JACOB THE DRAMA QUEEN

If one ever needed proof that those who love to over-dramatize their plight in life are not at all limited to the female sex, just consider the Old Testament patriarch Jacob (also known as Israel). He is well known as a deceiver, but this is another one of his unfortunate traits. Such negative talk regarding a biblical “hero” may sound heretical, but we all need to be reminded periodically that there is only one true hero in the Bible and that is the triune Deity. So here are some of the places in Genesis where Jacob exhibits such behavior as well as possible sources behind his actions.

Genesis 27:46

Right off the bat we get a glimpse into which parent he may have picked up his trait from, namely his doting mother Rebekeh who tells her husband Isaac, “I am weary of my life because of the Hittite women. If Jacob marries one of the Hittite women such as these, one of the women of the land, what good will my life be to me?”

Genesis 29:25

And speaking of Jacob's marriage, we all remember that Laban pulls a fast one on Jacob by marrying him off to Leah instead of his real love Rachel. When Jacob finds out he has been tricked, he replies to Laban, “What is this you have done to me?” In this particular case, we should not be too judgmental toward Jacob, because his reaction is totally justified. I know that I would definitely have done the same thing if it had happened to me.

Genesis 30:1

Of course, Jacob does get to marry Rachel at the same time, but that only brings him into contact with another drama queen – Rachel herself, who complains to him, “Give me children, or I shall die!”

Genesis 34:30

We skip forward in time a bit and see that Jacob and his growing family are now living in Hivite territory when his daughter Dinah strays a little too far from home and is raped by one of their prominent young men. Her brothers take revenge by wiping out many of them, only to have their father Jacob complain bitterly to them: “You have brought trouble on me!” Note that he seems not to be in the least interested in his daughter's situation, but only on the possible negative effect his sons' actions may have on himself.

Genesis 37:35

Then we come to the familiar story of Joseph's treatment at the hands of his brothers. When they break the news to him of the supposed death of Joseph, he refuses to be comforted by his family, saying “No, I shall to down to Sheol to my son, mourning.” In other words, he will never get over his loss as long as he lives.

Genesis 42:36

To briefly rehearse the events surrounding this next event, there is a famine in the land of Israel and Jacob sends ten of his sons to Egypt to buy grain. Joseph by this time is in charge of such matters and has changed enough in appearance that his brothers do not recognize him at all. He tests their character by demanding that they bring to him their youngest brother Benjamin, keeping Simeon as hostage until they return. When they inform Jacob of these unfortunate events, he immediately thinks the worst and replies dramatically, “I am the one you have bereaved of children: Joseph is no more, and Simeon is no more, and now you would take Benjamin. All this has happened to me!” That it is own fate rather than that of his family which is paramount in his mind is quite clear from the words in bold.

Genesis 42:38

Jacob relents and agrees to send Benjamin back with them. After all, he doesn't want to starve to death. But he warns the sons, “If harm should come to him.., you would bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to Sheol,” and repeats these words in 44:29, 31.

Genesis 43:6

Note also Jacob's accusation toward his sons in this verse: “Why did you treat me so badly as to tell the man that you had another brother?” Every action is interpreted by Jacob by how it affects him personally.

Genesis 45:28

Jacob continues to talk about his imminent death when told that Joseph is still alive even though his death would not happen for many more years.

Genesis 46:30

He repeats this idea after he has seen Joseph a short time later “I can die now, having seen for myself that you are still alive.”

Genesis 47:9

Finally, Jacob reviews all the woes in his “short” life for the benefit of Pharaoh: “The years of my earthly sojourn are one hundred thirty; few and hard have been the years of my life. They do not compare with the years of the life of my ancestors during their long sojourn.”

It is not hard to find parallels to people like Jacob who exhibit one or more of his traits. Here are a few random examples I have observed during my own “few and hard” years:

Starting out with a fictional example, but one no doubt taken from real life observations, there is the unforgettable character of Sanford (played by the comedian Redd Foxx) in the TV series Sanford and Son. Whenever the slightest thing happens in his life to upset him, he acts like he is having a heart attack and cries out to his long-departed wife in heaven, “I am coming, dear!”

And there was a friend of our family who, starting in her 50's, began moaning and groaning to all who would listen, “I don't understand why the Lord doesn't take me now. How much longer am I going to have to live?” But as far as any of us could see, she had nothing in her life about which to complain.

Similarly, a woman in our family would complain to total strangers how hard her life was and how she was forced to keep working even at her age (in her late 50's). The fact was that (1) she could have retired at any time to a pleasant group setting nearby but she didn't trust the owners to keep her there once she had paid the small opening fee, and (2) she had no one but herself to blame for her situation because her three failed marriages were all her own fault.

Finally, there is the example of past president Richard Nixon. When he lost his bid for California governor he blamed it all on the hostile press with the words: “You won't have me to kick around anymore.” Then years later after he had talked for a few minutes with the first astronauts to land on the moon, he bragged about what an historic occasion is was when the president of the United States could talk to someone on the moon. Thus, in effect he placed himself at the center of the event rather than all those who had made the voyage possible.

EPHESIANS 1:3-27 RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD

In approaching a new book of the Bible for study on your own, probably the first thing you should do is make sure you are well founded concerning the basics of that book. Any general Bible introduction will, thus, provide you with information about the author, the intended audience, the circumstances surrounding the writing, and the main purpose for which it was written. But what some readers do not realize is how important it is to see each of these books as a literary creation which is divided into separate sections, and often there is a plan behind these individual divisions and the ways in which they relate to one another. The problem comes in when that original plan is so obscure that even scholars have trouble agreeing on what it is.

Usual Format

As one example of that last consideration, take the first chapter of Paul's Letter to the Ephesians. William Barclay, in his general introduction to Paul's epistles found at the start of his commentary to Romans, explains that Paul generally began his letters with a short greeting (Eph. 1:1 in this case), followed by a prayer (1:2) and a thanksgiving to God (1:3). Then Paul could begin the main contents of his letter (at Ephesians 1:4) and conclude with various greetings and a benediction (6:21-32). But even Paul felt free to depart from that general plan on occasion.

Division by Subject

This is another way of trying to discern the intended divisions in the text. In English we do this by starting a new paragraph or skipping a line. But the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts rarely had such division points indicated. Thus, the scholars who came up with our various translations had to make judgment calls which sometimes did not agree with one another wholly. For example,

NIV and RSV indicate major divisions in its translation after verses 2 and 14, as well as a minor division after v. 10. Also seeing a break after v. 10 is one of the anonymous contributors to The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, who states: “The plan of salvation reflects the purpose of the will of God the Father, who has sent the Son to carry it out (Eph. 1:3-10).”

NEB also sees these three break points in the text but makes no distinction between the one after v. 10 and the others.

NRSV agrees with the major divisions after 2 and 14 but does not indicate a break after v. 10. Also recognizing v. 15 as starting a new section is Marcus Barth.

Hoehner's commentary on Ephesians also recognizes a two-fold division, with vv. 1-14 as “an extended praise directed to God and vv. 15-23 as “a commendation to the readers for their faith and love and a petition for wisdom and revelation.” (1:15-23). But note that he starts this unit with v. 1 instead of at v. 4 (Barclay) or v. 3 (RSV and NRSV). Also Hoehner's last description could be taken as an indication that there is a further division into a commendation / thanks in verses 15-16 followed by the actual prayer to God in 17-23. Maclean recognizes this same sub-division.

However, here again there is disagreement since Simpson treats vv. 15-20a as a prayer and labels 20b-23 as “Christ's Exaltation and Its Concomitant Issues for the Church.” Then there is the opinion of Moritz who calls verses 3-14 a eulogy or extensive praise section while verses 15-23 are treated as an intercessory prayer.

The intended ending of the unit beginning at either 1:1 or 1:3 is felt to be at Ephesians 3:21 by both Harpur and Foulkes, with Harpur seeing a major break after 1:19 while Foulkes places it after 1:14.

JB has a break after v. 14 but additionally indicates that vv. 3-14 (titled “God's Plan of Salvation”) is written in a form of poetry while vv. 15-23 (“The Triumph and Supremacy of Christ”) are in prose.

Division by Genre

The last example above brings up another criterion sometimes used to indicate that a new sub-section is beginning. But it is by no means foolproof since we can see that the Anchor Bible translation, divisions below, disagree with the Jerusalem Bible as to which verses are in poetry and which are in prose:

    prose (v. 3), poetry (vv. 3-10),

    prose (vv. 11-13), poetry (v. 14),

    prose (vv. 15-20a), poetry (20b-23)

Organization by Key Words and Phrases

    1. in the heavenly places (3)

        2. he chose us (4a)

            3. holy (4b)

                4. love (4c)

                    5. he has destined us according to his will & purpose (5)

                        6. to his praise and glory (6)

                            7. redemption (7) 

                                    8. wisdom (8)

                    5'. his will & purpose (9)

                                        A. fullness (10a)

                                            B. all things (10b, 11b)

                    5''. destined according to his will & purpose (11)

                        6'. to his praise and glory (12)

                                                C. believing (13) 

             3'. holy (13)

                                                    D. inheritance (14a)

                            7'. redemption (14b)

                        6''. to his praise and glory (14c)

                                                C'. faith (15a)

                4'. love (15b)

                                8'. wisdom (17)

        2'. he has called you (18a)

                                                    D'. inheritance (18b)

                                                C''. faith (19)

    1'. in the heavenly places (20)

                                        B'. all things (22-2x)

                                    A'. fullness (23a)

                                        B''. all things (23b-2x)

                                    A''. filling (23c)

As you can see from the above diagram, this chapter is rather densely packed with repetition of vocabulary which takes the rather unusual (but not unheard of) biblical form of two interlocking chiasms (i.e. mirror-image arrangements). Taking each separately, one can see that the numbered items reach their center point around verse 10 while the lettered items in bold reach their peak at around v. 15. Thus, it is no accident that these two change-points in the chapter are also identified by the above cited scholars using completely different lines of reasoning.

One minor textual point regarding the presence of the word “love” in v. 15 is in order at this point. Early Greek manuscripts of Ephesians differ somewhat as to whether it was in the original writing. Two prominent textual scholars disagree on this point, with Metzger feeling that it was original and Comfort stating that it was added later. Looking at the word distributions above, one can see that there is a good parallel between the presence of “love” in verses 4 and 15. However, on the other hand, if this word pair is removed from the structure, the overall organization in Figure 1 does not suffer in the least.

Grammatical Considerations

Running counter to all of the above approaches is the comment of Comfort, who notes that Ephesians 2:1-3 “grammatically speaking, should be connected with the end of chapter 1, otherwise they are just dangling...There is no break between the two chapters in the earliest MS [i.e., manuscript]. The idea is that Christ fills the church, his body, and (specifically) fills those who were once dead in their trespasses and sins. No other translation makes this connection.”

GENESIS 41

The narration in this chapter can be shown visually below to consist of two halves (see Figure 1). But they are unified as a whole by two similar phrases, “the land of Egypt” (14x) or simply “the land” (5x), which appear in both divisions.

                                              Figure 1: Two-Part Structure of Genesis 41

    A. Pharaoh dreams (1-8)

        B. Joseph interpreted two prisoners' dreams (9-13)

    A'. Pharaoh tells dreams to Joseph (14-24)

        B'. Joseph interprets Pharaoh's two dreams (25-32)

    ---------------------

            C. Joseph outlines plan to Pharaoh (33-36)

                D. Joseph promoted and married to Asenath (37-45)

            C'. Joseph implements plan (46-49)

                D'. Joseph's and Asenath have two children (50-52)

            C''. Joseph's plan is successful (53-57)

A and A' end similarly: “there was no one who could interpret” (8) // “there was no one who could explain” (24)

B' takes the form:

        1. “The two dreams are one and the same” (25a)

                2. “God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do” (25b)

                        3. Seven good years (26)

                                4. Seven bad years (27)

                2'. “God has shown to Pharaoh what he is about to do.” (28)

                        3'. Seven good years (29)

                                4'. Seven bad years (30-31)

        1'. “The doubling means that God has fixed the thing” (32)

And the root word “dream” appears exactly 14 (=2x7) times in this first half of Genesis 41 just as the number seven, symbolic of perfection or completion, is also prominent in Genesis 41:1-32.

Goldingay has enumerated the numerous echoes of Genesis 41 found in Daniel 2 concerning Daniel's

 interpretation of the king's dream about the statue with feet of clay. In fact, one might almost state that

 Daniel 2 is a commentary on the Joseph story.

Verse 1 “Two years of days” emphasizes the point that a full two years elapsed before he was

 remembered. If the butler had acted immediately, Joseph could have credited his own foresight instead 

of God's providence.

Verse 14 This custom is confirmed by Egyptian records. Shaving was a necessary ritual before 

appearing before Pharaoh. It probably had to do with removal of all body lice. Also, the removal of all

 body hair was a rite undergone by all newly ordained Egyptian priests.

Verse 16 Here we find the first of several times Joseph gives credit to God, perhaps indicating his 

growth of faith in prison. The generic Elohim is used rather than Yahweh, for Pharaoh's benefit. It could

 be a hint for us to utilize words and concepts easily understandable to a secular audience rather than

 putting them off or confusing them with unduly “churchy” wording and phrases.

Verse 32 This is similar to Jesus' use of “verily, verily” to indicate that a statement is really true.

Verse 33 Is he hesitant to put himself forward as the man to do the job, or is it a strong hint that he is 

applying for the job? One could take this to teach that we shouldn't be bashful about seizing 

opportunities. Perhaps we see here a combination of divine and human initiative.

Verse 36 God holds the fate of all nations in his hand, not just those who serve him. And other Bible 

passages teach that a whole nation may be blessed due to the actions of one pious person.

Verse 38-39 This is the first instance of the Holy Spirit dwelling in a person. Pharaoh recognizes the

 power of God at work, and his country is spared (contrast this with the encounters between the later 

Pharaoh and Moses).

Notice that this is the fourth time Joseph is the second in command: under his father as a favorite son, 

with Potiphar, and in jail. This is a foreshadowing of the fact that his tribe will be second after that of 

Judah.

Verse 42 This is parallel to Joseph's coat of many colors designating his status as the favorite.

Verses 42-43 One wonders whether Joseph was a man like Paul who could be content whether in

 prison or in comfort.

Verse 45 Joseph's name means “revealer of secret things.” OR “God speaks and lives.” OR “food man 

of the land.” Potiphar is a different person from the first Potiphar since this one is a priest. What do you

 think about a monotheist fitting in to a polytheistic culture? How much do you think he discussed

 theology with his boss?

Verse 51 The first name may mean “release from all obligation of debt” or “made me forget my 

problems by recompensing me.” If the latter, it brings up the question as to why Joseph never informed 

his father that he was alive.

Verse 55 Was Joseph doing his boss' job for him? It certainly wouldn't be the first or last example of 

that happening. I have personally been through that experience more than once in my career.

 

ZIKLAG

 

    

                          I Samuel 30   (collage, 1992)

 This city figures in to events taking place over a long period of time, from the reign of Saul to the return from the Babylonian Exile. But there still is some doubt regarding the exact location of that town.

“Ziklag appears in Jos. xv. 31 as being near the Edomite boundary, in the south of Judah. It was apportioned to the Simeonites, but later fell into Philistine hands. David, when a Philistine vassal, ruled it and was later able to retain and incorporate it in his own realm. It remained in the hands of Judah in both pre-exilic and post-exilic times. Tentative locations are Zuhailika and Tell al-Khuwailifa, the latter more favored by modern scholars.” (D.F. Payne) One such scholar is Pfeiffer, who locates the site as being “in the Negeb about twenty-five miles southeast of Gaza.”

 One the other hand, Tsumura (as well as McCarter) says that “the site may be the modern Tell esh-Sheriah, about 20 miles east-southeast of Gaza.” He personally doubts it is Tell el-Khuwalifa “since that tell seems to be located within the territory of Judah rather than that of the Philistines.”

And just to add to the list of possibilities, Myers identifies Ziklag with En-rimmon.

But in an article in the Winter 2025 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, coauthors Kyle H. Keimer, Gil Davis, Saar Ganor, and Yosef Garfinkel suggest another strong possibility:

“Over the years, scholars have identified Ziklag with more than a dozen sites in southern Israel; most can be disqualified on geographical, archaeological, or chronological grounds. Although some good possibilities remain, Khirbet al-Rai offers the strongest evidence for being biblical Ziklag. Geographically, it fits the description provided by the biblical text (Joshua 15:31; 19:5; 1 Samuel 27:6; 30:1, 14, 26; 1 Chronicles 4:30; 12:1, 20). Chronologically, it was occupied during the periods in which Ziklag was mentioned by the biblical authors. Archaeologically, it has a destruction layer dated to the late 11^th or early 10^th century, which corresponds nicely with the period of time in which the Bible says the Amelekites 'burned' Ziklag as retribution for David's earlier raids against them (1 Samuel 27:8-9; 30:1). Perhaps most important, there is a distinct change in material culture in the late 11^th and early 10^th centuries at Khirbed al-Rai, from a mixed Canaanite / Philistine culture to one that is distinctly Judahite. Indeed, its continued Judahite identity throughout the rest of the Iron Age seems to be remembered in 1 Samuel 27:6, which says that Ziklag belonged to the kings of Judah 'until this day.,' likely referring to the contemporary seventh-century setting in which the account was written.”

Another noted scholar commenting on the time of writing of that phrase says it “could refer, as the earliest possibility, to the time of Rehoboam of the late tenth century B.C.” (Tsumura)

Joshua 15:31; 19:5

This city first appears in the biblical chronicles in the book of Joshua. Whereas Joshua 13:8-17:18 is the first phase of land allotment, chapters 18-19 reflect the second phase.

I Samuel 27:6

The Philistine ruler rewards David for his supposed loyalty by giving him the city of Ziklag as his own. McCarter explains, “The granting of landed properties to favored servants was a common part of the feudal economy of the city-states of the ancient Near Eastern Bronze Age.”

As to the effect of this on David, Baldwin says: “From every point of view it was good that David should move away from Achish's capital, but especially because he needed freedom to operate his own independent policy without being observed too closely...From David's point of view Ziklag had the advantage of being well away from Saul's territory and isolated from the Philistine pentapolis...Achish stood to gain from leaving David's army to protect his southern territory; he may also have hoped to have won the support of Judah against Saul, which might have enabled him to take the whole land, as he very nearly did in the battle of Mount Gilbaeh (1 Sa. 31:7).”

“When David went raiding from Ziklag, 'he did not leave a man or a woman alive' (1 Sam 27:11), and when the Amalekites raided Ziklag, they captured all the women and children related to David's troop.” (Evans)

David's actions may seem rather bloodthirsty, but remember that he did not dare to leave behind any Amalekites alive who could possibly inform David's overlords, the Philistines, about his double-dealing. For the fact was that David fully utilized his position at Ziklag, not mainly to serve the Philistines but instead to serve as “a kind of unofficial policeman or protector of Judah.” (McCarter)

As to the underlying importance of this chapter, McCarter says that “the entire Ziklag pericope may be said to demonstrate a historical bias for a bond between David and the people of the Judahite Negeb as surely as the preceding stories do for the Wilderness of Judah and specifically the area east of Hebron. Taken together these material prepare us for II Sam 2:1-4, the proclamation of David as king of Judah.”

I Samuel 30:1,14,26

Stern: “King Saul made a concerted effort to destroy Amalek, following the prophet Samuel's call for the ban (1 Sam. 15), but enough Amalekites survived to destroy David's city of Ziklag (1 Sam. 30.1). Nevertheless, after Ziklag the Amalekites ceased to trouble Israel. 1 Chronicles 4.42-43 depicts the tribe of Simeon as eradicating the remnant of Amalek, fulfilling God's earlier promise.”

“The sight of a burnt-out, totally deserted town [as illustrated in the collage above] was more than the troops could bear...David...was held responsible for the disaster, 'for the people spoke of stoning him.' Never since his flight from Gibeah and Saul had David stood so alone..Far from blaming God for allowing the destruction of the city, David took the reprisal of the Amelekites as one of life's hazards, in which he could draw on the resources of a faithful covenant Lord.” (Baldwin)

Tsumura echoes this last thought: “In this situation [30:1] David strengthened himself in the Lord, his God. Only the intimate relationship with his personal God gave him strength in such a critical time.”

Seibert: “David...recovers people and possessions taken by the Amalekites in a raid on Ziklag (1 Sam 30:18-19).”

“David reflects Saul's generosity after the battle of Ziklag (1 Sam 30:21-25)...” (C.J.H. Wright)

II Samuel 1:1, 4:10

Ziklag is again mentioned in this first verse of II Samuel where David receives the news of the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. The news is delivered by an Amelekite who has travelled roughly 80 miles to David's outpost to tell him, hoping to thus obtain an important position in David's kingdom or another reward. This Amelekite even brags untruthfully that he was the one who personally dispatched Saul. The reader knows this is a lie from I Samuel 31. “So on the first page of another biblical book we run straight into the God who exposes us, who delights in truth in the inward parts (Ps 51:6), who sets our secret sins in the light of his presence (Ps. 90:8).” (D. R. Davis)

Davis also points out that there is an almost identical story found in I Samuel 4 in which two commanders of the forces of Ishbaal, son of Saul, decide to murder him in order to get into David's good graces. But instead of a reward for their deed, they are put to death by him instead. As McCarter says, “Their treachery is born not of revenge but of crass opportunism and the hope of a reward from David...Thus we see that “David...was reluctant to press his own interests at the expense of the house of Saul, for whom he continued to carry respect and loyalty.” After all, David fully kept in mind that God Himself had chosen Saul to be the king of Israel.

I Chronicles 4:30; 12:1,20

“This list of Simeonite settlements [in verse 4:30] is drawn with only slight changes from Jos. 19:2-8.” (Williamson)

And Howard notes: “The genealogy of Simeon [I Chron. 4] (24-43) is very fragmentary and this reflects the fact that it lost its tribal identity very early, becoming absorbed into Judah...The final portion of the chapter deals with the Simeonite chiefs who were forced to migrate due to overpopulation and lack of pasture, suggesting a semi-nomadic type of life to a late date.”

Concerning I Chron. 12:1-7, Ellison states that it “gives a list of Benjamites (v. 2) who supported David. They are mentioned first because their action was the more remarkable when we consider that Saul belonged to their tribe. A comparison of v. 1 with vv. 8,16 shows that they were not the first to join David in point of time.”

Williamson: “As for the chronological setting of the material [in I Chron. 11-12] is concerned.., the Chronicler ordered his material by theme rather than strict historical order...Rather we should observe that, according to the geographical indications supplied, the material is arranged in a chiastic [i.e., mirror-image] structure,” as in Figure 1 below:

    1. Hebron (11:10)

        2. Ziklag (12:1)

            3. The Stronghold (12:8)

            3'. The Stronghold (12:16)

        2'. Ziklag (12:20)

    1'. Hebron (12:23)

This is an important observation in that this sort of arrangement of material in the Old and New Testament often follows a topical scheme rather than one which is strictly chronological. So again see here that exact chronological order in the Bible is not necessarily to be expected. Instead there may be some more topical arrangement at work.

Howard's comments on Chapter 12 are as follows: “These lists seem to be drawn from very early material...The evidence of such large-scale defections to David indicates how it was possible for him to secure the throne immediately after Saul's death. The process, however, was under the hand of God, a point the Chronicler emphasizes in the use of the words of Amasai, For your God will help you 12:18).”

Nehemiah 11:28

This verse is the last one in the Old Testament to mention Ziklag. “The verses [i.e. 11:25-36] list towns and villages in the former territories of Judah (vv. 25-30) and Benjamin (vv. 31-36). No reason can be given for the non-mention of important settlements mentioned elsewhere in Ezra and Nehemiah.” (Cundall)

Fensham: “Much has been written on the origin of this list of cities...The real problem with this list is that it creates the impression that the Jews lived in a much larger area than expected. The question is whether this list delineates the limits of the Persian province of Judah...It seems better to assume that some of the cities listed refer to areas with a partially Jewish population. The Jews are citizens of the Persian empire and could move to and fro in the different provinces.”

“I Chron ix attributes the list to the time of the return; Neh xi to that following the completion of the rebuilding the wall.” (Myers) Concerning verses 25-36 specifically, he states, “Evidently the writer was concerned primarily with relating how, after the reconstruction of the wall and the consequent multiplication of space, the authorities put on a campaign to repopulate the capital. That move emphasized the other side of the matter, namely, that many of the people were content to live in the outlying areas of Judah.” He speculates that the list could refer “to those who were not too eager to move to Jerusalem.”

WHY AREN'T ALL ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATIONS THE SAME?

That is probably a question that has confused anyone who has compared how his own Bible has rendered a particular passage with the reading of the same passage by someone in the pulpit. The immediate question is, “Which one is correct?” Of course that wasn't a problem when I was growing up in church. Way back then, any translation other than the King James Version was automatically looked on with great suspicion. The short discussion below explains a few of the factors which give rise to the many diverse renderings in English one will encounter nowadays.

Textual Considerations

I have discussed these in great detail in earlier postings (see “Introduction to Textual Criticism”). But here is a quick overview. Most Christians do not realize that the many early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the whole Bible or portions of it do not all agree in their wording 100%. So that gives rise to two basic approaches, using the New Testament as an example:

The majority text approach, used in the formulation of the King James Bible, simply tabulated the readings found in the thousands of handwritten manuscripts available at the time and went with the readings that appeared the most number of times.

By contrast, almost all subsequent NT translations other than the NKJV attach much greater weight to the earliest manuscripts since it is well known that errors in copying, either purposeful or accidental, tend accumulate with repeated re-copying over time.

Audience

Depending upon the intended audience for a translation, it may be geared toward, for example, those with only a basic English vocabulary (Today's English Version), those whose theology is basically conservative / evangelical (ESV) or much more on the liberal side (Anchor Bible), those of a specific denomination (Jerusalem Bible, Douay Translation), or designed for pulpit readings in the more liturgical churches (NEB).

Literal vs. Paraphrase

There are the more strictly word-for-word renderings such as NASB on one end of the spectrum, those such as NIV which are slightly paraphrased for more easy reading for a modern audience, and on the other extreme are the various English paraphrases such as J.B. Phillips, The Message, and The Living Bible in which the thought of a verse is presented but not the exact wording as in the original. However, sometimes what one gains in comprehension by a paraphrase is offset by the particular slant the translators may wish to impose on the text (either in a liberal or conservative direction or perhaps to emphasize or de-emphasize a particular doctrinal point).

First-Hand vs. Second-Hand Translations

In the first category would be fresh translations such NIV or NEB which begin directly with the Greek or Hebrew text and translate it into English. By contrast, renderings such as NAB begin with the KJV and change the wording only enough to modernize the language in order to make it more understandable to a modern audience. Another set of examples of English translations would be the RSV and NRSV which start with the familiar KJV wording but correct it considerably, not only to bring it up to date, but also to utilize more recent scholarship which has shed new light on areas such as the range of meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek vocabulary as well as recent finds in the area of Middle Eastern history and culture.

The Jerusalem Bible, designed for a Roman Catholic readership, is another interesting example of a second-hand translation in that it began as a French translation which was in turn translated into English.

Additional Translation Options

As one examines the various Bible editions out today, another thing becomes clear. They often vary considerably in their basic formats or layouts, and this affects how translations are carried out. To clarify: If one has a Bible which contains only the translated text, with no accompanying study helps, it becomes necessary to convey as much information as possible in the text itself. And, unfortunately, that is rarely done adequately, often leaving the reader in the dark regarding certain confusing statements which he or she might come across as well as at the mercy, for better or worse, of a pastor, Sunday school teacher, or written commentary for further enlightenment.

Thus, just looking at the editions of a few English translations in my own library, the following can be noted:

KJV – No accompanying notes, but there is a built-in guide as to how the names of people and places should be pronounced.

Scofield Reference Bible – This is probably the first reference Bible published in English, and thus it became highly popular in 19^th Century America. The main problems with it are: (1) It is rather dated today and (2) the running commentary is strictly from a Premillennial Dispensational viewpoint. Therefore, unless that happens to be your preferred theological stance, you will probably find yourself arguing with most of the comments made from that perspective.

Oxford Annotated RSV Bible – Each page contains footnotes containing valuable information regarding the various alternative translations of ambiguous words and a guide as to which original manuscripts were utilized to arrive at the words translated for those occasions in which there are alternative readings in the Greek or Hebrew. Finally, at the bottom of each page is a brief explanatory commentary explaining any other non-obvious details which make the text more understandable. The problem with these latter helps is that they are written by individual commentators and editors who may have their own theological axe to grind. Such comments should therefore be only tentatively accepted as “Gospel truth.”

NASB Reference Edition – This edition contains, in addition to the text itself, only a series of footnotes in the margins which are almost exclusively Bible cross-references to some of the verses on that page, as well as an occasional brief explanatory note as to the meaning of a phrase or custom.

NEB – The footnotes mainly provide alternative translations for certain words and phrases, including those places where the editors felt that the best manuscript readings were probably in error.

NIV – The basic editions limit themselves to short notes indicating alternative readings suggested in ancient translations, hidden puns present in the original language, and brief explanations of technical terms.

Oxford Annotated NRSV Bible – The end of the edition contains over 200 pages of general Bible articles, sets of maps, short concordance and topical index. Associated directly with the text itself are (1) introductions to each book of the Bible, (2) textual variants, (3) alternative translations of certain words, (4) extensive cross-references when applicable, and (5) numerous explanatory notes on almost every page. The main caution is that those writing the notes and articles in this edition tend to be a little more liberal theologically than some people are accustomed to. Thus, as with the Scofield Bible on the other end of the theological spectrum, the reader should be aware of possible biases in presentation.

GENESIS 40

In this chapter we learn of the events that transpired during the time Joseph was in prison.

Literary Considerations

Chapter 40 can be shown to have the following symmetrical organization:

                                                Figure 1: Structure of Genesis 40

    A. Dreaming in Jail (vv. 1-8)

            B. Cupbearer's Dream (vv. 9-11)

                    C. Interpretation (vv. 12-13)

                            D. Joseph: “Remember me” (vv. 14-15)

            B'. Baker's Dream (vv. 16-17)

                    C'. Interpretation (vv. 18-19)

    A'. Dreams Fulfilled (vv. 20-22)

                            D'. Joseph was not remembered (v. 23)

A number of commentators have noted that the phrase “lift the head” can mean either “to look upon with favor” as in Section C or “lift the head off” as its intended meaning in C'.

Barnhouse's observation that “The offenses of a butler and baker were planned with the welfare of Joseph in mind” is confirmed in the two conclusions (D and D') in Figure 1.

There is a sort of symmetry to the five appearances of the word group “interpretation/interpreted” in the chapter in sections A, C, B', C', A'.

And finally, some key words appear in this chapter a symbolically significant number of times: Joseph (10x, a “perfect number”), pharaoh (12x, “those people God chooses to work through”), cupbearer (8x, “a surfeit of perfection”), and baker (6x, “imperfection”).

Specific Comments

Kline says in reference to Genesis 40:4, “Joseph's trust was over administrative affairs in the prison; superiority over the high-ranking prisoners was not implied (cf. 41:12).”

“A foreboding or unclear dream from the preceding night can be troubling at break of day (Gen 20:8; 40:6; 41:8).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

“The Egyptian officials were dismayed by their lacked access to their favorite dream interpreters [see v. 8] but the Hebrew slave rejected such professionals as charlatans.” (Kline)

“Occurring in the Bible as often as it does, the figure of three is an evocative image, rich with connotations...Thus the dreams Joseph interprets for Pharaoh's cupbearer and baker are rife with quantities of three (Gen 40:10), and Jonah is stuck in the belly of a fish for three days and three nights (Jon 1:17). But the significance of three as a literary motif is not purely arbitrary...three consecutive occurrences of an event serve as a rhetorical signal indicating special significance.” (DBI)

Hunt states, “Two dreams (Gen 37) depicted Joseph's promotion over his brothers. Also, Pharaoh's butler and baker each dreamed (Gen 40) about how Pharaoh would lift their heads [cf. vv. 13, 19]. Finally, Pharaoh had two dreams regarding the future of Egypt. This doubling of messages may have enabled the mantic [i.e. trained interpreter] to decode the message more easily.”

Bruckner says, “In the Pentateuch, hesed ['unrelenting love'] (21x) is a virtue in human affairs (Gen 20:13; 21:23; 24:49; 40:14; 47:29). It is declared and expanded by God as the central feature of his name (Yahweh), his promises and his active reputation...Mispat ('justice') is also understood as part of hesed (see Gen 39:21; 40:13-14...).”

“His very natural plea for help (14) fell on deaf, or rather forgetful, ears (23). Thus once again it is emphasized that God and God alone controlled Joseph's affairs.” (Payne)

Kline says regarding Birds will eat the flesh [v. 19], “The impaling and devouring of the corpse was an extreme aggravation of the penalty and disgrace (cf. Dt. 21:22), particularly for an Egyptian courtier, for whom mummification and a splendid sepulchre was of paramount concern.”

Applications

Verses 2-3 Raymond Brown sees a parallel between Jesus punished alongside two others, one of whom will be hanged on a tree and the other one elevated.

Verse 4 Remember that the two prisoners held high positions in the government and might be pardoned later, so Joseph is not a mere servant in the prison.

Verses 6-7 Look at how God provided a “teachable moment” which Joseph took advantage of, when he could have just ignored the situation.

Verse 8 Egyptians held schools of dream interpretation. Joseph, by contrast, says that it is in God's hands, but proceeds to act as if he knows that he is the one to whom God will reveal the secrets. It demonstrates that he has not lost his faith, and perhaps that he has tempered his earlier egotism and is giving God his due.

Verse 14 Intervention did not come by scheming, but eventually by God's will. Notice that Joseph did not tell the whole story (his own brothers sold him) for fear that it would raise suspicions concerning Joseph's innocence. Is this partial truth the same as lying?

Verse 16 People seek prophecies of the future but are disappointed when the answer is not a favorable one for them. This is like the Israelites looking forward to the Day of the LORD.

Verses 18-19 There was the temptation for Joseph to tell the baker what he wanted to hear (he was an influential man) in the same manner that some preachers like to “tickle the ears” of the congregation. Notice Joseph's brusque manner and apparent lack of interest in the baker, compared to his conversation with the wine server. What do you think about it? Joseph's concern seems to be mainly about himself.

Verse 23 We may tend to blame the steward for forgetting Joseph in the excitement of his good fortune. But what about us forgetting to thank God when he has answered our prayers?

JEREMIAH 31:35-37

The Book of Consolation (chs. 30-33)

The uniquely hopeful tone of these chapters (which some such as Bullock and Guthrie would limit to chs. 30-31) marks them out in contrast to the lamentations found in the rest of the book. And others such as Cawley and Millard actually limit that section to Chapter 30 only.

Rosenberg: “The poetic material in Jeremiah is most concentrated at the beginning (chaps. 1-25), middle (chaps 30-31), and end (chaps 46-51).” And that statement certainly holds for Jeremiah 31:35-37 even though it is bounded both before and after by large chunks of prose.

The specific verses in question directly follow what is perhaps the most well-known pronouncement in the whole book, namely the prophecy of the New Covenant in 31:31-34. And Wiseman, for one, considers the whole of vv. 31-37 as a single literary unit.

Then there is Bright's piecemeal theory, followed by few evangelicals in its entirety: “All in all, the safest conclusion is that chapters xxx-xxxi contain genuine sayings of Jeremiah addressed to northern Israel and uttered relatively early in his career (xxxi 2-6, 15-22), together with other words of his uttered much later, and that the material has in certain cases subsequently been expanded and supplemented ...to apply Jeremiah's prophecies more directly to the exiles living in Babylon...The final poetic piece (vss. 35-37) may have originally formed the conclusion of the collection introduced in xxx 1-3...”

And we also have to take into account that the ancient Greek translation of Jeremiah, the Septuagint, actually places verse 37 before 35-36. Most scholars take the Hebrew order to be the original one.

General Comments on 31:35-37

Chisholm: “The Lord concludes this promise of a new covenant with an assuring word. He affirms that his commitment to Israel's descendants (both Israel and Judah are probably in view here; see v. 31) is as constant as the cycles of nature he has set in place (vv. 35-36). To emphasize the point, he states that it is impossible for him to reject his people as it is for a mere human being to measure the extent of the heavens or the subterranean regions (v. 37). Regeneration would indeed come, highlighted by the rebuilding of Jerusalem, which in its entirety would be set apart as a holy city (vv. 38-39).”

Thompson also summarizes verses 35-37 by stating: “Two sayings, semi-proverbial in character lie behind this brief passage, which declares the impossibility of Israel ever being forsaken again by Yahweh.”

And Wiseman similarly says, “The security of the covenant is the faithfulness of the Creator, whose mercies never fail (35-37; cf. 33:19-22). This is a classic passage for understanding the Lord's unchanging nature as the God of order (hosts) in heaven and earth. This is basic to His being as God of law and love. His covenant and His love are consistent.”

Matters of Timing

“The reference to rebuilding the city (31:38) seems to fix the date at the end of the Judean kingdom after Jerusalem had fallen. (Bullock) If this is true, then the same may certainly apply to the dating of vv. 35-37.

Then there is the question regarding the time period which is being referred to in this prophecy of the future as well as the nature of its intended fulfillment. Payne's opinion is that the time of fulfillment will be during the time of “the millennial establishment of God's people as a permanent, political entity.” But he does not define who “God's people” are.

Thus, speaking from a dispensational viewpoint which concentrates on the fate of the Jews to a much greater degree than other schools of evangelical theology, Ryrie states: “The [amillennial] interpretation stulifies any hope of Israel for a national future. Their only hope is spiritual, by entering into faith in Christ in the present interadvent age...The theme of regathering [in Jer. 31:8] is linked in this chapter with the new covenant with the house of Israel (Jer. 31:31-34) and the solemn pledge that Israel shall continue as a nation as long as the sun, moon, and stars continue (Jer. 31:35-37).”

However, many other scholars, such as Clowney, take a less literal view of this admittedly poetic prophecy: “The new covenant is spiritual, bringing the covenant principle to its actualization (Jer. 31:31-37; Ezek. 36:24-28)...The very fulness of the blessing, however, transcends the form of the covenant that is restored, so that the spiritual realities symbolized in its ceremonial types are actualized...The old covenant in its full restoration becomes the new covenant.”

Bruce also takes the far more defensible hermeneutical stance of evangelical interpretation which looks upon the New Testament pronouncements as the definitive, literal ones by which the more poetic statements in the Old Testament are to be understood, instead of vice versa. Thus he says, “Whether the expression 'the Israel of God' in its one appearance in the New Testament (Gal. vi. 16) denotes believing Jews only, or believing Jews and Gentiles without distinction, is disputed; the latter is more probable, especially if the expression is to be construed in apposition to 'all who walk by this rule'. But that the community of believers in Jesus, irrespective of their natural origin, is looked upon as the new Israel throughout the New Testament is clear. They are 'the twelve tribes in the dispersion' (Jas. i. 1), 'the exiles of the dispersion' (I Pet. i. 1), who are further designated, in language borrowed from Old Testament descriptions of Israel, as 'a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people' (I Pet. ii. 9).”

D.R. Jones says of these verses, “This is the ground of confidence that he will restore his people and establish a covenant which shall not be broken...At the same time the contrast between the old covenant which was broken, and the new, which is based on an inner apprehension of the divine Torah, presupposes that the new covenant will not be broken and the guarantee again is to be found in God.”

This statement should remind us that even the traditional division of the Bible into two testaments (i.e. covenants) goes against the contention of the dispensationalists that the present time of the Gentiles is a “mere parenthesis” in God's overall plan for the Jewish people.

Literary Structure

There is a fairly obvious two-part division to verses 35-37 which can be diagrammed thusly based on the order of words in the original Hebrew:

        A. Yahweh says

                B. who created the heavenly bodies

                        C. who stirs up the seas

                                D. If this order departs

        A'. Yahweh says

                                        E. then shall Israel cease

        A''. Yahweh says

                                D'. If

                B'. the heavens be measured

                        C'. and the foundations of the earth explored

                                        E'. then I will cast off Israel

        A'''. Yahweh says

Jeremiah 31:35

“Verse 35 is in the form of a participial hymn of praise and ends with the refrain the LORD of hosts is his name that is so marked in Am. 4.13; 5.8-9; 9.5-6...Here the familiar form of the doxology is used, not as the solemn prelude to judgment, but as the equally solemn introduction to the divine announcement of the indestructibility of the kingdom of God. Thus v. 35 is in effect a particularly striking and even momentous way of introducing the divine assurance. The allusion to the fixed order of nature is of course particularly apt, since this is the sign of the unchanging purpose of God.” (D.R. Jones)

“The verse harks back to Gen. 1:16, where the verb natan, 'give,' is also used in reference to the sun, moon, and stars. The reference to the stirring up of the seas and the roaring of the waves is known elsewhere (cf. Isa. 17:12; 51:15; Ps. 46:3).” (Thompson)

Jeremiah 31:36

“But it all operates according to Yahweh's fixed order or 'decrees' (huggim). If these should ever cease, which they will not, then the descendants (zera') of Israel will cease (sabat) to exist. It is an argumentum ad adsurdum, and the saying would have given strong confidence to a people so beset by troubles as Israel.” (Thompson)

Beale and Carson state: “Almost all of Jer. 31 describes the future days of God's new covenant with his people...Verses 23-30...employ the form of future predictions, leading to the passage that explicitly anticipates a 'new covenant' (31:31-35), a passage quoted at length in Heb. 8:8-13 as having been fulfilled in Jesus (see also Heb. 10:16-17).”

“Two pledges are seen here that Israel shall endure, the world itself being an illustration. The perseverance of Israel rests on the persistence of Yahweh (cf. Heb 13:8).” (Cawley and Millard)

The famous words in Jeremiah 31:31-34 are widely quoted and alluded to in all four gospels, Romans, II Corinthians, and I Thessalonians.

Guthrie says, “The clause 'the days are surely coming' is an eschatological formula also used in 31:27-30, 38-40.”

Jeremiah 31:37

Regarding this verse, Thompson says, “The second figure is based on a different figure but amounts to the same thing. No one (in those days) could measure the heavens above or explore earth's foundations. No more could Yahweh cast off ('refuse, spurn,' ma'as) the whole people of Israel. He had done too much in past days for his people for all his work to be wasted.”

GENESIS 39

                                                       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 15^th 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.