Chapter XL · Joseph proves his Gift of interpreting Dreams (Elohist).

Joseph is appointed to wait on two officers of the court who have been put under arrest in his master’s house (^1‒4), and finds them one morning troubled by dreams for which they have no interpreter (^5‒8). He interprets the dreams (^9‒19), which are speedily verified by the event (^20‒22). But his eager request that the chief butler would intercede for him with Pharaoh (^{14 f.}) remains unheeded (²³).

Source.—The main narrative, as summarised above, obviously belongs to Elohist (see page 456 f.). Joseph is not a prisoner (as in Yahwist 39^{20 ff.}), but the servant of the captain of the guard (compare 37³⁶ 41¹²); the officers are not strictly imprisoned, but merely placed ‘in ward’ (במשמר) in Potiphar’s house (^{3. 4. 7}); and Joseph was ‘stolen’ from his native land (^15a; compare 37^28a), not sold by his brethren as 37^28b (Yahwist).—Fragments of a parallel narrative in Yahwist can be detected in ^1aβb (a duplicate of ²), ^3aβ (from אל־בית ה׳) ᵇ (Joseph a prisoner), ^5b (the officers imprisoned), and ^15b.—In the phraseology note Yahwist’s המשקה, האפה, ^{1. 5b} ∥ Elohist’s שר המשקים, ש׳ האפים, ^{2. 9. 16. 20. 21. 22. 23}; Yahwist בית הסהר, ^{3aβ. 5b} ∥ Elohist משמר, ^{3aα. 4. 7}; while שר הטבחים, ^{3. 4}, and סריס, ^{2. 7}, connect the main narrative with 37³⁶ (Elohist).—That in Yahwist the turn of Joseph’s fortune depended on the successful interpretation of dreams does not explicitly appear, but may be presumed from the fact that he was afterwards brought from the dungeon to interpret them (41^14aβ Yahwist).

1‒8. Pharaoh’s officers in disgrace: their dreams.—1. the butler ... the baker] Yahwist writes as if the king had only one servant of each class: his notions of a royal establishment are perhaps simpler than Elohist’s. In Babylonia the highest and oldest court offices are said to have been those of the baker and the butler (Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 54; compare Zimmern, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, liii. 119 f.).—2. chief of the butlers ... bakers (Elohist)] The rise of household slaves to high civil dignity seems to have been characteristic of the Egyptian government under the 19th dynasty (Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 105). Titles corresponding to those here used are ‘scribe of the sideboard,’ ‘superintendent of the bakehouse,’ etc. (Erman, 187).—3a. The officers are not incarcerated, but merely detained in custody pending investigation (Gunkel).—3b (Yahwist). bound] i.e. ‘confined’; compare 39^{22 f.}.—4. Joseph is charged with the duty of waiting on them (שֵׁרֵת as 39⁴, 2 Samuel 13¹⁷). 5‒8 is a skilful piece of narration: the effect of the dreams is vividly depicted before their character is disclosed.—5. each according to the interpretation of his dream] a sort of idem per idem construction, meaning that the dreams had each a peculiar significance.—5b (Yahwist).—8. no one to interpret it] No professional interpreter, such as they would certainly have consulted had they been at liberty.—interpretations belong to God] The maxim is quite in accord with Egyptian sentiment (Herodotus, ii. 83), but in the mouth of Joseph it expresses the Hebrew idea that inspiration comes directly from God and is not a מִצְוַת אֲנָשִׁים מְלֻמָּדָה (Isaiah 29¹³).

On the Egyptian belief in divinely inspired dreams, see Ebers, 321 f.; Wiedemann, Religion of the ancient Egyptians 266 ff.; Heyes, 174 ff.: on the belief in classical antiquity, Homer Iliad ii. 5‒34, Odyssey iv. 795 ff.; Cicero, De Divinatione i. § 39 ff. etc.; in modern Egypt, Lane, An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians⁵, i. 330. While this idea was fully shared by the Israelites, the interpretation of dreams, as a distinct art or gift, is rarely referred to in Old Testament (only in the case of Joseph, and that of Daniel, which is largely modelled on it). Elsewhere the dream either contains the revelation (20^{3 ff.} etc.), or carries its significance on its face (28^{12 ff.} 37¹⁰). See Stade Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments § 63. 1.

1. משׁקֵה—והאפה] On the syntax, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 128 a, 129 h; Davidson § 27 (b): compare verse ⁵.—2. ויקצף is the regular continuation of the time-clause in ^1a (Elohist).—סָֽריסיו] with so-called qamez impurum; so always except in construct state (40⁷ etc.).—3. במשמַר] Better perhaps במשמָר (compare verse ⁴), with בית as accusative of place. So verse ⁷.—4. ימים = ‘for some time’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 139 h.—6. זעף] ‘be fretful’; elsewhere late (Daniel 1¹⁰, Proverbs 19³, 2 Chronicles 26¹⁹†).—8. פתר אין] On the order, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 152 o.—פתרנים] LXX פתרנָם.

9‒19. The dreams interpreted.—9‒11. The butler had seen a vine pass rapidly through the stages of its growth; had seemed to squeeze the ripe grapes into a cup and present it to Pharaoh,—a mixture of the ‘realistic’ and the ‘fantastic’ which belongs to the psychology of the dream (Gunkel). It is disputed whether the drinking of the fresh juice is realism or phantasy. “The ordinary interpretation is that the king drank the fresh grape-juice; but as the butler sees the natural process of the growth of the grapes take place with dream-like swiftness, so probably it is taken for granted that the juice became wine in similar fashion” (Bennett; so Gunkel). On the other hand, Ebers (Durch Gosen zum Sinai², 492) cites two texts in which a beverage prepared by squeezing grapes into water is mentioned.—12, 13. The interpretation: the butler will be restored to his office within three days.—lift up thy head] Commonly understood of restoration to honour. But in view of the fact that the phrase is used of the baker also, it may be doubted if it be not a technical phrase for release from prison (as it is in 2 Kings 25²⁷, Jeremiah 52³¹).—14, 15. Joseph’s petition.—remember me] On the difficult construction, v.i.—from this house] Not the prison (as version, below), but Potiphar’s house, where he was kept as a slave.—15a. I was stolen] compare 37^28aα (Elohist).—the land of the Hebrews] The expression is an anachronism in the patriarchal history. It is barely possible that both here and in 39^{14. 17} (41¹²) there is a faint reminiscence of the historical background of the legends, the early occupation of Palestine by Hebrew tribes.—15b (Yahwist) was probably followed in the original document by an explanation of the circumstances which led to his imprisonment.—16‒19. The baker’s dream contains sinister features which were absent from the first, the decisive difference being that while the butler dreamed that he actually performed the duties of his office, the baker only sought to do so, and was prevented (Gunkel).—16. three baskets of white bread] The meaning of חֹרִי, however, is doubtful (v.i.).—upon my head] See the picture of the court-bakery of Rameses III. in Ebers, Ägypten und die Bücher Moses 332; Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 191. According to Ebers, the custom of carrying on the head (Herodotus ii. 35) was not usual in ancient Egypt except for bakers.—17. in the uppermost basket] Were the other two empty (Holzinger, Bennett)? or were they filled with inferior bread for the court (Gunkel)?—all manner of bakemeats] The court-baker of Rameses III. “is not content with the usual shapes used for bread, but makes his cakes in all manner of forms. Some are of a spiral shape like the ‘snails’ of our confectioners; others are coloured dark-brown or red,” etc. (Erman, 192).—while the birds kept eating] In real life he would have driven off the birds (compare 15¹¹); in the dream—and this is the ominous circumstance—he cannot.—19. lift thy head from off thee] In view of the fulfilment, it is perhaps better (with Ball) to remove מעליך as a mistaken repetition of the last word of the verse, and to understand the phrase of the baker’s release from prison (see on verse ¹³). The verb hang may then refer to the mode of execution, and not merely (as generally supposed) to the exposure of the decapitated corpse. Decapitation is said to have been a commoner punishment in Egypt than hanging, but the latter was not unknown (Ebers, 334). The destruction of the corpse by birds must have been specially abhorrent to Egyptians, from the importance they attached to the preservation of the body after death. For Old Testament examples, see Deuteronomy 21^{22 f.}, Joshua 10²⁶, 2 Samuel 4¹², and especially 2 Samuel 21^{9. 10}.

10. והוא כפרחת] Not ‘when it budded’ (Peshiṭtå,Targum^Onkelos), for such a use of כְּ with a participle (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 164 g) is dubious even in the Mishnah (The Jewish Quarterly Review, 1908, 697 f.). If the text be retained we must render ‘as if budding’ (Driver, A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew page 172²). Ball emends (after LXX καὶ αὐτὴ θάλλουσα) והיא מַפְרַחַת (compare Job 14⁹, Psalms 92¹⁴); Kittel כְּפָרְחָהּ.—נִצָּהּ] The masculine נֵץ does not occur (in this sense) in biblical Hebrew, and a contraction of ־ָתָהּ to ־ָהּ is doubtful (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 e); hence it is better to read נִצָּה as accusative: ‘it (the vine) went up in blossom.’ It is possible that here and Isaiah 18⁵ נִצָּה means ‘berry-cluster’; see Derenbourg, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, v. 301 f.—הבשילו] literally ‘cooked’; Hiphil only here.—Note the asyndetous construction, expressing the rapidity of the process.—13. יִשָּׂא—אָת־ראשך] LXX μνησθήσεται ... τῆς ἀρχῆς σου; similarly Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targum^Onkelos.—כֵּן] literally ‘pedestal,’ used metaphorically as here in 41¹³, Daniel 11^{7. 20. 21. 38}†.—14. כי אם־זכרתני] LXX ἀλλὰ μνήσθητί μου, Vulgate tantum memento mei; similarly Peshiṭtå and Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan}. Something like this must be the meaning; the difficulty is (since a precative perfect is generally disallowed in Hebrew) to fit the sense to any known use of the bare perfect. (a) If it be perfect of certitude, the nearest analogy seems to me to be Judges 15⁷, where כי אם has strong affirmative force, perhaps with a suppressed adjuration, as 2 Kings 5²⁰ (חי יהוה כי אם רצתי): ‘thou wilt surely remember me.’ To supply a negative sentence like ‘I desire nothing [except that thou remember me]’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 163 d; Delitzsch, Strack), destroys the idea of perfect of certainty, and is a doubtful expedient for the additional reason that כי אם may mean ‘except,’ but hardly ‘except that.’ (b) It may be future perfect, in which case the אם must have its separate conditional sense; and then it is better (with Wellhausen) to change כי to אַךְ: ‘only, if thou remember me.’ The objection (Delitzsch, Dillmann) that the remembrance is too essential an element of the request to be made a mere condition, has no great weight; and might be met by giving אִם interrogative force (Holzinger). See, further, Driver A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 119 (δ).—ועשית־נא] The only case of consecutive perfect followed by נא (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 105 b).—מן־הבית הזה] LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan} seem to have read מן־הַבּוֹר הזה, or מִבֵּית הַסֹּהַר הזה.—16. חֹרִי] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, commonly derived from √ חָוַר ‘be white’; so virtually LXX, Aquila, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targum^Jonathan; but Targum^Onkelos ‘of nobility’ (דְּחֵרוּ). Others (Rashi, al.) understand it as a characteristic of the baskets: ‘perforated’ (from חוֹר, ‘hole’). The βαϊνά (of palm-leaves) of Symmachus seems to rest on Aramaic (Field).—19. מעליך¹] Omitted by two MSS and Vulgate (Ball, Kittel).

20‒23. The dreams fulfilled.—20. That it was customary for the Pharaoh to celebrate his birthday by court assemblies and granting of amnesties, is proved for the Ptolemaic period by the tables of Rosetta and Canopus.—lifted the head] see on verse ¹⁹.—23. The notice of the butler’s ingratitude forms an effective close, leaving the reader expectant of further developments.

20. הלדת את־] as Ezekiel 16⁵; compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 69 w, 121 b.—21. מַשְׁקֶה] is never elsewhere used of the office of butler: perhaps ‘over his [Pharaoh’s] drink’ (as we should say, ‘his cellar’), as Leviticus 11³⁴, 1 Kings 10²¹, Isaiah 32⁶ (so Gesenius, Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti, Dillmann).—23. וַיּשכחהו] Expressing “a logical or necessary consequence of that which immediately precedes” (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 111 l); compare Davidson § 47.