CHAPTER 43<\/p>\n
The Second Journey to Egypt<\/p>\n
Jacob bluntly rejects Reuben\u2019s plea and offer. Further discussion is now futile. The brothers know that the fear of starvation will ultimately overcome their father\u2019s resistance. Indeed, Jacob has already recognized the need for another journey to Egypt. c<\/p>\n
1. But The initial Hebrew conjunctive vav has adversative force.<\/p>\n
the famine \u2026 was severe Compare 12:10; 41:31; and 47:4, 13.<\/p>\n
2. when they had eaten up That is, the provisions are coming to an end. There is just enough food left to enable their families to survive while the brothers travel to Egypt and back.<\/p>\n
3. Judah He is the spokesman from now on; Reuben is not heard from again, even though he is the first-born. The incident described in 35:22 shows that he has long been discredited.<\/p>\n
The man Abbreviated from \u201cthe man who is lord of the land\u201d (42:30, 33). Joseph is henceforth called \u201cthe man,\u201d while the brothers are correspondingly termed \u201cthe men.\u201d1 This anonymity is an artful device of the Narrator\u2014just as events move toward the climactic moment when Joseph discloses his true identity and is reconciled with his brothers.<\/p>\n
warned Hebrew ha\u02bfed he\u02bfid expresses a solemn admonition tantamount to a threat.2<\/p>\n
7. The report now given by the brothers to their father does not correspond to the account of the interrogation in chapter 42, where the brothers appeared to offer unsolicited information about themselves quite freely (vv. 11, 13). However, from 44:19 it is clear that Joseph had indeed asked the specific questions referred to here. Accordingly, it must be assumed that chapter 42 represents a very abbreviated account.<\/p>\n
our family Hebrew moledet is used here in the sense of \u201ckindred,\u201d not \u201chomeland.\u201d3<\/p>\n
8\u201310. The argument has reached a dead end. Judah steps in to save the situation. His approach is forthright, firm, sober, and severely to the point. The issue must be confronted headlong. Unless Benjamin is sent, the entire family is doomed to slow death by starvation. That is the awful and urgent reality. There is no alternative.<\/p>\n
8. you and we and our children Judah actually lists them in ascending order of importance to himself (lit. \u201cwe and you and our children\u201d).<\/p>\n
the boy Hebrew na\u02bfar. Benjamin is referred to in this manner repeatedly in the next chapter (44:22, 30\u201334). Elsewhere he is described as ha-katan, \u201cthe youngest\u201d (42:13, 15, 20; 43:29; 44:23, 26), and even as \u201ca child (yeled) of old age\u201d (44:20), while Joseph blesses him as \u201cmy son\u201d (43:29). We are given the clear impression that Benjamin is still very young. The probability of his youthfulness accords with, and renders particularly poignant, Jacob\u2019s fears and reluctance to let him undertake the journey to Egypt. The term na\u02bfar is flexible in biblical Hebrew and can be used of any male from infancy (Exod. 2:6) to marriageable age (Gen. 34:19).<\/p>\n
9. I myself The addition of the separate personal pronoun has the force of an emphatic, meaning \u201cI personally.\u201d<\/p>\n
be surety To underline the seriousness with which he is willing to assume the guardianship of Benjamin, Judah employs two distinct legal idioms. The Hebrew stem \u02bf-r-v is most frequently used in reference to the acceptance of legal responsibility for a debt contracted by another. The guarantor may undertake to insure that the borrower will not disappear, or he undertakes to repay the loan should the borrower default. The second idiom, le-vakkesh mi-yad, means \u201cto hold responsible,\u201d \u201cto require an accounting for,\u201d and is particularly used with respect to bloodshed.4<\/p>\n
I shall stand guilty before you The Hebrew verb \u1e25-t-\u02be encompasses not merely the offensive act itself but also its aftereffects: the deleterious psychic, spiritual, and emotional state that it creates.<\/p>\n
forever The consciousness of ineradicable personal guilt and blame would weigh upon him always as an oppressive burden.<\/p>\n
11. If it must be so Judah\u2019s forceful speech has its effect. The aged Jacob offers no further resistance and resigns himself to the inevitable.<\/p>\n
do this He unwittingly echoes Joseph\u2019s own words (42:18). Still the man of action, he gives orders that two steps be taken: Joseph must be mollified with a gift, and the payments for the grain must be returned.<\/p>\n
choice products of the land This translation of the unique Hebrew zimrat ha-\u02bearets follows the Targums, Peshitta, and Vulgate and is based on taking zimrat as a derivative of the stem z-m-r \u201cto sing,\u201d here meaning that which is celebrated in song. More likely, the term here represents the well-known Semitic root \u1e0f-m-r, \u201cto be strong,\u201d which appears in Exodus 15:2 (= Isa. 12:2; Pss. 118:14), \u201cThe LORD is my strength and might (zimrat),\u201d and Psalms 119:54, \u201cYour laws are a source of strength (zemirot) to me,\u201d as well as in the biblical names Zimran (Gen. 25:2), Zimri (Num. 25:14), and Zemirah (1 Chron. 7:8). The stem is also widely found in many extrabiblical names, such as the north Israelite b\u02bflzmr; the Phoenician \u1e0fmr and zmr; the Ugaritic \u1e0fmrb\u02bfl and \u1e0fmrhd; the West Semitic (Mari) zimr\u00ee-alum, zimr\u00ee-era\u1e25, and zimr\u00ee-lim; and the Old South Arabic \u1e0fmr\u02bel, \u1e0fmrkrb, and \u1e0fmrmr. The noun zimmh used in this verse would thus correspond to Hebrew koa\u1e25, \u201cstrength,\u201d also used in a transferred sense of \u201cyield, produce\u201d (cf. Gen. 4:12; Hos. 7:9; Job 31:39).<\/p>\n
gift Hebrew min\u1e25ah signifies a gift brought as a token of submission.5 The composition of the gift recalls the wares of the caravaneers who had originally sold Joseph into Egyptian slavery (see Comment to 37:25). It is ironic that these same products, and more, constitute the tribute the brothers now pay to Joseph himself.<\/p>\n
honey Since there is no evidence of apiculture in the Land of Israel in biblical times, it is not certain whether Hebrew devash means bees\u2019 honey, cultured or wild (cf. Deut. 32:13; 1 Sam. 14:25ff:, Pss. 81:17), or the thick, intensely sweet syrup made from dates and grape juice and called dibs by the Arabs. A celebrated description of the land is one \u201cflowing with milk and honey\u201d (Exod. 3:8, etc.), and the latter is listed as one of its seven characteristic products (Deut. 8:8). According to rabbinic tradition, the reference here is to date syrup. \u201cHoney\u201d was one of the products Israel exported to its neighbors (Ezek. 27:17). Of interest in connection with the gift brought to Joseph is the Story of Sinuhe, a popular Egyptian tale from Middle Kingdom times, in which \u201cthe land of Yaa\u201d (southern Syria or northern Israel) is described as \u201ca good land\u201d where figs and grapes were plentiful and honey and olives abundant, with every kind of fruit on its trees, much barley and emmer, and cattle galore.6<\/p>\n
12. double the money Hebrew kesef mishneh, an appositional phrase, literally \u201cmoney, double amount.\u201d The rest of the sentence literally translates \u201cand the money that was returned.\u2026\u201d The meaning is ambiguous. It could be either that Jacob is recommending the payment of a double restitution or that the brothers are being advised to purchase double rations this time in order to avoid having to return to Egypt again. However, verse 15 mentions only \u201cdouble the money\u201d (mishneh kesef) and verses 21\u201322 make clear that it is only twice the purchase price of food, and no other money, that is involved. Hence, the second clause of this verse must be understood as clarifying the reason for the double amount.<\/p>\n
a mistake Jacob would like to convince himself that the return of the money by the Egyptians has no sinister implications.<\/p>\n
13. Take your brother Jacob leaves the most painful item till last. He says \u201cyour brother,\u201d rather than Benjamin, in order to give emphasis to their fraternal responsibilities.<\/p>\n
at once This is the force of Hebrew ve-kumu (see Comment to 27:43).<\/p>\n
14. Having done all that is humanly possible, Jacob leaves the rest to God, whose blessing he invokes. On the divine title \u201cEl Shaddai,\u201d see Excursus 11.<\/p>\n
if I am to be bereaved \u2026 Jacob\u2019s speech opens (v. 11) and closes on a note of resignation.7<\/p>\n
THE BROTHERS IN JOSEPH\u2019S HOUSE (vv. 15\u201334)<\/p>\n
15. they presented themselves to Joseph Since on this occasion there is no contact between him and the brothers, the phrase simply means that they have arrived at the trading post over which Joseph presides. Perhaps he deliberately ignores them so as to feed their anxiety and intensify their fears. In addition, when told to proceed to the vizier\u2019s house, the brothers must have become filled with dread. Of course, the surprise meal in his house is a necessary prelude to the subsequent scene. The convivial atmosphere deceptively dispels all foreboding while the stage is set for the contrived \u201ctheft\u201d of the silver goblet.<\/p>\n
16. his house steward Hebrew \u02beasher \u02bfal beito (so 44:1, 4), literally, \u201cthe one who is over his house.\u201d<\/p>\n
18. frightened Because they alone, of all the buyers of grain, are singled out for this treatment. The brothers are probably aware of the fact that high Egyptian officials maintained private dungeons in their homes (cf. v. 23; see Comment to 39:20).<\/p>\n
as a pretext Hebrew le-hitgolel \u02bfaleinu is found nowhere else in this sense. It has been connected with Hebrew biglal, \u201cbecause of\u201d (cf. Gen. 39:5), that is, \u201cto find a cause against us.\u201d8<\/p>\n
to attack us Hebrew le-hitnappel \u02bfaleinu is likewise unique and is taken as a reflexive of n-f-l, that is, \u201cto throw oneself against us,\u201d or \u201cto attack.\u201d<\/p>\n
19. at the entrance They lose no time in forestalling an accusation.<\/p>\n
21. in full Literally, \u201cby its weight.\u201d See Comment to 23:16.<\/p>\n
22. who put Hebrew sam. They delicately refrain from using the stem sh-w-v, \u201creturn,\u201d as hitherto (43:12, 18; 42:28) so as to avoid any insinuation of chicanery on the part of an official.<\/p>\n
23. The reassuring reply of the steward is intelligible only on the assumption that he is privy to Joseph\u2019s scheme. His purpose is to lull them into a false sense of relief, reinforced by the release of Simeon.<\/p>\n
I got your payment Literally, \u201cyour money came to me,\u201d a legal formula of West Semitic traders confirming receipt of full payment and implying renunciation of any claim.9<\/p>\n
24. brought the men \u2026 Repeated from verse 17 to resume the narrative after the digression (cf. 39:1).<\/p>\n
27. your aged father The adjective was not reported in the account of the brothers\u2019 first meeting with Joseph, but 44:20 shows that it had indeed been used (see Comment to v. 7).<\/p>\n
in good health A closer definition of shalom in the first clause. Hebrew \u1e25at (cf. 1 Kings 20:32) usually means \u201cliving,\u201d so that Joseph\u2019s questions may be an instance of hysteron proteron, a figure of speech in which a logical sequence is inverted. Alternately, Joseph may immediately ask how Jacob is and then realize he should first inquire if he is still alive.<\/p>\n
28. bowed and made obeisance Either as a sign of appreciation to Joseph for his solicitude in asking about their father\u2019s welfare or as a gesture of gratitude to God, a physical equivalent of the verbal \u201cThank God.\u201d<\/p>\n
30. overcome with feeling The Hebrew idiom nikhmeru ra\u1e25amav (lit. \u201chis mercies were heated up\u201d) occurs elsewhere only in 1 Kings 3:26,10 where it means \u201cto have compassion for.\u201d Here, however, Benjamin is not an object of pity. The sight of him arouses overwhelming feelings of tenderness and affection in Joseph. He can find relief only through tears.<\/p>\n
on the verge of This is here the force of Hebrew va-yevakkesh, rather than the usual \u201che sought.\u201d The stem b-k-sh in postbiblical Hebrew (cf. Mish. Yoma 1:7) and its Aramaic equivalent b-\u02bf-y (cf. Dan. 2:13) often carry the meaning \u201cto be about to.\u201d<\/p>\n
31. Serve the meal Joseph hosts a meal for his brothers, who years before had callously sat down to eat while he languished in the pit (see Comment to 37:25)\u2014a piquant note.<\/p>\n
32. Joseph eats alone undoubtedly because of his exalted status; but the segregation of the Hebrews was due to the Egyptian feeling of racial and religious superiority that engendered contempt for foreigners, who were regarded as unclean. Herodotus (Histories, 2.41) reports that because the cow was taboo to Egyptians but eaten by Greeks, no native of Egypt would kiss a Greek, use his kitchen utensils, or even eat the flesh of an ox that had been cut with the knife of a Greek. It is therefore likely that Egyptian particularism asserted itself here because the Hebrews were shepherds\u2014an abhorrent profession (46:34)\u2014and because they ate sheep\u2014an abomination to Egyptians (Exod. 8:22).<\/p>\n
could not dine The observation is given in the idiom of a legal formula11 expressing prohibition, not disability.<\/p>\n
Hebrews Compare 40:15; see Comment to 14:13.<\/p>\n
33. were seated by bis direction Literally, \u201cthey sat before him.\u201d Saadiah and Rashbam point out that the seating arrangement by descending order of seniority can only be at Joseph\u2019s direction. This arouses the surprise of the brothers. A midrash in Genesis Rabba 92:5 has Joseph himself pretending to divine their order of birth by means of his silver goblet (cf. 44:5, 15). \u1e24izkuni suggests that the brothers usually seat themselves for meals in this manner and that their wonderment is occasioned by their segregation. It is likely, in fact, that the Egyptians, too, are amazed that the vizier should invite foreigners, especially shepherds, to dine at his house.<\/p>\n
34. several Literally, \u201cfive,\u201d a round number (see Comment to 41:34). Joseph is perhaps testing his brothers to see whether this obvious favoritism would arouse their envy or expose any hostile feelings that they might harbor against the one who is now their father\u2019s favorite.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 44<\/p>\n
The Brothers\u2019 Last Trial (vv. 1\u201334)<\/p>\n
Following their reception at Joseph\u2019s house, the brothers, undoubtedly in high spirits, set out on their homeward journey. However, their ease of mind is soon shattered as Joseph employs his one last harrowing stratagem.<\/p>\n
JOSEPH\u2019S INSTRUCTIONS (vv. 1\u20135)<\/p>\n
1. Then he instructed Presumably, these preparations take place during the night while the brothers sleep.
\nBy generously supplying them with provisions in excess of what their money can buy, Joseph makes the brothers\u2019 \u201cingratitude\u201d appear all the greater when they are apprehended for alleged theft. The restoration of their money this time is puzzling since it plays no role in the accusation that is soon to be made against them. Ramban suggests that it was done by prior mutual agreement as compensation for the trouble and anguish the brothers had endured on their first visit.<\/p>\n
2. goblet Hebrew gavia\u02bf is probably a loan word from Egyptian \u1e33b\u1e25.w, \u201clibation vessel.\u201d It appears in other contexts only in the sense of a container for wine larger than an ordinary cup and as a receptacle for oil in the menorah of the Tabernacle.1 In the present instance, the goblet serves both as a drinking vessel and as a divining instrument (v. 5). The fact that we are told it is made of silver is not meant solely to emphasize its preciousness; the offense would be grave enough no matter what the composition of the goblet might have been. The main point here is that Hebrew kesef, \u201csilver, money,\u201d is a key word, reiterated twenty times in the accounts of Joseph and his brothers in Egypt (chaps. 42\u201345). The brothers had sold Joseph into slavery for twenty pieces of silver (Gen. 37:28); now he harasses and tests them with silver.<\/p>\n
3. the first light of morning This detail explains why Joseph is still at home when the brothers later return (v. 14).<\/p>\n
the men \u2026 with their pack animals The brothers\u2019 fears that they would be enslaved and their animals confiscated (43:18) are groundless\u2014or so it seems.<\/p>\n
4. the city The city is said to be situated \u201cin the region of Goshen\u201d (see Comment to 45:10).<\/p>\n
repay good, with evil Later, Joseph tells his brothers that God used their evil intentions to good end (50:20).<\/p>\n
5. The steward is not to make explicit mention of either the goblet or its theft. This deliberate vagueness is intended to fill the brothers with a sense of foreboding.<\/p>\n
It is the very one \u2026 That is, the one they saw him using at dinner. If the goblet is found in their possession, the brothers certainly cannot claim that it is their own property.<\/p>\n
he uses for divination It is not stated that Joseph actually believes in divination. He wants the brothers to think he does. The technique of divining by means of a goblet is well known from the ancient world. It took various forms: the use of water (hydromancy), oil (oleomancy), or wine (oenomancy). The practitioner professed to be able to interpret either the surface patterns formed when a few drops of one liquid were poured onto another or the movement of objects floating on or sinking in the fluid. The aim of the exercise was to determine the future, to locate the source of trouble, or to apportion blame or credits, as in 30:27. The legislation in Deuteronomy 18:10 outlawed divination in Israel.2<\/p>\n
THE STEWARD\u2019S ACCUSATION AND SEARCH (vv. 6\u201312)<\/p>\n
8. Here.\u2026 How then \u2026? Hebrew hen \u2026 ve-eikh. This inference from a minor premise to a major one is known in rabbinic terminology as kal va \u1e25omer. This is the first often such instances of this type of reasoning in the Bible. They are listed in Genesis Rabba 92:7.<\/p>\n
9. Undoubtedly, the spontaneous pronouncement of a death penalty for the thief and of slavery for the others is rhetorical and intended to be a convincing and categorical assertion of innocence. It is not clear whether these penalties reflect contemporary law (see Comment to Gen. 31:32). The formula \u201cshall die\u201d (Heb. va-met) has more of a judicial than an imprecatory ring (cf. Deut. 18:20; 19:12; 1 Kings 1:52). Ancient Near Eastern collections of laws display no uniformity in the case of theft. Hammurabi (cf. pars. 6\u201310) and the Middle Assyrian laws (cf. A, pars. 3, 4) prescribe capital punishment or mutilation of the body for certain offenses of this kind. The codes of Lipit-Ishtar (par. 9) and of the kingdom of Eshnunna (pars. 40, 49, 50) appear to be much more lenient. Biblical law never legislates the death penalty for crimes against personal property. In the present instance, it is possible that the proposed punishments reflect Egyptian law, unknown to us from any other source. It is also likely that the theft of a sacred object entailed far more severe penalties than ordinary theft. Moreover, it is very possible that because the brothers are convinced of their innocence, they propose a harsher punishment for themselves than the law actually requires.<\/p>\n
the rest of us The brothers accept the principle of collective responsibility.<\/p>\n
10. The opening words of the steward\u2019s response\u2014literally \u201calso now according to your words so it is\u201d\u2014are unclear. They could mean, \u201cThe penalties you invoke are indeed the law, but I shall be lenient.\u201d However, this interpretation is countered by Joseph\u2019s apparent rejection of the unfairness of collective responsibility in verse 17. The steward might also mean, \u201cI accept the logic of your argument to the effect that you are generally honest.\u201d3<\/p>\n
shall go free Hebrew nekiyyim, a legal term for \u201ccleared of offense or obligation.\u201d<\/p>\n
11. Their haste to unload is a demonstration of innocence as well as an attempt to dispose of the entire business as expeditiously as possible.<\/p>\n
12. The steward adroitly manipulates the situation. One can easily imagine the rising self-confidence of the brothers after each successive search yielded nothing.<\/p>\n
THE RETURN TO JOSEPH (vv. 13\u201317)<\/p>\n
13. they rent their clothes The horror of their predicament leaves them speechless. They can only do what they caused their father to do years before (37:34).4<\/p>\n
14. Judah He has personally gone surety for Benjamin, so he naturally takes the lead.<\/p>\n
Joseph \u2026 was still there He has not yet left the house for his place of work because it is still very early in the morning (v. 3). Joseph\u2019s presence, therefore, does not raise any suspicion of trickery.<\/p>\n
on the ground This unique addition to the usual phrase expresses their abject state of utter despair.<\/p>\n
15. Feigning anger, Joseph addresses them collectively, implying that they are all involved in the theft. His \u201cleniency,\u201d soon to be displayed (v. 17), thus appears to be all the more generous.<\/p>\n
practices divination See Comment to verse 5. Since no mention is made of the goblet, it may be assumed that Joseph simply boasts of his ability to detect a thief by divination.5<\/p>\n
16. has uncovered the crime Judah may deliberately be making a false collective confession of guilt regarding the theft of the goblet in order to save Benjamin from being singled out for punishment. It is also possible that, as on their first journey to Egypt (42:21f.), the confrontation with great danger releases their long-suppressed, but ever-festering, feelings of guilt concerning their crime against Joseph.6 Alternatively, Judah\u2019s words may merely express the simplistic ancient belief that suffering was divine punishment for sin, even if the particular sin could not be identified, so that, in effect, this is a resignation to misfortune.<\/p>\n
slaves Naturally, Judah does not refer to his earlier rash statement regarding the death penalty (v. 9).<\/p>\n
17. With an affectation of self-righteousness, Joseph applies his supreme and final test of their integrity. He confronts the brothers with a dilemma that involves agonizing decisions. They can save their own lives, but this would be disastrous to their father and would be at the expense of their loyalty to Benjamin. If the brothers stay with Benjamin, they cannot bring back food to their father and to their families, who will then die of starvation.<\/p>\n
JUDAH\u2019S SPEECH (vv. 18\u201334)<\/p>\n
Va-Yiggash<\/p>\n
The encounter between Joseph and his brothers has now reached its climactic moment. A personal appeal to the great man is Judah\u2019s last desperate resort. He pours out his heart in what is the longest speech in the Book of Genesis, although it could not have lasted more than five minutes. Divided into three parts, the address recapitulates recent events (vv. 18\u201329), stresses the adverse impact of Joseph\u2019s act upon their father (vv. 30\u201332), and culminates in a personal offer to take Benjamin\u2019s place as a slave (vv. 33\u201334). It makes no mention of the theft of the goblet or of the innocence or guilt of the accused. This shrewd but simple appeal to Joseph\u2019s sense of fairness and mercy attempts to invoke his humanity through repeated reference to the state of their aged father. It is also designed to impress Joseph with the speaker\u2019s noble self-sacrifice.
\nJudah\u2019s eloquence is effective because it is deferential yet dignified, spirited but not provocative, full of pathos and passion, yet restrained and transparently sincere.<\/p>\n
18. appeal to \u2026 Literally \u201cspeak in the ears of \u2026,\u201d which is idiomatic for \u201chave a hearing.\u201d7<\/p>\n
the equal of Pharaoh The phrase is not mere flattery but a subtle reminder of Joseph\u2019s power to grant a pardon by virtue of his exalted position.<\/p>\n
20. bis full brother is dead In 42:13, they had said, ambiguously referring to Joseph, that \u201cone is no more.\u201d Now Judah cites Jacob\u2019s words of 42:38. He obviously cannot tell the truth.<\/p>\n
21. I may set eyes on him Elsewhere the Hebrew phrase sim \u02bfayin \u02bfal means \u201cto pay special attention to\u201d (Jer. 39:12; 40:4) and may be further defined as to advantage (Jer. 24:6) or disadvantage of the one watched (Amos 9:4). Judah may be subtly calling Joseph\u2019s integrity and fair play into question. He had inferred from the request to bring Benjamin an assurance on the part of Joseph that no harm would befall the lad.<\/p>\n
22. bis father would die Actually, the subject of the Hebrew verb va-met is ambiguous. It may be either Benjamin or the father.8 In light of verse 31, the latter is the more likely.<\/p>\n
28. and I said That is, \u201cI had to admit.\u201d The succeeding phrase \u201cAnd I have not seen him since\u201d implies some lingering doubt as to whether he is really dead. For this reason, Hebrew \u02beakh seems to mean \u201calas,\u201d not \u201csurely.\u201d<\/p>\n
31. with us An addition to the literal Hebrew required by the context. The same is found in the Septuagint, Samaritan, and Peshitta versions.<\/p>\n
your servants will send \u2026 Judah probably means, \u201cyou will be responsible for his death.\u201d<\/p>\n
32. Judah must explain why he acts as the spokesman because Joseph knows that he is not the oldest brother (43:33).<\/p>\n
33\u201334. The one who had been responsible for the sale of Joseph into slavery (37:26f.) now unwittingly offers to become the slave of his own victim! The story has come full circle, and the stage is set for the dramatic denouement, brought on by Judah\u2019s noble gesture of self-sacrifice and the moving image of his father\u2019s misery.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 45<\/p>\n
The Reconciliation (vv. 1\u201328)<\/p>\n
JOSEPH REVEALS HIS TRUE IDENTITY (vv. 1\u20133)<\/p>\n
1. The brothers have repeatedly proved their integrity and family loyalty. Joseph can gain nothing more from his stratagems. By now the emotional tension is overwhelming. Twice before Joseph had broken down\u2014when he overheard Reuben describe the agonies of his sale into slavery (42:24) and when he first set eyes on Benjamin (43:30f.). On this last occasion Joseph had succeeded in controlling himself, but he can no longer contain his pent-up feelings.<\/p>\n
before all bis attendants Literally, \u201cbefore all who were standing by him,\u201d that is, the great man\u2019s entourage.<\/p>\n
no one else about No outsider may share this intensely intimate, climactic moment of self-revelation and reconciliation. Besides, Joseph would not want the Egyptians to know that his own brothers had sold him into slavery.<\/p>\n
2. the news reached Pharaoh\u2019s palace Literally, \u201cthe house of Pharaoh heard.\u201d The report was quickly bruited about so that it reached the court.<\/p>\n
3. I am Joseph. Is my father \u2026 The statements follow in rapid succession with no pause between them. Judah could not have known it, but more than anything, it was the repeated mention of the aged father\u2014no less than fourteen times\u2014that shook Joseph and brought his self-restraint to an end. No wonder, then, that Joseph\u2019s first thought is for the welfare of his father. True, he had already sought and obtained the information he wanted (43:27f.), yet the terrifying picture Judah has painted makes Joseph cry out in such a way that his words are more an exclamation than an inquiry. That is why there is no reply and Joseph does not press the point.<\/p>\n
REASSURANCE (vv. 4\u20138)<\/p>\n
4. your brother Joseph, be whom you sold At once a reassurance and a rebuke: I shall behave as a brother should even though you were unbrotherly.<\/p>\n
5. you sold \u2026 God sent The brothers had indeed acted with evil intent; yet behind it all had been the hidden, guiding hand of Divine Providence investing the base deeds of men with meaning and benign purpose. Joseph reiterates this conviction to his brothers after his father dies (50:20).<\/p>\n
to save life To be the instrument of your survival.<\/p>\n
6. no yield from tilling Literally, \u201cno plowing and harvesting,\u201d a compound expression for agricultural activities.1 Since the farmer would certainly till the soil, the phrase here means there will be no effective plowing, none that will produce a yield.<\/p>\n
8. not you \u2026 but God For the third time, Joseph reiterates the true significance of the fateful vicissitudes of his life. He no longer accuses the brothers of having sold him but says they \u201csent\u201d him, thereby substituting the beneficial result for their evil purpose.<\/p>\n
father to Pharaoh No such title is known to us from ancient Egypt. The closest to it in Egyptian seems to be it n\u1e6fr, \u201cfather of god,\u201d in which \u201cgod\u201d may refer to the king. But its precise usage is in dispute, it having been variously interpreted as referring to the clergy, or given to the king\u2019s father-in-law, or belonging to the tutor of the crown prince. In several biblical passages \u201cfather\u201d is used as a title of honor for a prophet, a king, or a high administrator.2<\/p>\n
ruler Hebrew moshel is meant to remind us of the brothers\u2019 reaction to Joseph\u2019s dreams. They had scornfully asked, \u201cDo you mean to rule over us?\u201d3<\/p>\n
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE FAMILY (vv. 9\u201313)<\/p>\n
10. You will dwell Joseph clearly has in mind a thoroughgoing and long-term migration from Canaan to Egypt.<\/p>\n
the region Hebrew \u02beerets is used here in the sense of a defined \u201cterritory,\u201d \u201ca district\u201d (see Comment to 34:2).<\/p>\n
Gosben The name has not been identified as Egyptian and is most likely Semitic. It is probably connected with Hebrew gush, \u201ca clod\u201d (Job 7:5), referring to a type of soil. This element appears as a place-name in Gush-\u1e24alav (Giscala) in Upper Galilee. Another \u201cregion of Goshen\u201d is a strip of land south of Hebron in the Land of Israel mentioned in Joshua 10:41 and 11:16. A hill city of the same name, situated in the southern extremity of Judah, southwest of Hebron, is listed in Joshua 15:51. The presence of such a name in Egypt accords with other Semitic place-names such as Succoth (Exod. 12:37), Migdol, and Baal-zephon (Exod. 14:2) in the same region, thus attesting to its early occupation by Semites.
\nAlthough no source defines the precise geographic location of Goshen, the cumulative effect of various pieces of evidence is to place it in the area of Wadi Tumeil\u0101t, which stretches from the eastern arm of the Nile to the Great Bitter Lake. Egyptian texts confirm the presence of Semites and other Asians in the northeastern part of the country both at the end of the Sixth Dynasty (ca. 2250 B.C.E.) and about 1700 B.C.E. in the wake of the Hyksos invasion. Exodus 12:38 refers to a \u201cmixed multitude,\u201d that is, foreign tribes, dwelling in the area of Israelite settlement.
\nGoshen is blessed with excellent grazing facilities (Gen. 46:32\u201334; 47:6, 11), and it is known that the Nile Delta was the center of cattle breeding. The natural route from Asia to Egypt emerges from Wadi Tumeil\u0101t, and Joseph traveled to Goshen to greet his father, who arrived from Canaan (46:29). Thus it could not have been too distant from the Egyptian frontier. The route of the Exodus from Goshen, where the Israelites were still living hundreds of years later (Exod. 8:18), also shows that it could not have been too far from the border (Exod. 12:37; 13:17f.). In addition, Goshen is said to have been in the vicinity of Joseph\u2019s residence (Gen. 45:10) and also not too far from the royal palace (47:1f.). This is possible only if the capital was situated in the Nile Delta region at this time.<\/p>\n
11. for there are yet five years of famine This parenthetical note is inserted in order to overcome Jacob\u2019s anticipated resistance to a massive migration from Canaan.<\/p>\n
12. This sentence is not part of the message to the father but is directed at the brothers.<\/p>\n
I who am speaking Face-to-face, in your own language, without an interpreter.<\/p>\n
13. all that you have seen That is, your knowledge of my situation is not derived from rumor but is firsthand.<\/p>\n
THE FINAL GESTURE (vv. 14\u201315)<\/p>\n
So far the brothers have not uttered a word. It is only after this emotional embrace that their consternation is overcome. They are now able to communicate with Joseph, something they were unable to do when he lived among them as a boy (Gen. 37:4).<\/p>\n
PHARAOH\u2019S INVITATION (vv. 16\u201320)<\/p>\n
16. The point made in verse 2, and interrupted by the details of the denouement, is now resumed and expanded.<\/p>\n
17. Pharaoh said Joseph\u2019s invitation to his family to settle in Egypt is now endorsed by the king himself.<\/p>\n
load up The stem ta\u02bfan here is unique. Its meaning is suggested by the context and by its Aramaic usage.<\/p>\n
beasts Hebrew be\u02bfir is a collective.4<\/p>\n
18. the fat of the land The choicest products of the soil.5 The phrase may imply recognition that seminomads often engaged in agriculture (cf. 26:12).<\/p>\n
19. you are bidden [to add] The order is given to Joseph to relay to his brothers. The previous instructions could be carried out with no outside assistance. This one, however, requires official authorization, the effect of which is to accord Jacob\u2019s clan the special status of ward of the king.<\/p>\n
20. never mind Do not begrudge having to leave behind personal possessions that will cause you inconvenience if you bring them along; do not allow such considerations to delay you.<\/p>\n
RETURN TO JACOB (vv. 21\u201328)<\/p>\n
22. a change of clothing Hebrew \u1e25alifot is specifically employed for a gift of clothing, as a valued prize or as a token of affection or honor.6 The consistent use of the plural form may signify a set of clothing comprising more than one article. Since an article of apparel had featured prominently in the tale of hostility between Joseph and his brothers, it is only fitting that their reconciliation should be marked by a gift of apparel.<\/p>\n
several Literally, \u201cfive\u201d (see Comments to 41:34; 43:34).<\/p>\n
24. quarrelsome The Hebrew stem r-g-z, which means \u201ctrembling,\u201d carries overtones of agitation, deep concern, or rage. Hence, some understand the text to mean: Have no fear for your safety on the journey to Canaan and back. The present rendering understands the text to mean: Do not engage in mutual recrimination.7<\/p>\n
28. go und see him Jacob does not mention the famine and is not concerned with Joseph\u2019s power and glory. His only desire is to visit his son, not to settle in Egypt.8<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 46<\/p>\n
The Migration to Egypt (46:1\u201347:10)<\/p>\n
With this narrative, the patriarchal period in the history of Israel comes to an end.
\nJacob\u2019s descent to Egypt appears at first to be merely a family visit. Yet this visit is presented as being fraught with national significance. It is a summing up of the past as well as a new beginning. Famine drove Abraham to Egypt (12:10); now famine impels his grandson in the same direction. Abraham\u2019s career opened with a divine revelation; Jacob\u2019s closes with a similar experience. Jacob\u2019s odyssey began at Beer-sheba (28:10); it fittingly concludes with a revelation at the same place. The divine Voice will not be heard again until the advent of Moses.<\/p>\n
JACOB AT BEER-SHEBA (vv. 1\u20134)<\/p>\n
1. Israel set out Presumably from Hebron, which was his last specified location (37:14).<\/p>\n
Beer-sheba An important north-south road linked Hebron to this city, a distance of about 25 miles (40 km.). Jacob\u2019s reasons for stopping at Beer-sheba in order to worship are not given. The arduous and exhausting journey to Egypt, especially for one of such advanced age, would be an understandable cause of great anxiety. But verse 3 shows that Jacob\u2019s doubt and hesitation go much deeper. Is the patriarch distressed at having to leave the promised land? Is he afraid of dying on alien soil? Are his fears intensified by the memory that his father had been expressly forbidden by God to go to Egypt (26:2)? Perhaps he is troubled by the recollection of the divine announcement to Abraham that his descendants were destined to be enslaved and oppressed as strangers in a foreign land (15:13). At any rate, Jacob seems to experience a sudden reluctance to continue the journey. According to a tradition recorded in the Book of Jubilees 44:3, Jacob decided to invite Joseph to come and visit him in Canaan.<\/p>\n
offered sacrifices No mention is made of an altar. It must be taken for granted that he uses the one that Isaac had once constructed at this place (26:25). The sacrifices here are termed zeva\u1e25im, a type mentioned in Genesis only in connection with Jacob (cf. 31:54). It was distinguished from the \u201cburnt offering\u201d (cf. 8:20; 22:2) in that only a small portion was actually burned on the altar, while the major part of the slaughtered animal was eaten at a festive family or communal meal. Hence, it is probable that this sacrificial rite was an offering of thanks to God that Joseph was still alive.<\/p>\n
the God of his father Isaac On the formula, see Comment to 26:24. Isaac is exclusively invoked here because he built the altar at Beer-sheba and received a revelation there (26:24\u201325).<\/p>\n
2. called Hebrew va-yo\u02bemer is used here rather than the more appropriate va-yera\u02be, \u201cappeared,\u201d because the revelation is wholly verbal and without any visual aspect and because, being the last revelation to the patriarchs, the word forges a link with the very first revelation to Abraham (12:1).<\/p>\n
a vision Hebrew mar\u02beot, a plural form found elsewhere only in Ezekiel, where it indicates a multiplicity of visions. Here, however, the plural seems to express the intensity of the experience. The term mar\u02beah, although rendered \u201cvision,\u201d may also be used, as here, for a purely oral divine communication.1<\/p>\n
by night The most frequent time of divine communication to the patriarchs.2<\/p>\n
3. I am God \u2026 On this formula, see Comments to 15:7 and 26:24.<\/p>\n
the God of your father This echoes verse 1 and suggests that when he performed the sacrifice Jacob recited some invocation that mentioned Isaac by name.<\/p>\n
Fear not The same reassurance was given to Abraham and to Isaac; it will be given to Moses as well.3 It is never preceded by a statement revealing their disquiet. The idea is that man\u2019s inner anxieties and fears\u2014although unexpressed\u2014are known to God.<\/p>\n
a great nation Another point of contact with the first revelation to the patriarchs (12:2). Now it is explained that the divine promise of peoplehood is to be fulfilled in Egypt. Thus the patriarch is indirectly but unmistakably told that the migration to Egypt is to be total and of long duration. A family visit is thereby transformed into an event of national significance with its preordained place in God\u2019s scheme of history.<\/p>\n
4. I Myself will go down with you Meaning, I shall protect you both on the journey and in Egypt. The God of the patriarchs knows no territorial limitations. He was with Jacob in Mesopotamia (31:13) and in Canaan (35:3) and now will display His providence in Egypt.<\/p>\n
will also bring you back The promise is both personal and national. Jacob himself will be brought back for burial in the grave of his fathers (47:29f; 50:5\u201313); his offspring will return to possess the Land of Israel.<\/p>\n
Joseph\u2019s band shall close your eyes Literally, \u201cJoseph shall place his hand on your eyes,\u201d understood as a reference to the custom that the eldest son or nearest relative would gently close the eyes of the deceased. Such has remained time-honored Jewish practice to the present day.4 The promise, then, is that Joseph will outlive Jacob and will be present at the moment of his death. The promise was indeed fulfilled, as told in 49:33 and 50:1.<\/p>\n
DEPARTURE FOR EGYPT (vv. 5\u20137)<\/p>\n
5. set out Hebrew va-yakom usually introduces an action that is then specified (cf. 21:32; 24:10); here it signifies firm resolve. The action is performed by his sons because Jacob is too weak.<\/p>\n
in the wagons Apparently, the patriarch has refrained from using them until his doubts have been dispelled.<\/p>\n
6\u20137. The strong emphasis on the all-inclusive nature of the migration is meant to draw attention, once again, to the national significance of the event. This passage provides a smooth transition to the next section.<\/p>\n
7. daughters That is, his daughter Dinah, his daughters-in-law, and his grand-daughters.5<\/p>\n
THE GENEALOGY OF JACOB (vv. 8\u201327)<\/p>\n
At this point the narrative is interrupted by a census of the Israelite clans. This document bears its own distinctive literary form. Those included are listed according to the matriarch with whom they are associated. The order is: Leah and her maidservant Zilpah, Rachel and her maidservant Bilhah. Coincidentally, this parallels the descending order of the number of progeny. Each of the four groupings concludes with a formula that contains the initial statement, \u201cThese are the sons\/descendants of \u2026,\u201d the name of the matriarch, and a numerical summation (vv. 15, 18, 22, 25).
\nThe genealogical lists bristle with difficulties that derive from apparent inconsistencies contained within the information given and from a comparison with parallel lists found elsewhere in the Hebrew text as well as in the Septuagint version. On many of these issues, see Excursus 30.<\/p>\n
8. These are the names A standard introductory formula.6<\/p>\n
the Israelites The children of the patriarch Israel have imperceptibly become \u201cthe Israelites,\u201d a national entity. The promise of verse 3 is already being fulfilled in embryo.<\/p>\n
first-born See Comment to 35:22f.<\/p>\n
9. The four sons of Reuben listed here are identical to those recorded in the parallel genealogies of Exodus 6:14, Numbers 26:5\u20136, and 1 Chronicles 5:3.<\/p>\n
10. Jemuel So Exodus 6:15. However, in Numbers 26:12 and 1 Chronicles 4:24 the name is listed as Nemuel. The difference may be a matter of dialect.<\/p>\n
Ohad This name is missing from Numbers 26:12 and 1 Chronicles 4:24, perhaps due to the fact that the clan disappeared in later times.<\/p>\n
Zohar So Exodus 6:15. However, in Numbers 26:13 and 1 Chronicles 4:24 it is replaced by Zerah. Both names mean \u201cshining, brightness.\u201d<\/p>\n
Saul the son of a Canaanite So in Exodus 6:15 but not in Numbers 26:13 or 1 Chronicles 4:24. The exceptional notice reflects the disfavor in which tribal intermarriage with Canaanites was held.7<\/p>\n
12. Er, Onan Compare 38:3\u201310.<\/p>\n
died in the land of Canaan So Numbers 26:19.<\/p>\n
Perez\u2019s sons were \u2026 The Hebrew formula va-yihyu benei does not appear again in these genealogies. The change in terminology indicates that the two sons are mentioned even though they could not possibly have been born at the time of the migration to Egypt (see Comment to 38:1). Judah sired five clans in all. Since two died out in Canaan, two of the second generation are listed to complete the five to be credited to Judah. Only Perez\u2019s sons are named because his was the most important of the clans: David was his descendant.8<\/p>\n
13. Puvah In 1 Chronicles 7:1 he is called Puah. Judges 10:1 mentions a judge, \u201cTola son of Puah,\u201d also of the tribe of Issachar.<\/p>\n
Iob The Septuagint and Samaritan texts read here Jashub, as in Numbers 26:24 and 1 Chronicles 7:1.<\/p>\n
15. The sum total of the progeny of Leah listed here is indeed thirty-three. However, this computation includes Er and Onan, who died in Canaan, as well as Hezron and Hamul, who were certainly born in Egypt (see Comment to 38:1), and it excludes Dinah. But the phrase \u201cmale and female\u201d (lit. \u201chis sons and daughters\u201d) requires her to be included. Accordingly, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, and Radak omit Er and Onan and reckon in Dinah and Jacob. This would make Leah\u2019s progeny thirty-two in all. The coincidental advantage of this is that Leah and Rachel would each have twice the number of descendants credited to their respective maidservants. Still, the text clearly refers to the children of Leah and cannot encompass Jacob within that total. Although not included in the computation, Dinah is mentioned because of the narrative about her in Genesis 34.<\/p>\n
16. Gad He is seventh in the list of sons; the numerical value of the letters of his name is seven, and he has seven descendants.<\/p>\n
Ziphion In Numbers 26:15 he appears as Zephon.<\/p>\n
Ezbon In Numbers 26:16 the fourth son is Ozni.<\/p>\n
17. Ishvah So 1 Chronicles 7:30; he is omitted from the list in Numbers 26:44.<\/p>\n
their sister Serah She is also specified in Numbers 26:46 and 1 Chronicles 7:30. It is inconceivable that Jacob\u2019s twelve sons should have had fifty-three sons in all and only one daughter. In light of the general biblical tendency to omit women from the genealogies, there must be some extraordinary reason for mentioning her in this particular one, although not a hint of it is given in the text. A similar notice about a sister is found in 4:22 (see Comment), and 36:3, 22 (cf. 28:9; 33:3).<\/p>\n
18. The sixteen descendants of Zilpah consist of two sons, eleven grandsons, one granddaughter, and two great-grandsons.<\/p>\n
19. The sons of Jacob\u2019s wife Rachel Of the four mothers, only Rachel is called \u201cwife.\u201d This is because she is listed after a concubine. The title thus affirms Rachel\u2019s superior status.9<\/p>\n
20. Manasseh and Ephraim See Comment to 41:50.<\/p>\n
21. The genealogy of Benjamin presents special problems. Ten sons are listed here, whereas Numbers 26:38\u201340 records five sons (and two grandsons), 1 Chronicles 7:6 has three sons, and 1 Chronicles 8:1ff. has five sons. Moreover, the names and the order of seniority differ in the various lists. Most likely, the divergences reflect different periods in biblical history as well as variant textual and historical traditions.<\/p>\n
Becher He is not mentioned in Numbers 26:38\u201340 or in 1 Chronicles 8:1. According to Numbers 26:35, the clan of Becherites was associated with Ephraim. The name appears as that of a Benjaminite in 2 Samuel 20:1.<\/p>\n
Ashbel He is the second son in Numbers 26:38 and in 1 Chronicles 8:1.<\/p>\n
Gera He appears neither in Numbers 26 nor in 1 Chronicles 7. According to the Septuagint here and to 1 Chronicles 8:3, he was the son of Bela. All other bearers of the name Gera are Benjaminites.10<\/p>\n
Naaman He does not appear in 1 Chronicles 7, but the Septuagint in this passage, in Numbers 26:40, and in 1 Chronicles 8:4 makes him Bela\u2019s son.<\/p>\n
Ehi Though omitted in 1 Chronicles 7, he is probably to be identified with Ahiram, Benjamin\u2019s third son according to Numbers 26:38. In 1 Chronicles 8:1 Aharah occupies this place.<\/p>\n
Rosh He is Bela\u2019s son in the Septuagint list but appears in none of the parallel lists.<\/p>\n
Muppim He is Bela\u2019s son in the Septuagint. This form of the name occurs nowhere else. In Numbers 26:39 Shephupham is Benjamin\u2019s fourth son, and Shephuphan is the eighth son of Bela in 1 Chronicles 8:5.<\/p>\n
Huppim The Septuagint omits him. In Numbers 26:39 Benjamin\u2019s fifth son is called Hupham.<\/p>\n
Ard In the Septuagint he is the son of Gera, while in Numbers 26:40 he is listed as Bela\u2019s son. Addar is a son of Bela in 1 Chronicles 8:3.<\/p>\n
23. Dan\u2019s son The Hebrew reads benei, \u201csons,\u201d and the incongruity of a plural with a single name has been variously explained. An early tradition\u2014in Jubilees 44:28f.\u2014gives Dan originally two sons; one died and his name was omitted from the list. This explanation is accepted by Ibn Ezra and \u1e24izkuni. Another tradition records a different Hebrew text: ben, \u201cson,\u201d found in the Torah copy of R. Meir (Gen. R. 94:8). The most convincing suggestion is that the plural simply follows the stereotyped formulaic pattern. This is intimated in Bava Batra 143b and is supported by the analogy of Numbers 26:8, 42f., and 1 Chronicles 1:41 and 2:8.<\/p>\n
Hushim In Numbers 26:42 he is called Shuham, an inversion of the consonants.<\/p>\n
24. The same list is given in Numbers 26:48f. and 1 Chronicles 7:13, except that in the latter source Jahzeel appears as Jahziel and Shillem as Shallum.<\/p>\n
26. his own issue Literally, \u201cthat came out of his loin.\u201d11 While the loins are the scat of procreative power in the Bible, it is possible that the word in the singular here is a euphemism for the reproductive organ. See Comment to 24:2.<\/p>\n
numbered 66 Since this is not a typological or symbolic number in the Bible, it must therefore represent a genuine calculation based on the data just recorded. The key phrase is \u201cwho came to Egypt.\u201d Accordingly, Er and Onan must be omitted because they died in Canaan. Verse 27 indicates that Manasseh and Ephraim are not included among the 66. They were born in Egypt and cannot be said to have come there. The computation would then be: Leah 31 + Zilpah 16 + Rachel 12 + Bilhah 7 = 66.<\/p>\n
27. the total \u2026 70 persons It is not clear how this number is obtained, but the aggregate of the summations given for each matriarch is 70. However, this computation does not include only \u201cthose who came to Egypt\u201d (see preceding Comment). It might be assumed to refer to Jacob and 69 progeny\u2014excluding Er and Onan but including Dinah. However, Exodus 1:5 repeats the number 70 tradition in reference to the totality of \u201cJacob\u2019s issue\u201d; it does not include Jacob in the calculation. On the other hand, Deuteronomy 10:22 states, \u201cYour ancestors went down to Egypt seventy persons in all,\u201d apparently including Jacob in that number. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the total of 70 excludes Jacob\u2019s daughters-in-law and granddaughters, so that it is obviously not intended to be an exact census of the Israelites at this period.
\nThere is no way of satisfactorily solving the problem and reconciling the differences unless 70 is understood here to be a typological rather than a literal number. It is here used, as elsewhere in biblical literature, to express the idea of totality. Thus it reiterates, in another way, the point made in verses 1 and 6\u20137, emphasizing the comprehensive nature of the descent to Egypt because this event is seen as the fulfillment of Genesis 15:13.<\/p>\n
JACOB AND JOSEPH REUNITED (vv. 28\u201330)<\/p>\n
28. This verse really belongs immediately after verse 7, from which it has been separated by the genealogy.<\/p>\n
Judah For the rise of Judah to predominance, see the introduction to chapter 38. It is only fitting that Judah, who bore responsibility for separating Joseph from Jacob (37:26), should now be charged with arranging the reunion.<\/p>\n
to point the way Hebrew le-horot is unclear in that it possesses no object and usually means \u201cto instruct.\u201d The present rendering is found in Targum Jonathan and is followed by Rashi and Radak. Josephus (Ant. 2.184) takes the verb to mean \u201cto inform,\u201d namely, to inform Joseph of his father\u2019s imminent arrival. Another tradition\u2014the Samaritan\u2014understands it as \u201cto present himself,\u201d which implies a variant Hebrew text le-heraot.<\/p>\n
29. ordered his chariot The Hebrew reads literally \u201chitched \u2026,\u201d although it was not done by Joseph personally. The device of attributing this to him heightens the impression of Joseph excitedly rushing forth to Goshen to greet his father. Despite his exalted position, he does not wait for his father to come to him.
\nThe reunion of father and son, cruelly separated for so long, is marked by a mute embrace and copious tears. No words are initially exchanged, for none can be adequate. Only the sounds of Joseph\u2019s weeping pervade the silence.<\/p>\n
30. \u201cNow I can die\u201d I am ready for death now that my dearest wish has been fulfilled.<\/p>\n
PREPARATIONS FOR THE AUDIENCE WITH PHARAOH (vv. 31\u201334)<\/p>\n
Earlier, Joseph had designated Goshen as the proposed domicile of the family (45:10), but Pharaoh, in confirming the invitation to settle in Egypt, has left the place unspecified (45:17\u201320). Joseph must now obtain clear and unambiguous royal authorization for Israelite settlement in Goshen. He therefore shrewdly prepares his brothers for an audience with Pharaoh and rehearses the speeches and answers to be given on that occasion so as to elicit the desired result.<\/p>\n
32. This verse is part of Joseph\u2019s address to be made to the king.<\/p>\n
shepherds \u2026 breeders of livestock The difference between the two is not clear, for the latter designation (Heb. \u02beanshei mikneh) occurs only here and in verse 34 and nowhere else in biblical literature. Furthermore, the brothers do not mention it in response to Pharaoh\u2019s question (47:3). In all probability, this is simply a synonymous variant of \u201cshepherd\u201d without any more grandiose meaning.<\/p>\n
34. One gets the impression that Joseph wishes to obscure the fact that the brothers have an additional occupation. This may support the suggestion that the Hebrews were also traders (see Comment to 34:10).<\/p>\n
For all shepherds are abhorrent to Egyptians This remark is probably occasioned by the undoubted fact that the townsfolk held the shepherd in very low social esteem.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 47<\/p>\n
PHARAOH AND JOSEPH\u2019S BROTHERS (vv. 1\u20136)<\/p>\n
1. reported to Pharaoh Joseph carries out his previously stated intention (46:31). He must personally inform the king of his family\u2019s arrival because Pharaoh had originally extended the invitation to them through him (45:16\u201320).<\/p>\n
are now in the region of Goshen Joseph had selected this location from the beginning (45:10; 46:34). He now artfully insinuates the name into Pharaoh\u2019s mind so as to prepare him for the brothers\u2019 formal request (v. 4) and to predispose him in its favor.<\/p>\n
2. The first clause is literally \u201cand from the extremity of his brothers he took five men,\u201d that is, \u201cfrom the totality,\u201d implying random selection.1 For \u201cfive\u201d as a round number, see Comment to 43:34.<\/p>\n
3. What is your occupation? Pharaoh had not yet been told anything about the brothers, so his question is not surprising and was anticipated by Joseph (46:33).<\/p>\n
4. to sojourn This statement2 is the basis for the observation in the Passover Haggadah that Jacob intended to stay in Egypt only temporarily. The use of Hebrew la-gur (see Comment to 12:10) connects the migration to Egypt with the divine prophecy to Abraham, \u201cKnow well that your offspring shall be strangers (Heb. ger) in a land not theirs\u201d (15:13). The awareness of their status as strangers in Egypt left a deep imprint on the Israelite consciousness that found expression in repeated ethical injunctions: \u201cYou shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt\u201d (Exod. 22:20); \u201cYou shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the feelings of the stranger, having yourselves been strangers in the land of Egypt\u201d (Exod. 23:9); \u201cThe stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt\u201d (Lev. 19:34); \u201cYou too must befriend the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt\u201d (Deut. 10:19).<\/p>\n
5\u20136. These verses have occasioned difficulty because Pharaoh addresses Joseph, not the brothers; because his initial statement does not seem to relate to the petition, and because he appears to be informing Joseph of the arrival of the family when Joseph has already so informed him and has even introduced his brothers! Actually, Pharaoh does not really announce the arrival of Jacob and his sons. He makes a simple announcement of fact that acknowledges, and thus legitimates, the Israelite presence on Egyptian soil. If he does not reply to the brothers directly, it is because he grants the desired permission only as a special favor to Joseph. By addressing himself to Joseph, he implicitly authorizes him to be responsible for implementing the royal decree of verse 11. This authorization is phrased in laconic, almost staccato, tones that suggest the superior aloofness and absolute authority of Pharaoh.<\/p>\n
6. in the best part of the land The king is true to his word (45:18).<\/p>\n
capable men Hebrew \u02beanshei \u1e25ayil is sometimes used in the sense of \u201cmen of ability.\u201d3<\/p>\n
in charge of my livestock Hebrew sarei mikneh, literally \u201cofficers of cattle,\u201d that is, superintendents of the royal cattle. This office is mentioned frequently in Egyptian inscriptions since the king possessed vast herds of cattle. Ramses III is said to have employed 3,264 men, mostly foreigners, to take care of his herds. The appointment of some of Joseph\u2019s brothers to supervise the king\u2019s cattle means that they are to be officers of the crown and thus will enjoy legal protection not usually accorded aliens.<\/p>\n
PHARAOH AND JACOB (vv. 7\u201310)<\/p>\n
Joseph now presents his father to Pharaoh. The reason for the separate audience, after that of his brothers, is probably that Joseph felt it would not be dignified for the aged patriarch to appear in the role of a supplicant.<\/p>\n
7. greeted Hebrew va-yevarekh, literally \u201cand he blessed,\u201d here probably simply means \u201che saluted.\u201d4 The content of the greeting is not given, but widespread custom in the ancient Near Eastern world dictated wishing the king long life as in 2 Samuel 16:16 and 1 Kings 1:31. Later rabbinic practice required the recital of a special blessing upon seeing a non-Israelite king: \u201cBlessed be He who has imparted of His glory to His creatures\u201d (Ber. 58a).<\/p>\n
8. Perhaps Pharaoh wondered whether Jacob exceeded the ideal Egyptian life span of 110 (see Comment to 50:22).<\/p>\n
9. my sojourn Pharaoh asked about the years of his \u201clife.\u201d Jacob answers regarding his \u201csojournings,\u201d either in reference to the unsettled and turbulent nature of his life or as a figure of speech for \u201clife\u2019s journey.\u201d5<\/p>\n
hard Jacob recalls the unbroken chain of misfortunes and suffering that has been his lot.<\/p>\n
my fathers In the mouth of Jacob the term refers only to Isaac and Abraham.6 The former lived to 180 (35:28), the latter to 175 (25:7).<\/p>\n
10. bade \u2026 farewell Hebrew va-yevarekh, as in verse 7.7<\/p>\n
Joseph\u2019s Agrarian Policies (vv. 11\u201327)<\/p>\n
11\u201312. These two verses serve as a transition to the following unrelated narrative. Joseph\u2019s role as provider for his family reminds the reader that the famine is still in progress.<\/p>\n
11. the region of Rameses Another name for Goshen (see Comment to 45:10). Ramses II, in the thirteenth century B.C.E., enlarged the city of Tanis and made it his capital. Thereafter, this royal name was attached to it.8 The use of the name here in Joseph\u2019s time is anachronistic.<\/p>\n
as Pharaoh had commanded Compare 45:18, 20; 47:6.<\/p>\n
12. down to the little ones The unique Hebrew lefi ha-taf should normally mean \u201cby the mouth of\/ according to the children.\u201d The Septuagint understood the phrase to signify \u201cper person.\u201d \u1e24izkuni took it to mean \u201cas much as children can eat,\u201d that is, \u201cliberally.\u201d<\/p>\n
13\u201326. The severity of the remaining years of famine is such that the people become wholly dependent upon the state for their survival. Joseph rises to the occasion and averts disaster through a series of drastic measures that, in effect, nationalize the land and livestock and turn the populace into tenant farmers of the state. This section has no connection with the story of the Israelites; a continuation of the narrative of chapter 41 describing the measures taken by Joseph in preparation for the famine, it has been included here because it provides examples of Joseph\u2019s wisdom and leadership capabilities. It also supplies an explanation for the extraordinary contrast between the Egyptian system, which concentrated land ownership in the hands of the state, and the Israelite ideal of private ownership of property. It is also likely that the Narrator wishes to emphasize the great benefits that Joseph brought to the crown, thus accentuating the base ingratitude of a later Pharaoh \u201cwho did not know Joseph\u201d (Exod. 1:8). In this sense, this digression provides a link with the Book of Exodus.<\/p>\n
13. languished The unique Hebrew form va-telah is taken as deriving from a stem l-h-h, a variant of l-\u02be-h, \u201cto be weary, helpless.\u201d9<\/p>\n
14. into Pharaoh\u2019s palace Joseph took nothing for himself.10<\/p>\n
15. the land of Canaan The threefold repetition of this phrase in verses 13\u201315 serves to remind us that if Jacob and his family had not migrated to Egypt they might have starved to death.<\/p>\n
16. sell This is the sense of Hebrew n-t-n followed by the preposition b. The understood object is the \u201cbread\u201d mentioned in verse 15.11<\/p>\n
17. horses This is the first time the Bible mentions this animal, which had become widespread throughout the Near East by the middle of the sixteenth century B.C.E. Its place at the head of the list here is indicative of its high value.12<\/p>\n
18. the next year Literally, \u201cthe second year.\u201d We are not told to what this refers; hence the present translation. The indefiniteness has given rise to various interpretations:13 (i) the second year of the famine, (ii) two years after the arrival of Jacob, (iii) the second of the remaining five years of famine, (iv) the seventh year of the famine. This last seeks to explain why the people ask for seed; the predicted end of the famine is at hand, and it is time to prepare for next year\u2019s harvest. It is a mistake to think that farmers do not sow their fields in years of famine.<\/p>\n
19. The suggestion to barter livestock for food had come from Joseph. Now the Egyptians initiate the proposal to surrender their land and become serfs of the crown.<\/p>\n
provide the seed Egyptian sources document the practice of the state lending seed-corn to farmers for repayment at harvest time.<\/p>\n
20. The Egyptian theory of government gave the pharaoh the supreme right of ownership of the land by virtue of his divine status. In practice, private landed property existed in all periods of Egyptian history, but after the expulsion of the Hyksos in the middle of the sixteenth century B.C.E., the major part of the land became the actual property of the state. There is no way, however, of determining to which period in Egyptian history the present story relates.<\/p>\n
sold The Hebrew stem m-k-r does not distinguish between a sale for money and a barter arrangement.14<\/p>\n
21. he removed the population town by town Literally, \u201cthe populace, he removed it to\/by cities.\u201d The exact meaning is uncertain, but it is generally understood as referring to a population transfer on a large scale,15 probably to oust farmers from nationalized lands.<\/p>\n
22. the land of the priests The text seems to mean that since the temples received fixed royal endowments16 they were under no pressure to barter their lands for food or seed.<\/p>\n
23\u201324. Whereas \u2026 here is The construction of the statement indicates that the provision of seed is contingent upon the barter of the peasants\u2019 land for food.
\nThe state-controlled land is cultivated by the former landowners, who pay a tax of 20 percent of the harvest in return for the privilege and for the seed allotment. Such an interest rate was not considered excessive in the ancient Near East. During the reign of Hammurabi, for instance, the state\u2019s share of the harvest from administered fields varied between two-thirds and one-half after the deduction of production expenses. An interest rate of 20 percent on money loans was quite common in Babylon, while the rate for loans of produce was usually 33.3 percent.<\/p>\n
25. saved our lives Contrast the fears expressed in verses 15 and 19.<\/p>\n
grateful Joseph\u2019s actions cannot be measured by the moral standards that the Hebrew Bible, especially the prophetic tradition, has inculcated in Western civilization. Rather, they must be judged in the context of the ancient Near Eastern world, by whose norms Joseph emerges here as a highly admirable model of a shrewd and successful administrator. Nonetheless, a moral judgment on the situation is subtly introduced into the narrative by shifting the onus of responsibility for the fate of the peasants from Joseph to the Egyptians themselves. The peasants initiate the idea of their own enslavement (v. 19) and even express gratitude when it is implemented!17<\/p>\n
26. still valid Here, as in 1 Samuel 30:25, the Hebrew formula \u02bfad ha-yom ha-zeh is used in a legal context in which the Narrator bears witness to the fact that the ancient laws described in verses 22 and 24 were still operative in his day. The statement refers to the fact that at various periods of Egyptian history individual temple estates were exempt from taxation by royal decree.<\/p>\n
27. Following the digression, the narrative resumes the story of the Israelites. This verse is closely connected with verse 11.<\/p>\n
Israel The accompanying verb is in the singular form, whereas the succeeding three verbs are plural. The inconsistency is deliberate and the ambiguity intentional: Israel the individual merges with the national entity. The phenomenon has already been noted in the Comment to 46:3f., 8. It appears again in 48:20.<\/p>\n
and were fertile and increased greatly God\u2019s blessing bestowed upon Jacob on his return from Haran, in 35:11, and reiterated as he was about to go down to Egypt, is now in the process of being fulfilled (cf. 48:4).<\/p>\n
Jacob Prepares for Death (vv. 28\u201331)<\/p>\n
Va-Ye\u1e25i<\/p>\n
Four verses were devoted to the passing of Abraham (25:7\u201310); two to the death of Isaac (35:28f). In each case the numerical summation of the years of life immediately preceded the report of death. Here, in 47:28\u201350:14, the demise of Jacob is told in extraordinary detail, and several scenes come between the account of his lifespan and his death (47:28; 49:33). The explanation for this exceptional treatment of Jacob\u2019s end lies in the special circumstances surrounding his situation. He alone, of the patriarchs, dies on alien soil. He is therefore particularly concerned about intermept in his ancestral grave, and burial in accordance with his wishes involves considerable effort and elaborate arrangements, all of which must be described. Furthermore, from the time that Jacob settled down in Canaan after returning from Haran, his life had been wholly intertwined with that of Joseph. Just as the beginning of the period in Canaan was marked by a chronological note involving seventeen years (37:2), so its close is similarly indicated (47:28). It is this literary framework that has influenced the placement of the numerical summation here, rather than with the actual announcement of death.<\/p>\n
28. lived This term is an apt description of the years Jacob spent reunited with his beloved son, for something had died within him when Joseph disappeared, and his \u201cspirit revived\u201d with the knowledge that he was alive and well in Egypt, Jacob had thought this would be a brief happiness, the final experience of his life.18 Instead, he has enjoyed many more years.<\/p>\n
seventeen years This is precisely as many years as Joseph had lived with his father in Canaan (37:2). There was a similar pattern for Abraham, who lived exactly as many years in his father\u2019s home (12:4) as in the lifetime of his son Isaac (21:5; 25:7).<\/p>\n
one hundred and forty-seven The lifespans of the three patriarchs lend themselves to factorization according to the following pattern:
\nAbraham 175 = 5 \u00d7 5 \u00d7 7; Isaac 180 = 6 \u00d7 6 \u00d7 5; Jacob 147 = 7 \u00d7 7 \u00d7 3.
\nIn this series, the squared number increases by one each time while the coefficient decreases by two. Furthermore, in each case the sum of the factors is 17.
\nThrough their factorial patterns, the patriarchal chronologies constitute a rhetorical device expressing the profound biblical conviction that Israel\u2019s formative age was not a concatenation of haphazard incidents but a series of events ordered according to God\u2019s grand design.<\/p>\n
29. place your hand See Comment to 24:2.<\/p>\n
do not bury me in Egypt Similarly, Joseph later adjures his brothers to rebury him in the land of Canaan (50:25). This motif is found in the Egyptian Story of Sinuhe, where the exiled courtier asks, \u201cWhat is more important than that I be buried in my native land?\u201d The biblical examples, however, have an added dimension, for the deathbed requests are bound up with the divine promise of redemption and nationhood in the Land of Israel (cf. 48:21; 50:24f.).<\/p>\n
30. When I lie down with my fathers An idiomatic expression for death, analogous to \u201cgoing to one\u2019s fathers\u201d (see Comment to 15:15) or being \u201cgathered to one\u2019s kin\u201d (see Comment to 25:8). It is applied equally to the righteous and the wicked, as such texts as 1 Kings 14:20 and 22:40 show. Since, as here, it most often precedes the notice of burial (cf., e.g., 1 Kings 11:43 and 2 Kings 8:24), and because it is used of Moses (Deut. 31:16), David (1 Kings 2:10), Ahaz (2 Chron. 28:27), and Manasseh (2 Kings 21:18), none of whom was actually buried in the ancestral grave, the phrase clearly refers to death and not to interment.<\/p>\n
in their burial-place That is, in the Cave of Machpelah.<\/p>\n
31. \u201cSwear to me.\u201d Jacob exacts this solemn oath in addition to the promise in order to strengthen Joseph\u2019s hand when he will request the royal authorization needed to fulfill the difficult assignment. Indeed, Pharaoh later refers to the oath in granting permission.19<\/p>\n
bowed at the head of the bed Being an invalid, the aged patriarch can only make some bodily gesture symbolic of prostration.20 It is not clear whether it is a token of gratitude to Joseph or an expression of thanks and praise to God.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 48*<\/p>\n
EPHRAIM AND MANASSEH (vv. 1\u201320)<\/p>\n
Chapter 48 has two main themes: the elevation, by adoption, of Joseph\u2019s two sons to the status of Israelite tribes and the advance in status of Ephraim over the first-born Manasseh.<\/p>\n
THE ADOPTION (VV. 1\u201312)<\/p>\n
1. Some time afterward That is, following the oath ceremony described in the preceding four verses and within the closing year of Jacob\u2019s life.<\/p>\n
was told The impersonal nature of the Hebrew verb (lit. \u201cand one said\u201d) gives it the force of a passive.<\/p>\n
\u201cYour father is ill\u201d This is the first reference to illness in the Bible.<\/p>\n
So be took with him \u2026 The narrative framework, as opposed to the dialogues, uses an economy of words, leaving the destination and arrival to the reader\u2019s imagination. The Septuagint adds, \u201cHe came to Jacob.\u201d<\/p>\n
2. sat up Out of respect for the office that Joseph represented.<\/p>\n
3. El Shaddai On this divine epithet, see Comment to 17:1.<\/p>\n
Luz This is the original name of Bethel, according to 28:19. At this site Jacob received a momentous revelation after he had returned from Paddan-aram, recounted in chapter 35. His name was changed to Israel, and the promises made to Abraham and Isaac were reiterated.<\/p>\n
4. Jacob now paraphrases those divine promises (cf. 35:11\u201312) in order to establish the legal basis for his subsequent actions. As heir to the blessings, Jacob has the right to decide who is to be included in the \u201ccommunity of peoples\u201d that will be known as Israel. Because only he who receives the divine blessing directly can impart it, Joseph, who never received a divine revelation, cannot endow his sons with tribal territory.<\/p>\n
an everlasting possession Hebrew \u02bea\u1e25uzzat \u02bfolam1 stands in a subtle contrast to 47:11 (\u02bea\u1e25uzah; cf. 47:27), thereby emphasizing that the only true and inalienable \u201cpossession\u201d of territory is the Land of Israel. Only God can give an \u201ceverlasting possession.\u201d Pharaoh\u2019s gift is transitory.<\/p>\n
5\u201312. Jacob now formally adopts his two grandchildren, thereby elevating them to full membership in the Israelite tribal league.
\nThe language and narration are noteworthy for their legal precision. The adopter is invariably called Israel (cf. 35:10); there is a declaration of intent comprising the careful, unambiguous designation of the persons involved and those excluded (vv. 5\u20136); the true identity of the boys present is established through interrogation of the father (vv. 8f.); certain physical acts reinforce the oral declaration (vv. 10\u201312).
\nIntra-family adoptions are well attested in the ancient Near East. In the Bible it is possible to construe the episodes dealing with Naomi and her grandson Obed (Ruth 4:16f.) and with Mordecai and Esther (Esther 2:7) as examples of this practice. A striking analogy to the present narrative is provided by an Akkadian legal document from Ugarit recording the adoption of a grandson by a grandfather who then makes him his heir (cf. 50:23).<\/p>\n
Ephraim and Manasseh Here Jacob mentions the younger son first, in contrast to the order in verse 1\u2014a hint of impending developments.<\/p>\n
Reuben and Simeon The parallel drawn between the two sons of Joseph and the two oldest sons of Jacob exemplifies the new legal status of the former.<\/p>\n
6. born to you Hebrew holadeta, literally \u201cyou have begotten.\u201d The past meaning of this verb is confirmed by the following participle, ha-noladim (v. 5), \u201cwho were born.\u201d We therefore have here a fragment of a lost tradition, not otherwise referred to in the Bible, concerning other children born to Joseph, that is, clans who adhered to the \u201cHouse of Joseph.\u201d This interpretation finds much support among traditional exegetes such as Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Radak. Another view, that of the Targums, Saadiah, and Rashi, is that the verb expresses a future possibility. Still other interpreters, such as the Leka\u1e25 Tov and \u1e24izkuni, believe that the reference is to Joseph\u2019s grandsons.<\/p>\n
shall be yours They shall not constitute separate tribal entities but shall partake of the inheritance of either Manasseh or Ephraim.<\/p>\n
7. Traditional commentators have by and large understood this verse to be an apologia by Jacob for troubling his son with the arduous task of burying him in the Cave of Machpelah when he himself had not done the same for Rachel, Joseph\u2019s mother, who had died but a short distance from the site. However, this interpretation does not explain the intrusiveness of the verse in its present position. It would more appropriately belong with 47:29\u201331 or 49:29\u201332, both of which deal with Jacob\u2019s instructions regarding his burial.
\nIt is best to understand this chapter as being dependent on 35:9\u201320, which is composed of two sections: Verses 9\u201315 deal with the vision at Luz-Bethel and the divine promises of numerous progeny, a league of tribes, and possession of the land; immediately thereafter, verses 16\u201320 tell of Rachel\u2019s death and burial. So here Jacob repeats the substance of these divine blessings to Joseph and follows with the report of Rachel\u2019s death. It is quite natural that, on his deathbed, Jacob should recall his beloved wife who had died so young and for whom he had endured so much. Moreover, it was probably because she had been deprived of the opportunity to bear more children that her two grandchildren are adopted by Jacob as a substitute for those whom her death had robbed of the possibility of life. The mention of Ephrath may constitute a covert verbal allusion to Ephraim, who is soon to be the focus of Jacob\u2019s attention.<\/p>\n
Paddan The full place-name is Paddan-aram, as in 25:20; 35:9.2<\/p>\n
to my sorrow Hebrew \u02bfalai, literally \u201cupon me.\u201d3<\/p>\n
while I was journeying Hebrew ba-derekh describes the attendant circumstance, not the location.4<\/p>\n
some distance \u2026 See Comment to 35:16.<\/p>\n
Ephrath See Comment to 35:19.<\/p>\n
8\u20139. Jacob\u2019s question seems to suggest that he does not know his grandsons seventeen years after arriving in Egypt! Traditional commentators have attempted to overcome this anomaly by connecting this verse with verse 10, which records the patriarch\u2019s poor vision. They suggest that he could dimly discern the presence of two human forms but could not recognize them. Modern scholars generally regard the scene as belonging to a different strand of tradition.
\nActually, we have here the second stage of the legal adoptive process, namely, the establishment of the true identity of the candidates for adoption by formal interrogation of the natural father.5<\/p>\n
Israel This name, rather than Jacob, is used hereafter until the end of the chapter in order to reflect the change of name (35:10) upon which this episode is dependent. Further, the name Israel is more appropriate since the narrative concludes with tribal history.<\/p>\n
10. Israel\u2019s eyes \u2026 The statement explains Joseph\u2019s reaction in the following scene. He attributes his father\u2019s unusual act to his impaired vision.<\/p>\n
kissed \u2026 embraced These two verbs appear together again in the Bible only in 29:13 and 33:4, where the embrace precedes the kiss. Here these acts, in reverse order, express not simply a show of affection but the reinforcement of the oral declarations through symbolic physical gestures that have significance in the adoptive process.<\/p>\n
12. from his knees The reference is to Jacob\u2019s knees, on or between which the two boys had been placed\u2014another symbolic gesture that betokens acceptance and legitimation as son and heir. See Comment to 30:3.<\/p>\n
and bowed low The Hebrew verb is singular, referring to Joseph. Several of the ancient versions render it in the plural, the subject being the two lads. The Hebrew singular may be distributive.<\/p>\n
THE GRANDFATHER\u2019S BLESSING (VV. 13\u201316)<\/p>\n
13. Joseph stations the lads before their grandfather in such a way as to ensure that Jacob\u2019s right hand, the symbol of action and power, will naturally rest on Manasseh, the first-born. The high importance that this has for Joseph is conveyed by the precision of language, the repeated use of \u201cright\u201d and \u201cleft\u201d seven times in combination (vv. 13f., 17).<\/p>\n
14. The placing of the hand upon the head establishes physical contact between the parties to the blessing, heightening the sense of intimacy and communication between the donor and the recipient. The Hebrew verb used here is not the same as that employed for the ceremony of the \u201claying on of the hands\u201d used in the case of sacrificial offerings and ordination.6<\/p>\n
crossing his hands The etymology of Hebrew sikkel is uncertain, but the sense is clear.<\/p>\n
15. be blessed Joseph Mention of Joseph here is surprising since the blessing is wholly directed to the two grandsons. The Septuagint reads \u201che blessed them,\u201d and the Vulgate has \u201c\u2026 the sons of Joseph.\u201d Traditional commentators explain that a father is the vicarious recipient of blessings bestowed on his children.<\/p>\n
my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked Jacob, out of modesty, does not include himself.<\/p>\n
my shepherd The image for the deity as a shepherd is common throughout ancient Near Eastern literature and appears frequently in the Bible.7 It expresses the idea of God as provider, protector, and guide.<\/p>\n
16. The Angel On biblical angelology, see Excursus 10. The capitalization reflects the fact that the parallelistic structure of verses 15\u201316 strongly suggests that \u201cangel\u201d is here an epithet of God. No one in the Bible ever invokes an angel in prayer, nor in Jacob\u2019s several encounters with angels is there any mention of one who delivers him from harm. When the patriarch feels himself to be in mortal danger, he prays directly to God, as in 32:10\u201313, and it is He who again and again is Jacob\u2019s guardian and protector (28:15, 20; 31:3; 35:3). Admittedly, \u201cAngel\u201d as an epithet for God is extraordinary, but since angels are often simply extensions of the divine personality, the distinction between God and angel in the biblical texts is frequently blurred (cf. Gen. 31:3, 11, 13; Exod. 3:2, 4). Nevertheless, this verse may reflect some tradition associated with Bethel, not preserved in Genesis, concerning an angelic guardian of Jacob (cf. 31:13; 35:3). An echo of this may be found in Hosea 12:5.<\/p>\n
Bless For blessing by an angel, cf. 32:27, 30.<\/p>\n
In them may my name be recalled \u201cMay my name \u2026 be perpetuated through Ephraim and Manasseh\u201d; that is, may they ever be part of the Israelite tribal confederation identifying themselves with the history, traditions, and values of their patriarchs.<\/p>\n
teeming multitudes Hebrew ve-yidgu, a unique verb apparently formed from dag, \u201cfish,\u201d a symbol of proliferation and multiplicity (cf. Num. 11:22). The two censuses taken in the course of the wilderness wanderings show the populousness of the Joseph tribes. At the beginning of the period, Ephraim and Manasseh jointly numbered 72,700 male adults (Num. 1:32\u201335). Forty years later, the figure was 85,200 (Num. 26:28\u201337), exceeding the combined population of Reuben and Simeon. Moses\u2019 farewell address in Deuteronomy 33:17 refers to \u201cthe myriads of Ephraim\u201d and \u201cthe thousands of Manasseh,\u201d and the huge population posed a special problem for Joshua in the allotment of tribal territories recounted in Joshua 17:14\u201318.<\/p>\n
REVERSAL OF SENIORITY (VV. 17\u201320)<\/p>\n
The texts that record Manasseh as being the natural first-born must reflect an exceedingly early and authentic phase in the history of the Israelite tribal relationships, a phase in which Manasseh enjoyed hegemony over Ephraim. There would be no conceivable reason to invent such a tradition, given subsequent developments. The present episode provides an explanation for the reversal, with Ephraim becoming the more powerful and more influential of the two tribes, even to the extent that its name eventually became synonymous with the kingdom of Israel.8 This phenomenon is traced to Jacob\u2019s blessing. Following his adoption of Joseph\u2019s two sons, Jacob now exercises his prerogative to set aside chronological priority and to grant Ephraim preferential status.<\/p>\n
17. he thought it wrong That is, to disregard the rule of primogeniture. He attributes the \u201cerror\u201d to his father\u2019s failing eyesight (v. 10), an ironic touch in view of the manner in which Jacob years before had exploited his own father\u2019s failing vision (27:1\u201329).<\/p>\n
19. I know That is, who is the real first-born and how you placed the two sons before me.<\/p>\n
shall be greater than he Strangely, according to the census taken in the second year after the Exodus, the population of Ephraim exceeded that of Manasseh (Num. 1:33, 35), while the opposite is the case a generation later (Num. 26:34, 37). Some disaster seems to have befallen the tribe, reducing its population for a while. Perhaps an echo of this is to be found in an obscure narrative in 1 Chronicles 7:20\u201323 to the effect that the native Gathites slew the sons of Ephraim, who had raided their cattle, and their father mourned for them many days. At any rate, Moses\u2019 farewell address reflects the numerical superiority of Ephraim.<\/p>\n
plentiful enough for nations Hebrew melo\u02be ha-goyim, literally \u201cthe fullness\/mass of the nations.\u201d9 Jacob transfers to Ephraim the contents of the blessing that he himself had received (v. 4; 35:11). This is probably an interpretation of the name \u201cEphraim\u201d that is suggestive of fertility (see Comment to 41:52).<\/p>\n
20. Jacob\u2019s blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh (v. 16), interrupted by Joseph, is now resumed. There can be no greater blessing for the two lads than that their names be invoked by future generations in Israel as paradigms of a glorious destiny. The full meaning of the benediction is clear from a similar formula used by Jeremiah, though to negative effect: \u201cAnd the whole community of Judah in Babylonia shall use a curse derived from their fate: \u2018May God make you like Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon consigned to the flames!\u2019\u2014because they did vile things in Israel\u201d (Jer. 29:22f). That the citation of ancient worthies in the conferring of blessings must have been more widespread in Israel than is indicated by the literature is illustrated in Ruth 4:11\u201312: \u201cAll the people at the gate and the elders answered, \u2026 May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your house like Rachel and Leah, both of whom built up the House of Israel.\u2026 And may your house be like the house of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah.\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
By you The Hebrew uses the singular either in reference to Joseph, as in verse 15, or as a distributive. The latter usage in a blessing is well exemplified by the Priestly Benediction (Num. 6:23, \u201cthem\u201d; vv. 24\u201326, \u201cyou\u201d sing.).<\/p>\n
Israel See Comment to 47:27.<\/p>\n
A GIFT TO JOSEPH (vv. 21\u201322)<\/p>\n
21. I am about to die; but God will be with you \u2026 The apparently unrelated clauses allude, by virtue of their juxtaposition, to the sharp contrast between the present situation that permits Jacob to be buried in the promised land and the impending bondage in Egypt. Yet future redemption is assured because God wills it.<\/p>\n
with you \u2026 The Hebrew uses the plural form. Jacob speaks through Joseph to the entire people.<\/p>\n
22. one portion \u2026 Hebrew shekhem \u02bea\u1e25ad is of uncertain meaning and has generated varied interpretations. The present rendering, which is that of the Targums, Peshitta, and Vulgate, has been overwhelmingly accepted by Jewish commentators although devoid of philological support.10 If correct, it means that Jacob gives Joseph a double share, thus elevating him to the status of first-born. Such a tradition is indeed preserved in 1 Chronicles 5:1\u20132. Because Hebrew shekhem usually means \u201cshoulder,\u201d it has been assumed that, like its synonym katef in Numbers 34:11 and Joshua 15:8, shekhem can be used in the sense of \u201cshoulder,\u201d that is, \u201cside\/slope, of a mountain.\u201d However, this usage too is not otherwise paralleled. Most likely, shekhem must be connected with the city of Shechem, which is so intimately associated with Jacob and Joseph. Jacob bought a parcel of land there (Gen. 33:18f.; Josh. 24:32), the seduction of Dinah took place there, and Simeon and Levi massacred its inhabitants (Gen. 34). It was to Shechem that Jacob sent Joseph to visit his brothers (Gen. 37:12, 14), and Joseph himself is to be buried in the city (Josh. 24:32). Moreover, Shechem lay within the future territory of Joseph\u2019s two sons near the border between the two tribes Ephraim and Manasseh (Josh. 17:7), and it was to become the most important city in the kingdom of northern Israel (cf. 1 Kings 12:1, 25).
\nThe identification of Hebrew shekhem in this verse with the city of Shechem is reflected in the Septuagint translation and in early Jewish sources. It has been accepted by many traditional commentators as well. Yet there are difficulties. First, the phrase \u201cone Shechem\u201d is very strange, and, in any case, Hebrew usage requires a feminine adjective with a city name (\u02bea\u1e25at, not \u02bea\u1e25ad). These problems may perhaps be overcome if shekhem is a play on words using a vocable whose meaning is now lost (possibly \u201cportion\u201d), which alludes to the city of Shechem.
\nThe historical problem is more difficult. Jacob did not participate in the raid on the city and, in fact, denounced the action, as related in Genesis 34:30 and 49:5\u20137, while the plot of land he held there was purchased peacefully, not taken in war. This is made clear in Genesis 33:18f. and Joshua 24:32. Hence, it cannot be said that Jacob captured Shechem by his \u201csword and bow.\u201d Sensing the difficulties, early tradition interpreted this phrase figuratively for \u201cprayer and petition,\u201d or \u201cmitsvot and good deeds,\u201d11 or as a metaphorical expression for divine help. More likely, the reference is to some tradition in the life of Jacob regarding a war against Shechem in which he participated but which has not otherwise been preserved in the Bible. Echoes of such an event may well be present in postbiblical literature. In this connection, it is interesting that although Joshua delivered his farewell address and conducted a covenant ceremony in Shechem, where a shrine already existed (Josh. 24:26), the Book of Joshua contains no report of the conquest of that city. This tends to support the likelihood of a pre-Mosaic Israelite conquest of Shechem. Possibly the city was razed in such a conquest and remained largely in ruins until it was reoccupied by Joshua without a fight. See Excursus 26.<\/p>\n
from the Amorites In Genesis 34 the inhabitants are described as \u201cHivites.\u201d As in many other passages, \u201cAmorite\u201d is used here as a generic term for the pre-Israelite peoples of Canaan (see Comment to 15:16).<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 49*<\/p>\n
The Testament of Jacob (vv. 1\u201333)<\/p>\n
Before his death Jacob summons all his sons to his bedside to hear his farewell words, addressing each individually through a series of aphorisms in poetic form. This document (vv. 1\u201327) is the first sustained piece of Hebrew poetry in the Torah. It is a combination of three literary genres: the deathbed blessing familiar to us from earlier patriarchal narratives, such as 27:27ff., 28:1\u20134 and 39f.; the farewell address found later in the Bible, as in Joshua 23f. and 1 Kings 2:1\u20139; and the tribal poem, as in Deuteronomy 33 and Judges 5. Although the composition of these verses conforms to the general patterns that characterize biblical poetry, there is much uncertainty of meaning, extreme allusiveness, and considerable double entendre. The chapter is the most difficult segment of the Book of Genesis.
\nGenesis 49 is widely known as \u201cThe Blessing of Jacob.\u201d However, as Ibn Ezra recognized long ago, this designation is not strictly accurate because the poems contain material of a very mixed nature. Blessings and curses, censure and praise, geographical and historical observations\u2014all are included. For this reason, a title such as \u201cThe Last Words of Jacob\u201d or \u201cThe Testament of Jacob\u201d better suits the context.
\nIn origin, the collection of aphorisms about the tribes is not a unity, and no inner thread of logic binds the diverse elements together. The individual tribal traditions embedded in the poetry are undoubtedly independent of each other and relate to widely separate and discrete situations. This was fully recognized by the medieval Jewish exegetes, who were also quite aware of the fact that some aphorisms appear to refer to past individual acts of the eponymous ancestor, the remote hero from whom the tribe derived its name, while others allude to tribal history hundreds of years later. Modern scholarship has added almost nothing to the great variety of medieval exegesis in its attempt to unravel the historic background of the sayings, except that the medievals treated these as prophetic, whereas the moderns would be generally inclined to view them as retrojections from later historical reality. See Excursus 23.
\nAn external unity that lends cohesion and meaning to the whole has been imposed upon the diverse material. The poem is encased within a prose framework, the passing of the patriarch. which provides the appropriate setting for its placement within the Joseph narrative. This setting reflects the popular belief in the common origin of the tribes and the basic unity of the nation of Israel. Throughout the chapter, the names \u201cJacob\u201d and \u201cIsrael\u201d each appear five times, the equality of distribution symbolizing the dual character of the patriarch and his sons, now as individual personalities, now as the personifications of the nation with its tribal constituents, as in verse 27. On this phenomenon, see Excursus 25. The aphorisms spoken by Jacob are presented as prophetic pronouncements that will ultimately determine the character and destiny of the future tribes. Also, the actions and behavior of the ancestors leave an indelible imprint on their descendants, affecting the course of history. It is fitting that the Book of Genesis, which opened with the creative power of the divine word, closes with the notion of the effective power of the inspired predictive word of the patriarch.
\nThree distinct narrative cycles converge here, at the end of the book. Firstly, the patriarchal period began with a divine promise of nationhood to Abraham (12:2), and the fulfillment of that promise is expressed here through \u201cthe twelve tribes of Israel\u201d (49:28). Secondly, the Jacob stories, too, commenced with God\u2019s assurance of numerous offspring (28:14), and the scene of the dying patriarch surrounded by his sons and grandsons is its proper conclusion. Finally, the first act of the Joseph drama (chap. 37) was immediately succeeded by the fortunes of Judah (chap. 38), and throughout the Joseph biography the personality of Judah repeatedly injects itself in a point-counterpoint relationship. It is surely no coincidence that these two tribes dominate the poem to the extent that five verses are devoted to each. together totaling ten of the twenty-four lines of poetry.
\nThe literary structure is the product of careful design. The tribal order corresponds neither to the sequence of birth, as recounted in chapters 29\u201330, nor to any of the tribal lists found elsewhere in the Torah. The six sons of Leah are addressed first and the two of Rachel last. In between come the sons of the maidservants; the two sons of Zilpah, maid of Leah, are inserted between the two sons of Bilhah, maid of Rachel. This yields a deliberate chiastic arrangement:
\nLEAH, Bilhah-Zilpah, Zilpah-Bilhah, RACHEL.
\nEach group is presented in a descending order of seniority. The single exception is Issachar and Zebulun, reversed for historical reasons (see Comment to v. 13).<\/p>\n
A PROSE INTRODUCTION (v. 1)<\/p>\n
1. The scene presupposes the preceding statement (48:21): \u201cI am about to die.\u201d<\/p>\n
called That is, he sent for his sons.<\/p>\n
Come together Hebrew he\u02beasfu is paralleled by hikkavtsu, to \u201cassemble,\u201d in verse 2. The use of these two verbs, which constitute a fixed pair of synonyms in Hebrew poetry,1 is evidence that this introductory prose sentence is an organic part of the whole composition.<\/p>\n
what is to befall you The reference is to the distant future. Jacob is speaking to the individual tribes personified as his sons.<\/p>\n
in days to come Hebrew be-\u02bea\u1e25urit ha-yamim, like its Akkadian counterpart ina a\u1e2brat um\u0113, means simply \u201cin the future,\u201d without precise definition. In the Torah the phrase is used in a context of historical time, but in prophetic literature the phrase became a technical term for the \u201cend-time\u201d (eschaton), when the historical process would reach its culmination and God\u2019s grand design for the human race would be fulfilled. Because the later eschatological meaning of the term \u02bea\u1e25arit ha-yamim (\u201cthe end of days\u201d) is not appropriate to the contents of the poem, rabbinic exegesis has the divine spirit (Shekhinah) departing from Jacob just as he was about to reveal to his sons the secrets of messianic times.2<\/p>\n
THE POEM (vv. 2\u201327)<\/p>\n
2. hearken \u2026 Hearken The repetition of the same word at the beginning of both parallel clauses, a phenomenon known as anaphora, is a characteristic of biblical Hebrew poetry.3<\/p>\n
hearken, O sons \u2026 By adopting a standard formula of wisdom literature,4 the poet has cleverly woven the image of a sage addressing his disciples into the father-sons relationship.<\/p>\n
REUBEN (VV. 3\u20134)<\/p>\n
Reuben is censured for the flaws in his character and for his moral failing, hinted at in 35:22. He has proved himself unworthy of inheriting the headship of the tribes upon his father\u2019s death and must therefore forfeit the prerogatives that otherwise naturally flow from the first-born status.
\nOn one level, the demotion of Reuben reflects the ideal of leadership in Israel. Those who hold the responsibility of high office must adhere to moral norms. Misconduct that might be overlooked in men of lesser status assumes notoriously magnified proportions when perpetrated by those who rule. The frequent confrontations between kings and prophets in Israel clearly illustrate the application of this principle.
\nFrom an historical viewpoint, Reuben\u2019s loss of leadership must reflect very early traditions. Since at no period is there any record of the hegemony of this tribe, there cannot be any possible reason for inventing its first-born status. Hence, its consistent place at the head of the tribal lists in the Bible must be an authentic echo of a state of affairs that existed in dim antiquity. The same situation obtains in Reuben\u2019s prominent role in the sale of Joseph into slavery (see Comment to 37:21). See Excursus 23.
\nThe legal situation behind Reuben\u2019s loss of his first-born status also points to an early period when it was still possible for a father to annul the birthright of his first-born son, in contrast to the later legislation of Deuteronomy 21:15\u201317 (see Comment to 25:29\u201334).<\/p>\n
3. My might An ellipsis for \u201cthe fruit of my might\u201d (cf. 4:12), that is, \u201cof my virility.\u201d<\/p>\n
my vigor Hebrew \u02beon, in parallel with \u201cmight\u201d (Heb. kott\u1e25), means here the procreative powers.5 The designation of the first-born as \u201cthe first fruit of one\u2019s vigor\u201d is found elsewhere in both legal and poetic texts, such as Deuteronomy 21:17 and Psalms 78:51 and 105:36. The rendering \u201cfirst fruit\u201d for Hebrew re\u02beshit (lit. \u201cbeginning\u201d) is based on the usage of the term in agricultural contexts.6 The word might also appropriately be translated \u201cchoicest product,\u201d as in Deuteronomy 33:21, 1 Samuel 2:29, and Amos 6:6.<\/p>\n
Exceeding Hebrew yeter, literally \u201cexcellence.\u201d The meaning is: Being the first-born, you should have preeminence over your brothers.<\/p>\n
rank Hebrew se\u02beet, literally \u201cexaltation,\u201d is used as an attribute of both man, as in Habakkuk 1:7 and Psalms 62:5, and God, as in Job 13:11 and 31:23.<\/p>\n
honor Hebrew \u02bfaz usually means \u201cmight, strength,\u201d but it is frequently used together with such terms as \u201cglory\u201d (Heb. kavod), as in Psalms 29:1 and 63:3, \u201cmajesty\u201d (Heb. ga\u02beavah), as in Psalms 68:35, and \u201csplendor\u201d (Heb. tif\u02beeret, hadar), as in Psalms 96:6 and Proverbs 31:25. It is an attribute of royalty in 1 Samuel 2:10.<\/p>\n
4. Unstable Hebrew pa\u1e25az, an abstract noun, is unique, although other forms of the same stem exist. In Judges 9:4 and Zephaniah 3:4 the reference is to \u201creckless\u201d men (Heb. po\u1e25azim); in Jeremiah 23:32 the false prophets are said to have led the people astray with \u201ctheir reckless\u201d (pa\u1e25azutam) lies. Some light is thrown on the range of meaning by reference to cognate languages: Arabic, \u201cto be haughty, boastful, reckless\u201d; Aramaic and Syriac, \u201cto be wanton, lascivious.\u201d In rabbinic Hebrew the verb is used of rising passion (Ned. 9b, Naz. 4b). Jacob would thus be censuring Reuben for acting in an irresponsible, impetuous manner, casting off all moral restraint, even as a torrent of water rushes wildly headlong. For the image of water applied to character, see Isaiah 57:20: \u201cBut the wicked are like the troubled sea \/ Which cannot rest, \/ Whose waters toss up mire and mud.\u201d<\/p>\n
excel no longer That is, you have lost your preeminence. Hebrew \u02beal totar would normally mean, \u201cyou shall not leave\/have left over,\u201d as in Ruth 2:14 but is here employed in a play on yeter, \u201cexcellence\u201d (v. 3).<\/p>\n
mounted \u2026 bed The reference is to the incestuous act of Reuben recorded in 35:22 (see Comment) and again mentioned in 1 Chronicles 5:1: \u201cReuben the first-born of Israel. He was the firstborn; but when he defiled his father\u2019s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, son of Israel.\u2026\u201d7<\/p>\n
bed Hebrew mishkevei, in the plural, is always used in a context of carnal relations, as in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The phrase is probably elliptical for \u201cthe bed of your father\u2019s wife.\u201d<\/p>\n
You brought disgrace Hebrew stem \u1e25-l-l, \u201cto pollute, defile, profane,\u201d is used in connection with sexual depravity, as in Leviticus 19:29 and 21:9. The present text presents a problem in that the verb otherwise invariably takes a direct object. Also, the understanding of the verse is complicated by the abrupt change of person: \u201che mounted!\u201d Mention of the incident in 1 Chronicles 5:1\u2014\u201che defiled his father\u2019s bed\u201d\u2014suggests that \u201cmy couch\u201d here is the object of the verb \u1e25-l-l and does double duty as the object of the following verb as well. The rendering would then be: \u201cYou defiled my couch\u2014my couch he mounted!\u201d The last clause is an aside addressed to the assembled sons.<\/p>\n
SIMEON AND LEVI (VV. 5\u20137)<\/p>\n
These two brothers are strongly censured for acts of violence and cruelty. Since all the others are individually addressed, the linkage of these two most likely refers to their combined attack on the city of Shechem, which is described in chapter 34. No other instance of joint activity is recorded anywhere. Jacob\u2019s initial response to the atrocity was fear for the safety of his group (34:30). Now, with the passage of time, the patriarch renders a moral verdict on the act. With Reuben disqualified, Simeon was next in line of seniority to inherit the mantle of leadership; after him came Levi. The Testament of Jacob explains why neither of them did. The poem is clearly moving toward the glorification of Judah.
\nThe tribe of Simeon completely lost its importance. In the first Israelite census the tribe numbered 59,300 (Num. 1:23); for unknown reasons, its population was reduced to 22,200 by the end of the wilderness wanderings (Num. 26:14). Neither the Blessing of Moses (Deut. 33) nor the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5) mentions the tribe. From Joshua 19:1 and 1 Chronicles 4:24\u201343, it is clear that Simeon was largely swallowed up by Judah and remained unsettled until quite late in the monarchy period.
\nLevi is here depicted as a purely secular, warlike tribe. There is no hint of its future sacerdotal status. Its martial qualities are still evident in the Exodus period, but at that time its association with the cult is well defined (Exod. 32:26ff.; Deut. 33:8). By conquest and settlement times, the Levites play only a sacral role; they do not participate in the wars, despite their earlier reputation. Jacob\u2019s Testament thus reflects a very early tradition. This conclusion is reinforced by the further striking contrast between Levi here as a tribe in disfavor and the consistent concept of the other Torah sources, such as Numbers 3:12f., 8:14\u201318, and 16:9f., that the Levites were God\u2019s elect who enjoyed a privileged status. Similarly, the explanation implied here that the lack of tribal territory is in punishment for reprehensible conduct conflicts with the reasons given in other texts, which attribute it to the spiritual destiny and special status and emoluments granted the tribe (Num. 18:20\u201324). This holds true even in Deuteronomy (10:8f.; 18:1f.) in which the Levites belong to the economically depressed classes (12:12; 14:27ff.). Genesis 49:5\u20137 thus echoes an early, independent, prcconquest tradition.<\/p>\n
5. a pair Hebrew \u02bea\u1e25im, literally \u201cbrothers,\u201d that is, partners and allies.8<\/p>\n
Their weapons Hebrew mekheroteihem. Any translation of this unique word is guesswork. Neither the ancient versions nor medieval exegetes preserved any convincing tradition.9 The present rendering is based on Hebrew k-r-h, \u201cto dig,\u201d hence \u201ca digging or piercing instrument.\u201d A translation \u201cwares,\u201d based on the stem m-k-r, \u201cto sell,\u201d is particularly attractive in that it becomes an ironic comment on the response of the two brothers to the offer of the Shcchcmites, as reported in Genesis 34:10.<\/p>\n
6. Jacob dissociates himself from the activities of these two tribes because of their disregard for human values.<\/p>\n
council\/assembly Hebrew sod\/kahal are here the tribal gatherings at which decisions are made.10<\/p>\n
my being Hebrew kavod, usually translated \u201chonor,\u201d is the God-endowed quality that distinguishes humans from other forms of life, as it is expressed in Psalms 8:6. Kavod expresses the essence of being and as such is found in parallel with such terms as nefesh, \u201cperson,\u201d or \u1e25ayyitm, \u201clife,\u201d as here and in Psalms 7:6, and leb, \u201cheart,\u201d in Psalms 16:9, 57:8f., and 108:2.11<\/p>\n
angry \u2026 pleased An example of merism, the polarity expressing totality; that is, in any mood, as the whim strikes them.<\/p>\n
maim The verb may mean either \u201cto spay,\u201d from Hebrew \u02bfakar, \u201csterile,\u201d as in Deuteronomy 7:14; or, more likely here, \u201cto hamstring,\u201d that is, to cripple a beast by severing the tendons of its hind legs.12
\nAccording to Genesis 34:28f., the cattle in Shechem were not mutilated but carried off as spoil. Jacob\u2019s reproach. therefore, may refer to some other acts of cruelty perpetrated by these two tribes, the record of which has not been preserved. The difficulty of identifying the atrocities led some ancient versions, such as the Targums, Aquila, Symmachus, and Peshitta, as well as some medieval exegetes (Mid. Lek. Tov, Ibn Ezra, Ramban) to treat shor as shur, \u201cwall,\u201d and to understand its accompanying verb as meaning the tearing down of the city walls. The verb seems to be used in this sense in Zephaniah 2:4.<\/p>\n
7. Cursed be their anger The curse is applied to the anger but actually refers to those who display it. The content of the curse is the loss of the independence and territorial integrity of these two tribes. Their future condition is explained in terms of the punitive ban decreed upon their original ancestors.<\/p>\n
I will \u2026 Presumably, it is Jacob who pronounces their fate. The use of \u201cJacob \u2026 Israel\u201d to designate the nation reflects later usage (cf. v. 16).<\/p>\n
JUDAH (VV. 8\u201312)<\/p>\n
In striking contrast to the preceding, Judah is lavishly praised and blessed: His preeminence is to be acknowledged by his brothers; he possesses (or will possess) lionlike strength; his hegemony is to be long lasting; and his territory is extraordinarily fertile.
\nThe slow, almost imperceptible, rise of Judah has already been subtly insinuated into the Joseph story (see Comment to 37:26). Here it receives formal recognition and confirmation. In the wilderness Judah is, by far, the largest tribe: its population increases during the wanderings, as shown by the censuses of Numbers 1:26 and 26:22. The tribe encamps in front of the Tent of Meeting and heads the march (Num. 2:3, 9; 10:14). Its chieftain is the first to bring gifts for the Tabernacle (Num. 7:12), and its representative is listed first among those designated to apportion the land (Num. 34:19).
\nThe undisputed hegemony of Judah was not always taken for granted, as is clear from Deuteronomy 33:7 and from the relative unimportance of Judah during the period of the judges. Judah provides no important judge, and it is ignored by Deborah (Judg. 5). Only in Saul\u2019s day does the tribe begin to emerge from its isolation; it gains hegemony over Israel in the time of David.
\nThe Testament of Jacob can only have in mind this latter period. The language of the blessing is obscure, and the meaning of some words and phrases quite uncertain.<\/p>\n
8. You \u2026 to you That is, to you alone, in contrast to the others.<\/p>\n
shall praise With rare exception,13 this verb is reserved for praise of God. Its use here is for purposes of word play on the name Judah (yehudah-yodukhah; cf. 29:35).<\/p>\n
your foes Judah was constantly beset by the Philistines on the west, by Amalekites in the Negeb, and by Edomites to the east. Moses, in his farewell blessing, asks for divine help against the foes of Judah (Deut. 33:7). For a long time, Judah was isolated from the northern tribes by Canaanite enclaves and was forced to expand southward.<\/p>\n
hand \u2026 on the nape \u2026 The image is of the enemies turning their backs in flight but being seized by the nape before they can escape.14<\/p>\n
Your father\u2019s sons The contrast with Isaac\u2019s blessing in 27:29, \u201cyour mother\u2019s sons,\u201d is explained by the fact that Isaac was monogamous, whereas Jacob had four wives and wished to indicate that all the tribes would acknowledge Judah\u2019s hegemony. Possibly, the blessing is meant to offset the note of 38:1, which reported that Judah left (lit. \u201cwent down from\u201d) his brothers.15<\/p>\n
9. a lion\u2019s whelp A metaphor of strength, daring, and unassailability. In Moses\u2019 blessing both Gad and Dan are so compared, while Balaam applies the image to the people of Israel as a whole.
\nThe lion is one of the most frequently mentioned animals in the Bible and is referred to by six different names. Under the influence of this verse, the \u201clion of Judah\u201d became a favorite motif in Jewish art and acquired messianic associations.16<\/p>\n
have you grown Hebrew \u02bfaliyta. Compare Ezekiel 19:3: \u201cShe raised (Heb. va-ta\u02bfal) up one of her cubs, \/ He became a great beast.\u201d The reference is to the heroic and expansionist campaigns of David, as noted by Rashi and Radak. Hebrew \u02bfaliyta may also be taken in its usual sense of \u201cgoing up,\u201d an image of the lion returning to its mountain lair after stalking and running down its prey. There may be still another level of interpretation embedded in the somewhat ambiguous syntax, allowing one to read mi-teref beni, \u201cfrom the prey of my son.\u201d This suggests an allusion to 37:33 and 44:28: \u201cJoseph was torn (tarof toraf) by a beast.\u201d Judah\u2019s rise was consequent upon Joseph\u2019s misfortune. This rendering is given in Genesis Rabba 98:12 and 99:9.<\/p>\n
10. The meaning of this celebrated but difficult verse has been much disputed.<\/p>\n
The scepter Hebrew shevet serves as an emblem of authority and sovereignty in several texts.17 The general idea is that Judah will always enjoy hegemony over the other tribes. It provided the royal house of David.<\/p>\n
the ruler\u2019s staff Hebrew me\u1e25okek has this meaning in Numbers 21:18 and Psalms 60:9 and 108:9, and it provides a perfect parallel to \u201cscepter.\u201d The term may also be translated \u201cleader, ruler,\u201d as in Deuteronomy 33:21, Judges 5:14, and Isaiah 33:22, in which case the preceding shevet would be an instance of metonymy, the substitution of an attribute for the name of the thing intended, namely, the one who wields the scepter. Many early and medieval commentators derived me\u1e25okek from the root \u1e25-k-k, meaning \u201cto incise, inscribe,\u201d and understood it as a term for a scribe.18<\/p>\n
from between his feet Taken literally, the phrase conjures up a picture of a ruler holding the staff of office between his legs when seated in formal session. This favors \u201cmace\u201d for me\u1e25okek. However, a widely held view sees here a euphemism for the sexual parts and prefers the meaning \u201coffspring, descendants,\u201d in which case me\u1e25okek would be better rendered \u201cleader.\u201d19<\/p>\n
So that Hebrew \u02bfad ki is rare and is otherwise used only in narrative prose to express the leading up to a climactic passage.20 The present usage is exceptional in that it takes a verb in the imperfect and refers to the future, making its signification uncertain. It seems to mean that Judah will exercise hegemony over the tribes for a period of time leading up to some climactic event.<\/p>\n
tribute shall come to him Hebrew yavo\u02be shiloh is wholly obscure; neither the subject of the verb nor the meaning of shiloh is clear. The present rendering, that of the Yalkut and Leka\u1e25 Tov, takes shiloh as a combination of shai, \u201ctribute,\u201d and loh, \u201cto him.\u201d Several ancient versions understand it as in late Hebrew shello, \u201cthat which belongs to him,\u201d that is, until he obtains the monarchy. Rashbam identifies the word with the city of Shiloh, a very ancient cultic center in Israel situated in the territory of Ephraim. The specific historic reference would be the defection of the ten tribes from Judah with the resultant division of the kingdom, announced by the prophet Ahijah of Shiloh. Judah\u2019s hegemony over all Israel will last until the secession of the north.
\nAn early tradition, found in texts from Qumran, in the Targums, and in rabbinic literature, sees in shiloh a messianic title, although no biblical passage supports this. It has even been noted that the numerical value of the consonants y-b-\u02be sh-y-l-h, \u201cShiloh will come,\u201d is equal to that of mashia\u1e25, \u201cmessiah\u201d: 358.21
\nNone of the many interpretations of shiloh is without objection, and the term remains an enigma, though the present translation seems to be the most acceptable.<\/p>\n
homage Hebrew yikkhat occurs elsewhere only in Proverbs 30:17. Its meaning is assured by context and by an Arabic cognate.22<\/p>\n
peoples Either the other tribes, that is, \u201ckinsmen,\u201d or, more likely, an allusion to foreign peoples,23 probably the subject peoples of the Davidic empire.<\/p>\n
11. The blessed fertility of the tribal territory of Judah is symbolized by the abundance of vines and wine. This is a common biblical figure of divine favor and of prosperity. The vine was one of the indigenous characteristic products of the Land of Israel (Deut. 8:8), and the region around Hebron in Judah was particularly noted for viticulture.24<\/p>\n
He tethers \u2026 The image is problematic because an ass would soon destroy the vine to which it is tied. The idea, apparently, is that the luxuriance and productivity of the vine will be so great that the destructive proclivities of the ass25 will be of no significance. This is hyperbolic language, as Radak noted.<\/p>\n
choice vine Hebrew sorekah. A place named Wadi Sorek, in the territory of Judah, seems to have been located in the region of Timnah, which was rich in vineyards. The region figures in the story of Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38:12).26<\/p>\n
He washes his garment in wine This extraordinary figure may be simply another hyperbole for the abundance of wine, or it may poetically relate to the stained garments of those engaged in the manufacture of wine, as mentioned in Isaiah 63:2ff.27 Another possibility is that we have here a reference to the fact that prominent Judean families were engaged in the weaving and dyeing industry, as recorded in 1 Chronicles 4:21. In the excavations at modern Tell Beit Mirsim, in the territory of Judah, a major and well-organized dyeing and weaving industry was uncovered. In this case, either \u201cwine\u201d was used as a poetic term for red-colored dye, or wine was actually used as an ingredient of dyestuffs.<\/p>\n
blood of grapes A poetic term for wine (cf. Deut. 32:14). \u201cBlood\u201d (Heb. dam) is also used in Akkadian (d\u0101mu) for red wine. In Ugaritic yn, \u201cwine,\u201d is paralleled with dm \u02bf\u1e63m, \u201cblood of trees\u201d (51.III.43f.; cf. IV.38).<\/p>\n
12. darker than wine \u2026 whiter than milk The phrases express an ideal of beauty: sparkling eyes28 and shining white teeth.<\/p>\n
ZEBULUN (V. 13)<\/p>\n
The usual order, Issachar-Zebulun, is here reversed. This is strange because, according to the birth narrative of Genesis 30:17\u201320, Issachar was the older of the two and he generally appears first in the tribal lists. Yet the Blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy 33:18 also reverses the sequence, reflecting some genuine historic tradition. One cannot simply say that Deuteronomy 33 is dependent on Genesis 49, for two other texts also give Zebulun precedence over his brother tribe. These are the narratives detailing the commission for the division of the land in Numbers 34:25f. and the drawing of lots for the allocation of territory in Joshua 19:16\u201317. Very likely, therefore, the Testament of Jacob relates to a time when Zebulun was in ascendancy. Certainly, the content of the sayings about them in both poems\u2014Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33\u2014suggests that Issachar was the less energetic of the two tribes, and this impression is reinforced by the Song of Deborah, which gives high praise to Zebulun for its contribution to the national victory, mentioning it before Issachar and citing it a second time (Judg. 5:14, 18; cf. 4:6, 10), the only tribe to be so honored. Zebulun also joined Gideon\u2019s battle against the Midianites (Judg. 6:35), and its importance in the time of David is illustrated by the fact that it contributed to David\u2019s armies the largest military contingent of all of the western tribes (1 Chron. 12:33).
\nAnother problem arising out of verse 13 is the portrayal of Zebulun as living along the seacoast29 and being involved in shipping. The Blessing of Moses also credits Zebulun (together with Issachar) with drawing wealth from the sea (Deut. 33:19). The boundaries of Zebulun are delimited in Joshua 19:10\u201316, and it is clear that the tribe occupied inland territory, being blocked from the sea and from Phoenicia by the tribe of Asher. Apart from this specific problem of Zebulun\u2019s boundaries, there is also the general question of Israel\u2019s littoral and seafaring interests. In the Song of Deborah, in Judges 5:17, Dan is also said to \u201clinger by the ships\u201d and Asher to live \u201cat the seacoast and \u2026 at his harbors.\u201d Yet seafaring and fishing never played an important role in the economy of the Land of Israel. The coast below the Carmel has no bays or natural harbors, and the dune sands in various places meant that roads had to be located at an inconvenient distance from the coastline, a considerable part of which was occupied by the Philistines. Above the Carmel, where several natural harbors existed, the region was largely the preserve of the Phoenicians. The general inland orientation of Israel is demonstrated by Solomon\u2019s desire to build a fleet at Elath on the Red Sea; he was forced to import manpower and technology from Phoenicia, as told in 1 Kings 9:26ff. and 10:11, 22.
\nThe associations of some tribes with the sea can probably be explained in two ways. It is quite likely that Philistines and Phoenicians employed Israelite labor. Coastal cities of the Near East always featured mixed populations, so that the above-cited verses may refer not to Israelite occupation of the area but, rather, to the presence of considerable numbers of Israelites engaged as stevedores, in the servicing of ships, and in commerce (cf. 2 Sam. 24:6\u20137). Another possibility, complementary to the first, lies in the Israelite exploitation of convenient anchorage sites for very small ships at the points where more important wadis drain into the sea. Excavations at Abu Hawam on Wadi Kishon, at Tell Qasile on the Yarkon, and at Tell Mor on Wadi Lachish have revealed examples of this practice.<\/p>\n
the seashore Hebrew \u1e25of yamim, literally \u201cshore of seas.\u201d The plural, found elsewhere only in Judges 5:17, is probably a poetic form referring to the Mediterranean.<\/p>\n
a haven for ships Hebrew \u1e25of \u02beoniyot, literally \u201ca shore of \/ for ships,\u201d \u1e25of being used in two different senses here, the second unparalleled elsewhere.30<\/p>\n
Sidon The mention of Sidon need not be taken literally as referring to the port city of that name high up in Phoenicia, about 25 miles (40 km.) north of Tyre. The Bible often uses Sidon as a generalized term for Phoenicia(ns).31 The same tendency is found in Homer and, in fact, follows the usage of the Phoenicians themselves to whom the title \u201cKing of (the) Sidon(ians)\u201d meant all the Phoenicians including both Tyre and Sidon. The list in Genesis 10:15 (= 1 Chron. 1:13) that makes Sidon \u201cthe first-born of Canaan\u201d simply testifies to the preeminence of the city that gave its name to Phoenicia in general. It was called Sidon even when Tyre was the dominant city-state of all southern Phoenicia.<\/p>\n
ISSACHAR (VV. 14\u201315)<\/p>\n
It is quite apparent from the Books of Joshua (15:63; 16:10; 17:16) and Judges (1:19\u201334) that during the wars of conquest, and for a long time afterwards, the invading Israelites were unable to dislodge the Canaanites from many of their strongholds in the plains and lowlands. The epigram relating to Issachar seems to be connected with this situation. The tribe is not even mentioned in the inventory of Judges 1, which means that it played a very minor, if not inglorious, role in the wars. Here it is chided for passively submitting to servitude as the price of peace with its neighbors. Implied in the taunt is a bitter play on the name Issachar. In the birth narrative of this son, this is explained, by popular etymology, as deriving from the Hebrew stem s-k-r, \u201cto hire,\u201d and is taken to mean \u201cman of reward\u201d (see Comment to 30:16, 18). Here the name is intended to be understood as \u201chireling.\u201d The Blessing of Moses similarly specifies the withdrawn nature of this tribe, but not in a disparaging way. By the time of Deborah, the Canaanites had become sufficiently weakened for Issachar to be emboldened to rally to the cause of the northern tribes. For this it received the praise of the prophetess (Judg. 5:15).<\/p>\n
14. a strong-boned ass Hebrew \u1e25umor garem is unique and obscure. The present rendering is based on identifying the second word with the noun gerem, Aramaic gram, \u201cbone,\u201d32 used adjectivally, \u201cbony,\u201d in the sense of \u201cstrong-limbed.\u201d The characterization would then imply a criticism of the tribe for placing its strength at the service of the Canaanites. A different tradition is preserved by the Samaritan reading \u1e25amor gerim, \u201can ass of foreigners,\u201d that is, one pressed into the service of alien peoples. Some of the ancient versions appear to have reacted to the negative associations of the ass with stupidity and stubbornness in their respective cultures and so paraphrased or changed the original. Thus, the Peshitta has gabra ganbara, \u201ca strong man\u201d; Targum Onkelos renders \u02bfattir bentkhsin, \u201crich in possessions\u201d; Targum Jonathan interprets \u1e25amir beurya\u02be ve-shevet takif, \u201claden with the Law and a strong tribe.\u201d The Septuagint, apparently reading \u1e25amad for \u1e25amor, presents \u201cIssachar desired that which is good.\u201d It would seem that the phrase \u1e25amor garem is an ancient idiom still awaiting elucidation through some epigraphic find.
\nRabbinic legend found in Genesis Rabba 72:4 and 99:11 has Issachar engaged in the study of the Torah while Zebulun busied himself with commerce and maintained his brother (cf. Deut. 33:18).<\/p>\n
Crouching among the sheepfolds That is, inactive, content to enjoy its safety at the expense of its freedom. The term rendered \u201csheepfolds\u201d (Heb. mishpetayim) occurs elsewhere only in Judges 5:16 (cf. Pss. 68:14): \u201cWhy then did you stay among the mishpetayim, \/ And listen as they pipe for the flocks?\u201d The context there is likewise an accusation of tribal indifference to the wars of Israel. The meaning of the word, however, is by no means certain. The stem sh-f-t can mean \u201cto set the pot on the fire,\u201d as in 2 Kings 4:38 and Ezekiel 24:3, and mishpetayim may therefore be a word for an open hearth or fireplace around which the shepherds would gather with their flocks for food, rest, and amusement. Less likely philologically is the interpretation \u201csaddlebags,\u201d suggested by Radak. This refers to the pannier, or pair of bags, carried over the back of a beast of burden and hanging on either side. Another possibility is \u201cdefense enclosures\u201d for animals. This rests on archaeological, rather than philological, evidence.33<\/p>\n
15. security Hebrew menu\u1e25ah, literally \u201cresting place\u201d (cf. Num. 10:33), is used in the sense of \u201chaven, settled home,\u201d as the parallel ha-\u02bearets (\u201ccountry\u201d) shows.34<\/p>\n
good \u2026 pleasant The territory of the tribe lay in a fertile plateau in Lower Galilee.<\/p>\n
to the burden Hebrew s-v-l means \u201cto carry a burden.\u201d In Psalms 81:7 and Nehemiah 4:11, the noun sevel is a basket carried on the shoulder in heavy corv\u00e9e labor.35 In Akkadian texts from Mari and Amarna, sablum is used of corv\u00e9e workers, and Hebrew sevel is also used of corv\u00e9e work in 1 Kings 11:28.<\/p>\n
a toiling serf Hebrew mas \u02bfovcd, a combination that also appears in Joshua 16:10 and 1 Kings 9:21. Otherwise, the phrase is simply mas.36 It is difficult to differentiate between the two forms, for a comparison of 1 Kings 9:21 with 2 Chronicles 8:8 shows that both refer to the corv\u00e9e. In Akkadian texts from Mari, Alalakh, and Amarna, massu similarly occurs in the sense of \u201ccorv\u00e9e.\u201d This type of enforced hard labor imposed upon a subservient people is well illustrated by the experience of the Israelites in Egypt: \u201cSo they set taskmasters (Heb. sarei missim) over them to oppress them with forced labor (Heb. sivlotam)\u201d (Exod. 1:11). The Amarna document is of particular interest because it derives from the prince of Megiddo and relates to the employment of corv\u00e9e workers (Akk. am\u012bl\u00fbti massa) in the town of Shunem, which lay within the territory allotted to Issachar (Josh. 19:18). It would seem that until the final overthrow of the Canaanite city-states in the time of Deborah, the tribe had been content to perform corv\u00e9e labor for the local overlords in return for a quiet existence.<\/p>\n
DAN (VV. 16\u201317)<\/p>\n
These two verses may well be unconnected, each alluding to a different situation. The first deals with Dan\u2019s status among the tribes of Israel, the second with its position vis-\u00e0-vis its enemies. Our meager knowledge of the history of this tribe and the elliptical language used here greatly complicate our understanding of the aphorisms and make it difficult to identify the historic situations behind them.
\nDan is the first of the concubine tribes to be addressed. This implies a position of importance, a conclusion reinforced by its also being the only such to be allocated territory between the Leah and Rachel tribes. Furthermore, in the wilderness censuses it is actually the second largest tribe, its adult male population numbering over 60,000 (Num. 2:26; 26:43).
\nThere is much evidence, however, that during the settlement period Dan was a small tribe in a precarious position. The tribal genealogies of the Torah assign it only a single clan (Gen. 46:23\u2014Hushim; Num. 26:42\u2014Shuham), part of which seems to have been absorbed by the neighboring Benjaminites (cf. 1 Chron. 7:12; 8:8). The genealogies of Chronicles ignore the tribe altogether. The stories about the Danite blasphemer in the wilderness whose father was an Egyptian (Lev. 24:11), about Samson\u2019s easy relationships and intermarriages with Philistines (Judg. 14:1ff; 16:4), and about the Danite master craftsman Huram-abi whose father was a Tyrian (2 Chron. 2:12f., but contrast 1 Kings 7:13ff.) all point to a certain amount of intermingling of blood between Danites and neighboring peoples. Very significantly, the Book of Joshua does not define the borders of the tribe. These are inferred from those of the neighboring tribes, Ephraim to the north, Benjamin to the east, and Judah to the south. All we have is a list of cities allocated to Dan (Josh. 19:40\u201348), but some of these, such as Zorah, Eshtaol, and Ekron, are earlier assigned to Judah (Josh. 15:33, 11, 45). There are no reports of the Danites having captured any of their allotted cities. In fact, the term \u201cthe Camp of Dan\u201d\u2014Hebrew ma\u1e25aneh dan\u2014in Judges 13:25 (cf. 18:12) shows that they occupied a fortified camp, not a true settlement, between the two Canaanite cities of Zorah and Eshtaol. All attempts on the part of the Danites to settle in the Valley of Aijalon and in the Shephelah were unsuccessful, and they finally despaired of gaining their originally assigned territory and migrated northward, as told in Joshua 19:47 and in Judges 1:34f. and chapter 18. Biblical tradition thereafter presupposes the presence of Dan in the north. The Song of Deborah, Judges 5:17, censures Dan for not participating in the war of the northern tribes against the Canaanites (cf. Deut. 33:22).
\nThe Testament of Jacob can be interpreted as referring either to the premigration period or to events after the settlement in the north.<\/p>\n
16. shall govern Hebrew yadin is a word play on the name Dan (see Comment to 30:6), so that \u201chis people\u201d would mean \u201chimself\u201d: The tribe of Dan will maintain its independence like any other tribe, despite its tribulations and failures. However, yadin more frequently means \u201cto vindicate,\u201d and the object could refer to all Israel. In this case, the allusion could be to the exploits of Samson against the Philistine oppressors, which, though they are generally more of the nature of personal vengeance, acquire national significance.37<\/p>\n
the tribes of Israel This is the first usage of the phrase (cf. v. 28; see above, Introduction to chapter).<\/p>\n
17. viper The unique Hebrew shefifon is probably to be identified with the horned cerastes, which buries itself in the sand, especially in the hollows made by camel\u2019s hoofs, and feeds on rodents and scavenger birds attracted by grains and particles of food left by the Bedouin along caravan routes. It has a venom-injecting spinelike scale above each eye that kills its prey on contact, almost instantaneously. However, its poison is not powerful enough to be fatal to a camel or a horse. It will bite its heel if it crosses its path and cause the beast to rear suddenly and violently, thereby throwing its rider (cf. 3:15).
\nThe image may allude to the form of guerrilla warfare to which the tribe of Dan was forced to resort in its struggle for survival against its neighbors during the period of settlement. It could also refer to the fact that Dan, whether in the Shephelah or in its northern relocation, lay alongside important caravan routes and may have engaged in highway robbery.<\/p>\n
horse\u2019s \u2026 rider The use of the horse for riding, as opposed to draft purposes, first appears in the fourteenth century B.C.E. (see Comment to 47:17), but it was not common. The horse does not figure among the livestock of the patriarchs. Only around 1000 B.C.E. did mounted cavalry appear on the battlefields in Syria and Canaan. Since Hebrew rokhev, \u201crider,\u201d can also be used of a charioteer, as in Exodus 15:2 and Jeremiah 51:21, the likely reference is to Canaanite chariots, which for a long time constituted the primary obstacle to Israelite penetration into the lowlands and caused the migration of the Danites (Josh. 17:18; Judg. 1:19; 4:3).<\/p>\n
A PRAYER (VV. 18)<\/p>\n
The use of the first person, as in verses 1, 3\u20134, 6\u20137, and 9, leaves no doubt that the worshipper is Jacob. The formulation corresponds to well-established liturgical patterns.38 The meaning is clear: the patriarch suddenly calls for divine deliverance. Such a prayer would only originate in a situation of danger. What, then, is its context here? It might be a personal prayer for the strength to finish the Testament, at a moment of physical weakness. It might reflect the deep disappointment felt at the fate of Samson (Judg. 15) if the oracle about Dan really refers to him. This explanation is given in Genesis Rabba 98:19f. and 99:12. The prayer could also be invoked by the discouraging experiences of the tribe of Dan in its struggle for a territorial foothold.<\/p>\n
GAD (VV. 19)<\/p>\n
This tribe had its territory east of the Jordan.39 Its boundaries are defined in the Book of Joshua. However, for most of its history, Gad was engaged in a series of wars with its neighbors, Ammonites (Judg. 11), Moabites (Mesha Inscription, lines 10\u201313), and Arameans (1 Kings 22:3; 2 Kings 10:33). Its members acquired a reputation as fighting warriors (Deut. 33:20; 1 Chron. 5:18 and 12:8) and, doubtless, the Testament of Jacob reflects this. No particular historic situation can be pinpointed as the background to this aphorism.<\/p>\n
Gad \u2026 raided The Hebrew contains a play on the name (see Comment to 30:11); gad is associated with gedud, \u201ca troop,\u201d and the verb formed from it, yegudenu, \u201cshall be raided.\u201d40<\/p>\n
ASHER (VV. 20)<\/p>\n
This tribe settled in Western Galilee between the Carmel and Phoenicia (Josh. 19:24\u201331). The area was famed for its fertility (cf. Deut. 33:24) and lay within the Canaanite-Phoenician sphere of political and commercial activity. Asher did not succeed in capturing the most important cities in its allotted territory, as noted in Judges 1:31f., and seems to have thrown in its lot with the local city-states from which it derived its prosperity. The Testament would thus refer to the period of the judges before the final defeat of the Canaanites in the north under Deborah\u2019s inspiring leadership.<\/p>\n
Asher The name, which means \u201cfortune, happiness\u201d (Gen. 30:13), contains a veiled allusion to the prosperity of the tribe.41<\/p>\n
bread Hebrew le\u1e25em can mean food in general, as in Psalms 136:25.<\/p>\n
royal dainties The phrase may either be figurative, \u201cdelicacies fit for a king,\u201d or literal, that is, Asher serviced the petty Canaanite kingdoms.<\/p>\n
NAPHTALI (VV. 21)<\/p>\n
The territory of this tribe lay in Upper Galilee and ran parallel to the Jordan from the south shore of the Sea of Galilee to an unspecified line in the north beyond Lake Huleh, with its western boundary bordering on Asher (Josh. 19:32\u201339). Little is known of its early history, except that it was forced to accept a symbiotic relationship with the Canaanites until it felt strong enough to subjugate them (Judg. 1:33). It played a glorious role in the war of Deborah. The Israelite commander-in-chief came from Naphtali (Judg. 4:6; 5:18). The aphorism here is obscure both because the language yields many interpretations and because none can easily be related to the sparse data available about the tribe and its history.<\/p>\n
a hind In Proverbs 5:19, Hebrew \u02beayyalah is a symbol of beauty. In Psalms 18:34 and Habakkuk 3:19 it typifies fleet-footedness. Naphtali is the only tribe compared to a female animal, but the significance of the fact is not apparent. The Hebrew consonants can also be read \u02bee(y)lah, \u201ca terebinth,\u201d which is the way the Septuagint took it.<\/p>\n
let loose Hebrew shelu\u1e25ah, \u201cunrestrained,\u201d is used of a beast in Exodus 22:4 and Leviticus 16:22. The stem is also used of one sent on a mission, as in Proverbs 17:11 and Obadiah 1, as well as of the spreading shoots or branches of a tree, as in Isaiah 16:8, Jeremiah 17:8, and Psalms 80:12.<\/p>\n
lovely fawns Hebrew \u02beimerei shafer, a unique phrase, can be variously translated. The present rendering is based on a word meaning \u201clamb\u201d in many Semitic languages. The reference could then be to Naphtali being quick to pay tribute of sheep to its Canaanite overlords or to the beauty, openness, and fruitfulness of its tribal territory. Another possibility is to translate \u201cbeautiful words\u201d; that is, a swift runner from Naphtali brings good tidings of victory in Deborah\u2019s war against the Canaanites. Yet a third interpretation renders \u201cgoodly boughs\/ crest of a tree.\u201d This compares the tribe to a terebinth with spreading branches and a lovely crest.42<\/p>\n
JOSEPH (VV. 22\u201326)<\/p>\n
The Testament to Joseph is of extraordinary length, equaled only, and significantly, by that to Judah. Lavish blessing is showered upon Joseph, the name here standing for Ephraim and Manasseh together (see below). The language is enigmatic and allusive, and the meaning is often uncertain. Echoes of the Testament are to be found in the Blessing of Moses (Deut. 33:13\u201316).
\nThere seem to be four themes in the verses directed to Joseph: the attributes of the tribes (v. 22), an historical allusion (vv. 23f.), divine protection (vv. 24f), and blessings of prosperity (vv. 25f.). This is the only Testament that does not commence with the name of the tribe. This stylistic variance may be intended to draw attention to the special importance of the Joseph tribes.<\/p>\n
22. Joseph The Blessing of Moses similarly uses the name \u201cJoseph\u201d for the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh; but such usage is rare. Otherwise, the name designates the entire northern kingdom of Israel. The two tribes are known as \u201cthe House of Joseph\u201d or \u201cthe sons of Joseph.\u201d43<\/p>\n
a wild ass \u2026 A wild ass Literally, \u201ca wild ass is Joseph, A wild ass by a spring\u201d\u2014an example of anaphora (see Comment to v. 2).<\/p>\n
wild ass Hebrew ben porat is probably a word play on \u201cEphraim,\u201d the more important of the two Joseph tribes, for a member of the tribe was designated \u02beefrati (\u02beprti).
\nThe present translation takes ben as signifying a class or quality and porat as a feminine poetic form of pere\u02be. The parallel clause banot tsa\u02bfadah is understood as the Hebrew equivalent of Arabic ban\u0101t sa\u02bfadat, \u201cwild colts.\u201d44 This rendering has the virtue of maintaining the pattern of the figurative use of animal names for the tribes. In this particular case, the \u201cwild ass\u201d allusion (see Comment to 16:2) may be to the freedom and independence of the Joseph tribes, which occupied an area that had previously been sparsely populated, as is clearly implied in Joshua 17:14\u201318.<\/p>\n
spring \u2026 hillside Hebrew \u02bfayin, shur may well be word play concealing a reference to the Ishmaelites who sold Joseph to Egypt, as related in Genesis 37:25, 28. \u201cThe spring (\u02bfayin) on the road to Shur\u201d plays an important role in the birth narrative about Ishmael (16:7), who is also described as \u201ca wild ass\u201d (16:12). Further, the following two verses here refer to hostile archers, and Ishmael was indeed \u201ca bowman\u201d (21:20). It is also worth noting that both \u02bfayin and shur are terms of \u201cseeing,\u201d45 and Hagar, mother of Ishmael, referred to the \u201cGod of Seeing,\u201d who reassured her at \u201cthe Well of the Living One Who sees me\u201d (16:13f.).<\/p>\n
hillside A poetic extension of the otherwise attested meaning, \u201cwall.\u201d46<\/p>\n
23. Scripture nowhere else records attacks by archers upon Joseph. Unless this refers to some unreported episode in his life or to attacks on Ephraim and Manasseh by neighboring tribes or Canaanite armies, the phraseology may be figurative. It could allude to the Ishmaelites (see above), to the hostility of Joseph\u2019s brothers, or to the slanderous accusations of Potiphar\u2019s wife with their bitter aftereffects. The figure of slander as an arrow is well attested.47<\/p>\n
24. The Hebrew text is difficult. In the present state of our knowledge, this translation is the best that can be wrested from it. The idea seems to be that Joseph remained steadfast in the face of adversity and drew his strength from God, who championed his cause.48<\/p>\n
Mighty One of Jacob Hebrew \u02beavir ya\u02bfakov, a rare divine title, appearing elsewhere only four times, always in poetic texts. It corresponds to the Akkadian divine title bel ab\u0101ri, \u201cendowed with strength,\u201d and is to be distinguished from \u02beabbir, which is used of stallions, bulls, and warriors.49<\/p>\n
Jacob \u2026 Israel The ambiguity as to whether the patriarch or the people of Israel is intended is probably deliberate.50 See the Introduction to this chapter.<\/p>\n
There Hebrew mi-sham, literally \u201cfrom there.\u201d The patriarch may have pointed heavenward. The Peshitta reading mi-shem, \u201cby the name of,\u201d reflects the idea that the \u201cName\u201d of God expresses the essence of His being from which flows help and salvation.51 Although this reading has been widely accepted as original, the biblical usage is invariably be-shem.<\/p>\n
the Shepherd For the common image of God as a shepherd, see Comment to 48:15.<\/p>\n
the Rock of Israel Hebrew \u02beeven, literally \u201cstone,\u201d is nowhere else used as a divine name or in association with God. The present translation is that of tsur, \u201crock,\u201d a frequent epithet of God,52 expressing strength, permanence, and protection. Unlike tsur, \u02beeven does not appear as a component of proper names. It is possible that \u201cStone of Israel\u201d may have been a very ancient title that disappeared early and that might have derived from the traditions about Jacob setting up a stone pillar at Bethel, as reported in 28:18, 22 and 35:14. This suggestion is bolstered by the use of the epithet \u201cGod of \u2026 your father\u201d on that occasion (28:13) and by the title El Shaddai associated with the revelation there (35:11; 48:3). All these terms occur here in the Testament of Jacob.<\/p>\n
25. The Testament to Joseph now shifts from the miseries of the past to the promise of the future. Underlying the blessing is the concept of a God who has a personal relationship with the individual and who, at the same time, is a cosmic, universal deity in sovereign control of all the forces of nature.<\/p>\n
The God of your father This title stresses the continuity of the generations, the unbroken chain of religious tradition that alone makes the dying patriarch\u2019s blessing meaningful and effective. Hebrew \u02beel \u02beavikhn is unique; otherwise, \u02beelohim is used in this compound. The reason for the exception is that the composite epithet \u02beel shaddai is here split up into its components for purposes of poetic parallelism (cf. Num. 24:4, 16).<\/p>\n
blessings These consist of rain and dew and abundance of water resources, all of which symbolize fruitfulness of the soil and the fecundity (= \u201cbreast and womb\u201d) of animals and humans.<\/p>\n
breast and womb The natural order (cf. Hos. 9:14) is here reversed for reasons of sound-harmony (Heb. shamayim-shadayim; tehom-ra\u1e25am), and there is also an obvious word play between shaddai and shadayim.<\/p>\n
the deep that couches below On Hebrew tehom, see Comment to 1:1. Here (cf. Deut. 33:13) it means the subterranean source of waters that rise to the earth\u2019s surface. The language used is borrowed from a lost myth about a sea monster, another fragment of which is Habakkuk 3:10 (literally): \u201cThe deep gave forth its voice; it raised its hands on high.\u201d This is another example of the biblical employment of mythic language purely as a literary convention, emptied of its original content.<\/p>\n
26. According to the present rendering, the patriarch assures Joseph that the blessings he bestows on him immeasurably exceed what he himself had received from his forebears. This interpretation, however, depends upon a particular understanding of several unique and difficult words and phrases of uncertain meaning.<\/p>\n
Surpass Hebrew gavar \u02bfal is used elsewhere of the flood waters that \u201cswelled upon\u201d the earth, as in Genesis 7:19, 24; of troops that \u201cprevailed against\u201d an enemy, as in 2 Samuel 11:23; and of God\u2019s steadfast love being \u201cgreat in respect of\u201d the recipient, as in Psalms 103:11 and 117:2. Clearly, this last best fits the context, except that one would expect the object to be Joseph rather than the other blessings. Perhaps \u02bfal should here be taken as \u201cin addition to,\u201d as in Exodus 35:22 and Deuteronomy 22:6.<\/p>\n
my ancestors Hebrew horai is so rendered based on postbiblical usage. However, the stem h-r-h in the Bible can only mean \u201cto become pregnant\u201d and is, of course, solely used in the feminine. Seeing that \u201cmountain(s)\u201d\u2014\u201chill(s)\u201d is a fixed pair of parallel terms in Hebrew poetry, occurring more than thirty times in that order, Rashbam is undoubtedly correct in connecting horai here with har, \u201cmountain.\u201d The Septuagint indeed reads here \u201cancient mountains,\u201d joining the word to the following \u02bfad. The phrase harere \u02bfad, \u201cancient mountains,\u201d appears in Habakkuk 3:6 in parallel with give\u02bfot \u02bfolam, \u201ceternal hills.\u201d The Blessing of Moses to Joseph in Deuteronomy 33:15 employs the same imagery, though in variant form: \u201cWith the best from the ancient mountains, \/ And the bounty of hills immemorial.\u2026\u201d Therefore, it is best to render here, \u201cthe blessings of the ancient mountains.\u201d<\/p>\n
the utmost bounds Hebrew ta\u02beava(t)h is taken to be connected with a rare verbal form teta\u02beu (Num. 34:7\u20138), apparently meaning \u201cto draw a line, delineate.\u201d53 But this is itself uncertain (cf. Num. 34:10). Elsewhere, the noun means \u201cdesire\u201d and is best translated here \u201cdesirable things, delights (cf. Gen. 3:6), bounty,\u201d parallel to \u201cblessings.\u201d In light of the above analysis, the text may be translated: \u201cMighty are the blessings of your father, \/ In addition to the blessings of the ancient mountains, \/ The bounty of the eternal hills.\u201d<\/p>\n
on the head An example of synecdoche, the head representing the entire person.54<\/p>\n
head \u2026 brow Hebrew ro\u02besh kodkod (lit. \u201cpate\u201d) are a fixed pair of parallel terms in poetry.55<\/p>\n
the elect Rather, \u201cleader.\u201d Hebrew nazir may here be \u201cone who wears the nezer,\u201d the symbol of royal power, as in 2 Samuel 1:10 and 2 Kings 11:12.56 Another tradition takes it in the sense of \u201cseparated,\u201d a transferred use of its usual meaning, \u201cNazirite,\u201d meaning the one who took vows of abstinence as detailed in Numbers 6:1\u20136. This refers to the early relationships between Joseph and his brothers. Since Hebrew nezer also means \u201cthe hair of the head\u201d (Jer. 7:29)\u2014the outward characteristic of the Nazirite, who is not permitted to cut his hair\u2014a word play with ro\u02besh and kodkod is probably intended.<\/p>\n
BENJAMIN (VV. 27)<\/p>\n
The picture of Benjamin drawn here is certainly not the same as the one that emerges from the Joseph story. Far from being a \u201cravenous wolf,\u201d he is there the patriarch\u2019s lamblike youngest son whom he is reluctant to let out of his sight. Clearly, the image in the Testament, which portrays the Benjaminites as warlike and predatory, is tribal and not individual.
\nThe martial qualities of this small tribe are indeed well attested. The first judge-savior of Israel from Moabite oppression was Ehud the Benjaminite, mentioned in Judges 3:15, and the army of the tribe took part in the war of Deborah (Judg. 5:14). In a civil war, it is said to have mustered twenty-six thousand men armed with swords and seven hundred crack slingers and to have fought back savagely against the combined forces of the other tribes, so Judges 20:15, 16, 21, 25. It provided skilled archers, men \u201cvaliant in battle,\u201d says 1 Chronicles 8:40 and 12:2, and two of David\u2019s heroes came from this tribe, according to 2 Samuel 23:27, 29.
\nThe historic explanation for the militancy of the Benjaminites is grounded in the geographical situation of its territory. Occupying a narrow strip of land separating the hill country of Judah to the south from the hill country of Ephraim to the north, it was so strategically located that the important north-south central highway, as well as a main east-west road leading to Transjordan, passed through it. As a result, the territory of Benjamin became an arena for wars. It is no accident that Israelite opposition to Philistine oppression was centered in that tribe (1 Sam. 10:5; 13:3) and that Saul, first king of Israel and warrior-liberator, came from Benjamin (1 Sam. 9:1).57
\nThe Testament of Jacob here reflects this general historic situation. It is quite likely that Benjaminites preyed upon the caravans that passed along the trade routes within their territory, an activity echoed in the text.<\/p>\n
morning \u2026 evening The two contrasting terms express continual action (cf. Pss. 55:18; 92:3) or describe the wolf as prowling among the sheep at night, snatching its prey and returning to its lair to share it with its young. In the latter instance, the image would be poetic hyperbole: The loot is so great that there is even enough left to eat the next morning (cf. Zeph. 3:3).58<\/p>\n
PROSE EPILOGUE: THE DEATH OF JACOB (vv. 28\u201333)<\/p>\n
These verses recapitulate some of the details mentioned previously.<\/p>\n
All these \u2026 This is a formula frequently used after lists to emphasize the unifying element.59<\/p>\n
the tribes of Israel Cf. verse 16. The phrase expresses the consciousness of an overall national unity and common identity that is \u201cIsrael,\u201d even though each tribe is separately treated in the Testament as an autonomous entity.<\/p>\n
twelve in number This is the first biblical reference to the twelve tribes of Israel. The number is a constant and is maintained in tribal lists either by regarding Joseph as a single tribe when Levi is included, as here, or, if Levi is excluded, by splitting Joseph into two separate tribes (cf. Num. 1:10, 47). The clans of Ishmaelites (Gen. 17:20; 25:16), of Arameans (22:20\u201324), and of Esau (36:10\u201313) likewise numbered twelve, and the duodecimal organization is also known from ancient Greece.<\/p>\n
as he bade \u2026 farewell Hebrew va-yevarekh and the following derivatives of the same stem b-r-k are here so understood, as in 47:7, 10 (see Comments), rather than in the usual sense of \u201cbless,\u201d because not all the tribes received blessings.<\/p>\n
29. be instructed The Hebrew stem ts-v-h, \u201cto command\u201d (cf. v. 33), is used in the sense of laying a charge on someone in preparation for death.60 This usage has given rise to the postbiblical Hebrew tsavva\u02beah, \u201clast will and testament.\u201d<\/p>\n
gathered to my kin See Comment to 25:8 and 47:30. This is the only instance of the use of this phrase by the speaker about himself, and the only case in which \u201ckin\u201d appears in the singular Hebrew form (\u02bfam).<\/p>\n
Bury me \u2026 Here Jacob imposes upon all his sons the obligation to bury him in Canaan, but he does not make them swear to that effect, as he had Joseph (47:29\u201331), because it was not in their power to implement his wish. Only Joseph had the necessary ready access to the Egyptian authorities (50:4f.).<\/p>\n
30. the cave The precise description of the burial site follows that of 23:17\u201320.<\/p>\n
31. Rebekah \u2026 Leah The death and burial of these matriarchs has not previously been mentioned.<\/p>\n
33. he drew his feet into the bed Presumably, he had been sitting with his feet over the side of the bed (cf. 48:2, 12), but this is hardly a likely posture for one about to breathe his last. The unique phrase may be a figurative expression for dying. The usual threefold formula (cf. 25:8, 17; 35:29) includes va-yamot, \u201cand he died,\u201d which is here missing; this phrase may be used instead. In fact, \u201cthe drawing in (Heb. va-ye\u02beesof) of the feet\u201d goes together with va-ye\u02beasef, \u201che was gathered.\u2026\u201d Furthermore, the two words tie in with he\u02beasefu, \u201ccome together,\u201d in the very first verse of the chapter to form a literary frame for the entire Testament.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 50<\/p>\n
Mourning and Burial (vv. 1\u201314)<\/p>\n
1. Joseph flung himself upon his father\u2019s face Such a gesture is unique. The usual phrase for such an emotional embrace is \u201cto fall on the neck,\u201d1 but this would be appropriate only when the parties involved are in an upright position.<\/p>\n
and kissed him For the kiss as a farewell token, see Genesis 31:28, 32:1; and Ruth 1:9, 14. It is not otherwise attested in parting from the dead. But the author of the Book of Jubilees (23:5) similarly has Isaac kissing the dead Abraham, and it may be that the practice was widespread though unrecorded.<\/p>\n
2. Joseph orders the embalming of his father. He too is to be embalmed at death (v. 26). Such a practice is never again referred to in the Bible. It is well known that mummification, with all its elaborate ritual, played a crucial role in the Egyptian religion and was bound up with the cult of Osiris and conceptions of the afterlife. Survival of death was taken for granted by the Egyptians. Central to this notion was the belief in the importance of the physical preservation of the body. They took meticulous care to prevent the putrefaction of the corpse in order to ensure the right of the deceased to immortality. But the embalming of Jacob and Joseph is without any religious significance. In both cases the act is a purely practical measure, for Jacob is to be buried far from his place of death, and Joseph is to be reinterred many years later (v. 25). The text subtly underlines the disconnection of the embalming procedure from any pagan context by having Joseph entrust the task to \u201cphysicians in his service.\u201d It was not performed by professional mortuary priests.<\/p>\n
3. forty days \u2026 seventy days It is not clear if the two periods overlap or are consecutive. Detailed information on the embalming process is lacking for the ancient period, but is available from the fifth century B.C.E. and from the late Hellenistic period. Herodotus (Histories 2.86) reports that the body was placed in niter for seventy days. Diodorus of Sicily (Histories 1.91) describes a thirty-day dressing of the corpse with oils and spices and seventy-two days of public mourning for a king. Jacob is apparently being accorded royal honors. Jewish exegetes have by and large understood that forty days were required for embalming, followed by another thirty days of mourning. The time of mourning would be in accordance with the period of public grief observed for Aaron (Num. 20:29) and Moses (Deut. 34:8). Jewish law to the present time requires a thirty-day mourning period after burial (sheloshim) for close relatives, during which various restrictions are observed.<\/p>\n
4. the wailing period That is, the period fixed by convention (cf. Deut. 34:8).<\/p>\n
to Pharaoh\u2019s court The king is not directly approached by Joseph probably because a mourner was considered unclean and was not allowed in his presence.2<\/p>\n
5. made me swear See Comments to 47:29\u201331 and 49:29\u201332.<\/p>\n
I made ready Hebrew kariti, from stem k-r-h, may mean either \u201cI dug\u201d3 or \u201cI purchased.\u201d But neither meaning suits a reference to the Cave of Machpelah (v. 13), which had been purchased, not dug, by Abraham, not Jacob (chap. 23). In light of this, some moderns have suggested that the verse reflects another tradition about the site of Jacob\u2019s burial. However, as Malbim points out, a similar usage of the verb k-r-h in 2 Chronicles 16:14 (cf. 1 Kings 15:24) indicates that the term may simply mean \u201cto prepare a grave in advance.\u201d<\/p>\n
then I shall return The assurance reflects an undercurrent of anxiety (cf. Exod. 1:10), and hints at something of a deterioration in the situation of the Israelites in Egypt.<\/p>\n
7\u20139. The funeral procession comprises a vast throng. The elite of the court and government participate. The charioteers, not usually depicted in Egyptian tomb paintings of such events, are most likely present for security reasons, since the burial is to take place beyond the borders of the land. Women, children, flocks, and herds would not be included in a funeral cortege. The explicit mention of their exclusion may hint at a thwarted desire on the part of the tribes to return to Canaan.<\/p>\n
10\u201313. The funeral takes place in two stages. The entire cortege first proceeds to a place at which a great public mourning ceremony is held. Here formal Egyptian participation in the rites is completed. Then, after a week\u2019s stay, the immediate family continues the journey to the Cave of Machpelah, where the body is privately interred.<\/p>\n
10\u201312. Goren ha-Atad Literally, \u201cthe threshing-floor of the bramble.\u201d The site is mentioned nowhere else and cannot be certainly identified. \u201cBeyond the Jordan\u201d can mean either east or west of the river, depending on the standpoint of the speaker or writer.4 Here it refers to Canaan (v. 11), and the place most probably lies along the coastal road (the Via Maris), since this would be the shortest route for anyone traveling from Egypt to Canaan, as Exodus 13:17 notes. Another name for the site is Abel-mizraim (v. 11). The first element here most likely means \u201ca stream\u201d and is a component of several biblical place-names.5 By a play on words, it is connected with the Hebrew stem \u02be-v-l, \u201cto mourn.\u201d Why does the procession stop just at this place? Interestingly, the local Canaanites are impressed by the Egyptian presence. The name Abel-mizraim suggests that the site had important Egyptian connections. It may well be Tell el-\u02bfAjjul (Beth \u02bfEglaim) situated 4.5 miles (7 km.) southwest of Gaza on the eastern Mediterranean coast alongside the desert road that connected the Hyksos capital in the Nile Delta with Asia. Excavations have disclosed that the town was an Egyptian stronghold. Just a little to the south, on the same highway, lies Deir el-Bala\u1e25, where a large collection of Egyptian-style anthropoid clay coffins have been found in a Late Bronze Age cemetery. The place was a burial ground for high-ranking Egyptians serving in Canaan and for Egyptianized Canaanite rulers and dignitaries. Such an association would explain why the cortege halted at Abel-mizraim for public homage to Jacob in his own country.<\/p>\n
seven days The antiquity of this custom is attested by its presence in the Epic of Gilgamesh.6 In biblical times we find the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead fasting seven days after the funeral rites for Saul and his sons (1 Sam. 31:13). Job and his friends similarly observe a seven-day mourning period (Job 2:13). This is a well-established rule among Jews by the early second century B.C.E. (Ben Sira 22:12; cf. Jth. 16:24). Strict mourning for seven days (shiv\u02bfah) following the burial of a close relative has remained the Jewish practice.<\/p>\n
12\u201314. The focus now shifts back to the brothers. They too fulfilled their father\u2019s last request (49:29\u201332) by completing the final segment of the journey to Hebron.<\/p>\n
returned See Comments to verses 5, 7\u20139.<\/p>\n
Joseph and His Brothers: The Finale (vv. 15\u201321)<\/p>\n
The Joseph story reverts to its opening theme: the complicated relations between the brothers and Joseph. Earlier the brothers had not sought forgiveness. In fact, they had maintained an unbroken silence (chap. 45). Yet throughout the seventeen years that elapsed since the day of reconciliation, the nagging voice of conscience was not stilled. Now that death has removed the commanding presence of the patriarch, family cohesion falls apart and the brothers anticipate Joseph\u2019s revenge for the terrible crime they committed against him (cf. 27:41).<\/p>\n
15. When Joseph\u2019s brothers saw That is, when the reality of the situation struck them on their return to Egypt.<\/p>\n
What if Hebrew lu is unparalleled in this sense. It is always used in conditional sentences (cf. 17:18). It must be assumed that the apodosis, or resolution of the condition, is understood but unspoken. The idea would be, \u201cIf Joseph should harbor a grudge, what would become of us?\u201d<\/p>\n
16\u201317. The brothers send Joseph a message through a third party, rather than risk a personal confrontation. Apparently, they trifle with the truth in reporting a message from their father, for had Jacob really known the fact of Joseph\u2019s kidnapping and sale into slavery, he would surely have made a clear reference to it in his Testament.<\/p>\n
God of your father As Abravanel observes, they do not invoke a claim of brotherliness since they had forfeited it by their own actions. Hence, they appeal to his respect and love for his father and to the religion that unites them all. Once again we meet with the biblical idea of the consciousness of God as the most powerful factor controlling human behavior, stronger than the ties of kinship.7<\/p>\n
18. When the brothers learn of Joseph\u2019s emotional reaction they feel free to go to him in person. There is here an echo of the opening scene of the Joseph narrative. The boyhood dreams of lordship over his kin (37:7\u201310) have long been fulfilled, but the reality is now distasteful to him for his character is being called into question (cf. 42:6, 9; 44:14, 16). He had earlier tested his brothers; now they challenge him, even though they are wholly in his power. Will the base human desire for revenge triumph over nobility of character?<\/p>\n
19\u201320. Have no fear! Their anxiety is allayed at once. Joseph has no interest in seeking revenge because the very idea offends his personal theology. Man dares not usurp the prerogative of God to whom alone belongs the right of punitive vindication (cf. Lev. 19:18). Moreover, human actions and their consequences are far more profound than human intentions. God may use man\u2019s evil purposes as the instrument for ultimate good, beyond the knowledge, desire, or realization of the human agents involved (cf. Gen. 44:5\u20137). What may seem to be a chance succession of disparate incidents is in reality a process, so that what has happened and what is unfolding take on meaning when viewed from the perspective of God\u2019s time (cf. Prov. 16:9; 19:21; 20:24).<\/p>\n
21. I will sustain you This reassurance is puzzling since the famine is long over. Again there is a hint of a deterioration in the Israelite situation (cf. vv. 5, 8).<\/p>\n
22. Joseph is singularly blessed with respect to age and progeny. One hundred and ten years were regarded as the ideal life span in ancient Egypt. In Israel it seems to have been 120 years (cf. Gen. 6:3), attained only by Moses (Deut. 31:2; 34:7).<\/p>\n
23. It is not clear whether the great-grandchildren (= \u201cchildren of the third generation,\u201d cf. Exod. 20:5; Num. 14:18) are Ephraim\u2019s or Joseph\u2019s (\u201cthrough Ephraim\u201d). If the former, Ephraim\u2019s line would have begotten one more generation than Manasseh\u2019s in the same period of time. This would be in fulfillment of the blessing of Genesis 48:19. If the latter, then Joseph would have seen only the grandchildren of both his sons before dying. He would thus have lived to see at least the fourth generation. This is a sign of special favor, such as Job enjoys as a reward for his piety (Job 42:16). A seventh-century B.C.E. Aramaic funerary inscription from Syria airs the notion that living to see \u201cchildren of the fourth generation\u201d is the reward of righteousness.8<\/p>\n
children of Machir Machir was the most important of the clans of Manasseh and, at one time, was identified with the tribe as a whole. The Machirites captured and occupied the Transjordanian regions of Gilead and Bashan.9 Machir\u2019s first-born is given as Gilead in 1 Chronicles 7:14, a name without doubt derived from the association of the clan with the area.<\/p>\n
likewise born upon Joseph\u2019s knees This idiom, as explained in the Comments to 30:3 and 48:12, usually implies legitimation of progeny. Here the parallel phrase \u201cJoseph lived to see \u2026\u201d suggests that a figurative use of the idiom is intended. However, one cannot entirely rule out the possibility that behind the narrative lies a tradition about the formal incorporation of the clans of Machir into the House of Joseph.<\/p>\n
24. I am about to die Compare 48:21. Joseph\u2019s last words would seem to imply that he died before his brothers, even though, with the exception of Benjamin, they were all his seniors. This is hardly likely. Clearly, \u201cbrothers\u201d here is loosely used since in the next verse it is the \u201cchildren of Israel\u201d who are put under oath. We have here another example of the biblical tendency to treat the tribe or people as a corporate personality (cf. 46:3f.).<\/p>\n
God will surely take notice of you On the Hebrew stem p-k-d, see Comment to 21:1. This reassuring profession of faith, made fifty-four years after Jacob\u2019s death, betrays a serious deterioration in the situation of the Israelites in Egypt in the intervening period. The repetition of the statement in verse 25 underscores its seminal importance. The measure of its impact is its use as the rallying cry when Moses first appears as the national savior (Exod. 3:16).<\/p>\n
Abraham \u2026 Isaac \u2026 Jacob This clustering of the three patriarchs for the first time sets the pattern for all such subsequent citations in the Torah, which are invariably in a context of the divine promises of national territory for the people of Israel,10 the unifying theme of all the patriarchal narratives.<\/p>\n
25. Why Joseph does not request immediate interment in the land of his fathers is not explained; no doubt, he knows that present conditions are unfavorable. The oath he extracts was indeed carried out at the time of the Exodus, as Exodus 13:19 reports. No request for any specific burial place is made, and he is finally laid to rest in a plot of land that Jacob had once bought in Shechem (Josh. 24:32; cf. Gen. 33:19).<\/p>\n
26. a coffin The use of a coffin is characteristically Egyptian and is never again mentioned in biblical literature. In striking contrast to the honors accorded Jacob, no ritual or mourning is recorded. The atmosphere, heavy with the anticipation of enslavement, is filled with foreboding.<\/p>\n
The formative period in Israel\u2019s history is now over. The divine promise of nationhood has been fulfilled. The great national drama of the slavery and the Exodus is about to unfold. Yet the Book of Genesis closes with an assurance of redemption. The people of Israel will possess the land pledged to them by God in His oaths to the patriarchs.<\/p>\n
\u05d7\u05d6\u05e7
\n\u05e1\u05db\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e4\u05e1\u05d5\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8
\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05e3 \u05d5\u05d7\u05de\u05e9\u05c1 \u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea
\n\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4
\n\u05d0\u05c4\u05da\u05c4 \u05dc\u05c4\u05d3\u05c4
\n\u05d5\u05d7\u05e6\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05d7\u05e8\u05d1\u05da<\/p>\n
\u05d5\u05e1\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05c4\u05d4\u05c4<\/p>\n
\u05ea\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05e9\u05dc\u05dd \u05ea\u05d4\u05dc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd
\n\u05d7\u05d6\u05e7 \u05d7\u05d6\u05e7 \u05d5\u05e0\u05ea\u05d7\u05d6\u05e7<\/p>\n