Chapter XXXVI

_Edomite Genealogies, etc._
(partly Priestly-Code).

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

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

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

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

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

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

♦ Printing error fixed.

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

(a) Lôṭān.
(Timna‛).
Ḥōrî.
Hēmām.

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

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

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

(e) Rîšān.
‛Ûẓ.
’Ărān.

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

♦ “constrasted” replaced with “contrasted”

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN.

CHAPTERS XXXVII‒L.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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