chapter 39 (the incident of Potiphar’s wife) as the addition

of an unintelligent redactor; mainly on the ground that it contains the name יהוה‎ (the use of the divine names is thus after all a reliable criterion of authorship when it suits Eerdmans’ purpose!). A more arbitrary piece of criticism could hardly be found. (3) Apart from these two eccentricities, and the finer shades of analysis which Eerdmans refuses to acknowledge, it will be seen that except in chapter 37 his division agrees _a potiori_ with that of the majority of critics; _i.e._, the I-R corresponds in the main with Yahwist and the J-R with Elohist. (4) In chapter 37, on the contrary, the relation is reversed: I-R = Elohist, and J-R = Yahwist. But this divergence turns on a wholly arbitrary and indefensible selection of data. Since the J-R in 45⁵ speaks of a _sale_ of Joseph (to the Ishmaelites), it is inferred that 37²⁵⁻²⁷ᐧ ²⁸ᵇ belonged to it. It is conveniently overlooked that 40¹⁵ (also J-R) refers back to 37²⁸ᵃᐧ ²⁹ ᶠᐧ (the _stealing_ of Joseph), that 42²² (J-R) presupposes 37²² (I-R); to say nothing of the broad distinction that Judah’s leadership is as characteristic of one source as Reuben’s is of the other. If Eerdmans had duly considered the whole of the evidence, he would have seen first that it is absolutely necessary to carry the analysis further than he chooses to do, and next that the two recensions in chapter 37 must exchange places in order to find their proper connexions in the following chapters. With that readjustment, it is not unfair to claim him as an unwilling witness to the essential soundness of the prevalent theory. With the best will in the world, he has not been able to deviate very far from the beaten track; and where he does strike out a path of his own, he becomes entangled in difficulties which may yet cause him to retrace his steps.

The story of Joseph is the finest example in Genesis, or even in the Old Testament, of what is sometimes called ‘novelistic’ narrative. From the other patriarchal biographies it is distinguished first of all by the dramatic unity of a clearly conceived ‘plot,’ the unfolding of which exhibits the conflict between character and circumstances, and the triumph of moral and personal forces amidst the chances and vicissitudes of human affairs. The ruling idea is expressed in the words of Elohist, “Ye intended evil against me, but God intended it for good” (50²⁰; compare 45⁵ᐧ ⁷): it is the sense of an overruling, yet immanent, divine Providence, realising its purpose through the complex interaction of human motives, working out a result which no single actor contemplated. To this higher unity everything is subordinated; the separate scenes and incidents merge naturally into the main stream of the narrative, each representing a step in the development of the theme. The style is ample and diffuse, but never tedious; the vivid human interest of the story, enhanced by a vein of pathos and sentiment rarely found in the patriarchal narratives, secures the attention and sympathy of the reader from the beginning to the close. We note, further, a certain freedom in the handling of traditional material, and subordination of the legendary to the ideal element in the composition. The comparatively faint traces of local colour, the absence of theophanies and cult-legends generally, the almost complete elimination of tribal relations, are to be explained in this way; and also perhaps some minute deviations from the dominant tradition, such as the conception of Jacob’s character, the disparity of age between Joseph and his older brothers, the extreme youth of Benjamin (suggesting that he had been born since Joseph left home), the allusions to the mother as if still alive, etc. Lastly, the hero himself is idealised as no other patriarchal personality is. Joseph is not (like Jacob) the embodiment of one particular virtue, but is conceived as an ideal character in all the relations in which he is placed: he is the ideal son, the ideal brother, the ideal servant, the ideal administrator.

The close parallelism of Yahwist and Elohist, together with the fact that the literary features enumerated above are shared by both, show that it had taken shape before it came into the hands of these writers, and strongly suggest that it must have existed in written form. The hypothesis of BBernhard Luther (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 141 ff.), that the original author was Yahwist, and that he composed it as a connecting link between the patriarchal legends and those of the Exodus, is destitute of probability. The motive suggested is inadequate to account for the conception of a narrative so rich in concrete detail as that before us. Moreover, there is no reason to think that Elohist is dependent on Yahwist; and it is certain that in some points (the leadership of Reuben, _e.g._) Elohist follows the older tradition. Nor is there much foundation for Luther’s general impression that such a narrative must be the creation of a single mind. In any case the mastery of technique which is here displayed implies a long cultivation of this type of literature (_ib._ 143); and the matter of the Joseph-narratives must have passed through many successive hands before it reached its present perfection of form.

It is impossible to resolve such a composition completely into its traditional or legendary elements; but we may perhaps distinguish broadly the three kinds of material which have been laid under contribution. (1) The element of tribal history or relationships, though slight and secondary, is clearly recognisable, and supplies a key which may be used with caution to explain some outstanding features of the narrative. That there was an ancient tribe named Joseph, afterwards subdivided into Ephraim and Manasseh, is an item of Hebrew tradition whose authenticity there seems no good reason to question (see page 533); and the prestige and prowess of this tribe are doubtless reflected in the distinguished position held by Joseph as the hero of the story. Again, actual tribal relations are represented by the close kinship and strong affection between Joseph and Benjamin; and by the preference of Ephraim before Manasseh, and the elevation of both to the status of adopted sons of Jacob. The birthright and leadership of Reuben in Elohist implies a hegemony of that tribe in very early times, just as the similar position accorded to Judah in Yahwist reflects the circumstances of a later age. These are perhaps all the features that can safely be interpreted of real tribal relations. Whether there was a migration of the tribe of Joseph to Egypt, whether this was followed by a temporary settlement of all the other tribes on the border of the Delta, etc., are questions which this history does not enable us to answer; and attempts to find a historical significance in the details of the narrative (such as the sleeved tunic of Joseph, the enmity of his brethren, his wandering from Hebron to Shechem and thence to Dothan, the deliverance of Joseph by Reuben or Judah, and so on) are an abuse of the ethnographic principle of interpretation.――For (2) alongside of this there is an element of individual biography, which may very well preserve a reminiscence of actual events. There must have been current in ancient Israel a tradition of some powerful Hebrew minister in Egypt, who was the means of saving the country from the horrors of famine, and who used his power to remodel the land-system of Egypt to the advantage of the crown. That such a tradition should be true in essentials is by no means improbable. There were ‘Hebrews’ in Palestine as early as the 14th century B.C. (page 218), and that one of these should have been kidnapped and sold as a boy into slavery in Egypt, and afterwards have risen to the office of viceroy, is in accordance with many parallels referred to in the monuments (page 469); while his promoting the immigration of his kinsfolk under stress of famine is an incident as likely to be real as invented. The figure of Yanḫamu, the Semitic minister of Amenhotep IV. (pages 501 f.), presents a partial counterpart to that of Joseph, though the identification of the two personages rests on too slender data to be plausible. The insoluble difficulty is to discover the point where this personal history passes into the stream of Israelite national tradition,――or where Joseph ceases to be an individual and becomes a tribe. The common view that he was the actual progenitor of the tribe afterwards known by his name is on many grounds incredible; and the theory that he was the leader of a body of Hebrew immigrants into Egypt does violence to the most distinctive features of the representation. Steuernagel’s suggestion (_Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_ 67), that the story is based on feuds between the _tribe_ Joseph and the other tribes, in the course of which _individual_ Josephides were sold as slaves to Egypt, illustrates the futility of trying to explain the narrative from two points of view at once. The tribal and the personal conceptions must be kept distinct, each may contain a kernel of history of its own kind; but the union of the two was effected not on the plane of history in either sense, but during the process of artistic elaboration of the theme. (3) There is, lastly, an element of Egyptian folklore, which has been drawn on to some extent for the literary embellishment of the story. The incident of Joseph’s temptation (chapter 39) appears to be founded on an Egyptian popular tale (page 459). The obscure allusions to Joseph as a potent magician are very probably surviving traces of a motive which was more boldly developed in an Egyptian source. The prominence of dreams and their interpretation perhaps hardly falls under this head; it may rather be part of that accurate acquaintance with Egyptian life which is one of the most striking features of the narrative. That in this legendary element there is an admixture of mythical material is very possible; but a direct influence of mythology on the story of Joseph is extremely speculative.――It has been argued with some force that the presence of this Egyptian colouring itself goes far to show that we have to do with genuine history, not with a legend ‘woven by popular fancy upon the hills of Ephraim’ (Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 771 _b_). At the same time it has to be considered that the material may have been largely woven in Egypt itself, and afterwards borrowed as drapery for the Israelite hero Joseph. Egyptian folklore might easily have been naturalised in Canaan during the long Egyptian domination, or have been imported later as a result of Egyptian influence at the court of Jeroboam I. It is not difficult to suppose that it was appropriated by the Hebrew rhapsodists, and incorporated in the native Joseph-legend, and gradually moulded into the exquisite story which we now proceed to examine.