Genesis 49:22-23

49:22 Joseph is a fruitful bough, ¹ 

a fruitful bough near a spring

whose branches ²  climb over the wall.

49:23 The archers will attack him, ³ 

they will shoot at him and oppose him.

Psalms 80:12-13

80:12 Why did you break down its walls, ⁴ 

so that all who pass by pluck its fruit? ⁵ 

80:13 The wild boars of the forest ruin it; ⁶ 

the insects ⁷  of the field feed on it.

Jeremiah 49:9

49:9 If grape pickers came to pick your grapes,

would they not leave a few grapes behind? ⁸ 

If robbers came at night,

would they not pillage only what they needed? ⁹ 

Hosea 10:1

Israel is Guilty of Fertility Cult Worship

10:1 Israel was a fertile vine

that yielded fruit.

As his fruit multiplied,

he multiplied altars to Baal. ¹⁰ 

As his land prospered,

they adorned the fertility pillars.

[49:22]  ¹ tn The Hebrew text appears to mean “[is] a son of fruitfulness.” The second word is an active participle, feminine singular, from the verb פָּרָה (parah, “to be fruitful”). The translation “bough” is employed for בֵּן (ben, elsewhere typically “son”) because Joseph is pictured as a healthy and fruitful vine growing by the wall. But there are difficulties with this interpretation. The word “son” nowhere else refers to a plant and the noun translated “branches” (Heb “daughters”) in the third line is a plural form whereas its verb is singular. In the other oracles of Gen 49 an animal is used for comparison and not a plant, leading some to translate the opening phrase בֵּן פָּרָה (ben parah, “fruitful bough”) as “wild donkey” (JPS, NAB). Various other interpretations involving more radical emendation of the text have also been offered.

[49:22]  ² tn Heb “daughters.”

[49:23]  ³ tn The verb forms in vv. 23-24 are used in a rhetorical manner, describing future events as if they had already taken place.

[80:12]  ⁴ sn The protective walls of the metaphorical vineyard are in view here (see Isa 5:5).

[80:12]  ⁵ tn Heb “pluck it.”

[80:13]  ⁶ tn The Hebrew verb כִּרְסֵם (kirsem, “to eat away; to ruin”) occurs only here in the OT.

[80:13]  ⁷ tn The precise referent of the Hebrew word translated “insects,” which occurs only here and in Ps 50:11, is uncertain. Aramaic, Arabic, and Akkadian cognates refer to insects, such as locusts or crickets.

[49:9]  ⁸ tn The translation of this verse is generally based on the parallels in Obad 5. There the second line has a ה interrogative in front of it. The question can still be assumed because questions can be asked in Hebrew without a formal marker (cf. GKC 473 §150.a and BDB 519 s.v. לֹא 1.a[e] and compare usage in 2 Kgs 5:26).

[49:9]  ⁹ tn The tense and nuance of the verb translated “pillage” are both different than the verb in Obad 5. There the verb is the imperfect of גָּנַב (ganav, “to steal”). Here the verb is the perfect of a verb which means to “ruin” or “spoil.” The English versions and commentaries, however, almost all render the verb here in much the same way as in Obad 5. The nuance must mean they only “ruin, destroy” (by stealing) only as much as they need (Heb “their sufficiency”), and the verb is used as metonymical substitute, effect for cause. The perfect must be some kind of a future perfect; “would they not have destroyed only…” The negative question is carried over by ellipsis from the preceding lines.

[10:1]  ¹⁰ tn The phrase “to Baal” does not appear in the Hebrew text here, but is implied; it is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity. Cf. NCV “altars for idols”; NLT “altars of their foreign gods.”