Chapters XXXVII–L.
The last division of the Book of Genesis is occupied almost entirely with the history of Joseph,—at once the most artistic and the most fascinating of Old Testament biographies. Its connexion is twice interrupted: (a) by the story of Judah and Tamar (chapter 38); and (b) by the so-called Blessing of Jacob (491–28): see the introductory notes on these chapters. Everywhere else the narrative follows the thread of Joseph’s fortunes; the plan and contents being as follows:
I. Chapters 37. 39–41. Joseph’s solitary career in Egypt:—1. Joseph betrayed by his brethren and carried down to Egypt (37). 2. How he maintained his virtue against the solicitation of his master’s wife, and was thrown into prison (39). 3. His skill in interpreting dreams discovered (40). 4. His interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams, and his consequent elevation to the highest dignity in Egypt (41).
II. Chapters 42–45. The reunion of Joseph and his brethren:—5. The first meeting of the brethren with Joseph in Egypt (42). 6. The second meeting (43. 44). 7. Joseph reveals himself to his brethren (45).
III. Chapters 46–50. The settlement of the united family in Egypt:—8. Jacob’s journey to Egypt and settlement in Goshen (46. 471–12). 9. Joseph’s agrarian policy (4713–28). 10. Joseph at his father’s death-bed (4729–31 48). 11. Death and burial of Jacob, and death of Joseph (4929–33 50).
The composition of documents is of the same general character as in the previous section of Genesis, though some peculiar features present themselves. The Priestly epitome (37² 4146a 425. 6a 466. [8–27] 475*. 6a. 7–11. 27b. 28 483–6 491a. 28b–33aαb 5012. 13) is hardly less broken and fragmentary than in the history of Jacob, and produces at first sight the same impression as there, of being merely supplementary to the older narratives,—an impression, however, which a closer inspection easily dispels. Certain late words and constructions have led some critics to the conclusion that the Jehovist passages have been worked over by an editor of the school of Priestly-Code (Giesebrecht, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, i. 237, 266²; Holzinger 234). The cases in point have been examined by Kuenen (Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds i. page 317 f.), who rightly concludes that they are too few in number to bear out the theory of systematic Priestly redaction.—With regard to the composition of Yahwist and Elohist, the most important fact is that the clue to authorship supplied by the divine names almost entirely fails us, and is replaced by the distinction between Israel and Jacob which as names of the patriarch are characteristic of Yahwist and Elohist respectively (exceptions are 46² 488. 11. 21 [5025?] 465b). יהוה occurs only in chapter 39 (7 times); elsewhere אלהים is invariably used, sometimes in contexts which would otherwise be naturally assigned to Yahwist, though no reason appears why Yahwist should depart from his ordinary usage (e.g. 42²⁸). It may not always be safe to rely on this characteristic when it is not supported by other indications. Eerdmans, who rejects in principle the theory of a Yahwistic and an Elohistic document, is obliged to admit the existence of an Israel-recension and a Jacob-recension, and makes this distinction the basis of an independent analysis. A comparison of his results with those commonly accepted by recent critics is instructive in more ways than one.* On the whole, it increases one’s confidence in the ordinary critical method.
The story of Joseph is the finest example in Genesis, or even in the Old Testament, of what is sometimes called ‘novelistic’ narrative. From the other patriarchal biographies it is distinguished first of all by the dramatic unity of a clearly conceived ‘plot,’ the unfolding of which exhibits the conflict between character and circumstances, and the triumph of moral and personal forces amidst the chances and vicissitudes of human affairs. The ruling idea is expressed in the words of Elohist, “Ye intended evil against me, but God intended it for good” (50²⁰; compare 455. 7): it is the sense of an overruling, yet immanent, divine Providence, realising its purpose through the complex interaction of human motives, working out a result which no single actor contemplated. To this higher unity everything is subordinated; the separate scenes and incidents merge naturally into the main stream of the narrative, each representing a step in the development of the theme. The style is ample and diffuse, but never tedious; the vivid human interest of the story, enhanced by a vein of pathos and sentiment rarely found in the patriarchal narratives, secures the attention and sympathy of the reader from the beginning to the close. We note, further, a certain freedom in the handling of traditional material, and subordination of the legendary to the ideal element in the composition. The comparatively faint traces of local colour, the absence of theophanies and cult-legends generally, the almost complete elimination of tribal relations, are to be explained in this way; and also perhaps some minute deviations from the dominant tradition, such as the conception of Jacob’s character, the disparity of age between Joseph and his older brothers, the extreme youth of Benjamin (suggesting that he had been born since Joseph left home), the allusions to the mother as if still alive, etc. Lastly, the hero himself is idealised as no other patriarchal personality is. Joseph is not (like Jacob) the embodiment of one particular virtue, but is conceived as an ideal character in all the relations in which he is placed: he is the ideal son, the ideal brother, the ideal servant, the ideal administrator.
The close parallelism of Yahwist and Elohist, together with the fact that the literary features enumerated above are shared by both, show that it had taken shape before it came into the hands of these writers, and strongly suggest that it must have existed in written form. The hypothesis of BBernhard Luther (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 141 ff.), that the original author was Yahwist, and that he composed it as a connecting link between the patriarchal legends and those of the Exodus, is destitute of probability. The motive suggested is inadequate to account for the conception of a narrative so rich in concrete detail as that before us. Moreover, there is no reason to think that Elohist is dependent on Yahwist; and it is certain that in some points (the leadership of Reuben, e.g.) Elohist follows the older tradition. Nor is there much foundation for Luther’s general impression that such a narrative must be the creation of a single mind. In any case the mastery of technique which is here displayed implies a long cultivation of this type of literature (ib. 143); and the matter of the Joseph-narratives must have passed through many successive hands before it reached its present perfection of form.
It is impossible to resolve such a composition completely into its traditional or legendary elements; but we may perhaps distinguish broadly the three kinds of material which have been laid under contribution. (1) The element of tribal history or relationships, though slight and secondary, is clearly recognisable, and supplies a key which may be used with caution to explain some outstanding features of the narrative. That there was an ancient tribe named Joseph, afterwards subdivided into Ephraim and Manasseh, is an item of Hebrew tradition whose authenticity there seems no good reason to question (see page 533); and the prestige and prowess of this tribe are doubtless reflected in the distinguished position held by Joseph as the hero of the story. Again, actual tribal relations are represented by the close kinship and strong affection between Joseph and Benjamin; and by the preference of Ephraim before Manasseh, and the elevation of both to the status of adopted sons of Jacob. The birthright and leadership of Reuben in Elohist implies a hegemony of that tribe in very early times, just as the similar position accorded to Judah in Yahwist reflects the circumstances of a later age. These are perhaps all the features that can safely be interpreted of real tribal relations. Whether there was a migration of the tribe of Joseph to Egypt, whether this was followed by a temporary settlement of all the other tribes on the border of the Delta, etc., are questions which this history does not enable us to answer; and attempts to find a historical significance in the details of the narrative (such as the sleeved tunic of Joseph, the enmity of his brethren, his wandering from Hebron to Shechem and thence to Dothan, the deliverance of Joseph by Reuben or Judah, and so on) are an abuse of the ethnographic principle of interpretation.—For (2) alongside of this there is an element of individual biography, which may very well preserve a reminiscence of actual events. There must have been current in ancient Israel a tradition of some powerful Hebrew minister in Egypt, who was the means of saving the country from the horrors of famine, and who used his power to remodel the land-system of Egypt to the advantage of the crown. That such a tradition should be true in essentials is by no means improbable. There were ‘Hebrews’ in Palestine as early as the 14th century B.C. (page 218), and that one of these should have been kidnapped and sold as a boy into slavery in Egypt, and afterwards have risen to the office of viceroy, is in accordance with many parallels referred to in the monuments (page 469); while his promoting the immigration of his kinsfolk under stress of famine is an incident as likely to be real as invented. The figure of Yanḫamu, the Semitic minister of Amenhotep IV. (pages 501 f.), presents a partial counterpart to that of Joseph, though the identification of the two personages rests on too slender data to be plausible. The insoluble difficulty is to discover the point where this personal history passes into the stream of Israelite national tradition,—or where Joseph ceases to be an individual and becomes a tribe. The common view that he was the actual progenitor of the tribe afterwards known by his name is on many grounds incredible; and the theory that he was the leader of a body of Hebrew immigrants into Egypt does violence to the most distinctive features of the representation. Steuernagel’s suggestion (Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 67), that the story is based on feuds between the tribe Joseph and the other tribes, in the course of which individual Josephides were sold as slaves to Egypt, illustrates the futility of trying to explain the narrative from two points of view at once. The tribal and the personal conceptions must be kept distinct, each may contain a kernel of history of its own kind; but the union of the two was effected not on the plane of history in either sense, but during the process of artistic elaboration of the theme. (3) There is, lastly, an element of Egyptian folklore, which has been drawn on to some extent for the literary embellishment of the story. The incident of Joseph’s temptation (chapter 39) appears to be founded on an Egyptian popular tale (page 459). The obscure allusions to Joseph as a potent magician are very probably surviving traces of a motive which was more boldly developed in an Egyptian source. The prominence of dreams and their interpretation perhaps hardly falls under this head; it may rather be part of that accurate acquaintance with Egyptian life which is one of the most striking features of the narrative. That in this legendary element there is an admixture of mythical material is very possible; but a direct influence of mythology on the story of Joseph is extremely speculative.—It has been argued with some force that the presence of this Egyptian colouring itself goes far to show that we have to do with genuine history, not with a legend ‘woven by popular fancy upon the hills of Ephraim’ (Driver A Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 771 b). At the same time it has to be considered that the material may have been largely woven in Egypt itself, and afterwards borrowed as drapery for the Israelite hero Joseph. Egyptian folklore might easily have been naturalised in Canaan during the long Egyptian domination, or have been imported later as a result of Egyptian influence at the court of Jeroboam I. It is not difficult to suppose that it was appropriated by the Hebrew rhapsodists, and incorporated in the native Joseph-legend, and gradually moulded into the exquisite story which we now proceed to examine.
As the favoured child of the family, and because of dreams portending a brilliant future, Joseph becomes an object of hatred and envy to his brothers (2–11). A favourable opportunity presenting itself, they are scarcely restrained from murdering him by prudential and sentimental considerations urged by one or other of their number (Judah, Reuben); but eventually consent to dispose of him without actual bloodshed (12–30). With heartless cruelty they pretend that Joseph must have been devoured by a wild beast, and witness their father’s distress without being moved to confession (31–35).—The chapter is not only full of thrilling human interest, but lays the ‘plot’ for the highly dramatic story which is to follow. The sudden disappearance of the most interesting member of the family, the inconsolable grief of the father, the guilty secret shared by the brothers, and, above all, the uncertainty which hangs over the fate of Joseph, appeal irresistibly to the romantic instinct of the reader, who feels that all this is the prelude to some signal manifestation of divine providence in the working out of Joseph’s destiny.
Sources.—Verses 1. 2 belong to Priestly-Code (v.i.).—The analysis of the rest of the chapter may start from 25–30, where evidences of a double recension are clearest. In one account, Joseph is sold to Ishmaelites on the advice of Judah; in the other, he is kidnapped by passing Midianites, unknown to the brethren, and to the dismay of Reuben, who had hoped to save him (see the notes). The former is Yahwist (compare 454 f.), the latter Elohist (40¹⁵). Another safe clue is found in the double motive assigned for the envy of the brethren: 3. 4 (the sleeved tunic) ∥ 5–11 (the dreams): the dream-motive is characteristic of Elohist throughout the narrative, and 3 f. are from Yahwist because of ישראל (compare ¹³, and contrast יעקב in ³⁴). Smaller doublets can be detected in 12–14; in 18–20, in 21 f., and in 34 f.. The analysis has been worked out with substantial agreement amongst critics; and, with some finishing touches from the hand of Gunkel (353 ff.), the result is as follows: Yahwist = 3. 4. 13a. 14b. 18b. 21. 23. 25–27. 28aγ (וימכרו to כ֑סף), 31. 32aαγb. 33aαb. 34b. 35a; Elohist = 5–11. 13b. 14a. 15–17. 18a. 19. 20. 22. 24. 28aαβ (to הבור) b. 29. 30. 32aβ. 33aβ. 34a. 35b. 36. This may be accepted as the basis of the exposition, though some points are open to question, particularly the assumption that all references to a tunic of any kind are to be ascribed to Yahwist.
1–11. The alienation between Joseph and his brethren.—1, 2. Three disjointed fragments of Priestly-Code, of which verse ¹ is the original continuation of 366–8 (see page 429); and 2aα is a heading from the Book of Tôledôth (see page 40 f.), which ought to be followed by a genealogy,—perhaps 3522b–26,¹ which we have seen to stand out of its proper connexion (page 423): 2aβγb then introduces Priestly-Code’s history of Joseph, which has been mostly suppressed by the redactor.—The clause וְהוּא נַעַר is difficult. As a parenthesis (Driver) it is superfluous after the definite statement of Joseph’s age in 2aβ, and leaves us with a wrong identification of the sons of the concubines with the previous אחיו. If it be joined to what follows, Gunkel has rightly seen that we want a word expressing something that Joseph was or did in relation to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. The meaning probably is that Joseph, while shepherding with (all) his brethren, fell out with the four sons of the concubines.
With this change, Dillmann’s objections to the unity of verse ² fall to the ground, and the whole may be safely ascribed to Priestly-Code (note the chronology, the supplementary נשי אביו, and the phrase דבה רעה).—Short as the fragment is, it shows that Priestly-Code’s account was peculiar in two respects: (1) He restricts the hostility to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, and (2) he traces it to Joseph’s reporting their misdeeds to Jacob. It is plain that Priestly-Code is no mere supplementer of the older history, but an independent author, though his account has been sacrificed to the more graphic narratives of Yahwist and Elohist.
1. מגורים (17⁸) and ארץ כנען (but see page 474) are characteristic of Priestly-Code.—2. רעה ב׳] ‘like verbs of governing’ (Strack); so 1 Samuel 16¹¹ 17³⁴.—והוא נער] Gunkel suggests וה׳ נֵעֹר על (Niphal √ עור: compare Jeremiah 6²² etc., and the Hithpael in Job 17⁸), or וה׳ רֹעֶה (= ‘kept company with’),—neither proposal just convincing.—דבתם רעה (so Numbers 14³⁷)] literally ‘brought the report of them evil,’ ר׳ being second accusative, or tertiary predicate (Davidson § 76). A bad sense is inherent in דִּבָּה, which is a late word, in Hexateuch confined to Priestly-Code (Numbers 13³² 1436 f.).
3, 4 (Yahwist). Now Israel loved Joseph....] These are evidently the opening words of Yahwist’s Joseph-story, in which the sole motive of the brothers’ hatred is the father’s favouritism towards the son of his old age (16² 44²⁰ Yahwist).—כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים] a shirt or tunic reaching to the extremities (פַּסִּים), i.e. the wrists and ankles, whereas the ordinary under-garment was sleeveless, and reached only to the knees. That it was an unusual habiliment appears also from 2 Samuel 1318 f.; but speculations as to its mythological significance (Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 384) have no support in either passage.—4. could not address him peaceably] or, ‘salute him.’ The text is doubtful (v.i.).—5–11. Joseph’s dreams (Elohist).—6, 7. The first dream—a harvest scene—represents Jacob’s family as agriculturists (see on 26¹²); in verses 2. 13 ff. 4631 ff. they are shepherds. There may be some hint of the immediate cause of its fulfilment, a failure of the harvest (Gunkel), though this is questionable.—8a. Wilt thou, forsooth, be king over us?] The language points beyond the personal history of Joseph to the hegemony of the ‘house of Joseph’ in North Israel (Judges 122 f.).—9. The second dream presages Joseph’s elevation not only over his brothers, but over his father (Holzinger), i.e. Israel collectively.—eleven stars] Supposed by some to be an allusion to the signs of the Zodiac (Delitzsch, Gunkel, al., compare Jeremias Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 383), the twelfth being either Joseph himself, or the constellation obscured by Joseph as the sun-god. The theory will stand or fall with the identification of Jacob’s twelve sons with the Zodiacal signs (see pages 534 f.); the absence of the article here makes it, however, at least improbable that the theory was in the mind of the writer.—11. envied is the appropriate word for Elohist’s account, as ‘hated’ (verse ⁴) is for Yahwist’s (5b and 8b are redactional).—his father kept the matter (in mind)] LXX διετήρησεν. Compare Luke 219. 51.
While significant dreams bulk largely in Elohist’s Joseph-narrative (chapter 40 f.), it is characteristic of this section of the work that the dreams contain no oracular revelations (like 203 ff. 3111. 24), but have a meaning in themselves which is open to human interpretation. The religious spirit of these chapters (as also of chapter 24), both in Yahwist and Elohist, is a mature faith in God’s providential ruling of human affairs, which is independent of theophanies, or visible interpositions of any kind. It can scarcely be doubted that such narratives took shape at a later period of Old Testament religion than the bulk of the patriarchal legends.
3. ועשה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ויעש. As the tense can hardly be frequentative, it is best to restore וַיַּֽעֲשֶׂה (Ball, Kittel).—כתנת פסים] Compare Josephus Antiquities of the Jews vii. 171: ἐφόρουν γὰρ αἱ τῶν ἀρχαίων παρθένοι χειριδωτοὺς ἄχρι τῶν σφυρῶν πρὸς τὸ μὴ βλέπεσθαι χιτῶνας. Except LXX (χιτῶνα ποικίλον) and Vulgate (tunicam polymitam [but compare verse ²³]), all Versions here support this sense: Aquila χιτῶνα ἀστραγάλων, Symmachus χιτῶνα χειριδωτόν, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‘with sleeves’), TargumOnkelos כיתונא דפסי, etc. In 2 Samuel 13, LXX, Vulgate, and Peshiṭtå curiously change sides (χιτὼν καρπωτός, talaris tunica, (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) [= tunica striata]). The real meaning is determined by New Hebrew and Aramaic פַּס (Daniel 55. 24) = אָפְסַיִם, Ezekiel 47³; see Bevan, A Short Commentary on Daniel 100.—4. אחיו²] Hebrew MSS, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX בניו; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word).—דַּבְּרוֹ לשלום On the suffix, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 115 c. But no other case occurring of דִּבֶּר with accusative of person addressed (Numbers 26³ is corrupt), Gunkel points דְּבָרוֹ (‘could not take his matter peaceably’), Kittel emends to לְדַבֵּר לוֹ ל׳ (the ל might be omitted: see Exodus 2³ etc.).—5b is out of place before the telling of the dream, and is omitted by LXX.—7. Insert חלמתי at the beginning, with LXX.—אִלֵּם] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; אֲלֻמָּה, Psalms 126⁶†.—8b. Another redactional addition, though found in LXX; note the plural ‘dreams’ when only one has been told.—10a. ויספר—אחיו is an interpolation intended to explain what immediately follows. LXX omits, and seeks to gain the same end by inserting לאביו ו before לאחיו in ⁹.
12–17. Jacob sends Joseph to inquire after his brethren.—12, 13a, 14b Yahwist ∥ 13b, 14a Elohist (see the analysis below). In Yahwist, Jacob is dwelling in the vale of Hebron; the sons have gone to Shechem. If the incident of chapter 34 belonged to the same cycle of tradition, the brethren would perhaps hardly have ventured into the neighbourhood of Shechem so soon (see page 418); though it has been argued that this very circumstance accounts for Jacob’s solicitude. In Elohist we find no indication of either the starting-point or the goal of the journey. 14a suggests that the flocks were at some distance from Jacob’s home: possibly the narrative is based on a stratum of Elohist in which Jacob’s permanent residence was at Bethel (see on 35¹).—15–17. The man who directs Joseph to Dothan is not necessarily a neighbour of the family who knew Joseph by sight (Gunkel); nor is the incident a faded version of a theophany (Holzinger, Bennett): it is simply a vivid description of the uncertainty of Joseph’s persistent search for his brethren.—Dôthān (2 Kings 613 ff., Judith 3⁹ 4⁶ 7¹⁸) is the modern Tell Dōthān, near Ǧenīn, about 15 miles North of Shechem. Some local legend may have connected it with the history of Joseph.
15–17 would be a sufficiently natural continuation of 14b (Yahwist), and Gunkel’s conjecture (above) establishes no presumption to the contrary. They may, however, be from Elohist: in this case it is probable that Elohist did not mention Shechem at all, nor Yahwist Dothan.
12–14 is composite. ישראל shows that 12. 13a belong to Yahwist; and הנני shows that 13b is from Elohist (compare 221. 7. 11 27¹ 31¹¹). Hence 14a is not a specification, but a variant, of 13a, continuing 13b. 14b obviously follows 13a.—12. אֹתֹ] with puncta extraordinaria, because for some reason the text was suspected.—14. מעמק חברון (232. 19)] The words might be a gloss based on Priestly-Code (35²⁷ 4929 ff. 50¹³); but Steuernagel’s proposal to remove them (Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 36) takes too little account of the fragmentariness of Yahwist’s narrative in chapter 35; and Gunkel’s argument that the journey was too long for a young lad is weak.—17. שמעתי] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX שמעתים.—דתינה, דתן] The form with י is the older (compare Egyptian Tu-ti-y-na, Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 88), the other an accommodation to a common nominal termination. The ending ־ַיִן is not dual, but an old (Aramaic ?) locative corresponding to Hebrew ־ַיִם (see pages 342 f.; Barth, Die Nominalbildung in den Semitischen Sprachen, 319⁵; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 88 c).
18–30. The plot to murder Joseph frustrated by Reuben (Elohist), or Judah (Yahwist).—18a, 19, 20 Elohist ∥ 18b Yahwist. Common to both sources is the proposal to kill Joseph; Elohist develops it most fully, revealing the motive of the crime and the device by which it was to be concealed.—19. yon master-dreamer] a mocking epithet; compare 20b.—20. and throw him (his dead body) into one of the pits] The idea would suit either narrative; and we cannot be sure that the indefinite ‘one of the pits’ does not come from Yahwist (see ²²).—21 Yahwist ∥ 22 Elohist. In ²¹ we must read Judah for Reuben.—and delivered him out of their hand] is premature (verse ²³): the clause might stand more naturally in Yahwist between ²³ and ²⁵, though the rest of the verse must be left where it is (so Gunkel).—we will not kill him outright] Judah has as yet no counter-proposal.—22. Reuben, on the other hand, has his scheme ready: he appeals to the antique horror of shed blood, which cries for vengeance on the murderer (4¹¹).—this pit] a particular cistern which Reuben knew to be empty of water (24b). It is probable that one of the numerous pits round Dothan was traditionally associated with the fate of Joseph (Gunkel): compare the Khan Ǧubb Yūsuf near Safed, incorrectly identified with the Dothan cistern (Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 418 f.).—24 (Elohist).—25–27, 28aβ (Yahwist). The fate of Joseph is apparently still undecided, when Judah makes an appeal to the cupidity of his brothers (what profit, etc.?), by proposing to sell him to some passing Ishmaelites.—25. a caravan ... from Gilead] The plain of Dothan is traversed by a regular trade route from Gilead through Beisan to Ramleh, and thence (by the coast) to Egypt (Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina, 127). Shechem also lies on several routes from the East of the Jordan to the coast.—The natural products mentioned (v.i.) were much in request in Egypt for embalming, as well as for medicinal and other purposes.—26. cover his blood] Ezekiel 24⁷, Isaiah 26²¹, Job 16¹⁸.—28. twenty (shekels) of silver] compare Leviticus 27⁵ with Exodus 21³² (see Driver).—28aαb, 29, 30 (Elohist). Joseph is kidnapped by trading Midianites, who pass unobserved after the brothers have left the spot.—30. Only now does Reuben reveal his secret design of delivering Joseph. It is interesting to note his own later confusion of the intention with the act, in 42²².
That the last section is from another source than 25–27 appears from (a) the different designation of the merchants, (b) the absence of the article showing that they have not been mentioned before, (c) Reuben’s surprise at finding the pit empty. The composite narrative requires us to assume that the brethren are the subject of וימשכו ויעלו, against the natural construction of the sentence.
18a and 18bα are obviously doublets; the analysis adopted above gives the simplest arrangement.—ויתנכלו] ‘acted craftily,’ only found in late writings (Numbers 25¹⁸, Malachi 1¹⁴, Psalms 105²⁵†), but the √ occurs in Aramaic and Assyrian.—On the accusative, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 w.—19. בעל החלמות The rendering above is a little too strong; for the use of בעל as ‘noun of relation,’ see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 127 b.—21. נכנו נפש] Second accusative of respect, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 ll.—22. אל־הבור הזה] LXX εἰς ἕνα τῶν λάκκων, a false assimilation to verse ²⁰.—23. את־כתנתו] LXX omits. It is impossible to say whether this and the following appositional phrase are variants from Elohist and Yahwist respectively, or whether the second is a (correct) gloss on Yahwist. Vulgate combines both in the rendering tunica talari et polymita.—25. וישבו לאכל־לחם] Assigned by many critics (Dillmann, al.) to Elohist, and certainly not necessary in Yahwist. But we still miss a statement in Elohist that the brothers had moved away from the pit.—נכאת (43¹¹†)] supposed to be ‘gum-tragacanth’; Arabic naka’at.—צֳרִי = [וּ]צְרִי] the resinous gum for which Gilead was famous (43¹¹, Jeremiah 8²² 46¹¹ 51⁸, Ezekiel 27¹⁷†); possibly that exuded by the mastic-tree; but see Encyclopædia Biblica, 465 f.—לֹט (43¹¹†) Greek λήδανον, Latin ladanum, the gum of a species of cistus-rose (Encyclopædia Biblica, 2692 f.). Mentioned amongst objects of Syrian tribute (ladunu) by Tiglath-pileser IV. (Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament², 151).—27. לישמעאלים] LXX + הָאֵלֶּה. The word is apparently used in the general sense of ‘Bedouin,’ as Judges 8²⁴ (compare 6¹ etc.): see on 16¹².—בשרנו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate prefix וּ.—28b is assigned to Elohist because of ויביאו, Yahwist using הוריד in this connexion (²⁵ 39¹ 43¹¹ etc.).—29. אין] LXX οὐχ ὁρᾷ.
31–36. The deceiving of Jacob.—31, 32. Gunkel remarks that the sending of a bloody token is a favourite motive in popular tales. Whether the incident is peculiar to Yahwist, or common to Yahwist and Elohist, can hardly be determined (v.i.)—33. an evil beast has devoured him] Exactly as verse ²⁰ (Elohist). A slight change of text in ³² (v.i.) would enable us to take the words as spoken by the sons to Jacob (so Gunkel). 34, 35. The grief of Jacob is depicted in both sources, but with a difference. Elohist (34a. 35b) hardly goes beyond the conventional signs of mourning—‘the trappings and the suits of woe’; but Yahwist (34b. 35a) dwells on the inconsolable and life-long sorrow of the bereaved father. This strain of pathos and subjectivity is very marked in Yahwist in the Joseph narratives.—rent his clothes ... put on sackcloth] On these customs, the origin of which is still obscure, see Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode, 11 ff.; Grüneisen, Der Ahnenkultus Und Die Urreligion Israels, 61 ff.; Engert, Ehe- und Familienrecht der Hebräer, 96 ff.—34b. הִתְאַבֵּל, chiefly used in reference to the dead, includes the outward tokens of mourning: Exodus 33⁴, 2 Samuel 14²; compare Isaiah 61³, Psalms 35¹⁴.—35. all his daughters] There was really only one daughter in the family. A similar indifference to the prevalent tradition in details is seen in the disparity of age between Joseph and his brothers (verse ³), and the assumption that Rachel was still alive (¹⁰).—go down ... as a mourner] Jacob will wear the mourner’s garb till his death, so that in the underworld his son may know how deep his grief had been (Gunkel). The shade was believed to appear in She’ōl in the condition in which it left the world (Schwally 63 f.).—36 (Elohist) resuming 28b. See, further, on 39¹.
31. The reason for assigning the verse to Yahwist (Gunkel) is the precarious assumption that Joseph’s coat plays no part at all in Elohist. There is a good deal to be said for the view that it belongs to Elohist (Dillmann, Holzinger, al.).—32. ויביאו] Gunkel וַיָּבוֹאוּ, ‘and they came’ (see on ³³ above), which would be an excellent continuation of ³¹: in Elohist they dip the coat in blood, come to their father, and say ‘an evil beast,’ etc.; in Yahwist they send the coat unstained, and let Jacob form his own conclusion.—In any case ויביאו וגו׳ is Elohist’s parallel to Yahwist’s וישלחו וגו׳.—הכר־נא (compare 38²⁵), and the disjunctive question (compare 18²¹ 24²¹) point distinctly to Yahwist (Dillmann).—הַכּתנת] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 100 l.—33. After בני, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå insert היא.—טָרֹף טֹרַף] compare 44²⁸. On infinitive absolute Qal used with Pual, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 w.—35. ויקומו] LXX συνήχθησαν δέ, adding καὶ ἦλθον before לנחמו.—36. והמדנים] Read with all Versions והמדינים as verse ²⁸.