Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Let me first respond to Karl’s comments about TLH/“impale”, and then I’ll
set forth two links to what I see as being a contemporary portrait of the
first Hebrew.

1.  As previously noted, JPS1985 translates TLH as “impale” at Genesis 40:
19.  Here is what Professor Robert Alter says about TLH/“impale” at p. 232
of his translation of, and commentary on, Genesis:

“‘impale’.  Despite that fact that the Hebrew verb generally means ‘to
hang’, hanging was not a common means of execution anywhere in the ancient
Near East, and there is evidence elsewhere that the same verb was used for
impalement, which was frequently practiced.  The baker’s dire fate would seem 
to
be first decapitation and then exposure of the body on a high stake.”

Another source states:  “The Egyptians executed people by impaling a
pointed stake [or tp-ht in hieroglyphs] through the victim.”
_http://www.answeringislam.net/Responses/Saifullah/crucifixion2.htm_
(http://www.answeringislam.net/Responses/Saifullah/crucifixion2.htm)

The Assyrians loved to impale people, and left voluminous pictures of
enemies being impaled.  But in ancient Egypt, impaling is only commonly
associated with how pharaohs dealt with foreign enemy chiefs in Africa south 
of Egypt
proper.  In fact, this Pharaoh impaled such African enemies.
_http://www.infibeam.com/Books/info/John-Coleman-Darnell/Tutankhamun-s-Armies-Battle-and-C
onquest-During/0471743585.html_
(http://www.infibeam.com/Books/info/John-Coleman-Darnell/Tutankhamun-s-Armies-Battle-and-Conquest-During/0471743585.html
)   But outside of African tribal chiefs who defied Egyptian southern
imperialism, historically there is little record of Egyptians impaling any 
other
people in significant numbers.  It certainly would be quite remarkable for
an Egyptian domestic officer (the Baker) to be impaled.  Consider also that
in ancient Egypt:  “Criminals of high rank were saved the shame of public
execution by being permitted to kill themselves….”
_http://www.love-egypt.com/government.html_ 
(http://www.love-egypt.com/government.html)   That
traditional Egyptian mercy would not extend, however, to a would-be assassin 
of
Pharaoh.  Another source notes:  “Punishment for serious crimes included penal
servitude and execution;  mutilation and flogging were often used to punish
lesser offenders.”
_http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/180740/Egyptian-law_ 
(http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/180740/Egyptian-law)
But a would-be assassin of Pharaoh would not get by with mere mutilation or
flogging.

For Pharaoh’s Chief Baker to be impaled, which is what Genesis says, one
can only think that the Baker must have been caught trying to assassinate
Pharaoh.  For our purposes here, what counts in that regard is that if an 
early
Hebrew was there, and helped thwart that attempted assassination of Pharaoh,
then we would rightly expect that Pharaoh to have commissioned a fine
portrait of that early Hebrew.  In my controversial view, that’s exactly what
happened.

2.  To the best of my knowledge, there were only three assassination
attempts on a pharaoh in 3,000 years of ancient Egypt.  Indeed, there was 
only one
Pharaoh whom everyone would expect would likely be the intended victim of
an insider assassination plot.  Interestingly enough, that Pharaoh seems to
be hated today almost as much as he was hated by his fellow Egyptians in his
own day.  Be that as it may, by an odd twist of fate, we have more portraits
today commissioned by that particular Pharaoh than by any other Pharaoh.
So if that Pharaoh, for a short time, honored the first Hebrew for having
discerned a nefarious insider plot to assassinate Pharaoh, then we would
rightly expect to have a portrait of that first Hebrew.  And we do!

Set forth below are two links to a portrait of a person who appears to be
the first Hebrew.  This portrait was made during the fairly short period of
time that the first Hebrew was a guest worker in Egypt, commissioned by
Pharaoh during the brief time in which that Pharaoh was grateful to the first
Hebrew for having helped figure out a nefarious insider plot to assassinate
Pharaoh.  (Pharaoh’s gratitude did not last long, though.  That first Hebrew
was soon sent back to Canaan, where he resumed his prior tent-living ways.)
Somewhat similar Egyptian portraits of foreigners, both before and after this
portrait (but not commissioned by this particular Pharaoh, though some
anti-Asiatic portraits were commissioned during this Pharaoh’s lifetime by his
mother and given to Pharaoh’s younger brother), show generic Asiatics as
being traditional enemies of Egypt.  Such Asiatics are invariably portrayed as
being bound by the wrists or elbows, and sometimes also bound by the neck
and/or ankles as well, and as having very subjugated expressions.  But this
portrait is entirely different, being a great tribute to the first Hebrew for
having helped save the life of Pharaoh.

This contemporary, positive portrait of the first Hebrew was commissioned
by the most famous (if most hated) Pharaoh of all time.  It’s the second
picture down (on the first link).  The first Hebrew is the figure on the left.
The Nubian on the right is another non-Egyptian bodyguard of Pharaoh who got
part of the credit for thwarting the assassination plot.  Note that
uniquely in the history of ancient Egypt, this Pharaoh was so hated by the
Egyptians for not respecting the traditional Egyptian gods that he was the 
only
Pharaoh in history who had to rely primarily on non-Egyptians -- Asiatics and
Nubians -- to be his personal bodyguards.  Asiatic and Nubian police and
soldiers are everywhere during this unpopular Pharaoh’s reign (as we know from
the iconography of this Pharaoh’s reign).  By sharp contrast, in the rest of
the long history of ancient Egypt there is hardly any mention of police or a
standing local army (whether pictorially or otherwise).
_http://www.love-egypt.com/government.html_ 
(http://www.love-egypt.com/government.html)   It is
thus the only time in history when a Hebrew could, for a short time, have
been one of the personal bodyguards of an Egyptian pharaoh.  (That was likely
the actual role, for a short time, of the first Hebrew when the first
Hebrew lived for a decade or so in Egypt.  This is alluded to in the text,
indirectly, by the fact that Joseph's Egyptian master, who seems to treat 
Joseph
as his own son, is captain of the guard, i.e., in charge of Pharaoh's
bodyguards.  [+BX literally means "killer" or "slaughterer".]  Genesis 39: 1  
Joseph
’s master may have been the executioner who literally impaled the Baker.)

If this historical Pharaoh is the Pharaoh at the end of Genesis, then all
of a sudden we see why it was realistic for the Hebrew author to depict this
Pharaoh as placing a young unknown Hebrew, Joseph, in charge of Egypt’s
entire food supply.  At least a Hebrew from Canaan, unlike native Egyptians,
would not hate this Pharaoh for failing to respect Egypt’s traditional gods.
Indeed, the previous holder of that position -- Pharaoh’s “Overseer of the
double granary” and Pharaoh’s “Overseer of cattle” -- called “Baker”/)PH
for short in Genesis, was the very person who had tried to assassinate
Pharaoh!  With the Baker having been impaled, Pharaoh now had to find someone 
who
did not hate Pharaoh’s disrespect of the traditional Egyptian gods to handle
Egypt’s food supply.  Pharaoh knows that Joseph would be a good
administrator, because in connection with having Joseph provisionally 
released from
jail, Pharaoh would have found out from the jailer what is stated at Genesis
39: 22-23 -- Joseph, though a prisoner, had effectively managed the jail, and
had done a terrific job in that capacity.  What Pharaoh finds out about what
Joseph did when Joseph had been in the presence of the nefarious Baker is
more important to Pharaoh than Joseph's new plan to save up grain during 7
predicted years of feast.  In a word, Pharaoh is delighted to have finally
located the ideal replacement for the disgraced, impaled Baker.  (In secular
history, Pharaoh did not in fact put the first Hebrew in charge of Egypt’s
food supply.  Rather, the Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives is 
deftly
arguing that the first Hebrew, having helped save Pharaoh from a dastardly
assassination attempt,  s-h-o-u-l-d  rightly have been seriously considered
by Pharaoh to be named chief vizier.  As just noted, however, the first
Hebrew was [thank goodness!] in fact sent back to Canaan by this egotistical
Pharaoh, to resume living in tents.)

For the Hebrew figure, note the aquiline nose, the skull cap, the coat of
many colors, the black hair and Semitic features.  But the key is that
neither the long hair, nor the long beard in particular, is coiffed or 
styled.  We
know from the Biblical text of Leviticus cited below that the ancient
Hebrew tradition was not to have a styled, coiffed beard.  That is how to
distinguish the very rare portraits of early Hebrews in Egyptian iconography 
from
the hundreds of portraits of Amorites:  the Amorites are always portrayed as
having coiffed hair and styled (though often large) beards.  The large beard
here, by contrast, is not styled or coiffed, which is the telltale sign of
this being a rare portrait of a Hebrew from inland Canaan.  For example, in
scrolling down the first link, note that every other foreigner who has a
beard is portrayed as having a pointed beard.  Most of those other beards are
small (completely unlike a Hebrew beard).  Amorite beards are the only other
beards that are often (though not always) portrayed as being big in Egyptian
iconography.  But Amorite beards are always coiffed and styled, quite
unlike a Hebrew’s beard.  Non-coiffed Hebrew beards are extremely rare in
Egyptian iconography.  The Egyptians usually represented Canaanites as being
Amorites, many of whom were city-dwellers and have a somewhat sophisticated 
look
about them.  Rarely did the Egyptians portray tent-dwellers from Canaan, with
a very large, un-coiffed beard.  That is the uniquely Hebrew look.

Also note that, unlike other somewhat similar portraits, neither figure
here is bound by the wrists or elbows, or by the neck or ankles, and is not in
fact portrayed as being a subjugated traditional enemy of Egypt.  (The cane
has to have a handle, which is around the figures’ lower legs, but that is a
necessity for a functioning cane, and is not a portrayal of these figures
being bound, as there is no binding of the wrists or elbows.  Portraits of
bound Egyptian prisoners  a-l-w-a-y-s  show the wrists or elbows of the
prisoner bound by a thin rope, and almost always in a very obvious and
unbelievably awkward manner [way behind the prisoner’s back or over the 
prisoner’s
head].)  No, these two figures are the two individuals whom this Pharaoh
briefly credited with having thwarted a terrible insider plot to assassinate
Pharaoh.  (This cane was presented by Pharaoh to his lame heir-apparent, who
needed a cane to stand or walk.)

Here’s that priceless portrait of the first Hebrew (on public exhibit at
the Cairo Museum, 2nd floor, though routinely misidentified as being a
run-of-the-mill traditional, bound Amorite enemy of Egypt, which in fact is 
not the
case), being the second picture down, with the Hebrew being the figure on
the left:

_http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/enemies.htm_
(http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/enemies.htm)

Here’s a second picture of that portrait of the first Hebrew.  It’s not in
color, and it does not give as good an overall impression, but it does show
the Semitic features of the first Hebrew in more detail:

_http://www.ashmolean.museum/perl/gi-ca-qmakede
ta.pl?sid=67.37.187.194-1119719915&qno=1&dfnam=050uu-p0341_
(http://www.ashmolean.museum/perl/gi-ca-qmakedeta.pl?sid=67.37.187.194-1119719915&qno=1&dfnam=050uu-p0341)

In my controversial view, this magnificent, positive portrait of the first
Hebrew was commissioned by the Pharaoh referenced at Genesis 41: 38:  “'Can
we find such a one as this [Joseph], a man in whom the spirit of God is?'”

The key physical feature that distinguishes a Hebrew from other Asiatics,
especially in Egyptian iconography, is that the Hebrew wisemen did not style
their huge beards to make them pointed.  The Book of Leviticus later
immortalized that ancient Hebrew tradition regarding full, non-styled beards, 
as
well as long, un-coiffed hair, as follows:  "Ye shall not round the corners of
your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."  Leviticus
19: 27  "And the LORD [YHWH] said unto Moses:  Speak unto the priests the sons
of Aaron, and say unto them:  …They shall not make baldness upon their
head, neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard…."  Leviticus 
21:
1, 5  Many other Bible verses assume that Hebrew men will routinely have
full beards.  The pre-Hebrews and early Hebrews were rural, tent-dwelling
people (unlike urban Amorites and other urban Canaanites), and every 
indication
is that the pre-Hebrews and early Hebrews had full beards that were not
pointed at all, a Hebrew tradition immortalized in the above lines from
Leviticus.  A styled beard that is pointed or somewhat pointed is too urban 
and
urbane for a tent-dwelling Hebrew Patriarch, and rather is characteristic of 
the
many city-dwelling Amorites who flooded into New Kingdom Egypt at this time
from Canaan.  The oldest Hebrew and Jewish traditions hold that Abraham and
Jacob had a full beard that was not pointed.  There is no remembrance in the
Hebrew and Jewish tradition of a time when Hebrew wisemen did not have full
beards that were not pointed.

Each and every aspect of the Semitic figure on that magnificent canehead
fits everything we know about the first Hebrews.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois