Abstract
Food plays an important role in the Joseph story. Although other themes offer valuable insights as well, the theme of table fellowship is at the heart of the story’s main theme because sharing a table and what is on it shows mutual recognition and signifies thus much more than the mere consumption of food. In the Joseph story, we have two occurrences of joint meals: Gen 37:25 and Gen 43:31–34. Whereas the first is a clear sign of Joseph’s isolation and the rupture of the brothers’ relationship, the second meal cannot be understood as an actual meal of reconciliation as some do. In order to make table fellowship a coherent theme from isolation to inclusion, the Joseph story in Genesis lacks a third meal of peace and reconciliation at which the brothers are reunited. However, if we look across canonical boundaries, we find that Jubilees as well as Josephus’s Antiquities incorporate this third meal into the story. In this way, the biblical story is continued productively, and the theme of table fellowship, which is anticipated in Genesis, is expanded into a comprehensive motif.
Themes and motifs in the biblical Joseph story
In recent decades, the study of the Joseph story (Gen 37–50) 1 has generated numerous scholarly publications, not only from the perspective of redaction or form criticism but also with an interest in the text of Genesis in its own right. 2 Many have viewed Joseph’s story as a coherent whole, “an artfully arranged composition.” 3 If so, synchronic and/or thematic studies in the Joseph story are an appropriate tool to shed light on the narrative’s themes, ideas, and meaning. Over time, different propositions have been brought forth regarding the story’s thematic center such as family rivalry and dominion, 4 forgiveness and reconciliation, 5 the success of a religious role model in a foreign court, 6 providence, 7 or wisdom. 8 To support one view or the other, they focus on important literary motifs. Most notably, some have attached a fundamental significance to garments and clothing in Gen 37–50 as an indicator of social status. 9 Others have noticed the role of Jacob as a metonymy for a diaspora discussion. Still others have emphasized the role of dreams. 10
The communal consumption of food in the Joseph story
Even more recently, some scholars have highlighted the role of food in the Bible and the biblical world. 11 Almost all works on this subject share the observation that cultures and peoples of the ancient world attributed much greater significance to eating than the mere consumption of food. To eat meant to socialize. 12 Therefore, food serves as a wonderful narrative tool to convey subtle messages of exclusion, inclusion, and the negotiation between the two. Yet, this topic has been largely overlooked in biblical studies. This rings true to the Joseph story as well. In the words of Nathan MacDonald, the recurrence of food and liquids in the Joseph story “is usually overlooked by commentators,” 13 despite the fact that according to Katie Heffelfinger, there are “132 instances of food imagery in Gen 37–50.” 14 Food and liquids are almost overtly present: 15 the content of Joseph’s dreams, 16 the professions of the two officials in prison, Pharaoh’s dreams, the famine, Joseph’s cup, and Jacob’s final blessings. Thus, Heffelfinger’s study of the imagery of food and liquids in the Joseph story goes so far as to call food a leitmotif within the entire narrative. 17 Part of the seemingly omnipresent nature of this motif is two meals that play a vital role within the plot. The implied author places both these meals at crucial points within the narrative (37:25a; 43:31–34), and does so rather intentionally.
Despite the substantial amount of food imagery within the Joseph narrative, only two short articles have been published on the subject, 18 apart from the work of Heffelfinger. The authors of these articles claim that the second meal functions as a reversal of the first meal. Though we will examine these claims in detail below, it will suffice to summarize their arguments here. Before the first meal, Joseph was thrown in the pit, left alone, and thus excluded from the community, whereas the second meal foreshadows the anticipated reconciliation between the brothers when Joseph invites his brothers to a meal in his house. 19 Heffelfinger argues that the motif of communal drinks (43:34) reverses Joseph’s situation in the pit where there was no water (37:24). Consequently, the notion of drinking introduces the idea of future reconciliation. Yet, if this second meal marks a transition in the brothers’ relationship, why was there no third meal? This, I argue, would have been an apt opportunity to turn the two meals of Genesis into a motif—the transition from hostile exclusion in Gen 37, to somewhat uncertain terms in Gen 43, to fully reconciled relationships illustrated by a third, communal meal. Then, the meals could serve as a coherent motif. But as such, the potential motif is deficient, or at least strongly anticipated by ideal readers who are culturally conditioned to expect a family meal as a clear sign of familial reconciliation. In what follows, we analyze the initial meal of exclusion (Section “Exclusion: A Meal without Joseph [Genesis 37:25]”), then the questionable meal of inclusion (Section “Inclusion? A Meal between Egyptians, Jacob’s Eleven Sons, and a Foreign Master (Gen 43:31–34)”], before offering a solution to this anticipation-raising motif from the story’s reception history (Section “Inclusion. A Third Meal in the Book of Jubilees and in Josephus”).
Exclusion: A meal without Joseph (Genesis 37:25)
In the opening verses of Gen 37, Joseph is by no means introduced as an innocent boy. He provokes his brothers’ hatred by telling on them, maybe even in a deliberately malicious way (37:2). 20 Being the object of his father’s special attention and care, he receives a robe which makes him stand out from the rest of his brothers (37:3). They, in return, react with hatred because the robe would constantly remind them of who was (and who was not) the favorite son. Consequently, שׁלום was no longer a possibility within the family (37:4). Of course, Joseph’s reports about his dreams agitate his brothers even more (37:5, 8, 11). Later, when his father sends him to look after his brothers’ well-being while they were tending the flock (37:14), they intend to retaliate against their father’s favorite son, the lord of dreams (37:19), who was wearing his special robe (37:23). Due to Reuben’s intervention, Joseph’s life is spared. Instead, his brothers throw him into a cistern (37:24). Then, they sit down to eat (37:25a). Semantically, the verb בוא (37:23) connects this episode closely to the malicious report (37:2) and the second dream (37:9). Also, throughout the Joseph story, the robe is only mentioned in 37:3, 23, and 31–33, which connects these episodes even more. Therefore, the brothers’ actions can be read easily as consequences of Joseph’s earlier behavior. 21 Despite the fact that they were unable to talk to him in שׁלום (37:4), Jacob sends Joseph to look after their שׁלום (37:14). Of course, he is met with anything but שׁלום. The actions stripping, throwing, and eating follow in quick succession. When commented upon, many view this table fellowship as cold 22 and callous.” 23 Interestingly, Goldingay asks: “Are they solemnizing their mutual commitment?” 24 This fits exactly the broader narrative of this short comment in 37:25a. They did not eat to consume food but as a sign of their mutual commitment to what they had done. This interpretation also fits with the meal shared by Jacob and Laban in Gen 31:46, which concluded the covenant they had made with one another. Certainly, satiating their hunger was not their prime motive. If the connection with Gen 31:46 is accurate, sharing a meal in 37:25a communicates their resolve in their hatred of Joseph. Meanwhile, Joseph is alone in the cistern where there is neither food nor water (37:24b). 25 Through this separation, the emotional separation manifests in its extreme. שׁלום is no longer an option. Lux correctly summarizes: “In this way, the brothers denied Joseph the satisfaction of basic human needs of clothing, food, and companionship.” 26 The suspense mounts, driving the reader to discover whether the conflict between Joseph and his brothers will ever find a peaceful resolution.
Inclusion? A meal between Egyptians, Jacob’s eleven sons, and a foreign master (Gen 43:31–34)
Beginning in Gen 42, the tables have turned. The sojourn in Egypt represents the reversal of many omens within the earlier elements in the plot. The one who was sold is now the one who sells; those who intended to sell earlier in the narrative now come to Joseph as potential customers. Those who once threw Joseph in a cistern in the ground now bow to the ground before him. The power structures have been reversed, 27 and Joseph’s dreams begin to be realized. 28
Quite surprisingly, right in the middle of Joseph’s testing (chs. 42–44), he invites his brothers to come into his house and share a meal (43:16, 25). The text emphasizes that such a shared meal would be an abomination for the Egyptians (43:32b). 29 Joseph nevertheless permits it. This alone shows Joseph’s difficult position between both the Egyptians and their manner of dress and Jacob’s sons and Joseph’s affiliation with them. 30 As Bons notes: “Cependant, une certaine incohérence saute aux yeux: d’une part, Joseph a l’intention de manger avec ses frères, d’autre part, les Égyptiens refusent de manger avec les Hébreux.” 31 In line with most interpreters, this should be seen as a step in the direction of reconciliation. Joseph was not obliged to offer them food let alone eat with them. Certainly, ch. 45 is already in view. Yet, some go so far as to suggest that here Joseph begins to reinstate their relationship by sharing a meal with his brothers. According to Bons, Joseph was so eager to have companionship and human exchange around the table that he decided to transgress the Egyptians’ dietary laws. 32 Furthermore, Römer and others argue that the episode in 43:31–34 anticipates the full reconciliation of the brothers by referring to lavish drinking at the end. 33 But can we really talk about “restored table fellowship” 34 here? Let us not forget that there is still a difference in the seating order among the three parties. Though we are not given details about the interior design, the number of tables, or how they were arranged, 35 the point nevertheless stands: They are not sitting together, but every party has their own place. The proto-Masoretic text does not even clearly state whether they share the same food. Either way, Joseph eats separately, as do the Egyptians. They share the room, but not the table (43:32–33). This meal certainly serves as a stark contrast to the first meal in 37:25; it does not, however, reverse it: They sat down (וישׁבו) to eat excluding Joseph, and now they are seated (וישׁבו) before him. At the first meal, Joseph was treated like a disposed object, whereas now he presides over their meal as an agent. Nevertheless, they are still separated—physically, emotionally, and socially. Joseph sits in front of them, though not with them. His place is still between the Egyptians and his brothers. In agreement with Ebach, we could call their table fellowship an “unreconciled community” 36 —they partake in a type of communal meal, but there has been no reconciliation which would lead to a deep interfamilial community. Nevertheless, Joseph hints at his real identity: Benjamin is served five times the amount his brothers receive (43:34b), since he and Benjamin share the same mother. Lux repeatedly remarks on how curious it is that the remaining brothers remained ignorant. 37 He asks: “What else could he have done to reveal his identity to the brothers?” 38 In our view, he could have done a great deal more indeed. He could have broken his silence or revealed himself to them as he does two chapters later. Now was as good a time as ever. “He could easily bring the plot to a resolution by proclaiming himself the victor in the sibling rivalry, since he has overturned their feast around the pit with his much more extravagant feast in their time of desperation.” 39 But he does not do this.
Why? I would argue that he did not want to, yet. Within the story’s logic, observing the brothers’ reaction to Joseph’s allegations of theft seems to play a vital role. Joseph intends to see whether they have changed from carelessly throwing him into the pit, abandoning him to eat on their own, and planning a profitable way of getting rid of him. Now, would they do the same to poor Benjamin? Therefore, Gen 43:31–34 just was not the right time to reveal himself, yet. So, we should not see this meal as more than it is. The note that there were Egyptians who were eating with him (ולמצרים האכלים אתו לבדם, 43:32aγ) is important. It indicates that this is a usual practice in Joseph’s house. The participle האכלים is durative, signaling a habitual action. Also, the Egyptians were eating with him (אתו), not with them. Joseph’s position at Pharaoh’s court inevitably led to a constant exchange with non-Jews. His high position might indicate that he was used to having to eat with others (guests, Pharaoh, etc.), and therefore, he could not permanently avoid such situations. If my reading is correct, the meal in Gen 43 is nothing out of the ordinary in terms of Joseph’s consumption of food, with the exception of that day’s guests. 40 Also, the continuation of Gen 44:1 indicates that they were leaving to return to their homeland after their meal. Thus, it had to have been during the day when they ate, just as 43:25 indicates. This fits much better with the insertion of chapter 44 and Joseph’s renewed testing of his brothers.
Why, one must ask, would he introduce a meal of reconciliation before treating them harshly once more only a few verses later? Conventional interpretations seem to have no answer. Would the interpretation of Gen 43:31–34 as a regular meal not fit the immediate context of Gen 42–44 much better? Reconciliation is still rather distant, even though Joseph’s meal reverses some of the damage caused by his brothers’ meal narrated in 37:25. “The close correlation between the two meals, the first of which had been the setting for the plot’s initial crisis, leads the reader to expect the second meal to result in the resolution of that crisis.” 41 But it just does not happen. Undoubtedly, such a deficient resolution to the family rivalry must give rise to frustration on the part of the reader who might be culturally conditioned to expect a full family meal as a sign for full reconciliation. 42 This second meal would have been a perfect chance to reverse the first and provide resolution to the story’s foundational conflict. Chapter 45 could have followed 43:31–34 without any break so that the second meal would have indeed introduced the story’s long-awaited reconciliation. As we have seen earlier, some tend to agree and interpret some aspects of our text accordingly. And they are not alone. Even authors such as Philo interpret Gen 43:31–34 as a reconciliatory feast (Ios. 210): “Instead of being subjected to accusation, they had been made partners in the board and salt which men have devised as the symbols of true friendship.” 43 According to Philo, their joint meal had made Joseph their personal friend (ὡς πρὸς ἴδιον). Yet, in Gen 44, the brother’s relationship is once again in jeopardy—friendship and reconciliation remain distant.
If meals were a working motif from exclusion to reconciliation in Gen 37–50, there would need to be a third. Then, the brothers would all dine next to each other in complete harmony—maybe even with Jacob and their broader family present. The only time we come close to such a peaceful reunion is the benevolent gift of food and provisions in 45:21–23. But this can hardly be considered a meal of reconciliation. As poor consolation, Heffelfinger points to resolution with respect to the motif of food and liquids within the Joseph narrative: She understands the meals and food in general as imagery “that has symbolized power and rivalry in the narrative thus far.” 44 This changes from the point of their reconciliation in chapter 45 onwards. She then turns to liquids, which she thinks “symbolize restoration.” 45 Indeed, in the Joseph story, the cupbearer lives, and the baker dies (40:21–22). Also, some of Jacob’s sons are blessed by the use of liquids. But is Joseph’s silver cup really a “means of the family’s reunification?” 46 If so, why do they get drunk together before Joseph reveals his identity and before reconciliation and resolution to their conflict have taken place? Is it really a good explanation to see the abundance of liquids in 43:34 as a foretaste of reconciliation? In my opinion, these constructions are weak aids to bring an anticipation-raising motif to a good end. If food, especially symbolized by table fellowship, truly is an operative motif, even a leitmotif, then a third meal would be necessary for the complete reversal of the first meal. We find no such meal within the original Joseph story.
Inclusion. A third meal in the book of Jubilees and in Josephus
Help in solving the anticipation raised involving food and table fellowship in Genesis can be found by looking beyond the canon. The book of Jubilees, a second-century BCE so-called rewritten Scripture, interprets the Genesis account in at least three important ways. 47 (1) The first is the omission of Jacob’s and the brothers’ face-to-face dealings with Pharaoh (Gen 46:31–47:10). 48 (2) The second is the modification of the portrayal of biblical characters. Joseph’s bad conduct in Gen 37:2–11 49 is completely omitted, which is in accord with Jubilees’ overall idealization of central characters in Genesis like Abraham, 50 Jacob, 51 or Joseph. 52 They are portrayed in the best possible light. 53 (3) The third is the addition of material filling certain gaps or rectifying perceived deficiencies in the original stories of Genesis. Unlike a pesher or midrash, Jubilees does not offer direct commentary, but rather it alters the flow of Genesis to insert its own interpretation.
The last two alterations are at play in Jub 45:1–7. Following the flow of Gen 46:28–47:12, Joseph emotionally greets his father who has just come down from Canaan. Jacob answers Joseph’s greeting with a speech and blessing in Jubilees. 54 As is usual in Jubilees, Jub 45:1 narrates the seemingly inconspicuous dates of Jacob’s arrival in Egypt in accordance with the book’s greater narrative: “Israel went into the land of Egypt, into the land of Goshen, on the first of the fourth month during the second year of the third week of the forty-fifth jubilee.” 55 Yet, within the framework of Jubilees, the “first of the fourth month” is a festival date introduced by Noah (6:23, 26). In addition to this cause for celebration, it is Joseph’s birthday (28:24). In VanderKam’s words, “The timing was perfect.” 56 This special day of course cannot go without extraordinary events. So, Jubilees introduces an entire scene where Joseph provides for his family generously (45:5–7). This detail is pivotal for our argument. Since Jubilees rewrites while retelling the Genesis narrative, the author is able simply to imagine what an ideal reader might have anticipated above, an additional, third meal in peace and unanimity: “And Joseph and his brothers ate bread before their father, and they drank wine. And Jacob rejoiced very greatly because he saw Joseph eating and drinking with his brothers before him.” 57 The connections with Gen 43:31–34 are obvious: They all eat and drink alcoholic beverages. There is, of course, one significant contrast. This time, all 12 brothers eat united before their father, which Jubilees emphasizes twice (45:5). Joseph is where he belongs, among his fellow brothers. This is the reason Jacob praises “the Creator of all who kept him and kept for him his twelve sons” (5c). 58 Note the emphasis on “his twelve sons.” All twelve of his children had been preserved for him. One might almost think that Jacob rejoices that all had been preserved for this very day, this very meal, to share one last meal together as a family. All are still present for Jacob, feasting and rejoicing before him. The text goes on to emphasize once more Joseph’s role as a provider for his family and highlights that he will provide for them even into the future (45:7). He would support them throughout the duration of the famine. The focus is again on the complete family; there is no mention of different parties or fractures within Jacob’s or Joseph’s family. We might inquire about why this is the case. In Jubilees, having a joyful feast at a pivotal moment or at the end of an important character’s life is itself a motif. Abraham eats with Ishmael and Isaac before he dies (22:1–6); Isaac and Jacob share a meal after a long period of separation (31:22); Rebekah eats with Esau and Jacob before she dies (35:27); Isaac rejoiced when seeing his two sons sharing a meal and drink together (36:17). 59 All these episodes in Jubilees express the same idea, namely that sharing a meal both symbolizes and realizes unity, as Berger notes. 60 This rings true for our short episode in Jub 45:5 as well: “There is unity among all as they break bread together.” 61 So, Jubilees transmits exactly that which the Joseph story was lacking: a third, communal meal of unity that resolves what can be understood as an expectation-raising, yet deficient, motif in Genesis.
Yet Jubilees is not alone in making this important addition to the narrative. In his Antiquities, Josephus recounts a third meal as well. Though differing from Jubilees, Josephus adds a festival meal after Joseph having revealed himself to his brothers but before sending them off with food, clothes, and gifts (somewhere around Gen 45:16). In Ant. 2.166, he recounts:
“Having said these things, Iosepos embraced his brothers. But they were in tears and grief for the plots that they had entertained against him, and the generosity of their brother did not seem to erase for them any feeling of chastisement. And at that time they were at a banquet [ἦσαν ἐν εὐωχίᾳ].”
62
In ancient Greek, εὐωχία can refer to either a banquet or abundance. 63 If we look elsewhere in Josephus, εὐωχία is predominantly used to describe festivals, which could sometimes be associated with fruit tithes (Ant. 4.205) or were even an “occasion of drinking to excess” (Ag. Ap. 2.204). Also, Josephus knows that such an εὐωχία could be a festivity celebrating reconciliation (J. W. 1.510). Josesphus’s presentation of the event is certainly to emphasize reconciliation because he alters the account of Genesis in two more ways in Ant. 2.166. Genesis 45:14 notes the special attention Joseph offers Benjamin. Josephus omits this verse because “this would show undue favoritism for Benjamin, the very sin on the part of his father in connection with Joseph that led to his being sold into slavery.” 64 Although some favoritism toward Benjamin remains in Josephus’s account (2.167b), at this crucial moment of reconciliation, there is no mention of it. 65 Also, in Gen 45:14, it is Joseph who weeps upon his brothers necks. Here, Josephus portrays Joseph’s brothers weeping as they recount their unjust behavior. 66 The entire scene seems to be shaped by a scheme of repentance and forgiveness. Against the wording of the Masoretic Text and even the LXX, “[i]n Josephus they [the brothers] show much more appreciation for the generosity (εὔγνωμον ‘reasonableness,’ ‘leniency’) of Joseph and remorse for what they had done to him.” 67 This fits well with Josephus’s portrayal of Joseph as a perfect character and a superb leader. 68 While Josephus mentions this εὐωχία only in passing, he inserts it at the proper moment within the narrative. The time for festivities had come since the brothers were reunited. Later authors insert a third meal to symbolize the reconciliation everyone was anticipating. Thus, by means of a sensitive interpretation and by narrating three instead of two meals, Josephus and Jubilees substantiate the modern scholarly claim that food and the consumption thereof is a true motif in the Joseph story, yet not within Gen 37–50 itself, but within the story’s reception history. To be sure, Jubilees as well as Josephus had their own reasons to supply their version of the Joseph story with another meal. Still, consciously or not, they turned table fellowship in the original Joseph story to a veritable and coherent motif.
Conclusion: Reception history as Fortschreibung
There is no doubt that food and liquids play an important role in the Joseph story. This is particularly true when reading the narrative as a coherent structure as well as a work intended for ancient audiences who were culturally conditioned to perceive table fellowship as an indicator (or a motif if you want) of the quality of the relationship the parties present shared. To them, meals signaled more than just the consumption of food. They provide information about the social dynamics of their participants. At two instances in Gen 37–50, table fellowship becomes especially prominent. The first meal in Gen 37:25 is an extreme sign of familial disruption, isolation, and hatred. In short, there is a profound absence of שׁלום, a central term in the Joseph story (37:4, 14, 16; 43:23, 27, 28; 44:17). Against the ideal reader’s possible anticipation, the second meal in Gen 43:31–34 does not provide enough evidence to view it as reconciliatory. Although it is closely connected to Gen 37:25, it reverses some of the negative aspects present within the first meal, allowing the reader to see a positive shift in the brothers’ relationship, though without offering a full-fledged reunion and a return to brotherly שׁלום. I have argued that even hints at reconciliation in the future are more ambiguous than sometimes claimed. We were unable to find a clear thread from the negative meal in Gen 37 to a later reconciliatory meal. With Heffelfinger, we have noticed that an ideal reader might have heightened expectations that a third, reconciliatory unifying meal should take place. These expectations, however, are disappointed within the Joseph narrative, even though some further positive imagery of food and liquids accompanies the resolution of the brotherly conflict. Nevertheless, if meals as a major part of the broader concept of food in general truly were a unified yet multifaceted leitmotif in the original story, as some claim, their most important occurrences would have to be more consistent in showing a clear development from rupture to reunification. With the help of two early Jewish texts, we were able to show that within the reception history of this story, some have felt the need to add a third meal. Jubilees inserted multiple verses to offer a meal of reconciliation between the brothers and to give expression to Jacob’s joy, who dies shortly thereafter. In so doing, Jubilees places the Joseph story in a continuous line with Abraham, Rebekah, Isaac, and Jacob. Likewise, Josephus inserts a small note about a third meal after Joseph has restored peace to his family. Both are a prime example of “Rewriting as Interpretation” 69 or even rewriting as Fortschreibung. Though not their primary goal, with the help of Genesis’s reception history, an anticipation-raising, yet deficient, theme is transformed into a real motif, from rupture to reconciliation, from Genesis to Josephus, from Bible to Rewritten Bible and beyond.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
1
Some have called these chapters “the narrative of Jacob’s Sons”; cf. Katie M. Heffelfinger, “From Bane to Blessing: The Food Leitmotif in Genesis 37–50,” JSOT 40, no. 3 (2016): 298; Dohyung Kim, “The Story of Jacob and His Sons in Light of the Primary Narrative (Genesis–2 Kings),” ExpTim 123 (2012): 488; already in Kim, “A Literary-Critical Analysis of the Role of Genesis 38 within Genesis 37–50 as Part of the Primary Narrative (Genesis–2 Kings) of the Hebrew Bible” (Ph.D. diss., University of Sheffield, 2010). I contend that ch. 38 is a later addition which is connected to the Joseph story (Gen 37; 39–50) through extensive links in motifs and keywords. For an exemplary presentation of the links, see Bryan W. Smith, “The Presentation of Judah in Genesis 37–50 and Its Implications for the Narrative’s Structural and Thematic Unity” (Ph.D. diss., Bob Jones University, 
), 102–12. Many regard ch. 38 as a secondary addition; cf., for example, G. R. H. Wright, “The Positioning of Genesis 38,” ZAW 94 (1982): 523n3; Gerhard von Rad, Genesis (OTL; Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1972), 356–57; Claus Westermann, A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002), 49.
2
Of course, in terms of text-critical considerations, the text of Genesis is hypothetical; cf. Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed.; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, ), 11–12, who himself admits that there is no better alternative than the Masoretic Text, within which the textual variants only vary in “small details” (12); on a broader note cf. Stefan Schorch, “Which Bible, Whose Text? Biblical Theologies in Light of the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible,” in Beyond Biblical Theologies, ed. Heinrich Assel, Stefan Beyerle and Christfried Böttrich (WUNT 295; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 359–74.
3
German (all translations are mine): “eine kunstvoll gegliederte Komposition”; Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (7th ed.; HKAT 1.1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 395, who excludes Gen 38 and 49. See also von Rad, Genesis, 347, who calls the Joseph story “an organically constructed narrative.” For more, see, for example, Herbert Donner, Die literarische Gestalt der alttestamentlichen Josephsgeschichte (SHAW.Ph.-h. Kl. 2; Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1976); Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984), 230–34; Blum, “Zwischen Literarkritik und Stilkritik: Die diachrone Analyse der literarischen Verbindung von Genesis und Exodus,” in Grundfragen der historischen Exegese: Methodologische, philologische und hermeneutische Beiträge zum Alten Testament, ed. Wolfgang Oswald and Kristin Weingart (FAT 95; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015); Jürgen Ebach, Genesis 37–50 (HThKAT; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2007), 31–37, 679–97; Benno Jacob, Das Buch Genesis (Stuttgart: Calwer, 2000), 693; Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 254; Rolf Rendtorff, “Die Josefsgeschichte—Novelle ohne ‘Quellen,’” in Joseph: Bibel und Literatur; Symposion Helsinki, Lathi 1999, ed. Friedemann W. Golka (Oldenburgische Beiträge zu jüdischen Studien 6; Oldenburg: Library and Information System of the University of Oldenburg, 2000), 37–43; John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; New York: Scribner, 1910), 440; Michael V. Fox, “Wisdom in the Joseph Story,” VT 51 (2001): 29; Lindsay Wilson, Joseph, Wise and Otherwise (Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Carlisle: Paternoster, ), 38–48.
4
Samuel Emadi, From Prisoner to Prince (NSBT 59; London: Apollos and IVP Academic, 2022); T. D. Alexander, “Royal Expectations in Genesis to Kings: Their Importance for Biblical Theology,” Tyndale Bulletin 49, no. 2 (1998): 191–92; Bob Becking, “They Hated Him Even More: Literary Techniques in Genesis 37.1–11,” BN 60 (1991): 40–47; Berel D. Lerner, “Joseph the Unrighteous,” Judaism 38 (1989): 278–81; Jan-Dirk Döhling, “Die Herrschaft erträumen, die Träume beherrschen. Herrschaft, Traum und Wirklichkeit in den Josefsträumen (Gen 37,5–11) und der Israel-Josefsgeschichte,” BZ 50 (2006): 1–30; Christoph Uehlinger, “Fratrie, filiations et paternités dans l’histoire de Joseph (Genèse 37–50*),” in Jacob: Commentaire à plusieurs voix de Gen. 25–36; Mélanges offerts à Albert de Pury, ed. Jean-Daniel Macchi and Thomas Römer (Le monde de la Bible 44; Geneva: Labor et Fides, ), 240.
5
Paul Beauchamp, “Joseph et ses frères: Offense, pardon, réconciliation,” Sémiotique et Bible 105 (2002): 3–13; George W. Coats, “Strife and Reconciliation: Themes of a Biblical Theology in the Book of Genesis,” HBT 2 (1980): 15–37; Jürgen Ebach, “Mit Schuld leben—mit Schuld leben: Beobachtungen und Überlegungen zum Anfang und zum Schluss der biblischen Josefsgeschichte,” in “Wie? Auch wir vergeben unsern Schuldigern?”: Mit Schuld leben, ed. Jürgen Ebach (Jabboq 5; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2004), 19–39; Georg Fischer, “Die verborgenen Tränen des Josef: Versöhnung unter Brüdern,” Entschluss 44 (1989): 26–27; Fischer, “Die Josefsgeschichte als Modell für Versöhnung,” in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History, ed. André Wénin (BETL 155; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001), 242–71; Fischer, “‘Gott hat es zum Guten gedacht’: Der weinende Josef als weiser Theologie und Mittler der Versöhnung,” BiKi 70, no. 1 (2015): 29–34; Eric X. Jarrard, “Reconciliation in the Joseph Story,” BibInt 29 (2021): 148–86; J. G. McConville, “Forgiveness as Private and Public Act: A Reading of the Biblical Joseph Narrative,” CBQ 75, no. 4 (2013): 635–48; Solomon Schimmel, “Joseph and His Brothers: A Paradigm for Repentance,” Judaism 37 (): 60–65.
6
Matthew Y. Emerson, “Searching for the Second Adam: Typological Connections Between Adam, Joseph, Mordecai, and Daniel,” SBJT 21, no. 1 (2017): 123–44; W. L. Humphreys, “The Motif of the Wise Courtier in the Old Testament” (Ph.d diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1970); W. L. Humphreys, “A Life-Style for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92, no. 2 (1973): 211; Susan Niditch and Robert Doran, “The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: A Formal Approach,” JBL 96, no. 2 (1977): 179–93; Richard D. Patterson, “Joseph in Pharaoh’s Court,” BSAC 164, no. 654 (2007): 148–64; Harald M. Wahl, “Das Motiv des ‘Aufstiegs’ in der Hofgeschichte: Am Beispiel von Joseph, Esther und Daniel,” ZAW 112, no. 1 (2000): 59–74; Lawrence M. Wills, The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King (HDR 26; Minneapolis: Fortress, ).
7
Rüdiger Lux, “Die Erfahrung des Guten im Bösen: zur impliziten Theologie der Josefserzählung (Gen 37–50),” in idem, Ein Baum des Lebens: Studien zur Weisheit und Theologie im Alten Testament, ed. Angelika Berlejung and Raik Heckl (ORA 23; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 171–76; Rüdiger Lux, “Geschichte als Erfahrung, Erinnerung und Erzählung in der priesterschriftlichen Rezeption der Josefsnovelle,” in idem, Ein Baum des Lebens; Christina Nießen, “Der verborgene Handlungsträger: Die Rede von Gott in der Josefsgeschichte,” in Ein Herz so weit wie der Sand am Ufer des Meeres: Festschrift für Georg Hentschel, ed. Susanne Gillmayr-Bucher, Annett Giercke and Christina Nießen (EThSt 90; Würzburg: Echter, 2006), 323–57; Meira Polliack, “Joseph’s Trauma: Memory and Resolution,” in Performing Memory in Biblical Narrative and Beyond, ed. ʿAthalya Brenner and Frank H. Polak (The Bible in the Modern World 25; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009), 72–105; Horst D. Preuß, “‘…ich will mit dir sein!’” ZAW 80, no. 2 (1968): 139–73; Magnus Rabel, “Providenz nachlesen: Erzählstrategie und Relecture in der Josephsnovelle ausgehend von Gen 50,15–26,” ZAW 135, no. 2 (2023): 175–91; Marc Rastoin, “‘Suis-je à la place de Dieu, moi?’: Note sur Gn 30,2 et 50,19 et l’intention théologique de la Genèse,” RB 114, no. 3 (2007): 333–47; Charles T. Fritsch, “‘God Was with Him’: A Theological Study of the Joseph Narrative,” Int 9, no. 1 (): 21–34.
8
George W. Coats, “Joseph Story and Ancient Wisdom: A Re-Appraisal,” CBQ 35, no. 3 (1973): 285–97; Fox, “Wisdom”; James A. Loader, “Chokma—Joseph—Hybris,” in Studies in the Pentateuch, ed. Wouter C. van Wyk (Old Testament Essays 17/18; Pretoria: OTWSA, 1977), 21–31; Gerhard von Rad, “Josephsgeschichte und ältere Chokma,” in idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (4th ed.; ThB 8; Munich: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1958), 272–80; Konrad Schmid, “Sapiential Anthropology in the Joseph Story,” in The Joseph Story between Egypt and Israel, ed. Axel Bühler, Konrad Schmid and Thomas Römer (Archeology and Bible 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021), 103–18; Thomas G. Smothers, “The Joseph Narrative and Wisdom” (Ph.d diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1964); Stuart Weeks, “Joseph, Dreams and Wisdom” (MPhil diss., Oxford University, 1989); J. P. H. Wessels, “The Joseph Story as a Wisdom Novelette,” OTE 2 (): 39–60; Wilson, Joseph.
9
See especially John Huddelstun, “Divestiture, Deception, and Demotion: The Garment Motif in Genesis 37–39,” JSOT 98 (2002): 47–62; also Franziska Ede, “The Garment Motif in Gen. 37-39,” in Clothing and Nudity in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Christoph Berner et al. (London: T&T Clark, 2019), 389–402; Emmanuel O. Nwaoru, “Change of Garment: A Symbolic ‘Rite of Passage’ in Joseph Narrative (Gen 37; 39; 41),” BN 143 (2009): 5–22; Victor H. Matthews, “The Anthropology of Clothing in the Joseph Narrative,” JSOT 65 (1995): 25–36; recently Janling Fu, Cynthia Shafer-Elliott and Carol L. Meyers, eds., T&T Clark Handbook of Food in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel (London: T&T Clark, ).
10
Nili Shupak, “A Reexamination of the Dreams of the Egyptian Officials and of Pharaoh in the Joseph Narrative (Gen 40–41),” Shnaton 15 (2005): 55–95; Konrad Schmid, “Josephs zweiter Traum: Beobachtungen zu seiner literarischen Funktion und sachlichen Bedeutung in der Josephsgeschichte (Gen 37–50),” ZAW 128, no. 3 (2016): 374–88; Ron Pirson, The Lord of the Dreams (JSOT.S 355; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002); Ron Pirson, “The Sun, the Moon and Eleven Stars: An Interpretation of Joseph’s Second Dream,” in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History, ed. André Wénin (BETL 155; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001); Jörg Lanckau, Herr der Träume (AThANT 85; Zurich: TVZ, 2006); Jonathan Grossman, “Different Dreams: Two Models of Interpretation for Three Pairs of Dreams (Genesis 37–50),” JBL 135, no. 4 (2016): 717–32; Franziska Ede, “Dreams in the Joseph Narrative,” in Perchance to Dream: Dream Divination in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. Esther Hamori and Jonathan Stökl (ANEM 21; Atlanta: SBL Press, ), 91–108; Döhling, “Herrschaft.”
11
Some important studies outside of the Joseph story are Nathan MacDonald, Not Bread Alone (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); Peter Altmann, Festive Meals in Ancient Israel (BZAW 424; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011); Ruben A. Bühner, “Interaktion mit dem Fremden: Grenzen und Möglichkeiten der Tischgemeinschaft anhand von Daniel und Ester,” ZAW 133, no. 3 (2021): 329–45; Ruben A. Bühner, “Zwischen Abgrenzung und Annäherung: Essens- und Tischgemeinschaft von Juden und Nichtjuden anhand der Diasporanovellen Judith sowie Josef und Asenet,” ZNW 113, no. 2 (2022): 284–302; Christina Eschner, Essen im Antiken Judentum und Urchristentum (AGJU 108; Boston: Brill, 2019); Nathan MacDonald, Luzia Shutter Rehmann and Kathy Ehrensperger, eds., Decisive Meals (LNTS 449; London: T&T Clark, 2012); Alfred Marx, “Mahl und Mahlgemeinschaft zur Zeit des zweiten Tempels gemäss der Priesterschrift,” in Der eine Gott und das gemeinschaftliche Mahl: Inklusion und Exklusion biblischer Vorstellungen von Mahl und Gemeinschaft im Kontext antiker Festkultur, ed. Wolfgang Weiß (BThSt 113; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen Theology, 2011), 11–29; Ildo Perondi and Fabrizio Z. Catenassi, “Fome e alimento na Bíblia,” Estudos Biblicos 35, no. 137 (): 7–10.
12
Recently Christina Eschner, “Kult um Speisen? Essen und seine sozial-religiösen Funktionen im antiken Judentum, im entstehenden Christentum und in der Gegenwart,” Limina 5, no. 2 (2022): 14–37; for a quick overview, see Aldina Da Silva, La symbolique des rêves et des vêtements dans l’histoire de Joseph et de ses frères (Héritage et projet. Études bibliques 52; Montreal: Fides, 1994). Heffelfinger, “Food,” 310n49 cites Deborah A. Appler, “From Queen to Cuisine: Food Imagery in the Jezebel Narrative,” Semeia 86 (): 56.
13
MacDonald, Not, 184 cited in Heffelfinger, “Food,” 299.
14
Heffelfinger, “Food,” 298n1.
15
16
On the second dream’s strange character in terms of its imagery as well as its implications for the entire narrative, see my forthcoming article entitled “Dreaming Big: On Expanding Dreams, Hubris, and the Character of the Biblical Joseph” (accepted for publication in JSOT).
17
This statement is odd given that she proposes the combination of food and liquids to be the leitmotif here.
18
Eberhard Bons, “Manger ou ne pas manger avec les étrangers? Quelques observations concernant Genèse 43 et le roman Joseph et Aséneth,” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 93, no. 1 (2013): 93–103; Römer, “Repas”; see also Aron Pinker, “Abomination to Egyptians in Genesis 43:43, 46:34, and Exodus 8:22,” OTE 22.1 (2009): 151–74; Arndt Meinhold, “‘… damit wir leben können und nicht sterben müssen!’: Lebensfülle als Quintessenz israelitisch-judäischer Identität in Diaspora und Land nach der Erzähltheologie in der Josephsgeschichte,” in Ex oriente Lux: Studien zur Theologie des Alten Testaments, Festschrift für Rüdiger Lux zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Angelika Berlejung and Raik Heckl (ABIG 39; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 77–108; Rüdiger Lux, Josef (3rd ed.; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, ), 97–98 who only touch upon food in the Joseph story. MacDonald, Not, 184–85 races through the entire story in less than two pages; Da Silva, Symbolique omits it entirely.
19
Bons, “Manger,” 96; Römer, “Repas,” 24; Lux, Josef, 98, even talks about “verweigerter und wiederhergestellter” table fellowship.
20
As David J. Fuller, “Towards a New Translation of Dbh in Genesis 37,2,” Bib 97, no. 4 (): 481–91 suggests. If correct, it is irrelevant whether the message is invented without cause or whether the truth has been deliberately and maliciously twisted. Whether Fuller’s proposal is true or not, the fact that Joseph tells on his brothers does not help his popularity among them. The negative introduction of Joseph in the exposition (Gen 37:2–11), the reader’s uncertainty as to whether they can trust him, and how his exaggerated dreams put a strain on his relationship with his brothers, I have argued in Rabel, “Dreaming.”
21
Cf. Heffelfinger, “Food,” 303.
22
Ebach, Genesis, 98; Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2; Dallas: Word, 1994), 354; Per Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, ), 421, “The brothers’ treatment of Joseph has not diminished their appetite.”
23
24
Goldingay, Genesis, 577.
25
Cf., for example, Römer, “Repas,” 21n34; Heffelfinger, “Food,” 303.
26
Lux, Josef, 97: “Auf diese Weise verweigerten die Brüder dem Josef die Befriedigung der menschlichen Grundbedürfnisse nach Kleidung, Nahrung und Gemeinschaft.”
27
Note the emphatic הוא twice in the brothers’ first encounter (42:6).
28
Heffelfinger, “Food,” 309.
29
On the meaning of תועבה, see Winston H. Pickett, “The Meaning and Function of T’b/To’eva in the Hebrew Bible” (Ph.d diss., Hebrew Union College, 1985); Pinker, “Abomination”; Paul Humbert, “Le substantif to’ēbā et le verbe t’b dans l’A.T.,” ZAW 72 (): 217–37; different Römer, “Repas,” 22; Bons, “Manger,” 96; nuanced Meinhold, “Lebensfülle,” 86.
30
Cf. Hyun C. P. Kim, “Reading the Joseph Story (Genesis 37–50) as a Diaspora Narrative,” CBQ 75 (2013): 220 who talks about Joseph’s “hybrid identity.” See also Jürgen Ebach, “Israels Sohn und Ägyptens Herr: Zur Ambivalenz der Josefsfigur in Gestaltung und Lektüre von Gen 37–50,” in Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt; Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Ingo Kottsieper (AOAT 350; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, ), 39–56.
31
Bons, “Manger,” 95.
32
Bons, “Manger,” 97.
33
Römer, “Repas,” 24; Meinhold, “Lebensfülle,” 85. Heffelfinger (“Food,” 311) sees the abundance of liquids in Gen 43:34 as a direct narrative opposition to absence of water in the cistern.
34
Lux, Josef, 98.
35
36
Ebach, Genesis, 347.
37
Four times, he writes: “Die Brüder merken nichts!” cf. Lux, Josef, 173–74.
38
Lux, Josef, 173.
39
Heffelfinger, “Food,” 311.
40
Note that in rabbinic literature the meal in Gen 43:31–34 has evolved into a Shabbat dinner (see BerR 92:4; BerR 14:2), so it is reimagined at a different time on a specific day for a particular occasion, cf. Sheila T. Keiter, “Joseph (Son of Jacob): III. Judaism B. Rabbinic Judaism,” in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, ed. Constance M. Furey et al. (Berlin: de Gruyter, ), 14:688.
41
Heffelfinger, “Food,” 310.
42
Cf. Heffelfinger, “Food,” 311.
44
Heffelfinger, “Food,” 312.
45
Heffelfinger, “Food,” 314.
46
Heffelfinger, “Food,” 312.
49
VanderKam, Jubilees, 1:23.
51
52
Cf., for example, Calum M. Carmichael, “The Story of Joseph and the Book of Jubilees,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, ed. Timothy Lim and Larry W. Hurtado (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 143–58; Atar Livneh, “Jubilees 34:1–9: Joseph, the ‘House of Joseph,’ and the Josephites’ Portion,” JSJ 43, no. 1 (): 22–41.
53
54
55
Translation by VanderKam, Jubilees, 2:1103.
56
VanderKam, Jubilees, 2:1106.
57
Translation by Orval Wintermute, “Jubilees: A New Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Vol. 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York, NY: Doubleday, ), 136, consistent with VanderKam’s translation.
58
Cf. Jub 22:6, 27; 31:13; 36:7.
59
See VanderKam, Jubilees, 2:1111. Note also the communal meal before Naphatli’s death in TNaph 1:2–4 which shows the commonality of this motif in ancient Jewish thought.
60
61
VanderKam, Jubilees, 2:1111.
62
Translation by Louis H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1–4 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 176. H. S. J. Thackeray, Josephus in Nine Volumes (LCL 242; London: Harvard University Press, ), 237, renders ἦσαν ἐν εὐωχίᾳ with “[t]hey then resorted to festivity.” Both renderings entail the connotation of festivity around the table.
64
Feldman, Flavius, 176n428.
65
Feldman, Flavius, 176n437 has no explanation for Joseph’s favoritism there and simply states the facts. Yet, the situation from Ant. 2.166 to 2.167 has changed drastically. The scene of reconciliation is over. The king’s wagons full of grain, gold, and silver have arrived. It is time to say farewell. Their union as brothers is intact and would not be endangered by Joseph showing his special affection to Benjamin before their departure.
66
Cf. Feldman, Flavius, 176n429.
67
Feldman, Flavius, 176n430.
68
Note the omission of Genesis’ exposition (Gen 37:1–4) in Ant 2.10–11. On Josephus’s portrayal of Joseph, see Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Joseph,” RevBib 99, no. 2 (1992): 379–417; Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Joseph (Continuation),” Revue Biblique 99, no. 3 (1992): 504–28; Hans Sprödowsky, “Die Hellenisierung der Geschichte von Joseph in Ägypten bei Flavius Josephus” (Ph.d diss., Universität Greifswald, 1931); W. Weiß, “Die Josephsgeschichte bei Josephus Flavius,” in Joseph: Bibel und Literatur; Symposion Helsinki, Lathi 1999, ed. F. W. Golka (Oldenburgische Beitrage zu judischen Studien 6; Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universitat Oldenburg, 2000), 73–81; Maren Niehoff, “New Garments for Biblical Joseph,” in Biblical Interpretation: History, Context, and Reality, ed. Christine Helmer (SBLSymS 26; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, ), 48–55.
69
This wording stems from VanderKam’s description of Jubilees’ character as rewritten Scripture, cf. VanderKam, Jubilees, I 22,