Why is Joseph taken to prison, and yet still seems to be with Potiphar?

Question

This is a response to the meta call for contradictions.

In Genesis 39, there is a fantastically vivid story of Potiphar's wife seducing Joseph, or rather, attempting to. The result is that Joseph is imprisoned in a prison, where the head of the prison takes a liking to him.

But immediately afterwards, in Chapter 40:4 we read the following:

And the head chef appointed Joseph to be with them, and serve them, and they spent many days arrested.

(if you use a different translation, the "head chef" in the above is more often translated as "head of the guard". The Hebrew is "rosh ha-tabachim", and it refers to "Potiphar", from the previous chapters in all translations.)

The "head chef" is Potiphar (everyone agrees that Potiphar is the referent). What is Potiphar doing supervising Joseph in prison? Why does chapter 39 close off by saying that the head of the prison took a liking to him?

And the head of the prison, saw to nothing in his charge, because Yahweh is with him, and whatever his does, Yahweh makes succeed.

Wouldn't it make more sense that the head of the prison would send him to supervise the others? Why is he still hanging out with Potiphar after Potiphar's wife accused Joseph of trying to rape her? And what is a "rosh ha-tabachim" (head chef) doing in prison anyway?

Why does Genesis 39 throw the rest of the narrative off, by sending Joseph away from Potiphar?

Answer 1

This is because chapter 39 is by the Jahwist author, J, while the surrounding story is Elohist. The dreams and their interpretation is Elohist, while the female seduction (like all strong stories from a female point of view) are due to J.

The J story is just interpolated inside a narrative that fits better without Joseph even having been imprisoned. This is one of the places where the J/E seams are apparent.

But possibly only so as to resolve this tension, intepreters have sometimes interpreted "Rosh ha-tabachim" (Potiphar) as the "head of the guard" instead of the more natural "head of the meat-slaughterers/preparers" or "head chef". It sounds like a totally wrong interpretation, which is only demanded by the mutual consistency of J and E stories in the order presented (which is not at all necessary, given that they are textually separate).