December 20, 2006
Breadcrumb: The family plot
Gen. 49:29-33: On his deathbed, Jacob insisted on being buried with his family, in the cave at the field of Machpelah, which Abraham had bought from Ephron the Hittite. (Gen. 23) And, indeed, Joseph ensured it was done, bringing a huge procession of important Egyptians to accompany him to Canaan. (Gen. 50:1-14) As for Joseph himself, we see that he was too assimilated into Egyptian culture to care much about the family cave, and was instead buried in Egypt. (Gen. 50:26) This mark of assimilation began four hundred years of servitude for the Israelites, of which we hear almost nothing at all in the text.
December 19, 2006
Breadcrumb: He's at it again
Jacob was always one to prefer the younger brother over the elder. He himself was a younger son, who stole his older brother's blessing and birthright. But, in today's readings, it seems that he's not content with his own aggrandizement, but needs to pass it on to his younger grandsons as well. In Gen. 48, Jacob blesses Joseph's sons, but places the younger, Ephraim, before the elder, Manasseh. Even on his deathbed, Jacob believed in causing mischief.
December 18, 2006
Genesis 48-50: What did he say?
Today's reading is Genesis 48-50 (read it in the KJV or NIV)
Today's passage covers Jacob's blessing of Joseph's sons (Ephraim and Manasseh); his blessing of his twelve sons; his death and burial; and Joseph's death and burial.
Today's readings present one of the first instances of sustained poetry in the Bible. (Gen. 49:2-27) In it, Jacob blesses each of his twelve children in verse form, in generally prophetic language. This passage is probably one of the most difficult passages to translate and interpret in all of Genesis.
Unfortunately, my Hebrew is no longer good enough to read the original text. I am forced, therefore, to rely on translations. The poetry is rich in wordplay and cryptic phrasings that have made it particularly difficult to translate faithfully. Though I have only referred to two or three translations to prepare this essay, there are significant differences between the texts. For example, verse 6 in the KJV says that Simeon and Levii "digged down a well," while the NIV says they "hamstrung oxen." Verse 22 in the NIV says that Joseph is a "fruitful vine," while the Jewish Study Bible says he is a "wild ass." The differences can obviously cause a great deal of confusion in the interpretation.
But even if you're reading the original Hebrew, the verses are difficult to interpret. According to the Jewish Study Bible, "Jacob's tribal sayings have long provoked disagreements among interpreters." Some of the imagery is obscure, and even where it isn't, it is sometimes difficult to determine what, exactly, the text is referring to.
Let us take a few moments, therefore, to look at some general features of this passage and whether we can tease further information from it.
The blessings begin relatively specifically. The first, about Reuben, refers to the time he slept with his father's concubine in Gen. 35:22. I mentioned this episode in a previous essay. I said then that Jacob held a grudge, and here we see its fulfilment. Jacob tells Reuben that even though he is mighty and excellent, he will never excel because of this one youthful sin. (Gen. 49:2-3)
Simeon's and Levi's blessing also brings up an old grudge. (Gen. 49:5-7) In Gen. 34, their sister Dinah had been raped, so the two men slaughtered not only the rapist but also his entire village. Jacob now brings up the episode and tells them that because of it, they will be scattered among the other tribes. The Jewish Study Bible claims that this is a reference to Simeon's absorption into Judah and Levi's redefinition as a priestly tribe without land of its own (Deut. 18:1-2).
With Judah, we begin the bridge from specific to vague. (Gen. 49:8-12) The first part, verse 8, seems quite specific: Judah will be praised by his brothers and conquer his enemies. Even verse 10, which claims he will have the sceptre and ruler's staff (NIV, "lawgiver" in KJV), seems to foreshadow that Judah will rule the other tribes of Israel. However, verse 11-12 is cryptic. It mentions that he will wash his garments in wine, that his eyes will be red with wine, and that his teeth will be white from milk. What does this mean? I have no idea. Perhaps it is a reference to wealth, perhaps to something entirely different.
The other brothers get equally cryptic blessings, though generally shorter ones. Though verse 13 says Zebulun will live by the seashore, the Jewish Study Bible notes that the boundaries of the tribe of Zebulun in Josh. 19:10-15 suggest it was an inland tribe. Dan might be a judge over Israel (verse 16), but what does it mean that he is a "serpent by the roadside" (verse 17)?
All that we could say for some of the later prophecies is that they are tremendously general. Asher will provide rich food (verse 20), Naphtali is a doe set free with beautiful fawns (verse 21), and Gad attacks his attackers (verse 19). Even Joseph's blessing is vague: he is a fruitful vine near a spring (verse 22), who is shot at by archers but remains steady (verses 23-24), and receives very plentiful blessings (verses 25-26). What does all this mean? I have no idea.
There is a principle in divination called "subjective validation," also called the "Forer effect" or the "Barnum effect." This principle generally means that people will rank vague personality descriptions as highly accurate, even though the descriptions are deliberately vague and can apply to many people. The same principle has been used in many forms of divination, with the idea that a vague enough description will fit almost anyone.
Can we say that Jacob's blessings are using a variant of the Forer effect? Can we, in other words, say that some of the blessings are so vague, we are bound to find something matching them later in the Bible, if only we look hard enough? I don't think so.
I believe that, while the blessings are vague, this is more of a literary device than a deceptive one. After all, the redactors compiling the Bible knew the later texts, they knew what was going to happen to the twelve tribes. They didn't begin writing at Genesis and only later look to see what happened in Exodus, Numbers, Judges, and Kings. When compiling Jacob's blessings, they knew what they were referring to, even if later interpreters have had trouble matching the blessing to the event.
I believe the problem is one of viewpoints, rather than one of deliberate obfuscation. Presumably, if we were living when this text was written, we would understand what a "serpent by the roadside" meant, or the meaning of a "doe set free." In short, the text is certainly trying to tell us something, even if we have no idea what it is.
References:
Berlin, Adele and Marc Zvi Brettler. The Jewish Study Bible. Oxford UP, 2004.
Today's passage covers Jacob's blessing of Joseph's sons (Ephraim and Manasseh); his blessing of his twelve sons; his death and burial; and Joseph's death and burial.
Today's readings present one of the first instances of sustained poetry in the Bible. (Gen. 49:2-27) In it, Jacob blesses each of his twelve children in verse form, in generally prophetic language. This passage is probably one of the most difficult passages to translate and interpret in all of Genesis.
Unfortunately, my Hebrew is no longer good enough to read the original text. I am forced, therefore, to rely on translations. The poetry is rich in wordplay and cryptic phrasings that have made it particularly difficult to translate faithfully. Though I have only referred to two or three translations to prepare this essay, there are significant differences between the texts. For example, verse 6 in the KJV says that Simeon and Levii "digged down a well," while the NIV says they "hamstrung oxen." Verse 22 in the NIV says that Joseph is a "fruitful vine," while the Jewish Study Bible says he is a "wild ass." The differences can obviously cause a great deal of confusion in the interpretation.
But even if you're reading the original Hebrew, the verses are difficult to interpret. According to the Jewish Study Bible, "Jacob's tribal sayings have long provoked disagreements among interpreters." Some of the imagery is obscure, and even where it isn't, it is sometimes difficult to determine what, exactly, the text is referring to.
Let us take a few moments, therefore, to look at some general features of this passage and whether we can tease further information from it.
The blessings begin relatively specifically. The first, about Reuben, refers to the time he slept with his father's concubine in Gen. 35:22. I mentioned this episode in a previous essay. I said then that Jacob held a grudge, and here we see its fulfilment. Jacob tells Reuben that even though he is mighty and excellent, he will never excel because of this one youthful sin. (Gen. 49:2-3)
Simeon's and Levi's blessing also brings up an old grudge. (Gen. 49:5-7) In Gen. 34, their sister Dinah had been raped, so the two men slaughtered not only the rapist but also his entire village. Jacob now brings up the episode and tells them that because of it, they will be scattered among the other tribes. The Jewish Study Bible claims that this is a reference to Simeon's absorption into Judah and Levi's redefinition as a priestly tribe without land of its own (Deut. 18:1-2).
With Judah, we begin the bridge from specific to vague. (Gen. 49:8-12) The first part, verse 8, seems quite specific: Judah will be praised by his brothers and conquer his enemies. Even verse 10, which claims he will have the sceptre and ruler's staff (NIV, "lawgiver" in KJV), seems to foreshadow that Judah will rule the other tribes of Israel. However, verse 11-12 is cryptic. It mentions that he will wash his garments in wine, that his eyes will be red with wine, and that his teeth will be white from milk. What does this mean? I have no idea. Perhaps it is a reference to wealth, perhaps to something entirely different.
The other brothers get equally cryptic blessings, though generally shorter ones. Though verse 13 says Zebulun will live by the seashore, the Jewish Study Bible notes that the boundaries of the tribe of Zebulun in Josh. 19:10-15 suggest it was an inland tribe. Dan might be a judge over Israel (verse 16), but what does it mean that he is a "serpent by the roadside" (verse 17)?
All that we could say for some of the later prophecies is that they are tremendously general. Asher will provide rich food (verse 20), Naphtali is a doe set free with beautiful fawns (verse 21), and Gad attacks his attackers (verse 19). Even Joseph's blessing is vague: he is a fruitful vine near a spring (verse 22), who is shot at by archers but remains steady (verses 23-24), and receives very plentiful blessings (verses 25-26). What does all this mean? I have no idea.
There is a principle in divination called "subjective validation," also called the "Forer effect" or the "Barnum effect." This principle generally means that people will rank vague personality descriptions as highly accurate, even though the descriptions are deliberately vague and can apply to many people. The same principle has been used in many forms of divination, with the idea that a vague enough description will fit almost anyone.
Can we say that Jacob's blessings are using a variant of the Forer effect? Can we, in other words, say that some of the blessings are so vague, we are bound to find something matching them later in the Bible, if only we look hard enough? I don't think so.
I believe that, while the blessings are vague, this is more of a literary device than a deceptive one. After all, the redactors compiling the Bible knew the later texts, they knew what was going to happen to the twelve tribes. They didn't begin writing at Genesis and only later look to see what happened in Exodus, Numbers, Judges, and Kings. When compiling Jacob's blessings, they knew what they were referring to, even if later interpreters have had trouble matching the blessing to the event.
I believe the problem is one of viewpoints, rather than one of deliberate obfuscation. Presumably, if we were living when this text was written, we would understand what a "serpent by the roadside" meant, or the meaning of a "doe set free." In short, the text is certainly trying to tell us something, even if we have no idea what it is.
References:
Berlin, Adele and Marc Zvi Brettler. The Jewish Study Bible. Oxford UP, 2004.
December 17, 2006
Breadcrumb: Bless you
When Jacob comes to Egypt, Joseph presents him to Pharaoh. (Gen. 47:7-10) Pharaoh asks Jacob how old he is, and Jacob replies that he is 130 years old. He then blesses Pharaoh, and leaves. We have to ask ourselves here, why is Jacob blessing Pharaoh? Sure, he's an old man, but he doesn't follow the religion on the Egyptians. In his own right, he's not particularly powerful in any way. Why should it matter to Pharaoh whether Jacob blesses him or not? Perhaps Pharaoh believes in covering all his bases.
December 16, 2006
Breadcrumb: In your dreams
Whereas Adam, Noah, and Abraham all spoke to God face-to-face, it seems God has slowly withdrawn himself from the practice. By Gen. 46:1-4, he only speaks to Jacob in dreams and visions. (In this particular dream, he tells Jacob to go to Egypt without fear.) By the time we reach the age of Moses, we find out that any man who sees God face-to-face will die. I guess the "mysterious and elusive power" routine was more to God's liking than "personal guide and counsellor." Maybe he just got stage fright.
December 15, 2006
Genesis 46-47: Power corrupts
Today's reading is Genesis 46-47 (read it in the KJV or NIV)
Today's passage covers Jacob's arrival in Egypt; a brief genealogy of Jacob's sons and grandsons; the presentation of Jacob and his sons to the Pharaoh; and Joseph's behaviour during the years of famine.
As the musical sings, "poor, poor Joseph." It's easy to pity Joseph. After all, he was dealt a few bad hands in his life: he was nearly killed and then sold into slavery by his brothers, he was framed by his master's wife and imprisoned, he was left in prison for over two years, although innocent of any crime... it's a sad story.
Of course, it would be easy to feel bad for Joseph if he wasn't such a harsh man when he finally comes to power. Once he's securely Pharaoh's second-in-command, he seems to become twisted by his own importance.
I've already written about Joseph's treatment of his siblings. In short, he's not very nice. He deals harshly with them, frames them for theft, and throws them into prison. Surely this isn't the sort of familial behaviour the Bible wants to encourage, is it?
There are people who will defend Joseph's actions against his brothers. For one thing, they might say, Joseph's brothers started it. They were the ones that sold him into slavery. They were the ones that nearly murdered him. Joseph is just getting revenge on them for all the things they did to him. Furthermore, Joseph does eventually reveal himself to his brothers and forgive them. Indeed, he gives them some of the best land in all of Egypt.
These arguments are valid. We can probably forgive Joseph his treatment of his brothers. It is much more difficult, however, to forgive his treatment of his Egyptian subjects.
We remember that Joseph is in his position of high power because he predicted the years of famine would come after the years of plenty (Gen. 41:25-36). The years of famine weren't a surprise, they were the exact reason Joseph was in command in the first place. His sole job was to prepare for the famine.
Joseph did prepare during the years of plenty. In Gen. 41:48-49, we read that he stored the abundance of food during the seven plentiful years. He had so many stores of food that he stopped keeping records. There was just too much! And, initially, Egypt was well off during the famine (Gen. 41:56-57).
Here's where the trouble starts. We find out (Gen. 41:56) that Joseph was selling grain to the Egyptians. Not giving, but selling. We don't read whether Joseph bought that grain in the first place. If he did, and he was selling it back at the same price he bought it, perhaps we put the blame on the Egyptians for squandering their money in the intervening years. This is, of course, assuming Joseph told them the famine was coming. If he hadn't, they would have had no reason to save the money from their grain sales. Years will just continue to be plentiful, they may have thought.
If, however, Joseph did not buy the grain from the Egyptians, but took it from them, or if he sold the grain at higher prices than he bought it, he now begins upon a much darker path. If this is the case, he is effectively doing what many banks today do: charging people to use their own property.
It gets worse in today's reading, Gen. 47:13-26.
Here we learn that even Egypt is feeling the effects of the famine. Joseph, in selling back all the grain, effectively bankrupted the country. Gen. 47:14 tells us that there was no money left in all of Egypt, because Joseph had taken it all. No problem, says Joseph, give me your cattle instead of money. So Joseph proceeds to collect all the livestock in Egypt, as well as all the money. (Gen. 47:17)
Did I mention that all this occurred within one year?
The next year, the Egyptians find themselves in the same situation: hungry. Only this time, they don't have money or cattle. How are they going to buy grain now? Before Joseph has time to suggest anything, they offer him their land and their bodies. Essentially, they agree to become servants to Pharaoh. (Gen. 47:18-19) Joseph thinks this is perfectly acceptable. He buys up all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh, and places all the people in a state of servitude. (Gen. 47:20-1) To reflect the new ownership of the land, he exacts a 20% tax on all the grain that is grown throughout Egypt. (Gen. 47:23-26) The only people who escape Joseph's exploitation are the priests, because they received their allotment directly from Pharaoh. (Gen. 47:22, 26)
How do the people of Egypt react to these actions? After all, it's their grain in the storehouses: they put it there! And now they've sold everything, their money, their cattle, their land, and even their own lives, to Joseph. How do they react to this exploitation? They thank Joseph for saving their lives! (Gen. 47:25) Does this seem wrong to anyone but me?
Of course, Joseph's family is not subject to the famine. Joseph sets them up with the best land in all Egypt, Goshen, where they live very well. (Gen. 47:27) If I were the Egyptians, I'd be a bit annoyed at this situation, too. We can almost imagine that this spawned the first anti-semitic "Jews control everything" rumours, except this time the rumours were true. Jews (specifically Joseph) did control everything: all the grain, all the money, all the cattle, and all the land in Egypt. Pharaoh doesn't seem too concerned about Joseph's behaviour.
As for me, I sometimes wonder how the banks treat us today. They could probably learn a lot from Joseph.
Today's passage covers Jacob's arrival in Egypt; a brief genealogy of Jacob's sons and grandsons; the presentation of Jacob and his sons to the Pharaoh; and Joseph's behaviour during the years of famine.
As the musical sings, "poor, poor Joseph." It's easy to pity Joseph. After all, he was dealt a few bad hands in his life: he was nearly killed and then sold into slavery by his brothers, he was framed by his master's wife and imprisoned, he was left in prison for over two years, although innocent of any crime... it's a sad story.
Of course, it would be easy to feel bad for Joseph if he wasn't such a harsh man when he finally comes to power. Once he's securely Pharaoh's second-in-command, he seems to become twisted by his own importance.
I've already written about Joseph's treatment of his siblings. In short, he's not very nice. He deals harshly with them, frames them for theft, and throws them into prison. Surely this isn't the sort of familial behaviour the Bible wants to encourage, is it?
There are people who will defend Joseph's actions against his brothers. For one thing, they might say, Joseph's brothers started it. They were the ones that sold him into slavery. They were the ones that nearly murdered him. Joseph is just getting revenge on them for all the things they did to him. Furthermore, Joseph does eventually reveal himself to his brothers and forgive them. Indeed, he gives them some of the best land in all of Egypt.
These arguments are valid. We can probably forgive Joseph his treatment of his brothers. It is much more difficult, however, to forgive his treatment of his Egyptian subjects.
We remember that Joseph is in his position of high power because he predicted the years of famine would come after the years of plenty (Gen. 41:25-36). The years of famine weren't a surprise, they were the exact reason Joseph was in command in the first place. His sole job was to prepare for the famine.
Joseph did prepare during the years of plenty. In Gen. 41:48-49, we read that he stored the abundance of food during the seven plentiful years. He had so many stores of food that he stopped keeping records. There was just too much! And, initially, Egypt was well off during the famine (Gen. 41:56-57).
Here's where the trouble starts. We find out (Gen. 41:56) that Joseph was selling grain to the Egyptians. Not giving, but selling. We don't read whether Joseph bought that grain in the first place. If he did, and he was selling it back at the same price he bought it, perhaps we put the blame on the Egyptians for squandering their money in the intervening years. This is, of course, assuming Joseph told them the famine was coming. If he hadn't, they would have had no reason to save the money from their grain sales. Years will just continue to be plentiful, they may have thought.
If, however, Joseph did not buy the grain from the Egyptians, but took it from them, or if he sold the grain at higher prices than he bought it, he now begins upon a much darker path. If this is the case, he is effectively doing what many banks today do: charging people to use their own property.
It gets worse in today's reading, Gen. 47:13-26.
Here we learn that even Egypt is feeling the effects of the famine. Joseph, in selling back all the grain, effectively bankrupted the country. Gen. 47:14 tells us that there was no money left in all of Egypt, because Joseph had taken it all. No problem, says Joseph, give me your cattle instead of money. So Joseph proceeds to collect all the livestock in Egypt, as well as all the money. (Gen. 47:17)
Did I mention that all this occurred within one year?
The next year, the Egyptians find themselves in the same situation: hungry. Only this time, they don't have money or cattle. How are they going to buy grain now? Before Joseph has time to suggest anything, they offer him their land and their bodies. Essentially, they agree to become servants to Pharaoh. (Gen. 47:18-19) Joseph thinks this is perfectly acceptable. He buys up all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh, and places all the people in a state of servitude. (Gen. 47:20-1) To reflect the new ownership of the land, he exacts a 20% tax on all the grain that is grown throughout Egypt. (Gen. 47:23-26) The only people who escape Joseph's exploitation are the priests, because they received their allotment directly from Pharaoh. (Gen. 47:22, 26)
How do the people of Egypt react to these actions? After all, it's their grain in the storehouses: they put it there! And now they've sold everything, their money, their cattle, their land, and even their own lives, to Joseph. How do they react to this exploitation? They thank Joseph for saving their lives! (Gen. 47:25) Does this seem wrong to anyone but me?
Of course, Joseph's family is not subject to the famine. Joseph sets them up with the best land in all Egypt, Goshen, where they live very well. (Gen. 47:27) If I were the Egyptians, I'd be a bit annoyed at this situation, too. We can almost imagine that this spawned the first anti-semitic "Jews control everything" rumours, except this time the rumours were true. Jews (specifically Joseph) did control everything: all the grain, all the money, all the cattle, and all the land in Egypt. Pharaoh doesn't seem too concerned about Joseph's behaviour.
As for me, I sometimes wonder how the banks treat us today. They could probably learn a lot from Joseph.
December 14, 2006
Breadcrumb: Did you hear?
Every time Joseph met his brothers, he made sure to be far away from them and his servants before he started crying with joy. In these readings alone, he does it in Gen. 43:30, and he does it again in Gen. 45:1-2. But in the manner of high politics everywhere, word gets out. The servants find out, and eventually Pharaoh finds out (Gen. 45:16). Of course, despite all of Joseph's potential fears, Pharaoh is happy for him and gives the family all sorts of valuable gifts. But this is just a potent reminder of the universal fact: the truth will get out eventually; it's just a matter of time.
December 13, 2006
Breadcrumb: How did THAT get there?
In Gen. 44:1-14, Joseph has his steward plant a silver cup in Benjamin's sack, then when the brothers have left, he has the same steward run after them and accuse them of theft. You can do that sort of thing when you're one of the most powerful people in Egypt. Of course, things go poorly for the brothers for a while, as they sputter and ask recite the age-old mantra of framed criminals everywhere, "how did that get in there? I've never seen that before!"
It doesn't work now, and it didn't work then. Especially not when you're dealing with crooked officials. It's a good thing Joseph liked them.
It doesn't work now, and it didn't work then. Especially not when you're dealing with crooked officials. It's a good thing Joseph liked them.
December 12, 2006
Genesis 43-45: A gift for every occasion
Today's reading is Genesis 43-45 (read it in the KJV or NIV)
Today's passage covers the brothers' second trip to Egypt, with Benjamin; the episode with the silver cup in Benjamin's sack; and Joseph's revelation of his identity to his brothers.
Gift-giving has such a prominent place in the book of Genesis, I'm surprised I haven't done an essay about it already. In today's readings, we encounter two instances of gift-giving, coming essentially from the two economic ends of the spectrum. It might behove us, then, to take a few minutes to examine what sort of gifts were considered hot items in an age before Playstation and Wii, and why people might give them.
The first set of gifts comes in Gen. 43:11-13. In this case, Jacob is sending gifts to the overseer of Egypt. Keep in mind that Jacob comes from a princely family: Abraham had hundreds of men at command, and Jacob himself was forced to separate from his brother Esau because the land couldn't support the wealth of both men together. Jacob is obviously a man used to being in a position of plenty.
On the other hand, Jacob has evidently fallen on somewhat hard times, given the long famine, and thus needs to rely on the storehouses of Egypt. Further, he may have already angered the particular official who oversees the storehouses. On their first visit, his sons were accused of spying on Egypt, and Jacob has no reason to believe they will be treated any better on the second visit. This time, he's sending his youngest son, his favourite son, and so wants to ensure that things go extra-smoothly. So, regardless of the famine, he tells his sons to bring some gifts to Egypt's second-in-command. In some places, this would be called "greasing the palms," or perhaps even bribery. In other places, especially the ancient middle east, it's merely a way to do business.
So what does Jacob send with his sons to attract the goodwill of one of the most important men in Egypt? Here's what the text tells us:
- his best fruits
- a little balm
- a little honey
- spices
- myrrh
- nuts (NIV: pistachio nuts)
- almonds
He also has the brothers bring twice the money required, because they had mysteriously found their original payment returned to them the first time, and didn't want the official to believe they were cheating him. Finally, and at great urging, he sends Benjamin.
We notice that all the gifts Jacob sends are produce, some of them exotic produce. Some of them, such as the spices, may even have been luxury trade items. He seems to be saying, "even though I don't have corn, I still have other things which might interest you; I am not poor." Also, other than the fruits, the rest of the gifts are longer-lasting goods: spices and nuts can last a long time without spoiling, even in an age before refrigeration.
To make a long story very short, the brothers go to Egypt, face certain difficulties, and are eventually reconciled with their brother, Joseph, the second-in-command of all Egypt. Joseph urges them to come live with him, along with Jacob and the rest of their families. Pharaoh hears about the offer and is delighted. In fact, he tells Joseph to have the brothers send gifts to their father. (Gen. 45:16-24)
What does the most powerful man of one of the most powerful countries in the ancient world gift to the family of his second-in-command?
- the best land in all Egypt
- wagons to carry their families
- the "best of all Egypt," so that they need not worry about bringing their belongings (NIV, Gen. 45:20)
No small gift! Pharaoh here seems to be saying, "nothing is too good for the family of my most valuable officer." It would hardly be fitting to give Joseph's family anything but the best: it would seem that the Pharaoh was being cheap.
But wait, there's more! Joseph decides that he, too, should send some gifts back to his father. Or, as the text tells us, "some provisions for their journey." (NIV, Gen. 45:21) What does he give his brothers and father?
- a new set of clothes
- for Benjamin: five new sets of clothes and three hundred shekels of silver (about 7.5 pounds)
- ten donkeys laden with the best things in Egypt
- ten female donkeys laden with grain, bread, and meat
Here we see the portable wealth, as compared to the land gifted by Pharaoh. Clothes, silver, donkeys, and other valuable goods are all within the scope of Joseph's gift. Though we are not told what "the best things in Egypt" are, we can make the fairly safe assumption that they were expensive.
Obviously, the gifts from Pharaoh and Joseph are more valuable, in absolute terms, than the ones send from Jacob. This is to be expected: Pharaoh and Joseph are the two most powerful men in Egypt, while Jacob is a local prince fallen upon hard times. Of course they are in a better position to be doling out valuable presents to their friends and family.
Oddly enough, however, Joseph's gift is not as grand as it could have been. Years earlier, Jacob had sent a gift to his brother Esau, just before they were reunited after a twenty-year separation. (Gen. 32:13-16) At that time, Jacob sent two hundred female goats, twenty male goats, two hundred ewes, twenty rams, thirty female cattle, forty cows, ten bulls, twenty female donkeys, and ten male donkeys. By quick calculation, that's 550 animals! Joseph, here, is only sending twenty!
Of course, Jacob is getting more than just cattle. He's getting luxury goods and, more importantly, some of the best land in Egypt, which is theoretically far more valuable than even several hundred heads of cattle. Furthermore, the circumstances are different. Jacob wanted to ensure Esau wouldn't kill him. Joseph just wants to give a goodwill offering to his father, a way of saying, "look, dad, I've done well for myself."
So there you have it. What do you give to the ancient prince who has it all? Produce, cattle, silver, land, and luxuries. And, if you don't have that, get him a Playstation.
Today's passage covers the brothers' second trip to Egypt, with Benjamin; the episode with the silver cup in Benjamin's sack; and Joseph's revelation of his identity to his brothers.
Gift-giving has such a prominent place in the book of Genesis, I'm surprised I haven't done an essay about it already. In today's readings, we encounter two instances of gift-giving, coming essentially from the two economic ends of the spectrum. It might behove us, then, to take a few minutes to examine what sort of gifts were considered hot items in an age before Playstation and Wii, and why people might give them.
The first set of gifts comes in Gen. 43:11-13. In this case, Jacob is sending gifts to the overseer of Egypt. Keep in mind that Jacob comes from a princely family: Abraham had hundreds of men at command, and Jacob himself was forced to separate from his brother Esau because the land couldn't support the wealth of both men together. Jacob is obviously a man used to being in a position of plenty.
On the other hand, Jacob has evidently fallen on somewhat hard times, given the long famine, and thus needs to rely on the storehouses of Egypt. Further, he may have already angered the particular official who oversees the storehouses. On their first visit, his sons were accused of spying on Egypt, and Jacob has no reason to believe they will be treated any better on the second visit. This time, he's sending his youngest son, his favourite son, and so wants to ensure that things go extra-smoothly. So, regardless of the famine, he tells his sons to bring some gifts to Egypt's second-in-command. In some places, this would be called "greasing the palms," or perhaps even bribery. In other places, especially the ancient middle east, it's merely a way to do business.
So what does Jacob send with his sons to attract the goodwill of one of the most important men in Egypt? Here's what the text tells us:
- his best fruits
- a little balm
- a little honey
- spices
- myrrh
- nuts (NIV: pistachio nuts)
- almonds
He also has the brothers bring twice the money required, because they had mysteriously found their original payment returned to them the first time, and didn't want the official to believe they were cheating him. Finally, and at great urging, he sends Benjamin.
We notice that all the gifts Jacob sends are produce, some of them exotic produce. Some of them, such as the spices, may even have been luxury trade items. He seems to be saying, "even though I don't have corn, I still have other things which might interest you; I am not poor." Also, other than the fruits, the rest of the gifts are longer-lasting goods: spices and nuts can last a long time without spoiling, even in an age before refrigeration.
To make a long story very short, the brothers go to Egypt, face certain difficulties, and are eventually reconciled with their brother, Joseph, the second-in-command of all Egypt. Joseph urges them to come live with him, along with Jacob and the rest of their families. Pharaoh hears about the offer and is delighted. In fact, he tells Joseph to have the brothers send gifts to their father. (Gen. 45:16-24)
What does the most powerful man of one of the most powerful countries in the ancient world gift to the family of his second-in-command?
- the best land in all Egypt
- wagons to carry their families
- the "best of all Egypt," so that they need not worry about bringing their belongings (NIV, Gen. 45:20)
No small gift! Pharaoh here seems to be saying, "nothing is too good for the family of my most valuable officer." It would hardly be fitting to give Joseph's family anything but the best: it would seem that the Pharaoh was being cheap.
But wait, there's more! Joseph decides that he, too, should send some gifts back to his father. Or, as the text tells us, "some provisions for their journey." (NIV, Gen. 45:21) What does he give his brothers and father?
- a new set of clothes
- for Benjamin: five new sets of clothes and three hundred shekels of silver (about 7.5 pounds)
- ten donkeys laden with the best things in Egypt
- ten female donkeys laden with grain, bread, and meat
Here we see the portable wealth, as compared to the land gifted by Pharaoh. Clothes, silver, donkeys, and other valuable goods are all within the scope of Joseph's gift. Though we are not told what "the best things in Egypt" are, we can make the fairly safe assumption that they were expensive.
Obviously, the gifts from Pharaoh and Joseph are more valuable, in absolute terms, than the ones send from Jacob. This is to be expected: Pharaoh and Joseph are the two most powerful men in Egypt, while Jacob is a local prince fallen upon hard times. Of course they are in a better position to be doling out valuable presents to their friends and family.
Oddly enough, however, Joseph's gift is not as grand as it could have been. Years earlier, Jacob had sent a gift to his brother Esau, just before they were reunited after a twenty-year separation. (Gen. 32:13-16) At that time, Jacob sent two hundred female goats, twenty male goats, two hundred ewes, twenty rams, thirty female cattle, forty cows, ten bulls, twenty female donkeys, and ten male donkeys. By quick calculation, that's 550 animals! Joseph, here, is only sending twenty!
Of course, Jacob is getting more than just cattle. He's getting luxury goods and, more importantly, some of the best land in Egypt, which is theoretically far more valuable than even several hundred heads of cattle. Furthermore, the circumstances are different. Jacob wanted to ensure Esau wouldn't kill him. Joseph just wants to give a goodwill offering to his father, a way of saying, "look, dad, I've done well for myself."
So there you have it. What do you give to the ancient prince who has it all? Produce, cattle, silver, land, and luxuries. And, if you don't have that, get him a Playstation.
December 11, 2006
Breadcrumb: Playing favourites
Jacob had always shown favouritism. First, it was Joseph: Jacob doted on him, made him a special coat (Gen. 37:3), and generally made it clear that he loved Joseph above all his other sons. However, even after he believes Joseph has been killed, he doesn't learn his lesson, but instead begins to dote on his youngest son (and Joseph's only full brother) Benjamin. No matter how much his other sons try to convince him that only by bringing Benjamin to Egypt will they have their names cleared, Jacob refuses. Even when Reuben pledges the lives of his own two sons against Benjamin's safety (Gen. 42:37), Jacob refuses. Benjamin is staying at home, no matter what happens to his other sons.
It almost makes you wish there were self-help parenting books back then.
It almost makes you wish there were self-help parenting books back then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)