Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

isaac,

i fully agree with karl, and jim, and see nothing enigmatic in the reference to bread.
though there might be other interpretations possible.

but i also think i understand the particular doubt you are raising. the following argument, i think, takes
care of your objection:

A. your point of departure is that the HB held joseph in the highest esteem, and so could not cast any
doubt (explicit or implicit) about his trustworthiness. this is, of course, your personal bias, which i respect but
do not share.  nevertheless, for the sake of the argument i accept it.

B. point A, though,  does not prevent the text from holding the MINISTER in such a low esteem so as to
depict him as having less than full confidence in joseph....

voila!

>>> One may say that it refers to the master going over with Joseph over the daily menu...

actually i accept it as a possibility; but then he would also go over with him about acquiring a new porsche or modigliani,
the neck tie wardrobe and the party next week with the Hurrian prienceling Ir-Hebba etc etc etc....

yet, the fact is that only MEAL and WIFE were mentioned, and this implies
some importance to MEAL and WIFE  within this story. namely, the text held them
as equally important to the minister.

nir cohen

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 07:21:05 -0800, K Randolph wrote
> Isaac:
>
> What this refers to is that Potiphar left the running of his estate so much in the hands of Joseph that he didn’t know what was in his own estate. All he knew was that his personal needs were taken care of. The rest was in Joseph’s hands.
>
> I think the context makes that fairly clear.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
>

> 1. It is a good point, and is possibly what prompted Rash"i to equate wife and bread.
>
> 2. Sorry, but I can not accept the poisoning argument (yet I admit that it is a decision of the heart not of the head). I just can not believe that the Hebrew bible would hint, even remotely, as to the possibility that the noble Joseph (the son of Jacob and Rachel!) harbored an intention to harm his master. It appears that the Master had also an unlimited confidence in his Hebrew servant. He did not even believe the fabricated accusations of his wife. Had he thought his venomous wife speaking the truth he would have undone the boy right there and then, but instead merely took him into protective custody.
>
> 3. So, 
>
>
>  ולא ידע אתו מאומה כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל
>

>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University

--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)