Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 59 part 5/33

Since, therefore, he himself is believed to have been sold in the seventeenth year of his age, he had spent thirteen years in Egypt unknown to Pharaoh; and to these thirteen years were added the seven years of plenty, and they became twenty years; to these two are added, because it was in the second year of the famine that Jacob entered Egypt with his sons; and there are found twenty-two years during which Joseph was away from his father and his brothers. In the intervening time, how all the things could have taken place concerning the wife and sons and daughter-in-law of Judah which are recounted, is difficult to trace out—unless perhaps we believe (for this too could have happened) that as soon as Judah began to reach adolescence, he fell in love with her whom he took to wife, before Joseph was yet sold into Egypt.

'And having laid aside from herself the garments of her widowhood.' From this it is suggested that even in the times of the patriarchs there were fixed and distinctive garments of widows, by no means such as those of married women. As to what is again said: 'But Joseph was brought down into Egypt; and Potiphar the eunuch of Pharaoh bought him'—here Scripture returns to the order from which it had digressed, in order to recount those things which have been set forth above. As to what some Latin manuscripts have, 'three baskets of fine flour' (alicae), whereas the Greek have chondriton, which those who have the use of that same language interpret to be loaves of common bread—but this is puzzling, how Pharaoh could have common bread among his foods; for it says that in the upper basket were all the things of which Pharaoh ate, the work of bakers.

But it is to be understood that this same basket also contained common loaves, since it was said 'three baskets of chondriton,' and that above these, in that same upper basket, were those things of every kind of the baker's work. As to Pharaoh's thinking that he stood over the river: in the same way the servant of Abraham said, 'Behold, I stand over the fountain of water'; for there too the Greek said epi tes peges, just as here epi tou potamou. If this manner of speech be understood in the Psalm where it is written, 'who founded the earth over the water,' men are not compelled to suppose that the earth floats over the water like a ship. For according to this manner of speech it is rightly understood that the earth is higher than the water; for it is raised up higher from the waters, where earthly animals may dwell.

As to what is written: 'And they will forget the plenty that is to come in all the land of Egypt'—not 'to come' for those who will suffer famine, as though the plenty would come to them afterward; but it was 'to come' then, at the time when he was speaking. As if he said: of this plenty, which the good cattle and the good ears signified was to come, men will lose the memory in that famine which the evil cattle and evil ears signified. 'Shall we find a man such as this, who has the Spirit of God in him?' Behold now, unless I am mistaken, for the third time the Spirit of God, that is the Holy Spirit, is intimated to us in this book. First, where it was said: 'And the Spirit of God was borne over the water'; secondly, where God said: 'My Spirit shall not remain in these men, because they are flesh';

and now thirdly, in that Pharaoh says of Joseph that the Spirit of God is in him. Nevertheless we do not yet read of the Holy Spirit. 'And Pharaoh gave to Joseph the name Zaphenath-paneah.' This name is said to be interpreted 'he has revealed hidden things,' from the fact assuredly that he disclosed the dreams to the king; but in the Egyptian tongue they hold that by this name he was called 'saviour of the world.' 'And he gave him for a wife Asenath, daughter of Potiphera, priest of the City of the Sun.' It is commonly asked which Potiphera—whether the one whose slave he had been, or another; but it is thought more credible that it was another. For as to that first one, there are many things that give pause how it could be believed.

First, because Scripture did not mention it, though it seems it could not have passed over what pertained to no small glory of that young man—that he married the daughter of the man whose servant he had been. Then, how could a eunuch have a daughter? But it is answered: how a wife? For he is believed to have been made a eunuch afterward, either by chance of a wound or by his own will. And as to the fact that the honor of him is not mentioned which is usual, that is, that he was archimageiros—which the Latin translators rendered 'chief of the cooks,' though some would have it understood as 'chief of the soldiery'—but here too it is answered that he held two honors, both the priesthood of the Sun and the chief command of the soldiery:

and fittingly elsewhere that honor of his was mentioned which suited such deeds; but here, after no small divinity had appeared in Joseph, that honor of his father-in-law ought to be named which pertained to no small divinity, according to the opinion of the Egyptians, in the priesthood of the Sun. But in all these matters, since he was also set in charge of the guards of the prison, it is too incredible that a priest should be set over this office. Then it was not said simply that he was priest of the Sun, but of the City of the Sun, which is called Heliopolis; and it is said to be distant more than twenty miles from the city of Memphis, where the Pharaohs, that is the kings, chiefly resided.

How, then, having abandoned the office of his priesthood, could he vigorously serve the king in the chief command of the soldiery? There is added also that the Egyptian priests are reported never to have served except the temples of their gods, nor to have discharged any other office. But if perhaps it was otherwise then, let each believe what he pleases; there is, however, no question whose outcome is closed off, whether there was one Potiphera or two. For whichever of these anyone may judge, it is not perilous to the faith nor contrary to the truth of the Scriptures of God. 'And Joseph gathered wheat like the sand of the sea, exceeding much, until it could not be numbered; for there was no number.' In its place it was said:

'for there was no number,' because that abundance exceeded the name of every ordinary number, and how it might be called was not found. For whence can it come about that of any multitude, however great, yet finite, there is no number? Although this could also be said according to hyperbole. 'And Joseph remembered his dreams which he himself had seen; for his brothers had bowed down to him.' But something loftier must be sought in those dreams. For it cannot in that way be fulfilled concerning his father and mother, who was already dead, that which, when he had seen it concerning the sun and moon, he had heard from his father rebuking him, who was living.

What is it that Joseph, a man so wise and thus praised not only by the testimony of the men among whom he lived but even by the witness of Scripture itself, so swears by the safety of Pharaoh that his brothers shall not go out of Egypt unless their younger brother should come? Or was the safety of Pharaoh of little worth even to a good and faithful man, to whom he kept faith in all things as at first to his own master? For how much more to him who had placed him in such honor, if he kept faith to him who possessed him as a purchased slave! But if he did not care for Pharaoh's safety, ought he not also to have avoided perjury for the sake of any man's safety? Or is it not perjury? For he detained one of them until Benjamin should come, and what he had said proved true:

'you shall not go out from here unless your brother comes.' For what was said could not apply to all of them; for how would that one come, unless some had returned to bring him? But what follows presses the question more, where he swore again, saying: 'Send one of you and bring your brother; but you shall be kept in custody until your words be made manifest, whether you speak truth or not; but if not, by the safety of Pharaoh you are spies'—that is: if you do not speak the truth, you are spies. To this sentence he attached an oath, because, if they had not spoken the truth, they would be spies, that is, they would be worthy of the punishment of spies—those whom he nevertheless knew to be speaking the truth.

For no one is a perjurer if he says to one whom he knows to be most chaste: 'If you have committed this adultery of which you are accused, God condemns you,' and adds an oath to these words: he swears altogether truly. For there is the condition by which he said, 'If you did it,' whom nevertheless he holds for certain not to have done it. But someone says: it is true, because, if he committed adultery, God condemns him; yet how is this true—'if you do not speak the truth, you are spies,' since, even if they lie, they are not spies? But this is what I said, that 'you are spies' was so said as though it had been said: 'you are worthy of the punishment of spies,' that is, you shall deservedly be reckoned spies because of your lie.

That 'you are' could be said for 'you shall be held' and 'you shall be reckoned,' innumerable similar expressions teach. Hence is that saying of Elijah: 'whoever shall answer by fire, he shall be God.' For he shall not then be, but shall then be held to be. What is it that, when the sons of Israel, repenting, were speaking among themselves about their brother Joseph—that they had dealt wickedly with him and that this was being requited to them by divine judgment, in that they saw themselves in peril—Scripture adds and says: 'they knew not that Joseph heard; for there was an interpreter between them'?

This, namely, is to be understood: that they supposed he did not understand, because they saw that the interpreter, who was between them, said nothing to him of the things they were saying, nor did they think the interpreter was employed for any other reason than that he did not know their language. Nor was it the interpreter's concern to say to him, by whom he had been appointed, those things which they were speaking not to him but among themselves. 'And again he came to them and spoke to them.' Nor does it add what he said to them. Whence it is understood that he said these same things which he had said. 'And you shall bring down my old age with sorrow to the netherworld.' Is it to the netherworld because with sorrow? Or, even if sorrow were absent, does he speak thus as one about to descend to the netherworld by dying?

For concerning the netherworld there is a great question, and what Scripture means by it must be observed in all the places where it may perchance be mentioned. As to what they hear from the steward of the house: 'Your God and the God of your fathers gave you treasures in your sacks; but your silver I have received, tested and approved'—it seems a lie, but it must be believed to signify something. For silver, which is both given and not diminished—since it is also called 'tested and approved'—is doubtless understood of that concerning which we read elsewhere: 'The words of the Lord are pure words, silver tried by fire, proved of the earth, purified seven times,' that is, perfectly. 'And they drank and were made drunk with him.'

Drunkards are wont to draw from this a patronage of testimony, not on account of those sons of Israel but on account of Joseph, who is commended as exceedingly wise; but that this word is also wont to be put in the Scriptures for satiety, whoever diligently attends will find in many places. Hence is that saying: 'You have visited the earth and made it drunk, you have multiplied to enrich it'; and because this is set in the praise of blessing, and the gift of God is mentioned, it appears that by this 'drunkenness' fullness is signified. For to be made drunk as drunkards are made drunk is not useful even to the earth itself, since it is corrupted by greater moisture than suffices for satiety, like the life of drunkards, who fill themselves not with satiety but drown themselves in a flood. As to what Joseph said to his brothers:

'Do you not know that a man such as I certainly divines by augury?'—concerning this augury he also charged that it should be said to them by his man—what he means by this is commonly asked. Is it that, because it was said not in earnest but in jest, as the outcome showed, it is not to be held a lie? For lies are dealt in by liars in earnest, not in jest; but when things that are not so are said as it were in jest, they are not reckoned lies. But what moves us more is what this action of Joseph means, by which he so often mocked his brothers and held them in such great expectation, until he should reveal to them who he was:

which, though it be the sweeter when read the more unexpected it becomes to those with whom it is done, nevertheless, given the gravity of that man's wisdom, unless some great thing were signified by this seeming sport, it would neither have been done by him nor contained in that Scripture in which there is so great an authority of sanctity and so great an intention of prophesying things to come. To expound this we have not now undertaken to pursue; but we have wished only to admonish what ought here to be inquired into. For neither do I judge that to be idle, that he did not say 'I divine,' but 'a man such as I divines.' And if this is a kind of expression, something similar must be found in the body of Scripture.

I think it must be considered not carelessly, how great a misery, in this disturbance of his brothers, Joseph held for as long as he wished, and prolonged with as much delay as he wished—by no means, however, making them wretched, since he was contemplating the outcome of their own future joy as well; and this whole thing that he did, in order that their gladness might be deferred, he did for this end, that by that same delay it might be heaped up the more. As though their sufferings in all that time in which they were troubled were not worthy to be compared with the future glory of exultation that was to be revealed in them, when the brother was recognized whom they had thought to be lost to them.

Many things in Judah's narration were said otherwise than as Joseph had dealt with them, although he was speaking in his presence—so that of that whole accusation, that they were spies, nothing was said. Whether this was passed over deliberately, or whether the forgetfulness of their disturbance did it, does not appear. For as to that which they said, that they had been questioned by Joseph himself concerning their father and brother, and that they had disclosed to him who was so questioning them—it is a wonder if this narration can even in sense hold together, so that it may stand as truthful.

Although even if there are some false things in it, he could rather have been deceived through forgetfulness than have dared to lie in his presence—especially before one to whom, not as to one ignorant, but even those things which he knew that Joseph knew, he was inserting into the narration in order to bend his mercy. What is it that Joseph says: 'For God sent me before you to preserve a remnant of you upon the earth, and to nourish your great remnant'? For this does not altogether accord, that we should take as 'remnant' or 'a remnant' Jacob and his sons, since all are safe. Or does it perhaps signify, by a deep and secret mystery, that which the Apostle says: 'A remnant according to the election of grace has been saved,' since the prophet had foretold:

'And if the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved'? For to this end Christ was slain by the Jews and handed over to the Gentiles—as Joseph by his brothers to the Egyptians—that the remnant of Israel too might be saved. Hence the Apostle says: 'For I too am an Israelite,' and: 'that the fullness of the Gentiles might come in, and so all Israel might be saved'; that is: from the remnant of Israel according to the flesh and the fullness of the Gentiles who in the faith of Christ are Israel according to the spirit. Or, if for that Israelite nation too there remains a fullness of faith, from which came the remnant in which remnant the apostles too were then saved—this is signified by that fullness of the liberation of Israel, by which through Moses they were freed from Egypt.

'Jacob entered into Egypt and all his seed with him, his sons and his sons' sons, his daughters and his daughters' daughters with him.' It must be asked how he says 'his daughters and his daughters' daughters with him,' when he is read to have had one daughter. But above we said that 'his daughters' could be taken as his granddaughters, just as all are called 'sons of Israel'—even the whole people propagated from him. But now, when he says 'daughters of daughters' on account of the one Dinah, the plural number is put for the singular, just as the singular is also wont to be put for the plural—unless someone asserts that his daughters-in-law could have been called his daughters.

As to what Scripture says, that Leah bore so many souls, or that so many souls came forth from the loins of Jacob, it must be seen what is to be answered hence to those who strive to confirm by this testimony that souls are propagated by parents together with bodies. For that souls were said for men, by an expression in which the part signifies the whole, no one doubts. But how we may detach that very part from which the whole was mentioned—that is, the soul, by whose name the whole man was signified—from that which was said, 'they came forth from his loins,' so that we may understand only the flesh born of him, though only souls are named, the modes of expression must be sought according to the Scriptures.

'These are the sons of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob himself in Mesopotamia of Syria, and Dinah his daughter; all the souls, sons and daughters, thirty-three.' Were all these thirty-three souls born of Leah in Mesopotamia of Syria? Surely six sons and one daughter, from whom grandchildren are mentioned. If, then, a question had arisen concerning Benjamin alone, when, the twelve sons of Jacob being numbered and named individually, it was said, 'These are the sons of Jacob who were born to him in Mesopotamia of Syria,' how much greater is the question now, how thirty-three souls were born of Leah in Mesopotamia of Syria—unless because that expression is confirmed, as though all were born there whose parents were born there!

Then this too is now not doubtful, that in the one daughter, daughters are named, the plural number being put for the singular. As to what is read, that sixty-six souls entered with Jacob into Egypt—the sons of Joseph, namely, being excepted—and then, these being added in, it is inferred: 'seventy-five souls there were, with whom Jacob entered into Egypt,' it is thus to be taken: those who were in the house of Jacob when he entered into Egypt. For assuredly those whom he found there did not enter with them.

But since, when the truth is more diligently examined, two are found to have been already born when he entered—Ephraim and Manasseh—which not only the Hebrew codices are said to have in this place, but which the very translation according to the Septuagint declares in Exodus—nor do the Septuagint translators seem to me to have erred in this, who, on account of some mystic signification, by a certain as it were prophetic liberty, wished to complete this number. If, while Jacob was still living, from those two sons Manasseh and Ephraim there were propagated those whom they judged should be added to that same number of the house of Jacob—but since Jacob is found to have lived seventeen years in Egypt, how the sons of Joseph could, while he was living, have had even grandsons, is not found.

For Jacob entered Egypt in the second year of the famine; but the sons of Joseph were born in the years of abundance—in whatever years of plenty they may be reckoned to have been born. From the first year of plenty until the second year of the famine, in which Jacob entered Egypt, there are nine years; adding to these the seventeen during which Jacob lived there, twenty-six years are found. How, then, could young men of less than twenty-six years have even grandsons? But neither is this question resolved by any Hebrew truth. For how could it have been fulfilled that Jacob received so many grandsons before he entered Egypt—even from Benjamin, who came to his brother at that age?

But Scripture mentions not only that he had sons, but also grandsons and great-grandsons, who are all reckoned as sixty-six persons, with whom Jacob, even according to the Hebrew truth, is reported to have entered Egypt. It must also be seen what it means that, when Joseph and his sons are reckoned as not more than eight, but Benjamin and his sons are found to be eleven together, they are not all nineteen, as eight and eleven are, but are referred in the sum as eighteen; and afterward Joseph with his sons are said to have been not eight souls but nine, though eight are found. All these things, which seem insoluble, without doubt contain a great reason;

but I know not whether all can agree according to the letter, especially in numbers—which we most worthily believe to be in the Scriptures most sacred and most full of mysteries, from certain instances which we have been able to know from them. It is commended in the patriarchs that they were keepers of cattle from their childhood and from their parents. And rightly: for this is, without any doubt, a just servitude and a just dominion, when cattle serve man and man rules over cattle. For so it was said when he was created: 'Let us make man to our image and likeness; and let him have power over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and all the cattle that are upon the earth.' Wherein it is intimated that reason ought to rule over the irrational life.

But it was either iniquity or adversity that made man a servant to man: iniquity indeed, as it was said, 'Cursed be Canaan; he shall be a servant to his brothers'; but adversity, as befell Joseph himself, that being sold by his brothers he became the servant of a foreigner. And so the first servants, to whom this name (servus) was given in the Latin tongue, wars made. For a man who, overcome by another man, could by the law of war have been killed, because he was preserved (servatus), was called a servant (servus); whence also 'captives' (mancipia), because they were taken by hand (manu capta). There is also a natural order in men, that women serve men and children their parents, because there too this is justice, that the weaker reason serve the stronger.

This, therefore, is the clear justice in dominions and servitudes: that those who excel in reason should excel in dominion. And when this, in this world, is disturbed through the iniquity of men or through the diversity of carnal natures, the just endure the temporal perversity, being destined at the end to have a most ordered and everlasting felicity. 'For every shepherd of sheep is an abomination to the Egyptians.' Rightly to the Egyptians, in whom is a figure of the present world, in which iniquity abounds, is every shepherd of cattle an abomination; for a just man is an abomination to the unjust. 'And Jacob and his sons came into Egypt to Joseph; and Pharaoh king of Egypt heard. And Pharaoh said to Joseph: Your father and your brothers have come to you:'

'Behold, the land of Egypt is before you; settle your father and your brothers in the best land.' This repetition is not the resumption of a matter passed over — the kind to which Scripture often returns obscurely by way of recapitulation — but is entirely plain; for Scripture had already told how Joseph's brothers came to Pharaoh and what he said to them and what he heard from them. But it has now repeated this as though from the beginning, so as to weave from that point the narrative onward from these words which Pharaoh spoke to Joseph alone. Of all these passages, in the Greek codices copied by the more careful scribes, some bear obelisks and mark what is not found in the Hebrew but is found in the Septuagint; others bear asterisks, by which are marked the things that the Hebrews have but the Septuagint does not have.

What does it mean that Jacob said to Pharaoh: 'The days of the years of my life, which I sojourn'? For so the Greek has it, where the Latin has 'ago' or 'have' or something else. Did he then say 'which I sojourn' because he was born in a land which the people had not yet received by the divine promise of inheritance, and living his life there he was assuredly in a foreign land — not only when he was a stranger, as in Mesopotamia, but even when he was where he was born? Or rather is it to be understood according to what the Apostle says: 'While we are in the body, we are away from the Lord'? According to this, that too which is said in the Psalm is understood: 'I am a settler on the earth and a stranger, like all my fathers.'

For again he says of those very days of his life: 'They have not attained to the days of the years of the life of my fathers, which days they sojourned.' Here indeed he wished nothing else to be understood than what the Latin codices have, 'they lived'; and by this he signified that this life is a sojourning upon the earth, that is, a dwelling of pilgrimage. But I believe this befits the saints, to whom the Lord promises another, eternal fatherland. Hence we must see how it was said of the wicked: 'They will settle and hide themselves, they will watch my heel.' For it is more fittingly understood of those who dwell in order to hide, that is, in order to lie in wait for the sons; they do not remain in the house forever. 'And he gave them a possession in the best land.'

'In the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded.' It must be asked whether the land of Rameses is itself also Goshen. For they had asked for Goshen, and Pharaoh had commanded that Goshen be given to them. 'And Joseph measured out grain for his father'; and yet his father did not do him homage either when he saw him or when he received grain from him. How then shall we suppose Joseph's dream now fulfilled, and not rather hold that the prophecy of some greater matter is contained here? 'And Joseph brought all the money into Pharaoh's house.' It pertained to Scripture in this matter too to commend the faithfulness of God's servant. 'And Joseph said to them: Bring your cattle, and I will give you bread for your cattle, if your silver has failed.'

It may be asked: since Joseph had gathered grain by which men might live, from what did the cattle live, when so great a famine grew strong — especially because Joseph's brothers had said to Pharaoh, 'For there is no pasture for the cattle of your servants; the famine has grown strong in the land of Canaan,' and they had recalled that they had come on account of this lack of pasture as well? Accordingly, if by that famine the pastures had failed in the land of Canaan, why had the same pastures not failed in Egypt when the same famine was then prevailing everywhere? Or, as is reported by those who know the region, in the many marshes of Egypt could pastures not be wanting even when there was famine of grain — the grain that is wont to come from the flooding of the river Nile?

For those marshes are said to yield pasture the more abundantly precisely when the water of the Nile rises less. When Jacob was about to die, he says to his son Joseph: 'If I have found grace in your sight, put your hand under my thigh, and you shall show mercy and truth toward me.' He binds his son by that oath by which Abraham had bound his servant: the one commanding whence a wife should be taken for his son, the other entrusting the burial of his own body. In each case, however, those two things are named which are to be held great and weighed in all the Scriptures. Wherever they are read scattered about — mercy and justice, or mercy and judgment, or mercy and truth — since in a certain place it is written: 'All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth.'