Joseph

JOSEPH

1. The son of Jacob and his beloved Rachel, born in Mesopotamia, Gen 30:22-24, B. C. 1747. He is memorable for the wonderful providence of God, which raised him from a prison to be the grandvizier of Egypt, and made him the honored means of saving countless human lives. His history is one of the most pleasing and instructive in the Bible; and is related in language inimitably natural, simple, and touching. It is too beautiful for abridgment, and too familiar to need rehearsal. It throws much light on the superintending providence of God, as embracing all things, great and small in the perpetual unfolding of his universal plan. No narrative in the Bible more strikingly illustrates the protective and elevating power of the fear of God, and its especial value for the young. To behold this lovely image of filial piety and unwavering faith, of self-control in youth and patience in adversity, of discretion and fidelity in all stations of life, serenely walking with God through all, and at death intrusting soul and body alike into his hands, Heb 11:22 ; may well lead the young reader to cry, Oh that the God of Joseph were my God, Gen 37:1-36 39:1-50:26. Joseph died, aged on hundred and ten, B. C. 1637; and when the Israelites, a century and a half later, went up from Egypt, they took his bones, and at length buried them in Shechem, Exo 13:19 Jos 24:32 . A Mohammedan wely or tomb covers the spot regarded generally, and it may be correctly, as the place of his burial. It is a low stone enclosure, and stands in quiet seclusion among high trees, at the western entrance of the valley of Shechem, at the right of the traveller’s path and nearer mount Ebal than mount Gerizim.2. The husband of Mary, Christ’s mother. His genealogy is traced in Mat 1:1-15, to David, Judah, and Abraham. See GENEALOGY. His residence was at Nazareth in Galilee, where he followed the occupation of a carpenter, to which Christ also was trained, Mar 6:3 . He was a pious and honorable man, as appears from his whole course towards Mary and her son. They both attended the Passover at Jerusalem when Christ was twelve years of age, Luk 2:41-51 ; and as no more is said of him in the sacred narrative, and Christ committed Mary to the care of one of his disciples, he is generally supposed to have died before Christ began his public ministry. He seems to have been well known among the Jews, Mar 6:3 Joh 6:42 .3. A native of Arimathea, but at the time of Christ’s crucifixion a resident at Jerusalem. He was doubtless a believer in the Messiah, and “waited for the kingdom of God.” He was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrim, and opposed in vain their action in condemning the Savior, Luk 23:51 . When all was over, he “went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.” It was now night and the Jewish Sabbath was at hand. He therefore, with the aid of Nicodemus, wrapped the body in spices, for the time, and laid it in his own tomb, Mar 15:43-46 Joh 19:38-42 .4. A disciple of Christ, also named Justus, and Barsabas. See BARSABAS.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Joseph

()

1. The elder of Jacobs two sons by Rachel, the eleventh Patriarch, the ancestor of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. In St. Stephens address before the Sanhedrin reference is made to Josephs being sold by his brothers, Gods presence with him in Egypt, his promotion to be governor of the land, his manifestation of himself to his brethren, his invitation to his father and all his kindred to migrate to Egypt (Act 7:9-14), and finally, at a much later date, the rise of a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph (7:18).

The question of the historicity of the narrative in Genesis was never raised by the Apostolic Church, nor by the modern Church till the dawn of the age of criticism. The critical verdict is that the story is based upon facts which have been idealized in the spirit of the earlier Hebrew prophets. That the tradition of a Hebrew minister in Egypt, who saved the country in time of famine, should be true in essentials is by no means improbable (J. Skinner, Genesis [International Critical Commentary , 1910] 441). Driver thinks it credible that an actual person, named Joseph, underwent substantially the experiences recounted of him in Gn. (Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) ii. 771b). See H. Gunkel, Genesis, 1910, p. 356f.

In Heb 11:21 allusion is made to the blessing received by Josephs two sons from his dying father. In Heb 11:22 Joseph is placed on the roll of the elders-saints of the OT-who by their words and deeds gave evidence of their faith. The particular facts selected as proving his grasp of things unseen-which is the essence of faith (Heb 11:1)-are his death-bed prediction of the exodus of the children of Israel and his commandment regarding the disposal of his bones (Gen 50:24-25; cf. Jos 24:32). Though he was an Egyptian governor, speaking the Egyptian language, and married to an Egyptian wife, he was at heart an unchanged Hebrew, and his dying eyes beheld the land from which he had been exiled as a boy, the homeland of every true Israelite.

2. Joseph Barsabbas, surnamed Justus, was one of those who accompanied Jesus during His whole public ministry and witnessed His Resurrection. He was therefore nominated, along with Matthias, for the office made vacant by the treachery and death of Judas Iscariot (Act 1:21-23). After prayer the lot fell upon Matthias (Act 1:26). It is admitted even by radical critics that Jesus deliberately chose twelve disciples (corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel), and it was natural that these should seek to keep their sacred number unimpaired. The name Barsabbas (or Barsabas, C, Vulgate , Syrr.) has been variously explained as child of the Sabbath, son of Sheba, warrior, or old mans son. The Roman surname Justus was adopted in accordance with a Jewish custom which prevailed at the time-cf. John whose surname was Marcus (Act 12:12; Act 12:25), and Saul, who is also Paulus (Act 13:9). It is a natural conjecture-no more-that this Joseph was the brother of Judas Barsabbas (Act 15:22). Eusebius (HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] i. 12) regards him as one of the Seventy (Luk 10:1), and records (iii. 39) that a wonderful event happened respecting Justus, surnamed Barsabbas, who, though he drank a deadly poison, experienced nothing injurious ( ), by the grace of God.

3. Joseph, surnamed Barnabas (Act 4:36). See Barnabas.

James Strahan.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

Joseph

(Hebrew: may God add)

Patriarch, eleventh son of Jacob, first-born of Rachel, immediate ancestor of the tribes of Manasses and Ephraim. His father’s favorite, he was hated by his brothers, who sold him into bondage to the Ismaelites (Genesis 37). Taken into Egypt, he was kindly treated and became the personal attendant of his Egyptian master, Putiphar, eunuch of Pharao (Genesis 39). His skill in interpreting dreams brought him to the notice of Pharao who made him keeper of the royal seal and second in power in Egypt. During the famine predicted by him his brothers came from Chanaan to buy grain in Egypt and failed to recognize him. At Joseph’s insistence they returned with Benjamin whereupon Joseph disclosed himself and invited his father and brothers to settle in Gessen (Genesis 47). He died at the age of 110, and his bones were later removed to Sichem in Chanaan (Jos. 24).

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Joseph

The eleventh son of Jacob, the firstborn of Rachel, and the immediate ancestor of the tribes of Manasses and Ephraim. His life is narrated in Gen., xxx, 22-24; xxxvii; xxxix-1, wherein contemporary scholars distinguish three chief documents (J, E, P). (See ABRAHAM) The date of his eventful career can be fixed only approximately at the present day, for the Biblical account of Joseph’s life does not name the particular Pharaoh of his time, and the Egyptian customs and manners therein alluded to are not decisive as to any special period in Egyptian history. His term of office in Egypt falls probably under one of the later Hyksos kings (see EGYPT). His name, either contracted from Jehoseph (Psalm 81:6, in the Hebrew) or abbreviated from Joseph-El (cf. Karnak inscription of Thothmes III, no. 78), is distinctly connected in Gen., xxx, 23, 24, with the circumstances of his birth and is interpreted: “may God add”. He was born in Haran, of Rachel, Jacob’s beloved and long-barren wife, and became the favourite son of the aged patriarch. After Jacob’s return to Chanaan, various circumstances made Joseph the object of the mortal hatred of his brothers. He had witnessed some very wicked deed of several among them, and they knew that it had been reported to their father. Moreover, in his partiality to Joseph, Jacob gave him an ample garment of many colours, and this manifest proof of the patriarch’s greater love for him aroused the jealousy of Joseph’s brothers to such an extent that “they could not speak peaceably to him”. Finally, with the imprudence of youth, Joseph told his brothers two dreams which clearly portended his future elevation over them all, but which, for the present, simply caused them to hate him all the more (Genesis 37:1-11). In this frame of mind, they seized upon the first opportunity to get rid of the one of whom they spoke as “the dreamer”. As they fed their father’s flocks in Dothain (now Tell Dothain, about fifteen miles north of Sichem), they saw from afar Joseph, who had been sent by Jacob to inquire about their welfare, coming to them, and they at once resolved to reduce to naught all his dreams of future greatness. At this point the narrative in Genesis combines two distinct accounts of the manner in which the brothers of Joseph actually carried out their intention of avenging themselves upon him. These accounts present slight variations, which are examined in detail by recent commentators on Genesis, and which, far from destroying, rather confirm the historical character of the fact that, through the enmity of his brothers, Joseph was brought down to Egypt. To protect themselves they dipped Joseph’s fine garment into the blood of a kid, and sent it to their father. At the sight of this blood-stained garment, Jacob naturally believed that a wild beast had devoured his beloved son, and he gave himself up to the most intense grief (xxxvii, 12-35).

While thus bewailed as dead by his father, Joseph was sold into Egypt, and treated with the utmost consideration and the greatest confidence by his Egyptian master, to whom Gen., xxxvii, 36, gives the name of Putiphar [“He whom Ra (the sun-god) gave”] and whom it describes as Pharaoh’s eunuch and as the captain of the royal body-guard (cf. xxxix, 1). Quick and trustworthy, Joseph soon became his master’s personal attendant. He was next entrusted with the superintendence of his master’s house, a most extensive and responsible charge, such as was unusual in large Egyptian households. With Yahweh’s blessing, all things, “both at home and in the field”, became so prosperous under Joseph’s management that his master trusted him implicitly, and “knew not any other things, save the bread which he ate”. While thus discharging with perfect success his manifold duties of major-domo (Egyp. mer-per), Joseph was often brought in contact with the lady of the house, for at that time there was as much free intercourse between men and women in Egypt as there is among us in the present day. Oftentimes she noticed the youthful and handsome Hebrew overseer, and carried away by passion, she repeatedly tempted him to commit adultery with her, till at length, resenting his virtuous conduct, she accused him of those very criminal solicitations wherewith she had herself pursued him. The credulous master believed the report of his wife, and in his wrath cast Joseph into prison. There also Yahweh was with His faithful servant: He gave him favour with the keeper of the prison, who soon placed in Joseph implicit confidence, and even committed to his charge the other prisoners (xxxix, 2-23). Shortly afterwards two of Pharaoh’s officers, the chief butler and chief baker, having incurred the royal displeasure for some reason unknown to us, were put in ward in the house of the captain of the guard. They also were placed under Joseph’s charge, and as he came in to them one morning, he noticed their unusual sadness. They could not catch the meaning of a dream which each had had during the night, and there was no professional interpreter of dreams near at hand. Then it was that Joseph interpreted their dreams correctly, bidding the chief butler to remember him when restored to his office, as indeed he was three days after, on Pharaoh’s birthday (xl). Two years rolled by, after which the monarch himself had two dreams, the one of the fat and lean kine, and the other of the full and withered ears. Great was Pharaoh’s perplexity at these dreams, which no one in the realm could interpret. This occurrence naturally reminded the chief butler of Joseph’s skill in interpreting dreams, and he mentioned to the king what had happened in his own case and in that of the chief baker. Summoned before Pharaoh, Joseph declared that both dreams signified that seven years of plenty would immediately be followed by seven years of famine, and further suggested that one-fifth of he produce of the years of plenty be laid by as provision for the years of famine. Deeply impressed by the clear and plausible interpretation of his dreams, and recognizing in Joseph a wisdom more than human, the monarch entrusted to him the carrying out of the practical measure which he had suggested. for this purpose he raised him to the rank of keeper of the royal seal, invested him with an authority second only to that of the throne, bestowed on him the Egyptian name of Zaphenath-paneah (“God spoke, and he came into life”), and gave him to wife Aseneth, the daughter of Putiphares, the priest of the great national sanctuary at On (or Heliopolis, seven miles north east of the modern Cairo).

Soon the seven years of plenty predicted by Joseph set in, during which he stored up corn in each of the cities from which it was gathered, and his wife, Aseneth, bore him two sons whom he called Manasses and Ephraim, from the favorable circumstances of the time of their birth. Next came the seven years of dearth, during which by his skilful management Joseph saved Egypt from the worst features of want and hunger, and not only Egypt, but also the various countries around, which had to suffer from the same grievous and protracted famine (xli). Among these neighbouring countries was counted the land of Chanaan where Jacob had continued to dwell with Joseph’s eleven brothers. Having heard that corn was sold in Egypt, the aged patriarch sent his sons thither to purchase some, keeping back, however, Rachel’s second child, Benjamin, “lest perhaps he take harm in the journey”. Admitted into Joseph’s presence, his brothers failed to recognize in the Egyptian grandee before them the lad whom they had so cruelly treated twenty years before. He roughly accused them of being spies sent to discover the undefended passes of the eastern frontier of Egypt, and when they volunteered information about their family, he, desirous of ascertaining the truth concerning Benjamin, retained one of them as hostage in prison and sent the others home to bring back their youngest brother with them. On their return to their father, or at their first lodging-place on the way, they discovered the money which Joseph had ordered to be placed in their sacks. Great was their anxiety and that of Jacob, who for a time refused to allow his sons to return to Egypt in company with Benjamin. At length he yielded under the pressure of famine, sending, at the same time, a present to conciliate the favour of the Egyptian prime minister. at the sight of Benjamin Joseph understood that his brothers had told him the truth at their first appearance before him, and he invited them to a feast in his own house. At the feast he caused them to be seated exactly according to their age, and he honoured Benjamin with “a greater mess”, as a mark of distinction (xlii-xliii). Then they left for home, unsuspecting that at Joseph’s order his divining cup had been hidden in Benjamin’s sack. They were soon overtaken, charged with theft of that precious cup, which, upon search, was found in the sack where it had been hidden. In their dismay they returned in a body to Joseph’s house, and offered to remain as his bondmen in Egypt, an offer which Joseph declined, declaring that he would only retain Benjamin. Whereupon Juda pleads most pathetically that, for the sake of his aged father, Benjamin be dismissed free, and that he be allowed to remain in his brother’s place as Joseph’s bondman. Then it was that Joseph disclosed himself to his brothers, calmed their fears, and sent them back with a pressing invitation to Jacob to come and settle in Egypt (xliv-xlv, 24).

It was in the land of Gessen, a pastoral district about forty miles north-east of Cairo, that Joseph called his father and brothers to settle. There they lived as prosperous shepherds of the king, while in their misery the Egyptians were gradually reduced to sell their lands to the Crown, in order to secure their subsistence from the all-powerful prime minister of Pharaoh. And so Joseph brought it to pass that the former owners of landed property — with the exception, however, of the priests — became simple tenants of the king and paid to the royal treasury, as it were, an annual rent of one-fifth of the produce of the soil (xlvi, 28-xlvii, 26). During Jacob’s last moments, Joseph promised his father that he would bury him in Chanaan, and caused him to adopt his two sons, Manasses and Ephraim (xlvii, 25-xlviii). After his father’s demise, he had his body embalmed and buried with great pomp in the Cave of Machpelah (l, 1-14). He also allayed the fears of his brothers who dreaded that he should now avenge their former ill-treatment of him. He died at the age of 110, and his body was embalmed and put in a coffin in Egypt (l, 15-25). Ultimately, his remains were carried into Chanaan and buried in Sichem (Exodus 13:19; Joshua 24:32).

Such, in substance, is the Biblical account of Joseph’s career. In its wonderful simplicity, it sketches one of the most beautiful characters presented by Old-Testament history. As a boy, Joseph has the most vivid horror for the evil done by some of his brothers; and as a youth, he resists with unflinching courage the repeated and pressing solicitations of his master’s wife. Cast into prison, he displays great power of endurance, trusting to God for his justification. When raised to the rank of viceroy of Egypt, he shows himself worthy of that exalted dignity by his skilful and energetic efforts to promote the welfare of his adopted countrymen and the extension of his master’s power. A character so beautiful made Joseph a most worthy type of Christ, the model of all perfection, and it is comparatively easy to point out some of the traits of resemblance between Jacob’s beloved son and the dearly beloved Son of God. Like Jesus, Joseph was hated and cast out by his brethren, and yet wrought out their salvation through the sufferings they had brought upon him. Like Jesus, Joseph obtained his exaltation only after passing through the deepest and most undeserved humiliations; and, in the kingdom over which he ruled, he invited his brethren to join those whom heretofore they had looked upon as strangers, in order that they also might enjoy the blessings which he had stored up for them. Like the Saviour of the world, Joseph had but words of forgiveness and blessing for all who, recognizing their misery, had recourse to his supreme power. It was to Joseph of old, as to Jesus, that all had to appeal for relief, offer homages of the deepest respect, and yield ready obedience in all things. Finally, to the Patriarch Joseph, as to Jesus, it was given to inaugurate a new order of things for the greater power and glory of the monarch to whom he owed his exaltation.

While thus recognizing the typical meaning of Joseph’s career, one should not for a moment lose sight of the fact that one is in presence of a distinctly historical character. Efforts have indeed been made in certain quarters to transform the history of Joseph into a story of a tribe of the same name which, at some remote period, would have attained to great power in Egypt, and which, at a much later date, popular imagination would have simply pictured as an individual. But such a view of the Biblical account is decidedly inadmissible. To careful scholars it will always appear more difficult to think of Joseph as a tribe that rose to power in Egypt than as an individual who actually passed through the experiences which are described in Genesis. Again, they will always look upon the incidents narrated in the sacred record as too natural, and too closely related, to be entirely the product of fiction. The same historical character of the Biblical narrative is powerfully confirmed by the substantial agreement which contemporary critics feel bound to admit between the two principal documents (J, E), which, according to them, have been used in its composition: such an agreement points manifestly to an earlier oral tradition, which, when committed to writing in two distinct forms, was not materially affected by the altered circumstances of a later age. It is finally put beyond the possibility of a doubt by the Egyptian colouring which is common to both these documents, and which will be presently described. This Egyptian element is no mere literary dress with which the poplar fancy of a later date and in a distant land could have vested more or less happily the incidents narrated. It belongs to the very core of the history of Joseph, and is plainly a direct reflection of the manners and customs of ancient Egypt. Its constant truthfulness to things Egyptian proves the existence of an ancient tradition, dating as far back as the Egyptian period, and faithfully preserved in the composite account of Genesis.

The extent of the Egyptian colouring just referred to in the history of Joseph has been closely investigated by recent scholars. The brown-skinned children of Israel, who brought camels richly laden from the East to the Nile, are drawn to life on the Egyptian monuments, and the three kinds of spices they were carrying into Egypt are precisely those which would be in demand in that country for medicinal, religious, or embalming purposes. The existence of various overseers in the houses of Egyptian grandees is in perfect harmony with ancient Egyptian society, and the mer-per or superintendent of the house, such as Joseph was, is in particular often mentioned on the monuments. To the story of Joseph and his master’s wife, there is a remarkable and well-known parallel in the Egyptian “Tale of the Two Brothers”. The functions and dreams of the chief butler and chief baker are Egyptian in their minute details. In the seven cows which Pharaoh saw feeding in the meadow, we have a counterpart of the seven cows of Athor, pictured in the vignette of chapter cxlviii of the “Book of the Dead”. Joseph’s care to shave and change his raiment before appearing in the presence of Pharaoh, is in agreement with Egyptian customs. His advice to gather corn during the seven years of plenty falls in with Egyptian institutions, since all important cities were supplied with granaries. Joseph’s investiture, his change of name at his elevation, can be easily illustrated by reference to the Egyptian monuments. The occurrence of famines of long duration, the successful efforts made to supply the corn to the people year after year while they lasted, find their parallels in recently discovered inscriptions. The charge of being spies, made by Joseph against his brothers, was most natural in view of the precautions known to have been taken by the Egyptian authorities for the safety of their Eastern frontier. The subsequent history of Joseph, his divining cup, his giving to his brothers changes of garments, the land of Gessen being set apart for his father and brethren, because the shepherd was an abomination to the Egyptians, Joseph’s embalming of his father, the funeral procession for Jacob’s burial, etc., exhibit in a striking manner the great accuracy of the Biblical account in its numerous and oftentimes passing references to Egyptian habits and customs. Even the age of 110 years, at which Joseph died, appears to have been regarded in Egypt — as is shown by several papyri — as the most perfect age to be desired.

———————————–

FRANCIS E. GIGOT Transcribed by Paul T. Crowley Dedicated to Mr. Michael Crowley and Mr. Neal Crowley and Families

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIIICopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Joseph

(Heb. Yoseph’, , containing, according to Gen 30:23-24, a two-fold significance [the two Heb. roots coinciding in form in Hiphil], remover, from , and increaser, from , the latter favored by the uncontracted or Chaldaistic form Yehoseph’, , occurring only Psa 81:6; Sept. and N.T. , i.q. Josephus), the name of several men in the Scriptures and Josephus, all doubtless after the first of the name, whose beautiful history is told at length in the Scriptures with inimitable simplicity. SEE JOSEPHUS.

I. The elder son of Jacob and Rachel, born (B.C. 1913; comp. Gen 41:46) under peculiar circumstances, as may be seen in Gen 30:22; on which account, and because he was the son of his old age (Gen 37:3), he was beloved by his father more than were the rest of his children, though Benjamin, as being also a son of Jacob’s favorite wife Rachel, was in a peculiar manner dear to the patriarch. The partiality evinced towards Joseph by his father excited jealousy on the part of his brethren, the rather as they were born of different mothers (Gen 37:2). Jacob at this time had two small pieces of land in Canaan, Abraham’s burying place at Hebron in the south, and the “parcel of a field, where he [Jacob] had spread his tent” (Gen 33:19), at Shechem in the north, the latter being probably, from its price, the lesser of the two. He seems then to have stayed at Hebron with the aged Isaac, while his sons kept his flocks.

1. Joseph had reached his seventeenth year, having hitherto been engaged in boyish sports, or aiding in pastoral duties, when some conduct on the part of “the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives,” seems to have been such as, in the opinion of Joseph, to require the special attention of Jacob, to whom accordingly he communicated the facts. This regard to virtue, and this manifestation of filial fidelity, greatly increased his brothers’ dislike, who henceforth “hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him” (Gen 37:4). Their jealousy was aggravated by the fact that Jacob had shown his preference by making him a dress (), which appears to have been a long tunic with sleeves, worn by youths and maidens of the richer class. SEE ATTIRE.

Their aversion, however, was carried to the highest pitch when Joseph acquainted them with the two dreams that he had had, to the effect the first, that while he and they were binding sheaves, his sheaf arose and stood erect, while theirs stood round and did obeisance to his; the second, that “the sun and the moon and the eleven stars did him homage.” These dreams appeared to indicate that Joseph would acquire preeminence in the family, if not sovereignty; and while even his father rebuked him, his brothers were filled with envy (Gen 37:11). Jacob, however, was not aware of the depth of their ill will; so that, on one occasion, having a desire to hear intelligence of his sons, who were pasturing their flocks at a distance, he did not hesitate to make Joseph his messenger for that purpose. They had gone to Shechem to feed the flock and Joseph was sent thither from the vale of Hebron by his father to bring him word of their welfare and that of the flock. They were not at Shechem, but had gone to Dothan, which appears to have been not very far distant, pasturing their flock like the Arabs of the present day, wherever the wild country (Gen 37:22) was unowned. His appearing in view of his brothers was the signal for their malice to gain head.

They began to devise means for his immediate destruction, which they would have unhesitatingly effected but for his half brother Reuben, who, as the eldest son might well be the party to interfere on behalf of Joseph. A compromise was entered into, in virtue of which the youth was stripped of the distinguishing vestments which he owed to his father’s affection, and cast into a pit. Having performed this evil deed, and while they were taking refreshment, the brothers beheld a caravan of Arabian merchants (Ishmaelites =Midianites), who were bearing the spices and aromatic gums of India down to the well known and much frequented mart, Egypt. Judah on this feels a better emotion arise in his mind, and proposes that instead of allowing Joseph to perish, they should sell him to the merchants, whose trade obviously from this embraced human beings as well as spicery. Accordingly the unhappy young man was sold for a slave (at the price of twenty shekels of silver, a sort of fixed rate: see Lev 27:5), to be conveyed by his masters into Egypt. While on his way thither, Reuben returned to the pit, intending to rescue his brother, and convey him safely back to their father. Finding Joseph gone, he returned with expostulations to the wicked young men, who, so far from relenting, now concerted a fresh act of treachery, by which at once to cover their crime and also punish their father for his partiality towards the unoffending sufferer. With this view they dipped Joseph’s party colored garment in the blood of a kid and sent it to Jacob in order to make him believe that his favorite child had been torn to pieces by some wild beast. The trick succeeded, and Jacob was grieved beyond measure (Gen 38:12-30). B.C. 1895.

2. Meanwhile the merchants sold Joseph to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, and captain of the royal guard, who was a native of the country (Gen 37:36). It is by no means easy to determine who at this time was the Pharaoh, or ruling monarch, though, what is far more important, the condition of the country, and therein the progress of civilization, are in certain general and important features made clear in the course of the narration. According to Syncellus, however, the general opinion in his day was that the sovereign’s name who ruled Egypt at the time of the deportation of Joseph was Aphophis. SEE EGYPT.

In Potiphar’s house Joseph enjoyed the highest confidence and the largest prosperity. A higher power watched over him; and whatever he undertook succeeded, till at length his master gave everything into his hands. He was placed over all his master’s property with perfect trust, and “the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake” (Gen 37:5). The sculptures and paintings of the ancient Egyptian tombs bring vividly before us the daily life and duties of Joseph. The property of great men is shown to have been managed by scribes, who exercised a most methodical and minute supervision over all the operations of agriculture, gardening, the keeping of livestock, and fishing. Every product was carefully registered to check the dishonesty of the laborers, who in Egypt have always been famous in this respect. Probably in no country was farming ever more systematic. Joseph’s previous knowledge of tending flocks, and perhaps of husbandry, and his truthful character, exactly fitted him for the post of overseer.

The Hebrew race have always been remarkable for personal beauty, of which Joseph seems, to have had an unusual share. This fact explains, though, it cannot palliate, the conduct of Potiphar’s wife, who, with the well known profligacy of the Egyptian women; tried every means to bring the pure minded youth to fulfill her unchaste desires. Foiled in her evil wishes, she resolved to punish Joseph, who thus a second time innocently brings on himself the vengeance of the ill disposed. Charged with the very crime to which he had in vain been tempted; he is, with a fickleness characteristic of Oriental lords, at once cast into the state prison. (Genesis 39). If the suddenness and magnitude of this and other changes in the lot of Joseph should surprise anyone, the feeling will be mainly owing to his want of acquaintance with the manners and customs of the East, where vicissitudes not less marked and sudden than are those presented in our present history are not uncommon; for those who come into the charmed circle of an Eastern court, especially if they are persons of great energy of character, are subject to the most wonderful alternations of fortune, the slave of today being the vizier of tomorrow, and vice versa.

It must not be supposed, from the lowness of the morals of the Egyptians in practice, that the sin of unfaithfulness in a wife was not ranked among the heaviest vices. The punishment of adulterers was severe, and a moral tale, entitled “The Two Brothers” (contained in a papyrus of the 19th dynasty, found in the British Museum, and translated in the Cambridge Essays for 1858), is founded upon a case nearly resembling that of Joseph. It has, indeed, been imagined that this story was based upon the trial of Joseph, and as it was written for the heir to the throne of Egypt at a later period, there is some reason in the idea that the virtue of one who had held so high a position as Joseph might have been in the mind of the writer, were this part of his history well known to the priests, which, however, is not likely. This incident, moreover, is not so remarkable as to justify great stress being laid upon the similarity to it of the main event of a moral tale. The story of Bellerophon might as reasonably be traced to it, were it Egyptian and not Greek. The Muslims have founded upon the history of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, whom they call Yusuf and Zelikha, a famous religious allegory. This is much to be wondered at, as the Koran relates the tempting of Joseph with no material variation in the main particulars from the authentic narrative. The commentators say that, after the death of Potiphar (Kitfir), Joseph married Zelikha (Sale, chap. 12). This mistake was probably caused by the circumstance that Joseph’s father-in-law bore the same name as his master.

Potiphar, although believing Joseph guilty, does not appear to have brought him before a tribunal, where the enormity of his alleged crime, especially after the trust placed in him, and the fact of his being a foreigner, which was made much of by his master’s wife (Gen 39:14; Gen 39:17), would probably have insured a punishment of the severest kind. He seems to have only cast him into the prison, which appears to have been in his house, or, at least, under his control since afterwards prisoners are related to have been put “in ward. [in] the house of the captain of the executioners, into the prison” (Gen 40:3), and simply “in ward [in] the captain of the executioners’ house” (Gen 41:10; comp. Gen 40:7). The prison is described as “a place where the king’s prisoners [were] bound” (Gen 39:20). Here the hardest time of Joseph’s period of probation began. He was cast into prison on a false accusation, to remain there for at least two years, and perhaps for a much longer time. At first he was treated with severity; this we learn from Psalms 105, “He sent a mail before them, Joseph [who] was sold for a slave: whose feet they afflicted with the fetter: the iron entered into his soul” (Psa 105:17-18). There is probably here a connection between “fetter” and “iron” (comp. Gen 49:8), in which case the signification of the last clause would be “the iron entered into him,” meaning that the fetters cut his feet or legs. This is not inconsistent with the statement in Genesis that the keeper of the prison treated Joseph well (Gen 39:21), for we are not justified in thence inferring that he was kind from the first. In the prison, as in Potiphar’s house. Joseph was found worthy of complete trust, and the keeper of the prison placed everything under his control, God’s especial blessing attending his honest service. After a while Pharaoh was incensed against two of his officers, “the chief of the cup bearers” ( ), and “the chief of the bakers” (), and cast them into the prison where Joseph was. Here the chief of the executioners, doubtless a successor of Potiphar (for, had the latter been convinced of Joseph’s innocence, he would not have left him in the prison, and if not so convinced he would not have trusted him), charged Joseph to serve these prisoners. Like Potiphar, they were “officers” of Pharaoh (40:2), and though it may be a mistake to call them grandees, their easy access to the king would give them an importance that explains the care taken of them by the chief of the executioners. Each dreamed a prophetic dream, which Joseph correctly interpreted, disclaiming human skill and acknowledging that interpretations were of God. It is not necessary here to discuss in detail the particulars of this part of Joseph’s history, since they do not materially affect the leading events of his life; they are, however, very interesting, from their perfect agreement with the manners of the ancient Egyptians as represented on their monuments. On the authority of Herodotus and others, it was long denied that the vine grew in Egypt; and if so, the imagery of the butler’s dream would hardly have been appropriate. Wilkinson, however, has shown beyond a question that vines did grow in Egypt, and thus not only removed a doubt, but given a positive confirmation of the sacred record (Manners of the Anc. Egypt. 2, 152).

The butler, whose fate was auspicious, promised the young Hebrew to employ his influence to procure his restoration to the free air of day; but when again in the enjoyment of his “butlership,” “he forgat” Joseph (Genesis 40). B.C. 1885. Pharaoh himself, however, had two dreams, which found in Joseph a successful expounder; for the butler remembered the skill of his prison companion, and advised his royal master to put it to the test in his own case. Pharaoh’s dream, as interpreted by. Joseph, foreboded the approach of a seven years’ famine; to abate the evils of which Joseph recommended that some “discreet and wise man” should be chosen and set in full power over the land of Egypt. The monarch was alarmed, and called a council of his advisers. The wisdom of Joseph was recognized as of divine origin and supereminent value; and the king and his ministers (whence it appears that the Egyptian monarchy at Memphis was not despotic, but constitutional) resolved that Joseph should be made (to borrow a term from Rome) dictator in the approaching time of need. “And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath showed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art. Thou shalt be over my house, and according to thy word shall all my people be ruled. only in the throne will I be greater than thou. See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh took off his ring and put it upon Joseph’s hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck; and he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee. SEE ABRECI.

And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnath-paaneah [savior of the world; comp. Jablonsky, Opusc. 1, 207.sq.]; and he gave him to wife Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, priest of On. And Joseph went out over all the land of Egypt” (Gen 41:39 sq.). The monuments show that on the investiture of a high official in Egypt, one of the chief ceremonies was the putting on him a collar of gold (see Ancient Egyptians, pl. 80); the other particulars, the vestures of fine linen and the riding in the second chariot, are equally in accordance with the manners of the country. It has been supposed that Joseph was taken into the priestly order, and thus ennobled. The Biblical narrative does not support this opinion, though it leaves it without a doubt that in reality, if not in form as well, the highest trust and the proudest honors of the state were conferred on one so recently a Hebrew slave. The age of Joseph is stated to have been thirty years at the time of this promotion (41:46). B.C. 1883.

3. Seven years of abundance afforded Joseph opportunity to carry into effect such plans as secured an ample provision against the seven years of need. The famine came, but it found a prepared people. The representations of the monuments, which show that the contents of the granaries were accurately noted by the scribes when they were filled, well illustrate this part of the history. SEE GRANARY.

The visitation was not merely local, for “the famine was over all the face of the earth;” “and all countries came into Egypt to Joseph to buy corn” (Genesis 40:56, 57). The expressions here used, however, do not require us to suppose that the famine extended beyond the countries around Egypt, such as Palestine, Syria, and Arabia, as well as some part of Africa, although of course it may have been more widely experienced. It may be observed, that although famines in Egypt depend immediately upon the failure of the inundation, and in other countries upon the failure of rain, yet that, as the rise of the Nile is caused by heavy rains in Ethiopia, an extremely dry season there and in Palestine would produce the result described in the sacred narrative. It must also be recollected that Egypt was anciently the granary of neighboring countries and that a famine there would cause first scarcity, and then famine, around. Famines are not very unfrequent in the history of Egypt; but the famous seven years’ famine in the reign of the Fatimite Caliph El’Mustansir-billah is the only known parallel to that of Joseph. SEE FAMINE.

Early in the time of famine, Joseph’s brethren came to buy corn, a part of the history which we mention here only as indicating the liberal policy of the governor of Egypt, by which the storehouses were opened to all buyers, of whatever nation they were.

After the famine had lasted for a time, apparently two years, 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. 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” (Gen 47:13-14). When all the money of Egypt and Canaan was exhausted, barter became necessary. Joseph then obtained all the cattle of Egypt, and in the next year, all the land, except that of the priests, and apparently, as a consequence, the Egyptians themselves. He demanded, however, only a fifth part of the produce as Pharaoh’s right. It has been attempted to trace this enactment of Joseph in the fragments of Egyptian history preserved by profane writers, but the result has not been satisfactory. Even were the latter sources trustworthy as to the early period of Egyptian history, it would be difficult to determine the age referred to, as the actions of at least two kings are ascribed by the Greeks to Sesostris, the king particularized. Herodotus says that, according to the Egyptians, Sesostris “made a division of the soil of Egypt among the inhabitants, assigning square plots of ground of equal size to all, and obtaining his chief revenue from the rent which the holders were required to pay him every year” (2, 109). Elsewhere he speaks of the priests as having no expenses, being supported by the property of the temples (2, 37), but he does not assign to Sesostris, as has been rashly supposed, the exemption from taxation that we may reasonably infer. Diodorus Siculus ascribes the division of Egypt into nomes to Sesostris, whom he calls Sesoosis. Taking into consideration. the general character of the information given by Herodotus respecting the history of Egypt at periods remote from his own time, we are not justified in supposing anything more than that some tradition of an ancient allotment of the soil by the crown among the population was current when he visited the country. The testimony of Diodorus is of far less weight.

There is a notice, in an ancient Egyptian inscription, of a famine which has been supposed to be that of Joseph. The inscription is in a tomb at Beni Hasan, and records of Ameni, a governor of a district of Upper Egypt, that when there were years of famine, his district was supplied with food. This was in the time of Sesertesen 1, of the twelfth dynasty. It has been supposed by Bunsen (Egypt’s Place, 3, 334) that this must be Joseph’s famine; but not only are the particulars of the record inapplicable to that instance, but the calamity it relates was never unusual in Egypt, as its ancient inscriptions and modern history equally testify.

Joseph’s policy towards the subjects of Pharaoh is important in reference to forming an estimate of his character. It displays the resolution and breadth of view that mark his whole career. He perceived a great advantage to be gained, and he lost no part of it. He put all Egypt under Pharaoh. First the money, then the cattle, last of all the land, and the Egyptians themselves, became the property of the sovereign, and that. too, by the voluntary act of the people without any pressure. This being effected, he exercised a great act of generosity, and required only a fifth of the produce as a recognition of the rights of the crown. Of the wisdom of this policy there can be no doubt. Its justice can hardly be questioned when it is borne in mind that the Egyptians were not forcibly deprived of their liberties, and that when these had been given up they were at once restored. We do not know all the circumstances; but if, as we may reasonably suppose, the people were warned of the famine, and yet made no preparation during the years of overflowing abundance, the government had a clear claim upon its subjects for having taken precautions they had neglected. In any case it may have been desirable to make a new allotment of land, and to reduce an unequal system of taxation to a simple claim to a fifth of the produce. We have no evidence whether Joseph were in this matter divinely aided, but we cannot doubt that if not he acted in accord with a judgment of great clearness in distinguishing good and evil.

4. We have now to consider the conduct of Joseph at this time towards his brethren and his father. Early in the time of famine, which prevailed equally in Canaan and Egypt, Jacob reproved his helpless sons and sent them to Egypt, where he knew there was corn to be bought. Benjamin alone he kept with him. Joseph was now governor, an Egyptian in habits and speech, for like all men of large mind he had suffered no scruples of prejudice to make him a stranger to the people he ruled. In his exalted station he labored with the zeal that he showed in all his various charges, presiding himself at the sale of corn. They had, of necessity, to appear before Joseph, whose license for the purchase of corn was indispensable. Joseph had probably expected to see them, and he seems to have formed a deliberate plan of action. His conduct has brought on him the always ready charges of those who would rather impeach than study the Bible, and even friends of that sacred book have hardly in this case done Joseph full justice (Niemeyer, Charakt. 2, 366; Heuser, Diss. non inhumaniter sed prudenttissime Josephum cum fratribus fecisse, Hal. 1773). Joseph’s main object appears to have been to make his brothers feel and recognize their guilt in their conduct towards him. For this purpose suffering, then as well as now, was indispensable. Accordingly, Joseph feigned not to know his brothers, charged them with being spies, threatened them with imprisonment and allowed them to return home to fetch their younger brother, as a proof of their veracity, only on condition that one of them should remain behind in chains, with a prospect of death before him should not their words be verified. Then it was, and not before, that “they said one to another, We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul and would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us. And Reuben said, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child, and ye would not hear? therefore. behold, also his blood is required” (Gen 42:21). Upon this after weeping bitterly, he by common agreement bound his brother Simeon, and left him in custody. How deeply concerned Joseph was for his family, how true and affectionate a heart he had, may be learned from the words which escape from the brothers in their entreaty that Jacob would allow Benjamin to go into Egypt, as required by Joseph: “The man asked us straitly of our state and of our kindred, saying, Is your father yet alive? have ye another brother?” (Gen 43:7).

At length Jacob consents to Benjamin’s going in company with his brothers: “And God Almighty give you mercy before the man, that he may send away your other brother and Benjamin. If I be bereaved of my children, I am bereaved” (Gen 43:14). Thus provided, with a present consisting of balm, honey, spices, and myrrh, nuts and almonds, and with double money in their hands (double, in order that they might repay the sum which Joseph had caused to be put into each man’s sack at their departure, if, as Jacob supposed, “it was an oversight”), they went again down to Egypt and stood before Joseph (Gen 43:15); and there, too, stood Benjamin, Joseph’s beloved brother. The required pledge of truthfulness was given. If it is asked why such a pledge was demanded, since the giving of it caused pain to Jacob, the answer may be thus: Joseph knew not how to demean himself towards his family until he ascertained its actual condition. That knowledge he could hardly be certain he had gained from the mere words of men who had spared his life only to sell himself into slavery. How had these wicked men behaved towards his venerable father? His beloved brother Benjamin, was he safe? or had he suffered from their jealousy and malice the worse fate with which he himself had been threatened? Nothing but the sight of Benjamin could answer these questions and resolve these details.

Benjamin had come, and immediately a natural change took place in Joseph’s conduct: the brother began to claim his rights in Joseph’s bosom. Jacob wag safe, and Benjamin was safe. Joseph’s heart melted at the sight of Benjamin: “And he said to the ruler of his house, Bring these men home, and slay and make ready, for these men shall dine with me at noon” (Gen 43:16). But guilt is always the ready parent of fear; accordingly, the brothers expected nothing but being reduced to slavery. When taken to their own brother’s house, they imagined they were being entrapped. A colloquy ensued between them and Joseph’s steward, whence it appeared that the money put into their sacks, to which they now attributed their peril, was in truth a present from Joseph, designed, after his own brotherly manner, to aid his family in their actual necessities. The steward said,” Peace be to you; fear not; your God and the God of your father hath given you the treasure in your sacks. I had your money” (Gen 43:23).

Noon came, and with it Joseph, whose first question regarded home: “He asked them of their welfare, and said, Is your father well, the old man of whom ye spake? is he yet alive? And he lifted up his eves and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother’s son, and said, Is this your younger brother? And he said, God be gracious unto thee, my son!”‘ “And Joseph made haste, for his bowels did yearn upon his brother, and he sought where to weep; and he entered into his chamber, and wept there.” Does this look like harshness? The connection brings into view an Egyptian custom, which is of more than ordinary importance, in consequence of its being adopted in the Jewish polity: “And they set on (food) for him by himself (Joseph), and for them by themselves (the brethren), and for the Egyptians which did eat with them, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination with the Egyptians” (Gen 43:32). This passage is also interesting, as proving that Joseph had not, in his princely grandeur, become ashamed of his origin, nor consented to receive adoption into a strange nation: he was still a Hebrew, waiting, like Moses after him, for the proper season to use his power for the good of his own people.

Other customs appear in this interesting narrative: “And they (the brothers) sat before him (Joseph), the first born according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth.” “And he sent messes (delicacies) unto them from before him; but Benjamin’s mess was five times so much as any of theirs” (Gen 43:32-33). Fear had now given place to wonder, and wonder at length issued in joy and mirth (comp. Gen 43:18; Gen 43:33-34). The scenes of the Egyptian tombs show us that it was the custom for each person to eat singly, particularly among the great; that guests were placed according to their right of precedence, and that it was usual to drink freely, men and even women being represented as overpowered with wine, probably as an evidence of the liberality of the entertainer. SEE BANQUET.

Joseph, apparently with a view to ascertain how far his brethren were faithful to their father, hit upon a plan which would in its issue serve to show whether they would make any, and what sacrifice, in order to fulfill their solemn promise of restoring Benjamin in safety to Jacob. Accordingly, he orders not only that every man’s money (as before) should be put in his sack’s mouth, but also that his “silver cup, in which my lord drinketh, and whereby he divineth,” should be put in the sack’s mouth of the youngest. The brethren leave, but are soon overtaken by Joseph’s steward, who charges them with having surreptitiously carried off this costly and highly- valued vessel. They, on their part, vehemently repel the accusation, adding, “with whomsoever of thy servants it be found, both let him die, and we also will be my lord’s bondmen.” A search is made, and the cup is found in Benjamin’s sack. Accordingly they return to the city. And now comes the hour of trial: Would they purchase their own liberation by surrendering Benjamin? After a most touching interview, in which they prove themselves worthy and faithful, Joseph declares himself unable any longer to withstand the appeal of natural affection. On this occasion Judah, who is the spokesman, shows the deepest regard to his aged father’s feelings, and entreats for the liberation of Benjamin even at the price of his own liberty. In the whole of literature we know of nothing more simple, natural, true, and impressive; nor, while passages of this kind stand in the Pentateuch, can we even understand what is meant by terming that collection of writings “the Hebrew national epic,” or regarding it as an aggregation of historical legends. If here we have not history, we can in no case be sure that history is before us (Genesis 44).

Most natural and impressive is the scene also which ensues, in which Joseph, after informing his brethren who he was, and inquiring, first of all, “Is my father alive?” expresses feelings free from the slightest taint of revenge, and even shows how, under divine Providence the conduct of his brothers had issued in good “God sent me before you to preserve a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance.” Five years had yet to ensue in which “there would be neither earning nor harvest,” and therefore the brethren were directed to return home and bring Jacob down to Egypt with all speed. “And he fell upon his brother Benjamin’s neck and wept; and Benjamin wept upon his neck. Moreover, he kissed all his brethren and wept upon them; and after that his brethren talked with him” (Gen 45:14-15).

The news of these striking events was carried to Pharaoh, who, being pleased at Joseph’s conduct, gave directions that Jacob and his family should come forthwith into Egypt: “I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land; regard not your stuff, for the good of all the land is yours.” The brethren departed, being well provided for: “And to his father Joseph sent ten asses laden with the good things of Egypt, and ten she asses laden with corn, and bread, and meat for his father by the way.” The intelligence which they bore to their father was of such a nature that “Jacob’s heart fainted, for he believed them not.” When, however, he had recovered from the thus naturally told effects of his surprise, the venerable patriarch said, “Enough; Joseph, my son, is yet alive: I will go and see him before I die” (Gen 45:26; Gen 45:28). Accordingly Jacob and his family, to the number of threescore and ten souls, go down to Egypt, and by the express efforts of Joseph, are allowed to settle in the district of Goshen, where Joseph met his father: “And he fell on his neck, and wept on his neck a good while.” There Joseph “nourished his father and his brethren, and all his father’s household, with bread, according to their families” (Gen 47:12). B.C. 1874.

5. Joseph had now to pass through the mournful scenes which attend on the death and burial of a father (Gen 1:1-21). B.C. 1856. Having had Jacob embalmed, and seen the rites of mourning fully observed, the faithful and affectionate son leave being obtained of the monarch proceeded into the land of Canaan, in order, agreeably to a promise which the patriarch had exacted (Gen 47:29-31), to lay the old man’s bones with those of his fathers, in “the field of Ephron the Hittite.” Having performed with long and bitter mourning Jacob’s funeral rites, Joseph returned into Egypt. The last recorded act of his life forms a most becoming close. After the death of their father, his brethren, unable, like all guilty people, to forget their criminality, and characteristically finding it difficult to think that Joseph had really forgiven them, grew afraid, now they were in his power, that he would take an opportunity of inflicting some punishment on them. They accordingly go into his presence, and in imploring terms and an abject manner entreat his forgiveness. “Fear not” this is his noble reply “I will nourish you and your little ones.”

6. By his Egyptian wife Asenath, daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis, Joseph had two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (Genesis 42:50 sq.), whom Jacob adopted (Gen 48:5), and who accordingly took their place among the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Joseph lived a hundred and ten years, kind and gentle in his affections to the last; for we are told, “The children of Machir, the son of Manasseh, were brought up upon Joseph’s knees” (Gen 50:23). Having obtained a promise from his brethren that when the time came, as he assured them it would come, that God should visit them, and “bring them unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob,” they would carry up his bones out of Egypt, Joseph at length “died, and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin” (Gen 50:26). B.C. 1802. This promise was religiously fulfilled. His descendants, after carrying the corpse about with them in their wanderings, at length put it in its final resting place in Shechem, in a parcel of ground that Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor, which became the inheritance of the children of Joseph (Jos 24:32). A tomb which probably represents the same spot is still shown to travelers in the vicinity of Jacob’s Well (Hackett’s Illustrations, p. 197). It is a flat roofed rectangular building surmounted by a dome, under which is pointed out the real tomb, in shape like a covered wagon (Wilson, Bible Lands, 2, 60).

The history of Joseph’s posterity is given in the articles devoted to the tribes of EPHRAIM and MANASSEH. Sometimes these tribes are spoken of under the name of Joseph (Jos 14:4; Jos 17:14; Jos 17:17; Jos 18:5; Jdg 1:23; Jdg 1:35, etc.), which is even given to the whole Israelitish nation (Psa 80:1; Psa 81:5; Amo 5:15; Amo 6:6). Ephraim is, however, the common name of his descendants, for the division of Manasseh gave almost the whole political weight to the brother tribe (Psa 78:67; Eze 37:16; Eze 37:19; Zec 10:6). That great people seems to have inherited all Joseph’s ability with one of his goodness, and the very knowledge of his power in Egypt, instead of stimulating his offspring to follow in his steps, appears only to have constantly drawn them into a hankering after that forbidden land which began when Jeroboam introduced the calves, and ended only when a treasonable alliance laid Samaria in ruins and sent the ten tribes into captivity.

7. The character of Joseph is wholly composed of great materials, and therefore needs not to be minutely portrayed. We trace in it very little of that balance of good and evil, of strength and weakness, that marks most things human, and do not anywhere distinctly discover the results of the conflict of motives that generally occasions such great difficulty in judging men’s actions. We have as full an account of Joseph as of Abraham and Jacob, a fuller one than of Isaac; and if we compare their histories, Joseph’s character is the least marked by wrong or indecision. His first quality seems to have been the greatest resolution. He not only believed faithfully, but could endure patiently, and could command equally his good and evil passions. Hence his strong sense of duty, his zealous work, his strict justice, his clear discrimination of good and evil. Like all men of vigorous character, he loved power, but when he had gained it he used it with the greatest generosity. He seems to have striven to get men unconditionally in his power that he might be the means of good to them. Generosity in conferring benefits, as well as in forgiving injuries, is one of his distinguishing characteristics. With this strength was united the deepest tenderness. He was easily moved to tears, even weeping at the first sight of his brethren after they had sold him. His love for his father and Benjamin was not enfeebled by years of separation, nor by his great station. The wise man was still the same as the true youth. These great qualities explain his power of governing and administering, and his extraordinary flexibility, which enabled him to suit himself to each new position in life. The last trait to make up this great character was modesty, the natural result of the others.

In the history of the chosen race Joseph occupies a very high place as an instrument of Providence. He was “sent before” his people, as he himself knew, to preserve them in the terrible famine, and to settle them where they could multiply and prosper in the interval before the iniquity of the Canaanites was full. In the latter days of Joseph’s life, he is the leading character among the Hebrews. He makes his father come into Egypt, and directs the settlement. He protects his kinsmen. Dying, he reminds them of the promise, charging them to take his bones with them. Blessed with many revelations, he is throughout a God taught leader of his people. In the N.T. Joseph is only mentioned; yet the striking particulars of the persecution and sale by his brethren, his resisting temptation, his great degradation and yet greater exaltation, the saving of his people by his hand, and the confounding of his enemies, seem to indicate that he was a type of our Lord. He also connects the patriarchal with the Gospel dispensation, as an instance of the exercise of some of the highest Christian virtues under the less distinct manifestation of the divine will granted to the fathers.

8. For further discussion of the events of Joseph’s history, see Wolfenb. Fragment. p. 36; Less, Geschichte der Rel. 1, 267; J.T. Jacobi, Smmtl. Schrift. part 3; Hess, Gesch. der Patriarch. 2, 324; Niemeyer, Charakt. 2, 340; Allgem. Welthist. 2, 332; Heeren, Ideen, 2, 551; Jablonski, Opusc. 1, 207, Gesenius, Thes. Hebr. p. 1181; Hammer, D. Osman. Reich. 2, 83 Hengstenberg, Mos. und Lqg. p. 30; J.B. Burcardi, in the Ius. Helv. 1, 3, 355; Voigt, in the Brem. und verd. Biblioth. 5, 599; Bauer, Heb. Gesch. 1, 181; Ewald, Isr. Gesch. 1, 464; Doderlein, Theol Biblioth. 4, 717; Rosenmller, Alterth. 3, 310; Lengerke, Kendan, 1, 263; Otho, Lex. Rabb. p. 331; Herbelot, Bibl. Orient. 2, 332; Kitto, Daily Bible Illust.; Kurtz, Hist. of the Old Covenant; Stanley, Hist. of the Jewish Church; Adamson, Joseph and his Brethren (Lond. 1844); Edelman, Sermons on the Hist. of Joseph (Lond. 1839); Leighton, Lectures on Hist. of J. (Lond. 1848); Plumptre, Hist. of Joseph (Lond. 1848); Randall, Lectures on Hist. of J. (Lond. 1852); Wardlaw, Hist. of Joseph (new ed. Lond. 1851); Gibson, Lectures on 1list. of J. (Lond. 1853); Overton, Lectures on Life of Joseph (London. 1866). Treatises on special points are the following: Hoppe, De philosophia Josephi (Helmst. 1706); A Review of the Life and Administration of Joseph (London, 1743); J.B. Burckhard, De criminibus Josepho inpactis (Basil. 1746); Ansaldus, Josephi religio vindicata (Brix. 1747); Triglalid, De Josepho adorato (L.B. 1750): Winkler, Unters. einiger Schwierigk. vom Jos. (in his Schriftsteller, 3, 1); Heuser, De non inhumaniter Josephumfticisse (Halle, 1773); Kuchler, Quare Josephus patrent non de se certiorem fecerit (Leucop. 1798); Nicolai, De servis Josephi Medicis (Helmst. 1752); Piderib. De nomine Josephi in AEgypto (Marb. 1768-9); Reineccius, De nomine (Weissenf. 1725); Schrder, De Josephi laudibus (in Schonfeld’s Vita Jacobi. Marb. 1713); Von Seelen, De Josepho Egyptiorum rectore (Lub. 1742); T. Smith, Hist. of Joseph in connection with Eg. Antiquities (Lond. 1858); Walter, De Josepho lapide Israelis (Hersf. 1734); Wunschald, De cognomin Josephi AEgyptiaco (Wittenb. 1669). SEE JACOB.

2. The father of Igal, which latter was the Issacharite “spy” to explore Canaan (Num 13:7). B.C. ante 1657.

3. The second named of the sons of Asaph, appointed head of the first division of sacred musicians by David (1Ch 25:2; 1Ch 25:9). B.C. 1014.

4. The son of Jonan, and father of Judah or Adaiah, among Christ’s maternal ancestors, but unmentioned in the O.T. (Luk 3:30). B.C. ante 876.

5. Son of Shebaniah, and one of the chief priests contemporary with Jehoiakim (Neh 12:14). B.C. post 536.

6. One of the “sons” of Bani who divorced his Gentile wife after the exile (Ezr 10:42). B.C. 459.

7. The son of Judah, and father of Semei, maternal ancestors of Jesus (Luk 3:26); probably the same with SCHECHANIAH, the son of Obadiah, and father of Shemaiah (1 Chronicles 3:21, 92). B.C. between 536 and 410.

8. The son of Mattathiah, and father of Janna, maternal ancestors of Christ, unmentioned in the Old Test. (Luk 3:24). B.C. considerably post 406. See on this and Nos. 4 and 7, SEE GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST.

9. (.) Son of Oziel, and father of On, an ancestor of Judith (Jdt 8:1).

10. A young man of high character, son of Tobias, and nephew of the Jewish high priest Onias II, whose avarice he rebuked. but prevented its evil consequences by propitiating Ptolemy, and becoming the collector of his taxes. His history is given at considerable length by Josephus (Ant. 12, 4, 2 10), including his unintentional marriage with his own niece, by whom he had a son named Hyrcanus.

11. (.) Son of Zacharias, left with Azarias as general of the Jewish troops by Judas Maccabaeus, and defeated by Gorgias, B.C. cir. 164 (1 Macc. 5, 8, 56 60; Josephus, Ant. 12, 8, 6).

12. (.) In 2Ma 8:22; 2Ma 10:19. Joseph is named among, the brethren of Judas Maccabaeus apparently in place of JOHN (Ewald, Gesch. 4:384, note; Grimm, ad 2Ma 8:22). The confusion of , , is well seen in the various readings in Mat 13:55. SEE JOSES.

13. Uncle of Herod the Great, who left him in charge when he went to plead his cause before Antony, with injunctions to put Mariarne to death in case he never returned; but this order, being disclosed to Mariarne, led to Joseph’s death by command of Herod through suspicion of criminal intercourse with Marianne (Josephus, Ant. 15, 5, 6, 9). He had married Salome, Herod’s sister ( War, 1, 22, 4). He seems to be the same elsewhere called Herod’s treasurer (, Ant. 15, 6, 5).

14. Son of Antipater, and brother of Herod the Great (Josephus, War, 1, 8, 9), was sent by the latter with a large force to subdue the Idumaeans (Ant. 14:15,4), and afterwards left by him in Jerusalem with full powers to act on the defensive against Macheras, neglecting which orders he lost his life in an engagement near Jericho (War, 1, 17, 1-4). He also had a son named Joseph (Ant. 18, 5, 4), who seems to be the one mentioned as cousin (.) of Archelaus ( War, 2, 5, 2).

15. Son of Ellemus, a relative of the high priest Matthias, in whose place he officiated for a single day (apparently that of the annual atonement), in consequence of the accidental disqualification of the pontiff (Josephus, Ant. 17, 6, 4).

16. The foster father of our Savior, being “the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (Mat 1:16). By Matthew he is said to have been the son of Jacob, whose lineage is traced by the same writer through David up to Abraham. Luke represents him as being the son of Heli, and traces his origin up to Adam. Luke appears to have had some specific object in view, since he introduces his genealogical line with words of peculiar import: “Jesus being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli” (Luk 3:23) , “as was supposed,” in other terms, as accounted by law, as enrolled in the family registers; for Joseph being the husband of Mary, became thereby, in law (), the father of Jesus. SEE GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST. He lived at Nazareth, in Galilee (Luk 2:4), and it is probable that his family had been settled there for some time, since Mary lived there too (Luk 1:26-27).

The statements of Holy Writ in regard to Joseph are few and simple. According to a custom among the Jews, traces of which are still found, such as hand fasting among the Scotch, and betrothing among the Germans, Joseph had pledged his faith to Mary; but before the marriage was consummated she proved to be with child. Grieved at this, Joseph was disposed to break off the connection; but, not wishing to make a public example of one whom he loved, he contemplated a private disruption of their bond. From this step, however, he is deterred by a heavenly messenger, who assures him that Mary has conceived under a divine influence. “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins” (Mat 1:18 sq.; Luk 1:27). It must have been within a very short time of his taking her to his home that the decree went forth from Augustus Caesar which obliged him to leave Nazareth with his wife and go to Bethlehem. He was there with Mary and her firstborn when the shepherds came to see the babe in the manger, and he went with them to the Temple to present the infant according to the law, and there heard the prophetic words of Simeon as he held him in his arms. When the wise men from the East came to Bethlehem to worship Christ, Joseph was there; and he went down to Egypt with them by night, when warned by an angel of the danger which threatened them; and on a second message he returned with them to the land of Israel, intending to reside at Bethlehem, the city of David; but, being afraid of Archelaus, he took up his abode, as before his marriage, at Nazareth, where he carried on his trade as a carpenter. When Jesus was twelve years old Joseph and Mary took him with them to keep the Passover at Jerusalem, and when they returned to Nazareth he continued to act as a father to the child Jesus, and was always reputed to be so indeed. Joseph was by trade a carpenter, in which business he probably educated Jesus (Thilo, Apocr. 1, 311). In Mat 13:55, we read, “Is not this the son of the carpenter?” and in Mar 6:3, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?” The term employed, , is of a general character, and may be fitly rendered by the English word artificer or artizan, signifying any one that labors in the fabrication (jaber in Latin) of articles of ordinary use, whatever the material may be out of which they are made. SEE CARPENTER.

Schleusner (in voc.) asserts that the universal testimony of the ancient Church represents our Lord as being a carpenter’s son. This is, indeed, the statement of Justin Martyr (Dial. cum Tryphone, 88), for he explains the term , which he applies to Jesus, by saying that he made , ploughs and yokes; but Origen, in replying to Celsus, who indulged in jokes against the humble employment of our Lord, expressly denied that Jesus was so termed in the Gospels (see the passage cited in Otho’s Justin Martyr, 2, 306, Jenoe, 1843) a declaration which suggests the idea that the copies which Origen read differed from our own; while Hilarius, on Matthew (quoted in Simon’s Dictionnaire de la Bible, 1, 691), asserts, in terms which cannot be mistaken, that Jesus was a smith (ferrum igne vincentis, massamque formantis, etc.). Among the ancient Jews all handicrafts were held in so much honor that they were learned and pursued by the first men of the nation. SEE ARTIFICER.

Jewish tradition (Hieros. Shaph. c. 14) names the father of Jesus , Pendira, or Penthira (, Midrash, Kohel, 10, 5; , Thilo, Apocr. 1, 528), and represents him (Orig. c. Cels. 1, 32) as a rough soldier, who became the father of Jesus after Mary was betrothed to Joseph. Another form of the legend sets him forth (Toled. Jeshu, p. 3, ed. Wagenseil; comp. Epiphan. Hoer. 78, 7) under the name of Joseph Pandera ( ). Christian tradition makes Joseph an old man when first espoused to Mary (Epiphan. Hoer. 78, 7), being no less than eighty years of age, and father of four sons and two daughters. Theophylact. on Mat 13:55, says that Jesus Christ had brothers and sisters, all children of Joseph, whom he had by his sister-in-law, wife of his brother Cleophas, who having died without issue, Joseph was obliged by law to marry his widow. Of the sons, James, the brother of the Lord, was, he states, the first bishop of Jerusalem. Eusebius (Hist. Ecclesiastes 2, 1) agrees in substance with Theophylact; so also does Epiphanius, adding that Joseph was fourscore years old when he married Mary. Jerome, from whom it appears that the alleged mother’s name was Escha, opposes this tradition, and is of opinion that what are termed the brothers of Jesus were really his cousins. SEE JAMES; SEE MARY.

The painters of Christian antiquity conspire with the writers in representing Joseph as an old man at the period of the birth of our Lord an evidence which is not to be lightly rejected, though the precise age mentioned may be but an approximation to fact. Another account (Niceph. 2, 3) gives the name of Salome as that of Joseph’s first wife, who was related to the family of John the Baptist. The origin of all the earliest stories and assertions of the fathers concerning Joseph, as, e.g., his extreme old age, his having sons by a former wife, his having the custody of Mary given to him by lot, and so on, is to be found in the apocryphal Gospels, of which the earliest is the Protevangelium of St. James, apparently the work of a Christian Jew of the 2d century, quoted by Origen, and referred to by Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr (Tischendorf. Proleg. 13). The same stories are repeated in the other apocryphal Gospels. The Monophysite Coptic Christians are said to have first assigned a festival to St. Joseph in the Calendar, viz., on the 20th of July, which is thus inscribed in a Coptic Almanac: “Requies sancti senis justi Josephi fabri lignarii, Deiparae Virginis Mariae sponsi, qui pater Christi vocari promeruit.” The apocryphal Historia Josephi fabri lignarii, which now exists in Arabic (ed. Walling, Lips. 1722; in Latin by Fabricius, Pseudepigr. 1, 300; also by Thilo and Tischendorf), is thought by Tischendorf to have been originally written in Coptic, and the festival of Joseph is supposed to have been transferred to the Western churches from the East as late as the year 1399.

The above named history is acknowledged to be quite fabulous, though it belongs probably to the 4th century. It professes to be an account given by our Lord himself to the apostles on the Mount of Olives, and placed by them in the library of Jerusalem. It ascribes 111 years to Joseph’s life, and makes him old, and the father of four sons and two daughters before he espoused Mary. It is headed with this sentence: “Benedictiones ejus et preces servant nos omnes, o fratres. Amen.” The reader who wishes to know the opinion of the ancients on the obscure subject of Joseph’s marriage may consult Jerome’s acrimonious tract Contra Helvidium. He will see that Jerome highly disapproves the common opinion (derived from the apocryphal Gospels) of Joseph being twice married, and that he claims the authority of Ignatius, Polycarp, Ireaeus, Justin Martyr, and “many other apostolical men,” in favor of his own view, that our Lord’s brethren were his cousins only, or, at all events, against the opinion of Helvidius, which had been held by Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentine, that they were the children of Joseph and Mary. Those who held this opinion were called Antidicomarianitoe, as enemies of the Virgin. (Epiphanius, Adv. Hoeres. l. 3, t. 2; Hoeres. 78, also Hoer. 41. See also Pearson, On the Creed, art. Virgin Mary; Mill, On the Brethren of the Lord; Calmet, De St. Joseph. St. Mar. Virg. conjuge; and, for an able statement of the opposite view, Alford’s note on Mat 13:55.) SEE GOSPELS, SPURIOUS.

It is not easy to determine when Joseph died. That event may have taken place before Jesus entered on his public ministry. This has been argued from the fact that his mother only appeared at the feast at Cana in Galilee. The premises, however, hardly bear out the inference. With more force of argument, it has been alleged (Simon, Dict. de. la Bible) that Joseph must have been dead before the crucifixion of Jesus, else he would in all probability have appeared with Mary at the cross. Certainly the absence of Joseph from the public life of Christ, and the failure of reference to him in the discourses and history, while “Mary” and “his brethren” not unfrequently appear, afford evidence not only of Joseph’s death, but of the inferior part which, as the legal father only of our Lord, Joseph might have been expected to sustain. So far as our scanty materials enable us to form an opinion, Joseph appears to have been a good, kind, simple-minded man, who, while he afforded aid in protecting and sustaining the family, would leave Mary unrestrained to use all the impressive and formative influence of her gentle, affectionate, pious, and thoughtful soul. B.C. cir. 45 to A.D. cir. 25.

Further discussion of the above points may be seen in Meyer, Num Jos. tempore nativ. C. fuerit senex decrepitus (Lips. 1762); comp. Reay, Narratio de Jos. e s. codice desumpta (Oxon. 1823); Walther, Dass Jos. d. wahre Vater Christi sei (Berlin, 1791); Oertel, Antijosephismus (1792); Hasse, Jos. verum Jesu patrers non fuisse (Regiom. 1792); Ludewig, Hist. Krit. Unters. (Wolferb. 1831). The traditions respecting Joseph are collected in Act. Sanct. 3, 4 sq.; there is a Life of Joseph written in Italian by Affaitati (Mail. 1716). See also Volbeding, Index, p. 8; Hase, Leben Jesu (4th ed. 1854), p. 56. SEE JESUS CHRIST.

17. Surnamed CAIAPHAS SEE CAIAPHAS (q.v.), Jewish high priest in the time of our Lord’s ministry.

18. A native (not resident, as in Michaelis, Begrbniss- und Auferstehungsgesch. Christi, p. 44) of Arimathaea (Mat 27:57; Mat 27:59; Mar 15:43; Mar 15:45; Luk 23:50; Joh 19:38), a city, probably the Ramah of the O.T., in the territory of Benjamin, on the mountain range of Ephraim, at no great distance south of Jerusalem (Jos 18:25; Jdg 4:5), not far from Gibeah (Jdg 19:13; Isa 10:29; Hos 5:8). SEE ARIMATHEA.

Joseph was a secret disciple of Jesus “an honorable counsellor (), who waited for the kingdom of God” (Mar 15:43), and who, on learning the death of our. Lord, “came and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.” Pilate, having learned from the centurion who commanded at the execution that Jesus was actually dead, gave the body to Joseph, who took it down and wrapped his deceased Lord in fine linen which he had purchased for the purpose; after which he laid the corpse in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone against the door of the sepulchre (Mar 15:43 sq.). From the parallel passages in Mat 27:58 sq., Luk 23:50 sq., and Joh 19:38 sq., it appears that the body was previously embalmed at the cost of another secret disciple, Nicodemus, and that the sepulchre was new, “wherein never man before was laid” (thus fulfilling Isa 53:9); also that it lay in a garden, and was the property of Joseph himself (comp. Origen, c. Cels. 2, p. 103, ed. Spenc.; Walch, Observ. in Matthew ex inscript. p. 84). This garden was “in the place where Jesus was crucified.” A.D. 29. SEE GOLGOTHA.

Luke describes the character of Joseph as “a good man and a just,” adding that “he had not assented to the counsel and deed of them,” i.e. of the Jewish authorities. From this remark it is clear that Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrim: a conclusion which is corroborated by the epithet “counsellor,” applied to him by both Luke and Mark. Whether Joseph was a priest, as Lightfoot (Hor. Iseb. p. 669) thought, there is not evidence to determine. Various opinions as to his social condition may be found in Thiess (Krit. Comment. 2, 149). Tradition represents Joseph as having been one of the Seventy (Ittig, Diss. de Pat. Apostol. 13; Assemani, Biblioth. Orient. 3, 1, 319 sq.); and that Joseph, being sent to Great Britain by the apostle Philip about the year 63, settled with his brother disciples at Glastonbury, in Somersetshire, and there erected of wicker twigs the first Christian oratory in England, the parent of the majestic abbey which was afterwards founded on the same site. The local guides to this day show the miraculous thorn (said to bud and blossom every Christmas day) that sprung from the staff which Joseph stuck in the ground as he stopped to rest himself on the hill top. (See Dugdale’s Monasticon, 1, 1; and Hearne, Hist. and Antiq. of Glastonbury). Other traditional notices May be seen in the Evang. Nicod. c. 12 sq.; Acta sanctor. Mart. 2, 507 sq.; comp. the dissertations De Josepho Arimath of Bromel [Teutzel] (Viteb. 1683) and Bjrnland (Aboa, 1729). SEE JESUS CHRIST.

19. Surnamed BARSABAS SEE BARSABAS (q.v.), one of the two persons whom the primitive Church, immediately after the resurrection of Christ, nominated, praying that the Holy Spirit would show which of them should enter the apostolic band in place of the wretched Judas. On the lots being cast, it proved that not Joseph, but Matthias, was chosen (Act 1:23). A.D. 29.

Joseph also bore the honorable surname of Justus (q.v.), which was not improbably given him on account of his well known probity. He was one of those who had “companied with the apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them, beginning from the baptism of John,” until the ascension (Act 1:15 sq.). Tradition also accounted him one of the Seventy (Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiastes 1, 12). The same historian relates (3, 39), on the authority of Papias, that Joseph the Just “drank deadly poison, and by the grace of God sustained no harm.” It has been maintained that he is the same as Joses, surnamed Barnabas, mentioned in Act 4:36; but the manner in which the latter is characterized seems to point to a different person (Heinrichs, On Acts, 1:23; Ullmann, in the Theolog. Stud. u. Kritik. 1, 377; Alynster, ibid. 1829, 2, 326). He is also to be distinguished from Judas Barsabas (Act 15:22).

20. Son of Camus or Camydus, appointed Jewish high priest in place of Cantheras by Herod, brother of Agrippa I, who had obtained temporary control over the Temple from Claudius Caesar during the presidency of Longinus and the procuratorship of Fadus, A.D. 46. 8 (Josephus, Ant. 20, 1,3). He was removed by the same authority in favor of Ananias, son of Nebedaeus, during the procuratorship of Tiberius Alexander, A.D. 48 (ib. 5, 2).

21. Surnamed Cabi, son of Simon, a former high priest of the Jews, and himself appointed to that office by Agrippa during the procuratorship of Festus (A.D. 62), but shortly afterwards removed by the same authority on the arrival of Albinus (A.D. 62), in favor of Ananus, son of Ananus (Josephus, Ant. 20, 8, 11; 9, 1). SEE HIGH PRIEST.

22. Son of a female physician (), who excited a sedition at Gamala near the close of the Jewish independence (Josephus, Life, 37).

23. Son of Daleeus, an eminent Jew, who threw himself into the flames of the Temple rather than surrender to the Romans (Josephus, War, 6, 5, 1).

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Joseph

remover or increaser. (1.) The elder of the two sons of Jacob by Rachel (Gen. 30:23, 24), who, on the occasion of his birth, said, “God hath taken away [Heb. ‘asaph] my reproach.” “The Lord shall add [Heb. yoseph] to me another son” (Gen. 30:24). He was a child of probably six years of age when his father returned from Haran to Canaan and took up his residence in the old patriarchal town of Hebron. “Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age,” and he “made him a long garment with sleeves” (Gen. 37:3, R.V. marg.), i.e., a garment long and full, such as was worn by the children of nobles. This See ms to be the correct rendering of the words. The phrase, however, may also be rendered, “a coat of many pieces”, i.e., a patchwork of many small pieces of divers colours.

When he was about seventeen years old Joseph incurred the jealous hatred of his brothers (Gen. 37:4). They “hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.” Their anger was increased when he told them his dreams (37:11).

Jacob desiring to hear tidings of his sons, who had gone to Shechem with their flocks, some 60 miles from Hebron, sent Joseph as his messenger to make inquiry regarding them. Joseph found that they had left Shechem for Dothan, whither he followed them. As soon as they saw him coming they began to plot against him, and would have killed him had not Reuben interposed. They ultimately sold him to a company of Ishmaelite merchants for twenty pieces (shekels) of silver (about $2, 10s.), ten pieces less than the current value of a slave, for “they cared little what they had for him, if so be they were rid of him.” These merchants were going down with a varied assortment of merchandise to the Egyptian market, and thither they conveyed him, and ultimately sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an “officer of Pharaoh’s, and captain of the guard” (Gen. 37:36). “The Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake,” and Potiphar made him overSee r over his house. At length a false charge having been brought against him by Potiphar’s wife, he was at once cast into the state prison (39; 40), where he remained for at least two years. After a while the “chief of the cupbearers” and the “chief of the bakers” of Pharaoh’s household were cast into the same prison (40:2). Each of these new prisoners dreamed a dream in the same night, which Joseph interpreted, the event occurring as he had said.

This led to Joseph’s being remembered subsequently by the chief butler when Pharaoh also dreamed. At his suggestion Joseph was brought from prison to interpret the king’s dreams. Pharaoh was well pleased with Joseph’s wisdom in interpreting his dreams, and with his counsel with reference to the events then predicted; and he set him over all the land of Egypt (Gen. 41:46), and gave him the name of Zaphnath-paaneah. He was married to Asenath, the daughter of the priest of On, and thus became a member of the priestly class. Joseph was now about thirty years of age.

As Joseph had interpreted, seven years of plenty came, during which he stored up great abundance of corn in granaries built for the purpose. These years were followed by seven years of famine “over all the face of the earth,” when “all countries came into Egypt to Joseph to buy corn” (Gen. 41:56, 57; 47:13, 14). Thus “Joseph gathered up all the money that was in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought.” Afterwards all the cattle and all the land, and at last the Egyptians themselves, became the property of Pharaoh.

During this period of famine Joseph’s brethren also came down to Egypt to buy corn. The history of his dealings with them, and of the manner in which he at length made himself known to them, is one of the most interesting narratives that can be read (Gen. 42-45). Joseph directed his brethren to return and bring Jacob and his family to the land of Egypt, saying, “I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land. Regard not your stuff; for the good of all the land is yours.” Accordingly Jacob and his family, to the number of threescore and ten souls, together with “all that they had,” went down to Egypt. They were settled in the land of Goshen, where Joseph met his father, and “fell on his neck, and wept on his neck a good while” (Gen. 46:29).

The excavations of Dr. Naville have shown the land of Goshen to be the Wady Tumilat, between Ismailia and Zagazig. In Goshen (Egyptian Qosem) they had pasture for their flocks, were near the Asiatic frontier of Egypt, and were out of the way of the Egyptian people. An inscription speaks of it as a district given up to the wandering shepherds of Asia.

Jacob at length died, and in fulfilment of a promise which he had exacted, Joseph went up to Canaan to bury his father in “the field of Ephron the Hittite” (Gen. 47:29-31; 50:1-14). This was the last recorded act of Joseph, who again returned to Egypt.

“The ‘Story of the Two Brothers,’ an Egyptian romance written for the son of the Pharaoh of the Oppression, contains an episode very similar to the Biblical account of Joseph’s treatment by Potiphar’s wife. Potiphar and Potipherah are the Egyptian Pa-tu-pa-Ra, ‘the gift of the sun-god.’ The name given to Joseph, Zaphnath-paaneah, is probably the Egyptian Zaf-nti-pa-ankh, ‘nourisher of the living one,’ i.e., of the Pharaoh. There are many instances in the inscriptions of foreigners in Egypt receiving Egyptian names, and rising to the highest offices of state.”

By his wife Asenath, Joseph had two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen. 41:50). Joseph having obtained a promise from his brethren that when the time should come that God would “bring them unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob,” they would carry up his bones out of Egypt, at length died, at the age of one hundred and ten years; and “they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin” (Gen. 50:26). This promise was faithfully observed. Their descendants, long after, when the Exodus came, carried the body about with them during their forty years’ wanderings, and at length buried it in Shechem, in the parcel of ground which Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor (Josh. 24:32; comp. Gen. 33:19). With the death of Joseph the patriarchal age of the history of Israel came to a close.

The Pharaoh of Joseph’s elevation was probably Apepi, or Apopis, the last of the Hyksos kings. Some, however, think that Joseph came to Egypt in the reign of Thothmes III. (See PHARAOH), long after the expulsion of the Hyksos.

The name Joseph denotes the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh in Deut. 33:13-17; the kingdom of Israel in Ezek. 37:16, 19, Amos 5:6; and the whole covenant people of Israel in Ps. 81:4.

(2.) One of the sons of Asaph, head of the first division of sacred musicians (1 Chr. 25:2, 9).

(3.) The son of Judah, and father of Semei (Luke 3:26). Other two of the same name in the ancestry of Christ are also mentioned (3:24, 30).

(4.) The foster-father of our Lord (Matt. 1:16; Luke 3:23). He lived at Nazareth in Galilee (Luke 2:4). He is called a “just man.” He was by trade a carpenter (Matt. 13:55). He is last mentioned in connection with the journey to Jerusalem, when Jesus was twelve years old. It is probable that he died before Jesus entered on his public ministry. This is concluded from the fact that Mary only was present at the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. His name does not appear in connection with the scenes of the crucifixion along with that of Mary (q.v.), John 19:25.

(5.) A native of Arimathea, probably the Ramah of the Old Testament (1 Sam. 1:19), a man of wealth, and a member of the Sanhedrim (Matt. 27:57; Luke 23:50), an “honourable counsellor, who waited for the kingdom of God.” As soon as he heard the tidings of Christ’s death, he “went in boldly” (lit. “having summoned courage, he went”) “unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.” Pilate having ascertained from the centurion that the death had really taken place, granted Joseph’s request, who immediately, having purchased fine linen (Mark 15:46), proceeded to Golgotha to take the body down from the cross. There, assisted by Nicodemus, he took down the body and wrapped it in the fine linen, sprinkling it with the myrrh and aloes which Nicodemus had brought (John 19:39), and then conveyed the body to the new tomb hewn by Joseph himself out of a rock in his garden hard by. There they laid it, in the presence of Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Joses, and other women, and rolled a great stone to the entrance, and departed (Luke 23:53, 55). This was done in haste, “for the Sabbath was drawing on” (comp. Isa. 53:9).

(6.) Surnamed Barsabas (Acts 1:23); also called Justus. He was one of those who “companied with the apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went out and in among them” (Acts 1:21), and was one of the candidates for the place of Judas.

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Joseph

The older of Jacob’s two sons by Rachel. Having been long barren, she said at his birth “God hath taken away (asaph) my reproach”; “the Lord (I regard this son as the earnest that He) will add (yaacaph) to me another son,” a hope fulfilled afterward in Benjamin’s birth. Seventeen years old when sold into Egypt (Jacob being 108, and Isaac living 12 years afterward), 30 when made governor (Gen 30:23-24; Gen 37:2; Gen 41:46), Gen 41:39 before Jacob came into Egypt; so born 1906 B.C. He is called” son of Jacob’s old age,” as the comfort of his father’s declining years, when his elder brothers by misconduct grieved their father, and Benjamin as yet was too young to minister to him. While Jacob was with the aged Isaac at Hebron his sons were tending flocks. Joseph reported their evil doings to Jacob, early manifesting moral courage and right principle under temptation (Exo 23:2). Jacob marked his love to Joseph by giving him a “coat of many colors” (ketonet pacim), the distinctive mark of kings’ daughters who were virgins (2Sa 13:18), strictly a long “tunic reaching to the extremities” or ankles.

These robes generally had a stripe round the skirts and sleeves. On the tomb of Chnumhotep at Benihassan, under the 12th dynasty, the Semitic visitors are represented in colored robes, of pieces sewn together. Jacob probably designed hereby to give Joseph, the firstborn of Rachel who, but for Laban’s trick, was his rightful first wife as she was his dearest,the primogeniture forfeited by Reuben (1Ch 5:1; Gen 35:22; Gen 49:4). The Arab chief to this day wears an aba or garment of different colored stripes as emblem of office. The more his father loved the more his brethren hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him (Ecc 4:4; compare the Antitype Joh 1:11; Joh 5:17-20; Joh 7:5; Joh 15:23-25). The preeminence given him by his earthly was confirmed by his heavenly Father in two successive dreams.

In his simplicity, possibly with some degree of elation, but certainly with the divine approval (for the revelation was given to be made known, Mat 10:27), he told the dreams to his brethren, which only aggravated their hatred: the first, their sheaves bowing to his sheaf (pointing to his coming office of lord of the Egyptian granaries); the second, the sun, moon, and 11 stars bowing to him (these heavenly bodies symbolizing authorities subject to his chief rule; compare the coming eclipse of the natural luminaries and earthly potentates before the Antitype, Mat 24:29-30; Rev 6:12). In the Antitype the Old Testament prophecies answer to Joseph’s dreams; the Jewish rulers rejected Him, though knowing, yet practically knowing not, the prophecies concerning Him (Act 13:27). Leah or else Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid, answers to the “moon,” “thy mother,” as Jacob to the “sun,” and the 11 stars to the 11 brothers (Gen 37:6-10).

He told his second dream to his father as well as to his brethren, because it affected not merely them but Jacob and his mother also. His father at first was displeased with what seemed at variance with a son’s submission to his parent. But, like Mary in the case of the Antitype, he “observed the saying” (Luk 2:19; Luk 2:51). Unbelief, along with a secret misgiving that it might prove true after all, and bitter envy, wrought upon the brothers. So upon their father sending Joseph from the vale of Hebron in the S. to Shechem in the N. to inquire after their welfare and the flocks, when they saw him afar off at Dothan, they conspired to slay him, saying “we shall see what will become of his dreams.” So as to the Antitype, Mat 21:38; Mat 27:1. Stephen and the apostles evidently contemplated Joseph as type of Jesus (Act 7:9-14; Act 3:13-18). Jacob’s special love shadows God’s love to His Only Begotten (Mat 3:17).

Joseph’s readiness at his father’s calls answers to the good Shepherd, the Son of God’s volunteering to come securing our eternal welfare at the cost of His life (Psa 40:6-7; Joh 10:11). Providence turned aside their first plan. Reuben persuades them to avoid the guilt of blood by casting him into a dry pit or cistern, intending to return and deliver him. In his absence (the narrative with the artlessness of truth never explains why Reuben was absent at the crisis; a forger would have carefully made all plain) they strip off his coat of many colors (type of the human body with its manifold perfections which the Father “prepared” the Son, and which His unnatural brethren stripped Him of: Heb 10:5; Phi 2:6-8); and while he was in the pit “eat bread” (Pro 30:20; compare Joh 18:28; Zec 9:11). Ishmaelite or Midianite merchants from Gilead, with spicery, balm, and myrrh (gum ladanum), for Egypt, the land of embalming the dead (Gen 50:2-3), passed by; and Judah, type of Judas, proposes the new plan of selling their brother for 20 pieces of silver (Lev 27:5) to the strangers (compare Mat 20:19; Luk 18:32; Luk 20:20, the Jews delivering Jesus to the Gentile Romans).

Thus, they thought they had foiled forever the prediction of his elevation, but this was the very means of realizing it, by God’s overruling and matchless counsels. Compare the Antitype (Act 4:25-28; Isa 28:29; Pro 19:21). Joseph’s anguish of soul is noticed incidentally in the brothers’ self reproach (Gen 42:21). Affection for his father is a trait characterizing him throughout, even as the father loved him, so that at his supposed loss through a wild beast (his sons having sent him Joseph’s tunic dipped in blood) Jacob refused to be comforted. Severance from his father was the bitterest ingredient in his cup of slavery. So the Antitype, Mat 27:46. His chief inquiries long afterward were about his father (Gen 43:7; Gen 45:13; Gen 45:28; Gen 41:51), and the remembrance of “his father” was with him the strongest plea after Jacob’s death, that the brothers thought they could urge for their being forgiven (Gen 50:16-17).

Reuben with characteristic instability forbore to tell his father the truth, while he had not consented to their deed. Jacob’s cry, “I will go down into sheol unto my son,” implies his belief in a future state, for he thought his son devoured by wild beasts, therefore not in the “grave.” The Midianites sold Joseph to Potiphar (“one devoted to the royal house”; phar), an eunuch, i.e. court attendant, of Pharaoh, chief of the executioners (Hebrew, or “commander of the body guard”), the superintendence of executions belonging to the chiefs of the military caste. Potiphar controlled the king’s prison (Gen 39:20), which was in “the house of the captain of the guard” (Potiphar’s successor according to some, but Potiphar, where also Joseph was prisoner (Gen 40:3). (See POTIPHAR.) Joseph at first “prospered” as Potiphar’s steward (“Jehovah making all that he did to prosper in his hand”), supervising his gardens, lands, fisheries, and cattle. Farming in Egypt was carried on with the utmost system, as the Egyptian monuments attest; the stewards registering all the operations, to check the notorious dishonesty of the workmen.

Joseph’s knowledge of flocks qualified him in some degree for the post, and his integrity made him trustworthy in it, so that his master felt he could safely entrust to his charge his household and all that he had, and “the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake” (as in Jacob’s case, Gen 30:27); Psa 1:3. But now his virtue encountered a severer test than that of his brothers’ bad example; Potiphar’s wife, with the lustfulness of Egyptian women, conceived a passion for his beauty and tempted him. Seemingly, his safety was in compliance, his danger if he should provoke her by non-compliance. Had he given way to animal appetite he would have yielded; but his master’s absolute confidence in him, which gave him the opportunity with probable impunity (“my master wotteth not what is with me in the house”), was just the reason he gives for not abusing that confidence. Above all, regard for God restrained him instinctively: “how CAN (not merely shall) I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?”

So Mat 7:18; 1Jo 3:9, “cannot.” Willful sin is impossible so long as one is under the principle of grace. On “against God,” the feature of sin which constitutes its chief heinousness, see Psa 51:4; 2Sa 12:13. When she importuned him day by day, he avoided being with her; they who would escape sin should flee temptation and occasions of sin. When she caught his garment he fled, leaving it in her hand. Then she accused him of the very sin to which she tried in vain to tempt him. An Egyptian story, in the papyrus d’Orbiney in the British Museum, The Two Brothers, in later times, seems founded on that of Joseph, the elder brother’s wife tempting the younger with almost the same words as Potiphar’s wife used to Joseph. The story of Saneha in one of the oldest papyri records his elevation to high rank under a Pharaoh of the 12th dynasty, and his developing the resources of Egypt just as Joseph did. Potiphar’s not putting Joseph to death implies that he did not feel sure of his wife’s story, and half suspected Joseph might be innocent.

It cannot have been he but another who entrusted the prisoners to Joseph; for if Potiphar believed him innocent, as the committing of prisoners to him would imply, he would not have left him in prison. His doing so was providentially ordered for Joseph’s elevation. Joseph’s lettering, “the iron entering into his soul,” is alluded to in Psa 105:17-18. The keeper of the prison, however, discovered his trustworthiness, and committed to him all the prisoners, “the Lord giving him favor in the keeper’s sight” (Pro 16:7). After a time the chief of Pharaoh’s cupbearers (Hebrew), and the chief of his bakers or confectioners, were cast into prison by the king; the captain of the guard committed them as men of rank to Joseph’s custody. His interpretation of their dreams, the vine with three branches and the pressing the grape juice into Pharaoh’s cup, and the three baskets of white bread (the Egyptians being noted for their fancy bread and pastry) out the uppermost of which the birds ate, came to pass; Pharaoh restored the chief cupbearer, and decapitated the chief baker.

The mention of wine is confirmed by the monuments, which make it the beverage of the rich, beer that of the poor, and represent the process of fermenting wines in early times. The chief cupbearer forgot his promise and his benefactor Joseph (Amo 6:6); compare the Antitype, Psa 31:12, He “remembered” the companion of His suffering (Luk 23:42). After two years Pharaoh’s two dreams of the seven fat and seven lean kine out of the river (Nile, yeowr Hebrew, aa Aur Egyptian, “great river”: also Hapi, i.e. Apis, the sacred name; appropriately “kine” come out of “the river,” fertilizing the land by its overflow in the absence of rain, for grain and pasture of cattle, Apis the god being represented as a bull, and Athor, Isis, or mother earth, as a cow), feeding in a meadow (the sedge or rank grass by the river’s edge, achuw), and the seven rank ears of grain on one stalk, such as still is grown in Egypt, devoured by the seven thin ears which were blasted by the S.E. wind, called Joseph to the chief cupbearer’s remembrance.

Having in vain consulted his magicians or “sacred scribes” (chartumim, “bearers of spells”; the “sorcerers” do not occur until Exo 7:11), Pharaoh through Joseph learned the interpretation, that seven years of famine (doubtless owing to failure of the Nile’s overflow) should succeed to and consume all the stores remaining from the seven plenteous years. (See DIVINATION.) Like Daniel in the great heathen worldking’s court at the close of Israel’s history, so Joseph at its beginning, in like circumstances and with like abstinence from fleshly indulgences, interprets the Gentile monarch’s dreams; marking, the immeasurable superiority of the kingdom of God, even at its lowest point, to the world kingdoms. It is an undesigned mark of genuineness that Joseph is represented as “shaving” before entering Pharaoh’s presence, for the Hebrew wore a beard, but the Egyptians cut it and the hair close, and represent on the monuments the idea of slovenliness or low birth by giving a beard to a man.

Joseph recommended the king to appoint a chief officer and subordinates to take up by taxation a fifth of the produce in the plenteous years against the famine years. The king raised Joseph as one” in whom the Spirit of God was,” to be grand vizier over his house and his people, reserving the throne alone for himself. He put his signet ring (the names of the Pharaohs were always written in an elongated, signet like, ring) on Joseph’s hand in token of delegated sovereignty, a gold chain about his neck, and arrayed him in the fine linen peculiar to the Egyptian priests; and made him ride in his second chariot, while the attendants cried “Abrech,” (“Rejoice thou”) (Egyptian), calling upon him to rejoice with all the people at his exaltation (Canon Cook, Speaker’s Commentary) Pharaoh named Joseph “Zaphnath Paaneah.” the food of life or of the living. Compare the Antitype (Joh 6:35) occupying the mediatorial throne with the Father’s delegated tower, giving the bread of life first to His own brethren the Jews. then to the world.

Then Joseph, who shrank from adulterous lusts, in righteous retribution received pure wedded joys in union with Asenath (“devoted to Neith and Isis”) daughter of Potipherah (“devoted to Ra, the sun god”) priest of ON , Heliopolis or Bethshemesh (the city of the sun god), the religious capital. Pharaoh doubtless ordered the marriage, to link his prime minister with the noblest in the land. Pharaoh himself was invested with the highest sacerdotal dignity, and could remove all disqualifications, so as to enable Joseph to be allied to the proud and exclusive priest caste. The Egyptian religion, though blended with superstitions, retained then much of the primitive revelation, the unity, eternity, and self existence of the unseen God. The sun was made His visible symbol, the earliest idolatry (Job 31:26, Sabeanism). Joseph probably drew Asenath to his own purer faith. Joseph certainly professed openly his religion without molestation (Gen 42:18), and Pharaoh recognizes the God of Joseph and His Spirit as the true God (Gen 41:32-38-39).

Like the Antitype (Luk 3:23), Joseph was 30 in entering on his public ministry, so that he was 13 years in Egypt, in Potiphar’s house and in prison, before his elevation. With characteristic energy as a steward he made an immediate tour throughout Egypt, and laid up grain in immense quantities, all registered accurately by scribes when the granaries were being filled (as Egyptian monuments represent). God gave him two children, to whom he gave Hebrew names, showing he remembered as ever the God of his fathers: Manasseh, “forgetting,” “for God,” said he, “hath made me forget all my toil and all my father’s house” (i.e. not literally forgetting his relatives, for “his father” was uppermost in his affections; but has swallowed past sorrow in present joy; compare Psa 90:15; Isa 65:16-17; Isa 61:7; Isa 62:4; Rev 7:14-17; spiritually, Psa 45:10); and Ephraim, “doubly fruitful,” Joseph again attributing all to God, “God hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction” (compare Gen 49:22; Joh 15:2 ff). (See EGYPT, on Joseph.)

Apophis the last of the shepherd kings was supposed to be the Pharaoh over Joseph. But Apophis was not master of all Egypt, as Joseph’s Pharaoh was. “Shepherds were an abomination” in Joseph’s time, which could not have been the case under a shepherd king. Osirtasin I, the second king of the 12th dynasty, was perhaps Joseph’s Pharaoh. This dynasty was especially connected with On. There still stand Osirtasin’s name and title on the famous obelisk, the oldest and finest in Egypt. Chnumhotep, Osirtasin’s relative and favorite, is described upon the tombs of Benihassan as possessing the qualities so esteemed in Joseph “When years of famine occurred he plowed all the lands producing abundant food.” The tenure under the crown, subject to a rent of a fifth of the increase, could only emanate from a native Pharaoh. Had it been a shepherd king’s work, it would have been set aside on the return of the native dynasties. Amenemha III, sixth of the 12th dynasty, established a complete system of dikes, locks, and reservoirs, to regulate the Nile’s overflow.

He fitted the lake Moeris for receiving the overflow; near it was Pianeh, “the house of life,” answering to Zaphnath Paaueah, “the food of life.” If he be Joseph’s Pharaoh Joseph was just the minister to carry out his grand measures. In the seven famine years the Egyptians as well as the people of adjoining lands, W. Africa, Ethiopia, Arabia, Syria, which shared in the drought (for the tropical rains on the Abyssinian mountains, on which the Nile’s rise depends, have the same origin as the Palestine rains), and which partially depended on Egypt the granary of many countries (Act 27:6; Act 27:38), came to buy grain. Pharaoh’s one reply to all was: “go to Joseph, what he saith to you, do” (compare the Antitype: Joh 6:45 ff; Joh 2:5). His brethren too came and bowed before him, unconsciously fulfilling the dream which they had so striven to frustrate (Act 4:27-28; Pro 19:21; Pro 21:30). His speech and manners were Egyptian, so that they knew him not though he knew them.

So the Antitype’s brethren shall at last, like all others, bow before Him who is supereminently exalted just because He humbled Himself (Phi 2:6-11; Psa 22:22; Psa 22:26-29). He knows His people before they know Him (Joh 15:16; Joh 10:14; Gal 4:9). Joseph spoke roughly to his brethren, at once to avoid recognition and to bring them to repentance: “ye are spies, to see the nakedness (the assailable, because defenseless, points) of the land ye are come.” Egypt was exposed to incursions of Canaanite Hittites and Arabs, and the invasion of the shepherds or Hyksos was already impending. (See EGYPT.) Joseph bartered grain successively for the Egyptian money (the money was in the form of rings not coined but weighed), cattle and land, of which he retained only a fifth of the produce for Pharaoh and took nothing from the priests. Diodorus adds the warriors as possessing land, but this was the king’s special favor to them and apparently after Joseph.

Not Joseph but Pharaoh it was who made the exception in behalf of the idolatrous priests, giving them grain without requiring their land (Gen 47:22). Herodotus mentions the allotment of the soil by the crown among the people. The monuments record several famines and precautions taken against it. Joseph’s statesmanship appears in the policy adopted. The Egyptians became the king’s servants, and their property his, by their own voluntary act. His generous principle of dealing with them then, asking only a fifth after establishing the right to all, won their universal approval of an evenly distributed instead of an unequal taxation. A fifth was probably the sole tax on them. Joseph’s policy was to centralize power in the monarch’s hands, a well ordered monarchy being the best in the existing state of Egypt to guard against the recurrence of famines by stores laid by systematically, and by irrigation in the absence of the Nile’s overthrow, and by such like governmental works, instead of leaving all to the unthrifty and unenterprising cultivators.

The removal to cities (Gen 47:19-26) facilitated his providing the people with food. The Egyptians did not regard one fifth as an exorbitant rent, but acknowledged “thou hast saved our lives” (compare the Antitype, Act 5:31). Joseph’s brethren in replying as to their father and family kept up the old lie, “one is not.” Joseph required that one of them should fetch the youngest who was they said with his father, and kept them three days in ward, then let them take back grain for their households, but bound Simeon before their eyes as a hostage for their bringing Benjamin and so proving their truthfulness. As they had separated him from his father so he separated one from them, possibly the ringleader in their cruelty to Joseph (compare Genesis 34; Gen 49:5-7.) As they had seen his anguish of soul so now their souls were in terrified anguish, with the stings of conscience added (Gen 42:21-22): retribution in kind (Num 32:23 ff; Mat 7:2).

Joseph heard their self reproaching, remorseful cry, “we are verily guilty concerning our brother in that we saw … and we would not hear” (Pro 21:13). Joseph, though cherishing no revenge nay feeding his enemy when hungry (Rom 12:20), saw that temporary affliction was needed to bring them to penitence (Hos 5:15; Job 36:8-9). He filled their sacks (Hebrew, “vessels”) and restored their money (Luk 6:34-35). divine guidance led Joseph to require Benjamin, the surest way of bringing Jacob and the whole family into their Egyptian house of bondage and training. His real kindness to them here shows that the severity was used in the interests of justice and their ultimate good by humiliation, while he retained all a brother’s tenderness. The discovery of their money alarmed both the brothers and Jacob; “all these things are against me,” but see Rom 8:31. Reuben offered to let his two sons be slain if he did not bring Benjamin back.

At last, when want of grain forced him, Jacob gave a reluctant consent on Judah’s undertaking to be surety for Benjamin. So with double money and a present of balm (balsam gum), honey (else grape juice boiled down to syrup, dibs), spices (storax), myrrh (ladanum), and nuts (pistachio nuts), they brought Benjamin. Tremblingly they told the steward as to their money, for they feared on being brought into the house they should be imprisoned there. The steward reassured them and brought forth Benjamin. Again they fulfilled the dream, bowing before Joseph twice to the earth. His tender affection all but burst out at the sight of Benjamin, but as before by turning from them and weeping (Gen 42:24), so now by entering into a chamber and weeping there, he maintained composure (compare the Antitype’s yearning love for His brethren after the flesh: Jer 31:20; Isa 63:15). At dinner the Egyptians, dreading pollution from those who killed cows, which were sacred in Egypt, sat apart from the Hebrew, and Joseph sat alone according to his high rank.

Each was served separately; all were ranged according to age, but the youngest had five messes for their one sent from before Joseph. The monuments accord with this representation. They drank freely (“were merry”.) On the morrow, by putting his silver cup (bowl from which wine was poured into smaller cups) in Benjamin’s sack, and sending his steward after them upon their leaving the city where Joseph lived, he elicited Judah’s generous offer to be bondsman and so not bring his father’s grey hairs with sorrow to the grave, bound up as Jacob’s life was with Benjamin’s. (See DIVINATION.) Divining cups were used by gazing into the water as a mirror. The Nile was “the cup of Egypt,” the sacred cup symbolized it. Joseph to keep up his disguise spoke as an Egyptian. He was not faultless; here he exceeded legitimate bounds of disguise, and implied his use of divination, which his former disclaiming of all knowledge otherwise than by God’s revelation proves he did not practice (Gen 41:16). Joseph could refrain no longer.

The thought of his father’s loving anxiety moved him to make himself known to them. He wept aloud while “they were troubled at his presence”; it was as if the ghost of one whom they had murdered stood before them. They shrank from him, but he said “come near to me” (compare Mat 14:26; the Antitype and His future comforting of Zion, Isa 40:2; Isa 61:2-3). Joseph soothes their remorse, “be not angry with yourselves, for God did send me before you to preserve life.” So Act 3:12-18; Act 4:27-28. He gave them the kiss of reconciliation and wept over them. Above all he tells them: “haste ye … to my father and say, God hath made me lord of all Egypt, come down and thou shalt dwell in Goshen near me.” (See GOSHEN.) Pharaoh and his court were pleased at the arrival of his brethren, and rendered him all help in removing his father and the whole household. His knowledge of his brethren suggested his charge, “see that ye fall not out by the way,” one laying the blame of their unnatural conduct on the other.

His filial reverence and love appear in his meeting his father in his own state chariot and escorting him to Goshen, Judah having preceded Jacob to announce to Joseph his approach. Goshen was assigned as a separate settlement to the Hebrew as shepherds, to avoid offense to the Egyptians, who being themselves tillers of the ground looked down on their nomadic neighbours. Already the latter had made inroads on lower Egypt, and after Joseph’s time established the dynasty of shepherd kings or Hyksos (Gen 46:28-34). Jacob gave Joseph “one portion above his brethren, taken from the Amorites with sword and bow,” therefore not Shechem (portion) which he bought (see 1Ch 5:1-2). Joseph, though the birthright was transferred to him from Reuben by Jacob, was not entered into the family registers as firstborn, because Judah prevailed above the rest and king David was chosen front his tribe.

Still Jacob the progenitor marked Joseph as firstborn by assigning to his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh two tribal domains according to the law of the firstborn (Deu 21:15-17); his dying blessing on Joseph beautifully expresses Joseph’s “fruitfulness amidst affliction,” as his “arms were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob.” Jacob’s blessing on Joseph once “separate from his brethren” exceeded that of Abraham on Isaac, and of Isaac on Jacob, and lasts as long as “the everlasting hills.” The mention of Joseph’s “servants the physicians” (Gen 50:2) accords with the Egyptian usage of great men having many physicians attached to each household, one for each kind of sickness and to embalm the dead. After embalming and burying his father he was accosted by his brethren, who judged him by their own ungenerous and deceitful characters; he reassured them by renouncing vengeance as God’s prerogative not his (Rom 12:19), and by speaking kindly.

Joseph lived to 110 years, of which 93 were spent in Egypt; seeing Ephraim’s and Manasseh’s grandchildren, and showing his faith to the end by still clinging amidst all his grandeur in Egypt to God’s promise of his seed’s settlement in Canaan and therefore commanding Israel on oath to carry his remains there (Heb 11:22). His body was embalmed, and in due time carried by Israel to Shechem his burying place (Exo 13:19; Jos 24:32; Act 7:16). Ephraim and Manasseh followed the idolatries out of which their mother had come rather than the pure faith of Joseph. He is one of the most faultless human heroes of Scripture. Decision in good, yet versatility in adapting itself to all circumstances, strong sense of duty, strict justice combined with generosity, self-control in adversity and prosperity alike, strength of character with sensitive tenderness and delicacy, modesty and magnanimity, strong filial love, above all abiding faith in God, appear throughout his remarkable history. As a statesman he got men unconditionally into his power that he might benefit them, and displayed extraordinary administrative ability.

2. Num 13:7.

3. Ezr 10:42.

4. Neh 12:14.

5. Luk 3:30.

6. Joseph or Josek (Luk 3:26).

7. Another (Luk 3:24).

8. Son of Heli, husband of the Virgin Mary, daughter and heiress of his uncle Jacob. The frequent recurrence of the name in Luke’s genealogy and its absence from Matthew’s confirm the view that Luke’s gives Joseph’s line of parentage down from Nathan, David’s son, but Matthew’s the line of succession to the throne. (See GENEALOGY.) “A just” and yet (Mat 1:19) merciful and tenderly considerate man. Recognized by his contemporaries as of David’s lineage (Luk 2:4; Mat 1:20; Joh 1:45). Joseph as well as Mary lived at Nazareth before their actual marriage; probably their common grandfather Matthat had settled there (Luk 1:26-27). His faith appears in his immediate obedience to the divine vision in a dream, no longer fearing to take to him Mary his wife (Mat 1:24-25). Soon afterward Augustus’ decree for the taxation obliged both to go to Bethlehem where Jesus was born (Luke 2). There the shepherds “found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger.”

After the wise men’s departure another dream from the Lord caused him to flee from Herod’s murderous agents by night with mother and Child to Egypt, where he remained until the angel of the Lord in another dream intimated Herod’s death, He arose and returned; but fearing Archelaus who reigned in Judaea, and warned of God in a fourth dream (the divine mode of revelation in the early stage of the kingdom of God, less perfect than those vouchsafed in the advance, stages), Joseph turned aside to his old home Nazareth. Joseph is mentioned as with Mary in presenting the Babe in the temple and as “marvelling at those things spoken of” Jesus by Simeon, and as “blessed” by him. Lastly, when Jesus was taken at 12 years of age to the temple and tarried behind, Joseph and His mother knew not of it; and Mary on finding Him said, “Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing.”

He replied, “Wist ye not that I must be about My Father’s business?” Henceforward there is no more mention of the earthly father, and the heavenly and true Father is all in all. He was a “carpenter,” and doubtless instructed the holy Jesus in this work (Mat 13:55; Mar 6:3). Mary and Jesus’ brethren are occasionally mentioned during His ministry, but Joseph never; evidently he had died previously, which Jesus’ committal of the Virgin mother to John (Joh 19:27) confirms. Tradition has supplied by fiction what the Gospels under the Spirit’s guidance do not contain.

9. Of Aramahea. (See ARIMATHEA.) “An honourable counselor,” i.e. member of the Sanhedrin (Mar 15:43). Joseph “waited for the kingdom of God” (Luk 2:25; Luk 2:38; Luk 23:51), i.e. for Messiah and His kingdom, in accordance with prophecy. “A good man and a just.” He had not consented to the Sanhedrin’s counsel and deed in crucifying Jesus. Timidity was his failing. Mark was conscious of it; John (Joh 19:38) expressly records it, “a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews.” Hence Mark records it as the more remarkable that “Joseph went in boldly unto Pilate and craved the body” just at a time when the boldest disciples might and did shrink from such a perilous venture. Feeble faith when real sometimes rises with the occasion, to face the most formidable dangers. The undesigned coincidence of Mark and John confirms their genuineness. The mighty signs both Joseph and Nicodemus witnessed at Jesus’ crucifixion, and His own divine bearing throughout, changed cowards into brave disciples.

God had foretold ages ago (Isa 53:9), “they (His enemies) appointed (designed) His grave with the wicked (by crucifying Him between two thieves), but He was with a rich man at His death,” i.e. when He was dead. Up to the end this prophecy seemed most unlikely to be fulfilled; but when God’s time had come, at the exact crisis came forward two men, the last one would expect, both rich and members of the hostile body of rulers. The same event which crushed the hopes and raised the fears of the avowed disciples inspired Joseph with a boldness which he never felt before. All four evangelists record his deed. He had the privilege of taking down from the cross the sacred body, wrapping in fine linen which he had bought, and adding spices with Nicodemus’ help, and consigning to his own newly hewn rock tomb wherein no corpse had ever lain, and in his own garden near Calvary, and then rolling the stone to the door of the sepulchre. Tradition represents Joseph as sent to Great Britain by the apostle Philip (A.D. 63), and as having settled with a band of disciples at Glastonbury, Somersetshire.

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

Joseph

JOSEPH ().1. The patriarch, mentioned only in the description of the visit of Jesus to Sychar (Joh 4:5).2. 3. Joseph son of Mattathias and Joseph son of Jonam are both named in the genealogy of Jesus given in Lk. (Luk 3:24; Luk 3:30).* [Note: Joseph the son of Juda in v. 26 (AV) becomes Josech the son of Joda in RV.] 4. One of the brethren of the Lord, Mat 13:55 (Authorized Version Joses, the form adopted in both Authorized Version and Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 in Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3; Mar 15:40; Mar 15:47. See Joses).

5. Joseph, the husband of Mary and the reputed father of Jesus (Luk 3:23), is not mentioned in Mk., and only indirectly in Jn. (Joh 1:45; Joh 6:42). He was of Davidic descent; and, though Mt. and Lk. differ in the genealogical details, they connect Jesus with Joseph and through him with David (Mat 1:1 ff., Luk 3:23 ff.). Joseph, who was a carpenter (Mat 13:55) and a poor man, as his offering in the temple showed Luk 2:24), lived in Nazareth (Luk 2:4) and was espoused to Mary, also of Nazareth (Luk 1:26). By their betrothal they entered into a relationship which, though not the completion of marriage, could be dissolved only by death or divorce. Before the marriage ceremony Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost, but the angelic annunciation to her was not made known to Joseph. He is described as a just man (Mat 1:19), a strict observer of the Law. The law was stern (Deu 22:23-24), but its severity had been mitigated and divorce had taken the place of death. Divorce could be effected publicly, so that the shame of the woman might be seen by all; or it could be done privately, by the method of handing the bill of separation to the woman in presence of two witnesses. [Note: Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, i. 154. Dalman asserts that Edersheim is incorrect in stating that public divorce was possible (see Hastings DB, art. Joseph).] Joseph, not willing to make Mary a public example, was minded to put her away privily (Mat 1:18). An angel, however, appeared to him in a dream, telling him not to fear to marry Mary, as the conception was of the Holy Ghost, and also that she would bring forth a son, whom he was to name Jesus (Mat 1:20 f.). The dream was accepted as a revelation, [Note: cit. i. 155.] as a token of Divine favour, and Joseph took Mary as his wife, but did not live with her as her husband till she had brought forth her firstborn son (Mat 1:24 f.).

Before the birth of Christ there was an Imperial decree that all the world should be taxed, and Joseph, being of the house and lineage of David, had to leave Nazareth and go to Bethlehem, to be taxed with Mary. [Note: On the question of the visit to Bethlehem see Ramsays Was Christ born at Bethlehem?] In Bethlehem Jesus was born; and there the shepherds, to whom the angel had announced the birth of the Saviour, found Mary and Joseph and the babe lying in a manger (Luk 2:16). At the circumcision, on the eighth day after the birth, the child received the name Jesus which Joseph had been commanded to give Him; and on a later day, when Marys purification was accomplished (cf. Lev 12:2-4), she and Joseph took Jesus to the temple in Jerusalem (Luk 2:22), to present him to the Lord* [Note: The earliest period of presentation was thirty-one days after birth, so as to make the legal month quite complete (Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, i. 193).] and to offer a sacrifice, according to the requirements of the law (Exo 13:2, Lev 12:8). Joseph fulfilled the law as if he were the father of Jesus; and after the ceremonies in the temple he must have returned with Mary and her son to Bethlehem, which was 6 miles distant from Jerusalem. In Bethlehem the Wise Men who had come from the East saw Mary and the young child and worshipped Him; and after their departure the angel of the Lord appeared again to Joseph, bidding him take Mary and the child and flee into Egypt on account of Herod, who would seek to destroy Him (Mat 2:13). Joseph was quick to obey, and rising in the night he took the young child and His mother and departed for Egypt, where Herod had no authority (Mat 2:14). In Egypt they were to remain till the angel brought word to Joseph (Mat 2:13); and there they dwelt, possibly two or even three years, till the death of Herod, when the angel again appeared in a dream to Joseph. The angel commanded him to take the young child and His mother and go into the land of Israel. Obedience was at once given by Joseph, but he became afraid when he learned that Archelaus was reigning in Judaea. Again the angel appeared in a dream, and after a warning Joseph proceeded to Nazareth, which was not under the rule of Archelaus, who had an evil reputation, but under that of the milder Antipas (Mat 2:14-23).

It is recorded of Joseph that he and Mary went every year, at the Passover, to Jerusalem, and that when Jesus was twelve years of age He accompanied them. On that occasion Jesus tarried in Jerusalem, after Joseph and Mary, thinking He was with them in the company, had left the city. When they had gone a days journey they found He was not with them, and they turned back to Jerusalem. After three days they found Him in the temple among the doctors, and they were amazed. Marys words, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. called forth an answer which Joseph and Mary did not understand. But after the incident in Jerusalem, Jesus went with them to Nazareth and was subject unto them (Luk 2:41-51). Marys words and the record of the subjection of Jesus to her and Joseph indicate that Joseph stood to Jesus in the place of an earthly father. How long that relationship continued is unknown, since the time of the death of Joseph is not stated in the Gospels. It may be accepted as a certainty that he was not alive throughout the period of the public ministry of Jesus, seeing that he is not directly or indirectly mentioned along with His mother and brothers and sisters (Mar 3:31; Mar 6:3).

6. Joseph of Arimathaea ( , see Arimathaea).A rich and pious Israelite (Mat 27:57), a member of the Sanhedrin (Mar 15:43), who, secretly for fear of the Jews, was Jesus disciple (Joh 19:38). He had not consented to the death of Jesus (Luk 23:51), and could not therefore have been present at the Council, where they all condemned Him to be guilty of death (Mar 14:64). The timidity which prevented him from openly avowing his discipleship, and perhaps from defending Jesus in the Sanhedrin, fled when he beheld the death of the Lord. Jewish law required that the body of a person who had been executed should not remain all night upon the tree, but should in any wise be buried (Deu 21:22-23). This law would not bind the Roman authorities, and the custom in the Empire was to leave the body to decay upon the cross (cf. Hor. Ep. i. xvi. 48; Plautus, Mil. Glor. II. iv. 19). But at the crucifixion of Jesus and of the two malefactors, the Jews, anxious that the bodies should not remain upon the cross during the Sabbath, besought Pilate that the legs of the crucified might be broken and death hastened, and that then the bodies might be taken away (Joh 19:31). According to Roman law, the relatives could claim the body of a person executed (Digest, xlviii. 24, De cadav. punit.). But which of the relatives of Jesus had a sepulchre in Jerusalem where His body might be placed? Joseph, wishing the burial not to be in any wise (cf. Jos 8:29), but to be according to the most pious custom of his race, went to Pilate and craved the body. The petition required boldness (Mar 15:43), since Joseph, with no kinship in the flesh with Jesus, would be forced to make a confession of discipleship, which the Jews would note. Pilate, too, neither loved nor was loved by Israel, and his anger might be kindled at the coming of a Jew, and the member of the Sanhedrin be assailed with insults. Pilate, however, making sure that Jesus was dead, gave the body. Perhaps he had pity for the memory of Him he had condemned, or perhaps the rich mans gold, since Pilate, according to Philo (Op. ii. 590), took money from suppliants, secured what was craved. Joseph, now with no fear of the Jews, acted openly, and had to act with speed, as the day of preparation for the Sabbath was nearly spent. Taking down the body of Jesus from the cross (and other hands must have aided his), he wrapped it in linen which he himself had bought (Mar 15:46). In the Fourth Gospel it is told how Nicodemus, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight, joined Joseph, and how they took the body and wound it in linen clothes with the spices (Joh 19:40). Near the place of crucifixion was a garden, and in the garden a new sepulchre, which Joseph had hewn out in the rock, doubtless for his own last resting-place; and in that sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid, was placed the body of Jesus prepared for its burial (Mat 27:60, Joh 19:41). In the court at the entrance to the tomb, the preparation would be made. All was done which the time before the Sabbath allowed reverent hands to do; and then Joseph, perhaps thinking of the pious offices that could yet be done to the dead, rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre and departed (Mat 27:60). On late legends regarding Joseph of Arimathaea see Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , vol. ii. p. 778.

J. Herkless.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

Joseph

JOSEPH (in OT and Apocr. [Note: Apocrypha, Apocryphal.] ).1. The patriarch. See next article. 2. A man of Issachar (Num 13:7). 3. A son of Asaph (1Ch 25:2; 1Ch 25:9). 4. One of the sons of Bani who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:42); called in 1Es 9:34 Josephus. 5. A priest (Neh 12:14). 6. An ancestor of Judith (Jdt 8:1). 7. An officer of Judas Maccabus (1Ma 5:18; 1Ma 5:56; 1Ma 5:60). 8. In 2Ma 8:22, and probably also 10:19, Joseph is read by mistake for John, one of the brothers of Judas Maccabus.

JOSEPH.Jacobs eleventh son, the elder of the two sons of Rachel; born in Haran. The name is probably contracted from Jehoseph (Psa 81:5), May God add (cf. Gen 30:23 f., where etymologies from two sources are given). Joseph is the principal hero of the later chapters of Genesis, which are composed mainly of extracts from three documents. J [Note: Jahwist.] and E [Note: Elohist.] supply the bulk of the narrative, and as a rule are cited alternately, the compiler often modifying a quotation from one document with notes derived from the other. From P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] some six or seven short excerpts are made, the longest being Gen 46:6-27, where the object and the parenthetic quality are evident. For the details of analysis, see Driver LOT [Note: OT Introd. to the Literature of the Old Testament.] 6, 17 ff. The occasional differences of tradition are an evidence of original independence, and their imperfect harmonization in the joint narrative is favourable to its substantial historicity.

At present the date of Joseph can be only provisionally fixed, as the account of his life neither mentions the name of the ruling Pharaoh nor refers to distinctive Egyptian manners or customs in such a way as to yield a clue to the exact period. The Pharaoh of the oppression is now generally taken to be Rameses ii. of the 19th dynasty (c [Note: circa, about.] . b.c. 12751208); and if this be correct, the addition of the years of residence in Egypt (Exo 12:41) would bring Josephs term of office into the reign of the later Hyksos kings (c [Note: circa, about.] . b.c. 20981587; for dates and particulars, see Petrie, History of Egypt).

With the return of Jacob to Hebron (Gen 35:27) he ceases to be the central figure of the story, and Joseph takes his place. Of his life to the age of 17 (Gen 37:2) nothing is told, except that he was his fathers favourite, and rather too free in carrying complaints of his brothers and telling them of his boyish dreams. Sent to Shechem, he found that his brothers had taken their flocks northwards fifteen miles, to the richer pasturage of Dothan. As soon as he came within sight, their resentment perceived its opportunity, and they arranged to get rid of him and his dreams; but the two traditions are not completely harmonized. J [Note: Jahwist.] represents Judah as inducing his brothers to sell Joseph to a company of Ishmaelites; but E [Note: Elohist.] makes Reuben a mediator, whose plans were frustrated by a band of Midianites, who had in the interval kidnapped Joseph and stolen him away (Gen 40:15). The phraseology is against the identification of the two companies; and the divergent traditions point to a natural absence of real agreement among the brothers, with a frustration of their purposes by means of which they were ignorant. What became of Joseph they did not really know; and to protect themselves they manufactured the evidence of the blood-stained coat.

In Egypt, Joseph was bought by Potiphar, a court official, whose title makes him chief of the royal butchers and hence of the body-guard; and the alertness and trustworthiness of the slave led quickly to his appointment as major domo (Egyp. mer-per), a functionary often mentioned on the monuments (Erman, Life in Anc. Egypt, 187 f.). Everything prospered under Josephs management; but his comeliness and courtesy attracted the notice of his masters wife, whose advances, being repelled, were transformed into a resentment that knew no scruples. By means of an entirely false charge she secured the removal of Joseph to the State prison, which was under the control of Potiphar (Gen 40:3), and where again he was soon raised to the position of overseer or under-keeper. Under his charge were placed in due course the chief of the Pharaohs butlers and the chief of his bakers, who had for some unstated reason incurred the royal displeasure. Both were perplexed with dreams, which Joseph interpreted to them correctly. Two years later the Pharaoh himself had his duplicated dream of the fat and lean kine and of the full and thin ears; and as much significance was attached in Egypt to dreams, the king was distressed by his inability to find an interpreter, and his spirit was troubled. Thereupon the chief butler recalled Josephs skill and his own indebtedness to him, and mentioned him to the Pharaoh, who sent for him, and was so impressed by his sagacity and foresight that exaltation to the rank of keeper of the royal seal followed, with a degree of authority that was second only to that of the throne. The Egyptian name of Zaphenath-paneah (of which the meaning is perhaps The God spake and he came into life, suggesting that the bearer of the name owed his promotion to the Divine use of him as revealer of the Divine will) was conferred upon him, and he married Asenath, daughter of one of the most important dignitaries in the realm, the priest of the great national temple of the sun at On or Heliopolis, seven miles north-east of the modern Cairo.

So far as Egypt was concerned, Josephs policy was to store the surplus corn of the years of plenty in granaries, and afterwards so to dispose of it as to change the system of land-tenure. Famines in that country are due generally to failure or deficiency in the annual inundation of the Nile, and several of long endurance have been recorded. Brugsch (Hist.2 i. 304) reports an inscription, coinciding in age approximately with that of Joseph, and referring to a famine lasting many years, during which a distribution of corn was made. This has been doubtfully identified with Josephs famine. Other inscriptions of the kind occur, and are sufficient to authenticate the fact of prolonged famines, though not to yield further particulars of the one with which Joseph had to deal. His method was to sell corn first for money (rings of gold, whose weight was certified by special officials), and when all this was exhausted (Gen 47:15), corn was given in exchange for cattle of every kind, and finally for the land. The morality of appropriating the surplus produce and then compelling the people to buy it back, must not be judged by modern standards of justice, but is defensible, if at all, only in an economic condition where the central government was responsible for the control of a system of irrigation upon which the fertility of the soil and the produce of its cultivation directly depended, and where the private benefit of the individual had to be ignored in view of a peril threatening the community. Instead of regarding the arrangement as a precedent to be followed in different states of civilization, ground has been found in it for charging Joseph with turning the needs of the people into an occasion for oppressing them; and certainly the effect upon the character and subsequent condition of the people was not favourable. The system of tenure in existence before, by which large landed estates were held by private proprietors, was changed into one by which all the land became the property of the crown, the actual cultivators paying a rental of one-fifth of the produce (Gen 47:24). That some such change took place is clear from the monuments (cf. Erman, Life in Anc. Egypt, 102), though they have not yielded the name of the author or the exact date of the change. An exception was made in favour of the priests (Gen 47:22), who were supported by a fixed income in kind from the Pharaoh, and therefore had no need to part with their land. In later times (cf. Diodorus Siculus, i. 73 f.) the land was owned by the kings, the priests, and the members of a military caste; and it is not likely that the system introduced by Joseph lasted long after his death. The need of rewarding the services of successful generals or partisans would be a strong temptation to the expropriation of some of the royal lands.

The peculiarity of the famine was that it extended over the neighbouring countries (Gen 41:56 f.); and that is the fact of significance in regard to the history of Israel, with which the narrative in consequence resumes contact. The severity of the famine in Canaan led Jacob to send all his sons except Benjamin ( Gen 42:4) to buy corn in Egypt. On their arrival they secured an interview with Joseph, and prostrated themselves before him (Gen 37:7, Gen 42:6); but in the grown man, with his shaven face [on the monuments only foreigners and natives of inferior rank are represented as wearing beards] and Egyptian dress, they entirely failed to recognize their brother. The rough accusation that they were spies in search of undefended ways by which the country might be invaded from the east, on which side lines of posts and garrisons were maintained under two at least of the dynasties, aroused their fears, and an attempt was made to allay Josephs suspicions by detailed information. Joseph catches at the opportunity of discovering the truth concerning Benjamin, and, after further confirming in several ways the apprehensions of his brothers, retains one as a hostage in ward and sends the others home. On their return (Gen 42:35 E [Note: Elohist.] ), or at the first lodging-place ( Gen 42:27 J [Note: Jahwist.] ) on the way, the discovery of their money in their sacks increased their anxiety, and for a time their father positively refused to consent to further dealings with Egypt. At length his resolution broks down under the pressure of the famine ( Gen 43:11 ff.). In Egypt the sons were received courteously, and invited to a feast in Josephs house, where they were seated according to their age (Gen 43:33), and Benjamin was singled out for the honour of a special mess (cf. 2Sa 11:8) as a mark of distinction. They set out homewards in high spirits, unaware that Joseph had directed that each mans money should be placed in his sack, and his own divining-cup of silver (Gen 44:5; the method of divination was hydromancyan article was thrown into a vessel of water, and the movements of the water were thought to reveal the unknown) in that of Benjamin. Overtaken at almost their first halting-place, they were charged with theft, and returned in a body to Josephs house. His reproaches elicited a frank and pathetic speech from Judah, after which Joseph could no longer maintain his incognito. He allayed the fears of his conscience-stricken brothers by the assurance that they had been the agents of Providence to preserve life (Gen 45:5; cf. Psa 105:17 ff.); and in the name of the Pharaoh he invited them with their father to settle in Egypt, with the promise of support during the five years of famine that remained.

Goshen, a pastoral district in the Delta about forty miles north-east of Cairo, was selected for the new home of Jacob. The district was long afterwards known as the land of Rameses (Gen 47:11) from the care spent upon it by the second king of that name, who often resided there, and founded several cities in the neighbourhood. In Egypt swine-herds and cow-herds were an abomination to the people (Gen 46:34; cf. Hdt. ii. 47, and Erman, op. cit. 439f.), but there is no independent evidence that shepherds were, and the contempt must be regarded as confined to those whose duties brought them into close contact with cattle, for the rearing of cattle received much attention, the superintendent of the royal herds being frequently mentioned in the inscriptions. Josephs household and brothers flourished during the seventeen years (Gen 47:27 f.) Jacob lived in Egypt. Before his death he blessed Josephs two sons, giving preference to the younger in view of the greatness of the tribe to be derived from him, and leaving to Joseph himself one portion above his brethren, viz. Shechem (Gen 48:22 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ). After mourning for the royal period of seventy days (Gen 50:3; cf. Diod. Sic. i. 72), Joseph buried his father with great pomp in the cave of Machpelah, and cheered his brothers by a renewed promise to nourish and help them. He is said to have survived to the age of 110 (Gen 50:22), and to have left injunctions that his body should be conveyed to Canaan when Israel was restored. The body was carefully embalmed (Gen 50:26), and enclosed in a mummy-case or sarcophagus. In due course it was taken charge of by Moses (Exo 13:19), and eventually buried at Shechem (Jos 24:32).

Of the general historicity of the story of Joseph there need be no doubt. Allowance may be made for the play of imagination in the long period that elapsed before the traditions were reduced to writing in their present form, and for the tendency to project the characteristics of a tribe backwards upon some legendary hero. But the incidents are too natural and too closely related to be entirely a product of fiction; and the Egyptian colouring, which is common to both of the principal documents, is fatal to any theory that resolves the account into a mere elaboration in a distant land of racial pride. Josephs own character, as depicted, shows no traces of constructive art, but is consistent and singularly attractive. Dutifulness (1Ma 2:53) is perhaps its keynote, manifested alike in the resistance of temptation, in uncomplaining patience in misfortune, and in the modesty with which he bore his elevation to rank and power. Instead of using opportunities for the indulgence of resentment, he recognizes the action of Providence, and nourishes the brothers (Sir 49:15) who had lost all brotherly affection for him. On the other hand, there are blemishes which should be neither exaggerated nor overlooked. In his youth there was a degree of vanity that made him rather unpleasant company. That his father was left so long in ignorance of his safety in Egypt may have been unavoidable, but leaves a suspicion of inconsiderateness. When invested with authority he treated the people in a way that would now be pronounced tyrannical and unjust, enriching and strengthening the throne at the expense of their woe; though, judged by the standards of his own day, the charge may not equally lie. On the whole, a very high place must be given him among the early founders of his race. In strength of right purpose he was second to none, whilst in the graces of reverence and kindness, of insight and assurance, he became the type of a faith that is at once personal and national (Heb 11:22), and allows neither misery nor a career of triumph to eclipse the sense of Divine destiny.

R. W. Moss.

JOSEPH (in NT).1. 2. Two ancestors of our Lord, Luk 3:24; Luk 3:30.

3. The husband of Mary and father of Jesus.Every Jew kept a record of his lineage, and was very proud if he could claim royal or priestly descent; and Joseph could boast himself a son of David (Mat 1:20). His family belonged to Bethlehem, Davids city, but he had migrated to Nazareth (Luk 2:4), where he followed the trade of carpenter (Mat 13:55). He was betrothed to Mary, a maiden of Nazareth, being probably much her senior, though the tradition of the apocryphal History of Joseph that he was in his ninety-third year and she in her fifteenth is a mere fable. The tradition that he was a widower and had children by his former wife probably arose in the interest of the dogma of Marys perpetual virginity. The Evangelists tell us little about him, but what they do tell redounds to his credit. (1) He was a pious Israelite, faithful in his observance of the Jewish ordinances (Luk 2:21-24) and feasts (Luk 2:41-42). (2) He was a kindly man. When he discovered the condition of his betrothed, he drew the natural inference and decided to disown her, but he would do it as quietly as possible, and, so far as he might, spare her disgrace. And, when he was apprised of the truth, he was very kind to Mary. On being summoned to Bethlehem by the requirements of the census, he would not leave her at home to suffer the slanders of misjudging neighbours, but took her with him and treated her very gently in her time of need (Luk 2:1-7). (3) He exhibited this disposition also in his nurture of the Child so wondrously entrusted to his care, taking Him to his heart and well deserving to be called His father (Luk 2:33; Luk 2:41; Luk 2:48, Mat 13:55, Joh 1:45; Joh 6:42). Joseph never appears in the Gospel story after the visit to Jerusalem when Jesus had attained the age of twelve years and become a son of the Law (Luk 2:41-51); and since Mary always appears alone in the narratives of the public ministry, it is a reasonable inference that he had died during the interval. Tradition says that he died at the age of one hundred and eleven years, when Jesus was eighteen.

4. One of the Lords brethren, Mat 13:55, where AV [Note: Authorized Version.] reads Joses, the Greek form of the name. Cf. Mar 6:3.

5. Joseph of Arimatha.A wealthy and devout Israelite and a member of the Sanhedrim. He was a disciple of Jesus, but, dreading the hostility of his colleagues, he kept his faith secret. He took no part in the condemnation of Jesus, but neither did he protest against it; and the likelihood is that he prudently absented himself from the meeting. When all was over, he realized how cowardly a part he had played, and, stricken with shame and remorse, plucked up courage and went in unto Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus (Mar 15:43). It was common for friends of the crucified to purchase their bodies, which would else have been cast out as refuse, a prey to carrion birds and beasts, and give them decent burial; and Joseph would offer Pilate his price; in any case he obtained the body (Mar 15:45). Joseph had a garden close to Calvary, where he had hewn a sepulchre in the rock for his own last resting-place; and there, aided by Nicodemus, he laid the body swathed in clean linen (Mat 27:57-61 = Mar 15:42-47 = Luk 23:50-56 = Joh 19:38-42).

6. Joseph Barsabbas, the disciple who was nominated against Matthias as successor to Judas in the Apostolate. He was surnamed, like James the Lords brother, Justus (Act 1:23). Tradition says that he was one of the Seventy (Luk 10:1). 7. See Barnabas.

David Smith.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Joseph

The well known son of Jacob, whose history we have in Genesis from the thirtieth chapter to the end of the book. This made, in the margin of the Bible, is Adding-from Jasaph, to increase. It were needless to enter particulars of Joseph’s history, when the Bible hath given it so beautifully. But perhaps it may not be an unacceptable service to observe on the history of this patriarch, what a remarkable character he is, and in what numberless instances he appears as a type of Christ: taken altogether, perhaps the greatest in the whole Scriptures. I shall particularize in a few leading features.

As Joseph was the beloved son of Jacob, and distinguished by his father with special tokens, of his affection, and which excited the envy of his brethren; so Christ, the beloved and only begotten son of God, by means of that distinguishing token of JEHOVAH, in setting him up, the Head of his body the church, and giving him a kingdom, in his glorious character of Mediator, called forth, as is most generally believed, that war we read of in heaven in the original rebellion of angels. (See Rev 12:1-17) The coat of many colours Joseph wore might not unaptly be said to represent the several offices of the Lord Jesus when on earth-his prophetical, priestly, and kingly character. The dreams of Joseph, implying his superiority over his brethren and his father’s house, interpreted with an eye to Christ, are very striking circumstances of the preeminency of his character. Of him, indeed, might the prophecy of Jacob respecting Judah be fully applied: “Thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies, and thy father’s children shall bow down be fore thee.” (Gen 49:8) The mission of Joseph to his brethren, by the father, to see if they were well, and how they fared, (Gen 37:14) is a striking representation of the mission of God’s dear Son to this our world. He came indeed, not only to seek, but to save that which was lost; but like another Joseph, the treatment he received corresponded in all points, only in an infinitely higher degree of baseness and cruelty. They sold Joseph for a slave, for twenty pieces of silver, and he was carried down into Egypt, and from the pit and the prison he arose, by divine favour, to be Governor over the whole land. But our Joseph was not only sold for thirty pieces of silver, but at length crucified and slain, and from the grave which he made with the wicked and with the rich in his death, by his resurrection and ascension, at the right hand of power, he is become the universal and eternal Governor both of heaven and earth.

The temptations of Joseph, by the wife of Potiphar, bear no very distant resemblance to the temptations of the Lord Jesus by Satan. The trial to the one, was the lusts of the flesh; the trial to the other, was the pride of life. But the grace imparted to Joseph, to repel the temptation, and the punishment he suffered by a false imputation, very beautifully set forth the innocency of Christ triumphing over the Devil’s temptation in the wilderness, and the imputation of our sin to Jesus, who himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree, though himself without sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. In the exaltation of Joseph at the right hand of Pharaoh, and all the famished country coming to him for bread, we behold a lovely type, indeed, of our Almighty Joseph exalted at the right hand of God, and dispensing blessings of grace and mercy in the living bread, which is himself, to a famished world. And as then the Zapnathpaaneah of Egypt revealed secrets, and the cry was, Go unto Joseph, what he saith unto you do: so now, in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, we do, indeed, behold our Wonderful Counsellor, who hath made known to us his and his Father’s will, and the one desire of every soul is, to go unto Jesus, whatsoever he saith unto us is blessed, and our duty to obey.

In the going down of Israel into Egypt with all his house, constrained by famine to seek bread-what a striking portrait is here also drawn of the true Israel of God, constrained by the famine of soul to seek to Jesus for supply. And though like the brethren of Joseph, little do we at first know, that the Lord of the country is our brother, though in the first awakenings of spiritual want the Governor may seem with us, as Joseph did to them, to speak roughly; yet when the whole comes to be opened tour view, and Jesus is indeed discovered to be Lord of all the land, how, like Joseph’s brethren, are we immediately made glad, and eat and drink at his table with him, forgetting all past sorrow in present joy, and partaking of that “bread of life, of which whosoever eateth shall live forever!” Such, among many other striking particularities, are the incidents in the history of the patriarch Joseph, which are highly typical of Christ.

Under the article of Joseph we must not forget to observe, that there are several more of the name mentioned in Scripture, and of some importance:

Joseph the husband of Mary, the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, Mat 1:15; Mat 1:18.

Joseph, or Joses, son of Mary and Cleophas, supposed to be one of those who did not at first believe on Christ, but was afterwards converted, Joh 7:5.

Joseph, called Barsabas, a candidate for the apostleship with Matthias. See Act 1:23.

Joseph of Arimathea, Joh 19:38.

Joseph, husband to Salome.

Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures

Joseph (1)

jozef (, yoseph; , Ioseph):

1. In the Old Testament:

(1) The 11th son of Jacob and 1st of Rachel (see separate article).

(2) The father of Igal of Issachar, one of the 12 spies (Num 13:7).

(3) A son of Asaph (1Ch 25:2, 1Ch 25:9).

(4) A man of the sons of Bani, who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:42).

(5) A priest of the family of Shebaniah in the days of Joiakim (Neh 12:14).

2. In the Apocrypha:

(1) Son of Zacharias, defeated by Gorgias circa 164 BC (1 Macc 5:18, 56, 60).

(2) Called a brother of Judas Maccabeus in 2 Macc 8:22, probably by mistake for John.

(3) Great-grandfather of Judith (Judith 8:1).

3. In the New Testament:

(1) The husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus (see special article).

(2, 3) The name of 3 ancestors of Jesus according to the King James Version (Luk 3:24, Luk 3:26, Luk 3:30); the name of two according to the Revised Version (British and American), which reads Josech in Luk 3:26.

(4) A Jew of Arimathea in whose sepulcher Jesus was buried (Mat 27:57, etc.; see article).

(5) One of the brethren of Jesus, according to the Revised Version (British and American) (Mat 13:55, the King James Version Joses). the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) both have Joses in Mat 27:56; Mar 6:3; Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47.

(6) Joseph Barsabbas (Act 1:23; see article).

(7) Joseph, surnamed Barnabas (Act 4:36, the King James Version Joses; see BARNABAS).

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Joseph (2)

jozef (, yoseph, He will add; Septuagint , Ioseph). The narrative (Gen 30:23, Gen 30:14) indicates not so much a double etymology as the course of Rachel’s thoughts. The use of , ‘asaph, He takes away, suggested to her mind by its form in the future, , yoseph, He will add, And she called his name Joseph, saying, Yahweh add to me another son):

I.THE JOSEPH STORY, A LITERARY QUESTION

1.An Independent Original or an Adaptation?

2.A Monograph or a Compilation?

(1)An Analytical Theory Resolving It into a Mere Compilation

(2)A Narrative Full of Gems

(3)The Argument from Chronology Supporting It as a Monograph

II.THE STORY OF JOSEPH, A BIOGRAPHY

1.A Bedouin Prince in Canaan

2.A Bedouin Slave in Egypt

3.The Bedouin Slave Becomes Again the Bedouin Prince

4.The Prime Minister

5.The Patriarch

LITERATURE

The eleventh son of Jacob. The Biblical narrative concerning Joseph presents two subjects for consideration, the Joseph story, a literary question, and the story of Joseph, a biography. It is of the first importance to consider these questions in this order.

Cheyne in Encyclopedia Biblica reaches such conclusions concerning the Joseph story that the story of Joseph is mutilated almost beyond recognition as a biography at all. Driver in HDB holds that the Joseph story was in all probability only committed to writing 700-800 years later than the time to which Joseph is attributed, points out that Joseph’s name was also the name of a tribe, and concludes that the first of these facts at once destroys all guarantee that we possess in the Joseph narrative a literal record of the facts, and that the second fact raises the further question whether the figure of Joseph, in part or even as a whole, is a reflection of the history and characteristics of the tribe projected upon the past in the individual form. But he draws back from this view and thinks it more probable that there was an actual person Joseph, afterward … rightly or wrongly regarded as the ancestor of the tribe … who underwent substantially the experience recounted of him in Genesis. In the presence of such critical notions concerning the literature in which the narrative of Joseph is embodied, it is clear that until we have reached some conclusions concerning the Joseph story, we cannot be sure that there is any real story of Joseph to relate.

I. The Joseph Story, a Literary Question.

1. An Independent Original or an Adaptation?:

This literary problem will be solved, if satisfactory answers may be found to two questions: Is it an independent original or an adaptation? Suitable material for such an adaptation as would produce a Joseph story has been sought at either end of the line of history: Joseph the progenitor and Joseph the tribe. The only contestant for the claim of being an early original of which the Joseph story might be an adaptation is the nasty Tale of Two Brothers (RP, series I, volume II, 137-46). This story in its essential elements much resembles the Joseph story. But such events as it records are common: why not such stories?

What evidence does this Tale of Two Brothers afford that the Joseph story is not an independent original? Are we to suppose that because many French romances involve the demi-monde, there was therefore no Madame de Pompadour? Are court scandals so unheard of that ancient Egypt cannot afford two? And why impugn the genuineness of the Joseph story because the Tale of Two Brothers resembles it? Is anyone so ethereal in his passions as not to know by instinct that the essential elements of such scandal are always the same? The difference in the narrative is chiefly in the telling. At this latter point the Joseph story and the Tale of Two Brothers bear no resemblance whatever.

If the chaste beauty of the Biblical story be observed, and then one turn to the Tale of Two Brothers with sufficient knowledge of the Egyptian tongue to perceive the coarseness and the stench of it, there can be no question that the Joseph story is independent of such a literary source. To those who thus sense both stories, the claim of the Tale of Two Brothers to be the original of the Joseph story cannot stand for a moment. If we turn from Joseph the progenitor to Joseph the tribe, still less will the claim that the story is an adaptation bear careful examination. The perfect naturalness of the story, the utter absence from its multitudinous details of any hint of figurative language, such as personification always furnishes, and the absolutely accurate reflection in the story of the Egypt of Joseph’s day, as revealed by the many discoveries of which people of 700-800 years later could not know, mark this theory of the reflection of tribal history and characteristics as pure speculation. And besides, where in all the history of literature has it been proven that a tribe has been thus successfully thrown back upon the screen of antiquity in the individual form? Similar mistakes concerning Menes and Minos and the heroes of Troy are a warning to us. Speculation is legitimate, so long as it does not cut loose from known facts, but gives no one the right to suppose the existence in unknown history of something never certainly found in known history. So much for the first question.

2. A Monograph or a Compilation?:

Is it a monograph or a compilation? The author of a monograph may make large use of literary materials, and the editor of a compilation may introduce much editorial comment. Thus, superficially, these different kinds of composition may much resemble each other, yet they are, in essential character, very different the one from the other. A compilation is an artificial body, an automaton; a monograph is a natural body with a living soul in it. This story has oriental peculiarities of repetition and pleonastic expression, and these things have been made much of in order to break up the story; to the reader not seeking grounds of partition, it is one of the most unbroken, simply natural and unaffected pieces of narrative literature in the world. If it stood alone or belonged to some later portion of Scripture, it may well be doubted that it would ever have been touched by the scalpel of the literary dissector. But it belongs to the Pentateuch. There are manifest evidences all over the Pentateuch of the use by the author of material, either documentary or of that paradoxical unwritten literature which the ancients handed down almost without the change of a word for centuries.

(1) An Analytical Theory Resolving It into a Mere Compilation.

An analytical theory has been applied to the Pentateuch as a whole, to resolve it into a mere compilation. Once the principles of this theory are acknowledged, and allowed sway there, the Joseph story cannot be left untouched, but becomes a necessary sacrifice to the system. A sight of the lifeless, ghastly fragments of the living, moving Joseph story which the analysis leaves behind (compare EB, article Joseph) proclaims that analysis to have been murder. There was a life in the story which has been ruthlessly taken, and that living soul marked the narrative as a monograph.

(2) A Narrative Full of Gems.

Where else is to be found such a compilation? Here is one of the most brilliant pieces of literature in the world, a narrative full of gems: (a) the account of the presentation of the brothers in the presence of Joseph when he was obliged to go out to weep (Gen 43:26-34), and (b) the scene between the terrified brothers of Joseph and the steward of his house (Gen 44:6-13), (c) Judah’s speech (Gen 44:18-34), (d) the touching close of the revelation of Joseph to his brothers at last (Gen 45:1-15). The soul of the whole story breathes through all of these. Where in all literature, ancient or modern, is to be found a mere compilation that is a great piece of literature? So far removed is this story from the characteristics of a compilation, that we may challenge the world of literature to produce another monograph in narrative literature that surpasses it.

(3) The Argument from Chronology Supporting It as a Monograph

Then the dates of Egyptian names and events in this narrative strongly favor its origin so early as to be out of the reach of the compilers. That attempts at identification in Egyptian of names written in Hebrew, presenting as they do the peculiar difficulties of two alphabets of imperfectly known phonetic values and uncertain equivalency of one in terms of the other, should give rise to differences of opinion, is to be expected. The Egyptian equivalents of Zaphenath-paneah and Asenath have been diligently sought, and several identifications have been, suggested (Brugsch, Egypt under the Pharaohs, 122; Budge, History of Egypt, V, 126-27). That which is most exact phonetically and yields the most suitable and natural meaning for Zaphenath-paneah is by Lieblein (PSBA, 1898, 204-8). It is formed like four of the names of Hyksos kings before the time of Joseph, and means the one who furnishes the nourishment of life, i.e. the steward of the realm. The name Asenath is found from the XIth Dynasty on to the XVIIIth. Potiphar is mentioned as an Egyptian. Why not of course an Egyptian? The narrative also points distinctly to conditions obtaining under the Hyksos kings. When the people were like to perish for want of food they promised Joseph in return for help that they would be servants of Pharaoh (Gen 47:18-25). This suggests a previous antagonism to the government, such as the Hyksos kings had long to contend with in Egypt. But the revolution which drove out the Hyksos labored so effectually to eradicate every trace of the hated foreigners that it is with the utmost difficulty that modern Egyptological research has wrested from the past some small items of information concerning them. Is it credible that the editor of scraps, which were themselves not written down until some 700-800 years later, should have been able to produce such a life-story fitting into the peculiar conditions of the times of the Hyksos? Considered as an independent literary problem on its own merits, aside from any entangling necessities of the analytical theory of the Pentateuch, the Joseph story must certainly stand as a monograph from some time within distinct memory of the events it records. If the Joseph story be an independent original and a monograph, then there is in reality to be considered the story of Joseph.

II. The Story of Joseph, a Biography.

It is unnecessary to recount here all the events of the life of Joseph, a story so incomparably told in the Biblical narrative. It will be sufficient to touch only the salient points where controversy has raged, or at which archaeology has furnished special illumination. The story of Joseph begins the tenth and last natural division of Gen in these words: The generations of Jacob (Gen 37:2). Up to this point the unvarying method of Gen is to place at the head of each division the announcement the generations of one of the patriarchs, followed immediately by a brief outline of the discarded line of descent, and then to give in detail the account of the chosen line.

There is to be now no longer any discarded line of descent. All the sons of Jacob are of the chosen people, the depository of the revelation of redemption. So this division of Gen begins at once with the chosen line, and sets in the very foreground that narrative which in that generation is most vital in the story of redemption, this story of Joseph beginning with the words, Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren (Gen 37:2). Joseph had been born in Haran, the firstborn of the beloved Rachel, who died at the birth of her second son Benjamin. A motherless lad among the sons of other mothers felt the jealousies of the situation, and the experience became a temptation. The evil report of his brethren was thus naturally carried to his father, and quite as naturally stirred up those family jealousies which set his feet in the path of his great career (Gen 37:2-4). In that career he appears as a Bedouin prince in Canaan.

1. A Bedouin Prince in Canaan:

The patriarchs of those times were all sheiks or princes of those semi-nomadic rovers who by the peculiar social and civil customs of that land were tolerated then as they are to this day under the Turkish government in the midst of farms and settled land tenure. Jacob favored Rachel and her children. He put them hindermost at the dangerous meeting with Esau, and now he puts on Joseph a coat of many colors (Gen 37:3). The appearance of such a coat a little earlier in the decoration of the tombs of Benichassan among Palestinian ambassadors to Egypt probably indicates that this garment was in some sense ceremonial, a token of rank. In any case Joseph, the son of Jacob, was a Bedouin prince. Did the father by this coat indicate his intention to give him the precedence and the succession as chieftain of the tribe? It is difficult otherwise to account for the insane jealousy of the older brethren (Gen 37:4). According to the critical partition of the story, Joseph’s dreams may be explained away as mere reflections or adaptations of the later history of Joseph (compare PENTATEUCH). In a real biography the striking providential significance of the dreams appears at once. They cannot be real without in some sense being prophetic. On the other hand they cannot be other than real without vitiating the whole story as a truthful narrative, for they led immediately to the great tragedy; a Bedouin prince of Canaan becomes a Bedouin slave in Egypt.

2. A Bedouin Slave in Egypt:

The plot to put Joseph out of the way, the substitution of slavery for death, and the ghastly device for deceiving Jacob (Gen 37:18-36) are perfectly natural steps in the course of crime when once the brothers had set out upon it. The counterplot of Reuben to deliver Joseph reflects equally his own goodness and the dangerous character of the other brothers to whom he did not dare make a direct protest.

Critical discussion of Ishmaelites and Midianites and Medanites presents some interesting things and many clever speculations which may well be considered on their own merits by those interested in ethnology and etymologies. Many opinions advanced may prove to be correct. But let it be noted that they arc for the most part pure speculation. Almost nothing is known of the interrelation of the trans-Jordanic tribes in that age other than the few hints in the Bible. And who can say what manner of persons might be found in a caravan which had wandered about no one knows where, or how long, to pick up trade before it turned into the northern caravan route? Until archaeology supplies more facts it is folly to attach much importance to such speculations (Kyle, The Deciding Voice of the Monuments in Biblical Criticism, 221).

In the slave market in Egypt, Joseph was bought by Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, an Egyptian. The significant mention of this fact fits exactly into a place among the recovered hints of the history of those times, which make the court then to be not Egyptian at all, but composed of foreigners, the dynasty of Hyksos kings among whom an Egyptian was so unexpected as to have his nationality mentioned.

Joseph’s native nobility of character, the pious training he had received in his father’s house, and the favor of God with him gave him such prosperity that his master entrusted all the affairs of his household to him, and when the greatest of temptations assails him he comes off victorious (Genesis 39). There is strong ground for the suspicion that Potiphar did not fully believe the accusation of his wife against Joseph. The fact that Joseph was not immediately put to death is very significant. Potiphar could hardly do less than shut him up for the sake of appearances, and perhaps to take temptation away from his wife without seeming to suspect her. It is noticeable also that Joseph’s character soon triumphed in prison. Then the same Providence that superintended his dreams is leading so as to bring him before the king (Genesis 40; 41).

3. The Bedouin Slave Becomes Again the Bedouin Prince:

The events of the immediately preceding history prepared Joseph’s day: the Hyksos kings on the throne, those Bedouin princes, shepherd kings (Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities), the enmity of the Egyptians against this foreign dynasty so that they accounted every shepherd an abomination (Gen 46:34), the friendly relation thus created between Palestinian tribes and Egypt, the princely character of Joseph, for among princes a prince is a prince however small his principality, and last of all the manifest favor of God toward Joseph, and the evident understanding by the Pharaohs of Semitic religion, perhaps even sympathy with it (Gen 41:39). All these constitute one of the most majestic, Godlike movements of Providence revealed to us in the word of God, or evident anywhere in history. The same Providence that presided over the boy prince in his father’s house came again to the slave prince in the Egyptian prison. The interpretation of the dreams of the chief butler and the chief baker of Pharaoh (Gen 40:1) brought him at last through much delay and selfish forgetfulness to the notice of the king, and another dream in which the same cunning hand of Providence is plainly seen (Genesis 41) is the means of bringing Joseph to stand in the royal presence. The stuff that dreams are made of interests scarcely less than the Providence that was superintending over them. As the harvest fields of the semi-nomadic Bedouin in Palestine, and the household routine of Egypt in the dreams of the chief butler and the chief baker, so now the industrial interests and the religious forms of the nation appear in the dreams of Pharaoh. The seven kine of the goddess Hathor supplies the number of the cows, and the doubling of the symbolism in the cattle and the grain points to the two great sources of Egypt’s welfare. The Providence that had shaped and guided the whole course of Joseph from the Palestinian home was consummated when, with the words, Inasmuch as thou art a man in whom is the spirit of God, Pharaoh lifted up the Bedouin slave to be again the Bedouin prince and made him the prime minister.

4. The Prime Minister:

The history of kings’ favorites is too well known for the elevation of Joseph to be in itself incredible. Such things are especially likely to take place among the unlimited monarchies of the Orient. The late empress of China had been a Chinese slave girl. The investiture of Joseph was thoroughly Egyptian – the collar, the signet ring, the chariot and the outrunners who cried before him Abrech. The exact meaning of this word has never been certainly ascertained, but its general import may be seen illustrated to this day wherever in the East royalty rides out. The policy adopted by the prime minister was far-reaching, wise, even adroit (Gen 41:25-36). It is impossible to say whether or not it was wholly just, for we cannot know whether the corn of the years of plenty which the government laid up was bought or taken as a taxlevy. The policy involved some despotic power, but Joseph proved a magnanimous despot. The deep and subtle statesmanship in Joseph’s plan does not fully appear until the outcome. It was probably through the policy of Joseph, the prime minister, that the Hyksos finally gained the power over the people and the mastery of the land.

Great famines have not been common in Egypt, but are not unknown. The only one which corresponds well to the Bible account is that one recorded in the inscription of Baba at el Kab, translated by Brugsch. Some scarcely justifiable attempts have been made to discredit Brugsch in his account of that inscription. The monument still remains and is easily visited, but the inscription is so mutilated that it presents many difficulties. The severity of the famine, the length of its duration, the preparation by the government, the distribution to the people, the success of the efforts for relief and even the time of the famine, as far as it can be determined, correspond well to the Bible account (Brugsch, Egypt under the Pharaohs, chapter vi). The way in which such famines in Egypt come about has been explained by a movement of the sudd, a sedgelike growth in the Nile, so as to clog the upper river (Wright, Scientific Confirmations, 70-79).

Joseph’s brethren came with those that came, i.e. with the food caravans. The account does not imply that the prime minister presided in person at the selling of grain, but only that he knew of the coming of his brethren and met them at the market place. The watchfulness of the government against spies, by the careful guarding of the entrances to the land, may well have furnished him with such information. Once possessed with it, all the rest of the story of the interviews follows naturally (compare traditions of Joseph, Jewish Encyclopedia).

The long testing of the brethren with the attendant delay in the relief of the father Jacob and the family (Genesis 42 through 45) has been the subject of much discussion, and most ingenious arguments for the justification of Joseph. All this seems unnecessary. Joseph was not perfect, and there is no claim of perfection made for him in the Bible. Two things are sufficient to be noted here: one that Joseph was ruler as well as brother, with the habits of a ruler of almost unrestrained power and authority and burdened with the necessity for protection and the obligation to mete out justice; the other that the deliberateness, the vexatious delays, the subtle diplomacy and playing with great issues are thoroughly oriental. It may be also that the perplexities of great minds make them liable to such vagaries. The career of Lincoln furnishes some curious parallels in the parleying with cases long after the great president’s mind was fully made up and action taken.

The time of these events and the identification of Joseph in Egypt are most vexed questions not conclusively settled. Toffteen quite confidently presents in a most recent identification of Joseph much evidence to which one would like to give full credence (Toffteen, The Historical Exodus). But aside from the fact that he claims two exodi, two Josephs, two Aarons, two lawgivers called Moses, and two givings of the law, a case of critical doublets more astounding than any heretofore claimed in the Pentateuch, the evidence itself which he adduces is very far from conclusive. It is doubtful if the texts will bear the translation he gives them, especially the proper names. The claims of Rameses II, that he built Pithom,. compared with the stele of 400 years, which he says he erected in the 400th year of King Nubti, seems to put Joseph about the time of the Hyksos king. This is the most that can be said now. The burial of Jacob is in exact accord with Egyptian customs. The wealth of the Israelites who retained their possessions and were fed by the crown, in contrast with the poverty of the Egyptians who sold everything, prepares the way for the wonderful growth and influence of Israel, and the fear which the Egyptians at last had of them. And Joseph died, being 110 years old, an ideal old age in the Egyptian mind. The reputed burial place of Joseph at Shechem still awaits examination.

5. The Patriarch:

Joseph stands out among the patriarchs in some respects with preeminence. His nobility of character, his purity of heart and life, his magnanimity as a ruler and brother Patriarch make him, more than any other of the Old Testament characters, an illustration of that type of man which Christ was to give to the world in perfection. Joseph is not in the list of persons distinctly referred to in Scripture as types of Christ – the only perfectly safe criterion – but none more fully illustrates the life and work of the Saviour. He wrought salvation for those who betrayed and rejected him, he went down into humiliation as the way to his exaltation, he forgave those who, at least in spirit, put him to death, and to him as to the Saviour, all must come for relief, or perish.

Literature.

Commentaries on Genesis; for rabbinical literature, compare Seligsohn in Jewish Encyclopedia, some very interesting and curious traditions; Ebers, Egypten und die Bucher Moses; The Tale of Two Brothers, RP, series I, volume II, 13746; Wilkinson-Birch, The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians; Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Joseph

Joseph, 1

Joseph (God-increased), son of Jacob and Rachel, born under peculiar circumstances, as may be seen in Gen 30:22; on which account, and because he was the son of his old age (Gen 37:3), he was beloved by his father more than were the rest of his children, though Benjamin, as being also a son of Jacob’s favorite wife, Rachel, was in a peculiar manner dear to the patriarch. The partiality evinced towards Joseph by his father excited jealousy on the part of his brethren, the rather that they were born of different mothers (Gen 37:2). Joseph had reached his seventeenth year, when some conduct on the part of his brothers seems to have been such as in the opinion of Joseph to require the special attention of Jacob, to whom, accordingly, he communicated the facts. This greatly increased their dislike to him, and they henceforth ‘hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him’ (Gen 37:4). Their aversion, however, was carried to the highest pitch when Joseph acquainted them with two dreams, which appeared to indicate that Joseph would acquire preeminence in the family, if not sovereignty; and while even his father rebuked him, his brothers were filled with envy. Jacob, however, was not aware of the depth of their ill will; so that, on one occasion, having a desire to hear intelligence of his sons, who were pasturing their flocks at a distance, he did not hesitate to make Joseph his messenger for that purpose. His appearing in view of his brothers was the signal for their malice to gain head. They began to devise means for his immediate destruction, which they would unhesitatingly have effected, but for his half-brother, Reuben, who, as the eldest son, might well be the party to interfere on behalf of Joseph. A compromise was entered into, in virtue of which the youth was stripped of the distinguishing vestments which he owed to his father’s affection, and cast into a pit. Having performed this evil deed, and while they were taking refreshment, the brothers beheld a caravan of Arabian merchants, who were bearing the spices and aromatic gums of India down to the well-known and much-frequented mart, Egypt. On the proposal of Judah they resolved that, instead of allowing Joseph to perish, they should sell him to the merchants. This was accordingly done. Joseph was sold for a slave, to be conveyed by his masters into Egypt. While on his way thither, Reuben returned to the pit, intending to rescue his brother, and convey him safely back to their father. Joseph was gone. On which Reuben went to the wicked young men, who, not content with selling a brother into slavery, determined to punish their father for his partiality towards the unoffending sufferer. With this view they dipped Joseph’s party-colored garment in the blood of a kid and sent it to Jacob, in order to make him believe that his favorite child had been torn to pieces by some wild beast. The trick succeeded, and Jacob was grieved beyond measure.

Meanwhile the merchants sold Joseph to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, and captain of the royal guard, who was a native of the country. In Potiphar’s house Joseph enjoyed the highest confidence and the largest prosperity. A higher power watched over him; and whatever he undertook succeeded, till at length his master gave everything into his hands. But a second time he innocently brought on himself the vengeance of the ill-disposed. Charged by his master’s wife with the very crime to which he had in vain been tempted, he was at once cast by his master into the state prison.

The narrative, which is obviously constructed in order to show the workings of divine Providence, states, however, that Joseph was not left without special aid, in consequence of which he gained favor with the keeper of the prison to such an extent that everything was put under his direction. Two of the regal officers, ‘the chief of the butlers’ and ‘the chief of the bakers,’ having offended their royal master, were consigned to the same prison with Joseph. While there, each one had a dream, which Joseph interpreted correctly. The butler, whose fate was auspicious, promised the young Hebrew to employ his influence to procure his deliverance; but when again in the enjoyment of his ‘butlership,’ he ‘forgat’ Joseph (Genesis 40). Pharaoh himself, however, had two dreams, which found in Joseph a successful expounder; for the butler then remembered the skill of his prison-companion, and advised his royal master to put it to the test in his own case. Pharaoh’s dream, as interpreted by Joseph, foreboded the approach of a seven years’ famine; to abate the evils of which Joseph recommended that some ‘discreet and wise’ man should be chosen and set in full power over the land of Egypt. The monarch was alarmed, and called a council of his advisers. The wisdom of Joseph was recognized as of divine origin and supereminent value; and the king and his ministers (whence it appears that the Egyptian monarchyat Memphiswas not despotic, but constitutional) resolved that Joseph should be made (to borrow a term from Rome) Dictator in the approaching time of need. The highest honors were conferred upon him. He was made ruler over all the land of Egypt, and the daughter of Potipherah, priest of On, given him to wife.

Seven years of abundance afforded Joseph opportunity to carry into effect such plans as secured an ample provision against the seven years of need. The famine came, but it found a prepared people. The visitation did not depend on any mere local causes, for ‘the famine was over all the face of the earth;’ ‘and all countries came into Egypt to Joseph to buy corn’ (Gen 41:56-57). Among these customers appeared ten brethren, sons of the Hebrew Jacob. They had of necessity to appear before Joseph, whose license for the purchase of corn was indispensable. Joseph had probably expected to see them, and he seems to have formed a deliberate plan of action. His conduct has brought on him the always ready charges of those who would rather impeach than study the Bible, and even friends of that sacred book have hardly in this case done Joseph full justice. Joseph’s main object appears to have been to make his brothers feel and recognize their guilt in their conduct towards him. For this purpose suffering, then as well as now, was indispensable. Accordingly Joseph feigned not to know his brothers, charged them with being spies, threatened them with imprisonment, and allowed them to return home to fetch their younger brother, as a proof of their veracity, only on condition that one of them should remain behind in chains, with a prospect of death before him should not their words be verified. Then it was, and not before, that ‘they said one to another, We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul and would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us’ (Gen 42:21). On which, after weeping bitterly, he by common agreement bound his brother Simeon, and left him in custody. At length Jacob consented to Benjamin’s going in company with his brothers, and provided with a present consisting of balm, honey, spices and myrrh, nuts and almonds, and with double money in their hands (double, in order that they might repay the sum which Joseph had caused to be put into each man’s sack at their departure, if, as Jacob supposed, ‘it was an oversight’), they went again down to Egypt and stood before Joseph (Gen 43:15); and there, too, stood Benjamin, Joseph’s beloved brother. The required pledge of truthfulness was given. If it is asked why such a pledge was demanded, since the giving of it caused pain to Jacob, the answer may be thus: Joseph knew not how to demean himself towards his family until he ascertained its actual condition. That knowledge he could hardly be certain he had gained from the mere words of men who had spared his life only to sell him into slavery. How had these wicked men behaved towards his venerable father? His beloved brother Benjamin, was he safe? or had he suffered from their jealousy and malice the worse fate with which he himself had been threatened? Nothing but the sight of Benjamin could answer these questions, and resolve these doubts.

Benjamin had come, and immediately a natural change took place in Joseph’s conduct: the brother began to claim his rights in Joseph’s bosom. Jacob was safe, and Benjamin was safe. Joseph’s heart melted at the sight of Benjamin: ‘And he said to the ruler of his house, Bring these men home, and slay and make ready, for these men shall dine with me at noon’ (Gen 43:16). But guilt is always the ready parent of fear. Accordingly the brothers expected nothing but being reduced to slavery. When taken to their own brother’s house, they imagined they were being entrapped. A colloquy ensued between them and Joseph’s steward, whence it appeared that the money put into their sacks, to which they now attributed their peril, was in truth a present from Joseph, designed, after his own brotherly manner, to aid his family in their actual necessities. Noon came, and with it Joseph, whose first question regarded home: ‘He asked them of their welfare, and said, Is your father well, the old man of whom ye spake? is he yet alive? And he lifted up his eyes and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother’s son, and said, Is this your younger brother? And he said, God be gracious unto thee, my son!’ ‘And Joseph made haste, for his bowels did yearn upon his brother, and he sought where to weep, and he entered into his chamber and wept there.’ Does this look like harshness?

The connection brings into view an Egyptian custom, which is of more than ordinary importance, in consequence of its being adopted in the Jewish polity: ‘And they set on (food) for him by himself (Joseph), and for them by themselves (the brethren), and for the Egyptians which did eat with them, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination with the Egyptians’ (Gen 43:32). This passage is also interesting, as proving that Joseph had not, in his princely grandeur, become ashamed of his origin, nor consented to receive adoption into a strange nation: he was still a Hebrew, waiting, like Moses after him, for the proper season to use his power for the good of his own people.

Joseph, apparently with a view to ascertain how far his brethren were faithful to their father, hit upon a plan which would in its issue serve to show whether they would make any, and what, sacrifice, in order to fulfill their solemn promise of restoring Benjamin in safety to Jacob. Accordingly he ordered not only that every man’s money (as before) should be put in his sack’s mouth, but also that his ‘silver cup in which my lord drinketh, and whereby he divineth,’ should be put in the sack’s mouth of the youngest. The brethren departed, but were soon overtaken by Joseph’s steward, who charged them with having surreptitiously carried off this costly and highly-valued vessel. They on their part vehemently repelled the accusation, adding, ‘with whomsoever of thy servants it be found, both let him die, and we also will be my lord’s bondmen.’ A search was made, and the cup was found in Benjamin’s sack. Accordingly they returned to the city. And now came the hour of trial: Would they purchase their own liberation by surrendering Benjamin? After a most touching interview, in which they proved themselves worthy and faithful, Joseph declared himself unable any longer to withstand the appeal of natural affection. On this occasion Judah, who was the spokesman, showed the deepest regard to his aged father’s feelings, and entreated for the liberation of Benjamin even at the price of his own liberty. In the whole of literature we know of nothing more simple, natural, true, and impressive.

Most natural and impressive is the scene also which ensues, in which Joseph, after informing his brethren who he was, and inquiring, first of all, ‘Is my father alive?’ expresses feelings free from the slightest taint of revenge, and even shows how, under Divine Providence, the conduct of his brothers had issued in good’God sent me before you to preserve a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance.’ Five years had yet to ensue in which ‘there would be neither earing nor harvest,’ and therefore the brethren were directed to return home and bring Jacob down to Egypt with all speed. ‘And he fell upon his brother Benjamin’s neck and wept; and Benjamin wept upon his neck. Moreover, he kissed all his brethren, and wept upon them; and after that his brethren talked with him’ (Gen 45:14-15).

The news of these striking events was carried to Pharaoh, who being pleased at Joseph’s conduct, gave directions that Jacob and his family should come forthwith into Egypt. The brethren departed, being well provided for’And to his father Joseph sent ten asses laden with the good things of Egypt, and ten she asses laden with corn and bread and meat for his father by the way.’

The intelligence which they bore to their father was of such a nature that ‘Jacob’s heart fainted, for he believed them not.’ When, however, he had recovered from the thus naturally told effects of his surprise, the venerable patriarch said, ‘Enough; Joseph my son is yet alive: I will go and see him before I die’ (Gen 45:26; Gen 45:28).

Accordingly Jacob and his family, to the number of threescore and ten souls, went down to Egypt, and by the express efforts of Joseph, were allowed to settle in the district of Goshen, where Joseph met his father: ‘And he fell on his neck, and wept on his neck a good while.’ There Joseph ‘nourished his father and his brethren, and all his father’s household, with bread, according to their families’ (Gen 47:12).

Meanwhile the predicted famine was pauperizing Egypt. The inhabitants found their money exhausted, and their cattle and substance all gone, being parted with in order to purchase food from the public granaries, until at length they had nothing to give in return for sustenance but themselves. ‘Buy us’they then imploringly said to Joseph’and our land for bread, and we and our land will be slaves unto Pharaoh.’ ‘And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, so the land became Pharaoh’s.’ The people too, ‘Joseph removed to cities from one end of the borders of the land to the other end.’ Religion, however, was too strong to submit to these political and social changes, and so the priests still retained their land, being supplied with provisions out of the common store gratuitously. The land, which was previously the people’s own, was now leased to them on a tenancy, at the rent of one-fifth of the produce: the land of the priests being exempted.

Joseph had now to pass through the mournful scenes which attend on the death and burial of a father. Having had Jacob embalmed, and seen the rites of mourning fully observed, the faithful and affectionate son proceeded into the land of Canaan, in order, agreeably to a promise which the patriarch had exacted, to lay the old man’s bones with those of his fathers, in ‘the field of Ephron the Hittite.’ Having performed with long and bitter mourning Jacob’s funeral rites, Joseph returned into Egypt. The last recorded act of his life forms a most becoming close. After the death of their father, his brethren, unable, like all guilty people, to forget their criminality, and characteristically finding it difficult to think that Joseph had really forgiven them, grew afraid, now they were in his power, that he would take an opportunity of inflicting some punishment on them. They accordingly go into his presence, and, in imploring terms and an abject manner, entreat his forgiveness. ‘Fear not’this is his noble reply’I will nourish you and your little ones.’

Joseph lived an hundred and ten years, kind and gentle in his affections to the last; for we are told, ‘The children of Machir, the son of Manasseh, were brought up upon Joseph’s knees’ (Gen 50:23). And so having obtained a promise from his brethren, that when the time came, as he assured them it would come, that God should visit them, and ‘bring them unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob,’ they would carry up his bones out of Egypt, Joseph at length ‘died and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin’ (Gen 50:26). This promise was religiously fulfilled. His descendants, after carrying the corpse about with them in their wanderings, at length put it in its final resting-place in Shechem, in a parcel of ground that Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor, which became the inheritance of the children of Joseph (Jos 24:32).

By his Egyptian wife, Asenath, daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis, Joseph had two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen 41:50 sq.), whom Jacob adopted (Gen 48:5), and who accordingly took their place among the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Joseph, 2

Joseph, ‘the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ’ (Mat 1:16). By Matthew He is said to have been the son of Jacob, whose lineage is traced by the same writer through David up to Abraham. Luke represents Him as being the son of Heli, and traces His origin up to Adam. How these accounts are to be reconciled, is shown under Genealogy.

The statements of Holy Writ in regard to Joseph are few and simple. According to a custom among the Jews, traces of which are still found, Joseph had pledged his faith to Mary; but before the marriage was consummated she proved to be with child. Grieved at this, Joseph was disposed to break off the connection; but, not wishing to make a public example of one whom he loved, he contemplated a private disruption of their bond. From this step, however, he is deterred by a heavenly messenger, who assures him that Mary has conceived under a divine influence. ‘And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins’ (Mat 1:21 sq.; Luk 1:31). To this account various objections have been taken; but most of them are drawn from the ground of a narrow, shortsighted and half-informed rationalism, which judges everything by its own small standard, and either denies miracles altogether, or admits only such miracles as find favor in its sight.

Joseph was by trade a carpenter, in which business he probably educated Jesus (Mat 13:55; Mar 6:3). The word rendered ‘carpenter’ is of a general character, and may be fitly rendered by the English word ‘artificer’ or ‘artisan.’ Schleusner asserts that the universal testimony of the ancient church represents our Lord as being a carpenter’s son. Hilarius, on Matthew, asserts, in terms which cannot be mistaken, that Jesus was a smith. Of the same opinion was the venerable Bede; while others have held that our Lord was a mason, and Cardinal Cajetan, that he was a goldsmith. The last notion probably had its origin in those false associations of more modern times which disparage hand-labor. Among the ancient Jews all handicrafts were held in so much honor, that they were learned and pursued by the first men of the nation.

Christian tradition makes Joseph an old man when first espoused to Mary, being no less than eighty years of age, and father of four sons and two daughters. The painters of Christian antiquity conspire with the writers in representing Joseph as an old man at the period of the birth of our Lordan evidence which is not to be lightly rejected, though the precise age mentioned may be but an approximation to fact.

It is not easy to determine when Joseph died, but it has been alleged, with great probability, that he must have been dead before the crucifixion of Jesus. There being no notice of Joseph in the public life of Christ, nor any reference to him in the discourses and history, while ‘Mary’ and ‘His brethren’ not infrequently appear, these circumstances afford evidence not only of Joseph’s death, but of the inferior part which as legal father only of our Lord, Joseph might have been expected to sustain. So far as our scanty materials enable us to form an opinion, Joseph appears to have been a good, kind, simple-minded man, who, while he afforded aid in protecting and sustaining the family, would leave Mary unrestrained to use all the impressive and formative influence of her gentle, affectionate, pious, and thoughtful soul.

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Joseph

[Jo’seph]

Eleventh son of Jacob and first of Rachel. The interesting history of Joseph is too well known to need being given in its detail, but attention should be given to the many respects in which Joseph was a striking type of the Lord Jesus. He was the beloved one of his father: this with the intimations given to him of his future position, destined for him by God in the midst of his family, stirred up the envy of his brethren and resulted in his being sold to the Gentiles: as the Lord was hated by His brethren the Jews, and sold by one of them. Joseph was accounted as dead. He was brought very low, being cast into prison, under a false accusation against him because he would not sin: his feet were ‘made fast in the stocks,’ and the iron entered his soul: in all these circumstances he was foreshadowing the Lord in His humiliation.

On the elevation of Joseph to power he was unknown to his brethren, as the Lord in exaltation is now to His brethren after the flesh. During this time he had a Gentile wife and children and became ‘fruitful’: so while the Lord is rejected by the Jews, God is gathering from the nations a people for His name. Joseph ruled over the Gentiles, as the Lord will do. Then all Joseph’s brethren bowed down to him, as eventually all the twelve tribes will bow down to the Lord. This is followed by all the descendants of Jacob being placed in a fruitful part of the country, as the nation will be gathered to the pleasant land in the millennium.

The beautiful and touching way in which Joseph dealt with his brethren, will be repeated in a magnified way by the Lord’s tender and loving dealing with the remnant of Judah when they come to speak to Him about the wounds in His hands, and to mourn over the way He was treated by them. They will then see that, notwithstanding their hatred, He laid the foundation in His death for their future blessing.

When Jacob prophetically blessed His sons, Joseph had a prominent place. Gen 49:22-26. He was to be very fruitful, with branches running over the wall: so the blessing of Israel through Christ extends to the Gentiles. He was sorely grieved, hated, and shot at, as was the Lord; but his bow abode in strength, and from him was the shepherd, the stone of Israel (two titles of the Lord). Then the blessings of heaven and of the deep, of the breasts and of the womb, are multiplied on the head and on the crown of Joseph, as the one separated from his brethren: all foreshadowing, though to be far exceeded by, the many crowns and the glory in heaven and on earth of the true Nazarite, now sanctified in heavenly glory, the Lord Jesus. For the blessing by Moses cf. Deu 33:13-17. Joseph, when about to die, had faith that God would surely deliver Israel from Egypt and gave directions concerning his bones. Gen 37 – Gen 50; Exo 13:19. For the Egyptian king under whom it is supposed that Joseph lived, see EGYPT.

2. Father of Igal, of Issachar. Num 13:7.

3. Son of Asaph: appointed to the service of song. 1Ch 25:2; 1Ch 25:9.

4. One who had married a strange wife. Ezr 10:42.

5. Priest ‘of Shebaniah’ who returned from exile. Neh 12:14.

6. Husband of Mary the mother of Jesus. He was ‘a just man,’ and was obedient to the instructions he received from God as to his wife, and in protecting the infant Jesus. He was of the house and lineage of David, his genealogy being given in Mat 1 and perhaps in Luke 3. The visit to Jerusalem, when the Lord was twelve years old, is the last incident recorded of him. He is once called ‘the carpenter,’ Mat 13:55, as is the Lord also in Mar 6:3. It was a custom for all Jews to learn a trade. Mat 1:16-25; Mat 2:13; Mat 2:19; Luk 1:27; Luk 2:4-43; Luk 3:23; Luk 4:22; Joh 1:45; Joh 6:42.

7. Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, and a rich man. He was a secret disciple of Jesus, and had not consented to the action of the Sanhedrim in condemning the Lord. He boldly asked for the body of Jesus, and interred it in his own new tomb, thus fulfilling Isa 53:9; Mat 27:57; Mat 27:59; Mar 15:43; Luk 23:50; Joh 19:38.

8-10. Son of Mattathias; son of Juda; and son of Jonan – three in the genealogy of the Lord Jesus. Luk 3:24; Luk 3:26; Luk 3:30.

11. Disciple, also called BARSABAS, surnamed JUSTUS, who, with Matthias, was selected as fit to take the place of Judas, but the lot fell on Matthias. Act 1:23.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Joseph

H3084 H3130

1. Son of Jacob:

– General references

Gen 30:24

– Personal appearance of

Gen 39:6

– His father’s favorite child

Gen 33:2; Gen 37:3-4; Gen 37:35; Gen 48:22; 1Ch 5:2; Joh 4:5

– His father’s partiality for, excites the jealousy of his brethren

Gen 37:4; Gen 37:11; Gen 37:18-28; Psa 105:17; Act 7:9

– His prophetic dreams of his fortunes in Egypt

Gen 37:5-11

– Sold into Egypt

Gen 37:27-28

– Is falsely reported to his father as killed by wild beasts

Gen 37:29-35

– Is bought by Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh

Gen 37:36

– Is prospered of God

Gen 39:2-5; Gen 39:21; Gen 39:23

– Is falsely accused, and cast into prison; is delivered by the friendship of another prisoner

Gen 39; Psa 105:18

– Is an interpreter of dreams:

b Of the two prisoners

Gen 40:5-23

b Of Pharaoh

Gen 41:1-37

– His name is changed to Zaphnath-Paaneah

Gen 41:45

– Is promoted to authority next to Pharaoh at thirty years of age

Gen 41:37-46; Psa 105:19-22

– Takes to wife the daughter of the priest of On

Gen 41:45

– Provides against the years of famine

Gen 41:46-57

– Exports the produce of Egypt to other countries

Gen 41:57

– Sells the stores of food to the people of Egypt, exacting of them all their money, flocks and herds, lands and lives

Gen 47:13-26

– Exempts the priests from the exactions

Gen 47:22; Gen 47:26

– His father sends down into Egypt to buy corn

Gen 42

– Reveals himself to his brethren; sends for his father; provides the land of Goshen for his people; and sustains them during the famine

Gen 45; Gen 47:1-12

– His two sons

b General references

Gen 41:50; Gen 41:52 Gen 41:52Ephraim, 1; Gen 41:52Manasseh, 1

– Mourns the death of his father

Gen 50:1-14

– Exacts a pledge from his brethren to convey his remains to Canaan

Gen 50:24-25; Heb 11:22; Exo 13:19; Jos 24:32; Act 7:16

– Death of

Gen 50:22-26

– His kindness of heart

Gen 40:7-8

– His integrity

Gen 39:7-12

– His humility

Gen 41:16; Gen 45:7-9

– His wisdom

Gen 41:33-57

– His piety

Gen 41:51-52

– His faith

Gen 45:5-8

– Was a prophet

Gen 41:38-39; Gen 50:25; Exo 13:19

– God’s providence with

Gen 39:2-5; Psa 105:17-22

– His sons conjointly called Joseph

Deu 33:13-17

– Descendants of

Gen 46:20; Num 26:28-37

2. Father of Igal the spy

Num 13:7

3. Of the sons of Asaph

1Ch 25:2; 1Ch 25:9

4. A returned exile

Ezr 10:42

5. A priest

Neh 12:14

6. Husband of Mary:

– General references

Mat 13:55; Mar 6:3; Mat 1:18-25; Luk 1:27

– His genealogy

Mat 1:1-16; Luk 3:23-38

– An angel appears and testifies to the innocency of his betrothed

Mat 1:19-24

– Dwells at Nazareth

Luk 2:4

– Belongs to the city of Bethlehem

Luk 2:4

– Goes to Bethlehem to be enrolled

Luk 2:1-4

– Jesus born to

Mat 1:25; Luk 2:7

– Presents Jesus in the temple

Luk 2:22-39

– Returns to Nazareth

Luk 2:39

– Warned in a dream to escape to Egypt in order to save the child’s life

Mat 2:13-15

– Warned in a dream to return to Nazareth

Mat 2:19-23

– Attends the annual feast at Jerusalem with his family

Luk 2:42-51

7. Of Arimathaea. Begs the body of Jesus for burial in his own tomb

Mat 27:57-60; Mar 15:42-47; Luk 23:50-56; Joh 19:38-42

8. Three ancestors of Joseph

Luk 3:24; Luk 3:26; Luk 3:30

9. Called Barsabas, surnamed Justus. One of the two persons nominated in place of Judas

Act 1:21-23

10. A designation of the ten tribes of Israel

Amo 5:6

Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible

Joseph

Joseph (j’zef), increase, 1. The elder of Jacob’s two sons by Rachel, Gen 37:3, and beloved by his father. The gift of the new robe, or coat of many colors, was perhaps intended to give him the rights of primogeniture, as the son of his first wife, in place of Reuben who had forfeited them. Gen 35:22; 1Ch 5:1. He was born in Mesopotamia. Gen 30:22-24. By a wonderful providence of God he was raised from a prison to be the chief ruler of Egypt under Pharaoh. “The story of his father’s fondness, of his protest against sin among his brothers, of their jealous hostility and his prophetic dreams, of his sale by his brethren to Midianites and by them to Potiphar in Egypt, of the divine favor on his pure and prudent life, his imprisonment for three to twelve years for virtue’s sake, his wonderful exaltation to power and his wise use of it for the good of the nation, of his tender and reverent care of his father, his magnanimity to his brethren, and his faith in the future of God’s chosen people, is one of the most pleasing and instructive in the Bible, and is related in language inimitably natural, simple, and touching. It is too beautiful for abridgment, and too familiar to need full rehearsal.”Hand. The history of Joseph is strikingly confirmed by the Egyptian monuments. Joseph married the princess Asenath, daughter of Potipherah, priest of On; and his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, Gen 41:50, whom Jacob adopted. Gen 48:5, became the heads of two of the twelve tribes of Israel. 2. The son of Heli and reputed father of Jesus Christ. He was a just man, and of the house and lineage of David. He lived at Nazareth in Galilee. He espoused Mary, the daughter and heir of his uncle Jacob, and before he took her home his wife received the angelic communication recorded in Mat 1:20. When Jesus was twelve years old, Joseph took his mother and Jesus to keep the passover at Jerusalem, and when they returned to Nazareth he continued to act as a father to the child Jesus, and was reputed to be so indeed. But here our knowledge of Joseph ends. That he died before our Lord’s crucifixion is indeed tolerably certain, by what is related, Joh 19:27; and, perhaps, Mar 6:3, may imply that he was then dead. But where, when, or how he died, we know not. 3. Joseph of Arimatha, a rich and pious Israelite, probably a member of the Great Council or Sanhedrin. He is further characterized as “a good man and a just.” Luk 23:50. We are told that he did not “consent to the counsel and deed” of his colleagues in the death of Jesus. On the evening of the crucifixion Joseph “went in boldly unto Pilate and craved the body of Jesus.” Pilate consented. Joseph and Nicodemus then, having enfolded the sacred body in the linen shroud which Joseph had bought, placed it in a tomb hewn in a rock, in a garden belonging to Joseph, and close to the place of crucifixion. There is a tradition that he was one of the seventy disciples. 4. Joseph, called Barsabas, and surnamed Justus: one of the two persons chosen by the assembled church, Act 1:23, as worthy to fill the place in the apostolic company from which Judas had fallen.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

Joseph

Jo’seph. (increase).

1. The elder of the two sons of Jacob, by Rachel. He was born in Padan-aram (Mesopotamia), probably about B.C. 1746. He is first mentioned when a youth, seventeen years old. Joseph brought the evil report of his brethren to his father, and they hated him because his father loved him more than he did them, and had shown his preference by making a dress which appears to have been a long tunic with sleeves, worn by youths and maidens of the richer class. Gen 37:2.

He dreamed a dream foreshadowing his future power, which increased the hatred of his brethren. Gen 37:5-7. He was sent by his father to visit his brothers, who were tending flocks in the fields of Dothan. They resolved to kill him, but he was saved by Reuben, who persuaded the brothers to cast Joseph into a dry pit, to the intent that he might restore him to Jacob. The appearance of the Ishmaelites suggested his sale for “twenty pieces (shekels) of silver.” Gen 37:28. Sold into Egypt to Potiphar, Joseph prospered and was soon set over Potiphar’s house, and “all he had he gave into his hand;” but incurring the anger of Potiphar’s wife, Gen 39:7-13, he was falsely accused and thrown into prison, where he remained at least two years, interpreting during this time the dreams of the cupbearer and the baker.

Finally Pharaoh himself dreamed two prophetic dreams. Joseph, being sent for, interpreted them in the name of God, foretelling the seven years of plenty and the seven years of famine. Pharaoh, at once, appointed Joseph, not merely governor of Egypt, but second only to the sovereign, and also gave him to wife Asenath, daughter of Potipherah priest of On (Hieropolis), and gave him a name or title, Zaphnath-paaneah. (preserver of life). Joseph’s first act was to go throughout all the land of Egypt.

During the seven plenteous years, there was a very abundant produce, and he gathered the fifth part and laid it up. When the seven good years had passed, the famine began. Gen 41:54-57. See Famine. After the famine had lasted for a time, apparently two years, 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 brought, and brought it into Pharaoh’s house, Gen 47:13-14, and when the money was exhausted, all the cattle, and finally all the land, except that of the priests, and apparently, as a consequence, the Egyptians themselves. He demanded, however, only a fifth part of the produce as Pharaoh’s right.

Now Jacob, who had suffered also from the effects of the famine, sent Joseph’s brother to Egypt for corn. The whole story of Joseph’s treatment of his brethren is so graphically told in Genesis, Genesis 42-45, and is so familiar, that it is unnecessary here to repeat it. On the death of Jacob in Egypt, Joseph carried him to Canaan, and laid him in the cave of Machpelah, the burying-place of his fathers.

Joseph lived “a hundred and ten years,” having been more than ninety in Egypt. Dying, he took an oath of his brethren that they should carry up his bones to the land of promise: thus showing in his latest action, the faith, Heb 11:22, which had guided his whole life. Like his father, he was embalmed, “and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.” Gen 50:26. His trust, Moses kept, and laid the bones of Joseph in his inheritance in Shechem, in the territory of Ephraim, his offspring. His tomb is, according to tradition, about a stone’s throw from Jacob’s well.

2. Father of Igal, who represented the tribe of Issachar among the spies. Num 13:7.

3. A lay Israelite who had married a foreign wife. Ezr 10:42. (B.C. 459).

4. A representative of the priestly family of Shebaniah. Neh 12:14. (B.C. after 536).

5. One of the ancestors of Christ, son of Jonan. Luk 3:30.

6. Another ancestor of Christ, son of Judah. Luk 3:26. (B.C. between 536-410).

7. Another ancestor of Christ, son of Mattathias. Luk 3:24. (B.C. after 400).

8. Son of Heli, and reputed father of Jesus Christ. All that is told us of Joseph in the New Testament may be summed up in a few words. He was a just man, and of the house and lineage of David. He lived at Nazareth in Galilee. He espoused Mary, the daughter and heir of his uncle Jacob, and before he took her home as his wife, received the angelic communication recorded in Mat 1:20.

When Jesus was twelve years old, Joseph and Mary took him with them to keep the Passover at Jerusalem, and when they returned to Nazareth, he continued to act as a father to the child Jesus, and was reputed to be so indeed. But here, our knowledge of Joseph ends. That he died before our Lord’s crucifixion is indeed tolerably certain, by what is related, Joh 19:27, and perhaps ,Mar 6:3, may imply that he was then dead. But where, when or how he died we know not.

9. Joseph of Arimathaea, a rich and pious Israelite, probably a member of the Great Council or Sanhedrin. He is further characterized as “a good man and a just.” Luk 23:50. We are expressly told that he did not “consent to the counsel and deed” of his colleagues in conspiring to bring about the death of Jesus; but he seems to have lacked the courage to protest against their judgment.

On the very evening of the crucifixion, when the triumph of the chief priests and rulers seemed complete, Joseph “went in boldly unto Pilate and craved the body of Jesus.” Pilate consented. Joseph and Nicodemus then, having enfolded the sacred body in the linen shroud which Joseph had bought, consigned it to a tomb hewn in a rock, in a garden belonging to Joseph, and close to the place of crucifixion. There is a tradition that he was one of the seventy disciples.

10. Joseph, called Barsabas, and surnamed Justus; one of the two person chosen by the assembled church, Act 1:23, as worthy to fill the place in the apostolic company from which Judas had fallen.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary

JOSEPH

(a) Son of Jacob

Gen 30:24; Gen 33:2; Gen 37:2; Gen 37:28; Gen 39:2; Gen 40:4; Gen 41:25; Gen 42:7; Gen 43:16

Gen 44:2; Gen 45:1; Gen 46:29; Gen 47:7; Gen 48:1; Gen 50:1; Gen 50:26; Exo 13:19

Jos 24:32; 1Ch 5:1

–Summary of his life
A youthful dreamer

Gen 37:5-9

Dreams fulfilled

Gen 41:42-44

Faithful in hard places

Gen 39:1-6; Gen 39:20-23

Resisted temptation

Gen 39:7-13

Unspoiled by sudden prosperity

Gen 41:14-46

Manifested brotherly love

Gen 43:30; Gen 45:14

–Filial Devotion

Gen 45:23; Gen 47:7

–Dependence upon God

Gen 41:16; Gen 45:8

Returned good for evil

Gen 50:16-21

(b) Husband of Mary

Mat 1:16; Mat 2:13; Mat 2:19; Luk 2:4; Luk 3:23; Luk 4:22

–Characteristics of
Charitableness

Mat 1:19

Faith

Mat 1:24

Obedience

Mat 2:14

Faithfulness to religious duty

Luk 2:41

(c) Of Arimathea

Mat 27:57; Luk 23:50

(d) Or Barsabas

Act 1:23

Fuente: Thompson Chain-Reference Bible

Joseph

son of Jacob and Rachel, and brother to Benjamin, Gen 30:22; Gen 30:24. The history of Joseph is so fully and consecutively given by Moses, that it is not necessary to abridge so familiar an account. In place of this, the following beautiful argument by Mr. Blunt for the veracity of the account drawn from the identity of Joseph’s character, will be read with pleasure:I have already found an argument for the veracity of Moses in the identity of Jacob’s character, I now find another in the identity of that of Joseph. There is one quality, as it has been often observed, though with a different view from mine, which runs like a thread through his whole history, his affection for his father. Israel loved him, we read, more than all his children; he was the child of his age; his mother died while he was yet young, and a double care of him consequently devolved upon his surviving parent. He made him a coat of many colours; he kept him at home when his other sons were sent to feed the flocks. When the bloody garment was brought in, Jacob in his affection for him,that same affection which, on a subsequent occasion, when it was told him that after all Joseph was alive, made him as slow to believe the good tidings as he was now quick to apprehend the sad; in this his affection for him, I say, Jacob at once concluded the worst, and he rent his clothes and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days, and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted, and he said, For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning.

Now, what were the feelings in Joseph which responded to these? When the sons of Jacob went down to Egypt, and Joseph knew them, though they knew not him; for they, it may be remarked, were of an age not to be greatly changed by the lapse of years, and were still sustaining the character in which Joseph had always seen them; while he himself had meanwhile grown out of the stripling into the man, and from a shepherd boy was become the ruler of a kingdom; when his brethren thus came before him, his question was, Is your father yet alive? Gen 43:7.

They went down a second time, and again the question was, Is your father well, the old man of whom ye spake, is he yet alive? More he could not venture to ask, while he was yet in his disguise. By a stratagem he now detains Benjamin, leaving the others, if they would, to go their way. But Judah came near unto him, and entreated him for his brother, telling him how that he had been surety to his father to bring him back; how that his father was an old man, and that this was the child of his old age, and that he loved him; how it would come to pass that if he should not see the lad with him he would die, and his gray hairs be brought with sorrow to the grave; for how shall I go to my father, and the lad be not with me, lest, peradventure, I see the evil that shall come on my father? Here, without knowing it, he had struck the string that was the tenderest of all. Joseph’s firmness forsook him at this repeated mention of his father, and in terms so touching: he could not refrain himself any longer; and, causing every man to go out, he made himself known to his brethren. Then, even in the paroxysm which came on him, (for he wept aloud, so that the Egyptians heard,) still his first words uttered from the fulness of his heart were, Doth my father yet live? He now bids them hasten and bring the old man down, bearing to him tokens of his love and tidings of his glory. He goes to meet him; he presents himself unto him, and falls on his neck, and weeps on his neck a good while; he provides for him and his household out of the fat of the land; he sets him before Pharaoh. By and by he hears that he is sick, and hastens to visit him; he receives his blessing; watches his death bed; embalms his body; mourns for him threescore and ten days; and then carries him, as he had desired, into Canaan to bury him, taking with him, as an escort to do him honour, all the elders of Israel, and all the servants of Pharaoh, and all his house, and the house of his brethren, chariots, and horsemen, a very great company. How natural was it now for his brethren to think that the tie by which alone they could imagine Joseph to be held to them was dissolved, that any respect he might have felt or feigned for them must have been buried in the cave of Machpelah, and that he would now requite to them the evil they had done! And they sent a messenger unto Joseph, saying, Thy father did command before he died, saying, So shall ye say unto Joseph, Forgive, I pray thee now, the trespass of thy brethren, and their sin; for they did unto thee evil. And then they add of themselves, as if well aware of the surest road to their brother’s heart, Forgive, we pray thee, the trespass of the servants of the God of thy father. In every thing the father’s name is still put foremost: it is his memory which they count upon as their shield and buckler.

It is not the singular beauty of these scenes, or the moral lesson they teach, excellent as it is, with which I am now concerned, but simply the perfect artless consistency which prevails through them all. It is not the constancy with which the son’s strong affection for his father had lived through an interval of twenty years’ absence, and, what is more, through the temptation of sudden promotion to the highest estate;it is not the noble- minded frankness with which he still acknowledges his kindred, and makes a way for them, shepherds as they were, to the throne of Pharaoh himself;it is not the simplicity and singleness of heart which allow him to give all the first-born of Egypt, men over whom he bore absolute rule, an opportunity of observing his own comparatively humble origin, by leading them in attendance upon his father’s corpse to the valleys of Canaan and the modest cradle of his race;it is not, in a word, the grace, but the identity of Joseph’s character, the light in which it is exhibited by himself, and the light in which it is regarded by his brethren, to which I now point as stamping it with marks of reality not to be gainsayed.

Some writers have considered Joseph as a type of Christ; and it requires not much ingenuity to find out some resemblances, as his being hated by his brethren, sold for money, plunged into deep affliction, and then raised to power and honour, &c; but as we have no intimation in any part of Scripture that Joseph was constituted a figure of our Lord, and that this was one design of recording his history at length, all such applications want authority, and cannot safely be indulged. The account seems rather to have been left for its moral uses, and that it should afford, by its inimitable simplicity and truth to nature, a point of irresistible internal evidence of the truth of the Mosaic narrative.

2. JOSEPH, the husband of Mary, and reputed father of Jesus, was the son of Jacob, and grandson of Matthan, Mat 1:15-16. The place of his stated residence was Nazareth, particularly after the time of his marriage. We learn from the evangelists that he followed the occupation of a carpenter, Mat 13:55; and that he was a just man, or one of those pious Israelites who looked for the coming of the Messiah, Mat 1:19. It is probable that Joseph died before Christ entered upon his public ministry; for upon any other supposition we are at a loss to account for the reason why Mary, the mother of Jesus, is frequently mentioned in the evangelic narrative, while no allusion is made to Joseph; and, above all, why the dying Saviour should recommend his mother to the care of the beloved disciple John, if her husband had been then living, Joh 19:25-27.

3. JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA, a Jewish senator, and a believer in the divine mission of Jesus Christ, Joh 19:38. St. Luke calls him a counsellor, and also informs us that he was a good and just man, who did not give his consent to the crucifixion of Christ, Luk 23:50-51. And though he was unable to restrain the sanhedrim from their wicked purposes, he went to Pilate by night, and solicited from him the body of Jesus. Having caused it to be taken down from the cross, he wrapped it in linen, and laid it in his own sepulchre, which, being a rich man, he appears to have recently purchased, and then closed the entrance with a stone cut purposely to fit it, Mat 27:57-60; Joh 19:38-42.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary

Joseph

Gen 37:9-10 (c) This character is a type of the Lord JESUS in many respects. Forty-two different aspects of CHRIST may be seen in his life. In this Scripture, Joseph is a type of CHRIST in that he is honored by his father and mother. They and all of his brothers must bow down in obeisance to him, as every knee shall bow to CHRIST.

Gen 43:3 (c) Here Joseph is a true type of GOD, the Judge, and Benjamin is a type of the Lord JESUS. It is almost a repetition of that beautiful truth in Joh 14:6. No man can see the Father’s face unless he comes with the Lord JESUS, the elder brother.

Gen 49:22 (c) This is a type of the fruitful Christian who, though persecuted and hindered by others, nevertheless continues to bear fruit in the regions round about as well as in the home parish. Israel was to be a blessing to Gentiles.

Fuente: Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types