Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/618

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

5-7. Simeon and Levi.

5 Simeon and Levi—brothers!
      Weapons of ruth are their daggers (?).
6 Into their council my soul would not enter,
      In their assembly my mind would not join:
For in their anger they slaughter men,
      And in their gloating they disable oxen.
7 Accursed be their wrath for it is fierce,
      And their rage for it is cruel!
I will divide them in Jacob,
      And scatter them in Israel.

5a. brothers] Hardly (Symbol missingGreek characters) (schol. in Field) = 'true brother-spirits' (Tu. al.), or 'associates' in a common enterprise. The epithet is probably a survival from an old tradition in which S. and L. were the only sons of Leah (see 341. 25; cf. Mey. INS, 2861, 426). It is universally assumed that that incident—the treacherous attack on Shechem—is the ground of the curse here pronounced; but the terms of the oracle are perfectly general and in part unsuited to the supposed circumstances; and it seems to me to be the habitual character of the tribes which is denounced, and not any particular action.—5b. The transl. is doubtful,

5b. G (Symbol missingGreek characters) (OL. consummaverunt iniquitatem adinventionis suæ); Aq. (Symbol missingGreek characters) [(Symbol missingGreek characters)]; V vasa iniquitatis bellantia [Je. arma eorum]; S (Symbol missingSyriac characters); TO (Symbol missingHebrew characters); TJ (Symbol missingHebrew characters) [(Symbol missingHebrew characters)] (Symbol missingHebrew characters).—(Symbol missingHebrew characters)] So Aq. VSTJ; but [E]GTO (Symbol missingHebrew characters): 'they accomplished. (Symbol missingHebrew characters)] As to the cons. text, that of G cannot be certainly restored; Kethib is supported by Aq. STO ((Symbol missingHebrew characters): cf. Ezk. 163 2135 2914), by TJ (from [root] (Symbol missingHebrew characters), see IEz.), and probably V. The textual tradition must therefore be accepted as fairly reliable. Of the many Heb. etymologies proposed (see Di. 459), the most plausible are those which derive from [root] (Symbol missingHebrew characters), or (reading (Symbol missingHebrew characters)) from [root] (Symbol missingHebrew characters), 'to dig.' No [root] (Symbol missingHebrew characters), 'dig,' is actually found, though it might perhaps be assumed as a by-form of (Symbol missingHebrew characters): this would give the meaning 'digging instrument' (cf. gladio confodere), which Vollers (ZA, xiv. 355) tries to support from Ass. The [root] (Symbol missingHebrew characters) means in Ar. 'to turn' or 'wheel round'; hence Di. conj. that (Symbol missingHebrew characters) may be a curved knife or sabre. Some weapon suits the context, but what exactly it is must remain uncertain. How far the exegesis has been influenced by the resemblance to the Gr. (Symbol missingGreek characters) (R. Johanan [d. 279 A.D.], cited in Ber. R. § 99; Ra.) we cannot tell. Ba. and Gu. take the word to be (Symbol missingHebrew characters), the former rendering 'plots' (fr. Ar. makara, 'to plot')