ing of stone with a dome, and within it a tomb in the ordinary Mohammedan form" (Rob. Pal. 1, p. 322). It has been recently enlarged by a square court with high walls and arches on the eastern side (Rob. Bibl. Researches, p. 357). Now although this grave is not ancient, the correctness of the tradition, which fixes upon this as the site of Rachel's grave, cannot on the yrhole be disputed. At any rate, the reasons assigned to the contrary by Theniw, Kurtz, and others are not conclusive.
inheritance. With this, therefore, the history of Isaac's Hfe is brought to a close. Isaac died at the age of 180, and was buried by his two sons in the cave of Machpelah (chap. xHx. 31), Abra-^ ham's family grave, Esau having come from Seir to Hebron to attend the funeral of his father. But Isaac's death did not actually take place for 12 years after Jacob's return to Hebronj For as Joseph was 17 years old when he was sold by his brethrei (xxxvii. 2), and Jacob was then living at Hebron (xxxvii. 14)J it cannot have been more than 31 years after his flight froi Esau when Jacob returned home (cf. chap, xxxiv. 1). NoW since, according to our calculation at chap, xxvii. 1, he was 77 years old when he fled, he must have been 108 when he returned home; and Isaac would only have reached his 168th year, as he was 60 years old when Jacob was born (xxv. 26). Consequently Isaac lived to witness the grief of Jacob at the loss of Joseph, and died but a short time before his promotion in Egypt, which occurred 13 years after he was sold (xli. 46), and only 10 years before Jacob's removal with his family to Egypt, as Jacob was 130 years old when he was presented to Pharaoh (xlvii. 9). But the historical significance of his life was at an end, when Jacob returned home with his twelve sons.
" Esau and Jacob shook hands once more over the corpse oi their father. Henceforth their paths diverged, to meet no more" (Del). As Esau had also received a divine promise (xxv. 23), and the history of his tribe was already interwoven in the paternal blessing with that of Israel (xxvii. 29 and 40), an account is given in the book of Genesis of his growth into a nation; and a separate section is devoted to this, which, according to the invariable plan of the book, precedes the tholedoth of Jacob. The account is subdivided into the following sections, which are distinctly indicated by their respective headings. (Compare with these the parallel list in 1 Chron. i. 35-54.)
Vers. 1-8. Esau's wives and children. His settlement IN the mountains of Seir. — In the heading (ver. 1) the surname Edom is added to the name Esau, which he received at his birth, because the former became the national designation of his descendants.— Vers. 2, 3. The names of Esau's three wives differ from those given in the previous accounts (chap. xxvi. 34 and xxviii. 9), and in one instance the father's name as well. The daughter of Elon the Hittite is called Adah (the ornament), and in chap. xxvi. 34 Basmath (the fragrant); the second is called Aholibamah (probably tent-height), the daughter of Anah, daughter, i.e. grand-daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, and in xxvi. 34, Jehudith (the praised or praiseworthy), daughter of Beeri the Hittite; the third, the daughter of Ishmael, is called Basmath here and Mahalath in chap, xxviii. 9. This difference arose from the fact, that Moses availed himself of genealogical documents for Esau's family and tribe, and inserted them without alteration. It presents no irreconcilable discrepancy, therefore, but may be explained from the ancient custom in the East, of giving surnames, as the Arabs frequently do still, founded upon some important or memorable event in a man's life, which gradually superseded the other name (e.g. the name Edom, as explained in chap. xxv. 30); whilst as a rule the women received new names when they were married (cf. Chardin, Hengstenberg, Dissertations, vol. ii. p. 223-6). The different names given for the father of Aholibamah or Judith, Hengstenherg explains by referring to the statement in ver. 24, that Anah, the son of Zibeon, while watching the asses of his father in the desert, discovered the warm springs (of Calirrhoe), on which he founds the acute conjecture, that from this discovery Anah received the surname Beeri, i.e. spring-man, which so threw his original name into the shade, as to be the only name given in the genealogical table. There is no force in the objection, that according to ver. 25 Aholibamah was not a daughter of the discoverer of the springs, but of his uncle of the same name. For where is it stated that the Aholibamah mentioned in ver. 25 was Esau's wife? And is it a thing unheard of that aunt and niece should have the same name? If Zibeon gave his second son the name of his brother Anah (cf. vers. 24 and 20), why could not his son Anah have named his daughter after his cousin, the daughter of his father's brother? The reception of Aholibamah into the list of the Seirite princes is no proof that she was Esau's wife, but may be much more naturally supposed to have arisen from the same (unknown) circumstance as that which caused one of the seats of the Edomitish AUuphim to be called by her name (ver. 41). — Lastly, the remaining diversity, viz. that Anah is called a Hivite in ver. 2 and a Hittite in chap. xxvi. 34, is not to be explained by the conjecture, that for Hivite we should read Horite, according to ver. 20, but by the simple assumption that Hittite is used in chap. xxvi. 34 sensu latiori for Canaanite, according to the analogy of Josh. i. 4, 1 Kings x. 29, 2 Kings vii. 6; just as the two Hittite wives of Esau are called daughters of Canaan in chap, xxviii. 8. For the historical account, the ge neral name Hittite sufficed; but the genealogical list required the special name of the particular branch of the Canaanitish tribes, viz. the Hivites. In just as simple a manner may the introduc,; tion of the Hivite Zibeon among the Horites of Seir (vers. 20 and i 24) be explained, viz. on the supposition that he removed to the mountains of Seir, and there became a Horite, i.e. a troglodyte or dweller in a cave. — The names of Esau's sons occur again in 1 Chron. i. 35. The statement in vers. 6, 7, that Esau went with his family and possessions, which he had acquired in Canaan, into the land of Seir, from before his brother Jacob, does not imply (in contradiction to chap, xxxii. 4, xxxiii. 14-16) that he did not leave the land of Canaan till after Jacob's return. The words may be understood without difficulty as meaning, that after founding a house of his own, when his family and flocks increased, Esau sought a home in Seir, because he knew that Jacob, as the heir, would enter upon the family possessions, but without waiting till he returned and actually took possession. In the clause " went into the country'''' (ver. 6), the name Seir or Edom (cf. ver. 16) must have dropt out, as the words "into the country" convey no sense when standing by themselves.:
Vers. 9-14 (cf. 1 Chron. i. 36, 37). Esau's sons and GEANDSONS AS FATHEES OF TRIBES. — Through them he became the father of Edom, i.e. the founder of the Edomitish nation on the mountains of Seir. Mount Seir is the mountainous region between the Dead Sea and the Elanitic Gulf, the northern half of which is called Jebdl {Te^aXrjvrj) by the Arabs, the southern half, Sherah (Eob. Pal. ii. 552).— In the oase of two of the wives of Esau, who bore only one son each, the tribes were founded not by the sons, but by the grandsons; but in that of Aholibamah the three sons were the founders. Among the sons of Eliphaz we find Amalek, whose mother was Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz. He was the ancestor of the Amalekites, who attacked the Israelites at Horeb as they came out of Egypt under Moses (Ex. xvii. 8 sqq.), and not merely of a mixed tribe of Amalekites and Edomites, belonging to the supposed aboriginal Amalekite nation. For the Arabic legend of A mlik as an aboriginal tribe of Arabia is far too recent, confused, and contradictory to counterbalance the clear testimony of the record before us. The allusion to the fields of the Amalekites in chap. xiv. 7 does not imply that the tribe was in existence in Abraham's time, nor does the expression " first of the nations," in the saying of Balaam (Num. xxiv. 20), represent Amalek as the aboriginal or oldest tribe, but simply as the first heathen tribe by which Israel was attacked. The Old Testament says nothing of any fusion of Edomites or Horites with Amalekites, nor does it mention a double Amalek (cf. Hengstenberg, Dessertations 2, 247 sqq., and Kurtz, History i. 122, 3, ii. 240 sqq.).^ If there had been an Amalek previous to Edom, with the important part which they took in opposition to Israel even in the time of Moses, the book of Genesis would not have omitted to give their pedigree in the list of the nations. At a very early period the Amalekites separated from the other tribes of Edom and formed an independent people, having their headquarters in the southern part of the mountains of Judah, as far as Kadesh (xiv. 7; Num. xiii. 29, xiv. 43, 45), but, like the Bedouins, spreading themselves as a nomad tribe over the whole of the northern portion of Arabia Petrsea, from Havilah to Shur on the border of Egypt (1 Sam. xv. 3, 7, xxvii. 8); whilst one branch penetrated into the heart of Canaan, so that a range of hills, in what was afterwards the inheritance of Ephraim, bore the name of mountains of the Amalekites (Judg. xii. 15, cf. v. 14). Those who settled in Arabia seem also to have separated in the course of time into several branches, so that Amalekite hordes invaded the land of
1 The occurrence of " Timna and Amalek " in 1 Chron. i. 36, as coordinate with the sons of Eliphaz, is simply a more concise form of saying "and from Timna, Amalek."
Israel in connection sometimes with the Midianites and the sons of the East (the Arabs, Judg. vi. 3, vii. 12), and at other times with the Ammonites (Judg. iii. 13). After they had been defeated by Saul (1 Sam. xiv. 48, xv. 2 sqq.), and frequently chastised by David (1 Sam. xxvii. 8, xxx. 1 sqq.; 2 Sam. viii. 12), the remnant of them was exterminated under Hezekiah by the Simeonites on the mountains of Seir (1 Chron. iv. 42, 43).
Vers. 15-19. The tribe-princes who descended from Esau. — D"'D^'PK was the distinguishing title of the Edomite and Horite phylarchs; and it is only incidentally that it is applied to Jewish heads of tribes in Zech. ix. 7, and xii. 5. It is probably derived from ^?^ or D''S^^, equivalent to ninaK'Pj families (1 Sam. x. 19; Mic. v. 2), — the heads of the families, i.e. of the principal divisions, of the tribe. The names of these AUupJiim are not names of places, but of persons — of; the three sons and ten grandsons of Esau mentioned in vers. 9—14; though Knohel would reverse the process and interpret the whole geographically. — In ver. 16 Korah has probably been copied by mistake from ver. 18, and should therefore be erased, as it really is in the Samar. Codex.
Yers. 20-30 (parallel, 1 Chron. i. 38-42). Descendants OF Seir the Horite; — the inhabitants of the land, or pre-Edomitish population of the country. — " The Horite: " 6 Tpoyy\oBi)T7]<;, the dweller in caves, which abound in the mountains of Edom (vid. Eob. Pal. ii. p. 424). The Horites, who had previously been an independent people (xiv. 6), were partly exterminated and partly subjugated by the descendants of Esau (Deut. ii. 12, 22). Seven sons of Seir are given as tribe-princes of the Horites, who are afterwards mentioned as Alluphim (vers. 29, 30), also their sons, as well as two daughters, Timna (ver. 22) and Aholibamah (ver. 25), who obtained notoriety from the fact that two of the headquarters of Edomitish tribe-princes bore their names (vers. 40 and 41). Timna was probably the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (ver. 12); but Aholibamah was not the wife of Esau (cf. ver. 2). — There are a few instances in which the names in this list differ from those in the Chronicles. But they are differences which either consist of variations in form, or have arisen from mistakes in copying.^ Of Anah, the son of Zibeon, it is related (ver. 24), that as he fed the asses of his father in the desert, he " found ^??.r!;" — not "he invented mules," as the Talmud, Luther, etc., render it, for mules are D'''TiS, and NXJ3 does not mean to invent; but he discovered aguce calidce (^Vulg.), either the hot sulphur springs of Calirrhoe in the Wady Zerka Maein {yid. x. 19), or those in the Wady el Ahsa to the S.E. of the Dead Sea, or those in the Wady Hamad between Kerek and the Dead Sea.^ — Ver. 30. " These are the princes of the Horites according to their princes" i.e. as their princes were individually named in the land of Seir. p in enumerations indicates the relation of the individual to the whole, and of the whole to the individual.
Vers. 31-39 (parallel, 1 Chron. i. 43-50). The kings in THE LAND OF Edom: before the children of Israel had a king. It is to be observed in connection with the eight kings mentioned here, that whilst they follow one another, that is to say,
' Knohel also undertakes to explain these names geographically, and to point them out in tribes and places of Arabia, assuming, quite arbitrarily and in opposition to the text, that the names refer to tribes, not to persons, although an incident is related of Zibeon's son, which proves at once that the list relates to persons and not to tribes; and expecting his readers to believe that not only are the descendants of these troglodytes, who were exterminated before the time of Moses, still to be found, but even their names may be traced in certain Bedouin tribes, though more than 3000 years have passed away! The utter groundlessness of such explanations, which rest upon nothing more than similarity of names, may be seen in the association of Shobal with Syria Sobal (Judith iii. 1), the name used by the Crusaders for Ai-alia tertia, i.e. the southernmost district below the Dead Sea, which was conquered by them. For notwithstanding the resemblance of the name Shobal to Sobal, no one. could seriously think of connecting Syria Sobal with the Horite prince Shobal, unless he was altogether ignorant of the apocryphal origin of the former name, which first of all arose from the Greek or Latin version of the Old Testament, and in fact from a misunderstanding of Ps. Ix. 2, where, instead n^lV D1S, Aram Zobah, we find in the LXX. "Ivpiei l.o^a'K, and in the Vulg. Syria et Sobal.
' It is possible that there may be something significant in the fact that it was " as he was feeding his father's asses," and that the asses may have contributed to the discovery; just as the whirlpool of Karlsbad is said to have been discovered through a hound of Charles IV., which pursued a stag into a hot spring, and attracted the huntsmen to the spot by its howling.
one never comes to the throne till his predecessor is dead, yet the son nevey succeeds the father, but they all belong to different families and places, and in the case of the last the statement that " he died" is wanting. From this it is unquestionably obvious, that the sovereignty was elective; that the kings were chosen by the phylarchs; and, as Isa. xxxiv. 12 also shows, that they lived or reigned contemporaneously with these. The contemporaneous existence of the AUuphim and the kings may also be inferred from Ex. xv. 15 as compared with Num. xx. 14 sqq. Whilst it was with the king of Edom that Moses treated respecting the passage through the land, in the song of Moses it is the princes who tremble with fear on account of the miraculous passage through the Red Sea (cf. Ezek. xxxii. 29). Lastly^ this is also supported by the fact, that the account of the seats | of the phylarchs (vers. 40-43) follows the list of the kings.! This arrangement would have been thoroughly unsuitable if the I monarchy had been founded upon the ruins of the phylarchs (vid. Hengstenherg, ut sup. pp. 238 sqq.). Of all the kings of 1 Edom, not one is named elsewhere. It is true, the attempt has 1 been made to identify the fourth, Hadad (ver. 35), with the Edomite Hadad who rose up against Solomon (1 Kings xi. 14); but without foundation. The contemporary of Solomon was of | royal blood, but neither a king nor a pretender; our Hadad, on the contrary, was a king, but he was the son of an unknown Hadad of the town of Avith, and no relation to his predecessor Husham of the country of the Temanites. It is related of him that he smote Midian in the fields of Moab (ver. 35); from which Hengstenherg (pp. 235-6) justly infers that this event cannot have been very remote from the Mosaic age, since we find the | Midianites allied to the Moabites in Num. xxii.; whereas after-l wards, viz. in the time of Gideon, the Midianites vanished from history, and in Solomon's days the fields of Moab, being Israelitish territory, cannot have served as a field of battle for the] Midianites and Moabites. — Of the tribe-cities of these kingd only a few can be identified now. Bozrah, a noted city of the] Edomites (Isa. xxxiv. 6, Ixiii. 1, etc.), is still to be traced in Buseireh, a village with ruins in Jebal (Rob. Pal. ii. 571). — ^The land of the Temanite (ver. 34) is a province in northern Idumasa,! with a city, Teman, which has not yet been discovered; according to Jerome, quinque millibus from Petra. — Behoboth of the]
river (ver. 37) can neither be the Idumaean Rohotha, nor er Rulmheh in the wady running towards el Arish, bnt must be sought for on the Euphrates, say in Errachabi or Rachabeh, near the mouth of the Chaboras. Consequently Saul, who sprang from Rehoboth, was a foreigner. — Of the last king, Hadar (ver. 39; not Hadad, as it is written in 1 Chron. i. 50), the wife, the mother-in-law, and the mother are mentioned: his death is not mentioned here, but is added by the later chronicler (1 Chron. i. 51). This can be explained easily enough from the simple fact, that at the time when the table was first drawn up, Hadad was still alive and seated upon the throne. In all probability, therefore, Hadad was the king of Edom, to whom Moses appHed for permission to pass through the land (Num. xx. 14 sqq.).^ At any rate the list is evidently a record relating to the Edomitish kings of a pre-Mosaic age. But if this is the case, the heading, " These are the kings that reigned in the land of JEdom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel^'' does not refer to the time when the monarchy was introduced into Israel under Saul, but was written with the promise in mind, that kings should come out of the loins of Jacob (xxxv. 11, cf. xvii. 4 sqq.), and merely expresses the thought, that Edom became a kingdom at an earlier period than Israel. Such a thought was by no means inappropriate to the Mosaic age. For the idea, " that
^ If this be admitted; then, on the supposition that this list of kings contains all the previous kings of Edom, the introduction of monarchy among the Edomites can hardly have taken place more than 200 years before the exodus; and, in that case, none of the phylarchs named in vers. 15-18 can have lived to see its establishment. For the list only reaches to the grandsons of Esau, none of whom are likely to have lived more than 100 or 160 years after Esau's death. It is true we do not know when Esau died; but 413 years elapsed between the death of Jacob and the exodus, and Joseph, who was born in the 91st year of Jacob's life, died 54 years afterwards, i.e. 359 years before the exodus. But Esau was married in his 40th year, 37 years before Jacob (xxvi. 34), and had sons and daughters before his removal to Seir (ver. 6). Unless, therefore, his sons and grandsons attained a most unusual age, or were married remarkably late in Hfe, his grandsons can hardly have outlived Joseph more than 100 years. Now, if we fix their death at about 250 years before the exodus of Israel from Egypt, there remains from that point to the arrival of the Israelites at the land of Edom (Num. xx. 14) a period of 290 years; amply sufficient for the reigns of eight kings, even if the monarchy was not introduced till after the death of the last of the phylarchs mentioned in vers. 15-18.
Israel was destined to grow into a kingdom with monarclis of ^ ^ liis own family, was a hope handed down to the age of Moses,] which the long residence in Egypt was well adapted to foster" (Del).
That the names which follow are not a second list of Edomitish tribe-princes (viz. of those who continued the ancient constitution, with its hereditary aristocracy, after Hadar's death), but i merely relate to the capital cities of the old phylarchs, is evidentl from the expression in the heading, " After their places, hy theiA names" as compared with ver. 43, ^^ According to their habitations in the land of their possession." This being the substance and intention of the list, there is nothing surprising in the fact,^ that out of the eleven names only two correspond to those given] in vers. 15-19. This proves nothing more than that only two; of the capitals received their names from the princes who cap-l tured or founded them, viz. Timnah and Kenaz. Neither ofl these has been discovered yet. The name Aholihamah is derivedl from the Horite princess (ver. 25); its site is unknown. Elah\ is the port Aila (vid. xiv. 6). Pinon is the same as Phunon, an, encampment of the Israelites (Num. xxxiii. 42-3), celebrated! for its mines, in Mhich many Christians were condemned to labour under Diocletian, between Petra and Zoar, to the northeast of Wady Musa. Teman is the capital of the land of the' Temanites (ver. 34). Mihzar is supposed by Knohel to be Petra; but this is called SelaJi elsewhere (2 Kings xiv. 7). Magdiel and Iram cannot be identified. The concluding sentence, " This is Esau, the father (founder) of Edom" (i.e. from him sprang the '■ great nation of the Edomites, with its princes and kings, upon ' the mountains of Seir), not only terminates this section, butj prepares the way for the history of Jacob, which commences j with the following chapter.
The history (tholedotJt) of Isaac commenced with the founding of his house by the birth of his sons (p. 266); but Jacob was abroad when his sons were born, and had not yet entered into undisputed possession of his inheritance. Hence his tkoledoth only commence with his return to his father's tent and his entrance upon the family possessions, and merely embrace the history of his life as patriarch of the house which he founded. In this period of his life, indeed, his sons, especially Joseph and Judah, stand in the foreground, so that " Joseph might be described as the moving principle of the following history." But for all that, Jacob remains the head of the house, and the centre around whom the whole revolves. This section is divided by the removal of Jacob to Egypt, into the period of his residence in Canaan (chap, xxxvii.-xlv.), and the close of his life in Goshen (chap, xlvi.-l.). The first period is occupied with the events which prepared the way for, and eventually occasioned, his migration into Egypt. The way was prepared, directly by the sale of Joseph (chap, xxxvii.), indirectly by the alliance of Judah with the Canaanites (chap, xxxviii.), which endangered the divine call of Israel, inasmuch as this showed the necessity for a temporary removal of the sons of Israel from Canaan. The way was opened by the wonderful career of Joseph in Egypt, his elevation from slavery and imprisonment to be the ruler over the whole of Egypt (xxxix.-xli.). And lastly, the migration was occasioned by the famine in Canaan, which rendered it necessary for Jacob's sons to travel into Egypt to buy corn, and, whilst it led to Jacob's recovery of the son he had mourned for as dead, furnished an opportunity for Joseph to welcome his family into Egypt (chap, xlii.-xlv.). The second period commences with the migration of Jacob into Egypt, and his settlement in the land of Goshen (chap, xlvi.-xlvii. 27). It embraces the patriarch's closing years, his last instructions respecting his burial in Canaan (chap, xlvii. 28-31), his adoption of Joseph's sons, and PENT. — VOL. I. Y the blessing given to his twelve sons (chap, xlix.), and extend^ ^ to his burial and Joseph's death (chap. 1.). 1^
Now if we compare this period of the patriarchal history with the previous ones, viz. those of Isaac and Abraham, it differs from them most in the absence of divine revelations — in the fact, that from the time of the patriarch's entrance upon the family inheritance to the day of his death, there was only one other occasion on which God appeared to him in a dream, viz. in Beersheba, on the border of the promised land, when he had prepared to go with his whole house into Egypt: the God of his father then promised him the increase of his seed in Egypt into a great nation, and their return to Canaan (xlvi. 2-4). This fact may be easily explained on the ground, that the end of the divine manifestations had been already attained; that in Jacob's house with his twelve sons the foundation was laid for the development of the promised nation; and that the time had come, in which the chosen family was to grow into a nation, — a process for which they needed, indeed, the blessing and protection of God, but no special revelations, so long at least as this growth into a nation took its natural course. That course was not interrupted, but rather facilitated by the removal into Egypt. But as Canaan had been assigned to the patriarchs as the land of their pilgrimage, and promised to their seed for a possession after it had become a nation; when Jacob was compelled to leave this land, his faith in the promise of God might have been shaken, if God had not appeared to him as he departed, to promise him His protection in the foreign land, and assure him of the fulfilment of His promises. More than this the house of Israel did not need to know, as to the way by which God would lead them, especially as Abraham had already received a revelation from the Lord (xy; 13-16).
In perfect harmony with the character of the time thus com^ mencing for Jacob-Israel, is the use of the names of God in this last section of Genesis: viz. the fact, that whilst in chap, xxxvii. (the sale of Joseph) the name of God is not met with at all, in chap, xxxviii. and xxxix. we find the name of Jehovah nine times and Elohim only once (xxxix. 9), and that in circumstances in which Jehovah would have been inadmissible; and after chap. xl. 1, the name Jehovah almost entirely disappears, occurring only once in chap, xl.-l. (chap. xlix. 18, where Jacob uses it), whereas Elohim is used eighteen times and Ha-Elohim seven, not to mention such expressions as "your God" (xliii. 23), or " the God of his, or your father" (xlvi. 1, 3). So long as the attention is confined to this numerical proportion of Jehovah, and Elohim or Ha-Elohim, it must remain " a difficult enigma." But when we look at the way in which these names are employed, we find the actual fact to be, that in chap, xxxviii. and xxxix. the writer mentions God nine times, and calls Him Jehovah, and that in chap, xl.-l. he only mentions God twice, and then calls Him Elohim (xlvi. 1, 2), although the God of salvation, i.e. Jehovah, is intended. In every other instance in which God is referred to in chap, xl.-l., it is always by the persons concerned: either Pharaoh (xli. 38, 39), or Joseph and his brethren (xl. 8, xli. 16, 51, 52, etc., Elohim; and xli. 25, 28, 32, etc., Ha-Elohim), or by Jacob (xlviii. 11, 20, 21, Elohim). Now the circumstance that the historian speaks of God nine times in chap, xxxviii. xxxix. and only twice in chap, xl.-l. is explained by the substance of the history, which furnished no particular occasion for this in the last eleven chapters. But the reason why he does not name Jehovah in chap, xl.-l. as in chap, xxxviii. -xxxix., but speaks of the " God of his (Jacob's) father Isaac," in chap. xlvi. 1, and directly afterwards of Elohim (ver. 2), could hardly be that the periphrasis "the God of his father" seemed more appropriate than the simple name Jehovah, since Jacob offered sacrifice at Beersheba to the God who appeared to his father, and to whom Isaac built an altar there, and this God {Elohim) then appeared to him in a dream and renewed the promise of his fathers. As the historian uses a periphrasis of the name Jehovah, to point out the internal connection between what Jacob did and experienced at Beersheba and what his father experienced there; so Jacob also, both in the blessing with which he sends his sons the second time to Egypt (xliii. 14) and at the adoption of Joseph's sons (xlviii. 3), uses the name El Shaddai, and in his blessings on Joseph's sons (xlviii. 15) and on Joseph himself (xlix. 24, 25) employs rhetorical periphrases for the name Jehovah, because Jehovah had manifested Himself not only to him (xxxv. 11, 12), but also to his fathers Abraham and Isaac (xvii. 1 and xxviii. 3) as El Shaddai, and had proved Himself to be the Almighty, " the God who fed him," " the Mighty One of Jacob," " the Shepherd and Kock of Israel." In these set discourses the titles of God here mentioned were nnquestionably more significant and impressive than the simple name Jehovah..^ And when Jacob speaks of EloUm only, not of Jehovah, in chapM xlviii. 11, 20, 21, the Elohim in vers. 11 and 21 may be easily explained from the antithesis of Jacob to both man and God. and in ver. 20 from the words themselves, which contain a coin^B mon and, so to speak, a stereotyped saying. Wherever the thought required the name Jehovah as the only appropriate one, there Jacob used this name, as chap. xlix. 18 will prove. But that name would have been quite unsuitable in the mouth of Pharaoh in chap. xli. 38, 39, in the address of Joseph to the prisoners (xl. 8) and to Pharaoh (xli. 16, 25, 28, 32), and in his conversation with his brethren before he made himself known (xlii. 18, xliii. 29), and also in the appeal of Judah to Joseph as an unknown Egyptian officer of state (xUv. 16). In the meantime the brethren of Joseph also speak to one another of Elohim (xlii. 28); and Joseph not only sees in the birth of his sons merely a gift of Elohim (xli. 51, 52, xlviii. 9), but in the solemn moment in which he makes himself known to his brethren (xlv. 5-9) he speaks of Elohim alone: " Elohim did send me before you to preserve life " (ver. 5); and even upon his death-bed he says, " I die, and Elohim will surely visit you and bring you out of this land" (1. 24, 25). But the reason of this is not difficult to discover, and is no other than the following: Joseph, like his brethren, did not clearly discern the ways of the Lord in the wonderful changes of his life; and his brethren, though they felt that the trouble into which they were brought before the unknown ruler of Egypt was a just punishment from God for their crime against Joseph, did not perceive that by the sale of their brother they had sinned not only against Elohim (God the Creator and Judge of men), but against Jehovah the covenant God of their father. They had not only sold their brother, but in their brother they had cast out a member of the seed promised and given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from the fellowship of the chosen family, and sinned against the God of salvation and His promises. But this aspect of their crime was still hidden from them, so that they could not speak of Jehovah. In the same way, Joseph regarded the wonderful course of his life as a divine arrangement for the preservation or rescue of his family, and he was so far acquainted with the promises of God, that he regarded it as a certainty, that Israel would be led out of Egypt, especially after the last wish expressed by Jacob. But this did not involve so full and clear an insight into the ways of Jehovah, as to lead Joseph to recognise in his own career a special appointment of the covenant God, and to describe it as a gracious work of Jehovah.^
The disappearance of the name Jehovah, therefore, is to be explained, partly from the fact that previous revelations and acts of grace had given rise to other phrases expressive of the idea of Jehovah, which not only served as substitutes for this name of the covenant God, but in certain circumstances were much more appropriate; and partly from the fact that the sons of Jacob, including Joseph, did not so distinctly recognise in their course the saving guidance of the covenant God, as to be able to describe it as the work of Jehovah. This imperfect insight, however, is intimately connected with the fact that the direct revelations of God had ceased; and that Joseph, although chosen by God to be the preserver of the house of Israel and the instrument in accomplishing His plans of salvation, was separated at a very early period from the fellowship of his father's house, and formally naturalized in Egypt, and though endowed with the supernatural power to interpret dreams, was not favoured, as Daniel afterwards was in the Chaldaean court, with visions or revelations of God. Consequently we cannot place Joseph on a level with the three patriarchs, nor assent to the statement, that " as the noblest blossom of the patriarchal life is seen in Joseph, as in him the whole meaning of the patriarchal life is summed up and fulfilled, so in Christ we see the perfect blossom and sole fulfilment of the whole of the Old Testament dispensation" {Kurtz, Old Covenant ii. 95), as being
1 The very fact that the author of Genesis, who wrote in the light of the further development and fuller revelation of the ways of the Lord with Joseph and the whole house of Jacob, represents the career of Joseph as a gracious interposition of Jehovah (chap, xxxix.), and yet makes Joseph himself speak of Elohim as arranging the whole, is by no means an unimportant testimony to the historical fidelity and truth of the narrative; of which further proofs are to be found in the faithful and exact representation of the circumstances, manners, and customs of Egypt, as Hengstenberg has proved in bis Egypt and the Books of Moses, from a comparison of these accounts of Joseph's life with ancient documents and monuments connected with this land.
either correct or scriptural, so far as the first portion is concerned. For Joseph was not a medium of salvation in the same way as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He was indeed a benefactor, not only to his brethren and the whole house of Israel, but also to the Eo-yptians; but salvation, i.e. spiritual help and culture, he neither brought to the Gentiles nor to the house of Israel. In Jacob's blessing he is endowed with the richest inheritance of the first-born in earthly things; but salvation is to reach the nations through Judah. We may therefore without hesitation look upon the history of Joseph as a " type of the pathway of the Church, not of Jehovah only, but also of Christ, from lowliness to exaltation, from slavery to liberty, from suffering to glory" (Delitzsch); we may also, so far as the history of Israel is a type of the history of Christ and His Churcli, regard the life of Joseph, as believing commentators of all centuries have done, as a type of the life of Christ, and use these typical traits as aids to progress in the knowledge of salvation; but that we may not be seduced into typological trifling, we must not overlook the fact, that neither Joseph nor his career is represented, either by the prophets or by Christ and His apostles, as typical of Christ, — ^in anything like the same way, for example, as the guidance of Israel into and out of Egypt (Hos. xi. 1 cf. Matt. ii. 15), and other events and persons in the history of Israel.
Vers. 1-4. The statement in ver. 1, which introduces the tlioledoili of Jacob, " And Jacob dwelt in the land of his fathers pilgrimage, in the land of Canaan," implies that Jacob had now entered upon his father's inheritance, and carries on the patriarchal pilgrim-life in Canaan, the further development of which was determined by the wonderful career of Joseph. This strange and eventful career of Joseph commenced when he was 17 years old. The notice of his age at the commencement of the narrative which follows, is introduced with reference to the principal topic in it, viz. the sale of Joseph, which was to prepare the way, according to the wonderful counsel of God, for the fulfilment of the divine revelation to Abraham respecting the future history of his seed (xv. 13 sqq.). While feeding the flock with his brethren, and, as he was young, with the sons of Bilhah and
Zilpah, who were nearer his age than the sons of Leah, he brought an evil report of them to his father (njn intentionally indefinite, connected with 0^3^ without an article). The words "iVJ N^nij " and he a lad" are subordinate to the main clause: they are not to be rendered, however, " he was a lad with the sons," but, " as he was young, he fed the flock with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah." — Ver. 3. ^^ Israel (Jacob) loved Joseph more than all his (other) sons, because he was horn in his old age" as the first-fruits of the beloved Rachel (Benjamin was hardly a year old at this time). And he made him CBS riJh3: a long coat with sleeves ('^ltojv da-rpaiyaXeio^, Aqu., or aaTpar/a\a)r6<}, LXX. at 2 Sam. xiii. 18, tunica talaris, Vulg. ad Sam.), i.e. an upper coat reaching to the wrists and ankles, such as noblemen and kings' daughters wore, not " a coat of many colours" (" hunter Rock" as Luther renders it, from the yyrwva nzoiKiKov, tunieam polymitam, of the LXX. and Vulgate). This partiality made Joseph hated by his brethren; so that they could not " speak peaceably unto him" i.e. ask him how he was, offer him the usual salutation, " Peace be with thee."
Vers. 5-11. This hatred was increased when Joseph told them of two dreams that he had had: viz. that as they were binding sheaves in the field, his sheaf "stood and remained standing," but their sheaves placed themselves round it and bowed down to it; and that the sun (his father), and the moon (his mother, "not Leah, but Rachel, who was neither forgotten nor lost"), and eleven stars (his eleven brethren) bowed down before him. These dreams pointed in an unmistakeable way to the supremacy of Joseph; the first to supremacy over his brethren, the second over the whole house of Israel. The repetition seemed to establish the thing as certain (cf. xli. 32); so that not only did his brethren hate him still more " on account of his dreams and words" (ver. 8), i.e. the substance of the dreams and the open interpretation of them, and become jealous and envious, but his father gave him a sharp reproof for the second, though he preserved the matter, i.e. retained it in his memory (1'?^ LXX. SieTi^prjae, cf. crwerripeL, Luke ii. 19). The brothers with their ill-will could not see anything in the dreams but the suggestions of his own ambition and pride of heart; and even the father, notwithstanding his partiality, was grieved by the second dream. The dreams are not represented as divine revelations; yet they are not to be regarded as pure flights of fancy from an ambitious heart, but as the presentiments of deep inward feelings, which were not produced without some divine influence being exerted upon Joseph's mind, and therefore were of prophetic significance, though they were not inspired directly by God, inasmuch as the purposes of God were still to remain hidden from the eyes of men for the saving good of all concerned.
Vers. 12-24. In a short time the hatred of Joseph's brethren grew into a crime. On one occasion, when they were feeding their flock at a distance from Hebron, in the neighbourhood of Shechem (Nablus, in the plain of Mukhnah), and Joseph who was sent thither by Jacob to inquire as to the welfare (shalom, valetudo) of the brethren and their flocks, followed them to Dothain or Dothan, a place 12 Roman miles to the north of Samaria (Sebaste), towards the plain of Jezreel, they formed the malicious resolution to put him, "this dreamer," to death, and throw him into one of the pits, i.e. cisterns, and then to tell (his father) that a wild beast had slain him, and so to bring his dreams to nought. — Vers. 21 sqq. Reuben, who was the eldest son, and therefore specially responsible for his younger brother, opposed this murderous proposal. He dissuaded his brethren from killing Joseph (K'W 'Q '^^'}), and advised them to throw him " into this pit in the desert" i.e. into a dry pit that was near. As Joseph would inevitably perish even in that pit, their malice was satisfied; but Reuben intended to take Joseph out again, and restore him to his father. As soon, therefore, as Joseph arrived, they took off his coat with sleeves and threw him into the pit, which happened to be dry.
Vers. 25-36. Reuben had saved Joseph's life indeed by his proposal; but his intention to send him back to his father was frustrated. For as soon as the brethren sat down to eat, after the deed was performed, they saw a company of Ishmaelites from Gilead coming along the road which leads from Beisan past Jenin (Rob. Pal. iii. 155) and through the plain of Dothan to the great caravan road that runs from Damascus by Lejun (Legio, Megiddo), Ramleh, and Gaza to Egypt (Rob. iii. 27, 178). The caravan drew near, laden with spices: viz. DWJ, gum-tragacanth; ^iV, balsam, for which Gilead was celebrated (xliii. 11; Jer. viii. 22, xlvi. 11); and 13"^, ladanum, the fragrant resin of the cistus-rose. Judah seized the opportunity to propose to his brethren to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites. " What profit have wej' lie said, " that we slay our brother and conceal his blood'? Co7ne, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites; and our hand, let it not lay hold of him (sc. to slay him), for he is our brother, ourfleshr Eeuben wished to deliver Joseph entirely from his brothers' malice. Judah also wished to save his life, though not from brotherly love so much as from the feeling of horror, which was not quite extinct within him, at incurring the guilt of fratricide; but he would still like to get rid of him, that his dreams might not come true. Judah, like his brethren, was probably afraid that their father might confer upon Joseph the rights of the first-born, and so make him lord over them. His proposal was a welcome one. When the Arabs passed by, the brethren fetched Joseph out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites, who took him into Egypt. The different names given to the traders — viz. Ishmaelites (vers. 25, 27, and 28&), Midianites (ver. 28a), oxidi Medardtes (ver. 36) — do not show that the account has been drawn from different legends, but that these tribes were often confounded, from the fact that they resembled one another so closely, not only in their common descent from Abraham (xvi. 15 and xxv. 2), but also in the similarity of their mode of life and their constant change of abode, that strangers could hardly distinguish them, especially when they appeared not as tribes but as Arabian merchants, such as they are here described as being: " Midianitish men, merchants." That descendants of Abraham should already be met with in this capacity is by no means strange, if we consider that 150 years had passed by since Ishmael's dismissal from his father's house, — a period amply sufficient for his descendants to have grown through marriage into a respectable tribe. The price, " twenty {sc. shekels) of silver" was the price which Moses afterwards fixed as the value of a boy between 5 and 20 (Lev. xxvii. 5), the average price of a slave being 30 shekels (Ex. xxi. 32). But the Ishmaelites naturally wanted to make money by the transaction. — ^Vers. 29 sqq. The business was settled in Reuben's absence; probably because his brethren suspected that he intended to rescue Joseph. When he came to the pit and found Joseph gone, he rent his clothes (a sign of intense grief on the part of the natural man) and exclaimed: " The hoy is no more, and I, whither shall Igo.'" — how shall I account to his father for his disappearance! But tlie brothers were at no loss; tliey dipped Joseph's coat in the blood of a goat and sent it to his father, with the message, " We have found this; see whether it is thy son's coat or not^ Jacob recognised the coat at once, and mourned bitterly in mourning clothes (pt^*) for his son, whom he supposed to have been devoured and destroyed by a wild beast (^1^ f]!^ inf. ahs. of Kal before Paal, as an indication of undoubted certainty), and refused all comfort from his children, saying, "iVb CB immo, elliptical: Do not attempt to comfort me, for) / will go down mourning into Sheol to my son" Sheol denotes the place where departed souls are gathered after death; it is an infinitive form from?^^ to demand, the demanding, applied to the place which inexorably summons all men into its shade (cf. Prov. xxx. 15, 16; Isa. V. 14; Hab. ii. 5). How should his sons comfort him, when they were obliged to cover their wickedness with the sin of lying and hypocrisy, and when even Reuben, although at first beside himself at the failure of his plan, had not courage enough to disclose his brothers' crime? — Yer. 36. But Joseph, while his father was mourning, was sold by the Midianites to Potiphar, the chief of Pharaoh's trabantes, to be first of all brought low, according to the wonderful counsel of God, and then to be exalted as ruler in Egypt, before whom his brethren would bow down, and as the saviour of the house of Israel. The name Potiphar is a contraction of Poti Pherah (xli. 50); the LXX. render both 'n.eTej>pri^ or Tl€rej>prj (vid. xli. 50). D''"iD (eunuch) is used here, as in 1 Sam. viii. 15 and in most of the passages of J the Old Testament, for courtier or chamberlain, without regard to the primary meaning, as Potiphar was married. " Captain of \ the guard" {lit. caiptsdn of the slaughterers, i.e. the executioners), commanding officer of the royal body-guard, who executed the. capital sentences ordered by the king, as was also the case with the Chaldeans (2 Kings xxv. 8; Jer. xxxix. 9, lii. 12. See my j Commentary on the Books of Kings, vol. i. pp. 35, 36, Eng. Tr.).
The following sketch from the life of Judah is intended to point out the origin of the three leading families of the future princely tribe in Israel, and at the same time to show in what danger the sons of Jacob would have been of forgetting the sacred vocation of their race, through marriages with Canaanitish women, and of perishing in the sin of Canaan, if the mercy of God had not interposed, and by leading Joseph into Egypt prepared the way for the removal of the whole house of Jacob into that land, and thus protected the family, just as it was expanding into a nation, from the corrupting influence of the manners and customs of Canaan. This being the intention of the narrative, it is no episode or, interpolation, but an integral part of the early history of Israel, which is woven here into the history of Jacob, because the events occurred subsequently to the sale of Joseph.
Vers. 1-11. About this time, i.e. after the sale of Joseph, while still feeding the flocks of Jacob along with his brethren (xxxvii. 26),^ Judah separated from them, and went down (from Hebron, xxxvii. 14, or the mountains) to Adullam, in the lowland (Josh. XV. 35), into the neighbourhood of a man named Hirah. " He pitched (his tent, xxvi. 25) up to a man of Adullam,^' i.e. in his neighbourhood, so as to enter into friendly intercourse with him. — ^Vers. 2 sqq. There Judah married the daughter of Shuah, a Canaanite, and had three sons by her: Ger (ly), Onan, and Shelah. The name of the place is mentioned when the last is bom, viz. Chezib or Achzib (Josh. xv. 44; Micah i. 14),
^ As the expression " at that time" does not compel us to place Judah's marriage after the sale of Joseph, many have followed Augustine (qusaet. 123), and placed it some years earlier. But this assumption is rendered extremely improbable, if not impossible, by the fact that Judah was not merely accidentally present when Joseph was sold, but was evidently living with his brethren, and had not yet set up an estabUshment of his own; whereas he had settled at Adullam previous to his marriage, and seems to have lived there up to the time of the birth of the twins by Thamar. Moreover, the 23 years which intervened between the taking of Joseph into Egypt and the migration of Jacob thither, furnish space enough for all the events recorded in this chapter. If we suppose that Judah, who was 20 years old when Joseph was sold, went to Adullam soon afterwards and married there, his three sons might have been born four or five years after Joseph's captivity. And if his eldest son was born about a year and a half after the sale of Joseph, and he married him to Thamar when he was 15 years old, and gave her to his second son a year after that, Onan's death would occur at least five years before Jacob's removal to Egypt; time enough, therefore, both for the generation and birth of the twin-sons of Judah by Thamar, and for Judah's two journeys into Egypt with his brethren to buy corn. (See chap, xlvi. 8 sqq.)
in the southern portion of the lowland of Judah, that the descendants of Shelah might know the birth-place of their ancestor. This was unnecessary in the case of the others, who died childless.— Vers. 6 sqq. When Ger was grown up, according to ancient custom (cf. xxi. 21, xxxiv. 4) his father gave him a wife, named Thamar, probably a Canaanite, of unknown parentage. But Ger was soon put to death by Jehovah on account of his wickedness. Judah then wished Onan, as the brother-in-law, to marry the childless widow of liis deceased brother, and raise up seed, i.e. a family, for him. But as he knew that the first-born son would not be the founder of his own family, but would perpetuate the family of the deceased and receive his inheritance, he prevented conception when consummating the marriage by spilling the semen. n^iK nnK', " destroyed to the ground (i.e. let it fall upon the ground), so as not to give seed to his brother" ()riJ for T]r\ only here and Num. xx. 21). This act not only be-J trayed a want of affection to his brother, combined with a despi-< cable covetousness for his possession and inheritance, but wasjj also a sin against the divine institution of marriage and its object, and was therefore punished by Jehovah with sudden deatl The custom of levirate marriage, which is first mentioned here,| and is found in different forms among Indians, Persians, and! other nations of Asia and Africa, was not founded upon a divinel command, but upon an ancient tradition, originating probably] in Chaldea. It was not abolished, however, by the Mosaic lawJ (Dent. XXV. 5 sqq.), but only so far restricted as not to allow it to] interfere with the sanctity of marriage; and with this limitation-^ it was enjoined as a duty of affection to build up the brother's] house, and to preserve his family and name (see my Bibl. Archa-i ologie, § 108). — Ver. 11. The sudden death of his two sons so] soon after their marriage with Thamar made Judah hesitate to \ give her the third as a husband also, thinking, very likely, accord- i ing to a superstition which we find in Tobit iii. 7 sqq., that either] she herself, or marriage with her, had been the cause of her hus-J bands' deaths. He therefore sent her away to her father's house, with the promise that he would give her his youngest son as soon,] as he had grown up; though he never intended it seriously, "for i he thought lest (|Q ION, i.e. he was afraid that) he also might die\ like his brethren^'
Vers. 12-30. But when Thamar, after waiting a long time, saw that Shelah had grown up and yet was not given to her as a husband, she determined to procure children from Judah himself, who had become a widower in the meantime; and his going to Timnath to the sheep-shearing afforded her a good opportunity. The time mentioned (" the days multiplied," i.e. a long time passed by) refers not to the statement which follows, that Judah's wife died, but rather to the leading thought of the verse, viz. Judah's going to the sheep-shearing. ^^^^]: he comforted himself, i.e. he ceased to mourn. Timnath is not the border town of Dan and Judah between Beth-shemesh and Ekron in the plain (Josh. xv. 10, xix. 43), but Timnah on the mountains of Judah (Josh. xv. 57, cf. Rob. Pal. ii. 343, note), as the expression " went up " shows. The sheep-shearing was a fete with shepherds, and was kept with great feasting. Judah therefore took his friend Hirah with him; a fact noticed in ver. 12 in relation to what follows. — Vers. 13, 14. As soon as Thamar heard of Judah's going to this feast, she took off her widow's clothes, put on a veil, and sat down, disguised as a harlot, by the gate of Ena3dm, where Judah would be sure to pass on his return from Timnath. Enayim was no doubt the same as Enam in the lowland of Judah (Josh. xv. 34). — ^Vers. 15 sqq. When Judah saw her here and took her for a harlot, he made her an offer, and gave her his signet-ring, with the band (^V'^) by which it was hung round his neck, and his staff, as a pledge of the young buck-goat which he offered her. They were both objects of value, and were regarded as ornaments in the East, as Herodotus (i. 195) has shown with regard to the Babylonians (see my Bibl. Arch. 2, 48). He then lay with her, and she became pregnant by him. — ^Vers. 19 sqq. After this had occurred, Thamar laid aside her veil, put on her widow's dress again, and returned home. When Judah, therefore, sent the kid by his friend Hirah to the supposed harlot for the purpose of redeeming his pledges, he could not find her, and was told, on inquiring of the inhabitants of Enayim, that there was no ntthfJ there. nBnjjjn: lit. "the consecrated," i.e. the hierodule, a woman sacred to Astarte, a goddess of the Canaanites, the deification of the generative and productive principle of nature; one who served this goddess by prostitution {vid. Deut. xxiii. 18). This was no doubt regarded as the most respectable designation for public prostitutes in Canaan. — Vers. 22, 23. When his friend returned with the kid and reported his want of success Judah resolved to leave his pledges with the girl, that he migl: not expose himself to the ridicule of the people by any furtherl inquiries, since he had done his part towards keeping his promise.] " Let her take them (i.e. keep the signet-ring and staff) for herA self, that we may not become a (an object of) ridicule.'^ The] pledges were unquestionably of more value than a young he-1 goat.
Vers. 24-26. About three months afterwards {p?^p prob. for E'^K'D with the prefix 0) Judah was informed that Thams had played the harlot and was certainly (n3n) with child. He immediately ordered, by virtue of his authority as head of the' tribe, that she should be brought out and burned. Thamar was regarded as the affianced bride of Shelah, and was to be punished as a bride convicted of a breach of chastity. But the Mosaic law enjoined stoning in the case of those who were affianced and broke their promise, or of newly married women who were found to have been dishonoured (Deut. xxii. 20, 21, 23, 24) jj and it was only in the case of the whoredom of a priest's daughter, or of carnal intercourse with a mother or a daughter^ that the punishment of burning was enjoined (Lev. xxi. 9 anc XX. 14). Judah's sentence, therefore, was more harsh than the subsequent law; whether according to patriarchal custom, orl on other grounds, cannot be determined. When Thamar was brought out, she sent to Judah the things which she had kept as a pledge, with this message: " By a man to whom these belong am I with child: look carefully therefore to whom this sig?iet-ringA and band, and stick belong." Judah recognised the things asl his own, and was obliged to confess, " She is more in the rightl than I; for therefore {sc. that this might happen to me, or that! it might turn out so; on ^'^^"^3 see chap, xviii. 5) have I nofi given her to my son Shelah." In passing sentence upon ThamarJ Judah had condemned himself. His sin, however, did not consist merely in his having given way to his lusts so far as to lie with a supposed public prostitute of Canaan, but still more it the fact, that by breaking his promise to give her his son Shelal as her husband, he had caused his daughter-in-law to practisel this deception upon him, just because in his heart he blamec her for the early and sudden deaths of his elder sons, wherea the real cause of the deaths which had so grieved his patema heart was the wickedness of the sons themselves, the mainspring of which was to be found in his own marriage with a Canaanite in violation of the patriarchal call. And even if the sens of Jacob were not unconditionally prohibited from marrying the daughters of Canaanites, Judah's marriage at any rate had borne such fruit in his sons Ger and Onan, as Jehovah the covenant God was compelled to reject. But if Judah, instead of recognising the hand of the Lord in the sudden death of his sons, traced the cause to Thamar, and determined to keep her as a childless widow all her life long, not only in opposition to the traditional custom, but also in opposition to the will of God as expressed in His promises of a numerous increase of the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Thamar had by no means acted rightly in the stratagem by which she frustrated his plan, and sought to procure from Judah himself the seed of which he was unjustly depriving her, though her act might be less criminal than Judah's. For it is evident from the whole account, that she was not driven to her sin by lust, but by the innate desire for children (or* 8e TratSoTrotta? X^P^^j /^ct^ ov (ptXrjSovla'i tovto 6 Qdfiap i/j,r}'^av7]craT0, — Theodoret); and for that reason she was more in the right than Judah. Judah himself, however^ not only saw his guilt, but he confessed it also; and showed both by this confession, and also by the fact that he had no further conjugal intercourse with Thamar, an earnest endeavour to conquer the lusts of the flesh, and to guard against the sin into which he had fallen. And because he thus humbled himself, God gave him grace, and not only exalted him to be the chief of the house of Israel, but blessed the children that were begotten in sin.
Vers. 27-30. Thamar brought forth twins; and a circumstance occurred at the bii'th, which does occasionally happen when the children lie in an abnormal position, and always impedes the delivery, and which was regarded in this instance as so significant that the names of the children were founded upon the fact. At the birth ipJIi^l " there was a hand," i.e. a hand came out (1^'; as in Job xxxvii. 10, Prov. xiii. 10), round which the midwife tied a scarlet thread, to mark this as the first-born. — Yer. 29. " And it came to pass, ivhen it (the child) drew back its hand (TB^3 for n^K'b ni^na as in chap. xl. 10), behold its brother came out. Then she (the midwife) said, What a breach hast thou made for tliy part'? Upon thee the breach;" i.e. thou bearest the blame of the breach, p.^ signifies not rupturam perinoei, but breaking through by pressing forward. From that he received the name of Perez (breach, breaker through). Thei the other one with the scarlet thread came into the world, anc was named Zerah (nnt exit, rising), because he sought to appear] first, whereas in fact Perez was the first-bom, and is even placedj before Zerah in the lists in chap. xlvi. 12, Num. xxvi. 20A Perez was the ancestor of the tribe-prince Nahshon (Num. iiJ 3), and of king David also (Ruth iv. 18 sqq.; 1 Chron. ii. 5] sqq.). Through him, therefore, Thamar has a place as one oi the female ancestors in the genealogy of Jesus Christ.
Vers. 1-18. In Potiphar's house. — Potiphar had bougl him of the Ishmaelites, as is repeated in ver. 1 for the purpos of resuming the thread of the narrative; and Jehovah w£ with him, so that he prospered in the house of his Egyptiai master. nvV?* ^''^ '- a man who has prosperity, to whom Goc causes all that he undertakes and does to prosper. Whei Potiphar perceived this, Joseph found favour in his eyes, anc became his servant, whom he placed over his house (made] manager of his household affairs), and to whom he entrustec all his property (i^'ti'J'^a ver. 4 = i^'K'pJJ'N-b vers. 5, 6). This confidence in Joseph increased, when he perceived how the] blessing of Jehovah (Joseph's God) rested upon his propertyj in the house and in the field; so that now " he left to Joseph] everything that he had, and did not trouble himself iWK (with or) near him) about anything but his own eating." — Vers. 6b sqqJ Joseph was handsome in form and feature; and Potiphar's wife set her eyes upon the handsome young man, and tried! to persuade him to lie with her. But Joseph resisted the adulterous proposal, referring to the unlimited confidence whicl his master had placed in him. He (Potiphar) was not greateir| in that house than he, and had given everything over tol him except her, because she was his wife. " How could he sot) abuse this confidence, as to do this great wickedness and sin! against God!"_Vers. 10 sqq. But after she had repeated her enticements day after day without success, " it came to pass ati that time {^'i!} Di'^a for the more usual njn Di>3 (chap. 1. 20), lit. about this day, i.e. the day in the writer's mind, on which the thing to be narrated occurred) that Joseph came into his house to attend to his duties, and there were none of the house-servants loithin." And she laid hold of him by his garment and entreated him to lie with her; but he left his garment in her hand and fled from the house. — Vers. 13-18. When this daring assault upon Joseph's chastity had failed, on account of his faithfulness and fear of God, the adulterous woman reversed the whole affair, and charged him with an attack upon her modesty, in order that she might have her revenge upon him and avert suspicion from lierself. She called her house-servants and said, " See, he (her husband, whom she does not think worth naming) has brought iis a Hebrew man ("no epitheton ornans to Egyptian ears: xliii. 32") to mock us (pnv to show his wantonness; us, the wife and servants, especially the female portion): he came in unto me to lie with me; and I cried with a loud voice... and he left his garment by me.'* She said v^NI "by my side," not "in my hand," as that would have shown the true state of the case. She then left the garment lying by her side till the return of Joseph's master, to whom she repeated her tale.
Vers. 19-23. Joseph in prison. — Potiphar was enraged at what he heard, and put Joseph into the prison where (IK'N for Q^ l^i<, xl. 3 like xxxv. 13) the king's prisoners (stateprisoners) were confined. inDn T]^2: lit. the house of enclosure, from nriDj to surround or enclose {o^vpcofia, LXX.); the stateprison surrounded by a wall. This was a very moderate punishment. For according to Diod. Sic. (i. 78) the laws of the Egyptians were inKpoX vepl rwv f^vvamSiv v6/jloc. An attempt at adultery was to be punished with 1000 blows, and rape upon a free woman still more severely. It is possible that Potiphar was not fully convinced of his wife's chastity, and therefore did not place unlimited credence in what she said.^ But even in that
* Credibile est aliquod fuisse indicium, quo Josephum innocentem esse Potiphari constiteret; neque enim servi vita tanti erat ut ei parceretur in tarn gravi delicto. Sed licet innocuum, in carcere tamen detinehat, ut uxoris honori et sua consuleret (Clericus). The chastity of Egyptian women has been in bad repute from time immemorial (Diod. Sic. i. 59; Herod, ii. 111). Even in the middle ages the Fatimite Hakim thought it necessary to adopt PENT. — VOL. I. Z case it was the mercy of the faithful covenant God, which no' as before (xxxvii. 20 sqq.) rescued Joseph's life.
Vers. 21-23. In the prison itself Jehovah was with Joseph, procuring him favour in the eyes of the governor of the prison, so that he entrusted all the prisoners to his care, leaving everything that they had to do, to be done through him, and not troubling himself about anything that was in his hand, i.e. was committed to him, because Jehovah made all that he did to prosper. " The keeper'^ was the governor of the prison, or superintendent of the gaolers, and was under Potiphar, the captain of the trabantes and chief of the executioners (chap. xxxvii. 36).
Vers. 1-8. The head cup-bearer and head baker had com mitted crimes against the king of Egypt, and were imprisoned in " the prison of the house of the captain of the trabantes, the prison where Joseph himself was confined;^* the state-prison, according to Eastern custom, forming part of the same building as the dwelling-house of the chief of the executioners. From a i-egard to the exalted position of these two prisoners, Potiphar ordered Joseph to wait upon them, not to keep watch over them; for ris *ii?Q does not mean to appoint as guard, but to place by the side of a person. — ^Ver. 5. After some time (" days," ver. 4, as in iv. 3), and on the same night, these two prisoners had each a peculiar dream, "eacA one according to the iyiterpretation of his dream" i.e. each one had a dream corresponding to the interpretation which specially applied to him. On account of these dreams, which seemed to them to have some bearing upon their fate, and, as the issue proved, were really true omens of it, Joseph found them the next morning looking anxious, and asked them the reason of the trouble which was depicted upon their countenances. — Ver. 8. On their replying that they had dreamed, and there was no one to interpret the dream, Joseph reminded them first of all that "interpretations are God's," come from severe measures against their immorality (Bar-Hebrsei, cbron. p. 217), and at the present day, according to Bttrckhardt (arab. Sprichworter, pp. 222, 227), chastity is " a great rarity" among -women of every rank in Cairo.
God, are His gift; at the same time he bade them tell him their dreams, from a consciousness, no doubt, that he was endowed with this divine gift.
Vers. 9-15. The cup-bearer gave this account: "/n my dream, behold there was a vine before me, and on the vine three branches; and it was as though blossoming, it shot forth its blossom (nw either from the hapax I.)*?==riif3j or from nsj with the fem. termination resolved into the 3 pers. suff.: Ewald, § 257d), its clusters ripened into grapes. And Pharaoh* s cup was in my hand; and I took the grapes and pressed them into PharaoKs cup, and gave the cup into PharaoKs hand." In this dream the office and dutj of the royal cup-bearer were represented in an unmistakeable manner, though the particular details must not be so forced as to lead to the conclusion, that the kings of ancient Egypt drank only the fresh juice of the grape, and not fermented wine as well. The cultivation of the vine, and the making and drinking of wine, among the Egyptians, are established beyond question by ancient testimony and the earliest monuments, notwithstanding the statement of Herodotus (2, 77) to the contrary (see Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses, pp. 13 sqq.). — Vers. 12 sqq. Joseph then gave this interpretation: The three branches were three days, in which time Pharaoh would restore him to his post again ("lift up his head," i.e. raise him from his degradation, send and fetch him from prison, 2 Kings xxv. 27). And he added this request (ver. 14): " Only think of me, as it goes well with thee, and show favour to me... for I was stolen (i.e. carried away secretly and by force; I did not abscond because of any crime) out of the land of the Hebrews (the land where the Ibrim live); and here also I have done nothing (committed no crime) for which they should put me into the hole." "ii3: the cell, applied to a prison as a miserable hole, because often dry cesspools were used as prisons.
Vers. 16-19. Encouraged by this favourable interpretation, the chief baker also told his dream: "/ too,... in my dream: behold, baskets of white bread upon my head, and in the top basket all kinds of food for Pharaoh, pastry; and the birds ate it out of the basket from my head." In this dream, the carrying of the baskets upon the head is thoroughly Egyptian; for, according to Herod. 2, 35, the men in Egypt carry burdens upon the head, the women upon the shoulders. And, according to the monuments, tlie variety of confectionary was very extensive (of Hengst. p. 27). In the opening words, " / too," the baker points to the resemblance between his dream and the cup-bearer's. The resemblance was not confined to the sameness of the numbers— three baskets of white bread, and three branches of the vine, — but was also seen in the fact that his official duty at the court was represented in the dream. But instead of Pharaoh takinor the bread from his hand, the birds of heaven ate it out of the basket upon his head. And Joseph gave this interpretation: " The three baskets signify three days: within that time Pharaoh will take away thy head from thee ("lift up thy head," as in ver. 13, but with T^V^ " away from thee," i.e. behead thee), and hang thee on the stake (thy body after execution; vid. Dent. xxi.
22, 23), and the birds vnll eat thy flesh from off thee^ However simple and close this interpretation of the two dreams may appear, the exact accordance with the fulfilment was a miracle wrought by God, and showed that as the dreams originated in the instigation of God, the interpretation was His inspiration also.
Vers. 20-23. Joseph's interpretations were fulfilled three days afterwards, on the king's birth-day. ri^pn Di'': the day of being born; the inf. Hoph. is construed as a passive with the accus. obj., as in chap. iv. 18, etc. Pharaoh gave his servants a feast, and lifted up the heads of both the prisoners, but in very different ways. The cup-bearer was pardoned, and reinstated in his office; the baker, on the other hand, was executed. — ^Ver.
23. But the former forgot Joseph in his prosperity, and did nothing to procure his liberation.
Vers. 1-36. Pharaoh's dreams and their interpretation.— Two full years afterwards (D''0^ accus. " in days," as in chap. xxix. 14) Pharaoh had a dream. He was standing by the Nile, and saw seven fine fat cows ascend from the Nile and feed in the Nile-grass (^ns an Egyptian word); and behind them seven others, ugly (according to ver. 19, unparalleled in their ugliness), lean (IK'S nipT « thin in flesh," for which we find in ver. 19 ni'^^. " fallen away," and "^^2 ^f^p^ withered in flesh, fleshless), which placed themselves beside those fat ones on the brink of the Nile and devoured them, without there being any effect to show that they had eaten them. He then awoke, but fell asleep again and had a second, similar dream: seven fat (ver. 22, full) and fine ears grew upon one blade, and were swallowed up by seven thin (ver. 23, " and hardened") ones, which were blasted by the east wind (Q"'"'.!^ i.e. the S.E. wind, Chamsin, from the desert of Arabia). — Ver. 7. " Then Pharaoh awoke, and behold it teas a dream." The dream was so like reality, that it was only when he woke that he perceived it was a dream. — Ver. 8. Being troubled about this double dream, Pharaoh sent the next morning for all the scribes and wise men of Egypt, to have it interpreted. D^sp'in, from tsin a stylus (pencil), are the i€poypafi/j.aT€i<i, men of the priestly caste, who occupied themselves with the sacred arts and sciences of the Egyptians, the hieroglyphic writings, astrology, the interpretation of dreams, the foretelling of events, magic, and conjuring, and who wei'e regarded as the possessors of secret arts (yid. Ex. vii. 11) and the wise men of the nation. But not one of these could interpret it, although the clue to the interpretation was to be found in the religious symbols of Egypt. For the cow Avas the symbol of Isis, the goddess of the all-sustaining earth, and in the hieroglyphics it represented the earth, agriculture, and food; and the Nile, by its overflowing, was the source of the fertility of the land. But however simple the explanation of the fat and lean cows ascending out of the Nile appears to be, it is " the fate of the wisdom of this world, that where it suffices it is compelled to be silent. For it belongs to the government of God to close the lips of the eloquent, and take away the understanding of the aged (Job xli. 20)." Baumgarlen.
Vers. 9 sqq. In this dilemma the head cup-bearer thought of Joseph; and calling to mind his offence against the king (xl. 1), and his ingratitude to Joseph (xl. 23), he related to the king how Joseph had explained their dreams to him and the chief baker in the prison, and how entirely the interpretation had come true. — Vers. 14 sqq. Pharaoh immediately sent for Joseph. As quickly as possible he was fetched from the prison; and after shaving the hair of his head and beard, and changing his clothes, as the customs of Egypt required (see Hengst. Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 30), he went in to the king. On the king's saying to him, " / have heard of thee (^ vV de te), thou hearest a dream to interpret it" — i.e. thou only needest to hear a dream, and thou canst at once interpret it, — Joseph replied, " Not I ClVs ■?> lit. " not SO far as me," this is not in my power, vid. xiv. 24), Go will answer PharaoKs good,'' i.e. what shall profit Pharaoh; just as in chap. xl. 8 he had pointed the two prisoners away from himself to God. Pharaoh then related his double dream (vers. 17-24), and Joseph gave the interpretation (vers. 25-32): ^'The dream of Pharaoh is one (i.e. the two dreams have the same meaning); God hath showed Pharaoh what He is about to do." The seven cows and seven ears of corn were seven years, the fat ones very fertile years of superabundance, the lean ones very barren years of famine; the latter would follow the former over the whole land of Egypt, so that the years of famine would leave no trace of the seven fruitful years; and, "for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice " (i.e. so far as this fact is concerned, it signifies) " that the thing is firmly resolved by God, and God will quickly carry it out" In the confidence of this interpretation which looked forward over fourteen years, the divinely enlightened seer's glance was clearly manifested, and could not fail to make an impression upon the king, when contrasted with the perplexity of the Egyptian augurs and wise men. Joseph followed up his interpretation by the advice (vers. 33-36), that Pharaoh should " look out (^1.!".) o, man discreet and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt; " and cause (p^'^T.) that in the seven years of superabundance he should raise fifths (^O)) ^•^« the fifth part of the harvest, through overseers, and have the corn, or the stores of food (''?'<), laid up in the cities " under the hand of the king," i.e. by royal authority and direction, as food for the land for the seven years of famine, that it might not perish through famine. ^^
Vers. 37-57. Joseph's promotion. — This counsel pleas^^ Pharaoh and all his servants, so that he said to them, " Shall we find a man like this one, in whom the Spirit of God is?" " The Spirit of Elohim;'* i.e. the spirit of supernatural insight and wisdom. He then placed Joseph over his house, and over all Eg}'pt; in other words, he chose him as his grand vizier, saying to him, " After God hath showed thee all this, there is none discreet and wise as thou.'' ^^\ 1''£>"^y, " according to thy mouth (i.e. command, chap. xlv. 21) shall my whole people arrange itself' PK^J does not mean to kiss (Rabb., Ges., etc.), for hv pK'J is not Hebrew, and kissing the mouth was not customary as an act of homage, but " to dispose, arrange one's self" (ordine disposuit). " Onlt/ in the throne will I he greater than thou" — Vers. 42 sqq. As an installation in this post of honour, the king handed him his signet-ring, the seal which the grand vizier or prime minister wore, to give authority to the I'oyal edicts (Esth. iii. 10), clothed him in a byssus dress {^^, fine muslin or white cotton fabric),^ and put upon his neck the golden chain, which was usually worn in Egypt as a mark of distinction, as the Egyptian monuments show (Hgst. pp. 30, 31). — Ver. 43. He then had him driven in the second chariot, the chariot which followed immediately upon the king's state-carriage; that is to say, he directed a solemn procession to be made through the city, in which they (heralds) cried before him ^l^N (i.e. bow down), — an Egyptian word, which has been pointed by the Masorites according to the Hiphil or Aphel of "n^3. In Coptic it is abork, projicere, with the signs of the imperative and the second person. Thus he placed him over all Egypt. fir\y\ inf. absol. as a continuation of the finite verb (vid. Ex. viii. 11; Lev. xxv. 14, etc.). — Ver. 44. " lam Pharaoh," he said to him, " and without thee shall no man lift his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt;" i.e. I am the actual king, and thou, the next to me, shalt rule over all my people. — Ver. 45. But in order that Joseph might be perfectly naturalized, the king gave him an Egyptian name, Zaphnath-Paaneah, and married him to Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, the priest at On. The name Zaphnath-Paaneah (a form adapted to the Hebrew, for WovdofKfyavri^ (LXX.); according to a Greek scholium, a-car^p Koa-fiov, " salvator mundi" {Jerome)), answers to the Coptic P-sote-m-ph-eneh, — P the article, sote salvation, m the sign of the genitive, ph the article, and eneh the world (lit. cetds, seculum); or perhaps more correctly, according to Rosellini and more recent Egyptologists, to the Coptic P-sOnt-em-ph-anh, i.e. sustentator vitce, support or sustainer of life, with reference to the call entrusted to him by God.^ Asenath, ^ Aaevkd (LXX.), possibly
^ See my Bibl. Antiquities, § 17, 5. The reference, no doubt, is to the iaSiiTcc "Ktvinu^ worn by the Egyptian priests, which was not made of linen, but of thetfrutex quern aliqui gossipion vacant, plures xylon et idea lina inde facta xylina. Nee ulla sunt eis candore mollitiave prae/erenda. — Vestes inde facerdotibus jEgypti gratissimae. Plin. h. n. xix. 1.
- Luther in his version, " privy councillor," follows the rabbinical explanation, which was already to be found in Josephus (Ant. ii. 6, 1): tcpvyrrcjit tvpiT*is, from nJDX = niJIDi* occulta, and n3J?D revelator.
connected with the name Neith, the Egyptian Pallas. Poti- Fhera, JJerecppT} (LXX.), a Coptic name signifying ille qui solis esty consecrated to the sun {^prj with the aspirated article signifies the sun in Memphitic). On was the popular name for Heliopolis (HXiovTrdXcf;, LXX.), and according to CyrilL Alex, ad Hos. V. 8 signifies the sun; whilst the name upon the monument^fc is ta-Rd or pa-Rd, house of the sun (Brugsch, Reisebericht, p. 50). From a very early date there was a celebrated temple of the sun here, with a learned priesthood, which held the first place among the priests' colleges of Egypt (Herod. 2, 3; Hengst. pp. 32 sqq.). This promotion of Joseph, from the position of a Hebrew slave pining in prison to the highest post of honour in the Egyptian kingdom, is perfectly conceivable, on the one hand, from the great importance attached in ancient times to the interpretation of dreams and to all occult science, especially among the Egyptians, and on tlie other hand, from the despotic form of government in the East; but the miraculous power of God is to be seen in the fact, that God endowed Joseph with the gift of infallible interpretation, and so ordered the circumstances that this gift opened the way for him to occupy that position in which he became the preserver, not of Egypt alone, but of his own family also. And the same hand of God, by which he had been so highly exalted after deep degradation, preserved him in his lofty post of honour from sinking into the heathenism of Egypt; although, by his alliance with the daughter of a priest of the sun, the most distinguished caste in the land, he had fully entered into the national associations and customs of the land. — Ver. 46. Joseph was 30 years old when he stood before Pharaoh, and went out from him and passed through all the land of Egypt, i.e. when he took possession of his office; consequently he had ' been in Egypt for 13 years as a slave, and at least three years in prison.
Vers. 47 sqq. For the seven years of superabundance the land bore d'^V^i?/'? hi full hands or bundles; and Joseph gathered all the provisional store of these years (i.e. the fifth part of the produce, which was levied) into the cities. " The food of the field of the city, which was round about it, he brought into the midst of it;" i.e. he provided granaries in the towns, in which the corn of the whole surrounding country was stored. In this manner he collected as much corn " as the sand of the sea," until he left off reckoning the quantity, or calculating the number of bushels, which the monuments prove to have been the usual mode adopted (yid. Ilevgst. p. 36). — Vers. 50-52. During the fruitful years two sons were born to Joseph. The first-born he named Manasseh, i.e. causing to forget; '■^for, he said, God hath made me forget all my toil and all my father^s house C^t??, an Aram. Piel form, for ^JE':, on account of the resemblance in sound to HE'JO)." Hcec pia est, ac sancta gratiarum actio, quod Deus oblivisci eum fecit pristinas omnes oerumnas: sed nullus honor tanti esse dehuit, ut desiderium et memoriam paterncB domus ex animo deponeret (Calvin). But the true answer to the question, whether it was a Christian boast for him to make, that he had forgotten father and mother, is given by Luther: " I see that God would take away the reliance which I placed upon my father; for God is a jealous God, and will not suffer the heait to have any other foundation to rely upon, but Him alone." This also meets the objection raised by Theodoret, why Joseph did not inform his father of his life and promotion, but allowed so many years to pass away, until he was led to do so at last in consequence of the arrival of his brothers. The reason of this forgetfulness and silence can only be found in the fact, that througii the wondrous alteration in his condition he had been led to see, that he was brought to Egypt according to the counsel of God, and was redeemed by God from slavery and prison, and had been exalted by Him to be lord over Egypt; so that, knowing he was in the hand of God, the firmness of his faith led him to renounce all wilful interference with the purposes of God, which pointed to a still broader and more glorious goal (Baumgarten, Delitzsch). — Ver. 52. The second son he named Ephraim, i.e. double-fruitfulness; ^^for God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affiictiou." Even after his elevation Egypt still continued the land of affliction, so that in this word we may see one trace of a longing for the promised land. — Vers. 53-57. When the years of scarcity commenced, at the close of the years of plenty, the famine spread over all (the neighbouring) lands; only in Egypt was there bread. As the famine increased in the land, and the people cried to Pharaoh for bread, he directed them to Joseph, who "opened all in which was" (bread), i.e. all the granaries, and sold corn ("i^^, denom. from '13K', signifies to trade in corn, to buy and sell corn) to the Egj'ptians, and
(as the writer adds, with a view to what follows) to all the world (psn-^3, ver. 57), that came thither to buy com, because the famine was great on every hand. — Years of famine have frequently fallen, like this one, upon Egypt, and the neighbouring countries to the north. The cause of this is to be seen in the fact, that the overflowing of the Nile, to which Egypt is indebted for its fertility, is produced by torrents of rain falling in the alpine regions of Abyssinia, which proceed from clouds formed in the Mediterranean and carried thither by the wind; consequently it has a common origin with the rains of Palestine (see the proofs in Hengst. pp. 37 sqq.).
Vers. 1-6. With the words " Why do ye look atone anoiherV*\ viz. in such a helpless and undecided manner, Jacob exhorted hisi sons to fetch corn from Egypt, to preserve his family from star vation. Joseph's ten brothers went, as their aged father would not allow his youngest son Benjamin to go with them, for fea that some calamity might befall him (X'^i^ = "T^P, xliv. 29 as in verJ 38 and xlix. 1); and they came " in the midst of the comers^^ i.t among others who came from the same necessity, and bowe down before Joseph with their faces to the earth. For he was " the ruler over the land," and had the supreme control of the sale of the corn, so that they were obliged to apply to him. tD'ipE'n seems to have been the standing title which the Shemites gave to Joseph as ruler in Egypt; and from this the later legend of ^aXart? the first king of the Hyksos arose (Josephus c. Ap. i. 14). The only other passages in which the word occurs in the Old Testament are in writings of the captivity or a still later date, and there it is taken from the Chaldee; it belongs, however, not merely to the Aramaean thesaurus, but to the Arabic also, from which it was introduced into the passage before us.
Vers. 7-17. Joseph recognised his brothers at once; but_ they could not recognise a brother who had not been seen foi 20 years, and who, moreover, had not only become thoroughly Egyptianized, but had risen to be a great lord. And he acted' as a foreigner ("is^n'.) towards them, speaking harshly, and asking them whence they had come. In ver. 7, according to a truly Semitic style of narrative, we have a condensation of what is more circumstantially related in vers. 8-17. — Vers. 9 sqq. As the sight of his brethren bowing before him with the deepest reverence reminded Joseph of his early dreams of the sheaves and stars, which had so increased the hatred of his brethren towards him as to lead to a proposal to kill him, and an actual sale, he said to them, " Ye are spies; to see the nakedness of the land (i.e. the unfortified parts of the kingdom which would be easily accessible to a foe) ye are come;^' and persisted in this charge notwithstanding their reply, "Nay, my lord, but (1 see Ges. § 155, 16) io buy food are thy servants come. We are all one maris sons (^Jn3 for iJnjS, only in Ex. xvi. 7, 8; Num. xxxii. 32; 2 Sam. xvii. 12; Lam. iii. 42): honest (C??) are we; thy servants are no spies." Cum exploratio sit delictum capitale, non est verisimile; quod jyater totfilios uno tempore vitce periculo expositurus sit (J. Gerhard). But as their assertion failed to make any impression upon the Egyptian lord, they told him still more particularly about their family (vers. 13 sqq.): " Twelve are thy servants, brothers are we, sons of a man in the land of Canaan; and behold the youngest is now with our father, and one is no more (^T^ as in chap. V. 24). Joseph then replied, " That is it (wn neut. like xx. 16) that I spake unto you, saying ye are spies. By this shall ye be proved: By the life of Pharaoh! ye shall not (p^, like xiv. 23) go hence, unless your youngest brother come hither. Send one of you, and let him fetch your brother; but ye shall be in bonds, and your words shall be proved, whether there be truth in you or not. By the life of Pharaoh! ye are truly spies!" He then had them put into custody for three days. By the coming of the youngest brother, Joseph wanted to test their assertion, not because he thought it possible that he might not be living with them, and they might have treated him as they did Joseph {Kn.), but because he wished to discover their feelings towards Benjamin, and see what affection they had for this son of Rachel, who had taken Joseph's place as his father's favourite. And with his harsh mode of addressing them, Joseph had no intention whatever to administer to his brethren " a just punishment for their wickedness towards him," for his heart could not have stooped to such mean revenge; but he wanted to probe thoroughly the feelings of their hearts, " whether they felt that they deserved the pun- isliment of God for the sin they had committed," and how they felt towards their aged father and their youngest brother.^ Even in the fact that he did not send the one away directly to fetch Benjamin, and merely detain the rest, but put the whole ten in prison, and afterwards modified his threat (vers. 18 sqq.), there was no indecision as to the manner in which he should behave towards them — no "wavering between thoughts of wrath and revenge on the one hand, and forgiving love and meekness on the other;" but he hoped by imprisoning them to make his brethren feel the earnestness of his words, and to give them time for reflection, as the curt " is no more" with which they had alluded to Joseph's removal was a sufficient proof that they had not yet truly repented of the deed.
Vers. 18-25. On the third day Joseph modified his severity. "This do and live," i.e. then ye shall live: "I fear God." One shall remain in prison, but let the rest of you take home "corn for the famine of your families," and fetch your youngest brother, that your words may be verified, and ye may not die, i.e. may not suffer the death that spies deserve. That he might not present the appearance of despotic caprice and tyranny by too great severity, and so render his brethren obdurate, Joseph stated as the reason for his new decision, that he feared God. From the fear of God, he, the lord of Egypt, would not punish or slay these strangers upon mere suspicion, but would judge them justly. How differently had they acted towards their brother! The ruler of all Egypt had compassion on their families who were in Canaan suffering from hunger; but they had.
^ Joseph nihil aliud agit quam ut revelet peccatura fratrum hoc durissimo opere et sermone. Descendunt enim in ^gyptum una cum ahis emtum frumentum, securi et neghgentes tam atrocis delicti, cujus sibi erant conscii, quasi nihil unquam deliquissent contra patrem decrepitum aut fratrem innocentem, cogitant Joseph jam diu exemtum esse rebus humanis, patrem vero rerum omnium ignarum esse. Quid ad nos? Non agunt poenitentiam. Hi silices et adamantes frangendi et conterendi sunt ac aperiendi oculi eorum, ut vidcant atrocitatem sceleris sui, idque ubi perfecit Joseph statim verbis et gestibus humaniorem se prsebet eosque honorifice tractat. — Hsec igitur atrocitas scelerum movit Joseph ad explorandos animos fratrum accuratius, ita ut non solum priorum delictorum sed et cogitationum pravarum memoriam renovaret, ac fuit sane inquisitio satis iugrata et acerba et tamen ab animo placidissimo profecta. Ego durius eos tractassera. Sed haec acerbitas, quam prae se fert, non pertinet ad vindicandum injuriam sed S4 salutarem eorum pcenitentiam, ut humihentur. — Luther.
intended to leave their brother in the pit to starve! These and similar thoughts could hardly fail to pass involuntarily through their minds at Joseph's words, and to lead them to a penitential acknowledgment of their sin and unrighteousness. The notion that Joseph altered his first intention merely from regard to his much afflicted father, appears improbable, for the simple reason, that he can only have given utterance to the threat that he would keep them all in prison till one of them had gone and fetched Benjamin, for the pui'pose of giving the greater force to his accusation, that they were spies. But as he was uot serious in makinfj this charge, he could not for a moment have thought of actually carrying out the threat. "And they did so:" in these words the waiter anticipates the result of the colloquy which ensued, and which is more fully narrated afterwards. Joseph's intention was fulfilled. The brothers now saw in what had happened to them a divine retribution: "Surely we atone because of our brother J whose anguish of soul we saw, when he entreated us and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us." And Reuben reminded them how he had warned them to no purpose, not to sin against the boy — "and even his blood... behold it is required" (cf. ix. 5); i.e. not merely the sin of casting him into the pit and then selling him, but his death also, of which we have been guilty through that sale. Thus they accused themselves in Joseph's presence, not knowing that he could understand; "for the interpreter was between them." Joseph had conversed with them through an interpreter, as an Egyptian who was ignorant of their language. " The interpreter," viz. the one appointed for that purpose; ^i^^? like xxvi. 28. But Joseph understood their words, and "turned away and wept" (ver. 24), with inward emotion at the wonderful leadings of divine grace, and at the change in his brothers' feelings. He then turned to them again, and, continuing the conversation with them, had Simeon bound before their eyes, to be detained as a hostage (not Eeuben, who had dissuaded them from killing Joseph, and had taken no part in the sale, but Simeon, the next in age). He then ordered his men to fill their sacks with corn, to give every one (K^N as in chap. xv. 10) his money back in his sack, and to provide them with food for the journey.
Vei's. 26-38. Thus they started with their asses laden with the corn. On the way, when they had reached their halting- place for the night, one of them opened his sack to feed the ass, and found his money in it. ti?^? camping-place for the night, is merely a resting-place, not an inn, both here and in Ex. iv. 24; for there can hardly have been caravanserais at that time, either in the desert or by the desert road. nnriDi*: an antiquated word for a corn-sack, occurring only in these chapters, and used even here interchangeably with P^. — Ver 28. When this discovery was made known to the brethren, their hearts sank within them. They turned trembling to one another, and said, " What is this that God hath done to us! " Joseph had no doubt had the money returned, " merely because it was against his nature to trade with his father and brethren for bread;" just as he had caused them to be supplied with food for the journey, for no other reason than to give them a proof of his good-will. And even if he may have thought it possible that the brothers would be alarmed when they found the money, and thrown into a state of much greater anxiety from the fear of being still further accused by the stern lord of Egypt of cheating or of theft, there was no reason why he should spare them this anxiety, since it could only help to break their hard hearts still more At any rate, this salutary effect was really produced, even if, Joseph had no such intention. The brothers looked upon this incomprehensible affair as a punishment from God, and neglected in their alarm to examine the rest of the sacks. — Vers. 29-34. On their arrival at home, they told their father all that] had occurred. — ^Vers. 35 sqq. But when they emptied their sacks,! and, to their own and their father's terror, found their bundles] of money in their separate sacks, Jacob burst out with the com-c. plaint, " Ye are making me childless! Joseph is gone, and Simeon is\ gone, and will ye take Benjamin! All this falls upon me " (i^^^? for 1^3 as in Prov. xxxi. 29). — Vers. 37, 38. Reuben then offered his two sons to Jacob as pledges for Benjamin, if Jacob would entrust him to his care: Jacob might slay them, if he did not! bring Benjamin back — the greatest and dearest offer that a' son could make to a father. But Jacob refused to let him go. ^' If mischief befell him hy the way, ye would bring down my grey\ hairs with sorrow into SheoV^ (cf. xxxvii. 35).
Vers. 1-15. When the corn brouglit from Eg}'pt was all consumed, as the famine still continued, Jacob called upon his sons to go down and fetch a little corn (little in proportion to their need). — Vers. 3 sqq. Judah then declared, that they would not go there again unless their father sent Benjamin with them; for the man (Joseph) had solemnly protested (l^n lyn) that they should not see his face without their youngest brother. Judah undertook the consultation with his father about Benjamin's going, because Reuben, the eldest son, had already been refused, and Levi, who followed Reuben and Simeon, had forfeited his father's confidence through his treachery to the Shechemites (chap, xxxiv.). — Vers. 6 sqq. To the father's reproachful question, why they had dealt so ill with him, as to tell the man that they had a brother, Judah replied: "J'Ae man asked after us and our kinsmen: Is your fatJier yet alive? have ye a brother? And we answered him in conformity C^ ^V as in Ex. xxxiv. 27, etc.) with these words (i.e. with his questions). Could we know, then, that he would say, Bring your brother down? " Joseph had not made direct inquiries, indeed, about their father and their brother; but by his accusation that they were spies, he had compelled them to give an exact account of their family relationships. So that Judah, when repeating the main points of the interview, could very justly give them in the form just mentioned.— Ver. 8. He then repeated the only condition on which they would go to Egypt again, referring to the death by famine which threatened them, their father, and their children, and promising that he would himself be surety for the youth (^V^>}, Benjamin was twenty-three years old), and saying, that if he did not restore him, he would bear the blame (^9C ^° ^® guilty of a sin and atone for it, as in 1 Kings i. 21) his whole life long. He then concluded with the deciding words, "for if we had not delayed, surely we should already have returned a second time.^^ — Ver. 11. After this, the old man gave way to what could not be avoided, and let Benjamin go. But that nothing might be wanting on his part, which could contribute to the success of the journey, he suggested that they should take a present for the man, and that they should also take the money which was brought back in their sacks, in addition to what was necessary for the corn they were to purchase; and he then commended them to the mercy of Almighty God. " If it must he so, yet do this (xiSK belongs to the imperative, although it precedes it here, cf. xxvii. 37): take of the prize (the most choice productions) of the land — a little balm and a little honey (t^?'^ the Arabian dihs, either new honey from bees, or more probably honey from grapes, — a thick syrup boiled from sweet grapes, which is still carried every year from Hebron to Egypt), gum-dragon and myrrh (yid. xxxvii. 25), pistachio nuts and almonds^ 2''^p3, which are not mentioned anywhere else, are, according to the Samar. vers., the fruit of the pistacia vera, a tree resembling the terebinth, — long angular nuts of the size of hazel-nuts, with an oily kernel of a pleasant flavour; it does not thrive in Palestine now, but the nuts are imported from Aleppo. — Ver. 12. " And take second (i.e. more) money {^?.^P ^t?| is different from f\D^~T]:pD doubling of the money = double money, ver. 15) in your hand; and the money that returned in your sacks take with you again; perhaps it is a mistake" i.e. was put in your sacks by mistake. — Yer. 14. Thus Israel let his sons go with the blessing, " God Almighty give you mercy before the man, that he may liberate to you your other brother (Simeon) and Benjamin;" and with this resigned submission to the will of God, " And I, if lam bereaved, lam bereaved," i.e. if I am to lose my children, let it be so! For this mode of expression, cf. Esth. iv. 16 and 2 Kings vii. 4. ''^i'^f with the pausal a, answering to the feelings of the speaker, which is frequently used for o; e.g. ^I^] for ^'iti';, chap. xlix. 27. mA Vers. 16-25. When the brethren appeared before Josephj^B he ordered his steward to take them into the house, and prepare a dinner for them and for him. nbD the original form of the imperative for n3D. But the brethren were alarmed, thinking that they were taken into the house because of the money which returned the first time (2^'n which came back, they could not imagine how), that he might take them unawares (lit. roll upon them), and fall upon them, and keep them as slaves, along with their asses. For the purpose of averting what they dreaded, they approached (ver. 19) the steward and told him, "at the door of the house," before they entered therefore, how, at the first purchase of corn, on opening their sacks, they found the money that had been paid, " every one^s money in the mouth of his sack.