The crisis so slowly matured and so skilfully led up to is at last reached, and in a scene of inimitable power and tenderness Joseph makes himself known to his brethren (1–8). In a message to his father he discloses his plans for the future, inviting the whole family to settle in Egypt while the famine lasted (9–15). The invitation is confirmed by the king (16–20); and the brethren depart laden with rich gifts and provision for the journey (21–24). Jacob, after a momentary incredulity, is cheered by the prospect of seeing Joseph before his death (25–28).
The sources, Elohist and Yahwist, are here so intimately blended that a complete analysis is impossible. The main fact is the preponderance of Elohist, which appears both from language (אלהים, 5. 7. 8. 9; יעקב, ²⁵; חרה בעינֵי, ⁵ [31³⁵]; צדה, ²¹ [42²⁵]; בר, ²³; perhaps also מזון, ²³; and טענו את־בעירכם, ¹⁷ [contrast Yahwist’s ויעמס על־חמרו, 44¹³]), and representation: contrast verse ³ with 4327 f., 17–20 with 46³¹–47⁵ (Yahwist), where Joseph’s kindred are apparently brought under Pharaoh’s notice for the first time. Indubitable traces of Yahwist are found in 4b. 5a (the selling of Joseph), ¹⁰ (Goshen,—see the notes), ²⁸ (ישראל); these are supported by the expressions, התאפק, 1a (as 43³¹); נעצב, 5a; הוריד, ¹³; נפל על־צוארי, ¹⁴. Thus far in the main Wellhausen and Dillmann. More subtle and less reliable criteria are applied by Gunkel (402 f., 406), and (with very different results) by Procksch (52 f.). It is probable that ³ (Elohist) is ∥ ⁴ (Yahwist), and (against Procksch) ⁹ (Elohist) ∥ ¹³ (Yahwist). But it is very doubtful if the dismissal of the attendants (¹) be inconsistent with the overhearing of the weeping (²), or if the latter be necessarily connected with the Pharaoh’s invitation (16 ff.).—Some minor questions, such as the ‘waggons’ of 19. 21. 27 (compare 46⁵), and the authorship of verses 19–21, must be reserved for the notes.
1–8. The disclosure.—1, 2. Joseph’s self-restraint gives way before Judah’s irresistible appeal.—It is pressing matters too far to say that the dismissal of the attendants is a device to keep his relation to the strangers a secret from Pharaoh (see on the sources above).—3. is my father yet alive?) The question is slightly less natural in the context of Yahwist (see 4326 f. 4424 ff.) than in Elohist, where the absence of any mention of Jacob since the first visit (42¹³) might leave room for uncertainty in Joseph’s mind. But since he does not wait for an answer, the doubt can hardly be real.—were troubled before him] Compare 5015–21 (also Elohist).—4. Yahwist’s parallel to verse ³,—probably the immediate continuation of verse ¹ (compare 44¹⁸).—5–8. With singular generosity Joseph reassures them by pointing out the providential purpose which had overruled their crime for good; compare 50²⁰. The profoundly religious conviction which recognises the hand of God, not merely in miraculous interventions, but in the working out of divine ends through human agency and what we call secondary causes, is characteristic of the Joseph-narrative amongst the legends of Genesis: see Gunkel 404 (compare chapter 24).—7. שְׁאֵרִית] ‘remnant,’ perhaps in the sense of ‘descendants’ (2 Samuel 14⁷, Jeremiah 44⁷). But the use of פְּלֵיטָה (strictly ‘escaped remnant,’ compare 32⁹) is difficult, seeing the whole family was saved (v.i.).—8. a father to Pharaoh] Probably an honorific title of the chief minister (compare 1 Maccabees 11³², Add. Esther 3¹³ 8¹²); see, further, inf.
1. התודע] Numbers 12⁶† (Elohist?).—2. מצרַיִם] LXX כל־המצרִים. The pointing מצרִים without article (Gunkel) is no improvement.—וישמע] LXX, Peshiṭtå וַיִּשָּׁמַע, as in verse ¹⁶; so Holzinger, Gunkel. The clause, however, is best regarded as a doublet of the preceding, in which case Massoretic Text is preferable.—3. יוסף²] LXX + ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν, ὃν ἀπέδοσθε εἰς Αἴγυπτον (as verse ⁴).—מפניו] LXX omits.—4a. LXXᴬ omits entirely.—5. ואל־יחר בעיניכם] (compare 31³⁵) is Elohist’s variant to אל־תעצבו (6⁶ 34⁷ Yahwist).—מִחְיָה] In Judges 6⁴ 17¹⁰ the word signifies ‘means of subsistence’; in 2 Chronicles 14¹² perhaps ‘preservation of life’; and so here if the pointing be right. Ball plausibly emends מְחַיֶּה, ‘preserver of life’ (1 Samuel 2⁶).—6. חריש וקציר] Exodus 34²¹ (Yahwist?).—7. החיות לפליטה] The want of an object after הח׳ is harsh (compare 47²⁵ 50²⁰). The omission of the ל (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Olshausen, Ball, al.) improves the grammar, but the sense remains unsatisfying (v.s.).—8. אב ... אדון] That the words are used in their Hebrew sense (‘father’ ... ‘lord’) is not to be questioned; in spite of the fact that Brugsch has compared two Egyptian titles, identical in form but altogether different in meaning (see Driver A Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 774; Strack, page 157 f.).
9–15. Joseph’s message to his father.—That both Yahwist and Elohist recorded the invitation may be regarded as certain, apart from nice questions of literary analysis: Eerdmans’ suggestion that, in Yahwist, Jacob conceived the project of going down to Egypt “auf eigene Faust” (Die Komposition der Genesis 65, 70) being contrary to every natural view of the situation. We may therefore be prepared to find traces of the dual narrative in these verses.—10. On the land of Goshen, see the footnote.—be near to me] The clause is not inconsistent with the preceding; for, as compared with Canaan, Goshen was certainly ‘near’ to where Joseph dwelt. Nevertheless it is best regarded as a variant from Elohist, continued in 11a. It is only in Yahwist that the Israelites are represented as dwelling in Goshen.—12–15. The close of Joseph’s speech, followed by his affectionate embrace, and the free converse of the brethren.—13 and 14 (Yahwist) are respectively parallel to ⁹ and ¹⁵ (Elohist).
10. גשן] LXX Γέσεμ Ἀραβίας (as 46³⁴). The name is peculiar to Yahwist (4628. 29. 34 471. 4. 6. 27 50⁸, Exodus 8¹⁸ 9²⁶†); Priestly-Code has ‘land of Ramses’ (47¹¹), compare Exodus 1¹¹ 12³⁷, Numbers 33⁵); while Elohist uses no geographical designation. That Priestly-Code and Yahwist mean the same locality is intrinsically probable (though Naville considers that the land of Ramses was a larger area than Goshen), and is confirmed by recent excavations. The city of Pithom (see on 46²⁸) has been identified by Naville with the modern Tell el-Maskhuṭa, 12 miles West of Ismailia, in Wādī Ṭumīlāt, a long and narrow valley leading “straight from the heart of the Delta to a break in the chain of the Bitter Lakes,” and therefore marking a weak spot in the natural defences of Egypt (Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 525 f.). In the same region, though not quite so far East, excavations at the village of Ṣafṭ el-Ḥenneh have established its identity with Pa-soft (also called on local inscriptions Kes), which is stated to have been the capital of the 20th Nome of Lower Egypt. A rare name of this nome is Kesem; and it is at least a plausible conjecture that this is the same as the biblical גּשֶׁן (Γέσεμ); and if so the situation of Goshen is fixed as a part of Wādī Ṭumīlāt surrounding Saft el-Ḥenneh. A confirmation of this may be found in the Ἀραβία of LXX, for this in Græco-Roman times (Ptolemy iv. 5, 53) was the name of one of the 23 nomes of the Delta, whose capital Φακοῦσσα (compare Strabo, XVII. i. 26) has long been conjectured to be the ancient Kes, preceded by the article pa.—See Naville, Land of Goshen, etc. (Fifth Memoir of EEF, 1887), 15 ff., 20; Store City of Pithom, etc. (⁴ 1903), 4 ff.; Spiegelberg, Der Aufenthalt Israels in Aegypten im Lichte der aegyptischen Monumente etc. 52; Müller in Encyclopædia Biblica, 1758 ff.; and Griffith in BD, ii. 232 f.—11. כלכל] compare 50²¹ (Elohist).—פן־תורש] ‘lest thou come to want’ (literally ‘be dispossessed’); compare Judges 14¹⁵, Proverbs 20¹³ 23²¹ 30⁹.
16–20. Pharaoh’s invitation.—This, as already explained, is peculiar to Elohist. It is just possible (though hardly probable) that in this source Joseph’s invitation (9–11) extended only to his father, while the idea of transplanting the whole family emanated from the king.—16a. Compare verse ².—18. the best of the land (v.i.) ... the fat of the land] The expressions are not altogether inapplicable to Goshen (Wādī Ṭumīlāt), which was rendered fertile by a canal, and is still spoken of as the best pasture-land in Egypt (Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, i. 53 f.). But since Elohist never mentions a separate location in Goshen, there is no need to force that sense upon them; the meaning is general: the best of everything that Egypt can afford (v.i.).—19. The opening words (v.i.) throw some doubt on the originality of the verse; and there certainly seems no more reason for ascribing it to Yahwist (Gunkel) than to Elohist.—The baggage-waggon (עֲגָלָה) is said to have been introduced into Egypt from Canaan, with its Semitic name (Egyptian ‛agolt): Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 491.¹—20. Let not your eye pity] The phrase is Deuteronomic, and seems a very strong one for concern about household implements. According to Yahwist (10b. 11b 461. 32) they brought ‘all they possessed,’ which, if they were half-nomads, would be possible without waggons.
17. טען] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Aramaic); contrast עמס, 44¹³ (Yahwist).—בעיר Exodus 22⁴, Numbers 204. 8. 11 (Elohist), Psalms 78⁴⁸†.—18. טוּב] = ‘best things,’ as verses 20. 23 24¹⁰, 2 Kings 8⁹; LXX πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν.—For ‘the best part,’ Priestly-Code uses מֵיטָב (476. 11).—19. ואתה צֻּוֵּיתָה] The passive is awkward in itself, and has no syntactic connexion with the following זאת עשו [hence Peshiṭtå inserts (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word)]. Dillmann, Kittel emend ואתה צַוֵּה אֹתָם; Ball ואתה צוה את־זאת (after LXX Σὺ δὲ ἔντειλαι ταῦτα; compare Vulgate); Gunkel וְאֹתָהּ צִוֵּיתִי: the first is best. But it is still difficult to understand the extreme emphasis laid on this point; and a suspicion remains that either the whole verse (Dillmann), or the introduction, is due to a scribe who wished to make it clear that the waggons were not sent without Pharaoh’s express authority: see on verse ²¹.
21–28. The brethren return to Canaan.—22. Presents of expensive clothes are a common mark of courtesy in the East: compare Judges 1412 f. 19, 2 Kings 55. 22 f..—changes of raiment] such as were substituted for ordinary clothing on festal occasions (see on 27¹⁵).—Benjamin receives five such suits: see on 43³⁴.—23. of the best (produce) of Egypt] A munificent return for Jacob’s modest complimentary present (43¹¹).—corn and bread and sustenance for the journey] compare verse ²⁰.—24. Do not get excited by the way] sc., with mutual recriminations,—a caution suggested by 42²².—25–28. Jacob’s reception of the tidings.—26. his heart became cold, or numb] unable to take in the startling intelligence, as too good to be true.—27. But gradually, as they rehearse the words of Joseph, and show him the waggons as a pledge of his power, his spirit revived] he recovered his wonted energy of thought and action.—28. From Yahwist.—It is enough] The father’s heart is indifferent to Joseph’s grandeur (9. 11) and princely gifts; the fact that his son lives is sufficient consolation for all he has endured (compare 46³⁰). The psychology of old age could not be more sympathetically or convincingly treated.
21. ויעשו—ישראל] The statement is premature, and furnishes an additional indication that this part of the narrative has been worked over. The repeated ויתן also suggests a doublet or interpolation. In 19–21, Dillmann leaves to Elohist only ויתן להם י׳ עגלות ויתן להם צדה לדרך; Kautzsch-Socin only the second of these clauses, the rest being redactional.—צדה לדרך] as 42²⁵ (Elohist).—23. כְזאת] (so pointed only here): ‘in like manner’ (Judges 8⁸).—מזון) (2 Chronicles 11²³†) from an Aramaic √ זון = ‘feed.’—Of the three nouns, בר, לחם, and מזון, LXX expresses only לחם. Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac word), ‘wine,’ for לחם, but perhaps through dittography of (‡ Syriac word), ‘asses.’—24. אל תרגזו] LXX μὴ ὀργίζεσθε, Vulgate Ne irascamini, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), TargumOnkelos לא תתנצון (‘quarrel’). But the Hebrew verb denotes simply agitation, by whatever emotion produced.—26. פּוּג] In Arabic and Syriac the √ means to be or grow ‘cold,’ in Syriac, also, and New Hebrew, figuratively ‘grow inactive,’ ‘fail,’ ‘vanish’; in Old Testament the prevailing idea seems to be that of numbness (Brown-Driver-Briggs); compare Habakkuk 1⁴ (of tôrâh), Psalms 38⁹.—28. רב] As an exclamation = ‘enough!’; compare Exodus 9²⁸, Numbers 163. 7, Deuteronomy 1⁶ 2³ etc.
Jacob, encouraged by a night vision at Beersheba, takes his departure for Egypt (1–7): (here is inserted a list of the persons who were supposed to accompany him, 8–27). He sends Judah to announce his arrival to Joseph, who proceeds to Goshen and tenderly welcomes his father (28–30). Having instructed his brethren in the part he wishes them to play (31–34), Joseph presents five of them before Pharaoh, and obtains permission for them to settle for a time in Goshen (471–6). Jacob’s interview with Pharaoh closes the account of the migration (7–12).
Sources.—The narrative of Jehovist is several times interrupted by excerpts from Priestly-Code, whose peculiar style and viewpoint can be recognised in 466–27 475. 6a. 7–11 (but see the notes below, page 439 ff.).—Disregarding these verses, we have a continuous Yahwist narrative from 46²⁸–47⁶: note ישראל, 29. 30; Goshen, 28. 29. 34. 1. 4. 6b; the leadership of Judah, ²⁸; the ignoring of Pharaoh’s invitation (4517 ff. Elohist); נפל על צוארי, ²⁹; הפעם, ³⁰; מנעורינו, בעבור, ³⁴.—461–5 is in the main from Elohist, as appears from the night vision, the form of address, ²; Jacob’s implied hesitation, ³ (contrast 45²⁸); the name Jacob, 2. 5a; אלהים, ²; אֵל, ³.—1a (ישראל) and possibly 5b belong to Yahwist.—47¹² is doubtful,—probably Elohist (כלכל, as 45¹¹).—See Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 60 f.; Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel, Procksch, 54 f. (who assigns 47⁷ to Elohist instead of Priestly-Code and 47¹² to Yahwist).
1–7. Jacob bids farewell to Canaan.—1. came to Be’ersheba‛] There is in Elohist no clear indication of where Jacob lived after his return from Laban (see on 35¹). If at Beersheba, the above clause is redactional, written on the assumption that he started from Hebron (37¹⁴ Yahwist). The point would be determined if 5b were the original continuation of 5a, for it is absurd to suppose that the waggons were first put to use in the middle of the journey (Wellhausen). But even apart from that, the natural view undoubtedly is that Jacob would not start until his misgivings were removed in answer to his sacrifice, and that consequently his dwelling-place at this time was Beersheba. That he sacrificed at the last patriarchal sanctuary on the way is a much less plausible explanation.—the God of ... Isaac] Isaac is apparently regarded as the founder of the sanctuary, as in chapter 26 (YahwistHebron); an Elohistic parallel to that tradition may have existed though in 21³¹ (Elohist with YahwistBeersheba) its consecration is attributed to Abraham.—2–4. The last of the patriarchal theophanies. Compare 121 ff., where the theophany sanctions the occupation of Canaan, as this sanctions the leaving of it (Dillmann); and 26², where, under circumstances similar to Jacob’s, Isaac is forbidden to go down to Egypt.—3. the God of thy father] As elsewhere in Genesis, אֵל denotes the local numen, who here distinguishes himself from other divine beings,—a trace of the primitive polytheistic representation (compare 31¹³ 35¹ 33²⁰ 21³³ 16¹³).—Fear not, etc.] The purpose of the revelation is to remove the misgiving natural to an old man called to leave his hearth and his altar. The thought is confined to Elohist (contrast 45²⁸ Yahwist).—for ... nation] The words, if genuine, should follow the immediate grounds of comfort in verse ⁴. They are probably to be regarded (with Kautzsch-Socin, Gunkel, al.) as an expansion of the same character as 1314 ff. 2215 ff. 28¹⁴ etc.—4. I will go down with thee] So in 31¹³ the ’Ēl of Bethel is with Jacob in Mesopotamia.—bring thee up] The reference must be to the Exodus (Exodus 3⁸ 6⁸ etc.), not to Jacob’s burial in Canaan (4729 f. 505 ff.).—lay his hand upon thine eyes] i.e., close them after death; for classical parallels, compare Homer Iliad xi. 453, Odyssey xi. 426, xxiv. 296; Euripides Phœnician Women 1451 f., Hecuba 430; Virgil Aeneid ix. 487, etc. (Knobel-Dillmann).—6, 7. Priestly-Code’s summary of the migration (v.i.).
1. באר שבע] LXX here and verse ⁵ τὸ φρέαρ τοῦ ὅρκου (see page 326).—2. לישראל] The word has crept in from verse ¹ through an inadvertence of the redactor or a later scribe: “‘God said to Israel, Jacob! Jacob!’ is a sentence which no original writer would have penned” (Wellhausen).—On the form of the verse, see on 22¹¹.—3. מַֽרְדָה] From רֵדָה, the rare form of infinitive construct of פ״י verbs, peculiar to Elohist: see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 69 m²; Holzinger Einleitung in den Hexateuch 190.—4. גם עלה] See on 27³³ 31¹⁵. LXX εἰς τέλος.—5. יעקב ²] LXX omits.—פרעה] LXX Ἰωσηφ.—6, 7. Compare 12⁵ 31¹⁸ 36⁶ (Priestly-Code). Further marks of Priestly-Code: רכש, רכוש, זרעו אתו (177. 9 f. 35¹²), and the redundant phraseology.
8–27. A list of Jacob’s immediate descendants.—The passage professes to give the names of those who went down with Jacob to Egypt, but is in reality a list of the leading clans of the Israelite tribes, closely corresponding to Numbers 265 ff.. These traditionally numbered seventy (compare the 70 elders, Exodus 241. 9, Numbers 11¹⁶). Closely connected with this was another tradition, that the number of the Israelites at the settlement in Egypt was 70 (Deuteronomy 10²²). In the more careful statement of Exodus 1⁵ (Priestly-Code), this means all the descendants of Jacob at the time: i.e., it includes Joseph (and presumably his sons, though they were in Egypt already) and, of course, excludes Jacob himself. In the mind of the writer of the present passage these two traditional schemes appear to have got mixed up and confused. As it stands, it is neither an accurate enumeration of Jacob’s descendants (for the number 70 includes Jacob and excludes Er and Onan), nor a list of those who accompanied him to Egypt (for it embraces Joseph and his sons: see on 26 f.). When cleared of certain obvious accretions (יעקב ובניו ⁸; 12bα; 15aγ; ובנתיו 15b; ששים ושש ²⁶ and the whole of ²⁷ except the last word שבעים), we find as its nucleus a list of Jacob’s sons and grandsons, originally compiled without reference to the migration to Egypt, on the basis of some such census-list as Numbers 265 ff.
That the section belongs in general to the Priestly strata of the Pentateuch is seen from its incompatibility with the narrative (and particularly the chronology) of Jehovist; from its correspondence with Numbers 265 ff., Exodus 614 ff.; and from literary indications (ואלה שמות, ⁸ [compare 25¹³ 36¹⁰]; פדן ארם, ¹⁵; נפש 15. 18. 22. 25–27; יצאי ירך, ²⁶). As regards its relation to the main document of Priestly-Code, three views are possible: (1) That the list was originally drawn up by Priestly-Code, and afterwards accommodated to the tradition of Jehovist by a later editor (Nöldeke, Dillmann, al.). This implies the perfectly tenable assumption that Priestly-Code did not accept the tradition as to the death of Er and Onan, or that of Benjamin’s extreme youth at the time of the migration; but also the less probable view that he numbered the sons of Joseph amongst those who ‘went down’ to Egypt. (2) That the interpolations are due to Priestly-Code, who thus turned an older list of Jacob’s children into an enumeration of those who accompanied him to Egypt (Driver). The only serious objection to this theory is that it makes Priestly-Code (in opposition to Exodus 1⁵) reckon Jacob as one of the 70. It is nevertheless the most acceptable solution. (3) That the whole section was inserted by a late editor of the school of Priestly-Code (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Gunkel, al.). Even on this hypothesis, the original list will have had nothing to do with the migration to Egypt.—The discrepancy in the computation lies in the first section (8–15). The 33 of verse ¹⁵ was in the original list the true number of the sons of Leah. The interpolator, whoever he was, had to exclude Er and Onan; to make up for this he inserts Dinah (15a), and reckons Jacob amongst the sons of Leah! Another sign of artificial manipulation of the figures appears in the proportions between the number of children assigned to each wife: Leah 32, Zilpah 16, Rachel 14, Bilhah 7 (in all 69); each concubine-wife receiving just half as many children as her mistress. The text of LXX presents some important variations v.i..
8a. The heading is identical with Exodus 11a, except the words יעקב ובניו, which are obviously interpolated (see introductory note).—8b–15. The sons of Leah: viz. four sons of Reuben (verse ⁹), six of Simeon (¹⁰), three of Levi (¹¹), five sons and two grandsons of Judah (¹²), four sons of Issachar (¹³), and three of Zebulun (¹⁴).—15. thirty-three is thus the correct number of sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of Jacob by Leah. To preserve this number intact with the omission of Er and Onan, the interpolator was obliged to add Dinah, and to include Jacob himself (see below).
9. Exactly as Exodus 6¹⁴, Numbers 265 f..—חנוך is also a Midianite tribe (25⁴); the Reubenites occupied Midianite territory (Joshua 13²¹).—חצרון] and כרמי] also Judahite clans (see verse ¹² and Joshua 7¹).—10. (= Exodus 6¹⁵). Numbers 2612 ff. omits אהד and reads נְמוּאֵל for ימואל, and זרח for צהר.—צהר] The name of Ephron’s father in 23⁸.—the son of the Canaanitess] representing a clan of notoriously impure stock.—11. (= Exodus 6¹⁶).—12. As Numbers 2620 f..—The note on the death of Er and Onan is an interpolation (see above).—חצרון] (see on verse ⁹) was a town in Judah (Joshua 15²⁵).—חמול] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch חמואל; LXX Ἰεμουήλ.—13. (= Numbers 2623 f..—תולע] Compare the judge of the same name, son of פואה, of the tribe of Issachar (Judges 10¹).—פֻּוָּה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Peshiṭtå פואה, as 1 Chronicles 7¹, Judges 10¹.—יוב] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch and LXX (Ἰασουβ[φ]) read ישוב as Numbers 26: Winckler connects with Yašub-ilu under the 1st Babylonian dynasty (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 68³).—14. (Numbers 26²⁶).—אלון a Zebulunite judge in Judges 12¹¹.—15. ואת דינה בתו and ובנתיו are glosses.
16–18. The sons of Zilpah (Leah’s handmaid): seven sons of Gad (¹⁶), four sons, one daughter, and two grandsons of Asher (¹⁷): sixteen in all (¹⁸).
16. (As Numbers 2615 ff., with textual differences).—צפיון] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX צפון, as Numbers 26¹⁵.—אצבן] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch אצבעון, LXX Θασοβαν, stands for אזני in Numbers 26¹⁶.—17. ישוה, a variant of the following ישוי (?), does not appear in Numbers 2644 f..—The two grandsons חבר and מלכיאל have been connected with the Ḫabiri and the (chief) Milkili of the Amarna Tablets (Jastrow, Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, xi. 120).
19–22. The sons of Rachel: two of Joseph (²⁰) and ten of Benjamin (²¹), in all fourteen.
20. וַיִּוָּלֵד] LXX + υἱοί. But the relative clause אשר—אן was probably added by the glossator, in which case the בנים of LXX is superfluous.—LXX adds, in partial agreement with Numbers 2629 ff., five names as sons and grandsons of Manasseh and Ephraim.—21. In LXX only the first three names are sons of Benjamin, the next six being sons, and the last a grandson, of Bela‛. Still another grouping is found in Numbers 2638–40.—בכר] (LXX Χόβωρ): compare Sheba‛ the Bichrite in 2 Samuel 20¹: in Numbers 26 בכר is an Ephraimite.—גרא] omitted in Numbers 26, is the clan of Ehud (Judges 3¹⁵) and Shimei (2 Samuel 16⁵).—For the two names אחי וראש, Numbers 2638 f. has אחילם, for מפּים, שפופם or שופם, and for חפּים, חוּפָם (see Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, 35).—נעמן and ארד are sons of בלע in Numbers 26⁴⁰.—22. ילּד] MSS, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX ילדה.
23–25. The sons of Bilhah (Rachel’s maid): one of Dan (²³, in spite of בני), and four of Naphtali (²⁴): seven in all.
23. בני] So Numbers 26⁴², where for חושים we find שׁוּחָם.—24. (as Numbers 2648 f.).—שלם] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch שלום (as 1 Chronicles 7¹³), LXX Συλλήμ.
26, 27. The final summations.
The original computation (70 = 33 + 16 + 14 + 7) included Er and Onan, but excluded Dinah and Jacob. The secondary figure 66 (= 32 + 16 + 11 + 7) excludes Er and Onan, and Joseph and his two sons, but includes Dinah. To make up the original 70 it was necessary to reckon not only the family of Joseph (3), but Jacob himself.—LXX, with its 5 additional descendants of Joseph (see on verse ²⁰), makes the total 75 (so Acts 7¹⁴), but inadvertently substitutes ἐννέα, instead of ἑπτά, for the שנים of Massoretic Text ²⁷, overlooking the fact that both Jacob and Joseph have to be reckoned in the 75.—26. יצאי ירכו] 35¹¹, Exodus 1⁵.—27. ילּד] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ילדו.
28–30. The meeting of Jacob and Joseph.—28. to direct before him to Goshen] The Hebrew here gives no tolerable sense. The meaning cannot be that Judah was to guide the travellers to Goshen, for he is sent straight to Joseph; and for the idea that Joseph was to give the needful instructions for their reception in Goshen (Dillmann), the expression would be extremely harsh. The only natural purpose of Judah’s mission was to bring Joseph to meet his father; and the least difficult course is to read (with versions v.i.): to appear before him in Goshen, which had already been indicated by Joseph as the goal of the journey (45¹⁰).—29. went up] Goshen lying somewhat higher than the Nile-valley.—30. The verse prepares us for the death-bed scenes (4729 ff.), which in Jehovist must have taken place soon after, not as in Priestly-Code at an interval of 17 years.
28. להורות] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX? Peshiṭtå לְהֵרָאוֹת (Wellhausen לְהֵרָיֹת), which is confirmed by וַיֵּרָא in the next verse. There is no need to take the לפניו in a temporal sense. The construction is pregnant, but otherwise unobjectionable; the tone of superiority assumed by Jacob towards Joseph is hardly a serious difficulty. Ball thinks that the συναντῆσαι of LXX implies a reading לְהִקִּרְאוֹת (‘to meet’); but the Niphal of קרה would rather mean ‘to come upon unexpectedly’ (Deuteronomy 22⁶, 2 Samuel 18⁹).—גשנה—גשן] LXX καθ’ Ἡρώων πόλιν εἰς γῆν Ῥαμεσσή. Heroöpolis has been shown by the excavations of Naville (Store City of Pithom, etc.⁴, 5 ff.; compare Gillett in Journal of [the Society of] Biblical Literature and Exegesis, December, 1886, page 69 ff.) to be Pithom (Exodus 1¹¹), now Tell el-Maskhuṭa (see page 488 above). The Bohairic version substitutes Pethom for the Ἡρώων of LXX. LXX thus makes the meeting take place at the frontier town in the Wādī Ṭumīlāt towards the desert (so verse ²⁹). The reading is noteworthy textually as containing Priestly-Code’s name for Goshen.—ויבאו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå ויבא (better).—29. על־צואריו עוד] LXX κλαυθμῷ πίονι (variation πλείονι).—The עוֹד is strange; but compare Psalms 84⁵ (Ruth 1¹⁴ is not in point).—30. פניך] Peshiṭtå + בני.
XLVI. 31–XLVII. 12.—Joseph obtains Pharaoh’s permission for his brethren to settle in Goshen.—31–34 (Yahwist). He prepares his brethren for an introduction to Pharaoh, in the expectation that by laying stress on their herdsmen’s calling they may have the desirable frontier district of Goshen assigned to them. It is evident that in Yahwist the migration was resolved on without the invitation, or perhaps the knowledge, of the king.—32. for they were cattle-breeders] a more comprehensive category than shepherds. Gunkel thinks that the representation made to Pharaoh cannot have been strictly true, or Joseph would not have made such a point of it;¹ and we must at least suppose that he advises them to emphasise that side of their life which was most likely to gain the end in view. Unfortunately, while he bids them say they are cattle-breeders, they actually describe themselves as shepherds (47³), and yet Pharaoh would make them cattle-overseers (476b). Some confusion of the two terms may be suspected, but as the text stands, nothing can be made of the distinction.—34. that ye may dwell, etc.] What motive in the mind of the king is appealed to is not quite clear. If the last clause—for every shepherd, etc.—be genuine, it was the Egyptian abhorrence of the class to which they belonged. But such a feeling would be more likely to exclude them from Egypt altogether than to procure their admission to the best pasture-land in the country, where Pharaoh’s herds were kept (476b). Moreover, while there is evidence that swine-herds (Herodotus, ii. 47) and cowherds (Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 439 f.) were looked down on by the Egyptians, the statement that shepherds were held in special abhorrence has not been confirmed; and the clause (34bβ) is probably an interpolation suggested by 43³². See, further, on 473 ff..—XLVII. 1–5a, 6b (Yahwist). Pharaoh grants the request.—1. and behold ... Goshen] It is evident that in this narrative Joseph relies on the fait accompli to procure a favourable response from Pharaoh. The idea that Pharaoh decided such matters in person may be naïve (Gunkel); it is certainly a curious restriction of the absolute authority elsewhere assigned to Joseph.—2. he had taken five, etc.] On the significance of the number, see on 43³⁴.—3, 4. The anticipated question (46³³) is answered in accordance with Joseph’s instructions, though the phraseology differs by the substitution of רֹעֵי צֹאן for אַנְשֵׁי מִקְנֶה.—It is possible that the repeated ויאמרו is due to the omission between ³ and ⁴ of a further question by Pharaoh as to the reasons for their coming to Egypt (so Ball, Gunkel). The whole leads up to a straight-forward request for a temporary domicile in Goshen; and the point may be simply that as herdsmen they had brought their means of subsistence with them, and needed nothing but grazing land, which must have been obtainable in spite of the famine. There is no hint of any aversion to the strangers or their manner of life.—6b. Let them dwell, etc.] is the continuation of 5a in LXX (v.i.), whose arrangement of these verses is obviously more original than that of Massoretic Text.—As an additional favour, Pharaoh offers to take any capable members of the family into his service as cattle superintendents (שָׂרֵי מִקְנֶה),—an office frequently mentioned in the monuments as one of high dignity (Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 94 f., 108, 143). The breeding of cattle was carried to great perfection in ancient Egypt (ib. 436 ff.).
The admission of pastoral tribes within the frontier of Egypt is an incident twice represented in Egyptian inscriptions of the period here supposed. Under Ḥor-em-heb of the 18th dynasty, some barbarians have a definite district assigned to them by a high officer; and reference has already been made (page 437) to the Edomite nomads who in the time of Merenptah were allowed to pass the fortifications and feed their flocks in “the great pasture-land of Pharaoh”—probably this very Wādī Ṭumīlāt where Goshen was (see Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 393; Driver, 372).
31. ואל־בית אביו] LXX omits, perhaps rightly.—32. כי—היו] regarded as a gloss by Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.—34. גשן] LXX Γεσεμ Ἀραβίᾳ.—רעה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, TargumOnkelos) רעי.—2. מקצה] = ‘from the totality of,’ as 1 Kings 12³¹, Exodus 33² (otherwise Genesis 19⁴).—לקח] (pluperfect) The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch + עִמּוֹ.—3. אחיו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, TargumJonathan אחי יוסף.—רעה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch רעי (as 46³⁴).
5, 6a, 7–11. Jacob before Pharaoh (Priestly-Code).—5. The text of LXX (v.i.) supplies the following opening to Priestly-Code’s account (continuing 46⁷): And Jacob and his sons came to Egypt to Joseph; and Pharaoh king of Egypt heard it (5a), and Pharaoh said to Joseph, etc.—It is plain that 5b continues this conversation and not that between Pharaoh and the five brethren.—6a. Here Pharaoh himself selects the best [part] of the land for the Hebrew family to dwell in (see verse ¹¹).—7. Joseph introduces his father to Pharaoh,—an impressive and dignified scene.—blessed], i.e. ‘saluted’ on entering (compare 1 Samuel 13¹⁰, 2 Kings 4²⁹, 2 Samuel 13²⁵ 19⁴⁰), but recorded, no doubt, with a sense that “the less is blessed of the better” (Hebrews 7⁷).—9. few and evil] The expression shows that Priestly-Code must have recorded Jacob’s long exile with Laban and his protracted sorrow for the loss of Joseph; it is still more interesting as showing that that writer could conceive a good man’s life as spent in adversity and affliction.—11. the land of Ra‛mses] The name only here and LXX 46²⁸ (see on 45¹⁰), so called from the city built by Ramses II. (Exodus 1¹¹) and named after him ‘the house of Ramses,’ in the East of the Delta (Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 48). The situation is still uncertain; Naville (Goshen, 20) was inclined to identify it with Ṣafṭ el-Ḥenneh (see page 488); but Petrie now claims to have discovered its site at Tel er-Reṭabeh, in the middle of Wādī Ṭumīlāt, 8 mile West of Pithom (Hyksos and Israelite Cities, 1906, page 28 ff.)—12. Probably from Elohist ∥ 27a (Yahwist).
5, 6. The overlapping of Yahwist and Priestly-Code at this point can be proved and corrected from LXX. After 5a (omitting לאמר) LXX reads 6b; then ἦλθον δὲ εἰς Αἴγυπτον πρὸς Ἰωσὴφ Ἰακὼβ καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἤκουσεν Φαραὼ βασιλεὺς Αἰγύπτου (= ויבאו מצרימה אל־יוסף יעקב ובניו וישמע פרעה מלך מצרים); then 5a (repeated) 5b. 6a. 7 ff.. It will hardly be disputed that the text of LXX is here the original, and that Priestly-Code’s narrative commences with the additional sentences quoted above. The editor of Massoretic Text felt the doublet to be too glaring; he therefore omitted these two sentences; and then by transposition worked the two accounts into a single scene. A further phase is represented by Hexateuch Syriac, where 5b and 6a are omitted. We have here an instructive example of the complex process by which the sources were gradually worked into a smooth narrative, and one which deserves the attention of those writers who ridicule the minute and intricate operations which the critical theory finds it necessary to attribute to the redactors.—6b. ואם ידעת וְיֶשׁ־] See Gesenius-Kautzsch § 120 e. The היש of The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch is certainly not preferable (Ball).—11. מיטב] verse ⁶, Exodus 22⁴, 1 Samuel 159. 15†. The identification of מ׳ הארץ with the ‘land of Ramses’ probably rests on a misunderstanding of Elohist’s טוב הא׳ (see on 45¹⁸), and a combination of it with Yahwist’s גּשֶׁן.—12. הטף] apparently including here the women: compare 50²¹.