Joseph is here represented as taking advantage of the great famine to revolutionize the system of land-tenure in Egypt for the benefit of the crown. In one year the famishing people have exhausted their money and parted with their live-stock, in exchange for bread; in the next they forfeit their lands and their personal freedom. Thus by a bold stroke of statesmanship private property in land (except in the case of the priests) is abolished throughout Egypt, and the entire population reduced to the position of serfs, paying a land-tax of 20 per cent. per annum to the king.
Source.—The section 13–26, dealing as it does with matters purely Egyptian and without interest for the national history of Israel, occupies an anomalous position among the Joseph-narratives, and cannot be confidently assigned to either of the main documents (Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 61). Linguistic indications are on the whole in favour of Yahwist: כבד, ¹³; נחיה ולא נמות, ¹⁹ (42² 43⁸); ידות, ²⁴ (43³⁴); מקנה הצאן ומקנה הבקר, ¹⁷ (26¹⁴); מצא חן בעיני, ²⁵ (see Gunkel and Dillmann). But there are also traces of Elohist’s diction: חזק, ²⁰; הבה, הבו , 15 f. (29²¹ 30¹,—differing from 113. 4. 7) (Dillmann, Holzinger); besides some peculiar expressions very unusual in Pentateuch: להה, ¹³; אפם, 15 f.; תשם (Qal), ¹⁹; הֵא, ²³ (Dillmann). It is possible that Holzinger (251 f.) and Procksch (54 f.) are right in thinking the passage composite; but no satisfactory analysis can be effected. That it is out of place in its present connexion is generally admitted, but that it finds a more suitable position between chapters 41 and 42 (Dillmann, Gunkel, al.) is not at all obvious. It is not improbable that a piece of so peculiar a character is a later addition to the original cycle of Joseph-legends, and belongs neither to Yahwist nor Elohist.—Verse ²⁷ appears to be from Priestly-Code, with glosses (see the notes).
13, 14. Joseph takes up all the money in Egypt and Canaan. Canaan is bracketed with Egypt as far as verse ¹⁵, after which the situation is purely Egyptian. It is natural to suppose that the references to Canaan are interpolated (Holzinger, Gunkel); but considering the close political relations of the two countries, it would be rash to assume this too easily.—15–17. The live-stock is next exhausted.—horses] See on 12¹⁶.—18–22. The people surrender their lands and persons for bread. This is the decisive stroke of Joseph’s statecraft, making a return to the old conditions impossible; and it is noteworthy that (as if to relieve Joseph of the odium) the proposal is represented as coming from the people themselves.—18. that year ... the second year] Not the first and second years of the famine (for we can hardly suppose that the money and cattle were exhausted in a single year), but simply two successive years.—19. buy us and our land] The only basis of personal independence in a state like ancient Egypt being the possession of land, the peasants know that in parting with their land they sacrifice their freedom as well.—give seed, etc.] A temporary provision (see verse ²⁴) for the time of famine, or perhaps for the first sowing after it was over (Holzinger). It is in any case most natural to suppose that these drastic changes took place towards the end of the 7 years.—21. and the people he reduced to bondmen] Read so with Versions, v.i. (Knobel, Dillmann, Delitzsch, al.). The Massoretic Text: ‘he brought them over to the cities’ appears to mean that he brought the rural population to the cities where the corn-magazines were (4135. 48); but the emphasis on the object leads us to expect a parallelism to the appropriation of the land in verse ²⁰ (Dillmann). A universal redistribution of the inhabitants (TargumOnkelos, Tuch, al.) could not be expressed by the words, and would, moreover, be a senseless measure.—22. The priests’ property was exempted, because they had a statutory provision of food, and did not need to sell their lands. So the writer explains a privilege which existed in his day (see page 501 below). Compare Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 129, where Ramses III. is said to have given 185,000 sacks of corn annually to the temples.—23–26. Institution of the land-tax.—23. Here is seed for you] The gift is not to be repeated; hence the incident naturally belongs to the end of the famine.—24. a fifth part] According to Oriental ideas, and considering the fertility of Egypt, the impost is not excessive; a much higher percentage being frequently exacted under Eastern governments (compare 1 Maccabees 10³⁰, and the authorities cited by Dillmann page 444). On the severities of taxation under the New Empire, see Life in Ancient Egypt, 122.—25. The people gratefully accept the terms.—26. The arrangement is fixed by administrative decree, and survives to the time of the writer.—27. (Priestly-Code, v.i.) is the conclusion of the settlement of Israel in Egypt (verse ¹¹).
The system of land-tenure reflected in verses 13–26 is supposed by Erman to have actually arisen through the extermination of the old landed aristocracy which followed the expulsion of the Hyksos and the founding of the New Empire (Life in Ancient Egypt, 102 f.). The same writer thus sums up what is known or surmised of social conditions under the New Empire: “The landed property was partly in the hands of the state, partly in those of the priesthood; it was tilled by peasant-serfs; there seem to have been no private estates belonging to the nobility, at any rate not under the 19th dynasty. The lower orders consisted mostly of serfs and foreign slaves; the higher, of officials in the service of the state and of the temples” (ib. 129). The peculiar privileges of the priests (and soldiers) are attested by Diodorus, i. 73 f.; Herodotus, ii. 168 (but compare ii. 141): the latter says that every priest and warrior possessed 12 ἄρουραι of land tax-free. Of the amount of the land-tax (one fifth) there appears to be no independent confirmation.—The interest of the biblical account is ætiological. The Hebrews were impressed by the vast difference between the land-tenure of Egypt and that under which they themselves lived; and sought an explanation of the ‘abnormal agrarian conditions’ (Erman) prevailing in the Nile-valley. Whether the explanation here given rests on any Egyptian tradition, or is due to the national imagination of Israel, working on material supplied by the story of Joseph, remains as yet uncertain (see Gunkel 410 f.).
The close connexion between Egypt and Palestine in the matter of food-supply is illustrated by the Amarna letters, where a powerful minister named Yanḫamu is frequently mentioned as holding a position somewhat corresponding to that of Joseph. Yanḫamu, whose name suggests Semitic extraction, was governor of an unknown province called Yarimuta, which some have tried (but on the slenderest grounds) to identify with the biblical Goshen (Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, iii. 215; Jeremias Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients, 391³). The references imply that he had control of the state-granaries; and complaints are made of the difficulty of procuring supplies from the high-handed official; in particular, it is alleged that the people have had to part with their sons and their daughters, and the very woodwork of their houses, in return for corn (see Knudtzon, El-Amarna Tafeln, page 407). That this historic figure is the original of some features in the portrait of Joseph (a combination first suggested by Marquart, and approved by Winckler, Cheyne, Jeremias, al.) is conceivable enough; though definite points of contact are very restricted, and the historical background of Yanḫamu’s activity has completely faded from the biography of Joseph.
An equally striking, and equally unconvincing, parallel is pointed out by Eerdmans (Vorgeschichte Israels, 68) from a much later period—the end of the 19th dynasty,—when, according to the Papyrus Harris, Arisu (’I-’ir-sw), a Syrian, “in years of scarcity” which followed “the abundant years of the past,” “made the whole land tributary to himself alone” (see Petrie, A History of Egypt iii. 134). The resemblance vanishes on closer inspection. Arisu is simply a Syrian chief, who, in a time of anarchy, gets the upper hand in Egypt by the help of his companions, oppresses the people, and engages in a crusade against the native religion. To say that “the circumstances of this time correspond in all respects [ganz und gar] to the statements of the Joseph-stories,” is a manifest exaggeration.
13. ותלהּ] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ותלא. The √ להה is Aramaic ἅπαξ λεγόμενον = לאה, ‘languish.’ It is one of several rare expressions which occur in this section.—14. שֹׁבְרִים] LXX + ויכלכלם (verse ¹²).—15. אָפֵם] The verb only here (and verse ¹⁶) in Pentateuch: elsewhere poetic (Isaiah 16⁴ 29²⁰, Psalms 77⁹†).—כסף] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch הכסף, LXX כספנו (so verse ¹⁶).—16. לכם] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate + לֶהֶם.—17. נהל] Only here in the sense of ‘sustain’ [with food]; elsewhere, if the √ be the same, it means ‘lead’ (to watering-place, goal, etc.): see page 414.—18. כי אם] may be rendered equally well (with LXX) ‘that, if’ (protasis to לא נשאר), or with TargumOnkelos ‘but’ [sondern] (Delitzsch, Holzinger).—19. גם אנחנו גם אדמתנו] LXX avoids the bold zeugma, and substitutes καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐρημωθῇ, as at the end of the verse.—ונחיה] LXX ἵνα σπείρωμεν (ונזרע?).—21. העביר—לערים] Massoretic Text is supported by Peshiṭtå, TargumOnkelos-Jonathan, while The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX read העביד—לעבדים, as does the loose paraphrase of Vulgate.—23. הֵא] Only Exodus 16⁴³ and Aramaic Daniel 2⁴³.—24. בתבואת] It seems necessary here to take ת׳ as a noun of action: ‘at the bringings in’ (TargumOnkelos, Delitzsch, Dillmann), though elsewhere it always means ‘increase’ or ‘produce.’ To omit ב (with LXX) does not yield a natural construction.—לאכלכם] Ball happily emends לְאֹכֶל לָכֶם.—ולאכל לטפכם] Better omitted with LXX.—26. לחמש] LXX לְחַמֵּשׁ. חֹמָשׁ is not found, and the expression is very awkward. A good sense might be obtained by transposing לְחַמֵּשׁ לפרעה (with LXXA, al.); but whether that is the original text is very doubtful.—27. The verse is usually divided between Yahwist and Priestly-Code; but ישראל is no sure sign of Yahwist, since it denotes the nation. The only characteristic of Yahwist is בארץ גשן, which may be very well excised as a gloss: the rest may then quite suitably be assigned to Priestly-Code (compare נאחז, פרה ורבה).
The death-bed scenes of Jacob are described in great detail by all three narrators, because of the importance of the dying utterances of the last ancestor of all Israel. There are four main incidents: (1) Jacob’s charge to Joseph with regard to his burial (28–31); (2) the blessing of Joseph and his two sons (48); (3) Jacob’s oracles on the future of all the tribes (491–28); and (4) his instructions regarding his burial in Machpelah (29–33).—The first two may be conveniently treated together.
Sources.—The triple thread of narrative is shown by the three beginnings: 47²⁸ (Priestly-Code), 47²⁹ (Yahwist), and 48¹ (Elohist). To Priestly-Code belong 47²⁸ 483–6: note the chronology and syntax of 47²⁸, the connexion of 483 f. with 356a. 11. 12; אל שדי, ³; הפרה והרבה, ⁴; קהל עמים, ⁴; אחזת עולם, ⁴; הוליד, ⁶.—Equally decisive are the indications of Yahwist in 4729–31; ישראל, 29. 31; אם מצאתי וגו׳, ²⁹; שים נא ידך וגו׳, ²⁹ (24²); חסד ואמת, ²⁹ (24⁴⁹ 32¹¹); שכבתי עם־אבתי, ³⁰.—The analysis of 481. 2. 8–22 is more doubtful: formerly the passage was treated as a unity and assigned to Elohist (Hupfeld, Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 61 f., Driver al.), but the evidences of double recension are too numerous to be overlooked. (See Budde, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, iii. 56 ff.) Thus, while יעקב, 2a, and אלהים, 9. 11. 15. 20 f., and האמרי, ²², point to Elohist, ישראל, 2b. 8. 10 f. 13 f. 21, and הצעיר, ¹⁴, point to Yahwist. A clue to the analysis is supplied by (a) the double presentation of Manasseh and Ephraim, 10b ∥ 13 (ויגשׁ); and (b) the obvious intrusion of 15. 16 between ¹⁴ and ¹⁷. 13. 14. 17–19 hang together and are from Yahwist; ¹⁵ links on to ¹², and 13 f. presuppose 10a. Taking note of the finer criteria, the analysis works out somewhat as follows: Elohist = 1. 2. 8. 9. 10b. 11. 12. 15. 16. 20aβγb. 21. 22; Yahwist = 2b (?). 10a. 13. 14. 17–19. 20aα (to ההוא);—deleting ישראל in 2b (?). 8. 11. 21 as a redactional explication. So in general Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel; also Procksch, who, however, places 21. 22 before ⁷ in Elohist’s narrative.—The source of ⁷ is difficult to determine; usually it has been assigned to Priestly-Code or Redactor, but by Gunkel and Procksch to Elohist (see the notes).
28–31. Joseph promises to bury Jacob in Canaan.—28 (Priestly-Code). Jacob’s age at the time of his death; compare 47⁹.—29–31 (Yahwist). Compare the parallel in Priestly-Code, 4929–32.—29. On the form of oath, see on 24².—30. lie with my fathers] i.e., in She’ôl (see on 25⁸); compare Deuteronomy 31¹⁶, 1 Kings 2¹⁰ etc.—in their burying-place] But in 50⁵ (also Yahwist) Jacob speaks of “my grave which I have digged for myself.” The latter is no doubt the original tradition, and the text here must have been modified in accordance with the theory of Priestly-Code 4930 f. (Wellhausen).—31. bowed over the head of the bed] An act of worship, expressing gratitude to God for the fulfilment of his last wish (compare 1 Kings 1⁴⁷). Holzinger’s conjecture (based on 1 Samuel 19¹³), that there was an image at the top of the bed, is a possible, though precarious, explanation of the origin of the custom. The mistaken rendering of LXX (v.i.) may have arisen from the fact that the oath over the staff was an Egyptian formality (Spiegelberg, Recueil des Travaux, xxv. 184 ff.; compare Encyclopædia Biblica, 4779¹; Sayce, Contemporary Review, August, 1907, 260).
29. ויקרבו—למות] Compare Deuteronomy 31¹⁴ (Yahwist), 1 Kings 2¹.—30. ושכבתי] must be taken as protasis to ונשאתני (Strack, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.).—בקברתם] Kittel בקברתי, to resolve the contradiction spoken of supra. But where intentional manipulation of the text is to be suspected, small emendations are of little avail.—31. המטה] LXX τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (= מַטֵּהוּ); compare Hebrews 11²¹. Other Versions follow Massoretic Text, which is undoubtedly right: see 48² 49³³.
1, 2. The introduction to all that follows: from Elohist.—took his two sons.] It seems implied in verse ⁸ that Jacob had not yet seen the lads,—so soon did his last illness follow his arrival in Egypt.—3–6. Priestly-Code’s brief account of the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh. Dillmann thinks the verses have been transferred from their original connexion with 4928b, where they were spoken in presence of all the brethren.—3, 4. The reference is to the revelation at Luz (3511 f.), where the promise of a numerous offspring was coupled with the possession of Canaan. On the phraseology, see above.—5. And now] In view of these promises he elevates Ephraim and Manasseh to the status of full tribes, to share with his own sons in the future partition of the land.—Ephraim and Manasseh] The order is the only hint that Ephraim was the leading tribe (compare verse ²⁰ Elohist); but it is not that usually observed by Priestly-Code (see Numbers 2628 ff. 3423 f., Joshua 14⁴ 16⁴ 17¹; otherwise Numbers 1¹⁰).—as Reuben and Simeon] The two oldest are chosen for comparison.—6. Later-born sons of Joseph (none such, however, are anywhere mentioned) are to be called by the name of their brethren, etc.] i.e., are to be counted as Ephraimites and Manassites.—7. The presence of Joseph reminds the dying patriarch of the dark day on which he buried Rachel on the way to Ephrath. The expressions reproduce those of 3516–20.—עָלַי] to my sorrow; literally ‘(as a trouble) upon me’ (compare 33¹³).
The notice—one of the most pathetic things in Genesis—is very loosely connected with what precedes, and must in its original setting have led up to something which has been displaced in the redaction. But it is difficult to find a suitable connexion for the verse in the extant portions of any of the three sources. In Priestly-Code (to which the word פַּדָּן at first sight seems to point), Delitzsch, Dillmann, al. would put it immediately before [ועתה] אני נאסף in 49²⁹; but that view relieves no difficulty, and leads nowhere. A more natural position in that document might be after the mention of the burial of Leah in 49³¹ (verse ³² may be an interpolation); but the form of the verse is not favourable to that assumption, and no good reason can be imagined for the transposition. (See Budde Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, iii. 67 f.) Bruston (in Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vii. 208) puts forward the attractive suggestion (adopted by Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel, Procksch, al.) that the verse introduced a request to be buried in the same grave as Rachel. Such a wish is evidently impossible in Priestly-Code; and Bruston (followed with some hesitation by Ball, Kautzsch-Socin) accordingly found a place for it (with the necessary alterations of text) between 47²⁹ and ³⁰ (Yahwist): against this 505. 11 seem decisive. Gunkel and Procksch assign it to Elohist, the latter placing it after verse ²², which is certainly its most suitable position in Elohist. But is the idea after all any more conceivable in Elohist than in Priestly-Code? The writer who recorded the request, whoever he may have been, must have supposed that it was fulfilled; and it is not just likely that any writer should have believed that Jacob was buried in the grave traditionally known as Rachel’s. No satisfactory solution can be given. Hupfeld and Schrader consider the verse redactional; so Budde, who thinks it was inserted to correct Priestly-Code’s original statement that Rachel was buried in Machpelah (see on 49³¹).
1. ויאמר] So 1 Samuel 16⁴ 19²². The plural ויאמרו is more usual in such cases (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 d²): we might also point as Niphal וַיֵּאָמֵר (Joshua 2²).—At end of verse add with LXX ויבא אל־יעקב.—2. ויגד] Better וַיֻּגַּד.—2b is usually assigned to Yahwist because of ישראל. But the clause comes very naturally after 2a; and as there are three other cases of confusion between the two names in this chapter (8. 11. 21), the name is not decisive.—4. קהל עמים] 28³; compare 35¹¹.—לזרעך] LXX לך ולז׳.—אחזת עולם] 17⁸.—7. פַּדָּן] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX + אֲרָם, as in every other case where the name occurs (see on 25²⁰). That the difference is documentary, and points to Elohist rather than Priestly-Code, is a hazardous assumption (Gunkel); and to substitute חרן, for the sake of accommodation to Yahwist (Bruston, Ball), is quite arbitrary.—רחל] LXX + ἡ μήτηρ σου (so The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch).
8, 9. Elohist’s narrative is resumed.—Observe that Jacob sees the boys (who are quite young children [41⁵⁰]), whereas in 10a (Yahwist) he could not see.—9b is usually assigned to Yahwist, but for no very convincing reason.—10b, 11 (Elohist). I had not thought, etc.] The words are charged with deep religious feeling: gratitude to the God in whose name he is to bless the lads, and whose marvellous goodness had brought his clouded life to a happy end.—12 (Elohist). from between his (Jacob’s) knees] There must be a reference to some rite of adoption not described, which being completed, Joseph removes the children and prostrates himself to receive the blessing (continued in ¹⁵).—10a, 13, 14 (Yahwist). Whether this is a second interview in Yahwist, or a continuation of that in 4729–31, does not appear; in either case something has been omitted.—10a. See on 27¹.—13 f. The crossing (v.i.) of Jacob’s hands has a weird effect: the blind man is guided by a supernatural impulse, which moves unerringly in the line of destiny. The right hand conveys the richer blessing.—15, 16. The Blessing (Elohist).—The three-fold invocation of the Deity reminds us of the Aaronic benediction (Numbers 624 ff.), which has some resemblance to a feature of Babylonian liturgies (see Jeremias, Hölle und Paradies, 30): “in such cases the polytheist names all the gods he worships, the ancient monotheist all the names and attributes of the God he knows” (Gunkel).—before whom ... walked] compare 17¹.—who shepherded me] Compare 49²⁴, Psalms 23¹ 28⁹, Isaiah 40¹¹. The image is appropriate in the mouth of the master-shepherd Jacob (Dillmann).—16. the Angel ... evil] The passages in Jacob’s life where an angel or angels intervene (2811 ff. 31¹¹ 322 f.) all belong to the source Elohist; they are not, however, specially connected with deliverances from evil; and the substitution of ‘angel’ for ‘God’ is not explained.—let my name be named in them] ‘Let them be known as sons of Jacob,’ and reckoned among the tribes of Israel.—17–19. Continuing ¹⁴ (Yahwist).—Joseph thinks his father had counted on the elder being on his left (Joseph’s right) hand, and will now correct his mistake.—19. But Jacob, speaking under inspiration, declares his action to be significant.—the fulness of the nations] A peculiar expression for populousness. Compare Deuteronomy 33¹⁷ (‘myriads of Ephraim’; ‘thousands of Manasseh’).—20. The clause And he blessed them that day] is (if not redactional) the conclusion of Yahwist’s account: the words of blessing are not given. The rest of the verse concludes the blessing of Elohist (15 f.).—By thee (LXX you) shall Israel bless] The formula must have been in actual use, and is said to be still current amongst Jews (Strack).—he put Ephraim before Manasseh] If the words are original (Elohist), they call attention to the fact that in the benediction Ephraim had been named first, and find in that slight circumstance an augury of the future pre-eminence of Ephraim (Gunkel).—21, 22. Closing words to Joseph (Elohist).—21. A prediction of the return to Canaan, in terms very similar to 50²⁴ (also Elohist). The explicit anticipations of the Exodus are probably all from this document (15¹⁶ [?] 46⁴ 50²⁴).—22. one shoulder] The word שְׁכֶם may very well (like the synonymous כָּתֵף) have had in common speech the secondary sense of ‘mountain-slope,’ though no instance occurs in Old Testament. At all events there is no reasonable doubt that the reference is to the city of Shechem, standing on the ‘slope’ of Gerizim, the most important centre of Israelite power in early times (see page 416), and consecrated by the possession of Joseph’s tomb (Joshua 24³²). The peculiar value of the gift in Jacob’s eyes is that the conquest was a trophy of his warlike prowess,—a tradition which has left no trace whatever except in this verse (see below).—With my sword and with my bow] Contrast Joshua 24¹².
Verses 21. 22 stand in no organic connexion with each other, or with what precedes. Verse ²², in particular, not only presupposes a version of the capture of Shechem different from any found elsewhere¹ (see page 422 above), but is out of harmony with the situation in which the words are assumed to have been uttered. For it is scarcely credible that Jacob should have referred thus to a conquest which he had subsequently lost, and which would have to be recovered by force of arms before the bequest could take effect. But further, the expression ‘above thy brethren’ naturally implies that the portions of the other sons had been allotted by Jacob before his death. The verse, in short, seems to carry us back to a phase of the national tradition which ignored the sojourn in Egypt, and represented Jacob as a warlike hero who had effected permanent conquests in Palestine, and died there after dividing the land amongst his children. The situation would thus be parallel to the so-called ‘Blessing of Jacob’ in chapter 49, which is also independent of, though not quite incompatible with, the final recension of the patriarchal history and the migration to Egypt. For the first statement of this theory, see Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 227, 414 f.
8. מי אלה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX + לך.—9. ויאמר²] LXX + Ἰακώβ.—ואברכֶם (Baer-Delitzsch, page 80). On the pausal seghol, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 29 q, 60 d.—11. רְאֹה] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 n (compare 31²⁸).—פללתי] Literally ‘had not judged’; only here = ‘opine.’—12. וישתחו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå have the plural.—לאפיו] hardly makes sense. Read with LXX, Peshiṭtå לוֹ אַפַּיִם.—14. את־ימינו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch inserts יד.—שֵׁכֵּל] TargumOnkelos אחכימינין, deriving from √ שׂכל, ‘be prudent’ (whose Piel does not occur); but LXX ἐναλλὰξ, Vulgate commutans, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), TargumJonathan פרג. These Versions may be guessing at the sense; but most moderns appeal to Arabic šakala, a secondary meaning of which is to ‘plait two locks of hair together and bind them to the other locks.’ In spite of the philological equivalence, Driver is justly sceptical of so remote an analogy.—כי מנשה הבכור] LXX omits.—15. את־יוסף] LXX אתם] wrongly, the original connexion being with 12b.—מעודי] (Numbers 22³⁰†) ‘ever since I was.’ LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate ‘from my youth’ (מנעורי ?).—16. For המלאך, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch reads המלך.—19. ואולם] ‘but for all that’ (compare 28¹⁹).—20. בך] LXX בכם.—יְבָרֵךְ] LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå יִבָּרֵךְ (Niphal; see on 12³). The most natural form would be Hithpael יתברך.—22. שכם אחד] LXX Σικιμα ἐξαίρετον, Aquila ὦμον ἕνα. For אַחַד instead of אֶחָד, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 130 g. On כָּתֵף in the sense of ‘mountain-slope’ (v.s.), see Numbers 34¹¹, Joshua 15⁸ [Isaiah 11¹⁴?], etc.