Why did Joseph use an interpreter in Genesis 42:23 if he understood his brothers' language? Canonical Text “They did not realize that Joseph understood them, since there was an interpreter between them.” (Genesis 42:23) Historical–Linguistic Background Hebrew- and other West Semitic–speaking peoples traded and settled in Egypt throughout the Middle Kingdom and early Second Intermediate Period. Contemporary wall paintings at Beni Hasan (Tomb BH 3, ca. 1900 BC) depict Semitic caravanners led before Egyptian officials while a scribe records their words—an interpreter standing between (cf. J. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 1999). Egyptian courts routinely employed “overseers of foreign speech” (rḫy mdw n ḫꜣswt), a post attested in Middle Kingdom administrative papyri. Joseph, elevated to vizier (Genesis 41:41–45), would therefore have had a professional translator at hand whenever non-Egyptians petitioned the throne. Why Joseph Employed an Interpreter Though Fluent 1. Concealment of Identity Genesis 42:7 explicitly states that “Joseph recognized his brothers, but he disguised himself.” Speaking only Egyptian through an intermediary preserved the ruse. If he had addressed them in Hebrew, the disguise would have collapsed immediately. 2. Court Protocol and Rank High officials did not normally converse directly with foreigners. Maintaining linguistic distance reinforced authority. Middle Kingdom letters (Papyrus BM 104) note punishments for bypassing prescribed channels of address. Joseph’s use of an interpreter signaled his status and upheld Egyptian etiquette. 3. Official Record-Keeping Egyptian scribes produced verbatim records of legal and commercial transactions. Employing the court interpreter ensured that proceedings were duly entered in Egyptian and could stand in royal archives (cf. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 2003). 4. Strategic Testing of His Brothers Joseph’s broader purpose was to probe their repentance (Genesis 42:15–16; 44:1–17). Hearing their candid Hebrew conversation without their knowledge (“Surely we are being punished” 42:21) provided unfiltered evidence of their hearts. Behavioral science confirms that perceived privacy elicits honesty; Joseph used linguistic separation to let genuine remorse surface. 5. Preservation of the Narrative’s Theological Typology The interpreter motif heightens the eventual revelation scene (45:1–3). The dramatic tension foreshadows Christ’s progressive self-disclosure to His disciples after the Resurrection (Luke 24:16, 31). Exegetical Note on “Interpreter” The Hebrew noun melîṣ (from לוץ, “to mediate, interpret”) appears also in 2 Chronicles 32:31. The LXX renders it hermēneutēs, “translator,” confirming a professional role, not a casual helper. Manuscript traditions (MT, DSS 4QGen-k) display no textual variants here, attesting stable transmission. Archaeological and Documentary Corroboration • Tomb inscriptions list a “Chief Interpreter of Asiatics” under Senusret III, aligning with Joseph’s era in a Ussher-style chronology (ca. 1876 BC arrival). • Papyrus Bologna 1094 recounts an interpreter mediating between a Syrian envoy and Pharaoh. • Statue of Horemheb (Jeremiah 100 ; 18th Dynasty) portrays scribes with palettes labeled “recorder of foreign speech,” underscoring institutional permanency. Theological Implications Providence orchestrates even linguistic barriers. What appeared as mere protocol became God’s instrument to expose guilt, kindle repentance, reconcile a family, and preserve the messianic line (Genesis 50:20). The episode mirrors the mediatory work of Christ, the true Interpreter between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5), who, unlike Joseph, ultimately reveals Himself openly for salvation. Pastoral Applications • Hidden motives are never hidden from God; accountability will come to light. • Believers in positions of power may legitimately use cultural forms—even formal distance—to accomplish righteous objectives. • Christ’s followers are called to discern when to speak plainly and when strategic silence better serves redemptive ends (Proverbs 17:27–28; John 16:12). Answer to Skeptical Objections Claim: “The detail is fictional; an anachronistic flourish.” Response: The presence of professional interpreters is both textually consistent and archaeologically verified. The record aligns with known Egyptian customs of the precise period conservative chronology assigns to Joseph, strengthening confidence in Scripture’s historical accuracy. Summary Joseph’s use of an interpreter, though fully understanding Hebrew, harmonizes with court protocol, secures his concealed identity, facilitates a deliberate moral test, fits the cultural-linguistic realities attested by Middle Kingdom evidence, and serves the sovereign redemptive plan unfolding in Genesis—a plan culminating in the resurrection of Christ, the greater Joseph, who needs no intermediary to know the thoughts of every heart. |
    |