The Blessing of Moses

Introduced in Deuteronomy 33:1 this Poem has three parts:—(1) Deuteronomy 33:2-5, Proem, on the origin of the people Israel; (2) Deuteronomy 33:6-25, Blessings on its tribes; (3) Deuteronomy 33:26-29, Epilogue, returning to the whole people in close continuation of the Proem. Questions arise as to the date of the Blessings, their relation to the Proem and Epilogue (with the date of these), and to the oracles assigned to Jacob, Genesis 49:2-27, to which the Blessings are loosely parallel but from which they differ largely in temper and standpoint. Cp. Ryle’s Genesis.

The Blessings mostly agree with the oracles in Genesis 49 in their descriptions of the geographical positions and endowments of the tribes (Gen. alone gives these for Judah and the Blessings for Gad); but less frequently in the political and social rôles which they assign to them. They disagree with Genesis 49 in being uniformly eulogistic, while most of its utterances are otherwise (yet Gen. makes more of Judah and equally blesses Joseph); they allude to the Mosaic age (Deuteronomy 33:8, perhaps Deuteronomy 33:9, and Deuteronomy 33:21) as Gen. does not; and, altogether more religious, they emphasise the sacred functions of some of the tribes, while Genesis 49 is concerned almost exclusively with the secular aspects of its subjects. The atmosphere of Genesis 49 is primitive in comparison with that of the Blessings, and the conditions it reflects are, except for Judah, less settled.

In Gen. Re’uben and Sime‘on are threatened, here Re’uben is sorely diminished and Sime‘on has disappeared (yet see on Deuteronomy 33:6). In Gen. there is no word of the priesthood of Levi; here the tribe is fully established in that. There the earlier, here the later, aspects of Benjamin are reflected. The contrast between the two descriptions of Judah, though at first sight it seems to tell in favour of the priority of the Blessings, is not incompatible with an earlier date for Genesis 49. The other oracles permit of no comparison as to date—not even those on Gad (see on Deuteronomy 33:20 f.).

Even when we allow for differences of temper and standpoint between two authors, enough remains to show how well founded is the general opinion that the oracles, Genesis 49:2-17, are earlier than our Blessings. At the same time there are signs of the fact—also probable from the nature of such poems—that neither collection is of a uniform date, but that both incorporate elements from different periods.

It is not possible to argue for a Mosaic date for the Blessings, except by ignoring the principle on which O.T. prophecy consistently starts from the circumstances of the prophet’s own time. The facts that Sime‘on is not mentioned, who took part in the conquest of W. Palestine; that the conquest itself is regarded as past, for Deuteronomy 33:21 records Gad’s share in it; that Benjamin’s territory already holds the dwelling-place of Jehovah; and that the N. tribes, settled on their territories, profit by the culture open to them there—all these facts prove that the age of Moses is long past.

Yet ‘everything breathes high antiquity and fresh and vigorous power’ (Cornill, Introd. Eng. trans. 125), ‘breathes the spirit of the earlier narratives of Kings’ (Driver). The tribes are in secure possession of their provinces. Only Judah is isolated as it became by the Disruption in 930, and Re’uben near extinction. For the others there is no sense of impending disturbance, by invasion or exile, such as throbs through chs. 28 and 32, and such as N. Israel realised by 721 b.c. Nor does the language contain any late elements. Therefore (though some support a date as early as the Judges, e.g. Kleinert) the prevailing opinion is that the Blessings were composed during one of the happier periods of the earlier Kingdom: either in the reign of Jeroboam i., c. 940–922 (Schrader, Dillm., Westphal, Driver, etc.), or in that of Jeroboam ii., 783–743 (Graf, Kuenen, Stade, Ball, Cornill, Baudissin, Moore, Steuern., the Oxf. Hex., Berth., Marti, Robinson).

There are difficulties with regard to both these dates; against the later the present writer would urge that Judah also was then in a state of high prosperity under Uzziah and at peace with N. Israel, and that the meagre reference to him in Deuteronomy 33:7 is hardly compatible with this. It seems best to leave the date undefined, except that it was probably between 940, when Judah became separated from the other tribes, and 742–721, the decline and fall of N. Israel; but some of the Blessings may be older, and even much older. For such oracles start early in the life of Semitic tribes, as we see both from Genesis 49, which contains pre-monarchial elements, and from the oral traditions of Arabs in all times, and drift from generation to generation and tribe to tribe, receiving many modifications and yet preserving, as such Arab poems do, a genuine record of earlier conditions and characters (cp. Early Poetry of Israel, 35 f). Thus it is possible that Deuteronomy 33:7 may reflect the isolation of Judah from the N. tribes immediately after the settlement; and that Deuteronomy 33:20 may equally with Deuteronomy 33:21 refer to the original allotment to Gad of so large a territory; while the oracles on Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Naphtali and Asher may be almost of any age after the conquest. In the light of this when we speak of an author of the Blessings we can only mean their final author. That he was a N. Israelite is established by his treatment of Joseph, and supported by the Aramaisms in his vocabulary. That he was also a priest is probable from his treatment of Levi.

The Proem (2–5) and Epilogue (26–29) form by themselves a complete poem; Deuteronomy 33:26 follows close on Deuteronomy 33:5. The theories, that they are from another hand than that of Deuteronomy 33:6-25 and of a late, even an exilic or post-exilic, date (Steuern., Berth., Marti), cannot be ruled out as impossible—for they have some phrases peculiar to themselves and to late writings (see notes below) and the O.T. contains similar psalms on the earlier conditions of Israel, which are certainly late. But on the other hand there is no word or phrase in them which is indubitably late, and no allusion or apprehension requiring us to bring them further down the history than the Blessings themselves. They share all the vigour and optimism of these. Besides, the text of the Proem shows a dilapidation compatible with a long oral tradition from an early period. It seems to me more reasonable to regard Deuteronomy 33:2-5; Deuteronomy 33:26-29 as the work of the collector and final author of the Blessings himself; who thus provided the latter with a most suitable and sympathetic frame.

The Metre is more rough and irregular than that of the Song in ch. 32, but less so than that of Genesis 49, which we might expect from the respective dates of the three pieces. The same rule prevails of, in general, 3 stresses to the line. Except in 17a there are no lines with 4 stresses; provided we expand the text of some of them, as is done below, and that in others we regard two words in the construct case as under one stress or accent. But if this latter rule is always to be observed there are also several lines of only 2 stresses. Lines which have undoubtedly 2 stresses, are Deuteronomy 33:3 d, 10b, 25b, 27d; each, be it observed, the second line of a couplet, thus producing a ḳinah, or elegiac distich; which metre, as I have elsewhere argued (Early Poetry of Israel, 21), was during this period being gradually developed to the perfection it achieved in the 8th and 7th centuries.—As to verses or strophes, a system of quatrains prevails throughout, if certain glosses be omitted. But Deuteronomy 33:20; Deuteronomy 33:26 are certainly triplets; and others may be so unless the text be amended.

1 (2). The Mutilated shall not Enter the Congregation. The reason is either the general one, which may well have been primitive, that a blemished man was ritually unfit for a community, formed like all ancient communities on a religious basis (cp. H, Leviticus 21:20, for the priests alone); or the particular one that such unsexed persons often served heathen deities (Deuteronomy 14:1, Deuteronomy 23:17 f. (18 f.)). Also the employment of eunuchs was part of the foreign ḥareem system introduced by Solomon. There is therefore no reason to doubt the possibility of an early date for this law.

On its use of ḳahal for the congregation of Israel see below. Berth. argues that the rigorous exclusion of eunuchs implies a date later than the exilic or post-exilic passage Isaiah 56:3 ff., which promises the childless eunuch, sarîs, a lasting name in Israel, better than sons or daughters, if he keeps Jehovah’s covenant. But this promise, in its connection with a similar one to the son of the foreigner, reads as the grant, under the influence of a more spiritual and generous piety (cp. on Deuteronomy 33:6), of privileges hitherto denied to the physical eunuch by custom or law. Or has sarîs here the same symbolic meaning which it bears in Matthew 19:12? Nor does Berth.’s appeal to Jeremiah 34:19 carry weight, for the sarîsîm mentioned there can hardly, because of their ranking with princes and priests, be physical eunuchs but are rather chamberlains or other high officials. Jensen derives the word from Ass. sha reshi ‘he who is chief’ (Z. A. vii. 174); cp. Genesis 39:1, where the married Potiphar is a sarîs of Pharaoh, and note that no Heb. code calls the physical eunuch sarîs. On eunuchs as guardians of the mosques at Medinah and Mecca see Burton, Pilgrimage, etc., i. 371.

wounded in the stones] Lit. wounded by crushing (the testes), cp. H, Leviticus 21:20; this and the other operation here described are both practised in the East.

the assembly] or congregation. For the Heb. ḳahal see on Deuteronomy 5:22. The earlier instances of the term cited there shew that its use here cannot be taken as proof of an exilic or post-exilic date. This in answer to Berth. Not used in this meaning elsewhere by D; its presence here may be due to D’s employment of an earlier law (cp. Dillm.). But cp. Deuteronomy 33:4.

1. An editor’s introduction; note children of Israel, not D’s all Israel.

the blessing … blessed] This title is not given to the less hopeful oracles assigned to Jacob in Genesis 49. Great sanctity was ascribed to the words of a dying father or leader on the fortunes of his sons or followers, for such a blessing was before Jehovah; Genesis 27:7; Genesis 27:23; Genesis 27:27 ff., Gen 48:9, 20, 49, cp. Joshua 14:13.

man of God] Frequently of prophets: Moses, Joshua 14:6 (deut.), Psalms 90. (title); Samuel, 1 Samuel 9:6; 1 Samuel 9:10; Elijah, 1 Kings 17:18; Elisha, 2 Kings 4:7; 2 Kings 4:9; 2 Kings 4:15; 2 Kings 4:22; 2 Kings 4:25; 2 Kings 4:27; a nameless prophet, 1 Kings 13.

(2–9). Four Laws: Of Right to Enter the Congregation

There shall not enter any eunuch (Deuteronomy 33:1); nor the son of an unlawful marriage, nor descendants (Deuteronomy 33:2); nor Ammonite, nor Moabite, nor descendants (Deuteronomy 33:3-6); but the third generation of Edomite or Egyptian may enter (Deuteronomy 33:7 f.).—These laws have negative openings like the preceding and like the series which follow in Deuteronomy 33:15-20 (Deuteronomy 33:16-21) after the interrupting law, Deuteronomy 33:9-14 (Deuteronomy 33:10-15); hence possibly their position just here. The form of address to Israel does not appear till Deuteronomy 33:4 a (Deuteronomy 33:5 a) where it is Pl., but in Deuteronomy 33:4-7 Sg. Other features are the use of ḳahal, congregation, for the commonwealth of Israel, not elsewhere in D, the difference of Deuteronomy 33:4 a (Deuteronomy 33:5 a) from Deuteronomy 2:29, the introduction of Balaam not mentioned in chs. 1–3, and the favourable treatment of Egyptians. Such data raise questions of the origin and structure of these laws as difficult as any we have met, and perhaps incapable of solution.

Some take Deuteronomy 33:4-6 (Deuteronomy 33:5-7) as secondary, and the rest as original to D. But it is nearly as plausible to reckon part or all of Deuteronomy 33:4-6 as D’s addition to earlier laws and to argue for the primitive origin of these (see below). Berth. holds that all Deuteronomy 33:1-8 (Deuteronomy 33:2-9) is secondary, Deuteronomy 33:1-6 being from the time of Ezra and perhaps inserted by Ezra himself to correct the religious confusions which he found in Jerusalem. As there is nothing at that time to explain Deuteronomy 33:7 f. (Deuteronomy 33:8 f.) he boldly suggests the origin of this in the Maccabean period (Stellung d. Isr. zu d. Fremden, 142 ff., and his note on this passage). For answers to him see below.

2 (3). Nor shall the Son of an Unlawful Marriage Enter the Congregation nor his Descendants.

bastard] This meaning is derived from the LXX ἐκ πόρνης. More probably the Heb. mamzer (elsewhere only in Zechariah 9:6) signifies the offspring either of such unlawful unions as are exemplified in Deuteronomy 22:30 (Deuteronomy 23:1), which was the opinion of the Rabbis (Mishnah, ‘Yebamoth’ Deuteronomy 4:13, cp. Levy, Chald. u. Neuhebr. Wörterbuch, sub voce), or of the equally forbidden marriages with foreign wives, Nehemiah 13:23 ff.

2. The Lord] Jehovah; as frequently, the Divine Name opens the poem; see on Deuteronomy 1:6.

Sinai] See Deuteronomy 1:2; Deuteronomy 1:6, on Ḥoreb, and on the view that the mountain lay in Se‘îr cp. Jdg 5:4.

rose] Like the sun: rays, or beams, forth.

unto them] So Heb. and Sam. But LXX, Targ., Vulg. read to us. V. Gall (followed by Berth. and Marti) reads to his people.

shined forth] Or flashed, so of God in Psalm 50:2; Psalm 80:1 (2), Psalm 94:1; and Job.

Paran] See Deuteronomy 1:1; mount Paran, as in Habakkuk 3:3, is not to be identified with any one range in that mountainous wilderness: mount is collective.

came] Better comes, hies or is sped; a vb common in Aram. but in Heb. used only in poetry.

from Merîbath-Kadesh] A probable conjecture from the Heb. meribeboth-ḳodesh = from holy myriads and LXX with myriads of Ḳadesh. Others propose, with him (so Sam. Pesh. Targ. instead of comes) were holy chariots (markeboth-kodesh). From the Targ. with him were holy myriads arose the late Jewish belief that angels (cp. LXX ἄγγελοι in next clause) ministered at the giving of the Law, Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19, Hebrews 2:2.

At his right hand] Or from; confirmed by the Versions; yet it is possible that for mîmîno we should read miyyamîn = from the South, in parallel to the previous lines.

was a fiery law] Very questionable. The Heb. consonants ’sh d th are written as one word, but read by the Massoretes as two, ’esh dath = fire, law; but their construction is awkward and dath is a late word from the Persian and improbable here. Sam. reads two words, each = light; if the first be read as a vb we get the probable there flashed light. Dillm. adding two consonants reads a burning fire. By reading one word we have an equivalent of the Aram. ’ashidoth = lightning flashes; cp. Habakkuk 3:4, He had horns (i.e. rays) from his hand. LXX ἄγγελοι, cp. Psalm 104:4 his ministers a flame of fire. The line may be an intrusion; it is not one of a couplet.

2–5. The Proem—The Origin of Israel

The Revelation by which the tribes became a nation is described in the mingled figures of a dawn and a thunderstorm, theophanies frequent in the Ar. poetry of the desert where natural phenomena suggestive of divine appearance and power are few (hardly more than these and the rainbow); and used several times in Heb. poetry of Jehovah the Inhabiter of Sinai; Jdg 5:4 f., Habakkuk 3:3 ff.; cp. Psalm 18:29. and contrast 1 Kings 19:11 f. See further Early Poetry of Israel, 56 ff.

2 The Lord from Sinai is come

And risen on us from Se‘îr,

Hath flashed from the hills of Parán,

And sped from Merîbath-Ḳadesh.

[From the South (?) blazed fire (?) on them.]

3 Lover indeed of His people,

His hallowed are all in His hand,

They, they fall in (?) at Thy feet,

They take up Thine orders.

4 [Moses commanded us law]

His domain is the Assembly of Jacob,

5 And King He became in Yeshurun,

When the heads of the people were gathered,

The tribes of Israel were one.

3. he loveth] Heb. partic. ḥobeb, only here; the meaning is assured from other Semitic dialects.

the peoples] If the Heb. is accepted render tribes. But LXX has his people.

his saints] Not in an ethical sense, but as hallowed, or set apart, to Him; either all Israel or more probably their specially consecrated warriors; see Deuteronomy 2:34, Deuteronomy 20:2 ff., and cp. the other form of the same root, meḳuddashaw for warriors in Isaiah 13:3.

thy hand] So Sam. LXX; Luc. his hands, Vulg. his hand; Pesh. he blesses.

The text of the next couplet is uncertain; they sat down is a doubtful conjecture from the Ar. of the meaning of the Heb. verb otherwise unknown. But warriors do not sit. The LXX these are under thee and Sam. they humble, or submit, themselves suggest they fall in (in their ranks) which suits the following at thy feet, i.e. behind thee; cp. Jdg 5:15 rushed forth at his feet, 1 Samuel 25:42; shall receive, Heb. imperf. better rendered as a present take up. Ball conjectures, they went at his feet, they travelled in his ways, and Berth. he sustains thy lot and keeps his covenant with thee, both ingenious but unsupported by textual evidence, and the former tame.

3–6 (4–7). Nor shall Ammonites, nor Moabites, nor their Descendants Enter the Congregation (3), for these nations gave no provision to Israel on the way from Egypt (4a), but he (?) hired Balaam to curse Israel (4b, 5); Israel must never seek their welfare (6). Deuteronomy 33:3 is quoted in Lamentations 1:10 : evidence in favour, but not conclusive, of its being an original part of D’s code. The originality of Deuteronomy 33:4-6 is more doubtful.

They make the law longer than the others of this group, cp. the deuteronomic additions to the ‘Ten Words.’ Deuteronomy 33:3 is sufficiently accounted for, through its connection with the previous law, by the incestuous origin of Ammon and Moab (J, Genesis 19:30-38); but Deuteronomy 33:4-6 besides being quotations (see below) give other reasons for the law. The question is further complicated by the introduction of Balaam, not mentioned in chs. 1–3, and the difference between Deuteronomy 33:4 a and Deuteronomy 2:29. But whether Deuteronomy 33:3 is an earlier law to which D or editors have added (at different times) the two quotations, Deuteronomy 33:4-6; or whether Deuteronomy 33:3 is D’s own law, to which editors have added the rest—it is impossible to say. On Ammon and Moab see ch. 2.

4. Moses commanded us a law] The change to 1st pers. plur. (but LXX B you), the introduction of Moses’ name, and the fact that the line is an odd one, raise the suspicion that it is a gloss. Law, Heb. Tôrah, in its widest sense (see on Deuteronomy 1:5; Deuteronomy 1:31); omit a. If the line be retained, the next line is in apposition and we must render with Sam. (and LXX) a possession for the assembly of Jacob (cp. Psalm 119:111). But without changing the consonants we may read, His possession, or dominion, is the assembly of Jacob; a parallel to the next line. Assembly, Heb. ḳehillah, only here and Nehemiah 5:7, in D and elsewhere ḳahal (see on Deuteronomy 5:22 and Deuteronomy 23:1 (2)), the whole nation as a body politic. Possession elsewhere only in P, Exodus 6:8, and Ezek. (6 times) mostly of the land.

4a. met you not, etc.] The appearance of the Pl. address marks a quotation as in Deuteronomy 9:7 f. According to Deuteronomy 2:29 Moab sold bread and water to Israel.

when ye came forth out of Egypt] Whoever wrote this clause (D or an editor) its perspective is that not of Moses in the land of Moab but of a time long after when the whole forty years’ passage from Egypt was foreshortened.

4b, 5. Probably another quotation from a different source: (1) because of the change from the Pl. to the Sg. address (confirmed by LXX), and (2) because Heb. and the versions have he hired (not they as in EVV.), suggesting that in the context from which it was extracted this vb had a sing. nominative (Balak?). On the substance of Deuteronomy 33:4 b, Deuteronomy 33:5, see JE, Numbers 22:2 ff.

5. And he became king in Jeshurun] i.e. Jehovah. Graf, Wellh., Stade render and there was a king, i.e. Saul, but Saul is not relevant here. On Yeshurun see Deuteronomy 32:15.

6. Thou shalt not seek, etc.] So Ezra 9:12 of the peoples of the land. But Jeremiah (Jeremiah 29:7) counselled the exiled Jews to seek the peace of Babylonia. The spirit of his counsel is as much in advance of the spirit of this law, as Isaiah 56:3 ff. is in advance of Deuteronomy 33:1.

7, 8 (8, 9). Edomites and Egyptians are not to be abominated; the one people is Israel’s blood-brother (unlike Moab and Ammon), the other was his host; their third generation may enter the congregation.—Here too there is no reason against an early date.

The political hostility of Israel to Edom, fierce before the Exile, was then and after still fiercer. But their kinship was an old tradition and this law like the others of the group reflects not a political situation but a religious principle. The attitude to Egypt appears to conflict with the feeling usual in D that the Egyptians had only been the enslavers of Israel—house of bondmen, fiery furnace, etc. Yet D also elsewhere remembers that the poor and weak nomad, who was the father of Israel, became in Egypt a great nation (Deuteronomy 26:5); and further the admission into Israel of the third generation of an Egyptian was apparently already allowed in the 7th cent. b.c. (see on Deuteronomy 33:8). Thus the Maccabean date, proposed for this law by Berth., is unnecessary.

6. On the whole this seems the most probable rendering of a—perhaps intentionally—ambiguous oracle. Others take the second line differently:—but let his men be few as reflecting the actual condition of the tribe (Driver); nor let his men be few (Graf) continuing the influence of the previous negative, but see Driver’s note against this; so that his men be few (Dillm., Steuern., etc.), which is much the same as the paraphrase above. Heb. let his men be a number, an idiom elsewhere used only of a small number (see on Deuteronomy 4:27) so that the suggested let his men be numerous (cp. LXX) is improbable.—In Genesis 49:4 Reuben though the firstborn shall not have the excellency; see the notes there. In Jdg 5:16 the tribe is scorned for its failure to join the others against the Canaanites, and except for 1 Chronicles 5:3-10 does not again appear in Israel’s history. Nor does Mesha of Moab, 9th cent. b.c., name it. The oracle is therefore probably earlier than that date.

LXX A, etc., read Let Simeon be many in number, and Heilprin (Hist. Poetry of the Ancient Hebrews. i. 113 ff.) supported by Bacon (Triple Tradition of the Exodus, 271 f.) conjectures that the first couplet of the next blessing in Judah was originally of Simeon with a play upon his name: Hear—shema‘—the voice of Shime‘on and bring him in unto his people, and takes the rest of 7 along with Deuteronomy 33:11 as the original oracle on Judah, in a place more suitable to that tribe, after Levi and immediately before Benjamin. The hypothesis is clever. Yet the introduction of Simeon in a few codd. of the LXX may be a later attempt to fill up the number of the 12 tribes; while on the other hand the absence of Simeon from the poem is explicable by the fortunes of the tribe; cursed in Genesis 49:7; absorbed in Judah, Joshua 19:1-9, 1 Chronicles 4:24 ff., and otherwise absent from the history of Israel. Had Simeon been mentioned originally, he could hardly have dropped out.

7 And this of Judah, and he said:—

Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah!

And bring him in to his people.

His own hands have striven for him,

But Thou shalt be help from his foes.

6–25. The Blessing Proper

6 Re’ubén, may he live and not die,

Though few be his men.

7. Thou shalt not abhor] regard as an abomination, ritually alien or ‘unclean.’ see on Deuteronomy 7:26.

stranger] Guest, or client. Heb. gçr.

7. See introductory note above.

bring him in] Not back. Judah is isolated from the rest of the nation, but whether this refers to that early isolation, to which Deborah’s silence upon Judah testifies, or to the later one after the Disruption of the Kingdom it is impossible to say; see introd. to this ch.

With his hands, etc.] Text uncertain, Sam. his hand, LXX his hands, contend for him. Read therefore His own hands have striven for him, in antithesis to the next line, But thou, etc. This is better than Stade’s ‘with thy hands strive thou for him and thou,’ etc. R.V. marg., reading another vb with the same consonants, is possible but less likely; better than it is his own hands have sufficed for him. Calvin: let his hands suffice him; so too Geddes. Contrast the very different description of Judah in Genesis 49:8-12.

8. The children of the third generation … shall enter the congregation] Jeremiah 36:14 mentions a man under King Jehoiakim called Yehudi, i.e. Jew, whose great-grandfather was called Kushi, i.e. Egyptian, and whose father and grandfather had names derived from the name of Israel’s God.

9–14 (10–15). Of the Holiness of the Camp

In camp Israel shall avoid every evil (Deuteronomy 33:9). If a man suffer from pollution he must leave the camp till evening, bathe and then return (Deuteronomy 33:10 f.). There shall be a place outside for natural needs, where a man shall cover with earth what comes from him (Deuteronomy 33:12 f.); Israel’s God, who walketh the camp, must not see shameful things (Deuteronomy 33:14).—In the Sg. address, like other laws of War, Deuteronomy 20:1-19 f., Deuteronomy 21:10-14, and with the same form of opening, and appeal to the same sacred reason.

The reason is D’s own, in his language, but the ideas behind the law were primitive: either, as in the case of the first, sexual uncleanness as a disqualification for service—already in practice in Israel (1 Samuel 21:5, 2 Samuel 11:11); or, as in the case of the second, the danger of leaving one’s excrement exposed, as though it might be used in magic against one (Frazer, Golden Bough, i. 327 f.; Schwally, Kriegsalterthümer, 61 f., 67). See further note introd. to ch. 20. This law is therefore possibly an earlier one, adapted and partly transformed by D. See below on Deuteronomy 33:14. A parallel in P, Numbers 5:1-4. For Brahminical laws for the same occasions see Beauchamp’s edition of Dubois, Hindu Manners, etc.,2 239 ff.

8 And of Levi he said:—

Give Leví Thy Thummím,

Thine Urím to the man of Thy grace,

Whom Thou didst prove at Probation

And strive with (?) at Waters-of-Strife;

9 Who said of his father and mother,

I do not regard them;

Nor avowed he his brothers,

Nor acknowledged his sons;

But Thine oracles they kept,

And guarded Thy covenant.

10 They deliver Thy judgements to Jacob,

And Thy law to Israel;

They set up smoke in Thy nostrils,

Holocausts up on Thine altar.

11 Bless Thou his service, O Lord,

And accept the work of his hands!

Shatter his opponents’ loins,

And his haters past their opposing.

8. Thy Thummim, etc.] This line is overloaded and has no parallel. Prefix (with LXX) Give Levi, and the result is two parallel lines of 3 + 3 or 3 + 2 as above.

Thummim and Urim] In inverse order from other records of them in the O.T.:—1 Samuel 14:41 (LXX); P, Exodus 28:30, Leviticus 8:8; Ezra 2:63, Nehemiah 7:65. They were the two sacred lots used by the priest in giving decisions. See Dri.’s full note, Exod. 313 f.

thy godly one] Cp. LXX τῷ ἀνδρὶ τῷ ὁσίῳ; Heb. ’ish hasîdĕka, the man who showed thee ḥesed or true love; or, more probably from the context, to whom thou didst show ḥesed. It is possible to render to the men of him to whom thou, etc., i.e. Levi or Moses or Aaron. The emendation ḥasdĕka or ḥasadĕka, of thy grace, is attractive (Ball).

Whom thou didst prove at Massah, etc.] It is difficult if not impossible to harmonise this couplet with the stories of what happened at Massah = Probation and at Merîbah = Strife as told by JE, Exodus 17:1 b–7, and JP, Numbers 20:2-13 (cp. above Deuteronomy 6:16, Deuteronomy 9:22, Deuteronomy 32:51).

For at Massah the people is said to have striven with Moses and to have tempted or proved Jehovah; and at Meribah to have striven with Moses and Aaron for bringing them into the desert and with Jehovah Himself, who gave them water but blamed Moses and Aaron for want of faith. Here on the other hand it is Jehovah who proves, and contends with Levi, the tribe, who are not mentioned in the above narratives. It is possible to argue, however, that what happened at, Massah was God’s proving of Moses by means of a critical situation; and that at Meribah He did in His providence strive or debate with Moses and Aaron by similarly critical circumstances (cp. Psalm 81:7); and therefore that this couplet is a possible, if free, interpretation of the above narratives. In that case we may take its relative, whom, and thy godly one of the previous line either as meaning Moses or Aaron or the whole tribe as represented by them. There would remain the discrepancy that while this ‘Blessing’ implies that Levi issued successfully from the proof and strife put upon them by God; P, Numbers 20:12 f., records the failure of the faith of Moses and Aaron. Calvin seeks to remove this by regarding our couplet as ‘added by way of exception … Moses magnifies God’s mercy by this allusion in that He dignified Aaron with so great an honour, notwithstanding his having been overcome with impatience and fallen’; and he quotes the analogy of Christ’s call to Peter to feed His sheep after Peter had thrice denied Him (John 21:15-17).

Others explain the couplet as referring to a proof of the tribe Levi not recorded elsewhere (yet cp. Exodus 32:26 ff.). Others (e.g. Wellh. Hist. 184, Steuern.) translate for whom (instead of with whom) Thou didst strive—whom Thou didst champion, i.e. by giving them the power to bring forth water from the desert rocks. Yet it is also possible to read the vb as a Hiphil, whom Thou causedst to strive or whom Thou broughtest into strife.

9. When thou goest forth] As Deuteronomy 20:1, Deuteronomy 21:10; cp. Deuteronomy 13:13 (14).

in camp] Heb. [as] a camp, maḥaneh: a term used of the encampment itself, Deuteronomy 33:10 ff., Joshua 6:11; Joshua 6:14, 1 Samuel 17:53, 2 Kings 7:16; of those who encamp, Numbers 10:5 f.; and of a host on its way to encamp or to take up a position, as here, Joshua 8:13; Joshua 10:5; Joshua 11:4 f. (Also used of hosts or companies without any reference to camping.) The camps of nomads were of tents; in time of war Israel’s were of booths, 2 Samuel 11:11.

thou shalt keep thee] Deuteronomy 2:4.

every evil thing] As the context shews, anything that would cause ritual uncleanness; in Deuteronomy 17:1 of a physical blemish unfitting for sacrifice, but in Psalm 64:5 (6), Psalm 141:4 of what is immoral.

9. Above all claims of kindred the tribe set their duty to the oracles and covenant of Jehovah (cp. Deuteronomy 13:6 (7) ff., Matthew 10:37, Luke 14:26).

‘It is not blood but abnegation of blood that constitutes the priest. He must act for Jehovah’s sake as if he had neither father, nor mother, neither brothers nor children’ (Wellh. loc. cit.). Some interpret this specifically of the impartiality of the priests as ministers of justice, they did not respect persons (cp. Deuteronomy 1:16 f., Deuteronomy 17:9 ff.); others see an allusion to Exodus 32:17-29; but both these interpretations are too particular.

Note that, as in D, the whole tribe of Levi are priests, and that in contrast to Genesis 49:7 the tribe is consolidated. See Ryle’s note there.

‘The priests appear as a strictly close corporation, so close that they are mentioned only exceptionally in the plural number and for the most part are spoken of collectively in the singular as an organic unity which embraces not merely the contemporary members but also their ancestors and which begins its life with Moses, the friend of Jehovah, who as its beginning is identified with the continuation just as the man is identified with the child out of whom he has grown’ (Wellh. Hist. 135).

For may be rendered but.

10. among you] Lit. in thee.

which chanceth him by night] See Leviticus 15:16; and above on Deuteronomy 20:7.

10. judgements … law] Heb. Mishpaṭim … Torah cp. Deuteronomy 17:9 ff. The earlier priest was a teacher and judge (Hosea 4:6, Micah 3:11); and of his functions these also come first here, and are followed by his offices in the ritual of expiation.

incense] Rather smoke of sacrifice; for in the earlier Heb. literature, Isaiah 1:13, 1 Samuel 2:16, Amos 4:5, Hosea 4:13; Hosea 11:2, the noun ḳeṭôreth (here ḳeṭôrah) and the vb ḳiṭṭer refer always to such smoke and not to incense.

Of the use of incense in Israel’s worship there is no evidence before the 7th cent. b.c.; Jeremiah 6:20 appears to regard frankincense as an innovation. At Ta‘anach Sellin unearthed an incense altar which he dates about 700 b.c. (Tell Ta‘annek, 75 ff., 109 f.) and at Gezer Macalister found another in rubbish of 1000–600 b.c. (PEFQ, 1908, 211). See further Jerusalem i. 333, ii. 63 n. 2, 307 f., etc. The smoke from the altar conveyed to the Deity in an ethereal form the portion of the sacrificial feast reserved for Him. This seems to have been the primitive idea of the process, and a trace of it survives here in the anthropomorphic phrase in thy nostrils (R.V. marg.), cp. Genesis 8:21, 1 Samuel 26:19, etc. But later the burnt-offering came more and more to have a piacular force; and its smoke symbolised to Israel the confession of their sin and their surrender of the lives He was pleased to accept in place of their guilty and forfeit selves. No sacrament could be more adequate than this, which proved at once the death deserved by the guilty, the blackness and bitterness of their sin, and its disappearance in the infinite purity of the skies, the unfathomable mercy of Heaven. It is this piacular meaning which is behind the LXX rendering ἐν ὀργῇ σον, ‘in thy wrath,’ for in thy nostrils.

whole burnt offering] See Deuteronomy 13:16 (17).

11. when evening cometh on] Genesis 24:63. The new day began then.

bathe himself, etc.] Also prescribed in Leviticus 15:16.

11. substance] Better strength or efficiency and so service, parallel to work of his hands. Yet it might mean host, ranks or order. Calvin retaining substance says ‘it appears to have been intended tacitly to provide against the poverty which awaited the Levites,’ and quotes Psalm 132:15.

that rise up against him … that hate him] To what this refers is unknown. Some refer it to Numbers 16:1 ff. or 1 Kings 12:31; and the hostility of the prophets to the priests is well-known. As we have seen, others assign the lines to the ‘Blessing’ on Judah.

12. a place] Heb. hand, of Jabbok-side in Deuteronomy 2:37, a man’s place in the ranks, Numbers 2:17 (cp. Jeremiah 6:3). Here perhaps a place aside.

12 And of Benjamin he said:—

[Benjamin (?)] beloved of the Lord,

He dwelleth securely always (?).

The Highest is a covert above him,

And dwelleth between his shoulders.

As the overloaded first line of the Heb., the want of a fourth line and the variants of the versions indicate, the text is probably corrupt. The above re-arrangement in a quatrain, though finding some support from the versions, is precarious like every emendation which rests mainly on efforts to regularise the rhythm.—The picture here given is very different from that in Genesis 49:27, which reflects the valiant and even savage qualities of the tribe as described in Jdg 3:15 f., Jdg 5:14; Jdg 5:19, Jdg 20:21-25, while this reflects its religious privileges under the (divided) monarchy. (See Ryle.)

12. The beloved of the Lord] Heb. yedîd Yahweh; cp. Yedidiah of Solomon, 2 Samuel 12:25. Of all Israel, Jeremiah 11:15.

dwell in safety] Cp. Deuteronomy 33:28, Deuteronomy 12:10. Above always (Heb. all the day) is (with some scholars) brought here from the next line.

by him] Heb. ‘alaw, more accurately upon him but superfluous both to the sense (and if three lines are read) to the metre; not found in Sam. or LXX; and so either a careless anticipation of ‘alaw in the next line, or to be read as the LXX apparently have done (for they introduce ὁ θεός at the beginning of the next line) ‘elyôn = the Most High. So Herder, Geddes, etc.

his shoulders] The ridges of Benjamin’s territory: cp. Joshua 15:8; Joshua 18:13. Since P, Joshua 15:7; Joshua 18:15 f., Joshua 18:28, reckons Jerusalem as in Benjamin (while J, Joshua 15:63 assigns it to Judah) this line has been interpreted as referring to the Temple. But in what is evidently a poem of N. Israel the reference is probably to Beth-el.

13. paddle] peg or stake, in Jdg 5:26 of tent-peg, here a digging-stick, Scot. ‘dibble.’

13 And of Joseph he said:

Blessed of the Lord be his land,

With the wealth of heaven above,

And the deep that crouches beneath.

14 With the wealth of the crops of the sun,

And the wealth of the yield of the moons.

15 With the best (?) from the hills of yore,

And the wealth of the ancient heights.

16 Even the wealth of the land and its fulness,

And His favour who dwelt in the Bush.

May they come on the head of Yoséph,

On the skull of the crowned of his brothers!

17 His firstling bull’s be the splendour,

And his horns the horns of the wild ox!

With them he thrusteth the peoples

Together to the ends of the earth.

These be the myriads of Ephraim,

And these the thousands of Manasseh.

The rather longer Blessing of Joseph in Genesis 49:22-26 dwells similarly on the richness of the territory, and on the primacy, of Joseph among the tribes. But it reflects, as this does not, a contest with foreign foes in which he has suffered severely, yet his strength is maintained by the help of the Mighty One of Jacob (the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel?), the God of thy father. The following are close parallels: Deuteronomy 33:13 with Genesis 49:25 c, d; Deuteronomy 33:16 c, d with 26 c, d. See Ryle’s notes.

13. For] Rather with or from, and so throughout 13–16.

precious things] Heb. meged, exact meaning uncertain. It is found only here and in Song of Solomon 4:13; Song of Solomon 4:16; Song of Solomon 7:13 (14) where its plur. is used with fruits: R.V. and Budde precious fruits, Haupt most luscious fruitage. Here it is similarly rendered by Steuern. ‘das Köstlichste,’ Marti ‘das Herrlichste,’ Berth. ‘köstliche Gabe.’ But from the Ar. analogue it is as likely that it meant lavishness, profusion or wealth. Sam. has issue or profluence. LXX in Deuteronomy 33:13 ἀπὸ ὡρῶν, in Deuteronomy 33:14 and Deuteronomy 33:16 καθʼ ὤραν, but in Deuteronomy 33:15 ἀπὸ κορυφῆς reading rôsh twice.

for the dew] So Sam. LXX. Read (with the change of one consonant) from above as in Genesis 49:25.

the deep] Heb. Tehôm without the art. as always, because originally the proper name of the mythical monster, Bab. Tiâmat, identified with the Ocean and its supposed extension below, as well as around, the earth, the source of springs and fountains; cp. LXX ἀπὸ ἀβύσσων πηγῶν. The personification further survives in the epithet couching or crouching. See on Deuteronomy 8:7.

14. walketh] walketh up and down (also of God in J, Genesis 3:8, and 2 Samuel 7:6 f.). Cp. especially 1 Samuel 4:7, a god is come into the camp; and above Deuteronomy 20:1; Deuteronomy 20:4; Deuteronomy 20:13, Deuteronomy 21:10 of the presence of Jehovah with the host. On deliver cp. Deuteronomy 20:4; and to give up, before thee, see on Deuteronomy 1:8. Holy, set apart from anything unclean. He must not see the nakedness of anything, anything shameful or indecent. Here the idea is wider than that of ritual uncleanness, and indicates an advance of feeling on the more primitive sentiment. No sanitary reason is implied, but it is interesting that such religious or aesthetic motives produced sanitary results.

14. growth] Yield or drop, what is thrust forth, only here. LXX ἀπὸ συνόδων.

15. deliver] i.e. under arrest; cp. Joshua 20:5 (deut.), 1 Samuel 23:11 f.

a servant] slave or bondman, as elsewhere, e.g. Deuteronomy 5:14.

15. chief things] Heb. rôsh (collect.) tops or rather headlands, see on Deuteronomy 3:27 and small print under Deuteronomy 12:2. Some conjecture reshîth the best (fruit) of the hills. Cp. Deuteronomy 32:13 increase of the mountains.

15, 16 (16, 17). Of a Runaway Slave. If such escape to thee—apparently Israel as a whole (cp. Deuteronomy 5:16), and therefore the slave, though not necessarily a Hebrew slave1[145] (Marti), is one who has escaped from a foreign master—thou shalt not send him back, he shall dwell with thee, where he chooses and unoppressed.—Peculiar to D. That slaves sometimes fled abroad is seen from the flight of Shimei’s to Achish of Gath, who gave them back, apparently as a matter of course (1 Kings 2:39). If this was the usual practice D’s law marks a humane advance upon it. For slaves who flee from native owners no Hebrew laws are extant. On slavery see further on Deuteronomy 15:12 ff.

[145] Had this been so it would have been stated as in Deuteronomy 15:12.

Ḫammurabi decrees that he who induces a slave to flee or harbours the runaway shall die (§§ 15 f., 19) and that runaways shall be restored (§§ 18, 20), the reward for each being two silver shekels (§ 17). The slaves of Arabs seldom run away. If one is harshly treated and escapes, he is sheltered by another man of the tribe till his owner promises to treat him better (Musil, Ethn. Ber. 225).

15–25 (16–26). Five Laws—Various

The subjects of these are not related. As to form, all are in the Sg. address (Steuern.’s reasons for dividing them between his Sg. and Pl. authors are again inconclusive); and the first three (Deuteronomy 33:15-20) have negative openings similar to those of the group in Deuteronomy 33:1-8 (from which they are abruptly separated by Deuteronomy 33:9-14). In D or D’s source they may have originally followed that group, in the feeling that as all three treat of relations with foreigners or foreign practices they had affinity with it. Steuern. thinks that Deuteronomy 33:15 f. fit Deuteronomy 22:8 in the code of his Sg. author. In addition to the negative openings there are possibly some cue-words. Escaped in Deuteronomy 33:15 is the same Heb. vb (but passive) as deliver in Deuteronomy 33:14; and vow in Deuteronomy 33:18 is soon followed by vows in Deuteronomy 33:21-23.

16. With thee shall he dwell] So the emphatic Heb. order. In the midst of thee, omitted by some LXX codd. and redundant, is probably a gloss. So also within one of thy gates where, etc., omitted by LXX.

oppress] in D only here, in Exodus 22:21 (20) ‘wrong,’ Leviticus 19:33 ‘oppress’ (both of the gçr).

17, 18 (18, 19). Against Hierodules. No Israelite, woman or man, shall be such. Nor shall Israel bring the hire of a harlot or the wage of a keleb to pay a vow. Both are abominations.—As the direct address is only in Deuteronomy 33:18, Deuteronomy 33:17 may be an earlier law (Asa is said to have abolished the ḳedeshim from Judah, 1 Kings 15:12) to which D in his own phraseology has added Deuteronomy 33:18.

On ḳedeshim in Babylon see Herod. i. 199, Bar 6:43; the name and institution probably arose in the worship of Ishtar (Zimmern, KAT3[146], 423, 427); in Phoenicia, Mövers, i. 678 ff.; elsewhere, Strabo, xii. 3, 36, Lucian, Lucius, 38; in Israel, Genesis 38:21 f., 1 Kings 14:24; 1 Kings 22:46 (47), 2 Kings 23:7, Hosea 4:14, and possibly also the idolatrous worship described in Jeremiah 3 as harlotry and adultery, cp. Amos 2:7 b.

[146] Die Keilinschriften und das AIte Testament, 3rd edition (1903), by H. Zimmern and H. Winckler.

16. good will] Or favour, from same root as accept in Deuteronomy 33:11.

that dwelt in the bush] See Exodus 3:2-4. As there bush is seneh, tempting some to read instead Sinai (Wellh., Steuern.). The name Sinai used to be derived from seneh, LXX βάτος, a blackberry or bramble bush, according to some the rubus fructuosus, which however is not found in Sinai, cp. Palest. under the Moslems, 73. More probably thorn-bush as in Aram. apparently from a root signifying to sharpen. ‘the thing with points, spines or teeth.’ This bush God does not merely let Himself be seen in as in Exodus 3:2, but He inhabits it. The LXX τῷ ὀφθέντι does not accept this, but harks back to Exodus 3:2.

The next two lines are as in Genesis 49:26, except that for let them be we have let … come(?) an impossible form, which we may emend to let them come, i.e. the blessings stated in the previous lines.

that was separate] Heb. nazîr, set apart solemnly as a Nazarite or as a Prince (Lamentations 4:7 R.V. nobles). So Sam. nesek or nasîk, devoted (to God). More probably the crowned one, from nezer, crown (Zechariah 9:16). But see Skinner’s and Ryle’s notes on Genesis 49:26. LXX there ὦν ἡγήσατο ἀδελφῶν, but here Δοξασθεὶς ἐπʼ (or ἐν) ἀδελφοῖς.

17. For these two hierodules the Heb. is ḳadesh (masc.) and ḳedeshah (fem.) and means simply set apari, consecrated (cp. above, pp. 108 ff.), the former being probably the unsexed man referred to in Deuteronomy 22:5, Deuteronomy 23:1.

17. The firstling of his bullock] Ephraim, Genesis 48:13 ff.

wild-ox] Heb. re’em, Ar. ri’m = the white antelope, leucoryx (see on Deuteronomy 14:5), but the descriptions in the O.T. prove that the Heb. re’em was rather the Ass. rimu, a gigantic species of ox (‘Bos primigenius’) now extinct, though its teeth have been found in the valley of the Nahr el-Kelb, in the district where Tiglath Pileser i. (b.c. 1120 ff.) hunted the rimu (Tristr. Nat. Hist. of the Bible, 146 ff., Houghton, Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch. v. 33, 326 ff.; see more fully Driver’s note).

These be] So (without and) Sam. LXX, etc.

18. hire of a harlot] Both of the consecrated and common prostitute, cp. Hosea 9:1, Micah 1:7, Isaiah 23:17 f., Ezekiel 16:34. Mövers (op. cit.) shows that in Phoenicia this hire was brought to the temple.

wages of a dog] Heb. meḥîr, wage, Micah 3:11, elsewhere price or payment, e.g. 2 Samuel 24:24, 1 Kings 10:28. Dog, keleb; the official name of the ḳadesh; cp. Phoen. inscription from Larnaca in CIS. i. 97, Revelation 22:15 and the Greek κύναιδος; in Ass. possibly also a general name for priests (above, p. 23, n. 1). See further W. R. Smith, Rel. Sem. 274.

house of Jehovah thy God] In Deut. only here, but cp. E, Exodus 23:19, J, Exodus 34:26, Joshua 6:24, Jdg 19:18, and frequently in Kings.

abomination] See on Deuteronomy 7:25.

19, 20 (20, 21). Of Interest; forbidden on loans to fellow-Israelites, but allowed on loans to foreigners.—In the Sg. address, with brother (not neighbour) and other of D’s phrases; Deuteronomy 33:19 is parallel to E, Exodus 22:25 (24) and H, Leviticus 25:35-37, which forbid taking interest from poor Israelites. In these cases it is clear that we have to do with charitable, not commercial, loans, on the latter of which in later days interest was expected (Matthew 25:27). Deuteronomy 33:20 on loans to foreigners deals with commercial loans, see Driver’s note on Exodus 22:25. It is peculiar to D; there is no reason for regarding it (with Steuern.) as secondary. It is the proof, with several others, of the extension of Israel’s foreign trade by the time of D. See above on Deuteronomy 15:6 and § 54 of the present writer’s art. ‘Trade, etc.,’ in E.B.

Similarly among other Semites. Where poverty prevails and loans are for its relief and there is little trade, no interest is exacted, as among the Arabs (Doughty, Ar. Des. i. 318). In early Babylonian history ‘advances of all sorts were freely made both with and without interest,’ and ‘most of the loans were evidently contracted to meet temporary embarrassment’ (Johns, Bab. and Ass. Laws, etc., 250 f.). But a very complicated system including advances of money and kind by private persons, the temple treasuries and the king’s (cp. Matthew 25:14 ff., Luke 19:12 ff.) with various rates of interest and regulations, gradually developed in Babylonia (op. cit. ch. xxiii.), and we find a number of prescriptions already in the Code of Ḫammurabi (§§ 48–52, 100–107).

18 And of Zebulun he said:

Rejoice, Zebulún, in thine outgoing,

And in thy tents, Issachár!

19 Peoples they call to the mountain (?),

There slay they the sacrifices due.

For the affluence of seas do they suck

And the hidden hoards of the sand.

The territory of Zebulun in Joshua 19:10-16 runs seaward or westward, but apparently without reaching the sea. But in Genesis 49:13 the tribe dwells on the sea-beach, a beach for ships, with his border by Sidon (Tyre is nearer, but at the date of the poem Sidon must have been suzerain of the Phoenician confederacy) therefore favourably placed for commerce. Similarly here. Issachar, Joshua 19:17-23, lay further inland, on Esdraelon under Tabor and Gilboa and down towards Jordan; described in Genesis 49:14 f. as a big-boned ass content to lie between the sheepfolds (or panniers?), the servant of others. Here he is congratulated, not scorned, because of his home-keeping habits, a contrast to Zebulun’s. It is remarkable that nothing is said of the heroism of these tribes, as celebrated by Deborah, Jdg 5:15; Jdg 5:18, cp. Jdg 4:6; Jdg 4:10. On Genesis 49:13-15 Skinner remarks that that ‘lends colour to the view that this part of the poem is of older date than the Song of Deborah.’ This is by no means conclusive.

18. going out] Either the tribe’s outlet seaward, Genesis 49:13; or more probably their (foreign) trade; on the Heb. vb as = doing business see above, Deuteronomy 13:13 (14), Deuteronomy 28:6.

Issachar, in thy tents] According to Joshua 19:17-23 Issachar had a number of towns, some important, but all (either by name or situation) agricultural with very fertile suburbs on the Plain. Tents, then, is used either poetically for homes (cp. to thy tents O Israel!) or refers to the custom (seen to-day among the townsfolk of Moab) of resorting to tents in summer for the herding of flocks or the tillage of fields at a distance from the towns. Such was the scope of their energies. LXX his tents.

19. lend upon usury] exact interest; the Eng. usury formerly meant like the Lat. usura no more than interest. Heb. neshek is lit. something bitten off; the denom. vb. is to take, or make one pay, interest.

usury of money, etc.] The loans were more frequently in kind.

19. They call … There they offer] Their markets for their trade with other tribes or peoples were also religious festivals, a combination characteristic of the Semitic world (as of others even in modern times) and illustrated at Sinai, Jerusalem, Bethel (vide Amos), Hierapolis and Mecca. The mountain may have been Carmel or Tabor; but the text is uncertain. LXX have a verb followed by and which suggests the Heb. yaḥdaw = together, instead of the awkwardly constructed har = mountain. Sacrifices of righteousness are of course the legal, due or fitting sacrifices. Sam. s. of truth.

abundance] This form of the Heb. term is found only here; but it occurs in Aram. The lit. meaning is flowing; render affluence, profusion (LXX πλοῦτος); all that the Phoenicians drew from the sea—their sea-borne trade and fisheries and possibly the dredging for sponges still carried on off ‘Athlit and Carmel.

of the seas] Plur. as often in poetry, Jdg 5:17, Genesis 49:13.

And the hidden treasures, etc.] The Heb. construction (confirmed by Sam.) is awkward, and perhaps we should read a finite vb instead of the participle hidden: and gather (or scrape, cp. Ar. safan) the hoards of the sand. The reference is either to the manufacture of glass which took place on the sands S. of ’Akka (Josephus, II. Bell. Jdg 10:2; Tacitus, Hist. Deuteronomy 33:7; Pliny, Hist. Nat. Deuteronomy 33:17, xxxvi. 65) or to the production of purple from the murex (Pliny, H.N. ix. 60–65) large quantities of the emptied shells of which are still found about Tyre.

20. foreigner] See on Deuteronomy 15:3.

that the Lord thy God … thine hand unto] See on Deuteronomy 12:7.

the land whither thou goest in, etc.] See on Deuteronomy 7:1, Deuteronomy 8:1.

20 And of Gad he said:

Blessed be the Broadener of Gad,

Like a lion he haunts

And tears the arm, yea the scalp.

21 And he saw to the best for himself,

[For there was the lot of the leader (?)]

Yet he went with the heads of the people,

He wrought the just will of the Lord,

And his judgements along with Israel.

On Gad’s territory see Deuteronomy 3:16 f. (mingled with that of Reuben); and Joshua 13:24-28, where he extends from Aroer on Arnon northward through Moab and all the cities of Gilead to Lidebir (just S. of the Yarmûk) unto the uttermost part of the sea of Chinnereth: truly the broadest of the tribal territories, the lot of the leader(?), as this oracle describes it. On the obscure oracle upon Gad in Genesis 49:19, little more than a play upon his name, see Ryle’s notes in this series. It is not possible to deduce a date from this oracle; see on Deuteronomy 33:20.

20. he that enlargeth, etc.] Jehovah. The reference is usually interpreted of the recovery of Gad’s territory from the Syrians, 2 Kings 14:25 f., and as proof of a date for the poem between that and the conquest by Tiglath Pileser (1 Chronicles 5:26). But it may as well be a reference to the original allotment of so vast a territory to Gad, Joshua 13:24 ff.

dwelleth] So Sam. Haunts is more appropriate. LXX ἀνεπαύσατο.

as a lioness] Cp. 1 Chronicles 12:8 : Gadites … whose faces were like the faces of lions.

21. vow] Heb. nadar, as the parallel nazar shows, means originally ‘to dedicate.’ The term and the idea are found in practically all the Semitic languages.

be slack] Lit. be behind, delay. To pay, lit. to fulfil.

sin in thee] Cp. Deuteronomy 15:9.

21. provided] Lit. saw but = saw to.

first part] Or the best, Heb. reshîth. See above, Deuteronomy 33:15; and on Deuteronomy 18:4.

For there, etc.] Both the text of this line and the beginning of the next—kî sham ḥelḳath meḥoḳeḳ saphun (so far confirmed by Sam.) wayyeth—and the meaning, for there the lot of a ruler was laid up, and he came, etc., are very uncertain. The line is an odd one and may well be a gloss upon the preceding line.

If the Heb. text be accepted, the meaning is that although Gad had received his large and princely territory E. of Jordan yet he came with (Sam. associated himself with) the heads of the people to the conquest of W. Palestine, loyal to the righteous purpose of God, and executed His judgements on its peoples (Exodus 23:31 ff.). Possible emendations are ḥelḳoh meḥuḳḳaḳ, and his lot was ordained (Giesebrecht); hullekah ḥelḳath meḥoḳḳeh (cp. LXX ἐμερίσθη γῆ ἀρχόντων), a ruler’s lot was allotted. The last word saphun, reserved or laid up, overloads the line and is by some ingeniously taken with wayyeth’ of the next line as an inversion of wayyith-assephun and there gathered themselves the heads of the peoples, LXX συνηγμένων ἄμα ἀρχηγοῖς λαῶν; and the line is taken as a gloss, or as the repetition by a scribe’s error of the line in Deuteronomy 33:5. On the whole v. see Numbers 32.

21–23 (22–24). Of Vows. A vow once made shall be paid without delay. God requires it, neglect is a sin (Deuteronomy 33:21). To forbear to vow is no sin, but every uttered promise of this kind must be observed (Deuteronomy 33:22 f.).—In the Sg., somewhat redundant, and probably expanded (see on Deuteronomy 33:23). Why it stands here is not evident; Steuern. draws attention to the presence of vow in Deuteronomy 33:18 (19) as apparently the reason. D has already stated that vows are to be paid at the one altar (Deuteronomy 12:6; Deuteronomy 12:11; Deuteronomy 12:17; Deuteronomy 12:26). There is no parallel in E, but one in P, Numbers 30:2 (3) with some identical phrases, the context of which deals with women’s vows in an elaborate fashion.

For the development of the casuistry thus begun see Mishna, ‘Nedarîm.’ In ancient times the vow was regarded as an essential part of religion (also in mediaeval Christianity) and was usually associated with prayer, cp. the Greek εὐχή, often conditionally on the prayer being granted. It might be a vow that the vower would devote himself to a god’s service, e.g. Jacob, Genesis 28:20-22; Absalom, 2 Samuel 15:7 f.; or the dedication of a child, Hannah, 1 Samuel 1:11, or of other living thing, Jdg 11:30 (Jephthah), Malachi 1:14, Leviticus 27, or houses or land, id. Cp. Psalm 22:25 (26), Psalm 50:14, Psalm 61:8 (9), Psalm 65:1 (2), Psalm 66:13, Psalm 76:11 (12), Psalm 116:14; Psalm 116:18; Job 22:27, Ecclesiastes 5:4 f. (based on our law). All these show that vows were a religious duty, that they were frequently and lightly made, and but indifferently performed. Cp. Mark 7:10 f., Matthew 15:4 ff. For the Babylonians see Johns, op. cit. 137, Code of Ḫammurabi, § 181; and for the Arabs W. R. Smith, Rel. Sem. 314 f., 462 ff.

22 And of Dan he said:

Dan, a whelp of a lion,

He leaps from Bashán.

22. The situation assigned is that northern one, to which the tribe migrated from their earlier seat in the South (Jdg 18:7). They settled at Laish (a poetical term for lion) or Leshem, thereafter called Dan, which is usually identified with Tell-el-Ḳadi (Ḳadi = Dan) in the valley of Jordan below Ḥermon. But because of the military weakness of this site and the impossibility of holding the valley—the main northern avenue into Palestine—except from the heights above the neighbouring Banias, on which stand the ruins of the Crusaders’ Castle, eṣ-Ṣubeibeh, the present writer has argued (HGHL, 473, 479 ff.) that the site of Laish or Dan must have been on these heights. This is confirmed by the present v. he leaps from Bashán, a name which never covers the Jordan valley where Tell-el-Ḳadi lies, but is applicable to the heights to the E. of it.—The oracle in Genesis 49:16 f. reflects this post of vantage over the entrance of invaders from the N.

23. as thou hast freely vowed unto the Lord thy God] LXX to God.

which thou hast promised, etc.] Attached awkwardly to preceding, and probably a gloss.

24, 25 (25, 26). Of Use at Need of Others’ Corn and Fruits. Grapes may be eaten on the spot but none carried away; ears of corn may be plucked with the hand but no sickle shall be used.—Sg. with neighbour (not brother). LXX transposes the two vv. Peculiar to D; cp. Deuteronomy 24:19-21. The Pharisees flagrantly contradicted not only the spirit of this law, but its very letter, by interpreting plucking as reaping, and because this was work (Deuteronomy 33:13) they held it unlawful on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1 ff., Mark 2:23 f., Luke 6:1 ff.).—The licence sanctioned here is frequently taken in Syria to-day, and the refusal to grant it regarded as impiety; for Arabia see Doughty, Ar. Des. i. 520 f., ii. 152.

23 And of Naphtali he said:

Naphtali sated with favour,

And full of the blessing of the Lord,

Sea and South shall he hold.

23. The first two lines reflect the extraordinary fertility of mount Naphtali (Joshua 20:7) i.e. Upper Galilee between the Lake on the E. and the territory of Asher on the W., ‘an undulating tableland arable and everywhere tilled, with swelling hills … covered with shrubs and trees’ (Robinson); along with the still more exuberantly fertile plain of Gennesaret (HGHL, 417–421, 446 f. with citations in proof from Josephus, etc.).

satisfied with favour] Cp. Psalm 145:16.

the sea] Not the Mediterranean (Sam. the West) but the sea of Kinnéreth, Deuteronomy 3:17.

the south] Heb. Darom (so Sam.), a late poetic word, Ezekiel 40:27 f., Job 37:17, LXX λιβά, the S.W. wind, a happy conjecture, for no wind brings more moisture to Mount Naphtali. Geddes: South because Naphtali’s land lay S. of that of Dan; Graf and Dillm. the hot land in the deep trench of the Jordan valley and upon the Lake where the vegetation is tropical. Driver: ‘so styled it seems partly in contrast to the main possessions of the tribe (which were farther N.), partly with allusion to the sunny warmth which prevails there’; Berth. emends, ‘the sea and the way of the sea’ (derek yam), cp. Isa. 8:23.

hold thou] So Heb. Sam. LXX read he shall hold.

24. at thine own pleasure] or appetite, Deuteronomy 12:20, Deuteronomy 14:26. Thy fill, which in Heb. follows this clause, may be a gloss on it.

vessel] Heb. keli (Deuteronomy 22:5 garment), a sack (Genesis 43:11, 1 Samuel 17:40) or pot.

24 And of Asher he said:

Blessed above sons be Ashér,

Be the favoured of his brethren,

And be dipping his foot in oil.

25 Iron and brass be thy bars,

And thy strength as thy days.

Asher lay W. of Naphtali on the same range and enjoyed similar fertility, cp. Genesis 49:20 : ‘I know not if there be in all antiquity a more finished picture’ (Geddes).

24. Blessed above sons be Asher] As in R.V. marg., cp. Jdg 5:24.

in oil] All the Galilean highlands were famous for their olives. ‘It is easier to raise a legion of olives in Galilee than to bring up a child in Palestine’ (Bereshith Rabba, 20).

25. ears] Heb. melîlôth only here; N.H. melîlah = the still soft ears.

sickle] See on Deuteronomy 16:9.

25. bars] Heb. min‘al, found only here, but the meaning is confirmed by that of the similar form man‘ul, Nehemiah 3:3, etc., and by the Sam. The shoes of A.V. and R.V. marg. and the LXX ὑπόδημα are a false conjecture from na‘al, sandal. Thy, LXX his.

iron and brass] Or possibly basalt and bronze; see on Deuteronomy 8:9.

strength] So Sam., LXX, Targ., perhaps reading robe’ for the Heb. dobe’, which is not found elsewhere and is of unknown meaning. Some render rest after the doubtful analogy of Ar.; Vulg. old age, as if reading d’b for db’.

26. like the God of Jeshurun] So Sam., LXX., Targ., Vulg.; but Heb. reads like the God, O Yeshurun. Parallels to this line are found in J, Exodus 8:10; Exodus 9:14; in the Poem, Exodus 15:11; 2 Samuel 7:22, and above Deuteronomy 4:35; Deuteronomy 4:39, Deuteronomy 32:39.

excellency] Rather loftiness, exaltation. Geddes sees an allusion to the pillar of cloud by day and fire by night. Of the divine sublimity only here and Psalm 68:34 (35); also there with skies.

skies] Or less probably fine clouds; Geddes: ‘the subtile air.’ The word occurs only in the Second Isaiah, the late Jeremiah 51:9, Job, Proverbs and Psalms, many of which are certainly late.

26–29. The Epilogue

26 None like the God of Yeshurun!—

Riding the heavens to thy help,

And the skies in His loftiness.

27 The Eternal God is thy refuge,

And beneath are the arms everlasting.

He drove out before thee the foe,

And He said, Destroy!

28 So Israel dwelt securely,

Secluded the fount of Jacob,

On a land of corn and wine,

His heavens too dropped with dew.

29 Happy thou Israel! Who is like thee?

A people saved by the Lord.

[He is] the shield of thy help,

And the sword that exalts thee;

Till thy foes come to thee fawning,

But thou on their heights dost march.

This section follows closely on to Deuteronomy 33:2-5, with which it may have been originally one poem.

27. dwelling place] As in Psalm 90:1. A.V. refuge; and some moderns thy refuge by emending the text. The LXX renders the line καὶ σκεπάσει σε Θεοῦ ἀρχή.

And underneath are the everlasting arms] Berth. and Marti oddly declare this beautiful line unintelligible, on the ground that the arms of God inhabiting heaven (Deuteronomy 33:26) cannot at the same time be conceived as beneath His people! By changing one consonant and pointing others differently they substitute and the power (arms) of the wicked was broken. But the figure of the arms underneath (cp. Hosea 11:3, Psalm 89:21 (22)) comes in naturally after the other of God as a dwelling or refuge; ‘God at once the foundation and the roof of their abode’ (Calvin).

And he drave out; in Hex. only here and in JE (frequently); not in D nor deut. passages.

And said, Destroy] A line of but 2 stresses.

28. fountain … alone] For fountain, ‘ain, some propose ‘am, people. But the figure is emphatic and natural after the previous line: Israel’s life shall flow unmixed, untainted with that of the expelled peoples.

29. The metre here is irregular, the first line is overloaded, the third too short, but the text is mostly confirmed by the Versions.

shield] God as shield, Genesis 15:1, Psalm 3:3 (4), Psalm 18:2; Psalm 18:30 (3, 31), Psalm 84:11 (12).

that is] So Heb.; but omit with Sam. LXX.

excellency] The same word as in Deuteronomy 33:26, but here in the passive sense of being exalted.

come to thee fawning] Or cringing. Psalm 18:44 (45), Psalm 66:3, Psalm 81:15 (16).