Textual Criticism: Gn 49:22

            There is a textual variation found in Genesis 49:22 that may carry theological implications. I have noticed that when the MT (= Massoretic Text), LXX (= Septuagint), and SP (= Samaritan Pentateuch) are compared something significant arises:

LXX	MT	SP
Υἱὸς ηὐξημένος Ιωσηφ, υἱὸς ηὐξημένος ζηλωτός, υἱός μου νεώτατος· πρός με ἀνάστρεψον.	בן פרת יוסף בן פרת עלי־עין בנות צעדה עלי־שׁור	בן פרת יוסף בן פרת עלי עין בני צעירי עלי שׁור
An increasing son is Joseph, increasing zealous son. My younger son, to me you have returned.	A fruitful son is Joseph, a fruitful son by a spring -- (his) branches traverse a wall.	A fruitful son is Joseph, a fruitful son by a spring -- my son, my young one upon a wall. Alternatively: A fruitful son is Joseph, a fruitful son by a spring -- my son, my young one upon an ox.

            It is interesting that each witness retains such unique senses of the passage. It seems that the SP's בני צעירי (= "my son, my young one") reading is also behind the vorlage of the LXX’s υἱός μου νεώτατος (= "my younger son"), whereas the MT reads בנות צעדה (= "branches march") a possible but less simple reading: the verb צעדה is singular with a plural subject בנות. Seeing that the LXX and SP both retain an idea of a "young one" and "little one" (Grk. νεώτατος = Heb. צעיר) where the MT retains the verb "she marched" (= צעדה), it is possible that at some point a ר became a ד or vice-versa. That is, the roots צער and צעד look almost identical, save the spur protruding from the top right corner of the daleth. As for the differences of theי  and ה in the SP (צעירי) and MT (צעדה), scribal emendations and corrections may be to blame. This variation may also go back to an extremely early text that predates any usage of matres lectionis. One can only speculate.

            Another interesting issue is that the SP reading בני (= "my son"), in agreement with the LXX’s υἱός μου (= "my son"), stems from the same root as the MT’s reading בנות (= "daughters" alt. "branches"). That is, visually, the only difference between the two variants is a י versus an ות suffix. 

            But what does "traversing" and being "upon" a "wall" have in common with "to me you have returned"? How does one begin to reconcile the LXX reading of πρός με ἀνάστρεψον with that of the MT’s and SP’s witness to עלי־שׁור? Well, beings א and ע are similar consonants, and ב and ר are identical only being distinguished by a horizontal stroke, it is possible that these may have been transposed by a scribe. This would explain why the LXX reads as it does. The proposed Hebrew behind the LXX would be read אֵלַי שׁוּב ’ēlâ šûḇ (= "to me return") as opposed to the reading of עלי־שור ‘ălê šûr (= "upon a wall") exhibited by both the MT and SP. It’s also possible to read the letters שור as  שׁוֹר(= "ox") rather than שׁוּר (= "wall") indicating that the nouns בנות and בני would be upon an "ox" as opposed to a "wall."

            As the foregoing data exhibits, it is possible to reconstruct different readings for Gn 49:22. Most likely, the Hebrew manuscript behind the LXX read אלי־שוב ’ēlâ šûḇ "to me return"; perhaps the LXX simply had a corrupted text, explaining why it omits the idea of anyone being עלי עין (= "upon a spring"). Ultimately, this is all speculation. Blessed be the Eternal One, Adonai.