33 He recognized it, and said, "It is my son's coat. An evil animal has devoured him. Joseph is without doubt torn in pieces."
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces! - It is likely he inferred this from the lacerated state of the coat, which, in order the better to cover their wickedness, they had not only besmeared with the blood of the goat, but it is probable reduced to tatters. And what must a father's heart have felt in such a case! As this coat is rent, so is the body of my beloved son rent in pieces! and Jacob rent his clothes.
And he knew it, and said, it is my son's coat,.... He took it, and examined it, and was soon convinced, and well assured it was his son's coat; read the words without the supplement "it is", and the pathos will appear the more, "my son's coat!" and think with what a beating heart, with what trembling limbs, with what wringing of hands, with what flowing eyes, and faultering speech, he spoke these words, and what follow:
an evil beast hath devoured him; this was natural to conclude from the condition the coat was in, and from the country he was sent into, which abounded with wild beasts, and was the very thing Joseph's brethren contrived to say themselves; and in this view they wished and hoped the affair would be considered, and so their wickedness concealed:
Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces; or "in rending is rent" (d); he is most certainly rent in pieces, there is no question to be made of it; it is plain, and it must be the case.
(d) "discerpendo discerptus est"; Drusius, Schmidt.
*More commentary available at chapter level.