Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/573

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. 6^{11. 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 T^J; so that the text is probably at fault. G has (Greek characters); S and T^O (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-