Bibliotheca
Sacra 147 (Jan. 1990): 16-31
[Copyright © 1990 Dallas
Theological Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally
prepared for use at
A History of Interpretation of
Genesis 49 and
Deuteronomy 33
Joel
D. Heck
Associate
Professor of Religion
Controversy over Genesis 49 and
Deuteronomy 33 arose mostly
during the past century. Previously these two chapters
were unani-
mously understood as the words
of Jacob and Moses, respectively. To-
day that is the case only among conservative
scholars.
The rise of critical scholarship in
the 19th century led to a rein-
terpretation that is accepted today
by most critical scholars.1 Gene-
sis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 are thought to contain
individual sayings,
written at different times and places by
different authors. The say-
ings originally circulated
in oral form as folk literature and were
then gathered in collections. "We may
assume," write Cross and
Freedman,
"that groups of blessings, ascribed to Jacob and Moses, and
perhaps others, circulated orally in the period
of the Judges."2
The first doubt that Genesis 49 was
spoken by Jacob was raised in
1788
by Hasse.3 Two years later Heinrichs
published the first thor-
ough investigation of this
subject.4
1 For the history of
interpretation until 1965, this writer is indebted in part to H. J.
Zobel, Stammesspruch und
Geschichte: Die Angaben der
Stammessprache van Gen 49,
Dtn 33 und Jdc 5 uber
die politischen rind kultischen
Zustande im damaligen "
(Berlin:
A. Topelmann, 1965), pp. 1-3.
2 Frank M. Cross and
David Noel Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry
(Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1950), p. 77, n.
1.
3
Johann Gottfried Hasse, "Neue
Uebersetzung des Abschieds-gesangs
Jakobs, 1 Mos.
XLIX,"
Magazin fur die biblisch-orientalische
Litteratur und gesammte Philologie
(1788),
pp. 5-16.
4 Johann Heinrich Heinrichs, De audore atque aetate
capitis Geneseos XLIX com-
A
History of Interpretation of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 17
In the 19th century critical
scholars unanimously agreed, mainly
through the work of Graf and Kohler, that both
chapters were
vaticinia ex eventu, prophecies after the
fact. In 1857 Graf pub-
lished his study of
Deuteronomy 33,5 and Kohler's study of Genesis 49
came 10 years later.6 At that time,
however, the two chapters were
considered unified compositions, each from a single
author.
Collections of Oracles
After
the beginning of the 20th century, the chapters came to be
considered collections of oracles that had first
circulated indepen-
dently. Two early voices
presaged this development. Renan men-
tioned the idea that Genesis
49 and Deuteronomy 33 were not unified
Gressmann further developed this perception
shortly after the turn
of the century. His assertions led to the
interpretation of each pas-
sage in the two chapters individually.9
Critical scholars today generally
consider that there is no liter-
ary unity in the chapters,
nor is there any certain historical occasion
when the sayings were collected. Pfeiffer suggests
that Genesis 49
was inserted into Genesis by a redactor in the
sixth or fifth century, a
decision he apparently based on the allegedly
late phrase in verse 1,
"in days to come."10 Noth
writes that "the Blessing of Jacob and the
Blessing
of Moses probably are not part of the Pentateuchal narra-
tive but are special pieces
which were inserted quite late."11 Some
scholars think that some of the sayings in their
original form are
mentatio (
5 Karl Heinrich Graf, Der Segen Mose's (Deuteronomium c. XXXIII) erklart
(
6 K. Kohler, Der Segen Jakob’s mit besonderer
Berucksichtigung der alten Version en
und des Midrasch historischkritisch
untersucht und erklurt: Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte des hebraischen Alterthums wie zur Geschichte der Exegese (
Benzian,
1867).
7 Ernest Renan, Histoire generale et Systeme
compare des Langues Semitiques
(Paris: Imprimerie imperiale, 1855), p.112.
8 J. P. N. Land, Disputatio de carmine Jacobi
Gen. XLIX (
1858).
9 Hugo Gressmann, "Die Anfange
setzt, erklart
und mit Einleitung versehen," in Die
Schriften des Altes
Testaments
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1914).
10 Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (
1941),
p. 277.
11 Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal
Traditions (
tice-Hall,
1972), p.185, n. 518; see also p. 18, n. 54.
18 Bibliotheca Sacra /
January-March 1990
from the early period of the Judges, others as late
as the time of
David
or Solomon or later, but all of them are considered to be
vaticina ex eventu.
None of the sayings is assigned to any of the
major literary
sources of the Pentateuch, though Genesis 49
used to be assigned to J
because of its antiquity and Deuteronomy 33 to
E. In 1898 Holzinger
was the first to reject the identification of the
collector of Genesis 49
with one of the familiar literary sources.12
Noth comments about
Genesis
49, "To attribute it to J . . . cannot be proven literarily any
better than the assignment of the ‘blessing of Moses'
to E. It survives
as special material."13
According to Kittel, J
is still considered by some to be the collec-
tor of the sayings in
Genesis 49, perhaps the one who wrote verse 2.14
Verses
1b and 28a are also generally considered to be editorial. If J
wrote verse 2, then the Yahwistic
redactor wrote verses 1b and 28a,
as Gunkel suggested,
when he incorporated the entire chapter into
the narrative of P.15 P ends at verse la and begins at "and
this is
what," or at "blessing each one," or,
according to Noth, at verse 29.16
Kittel thinks the collector is
unknown, apparently since the or-
der of the tribes seems to
be much older than J, and he thinks J only
inserted the chapter into its present place.17
Von Rad concurs.18
Speiser thinks of J as the collector and
inserter.19 Since insertion of
the sayings into Genesis is often attributed to J,
the chapter is gener-
ally considered to have taken final shape in the
10th century B.C.
Whereas Genesis 49 is commonly considered to
reflect a southern
point of view and is therefore often thought to have
been edited, col-
lected, and or inserted by J,
Deuteronomy 33 is considered to demon-
strate a northern point of
view.20 For example in Deuteronomy 33
Ephraim
is the royal tribe, and in verse 7 the return of
12 H. Holzinger, Genesis, Kurzer
Handkommentar (
13 Noth, A History of Pentateuchal
Traditions, p. 18, n. 54.
14 Hans-Joachim Kittel,
"Die Stammesspriiche Israels;
Genesis 49 und
Deuteronomium 33, traditionsgeschichtlich"
(
Hochschule,
1959), pp. 1, 39.
15 Hermann Gunkel,
Genesis, 5th ed. (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht,
1922),
p.478.
16 Noth, A History of Pentateuchal
Traditions, p. 14.
17 Kittel,
"Die Stammesspruche
18 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973), p. 421.
19 E. A. Speiser,
Genesis (Garden City, NY: Doubleday
& Co., 1964), p. 371.
20 C. J. Labuschagne,
"The Tribes in the Blessing of Moses," Old Testament Studies
19
(1974): 98.
A
History of Interpretation of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 19
wished for,21 though both of these
conclusions have been challenged
by critical scholars.
Eissfeldt writes that Deuteronomy
33 clearly divides into two
parts: the psalmlike hymn
in verses 2-5, 26-29 and the collection of
sayings in verses 1, 6-25.22 More
recent critical research considers the
psalmlike framework to be of
independent origin,23 though some dis-
agree and others have expressed caution.24
Kittel thinks the
Deuteronomist may have written verse
1 and the superscriptions, re-
vising many of the texts in
order to express his theology.25
Some have characterized the chapter as a poem,
rather than a
collection of tribal sayings,26
comparing it with a hymn of war such
as Judges 5.27 Most admit that there
are many archaic grammatical
and linguistic features, giving the impression of a
great age. Most
critics, however, consider that these features
are deliberate throw-
backs to an earlier period.
The Context of the Chapters
Critical scholars generally consider both
chapters to be unre-
lated to the surrounding
chapters, a factor that suggests their later
insertion into the text. For example Brueggemann thinks there is no
evident connection between Genesis 49 and the
context of 48:1-50:14,
the materials dealing with the death of Jacob. It
was simply cus-
tomary to insert a blessing in
the narrative at the death of a great
leader.28 Noth
agrees.29 Deuteronomy 33 is said to have been in-
serted into the Book of
Deuteronomy sometime in the seventh cen-
tury.30
However, Labuschagne
writes convincingly for taking Deuteron-
omy 31:1-33:29 as "one
coherent composition on the theme: the final
21 C. Steuemagel,
Deuteronomium und Josua (
1900),
p. 123.
22 Otto Eissfeldt,
The Old Testament: An Introduction (
1965),
p. 227.
23 Kittel,
"Die Stammesspriiche
24 Labuschagne,
"The Tribes in the Blessing of Moses," p. 98; G. von Rad, Deuteron-
omy, Old Testament Library
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966), p. 208.
25 Kittel,
"Die Stammesspriiche
26 E.g., Labuschagne,
"The Tribes in the Blessing of Moses," p. 98.
27 J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy, Tyndale Old Testament
Commentaries (
ter-Varsity
Press, 1974), p. 305.
28 Walter Brueggemann,
Genesis (Atlanta: John Knox Press,
1982), p. 365.
29 Noth, A History of Pentateuchal
Traditions, p. 209, n. 564.
30 Kittel,
"Die Stammesspriiche
20
Bibliotheca Sacra /
January-March 1990
arrangements made by Moses before
his death."31 He thinks that
Deuteronomy
33 is part of a section that deals with three themes: the
death of Moses and his succession by Joshua, the law
as Moses' le-
gacy, and Deuteronomy 33 as
Moses' final charge.32 Correspondingly
the record of Jacob's words at his deathbed unites
Genesis 48-50.
The Purpose of the Chapters
THE
PURPOSE OF GENESIS 49
In the traditional view, the opening verse of
Genesis 49 states
Jacob's
purpose: "so that I may tell you what will befall you in the
days to come." However, Westermann
claims with insufficient war-
rant that this statement can refer only to verses
10-12 and possibly
verse 26b and that the opening verse reflects the
understanding of an
editor at some later time.33 Kittel states that the sayings, other
than verses 10-12, refer to events of the past or
present and that the
sayings are therefore vaticinia ex eventu, not prophecy.34
The traditional view is represented by Stigers, who calls the
chapter a treatise on the future lives of the
tribes as an outgrowth of
the present character of each son. The animal
comparison is well
suited as a predictive device, based on the character
of the individ-
ual son. Jacob predicted
how things would turn out for each of his
sons and their descendants, should they continue to
display the
character they had displayed thus far.35
Leupold concurs, calling
the chapter a "purely ideal portraiture of the
peculiarities of the
different tribes." In addition, however, the
sayings predict various
aspects of the occupation of
Delitzsch speak of two factors--the character of
the sons and the
Isaac, and Jacob. The element of blessing is noted in
the closing verse,
in which Moses wrote, "This is what their
father said to them when
he blessed them. He blessed them, everyone with
the blessing ap-
31 Labuschagne,
"The Tribes in the Blessing of Moses," p. 97.
32 C. J. Labuschagne,
"The Song of Moses: Its Framework and Structure," De Fructu
Oris Sui, ed.
33 Claus Westermann,
Genesis, 3 vols. (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1974),
1:278.
34 Kittel,
"Die Stammesspriiche
35 Harold G. Stigers,
A Commentary on Genesis (
ing House, 1976), p. 325.
36 H. C. Leupold,
Exposition of Genesis, 2 vols. (
1942),
2:1164.
A
History of Interpretation of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 21
propriate to him."37
In view of the presence of Jacob and the many
references in Genesis 49 to the
seen as both prophecy and blessing to sustain
the years in
The major objection to viewing the chapter as a
blessing is the
mild rebuke in verses 14-15 and the two severe
rebukes in verses 3-4
and 5-7. Praise and rebuke are said to alternate
randomly, because
the independent sayings were gathered together into
no particular
order. This objection leads many to prefer another
title for the chap-
ter, "The Testament of
Jacob," rather than "The Blessing of Jacob"
(and correspondingly, "The Testament of Moses," for
Deut. 33).38
However,
while most think of Genesis 49:14-15 as a mild rebuke,
that view has been challenged, most recently by this
author.39 Gene-
sis 49 can be seen as arranged by the speaker to
set forth two initial
rebukes, one of Reuben and one of Simeon and
Levi, followed by words
of praise for the rest of the sons.
Westermann thinks that the rebukes
are the result of the later
editing of the chapter, which resulted in
prophetic language of
judgment being incorporated into verses 3-4 and
5-7, as well as pious
marginal additions at verses 6ab and 18. This
language would have
the purpose of rejecting dependence on man's
strength and recognizing
that help comes from Yahweh alone.40 Kittel agrees, seeing the
chapter as a section that fits the priestly
theology of salvation. It
was incorporated here to show that the history of
Yahweh with His
people was the history of the salvation of Israel.41
While Genesis 49 itself does not speak of the
sojourn in
placement at this point in the story of
pose. Kittel calls the
Joseph history the connecting link between two
themes, the promise to the patriarchs and the Exodus
from Egypt.42
He
correctly feels that the chapter bridges the gap between the 12
sons and the 12 tribes. It answers the question, How did the tribes
come from the sons?43 Westermann
agrees but says that the purpose
37 C. F. Keil and
F. Delitzsch, The
Pentateuch, 3 vols., Commentary on the Old Tes-
tament in Ten Volumes (
38 Robert Davidson, Genesis 12-50,
bridge University Press, 1979), p. 301.
39 Joel D. Heck,
"Issachar: Slave or Freeman? (Gen
49:14-15)," Journal of the Evan-
gelical Theological Society 29 (1986): 385-96.
40 Westermann, Genesis, p. 278.
41 Kittel,
"Die Stammesspriiche
42 Ibid., p. 120.
43 Ibid., p. 125.
22
Bibliotheca Sacra /
January-March 1990
of Genesis 49 in the narrative is also political.
The chapter is de-
signed to present the tribes as unified from ancient
times, not some
loosely connected amphictyony.
The sayings were inserted into the
narrative at the time when the tribes were
organizing themselves
into a united nation, and the chapter was collected
in order to sub-
stantiate that organization.44
Or, as Brueggemann writes, the chap-
ter "intends to be
political propaganda to advance some tribal claims
at the expense of others,"45
thereby unifying the tribes under certain
leadership.
In short, critical scholars see the purpose as
encouraging trust in
Yahweh
at an important juncture in
tribes and blaming others. This, they feel, was
politically moti-
vated, since
THE
PURPOSE OF DEUTERONOMY 33
Westermann describes Genesis 49 as
profane, while he thinks
that Deuteronomy 33 is strongly theologized, which
points to the
conversion of the latter chapter into a cultic
function.46 The more re-
ligious tone of Deuteronomy 33
is reflected in the prayer language
and the use of the name of Yahweh.47 It
also affects critical views of
the purpose of the chapter, particularly those
views that speak of
cultic use of the chapter and political motivation for
the chapter.
All
scholars hear the religious tone of Deuteronomy 33, but they dis-
agree as to its significance.
The purpose of the chapter is well expressed by
Driver: "The
aim. . . was to rally the nation anew around the
banner of the Mosaic
institutions, and to awaken in it a
fresh and vivid consciousness of
the happiness implied in its being Jehovah's
people."48
Similarly, Labuschagne
calls the chapter a hymn celebrating
God's
guidance surrounding a collection of sayings about the tribes,
stating the position of the tribes in the land
Yahweh gave them.49
The
guidance of God in the past (vv. 2-5) and His kingship in the
present (vv. 5, 26-29) are certainly celebrated
in this chapter, a fact
that speaks for a later cultic use.
Since Deuteronomy 33, according to most critics,
contains both
44 Westermann, Genesis, pp. 277-78.
45 Brueggemann, Genesis, p. 365.
46 Westermann, Genesis, pp. 250-51.
47 Von Rad, Deuteronomy, p. 208.
48 S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy, 3d ed., International Critical Commentary (
T.
& T. Clark, 1902), pp. 388-89.
49 Labuschagne,
"The Tribes in the Blessing of Moses," p. 98.
A
History of Interpretation of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 23
praise and blame, and since Genesis 49 differs from
Deuteronomy 33
as to who is praised and blamed, some critics see
both chapters as po-
litically motivated. Genesis 49
seeks to advance
him, while Deuteronomy 33 seeks to advance the
Joseph tribes by
praising them.50
However, all the blessings in this chapter are
positive, in part
because none of the rebukes present in Genesis
49 have a counterpart
in Deuteronomy 33. While the oracle about Reuben
and the absence
of any mention of Simeon are considered by some to
be rebukes, that
view is not shared by all. Kittel
correctly sees the chapter as a tran-
sition from Deuteronomy to
Joshua, because the Book of Joshua tells
the story of the conquest of the 12 tribes.51
According to the traditional view, Deuteronomy
33 is cast in a
style reminiscent of the final words of Jacob because
Moses is now the
leader of
attempt to impress on
guidance and depending on His strength, as
present circumstances with the promise to Jacob
of a land. God has
kept His promise.
Deuteronomy 33 is entirely a blessing, an expressed
wish for suc-
cess and prosperity, with a
possible predictive element only in verse
19, a verse that is textually problematic. The animal comparisons
(vv.
17, 20, 22) express the character of three tribes very positively,
suggesting that the tribes continue to develop the
characteristics of
those animals.52
The Sitz im
Leben of the Chapters
PRELIMINARY
OBSERVATIONS
The setting, or Sitz im Leben, in
which the sayings in Genesis 49
and Deuteronomy 33 arose has been a matter of much
debate.
Jeremias was the first to suggest an original
association with the
signs of the zodiac,53 and Zimmern was its staunchest defender.54
However,
Cross and Freedman convincingly rejected this theory:
Zimmern's speculations about the
different tribes and their zodiacal
associations are ingenious but
entirely unacceptable. It is quite certain
50 E.g., ibid., and
Steuemagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, p. 123.
51 Kittel,
"Die Stammesspruche
52 Keil and Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, p.
493.
53 Alfred Jeremias,
Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten
Orients, 2d ed. (
J.
C. Hinrichs, 1906), pp. 395-400.
54 H. Zimmem,
"Der Jakobssegen und der Tierkreis," Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie
7
24
Bibliotheca Sacra I
January-March 1990
that the zodiac did not
appear in developed form until the Persian pe-
riod. Even if a few of the
elements which were later incorporated into
the zodiacal system were
known in earlier times, none of the parallels
between the signs of the zodiac
and the designations of the tribes is at
all convincing.55
Gunneweg claims that word plays
and animal comparisons un-
derlie most of the tribal
sayings of Genesis 49 and many of the say-
ings in Deuteronomy 33.56
He concludes that the Sitz im Leben of
both chapters is the celebration of the theophany of Yahweh by the
amphictyony. Deuteronomy 33:2-5,
26-29 describes the theophany of
Yahweh
at Sinai, and the tribes described themselves just as Yah-
weh did at Sinai. The
chapters are human reflections of the God
who revealed Himself at Sinai.57 The
correctness of Gunneweg's hy-
pothesis depends in part on the amphictyonic hypothesis, a view not-
accepted by many scholars, but a discussion of
those issues is outside
the scope of this article.
Animal comparisons and word plays are key
ingredients in Gene-
sis 49, whereas Deuteronomy 33 displays no word
plays (unless some
doubtful conjectures are accepted) and only three
animal compar-
isons. Westermann's
view that word plays and animal comparisons
are evidence of antiquity would suggest the priority
in time of Gene-
sis 49 and the appropriateness of the traditional
view of the setting
of the chapter.58
In Genesis 49 there are wordplays in verses 3-4
(preeminent, not
be preeminent), 8 (
root of "Zebulun"),
14-15 (Issachar, man who works), 16 (Dan, judge),
19
(raiders, raid, "the Raider," raid), 20 (probable: Asher, "the
Happy
One"), 21 (very unlikely: Akkadian saparru,
"goat"), 22 (un-
likely: Ephrath, trAPo, "fruit-tree"). Gunneweg
suggests some unlikely
word plays in Deuteronomy 33 at verses 7 (
min, between), 18 (Zebulun,
tents, houses; based on an emendation),
and 24 (Asher, "the Happy One," only
possible wordplay).59
Genesis 49 has animal comparisons in verses 9
(lion), 14-15 (don-
key), 17 (snake), 21 (doe), 22 (young calf), and 27
(wolf). In Deuteron-
omy 33, there are animal
comparisons in verses 17 (bull), 20 (lion),
and 22 (lion's cub). All the animal comparisons
convey positive
(1892):
161-72.
55 Cross and Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, pp.
81-82, n. 26.
56 A. H. J. Gunneweg,
"Ober den Sitz im Leben der
sog. Stammesspruche,"
Zeitschrift
fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 76 (1964): 245-55.
57 Ibid., p. 254.
58 Westermann, Genesis, p. 276.
59 Gunneweg,
"Uber der Sitz im Leben
der sog.
Stammesspruche," pp. 249-50.
A
History of Interpretation of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 25
ideas, though most critical scholars do not agree.
The sometimes dif-
ficult translation of the text
affects a writer's views of wordplays
and animal comparisons. Those listed here are
generally accepted.
THE
SITZ IM LEBEN OF GENESIS 49
Lindblom contends that Genesis
49:8-12 is the center of the col-
lection and explains the Sitz im Leben of
all the sayings. The setting
is the time when David lived in
all Israel.60
However, Kittel thinks
verses 8-12 are not easily thought of as
the center of the chapter. He suggests that the
comparisons in Gene-
sis 49 are born in battle. Tribes are praised or
rebuked on the basis of
their participation with the other tribes in battle.
He relies on the
Song
of Deborah in Judges 5 for this interpretation, since that chap-
ter clearly has a battle as
its Sitz im Leben.61
Many other writers find the setting in some
event associated
with the confederacy of the tribes.62 Westermann holds this view,
rejecting Kittel's
thesis as too specific. He thinks the sayings arose
on many occasions, when the representatives of the
tribes came to-
gether for a variety of
purposes. The sayings arose individually or
in groups and served the purpose of praising or
blaming the various
tribes. He considers the number 12 an independent
element that arose
when
testimony to that unity.63 This view,
as well as the views of Cross
and Freedman, Gunneweg, Kittel, Zobel, and others, is
based in part
on the amphictyonic
hypothesis, a view not shared by all.
Gevirtz's reading of the Blessing
of Jacob (Gen. 49:5-7) is repre-
sentative of the recent
interpretations that understand the oracles in
this way:
The persona of Jacob's "Blessing," the
dying pater familias,
Jacob-Is-
rael, represents a
latter-day idealization of a pre-Judaean confedera-
tion of Israelite tribes now
at the point of its final dissolution in the
reign of Jeroboam I.
Characterizing Simeon and Levi as perishing
birds of prey, he dissociates
himself from them, censures their actions,
and condemns them to
dispersion.64
60 Johannes Lindblom,
"The Political Background of the
Volume,
Brill,
1953), pp. 78-87.
61 Kittel,
"Die Stammesspriiche
62 E.g, Cross and Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic
Poetry, p. 69; Gunneweg,
"Uber der Sitz
im Leben der sog.
Stammesspruche," p. 26.
63 Westermann, Genesis, pp. 251-52.
64
brew
26
Bibliotheca Sacra /
January-March 1990
According to the traditional view, the Sitz im Leben is the last
days of the patriarch Jacob, when he called his sons
to himself to
tell them what would happen to them in the future.
This view pre-
sents the fewest difficulties.
THE SITZ IM LEBEN OF
DEUTERONOMY 33
Much of what has been written under
"Preliminary Observa-
tions" and in regard to
the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 49, is also true of
the critical view of Deuteronomy 33. The setting of
Deuteronomy 33
is some event associated with the confederacy of
the tribes, most
likely an event in which the unity of the tribes
needed to be stressed,
probably an event that is cultic in nature and
occurring in the seventh
century (the alleged critical date of the
writing of Deuteronomy).
However, Craigie
proposes a traditional setting for the chapter.
He
writes, "It may well have been recited or sung at some special
ceremony bringing to a close the renewal of the
covenant in
tribes, gathered together for the solemn renewal of
the covenant,
each in turn received their blessing."65
The strong militaristic
thread throughout the chapter points to the time
before the entry
into
the worship of
in
tween an original and a
secondary Sitz im Leben.66 Again the Sitz im
Leben is simply that which
the text portrays. The 12 tribes of Israel
were ready to cross the
Moses
spoke these blessings to strengthen them for the effort.
Treatment of Individual Oracles
Gressmann's writings, which led to
the individual treatment of
the oracles, have been mentioned earlier. Among the
first attempts
to treat the sayings individually were those of
Alt, Taubler, and
Lindblom. Alt dealt with the
saying in Genesis 49:14-15.67 Taubler
wrote in regard to Genesis 49:13 and Deuteronomy
33:18-19; and Gene-
sis 49:16-20, 27 and Deuteronomy 33:22.68
Lindblom directed his at-
tention to Genesis 49:8-12.69
65 Peter C. Craigie,
The Book of Deuteronomy, The New
International Commentary
on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), p. 391.
66 Peter C. Craigie,
"The Conquest and Early Hebrew Poetry," Tyndale Bulletin 20
(1969):
82.
67 Albrecht Alt, "Neues
uber Palastina aus dem Archiv
Amenophis IV," Palastina-
jahrbuch 20 (1924): 34-41.
68 Eugen
Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 83 (1939): 9-46.
69 Lindblom, "The Political
Background of the
A
History of Interpretation of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 27
One of the reasons for individual treatment is
the assertion that
the sayings arose independently, since the sayings
refer to events
that were widely separated in time. For the
traditional view the
variable range presents no problem, since the
chapters are predic-
tions and blessings.
Beginning in 1922 scholars noticed that some of
the sayings dif-
fered from the others. Eissfeldt stated that the sayings on Reuben
(Gen.
49:3-4) and on Simeon and Levi (Gen. 49:5-7) were not actually
tribal sayings.70 Scharbert
argued similarly,71 and von Rad likewise
recognized the difference between some of the
verses.72 Eissfeldt
wrote, "It must have been a favourite
device for the individual
tribes to characterise one
another with short sayings, normally
linked with their names; and they may well also have
described
themselves in a similar manner."73
Kittel agreed that the texts
circulated individually at first, be-
fore being gathered into collections. He also wrote
of the existence of
a genre that could be called "tribal
sayings." Kittel's history-of-
traditions study showed that the form of certain
verses in Genesis 49
and Deuteronomy 33 did not fit the genre
"tribal sayings." They
were rather to be characterized as "prophetic
sayings," offering
blessings and curses reminiscent of the later
prophetic style.74
As a result, Genesis 49:3-4, 5-7, 8, and 25-26
were not to be counted
among the "tribal sayings," nor are most of
the verses in Deuteron-
omy 33. Kittel
built on the work of Gunkel, who had written earlier
of the mysterious manner of expression in Genesis
49, in that some
names are not mentioned, some facts are left out, and
some phrases
are general.75 He thought this was a
characteristic of the oldest
prophetic style.
Kittel calls the tribal saying
the basic element, or genre, in the
two chapters. Tribal sayings are short and precise
statements with
no traces of editorial reworking. They require no
framework for their
understanding and exhibit
"typical modes of speech" with a certain
timelessness. They consist of pure
animal comparisons (Gen. 49:9, 21,
70 Otto Eissfeldt,
Hexateuch-Synopse
(Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1922), pp. 22-30.
71 Josef Scharbert,
Solidaritat in Segen und Fluch im Alten
Testament und in seiner
Umwelt, Vol. 1: Vaterfluch und Vatersegen (Bonn: P. Hanstein,
1958).
72 Gerhard von Rad,
Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis, 5th ed. (
und Ruprecht, 1958), p.
421.
73 Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An
Introduction, p. 67; also see Cross and Freedman,
Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, p. 77, n. 1.
74 Kittel,
"Die Stammesspruche Israels,"
pp. 91-95; also see Westermann, Genesis, p.
278.
75 Gunkel, Genesis, p. 476.
28
Bibliotheca Sacra I
January-March 1990
27;
Deut. 33:22), extended animal comparisons (Gen. 49:14-15, 17),
and animal comparisons that are part of a fuller
saying (Gen. 49:22;
Deut.
33:17a, 20). They also include typical descriptions (Gen. 49:13,
20;
Deut. 33:6, 23), situation-bound descriptions (Gen. 49:19), and de-
scriptions that are part of a
fuller saying (Gen. 49:3, 5, 23; Deut.
33:17b).76
Kittel's form critical
investigation of the tribal sayings led him
to conclude that there were various stages in the
transmission of the
sayings, each of which is reflected in various
forms which the say-
ings take. Some of the
sayings are composite units (Gen. 49:8-12;
Deut.
33:8-11), while other sayings, the shorter ones, are complete
units (Gen. 49:21; Deut. 33:22). The composite units
reflect a later
stage in the development of the oracles.77
However, there is no certain reason why Moses
could not have
spoken each saying as it now stands.
Judges 5
In 1941 Grether
published a study claiming that part of the Song
of Deborah (Judg.
This
study opened the door to a consideration of all three chapters
together. The joint doctoral dissertation of Cross
and Freedman was
one such study.79
Later, Zobel built on Grether's work by investigating Genesis 49,
Deuteronomy
33, and Judges 5 together, to determine what they say
about the historical circumstances of the time. The
work of Kittel
had distinguished between "typical speech
patterns" and "descrip-
tions tied to a
situation." Zobel used this distinction to glean
histor-
ical information from the
three chapters.
He concluded that the traditional ideas of the
Exodus-Sinai-
Conquest are unhistorical and that
there were various peaceful im-
migrations of individual tribes. He dated the
collection of the say-
ings in the time of the
Judges, around 1400-1000 B.C. Zobel was the
first to study all three chapters together in this
manner.80 While
his conclusions about the historical information in
the chapters be-
tray his critical presuppositions, his early end for
the dating of the
sayings sounds Mosaic (something he himself
would reject, however).
76 Kittel,
"Die Stammesspruche
77 Ibid., pp.
79-105.
78 Oskar Grether, Das Deboralied: Eine metrische Rekonstruktion (
Bertelsmann,
1941) pp. 54-55.
79 Cross and Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry.
80 Zobel,
Stammesspruch und Geschichte.
A
History of Interpretation of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 29
The Impact of
The discovery of
of the Ugaritic language
laid the foundation for studies that have
taken a fresh look at the Hebrew language and the
poetry of the Old
Testament. Cross and Freedman's dissertation was a
study of Genesis
49;
Deuteronomy 33; Judges 5; and 2 Samuel 22 (=Ps. 18), with special
consideration of the early stages of
Hebrew orthography and meter.
Their
study reflected acquaintance with Ugaritic.
Scholars who noted additional parallels with Ugaritic litera-
ture began to publish their
findings. From 1953 on, Dahood had a
major impact on the study of Genesis 49 and
Deuteronomy 33.81 A
major study by Vawter
appeared shortly thereafter,82 and a study by
Coppens appeared the following year.83
Recently the writings of many scholars, most
notably Craigie,
have made an impact in this area, particularly in
the study of
Deuteronomy
33.84 The commentary of Kidner on Genesis
is a some-
what earlier counterpart to Craigie's
study of Deuteronomy.85
The parallels in Ugaritic
literature have pushed the origins of
Genesis
49 and Deuteronomy 33 back at least to the period of the
Judges
and are certainly compatible with Jacoban and Mosaic
author-
ship.86 While it is possible to
read too much into such parallels,87
there can be no doubt that study of Ugaritic literature has helped
81 Mitchell Dahood,
"The Divine Name 'Eli in the Psalms," Theological Studies 14
(1953):
452-57; see also "MKRTYHM in Genesis 49,6a,"
Biblica 36
(1955): 229; and "Is
'Eben Yisra’el a Divine Title? (Gn 49, 24)," Biblica 40 (1959): 1002-7.
82 Bruce Vawter,
"The Canaanite Background of Gen. 49," Catholic Biblical Quar-
terly 17 (1955): 1-18.
83 J. Coppens,
"La benediction de Jacob," Volume du Congres,
plements to Vetus Testamentum, vol. 4 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1957), pp. 97-115.
84 Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy; also see idem,
"The Conquest and Early He-
brew Poetry," and idem, "The Song of
Deborah and the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta," Jour-
nal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 253-65; and idem, "Three
Ugaritic Notes on the
Song
of Deborah," Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament 2 (1976): 33-49. See this
writer's "The Missing Sanctuary of Deut.
33:12," Journal of Biblical Literature
103
(1984):
523-29, as a further example of the effect of Ugaritic
studies on the understand-
ing of the biblical text.
85 Derek Kidner, Genesis, Tyndale
Old Testament Commentaries (
InterVarsity
Press, 1967).
86 The parallels
between the Old Testament and Ugaritic literature
have been
drawn together in Loren R. Fisher, ed., Ras Shamra Parallels:
The Texts from
and the Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1972-81).
87 J. C. De Moor and P. van der Lugt, "The Spectre of Pan-Ugaritism," Beitrage zur
Orientalistik 31 (1974): 3-26.
30
Bibliotheca Sacra /
January-March 1990
support the traditional view of Genesis 49 and
Deuteronomy 33 and
that Mosiac authorship of
both chapters is still defensible.
The dissertation of Cross and Freedman is a
watershed in the
study of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 for another
reason. Their
work built on Albright's study of the date of the
oracles of Balaam.
In
that study Albright drew conclusions on the basis of orthographic
and linguistic criteria.88 Cross and
Freedman concluded that Genesis
49
and Deuteronomy 33 were approximately the same age. "In each
are preserved materials which antedate the eleventh
century in all
probability, and may be considerably older. But the
Blessings as a
whole reached completed form toward the end of the
period of the
Judges."89
Some years later Albright proposed a scheme for
dating 14 an-
cient Hebrew poems in the Old
Testament.90 The poems were dated
in order, or sequence, so this approach is called
sequence dating. Us-
ing certain stylistic
phenomena as criteria and basing the chronology
on Ugaritic poetry,
Albright proposed a chronology that placed the
Song
of Miriam (Exod. 15) in the early 13th century and
Psalm 29 in
the 5th century as the earliest and latest of the
poems, respectively.
In
this scheme, Genesis 49 was dated in the late 11th century, and
Deuteronomy
33 was dated in the mid-11th century.91
Freedman built on Albright's sequence dating by
using the crite-
rion of divine names and
epithets. Freedman confirmed the results of
Albright's
study with some adjustments.92 Like Albright, he placed
Genesis
49 and Deuteronomy 33 in the 11th century, but he considered
Deuteronomy
33 the later poem.93
As a relative chronology, the system is a helpful
addition to the
study of these chapters. However, the most that can
be said for it is
that it provides a relative chronology and a
terminus ad quem for
the dating of the chapters, the time of the Judges.
It does not pro-
vide a terminus a quo. One may agree with the
general sequence in
which Albright and Freedman place the poems without
agreeing
with the precise dates. One must accept their
conclusions with cau-
88 William F. Albright, "The Oracles
of Balaam," Journal of Biblical
Literature 63
(1944):
207-33.
89 Cross and Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, pp.
6-7.
90 William F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of
bleday &
91 Albright, cited in David Noel Freedman,
"Divine Names and Titles in Early Po-
etry," Magnalia Dei: The .Mighty Acts of God, ed. Frank
M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and
P.
D. Miller, Jr. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1976), pp. 55-56.
92 Ibid., pp.
56-57.
93 Ibid., p. 96.
A
History of Interpretation of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 31
tion, however, for it is
possible that there was considerable scribal
updating of the text over the centuries, much
like the manner in
which the New King James updates the language of the
King James
Version,
thereby resulting in later orthographic and linguistic char-
acteristics. Even evidence of a
later orthography, therefore, does not
rule out the traditional dating of the two chapters.
On the other
hand the appearance of archaisms in a text does not
prove that a
particular verse is ancient, since archaic features
might be deliber-
ately used by writers to
convey the idea of antiquity. This renders
many conclusions tentative.
However, archaisms that were misunderstood by
later genera-
tions of readers, such as the
presence of the divine name in Deuteron-
omy 33:12, are most likely
genuine and therefore cannot be so easily
explained away.94
Summary
There continue to be two major streams of
interpretation, the
traditional and the critical, with the latter
predominating and
with each position largely rejecting the other.
Among critical
scholars, those who follow the
Albright-Bright-Wright reconstruc-
tion of Israelite history
are in the minority. Those who follow the
Noth-Alt-von Rad
reconstruction of Israelite history with its amph-
ictyonic hypothesis reflect the
dominant interpretation of Genesis 49
and Deuteronomy 33.
The text of both chapters, however, is certainly
compatible
with the traditional reading of their contents as
the blessings, or
last testaments, of Jacob and Moses.
94 See Heck, "The Missing Sanctuary of
Deut. 33:12," for evidence that the divine
name 'Eli,
"the Exalted One," passed out of use among the Israelites shortly
after the
Conquest, because it was also in use among the
Canaanites.
The Israelites did not want
the worship of Yahweh to be confused with the
worship of pagan gods.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
www.dts.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: