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX האחד‎. The phrasing is peculiar, and suggests that Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ may have added to Yahwist the words אחר ואת־בנימין‎, at the same time inserting לכם‎ (which LXX omits), to bring about the desired allusion to Simeon.――שכָֽלתי‎] Pausal: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 29 u.

* * * * *

=15‒25. In Joseph’s house.=――=15.= They first present themselves before Joseph at his official bureau, and are afterwards conducted by the steward to his private residence. The house of a wealthy Egyptian of the 18th dynasty will be found described in Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 153, 177 ff.――=16.= Joseph’s desire to ‘set his eyes on’ Benjamin being now gratified, he rewards his brothers by a display of kindness which must have seemed excessive.――slay and make ready] In Egypt, according to Herodotus ii. 37, 77, Diodorus i. 70, flesh was eaten daily by priests and kings, although the former had to abstain from certain kinds of animal food (Knobel-Dillmann).――=18.= To the simple-minded peasants all this looks like an elaborate military stratagem to overwhelm them by main force and reduce them to slavery.――=19‒22.= To forestall the suspicion of theft, they offer to return the money found in their sacks.――in its full weight] On the weighing of money, see 23¹⁶.――=23.= your money came to me] Therefore what you found has nothing to do with it. The steward has entered into Joseph’s purpose, and encourages them to believe that it was a supernatural occurrence, but of auspicious omen, and not, as they had imagined, a calamity.――The notice of Simeon’s release is here inserted as the most convenient place, from Elohist.――=24.= Compare 24³².――=25.= they had heard, etc.] In conversation with the steward (compare verse ¹⁶).

* * * * *

‎ =16.= אִתָּם‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate אֹתָם וְ‎.――בנימין‎] LXX + אחיו בן־אמו‎ (verse ²⁹).――טְבֹחַ‎] The only case of imperative in ō with final guttural (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 65 b).――=18.= וייראו‎] LXX וַיִּרְאוּ‎.――השב‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX הַמּוּשָׁב‎ (verse ¹²).――להתגלל‎] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ read להתגדל‎ (see Ball). LXX τοῦ συκοφαντῆσαι ἡμᾶς, Vulgate ut devolvat in nos calumniam. The text is not to be questioned.――=20.= בִּי‎] Always followed by אדני‎ (44¹⁸, Exodus 4¹⁰ᐧ ¹³, Numbers 12¹¹ Joshua 7⁸, Judges 6¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ 13⁸, 1 Samuel 1²⁶, 1 Kings 3¹⁷ᐧ ²⁶†). It is commonly derived from √ ‎ בעה‎, ‘ask,’ or (Brown-Driver-Briggs) Arabic bayya, ‘entreat’: might it not rather be regarded as a shortening of אָבִי‎ (2 Kings 5¹³, Job 34³⁶) from √ אבה‎, ‘be willing’?――=23.= אביכם‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX אבתיכם‎.――=24.= ‎ האיש――ויתן‎] LXX omits.――=25.= יאכלו‎] LXX more easily יאכל‎ (of Joseph).

* * * * *

=26‒34. At Joseph’s table.=――=27, 28.= Joseph’s courteous inquiries as to their welfare and that of their father are a studied prelude to――=29‒31=, his profound emotion at the sight of Benjamin,――his (full) brother, the son of his mother. The disparity in age must have been great (בְּנִי‎): one wonders whether the narrative does not presuppose that Benjamin had been born since Joseph had been lost.――=30, 31.= For the second time (42²⁴) Joseph’s affection finds relief in tears, and again he restrains himself, that he may carry out his plan.――The interlude reveals, as Gunkel remarks, a power of psychological observation which is absent from the oldest legends.――=32‒34.= The feast brings two more surprises: the arrangement of the brothers in the order of seniority (see on 42²⁴); and the special favour shown to Benjamin.――=32= affords an interesting glimpse of Egyptian manners. Joseph’s isolation at table was perhaps due to his having been admitted a member of the priestly caste (41⁴⁵), which kept itself apart from the laity (Knobel-Dillmann). The Egyptian exclusiveness in intercourse with foreigners, which would have been perfectly intelligible to the later Jews, evidently struck the ancient Israelites as peculiar (Gunkel). Compare Herodotus ii. 41.――=34.= The custom of honouring a guest by portions from the table is illustrated by 2 Samuel 11⁸; compare Homer, Iliad vii. 321 f., Odyssey iv. 65 f., xiv. 437.――five times].

It is hardly accidental that the number five occurs so often in reference to matters Egyptian (41³⁴ 45²² 47²ᐧ ²⁴, Isaiah 19¹⁸). Whether there be an allusion to the five planets recognised by the Egyptians (Knobel), or to their ten days’ week (Dillmann), it is impossible to say. Jeremias (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 385) connects it with the five intercalary days by which the Egyptian calendar adjusted the difference between the conventionalised lunar year (12 months of 30 days) and the solar year (365 days),――these belonging to Benjamin as the representative of the 12th month! The explanation is too ingenious, and overlooks the occurrence of the numeral where Benjamin is not concerned.

* * * * *

‎ =26.= ויביאׄו‎] On Daghesh or Mappiq in א‎, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 14 d.――ארצה‎] LXX prefix אפים‎.――=27.= השלום‎] noun? or adjective? See Gesenius-Kautzsch § 141 _c_⁴.――=28.= After Athnach _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX insert ויאמר ברוך האיש ההוא ‎ לאלהים‎,――a parallel to the benediction on Benjamin (²⁹): clumsy in expression and hardly original.――=29.= אמרתם‎] LXX + להביא‎,――an interesting and perhaps correct addition.――יָחנך‎] for יְחָנְךָ‎ (as Isaiah 30¹⁹); see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 n.――=30.= וימהר ויבקש‎] ‘hastily sought,’ though an intermediate clause between the complementary verbs is very unusual.――אל‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ על‎.――=32.= למצרַיִם‎] Better לַמִּצְרִים‎: so versions Ball.――LXX adds πᾶς ποιμὴν προβάτων, in mistaken accommodation to 46³⁴.――=34.= וישא‎] LXX, Peshiṭtå וישאו‎.――ידות‎] = ‘shares’ or ‘times,’ 47²⁴, 2 Kings 11⁷, 2 Samuel 19⁴⁴, Nehemiah 11¹, Daniel 1²⁰†.――וישכרו‎] hardly ‘got drunk’: שכר‎ of convivial drinking, Haggai 1⁶, Canticles 5¹.

* * * * *

=XLIV. 1‒17. The cup in Benjamin’s sack.=――=1, 2.= This final test of the brethren’s disposition is evidently arranged between Joseph and the steward on the evening of the banquet, to be carried out at daybreak (verse ³).――=1b.= each man’s money, etc.] Though this seems a useless repetition of 42⁵⁵, with no consequences in the sequel, the clause ought scarcely to be omitted (with Gunkel) before ²ᵃ.――=2.= the silver cup] Joseph’s ordinary drinking-vessel, but at the same time an implement of divination (verse ⁵): therefore his most precious possession.――=3‒5.= The trap is skilfully laid: just when they have emerged from the city, and think all danger is left behind, exulting in the fresh morning air, and still unwearied by travel, they are arrested by the steward’s challenge, and finally plunged in despair.――=4.= Why have ye ... good?] LXX adds, ‘Why have ye stolen my silver cup?’ The addition seems necessary in view of the following ‎זֶה‎.――=5.= and, moreover, he divines with (or in) it] See on verse ¹⁵.

On the widely prevalent species of divination referred to (κυλικομαντεία, λεκανομαντεία,), compare Augustine, De civitate Dei, vii. 35; Strabo, XVI. ii. 39; Iamblichus, De mysteriis iii. 14. Various methods seem to have been employed; e.g., amongst the Babylonians oil was poured into a vessel of water, and from its movements omens were deduced according to a set of fixed rules of interpretation: see Hunger, Becherwahrsagung bei den Babyloniern nach zwei Keilschriften aus der Hammurabi-zeit (Leipziger Semitistische Studien, 1903, i. 1‒80).――An interesting modern parallel is quoted by Driver (358¹), and Hunger (4), from the Travels of Norden (circa 1750), where a Nubian sheikh says: ‘I have consulted my cup, and I find that you are Franks in disguise, who have come to spy out the land.’

* * * * *

=1.= LXX inserts Ἰωσήφ as subject.――יוכלון שאת‎] Ball plausibly, ‎ יוכלו לשאת‎.――=2.= גָּבִיעַ‎] Used of the golden cups of the candlestick (Exodus 25³¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 37¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ); elsewhere only Jeremiah 35⁵, along with the ordinary word for ‘cup’ (כּוֹס‎), of the ‘bowls’ of wine set before the Rechabites.――=3, 4.= On the syntax of these verses see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 142 e, 156 f; Davidson §§ 141, 41, R. 3. The addition in LXX runs: ἵνα τί ἐκλέψατέ μου τὸ κόνδυ τὸ ἀργυροῦν;.――=5.= נַחֵשׁ‎] The derivation of this verb from נָחָשׁ‎, ‘serpent,’ first suggested by Bochartus (Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ i. 3), is supported by (amongst others) Nöldeke (Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft, i. 413) and Baudissin (Studien zur semitischen religionsgeschichte i. 287); on the other hand, see Wellhausen Skizzen und Vorarbeiten., iii. 147; and William Robertson Smith The Journal of Philology xiv. 115.

* * * * *

=6‒9.= The brethren appeal to their honesty in the matter of the money returned in their sacks, and propose the severest punishment――death to the thief, slavery for the rest――should the missing article be found with them.――=10.= The servant holds them to their pledge, but offers easier terms: the thief alone shall be Joseph’s slave.――=11‒13.= To the dismay of the brethren the cup is found in Benjamin’s sack.――=12.= beginning ... youngest] A calculated strain on the brethren’s suspense, and (on the part of the narrator) an enhancement of the reader’s interest: compare 1 Samuel 16⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=13.= Their submissiveness shows that no suspicion of a trick crossed their minds; their sense of an adverse fate was quickened by the still unsolved mystery of the money in the sacks, to which they had so proudly appealed in proof of their innocence.――=14‒17.= The brethren before Joseph.――=14.= he was still there] had not gone out to his place of business (see 43¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁷), but was waiting for them.――=15.= that a man in my position (one of the wise men of Egypt) can divine.

It is difficult to say how much is implied in this claim of superhuman knowledge on Joseph’s part. No doubt it links itself on the one hand to the feeling in the brethren’s mind that a divine power was working against them, and on the other to the proofs they had had of the governor’s marvellous insight. But whether Joseph is conceived as really practising divination, or only as wishing his brothers to think so, does not appear. Not improbably, as Gunkel surmises, the motive comes from an older story, in which the prototype of Joseph actually achieved his ends by means of occult knowledge.

* * * * *

‎ =8.= כסף‎¹] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ‎הכסף‎.――=9.= אתו‎] LXX + τὸ κόνδυ.――ומת‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ יומת‎, equally good.――=12.= החל ... כלה‎] infinitives absolute (הָחֵל ... כַּלֵּה‎) would be more idiomatic than the perfect (so Ball).

* * * * *

=16.= God has found out, etc.] The exclamation does not necessarily imply consciousness of particular guilt (see on 43⁹), and is certainly not meant as a confession of the wrong done to Joseph: at the same time we may be sure that that is the crime to which their secret thoughts gravitate (42²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ).――=17.= Judah’s proposal that all should remain as slaves is rejected by Joseph, who insists on separating Benjamin’s fate from that of the rest. Did he purpose to retain him by his side, while sustaining the rest of the family in their homes?

* * * * *

=16.= Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 60) would omit יהודה‎ and read ויאמרו‎; but the text is safeguarded by verse ¹⁴, and the change is uncalled for. Judah speaks here in the name of all, in ¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ for himself.

* * * * *

=18‒34. Judah’s plea for Benjamin.=――The speech, which is the finest specimen of dignified and persuasive eloquence in the Old Testament, is perhaps modelled on the style of forensic oratory to which the Hebrews were accustomed in public assemblies at the city gates (contrast the stilted oration of Tertullus in Acts 24). Sincerity and depth of feeling are not more remarkable than the skilful selection and disposition of the points most likely to appeal to the governor: (1) a recital of the interview in which Joseph had insisted on Benjamin being brought down (¹⁹⁻²³); (2) a pathetic description of the father’s reluctance to part with him, overcome only by the harsh necessity of hunger (²⁴⁻²⁹); (3) a suggestion of the death-stroke which their return without Benjamin would inflict on their aged parent (³⁰ᐧ ³¹); and, lastly, (4) the speaker’s personal request to be allowed to redeem his honour by taking Benjamin’s punishment on himself (³²⁻³⁴).――The Massoretes commence a new Parashah with verse ¹⁸, rightly perceiving that Judah’s speech is the turning-point in the relations between Joseph and his brethren.――=19‒23.= On the divergent representations of Yahwist and Elohist, see on page 473 above.――=20.= to his mother] See page 449.――=28.= The words of Jacob enable Judah to draw a veil over the brothers’ share in the tragedy of Joseph.――and I have not seen him till now] Compare the rugged pathos of Lowell’s

“Whose comin’ home there’s them that wan’t―― No, not life-long――leave off awaitin’.”

The simple words, with their burden of suppressed emotion, have a meaning for the governor of which the speaker is all unconscious.――=29.= in trouble to She’ōl] Compare 42³⁸ 37³⁵ 44³¹.――=30.= his soul (not ‘life’) is bound up, etc.] a figure for inalienable affection; as 1 Samuel 18¹.

* * * * *

‎ =18.= כמוך כפ׳‎] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 161 c.――=20.= לאמו‎] LXX ‎ לאביו‎.――=24.= אבי‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå אבינו‎ (so LXX, Peshiṭtå in ²⁷, and LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate in ³⁰).――=28.= ואמר‎] LXX καὶ εἴπατε.――=31.= ‎ הנער‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå + אִתָּנוּ‎ (as verse ³⁰).――=32.= אבי‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אביו‎, Peshiṭtå אבינו‎.――=34.= אתי‎] LXX ‎ אִתָּנוּ‎.

* * * * *

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us