Journal for the Study of the Old Testament-2003-Jacobs-309-38

http://jot.sagepub.com/Testament

Journal for the Study of the Old

http://jot.sagepub.com/content/27/3/309The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/030908920302700303

2003 27: 309Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentMignon R. Jacobs

and Hermeneutical InquiryThe Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil in the Joseph Story: An Exegetical

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentAdditional services and information for

http://jot.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jot.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Mar 1, 2003Version of Record >>

at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jot.sagepub.com/

http://jot.sagepub.com/content/27/3/309

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://jot.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jot.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jot.sagepub.com/content/27/3/309.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


[JSOT 27.3 (2003) 309-338] ISSN 0309-0892

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX and 370 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA.

The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil in the Joseph Story: An Exegetical and Hermeneutical Inquiry*

Mignon R. Jacobs

135 North Oakland Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91182, USA

Abstract

This article examines the dynamics of good and evil as represented in the Joseph story (Gen. 37–50). It examines the story’s plot, the larger concep-tual framework of the narrative’s Pentateuchal setting, as well as the semantic indicators and associated attitudes/behaviors quali� ed as good (hbw+/bw+) and/or evil (h(r/(r). The main objectives of this article are: (1) to identify the main issues within the story’s concept of the dynamics of good and evil; (2) to promote a more thorough consideration of the place of Joseph and God in those dynamics; and (3) to generate hermeneutical in-quiries about the dynamics of good and evil using the insights gained from this examination—inquiries that are more relevant to contemporary discus-sion (e.g. understanding human atrocities, forgiveness, and reconciliation).

I. Introduction One of the most signi� cant achievements in research on the Joseph story (Gen. 37–50) is the recognition and analysis of its place and function in the Pentateuch.1 Within this framework the conceptuality of the story2 is

* Biblical quotations are from the NRSV unless otherwise indicated. This is an updated version of a paper presented at the 1994 AAR/SBL Annual Meeting in Chi-cago, IL. 1. G.W. Coats, From Canaan to Egypt: Structural and Theological Context for the Joseph Story (CBQMS, 4; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1976); this represents a comprehensive analysis of the story in regard to its own unity and its theological connection to the patriarchal narratives. Cf. M. Noth, A History of the Pentateuchal Traditions (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall, 1972),



310 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27.3 (2003)

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

illustrated by its connection with the promise to the patriarchs and the tradition of Israel’s enslavement in Egypt and by its use of complex dy-namics of behaviors/circumstances. In these dynamics, good and evil are de� ned necessarily by criteria found in the conceptuality of the story (intra-textual) and in the larger conceptuality of the Pentateuch (contextual).3 Although it deals with issues of theodicy as they are signaled by the subject matter at hand, this study is not intended to be a reconstruction of an Old Testament theodicy. Rather it examines the dynamics of good and evil as they are represented in the story’s plot and larger conceptual frame-work of the Pentateuch. It proposes that the conceptuality of the story is an acknowledgment of God’s purposeful involvement in particular aspects of human history to ful� ll the deity’s plans. Furthermore, this article fo-cuses on the conceptuality of the extant text as a cohesive unit4 recognizing its constitutive elements,5 generic forms,6 and the signi� cance of other contributions to the understanding of the story’s origin and composition.7

pp. 208-13; D.B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37–50) (VTSup, 20; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970), pp. 86, 247; C. Westermann, Genesis: An Intro-duction (trans. J.J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986); R.E. Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989), pp. 12-13. 2. Conceptuality is a manifestation of a larger conceptual framework. It is also the aspect of the text that controls the composition of the story. It is the guiding principle that accounts for the existence of the particular formulation in the text. See R.P. Knierim, The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 389-90. 3. R.P. Knierim, Text and Concept in Leviticus 1.1-9: A Case Study in Exegetical Method (FAT, 2; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992), p. 3. He mentions several conceptual frameworks—namely, infratextual, intratextual (pericope-immanent), contextual (the literary work as a whole), intertextual (separate literary works), and supratextual (the world-view of the concepts). 4. The cohesion may be represented in a four-fold macro-structure: Joseph Story I (ch. 37), II (chs. 39–41), III (chs. 42–47), IV (chs. 48–50). The Joseph story is within the framework of the Jacob narrative. Cf. Coats, From Egypt to Canaan, pp. 48-54, who sees 47.27 as the end of the Joseph story proper. 5. This is in reference to source criticism. Cf. J. Skinner, Genesis (ICC; Edin-burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969); F. Winnett, ‘Re-Examining the Foundations’, JBL 84 (1965), pp. 1-19; S.R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York: The Meridian Library, 1961). With regards to the redaction of the text, see G. Rendsburg, The Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986); G.W. Coats, ‘Redactional Unity in Genesis 37–50’, JBL 93 (1974), pp. 15-21. 6. G.W. Coats, Genesis (FOTL, 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 259-315. 7. G. von Rad, ‘The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom’, in idem, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966), pp. 292-300.



JACOBS The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil 311


Methodology One of the main challenges to be confronted by this investigation is that the story does not present discussions on the concepts of good and evil and their dynamics. The story presupposes an understanding of what it means by good (hbw+/bw+) and evil (h(r/(r).8 Consequently, under-standing these concepts and the conceptuality of the story is dependent on understanding the behaviors and circumstances depicted in the story as indicators of the particular dynamics of good and evil. This task of under-standing the distinctive concepts engenders at least two risks. The � rst risk is that of distorting the conceptuality of the story. Such a distortion may be the result of at least two de� ciencies: methodological and conceptual. A methodological de� ciency occurs when the reconstruc-tion of the conceptuality of the text is attempted using a priori conclusions about characters’ roles in the dynamics of good and evil. This is most evi-dent with regards to Joseph’s role. Thus, although he is seen to be innocent and the source of good, little or no serious consideration is given to Joseph’s contribution to evil. Furthermore, the generalization of the place of the Joseph story as a bridge between Genesis and Exodus often results in the loss of awareness of the story’s conceptuality. In terms of conceptual de� ciency, the story’s conceptuality is distorted to the extent that an understanding of the dynamics of good and evil is limited to what is deemed legitimate by criteria external to the story. Such criteria include determining the quality of behaviors (good or evil) by the identity of the ‘actor’—Joseph, his brothers, and God—and by the signi� -cance of the behaviors within the Pentateuch. The conceptual de� ciency is addressed only to the extent that the criteria for good and evil are those derived from the text. The concern is to note the distinctiveness of the context rather than harmonization with the larger contextual framework. In this respect, the presuppositions arising out of the text itself may not be silenced in favor of conformity to presuppositions that the text itself resists.

Cf. the following challenges to von Rad’s thesis: R.N. Whybray, ‘The Joseph Story and Pentateuchal Criticism’, VT 18 (1968), pp. 522-28; G.W. Coats, ‘The Joseph Story and Ancient Wisdom: A Reappraisal’, CBQ 35 (1973), pp. 285-97; C. Westermann, Gene-sis: An Introduction (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), pp. 122-50, 237-46. 8. Gen. 37.2, 20, 33; 39.9; 40.7; 41.3, 4, 19, 20, 21, 27; 44.4, 34; 47.9; 48.16; 50.17, 20. There are other words that refer to negative conditions used in the story: e.g. )+x and (#p. These are of primary concern to this discussion since they are related to the particular incidents of the story in relation to the concepts of good and evil.





In order to understand what these attitudes/behaviors reveal, this article examines instances where the particular attitudes/behaviors are quali� ed as good (hbw+/bw+) and/or evil (h(r/(r). It is equally important to exam-ine other attitudes/behaviors that may not be so quali� ed, but are similar in nature to those quali� ed as good and evil. That this is an exegetical and hermeneutical inquiry is signi� cant to the nature and scope of the dis-cussion. The main objectives are as follows: 1. To identify the main issues at work in the story’s concept of the

dynamics of good and evil. 2. To promote a more thorough consideration of the good and evil

dynamics especially with respect to the place of Joseph and God in those dynamics.

3. To stimulate discussion on the hermeneutic of good and evil using the insights gained from analysis of the story.

4. To reawaken interest in the Joseph story. Thus, the essay raises questions and makes some initial observations while offering some preliminary responses in comparison to the complexity of the issues at hand.

II. Exegetical Inquiry 1. Overview of the Story a. Its Plot The story’s plot is constituted by con� ict–resolution patterns in which the dynamics of good and evil are central. In these dynamics the multivalency and relativity of behaviors/circumstances are such that good and evil may constitute the same behavior/circumstances. This is to say that there is po-tential for good and evil at every juncture in the story. The story does not present an abstraction of good and evil. Rather, it is a depiction of human interaction within which good and evil arise and in which God works toward the deity’s own purpose. At the very onset, the narrator makes clear two central concerns: loca-tion and persons. Canaan is indicated as the geographic starting point of the story (37.1). Likewise, the centrality of Joseph is made clear at the onset. Joseph is singled out by name in distinction from his brothers (wyx)), who are identi� ed only as a group (sons of Bilhah and Zilpah) (37.2). While the narrative framework indicates that the story is that of Jacob’s family (37.2a), even Jacob is cast in a decentralized role by re-ferring to him as [Joseph’s] father (37.2ab, wyb), ‘his father’; cf. 37.2b,





Mhyb), ‘their father’) before he is introduced by name (l)r#y, ‘Israel’) in reference to Joseph (37.3). The primacy of the con� ict that is to charac-terize the story is introduced by the account of Joseph giving an ‘evil report’ (h(r Mtbd) about his brothers to their father (37.2). This same father is reported to love Joseph more than the brothers (37.3) and made this evident through his preferential treatment of Joseph. Despite these tensions, Joseph, having dreamed dreams indicating his future glori� cation over his family, disclosed these to his brothers (37.5-11). This disclosure widened the rift between him and his brothers. Given the opportunity the brothers got rid of Joseph to ensure that the dreams do not come to pass. They sold him to Ishmaelites who in turn took him to Egypt (37.25). As a result of God’s presence with him, even in slavery Joseph in Egypt was given great responsibilities (39.1-6). But after being falsely accused he was imprisoned (39.7-23). There in prison he interpreted the dreams of the pharaoh’s servants (ch. 40). This subsequently brought him to the palace to interpret pharaoh’s dreams (ch. 41). It was in and through the latter circumstance that Joseph came to power in Egypt and thus the dreams were actualized. The actualization of the dreams thus enabled Joseph to help his family by providing for their livelihood in Egypt during the time of famine (chs. 42–45). Thus, the family of Jacob journeyed from Canaan to Egypt and resided there (ch. 46). The story ends in Egypt but looks forward to a time of return to the land of Canaan (ch. 50). b. Indicators of its Conceptuality Within the story itself there are re� ections on the plot that are indicative of the story’s concept—central to which are the dynamics of good and evil. The clearest of these re� ective statements are Gen. 45.5-8 and 50.19-20. These are presented as Joseph’s re� ection on his past in light of the present and future of his family and their descendants. They represent an attempt to make sense of the past and its distinctive events by locating their sig-ni� cance within a larger framework—God’s plan. To this extent they also represent the conceptuality of the story. (1) Genesis 45.5-8. At the point in the story where 45.5-8 occur, Joseph was already in a position of power in Egypt. When he is confronted with his brothers and with the choices of how to respond to them, he accused them of being spies, and devised plans to entrap them. It appears that at this point he was extracting revenge. But he disclosed his identity and offered these words of admonition:





Do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here; because God sent me before you to preserve life… And God sent me before you to set up for you a remnant in the land; and to preserve for you many survivors. Now, you did not send me here but God… (45.5, 7-8)

The re� ection brings into focus the agents involved: Joseph, his brothers, and God. Joseph, the speaker, is presented as the central object of the action (indicated by the � rst common singular suf� x), but passive as a respondent to his brothers’ and God’s actions. While the verbs represent them as two distinct actions—that is, the brothers sold Joseph (Mtrkm yt)); and God sent him (ynxl#)—the re� ection represents them as the same event that caused Joseph to be in Egypt. The admonition (wbc(t-l)) presupposes that the brothers would feel distress for having sold Joseph. While in the background, the familial tensions (e.g. jealousy) constitute the circumstances of them selling him and are presupposed in the admonition. Here the quality of the ‘selling of Joseph’ is indicated in the admonition itself. The admonition suggests that there was cause for distress. Why distress when Joseph who was thought to be dead is alive? Why distress when he is a ruler with the power to help? Why distress when they had not seen him for years? The yk-clause is used to signal the immediate reason for the admonition—namely, that Joseph’s brothers sold him into Egypt (hnh yt) Mtrkm, ‘you sold me here’). While the text does not deny the brothers’ behavior, the reason given for the admonition is that another purpose was served by selling Joseph. In this case, no distinction is made about the speci� city of the selling; thus, the recollection does not identify the two-fold selling—that is, the brothers’ selling of Joseph to the Ishmaelites who in turn sold him into slavery in Egypt (37.28). The perspective here is that the brothers, whether they did the � nal or the initial selling, are responsible for Joseph’s presence in Egypt. God’s involvement in the dynamics is presented in contrast to the in-volvement of the brothers. The yk-clause in this instance gives the reason for sending Joseph to Egypt. Notably, neither this behavior nor that of the brothers is here quali� ed as good or evil. It is the nature of the admonition that indicates a negative quality of the brothers’ action as compared to a positive quality to God’s action. The reason given is connected to the immediate circumstances that brought the brothers into contact with Joseph—the famine. God, it is said, sent Joseph to preserve life. The purpose clause presupposes several elements that will be treated more fully in the discussion of the agents involved in the dynamics of good





and evil. It presupposes God’s foreknowledge of the famine (cf. 41.25-28) and suggests that if there was no famine or similar life-threatening circum-stances there would be no need for Joseph to be sent to Egypt. Joseph’s presence in Egypt is seen as a ful� llment of the divine purpose to preserve the lives of all in Egypt (45.5), as well as Jacob’s family and its descen-dants (45.7).9 Furthermore, the purpose cited also presupposes that there is more to the ful� llment of God’s plan than the selling. Joseph’s being sold by his brothers was not the sole determinant of his present position and respon-sibility for preserving lives. Thus, the statement also presupposes a means for establishing Joseph in his position and in this way presupposes the events after his brothers disposed of him. In consideration of the larger signi� cance of Joseph’s demise, the statement’s focus on the brothers’ action against Joseph is controlled by the particular context and its func-tion in that context. It is not an indication that the other events—his being falsely accused, imprisoned, forgotten—are any less signi� cant to the ful� llment of the divine plan. The signi� cance of the selling in relation to the other events is its chronological primacy—without Joseph being in Egypt as a slave he most likely would not have been in the household of Potiphar. Thus, the events following the selling and the presence in Egypt are dependent on the selling and the being brought to Egypt. The re� ection on the events of the past as contributing to the actualiza-tion of God’s plan raises questions about the nature of the deity’s involve-ment in the dynamics of good and evil in the life of Joseph and his family. To what extent is God in control of the implementation and actualization of the plan? In what sense then are the brothers responsible for their part in the drama? Were they mere instruments of God’s plans?10 To what

9. The text presents dif� culties in that it seems to offer two perspectives. (1) The perspective in 45.5 does not identify the family of Jacob as the target of Joseph’s rise to his position. This general reference indicates that the life of all the Egyptians is in focus. (2) In 45.7 the focus is Jacob and his family. This great remnant refers to the descendants of Jacob rather than to all who survive the famine. The immediate purpose is preservation of life due to the severe famine. Cf. C. Westermann, Genesis 37–50 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, rev. edn, 1986), pp. 143-45, who explains the dif� culty as a redactional insert to make the passage directly applicable to the post-exilic community in the face of catastrophe. 10. W. Brueggemann, Genesis (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), pp. 289, 344-49, speaks of the hidden and mysterious nature of God and the freedom of God in the ful-� llment of the divine plans. He notes that God uses human actions but is not limited to them. He af� rms the ultimate sovereignty and utter graciousness of God.





extent is their behavior toward Joseph their own doing, if the plan was already � xed for Joseph to go to Egypt? Whatever interpretation one gives to the text, one must reckon with the story’s perspective that God is involved in the dynamics of good and evil as a participant and not simply as an observer. One must also reckon with God’s foreknowledge and power as essential parts of the dynamics. (2) Genesis 50.19-20. Another indicator of the story’s concept is the reas-surance of Joseph to his brothers expressed in Gen. 50.19-20:

But Joseph said to them, ‘Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God? You devised evil against me but God devised it for good in order to preserve the lives of many people even as he is doing today.’

Like 45.5-8, these two verses bring into focus the participants in the dynamics: Joseph, his brothers, and God. But unlike 45.5-8, 50.19-20 qualify the behavior of the brothers as evil (h(r) and that of God as good (hb+). Yet Joseph’s reassurance does not minimize nor deny that good and evil had been done. On the contrary, acknowledgment of evil’s pres-ence is fundamental to both the brothers’ fear and the reassurance offered to them. What constitutes the reassurance is not that Joseph is beyond the inclination or predisposition to avenge himself. Admittedly, the text is ambiguous in its representation of Joseph’s disposition toward revenge. This disposition is already apparent in Joseph’s meeting with his brothers during the famine (42.6-17; ch. 44). The reassurance is two-fold: that Joseph would not presume to play the part of God (Myhl) txth yk yn)), and that the evil intended did not result in evil. Concerning the � rst, this perspective presumes that vengeance is God’s (cf. Deut. 32.35; Lev. 19.18) and hence to exact revenge is to take God’s place in the dynamics. Concerning the intended evil there seems to be an understanding of the nature of the dynamics wherein evil does not necessarily follow from evil but may in some way be altered to produce good. The reassurance is that the evil the brothers devised (b#x) against Joseph was devised by God for ‘good’—that is, the preservation of life. Notably, the circumstance/behav-ior that is quali� ed as good and evil is not explicitly mentioned, but signaled by the third feminine singular suf� x (h F ). The referent of the suf� x is explicit in 45.5-8 and the story. Already in this portion of the story, several questions that have signi� -cance for the understanding of the dynamics of good and evil arise: What constitutes good and evil in the conceptuality of the story? Is it inten-tionality such that if one intends something as ‘good’ it is ‘good’ quite





apart from other criteria or effects? To what extent is the criterion for the quality (good or evil) of a behavior/circumstance its signi� cance in a larger framework? To what extent is the quality of an act determined by the ‘actor’, that is, the agent of that act? If nothing else the story has no simple answers to these questions. From these two statements (Gen. 45.5-8; 50.19-20) good is de� ned as the pres-ervation of life. However, they are not statements about all circumstances aimed at preserving life. While God’s act to preserve life is good, there is some doubt as to whether the brothers’ act in preserving Joseph’s life by selling him may also be seen as good in this same way. Both of these actions preserve life, but the circumstances of the preservation are also signi� cant to whether it is essentially good. On the other hand, evil is not as clearly de� ned in these two statements or the story as a whole. Why is the brothers’ behavior evil? Does the fact that they did not kill Joseph constitute good? Is their selling of Joseph evil because the selling of people is in essence evil, regardless of who does the selling? Or is the selling evil because of the blood tie between the broth-ers and Joseph? Is the evil then constituted in the motive behind the selling and not necessarily in the selling itself? These questions revolve around two fundamental aspects to the dynam-ics of good and evil observed in the concept of the story: the agents of the dynamics and the nature of the dynamics. 2. Agents in the Dynamics of Good and Evil Although they may control its initial quality, the agents in the dynamics of good and evil may not control the effects of their contribution. In as much as the dynamics of good and evil are inherent in every human relationship, one may be unaware of the quality of one’s role in those dynamics. Thus, humans may at times be inadvertent participants in good and evil while at other times consciously and deliberately engaging in behaviors toward good and/or evil. The identity of the agents does not alone determine the quality of the dynamics. So, while the brothers did evil, the behaviors are not evil simply because they and not someone else did them. Likewise, Joseph’s actions are not good simply by virtue of the fact that he did them. Similarly, it must be seriously considered whether the quality of an act is determined by the fact that it is God who does it. With the awareness that the agent of the action is not the criterion for the quality of the action, the examination of the agents is intended to identify their participation in the dynamics of good and evil.





a. Human Agents The discussion now turns to the events of the past as summarized in Gen. 45.5-8 and 50.20. First, it should be noted that familial con� icts constitute a central place in the dynamics of good and evil in this story. This has more to do with the form of society depicted by the narrative11 than with the predominance of family con� icts during that time vis-à-vis other types of con� icts.12 (1) The Brothers and Evil. With no consideration of the possibility of their contribution to the larger dynamics, the brothers are usually viewed as contributing evil. This is mainly because the text itself emphasizes the brothers’ evil by qualifying their behavior as evil, and by qualifying their attitudes/behaviors negatively: their hatred and jealousy of Joseph (37.4, 5, 11); their plot to get rid of him (37.18-22); their lies to their father con-cerning Joseph (37.32-35); their suspicion that their guilt has been found out by God and is being punished (44.16); their awareness that they had wronged Joseph (42.21-22) and that he may avenge himself against them (50.15-18). One of the most readily observable aspects of the dynamics of good and evil in the text is its perspective on evil. It portrays evil as the product of the collective; therefore the brothers’ evil is depicted as that of a collec-tive.13 The brothers are introduced as a collective unit (37.2, 4) and are usually spoken of in terms of the collective (e.g. 37.12, 17, 18, 31; 42.3, 6-17, 18, 21, 30-32; 43.18-22; 44.7-9; 50.15-18, 20, 24)—with the excep-tions of the cases where Reuben or Judah speaks or acts alone in light of the collective (37.21-22, 26, 29; 42.22, 37; 43.3-5; 44.14-19). The ano-nymity of the participants in the evil is thus achieved. The hatred, for example, is presented as that of the collective; and there is no distinction made between those members in the group who may not have hated Joseph vis-à-vis those who may have loved him.14

11. C. Westermann, The Promises to the Fathers (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), pp. 31-32. Note the time presupposed by the narrative as a whole vis-à-vis the time of the individual traditions or the time of its � nal composition. 12. D. Steinmetz, From Father to Son: Kinship, Con� ict and Community in Gene-sis (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1991), pp. 11-34. 13. Cf. Longacre, Joseph Story, pp. 147-49. 14. See below for a discussion of the break in the anonymity with reference to Reu-ben’s intervention on behalf of Joseph.





Even as a collective agent of evil, the brothers are portrayed as cogni-zant of their attitudes/behaviors. Consequently, whether the actions against Joseph may be quali� ed as both reactive (e.g. 37.4, 8b, 11; 42.21-22; 43.18; 44.7-12) and proactive (e.g. 37.18; 31; 15.15-17),15 the brothers are depicted as committing evil. But questions about the brothers’ respon-sibility for their evil emerge in light of the story’s concept of God’s plan to bring Joseph to Egypt (Gen. 45.5-8). Was there a divine in� uence that predisposed them to hate Joseph and mistreat him? The possibility of such an in� uence may not be ruled out in light of other instances where God is said to cause a person to respond negatively. One example is the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in Exod. 7.3 (‘Pharaoh’s heart was hardened’, 7.13, 22; 8.19; 9.35; 11.9; as compared to ‘Yahweh hardened Pharaoh’s heart’, 9.12; 10.20, 27; and ‘Pharaoh hardened his heart’, 8.15, 32; 9.34). This example begs the question of whether evil is evil regardless of who is ultimately responsible for it. Yet the issue of responsibility is crucial and complicated and not addressed by simply identifying the impulses or causation of good and/or evil. This is not to imply that evil is quanti� ed by its complexity. Rather, it is to say that evil is a part of a dynamic pro-cess and not isolated from other realities either as a stimulus or as an effect/ response. When the opportunity presented itself, the brothers plotted to get rid of Joseph and his dreams (37.18-22). Although they initiated the action in response to their hatred of him, the plotting itself is not justi� ed by Jacob’s preferential love for Joseph or by the presumption of Joseph in asserting his superiority over his brothers. The narrator does not evaluate the plot-ting as either good or evil. The evil of the plot is indicated in the interven-tion of Reuben, who speaks on behalf of Joseph (37.21-22). Here there is a sign that the hatred for Joseph was not equally strong among the broth-ers. Reuben may have hated him but not enough to kill him; however, the alternative was not to dissuade all actions against Joseph. Yet, even the in-tervention is secondary to the plot against Joseph; and thus Reuben’s intervention suggests that evil is quanti� able.

15. ‘Reactive’ is de� ned here both with reference to textual signals and conceptual clues. The behaviors and attitudes categorized as reactive are those directly connected to another which serve as the basis for the response and apart from which the response would not be understandable. On the other hand, ‘proactive’ is de� ned as behaviors and attitudes that are indirectly connected to an earlier behavior/attitude which is then presupposed. Cf. Longacre, Joseph Story, pp. 202-204, who talks about the stimulus–response scheme of the narrative using 37.10-11 as an example.





The alternative to killing Joseph was to put him in a pit.16 In this in-stance, the lesser form of evil was also a destructive force in the family.17 The greater evil would be to kill Joseph (cf. Exod. 21.12, 14). In the larger perspective of the story, however, the lesser evil served a good purpose: (1) that the life of Joseph was preserved; and (2) that it contributed to the ful� llment of the larger plan to bring Joseph to Egypt. If the intent of the brothers was to destroy the reality revealed by the dreams through getting rid of Joseph, the evil is conceivably that they were tampering with God’s plans. Yet it is the very tampering that facilitated the actualization of the divine plans. Judah’s intervention propels the plot’s movement toward its climax (37.26-28).18 His intervention also represents the idea of the quanti� cation of evil. The rationale for his intervention is two-fold: that they should not harm Joseph because he is their brother; and that to harm him would not yield pro� t. Judah’s objection is not necessarily to killing per se. The irony is that on the basis of the same rationale—he is their brother—he did not see the evil of selling Joseph. Thus within the perspective of the text, killing Joseph would constitute evil, but throwing him into a pit or selling him, while qualitatively evil, would not represent the same quantity of evil. One reason may be that killing—punishable by death—represented a greater form of evil (cf. Exod. 21.12, 14) than selling him,19 or throwing

16. D. Seybold, ‘Paradox and Symmetry in the Joseph Narrative’, in K.R.R. Gros Louis et al. (eds.), Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1974), pp. 59-73 (60-64), notes that the pit is analogous to the prison which occurs in the later part of the narrative. 17. G. von Rad, Genesis (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973), pp. 354-55, concedes to this idea of a lesser evil in saying that the guilt of killing Joseph would be too great. 18. For Westermann, Genesis 37–50, pp. 41-42, this section (vv. 25-27) is a variant inserted into the context. He notes the divergent views on the doublets: the Reuben layer as original vs. the Judah layer as original. But given the observable tendency of the narration to use doublets (e.g. the dreams), the possibility of the two interventions is not to be ruled out. Judah’s intervention in particular is necessary to understand the references in the story to Joseph being sold by his brothers (40.15; 45.5). 19. R.P. Knierim, ‘On the Contours of Old Testament and Biblical Hamartiology’, in idem, The Task of Old Testament Theology, pp. 416-67 (439). He cites Exod. 21.16 as indication of selling as the gravest form of sin. However, Exod. 21.16 is primarily concerned with stealing (bng) of a man as punishable by death. The reference to selling (rkm) is subordinate to that of stealing. What is punishable by death therefore is not the selling but the stealing of a person.





him into the pit. The equating of harming with physical distress is thus brought into focus. There is no hint that the brothers were concerned with any other form of harm—psychological, emotional. Nor were Joseph’s wellbeing and future of concern. The evil against him represented a myopic view of problem solving—namely, using evil to achieve a perceived good for themselves (no subordination to Joseph). While the alternative to killing Joseph preserved his life, it was evil in that it threatened his well-being and destroyed the physical unity of the family. It is most likely in this sense that 50.19-20 qualify the brothers’ behavior as evil. There is, however, another aspect to the brothers’ involvement in the dynamics of good and evil. Although their behavior is evil toward Joseph, they later showed their capacity to do good. Their capacity shows that because persons have done evil in one circumstance does not mean that they cannot do good in other circumstances. The brothers showed that the potential for good and evil are a part of them. Rather than further contrib-uting to the destruction of life or to the threat to it, in journeying to Egypt they helped in the preservation of their family’s life. Likewise, Judah’s willingness to risk his family’s life to ensure the wellbeing of the larger family can hardly be quali� ed as evil. All this is to say that according to the conceptuality of the story, the agents in the dynamics of good and evil are not limited to good or evil by virtue of their identity or quality of their previous actions. The capacity for good and evil may be a part of the same person. (2) Joseph’s Role in the Dynamics. At each place in the narrative Joseph is seen as an active and central20 participant in the relationships. Conse-quently, he is central to any consideration of the dynamics of good and evil. Yet Joseph’s role in the evil of the dynamics is presented ambigu-ously (chs. 37; 42–44).21 By comparison, Joseph’s role in the good of the dynamics is presented without ambiguity (chs. 39–41). This lack of am-biguity does not mean that he had no role in evil any more than the

20. Longacre, Joseph Story, pp. 141-47, notes the textual signals that indicate the centrality of Joseph in the narrative. 21. Coats, From Canaan to Egypt, pp. 12, 19, sees Joseph as being a participant in the tension between his brothers. Joseph is, according to Coats, the picture of a spoiled child. Some, such as C.T. Fritsch, ‘ “God was with Him” ’, Int 9 (1955), pp. 21-34, are inclined to deny the role of Joseph in the creation of the con� ict. They presuppose that Joseph is a model of prudent conduct. While this characterization is supported by the depiction of Joseph in chs. 39–41, it is not supported in other parts of the story.





predominance of the portrayal of his good excludes the possibility of his evil. In the primary concept of the story the family con� ict is presupposed as central to the brothers’ evil against Joseph. Yet the re� ective state-ments—Gen. 45.5-8 and 50.20—do not attribute any evil to Joseph. This may have more to do with the fact that they are Joseph’s re� ection on the past rather than with Joseph’s non-involvement in the good and evil com-ponents of the dynamics. Likewise it may be due to the hermeneutic of the text—the tradents’ concerns in their appropriation of this text. (a) Instigator of Con� ict. The text’s presentation of the starting con� ict that leads into the rest of the story gives the perspective that Joseph had a central role in evil. This role is indicated in two main instances: the evil report (h(r Mtbd) that Joseph made about his brothers and his reporting of his dreams to them. At the onset (37.2-4), the narrator sets the stage of con� ict between Joseph and his brothers. The � rst indication of con� ict is that Joseph, a shepherd with his brothers, brought an evil report to his father concerning them. There is no clue given that the brothers had done the evil. The as-sumption seems to be that they did something that was the content of the report. In the story’s perspective, however, Joseph’s report was not the cause of con� ict between him and his brothers.22 Rather, the cause of the con� ict was Jacob’s23 preferential love for Joseph, the son of his old age (Gen. 37.3-4).24 In this instance Jacob’s preferential love for Joseph is seen to have the potential for negative consequences on the family. The movement toward the actualization of the negative consequences is the giving of the tunic, a symbol of status and authority.25

22. The narration itself exhibits a tension in that two distinctive traditions seem to be juxtaposed: one in which Joseph is contributing to the tension between him and his brothers by giving a bad report about them, and another in which the preferential love of Jacob for Joseph is the cause of the con� ict between Joseph and his brothers. This juxtaposition is explained as indicative of the presence of two sources at this point in the narrative. Von Rad, Genesis, p. 350, attributes this to P, while Westermann, Gene-sis 37–50, p. 36, reluctantly notes that the depiction of a tale-bearing Joseph seems contrary to P who usually de-emphasizes the con� ict between the brothers. 23. The name ‘Jacob’ will be used throughout this discussion for the sake of con-sistency although at points he is referred to as ‘Israel’. 24. The narrative at this point does not consider Benjamin, born to Jacob by Rachel (Gen. 35.18). Von Rad, Genesis, p. 351, also concedes that Joseph is not the son of Jacob’s old age. 25. Coats, Genesis, pp. 267-68.





Even so, Joseph’s role in the con� ict is also seen in his dream reports to his brothers (37.5-8, 9-11). Given other circumstances, Joseph’s telling his dreams would seem good or natural—that is, if the relationship between him and his brothers was harmonious, and if the content of the dreams would not incite further con� ict in an already tense relationship.26 Since the dreams indicated that Joseph would rule over his brothers, their content had the potential to incite further con� ict. The particular circumstances that contributed to the actualization of the evil potential are both the brothers’ hate for Joseph and Joseph’s disclo-sure of the dreams in the situation. Was he unaware of the tension between him and his brothers? Was his motive to distinguish himself further as superior, a position already suggested by the gift of the robe?27 The text is ambiguous at this point, thus leaving open the nature of Joseph’s mo-tive.28 His motive is further called into question if it is assumed that Joseph knew of his brothers’ hatred of him (37.4, 8) and reported to them his second dream. Nonetheless, the ambiguity of Joseph’s role in evil may be seen as at least an inadvertent contribution to evil. However, there are other instances where the ambiguity may not be so easily explained as representing inadvertent evil. (b) Perpetuation of Evil. More suspicion of Joseph’s participation in evil is seen in his encounter with his brothers (Gen. 42–45). These encoun-ters are as much a part of the actualization of God’s plan as the brothers’ behavior against Joseph. They are the � rst stage of the reconciliation and subsequent move to Egypt; and they also illustrate that within the dynam-ics of good and evil those who experience evil may most likely perpetuate it. Furthermore, they illustrate that the experience of evil predisposes the object of that evil to perpetuate it; however, such experiences do not deter-mine one’s participation in future evil. Joseph was hated, sold, falsely accused, imprisoned and exalted to a position of great power. Yet he drew from the negative experiences—the evil—in responding to his brothers. The � rst encounter with his brothers is cast as inevitable. Egypt, the only place where food was available, was

26. Von Rad, Genesis, p. 351, claims that the prophetic nature of the dream neces-sitated its disclosure. 27. Westermann, Genesis 37–50, p. 37; Seybold, ‘Paradox and Symmetry’, pp. 60, 63. 28. The text is ambiguous again with regard to Joseph’s motive when he is depicted as interrogating, falsely accusing his brothers, and plotting to create other opportunities to accuse them (chs. 42–44).





the place where Joseph was ruler. Joseph initially recognized his brothers (42.7) and realized that his dreams (37.5-9) had been ful� lled (42.9);29 but instead of disclosing his identity, Joseph disguised himself and treated them harshly. The reason is at best ambiguous although there are those who credit Joseph with insight unavailable to the brothers—the signi� -cance of the past for the present and future.30 This may be so but his actions hardly seem justi� ed in light of that insight. It would be a more plausible argument if the insight had dissuaded him from the scheming and harsh treatment of his brothers. Here Joseph has the fate of his brothers in his hands much as they had his fate in their hands. He has the power to kill them—evil—or to spare their lives—good (or at least a lesser form of evil). Yet Joseph falsely accused the brothers of being spies, a charge/deed punishable by death.31 Joseph had experienced the consequences of being falsely accused (chs. 39–40), but he falsely accused his own brothers. Furthermore, Joseph had experienced imprisonment as a result of the false accusation, yet he sub-jected his brothers to the same fate. These behaviors can hardly be legiti-mately interpreted as acts of ‘good’ unless ‘good’ is taken to mean the lesser of two adversities as in the choice between selling or killing Joseph. The ambiguity of Joseph’s actions is also seen in his command to his servants to place the brothers’ silver back in their sacks (Gen. 42.25). Was that an act of benevolence as some suggest?32 The context does not allow for us to see Joseph’s action without the very strong possibility that they

29. The particular dream–interpretation pattern that began in 37.5 is completed in 42.6. Two other patterns had already been presented, emphasizing that dreams do indeed forecast the future (cf. chs. 40 and 41). Also present is the refutation of the idea that to get rid of the dreamer is to get rid of the dream. Although Joseph is reported to have forgotten his hardship (41.51), there is evidence to suggest otherwise—namely, his harsh dealings with his brothers. 30. G. von Rad, God at Work in Israel (trans. J.H. Marks; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1980), pp. 31-35. 31. Seybold, ‘Paradox and Symmetry’, p. 70. Cf. Fritsch, ‘ “God was with Him” ’, pp. 27-28, who speaks of the ‘true character’ of Joseph as if his scheme is not a part of his character. What quali� es this scheming as ‘not true’ and all other acts that are taken as good to be ‘true’? Cf. von Rad, Genesis, p. 384, whose interpretation of Joseph as a model of prudence also leads to an interpretation of Joseph’s behavior as prudent and not motivated by evil intentions. 32. Cf. von Rad, Genesis, p. 384, who sees Joseph’s replacement of the brothers’ money as an act of hospitality and sign of fervent love.





were intended by Joseph to be harmful to his brothers. Nonetheless, his command that the money be returned and that provisions for the journey be provided creates ambiguity. Did he provide food for the journey to all who came to him? Did he return the money to others based on criteria not revealed in this account and criteria other than familial ties? Since he had already given the food and provision for the journey, on what basis would he have decided to return the money?33 Was this preferential treatment toward his brothers? If so, although good, did Joseph’s action not constitute just as much an abuse of power as his false accusation? Or did it not hold as much potential for evil as Jacob’s preferential love for Joseph? Like Joseph’s report, his providing for his brothers conceals Joseph’s motive, thus leaving open the possibility of an evil or a good motive. It is likely that the provision was to ensure that the grain was not used as food for the journey and thus reached Jacob’s family. The possibility for evil seems more convincing in light of Joseph’s harsh treatment of his brothers (42.7) and the test to which he subjected them (42.15-20). However, the narrative ambiguity of Joseph’s actions may also be indicative of the ambiguity of his feelings toward his brothers. This suggests that the overarching intent of his actions may not have been to harm his brothers. Rather the predisposition to avenge the evil done him may have been involved. The latter observation further suggests that the agents in the dynamics are susceptible to the effects of any part of the dynamics. Joseph had been the object of good—his father’s love, God’s blessing in making him ruler in Egypt. Yet, in relation to his brothers he initially drew on the evil he had experienced. Although the signi� cance of the banquet with his broth-ers was ambiguous, the inclination of Joseph to perpetuate evil is also depicted in the second visit. This is noted both in the brothers’ reaction to the banquet (43.17-22) and in Joseph’s actions after the banquet (44.1-5).34 It is noteworthy that in the dynamics, if there is a human propensity for evil it is not broken by an experience of good. Likewise personal insights that good can come out of evil may not restrain the propensity to repay evil with evil. (c) Good in Spite of Evil. Refusing to do evil when it is in one’s power to do so may be construed as good. Likewise refusing to do good when it

33. Cf. von Rad, Genesis, p. 384. 34. The narrator also uses this way of evaluating behavior to indicate the brothers’ responses in ch. 37. The responses re� ect the nuance or possible motive of the actions to which they were responding.





is in one’s power to do so may be construed as evil. In the relationship with Potiphar’s wife, Joseph is depicted as innocent, as the one who resisted the advances of a woman (Prov. 6.20-35; 7.10-27).35 Joseph’s reported refusal (Gen. 39.8-9) indicates a particular concept of evil.

But he refused and said to his master’s wife, ‘Lo, having me, my master has no concern about anything in his house, and he has put everything that he has in my hand; he is not greater in this house than I am; nor has he kept back anything from me except yourself, because you are his wife; how then can I do this great evil, and sin against God?’

Although in wisdom tradition this is seen as folly, if not evil, in this in-stance the evil is not necessarily the act of yielding to the woman. The evil is that Potiphar did not sanction such a behavior/relationship between Joseph and his wife. To be with her would then be Joseph’s violation of the trust given to him. It is the violation of the trust that would constitute the evil in this situation. That it constituted evil against God may be in its violation of the trust placed in Joseph by Potiphar—that is, the trust resulting from a perception of God’s presence with Joseph.36 However, it must also be considered that the sin against God is constituted in that an evil would have been committed. The speci� c type of evil is not in ques-tion. The basic ideology is that evil is sin; and all sin is sin against God. Therefore to do evil is to sin against God. Thus, to refrain from doing evil in this instance was ‘good’ in that it was a responsible use of power. By making preparation for the famine, Joseph also participated in ‘good’ through the responsible use of his power as governor of Egypt. Moreover, Joseph’s good is that he helped those who were in need during the time of the famine. In as much as good is not constituted simply by Joseph assisting his brothers who had done evil against him, his refusal to help them would not constitute ‘evil’ simply because it was a repaying of evil with evil. The good is constituted in that he acted to preserve their lives—that is, the purpose for which he was sent to Egypt. This is not to deny Joseph’s scheming and vengeful acts. Joseph’s refusal to help his brothers would have been evil in so far as he was given the responsibility to help the victims of the famine and refused to do so. Furthermore, his refusal would have been in part contrary to God’s plan (Gen. 45.5-8).

35. Von Rad, Genesis. In ‘Joseph Narrative’, pp. 297-300, von Rad points to this as a primary example of the early wisdom origin and use of the Joseph story. 36. Westermann, Genesis 37–50, p. 66.





b. Divine Agent The actualization of the deity’s plans in human affairs necessitates divine–human interaction. In discussing the divine–human interaction in the story, the question of providence is usually discussed with references to 45.5-8 and 50.19-20.37 Yet in the Joseph story the pattern of divine pres-ence does not coincide with dramatic and immediate alterations from evil to good. As noted in the various references to the deity in the narrative, this actualization of God’s plan is not portrayed as universal but particular to the lives of Jacob, his family, and their descendants.38 This does not mean however that the divine–human interaction in the dynamics of good and evil is seen only in these explicit references. The narrative also makes presuppositions which indicate its perspective on the divine presence in the story’s plot. (1) Good and the Presence of God. In the story explicit references to YHWH’s intervention shows that the divine presence results in success (39.2-3, 21-23), and is discerned through the presence of prosperity (cf. 31.5-9).39 These references are in the form of a ‘formula of support’ indi-cating the divine assistance of Joseph and the resulting blessing for Poti-phar’s household.40 Potiphar (39.2-6) and the prison of� cial (39.21-22)

37. Westermann, Genesis 37–50, pp. 142-45, supports this idea in his argument that the story does not know the concept of providence. Accordingly, he asserts that the story as a whole should be interpreted without a providential aspect, and that, more speci� cally, 45.5 should be so understood. 38. The references to God are of two main types: those references made by the narrator (hwhy, 39.2-3, 21-23; Myhl), 46.2) and those made by the characters (Myhl)) throughout the rest of the narrative. Redford, Biblical Story of Joseph, p. 247, argues for the differentiation between the Joseph story and the Pentateuch on the basis of the fact that apart from references to God (Myhl)) by the characters, the references to YHWH (hwhy) in ch. 39 by the narrator are the only references to the deity’s presence. The conclusion is drawn that the difference is the theological outlook of the story vis-à-vis that of the Pentateuch. According to Redford, the theological outlook is communi-cated implicitly. 39. T.W. Mann, Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions: The Typol-ogy of Exaltation (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), pp. 111-12. Cf. Westermann, Genesis 37–50, pp. 62-63, 68-69; von Rad, Genesis, pp. 363-64. J. Vergote, Joseph en Êgypt (Leuven: Publications Universitaires, 1959), pp. 24-25. 40. Westermann, Genesis 37–50, pp. 62-63, argues that the use of the references to hwhy functions as a theological introit to the rest of the story linking the God who is present with Joseph to the God of the patriarchal narratives. He notes that the formulas of assistance also echo the rise of David to power. Also A. Alt, ‘The God of the





recognized the divine presence with Joseph and on that basis entrusted him with responsibility. In the instances just cited it is noted that the divine presence is indi-cated at the points in the story where Joseph is at his lowest. However, the presence did not mean an immediate reversal of the negative circum-stances that he was experiencing, nor did it result in the restoration of Joseph to his family in Canaan. Instead, it meant granting favor to Joseph in his adversity such that the false accusation of Joseph by Potiphar’s wife would not seem contrary to the presence of God. The story assumes that the presence of God does not mean the total exclusion of adversity; nor does adversity necessarily mean the absence of God.41 In this argumen-tation, Joseph’s experience of adversity resulting in his being sold and imprisoned would not indicate the absence of God. Rather, in the story’s larger perspective, God’s absence is not indicative of either good or evil at the exclusion of the other. Accordingly, the events that are experienced as adversities may move one out of the adversity (45.5-8; 50.19-20). (2) Evil and the Presence of God. God is presented in the story as actu-alizing plans in human history. This is evident in Joseph’s perspective on the reason for his interpretation of Pharaoh’s and his servants’ dreams on the one hand (40.8; 41.16, 25, 28, 32), as well as the purpose of his pres-ence in Egypt (45.5-8) on the other. Joseph attributes the dreams and their interpretation to God—Myhl) (41.16, 25)—and to God’s means of telling Pharaoh what God is about to do.42 Since God brings about both circum-stances and is as much the initiator of good as of evil, the seven years of famine are as much the actualization of God’s plan as the seven years of abundance. This depiction of God as causing evil is found in other places in the Pentateuch—for example, Deuteronomy 8 and Exodus 7. In these instances, however, God’s involvement in evil or adverse circum-

Fathers’, in idem, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (New York: Anchor Books, 1968), pp. 24-25, 81-86, contends that the choosing of the patriarchs is an ear-lier tradition having to do with the gods of the fathers, but not to do with Yahweh and the choosing of Israel. The suggested relationship is the result of redaction. 41. S.E. Balentine, The Hidden God: The Hiding of the Face of God (Oxford: Ox-ford University Press, 1983), pp. 115-76. 42. Up until this point the source and purpose of the dream were not made explicit (cf. 37.5-11; 39.9-18). Paired with 40.8, one is made aware that both the dream and the interpretation belong to God. Furthermore, God uses the dreams as a way of revealing the divine plans (41.25, 28, 32).





stances is justi� ed as a response to human disobedience or resistance to the divine plan. While they do not discount the involvement of God, whether God causes or simply permits the evil is not at issue in these examples or in the Joseph story. Even so, the distinction may be a contrib-utive factor to the conceptuality of the story (cf. 45.5-7; 50.19-20).43 What is the nature of God’s involvement in the dynamics? (3) Good and Evil in Light of God’s Plans. With respect to its Penta-teuchal context, the story’s perspective on God and the dynamics of good and evil is also seen in light of the promise recounted in Gen. 46.3-4:

I am God, the God of your father; do not be afraid to go down to Egypt; for I will make of you a great nation there. I myself will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also bring you up again; and Joseph’s hands will close your eyes.

It is clear that Jacob’s journey to Egypt has both immediate and future sig-ni� cance (45.5-11). The journey begs at least two questions: If the concern is preservation of life, why not preserve lives in Canaan? Why the move to Egypt? The narrative does not entertain the possibility of supporting Jacob and his family while they remain in Canaan. The justi� cation for the move to Egypt is seen both in the story (45.5, 7; 46.3-4; 50.24-25) and outside the story in the larger Pentateuchal context (Gen. 15.12-16). In the story, the assurance given to Jacob on his way to Egypt points beyond the preservation of life in the immediate situation. Certainly the preservation of life was achieved by bringing food from Egypt to Canaan. God makes a promise to Jacob that consists of the following compo-nents: (1) to make Jacob into a great nation in Egypt—not in Canaan, the land promised to the fathers; (2) to go with Jacob to Egypt and presumably to remain there with him and his descendants; (3) to bring that nation out of Egypt. The presence of the quali� er (M# Kmy#) lwdg ywgl-yk) signals that the promise is not simply great progeny as in the patriarchal narra-tives (e.g. Gen. 12.1-3; 13.16; 15.5; 16.10; 22.17, 18; 32.13; 35.11). The quali� er identi� es the contingency of the actualization by presupposing the stay of Jacob and his family in Egypt until such a time when they are a great nation. In light of the number of Jacob’s household when they en-tered Egypt (46.27 numbers them as 70), the actualization of this promise was highly improbable within the � ve years of famine (45.6). Although

43. Cf. B.L. Whitney, What are They Saying About God and Evil? (New York: Paulist Press, 1989).





the ful� llment of the promise was dependent on the presence of Jacob in Egypt, when seen together with Exodus 1 it is the ful� llment itself—the great nation—that served as a catalyst for the oppression of the descen-dants of Jacob. The Joseph story therefore cannot be interpreted apart from this connec-tion both to the promises made to Abraham (Gen. 12.2; 15.12-16) and to the exodus tradition (Exod. 1.7-14).44 Yet it is in regard to this connection that more questions about the dynamics of good and evil arise. The story itself already incorporates a retrospective evaluation of circumstances and thereby comments on the purpose toward which past events moved (Gen. 45.5-8; 50.19-20).45 Within the immediate parameters of the story the move to Egypt is good in that it preserves the lives of Jacob and his fam-ily. Nonetheless the story also concerns itself with the future of Jacob’s family as indicated in the promise to multiply them in Egypt and then to bring them out again. Although the text does not tell the time nor the cir-cumstances of the ‘bringing out’ of Egypt, its connections with the promise articulated in Gen. 15.13-14 are noteworthy:

Then the LORD said to Abram, ‘Know of a surety that your descendants will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and will be slaves in a land that is not theirs, and will be oppressed for four hundred years; but I will bring judgment on the nation which they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions…’

According to this promise, the descendants of Abraham will be oppressed in a foreign land—a land left unnamed. In Gen. 46.3-4 the promise to Jacob seems to recall 15.12-14 in that the descendants are moving to a foreign land and will be there for an extended time period. The similarity is also that in both texts there is a promise ‘to bring out’ the people. On the contrary, however, 46.3-4 speak of the great nation (lwdg ywg) and the ‘bringing out’ (hl() of that nation—there is no mention of the 400 years of oppression.46 In connection with 15.12-14, the journey to Egypt is ne-cessitated not only by the preservation of life because of the famine, but

44. N.A. Sarna, Genesis: The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publi-cation Society of America, 1989), p. 313. Cf. Westermann, Genesis 37–50, p. 156. Von Rad Genesis, p. 402, sees this text as the effort to connect the migration to Egypt as a part of the sacred history. 45. Von Rad, ‘Joseph Narrative’, pp. 297-99, talks about the sapiential character of the statements and cites connections to such passages as Prov. 19.21; 20.24; 21.30. 46. These promises are characterized by Westermann, Promises to the Fathers, p. 144, as concerning the promise of the land.





by the exodus (50.24-25) which lies in the future. These aspects of the story suggest that the quality and aftermath of some events leading to the actualization of God’s plans have the potential for both good and evil. They further suggest that God’s involvement in the dynamics of those events does not mean that all aspects of those dynamics will be good. An immediate good may lay the foundation for a future evil or vice versa. In summary, the identity of the agents in the dynamics does not deter-mine the quality of their contributions. Consequently, good may be as pre-sent in one act as evil is in another, in spite of the identity of the agent. Furthermore, the agents in the dynamics of good and evil may be of dif-ferent levels of signi� cance. The story’s depiction of Joseph, his brothers, and God signaled that these are more central to the dynamics than others such as Jacob, Benjamin, Potiphar, and his wife. The less central agents, however, are indispensable to the dynamics and in� uence it in decisive ways. Part of the role of the agents in the dynamics, then, is determined by the nature of the dynamics themselves and not solely the centrality of their involvement. Consequently, all involved in� uence the dynamics to vari-ous degrees whether deliberately or inadvertently. 3. Nature of the Dynamics of Good and Evil a. Changeability of the Dynamics There are several aspects to the nature of the dynamics of good and evil. First, the non-deterministic nature of the dynamics indicates that evil does not always produce evil; neither does good always produce good. How-ever, there are some observable patterns in the dynamics wherein evil pro-duces evil and good produces good as a natural correspondence between act and consequences.47 This correspondence is illustrated in the brothers’ view of their adversity:

They said to one another, ‘Alas, we are paying the penalty for what we did to our brother; we saw his anguish when he pleaded with us, but we would not listen. This is why this anguish has come upon us.’ (Gen. 42.21-22)

The brothers assumed that evil begets evil and that their experiences of adversity were the consequence of the adversity they instigated against Joseph. In this instance there is no clue that the correspondence between act and consequence is other than a natural one.

47. Cf. K. Koch, ‘Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?’, in J. Crenshaw (ed.), Theodicy in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp. 57-87.





Joseph’s accusation that his brothers were repaying evil for good fur-ther illustrates the non-deterministic nature of the dynamics of good and evil:

Joseph said to his steward, ‘Go, follow after the men; and when you over-take them, say to them, “Why have you returned evil for good?… You have done wrong in doing this.” ’ (44.4-5)48

Presupposed is that the appropriate repayment for good is good and evil for evil. Thus, to repay evil for good is to deviate from the norm. Like-wise, following the norm in itself does not constitute good since the norm may be to maintain the evil for evil dynamic. What is the good to which Joseph is referring (in 44.4-5)? (1) Allowing his brothers to eat with him? (2) Selling them grain for which they came? (3) Returning Simon to his brothers? (4) His restraint in sparing their lives in light of what they had done to him? What evil did his brothers do that was being referred to (in 44.4-5)? The brothers passed the test he gave them by doing all that they were commanded. Since they did not steal the cup, they would not be aware of any evil done in Egypt. Consequently, in light of Joseph’s re� ection in 45.5-8 his behavior seems evil and revenge-ful. The accusation against his brothers gives further insight into Joseph’s actions. If he presupposed that evil behaviors yield evil consequences, then his actions toward his brothers may be an effort to bring about those evil consequences for his brothers. Herein a further aspect of the nature of the dynamics is depicted—the changeability of the dynamics. The agents involved may alter the dynamics—human (44.4) or divine (50.19-20). Joseph’s accusation of his brothers in Gen. 44.4 indicates awareness that the dynamics of good and evil may be in� uenced. It is this changeability of the dynamics that is being referred to here as its non-deterministic nature. The dynamics are not always good ® good, evil ® evil, but are just as likely to be good ® evil or evil ® good at any given point. In 42.21-22 the brothers realized that their imprisonment was the result of their deeds against Joseph. Even so, the realization did not come from their knowing that it was Joseph who was responsible for their plight. Rather this realization was a manifestation of the belief that evil results from evil. No mention is made of God in this instance; and there is no

48. Note that the LXX has a statement which is absent from the MT: ‘Why have you stolen my silver cup?’ This partially quali� es the accusation, pointing it directly to the stealing. Cf. Westermann, Genesis 37–50, p. 132.





indication of an awareness of a larger signi� cance of their action. Thus, the correspondence between acts and consequences is indicated as natural. In 42.27-28, upon discovering silver in one of their sacks, the brothers attributed their plight to God: ‘…What is this that God has done to us?’ (42.28). No explicit connection is made between what they had done to Joseph and their adversity; but the brothers assumed that their adversity somehow ensued from their evil—‘God has found out the guilt of your servants…’ (44.16). Additionally, God intervened in the dynamics to bring good out of evil (50.20), but the presence of evil does not mean the absence of God. As discussed earlier in this study, the presence of God in the ‘good’ of the dynamics is as indicative of God’s involvement as God’s presence in the entire dynamics—both good and evil. b. Observability of the Dynamics It is in part because the dynamics are observable that the possibility of altering them exists. Two aspects of the story demonstrate the observabil-ity of the dynamics from within the dynamics. First, the brothers observed that their adversity was punishment from God and that their deed against Joseph is the cause of the punishment. Second, Joseph perceived the impending evil and resisted that evil which confronted him in Potiphar’s wife. On the other hand, Joseph’s perception was also outside of the dy-namics, or retrospective. Having experienced good he is able to see how the evils he had experienced � t into the overall picture of his life and to perceive the relative quality of his experience in light of other familial and national occurrences. c. Relativity of the Components of the Dynamics Within the dynamics, good and evil are relative. Relativity is not used here to refer to the essence of a behavior or circumstance such that they are neither good nor evil. Something that is good in essence may be evil in its effect and vice versa. The relativity of good and evil comes into focus when the signi� cance of behaviors and circumstances are measured by their future effect. In the story behaviors are relative in at least two spheres: time (temporal) and context/circumstances (circumstantial). As to the relativity of good and evil to the context/circumstances, this is seen for example in the selling of Joseph. The selling by itself may seem to be adverse or evil. Yet in the circumstances, to sell him was good (or at least a lesser form of evil) as an alternative to killing him. There are





several ways that the selling may be evil: Is it evil because selling a person is evil regardless of who does the selling? Is it evil because the brothers sold their own � esh and blood? Is it evil because the sale broke apart the family? Is it evil because the intention was evil? Even with all these possibilities, the story introduces a perspective on how it may have been good—because in the long run good was accomplished. In the same way, the imprisonment of Joseph was evil but good in that its alternative was death. In the context of Joseph’s being falsely accused by Potiphar’s wife, the evil is the false accusation and imprisonment; but the imprisonment served a dual function. It is evil in the sense that it re-sulted from a false accusation, but in retrospect it had the potential for good. This potential was actualized in Joseph’s being head prisoner and in his interpreting the dreams of Pharaoh’s servants. Thus again the interplay of good and evil is seen. The relativity of good and evil is seen as depend-ent on the time and the perspective from which the actions are viewed. At the time of the imprisonment, the accusation was evil as was the imprison-ment. From the perspective of the exaltation to power, the imprisonment was not good in essence but good in its effect. Another example of this relativity within the dynamics is the movement of Jacob’s family to Egypt. In terms of time it was good for Jacob’s family to move to Egypt because it meant the preservation of their lives during the time of famine. On the one hand, in the Pentateuchal context this good is speci� c to that particular time. Potentially, good would also be achieved in God’s actualization of the promise to multiply Jacob’s family in Egypt. However, this good in time became the basis of their oppression (Exod. 1). Finally, God’s involvement in the dynamics of good and evil brings into focus God’s sovereignty and goodness. The story does not claim goodness as an attribute of God; nevertheless, it attributes good to God. It makes only implicit claims to God’s control over human history, but no claim of God’s unlimited power.49 It portrays God as having the power to plan and control natural events such as famines; but it does not attribute to God total control over all human actions. God is depicted as intervening in human affairs, in� uencing the effect of the past on the present and the present on

49. J. Hick, Evil and the God of Love (San Francisco: Harper & Row, rev. edn, 1978), p. 4, argues that the problem of evil arises in a belief system in which the deity is perfectly good and unlimitedly powerful. Cf. P. Geach, Providence and Evil (Lon-don: Cambridge University Press, 1977); K. Surin, Theology and the Problem of Evil (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986).





the future and employing evil to bring about good. Since God is seen to act even within adverse circumstances, the divine presence does not guar-antee the presence of good. If anything, the story suggests that God’s plans may be manifested in either good or evil.

III. Hermeneutical Inquiry 1. Limited Application of the Story’s Concept The Joseph story is particularistic in focus and re� ects its limited herme-neutical applicability. Its concern is Jacob’s family and its descendants. It does not speak on all evil conditions as being part of a universal divine plan to bring about universal good. The hermeneutical signi� cance of the story is therefore not its claim about the universality of God’s intervention in human affairs to bring good out of evil. Rather, its signi� cance lies in its presentation of a perspective on the dynamics of good and evil in which there exists the possibility of God’s plan to accomplish good. Its value is the hope that it offers, not a guarantee that good will come out of every evil. The story (speci� cally 45.5-8 and 50.19-20) does not make a statement for all events in history. It does not say that God intends every evil as good. It is speci� c to the plot of the story that the events are seen as the actualization of the plan of God. It presents a justi� cation of the present in the light of the past and the future, and is an effort to make sense of the evils of the past in the light of belief in God’s plans. The Joseph story represents a search for meaning and is an indication of the possibility that God brings good results from human evil. However, it neither de� nes the criteria by which God’s working is to be detected, nor indicates that God’s good arises only out of evil. Instead the story leaves open the possibility that good arises out of evil. It does not indicate good as a � nal and isolated outcome divorced from the future. For those who are in the midst of adversity the story offers the hope that God is present in the midst of that adversity. From the story’s perspective, the divine presence does not mean the dramatic change of the situation from evil to good. Yet, the perspective that the story offers leaves open the possibility of the divine in� uence in all human affairs—both good and evil. The problem becomes how to reconcile the goodness of God with such grave evils in light of human responsibility and participation in them.





2. Justi� cation of Evil a. Evil and a Greater Good In the Joseph story evil is depicted in two ways: as a means to an end and as the natural consequence of evil actions. As a means to a good end the present may serve as grounds for understanding the past (as being part of a larger plan to bring about good); however, this justi� cation usually comes from those whose experience of evil was overcome by their experience of good. Such justi� cation of the evil of the past is dif� cult if not impossible for those who continue to experience the evil that shaped their past. Furthermore, the justi� cation of evil as a vehicle for good in itself be-comes unacceptable depending on the source of the justi� cation. It is not only those who have experienced and continue to experience evil who may refuse the justi� cation. The refusal may come because observers and even those who perpetuate evil may be the ones offering the justi� cation. Such a justi� cation itself becomes part of the evil it is intended to explain and justify. b. Evil as a Natural Consequence of Evil The story does not depict Joseph as a passive sufferer of evil. He parti-cipates in the creation and perpetuation of good or evil at various points in his life. But evil as a natural consequence of evil does not justify the experience of the sufferer. To say that evil results in evil would be to blame sufferers for their sufferings and to justify the perpetuation of evil. Yet there are instances where evil begets evil or is perceived to do so. If the brothers are an indication, the perpetuators are less likely to see their involvement as evil and are less likely to tolerate evil done to them. Because good and evil are the by-products of human interactions and the intervention of the divine in those interactions, the potential for both good and evil is present in each human interaction. This being the case, the possibility exists that the sufferer at points or in some situations may have the power to perpetuate suffering. The true test becomes whether or not the sufferer becomes the perpetuator of suffering. Joseph failed this test in his cruel treatment of his brothers who had harmed him. The evil perpetuated against them was not justi� ed by their perpetration of evil against him. Even so, the perpetuation of evil against others is not rare for those who have experienced evil, because the good experienced does not block evil but may simply decrease the likelihood of it being further per-petuated.





3. Reconciliation in the Face of Evil In the story, reconciliation comes about without a direct and deliberate confession of evil. The brothers confess their guilt among themselves but not with the intention of asking Joseph’s forgiveness. When they asked for forgiveness it may have been done through deceit. They claimed that their father left instructions for Joseph to forgive them. But there is no indication of such instructions either to Joseph or the brothers. The recon-ciliation therefore focused not on the brothers’ explanation of their evil against Joseph, but on their future together. Joseph explained the past in order to alleviate their fears. Reconciliation, however, does not happen in the midst of revenge. It is after Joseph’s revenge had run its course that he made the disclosure to the brothers. Like his brothers, Joseph does not own his part in the con-� ict or ask for forgiveness. In the instances where the reconciliation is attempted, Joseph acts as the victim of his brothers’ evil. He as the perpe-trator of evil hides behind his position and thus does not ask for forgive-ness. The story suggests that reconciliation after a grave evil comes about not necessarily by recalling all of the evils but by the building of a common future. It begs the question of the necessity of forgiveness for reconcilia-tion and in so doing indicates the possibility for various types of reconci-liation.

IV. Conclusion This discussion of the conceptual dynamics of good and evil concludes that: 1. Humans are not passive agents in the dynamics of good and evil

but participate in the dynamics. 2. The dynamics are not predetermined such that evil inevitably

follows evil or good follows good. Thus, good is not ensured any more than evil is irresistible. There is room for change that may alter the course of the dynamics for good or for evil.

3. The identity of the participants in the dynamics does not deter-mine their contribution to them. Persons who may have acted in an evil way in the past may be predisposed to continue to act toward evil, but they may also act toward good. Consequently, the identity of the agents does not predetermine the quality of their participation in the dynamics of good and evil. That God is involved in the dynamics of good and evil is a challenge to af� r-mations of God’s particularistic good since all aspects of the





dynamics are intertwined. At every juncture in history people must make a choice about their behavior based on the realization that the present and future are inextricably intertwined.

The Joseph story and its concepts are related to the Pentateuchal themes of promise and the exodus. Its concept of the dynamics of good and evil challenges any af� rmation of God as universally present for the purpose of working all evils toward an ultimate good. It also challenges long-stand-ing views of Joseph’s prudence and benevolence vis-à-vis his brothers’ evil. Furthermore, it depicts the changeability of the dynamics of good and evil as realities within human history in which the possibility of good and evil exists at every juncture. The Joseph story represents a form of theodicy in as much as it presents a search for meaning in light of God’s presence in the dynamics of good and evil in human history.



Date post:	31-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nastya-zhukova
View:	13 times
Download:	1 times

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament-2003-Jacobs-309-38

Documents