Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Genesis 47:26

And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, [that] Pharaoh should have the fifth [part]; except the land of the priests only, [which] became not Pharaoh’s.

26. a statute ] The Israelites preserved this tradition concerning the origin of the system of land-tenure which prevailed in Egypt at a later time. For the expression “unto this day,” cf. Gen 22:14. Unfortunately it does not supply us with the date at which this section was written.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Verse 26. And Joseph made it a law] That the people should hold their land from the king, and give him the fifth part of the produce as a yearly tax. Beyond this it appears the king had no farther demands. The whole of this conduct of Joseph has been as strongly censured by some as applauded by others. It is natural for men to run into extremes in attacking or defending any position. Sober and judicious men will consider what Joseph did by Divine appointment as a prophet of God, and what he did merely as a statesman from the circumstances of the case, the complexion of the times, and the character of the people over whom he presided. When this is dispassionately done, we shall see much reason to adore God, applaud the man, and perhaps in some cases censure the minister. Joseph is never held up to our view as an unerring prophet of God. He was an honoured instrument in the hands of God of saving two nations from utter ruin, and especially of preserving that family from which the Messiah was to spring, and of perpetuating the true religion among them. In this character he is represented in the sacred pages. His conduct as the prime minister of Pharaoh was powerfully indicative of a deep and consummate politician, who had high notions of prerogative, which led him to use every prudent means to aggrandize his master, and at the same time to do what he judged best on the whole for the people he governed. See the conclusion of the 50th chapter. See Clarke on Ge 50:26.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

That Pharaoh should have the fifth part; that the propriety of the land should be Pharaohs; and that in token thereof the people should pay the fifth part of the products of it to Pharaoh.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day,…. With the consent of Pharaoh, his nobles, and all the people of the land, who readily came into it; and so it became, a fundamental law of their constitution, and which continued to the times of Moses, the writer of this history:

[that] Pharaoh should have the fifth [part]; that is, of the increase the whole land of Egypt produced:

except the land of the priests only, [which] became not Pharaoh’s; it not being bought by him; so Diodorus Siculus m, as he assigns the first part of the land to the priests, so he says they were free from all taxes and tribute, and next to the king were possessed of honour and authority.

m Ut supra. (Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 47.)

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

26. Joseph made it a law It has been thought exorbitant and oppressive that Pharaoh should have the fifth part of the produce of the land. But we should observe, 1) That during the years of plenty the land of Egypt yielded an excessive abundance, (Gen 41:47; Gen 41:49,) and the Egyptians had no difficulty in laying up one fifth . 2) The people made no objection to Joseph’s law . 3) The liability of that land to suffer from famine made it a simple matter of wise government to lay up stores of grain for such times of need. This law of Joseph maintained for the king an ample but not oppressive revenue, while at the same time it virtually restored the land to the people, and made the king’s relation to them that of a provident and nourishing father.

“All the main points in the statements of this chapter are confirmed by Herodotus, Diodorus, Strabo, and the monuments. Herodotus (ii, 109) says, that Sesostris divided the soil among the inhabitants, assigning square plots of land of equal size to all, and obtained his revenue from a rent paid annually by the holders. Diodorus (i, 54) says, that Sesoosis divided the whole country into thirty-six nomes, and set nomarchs over each to take care of the royal revenue and administer their respective provinces. Strabo (xvii, p. 787) tells us, that the occupiers of the land held it subject to a rent. Again, Diodorus (i, 73, 74) represents the land as possessed only by the priests, the king, and the warriors, which testimony is confirmed by the sculptures. Wilkinson, i, p. 263. The discrepancy of this from the account in Genesis is apparent in the silence of the latter concerning thelands assigned to the warrior caste. The reservation of their lands to the priests is expressly mentioned in Gen 47:22; but nothing is said of the warriors. There was, however, a marked difference in the tenure of land by the warriors from that by the priests. Herod. otus (ii, 168) says, that each warrior had assigned to him twelve arurae of land (each arura being a square of one hundred Egyptian cubits;) that is to say, there were no landed possessions vested in the caste, but certain fixed portions assigned to each person; and these, as given by the sovereign’s will, so apparently were liable to be withheld or taken away by the same will; for we find that Sethos, the contemporary of Sennacherib, and therefore of Hezekiah and Isaiah, actually deprived the warriors of those lands which former kings had conceded to them. Herod. 2:141. It is, therefore, as Knobel remarks, highly probable that the original reservation of their lands was only to the priests, and that the warrior caste did not come into possession of their twelve arurae each till after the time of Joseph. In the other important particulars the sacred and profane accounts entirely tally, namely, that by royal appointment the original proprietors of the land became crown tenants, holding their land by payment of a rent or tribute; whilst the priests only were left in full possession of their former lands and revenues. As to the particular king to whom this is attributed by Herodotus and Diodorus, Lepsius ( Chronol. Egypt., i, p. 304) supposes that this was not the Sesostris of Manetho’s twelfth dynasty, (Osirtasen of the Monuments,) but a Sethos or Sethosis of the nineteenth dynasty, whomhe considers to be the Pharaoh of Joseph.

“The nineteenth dynasty is, however, certainly much too late a date for Joseph. It may be a question whether the division of the land into thirty-six nomes and into square plots of equal size by Sesostris, be the same transaction as the purchasing and restoring of the land by Joseph. The people were already in possession of their property when Joseph bought it, and they received it again on condition of paying a fifth of the produce as a rent. But whether or not this act of Sesostris be identified with that of Joseph, (or the Pharaoh of Joseph), the profane historians and the monuments completely bear out the testimony of the author of Genesis as to the condition of land tenure, and its origin in an exercise of the sovereign’s authority.” Speaker’s Commentary.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments