With regard to the general scope of the verse, the question recurs, whether the term fixed by ^10bα is historic or ideal; whether, in other words, it is a prophecy of the Davidic kingdom or of a future Messiah. (1) The tendency of recent scholars has been to regard verse ¹⁰ as Messianic, but interpolated (Wellhausen, Stade, Dillmann, Holzinger, Driver, al.), on the double ground that it breaks the connexion between ⁹ and ¹¹, and that the idea of a personal Messiah is not older than the 8th century. But (apart from the question whether the subject in ^11 f. be Judah or the Messiah) the connexion between ⁹ and ¹¹ is in any case not so obvious as to justify the removal of ¹⁰; and the assumption that the figure of the Messiah is a creation of the literary Prophets is based more on our ignorance of the early religious conceptions of the Israelites than on positive evidence. (2) Accordingly, Gunkel (followed by Gressmann, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie, 263) finds in the passage proof of a pre-prophetic eschatology, which looked forward to the advent of a Ruler who should found a world-empire, the point of the oracle being that till that great event Judah’s dominion should not pass away. It is difficult, however, to believe that the climax of a blessing on Judah is the expectation of a world-ruler who takes the sceptre out of Judah’s hands; and though a reference to a Messianic tradition is quite conceivable, it is probable that it is here already applied to the Davidic monarchy. (3) It seems to me, therefore, that justice is done to the terms and the tenor of the oracle if we regard it as a prophecy of David and his dynasty,—a vaticinium ex eventu, like all the other oracles in the chapter. The meaning would be that Judah shall retain its tribal independence (see on ^10a) against all adversaries until its great hero makes it the centre of a powerful kingdom, and imposes his sovereignty on the neighbouring peoples. As for the enigmatic שילה, we may, of course, adopt the reading שֶׁלּוֹ, which is as appropriate on this view as on the directly Messianic interpretation. But if the oracle rests on an early eschatological tradition, it is just possible that שִׁלֹה is a cryptic designation of the expected Ruler, which was applied by the poet to the person of David. Bennett (page 397) calls attention to the resemblance with שֵׁלָה in chapter 38; and it is a wonder that those who recognise mythical elements in the story of Judah and Tamar have not thought of identifying the שלה of our passage with Judah’s third son, of whose destiny the story leaves us in ignorance. Is it possible that this connexion was in the minds of the Jewish authorities (v.i.), who render שילה ‘his youngest son’? (see Posnanski, 36³).

10b. עד—שילה] LXX, Theodotion ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ [variants ᾧ τὰ ἀποκείμενα ..., ᾧ ἀποκείμενα ... etc.]; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word); Vulgate donec veniat qui mittendus est (reading שָׁלֻחַ: compare Σιλωάμ (ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Ἀπεσταλμένος), John 9⁷); Targum^Onkelos עד עלמא עד דייתי משיחא דדילהּ היא מלכותא; Targum^Jonathan לד זמן די ייתי מלכא משיחא זעיר בנוי. This last curious rendering (‘the youngest of his sons’) is followed by Kimchi and others; and apparently rests on a misunderstanding of שִׁלְיָתָהּ (‘afterbirth’) in Deuteronomy 28⁵⁷ (Targum^Onkelos זעיר בנהא).—עד כי־] Only here with imperfect. With perfect (26¹³ 41⁴⁹, 2 Samuel 23¹⁰) it always marks a limit in the past (‘until’); but עַד alone sometimes means ‘while,’ both with perfect and imperfect (1 Samuel 14¹⁹, Psalms 141¹⁰), and so עַד שֶ־ (Canticles 1¹²), עד לא (Proverbs 8²⁶), and עד אשד לא (Ecclesiastes 12^1. 2. 6): see Brown-Driver-Briggs, page 725 a. The translation ‘as long as’ is thus perhaps not altogether impossible, though very improbable.—שילה] MSS and The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch שלה, probably the original text. The scriptio plena may have no better foundation than the common Jewish interpretation שִׁילוֹ, ‘his son,’—an impossible etymology, since there is no such word as שִׁיל in Hebrew, and the two forms which appear to have suggested it (viz., New Hebrew שָׁלִיל = ‘fœtus’ and שִׁלְיָה = ‘afterbirth’ [Deuteronomy 28⁵⁷†]) are obviously superficial and fallacious analogies. The Massoretic vocalisation is therefore open to question, and we are free to try any pronunciation of the Kethîb שלה which promises a solution of the exegetical riddle with which we are confronted. In spite of the unanimity of the Versions, the pointing שֶׁלֹּה is suspicious for the reasons given above,—the presence of —שֶׁ in an early document, and the want of a subject in the relative sentence. On the other hand, the attempts to connect the word with √ שׁלה, ‘be quiet,’ are all more or less dubious. (a) There is no complete parallel in Hebrew to a noun like שִׁילֹה from a ל״ה root. If it be of the type qîtôl, the regular form would be שִׁילוֹי; although König (ii. page 147) argues that as we find בֶּכֶה alongside of בְּכִי, so we might have a שִׁילֹה alongside of שִׁילוֹי. Again, if ô be an apocopated form of the nominal termination ôn, the √ would naturally be not שׁלה but שׁיל (in Arabic = ‘flow,’ whence seil, ‘a torrent’) or שׁול. It is true there are a few examples of unapocopated nouns of this type from ל״ה verbs (קִיִצוֹן, אִיתוֹן, [Ezekiel 40¹⁵?], הֵרוֹן [Genesis 3¹⁶†—probably an error for the regular ‏הֵרָיוֹן‎, Hosea 9¹¹, Ruth 4¹³†]); and the possibility of deriving the form in ô from a root of this kind cannot be absolutely excluded (compare אֲבַדֹּה with אֲבַדּוֹן). (b) But even if these philological difficulties could be removed, there remains the objection that שׁלה (as contrasted with שׁלם) is in Old Testament at most a negative word, denoting mere tranquillity rather than full and positive prosperity, and is often used of the careless worldly ease of the ungodly. For all these reasons it is difficult to acquiesce in the view that שִׁלֹה can be a designation of the Messiah as the Peaceful or the Pacifier; while to change the pointing and render till tranquillity (שֶׁלֶה) ‘come,’ is exposed to the additional objection that the וְלוֹ of the following line is left without an antecedent.—יקּהת] (Proverbs 30¹⁷†) Dagesh forte dirimens. The √ appears in Arabic waḳiha, ‘be obedient’; Sabaean וקה. That a verb (יִקָּהֲלוּ, יִקָּווּ?) would be more natural (Ball) is not apparent; the verbs in Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan} paraphrase the sense given above. The √ was evidently not understood by LXX, Theodotion (προσδοκία), Vulgate (expectatio), Aquila (σύστημα), Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) all of which probably derived from √ קַוַה (Aquila from √ קוה, II.: Brown-Driver-Briggs).

11, 12. As usually understood, the verses give a highly coloured picture of Judæan life after the conquest, in a land where vines are so common that they are used for tethering the ass, and wine so abundant that garments are washed in it. As a description of the vine-culture for which Judah was famous, the hyperbole is perhaps extreme; and Gressmann (l.c. 287) takes the subject to be not the personified tribe, but the Ruler of verse ¹⁰, the verses being a prediction of the ideal felicity to be introduced by his reign. Whether this be the original sense of the passage or not is hard to decide; but Gressman is doubtless right in thinking that it supplied the imagery for the well-known picture of the Messianic king in Zechariah 9⁹.—12. LXX, Vulgate take the adjectives as comparatives: ‘brighter than wine (v.i.) ... whiter than milk’: but this is less natural.

The section on Judah lacks the unity of the first two oracles, and is very probably composed of strophes of diverse origin and date. Verse ⁸ opens with a play on the name, like verses ^16. 19, while verse ⁹ starts afresh with an animal comparison, like verses ^14. 17. 27 (see Introductory Note, page 510). The impression of discontinuity is partly confirmed by the poetic form; verse ⁸ being an irregular tristich, and the remainder a series of 7 perfect trimeter distichs. The dekastich ^10–12 seems distinct from what precedes (note the repetition of the name in ¹⁰), but is itself a unity. The proposal to remove verse ¹⁰ as a late Messianic interpolation, and to make verse ¹¹ the continuation of verse ⁹, does not commend itself; and the excision of the third line in verse ¹⁰ (Meier, Fripp) merely avoids an exegetical difficulty by sacrificing the strophic arrangement.

11. אסרי] with archaic case-ending: compare בני below, and perhaps חכלילי in verse ¹².—שׂרֵקָה] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον = שׂרֵק, Isaiah 5², Jeremiah 2²¹ [שָׂרֹק, Isaiah 16⁸]; probably from the red colour of the best grapes.—סותה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch כסותה, ‘covering’ (Exodus 21¹⁰ etc.). סוּת (√ סָוָה?) does not occur elsewhere.—12. חכלילי] In Proverbs 23²⁹ חַכְלִלוּת עינים means ‘dulness of eyes,’ the effect of excessive drinking. This is the only sense justified by etymology (Assyrian akâlu, ‘be gloomy’; Arabic ḥakala, IV, ‘be confused’: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v. חכל), and must be retained here, although, of course, it does not imply reproach, any more than שׁכר in 43³⁴. LXX χαροποι[οί], ‘glad-eyed’; and similarly Vulgate, Peshiṭtå.

13–15. Zebulun and Issachar.

13. shall dwell] An allusion to the etymology in 30²⁰. It is plausibly conjectured that יִשְׁכֹּן has been substituted by mistake for the original יִזְבֹּל (Gunkel al.).—The second and third lines are unintelligible, and the text is probably corrupt. The comparison of Zebulun to a recumbent animal, with ‘itself’ (וְהוּא) towards the sea-coast, and its hind-parts towards Ẓidon (Dillmann, Gunkel, al.), is unsatisfying and almost grotesque. Deuteronomy 33^19b shows that it is the advantageousness of Zebulun’s geographical position which is here celebrated.—Ẓîdôn] may be a name for Phœnicia, in whose commercial pursuits it has been surmised that Zebulun became more and more involved (Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 171).—14. bony] i.e. strong-limbed. Issachar had strength enough, but preferred ease to exertion.—הַמִּשְׁפְּתָֽיִם] The common interpretation ‘sheep-pens’ has no appropriateness here, and may be a conjecture based on Judges 5¹⁶. Equally unsuitable are the renderings of the old Versions (‘boundaries,’ etc.), and the ‘fire-places’ or ‘ash-heaps’ which the Hebrew etymology would suggest. The form is dual, and one naturally thinks of the ‘panniers’ carried by the ass (v.i.).—15. מְנוּחָה] A technical term for the settled, as contrasted with the nomadic, life (Gunkel).—a labouring drudge] literally ‘became a toiling labour-gang’; compare Joshua 16¹⁰. מַס is a levy raised under the system of forced labour (corvée). That a Hebrew tribe should submit to this indignity was a shameful reversal of the normal relations between Israel and the Canaanites (Joshua 16¹⁰ 17¹³ [= Judges 1²⁸], Judges 1^30. 33. 35).

13. חוף ימים] Judges 5¹⁷; compare ח׳ הים, Deuteronomy 1⁷, Joshua 9¹, Jeremiah 47⁷, Ezekiel 25¹⁶†: חוף is never found with any other genitive except in the next line.—והוא וגו׳] One is tempted to construe prosaically thus: ‘And that a shore for ships, with its flank on Ẓidon’; but this would entail elision of לְ, to the detriment of the rhythm: besides, the repetition of חוף and the unique combination ח׳ אניּת are suspicious. Ball reads יגור for לחוף (after Judges 5¹⁷), and deletes the last line.—על] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan} ע͏ד.—14. חמר גרם] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ח׳ גרים, ‘ass of sojourners’ (unless גָּרִים be an adjective from גרם). LXX τὸ καλὸν ἐπεθύμησεν (= חָמֶד גָּרַם: Ginsburg, Introduction of the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible page 254); Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word), Aquila and Vulgate support on the whole Massoretic Text.—בין המשפתים] Judges 5¹⁶†, but compare Psalms 68¹⁴. The three passives are somehow interrelated, although no sense will suit them all. Versions mostly render ‘territories,’ or something equivalent, both here and in Judges. But the διγομίας of LXX in Judges (see Schleusner) is noteworthy, and shows that the rendering above has some show of authority. So the late Græcus-Venetus ἡμιφόρτια. For the rest, see Moore on Judges 5¹⁶.—15. טוב] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch טובה.—למס עבד] LXX ἀνὴρ γεωργός (Ginsburg, l.c.).—On מס, see Brown-Driver-Briggs, and Moore, Judges page 47.

16–21. Dan, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali.

16. Dân ... judge] See on 30⁶.—his people] Not Israel, but his own tribesmen. The meaning is not that Dan will produce a judge (Samson) as well as the other tribes (Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan}), nor that he will champion the national cause (Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann, al.); but that he will successfully assert an equal status with the other tribes. Note that in Judges 18^2. 11. 19 the Danites are spoken of as a ‘clan’ (מִשְׁפָּחָה).—17. The little snake, concealed by the wayside, may unhorse the rider as effectually as a fully armed antagonist: by such insidious, but not ignoble, warfare Dan in spite of his weakness may succeed.—שְׁפִיפֹן] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον is probably the cerastes cornutus, whose habits are here accurately described (see Driver, and Tristram, The Natural History of the Bible, 274).—18. An interpolation, marking (as nearly as possible) the middle of the poem (so Olshausen, Ball, Sievers, al.). The attempts to defend its genuineness as a sigh of exhaustion on Jacob’s part, or an utterance of the nation’s dependence on Yahwe’s help in such unequal conflicts as those predicted for Dan, are inept.—Dan was one of the weakest of the tribes, and perhaps the latest to secure a permanent settlement (Judges 1^34 f., Joshua 19⁴⁷, Judges 18). Its migration northward, and conquest of Laish, must have taken place early in what is known as the Judges’ period; and is apparently presupposed here and in Judges 5¹⁷.—19. Strictly: ‘A marauding band shall attack him, but he shall attack their heel’ (reading עֲקֵבִם, v.i.); i.e., press upon them in their flight. The marauders are the warlike peoples to the East, specially the Ammonites (1 Chronicles 5^18 ff., Judges 10 f.), who at a later time dispossessed the tribe (Jeremiah 49¹). As yet, however, Gad maintains its martial character (compare 1 Chronicles 12^8–15), and more than holds its own.—20. Asher settled in the fertile strip along the coast, North of Carmel. The name occurs as a designation of Western Galilee in Egyptian inscriptions of the time of Seti and Ramses II. (see Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 236 ff.).—fat] Probably an allusion to the oil (Deuteronomy 33²⁴) for which the region was, and still is, famous.—royal dainties] fit for the tables of Phœnician kings (compare Ezekiel 27¹⁷).—21. The verse on Naphtali is ambiguous. Instead of אַיָּלָה, ‘hind,’ many moderns read אֵילָה (‘a spreading terebinth’). The following clause: ‘giving fair speeches,’ suits neither image; on the one view it is proposed to read ‘yielding goodly lambs’ (אִמְּרֵי), on the other ‘producing goodly shoots’ (אֲמִרֵי). No certain conclusion can be arrived at.

17. שפיפן LXX ἐνκαθήμενος, taking the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον as an adjective.—ויפל Ball וַיַפֵּל (after Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word)).—19. גָּד] The name is here (otherwise than 30¹¹) connected with גדוד, ‘band’ (1 Samuel 30^8. 15. 23, 1 Kings 11²⁴, 2 Kings 5² 6²³ etc.), and with √ גוד, ‘assail’ (Habakkuk 3¹⁶, Psalms 94²¹†).—עקב] Read עקבָם, taking the ם from the beginning of verse ²⁰.—20. מאשר] Read with LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate אָשֵׁר.—שמנה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch שמן.—21. אִיָּלָה שלחה] So Aquila, Vulgate (Jerome, Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim). Peshiṭtå and Targum^Jonathan probably had the same text, but render ‘a swift messenger.’ On Jerome’s ager irriguus (Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim) and its Rabbinical parallels, see Rahmer, Die Hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus page 55. LXX στέλεχος seems to imply אֵילָה; but Ball dissents.—הנתן] After either אַיָּלָה or אֵילָה, נֹתְנָה would be better.—אִמְרֵי] ‘words,’ is unsuitable, and caused Peshiṭtå and Targum^Jonathan to change the metaphor to that of a messenger. An allusion to the eloquence of the tribe is out of place in the connexion. The reading אֲמִרֵי, ‘topmost boughs,’ has but doubtful support in Isaiah 17⁶ (see the commentary). אִמֵּר, ‘lamb,’ is not Hebrew, but is found in Assyrian, Phœnician, Aramaic, and Arabic. LXX ἐν τῷ γενήματι is traced by Ball to בִּפְרִי; but?—שֶׁפֶר] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον.—Ball argues ingeniously, but unconvincingly, that אַיָּלָה belongs to verse ²², and that the פרת of that verse stood originally in ²¹. His amended text reads:

22–26. Joseph.

The section is full of obscurities, and the text frequently quite untranslatable. Its integrity has naturally not passed unquestioned. We may distinguish four stages in the unfolding of the theme: (1) The opening tristich (²²), celebrating (as far as can be made out) the populousness and prosperity of the central double-tribe. (2) Joseph’s contest with the ‘archers’ (^23. 24a). (3) A fourfold invocation of the Deity (^{24b. 25aαβ}). (4) The blessing proper (^{25aγδb. 26}), which closely resembles the corresponding part of the Blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33^13–16), the two being probably variants of a common original. Meyer (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 282 ff.) accepts (1), (2), and (4) as genuine, but rejects (3) as a later addition, which has displaced the original transition from the conflict to the blessing. Fripp (Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxi. 262 ff.) would remove (3) and (4) (^24b–26), which he holds to have been inserted by an Ephraimite editor from Deuteronomy 33: Holzinger seems in the main to agree. Sievers also (II. 362) questions the genuineness of ^24b–26 on metrical grounds. But we may admit the northern origin of some of the verses, and the resemblance to Deuteronomy 33, and even a difference of metre, and still hold that the whole belongs to the earliest literary recension of the Song to which we have access. The warm enthusiasm of the eulogy, and the generous recognition of Joseph’s services to the national cause, are no doubt remarkable in a Judæan document; but such a tone is not unintelligible in the time of David, when the unity of the empire had to be maintained by a friendly and conciliatory attitude to the high-spirited central tribes.

22. On the ordinary but highly questionable rendering, the image is that of a young thriving vine planted by a fountain and thus well supplied with water, whose tendrils extend over the wall.—a fruitful bough] Or ‘A young fruit-tree’: literally ‘son of a fruitful [tree’ or ‘vine’]. There is probably an etymological allusion to Ephraim (פְּרָת = אֶפְרָת: Wellhausen).—23, 24. The figure is abruptly changed: Joseph is now represented as beset by troops of archers, whose attack he repels.—dealt bitterly ...] The following word וָרֹבּוּ requires some amendment of text (v.i.).—24. abode unmoved] or ‘constant.’ Taken with the next line, this suggests a fine picture: the bow held steadily in position, while the hand that discharges the arrows in quick succession moves nimbly to and fro (Gunkel). The expressions, however, are peculiar, and a different reading of the second line given in some Versions is approved by several scholars (v.i.).—Strong One of Jacob] A poetic title of Yahwe, recurring Isaiah 49²⁶ 60¹⁶, Psalms 132^2. 5, and (with Israel for Jacob) Isaiah 1²⁴. See, further, the footnote below.—Through the name] מִשֵּׁם, the reading of Peshiṭtå and Targum^Onkelos, though not entirely satisfactory, is at least preferable to the meaningless מִשָּׁם of Massoretic Text.—the Shepherd of the Israel-Stone] A second designation of Yahwe as the Guardian of the Stone of Israel,—either the sacred stone of Bethel, or (better) that of Shechem (Joshua 24^26 f.), which was the religious rendezvous of the tribes in early times (see page 416): so Luther, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 284¹. Both text and translation are, however, uncertain (v.i.).—25, 26. The construction is ambiguous: it is not clear whether the lines beginning with Blessings are a series of accusatives depending on the וִיבָרְכֶךָּ of ^25a (‘may he bless thee with blessings,’ etc.), or subjects to תִּֽהְיֶין in ^26b. The second view is adopted above; but the ambiguity may be an intentional refinement.—25aαβ. ’Ēl Shaddai] For the reading, v.i.; and see on 17¹.—25aγδb, 26a. The blessings, arranged in three parallel couplets,—the first referring to the fertility of the soil.—Blessings of heaven above] Rain and dew, the cause of fertility (so Deuteronomy 33¹³ emended).—Tĕhôm ... beneath] The subterranean flood, whence springs and rivers are fed: see on 1².—Blessings of breasts and womb] Contrast the terrible imprecation, Hosea 9¹⁴.—26a. Passing over the first four words as absolutely unintelligible (v.i.), we come to the third pair of blessings: ... of the eternal mountains ... of the everlasting hills (Deuteronomy 33¹⁵, Habakkuk 3⁶)] In what sense the mountains were conceived as a source of blessing is not clear,—perhaps as abodes of deity; compare the ‘dew of Hermon’ (Psalms 133³).—The word rendered produce is uncertain; we should expect ‘blessings,’ as LXX actually reads (v.i.).—26b. Be on the head] as in benediction the hand is laid on the head (48¹⁴): compare Proverbs 10⁶ 11²⁶.—נְזִיר אֶחָיו] So Deuteronomy 33¹⁶. The נָזִיר is either the Nazirite—one ‘consecrated’ to God by a vow involving unshorn hair (Judges 13^5. 7 etc.)—or the prince (so only Lamentations 4⁷). For the rendering ‘crowned one’ there are no examples. The second interpretation is that usually adopted by recent scholars; some explaining it of the Northern monarchy, of which the Joseph-tribes were the chief part; though others think it merely ascribes to Joseph a position of princely superiority to his brethren. The other view is taken by Sellin (Beiträge zur israelitischen und jüdischen religionsgeschichte ii. 1, 132 ff.) and Gunkel, who conceive the ancient Nazirite as a man like Samson, dedicated to single-handed warfare against the foes of Israel (compare Schwally, Semitische Kriegsaltertümer, 101 ff.), and hold that Joseph is so designated as being the foremost champion of the national cause. The interpretation is certainly plausible; but it derives no support from the word קָדְקֹד (∥ ראשׁ), which is never used in connexion with the Nazirite, and is quite common in other connexions (see Deuteronomy 33²⁰).

22. בן פרת] בֵּן is construct state: the rhythmic accent forbids the usual shortening of the vowel with Maqqeph (בֶּך).—פֹּרָת] Contracted from פֹּרִיָּת, ‘fruitful’ (Isaiah 17⁶ 32¹², Ezekiel 19¹⁰, Psalms 128³), or פֹּרַיַת, with archaic feminine termination. פֹּארָה, ‘bough’ (Ezekiel 17⁶ 31^5. 6), might be thought of, but would be hardly suitable as genitive after בן.—Down to עין the Versions have substantially the same text.—בנות צעדה עלי שור] defies explanation. Literally filiæ discurrerunt super murum (Vulgate). But בנות = ‘tendrils,’ has no analogy; צעד means ‘march’ or ‘stride,’ but not ‘extend’; and the discord of number is harsh (notwithstanding Gesenius-Kautzsch § 145 k). The Versions reveal early corruption of the text, without suggesting anything better. LXX υἱός μου νεώτατος (= The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch בני צעירי) πρὸς μὲ ἀνάστρεψον (= עָלַי שׁוּב). Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (? בִּנְיָן סָעֻד הָעֹלֶה שׁוּר).—Zimmern’s zodiacal theory, which identifies Joseph with the sign Taurus, finds two tempting points of contact in the consonantal text: reading פָּרָת = פָּרָה, ‘juvenca,’ at the beginning, and שוֹר, ‘ox,’ at the end. But the reconstruction of the text on these lines, with the help of Deuteronomy 33¹⁷ (see Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, vii. 164 ff.; Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 399), has no title to respect: against it see Ball, page 116.—23. וָרֹבּוּ] From √ רבב, a by-form of רבה,¹ ‘shoot,’ with intransitive perfect (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 m). The simple perfect between two consecutive imperfects being suspicious, the least change demanded is וַיָּרֹבּוּ. The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX (ἐλοιδόρουν) and Vulgate (jurgati sunt) read וַיְרִיבֻהוּ, ‘strove with him.’ Parallelism suggests a noun as subject to וַיְמ׳; we might read רַבִּים, ‘bowmen’ (Jeremiah 50²⁹), or (since the line is too short) רֹבֵי קֶשֶׁת (21²⁰)—24a. LXX καὶ συνετρίβη μετὰ κράτους τὰ τόξα αὐτῶν [= וַתִּשָּׁבֵר בְּאֵיתָן קַשְׁתָּם].—ותשב] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) = וַתָּֽשָׁב. The sense ‘abide’ for ישׁב is justified by Leviticus 12⁴, 1 Kings 22¹, Psalms 125¹, and nothing is gained by departing from Massoretic Text.—באיתן] Literally ‘as a permanent one’ (בְּ essentiæ).—ויפזר] 2 Samuel 6¹⁶†. LXX καὶ ἐξελύθη, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) may represent ויפזרו (see Ball).—[LXX יָדָם] זרועי ידיו] is a hard combination, but perhaps not too bold.—24b. אֲבִיר] occurs only in the passive cited above. It is reasonably suspected that the Massoretic changed the punctuation to avoid association of ideas with אַבִּיר, ‘bull,’ the idolatrous emblem of Yahwe in North Israel. Whether the name as applied to Yahwe be really a survival of the bull-worship of Bethel and Dan is another question; אַבִּיר (strong) is an epithet of men (Judges 5²², Job 24²² 34²⁰, Jeremiah 46¹⁵, 1 Samuel 21⁸ etc.), and horses (Jeremiah 8¹⁶ 47³ 50¹¹) much more often than of bulls (Psalms 22¹³ 68³¹ 50¹³, Isaiah 34⁷), and might have been transferred to Yahwe in its adjective sense. On the other hand, the parallelism with ‘Stone of Israel’ in the next line favours the idea that the title is derived from the cult of the Bull at Bethel, which may have had a more ancient significance than an image of Yahwe (compare Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 282 ff.; Luther, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxi. 70 ff.). The further inference (Nöldeke, Luther, Meyer) that Jacob was the deity originally worshipped in the bull is perhaps too adventurous.—מִשָּׁם] So LXX, Vulgate; but Peshiṭtå, Targum^Onkelos מִשֵּׁם.—אבן ישראל] Compare צור יש׳, 2 Samuel 23³, Isaiah 30²⁹; also א׳ הָעֶזָר, 1 Samuel 4¹ 5¹ 7¹². The translation above agrees with Peshiṭtå; Massoretic Text puts רֹעֶה in apposition with א׳ י׳ (so Vulgate); LXX ♦ἐκεῖθεν ὁ κατισχύσας Ἰσραήλ omits אבן, and may have read עזר (Ball). The line is too long for the metre, but אבן is the one word that should not be omitted.—25. ויעזרך ... ויברכך] Compare Psalms 69³³, and see Ewald § 347 a.—ואת־] Read with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX (ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐμός), Peshiṭtå וְאֵל: though שֶׂדַּי alone (Numbers 24^4. 16) would be suitable in an ancient poem.—רבצת] Metrically necessary in Deuteronomy 33¹³, but here redundant; probably, therefore, a gloss from the other recension (Sievers).—26. אביך גברו על־ברכת הורי עד־] There are two stages of corruption, one remediable, the other not. The last line is to be restored with LXX ברכת הַרְרֵי עַד, ‘blessings of the eternal mountains’ (Deuteronomy 33¹⁵, Habakkuk 3⁶). But the first three words, though represented by all Versions, must be wrong; for to put ברכת under the regimen of על destroys the parallelism, and the verb גָּֽבְרוּ cuts off תהיין from its subject. What is obviously required is a line parallel to ברכת שדים ורחם. Gunkel’s suggested emendation, though far from satisfying, is the best that can be proposed: ברכת אָב אַךְ נֶּבֶר וָעֻל = ‘Blessings of father, yea, man and child.’—אביך] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX + ואמך, suggested no doubt by the previous line.—הורי] Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan} render ‘my progenitors,’ by an impossible derivation from √ הרה, ‘be pregnant.’—תאות] English Version ‘utmost bound’ (so Delitzsch, from √ תאה or תוה; see Brown-Driver-Briggs), has no real philological or traditional justification. If the text were reliable, it might be the common word ‘desire,’ from √ אוה (LXX^cursives, Old Latin Version, Vulgate, Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan}), in the sense of ‘desirable things.’ With some hesitation I follow above Olshausen, Gunkel, al., reading תבואת after Deuteronomy 33¹⁴. But LXXᴮ ברכת has great weight (all the greater that the translator has lost the thread of the thought), and ought perhaps to be preferred.—נזיר] is not necessarily a derivative from the noun נֵזָר, ‘diadem,’ = ‘the crowned one’; more probably it comes from the verb directly,—נזר = ‘dedicate’ (compare נדר)—which admits various shades of meaning. Of the Versions LXX, Targum^Jonathan represent the idea of ‘prince’ or ‘ruler,’ Targum^Onkelos ‘the separated one,’ Vulgate, Saadya ‘the Nazirite,’ Peshiṭtå ‘the crown’ (נַזָר).