_How Joseph was lost to his Father through
his Brethren’s Hatred and Treachery_
(Priestly-Code, Jehovist).
As the favoured child of the family, and because of dreams portending
a brilliant future, Joseph becomes an object of hatred and envy to his
brothers (²⁻¹¹). A favourable opportunity presenting itself, they are
scarcely restrained from murdering him by prudential and sentimental
considerations urged by one or other of their number (Judah, Reuben);
but eventually consent to dispose of him without actual bloodshed
(¹²⁻³⁰). With heartless cruelty they pretend that Joseph must have
been devoured by a wild beast, and witness their father’s distress
without being moved to confession (³¹⁻³⁵).――The chapter is not only
full of thrilling human interest, but lays the ‘plot’ for the highly
dramatic story which is to follow. The sudden disappearance of the
most interesting member of the family, the inconsolable grief of the
father, the guilty secret shared by the brothers, and, above all, the
uncertainty which hangs over the fate of Joseph, appeal irresistibly
to the romantic instinct of the reader, who feels that all this is
the prelude to some signal manifestation of divine providence in the
working out of Joseph’s destiny.
_Sources._――Verses ¹ᐧ ² belong to Priestly-Code (_v.i._).――The
analysis of the rest of the chapter may start from ²⁵⁻³⁰, where
evidences of a double recension are clearest. In one account,
Joseph is _sold_ to _Ishmaelites_ on the advice of _Judah_; in
the other, he is _kidnapped_ by passing _Midianites_, unknown
to the brethren, and to the dismay of _Reuben_, who had hoped
to save him (see the notes). The former is Yahwist (compare
45⁴ ᶠᐧ), the latter Elohist (40¹⁵). Another safe clue is found
in the double motive assigned for the envy of the brethren: ³ᐧ ⁴
(the sleeved tunic) ∥ ⁵⁻¹¹ (the dreams): the dream-motive is
characteristic of Elohist throughout the narrative, and ³ ᶠᐧ are
from Yahwist because of ישראל (compare ¹³, and contrast יעקב in ³⁴).
Smaller doublets can be detected in ¹²⁻¹⁴; in ¹⁸⁻²⁰, in ²¹ ᶠᐧ,
and in ³⁴ ᶠᐧ. The analysis has been worked out with substantial
agreement amongst critics; and, with some finishing touches
from the hand of Gunkel (353 ff.), the result is as follows:
Yahwist = ³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ¹³ᵃᐧ ¹⁴ᵇᐧ ¹⁸ᵇᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²³ᐧ ²⁵⁻²⁷ᐧ ²⁸ᵃ{γ} (וימכרו to כ֑סף),
³¹ᐧ ³²ᵃ{αγ}ᵇᐧ ³³ᵃ{α}ᵇᐧ ³⁴ᵇᐧ ³⁵ᵃ; Elohist = ⁵⁻¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁴ᵃᐧ ¹⁵⁻¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᵃᐧ
¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ᵃ{αβ} (to הבור) ᵇᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³⁰ᐧ ³²ᵃ{β}ᐧ ³³ᵃ{β}ᐧ ³⁴ᵃᐧ ³⁵ᵇᐧ ³⁶.
This may be accepted as the basis of the exposition, though some
points are open to question, particularly the assumption that
all references to a tunic of any kind are to be ascribed to
Yahwist.
=1‒11. The alienation between Joseph and his brethren.=――=1, 2.=
Three disjointed fragments of Priestly-Code, of which verse ¹ is
the original continuation of 36⁶⁻⁸ (see page 429); and ²ᵃ{α} is a
heading from the Book of _Tôledôth_ (see page 40 f.), which ought to
be followed by a genealogy,――perhaps 35²²ᵇ⁻²⁶,¹ which we have seen to
stand out of its proper connexion (page 423): ²ᵃ{βγ}ᵇ then introduces
Priestly-Code’s history of Joseph, which has been mostly suppressed
by the redactor.――The clause וְהוּא נַעַר is difficult. As a parenthesis
(Driver) it is superfluous after the definite statement of Joseph’s
age in ²ᵃ{β}, and leaves us with a wrong identification of the sons of
the concubines with the previous אחיו. If it be joined to what follows,
Gunkel has rightly seen that we want a word expressing something that
Joseph was or did in relation to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. The
meaning probably is that Joseph, while shepherding with (all) his
brethren, fell out with the four sons of the concubines.
¹ Rather than 46⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, as suggested by Kurtz (quoted by Hupfeld
_Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_
216).
With this change, Dillmann’s objections to the unity of verse
² fall to the ground, and the whole may be safely ascribed to
Priestly-Code (note the chronology, the supplementary נשי אביו,
and the phrase דבה רעה).――Short as the fragment is, it shows that
Priestly-Code’s account was peculiar in two respects: (1) He
restricts the hostility to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, and
(2) he traces it to Joseph’s reporting their misdeeds to Jacob.
It is plain that Priestly-Code is no mere supplementer of the
older history, but an independent author, though his account has
been sacrificed to the more graphic narratives of Yahwist and
Elohist.
* * * * *
=1.= מגורים (17⁸) and ארץ כנען (but see page 474) are characteristic
of Priestly-Code.――=2.= רעה ב׳] ‘like verbs of governing’ (Strack);
so 1 Samuel 16¹¹ 17³⁴.――והוא נער] Gunkel suggests וה׳ נֵעֹר על (Niphal
√ עור: compare Jeremiah 6²² etc., and the Hithpael in Job 17⁸),
or וה׳ רֹעֶה (= ‘kept company with’),――neither proposal just
convincing.――דבתם רעה (so Numbers 14³⁷)] literally ‘brought the
report of them evil,’ ר׳ being second accusative, or tertiary
predicate (Davidson § 76). A bad sense is inherent in דִּבָּה, which
is a late word, in Hexateuch confined to Priestly-Code (Numbers
13³² 14³⁶ ᶠᐧ).
* * * * *
=3, 4= (Yahwist). _Now Israel loved Joseph...._] These are evidently
the opening words of Yahwist’s Joseph-story, in which the sole motive
of the brothers’ hatred is the father’s favouritism towards the
_son of_ his _old age_ (16² 44²⁰ Yahwist).――כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים] a shirt or tunic
reaching to the extremities (פַּסִּים), _i.e._ the wrists and ankles,
whereas the ordinary under-garment was sleeveless, and reached only
to the knees. That it was an unusual habiliment appears also from
2 Samuel 13¹⁸ ᶠᐧ; but speculations as to its mythological significance
(_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 384) have no
support in either passage.――=4.= _could not address him peaceably_] or,
‘salute him.’ The text is doubtful (_v.i._).――=5‒11.= Joseph’s dreams
(Elohist).――=6, 7.= The first dream――a harvest scene――represents
Jacob’s family as agriculturists (see on 26¹²); in verses ²ᐧ ¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ
46³¹ ᶠᶠᐧ they are shepherds. There may be some hint of the immediate
cause of its fulfilment, a failure of the harvest (Gunkel), though
this is questionable.――=8a.= _Wilt thou, forsooth, be king over
us?_] The language points beyond the personal history of Joseph
to the hegemony of the ‘house of Joseph’ in North Israel (Judges
1²² ᶠᐧ).――=9.= The second dream presages Joseph’s elevation not only
over his brothers, but over his father (Holzinger), _i.e._ Israel
collectively.――_eleven stars_] Supposed by some to be an allusion to
the signs of the Zodiac (Delitzsch, Gunkel, al., compare Jeremias _Das
Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 383), the twelfth being
either Joseph himself, or the constellation obscured by Joseph as
the sun-god. The theory will stand or fall with the identification of
Jacob’s twelve sons with the Zodiacal signs (see pages 534 f.); the
absence of the article here makes it, however, at least improbable
that the theory was in the mind of the writer.――=11.= _envied_ is the
appropriate word for Elohist’s account, as ‘hated’ (verse ⁴) is for
Yahwist’s (⁵ᵇ and ⁸ᵇ are redactional).――_his father kept the matter_
(in mind)] LXX διετήρησεν. Compare Luke 2¹⁹ᐧ ⁵¹.
While significant dreams bulk largely in Elohist’s
Joseph-narrative (chapter 40 f.), it is characteristic of
this section of the work that the dreams contain no oracular
revelations (like 20³ ᶠᶠᐧ 31¹¹ᐧ ²⁴), but have a meaning in
themselves which is open to human interpretation. The religious
spirit of these chapters (as also of chapter 24), both in
Yahwist and Elohist, is a mature faith in God’s providential
ruling of human affairs, which is independent of theophanies,
or visible interpositions of any kind. It can scarcely be
doubted that such narratives took shape at a later period of
Old Testament religion than the bulk of the patriarchal legends.
* * * * *
=3.= ועשה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויעש. As
the tense can hardly be frequentative, it is best to restore וַיַּֽעֲשֶׂה
(Ball, Kittel).――כתנת פסים] Compare Josephus _Antiquities of the
Jews_ vii. 171: ἐφόρουν γὰρ αἱ τῶν ἀρχαίων παρθένοι χειριδωτοὺς
ἄχρι τῶν σφυρῶν πρὸς τὸ μὴ βλέπεσθαι χιτῶνας. Except LXX
(χιτῶνα ποικίλον) and Vulgate (_tunicam polymitam_ [but compare
verse ²³]), all Versions here support this sense: Aquila χιτῶνα
ἀστραγάλων, Symmachus χιτῶνα χειριδωτόν, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac
phrase) (‘with sleeves’), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ כיתונא דפסי, etc. In 2 Samuel
13, LXX, Vulgate, and Peshiṭtå curiously change sides (χιτὼν
καρπωτός, _talaris tunica_, (‡ Syriac word) [= tunica striata]).
The real meaning is determined by New Hebrew and Aramaic
פַּס (Daniel 5⁵ᐧ ²⁴) = אָפְסַיִם, Ezekiel 47³; see Bevan, _A Short
Commentary on Daniel_ 100.――=4.= אחיו²] Hebrew MSS, _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX בניו; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac
phrase).――דַּבְּרוֹ לשלום On the suffix, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 115 _c_.
But no other case occurring of דִּבֶּר with accusative of person
addressed (Numbers 26³ is corrupt), Gunkel points דְּבָרוֹ (‘could
not take his matter peaceably’), Kittel emends to לְדַבֵּר לוֹ ל׳ (the ל
might be omitted: see Exodus 2³ etc.).――=5b= is out of place
_before_ the telling of the dream, and is omitted by LXX.――=7.=
Insert חלמתי at the beginning, with LXX.――אִלֵּם] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον;
אֲלֻמָּה, Psalms 126⁶†.――=8b.= Another redactional addition, though
found in LXX; note the plural ‘dreams’ when only one has been
told.――=10a.= ויספר――אחיו is an interpolation intended to explain
what immediately follows. LXX omits, and seeks to gain the same
end by inserting לאביו ו before לאחיו in ⁹.
* * * * *
=12‒17. Jacob sends Joseph to inquire after his brethren.=――=12, 13a,
14b= Yahwist ∥ =13b, 14a= Elohist (see the analysis below). In Yahwist,
Jacob is dwelling in _the vale of Hebron_; the sons have gone to
_Shechem_. If the incident of chapter 34 belonged to the same cycle
of tradition, the brethren would perhaps hardly have ventured into the
neighbourhood of Shechem so soon (see page 418); though it has been
argued that this very circumstance accounts for Jacob’s solicitude.
In Elohist we find no indication of either the starting-point or
the goal of the journey. =14a= suggests that the flocks were at
some distance from Jacob’s home: possibly the narrative is based
on a stratum of Elohist in which Jacob’s permanent residence was at
Bethel (see on 35¹).――=15‒17.= The man who directs Joseph to Dothan
is not necessarily a neighbour of the family who knew Joseph by
sight (Gunkel); nor is the incident a faded version of a theophany
(Holzinger, Bennett): it is simply a vivid description of the
uncertainty of Joseph’s persistent search for his brethren.――_Dôthān_
(2 Kings 6¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ, Judith 3⁹ 4⁶ 7¹⁸) is the modern _Tell Dōthān_, near
Ǧenīn, about 15 miles North of Shechem. Some local legend may have
connected it with the history of Joseph.
¹⁵⁻¹⁷ would be a sufficiently natural continuation of ¹⁴ᵇ
(Yahwist), and Gunkel’s conjecture (above) establishes no
presumption to the contrary. They may, however, be from Elohist:
in this case it is probable that Elohist did not mention Shechem
at all, nor Yahwist Dothan.
* * * * *
=12‒14= is composite. ישראל shows that ¹²ᐧ ¹³ᵃ belong to Yahwist;
and הנני shows that ¹³ᵇ is from Elohist (compare 22¹ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹¹ 27¹
31¹¹). Hence ¹⁴ᵃ is not a specification, but a variant, of ¹³ᵃ,
continuing ¹³ᵇ. ¹⁴ᵇ obviously follows ¹³ᵃ.――=12.= אֹתֹ] with
_puncta extraordinaria_, because for some reason the text was
suspected.――=14.= מעמק חברון (23²ᐧ ¹⁹)] The words might be a gloss
based on Priestly-Code (35²⁷ 49²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ 50¹³); but Steuernagel’s
proposal to remove them (_Die Einwanderung der israelitischen
Stämme in Kanaan_ 36) takes too little account of the
fragmentariness of Yahwist’s narrative in chapter 35; and
Gunkel’s argument that the journey was too long for a young
lad is weak.――=17.= שמעתי] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_, LXX שמעתים.――דתינה, דתן] The form with י is the older
(compare Egyptian _Tu-ti-y-na_, Müller, _Asien und Europa nach
altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 88), the other an accommodation to
a common nominal termination. The ending ־ַיִן is not dual, but an
old (Aramaic ?) locative corresponding to Hebrew ־ַיִם (see pages
342 f.; Barth, _Die Nominalbildung in den Semitischen Sprachen_,
319⁵; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 88 _c_).
* * * * *
=18‒30. The plot to murder Joseph frustrated by Reuben= (Elohist),
=or Judah= (Yahwist).――=18a, 19, 20= Elohist ∥ =18b= Yahwist. Common
to both sources is the proposal to kill Joseph; Elohist develops it
most fully, revealing the motive of the crime and the device by which
it was to be concealed.――=19.= _yon master-dreamer_] a mocking epithet;
compare ²⁰ᵇ.――=20.= _and throw him_ (his dead body) _into one of the
pits_] The idea would suit either narrative; and we cannot be sure
that the indefinite ‘one of the pits’ does not come from Yahwist
(see ²²).――=21= Yahwist ∥ =22= Elohist. In ²¹ we must read _Judah_
for _Reuben_.――_and delivered him out of their hand_] is premature
(verse ²³): the clause might stand more naturally in Yahwist between
²³ and ²⁵, though the rest of the verse must be left where it is
(so Gunkel).――_we will not kill him outright_] Judah has as yet no
counter-proposal.――=22.= Reuben, on the other hand, has his scheme
ready: he appeals to the antique horror of shed blood, which cries
for vengeance on the murderer (4¹¹).――_this pit_] a particular cistern
which Reuben knew to be empty of water (²⁴ᵇ). It is probable that one
of the numerous pits round Dothan was traditionally associated with
the fate of Joseph (Gunkel): compare the _Khan Ǧubb Yūsuf_ near Safed,
incorrectly identified with the Dothan cistern (_Biblical Researches
in Palestine_, ii. 418 f.).――=24= (Elohist).――=25‒27, 28aβ= (Yahwist).
The fate of Joseph is apparently still undecided, when Judah makes an
appeal to the cupidity of his brothers (_what profit, etc.?_), by
proposing to sell him to some passing Ishmaelites.――=25.= _a caravan
... from Gilead_] The plain of Dothan is traversed by a regular trade
route from Gilead through Beisan to Ramleh, and thence (by the coast)
to Egypt (Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 127). Shechem also
lies on several routes from the East of the Jordan to the coast.――The
natural products mentioned (_v.i._) were much in request in Egypt
for embalming, as well as for medicinal and other purposes.――=26.=
_cover his blood_] Ezekiel 24⁷, Isaiah 26²¹, Job 16¹⁸.――=28.=
_twenty_ (shekels) _of silver_] compare Leviticus 27⁵ with Exodus
21³² (see Driver).――=28aαb, 29, 30= (Elohist). Joseph is kidnapped by
trading Midianites, who pass unobserved after the brothers have left
the spot.――=30.= Only now does Reuben reveal his secret design of
delivering Joseph. It is interesting to note his own later confusion
of the intention with the act, in 42²².
That the last section is from another source than ²⁵⁻²⁷ appears
from (a) the different designation of the merchants, (b) the
absence of the article showing that they have not been mentioned
before, (c) Reuben’s surprise at finding the pit empty. The
composite narrative requires us to assume that the brethren are
the subject of וימשכו ויעלו, against the natural construction of the
sentence.
* * * * *
=18a= and =18bα= are obviously doublets; the analysis adopted
above gives the simplest arrangement.――ויתנכלו] ‘acted craftily,’
only found in late writings (Numbers 25¹⁸, Malachi 1¹⁴, Psalms
105²⁵†), but the √ occurs in Aramaic and Assyrian.――On the
accusative, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 _w_.――=19.= בעל החלמות
The rendering above is a little too strong; for the use of בעל
as ‘noun of relation,’ see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 127 b.――=21.=
נכנו נפש] Second accusative of respect, Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 117 _ll_.――=22.= אל־הבור הזה] LXX εἰς ἕνα τῶν λάκκων, a false
assimilation to verse ²⁰.――=23.= את־כתנתו] LXX omits. It is
impossible to say whether this and the following appositional
phrase are variants from Elohist and Yahwist respectively,
or whether the second is a (correct) gloss on Yahwist.
Vulgate combines both in the rendering _tunica talari et
polymita_.――=25.= וישבו לאכל־לחם] Assigned by many critics (Dillmann,
al.) to Elohist, and certainly not necessary in Yahwist. But we
still miss a statement in Elohist that the brothers had moved
away from the pit.――נכאת (43¹¹†)] supposed to be ‘gum-tragacanth’;
Arabic _naka’at._――צֳרִי = [וּ]צְרִי] the resinous gum for which
Gilead was famous (43¹¹, Jeremiah 8²² 46¹¹ 51⁸, Ezekiel 27¹⁷†);
possibly that exuded by the mastic-tree; but see _Encyclopædia
Biblica_, 465 f.――לֹט (43¹¹†) Greek λήδανον, Latin _ladanum_,
the gum of a species of cistus-rose (_Encyclopædia Biblica_,
2692 f.). Mentioned amongst objects of Syrian tribute (_ladunu_)
by Tiglath-pileser IV. (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_², 151).――=27.= לישמעאלים] LXX + הָאֵלֶּה. The word is
apparently used in the general sense of ‘Bedouin,’ as Judges 8²⁴
(compare 6¹ etc.): see on 16¹².――בשרנו] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate prefix וּ.――=28b= is
assigned to Elohist because of ויביאו, Yahwist using הוריד in this
connexion (²⁵ 39¹ 43¹¹ etc.).――=29.= אין] LXX οὐχ ὁρᾷ.
* * * * *
=31‒36. The deceiving of Jacob.=――=31, 32.= Gunkel remarks that the
sending of a bloody token is a favourite motive in popular tales.
Whether the incident is peculiar to Yahwist, or common to Yahwist and
Elohist, can hardly be determined (_v.i._)――=33.= _an evil beast has
devoured him_] Exactly as verse ²⁰ (Elohist). A slight change of text
in ³² (_v.i._) would enable us to take the words as spoken by the sons
to Jacob (so Gunkel). =34, 35.= The grief of Jacob is depicted in both
sources, but with a difference. Elohist (³⁴ᵃᐧ ³⁵ᵇ) hardly goes beyond
the conventional signs of mourning――‘the trappings and the suits of
woe’; but Yahwist (³⁴ᵇᐧ ³⁵ᵃ) dwells on the inconsolable and life-long
sorrow of the bereaved father. This strain of pathos and subjectivity
is very marked in Yahwist in the Joseph narratives.――_rent his clothes
... put on sackcloth_] On these customs, the origin of which is still
obscure, see Schwally, _Das Leben nach dem Tode_, 11 ff.; Grüneisen,
_Der Ahnenkultus Und Die Urreligion Israels_, 61 ff.; Engert, _Ehe-
und Familienrecht der Hebräer_, 96 ff.――=34b.= הִתְאַבֵּל, chiefly used
in reference to the dead, includes the outward tokens of mourning:
Exodus 33⁴, 2 Samuel 14²; compare Isaiah 61³, Psalms 35¹⁴.――=35.=
_all his daughters_] There was really only one daughter in the family.
A similar indifference to the prevalent tradition in details is seen
in the disparity of age between Joseph and his brothers (verse ³),
and the assumption that Rachel was still alive (¹⁰).――_go down ...
as a mourner_] Jacob will wear the mourner’s garb till his death,
so that in the underworld his son may know how deep his grief had
been (Gunkel). The shade was believed to appear in _She’ōl_ in the
condition in which it left the world (Schwally 63 f.).――=36= (Elohist)
resuming ²⁸ᵇ. See, further, on 39¹.
* * * * *
=31.= The reason for assigning the verse to Yahwist (Gunkel)
is the precarious assumption that Joseph’s coat plays no part
at all in Elohist. There is a good deal to be said for the view
that it belongs to Elohist (Dillmann, Holzinger, al.).――=32.=
ויביאו] Gunkel וַיָּבוֹאוּ, ‘and they came’ (see on ³³ above), which
would be an excellent continuation of ³¹: in Elohist they dip
the coat in blood, _come_ to their father, and _say_ ‘an evil
beast,’ etc.; in Yahwist they _send_ the coat unstained, and let
Jacob form his own conclusion.――In any case ויביאו וגו׳ is Elohist’s
parallel to Yahwist’s וישלחו וגו׳.――הכר־נא (compare 38²⁵), and the
disjunctive question (compare 18²¹ 24²¹) point distinctly to
Yahwist (Dillmann).――הַכּתנת] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 100 _l_.――=33.=
After בני, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,
Peshiṭtå insert היא.――טָרֹף טֹרַף] compare 44²⁸. On infinitive absolute
Qal used with Pual, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 _w_.――=35.= ויקומו]
LXX συνήχθησαν δέ, adding καὶ ἦλθον before לנחמו.――=36.= והמדנים]
Read with all Versions והמדינים as verse ²⁸.
* * * * *