XLIX. 1–28a.
The Blessing of Jacob.

This important and difficult section—one of the oldest pieces of Hebrew poetry which we possess—consists of a series of oracles describing the characters and fortunes of the twelve tribes of Israel, as unfolded during the age of the Judges and under the early monarchy. That it was composed from the first in the name of Jacob appears clearly from internal indications (verses ^{3 f. 9. [18]. 26}); but that it was actually uttered by the patriarch on his death-bed to his assembled sons is a hypothesis which several considerations combine to render incredible. In the first place, the outlook of the poem is bounded (as we shall afterwards see) by a particular historical situation, removed by many centuries from the supposed time of utterance. No reason can be imagined why the vista of the future disclosed to Jacob should open during the settlement of the tribes in Canaan, and suddenly close at the reign of David or Solomon; why trivial incidents like the maritime location of Zebulun (verse ¹³), or the ‘royal dainties’ produced by Asher (²⁰), or even the loss of tribal independence by Issachar (¹⁵), etc., should be dwelt upon to the exclusion of events of far greater national and religious importance, such as the Exodus, the mission of Moses, the leadership of Joshua, or the spiritual prerogatives of the tribe of Levi. It is obvious that the document as a whole has historic significance only when regarded as a production of the age to which it refers. The analogy of Old Testament prophecy, which has been appealed to, furnishes no instance of detailed prevision of a remote future, unrelated to the moral issues of the speaker’s present. In the next place, the poem is animated by a strong national sentiment such as could not have existed in the lifetime of Jacob, while there is a complete absence of the family feeling which would naturally find expression in the circumstances to which it is assigned, and which, in fact, is very conspicuous in the prose accounts of Jacob’s last days. The subjects of the oracles are not Jacob’s sons as individuals, but the tribes called by their names (see ^28a); nor is there any allusion to incidents in the personal history of Jacob and his sons except in the sections on Reuben and on Simeon and Levi, and even there a tribal interpretation is more natural. Finally, the speaker is not Jacob the individual patriarch, but (as is clear from verses ^6. 7b. 16) Jacob as representing the ideal unity of Israel (see Kohler, page 8 f.). All these facts point to the following conclusion (which is that of the great majority of modern interpreters): the poem is a series of vaticinia ex eventu, reflecting the conditions and aspirations of the period that saw the consolidation of the Hebrew nationality. The examination of the separate oracles will show that some (e.g. those on Issachar and Dan) are certainly pre-monarchic; and that indeed all may be so except the blessing on Judah, which presupposes the establishment of the Davidic kingdom. The process of composition must therefore have been a protracted one; the poem may be supposed to have existed as a traditional document whose origin dates from the early days of the Israelite occupation of Palestine, and which underwent successive modifications and expansions before it took final shape in the hands of a Judæan poet of the age of David or Solomon. The conception of Jacob as the speaker belongs to the original intention of the poem; the oracles express the verdict of the collective consciousness of Israel on the conduct and destiny of the various tribes, an idea finely suggested by putting them in the mouth of the heroic ancestor of the nation. Ultimately the song was incorporated in the patriarchal tradition, probably by the Yahwist, who found a suitable setting for it amongst the dying utterances of Jacob.

Literary Parallels.—Before proceeding to consider the more intricate problems arising out of the passage, it will be useful to compare it with (1) the Song of Deborah (Judges 5), and (2) the Blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33).—1. The former is like an instantaneous photograph: it exhibits the attitude and disposition of the tribes in a single crisis of the national history. It resembles Genesis 49 in the strong feeling of national unity which pervades it, and in the mingling of blame and commendation. It reveals, however, a very different historical background. The chief differences are: the entire ignoring of the southern tribes Judah, Simeon, and Levi; the praise bestowed on Issachar; the substitution of Gilead for Gad; and the division of the unity of Joseph into its constituents Ephraim and Machir (= Manasseh). The importance of these and other divergences for the determination of the relative dates of the two documents is obvious, although the evidence is frequently of a kind which makes it very difficult to form a confident judgement.—2. The Blessing of Moses shows signs (especially in the section on Joseph) of literary dependence on Genesis 49; it is therefore a later composition, written very probably in North Israel after the division of the kingdom (see Driver A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy 388). It is distinguished from the Blessing of Jacob by its uniform tone of benediction, and its strongly religious point of view as contrasted with the secular and warlike spirit of Genesis 49. Simeon is passed over in silence, while his ‘brother’ Levi is the subject of an enthusiastic eulogium; Judah is briefly commended in a prayer to Yahwe; the separation of Ephraim and Manasseh is recognised in an appendix to the blessing on Joseph. All these indications point more or less decisively to a situation considerably later than that presupposed by the oracles of Jacob.

Date and Unity of the Poem.—That the song is not a perfect literary unity is suggested first of all by the seemingly complex structure of the sections on Dan (two independent oracles) and Judah (with three exordiums in verses ^8. 9. 10). We find, further, that a double motive runs through the series, viz., (1) etymological play on the name of the tribe (Judah, Zebulun?, Dan, Gad, Asher?), and (2) tribal emblems (chiefly animal) (Judah, Issachar, Dan, Naphtali, Joseph, Benjamin): one or other of these can be detected in each oracle except those on Reuben and Simeon-Levi. It is, of course, not certain that these are characteristic of two independent groups of oracles; but the fact that both are represented in the sayings on Judah and Dan, while neither appears in those on Reuben and Simeon-Levi, does confirm the impression of composition and diversity of origin. The decisive consideration, however, is that no single period of history can be found which satisfies all the indications of date drawn from the several oracles. Those on Reuben, Simeon, and Levi refer to events which belong to a remote past, and were in all probability composed before the Song of Deborah, while these events were still fresh in the national memory; those on Issachar, Dan, and Benjamin could hardly have originated after the establishment of the monarchy; while the blessing of Judah clearly presupposes the existence of the Davidic kingdom, and must have been written not earlier than the time of David or Solomon. A still later date is assigned by most critics since Wellhausen, (Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments³ 320) to the blessing on Joseph, which is generally considered to refer to the kingdom of North Israel and to the Aramæan wars under the dynasties of Omri and Jehu. It is argued in the notes below that the passage is susceptible of a different interpretation from that adopted by the majority of scholars, and may, in fact, be one of the oldest parts of the poem. As for the rest of the oracles, their character is such that it seems quite impossible to decide whether they originated before or after the founding of the kingdom. In any case we hardly get much beyond a broad chronological division into pre-Davidic and post-Davidic oracles; but at the same time that distinction is so clearly marked as to exclude absolutely the hypothesis of unity of authorship.—It has been supposed by some writers (Renan, Kuenen, al.) that the poem consists of a number of fugitive oracles which had circulated independently among the tribes, and were ultimately collected and put in the mouth of Jacob. But, apart from the general objection that characterisation of one tribe by the rest already implies a central point of view, the inadequacy of the theory is seen when we observe that all the longer passages (Reuben, Simeon-Levi, Judah, Joseph) assume that Jacob is the speaker, while the shorter pieces are too slight in content to have any significance except in relation to the whole.—An intermediate position is represented by Land, who distinguished six stages in the growth of the song: (1) A primary poem, consisting of the two tristichs, verses ³ and ⁸, written at the time of David’s victories over the Philistines, and celebrating the passing of the hegemony from Reuben to Judah: to this verse ⁴ was afterwards added as an appendix. (2) A second poem on Judah, Dan, and Issachar (verses ^{9. 17. 14 f.}: distichs), describing under animal figures the condition of these tribes during the peaceful interval of David’s reign in Hebron: to which was appended later the verse on Benjamin (²⁷). (3) The Shiloh oracle (verses ^10–12), dating from the same period. (4) The decastich on Simeon and Levi (verses ^5–7), from the time of the later Judges. (5) The blessing of Joseph (^22–26), a northern poem from about the time of Deborah. (6) The five distichs on Zebulun, Dan, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali (in that order: verses ^{13. 16. 19. 20. 21}), commemorating the victory of Deborah and Barak over the Canaanites. The theory rests on dubious interpretations, involves improbable historical combinations, and is altogether too intricate to command assent; but it is noteworthy nevertheless as perhaps the first elaborate attempt to solve the problem of the date and integrity of the poem, and to do justice to the finer lines of structure that can be discovered in it.—On the whole, however, the theory of the ‘traditional document’ (v.s.), altered and supplemented as it was handed down from one generation to another, while sufficiently elastic, seems the one that best satisfies all the requirements of the problem (so Gunkel, 420 f.).

The order in which the tribes are enumerated appears to be partly genealogical, partly geographical. The six Leah-tribes come first, and in the order of birth as given in chapters 29 f., save that Zebulun and Issachar change places. Then follow the four concubine or hybrid tribes; but the order is that neither of birth nor of the mothers, the two Zilpah-tribes, Gad and Asher, coming between the Bilhah tribes, Dan and Naphtali. The Rachel-tribes, Joseph and Benjamin, stand last. Geographically, we may distinguish a southern group (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah), a northern (Zebulun, Issachar, Dan?, Gad [trans-Jordanic], Asher, Naphtali), and a central group (Joseph, Benjamin). The general agreement of the two classifications shows that the genealogical scheme itself reflects the tribal affinities and historical antecedents by which the geographical distribution of the tribes in Palestine was in part determined. The suggestion of Peters (Early Hebrew story, 61  ff.), that the ages of Jacob’s children represent approximately the order in which the respective tribes obtained a permanent footing in Canaan, is a plausible one, and probably contains an element of truth; although the attempt to reconstruct the history of the invasion and conquest on such precarious data can lead to no secure results. It is clear at all events that neither the genealogical nor the geographical principle furnishes a complete explanation of the arrangement in Genesis 49; and we have to bear in mind the possibility that this ancient document may have preserved an older tradition as to the grouping and relations of the tribes than that which is given in the prose legends (chapters 29. 30).—On the question whether a sojourn in Egypt is presupposed between the utterance and the fulfilment of the predictions, the poem naturally throws no direct light. It is not improbable that in this respect it stands on the same plane as 48²² (34. 38), and traces the conquest of Palestine back to Jacob himself.

1, 2. Introduction.—The poem begins with a preamble (verse ²) from the hand of the writer who composed or collected the oracles and put them in the mouth of Jacob. ^1b is a prose introduction, supplied probably by the editor who incorporated the Song in the narrative of Yahwist or Jehovist; while ^1a appears to be a fragment of Priestly-Code divorced from its original connexion with ^28abβ by Redactor^Pentateuch.—1b. that I may make known, etc.] The poem is expressly characterised as a prophecy (not, however, as a blessing [as ^28b]), which it obviously is as ascribed to Jacob, though the singer’s real standpoint is contemporary or retrospective (page 508 above).—in the after days] The furthest horizon of the speaker’s vision (v.i.).—2. A trimeter distich, exhibiting the prevalent metrical scheme of the poem:

With the call to attention, compare 4²³, Deuteronomy 32¹, Isaiah 1¹⁰ 28¹⁴, etc.—Whether in the mind of the poet Israel is the literal or the ideal father of the nation may be doubtful: compare verse ⁷, and page 509 above.

1. באחרית הימים] The phrase occurs 13 times in Hebrew Old Testament (Numbers 24¹⁴, Deuteronomy 4³⁰ 31²⁹, Isaiah 2², Jeremiah 23²⁰ 30²⁴ 48⁴⁷ 49³⁹, Exodus 38¹⁶, Hosea 3⁵, Micah 4¹, Daniel 10¹⁴†), and its Aramaic equivalent in Daniel 2²⁸. In the prophets it is used technically of the advent of the Messianic age; here and elsewhere (Numbers 24¹⁴ etc.) it has the general sense of the remote future (like Assyrian aḫrat ûmi: Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament², 143). That the eschatological sense is primary, and the other an imitation of prophetic style (Gunkel), cannot be proved; and there is no justification for deleting either the phrase itself (Staerk, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xi. 247 ff.), or the whole clause in which it occurs (Land).—2. The repetition of ושמעו is against the rules of parallelism. We may either omit the word in ^2a (Gunkel, Sievers), or vary the expression (ועאזינו, והקשיבו) in ^2b (Targum^Onkelos, Ball). Metrically, either expedient would be admissible, but the former is much easier. In LXX^B, al. ἀκούσατε is used thrice.

3, 4. Reuben.

The original presents both obscurities and niceties not reflected in the translation; but the general sense is clear. As the first-born, Reuben is endowed with a superabundant vitality, which is the cause at once of his pre-eminence and of his undoing: his energy degenerates into licentious passion, which impels him to the crime that draws down the curse. As a characterisation of the tribe, this will mean that Reuben had a double share of the ‘frenetic’ Bedouin nature, and wore out his strength in fierce warfare with neighbouring tribes. If the outrage on his father’s honour (verse ⁴) have historic significance (see below), it must denote some attack on the unity of Israel which the collective conscience of the nation condemned. It is to be noted that the recollection of the event has already assumed the legendary form, and must therefore reach back to a time considerably earlier than the date of the poem (Gunkel).—3b, 4a. exceeding ... excel] No English word brings out the precise force of the original, where the √ יתר occurs three times in a sense hovering between ‘exceed’ and ‘excel.’ The idea of excess being native to the root, the renderings pride and fury are perhaps preferable to ‘dignity’ and ‘power,’ ^3c as well as ⁴ being understood sensu malo, as a censure of Reuben.—4b. Then ... went up] A corrupt text: for various suggestions, v.i. Gunkel’s translation ‘Then I profaned the couch which he ascended,’ at least softens the harsh change from 2nd person to 3rd.

The ‘birthright’ of Reuben must rest on some early ascendancy or prowess of the tribe which has left no traces in history. Its choice of a settlement East of the Jordan (Numbers 32, etc.), shows an attachment to nomadic habits, and perhaps an unfitness for the advance to civilised life which the majority of the tribes had to make. In the Song of Deborah, Reuben is still an important tribe, but one that had lost enthusiasm for the national cause (Judges 5^15 f.). In the Blessing of Moses it still survives, but is apparently on the verge of extinction (Deuteronomy 33⁶). It was doubtless exhausted by struggles like those with the Hagarenes (1 Chronicles 5^{10. 18 ff.}), but especially with the Moabites, who eventually occupied most of its territory (compare Numbers 32³⁷, Joshua 13^16 ff. with Isaiah 15, Jeremiah 48 passim, and Moabite Stone).—The incident to which the downfall of Reuben is here traced (^4aβb) is connected with the fragmentary notice of 35²², and is variously interpreted: (1) According to William Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 109², Steuernagel, Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 16, Holzinger, it records the fact that Reuben had misused its power as the leading tribe to assail the independence of a weaker member of the confederation (Bilhah, or one of the Bilhah-tribes),—a rather hazardous speculation. (2) Another theory, not necessarily inconsistent with the former (see William Robertson Smith, l.c.), finds a reference to the persistence in Reuben of an old Semitic custom of marriage with the wives or concubines of a (deceased!) father (Dillmann, Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 151 f.), which the general moral sense of Israel had outgrown. In this case we must suppose that 49⁴ contains the germ of the legend of which 35²², with its particular mention of Bilhah, is a later phase. (3) It is probable that the form of the legend has been partly determined by a mythological motive, to which a striking parallel is found in the story of Phœnix and Amyntor (Iliad ix. 447 ff.: quoted above, page 427).—Metrical Structure. The oracle is better divided as above into three distichs, than (with Massoretic Text) into two tristichs (so Land, who assigns each to a separate author). The trimeter measure is easily traced throughout (except line 3) by following the Hebrew accents, supplying Maqqeph after כי and אז in verse ⁴. Line 3 may be scanned uu´|u´|u´ (Sievers).

3a. ראשית אוני (Deuteronomy 21¹⁷, compare Psalms 78⁵¹ 105³⁶)] Not ἀρχὴ τέκνων μου (LXX, Theodotion), still less principium doloris mei (Vulgate from אָוֶן, ‘trouble’; so Aquila, Symmachus); but ‘best part of my virility’ (Peshiṭtå, Targum^Onkelos). On ראשית, see page 12; און as Hosea 12⁴.—3b. LXX σκληρὸς φέρεσθαι καὶ σκληρὸς αὐθάδης; Vulgate prior in donis, major in imperio.—יֶתֶר (abstractum pro concreto) might mean ‘excess’ (Aquila, Symmachus), or ‘superiority’ (Vulgate), or ‘remnant’ (Peshiṭtå; so Peters, page 100): whether it is here used in a good sense or a bad (for the latter, compare Proverbs 17⁷) depends on the meaning assigned to the next two words.—שאת] Literally ‘lifting’ (LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Peshiṭtå), several times means ‘exaltation’; but in Habakkuk 1⁷ it has distinctly the sense of ‘arrogance,’ the idea preferred above. To read שְׁאֹת, ‘turbulence’ (Gunkel), is unnecessary, and שֵׁאת, ‘destruction’ (Peters), gives a wrong turn to the thought.—עָז] Pausal for עֹז, ‘power,’ but the sense of ‘fury’ is supported by verse ⁷, Isaiah 25³.—4. פחז—תותר] LXX ἐξύβρισας ὡς ὕδωρ, μὴ ἐκζέσῃς; Aquila ἐθάμβευσας ... περισσεύσῃς; Symmachus ὑπερέζεσας ... οὐκ ἔσῃ περισσότερος; Vulgate effusus es sicut aqua, non crescas; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word). The comparison to water is ambiguous; and it is doubtful if we may introduce the simile of water ‘boiling over’ (Symmachus, LXX and many moderns). The image may be that of a wild rushing torrent,—a fit emblem of the unbridled passion which was Reuben’s characteristic (so Targum^Onkelos).—פהז] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch פחזת. Though the other Versions also have 2nd person, we cannot assume that they read so; and the analogy of verse ³ leads us to expect another abstractum pro concreto. The noun is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; the particle occurs Judges 9⁴, Zephaniah 3⁴, with the sense ‘reckless’ or ‘irresponsible’ (compare פחזות, Jeremiah 23³²). In Arabic the √ means ‘be insolent,’ in Aramaic ‘be lascivious’: the common idea is perhaps ‘uncontrollableness’ (ut s.).—אל־תותַר] For the pausal a, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 53 n, and compare Ruth 2¹⁴.—4b. No very acceptable rendering of this difficult clause has been proposed. If we follow the accentuation, יצועי is object of עלה, and יצועי עלה a detached sentence: ‘Then thou actedst profanely. He went up to my bed’; but apart from the harsh change of person, this is inadmissible, because חִלֵּל is never used intransitively. To read עָלִיתָ with LXX is perhaps a too facile emendation; and to omit עלה with Vulgate is forbidden by rhythm. On the whole it is best (with Gunkel) to point חִלַּלְתִּ, and take עלה as a relative clause (v.s.). Other suggestions are: ח׳ יצועַי עֹלֶה (Land); יצועֵי בִלְהָה (Geiger, Kittel); י׳ יוֹלֶדְךָ (Ball); but all these are, for one reason or another, objectionable.

5–7. Simeon and Levi.

5a. brothers] Hardly ὁμόγνωμοι (scholium in Field) = ‘true brother-spirits’ (Tuch al.), or ‘associates’ in a common enterprise. The epithet is probably a survival from an old tradition in which Simeon and Levi were the only sons of Leah (see 34^1. 25; compare Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 286¹, 426). It is universally assumed that that incident—the treacherous attack on Shechem—is the ground of the curse here pronounced; but the terms of the oracle are perfectly general and in part unsuited to the supposed circumstances; and it seems to me to be the habitual character of the tribes which is denounced, and not any particular action.—5b. The translation is doubtful, owing partly to uncertainty of text, and partly to the obscurity of the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον מְכֵרָה (v.i.). The rendering above gives a good sense, and Ball’s objection, that daggers are necessarily implements of violence, has no force.—6a. council ... assembly] The tribal gatherings, in which deeds of violence were planned, and sanguinary exploits gloated over. The distich expresses vividly the thought that the true ethos of Israel was not represented in these bloody-minded gatherings.—6b. men ... oxen] The nouns are collectives.—slaughter ... hough] Perfects of experience. The latter operation (disable by cutting the sinew of the hind-leg) was occasionally performed by Israelites on horses (Joshua 11^6. 9, 2 Samuel 8⁴); to do it to a domestic animal was evidently considered inhuman. No such atrocity is recorded of the assault on Shechem (see 34²⁸).¹—7b. in Jacob ... in Israel] The speaker is plainly not the individual patriarch, nor the Almighty (Land), but the personified nation.

The dispersion of these two tribes must have taken place at a very early period of the national history. As regards Simeon, it is doubtful if it ever existed as a separate geographical unit. Priestly-Code is only able to assign to it an inheritance scooped out of the territory of Judah (compare Joshua 19^1–9 with 15^26–32. 42: see also 1 Chronicles 4^28–33); and so-called Simeonite cities are assigned to Judah as early as the time of David (1 Samuel 27⁶ 30³⁰, 2 Samuel 24⁷; compare 1 Kings 19³). In the Blessing of Moses it is passed over in silence. Traces of its dispersion may be found in such Simeonite names as Shime‛i, Shāûl, Yāmîn in other tribes (William Robertson Smith, The Journal of Philology ix. 96); and we may assume that the tribe had disappeared before the establishment of the monarchy (see Steuernagel, 70 ff.; Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 75 ff.).—Very different was the fate of Levi. Like Simeon, it lost its independence and, as a secular tribe, ceased to exist. But its scattered members had a spiritual bond of unity in the possession of the Mosaic tradition and the sacred lot (Deuteronomy 33^8 ff.), in virtue of which it secured a privileged position in the Israelite sanctuaries (Judges 17 f.), and was eventually reconstituted on a sacerdotal basis. The contrast between this passage, where Levi is the subject of a curse, and Deuteronomy 33, where its prerogatives are celebrated with enthusiasm, depends on the distinction just indicated: here Levi is the secular tribe, destroyed by its own ferocity, whose religious importance has not yet emerged; there, it is the Priestly tribe, which, although scattered, yet holds the sacra and the Tôrāh of the Yahwe-religion (Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments⁶ 136 ff.).—The Metre is regular, except that in the last two lines the trimeters are replaced by a binary couplet. That is no sufficient reason for deleting them as an interpolation (Sievers).

5b. LXX συνετέλεσαν ἀδικίαν ἐξ αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν (Old Latin consummaverunt iniquitatem adinventionis suæ); Aquila σκεύη ἀδικίας ἀνασκαφαὶ [αὐτῶν]; Vulgate vasa iniquitatis bellantia [Jerome arma eorum]; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word); Targum^Onkelos בארע תותבותהון עבדו נבורא; Targum^Jonathan [מאני] זיינא שנינא למחטוב היא אשתמודעותהון.—כלי] So Aquila, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targum^Jonathan; but The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Targum^Onkelos כִּלּוּ: ‘they accomplished.’—מכרתיהם] As to the consecutive text, that of LXX cannot be certainly restored; Kethîb is supported by Aquila, Peshiṭtå, Targum^Onkelos (מְכֻרֹת׳: compare Exodus 16³ 21³⁵ 29¹⁴), by Targum^Jonathan (from √ נכר, see Abraham Ibn Ezra), and probably Vulgate. The textual tradition must therefore be accepted as fairly reliable. Of the many Hebrew etymologies proposed (see Dillmann, 459), the most plausible are those which derive from √ כרר, or (reading מִכְרֹ׳) from √ כרה, ‘to dig.’ No √ כרר, ‘dig,’ is actually found, though it might perhaps be assumed as a by-form of כרה: this would give the meaning ‘digging instrument’ (compare gladio confodere), which Vollers (Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, xiv. 355) tries to support from Assyrian. The √ כרר means in Arabic ‘to turn’ or ‘wheel round’; hence Dillmann conjectured that מְכֵרָה may be a curved knife or sabre. Some weapon suits the context, but what exactly it is must remain uncertain. How far the exegesis has been influenced by the resemblance to the Greek μάχαιρα (R. Johanan [died, 279 A.D.], cited in Bereshith Rabba § 99; Rashi) we cannot tell. Ball and Gunkel take the word to be מִכְרָה, the former rendering ‘plots’ (from Arabic makara, ‘to plot’) and the latter ‘pits’ (compare מִכְרֶה, Zephaniah 2⁹); but neither כִּלּוּ חֲמַס מִכְרֹתָם (Ball) nor כִּלַי וְחָמָס מִכְרֹתֵיהֶם [‘knavery and violence are their pits’] (Gunkel) is so good as the ordinary interpretation. Ball, however, rightly observes that מִכְרֹתָם yields a better metre than תֵיהֶם—(so Sievers).—6a. כבדי] Read with LXX כְּבֵדִי, ‘my liver,’ the seat of mental affections in Lamentations 2¹¹ (compare Psalms 16⁹ 30¹³ 57⁹ 108²: Massoretic Text כָּבוֹד): compare kabittu, ‘Gemüth,’ in Assyrian.—תחד] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch יחר. Since כָּבֵד is masculine, read יֵחַד.—6b. רצון] ‘self-will,’ ‘wantonness’; compare Nehemiah 9^24. 37, Esther 1⁸ 9⁵ etc.—עִקֵּר] On certain difficulties in the usage of the word, see Batten, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxviii. 189 ff., where it is argued that the sense is general—‘make useless.’—שׁוֹר] Aquila, Symmachus, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targum^Onkelos read שׁוּר, ‘wall,’ perhaps to avoid the supposed contradiction with 34^28 f.. Hence the correct ταῦρον of LXX is instanced in Mechilta as a change made by the LXX translators (see page 14).—7. ארור, ועברתם] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch אדיר, ועברתם.—עָֽז] Here pausal form of עַז (contrast verse ³).

8–12. Judah.

8. Thee] The emphasis on the pronoun (see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 e) is explained by the contrast to the preceding oracles: at last the singer comes to a tribe which he can unreservedly praise. Nowhere else does the poem breathe such glowing enthusiasm and such elevation of feeling as here. The glories of Judah are celebrated in four aspects: (1) as the premier tribe of Israel, ⁸; (2) as the puissant and victorious lion-tribe, ⁹; (3) as the bearer (in some sense) of the Messianic hope, ¹⁰; (4) as lavishly endowed with the blessings of nature, ^11 f..—יְהוּדָה, יוֹדוּךָ] The same fanciful etymology as in 29³⁵.—thy hand ... foes] The image seems to be that of a defeated enemy, caught by the (back of the) neck in his flight, and crushed (Exodus 23²⁷, Psalms 18⁴¹, Job 16¹²).—thy brethren ... thy father’s sons] The other tribes, who acknowledge the primacy of Judah.—9. A vivid picture of the growth of Judah’s power; to be compared with the beautiful lyric, Ezekiel 19^2–9.—a lion’s whelp] So Deuteronomy 33²² (of Dan). The image naturally suggests the ‘mighty youth’ of the tribe, as its full development is represented by the lion, and old lion of the following lines. Hence the clause מִטֶּרֶף—עָלִיתָ is rendered by some (Gunkel al.): On prey, my son, thou hast grown up (been reared), which is perhaps justified by Ezekiel 19³. But it is better to understand it of the lion’s ascent, after a raid, to his mountain fastness, where he rests in unassailable security (^9b).—he crouches, etc.] So (of Israel as a whole) Numbers 24⁹.—10a. Judah’s political pre-eminence.—sceptre ... staff] The latter word (מְחֹקֵק) might be used personally = ‘prescriber [of laws]’ (LXX, Vulgate, Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan} al.); but שֵׁבֶט is never so used, and parallelism requires that מחקק should be understood of the commander’s staff (Numbers 21¹⁸, Psalms 60⁹ = 108⁹).—from between his feet] The chieftain is conceived as seated with his wand of office held upright in front of him. The Bedouin sheikhs and headmen of villages are said still to carry such insignia of authority.

10b. The logical relation of the two halves of the verse is clear: the state of things described by ^10a shall endure until—something happens which shall inaugurate a still more glorious future. Whether this event be the advent of a person—an ideal Ruler—who shall take the sceptre out of Judah’s hands, or a crisis in the fortunes of Judah which shall raise that tribe to the height of its destiny, is a question on which no final opinion can be expressed (see below).—and to him] Either Judah, or the predicted Ruler, according to the interpretation of ^10bα.—obedience of peoples] Universal dominion, which, however, need not be understood absolutely.

The crux of the passage is thus ^10bα: עד כי־יבוא שילה. For a fuller statement of the various interpretations than is here possible, see Werliin, De laudibus Judæ, 1838 (not seen); Driver The Journal of Philology xiv. 1–28 (and more briefly The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes 410–415); Posnanski, Schilo Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre: 1 Theil: Auslegung von Genesis 49¹⁰ im Alterthume [und] bis zu Ende des Mittelalters, 1904; Dillmann 462 ff.—The renderings grammatically admissible fall into two groups, (i.) Those which adhere to the textus receptus, taking שילה as a proper noun (a) ‘Until Shiloh come’ (Shiloh, a name of the Messiah), the most obvious of all translations, first became current in versions and commentaries of the 16th century, largely through the influence of Sebastian Münster (1534). Although the Messianic acceptation of the passage prevailed in Jewish circles from the earliest times, it attached itself either to the reading שֶׁלֹּה (ii. below) or to the rendering ‘his son’ (שׁיל), or (later and more rarely) to שֵׁי לוֹ (‘gifts to him’). The earliest trace (if not the actual origin) of Shiloh as a personal name is found in the following passage of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 98b): אמר רב לא איברי עלמא אלא לדוד ושמואל אמר למשה ורבי יוחנן אמר למשיח מה שמו דבי ר׳ שילא אמרי שילה שמו שנאמר עד כי יבא שילה (the words are repeated in Echa Rabba, with the addition שלה כתיב): “Rab said, The world was created only for the sake of David; but Samuel said, For the sake of Moses; but R. Yoḥanan said, For the sake of the Messiah. What is his name? Those of the school of R. Shela say, Shiloh is his name, as it is said, ‘Until Shiloh come.’” The sequel of the quotation is: “Those of the school of R. Yannai say, Yinnôn is his name, as it is said (Psalms 72¹⁷), Let his name be for ever, before the sun let his name be perpetuated (יִנּוֹן). Those of the school of R. Ḥaninah say, Ḥanînāh is his name, as it is said (Jeremiah 16¹³), For I will give you no favour (חֲנִינָה). And some say Menahem is his name, ♦as it is said (Lamentations 1¹⁶), For comforter (מְנַחֵם) and restorer of my soul is far from me. And our Rabbis say, The leprous one of the school of Rabbi is his name, as it is said (Isaiah 53⁴), Surely our sicknesses he hath borne, and our pains he hath carried them, though we did esteem him stricken (sc. with leprosy), smitten of God, and afflicted.” Now there is nothing here to suggest that Shiloh was already a current designation of the Messiah any more than, e.g., the verb ינון in Psalms 72¹⁷ can have been a Messianic title. Yet, as Driver says, it is “in this doubtful company that Shiloh is first cited as a name of the Messiah, though we do not learn how the word was read, or what it was imagined to signify.” Subsequently Shiloh as a personal name appears in lists of Messianic titles of the 11th century (Posnanski, 40), and it is so used (alongside of the interpretation שֶׁלּוֹ) by Samuel of Russia (1124). Partly from this lack of traditional authority, and partly from the impossibility of finding a significant etymology for the word (v.i.), this explanation is now universally abandoned.—(b) ‘Until he [Judah] come to Shiloh’ (Herder, Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann [hesitatingly], al.). This is grammatically unexceptionable (compare 1 Samuel 4¹²), and has in its favour the fact that שילה (שִׁלוֹ, שִׁילוֹ [originally שִׁילוֹן]) everywhere in Old Testament is the name of the central Ephraimite sanctuary in the age of the Judges (Joshua 18^1 ff., 1 Samuel 1–4 etc.). At the great gathering of the tribes at Shiloh, where the final partition of the land took place (Joshua 18 f.), Judah is imagined to have laid down the military leadership which had belonged to it during the wars of conquest; so that the prophecy marks the termination of that troubled period of the national life. But all this is unhistorical. The account in Joshua 18 belongs to the later idealisation of the conquest of Canaan; there is no evidence that Judah ever went to Shiloh, and none of a military hegemony of that tribe over the others, or of a subjugation of ‘peoples’ (^10bβ), until the time of David, by which time Shiloh had ceased to be the central sanctuary. Even if (with Dillmann) we abandon the reference to Joshua 18, and take the sense to be merely that Judah will remain in full warlike activity till it has conquered its own territory, it is difficult to see (as Dillmann himself acknowledges) how that consummation could be expressed by a coming to Shiloh.—(c) The translation ‘As long as one comes to Shiloh,’ i.e. for ever (Hitzig, Tuch), gives a sense to עד כי which is barely defensible.—(ii.) Those which follow the text underlying all ancient Versions except Vulgate, viz. שֶׁלֹּה = אֲשֶׁר לוֹ. (a) ‘Until he comes to that which is his’ (Orelli, Br.) involves an improbable use of the accusative; and it is not easy to see how Judah’s coming to his own could be the signal for the cessation of any prerogatives previously enjoyed by him.—(b) ‘Until that which is his shall come’ is a legitimate rendering; but the thought is open to the same objection as ii. (a).—(c). The most noteworthy of this group of interpretations is: ‘Until he come whose’ [it is], sc. the sceptre, the kingdom, the right, etc.; i.e. the Messiah. This has the support not only of nearly all Versions, but of Ezekiel 21³² (where, however, the subject המשפט is expressed). The omission of the subject is a serious syntactic difficulty; and this, added to the questionable use of שֶׁ־ in an early and Judæan passage, makes this widely accepted interpretation extremely precarious. The first objection would be removed if (after a suggestion of Wellhausen [see Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 320]) we could delete the following ולו as a gloss, and read ‘Until he come whose is the obedience,’ etc. But metrical considerations preclude this, as well as the more drastic excision of שלה as a gloss on ולו (ib. 321).—Of conjectural emendations the only one that calls for notice is that of Ball (followed by Gressmann), who reads משְׁלֹה: ‘Until his ruler (i.e. the Messiah) come.’