Genesis 41:10
פַּרְעֹה קָצַף עַל־עֲבָדָיו וַיִּתֵּן אֹתִי בְּמִשְׁמַר בֵּית שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִים אֹתִי וְאֵת שַׂר הָאֹפִֽים׃
✦ Hebrew interlinear
Tap a word to see its entry
✦ The same verse in five languages
פַּרְעֹ֖ה קָצַ֣ף עַל־עֲבָדָ֑יו וַיִּתֵּ֨ן אֹתִ֜י בְּמִשְׁמַ֗ר בֵּ֚ית שַׂ֣ר הַטַּבָּחִ֔ים אֹתִ֕י וְאֵ֖ת שַׂ֥ר הָאֹפִֽים׃
Φαραὼ ὠργίσθη τοῖς παισὶν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔθετο ἡμᾶς ἐν φυλακῆ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ ἀρχιδεσμοφύλακος, ἐμέ τε καὶ τὸν ἀρχισιτοποιόν·
Greek text from Swete's edition, CC BY-SA 4.0
Latin (Vulgate)
iratus rex servis suis, me et magistrum pistorum retrudi jussit in carcerem principis militum:
Hace tiempo, el faraón se enojó con sus servidores, y nos metió en la cárcel de la casa del capitán de la guardia, a mí y al jefe de los panaderos.
Classic Spanish (Reina-Valera 1909)
Faraón se enojó contra sus siervos, y á mí me echó á la prisión de la casa del capitán de los de la guardia, á mí y al principal de los panaderos:
Pharaoh was once angry with his servants, and he put me and the chief baker in the custody of the captain of the guard.
✦ What the text says
Summary
The cupbearer recalls that Pharaoh became angry with his servants and placed him, along with the chief baker, in custody under the authority of the commander of the tabbachim ("bodyguards", H2876). The verse narrates a past event using the perfect and narrative verb forms typical of retrospective speech in Hebrew prose.
Key words
- katzaf ("he was angry", H7107) — qal perfect, describing a completed state/action; combined with 'al ("towards", H5921A) it expresses anger directed "against" the servants.
- mishmar ("custody of", H4929) — masculine singular construct, opening a chain of three linked nouns ("custody of the house of the chief of the tabbachim").
- sar ("chief/commander of", H8269) — appears twice (once for the bodyguards, once for the bakers), each time in construct form, meaning it must be followed by another noun to complete its sense.
- tabbachim ("bodyguards", H2876) — masculine plural, defined by the article ha ("the", H9009), naming the group under whose commander the custody was held.
- 'otiy ("me", made of the object marker H0853 + suffix H9030) — repeated twice in the verse, marking the speaker as direct object both before and after the long construct chain.
What the text says
The sentence opens with Par'oh ("Pharaoh", H6547H) as subject and katzaf ("he was angry", H7107) as a qal perfect verb, followed by 'al-'avadav ("towards his servants", H5921A + H5650 + suffix), stating the object of Pharaoh's anger. The narrative continues with the vav-consecutive verb vayitten ("and he put", H5414H), introducing the main narrated action.
The object of that action, 'otiy ("me"), is stated once immediately after the verb, then the text inserts a long construct chain — mishmar beit sar ha-tabbachim, literally "custody of the house of the chief of the bodyguards" — a sequence of four nouns each depending on the next. After this chain, 'otiy ("me") is repeated, followed by ve-'et sar ha-'ofim ("and the chief of the bakers", H8269 + H0644), joining the chief baker as a second object. This repetition of the object marker with suffix is a feature of the Hebrew construction, resuming the object after the intervening construct chain so that both persons (the speaker and the chief baker) are clearly marked as recipients of the same action.
Differences between versions
The LXX renders the two occurrences of 'otiy ("me") as a single plural pronoun, ἡμᾶς ("us"), then separately reintroduces ἐμέ ("me") and τὸν ἀρχισιτοποιόν ("the chief baker") — collapsing the Hebrew's double "me" into one initial plural form. The Vulgate similarly gives a single "me et magistrum pistorum" ("me and the chief baker") without repeating the pronoun, unlike the Hebrew's two separate instances of 'otiy. The Hebrew sar ha-tabbachim ("chief of the bodyguards", H8269 + H2876) is rendered by the LXX as ἀρχιδεσμοφύλακος ("chief guard of prisoners") and by the Vulgate as "princeps militum" ("chief of soldiers"), both differing from the Hebrew term denoting "bodyguards" or "slaughterers."
This explanation describes the text using linguistic data; it adds no doctrine or confessional interpretation.