Joseph’s Great Land Heist
Joseph in Egypt
Genesis Chapter 47
After the unusual wholesomeness of the Joseph-in-Egypt story comes the darker underbelly of Joseph’s land strategy. But first, let’s recap. Joseph is sold into Egyptian slavery. He rapidly rises to command all of Egypt’s new food policy after deducing that two of the Pharaoh’s dreams mean that there are to be seven years of agricultural abundance followed by seven years of terrible famine. In the good years, Joseph stores Egyptian food in preparation for the famine ,and when it finally comes, Egypt is ready. This is all due to the will of Yahweh as Joseph claimed several times. God sent him the Egypt to blunt the force of the drought. See how nice God is? He sends a deplorable famine, but he also sends Joseph to save the people from starvation. Oh, hooray! Food will be given to the needy and the country will be saved. Justice will be done. Right? Right? Wrong!
He didn’t give anything away. In fact, he sold the poor farmers their own food until they were destitute. You see, the Egyptian people must have been taxed very heavily for enough food to last through seven years of drought, for how else would Joseph’s men get it? God did not just give them the food. It did not rain Mana. The grain came from the land and, therefore, the farmers, and seven years worth of food is a tremendous amount. Think about it. Can you imagine how heavy the taxes must have been? The Bible makes it clear that no food was harvested during the famine, so that means that close to twice the amount had to have been grown before it struck, half eaten within the year and the other to go to long-term storage. Since the Pharaoh even had enough to sell to the Canaanites, there is likely even more taken. Here is Genesis 42/46-49:
After Joseph left Pharaoh’s presence, he traveled throughout the land of Egypt. During the seven years of plenty, when the land produced abundant crops, he husbanded all the food of these years of plenty that the land of Egypt was enjoying and stored it in the towns, placing in each town the crops of the fields around it. Joseph garnered grain in quantities like the sands of the sea, so vast that at last he stopped measuring it, for it was beyond measure.
So once the Famine hits the food is then sold back to the peasants who raised the food to begin with. Let me restate this. The farmers give food to be stored against the famine and then they must pay to get it back out. Something seem a little wrong here? They pay extortionate prices. Prices steep enough to leave them, as a group, completely destitute. I know the following is a long quote but essential to understanding the unfairness of “God’s plan.” Every part of this reeks of divine injustice.
Since there was no food in any country because of the extreme severity of the famine, and the lands of Egypt and Canaan were languishing from hunger, Joseph gathered in, as payment for the rations that were being dispensed, all the money that was to be found in Egypt and Canaan, and he put it in Pharaoh’s palace. When all the money in Egypt and Canaan was spent, all the Egyptians came to Joseph, pleading, “Give us food or we shall perish under your eyes; for our money is gone.” “Since your money is gone,” replied Joseph, “give me your livestock, and I will sell you bread in return for your livestock.” So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and he sold them food in return for their horses, their flocks of sheep and herds of cattle, and their donkeys. Thus he got them through that year with bread in exchange for all their livestock. When that year ended, they came to him in the following one and said: “We cannot hide from my lord that, with our money spent and our livestock made over to my lord, there is nothing left to put at my lord’s disposal except our bodies and our farm land. Why should we and our land perish before your very eyes? Take us and our land in exchange for food, and we will become Pharaoh’s slaves and our land his property; only give us seed, that we may survive and not perish, and that our land may not turn into a waste.” Thus Joseph acquired all the farm land of Egypt for Pharaoh, since with the famine too much for them to bear, every Egyptian sold his field; so the land passed over to Pharaoh, and the people were reduced to slavery, from one end of Egypt’s territory to the other.
WTF? God sent both Joseph and the famine to Egypt to enslave the entire population and gobble up all their land. This was the Plan? To reduce a relatively free peasantry to abject servitude? I repeat, WTF? Who’s side is he on? Isn’t this just another extreme form of insider trading. Yahweh shatters the commodities market but gives his home boys, Joseph and the Pharaoh, a really hot tip, probably the hottest commodities/ real estate tip in history. And do these two ever use it to their advantage. They take food from the peasants, sell it back to them until they are bankrupt, then take them as slaves, and then top it off by pretending like they were doing the poor a favor. What a couple of jackasses!
And don’t you just love how the Bible makes it the poor folk’s idea to just hand their persons over as slaves to get a little food. As if all the people of Egypt actually came together and voted on this; that they really went en masse to an audience with Joseph and begged him to take them as slaves. Like this would ever happen! Assuming that they negotiated as a group do you really think they are going to offer slavery in the first round. This could only be the absolute last resort after their begging and pleading with Joseph for food had fallen on deaf ears. The Bible’s version is so obviously an after-the-fact addition to cover Joseph’s willingness to do whatever it takes to please the Pharaoh and stay high in his esteem. Joseph forced these people into slavery. There can be no other logical conclusion than to see this as anything less than an intentional and selfish manipulation of events. Joseph was the ultimate profiteer.
Oh, but there is more than just greed. Absurdity holds reign here as well. The Bible says that the only group of people who are not enslaved by this food policy is the Priestly class. Think about this. These were not priests to Yahweh. They were the Egyptian priests who served the Egyptian gods. What the hell was God thinking here? Why enslave everyone but the priests to another religion. Did they have a some sort of gentlegod’s agreement? I’m sure Ra, Horace and the rest of the Egyptian pantheon deeply appreciated Yahweh sparing their chief worshippers, but what did Yahweh get out of it? Oh yes, his little band of 66 men and Darwin knows how many women stayed wealthy, but at the cost of everyone else’s freedom. This can’t be a moral action. The Lord of genocide seems to have expanded his business into slave taking. Where will it stop.
What Joseph was was an opportunist. He may have loved his family and forgiven his brothers’ crimes, but down deep, he was out for power and wealth and managed to suck his way into these positions when he could and regardless of any obstacles in his way. The Bible tries to portray him as the ultimate nice guy, but neither in ancient Egypt nor modern America do the sweethearts rise to the top of the pack. One gets there by clawing and shoving his way to the top and destroying anyone in the way. The meek will inherit the Earth, my ass! Joseph merely fought his battles better that the others. He was ambitious and smart. The enslaving of the entire Egyptian population just goes to show how far he was willing to go to achieve his purely selfish aims, and that would be very far indeed!
So how do Christians continue to think of Yahweh as the God of perfect justice and perfect mercy. I wonder what dictionary they use because mine defines those to words far differently. Have they ever read this book? Are they blind to it’s implications. Or are they just waiting for their time in the sun, their hour on top? I want to say that after reading their printed moral guide, I understand human history a bit better now, and for the future this idea makes me very nervous, very nervous indeed!
Perhaps we could be charitable and assume that Joseph was capitalistic and actually bought and paid for the grain when it was plentiful and cheap and sold it when it was scarce and expensive? He’d be guilty then of insider trading and gouging. Yahweh would still be a s**t though.
Although I considered this, I believe you ultimately have to throw that argument out when looking at the sheer amount of grain needed. We’re looking at enough grain to feed an entire nation plus it’s neighbors for seven years. No one, not even one of the greatest pharaohs of Egypt could have that much liquid capital lying around. I look at the Pharaoh as a government. where does any government form ancient time till now get it’s money? Taxes!
The idea is very interesting when you consider market forces and capitalism. Ag prices during the seven good years would plummet because of the glut forcing farmers through some tough years. Then after making paltry money for this time but having enough to eat , they are subjected to seven years of drought driving prices through the roof. Not a good time to be a farmer.
I can’t see how Joseph’s behavior can be excused here. His stated purpose was to protect the people. God sent him to Egypt to dull the edge of the coming famine. At the end of the 14 years Joseph ends up incredibly wealthy, and instead of having a happy thriving peasantry, everyone is a slave to the Pharaoh. This manipulation of events was not to the benefit of anyone but Joseph and his employer. He’s wealthy; the country’s enslaved. Nuff Said!
I love the bit about trading food for becoming a slave. If you’re someone’s slave aren’t they supposed to feed you? Wouldn’t you trade the land first and then enter slavery once you were hungry again. I’m also surprised given the morality of the bible, people didn’t sell off their children and wives first. That’s what they’re for isn’t it?
Another problem with storing the grain from the 7 good years for the 7 bad years would be; where do you put the grain? I’d imagine that unless they had a lot of very good silos, they’d be feeding a lot of mice, rats and other vermin during the good years. The story is probably like that of Noah’s Ark during the Flood; good in theory, but impossible in practice.
I never knew that, about Joseph selling the grain to the extent of enslaving the populace. And being a big fan of the musical, I considered myself an expert. Who knew?
I loved your line about Yahweh being an inside trader!
We’re big fans of the musical also. It’s a great story as long as it’s kept as a story. Ironically, Jesus Christ Superstar is my other favorite. My wife thinks that there may be a tiny little Christian in me trying to get out.
That would explain the gas.
“they’d be feeding a lot of mice, rats and other vermin during the good years.” Maybe this is why the egyptians like cats so much.
The land went to the Egyptian Pharaoh not to Joseph. After the land began to produce again, the people kept four fifths of the food they produced and sent one fifth to the Egyptian government not the Hebrews who were later enslaved by the Egyptians. On top of being enslaved they were forced into harsh cruel labor, and when that didn’t kill them the Pharaoh instructed midwives to kill the new born males.
The grain from the years of plenty were kept in each village where it was harvested. I would assume there were people put in charge of keeping the rodents away.
I think this bog is not interested in a honest look at the Bible as history of a people and their struggle for survival and their love and struggle with the Creator they honor. I think this blog is mocking the history of the Hebrew People in order to somehow feel good about a void in the authors life. Why else would this author present the story of Joseph falsely?
Matthew Chapter 10:11-14
I think to question a belief is legitimate, but I think to bear witness to it falsely is a grave error. It is a shame that you have taken something that could have been good and turned it to mean nothing, only your own voice in an empty room.
Lynn, I understand where the money went but Joseph and his kin were well rewarded for their services to the Pharaoh. Whether they kept four fifths of the food grown or not is irrelevant to my point. Perhaps in the interests of the whole story I should have brought it up, but these posts get so long something needed to be edited out. I can’t reprint the entire Bible. People have to read this on their own. The point of this post was that Joseph and family were made wealthy because he made the Pharaoh rich. The Egyptians, as a people, were worse off after he came. They were slaves. To say that it was actually the Pharaoh who benefited is true but only in part. Joseph was second in command and the people were enslaved under his watch. To deny his complicity in this is using the Nuremberg defense. The Nazi guards said they were only doing their job. But you have to take responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Joseph enslaved the egyptian people. Perhaps this was the reason for the Hebrew enslavement later. I do not think so, for i think most of this story is apocryphal. There is little collaborating evidence in Egyptian history itself. We can’t even determine which pharaoh it was.
You may say that Joseph saved them from the famine, but this was a famine Yahweh sent, and omniscient and omnipotent being. The only conclusion I can draw from this is Yahweh wants them enslaved. Why? If God wanted to save the people why not just stop the famine? If he’s omnipotent, why play these games?
Many hard core Christians even today still try to defend the institution of slavery. that biblical slavery is a right and just thing if the slave is treated properly. They mostly try to state that the american version of African Slavery was terrible but that others can be quite acceptable. My position is and has always been that slavery is abhorrent.
To have an entire people sell themselves into bondage if you had the power to prevent it is terrible. Do I blame Joseph for this? No, he was a man of his times and you have to take the contemporary culture into account when looking at any historical figure. But the point of this entire blog is the lack of a consistent morality throughout the Bible. Far too many Christians have tried to argue the eternal truth and morality of this book. They disparage the relative morality of today but pass over parts like this. If there is a absolute morality within the Bible and Christianity then taking a nation as slaves should be morally OK today. Instead of feeding Haitians we should offer them slavery for food? Should we have taken the Iraqi women as concubines and have them cleaning our houses and warming our beds? This is how things were done then under the apparent license of Yahweh. It is not how things should be done now. Morality has moved on. It has improved. We are better now than before. Using the Bible as an absolute guide holds us back from shoving the moral zeitgeist ahead even further.
I do not believe that the stories within these pages point to anything like an objective morality. The ethics here are subjective; they change as time passes, and they have changed much. They are not eternal. They are not consistent. This is a human book that reflect changing human values and as such can be quite a teaching tool but to take it as literal inerrant truth requires ignoring huge sections or warping modern sensibilities into something barbaric.
I know I offend you, and I truly regret that, but I cannot proceed any other way. I feel this battle needs to be fought. People who would drag us back into a moral dark ages need to be stopped. And please don’t think I do this out of hate. I have no atheist friends. Most of the people I know and love are Christian to some extent and many are born again. Never-the-less, they are wrong and will destroy us by looking to a bronze age book as the ultimate ethical guide handed down from a perfect God. Do you know what people have used this book to justify? The history books are full of atrocities that have been justified by passages out of the Bible. Millions have fallen with the Bibles justification. This must stop.
You say I have portrayed this story as false. I disagree. I slant it this way to force people to look at it differently, but you have pointed to no part where I have lied. How is your take on it any more accurate? If you view this as absolute truth the same way the Moslems look at their Koran, how are you searching for truth? Are fanatics of the Islamic faith searching for truth too? How can anyone who believes that their side/ book/ religion/God is absolutely correct ever find the real truth? The world needs to look at these things more closely.
Lynn one more thing, the version of the Bible I use, NAB, uses the term slavery. Others say they were purchased into servitude. Other versions soft pedal this considerably and say he just bought the land and moved the people into cities. It just depends on your translation. But all of them have a phrase akin to this, “Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land.” Bought you and your land. At the very least, this would have to be considered a forced servitude.
believe in who you trust,KKBundy….
I think you edit out parts of the story so that it benefits the point you want to make. I understand that often history is slanted so that the one in power appears in the best light. Didn’t you ever think that it would be in Egypt’s best interest to “wipe out” any historical truths that make it appear in a bad light? That is exactly why you should look at the Bible without trying to slant the stories to make “your” point. The Bible is chock full of self-criticism of the Hebrew People and later Israel. It is also full of stories where they struggle with their Creator. To me that is why it speaks to truth because it does not do what many civilizations have tried to do in the past and even present, that is, “wipe their failings from their history”.
In Egypt even today slavery is practiced albeit secretively. Google the words “Garbage City” where a group of people are sentenced to a life of servitude picking up the garbage of Egyptians.
Joseph and his family profited because they chose the profession of shepherd which the Egyptians considered an abomination. Do you fault them for that? Joseph was put in a position of trust which profited him. Do you fault him for that? Yet also read that he had to get the permission of the Pharaoh to even travel outside of Egypt. Do you consider that a free man?
You want to blame God for the famine yet in the story of the Hebrew People it was the first man and woman who rejected God which caused them to live away from his protection. You are looking for a perfect world and yet we humans reject time after time perfection choosing instead deceit and illusion.
I agree that a faith or belief should be able to stand under criticism and questioning as long as your witnessing is truthful. I don’t think you should “force” anyone to look at things your way because the Biblical story stands on it’s own, good or evil.
Thanks for replying to me.
Lynn, the point of these writings has never been to denigrate the Hebrew people. It purpose is to show that they are not lead by a perfect God. That the concept of a perfect God is utterly false. I know there are vast inequities throughout all history. These are caused by people struggling to survive and dominate their surroundings. They and we remain primitives. The Bible is full of this savage behavior, and that isn’t those people fault. They knew little else. But to use them as an infallible moral guide rankles me. There are no infallible guides. We must move on not back. The ancient Israelites and everyone else back then had the same rough moral code as the Taliban today. Who the hell wants to live under that “Holy” regime. Tis isn’t anti-semitism. You can’t hold a modern people hostage to the act of their ancestors 3000 year before. My own ancestors, the Viking, were raping and pillaging the coast of Europe only a thousand years ago. I am not accountable for them either. The difference here is that I do not want to hold them up as the ultimate moral example. They and the Hebrews were people struggling through superstition and greed without any divine guidance.
You have brought up time after time the inability of humans to listen to God, for If they did everything would be great. In your mind, God made us as he wanted us, right? Did he make a mistake with us? If we turn out the way we do whose fault could it be? Ours? How many perfect people have there been on the planet since Adam? None! None of us has ever been perfect, agreed? But your perfect God who created everybody didn’t manage to create one singe perfect human? How is this possible? Why would he do it?
In any work of creation, the faults lie with the creator, not his tools, not his creation. If I invent a robot that then rushes into the street starts pulling the heads off dogs, I am responsible, not the machine. No amount of free will obviates that fact. How just is it to make a free will that always creates imperfection and yet the creator makes demands that require near perfection? Examples such as even looking on a woman with any lust is adultery. God creates us with a forceful attraction to the opposite sex and them demand we don’t even think about it.
That is cruel and unworthy of anyone I could worship. Such a creature would need to be fought! I do not find the Hebrew God nor the Christian God an example of perfect morality. Although Jesus teaches some beautiful ethics, there is an undercurrent of greed and selfishness and cruelty just below the surface. This had made the religions very tough and able to survive.
It just didn’t make them very just.
The Word of God is contained in the ogiainrl manuscripts. We have thousands of copies of the ogiainrls. The problem: the ogiainrls have variations. The good news: the variations are minor and do not influence fundamental doctrines. If you believe the Word of God is preserved through the KJV line, well, that’s your opinion. It’s possible, but We’re not convinced.
I am going to do what you suggest and move on reading your more recent posts. Your struggle is like many including mine. I just don’t come to the same conclusion.
You brought up the “sin” adultery and to me what you perceive as unfair, being created with sexual desire that must be suppressed, I instead see as a good thing for those who believe in vows of fealty toward their husband or wife with the expectation of the same in return. Maybe we make a choice which one is more important; our vow of love and honor or our urges to break those vows because of physical desire.
In the old days physically committing the sin of adultery was a reason for divorce and then Jesus, who was supposed to make our load lighter, further commands that even sexually lusting after another in thoughts is adultery. To me that does not bode well for the person with a roving eye, yet for the person who lives with the wondering eye it would lighten their load by allowing them to leave a relationship that causes great heartache for them. I think it depends on what side your perspective is.
Adultery is an odd choice to bring up. God’s chosen people have committed adultery many many times and we haven’t even gotten out out of the first chapter yet. They sleep with cousins, they sleep with hand-maidens. One of them got himself a prostitute but it turned out to be ok because it was actually his daughter-in-law. So it perfectly alright, even laudable for these guys, but somehow it is a mortal sin for me? Somehow that just seems to fall short of absolute unshakable moral authority to me.
Please read above conversations to see where the subject of adultery came up. The Hebrew moral code was developed over many years and mostly during their journey to Jerusalem, I for the life of me can’t figure out how you came to the conclusion that the Hebrew People were considered morally excluded from the Law of God and they didn’t pay for the consequences of going against the Will of the God they honor.
Interesting your use of the words ‘mortal sin’. As far as I know that is exclusive to the Catholic Faith and perhaps a few others.
You might find in reading the Bible, that all moral and immoral acts were continually occurring in history and the Hebrew People were not immune from committing evil acts. The evidence is there in their Book for all to read. What other civilization gives an accounting of the good and evil they commit for all the world to read? There are still many many civilizations that deny their culpability in committing evil.
It’s easy to attack those who admit their failings. The stories in the Bible are to learn about the people and to discover the nature of the God they honor. We are free to believe or not, and yes criticize. Again I am just writing about my take on the Biblical stories and am not trying to convince anyone. It’s just another point of view.
Wait, so it’s inaccurate to interpret this story as one of Joseph enslaving Egypt (with a little help from Yahweh)… how again?
“The farmers kept 4/5 of the yield”
That’s generally how serfdom works–you give a certain yield over to the proprietor, and keep the rest for food, etc. And 4/5 of a poor crop isn’t much–plus consider that Joseph, Pharaoh et al. still probably had a surplus of grain, hence why farmers are extorted into slavery (however nice the text makes the bargaining sound, I agree that serfdom isn’t the first thing you bring to the table and the conversation was probably a bit different).
“Joseph wasn’t a free man himself”
Not really relevant–but I would say this looks like Joseph made a really big power grab on behalf of Pharaoh. Now all his people are serfs? The pharaoh would be pleased–which could mean a longer leash for Joseph, not to mention even greater appreciation for what he could do. He probably felt the position of his people was precarious, so he’d better do right by the Pharaoh, or else. This isn’t touched on (maybe because of an idea that fills all Bible narrative–Yahweh always had their back, if they behaved).
“The Hebrews were later enslaved”
Sounds like ‘what goes around, comes around’ to me.
“The Egyptians also had reason to whitewash their history”
The implication that the Hebrews must have been far more honest/accurate? Doubtful–if anything, this principle applies to the “nicer” reading of the story of Joseph in Egypt? This doesn’t support a more “traditional” reading, it supports a more critical reading. One thing this post lacked, perhaps, was more consideration of Joseph’s position and that of his freshly-migrated people. I’m sure that has more to do with how this story went than the idea that this was Yahweh’s scheme to oppress Egypt.
“There is some form of Slavery in Egypt even today”
Is this supposed to justify something? That’s what its purpose seems to be, but it defies logic. If I were discussing the controlling behavior of the Ming dynasty, and someone said that the current Chinese government also practices a lot of economic and social control, that really isn’t relevant to the Ming dynasty, and could only be regarded as an attempt to smear the Chinese.
Regarding the comment that “I think this bog (sic) is not interested in a honest look at the Bible as history of a people and their struggle for survival and their love and struggle with the Creator they honor.” is unfair.
The reason being that it *already assumes* that one interpretation is correct, or “honest” (as if that interpretation doesn’t have an agenda itself).
hexalm:
To me the story is about a man who was left for dead by his brothers, sold into slavery, jailed and later given a high position of trust and power in the Egyptian government because he interpreted Pharaoh’s dream accurately.
Later when he regained his relationship with his family, he chose to forgive his brothers for the evil they had done. He saw it as an evil turned to a blessing because it allowed him to save his family and in fact many other people from starvation.
Genesis 50:22 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
I think that one has to make up their mind on whether Joseph was an all powerful cunning profiteer or a servant to Pharaoh who was put in a position of trust to benefit the Pharaoh and the Egyptian government and rewarded for his work.
Should he have allowed the Egyptians to keep their live-stock and land and given food for free? Would that be his call? By thinking yes, you are saying that “he was above the Pharaoh” more powerful and able to over-ride someone who Egyptians considered a god. There’s a good chance the Pharaoh himself considered himself a divine god.
I don’t write to justify anything, yet you somehow seem to overlook the fact that in Egypt slavery was common and in fact even today there are still indications that it is practiced secretively, just as in much of the Middle East.
I don’t think there can be a debate in this blog because it seems this is really an endeavor to “preach to the choir”. That’s fine, and continue on. I came across this blog, read it, and felt the need to write my perspective on the story and point our what I felt were inaccuracies. I think the author when quoting the Bible should use Book, Chapter and Verse so that the readers can check their resources.
Lynn:
Let me clarify what I meant when I said your comment was unfair: I mean that the author has repeatedly stated his purpose (not in this blog post), so it’s unfair to say he’s being dishonest when his main focus is the morality of the god portrayed in the Bible. I can’t blame you though, because it’s so easy to come and see one post with no other context.
I am glad you brought your perspective on the events into the comments, btw. I think they do add something to the humanity of the story, and encourage thought about how things played out and why. It doesn’t necessarily negate the blog author’s conclusions; I think the both of you are just trying to get different things out of reading these verses (as am I–I have trouble getting out of trying to explain things historically).
Your slavery comment still mystifies me though–most humans have practiced (or still practice) slavery and servitude in many guises in most places. The fact that it was commonplace doesn’t mean it was fun for the farmers in Egypt to become disenfranchised! Their status would have been better than enslaved war captives and the like, but talk about going into debt to put food on the table! The point being, this doesn’t seem like a morally neutral act for god or Joseph to be party to.
Of course, starving was also no fun (neither would it be fun if Joseph displeased his pharaoh), but clearly the notion that Joseph’s ‘in’ with god saved the people of Egypt from famine is a bit askew, or at least overly simple. They were saved from starvation–at a price.
I would say Joseph was at least an accomplice in this–but I do agree that his hands were pretty tied–serve pharoah or…die, maybe? But he did basically use his divine connections to benefit the pharaoh’s ambition–more for the sake of getting by, it would seem, than anything to do with his god’s morality. The point of this may be so Joseph will find favor and his people can survive. It’s just more evidence that when it comes to preserving the Hebrews, there is no moral low to which their god will not stoop.
The fact is that the Hebrews (and hence their god) regarded other people with very little status, as indicated by their laws about slavery and a number of genocides, and stories like this one. Why? Because this is the story of the struggle of the Hebrews for *survival*, like you said. It’s a brutal story, like much of history.
But considering that it’s supposed to follow the chosen people of the one true god, neither the people or the god seem to stand out from any other culture’s legends, myths and exaggerations about itself.
From a historical perspective, the reason Yahweh chose the Hebrew forefathers is clear–it’s because they believed in him and believed that he had guided their destiny–so of course whatever they’d done to survive, he must’ve been happy about it (it’s lonely, being a god with no followers).
The more I consider it, the more I think your description of what the Bible is about is spot on (struggling with survival and preserving their beliefs and cultural identity). Maybe your interest in dissecting it is simply in a different direction.
By the way, I’m new to this blog too, but there are a number of times when the author has said he finds beauty in the Bible–I agree with the sentiment, too, but presumably in this case it looked more like a gross injustice to him than beauty. It’s hard for me not to see this as a case of god letting the ends justify the means–i.e., relative morality.
hexalm:
I’m not here to argue whether Joseph had an “in” with his God, yet it is plain to read that he certainly credited his God with saving his people and many others from starvation. I think that the main problem with their story is that throughout history belief in for example the sun god, the bull god, the planet gods, the earth god etc., have all been left behind, yet this Hebrew God and the story of the Hebrew people has persevered and in fact grown until it is just as was spoken thousands of years ago that even the gentiles will come to trust in the Hebrew God of the Bible.
Regardless, it’s finished and now we look to see which branches on the tree are healthy and which are withering away. I hope the best for you and agree that it is a mighty struggle. To me the story of Joseph was marvelous, with evil and hopelessness defeated by good, and a man who instead of taking credit for his good fortune honored his Creator and graciously forgave those who thought evil of him.
Lynn, I see here the same thing I see in all Christian arguments. You accuse the nonbeliever of overlooking the good parts and accentuating the bad. Then you consistently overlook the bare fact that, in this story, Yahweh brought the famine in the first place. In several comments you have completely ignored this. Yahweh is the bad guy here. He sent a serious famine to Egypt and the Middle East.
KK and Lynn, neither of you have wondered, as I wonder, why the peasants traded their sheep and cattle for a little bread instead of eating them.
Amos. I wondered most seriously, but my post tend to be over lengthy anyway so something had to go.
Eating your breeding stock would be an act of extreme desperation, I’d think. Livestock aren’t just food and clothing on the hoof, they’re money, at its most basic level.
True Daz, but selling yourself and your entire family into eternal slavery seem a tad desperate also. Just a mite anyway.
Lynn,
You are right, I chose the term ‘mortal sin’ deliberately. I was raised Baptist, but Catholicism is quite dominant (see the popularity of the pope) so its a concept that most would understand. There are ‘sins’ that the religious, in general, regard as minor and some that some that they take a very aggressive stance against, adultery being one of the latter, although I recall no place in the Bible when god makes any such distinction. And these guys in Genesis managed to cover most of the more damning ones pretty thoroughly.
The people covered so far here are shown as god’s chosen. The ones he blesses, the ones he makes nations out of, the ones he saves when wiping out vast chunks of the populace. And by today’s standards, the vast majority of them should have a special place reserved in hell. How does that fit against a supposed unchanging moral authority? I’d be a better moral example, I’ve never sold my brother into slavery, oppressed an entire nation, butchered the next town over, committed adultery, or cursed generations into slavery.
And as for the ‘original sin’, that just doesn’t wash. To create man with an inquisitive nature and no knowledge of right and wrong, then plop him down with a perfunctory “stay away from that tree”, is a setup, pure and simple. If the Genesis account is really what happened, then we were created to “fail” and that can only be the fault of the creator.
Are there any similar modern day ‘inside trading’ injustices across the third world perhaps that we can focus on and do something about?, since the author appears to express such interest for those who were enslaved. How about pursuing good in the here and now? Let the author of this blog on Joseph show us what he/she is made of .
I think you’ve missed the point of the blog, mate. It’s not so much a rant against the injustices portrayed in the Bible as an argument against trying to take the Bible as literal history and then portraying it as an absolute moral guide, *as many fundamentalists do.* The author does this by pointing out the many things that would have seen morally okay at the time (and some that I would think would have horrified most even then), such as marriage-by-rape or genocide for example, which would be considered immoral, if not downright criminal, in a modern open society.
Sure. I see that a number of points can be deduced from the authors perceived view, and it is about perception as we were not there after all, and let’s be reminded that there were some vital ingredients being portrayed within the ‘original publication’ , which are not acknowledged by this author. As a parent, I want my child to learn lessons on perseverance and endurance for example. Rather than missing the point, I am trying to highlight that we should not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Hate to disagree, but your first post made no mention of such matters. You talked only about focussing on modern problems in the ‘here & now.’ Which, by addressing the problem of fundies and their inflexible stance on morals, the author is doing.
I’m not 100% sure what you mean by that, so forgive me if I’m wrong, but it looks to me as if you’re saying that there are good messages in the Bible as well as bad. Certainly no-one would argue with that, but if one chooses to obey the parts one perceives as good, and ignore those one sees as bad, then one is already making a choice based on personal morals, not those espoused in the book. Maybe that would be a better lesson for your children — to think for themselves — than to have them pick and choose ideas from a decidedly convoluted and often contradictory pre-scientific book.
Damnit, I keep doing that. Anonymous was me. Again..
there was no joseph, its a fabricated story and has no truth nor foundation, as the rest of this bible or torah, all lies for things that never happened, its based on an evil god of darkness who love to kill and torture people, its a false religions that is causing blood shed for more than 2000 years full of war crimes and genocied.
there was no joseph, its a fabricated story and has no truth nor foundation, as the rest of this bible or torah, all lies for things that never happened, its based on an evil god of darkness who love to kill and torture people, its a false religions that is causing blood shed for more than 2000 years full of war crimes and genocied.
There is a difference between lies and fiction. I see the Bible as a collection of short fiction stories in the Old Testament. The lies don’t come until the New Testament.
I agree that the OT is fiction, or more specifically, mythology. Read as mythology, it trundles along down well-worn mythological cart-paths.
The NT I would not call lies–sounds too much like conspiracy theory, which operates (oddly) almost exactly like fundamentalist religion. Confirmation bias works the same way for both. The Pauline Epistles (which are earlier than the gospels) are the products of a mystical, revelatory sect whose Savior is a mystical being (hence, no reference in Paul to Jesus’ earthly sojourn). The Gospels, then, make sense as the product of Midrash (stick that into Wiki if you don’t know what it is).
The Bible is like a giant Necker Cube, isn’t it. You know, that optical illusion of a box you see as pointing up, until suddenly it flips and you see it pointing down.
The thing is, very few Christians are christian because they read the bible all by themselves and decided it was true. Most people are christian because they were raised that way. And they (me, too) were raised with the bible and all the stories in it, all pre-interpreted. Usually in Sunday School, where the teacher says “Now we’re going to listen to a story aobut(X)…”, and finishes with “So don’t you think Daniel was very brave! Don’t you want to be like Daniel!”. The story is presented within a pre-determined moral frame. Over and over again. Thus, the stories of the bible become so familiar to most people, that they “unhear” them. That’s a linguistics term describing how we are able to listen to our native language spoken at top speed yet comprehend all of what is being said to us. We do that by “unhearing” 90 percent (yes, really) of what is being said.
The bible, for most christians, is a little like the house you grew up in. You know it so well, that you can walk through it in the dark without bumping into anything. I think most christians read the bible the way people walk through their houses–without really noticing what’s actually there. And without bumping into anything.
An atheist, or agnostic, or humanist is someone (like KK) who has usually taken the time to read the bible straight through, even the in-between bits that get left out of Sunday School curricula. And they bump into things–ouch! What’s *that* doing there? Because when you take the time to read the bible for yourself, without those Sunday School moral-framed glasses on, the whole bible flips before your eyes. And suddenly it’s pointing down, just like a Necker Cube.
I don’t think Lynn got her glasses off, but props to her for squinting:))
The story of Joseph is a metaphor for Jewish exploitation of native populations. Lynn knows that. That is why she came out swinging with anti-Semitism charges. Jews like Lynn will justify anything Jews do by saying they were forced into it or told by God basically removing any reponsibility they have. Joseph was “forced” into taking every thing Egyptians had including their freedom because the Pharaoh and God said so according to Lynn. The story mentions Joseph was “chosen” by God to do what he did which mirrors the old Jewish saying that “Jews are God’s chosen people.” BTW, I’m an atheist. Although I’m an atheist some stories in the Bible are insightful even if they never actually occured like the story of Joseph.
Nicely put:)) Exactly–that the Bible is almost entirely fiction doesn’t mean we can’t learn something about human nature from it. We still benefit from reading Shakespeare’s and Jane Austen’s and Goethe’s and Dickens’ fiction for just that reason, don’t we.
Check your history. Joseph does exist in the history of recorded Egypt not just the Bible. And the system that was used to buy the food was the existing economy. No economy, no pharaoh, no government. Better luck next time on your rant. Needs work.
You actually believe that Egyptian History mentions Joseph? Really? Where? Outside of your imagination, please give me the source of your conclusion.