Introduction to the story of joseph

Download 1.74 Mb.
Size1.74 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7

THE Story of Joseph, whatever else it may be, is one of the best novels ever written. The interest inspired by the youthful hero, the play of human passion, the variety of incident, the simplicity of the language, all combine to confer upon it a peculiar charm. We may gauge the dramatic effectiveness of a tale with which use has ren­dered us familiar, by comparing it with the plot of one of the plays of Terence or Plautus, which represent to us those of Menander and his fellow‑writers. Few will contest the superior power of the tale of Joseph from the point of view of the requirements of fiction. We have first the pathetic affection of the widowed father for the son of his favourite wife, and the consequent jealousy of the elder brothers, goaded to fury by the boy's naive recital of the dreams which foreshadow his future greatness. Then we have the brothers unwittingly bringing about the exaltation of the object of their envy by their own wicked act; the vain attempt of one better than the rest to save him; the youth's fidelity to his master in rejecting the advances of his mistress; the false charge and undeserved imprison­ment; the diverse fates of the chief butler and the chief baker; the release of the hero through the accident of Pharaoh's dream; his successful interpretation of it and sudden rise to fortune. The dray matic interest culminates in Joseph's brethren being led by the most elementary of human needs to prostrate themselves before the dis­penser of corn in Egypt, and thus fulfil the dreams which had so en­raged them. Joseph recognises them, though they do not recognise him, and he takes upon them no ungenerous revenge before the full recognition' (avoyvwpcacs) is allowed to come about. Then he sends for his aged father, whose heart had been sore tried by the steps which Joseph had taken to punish his brothers, but who is now comforted and utters the pathetic words I It is enough; Joseph my son is yet alive: I will go and see him before I die.' This seemed to be the most fitting conclusion to the narrative, when 101


being treated, as it is treated here, solely from the point of view of dramatic effect. For at this point the valedictory formula of old‑world story may well come in‑'And so they lived happily ever afterwards.'

The rest of the narrative rather represents Joseph as an eminent Hebrew statesman with all the financial capacity of his race. If w e were dealing with the tale as history, it might be worth while to point out that the fiscal policy of Joseph, however satisfactory to the Pharaohs, could hardly have been equally so to their subjects, and that the heavy impost of twenty per cent on agricultural produce, which has been, it is said, the land‑tax of Egypt down to within quite recent times, may well have had something to do with the unpopularity of the Jews in Egypt.

In the dream‑interpretation there is just that touch of the super­natural which is still thought not inappropriate to a good novel. But in the treatment of the tender passion this Hebrew romance stands in marked contrast with a good deal of modern fiction. There is not the slightest attempt made to render the would‑be adulteress interesting or to dally with unlawful passion. Joseph knows that the proposal which she makes to him in such direct lan­guage involves ingratitude to his master and sin against God, and on those grounds refuses to comply. ° How can I do this great wick­edness and sin against God ?' These words contain the secret of the high standard of morality in sexual matters, to which the Jews attained. Chastity with them was a question not merely of duty towards one's neighbour, but still more of duty towards God. In this way all the awful sanctities of the unseen world were called in to the aid in the struggle against passion.

Among the Greek moralists the tendency was to regard love as a disease from which the sage would not suffer. In the early Greek drama the delineation of this feeling was thought to be below the dignity of tragedy, and Euripides was regarded by the older school as having degraded the stage by depicting the passion of Phadra for Hippolytus. This story naturally occurs to one's mind as a classical analogue to the story of Joseph. But it would be injustice to Phaedra to put her on the same level as the wife of Potiphar. She has indeed all the vindictive injustice of the Egyptian matron, and is more successful in wreaking vengeance on her victim, yet she

is not the willing slave of passion, and shame in her heart struggles successfully against unlawful love, at least as the story is told by Euripides.

A closer parallel in Greek mythology is afforded by the legend of Antaea and Bellerophontes, which forms part of the episode of Glaucus and Diomede in the sixth book of the Iliad (119‑236). There the unfaithful wife of Proetus, king of Argos, foiled of her purpose by the virtuous youth, appeals to her husband to slay him for having made dishonourable proposals to her; but the youth escapes all dangers and comes to honour, like Joseph, though, such is the waywardness of human fate, of which the Greek mind was acutely conscious, he dies at last of melancholy madness‑
0' OvlAov KaTE'Swv, 7ra'Tov a'vOpL7rwv &XEctvwv.

The Egyptian tale of Anpu and Bata opens with a situation resem­bling that of Joseph and Potiphar's wife. Bata is a peasant‑lad devoted to his elder brother Anpu, who is to him as a father. The youth grows to be so excellent a worker that ° there was not his equal in the whole land; behold, the spirit of a god was in him.' One day, when he was alone with his brother's wife, I her heart knew him with the knowledge of youth. And she arose and came to him, and conversed with him, saying, « Come, stay with me, and it shall be well for thee, and I will make for thee beautiful garments." Then the youth became like a panther of the south with fury at the evil speech which she had made to him; and she feared greatly.' To save herself she plays the same part as Antoea, as Phaedra, and as Potiphar's wife. If all the story had the beautiful simplicity of the opening, it might bear away the palm both from Greek and Hebrew fiction: but, unfortunately, it soon degenerates into a tissue of mean­ingless marvels. The papyrus which contains the tale is said to be of the XIXth Dynasty and to have been the property of Sety II when crown prince; but Professor Flinders Petrie thinks that the earlier part of the tale may belong to the XVIIIth Dynasty, which would bring it back close to the time when Joseph is supposed to have lived. This is a curious coincidence, but there is no reason to think it anything more.

In view of the literary merit of the story of Joseph it seems a pity that criticism should lay its cold touch upon it. To do so is
I ~ JI:


!. I,p! .

i f s~


~ ai.~,

i.' 'I ei ,3 :,,
I; Lt~.


like treating a beautiful body as a subject for dissection rather than as a model for the painter. But the science of anatomy has its claims upon us as well as the art of painting. Artistic effect is one thing and historic fact another. To the latter domain belongs the question how the story, as we have it, came into being. Was it written as one or put together from different sources.? Taking the story as one and indivisible, there are certain difficulties which must not be ignored.

(1) As Reuben in 370 has already persuaded his brothers not to shed the blood of Joseph, why does Judah in v. 26 say ‑I What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood ?'

(2) In v. 25 we are told °a travelling company of Ishmaelites came from Gilead.' In v. 28 we have the parallel statement I And there passed by Midianites, merchantmen,' belt in the same verse we are given to understand that his brethren I sold Joseph to the Ishmael­ites.' Now Midianites were not Ishmaelites any more than Irish­men are Welshmen or the Dutch Germans. Both were Abrahamic peoples, but Ishmael was the son of Abraham by Hagar (Gen. 25'~ and Midian by Keturah (Gen. 25~.

(3) Why does Reuben in v. 29 expect to find Joseph in the pit, when he had just been taken up and sold to the Ishmaelites ?

Now let us appeal to the critics to see whether they help us at all out of our difficulties. On a great variety of grounds they have arrived at the general conclusion that the Hexateuch (i.e. the five books of Moses and that of Joshua) was put together from the fol­lowing pre‑existing materials ‑

(1) A primitive historical work, in which the sacred name, of which the consonants are JHVH, is habitually employed, and which is believed to have emanated from the Kingdom of Judah. This is commonly called J, and its author is known as the Jahvist (=Jehovist).

(2) Another very similar work, in which the Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is usually employed in place of the sacred name, and which is ascribed to the Kingdom of Israel. This is denoted by the
symbol E, and its author is known as the Elohist.

~) The bulk of Deuteronomy, which is designated as D.

(4) A later priestly document known as Y.
The hand of the editor is to be detected here and there, rec~

tiling his materials, when they are discrepant, after the manner of a Gospel‑harmonizer.

In telling the story of Joseph we are to suppose that the editor had before him J and E, containing the same tradition in slightly different forms.

In J it is Judah who intervenes to save Joseph. He persuades his brothers not to kill the lad, but to sell him to some Ishmaelites, who are passing by. In this version of the story there is no mention of a pit. It is drawn upon by the editor in 3721'2'~ 21"~ slue.

And they sat down . . . hearkened unto him, and sold Joseph to the Ishnlaelites for twenty pieces of silver.

And they took . . . wept for him.'

The words in 45', 11 am Joseph your brother whom ye sold into Egypt,' are a reference to this account of the matter.

In E it is Reuben, the first‑born, and so a fit representative of the Northern Kingdom, who plays the better part. He persuades his brothers not to kill the lad, but to put him alive into a, pit, his inten­tion being to come and take him out again. When he and his brothers however have left the place, some Midianites come by and kidnap Joseph. Reuben, returning to the pit, finds Joseph gone, a fact of which he informs his brothers. This form of the legend is drawn upon in 371‑~ ~~ %`~ 36.

And Reuben . . . water in it. And there passed by Midianites, merchantmen ; and they drew, and lifted up Joseph out of . the pit. And they brought Joseph into Egypt . . . whither shall I go ? And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, the captain of the guard.' 1

The words in 40'5, for indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews,' refer to this account of the matter.

With regard to Potiphar it must be admitted that there is some confusion in the narrative as we have it. For. we are told in 37,~ that x the Midianites sold Joseph to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, the captain of the guard.' Potiphar then is Joseph's master, as we are told again in 391. Now Joseph's master I put him into the prison, the place where the king's prisoners were bound' (391), where Joseph found favour with the 9 keeper of the prison.' But I the keeper of the
1 See Driver Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament 7th edit. p. 17.


prison' was presumably Potiphar himself, for the prison was 4 in the house of the captain of the guard' (403), and 'the captain of the guard' was Potiphar ? How are we to get out of this circle ? Let us again have recourse to the hypothesis of a mixture of documents.

The E versicn of the story goes on to tell that the Midianites, having taken Joseph out of the pit, brought him to Egypt and there sold him to Potiphar (37n, who was a eunuch and captain of the guard, and himself the keeper of the prison, but naturally not a married man. Joseph, being found faithful by him, is given charge over the prisoners, not being himself a prisoner, but I servant to the captain of the guard' (41'2).

In the J version on the other hand Joseph is sold by the Ishmael­ites to pan Egyptian,' whose name is not mentioned; for the theory requires us to suppose that the words in 391‑1 Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, the captain of the guard'‑ are inserted there from 3M This Egyptian' (391'='5) has a wife, who brings a false charge against Joseph, whereupon his master consigns him to the king's prisons (391w). If this hypothesis be accepted, we must give up I Potiphar's wife' as a person who has no just claim to existence even in fiction: for it is only by the amalgamation of I the Egyptian' with Yotiphar that she comes into being. If this should appear a loss, it may on the other hand be deemed a gain not to have to regard the lady's husband as a eunuch, which seems to be the real meaning of the word 4 officer' (373x, 39').

Chapter 40 is supposed to belong as a whole to E : but, if so, it must have been adjusted in places to the story of the false charge, which has been incorporated from J. We see this in vv. 3, 7, 15. In chapter 41 again, which is referred as a whole to the same source, we have to suppose the words in v. 14, 1 and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon,' to come from the reconciling hand of the editor.

Further on in the story there are duplications and inconsistencies which, it may be claimed, find their easiest explanation in the hy­pothesis of I contamination,' to borrow the term applied to a Latin play made up from different Greek originals. Thus in 42n~28 it is at the lodging‑place on the way home that one of the brothers finds his money in his sack, whereas in v. 36 of the same chapter they all find their money in their sacks after their return to their father. Again in chapter 42 the brothers, when taxed by Joseph with being


spies, volunteer the information that they have a younger brother living (v. 13), and so report the matter to their father (v. 32) ; whereas in the following chapters Judah assures his father that this information was imparted only in reply to a question from Joseph (43'), and so recounts the matter to Joseph himself (44'9• 2'). Further, in 423' Reuben goes surety to his father for the safe return of Benjamin, whereas in 439 it is Judah who does this.

The story of Joseph is as good ‑an illustration as could be chosen of the service rendered by modern criticism to the intelligent study of the Bible. If we take the narrative as it stands, it perplexes us with contradictions, and we have to suppose that the writer could not tell a story properly: but on the hypothesis that he had be­fore him two documents, resembling each other in the main, but dif­fering in details, we can understand how reverence for his authorities would lead him into inconsistencies which he would not have com­mitted in a story invented by himself. Without then pledging our­selves to particular hypotheses we may surely say after Plato­' The troth in these matters God knows: but that what the Higher Critics say is like the truth‑this we would venture to affirm.'

';''' I:

~. ,~ i~,


i l


a ~~

E .,,

r r;.

i ~~'!
i .: er;


Genesis XXXV11
1KaTl~KE6 CSE 'IaKiuR CV TV yj oZ 7rapuiK‑qa~EV o =T47p
avrov, Ev y^ Xavaav. 2avrai 8E all yEVEO'EtS 'IaKCri,(3.
'IIdQ'q0 OEKa E7TTOt ETIY jP 9ro6~l,aivmv 1A,ETQ. T(UV a.8EAOwY
abTOV TOG Iff pOaara, 46 vEOS, 1tETdf, Tldv V6lDV BaAas Ka% I..tETa
TIdY V1C~IY ZEAOaS Tldv yUV01.GKfiOY TOV ?faTpOS aVTOV' Kd.T'Y~‑
1. H.aT4KEV . . . arap4K'q?EY : K4T0G­KEIV here signifies a more permanent residence than 7rapoMiv. Jacob dwelt where Abraham only sojourned. Abra­ham was a pure nomad, whereas Jacob combined agriculture (v. 7) with pas­ture (v.12). In classical Greek ,rapoLrceiv means I to dwell near.' For the sense of dwelling as a stranger in' cp. Lk. 2418 %J ja6vos vapoweis 'IepovvaXhp; From meaning a settlement of Jews in a for­eign country (Sirach, Prologue) aapotKla in the mouths of the Christians came to be used for an ecclesiastical district or diocese, as the ,rapolKla of Alexan­dria, Ephesus, etc. Through the Latin form parcecia it is the origin of the French word paroisse and of our parish.

2. avraI, . . . 'IaK(as : part of the framework of P (see Introd. to the Story of Joseph). The preceding chapter dealt with the descendants of Esau. Here the writer turns to Jacob, but the detailed list of his descendants does not come till ch. 40. ‑ UK% €,rrG,

similar forms of numeral occur in Latin in good writers, as Caesar B. G. 18 § 1 decem novem: Livy XXVIII38 § 6

decem quatuor. §14.‑,jvaovp,ai­vwv : the analytic form of the imperfect ‑ €,rotpawE. Op. Ex. 31. Such forms occur in all stages of the language, e.g. Soph. 73•ach. 22 3w BaKiuv : Plato POW. 273 B. They are especially common in the N.T. § 72. The Hebrew idiom in this passage coincides with the Greek, so that this is an instance of a usage already current in Greek, which was intensified by its adaptation to the Hebrew. ‑oiv v€os : while yet a lad, Spurrell. Had the translators here used srais, it would have reflected better the ambiguity of the original, which may mean that Joseph was serving as a shepherd‑lad with his brethren. ‑ Bdkaas : of Bilhah. For the form of the genitive see § 3. The sons of Bilhah were Dan and Naphtali ; Gen.482$‑25.‑Z&~as: of2ilpah. The sons of Zilpah were Gad and Asher; Gen. 4618‑1g. Only the sons of Jacob's concubines are here mentioned, but afterwards Reuben and Judah are named, who were sons of Leah. Per­haps the actual work of tending the flock was done by the sons of the con­cubines, who would be in an inferior

Genesis %%%VII 7
veyKav 8E 'Iwmq'o *oyov 7rovqpov 7rpos 'I(rpaq'X Tov araTEpa
3, , , . , , ,

avr~Ov. IaKw9 Se ~yaaa Tov Iwoq

o 7rapa TravTas robg

. , . vvovs avTOV, arvios yjpovs 77v avT(O' eroaIJae,

~e avre)
xtrwva aocXov. 4vo.vres 8e. of~ a8e\0ov avTOV aorc aro.


e^ 3

E'O'XEt 6 7ra 'p a' Elna‑q(rav

L T1q V70V EK vamav T(A)v vlaw aVTOV,

, . , , . , , .

airrov, real ovK e8vvavTO ~.aAeiv avTCO ov8ev etp71utrcov.
. , , , , , , ,

5 Evv7rvaaCBevs 8e IwO'o evu7ruov aaqyyetXev avTO rois

aMOois avrov, brcai JUMP avTOis ` 'Arcov(raTe Tov Emrviov
TovTOV OV Evvavaa0‑91qv. 7y‑qv vhtcZs BeaM.evew BpdyM,aTa
EV /Leo w T~ are8iy Kai avE(Trq ro" El.tov 8pay1,ta Kai LpO&Al

7repaTTpa0EVTa 8E ra' 8paypaTa vpivv arpoo‑e1cvv~a‑av ro"

position to those of the legitimate wives. Joseph was the son of Rachel, but he may have been called upon to ° bear the yoke in his Youth.'‑ Ka‑rfjveyeav 8E KTX.: and they brought against Joseph an evil report to Israel their father. Here the sense of the LXX differs from that of the Hebrew, and saves us from regarding Joseph as a tell‑tale.

3. wapd rdwras : more than all. Cp. Dt. 76,7. The Hebrew is more exactly represented by lK srdwrwv in v. 4. srapci first signifies comparison and then superiority. Xen. Mena. 14 § 14 rap& Ti aXXa twa (as compared with the lower animals) Crorep Beot NvBpwaoa /3coTeGovct. In Biblical Greek it is constantly em­ployed after a comparative adjective. We may see this use beginning in clas­sical writers, e.g. Hdt. VII 103,rapdT~v e`aurw 0donv cipelvoves. § 9g.‑yJpovs: for the form see § 8. ‑ XtTWVa 'ROLKMOY

xerwv here represents the Hebrew word lcetho"neth, with which it is perhaps con­nected. The language spoken by the Phoenicians was almost the same as Hebrew, and the Greeks may have
borrowed this word from Phoenician traders. The same Hebrew phrase which is used here of Joseph's coat is applied in ii S. 1318 to the garment worn by Tamar to denote her rank as a princess. The LXX rendering how­ever is there (ii K. 131$) xvrcuv rcap­srwrbs = a garment with sleeves.

4. €K ,rd,uTwv: out of and so above all. iK ab,vrwv = rap& rdyras in v. 3, being a different rendering of the same original. The Hebrew language has no special .forms for comparative and superlative.

5. 4vvVwacAeLs . . . €v6arvwv: § 56. The active verb ivu,rvutrw has here become a deponent passive. Cp. 416, Nb. 2324 yavpcwBJcerac.

8. ov 4vv"L6c9riv: the attraction of the relative into the case of the antecedent is the prevailing idiom in Biblical as in classical Greek. Cp. Gen. 398: Ex. 3a°, be : Dt. 810: i Cor. gig.

7. 8p6yWa : literally a handful = manipulus. For the meaning ° sheaf' cp. Ruth 27 and Jos. Ant. II 2 § 2 in this context. ‑apoovKfrvricav: literally

Genesis %%%v11 8
E1A,OV 8payj.ta." a Ei7rav &' airrco of a&Xooi " 1VI' ,(3awEUCev
~ a c ~, . . c 7f

RaoiXEVo‑as go' r~ Kvptevcw Kvpveu(rEas 711(w ; Kai

KI & 9 11 N 5 ~ ^ 8EXooZs a~‑

a& ‑qy‑qa‑aTo aVTO T(d 7TaTpL avToV Kat TOV;

TO;, Kal drev " 18ov' 4vv7rv&a'a0,qv &V'7TPLOV Erepov • ceT7rEp o

a . c r . a ~ r r f~

'q4os Ka6 'Y~ QEX'Yw'Y~ Kab Eh&Ka ao‑TEPES ?l'pOO‑EKUYOUV /.LE.
'0 v 3 r s ^ c v a v ETEY c Tv fKab EfETql'gQEV avTW O 7TaT'qp avrOV KatTO Evvr


TE KaL 'I~ /t'Y1T'Y)

p O'OV KaV 06 Q.&XoOV QOV 71p00'KLV'l7oaL am E?TI.

~ " 1' I E ?Ta‑
TI1Y y~Y kq', &)(Tap & aLO06 a&XoOl aUTOV' O OTip avrov &ET J~o‑EV TOv pipa. gEaopEVBJo‑av $Ev of abX‑
rp0oi avrov 860‑KE&V Ta apo,(3aTa TOD aarpos avTivv Eis %vXEM..
'3 I~iX rpos 'Ioo‑rj~ " Ovx of a8EAooi crov Iroc‑

Kai EirEV paq
r a r s r , a r 7f T

N,awovavv Ev %vxEp,; 8EVpo aTroaTEaace ~rE apos avrovs. Ei7rEv
kissed (? the ground) before. The Greek word for the Oriental prostration. In classical writers it governs an accusative, as here and in v.9 and in Jos. Ant. II 2 § 2 : but in the N.T. (Mt. 22~ 11: Jn: 428) we find it with a dative, as in v. 10. In Aristeas (§§ 135, 137) both constructions are employed. In their version of the LXX the ancient Armenians regularly render srpovavvEiv as above.

8. Pa,cJvefiwv PaaLksfro‑ECS: § 81.‑

wpoov6EVTO Vrv p,wEtv : literally they

added yet to hate = ° they hated still

more,' a Hebraism very common in the

LXX. Josephus has here (Ant. II 2

§ 2) kaW rpas auTJv gTi paXXov c£aE7tBios

I,Z'OVTEf aIETAOUV. § 113.

9. C&v : § 19. ‑ o 'qXLOS KaL sj o•E­kilvl : Josephus (Ant. 112 § 3) explains that the moon stood for the mother, owing to the power of the moon in

nourishing all things and making them grow, and the sun for the father, because that imparted to things their shape and strength.­fvSEKa 6cTIpes : Josephus (Ant. II 2 § 3) says robs S' ha‑Tipas ro?s d.EEX¢ois
(Elrck.~mv), Kal ydp TodTOUS 9vEEKa Elvac

KaBdw•Ep Kat Tots daTipas. But on what system were the stars reckoned as eleven ?

10. &66vTss WVO‑dwEAa : § 81. ‑arpoo•KVVi~caL o‑of : 7 n. 7fp0?EKUYjQaV.

11.0 8E araTilp KT71. : Lk. 218 bl are evidently modelled on this verse. Cp. also Dan. Of 425 Tots Tbyovs. 6 Tp Kap‑
El¢ vuvEThP7,aE.

12. its 2uX1w : at Shech.eyn, to be taken with SGQKECV, not with iuopevBj­cav. § 90. Josephus (Ant. II 2 § 4) represents the brethren as removing to Shechem after the harvest without their father's knowledge.


Genesis XXXV11 22
~E a$rW "218 OV Eyai." 14El

EY 8E avr~ 'Io‑pa~jX " IIopeveEis
ME 7 r r c s~\ r \ \ r \ a r

6vE E6 UyCGttvOVQ6V 06 a~E~06 QOU Kab Ta TfpO~aTa~ Ka6 aYay‑

r 77 \ a r a \ 7 ~ r n

yetAov p,ot. Kal a~rEO‑TE~EV avrov EK T~/s Kova8os T'r1s
XE,(3pcLiv• Kal ?jXBEV Eis XvxE~,c. 18Kai Evpev airrov av9puuros
alavEVOV CV Ti aEs~' jpW'T/aEV SE a$TOV o avepmros
~M, XEycLm "Ti ~‑qTEas ;" 160 8E E larEV "Toys aSEX0ovs pi.ov Cr/Tm'
arayyEvov M,oa 7rov 805(TKOMM." 17EiVEV ~E amp o av‑
~pcerros"'Ar ~jpKaavv EvTEVBEV• ~KOVO‑a yap avr(^I)v AEyovrcov
`IopevBmMEV Ets Oc0BaEtp.7 7Kaa E1ropevrB‑q fIooo Karoai‑
0‑eEV Tcw a2EXOcav avTOV, Kal Evpev a$TOVs Eis OW9dEiM,.
r \ a , . , a , a , \

18apoc8ov 8E avTOV j,carcpoBEV 7rpo TOD Eyyao‑a& avrov vpos
\ ac \ a ~p ~\ \ c a \ 7 y

?TpOs TOY a~E~I~OV aLTOV IOOU O EY1l7fL6a~T'I)s EKELP09 EpXE?at'
r a 1

20 vv. v ovOLTE a7 aOKTwveMEV avTOV, Ka\y Ayr opEV ava TO\ V Eis
Eva Tcw XaKKCOV, Kal Epoyu,EV ` Onpiov aOVr/pov KaTE~ayev
bTo r , 7 , a r r v \ 7 . a 77 21 a

av Kay o>~rOM.EBa Ti E~Tw Ta Evvavta avrov. arcov~as
'. 7 . 7 . a a \ T

~E Pov~rw E~EWaTO avTOV EK Tcw xEtpmv avTCw~ Kal EiaEv
" ob aaTaeopEV avTOV Eis *uX7jv." ~ETUrEV U a$TOis `Pov,8~v
14. KoLkd8os : KoAds is very com­

mon in the LXX for vale, e.g. Gen.

148 ev rj KoAd,EL rp" dXuKj7, which in v. 3 of the same is called r7yv odpayya T~v d)wK~v. The word occurs in the sense of I a hollow' in some verses ascribed to Plato (Anth. P. vi. 4S).
17. bafjpKacw : they have departed.

This intransitive use of dsralpELV, which is common in the best authors, origi­nated in an ellipse of vav"s (acc. pl.) or crpaT6v. The word is an apt equiva­lent for the Hebrew, which means liter­ally ° tear up,' and refers to the pulling up of the tent‑pegs previous to resuming a march. Cp. Zi;$pev Ex. 1419. ‑ K0.T(t­srLC9EV TLUV &8A0L3v : this use of KaTb­srLOBE with genitive in the sense of ELErd,

with accusative is unclassical. § 97.­Els Aa76&ELp, : at Dothan. Cp. 4282. § 90.
18. ap6L>iov : § 19. ‑ €ropEdowro
they went about.

20. MKKODV : AL~IKKO! L a pit' is con­nected with Latin lacua and lacuna. It is used in Xen. Anab. IV 2 § 22 for large tanks in which wine was kept­Kat ‑yap OIYOS 7fOAbS Iv, Wore 4Y AQKKOLf KovLaTOis (plastered) EiXov. The MKK04 in this instance was a dry reservoir. See v. 24. The word is used in 4076 of the dungeon into which Joseph was cast. Cp. also Ex. 1229: iv K. 1831.

21. 'Povsfjv : Josephus calls him 'Pod/S,qXos.‑Eis 4ruXfjv: so as to slay him. A Hebraism.

Genesis %%%v11 23
~~ M,q EKxE~qTE alfld.a' qA.RdWETE SE aUTOY Ebs EYa TCUY llaKKwv
a 'P . v y ~ . ~ n „ a a .

TIUV EY T~ Er/~.t,c~, xEipa ~E jkr~ E7fEVE'YK77TE aUTld' O?TwS E~E‑
x'Yrab aUTOY EK TwL xELpwV aUTwh Kal Q,7TOOCJ aUTOY T(U ?faTpf,

s 2g ~ . v c . 9 'v v v ~ v

avTOV. E'yEYETO ISLE '1w6Ka'ABEL 'ho TlpOs TOUS a~EA~ovs

> > .

avTOV, EeEBvcrav Tov Iw~‑q0 Tov xaTi~va Tov 7rovK&Xov Tov TrEpt

avTOV, Kai AaRovTEs avTOV E*ppt*av Et; Tov XaKKOV • 0 8E

XaKKOS EKEivos vswp OUK E1t'X4EV. 25EKaiBWaY OE oayeiv
aprov' Kai. avaa~.E0avTES Tois o~8aX~e.ois i8ov, Kai i8ov
o8otrropot 'I0‑M,aqJIEiTav q'pXovro EK raXaa8, Kal of KaM,7)koc
avT,~)v Eyquov 9v~uvajiarwv Kai pvTiv1qs Kal (TTaKT?js • E7ro‑
petiovro 8E KaTayayeiv Eis AiyvrrTOV.
2gEiaEV 8E 'Iov8as
v v ., w 2 .

7rpos Tovs aBEX0ouS avTOV « TL xpr~(ryov Eav aTroKTEavwje,Ev

T6 2186TC

OP &8EX00'P j/A~OV Kal KP14(,JIAEV ro' atpa abTO~
Q,7TAJIAEea aVTOY T063 'Io7A.a7j)16Ta6S TOUTO6S' at' OE XE6pES
71 EoTwoav E~rrs a os r/1A~v Kal av


iwiv Iuv * vro.v, oaTt aBXov e 0,

c ~ . » a• . c ~, , 28 ?~A.wY EQT6Y. 'I~KOVO'av ~E 06 a~E)1.(~06 atYTOV. Kal7TapE‑
22. bran 4j1%tjTav abTbv: so that he may deliver him. The primary sequence after an historic tense was sometimes used in classical Greek to present the intention of the speaker with greater vividness. In Biblical Greek it supplants the optative alto­gether. § 76. Josephus (Ant. II 3 § 2) represents Reuben as lowering Joseph by a rope into the pit, and then going off in search of pasture.

25. ~a,yeW aprov: § 77.‑'Io•Waq­kefTai : Josephus (Ant. II 3 § 3)

'Apai9as Tov""'Ia•lAai7XcTiuv y9vovr. He has

no mention of Midianites.‑1yep,ov: yepECV, which is properly used of a ship, is here transferred to c the ship of the desert.' ‑yTtvris: Acrfv,1, commonly spelt jc?jTlvT, Latin resins = the resin of the terebinth or the pine. Theoph. 11.P. IX 12 § 1 Tit U TEp/AIYBOV Kal T'hS

7fEGK'7r Kal 9K T!V(aV dXXmv Aiq‑rin yiperat

/..VETA T~v 6Xdo‑TqcTtP. 'Psyrlvj is men­tioned again in 4311 as a special product of Palestine, and here it is being brought from Gilead. It is therefore presumably the famous ° balm of Gilead' (Jer. 822, 288, 4611). The word occurs six times in the LXX always as a translation of the Hebrew word which our version renders ° balm.' ‑a•TaKTijs: cp. 4311. d‑T0.KT4 is spoken of as a kind of myrrh. Theoph. H.P. IX 4 ad fin. Tis Qpdpvrfs 8F j AFY d'T0.KT~,

j Ei` rrXacTh. Josephus (Ant. 113 § 3) is vague in his language‑ 4pwpara Kal
Eupa ¢opTla KoptrovTas Alyurrrlocs & Tit

27. Eo•TCUO•av: § 16. ‑ i~KOVO•av: not only ' heard,' but c obeyed: dsa­Kovecv has this double meaning in clas­sical Greek, like the English 4 hearken.'


Genesis %%%v11 82

aopeirovro ol av8pwroi of MaBtnvaioa of EM.Vopot, Kai EelE&A­Kvo,av Kai ave,(3a,(3ao‑av T0'v 'Ic)ay0 Etc TOD AdKrcov • Kai arEBovro Tov 'IcvT'o rois 'Io‑~ua‑qAiTats eircow Xpvo‑wv

Kai Karrjyayov TOP 'Iwai~o eis Aiyv7rTOV. 29 avEo‑Tpe*ev 8e Poveiv eat 7ov AaKKOV, Kai dX opa rov Icoor"?o ev r&^

& 'aKKm • Kai BvEppq~ev rd iuarta avrov. s°Kai avEO‑rpE‑

*ev 1rpos Tovs a8eXoovs avrov Kai eiaev "To 1rat8dpvov

Ok ETTw • Eyw 8E aov 7ropevop,aa Era ; " 8I Xa,(3ovres 8E

Tov xtTi~va Tov 'Ic)o‑~o CON ep yov aiyi~v, rcai E/.tolw‑

. ~ ,

vav T6op Xtriwa aip.ara. $2rcat a7rerrecAav rov xlruwa Tov
So has auscultare in Latin with its French equivalent &outer. Cic. Div. I § 131 magic audiendum quam auacultandum.
28. ,rapsiropevovro : were eomin


by, they having before been seen only in the distance. But see Introd. ‑ot av9pwarov . . . oi, M. . . . of .Epsro­poL: the use here of the article, which is not in the Hebrew, serves to identify the Midianites with the Ishmaelites of v. 25 and hides the difficulty which otherwise presents itself as to the, introduction of a caravan at this point as a fresh fact unknown before.‑of Ma8yvatov: the Midianites, here re­garded as a species of Ishmaelites, in defence of which might be quoted Jdg. 822,24. Some of them dwelt in the south­east of the Peninsula of Sinai, along the Gulf of Elath (Akaba). Ex. 216, 31. But their chief home was in the north of Arabia east of the Gulf of Akabah. ‑EjeIhKVCav : here the subject changes to Joseph's brethren. ‑ Xpvwauv

Hebrew, ° silver' ; Vulg. v i g i n t i argenteis; Josephus pvmverxomv. In Ex. 21$2 the normal value of a slave is estimated at 30 shekels. The translator
seems to have taken the word I silver' in the general sense of ° money' (cp. Fr. argent), and so made of it 20 gold pieces, the money to which he was accustomed at Alexandria. Coined money is not supposed to have been used among the Jews until the time of Darius Hystaspes, B.C. b21‑48g. The silver with which Abraham bought the cave of Machpelah was paid by weight (Gen. 2316). In Amos 86 (about 800 B.C.) the Israelite corn‑dealers are described as I making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and dealing falsely with balances of deceit,' i. e. having one weight for the corn which they sold and another for the silver which they received. There would be no meaning in this, if the customers paid in coin.

30. rov" : § 34. ‑WopsfiopaL : am I to go S § 73.

31. $pi+ov alywv: a kid of the goats. Cp. Jdg. 6'9, 1315,19 : i K. lgZO. So Xlfcapov iE atycuv Nb. 716,22, 1524, 2816 : Dt. 144 : i K. 1620‑ rp6,yos atywv Dan. 106 ‑ Ec£,uaaev i?K /Sowv Dt. 218 ‑ pba•Xov €va & #oiuv Nb. 715,21, etc. ‑gpi¢ous d:srd ray TIKYtOV Tap aty(iiY ii Chr. 357‑rcpibv srpo#drwv Tob. 7s.


Genesis %%%VII 88
TTO6K6XOV Kal E&r‑q'VCYKaV T~'TTaTpi a1nCJV, Kal ElTfav "TOUTOv

a e i e 'A V »

88Cw Tov V40V O'ov ETTav 71 ov. ca'

Epo1cEV • wiyvc)8c Ec XcTv v s « v

E7TFyvld aUTOY Kac Et7fEV XtTWV TOU U60U ILOU EUTW • Aqpcov

Oayev avr. , B?7p. v a , a

Ic) rov‑qpov KaTE ov vo‑qp7ra0‑EV Tov (rno.

348cEpp‑q~EV 8E 'Iarco'),(3 Ta iM,dTCa a$rov, Icai ErrEBETO o‑aKKOY

Erc 777v 6o‑ov'v avrovn, cal EaEiVBEC To'v Uco'v avOV j/cEi


$5 B E a iTcvas. wvrjXnaav 8' rvres of vio avrov Kal at' Ovya‑

TEP JX0ov irapaKaVaat abr'

El;, Kat OV Wcai OLK ‑90EXEV 7lapa‑

KaAEicrBac, AEywv oTC " Kara,8~o•o~,taa irpos Tov viov ptov 7rEV‑
~ a „ . ~r ~ . ~ . 'gg ~ '

6wv CIS a8ov • Kal Erc~,av~EV avTOV o aarr~p avTOV. oc 8E

Mascrwaioc airaovro Tov 'IWo~o Eis AayvtrTOV T~)IIETpEoj

TIfJ cm01SOVT6 (Dapac'd apXytayEipy.

35. ktyauv Srv : this use of dry with the direct oration is found in the beat writers, e.g. Plat. Apo1. 21 C, 34 D AB•ywv drv Ipol, W IIpGGTE KTX. It is as common in the LXX as elsewhere in Greek, e.g. 468, 481: Ex. 41.

38. Ma6yvatov : not the same word in the Hebrew as in v. 28, being here equivalent to Medanites, there to Mid­ianites. From Gen. 241 we learn that Medan was brother of Midian.‑c7r4­&ovTV : cadEwv is a eunuch, Lat. spildo. The genitive in Greek is in ‑woos or ‑ovros. The only other passage in the LXX in which the word occurs is Is. 397 aoycovcm vab,8ovras lv T~ oCKCp Tog Pam­Vws. The same Hebrew original is in Gen. 391, 402• 7 translated edvov"Xos. The English rendering ' officer' is no doubt affected by the fact that Poti­phar figures in the story as a married man. On this point see Introd. ‑d,pXv­Ways(p4p: not I chief cook.' Even as a matter of derivation it may equally mean I chief butcher' or I slaughterer,'

which brings us round to the Hebrew ' chief of the executioners.' The Eng­lish rendering is ' captain of the guard.' In use the term signifies a high officer, something like the praefectus praa­torio at Rome, who combined the functions of commander of the body­guard and chief of police. It is ap­plied to Potiphar (Gen. 3786, 391, 4112), to Nebuzaradan (iv A. 268: Jer. 401, etc.), and to Arioch (Dan. 214). The last‑named is described by Josephus (Ant. X 10 § 3) as having the com­mand over the king's body‑guard. The word A,pXcccbyeapos is used also by Philo (I 804, De Mut. Nom. § 32) Ka­TaQThoas EIpKTO¢dXaKa, 1'us ¢7jQa rb X6yov, 11EVTEOp71 rJv a'rl8ovra Kai hpXo­wdyevpov and again in 1662, De Sonan. § 2, and 1163, De Jos. § 28, where his allegorical treatment shows that he took the word to mean ° chief cook.' Josephus (Ant. 114 § 2) seems to have fallen into the same error ‑IIerf¢pys, c£v~p AIyGrrros &l rwv ‑1)apawBou /ayel­pwv Tov" /SacvEws.


Download 1.74 Mb.

Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7

The database is protected by copyright © 2022
send message

    Main page