One of the things I was asked in my oral entrance examination was about the relevance of Genesis 38 to the book. That is a good question. Why is this strange story of Judah and Tamar included in the midst of the Joseph story? Last week this came up in class and I share with you what the professor said:
Genesis 38 appears to be an interruption in the story of Joseph. Professor believes it is a study of contrasts. Chapter 37 ends with Joseph being sold into the house of Potiphar; chapter 39 begins with the very same thing. Chapter 38 gives us the “meanwhile back at the ranch.” So the chronology is tight but it fits. (The person who figured the chronology all out was Cassuto; critics say that the events cannot fit – you cannot have Judah becoming a grandfather in the interval between the sale of Joseph and the arrival of the brothers in Egypt. But Cassuto shows how. You need to know this.)
Our interest is in Joseph because he is the good guy. Professor talked about Gen 38 with Waltke. Waltke said to tell the students that Joseph’s character is flat; Judah is the interesting person, because his character develops downward and upward. Instead of seeing Judah as a foil for Joseph, which is what Professor has said for 30-some years, instead see Joseph as a foil for Judah. Of course the perfidy of Judah’s behavior would have led to the assimilation of his descendants as Canaanites, but it’s only when a Canaanite woman acted as more righteous than he that he was more ready to come back to the family and become part of the promised community. That is part of the explanation for taking the family into Egypt, where they would not assimilate.
I’m not so sure I like the foil idea (if this suggests that Joseph is somehow less important, or there are fewer lessons to learn, then I can’t agree). I do however like the last idea – that this story shows what would have happened to the nation of Israel if the sons had not gone to Egypt – they would have assimilated with the Canaanites and there wouldn’t have been a nation.
I decided against including his comments here on why he thinks that Moses divorced of Zipporah. If you want to know more, you can email me and I’ll send you the reference to a journal article where you can read about it.
I would love to know more! I remember talking with you in your office about this very chapter wondering why it was in the Bible. So, I would love the link to the article.
Thanks Todd!
pc
That’s really interesting, because one of my classes last semester was second-year Hebrew, and we translated through the Joseph story, and read a book by Aaron Wildavsky (a Jewish political-sciences buff) about Joseph as the opposite of Moses in pretty much every way except lineage. He posits Joseph as the respective bad guy who led his people into assimilation in Egypt – not necessarily a flat character, but certainly not one who grows as Judah does. He, too, sees the Judah story as one of contrast, but also as a sort of parallel with the Joseph/Mrs. Potiphar account and Ruth’s story. One of his main points in his book is that survival must not be gained through sin. Judah tried to survive (his line) through sin (not giving his youngest son to Tamar as promised), and Tamar made the righteous choice; conversely, Joseph did rightly by refusing Mrs. Potiphar although he didn’t “survive” in Potiphar’s house, but later tried to ensure the survival of his family through what Wildavsky considers the sin of assimilation. But I do agree that assimilation is what would have happened had the family remained in Canaan (especially considering the nation’s tendency to drift towards Canaanites after the Exodus), and although a few of the family-turned-nation ended up in Egyptian positions, the people as a whole were not assimilated in the same way in Egypt.
Thanks for posting this – it’s good to see a different perspective on Joseph and Judah from the ones I read over last semester. Hope your studies continue to go well!
Todd
I’d highly recommend Robert Alter on this chapter (and on almost anything) if you haven’t read his stuff already. I especially like the connection he points out from the ancient midrash (Genesis Rabbah): At the climax of the story, Tamar’s command to Judah “haker-na” (take a look at this [i.e., the seal, cord, and staff]), is identical to the phrase the brothers used when presenting Joseph’s bloody coat to Jacob only one chapter previous. Judah the deciever (who suggested selling Joseph as a slave) is now the decieved, and the same exact terms used are a pointed allusion to the poetic justice. What’s more, the deception involved the use of a goat in both instances. Check out Alter’s “Art of Biblical Narrative” pp. 5-11.
So you didn’t tell us – how did you answer the question?
Danny – thanks for the tip. I’ve heard of Alter for years but never actually read his book. As to how I answered that question, I don’t remember. I remember saying, “that’s a good question!” and then I fumbled around with some things and they seemed to be satisfied.