JOSEPH. 293 JOSEPH. Joiseph over other tribes represented as liis bretli- reii, he saves his national pride hy according to his own tribe, Judah, as favorable a posilion as possible hy the side of Joseph. It is Judah who, according to J, proposes saving Joseph from the jealuusy i)f liis indlliers, whereas according to E it is Kcuben{ a nortlicrn clan) who intervenes. Four elements are distinguished in the story of Joseph: (1) Xorthcru traditiuns, reliecting the rivalry between various tribes which (or some of which) formed parts of the later Hebrew con- federation; (2) recollections of the sojourn of certain Hebrew elans in EgT,'pt, subsequently en- larged into the tradition which brought all the twelve clans into Egypt; (3) an Egyptian folk- tale of a faithful servant wrongfully accused by his master ; ( 4 ) a story of a Hebrew who rose to a high otiicial position in Egypt. Approach- ing the story of Joseph from this point of view, its component parts become tolerably clear. Joseph is the favorite son of Jacob, the eldest son of the patriarch's favorite wife, Rachel. He belongs to Shechcm (the chief sanctuary in the northern kingdom) in the same sense in which Jacob belongs to Bethel and Abraham to Hebron. He rouses the jealousy of his brothers, according to J, because of a garment with sleeves (befitting one of superior rank) given to him by Jacob; according to E, because of his dreams, which be- tokened future greatness and sU])criority over his brothers. The result is that the brothers decide to kill him, but are persuaded by Reuben (ac- cording to E) or by Judah (according to J) to spare his life. According to the northern ver- sion, he is found by -Midianites in a cistern and carried to Egj'pt ; according to the southern ver- .sion, he is sold by his brothers to Ishmaelites, and in this way is carried down to Eg;'pt. In this incident two factors are distinguished: (a) the story of .Joseph's superiority, and(b) the story of his humiliation by his brothers. The former reflects the natural pride of the northern writer, the 'latter embraces a recollection of a combina- tion of a number of tribes against one which had become too powerful. In actual Hebrew history, there is no tribe of .loseph. but instead we have two clans, Ephraim and ilanasseh (qq.v. ), who are the main props of the northern kingdom and who are represented in tradition as the sons of Joseph. It would seem, therefore, that a .Joseph tribe, after being large enough to produce two offshoots, aroused such opposition and fear be- cause of growing power as to lead to a combina- tion which succeeded in driving this dangerous tribe from its territory. Such an event is just what we encounter among .Arabic clans. The story of Joseph in Egi-pt contains again two ele- ments: (a) tradition of the sojourn of some of the Hebrew tribes in Goshen (q.v. ), combined with (b) two stories that have nothing to do with the Hebrews. That some of the tribes afterwards forming part of the confederation of the Bene Israel came at one time to Egypt, in connection either with a Semitic invasion of the land of the Nile, or in connection with that steady process leading Semitic nomads to make more or less permanent settlements on the frontier districts of Egypt, is hardly open to doubt, as on the other hand it is equally certain that not all of the tribes came into this region. The pragmatic method of history-writing which prevails in Gene- sis (as in the whole Pentateuch, or rather Octa- teuch) represents the Bene Israel as forming a unit from time immemorial and hence the popular tradition is so modilied as to bring all the Hebrew tribes into Egypt and to bring them out again in a body under the leadcrsliip of .Moses. Besides Joseph, the tribes of Simeon, Reuben, and Levi ap]iear to have g(;ne to Kgypt and. as it would seem, Joseph and Levi disappeared llierc, for we hear nothing of .Joseph after the Kxodus, and the tribe of Levi in the I'entatcucbal codes is something quite diti'erent from the original tribe of l.<'vi. (.See LEVITE.S.) Of the two 'Egyptian' stories told of Joseph one rs a folk-talc, prol>ably of Egyptian origin, the other embodies a renunis- cence based ujion an actual occurrence. The folk- tale is that of a faithfil servant intrusted by his master w ith the care of liis h(Uiscbold and who re- sists the temptations oll'ered by the faithless wife of the master. The servant is wrongfully accused and thrown into jirison. The sc(piel of the story in its original form no doubt told of the proof that was forthcoming, establishing the innocence of the servant, his reward for his fidelity and hon- esty and the punishment of the bad wife. This story, the Egy])tian parallel to which exists in the so-called Talc of Ticu Urothers (consiilt Petrie, Egyptian 'J'tih-s, Lon<loii. 189.5-1)9) , is at- tached to .Joseph as a favorite character of northern Hebrew legend. It is a species of ilidrash very much of the order of the stories found in the Jewish Jlidrashim to illustrate .bra- ham's piety or Moses" faith. Instead, however, of presenting the story with its original sequel, it is attached to another tale about a foreigner who ro.se to a position of great eminence at the Egyptian Court, and who manifested his wisdom and devotion to the interest of his royal master in various waj's. The period to which this in- cident belongs can no longer be determined. From the Tell el-Amarna tablets we learn that in the fifteenth century B.C. it was not uncommon for Semites to hold high positions in Eg^'plian domains; and it has therefore been supposed that it was at the jjeriod of P>g;vptian supremacy over Palestine, wdien the relations ln'tween Egyptians and .Semites were naturally quite close, that the Hebrew vizier lived, the memory of whose re- markable career was thus preserved. This story, too, is attached to .Joseph as a familiar subject of legend and an appropriate ])ersonage of whom it could be told, and, being combined with the folk- lore tale, becomes another incident in the life of one and the same person. The visit of .Joseph's brothers, with its dra- matic incidents, and the emigration of .Jacob and his sons and their families into Eg;'pt, may be due to the pragmatic historical scheme of the Old Testament writers; while the meeting be- tween .Jacob and .Joseph, and .Jacob's interview with Pharaoh, from this point of view, are an- other specimen of early .Jewish Midrash. There remains the scene at the death of Jacob (xlviii. 1.5-20) when Joseph brings his two sons to his father, who. in Idessing them, gives Ephraim, although the younger, the ]ireference over Manas- seh. This touch is due to the pride of the Eph- raimitic writer who in this way justifies the greater prominence which, as a matter of fact. the tribe Of Ephraim obtained in the northern kingdom. Joseph dies in Egyjit. which may be taken perhaps as another indication that the tribe actually never left Egj'pt. The name of .Joseph, however, survives largely through the northern clans, Ephraim and Manasseh, and in the local
