Dreaming big: On expanding dreams,hubris,and the character of the biblical Joseph

Abstract

Dreams play a special role in the Joseph narrative. They are arranged in three pairs each and carry the story forward decisively. Joseph’s dreams in particular form a narrative framework for the central theme of the story: family conflicts and dominion. Again and again, it has been observed that while Joseph’s first dream comes true, his second does not correspond entirely to the events that transpire within the narrative. Contrary to the tendency to make this second dream equal to the first, or to exclude or reinterpret it in terms of literary criticism, this essay proposes that the second dream should be understood within the negative conception of the Joseph character in Genesis 37 as a sign of Joseph’s hubris and therefore as an exaggeration or even invention which Joseph himself manufactured.

1. Dreams in the Joseph story

Dreams and their interpretation have formed a vital part of the world which produced the Hebrew Bible. Going back as far as the third millennium BCE, they have been understood as a medium of divine communication foretelling the future, offering help and correction, lending meaning to otherwise incomprehensible events. ¹ It is therefore not surprising that the Hebrew Bible contains numerous accounts of such divine interventions, the majority of which are found in the narratives about the patriarchs. ² Among these, the Joseph story in particular seems to use dreams as integral parts of its structure. Three times the implicit narrator recounts his characters having dreams that advance the plot in considerable ways. Each time, they come as pairs, which link them even more closely. Yet, as many have observed before, the first two dreams are different from the officials’ and Pharaoh’s dreams in that Joseph does not interpret them but rather is himself the dreamer. ³ Also, unlike the two pairs of dreams in prison (Gen. 40.5–23) and of Pharaoh (41.1–32), this pair forms a narrative arc which extends to the very end of the story in 50.18. As Redford rightly says, ‘Remove the dreams from chapter 37, and the Joseph Story as a coherent whole is reduced to nothing’. ⁴

2. The problem of the missing interpreter

The centrality of Joseph’s dreams is particularly interesting in light of the narrative logic of the Joseph story. In order to create suspense when recounting his supposed dreams (Gen. 37.5–11), neither the implicit narrator nor Joseph himself provides an interpretation of his dreams. Rather, one is left unsure about the dreams’ full and concrete meaning for the bulk of the story. ⁵ It is generally assumed that all three dream pairs actually belong to the category of symbolic dreams in terms of form history, and thus require interpretation, since they are not directly interpreted by the dream giver. ⁶ Following Zgoll’s categories, these are intrarelational image dreams which are both unverified and uninterpreted. In this respect, they are fundamentally different from the other two pairs that receive a full interpretation later on. ⁷ The interpretation is replaced by the brothers’ hateful questions and the father’s bitter opposition. Can we, the recipients, trust the brothers’ and father’s interpretations? Or are they leading us astray? ⁸ We might categorize both dreams as intuitive rather than technical in their methodology. It is on account of the brothers’ and the father’s interpretation that they reject the dream’s validity, which makes them dubious interpreters. Authoritative interpretations “from above” are completely absent and this contributes to the narrative arc of suspense based on the story’s basic conflict. ⁹ This fits neatly with Zgoll’s idea of the ambiguity of uninterpreted image dreams. They are, as mentioned above, unverified. In our case, we might argue that the narrator deliberately leaves open-ended both the meaning and the truth-value of Joseph’s dream in order to hold open a range of possibilities: a) the dreams have the meanings the brothers and/or Jacob intuit and are true; b) the dreams have one or more different meanings (from those attributed by the brothers and Jacob) and are true; c) the dreams have the meanings the brothers and/or Jacob intuit and are false; d) the dreams have one or more different meanings (from those attributed by the brothers and Jacob) and are false. It can be argued that by withholding the answers or resolutions, the narrator requires the reader to make a judgment, both about the dreams and the dreamer. ¹⁰ It also requires the reader to be attentive throughout the story and puts the recipient in the place of the interpreter. Which of the possibilities above is preferable seems entirely up to the recipient and their evaluation of the story. Humphreys rightly argues that ‘[t]he narrator does not inform us in his own voice of Joseph’s thoughts or motives. … We perceive him [sc. Joseph] as they [sc. the brothers] experience and value him. … We are never informed about how he felt regarding all of this’. ¹¹ Joseph himself can certainly not be taken as an adequate narrator. After all, at this point (37.9), we simply do not know whether Joseph is a trustworthy source or not. Below, I will argue against placing too much trust in Joseph’s point of view. Indeed, especially as things start to go Joseph’s way, the story offers so many conflicting cues as to Joseph’s reliability or unreliability that the question seems almost unresolvable. Consider, for example, the way he terrorizes his brothers in chapters 42–44. ¹² Yet, he is able to have a peaceful, almost conciliatory meal with them (Gen 43.31–34). ¹³ In short, we are missing an interpreter whom we can truly trust.

Only once does the narrator offer us an insight into Joseph’s own thoughts when—seeing his brothers bowing down to him (and not knowing who he is)—he explicitly states that ‘Joseph remembered his dreams which he had dreamt about them’ (ויזכר יוסף את החלמות אשׁר חלם להם, ‎ 42.9a). What exactly he remembered (and what he did not) remains unclear; again, no further comment from anyone is supplied in the text. Certainly, he did not see the entirety of both of his dreams become reality. This is especially true for Joseph’s second dream, which involved far more than just his eleven brothers. And even if the plural החלמות should be understood as a totum pro parte synecdoche referring to just the first dream, ¹⁴ where then is Benjamin, the 11^th brother in chapter 42? ¹⁵ Of course, one may argue that this is too pedantic an understanding of Joseph’s dreams and that the gist, namely the bowing of the brothers, will in fact come true even several times during the story’s progression.

3. The unfulfilled second dream

Among others, ¹⁶ one major problem with the dreams in Gen. 37 is that ‘Joseph’s second dream is never really fulfilled’. ¹⁷ Or to be more precise, the interpretation given by Jacob does not actually become reality. Certainly, the main point of the story is rather clear to the brothers and the father as we can see from their reaction. Joseph is telling them—by means of a dream as a supposed divine omen—that one day, he will have dominion over them. ¹⁸ Yet, nowhere does Jacob actually bow down before his son as a sign of reverence and submission, ¹⁹ nor does his mother. Certainly, later in the story, Joseph attains a position of power that invites the inference that his father will have likely bowed before him. ²⁰ Yet interestingly, the story does not say explicitly. Even more questions arise in relation to Joseph’s mother. In the canonical context, Rachel dies when giving birth to Benjamin (Gen. 35.16–20). How would she ever bow down to her older son Joseph, now in Egypt? Perhaps Leah has taken on the role of Jacob’s first wife and thus functions as the matriarch, as Gen. Rab. 84.11 indicates. But nowhere do we find evidence for such a shift in Genesis itself. In the Joseph story, Jacob never calls Leah his wife. This title is reserved for (the dead) Rachel (Gen 46.19). And even if Leah (or Jacob’s two maids) had become a sort of foster mother, there is no mention of her or them bowing down before Joseph. On a diachronic level, we could argue for multiple sources. ²¹ But would such an obvious detail not have been noticed by later redactors? These simple narrative and logical deductions show that something is amiss in the canonical Joseph story—that is if the story (and its pericopes like Gen. 37.5–11) can be sufficiently understood in its present form without the use of form or redaction criticism, which is what I am arguing in this article.

How then, should we understand the potential missing fulfilment of Joseph’s second dream (Gen. 37.9) in the story’s final form? At least four explanations have been offered which are all unsatisfactory at one point or another, as we will discuss below. My thesis is that the second dream does not add to the narrative potential of the first. Rather, the second dream should be understood in light of the negative conception of the Joseph character in Gen. 37, as a sign of Joseph’s hubris and therefore as an exaggeration or even invention of Joseph himself. Despite the narrative difficulties mentioned above, many scholars have not adequately explained the unfulfillment of Joseph’s second dream.

Because of the lively debate around both of Joseph’s dreams and the insufficiently-considered points I am arguing, we begin with a quick review of the four main answers to our problem provided until now.

• (I) Many interpreters consider both dreams, generally speaking, to have one and the same meaning. ²² To support such an interpretation, usually reference is made to Joseph’s explanation to Pharaoh that having had (somewhat) similar dreams (חלום פרעה אחד, ‎ 41.25) indicates ‘that the thing is fixed by God’ (כי נכון הדבר מעם האלהים, ‎ 41.32). But the story nowhere tells us that this is the key to understanding all three pairs of dreams. Rather this only works in the case of Gen. 41; in Gen. 40 both dreams are dreamt in one night (בלילה אחד) but have rather different meanings: one dies and one lives and is reinstated to his former position. ²³ Also, how can all the parts of both of Joseph’s dreams correlate to one another like they do in Pharaoh’s? With Joseph, one is set on earth, the other in heaven; ²⁴ one involves the brothers’ ordinary work, the other does not talk about them but speaks in metaphors without reference to activity; and where do the sun and the moon find their counterpart? Undoubtedly, there is a surplus in the second dream which has no direct parallel in Joseph’s first dream. ²⁵ For his part, Westermann reads the second dream as simply intensifying the first without supplying any surplus content at the factual level. However, he does not offer any evidence except for the succinctness of the second dream. ²⁶ Also, as we have mentioned above, some argue that ‘the dream foreshadowed in Gen 37:7 is fulfilled in Gen 42:6–9’. ²⁷ Again, Benjamin is missing until 43.26. Additionally, he has not become their king (המלך תמלך, ‎ 37.8) and never will, no matter how powerful he will become later on. ²⁸

• (II) Some have suggested that 37.9–11 is ‘a secondary expansion’. ²⁹ Using the tools of literary criticism, Franziska Ede recently aimed to eliminate the second dream from the narrative altogether. For her, the pericope’s shorter length, the use of metaphors instead of people, the insertion of the sun and the moon representing Joseph’s father and mother, the deviation from the main theme of fraternal conflict, and the presupposition of multiple dreams (על חלמתיו, ‎ 37.8b) before Joseph’s account of the second dream do not make much sense within the Joseph story. ³⁰ Accordingly in her view, the second dream must be eliminated from the (original) narrative and attributed instead to a secondary redactor. To address Ede’s concerns, first we need to be aware that in terms of form or redaction criticism both dreams were almost universally attributed to the Elohist. ³¹ Even Gunkel did not see any necessity to separate the two. ³² Second, many scholars have commented on the necessity of both dreams as an integral part of the story’s architecture due to all dreams in the story occurring in pairs. ³³ Third, it is certainly correct that the second dream is shorter, yet so is the dream of the chief cupbearer compared to the chief baker’s. Yet, both did come true (40.21–22). Fourth, interpreting the sun and the moon as father and mother presupposes that Jacob’s interpretation is accurate; however, the implicit narrator does not claim that this is the case. Even if it is, there is no concrete evidence that the Joseph story only focuses on sibling rivalry and not tensions within the entire family, as is indicated in the exposition in 37.1–4. Later in the narrative, the entire family comes to Goshen, the father receives solace for his grief, and Joseph becomes the provider for all of Jacob’s descendants. This leaves us with two of Ede’s objections unanswered: the use of metaphors and the presupposition of multiple dreams before the second. We will address both of these issues in section 4. What she has shown masterfully is the surplus of content over against the first dream. This observation is in keeping with the present article.

• (III) Jonathan Grossman has recently argued that the dreams are certainly different, but they do not both become reality. ³⁴ Rather, he sees the dreams of the officials and the dreams of Pharaoh as reflecting two different models: the first having two different outcomes, the second having one and the same. He views them as models of interpretation for the two dreams of Joseph to be fulfilled. To him, the first dream is associated with Joseph’s financial advancement, in which his brothers (and indirectly his father) become supplicants because of the severe famine. ³⁵ The second dream, which allegedly focuses on the dominion over his whole family, is realized from the brothers’ point of view in Gen. 50.18 when they sell themselves as slaves to their brother. Grossmann tries to show, however, that the intrinsic value of the second dream for Joseph is only realized in a modified form at the very end of the story. However, at that point, Joseph not only has financial power over his brothers but also power over their lives. Now the two different outcomes of the dreams of the officials and of Pharaoh offer two different options for him: he decides against the twofold interpretation (as with the officials’ dreams) and in favour of an interpretation in keeping with Gen. 41.25: Joseph’s dream is one. ³⁶ However, this raises questions: first, do the second and third pairs of dreams really suggest themselves as models? They both seem to serve concrete but quite different goals and are therefore different dreams in the same story. After they have served their purpose, they are never mentioned again throughout the Joseph story (except for 41.9–13). Second, we agree that the first dream is predominantly about the economic dependence of the brothers on Joseph. ³⁷ The narrative indicates that the brothers seem convinced of Joseph’s intent to become king over them (המלך תמלך עלינו, ‎ 37.8a). This is why they hate him even more, not because he will save them from starving in the future. It is true that in the end, the brothers offer themselves as slaves to Joseph, who in turn rejects their offer. Yet, there is no textual evidence that he decided this in opposition to his second dream. Rather, he was ready for reconciliation in light of his providential view of his life. ³⁸

• (IV) With the exception of Ede, all the solutions we have discussed so far assume that Jacob’s interpretation in 37.10 is correct. As we have seen, this poses multiple problems, especially regarding the cast of characters. Pirson has argued against Jacob’s interpretation and understands the second dream in terms of numbers. Combining all three elements (sun, moon, eleven stars), he counts thirteen, which he interprets as the thirteen years between the exposition in Gen. 37.2 and the investiture in 41.46. ³⁹ It is true that the heavenly bodies of sun and moon can allude time or the passing of it, as Pirson shows. Also, numbers play a vital role in the other two pairs of dreams. But we should be very careful about putting too much weight on the relative chronology of the Joseph story. Within the condensed narrative of Gen 37, it is unclear how much time has actually passed between the note that he was 17 years old (37.2) and the sale to Egypt. It is also unclear how much time must then have passed between Joseph’s success in Potiphar’s house (39.1-6) and the temptation scene (39.7-18). Only then is Joseph put in prison for two years (41.1) before he is raised to his high position at the age of 30 (41.46). The potentially long time between his departure from Hebron and his elevation in Potiphar’s house is possibly also signalled by the insertion of Gen 38. Also, the absolute chronology is fractured in various places in the Joseph story (e.g. the age of Benjamin, the ages of the much older brothers in Gen. 50.22–26, etc.). ⁴⁰ More importantly though, we know that at least seven years have passed in the narrative between 41.46 and 42.6 as 41.47, 53–57 shows. The earliest point at which the brothers meet Joseph within the story’s chronology is Joseph’s 37^th birthday, the second year of the famine at the latest (45.6). Thus, the thirteen years according to Pirson’s interpretation would need to be expanded to twenty or even more. This does not seem plausible, since Pirson additionally and without adequate explanation multiplies the sun and moon by the stars, i.e. 2 times 11, which yields a total of 22.

4. The additional content in Joseph’s second dream as exaggeration to the point of invention

With the notable exception of Pirson, ⁴¹ not many have credited the fact that Gen. 37.9 states Joseph had another dream (ויחלם עוד חלום אחר), which he tells his brothers. However, while אחר can represent an ordinal number, it is also a term which can indicate difference. ⁴² For Josephus as well as Philo, the second dream is ‘even more a cause of wonder than the former’. ⁴³ The two dreams are not one and the same (41.25) but are different (37.9). ⁴⁴ Note how Philo even inserts a few days between Joseph’s recounting of the first and the second dream (Ios. 8). Even if the lemma אחר here simply signals order, the setting, the cast of characters, and the portrayal of Joseph in the second dream are in fact different, as we have seen already. ⁴⁵ Can we then simply agree with Goldingay that ‘a dream need not be an allegory’ ⁴⁶ and that there is no need to worry about the differences and the additional content in the second dream over against the first? The problem is that each and every element in the other five dreams does become (narrated) reality one way or the other, except for this one. ⁴⁷ Should we then be so dismissive of the details of the second dream? Instead of doing so, let us now consider an interpretation of the unfulfilled second dream as a manifestation of Joseph’s hubris to the point of him inventing his own dream.

4.1 On truth value and (moral) orientation: In stark contrast to later retellings of the story, the implicit narrator declines to specify the origin of the dreams

Nowhere in our story does the implicit narrator tell us about the provenance of Joseph’s dreams. The narrated Joseph interprets the other two pairs as divine oracles (40.8; 41.25, 28, 32). That is not the case here since only his family interprets them and we do not know whether to trust them (see the options a)–d) above). Again, the only way to know for certain they are in fact divine oracles is by seeing whether the dreams actually come true in the story. This only applies fully to the first. As is the case throughout our story, God remains behind the curtains and never speaks or interprets the events. ⁴⁸ Instead of being told, we are left to make up our own mind, continue reading, and to keep ourselves from adopting too sympathetic a view of Joseph. Even Joseph himself does not tell us later on what he thought about his two dreams. Of course, both dreams are introduced by a formula: ויחלם יוסף חלום ‎ (37.5) //ויחלם עוד חלום ‎ (37.9). But does this necessarily mean that his dreams were heaven-sent? In fact, given the dreams’ centrality to the narrative structure of the Joseph story, seeing how (or if) the dreams are fulfilled in a decidedly different manner than the brothers had anticipated, builds suspense. Joseph does not (ever!) become king over his brothers. Instead, he becomes their largely benevolent caretaker. ⁴⁹ It is part of the implicit narrator’s strategy to play with his readers’ expectations. We can see the uncertainty regarding the second dream’s provenance reflected in the Old Greek and Josephus. In the Old Greek, the retellings of the dreams vary. In 37.5 and 37.6, the passive voice of ἐνυπνιασθείς and ἐνυπνιάσθην clearly connotes divine origin as a passivum divinum. In relation to the dreams in Genesis, this is commonplace terminology. ⁵⁰ By contrast, Joseph recounts his second dream in the Old Greek using the middle voice ἐνυπνιασάμην (37.9). Such a change is not warranted by the Proto-MT of Gen. 37 or anywhere else in Genesis^Proto-MT. On the contrary, it strikes a Greek reader as an odd change in voice for no apparent reason. It seems to force a translation along the lines of ‘I dreamed for myself’, ⁵¹ thus including a highly subjective perspective in his retelling. This fits the replacement of the more objective הנה by the more subjective ὥσπερ ⁵² as Joseph talks about ‘as though the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me’. ⁵³ No wonder Josephus, centuries later, saw the need to explain to his readers the supernatural origin of dreams. He states that Joseph ὁρᾷ πολὺ τῶν κατὰ συνήθειαν ἐπιφοιτώντων κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους ὀνειράτων διαφέρουσαν ὄψιν (Ant. 2.11). Yet introducing the first dream, he merely says: αἱ δὲ ὄψεις, ἃς κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους εἶδεν Ἰώσηπος, τοιαίδε ἦσαν (Ant.2.10). Only in relation to the second dream, does he go out of his way to reassure his readers that the second dream too was indeed sent by the Deity: τὸ θεῖον δευτέραν ὄψιν ἐπιπέμπει τῷ Ἰωσήπῳ (Ant. 2.13). ⁵⁴ Why does he do this? Certainly, some of his first century CE Roman readers might not have been able to grasp the role of dreams in the Hebrew Bible. But why did he go out of his way to emphasize again, now for the third time, that the second dream was sent by the Deity just as the first was? And why does he only here invoke the Deity (το θεῖον) and not make use of his usual passive voice paraphrasing of the divine passive? It might suggest Josephus knows his story, and also knows that Joseph’s second dream is never actually fulfilled. But does this logic hold for Genesis? In prospect, the fate of Joseph is unclear throughout Gen. 37. In retrospect, looking back from Gen. 50.19–21, the provenance of Joseph’s dreams remains rather unclear due to his first dream being fulfilled counterintuitively and his second, we suggest, not at all. With Joseph’s second dream, the fundamental question of truth value and (moral) orientation is set up.

4.2 On verification: The absence of an authoritative interpreter/verifier of Joseph’s words raises the possibility that his second dream is a fabrication like 37.2c and further heightens the suspense of the story

If Zgoll’s categorization is correct, then dreams could be perceived as revelatory. In the case of Joseph’s dreams, they fall in the category of an ‘intrarelational image dream,’ ⁵⁵ and such dreams have the characteristic of being unverified and uninterpreted, as noted above. An interpreter is lacking throughout this episode. We need an authority to clarify the truthfulness of Joseph’s words. Yet, in Gen. 37–50 the only authorities available are the implicit narrator and the story itself. In the story we have, only one of the two dreams becomes reality. Could the second dream represent another case of Joseph’s idle talk as witnessed already in 37.2c? Admittedly, not all dreams need to be presented as a divine omen. But Joseph certainly introduces them in such a way. He frames the situation in terms very similar to 37.2c. By repeatedly referring to his dreams and him dreaming, he avoids any suggestion of his own agency and suggests he is as much a shocked recipient of the dreams’ message as his family. If some dreams do not have to be interpreted as revelatory, what about these ones? In what category should a potential recipient put them? ⁵⁶ This intentional ambiguity in the story (on the part of Joseph, or on the part of the narrator, or both) adds to its suspense. ⁵⁷

4.3 On verification: Exaggeration and bending the truth in the brothers’ interpretation, in the opening scenes 37.2–11, later in the story (e.g., 44.1–15), and even beyond the Joseph story

Already unsure whom to trust as a faithful guide, let us now turn to the expansion of the dominion motif in the second dream. After having summoned his brothers, Joseph tells the already agitated listeners his first dream. He recounts how their sheaves will bow before his. This only intensifies his brothers’ hatred of him, for Joseph supposedly wishes to become their king, and does not deny it. As we can see here, the brothers provide a spontaneous interpretation of the dream, which might be wrong. After all, Joseph never actually becomes king. ⁵⁸ Indeed, this is not what the first dream had in mind. Dominion yes, bowing yes, but the dream is not more specific than that. The brothers provide an exaggerated interpretation of the dream. So, exaggeration is clearly present in 37.5–11. ⁵⁹ The insensitive Joseph now turns to his second dream which the brothers (and now also the father) view as even more appalling. Note the escalation from 37.4 to v. 5 to v. 8, and to v. 11. From the brothers’ perspective, their attempt to murder Joseph later in chapter 37 seems like the logical consequence of the provocations of Jacob’s beloved son. If then exaggeration is present, why should it be assumed to be only on the brothers’ part? Earlier in the story, we observe Joseph clearly lying to his father (37.2c), as we will argue in subsection 4.5 below. Later in the story he tricks his brothers by having his servants put the brothers’ money (and his silver cup) back in their sacks (44.1–2). After they had left, he orders his steward to hunt them down (רדף) and accuse them of theft (44.4–6). Upon their return, he acts as if he was appalled by their alleged offence, which in reality he himself has orchestrated (44.15a). He even goes so far as to invoke divination (in relation to his silver cup) as the reason why he noticed their theft so quickly (44.15b). Nowhere in the story do we actually hear about Joseph’s practice of divination apart from interpreting the second and third pair of dreams which he clearly attributes to God (40.8; 41.25, 28, 32). These two examples alone show that Joseph is very much able and willing to bend the truth, engaging in outright deception and obvious invention. Appalling as such behaviour may seem, it is by no means an exception. The brothers act similarly. But such behaviour is also to be found outside of the Joseph story, where deception is a recurring theme in Genesis ⁶⁰ and beyond. ⁶¹ Considering the evidence, Joseph employing deception does not seem so far-fetched after all.

4.4 On the particularity of the second dream: Joseph’s second dream lacks common themes of the other dreams in the cycle, making it stand out

The following argument concerns the connecting elements between all six dreams. We have already seen that there is a considerable difference between the narrated situations, the role of the interpreter or a lack thereof, the meaning, and the outcome. Yet, it is noteworthy that five of these dreams revolve around the topics of drink and food. ⁶² ‘In this respect … only Joseph’s celestial dream stands out from the otherwise symbolically (co-)designated theme of nourishment’. ⁶³ Indeed, the last and the first dream of the story are tightly connected by the theme of grain and sheaves. Ebach is right in calling this ‘a kind of “ring composition” of the dreams’. ⁶⁴ Again, only Joseph’s second dream is the outlier.

4.5 On Joseph’s character: The דבה Joseph brings against his brothers is likely false testimony motivated by resentment and vindictiveness

In our story, we meet Joseph not as an equal to his brothers tending the father’s sheep but as their נער ‎ (37.2), their servant-boy. ⁶⁵ His fellow shepherds are the sons of Jacob’s two concubines, Bilhah and Zilpah. This is striking since Joseph is the son of Jacob’s favourite wife and yet he has to attend to their wishes. With the mention of Bilhah and Zilpah, Joseph is situated within the rivalries of Jacob’s wives which predate his own conception. ⁶⁶ In a synchronic reading of Genesis, we see that the problems in this generation will erupt in the next generation in an intensified way. So, Joseph decides to exact retribution for what he must endure as his brothers’ servant by delivering a deliberately malicious message to the father about his brothers. The דבה is not just a report but is an evil (רעה) one. Against traditional positivistic views, ⁶⁷ recent interpreters have increasingly argued that דבה is a false accusation, that is, a message stemming from Joseph’s own imagination and thus introducing the story’s main character as a malicious brother deserving of his brothers’ hate and despise. ⁶⁸ In accordance with this, Fuller shows that in every occurrence in the Hebrew Bible ‘דבה is consistently used for intentionally harmful talk’. ⁶⁹ Meanwhile, almost all dictionaries are too general or too positive when commenting on 37.2c, which has generated a typically positive opinion of the biblical Joseph. ⁷⁰ Fuller shows, however, that most dictionaries are simply wrong and that such harmful talk is ‘in most cases false’ ⁷¹ , that is, untrue. Did Joseph invent unfavourable things about his brothers and tell his father lies about them? Lexicology hints at such an interpretation, though not conclusively. If Joseph does malign his brothers, when they later discover what Joseph said about them, their hatred of him would be more than understandable, especially considering that their father showed favouritism toward Joseph by rewarding him with a special garment (37.3). This seems all the more plausible given that Joseph’s brothers not only have to hear about Joseph’s slander but also have to see who the favourite son is every time he wears his new coat. The situation worsens when Joseph unexpectedly shares two dreams with his father and brothers, despite the fact that he should have known that the content of the dreams would likely offend them. Once again, we are not told why he talks in such an unwise manner and so flatly. It should have been clear to him, even with the most rudimentary understanding, that the dreams would shame the brothers and the father and incite them against him. The imperativeשׁמעו-נא ‎ (37.6) and the fivefold use ofהנה ‎ (37.7, 9) certainly intensify the drama of the dream; but they also indicate Joseph’s arrogance and imperiousness. The brothers, who already hate him, are ordered by the boy to listen. Niehoff rightly summarizes: ‘On the basis of the evidence Joseph must be judged frivolous, if not ill-meaning’. ⁷² Also, he is more than insensitive when sharing his dreams so bluntly, commanding his brothers and emphasizing each excruciating detail of his dream with the recurring הנה ‎ (5x in 37.7, 9), and wearing his special robe without the protection of the father when he goes to visit his brothers (37.23).

4.6 On Joseph’s character: The reference to ‘his dreams and his words’ in 37:8b raises the possibility that Joseph frequently bragged about dreams which may or may not have happened

The notion of Joseph’s dubious character is supported by an often-overlooked note. Gen. 37.8b states that ‘they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words’ (על חלמתיו ועל דבריו). Two observations: first, the mention of ‘words’ reminds the reader of the only two instances within the narrative where Joseph has spoken up to this point. The narrative has revealed very little about Joseph outside of what the implicit narrator tells us about him: He brought a harmful, maybe even false report to his father (37.2c). Apart from this report and the one dream he has recounted so far, Joseph has not spoken in our story. Second, Gen 37.8b talks about dreams in the plural. ⁷³ How is that possible when we are explicitly told that he had only had one dream so far, which he has related to his brothers (37.5)? Of course, 37.8b might just be a general statement by the narrator and thus be a reference to both dreams. Also, Joseph could have been dreaming on a regular basis but only now chooses to recount some of them. If not, the plural is fairly comprehensible if Joseph liked telling idle stories, denouncing his brothers to their father, and bragging about dreams which may or may not have happened.

4.7 On Joseph’s character: Joseph’s narration of the second dream is egocentric, putting himself in place of God; this contributes to a negative portrayal

If gossip, and maybe even invented harmful speech and exaggeration are in view in 37.2c, the recounting of the second dream is framed appropriately. In his second dream, Joseph recounts a peculiar dream in which it is both day and night or at least both sun and moon are present. They bow down—however one might conceive of this event. ⁷⁴ But before whom do they bow? Not to another celestial body but before me (לי), before Joseph himself. He alone appears not as a metaphor, not as a star, but rather as simply himself. Josephus notices this nuance when he explains that the heavenly bodies ‘seemed to descend to earth in order to bow down to him’. ⁷⁵ Moreover, throughout the Hebrew Bible it is clear that ‘[o]nly the king of creation would have the obeisance of the cosmos’. ⁷⁶ What the young boy does here is make himself the centre of the universe. If Jacob’s interpretation is correct, then Joseph not only appropriates God’s sovereignty over the stars for himself but reverses the hierarchy between parents and children. ⁷⁷ He becomes the centre of his world, which is not only blasphemous but reverses the ordering of the world normally assumed in the Hebrew Bible. The young lad receives honour, adoration, reverence—rather than his father, his parents, or crucially, God. Given that reasonable doubts may be raised about Joseph’s character from the reported behaviour in the exposition (37.2–4), the reader may even get the idea that Joseph is not to be trusted in general. The picture drawn of Joseph once from the outside, by the implicit narrator, and once from the inside, by Joseph himself, is consistently negative. ⁷⁸

5. Conclusion

Despite the prevalence of the long-held idea of Joseph as a hero and a stable character, it is clear that the biblical Joseph is a dynamic character. He starts out as a self-centred lad who wants to see the world revolve around him and him alone. When anyone is superior to him, he issues a false report about them to the next higher authority. Moreover, in his idle talk, he uses dreams to try to gain ultimate authority over his family since they all share the ancient belief about dreams being divine revelations. By introducing his second dream to his family, he de facto tries to become the family’s patriarch. ⁷⁹ He begins to talk about dreams and commands his older brothers to listen to him, that is, to listen to what he was fortunate enough to have dreamt. Even then he does not shy away from combining what he might have truly dreamt and what he wished he had. Is the second dream then a staggering exaggeration to the point of blasphemy? Yes. Or to adopt Gerhard von Rad’s widely ignored words: His dreams reveal ‘the notions of a vainglorious heart’. ⁸⁰ Is the entire second dream an invention? We do not know. Of course, Jacob might have eventually bowed down before Joseph as the de facto ruler of Egypt in any case. Of course, the Joseph story might not yet know of Rachel’s untimely death. But the story just does not point in that direction! It neither narrates such occasions (as Jacob’s bow) nor presupposes anything contrary to its preceding chapters in the final form of Genesis (Rachel’s death in Gen. 35.16–20). In fact, the missing fulfilment, the heated immediate context of Gen. 37.2–11 and the egocentric portrayal of Joseph seem to point towards our proposed understanding of Joseph’s second dream. That is because if Joseph’s role in the second dream is an overstatement, there is no surplus in it. It simply retells what the first dream had already covered. The wider context of the other dreams does not seem to have a place for Joseph’s alleged second dream. The story itself seems to forget about it. Therefore, (at least) the surplus of the second dream is likely presented as a product of the boy’s own imagination and idle hopes. This presumes the second dream actually belongs to the Joseph story, which from a canonical perspective at least, it does. In what way then does Joseph remember his dreams (plural) when seeing his brothers again after so many years? Maybe the plural in 42.9b is more abstract than we think, ‘a plural of composition, or plural of internal multiplication’ ⁸¹ . Perhaps Joseph here reflects on the entire exposition (Gen. 37.2–11): on his homeland, his family, and particularly his ‘vainglorious heart’ when he wanted to exceed the role allotted him, when he wanted to be ‘in God’s place’ (50.19).