66 stress upon Gad's having "executed the justice of Yahweh and his judgments with Israel" by coming with the heads of the people." The reference in vs. 8 to Yahweh's "proving" Levi (or Moses?) and striving with (or for) him cannot, perhaps, be identified with J's story of Massah in Ex. xvii. 7; but neither can it with E's in xv. 25b; xvi. 4 and xvii. 2, so that vs. 8 appears at most neutral; rather, since, with Cornill, we may regard the treatment of Levi as a secular tribe in xxvii. 12 as from E, vs. 8 is really inconsistent with E authorship. Now we may lay no stress upon the sympathy with J in vs. 21; but it is significant that on wholly independent grounds our analysis has led to the assignment of the two passages unmistakably alluded to in vv. 16 and 26 to J and not to E. As for the other arguments for E, Dillmann's three words explicable from the Aramaean are very inconclusive evidence for an Ephramite origin, and of the three possible traces of influence by Nu. xxiii. (see refs.) two are found also in the J version of that poem, if not exclusively there. See note on Nu. xxiv. 8. They might all be accounted for by an acquaintance with the poem independent of E. Per contra the reminiscences of Gen. xlix. (J) are indisputable, and these affect the whole structure of our poem. The same in less degree may be said of Jud. v. (J). The argument that the supreme interest of the poet centres in Joseph is an overstatement. The proportionate interest in Joseph is no greater than the relative importance of Ephraim and Manasseh demanded in the time of the writer; no greater than appears in J's treatment of the tribal origins in the narratives of Genesis, no greater than in Gen. xlix., from whence the greater part of the blessing of Joseph here has been taken bodily. Graf, who regarded this poem as the work of a priest of the Solomonic temple, had a truer perception of the author's patriotic feeling. The survey is comprehensive, but the supreme interest is in "Jeshurun," or Israel as a whole; cf. vv. 2-5, 26-29. The centre of unity here is neither Joseph nor Judah, but Jerusalem; specifically the temple. So far as a preference appears for any tribe it is rather the tribe of Levi, (here distinctly a priest-tribe, vs. 10) who are “the people of Yahweh's consecrated one" (Moses); or Benjamin, who is "the favorite of Yahweh' by virtue of the fact that Yahweh's dwelling-place (the temple) is on his [mountain] shoulders; vv. 8-10, 12. It is certainly difficult to believe that an Ephraimite writer, before the time of Josiah, preeminently unpriestly in his proclivities, a prophet of the prophets, could have written, or even incorporated, a poem so incongruous with his own point of view. But the crucial objection to Judean or Levitical authorship is sought in vs. 7, with its apparently curt treatment of Judah, and above all the clause "bring him in unto his people," which is interpreted as a prayer that Judah may become reunited to the main stock of Israel, from which he, and not the ten tribes, had separated himself. Admitting the possibility of this interpretation, and the apparent omission of reference to Simeon, it is not surprising that vs. 7 should have seemed to the critics conclusive evidence of authorship by E. Yet it is certainly surprising after an exordium in which the attention has just been fastened upon “all the tribes of Israel together," even if the blessing was not originally put in the mouth of Moses, that the author should at the very outset omit the oldest but one of all the tribes, and count only eleven. It is strange, therefore, that Dillmann, who recognizes the singularity of this omission, should reject with the curt verdict of too violent," the brilliant conjecture of Heilprin (Histor. poetry of the ancient Hebrews, 1889, I. p. 113ff.; following Grätz and Kohler), which places 7b after vs. 10 and reads in 7a : And of Simeon he said: Hear, Yahweh, the voice of Simeon, and bring him in unto his people." 66 IO. It is to be observed in the first place that the true place for the blessing of Judah cannot be after Reuben, with which it is neither geographically contiguous nor historically associated; but after Simeon and Levi, as in Gen. xlix. the true model of the present poem. Secondly, the blessing of Levi manifestly reaches its climax and conclusion in vs. What follows in vs. II is impossible to connect with Levi, which as a priestly guild cannot have enemies on the field of battle, such as are referred to in vs. II. Thirdly, the present poem partakes of the character of Gen. xlix. and of ancient poems of this class in general, in the fact that its tribal oracles attach to the name of the tribe in question with repeated plays upon its sense (cf. vs. 24 with Gen. xlix. passim). Of this punning character are both parts of vs. 7. The "Hear, (shem'a) Yahweh" is nothing else than a play upon the name Simeon (shime‘on) who is represented as praying to be reunited to the principal stock of Israel, a prayer which, though he might offer it himself, an Ephraimite could hardly imagine Judah as offering; Simeon, however, in immediate danger at this time of entire extinction by absorption into the neighboring Edomite and Amalekite stocks, might well be supposed to offer it. There is here, in fact, no reference to the division between the northern and southern kingdoms; this on the contrary is ignored by the poet, who dwells upon the national unity. Our conclusion is corroborated by the second part of the verse, which has the same play upon the name Judah (yehudah) as Gen. xlix. 8, connecting it with the stem yad, "hand." Nor is this all. The same warlike "hands" of Judah are those which reappear in vs. 11, and the same "adversaries" against 66 66 whom Yahweh's help is implored in vs. 7b are those of vs. II whose loins Yahweh is entreated to smite through. What possible connection on the other hand can 7b have with 7a? And what better connection can it possibly have than with vs. 11? Finally it is worth while to point out that the running title 7aa, And this is of Judah: and he said," differing as it does from all the others in vv. 8, 12, 13, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24 which uniformly have " And of- -he said seems to bear the mark of the confusion which has here existed, as if the application of the lines to Judah had been disputed. When to all this we add the fact that some LXX. Mss. have here "Simeon," the conjecture seems anything but "violent." The running titles are in fact no integral part of the poem, which does not even afford justification of the expression he (i. e. Moses) said," though this of course agrees with the introductory formula. It is probable that the blessing of Simeon, like the preceding blessing of Reuben, had no separate title, as it was unnecessary. If then in any way the name Simeon became illegible, it would be most natural for the scribe at once to infer, and to set down on the margin, "This is [the blessing] of Judah," for the double reason that on account of the insignificance, or disappearance, of Simeon, Judah, in his mind, would be the name to follow after Reuben in the order of inheritances, and secondly because the generally geographical order of the poem from south to north would to him suggest Judah at this point. However the dislocation of Judah's blessing be accounted for, the conjecture of Heilprin cannot fairly be dismissed as improbable. On the contrary, apart from all questions of authorship the preponderance of evidence suggests that Simeon was mentioned, Yahweh being entreated to "hear" his prayer to be brought in unto his own people; and Judah was not lightly passed over; but on the contrary receives such attention as could proceed only from one in heartiest sympathy with Judah's side in at least his present battles. Judaean authorship, in the strict sense, would be too much to claim for the poem, even with this emendation; but the supposition of Graf, that it was composed by a priest of the Jerusalem temple acquires well-nigh convincing force. If this be its origin we must certainly look to J rather than E as the document in which it was incorporated, and we shall then find it no small corroboration of the analysis which regards J as the author of the passages, Ex. iv. 10–16; xix. 22; xxiv. If., 9–11; xxxii. 25-29 where a semi-priestly interest is displayed. It is in fact a priestly interest, though of the pre-exilic kind which gives the ritual version of the Ten Words, Ex. xxxiv. 10–27, and affords the J nucleus, whatever that be, to which Rp attaches P2's story of the mutiny of Korah. Such a truly broad and comprehensive patriot ism as appears in the selection of narratives of the patriarchal period as well as in the three great poems of Gen. xlix.; Dt. xxxiii., and Jud. v. is what we might expect of a priest of the Solomonic temple in the time of Jeroboam II. 66 As positive evidence of connection with the J document we have not only the references already spoken of; the manifest interest in the Jerusalem temple and priesthood as centre of the national life; the remarkable dependence upon Gen. xlix., and relation to the poems of this document; and the vigorous hatred of Judah's enemies; but also important linguistic criteria. The use of “Sinai,” vs. 2, is unexampled in either E or D, which have uniformly 'Horeb," but invariable in J; "MeribathKadesh," in the same verse (see note in loc.), like "Sinai," is known only to J and P. Finally vs. 17, besides a doubtful reminiscence of Nu. x. 36 (J), can scarcely be interpreted with fairness in a manner compatible with the hatred of Joseph's “firstling bullock" exhibited in Ex. xxxii., and the counting of Joseph as one tribe instead of two agrees with J, whatever may have been E's practice (cf. Gen. xlviii. 20-22 with xlix. 22; Jos. xvii. 14, 17; Jud. i. 22). Chapter xxxiv. is certainly of a very composite character. Vv. 6, 9 and 12 contain three separate conclusions by as many different hands. Vv. 7-9 are certainly the sequel to Num. xxvii. 12-23 (P2), vs. 7a being in the exact form of Num. xxxiii. 39 (P3) and Ex. vii. 7 (P2), and 8f. corresponding to Num. xx. 29; xxvii. 18ff. Vv. 10–12 are not due purely to Rd; for, as an addition to the work already fully completed and rounded out they would be the reverse of helpful to his purpose. The Deuteronomic phraseology simply marks the addition in vv. 11f. to an original datum of E, author of Ex. xxxiii. 11; Num. xi. 25; xii. 8, and other passages where Moses is presented as the ideal prophet. The geographical data in 5f. recall Nu. xxi. 20; xxv. 3 (J), though the linguistic usage shows the final clause of vs. 5 to be from P2. Vs. 4a repeats Ex. xxxiii. I (J) and follows his linguistic usage (Dt. says, “sware to give,”) and the latter part of vs. I, which names a different peak from P and D, is from the same writer; though the beginning of the verse continues the account of P2, Num. xxvii. 12ff. (=Dt. xxxii. 48–52). The geographical amplification between 1b and 4b is redactional (see note in loc.), and probably of late date, but contains the only explanation of the name "City of Palm-trees," for Jericho, employed by J in Jud. i. 16. (J) And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the 33 man of God blessed the children of Israel 'before his 2 death. And he said, 2Yahweh came from Sinai, And rose from Seir unto them; He shined forth from mount Paran, And he came from the ten thousands of holy ones: At his right hand was a fiery law unto them. And they sat down at thy feet; * 4 [Every one] shall receive of thy words. [ ] (Rd) Moses commanded us a law, ... An inheritance for the assembly of Jacob. 5 And he was 'king in 'Jeshurun, 6 7 When the heads of the people were gathered, Let Reuben live, and not die ; Yet let his men be few. -And this is [the blessing] of Judah-: and [...] he said, Hear, Yahweh, the voice of Judah, And bring him in unto his people: -With his 'hands he contended for himself; And thou shalt be an help against his adversaries.-t 1Gen. 27:7; (50: 16). Jud. 5: 4f. Ex. 19: 11, 18, 20 etc. 4Num. 23: 21. 532:12. "Gen. 49:8. 6VS. 21. *Vv. 2b, 3 are very corrupt in text. In 2b we should certainly translate KDS H with LXX. " Kadesh," and the preceding M R B B T H should probably be M M R BT H or M‘R B T H i. e. "from Meribath-(Kadesh): or "from the fields of (Kadesh)." What in the last line of vs. 2 was the original of “from Yahweh's right hand” can only be conjectured, though as between the two marginal readings of R. V. "streams" is preferable to "fire." Vs. 3 appears hopeless. † Vs. 4a interprets the "inheritance" (certainly the land of Canaan) in the sense of Rd as the Torah. Both sense and language show it to be a late gloss, perhaps intended to throw light upon the puzzle of vs. 3. It also alters the sense of vs. 5, which should refer to Yahweh (cf. Num. xxiii. 21).-The bless. ing of Judah is displaced (see Analysis). Insert 7aab after vs. 10, and read, in, 7a b, "the voice of Simeon." In 7b read perhaps, "With thy hand contend |