Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/545

 member of the family, the inconsolable grief of the father, the guilty secret shared by the brothers, and, above all, the uncertainty which hangs over the fate of Joseph, appeal irresistibly to the romantic instinct of the reader, who feels that all this is the prelude to some signal manifestation of divine providence in the working out of Joseph's destiny.

Sources.—Vv.$1. 2$ belong to P (v.i.).—The analysis of the rest of the chapter may start from $25-30$, where evidences of a double recension are clearest. In one account, Joseph is sold to Ishmaelites on the advice of Judah; in the other, he is kidnapped by passing Midianites, unknown to the brethren, and to the dismay of Reuben, who had hoped to save him (see the notes). The former is J (cf. 45$4f.$), the latter E (40$15$). Another safe clue is found in the double motive assigned for the envy of the brethren: $3. 4$ (the sleeved tunic) || $5-11$ (the dreams): the dream-motive is characteristic of E throughout the narrative, and $3f.$ are from J because of (cf. $13$, and ct.  in $34$). Smaller doublets can be detected in $12-14$; in {18-20}, in {21f.}, and in $34f.$. The analysis has been worked out with substantial agreement amongst critics; and, with some finishing touches from the hand of Gu. (353 ff.), the result is as follows: J = $3. 4. 13a.$ $14b. 18b. 21. 23. 25-27. 28a[Greek: g]$ ( to, $31. 32a[Greek: ag]b. 33a[Greek: a]b. 34b. 35a.$; E = $5-11. 13b. 14a. 15-17.$ $18a. 19. 20. 22. 24. 28a[Greek: ab]$ (to )$b. 29. 30. 32a[Greek: b]. 33a[Greek: b]. 34a. 35b. 36$. This may be accepted as the basis of the exposition, though some points are open to question, particularly the assumption that all references to a tunic of any kind are to be ascribed to J.

1-11. The alienation between Joseph and his brethren.—1, 2. Three disjointed fragments of P, of which v.$1$ is the original continuation of 36$6-8$ (see p. 429); and $2a[Greek: a]$ is a heading from the Book of Tôledôth (see p. 40 f.), which ought to be followed by a genealogy,—perhaps 35$22b-26$, which we have seen to stand out of its proper connexion (p. 423): $8ff.$ then introduces P's history of Joseph, which has been mostly suppressed by the redactor.—The clause is difficult. As a parenthesis (Dri.) it is superfluous after the

1. (17$2a[Greek: bg]b$) and  (but see p. 474) are characteristic of P.—2. ] 'like verbs of governing' (Str.); so 1 Sa. 16$8$ 17$11$.—] Gu. suggests (Niph. [root] : cf. Jer. 6$34$ etc., and the Hithpal. in Jb. 17$22$), or  (= 'kept company with'),—neither proposal just convincing.— (so Nu. 14$8$)] lit. 'brought the report of them evil,' being second acc., or tertiary pred. (Da. § 76). A bad sense is inherent in, which is a late word, in Hex. confined to P (Nu. 13$37$ 14$32$).