Judah, separating himself from his brethren, marries a Canaanitish wife, who bears to him three sons, ‛Er, ’Ônān and Shēlāh (1–5). ‛Er and ’Onan become in succession the husbands of Tamar (under the levirate law), and die without issue; and Judah orders Tamar to remain a widow in her father’s house till Shelah should reach manhood (6–11). Finding herself deceived, Tamar resorts to a desperate stratagem, by which she procures offspring from Judah himself (12–26). With the birth of her twin sons, Pereẓ and Zeraḥ, the narrative closes (27–30).
The story rests on a substratum of tribal history, being in the main a legendary account of the origin of the principal clans of Judah. To this historical nucleus we may reckon such facts as these: the isolation of Judah from the rest of the tribes (see on verse ¹); the mixed origin of its leading families; the extinction of the two oldest clans, ‛Er and ’Onan; the rivalry of the younger branches, Pereẓ and Zeraḥ, ending in the supremacy of the former; and (possibly) the superiority of these two (as sons of Judah) to the more ancient Shelah (his grandson). See Steuernagel, Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 79 f.; where, however, the ethnological explanation is carried further than is reasonable.—It is obvious that the legend belongs to a cycle of tradition quite independent of the story of Joseph. The latter knows of no separation of Judah from his brethren, and this record leaves no room for a reunion. Although Priestly-Code, who had both before him, represents Judah and his sons as afterwards accompanying Jacob to Egypt (46¹²), there can be no doubt that the intention of this passage is to relate the permanent settlement of Judah in Palestine. Where precisely the break with the prevalent tradition occurs, we cannot certainly determine. It is possible that the figure of Judah here is simply a personification of the tribe, which has never been brought into connexion with the family history of Jacob: in this case the events reflected may be assigned to the period subsequent to the Exodus. It seems a more natural supposition, however, that the legend ignores the Exodus altogether, and belongs to a stratum of tradition in which the occupation of Canaan is traced back to Jacob and his immediate descendants (see pages 418, 507).—On some touches of mythological colouring in the story of Tamar, see below, pages 452, 454.
Source.—The chapter is a pure specimen of Yahwistic narration, free from redactional manipulation. The following characteristics of Yahwist may be noted: יהוה, 7. 10; רע בעינו, 7. 10; הבה־נא, ¹⁶; הכר־נא, ²⁵ (37³²); כי־על־כן, ²⁶; ידע; ²⁶; further, the naming of the children by the mother, 3–5; and the resemblance of 27 f. to 2524 f.. Since the sequence of 39¹ on 37³⁶ would be harsh, it is probable that chapter 38 was inserted here by RedactorJehovist (Holzinger).
1–5. Judah founds a separate family at Adullam.—1. went down from his brethren] Since the chapter has no connexion with the history of Joseph, we cannot tell when or where the separation is conceived to have taken place. From the situation of ‛Adullām, it is clear that some place in the central highlands is indicated. Adullam is possibly ‛Īd el-Mīye (or ‛Aid el-Mā), on the border of the Shephelah, 12 miles South-west of Bethlehem and 7 North-east of Eleutheropolis (Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina, 193; Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 229). It is marked on the Palestinian Survey map as 1150 feet above sea-level.
The isolation of the tribe of Judah was a fact of capital importance in the early history of Israel. The separation is described in Judges 13 ff.; in the song of Deborah (Judges 5) Judah is not mentioned either for praise or blame; and his reunion with Israel is prayed for in Deuteronomy 33⁷. The rupture of the Davidic kingdom, and the permanent cleavage between south and north, are perhaps in part a consequence of the stronger infusion of foreign blood in the southern tribe. The verse suggests that the first Judahite settlement was at ‛Adullam, where the tribe gained a footing by alliance with a native clan named Ḥîrāh; but Meyer (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 435 f.) thinks it presupposes a previous occupation of the region round Bethlehem, and deals merely with an extension towards the Shephelah. It is certainly difficult otherwise to account for the verb ירד (contrast וַיַּעַל, Judges 1⁴); but were Judah’s brethren ever settled at Bethlehem? Gunkel’s emendation, וַיָּרָד, ‘freed himself’ (see on 27⁴⁰; compare Hosea 12¹), would relieve the difficulty, but is too bold for a plain prose narrative.
1. ויט] LXX ἀφίκετο the precise force here of נטה, ‘turn aside,’ is doubtful. The change of עד to אל (Ball) is unnecessary (compare 1 Samuel 9⁹).
2. A more permanent amalgamation with the Canaanites is represented by Judah’s marriage with or Bath-Shûa‛ or Bath-Sheva‛ (See on verse ¹²). The freedom with which connubium with the Canaanites is acknowledged (contrast 34. 24³) may be a proof of the antiquity of the source (Holzinger, Gunkel).—5b. in Kĕzîb, etc.] It is plausibly inferred that Kĕzîb (= ’Akzîb, an unknown locality in the Shephelah, Joshua 15⁴⁴, Micah 1¹⁴) was the centre of the clan of Shelah; though LXX makes all three births happen there.
2. וּשְׁמוֹ] LXX וּשְׁמָהּ. See on verse ¹².—3. ויקרא] Better as verses 4. 5 ותקרא (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, TargumJonathan, Hebrew MSS).—5. שֵׁלָה] LXX Σηλώμ; compare the gentilic שֵׁלָנִי, Numbers 26²⁰.—והיה] is impossible, and The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ויהי little better. Read with LXX וְהִיא.—בכזיב] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch בכזבה, compare כֹּזֵבָא, 1 Chronicles 4²².—אתו] LXX אֹתָם.—Nothing can be made of the strange renderings of 5b in Peshiṭtå and Vulgate: (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word); quo nato parere ultra cessavit (compare 29³⁵ 30⁹).
6–11. Tamar’s wrong.—6. Tamar, the Hebrew word for date-palm, occurs twice as a female name in David’s family (2 Samuel 13¹ 14²⁷). There is therefore little probability that it is here a personification of the city of the same name on the South border of Palestine (Ezekiel 47¹⁹) (so Steuernagel). A mythological origin is suggested on page 452 below.—As head of the family, Judah chooses a wife for his first-born (24³ 34⁴ 21²¹), as he is also responsible for the carrying out of the levirate obligation (8. 11).—7. No crime is alleged against ‛Ēr, whose untimely death was probably the only evidence of Yahwe’s displeasure with him (Proverbs 10²⁷).—8–10. ’Onān, on the other hand, is slain because of the revolting manner in which he persistently evaded the sacred duty of raising up seed to his brother. It is not correct to say (with Gunkel) that his only offence was his selfish disregard of his deceased brother’s interests.—11. Judah sends Tamar home to her family, on the pretext that his third son Shelah is too young to marry her. His real motive is fear lest his only surviving son should share the fate of ‛Er and ’Onan, which he plainly attributes in some way to Tamar herself.—in thy father’s house] according to the law for a childless widow (Leviticus 22¹³, Ruth 1⁸).
The custom of levirate marriage here presupposed prevailed widely in primitive times, and is still observed in many parts of the world. In its Hebrew form it does not appear to have implied more than the duty of a surviving brother to procure male issue for the oldest member of a family, when he dies childless: the first-born son of the union is counted the son, and is the heir, to the deceased; and although in Deuteronomy 255 ff. the widow is said to become the wife of her brother-in-law, it may be questioned if in early times the union was more than temporary. It is most naturally explained as a survival, under patriarchal conditions, of some kind of polyandry, in which the wife was the common property of the kin-group (Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 146 ff.); and it naturally tended to be relaxed with the advance of civilisation. Hence the law of Deuteronomy 255–10 is essentially a concession to the prevalent reluctance to comply with the custom. This is also illustrated by the conduct of ’Onan: the sanctity of the obligation is so strong that he does not dare openly to defy it; yet his private family interest induces him to defeat its purpose. It is noteworthy that the only other historical example of the law—the analogous though not identical case of Boaz and Ruth—also reveals the tendency to escape its operation.—See Driver, A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy 280 ff. (with the authorities there cited); also Engert, Ehe- und Familienrecht der Hebräer, 15 ff.; Barton, A Sketch of Semitic Origins¹, 66 ff.
Judah’s belief that Tamar was the cause of the deaths of ‛Er and ’Onan (v.s.) may spring from an older form of the legend, in which she was actually credited with death-dealing power. Stucken and Jeremias recognise in this a common mythical motive,—the goddess who slays her lovers,—and point to the parallel case of Sara in the Book of Tobit (3⁸). Tamar and Sara (šarratu, a title of Ištar) were originally forms of Ištar (Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 381 f.). The connexion is possible; and if there be any truth in Barton’s speculation that the date-palm was sacred to Ištar (A Sketch of Semitic Origins¹, 92, 98, 102 ff.), it might furnish an explanation of the name Tamar.
7. יהוה²] LXX ὁ θεός.—8. יַבֵּם] Deuteronomy 255. 7†; denominative from יָבָם, the terminus technicus for ‘husband’s brother’ in relation to the levirate institution.—9. והיה אם] ‘as often as’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 159 o.—שִׁחֵת (sc. semen)] in the sense of ‘spoil,’ ‘make ineffective’ (Brown-Driver-Briggs).—נְתָן־ for תֵּת] only again Numbers 20²¹; compare הֲלֹךְ, Exodus 3¹⁹, Numbers 2213. 14. 16.—10. אשר עשה] LXX, prefix הַדָּבָר.—11. שְׁבִי, וַתֵּשֶׁב] Ball al. propose שֻׁבִי, וַתָּשָׁב, after Leviticus 22¹³; but see Isaiah 47⁸.
12–19. Tamar’s daring stratagem.—12. Bath-Shūa‛] See the footnote.—was comforted] a conventional phrase for the effect of the mourning ceremonies; see Jeremiah 16⁷.—The death of Judah’s wife is mentioned as a palliation of his subsequent behaviour: “even in early times it was considered not quite comme il faut for a married man to have intercourse with harlots” (Gunkel).—On the sheep-shearing, see 31¹⁹.—Ḥîrāh his associate] (see verse ¹) is mentioned here because of the part he has to play in the story (verses 20–23).—went up ... to Timnah] This cannot be the Danite Timnah (Joshua 15¹⁰ 19⁴³, Judges 141. 2. 5), which lies lower than ‛Adullam. Another Timnah South of Hebron (Joshua 15⁵⁷), but unidentified, might be meant; or it may be the modern Tibne, West of Bethlehem, though this is only 4 miles from ‛Adullam, and room has to be found for ‛Enaim between them (but v.i. on verse ¹⁴).—14. her widow’s garments] Compare Judith 8⁵ 10³ 16⁸.—She assumes the garb of a common prostitute, and sits, covered by the veil (see below on verse ²¹), by the wayside; compare Jeremiah 3², Ezekiel 16²⁵, Epistle of Jeremiah 43.—15. for she had covered her face] This explains, not Judah’s failure to recognise her, but his mistaking her for a harlot (see verse ¹⁶).—17. a kid of the goats] Compare Judges 15¹. The present of a kid on these occasions may be due to the fact that (as in classical antiquity) the goat was sacred to the goddess of love (Pausanias vi. 25. 2 [with Frazer’s Note, volume iv. 106]; compare Tacitus Histories 2, 3, and Lucian, Dialogi Meretricii 7. 1) (Knobel-Dillmann).—18. The master-stroke of Tamar’s plot is the securing of a pledge which rendered the identification of the owner absolutely certain. Seal, cord, and staff must have been the insignia of a man of rank amongst the Israelites, as seal and staff were among the Babylonians (Herodotus i. 195)¹ and Egyptians (Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 228 f.). The cord may have been used to suspend the seal, as amongst modern town Arabs (Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, i. 36), or may have had magical properties like those occasionally worn by Arab men (Wellhausen Reste arabischen Heidentums 166). For illustrations of ancient Hebrew seals, see Benzinger, Hebräische Archäologie² 82, 179 f., 228 ff.
12. בת־שׁוּעַ] Apparently a compound proper name, as in 1 Chronicles 2³ = בת־שֶׁבַע (compare 1 Chronicles 3⁵ with 2 Samuel 11³ etc.), through an intermediate בת־שֶׁוַע. LXX, both here and verse ² (but not 1 Chronicles 2³), gives שוע as the name of Judah’s wife.—רֵעֵהוּ] LXX, Vulgate רֹעֵהוּ, ‘his shepherd,’ wrongly.—13. חָם] ‘husband’s father,’ 1 Samuel 419. 21†. Smith (Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 161 f.) finds in the Arabic usage a distinct trace of ba‛al-polyandry; the correlative is kanna, “which usually means the wife of a son or brother, but in the Ḥamāsa is used ... to designate one’s own wife.”—14. וַתְּכַס] so Deuteronomy 22¹², Jonah 3⁶. Read either וַתִּכָּס, Niphal (Gunkel), or וַתִּתְכַּס, Hithpael, with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (as 24⁶⁵).—בפתח עינים] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word), Vulgate in bivio itineris, and TargumOnkelos-Jonathan take the meaning to be ‘at the cross-roads’ (of which there are several on the short way from ‛Aid el-Mā to Tibne). The sense is good, and it is tempting to think that these versions are on the right track, though their rendering has no support in Hebrew usage. If עינים be a proper name it may be identical with the unknown עֵינָם of Joshua 15³⁴, in the Shephelah.—וְהִוא לֹא נִתְּנָה לוֹ] LXX וְהוּא לֹא נְתָנָהּ לוֹ, better.—15. end] LXX + καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνω αὐτήν.
20–23. Judah fails to recover his pledge.—20. It is significant that Judah employs his fidus Achates Ḥirah in this discreditable affair, and will rather lose his seal, etc., than run the risk of publicity (verse ²³).—21. Where is that Ḳĕdēshāh?] strictly ‘sacred prostitute,’—one ‘dedicated’ for this purpose to Ištar-Astarte, or some other deity (Deuteronomy 23¹⁸, Hosea 4¹⁴†).
This is the only place where קדשה appears to be used of an ordinary harlot; and Luther (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 180) points out that it is confined to the conversation of Ḥirah with the natives, the writer using זוֹנָה. The code of Ḥammurabi (§ 110) seems to contemplate the case of a temple-votary (ḳadistu, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 423; Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 380) separating herself for private prostitution; and it is possible that this custom was familiar to the Canaanites, though not in Israel.—That the harlot’s veil (verses 14. 19) was a symbol of dedication to Ištar the veiled goddess (Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 276, 432; Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 109) is possible, though it is perhaps more natural to suppose that the veiling of Ištar is an idealisation of the veiling of her votaries, which rests on a primitive sexual taboo (compare the bridal veil 24⁶⁵).
21. מקמהּ] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå המקום (verse ²²). If this reading be accepted, there is no reason to hold that עינום (if a place-name at all) was Tamar’s native village.—הִוא] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ההיא; but see 19³³ etc.
24–26. The vindication of Tamar.—24. As the widow of ‛Er, or the betrothed of Shelah, Tamar is guilty of adultery, and it falls to Judah as head of the family to bring her to justice.—Lead her out] a forensic term, Deuteronomy 2221. 24.—let her be burnt] Death by burning is the punishment imposed in Ḫammurabi, § 157, for incest with a mother, and was doubtless the common punishment for adultery on the part of a woman in ancient Israel. In later times the milder penalty of stoning was substituted (Leviticus 20¹⁰, Deuteronomy 2223 ff., Ezekiel 16⁴⁰, Jonah 8⁵), the more cruel death being reserved for the prostitution of a priest’s daughter (Leviticus 21⁹; compare Ḫammurabi § 110).—25. By waiting till the last moment, Tamar makes her justification as public and dramatically complete as possible. Addressing the crowd she says, To the man who owns these things, etc.; to Judah himself she flings out the challenge, Recognise to whom this seal, etc., belong!—26. She is in the right as against me (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 133 b³; compare Job 4¹⁷ 32²)] i.e., her conduct is justified by the graver wrong done to her by Judah.
To suppose that incidents like that recorded in 12–26 were of frequent occurrence in ancient Israel, or that it was the duty of the father-in-law under any circumstances to marry his son’s widow, is to miss entirely the point of the narrative. On the contrary, as Gunkel well shows (365 f.), it is just the exceptional nature of the circumstances that explains the writer’s obvious admiration for Tamar’s heroic conduct. “Tamar shows her fortitude by her disregard of conventional prejudice, and her determination by any means in her power to secure her wifely rights within her husband’s family. To obtain this right the intrepid woman dares the utmost that womanly honour could endure,—stoops to the level of an unfortunate girl, and does that which in ordinary cases would lead to the most cruel and shameful death, bravely risking honour and life on the issue. At the same time, like a true mother in Judah, she manages her part so cleverly that the dangerous path conducts her to a happy goal.”—It follows that the episode is not meant to reflect discredit on the tribe of Judah. It presents Judah’s behaviour in as favourable a light as possible, suggesting extenuating circumstances for what could not be altogether excused; and regards that of Tamar as a glory to the tribe (compare Ruth 4¹²).
24. כמשלש] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch more correctly כמשלשת.—25. On the syntax, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 116 u, v, 142 e; Driver A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 166 ff.—לְאיש] construct state with clause as genitive; Holzinger al. point לָאיש.—החתמת] feminine only here.—הפתילים] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, TargumOnkelos הפתיל (as verse ¹⁸).—26. כי־על־כן] see on 18⁵.
27–30. Birth of Pereẓ and Zeraḥ.—The story closely resembles that of Rebekah in 2524–26 (3827b = 2524b), and is probably a variation of the same originally mythical theme (see page 359).—28. The scarlet thread probably represents some feature of the original myth (note that in 25²⁵ ‘the first came out red’). The forced etymology of Zeraḥ (verse ³⁰) could not have suggested it.—29. What a breach hast thou made for thyself!] The name Pereẓ expresses the violence with which he secured the priority.—30. Zeraḥ] An Edomite clan in 3613. 33. On the etymology, v.i.
To the name Pereẓ, Cheyne (Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, 357) aptly compares Plutarch’s account of the birth of Typhon, brother of Osiris: “neither in due time, nor in the right place, but breaking through with a blow, he leaped out through his mother’s side” (De Iside et Osiride chapter 12).—The ascendancy of the Pereẓ clan has been explained by the incorporation of the powerful families of Caleb and Jeraḥmeel, 1 Chronicles 5. 9 (so Stade Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 158 f.); but a more obvious reason is the fact that David’s ancestry was traced to this branch (Romans 418–22).
28. ויתן־יד] sc. הַנֹּתֵן (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 e); LXX + ὁ εἷς.—29. ויהי כְּמֵשִׁיב] An ungrammatical use of the participle. Read with Ball ויהי כְּמוֹ הֵשִׁיב (compare 19¹⁵).—פרצת—פרץ] cognitive accusative. The rendering as a question (מה = ‘why’: Delitzsch, Dillmann, Driver) is less natural than that given above; and to detach עליך פרץ [The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch עלינו] as a separate exclamation (‘A breach upon thee!’) is worse. LXX (τί διεκόπη διὰ σὲ φραγμός;) Vulgate, Peshiṭtå take the verb in a passive sense.—ויקרא] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Peshiṭtå, TargumJonathan ותקרא (so verse ³⁰).—30. זֶרַח] as a Hebrew word would mean ‘rising’ (of the sun, Isaiah 60³) or ‘autochthonous’ (= אָזְרָח). A connexion with the idea of ‘redness’ is difficult to establish. It is commonly supposed that there is a play on the Aramaic זחריתא (which is used here by Peshiṭtå, TargumOnkelos, and is the equivalent of Hebrew שָׁנִי), and Babylonian zaḫuritu (so Delitzsch, Driver, Gunkel, al.); but this is not convincing.
Joseph is sold by the Ishmaelites (3728. 36) to an Egyptian householder, who finds him so capable and successful that ere long he entrusts him with the whole administration of his estate (1–6). But his master’s wife conceives a guilty passion for him, and when her advances are repelled, falsely accuses him of attempted outrage, with the result that he is thrown into prison (7–20). Here again he wins the favour of his superior, and is soon charged with the oversight of the prison (21–23).
Source.—With the exception of a harmonising gloss in 1bα, and a sprinkling of Elohist variants (discussed in the notes), the whole passage is from Yahwist. It represents the chief divergence between the two recensions of the history of Joseph. In Yahwist, Joseph is first sold to a private Egyptian איש מצרי, verse ¹), then cast into the state prison in the way here narrated, where he gains the confidence of the (unnamed) governor, so that when the butler and baker are sent thither they naturally fall under his charge. In Elohist, Joseph is sold at once to Potiphar (37³⁶), the palace officer in whose house the butler and baker are afterwards confined (403a); and Joseph, without being himself a prisoner, is told off to wait on these eminent persons (40⁴). The imprisonment, therefore, is indispensable in Yahwist, and at least embarrassing in Elohist.—This conclusion is partly confirmed by the literary phenomena: יהוה, 2. 3. 5; the Ishmaelites, ¹; הוריד, ¹; הצליח, 3. 23; מצא חן, ⁴; בגלל, ⁵. It is somewhat disconcerting to find that none of these occur in the central section, 7–20; and (Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 56) positively assigns 6–19 to Elohist, because of the phrases יפה תאר ויפה מראה, 6b (compare 29¹⁷); ויהי א׳ הדברים ה׳, ⁷ (compare 15¹ 221. 20 40¹ 48¹); ראו, ¹⁴; and לאלהים, ⁹. These are not decisive (see Dillmann, 403; Holzinger, 231), and on the whole the material argument must be held to outweigh the dubious linguistic evidence that can be adduced on the other side.—Procksch (42 f.) assigns 7–10 to Elohist and 11–23 to Yahwist; but nothing is gained by the division.
1–6. Joseph becomes the controller of an Egyptian estate.—1. But Joseph had been taken down, etc.] while his father was mourning over him as one dead (3731 ff.); the notice resumes 3728a.—a certain Egyptian] who is nameless in Yahwist (v.i.).—2. The secret of Joseph’s success: a combination of ability with personal charm which marked him out as a favourite of Yahwe (compare 3. 5. 21. 23).—remained in the house, etc.] under his master’s observation, instead of being sent to work in the field.—4a. served him] i.e., ‘became his personal attendant.’—The phrase is a variant from Elohist (compare 40⁴).—4b. In Yahwist, Joseph’s position is far higher, that, namely, of mer-per (mer-pa, mer en peri-t, etc.), or superintendent of the household, frequently mentioned in the inscriptions (Ebers, Ägypten und die Bücher Moses 303 ff.; Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 187 f.).—6a. knew not with him] (i.e. with Joseph [verse ⁸]): ‘held no reckoning with him’;—a hyperbolical expression for absolute confidence.—6b is introductory to 7 ff..
1. The words פוטיפר—הטבחים are a repetition by RedactorJehovist from 37³⁶ (Elohist), in order to harmonise the two sources. But the contradiction appears (1) in the meaningless איש מצרי after the specific designation (this is not to be got rid of by Ebers’s observation that under a Hyksos dynasty a high official was not necessarily a native Egyptian), and (2) the improbability of a eunuch being married (though cases of this kind are known [Ebers, 299]).—פוטיפר] LXX Πετεφρη[ς], an exact transcription of Egyptian Pedephrē = ‘He whom the sun-god gives’ (see A Dictionary of the Bible, i. 665b; Encyclopædia Biblica, 3814); but the long o of the Hebrew has not been explained. Compare Heyes, 105–112.—סריס] means ‘eunuch’ in New Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, (as is shown by the denominative verbs = ‘be impotent’), and there is no case in Old Testament where the strict sense is inapplicable (Gesenius, Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti 973 b). That such a word should be extended to mean ‘courtier’ in general is more intelligible than the reverse process (so Heyes, 122), in spite of the opinion of several Assyriologists who derive it from ša rêši = ‘he who is the head’ (Zimmern, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, liii. 116; Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 649).—שר הטבחים] LXX ἀρχιμάγειρος, a title like שר המשקים and ש׳ האופים in chapter 40 (Elohist). Compare רב הט׳, 2 Kings 258 ff., Jeremiah 399 ff. 401 ff. etc., Daniel 2¹⁴. The טבחים were apparently the royal cooks or butchers (1 Samuel 923 f.), who had come to be the bodyguard (Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church², 262¹).—2. איש מצליח] The intransitive Hiphil is thought by Dillmann, Gunkel, al. to be inconsistent with Yahwist’s usage (verses 3. 23 24²¹); therefore Elohist.—4. בעיניּו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate בעיני אדניו.—וכל־יש־לו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch inserts אשר as verse 5 bis 8.—4a is wholly assigned to Elohist by Gunkel; but וימצא חן pleads strongly for Yahwist.
7–20. Joseph tempted by his master’s wife.—7–10. The first temptation. The solicitation of a young man by a married woman is a frequent theme of warning in Proverbs 1–9.—9a. אֵינֶנּוּ does not mean ‘there is none’ (which would require אֵין), but ‘he is not.’—9b. sin against God] The name Yahwe is naturally avoided in conversation with a foreigner. All the more striking is the consciousness of the divine presence which to the exiled Israelite is the ultimate sanction of morality.—11, 12. The final temptation.—On the freedom of social intercourse between the sexes, see Ebers, 306 f. But the difficulties raised about Joseph’s access to the harem do not really arise, when we remember that Yahwist is depicting the life of a simple Egyptian family, and not that of a high palace official (see Tuch).—13–20. The woman’s revenge.—14. A covert appeal to the jealousy of the men-servants against the hated Hebrew, and to the fears of the women, whom she represents as unsafe from insult (to mock us). An additional touch of venom lurks in the contemptuous reference to her husband as ‘he.’—Hebrew may be here a general designation of the Asiatic Bedouin (Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 387); but see on 40¹⁵.—19. Her distorted account of the facts has the desired effect on her husband.—his wrath was kindled] against Joseph, of course. There is no hint that he suspected his wife, and was angry with her also (Delitzsch, Dillmann).—20. Imprisonment would certainly not be the usual punishment for such a crime as Joseph was believed to have committed; but the sequel demanded it, Joseph’s further career depending on his being lodged in the place where the king’s prisoners were bound. That he became a king’s slave (according to Ḥammurabi § 129) is not indicated (against Jeremias Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 388). The term for prison (v.i.) is peculiar, and recurs only 21. 22. 23 403. 5.
To this episode in Joseph’s life there is an Egyptian parallel so close that we can hardly fail to recognise in it the original of the Hebrew story. It is the ‘Tale of the two brothers’ in the d’Orbiney Papyrus, assigned by Egyptologists to the 19th dynasty. Two brothers lived together, the older Anpu having a house and wife, and the younger Batu serving him in the field. One day Batu enters the house to fetch seed for the sowing, and is tempted by his brother’s wife, exactly as Joseph was by his mistress. Furiously indignant—“like a panther for rage”—he rejects her advances, out of loyalty to the brother who has been like a father to him, and expresses horror of the ‘great sin’ which she had suggested. Promising silence, he returns to his brother in the field. In the evening Anpu comes home to find his wife covered with self-inflicted wounds, and listens to a tale which is a perfect parallel to the false accusation against Joseph. Anpu seeks to murder his brother; but being at last convinced of his innocence, he slays his wife instead. Here the human interest of the story ceases, the remainder being fairy lore of the most fantastic description, containing at least a reminiscence of the Osiris myth. (See Ebers, 311 ff.; Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 378 ff.; Petrie, Egyptian Tales Translated from the Papyri, ii. 36 ff.; Völter, Aegypten und die Bibel, 50 f. [who takes the story as a whole to be founded on the myth of Set and Osiris].) It is true that the theme is not exclusively Egyptian (see the numerous parallels in Lang, Myth, Ritual, and Religion, ii. 303 ff.); but the fact that the scene of the biblical narrative is in Egypt, and the close resemblance to the Egyptian tale, make it extremely probable that there is a direct connexion between them.
8. מה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch מאומה (verse ²³).—בבית] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate בביתו.—10. לשכב אצלה and להיות עמה look like variants; but one swallow does not make a summer, and it would be rash to infer an Elohistic recension.—11. כהיום הזה] A very obscure expression, see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 400 b. Of the other occurrences (Deuteronomy 6²⁴, Jeremiah 44²², Ezra 97. 15, Nehemiah 9¹⁰†) all except the last are perfectly transparent: ‘as [it is] this day,’—a sense quite unsuitable here. One must suspect that the phrase, like the kindred כַּיּוֹם and כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה (compare especially 1 Samuel 228. 13), had acquired some elusive idiomatic meaning which we cannot recover. Neither ‘on a certain day’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 s) nor ‘on this particular day’ (Brown-Driver-Briggs) can be easily justified.—13. וינס] MSS, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX + ויצא (12. 15).—14. לצַֽחֶק בנו] see on 26⁸.—15. אצלי] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate (pallium quod tenebam) read בידי,—wrongly, since to have said this would have been to betray herself (Delitzsch, Dillmann).—17 end] LXX + καὶ εἶπέν μοι Κοιμηθήσομαι μετὰ σοῦ [LXXᴬ Κοιμήθητι μετ’ ἐμοῦ].—18. ויהי כהרימי] LXX ὡς δὲ ἤκουσεν ὅτι ὕψωσα.—וינס] LXX, Peshiṭtå + ויצא.—20. בית הסהר] Only in 20–23 403. 5 (Yahwist). The name may be Egyptian (see Ebers, 317 ff.; Driver A Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 768 a, n.), but has not been satisfactorily explained.—מְקום אשר] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 130 c.—אסורי] so The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (and also in verse ²²); but read with Qrê אסירי (²²).
21–23. Joseph in prison.—His good fortune and consequent promotion are described in terms nearly identical with those of verses 1–6.—In Yahwist, the governor of the prison is anonymous, and Joseph is made superintendent of the other prisoners.
21. ויתן חנו] (as Exodus 3²¹ 11³ 12³⁶†) genitive of object = ‘favour towards him.’—22. עֹשֵׁים] On omission of subject, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 116 s.—הוא היה עשה] LXXA, al. omitted.—23. בידו] LXX πάντα γὰρ ἦν διὰ χειρὸς Ἰωσηφ.—מצליח] LXX + ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ.