Está en la página 1de 31

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament http://jot.sagepub.

com/

The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil in the Joseph Story: An Exegetical and Hermeneutical Inquiry
Mignon R. Jacobs Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2003 27: 309 DOI: 10.1177/030908920302700303 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jot.sagepub.com/content/27/3/309

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal for the Study of the Old Testament can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jot.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jot.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Mar 1, 2003 What is This?

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

[JSOT 27.3 (2003) 309-338] ISSN 0309-0892

The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil in the Joseph Story: An Exegetical and Hermeneutical Inquiry * Mignon R. Jacobs
135 North Oakland Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91182, USA

Abstract
This article examines the dynamics of good and evil as represented in the Joseph story (Gen. 3750). It examines the storys plot, the larger conceptual framework of the narratives Pentateuchal setting, as well as the semantic indicators and associated attitudes/behaviors quali ed as good (hbw+/bw+) and/or evil (h(r/(r). The main objectives of this article are: (1) to identify the main issues within the storys concept of the dynamics of good and evil; (2) to promote a more thorough consideration of the place of Joseph and God in those dynamics; and (3) to generate hermeneutical inquiries about the dynamics of good and evil using the insights gained from this examinationinquiries that are more relevant to contemporary discussion (e.g. understanding human atrocities, forgiveness, and reconciliation).

I. Introduction One of the most signi cant achievements in research on the Joseph story (Gen. 3750) is the recognition and analysis of its place and function in the Pentateuch.1 Within this framework the conceptuality of the story2 is
* Biblical quotations are from the NRSV unless otherwise indicated. This is an updated version of a paper presented at the 1994 AAR/SBL Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL. 1. G.W. Coats, From Canaan to Egypt: Structural and Theological Context for the Joseph Story (CBQMS, 4; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1976); this represents a comprehensive analysis of the story in regard to its own unity and its theological connection to the patriarchal narratives. Cf. M. Noth, A History of the Pentateuchal Traditions (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, 1972),
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX and 370 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

310

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27.3 (2003)

illustrated by its connection with the promise to the patriarchs and the tradition of Israels enslavement in Egypt and by its use of complex dynamics of behaviors/circumstances. In these dynamics, good and evil are de ned necessarily by criteria found in the conceptuality of the story (intratextual) and in the larger conceptuality of the Pentateuch (contextual).3 Although it deals with issues of theodicy as they are signaled by the subject matter at hand, this study is not intended to be a reconstruction of an Old Testament theodicy. Rather it examines the dynamics of good and evil as they are represented in the storys plot and larger conceptual framework of the Pentateuch. It proposes that the conceptuality of the story is an acknowledgment of Gods purposeful involvement in particular aspects of human history to ful ll the deitys plans. Furthermore, this article focuses on the conceptuality of the extant text as a cohesive unit4 recognizing its constitutive elements,5 generic forms,6 and the signi cance of other contributions to the understanding of the storys origin and composition.7
pp. 208-13; D.B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 3750) (VTSup, 20; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970), pp. 86, 247; C. Westermann, Genesis: An Introduction (trans. J.J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986); R.E. Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989), pp. 12-13. 2. Conceptuality is a manifestation of a larger conceptual framework. It is also the aspect of the text that controls the composition of the story. It is the guiding principle that accounts for the existence of the particular formulation in the text. See R.P. Knierim, The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 389-90. 3. R.P. Knierim, Text and Concept in Leviticus 1.1-9: A Case Study in Exegetical Method (FAT, 2; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992), p. 3. He mentions several conceptual frameworksnamely, infratextual, intratextual (pericope-immanent), contextual (the literary work as a whole), intertextual (separate literary works), and supratextual (the world-view of the concepts). 4. The cohesion may be represented in a four-fold macro-structure: Joseph Story I (ch. 37), II (chs. 3941), III (chs. 4247), IV (chs. 4850). The Joseph story is within the framework of the Jacob narrative. Cf. Coats, From Egypt to Canaan, pp. 48-54, who sees 47.27 as the end of the Joseph story proper. 5. This is in reference to source criticism. Cf. J. Skinner, Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969); F. Winnett, Re-Examining the Foundations, JBL 84 (1965), pp. 1-19; S.R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York: The Meridian Library, 1961). With regards to the redaction of the text, see G. Rendsburg, The Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986); G.W. Coats, Redactional Unity in Genesis 3750, JBL 93 (1974), pp. 15-21. 6. G.W. Coats, Genesis (FOTL, 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 259-315. 7. G. von Rad, The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom, in idem, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966), pp. 292-300.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

JACOBS The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil

311

Methodology One of the main challenges to be confronted by this investigation is that the story does not present discussions on the concepts of good and evil and their dynamics. The story presupposes an understanding of what it means by good (hbw+/bw+) and evil (h(r/(r).8 Consequently, understanding these concepts and the conceptuality of the story is dependent on understanding the behaviors and circumstances depicted in the story as indicators of the particular dynamics of good and evil. This task of understanding the distinctive concepts engenders at least two risks. The rst risk is that of distorting the conceptuality of the story. Such a distortion may be the result of at least two de ciencies: methodological and conceptual. A methodological de ciency occurs when the reconstruction of the conceptuality of the text is attempted using a priori conclusions about characters roles in the dynamics of good and evil. This is most evident with regards to Josephs role. Thus, although he is seen to be innocent and the source of good, little or no serious consideration is given to Josephs contribution to evil. Furthermore, the generalization of the place of the Joseph story as a bridge between Genesis and Exodus often results in the loss of awareness of the storys conceptuality. In terms of conceptual de ciency, the storys conceptuality is distorted to the extent that an understanding of the dynamics of good and evil is limited to what is deemed legitimate by criteria external to the story. Such criteria include determining the quality of behaviors (good or evil) by the identity of the actorJoseph, his brothers, and Godand by the signi cance of the behaviors within the Pentateuch. The conceptual de ciency is addressed only to the extent that the criteria for good and evil are those derived from the text. The concern is to note the distinctiveness of the context rather than harmonization with the larger contextual framework. In this respect, the presuppositions arising out of the text itself may not be silenced in favor of conformity to presuppositions that the text itself resists.

Cf. the following challenges to von Rads thesis: R.N. Whybray, The Joseph Story and Pentateuchal Criticism, VT 18 (1968), pp. 522-28; G.W. Coats, The Joseph Story and Ancient Wisdom: A Reappraisal, CBQ 35 (1973), pp. 285-97; C. Westermann, Genesis: An Introduction (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), pp. 122-50, 237-46. 8. Gen. 37.2, 20, 33; 39.9; 40.7; 41.3, 4, 19, 20, 21, 27; 44.4, 34; 47.9; 48.16; 50.17, 20. There are other words that refer to negative conditions used in the story: e.g. )+x and (#p. These are of primary concern to this discussion since they are related to the particular incidents of the story in relation to the concepts of good and evil.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

312

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27.3 (2003)

In order to understand what these attitudes/behaviors reveal, this article examines instances where the particular attitudes/behaviors are quali ed as good (hbw+/bw+) and/or evil (h(r/(r). It is equally important to examine other attitudes/behaviors that may not be so quali ed, but are similar in nature to those quali ed as good and evil. That this is an exegetical and hermeneutical inquiry is signi cant to the nature and scope of the discussion. The main objectives are as follows: 1. To identify the main issues at work in the storys concept of the dynamics of good and evil. 2. To promote a more thorough consideration of the good and evil dynamics especially with respect to the place of Joseph and God in those dynamics. 3. To stimulate discussion on the hermeneutic of good and evil using the insights gained from analysis of the story. 4. To reawaken interest in the Joseph story. Thus, the essay raises questions and makes some initial observations while offering some preliminary responses in comparison to the complexity of the issues at hand. II. Exegetical Inquiry 1. Overview of the Story a. Its Plot The storys plot is constituted by con ictresolution patterns in which the dynamics of good and evil are central. In these dynamics the multivalency and relativity of behaviors/circumstances are such that good and evil may constitute the same behavior/circumstances. This is to say that there is potential for good and evil at every juncture in the story. The story does not present an abstraction of good and evil. Rather, it is a depiction of human interaction within which good and evil arise and in which God works toward the deitys own purpose. At the very onset, the narrator makes clear two central concerns: location and persons. Canaan is indicated as the geographic starting point of the story (37.1). Likewise, the centrality of Joseph is made clear at the onset. Joseph is singled out by name in distinction from his brothers (wyx)), who are identi ed only as a group (sons of Bilhah and Zilpah) (37.2). While the narrative framework indicates that the story is that of Jacobs family (37.2a), even Jacob is cast in a decentralized role by referring to him as [Josephs] father (37.2ab, wyb), his father; cf. 37.2b,
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

JACOBS The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil

313

Mhyb), their father) before he is introduced by name (l)r#y, Israel)

in reference to Joseph (37.3). The primacy of the con ict that is to characterize the story is introduced by the account of Joseph giving an evil report (h(r Mtbd) about his brothers to their father (37.2). This same father is reported to love Joseph more than the brothers (37.3) and made this evident through his preferential treatment of Joseph. Despite these tensions, Joseph, having dreamed dreams indicating his future glori cation over his family, disclosed these to his brothers (37.5-11). This disclosure widened the rift between him and his brothers. Given the opportunity the brothers got rid of Joseph to ensure that the dreams do not come to pass. They sold him to Ishmaelites who in turn took him to Egypt (37.25). As a result of Gods presence with him, even in slavery Joseph in Egypt was given great responsibilities (39.1-6). But after being falsely accused he was imprisoned (39.7-23). There in prison he interpreted the dreams of the pharaohs servants (ch. 40). This subsequently brought him to the palace to interpret pharaohs dreams (ch. 41). It was in and through the latter circumstance that Joseph came to power in Egypt and thus the dreams were actualized. The actualization of the dreams thus enabled Joseph to help his family by providing for their livelihood in Egypt during the time of famine (chs. 4245). Thus, the family of Jacob journeyed from Canaan to Egypt and resided there (ch. 46). The story ends in Egypt but looks forward to a time of return to the land of Canaan (ch. 50). b. Indicators of its Conceptuality Within the story itself there are re ections on the plot that are indicative of the storys conceptcentral to which are the dynamics of good and evil. The clearest of these re ective statements are Gen. 45.5-8 and 50.19-20. These are presented as Josephs re ection on his past in light of the present and future of his family and their descendants. They represent an attempt to make sense of the past and its distinctive events by locating their signi cance within a larger frameworkGods plan. To this extent they also represent the conceptuality of the story. (1) Genesis 45.5-8. At the point in the story where 45.5-8 occur, Joseph was already in a position of power in Egypt. When he is confronted with his brothers and with the choices of how to respond to them, he accused them of being spies, and devised plans to entrap them. It appears that at this point he was extracting revenge. But he disclosed his identity and offered these words of admonition:
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

314

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27.3 (2003)


Do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here; because God sent me before you to preserve life And God sent me before you to set up for you a remnant in the land; and to preserve for you many survivors. Now, you did not send me here but God (45.5, 7-8)

The re ection brings into focus the agents involved: Joseph, his brothers, and God. Joseph, the speaker, is presented as the central object of the action (indicated by the rst common singular suf x), but passive as a respondent to his brothers and Gods actions. While the verbs represent them as two distinct actionsthat is, the brothers sold Joseph (Mtrkm yt)); and God sent him (ynxl#)the re ection represents them as the same event that caused Joseph to be in Egypt. The admonition (wbc(t-l)) presupposes that the brothers would feel distress for having sold Joseph. While in the background, the familial tensions (e.g. jealousy) constitute the circumstances of them selling him and are presupposed in the admonition. Here the quality of the selling of Joseph is indicated in the admonition itself. The admonition suggests that there was cause for distress. Why distress when Joseph who was thought to be dead is alive? Why distress when he is a ruler with the power to help? Why distress when they had not seen him for years? The yk-clause is used to signal the immediate reason for the admonitionnamely, that Josephs brothers sold him into Egypt (hnh yt) Mtrkm, you sold me here). While the text does not deny the brothers behavior, the reason given for the admonition is that another purpose was served by selling Joseph. In this case, no distinction is made about the speci city of the selling; thus, the recollection does not identify the two-fold sellingthat is, the brothers selling of Joseph to the Ishmaelites who in turn sold him into slavery in Egypt (37.28). The perspective here is that the brothers, whether they did the nal or the initial selling, are responsible for Josephs presence in Egypt. Gods involvement in the dynamics is presented in contrast to the involvement of the brothers. The yk-clause in this instance gives the reason for sending Joseph to Egypt. Notably, neither this behavior nor that of the brothers is here quali ed as good or evil. It is the nature of the admonition that indicates a negative quality of the brothers action as compared to a positive quality to Gods action. The reason given is connected to the immediate circumstances that brought the brothers into contact with Josephthe famine. God, it is said, sent Joseph to preserve life. The purpose clause presupposes several elements that will be treated more fully in the discussion of the agents involved in the dynamics of good
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

JACOBS The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil

315

and evil. It presupposes Gods foreknowledge of the famine (cf. 41.25-28) and suggests that if there was no famine or similar life-threatening circumstances there would be no need for Joseph to be sent to Egypt. Josephs presence in Egypt is seen as a ful llment of the divine purpose to preserve the lives of all in Egypt (45.5), as well as Jacobs family and its descendants (45.7).9 Furthermore, the purpose cited also presupposes that there is more to the ful llment of Gods plan than the selling. Josephs being sold by his brothers was not the sole determinant of his present position and responsibility for preserving lives. Thus, the statement also presupposes a means for establishing Joseph in his position and in this way presupposes the events after his brothers disposed of him. In consideration of the larger signi cance of Josephs demise, the statements focus on the brothers action against Joseph is controlled by the particular context and its function in that context. It is not an indication that the other eventshis being falsely accused, imprisoned, forgottenare any less signi cant to the ful llment of the divine plan. The signi cance of the selling in relation to the other events is its chronological primacywithout Joseph being in Egypt as a slave he most likely would not have been in the household of Potiphar. Thus, the events following the selling and the presence in Egypt are dependent on the selling and the being brought to Egypt. The re ection on the events of the past as contributing to the actualization of Gods plan raises questions about the nature of the deitys involvement in the dynamics of good and evil in the life of Joseph and his family. To what extent is God in control of the implementation and actualization of the plan? In what sense then are the brothers responsible for their part in the drama? Were they mere instruments of Gods plans?10 To what
9. The text presents dif culties in that it seems to offer two perspectives. (1) The perspective in 45.5 does not identify the family of Jacob as the target of Josephs rise to his position. This general reference indicates that the life of all the Egyptians is in focus. (2) In 45.7 the focus is Jacob and his family. This great remnant refers to the descendants of Jacob rather than to all who survive the famine. The immediate purpose is preservation of life due to the severe famine. Cf. C. Westermann, Genesis 3750 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, rev. edn, 1986), pp. 143-45, who explains the dif culty as a redactional insert to make the passage directly applicable to the post-exilic community in the face of catastrophe. 10. W. Brueggemann, Genesis (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), pp. 289, 344-49, speaks of the hidden and mysterious nature of God and the freedom of God in the fulllment of the divine plans. He notes that God uses human actions but is not limited to them. He af rms the ultimate sovereignty and utter graciousness of God.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

316

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27.3 (2003)

extent is their behavior toward Joseph their own doing, if the plan was already xed for Joseph to go to Egypt? Whatever interpretation one gives to the text, one must reckon with the storys perspective that God is involved in the dynamics of good and evil as a participant and not simply as an observer. One must also reckon with Gods foreknowledge and power as essential parts of the dynamics. (2) Genesis 50.19-20. Another indicator of the storys concept is the reassurance of Joseph to his brothers expressed in Gen. 50.19-20:
But Joseph said to them, Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God? You devised evil against me but God devised it for good in order to preserve the lives of many people even as he is doing today.

Like 45.5-8, these two verses bring into focus the participants in the dynamics: Joseph, his brothers, and God. But unlike 45.5-8, 50.19-20 qualify the behavior of the brothers as evil (h(r) and that of God as good (hb+). Yet Josephs reassurance does not minimize nor deny that good and evil had been done. On the contrary, acknowledgment of evils presence is fundamental to both the brothers fear and the reassurance offered to them. What constitutes the reassurance is not that Joseph is beyond the inclination or predisposition to avenge himself. Admittedly, the text is ambiguous in its representation of Josephs disposition toward revenge. This disposition is already apparent in Josephs meeting with his brothers during the famine (42.6-17; ch. 44). The reassurance is two-fold: that Joseph would not presume to play the part of God (Myhl) txth yk yn)), and that the evil intended did not result in evil. Concerning the rst, this perspective presumes that vengeance is Gods (cf. Deut. 32.35; Lev. 19.18) and hence to exact revenge is to take Gods place in the dynamics. Concerning the intended evil there seems to be an understanding of the nature of the dynamics wherein evil does not necessarily follow from evil but may in some way be altered to produce good. The reassurance is that the evil the brothers devised (b#x) against Joseph was devised by God for goodthat is, the preservation of life. Notably, the circumstance/behavior that is quali ed as good and evil is not explicitly mentioned, but signaled by the third feminine singular suf x (h F ). The referent of the suf x is explicit in 45.5-8 and the story. Already in this portion of the story, several questions that have signi cance for the understanding of the dynamics of good and evil arise: What constitutes good and evil in the conceptuality of the story? Is it intentionality such that if one intends something as good it is good quite
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

JACOBS The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil

317

apart from other criteria or effects? To what extent is the criterion for the quality (good or evil) of a behavior/circumstance its signi cance in a larger framework? To what extent is the quality of an act determined by the actor, that is, the agent of that act? If nothing else the story has no simple answers to these questions. From these two statements (Gen. 45.5-8; 50.19-20) good is de ned as the preservation of life. However, they are not statements about all circumstances aimed at preserving life. While Gods act to preserve life is good, there is some doubt as to whether the brothers act in preserving Josephs life by selling him may also be seen as good in this same way. Both of these actions preserve life, but the circumstances of the preservation are also signi cant to whether it is essentially good. On the other hand, evil is not as clearly de ned in these two statements or the story as a whole. Why is the brothers behavior evil? Does the fact that they did not kill Joseph constitute good? Is their selling of Joseph evil because the selling of people is in essence evil, regardless of who does the selling? Or is the selling evil because of the blood tie between the brothers and Joseph? Is the evil then constituted in the motive behind the selling and not necessarily in the selling itself? These questions revolve around two fundamental aspects to the dynamics of good and evil observed in the concept of the story: the agents of the dynamics and the nature of the dynamics. 2. Agents in the Dynamics of Good and Evil Although they may control its initial quality, the agents in the dynamics of good and evil may not control the effects of their contribution. In as much as the dynamics of good and evil are inherent in every human relationship, one may be unaware of the quality of ones role in those dynamics. Thus, humans may at times be inadvertent participants in good and evil while at other times consciously and deliberately engaging in behaviors toward good and/or evil. The identity of the agents does not alone determine the quality of the dynamics. So, while the brothers did evil, the behaviors are not evil simply because they and not someone else did them. Likewise, Josephs actions are not good simply by virtue of the fact that he did them. Similarly, it must be seriously considered whether the quality of an act is determined by the fact that it is God who does it. With the awareness that the agent of the action is not the criterion for the quality of the action, the examination of the agents is intended to identify their participation in the dynamics of good and evil.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

318

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27.3 (2003)

a. Human Agents The discussion now turns to the events of the past as summarized in Gen. 45.5-8 and 50.20. First, it should be noted that familial con icts constitute a central place in the dynamics of good and evil in this story. This has more to do with the form of society depicted by the narrative11 than with the predominance of family con icts during that time vis--vis other types of con icts.12 (1) The Brothers and Evil. With no consideration of the possibility of their contribution to the larger dynamics, the brothers are usually viewed as contributing evil. This is mainly because the text itself emphasizes the brothers evil by qualifying their behavior as evil, and by qualifying their attitudes/behaviors negatively: their hatred and jealousy of Joseph (37.4, 5, 11); their plot to get rid of him (37.18-22); their lies to their father concerning Joseph (37.32-35); their suspicion that their guilt has been found out by God and is being punished (44.16); their awareness that they had wronged Joseph (42.21-22) and that he may avenge himself against them (50.15-18). One of the most readily observable aspects of the dynamics of good and evil in the text is its perspective on evil. It portrays evil as the product of the collective; therefore the brothers evil is depicted as that of a collective.13 The brothers are introduced as a collective unit (37.2, 4) and are usually spoken of in terms of the collective (e.g. 37.12, 17, 18, 31; 42.3, 6-17, 18, 21, 30-32; 43.18-22; 44.7-9; 50.15-18, 20, 24)with the exceptions of the cases where Reuben or Judah speaks or acts alone in light of the collective (37.21-22, 26, 29; 42.22, 37; 43.3-5; 44.14-19). The anonymity of the participants in the evil is thus achieved. The hatred, for example, is presented as that of the collective; and there is no distinction made between those members in the group who may not have hated Joseph vis--vis those who may have loved him.14

11. C. Westermann, The Promises to the Fathers (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), pp. 31-32. Note the time presupposed by the narrative as a whole vis--vis the time of the individual traditions or the time of its nal composition. 12. D. Steinmetz, From Father to Son: Kinship, Con ict and Community in Genesis (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1991), pp. 11-34. 13. Cf. Longacre, Joseph Story, pp. 147-49. 14. See below for a discussion of the break in the anonymity with reference to Reubens intervention on behalf of Joseph.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

JACOBS The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil

319

Even as a collective agent of evil, the brothers are portrayed as cognizant of their attitudes/behaviors. Consequently, whether the actions against Joseph may be quali ed as both reactive (e.g. 37.4, 8b, 11; 42.21-22; 43.18; 44.7-12) and proactive (e.g. 37.18; 31; 15.15-17),15 the brothers are depicted as committing evil. But questions about the brothers responsibility for their evil emerge in light of the storys concept of Gods plan to bring Joseph to Egypt (Gen. 45.5-8). Was there a divine in uence that predisposed them to hate Joseph and mistreat him? The possibility of such an in uence may not be ruled out in light of other instances where God is said to cause a person to respond negatively. One example is the hardening of Pharaohs heart in Exod. 7.3 (Pharaohs heart was hardened, 7.13, 22; 8.19; 9.35; 11.9; as compared to Yahweh hardened Pharaohs heart, 9.12; 10.20, 27; and Pharaoh hardened his heart, 8.15, 32; 9.34). This example begs the question of whether evil is evil regardless of who is ultimately responsible for it. Yet the issue of responsibility is crucial and complicated and not addressed by simply identifying the impulses or causation of good and/or evil. This is not to imply that evil is quanti ed by its complexity. Rather, it is to say that evil is a part of a dynamic process and not isolated from other realities either as a stimulus or as an effect/ response. When the opportunity presented itself, the brothers plotted to get rid of Joseph and his dreams (37.18-22). Although they initiated the action in response to their hatred of him, the plotting itself is not justi ed by Jacobs preferential love for Joseph or by the presumption of Joseph in asserting his superiority over his brothers. The narrator does not evaluate the plotting as either good or evil. The evil of the plot is indicated in the intervention of Reuben, who speaks on behalf of Joseph (37.21-22). Here there is a sign that the hatred for Joseph was not equally strong among the brothers. Reuben may have hated him but not enough to kill him; however, the alternative was not to dissuade all actions against Joseph. Yet, even the intervention is secondary to the plot against Joseph; and thus Reubens intervention suggests that evil is quanti able.
15. Reactive is de ned here both with reference to textual signals and conceptual clues. The behaviors and attitudes categorized as reactive are those directly connected to another which serve as the basis for the response and apart from which the response would not be understandable. On the other hand, proactive is de ned as behaviors and attitudes that are indirectly connected to an earlier behavior/attitude which is then presupposed. Cf. Longacre, Joseph Story, pp. 202-204, who talks about the stimulus response scheme of the narrative using 37.10-11 as an example.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

320

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27.3 (2003)

The alternative to killing Joseph was to put him in a pit.16 In this instance, the lesser form of evil was also a destructive force in the family.17 The greater evil would be to kill Joseph (cf. Exod. 21.12, 14). In the larger perspective of the story, however, the lesser evil served a good purpose: (1) that the life of Joseph was preserved; and (2) that it contributed to the ful llment of the larger plan to bring Joseph to Egypt. If the intent of the brothers was to destroy the reality revealed by the dreams through getting rid of Joseph, the evil is conceivably that they were tampering with Gods plans. Yet it is the very tampering that facilitated the actualization of the divine plans. Judahs intervention propels the plots movement toward its climax (37.26-28).18 His intervention also represents the idea of the quanti cation of evil. The rationale for his intervention is two-fold: that they should not harm Joseph because he is their brother; and that to harm him would not yield pro t. Judahs objection is not necessarily to killing per se. The irony is that on the basis of the same rationalehe is their brotherhe did not see the evil of selling Joseph. Thus within the perspective of the text, killing Joseph would constitute evil, but throwing him into a pit or selling him, while qualitatively evil, would not represent the same quantity of evil. One reason may be that killingpunishable by deathrepresented a greater form of evil (cf. Exod. 21.12, 14) than selling him,19 or throwing

16. D. Seybold, Paradox and Symmetry in the Joseph Narrative, in K.R.R. Gros Louis et al. (eds.), Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1974), pp. 59-73 (60-64), notes that the pit is analogous to the prison which occurs in the later part of the narrative. 17. G. von Rad, Genesis (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973), pp. 354-55, concedes to this idea of a lesser evil in saying that the guilt of killing Joseph would be too great. 18. For Westermann, Genesis 3750, pp. 41-42, this section (vv. 25-27) is a variant inserted into the context. He notes the divergent views on the doublets: the Reuben layer as original vs. the Judah layer as original. But given the observable tendency of the narration to use doublets (e.g. the dreams), the possibility of the two interventions is not to be ruled out. Judahs intervention in particular is necessary to understand the references in the story to Joseph being sold by his brothers (40.15; 45.5). 19. R.P. Knierim, On the Contours of Old Testament and Biblical Hamartiology, in idem, The Task of Old Testament Theology, pp. 416-67 (439). He cites Exod. 21.16 as indication of selling as the gravest form of sin. However, Exod. 21.16 is primarily concerned with stealing (bng) of a man as punishable by death. The reference to selling (rkm) is subordinate to that of stealing. What is punishable by death therefore is not the selling but the stealing of a person.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

JACOBS The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil

321

him into the pit. The equating of harming with physical distress is thus brought into focus. There is no hint that the brothers were concerned with any other form of harmpsychological, emotional. Nor were Josephs wellbeing and future of concern. The evil against him represented a myopic view of problem solvingnamely, using evil to achieve a perceived good for themselves (no subordination to Joseph). While the alternative to killing Joseph preserved his life, it was evil in that it threatened his wellbeing and destroyed the physical unity of the family. It is most likely in this sense that 50.19-20 qualify the brothers behavior as evil. There is, however, another aspect to the brothers involvement in the dynamics of good and evil. Although their behavior is evil toward Joseph, they later showed their capacity to do good. Their capacity shows that because persons have done evil in one circumstance does not mean that they cannot do good in other circumstances. The brothers showed that the potential for good and evil are a part of them. Rather than further contributing to the destruction of life or to the threat to it, in journeying to Egypt they helped in the preservation of their familys life. Likewise, Judahs willingness to risk his familys life to ensure the wellbeing of the larger family can hardly be quali ed as evil. All this is to say that according to the conceptuality of the story, the agents in the dynamics of good and evil are not limited to good or evil by virtue of their identity or quality of their previous actions. The capacity for good and evil may be a part of the same person. (2) Josephs Role in the Dynamics. At each place in the narrative Joseph is seen as an active and central20 participant in the relationships. Consequently, he is central to any consideration of the dynamics of good and evil. Yet Josephs role in the evil of the dynamics is presented ambiguously (chs. 37; 4244).21 By comparison, Josephs role in the good of the dynamics is presented without ambiguity (chs. 3941). This lack of ambiguity does not mean that he had no role in evil any more than the
20. Longacre, Joseph Story, pp. 141-47, notes the textual signals that indicate the centrality of Joseph in the narrative. 21. Coats, From Canaan to Egypt, pp. 12, 19, sees Joseph as being a participant in the tension between his brothers. Joseph is, according to Coats, the picture of a spoiled child. Some, such as C.T. Fritsch, God was with Him , Int 9 (1955), pp. 21-34, are inclined to deny the role of Joseph in the creation of the con ict. They presuppose that Joseph is a model of prudent conduct. While this characterization is supported by the depiction of Joseph in chs. 3941, it is not supported in other parts of the story.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

322

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27.3 (2003)

predominance of the portrayal of his good excludes the possibility of his evil. In the primary concept of the story the family con ict is presupposed as central to the brothers evil against Joseph. Yet the re ective statementsGen. 45.5-8 and 50.20do not attribute any evil to Joseph. This may have more to do with the fact that they are Josephs re ection on the past rather than with Josephs non-involvement in the good and evil components of the dynamics. Likewise it may be due to the hermeneutic of the textthe tradents concerns in their appropriation of this text. (a) Instigator of Con ict. The texts presentation of the starting con ict that leads into the rest of the story gives the perspective that Joseph had a central role in evil. This role is indicated in two main instances: the evil report (h(r Mtbd) that Joseph made about his brothers and his reporting of his dreams to them. At the onset (37.2-4), the narrator sets the stage of con ict between Joseph and his brothers. The rst indication of con ict is that Joseph, a shepherd with his brothers, brought an evil report to his father concerning them. There is no clue given that the brothers had done the evil. The assumption seems to be that they did something that was the content of the report. In the storys perspective, however, Josephs report was not the cause of con ict between him and his brothers.22 Rather, the cause of the con ict was Jacobs23 preferential love for Joseph, the son of his old age (Gen. 37.3-4).24 In this instance Jacobs preferential love for Joseph is seen to have the potential for negative consequences on the family. The movement toward the actualization of the negative consequences is the giving of the tunic, a symbol of status and authority.25

22. The narration itself exhibits a tension in that two distinctive traditions seem to be juxtaposed: one in which Joseph is contributing to the tension between him and his brothers by giving a bad report about them, and another in which the preferential love of Jacob for Joseph is the cause of the con ict between Joseph and his brothers. This juxtaposition is explained as indicative of the presence of two sources at this point in the narrative. Von Rad, Genesis, p. 350, attributes this to P, while Westermann, Genesis 3750, p. 36, reluctantly notes that the depiction of a tale-bearing Joseph seems contrary to P who usually de-emphasizes the con ict between the brothers. 23. The name Jacob will be used throughout this discussion for the sake of consistency although at points he is referred to as Israel. 24. The narrative at this point does not consider Benjamin, born to Jacob by Rachel (Gen. 35.18). Von Rad, Genesis, p. 351, also concedes that Joseph is not the son of Jacobs old age. 25. Coats, Genesis, pp. 267-68.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

JACOBS The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil

323

Even so, Josephs role in the con ict is also seen in his dream reports to his brothers (37.5-8, 9-11). Given other circumstances, Josephs telling his dreams would seem good or naturalthat is, if the relationship between him and his brothers was harmonious, and if the content of the dreams would not incite further con ict in an already tense relationship.26 Since the dreams indicated that Joseph would rule over his brothers, their content had the potential to incite further con ict. The particular circumstances that contributed to the actualization of the evil potential are both the brothers hate for Joseph and Josephs disclosure of the dreams in the situation. Was he unaware of the tension between him and his brothers? Was his motive to distinguish himself further as superior, a position already suggested by the gift of the robe?27 The text is ambiguous at this point, thus leaving open the nature of Josephs motive.28 His motive is further called into question if it is assumed that Joseph knew of his brothers hatred of him (37.4, 8) and reported to them his second dream. Nonetheless, the ambiguity of Josephs role in evil may be seen as at least an inadvertent contribution to evil. However, there are other instances where the ambiguity may not be so easily explained as representing inadvertent evil. (b) Perpetuation of Evil. More suspicion of Josephs participation in evil is seen in his encounter with his brothers (Gen. 4245). These encounters are as much a part of the actualization of Gods plan as the brothers behavior against Joseph. They are the rst stage of the reconciliation and subsequent move to Egypt; and they also illustrate that within the dynamics of good and evil those who experience evil may most likely perpetuate it. Furthermore, they illustrate that the experience of evil predisposes the object of that evil to perpetuate it; however, such experiences do not determine ones participation in future evil. Joseph was hated, sold, falsely accused, imprisoned and exalted to a position of great power. Yet he drew from the negative experiencesthe evilin responding to his brothers. The rst encounter with his brothers is cast as inevitable. Egypt, the only place where food was available, was
26. Von Rad, Genesis, p. 351, claims that the prophetic nature of the dream necessitated its disclosure. 27. Westermann, Genesis 3750, p. 37; Seybold, Paradox and Symmetry, pp. 60, 63. 28. The text is ambiguous again with regard to Josephs motive when he is depicted as interrogating, falsely accusing his brothers, and plotting to create other opportunities to accuse them (chs. 4244).
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

324

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27.3 (2003)

the place where Joseph was ruler. Joseph initially recognized his brothers (42.7) and realized that his dreams (37.5-9) had been ful lled (42.9);29 but instead of disclosing his identity, Joseph disguised himself and treated them harshly. The reason is at best ambiguous although there are those who credit Joseph with insight unavailable to the brothersthe signi cance of the past for the present and future.30 This may be so but his actions hardly seem justi ed in light of that insight. It would be a more plausible argument if the insight had dissuaded him from the scheming and harsh treatment of his brothers. Here Joseph has the fate of his brothers in his hands much as they had his fate in their hands. He has the power to kill themevilor to spare their livesgood (or at least a lesser form of evil). Yet Joseph falsely accused the brothers of being spies, a charge/deed punishable by death.31 Joseph had experienced the consequences of being falsely accused (chs. 3940), but he falsely accused his own brothers. Furthermore, Joseph had experienced imprisonment as a result of the false accusation, yet he subjected his brothers to the same fate. These behaviors can hardly be legitimately interpreted as acts of good unless good is taken to mean the lesser of two adversities as in the choice between selling or killing Joseph. The ambiguity of Josephs actions is also seen in his command to his servants to place the brothers silver back in their sacks (Gen. 42.25). Was that an act of benevolence as some suggest?32 The context does not allow for us to see Josephs action without the very strong possibility that they

29. The particular dreaminterpretation pattern that began in 37.5 is completed in 42.6. Two other patterns had already been presented, emphasizing that dreams do indeed forecast the future (cf. chs. 40 and 41). Also present is the refutation of the idea that to get rid of the dreamer is to get rid of the dream. Although Joseph is reported to have forgotten his hardship (41.51), there is evidence to suggest otherwisenamely, his harsh dealings with his brothers. 30. G. von Rad, God at Work in Israel (trans. J.H. Marks; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1980), pp. 31-35. 31. Seybold, Paradox and Symmetry, p. 70. Cf. Fritsch, God was with Him , pp. 27-28, who speaks of the true character of Joseph as if his scheme is not a part of his character. What quali es this scheming as not true and all other acts that are taken as good to be true? Cf. von Rad, Genesis, p. 384, whose interpretation of Joseph as a model of prudence also leads to an interpretation of Josephs behavior as prudent and not motivated by evil intentions. 32. Cf. von Rad, Genesis, p. 384, who sees Josephs replacement of the brothers money as an act of hospitality and sign of fervent love.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

JACOBS The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil

325

were intended by Joseph to be harmful to his brothers. Nonetheless, his command that the money be returned and that provisions for the journey be provided creates ambiguity. Did he provide food for the journey to all who came to him? Did he return the money to others based on criteria not revealed in this account and criteria other than familial ties? Since he had already given the food and provision for the journey, on what basis would he have decided to return the money?33 Was this preferential treatment toward his brothers? If so, although good, did Josephs action not constitute just as much an abuse of power as his false accusation? Or did it not hold as much potential for evil as Jacobs preferential love for Joseph? Like Josephs report, his providing for his brothers conceals Josephs motive, thus leaving open the possibility of an evil or a good motive. It is likely that the provision was to ensure that the grain was not used as food for the journey and thus reached Jacobs family. The possibility for evil seems more convincing in light of Josephs harsh treatment of his brothers (42.7) and the test to which he subjected them (42.15-20). However, the narrative ambiguity of Josephs actions may also be indicative of the ambiguity of his feelings toward his brothers. This suggests that the overarching intent of his actions may not have been to harm his brothers. Rather the predisposition to avenge the evil done him may have been involved. The latter observation further suggests that the agents in the dynamics are susceptible to the effects of any part of the dynamics. Joseph had been the object of goodhis fathers love, Gods blessing in making him ruler in Egypt. Yet, in relation to his brothers he initially drew on the evil he had experienced. Although the signi cance of the banquet with his brothers was ambiguous, the inclination of Joseph to perpetuate evil is also depicted in the second visit. This is noted both in the brothers reaction to the banquet (43.17-22) and in Josephs actions after the banquet (44.1-5).34 It is noteworthy that in the dynamics, if there is a human propensity for evil it is not broken by an experience of good. Likewise personal insights that good can come out of evil may not restrain the propensity to repay evil with evil. (c) Good in Spite of Evil. Refusing to do evil when it is in ones power to do so may be construed as good. Likewise refusing to do good when it
33. Cf. von Rad, Genesis, p. 384. 34. The narrator also uses this way of evaluating behavior to indicate the brothers responses in ch. 37. The responses re ect the nuance or possible motive of the actions to which they were responding.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

326

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27.3 (2003)

is in ones power to do so may be construed as evil. In the relationship with Potiphars wife, Joseph is depicted as innocent, as the one who resisted the advances of a woman (Prov. 6.20-35; 7.10-27).35 Josephs reported refusal (Gen. 39.8-9) indicates a particular concept of evil.
But he refused and said to his masters wife, Lo, having me, my master has no concern about anything in his house, and he has put everything that he has in my hand; he is not greater in this house than I am; nor has he kept back anything from me except yourself, because you are his wife; how then can I do this great evil, and sin against God?

Although in wisdom tradition this is seen as folly, if not evil, in this instance the evil is not necessarily the act of yielding to the woman. The evil is that Potiphar did not sanction such a behavior/relationship between Joseph and his wife. To be with her would then be Josephs violation of the trust given to him. It is the violation of the trust that would constitute the evil in this situation. That it constituted evil against God may be in its violation of the trust placed in Joseph by Potipharthat is, the trust resulting from a perception of Gods presence with Joseph.36 However, it must also be considered that the sin against God is constituted in that an evil would have been committed. The speci c type of evil is not in question. The basic ideology is that evil is sin; and all sin is sin against God. Therefore to do evil is to sin against God. Thus, to refrain from doing evil in this instance was good in that it was a responsible use of power. By making preparation for the famine, Joseph also participated in good through the responsible use of his power as governor of Egypt. Moreover, Josephs good is that he helped those who were in need during the time of the famine. In as much as good is not constituted simply by Joseph assisting his brothers who had done evil against him, his refusal to help them would not constitute evil simply because it was a repaying of evil with evil. The good is constituted in that he acted to preserve their lives that is, the purpose for which he was sent to Egypt. This is not to deny Josephs scheming and vengeful acts. Josephs refusal to help his brothers would have been evil in so far as he was given the responsibility to help the victims of the famine and refused to do so. Furthermore, his refusal would have been in part contrary to Gods plan (Gen. 45.5-8).

35. Von Rad, Genesis. In Joseph Narrative, pp. 297-300, von Rad points to this as a primary example of the early wisdom origin and use of the Joseph story. 36. Westermann, Genesis 3750, p. 66.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

JACOBS The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil

327

b. Divine Agent The actualization of the deitys plans in human affairs necessitates divine human interaction. In discussing the divinehuman interaction in the story, the question of providence is usually discussed with references to 45.5-8 and 50.19-20.37 Yet in the Joseph story the pattern of divine presence does not coincide with dramatic and immediate alterations from evil to good. As noted in the various references to the deity in the narrative, this actualization of Gods plan is not portrayed as universal but particular to the lives of Jacob, his family, and their descendants.38 This does not mean however that the divinehuman interaction in the dynamics of good and evil is seen only in these explicit references. The narrative also makes presuppositions which indicate its perspective on the divine presence in the storys plot. (1) Good and the Presence of God. In the story explicit references to YHWHs intervention shows that the divine presence results in success (39.2-3, 21-23), and is discerned through the presence of prosperity (cf. 31.5-9).39 These references are in the form of a formula of support indicating the divine assistance of Joseph and the resulting blessing for Potiphars household.40 Potiphar (39.2-6) and the prison of cial (39.21-22)
37. Westermann, Genesis 3750, pp. 142-45, supports this idea in his argument that the story does not know the concept of providence. Accordingly, he asserts that the story as a whole should be interpreted without a providential aspect, and that, more speci cally, 45.5 should be so understood. 38. The references to God are of two main types: those references made by the narrator (hwhy, 39.2-3, 21-23; Myhl), 46.2) and those made by the characters (Myhl)) throughout the rest of the narrative. Redford, Biblical Story of Joseph, p. 247, argues for the differentiation between the Joseph story and the Pentateuch on the basis of the fact that apart from references to God (Myhl)) by the characters, the references to YHWH (hwhy) in ch. 39 by the narrator are the only references to the deitys presence. The conclusion is drawn that the difference is the theological outlook of the story vis-vis that of the Pentateuch. According to Redford, the theological outlook is communicated implicitly. 39. T.W. Mann, Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions: The Typology of Exaltation (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), pp. 111-12. Cf. Westermann, Genesis 3750, pp. 62-63, 68-69; von Rad, Genesis, pp. 363-64. J. Vergote, Joseph en gypt (Leuven: Publications Universitaires, 1959), pp. 24-25. 40. Westermann, Genesis 3750, pp. 62-63, argues that the use of the references to hwhy functions as a theological introit to the rest of the story linking the God who is present with Joseph to the God of the patriarchal narratives. He notes that the formulas of assistance also echo the rise of David to power. Also A. Alt, The God of the
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

328

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27.3 (2003)

recognized the divine presence with Joseph and on that basis entrusted him with responsibility. In the instances just cited it is noted that the divine presence is indicated at the points in the story where Joseph is at his lowest. However, the presence did not mean an immediate reversal of the negative circumstances that he was experiencing, nor did it result in the restoration of Joseph to his family in Canaan. Instead, it meant granting favor to Joseph in his adversity such that the false accusation of Joseph by Potiphars wife would not seem contrary to the presence of God. The story assumes that the presence of God does not mean the total exclusion of adversity; nor does adversity necessarily mean the absence of God.41 In this argumentation, Josephs experience of adversity resulting in his being sold and imprisoned would not indicate the absence of God. Rather, in the storys larger perspective, Gods absence is not indicative of either good or evil at the exclusion of the other. Accordingly, the events that are experienced as adversities may move one out of the adversity (45.5-8; 50.19-20). (2) Evil and the Presence of God. God is presented in the story as actualizing plans in human history. This is evident in Josephs perspective on the reason for his interpretation of Pharaohs and his servants dreams on the one hand (40.8; 41.16, 25, 28, 32), as well as the purpose of his presence in Egypt (45.5-8) on the other. Joseph attributes the dreams and their interpretation to GodMyhl) (41.16, 25)and to Gods means of telling Pharaoh what God is about to do.42 Since God brings about both circumstances and is as much the initiator of good as of evil, the seven years of famine are as much the actualization of Gods plan as the seven years of abundance. This depiction of God as causing evil is found in other places in the Pentateuchfor example, Deuteronomy 8 and Exodus 7. In these instances, however, Gods involvement in evil or adverse circumFathers, in idem, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (New York: Anchor Books, 1968), pp. 24-25, 81-86, contends that the choosing of the patriarchs is an earlier tradition having to do with the gods of the fathers, but not to do with Yahweh and the choosing of Israel. The suggested relationship is the result of redaction. 41. S.E. Balentine, The Hidden God: The Hiding of the Face of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), pp. 115-76. 42. Up until this point the source and purpose of the dream were not made explicit (cf. 37.5-11; 39.9-18). Paired with 40.8, one is made aware that both the dream and the interpretation belong to God. Furthermore, God uses the dreams as a way of revealing the divine plans (41.25, 28, 32).
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

JACOBS The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil

329

stances is justi ed as a response to human disobedience or resistance to the divine plan. While they do not discount the involvement of God, whether God causes or simply permits the evil is not at issue in these examples or in the Joseph story. Even so, the distinction may be a contributive factor to the conceptuality of the story (cf. 45.5-7; 50.19-20).43 What is the nature of Gods involvement in the dynamics? (3) Good and Evil in Light of Gods Plans. With respect to its Pentateuchal context, the storys perspective on God and the dynamics of good and evil is also seen in light of the promise recounted in Gen. 46.3-4:
I am God, the God of your father; do not be afraid to go down to Egypt; for I will make of you a great nation there. I myself will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also bring you up again; and Josephs hands will close your eyes.

It is clear that Jacobs journey to Egypt has both immediate and future signi cance (45.5-11). The journey begs at least two questions: If the concern is preservation of life, why not preserve lives in Canaan? Why the move to Egypt? The narrative does not entertain the possibility of supporting Jacob and his family while they remain in Canaan. The justi cation for the move to Egypt is seen both in the story (45.5, 7; 46.3-4; 50.24-25) and outside the story in the larger Pentateuchal context (Gen. 15.12-16). In the story, the assurance given to Jacob on his way to Egypt points beyond the preservation of life in the immediate situation. Certainly the preservation of life was achieved by bringing food from Egypt to Canaan. God makes a promise to Jacob that consists of the following components: (1) to make Jacob into a great nation in Egyptnot in Canaan, the land promised to the fathers; (2) to go with Jacob to Egypt and presumably to remain there with him and his descendants; (3) to bring that nation out of Egypt. The presence of the quali er (M# Kmy#) lwdg ywgl-yk) signals that the promise is not simply great progeny as in the patriarchal narratives (e.g. Gen. 12.1-3; 13.16; 15.5; 16.10; 22.17, 18; 32.13; 35.11). The quali er identi es the contingency of the actualization by presupposing the stay of Jacob and his family in Egypt until such a time when they are a great nation. In light of the number of Jacobs household when they entered Egypt (46.27 numbers them as 70), the actualization of this promise was highly improbable within the ve years of famine (45.6). Although
43. Cf. B.L. Whitney, What are They Saying About God and Evil? (New York: Paulist Press, 1989).
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

330

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27.3 (2003)

the ful llment of the promise was dependent on the presence of Jacob in Egypt, when seen together with Exodus 1 it is the ful llment itselfthe great nationthat served as a catalyst for the oppression of the descendants of Jacob. The Joseph story therefore cannot be interpreted apart from this connection both to the promises made to Abraham (Gen. 12.2; 15.12-16) and to the exodus tradition (Exod. 1.7-14).44 Yet it is in regard to this connection that more questions about the dynamics of good and evil arise. The story itself already incorporates a retrospective evaluation of circumstances and thereby comments on the purpose toward which past events moved (Gen. 45.5-8; 50.19-20).45 Within the immediate parameters of the story the move to Egypt is good in that it preserves the lives of Jacob and his family. Nonetheless the story also concerns itself with the future of Jacobs family as indicated in the promise to multiply them in Egypt and then to bring them out again. Although the text does not tell the time nor the circumstances of the bringing out of Egypt, its connections with the promise articulated in Gen. 15.13-14 are noteworthy:
Then the LORD said to Abram, Know of a surety that your descendants will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and will be slaves in a land that is not theirs, and will be oppressed for four hundred years; but I will bring judgment on the nation which they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions

According to this promise, the descendants of Abraham will be oppressed in a foreign landa land left unnamed. In Gen. 46.3-4 the promise to Jacob seems to recall 15.12-14 in that the descendants are moving to a foreign land and will be there for an extended time period. The similarity is also that in both texts there is a promise to bring out the people. On the contrary, however, 46.3-4 speak of the great nation (lwdg ywg) and the bringing out (hl() of that nationthere is no mention of the 400 years of oppression.46 In connection with 15.12-14, the journey to Egypt is necessitated not only by the preservation of life because of the famine, but
44. N.A. Sarna, Genesis: The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1989), p. 313. Cf. Westermann, Genesis 3750, p. 156. Von Rad Genesis, p. 402, sees this text as the effort to connect the migration to Egypt as a part of the sacred history. 45. Von Rad, Joseph Narrative, pp. 297-99, talks about the sapiential character of the statements and cites connections to such passages as Prov. 19.21; 20.24; 21.30. 46. These promises are characterized by Westermann, Promises to the Fathers, p. 144, as concerning the promise of the land.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

JACOBS The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil

331

by the exodus (50.24-25) which lies in the future. These aspects of the story suggest that the quality and aftermath of some events leading to the actualization of Gods plans have the potential for both good and evil. They further suggest that Gods involvement in the dynamics of those events does not mean that all aspects of those dynamics will be good. An immediate good may lay the foundation for a future evil or vice versa. In summary, the identity of the agents in the dynamics does not determine the quality of their contributions. Consequently, good may be as present in one act as evil is in another, in spite of the identity of the agent. Furthermore, the agents in the dynamics of good and evil may be of different levels of signi cance. The storys depiction of Joseph, his brothers, and God signaled that these are more central to the dynamics than others such as Jacob, Benjamin, Potiphar, and his wife. The less central agents, however, are indispensable to the dynamics and in uence it in decisive ways. Part of the role of the agents in the dynamics, then, is determined by the nature of the dynamics themselves and not solely the centrality of their involvement. Consequently, all involved in uence the dynamics to various degrees whether deliberately or inadvertently. 3. Nature of the Dynamics of Good and Evil a. Changeability of the Dynamics There are several aspects to the nature of the dynamics of good and evil. First, the non-deterministic nature of the dynamics indicates that evil does not always produce evil; neither does good always produce good. However, there are some observable patterns in the dynamics wherein evil produces evil and good produces good as a natural correspondence between act and consequences.47 This correspondence is illustrated in the brothers view of their adversity:
They said to one another, Alas, we are paying the penalty for what we did to our brother; we saw his anguish when he pleaded with us, but we would not listen. This is why this anguish has come upon us. (Gen. 42.21-22)

The brothers assumed that evil begets evil and that their experiences of adversity were the consequence of the adversity they instigated against Joseph. In this instance there is no clue that the correspondence between act and consequence is other than a natural one.
47. Cf. K. Koch, Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?, in J. Crenshaw (ed.), Theodicy in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp. 57-87.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

332

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27.3 (2003)

Josephs accusation that his brothers were repaying evil for good further illustrates the non-deterministic nature of the dynamics of good and evil:
Joseph said to his steward, Go, follow after the men; and when you overtake them, say to them, Why have you returned evil for good? You have done wrong in doing this. (44.4-5)48

Presupposed is that the appropriate repayment for good is good and evil for evil. Thus, to repay evil for good is to deviate from the norm. Likewise, following the norm in itself does not constitute good since the norm may be to maintain the evil for evil dynamic. What is the good to which Joseph is referring (in 44.4-5)? (1) Allowing his brothers to eat with him? (2) Selling them grain for which they came? (3) Returning Simon to his brothers? (4) His restraint in sparing their lives in light of what they had done to him? What evil did his brothers do that was being referred to (in 44.4-5)? The brothers passed the test he gave them by doing all that they were commanded. Since they did not steal the cup, they would not be aware of any evil done in Egypt. Consequently, in light of Josephs re ection in 45.5-8 his behavior seems evil and revengeful. The accusation against his brothers gives further insight into Josephs actions. If he presupposed that evil behaviors yield evil consequences, then his actions toward his brothers may be an effort to bring about those evil consequences for his brothers. Herein a further aspect of the nature of the dynamics is depictedthe changeability of the dynamics. The agents involved may alter the dynamicshuman (44.4) or divine (50.19-20). Josephs accusation of his brothers in Gen. 44.4 indicates awareness that the dynamics of good and evil may be in uenced. It is this changeability of the dynamics that is being referred to here as its nondeterministic nature. The dynamics are not always good good, evil evil, but are just as likely to be good evil or evil good at any given point. In 42.21-22 the brothers realized that their imprisonment was the result of their deeds against Joseph. Even so, the realization did not come from their knowing that it was Joseph who was responsible for their plight. Rather this realization was a manifestation of the belief that evil results from evil. No mention is made of God in this instance; and there is no
48. Note that the LXX has a statement which is absent from the MT: Why have you stolen my silver cup? This partially quali es the accusation, pointing it directly to the stealing. Cf. Westermann, Genesis 3750, p. 132.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

JACOBS The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil

333

indication of an awareness of a larger signi cance of their action. Thus, the correspondence between acts and consequences is indicated as natural. In 42.27-28, upon discovering silver in one of their sacks, the brothers attributed their plight to God: What is this that God has done to us? (42.28). No explicit connection is made between what they had done to Joseph and their adversity; but the brothers assumed that their adversity somehow ensued from their evilGod has found out the guilt of your servants (44.16). Additionally, God intervened in the dynamics to bring good out of evil (50.20), but the presence of evil does not mean the absence of God. As discussed earlier in this study, the presence of God in the good of the dynamics is as indicative of Gods involvement as Gods presence in the entire dynamicsboth good and evil. b. Observability of the Dynamics It is in part because the dynamics are observable that the possibility of altering them exists. Two aspects of the story demonstrate the observability of the dynamics from within the dynamics. First, the brothers observed that their adversity was punishment from God and that their deed against Joseph is the cause of the punishment. Second, Joseph perceived the impending evil and resisted that evil which confronted him in Potiphars wife. On the other hand, Josephs perception was also outside of the dynamics, or retrospective. Having experienced good he is able to see how the evils he had experienced t into the overall picture of his life and to perceive the relative quality of his experience in light of other familial and national occurrences. c. Relativity of the Components of the Dynamics Within the dynamics, good and evil are relative. Relativity is not used here to refer to the essence of a behavior or circumstance such that they are neither good nor evil. Something that is good in essence may be evil in its effect and vice versa. The relativity of good and evil comes into focus when the signi cance of behaviors and circumstances are measured by their future effect. In the story behaviors are relative in at least two spheres: time (temporal) and context/circumstances (circumstantial). As to the relativity of good and evil to the context/circumstances, this is seen for example in the selling of Joseph. The selling by itself may seem to be adverse or evil. Yet in the circumstances, to sell him was good (or at least a lesser form of evil) as an alternative to killing him. There are
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

334

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27.3 (2003)

several ways that the selling may be evil: Is it evil because selling a person is evil regardless of who does the selling? Is it evil because the brothers sold their own esh and blood? Is it evil because the sale broke apart the family? Is it evil because the intention was evil? Even with all these possibilities, the story introduces a perspective on how it may have been goodbecause in the long run good was accomplished. In the same way, the imprisonment of Joseph was evil but good in that its alternative was death. In the context of Josephs being falsely accused by Potiphars wife, the evil is the false accusation and imprisonment; but the imprisonment served a dual function. It is evil in the sense that it resulted from a false accusation, but in retrospect it had the potential for good. This potential was actualized in Josephs being head prisoner and in his interpreting the dreams of Pharaohs servants. Thus again the interplay of good and evil is seen. The relativity of good and evil is seen as dependent on the time and the perspective from which the actions are viewed. At the time of the imprisonment, the accusation was evil as was the imprisonment. From the perspective of the exaltation to power, the imprisonment was not good in essence but good in its effect. Another example of this relativity within the dynamics is the movement of Jacobs family to Egypt. In terms of time it was good for Jacobs family to move to Egypt because it meant the preservation of their lives during the time of famine. On the one hand, in the Pentateuchal context this good is speci c to that particular time. Potentially, good would also be achieved in Gods actualization of the promise to multiply Jacobs family in Egypt. However, this good in time became the basis of their oppression (Exod. 1). Finally, Gods involvement in the dynamics of good and evil brings into focus Gods sovereignty and goodness. The story does not claim goodness as an attribute of God; nevertheless, it attributes good to God. It makes only implicit claims to Gods control over human history, but no claim of Gods unlimited power.49 It portrays God as having the power to plan and control natural events such as famines; but it does not attribute to God total control over all human actions. God is depicted as intervening in human affairs, in uencing the effect of the past on the present and the present on

49. J. Hick, Evil and the God of Love (San Francisco: Harper & Row, rev. edn, 1978), p. 4, argues that the problem of evil arises in a belief system in which the deity is perfectly good and unlimitedly powerful. Cf. P. Geach, Providence and Evil (London: Cambridge University Press, 1977); K. Surin, Theology and the Problem of Evil (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986).
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

JACOBS The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil

335

the future and employing evil to bring about good. Since God is seen to act even within adverse circumstances, the divine presence does not guarantee the presence of good. If anything, the story suggests that Gods plans may be manifested in either good or evil. III. Hermeneutical Inquiry 1. Limited Application of the Storys Concept The Joseph story is particularistic in focus and re ects its limited hermeneutical applicability. Its concern is Jacobs family and its descendants. It does not speak on all evil conditions as being part of a universal divine plan to bring about universal good. The hermeneutical signi cance of the story is therefore not its claim about the universality of Gods intervention in human affairs to bring good out of evil. Rather, its signi cance lies in its presentation of a perspective on the dynamics of good and evil in which there exists the possibility of Gods plan to accomplish good. Its value is the hope that it offers, not a guarantee that good will come out of every evil. The story (speci cally 45.5-8 and 50.19-20) does not make a statement for all events in history. It does not say that God intends every evil as good. It is speci c to the plot of the story that the events are seen as the actualization of the plan of God. It presents a justi cation of the present in the light of the past and the future, and is an effort to make sense of the evils of the past in the light of belief in Gods plans. The Joseph story represents a search for meaning and is an indication of the possibility that God brings good results from human evil. However, it neither de nes the criteria by which Gods working is to be detected, nor indicates that Gods good arises only out of evil. Instead the story leaves open the possibility that good arises out of evil. It does not indicate good as a nal and isolated outcome divorced from the future. For those who are in the midst of adversity the story offers the hope that God is present in the midst of that adversity. From the storys perspective, the divine presence does not mean the dramatic change of the situation from evil to good. Yet, the perspective that the story offers leaves open the possibility of the divine in uence in all human affairsboth good and evil. The problem becomes how to reconcile the goodness of God with such grave evils in light of human responsibility and participation in them.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.


Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

336

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27.3 (2003)

2. Justi cation of Evil a. Evil and a Greater Good In the Joseph story evil is depicted in two ways: as a means to an end and as the natural consequence of evil actions. As a means to a good end the present may serve as grounds for understanding the past (as being part of a larger plan to bring about good); however, this justi cation usually comes from those whose experience of evil was overcome by their experience of good. Such justi cation of the evil of the past is dif cult if not impossible for those who continue to experience the evil that shaped their past. Furthermore, the justi cation of evil as a vehicle for good in itself becomes unacceptable depending on the source of the justi cation. It is not only those who have experienced and continue to experience evil who may refuse the justi cation. The refusal may come because observers and even those who perpetuate evil may be the ones offering the justi cation. Such a justi cation itself becomes part of the evil it is intended to explain and justify. b. Evil as a Natural Consequence of Evil The story does not depict Joseph as a passive sufferer of evil. He participates in the creation and perpetuation of good or evil at various points in his life. But evil as a natural consequence of evil does not justify the experience of the sufferer. To say that evil results in evil would be to blame sufferers for their sufferings and to justify the perpetuation of evil. Yet there are instances where evil begets evil or is perceived to do so. If the brothers are an indication, the perpetuators are less likely to see their involvement as evil and are less likely to tolerate evil done to them. Because good and evil are the by-products of human interactions and the intervention of the divine in those interactions, the potential for both good and evil is present in each human interaction. This being the case, the possibility exists that the sufferer at points or in some situations may have the power to perpetuate suffering. The true test becomes whether or not the sufferer becomes the perpetuator of suffering. Joseph failed this test in his cruel treatment of his brothers who had harmed him. The evil perpetuated against them was not justi ed by their perpetration of evil against him. Even so, the perpetuation of evil against others is not rare for those who have experienced evil, because the good experienced does not block evil but may simply decrease the likelihood of it being further perpetuated.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.


Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

JACOBS The Conceptual Dynamics of Good and Evil

337

3. Reconciliation in the Face of Evil In the story, reconciliation comes about without a direct and deliberate confession of evil. The brothers confess their guilt among themselves but not with the intention of asking Josephs forgiveness. When they asked for forgiveness it may have been done through deceit. They claimed that their father left instructions for Joseph to forgive them. But there is no indication of such instructions either to Joseph or the brothers. The reconciliation therefore focused not on the brothers explanation of their evil against Joseph, but on their future together. Joseph explained the past in order to alleviate their fears. Reconciliation, however, does not happen in the midst of revenge. It is after Josephs revenge had run its course that he made the disclosure to the brothers. Like his brothers, Joseph does not own his part in the conict or ask for forgiveness. In the instances where the reconciliation is attempted, Joseph acts as the victim of his brothers evil. He as the perpetrator of evil hides behind his position and thus does not ask for forgiveness. The story suggests that reconciliation after a grave evil comes about not necessarily by recalling all of the evils but by the building of a common future. It begs the question of the necessity of forgiveness for reconciliation and in so doing indicates the possibility for various types of reconciliation. IV. Conclusion This discussion of the conceptual dynamics of good and evil concludes that: 1. Humans are not passive agents in the dynamics of good and evil but participate in the dynamics. 2. The dynamics are not predetermined such that evil inevitably follows evil or good follows good. Thus, good is not ensured any more than evil is irresistible. There is room for change that may alter the course of the dynamics for good or for evil. 3. The identity of the participants in the dynamics does not determine their contribution to them. Persons who may have acted in an evil way in the past may be predisposed to continue to act toward evil, but they may also act toward good. Consequently, the identity of the agents does not predetermine the quality of their participation in the dynamics of good and evil. That God is involved in the dynamics of good and evil is a challenge to af rmations of Gods particularistic good since all aspects of the
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.
Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

338

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27.3 (2003) dynamics are intertwined. At every juncture in history people must make a choice about their behavior based on the realization that the present and future are inextricably intertwined.

The Joseph story and its concepts are related to the Pentateuchal themes of promise and the exodus. Its concept of the dynamics of good and evil challenges any af rmation of God as universally present for the purpose of working all evils toward an ultimate good. It also challenges long-standing views of Josephs prudence and benevolence vis--vis his brothers evil. Furthermore, it depicts the changeability of the dynamics of good and evil as realities within human history in which the possibility of good and evil exists at every juncture. The Joseph story represents a form of theodicy in as much as it presents a search for meaning in light of Gods presence in the dynamics of good and evil in human history.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.


Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on June 26, 2013

También podría gustarte