See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311700465

Different Dreams: Two Models of Interpretation for Three Pairs of

Dreams (Genesis 37–50)

Article  in  Journal of Biblical Literature · January 2016

DOI: 10.15699/jbl.1354.2016.3083

CITATIONS READS

0 390

1 author:

Jonathan Grossman
Bar Ilan University
20 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jonathan Grossman on 14 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JBL 135, no. 4 (2016): 717–732
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1354.2016.3083

Different Dreams: Two Models of

Interpretation for Three Pairs of Dreams
(Genesis 37–50)

jonathan grossman
[email protected]
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, 5290001

It is generally agreed that the motif of dream-pairs is one of the unifying elements
of the Joseph narrative. Each scene in question features not one dream but two.
Different theories have been proposed regarding the contribution of these
dream-pairs to the narrative, and regarding the relationship between the dreams
of each pair. Joseph interprets the Pharaoh’s two dreams as “one and the same,”
but he presents a different interpretation for each of the ministers’ dreams. The
narrative does not explicitly indicate whether Joseph’s own dreams share a mean-
ing or have separate meanings; indeed, there are different scholarly approaches
to this question. This article proposes that the relationship between Joseph’s
dreams is a fundamental question in the narrative, and the two models presented
later in the story are two possible interpretations between which Joseph himself
has the power to choose.

It is generally agreed that the three pairs of dreams featured in the Joseph
narrative (Joseph’s dreams [ch. 37]; the ministers’ dreams [ch. 40]; and Pharaoh’s
dreams [ch. 41]) testify not to a fusion of sources or traditions but to a unity of
composition: “The relationship of the three pairs of dreams to each other in chap-
ters 37; 40; and 41 is alone sufficient to show that the Joseph story is the composi-
tion of a single author; it reveals a well-thought-out plan.”1 Many have noted that
the connection between the different pairs of dreams is further reinforced by the
phrase “I have dreamed a dream” (‫)חלום חלמתי‬, which appears in all three instances.
“The three dream-pairs seem to be tightly connected,”2 and they play an important

1 Claus Westermann, Genesis 37–50: A Continental Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion

(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986), 78.

2 Ron Pirson, The Lord of the Dreams: A Semantic and Literary Analysis of Genesis 37–50,

JSOTSup 355 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 52. Compare Jean-Marie Husser, Dreams and
Dream Narratives in the Biblical World, trans. Jill M. Munro, BibSem 63 (Sheffield: Sheffield

717

This article was published in JBL 135/4 (2016) 717–732, copyright © 2016 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase
copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in
North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
718 Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 4 (2016)

role in plot development and the protagonist’s movement. Joseph’s dreams exacer-
bate his brothers’ envy, which leads to his being sold and taken to Egypt (“we shall
see what comes of his dreams!” 37:20); Joseph’s accurate interpretation of the min-
isters’ dreams in prison leads to the cupbearer’s recommendation of Joseph to
­Pharaoh, which results in his release from prison and his rise to greatness in Egypt.3
It has even been claimed that the dreams are the key unifying elements of the entire
narrative: “The dreams unify the story and are the glue that hold its parts together.
Without them, the story is no longer comprehensible.”4
Upon first reading, one might think that a single dream would have sufficed
in each case. For this reason it is important to examine the contribution made by
a pair of dreams at each point.5 Some have proposed that this doubling is inherent
in the “literary duplication” of the Joseph narrative’s structure (the brothers twice
descend to Egypt; both Reuben and Judah attempt to convince Jacob; Joseph
accuses his brothers twice—of spying, and of thievery; and so on). According to
this theory, the fact that each scene contains a pair of dreams is but the tip of the
iceberg; the narrative’s broader tendency to doubling is what requires explanation.6
My own premise differs; I will show that the dream-pairs play a decisive role
in the story. The fundamental question concerns the correlation between the two

Academic, 1999), 106; Robert Karl Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus:
A Traditio-Historical Analysis, AGJU 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 70; Nili Shupak, “A Reexamination
of the Dreams of the Egyptian Officials and of Pharaoh in the Joseph Narrative (Gen 40–41)” [in
Hebrew], Shnaton 15 (2005): 63; Jörg Lanckau, Der Herr der Träume: Eine Studie zur Funktion des
Traumes in der Josefsgeschichte der Hebräischen Bibel, ATANT 85 (Zurich: TVZ, 2006), 254. It
should be noted that the expression “dream a dream” appears elsewhere in dream accounts (e.g.,
Deut 13:2, 4, 8; Judg 7:18; Joel 3:1; Dan 2:1, 3), but not in all biblical dream accounts. Whether
the expression serves to link the scenes within the narrative is, therefore, open to debate.
3 W. Lee Humphreys, Joseph and His Family: A Literary Study, Studies on Personalities of the

Old Testament (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1988), 39, 70.
4 Shaul Bar, A Letter That Has Not Been Read: Dreams in the Hebrew Bible, trans. Lenn J.

Schramm, HUCM 25 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2001), 54 n. 41.

5 “Dream-pairs” are also found in Mesopotamian literature; for example, Gilgamesh dreams

two dreams before meeting Enkidu (Tablet I, lines 273–74). On this phenomenon in biblical and
Near Eastern literature, see Cyrus H. Gordon, The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew
Civilizations (New York: Norton, 1965), 64–65; Donald B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story
of Joseph: Genesis 37–50, VTSup 20 (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 89–91, 138–86.
Shupak shows that the model of three dreams also existed in the ancient East (“Reexamina­
tion of the Dreams,” 63). God’s two revelations to Balaam should not be considered an example
of the phenomenon of “dream-pairs” because each of these revelations plays a different role in the
development of the plot: God first forbids Balaam to go, and then permits him. See Ruth Fidler,
“Dreams Speak Falsely?” Dream Theophanies in the Bible: Their Place in Ancient Israelite Faith and
Traditions [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2005), 112.
6 See esp. R. Norman Whybray, “The Joseph Story and Pentateuchal Criticism,” VT 18

(1968): 522–28; Yairah Amit, “The Repeated Situation: A Poetic Principle in the Modeling of the
Joseph Narrative” [in Hebrew], Te‘uda 7 (1991): 55–66; Robert Alter, Genesis: Translation and
Commentary (New York: Norton, 1996), 210.

This article was published in JBL 135/4 (2016) 717–732, copyright © 2016 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase
copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in
North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
 Grossman: Three Pairs of Dreams (Genesis 37–50)  719

dreams in each of the three scenes—what is the nature of the relationship of the
dreams in each pair, and can the doubling of dreams in one scene illuminate the
duplication in another? This question is especially relevant given the explicit inter-
pretation of this phenomenon in regard to Pharaoh’s dreams. Presenting his solu-
tion, Joseph asserts that this doubling has no bearing on the meaning of the dreams’
content: “Pharaoh’s dreams are one and the same” (41:25); Joseph perceives the
phenomenon only as a sign that the dreams will soon come to pass (41:32). Can
this interpretation also be applied to the other dream-pairs in the story? Obviously,
this cannot be true of the ministers’ dreams, as each has a different meaning, but
can this be said of Joseph’s own dreams?
Hermann Gunkel holds that Joseph’s dreams have an identical meaning: “Both
of Joseph’s dreams mean the same thing. The narrator may have had the brothers’
two trips to Egypt in mind in narrating two dreams.”7 Others of this opinion explic-
itly refer to the fact that Pharaoh’s dreams are interpreted as one: “Like Pharaoh’s
two dreams, which are said to be one (41:25), it seems likely that both Joseph’s
dreams are making a single point, namely that his family will one day bow down
to him, not that they will do so on two occasions.”8
In contrast, Ron Pirson claims that the relationship between the dreams in
each of the three pairs develops over the course of the story: Joseph’s dreams have
two completely different interpretations; the ministers’ dreams have different mean­
ings, but they take place at the same time, while Pharaoh’s dreams are indeed “one
and the same.”9 In his opinion, Joseph’s pair of dreams is the ultimate expression of
two completely different dreams.
Two models of interpretation are explicitly integrated into the narrative: the
ministers’ dreams present two divergent meanings, while Pharaoh’s dreams con-
verge. The relationship between Joseph’s dreams, however, remains undefined in
the text. My thesis is that these two explicit models are intentionally presented in
the story, while the ambiguity regarding the relationship between Joseph’s dreams
is one of its fundamental themes. Not only is the matter intentionally left open to
interpretation, but the characters themselves must determine the relationship
between the dreams. In order to clarify this developing motif, I will examine each
pair of dreams.

7 Hermann Gunkel, Genesis: Translated and Interpreted, trans. Mark E. Biddle from 9th

German ed. of 1977, Mercer Library of Biblical Studies (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press,
1997; orig. 1910), 390. See also George W. Coats, Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative
Literature, FOTL 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 270; Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical
Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, Indiana Literary Biblical Series
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 397.
8 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, WBC 2 (Dallas: Word, 1998), 351. Kenneth A. Mathews

expresses a similar idea: “These two dreams are like Pharaoh’s dual dreams, ‘one and the same’
(41:25)” (Genesis 11:27–50:26, NAC [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005], 691).
9 Pirson, Lord of the Dreams, 58–59.

This article was published in JBL 135/4 (2016) 717–732, copyright © 2016 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase
copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in
North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
720 Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 4 (2016)

I.  The First Pair: Joseph’s Dreams

In contrast to the narrative’s other pairs, no interpretation scene is devoted to

Joseph’s dreams. Rather, these visions are deciphered over the course of the plot,
their solutions implied through the characters’ reactions.10 Through the brothers’
angry words, the reader learns how they have interpreted the first dream: “Do you
mean to reign over us? Do you mean to rule over us?” (37:8); and Jacob’s chiding
of Joseph reveals his reading of the second dream: “Are we to come, I and your
mother and your brothers, and bow low to you to the ground?” (37:10).11 The fact
that these readings are not presented as actual solutions but rather as the characters’
reactions, leads the reader to question their accuracy. The implied solutions cer-
tainly fit with the dream’s tone and main components—after all, the brothers’ infe-
rior sheaves bow down before Joseph’s sheaf—but the reliability of each speaker
influences how their words resonate with the reader. Moreover, both “interpre­
tations” are phrased with skepticism—“Do you really believe that this will hap-
pen?!”—which lends these readings further implausibility. As the characters
present the solution, the reader grasps their doubt in regard to the dream and its
apparent solution. Even if this is due to the family’s strained relationship (which is
especially apparent in the narrator’s description of Jacob’s reproach [37:11]), this
skepticism still casts the speakers’ own words in doubt, leaving the reader to ques-
tion the irked characters’ proposed solutions.12
Indeed, scholars have offered various interpretations that differ from the char-
acters’ own readings of these dreams.13 Even if we ultimately accept the solutions
10 Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 78.
11 I
find Husser’s interpretation—that the interpretation seemed obvious to Jacob and the
brothers, whereas Joseph understands this interpretation only when the brothers come and bow
before him in Egypt—unconvincing (Husser, Dreams and Dream Narratives, 113).
12 Compare Lanckau, Der Herr der Träume, 182–85, who notes that the question of the

credibility of Jacob’s solution also pertains to whether the eleven stars logically represent Joseph’s
brothers. As Jacob relates to Rachel as if she were alive, he argues that this scene takes place when
Joseph is still young, before Rachel’s death and Benjamin’s birth, in which case it is unclear why
the eleven stars stand for Joseph’s brothers. See his discussion.
13 A good example is Pirson’s suggestion that in the second dream the celestial bodies do not

symbolize family members, but, like the symbols in the ministers’ and Pharaoh’s dreams, they
show when the dream will come to pass: thirteen years (eleven stars + sun + moon). Indeed, after
thirteen years, the first dream begins to be fulfilled: Joseph rises to power in Egypt, and all bow
and submit to his “sheaf.” See Ron Pirson, “The Sun, the Moon, and Eleven Stars: An Interpretation
of Joseph’s Second Dream,” in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History, ed.
André Wénin, BETL 155 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001), 561–68; and Pirson, Lord of
the Dreams, 55–59. Gunkel and Gerhard von Rad already claimed that the stars do not reflect the
family members; rather, “the number eleven must be connected with the ancient notion of the
eleven signs of the zodiac” (von Rad, Genesis, 2nd ed., trans. John H. Marks, OTL [London: SCM,
1963], 347; Gunkel, Genesis, 390). Some scholars even claim that the solution to Joseph’s dreams

This article was published in JBL 135/4 (2016) 717–732, copyright © 2016 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase
copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in
North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
 Grossman: Three Pairs of Dreams (Genesis 37–50)  721

presented in the story, the fact that they are expressed by emotionally wrought
characters (which is not the case in the other two scenes) affects the reader’s attitude
toward these dreams, which remain without authoritative interpretation at the end
of chapter 37.
Does the narrative design of this dream-pair allow us to determine whether
these dreams share a single meaning or have two separate meanings? On the one
hand, the second dream opens with the expression “another dream” (‫ויחלם עוד‬
‫חלום‬, 37:9), which implies continuity and cohesion; additionally, both dreams fea-
ture bowing down to Joseph or his sheaf, which encourages comparison between
them. The difference between sheaves and celestial elements does not seem greater
than the difference between Pharaoh’s ears of grain and cows rising out of the Nile,
which are charged with divine associations in Egyptian culture.14 Nonetheless,
Joseph determines that Pharaoh’s two dreams are one and the same, so the reader
may easily infer that here, too, although the dreams feature different symbols, their
meaning is identical.
Pirson, however, who claims that Joseph’s dreams have two completely differ-
ent meanings, draws attention to the fact that the second dream is introduced with
the phrase “another, different dream” (‫)ויחלם עוד חלום אחר‬: “Therefore it is possible
that the word ‘‫’אחר‬, does not simply mean ‘another, following’, but rather indicates
that Joseph dreamed a dream which is completely distinct from the first.”15 Note
that in the second dream, other entities besides the brothers are represented
through celestial bodies (the sun and the moon, besides the stars), which may
encourage a different interpretation. Similarly, in the first dream, Joseph, like his
brothers, is symbolized by a sheaf, while in the second dream, the sun, moon, and
stars bow down to Joseph himself.16
The characters’ interpretation of Joseph’s dreams reinforces the position that
the dream-pair has a single meaning, as both Joseph’s brothers (after the first
dream) and his father (after hearing the second) see the dreams as portents of

anticipates other biblical stories beyond the Joseph cycle. See esp. Yair Zakovitch, I Will Utter
Riddles from Ancient Time: Riddles and Dream-Riddles in Biblical Narrative [in Hebrew], Aron
sefarim Yehudi (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2005), 41; Benjamin D. H. Hilbert, “Joseph’s Dreams, Part
One: From Abimelech to Saul,” JSOT 35 (2011): 259–83, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0309089210386019; Hilbert, “Joseph’s Dreams, Part Two: From Saul to Solomon,” JSOT 35 (2011):
435–61, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309089211402178. Pierre Gilbert even claims that Joseph’s
sheaf surrounded by his brothers’ sheaves hints at the male erection, which symbolizes his power.
According to Gilbert, the dream reflects the brothers’ impotence compared to Joseph (Le récit
biblique de rêve: Essai de confrontation analytique, Série biblique 3 [Lyon: Profac, 1990], 45).
14 E. A. Wallis Budge, From Fetish to God in Ancient Egypt (London: Oxford University Press,

1934), 228–29.
15 Pirson, Lord of the Dreams, 50.
16 Lanckau, Der Herr der Träume, 169. Amit notes that the first dream, with its large number

of verbs, differs from the second, which is more static and describes a situation rather than an
event (“Repeated Situation,” 59).

This article was published in JBL 135/4 (2016) 717–732, copyright © 2016 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase
copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in
North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
722 Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 4 (2016)

Joseph’s dominion over his family. These readings reflect the tension and conflict-
ing interests of members of the household. Because these interpretations are not
“official” solutions, the reader may be skeptical of them.
At this stage of the reading, then, the possibilities remain open, and it is dif-
ficult to determine if the dreams, like Pharaoh’s, are one and the same, or if each
dream, like the ministers’, has its own interpretation.

II.  The Second Pair: The Ministers’ Dreams

Scholars have noted that this dream-pair is the most sophisticated, containing
most of the components that conventionally appear in dream narratives.17 Even if
this is correct from the perspective of a “literary form,” it does not require that this
pair be considered a prototype for the other two dream-pairs, as I will shortly
clarify. Yairah Amit opens her discussion of this dream-pair with the statement that
“between the additional dream-pair that appears in chapter 40, the differences are
immediately apparent.”18 In light of Joseph’s interpretations, there is no doubt that
these two dreams have opposite meanings: one heralds life, and the other death. In
the first dream, the minister appointed over the king’s cup supervises his drink,
while in the second the minister responsible for the king’s food fails to do his duty,
allowing the birds to consume his goods (in contrast, for example, to Abram in Gen
15).19 The difference between the dreams is also expressed through the narrative
techniques of their solution: while Joseph interprets the cupbearer’s dream literally
(in three days he will serve wine to the king, just as he does in his dream), he reads
the chief baker’s dream on a symbolic level (the dream figure of the baker represents
the gallows; the baskets of food consumed by the birds signify the baker himself,
whose flesh will soon be eaten by scavenger birds of prey).20 The different modes
of interpretation of each dream emphasize the differences between them. More-
over, the very fact that this dream-pair is dreamed by two different dreamers rein-
forces Amit’s claim that the reader is immediately struck by the differences between
them.
Nonetheless, the narrator employs several methods of misleading the reader,
creating the illusion that the two dreams share a single interpretation—until
Joseph’s words reveal that the two dreams are antithetical in meaning. It is therefore
more accurate to state that, initially, the reader anticipates that the two dreams are

17 Wolfgang Richter, “Traum und Traumdeutung im Alten Testament: Ihre Form und Ver­

wendung,” BZ 7 (1963): 202–20; Husser, Dreams and Dream Narratives, 106–7.

18 Amit, “Repeated Situation,” 60. See also Westermann, Genesis, 3:75–77.
19 Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:25, 750.
20 In contrast, von Rad claims that the meaning of the baker’s dream is not interpreted

symbolically (Genesis, 366).

This article was published in JBL 135/4 (2016) 717–732, copyright © 2016 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase
copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in
North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
 Grossman: Three Pairs of Dreams (Genesis 37–50)  723

one and the same, but eventually it becomes clear that their differences emerge.
This development employs several devices:
1.  The initial description of the ministers characterizes them as an indistin-
guishable pair:
Some time later, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt gave offense to
their lord the king of Egypt. Pharaoh was angry with his two courtiers, the chief
cupbearer and the chief baker, and put them in custody.… The chief steward
assigned Joseph to them, and he attended them. (40:1–4)

Their joint description creates the impression that the two sinned together,21
angered Pharaoh together, were punished together, were together served by Joseph,
and served the same sentence—both were “in custody for some time” (40:4).22
2.  This impression is reinforced by the description of their dreaming:
Both of them dreamed a dream in the same night, each his own dream and each
dream with its own meaning—the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt,
who were confined in the prison. (40:5)

Both dream “in the same night,” and the narrator once again emphasizes that the
characters inhabit the same narrative space: “who were confined in the prison.” In
addition, the two have a similar role in the Egyptian government: both are respon-
sible for the victuals “of the king of Egypt.” Two dreams are dreamed at the same
time, in the same place, by two figures of a similar position.
3.  Given the narrator’s apparent intentions, it should come as no surprise that
the singular form of the word dream is used rather than the plural. It is not related
that the two “dreamed dreams” but rather that each “dreamed a dream” (40:5).
While this is grammatically acceptable—each dreamed his own dream—this lan-
guage nonetheless creates the impression that the two dreams might be one and
the same. The singular form is even more salient in the ministers’ appeal to Joseph:
“And they said to him, ‘We have dreamed a dream, and there is no one to interpret
it’ ” (40:8). The implication is that, even if each minister dreamed his own dream,
the two are deeply connected. In fact, the description that each dreamer is dis-
traught at the same time and that they reply to Joseph’s question as one, “Why do
you appear downcast today?” (40:7) sustains the impression that their dreams are
essentially the same, with a single interpretation.

21 In
the LXX, even v. 1 reads, “the chief cupbearer of the king of Egypt and the chief baker
sinned”—in the singular (see Moshe A. Zipor, The Septuagint Version of the Book of Genesis [in
Hebrew] [Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2005], 483).
22 Compare the similar description of Ahasuerus’s two chamberlains (Esth 2:21–23). The

two meet the same end. Concerning the connection between the two ministers in Genesis and
the two chamberlains in Esther, see Jon D. Levenson, Esther: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1997), 65; Timothy S. Laniak, Esther, in Leslie C. Allen and Timothy S.
Laniak, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, NIBCOT (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 213.

This article was published in JBL 135/4 (2016) 717–732, copyright © 2016 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase
copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in
North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
724 Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 4 (2016)

4.  At first glance, the ministers’ dreams seem to hint at the same prediction;
each minister dreams about three items related to his position: 23 three branches of
a vine and three openwork baskets. In the cupbearer’s dream, a cup of wine is served
to Pharaoh, which seems to correspond to the food being consumed by the birds
in the chief baker’s dream. In many contexts, birds function as symbols of royalty,
the king in particular.24 For example, the Egyptian god Horus, patron of the pha-
raohs, was viewed as the founder of the true royal line and was depicted as having
the head of a falcon. He was also known as Nekheny, meaning “falcon.” While
understanding the fowl in the baker’s dream as a symbol of Egypt’s king is not
necessary, it is possible; and, given the profound connections between this dream-
pair, Joseph could easily have interpreted the scene in this manner. Yair Zakovitch
also correctly observes that, because Joseph uses the word head when he predicts
that the cupbearer will return to his former position (40:13), using the same word
in his answer to the chief baker increases the reader’s anticipation (and presumably
the baker’s) that the baker’s head, too, will be lifted up and his position restored.25
5.  The narrator’s inclination to present the two dreams similarly is apparent
not only in the recounting of the dreams but also in the interpretation (at least
initially). Despite the two different interpretations that Joseph ultimately offers, his
first words continue to generate anticipation that the two dreams have an identical
meaning. The solution to the cupbearer’s dream begins with a chronological
description: “The three branches are three days” (v. 12). Likewise, Joseph also
responds to the chief baker thus: “The three baskets are three days” (v. 18); to both
of them, he continues, “in three days …” (vv. 13, 19). He then describes what will
befall each of them with a similar expression: he informs the cupbearer that “in
three days, Pharaoh will lift your head up and restore you to your post” (v. 13).
Echoing this interpretation, he tells the chief baker, “in three days, Pharaoh will lift
your head off ” (v. 19). The reader can imagine the baker holding his breath as
Joseph repeats the same words he used to foretell the cupbearer’s happy fate, only
to have these illusions shattered with the addition of the word off. The metaphor of
“head lifting” is cruelly reduced to its literal meaning; the baker’s head will be lifted
not up but off, off of his body.26

23 Theoretically, this divergence can be read as an element that differentiates the dreams, but

essentially it also creates a connection between them. Each one dreams about his own life. If the
two ministers are restored to their former posts, each will resume his life.
24 Zakovitch, I Will Utter Riddles, 41. See further Rozenn Bailleul-LeSuer, ed., Between

Heaven and Earth: Birds in Ancient Egypt, OIMP 35 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago, 2012).
25 Ibid.
26 Shupak is correct that the masoretic version of the text can remain in its current form,

with no need to omit the word ‫ מעליך‬due to dittographical error (“Reexamination of the Dreams,”
74–75 n. 77). Many have noted the verse’s wordplay. See esp. David Marcus, who shows that this
wordplay is usually lost in translation (“ ‘Lifting Up the Head’: On the Trail of Word Play in Genesis
40,” Proof 10 [1990]: 17–27). See also Scott B. Noegel, who notes other wordplays in this scene

This article was published in JBL 135/4 (2016) 717–732, copyright © 2016 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase
copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in
North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
 Grossman: Three Pairs of Dreams (Genesis 37–50)  725

Through this careful reading, it is clear that, although the two dreams have an
opposite meaning—one portends life and the other death—the narrative has been
constructed to generate surprise: the dreams and their interpretations are initially
presented similarly. Indeed, as many have commented, the misleading likeness
between the two dreams emphasizes the wisdom of Joseph, who is able to make
fine distinctions, differentiating even between dreams that appear to be one and
the same. This design is not intended merely to serve Joseph’s characterization as a
wise interpreter of dreams, however; it plays a crucial role in plot development and
in Joseph’s appearance before Pharaoh.
In the next scene, the reader encounters Egyptian magicians who are unable
to solve Pharaoh’s dreams (“but none could interpret them for Pharaoh,” 41:8).
There is no explanation why the king was dissatisfied with other proposed inter-
pretations (assuming that others were offered),27 but this is important background
information for the recommendation of the cupbearer, who suddenly remembers
Joseph after two years. The cupbearer’s words clarify why this particular situation
is what reminds him of the long-forgotten Hebrew youth (40:23). In his address he
repeatedly recalls the baker, who dreamed along with him:
He placed me in custody in the house of the chief steward, together with the chief
baker.  We had dreams the same night, he and I, each of us a dream with a mean-
ing of its own … when we told him our dreams, he interpreted them for us,
telling each of the meaning of his dream. And as he interpreted for us, so it came
to pass: I was restored to my post, and the other was impaled.” (41:10–13)28

The fact that Pharaoh dreams two dreams reminds the chief cupbearer of the two
dreams that Joseph interpreted years before. Pharaoh summons Joseph because the
cupbearer mentions his expertise in solving a pair of dreams; his ability to distin-
guish between two similar dreams is precisely what Pharaoh needs. In prison,
Joseph proved that he is able to differentiate between a dream signifying that its

(Nocturnal Ciphers: The Allusive Language of Dreams in the Ancient Near East, AOS 89 [New
Haven: American Oriental Society, 2007], 128–32). Zakovitch proposes that the unusual term in
the baker’s dream, “openwork baskets,” hints at Pharaoh’s wrath (‫( )סלי חרי – חרון אף‬I Will Utter
Riddles, 43). Regarding the third appearance of the phrase “lift the head” (40:20), James A.
Montgomery comments that it is a technical expression that means “counted, took account” (A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ICC [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960],
569). This claim is correct, and E. A. Speiser shows that this is also the meaning of the Akkadian
phrase rēšam našûm (“Census and Ritual Expiation in Mari and Israel,” BASOR 149 [1958]:
17–25). The third appearance of this phrase, however, even if having a different meaning, further
reinforces the wordplay of this passage. See also Menahem Zevi Kaddari, A Dictionary of Biblical
Hebrew [in Hebrew] (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2006), 734, s.v. ‫נשא‬.
27 Westermann proposes that the magicians sensed that these dreams were an omen of

disaster and did not dare propose this to the king (Genesis, 3:88).
28 Regarding the connection between the cupbearer’s words to Pharaoh (41:11) and the

narrator’s description of the prison scene (esp. 40:5), see Lanckau, Der Herr der Träume, 253.

This article was published in JBL 135/4 (2016) 717–732, copyright © 2016 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase
copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in
North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
726 Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 4 (2016)

dreamer’s head will be lifted up, and one signifying that its dreamer’s head will be
lifted off; this endowment is what summons him to Pharaoh.29

III.  The Third Pair: Pharaoh’s Dreams

Ironically enough, Joseph’s special knack for distinguishing pairs of dreams

(dreamed the same night) is not utilized when he presents a solution to Pharaoh.
In contrast to his interpretation of the ministers’ dreams, Joseph determines that
Pharaoh’s two dreams are one, and he even explains why this is so: “As for Pharaoh
having had the same dream twice, it means that the matter has been determined
by God, and that God will soon carry it out” (41:32). That is, this doubling pertains
not to the dreams’ actual interpretation but rather to when this interpretation will
come to pass.
The narrative design of Joseph’s interpretation indicates that the dream-pair
has a single meaning. When he deciphers that the cows and ears represent seven
years, he fuses the two dreams together:
A  A nd Joseph said to Pharaoh, “Pharaoh’s dreams are one and the same: God has
told Pharaoh what he is about to do.
B  The seven healthy cows are seven years, and the seven healthy ears are seven
years;
C  it is the same dream. 
B´  The seven lean and ugly cows that followed are seven years, as are also the
seven empty ears scorched by the east wind; they are seven years of famine.
A´ It is just as I have told Pharaoh: God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to
do.” (41:25–28)

The framework of Joseph’s words (A–A´) emphasizes the supreme principle of the
solution: Pharaoh’s dreams are a message from God, informing him of events about
to unfold.30 The heart of the solution pits seven years of abundance (B) against
seven years of famine (B´),31 and here Joseph clearly merges the symbols from both

29 See further Jonathan Grossman, Text and Subtext: On Exploring Biblical Narrative Design

[in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2015), 174–76.

30 Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:25, 760. The combination of the words told (‫הגיד‬, mentioned

in A) and showed (‫הראה‬, mentioned in A´) is based on the relationship between the senses of
hearing and sight, which is a frequent combination in biblical narrative. See, e.g., Amos Frish,
“‫ שמ"ע‬and ‫ רא"ה‬as a Pair of Leitwörter” [in Hebrew], Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress
of Jewish Studies, Division A (Jerusalem: World Congress of Jewish Studies, 1999): 89–98. See also
Sheri L. Klouda, “The Dialectical Interplay of Seeing and Hearing in Psalm 19 and Its Connection
to Wisdom,” BBR 10 (2000): 181–95; Kenneth T. Aitken, “Hearing and Seeing: Metamorphoses
of a Motif in Isaiah 1–39,” in Among the Prophets: Language, Image, and Structure in the Prophetic
Writings, ed. Philip R. Davies and David J. A. Clines, JSOTSup 144 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993),
12–41.
31 A careful reading of Joseph’s message about the years of plenty and the years of famine

This article was published in JBL 135/4 (2016) 717–732, copyright © 2016 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase
copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in
North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
 Grossman: Three Pairs of Dreams (Genesis 37–50)  727

dreams: the “seven healthy cows” are mentioned together with the “seven healthy
ears” (B) while the “seven lean and ugly cows” appear alongside the “seven empty
ears scorched by the wind” (B´).32 This fusion is explained both in the introduction
to his explanation (“Pharaoh’s dreams are one and the same”) and at the heart of
his interpretation, which transports his audience from the years of plenty to the
years of famine (“it is the same dream” [C]).
That the two dreams are one is hinted at already in Pharaoh’s account to his
magicians: “Pharaoh told them his dream, but none could interpret them” (41:8).
The transition from singular (“his dream”) to plural (“them”) resulted in this verse’s
harmonization in several translations, either through the alteration of “his dream”
to the plural form (the Samaritan Pentateuch) or by changing “them” to singular
(LXX). Gordon J. Wenham, however, may be correct that this lack of coordination
is intentional, hinting to the reader that the two dreams are one.33 This suggestion
is supported by a similar device in Pharaoh’s description to Joseph (is Pharaoh
aware of this?): “I have had a dream, but no one can interpret it” (41:15).34 Pharaoh’s
use of the singular for two dreams can be explained as the collective form; upon a
second reading, however, the reader is able to interpret this language as an allusion
to the two dreams being “one.”35
Pharaoh’s second dream is introduced with a new heading: “he dreamed a
second time” (41:5), but he retells the dreams without a separate introduction
(41:22). Based on this omission, Jörg Lanckau argues that the two dreams are in
fact one and that the second dream serves “as a confirmation dream [Bestätigungs­
traum] of the first.”36
Other such hints become clear upon a second reading. Both cows and healthy
ears “came up” (‫עולות‬, 41:2, 5); additionally, the adjective “healthy” (‫)בריאות‬
describes both cows and ears (41:2, 5), even though it is a more appropriate term
for fauna than flora. This similar language connects the two dreams.37

supports Westermann’s claim that Joseph emphasizes the years of famine (Genesis, 3:91). It is
sufficient to compare the lengths of components B and B´ to confirm this.
32 It may be that Joseph refers to the ears as “lean,” which in the dreams only describes the

cows, in order to consolidate the two dreams in his answer, so that there is no need to adopt the
versions of the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the Peshitta, which emend this to read the
“shriveled” ears.
33 Wenham, Genesis, 391.
34 Here, too, the Samaritan Pentateuch, which found the singular form problematic, changed

this to the plural form: “I dreamed dreams and there is no one to interpret them.”
35 Sternberg proposes that Pharaoh sensed that the two dreams had a single meaning and

therefore rejected the interpretations of his magicians, who did not realize this (Poetics of Biblical
Narrative, 398). See, similarly, Bill T. Arnold, Genesis, NCBC (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2009), 341.
36 Lanckau, Der Herr der Träume, 256–57.
37 See Susan Niditch and Robert Doran, “The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: A Formal

Approach,” JBL 96 (1977): 186, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3265877; Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical

Narrative, 397.

This article was published in JBL 135/4 (2016) 717–732, copyright © 2016 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase
copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in
North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
728 Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 4 (2016)

IV.  Joseph’s Dreams: One Dream or Two?

Certain differences may be noted between Joseph’s dreams and the two other
dream-pairs, and some commentators might claim that there is no room for com-
parison between them. Jean-Marie Husser notes that the introduction to Joseph’s
dreams differs greatly from the introduction to the ministers’ and Pharaoh’s dreams.
Joseph’s dreams begin with the combination of “dream” and “I dreamed” (37:6, 9),38
while the ministers and Pharaoh introduce their dreams with the expression “in
my dream” (40:9, 16; 41:17, 22).39 Yet, considering that combinations of a verb and
a noun from the root ‫ חלם‬feature in both the ministers’ and Pharaoh’s accounts,
this difference seems negligible and can be attributed to aesthetic variation. Nili
Shupak claims that the meaning of Joseph’s dreams is self-evident and requires no
“professional interpretation,” unlike the other two pairs.40 If we adopt an accepted
distinction, however, between dreams whose meaning is determined through
interpretation of its symbols and dreams with a literal meaning, then even if the
interpretation of Joseph’s dreams is obvious to the characters, his dream-pair still
falls firmly in the former category.41 The ministers’ dream-pair and Pharaoh’s were
each dreamed on the same night (40:5; 41:11; 41:5–8), unlike Joseph’s, but this
ought not to delegitimize comparison between the pairs. It remains to be deter-
mined which model of interpretation applies to Joseph’s dream-pair. Are Joseph’s
dreams, like Pharaoh’s, “one and the same,” or do they have two different meanings,
like the ministers’?
If the content of the dreams is taken into consideration, the question becomes
yet more complex. Each pair shares common features (the prostration before
Joseph; the numbers and symbols related to the ministers’ positions; the numbers
and scenario in Pharaoh’s), but at the same time the discrepancies are important to
note. The the ministers’ dreams indeed have different meanings, and there are also
significant dissimilarities between Pharaoh’s dreams that could hint at two inter-
pretations (for example, the first dream’s emphasis on the Nile,42 which is not men-
tioned at all during the second dream). As I established at the beginning, Joseph’s
dreams show similarities that suggest a single interpretation, as well as differences

38 Concerning this introduction, see Coats, Genesis, 269.

39 Husser,Dreams and Dream Narratives, 112.
40 Shupak, “Reexamination of the Dreams,” 56 n. 5. This was claimed also by Ann Jeffers,

“Divination by Dreams in Ugaritic Literature and in the Old Testament,” IBS 12 (1990): 167–83.
41 Richter is of this opinion (“Traum und Traumdeutung”).
42 Every stage of the dream emphasizes that it takes place next to the Nile: at the beginning

of the dream, Pharaoh is “standing by the Nile” (41:1); the healthy cows rise up “from the Nile”
(41:2), as well as the lean cows (41:3); and even the description of their standing alongside the
healthy cows takes place “on the bank of the Nile” (41:3).

This article was published in JBL 135/4 (2016) 717–732, copyright © 2016 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase
copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in
North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
 Grossman: Three Pairs of Dreams (Genesis 37–50)  729

that point to two. I believe that here lies the key question of the Joseph story and
that the reader’s confusion plays a crucial role in the narrative’s development.
Moreover, while the narrative explicitly defines whether the dreams in the two
other pairs share one meaning or two, the relationship between Joseph’s dreams
remains ambiguous, so that it falls to the characters to determine the meaning. The
characters themselves have the power to decide whether the two dreams are one
and the same, and this power plays a dramatic role in the story.
Despite the reservations of some scholars, I favor the view that Joseph’s dream-
sheaves symbolize the family’s sustenance: the brothers’ sheaves bowing down to
Joseph’s sheaf anticipates their future financial dependence on Joseph.43 The
intriguing fact that Joseph also is represented by an object (a sheaf) may show that
the dream describes the brothers’ descent to Egypt in order to appeal to the Egyp-
tian ruler, without conceiving that this ruler is their brother Joseph. The dialogue
is held between the “sheaves”; it is strictly a business exchange. This widely accepted
explanation may account for Joseph’s dream of sheaves despite the fact that his
family’s wealth is based on their flocks.44
In contrast, the celestial bodies of the second dream are unrelated to the fam-
ily’s economic welfare. This dream can easily be read as a forecast of Joseph’s future
dominion over his family, which accounts for their prostration before him. This is
an indication of actual leadership rather than of economic power,45 as in the first
dream. This is significant, given that the second dream is devoid of all symbols
pertaining to food or sustenance. The other five dreams all contain such symbols:
Joseph first dreams of sheaves; the ministers dream of wine and delicacies for
Pharaoh; Pharaoh dreams of emaciated cows and ears of grain “consuming” their
superior counterparts.46 Only Joseph’s second dream is devoid of the motif of

43 See, e.g., Gunkel, Genesis, 390; Coats, Genesis, 269; Wenham, Genesis, 351; Victor P.

Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 410.
Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich, for example, is among those who disagree, writing that this interpretation
is tempting but “geht aber zu weit” (Der Traum im Alten Testament, BZAW 73 [Berlin: Topelmann,
1953], 59). See also John Skinner, who questions whether the connection between the dream of
the sheaves and Joseph’s economic position is substantial (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on Genesis, 2nd ed., ICC [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930], 445).
44 Von Rad seeks to prove from the dream of sheaves that, despite the fact that the family

were mainly shepherds, they had “agricultural practices.” He therefore rules out the connection
between the dream and Joseph’s economic position over his brothers later on (Genesis, 347).
Gunkel also concludes from the dream “that Jacob also farmed,” but this did not prevent him from
linking this dream to the brothers’ later dependence on Joseph (Genesis, 390).
45 The fact that those who bow to Joseph are symbolized by celestial bodies emphasizes

Joseph’s omnipotence from a theological perspective as well: “The most damaging is that this is
an idolatrous dream in which Joseph takes the place of the Almighty, thereby worshipping himself.
Self-worship is a characteristic of the Pharaoh, who is called the very incarnation of the sun god
Ra” (Aaron Wildavsky, Assimilation versus Separation: Joseph the Administrator and the Politics of
Religion in Biblical Israel [New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1993], 78).
46 Words related to food and eating are frequent in the Joseph narrative, as shown by Aldina

This article was published in JBL 135/4 (2016) 717–732, copyright © 2016 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase
copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in
North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
730 Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 4 (2016)

e­ ating; it is concerned with celestial bodies, not bodily needs. The dream’s subject
testifies to its anomalous dissociation from economic issues.
The question of whether Joseph’s dreams are one or two, therefore, has the
power to propel the plot in two entirely different directions. If the dreams are “one
and the same,” then the second dream serves only to reinforce the extent of Joseph’s
economic power. Perhaps its function is to establish that not only will Joseph’s fam-
ily depend on him, but the fate of the entire land, from Mesopotamia to Egypt, will
hinge on Joseph’s economic proficiency. If, however, the dreams have two separate
meanings, then Husser is correct in asserting that the second dream hints at Joseph’s
dominion over his family in addition to his economic authority.47 According to the
second dream, Joseph will rise above his brothers and serve as the family’s first-
born—perhaps even as the chosen son. Within this paradigm, the second dream
determines family hierarchy beyond the question of economic dependence.
This distinction is not evident in the family’s implied interpretation of Joseph’s
dreams, as at this point no one can possibly conceive of Joseph’s future economic
responsibility. But, more significantly, the narrator never explicitly relates the
dreams’ fulfillment in the future (with the exception of a general statement made
from Joseph’s perspective in 42:9). Husser ascribes this to the story’s folkloric ori-
gins and resulting lack of narrative interest in dream fulfillment:
This is simply further evidence of the existence of different narrative perspec-
tives, perhaps of distinct redactional layers, but also, as regards Genesis 37, of a
greater proximity to the original folk motif. Nothing tells us where Joseph’s
dreams come from. Indeed the narrator does not seem to be interested in the
question.48

Yet it is problematic to claim that the narrator has little interest in the fulfill-
ment of the protagonist’s dreams when so much attention is devoted to the descrip-
tion of the other two dream-pairs’ interpretations coming to pass. Leaving Joseph’s
dreams open to interpretation without explicitly recounting their fulfillment is a
literary technique that allows both possibilities (that both dreams are of a solely
economic nature, or that the second dream is a harbinger of royalty and leadership),
which permits the characters to determine their meaning. Presenting two dream-
pair models after Joseph’s dreams indicates two possible relationships between
them.
As the plot unfolds, we learn how the characters resolve this question. The
brothers’ descent to Egypt fulfills the first dream. The brothers plead before Joseph,
imploring him for economic patronage, and Joseph functions like the symbolic
sheaf of his dream, sustaining all of Egypt in the time of famine. The second dream

da Silva, La symbolique des rêves et des vêtements dans l’histoire de Joseph et de ses frères, Heritage
et project 52 (Quebec: Fides, 1994), 68.
47 Husser, Dreams and Dream Narratives, 113.
48 Ibid., 114.

This article was published in JBL 135/4 (2016) 717–732, copyright © 2016 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase
copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in
North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
 Grossman: Three Pairs of Dreams (Genesis 37–50)  731

is fulfilled at the very end of the story.49 After Joseph reveals his true identity, and
only after the brothers have regained financial independence, do they approach
Joseph and ask him to rule over them: “His brothers went to him themselves, flung
themselves before him, and said, ‘We are prepared to be your slaves’ ” (50:18). In
other words, at this moment the brothers determine that the second dream has a
separate meaning from the first (albeit unconsciously, as part of the hidden com-
munication between the narrator and reader), and they submit to Joseph’s domin-
ion, asking for governance unrelated to economic dependence.50 The second dream
is about to be realized, but Joseph chooses to identify the two dreams as “one and
the same,” forfeiting general authority over his brothers and retaining only eco-
nomic responsibility:
But Joseph said to them, “Have no fear! Am I a substitute for God? Besides,
although you intended me harm, God intended it for good, so as to bring about
the present result—the survival of many people. And so, fear not. I will sustain
you and your children.” Thus he reassured them, speaking kindly to them.
(50:19–21)51

Not only does Joseph reject the brothers’ submission before him and their readiness
to serve him; he also emphasizes and repeats that his responsibility lies in the eco-
nomic sphere: “so as to bring about the present result—the survival of many people
… I will sustain you and your children” (50:20–21). At first glance, Joseph’s offer to
provide for his brothers seems unrelated to their dialogue. This exchange, however,

49 Erhard Blum is correct that there is no reason to see Gen 50:15–21 as a later addition that

was not in the original Joseph cycle nucleus (Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte, WMANT 57
[Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984], 255), as opposed to Redford, Biblical Story of
Joseph, 163–64, 179; see also Walter Dietrich, Die Josephserzählung als Novelle und Geschichts­
schreibung: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Pentateuchfrage, BThSt 14 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1989), 68; Westermann, Genesis, 3:204. John Van Seters, however, is right that in these
verses the perspective has changed and there is no longer a crisis of famine but concern for “the
larger destiny of the people of Israel” (Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis
[Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992], 323). But this change is consistent with the develop­
ment of the plot.
50 Arnold claims that the brothers’ language, “We are prepared to be your slaves,” recalls the

language of the collective people of Egypt to Pharaoh in 47:25: “we shall be slaves to Pharaoh.”
This further emphasizes that the brothers are willing to accept Joseph’s authority, as Egypt accepts
Pharaoh’s authority over the land (Arnold, Genesis, 387–88). For an alternative understanding of
the brothers’ words in relation to Joseph’s dreams at the beginning of the episode, see Jan-Dirk
Döhling, “Die Herrschaft erträumen, die Träume beherrschen: Herrschaft, Traum und Wirklich­
keit in den Josefsträumen (Gen 37,5–11) und der Israel-Josefsgeschichte,” BZ 50 (2006): 1–30.
51 Peter Weimar also believes that Joseph’s dreams are fulfilled differently than the family

initially believed, but in his opinion the dreams predicted that Joseph would be leader of all Egypt,
rather than over his family (“Josef und Juda: Eine Geschichte einer schwierigen Beziehung—Die
Josefsgeschichte [Teil 3],” BL 82 [2009]: 217–26). I believe that Joseph is free to choose how his
dreams will be fulfilled.

This article was published in JBL 135/4 (2016) 717–732, copyright © 2016 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase
copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in
North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
 732 Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 4 (2016)

conceals the underlying, fundamental key to Joseph’s story: Joseph chooses to

privilege his economic vocation over the dream that predicted his sovereignty.
While by the story’s end the brothers have accepted the dichotomy of Joseph’s
power—represented by two different interpretations of his dreams—Joseph is the
one who forfeits the potential symbolized in the second dream by identifying it
with the first, thereby choosing that the two are, in fact, “one and the same.” He
accepts only the mantle of economic responsibility.52
In this vein, we can recognize one of the narrative’s fundamental themes in its
treatment of Joseph’s dreams. Whether Joseph’s dreams should be considered
prophecy and divine tidings of the future,53 or whether they reflect Joseph’s emo-
tions and his interaction with his environment,54 the dreams function not as an
irrevocable decree but as an invitation for human action and initiative.55 This is
especially striking when Joseph does not merely solve Pharaoh’s dreams but advises
him what action to take in order to prevent the catastrophe that the dreams portend
(“one could not tell that they had consumed them,” 41:21). This is the most impor-
tant aspect of Joseph’s attitude toward his dreams: he has the power to determine
how the dreams will come to pass; he has the power to decide whether the two are
“one and the same.” Joseph, who began life as a spoiled, ambitious boy with big
dreams, ultimately relinquishes the power within his grasp with humility and hard-
earned understanding.

52 The two different perspectives—the brothers’ and Joseph’s—are also related to the different

roles of the characters within the broader plot. The brothers, who sold Joseph to Egypt, undergo
a process of accepting responsibility and willingness to pay the proper price; Joseph, the victim,
learns to forgive and perceive what happened to him as a fulfillment of divine will. See also
Jonathan Grossman, “The Story of Joseph’s Brothers in Light of the ‘Therapeutic Narrative’
Theory,” BibInt 21 (2013): 171–95, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15685152-0016A0002. Cf. Uriel
Simon, Joseph and His Brothers: A Story of Change, trans. David Louvish, Perspectives on Jewish
Education 2 (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002). It may be that these two different
perspectives are already found in the two narratives that form the story of the sale of Joseph: if
the brothers sold Joseph to Egypt, then guilt rests upon their shoulders, but if he was kidnapped
by Midianites from the pit he was cast into, then providence intervened in the event. This direction
was taken by Edward L. Greenstein, “An Equivocal Reading of the Sale of Joseph,” in Literary
Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, vol. 2, ed. Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis and James S. Ackerman,
with Thayer S. Warshaw, Bible in Literature Courses (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982), 114–25.
53 As Ephraim Tzoref, for example, believes (Joseph: Deputy Commander of Pharaoh [in

Hebrew], 3 vols. [Jerusalem: Tzor-Ot, 1980], 1:172–76).

54 See, e.g., Judith Corey, “Dreaming of Droughts: Genesis 37.1–11 in Dialogue with

Contemporary Science,” JSOT 38 (2014): 425–38.

55 Humphreys, Joseph and His Family, 101, 118–31; Laurence A. Turner, Announcements of

Plot in Genesis, JSOTSup 96 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 159–69.

This article was published in JBL 135/4 (2016) 717–732, copyright © 2016 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase
copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in
North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.

View publication stats