Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/606

 E.—took his two sons.] It seems implied in v.$8$ that Jacob had not yet seen the lads,—so soon did his last illness follow his arrival in Egypt.—3-6. P's brief account of the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh. Di. thinks the vv. have been transferred from their original connexion with 49$28b$, where they were spoken in presence of all the brethren.—3, 4. The reference is to the revelation at Luz (35$11f.$), where the promise of a numerous offspring was coupled with the possession of Canaan. On the phraseology, see above.—5. And now] In view of these promises he elevates Ephraim and Manasseh to the status of full tribes, to share with his own sons in the future partition of the land.—Ephraim and Manasseh] The order is the only hint that Ephraim was the leading tribe (cf. v.$20$ E); but it is not that usually observed by P (see Nu. 26$28ff.$ 34$23f.$, Jos. 14$4$ 16$4$ 17$1$; otherwise Nu. 1$10$).—as Reuben and Simeon] The two oldest are chosen for comparison.—6. Later-born sons of Joseph (none such, however, are anywhere mentioned) are to be called by the name of their brethren, etc.] i.e., are to be counted as Ephraimites and Manassites.—7. The presence of Joseph reminds the dying patriarch of the dark day on which he buried Rachel on the way to Ephrath. The expressions reproduce those of 35$16-20$.—] to my sorrow; lit. ('as a trouble) upon me' (cf. 33$13$).

The notice—one of the most pathetic things in Genesis—is very loosely connected with what precedes, and must in its original setting have led up to something which has been displaced in the redaction. But it is difficult to find a suitable connexion for the v. in the extant portions of any of the three sources. In P (to which the word at first sight seems to point), De. Di. al. would put it immediately before [] in 49$29$; but that view relieves no difficulty, and leads nowhere. A more natural position in that document might be after the mention of the burial of Leah in 49$31$ (v.$32$ may be an interpolation); but the form of the v. is not favourable to that assumption, and no good reason can be

to J because of. But the cl. comes very naturally after $2a$; and as there are three other cases of confusion between the two names in this ch. ($8. 11. 21$), the name is not decisive.—4. ] 28$3$; cf. 35$1$1.—] G .—] 17$8$.—7. ] [E]G +, as in every other case where the name occurs (see on 25$20$). That the difference is documentary, and points to E rather than P, is a hazardous assumption (Gu.); and to substitute, for the sake of accommodation to J (Bruston, Ba.), is quite