Joseph as a Type of Christ in Syriac Literature

Kept among the marvelous manuscript treasures of the British Library is a fifth-century Syriac manuscript containing details of the lectionary readings, or Old and New Testament passages for religious services.¹ Prominently featured among the Old Testament readings prescribed for Easter are the account of the binding of Isaac² and excerpts from the story of Joseph.³ The story of binding Isaac is clearly apposite to the crucifixion. What is not so clear perhaps is the appropriateness of the story of Joseph as an Easter reading. This is in part because Joseph is often viewed in modern times solely as an example of moral fortitude in the face of temptation.⁴ However, the Christological aspect of the Joseph story was also important for early Christians. In fact, in order to understand why the reading of the story of Joseph was appropriate for Easter, one must know that Joseph was seen in early Syriac Christianity first and foremost as a type of Christ.⁵ This article will show the extent of this typological connection in the early writings of the Syriac-speaking Christians and will also show how this typological connection affected one particular retelling of the Joseph narrative.

The interest in the Joseph narrative (in Genesis chapters 37 and 39–50) among Syriac authors should not come as a complete surprise. At least from the time of the Hellenistic period and onward, the narrative has caught the attention of its readers and has been retold and commented upon extensively in the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions.⁶ Among early Christian writings, numerous Greek and Latin works include references to the story, and a number of homilies and poems are devoted to the theme.⁷ But it is in the writings of the poet-exegetes from the early Syriac tradition that the figure of Joseph is explored most extensively.⁸

The majority of these Syriac retellings of the story of Joseph are classified as dramatic dialogue poems. These are poems that are characterized by the presence of dialogue, often within a narrative framework, and, in some forms, interspersed with homiletic material. The extended cycles of verse homilies (memrē) on Joseph stand apart from other examples of dramatic dialogue poetry in that “they alone cover a whole series of episodes, thus taking on the dimensions of an epic narrative.”⁹

In this article, I shall limit my explorations to the writings of Aphrahat (fourth century A.D.) and to the cycle attributed to Narsai (d. A.D. 503). As the table of comparisons (at the end of this article) between the life of Joseph and the life of Jesus shows, however, a much broader tradition stands behind this Christological interpretation of the Joseph story. The table includes references drawn from all the relevant published works in Syriac, as well as texts in Greek and Armenian.

Aphrahat

We shall first examine how the figure of Joseph is used in the writings of Aphrahat,¹⁰ a Syriac-speaking Christian from Persia.¹¹ Though little is known of his life, Aphrahat is one of the most important and gifted writers of the early Syriac tradition, and he is the first known writer in the Syriac tradition to make any specific comparisons between the life of Joseph and the life of Jesus. He is survived only by his collection of twenty-three demonstrations, which he wrote between A.D. 337 and 345, but these reveal much about his ideas and beliefs, particularly with respect to scripture.¹²

Throughout these demonstrations, Aphrahat employs a rhetorical technique that involves producing a sequence of “exemplary figures or events, mainly from the Old Testament,” to illustrate a particular example or point.¹³ Father Robert Murray has made an extensive study of Aphrahat’s use of this rhetorical device and has classified the material as “examples (1) of prayer, (2) of various virtues, (3) of those who were led into sin, (4) of reversals of fortune, [and] (5) of righteous figures who were persecuted.”¹⁴ Joseph features prominently in Aphrahat’s lists, particularly in those of categories two, four, and five. Other examples of Aphrahat’s use of the figure of Joseph fall outside of Murray’s classification system. Joseph is numbered among those whose purity was a perfect fast before God (A. 101:7–8); those whom Satan attacked by means of women (A. 256:26–257:2); those who were justified though they did not keep the Sabbath (A. 557:20–27); those who, though one, were esteemed more than the many by God (A. 824:17–19); and those through whom the Spirit spoke (A. 984:11–12).

A further development in the hermeneutical functions attributed to Joseph is found in a “complex syncrisis, or ‘Comparison-series’”—a development of the simpler list sequence that Murray refers to as “Aphrahat’s favorite party piece.”¹⁵ Syncrisis is a rhetorical figure in which one thing is compared with another; it is used of the “figure which consists of a repeated Simile, . . . or of a number of separate comparisons used together.”¹⁶ Syncrisis is often used in the Old Testament—for example, in Isaiah 32:2, where the prophet says, “And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.”

In demonstration 21, Aphrahat lists biblical characters who were persecuted, contrasting their fates with those of their persecutors: “Jacob was persecuted, and Esau was the persecutor. Jacob received blessings and the right of the first born, but Esau was rejected from both of them. Joseph was persecuted and his brothers were the persecutors. Joseph was exalted and his persecutors bowed down before him and his dreams and visions were accomplished” (A. 953:3–8). At this point, however, Aphrahat’s sequence transforms into a comparison series by means of a single connecting line: “The persecuted Joseph is a type of the persecuted Jesus” (A. 953:8–9). Aphrahat then provides a list of eighteen examples of how the life and figure of Joseph can be compared with those of Jesus:

Joseph’s father clothed him [with] the long sleeved coat, and the Father of Jesus clothed him [with] a body from the virgin. Joseph’s father loved him more than his brothers, and Jesus was the friend and beloved of his Father. Joseph saw visions and dreamed dreams, and Jesus fulfilled visions and the prophets. Joseph was a shepherd with his brothers, and Jesus was the chief of the shepherds. When Joseph’s father sent him to visit his brothers, they saw him coming and planned to kill him; and, when his Father sent Jesus to visit his brothers, they said “this is the heir; come, let us kill him” (Matt. 21:38).¹⁷ Joseph’s brothers cast him into the pit; and the brothers of Jesus sent him down in the grave. Joseph came up from the pit, and Jesus arose from the grave. After Joseph came up from the pit he ruled over his brothers; and after Jesus arose from the grave his Father gave him an excellent and great name so that his brothers were subject to him, and his enemies were laid beneath his feet. When Joseph saw his brothers, they were ashamed and afraid and marveled at his majesty; and when Jesus comes in the latter time, when he is revealed in his majesty, his brothers will be ashamed and afraid and greatly alarmed, for they crucified him aforetime. Now, Joseph was sold into Egypt at the advice of Judah; and Jesus was delivered to the Jews by Judas Iscariot. When they sold Joseph, he did not speak [literally, “give”] a word to his brothers; and Jesus did not speak and give a word to the judges who judged him. Joseph’s master delivered him unjustly to prison; and Jesus, the sons of his people condemned him unjustly. Twice Joseph gave up his garments, once by means of his brothers and once by the hand of his master’s wife; and Jesus yielded up his garments and the soldiers divided them among themselves. Joseph, as a thirty year old, stood before Pharaoh and became a lord to Egypt; and Jesus, as a thirty year old, came to the Jordan to be baptized and he received the spirit and went out to preach. Joseph provided food for the Egyptians with bread; and Jesus provided for the whole world with the bread of life. Joseph took the daughter of a wicked and foul priest; and Jesus took to himself the church from the unclean nations. Joseph died and was buried in Egypt, and Jesus died and was buried in Jerusalem. Joseph’s brothers took up his bones from Egypt; and Jesus, his Father raised him up from the grave/sheol and took his body with him to heaven without corruption. (A. 953:9–957:10)

Joseph is not the only biblical character whose life Aphrahat sees as typifying that of the Lord. In fact, the section beginning with the comparison of Joseph and Jesus is something of a tour de force in which Aphrahat makes comparisons between the life of the Lord and the life of Moses (fifteen comparisons), Joshua (nine comparisons), Jephtha (four comparisons), David (twelve comparisons), Elijah (eight comparisons), Elisha (eight comparisons), Hezekiah (eleven comparisons), Josiah (eight comparisons), Daniel (eighteen comparisons), the Three Young Men (eight comparisons), and Mordecai (eleven comparisons).

Narsai

Narsai,¹⁸ “the most profound and original theologian of the great Church of the East,”¹⁹ was the head of the School of Edessa and then founder of the theological School of Nisibis. He is reputed to have written a verse-homily for every day of the year, though only eighty-one of these are known to have survived. Two works on Joseph have come down to us under his name. The first is a single verse-homily on Joseph, which can be attributed to Narsai with certainty.²⁰ The second, which is the focus of this study, is a cycle of four verse-homilies on Joseph.²¹ This latter work is attributed to Narsai in four of the eight manuscripts in which it is preserved.²² However, doubts have been raised both as to Narsai’s authorship and as to the unity of the collection, and one must be satisfied with considering this an anonymous early work.

In the second homily in this latter collection, the author makes it most clear that he sees Christological typology as the central hermeneutical function of the biblical story of Joseph. “This wondrous story,” he states, is full of “symbols and types of the son of God” (N. 42:1–2).²³ The author later informs us that in telling the story of Joseph, he is, in fact, also telling the story of Jesus: “The story of Joseph will go on now, as well as that of the Messiah, And we will see how much the story of this one [Joseph] is like [the story of] that one [Jesus]” (N. 43:19–20).

Retelling the Joseph story in terms of Christological typology is presented not only as an appropriate interpretation of the biblical narrative but also as a necessary one. For in making this particular aspect central, the author succeeds in making Christ central to the narrative and thereby, in his eyes, ensuring that his work is of some lasting value to its listeners. As the author puts it, “The power of the word of the memrā [homily] is great in the presence of the listeners When [perhaps with the meaning of ‘only when’] it is spoken with the voice of the spirit of prophecy. But every memrā in which the messiah the king is not mentioned Is rejected as foul and is not received by the listeners” (N. 43:1–4). The author, therefore, calls the discerning to “give heed to this . . . story” and appreciate its abundance of Christological types (N. 42:1–2). Only then is one able to drink from the cup of Joseph and become full and gladly intoxicated, for “the blood of the messiah is mingled in the vessel of the son of Israel” (N. 42:12–15).

This last line is doubly significant for the author. First, the line refers to the Lord “put[ting] his testimony in Joseph” (N. 41:19), an allusion to Psalms 81:5, signifying that the Lord ordained Joseph to act as a type of him (N. 44:18–19). Second, in a more general sense, the Lord was in Israel. As the author states earlier, “The leaven of life was hidden in the Israelite people Until the time that the light [of the world] shone forth from them” (N. 40:7–8). Joseph’s role in the preservation of Israel was essential, therefore, not only to ensure that the house of Israel might abound numerically but also to protect the lineage of the Messiah. These two results are linked to the promise made to Abraham that his seed would multiply and that all the nations would be blessed through him and his seed (N. 39:11). So it was for the purpose of fulfilling both clauses of the Abrahamic promise that “the Lord sent him [as] a remnant before the sons of Jacob That he might give them life, so that they would not also perish in the time of famine” (N. 38:4–5).

The metaphorical presence of Christ in Israel is employed later in the second homily, when the brothers are about to return to Joseph with Benjamin. In the biblical narrative, Judah offers some assurance to his father by saying that he will “be surety for [Benjamin]” (Gen. 43:9). The scene is considerably expanded in this Syriac retelling. Here, Jacob actually demands a surety for Benjamin, feeling confident that unless this is done, the propensities of his children will result in his eventually having to mourn for both sons of Rachel (N. 45:10–11).

Reuben steps up first and offers his two sons as surety. Reuben’s pledge, however, is not received because Jacob “will not receive the son who despised the bed of his father” (N. 61:8). Seeing Reuben’s failure, Levi offers to pledge his own son for the sake of Benjamin, to which Jacob responds by saying, “the sin and iniquity that you have committed are more displeasing than that of your brother” (N. 61:13). Jacob is concerned because of Levi’s angry temperament (N. 61:14) that had caused him to take revenge upon the Shechemites (Gen. 34:25–40) and because he thought that Levi would simply exchange Benjamin for Simeon in order to save his companion in vengeance: “And perhaps, instead of [Simeon] you will deliver [Benjamin] that your brother [Simeon] may be saved” (N. 61:17).

Seeing the failure of his brothers to offer an acceptable pledge to their father because of their past misdeeds, Judah, who also wants to offer himself as a pledge, is understandably reticent, due to his conduct in Genesis 38. Nevertheless, he does offer himself as a pledge, and his pledge is accepted. Jacob is willing to overlook Judah’s misdeeds and to entrust Benjamin to him because “God Almighty has entrusted you with the son and from you he shall shine forth” (N. 62:15). Jacob is delivering Benjamin not so much to Judah as to the “Treasury of Life who is kept within [his] limbs” (N. 62:20). In this instance, it is Judah who functions as a type of Christ.

The author of these homilies was not content simply to point out that the story of Joseph is full of “symbols and types of the son of God” (N. 42:1–2); like Aphrahat, he offers us his own list of examples in the form of a comparison series.²⁴ Before giving the comparison series, the author tells of the great famine in the land of Canaan and how necessity had called the brothers, the eleven stars, to go down to Egypt. “They went down to the land of Egypt and worshipped the dreamer of dreams” (N. 43:9). This, the author points out, is “a great symbol of the Son of God” because it is exactly what will “happen to all the crucifiers on the day of resurrection” (N. 43:10, 12).

The author is so overwhelmed with the Christological typology that he is not “permitted to go along the path quickly” (N. 43:16) but must rather demonstrate how much the story of Joseph (fig. 1) is like that of Jesus:

Joseph dreamed dreams of his brothers but they did not believe it. And as much as he dreamed, the treacherous brothers hated him much [more]. Our Lord spoke with the crucifiers in parables, And the more he spoke the more they envied him. Joseph interpreted for the Egyptians and they believed, As also the gentiles believed in our Lord and his parables. Joseph revealed himself to his brothers in the inner chamber, And the Lord of Joseph revealed [himself] to his disciples in the upper room. His mistress confined Joseph the just in prison, And Zion confined our savior in the tomb. Joseph went out from prison and took off his outer garments, While our Lord went out from the tomb and put on glory. Joseph interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh just as they were, And he sat upon the throne and was a king of the whole of Egypt. And our Lord revealed and made himself known to his disciples And ascended and sat on the right hand of the Father, who sent him. Joseph purchased the whole of Egypt with ordinary bread, And the Lord of Joseph [purchased] the whole of creation with His body and His blood. (N. 43:21–44:17)

The comparison sequence is not intended to be exhaustive—hence the author’s admonition to the discerning to give heed to the story (N. 42:1). Furthermore, the author makes a number of other links to the life of Christ during the course of the narrative, often by means of adding specific rhetorical connections to the New Testament. These links divide into two groups: those in which there is an explicit typological reference made and those in which the typological connection appears to be intended, though it is left implicit in the narrative. I have approached the identification of the latter group in two steps. First, by means of the explicit typological references, it is possible to build up a picture of the events in the life of Joseph that are construed as corresponding to events in the life of Jesus. From this it can be seen that, with few exceptions, all of the explicit typological links are made either to the trial and death or to the resurrection and future coming of the Lord. Second, I have examined the portions of the narrative in which typological links are likely to occur to see whether any specific rhetorical links have been added at that point to the New Testament text.

The trial and death of the Lord is linked typologically with two events in the life of Joseph. Aphrahat suggests this connection in two entries in his comparison sequence. First, “After Joseph came up from the pit, he ruled over his brothers; and after Jesus arose from the grave, his Father gave him a grand title so that his brothers were subject to Him” (A. 956:3–4). Here Aphrahat makes Joseph’s pit and Christ’s prison typologically synonymous and moves quickly on to the next important typological link, that of Joseph being exalted in Egypt and the Second Coming of the Lord. Second, Aphrahat connects the stripping of Joseph’s garments at the hands of his brothers and at the hands of Potiphar’s wife with the single instance of Jesus yielding up his garments to the soldiers (A. 956:19–22).

Narsai follows Aphrahat’s interpretive model, also providing two instances in which Joseph is stripped of his garments,²⁵ two people who petition for the life of Joseph,²⁶ and two individuals who are instrumental in bringing about Joseph’s demise.²⁷ Of these six links, however, only one is explicitly made in Narsai.

The one explicit link is in an exegetical comment on Reuben’s suggestion to throw Joseph into the pit:

Reuben did not say [this] out of wickedness, But he said this out of lovingkindness for the sake of [saving Joseph’s] life. [He] did not speak this word of himself, Lovingkindness placed the word in his mouth and thus he spoke. Something else was in the heart/mind of Reuben but this in his mouth, Because he [really] wanted to deliver [Joseph] and send him back to his parent. How much Reuben struggled here for the sake of Joseph, like Pilate who struggled for the sake of Jesus. (N. 8:13–20)

In the corresponding instance, Potiphar is struggling for Joseph’s freedom against the word of his wife. In the biblical narrative, Potiphar’s wrath is immediately kindled upon hearing the accusation made by his wife, and he throws Joseph into prison (Gen. 39:19–20). Narsai recasts this account so that Potiphar replies to the accusation made by his wife: “If you are pure, why does the garment of the slave remain with you? If Joseph audaciously came to lie with you, He would have taken your garment and not you his. Behold, your lack [of intelligence] is revealed together with your transgression” (N. 24:1–4).

The ingenious Potiphar proceeds, like Sherlock Holmes, by suggesting that both Joseph and his wife should stand before him and then he would be able to see from their faces which one was the guilty party. For obvious reasons, Potiphar’s wife calls this plan madness and insists that Joseph be cast into jail. Her argument is subtle, the convincing line being “that I may never again chance to see him before me in this house” (N. 24:13).²⁸ Potiphar replies, “I will hearken to you . . . And I will send him to prison according to your will” (N. 24:14–15). The link between Potiphar and Pilate is suggested further by the connection Narsai makes in his comparison series between Potiphar’s wife and the Jews who brought about the death of Jesus: “His mistress confined Joseph the just in prison, And Zion confined our savior in the tomb” (N. 44:8–9).

Potiphar’s wife also seems to be the subject of a different typological link made during the course of narrating her attempt to seduce Joseph. In the biblical narrative, the only reported speech we have from Potiphar’s wife is “Lie with me” (Gen. 39:12). In Narsai we are presented with a fuller account of her persuasive ways:

Hear me Joseph, because I love you and accept my advice And carry out my desire and let not your heart quake because of Potiphar. For I can kill him quickly with poison. Now, instead of a servant, be a King and Lord of the house. Lie with me Joseph and carry out my will and don’t be afraid, And be mine and I and whatsoever belongs to me is yours. (N. 18:19–19:3)

The offer of kingship and dominion as part of the temptation suggests a corresponding episode in the New Testament: “Again, the devil taketh him up into a high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me” (Matt. 4:8–9). The following line, included in an authorial comment praising Joseph’s resisting of temptation, adds validity to the linking of these two episodes: “The Chief of the Air [that is, Satan] hid a snare for you by the agency of Eve” (N. 21:3). It is not surprising that the author, writing for a monastic community steeped in a misogynistic tradition, would equate Potiphar’s wife—and also, by implication, women generally—with the adversary. One is mindful of the list composed by Aphrahat in which he recounts the instances in which the devil has tempted men by means of women (A. 256:25–260:12).²⁹

The same comparative approach continues after Joseph is made regent. Whereas in the biblical narrative, Potiphar and his wife are no more heard of, in the Narsai retelling, an extended account is given of the reaction of Potiphar and his wife to the news of Joseph’s newly exalted position. Potiphar is racked with guilt and fear, thinking, “Perhaps [Joseph] will remember that which I did to him and will do away with my life.” However, Joseph forgives him, saying, “For that folly of the prison was not your fault” (N. 33:12, 16). Potiphar’s wife is understandably even more concerned; she fears for her life and “storms gather . . . in her eyes” (N. 34:21).

She confesses her sin to her husband and dictates to her scribe a petition begging forgiveness, which she delivers to Joseph. After reading the petition, Joseph “dismissed her in peace, and her mind was at rest” (N. 37:5). By inserting this account, the author creates a neat chiastic pattern of events:

Joseph departs from his father.
The brothers throw Joseph into the pit and sell him to Egypt.
At the hand of Potiphar and his wife Joseph is cast into prison.
Joseph is exalted in Egypt.
Joseph meets Potiphar and his wife and forgives them.
The brothers come to Egypt and are reunited with Joseph, who forgives them.
Joseph is reunited with his father.

At the center of this pattern of events is Joseph being exalted in Egypt, linked both implicitly and explicitly with the glorious return of the Lord (N. 43:9–16; 44:6–7; A. 956:1–11).

The author of this retelling of the Joseph narrative has succeeded in his aim of putting Christ at the heart of the homilies. Drawing and building upon Aphrahat’s typological framework, the author has included direct and indirect typological references and augmented the narrative to bring out this hermeneutical function of Joseph more fully. Though not the most poetically beautiful of the cycles on Joseph,³⁰ this collection certainly excels in its creative use of typology and narrative expansion.

Numerous hints have been made in this article to the centrality of typology in Syriac literature, particularly of the early period. For early Syriac writers such as Aphrahat and his younger contemporary Ephrem, typology was a central mode of expression. God revealed his mysteries through the types and symbols found in scripture and nature, and their apparent abundance led Ephrem to exclaim, “Lord, Your symbols are everywhere.”³¹ In this and other respects, early Syriac Christianity demonstrates its affinity with its Jewish heritage. In both literatures, we find the use of “testimonia, typology, periphrastic quotation, [and] haggadic expansion,”³² and in many instances there is a clear relationship between the Syriac and the Jewish traditions.³³ We find, then, in the literature of this early period of Syriac Christianity one of the few examples of a “genuinely Semitic-Christian literature.”³⁴ For this and numerous other reasons, Syriac literature is a great storehouse of treasures that are worthy of pursuit.

In the following table, A. stands for Aphrahat, as quoted in Ioannes Parisot, ed., Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes; A. C. is from Edward G. Mathews, The Armenian Commentary on Genesis Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian;³⁵ N. refers to Paul Bedjan, ed., Homilae Mar Narsetis in Joseph; and E. is from Stephanus Evodius Assemani, Sancti patris nostri Ephraem Syri opera omnia.³⁶ Except for the passages from Mathews and Assemani, the translations in the table are the author’s own. In some cases, Mathews and Assemani have been quoted and in others paraphrased.

Table 1
Syriac Comparisons of Joseph and Jesus