E.—took his two sons.] It seems implied in v.8 that Jacob
had not yet seen the lads,—so soon did his last illness follow
his arrival in Egypt.—3-6. P's brief account of the adoption
of Ephraim and Manasseh. Di. thinks the vv. have been
transferred from their original connexion with 4928b, where
they were spoken in presence of all the brethren.—3, 4. The
reference is to the revelation at Luz (3511f.), where the
promise of a numerous offspring was coupled with the
possession of Canaan. On the phraseology, see above.—5.
And now] In view of these promises he elevates Ephraim
and Manasseh to the status of full tribes, to share with his
own sons in the future partition of the land.—Ephraim and Manasseh] The order is the only hint that Ephraim was the
leading tribe (cf. v.20 E); but it is not that usually observed
by P (see Nu. 2628ff. 3423f., Jos. 144 164 171; otherwise Nu. 110).—as Reuben and Simeon] The two oldest are chosen for
comparison.—6. Later-born sons of Joseph (none such,
however, are anywhere mentioned) are to be called by the name of their brethren, etc.] i.e., are to be counted as
Ephraimites and Manassites.—7. The presence of Joseph
reminds the dying patriarch of the dark day on which he
buried Rachel on the way to Ephrath. The expressions
reproduce those of 3516-20.—(
Hebrew characters)] to my sorrow; lit. ('as a
trouble) upon me' (cf. 3313).
The notice—one of the most pathetic things in Genesis—is very
loosely connected with what precedes, and must in its original setting
have led up to something which has been displaced in the redaction.
But it is difficult to find a suitable connexion for the v. in the extant
portions of any of the three sources. In P (to which the word (Hebrew characters) at first
sight seems to point), De. Di. al. would put it immediately before [(Hebrew characters)]
(Hebrew characters) in 4929; but that view relieves no difficulty, and leads nowhere.
A more natural position in that document might be after the mention of
the burial of Leah in 4931 (v.32 may be an interpolation); but the form of
the v. is not favourable to that assumption, and no good reason can be
to J because of (Hebrew characters). But the cl. comes very naturally after 2a; and as
there are three other cases of confusion between the two names in this
ch. (8. 11. 21), the name is not decisive.—4. (Hebrew characters)] 283; cf. 3511.—(Hebrew characters)]
G (Hebrew characters).—(Hebrew characters)] 178.—7. (Hebrew characters)] [E]G + (Hebrew characters), as in every other case where
the name occurs (see on 2520). That the difference is documentary, and
points to E rather than P, is a hazardous assumption (Gu.); and to
substitute (Hebrew characters), for the sake of accommodation to J (Bruston, Ba.), is quite
