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. 47$7$ (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. 45$11$).—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."—] Explained, with some hesitation, as 'belonging to (the goddess) Neith' (Steindorff, Spiegelberg, al.).—] (G, etc.) is a fuller form of ; see on 39$1$.—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. is an amplification in the style of P (Ex. 6$11. 13. 27. 29.$ 14$8$).

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 ) 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. ] The [root] is elsewhere peculiar to P (Lv. 2$2$ 5$12$ 6$8$, Nu. 5$26$† ); 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 ; S and T$O$ and (with and  for )—48. ] Rd. with [E]G .—50. ] G .—51. ] Pi. only here; both the form and the irregular vocalisation (G-K. 52 m) are chosen for the sake of assonance with .—54. ] G ; so S—a natural mis