Parshat Vayeshev
Up until this point I've only vaguely mentioned the Documentary Hypothesis (DH), which is among the leading hypotheses to explain the creation of the Torah, and is taught in every secular biblical course at the university level. I have mentioned that different paragraphs were probably written by different people at different times. I've also mentioned the most agreed upon statement that Deuteronomy (minus the last three chapters) was written by a different author or authors than the other four books. However, these kind of claims are more general than the DH. They can be attributed to many other hypotheses about the writing of the Torah.
Up until this point I've only vaguely mentioned the Documentary Hypothesis (DH), which is among the leading hypotheses to explain the creation of the Torah, and is taught in every secular biblical course at the university level. I have mentioned that different paragraphs were probably written by different people at different times. I've also mentioned the most agreed upon statement that Deuteronomy (minus the last three chapters) was written by a different author or authors than the other four books. However, these kind of claims are more general than the DH. They can be attributed to many other hypotheses about the writing of the Torah.
What is unique to
DH is that it states that the Torah existed as separate complete or
near-complete documents, and that these documents were merged
together by a redactor. One piece of evidence for this process
appears in stories which are repeated in separate places, like the
stories of Avraham (Abraham)
and Yitzchak (Isaac)
passing off their wives as sisters in foreign lands. Another piece
of evidence, and the focus for today, are stories that look like they
were spliced together from two distinct sources. When the sources are
separated, various inconsistencies and contradictions vanish, and you
are left with two complete stories. This is a very difficult
procedure to do for any standard writing you would pick up, and its repeated success in many stories in
the Torah should at the very least provoke some serious thought as to
why the Torah was written in this way.
As
an example of this process, we'll look at the story a the beginning
of this week's parsha which
deals with Joseph's brothers throwing him into the pit.
Problems in the
story
The
story of the selling of Joseph
appears in 37:18-36 and is
pretty convoluted. It's
probably a good idea to pause and read it now.
If you've read it you'll
notice a very strange
sequence of events. in 37:28 Midianites pass by, and "they"
drew Joseph out of the pit and "they" sold Joseph to the
Ishmaelites
for silver, and "they" brought Joseph to Egypt. Then later
in 37:36, the Midianites sold Joseph to Egypt. In order for the
surface reading to make sense, Rashi interprets the first they, the
people who bring Joseph out of the pit as the brothers, even
though the previous sentence had the subject as the Midianites.
He also interprets the
second they as the brothers,
and says that the brothers sold them to the Ishmaelites, who then
sold them to the Midianites. Rashi does not specify which group was
responsible for bringing Joseph to Egypt, but presumably it's the Ishmaelites, which means the second "they" in verse 28 refers to them, even though they haven't appeared yet in the story!
There's another bizarre wording issue in the text.
21 And Reuben heard it, and delivered him out of their hand; and said: 'Let us not take his life.' 22 And Reuben said unto them: 'Shed no blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but lay no hand upon him'--that he might deliver him out of their hand, to restore him to his father.
When
I used to read it, I would read the second sentence as elaborating on
the first. However, there are problems with this reading. First,
the second sentence repeats Reuven said,
where the Torah usually would use something like "And he
said" when the speaker does not change. This is a small
problem. The bigger problem is later in the text it is Yehudah
(Judah) who is responsible for
taking him out of the pit and not killing him. Where was Reuven?
Later he comes back to the pit
and no one is there, and he's distraught.
Breaking into
Two Stories
Now let's see what happens when we split this story into two. The
first story looks like this:
19 And they said one to another: 'Behold, this dreamer cometh. 20 Come now therefore, and let us slay him, and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say: An evil beast hath devoured him; and we shall see what will become of his dreams.' 21 And Reuben heard it, and delivered him out of their hand; and said: 'Let us not take his life.' 25 And they sat down to eat bread; and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites came from Gilead, with their camels bearing spicery and balm and ladanum, going to carry it down to Egypt. 26 And Judah said unto his brethren: 'What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood? 27 Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother, our flesh.' And his brethren hearkened unto him. 28b and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. And they brought Joseph into Egypt.
And the second one:
18 And they saw him afar off, and before he came near unto them, they conspired against him to slay him 22 And Reuben said unto them: 'Shed no blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but lay no hand upon him'--that he might deliver him out of their hand, to restore him to his father. 23 And it came to pass, when Joseph was come unto his brethren, that they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colours that was on him; 24 and they took him, and cast him into the pit--and the pit was empty, there was no water in it. 28a And there passed by Midianites, merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, 29 And Reuben returned unto the pit; and, behold, Joseph was not in the pit; and he rent his clothes. 30 And he returned unto his brethren, and said: 'The child is not; and as for me, whither shall I go?' 31 And they took Joseph's coat, and killed a he-goat, and dipped the coat in the blood; 32 and they sent the coat of many colours, and they brought it to their father; and said: 'This have we found. Know now whether it is thy son's coat or not.' 33 And he knew it, and said: 'It is my son's coat; an evil beast hath devoured him; Joseph is without doubt torn in pieces.' 34 And Jacob rent his garments, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days. 35 And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said: 'Nay, but I will go down to the grave to my son mourning.' And his father wept for him. 36 And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, the captain of the guard.
The Documentary
Hypothesis puts authors to these stories
According to DH, the top story is by J, which I would describe is something like "tales and legends of the
southern kingdom". Notice how in this version, Yehudah
(Judah) is the one who takes control of the situation. He is the one who
steps up, the leader. This will be true throughout the Yosef
saga, Yehudah is the head of the tribes. In the second
version, the version attributed to E, which could be read as "tales and legends of the northern kingdom," Yehudah is not
relevant at all. Here it's Reuven who is the one who saves Yosef, and
Yehudah isn't even mentioned! Also, splitting into these two
stories makes the surface reading clearer as far as Reuven
returning to the pit. In this version, the brothers threw him into
the pit, left to eat, the Midianites took him out, and then when
Reuven returned to rescue him, Yosef was gone. In the patched
together version, Reuven must have wandered off somewhere when
the rest of the brothers, led by Yehudah, sold him. None of
the other brothers even felt the need to inform him that Yosef
isn't actually dead, just sold to Egypt?
Splitting the stories resolves all the
textual problems. The two consecutive sentences that begin with
"Reuven said," the convoluted selling chain, the narrative inconsistencies of Reuven
knowing or not knowing that
Yosef is alive. To
me it's pretty clear. This is one of many instances were separate
stories were cobbled together to create a single harmonized reading.
In general, I think DH oversells its claims, but it's foolish not to recognize where it does admirably well. This is just one example of a situation where it works extremely well to clarify a biblical story.
In general, I think DH oversells its claims, but it's foolish not to recognize where it does admirably well. This is just one example of a situation where it works extremely well to clarify a biblical story.
Another interesting post - keep it up. Did you notice Gen 37:9-10 The Sun is related to male and the moon to female.
ReplyDeleteThis may relate to ancient fertility cults wherein the male was associated with the
sun and the female with the moon.
Did you notice Gen 37:1 Starts off with "Jacob", yet the name used for him
changes to "Israel" in Gen 37:13.
Here are three explanations for the problem as found in Ramban Gen 37:25 who
discusses Ibn Ezra (Midianites = Ishmaelites based on Judges 8:24 ) , Genesis
Rabba 84:2 that Joseph was sold several alternate times. Ramban explains it
differently - when seen from afar the brothers mistakenly thought the caravan
were Ishmaelites since they had camels and were on the caravan route. But when the caravan came closer the brothers realized the caravan was really Midianites who
had rented camels from the Midianites. Anyway, the brothers sell Joseph to the
Midianites, who then hand them over to Ishmaelites. Ramban then says "All
scripture stories are written in this manner...."
I think the relation to fertility cults in this manner is too much of a stretch. I know that there are a lot of secular biblicists who try to draw connections in this way, but many aren't all that supported in my opinion.
DeleteI didn't discuss the first half of the perek, but you can split up the first half in a similar way. The sections with Israel are E, and the ones with Jacob are J.
As far as the rabbinical explanations of the selling chain is concerned, all the explanations are incredibly convoluted. They have a high cost to accept, and it makes sense to look for alternate explanations. Having two separate stories is a very nice and elegant way to avoid the problems. Ramban is flat out wrong that "all scripture stories are written in this manner" Many are in fact straightforward and have a very clear and consistent storyline. Take for example, the story of Judah and Tamar later in this chapter. There's no problematic features of the story, and needless to say, no one thinks multiple authors are operating there.