Monday, May 22, 2023

J. A. Emerton on ‎בֵּ֤ן פֹּרָת֙ in Genesis 49:22

  

 

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)

 

 

Blog Archive