Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/569

 '''15-24. Pharaoh's recital of his dreams.—15.' thou canst hear a dream to interpret it] i.e.'', 'thou canst interpret a dream when thou hearest it': Heb. subordinates the emphatic clause where we would subordinate the condition.—16. Comp. 40$8$.—The answer (on the form, v.i.) exhibits a fine combination of religious sincerity and courtly deference.—17-21. The first dream.—The king gives a vivid subjective colouring to the recital by expressing the feelings which the dream excited. This is natural, and creates no presumption that a parallel narrative is drawn upon. Similarly, the slight differences in phraseology ( for, etc.) are due to the literary instinct for variety.—22-24. The second dream.

25-32. The interpretation.—25-27a. The general outline of the interpretation: the dream is one; it is a presage of what is to happen; the number seven refers to years. The methodical exposition is meant to be impressive.—27b brings the climax: There shall be seven years of famine (so Pro. v.i.).—28. It is uncertain whether refers back to $25b$ 'This is what [I meant when] I said to Pharaoh'), or to $27b$

15. ] Oratio obliqua after (without ), G-K. § 157 a; Dav. § 146, R. 1.—16. ] lit. 'Apart from me' (T$O$ ), used as 14$24$. [E]G read = 'Apart from God, one will not be answered,' etc.; cf. S ('Dost thou expect that apart from God one will answer?' etc.). V Absque me Deus respondebit, shifting the accent. There seems a double entendre in the use of : 'answer' and 'correspond': 'God will give an answer corresponding to the welfare,' etc.—19. ] 'flaccid'; G om.—21. ] On the suff. cf. G-K. § 91 f.—] Sing. (ib. § 93 ss).—23. ] Aram. = 'dried,' 'hardened.' The word is in OT, and is omitted by GVS.—] MSS and [E] —. The irregular gender of MT only here in this chapter.

26. ] Om. of art. may be justified on the ground that the numeral is equivalent to a determinant (G-K. § 126 x); but [E] is much to be preferred.—27. ] 'empty.' The pointing is suggested partly by the contrast to ($22$ etc.), partly by the fact that (in MT)  has not been used of the ears. We ought undoubtedly to read ([E]S).—] The translation above is not free from difficulty; it omits a prediction of unusual plenty preceding the famine, which is, nevertheless, presupposed by what follows. But the ordinary rendering is also weak: why should the seven thin ears alone be fully interpreted? Besides, is fem.—28-32. The critical difficulties of the ch. commence in this section. Pro. assigns $29-31$ to J ( $27f.$ [E]), instancing (cf. 18$33$ 24$15. 19$