There is a lot to say about the following passage:
Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brothers. He was a boy with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father’s wives. Joseph brought an evil report of them to their father.
The Multicolored Coat1,2
What is this multicolored coat? Translators disagree. Instead of a coat, alternatives include a garment, tunic, robe, shirt, or vest. Many say that it was long; one even claiming that it reached the soles of the feet. Additional adjectives include special, fancy, very beautiful, and embroidered. And then there are the sleeves. They are often described as full or long. All this comes from a two word description in the original Hebrew.
The Egyptian with the bow is huge, demonstrating his power and superiority. All the Egyptians are dressed in white (representing their traditional white linen garb). The Semitic people appear differently as shown in the blown-up snapshot at the top of this article. They wore multicolored outerwear. The hieroglyphics accompanying the drawing identifies the leader. He was a Semitic ruler of a foreign land who was trading expensive eye cosmetics. The first two of the procession are shown without sandals (out of respect for Egyptian culture) as they presented their wares to the governor. The Egyptians are clean shaven but for royal goatees. This contrasts with the Semites who have full beards.
This tomb drawing provides visual archaeological evidence for the traditional appearance and dress of the time. The special garment that Jacob gave to his son was a status symbol, but not outside the norm for what Semitic people wore when Joseph lived. But we still have a question. Why did Jacob make this garment for Joseph and apparently not for his other sons?
Firstborn Rights3
Inheritance practices varied significantly across the ancient Middle East. Cuneiform tablets found at Nuzi (modern day Kirkuk in Northern Iraq) provide a representative sample.4 Typically, the eldest son receives a double share and assumes clan leadership. This being said, fathers could favor a younger son under special circumstances.
This happened twice in the book Genesis. Sarah implored Abraham to disinherit Ishmael and expel her servant Hagar. Abraham was grieved by the request because it went against the cultural norms (Hammurabi 170).5 Abraham relented when assured that Ishmael would also be a great nation (Gen 21:10–12). The second example relates to Esau who sold his birthright for a bowl of soup (Gen 25:34). Perhaps he did not care to assume the clan responsibilities that come with the privilege. He was destined to form his own clan.
There are other conditions that could cause a father to alter the son designated as firstborn. A son for example could commit an offence against the father and bring shame to the clan (Hammurabi 168, 169).5 Jacob surely had good reason to exclude Ruebin, Simeon, and Levi. These three were originally in line for the firstborn designation.
Dr. Michael Heiser once wrote: “If it’s weird, it’s important.”6 Consider Gen 35. The chapter documents the deaths of Jacob’s favorite wife Rachel and Isaac, the clan leader. Right in the middle of the chapter, we read: “Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine.” That certainly is a weird unsavory detail. What is going on? With the death of the patriarch Isaac, Reuben saw an opportunity to bypass his father and assume clan leadership himself. We see a similar action later in history by Absalom, king David’s son. To establish himself as king and humiliate his father, he had sex with all his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel (1 Sam 22:15–16).
Simeon and Levi shamed their father in a different way (Gen 34). The son of a local Hivite leader had sexual relations with their sister Dinah and proceeded to bargain for her hand in marriage. By deception, the two brothers tricked them to become circumcised, only to be slaughtered during recovery. Simeon and Levi took matters into their own hands without their father’s consent. They usurped his authority. This is unforgivable in honor/shame cultures.
What would be the repercussions? Jacob with reason could designate another son as firstborn. When we read Jacob’s final blessings to his sons in Gen 49, this exactly is what happened.
Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength; excelling in dignity, and excelling in power. Boiling over like water, you shall not excel; because you went up to your father’s bed, then defiled it. He went up to my couch.
Though Joseph’s offspring received a double portion in future Promised Land distribution, apparently Judah (the fourth son and next in line) retained firstborn status.
Judah, your brothers will praise you. Your hand will be on the neck of your enemies. Your father’s sons will bow down before you. (Gen 49:8)
Joseph’s scheme
With this background, let’s turn back to Joseph and repeat the following verses:
Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brothers. He was a boy with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father’s wives. Joseph brought an evil report of them to their father.
This passage is about inheritance. Who would be the leader of the clan after Jacob passes? Who would have firstborn designation? Joseph was manipulating the situation to his advantage. He brought bad reports concerning the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father’s wives, but not the sons of Leah. Why? Some say they were not in the field with him. Possibly! But maybe there was something else going on. The sons of Leah were not a threat. The first three offspring were disqualified (as discussed above). Perhaps Joseph concluded that they shamed all of Leah’s offspring. The sons of Bilhah and Zilpah on the other hand were ahead of Joseph in the line of succession. Bad reports would move Joseph to top position. It worked (so it seemed at the time). Jacob gave him special status with the multicolored garment. The manipulation was not lost on the brothers. They “hated him and couldn’t speak peaceably to him.” His dreams about ruling over the whole family (Gen 37:9–11), including their parents was a breaking point. One could see why they wanted payback. Slavery followed.
Conclusion
This article illustrates a context consistent with the cultural mores of the time. Furthermore, parental favoritism and sibling infighting are universal, both in modern times and in the ancient world. The Bible is surprising though. It does not put its main characters on pedestals, not even the patriarchs and their families. One does not have to be super righteous to be accepted and loved by the King of Kings. Sometimes the last will be first, and the first last.
The next article will address Joseph in Egypt. Is it consistent with Egyptian culture during the time of the Hyksos? Stay tuned.
Thanks for Listening
References
Gary Byers, “The Beni Hasan Asiatics and the Biblical Patriarchs. ”
Janice Kamrin, “The Procession of Asiatics at Beni Hasan. ”
K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament , Eerdmans (2003).
K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament “Laws of Hammurabi. ”
Micael Heiser, “Heiser’s Laws for Bible Study, ” Naked Bible (July 16, 1022).
Dan Harvey, author of Wrestling with Faith,
secondlooknow.com
Your regetence to heiser brought a metaphorical tear to my eye. He was one of my favorites; a true, careful thinker. Its interesting to process Jesus’ statement about the first being ladt and vice versa in light of the biblical stories.