worship of the sun-god Ra.—On the other names in the v., v.i.—45b and 46b are doublets.—46a (P). The chronology is altogether inconsistent with the assumptions of JE regarding the relative ages of Joseph and Benjamin (see Ben. 360).—stood before Pharaoh] cf. 477 (P).
47-57.—Joseph's measures for relief of the famine.—47, 49 (E) ‖ 48 (J). He stores corn during the seven years of plenty.—50-52 (E?). Joseph's two sons.—Mĕnaššeh] interpreted quite grammatically as 'causing to forget.' The etymology is not to be taken too literally, as if the narrator meant that Joseph had actually forgotten his father's house (cf. Ps. 4511).—52. made me fruitful] The name of the tribe is generally thought to contain the idea of fruitfulness, from the fertility of the region in central Palestine which it occupied.—54-57. The beginning of the famine.—54, 55 contain a slight discrepancy. According to 54b the Egyptians
of Lieblein (PSBA, 1898, 202 ff.): defenti [or defenta]-pa-an[h)] = "celui
qui donne la nourriture de la vie."—(
Hebrew characters)] Explained, with some hesitation,
as 'belonging to (the goddess) Neith' (Steindorff, Spiegelberg, al.).—(Hebrew characters)]
(G (Greek characters), etc.) is a fuller form of (Hebrew characters); see on 391.—It
is worthy of remark that, except in the case of Asenath, the suggested
Egyptian analogues of these names do not occur, save sporadically,
earlier than the 22nd dynasty (that of Shishak).—45b. G om.—46. (Hebrew characters)
(Hebrew characters) is an amplification in the style of P (Ex. 611. 13. 27. 29. 148).
47-57. Analysis.—Starting from the presumption that the storing of
food in the cities and the direct appeal of the famishing people to
Pharaoh are not from the same source, the best division seems the
following: E = 47. 49. 54a. 55. 56b; J = 48. 53. 54b. 56a. 57 (comp. Gu. and Pro.).
50-52 are universally assigned to E (on account of (Hebrew characters)) in spite of the
fact that the children are named by the father. P's authorship is
perhaps excluded by the explicit etymologies, to which there are no real
analogies in that document. The vv. in any case interrupt the context
of JE, and may be a supplementary notice inserted by a late hand at
what seemed the most suitable place.—47. (Hebrew characters)] The [root] is elsewhere
peculiar to P (Lv. 22 512 68, Nu. 526† ); and Ball assigns 46-48 to that
source. But the sense 'by handfuls' is doubtful, and is represented by
none of the old Vns. except the clumsy paraphrases of V and TJ; so that
the text is probably at fault. G has (Greek characters); S and TO (Syriac characters) and
(Hebrew characters) (with (Syriac characters) and (Hebrew characters) for (Hebrew characters))—48. (Hebrew characters)] Rd. with [E]G
(Hebrew characters).—50. (Hebrew characters)] G (Greek characters).—51. (Hebrew characters)] Pi. only here; both
the form and the irregular vocalisation (G-K. 52 m) are chosen for the
sake of assonance with (Hebrew characters).—54. (Hebrew characters)] G (Greek characters); so S—a natural mis-
