Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
47:1 VA YAVO YOSEPH VA YAGED LE PHAR'OH VA YOMER AVI VE ACHAY VE TSO'NAM U VEKARAM VE CHOL ASHER LAHEM BA'U ME ERETS KENA'AN VE HINAM BE ERETS GOSHEN
וַיָּבֹא יוֹסֵף וַיַּגֵּד לְפַרְעֹה וַיֹּאמֶר אָבִי וְאַחַי וְצֹאנָם וּבְקָרָם וְכָל אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם בָּאוּ מֵאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וְהִנָּם בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן
KJ (King James translation): Then Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen.
BN (BibleNet translation): Then Yoseph went in and told Pharaoh, and said, "My father and my brothers and their flocks and their herds and all that they have are come out of the land of Kena'an; and behold they are in the land of Goshen."
Look again at the end of the last chapter (Genesis 46:31/34); why mention the flocks if shepherds are an abomination? Especially as he has just told his brothers, "whatever you do, don't mention the flocks".
47:2 U MIKTSEH ECHAV LAKACH CHAMISHAH ANASHIM VA YATSIGEM LIPHNEY PHAR'OH
וּמִקְצֵה אֶחָיו לָקַח חֲמִשָּׁה אֲנָשִׁים וַיַּצִּגֵם לִפְנֵי פַרְעֹה
KJ: And he took some of his brethren, even five men, and presented them unto Pharaoh.
BN: And from among his brothers he took five men, and presented them to Pharaoh.
Which ones did he choose? Re'u-Ven and Yehudah? Which other three? Is Shim'on still in jail? Bin-Yamin? The fact is, in all these stories, none of the other brothers ever gets so much as a mention.
47:3 VA YOMER PAR'OH EL ECHAV MAH MA'ASEYCHEM? VA YOMRU EL PAR'OH RO'EH TSON AVADEYCHA GAM ANACHNU GAM AVOTEYNU
וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה אֶל אֶחָיו מַה מַּעֲשֵׂיכֶם וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל פַּרְעֹה רֹעֵה צֹאן עֲבָדֶיךָ גַּם אֲנַחְנוּ גַּם אֲבוֹתֵינוּ
KJ: And Pharaoh said unto his brethren, What is your occupation? And they said unto Pharaoh, Thy servants are shepherds, both we, and also our fathers.
BN: And Pharaoh said to his brothers, "What is your occupation?" And they said to Pharaoh, "Your servants are shepherds, both we and our fathers."
Once again a deliberate story-telling technique; emphasising precisely the one thing most likely to upset the Pharaoh and cause consternation in his realm. But they would have to be extremely stupid to say this, after being so carefully coached by Yoseph.
Of course, given that we have understood that there is a multiplicity of texts and oral traditions amalgamated here, perhaps there was an alternative version, in which the Pharaoh was himself a Hyksos, and therefore saying you were a shepherd was the right way to win his favour; whereas, in the other version, where the Pharaoh was anti-Hyksos, you said "cattle" and overlooked the sheep.
Mind you, there is something decidedly bizarre about the question anyway, given the context, and the time; "and what do you boys do for a living" is a townie's question.
47:4 VA YOMRU EL PAR'OH LAGUR BA ARETS BA'NU KI EYN MIR'EH LA TSON ASHER LA AVADEYCHA KI CHAVED HA RA'AV BE ERETS KENA'AN VE ATAH YESHVU NA AVADEYCHA BE ERETS GOSHEN
וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל פַּרְעֹה לָגוּר בָּאָרֶץ בָּאנוּ כִּי אֵין מִרְעֶה לַצֹּאן אֲשֶׁר לַעֲבָדֶיךָ כִּי כָבֵד הָרָעָב בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וְעַתָּה יֵשְׁבוּ נָא עֲבָדֶיךָ בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן
KJ: They said moreover unto Pharaoh, For to sojourn in the land are we come; for thy servants have no pasture for their flocks; for the famine is sore in the land of Canaan: now therefore, we pray thee, let thy servants dwell in the land of Goshen.
BN: And they said to Pharaoh, "We have come to sojourn in the land; for there is no pasture for your servants' flocks; for the famine is severe in the land of Kena'an. Now therefore, we beseech you, let your servants dwell in the land of Goshen."
Why all this special pleading, if, as we were told earlier (Genesis 45:16-21), they had been invited by Pharaoh, and designated Goshen? And also, why this nonsense about there being no more pasture land. This too seems to indicate an alternate version, in which a group of Hyksos migrants are looking to settle in Mitsrayim. The earlier story of Yoseph may then have been appended to a quite different story about the descent into Egypt of the Hyksos; the latter beginning with Ya'akov's decision to go down, followed by his trip to Be'er Sheva to get a blessing for the journey. This makes it even more probable that the earlier Yoseph story is entirely an Egyptian story and has no Kena'an link whatsoever.
47:5 VA YOMER PAR'OH EL YOSEPH LEMOR AVIYCHA VE ACHEYCHA BA'U ELEYCHA
וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה אֶל יוֹסֵף לֵאמֹר אָבִיךָ וְאַחֶיךָ בָּאוּ אֵלֶיךָ
KJ: And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, saying, Thy father and thy brethren are come unto thee:
BN: And Pharaoh spoke to Yoseph saying, "Your father and your brothers have come to you...
If the above supposition is correct, then we can virtually excise the name Yoseph from this part of the tale, and assume that one of the others, probably Re'u-Ven as first-born, did the talking.
47:6 ERETS MITSRAYIM LEPHANEYCHA HI BE MEYTAV HA ARETS HOSHEV ET AVIYCHA VE ET ACHEYCHA YESHVU BE ERETS GOSHEN VE IM YADA'TA VE YESH BAM ANSHEY CHAYIL VE SAMTAM SAREY MIKNEH AL ASHER LI
אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לְפָנֶיךָ הִוא בְּמֵיטַב הָאָרֶץ הוֹשֵׁב אֶת אָבִיךָ וְאֶת אַחֶיךָ יֵשְׁבוּ בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן וְאִם יָדַעְתָּ וְיֶשׁ בָּם אַנְשֵׁי חַיִל וְשַׂמְתָּם שָׂרֵי מִקְנֶה עַל אֲשֶׁר לִי
KJ: The land of Egypt is before thee; in the best of the land make thy father and brethren to dwell; in the land of Goshen let them dwell: and if thou knowest any men of activity among them, then make them rulers over my cattle.
BN: "The land of Mitsrayim is before you; in the best of the land let your father and your brothers dwell; in the land of Goshen let them dwell. And if you know any able men among them, then put them in charge of my livestock."
SAREY MIKNEH AL ASHER LI: What was this Egyptian phobia (or taboo) about shepherding, and why appoint the Habiru (or Beney Yisra-El, or Hyksos)? This needs some explaining. If we are looking to define the term Habiru, we now have a second hint that it was linked to the trading and husbanding of flocks and herds - perhaps a generic Egyptian term for such Bedouin.
Can we read this as a return to the previous version, the one in which Yoseph told his brothers to claim they were cattle-drovers rather than shepherds? In which we case we have to imagine the alternative dialogue in the verses immediately preceding this, and now it makes sense: ah, good, says Pharaoh, so you are cattle drovers, not those horrible shepherds that we abominate here in Egypt. If your brothers are any good, appoint them to some high positions.
But there is (always!) a problem, even with this. We are in the midst of the worst famine ever to hit the region. Seven years in which the cattle are dying of malnutrition, and the corn are hanging wasted on the sheaves (Genesis 41:1-7); and we have only reached the third year - yet Pharaoh is offering them rich pasture-land and cattle in good health and great abundance. It cannot be both. Or is it possible that this is Pharaoh Steinbeck, and he is welcoming the Beney Joad to the Salinas Valley, after their starved journey west from the dust-bowls of Oklahoma? Something of that order might just be possible.
MIKNEYCHEM: It is made absolutely clear in verse 17 that "cattle" is a limited translation.
MIKNEYCHEM: It is made absolutely clear in verse 17 that "cattle" is a limited translation.
47:7 VA YAV'E YOSEPH ET YA'AKOV AVIV VA YA'AMIDEHU LIPHNEY PHAR'OH VA YEVARECH YA'AKOV ET PAR'OH
וַיָּבֵא יוֹסֵף אֶת יַעֲקֹב אָבִיו וַיַּעֲמִדֵהוּ לִפְנֵי פַרְעֹה וַיְבָרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב אֶת פַּרְעֹה
KJ: And Joseph brought in Jacob his father, and set him before Pharaoh: and Jacob blessed Pharaoh.
BN: And Yoseph brought in Ya'akov his father, and set him before Pharaoh. And Ya'akov blessed Pharaoh.
YA'AMIDEHU (יעמדהו): "set him before" - you don't do such a thing to a man, but only with the image of a god - surely! Once again, there is a hint that Ya'akov was the name of the tribal god, represented in teraph form. And now go back to Genesis 46:5, where there is an odd line that I didn't bother to mention at the time, but will now: that they "carried" Ya'akov to Egypt. The verse includes everyone, so it may just be a way of saying "transported", and these were standard passenger-wagons. But based on the current verse...
And if so, then the notion of Ya'akov blessing Pharaoh, which appears odd at first, rather than the other way around, which would be more logical, is strengthened. If, that is, we regard this as a formal priestly blessing. But perhaps it is meant idiomatically, a fatherly "god bless you sire for bringing me and my boy back together".
47:8 VA YOMER PAROH EL YA'AKOV KAMAH YEMEY SHNEY CHAYEYCHA
וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה אֶל יַעֲקֹב כַּמָּה יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֶּיךָ
KJ: And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How old art thou?
BN: And Pharaoh said to Ya'akov, "How many are the days of the years of your life?"
A convoluted way of asking "how old are you?", in the English anyway; less so in the Yehudit.
47:9 VA YOMER YA'AKOV EL PAROH YEMEY SHENEY MEGURAI SHELOSHIM U ME'AT SHANAH ME'AT VE RA'IM HAYU YEMEY SHNEY CHAYAY VE LO HISIYGU ET YEMEY SHENEY CHAYAY AVOTAI BIY'MEY MEGUREYHEM
וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל פַּרְעֹה יְמֵי שְׁנֵי מְגוּרַי שְׁלֹשִׁים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה מְעַט וְרָעִים הָיוּ יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיַּי וְלֹא הִשִּׂיגוּ אֶת יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי אֲבֹתַי בִּימֵי מְגוּרֵיהֶם
KJ: And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.
BN: And Ya'akov said to Pharaoh, "The days of the years of my sojourning are a hundred and thirty; few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, and they have not attained to the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their sojournings."
He really is an old moaner. In what way have the days of his life been evil though? Other than losing his beloved Rachel, and temporarily losing Yoseph, he has had a pretty good adventure: including an undeserved birthright and blessing, four lovely wives, twelve healthy sons and a daughter, huge wealth, a supporting deity, land covenants, even an unexpected reconciliation with his estranged brother - what more does he want? Or is there a sudden late recognition of his own wickednesses that have helped achieve these things? Unlikely. In which case, yet again, we need to ask ourselves what precisely the ancients meant by the term "RA" - because we have seen it with several different meanings already.
This form of expressing age is very a different idiom from any we have seen previously - cf... any of the previous.
47:10 VA YEVARECH YA'AKOV ET PAR'OH VA YETS'E MI LIPHNEY PHAR'OH
וַיְבָרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב אֶת פַּרְעֹה וַיֵּצֵא מִלִּפְנֵי פַרְעֹה
KJ: And Jacob blessed Pharaoh, and went out from before Pharaoh.
BN: And Ya'akov blessed Pharaoh, and went out from the presence of Pharaoh.
And again it is Ya'akov who blesses Pharaoh! Reminiscent of the meeting between Av-Raham and Malki Tsedek (Genesis 14:18).
End of sixth fragment.
47:11 VA YOSHEV YOSEPH ET AVIV VE ET ECHAV VA YITEN LAHEM ACHUZAH BE ERETS MITSRAYIM BE MEYTAV HA ARETS BE ERETS RA-MESES KA ASHER TSIVAH PHAR'OH
KJ: And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded.
BN: And Yoseph settled his father and his brothers, and gave them an estate in the land of Mitsrayim, in the best of the land, in the land of Ra-Meses, as Pharaoh had instructed.
RA-MESES (רעמסס): see John Bright for details, and the notes in the link on his name.
We don't have to assume from this that the current Pharaoh was himself Ra-Meses - indeed it's highly improbable. That is to say, there may well have been many Pharaohs (mis-)named Ra-Meses, many generations apart (we have had Williams in England since 1066, with another likely quite soon), so this could be a descendant or an ascendant, of the famous one identified, probably wrongly, with Mosheh. The text anyway states "the land of Ra-Meses", so it is a place, whether town or region, that is being described, as Americans have Kingstown and Maryland and Louisiana and Charleston. In later times Egypt was frequently called "the land of Ra-Meses"; because in David's and Shelomoh's (Solomon's) time a Ra-Meses attacked Yisra-El (possibly, according to David Rohl, but actually unlikely, the one we wrongly call Shishak - correctly he was Sheshonq I)
Rameses, Ramses and Ramesses are the variant anglicisations of the incorrect Yehudit. Probably Ra-Mousa or Ra-Mose in the original; and yes, the lroot of the name Mosheh as well, as will be explained when we get to Exodus.
The town is mentioned in Exodus 1:11. The name was apparently given in the reign of Ra-Meses II, who is thought by some Bible scholars to have been Mosheh's Pharaoh (his dates were 1279-1213 BCE, so it fits a late, post-Hyksos Mosheh, but not the more likely anti-Hyksos Mosheh, which was Pharaoh Ach-Mousa or Ahmose). Not that Egyptians called him by his name anyway; Ra-Meses II was "Userma'atre Setepenre - 'Keeper of Harmony and Balance, Strong in Right", and quite possibly the Ozymandias "king of kings" of Shelley's poem.
Having the land named after Ra-Meses adds yet one more layer of versions to our complex narrative, because the first Pharaoh of that name, came to the throne only after the defeat of the Hyksos; probably he is an anachronism here, in the way that we might speak of New York when talking about pre-Independence America (we should really name it New Amsterdam at that epoch, but somehow we don't).
47:12 VA YECHALKEL YOSEPH ET AVIV VE ET ECHAV VE ET KOL BEIT AVIV LECHEM LEPHI HA TAPH
KJ: And Joseph nourished his father, and his brethren, and all his father's household, with bread, according to their families.
BN: And Yoseph sustained his father and his brothers and all his father's household with bread, according to the needs of their little ones.
Does TAPH (טף) perhaps have another meaning besides "little ones"? If it means "little ones" it should be TAP'CHEM (טפכם) where here it is clearly intended as a collective noun (see verse 24 below).
47:13 VE LECHEM EYN BE CHOL HA ARETS KI CHAVED HA RA'AV ME'OD VA TELAH ERETS MITSRAYIM VE ERETS KENA'AN MIPNEY HA RA'AV
KJ: And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine.
BN: And there was no bread in the land, for the famine was very severe, so that the land of Mitsrayim and the land of Kena'an were suffering terribly because of the famine.
It is not difficult to imagine that, later on, after the death of this Pharaoh, the Beney Yisra-El went from being a protected people to an enslaved people; they represent the traditional image of xenophobia: a non-native group arrives, illegal immigrants seeking economic asylum in a once-rich country that can now barely feed its own people, and doesn't need outsiders coming in to take whatever bread there is; and especially when that foreigner, that fake dream-interpreter, that convicted rapist, has used his unmerited position nepotistically to give his own family the only decent land there is, and make sure they are well fed, while us, we're starving to death, we're having to buy back our own corn which he took from us as taxation not five years ago... and from there not difficult to imagine the Egyptians, standing at the side of the road, cheering and waving (the handing over jewellery and coins is more problematic, because they are about to be described as penniless, but leave that till we get there), when at last they're leaving our land for good riddance...
47:14 VA YELAKET YOSEPH ET KOL HA KESEPH HA NIMTSA VE ERETS MITSRAYIM U VE ERETS KENA'AN BA SHEVER ASHER HEM SHOVRIM VA YAV'E YOSEPH ET HA KESEPH BEITAH PHAR'OH
KJ: And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh's house.
BN: And Yoseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Mitsrayim and in the land of Kena'an, for the corn which they bought; and Yoseph brought the money into Pharaoh's house.
This rightly gives the impression that Kena'an was a vassal of Mitsrayim (Egypt), which again makes nonsense of some of the detail surrounding the descent of Ya'akov. However it does give one explanation of the Habiru's constant reference to themselves as servants of Pharaoh.
This description does make it sound like state-approved profiteering! Surely the point of the grain silos was to obviate the suffering of the people, not to plunder it. State capitalism, circa 1400 BCE! Or can we read this as benevolent monarchy, gathering up from all in order to ensure the well-being of all? Socialised welfare, circa 1400 BCE! If so, no wonder the Beney Yisra-El dissidents in the desert spoke of "the fleshpots of Egypt", and wanted to go back there; they, after all, were the principal beneficiaries.
47:15 VA YITOM HA KESEPH ME ERETS MITSRAYIM U ME ERETS KENA'AN VA YAVO'U CHOL MITSRAYIM EL YOSEPH LEMOR HAVAH LANU LECHEM VE LAMAH NAMUT NEGDECHA KI APHES KASEPH
KJ: And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth.
BN: And when the money was all spent in the land of Mitsrayim, and in the land of Kena'an, all the Mitsrim came to Yoseph and said, "Give us bread, for why should we die in your presence because we have no more money."
I am struggling to see how Yoseph's "benign dictatorship" is any different from that of, say, Robert Mugabe's in Zimbabwe, or Saparmurat Niyazov's in Turkmenestan, or any number of other despots from the dirty pages of history, who built their personal-family empires on the impoverishment of their people, and sustained their power through unmitigated brutality. Like every other of the Jewish patriarchs, Yoseph too turns out to be a poor role-model for the generations that followed him.
47:16 VA YOMER YOSEPH HAVU MIKNEYCHEM VE ETNAH LACHEM BE MIKNEYCHEM IM APHES KASEPH
KJ: And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail.
BN: And Yoseph said, "Give me your livestock, and I will give you bread for your livestock, when you have no more money."
Several chapters ago, after Yoseph first recommended collecting all the grain in readiness for the famine, and then began selling it back, we questioned the morality and ethics of selling it back; and now the same issue occurs again. No, I am simply repeating the comment from the last verse. Dayeynu!
47:17 VA YAVIY'U ET MIKNEYHEM EL YOSEPH VA YITEN LAHEM YOSEPH LECHEM BA SUSIM U VE MIKNEH HA TSON U VE MIKNEH HA BAKAR U VA CHAMORIM VA YENAHALEM BA LECHEM BE CHOL MIKNE'HEM BA SHANAH HA HI
KJ: And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year.
BN: And they brought their livestock to Yoseph, and Yoseph gave them bread in exchange for the horses and the flocks and the herds and the asses, and that year he fed them with bread in exchange for all their livestock.
SUSIM (סוסים): They must have had horses, as we were told earlier they had chariots; but they would have been relatively new. Hittite/Hyksos originally.
It might make an interesting exercise to look at the Mosaic commandments relating to kings and rulers, and those relating to the responsibilities of employers to their employees, and see just how many of them Yoseph was guilty of breaking. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 is very clear on the Mosaic expectation of kingship, and it makes for extraordinary coincidence that the principal concerns are precisely the things that Yoseph is doing here, especially the accruing of personal wealth, and specifically through the acquisition of stablesful of horses. Maimonides, in the Mishneh Torah, defines the "Hilchot Sechirut - The Laws of Employer-Employee Relations", and reckons seven mitzvot, rooted in Torah, including paying a worker his wage when it was due [Deuteronomy 24:15], and allowing a hired worker to eat from produce while he is working with it [Deuteronomy 23:25-26], where Yoseph is clearly doing the opposite on both counts.
47:18 VA TITOM HA SHANAH HA HI VA YAVO'U ELAV BA SHANAH HA SHENIT VA YOMRU LO LO NECHACHED ME ADONI KI IM TAM HA KESEPH U MIKNEH HA BEHEMAH EL ADONI LO NISH'AR LIPHNEY ADONI BILTI IM GEVIATENU VE ADMATENU
KJ: When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said unto him, We will not hide it from my lord, how that our money is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle; there is not ought left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands:
BN: And when that year ended, they came to him in the second year, and said to him, "We will not hide from my lord, that our money is all spent; and the herds of cattle are my lord's; there is nothing left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands...
And this parlous state of affairs turn out to be only Year Three of the Great Famine!
What did Yoseph do with all that livestock? Kill it for food presumably. Or did he waste food on trying to sustain it for breeding and milking and clothing (on his private ranch, refurbished using state funds of course); and thereby deplete the amount of grain available for the people? Or did he altruisticlaly and philanthropically redistribute it to the needy as the famine worsened, precursoring the great humanitarianism of Food Aid? Or maybe sell it to Midyanite merchants at a profit? Is there in this the beginning of an attempt to explain the enslavement of the people? Is Yoseph in fact personally responsible for what happened to the Mosaic Habiru later on?
47:19 LAMAH NAMUT LE EYNEYCHA GAM ANACHNU GAM ADMATENU KENEH OTANU VE ET ADMATENU BA LACHEM VE NIHEYEH ANACHNU VE ADMATENU AVADIM LE PHAR'OH VE TEN ZERA VE NICHEYEH VE LO NAMUT VE HA ADAMAH LO TESHAM
KJ: Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate.
BN: "Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be bondsmen to Pharaoh; and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, and that the land be not desolate."
As suggested above, an explanation of how they came to be slaves. And if so, we don't need a gap of four hundred years before the time of Mosheh - it could be the very next generation; especially if the Pharaoh now were indeed Ra-Meses.
Or is it simply that the redactors are telescoping events?
Another clue to dating. Hyksos records show that the feudal land-owning class was wiped out by them, and from then on all land belonged to the Pharaoh or the temples. The first public granaries were also Hyksotic, and the superintendent of granaries (i.e. Yoseph) became one of the senior roles in government. Post-Hyksos restoration did nothing to change either of these facts.
47:20 VA YIKEN YOSEPH ET KOL ADMAT MITSRAYIM LE PHAR'OH KI MACHRU MITSRAYIM ISH SAD'EHU KI CHAZAK AL'EHEM HA RA'AV VA TEHI HA ARETS LE PHAR'OH
KJ: And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh's.
BN: So Yoseph bought all the land of Mitsrayim for Pharaoh; for the Mitsrim sold every man his field, because the famine was severe upon them; and the land became Pharaoh's.
So whether they were now merely serfs and vassails, or fully-fledged slaves, the entire people, and every blade of dead grass they walked upon, were owned by a leader without a Minima let alone a Magna Carta, and Yoseph and his tribe the principal beneficiaries. Nice if you can get it!
47:21 VE ET HA AM HE'EVIR OTO LE ARIM MIKTSEH GEVUL MITSRAYIM VE AD KATSEHU
KJ: And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof.
BN: And as for the people, he removed them city by city, from one end of the border of Mitsrayim to the other end thereof.
Some kind of resettlement programme - the people of Yehudah hearing this read in Ezra's time would know from personal experience, the Yehudim who were carted away to Babylon, the Shomronim who were dragged here out of Padan Aram... but why, in Yoseph's case? And who moved where? And more significantly, if Kena'an was a vassal state of Egypt, then is this in fact the "resettlement" of Ya'akov's people from Shechem or Migdal Eder to a Pale of Settlement in Goshen? Or is this a description of the methodology of Hyksos conquest? This after all is precisely what Nebuchadnezzar did in 586 BCE to the Beney Yisra-Eli, forcing them to move from Yehudah to Bavel (Babylon), forcing the Shomronim (Samarians or Samaritans) to move from their home to northern Kena'an (this is also what the Anglo-Saxons did to the Celts when they conquered Britain, forcing them to move to the extremities, to Cornwall and Wales and the Scottish Highlands, or across the sea to Ireland or Brittany). The theory behind the policy was that people will not stir up agitation or rebellion in the name of a land that isn't theirs, since they feel no bond with it for at least two to three generations (the fact that there was no serious Palestinian Liberation movement until the 1970s provides a modern example of this, the only difference being that the diaspora in this case was voluntary). They may long for their homeland, but they will be passive in their exile. So perhaps this is analogical. We know that the Hyksos moved the capital from Memphis and Thebes to Avaris, and that Avaris was precisely in the land of Goshen where the Beney Yisra-El are now living. Was this a report of actual history, or (and/or?) a literary analogy by the Redactor for the benefit of the exiles - returnees and non-returnees - of his day?
HA AM HE'EVIR (העם העביר): But this line, this one word, is so important. How come it has been overlooked by scholars for two thousand years? HE'EVIR; whence the name HABIRU. It is quite startlingly obvious. Exactly as the expelled Celts became "outcasts" - and the word for "outcast" in Anglo-Saxon is "Wales"! And when we come to the Mosheh story, of the slaves first and then the Exodus, we can understand that we are talking about all non-Hyksos Egyptians, whether Jacobite or otherwise.
47:22 RAK ADMAT HA KOHANIM LO KANAH KI CHOK LA KOHANIM ME ET PAR'OH VE ACHLU ET CHUKAM ASHER NATAN LAHEM PAR'OH AL KEN LO MACHRU ET ADMATAM
KJ: Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands.
BN: Only the land of the priests did he not purchase, for the priests had a portion from Pharaoh, and ate the portion which Pharaoh gave them; therefore they did not sell their land.
Very significant this - i) the word CHUK (חק) later came to mean "a law" among the Beney Yisra-El, ii) the role and privilege of the priest (KOHEN - כהן) is here defined, long before it is further outlined in the Mosaic Code; the priest-cities of the Levites are presaged here as well (cf Exodus 21:13; Numbers 35; Joshua 20).
Here the word CHUK is translated as "a portion", though we can do better, some kind of prebend.
And don't forget that Yoseph was himself married into a priestly family, through Asnat, Poti-Phera's daughter; and himself a priest as well.
But that they should be called Kohanim (we have already commented on this earlier). Is this just the Redactor not knowing, or not having, a better word for "priest", and so using the one he did know? We also know that further east a priest was a Khan, but specifically in the sense of the king serving as the representative of the deity on earth, so that Khan (as in Kublai Khan or Genghis Khan) is understood to be his majestic title rather than his spiritual or shamanistic role. In ancient Egypt the priests were called "hem" or "hem-neteru", the latter of which translates as "servants of the god" - though as we have seen with the Yehudit root AVAD, and as will become hugely significant in Exodus, the words "servant", "slave" and "worshipper" are all interchangeable from the same root.
47:23 VA YOMER YOSEPH EL HA AM HEN KANIYTI ET'CHEM HA YOM VE ET ADMAT'CHEM LE PHAR'OH HE LACHEM ZERA U ZERA'TEM ET HA ADAMAH
KJ: Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land.
BN: Then Yoseph said to the people, "Behold, this day I have purchased you and your land for Pharaoh. Here is seed for you, and you shall sow the land."
So they are formally enslaved; and by Yoseph, not by this Pharaoh, and not by the Pharaoh that will come later, at the start of Exodus. And it is all the people of Egypt, with the two exceptions being the royal family and Ya'akov's tribe. Is this too a reflection of the Hyksos conquest?
ZERA'TEM ET HA ADAMAH: "Sow the land"; during a 7-year famine? It sounds illogical at first, but not upon reflection. However hard the drought, however much the seed may die, you still have to try to grow food; it might rain. Think, again, of Tom Joad.
47:24 VE HAYAH BA TEV'UOT U NETATEM CHAMIYSHIT LE PHAR'OH VE ARBA HA YADOT YIHEYEH LACHEM LE ZERA HA SADEH U LE ACHLECHEM VE LA'ASHER BE VATEICHEM VE LE'ECHOL LE TAP'CHEM
KJ: And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones.
BN: "And it shall come to pass at the harvest, that you shall give one- fifth to Pharaoh, and four-fifths shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for the members of your households, and as food for your little ones."
CHAMIYSHIT...ARBA (ארבע...חמישית): We have been told of this one-fifth tax earlier, though in a slightly different form (Genesis 41:34).
Ya'akov himself offered only one tenth to his god as his covenant tithe (Genesis 28:22); this is steep. On the other hand the Maccabees paid the Syrians one-third of the seed and one-half of the fruit from the trees (1 Maccabees 10:30), and the Qur'an tells innumerable tales in which significant portions of the harvest are handed over as a form of payment when cash is not available. Either way, the land has been seized by the priests under Yoseph, the aristocracy stripped of its possessions, the cities emptied, the people enslaved and resettled in agricultural areas only, and a feudal tithing system imposed (not very different from Stalin's Five-Year Plan, and definitely Minima not Magna Carta). This describes the Hyksos invasion almost to perfection. The only two important missing parts are that the Hyksos replaced the trinity of Hor (Horus), Eshet (Isis) and Osher (Osiris) [this will be critical to the Mosheh stories later because the real reason for the journey to Sinai, as we shall see, was a covenant renewal ceremony/festival for the restoration of the trinity, and then a pilgrimage to reopen all their desert shrines], and the replacement of the Pharaoh and his dynasty, which was already long, with a brand new Pharaoh from among their ranks.
Maphtir
47:25 VA YOMRU HECHEYITANU NIMTSA CHEN BE EYNEY ADONI VE HAYIYNU AVADIM LE PHAR'OH
KJ: And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh's servants.
BN: And they said, "You have saved our lives. Let us find favour in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh's bondmen."
VE HAYIYNU AVADIM LE PHAR'OH (והיינו עבדים לפרעה); a line echoed in the Passover Hagadah: Avadim Hayinu Ba Mitsrayim (עבדים היינו במצרים); but note again, as this commentary will many times, that it is not just the Beney Yisra-El, but the whole of Egypt, which has been enslaved, and voluntarily so - and indeed, it may actually be the whole Egypt with the single exception of the Beney Yisra-El, who have seized all power, and the only decent land, the fertile plains of the Nile Delta.
Which, as suggested earlier in this chapter, also makes the concept of the Egyptians standing at the roadside handing Mosheh's followers their jewellery and savings more complex; the original reason for Mosheh taking the Habiru into the wilderness, as we shall see, was not flight to Yisra-El, but for the purposes of reinstating the ancient Pesach rituals at Mount Chorev, and simultaneously reinstating the old Egyptians gods whom the Hyksos had supplanted, by enacting a covenant renewal ceremony that re-established the old religion (whence the golden calf of Horus). Those who did not make what was in fact a pilgrimage and not an exodus, would have seen the giving of cash or gifts as their way of being present at the event; in the same way that someone will put a message in a crack in the Wailing Wall for you when they go to Yeru-Shala'im.
We cannot treat the word "slavery" as we have been trained to do; and here, the standard translation willfully avoids the word, preferring "bondmen". If AVADIM means "bondmen" here, why does it suddenly come to mean "slaves" in the Mosheh story? To which there are two answers, based on "the winner gets to tell the story": here we are praising Yoseph and making him the hero, so we reduce it to "bondmen"; there we are elevating Mosheh to hero-status, so we need him to have saved his people from slavery.
There is an essay worth writing here though on the ways in which people collaborate in their own victimhood; lying down with the energy of slaves and saying, take my freedom just give me bread. Jews took jobs in the Judenraten on the same principle.
47:26 VA YASEM OTAH YOSEPH LE CHOK AD HA YOM HA ZEH AL ADMAT MITSRAYIM LE PHAR'OH LA CHOMESH RAK ADMAT HA KOHANIM LEVADAM LO HAYETA LE PHAR'OH
KJ: And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh's.
BN: And Yoseph established the statute concerning the land of Mitsrayim that is still in place to this day, that Pharaoh should have one-fifth; only the land of the priests did not become Pharaoh's.
AD HA YOM HA ZEH (עד היום הזה); what date does "this" infer? The date of writing down the tale in this form, obviously. But when was that? Mid 5th century BCE, a tjousand years after the events.
And of course the Redactor and his co-workers were all Kohanim - who else could read and write!? So were they trying to preserve their Kohanic status in exile, like yeshivah buchers in Israel today, who by special law don't have to joint the army or even earn a living, but can scrounge off the state and live as pacifists at the front-line, because they have special status? And/or were they trying to preserve in writing a record of the land-status - refuge-cities in every tribe rather than a tribal territory of their own?
And as to my constantly jibing about Minima rather than Magna Carta - under the terms of English feudal law, one-third went to the king (though after Magna Carta he had to share it with the Barons), one-third to the priests (the Church), and the remaining third was available for the vassals and serfs to try to feed their families; which is why, in the original of the nursery rhyme, there was "one for the master, one for the dame, but none for the little boy who lived down the lane." English feudal law, like that of Czarist Russia and imperial China, was far worse than the Egyptian.
47:27 VA YESHEV YISRA-EL BE ERETS MITSRAYIM BE ERETS GOSHEN VA YE'ACHAZU VAH VA YIPHRU VA YIRBU ME'OD
KJ: And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen; and they had possessions therein, and grew, and multiplied exceedingly.
BN: And Yisra-El dwelt in the land of Mitsrayim, in the land of Goshen; and they acquired possessions there, and were fruitful, and multiplied greatly.
YE'ACHAZU: Yisra-El in the plural; the tribe now, no longer the man.
How did they do so well, if everything was sold to Pharaoh and everybody enslaved? Ir can only be because the Beney Yisra-El, through Yoseph, were the new aristocracy, the privileged elite running the show and living off back-handers, and what there was of the fat of the land, and especially the considerable profit from the very heavy tithe. Of course, if they were themselves the Hyksos (who were Aramaeans, like Av-Raham's people, like the Le'ah tribes)...
End of scroll.
But not the end of the chapter, as far as the Christian versions are concerned. Click here to continue this chapter.
47:11 VA YOSHEV YOSEPH ET AVIV VE ET ECHAV VA YITEN LAHEM ACHUZAH BE ERETS MITSRAYIM BE MEYTAV HA ARETS BE ERETS RA-MESES KA ASHER TSIVAH PHAR'OH
וַיּוֹשֵׁב יוֹסֵף אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אֶחָיו וַיִּתֵּן לָהֶם אֲחֻזָּה בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּמֵיטַב הָאָרֶץ בְּאֶרֶץ רַעְמְסֵס כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה פַרְעֹה
KJ: And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded.
BN: And Yoseph settled his father and his brothers, and gave them an estate in the land of Mitsrayim, in the best of the land, in the land of Ra-Meses, as Pharaoh had instructed.
RA-MESES (רעמסס): see John Bright for details, and the notes in the link on his name.
We don't have to assume from this that the current Pharaoh was himself Ra-Meses - indeed it's highly improbable. That is to say, there may well have been many Pharaohs (mis-)named Ra-Meses, many generations apart (we have had Williams in England since 1066, with another likely quite soon), so this could be a descendant or an ascendant, of the famous one identified, probably wrongly, with Mosheh. The text anyway states "the land of Ra-Meses", so it is a place, whether town or region, that is being described, as Americans have Kingstown and Maryland and Louisiana and Charleston. In later times Egypt was frequently called "the land of Ra-Meses"; because in David's and Shelomoh's (Solomon's) time a Ra-Meses attacked Yisra-El (possibly, according to David Rohl, but actually unlikely, the one we wrongly call Shishak - correctly he was Sheshonq I)
Rameses, Ramses and Ramesses are the variant anglicisations of the incorrect Yehudit. Probably Ra-Mousa or Ra-Mose in the original; and yes, the lroot of the name Mosheh as well, as will be explained when we get to Exodus.
The town is mentioned in Exodus 1:11. The name was apparently given in the reign of Ra-Meses II, who is thought by some Bible scholars to have been Mosheh's Pharaoh (his dates were 1279-1213 BCE, so it fits a late, post-Hyksos Mosheh, but not the more likely anti-Hyksos Mosheh, which was Pharaoh Ach-Mousa or Ahmose). Not that Egyptians called him by his name anyway; Ra-Meses II was "Userma'atre Setepenre - 'Keeper of Harmony and Balance, Strong in Right", and quite possibly the Ozymandias "king of kings" of Shelley's poem.
Having the land named after Ra-Meses adds yet one more layer of versions to our complex narrative, because the first Pharaoh of that name, came to the throne only after the defeat of the Hyksos; probably he is an anachronism here, in the way that we might speak of New York when talking about pre-Independence America (we should really name it New Amsterdam at that epoch, but somehow we don't).
47:12 VA YECHALKEL YOSEPH ET AVIV VE ET ECHAV VE ET KOL BEIT AVIV LECHEM LEPHI HA TAPH
וַיְכַלְכֵּל יוֹסֵף אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אֶחָיו וְאֵת כָּל בֵּית אָבִיו לֶחֶם לְפִי הַטָּף
KJ: And Joseph nourished his father, and his brethren, and all his father's household, with bread, according to their families.
BN: And Yoseph sustained his father and his brothers and all his father's household with bread, according to the needs of their little ones.
Does TAPH (טף) perhaps have another meaning besides "little ones"? If it means "little ones" it should be TAP'CHEM (טפכם) where here it is clearly intended as a collective noun (see verse 24 below).
47:13 VE LECHEM EYN BE CHOL HA ARETS KI CHAVED HA RA'AV ME'OD VA TELAH ERETS MITSRAYIM VE ERETS KENA'AN MIPNEY HA RA'AV
וְלֶחֶם אֵין בְּכָל הָאָרֶץ כִּי כָבֵד הָרָעָב מְאֹד וַתֵּלַהּ אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וְאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן מִפְּנֵי הָרָעָ
KJ: And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine.
BN: And there was no bread in the land, for the famine was very severe, so that the land of Mitsrayim and the land of Kena'an were suffering terribly because of the famine.
It is not difficult to imagine that, later on, after the death of this Pharaoh, the Beney Yisra-El went from being a protected people to an enslaved people; they represent the traditional image of xenophobia: a non-native group arrives, illegal immigrants seeking economic asylum in a once-rich country that can now barely feed its own people, and doesn't need outsiders coming in to take whatever bread there is; and especially when that foreigner, that fake dream-interpreter, that convicted rapist, has used his unmerited position nepotistically to give his own family the only decent land there is, and make sure they are well fed, while us, we're starving to death, we're having to buy back our own corn which he took from us as taxation not five years ago... and from there not difficult to imagine the Egyptians, standing at the side of the road, cheering and waving (the handing over jewellery and coins is more problematic, because they are about to be described as penniless, but leave that till we get there), when at last they're leaving our land for good riddance...
47:14 VA YELAKET YOSEPH ET KOL HA KESEPH HA NIMTSA VE ERETS MITSRAYIM U VE ERETS KENA'AN BA SHEVER ASHER HEM SHOVRIM VA YAV'E YOSEPH ET HA KESEPH BEITAH PHAR'OH
וַיְלַקֵּט יוֹסֵף אֶת כָּל הַכֶּסֶף הַנִּמְצָא בְאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וּבְאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן בַּשֶּׁבֶר אֲשֶׁר הֵם שֹׁבְרִים וַיָּבֵא יוֹסֵף אֶת הַכֶּסֶף בֵּיתָה פַרְעֹה
KJ: And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh's house.
BN: And Yoseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Mitsrayim and in the land of Kena'an, for the corn which they bought; and Yoseph brought the money into Pharaoh's house.
This rightly gives the impression that Kena'an was a vassal of Mitsrayim (Egypt), which again makes nonsense of some of the detail surrounding the descent of Ya'akov. However it does give one explanation of the Habiru's constant reference to themselves as servants of Pharaoh.
This description does make it sound like state-approved profiteering! Surely the point of the grain silos was to obviate the suffering of the people, not to plunder it. State capitalism, circa 1400 BCE! Or can we read this as benevolent monarchy, gathering up from all in order to ensure the well-being of all? Socialised welfare, circa 1400 BCE! If so, no wonder the Beney Yisra-El dissidents in the desert spoke of "the fleshpots of Egypt", and wanted to go back there; they, after all, were the principal beneficiaries.
47:15 VA YITOM HA KESEPH ME ERETS MITSRAYIM U ME ERETS KENA'AN VA YAVO'U CHOL MITSRAYIM EL YOSEPH LEMOR HAVAH LANU LECHEM VE LAMAH NAMUT NEGDECHA KI APHES KASEPH
וַיִּתֹּם הַכֶּסֶף מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וּמֵאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן וַיָּבֹאוּ כָל מִצְרַיִם אֶל יוֹסֵף לֵאמֹר הָבָה לָּנוּ לֶחֶם וְלָמָּה נָמוּת נֶגְדֶּךָ כִּי אָפֵס כָּסֶף
KJ: And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth.
BN: And when the money was all spent in the land of Mitsrayim, and in the land of Kena'an, all the Mitsrim came to Yoseph and said, "Give us bread, for why should we die in your presence because we have no more money."
I am struggling to see how Yoseph's "benign dictatorship" is any different from that of, say, Robert Mugabe's in Zimbabwe, or Saparmurat Niyazov's in Turkmenestan, or any number of other despots from the dirty pages of history, who built their personal-family empires on the impoverishment of their people, and sustained their power through unmitigated brutality. Like every other of the Jewish patriarchs, Yoseph too turns out to be a poor role-model for the generations that followed him.
47:16 VA YOMER YOSEPH HAVU MIKNEYCHEM VE ETNAH LACHEM BE MIKNEYCHEM IM APHES KASEPH
וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף הָבוּ מִקְנֵיכֶם וְאֶתְּנָה לָכֶם בְּמִקְנֵיכֶם אִם אָפֵס כָּסֶף
KJ: And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail.
BN: And Yoseph said, "Give me your livestock, and I will give you bread for your livestock, when you have no more money."
Several chapters ago, after Yoseph first recommended collecting all the grain in readiness for the famine, and then began selling it back, we questioned the morality and ethics of selling it back; and now the same issue occurs again. No, I am simply repeating the comment from the last verse. Dayeynu!
47:17 VA YAVIY'U ET MIKNEYHEM EL YOSEPH VA YITEN LAHEM YOSEPH LECHEM BA SUSIM U VE MIKNEH HA TSON U VE MIKNEH HA BAKAR U VA CHAMORIM VA YENAHALEM BA LECHEM BE CHOL MIKNE'HEM BA SHANAH HA HI
וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת מִקְנֵיהֶם אֶל יוֹסֵף וַיִּתֵּן לָהֶם יוֹסֵף לֶחֶם בַּסּוּסִים וּבְמִקְנֵה הַצֹּאן וּבְמִקְנֵה הַבָּקָר וּבַחֲמֹרִים וַיְנַהֲלֵם בַּלֶּחֶם בְּכָל מִקְנֵהֶם בַּשָּׁנָה הַהִוא
KJ: And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year.
BN: And they brought their livestock to Yoseph, and Yoseph gave them bread in exchange for the horses and the flocks and the herds and the asses, and that year he fed them with bread in exchange for all their livestock.
SUSIM (סוסים): They must have had horses, as we were told earlier they had chariots; but they would have been relatively new. Hittite/Hyksos originally.
It might make an interesting exercise to look at the Mosaic commandments relating to kings and rulers, and those relating to the responsibilities of employers to their employees, and see just how many of them Yoseph was guilty of breaking. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 is very clear on the Mosaic expectation of kingship, and it makes for extraordinary coincidence that the principal concerns are precisely the things that Yoseph is doing here, especially the accruing of personal wealth, and specifically through the acquisition of stablesful of horses. Maimonides, in the Mishneh Torah, defines the "Hilchot Sechirut - The Laws of Employer-Employee Relations", and reckons seven mitzvot, rooted in Torah, including paying a worker his wage when it was due [Deuteronomy 24:15], and allowing a hired worker to eat from produce while he is working with it [Deuteronomy 23:25-26], where Yoseph is clearly doing the opposite on both counts.
47:18 VA TITOM HA SHANAH HA HI VA YAVO'U ELAV BA SHANAH HA SHENIT VA YOMRU LO LO NECHACHED ME ADONI KI IM TAM HA KESEPH U MIKNEH HA BEHEMAH EL ADONI LO NISH'AR LIPHNEY ADONI BILTI IM GEVIATENU VE ADMATENU
וַתִּתֹּם הַשָּׁנָה הַהִוא וַיָּבֹאוּ אֵלָיו בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ לֹא נְכַחֵד מֵאֲדֹנִי כִּי אִם תַּם הַכֶּסֶף וּמִקְנֵה הַבְּהֵמָה אֶל אֲדֹנִי לֹא נִשְׁאַר לִפְנֵי אֲדֹנִי בִּלְתִּי אִם גְּוִיָּתֵנוּ וְאַדְמָתֵנוּ
KJ: When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said unto him, We will not hide it from my lord, how that our money is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle; there is not ought left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands:
BN: And when that year ended, they came to him in the second year, and said to him, "We will not hide from my lord, that our money is all spent; and the herds of cattle are my lord's; there is nothing left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands...
And this parlous state of affairs turn out to be only Year Three of the Great Famine!
What did Yoseph do with all that livestock? Kill it for food presumably. Or did he waste food on trying to sustain it for breeding and milking and clothing (on his private ranch, refurbished using state funds of course); and thereby deplete the amount of grain available for the people? Or did he altruisticlaly and philanthropically redistribute it to the needy as the famine worsened, precursoring the great humanitarianism of Food Aid? Or maybe sell it to Midyanite merchants at a profit? Is there in this the beginning of an attempt to explain the enslavement of the people? Is Yoseph in fact personally responsible for what happened to the Mosaic Habiru later on?
47:19 LAMAH NAMUT LE EYNEYCHA GAM ANACHNU GAM ADMATENU KENEH OTANU VE ET ADMATENU BA LACHEM VE NIHEYEH ANACHNU VE ADMATENU AVADIM LE PHAR'OH VE TEN ZERA VE NICHEYEH VE LO NAMUT VE HA ADAMAH LO TESHAM
לָמָּה נָמוּת לְעֵינֶיךָ גַּם אֲנַחְנוּ גַּם אַדְמָתֵנוּ קְנֵה אֹתָנוּ וְאֶת אַדְמָתֵנוּ בַּלָּחֶם וְנִהְיֶה אֲנַחְנוּ וְאַדְמָתֵנוּ עֲבָדִים לְפַרְעֹה וְתֶן זֶרַע וְנִחְיֶה וְלֹא נָמוּת וְהָאֲדָמָה לֹא תֵשָׁם
KJ: Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate.
BN: "Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be bondsmen to Pharaoh; and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, and that the land be not desolate."
As suggested above, an explanation of how they came to be slaves. And if so, we don't need a gap of four hundred years before the time of Mosheh - it could be the very next generation; especially if the Pharaoh now were indeed Ra-Meses.
Or is it simply that the redactors are telescoping events?
Another clue to dating. Hyksos records show that the feudal land-owning class was wiped out by them, and from then on all land belonged to the Pharaoh or the temples. The first public granaries were also Hyksotic, and the superintendent of granaries (i.e. Yoseph) became one of the senior roles in government. Post-Hyksos restoration did nothing to change either of these facts.
47:20 VA YIKEN YOSEPH ET KOL ADMAT MITSRAYIM LE PHAR'OH KI MACHRU MITSRAYIM ISH SAD'EHU KI CHAZAK AL'EHEM HA RA'AV VA TEHI HA ARETS LE PHAR'OH
וַיִּקֶן יוֹסֵף אֶת כָּל אַדְמַת מִצְרַיִם לְפַרְעֹה כִּי מָכְרוּ מִצְרַיִם אִישׁ שָׂדֵהוּ כִּי חָזַק עֲלֵהֶם הָרָעָב וַתְּהִי הָאָרֶץ לְפַרְעֹה
KJ: And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh's.
BN: So Yoseph bought all the land of Mitsrayim for Pharaoh; for the Mitsrim sold every man his field, because the famine was severe upon them; and the land became Pharaoh's.
So whether they were now merely serfs and vassails, or fully-fledged slaves, the entire people, and every blade of dead grass they walked upon, were owned by a leader without a Minima let alone a Magna Carta, and Yoseph and his tribe the principal beneficiaries. Nice if you can get it!
47:21 VE ET HA AM HE'EVIR OTO LE ARIM MIKTSEH GEVUL MITSRAYIM VE AD KATSEHU
וְאֶת הָעָם הֶעֱבִיר אֹתוֹ לֶעָרִים מִקְצֵה גְבוּל מִצְרַיִם וְעַד קָצֵהוּ
KJ: And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof.
BN: And as for the people, he removed them city by city, from one end of the border of Mitsrayim to the other end thereof.
Some kind of resettlement programme - the people of Yehudah hearing this read in Ezra's time would know from personal experience, the Yehudim who were carted away to Babylon, the Shomronim who were dragged here out of Padan Aram... but why, in Yoseph's case? And who moved where? And more significantly, if Kena'an was a vassal state of Egypt, then is this in fact the "resettlement" of Ya'akov's people from Shechem or Migdal Eder to a Pale of Settlement in Goshen? Or is this a description of the methodology of Hyksos conquest? This after all is precisely what Nebuchadnezzar did in 586 BCE to the Beney Yisra-Eli, forcing them to move from Yehudah to Bavel (Babylon), forcing the Shomronim (Samarians or Samaritans) to move from their home to northern Kena'an (this is also what the Anglo-Saxons did to the Celts when they conquered Britain, forcing them to move to the extremities, to Cornwall and Wales and the Scottish Highlands, or across the sea to Ireland or Brittany). The theory behind the policy was that people will not stir up agitation or rebellion in the name of a land that isn't theirs, since they feel no bond with it for at least two to three generations (the fact that there was no serious Palestinian Liberation movement until the 1970s provides a modern example of this, the only difference being that the diaspora in this case was voluntary). They may long for their homeland, but they will be passive in their exile. So perhaps this is analogical. We know that the Hyksos moved the capital from Memphis and Thebes to Avaris, and that Avaris was precisely in the land of Goshen where the Beney Yisra-El are now living. Was this a report of actual history, or (and/or?) a literary analogy by the Redactor for the benefit of the exiles - returnees and non-returnees - of his day?
HA AM HE'EVIR (העם העביר): But this line, this one word, is so important. How come it has been overlooked by scholars for two thousand years? HE'EVIR; whence the name HABIRU. It is quite startlingly obvious. Exactly as the expelled Celts became "outcasts" - and the word for "outcast" in Anglo-Saxon is "Wales"! And when we come to the Mosheh story, of the slaves first and then the Exodus, we can understand that we are talking about all non-Hyksos Egyptians, whether Jacobite or otherwise.
47:22 RAK ADMAT HA KOHANIM LO KANAH KI CHOK LA KOHANIM ME ET PAR'OH VE ACHLU ET CHUKAM ASHER NATAN LAHEM PAR'OH AL KEN LO MACHRU ET ADMATAM
רַק אַדְמַת הַכֹּהֲנִים לֹא קָנָה כִּי חֹק לַכֹּהֲנִים מֵאֵת פַּרְעֹה וְאָכְלוּ אֶת חֻקָּם אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לָהֶם פַּרְעֹה עַל כֵּן לֹא מָכְרוּ אֶת אַדְמָתָם
BN: Only the land of the priests did he not purchase, for the priests had a portion from Pharaoh, and ate the portion which Pharaoh gave them; therefore they did not sell their land.
Very significant this - i) the word CHUK (חק) later came to mean "a law" among the Beney Yisra-El, ii) the role and privilege of the priest (KOHEN - כהן) is here defined, long before it is further outlined in the Mosaic Code; the priest-cities of the Levites are presaged here as well (cf Exodus 21:13; Numbers 35; Joshua 20).
Here the word CHUK is translated as "a portion", though we can do better, some kind of prebend.
And don't forget that Yoseph was himself married into a priestly family, through Asnat, Poti-Phera's daughter; and himself a priest as well.
But that they should be called Kohanim (we have already commented on this earlier). Is this just the Redactor not knowing, or not having, a better word for "priest", and so using the one he did know? We also know that further east a priest was a Khan, but specifically in the sense of the king serving as the representative of the deity on earth, so that Khan (as in Kublai Khan or Genghis Khan) is understood to be his majestic title rather than his spiritual or shamanistic role. In ancient Egypt the priests were called "hem" or "hem-neteru", the latter of which translates as "servants of the god" - though as we have seen with the Yehudit root AVAD, and as will become hugely significant in Exodus, the words "servant", "slave" and "worshipper" are all interchangeable from the same root.
47:23 VA YOMER YOSEPH EL HA AM HEN KANIYTI ET'CHEM HA YOM VE ET ADMAT'CHEM LE PHAR'OH HE LACHEM ZERA U ZERA'TEM ET HA ADAMAH
וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף אֶל הָעָם הֵן קָנִיתִי אֶתְכֶם הַיּוֹם וְאֶת אַדְמַתְכֶם לְפַרְעֹה הֵא לָכֶם זֶרַע וּזְרַעְתֶּם אֶת הָאֲדָמָה
KJ: Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land.
BN: Then Yoseph said to the people, "Behold, this day I have purchased you and your land for Pharaoh. Here is seed for you, and you shall sow the land."
So they are formally enslaved; and by Yoseph, not by this Pharaoh, and not by the Pharaoh that will come later, at the start of Exodus. And it is all the people of Egypt, with the two exceptions being the royal family and Ya'akov's tribe. Is this too a reflection of the Hyksos conquest?
ZERA'TEM ET HA ADAMAH: "Sow the land"; during a 7-year famine? It sounds illogical at first, but not upon reflection. However hard the drought, however much the seed may die, you still have to try to grow food; it might rain. Think, again, of Tom Joad.
47:24 VE HAYAH BA TEV'UOT U NETATEM CHAMIYSHIT LE PHAR'OH VE ARBA HA YADOT YIHEYEH LACHEM LE ZERA HA SADEH U LE ACHLECHEM VE LA'ASHER BE VATEICHEM VE LE'ECHOL LE TAP'CHEM
וְהָיָה בַּתְּבוּאֹת וּנְתַתֶּם חֲמִישִׁית לְפַרְעֹה וְאַרְבַּע הַיָּדֹת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם לְזֶרַע הַשָּׂדֶה וּלְאָכְלְכֶם וְלַאֲשֶׁר בְּבָתֵּיכֶם וְלֶאֱכֹל לְטַפְּכֶם
KJ: And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones.
BN: "And it shall come to pass at the harvest, that you shall give one- fifth to Pharaoh, and four-fifths shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for the members of your households, and as food for your little ones."
CHAMIYSHIT...ARBA (ארבע...חמישית): We have been told of this one-fifth tax earlier, though in a slightly different form (Genesis 41:34).
Ya'akov himself offered only one tenth to his god as his covenant tithe (Genesis 28:22); this is steep. On the other hand the Maccabees paid the Syrians one-third of the seed and one-half of the fruit from the trees (1 Maccabees 10:30), and the Qur'an tells innumerable tales in which significant portions of the harvest are handed over as a form of payment when cash is not available. Either way, the land has been seized by the priests under Yoseph, the aristocracy stripped of its possessions, the cities emptied, the people enslaved and resettled in agricultural areas only, and a feudal tithing system imposed (not very different from Stalin's Five-Year Plan, and definitely Minima not Magna Carta). This describes the Hyksos invasion almost to perfection. The only two important missing parts are that the Hyksos replaced the trinity of Hor (Horus), Eshet (Isis) and Osher (Osiris) [this will be critical to the Mosheh stories later because the real reason for the journey to Sinai, as we shall see, was a covenant renewal ceremony/festival for the restoration of the trinity, and then a pilgrimage to reopen all their desert shrines], and the replacement of the Pharaoh and his dynasty, which was already long, with a brand new Pharaoh from among their ranks.
Maphtir
47:25 VA YOMRU HECHEYITANU NIMTSA CHEN BE EYNEY ADONI VE HAYIYNU AVADIM LE PHAR'OH
וַיֹּאמְרוּ הֶחֱיִתָנוּ נִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנִי וְהָיִינוּ עֲבָדִים לְפַרְעֹה
KJ: And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh's servants.
BN: And they said, "You have saved our lives. Let us find favour in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh's bondmen."
VE HAYIYNU AVADIM LE PHAR'OH (והיינו עבדים לפרעה); a line echoed in the Passover Hagadah: Avadim Hayinu Ba Mitsrayim (עבדים היינו במצרים); but note again, as this commentary will many times, that it is not just the Beney Yisra-El, but the whole of Egypt, which has been enslaved, and voluntarily so - and indeed, it may actually be the whole Egypt with the single exception of the Beney Yisra-El, who have seized all power, and the only decent land, the fertile plains of the Nile Delta.
Which, as suggested earlier in this chapter, also makes the concept of the Egyptians standing at the roadside handing Mosheh's followers their jewellery and savings more complex; the original reason for Mosheh taking the Habiru into the wilderness, as we shall see, was not flight to Yisra-El, but for the purposes of reinstating the ancient Pesach rituals at Mount Chorev, and simultaneously reinstating the old Egyptians gods whom the Hyksos had supplanted, by enacting a covenant renewal ceremony that re-established the old religion (whence the golden calf of Horus). Those who did not make what was in fact a pilgrimage and not an exodus, would have seen the giving of cash or gifts as their way of being present at the event; in the same way that someone will put a message in a crack in the Wailing Wall for you when they go to Yeru-Shala'im.
We cannot treat the word "slavery" as we have been trained to do; and here, the standard translation willfully avoids the word, preferring "bondmen". If AVADIM means "bondmen" here, why does it suddenly come to mean "slaves" in the Mosheh story? To which there are two answers, based on "the winner gets to tell the story": here we are praising Yoseph and making him the hero, so we reduce it to "bondmen"; there we are elevating Mosheh to hero-status, so we need him to have saved his people from slavery.
There is an essay worth writing here though on the ways in which people collaborate in their own victimhood; lying down with the energy of slaves and saying, take my freedom just give me bread. Jews took jobs in the Judenraten on the same principle.
47:26 VA YASEM OTAH YOSEPH LE CHOK AD HA YOM HA ZEH AL ADMAT MITSRAYIM LE PHAR'OH LA CHOMESH RAK ADMAT HA KOHANIM LEVADAM LO HAYETA LE PHAR'OH
וַיָּשֶׂם אֹתָהּ יוֹסֵף לְחֹק עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה עַל אַדְמַת מִצְרַיִם לְפַרְעֹה לַחֹמֶשׁ רַק אַדְמַת הַכֹּהֲנִים לְבַדָּם לֹא הָיְתָה לְפַרְעֹה
KJ: And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh's.
BN: And Yoseph established the statute concerning the land of Mitsrayim that is still in place to this day, that Pharaoh should have one-fifth; only the land of the priests did not become Pharaoh's.
AD HA YOM HA ZEH (עד היום הזה); what date does "this" infer? The date of writing down the tale in this form, obviously. But when was that? Mid 5th century BCE, a tjousand years after the events.
And of course the Redactor and his co-workers were all Kohanim - who else could read and write!? So were they trying to preserve their Kohanic status in exile, like yeshivah buchers in Israel today, who by special law don't have to joint the army or even earn a living, but can scrounge off the state and live as pacifists at the front-line, because they have special status? And/or were they trying to preserve in writing a record of the land-status - refuge-cities in every tribe rather than a tribal territory of their own?
And as to my constantly jibing about Minima rather than Magna Carta - under the terms of English feudal law, one-third went to the king (though after Magna Carta he had to share it with the Barons), one-third to the priests (the Church), and the remaining third was available for the vassals and serfs to try to feed their families; which is why, in the original of the nursery rhyme, there was "one for the master, one for the dame, but none for the little boy who lived down the lane." English feudal law, like that of Czarist Russia and imperial China, was far worse than the Egyptian.
47:27 VA YESHEV YISRA-EL BE ERETS MITSRAYIM BE ERETS GOSHEN VA YE'ACHAZU VAH VA YIPHRU VA YIRBU ME'OD
וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן וַיֵּאָחֲזוּ בָהּ וַיִּפְרוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ מְאֹד
KJ: And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen; and they had possessions therein, and grew, and multiplied exceedingly.
BN: And Yisra-El dwelt in the land of Mitsrayim, in the land of Goshen; and they acquired possessions there, and were fruitful, and multiplied greatly.
YE'ACHAZU: Yisra-El in the plural; the tribe now, no longer the man.
How did they do so well, if everything was sold to Pharaoh and everybody enslaved? Ir can only be because the Beney Yisra-El, through Yoseph, were the new aristocracy, the privileged elite running the show and living off back-handers, and what there was of the fat of the land, and especially the considerable profit from the very heavy tithe. Of course, if they were themselves the Hyksos (who were Aramaeans, like Av-Raham's people, like the Le'ah tribes)...
End of scroll.
But not the end of the chapter, as far as the Christian versions are concerned. Click here to continue this chapter.
Surf The Site
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
Copyright © 2020 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment