Genesis 37

Jewish law establishes death penalty for kidnappers of Jews. The forefathers accepted the yoke of the Law before it was given to all Jews. It is commonly believed that Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery – but they were not punished. It pays to read the Torah closely.

Genesis 37:18-20: “And they [Joseph’s brothers] saw him from a distance, and before he would approach them, they crafted [a plot] for him to die. And they said, each to his brother, Here comes [the] interpreter of dreams. Now, let’s go and cause him to be jabbed into and fallen into one of the trenches, and we will say, Wild animal devoured him, and we will see what will be his dreams.”

Brothers had some reasons to hate Joseph who informed Jacob on them and related arrogant dreams. The word for “trench” possibly relates to havar, astrologist (according to Steinberg, they zone the sky, akin to trenches) akin to Joseph, thus an instance of black humor.

The brothers didn’t intend to kill Joseph, but to retreat with their flocks, leaving him to deal with wild animals. Genesis 37:17 concurs: when Joseph came to see his brothers at Schem, they have already moved to Dotan. Likewise, they intended to retreat further upon his approach.

In Genesis 37:21-22, Reuben pleads with other brothers to drop Joseph into a pit as opposed to leaving him to the animals: “Let us not cause his soul to be smitten!” The brothers followed Reuben’s advice. Now, Joseph sits in a waterless pit, and his brothers are undecided what to do about him.

Genesis 37:26: “And Judah said to his brothers, If we would cause our brother to die and hid his blood, what profit [would that be to us]?” Judah, don’t forget, is a virtuous man: he offered himself into slavery in place of his brother Binyamin who allegedly stole a silver cup (Genesis 44:33). In Genesis 37:26, Judah expresses satisfaction that they did not cause Joseph’s death.

Immediately thereafter, Reuben returns to the pit with the evident intention to remove Joseph – and doesn’t see him. The narration recalls the structure of horror movies: evil intention (to give Joseph to animals, v.20) – thinking it over while the subject is locked (Joseph in a pit, vs.23) – while the characters elaborate their plot, the threat comes close (Ishmaelite caravan passes just before their eyes) – the conspirators recant (v.26) but, unbeknownst to them, it’s already too late (Midianites find Joseph and sell him to Ishmaelites, v.28) - the conspirators come to release their victim, but he is gone (v.29).

Reuben did not come to save Joseph secretly, for upon seeing the empty pit, he returned to his brothers: “The child is not there! And I, where, pray, am I going?” The brutal practical joke on Joseph turns into tragedy.

Instead of revealing Jacob that their behavior indirectly caused Joseph’s death, the brothers imitated his death from the wild animal.
Joseph’s brothers neither tried to kill him, nor sold him into slavery.

[The text supports the understanding that Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery. In Genesis 37:27, Judah says, "Come, let [him] be sold by us to Ishmaelites…” And 37:28: “And there passed by Midianites, merchantmen; and they [the brothers] drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites…” Reading they as brothers is confirmed by 37:36, “Midianites sold him into Egypt…” So Midianites didn’t previously sell Joseph to Ishmaelites; Midianites and Ishmaelites are the same people; brothers “sold Joseph to Ishmaelites.”
This passage conflicts with Reuven’s surprise upon seeing the empty pit. It seems here an editorial that explains Judah’s “what profit is it if we slay our brother?”
Twenty shekels the brothers received for Joseph are hugely exaggerated. Only about a thousand years later slaves became that expensive (Hosea 3:2). Thirty shekels for one’s ox goring a slave is a high fine, not a cost.
The brothers decided against killing Joseph much earlier, in Genesis 37:21-23 on Reuven’s suggestion, so Judah’s argument against killing Joseph in 37:27 is superfluous. Also, there’s stylistic difference between 37:27 and the surrounding verses, suggesting an editorial.
Some editorials in the Torah do not impinge on its divinity. Even divine texts can be corrupted a bit.]

Erick S

It makes a lot of sense, common sense.
But would someone challenge that interpretation, so we can all become a little wiser?

Reply to this comment

Ray Bright Subscribed to comments via email

Erik,
Here is my challenge:
The story of Joseph is one of many extraordinarily beautiful stories in the Bible. It is at the same literary height as Shakespeare. And just like with Shakespeare, it should be kept in the literary sphere, rather than using it as moral guidance for modern people. (I am not saying that it cannot be used for that purpose, I am saying that it can be used only in the same way as Shakespeare’s stories).

Yeah, Ray, but you live in fairy land, and have a somewhat limited knowledge of biblical interpretations. Kind of a problem.
And modern people don’t have any moral advantage over their kindred from 3 millennia ago. They just have more firepower at their disposal.
Humans are scum. The flood was the right answer.

Eric,
Please limit your “Ad Hominem” attacks (”you live in fairy land, and have a somewhat limited knowledge”), they don’t contribute to a good discussion.
And yes, you are correct, I have a VERY limited and only second hand knowledge of biblical interpretations. And I almost agree with you that there have been only a very tiny moral development in the last 3000 years. (Though I think that there has been some, while you seem to think that there has been none.) In any case we almost agree in any case, it has been very little. Especially as compared to our scientific/technological development.
The difference is not so much in our perception of the case, but in our proposed solution: You seem to be saying ROUGHLY (please don’t get stuck with details, just see the big picture)that: “Since we have not developed, and perhaps this lack of development is human nature, therefore the rules laid down by “God” 3000 thousand years ago, are eternal and should be followed today, just as much as 3000 years ago.”
I on the other hand am saying that these primitive rules supposedly revealed to us by Mr. God, are the root cause of our continued suffering. I am not saying that these rules were not relevant to the primitive people of 3000 years ago. What I am saying is that morality and religion, just like science must continue to develop. And that this lack of develop.
Now very important, don’t ascribe to me any Idealism. I am not some wide eyed idiot thinking that “people are good” and would be loving and friendly and just a fair and respectful to each other. I am not saying any of that.

chaim

Well, I don’t see any problem with Ovadiah post. I never thought Joseph brothers wanted to kill or sell his brother, just to scare him. Please notice the age of those boys..
Question to Ray: Dear Ray, is there a post you don’t have to say some nonsense? still don’t get the message?
you say it for yourself “And yes, you are correct, I have a VERY limited and only second hand knowledge of biblical interpretations”
In modern hebrew there is a saying: If you don’t have anything to say, just say nothing..

Dear Chaim,
It would be better if you go to the Forum, if you absolutely cannot control yourself and must make personal attacks such as “, is there a post you don’t have to say some nonsense”.

As for my acknowledgment that I have not first hand knowledge of biblical commentaries: So what????
Neither do I don’t have big knowledge of commentaries on Hamlet, or Macbeth, or on Romeo And Juliette, nor on Sigmund Freud’s work, nor on Nietzsche’s “Thus Spake Zarathustra”,
nor on Mozart’s symphony in g-minor, for that sake. Get the picture?
I don’t need any commentaries if I have first hand experience with the particular work of art, or philosophy.
Commentaries are for mediocre people like yourself. (This is the first time I lower myself to your level and offer a personal attacks, back. And I am not angry, just want to assist you in realizing, that personal attacks are easy, cheap and don’t contribute to a good conversation)

Ray, of course, you are never angry. Maybe you should leave the forum? What you think? Better go to blogs about your specific interest area, such as Hamlet, or Macbeth, or on Romeo And Juliette, nor on Sigmund Freud’s work, nor on Nietzsche’s “Thus Spake Zarathustra”,
nor on Mozart’s symphony in g-minor
Here we discuss something very different.
And always remember: Everything that has a begining has a final (Ray classic cites)

Chaim,
If you don’t like my posts, perhaps instead of asking me to shut up and go somewhere else, it would make more sense if you simply skip anything written by “Ray Bright”. I promise not to be offended…

I do understand that some people think that Torah is qualitatively different from “Hamlet”. This however is not my view.To me Torah, just like every other book, was written by people, some parts of it are written by truly great poets and visionaries, some by mediocre and some by mildly retarded writers.

I am here not because I agree with the Divine origins of Torah. I am here because it is a blog on Machiavellian analysis of the Middle East conflict.

Ray,
If you are here for the Macchiavelian analisys of the Middle East conflict, maybe you should talkback just in those posts,not in every single post by Ovadiah.

Chaim,
I will consider your request.

Joseph

Well, Joseph’s siblings were nicer than mine .
==
Also sprach Zarathustra — On the list of books that are alot more interesting in the Clift’s Notes version. Better prose than Mein Kampf, but I still haven’t finished it. Something about masters and slaves …

Steve

This interpretation, although interesting, doesn’t make any sense textually. You can’t ignore what the passage has Judah saying:

“Come, let’s sell him to the Ishmaelites and not lay our hands on him; after all, he is our brother, our own flesh and blood.”

His brothers agreed, and the next verse specifies that the brothers sold him to the Ishmaelites (or Midianites; the terms were apparently interchangeable).

It’s easy to come up with vastly different interpretations of a text if you decide to view it in a modern light (e.g., ‘horror movies’) while simply ignoring what it says. For instance, a dog fell into a pit in the movie “Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey.” Maybe Joseph was really a dog!

Danny the Admin

To Steve: A good point. Please see an addition at the bottom of the post

Matt

Concerning the opening paragraph of the original post, I disagree with this reasoning because Reuben committed adulatery and Simeon and Levi murdered the Shechemites.

Also consider this passage:

And Reuben answered them, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child; and ye would not hear? therefore, behold, also his blood is required.

Gen 42:22 (KJV)

Cynthia

Alex,
I went to the link you sent and read Mr. Shoher’s interpretation of Gen. 37. I will summarize why I disagree with his interpretation:
1. He mentions that the Jews have a law that punishes kidnappers and murderers of Jews and that the brothers weren’t punished. This seems to be one of the reasons why he feels they couldn’t have intended to kidnap or murder Joseph, but the Law (Torah) wasn’t given to the Jews until Moses (quite a bit after Joseph lived), therefore, there was no law in force at the time this story takes place.
2. He mentions that when Joseph went to find his brothers at Shechem, they had moved away to Dothan. In his opinion, this shows that his brothers had decided to “play a joke on him”, but the clear indication of the text is that they moved on to Dothan before Joseph ever arrived. They did not see him coming from far away until he sought them out at Dothan.
3. The conversation among the brothers clearly indicates a plan to kill him, until Reuben suggests leaving him in a well to die so that they don’t personally shed his blood. Apparently Reuben leaves the group for awhile, though it is not explicitly in the written account, and while he is gone Judah suggests selling Joseph into slavery when he spots a caravan of Midianites coming. His thinking, as he states in the text, is that it is better to get some profit from their brother Joseph than to just kill him. Reuben is upset when he returns and finds Joseph gone because it spoiled his plan to rescue his brother Joseph later.
4. If you read later in Genesis 42, when his brothers come to Egypt to get supplies during the famine, they discuss among themselves that they are having problems because of the sins they committed against Joseph. They have clearly harbored much guilt through the years for their evil actions and the grief they had caused their father.
5. Mr. Shoher mentions the youth of the “boys” and believes them to be too young to have such evil intent as to purposely want to kill Joseph or sell him into slavery. But Joseph was the 11th of 12 boys. All 10 of his older brothers, plus a sister, Dinah, were born before him. This would make the majority of them well into adulthood, even at the rate of one birth per year. They were not boys but men.

I think I covered most of the points. I may have missed a few but I believe this gives quite a bit of food for thought as to why I believe Joseph’s brothers did intend to do him harm. If I may be of any further service, or if you want to discuss further or share any disagreements, I would be happy to respond. God bless you — Cynthia

Bob

In agreement with Cynthia, I offer a few additional thoughts.

a. Joseph’s brothers were not punished for murder or kidnap. True. They did fully expect Joseph’s retribution following the death of Jacob, however, as they knew Joseph understood their intent quite well; and only the grace of God prevented it. Read Genesis 50:15-21.

b. To declare Judah’s overall righteousness because of his later change in character seems a bit hasty. Remember his affair with a harlot (Genesis 38:11-30).

c. The bracketed addendum refers to editorial changes to the text. I’d like to see some hard evidence to support this. It’s too easy to declare that text is not genuine rather than to submit to its teaching in faith.

No, one cannot say that Joseph’s brothers intended only to play a practical joke on their little brother. Their evil and hateful intent was to be rid of him by leaving him in a waterless pit (not too unlike condemning him to hell) to die; but their following Judah’s suggestion that they might be rewarded for their effort, actually ended up saving both Joseph and themselves.

The Torah has no problem with non-Jewish harlots, but relates Judah’s story matter-of-factly, with no tint of condemnation.