Design By Humans

Genesis 40. The Dream Deciphering Deception

Genesis 40.

1 And it came to pass after these things, that the butler of the king of Egypt and his baker had offended their lord the king of Egypt.

    The King of Egypt is offended by his baker and his butler. 

2 And Pharaoh was wroth against two of his officers, against the chief of the butlers, and against the chief of the bakers.

    Wait. This king is also called Pharaoh? Is he the same Pharaoh that Abraham swindled? Of course not, but I wish I knew why this narrative persists in using Pharaoh like a proper noun, an idea supported in the previous line where he is referred to as the king of Egypt, distinguishing his title from the word Pharaoh which implies that Pharaoh is his name.

3 And he put them in ward in the house of the captain of the guard, into the prison, the place where Joseph was bound.

    A-ha, I was wondering why we needed to know about Pharaoh's displeasure with his food production and delivery arrangements. It's all coming together now.

4 And the captain of the guard charged Joseph with them, and he served them: and they continued a season in ward.

    OK.

5 And they dreamed a dream both of them, each man his dream in one night, each man according to the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, which were bound in the prison.

    People dream. I imagine after being thrown in prison you might have some pretty bad dreams.
6 And Joseph came in unto them in the morning, and looked upon them, and, behold, they were sad.

    ...

7 And he asked Pharaoh's officers that were with him in the ward of his lord's house, saying, Wherefore look ye so sadly to day?

    Joseph asks the men why they are sad.
8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

    Hmm. While reading Genesis 37 I had wondered why Joseph's brothers thought that dreams were indicators of the future. I still don't know the why of it but I can at least see that the belief is commonplace at this time, even among people from different cultures. If the men were not in prison would they have had a dream interpreter to hand? When did dreams stop being predictors of future events, modern empirical studies have shown that dreams do not serve this function.
Joseph tells the men that God should be the interpreter, but then goes on to ask them to the dreams to him anyway? Does he think he is equal to God in the dream interpreting business?

9 And the chief butler told his dream to Joseph, and said to him, In my dream, behold, a vine was before me;

    ...

10 And in the vine were three branches: and it was as though it budded, and her blossoms shot forth; and the clusters thereof brought forth ripe grapes:

    ...

11 And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand: and I took the grapes, and pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.

    It seems that the butler has had a dream pertinent to his former job. No surprise there I guess.

12 And Joseph said unto him, This is the interpretation of it: The three branches are three days:

    What would make him believe that?

13 Yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thine head, and restore thee unto thy place: and thou shalt deliver Pharaoh's cup into his hand, after the former manner when thou wast his butler.

    I suppose at least this interpretation serves to give the man hope. How is Joseph so confident that he is right? The narrative so far only shows other people interpreting Joseph's dreams and not him interpreting other peoples. What experience of dream interpretation does he have that gives him the idea that he might be able to predict the future based on the machinations of this butler's subconscious mind?

14 But think on me when it shall be well with thee, and shew kindness, I pray thee, unto me, and make mention of me unto Pharaoh, and bring me out of this house:

    Ahh, he's effectively laying a wager against his prediction. If his prediction somehow becomes a reality he is expecting a reward, if it doesn't he's no worse off. Does he have good reason to expect that his prediction will come true?

15 For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews: and here also have I done nothing that they should put me into the dungeon.

    I'll ask again, If he is innocent and is favoured by God, why is he incarcerated? I'm not certain I'd want the LORD advocating for me in court if this is the outcome. Surely the LORD could have saved Joseph from unwarranted imprisonment if he had wanted to.

16 When the chief baker saw that the interpretation was good, he said unto Joseph, I also was in my dream, and, behold, I had three white baskets on my head:

    These people really hold stock in dream interpretations. The baker, seeing that Joseph gave an optimistic prediction based on the butler's dream and evidently believing that the act of interpretation has set the butler's future in stone, wants a similar outcome for himself and tells Joseph his dream.

17 And in the uppermost basket there was of all manner of bakemeats for Pharaoh; and the birds did eat them out of the basket upon my head.

    ...

18 And Joseph answered and said, This is the interpretation thereof: The three baskets are three days:

    Why is Joseph convinced that the 'three' motif is indicative of days? Does he know that something noteworthy is going to occur in three days?

19 Yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thy head from off thee, and shall hang thee on a tree; and the birds shall eat thy flesh from off thee.

    Oh. The poor baker has been given a rather less encouraging dream interpretation than the butler. Again I am wondering what could possibly make Joseph confident enough in his evaluation of a dream to tell a man that he'll die in a few days. We aren't given any details of the men's sentences. Is it possible that these outcomes are things that Joseph already knows? He is after all their effective jailor having been given the responsibility by the captain of the guard. Has he been given details that he is not sharing?

20 And it came to pass the third day, which was Pharaoh's birthday, that he made a feast unto all his servants: and he lifted up the head of the chief butler and of the chief baker among his servants.
    ...

21 And he restored the chief butler unto his butlership again; and he gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand:

    ...

22 But he hanged the chief baker: as Joseph had interpreted to them.

    Now we see a bit of what's gone on. Everyone in the nation would have been aware that it was Pharaoh's birthday. Three day's prior Joseph would have been entirely safe in predicting a major event would occur. Furthermore, The prison would have been informed in advance that Pharaoh was going to visit and as such Joseph would be able to safely weave Pharaoh into the predictions. Lastly, and this is largely assumption, but if one of the prisoners was to be released and one executed, I find it pretty likely that the captain of the guard would have been informed and from what we know of the trust he gives Joseph, Joseph must surely have known too. Joseph is a fraud. All he has done is attempt to take information that he has about the release of the butler and turn it into some gain for himself by convincing the butler that he was somehow instrumental in his release by magically interpreting his dream and being the bearer of a good omen. This is nothing but a self serving con-job, a method that Joseph's ancestors can attribute most of their success to.

23 Yet did not the chief butler remember Joseph, but forgat him.

    Alas, Joseph's con failed with the butler forgetting to speak up for him. Isn't the LORD supposed to be with this guy?

So What can we make of this tale?

All this story seems to be telling us is that Joseph is an opportunist scam-artist. Two men of high rank are admitted to the prison he is being kept in. They are left in his charge. Knowing their sentences he tries to secure a route to a pardon by fraudulently convincing the man who is going to be released that he, Joseph, is somehow instrumental in the man's good fortune via the 'magical' interpretation of a dream. Ultimately he fails as the man forgets to mention Joseph's 'help' to Pharaoh.

Will Joseph get out of prison in Genesis 41?

Genesis 39. The Dubious Fruits of God's Favour.


Genesis 39.

1 And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmeelites, which had brought him down thither.

Oh good. We are back with Joseph who has just been sold to an Egyptian captain.

2 And the LORD was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous man; and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian.

A prosperous man? Really? If being a slave of any nature is the LORD's idea of prosperity then there's something wrong here.

3 And his master saw that the LORD was with him, and that the LORD made all that he did to prosper in his hand.

Did his master have a belief in the LORD too?

4 And Joseph found grace in his sight, and he served him: and he made him overseer over his house, and all that he had he put into his hand.

So the LORD's favour grants Joseph the job of housekeeper. His power truly know's no bounds.

5 And it came to pass from the time that he had made him overseer in his house, and over all that he had, that the LORD blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; and the blessing of the LORD was upon all that he had in the house, and in the field.

Slavery is really OK then? The LORD rewards the slave owner because he favours the slave? I think if I were a slave and had the favour of an all powerful being, I'd expect that being to destroy my owner and set me free, not heap blessings upon him.

6 And he left all that he had in Joseph's hand; and he knew not ought he had, save the bread which he did eat. And Joseph was a goodly person, and well favoured.

OK.

7 And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me.

Potiphar's wife tries to seduce Joseph, I say seduce, really she explicitly asks for sex. 

8 But he refused, and said unto his master's wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what is with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand;

Perhaps if she'd been a bit more subtle he might have gone for it. Either way Joseph sticks with his principles. He is determined to be a good slave. This to me reads something like Stockholm syndrome, Joseph is absolutely dedicated to being subjugated. Is there some link between believing in an all powerful entity and believing that someone else has the right to enslave you and that when they do it is your duty to submit entirely to their will. What exactly legitimizes Potiphar's right to own Joseph? What compels Joseph to afford Potiphar any loyalty?

9 There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?

Who is 'God' in this statement? The LORD or Potiphar? It is clear to see how Potiphar might be injured by Joseph getting it on with his wife but what injury would be dealt to the LORD? I suppose there is precedent for the LORD taking revenge on people ploughing other men's wives but in those cases the perpetrator was tricked into it and the LORD acted unjustly. Is Joseph motivated more by fear of the LORD than a sense of moral rectitude?

10 And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day, that he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her.

Such persistence. Is she not getting any from Potiphar?

11 And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business; and there was none of the men of the house there within.

OK.

12 And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out.

This is the kind of thing that usually only happens in comedy but ok, he gives her the slip by shedding his clothes and running out naked. I'm not certain that this was necessary, surely the best way to avoid putting his penis inside of her would have been to keep his clothes on.

13 And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and was fled forth,

...

14 That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice:

Was she still dressed at this point and did anyone hear her cry out? I'm not sure that her story is very believable. 

15 And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled, and got him out.

Again, did anyone hear this cry?

16 And she laid up his garment by her, until his lord came home.

Let's see what Potiphar says.

17 And she spake unto him according to these words, saying, The Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me:

Is mock the right word? I've never had sex with anyone in order to mock them but I can't rule it out as a motivation for some people I guess.

18 And it came to pass, as I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled out.

Did anyone hear her cry? Why isn't this addressed?

19 And it came to pass, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spake unto him, saying, After this manner did thy servant to me; that his wrath was kindled.

I'm guessing that since Pitiphar so favours Joseph and has entrusted his entire household to him that even in anger he'll have a reasoned discussion about the whole thing. I'm sure he'll want to hear Joseph's side of the story.

20 And Joseph's master took him, and put him into the prison, a place where the king's prisoners were bound: and he was there in the prison.

What was I thinking? Of course he isn't going to act fairly toward Joseph as despite all of the appearance of trust, Joseph is actually just a slave, a position the LORD is evidently happy with.

21 But the LORD was with Joseph, and shewed him mercy, and gave him favour in the sight of the keeper of the prison.

No! if the LORD is all powerful and was truly 'with' Joseph, he'd have gotten him a fair trial, Joseph committed no crime. What kind of an all-powerful being lets an innocent man go to prison for committing no crime, especially since the very same lord is capable of killing a man for ejaculating on the floor? Where's the Justice? Where's the consistency, What is this LORD's agenda?

22 And the keeper of the prison committed to Joseph's hand all the prisoners that were in the prison; and whatsoever they did there, he was the doer of it.

So Joseph has a cushy time in prison. So what? He's still in prison for no reason having been property of another human for a number of years. How can anyone claim that this man is in any way blessed by anything?

23 The keeper of the prison looked not to any thing that was under his hand; because the LORD was with him, and that which he did, the LORD made it to prosper.

I don't know what this author is trying to sell but I'm not buying it.

What have we learned?

Well... Here's a list of things the LORD will allow to happen to a man that he supposedly favours:-


  • He'll let the man's brothers sell him into slavery
  • He'll let the man continue in slavery for years and heap blessings on the slave master.
  • He'll make the man through fear show respect and loyalty to the slave master.
  • He'll allow the man to be accused of something he didn't do and not compell the slave master to give him a fair hearing.
  • He'll allow the man to spend time in prison for a crime he didn't commit.
  • Worst of all, during all of these things he'll somehow convince the man that the LORD is with him and that he is blessed.


What blessing will he bestow upon him next? On to Genesis 40.

Genesis 38. Intermission: Taming Tamar.


Genesis 38.

1 And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah.

That's great and all, I'm sure meeting Hirah was a high point for Judah, but I want to know what's happening to Joseph.

2 And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.

What? No wedding? Is Jacob/Israel the only man to have had to not only pay for his brides but also go through a ceremony? Has marriage reverted to the sex act alone? It makes you wonder if the whole seven years work per bride thing was just a plot device to further Jacob's story. Was it actually necessary for Jacob to pay for his wives with labour or could he have just taken them as everyone else seems to? Also... Is marrying Canaanite women OK now? His great grandfather would not have approved.

3 And she conceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Er.

Way to go Judah, that's a nice hit-rate. One bang, one baby! Welcome Er! At this point I have no data to accurately place your birth on a timeline.

4 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and she called his name Onan.

One letter away from Conan! We almost had a character who's life was worth chronicling. Oh well.

5 And she yet again conceived, and bare a son; and called his name Shelah: and he was at Chezib, when she bare him.

At Chizeb you say? Is this detail significant?

6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.

Is the verb 'to take' in this verse meant in the same euphemistic sense as it is when others in this book have 'taken' wives? If so, surely it was Er's job to do the taking. How kind of Judah to perform this 'service' for his son. How old is Er at this point anyway?

7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.

Oh? Looks like Er's age when his father took a wife for him is irrelevant. the LORD has arbitrarily decided to slay him. Did the LORD do the slaying in person? It seems to me that there is very little detail for what I would call an important event. What did Er do to deserve being slayed by the LORD? There have been many 'wicked' deeds performed by men in this narrative and besides the flooding and the Sodom/Gomorrah incident the LORD seems to have refrained from slaying anyone. What was so wicked about ER that he required the LORD's individual attention?

8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

I see we aren't going to find out what ER's crimes were, perhaps this is yet another lazy plot device. Anyhow, Judah instructs Onan to copulate his brother's wife and to marry her... In that order. Nothing is said of any consultation with Tamar. Did she agree to the union?

9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

Hmm. Onan, having apparently seen no problem with boinking his dead brother's wife decides that he doesn't want to fall foul of the curious custom such that his child by her (should he produce one) would actually be counted as Er's child, as such he decides to whip it out and spray his load on the ground. Couldn't the filthy bugger he have used a tissue? Some cloth maybe?

10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

Uh-oh, it appears that young Onan's desire to not further his brother's line (which is a biologically dubious tradition. One could argue until one was blue in the face that if Tamar were to conceive by Onan that it would be Er's child, but one would be wrong, and if one argued that it would be Er's child in God's eyes then the God they refer to has a very shaky grasp on how the reproductive process works) was in error to the extent that not leaving a deposit in his dead brother's wife gets him executed by the LORD.

11 Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father's house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did. And Tamar went and dwelt in her father's house.

So having had two of his sons die after boinking Tamar, Judah wants her to stick around and wait for his youngest son to grow old enough to boink her too. What does this guy want? No sons? Is anyone starting to think that something might be wrong with Tamar, some desease perhaps? Could the whole slaying LORD thing be a fabrication to explain the deaths of two healthy young men that both slept with a desease-ridden woman? What seems particularly ironic is that Judah is actually afraid his son might die but hasn't made the connection.

12 And in process of time the daughter of Shuah Judah's wife died; and Judah was comforted, and went up unto his sheepshearers to Timnath, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite.

Why have we never been told the name of Judah's wife? Oh well, she's dead now. Somehow he was comforted, presumably by taking an excursion to his sheepshearer with his good chum Hirah.

13 And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy father in law goeth up to Timnath to shear his sheep.

Ok. She had to know I guess.

14 And she put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.

Having waited for Shalah to become a man, which presumably he has now become, and having not been wed to him as promised by Judah, Tamar decides that it is time to stop mourning, wrap herself up in the garb of a prostitute and sit at  the side of the road. I'm guessing she's pretty desperate for some man-meat. Surely there's a better way like perhaps going and finding another husband or maybe even flirting with Shalah?

15 When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.

As you do.

16 And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?

Judah, having quite a progressive attitude, decides to contract the services of a prostitute, his wife is dead after all. Alas he doesn't realise that this is Tamar he's talking to because her face is covered, presumably she's also disguising her voice and intends to keep her head covered during the whole 'transaction'.

17 And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it?

He offers some livestock, she accepts but wants a deposit.

18 And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him.

Were people (with the notable exception of those Abraham's wife Sarah) really that fertile such that every sexual encounter ends in pregnancy? It's an amazing hit-rate, I can only imagine the population growth rate if people conceived every time they had unprotected sex in the manner described in this book.

19 And she arose, and went away, and laid by her vail from her, and put on the garments of her widowhood.

Pregnancy achieved; prostitution over. I'm impressed by the goal-oriented approach of this woman, she wasn't lured into a continued life of prostitution by the glamour and wealth that the livestock-wages could provide her. 

20 And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman's hand: but he found her not.

Oh no. How does Judah get his deposit back now?

21 Then he asked the men of that place, saying, Where is the harlot, that was openly by the way side? And they said, There was no harlot in this place.

This must have been a very specific and tactical whoring operation, she was only by the way side just long enough to ensnare her mark and completely avoided being noticed by anyone else.

22 And he returned to Judah, and said, I cannot find her; and also the men of the place said, that there was no harlot in this place.

Not what Judah wanted to hear.

23 And Judah said, Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed: behold, I sent this kid, and thou hast not found her.

Is there societal shame at not paying a prostitute during this period? Is prostitution an accepted profession? It is, after all, spoken about quite candidly here.

24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.

Oh wait. perhaps it is not acceptable, I'm having some difficulty though. It was ok for Judah to hire a whore, it is even considered shameful to stiff her for the fare, but upon hearing that Tamar has been impregnated in whoredom, he demands her burned? What specifically was the problem here? It doesn't seem to be prostitution as a concept as Judah was a willing participant in that, so maybe it's the act of getting pregnant while whoring, but since there are no good ways to prevent pregnancy during this period, as almost every bang begets a baby and spilling the sperm on the ground gets you offed by the LORD, I don't see how a prostitute could be blamed for this outcome and even if she could, why would the responsibility lay solely with the woman. Should Judah not be burned for impregnating a whore? Perhaps the crime was pretending to be a whore. Maybe there is some licensing issue we are unaware of and she should be burned for the practice of unlicensed hooking. Perhaps she neglected to pay her whore tax? It is at best unclear however I suspect some hypocrisy is involved.

25 When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff.

Does she not know who she sold her services to? Surely it was only Tamar that was disguised.

26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.

So... Judah realizes he's been caught. His family now know that he solicits whores, so in his embarrassment, he changes from anger to proclaiming the  righteousness of Tamar's actions hoping to deflect attention from his own. Oh, and for some reason it needs to be said that he doesn't screw her again after that. Was he planning to? is this suggesting he knew it was Tamar he had solicited for sex? It never says that Er 'knew' his wife and it was Judah that did the taking. Has Judah been banging Tamar all along?

27 And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb.

Good, good.

28 And it came to pass, when she travailed, that the one put out his hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first.

Did the author of this abomination ever witness a birth? Babies do not come out hand first! If they were to, midwives are more concerned with completing the birthing process than interrupting the whole thing to tie strings to as yet unborn babies. Why are we expected to swallow this?

29 And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee: therefore his name was called Pharez.

Wait, so the baby pulled his arm back inside his mother while she was pushing? This is utter biological nonsense  The narrative goes on to say that the first twin out was supposed to be second which will probably lead to claims of birthrights being stolen or some such nonsense.

30 And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah.

Congratulations Tamar. You finally have some children.

So what was this chapter all about?

I can honestly say that I was expecting to learn more about Joseph and his time in Egypt from this chapter but instead we have this bizarre intermission where the only mention of God is as a killer, firstly of a chap he didn't like for some reason and secondly to punish that chap's brother for failing to impregnate his dead brother's widow (although it might actually have been that God was offended by the mess made when Onan sprayed his baby-batter all over the floor).

So I'm not sure what the implications of this chapter are. Judah, the patriarch in this little vignette was the ring-leader in the scheme to sell Joseph his brother into slavery, yet God does nothing to punish him. On the other hand God kill's Er and Onan for practically nothing. Is God's judgement arbitrary?

There is no statement of the morality of prostitution. Judah says that Tamar tricking him into paying to fuck her is a righteous act, but then he also sold his brother into slavery and God surprisingly has nothing to say on the subject.

The gross misunderstanding of the birthing procedure leads me, along with similar problems in other chapters, to believe that the author has no experience of anything he is writing about.

Anyway...

Lets find out what happened to Joseph, Onward to Genesis 39.

Book Index

GENESIS

| 1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9|10|
|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|
|21|22|23|24|25|26|27|28|29|30|
|31|32|33|34|35|36|37|38|39|40|
|41|42|43|44|45|46|47|

Please Support