One thing is still wanting to the dramatic completeness of the story of Joseph: the recognition of his greatness by his family, or (in Elohist) the fulfilment of his youthful dreams. This is the theme of the second part of the history (chapters 42–45), where the writers tax their inventiveness to the utmost in retarding the dénouement of the plot. Two visits to Egypt, and not fewer than four interviews with Joseph, are needed to prepare for the final reconciliation; and the hearers’ attention is all the while kept on the stretch by the surprising expedients adopted by Joseph to protract the suspense and excite the compunction of his brethren.—In chapter 42 we are told how the ten brothers are brought to Egypt by stress of famine (1–4), are recognised by Joseph, and denounced and imprisoned as spies (5–17); and how after three days’ confinement they are sent home, leaving Simeon behind them as a hostage (18–28). Arrived in Canaan, they relate their adventure to Jacob, who bitterly complains of the loss of two children, and refuses to trust Benjamin to their charge (29–38). The incident of the money found in the sacks (25. 27 f. 35) increases the dread with which they contemplate a return to Egypt.
Analysis.—Chapter 42 belongs a potiori to Elohist, and 43. 44 to Yahwist (Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 58 ff.). A distinct difference of representation appears from a comparison of 4229–37 (which, pace Procksch, is an undiluted excerpt from Elohist) with 433–7 4419–23 (Yahwist). “In chapter 42, Joseph secures, by the detention of Simeon, that the brethren shall return under any circumstances, with Benjamin or without; in chapter 43 f., on the contrary, he forbids them to return unless Benjamin is with them” (Wellhausen). In Yahwist, moreover, the brethren do not volunteer the information that they have a younger brother, but it is drawn out of them by searching questions. It is certain (from doublets and phraseology) that both Yahwist and Elohist are represented in 421–14; though the former is so fragmentary that it is difficult to reconstruct a narrative consistent with 433 ff. 4419 ff.. Apparently, the colloquy reproduced in 43⁷ 4420–23 43³ must have followed the acknowledgment that they were all one man’s sons (11a ∥ 13a Elohist),—a view which seems to fit in with all the literary indications. Elohist’s account can easily be traced with the help of 29–37: it includes the charge of espionage (9. 11. 14. 16. 30), the imprisonment (17. 30), the detention of Simeon (19. 24. 33 f.), the command to bring down Benjamin (16. 20. 34), and the putting of the money in the sacks (25. 35).—In 1–14, the more obvious doublets are 1a ∥ 2a, 5a ∥ 6b, 7a ∥ 8, 11a ∥ 13a; characteristic phrases of Yahwist: ירד, 2. 3; ונחיה ולא נמות, ² (43⁸ 47¹⁹); קרא אסון, ⁵ (42³⁸ 44²⁹); ישראל, ⁵; אֹכֶל, 7. 10. Possibly also לראות את־ערות הארץ, 9b. 12b, is Yahwist’s variant for Elohist’s מרגלים, 9b. 11b etc. (compare 30. 31. 34) (Gunkel). Hence we may assign to Yahwist 2. 3a. 4b. 5?. 7 (except וידבר אתם קשות, which should probably follow 9a in Elohist [Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, Gunkel]), 9bβ. 10. 11a. 12; and to Elohist all the rest (so Gunkel nearly: Procksch, however, very plausibly assigns 5. 6a to Priestly-Code).—After ¹² there is no trace of Yahwist till we come to 27. 28abαβ, an obvious duplicate of ³⁵, containing Yahwist’s peculiar word אמתחת.—29–37 are from Elohist: note the name Jacob, 29. 36; Reuben’s leadership, ³⁷; and the words הביאו, ³⁴; תסחרו ³⁴ (37²⁸ [? 3420 f.]); כֻּלָּנָה, ³⁶. We also obtain some new expressions which may be employed as criteria of Elohist: קשות, ³⁰ (compare ⁷); כנים, 31. 33. 34 (compare 11. 19); רעבון בתיכם, ³³ (compare ¹⁹); שׂק, ³⁵ (compare ²⁵).—³⁸ belongs to Yahwist, but its proper place is after 43² (see on the verse).—A peculiar feature of this and the following chapters is the name ארץ כנען, which is elsewhere in Genesis characteristic of Priestly-Code (see page 245). From this and some similar phenomena, Giesebrecht and others have inferred a Priestly redaction of the Joseph pericope; but the usage may be due to the constant and unavoidable antithesis between Canaan and Egypt (see page 438 above).
1–4. The journey to Egypt.—1, 2. Another effective change of scene (compare 39¹ 41¹), introducing the deliberations in Jacob’s family regarding a supply of food; where the energy and resourcefulness of the father is set in striking contrast to the perplexity of the sons.—4. Benjamin has taken Joseph’s place in his father’s affection (4429 ff.); Jacob’s unwillingness to let him out of his sight is a leading motive both in Yahwist and Elohist.
1. שֶׁבֶר] of uncertain etymology, is always used of grain as an article of commerce (Amos 8⁵, Nehemiah 10³²).—יעקב] LXX omits.—תתראו] LXX ῥᾳθυμεῖτε (? = תְּאַחֲרוּ, Kittel). Though the Hithpael occurs elsewhere only in the sense of ‘face one another in battle’ (2 Kings 148. 11 = 2 Chronicles 2517. 21), a change of text is uncalled for.—2. ויאמר] LXX omits.—משם] LXX מעט אכל (as 43²); read perhaps משם אכל.—3. עשרה] ‘ten in number,’ accusative of condition.—4. יעקב] LXX omits.
5–17. The arrival in Egypt, and first interview with Joseph.—On 5, 6a, v.i.—6b. As suspicious strangers the brothers are brought before the viceroy.—bowed themselves, etc.] Reminding Joseph of his dreams (verse ⁹). The original connexion in Elohist is broken by the insertion of verse ⁷ from Yahwist.—7 (Yahwist) ∥ 8 (Elohist). That Joseph was not recognised by his brethren is natural, and creates a situation of whose dramatic possibilities the narrators take full advantage. The strange mixture of harshness and magnanimity in Joseph’s treatment of his brothers, the skill with which he plays alternately on their fears and their hopes, the struggle in his mind between assumed severity and real affection, form the chief interest of the narratives up to the time of the final disclosure. It is unnecessary to suppose that the writers traced in all this the unfolding of a consistent ethical purpose on Joseph’s part, and it is certainly an exaggeration to speak of it as an exhibition of ‘seelsorgerische geistliche Weisheit’ (Delitzsch). On the other hand, to say that his object was merely to punish them (Gunkel), is clearly inadequate. To the writers, as to the brethren, the official Joseph is an inscrutable person, whose motives defy analysis; and it is probably a mistake to try to read a moral meaning into all the devices by which his penetrating knowledge of the human heart is exemplified.—9. Ye are spies] A charge that travellers in the East often encounter (see page 484 below). The eastern frontier of Egypt was fortified and closely watched (Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 537 ff.), and a band of ten men seeking to cross it excited suspicion.—the nakedness of the land] Not its poverty, but its open and defenceless spots.—11 (Yahwist) ∥ 13 (Elohist). sons of one man, etc.] Their eagerness to clear their character betrays them into a disclosure of their family circumstances, which in Yahwist is followed up by direct interrogation and a warning that they need not return without their youngest brother (page 473 above); while in Elohist, Joseph seizes on the reference to Benjamin as a test of their veracity, and threatens that they shall not leave Egypt until he is produced (15 f.).—one is not] It is a fine instance of literary tact that Joseph never presses the question as to the fate of the missing brother.—14. This is what I said] ‘It is as I have said’ (compare 41²⁸). Joseph maintains his opinion with well-feigned official obstinacy (Dillmann).—15, 16. By this shall ye be tested] The pretext covers a real desire to see Benjamin, which is explicitly avowed in Yahwist (4421b 43³⁰).—By the life of Pharaoh] In Egypt the king was honoured as a god (Diodorus i. 90; Erman, A Handbook of Egyptian Religion 36 f.); and the oath by his life is attested by an inscription of the 20th dynasty. The Old Testament analogies cited by Knobel (1 Samuel 17⁵⁵, 2 Samuel 11¹¹) are not in point, since they do not differ from the same formula addressed to private persons (1 Samuel 20³ 25²⁶).—17. The three days’ imprisonment is rather meaningless after verse ¹⁶ (see page 477). Gunkel remarks on the prominence of imprisonment in the Joseph narratives, and surmises that a good many Hebrews had known the inside of an Egyptian jail.
5a reads like a new beginning, and 5b is superfluous after 1–4. Procksch is probably right in the opinion that 5. 6a are the introduction to Priestly-Code’s lost narrative of the visit, a view which is confirmed by the unnecessary explanation of 6a, and by the late word.—6. שליט] only Ecclesiastes 7¹⁹ 8⁸ 10⁵ [Ezekiel 16³⁰] and Aramaic portions of Ezra and Daniel (Kuenen Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds i. page 318). The resemblance to Σάλατις, the name of the first Hyksos king in Josephus, Against Apion i. 77, can hardly be other than accidental.—הוא²] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Peshiṭtå, TargumJonathan והוא.—9. עֶרְוָה] literally pudenda, is only here used of defencelessness. Arabic ‛aurat is similarly used of a ‘breach in the frontier of a hostile country’ (Lane, 2194 c); compare Ḳoran Surah 33¹³ “our houses are ‛aurat,”—a nakedness, i.e. unoccupied and undefended. LXX has τὰ ἴχνη (reading perhaps עקבֹת [Ball]); Symmachus τὰ κρυπτά.—10. ועבדיך] compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 163 a: The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå omit ו.—11. נחנו] So Exodus 167. 8, Numbers 32³², Lamentations 3⁴²† (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 32 d); The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch אנחנו.—כנים] literally ‘right men,’ is used of persons only in this chapter.—13. בני איש אחד] LXX omits, perhaps rightly; compare the ∥ verse ¹¹.—16. האסרו] Improved expressing a determination, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 110 c.—הי פרעה] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 93 aa¹. The distinction between הַי and חֵי is a Massoretic caprice (Dillmann).—At the end of the verse The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch inserts a refusal of the condition in the exact terms of 4422aβ (Yahwist), which undoubtedly smooths the transition to verse ¹⁷, but cannot be original.
18–26. The second interview.—After three days Joseph appears to relent, and to entertain the idea that they may after all be telling the truth. He now proposes to retain only one of them as a hostage, and let the rest carry corn for their starving households.—18. I fear God] the guardian of ‘international religious morality’ (Gunkel), which is presupposed throughout the patriarchal history; see on 20³ 39⁹.—21. Nay, but we are guilty] The confession is wrung from them by the distress (צָרָה) which has overtaken them, reminding them of Joseph’s distress of soul (צָרַת נפשו) when they left him to die,—when he pleaded with us] This touch of pathos is not recorded in chapter 37.—22. Reuben had a right to dissociate himself from the confession of guilt, for he had meant to save Joseph; but like many another man he claims credit for his good intention rather than for the temporising advice he had actually given (37²²).—his very blood is required] in spite of the fact that the speaker had kept them from actual bloodshed.—23. an interpreter] This is the only place in the patriarchal history where diversity of language appears as a bar to intercourse.—24. Joseph is moved to tears by this first proof of penitence.—Simeon is chosen as hostage as the oldest next to Reuben, of whose attempt to save him Joseph has just learned for the first time. The effect on the brothers would be the same as in 43³³.—25. The rest are treated with great generosity; though whether the restoration of the money is pure kindness or a trap, we can hardly say.—provision for the way] Hence in Elohist the sacks are not opened till the journey’s end (³⁵).
Verses 15–24 show a disconnectedness which is unusual in the lucid and orderly Joseph story, and which cannot be explained by discrepancies between Yahwist and Elohist. The first proposal—to send one man to fetch Benjamin—leads to no consequences, but is followed, most unnaturally, by the imprisonment of all the ten. This in like manner serves no purpose but to give Joseph time to change his mind. And the colloquy of the brothers (21 f.) could hardly find a less appropriate place than the moment when hope breaks in on their forebodings. The proper setting for the imprisonment would seem to be their first encounter with Joseph (as verse ³⁰ LXX); and the confession of guilt would stand in a suitable connexion there. It is possible that 15 f. are a variant to 19 f., belonging to a somewhat different recension. If Gunkel (page 387) be right in thinking that the earliest form of the legend knew of only one visit to Egypt, it is easy to conceive that in the process of amplification several situations were successively invented, and that two of these have been preserved side by side by an editor, in spite of their imperfect consistency.
18. זאת עשו וחיו] See Gesenius-Kautzsch § 110 f.—19. אחד] without article (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch האחד) ib. § 134 d; compare 43¹⁴; contrast 42³³.—20. ויעשו־כן] The words are out of place (compare 25b). Did they stand originally after verse ¹⁶?—21. אבל] ‘Nay, but—,’ indicating an affirmation of what one would gladly deny (see on 17¹⁹).—צרת] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch בצרת.—אלינו²] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch עלינו כל.—25. ולהשיב] Continuation of verb finite by infinitive (as here) is very unusual (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 120 f).—ויעש] ויעשו? compare Peshiṭtå, Vulgate.
26–38. The return to Canaan.—27, 28. Yahwist’s parallel to ³⁵ (Elohist).—To leave room for the latter, the account is cut short with the opening of the first sack. In Yahwist, each man found his money at the ‘inn’ (43²¹).—28. their heart went out] ‘their courage sank.’ Partly from the anticipated accusation of theft (43¹⁸), but still more from the superstitious notion that God was bringing trouble upon them.—אַמְתַּחַת] Yahwist’s peculiar word for ‘corn-sack’ (v.i.)—The last clause, however, What has God (אלהים) done to us?] is apparently taken from Elohist, probably transposed from the end of ³⁵ (Kautzsch-Socin).—29–34. They recount their experiences to Jacob.—30. treated us as spies] Better, as LXX (v.i.), ‘put us in ward as spies.’—35. See on 27 f.. The incident explains Jacob’s foreboding (verse ³⁶) that Simeon and Benjamin are as good as lost.—36. Me have ye bereaved ... upon me all this has come] The point of the complaint is that it is his children, not their own, that they are throwing away one after another: to which Reuben’s offer to sacrifice his two sons is the apt rejoinder.—37 is Elohist’s variant to 43⁹: here Reuben, there Judah, becomes surety for Benjamin. In Elohist an immediate return to Egypt is contemplated, that Simeon may be released; hence the discussion about sending Benjamin takes place at once. In Yahwist the thought of returning is put off to the last possible moment (43⁸), and the difficulty about Benjamin does not yet arise.—38 therefore has been removed from its original context: see on 431. 2.—bring down ... to She’ōl] See on 37³⁵.
27. שקו] Read אמתחתו with LXX.—מספוא] characteristic of Yahwist (2425. 32 43²⁴), also Judges 19¹⁹†.—מלון] (√ לון) strictly ‘resting-place for the night’ (Exodus 4²⁴) or ‘night encampment’ (Joshua 4³),—perhaps a rude shelter of bushes or canvas (compare מלונה, ‘hut,’ Isaiah 1⁸ 24²⁰) rather than a khan or caravanserai.—כספו] Elohist says צרור כספו (35 bis); so LXX here, wrongly.—אַמְתַּחַת] A word recurring 13 times in chapters 43 f. (Yahwist), and nowhere else in Old Testament: LXX is invariably μάρσιππος. The √ מתח = ‘spread out’ (Isaiah 40²²), found in New Hebrew Aramaic Arabic.—28. הנה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX add הוא unnecessarily.—חרד אל] pregnant construct; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 gg.—30. ויתן אתנו] LXX + ἐν φυλακῇ (= בַּֽמִּשְׁמָר).—32. אנחנו אחים] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå transposed.—33. רעבון] Read with LXX, Peshiṭtå, TargumOnkelos שבר ר׳, as verse ¹⁹.—34. את־אחיכם] LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate prefix ו.—35. On the syntax, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 111 g.—36. כלנה] for כֻּלָּן, as Proverbs 31²⁹ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 f). On Elohist’s preference for these lengthened suffixes, see Dillmann on 41²¹.
The supply of food being exhausted, another family council is held, at which Jacob’s reluctance to part with Benjamin is at last overcome by Judah becoming surety for his safe return: the eleven brethren set out with a present for Joseph and double money in their hand (1–14). To their surprise they are received with every mark of honour as the guests of the viceroy; and their fears give place to convivial abandonment at his hospitable table (15–34). But Joseph has devised one more trial for them: his silver cup is secretly placed in Benjamin’s sack, and on their homeward journey they are overtaken with the accusation of theft. Brought back to Joseph’s presence, they offer to surrender their freedom in expiation of some hidden guilt which God has brought home to them (441–16). But when Joseph proposes to detain Benjamin alone, Judah comes forward and, in a speech of noble and touching eloquence, pleads that he may be allowed to redeem his pledge by bearing the punishment for his youngest brother (17–34).
The second journey “brings to light the disposition of the brethren to one another and to their father, thus marking an advance on the first, which only brought them to the point of self-accusation” (Dillmann). That is true of the narrative as it stands; but since the first journey is taken almost entirely from Elohist and the second from Yahwist, the difference indicated is probably due to the different conceptions represented by the two writers, rather than to a conscious development of the plot.
Source.—That the chapters are not the continuation of 42 (Elohist) appears (a) from the more reasonable attitude attributed to Joseph, (b) from the ignoring of Simeon’s confinement, and (c) the consequent postponement of the second journey to the last moment, and (d) the divergent account of the first meeting with Joseph (page 473). Positive points of contact with Yahwist are (a) the discovery of the money at the first halting-place (43²¹), (b) Judah as spokesman and leader (433 ff. 8 ff. 4414. 18 ff.), (c) the name Israel (436. 8. 11), and the expressions: אֹכֶל, 432. 4. 20. 22 441. 25; האיש (of Joseph, without qualification), 433. 5. 6 f. 11. 13 f. 44²⁶; ונחיה ולא נמות, 43⁸; התמהמהּ, 43¹⁰; ירד and הוריד, 4311. 15. 20. 22; אמתחת, 4312. 18. 21 ff. 441 f. 8. 11 f.; מלון, 43²¹; מספוא, 43²⁴; קרה אסון, 44²⁹. The only clear traces of Elohist’s parallel narrative are the allusions to Simeon in 4314. 23b. Procksch makes 12a. (∥ 12bα) 13. 14. 15aβb. 16aα. 23b a continuous sequence from Elohist; but the evidence is conflicting (note האיש, ¹⁴; וירדו, 15b): see, however, on ¹².
1–14. The journey resolved on.—2. Jacob speaks in evident ignorance of the stipulation regarding Benjamin; hence 42³⁸ (Yahwist) stands out of its proper place. The motive of the transposition is obvious, viz., to account for the seeming rejection of Reuben’s sponsorship in 42³⁷.
The original order in Yahwist can be recovered by the help of 4425 ff.. After verse ² there must have been an announcement, in terms similar to 44²⁶, of the necessity for taking Benjamin with them, to which Jacob replies with the resolute refusal of 43³⁸ (compare 44²⁹). Then follows (3 ff.) the more emphatic declaration of Judah, and his explanation of the circumstances out of which the inexorable demand had arisen (see Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 59 f.).
3–5. Judah’s ultimatum. On the difference of representation from Elohist, see page 473 above.—6. The reproachful question is intelligible only on the understanding that Jacob has just heard for the first time that he must part with Benjamin.—7. according to the tenor, etc.] In accordance with the governor’s leading questions.—8–10. Judah becomes responsible for Benjamin’s safety (as in Elohist Reuben, 42³⁷).—9. I shall be a sinner, etc.] For the idea, compare 1 Kings 1²¹: guilt is measured not by the moral intention, but by the external consequences, of an action.—11–14. Jacob yields to the inevitable; but with characteristic shrewdness suggests measures that may somewhat ease the situation.—11. the produce of the land] its rarer products, as a token of homage. On זִמְרָה, v.i.—On צֳרִי, לֹט, נְכֹאת, see 37²⁵.—honey] may here mean grape-syrup, the dibs of modern Syria (see Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 81, iii. 381); but there seems no reason to depart from the usual Old Testament sense of the word, viz., the honey of the wild-bee (see Kennedy’s careful article in Encyclopædia Biblica, 2104 ff.).—pistachio-nuts (v.i.) are highly esteemed as a delicacy in Egypt and Syria, although the tree is said to be rarely found in Palestine (according to Rosen, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xii. 502, not at all).—12. double money ... and the money, etc.] can hardly mean double money besides that which had been returned; unless (Procksch) the first clause be a variant from Elohist, we must take וְ as = ‘namely.’—14. ’Ēl Shaddai does not occur elsewhere in Yahwist or Elohist (see on 17¹), and may be redactional. On the composition of the verse, v.i.—as I am bereaved, etc.] An utterance of subdued resignation: compare 42³⁶, 2 Kings 7⁴, Esther 4¹⁶.
3. בלתי] followed by nominal sentence, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 163 c.—Instead of אתכם, LXX has ὁ νεώτερος καταβῇ πρὸς μέ.—5. משלח] LXX + τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν μεθ’ ἡμῶν.—10. כי עתה] ‘in that case,’ as 31⁴²; see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 159 ee.—11. זִמְרָה] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. LXX καρποί, Vulgate optimis fructibus, TargumOnkelos דַּמְשֶׂבַּֽח בארעא, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word). The meaning is obscure. The derivation from √ זמר, ‘praise’ [in song] (Vulgate, TargumOnkelos-Jonathan, Tuch, al.) is perhaps too poetic to be natural, though it yields a good sense; that from √ זמר, ‘prune,’ is hardly suitable (see Dillmann). D. H. Müller (in Gesenius Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums¹⁰ page 983) connects with Aramaic (‡ Syriac word), ‘admire’: ‘admirable products,’—practically the same idea as Tuch. (On Arabic ḏamara, ḏimār [agreeing phonetically with Aramaic and Hebrew], v. Lane, 977 f.)—בטנים] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. Almost certainly nuts of Pistacia vera, belonging to the terebinth family (hence LXX τερέμ[β]ινθον, so Vulgate), for which the Syrian name is (‡ Syriac word) (Aramaic בוטנא, Arabic buṭm, Assyrian buṭnu); see Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v.—12. כסף משנה] compare משנה כסף, verse ¹⁵; and see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 131 e, q.—המושֶׂב] See Baer-Delitzsch page 79 (‘pathachatum uti expresse ait Masora’), Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 72 bb, 93 pp.—14. אחר] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX האחד. The phrasing is peculiar, and suggests that RedactorJehovist may have added to Yahwist the words אחר ואת־בנימין, at the same time inserting לכם (which LXX omits), to bring about the desired allusion to Simeon.—שכָֽלתי] Pausal: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 29 u.
15–25. In Joseph’s house.—15. They first present themselves before Joseph at his official bureau, and are afterwards conducted by the steward to his private residence. The house of a wealthy Egyptian of the 18th dynasty will be found described in Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 153, 177 ff.—16. Joseph’s desire to ‘set his eyes on’ Benjamin being now gratified, he rewards his brothers by a display of kindness which must have seemed excessive.—slay and make ready] In Egypt, according to Herodotus ii. 37, 77, Diodorus i. 70, flesh was eaten daily by priests and kings, although the former had to abstain from certain kinds of animal food (Knobel-Dillmann).—18. To the simple-minded peasants all this looks like an elaborate military stratagem to overwhelm them by main force and reduce them to slavery.—19–22. To forestall the suspicion of theft, they offer to return the money found in their sacks.—in its full weight] On the weighing of money, see 23¹⁶.—23. your money came to me] Therefore what you found has nothing to do with it. The steward has entered into Joseph’s purpose, and encourages them to believe that it was a supernatural occurrence, but of auspicious omen, and not, as they had imagined, a calamity.—The notice of Simeon’s release is here inserted as the most convenient place, from Elohist.—24. Compare 24³².—25. they had heard, etc.] In conversation with the steward (compare verse ¹⁶).
16. אִתָּם] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate אֹתָם וְ.—בנימין] LXX + אחיו בן־אמו (verse ²⁹).—טְבֹחַ] The only case of imperative in ō with final guttural (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 65 b).—18. וייראו] LXX וַיִּרְאוּ.—השב] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX הַמּוּשָׁב (verse ¹²).—להתגלל] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. Peshiṭtå, TargumOnkelos read להתגדל (see Ball). LXX τοῦ συκοφαντῆσαι ἡμᾶς, Vulgate ut devolvat in nos calumniam. The text is not to be questioned.—20. בִּי] Always followed by אדני (44¹⁸, Exodus 410. 13, Numbers 12¹¹ Joshua 7⁸, Judges 613. 15 13⁸, 1 Samuel 1²⁶, 1 Kings 317. 26†). It is commonly derived from √ בעה, ‘ask,’ or (Brown-Driver-Briggs) Arabic bayya, ‘entreat’: might it not rather be regarded as a shortening of אָבִי (2 Kings 5¹³, Job 34³⁶) from √ אבה, ‘be willing’?—23. אביכם] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX אבתיכם.—24. האיש—ויתן] LXX omits.—25. יאכלו] LXX more easily יאכל (of Joseph).
26–34. At Joseph’s table.—27, 28. Joseph’s courteous inquiries as to their welfare and that of their father are a studied prelude to—29–31, his profound emotion at the sight of Benjamin,—his (full) brother, the son of his mother. The disparity in age must have been great (בְּנִי): one wonders whether the narrative does not presuppose that Benjamin had been born since Joseph had been lost.—30, 31. For the second time (42²⁴) Joseph’s affection finds relief in tears, and again he restrains himself, that he may carry out his plan.—The interlude reveals, as Gunkel remarks, a power of psychological observation which is absent from the oldest legends.—32–34. The feast brings two more surprises: the arrangement of the brothers in the order of seniority (see on 42²⁴); and the special favour shown to Benjamin.—32 affords an interesting glimpse of Egyptian manners. Joseph’s isolation at table was perhaps due to his having been admitted a member of the priestly caste (41⁴⁵), which kept itself apart from the laity (Knobel-Dillmann). The Egyptian exclusiveness in intercourse with foreigners, which would have been perfectly intelligible to the later Jews, evidently struck the ancient Israelites as peculiar (Gunkel). Compare Herodotus ii. 41.—34. The custom of honouring a guest by portions from the table is illustrated by 2 Samuel 11⁸; compare Homer, Iliad vii. 321 f., Odyssey iv. 65 f., xiv. 437.—five times].
It is hardly accidental that the number five occurs so often in reference to matters Egyptian (41³⁴ 45²² 472. 24, Isaiah 19¹⁸). Whether there be an allusion to the five planets recognised by the Egyptians (Knobel), or to their ten days’ week (Dillmann), it is impossible to say. Jeremias (Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 385) connects it with the five intercalary days by which the Egyptian calendar adjusted the difference between the conventionalised lunar year (12 months of 30 days) and the solar year (365 days),—these belonging to Benjamin as the representative of the 12th month! The explanation is too ingenious, and overlooks the occurrence of the numeral where Benjamin is not concerned.
26. ויביאׄו] On Daghesh or Mappiq in א, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 14 d.—ארצה] LXX prefix אפים.—27. השלום] noun? or adjective? See Gesenius-Kautzsch § 141 c⁴.—28. After Athnach The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX insert ויאמר ברוך האיש ההוא לאלהים,—a parallel to the benediction on Benjamin (²⁹): clumsy in expression and hardly original.—29. אמרתם] LXX + להביא,—an interesting and perhaps correct addition.—יָחנך] for יְחָנְךָ (as Isaiah 30¹⁹); see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 n.—30. וימהר ויבקש] ‘hastily sought,’ though an intermediate clause between the complementary verbs is very unusual.—אל] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch על.—32. למצרַיִם] Better לַמִּצְרִים: so versions Ball.—LXX adds πᾶς ποιμὴν προβάτων, in mistaken accommodation to 46³⁴.—34. וישא] LXX, Peshiṭtå וישאו.—ידות] = ‘shares’ or ‘times,’ 47²⁴, 2 Kings 11⁷, 2 Samuel 19⁴⁴, Nehemiah 11¹, Daniel 1²⁰†.—וישכרו] hardly ‘got drunk’: שכר of convivial drinking, Haggai 1⁶, Canticles 5¹.
XLIV. 1–17. The cup in Benjamin’s sack.—1, 2. This final test of the brethren’s disposition is evidently arranged between Joseph and the steward on the evening of the banquet, to be carried out at daybreak (verse ³).—1b. each man’s money, etc.] Though this seems a useless repetition of 42⁵⁵, with no consequences in the sequel, the clause ought scarcely to be omitted (with Gunkel) before 2a.—2. the silver cup] Joseph’s ordinary drinking-vessel, but at the same time an implement of divination (verse ⁵): therefore his most precious possession.—3–5. The trap is skilfully laid: just when they have emerged from the city, and think all danger is left behind, exulting in the fresh morning air, and still unwearied by travel, they are arrested by the steward’s challenge, and finally plunged in despair.—4. Why have ye ... good?] LXX adds, ‘Why have ye stolen my silver cup?’ The addition seems necessary in view of the following זֶה.—5. and, moreover, he divines with (or in) it] See on verse ¹⁵.
On the widely prevalent species of divination referred to (κυλικομαντεία, λεκανομαντεία,), compare Augustine, De civitate Dei, vii. 35; Strabo, XVI. ii. 39; Iamblichus, De mysteriis iii. 14. Various methods seem to have been employed; e.g., amongst the Babylonians oil was poured into a vessel of water, and from its movements omens were deduced according to a set of fixed rules of interpretation: see Hunger, Becherwahrsagung bei den Babyloniern nach zwei Keilschriften aus der Hammurabi-zeit (Leipziger Semitistische Studien, 1903, i. 1–80).—An interesting modern parallel is quoted by Driver (358¹), and Hunger (4), from the Travels of Norden (circa 1750), where a Nubian sheikh says: ‘I have consulted my cup, and I find that you are Franks in disguise, who have come to spy out the land.’
1. LXX inserts Ἰωσήφ as subject.—יוכלון שאת] Ball plausibly, יוכלו לשאת.—2. גָּבִיעַ] Used of the golden cups of the candlestick (Exodus 2531 ff. 3717 ff.); elsewhere only Jeremiah 35⁵, along with the ordinary word for ‘cup’ (כּוֹס), of the ‘bowls’ of wine set before the Rechabites.—3, 4. On the syntax of these verses see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 142 e, 156 f; Davidson §§ 141, 41, R. 3. The addition in LXX runs: ἵνα τί ἐκλέψατέ μου τὸ κόνδυ τὸ ἀργυροῦν;.—5. נַחֵשׁ] The derivation of this verb from נָחָשׁ, ‘serpent,’ first suggested by Bochartus (Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ i. 3), is supported by (amongst others) Nöldeke (Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft, i. 413) and Baudissin (Studien zur semitischen religionsgeschichte i. 287); on the other hand, see Wellhausen Skizzen und Vorarbeiten., iii. 147; and William Robertson Smith The Journal of Philology xiv. 115.
6–9. The brethren appeal to their honesty in the matter of the money returned in their sacks, and propose the severest punishment—death to the thief, slavery for the rest—should the missing article be found with them.—10. The servant holds them to their pledge, but offers easier terms: the thief alone shall be Joseph’s slave.—11–13. To the dismay of the brethren the cup is found in Benjamin’s sack.—12. beginning ... youngest] A calculated strain on the brethren’s suspense, and (on the part of the narrator) an enhancement of the reader’s interest: compare 1 Samuel 166 ff..—13. Their submissiveness shows that no suspicion of a trick crossed their minds; their sense of an adverse fate was quickened by the still unsolved mystery of the money in the sacks, to which they had so proudly appealed in proof of their innocence.—14–17. The brethren before Joseph.—14. he was still there] had not gone out to his place of business (see 4315. 17), but was waiting for them.—15. that a man in my position (one of the wise men of Egypt) can divine.
It is difficult to say how much is implied in this claim of superhuman knowledge on Joseph’s part. No doubt it links itself on the one hand to the feeling in the brethren’s mind that a divine power was working against them, and on the other to the proofs they had had of the governor’s marvellous insight. But whether Joseph is conceived as really practising divination, or only as wishing his brothers to think so, does not appear. Not improbably, as Gunkel surmises, the motive comes from an older story, in which the prototype of Joseph actually achieved his ends by means of occult knowledge.
8. כסף¹] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch הכסף.—9. אתו] LXX + τὸ κόνδυ.—ומת] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch יומת, equally good.—12. החל ... כלה] infinitives absolute (הָחֵל ... כַּלֵּה) would be more idiomatic than the perfect (so Ball).
16. God has found out, etc.] The exclamation does not necessarily imply consciousness of particular guilt (see on 43⁹), and is certainly not meant as a confession of the wrong done to Joseph: at the same time we may be sure that that is the crime to which their secret thoughts gravitate (4221 ff.).—17. Judah’s proposal that all should remain as slaves is rejected by Joseph, who insists on separating Benjamin’s fate from that of the rest. Did he purpose to retain him by his side, while sustaining the rest of the family in their homes?
16. Wellhausen (Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 60) would omit יהודה and read ויאמרו; but the text is safeguarded by verse ¹⁴, and the change is uncalled for. Judah speaks here in the name of all, in 18 ff. for himself.
18–34. Judah’s plea for Benjamin.—The speech, which is the finest specimen of dignified and persuasive eloquence in the Old Testament, is perhaps modelled on the style of forensic oratory to which the Hebrews were accustomed in public assemblies at the city gates (contrast the stilted oration of Tertullus in Acts 24). Sincerity and depth of feeling are not more remarkable than the skilful selection and disposition of the points most likely to appeal to the governor: (1) a recital of the interview in which Joseph had insisted on Benjamin being brought down (19–23); (2) a pathetic description of the father’s reluctance to part with him, overcome only by the harsh necessity of hunger (24–29); (3) a suggestion of the death-stroke which their return without Benjamin would inflict on their aged parent (30. 31); and, lastly, (4) the speaker’s personal request to be allowed to redeem his honour by taking Benjamin’s punishment on himself (32–34).—The Massoretes commence a new Parashah with verse ¹⁸, rightly perceiving that Judah’s speech is the turning-point in the relations between Joseph and his brethren.—19–23. On the divergent representations of Yahwist and Elohist, see on page 473 above.—20. to his mother] See page 449.—28. The words of Jacob enable Judah to draw a veil over the brothers’ share in the tragedy of Joseph.—and I have not seen him till now] Compare the rugged pathos of Lowell’s
“Whose comin’ home there’s them that wan’t—
No, not life-long—leave off awaitin’.”
The simple words, with their burden of suppressed emotion, have a meaning for the governor of which the speaker is all unconscious.—29. in trouble to She’ōl] Compare 42³⁸ 37³⁵ 44³¹.—30. his soul (not ‘life’) is bound up, etc.] a figure for inalienable affection; as 1 Samuel 18¹.
18. כמוך כפ׳] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 161 c.—20. לאמו] LXX לאביו.—24. אבי] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå אבינו (so LXX, Peshiṭtå in ²⁷, and LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate in ³⁰).—28. ואמר] LXX καὶ εἴπατε.—31. הנער] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå + אִתָּנוּ (as verse ³⁰).—32. אבי] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch אביו, Peshiṭtå אבינו.—34. אתי] LXX אִתָּנוּ.