Chapter XLV (3)

With regard to the general scope of the verse, the question
recurs, whether the term fixed by ¹⁰ᵇ{α} is historic or ideal;
whether, in other words, it is a prophecy of the Davidic kingdom
or of a future Messiah. (1) The tendency of recent scholars
has been to regard verse ¹⁰ as Messianic, but interpolated
(Wellhausen, Stade, Dillmann, Holzinger, Driver, al.), on the
double ground that it breaks the connexion between ⁹ and ¹¹, and
that the idea of a personal Messiah is not older than the 8th
century. But (apart from the question whether the subject in
¹¹ ᶠᐧ be Judah or the Messiah) the connexion between ⁹ and ¹¹
is in any case not so obvious as to justify the removal of ¹⁰;
and the assumption that the figure of the Messiah is a creation
of the literary Prophets is based more on our ignorance of the
early religious conceptions of the Israelites than on positive
evidence. (2) Accordingly, Gunkel (followed by Gressmann, _Der
Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie_, 263) finds in
the passage proof of a pre-prophetic eschatology, which looked
forward to the advent of a Ruler who should found a world-empire,
the point of the oracle being that till that great event
Judah’s dominion should not pass away. It is difficult, however,
to believe that the climax of a blessing on Judah is the
expectation of a world-ruler who takes the sceptre out of
Judah’s hands; and though a reference to a Messianic tradition
is quite conceivable, it is probable that it is here already
applied to the Davidic monarchy. (3) It seems to me, therefore,
that justice is done to the terms and the tenor of the oracle
if we regard it as a prophecy of David and his dynasty,――a
_vaticinium ex eventu_, like all the other oracles in the
chapter. The meaning would be that Judah shall retain its
tribal independence (see on ¹⁰ᵃ) against all adversaries until
its great hero makes it the centre of a powerful kingdom,
and imposes his sovereignty on the neighbouring peoples. As
for the enigmatic שילה, we may, of course, adopt the reading
שֶׁלּוֹ, which is as appropriate on this view as on the directly
Messianic interpretation. But if the oracle rests on an early
eschatological tradition, it is just possible that שִׁלֹה is a
cryptic designation of the expected Ruler, which was applied
by the poet to the person of David. Bennett (page 397) calls
attention to the resemblance with שֵׁלָה in chapter 38; and it is a
wonder that those who recognise mythical elements in the story
of Judah and Tamar have not thought of identifying the שלה of
our passage with Judah’s third son, of whose destiny the story
leaves us in ignorance. Is it possible that this connexion was
in the minds of the Jewish authorities (_v.i._), who render שילה
‘his youngest son’? (see Posnanski, 36³).

* * * * *

=10b.= עד――שילה] LXX, Theodotion ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ
[variants ᾧ τὰ ἀποκείμενα ..., ᾧ ἀποκείμενα ... etc.]; Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac phrase); Vulgate _donec veniat qui mittendus est_
(reading שָׁלֻחַ: compare Σιλωάμ (ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Ἀπεσταλμένος), John
9⁷); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ עד עלמא עד דייתי משיחא דדילהּ היא מלכותא; Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ
לד זמן די ייתי מלכא משיחא זעיר בנוי. This last curious rendering (‘the youngest
of his sons’) is followed by Kimchi and others; and apparently
rests on a misunderstanding of שִׁלְיָתָהּ (‘afterbirth’) in
Deuteronomy 28⁵⁷ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ זעיר בנהא).――עד כי־] Only here with
imperfect. With perfect (26¹³ 41⁴⁹, 2 Samuel 23¹⁰) it always
marks a limit in the past (‘until’); but עַד alone sometimes
means ‘while,’ both with perfect and imperfect (1 Samuel 14¹⁹,
Psalms 141¹⁰), and so עַד שֶ־ (Canticles 1¹²), עד לא (Proverbs 8²⁶),
and עד אשד לא (Ecclesiastes 12¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁶): see Brown-Driver-Briggs,
page 725 a. The translation ‘as long as’ is thus perhaps not
altogether impossible, though very improbable.――שילה] MSS
and _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ שלה, probably
the original text. The _scriptio plena_ may have no better
foundation than the common Jewish interpretation שִׁילוֹ, ‘his
son,’――an impossible etymology, since there is no such word as
שִׁיל in Hebrew, and the two forms which appear to have suggested
it (viz., New Hebrew שָׁלִיל = ‘fœtus’ and שִׁלְיָה = ‘afterbirth’
[Deuteronomy 28⁵⁷†]) are obviously superficial and fallacious
analogies. The Massoretic vocalisation is therefore open to
question, and we are free to try any pronunciation of the
_Kethîb_ שלה which promises a solution of the exegetical riddle
with which we are confronted. In spite of the unanimity of the
Versions, the pointing שֶׁלֹּה is suspicious for the reasons given
above,――the presence of――שֶׁ in an early document, and the want
of a subject in the relative sentence. On the other hand, the
attempts to connect the word with √ שׁלה, ‘be quiet,’ are all
more or less dubious. (a) There is no complete parallel in
Hebrew to a noun like שִׁילֹה from a ל״ה root. If it be of the type
_qîtôl_, the regular form would be שִׁילוֹי; although König (ii. page
147) argues that as we find בֶּכֶה alongside of בְּכִי, so we might have
a שִׁילֹה alongside of שִׁילוֹי. Again, if _ô_ be an apocopated form of
the nominal termination _ôn_, the √ would naturally be not שׁלה
but שׁיל (in Arabic = ‘flow,’ whence _seil_, ‘a torrent’) or שׁול.
It is true there are a few examples of _un_apocopated nouns of
this type from ל״ה verbs (קִיִצוֹן, אִיתוֹן, [Ezekiel 40¹⁵?], הֵרוֹן [Genesis
3¹⁶†――probably an error for the regular הֵרָיוֹן, Hosea 9¹¹, Ruth
4¹³†]); and the possibility of deriving the form in _ô_ from
a root of this kind cannot be absolutely excluded (compare אֲבַדֹּה
with אֲבַדּוֹן). (b) But even if these philological difficulties could
be removed, there remains the objection that שׁלה (as contrasted
with שׁלם) is in Old Testament at most a negative word, denoting
mere tranquillity rather than full and positive prosperity,
and is often used of the careless worldly ease of the ungodly.
For all these reasons it is difficult to acquiesce in the view
that שִׁלֹה can be a designation of the Messiah as the _Peaceful_
or the _Pacifier_; while to change the pointing and render
till tranquillity (שֶׁלֶה) ‘come,’ is exposed to the additional
objection that the וְלוֹ of the following line is left without an
antecedent.――יקּהת] (Proverbs 30¹⁷†) _Dagesh forte dirimens_. The
√ appears in Arabic _waḳiha_, ‘be obedient’; Sabaean וקה. That
a verb (יִקָּהֲלוּ, יִקָּווּ?) would be more natural (Ball) is not apparent;
the verbs in Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ paraphrase the sense given
above. The √ was evidently not understood by LXX, Theodotion
(προσδοκία), Vulgate (_expectatio_), Aquila (σύστημα), Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word) all of which probably derived from √ קַוַה (Aquila
from √ קוה, II.: Brown-Driver-Briggs).

* * * * *

=11, 12.= As usually understood, the verses give a highly coloured picture of Judæan life after the conquest, in a land where vines are so common that they are used for tethering the ass, and wine so abundant that garments are washed in it. As a description of the vine-culture for which Judah was famous, the hyperbole is perhaps extreme; and Gressmann (_l.c._ 287) takes the subject to be not the personified tribe, but the Ruler of verse ¹⁰, the verses being a prediction of the ideal felicity to be introduced by his reign. Whether this be the original sense of the passage or not is hard to decide; but Gressman is doubtless right in thinking that it supplied the imagery for the well-known picture of the Messianic king in Zechariah 9⁹.――=12.= LXX, Vulgate take the adjectives as comparatives: ‘brighter than wine (_v.i._) ... whiter than milk’: but this is less natural.

The section on Judah lacks the unity of the first two oracles,
and is very probably composed of strophes of diverse origin
and date. Verse ⁸ opens with a play on the name, like verses
¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁹, while verse ⁹ starts afresh with an animal comparison,
like verses ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ²⁷ (see Introductory Note, page 510). The
impression of discontinuity is partly confirmed by the poetic
form; verse ⁸ being an irregular tristich, and the remainder a
series of 7 perfect trimeter distichs. The dekastich ¹⁰⁻¹² seems
distinct from what precedes (note the repetition of the name
in ¹⁰), but is itself a unity. The proposal to remove verse ¹⁰
as a late Messianic interpolation, and to make verse ¹¹ the
continuation of verse ⁹, does not commend itself; and the
excision of the third line in verse ¹⁰ (Meier, Fripp) merely
avoids an exegetical difficulty by sacrificing the strophic
arrangement.

* * * * *

=11.= אסרי] with archaic case-ending: compare בני below, and
perhaps חכלילי in verse ¹².――שׂרֵקָה] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον = שׂרֵק, Isaiah
5², Jeremiah 2²¹ [שָׂרֹק, Isaiah 16⁸]; probably from the _red_
colour of the best grapes.――סותה] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ כסותה, ‘covering’ (Exodus 21¹⁰ etc.). סוּת
(√ סָוָה?) does not occur elsewhere.――=12.= חכלילי] In Proverbs 23²⁹
חַכְלִלוּת עינים means ‘_dulness_ of eyes,’ the effect of excessive
drinking. This is the only sense justified by etymology
(Assyrian _akâlu_, ‘be gloomy’; Arabic _ḥakala_, IV, ‘be
confused’: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ חכל), and must be
retained here, although, of course, it does not imply reproach,
any more than שׁכר in 43³⁴. LXX χαροποι[οί], ‘glad-eyed’; and
similarly Vulgate, Peshiṭtå.

* * * * *

=13‒15. Zebulun and Issachar.=

¹³ Zebulun shall dwell by the shore of the sea,
And ... shore of ships (?),
And his flank is on Ẓidon.

¹⁴ Issachar is a bony ass
Crouching between the panniers (?):
¹⁵ And he saw that rest was good,
And that the land was sweet;
So he bent his shoulder to bear,
And became a labouring drudge.

=13.= _shall dwell_] An allusion to the etymology in 30²⁰. It is plausibly conjectured that יִשְׁכֹּן has been substituted by mistake for the original יִזְבֹּל (Gunkel al.).――The second and third lines are unintelligible, and the text is probably corrupt. The comparison of Zebulun to a recumbent animal, with ‘itself’ (וְהוּא) towards the sea-coast, and its hind-parts towards Ẓidon (Dillmann, Gunkel, al.), is unsatisfying and almost grotesque. Deuteronomy 33¹⁹ᵇ shows that it is the advantageousness of Zebulun’s geographical position which is here celebrated.――_Ẓîdôn_] may be a name for Phœnicia, in whose commercial pursuits it has been surmised that Zebulun became more and more involved (Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 171).――=14.= _bony_] _i.e._ strong-limbed. Issachar had strength enough, but preferred ease to exertion.――הַמִּשְׁפְּתָֽיִם] The common interpretation ‘sheep-pens’ has no appropriateness here, and may be a conjecture based on Judges 5¹⁶. Equally unsuitable are the renderings of the old Versions (‘boundaries,’ etc.), and the ‘fire-places’ or ‘ash-heaps’ which the Hebrew etymology would suggest. The form is dual, and one naturally thinks of the ‘panniers’ carried by the ass (_v.i._).――=15.= מְנוּחָה] A technical term for the settled, as contrasted with the nomadic, life (Gunkel).――_a labouring drudge_] literally ‘became a toiling labour-gang’; compare Joshua 16¹⁰. מַס is a levy raised under the system of forced labour (_corvée_). That a Hebrew tribe should submit to this indignity was a shameful reversal of the normal relations between Israel and the Canaanites (Joshua 16¹⁰ 17¹³ [= Judges 1²⁸], Judges 1³⁰ᐧ ³³ᐧ ³⁵).

The two northern Leah-tribes found a settlement in Lower Galilee,
where they mingled with the Canaanite inhabitants. According to
Joshua 19¹⁰⁻¹⁶, Zebulun occupied the hills north of the Great
Plain, being cut off from the sea both by Asher and by the strip
of Phœnician coast. We must therefore suppose that the tribal
boundaries fluctuated greatly in early times, and that at the
date of the poem Zebulun had access at some point to the sea.
The almost identical description on Judges 5¹⁷ is considered by
Gunkel to have been transferred from Zebulun to Asher,――a view
which, if it can be substantiated, affords a reliable criterion
of the relative dates of the two oracles. The district of
Issachar seems to have been between the Great Plain and the
Jordan, including the Vale of Jezreel,――a position in which
it was peculiarly difficult for a Hebrew tribe to maintain its
independence. The tribe is not even mentioned in the survey of
Judges 1, as if it had ceased to be part of Israel. Yet both it
and Zebulun had played a gallant part in the wars of the Judges
(Judges 4⁶ᐧ ¹⁰ 5¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁸ 6³⁵ 5¹⁵). The absence of any allusion to
these exploits lends colour to the view that this part of the
poem is of older date than the Song of Deborah.

* * * * *

=13.= חוף ימים] Judges 5¹⁷; compare ח׳ הים, Deuteronomy 1⁷, Joshua 9¹,
Jeremiah 47⁷, Ezekiel 25¹⁶†: חוף is never found with any other
genitive except in the next line.――והוא וגו׳] One is tempted to
construe prosaically thus: ‘And _that_ a shore for ships, with
its flank on Ẓidon’; but this would entail elision of לְ, to
the detriment of the rhythm: besides, the repetition of חוף
and the unique combination ח׳ אניּת are suspicious. Ball reads
יגור for לחוף (after Judges 5¹⁷), and deletes the last line.――על]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ע͏ד.――=14.= חמר גרם] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ ח׳ גרים, ‘ass of sojourners’ (unless
גָּרִים be an adjective from גרם). LXX τὸ καλὸν ἐπεθύμησεν (= חָמֶד גָּרַם:
Ginsburg, _Introduction of the Massoretico-critical edition of
the Hebrew Bible_ page 254); Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase), Aquila
and Vulgate support on the whole Massoretic Text.――בין המשפתים]
Judges 5¹⁶†, but compare Psalms 68¹⁴. The three passives are
somehow interrelated, although no sense will suit them all.
Versions mostly render ‘territories,’ or something equivalent,
both here and in Judges. But the διγομίας of LXX in Judges (see
Schleusner) is noteworthy, and shows that the rendering above
has some show of authority. So the late Græcus-Venetus ἡμιφόρτια.
For the rest, see Moore on Judges 5¹⁶.――=15.= טוב] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ טובה.――למס עבד] LXX ἀνὴρ γεωργός
(Ginsburg, _l.c._).――On מס, see Brown-Driver-Briggs, and Moore,
_Judges_ page 47.

* * * * *

=16‒21. Dan, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali.=

¹⁶ Dan shall judge his people,
As one of the tribes of Israel.
¹⁷ Be Dan a serpent on the way,
A horned snake on the path,
That bites the hoofs of the horse,
And the rider tumbles backwards!

¹⁸ [I wait for thy salvation, Yahwe!]

¹⁹ Gad――raiders shall raid him,
But he shall raid their rear!

²⁰ Asher――his bread shall be fat,
And he shall yield dainties for kings.

²¹ Naphtali is a branching terebinth (?)
Producing comely tops (?).

=16.= _Dân ... judge_] See on 30⁶.――_his people_] Not Israel, but his own tribesmen. The meaning is not that Dan will produce a judge (Samson) as well as the other tribes (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ), nor that he will champion the national cause (Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann, al.); but that he will successfully assert an equal status with the other tribes. Note that in Judges 18²ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁹ the Danites are spoken of as a ‘clan’ (מִשְׁפָּחָה).――=17.= The little snake, concealed by the wayside, may unhorse the rider as effectually as a fully armed antagonist: by such insidious, but not ignoble, warfare Dan in spite of his weakness may succeed.――שְׁפִיפֹן] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον is probably the _cerastes cornutus_, whose habits are here accurately described (see Driver, and Tristram, _The Natural History of the Bible_, 274).――=18.= An interpolation, marking (as nearly as possible) the middle of the poem (so Olshausen, Ball, Sievers, al.). The attempts to defend its genuineness as a sigh of exhaustion on Jacob’s part, or an utterance of the nation’s dependence on Yahwe’s help in such unequal conflicts as those predicted for Dan, are inept.――Dan was one of the weakest of the tribes, and perhaps the latest to secure a permanent settlement (Judges 1³⁴ ᶠᐧ, Joshua 19⁴⁷, Judges 18). Its migration northward, and conquest of Laish, must have taken place early in what is known as the Judges’ period; and is apparently presupposed here and in Judges 5¹⁷.――=19.= Strictly: ‘A marauding band shall attack him, but he shall attack their heel’ (reading עֲקֵבִם, _v.i._); _i.e._, press upon them in their flight. The marauders are the warlike peoples to the East, specially the Ammonites (1 Chronicles 5¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, Judges 10 f.), who at a later time dispossessed the tribe (Jeremiah 49¹). As yet, however, Gad maintains its martial character (compare 1 Chronicles 12⁸⁻¹⁵), and more than holds its own.――=20.= Asher settled in the fertile strip along the coast, North of Carmel. The name occurs as a designation of Western Galilee in Egyptian inscriptions of the time of Seti and Ramses II. (see Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 236 ff.).――_fat_] Probably an allusion to the oil (Deuteronomy 33²⁴) for which the region was, and still is, famous.――_royal dainties_] fit for the tables of Phœnician kings (compare Ezekiel 27¹⁷).――=21.= The verse on Naphtali is ambiguous. Instead of אַיָּלָה, ‘hind,’ many moderns read אֵילָה (‘a spreading terebinth’). The following clause: ‘giving fair speeches,’ suits neither image; on the one view it is proposed to read ‘yielding goodly lambs’ (אִמְּרֵי), on the other ‘producing goodly shoots’ (אֲמִרֵי). No certain conclusion can be arrived at.

* * * * *

=17.= שפיפן LXX ἐνκαθήμενος, taking the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον as an
adjective.――ויפל Ball וַיַפֵּל (after Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word)).――=19.=
גָּד] The name is here (otherwise than 30¹¹) connected with גדוד,
‘band’ (1 Samuel 30⁸ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²³, 1 Kings 11²⁴, 2 Kings 5² 6²³ etc.),
and with √ גוד, ‘assail’ (Habakkuk 3¹⁶, Psalms 94²¹†).――עקב] Read
עקבָם, taking the ם from the beginning of verse ²⁰.――=20.= מאשר]
Read with LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate אָשֵׁר.――שמנה] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ שמן.――=21.= אִיָּלָה שלחה] So Aquila,
Vulgate (Jerome, _Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in
Genesim_). Peshiṭtå and Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ probably had the
same text, but render ‘a swift messenger.’ On Jerome’s _ager
irriguus_ (_Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_)
and its Rabbinical parallels, see Rahmer, _Die Hebräischen
Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus_ page 55. LXX στέλεχος
seems to imply אֵילָה; but Ball dissents.――הנתן] After either אַיָּלָה
or אֵילָה, נֹתְנָה would be better.――אִמְרֵי] ‘words,’ is unsuitable, and
caused Peshiṭtå and Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ to change the metaphor to
that of a messenger. An allusion to the eloquence of the tribe
is out of place in the connexion. The reading אֲמִרֵי, ‘topmost
boughs,’ has but doubtful support in Isaiah 17⁶ (see the
commentary). אִמֵּר, ‘lamb,’ is not Hebrew, but is found in Assyrian,
Phœnician, Aramaic, and Arabic. LXX ἐν τῷ γενήματι is traced by
Ball to בִּפְרִי; but?――שֶׁפֶר] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον.――Ball argues ingeniously,
but unconvincingly, that אַיָּלָה belongs to verse ²², and that the
פרת of that verse stood originally in ²¹. His amended text reads:

נפתלי פֹּרָת שְׁלֻחָה הנתנה פְּרִי שפר

_Naphtali is a branching vine,_
_That yieldeth comely fruit._

* * * * *

=22‒26. Joseph.=

²² A fruitful bough (?) is Joseph――
A fruitful bough by a well (?).

* * * * *

²³ And ... dealt bitterly with him,
And the archers harassed him sorely.
²⁴ Yet his bow abode unmoved,
And nimble were the arms of his hands.
Through the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob,
Through the ⸢name⸣ of the Shepherd of the Israel-Stone,
²⁵ Through thy father’s God――may he help thee!
And El Shaddai――may he bless thee!
Blessings of heaven above,
Blessings of Tĕhôm ⸢ ⸣ beneath,
Blessings of breast and womb,
²⁶ Blessings of ... (?),
Blessings of the eternal, ⸢mountains⸣,
⸢Produce⸣ of the everlasting hills――
Be on the head of Joseph,
And on the crown of the consecrated one of his brethren.

The section is full of obscurities, and the text frequently
quite untranslatable. Its integrity has naturally not passed
unquestioned. We may distinguish four stages in the unfolding of
the theme: (1) The opening tristich (²²), celebrating (as far as
can be made out) the populousness and prosperity of the central
double-tribe. (2) Joseph’s contest with the ‘archers’ (²³ᐧ ²⁴ᵃ).
(3) A fourfold invocation of the Deity (²⁴ᵇᐧ ²⁵ᵃ{αβ}). (4)
The blessing proper (²⁶ᵃ{γδ}ᵇᐧ ²⁶), which closely resembles
the corresponding part of the Blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy
33¹³⁻¹⁶), the two being probably variants of a common original.
Meyer (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 282 ff.)
accepts (1), (2), and (4) as genuine, but rejects (3) as a
later addition, which has displaced the original transition
from the conflict to the blessing. Fripp (_Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 262 ff.) would remove
(3) and (4) (²⁴ᵇ⁻²⁶), which he holds to have been inserted by
an Ephraimite editor from Deuteronomy 33: Holzinger seems in the
main to agree. Sievers also (II. 362) questions the genuineness
of ²⁴ᵇ⁻²⁶ on metrical grounds. But we may admit the northern
origin of some of the verses, and the resemblance to Deuteronomy
33, and even a difference of metre, and still hold that the
whole belongs to the earliest literary recension of the Song to
which we have access. The warm enthusiasm of the eulogy, and the
generous recognition of Joseph’s services to the national cause,
are no doubt remarkable in a Judæan document; but such a tone
is not unintelligible in the time of David, when the unity of
the empire had to be maintained by a friendly and conciliatory
attitude to the high-spirited central tribes.

=22.= On the ordinary but highly questionable rendering, the image is that of a young thriving vine planted by a fountain and thus well supplied with water, whose tendrils extend over the wall.――_a fruitful bough_] Or ‘A young fruit-tree’: literally ‘son of a fruitful [tree’ or ‘vine’]. There is probably an etymological allusion to Ephraim (פְּרָת = אֶפְרָת: Wellhausen).――=23, 24.= The figure is abruptly changed: Joseph is now represented as beset by troops of archers, whose attack he repels.――_dealt bitterly ..._] The following word וָרֹבּוּ requires some amendment of text (_v.i._).――=24.= _abode unmoved_] or ‘constant.’ Taken with the next line, this suggests a fine picture: the bow held steadily in position, while the hand that discharges the arrows in quick succession moves nimbly to and fro (Gunkel). The expressions, however, are peculiar, and a different reading of the second line given in some Versions is approved by several scholars (_v.i._).――_Strong One of Jacob_] A poetic title of Yahwe, recurring Isaiah 49²⁶ 60¹⁶, Psalms 132²ᐧ ⁵, and (with Israel for Jacob) Isaiah 1²⁴. See, further, the footnote below.――_Through the name_] מִשֵּׁם, the reading of Peshiṭtå and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, though not entirely satisfactory, is at least preferable to the meaningless מִשָּׁם of Massoretic Text.――_the Shepherd of the Israel-Stone_] A second designation of Yahwe as the Guardian of the Stone of Israel,――either the sacred stone of Bethel, or (better) that of Shechem (Joshua 24²⁶ ᶠᐧ), which was the religious rendezvous of the tribes in early times (see page 416): so Luther, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 284¹. Both text and translation are, however, uncertain (_v.i._).――=25, 26.= The construction is ambiguous: it is not clear whether the lines beginning with _Blessings_ are a series of accusatives depending on the וִיבָרְכֶךָּ of ²⁵ᵃ (‘may he bless thee _with_ blessings,’ etc.), or subjects to תִּֽהְיֶין in ²⁶ᵇ. The second view is adopted above; but the ambiguity may be an intentional refinement.――=25aαβ.= _’Ēl Shaddai_] For the reading, _v.i._; and see on 17¹.――=25aγδb, 26a.= The blessings, arranged in three parallel couplets,――the first referring to the fertility of the soil.――_Blessings of heaven above_] Rain and dew, the cause of fertility (so Deuteronomy 33¹³ emended).――_Tĕhôm ... beneath_] The subterranean flood, whence springs and rivers are fed: see on 1². ――_Blessings of breasts and womb_] Contrast the terrible imprecation, Hosea 9¹⁴.――=26a.= Passing over the first four words as absolutely unintelligible (_v.i._), we come to the third pair of blessings: _... of the eternal mountains ... of the everlasting hills_ (Deuteronomy 33¹⁵, Habakkuk 3⁶)] In what sense the mountains were conceived as a source of blessing is not clear,――perhaps as abodes of deity; compare the ‘dew of Hermon’ (Psalms 133³).――The word rendered _produce_ is uncertain; we should expect ‘blessings,’ as LXX actually reads (_v.i._).――=26b.= _Be on the head_] as in benediction the hand is laid on the head (48¹⁴): compare Proverbs 10⁶ 11²⁶.――נְזִיר אֶחָיו] So Deuteronomy 33¹⁶. The נָזִיר is either the _Nazirite_――one ‘consecrated’ to God by a vow involving unshorn hair (Judges 13⁵ᐧ ⁷ etc.)――or the _prince_ (so only Lamentations 4⁷). For the rendering ‘crowned one’ there are no examples. The second interpretation is that usually adopted by recent scholars; some explaining it of the Northern monarchy, of which the Joseph-tribes were the chief part; though others think it merely ascribes to Joseph a position of princely superiority to his brethren. The other view is taken by Sellin (_Beiträge zur israelitischen und jüdischen religionsgeschichte_ ii. 1, 132 ff.) and Gunkel, who conceive the ancient Nazirite as a man like Samson, dedicated to single-handed warfare against the foes of Israel (compare Schwally, _Semitische Kriegsaltertümer_, 101 ff.), and hold that Joseph is so designated as being the foremost champion of the national cause. The interpretation is certainly plausible; but it derives no support from the word קָדְקֹד (∥ ראשׁ), which is never used in connexion with the Nazirite, and is quite common in other connexions (see Deuteronomy 33²⁰).

The opinion confidently entertained by many scholars (see
Wellhausen, _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen
Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 321), that the Blessing of Joseph
presupposes the divided kingdom, rests partly on this expression,
and partly on the allusion to an arduous struggle in ²³ ᶠᐧ. But
it is clear that neither indication is at all decisive. If נָזִיר
could mean only ‘crowned one,’ we should no doubt find ourselves
in the time of the dual monarchy. In point of fact, it never
denotes the king, and only once ‘princes’; and we have no
right to deny that its import is adequately explained by the
leadership which fell to the house of Joseph in the conquest of
Canaan (Judges 1²² ᶠᶠᐧ). Similarly, the ‘archers’ of verse ²³
_might_ be the Aramæans of Damascus, in which case Joseph would
be a name for the Northern kingdom as a whole; but they may as
well be the Midianites (Judges 6 ff.) or other marauders who
attacked central Israel between the settlement and the founding
of the monarchy, and whose repeated and irritating incursions
would admirably suit the terms of the description. The general
considerations which plead for an early date are: (1) The
analogy of the rest of the poem, some parts of which are
earlier, and none demonstrably later, than the age of David
or Solomon. (2) The incorporation of the blessing in a Judæan
work is improbable at a time when Israel was a rival kingdom.
(3) Although Joseph sometimes stands for the Northern kingdom,
it can hardly do so here in an enumeration of the tribes.
Consequently it takes us back to the time when Joseph was still
a single tribe, or when at least the separation of Ephraim and
Manasseh was not clearly recognised: the addition in Deuteronomy
33¹⁷ᵇ is instructive in this regard (see Gunkel, and Sellin,
_l.c._ 134).

* * * * *

=22.= בן פרת] בֵּן is construct state: the rhythmic accent forbids
the usual shortening of the vowel with Maqqeph (בֶּך).――פֹּרָת]
Contracted from פֹּרִיָּת, ‘fruitful’ (Isaiah 17⁶ 32¹², Ezekiel
19¹⁰, Psalms 128³), or פֹּרַיַת, with archaic feminine termination.
פֹּארָה, ‘bough’ (Ezekiel 17⁶ 31⁵ᐧ ⁶), might be thought of, but
would be hardly suitable as genitive after בן.――Down to עין
the Versions have substantially the same text.――בנות צעדה עלי שור]
defies explanation. Literally _filiæ discurrerunt super murum_
(Vulgate). But בנות = ‘tendrils,’ has no analogy; צעד means
‘march’ or ‘stride,’ but not ‘extend’; and the discord of number
is harsh (notwithstanding Gesenius-Kautzsch § 145 _k_). The
Versions reveal early corruption of the text, without suggesting
anything better. LXX υἱός μου νεώτατος (= _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ בני צעירי) πρὸς μὲ ἀνάστρεψον (= עָלַי שׁוּב).
Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase).――Zimmern’s zodiacal theory, which
identifies Joseph with the sign Taurus, finds two tempting
points of contact in the consonantal text: reading פָּרָת = פָּרָה,
‘juvenca,’ at the beginning, and שוֹר, ‘ox,’ at the end. But the
reconstruction of the text on these lines, with the help of
Deuteronomy 33¹⁷ (see _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vii. 164
ff.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 399),
has no title to respect: against it see Ball, page 116.――=23.=
וָרֹבּוּ] From √ רבב, a by-form of רבה,¹ ‘shoot,’ with intransitive
perfect (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 _m_). The simple perfect
between two consecutive imperfects being suspicious, the
least change demanded is וַיָּרֹבּוּ. _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_, LXX (ἐλοιδόρουν) and Vulgate (_jurgati sunt_) read
וַיְרִיבֻהוּ, ‘strove with him.’ Parallelism suggests a noun as subject
to וַיְמ׳; we might read רַבִּים, ‘bowmen’ (Jeremiah 50²⁹), or (since
the line is too short) רֹבֵי קֶשֶׁת (21²⁰)――=24a.= LXX καὶ συνετρίβη
μετὰ κράτους τὰ τόξα αὐτῶν [= וַתִּשָּׁבֵר בְּאֵיתָן קַשְׁתָּם].――ותשב] Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word) = וַתָּֽשָׁב. The sense ‘abide’ for ישׁב is justified
by Leviticus 12⁴, 1 Kings 22¹, Psalms 125¹, and nothing is
gained by departing from Massoretic Text.――באיתן] Literally
‘as a permanent one’ (בְּ _essentiæ_).――ויפזר] 2 Samuel 6¹⁶†. LXX
καὶ ἐξελύθη, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) may represent ויפזרו (see
Ball).――[LXX יָדָם] זרועי ידיו] is a hard combination, but perhaps not
too bold.――=24b.= אֲבִיר] occurs only in the passive cited above.
It is reasonably suspected that the Massoretic changed the
punctuation to avoid association of ideas with אַבִּיר, ‘bull,’ the
idolatrous emblem of Yahwe in North Israel. Whether the name
as applied to Yahwe be really a survival of the bull-worship of
Bethel and Dan is another question; אַבִּיר (strong) is an epithet
of men (Judges 5²², Job 24²² 34²⁰, Jeremiah 46¹⁵, 1 Samuel 21⁸
etc.), and horses (Jeremiah 8¹⁶ 47³ 50¹¹) much more often than
of bulls (Psalms 22¹³ 68³¹ 50¹³, Isaiah 34⁷), and might have
been transferred to Yahwe in its adjective sense. On the other
hand, the parallelism with ‘Stone of Israel’ in the next line
favours the idea that the title is derived from the cult of the
Bull at Bethel, which may have had a more ancient significance
than an image of Yahwe (compare Meyer, _Die Israeliten
und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 282 ff.; Luther, _Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 70 ff.). The
further inference (Nöldeke, Luther, Meyer) that Jacob was
the deity originally worshipped in the bull is perhaps too
adventurous.――מִשָּׁם] So LXX, Vulgate; but Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
מִשֵּׁם.――אבן ישראל] Compare צור יש׳, 2 Samuel 23³, Isaiah 30²⁹; also א׳ הָעֶזָר,
1 Samuel 4¹ 5¹ 7¹². The translation above agrees with Peshiṭtå;
Massoretic Text puts רֹעֶה in apposition with א׳ י׳ (so Vulgate);
LXX ♦ἐκεῖθεν ὁ κατισχύσας Ἰσραήλ omits אבן, and may have read עזר
(Ball). The line is too long for the metre, but אבן is the one
word that should _not_ be omitted.――=25.= ויעזרך ... ויברכך] Compare
Psalms 69³³, and see Ewald § 347 _a_.――ואת־] Read with _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX (ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐμός),
Peshiṭtå וְאֵל: though שֶׂדַּי alone (Numbers 24⁴ᐧ ¹⁶) would be suitable
in an ancient poem.――רבצת] Metrically necessary in Deuteronomy
33¹³, but here redundant; probably, therefore, a gloss from the
other recension (Sievers).――=26.= אביך גברו על־ברכת הורי עד־] There are
two stages of corruption, one remediable, the other not. The
last line is to be restored with LXX ברכת הַרְרֵי עַד, ‘blessings of
the eternal mountains’ (Deuteronomy 33¹⁵, Habakkuk 3⁶). But
the first three words, though represented by all Versions, must
be wrong; for to put ברכת under the regimen of על destroys the
parallelism, and the verb גָּֽבְרוּ cuts off תהיין from its subject. What
is obviously required is a line parallel to ברכת שדים ורחם. Gunkel’s
suggested emendation, though far from satisfying, is the best
that can be proposed: ברכת אָב אַךְ נֶּבֶר וָעֻל = ‘Blessings of father,
yea, man and child.’――אביך] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_, LXX + ואמך, suggested no doubt by the previous
line.――הורי] Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ render
‘my progenitors,’ by an impossible derivation from √ הרה,
‘be pregnant.’――תאות] English Version ‘utmost bound’ (so
Delitzsch, from √ תאה or תוה; see Brown-Driver-Briggs),
has no real philological or traditional justification.
If the text were reliable, it might be the common word
‘desire,’ from √ אוה (LXXᶜᵘʳˢⁱᵛᵉˢ, Old Latin Version, Vulgate,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ), in the sense of ‘desirable things.’
With some hesitation I follow above Olshausen, Gunkel, al.,
reading תבואת after Deuteronomy 33¹⁴. But LXXᴮ ברכת has great
weight (all the greater that the translator has lost the thread
of the thought), and ought perhaps to be preferred.――נזיר] is
not necessarily a derivative from the noun נֵזָר, ‘diadem,’ = ‘the
crowned one’; more probably it comes from the verb directly,――נזר
= ‘dedicate’ (compare נדר)――which admits various shades of
meaning. Of the Versions LXX, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ represent the
idea of ‘prince’ or ‘ruler,’ Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘the separated one,’
Vulgate, Saadya ‘the Nazirite,’ Peshiṭtå ‘the crown’ (נַזָר).

¹ But see above on 21²⁰.

♦ “κεῖθεν” replaced with “ἐκεῖθεν”

* * * * *

=27. Benjamin.=

²⁷ Benjamin is a ravening wolf:
In the morning he devours the prey,
And at eve divides the spoil.

Benjamin is praised for its predatory instincts, and its unflagging zest for war. The early history contains a good deal to justify the comparison: its fight with Moab (Judges 3¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ), its share in the struggle with the Canaanites (Judges 5¹⁴), its desperate stand against united Israel (Judges 19 f.); it was famous for its skill in slinging and archery (Judges 20¹⁶, 1 Chronicles 8⁴⁰ 12², 2 Chronicles 14⁷ 17¹⁷). But a special reference to the short-lived reign of Saul is probable: the dividing of spoil reminds us of the king who clothed the daughters of Israel with scarlet and ornaments (2 Samuel 1²⁴).――The contrast between this description and the conception of Benjamin in the Joseph-stories is an instructive example of how tribal characteristics were obscured in the biographical types evolved by the popular imagination.

* * * * *

=27.= זאב יטרָף] Descriptive imperfect, see Davidson § 44, _R._ 3,
§ 142. On pausal _ā_ see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 29 _u_.――עד] =
‘booty,’ Isaiah 33²³, Zephaniah 3⁸ [? Isaiah 9⁵]; LXX ἔτι.

* * * * *

=28abα= (to אביהם) is the subscription to the poem; the remainder of the verse belongs to Priestly-Code, and probably continued ¹ᵃ in that source.――_the tribes of Israel, twelve_ in number] The division into 12 tribes is an artificial scheme, whose origin is uncertain (see Luther, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 33 ff.; Peters, _Early Hebrew Story_, 55 ff.). It obtained also amongst the Edomites, Ishmaelites, and other peoples; and in Israel betrays its theoretic character by the different ways in which the number was made up, of which the oldest is probably that followed in the Song of Jacob. In Deuteronomy 33, Simeon is omitted, and Joseph divided into Ephraim and Manasseh; in Priestly-Code (Numbers 2) Joseph is again divided, to the exclusion not of Simeon, but of Levi.

The recently revived theory of a connexion between the original
sayings of the Blessing and the signs of the Zodiac calls for
a brief notice at this point. The most striking correspondences
were set forth by Zimmern in _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vii.
(1892), 161 ff.; viz., Simeon and Levi = Gemini (see page 517);
Judah = Leo, with the king-star Regulus on its breast (בין רגליו);
and Joseph = Taurus. This last comparison, it is true, rests on
Deuteronomy 33 rather than Genesis 49, and is only imported into
this passage by a violent reconstruction of verse ²² (page 530).
Other possible combinations mentioned by Zimmern are Issachar
= Aselli (in Cancer), Dan = Serpens (North of Libra), Benjamin
= Lupus (South of Scorpio), and Naphtali = Aries (reading
אַיִל for אַיָּלָה). Stucken (_Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen
Gesellschaft_, 1902, 166 ff.), after a laboured proof
that Reuben corresponds to Behemoth (hippopotamus), an old
constellation now represented by Aquarius, completed the circle
after a fashion, with the necessary addition of Dinah = Virgo
as the missing sign; and his results are adopted by Jeremias
(_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 395 ff.).
A somewhat different arrangement is given by Winckler in
_Altorientalische Forschungen_, iii. 465 ff. These conjectures,
however, add little to the evidence for the theory, which must
in the main be judged by the seven coincidences pointed out in
Zimmern’s article. That these amount to a demonstration of the
theory cannot be affirmed; but they seem to me to go far to show
that it contains an element of truth. It is hardly accidental
that in each series we have one double sign (Gemini, Simeon-Levi)
and one female personification (Virgo, Dinah), and that all
the animal names occurring in the Song (lion, ass, serpent,
ram?, ox?, wolf) can be more or less plausibly identified with
constellations either in the Zodiac or sufficiently near it
to have been counted as Zodiacal signs in early times. The
incompleteness of the correspondence is fairly explained by two
facts: first, that the poem has undergone many changes in the
course of its transmission, and no longer preserves the original
form and order of the oracles; and second, that while the
twelve-fold division of the ecliptic goes back to the remotest
antiquity, the traditional names of the twelve signs cannot all
be traced to the ancient Babylonian astronomy. It may be added
that there is no _prima facie_ objection to combinations of
this sort. The theory does not mean that the sons of Jacob
_are_ the earthly counterparts of the Zodiacal constellations,
and nothing more. All that is implied is that an attempt was
made to discover points of resemblance between the fortunes
and characteristics of the twelve tribes on the one hand, and
the astro-mythological system on the other. Such combinations
were necessarily arbitrary, and it might readily happen that
some were too unreal to live in the popular memory. Where the
correspondence is plausible, we may expect to find that the
characterisation of the tribe has been partly accommodated to
the conceptions suggested by the comparison; and great caution
will have to be observed in separating the bare historical facts
from the mythological allusions with which they are embellished.
In the present state of the question, it may be safely said that
the historical interpretation must take precedence. The Zodiacal
theory will have to be reckoned with in the interpretation of
the Song; but it has as yet furnished no trustworthy clue either
to the explanation of obscure details, or to the restoration of
the text.

* * * * *

=28.= שבטי ישראל] LXX υἱοὶ Ἰακώβ.――איש אשר כְּ׳] Such a construction is impossible. We must either omit the relatives (Versions) or read איש איש (Olshausen, Delitzsch, Kautzsch-Socin, Gunkel, al.).

* * * * *

XLIX. 28b‒L. 26.
_The Death and Burial of Jacob; and the Death of Joseph_
(Priestly-Code, Yahwist, Elohist).

Jacob charges his sons to bury him in the family sepulchre at Machpelah, and expires (²⁸ᵇ⁻³³). Joseph causes the body to be embalmed; and, accompanied by his brethren and an imposing _cortège_, conveys it to its last resting-place in Canaan (50¹⁻¹⁴). He pacifies and reassures his brethren, who fear his vengeance now that their father is gone (¹⁵⁻²¹). He dies in a good old age, after exacting an oath that his bones shall be carried up from Egypt when the time of deliverance comes (²²⁻²⁶).

_Sources._――49²⁸ᵇ{β}⁻³³ belongs to Priestly-Code, with the
possible exceptions of ³² (a gloss), and the clause ³³ᵃ{β}; note
the reference to chapter 23 and the identical phraseology of the
two passages; also the expressions גוע, אחזה, נאסף אל־עמיו (_bis_).――In
chapter 50, verses ¹²ᐧ ¹³ are from Priestly-Code (Machpelah, etc.:
note also that the suffix in בניו refers back to 49³³). Verses
¹⁻¹¹ᐧ ¹⁴ are mainly Yahwist (ישראל, ²; מצא חן בע׳, ⁴; גּשֶׁן, ⁸; הכנעני, ¹¹:
note the reference [⁵ ᶠᐧ] to Joseph’s oath [47²⁹⁻³¹]); and ¹⁵⁻²⁶
Elohist (אלהים, ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵; כלכל, ²¹ [45¹¹ 47¹²]; התחת אלהים אני ¹⁹
[30²]): the resemblance to 45⁵ᐧ ⁷; and the backward reference
in Exodus 13¹⁹, Joshua 24³²). The analysis might stop here
(Dillmann, Wellhausen, Driver, al.); but a variant in ¹⁰
(¹⁰ᵇ ∥ ¹⁰ᵃ{β}), and the double name of the place of burial
suggest that there may be two accounts of the funeral (see
Kautzsch-Socin _An._ 242). Holzinger, Gunkel, Procksch,
however, seem to me to go too far in the attempt to establish
a _material_ difference of representation (_e.g._, that in
Elohist’s account Joseph’s brethren did not go up with him to
the burial). Traces of Yahwist in ¹⁵⁻²⁶ are equally
insignificant (see the notes).

=28b‒33. Jacob’s charge to his sons.=――=28bβ.= The sequel to ¹ᵃ in Priestly-Code. Note the close formal parallel to 28¹ (Priestly-Code): _And ... called ... and blessed ... and charged ... and said ...――each with a special blessing_] _v.i._――=29, 30.= See on chapter 23.――=31.= _Abraham and Sarah his wife_] 25⁹ 23¹⁹. The burying-place of Isaac (35²⁹) is not elsewhere specified; and the burials of Rebekah and Leah are not recorded at all.――On the possibility that the notice of Rachel’s burial (48⁷) stood here originally, see page 504 f.――=32.= Probably a gloss (_v.i._).――=33.= _drew up his feet into the bed_] The clause may have been inserted from Yahwist; compare 48²ᵇ.――As in the case of all the patriarchs except Joseph, the actual account of the death is left to Priestly-Code.

* * * * *

=29.= ויצו אותם] LXX omits.――אל־עַמִּי] Read אל־עַמַּי (compare ³³): see
on 25⁸.――=30.= For בשדה המ׳, LXX has simply במכפלה, and for the
following השדה, המערה.――=31.= קברתי] LXX קָֽבְרוּ.――At the end of
the verse Budde would add ואת־רחל as Priestly-Code’s original
statement (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,
iii. 82).――=32.= The verse has no syntactic connexion with the
preceding, the construction is cumbrous in the extreme, and the
notice superfluous after ³⁰ᵇ. It should probably be deleted as
a marginal variant to ³⁰ᵇ (so Delitzsch, Gunkel).――מקנה] LXX במ׳.

* * * * *

=L. 1‒14. The burial of Jacob.=――=1.= The forms in which Joseph’s grief expressed itself were doubtless conventional, though they are not elsewhere alluded to in Old Testament.――=2.= The Egyptian practice of embalming originated in ideas with which the Hebrew mind had no sympathy,――the belief that the _ka_ or ghostly double of the man might at any time return to take possession of the body, which consequently had at all costs to be preserved (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 307). In the cases of Jacob and Joseph (verse ²⁶), it is merely an expedient for preserving the body till the burial could take place. On the various methods employed, see Herodotus, ii. 86‒88; Diodorus, i. 91; and Budge, _The Mummy_, 160 ff., 177 ff.――_the physicians_] In Egypt the embalmers formed a special profession.――=3.= _forty days ... seventy days_] The process of embalming occupied, according to Diodorus, over 30 days, according to Herodotus, 70 days; exact data from the monuments are not yet available (Erman, 315, 319 f.; Budge, 179). The mourning for Aaron and Moses lasted 30 days (Numbers 20²⁹, Deuteronomy 34⁸); the Egyptians (who are here expressly mentioned) are said to have mourned for a king 72 days (Diodorus, i. 72).――=4‒6.= Joseph seeks Pharaoh’s permission to absent himself from Egypt. Why he needed the court to intercede for him in such a matter does not appear.――=5a.= Compare 47²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――_have digged_] The rendering ‘have purchased’ is possible, but much less probable (compare 2 Chronicles 16¹⁴). The confused notice Acts 7¹⁶ might suggest a tradition that Jacob’s grave was in the plot of ground he bought near Shechem (33¹⁹ Elohist), which is the view maintained by Bruston (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, vii. 202 ff.). On any view the contradiction to 47³⁰ remains.――=7‒9.= The funeral procession is described with _empressement_ as a mark of the almost royal honours bestowed on the patriarch. Such processions are frequently depicted on Egyptian tombs: Erman, 320 f.; Ball, _Light from the East_, 119 f.――_horsemen_, however, never appear in them: “We have no representations of Egyptians on horseback; and were it not for a few literary allusions, we should not know that the subjects of the Pharaoh knew how to ride” (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 492 f.).――=10, 11.= The mourning at the grave.――_Gōren hā-Āṭād]_ ‘the threshing-floor of the bramble’; the locality is unknown (_v.i._).――=11.= _Ābēl Miẓraim_] one of several place-names compounded with אָבֵל = ‘meadow’ (Numbers 33⁴⁹, Judges 11³³, 2 Samuel 20¹⁵, 2 Chronicles 16⁴); here interpreted as אֵבל מִצְרַיִם ‘mourning of Egypt.’ The real name ‘meadow of Egypt’ may have commemorated some incident of the Egyptian occupation of Palestine; but the situation is unknown.――The record of the actual burying in Yahwist and Elohist has not been preserved.

It is difficult to say whether _Gōren hā-Āṭād_ and _Ābēl
Miẓraim_ are two different places, or two names for one place.
Jerome (_Onomastica Sacra_, 85¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ) identifies the former with
Bethagla (= _‛Ain Ḥaǧla_, or _Ḳaṣr Ḥaǧla_, South of Jericho
[Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 180]), but on what
authority we do not know. The conjecture that it was in the
neighbourhood of Rachel’s grave depends entirely on a dubious
interpretation of 48⁷. Since there appears to be a doublet in
verse ¹⁰ (¹⁰ᵃ{β} ∥ ¹⁰ᵇ), it is natural to suppose that one name
belongs to Yahwist and the other to Elohist, and therefore there
is no great presumption that the localities are identical (בג׳ הא׳
in ¹¹ may be a gloss). According to the present text, both were
East of the Jordan (¹⁰ᵃᐧ ¹¹ᵇ); but such a statement if found in
one document would readily be transferred by a redactor to the
other; and all we can be reasonably confident of is that one or
other was across the Jordan, for it is almost inconceivable that
א׳ בע׳ הירדן should be an interpolation in _both_ cases. Since it is
to be assumed that in Yahwist and Elohist the place of mourning
was also the place of burial, and since the theory of a _détour_
round the Dead Sea and the East of Jordan to arrive at any
spot in West Palestine is too extravagant to have arisen from
a fanciful etymology, it would seem to follow that, according
to at least one tradition, Jacob’s grave was shown at some now
unknown place East of the Jordan (Meyer, _Die Israeliten und
ihre Nachbarstämme_, 280 f.). Meyer’s inference that Jacob was
originally a transjordanic hero, is, however, a doubtful one;
for the East is dotted with graves of historic personages in
impossible places, and we have no assurance that tradition was
more reliable in ancient times.

* * * * *

=2.= חנט] verse ²⁶, Canticles 2¹³†. Apparently a Semitic √,
meaning in Arabic ‘become mature,’ applied in Hebrew Aramaic and
Arabic to the process of embalming.――=3.= חנֻטים] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον;
abstract plural. = ‘embalming.’――=4.= בכיתו] The feminine only
here, for בְּכִי. The suffix probably genitive object (weeping _for_
Jacob).――דברו־נא] Add with LXX עָלֵי.――=5.= השביעני] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXXᴬᐧ ᵃˡᐧ + לפני מותי.――הנה אנכי מת] LXX
omits. The phrase occurs in Elohist 48²¹, and (without הנה)
50²⁴.――כריתי] LXX, Vulgate, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ‘have digged’; Peshiṭtå
‘have purchased,’ Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ אַתְקְנֵת = ‘have prepared.’ The
first sense preponderates in usage (the second, Deuteronomy 2⁶,
Hosea 3², Job 6²⁷ 40³⁰†), and is here to be preferred.――את־אבי]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + כאשר השביעני.――=10.=
אטד] The word for ‘bramble’ in Jotham’s parable from Gerizim,
Judges 9¹⁴ ᶠᐧ (only Psalms 58¹⁰ again). Can there be an allusion
to the threshing-floor of this passage at Shechem?――=11.= בג׳ האטד]
Possibly a gloss from verse ¹⁰. If so, שמהּ (_The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ שמו), referring to גרן (whose gender
is uncertain), must have been substituted for שם המקום (so Vulgate,
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Gunkel).

* * * * *

=12, 13.= The account of the actual burial (from Priestly-Code).――It is significant that here the Egyptians take no part in the obsequies: the final redactor may have assumed that they were left behind at the mourning place East of the Jordan.――See further on 49²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=14= (Yahwist). The return to Egypt.

* * * * *

=12.= בניו לו] The suffixes find no suitable antecedents nearer than
49³³, the last excerpt from Priestly-Code.―כאשר צום] LXXᴮᐧ ᵃˡᐧ καὶ
ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ.――=13.= שדה] LXX τὸ σπήλαιον, and so again for
את־השדה.――=14.= אחרי――אביו] LXX omits.

* * * * *

=15‒21. Joseph removes his brethren’s fears=.――The verses contain a variation of the theme of 45⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ (Gunkel), as if to emphasize the lesson of the whole story, that out of a base intent God brought good to His people.――=15.= _saw_] _i.e._ ‘realised,’――took in the full significance of the fact (compare 30¹). If it were meant that they ‘learned’ for the first time that their father was dead, the inference would surely be not merely that the brethren had not been present at the funeral (Gunkel), but that Elohist had not recorded it at all.――=16, 17.= They send a message to Joseph, recalling a dying request of their father (not elsewhere mentioned).――_the servants of the God of thy father_] Religion is a stronger plea than even kinship (Gunkel).――=18.= Compare 44¹⁶. The verse may have been inserted from Yahwist (_v.i._).――=19.= _am I in God’s stead?_] (30²): to judge and punish at my pleasure.――=20.= Compare 45⁵ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸.――=21.= The continuance of the famine seems presupposed, in opposition to the chronology of Priestly-Code (47²⁸).

* * * * *

=15.= לוּ וגו׳] Conditional sentence with suppressed apodosis,
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 159 _y_.――=16.= ויצוו] LXX καὶ παρεγένοντο,
and Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), seem to have read וַיִּגְּשׁוּ, which
if correct would make the excision of verse ¹⁸ from Elohist
almost imperative (see on the verse). But the sense of צִוָּה, ‘to
commission,’ is justified by Exodus 6¹³, Jeremiah 27⁴, Esther
3¹² etc.; and נגש would not properly be followed by לאמר.――=17.=
אָנָּא] a strong particle of entreaty; in Pentateuch only Exodus
32³¹.――=18.= גם――לפניו] LXX omits.――For וילכו, Ball (after Vatke)
reads ויבכו, which would give point to the following גם. But the
change is not necessary: וילכו would mean ‘they went away’ only
if they had previously been present. That certainly seems
implied in ¹⁷ᵇ (apart from the reading of LXX, Peshiṭtå in ¹⁶);
and hence there is much to be said for assigning verse ¹⁸ to
Yahwist (Dillmann, Holzinger, Procksch).――=19b.= LXX reads
τοῦ γὰρ θεοῦ ἐγὼ εἰμί.――=20.= אלהים] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ והא׳: LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate also have the
copula.――=21.= ועתה] LXX εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς.

* * * * *

=22‒26. Joseph’s old age and death.=――=22.= _a hundred and ten years_] Compare Joshua 24²⁹. It is hardly a mere coincidence, but rather an instance of the Egyptian affinities of the narrative, that 110 years is at least three times spoken of as an ideal lifetime in Egyptian writings (Stern, _Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde_, 1873, 75 f.).――=23.= Joseph lived to see his great-grandchildren by both his sons,――another token of a life crowned with blessing (Psalms 128⁶, Proverbs 13²² 17⁶ etc.). The expressions used of Ephraim’s descendants are somewhat difficult (_v.i._).――_Mākîr_] the most powerful clan of Manasseh, in the Song of Deborah (Judges 5¹⁴) numbered among the tribes of Israel, and possibly therefore an older unit than Manasseh itself (see Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 507, 516 f.).――The expression _born on Joseph’s knees_ implies the adoption of Machir’s sons by Joseph (see on 30³), though the action does not seem to have any tribal significance.――=24, 25.= Joseph predicts the Exodus (as did Jacob, 48²¹), and directs his bones to be carried to Canaan. For the fulfilment of the wish, see Exodus 13¹⁹, Joshua 24³².――_his brethren_ are here the Israelites as a whole (verse ²⁵).――=26.= The death of Joseph.――_in a coffin_] or mummy-case, the wooden inner shell, shaped like the mummy, which was placed in the stone sarcophagus (see Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 315 f.; Ball, _Light from the East_, 121). A mythological allusion to the ‘coffin’ of Osiris (Völter, 55) is not to be thought of.

* * *

“This ‘coffin in Egypt,’” remarks Delitzsch, “is the coffin of all Israel’s spiritual satisfaction in Egypt.” Gunkel shows sounder judgement and truer insight when he bids us admire the restful close of the narrative, and the forward glance to the eventful story of the Exodus.

* * * * *

=22.= ובית] LXX καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ πᾶσα ἡ πανοικία.――=23.=
בני שלשים] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ בנים ש׳: so LXX,
Peshiṭtå Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ. שִׁלֵּשִׁים means ‘great-grandchildren’
(Exodus 34⁷); hence בני ש׳ ought to mean ‘great-great-grandchildren’
(not, of course, of Ephraim, but of Joseph in Ephraim’s line).
But there being no reason why the descent should be carried
further in the line of Ephraim than in that of Manasseh, we
must understand ‘great-grandchildren,’ whether we read with
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, or take בני ש׳ as
appositional genitive (see Dillmann).――על־ברכי] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ בימי, ‘in the days of,’――‘a bad
correction’ (Ball), supported by no other Version.――=24.= נשבע]
LXX + ὁ θεὸς τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν.――=25= end. Add with Hebrew
MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå,
Vulgate אִתְּכֶם, ‘with you.’――=26.= ויישם] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ ויושם. See on 24³³.

* * * * *

INDEXES.

I. ENGLISH.

Abel, 103 ff.

’Ābēl Miẓraim, 538.

’Abîda‛, 351.

‛Abîmā’ēl, 221.

Abimelech, 316 ff., 325 ff., 363 ff.

_Abî-râmu_, 292.

Abraham,
his religious significance, xxvi f.;
his migration, xxi, xxvii f., 238, 242 ff.;
as Mahdi, xxviii, 247;
legend of, xliv, 241 f.;
covenants with, 276 ff., 289 ff.;
name of, 244, 292 f.;
death of, 341, 351 f.

Abram, name, xxv, 292.

Abram, Field of, xxv, 244.

Accusative,
of condition, 77, 282, 474.
of definition, 29.
after passive, 220.
of place, 376.
of time, 260.

‛Ādāh, 118, 429 f.

Adapa and the South-wind, myth of, 92.

’Adbe’ēl, 353.

‛Adullām, 450.

Aetiological motive in myth and legend, xi f., 70, 95, 140, 332, 362.

Agriculture, 84, 87, 106, 110, 185, 365.

’Aḥuzzath, 367.

‛Ai, 247.

‛Aḳān, 434.

‛Akbôr, 436.

’Akkad, 210.

’Almôdād, 221.

‛Amālēḳ, 263, 431.

Amorite, 215, 263, 265, 282, 503.