Literary Structure of Genesis 39
A. Joseph in Potiphar's House (vv.
1-6a)
B. Trouble with Potiphar's Wife (vv.
6b-18)
A'. Joseph in Prison (vv. 19-23)
Not everyone sees these same divisions.
For example, Ross divides the chapter into vv. 1-6, 7-20, and 21-23.
But despite these differences with Figure 1, he does note, “The
first and last sections are parallel and frame the account of the
temptation. In the two framing sections the emphasis is on the Lord's
presence with Joseph...”
Section A can be best
characterized by the similar key wording shown in the two-part
structure shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Organization
of Genesis 39:1-6b
1. the LORD was with Joseph (v. 2a)
2. master (v. 2b)
2'. master (v. 3a)
1'. the LORD was with him (v. 3b)
…........................
2''. He made him overseer in his
house (v. 4a)
3. in charge of (v. 4b)
4. all that he had (v. 4c)
2'''. He made him overseer in his
house (v. 5a)
4'. all that he had (vv. 5b,6a)
3'. in Joseph's charge (v. 6b)
The first half of these verses begins
with Joseph being taken as a prisoner while the second half begins
with him being made an overseer. And another way to see that change
is illustrated by Joseph having a master in part 1 and being one
himself in part 2. Further tying the two halves together are the
repetition of the phrase “the Egyptian's house” in both v. 2 and
v. 5.
Section B
Trouble begins with Joseph when his
master's wife becomes sexually attracted to him. The action in this
sub-section can also be divided into two halves, the first one
between Joseph and his master's wife and the second one involving the
whole household. The action in both of these sub-sections is carried
along mainly through conversations.
Figure 3: Organization of Genesis
39:6c-18
1. Wife to Joseph: “Lie with me”
2. Joseph to Wife: “How could I sin
against God?”
3. He would not lie with her
1'. Wife to Joseph: “Lie with me”
2'. Joseph flees from the house,
leaving his garment behind
------------------------
1''. Wife to household: “My husband
has brought a Hebrew to insult me”
3'. “He wanted to lie with me”
4. “I cried out”
2.'' “He left his garment behind and
fled”
1'''. Wife to husband: “The Hebrew
you brought insulted me”
(3''. “He wanted to lie with me”)
4'. “I cried out”
2.''' “He left his garment behind
and fled”
The only flaw in this otherwise
symmetrical arrangement is the absence in the final comments to
Potiphar of the specific charge of attempted rape. One wonders if the
wife had by this time realized that she had gone a bit too far in her
accusations and began to back-pedal slightly. Confirming that view is
Hamilton's observation that in vv. 16-18 “her words shade into
ambivalence, making room for more than one interpretation.”
Hamilton notes at the same time that
the early manuscript Codex Andrinus provides the missing words “I
will sleep with you” as do most early copies of the Greek
Septuagint at v. 17.
Similarly, Wenham observes the subtle
differences in wording the wife utilized in her last account of
events. He states that “the wife is cunning enough to word the
accusation in such a way that he [her husband] will be left the
choice of taking it as a direct rebuke or only an implicit and mild
one.”
Section A'
The third major sub-section in Genesis
39 is shorter, but still has its own literary structure. Note first
the back-and-forth alternation between the words “prisoners” in
20a, “prison (5x in 20b-22a), “prisoners” in 22b, and “prison”
in 22c. Then there is the repetition of the specific phrase “the
LORD was with Joseph” in verses 21 and 23.
And Hamilton notes the three-fold use
of the verb meaning 'placed.' It appears in v. 20 where Joseph is
placed in jail, v. 21 in which Yahweh places Joseph in the chief
jailer's favor, and in v. 22 where Joseph is put in charge of the
other prisoners.
Sections A and A'
Finally, Figure 1 indicates that there
is a strong correspondence between the first and final sections of
this text. Confirming that supposition are the following parallels in
language between A and A':
“his master” (vv. 3, 19,20);
“put him in charge” (v. 4), “in
Joseph's charge” (v. 6), “committed to Joseph's care” (v. 22),
“in Joseph's care” (v. 23)
“he had no concern for anything”
(v. 6) // “paid no heed to anything” (v. 23)
“Joseph found favor in in his sight”
(v. 4) // “He gave him favor in the sight of” (v. 21)
Lastly there are the following
symmetrical occurrences:
“The LORD was with Joseph” (v. 2)
“The LORD was with him (v. 3)
“The LORD was with Joseph (v. 21)
“The LORD was with him (v. 23)
Longacre additionally notes that in a
general way, “The closure of this episode is remarkably parallel to
the recounting of Joseph's rise to prominence in Potiphar's house;
just as Joseph had gone to the top in Potiphar's estate, he now rises
to the position of first trustee in the jail, and everything prospers
under his management (Gen 39:20b-23).”
Parallels Elsewhere in Scripture
Next is the question of
intertextuality, i.e. the similarities in wording and theme with
other portions of Scripture. Beginning with the general theme of
Genesis 39, we have the comment of Wenham: “Joseph's unfair
dismissal and imprisonment may be seen as typical of the suffering
the righteous often must endure. 'For a righteous man falls seven
times and rises again (Prov 24:16).' Moses, Job, Jeremiah, and the
suffering servant of Isa 53 are examples of this career pattern in
the OT, while Jesus is the supreme model in the NT.” The more
specific parallels are given below in their order of appearance in
the Bible.
“39:2-6 shows particularly clearly
the meaning of blessing in the OT...the narrator simply assumes that
the blessing on the one whom the LORD is with can overflow to a
foreign people and adherents of a foreign religion because of God's
presence with that person” (Westerman). Wenham adds, “Thus in
Joseph's experience here we begin to see how all the families of the
earth are to find blessing (cf. 12:3) in Abraham's descendants.”
Hamilton echoes the above thought:
“Yahweh prospers (salah) Joseph (vv. 2-3), but he blesses
(barak) Potiphar and his household because of his good
treatment of Joseph. This verse [v. 5] must be read as fulfillment of
12:3a, 'I will bless those who bless you.' Just as Yahweh blessed
Laban because of Jacob (30:27,30), he now blesses Potiphar because of
Joseph.”
“As at Sodom [Gen. 13], the worst
crimes seem to be sexual. Such breaches subvert the family in a
culture that defines itself entirely by bonds of kinship. A similar
importance is assumed in Joseph's refusal of Potiphar's wife in urban
Egypt (Gen 39:9).” (Fleming)
McKnight states that “ 'et
('with') evokes the regular presence of the Lord with the patriarchs
(cf. Gen 21:20; 26:24; 39:2).”
In 39:6b we are informed that Joseph
was handsome. “The description reminds the reader of the appearance
of Sarai and Rebekah (12:11 and 26:7) that make them susceptible to
the sexual advances of potentates, an Egyptian in the case of Sarai,
and then Abimelech a Philistine.” (Ross)
Pratt says, “The story of Judah and
Tamar (Genesis 38:1-30)...reports an event that took place in Canaan
near the time Joseph was in Potiphar's house...These stories have
been juxtaposed to develop the theme of patriarchal morality. Judah
fell into sin and suffered severely. Joseph remained pure and God
rewarded his righteousness. This topical connection is vital to
understanding why these chapters appear together.”
Ciampa and Rosner also note that Gen.
39 forms a contrast to Tamar's prostitution in Gen. 38 while garments
play key roles in both stories as forms of evidence. And Payne adds,
“The attempted seduction of Joseph (6-12) contrasts with Tamar's
successful seduction of Judah in ch. 38. Judah had voluntarily
deposited with Tamar certain personal objects (38:18); involuntarily,
Joseph left hs cloak with Potiphar's wife (12). Both women made the
fullest use of these items.”
“Esther shares many thematic and
structural similarities with the narratives of Joseph in the foreign
court...Verbal similarities include: “'And though she spoke to
Joseph day after day, he refused to go to bed with her or even be
with her' (Gen 39:10) and 'Day after day they spoke to him but he
refused to comply' (Esth 3:4a). The most significant comparison
between Joseph and Esther relates to divine providence. Genesis says
things like 'Yahweh was with him' (Gen 39:3,21), but readers of
Esther are left to imagine potential invisible divine causality in
the face of striking 'coincidences.'” (Schnittjer)
Postell sees parallels between the
affair of David and Uriah's wife and the events in this chapter. But
as Schnittjer points out, this theory is based almost entirely on
common phrases such as 'laid with her' (II Samuel 11:4 // Genesis
39:7) and 'house of your / his lord' (II Samuel 12:8; Genesis 39:2).
He concludes: “The overlap seems more like similar type-scenes than
an exegetical allusion.”
As commentators note, Psalm 105:16-22
is a brief retelling of Joseph's career, as Kselman says, “With
significant variants.” You might want to compare those two passages
for yourself some time.
Ross says, “As von Rad had pointed
out, the passage [i.e. Gen. 39:7] recalls the warning of Proverbs
about the seductress who casts her eyes on the young man and invites
him to take his fill of love with her because her husband is away
(Prov. 7:6-27).”
“The parable of the Faithful and
Prudent Manager in [Luke] 12:42-46 possibly alludes to Gen.
39:4-5...The words of 12:42 are often quoted in Jewish writings about
Joseph...Key words of 12:42 are prominent in the traditions about
Joseph: ho kyrios, 'the master' (e.g. Gen. 39:3-4);
phronimos, 'prudent' (cf. Gen 41:33,39...); doulos,
'servant' (cf. Gen. 39:17)...Biblically informed readers of Luke's
Gospel would find in Joseph an example of a faithful servant who is
eventually rewarded, the antithesis of the servant in the parable who
reasons that since his master is delayed in coming, he can begin 'to
beat the other slaves, men and women, and to eat and drink and get
drunk.” (Pao and Schnabel)
Stephen recites the story of Joseph to
the hostile crowd in Acts 7:9-10. Hill comments that “the story of
Joseph, betrayed by his jealous brothers, but raised to high
distinction by the hand of God has always been seen by Christian
writers as a foreshadowing of the experiences of Christ.”
Despite the suggestion that Paul in I
Corinthians 6:18-20 may have been quoting directly from Genesis 39,
Ciampa and Rosner feel instead that Paul may have been quoting from
the apocryphal writing Testament of Reuben 5, which was itself
based on Genesis 39.
Extra-biblical Parallels
Matthews: “The
Egyptian Tale of Two Brothers, echoing the sentiments expressed by
Joseph to Potiphar's wife (Gen 39:8-9), calls adultery a 'great
crime,' which is not even to be considered by an honest man or woman.
This was an attack on a man's household, stealing his rights to
procreate and endangering the orderly transmission of the estate to
his heirs (see Ex 20:14).”
Hamilton
states in this regard, “These parallels...may be purely
coincidental, or they may lend credence to the view that the Joseph
story was in the process of formation as early as the 15th
century B.C.”
And Payne says,
“The stories are by no means identical, however, and few recent
writers are inclined to make one dependent on the other. Seduction,
attempted seduction, and false accusations are age-old human
misdeeds, and it would have been surprising if there were no
parallels to Gen. 39.”
The Joseph story
is later re-told in the apocalyptic book of Jubilees (ca. 175 B.C.).
In it Potiphar's wife is said to have begged Joseph to lie with her
for a whole year.