Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/576

 $1-14$, the more obvious doublets are $1a 2a$, $5a 6b$, $7a 8$, $11a 13a$; characteristic phrases of J:, $2. 3$; , $2$ (43$8$ 47$19$); , $5$ (42$38$ 44$29$; , $5$; , $7. 10$. Possibly also , $9b. 12b$, is J's variant for E's , $9b. 11b$ etc. (cf. $30. 31. 34$) (Gu.). Hence we may assign to J $2. 3a. 4b. 5?.$ 7} (except, which should probably follow $9a$ in E [Di. KS. Gu.]), $9bβ. 10. 11a. 12$; and to E all the rest (so Gu. nearly: Procksch, however, very plausibly assigns $5. 6a$ to P).—After $12$ there is no trace of J till we come to $27. 28abαβ$, an obvious duplicate of $35$, containing J's peculiar word .—$29-37$ are from E: note the name Jacob, $29. 36$; Reuben's leadership, $37$; and the words, $34$; , $34$ (37$28$ [? 34$20f.$]);, $36$. We also obtain some new expressions which may be employed as criteria of E: , $30$ (cf. $7$);, $31. 33. 34$ (cf. $11. 19$);, $33$ (cf. $19$);, $35$ (cf. $25$).—$38$ belongs to J, but its proper place is after 43$2$ (see on the v.).—A peculiar feature of this and the following chs. is the name, which is elsewhere in Gen. characteristic of P (see p. 245). From this and some similar phenomena, Giesebrecht and others have inferred a Priestly redaction of the Joseph pericope; but the usage may be due to the constant and unavoidable antithesis between Canaan and Egypt (see p. 438 above).

1-4. The journey to Egypt.—1, 2. Another effective change of scene (cf. 39$1$ 41$1$), introducing the deliberations in Jacob's family regarding a supply of food; where the energy and resourcefulness of the father is set in striking contrast to the perplexity of the sons.—4. Benjamin has taken Joseph's place in his father's affection (44$29ff.$); Jacob's unwillingness to let him out of his sight is a leading motive both in J and E.

5-17. The arrival in Egypt, and first interview with Joseph.—On 5, 6a, v.i.—6b. As suspicious strangers the brothers are brought before the viceroy.—bowed themselves, etc.] Reminding Joseph of his dreams (v.$9$). The original connexion in E is broken by the insertion of v.$7$ from J.—

1. ] of uncertain etymology, is always used of grain as an article of commerce (Am. 8$5$, Neh. 10$32$).—] G om.—] G (? =, Kit.). Though the Hithpa. occurs elsewhere only in the sense of 'face one another in battle' (2 Ki. 14$8. 11$ = 2 Ch. 25$17. 21$), a change of text is uncalled for.—2. ] G om.—] G (as 43$2$); rd. perhaps .—3. ] 'ten in number,' acc. of condition.—4. ] G om.

5a reads like a new beginning, and 5b is superfluous after $1-4$. Pro. is probably right in the opinion that $5. 6a$ are the introduction to P's lost narrative of the visit, a view which is confirmed by the unnecessary explanation of $6a$, and by the late word.—6. ] only Ec. 7$19$ 8$8$ 10$5$ [Ezk. 16$30$] and Aram. portions of Ezr. and Dn. (Kue. Ond. i. p. 318). The resemblance to, the name of the first Hyksos king in Jos.