Click here for pdf version.

E. A. Speiser, Genesis, The Anchor Bible, pp. 287-291 --

18 They noticed him from a distance; and before he got close to them they conspired to kill him. 19 They said to one another, "Here comes that dreamer! 20 Why don't we kill him now and throw him into one of the pits? We could say that a wild beast devoured him. We shall then see what came of his dreams!"

/21 When Reuben heard this, he tried to save him from their hands. He said, "Let us not take his life! 22 Shed no blood!" Reuben told them. "Just throw him into that pit, out there in the desert, but don't do away with him yourselves" -- his purpose being to deliver him from their hands and restore him to his father. 23 So when Joseph reached his brothers, they stripped Joseph of his tunic, the ornamented tunic that he was wearing, 24 and they seized him and threw him into the pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it./

25 They sat down to their meal. Looking up, they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, their camels bearing gum, balm, and ladanum to be take to Egypt. 26 Then Judah said to his brothers, "What would we gain by killing our brother and covering up his blood? 27 I say, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, but let us not do away with him ourselves. After all, he is our brother, our own flesh!" His brothers agreed.

/28 Meanwhile, Midianite traders passed by, and they pulled Joseph up from the pit./ They sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. /Joseph was thus taken to Egypt. 29 When Reuben went back to the pit and saw that Joseph was missing, he rent his clothes 30 and returned to his brothers, exclaiming, "The boy is gone! What am I to do now?"

31 They took Joseph's tunic, slaughtered a kid, and dipped the tunic in its blood. 32 They had the ornamented tunic taken to their father, and they said, "We found this. Make sure whether it is your son's tunic or not."

[footnote 3] an ornamental tunic. The traditional "coat of many colors," and the variant "coat with sleeves" are sheer guesses from the context; nor is there anything remarkable about either colors or sleeves. The phrase, Heb. ketonet passim, occurs aside from this section (also vss. 23, 32) only in 2 Sam 13:18f., where it describes a garment worn by daughter of kings. Cuneiform inventories may shed light on the garment in question. Among various types of clothing listed in the texts, there is one called kitu (or kituna) pisannu (cf. JNES 8 [1949], 177). The important thing there, besides the close external correspondence with the Heb. phrase, is that the article so described was a ceremonial robe which could be draped about the statues of goddesses, and had various gold ornaments sewed onto it. Some of these ornaments would occasionally come undone and need to be sent to the proper craftsman for repairs, hence the notation in the inventories. If the comparison is valid -- and there are several things in its favor -- the second element in the Heb. phrase, i.e., passim, would be an adaptation of Akk. pisannu, a technical term denoting applique ornaments on costly vests and bodices.

[footnote 28] The first part of this verse is manifestly [?] from another source [Elohim] which knew nothing about the Ishmaelite traders. It speaks of Midianites who pulled the boy up from the pit, without being seen by the brothers, and then sold him in Egypt into slavery. This is why Reuben was so surprised to find that Joseph was gone. The sale to the Ishmaelites, on the other hand (28b: Jehovah), had been agreed upon by all the brothers (27: Jehovah), so that Reuben would have no reason to look for the boy in the pit, let alone be upset because he did not find him there. This single verse alone provides a good basis for a constructive documentary analysis of the Pentateuch; it goes a long way, moreover, to demonstrate that E [Elohim] was not just a supplement to J [Jehovah], but an independent and often conflicting source ... {There is also a third purported source: P [Priestly].}

Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, pp. 422-423 --

It is widely assumed that this section of Gen. 37 presents the clearest evidence for a conflation of two accounts of the Joseph story. Scholars use three points to substantiate that position. First, here Judah is Joseph's mediator (vv. 26-27, J) rather than Reuben (vv. 21-22, E). Second, the text shifts back and forth on who actually took Joseph -- Midianites (E) or Ishmaelites (J). Third, if the verses under consideration are from one source, then Reuben heard Judah's proposal to sell Joseph and was present when Joseph was actually sold. Why, then, is he shocked (vv. 29-30) when he returns to find the well empty? These three observations have led to the conclusion that in 37:25ff. we have the following two strands: J, vv. 25-27, 28b; E, vv 28a, 29-30. This breakdown explains, so it is assumed, all the inconsistencies within the text of 37:25-30.

Let us examine another possibility that does not follow the J-E analysis. Judah is not convinced that Reuben's suggestion is an improvement over the original plan. The brothers have two ways to kill Joseph -- immediately or gradually, the brothers' way or Judah's way. Of course, Judah is not aware of Reuben's intentions. Accordingly, he suggests a less hostile proposal -- do not kill our brother in any way; rather, sell him to some barterers.

These traders are identified as Midianites and Ishmaelites. Judg. 8:22-28 state clearly that Midianite and Ishmaelite are overlapping, identical terms. In other words, the two names were used interchangeably to refer to North Arabian caravaneers who branched off through Gilead (v. 25) from the main transport route on the way to Egypt. This would be but one episode of pastoral groups repeatedly journeying from Northern Arabia and southern Canaan to Egypt, bringing their products of incense to sell at the Pharaoh's court. That Judg. 8:24 in particular equates Ishmaelites with Midianites suggests that in Gideon's time at least "Midianites" represented a confederation of tribal groups. The interchange of "Ishmaelites" and "Midianites" in Gen. 37 suggests that at one time the Ishmaelites were the most prominent confederation of nomads in southern Palestine, and that their name might be attached to and linked with other groups. This would mean that "Ishmaelite" in Gen. 37 is not primarily an ethnic designation but is a catchall term for nomadic travelers. Thus "Ishmaelite" is the more generic term (Bedouin nomad), while "Midianite" is the more specific and ethnic term.

Does the text provide any evidence for this theory? Why identify this new group first by a more general term (v. 25) and then subsequently re-identify them by a different and more specific term (v. 28a)? To answer the first question, I would point to the phrase 'orehat yism e'lim in verse 25, which I have translated "a caravan of Ishmaelites." One might also render it "an Ishmaelite [i.e., nomadic] caravan," implying a general name for this group. Who constitutes this ambiguous group of caravaneers is made clear by v. 28a: 'nasim midyanim soharim, "Midianite men, merchants."

To answer the second question, note that vv. 18-24 follow the same progression of description as vv. 25-28. First, Joseph (v. 18) and the Ishmaelite caravan (v. 25) are observed approaching the brothers from a distance. Second, Joseph (vv. 19-22) and the caravaneers (vv. 26-27) are talked about by the brothers before either meets the brothers. Third, when Joseph and the Ishmaelites do meet the brothers, the brothers go into action, stripping Joseph and casting him into a cistern (vv. 23-24), and eventually selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites (v. 28). The last unit, vv. 25-30, describes the group that the brothers saw on the horizon, and for this distant sighting it uses the more general term. From afar they appeared to be a group of Bedouin nomads. When this group subsequently comes into closer view they are identified as Midianites.

This interpretation raises considerably the possibility that the subject of "pulled up" and "sold" in v. 28 is the brothers. As these Ishmaelites caravaneers (i.e., merchants as they come into focus) pass by, Joseph's brothers pull him up from the cistern and sell him to these passers-by.

29-30 That Reuben was dumbfounded to find the well empty indicates that he was not present when the transaction with the Midianites/Ishmaelites was carried out. Perhaps as the oldest brother he went to guard the sheep that the brothers were pasturing as these strangers passed by. After they depart, he is free to leave the flock unattended or turn that responsibility over to one of his brothers, return to his brothers, and check on Joseph in the well.

It is true that Joseph later identifies himself to the brothers as the one they "sold" into Egypt (45:4), but earlier in his Egyptian confinement he told his cell mate that he was "stolen" from the land of the Hebrews (40:15). Does this variation reflect one tradition in which Joseph was sold by his brothers to Ishmaelites (J), and a second tradition in which Joseph was stolen by Midianites (E)? Why two words to describe what happened to Joseph -- "sold" and "stolen"? It is quite probable that Joseph deliberately adjusted the story as he narrated it in ch. 40, for he was attempting to curry the cupbearer's favor. He knows the cupbearer is his only path to freedom. To have mentioned that he was sold by his brothers would make the cupbearer suspicious, rather than trusting. By saying he was stolen, Joseph is underscoring that what happened to him was something over which he had no control, and which he, in his judgment, had done nothing to deserve.

Enough has been said to indicate that recourse to a J-E hypothesis, or to an original story with later redactional expansions, is not the only option in order to make sense of Gen. 37. The older study of Rudolph, and more recent narrative readings by Sandmel, Coats, Greenstein, Berlin, and White, argue convincingly for the literary unity of Gen 37. [As Moses in the Pearl of Great Price does for Genesis 1-6.]

C. F. Keil & F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament 1:217-218 --

37:12-24. In a short time the hatred of Joseph's brethren grew into a crime. On one occasion, when they were feeding their flock at a distance from Hebron, in the neighborhood of Shechem (Nablus, in the plain of Mukhnah), and Joseph who was sent thither by Jacob to inquire as to the welfare (shalom, valetudo) of the brethren and their flocks, followed them to Dothain or Dothan, a place 12 Roman miles to the north of Samaria (Sebaste), towards the plain of Jezreel, they formed the malicious resolution to put him, "this dreamer," to death, and throw him into on e of the pits, i.e., cisterns, and then to tell (his father) that a wild beast had slain him, and so to bring his dreams to nought.

37:21ff. Reuben, who was the eldest son, and therefore specially responsible for his younger brother, opposed this murderous proposal. He dissuaded his brethren from killing Joseph [Hebrew words], and advised them to throw him "into this pit in the desert," i.e., into a dry pit that was near. As Joseph would inevitably perish even in that pit, their malice was satisfied; but Reuben intended to take Joseph out again, and restore him to his father. As soon, therefore, as Joseph arrived, they took off his coat with sleeves [?] and threw him into the pit, which happened to be dry.

37:25-36. Reuben had saved Joseph's life indeed by his proposal; but his intention to send him back to his father was frustrated. For as soon as the brethren sat down to eat, after the deed was performed, they saw a company of Ishmaelites from Gilead coming along the road which leads from Beisan past Jenin and through the plain of Dothan to the great caravan road that runs from Damascus by Lejun (Legio, Megiddo), Ramleh, and Gaza to Egypt.... The caravan drew near, laden with spices for which Gilead was celebrated (Gen 43:11; Jer 8:22; 46:11); and ... ladanum, the fragrant resin of the cistus-rose. Judah seized the opportunity to propose to his brethren to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites. "What profit have we," he said, "that we slay our brother and conceal his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites; and our hand, let it not lay hold of him (sc., to slay him), for he is our brother, our flesh." Reuben wished to deliver Joseph entirely from his brothers' malice. Judah also wished to save his life, though not from brotherly love so much as from the feeling of horror, which was not quite extinct within him, at incurring the guilt of fratricide; but he would still like to get rid of him, that his dreams might not come true. Judah, like his brethren, was probably afraid that their father might confer upon Joseph the rights of the first-born, and so make him lord over them. His proposal was a welcome one. When the Arabs passed by, the brethren fetched Joseph out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt. The different names given to the traders -- viz., Ishmaelites (vv. 25, 27, and 28b), Midianites (v. 28a), and Medanites (v. 36) -- do not show that the account has been drawn from different legends, but that these tribes were often confounded, from the fact that they resembled one another so closely, not only in their common descent from Abraham (16:15 and 25:2), but also in the similarity of their mode of life and their constant change of abode, that strangers could hardly distinguish them, especially when they appeared not as tribes but as Arabian merchants, such as they are here described as being: "Midianitish men, merchants." That descendants of Abraham should already be met with in this capacity is by no means strange, if we consider that 150 years had passed by since Ishmael's dismissal from his father's house, -- a period amply sufficient for his descendants to have grown through marriage into a respectable tribe. The price, "twenty (sc., shekels) of silver," was the price which Moses afterwards fixed as the value of a boy between 5 and 20 (Lev 27:5), the average price of a slave being 30 shekels (Ex 21:32). But the Ishmaelites naturally wanted to make money by the transaction.

37:29ff. The business was settled in Reuben's absence; probably because his brethren suspected that he intended to rescue Joseph. When he came to the pit and found Joseph gone, he rent his clothes (a sign of intense grief on the part of the natural man) and exclaimed: "The boy is no more, and I, whither shall I go!"-how shall I account to his father for his disappearance! But the brothers were at no loss; they dipped Joseph's coat in the blood of a goat and sent it to his father, with the message, "We have found this; see whether it is thy son's coat or not."