JOSE hijo de JACOB

narrative of Genesis 37–50.

A. The Name

B. The Tribe

C. The Story

1. Theme: Familial Strife

2. Plot

3. Theological Concerns

D. Sources

E. Genres

1. Sitz im Leben

2. Dating

F. Purpose of the Story

A. The Name

The name itself derives from the Hebrew verb ysp. It maintains its verbal form with an appropriate meaning: “He adds.” The popular etymology for the name in Gen 30:24 suggests that the divine name was the subject of the verb and that the meaning of the name is: “May the Lord add (to me another son).” Indeed, it is clear that names of this type commonly employed an additional element, the name of the deity who would underwrite the power of the name given to a human. From extrabiblical sources, for example, the name “Jacob-El” illustrates the form. That combination is implied by the explanation of the name Joseph. But this hypothetical long form is not attested in the OT traditions about Joseph.

B. The Tribe

The OT tradition about Joseph does not include him in the list of Israel’s patriarchs, instead listing these as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod 2:24; 3:6, 15; 4:5; etc.). Joseph belongs to the next generation, as one of the eponymic “fathers” of the twelve tribes of Israel (so, Josh 18:11; Judg 1:22; 2 Sam 19:21; 1 Kgs 11:28).

The tradition remembers that the tribe of Joseph was divided, perhaps at the time in the history of the tradition when Levi ceased functioning as a secular tribe: the subdivision of Joseph yielded two tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, incidentally preserving the number twelve, a structural constant in the political organization. This division appears in the narrative concerning the Joseph tradition in Gen 48:1–12 and in the report of the patriarchal blessing in vv 13–20. The same tradition is reflected in Josh 14:4; 16:4; 17:17, and in the Blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy 33. In Deut 33:13–17 Moses blesses the tribe of Joseph. But the final line, v 17b, recognizes the split in the structure of the Joseph tribe between Ephraim and Manasseh. Moreover, the Joseph unit becomes a symbol for the N kingdom, the nation of Israel, in contrast to the S kingdom, the nation of Judah (Ezek 5:6; 37:19; Obad 18; Zech 10:6).

C. The Story

For the OT tradition it is important to note not only that Joseph is the son of Jacob, one of a group of brothers who give their names to the twelve-tribe union that comprises Israel, but also that Joseph is the son of Rachel, the favorite wife of Jacob. The birth story sets the Joseph tradition into the form of a popular tale. Rachel, the favorite wife, had been barren. Leah, the sister of Rachel and the second wife of Jacob, had given birth to Reuben and Simeon. Rachel had adopted the son of her servant, Bilhah, and named him Naphtali. But only after the competition had taken Leah through six sons did Rachel finally break free from her barren status. The text makes the event explicitly an act of intervention from God: “God remembered Rachel … and opened her womb.” Thus, just as in the Abraham saga, where Sarah had been barren and in competition with Hagar, so in the Jacob saga, Rachel, who once was barren, gives birth to a son in the midst of family competition, indeed, family strife. That son is Joseph.

1. Theme: Familial Strife. Moreover, the birth story for Joseph has as its context other traditions surrounding strife in the family. The strife theme belongs to the complex of narrative motifs developed throughout the range of the Abraham saga and the Jacob saga. Indeed, the position of the death report for Jacob in Genesis 49 suggests that the Joseph tradition has been bound into the structure of the Jacob saga. From its larger context the Joseph story inherits a milieu of strife.

The position of the Joseph death report in Gen 50:22–26, an element which forms a counterpoint to the Joseph birth story, suggests that the patterns of a Joseph saga can still be seen in the Genesis narrative. Moreover, immediately preceding the Joseph death report, a recapitulation of motifs from earlier stages of the Joseph narrative suggests that at Joseph’s death, the family so marked by strife has still found no reconciliation. In this small segment of narrative, the brothers approach Joseph, who holds the power of life and death over them, and weave a tale about Jacob’s last wishes for reconciliation between the brothers and Joseph. Joseph responds favorably and grants his forgiveness to his brothers and, through that act, makes his contribution to reconciliation for the family. But the storyteller suggests by the particular construction of the scene that the reconciliation achieved is in fact a sham. The brothers’ story about Jacob’s last wish has no parallel in the preceding narratives. The brothers apparently intended to deceive Joseph in order to gain asylum. And with that act of deception, the story of a broken and suspicious family comes to an end.

2. Plot. A carefully constructed narrative about Joseph appears in the middle of the larger saga about Jacob with its emphasis on strife that breaks a family apart. This narrative about Joseph stands within the limits of the hypothetical Joseph saga, which is framed by a birth report and a death report. This narrative is different from the surrounding stories about Jacob and his family. It is not a collection of individual tales constructed into a family saga. It is a unit from the first scene to the last. It begins in 37:1 with a notation that “Jacob dwelt in the land of his father’s sojournings, in the land of Canaan.” And it ends in 47:27 with an exact parallel to its beginnings, the only two changes reflecting the consequence of the long, connected story: “Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen.”

The structure of the story framed by these two parallel sentences reveals a clearly constructed plot: (1) exposition (Gen 37:1–4); (2) complication (Gen 37:5–36); (3) digression (Genesis 39–41); (4) complication (Genesis 42–44); (5) denouement (Genesis 45); and (6) conclusion (Gen 46:1–47:27). Moreover, the unifying theme for the development of this plot is the same as the one that dominates the Abraham saga and the Jacob saga: strife in the family. Some indication of a critical role for the promise theme in the patriarchal traditions appears here. For example, in Joseph’s speech, 45:4b–13, Joseph avers that “God sent me before you to preserve life … God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to keep alive for you many survivors. So it was not you who sent me here, but God …” The many survivors fulfill the promise for great posterity, the promise that descendants would become a great nation. But the dominant theme in the Joseph story is strife in a family, broken family structures, and eventually, reconciliation that restores the family to a position of unity. The nature of that reconciliation is a key for the Joseph traditions in the Pentateuch, indeed, for the theological structure of the Pentateuch itself.

In the middle of the rather tight structure for the Joseph story, Genesis 39–41 represents a discrete, perhaps originally independent story about Joseph. The story has been used by the author of the larger narrative about Joseph. But in the present position as digression in the movement of narrative about Joseph and his brothers, this unit reveals its character as a story within a story, a story with its own independent structure, genre, and intention. The structure of the independent story comprises three distinct scenes, each designed to depict Joseph as the ideal administrator. The first scene, chap. 39, sets Joseph in Potiphar’s house. Finding favor in Potiphar’s sight because of his skill as administrator in the house, Joseph rises to the position of overseer in the house. When Potiphar’s wife attempts to seduce him, he refuses, not only because to submit would be a “sin against God,” but also because it would violate the responsibility he carried as administrator of Potiphar’s house. His refusal brought false accusation from the woman and prison from Potiphar, but clearly that fate occurs with Joseph’s integrity intact. In prison he rises to a position of trust in the eyes of the captain of the guard, receiving responsibility for two of the pharaoh’s servants jailed when they had fallen from the pharaoh’s favor. The servants dream prophetic dreams, report them to Joseph, and despite the negative meaning of one, receive interpretations from Joseph. Forgotten by the fortunate servant restored to the pharaoh’s favor, Joseph waits in prison until the pharaoh dreams a dream. When none of the pharaoh’s professional wise men could interpret it, the servant from the prison recalls Joseph’s abilities and recommends him to the pharaoh. Called to the royal chambers, Joseph interprets the royal dream. The pharaoh heeds Joseph’s suggestion to appoint a steward for the grain collected during the years of plenty. That steward should be wise and perceptive (the virtues characteristic for an administrator of skill); and since Joseph meets those virtues, he is appointed to the post.

As a complete story, this depiction of Joseph shows a pattern of virtue for all administrators to imitate. But in the larger Joseph story, the digression serves the narrative function of transition. It transports Joseph, the brash but abused brother in Jacob’s family, from his position in Canaan to his position in Egypt, where, in his new position of power, he may in turn choose to be brash and abusive.

The second complication in the structure of the Joseph story reverses the role of the principals as they appeared in the first complication. In the first complication Joseph is brash but at the mercy of his brothers. Indeed, the brothers manufacture a story to deceive the old father and set the stage for the broken family. In the second complication Joseph is still brash. But in this case, the unsuspecting brothers are at the mercy of the strange Egyptian who controls the food reserves. Joseph toys with them before he breaks the tension of the scene. First, he accuses them of spying. In order to prove their innocence, the brothers must return to their homes in order to bring the youngest son of Jacob and Rachel to the mysterious vizier. But in the process, they must leave a brother in Egypt, in prison, to await their return with proof of their true identity.

The brothers delay their return to Egypt, however, until the food bought in their first trip had been consumed. The reason for the delay rests with the father’s reluctance to send the youngest son of Rachel to such an uncertain fate. But in addition, the narrator heightens the sense of fate hanging over the brothers: when they had arrived at a resting-place on the journey to their homes after the first trip to Egypt, they discovered their money hidden in the sacks of grain. Without their knowledge Joseph had ordered the money be hidden in their sacks, but the discovery brought no joy. It does not disclose an act of reconciliation offered by Joseph to his brothers. It brought fear. “At this their hearts failed them … ‘What is this that God has done to us?’ ” With fate so mysterious, the brothers leave a brother in prison. When necessity finally weighed more heavily than their reluctance to return, they petitioned their father for permission to take Benjamin, the youngest son of Rachel, and return for a new round of provisions. With great fear and only after the strongest possible guarantee from Judah, Jacob agreed. And the brothers set out for Egypt again. In Egypt they gain an audience with the mysterious vizier, only to learn that no charge of theft lies against them. Their anxiety had had no ground in reality. They introduce their younger brother, arrange for the grain, and set out with all of the brothers in the company. All appears to be in order.

At this point Joseph springs the final trap. A servant overtakes the brothers’ caravan and accuses them of stealing the divining cup of the Egyptian. Protesting their innocence, the brothers submit to a search with a vow that any guilty brother found with the cup would die and the others would become slaves to the mysterious vizier. The storyteller’s skill holds the audience in suspense while he depicts the Egyptian searching each bag from the oldest brother to the youngest. (A similar technique for maintaining suspense appears in Genesis 31.) And again, the storyteller (or Joseph) springs his trap. The object of the search had been hidden in Benjamin’s bag. Benjamin would have to die, and the other brothers would become slaves. In that dire crisis the brothers return to Egypt in order to appear before the Egyptian.

The tension in the scene builds to a climax as the brothers present themselves to the Egyptian. The brothers expect to hear the judgment pronounced against them in accord with the oath. But in that setting, Judah offers himself in the place of the younger brother (cf. Moses in Exod 32:32). At the highest point of tension, Joseph breaks the charade and identifies himself as Joseph to his brothers (45:1–3). The revelation might have been depicted as good news. The brothers might assume that now they would be free of the judgment against them. But the storyteller controls the scene by observing that the brothers were dismayed when they learned Joseph’s identity. Joseph, even as brother, had the power of life and death over the guilty group. He could now openly seek his revenge. But the story moves in the opposite direction. Instead of death for the guilty brothers, Joseph “fell on his brother Benjamin’s neck and wept (cf. Gen 33:4) … and he kissed all of his brothers and wept on them, and after that his brothers talked to him.” The reconciliation among the brothers contrasts with the negative image in 37:4.

The conclusion carries the dramatic turning point in the story to a smooth ending. Joseph makes arrangements with his brothers for transporting the families still at home in Canaan, including the father, Jacob, to Egypt. The point is, of course, that in Egypt Jacob and the family (the children of Israel) would be under Joseph’s protection. But against the backdrop of the larger narrative, the transportation of the family to Egypt represents the reconciliation of a family broken apart by the strife among the brothers.

3. Theological Concerns. The theological character of that reconciliation is important to note. (1) Joseph avers that his own move to Egypt was the result, not of the evil intended against him by the brothers, but of the good intended for him and for many survivors (the descendants of Jacob/Israel or perhaps all the families of the world who eat from the bounty stored by Joseph in Egypt) from the hand of God. (2) But the story is not primarily about God’s intervention to save the day; it is also about Joseph’s initiative, even in the face of hostility, to save the day for all the people of the world. It is also about Joseph’s initiative to save the day for his brothers and his father. To be sure, he sports with them; there is no reconciliation in that. But finally, he welcomes his family to Egypt and shows them how to prepare for their future. The family disregarded a tragic past and committed themselves to one another in a common future. As a result, the reconciliation that appeared elusive for the patriarchal generation came to some fruition through Joseph. (3) Joseph’s wisdom and perception influence not only the story within the story (Genesis 39–41), but also the entire structure of the narrative. Joseph’s integrity as administrator facilitates reconciliation of the family.

D. Sources

The Joseph story has served OT scholars as a showcase for evidence that can be used to support identification of the classical pentateuchal sources. The Priestly source does not appear in the narrative to any significant extent. Indeed, even the few fragments defined by source critics as a part of P can be understood more adequately as intrinsic parts of the whole. Gen 37:1–2, for example, serves as a key in the parallel that marks the beginning and ending of the story and cannot be explained as an imitation of the Priestly formula about the generations of Israel.

The more important argument about sources in the Joseph story asserts that in the middle of the predominantly J narrative fragments of the E source appear and that this can be detected by the significant presence of repetitions and duplications of material. For example, the brothers of Joseph appear as the sons of Israel (J) or the sons of Jacob (E). A compassionate brother, at first Judah (J), then Reuben (E), defends Joseph against the plan to sell him to the Ishmaelites (J) or simply to let him fall into the hands of the Midianites (E). Joseph becomes the slave of an unnamed Egyptian whose wife attempts to seduce him (J) or the slave of Potiphar, the captain of the prison (E). Joseph becomes the administrator of the land of Egypt (J), but he has responsibility for the pharaoh’s household (E). The sons of Israel (J) or of Jacob (E) come to Egypt. Joseph accuses them of seeking advantage in Egypt (J) or of being spies (E). On their return they find their money hidden in their sacks of grain at an inn on the way to their home (J) and the rest of the money when they arrive at home (E). On the second journey they are invited to settle in Egypt by Joseph (E) and by the pharaoh (J).

Yet, more recent examination of the story softens the argument for two sources by suggesting that one author can use repetition as a narrative technique for emphasis, perhaps simply for variety. Perhaps two brothers could be depicted as compassionate by a single source. Perhaps the mysterious Egyptian could accuse the sons of Jacob of general exploration seeking advantage, then of a more specific act, spying for military advantage. The strongest argument for two sources in the Joseph story is the doublet represented by the reference in 37:25 to the Ishmaelites, then the reference in 37:27 to the Midianites. The doublet is compounded in 37:36 with a note that the Midianites sold Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar, while 39:1 notes that Potiphar had bought Joseph from the Ishmaelites. This apparent doublet disappears, however, if one recognizes that the words “Midianite traders passed by” in 37:28 are a gloss. If these words were not in the text, then the brothers would be the subject of the verbs in v 28: “They drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver and they (the Ishmaelites) took Joseph to Egypt.” The gloss could have arisen to shield the other sons of Israel against the charge of selling a brother into slavery, a crime punishable by death (Deut 24:7). Moreover, to treat the reference to the Midianites in vv 28 and 36 as glosses removes the obvious contradiction in the story. Verse 28 reports that the Midianites sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, while verse 36 reports that they sold him to Potiphar.

These observations support more recent analysis of the Joseph story that concludes that the story is fundamentally a unit, the work of one hand. It is easy to argue that that hand belongs to the Yahwist (J). The Joseph story fits appropriately in the larger structure of the Yahwist. The Yahwist has used the Joseph story to bridge the gap between patriarchs in Canaan and Israelites in Egypt. But there is no clear evidence that the author who constructed the lengthy narrative, the Joseph story, was the Yahwist. The appropriate conclusion seems to be that the Yahwist has used a carefully constructed, distinct story about Joseph as the structural bridge for the larger narrative about Israel’s early history. While the Yahwist might have been the author, this conclusion cannot be firmly supported.

Questions about sources for the Joseph story must move the reader not only through observations about the classical sources for the Pentateuch as they might or might not appear in the Joseph story, but also through observations about other sources employed in the construction of the story. For example, the story within the story (Genesis 39–41) represents a distinct element in the structure of the Joseph story as it now appears. What can be said about the tradition preserved in that story? An Egyptian narrative, commonly called the “Tale of the Two Brothers,” describes the events in the relationship of two brothers. The younger brother lived with his older brother and his wife. It was his duty to work in the older brother’s fields; and in return the older brother provided food, shelter, and clothes for the younger brother. The younger brother was highly successful in his work, producing a good return from the cattle in his care. On one trip from the field to the older brother’s house in order to obtain seed for planting, the younger brother encountered the seductive invitation of the elder brother’s wife. The younger brother refused the invitation. But the woman manufactured false evidence and accused him of an attack. Her husband then created a plan to kill his younger brother. Saved by a message from a cow in his care, the younger brother fled. The story continues beyond its parallel with Joseph. But the pattern at the beginning of the tale suggests a plot in common with the account of Joseph in the house of Potiphar.

A second Egyptian story relevant for understanding the Joseph traditions is the “Tale of Sinuhe.” This story enlarges the picture of relationships between Palestine and Egypt. Sinuhe, an Egyptian official who left his homeland in voluntary exile, met hospitality in the various stages of his journey. Indeed, the ideal relationships developed by the young man in foreign courts suggest that, like Joseph, Sinuhe served as a model for a courtier in a period of relative prosperity. And he carries that model back to his home and his own people.

It is possible that these Egyptian stories undergird the Joseph story, particularly the story within the story. This observation does not suggest that the author of the Joseph story has used the Egyptian parallels in the same way that he used the story within the story to build his narrative; rather it suggests only that the narrative motifs were part of the culture that gave rise to the Joseph story.

The pattern of the Joseph story puts greater weight on the creativity of the author. To be sure, the author used traditions of storytelling such as the “Tale of the Two Brothers” in the construction of the Joseph story. And the traditions of the promise to the fathers or the strife within the family represent building blocks for the narrative. The Joseph story does reveal its position in the history of Israel’s tradition and, indeed, in the tradition of storytelling in the ANE world. Yet, the significance of the Joseph story lies in its own unique construction with its own unique functions and intention.

E. Genres

The genre of the Joseph story supports this description of the constructional uniqueness in the structure of its narration. A consensus is that the Joseph story is a novella, a genre category that facilitates the original conceptions of an artist rather than the patterns of a traditional folk story handed down from one generation to the next. It may be the case that a tale lies behind this extended story of Joseph, a brief story that would have concentrated on the event that broke the unity of Jacob’s family and then the event that would have brought them together again. A novella is a creative construction by the author, designed to meet the author’s distinctive goals. The author presents not simply what happened long ago and far away, but rather what happened and continues to happen so that the traditions carried by the plot structure capture each new audience. Historical figures and events are caught up into an imaginative fabric produced by the creative activity of the author. Its concern is not to report historical events; it is to build a plot that will hold the audience through its development to a point of climax. And in its development, it reflects the process of life that can give identity to its audience. Indeed, the genre facilitates construction of the plot so that particular facets in the process of life can have an impact on the audience as forceful influences in that quest for identity.

The story within the story (chaps. 39–41) can be isolated from the longer novella and analyzed for itself. The patterns of three scenes in this story depict the ideal shape of the administrator in a household, in a prison, and finally in the royal court. As ideal administrator, the hero emerges as a figure whose virtues can be imitated by all subsequent administrators. Joseph sets the pace for all who exercise responsibility in the organization of a superior. As the ideal whose virtues can be imitated by future generations, this figure functions as the hero of a legend. The story about Joseph, who rises from rags to riches, is a legend designed to show courtiers what responsibility in their profession looks like. It should be clear that classification of this story, so similar to narratives from Egypt, does not define historicity in the Joseph story. The rise from rags to riches may be accurate history describing how one of Israel’s ancestors in fact rose to power in Egypt. It may be a story of magnificent imagination, influenced by similar tales and legends from Egypt. To define the story as legend does not establish or deny historicity for the tradition that Joseph was an Egyptian vizier. It shows simply that the story depicts Joseph as the administrator whose virtues should be imitated by all subsequent administrators.

1. Sitz im Leben. The question about setting for these levels of tradition in the Joseph story is more difficult. The legend shows evidence of setting in the circles of ANE wisdom. The hero at the center of the legend depicts the virtues of wisdom and perception, virtues that enable any person to function as administrator in a royal court, a prison, a complex household (cf. 1 Kgs 3:3–15). That wisdom legend influences the larger novella. Yet, it does not necessitate the conclusion that the novella is also a wisdom story. The setting for the novella is a literary one, the productivity of the author who imposes his own mark onto the shape of the story. That the author knows the cultural constructions of Egypt reveals a cosmopolitan milieu. It might be reasonable to imagine that the author was at home in the enlightenment supported by the royal court, perhaps even the cultural activity of the Solomonic court. That the author had access to a wisdom legend suggests familiarity with wisdom resources. But with the same manner of caution that guards against identification of the author of the story as the Yahwist, so caution guards against ready identification of the setting for the story as a whole as wisdom. At most it can be said that it is a carefully constructed artwork from the hand of an author.

2. Dating. The question of the historical situation for the Joseph novella hides two questions: (1) when did the author of the novella compose the story? and (2) what is the period in which the Joseph story is set? If the Sitz im Leben defined above (the enlightenment of the royal court) has any merit, then the time for the construction of the novella might be set in the Solomonic court or some period shortly after that time when the patronage of the king could have supported such artistic composition. That time, roughly the 10th century b.c., would correspond to the period traditionally identified as the time for the origin of the Yahwist’s production of the whole narrative tradition.

At least two important pieces of extrabiblical evidence have been appealed to in order to date the era in which the Joseph novella is set. A number of documents (most notably, the Amarna Letters) attest to the LB period. These were rootless people living on the fringe of society. It is possible that the OT term Hebrew is related to this widespread term. See HABIRU, HAPIRU. When Potiphar’s wife accuses Joseph of an attack to her husband, she calls him a Hebrew, as if the term were derogatory. One might inquire whether the habiru might have been involved among the people noted by an Egyptian frontier official in a report about passage of people in and out of Egypt during periods of famine. Other documents attest to the invasions of the Hyksos, a Semitic people who usurped political control in Egypt during a period from 1700 to 1550 b.c. See HYKSOS. It is possible that these people were more favorable to people like Joseph and his family, and it is also possible that the reference to a pharaoh “who did not know Joseph” (Exod 1:8) recalls a period when the Hyksos leadership in Egypt was rejected in favor of a new dynasty of native Egyptian kings.

Yet, it is important to note that none of the documents from the 2d millennium mention Joseph and his brothers by name. The documents serve only to establish that the Joseph story builds its plot with careful attention to cultural detail from a particular period. The story employs historical verisimilitude effectively. But the effective description of a culture that did in fact exist does not establish the historicity of the events and personalities set out in the Joseph novella, nor does it deny it. The story has value as a story, not as an object that leads its audience behind the story to some other reality such as the factual, historical events involving Joseph, his brothers, and his father. The same point can be made about the definition of the genre for the story. To define the story as novella does not mean that the description of the events in the plot is simply fiction. Nothing in the designation of the genre denies the possibility that the plot structure reflects historical events. But the designation of the genre does not enable the critic to move behind the story to reconstruct the process of history.

F. Purpose of the Story

The Joseph novella has at least two significant intentions. (1) It intends to depict the ideal power figure. Joseph, the vizier of Egypt, uses his power not only to facilitate the reconciliation of his family and their security during devastating years of famine, but also to preserve people from all the neighboring world who come to him for food. He administers the grain reserves in Egypt without prejudice for one group of people or another. The twin virtues of wisdom and perception become the virtues that all persons in positions of power should have (1 Kgs 3:12; cf. also Ps 105:16–22). (2) The novella also bridges the OT traditions about the patriarchal fathers in Canaan (Genesis 11–38) and those about the Israelites in Egypt (Exodus). One should not conclude from this observation that the Joseph novella has no value in and of itself. Its value within its own construct comes to light particularly in the second stage of its account of movement from Canaan to Egypt. Reconciliation comes to a family torn apart by strife by moving beyond contention to consider prospects for the future. The death report about Joseph, with its bond concerning Joseph’s bones as part of the move back to Canaan (cf. Exod 13:19; Josh 24:32), expands the Joseph tradition into the future stages of Israel’s life on the land. At this point of transition, the Joseph story plays an essential role in the shape of Israel’s traditions. The structure of the Pentateuch/Hexateuch shows a problem not only in the position of the Sinai traditions within the framework of the whole, but also in the relationship between the patriarchal theme and the Exodus theme. What kind of relationship did the patriarchal traditions, with their focus on strife/promise have with the Exodus tradition, with its focus on redemption from oppression? The Joseph novella answers the question. But the answer lies not simply in having Jacob in Canaan become Israel in Egypt. The promise theme from Gen 12:1–3 finds no explicit point of contact here; implicitly it appears in the act of God through Joseph to save a remnant of Jacob’s people. But promise language does not appear.

In place of the promise language, the content of the entire Joseph story revolves around the issue of strife that breaks a family apart. And as a story about strife, the Joseph novella fits the context in the patriarchal theme generally; and the Joseph novella in particular is focused upon that strife. How can a family torn apart by strife be reconciled? Or, more to the point of the theology reflected in Gen 12:1–3, how can a family broken apart by strife serve as a vehicle for God’s blessing? The answer to the question posed for the entire patriarchal theme is that given by Joseph’s leadership: the family turns from the strife in the past to a commitment to each other for a common future. That intimacy is secured in the symbol of the Joseph tradition with the oath to bury Joseph’s bones with the family in Canaan. The familial intimacy lost in the Garden and in the struggles among people during the periods of the Flood and the Tower of Babel could be restored among the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob through their mutual commitment to a common future. Moreover, the power exercised by Joseph over the Egyptians but also over the family facilitates reconciliation. The Joseph story ends on a note of common hope, indeed, a note of union for the future.

Yet, the Joseph tradition does not end uniformly on a note of reconciliation. The death report for Jacob illustrates the continued break in the family and suggests that the final reconciliation in the people of God is projected beyond the patriarchal people to the next generation. The question posed (by the Yahwist?) in the Joseph narrative is thus: Will a reconciliation restore the intimacy of God’s people in the next generation? That facet of manipulation, that ploy of deception, in contrast to the Joseph novella recalls the negative element in the patriarchal sagas and anticipates the negative element in the Moses saga. God acts for the sake of the people. But the people show tragically a negative, rebellious side. In what manner can reconciliation for these people ever occur? For further discussion, see commentaries on Genesis in AB, OTL, BKAT, IBC, and FOTL

Bibliography

Coats, G. W. 1975. From Canaan to Egypt: Structural and Theological Context for the Joseph Story. CBQMS 4. Washington.

Humphreys, W. L. 1970. The Motif of the Wise Courtier in the OT. Diss., Union Theological Seminary.

Rad, G. von. 1971. The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom. Pp. 292–300 in PHOE.

Seybold, D. A. 1974. Paradox and Symmetry in the Joseph Narrative. Pp. 59–73 in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, ed. K. R. R. Gros-Louis, J. S. Ackerman and T. S. Warshaw. Nashville.

Coats, G. W. (1992). Joseph, Son of Jacob. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 3, pp. 976–981). New York: Doubleday.