Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/559

 charge. In E, Joseph is sold at once to Potiphar (37$36$), the palace officer in whose house the butler and baker are afterwards confined (40$3a$); and Joseph, without being himself a prisoner, is told off to wait on these eminent persons (40$4$). The imprisonment, therefore, is indispensable in J, and at least embarrassing in E.—This conclusion is partly confirmed by the literary phenomena:, $2. 3. 5$; the Ishmaelites, $1$; , $1$; , $3. 23$;, $4$; , $5$. It is somewhat disconcerting to find that none of these occur in the central section, $7-20$; and (We. Comp.$2$ 56) positively assigns $6-19$ to E, because of the phrases, $6b$ (cf. 29$17$); , $7$ (cf. 15$1$ 22$1. 20$ 40$1$ 48$1$);, $14$; and , $9$. These are not decisive (see Di. 403; Ho. 231), and on the whole the material argument must be held to outweigh the dubious linguistic evidence that can be adduced on the other side.—Procksch (42 f.) assigns $7-10$ to E and $11-23$ to J; but nothing is gained by the division.

1-6. Joseph becomes the controller of an Egyptian estate.—1. But Joseph had been taken down, etc.] while his father was mourning over him as one dead (37$31ff.$); the notice resumes 37$28a$.—a certain Egyptian] who is nameless in J (v.i.).—2. The secret of Joseph's success: a combination of ability with personal charm which marked him out as a favourite of Yahwe (cf. $3. 5. 21. 23$).—remained in the house, etc.] under his master's observation, instead of being sent to work in the field.—4a. served him] i.e., 'became his personal

1. The words — are a repetition by R$JE$ from 37$36$ (E), in order to harmonise the two sources. But the contradiction appears (1) in the meaningless after the specific designation (this is not to be got rid of by Ebers's observation that under a Hyksos dynasty a high official was not necessarily a native Egyptian), and (2) the improbability of a eunuch being married (though cases of this kind are known [Ebers, 299]).—] G [], an exact transcription of Eg. Pedephrē = 'He whom the sun-god gives' (see DB, i. 665b; EB, 3814); but the long o of the Heb. has not been explained. Cf. Heyes, 105-112.—] means 'eunuch' in NH. Aram. Arab. (as is shown by the denom. vbs. = 'be impotent'), and there is no case in OT where the strict sense is inapplicable (Ges. Th. 973 b). That such a word should be extended to mean 'courtier' in general is more intelligible than the reverse process (so Heyes, 122), in spite of the opinion of several Assyriologists who derive it from ša rêši ='he who is the head' (Zimmern, ZDMG, liii. 116; KAT$3$, 649).—] G, a title like and in ch. 40 (E). Cf. , 2 Ki. 25$8ff.$, Jer. 39$9ff.$ 40$1ff.$ etc., Dn. 2$14$. The were apparently the royal cooks or butchers (1 Sa. 9$23f.$), who had come to be the bodyguard (Smith, OTJC$2$, 262$1$).—2. ] The intrans. Hiph. is thought by Di. Gu. al. to be inconsistent with J's usage (vv.$3. 23$ 24$21$); therefore E.—4. ] [E]GV .—] [E] inserts as v.$5 bis. 8$.—4a is wholly assigned to E by