M’Cheyne Connect 2026

[iainduguid]

What do you think of Calvin's commentary on that verse 28?

John Calvin: Commentary on Genesis - Volume 2 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

I think it's an overly complex solution based on the assumption that the Midianites and the Ishmaelites cannot be the same people (ironically, an opinion shared by most critical scholars, who attribute them to different sources). If the Midianites and the Ishmaelites are the same, the difficulty disappears: the first part of v. 28 is a circumstantial clause explaining the unexpected presence of a camel train for the brothers to sell Joseph to. Dothan may have been on the main caravan route to Egypt, but it wasn't like waiting for the number 64 bus; you could wait weeks there and not see a camel train go by.

 

[Clariz]

It is fascinating that there are rabbinical arguments from the 11th century (Rashi), in contrast to his grandson's view from the 12th century (Rashbam).

Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki)
Era: 11th Century (c. 1040–1105)
The View: Rashi holds the traditional view. He interprets the text to mean the brothers sold Joseph. He explains the confusing switch between "Midianites" and "Ishmaelites" by suggesting the brothers sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, who then sold him to the Midianites.
Source: https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Genesis.37.28.2?lang=bi

Rashbam (Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir)
Era: 12th Century (c. 1085–1158)
The View: Rashbam, who was Rashi's grandson, vehemently disagreed. He focused on the Peshat (the plain, literal grammar). He argued that the grammar dictates the nearest noun is the subject: "Midianites passed by... and [the Midianites] drew him up."
Source: https://www.sefaria.org/Rashbam_on_Genesis.37.28.1?lang=bi

Regardless of which view is historically correct, what bothers me is that the words "brothers" or "his brothers" are not explicitly mentioned in the Hebrew text of verse 28. Yet, several translations insert these phrases:

1. "his brothers"
   • NIV (New International Version)
   • CSB (Christian Standard Bible)
   • HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

2. "the brothers"​

• AMP (Amplified Bible)

3."Joseph's brothers"​

• NLT (New Living Translation)

In this case, isn't this deliberately adding to the Scripture? We are explicitly warned in Deuteronomy 4:2 ("Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you...") not to add anything to the text that isn't inspired by God.

Is it a valid argument to suggest that resolving this grammatical ambiguity by inserting words is a violation of that command? I would appreciate your thoughts, Dr. Duguid @iainduguid

 

[iainduguid]

It is fascinating that there are rabbinical arguments from the 11th century (Rashi), in contrast to his grandson's view from the 12th century (Rashbam).

Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki)
Era: 11th Century (c. 1040–1105)
The View: Rashi holds the traditional view. He interprets the text to mean the brothers sold Joseph. He explains the confusing switch between "Midianites" and "Ishmaelites" by suggesting the brothers sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, who then sold him to the Midianites.
Source: https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Genesis.37.28.2?lang=bi

Rashbam (Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir)
Era: 12th Century (c. 1085–1158)
The View: Rashbam, who was Rashi's grandson, vehemently disagreed. He focused on the Peshat (the plain, literal grammar). He argued that the grammar dictates the nearest noun is the subject: "Midianites passed by... and [the Midianites] drew him up."
Source: https://www.sefaria.org/Rashbam_on_Genesis.37.28.1?lang=bi

Regardless of which view is historically correct, what bothers me is that the words "brothers" or "his brothers" are not explicitly mentioned in the Hebrew text of verse 28. Yet, several translations insert these phrases:

1. "his brothers"
   • NIV (New International Version)
   • CSB (Christian Standard Bible)
   • HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

2. "the brothers"​

• AMP (Amplified Bible)

3."Joseph's brothers"​

• NLT (New Living Translation)

In this case, isn't this deliberately adding to the Scripture? We are explicitly warned in Deuteronomy 4:2 ("Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you...") not to add anything to the text that isn't inspired by God.

Is it a valid argument to suggest that resolving this grammatical ambiguity by inserting words is a violation of that command? I would appreciate your thoughts, Dr. Duguid @iainduguid

Generally, more word-for-word translations will tend to leave more ambiguity in the text, while more dynamic equivalent texts will tend to remove ambiguity. Some translations use italics to indicate where they are adding words to clarify the meaning of the text, which can certainly help. But there are no translations used in churches that never rephrase the text in order to make its point clearer (you would have to be an interlinear at that point, which simply wouldn't work for the public reading of God's Word). So if this practice is condemned by Deut 4:2, then you can't use any currently available English translation. Clearly, more word-for-word translations do less of this, but the danger then is that many ordinary readers are going to misunderstand the Bible. Of course, we can appeal to preachers or commentaries to explain the Bible, and in places that will certainly be necessary. Not all of the Bible is simple to understand. But I think the Reformational desire for the ploughboy and milkmaid to be able to read Scripture for themselves gives some warrant for expanding the range of places where the translator chooses to clarify what the text means. Remember, we are not arguing over whether we do it, just how often. To me, this example is clear enough that I favor making the antecedent explicit in the text, for the sake of the reader, though I would love the freedom to put "the brothers" in italics (or a footnote "Lit., they").

Did I mention that translating the Bible is really hard?

 

[Sam Jer]

It is fascinating that there are rabbinical arguments from the 11th century (Rashi), in contrast to his grandson's view from the 12th century (Rashbam).

Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki)
Era: 11th Century (c. 1040–1105)
The View: Rashi holds the traditional view. He interprets the text to mean the brothers sold Joseph. He explains the confusing switch between "Midianites" and "Ishmaelites" by suggesting the brothers sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, who then sold him to the Midianites.
Source: https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Genesis.37.28.2?lang=bi

Rashbam (Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir)
Era: 12th Century (c. 1085–1158)
The View: Rashbam, who was Rashi's grandson, vehemently disagreed. He focused on the Peshat (the plain, literal grammar). He argued that the grammar dictates the nearest noun is the subject: "Midianites passed by... and [the Midianites] drew him up."
Source: https://www.sefaria.org/Rashbam_on_Genesis.37.28.1?lang=bi

Regardless of which view is historically correct, what bothers me is that the words "brothers" or "his brothers" are not explicitly mentioned in the Hebrew text of verse 28. Yet, several translations insert these phrases:

1. "his brothers"
   • NIV (New International Version)
   • CSB (Christian Standard Bible)
   • HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

2. "the brothers"​

• AMP (Amplified Bible)

3."Joseph's brothers"​

• NLT (New Living Translation)

In this case, isn't this deliberately adding to the Scripture? We are explicitly warned in Deuteronomy 4:2 ("Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you...") not to add anything to the text that isn't inspired by God.

Is it a valid argument to suggest that resolving this grammatical ambiguity by inserting words is a violation of that command? I would appreciate your thoughts, Dr. Duguid @iainduguid

Generally, more word-for-word translations will tend to leave more ambiguity in the text, while more dynamic equivalent texts will tend to remove ambiguity. Some translations use italics to indicate where they are adding words to clarify the meaning of the text, which can certainly help. But there are no translations used in churches that never rephrase the text in order to make its point clearer (you would have to be an interlinear at that point, which simply wouldn't work for the public reading of God's Word). So if this practice is condemned by Deut 4:2, then you can't use any currently available English translation. Clearly, more word-for-word translations do less of this, but the danger then is that many ordinary readers are going to misunderstand the Bible. Of course, we can appeal to preachers or commentaries to explain the Bible, and in places that will certainly be necessary. Not all of the Bible is simple to understand. But I think the Reformational desire for the ploughboy and milkmaid to be able to read Scripture for themselves gives some warrant for expanding the range of places where the translator chooses to clarify what the text means. Remember, we are not arguing over whether we do it, just how often. To me, this example is clear enough that I favor making the antecedent explicit in the text, for the sake of the reader, though I would love the freedom to put "the brothers" in italics (or a footnote "Lit., they").

Did I mention that translating the Bible is really hard?

I read Clariz as asking whether supplying words To The Hebrew to interpret is adding & subtracting

 

[iainduguid]

I read Clariz as asking whether supplying words To The Hebrew to interpret is adding & subtracting

Right. And I'm pointing out that every translation does this of necessity. For example, Hebrew has verbless clauses, English does not.

 

[Sam Jer]

Right. And I'm pointing out that every translation does this of necessity. For example, Hebrew has verbless clauses, English does not.

Okay, I re-read Clariz's comment and he is not quite talking about what I thought. What I thought about was how these interperters sometimes supply a word in the original Hebrew in ways that seem totally arbitrary and do not seem to arise from the text

 

[Clariz]

To me, this example is clear enough that I favor making the antecedent explicit in the text, for the sake of the reader, though I would love the freedom to put "the brothers" in italics (or a footnote "Lit., they").

Did I mention that translating the Bible is really hard?

Translation is inherently difficult, particularly when discrepancies exist between the source and target languages regarding implied syntax. This challenge is significantly compounded when dealing with ancient texts.

Regarding the debate over Genesis 37:28, my position is that one cannot definitively conclude the subject is 'the brothers,' in the bible as the noun is absent from the raw Hebrew text. While translations could supply 'the brothers' in italics or footnotes, this is an interpretive decision rather than a fact derived directly from the Hebrew.

Okay, I re-read Clariz's comment and he is not quite talking about what I thought. What I thought about was how these interperters sometimes supply a word in the original Hebrew in ways that seem totally arbitrary and do not seem to arise from the text

Since you read Hebrew, perhaps you could weigh in: from a grammatical standpoint, are both interpretations valid?

 

[Sam Jer]

Since you read Hebrew, perhaps you could weigh in: from a grammatical standpoint, are both interpretations valid?

From the other passages it is clear that Joseph was sold by his brothers.


וַיַּֽעַבְרוּ֩ אֲנָשִׁ֨ים מִדְיָנִ֜ים סֹֽחֲרִ֗ים וַֽיִּמְשְׁכוּ֙ וַיַּֽעֲל֤וּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף֙ מִן־הַבּ֔וֹר
Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit

Dr. Duguid and John Gill are right that this does not necessarily refer to same people as the next clause in normal Hebrew grammar. Let me add that there is a zaqef Qataan on min-haboor (out of the pit), which signals a strong enough division to the next clause to suggest it could be referring to diffrent subjects. Of course most of you think these are uninspired marks but even if you were right it shows the traditional Jewish reading allows and suggests diffrent subjects here.

וַיִּמְכְּר֧וּ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֛ף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֖ים בְּעֶשְׂרִ֣ים כָּ֑סֶף
, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver

This must refer to the brothers for the simple reason that the other option is that it would refer to the Midianites. But if the Midianites sold him to the Ishmaelites, you get and absurdity because of verse 36: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, and captain of the guard.

The only ambiguity that I think could exist here is whether the ones who drew him out of the pit were the Midianites/Ismaelites or the brothers, and while I lean towards thinking the Midianites did it I fail to see why it matters. It's not like they said "huh, funny hole, I bet there's a person in there" and then ran off with him - they paid full price which suggests the brothers are the ones who arranged the whole thing.

 

[Clariz]

DAY 43 READING : Gen 45, Mark 15, Job 11 & Romans 15

Romans 15:1, 4 ASV
[1] Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
[4] For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope.

Interesting passages to meditate on :
1. bear infirmities of the weak
2. comfort of the scriptures brings hope

 

[Sam Jer]

I was thinking of today's readings in terms of the typollogy of Joseph and Christ:

Is this not what we may say? "Thy father did command... Forgive, I pray thee now, the trespass of thy brethren, and their sin; for they did unto thee evil: and now, we pray thee, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of thy father." Do we not say, "Behold we be Thy servants"?
And what does Christ say, even to those who crucified him (compare Acts 2, Luke 23:34), let alone us if we repent? "Fear not"! "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. Now therefore fear ye not: I will nourish you, and your little ones".

 

[Sam Jer]

And about the second thing Joseph's brothers said, Christ answers "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." (John 15:14-15)