The story of Joseph is a colorful one, to say the least. Perhaps one of the more interesting aspects of the narrative is the role of objects to perpetuate the narrative, specifically the role of clothing and the cup Joseph used in his reconciliation with his family. In other words, it isn’t just what the objects were that is significant; it is also what the objects meant within the culture. In this chapter, John Gee examines these two objects from the perspective of their cultural relevance, which, in turn, may provide readers with a new methodological approach to objects in other scriptural texts. —DB and AS

The events narrated in the Bible were not the interactions of ethereal essences but the stories of mortals with physical bodies using material objects in specific geographical locations. Part of the mortal existence for both us and the individuals spoken of in the Bible is the physical dimension of our mortal lives. If one were to name the physical item most associated with the biblical Joseph, it would probably be his clothing. When a Broadway musical retold the story of Joseph, the plot may have concentrated on the dreams, but the title mentioned his coat. Another key physical object associated with Joseph are cups. The cups may not be as prominent as the clothes, but they still play an important and telling role in the story. Both these physical artifacts point to a tangible reality behind the account of Joseph that emphasizes that the story of Joseph is based in fact rather than fiction. In the brief space that we have here, we will examine the role that these two types of objects play in the Joseph narrative. While there are many other facets of Joseph’s history, we will not deal with those here.

Part 1: Clothes

While the old adage that “clothes make the man” may be overstating the situation, clothing serves a number of different functions. It provides protection from heat, cold, and the elements. It also signals status. Clothes, or the lack thereof, can communicate wealth or status, or the lack thereof, ethnicity, and a wide variety of other things. In Joseph’s day, one could tell whether one was a master or a slave, a local or a foreigner, wealthy or poor, simply by the clothing one was wearing. Three millennia, however, of fashions and fads lie between the modern reader and Joseph’s day, so what was obvious in Joseph’s day is opaque in ours.

Given

The garment that Joseph is most remembered for is the one that he is given, the so-called “coat of many colors” (Genesis 37:3 KJV).[1] The Hebrew term for this, k^etonet passim, is rare; it is used only in this passage (Genesis 37:3, 23, 32) and in the description of the clothes of Tamar, the daughter of King David (2 Samuel 13:18–19). In Tamar’s case, the garment is said to be something that “virgin daughters of the king used to wear” (13:18). Tamar rent this set of clothes when her status involuntarily changed (13:19), and though it may not have meant the same thing in Joseph’s own day, when this story was told in the time of Solomon, it would have signaled to the audiences why Joseph might have wanted to resist the advances of Potiphar’s wife.

The term k^etonet is straightforward. It is a tunic,[2] basically a large T-shirt. In the times of the Israelite monarchy, these tunics are typically depicted as having sleeves that go halfway down the upper arm and extending halfway down the thigh or halfway down the calf on the leg.[3] The use of such garments is known to go back a thousand years earlier, though in earlier times the garment often went over only one shoulder.[4] For ancient Israelites, this was a standard garment.

The term passim is harder to understand. In Aramaic it means something like the “palm of the hand” or “sole of the feet.”[5] In some Semitic languages, it means something like a “piece” of something,[6] and possibly comes from Egyptian psš, meaning “division, portion.”[7] In Ugartic, psm means “veil” or “gauze.”[8] Though such a definition would explain Tamar’s garment, it makes less sense for Joseph’s. In Akkadian, passu means either a “gaming piece” or a kind of reed,[9] but pasāmu means “to cover” or “to veil,”[10] pussumu means “covered up,”[11] and pusummu is a “veil.”[12] The Septuagint translated it with the word poikilon in Genesis and karpōntos in Samuel. The term poikilos originally meant something “dappled,” referring to animal skins, but came to mean “intricate,” or “embroidered” and “colorful.”[13] The term karpōntos meant “fruitful”[14] or “offering.”[15] The Aramaic translation uses the same term pasê,[16] but it means “strips.”[17] The garment that Jacob gave to Joseph seems to have been a special garment, but what distinguished it is now obscure to us.

Joseph’s garment, as well as his aggrandizing dreams and his father’s favor, made his brothers “jealous of him” (Genesis 37:11). It was clearly a mark of his status as his father’s favorite. In the time of the Israelite monarchy, the garment, along with the deliberate narrative juxtaposition of Joseph’s brother’s infidelities (Genesis 34, 38), would have signaled Joseph’s chastity to Israelite readers and listeners. Joseph’s brothers initially set out to kill him (37:20) but soon decided to sell him for profit (beṣaʿ) instead (37:26). It was not uncommon for families in debt to sell family members into slavery to pay off debts,[18] nor for slaves to come from captives of war. The Midianites to whom his brothers sold Joseph might have assumed that he fit into one of these categories. Joseph enters Egypt at a time that today is classified as either the end of the Middle Kingdom or the Second Intermediate Period (different scholars place the dividing line in different places), when there were a considerable number of slaves from the Levant entering Egypt. Lists of Egyptian slaves at the time show that fifty-seven percent were from that area,[19] and about two in five of those were renamed, being given an Egyptian name instead of a Semitic one.[20] Joseph being given an Egyptian name,[21] Zaphnath-paaneah (41:45), would not have been unusual.

Joseph’s brothers take his garment, dip it in blood, and show it to their father, Jacob (Genesis 37:31–32). In response, Jacob (and earlier, Reuben) rend (yiqraʿ) their clothes (37:29, 34). Since the point is to make it look like Joseph has been killed by wild beasts, the garment must have been torn as well. The Hebrew term for a tear or a rent is also used for a torn piece of cloth (1 Kings 11:30–31; 2 Kings 2:12; Proverbs 23:21). This term is used in the Book of Mormon when Captain Moroni waves a rent (that is, a torn piece of cloth) in the air.[22] Moroni specifically states that the rent was to remind the Nephites of “our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children” (Alma 46:12). These were things taken away from Joseph when his garment was rent and which he recovered later. Thus, Joseph’s garment has a long significance.

Taken

The second garment associated with Joseph is the one he leaves behind in his haste to flee Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39:12–13). This is simply termed a “garment” (beged), which is a generic word for a piece of clothing.[23] What sort of clothing would Joseph have been wearing? The climate in Egypt is different from the place where Joseph grew up, and the clothing is also different. Egypt is warmer, and rain is rare. The clothing Joseph wore would also be different in ways that figure into the story.

Potiphar was a captain of the guard (śar haṭṭabbāḥîm), which seems to be the equivalent of the Egyptian title translated as “controller of guards” (sḥḏ šmsw).[24] This is not an elite position but probably the equivalent of upper middle class. One example of someone who held this position is Iby-iaw, the younger son of a commander of the crew of the ruler (ꜣṯw n ṯt ḥqꜣ);[25] his father was high ranking enough to get him a comfortable position, but, as a younger son, he was unable to rise to the same rank as his father. Thus, Iby-iaw is mentioned on his father’s stele but does not have the rank, status, or resources to have one of his own. Potiphar was wealthy enough to own a few slaves, including Joseph and some others whose presence is only mentioned.

While Joseph was a slave he rose to the position of overseer of the house (ʿal-bêt, Genesis 39:4–5), which may be the equivalent of an Egyptian title normally translated “chamberlain” or “steward” (imy-rꜣ-pr).[26] The exact duties of this position are not clear, but a supervisory role is indicated. Household staff might range from a few people[27] to a dozen or more.[28] The presence of other slaves in the house seems to have been typical (39:11). The narrative laconically lays out the background information that we need spelled out more.

It has long been known that there are parallels between Joseph’s story and the Tale of Two Brothers recorded on Papyrus D’Orbiney (BM EA 10183),[29] which dates about two or three hundred years after Joseph lived. In both stories, the wife of the householder seeks to seduce one of the men attached to the house: Joseph in the case of the Bible (Genesis 39:2–20), Bata in the case of Papyrus D’Orbiney.[30] The man rebuffs her advances. She accuses him of seduction to the householder. The man is expelled from the house: in one case to prison, in the other case to exile. He is nevertheless favored by deity and eventually rises to the top of the government in Egypt. In Joseph’s case, he rises to be Pharaoh’s right-hand man (Genesis 40:37–46). In Bata’s case, he rises to become the Pharaoh himself and reigns for thirty years.[31]

Besides the general thematic parallels (which gloss over some significant differences in the stories), the description of the seduction scenes parallel each other in the way that they are narrated. This may not be a case of direct literary dependence as much as what Robert Alter called type scenes,[32] a convention about how a story is told. The use of a formula for writing history may seem strange in modern times, but most ancient historical sources and most ancient historical writing was formulaic.[33] While Joseph’s story is historical, it is told following a particular formula that the fictional Bata story also uses. This allowed ancient audiences to appreciate aspects of the story that were similar to other accounts and to situations that they might potentially face, as well as the differences that indicated whether the story were fictional or historical. The differences also help them recognize that while the situations that they encounter might follow a type, there would also be differences. For example, Joseph’s case differs from Bata’s because Bata faces the temptation only once, while Joseph faces it repeatedly. Bata’s was a fictional case, but in a real-life situation like Joseph’s, the temptation is likely not to be an isolated affair that need only be resisted but once. Comparing and contrasting the two stories illustrates how the same type scene may be used in narrating both historical and fictional situations.

The Errand in the House

In both instances, the protagonist is doing his errands about the house. Doing his job as he is supposed to be doing it sets the stage for him to face temptation. We will look first at the less-familiar fictional case of Bata:

And after many days, while they were in the field, they ran out of seed-corn. He sent his younger brother saying: Hurry and bring us seed-corn from the town. His younger brother found the wife of his older brother sitting braiding her hair. He said to her: “Get up so that you can give me seed[34] so I can hurry back to the field, for my older brother is waiting for me. Do not delay.” She said to him: “Go! Open the storehouse and fetch for yourself what you desire. Do not make me leave my braids on the road.” The lad entered into his stable and fetched a big pot (ḥnw) since he wanted to take a lot of seed-corn. He loaded it with barley and wheat and came out carrying them. She said to him: “How much is on your shoulders?” He said to her: “Three sacks of wheat and two sacks of barley for a total of five is what is on my shoulders.” So he said to her.[35]

That a sack was a measure of grain is obscured over the passage of time and change in culture. A sack (ẖꜣr) held 76.88 liters.[36] Thus, the young man, Bata, was carrying about 670 pounds (303.7 kilograms) of grain on his shoulders. The unrealistic amount of grain is an indication that the story was seen as fictional. The unnamed seductress of this story had paid Bata no attention until he came out with rippling muscles. The fantastic exaggeration of the Bata story contrasts with the sober, restrained, and commonplace nature of the Joseph story.

The biblical account starts with a general statement: “And Joseph was very handsome and good-looking” (Genesis 39:6). Later the account tells of a specific instance: “And it came to pass about this time, he went into the house to do his business but there was no man among the men of the house there in the house” (39:11). In both cases, the young man is alone at the house with the wife of the householder. In Bata’s case, his sister-in-law is sitting in front of the house and sends him to the storage to get the seed-corn. Bata’s request is straightforward but happens to contain a double entendre about providing seed, which the audience would recognize, though Bata plainly does not. In Joseph’s case, he is actually inside the house. An upper middle-class house was typically designed for privacy.[37] A blank facade on the street opened to a long hall leading to a central courtyard. The courtyard might have a small pool and trees,[38] and among the wealthy the courtyard would be peristyle, surrounded by pillars. This allowed for some cooling in the house. The remainder of the house branched off this central area. The archaeological evidence from ancient Egypt coincides with the biblical account in indicating the secluded nature of the encounter.

The Temptation

In the Egyptian account of Bata, the wife reacts when she finally notices her young brother-in-law whom she has previously considered a child: “She [spoke with] him, saying: ‘There is great strength in you. I see your manliness daily.’ She desired to know him as a man. She stood up and grabbed him, saying to him: ‘Come that we may spend an hour sleeping. This will be good for you. I will make good clothes for you.’”[39]

Earlier in the Egyptian account, the protagonist had been noted for making his own clothing,[40] which in ancient Egypt was generally done by women.[41] Clothing, for women, served as a source of wealth as is reflected in marriage contracts where most of the wealth that the woman brought to the marriage was in the form of either clothing or jewelry.[42] In the biblical account, the wife also notices Joseph: “And it came to pass after these things the wife of his master lifted up her eyes on Joseph and said, ‘Sleep with me’” (Genesis 39:7). Later she takes things a step further, although the proposition itself is still the exact same words. “And she caught his garment saying, ‘Sleep with me’” (Genesis 39:12). In both cases the woman’s actual proposition is fairly brief. In the Egyptian story, possible benefits are mentioned. These are missing from the biblical version. Though the biblical narrative may tell a particular type story, it does not elaborate it. Everything is kept to the bare essentials. The reader is not meant to be titillated or enticed by the encounter. The brazen bluntness of the proposal is not meant to be attractive.

The Refutation

In the Egyptian story, Bata declines, citing his reasons for doing so:

The lad became like a southern panther in his anger at the evil report. She said to him and she was exceedingly frightened. He spoke with her saying: “Look, you are like a mother to me and your husband is like a father to me. He is older than me. He raised me. What is this great crime that you have proposed to me? Do not speak it to me again. I will not mention it to anyone. I will never let it go forth out of my mouth to any person.” He picked up his load and went to the field.[43]

In the biblical account, Joseph also has a long refutation listing his reasons for declining the offer:

And he refused and said to his master’s wife: “My master does not know what is with me in the house, although he has given everything he has into my hand. There is no one greater in this house than I and he has withheld nothing from me except you because you are his wife and how can I do this great evil and sin against God? And it came to pass when she spoke to Joseph day by day, he did not listen to her to sleep with her or to be with her. (Genesis 39:8–10)

In both cases the woman’s proposition is brutally blunt and short. The man’s response is comparatively long and reasoned. Both men reference their respective positions in the household. Both state that what they are asked to do is a crime or a sin. Of the responses, however, only Joseph’s invokes God. In Bata’s case, he becomes angry and fierce, like a wild animal. While the Egyptian account features ferocity, the biblical account promotes piety.

In both stories, a garment appears prominently but differently. In Bata’s case, the garment is offered. In Joseph’s case, it is seized. In the first mention of the temptation, Joseph speaks. The second time the temptation comes around, Joseph acts: “And he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got out” (Genesis 39:12). Manual laborers are typically depicted[44] as wearing either a plain skirt or kilt of some sort, either short[45] or long,[46] or wearing a loincloth.[47] The kilt “consisted of a rectangular piece of linen wrapped around the body and tied at the waist with a knot or fastened with a sort of buckle.”[48] Whether he left a kilt or a loincloth with Potiphar’s wife, Joseph left an incriminating piece of evidence behind, which was enough to convict him circumstantially.

After the temptation, both women accuse the spurned lover of trying to seduce them, resulting in the husband attempting vengeance on the men. While Bata voluntarily goes into exile, Joseph is cast into prison. Adultery was not condoned in ancient Egypt and could be punished by throwing the adulterer or adulteress to the crocodiles,[49] setting them on fire,[50] killing them,[51] beating them up,[52] or fining them. The historical accounts indicate less severe punishments.[53] Egyptian investigations normally included interrogation, beatings, threats, and torture.[54] Joseph’s punishment for a crime he did not commit was comparatively mild.

Part 2: Cups

After Joseph was cast into prison, the emphasis on material objects shifts from clothes to cups. The change in state is accompanied by a change in object. But one thing that does not change is Joseph’s abilities. These abilities were recognized by prison officials. While he could not leave the prison, he had charge of all the prisoners (Genesis 39:21–23) and apparently visited them and took them their rations. Few Egyptian records detail much information about Egyptian prisons. One account details the attempted arrest of an official[55] who is set free by the governor.[56] Other individuals were cast into prison pending trial or investigation.[57] We have other records of a man who was thrown into prison and “an agent, a staff bearer, a man of the household staff of Pharaoh was assigned to him, and it came to pass that his rations used to be brought in daily from Pharaoh’s palace in Memphis.”[58] Joseph would have served this role to the other prisoners. The only record we have indicates that the palace was responsible for providing provisions for the prison. At the time of Joseph, provisioning the palace was a complex operation because the provisions were divided into three areas: the outer palace (ḫnty) staffed with officials (srw), the inner palace (kꜣp) with the royal family, and the auxiliaries (šnꜥ) and their serving staff (ꜥqyw ꜥšꜣ).[59] All of these people needed to be fed daily.[60] The palace provisions consisted mainly of bread, beer, dates, and vegetables.[61] How many of the dates and vegetables made it to the lower classes is unknown. Joseph was cast into the same prison as royal officials who had fallen out of favor, which turned to his advantage.

Handed

During Joseph’s time in prison, both the butler and the baker are also thrown into prison (Genesis 40:1–3). While there, each had a dream (40:5). Being in prison, they were cut off from society including those who served as dream interpreters. Dream interpreters consulted manuals, a number of which are known from ancient Egypt.[62] We know that the owner of the earliest one of these was Qenherkhopeshef,[63] who was a scribe of the tomb.[64] The prisoners do not seem to have been able to have access to scribes. In Egyptian manuals for interpreting dreams the situation in the dream is described, classified as either good or bad, and is then interpreted as a sign of what will happen in the future. For example, “if a man sees himself in a dream reading from a papyrus roll (šfdt), it is good because the man will be established in his house,”[65] but “if a man sees himself in a dream writing a papyrus roll (šfdt), it is bad because his crimes will be reckoned by his god.”[66] Accurately predicting the result of dreams was not necessarily intuitive. This was not the method that Joseph used to interpret dreams but the manuals tell us how Egyptians would have interpreted them and give us an idea of what might have made sense to them.

The butler’s dream centers around cups. He told Joseph about three vines. “And the cup (kôs) of Pharaoh was in my hand. And I took the grapes and pressed them on the cup of Pharaoh and I placed the cup on the palm of Pharaoh” (Genesis 40:11). The same term (ks) is inscribed on a bowl 15.2 cm in diameter and 4.2 cm deep.[67] The description of the handling of the cup is paralleled in roughly contemporary Egyptian tomb scenes, where cups[68]—particularly containers holding grapes[69]—are shown resting on the palms of the hand, rather than in the hands. The Joseph story thus reflects a Middle Kingdom reality and historical setting. Egyptian accounts also refer to “placing the bowl of beer on your hand (dit n=k wꜥ ṯbw n ḥnqt ḥr ḏrt=k).”[70] The Egyptian dream manual says that “if a man sees himself in a dream drinking wine, it is good because it means living in righteousness.”[71] It also claims that “if a man sees himself in a dream eating grapes, it is good because his own things will be given to him.”[72] In this case, Joseph’s interpretation aligns with the ancient Egyptian interpretations of similar dreams. It would have seemed like a reasonable interpretation to the butler and would have been comforting in both its content and style of presentation. From the interpretation, the butler would be able to view Joseph as being divinely inspired.

The baker also had a dream, but Joseph’s interpretation of it differed from the ancient Egyptian interpretation of similar dreams. The baker dreamt that he had “three baskets of white bread (ḥorî) on my head and in the top basket were all of the foods of Pharaoh made by the baker, and the birds ate them from the basket on my head” (Genesis 40:16–7). The dream manual has a similar case: “If a man sees himself in a dream and white bread (t ḥḏ) is given to him, it is good because it means that things will cheer him up (ḥḏ ḥr=f).”[73] The baker was looking to be cheered up, because he saw that the previous “interpretation was good” (40:16). But Joseph’s interpretation of the baker’s dream was not good, and it did not turn out well for the baker. Joseph’s interpretations from the Lord did not necessarily match those that Egyptian sages gave because while God is willing to speak to individuals so that they might come to understanding (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24), there would be no need for divine intervention if God only told us what our culture or our own desires already told us.

Joseph’s ability to interpret the butler’s dreams later gives him the opportunity to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams (Genesis 41:9–14). Pharaoh’s dreams would have perplexed the Egyptian priests because a connection with a cow was seen as good,[74] while measuring barley was seen as bad.[75] Joseph, however, does not interpret the dream the way that the Egyptian dream interpretation manuals would have, even if he had used Egyptian symbols in a way that might have made sense to the Egyptians. For example, the hieratic sign for grain looks like the hieratic sign for year at the time of Joseph.[76] Thus, interpreting seven stalks of grain as years would have made sense to literate Egyptians. Joseph’s coherent interpretation of the dream along with his pragmatic advice about how to use the information in the dream to benefit both Pharaoh and his people showed the Pharaoh that Joseph was someone who could use divine inspiration for the benefit of all, an ability that his other advisers lacked.

Divining

As a result of his interpretation, Joseph is given the king’s seal ring (Genesis 41:41–42) and fine linen clothing. Only the highest-ranking officials (ḫmty-bity) were allowed to use the king’s seal[77] and act in the king’s stead, making Joseph truly one who was “over all the land of Egypt” (41:43) and granting him an immense amount of power. The linen garments (bigdê-šēš, 41:42) also marked Joseph’s rank, as the Hebrew term for linen is a loanword from Egyptian,[78] denoting “royal linen” (sšr-nsw), the best type of cloth.[79] Joseph’s case follows the traditional pattern since clothing was normally given by higher ranking officials to lower ranking ones.[80]

After a number of years have passed, Joseph finally meets his family. At this meeting, Joseph fulfills the earlier dreams he had (Genesis 37:7, 9) since he was now a ruler—a high government official—and they are peasants, literally bowing at his feet (Genesis 41:6). When Joseph finally meets his brothers again, he hides his drinking bowl (g^ebîaʿ) in Benjamin’s sack as an excuse to bring his brothers back (Genesis 44:2). The term for the bowl is thought to have an Egyptian origin,[81] but the vessel described is not a drinking vessel but a pouring vessel,[82] and the phonetic shifts proposed are otherwise unattested.[83] This cup is made of silver and is explicitly said to be for both drinking and divination (naḥēš, Genesis 44:5). Examples of cups and bowls of silver and other metals are known,[84] though many more in faience are known,[85] the meaning and use of which is speculative and disputed.

From the Egyptian perspective, using a cup for divination is a known technique. The normal term for a drinking cup in the Middle Kingdom is ḥnw,[86] which in Joseph’s time can refer to a shallow bowl,[87] but is normally used for a generic container. This, however, is precisely the term used in texts describing divination using cups (ḥnw).[88] Egyptian texts describing divination through cups reveal a variety of procedures[89] and date long after Joseph’s time. Most of these cups, though, are said to be copper[90] or pottery,[91] not silver, but that probably reflects the impoverished times in which these late accounts were written. These practices are thought to be much older than the texts describing them. The individual dressed in clean clothes[92] would have “his face bent over the vessel,”[93] which was filled with oil,[94] his eyes closed while praying.[95] Upon opening his eyes, he would see a light,[96] in which the gods would appear and answer questions.[97] In the Egyptian divinatory use, the cup, often given to a young boy, is a means to open the eyes of the user to reveal things otherwise invisible to the eyes. Similarly, the cup in Joseph’s story, given to the youngest brother, functions as a device used to open the eyes of the brothers to reveal what they, of themselves, could not see.

Garments Again

Disguise

While both of Joseph’s more famous garments are notable for being taken from him, when Joseph was in power, he put on his own disguise to test his brothers when they came into Egypt. He could have punished them on the spot, but he might have followed the Egyptian proverb that “self-restraint will control his [your enemy’s] excess.”[98] “Joseph saw his brothers and recognized them (wayyakkirēm) but disguised himself (wayyitnakkēr ʾalêhem) from them” (Genesis 42:7). The Hebrew text expresses the event with a play off the same verbal root. Why did Joseph’s brothers not recognize him? While Semites tended to grow beards,[99] Egyptians would shave,[100] and Joseph is specifically said to have shaved (Genesis 41:14). Both men and women would also wear wigs and makeup.[101] He was also called by a different name (Genesis 41:45) and used an interpreter as though he could not understand them (Genesis 42:23).

Joseph was seen by later writers as an example of forgiveness. He does forgive his brothers, but not at first. They had tried to kill him and instead had sold him into slavery and made a profit on him. He needed to be certain that they would not do so to him or others again. He needed to see fruits meet for repentance—that is, evidence of their repentance.

When his brothers initially appear before him, Joseph sees neither his full brother Benjamin, nor his father. Have his brothers killed those most dear to him? He accuses them of being spies (Genesis 42:9) as a way of finding out about his family. In this he followed the Egyptian proverb about dealing with an enemy who is a poor man: “Do vent your feelings to the one who is opposing you. . . . Protect yourself with the hostility of the officials.”[102] When they claimed that their younger brother was still alive, he demanded to see him first (verses 15–20) and took his brother Simeon hostage (verse 24). Joseph also tested their honesty by returning their money in the grain sacks to see whether they would keep the money (verse 25). According to the Egyptian proverb current in Joseph’s day, “If you wish your conduct to be good and save yourself from all evil, guard against the occasion of greed.”[103] Joseph would know by their actions whether they had repented. In Egyptian wisdom literature, it was important to “make for yourself dependents who are trustworthy and be trustworthy.”[104] Joseph requests his brothers to return with Benjamin.

When they return with Benjamin, Joseph treats them well but puts his cup into Benjamin’s sack to allow a means of accusing Benjamin of theft so that Joseph can test his brothers and see whether their attitudes toward his mother’s children have changed or whether they will abandon Benjamin to prison or death the way that they had abandoned Joseph. Judah, the one who had first proposed selling Joseph into slavery (Genesis 37:26) is the one who intercedes for Benjamin (Genesis 44:18). Judah’s response indicates that he has changed. Only then does Joseph reveal who he is to his brothers (Genesis 45:1–3). His brothers, who have not seen him for years since they sold him into slavery and thought he was dead, do not believe it.

Thus, Joseph forgives his brothers but only after he has given them a chance to prove that they have actually repented. They had to demonstrate that they had changed first. The Egyptian proverb was “If you are merciful for a past occurrence, favor a man for his virtue; forgive him and do not remember it.”[105] Then Joseph showed that he forgave them. The first sign that Joseph had forgiven his brothers is by dismissing his staff and leaving himself alone with ten men who had previously tried to kill him (Genesis 45:1). He gathers his family together, sending for his father and his brothers’ families, and provides food and places to live. The second sign that Joseph had forgiven his brothers happened after his father died and was buried: Joseph reassures his brothers that he has forgiven them (Genesis 50:15–21).

Conclusion

Two physical types of artifacts in the history of Joseph serve as tangible metaphors in his history. Although archeologists may be familiar with many of these elements, most have not been explored in connection with Joseph’s history. Many of them are also particular to Joseph’s time and change at later times, indicating that Joseph’s story is based in historical events.

The cup that individuals drink from is given to them: some may find the cup sweet, and some bitter, but Joseph’s use of the cup extends to revelation—both seeing the future and seeing into the hearts of those around him.

Joseph’s garment represents a favored status given to him. The garment and the status are forcibly taken from him, and he wears a slave’s raiment. Even that is taken from him when he is falsely accused. But, over time, he is awarded with a new garment fit for one who has proven himself faithful, a garment of surpassing status that even his own family does not recognize. In the book of Revelation, white garments are given to those who overcome (Revelation 3:5). It is probably not a coincidence that the same word used in the Septuagint to describe the garment that Pharoah gave to Joseph (stolēn)[106] is also used to describe those who gave their all for the testimony of God (Revelation 6:9–11). The use of the same vocabulary demonstrates that using Joseph as a model for our behavior provides hope for a similar reward.

Notes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own.

[2] Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1:505 (hereafter, HALOT).

[3] Paul Collins, Assyrian Palace Sculptures (London: British Museum Press, 2008), 92–95; R. D. Barnett, Assyrian Palace Reliefs (London: Batchworth Press, n.d.), 44–49; T. C. Mitchell, The Bible in the British Museum (London: British Museum Press, 2004), 68–69, 71.

[4] Percy E. Newberry, Beni Hasan, Part I (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., 1893), pl. XXXI.

[5] HALOT, 2:946.

[6] HALOT, 2:946.

[7] R. O. Faulkner, Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1962), 94; Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow, Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1926-1931) 1:554.

[8] Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaquín Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 2:675.

[9] Jeremy Black, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000), 268 (hereafter CDA); Simo Parpola, Assyrian-English-Assyrian Dictionary (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2007), 81.

[10] CDA, 268.

[11] CDA, 279.

[12] CDA, 280.

[13] Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 1430 (hereafter LSJ); T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 571.

[14] LSJ, 880.

[15] Muraoka, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 364.

[16] Targum Onkelos Genesis 37:3, in Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2004), 1178.

[17] Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Traditional Press, n.d.), 1191.

[18] J. N. Postgate, Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History (London: Routledge, 1992), 195–96; Sumerian Laws Handbook viii 11–15 (§R), in Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 53; Kenneth A. Kitchen and Paul J. N. Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 1:90–91.

[19] William C. Hayes, A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom in the Brooklyn Museum (Brooklyn: The Brooklyn Museum, 1955), 87–94.

[20] Hayes, A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom, 92.

[21] For a list of possible Egyptian interpretations, see James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 85–87.

[22] Alma 46:19; see the commentary in Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part 4 (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2007), 2541–42; Royal Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Part Three: The Nature of the Original Language (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2018), 162.

[23] HALOT, 1:108.

[24] Danijela Stefanovič, The Holders of Regular Military Titles in the Period of the Middle Kingdom: Dossiers (London: Golden House Publications, 2006), 156–69; William A. Ward, Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1982), 155.

[25] Svetlana Hodjash and Oleg Berlev, The Egyptian Reliefs and Stelae in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow (Leningrad: Aurora Art Publishers, 1982), 85n38; compare Stefanovič, The Holders of Regular Military Titles in the Period of the Middle Kingdom, 90; Ward, Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles, 7–8.

[26] Ward, Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles, 21; compare James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 84.

[27] UC 32167, in Mark Collier and Stephen Quirke, The UCL Lahun Papyri: Religious, Literary, Legal, Mathematical and Medical (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2004), 118–19.

[28] UC 32166, in Collier and Quirke, The UCL Lahun Papyri: Religious, Literary, Legal, Mathematical and Medical, 116.

[29] Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East (New York: Paulist Press, 1991), 41–45; Susan Tower Hollis, The Ancient Egyptian “Tale of Two Brothers”: A Mythological, Religious, Literary, and Historico-Political Study (Oakville, CT: Bannerstone Press, 2008), 12–13, 107–11.

[30] P. D’Orbiney (BM EA 10183) 2/9–4/2, in Alan H. Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Stories (Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1932), 11–13.

[31] P. D’Orbiney 18/10–19/6, in Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Stories, 28–29.

[32] Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 47–62.

[33] Anthony John Spalinger, Aspects of Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982), 1–33; Donald B. Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books: A Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History (Mississauga, ON: Benben, 1986), 1–230; Marcel Sigrist, Drehem (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1992), 19–21, 44–90; Roberto B. Gozzoli, The Writing of History in Ancient Egypt during the First Millennium BC (ca. 1070–180 BC): Trends and Perspectives (London: Golden House Publications, 2006), 1–8; Maynard Paul Maidman, Nuzi Texts and Their Uses as Historical Evidence (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 1–8; Nicholas Postgate, Bronze Age Bureaucracy: Writing and the Practice of Government in Assyria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 47–85; Shalom E. Holz, Neo-Babylonian Trial Records (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), 3–9; Mario Liverani, Assyria: The Imperial Mission (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017).

[34] The scribe apparently placed a stroke in the wrong place, resulting in switching the pronouns (see Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Stories, 11a) so that the manuscript actually reads: “Get up so that I can give you seed.” The term for seed, prt, means both seed-corn and descendants, and so it does have the sexual connotation whether it is emended or not. For the term, see Rainer Hannig, Ägyptisches Wörterbuch I: Altes Reich and Erste Zwischenzeit (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 2003), 467; Rainer Hannig, Ägyptisches Wörterbuch II: Mittleres Reich and Zweite Zwischenzeit (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 2006) 1:926–27; R. O. Faulkner, Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1962), 91; Adolf Erham and Hermann Grapow, Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1926), 1:530–31. This term is also borrowed into Hebrew.

[35] P. D’Orbiney 2/7–3/6, in Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Stories, 11–12.

[36] Jac. J. Janssen, Commodity Prices from the Ramessid Period (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), 109.

[37] For examples, see W. M. Flinders Petrie, Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, and Co., 1890), pl. XV; W. Stevenson Smith and William Kelly Simpson, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998), 93.

[38] MMA 20.3.13, in William C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1953), 1:262–63.

[39] P. D’Orbiney 3/6–7, in Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Stories, 12.

[40] P. D’Orbiney 1/2 , in Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Stories, 9.

[41] Gillian M. Vogelsang-Eastwood, “Weaving, Looms, and Textiles,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, ed. Donald B. Redford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 3:491.

[42] Erich Lüddeckens, Ägyptische Eheverträge (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1960); P. W. Pestman, Marriage and Matrimonial Property in Ancient Egypt (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961), 91–102.

[43] P. D’Orbiney 3/7–4/2, in Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Stories, 12–13.

[44] Janssen, Commodity Prices from the Ramessid Period, 250–51.

[45] MMA 09.180.13ab, in William C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1953), 1:186; MMA 22.1.200, in Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, 1:206; MMA 24.1.45, in Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt, 1:208; MMA 30.8.76, in Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, 1:214; MMA 20.3.12, in Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, 1:263; MMA 20.3.12, in Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, 1:264; MMA 36.5, in Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt, 1:266; MMA 20.3.6, in Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, 1:269; MMA 20.3.4, in Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, 1:270; MMA 12.184, in Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, 1:298; Smith and Simpson, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, 111; JE 45625, in Francesco Tiradritti, Egyptian Treasures from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1999), 124–25.

[46] MMA 07.228.180, in Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, 1:211; MMA 20.3.1, 3, in Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, 1:268; MMA 12.183.4, in Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, 1:273.

[47] MMA 10.176.57, 58, 59, 60, in Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, 1:212.

[48] Lyn Green, “Clothing and Personal Adornment,” in Redford, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, 1:275.

[49] P. Westcar 2/2–4/17, in A. M. Blackman, The Story of King Kheops and the Magicians (Reading: J. V. Books, 1988), 1–5; Stephen Quirke, Egyptian Literature 1800 BC (London: Golden House Publications, 2004), 77–81.

[50] P. Westcar 4/9–10, in Blackman, The Story of King Kheops and the Magicians, 4; Quirke, Egyptian Literature 1800 BC, 80–81.

[51] P. D’Orbiney 8/7–8, 9/5, 9, in Gardiner, Late Egyptian Stories, 18–19.

[52] P. BM EA 10416, in John Gee, “Notes on Egyptian Marriage: P. BM 10416 Reconsidered,” Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 15 (2001): 17, 19–20.

[53] Sandra Lippert, Einführung in die altägyptische Rechtsgeschichte (Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2012), 66.

[54] P. Amherst 3/6, in T. Eric Peet, The Great Tomb-Robberies of the Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty (Oxford: Clarendon, 1930), 2:pl. V; P. BM EA 10052 1/13, in Peet, The Great Tomb-Robberies, 2:pl. XXV; P. BM EA 10054 v 1/4, in Peet, The Great Tomb-Robberies, 2:pl. VII; P. BM EA 10403 3/1, in Peet, The Great Tomb-Robberies, 2:pl. XXXVII; Lippert, Einführung in die altägyptische Rechtsgeschichte, 66, 79–82.

[55] P. 2/63–64, in Gardiner, Late Egyptian Stories, 73.

[56] P. 2/70–73, in Gardiner, Late Egyptian Stories, 74.

[57] P. Amherst 4/2–4, in Peet, The Great Tomb-Robberies, 2:pl. V.

[58] P. Onch. 4/6–8, in S. R. K. Glanville, The Instructions of ꜥOnchsheshonqy (London: British Museum, 1955), pl. 4; Friedhelm Hoffmann and Joachim Freidrich Quack, Anthologie der demotischen Literatur (Berlin: LIT, 2007), 279.

[59] Stephen Quirke, The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom (Surrey, UK: Sia Publishing, 1990), 44.

[60] Quirke, The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom, 42.

[61] Quirke, The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom, 111.

[62] P. Chester Beatty III, in Alan H. Gardiner, Chester Beatty Gift (London: British Museum, 1935), 9–22, 2:pl. 5–12a; P. Carlsberg XIII and P. Carlsberg XIV verso, in Aksel Volten, Demotische Traumdeutung (Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard, 1942).

[63] P. W. Pestman, “Who Were the Owners, in the ‘Community of Workmen’, of the Chester Beatty Papyri,” in Gleanings from Deir el-Medîna, ed. R. J. Demarée and Jac. J. Janssen (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1982), 155–72.

[64] Benedict G. Davies, Who’s Who at Deir el-Medina: A Prosopographic Study of the Royal Workmen’s Community (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1999), 84–86.

[65] P. Chester Beatty III r 5/9, in Gardiner, Chester Beatty Gift, 2:pl. 6.

[66] P. Chester Beatty III r 7/21, in Gardiner, Chester Beatty Gift, 2:pl. 7.

[67] Manfried Dietich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaqín Sanmartin, Die keilslphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani und anderen Orten (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2013), 634.

[68] Abdel Ghaffar Shedid, The Tomb of Nakht: The Art and History of an Eighteenth Dynastie Official’s Tomb at Western Thebes (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1996), 42.

[69] Shedid, The Tomb of Nakht, 56–57, 65, 76–78.

[70] P. D’Orbiney 8/6, in Gardiner, Late Egyptian Stories, 18.

[71] P. Chester Beatty III r 3/5, in Gardiner, Chester Beatty Gift, 2:pl. 5.

[72] P. Chester Beatty III r 6/8, in Gardiner, Chester Beatty Gift, 2:pl. 6.

[73] P. Chester Beatty III r 3/4, in Gardiner, Chester Beatty Gift, 2:pl. 5.

[74] P. Chester Beatty III r 5/16, in Gardiner, Chester Beatty Gift, 2:pl. 6.

[75] P. Chester Beatty III r 7/20, in Gardiner, Chester Beatty Gift, 2:pl. 7.

[76] Compare Georg Möller, Hieratische Paläographie (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1909), 1:26 (#270) with 1:1:28 (#293).

[77] John Gee, “On the Practice of Sealing in the Book of the Dead and the Coffin Texts,” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 35 (2008): 108–17.

[78] Benjamin J. Noonan, Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible (University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2019), 215.

[79] The others being (in descending order of quality): šmꜥ nfr “fine thin cloth,” šmꜥ “thin cloth,” and nꜥꜥ “smooth cloth.” Janssen, Commodity Prices from the Ramessid Period, 256.

[80] Denise M. Doxey, Egyptian Non-Royal Epithets in the Middle Kingdom (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998), 184, 198.

[81] HALOT 1:173; Noonan, Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible, 79–80.

[82] Hannig, Ägyptisches Wörterbuch II: Mittleres Reich und Zweite Zwischenzeit, 2:2513; Janssen, Commodity Prices from the Ramessid Period, 433.

[83] Specifically, it would require a shift between Egyptian q and Semitic g and Egyptian ḥ and Semitic ʿ. But while Egyptian q can go to Semitic g, Egyptian ḥ only goes to Semitic ḥ or ḫ. Semitic ʿ can only derive from Egyptian ꜥ. See James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 431–37; Yoshiyuki Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 260–61, 267.

[84] Geraldine Pinch, Votive Offerings to Hathor (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1993), 313; A. F. Shore, “A Silver Libation Bowl from Egypt,” The British Museum Quarterly 29,1–2 (1964–65): 21–25.

[85] Pinch, Votive Offerings to Hathor, 308–15; Gifts of the Nile: Ancient Egyptian Faience, ed. Florence Dunn Friedman (London: Thames and Hudson, 1998), 112–13.

[86] Janine Bourriau and Stephen Quirke, “The Late Middle Kingdom Ceramic Repertoire in Words and Objects,” in Lahun Studies, ed. Stephen Quirke (Reigate, Surrey: Sia Publishing, 1998), 81.

[87] Bourriau and Quirke, “The Late Middle Kingdom Ceramic Repertoire in Words and Objects,” 64.

[88] For example, see P. Mag. 9/1, in F. Ll. Griffith and Herbert Thompson, The Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden (London: H. Grevel & Co., 1905), 2:pl. IX.

[89] P. Mag. 1/1–3/35; 9/1–10/22; 14/1–33; 18/7–33; 21/1–9; 28/1–15; verso 22/1–20; 26/1–9.

[90] P. Mag. 10/10; 28/4–5.

[91] P. Mag. 10/11.

[92] P. Mag. 3/13, in Griffith and Thompson, The Demotic Magical Papyrus, 2:pl. III.

[93] P. Mag. 1/8, 3/14, in Griffith and Thompson, The Demotic Magical Papyrus, 2:pl. I, III.

[94] P. Mag. 3/9–10, in Griffith and Thompson, The Demotic Magical Papyrus, 2:pl. III.

[95] P. Mag. 3/14–15, in Griffith and Thompson, The Demotic Magical Papyrus, 2:pl. III.

[96] P. Mag. 2/1, in Griffith and Thompson, The Demotic Magical Papyrus, 2:pl. II.

[97] P. Mag. 2/15, 28–3/5, in Griffith and Thompson, The Demotic Magical Papyrus, 2:pl. II–III.

[98] P. Prisse 5/12–13, in E. Prisse d’Avennes, Fac-simile d’un papyrus égyptien en caractères hiératiques. Trouvé à Thebes (Paris, 1847; repr., Wiesbaden: LTR-Verlag, 1982), pl. V.

[99] Newberry, Beni Hasan, Part I, pl. XXXI.

[100] Ann Macy Roth, Egyptian Phyles in the Old Kingdom: The Evolution of a System of Social Organization (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1991), 66–68.

[101] Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, 1:240–47.

[102] P. Prisse 6/2–3, in Prisse d’Avennes, Fac-simile d’un papyrus égyptien, pl. VI.

[103] P. Prisse 9/13–10/1, in Prisse d’Avennes, Fac-simile d’un papyrus égyptien, pl. IX–X.

[104] P. Prisse 8/6–7, in Prisse d’Avennes, Fac-simile d’un papyrus égyptien, pl. VIII.

[105] P. Prisse 13/4–5, in Prisse d’Avennes, Fac-simile d’un papyrus égyptien, pl. XIII.

[106] Genesis 41:42 LXX.