[This is a revisit, the original post was published September 2012. As we have done with all revisited posts, we have added three commentaries interspersed in the chapter verses; the introduction is ours, from our initial discussions of the chapter, without recourse to commentaries. Except for the introduction which is ours, the unbracketed notes within the chapter verses are from Pentateuch and Haftorahs, ed. Dr. J.H.Hertz, while “RA” is from Robert Alter and “EF” from Everett Fox, whose The Five Books of Moses is our featured translation.—Admin1.]
——————————-
There is some mystery in the workings of Divine Providence in the course of human affairs. Men make willful choices which on the one hand are either selfless and other-centered, and on the other hand selfish, self-serving and evil; yet it turns out in the end that they were actually fulfilling personal or national destiny, unconsciously participating in carrying out God’s plans. This is manifest in the patriarchal stories but does it work the same way for people outside of the chosen nation?
Only Israel can truly say “leave it to God” since that God Who chose them for a specific purpose gave them specific instructions and guidelines and prophetic vision. Whether or not Israel did its part, God did His. If they obeyed, the blessings came as promised; if they disobeyed, the curses automatically resulted, as warned. In their case, even when individuals ‘did their thing’ so to speak, still the divine agenda was fulfilled, despite the disobedience and sometimes because of the disobedience!
As victim of sibling jealousy and bullying, Joseph becomes an instrument of God to pave way for saving Jacob’s tribe when a future famine will force this 3rd patriarch and his family of 70 to seek refuge in the land of plenty; just as Abraham and Isaac had similarly done for the same reason. But we’re getting ahead of the narrative. When Genesis/Bereshith 37 ended, the Medianites brought Joseph with them to Egypt and sold him to Potiphar, a courtier of Pharaoh, the Chamberlain of the Butchers [AST]. Those who notice inconsistencies in Scripture have brought up this point:
Who purchased Joseph, the Ishmaelites or the Midianites?
Genesis 37:28, 37:36 and 39:1
“Now Joseph had been taken down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an Egyptian officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the bodyguard, bought him from the Ishmaelites, who had taken him down there.”
According to Achtemeier, 1 the term “Ishamelite” was synonymous with the term “Midianites.” They were probably references to the same general group known to have decended from Abraham. Ishmael was born to Abraham through Hagar (Genesis 16), the hand maiden.
The Midianites were descendants of Midian, a son of Abraham and his concubine Keturah (Genesis 25:1-2). Additionally, “The term ‘Midianite’ probably identified a confederation of tribes that roamed far beyond this ancestral homeland, a usage that explains the biblical references to Midianites in Sinai, Canaan, the Jordan Valley, Moab, and Transjordan’s eastern desert.2
—————————————————————-
It is hard to miss in the Joseph narratives the repeated emphasis of YHWH’s felt presence in Joseph’s life, evident to people around him; in fact blessings upon Joseph spill over to others. Implicit here and in other biblical stories (Abraham’s nephew Lot, the whole family of Noah) is that God’s grace, mercy, protection, blessing, and abundance fall on others for no reason than their connectedness, if not show of kindness to a God-favored one. It gives us hope that by our faith in YHWH, our kin and households, perhaps even workplaces benefit so that they will somehow think about the God we now serve and put their faith in Him. Would that it be so!
NSB@S6K
—————————————–
Genesis/Bereshith 39
POTIPHAR’S WIFE
The story of Joseph is resumed in this chapter. Amid the new and trying circumstances of his new existence, Joseph’s winsome personality and innate nobility of character are revealed. He gains the confidence of his master and emerges unscathed from sinful temptation.
[RA] This chapter is the most elegantly symmetrical episode in Genesis. It comprises an introductory narrative frame (verses 1-6), a closing frame (20-23) that elaborately echoes the introductory verses, and the central story of the failed seduction, which is intricately linked to the framing verses by a network of recurring thematic key words.
was brought down. Better, ‘had been brought down.’
an Egyptian. The story of Joseph took place during the reign of the Hyksos kings, the Bedouin conquerors of Egypt. Exceptionally, ‘an Egyptian; was entrusted with a high Government post.
[EF] Potifar . . .: The narrative resumes exactly, almost literally, where it had left off in 36:36.
[RA] an Egyptian man. This slightly odd designation of the high chamberlain might perhaps be used here in order to be played off against the derogatory identification of Joseph as “a Hebrew man” in verse 14. The household staff are also referred to as “men” (see verse 11), though that plural form can include both sexes, which it probably does when the mistress calls in the “people of the house” in verse 14, as she will go on to stress their collective sexual vulnerability to the Hebrew intruder.
2-6. The thematic key words, emphatically repeated lin phrase after phrase, are: all, hand, house, blessing, succeed–the lat two terms being the manifestation of the reiterated “the LORD was with Joseph.”
o that he became a man of success: prosperous man. All that he did prospered.
[EF] a man of success: Or “a man blessed by success.”
[RA] master. Only in the introductory verse is Potiphar referred to by name. Afterward he is designated consistently as Joseph’s master. Although the source critics may be right in attributing this difference between verse 1 and the rest of the chapter to a difference in literary strands, the stylistic peculiarity of referring to Joseph’s lord only by role serves the thematic purpose of constantly highlighting the master-slave relationship and the concomitant issue of trust and stewardship.
3 his lord saw that YHVH was with him,
so that whatever he did, YHVH made succeed in his hands.
ministered unto him. As his personal attendant. Then he is advanced to the position of overseer, or controller of hte household and estate generally.
[EF] over his house: Foreshadowing Yosef’s eventual position and title (41;40).
YHVH’S blessing was upon everything that belonged to him, in the house and in the fields.
6 So he left everything that was his in Yosef’s hands,
having him, he knew not aught. i.e. having him,, he troubled himself about nothing, and left all his affairs to the care of Joseph, except his food. This could not be left to a non-Egyptian; see XVIII,32.
of beautiful form. Like his mother Rachel (Ibn Ezra).
[EF] left: Consigned; see also v. 13 for a play on words. except for the bread that he ate: Since the Egyptians did not eat with foreigners (see, for instance 43:32). fair of form and fair to look at: The only other person in the Bible described in exactly these words is Rahel, Yosef’s mopther (29:17). We are thus given an indirect clue about the source of Yaakov’s doting behavior in the Yosef story.
[RA] And Joseph was comely in features and comely to look at. These are exactly the words used to describe Joseph’s mother in 29:17. They signal an unsettling of the perfect harmony of Joseph’s divinely favored stewardship—that comprehensive management of “all” that is in the “house”—as they provide the motivation for the sexual campaign of his mistress.
after these things. i.e.after the twofold advancement of Joseph, when he was no longer a slave, but had become overseer and trusted confidant, his master’s wife makes advances to him. The immorality of the ancient Egyptians, both men and women, was notorious.
[RA] Lie with me. The extraordinary bluntness of this sexual imperative—two words in the Hebrew—makes it one of the most striking instances of revelatory initial dialogue in the Bible. Against her two words, the scandalized (and perhaps nervous) Joseph will issue a breathless response that runs to thirty-five words in the Hebrew. It is a remarkable deployment of the technique of contrastive dialogue repeatedly used by the biblical writers to define the differences between characters in verbal confrontation.
and sin against God. Joseph would not betray his master’s confidence, neither would he sin against God. As a God-fearing man, he knows that the thing is wrong in the sight of God; and that is enough for him. Potiphar might never know of the sin, but God would know.
[EF] sinning: Or “at fault.” against God: From this point on, it is clear that Yosef is no longer the spoiled brat of Chapt. 37. At key points in his life he consistently makes mention of God as the source of his success and good fortune (40:8;41:16;45;5,7,9).
10 Now it was, as she would speak to Yosef day after day, that he would not hearken to her, to lie beside her, to be with her—
[EF] to lie beside her, to be with her: A curious expression. Why does not the text say, as in v.7, “to lie with her”? There is an additional irony: to be with” usually refers to God (see v. 2, for example).
[RA] to lie by her. The narrator, by altering the preposition, somewhat softens the bluntness of the mistress’s sexual proposition. This led Abraham ibn Ezra to imagine that she adopted the stratagem of inviting Joseph merely to lie down in bed next to her.
11 so it was, on such a day,
when he came into the house to do his work,
and none of the house-people was there in the house-
12 that she grabbed him by his garment, saying:
![[We apologize for losing the source of this image]](https://sinai6000.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/joseph-potiphar.jpg)
[We apologize for losing the source of this image]
and fled. Some sins can only be avoided by flight. Ecclesiasticus XXI,2. ‘Flee from sin, as from the face of a serpent; for if thou come too near it will bite thee: the teeth thereof are as the teeth of a lion, slaying the souls of men.’ The Rabbis say, ‘At the moment of temptation, his father’s image appeared to him and gave him strength to resist.’
[RA] she seized him by his garment, saying, “Lie with me.” The two-word sexual command, which is all she is ever reported saying to Joseph, is now translated from words into aggressive action. “Garment” (beged) is a generic term. It is certainly not an outside garment of “coat,” as E.A. Speiser has it, though the Revised English Bible’s “loincloth” probably goes too far in the opposite direction. In any case, Joseph would be naked, when he runs off leaving the garment behind in her grasping hand.
[RA] The narrator repeats the terms of the preceding sentence both in order to build up momentary suspense–what will she do now?–and in order to review the crucial evidence and sequence of events, which she is about to change.
she called. Filled with vindictive malice because of thwarted desire, she calls aloud to the men of the house, who would be envious of their master’s favour towards Joseph.
a Hebrew. See v. 17 and XVIII,32. Being of ancient Egyptian stock (see v. 1), she appeals to Egyptian racial prejudice. The admission of this Asiatic alien into her home is an insult to her and to every race-pure Egyptian!
to mock us. To attempt the greatest outrage against us.
[EF] play around: A sexual reference; or it might mean “laugh at.” (Translated laughing-and-loving in 26:8).
[RA] he has brought us a Hebrew man to play with us. Rather contemptuously, she refers to her husband neither by name nor title. The designation “Hebrew” is common when the group is referred to in contradistinction to other peoplles, but it may well have had pejorative associations for Egyptians. “Play” can mean sexual dalliance or mockery, and probably means both here. “Us” suggests they all could have been game for this lascivious–or, mocking–barbarian from the north and is an obvious attempt on her part to enlist their sense of Egyptian solidarity. She is probably suggesting that the very supremacy of this foreigner in the household is an insult to them all.
He came into me. She plays shrewdly on a double meaning. Though all she is saying is that he came into the house, or chamber, where she was alone, the idiom in other contexts can mean to consummate sexual relations. (It is the expression that in sexual contexts is rendered in this translation as “come to bed with.”)
[EF] beside: Three times here, the word perhaps suggests to the audience that Yosef’s garment is all that she will ever get “to lie beside her.”
[RA] when he heard me raise my voice. We, of course, have been twice informed that the raising of the voice came after the flight, as a strategy for coping with it, and not before the flight as its cause.
he left his garment by me. She substitutes the innocent “by me” for the narrator’s “in her hand.” A verbal spotlight is focused on this central evidentiary fact that she alters because of the earlier “left all that he had in Joseph’s hands” (the Hebrew actually uses the singular “hand”), and we are repeatedly informed that trust was placed in his hand. Now we have a literal leaving of something in her hand, which she changes to by her side.
laid up. i.e. put by.
his garment. As evidence to convict Joseph, and convince Potiphar of her own innocence.
[RA] she laid out his garment by her. She carefully sets out the evidence for the frame-up. This is, of course, the second time that Joseph has been stripped of his garment, and the second time the garment is used as evidence for a lie.
[RA] The Hebrew slave came into me. Talking to her husband, she refers to Joseph as “slave,” not “man,” in order to stress the outrageous presumption of the slave’s alleged assault on his mistress. She avoided the term “slave” when addressing the household staff because they, too, are slaves. Again, she uses the ambiguous phrase that momentarily seems to say that Joseph consummated the sexual act.
whom you brought us, to play with me. The accusation of her husband in her words to the people of the house is modulated into a studied ambiguity. The syntax–there is of course no punctuation in the Hebrew–could be construed either with a clear pause after “brought us,” or as a rebuke, “you brought us to play with me.”
that he left his garment beside me and fled outside.
19 Now it was, when his lord heard his wife’s words which she spoke to him,
[RA] Things of this sort your slave has done to me. Rashi is no doubt fanciful in imagining that the first words here are to be explained by the fact that she is talking to her husband in the midst of lovemaking, but the comment does get into the spirit of her wifely manipulativeness.
the prison. The Heb. word occurs only here, and seems to be Egyptian. The Midrash explains that Potiphar had some doubt as to the truth of the accusation against Joseph; otherwise he would ahve put him to death, instead of putting him in prison. To this episode in Joseph’s life, there is an interesting parallel in the Egyptian “Tale of the Two Brothers’. In the Tale, the wicked wife is slain by her husband.
[EF] dungeon: Hebrew obscure.
[RA] the prison-house. The reiterated Hebrew term for prison, beyt sohar, occurs only here. It should be noted that the term includes a “house” component which helps establish a link with the opening frame and the tale of attempted seduction. Joseph, though cast down once more, is again in a “house” where he will take charge.
And he was there in the prison-house. The division of the text follows the proposal of the nineteenth-century Italian Hebrew scholar S.D. Luzatto in attaching these words to the concluding frame. In this way, the last part of verse 20 together with verse 21 becomes a perfect mirror image of verse 2.
21-23. The great rhythm of Joseph’s destiny of successful stewardship now reasserts itself as the language of the introductory frame is echoed here at the end: “God was with Joseph,” granted him favor in the eyes or,” “placed in Joseph’s hands,” “all,” and, as the summarizing term at the very conclusion of the narrative unit, “succeed.”
but the LORD was with Joseph. In the prison, giving him comfort and strength to endure the suffering and the shame. He wins the confidence of the keeper, as he did of his master. The light of a superior mind and soul cannot be hidden even in a prison.
[EF] kindness: Or “faithfulness,” “loyalty.” See 32:11.
committed to Joseph’s hand. i.e. he is made superintendent of the other prisoners.
he was the doer of it. All was done at the suggestion of Joseph.
looked not to any thing. Just as Potiphar had done. Joseph enjoyed full confidence.
Reader Comments