If I remember correctly, the pharaoh of the Exodus is specifically contrasted with the one with Joseph, who was at least virtuous enough to recognize God’s gift.
And, even then, God hardens the heart of the Exodus pharaoh, implying that, on his own, he would have eventually given in to the plagues.
I guess we’ll cover this when we get to the Exodus story, but the question is, would he have given in because he recognized what was right and what was wrong, or would he have given in because he just didn’t want any more plagues?
Zev Steinhardt
Judging from the ratio of sticks to carrots in the Hebrew Bible, that seems to be a valid reason.
In my opinion, the fact that the cupbearer was exonerated the same day that the baker was executed makes the “suspected poisioning” theory stronger.
The reasoning goes like this: the Pharaoh (or his taster) gets sick after a meal. Consulting his priests and doctors, the symptoms point to poisioning. He narrows it down somehow to the wine and the bread - so the baker and cupbearer are imprisoned as suspects. Eventually the bread proves to be poisioned, so the cupbearer is exonerated but the baker is executed.
This theory has the benefit of not making the Pharaoh out to be a monster of fickleness - after all, executing would-be assassins after what passes for a fact-based enquiry is reasonably just.
In this story Pharaoh seems more or less morally neutral. His attitude towards the servants, although not particularly benevolent, is what I would expect a writer of the period to consider SOP towards a king’s staff.
Later, he at least recognizes Joseph’s virtue, and that he has the inside track to God or the gods, because he is a soothsayer, just as the cupbearer and baker recognize it. But that is part of the whole plan, which is how God is going to rescue the people of Israel from the upcoming famine. And set up the Exodus.
The only immoral one in this part of the story is the cupbearer, who forgets Joseph as soon as he is restored to Pharaoh’s service. It is a sort of mirror of the first part of the story - the brothers remember Joseph’s dreams, and imprison him. The cupbearer forgets the dream, and therefore Joseph remains in prison.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t know if I’d characterize that as immoral. I’d say if falls more towards negligence. Immoral would be if he remembered Joseph but failed to act for whatever reason.
(But, of course, it must be pointed out that the cupbearer had to forget Joseph to set up Joseph’s rise to power in the next two chapters.)
Zev Steinhardt
Thanks for your responses folks. I’m fairly ignorant on these subjects.
I guess it goes both ways. Depending on how far you want to stretch the mirroring in the story (we might as well go for it here, since events are being mirrored right here), one could take Pharaoh’s execution and effective damnation (in the Midrashic version) of the baker as mirroring God’s curse on all of humanity for Eve’s (being tricked into) eating the wrong piece of fruit. Fruit! As I try to develop these ideas I’m sure I’ll have more questions about the atmosphere of slavery, bondage and abject despotism in the OT.
Anyway, God is obviously God, but really so is Pharaoh a god. We don’t have the 10 Commandments yet, so presumably “other gods” are valid if frowned upon (it’s the Bible, so presumably the reader is expected to cheer for the white hats and raspberry the black hats in a somewhat melodramatic fashion). They may hand out extraordinary punishments for seemingly trivial misdeeds, but ultimately men cannot judge a god’s ethics- gods define ethics.
But gods can conflict with one another. It’s a zero-sum game; ultimately there can be only one. So, can we construe this as a precedent for “thou shalt have no other gods before me”? And, eventually God implicitly bans the Pharaohnic system this way, no? Before that, God basically deems the system unacceptable, at least for the chosen people, by granting magical powers to Moses to break them out of there.
And what’s being mirrored here? Bad reports putting innocent people in prison. Can we not construe this as a precedent for “thou shalt not bear false witness”?
Can we take Joseph’s dominion over the Egyptian slaves as a justification for the enslavement of the entire Hebrew people? Why would we do that? Because we’re looking at the Bible as literature. What is the function of this literature? Unlike a comic book whose function is to amuse, I think the Bible attempts to assign meaning to the extraordinary suffering of the Hebrew/Jewish people. The imprisonment, the enslavement, the subjection and humiliation century after century were all for a God-ordained reason, culminating in the 10 Commandments, so can you, young Jewish lad, please understand just how seriously you are to take those 10 Commandments?
I hate to say “Wait until we get there,” but very clearly one of the underlying motifs in the Exodus story is exactly to show Pharaoh that he is NOT a god. And “hardening pharaoh’s heart” is God saying to Pharaoh: You think you are a god. Therefore I will treat you on your own terms, and I will do to you what I would not do to a human being, I will take away your free will.
I agree with Shodan on this one, and I like the parallel to the brothers (very much!) When the cupbearer will finally remember Joseph (next chapter), it’s reluctantly and with disdain (“a young Hebrew… a servant”).
Sure, God sees Pharaoh’s true colors. Joseph probably gets it. But any Egyptians (and later the enslaved Hebrews) who don’t buy it better play along if they don’t want to become bird food. Once Mosaic Law hits the scene, these people are all guilty of violating the 1st Commandment. I’m curious if the pre-Exodus Bible ever suggests that any of the other gods were not wholly false.
People becoming gods seems to be one of God’s biggest no-nos in Genesis. Adam and Eve get kicked out of the garden before they eat from the tree of life. God spreads confusion at the Tower of Babel. Eventually Pharaoh gets his comeuppance. The Midrashic version of the baker seems to me to reinforce all this by recalling God’s behavior at the Garden of Eden, which is why I prefer it. But again, I am not posting in these threads as an authority. These connections may be only in my imagination- I want to know what more informed posters think. Please say something if I become a nuisance.
There’s two different approaches here:
Footnote: The term “1st Commandment” means something different for Christians than for Jews. For Jews, the “1st Commandment” is what Christians think of as the Introduction - “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the House of Bondage.” The 2nd Commandment (for Jews) is “You shall have no other gods besides me” which is the 1st Commandment for Christians. Counting is wonderful.
I think it’s more that people shouldn’t think of themselves as gods, rather than God being worried that people could actually become gods. Many monarchs (certainly the Pharaohs) were thought of as gods, and undoubtedly believed it themselves. Many pagan stories involve heroes becoming gods (sometimes after their deaths), even so late as the first Caesars. So I think the biblical texts are NOT saying that God is worried that you could become equally powerful, they’re saying that you shouldn’t think of yourself as more powerful than you are. After eating, the first thing that happens to Adam and Eve is that they are aware of their nakedness, both physically and spiritually; they become aware of the immense gap between them (as limited and mortal humans) and the divine (omniscient, seeing into their most inner thoughts.)
Please note that, since today is Saturday, our Orthodox Jewish posters won’t be able to respond until Sunday.