Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
39:1: VA YOSEPH HURAD MITSRAYEMAH VA YIKNEHU POTI-PHAR SERIS PAR'OH SAR HA TABACHIM ISH MITSRI MI YAD HA YISHME-ELIM ASHER HORIDUHU SHAMAH
וְיוֹסֵף הוּרַד מִצְרָיְמָה וַיִּקְנֵהוּ פּוֹטִיפַר סְרִיס פַּרְעֹה שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִים אִישׁ מִצְרִי מִיַּד הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים אֲשֶׁר הוֹרִדֻהוּ שָׁמָּה
KJ (King James translation): And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmeelites, which had brought him down thither.
BN (BibleNet translation): And Yoseph was brought down to Mitsrayim; and Poti-Phar, an officer of Pharaoh's, the captain of the guard, a Mitsri, bought him from the hands of the Yishma-Elim who had trafficked him here.
POTI-PHAR: see my notes to Genesis 37:36
SAR HA TABACHIM (שר הטבחים): Some translations render SAR HA TABACHIM as "chief victualler" or "quartermaster", reckoning TABACH as "kitchen", which it is, but only in modern Ivrit (Hebrew). Go back to the end of Genesis 37, where there are some notes on this, and also on SERIS (סריס) as opposed to SERIM (סרים). They cannot both be correct. "Chief executioner" is the probable meaning, but we cannot ignore that SAR HA TABACHIM is also the "baker" of the prison section of this tale, suggesting that we are getting two versions of the same story.
Most scholars reckon that the Yoseph story happened at the time of the Hyksos, the Chitite (?) Aramaean (?) Phoenician (?) conquerors of Mitsrayim (Egypt). The text here is quite insistent - oddly so - that Poti-Phar was an Egyptian. Since it is taking place in Egypt, why should the fact even need to be mentioned? Unless of course, as conquerors, the Hyksos now regard themselves as "New Egyptians", and so the writer is wanting to make clear that Poti-Phar (which is his title, not his name) was an "aboriginal", a "native", an "Old Egyptian".
Again confusion as to whether it was Yishma-Elites, or Midyanites, or even Medanites, who brought Yoseph to Mitsrayim.
39:2: VA YEHI YHVH ET YOSEPH VA YEHI ISH MATSLIYACH VA YEHI BE VEIT ADONAV HA MITSRI
וַיְהִי יְהוָה אֶת יוֹסֵף וַיְהִי אִישׁ מַצְלִיחַ וַיְהִי בְּבֵית אֲדֹנָיו הַמִּצְרִי
KJ: And the LORD was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous man; and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian.
BN: And YHVH was with Yoseph, and he was able to prosper; and he was in the house of his master the Mitsri.
VA YEHI YHVH ET YOSEPH VA YEHI ISH MATSLIYACH (איש מצליח): a slave and yet "prosperous" - surely not? "And he prospered" is a reasonable rendition, with him "prospering" in the sense that he was lucky with his slave-master and advanced quickly through the slave-ranks; this, rather than financially prospering. The same occurs when the Beney Yisra-El flee under Mosheh and seem to be immensely rich. What kind of notion of "slavery" are we dealing with? But of course, if this is really an Egyptian tale which the Beney Yisra-El are trying to expropriate, then it needs some sort of link to make it work, and the brothers selling him achieves that. We can assume that this verse is the real start of the story.
If, as seems likely, he was a young Hyksos priest brought up and trained in Kena'an, and "brought down" to serve as a priest of Poti-Phera in On, then the above needs no further explanation.
NB it is YHVH who is with him. Except that it would not have been YHVH, until the Redactor Hebraised the tale.
Note the construction ET YOSEPH for "with him" as opposed to IM YOSEPH.
Any number of Lord Byron's romances begin at exactly this same starting-point - worthwhile for an "A" level student in English to make some comparisons.
39:3: VA YAR ADONAV KI YHVH ITO VE CHOL ASHER HU OSEH YHVH MATSLIYACH BE YADO
וַיַּרְא אֲדֹנָיו כִּי יְהוָה אִתּוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר הוּא עֹשֶׂה יְהוָה מַצְלִיחַ בְּיָדוֹ
KJ: And his master saw that the LORD was with him, and that the LORD made all that he did to prosper in his hand.
BN: And his master saw that YHVH was with him, and that YHVH made everything he did prosper in his hand.
MATSLIYACH: This confirms our interpretation of the word in the previous verse.
In what way was YHVH with him? And how did Poti-Phar recognise it, rather than assuming that his own god was with the slave? Is this not the same complaint the mediaeval Europeans had against their Jews, the base of anti-Semitism? Or is this simply the story-teller's way of introducing Osher (Osiris) in his anthropomorphised-human form: the god of prosperity?
39:4: VA YIMTSA YOSEPH CHEN BE EYNAV VA YESHARET OTO VA YAPHKID'EHU AL BEYTO VE CHOL YESH LO NATAN BE YADO
וַיִּמְצָא יוֹסֵף חֵן בְּעֵינָיו וַיְשָׁרֶת אֹתוֹ וַיַּפְקִדֵהוּ עַל בֵּיתוֹ וְכָל יֶשׁ לוֹ נָתַן בְּיָדוֹ
KJ: And Joseph found grace in his sight, and he served him: and he made him overseer over his house, and all that he had he put into his hand.
BN: And Yoseph found favour in his sight, and he was given positions of responsibility, until at last he was appointed as steward of the entire house, and everything he possessed was put into his hands.
Presaging what Pharaoh would do later; and hinting that the Poti-Phar stories and the Pharaoh stories (Little Pharoah and Big Pharaoh, so to speak), and even perhaps the dream stories from Kena'an, are all variant versions of the same story; but also, at a second level, echoing the role that Eli-Ezer had in Av-Raham's household.
To become chief of his house, would he have had to be castrated, or did that come later under Pharaoh? He has no sons yet, remember.
VE CHOL YESH LO: Little details can be the most fascinating. VE CHOL YESH LO is a formula we have not encountered previously; normally we would expect VE CHOL ASHER LO - and indeed the two are both used in the following verses. Is this comparable to the differences between, say, Chaucerian and Shakespearian and Victorian and modern; can we see dates and places in the development of idiom and grammar?
POTI-PHAR: The explanation of the name given in Genesis 37:36 made clear that Poti-Phar's role in relation to Pharaoh was in fact precisely what is described here as Yoseph's role for him; and will also be Yoseph's role for the Pharaoh later on (ironic if Poti-Phar was fired in order to given Yoseph his job!).
39:5: VA YEHI ME'AZ HIPHKID OTO BE VEITO VE AL KOL ASHER YESH LO VA YEVARECH YHVH ET BEIT HA MITSRI BIGLAL YOSEPH VA YEHI BIRKAT YHVH BE CHOL ASHER YESH LO BA BAYIT U VA SADEH
וַיְהִי מֵאָז הִפְקִיד אֹתוֹ בְּבֵיתוֹ וְעַל כָּל אֲשֶׁר יֶשׁ לוֹ וַיְבָרֶךְ יְהוָה אֶת בֵּית הַמִּצְרִי בִּגְלַל יוֹסֵף וַיְהִי בִּרְכַּת יְהוָה בְּכָל אֲשֶׁר יֶשׁ לוֹ בַּבַּיִת וּבַשָּׂדֶה
KJ: And it came to pass from the time that he had made him overseer in his house, and over all that he had, that the LORD blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; and the blessing of the LORD was upon all that he had in the house, and in the field.
BN: And it came to pass, from the time that he appointed him as steward in his house, and over everything that he had, that YHVH blessed the Mitsri's house for Yoseph's sake; and the blessing of YHVH was on everything he had, both in the house and in the field.
KOL ASHER YESH LO: Or can we simply say there was an error in the previous verse, because here the ASHER has been restored, and stays restored in the following verse? No, because the YESH, which is the oddity, is still there.
39:6: VA YA'AZOV KOL ASHER LO BE YAD YOSEPH VE LO YADA ITO ME'UMAH KI IM HA LECHEM ASHER HU OCHEL VA YEHI YOSEPH YEPHEH TO'AR VIY'PHEH MAR'EH
וַיַּעֲזֹב כָּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ בְּיַד יוֹסֵף וְלֹא יָדַע אִתּוֹ מְאוּמָה כִּי אִם הַלֶּחֶם אֲשֶׁר הוּא אוֹכֵל וַיְהִי יוֹסֵף יְפֵה תֹאַר וִיפֵה מַרְאֶה
KJ: And he left all that he had in Joseph's hand; and he knew not ought he had, save the bread which he did eat. And Joseph was a goodly person, and well favoured.
BN: And he left everything he had in Yoseph's hand; and having him, he knew nothing save the bread which he ate. And Yoseph was handsome and fair to look upon.
This food business is intriguing. In Genesis 43:32 we will be told the Egyptians could not eat with foreigners. Is it a matter of mistrust of food-poisoning, or what? I suspect it was one of the cultural conflicts between the Hyksos and the natives, maybe a matter of Halal-Kashrut in its equivalent form.
The original Jew Süss (as opposed to the original Jud Süß). But of course Lavan made the same mistake with his sheep; never put anything in the hands of a manager without systems to keep an eye on them! The comment on his looks is simply a literary device to prepare us for the next scene; "well-favoured" may be understood in several different ways, though the way Poti-Phar's wife wished to investigate it is probably not the one intended here.
End of fifth fragment.
39:7: VA YEHI ACHAR HA DEVARIM HA ELEH VA TISA ESHET ADONAV ET EYNEYHA EL YOSEPH VA TOMER SHICHVAH IMI
וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַתִּשָּׂא אֵשֶׁת אֲדֹנָיו אֶת עֵינֶיהָ אֶל יוֹסֵף וַתֹּאמֶר שִׁכְבָה עִמִּי
KJ: And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me.
BN: And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Yoseph and she said, "Come lie with me".
The "love-story" that follows echoes an Egyptian story called "The Tale of the Two Brothers", and appears to have been included here as a means of reducing the Osher (Osiris) myth to the Yoseph one. Read it here, or in TheBibleNet's own modern English translation here.
HA DEVARIM HA ELEH (הדברים האלה): what Devarim? There haven't been any; is a portion of the story missing, or is it simply a (not very good) story-telling technique?
The wife is not named, though later Midrash (the mediaeval Sefer Ha Yashar to be precise, but not the ethical text of the same name) call her Zuleika (זליכה), or "the woman of Moph". It will require an Egypt specialist to explain what Moph means in this context. The most I can tell you is that MOPH (מֹף) is the Yehudit name for Memphis, the capital of Lower Egypt before the arrival of the Hyksos; though this is derived from one unique appearance in the Tanach, in Hosea 9:6. However, what appears to be the same city is named as Noph (נֹף) in Isaiah 19:13 and Jeremiah 2:16, and while this gives the major prophets a victory over the minor one by two to one, it is Hoshe'a who is more likely correct on this occasion, simply because we know the Egyptian name. It was located on the west bank of the Nile, south of Old Cairo. Click here for more background.
The story is decidedly direct, the woman rather more forward than any character in Jane Austen, though perhaps not Bridget Jones. And is it coincidental that this tale of a forward woman should come immediately after the tale of Yehudah and Tamar, which seemed to be misplaced when we read it before reading this? Equally forward, though in very different ways and for very different reasons.
There is an incestuous element to this too, generally ignored by the commentators. If Poti-Phar and Poti-Phera are indeed the same person, then this is the mother, and Yoseph will later marry the daughter (if he was already a eunuch, then this is impossible anyway). So are we in fact reading a liturgical story (again!) – the high priest's "wife" after all is the goddess, and the high priest's "chief overseer" is the god-surrogate; it would be logical in the May Queen May King rites for this kind of "marriage", with the wife when she is serving as high priestess, with the daughter when she takes over the shrine.
Whereas the Bible makes of this just a nice racy story, needed by the later Beney Yisra-El to explain Osher's (Osiris') descent into the Underworld as part of his transition from corn-god to sun-god, but in a manner that does not include any of that myth, in order for it to be transmuted into Beney Yisra-Eli Yoseph. So putting him in an underground prison works; as does making the two priestly components of the eucharist-kiddush into a butler and a baker. And this gets rid of the ritual marriages which were part of the coronation rites, as we know from the Ya'akov stories.
The tale is also told in the Qur'an, Sura 12: Yusuf.
39:8: VA YEMA'EN VA YOMER EL ESHET ADONAV HEN ADONI LO YADA ITI MAH BA BAYIT VE CHOL ASHER YESH LO NATAN BE YADI
וַיְמָאֵן וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל אֵשֶׁת אֲדֹנָיו הֵן אֲדֹנִי לֹא יָדַע אִתִּי מַה בַּבָּיִת וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יֶשׁ לוֹ נָתַן בְּיָדִי
KJ: But he refused, and said unto his master's wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what is with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand;
BN: But he refused, and said to his master's wife, "Behold, because my master has me, he does not know what is happening in the house, and he has put everything that he has into my hands...
39:9: EYNENU GADOL BA BAYIT HA ZEH MIMENI VE LO CHASACH MIMENI ME'UMAH KI IM OTACH BA ASHER AT ISHTO VE EYCH E'ESEH HA RA'AH HA GEDOLAH HA ZOT VE CHATA'TI LE ELOHIM
אֵינֶנּוּ גָדוֹל בַּבַּיִת הַזֶּה מִמֶּנִּי וְלֹא חָשַׂךְ מִמֶּנִּי מְאוּמָה כִּי אִם אוֹתָךְ בַּאֲשֶׁר אַתְּ אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֵיךְ אֶעֱשֶׂה הָרָעָה הַגְּדֹלָה הַזֹּאת וְחָטָאתִי לֵאלֹהִים
KJ: There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?
BN: "No one has more authority in this house than I; nor has he kept back anything from me, except for you, and that because you are his wife. How could I commit such a terrible wickedness and sin against Elohim?"
ELOHIM (אלהים) on this occasion, but read it as "the gods", being in this case the Egyptian pantheon.
"He is not greater in this house than me" is simply a poor translation; the intention is, "no one in this house is greater than me - but it is still his house, and he is still the master".
39:10: VA YEHI KE DABRAH EL YOSEPH YOM YOM VE LO SHAMA ELEYHA LISHKAV ETSLAH LIHEYOT IMAH
וַיְהִי כְּדַבְּרָהּ אֶל יוֹסֵף יוֹם יוֹם וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֵלֶיהָ לִשְׁכַּב אֶצְלָהּ לִהְיוֹת עִמָּהּ
KJ: And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day, that he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her.
BN: And it came to pass, with each that she spoke to Yoseph, and still he would not hearken to her, to lie with her, even just to be with her.
ETSLAH is also a grammatical form not previously used.
39:11: VA YEHI KE HA YOM HA ZEH VA YAVO HA BAYETAH LA'ASOT MELACHTO VE EYN ISH ME ANSHEY HA BAYIT SHAM BA BAYIT
וַיְהִי כְּהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וַיָּבֹא הַבַּיְתָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלַאכְתּוֹ וְאֵין אִישׁ מֵאַנְשֵׁי הַבַּיִת שָׁם בַּבָּיִת
KJ: And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business; and there was none of the men of the house there within.
BN: And it came to pass on a certain day, when he went into the house to do his work, and none of the men of the house were there in the house...
MELACHTO (מלאכתו): translated as "to do his work" but that is not the real meaning of the word. The word is only ever used in a religious context, and specifically in relation to Creation and the Shabbat laws; again confirmation of his priestly status.
39:12: VA TITPES'EHU BE VIGDO LEMOR SHICHVAH IMI VA YA'AZOV BIGDO BE YADAH VA YANAS VA YETSE HACHUTSAH
וַתִּתְפְּשֵׂהוּ בְּבִגְדוֹ לֵאמֹר שִׁכְבָה עִמִּי וַיַּעֲזֹב בִּגְדוֹ בְּיָדָהּ וַיָּנָס וַיֵּצֵא הַחוּצָה
KJ: And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out.
BN: That she grabbed him by his tunic, saying, "Come lie with me". And he left his tunic in her hand, and fled, and got out.
Ecclesiasticus 21:2 says, "Flee from sin, as from the face of a serpent; for if you come too near it will bite you; the teeth thereof are as the teeth of a lion, slaying the souls of men." This is the Rabbis' response to Yoseph; adding that, at the very instant of temptation, his father's image appeared to him and gave him the strength to resist! For those familiar with Harper Lee, the story of Mayella Ewell and Tom Robinson comes to mind, with the recognition that, no matter what Yoseph does or says, a half-naked Habiru servant running from an Egyptian lady-of-importance who is crying "rape" doesn't have a single leg to stand on.
39:13: VA YEHI KI RE'OTAH KI AZAV BIGDO VE YADAH VA YANAS HACHUTSAH
וַיְהִי כִּרְאוֹתָהּ כִּי עָזַב בִּגְדוֹ בְּיָדָהּ וַיָּנָס הַחוּצָה
KJ: And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and was fled forth,
BN: And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his tunic in her hand, and fled ...
Literally caught with his trousers down!
39:14: VA TIKRA LE ANSHEY VEITAH VA TOMER LAHEM LEMOR RE'U HEVI LANU ISH IVRI LETSACHEK BANU BA ELAY LISHKAV IMI VA EKRA BE KOL GADOL
וַתִּקְרָא לְאַנְשֵׁי בֵיתָהּ וַתֹּאמֶר לָהֶם לֵאמֹר רְאוּ הֵבִיא לָנוּ אִישׁ עִבְרִי לְצַחֶק בָּנוּ בָּא אֵלַי לִשְׁכַּב עִמִּי וָאֶקְרָא בְּקוֹל גָּדוֹל
KJ: That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice:
BN: That she called for the men of her house, and spoke to them saying, "See, he has brought in an Ivri to us to mock us; he came in to me, to lie with me, and I called out as loud as I could.
IVRI (עברי): The Egyptian explanation of IVRIM (עברים) as coming from AVAR (עבר) = "over there", is worth investigating.
Unfortunately this verse doesn't work. We were told above, quite explicitly, that there were no other men in the house at the time, and she knew it, and she seized that opportunity.
39:15: VA YEHI CHE SHAM'O KI HARIYMOTI KOLI VA EKRA VA YA'AZOV BIGDO ETSLI VA YANAS VA YETSE HACHUTSA
וַיְהִי כְשָׁמְעוֹ כִּי הֲרִימֹתִי קוֹלִי וָאֶקְרָא וַיַּעֲזֹב בִּגְדוֹ אֶצְלִי וַיָּנָס וַיֵּצֵא הַחוּצָה
KJ: And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled, and got him out.
BN: "And it happened that, when he heard me shouting and screaming, that he left his tunic by me, and fled, and ran out."
39:16: VA TANACH BIGDO ETSLAH AD BO ADONAV EL BEITO
וַתַּנַּח בִּגְדוֹ אֶצְלָהּ עַד בּוֹא אֲדֹנָיו אֶל בֵּיתוֹ
KJ: And she laid up his garment by her, until his lord came home.
BN: And she laid up his garment by her, until his master came home.
Once again Yoseph's garments are central to his fate. I wonder if, given his priestly duties at the temple of Poti-Phar, he was wearing a coat of many colours.
39:17: VA TEDABER ELAV KA DEVARIM HA ELEH LEMOR BA ELAY HA EVED HA IVRI ASHER HEV'ETA LANU LETSACHEK BI
וַתְּדַבֵּר אֵלָיו כַּדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה לֵאמֹר בָּא אֵלַי הָעֶבֶד הָעִבְרִי אֲשֶׁר הֵבֵאתָ לָּנוּ לְצַחֶק בִּי
KJ: And she spake unto him according to these words, saying, The Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me:
BN: And she spoke to him in this way, saying, "The Ivri servant, the one you brought to us, he came in to make a fool of me...
This word-order in the original is odd: "Came to me the servant, the Ivri, who you brought to us to make a fool of me" is how the Yehudit should be translated, if we go literally, word by word - and boy but would that change the subject of her real accusation!
39:18: VA YEHI KA HARIYMI KOLI VA EKRA VA YA'AZOV BIGDO ETSLI VA YANAS HACHUTSA
וַיְהִי כַּהֲרִימִי קוֹלִי וָאֶקְרָא וַיַּעֲזֹב בִּגְדוֹ אֶצְלִי וַיָּנָס הַחוּצָה
KJ: And it came to pass, as I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled out.
BN: "But it came to pass that, when I started shouting and screaming, he left his tunic by me, and fled."
From the husband's point of view this does not make sense. Why did he leave his clothes behind? We know, but he needs an explanation.
39:19: VA YEHI CHI SHEMO'A ADONAV ET DIVREY ISHTO ASHER DIBRAH ELAV LEMOR KA DEVARIM HA ELEH ASAH LI AVDECHA VA YICHAR APO
וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ אֲדֹנָיו אֶת דִּבְרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר דִּבְּרָה אֵלָיו לֵאמֹר כַּדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה עָשָׂהּ לִי עַבְדֶּךָ וַיִּחַר אַפּוֹ
KJ: And it came to pass, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spake unto him, saying, After this manner did thy servant to me; that his wrath was kindled.
BN: And it came to pass, when his master heard what his wife told him, saying, "This is what your servant did to me", that he was boiling with rage.
Taking for granted that his wife is telling the truth, without bothering to hear Yoseph's view, though apparently he has absolute trust in him. Strange.
Note the use of VA YICHAR APO - the bull's nostrils once again.
The account of Yoseph given in the Qur'an exonerates him in the matter, however. "If his shirt is torn from the front," said one of the people, "she is speaking the truth and he is lying. If it is torn from behind, then he is speaking the truth and she is lying." When her husband saw Yoseph's shirt rent from behind, he said to her, "This is one of your tricks. Your cunning is great indeed! Yoseph, say no more about this. Woman, ask pardon for your sin. You have done wrong."
Sura 12 then proceeds to tell two more tales of attempted seduction, thwarted by Yoseph's chastity. But finally he is thrown in jail anyway. It is definitely worth reading the Sura in full.
39:20: VA YIKACH ADONEY YOSEPH OTO VA YITNEYHU EL BEIT HA SOHAR MEKOM ASHER ASIVREY HA MELECH ASURIM VA YEHI SHAM BE VEIT HA SOHAR
וַיִּקַּח אֲדֹנֵי יוֹסֵף אֹתוֹ וַיִּתְּנֵהוּ אֶל בֵּית הַסֹּהַר מְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אֲסוּרֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲסוּרִים וַיְהִי שָׁם בְּבֵית הַסֹּהַר
KJ: And Joseph's master took him, and put him into the prison, a place where the king's prisoners were bound: and he was there in the prison.
BN: And Yoseph's masters took him, and threw him in prison, in the place where the king's prisoners were bound; and he was there in the prison.
Even in his position of seniority in the town, he would not have had the authority to put a man in prison; he would need the courts, or some kind of police force, or in those days a priestly council, to order his arrest and imprisonment; so this helps confirm his status as Poti-Phera rather than Poti-Phar: he is the governor of the territory, not just a man named Potiphar.
However, ADONEY is plural, so it might be that he did go to the higher authorities, and it was they who imprisoned him, but the teller has short-cut that, assuming the use of the plural would be sufficient. Given that no translation anywhere, ever, has picked up the plural, the story-teller was in error (singular would simply be ADON YOSEPH; the plural is ADONIM, but when conjoined with a genitive IM always becomes EY in the masculine, OT in the feminine).
The sudden use of Elohim, rather than YHVH, cannot be ignored either. According to the school of Bible Criticism, where J and E are clearly separated, the whole of the above may well be a late Beney Yisra-Eli addition anyway; the Ephrayimite version has him taken straight to prison when he gets to Egypt, and not as a prisoner but as an employed warden (albeit on slave-terms); as such Poti-Phar is correctly identified as Pharaoh's Chief Executioner, or even as the Governor of the Royal Prison.
Thinking again of "To Kill A Mockingbird": in Alabama in the 1930s, when Mayella Ewell made her allegation against Tom Robinson, rape was a capital offence. Is it really likely that, in the 1930s BCE, Poti-Phar would have allowed the man who tried to rape his wife (even if he didn't believe it, others no doubt did, and pride dignity and honour dictate etc etc) to simply go to jail; and once there, to be given an important office. Under his own rule too, by all appearances. And how did Poti-Phar, "captain of the guard", or Poti-Phera, High Priest or Chief Executioner, feel when Yoseph was then made Vizier. "Excuse me your Pharaohness, but are you aware that this visionary is the same man who tried to rape my wife". It doesn't hold water.
And as to the term BEIT HA SO'AR (בית הסהר), this story is the only time it is used, and it appears to be Egyptian. In the very closely similar Egyptian "Tale of the Two Brothers", on which this seems to be based, the wicked wife is put to death by her husband!
The prison parallels the pit in which his brothers placed him, and represents the underworld of which Osher (Osiris) was the ruler, before his return to Earth in the spring to re-establish the fertility of the winter-wasteland.
39:21: VA YEHI YHVH ET YOSEPH VA YET ELAV CHASED VA YITEN CHINO BE EYNEY SAR BEIT HA SOHAR
וַיְהִי יְהוָה אֶת יוֹסֵף וַיֵּט אֵלָיו חָסֶד וַיִּתֵּן חִנּוֹ בְּעֵינֵי שַׂר בֵּית הַסֹּהַר
KJ: But the LORD was with Joseph, and shewed him mercy, and gave him favour in the sight of the keeper of the prison.
BN: But YHVH was with Yoseph, and showed kindness to him, and he found favour in the sight of the keeper of the prison.
Echoing verse 2. Keep in mind that this is all mythological-liturgical; the keeper of the prison is Poti-Phar, is Poti-Phera: Osher (Osiris) has descended into the Underworld, where as guardian of the dead he will determine who will live and who will die, and after three days (in the moon rites), or at the end of winter (in the sun rites) he will return, resurrected à la Jesus (in the former), resurrected as the Fisher-King (in the latter) to perform the sacred eucharist, the eating (originally of actual, now of symbolic) blood and flesh in the form of wine (chief butler) and bread (chief baker). The Kiddush cup will come back into the story later when Bin-Yamin "steals" it.
39:22: VA YITEN SAR BEIT HA SOHAR BE YAD YOSEPH ET KOL HA ASIYRIM ASHER BE VEIT HA SOHAR VE ET KOL ASHER OSIM SHAM HU HAYAH OSEH
וַיִּתֵּן שַׂר בֵּית הַסֹּהַר בְּיַד יוֹסֵף אֵת כָּל הָאֲסִירִם אֲשֶׁר בְּבֵית הַסֹּהַר וְאֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר עֹשִׂים שָׁם הוּא הָיָה עֹשֶׂה
KJ: And the keeper of the prison committed to Joseph's hand all the prisoners that were in the prison; and whatsoever they did there, he was the doer of it.
BN: And the keeper of the prison committed into Yoseph's hand all the prisoners that were in the prison; and whatever they did there, he was the man responsible.
As with Poti-Phar in verse 4, as with Pharaoh for the third time later on, it is his destiny to always and immediately be put in absolute charge wherever he may be. But is it not odd in this case, that a prisoner accused of rape should be given so high an office? The answer is that there are different versions of the same story, passed down like a Chinese Whisper through the oral tradition, but in the Redaction all three have been included as if they were the same story.
39:23: EYN SAR BEIT HA SOHAR RO'EH ET KOL ME'UMAH BE YADO BA ASHER YHVH ITO VA ASHER HU OSEH YHVH MATSLI'ACH
אֵין שַׂר בֵּית הַסֹּהַר רֹאֶה אֶת כָּל מְאוּמָה בְּיָדוֹ בַּאֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אִתּוֹ וַאֲשֶׁר הוּא עֹשֶׂה יְהוָה מַצְלִיחַ
KJ: The keeper of the prison looked not to any thing that was under his hand; because the LORD was with him, and that which he did, the LORD made it to prosper.
BN: The keeper of the prison did not concern himself with anything that was under his authority, because YHVH was with him; and whatever he did, YHVH made it successful.
The very language used is identical to his position in Poti-Phera's house – again, two versions of the same story. cf verses 6 and 9.
Surf The Site
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
Copyright © 2020 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment