Chapter XLV (1)

_Joseph reveals himself to his Brethren_
(Elohist, Yahwist).

The crisis so slowly matured and so skilfully led up to is at last reached, and in a scene of inimitable power and tenderness Joseph makes himself known to his brethren (¹⁻⁸). In a message to his father he discloses his plans for the future, inviting the whole family to settle in Egypt while the famine lasted (⁹⁻¹⁵). The invitation is confirmed by the king (¹⁶⁻²⁰); and the brethren depart laden with rich gifts and provision for the journey (²¹⁻²⁴). Jacob, after a momentary incredulity, is cheered by the prospect of seeing Joseph before his death (²⁵⁻²⁸).

The _sources_, Elohist and Yahwist, are here so intimately
blended that a complete analysis is impossible. The main fact is
the preponderance of Elohist, which appears both from language
(אלהים, ⁵ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹; יעקב, ²⁵; חרה בעינֵי, ⁵ [31³⁵]; צדה, ²¹ [42²⁵]; בר,
²³; perhaps also מזון, ²³; and טענו את־בעירכם, ¹⁷ [contrast Yahwist’s
ויעמס על־חמרו, 44¹³]), and representation: contrast verse ³ with
43²⁷ ᶠᐧ, ¹⁷⁻²⁰ with 46³¹‒47⁵ (Yahwist), where Joseph’s kindred
are apparently brought under Pharaoh’s notice for the first time.
Indubitable traces of Yahwist are found in ⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵ᵃ (the _selling_
of Joseph), ¹⁰ (Goshen,――see the notes), ²⁸ (ישראל); these are
supported by the expressions, התאפק, ¹ᵃ (as 43³¹); נעצב, ⁵ᵃ;
הוריד, ¹³; נפל על־צוארי, ¹⁴. Thus far in the main Wellhausen and
Dillmann. More subtle and less reliable criteria are applied
by Gunkel (402 f., 406), and (with very different results)
by Procksch (52 f.). It is probable that ³ (Elohist) is ∥ ⁴
(Yahwist), and (against Procksch) ⁹ (Elohist) ∥ ¹³ (Yahwist).
But it is very doubtful if the dismissal of the attendants (¹)
be inconsistent with the overhearing of the weeping (²), or
if the latter be necessarily connected with the Pharaoh’s
invitation (¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ).――Some minor questions, such as the ‘waggons’
of ¹⁹ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁷ (compare 46⁵), and the authorship of verses ¹⁹⁻²¹,
must be reserved for the notes.

=1‒8. The disclosure.=――=1, 2.= Joseph’s self-restraint gives way before Judah’s irresistible appeal.――It is pressing matters too far to say that the dismissal of the attendants is a device to keep his relation to the strangers a secret from Pharaoh (see on the sources above).――=3.= _is my father yet alive?_) The question is slightly less natural in the context of Yahwist (see 43²⁶ ᶠᐧ 44²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ) than in Elohist, where the absence of any mention of Jacob since the first visit (42¹³) might leave room for uncertainty in Joseph’s mind. But since he does not wait for an answer, the doubt can hardly be real.――_were troubled before him_] Compare 50¹⁵⁻²¹ (also Elohist).――=4.= Yahwist’s parallel to verse ³,――probably the immediate continuation of verse ¹ (compare 44¹⁸).――=5‒8.= With singular generosity Joseph reassures them by pointing out the providential purpose which had overruled their crime for good; compare 50²⁰. The profoundly religious conviction which recognises the hand of God, not merely in miraculous interventions, but in the working out of divine ends through human agency and what we call secondary causes, is characteristic of the Joseph-narrative amongst the legends of Genesis: see Gunkel 404 (compare chapter 24).――=7.= שְׁאֵרִית] ‘remnant,’ perhaps in the sense of ‘descendants’ (2 Samuel 14⁷, Jeremiah 44⁷). But the use of פְּלֵיטָה (strictly ‘_escaped_ remnant,’ compare 32⁹) is difficult, seeing the whole family was saved (_v.i._).――=8.= _a father to Pharaoh_] Probably an honorific title of the chief minister (compare 1 Maccabees 11³², Add. Esther 3¹³ 8¹²); see, further, _inf._

* * * * *

=1.= התודע] Numbers 12⁶† (Elohist?).――=2.= מצרַיִם] LXX
כל־המצרִים. The pointing מצרִים _without_ article (Gunkel) is no
improvement.――וישמע] LXX, Peshiṭtå וַיִּשָּׁמַע, as in verse ¹⁶; so
Holzinger, Gunkel. The clause, however, is best regarded as
a doublet of the preceding, in which case Massoretic Text
is preferable.――=3.= יוסף²] LXX + ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν, ὃν ἀπέδοσθε
εἰς Αἴγυπτον (as verse ⁴).――מפניו] LXX omits.――=4a.= LXXᴬ omits
entirely.――=5.= ואל־יחר בעיניכם] (compare 31³⁵) is Elohist’s variant
to אל־תעצבו (6⁶ 34⁷ Yahwist).――מִחְיָה] In Judges 6⁴ 17¹⁰ the word
signifies ‘means of subsistence’; in 2 Chronicles 14¹² perhaps
‘preservation of life’; and so here if the pointing be right.
Ball plausibly emends מְחַיֶּה, ‘preserver of life’ (1 Samuel
2⁶).――=6.= חריש וקציר] Exodus 34²¹ (Yahwist?).――=7.= החיות לפליטה] The
want of an object after הח׳ is harsh (compare 47²⁵ 50²⁰). The
omission of the ל (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
LXX, Peshiṭtå, Olshausen, Ball, al.) improves the grammar, but
the sense remains unsatisfying (_v.s._).――=8.= אב ... אדון] That
the words are used in their Hebrew sense (‘father’ ... ‘lord’)
is not to be questioned; in spite of the fact that Brugsch has
compared two Egyptian titles, identical in form but altogether
different in meaning (see Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_,
ii. 774; Strack, page 157 f.).

* * * * *

=9‒15. Joseph’s message to his father.=――That both Yahwist and Elohist recorded the invitation may be regarded as certain, apart from nice questions of literary analysis: Eerdmans’ suggestion that, in Yahwist, Jacob conceived the project of going down to Egypt “auf eigene Faust” (_Die Komposition der Genesis_ 65, 70) being contrary to every natural view of the situation. We may therefore be prepared to find traces of the dual narrative in these verses.――=10.= On _the land of Goshen_, see the footnote.――_be near to me_] The clause is not inconsistent with the preceding; for, as compared with Canaan, Goshen was certainly ‘near’ to where Joseph dwelt. Nevertheless it is best regarded as a variant from Elohist, continued in ¹¹ᵃ. It is only in Yahwist that the Israelites are represented as dwelling in Goshen.――=12‒15.= The close of Joseph’s speech, followed by his affectionate embrace, and the free converse of the brethren.――=13= and =14= (Yahwist) are respectively parallel to ⁹ and ¹⁵ (Elohist).

* * * * *

=10.= גשן] LXX Γέσεμ Ἀραβίας (as 46³⁴). The name is peculiar
to Yahwist (46²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³⁴ 47¹ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ²⁷ 50⁸, Exodus 8¹⁸ 9²⁶ †);
Priestly-Code has ‘land of Ramses’ (47¹¹), compare Exodus
1¹¹ 12³⁷, Numbers 33⁵); while Elohist uses no geographical
designation. That Priestly-Code and Yahwist mean the same
locality is intrinsically probable (though Naville considers
that the land of Ramses was a larger area than Goshen), and
is confirmed by recent excavations. The city of Pithom (see
on 46²⁸) has been identified by Naville with the modern _Tell
el-Maskhuṭa_, 12 miles West of Ismailia, in Wādī Ṭumīlāt, a long
and narrow valley leading “straight from the heart of the Delta
to a break in the chain of the Bitter Lakes,” and therefore
marking a weak spot in the natural defences of Egypt (Erman,
_Life in Ancient Egypt_, 525 f.). In the same region, though
not quite so far East, excavations at the village of _Ṣafṭ
el-Ḥenneh_ have established its identity with _Pa-soft_ (also
called on local inscriptions _Kes_), which is stated to have
been the capital of the 20th Nome of Lower Egypt. A rare name of
this nome is _Kesem_; and it is at least a plausible conjecture
that this is the same as the biblical גּשֶׁן (Γέσεμ); and if so
the situation of Goshen is fixed as a part of Wādī Ṭumīlāt
surrounding Saft el-Ḥenneh. A confirmation of this may be found
in the Ἀραβία of LXX, for this in Græco-Roman times (Ptolemy iv.
5, 53) was the name of one of the 23 nomes of the Delta, whose
capital Φακοῦσσα (compare Strabo, XVII. i. 26) has long been
conjectured to be the ancient _Kes_, preceded by the article
_pa_.――See Naville, _Land of Goshen_, etc. (Fifth Memoir of EEF,
1887), 15 ff., 20; _Store City of Pithom_, etc. (⁴ 1903), 4 ff.;
Spiegelberg, _Der Aufenthalt Israels in Aegypten im Lichte
der aegyptischen Monumente_ etc. 52; Müller in _Encyclopædia
Biblica_, 1758 ff.; and Griffith in _BD_, ii. 232 f.――=11.=
כלכל] compare 50²¹ (Elohist).――פן־תורש] ‘lest thou come to want’
(literally ‘be dispossessed’); compare Judges 14¹⁵, Proverbs
20¹³ 23²¹ 30⁹.

* * * * *

=16‒20. Pharaoh’s invitation.=――This, as already explained, is peculiar to Elohist. It is just possible (though hardly probable) that in this source Joseph’s invitation (⁹⁻¹¹) extended only to his father, while the idea of transplanting the whole family emanated from the king.――=16a.= Compare verse ².――=18.= _the best of the land (v.i.) ... the fat of the land_] The expressions are not altogether inapplicable to Goshen (Wādī Ṭumīlāt), which was rendered fertile by a canal, and is still spoken of as the best pasture-land in Egypt (Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 53 f.). But since Elohist never mentions a separate location in Goshen, there is no need to force that sense upon them; the meaning is general: the best of everything that Egypt can afford (_v.i._).――=19.= The opening words (_v.i._) throw some doubt on the originality of the verse; and there certainly seems no more reason for ascribing it to Yahwist (Gunkel) than to Elohist.――The _baggage- waggon_ (עֲגָלָה) is said to have been introduced into Egypt from Canaan, with its Semitic name (Egyptian _‛agolt_): Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 491.¹――=20.= _Let not your eye pity_] The phrase is Deuteronomic, and seems a very strong one for concern about household implements. According to Yahwist (¹⁰ᵇᐧ ¹¹ᵇ 46¹ᐧ ³²) they brought ‘all they possessed,’ which, if they were half-nomads, would be possible without waggons.

¹ Compare Heyes, _Bibel und Ägypten: Abraham und seine
Nachkommen in Ägypten_ i. 251.

* * * * *

=17.= טען] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Aramaic); contrast עמס, 44¹³
(Yahwist).――בעיר Exodus 22⁴, Numbers 20⁴ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹¹ (Elohist), Psalms
78⁴⁸†.――=18.= טוּב] = ‘best things,’ as verses ²⁰ᐧ ²³ 24¹⁰, 2 Kings
8⁹; LXX πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν.――For ‘the best _part_,’ Priestly-Code
uses מֵיטָב (47⁶ᐧ ¹¹).――=19.= ואתה צֻּוֵּיתָה] The passive is awkward in
itself, and has no syntactic connexion with the following זאת עשו
[hence Peshiṭtå inserts (‡ Syriac phrase)]. Dillmann, Kittel
emend ואתה צַוֵּה אֹתָם; Ball ואתה צוה את־זאת (after LXX Σὺ δὲ ἔντειλαι
ταῦτα; compare Vulgate); Gunkel וְאֹתָהּ צִוֵּיתִי: the first is best. But
it is still difficult to understand the extreme emphasis laid
on this point; and a suspicion remains that either the whole
verse (Dillmann), or the introduction, is due to a scribe who
wished to make it clear that the waggons were not sent without
Pharaoh’s express authority: see on verse ²¹.

* * * * *

=21‒28. The brethren return to Canaan.=――=22.= Presents of expensive clothes are a common mark of courtesy in the East: compare Judges 14¹² ᶠᐧ ¹⁹, 2 Kings 5⁵ᐧ ²² ᶠᐧ.――_changes of raiment_] such as were substituted for ordinary clothing on festal occasions (see on 27¹⁵).――Benjamin receives _five_ such suits: see on 43³⁴.――=23.= _of the best_ (produce) _of Egypt_] A munificent return for Jacob’s modest complimentary present (43¹¹).――_corn and bread and sustenance for the journey_] compare verse ²⁰.――=24.= _Do not get excited by the way_] _sc._, with mutual recriminations,――a caution suggested by 42²².――=25‒28.= Jacob’s reception of the tidings.――=26.= _his heart became cold_, or _numb_] unable to take in the startling intelligence, as too good to be true.――=27.= But gradually, as they rehearse _the words of Joseph_, and show him the _waggons_ as a pledge of his power, _his spirit revived_] he recovered his wonted energy of thought and action.――=28.= From Yahwist.――_It is enough_] The father’s heart is indifferent to Joseph’s grandeur ⁹ᐧ ¹¹) and princely gifts; the fact that his son lives is sufficient consolation for all he has endured (compare 46³⁰). The psychology of old age could not be more sympathetically or convincingly treated.

* * * * *

=21.= ויעשו――ישראל] The statement is premature, and furnishes
an additional indication that this part of the narrative has
been worked over. The repeated ויתן also suggests a doublet or
interpolation. In ¹⁹⁻²¹, Dillmann leaves to Elohist only ויתן להם י׳
עגלות ויתן להם צדה לדרך; Kautzsch-Socin only the second of these clauses,
the rest being redactional.――צדה לדרך] as 42²⁵ (Elohist).――=23.=
כְזאת] (so pointed only here): ‘in like manner’ (Judges 8⁸).――מזון)
(2 Chronicles 11²³†) from an Aramaic √ זון = ‘feed.’――Of the
three nouns, בר, לחם, and מזון, LXX expresses only לחם. Peshiṭtå
has (‡ Syriac word), ‘wine,’ for לחם, but perhaps through
dittography of (‡ Syriac word), ‘asses.’――=24.= אל תרגזו] LXX μὴ
ὀργίζεσθε, Vulgate _Ne irascamini_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word),
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ לא תתנצון (‘quarrel’). But the Hebrew verb denotes
simply agitation, by whatever emotion produced.――=26.= פּוּג] In
Arabic and Syriac the √ means to be or grow ‘cold,’ in Syriac,
also, and New Hebrew, figuratively ‘grow inactive,’ ‘fail,’
‘vanish’; in Old Testament the prevailing idea seems to be that
of numbness (Br own-Driver-Briggs); compare Habakkuk 1⁴ (of
_tôrâh_), Psalms 38⁹.――=28.= רב] As an exclamation = ‘enough!’;
compare Exodus 9²⁸, Numbers 16³ᐧ ⁷, Deuteronomy 1⁶ 2³ etc.

* * * * *

XLVI. 1‒XLVII. 12.
_The Settlement of Jacob and his Family in Egypt_
(Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly-Code).

Jacob, encouraged by a night vision at Beersheba, takes his departure for Egypt (¹⁻⁷): (here is inserted a list of the persons who were supposed to accompany him, ⁸⁻²⁷). He sends Judah to announce his arrival to Joseph, who proceeds to Goshen and tenderly welcomes his father (²⁸⁻³⁰). Having instructed his brethren in the part he wishes them to play (³¹⁻³⁴), Joseph presents five of them before Pharaoh, and obtains permission for them to settle for a time in Goshen (47¹⁻⁶). Jacob’s interview with Pharaoh closes the account of the migration (⁷⁻¹²).

_Sources._――The narrative of Jehovist is several times
interrupted by excerpts from Priestly-Code, whose peculiar style
and viewpoint can be recognised in 46⁶⁻²⁷ 47⁵ᐧ ⁶ᵃᐧ ⁷⁻¹¹ (but see
the notes below, page 439 ff.).――Disregarding these verses, we
have a continuous Yahwist narrative from 46²⁸‒47⁶: note ישראל,
²⁹ᐧ ³⁰; _Goshen_, ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³⁴ᐧ ¹ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁶ᵇ; the leadership of Judah, ²⁸;
the ignoring of Pharaoh’s invitation (45¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ Elohist); נפל על צוארי,
²⁹; הפעם, ³⁰; מנעורינו, בעבור, ³⁴.――46¹⁻⁵ is in the main from Elohist,
as appears from the night vision, the form of address, ²;
Jacob’s implied hesitation, ³ (contrast 45²⁸); the name _Jacob_,
²ᐧ ⁵ᵃ; אלהים, ²; אֵל, ³.――¹ᵃ (ישראל) and _possibly_ ⁵ᵇ belong
to Yahwist.――47¹² is doubtful,――probably Elohist (כלכל, as
45¹¹).――See Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 60 f.; Dillmann,
Holzinger, Gunkel, Procksch, 54 f. (who assigns 47⁷ to Elohist
instead of Priestly- Code and 47¹² to Yahwist).

=1‒7. Jacob bids farewell to Canaan.=――=1.= _came to Be’ersheba‛_] There is in Elohist no clear indication of where Jacob lived after his return from Laban (see on 35¹). If at Beersheba, the above clause is redactional, written on the assumption that he started from Hebron (37¹⁴ Yahwist). The point would be determined if ⁵ᵇ were the original continuation of ⁵ᵃ, for it is absurd to suppose that the waggons were first put to use in the middle of the journey (Wellhausen). But even apart from that, the natural view undoubtedly is that Jacob would not start until his misgivings were removed in answer to his sacrifice, and that consequently his dwelling-place at this time was Beersheba. That he sacrificed at the last patriarchal sanctuary on the way is a much less plausible explanation.――_the God of ... Isaac_] Isaac is apparently regarded as the founder of the sanctuary, as in chapter 26 (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ); an Elohistic parallel to that tradition may have existed though in 21³¹ (Elohist with Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ) its consecration is attributed to Abraham.――=2‒4.= The last of the patriarchal theophanies. Compare 12¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, where the theophany sanctions the occupation of Canaan, as this sanctions the leaving of it (Dillmann); and 26², where, under circumstances similar to Jacob’s, Isaac is forbidden to go down to Egypt.――=3.= _the God of thy father_] As elsewhere in Genesis, אֵל denotes the local _numen_, who here distinguishes himself from other divine beings,――a trace of the primitive polytheistic representation (compare 31¹³ 35¹ 33²⁰ 21³³ 16¹³).――_Fear not, etc._] The purpose of the revelation is to remove the misgiving natural to an old man called to leave his hearth and his altar. The thought is confined to Elohist (contrast 45²⁸ Yahwist).――_for ... nation_] The words, if genuine, should follow the immediate grounds of comfort in verse ⁴. They are probably to be regarded (with Kautzsch-Socin, Gunkel, al.) as an expansion of the same character as 13¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ 22¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 28¹⁴ etc.――=4.= _I will go down with thee_] So in 31¹³ the _’Ēl_ of Bethel is with Jacob in Mesopotamia.――_bring thee up_] The reference must be to the Exodus (Exodus 3⁸ 6⁸ etc.), not to Jacob’s burial in Canaan (47²⁹ ᶠᐧ 50⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ).――_lay his hand upon thine eyes_] _i.e._, close them after death; for classical parallels, compare Homer _Iliad_ xi. 453, _Odyssey_ xi. 426, xxiv. 296; Euripides _Phœnician Women_ 1451 f., _Hecuba_ 430; Virgil _Aeneid_ ix. 487, etc. (Knobel-Dillmann).――=6, 7.= Priestly-Code’s summary of the migration (_v.i._).

* * * * *

=1.= באר שבע] LXX here and verse ⁵ τὸ φρέαρ τοῦ ὅρκου (see page
326).――=2.= לישראל] The word has crept in from verse ¹ through
an inadvertence of the redactor or a later scribe: “‘God said
to Israel, Jacob! Jacob!’ is a sentence which no original
writer would have penned” (Wellhausen).――On the form of
the verse, see on 22¹¹.――=3.= מַֽרְדָה] From רֵדָה, the rare form
of infinitive construct of פ״י verbs, peculiar to Elohist:
see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 69 _m_²; Holzinger _Einleitung in
den Hexateuch_ 190.――=4.= גם עלה] See on 27³³ 31¹⁵. LXX εἰς
τέλος.――=5.= יעקב ²] LXX omits.――פרעה] LXX Ἰωσηφ.――=6, 7.= Compare
12⁵ 31¹⁸ 36⁶ (Priestly-Code). Further marks of Priestly-Code:
רכש, רכוש, זרעו אתו (17⁷ᐧ ⁹ ᶠᐧ 35¹²), and the redundant phraseology.

* * * * *

=8‒27. A list of Jacob’s immediate descendants.=――The passage professes to give the names of those who went down with Jacob to Egypt, but is in reality a list of the leading clans of the Israelite tribes, closely corresponding to Numbers 26⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ. These traditionally numbered _seventy_ (compare the 70 elders, Exodus 24¹ᐧ ⁹, Numbers 11¹⁶). Closely connected with this was another tradition, that the number of the Israelites at the settlement in Egypt was 70 (Deuteronomy 10²²). In the more careful statement of Exodus 1⁵ (Priestly-Code), this means all the _descendants_ of Jacob at the time: _i.e._, it includes Joseph (and presumably his sons, though they were in Egypt already) and, of course, excludes Jacob himself. In the mind of the writer of the present passage these two traditional schemes appear to have got mixed up and confused. As it stands, it is neither an accurate enumeration of Jacob’s descendants (for the number 70 includes Jacob and excludes Er and Onan), nor a list of those who accompanied him to Egypt (for it embraces Joseph and his sons: see on ²⁶ ᶠᐧ). When cleared of certain obvious accretions (יעקב ובניו ⁸; ¹²ᵇ{α}; ¹⁵ᵃ{γ}; ובנתיו ¹⁵ᵇ; ששים ושש ²⁶ and the whole of ²⁷ except the last word שבעים), we find as its nucleus a list of Jacob’s sons and grandsons, originally compiled without reference to the migration to Egypt, on the basis of some such census-list as Numbers 26⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ

That the section belongs in general to the Priestly strata
of the Pentateuch is seen from its incompatibility with the
narrative (and particularly the chronology) of Jehovist; from
its correspondence with Numbers 26⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ, Exodus 6¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ; and from
literary indications (ואלה שמות, ⁸ [compare 25¹³ 36¹⁰]; פדן ארם, ¹⁵;
נפש ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁵⁻²⁷; יצאי ירך, ²⁶). As regards its relation to the
main document of Priestly-Code, three views are possible: (1)
That the list was originally drawn up by Priestly-Code, and
afterwards accommodated to the tradition of Jehovist by a later
editor (Nöldeke, Dillmann, al.). This implies the perfectly
tenable assumption that Priestly-Code did not accept the
tradition as to the death of Er and Onan, or that of Benjamin’s
extreme youth at the time of the migration; but also the less
probable view that he numbered the sons of Joseph amongst those
who ‘went down’ to Egypt. (2) That the interpolations are due to
Priestly-Code, who thus turned an older list of Jacob’s children
into an enumeration of those who accompanied him to Egypt
(Driver). The only serious objection to this theory is that it
makes Priestly-Code (in opposition to Exodus 1⁵) reckon Jacob as
one of the 70. It is nevertheless the most acceptable solution.
(3) That the whole section was inserted by a late editor of
the school of Priestly-Code (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Gunkel, al.).
Even on this hypothesis, the original list will have had nothing
to do with the migration to Egypt.――The discrepancy in the
computation lies in the first section (⁸⁻¹⁵). The 33 of verse
¹⁵ was in the original list the true number of the _sons_ of
Leah. The interpolator, whoever he was, had to exclude Er and
Onan; to make up for this he inserts Dinah (¹⁵ᵃ), and reckons
Jacob amongst the sons of Leah! Another sign of artificial
manipulation of the figures appears in the proportions between
the number of _children_ assigned to each wife: Leah 32,
Zilpah 16, Rachel 14, Bilhah 7 (in all 69); each concubine-wife
receiving just half as many children as her mistress. The text
of LXX presents some important variations _v.i._.

=8a.= The heading is identical with Exodus 1¹ᵃ, except the words יעקב ובניו, which are obviously interpolated (see introductory note).――=8b‒15.= The sons of Leah: viz. _four_ sons of Reuben (verse ⁹), _six_ of Simeon (¹⁰), _three_ of Levi (¹¹), _five_ sons and _two_ grandsons of Judah (¹²), _four_ sons of Issachar (¹³), and _three_ of Zebulun (¹⁴).――=15.= _thirty-three_ is thus the correct number of sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of Jacob by Leah. To preserve this number intact with the omission of Er and Onan, the interpolator was obliged to add Dinah, and to include Jacob himself (see below).

=9.= Exactly as Exodus 6¹⁴, Numbers 26⁵ ᶠᐧ.――חנוך is also a
Midianite tribe (25⁴); the Reubenites occupied Midianite
territory (Joshua 13²¹).――חצרון] and כרמי] also Judahite clans (see
verse ¹² and Joshua 7¹).――=10.= (= Exodus 6¹⁵). Numbers 26¹² ᶠᶠᐧ
omits אהד and reads נְמוּאֵל for ימואל, and זרח for צהר.――צהר] The
name of Ephron’s father in 23⁸.――_the son of the Canaanitess_]
representing a clan of notoriously impure stock.――=11.=
(= Exodus 6¹⁶).――=12.= As Numbers 26²⁰ ᶠᐧ.――The note on the
death of Er and Onan is an interpolation (see above).――חצרון]
(see on verse ⁹) was a town in Judah (Joshua 15²⁵).――חמול] _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ חמואל; LXX Ἰεμουήλ.――=13.=
(= Numbers 26²³ ᶠᐧ.――תולע] Compare the judge of the same name,
son of פואה, of the tribe of Issachar (Judges 10¹).――פֻּוָּה] _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå פואה, as 1
Chronicles 7¹, Judges 10¹.――יוב] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ and LXX (Ἰασουβ[φ]) read ישוב as Numbers 26: Winckler
connects with _Yašub-ilu_ under the 1st Babylonian dynasty
(_Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, ii. 68³).――=14.= (Numbers
26²⁶).――אלון a Zebulunite judge in Judges 12¹¹.――=15.= ואת דינה בתו
and ובנתיו are glosses.

=16‒18.= The sons of Zilpah (Leah’s handmaid): _seven_ sons of Gad (¹⁶), _four_ sons, _one_ daughter, and _two_ grandsons of Asher (¹⁷): _sixteen_ in all (¹⁸).

=16.= (As Numbers 26¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ, with textual differences).――צפיון]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX צפון, as Numbers
26¹⁵.――אצבן] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אצבעון,
LXX Θασοβαν, stands for אזני in Numbers 26¹⁶.――=17.= ישוה, a
variant of the following ישוי (?), does not appear in Numbers
26⁴⁴ ᶠᐧ.――The two grandsons חבר and מלכיאל have been connected with
the _Ḫabiri_ and the (chief) _Milkili_ of the Amarna Tablets
(Jastrow, _Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, xi.
120).

=19‒22.= The sons of Rachel: _two_ of Joseph (²⁰) and _ten_ of Benjamin (²¹), in all _fourteen_.

=20.= וַיִּוָּלֵד] LXX + υἱοί. But the relative clause אשר――אן was
probably added by the glossator, in which case the בנים of LXX
is superfluous.――LXX adds, in partial agreement with Numbers
26²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ, five names as sons and grandsons of Manasseh and
Ephraim.――=21.= In LXX only the first three names are sons of
Benjamin, the next six being sons, and the last a grandson, of
Bela‛. Still another grouping is found in Numbers 26³⁸⁻⁴⁰.――בכר]
(LXX Χόβωρ): compare Sheba‛ _the Bichrite_ in 2 Samuel 20¹: in
Numbers 26 בכר is an Ephraimite.――גרא] omitted in Numbers 26, is
the clan of Ehud (Judges 3¹⁵) and Shimei (2 Samuel 16⁵).――For
the two names אחי וראש, Numbers 26³⁸ ᶠᐧ has אחילם, for מפּים, שפופם
or שופם, and for חפּים, חוּפָם (see Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper
Names_, 35).――נעמן and ארד are sons of בלע in Numbers 26⁴⁰.――=22.=
ילּד] MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX ילדה.

=23‒25.= The sons of Bilhah (Rachel’s maid): _one_ of Dan (²³, in spite of בני), and _four_ of Naphtali (²⁴): _seven_ in all.

=23.= בני] So Numbers 26⁴², where for חושים we find שׁוּחָם.――=24.=
(as Numbers 26⁴⁸ ᶠᐧ).――שלם] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ שלום (as 1 Chronicles 7¹³), LXX Συλλήμ.

=26, 27.= The final summations.

The original computation (70 = 33 + 16 + 14 + 7) included Er
and Onan, but excluded Dinah and Jacob. The secondary figure
66 (= 32 + 16 + 11 + 7) excludes Er and Onan, and Joseph and
his two sons, but includes Dinah. To make up the original 70
it was necessary to reckon not only the family of Joseph (3),
but Jacob himself.――LXX, with its 5 additional descendants of
Joseph (see on verse ²⁰), makes the total 75 (so Acts 7¹⁴), but
inadvertently substitutes ἐννέα, instead of ἑπτά, for the שנים
of Massoretic Text ²⁷, overlooking the fact that both Jacob and
Joseph have to be reckoned in the 75.――=26.= יצאי ירכו] 35¹¹, Exodus
1⁵.――=27.= ילּד] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ילדו.

=28‒30. The meeting of Jacob and Joseph.=――=28.= _to direct before him to Goshen_] The Hebrew here gives no tolerable sense. The meaning cannot be that Judah was to guide the travellers to Goshen, for he is sent straight to Joseph; and for the idea that Joseph was to give the needful instructions for their reception in Goshen (Dillmann), the expression would be extremely harsh. The only natural purpose of Judah’s mission was to bring Joseph to meet his father; and the least difficult course is to read (with versions _v.i._): _to appear before him in Goshen_, which had already been indicated by Joseph as the goal of the journey (45¹⁰).――=29.= _went up_] Goshen lying somewhat higher than the Nile-valley.――=30.= The verse prepares us for the death-bed scenes (47²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ), which in Jehovist must have taken place soon after, not as in Priestly-Code at an interval of 17 years.

* * * * *

=28.= להורות] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX?
Peshiṭtå לְהֵרָאוֹת (Wellhausen לְהֵרָיֹת), which is confirmed by וַיֵּרָא
in the next verse. There is no need to take the לפניו in a
temporal sense. The construction is pregnant, but otherwise
unobjectionable; the tone of superiority assumed by Jacob
towards Joseph is hardly a serious difficulty. Ball thinks that
the συναντῆσαι of LXX implies a reading לְהִקִּרְאוֹת (‘to meet’); but
the Niphal of קרה would rather mean ‘to come upon unexpectedly’
(Deuteronomy 22⁶, 2 Samuel 18⁹).――גשנה――גשן] LXX καθ’ Ἡρώων πόλιν
εἰς γῆν Ῥαμεσσή. Heroöpolis has been shown by the excavations
of Naville (_Store City of Pithom_, etc.⁴, 5 ff.; compare
Gillett in _Journal of [the Society of] Biblical Literature and
Exegesis_, December, 1886, page 69 ff.) to be Pithom (Exodus
1¹¹), now _Tell el-Maskhuṭa_ (see page 488 above). The Bohairic
version substitutes _Pethom_ for the Ἡρώων of LXX. LXX thus
makes the meeting take place at the frontier town in the
Wādī Ṭumīlāt towards the desert (so verse ²⁹). The reading is
noteworthy textually as containing Priestly-Code’s name for
Goshen.――ויבאו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
Vulgate, Peshiṭtå ויבא (better).――=29.= על־צואריו עוד] LXX κλαυθμῷ
πίονι (variation πλείονι).――The עוֹד is strange; but compare
Psalms 84⁵ (Ruth 1¹⁴ is not in point).――=30.= פניך] Peshiṭtå + בני.

* * * * *

=XLVI. 31‒XLVII. 12.――Joseph obtains Pharaoh’s permission for his brethren to settle in Goshen.=――=31‒34= (Yahwist). He prepares his brethren for an introduction to Pharaoh, in the expectation that by laying stress on their herdsmen’s calling they may have the desirable frontier district of Goshen assigned to them. It is evident that in Yahwist the migration was resolved on without the invitation, or perhaps the knowledge, of the king.――=32.= _for they were cattle-breeders_] a more comprehensive category than _shepherds_. Gunkel thinks that the representation made to Pharaoh cannot have been strictly true, or Joseph would not have made such a point of it;¹ and we must at least suppose that he advises them to emphasise that side of their life which was most likely to gain the end in view. Unfortunately, while he bids them say they are cattle-breeders, they actually describe themselves as shepherds (47³), and yet Pharaoh would make them cattle-overseers (47⁶ᵇ). Some confusion of the two terms may be suspected, but as the text stands, nothing can be made of the distinction.――=34.= _that ye may dwell, etc._] What motive in the mind of the king is appealed to is not quite clear. If the last clause――_for every shepherd, etc._――be genuine, it was the Egyptian abhorrence of the class to which they belonged. But such a feeling would be more likely to exclude them from Egypt altogether than to procure their admission to the best pasture-land in the country, where Pharaoh’s herds were kept (47⁶ᵇ). Moreover, while there is evidence that swine-herds (Herodotus, ii. 47) and cowherds (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 439 f.) were looked down on by the Egyptians, the statement that shepherds were held in special abhorrence has not been confirmed; and the clause (³⁴ᵇ{β}) is probably an interpolation suggested by 43³². See, further, on 47³ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=XLVII. 1‒5a, 6b= (Yahwist). Pharaoh grants the request.――=1.= _and behold ... Goshen_] It is evident that in this narrative Joseph relies on the _fait accompli_ to procure a favourable response from Pharaoh. The idea that Pharaoh decided such matters in person may be naïve (Gunkel); it is certainly a curious restriction of the absolute authority elsewhere assigned to Joseph.――=2.= _he had taken five, etc._] On the significance of the number, see on 43³⁴.――=3, 4.= The anticipated question (46³³) is answered in accordance with Joseph’s instructions, though the phraseology differs by the substitution of רֹעֵי צֹאן for אַנְשֵׁי מִקְנֶה.――It is possible that the repeated ויאמרו is due to the omission between ³ and ⁴ of a further question by Pharaoh as to the reasons for their coming to Egypt (so Ball, Gunkel). The whole leads up to a straight-forward request for a temporary domicile in Goshen; and the point may be simply that as herdsmen they had brought their means of subsistence with them, and needed nothing but grazing land, which must have been obtainable in spite of the famine. There is no hint of any aversion to the strangers or their manner of life.――=6b.= _Let them dwell, etc._] is the continuation of ⁵ᵃ in LXX (_v.i._), whose arrangement of these verses is obviously more original than that of Massoretic Text.――As an additional favour, Pharaoh offers to take any capable members of the family into his service as _cattle superintendents_ (שָׂרֵי מִקְנֶה),――an office frequently mentioned in the monuments as one of high dignity (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 94 f., 108, 143). The breeding of cattle was carried to great perfection in ancient Egypt (_ib._ 436 ff.).

¹ So Eerdmans (_Vorgeschichte Israels_, 42; _The Expositor_,
August, 1908, page 124 f.), who draws the conclusion that,
as the Israelites here represent themselves as nomads, they
cannot have really been so!

The admission of pastoral tribes within the frontier of Egypt
is an incident twice represented in Egyptian inscriptions of
the period here supposed. Under Ḥor-em-heb of the 18th dynasty,
some barbarians have a definite district assigned to them by
a high officer; and reference has already been made (page 437)
to the Edomite nomads who in the time of Merenptah were allowed
to pass the fortifications and feed their flocks in “the great
pasture-land of Pharaoh”――probably this very Wādī Ṭumīlāt
where Goshen was (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten
Orients_², 393; Driver, 372).

* * * * *

=31.= ואל־בית אביו] LXX omits, perhaps rightly.――=32.= כי――היו]
regarded as a gloss by Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger,
Gunkel, al.――=34.= גשן] LXX Γεσεμ Ἀραβίᾳ.――רעה] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ (Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ)
רעי.――=2.= מקצה] = ‘from the totality of,’ as 1 Kings 12³¹, Exodus
33² (otherwise Genesis 19⁴).――לקח] (pluperfect) _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ + עִמּוֹ.――=3.= אחיו] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ
אחי יוסף.――רעה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ רעי (as
46³⁴).

* * * * *

=5, 6a, 7‒11.= Jacob before Pharaoh (Priestly-Code).――=5.= The text of LXX (_v.i._) supplies the following opening to Priestly-Code’s account (continuing 46⁷): _And Jacob and his sons came to Egypt to Joseph; and Pharaoh king of Egypt heard it_ (⁵ᵃ), _and Pharaoh said to Joseph, etc._――It is plain that ⁵ᵇ continues _this_ conversation and not that between Pharaoh and the five brethren.――=6a.= Here Pharaoh himself selects _the best_ [part] _of the land_ for the Hebrew family to dwell in (see verse ¹¹).――=7.= Joseph introduces his father to Pharaoh,――an impressive and dignified scene.――_blessed_], _i.e._ ‘saluted’ on entering (compare 1 Samuel 13¹⁰, 2 Kings 4²⁹, 2 Samuel 13²⁵ 19⁴⁰), but recorded, no doubt, with a sense that “the less is blessed of the better” (Hebrews 7⁷).――=9.= _few and evil_] The expression shows that Priestly-Code must have recorded Jacob’s long exile with Laban and his protracted sorrow for the loss of Joseph; it is still more interesting as showing that that writer could conceive a good man’s life as spent in adversity and affliction.――=11.= _the land of Ra‛mses_] The name only here and LXX 46²⁸ (see on 45¹⁰), so called from the city built by Ramses II. (Exodus 1¹¹) and named after him ‘the house of Ramses,’ in the East of the Delta (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 48). The situation is still uncertain; Naville (_Goshen_, 20) was inclined to identify it with Ṣafṭ el-Ḥenneh (see page 488); but Petrie now claims to have discovered its site at _Tel er-Reṭabeh_, in the middle of Wādī Ṭumīlāt, 8 mile West of Pithom (_Hyksos and Israelite Cities_, 1906, page 28 ff.)――=12.= Probably from Elohist ∥ ²⁷ᵃ (Yahwist).

* * * * *

=5, 6.= The overlapping of Yahwist and Priestly-Code at this
point can be proved and corrected from LXX. After ⁵ᵃ (omitting
לאמר) LXX reads ⁶ᵇ; then ἦλθον δὲ εἰς Αἴγυπτον πρὸς Ἰωσὴφ Ἰακὼβ
καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἤκουσεν Φαραὼ βασιλεὺς Αἰγύπτου (= ויבאו
מצרימה אל־יוסף יעקב ובניו וישמע פרעה מלך מצרים); then ⁵ᵃ (repeated) ⁵ᵇᐧ ⁶ᵃᐧ ⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ.
It will hardly be disputed that the text of LXX is here the
original, and that Priestly-Code’s narrative commences with
the additional sentences quoted above. The editor of Massoretic
Text felt the doublet to be too glaring; he therefore omitted
these two sentences; and then by transposition worked the two
accounts into a single scene. A further phase is represented by
Hexateuch Syriac, where ⁵ᵇ and ⁶ᵃ are omitted. We have here an
instructive example of the complex process by which the sources
were gradually worked into a smooth narrative, and one which
deserves the attention of those writers who ridicule the minute
and intricate operations which the critical theory finds it
necessary to attribute to the redactors.――=6b.= ואם ידעת וְיֶשׁ־] See
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 120 _e_. The היש of _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ is certainly not preferable (Ball).――=11.=
מיטב] verse ⁶, Exodus 22⁴, 1 Samuel 15⁹ᐧ ¹⁵†. The identification
of מ׳ הארץ with the ‘land of Ramses’ probably rests on a
misunderstanding of Elohist’s טוב הא׳ (see on 45¹⁸), and a
combination of it with Yahwist’s גּשֶׁן.――=12.= הטף] apparently
including here the women: compare 50²¹.

* * * * *

XLVII. 13‒27.
_Joseph’s Agrarian Policy_
(Yahwist?).

Joseph is here represented as taking advantage of the great famine to revolutionize the system of land-tenure in Egypt for the benefit of the crown. In one year the famishing people have exhausted their money and parted with their live-stock, in exchange for bread; in the next they forfeit their lands and their personal freedom. Thus by a bold stroke of statesmanship private property in land (except in the case of the priests) is abolished throughout Egypt, and the entire population reduced to the position of serfs, paying a land-tax of 20 per cent. _per annum_ to the king.

_Source._――The section ¹³⁻²⁶, dealing as it does with
matters purely Egyptian and without interest for the national
history of Israel, occupies an anomalous position among the
Joseph-narratives, and cannot be confidently assigned to
either of the main documents (Wellhausen _Die Composition des
Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_²
61). Linguistic indications are on the whole in favour of
Yahwist: כבד, ¹³; נחיה ולא נמות, ¹⁹ (42² 43⁸); ידות, ²⁴ (43³⁴);
מקנה הצאן ומקנה הבקר, ¹⁷ (26¹⁴); מצא חן בעיני, ²⁵ (see Gunkel and
Dillmann). But there are also traces of Elohist’s diction: חזק,
²⁰; הבה, הבו, ¹⁵ ᶠᐧ (29²¹ 30¹,――differing from 11³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁷) (Dillmann,
Holzinger); besides some peculiar expressions very unusual in
Pentateuch: להה, ¹³; אפם, ¹⁵ ᶠᐧ; תשם (Qal), ¹⁹; הֵא, ²³ (Dillmann).
It is possible that Holzinger (251 f.) and Procksch (54 f.) are
right in thinking the passage composite; but no satisfactory
analysis can be effected. That it is out of place in its present
connexion is generally admitted, but that it finds a more
suitable position between chapters 41 and 42 (Dillmann, Gunkel,
al.) is not at all obvious. It is not improbable that a piece
of so peculiar a character is a later addition to the original
cycle of Joseph-legends, and belongs neither to Yahwist nor
Elohist.――Verse ²⁷ appears to be from Priestly-Code, with
glosses (see the notes).

=13, 14.= Joseph takes up all the money in Egypt and Canaan. _Canaan_ is bracketed with Egypt as far as verse ¹⁵, after which the situation is purely Egyptian. It is natural to suppose that the references to Canaan are interpolated (Holzinger, Gunkel); but considering the close political relations of the two countries, it would be rash to assume this too easily.――_15‒17._ The live-stock is next exhausted.――_horses_] See on 12¹⁶.――=18‒22.= The people surrender their lands and persons for bread. This is the decisive stroke of Joseph’s statecraft, making a return to the old conditions impossible; and it is noteworthy that (as if to relieve Joseph of the odium) the proposal is represented as coming from the people themselves.――=18.= _that year ... the second year_] Not the first and second years of the famine (for we can hardly suppose that the money and cattle were exhausted in a single year), but simply two successive years.――=19.= _buy us and our land_] The only basis of personal independence in a state like ancient Egypt being the possession of land, the peasants know that in parting with their land they sacrifice their freedom as well.――_give seed, etc._] A temporary provision (see verse ²⁴) for the time of famine, or perhaps for the first sowing after it was over (Holzinger). It is in any case most natural to suppose that these drastic changes took place towards the end of the 7 years.――=21.= _and the people he reduced to bondmen_] Read so with Versions, _v.i._ (Knobel, Dillmann, Delitzsch, al.). The Massoretic Text: ‘he brought them over to the cities’ appears to mean that he brought the rural population to the cities where the corn-magazines were (41³⁵ᐧ ⁴⁸); but the emphasis on the object leads us to expect a parallelism to the appropriation of the land in verse ²⁰ (Dillmann). A universal redistribution of the inhabitants (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Tuch, al.) could not be expressed by the words, and would, moreover, be a senseless measure.――=22.= The priests’ property was exempted, because they had a statutory provision of food, and did not need to sell their lands. So the writer explains a privilege which existed in his day (see page 501 below). Compare Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 129, where Ramses III. is said to have given 185,000 sacks of corn annually to the temples.――=23‒26.= Institution of the land-tax.――=23.= _Here is seed for you_] The gift is not to be repeated; hence the incident naturally belongs to the end of the famine.――=24.= _a fifth part_] According to Oriental ideas, and considering the fertility of Egypt, the impost is not excessive; a much higher percentage being frequently exacted under Eastern governments (compare 1 Maccabees 10³⁰, and the authorities cited by Dillmann page 444). On the severities of taxation under the New Empire, see _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 122.――=25.= The people gratefully accept the terms.――=26.= The arrangement is fixed by administrative decree, and survives to the time of the writer.――=27.= (Priestly-Code, _v.i._) is the conclusion of the settlement of Israel in Egypt (verse ¹¹).

The system of land-tenure reflected in verses ¹³⁻²⁶ is supposed
by Erman to have actually arisen through the extermination of
the old landed aristocracy which followed the expulsion of the
Hyksos and the founding of the New Empire (_Life in Ancient
Egypt_, 102 f.). The same writer thus sums up what is known or
surmised of social conditions under the New Empire: “The landed
property was partly in the hands of the state, partly in those
of the priesthood; it was tilled by peasant-serfs; there seem
to have been no private estates belonging to the nobility, at
any rate not under the 19th dynasty. The lower orders consisted
mostly of serfs and foreign slaves; the higher, of officials in
the service of the state and of the temples” (_ib._ 129). The
peculiar privileges of the priests (and soldiers) are attested
by Diodorus, i. 73 f.; Herodotus, ii. 168 (but compare ii. 141):
the latter says that every priest and warrior possessed 12
ἄρουραι of land tax-free. Of the amount of the land-tax (one
fifth) there appears to be no independent confirmation.――The
interest of the biblical account is ætiological. The Hebrews
were impressed by the vast difference between the land-tenure
of Egypt and that under which they themselves lived; and sought
an explanation of the ‘abnormal agrarian conditions’ (Erman)
prevailing in the Nile-valley. Whether the explanation here
given rests on any Egyptian tradition, or is due to the national
imagination of Israel, working on material supplied by the story
of Joseph, remains as yet uncertain (see Gunkel 410 f.).

The close connexion between Egypt and Palestine in the matter
of food-supply is illustrated by the Amarna letters, where
a powerful minister named Yanḫamu is frequently mentioned as
holding a position somewhat corresponding to that of Joseph.
Yanḫamu, whose name suggests Semitic extraction, was governor of
an unknown province called Yarimuta, which some have tried (but
on the slenderest grounds) to identify with the biblical Goshen
(Winckler, _Altorientalische Forschungen_, iii. 215; Jeremias
_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_, 391³). The
references imply that he had control of the state-granaries;
and complaints are made of the difficulty of procuring supplies
from the high-handed official; in particular, it is alleged that
the people have had to part with their sons and their daughters,
and the very woodwork of their houses, in return for corn (see
Knudtzon, _El-Amarna Tafeln_, page 407). That this historic
figure is the original of some features in the portrait of
Joseph (a combination first suggested by Marquart, and approved
by Winckler, Cheyne, Jeremias, al.) is conceivable enough;
though definite points of contact are very restricted, and the
historical background of Yanḫamu’s activity has completely faded
from the biography of Joseph.

An equally striking, and equally unconvincing, parallel is
pointed out by Eerdmans (_Vorgeschichte Israels_, 68) from a
much later period――the end of the 19th dynasty,――when, according
to the Papyrus Harris, Arisu (_’I-’ir-sw_), a Syrian, “in years
of scarcity” which followed “the abundant years of the past,”
“made the whole land tributary to himself alone” (see Petrie,
_A History of Egypt_ iii. 134). The resemblance vanishes on
closer inspection. Arisu is simply a Syrian chief, who, in a
time of anarchy, gets the upper hand in Egypt by the help of
his companions, oppresses the people, and engages in a crusade
against the native religion. To say that “the circumstances
of this time correspond in all respects [ganz und gar] to the
statements of the Joseph-stories,” is a manifest exaggeration.

* * * * *

=13.= ותלהּ] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ותלא. The
√ להה is Aramaic ἅπαξ λεγόμενον = לאה, ‘languish.’ It is one of
several rare expressions which occur in this section.――=14.=
שֹׁבְרִים] LXX + ויכלכלם (verse ¹²).――=15.= אָפֵם] The verb only here
(and verse ¹⁶) in Pentateuch: elsewhere poetic (Isaiah 16⁴ 29²⁰,
Psalms 77⁹†).――כסף] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
הכסף, LXX כספנו (so verse ¹⁶).――=16.= לכם] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate + לֶהֶם.――=17.= נהל] Only here in
the sense of ‘sustain’ [with food]; elsewhere, if the √ be the
same, it means ‘lead’ (to watering-place, goal, etc.): see page
414.――=18.= כי אם] may be rendered equally well (with LXX) ‘that,
if’ (protasis to לא נשאר), or with Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘but’ [_sondern_]
(Delitzsch, Holzinger).――=19.= גם אנחנו גם אדמתנו] LXX avoids the
bold zeugma, and substitutes καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐρημωθῇ, as at the end
of the verse.――ונחיה] LXX ἵνα σπείρωμεν (ונזרע?).――=21.= העביר――לערים]
Massoretic Text is supported by Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ,
while _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX read
העביד――לעבדים, as does the loose paraphrase of Vulgate.――=23.= הֵא]
Only Exodus 16⁴³ and Aramaic Daniel 2⁴³.――=24.= בתבואת] It seems
necessary here to take ת׳ as a noun of action: ‘at the bringings
in’ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Delitzsch, Dillmann), though elsewhere it
always means ‘increase’ or ‘produce.’ To omit ב (with LXX) does
not yield a natural construction.――לאכלכם] Ball happily emends
לְאֹכֶל לָכֶם.――ולאכל לטפכם] Better omitted with LXX.――=26.= לחמש] LXX לְחַמֵּשׁ.
חֹמָשׁ is not found, and the expression is very awkward. A good
sense might be obtained by transposing לְחַמֵּשׁ לפרעה (with LXXᴬᐧ ᵃˡᐧ);
but whether that is the original text is very doubtful.――=27.=
The verse is usually divided between Yahwist and Priestly-Code;
but ישראל is no sure sign of Yahwist, since it denotes the nation.
The only characteristic of Yahwist is בארץ גשן, which may be very
well excised as a gloss: the rest may then quite suitably be
assigned to Priestly-Code (compare נאחז, פרה ורבה).

* * * * *

XLVII. 28‒XLVIII. 22.
_Jacob’s last Interview with Joseph_
(Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly-Code).

The death-bed scenes of Jacob are described in great detail by all three narrators, because of the importance of the dying utterances of the last ancestor of all Israel. There are four main incidents: (1) Jacob’s charge to Joseph with regard to his burial (²⁸⁻³¹); (2) the blessing of Joseph and his two sons (48); (3) Jacob’s oracles on the future of all the tribes (49¹⁻²⁸); and (4) his instructions regarding his burial in Machpelah (²⁹⁻³³).――The first two may be conveniently treated together.

_Sources._――The triple thread of narrative is shown by the
three beginnings: 47²⁸ (Priestly-Code), 47²⁹ (Yahwist), and
48¹ (Elohist). To Priestly-Code belong 47²⁸ 48³⁻⁶: note the
chronology and syntax of 47²⁸, the connexion of 48³ ᶠᐧ with
35⁶ᵃᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹²; אל שדי, ³; הפרה והרבה, ⁴; קהל עמים, ⁴; אחזת עולם, ⁴; הוליד,
⁶.――Equally decisive are the indications of Yahwist in 47²⁹⁻³¹;
ישראל, ²⁹ᐧ ³¹; אם מצאתי וגו׳, ²⁹; שים נא ידך וגו׳, ²⁹ (24²); חסד ואמת, ²⁹ (24⁴⁹
32¹¹); שכבתי עם־אבתי, ³⁰.――The analysis of 48¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁸⁻²² is more
doubtful: formerly the passage was treated as a unity and
assigned to Elohist (Hupfeld, Wellhausen, _Die Composition des
Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_²
61 f., Driver al.), but the evidences of double recension are
too numerous to be overlooked. (See Budde, _Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, iii. 56 ff.) Thus, while יעקב,
²ᵃ, and אלהים, ⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁰ ᶠᐧ, and האמרי, ²², point to Elohist, ישראל,
²ᵇᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ ᶠᐧ ¹³ ᶠ, and הצעיר, ¹⁴, point to Yahwist. A clue to the
analysis is supplied by (a) the double presentation of Manasseh
and Ephraim, ¹⁰ᵇ ∥ ¹³ (ויגשׁ); and (b) the obvious intrusion of
¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ between ¹⁴ and ¹⁷. ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ hang together and are
from Yahwist; ¹⁵ links on to ¹², and ¹³ ᶠᐧ presuppose ¹⁰ᵃ. Taking
note of the finer criteria, the analysis works out somewhat as
follows: Elohist = ¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᵇᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{βγ}ᵇᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²²;
Yahwist = ²ᵇ{?}ᐧ ¹⁰ᵃᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{α} (to ההוא);――deleting ישראל
in ²ᵇ{?}ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ²¹ as a redactional explication. So in general
Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel; also Procksch, who,
however, places ²¹ᐧ ²² before ⁷ in Elohist’s narrative.――The
source of ⁷ is difficult to determine; usually it has been
assigned to Priestly-Code or Redactor, but by Gunkel and
Procksch to Elohist (see the notes).

=28‒31. Joseph promises to bury Jacob in Canaan.=――=28= (Priestly-Code). Jacob’s age at the time of his death; compare 47⁹.――=29‒31= (Yahwist). Compare the parallel in Priestly-Code, 49²⁹⁻³².――=29.= On the form of oath, see on 24².――=30.= _lie with my fathers_] _i.e._, in She’ôl (see on 25⁸); compare Deuteronomy 31¹⁶, 1 Kings 2¹⁰ etc.――_in their burying-place_] But in 50⁵ (also Yahwist) Jacob speaks of “my grave which I have digged for myself.” The latter is no doubt the original tradition, and the text here must have been modified in accordance with the theory of Priestly-Code 49³⁰ ᶠᐧ (Wellhausen).――=31.= _bowed over the head of the bed_] An act of worship, expressing gratitude to God for the fulfilment of his last wish (compare 1 Kings 1⁴⁷). Holzinger’s conjecture (based on 1 Samuel 19¹³), that there was an image at the top of the bed, is a possible, though precarious, explanation of the origin of the custom. The mistaken rendering of LXX (_v.i._) may have arisen from the fact that the oath over the staff was an Egyptian formality (Spiegelberg, _Recueil des Travaux_, xxv. 184 ff.; compare _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 4779¹; Sayce, _Contemporary Review_, August, 1907, 260).

* * * * *

=29.= ויקרבו――למות] Compare Deuteronomy 31¹⁴ (Yahwist), 1 Kings
2¹.――=30.= ושכבתי] must be taken as protasis to ונשאתני (Strack,
Holzinger, Gunkel, al.).――בקברתם] Kittel בקברתי, to resolve
the contradiction spoken of _supra_. But where intentional
manipulation of the text is to be suspected, small emendations
are of little avail.――=31.= המטה] LXX τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ, Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word) (= מַטֵּהוּ); compare Hebrews 11²¹. Other Versions
follow Massoretic Text, which is undoubtedly right: see 48² 49³³.

* * * * *

XLVIII.
Adoption and blessing of Joseph’s two sons.

=1, 2.= The introduction to all that follows: from Elohist.――_took his two sons._] It seems implied in verse ⁸ that Jacob had not yet seen the lads,――so soon did his last illness follow his arrival in Egypt.――=3‒6.= Priestly-Code’s brief account of the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh. Dillmann thinks the verses have been transferred from their original connexion with 49²⁸ᵇ, where they were spoken in presence of all the brethren.――=3, 4.= The reference is to the revelation at Luz (35¹¹ ᶠᐧ), where the promise of a numerous offspring was coupled with the possession of Canaan. On the phraseology, see above.――=5.= _And now_] In view of these promises he elevates Ephraim and Manasseh to the status of full tribes, to share with his own sons in the future partition of the land.――_Ephraim and Manasseh_] The order is the only hint that Ephraim was the leading tribe (compare verse ²⁰ Elohist); but it is not that usually observed by Priestly-Code (see Numbers 26²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ 34²³ ᶠᐧ, Joshua 14⁴ 16⁴ 17¹; otherwise Numbers 1¹⁰).――_as Reuben and Simeon_] The two oldest are chosen for comparison.――=6.= Later-born sons of Joseph (none such, however, are anywhere mentioned) are to be _called by the name of their brethren, etc._] _i.e._, are to be counted as Ephraimites and Manassites.――=7.= The presence of Joseph reminds the dying patriarch of the dark day on which he buried Rachel on the way to Ephrath. The expressions reproduce those of 35¹⁶⁻²⁰.――עָלַי] _to my sorrow_; literally ‘(as a trouble) upon me’ (compare 33¹³).

The notice――one of the most pathetic things in Genesis――is very
loosely connected with what precedes, and must in its original
setting have led up to something which has been displaced in the
redaction. But it is difficult to find a suitable connexion for
the verse in the extant portions of any of the three sources.
In Priestly-Code (to which the word פַּדָּן at first sight seems to
point), Delitzsch, Dillmann, al. would put it immediately before
[ועתה] אני נאסף in 49²⁹; but that view relieves no difficulty, and
leads nowhere. A more natural position in that document might be
after the mention of the burial of Leah in 49³¹ (verse ³² may be
an interpolation); but the form of the verse is not favourable
to that assumption, and no good reason can be imagined for the
transposition. (See Budde _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, iii. 67 f.) Bruston (in _Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, vii. 208) puts forward the
attractive suggestion (adopted by Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel,
Procksch, al.) that the verse introduced a request to be buried
in the same grave as Rachel. Such a wish is evidently impossible
in Priestly-Code; and Bruston (followed with some hesitation by
Ball, Kautzsch-Socin) accordingly found a place for it (with the
necessary alterations of text) between 47²⁹ and ³⁰ (Yahwist):
against this 50⁵ᐧ ¹¹ seem decisive. Gunkel and Procksch assign
it to Elohist, the latter placing it after verse ²², which is
certainly its most suitable position in Elohist. But is the idea
after all any more conceivable in Elohist than in Priestly-Code?
The writer who recorded the request, whoever he may have
been, must have supposed that it was fulfilled; and it is not
just likely that any writer should have believed that Jacob
was buried in the grave traditionally known as Rachel’s.
No satisfactory solution can be given. Hupfeld and Schrader
consider the verse redactional; so Budde, who thinks it was
inserted to correct Priestly-Code’s original statement that
Rachel was buried in Machpelah (see on 49³¹).

* * * * *