An examination of scholarly perspectives on the ethicality of Joseph's enslavement of the Egyptians in Gen 47:13-26 reveals a debate over whether Joseph's actions were benevolent or oppressive. The majority of scholars who evaluate Joseph negatively simply ignore the relevant historical data, and Brueggemann's case for its dismissal is unconvincing. However, one area of contention that has gone relatively unexamined is the relevance and implications of later canonical materials relating to slavery. Childs' Canonical Approach is employed in a modified form to honor the canon as the larger context in which a passage should be read. I argue that when examined in light of relevant slavery texts across the Tanakh, Joseph's actions in Gen 47:13-26 are not culpable on the basis of his employment of debt slaver, but can be read as being out of step with the ideal that emerges concerning resource distribution. / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA)