JOSEPH
Verse 22: בֵּ֤ן
פֹּרָת֙ יוֹסֵ֔ף בֵּ֥ן פֹּרָ֖ת עֲלֵי־עָ֑יִן
Joseph is a
fruitful bough,
A bough by a fountain.
The phrase בֵּ֤ן
פֹּרָת is difficult, and many commentators have restored to emendation. It has
often been suggested that the verse contains a play on words alluding to
Ephraim, which was part of the House of Joseph. If a play on words is present,
it is perhaps probable that the allusion is, not to אֶפְרָיִם, ‘Ephraim’, but
to אֶפְרָתִי, ‘Ephraimite’, which is more like פֹּרָת. The allusion, if it
regarded as likely, offers some support for the Massoretic Text against such
emendations such as פָּרָה, in which the play is more remote.
Fresh light is
perhaps shed on פֹּרָת by the form פורת, which is used of the Euphrates in two
texts from Qumran (1QapGn21:12, 17, 28; 1QM2:11). It has been observed that the
name is also spelt pwrt in Christian Palestinain Aramaic, that Josephus
tells it φορας (Ant. 1. i. 3 [§39]), and that is
it Furát in Arabic; despite the caution of Y. Kutscher, the spelling at
Qumran probably reflects a pronunciation nearer than the Massoretic Text’s usual
פְּרָת to the original Accadian Purattu. It therefore seems possible, or
even likely, that פֹּרָת in Gen. 49:22 is a way of spelling the word meaning
the ‘Euphrates’.
If the word as
traditionally vocalized may denote the Euphrates, it is worth recalling that J.
M. Allegro suggested some years ago that פֹּרָת should be pointed פְּרָת and understood
to mean the Euphrates. The meaning sought by him can now be obtained without
changing the vowel points. Allegro also suggested that the word בֵּן here
denotes, not ‘son’, but the ‘ben-tree’, which he had previously detected in
Isa. 44:4. The Arabic bânun is used of a king of moringa, but that
meaning does not fit the two Old Testament passages, because the moringa grows
in dry places, not near water. Allegro noted, however, that the Arabic word is
also applied (incorrectly, according to Lane) to a species of willow. Similarly,
בִּינָא, which normally means ‘tamarisk’ in Aramaic and Syriac, has been
thought by many to denote a willow or poplar in B. Gittin 68 B. Finally, he
thought that the Accadian bīnu is used of a poplar, although the Chicago
dictionary has more recently expressed support for the meaning ‘tamarisk’.
Since Allegro believed that there is evidence that the ben-tree should be
identified with the poplar, he suggested that Gen. 49:22 refers to the Populus
euphratica, and translated the first part of the verse, ‘A Euphratean poplar
is Joseph’.
Allegro’s
theory is not satisfactory as it stands. It is unlikely that an ancient Hebrew anticipated
the scientific description of a king of a tree as a Populus euphratica
or thought that a tree found commonly in Palestine was a Mesopotamian species. Yet
Allegro may have pointed the way to the correct solution of the problem. It is
possible that the poet does, indeed, speak of a ‘ben-tree of the Euphrates’,
but does not intend ‘Euphrates’ to define the species; he may mean simply a
species found in both Palestine and Mesopotamia, but have in mind a particular
example of the species growing near the Euphrates. Why, then, does he speak of
the Euphrates? Two reasons may be suggested. First, the verse may be compared
with places in the Song of Songs where there is a tendency to speak of particular
examples of things found in particular places: thus 4:1 and 6:5 speak, not of goats
in general or even of goats on any mountain, but of goats on Mount Gilead, and
7:4 refers to pools in Heshbon (cf. also 1:14; 3:9; 4:11). Second, the poet
wishes to describe a flourishing tree growing near a river where it is well
watered (cf. Num. 24:6; Jer. 17:8; Ps. 1:3), and here makes the water supply
doubly assured by mentioning a spring. The Euphrates was known to be a great
river, far greater than any in Palestine, and had the added advantage of giving
a play on words. If this view is accepted, Allegro’s suggestion that a tree is
named may be justified, but the difficulty of supposing ‘Euphrates’ to be part
of the definition of the species is avoided. Nor is it necessary to follow him
in holding that the species was a poplar. The meaning ‘tamarisk’ is better attested
in cognate languages, and there are kinds of tamarisk that grow near water. The
first part of verse 22 may therefore be translated:
Joseph is a
tamarisk of the Euphrates,
A tamarisk of the Euphrates near a spring.
After I had
noticed the possible connection between Gen. 49:22 and פורת in the Qumran
texts. I heard a paper read by Professor W. F. Albright to the Society for Old
Testament Study in July 1967, in which he made a similar point. He, however, gives
to בֵּן the meaning ‘son’. (J. A. Emerton “Some Difficult
Words in Genesis 49,” in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David
Winton Thomas on his retirement from the Regius Professorship of Hebrew in the University
of Cambridge, 1968, ed. Peter R. Ackroyd and Barnabas Lindars [Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1968], 91-93)