Chapter XLV (2)

=1.= ויאמר] So 1 Samuel 16⁴ 19²². The plural ויאמרו is more usual
in such cases (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 _d_²): we might also
point as Niphal וַיֵּאָמֵר (Joshua 2²).――At end of verse add with
LXX ויבא אל־יעקב.――=2.= ויגד] Better וַיֻּגַּד.――=2b= is usually assigned to
Yahwist because of ישראל. But the clause comes very naturally
after ²ᵃ; and as there are three other cases of confusion
between the two names in this chapter (⁸ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ²¹), the name is not
decisive.――=4.= קהל עמים] 28³; compare 35¹¹.――לזרעך] LXX לך ולז׳.――אחזת
עולם] 17⁸.――=7.= פַּדָּן] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
LXX + אֲרָם, as in every other case where the name occurs (see on
25²⁰). That the difference is documentary, and points to Elohist
rather than Priestly-Code, is a hazardous assumption (Gunkel);
and to substitute חרן, for the sake of accommodation to Yahwist
(Bruston, Ball), is quite arbitrary.――רחל] LXX + ἡ μήτηρ σου (so
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_).

* * * * *

=8, 9.= Elohist’s narrative is resumed.――Observe that Jacob _sees_ the boys (who are quite young children [41⁵⁰]), whereas in ¹⁰ᵃ (Yahwist) he _could not see_.――=9b= is usually assigned to Yahwist, but for no very convincing reason.――=10b, 11= (Elohist). _I had not thought, etc._] The words are charged with deep religious feeling: gratitude to the God in whose name he is to bless the lads, and whose marvellous goodness had brought his clouded life to a happy end.――=12= (Elohist). _from between his_ (Jacob’s) _knees_] There must be a reference to some rite of adoption not described, which being completed, Joseph removes the children and _prostrates himself_ to receive the blessing (continued in ¹⁵).――=10a, 13, 14= (Yahwist). Whether this is a second interview in Yahwist, or a continuation of that in 47²⁹⁻³¹, does not appear; in either case something has been omitted.――=10a.= See on 27¹.――=13 f.= The crossing (_v.i._) of Jacob’s hands has a weird effect: the blind man is guided by a supernatural impulse, which moves unerringly in the line of destiny. The right hand conveys the richer blessing.――=15, 16.= The Blessing (Elohist).――The three-fold invocation of the Deity reminds us of the Aaronic benediction (Numbers 6²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ), which has some resemblance to a feature of Babylonian liturgies (see Jeremias, _Hölle und Paradies_, 30): “in such cases the polytheist names all the gods he worships, the ancient monotheist all the names and attributes of the God he knows” (Gunkel).――_before whom ... walked_] compare 17¹.――_who shepherded me_] Compare 49²⁴, Psalms 23¹ 28⁹, Isaiah 40¹¹. The image is appropriate in the mouth of the master-shepherd Jacob (Dillmann).――=16.= _the Angel ... evil_] The passages in Jacob’s life where an angel or angels intervene (28¹¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 31¹¹ 32² ᶠᐧ) all belong to the source Elohist; they are not, however, specially connected with deliverances from evil; and the substitution of ‘angel’ for ‘God’ is not explained.――_let my name be named in them_] ‘Let them be known as sons of Jacob,’ and reckoned among the tribes of Israel.――=17‒19.= Continuing ¹⁴ (Yahwist).――Joseph thinks his father had counted on the elder being on his left (Joseph’s right) hand, and will now correct his mistake.――=19.= But Jacob, speaking under inspiration, declares his action to be significant.――_the fulness of the nations_] A peculiar expression for populousness. Compare Deuteronomy 33¹⁷ (‘myriads of Ephraim’; ‘thousands of Manasseh’).――=20.= The clause _And he blessed them that day_] is (if not redactional) the conclusion of Yahwist’s account: the words of blessing are not given. The rest of the verse concludes the blessing of Elohist (¹⁵ ᶠᐧ).――_By thee_ (LXX _you_) _shall Israel bless_] The formula must have been in actual use, and is said to be still current amongst Jews (Strack).――_he put Ephraim before Manasseh_] If the words are original (Elohist), they call attention to the fact that in the benediction Ephraim had been named first, and find in that slight circumstance an augury of the future pre-eminence of Ephraim (Gunkel).――=21, 22.= Closing words to Joseph (Elohist).――=21.= A prediction of the return to Canaan, in terms very similar to 50²⁴ (also Elohist). The explicit anticipations of the Exodus are probably all from this document (15¹⁶ [?] 46⁴ 50²⁴).――=22.= _one shoulder_] The word שְׁכֶם may very well (like the synonymous כָּתֵף) have had in common speech the secondary sense of ‘mountain-slope,’ though no instance occurs in Old Testament. At all events there is no reasonable doubt that the reference is to the city of Shechem, standing on the ‘slope’ of Gerizim, the most important centre of Israelite power in early times (see page 416), and consecrated by the possession of Joseph’s tomb (Joshua 24³²). The peculiar value of the gift in Jacob’s eyes is that the conquest was a trophy of his warlike prowess,――a tradition which has left no trace whatever except in this verse (see below).――_With my sword and with my bow_] Contrast Joshua 24¹².

Verses ²¹ᐧ ²² stand in no organic connexion with each other,
or with what precedes. Verse ²², in particular, not only
presupposes a version of the capture of Shechem different from
any found elsewhere¹ (see page 422 above), but is out of harmony
with the situation in which the words are assumed to have been
uttered. For it is scarcely credible that Jacob should have
referred thus to a conquest which he had subsequently lost, and
which would have to be recovered by force of arms before the
bequest could take effect. But further, the expression ‘above
thy brethren’ naturally implies that the portions of the other
sons had been allotted by Jacob before his death. The verse,
in short, seems to carry us back to a phase of the national
tradition which ignored the sojourn in Egypt, and represented
Jacob as a warlike hero who had effected permanent conquests in
Palestine, and died there after dividing the land amongst his
children. The situation would thus be parallel to the so-called
‘Blessing of Jacob’ in chapter 49, which is also independent of,
though not quite incompatible with, the final recension of the
patriarchal history and the migration to Egypt. For the first
statement of this theory, see Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre
Nachbarstämme_, 227, 414 f.

¹ Attempts to bring the notice into line with the recorded
history, by inserting לא before בחרבי and בקשתי (as Joshua
24¹²) (Kuenen), or by taking לקחתי as a future-perfect (Tuch,
Delitzsch, Strack, al.), are obviously unsatisfactory.

* * * * *

=8.= מי אלה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX +
לך.――=9.= ויאמר²] LXX + Ἰακώβ.――ואברכֶם (Baer-Delitzsch, page 80).
On the pausal seghol, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 29 _q_, 60
_d_.――=11.= רְאֹה] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _n_ (compare 31²⁸).――פללתי]
Literally ‘had not judged’; only here = ‘opine.’――=12.= וישתחו]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå have
the plural.――לאפיו] hardly makes sense. Read with LXX, Peshiṭtå
לוֹ אַפַּיִם.――=14.= את־ימינו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
inserts יד.――שֵׁכֵּל] Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ אחכימינין, deriving from √ שׂכל, ‘be
prudent’ (whose Piel does not occur); but LXX ἐναλλὰξ, Vulgate
_commutans_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ פרג.
These Versions may be guessing at the sense; but most moderns
appeal to Arabic _šakala_, a _secondary_ meaning of which is
to ‘_plait_ two locks of hair together and _bind_ them to the
other locks.’ In spite of the philological equivalence, Driver
is justly sceptical of so remote an analogy.――כי מנשה הבכור] LXX
omits.――=15.= את־יוסף] LXX אתם] wrongly, the original connexion
being with ¹²ᵇ.――מעודי] (Numbers 22³⁰†) ‘ever since I was.’ LXX,
Peshiṭtå, Vulgate ‘from my youth’ (מנעורי ?).――=16.= For המלאך,
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ reads המלך.――=19.=
ואולם] ‘but for all that’ (compare 28¹⁹).――=20.= בך] LXX בכם.――יְבָרֵךְ]
LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå יִבָּרֵךְ (Niphal; see on 12³). The most natural
form would be Hithpael יתברך.――=22.= שכם אחד] LXX Σικιμα ἐξαίρετον,
Aquila ὦμον ἕνα. For אַחַד instead of אֶחָד, see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 130 _g_. On כָּתֵף in the sense of ‘mountain-slope’ (_v.s._), see
Numbers 34¹¹, Joshua 15⁸ [Isaiah 11¹⁴?], etc.

* * * * *

XLIX. 1‒28a.
_The Blessing of Jacob._

This important and difficult section――one of the oldest pieces of Hebrew poetry which we possess――consists of a series of oracles describing the characters and fortunes of the twelve tribes of Israel, as unfolded during the age of the Judges and under the early monarchy. That it was composed from the first in the name of Jacob appears clearly from internal indications (verses ³ ᶠᐧ ⁹ᐧ ⁽¹⁸⁾ᐧ ²⁶); but that it was actually uttered by the patriarch on his death-bed to his assembled sons is a hypothesis which several considerations combine to render incredible. In the first place, the outlook of the poem is bounded (as we shall afterwards see) by a particular historical situation, removed by many centuries from the supposed time of utterance. No reason can be imagined why the vista of the future disclosed to Jacob should open during the settlement of the tribes in Canaan, and suddenly close at the reign of David or Solomon; why trivial incidents like the maritime location of Zebulun (verse ¹³), or the ‘royal dainties’ produced by Asher (²⁰), or even the loss of tribal independence by Issachar (¹⁵), etc., should be dwelt upon to the exclusion of events of far greater national and religious importance, such as the Exodus, the mission of Moses, the leadership of Joshua, or the spiritual prerogatives of the tribe of Levi. It is obvious that the document as a whole has historic significance only when regarded as a production of the age to which it refers. The analogy of Old Testament prophecy, which has been appealed to, furnishes no instance of detailed prevision of a remote future, unrelated to the moral issues of the speaker’s present. In the next place, the poem is animated by a strong _national_ sentiment such as could not have existed in the lifetime of Jacob, while there is a complete absence of the family feeling which would naturally find expression in the circumstances to which it is assigned, and which, in fact, is very conspicuous in the prose accounts of Jacob’s last days. The subjects of the oracles are not Jacob’s sons as individuals, but the tribes called by their names (see ²⁸ᵃ); nor is there any allusion to incidents in the personal history of Jacob and his sons except in the sections on Reuben and on Simeon and Levi, and even there a tribal interpretation is more natural. Finally, the speaker is not Jacob the individual patriarch, but (as is clear from verses ⁶ᐧ ⁷ᵇᐧ ¹⁶) Jacob as representing the ideal unity of Israel (see Kohler, page 8 f.). All these facts point to the following conclusion (which is that of the great majority of modern interpreters): the poem is a series of _vaticinia ex eventu_, reflecting the conditions and aspirations of the period that saw the consolidation of the Hebrew nationality. The examination of the separate oracles will show that some (_e.g._ those on Issachar and Dan) are certainly pre-monarchic; and that indeed all may be so except the blessing on Judah, which presupposes the establishment of the Davidic kingdom. The process of composition must therefore have been a protracted one; the poem may be supposed to have existed as a traditional document whose origin dates from the early days of the Israelite occupation of Palestine, and which underwent successive modifications and expansions before it took final shape in the hands of a Judæan poet of the age of David or Solomon. The conception of Jacob as the speaker belongs to the original intention of the poem; the oracles express the verdict of the collective consciousness of Israel on the conduct and destiny of the various tribes, an idea finely suggested by putting them in the mouth of the heroic ancestor of the nation. Ultimately the song was incorporated in the patriarchal tradition, probably by the Yahwist, who found a suitable setting for it amongst the dying utterances of Jacob.

_Literary Parallels._――Before proceeding to consider the more
intricate problems arising out of the passage, it will be useful
to compare it with (1) the Song of Deborah (Judges 5), and
(2) the Blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33).――1. The former is
like an instantaneous photograph: it exhibits the attitude and
disposition of the tribes in a single crisis of the national
history. It resembles Genesis 49 in the strong feeling of
national unity which pervades it, and in the mingling of
blame and commendation. It reveals, however, a very different
historical background. The chief differences are: the entire
ignoring of the southern tribes Judah, Simeon, and Levi; the
praise bestowed on Issachar; the substitution of Gilead for Gad;
and the division of the unity of Joseph into its constituents
Ephraim and Machir (= Manasseh). The importance of these and
other divergences for the determination of the relative dates
of the two documents is obvious, although the evidence is
frequently of a kind which makes it very difficult to form
a confident judgement.――2. The Blessing of Moses shows signs
(especially in the section on Joseph) of literary dependence on
Genesis 49; it is therefore a later composition, written very
probably in North Israel after the division of the kingdom (see
Driver _A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy_
388). It is distinguished from the Blessing of Jacob by its
uniform tone of benediction, and its strongly religious point
of view as contrasted with the secular and warlike spirit
of Genesis 49. Simeon is passed over in silence, while his
‘brother’ Levi is the subject of an enthusiastic eulogium;
Judah is briefly commended in a prayer to Yahwe; the separation
of Ephraim and Manasseh is recognised in an appendix to
the blessing on Joseph. All these indications point more or
less decisively to a situation considerably later than that
presupposed by the oracles of Jacob.

_Date and Unity of the Poem._――That the song is not a perfect
literary unity is suggested first of all by the seemingly
complex structure of the sections on Dan (two independent
oracles) and Judah (with three exordiums in verses ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰).
We find, further, that a double motive runs through the series,
viz., (1) etymological play on the name of the tribe (Judah,
Zebulun?, Dan, Gad, Asher?), and (2) tribal emblems (chiefly
animal) (Judah, Issachar, Dan, Naphtali, Joseph, Benjamin): one
or other of these can be detected in each oracle except those on
Reuben and Simeon-Levi. It is, of course, not certain that these
are characteristic of two independent groups of oracles; but the
fact that both are represented in the sayings on Judah and Dan,
while neither appears in those on Reuben and Simeon-Levi, does
confirm the impression of composition and diversity of origin.
The decisive consideration, however, is that no single period
of history can be found which satisfies all the indications of
date drawn from the several oracles. Those on Reuben, Simeon,
and Levi refer to events which belong to a remote past, and were
in all probability composed before the Song of Deborah, while
these events were still fresh in the national memory; those
on Issachar, Dan, and Benjamin could hardly have originated
after the establishment of the monarchy; while the blessing of
Judah clearly presupposes the existence of the Davidic kingdom,
and must have been written not earlier than the time of David
or Solomon. A still later date is assigned by most critics
since Wellhausen, (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_³ 320) to the blessing
on Joseph, which is generally considered to refer to the kingdom
of North Israel and to the Aramæan wars under the dynasties of
Omri and Jehu. It is argued in the notes below that the passage
is susceptible of a different interpretation from that adopted
by the majority of scholars, and may, in fact, be one of the
oldest parts of the poem. As for the rest of the oracles,
their character is such that it seems quite impossible to
decide whether they originated before or after the founding
of the kingdom. In any case we hardly get much beyond a broad
chronological division into pre-Davidic and post-Davidic oracles;
but at the same time that distinction is so clearly marked as
to exclude absolutely the hypothesis of unity of authorship.――It
has been supposed by some writers (Renan, Kuenen, al.) that
the poem consists of a number of fugitive oracles which had
circulated independently among the tribes, and were ultimately
collected and put in the mouth of Jacob. But, apart from the
general objection that characterisation of one tribe by the
rest already implies a central point of view, the inadequacy of
the theory is seen when we observe that all the longer passages
(Reuben, Simeon-Levi, Judah, Joseph) assume that Jacob is the
speaker, while the shorter pieces are too slight in content
to have any significance except in relation to the whole.――An
intermediate position is represented by Land, who distinguished
six stages in the growth of the song: (1) A primary poem,
consisting of the two tristichs, verses ³ and ⁸, written at the
time of David’s victories over the Philistines, and celebrating
the passing of the hegemony from Reuben to Judah: to this
verse ⁴ was afterwards added as an appendix. (2) A second poem
on Judah, Dan, and Issachar (verses ⁹ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁴ ᶠᐧ: distichs),
describing under animal figures the condition of these tribes
during the peaceful interval of David’s reign in Hebron: to
which was appended later the verse on Benjamin (²⁷). (3) The
Shiloh oracle (verses ¹⁰⁻¹²), dating from the same period. (4)
The decastich on Simeon and Levi (verses ⁵⁻⁷), from the time of
the later Judges. (5) The blessing of Joseph (²²⁻²⁶), a northern
poem from about the time of Deborah. (6) The five distichs on
Zebulun, Dan, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali (in that order: verses
¹³ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²¹), commemorating the victory of Deborah and Barak
over the Canaanites. The theory rests on dubious interpretations,
involves improbable historical combinations, and is altogether
too intricate to command assent; but it is noteworthy
nevertheless as perhaps the first elaborate attempt to solve
the problem of the date and integrity of the poem, and to do
justice to the finer lines of structure that can be discovered
in it.――On the whole, however, the theory of the ‘traditional
document’ (_v.s._), altered and supplemented as it was handed
down from one generation to another, while sufficiently elastic,
seems the one that best satisfies all the requirements of the
problem (so Gunkel, 420 f.).

The _order_ in which the tribes are enumerated appears to be
partly genealogical, partly geographical. The six Leah-tribes
come first, and in the order of birth as given in chapters
29 f., save that Zebulun and Issachar change places. Then follow
the four concubine or hybrid tribes; but the order is that
neither of birth nor of the mothers, the two Zilpah-tribes,
Gad and Asher, coming between the Bilhah tribes, Dan and
Naphtali. The Rachel-tribes, Joseph and Benjamin, stand last.
Geographically, we may distinguish a southern group (Reuben,
Simeon, Levi, Judah), a northern (Zebulun, Issachar, Dan?, Gad
[trans-Jordanic], Asher, Naphtali), and a central group (Joseph,
Benjamin). The general agreement of the two classifications
shows that the genealogical scheme itself reflects the tribal
affinities and historical antecedents by which the geographical
distribution of the tribes in Palestine was in part determined.
The suggestion of Peters (_Early Hebrew story_, 61 ff.), that
the ages of Jacob’s children represent approximately the order
in which the respective tribes obtained a permanent footing in
Canaan, is a plausible one, and probably contains an element
of truth; although the attempt to reconstruct the history of
the invasion and conquest on such precarious data can lead to
no secure results. It is clear at all events that neither the
genealogical nor the geographical principle furnishes a complete
explanation of the arrangement in Genesis 49; and we have to
bear in mind the possibility that this ancient document may have
preserved an older tradition as to the grouping and relations
of the tribes than that which is given in the prose legends
(chapters 29. 30).――On the question whether a sojourn in Egypt
is presupposed between the utterance and the fulfilment of the
predictions, the poem naturally throws no direct light. It is
not improbable that in this respect it stands on the same plane
as 48²² (34. 38), and traces the conquest of Palestine back to
Jacob himself.

_Metrical Form._――See Sievers, _Metrische Studien_, i. 404 ff.,
ii. 152 ff., 361 ff. The poem (verses ²⁻²⁷) exhibits throughout
a clearly marked metrical structure, the unit being the trimeter
distich, with frequent parallelism between the two members. The
lines which do not conform to this type (verses ⁷ᵇᐧ ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁸, and
especially ²⁴ᵇ⁻²⁶) are so few that interpolation or corruption
of text may reasonably be suspected; although our knowledge of
the laws of Hebrew poetry does not entitle us to say that an
occasional variation of rhythm is in itself inadmissible.

_Source._――Since the poem is older than any of the Pentateuchal
documents, the only question that arises is the relatively
unimportant one of the stage of compilation at which it was
incorporated in the narrative of Genesis. Of the primary sources,
Elohist and Priestly-Code are excluded; the former because
of the degradation of Reuben, which is nowhere recognised by
Elohist; and the latter by the general tendency of that work,
and its suppression of discreditable incidents in the story
of the patriarchs. The passage is in perfect harmony with
the representation of Yahwist, and may without difficulty be
assigned to that document, as is done by the majority of critics.
At the same time, the absence of literary connexion with the
narrative leaves a considerable margin of uncertainty; and it
is just as easy to suppose that the insertion took place in
the combined narrative Jehovist, perhaps by the same hand which
inserted the Blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy (see Wellhausen
_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher
des Alten Testaments_² 62). That it was introduced during the
final redaction of the Pentateuch is less probable, especially
if ²⁸ᵇ{β} (ויברך) was the original continuation of ¹ᵇ in
Priestly-Code (see on verse ¹).

Monographs on the Song: Diestel, _Der Segen Jakob’s in Genesis
xlix. historisch erläutert_ (1853); Land, _Disputatio de carmine
Jacobi_ (1858); Kohler, _Der Segen Jakob’s mit besonderer
Berücksichtigung der alten Versionen und des Midrasch
historisch-kritisch untersucht und erklärt_ (1867); compare
also Meier, _Geschichte der poetischen National Literatur der
Hebräer_ (1856), pages 109‒113; Peters, _Journal of the Society
of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, 1886, pages 99‒116; and
see the copious references in Tuch or Dillmann.

=1, 2. Introduction.=――The poem begins with a preamble (verse ²) from the hand of the writer who composed or collected the oracles and put them in the mouth of Jacob. ¹ᵇ is a prose introduction, supplied probably by the editor who incorporated the Song in the narrative of Yahwist or Jehovist; while ¹ᵃ appears to be a fragment of Priestly-Code divorced from its original connexion with ²⁸ᵃᵇ{β} by Redactorᴾᵉⁿᵗᵃᵗᵉᵘᶜʰ.――=1b.= _that I may make known, etc._] The poem is expressly characterised as a prophecy (not, however, as a _blessing_ [as ²⁸ᵇ]), which it obviously is as ascribed to Jacob, though the singer’s real standpoint is contemporary or retrospective (page 508 above).――_in the after days_] The furthest horizon of the speaker’s vision (_v.i._).――=2.= A trimeter distich, exhibiting the prevalent metrical scheme of the poem:

Assemble, ye sons of Jacob,
And hearken to Israel your father!

With the call to attention, compare 4²³, Deuteronomy 32¹, Isaiah 1¹⁰ 28¹⁴, etc.――Whether in the mind of the poet Israel is the literal or the ideal father of the nation may be doubtful: compare verse ⁷, and page 509 above.

* * * * *

=1.= באחרית הימים] The phrase occurs 13 times in Hebrew Old
Testament (Numbers 24¹⁴, Deuteronomy 4³⁰ 31²⁹, Isaiah 2²,
Jeremiah 23²⁰ 30²⁴ 48⁴⁷ 49³⁹, Exodus 38¹⁶, Hosea 3⁵, Micah 4¹,
Daniel 10¹⁴†), and its Aramaic equivalent in Daniel 2²⁸. In the
prophets it is used technically of the advent of the Messianic
age; here and elsewhere (Numbers 24¹⁴ etc.) it has the general
sense of the remote future (like Assyrian _aḫrat ûmi_: _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_², 143). That the
eschatological sense is primary, and the other an imitation
of prophetic style (Gunkel), cannot be proved; and there is no
justification for deleting either the phrase itself (Staerk,
_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xi. 247
ff.), or the whole clause in which it occurs (Land).――=2.=
The repetition of ושמעו is against the rules of parallelism. We
may either omit the word in ²ᵃ (Gunkel, Sievers), or vary the
expression (ועאזינו, והקשיבו) in ²ᵇ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Ball). Metrically,
either expedient would be admissible, but the former is much
easier. In LXXᴮᐧ ᵃˡᐧ ἀκούσατε is used thrice.

* * * * *

=3, 4. Reuben.=

³ Reuben! My first-born art thou:
My strength and best of my vigour.
Exceeding in pride and exceeding in fury,
⁴ Impetuous as water, thou may’st not excel.
For thou wentest up to thy father’s bed;
There thou profanedst ⸢the⸣ couch....

The original presents both obscurities and niceties not reflected in the translation; but the general sense is clear. As the first-born, Reuben is endowed with a superabundant vitality, which is the cause at once of his pre-eminence and of his undoing: his energy degenerates into licentious passion, which impels him to the crime that draws down the curse. As a characterisation of the tribe, this will mean that Reuben had a double share of the ‘frenetic’ Bedouin nature, and wore out his strength in fierce warfare with neighbouring tribes. If the outrage on his father’s honour (verse ⁴) have historic significance (see below), it must denote some attack on the unity of Israel which the collective conscience of the nation condemned. It is to be noted that the recollection of the event has already assumed the legendary form, and must therefore reach back to a time considerably earlier than the date of the poem (Gunkel).――=3b, 4a.= _exceeding ... excel_] No English word brings out the precise force of the original, where the √ יתר occurs three times in a sense hovering between ‘exceed’ and ‘excel.’ The idea of excess being native to the root, the renderings _pride_ and _fury_ are perhaps preferable to ‘dignity’ and ‘power,’ ³ᶜ as well as ⁴ being understood _sensu malo_, as a censure of Reuben.――=4b.= _Then ... went up_] A corrupt text: for various suggestions, _v.i._ Gunkel’s translation ‘Then I profaned the couch which he ascended,’ at least softens the harsh change from 2nd person to 3rd.

The ‘birthright’ of Reuben must rest on some early ascendancy
or prowess of the tribe which has left no traces in history. Its
choice of a settlement East of the Jordan (Numbers 32, etc.),
shows an attachment to nomadic habits, and perhaps an unfitness
for the advance to civilised life which the majority of the
tribes had to make. In the Song of Deborah, Reuben is still
an important tribe, but one that had lost enthusiasm for the
national cause (Judges 5¹⁵ ᶠᐧ). In the Blessing of Moses it
still survives, but is apparently on the verge of extinction
(Deuteronomy 33⁶). It was doubtless exhausted by struggles
like those with the Hagarenes (1 Chronicles 5¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ), but
especially with the Moabites, who eventually occupied most of
its territory (compare Numbers 32³⁷, Joshua 13¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ with Isaiah
15, Jeremiah 48 _passim_, and Moabite Stone).――The incident
to which the downfall of Reuben is here traced (⁴ᵃ{β}ᵇ) is
connected with the fragmentary notice of 35²², and is variously
interpreted: (1) According to William Robertson Smith, _Kinship
and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 109², Steuernagel, _Die
Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_ 16, Holzinger,
it records the fact that Reuben had misused its power as the
leading tribe to assail the independence of a weaker member
of the confederation (Bilhah, or one of the Bilhah-tribes),――a
rather hazardous speculation. (2) Another theory, not
necessarily inconsistent with the former (see William Robertson
Smith, _l.c._), finds a reference to the persistence in
Reuben of an old Semitic custom of marriage with the wives or
concubines of a (deceased!) father (Dillmann, Stade, _Geschichte
des Volkes Israel_, i. 151 f.), which the general moral
sense of Israel had outgrown. In this case we must suppose
that 49⁴ contains the germ of the legend of which 35²², with
its particular mention of Bilhah, is a later phase. (3) It
is probable that the _form_ of the legend has been partly
determined by a mythological motive, to which a striking
parallel is found in the story of Phœnix and Amyntor (_Iliad_
ix. 447 ff.: quoted above, page 427).――_Metrical Structure._
The oracle is better divided as above into three distichs, than
(with Massoretic Text) into two tristichs (so Land, who assigns
each to a separate author). The trimeter measure is easily
traced throughout (except line 3) by following the Hebrew
accents, supplying Maqqeph after כי and אז in verse ⁴. Line 3 may
be scanned uu´|u´|u´ (Sievers).

* * * * *

=3a.= ראשית אוני (Deuteronomy 21¹⁷, compare Psalms 78⁵¹ 105³⁶)]
Not ἀρχὴ τέκνων μου (LXX, Theodotion), still less _principium
doloris mei_ (Vulgate from אָוֶן, ‘trouble’; so Aquila, Symmachus);
but ‘best part of my virility’ (Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ).
On ראשית, see page 12; און as Hosea 12⁴.――=3b.= LXX σκληρὸς
φέρεσθαι καὶ σκληρὸς αὐθάδης; Vulgate _prior in donis, major
in imperio_.――יֶתֶר (abstractum pro concreto) might mean ‘excess’
(Aquila, Symmachus), or ‘superiority’ (Vulgate), or ‘remnant’
(Peshiṭtå; so Peters, page 100): whether it is here used in
a good sense or a bad (for the latter, compare Proverbs 17⁷)
depends on the meaning assigned to the next two words.――שאת]
Literally ‘lifting’ (LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion,
Peshiṭtå), several times means ‘exaltation’; but in Habakkuk 1⁷
it has distinctly the sense of ‘arrogance,’ the idea preferred
above. To read שְׁאֹת, ‘turbulence’ (Gunkel), is unnecessary,
and שֵׁאת, ‘destruction’ (Peters), gives a wrong turn to the
thought.――עָז] Pausal for עֹז, ‘power,’ but the sense of ‘fury’ is
supported by verse ⁷, Isaiah 25³.――=4.= פחז――תותר] LXX ἐξύβρισας
ὡς ὕδωρ, μὴ ἐκζέσῃς; Aquila ἐθάμβευσας ... περισσεύσῃς;
Symmachus ὑπερέζεσας ... οὐκ ἔσῃ περισσότερος; Vulgate _effusus
es sicut aqua, non crescas_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). The
comparison to water is ambiguous; and it is doubtful if we may
introduce the simile of water ‘boiling over’ (Symmachus, LXX
and many moderns). The image may be that of a wild rushing
torrent,――a fit emblem of the unbridled passion which was
Reuben’s characteristic (so Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ).――פהז] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ פחזת. Though the other Versions also
have 2nd person, we cannot assume that they _read_ so; and the
analogy of verse ³ leads us to expect another abstractum pro
concreto. The noun is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; the particle occurs Judges
9⁴, Zephaniah 3⁴, with the sense ‘reckless’ or ‘irresponsible’
(compare פחזות, Jeremiah 23³²). In Arabic the √ means ‘be
insolent,’ in Aramaic ‘be lascivious’: the common idea is
perhaps ‘uncontrollableness’ (_ut s._).――אל־תותַר] For the pausal
_a_, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 53 _n_, and compare Ruth 2¹⁴.――=4b.=
No very acceptable rendering of this difficult clause has been
proposed. If we follow the accentuation, יצועי is object of עלה,
and יצועי עלה a detached sentence: ‘Then thou actedst profanely. He
went up to my bed’; but apart from the harsh change of person,
this is inadmissible, because חִלֵּל is never used intransitively.
To read עָלִיתָ with LXX is perhaps a too facile emendation; and
to omit עלה with Vulgate is forbidden by rhythm. On the whole it
is best (with Gunkel) to point חִלַּלְתִּ, and take עלה as a relative
clause (_v.s._). Other suggestions are: ח׳ יצועַי עֹלֶה (Land); יצועֵי בִלְהָה
(Geiger, Kittel); י׳ יוֹלֶדְךָ (Ball); but all these are, for one reason
or another, objectionable.

* * * * *

=5‒7. Simeon and Levi.=

⁵ Simeon and Levi――brothers!
Weapons of ruth are their daggers (?).
⁶ Into their council my soul would not enter,
In their assembly my mind would not join:
For in their anger they slaughter men,
And in their gloating they disable oxen.
⁷ Accursed be their wrath for it is fierce,
And their rage for it is cruel!
I will divide them in Jacob,
And scatter them in Israel.

=5a.= _brothers_] Hardly ὁμόγνωμοι (scholium in Field) = ‘true brother-spirits’ (Tuch al.), or ‘associates’ in a common enterprise. The epithet is probably a survival from an old tradition in which Simeon and Levi were the only sons of Leah (see 34¹ᐧ ²⁵; compare Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 286¹, 426). It is universally assumed that that incident――the treacherous attack on Shechem――is the ground of the curse here pronounced; but the terms of the oracle are perfectly general and in part unsuited to the supposed circumstances; and it seems to me to be the habitual character of the tribes which is denounced, and not any particular action.――=5b.= The translation is doubtful, owing partly to uncertainty of text, and partly to the obscurity of the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον מְכֵרָה (_v.i._). The rendering above gives a good sense, and Ball’s objection, that daggers are _necessarily_ implements of violence, has no force.――=6a.= _council ... assembly_] The tribal gatherings, in which deeds of violence were planned, and sanguinary exploits gloated over. The distich expresses vividly the thought that the true _ethos_ of Israel was not represented in these bloody-minded gatherings.――=6b.= _men ... oxen_] The nouns are collectives.――_slaughter ... hough_] Perfects of experience. The latter operation (disable by cutting the sinew of the hind-leg) was occasionally performed by Israelites on horses (Joshua 11⁶ᐧ ⁹, 2 Samuel 8⁴); to do it to a domestic animal was evidently considered inhuman. No such atrocity is recorded of the assault on Shechem (see 34²⁸).¹――=7b.= _in Jacob ... in Israel_] The speaker is plainly not the individual patriarch, nor the Almighty (Land), but the personified nation.

¹ Zimmern (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vii. 162 f.) finds
in ⁶ᵇ a reminiscence of the mutilation of the celestial
Bull by Gilgameš and Eabani in the Babylonian Gilgameš-Epic.
Simeon and Levi, like Gilgameš and Eabani, represent the
Gemini of the Zodiac; and it is pointed out that the Bull in
the heavens is ἡμίτομος, _i.e._ only its fore-half appears
as a constellation. The אישׁ then corresponds to the tyrant
Ḫumbaba, who was slain by Gilgameš and Eabani; and Jacob’s
curse answers to the curse of Ištar on the two heroes for
mutilating the Bull.――Whatever truth there may be in this
mythological interpretation, it does not relieve us of
the necessity of finding a _historical_ explanation of the
incidents.

The dispersion of these two tribes must have taken place at a
very early period of the national history. As regards Simeon,
it is doubtful if it ever existed as a separate geographical
unit. Priestly-Code is only able to assign to it an inheritance
scooped out of the territory of Judah (compare Joshua 19¹⁻⁹
with 15²⁶⁻³²ᐧ ⁴²: see also 1 Chronicles 4²⁸⁻³³); and so-called
Simeonite cities are assigned to Judah as early as the time of
David (1 Samuel 27⁶ 30³⁰, 2 Samuel 24⁷; compare 1 Kings 19³).
In the Blessing of Moses it is passed over in silence. Traces of
its dispersion may be found in such Simeonite names as Shime‛i,
Shāûl, Yāmîn in other tribes (William Robertson Smith, _The
Journal of Philology_ ix. 96); and we may assume that the
tribe had disappeared before the establishment of the monarchy
(see Steuernagel, 70 ff.; Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre
Nachbarstämme_, 75 ff.).――Very different was the fate of Levi.
Like Simeon, it lost its independence and, as a _secular_ tribe,
ceased to exist. But its scattered members had a spiritual
bond of unity in the possession of the Mosaic tradition and the
sacred lot (Deuteronomy 33⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ), in virtue of which it secured a
privileged position in the Israelite sanctuaries (Judges 17 f.),
and was eventually reconstituted on a sacerdotal basis. The
contrast between this passage, where Levi is the subject of a
curse, and Deuteronomy 33, where its prerogatives are celebrated
with enthusiasm, depends on the distinction just indicated:
here Levi is the secular tribe, destroyed by its own ferocity,
whose religious importance has not yet emerged; there, it is
the Priestly tribe, which, although scattered, yet holds the
_sacra_ and the Tôrāh of the Yahwe-religion (Wellhausen, _Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments_⁶ 136 ff.).――The _Metre_ is regular, except that
in the last two lines the trimeters are replaced by a binary
couplet. That is no sufficient reason for deleting them as an
interpolation (Sievers).

* * * * *

=5b.= LXX συνετέλεσαν ἀδικίαν ἐξ αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν (Old Latin
_consummaverunt iniquitatem adinventionis suæ_); Aquila
σκεύη ἀδικίας ἀνασκαφαὶ [αὐτῶν]; Vulgate _vasa iniquitatis
bellantia_ [Jerome _arma eorum_]; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase);
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ בארע תותבותהון עבדו נבורא; Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ [מאני] זיינא שנינא למחטוב
היא אשתמודעותהון.――כלי] So Aquila, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ;
but _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ כִּלּוּ: ‘they accomplished.’――מכרתיהם] As to the
consecutive text, that of LXX cannot be certainly restored;
Kethîb is supported by Aquila, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ (מְכֻרֹת׳:
compare Exodus 16³ 21³⁵ 29¹⁴), by Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (from √
נכר, see Abraham Ibn Ezra), and probably Vulgate. The textual
tradition must therefore be accepted as fairly reliable. Of the
many Hebrew etymologies proposed (see Dillmann, 459), the most
plausible are those which derive from √ כרר, or (reading מִכְרֹ׳)
from √ כרה, ‘to dig.’ No √ כרר, ‘dig,’ is actually found, though
it might perhaps be assumed as a by-form of כרה: this would give
the meaning ‘digging instrument’ (compare _gladio confodere_),
which Vollers (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xiv. 355) tries
to support from Assyrian. The √ כרר means in Arabic ‘to turn’
or ‘wheel round’; hence Dillmann conjectured that מְכֵרָה may be
a _curved_ knife or sabre. Some weapon suits the context, but
what exactly it is must remain uncertain. How far the exegesis
has been influenced by the resemblance to the Greek μάχαιρα (R.
Johanan [died, 279 A.D.], cited in _Bereshith Rabba_ § 99; Rashi)
we cannot tell. Ball and Gunkel take the word to be מִכְרָה, the
former rendering ‘plots’ (from Arabic _makara_, ‘to plot’) and
the latter ‘pits’ (compare מִכְרֶה, Zephaniah 2⁹); but neither כִּלּוּ חֲמַס
מִכְרֹתָם (Ball) nor כִּלַי וְחָמָס מִכְרֹתֵיהֶם [‘knavery and violence are their
pits’] (Gunkel) is so good as the ordinary interpretation. Ball,
however, rightly observes that מִכְרֹתָם yields a better metre than
תֵיהֶם――(so Sievers).――=6a.= כבדי] Read with LXX כְּבֵדִי, ‘my liver,’ the
seat of mental affections in Lamentations 2¹¹ (compare Psalms
16⁹ 30¹³ 57⁹ 108²: Massoretic Text כָּבוֹד): compare _kabittu_,
‘Gemüth,’ in Assyrian.――תחד] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ יחר. Since כָּבֵד is masculine, read יֵחַד.――=6b.= רצון]
‘self-will,’ ‘wantonness’; compare Nehemiah 9²⁴ᐧ ³⁷, Esther 1⁸ 9⁵
etc.――עִקֵּר] On certain difficulties in the usage of the word, see
Batten, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,
xxviii. 189 ff., where it is argued that the sense is
general――‘make useless.’――שׁוֹר] Aquila, Symmachus, Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ read שׁוּר, ‘wall,’ perhaps to avoid the
supposed contradiction with 34²⁸ ᶠᐧ. Hence the correct ταῦρον
of LXX is instanced in _Mechilta_ as a change made by the LXX
translators (see page 14).――=7.= ארור, ועברתם] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ אדיר, ועברתם.――עָֽז] Here pausal form
of עַז (contrast verse ³).

* * * * *

=8‒12. Judah.=

⁸ Judah! Thee shall thy brethren praise――
Thy hand on the neck of thy foes――
Bow down to thee shall thy father’s sons.

⁹ A lion’s whelp is Judah,
From the prey, my son, thou’rt gone up!
He crouched, he couched like a lion,
And an old lion――who shall arouse him?

¹⁰ Departs not the sceptre from Judah,
Nor staff from between his feet,
Until ... come ... (?),
And to him the peoples obey.

¹¹ Binding his ass to the vine,
And his foal to the choicest vine!
He washes his raiment in wine,
And his clothes in the blood of the grape!
¹² With eyes made dull by wine,
And teeth whitened with milk!

=8.= _Thee_] The emphasis on the pronoun (see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 _e_) is explained by the contrast to the preceding oracles: at last the singer comes to a tribe which he can unreservedly praise. Nowhere else does the poem breathe such glowing enthusiasm and such elevation of feeling as here. The glories of Judah are celebrated in four aspects: (1) as the premier tribe of Israel, ⁸; (2) as the puissant and victorious lion-tribe, ⁹; (3) as the bearer (in some sense) of the Messianic hope, ¹⁰; (4) as lavishly endowed with the blessings of nature, ¹¹ ᶠᐧ.――יְהוּדָה, יוֹדוּךָ] The same fanciful etymology as in 29³⁵.――_thy hand ... foes_] The image seems to be that of a defeated enemy, caught by the (back of the) neck in his flight, and crushed (Exodus 23²⁷, Psalms 18⁴¹, Job 16¹²).――_thy brethren ... thy father’s sons_] The other tribes, who acknowledge the primacy of Judah.――=9.= A vivid picture of the growth of Judah’s power; to be compared with the beautiful lyric, Ezekiel 19²⁻⁹.――_a lion’s whelp_] So Deuteronomy 33²² (of Dan). The image naturally suggests the ‘mighty youth’ of the tribe, as its full development is represented by the _lion_, and _old lion_ of the following lines. Hence the clause מִטֶּרֶף――עָלִיתָ is rendered by some (Gunkel al.): _On prey, my son, thou hast grown up_ (been reared), which is perhaps justified by Ezekiel 19³. But it is better to understand it of the lion’s ascent, after a raid, to his mountain fastness, where he rests in unassailable security (⁹ᵇ).――_he crouches, etc._] So (of Israel as a whole) Numbers 24⁹.――=10a.= Judah’s political pre-eminence.――_sceptre ... staff_] The latter word (מְחֹקֵק) might be used personally = ‘prescriber [of laws]’ (LXX, Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ al.); but שֵׁבֶט is never so used, and parallelism requires that מחקק should be understood of the commander’s _staff_ (Numbers 21¹⁸, Psalms 60⁹ = 108⁹).――_from between his feet_] The chieftain is conceived as seated with his wand of office held upright in front of him. The Bedouin sheikhs and headmen of villages are said still to carry such insignia of authority.

The question arises whether the emblems denote (a) kingly
authority, or (b) military leadership of the other tribes, or
merely (c) tribal autonomy. Driver (_The Journal of Philology_
xiv. 26) decides for (a), because (1) שבט, without qualification,
suggests a royal sceptre; (2) the last phrase presents the
picture of a king seated on a throne; (3) the word ישתחוו in ⁸ᵇ
most naturally expresses the homage due to a king (compare 37⁷).
But in favour of (c) it might be urged (1) that מחקק never has
this meaning, and (2) that שבט is the word for ‘tribe’ (_e.g._
verses ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁸), and, if the passage be early, is likely to be
used as the symbol of tribal independence. The idea of military
hegemony (b) is in no way suggested, apart from the connexion
with verse ⁸, which is dubious. The point has an important
bearing on the exegesis of the next clause. If (a) be right,
the Davidic monarchy is presupposed, and ¹⁰ᵇ assigns a term to
its continuance; whereas, if (c) be right, ¹⁰ᵇ is possibly (not
necessarily) a prophecy of David and his dynasty. See, further,
the note at the end of this verse.

* * * * *

=8.= ידך] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX
יָדָיךָ.――=9.= מטרף] LXX ἐκ βλαστοῦ, taking the word as in 8¹¹,
Ezekiel 17⁹.――לביא] LXX σκύμνος, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). The
common rendering ‘lioness’ is based on Arabic, but it is by
no means certain that in Hebrew the word denotes specially the
female. It is never construed as feminine; and in Ezekiel 19²
the pointing לְבִיָּא shows that the Massoretes considered לָבִיא as
masculine.――=10a.= שבט and מחקק are found together in Judges 5¹⁴,
where מחקק (∥ משֵׁךְ בש׳) has the personal sense of ‘commander.’ But
in Numbers 21¹⁸, Psalms 60⁹ [= 108⁹] it denotes the commander’s
staff; and since שבט is always the instrument, the impersonal
sense is to be preferred here: hence the ἄρχων of LXX is wrong,
and the personal renderings of מח׳ in all Versions at least
doubtful.――מבין רגליו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
מבין דגליו, ‘from between his banners,’ gives no sense. LXX,
Theodotion, Vulgate interpret after Deuteronomy 28⁵⁷ ‘from
his thighs’; and hence Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘from his sons’ sons,’
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ‘from his seed.’

* * * * *

=10b.= The logical relation of the two halves of the verse is clear: the state of things described by ¹⁰ᵃ shall endure _until_――something happens which shall inaugurate a still more glorious future. Whether this event be the advent of a person――an ideal Ruler――who shall take the sceptre out of Judah’s hands, or a crisis in the fortunes of Judah which shall raise that tribe to the height of its destiny, is a question on which no final opinion can be expressed (see below).――_and to him_] Either Judah, or the predicted Ruler, according to the interpretation of ¹⁰ᵇ{α}.――_obedience of peoples_] Universal dominion, which, however, need not be understood absolutely.

The _crux_ of the passage is thus ¹⁰ᵇ{α}: עד כי־יבוא שילה. For a
fuller statement of the various interpretations than is here
possible, see Werliin, _De laudibus Judæ_, 1838 (not seen);
Driver _The Journal of Philology_ xiv. 1‒28 (and more briefly
_The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 410‒415);
Posnanski, _Schilo Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre_:
1 Theil: _Auslegung von Genesis 49¹⁰ im Alterthume [und] bis zu
Ende des Mittelalters_, 1904; Dillmann 462 ff.――The renderings
grammatically admissible fall into two groups, (i.) Those which
adhere to the _textus receptus_, taking שילה as a proper noun (a)
‘Until Shiloh come’ (Shiloh, a name of the Messiah), the most
obvious of all translations, first became current in versions
and commentaries of the 16th century, largely through the
influence of Sebastian Münster (1534). Although the Messianic
acceptation of the passage prevailed in Jewish circles from the
earliest times, it attached itself either to the reading שֶׁלֹּה (ii.
below) or to the rendering ‘his son’ (שׁיל), or (later and more
rarely) to שֵׁי לוֹ (‘gifts to him’). The earliest trace (if not
the actual origin) of Shiloh as a personal name is found in the
following passage of the Talmud (_Sanhedrin_ 98_b_): אמר רב לא איברי
עלמא אלא לדוד ושמואל אמר למשה ורבי יוחנן אמר למשיח מה שמו דבי ר׳ שילא אמרי שילה שמו שנאמר עד כי יבא
שילה (the words are repeated in _Echa Rabba_, with the addition
שלה כתיב): “Rab said, The world was created only for the sake of
David; but Samuel said, For the sake of Moses; but R. Yoḥanan
said, For the sake of the Messiah. What is his name? Those of
the school of R. Shela say, Shiloh is his name, as it is said,
‘Until Shiloh come.’” The sequel of the quotation is: “Those of
the school of R. Yannai say, Yinnôn is his name, as it is said
(Psalms 72¹⁷), Let his name be for ever, before the sun let his
name be perpetuated (יִנּוֹן). Those of the school of R. Ḥaninah say,
Ḥanînāh is his name, as it is said (Jeremiah 16¹³), For I will
give you no favour (חֲנִינָה). And some say Menahem is his name, ♦as
it is said (Lamentations 1¹⁶), For comforter (מְנַחֵם) and restorer
of my soul is far from me. And our Rabbis say, The leprous one
of the school of Rabbi is his name, as it is said (Isaiah 53⁴),
Surely our sicknesses he hath borne, and our pains he hath
carried them, though we did esteem him stricken (_sc._ with
leprosy), smitten of God, and afflicted.” Now there is nothing
here to suggest that Shiloh was already a current designation
of the Messiah any more than, _e.g._, the verb ינון in Psalms 72¹⁷
can have been a Messianic title. Yet, as Driver says, it is
“in this doubtful company that Shiloh is first cited as a name
of the Messiah, though we do not learn how the word was read,
or what it was imagined to signify.” Subsequently Shiloh as a
personal name appears in lists of Messianic titles of the 11th
century (Posnanski, 40), and it is so used (alongside of the
interpretation שֶׁלּוֹ) by Samuel of Russia (1124). Partly from this
lack of traditional authority, and partly from the impossibility
of finding a significant etymology for the word (_v.i._),
this explanation is now universally abandoned.――(b) ‘Until he
[Judah] come to Shiloh’ (Herder, Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann
[hesitatingly], al.). This is grammatically unexceptionable
(compare 1 Samuel 4¹²), and has in its favour the fact that
שילה (שִׁלוֹ, שִׁילוֹ [originally שִׁילוֹן]) everywhere in Old Testament is
the name of the central Ephraimite sanctuary in the age of
the Judges (Joshua 18¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 1‒4 etc.). At the great
gathering of the tribes at Shiloh, where the final partition
of the land took place (Joshua 18 f.), Judah is imagined to
have laid down the military leadership which had belonged to
it during the wars of conquest; so that the prophecy marks the
termination of that troubled period of the national life. But
all this is unhistorical. The account in Joshua 18 belongs to
the later idealisation of the conquest of Canaan; there is no
evidence that Judah ever went to Shiloh, and none of a military
hegemony of that tribe over the others, or of a subjugation
of ‘peoples’ (¹⁰ᵇ{β}), until the time of David, by which
time Shiloh had ceased to be the central sanctuary. Even if
(with Dillmann) we abandon the reference to Joshua 18, and
take the sense to be merely that Judah will remain in full
warlike activity till it has conquered its own territory, it
is difficult to see (as Dillmann himself acknowledges) how that
consummation could be expressed by a coming to Shiloh.――(c)
The translation ‘As long as one comes to Shiloh,’ _i.e._ for
ever (Hitzig, Tuch), gives a sense to עד כי which is barely
defensible.――(ii.) Those which follow the text underlying all
ancient Versions except Vulgate, viz. שֶׁלֹּה = אֲשֶׁר לוֹ. (a) ‘Until he
comes to that which is his’ (Orelli, Br.) involves an improbable
use of the accusative; and it is not easy to see how Judah’s
coming to his own could be the signal for the cessation of any
prerogatives previously enjoyed by him.――(b) ‘Until that which
is his shall come’ is a legitimate rendering; but the thought is
open to the same objection as ii. (a).――(c). The most noteworthy
of this group of interpretations is: ‘Until he come whose’ [it
is], _sc._ the sceptre, the kingdom, the right, etc.; _i.e._ the
Messiah. This has the support not only of nearly all Versions,
but of Ezekiel 21³² (where, however, the subject המשפט is
expressed). The omission of the subject is a serious syntactic
difficulty; and this, added to the questionable use of שֶׁ־
in an early and Judæan passage, makes this widely accepted
interpretation extremely precarious. The first objection would
be removed if (after a suggestion of Wellhausen [see _Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments_² 320]) we could delete the following ולו as a gloss,
and read ‘Until he come whose is the obedience,’ etc. But
metrical considerations preclude this, as well as the more
drastic excision of שלה as a gloss on ולו (_ib._ 321).――Of
conjectural emendations the only one that calls for notice is
that of Ball (followed by Gressmann), who reads משְׁלֹה: ‘Until his
ruler (_i.e._ the Messiah) come.’

♦ duplicate word “as” removed