Chapter XXXVII · 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 ^{1. 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 45^{4 f.}), the latter Elohist (40¹⁵). Another safe clue is found in the double motive assigned for the envy of the brethren: ^{3. 4} (the sleeved tunic) ∥ ^5‒11 (the dreams): the dream-motive is characteristic of Elohist throughout the narrative, and ^{3 f.} 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 f.}, and in ^{34 f.}. 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 = ^{3. 4. 13a. 14b. 18b. 21. 23. 25‒27. 28aγ} (וימכרו to כ֑סף), ^{31. 32aαγb. 33aαb. 34b. 35a}; Elohist = ^{5‒11. 13b. 14a. 15‒17. 18a. 19. 20. 22. 24. 28aαβ} (to הבור) ^{b. 29. 30. 32aβ. 33aβ. 34a. 35b. 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 36^6‒8 (see page 429); and ^2aα is a heading from the Book of Tôledôth (see page 40 f.), which ought to be followed by a genealogy,—perhaps 35^22b‒26,¹ which we have seen to stand out of its proper connexion (page 423): ^2aβγb 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 ^2aβ, 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 46^{8 ff.}, 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 14^{36 f.}).

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 13^{18 f.}; but speculations as to its mythological significance (Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 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 ^{2. 13 ff.} 46^{31 ff.} 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 1^{22 f.}).—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 Orients², 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 2^{19. 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 20^{3 ff.} 31^{11. 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 (‘with sleeves’), Targum^Onkelos כיתונא דפסי, etc. In 2 Samuel 13, LXX, Vulgate, and Peshiṭtå curiously change sides (χιτὼν καρπωτός, talaris tunica, [= tunica striata]). The real meaning is determined by New Hebrew and Aramaic פַּס (Daniel 5^{5. 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 .—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 6^{13 ff.}, 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 ^{12. 13a} belong to Yahwist; and הנני shows that ^13b is from Elohist (compare 22^{1. 7. 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 (23^{2. 19})] The words might be a gloss based on Priestly-Code (35²⁷ 49^{29 ff.} 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 Testament², 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 (^{34a. 35b}) hardly goes beyond the conventional signs of mourning—‘the trappings and the suits of woe’; but Yahwist (^{34b. 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.