The story of Yehuda (one of Yosef's brothers) and Tamar in Genesis 38 seems out of place. The story appears smack dab in the middle of the Yosef narrative, which forces the reader to consider a new story before getting back to the one about Yosef. It's not even chronological--the story takes place many years later than the Yosef story. Given the nature of the story and its content, what do you make of its placement in the biblical text? Do you think there is a reason for this? What effect does it have, if any, on the way you read the Yosef story?
Please post your comment no later than Tuesday, March 25, 3pm.
35 comments:
Honestly, I have no idea (as of yet) if there is any reason for placing Gen 39 where it is. It does seem oddly out of place. Perhaps it is some sort of foreshadowing for Yoseph and his character. Not necessarily stating exactly what will happen to Yoseph, but more how Yoseph builds his character through his trials just as his brother Yehuda did during his story.
I found it interesting that Yehuda owned up to his wrongdoing after he declares that Tamar should be punished for prostituting. (Gen 39:26 "Yehuda recognized them and said: She is in-the-right more than I! For after all, I did not give her to Shela my son! And he did not know her again.") He realizes that in actuality, she didn't really do anything wrong, because he was the one who 1) didn't give her to his son and 2) took advantage of her in the first place. This is the first time we've really seen anyone admit they did something wrong--he was ethically responsible.
So I think that Yoseph will have a similar experience where he is faced with an ethical decision. Because they are brothers (although by different mothers, but the mothers are sisters--wow, that's confusing), it would be in their blood to act similarly.
I haven't read far enough yet to see if this is correct, but we will see what happens to Yoseph later on.
Stephanie, I do agree with you that Yehuda undoubtedly shows ethical responsibility for once in Genesis. And for this reason I believe this story fits so perfectly in here. Going back to Genesis 37, Yehuda actually saves Yosef's life even though it's for an ambiguous cause. In bible fashion, a long important story must follow an important event such as this and an ensuing moral journey for the character at hand is imminent. Besides, talking about Yosef's slavery can't be all that exciting so a chapter about the faith odyssey of his brother serves as a good space filler. In addition, I like what Fox had to say on page 178 that "only after we have been informed of Yehuda's change can the narrative resume...", as if there is no story to tell unless change is occurring in some way.
I was just about to write what Dan said here about the change we need to see in Yehuda before we can resume Yoseph’s story from the same place! I feel like it is so huge that a character in Genesis actually acted ethically responsible, as Stephanie cited from Gen 38:26, that it almost needed to interrupt whatever was going on in the story to be expressed immediately, in understanding later events with these characters. We have really the first instance where we see a character in Genesis mess up, feel humiliation and NOT blame it on the woman in the story, but rather take full responsibility. I think in terms of reading Genesis, though, it’s not very strange to me to read things out of order, go back in time, leap forward, skipping hundreds of years. Honestly, if this hadn’t been pointed out to me as a big deal, I doubt I would have been bothered or really noticed the leap backward in Yoseph’s life to when he is about 17 and much younger. I can see where the placement of this story randomly in the middle of another one that we are engaged in already would add a building effect in the story, and create mounting drama in a cliff-hanger kind of way. However, I don’t know that I really find much reason for this story to be that much of a cause for discussion as far as placement. I find it to be more interesting for its content within the context of itself and not the Yoseph narratives as a whole.
It was extremely hard for me
to understand
through chapter 37 and 38.
I could not really figure
why story of Yehuda suddenly
appeared right after
Yosef.
In my point of view,
One of the reasons for
Gen 38 seemed out of place is
because
this passage got to prove
something important
for later in the bible.
Thus, it had to be in Genesis.
I agree
Stephanie's comment
on Yeuda's admitting
his fault.
She was very smart
to gain Yeuda's
Staff, cord, and seal
in her hand to prove
that Yehuda actually
slept with his daughter
in law.
Tamar and Yehuda's
babies were born
and the story goes on.
Twins were in her body
and the story of Yehuda and
Tamar
significantly
described
how theses babies
were born.
I hope to think that
generations of Yehuda
and Tamar
could be very important
later in the bible.
The placement of Yehuda’s story is not completely out of chronological order as we did see Yehuda as a leading character toward the end of Gen 37. Also in Fox’s commentary, he points to how twenty years pass between the time Yoseph is sold to slavery and comes before Pharaoh (Gen 41:46,53-54). I think it is possible as Fox comments that Yehuda’s story could take place in this chunk of time in the narrative. For some reason it is important enough to interrupt Yoseph’s story for us as readers to see Yehuda’s character develop (as Stephanie, Dan, and Amy Leigh commented) and understand who his decedents are.
I agree with Kevin that Yehuda’s story will be important later in the Bible. Within Yehuda’s story I saw explanation of family bloodlines which I predict will make other later stories more understandable. As boring as I find reading the bloodlines of families, I understand the importance of carrying on one’s family bloodline so as to keep land which provides food and shelter. We have seen this brought up several times in Genesis as we have been reading one example being Lot’s daughters in Gen 19:31 and also you can read about it in other parts of the Bible such as in the book of Ruth.
The story of Yehuda distracts my attention from the Yoseph story only slightly and it is not difficult for me to return into the action of Yoseph’s story. A reason the Yoseph story may have been so easy to return to though is my familiarity with it after hearing it many times through both the popular play “Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat” and in church growing up.
When I first came across this story, I was kind of annoyed that it caused the Yosef story to become out of sync. But by re-reading it, I am really struck by, as people have mentioned before me, the nature of Yehuda's acceptance of responsibility. Maybe it's just because it's such a novelty at this point in the Bible for ethical responsibility to be emphasised, but I do believe this to be important.
I find it oddly entertaining to parallel this example of ethical behavior with Gen. 39, as Yosef does all he can to not "sin against God" and be with the lord's wife...which later so angers the wife that she goes on a tirade against Yosef. That is why I appreciate now the positioning of Yehuda's story; it kind of attempts to instill some sort of ethical standard. As Yosef's story continues and his way of doing the right thing backfires, I think that it shows that while doing what is right is important, it's most certainly not an indication that all will turn out in your favor, which is a lesson we can all attest to.
"Yehuda said to his brothers :
What gain is there
if we kill our brother and cover up his blood?
Come, let us sell him to the Yishmaelites--
but let not our hand be upon him,
for he is our brother, our flesh!
And his brothers listened to him."
I read this one of three ways:
1) Yehuda is focused on the gain to be had in selling Yosef,
2) Yehuda has some care for the family and is trying to compromise with his brothers to sell and not kill Yosef, or
3) Yehuda has some care for Yosef and is trying to compromise with his brothers to sell and not kill Yosef
In the first case, Yehuda is being obviously selfish and ethically irresponsible. In the second case, Yehuda is focused on the individual gain to be had in the advancement of the family. If this is not the case, and he is not focused on the gain but soley on the family, his ethical irresponsibility would still be present in that which is in the third case. That is, Yehuda fails to save his brother at all costs, that is to say, at the potential cost of his life. He fears the physical and/or sociological hatred to be had in the saving of his brother.
So, why does this matter? If Yehuda was justified in merely compromising with his brothers to sell and not kill Yosef, not facing his fear of his brothers, he was being ethically responsible, and we would have no need for the story of Yehuda and Tamar. However, in all three readings we see that this is not the case, and Yehuda is ethically irresponsible.
Being such, we would be rather suprised to see the pledge (38:18) and the ethical responsibility that Yehuda exhibits in 44:33. In this, we find need of an explaination to show the transition of this change. This explaination obviously has to come after the selling of Yosef. Right after we leave Yosef in the well seems like a good place. It creates tension, a cliff-hanger, as amy leigh mentioned, and allows us to not get too caught up in the happenings of Yosef before we get this transition of Yehuda.
While the progression of Gen 38 winds up falling out of place, the beginning of the chapter lets us know “it was at about that time”, so I think its placement is to maybe show what became of Yehuda after he saved Jacob from death. It also shows, as many have mentioned previously, the development of Yehuda’s ethical responsibility, a rare thing in the Bible, it seems. I think this chapter was necessary in order to demonstrate this morality. However, I do wish it sort of flowed better with the story of Joseph. Having to jump from one story to another and then back again makes it confusing to the reader, but it also could be a way to make sure you pay attention to the story in order to learn the lessons to come from it. It makes the reader wonder, too, as they go into the rest of Joseph’s story, whether there will be parallels or opposites between the two brothers.
I agree with with the many of you who said this is an instance of ethical responsibility, maybe the first instance. And the story following 38 is another instance of ethical responsibility. It seems like this story of Yehuda is a pivital point in the biblical narrative, where people are beggining to show ethical responsibility...at least in this family. we see the brothers who did not act ethically responsible previously, but after this account it seems that they are different (even though its not quite chronological)...
I don't find this story out of place really. i think it adds to the rest of the story. it puts a different perspective on who Yehuda is. to me it seems like it is just filling us in on whats going on here (with Yehuda) and then what was going on with Yosef...i dunno
Since the Yehuda story is dropped into the middle of the Yosef story, it seems a bit awkward to us, but authors of novels often employ this technique of pulling completely away from one storyline to focus on another that happened during the same time period. As Kate pointed out, Gen. 38 begins with "Now it was at about that time. . ." At about what time? At about the same time that the Midyanite traders sold Yosef to Potifar. One point that the author may be making here is that Yehuda was very unhappy with his brothers' treatment of Yosef. "Now it was at about that time that Yehuda went down, away from his brothers and turned aside to an Adullamite man - his name was Hira. There Yehuda saw the daughter of a Canaanite man - his name was Shua, he took her (as his wife) and came in to her." vs. 2 I think Yehuda's distancing himself from his brothers and their actions is an important part of this story because all that followed after in Yehuda's life came as a result of that decision. I think the magnitude of Yehuda's actions (turning away from his brothers after they betrayed Yosef) also helps us better understand Yehuda's agony later when he has to go back and forth carrying messages between Yisrael and Yosef before Yosef had revealed himself as their long-lost brother. I mean, those brothers had proven untrustworthy in the past. They had proven that they would sell even one of their own into slavery. Yehuda must have spent his whole life looking over his shoulder.
While the change from Yosef’s story to Yehuda’s is abrupt, I do not think that it is out of place. In Genesis 37, the reader sees how Yosef’s brother treat him (put him in a whole, hope to sell him but end up taking his coat to their father an saying he’s dead). In Genesis 39, the story goes to Yosef in Egypt. It seems like Genesis 38 is there to give the story of Yehuda in that part of the narrative while Yosef’s brothers are being discuss and possibly foreshadow the importance of this character later in Yosef’s life/narrative (He re-enters the narrative around Genesis 42). The narrative of Yosef in Egypt flows better if the story of Yehuda and Tamar is placed in Genesis 38. There would be too great of a shift if it were place in the beginning of Genesis 42, losing the emphasis on Yosef and placing it on Yehuda’s story.
Also, according to the footnotes in the Nelson Study Bible, it states about Genesis 38 “Although some consider the story of Judah (Yehuda) and Tamar an intrusion into the Joseph (Yosef) story, it odes fit into the flow of the narrative. First the story provides a stunning contrast between he morals of Judah and Joseph. Second, Judah’s story illustrates the further disintegration of Jacob’s family. Jacob’s sons had sold Joseph, and now Judah married a Canaanite woman and solicited a Canaanite prostitute (who happened to be his daughter-in-law). If this process continued, Jacob’s family, the family of promise, would become the people of Canaan. The fact that the Messiah’s lineage would be eventually traced through Judah’s line is a clear sign of God’s grace and mercy”. This story needs to be included to show the change in Yehuda and it must be placed early so that it does not interrupt the flow of the Yosef in Egypt story.
The placement of the story of Yehuda and Tamar is perfect. It jolts the readers' focus from the chronological and seamless tale of Yosef to a story that seems to be interjected haphazardly into the framework. This interruption is one of remarkable literary craft that makes this otherwise normal story (in terms of the Biblical text) of Yehuda and Tamar increasingly pertinent in that it is constructed to stand alone. Its insertion raises importance and thus memorability. If Yehuda and Tamar were not presented using this device, the reader would not be raising these questions of why, and what the importance is of the placement, thus this tale would lose quite a bit of its fascination and intrigue. The reader would not have further questions to ponder beyond the surface of the tale.
-Bet$y Robbins.
I do not think that it is completely exceptional that the story of Yehuda should both interrupt Yosef's narrative and be written out of chronological order.
Firstly, if studying the books of Moses as literature then one has to consider the probability that the text was written, re-written and translated many times since its origins, so there is some possibility that the story of Yehuda was mistakenly placed where it was as the text was passed down, and that there is no deeper meaning to it being there.
Otherwise, it is not uncommon and certainly a useful literary technique to have what we would consider flashbacks and flash-forwards. Certainly many modern texts will start the narrative at or after the climatic episode, and then proceed to explain the narrative up until that point. In this instance, it gives the reader some insight into events foreshadowing choices and actions that other characters will have to make in the proceeding chapters, as Kevin points out.
Yeah, I agree that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be where it is, it is kind of random, however I also think that there is some reason for it. I think what Stephanie said about the foreshadowing is very interesting (and way to really read it as literature) and could be true. I also haven't read far enough to know for sure. Then I read Dan's post which was also great and also really viewing the Bible as literature. I noticed I was still kind of just reading it like I did back when I went to Sunday school rather than viewing it as literature...like I'm supposed to be doing. Looking at other people's perspectives in this is very helpful.
I agree with the ethical responsibility so many have been writing about. It's like there had to be a time out to display some morality where there was none.
I think Betsy Robbins made a very good point that because this story is not chronological, it grabs the readers' attention that much more. This is definitely one of the first instances we see ethical responsibility and I think that it was placed here in the middle of Genesis to remind us that ethical responsibility does occur. There are so many instances throughout Genesis that the audience hopes for someone to take responsibility and so few do that a reader unfamiliar with the text might become desensitized to the lack of ethics. This story gives us hope which can then be applied to the story of Yosef, allowing us to anticipate the ethical responsibility of the brothers.
I really dont believe there is any reason for putting Gen. 39 in there. The story of Joseph is in many ways a story of Ups and Downs. This story seems to be the same in some ways, but not all. In this story Yehuda owns up to his mistakes and wrongdoings compared to where the brothers of Joseph never own up to what they do to him.
Just like in other stories in the bible previous to this, like Kane and Able, its almost forshadowing on what not to do. In this case, the bible gives us a story of what to do, and why you should comit your wrongdoings, and follows it up with the story of Joseph and his ignorant brothers.
Really it is hard to understand why this is in the bible where it is, but like most of the bible, you take away from it what you want, and leave it at that.
Wow...I didn't realize how in depth this section of the Bible would end up getting. However, it really is brilliant. I completely agree with Nathan about Yehuda's three motives. It seems to me that perhaps he didn't mind if Yosef was out of "their picture," but maybe he had enough compassion not to want him out of "the picture." So...he could win on all sides if they sold him (thus gaining for themselves) and yet he wouldn't feel any guilt.
I completey agree with Kate as well in the placement of the Yehuda story. Personally, had it not interrupted Yosef's story, I would have read it and probably never quite made the connection that the brother who saved Yosef's life was also the one who accepts ethical responsibility. I have to note however, that I find it incredibly ironic that the first truly obvious time someone accepts responsibility they do so because of a WOMAN putting a MAN in his place. It's as if Tamar knew exactly what she was going to have to do to make him realize and admit responsibility. She set him up, but took his seal, cords, and staff (thus outwitting him) and having proof that he had been "had." I am curious about what would have happened had she not had his items as an insurance policy? With no real proof, Yehuda, (being a man) his word would be taken over hers and would she have been severly punished for trying to make him look bad? I do have to wonder.
Overall, I think the placement was perfect. Without it being put in the middle of the Yosef story I would not have taken much notice of it or it's significance. I also think that it possibly is there to show some clarity about Yehuda. By accepting responsibility when it gets thrown in his face by a woman, I think it is likely that he did, at least partially, want to sell Yosef in order to keep him alive...just out of sight.
While the Yosef story is momentarily interrupted for a couple of chapters, the Yehuda story still seems to be perfectly relevant. As was mentioned before, it begins with the phrase "Now it was at about that time..." implying that that what is about to take place is relevant and purposeful to the story being told and therefore its placement in the biblical text. As we have seen in numerous passages in the bible, many many years can go by in no more than a single verse. The story of Yehuda, at least transitions from the story of Yosef because he is his brother. Therefore telling his story is not altogether unexpected or completely random.
By looking at this placement in a literary sense, I would agree with previous comments that it definetely catches the readers attention. It switches focus for a short time to tell a shorter but nonetheless important story to the narrative. Once the story of Yehuda transitions back to the story of his younger brother Yosef, nothing is lost or misunderstood. If anything the reader has gained more insight because of this interjected story. And the reader can still proceed unhindered in his or her understanding of both stories.
It is almost like Yehuda was proofing the story of his family and said to the author "Hey why am I not included in this story? I did some crazy stuff and I think the readers would find it very interesting. You should stick it in Gen 28 because my favorite number is 28." or some silly thing like that. I mean I really see no reason so far, for it to be included in the Bible at all. Although I did find a few things interesting.
First, is Tamar the first woman in the Bible to give birth to twins? That could be a possible reason to include the story. Also I thought it was interesting that Yehuda wanted his daughter-in-law to marry another one of his sons, Shela. Even though the two were not blood related, for all purposes they were family. It seems there are many instances of marrying and having children within small family circles and groups.
After reading the first part of Gen 29, I begin to see that Yosef is the only one so far who has yet to lie with a "random" woman or take several wives. The story of his brother Yehuda shows that monogamy was rare during their time and that is also might have been socially acceptable. He does, as many others have pointed out, admit to being wrong and not place blame on her or someone totally not related to the situation.
-Chelsea
I also agree with Stephanie and Noelle that this smaller side story was placed in this particular part of the Yosef story to foreshadow something, but I think that what is being foreshadowed is the theme that your bad act today, whether it be selling your brother to slavery or keeping your daughter-in-law from her only means of survival, will catch up with you. I agree with other people in the class that this chapter helps give the reader an idea about the character of Yosef’s brother, Yehuda. This story also helps us compare the good guy (Yosef) with the one of the “bad guys” (Yehuda). But this story does show us that the bad guy gets a conscience and even shows grace to a woman. What kind of grace must have been showed to Yehuda in his past to make him show grace to a woman…? Again, I believe that the good parts of the Yosef story are being foreshadowed.
I dont think that is at all weird that there is a random story in the middle of Yosephs story. i mean if you look back on all we have read there are lots of random things thrown into stories that really dont make any sense or even have a reason for being in there. for example lots and his daughters, i dont think it made sense to tell us that. i guess it wasnt just thrown in somewhere in the middle of another story but thats just an example of something strange that was put into the bible.
i dont think it was hard to continue reading even with the abrupt change. i think that is just something that is a constent trend of the bible.
I think Daye, Betsy R., and others hit upon the literary significance of the seemingly out of place narrative of Judah.
We see a pretty exciting scene of Joseph getting too big for his britches, irritating his brothers, and getting sold into slavery. Then, abruptly, the story line shifts and we see Judah's happenings with Tamar. The Joseph narrative then picks up once more with his life in Potifer's household.
In elementary school we were taught to plot the rising and falling of the story-line, and if we were to do so here, we would see a steadily rising line up to Gen38, then a dropoff, then a jolt back up. The use of this literary device not only adds dimensionality to the narrative (by telling Judah's story), but also creates a wonderful tension and sense of wonder as to what's happening to Joseph.
I think its just one of those things in the Bible. Being writen by many people over many years things just got put places. And when someone started putting the Bible together it may have started some other place but just ended up there. The Bible is funny book like that. It started off as a bunch of oral stories passed down though the generation.
Sometimes I think people my try to over analyze things and never will find a good solution so its not worth over thinking. I believe this is one of those times where we might just have to look at as a mistake or its just there. While I will admit the story is in a strange place I think we just have to roll with it read it as it comes to us then think about the story not its placement.
Yes it effects how we read teh rest of the story of Yoseph just as any chapter of any book will affect the way you read teh rest of it. For example you wouldn't read each chapter of Harry Potter seperatly and not let it affect how you read the reat of book. (Bad example I know). So lets just read though it like it was logical to be there and then let is effect how we read the rest of the story of Yoseph.
The placement of the story of Tamar does not make any sense. It kind of confused me when I read through it because I was wondering where Yosef was and who these new people were. But, I looked back and saw that Yehuda was Yosef’s brother, so to put his story in there was not so out of place. And if the only significance about him was his daughter-in-law Tamar, then it makes all the more sense to place the story here. Also, since her story is placed right after Yosef’s brothers sold him into slavery and then told their father that he was dead, this story can be used as an example of how cunning and conniving his brothers lived their lives. Yehuda’s treatment of Tamar could be some kind of karma for what he did to Yosef.
I feel the placement of Gen. 38 is very odd. For me it makes it hard to read the Yosef story being broken up as it is. I agree it could be seen as a foreshadowing to another part in the bible. Although, it will be interesting to see if it is! The effect it has on the way I read the it is, like so many others mentioned, there is a new view. I believe this is the first time seeing a character being ethically responsible. I like that a character is finally portraying this though.
one reason I think this chapter was thrown in the middle of the Joseph story is because when they were putting the bible together they accidently placed it there. The rest of the bible is not organized well, this is just proof. I do not think there is some deep reason for it being there. There could be I guess but I am not that deep of an individual. It could just be there to see if the reader is paying close attention. They could be trying to trick us. Ha ha.
Like many have said, there are a few reasons why this passage is important. For one, we find the Bible tries to focus on bloodlines through generations consistently, so the explanation of bloodlines from Yehuda does not seem too out of place.
Secondly, they set up a sort of ethical similarity between Yehuda and Yoseph involving women and sex.
It is interesting that Yehuda takes responsability for his wrong doing, since this seems to be very rare, at least so far in Genesis.
But for the reason why this passage is put inbetween the story of Yoseph, I don't find it a big deal either way, since it is not completely out of place, it just shows some similarities between Yehuda and Yoseph
As I read through these comments i have to say that there is a big part of me that agrees with Ian, Daye, and Betsy. In that, this story could have been one of the original examples of the idea of building a story to gain momentum for the climax. Although, I can see how many of you feel that it could have been a mistake and maybe some scrolls got mixed up in the order. Yet, if you take it a step further and think of it in that manner, what about the possibility of the people just being amateurs at what they're doing?
I know it could a bit of a stretch but if we are taking the time to think about mistakes being made or techniques purposely being imposed on the narrative, it makes perfect sense that they were trying to build suspence or what have you, but just didn't do THAT great of a job.
There is a part of me that can appreciate Gen 39 for what it is though. It does help give a little more information on the family we're discussing and reading about making it feel as if we know them all the better. And i also thought as i was reading that it was interesting that i couldn't recall any instance of twins as of yet in the Bible. So i asked myself the same question that Chelsea did. Is Tamar the first woman in the bible to give birth to twins? That alone i though was good reasoning to show that twins have been a thing of many many years and it didn't develop too far from the creation of Earth.
ryan keplinger
I found many, many interesting comments this time around. I’ll start with what came to my mind first, then bring in some other people’s points. As for this story being out of place, we have seen that happen multiple times throughout our readings so far. I think this time, though, it makes a little more sense. I kind of thought it was there to show us an instance of bad choices coming back to haunt you. I didn’t see Yehuda as saving his brother because Reuben was the one who truly wanted to save him. He came back to the pit to find it empty BECAUSE of Yehuda’s idea. I saw him doing it purely out of wanting the money. The fact that he later gets “tricked” by a woman as well as has to watch two of his three sons die makes me think that maybe he was getting a bit of what he deserved. As for the effect it has on me reading the rest of the story, I find myself looking to compare the two occasions looking for similarities and differences. I loved how Stephanie pointed out the plus side of Yehuda “owning up to his wrongdoing” instead of punishing the woman, but I also wondered what Tamar’s plan was when she purposely tricked him (as Addie points out). I didn’t notice that he distanced himself from his brothers as Daye points out so I wonder if I may have judged Yehuda too strictly. And chelsea’s idea that the story is here in part to show how rare monogamy was brought up a good point, too.
As many have stated before, the inclusion of the story of Yehuda could be a foreshadowing of greater things to come. When the Yosef story picks up again, Yehuda does not play a central role in any of the main actions, which might seem odd to the reader. The characters of Er, Onan, and Shela are not mentioned again until Genesis 46:12 when the lineage of Yaakov’s household is being named. This verse says that “Er and Onan had died…” which is not said about any of the other grandsons or children. Possibly listeners to this story were wondering how these two characters died and Genesis 38 was created to fill in the gap.
What I think is even more significant about the character Yehuda is what is said about him in Genesis 49. This chapter lists the sons of Yaakov, telling about their futures. In verses 8-12, Yehuda is told that his brothers will praise him and his father’s sons (which would also be his brothers) will bow to him. These verses also talk about the great power and control Yehuda will have, showing that even though he is not Yaakov’s oldest, youngest, or favorite son, he is going to be blessed more than the other brothers. As the commentary said on pages 178 and 180 in our text, the insertion of Genesis 38 may be told because Yehuda’s genealogy is linked to King David. Going further in the Bible, Jesus is said to come from David and Yehuda. This character is noteworthy in the future, so the author of Chapter 38 may have decided to tell about Yehuda’s past.
As many people mentioned before, this passage is very random and seemed a bit out of place! I do feel like the placement of this might have been to give the audience a break from the long story of Joseph. I do feel like this possibly was to keep the audience hanging in there for the finish of this story. Also, I would find that this part of the book was placed together later years by the authors.
I believe the story of Tamar and Yehuda was placed for a reason. The character development of Yehuda is important especially seeing the possibility of foreshadowing down the bloodline to King David's moral fiber and inherent nature.
I interpret that Yehuda walked out on his brothers purposefully to rid himself of their lifestyle, which is understandable.
I am not positive WHY it is placed. But it is useful as a literary device of thickening the plot and adding suspense, at the same time, making a stand as a surprising change of pace from all other previous scapegoating stories.
I was pleased to read Addie's blog, which gave Tamar credit. Maybe Tamar knew that Yehuda was vulnerable since his wife died, and may have been looking for comfort. She could have let Yehuda, in his fragile state, impregnate some woman who could not be deemed admirable or commendable of YHWH's blessing. Instead, she stepped up and preserved the family lineage.
I agree with rachel when she said the insertion of chapter 38 is oddly placed and how it may serve a purpose due to the fact that the text is highly informative of the blood line and how it probably correlates with future texts. However, not only is the chapter informing us on the family tree but how human actions have consequences. Another out of place phrase is the fact that God was enraged when he "let his seed fall on the ground". I am not sure the relevance though.
I agree with many of posts. I cannot think of many reasons for placing this story in the middle of another one. Maybe this story (like kate d brought up) was to show a different side of Yehuda so we could better understand his character. Even after trying to make since of this story, I was still very confused when I was reading. I also found it interesting when Yehuda admitted his fault and said that Tamar was right. This is one of the few times I can think of that a man admitted guilt and saying the women was right. I thought that Nathan's explanation was good. We need this story because it shows Yehuda moving from being ethically irresposible with his brother, to ethically responsible in admitting his own fault.
I believe that this story in the middle of Yosef’s story is there to contrast the happenings in Yosef’s story. In the story of Yehuda, we see men who are described as doing “ill in the eyes of YHWH.” The result of their doing ill is their own deaths and the calamity that ensues with Yehuda desiring grandsons and not having them. Time passes and Yehuda most likely does ill in the eyes of YHWH himself when he has sex with Tamar when he thinks she is a whore. The joke is on him when he finds out the whore was his daughter-in-law. The misadventures of these characters are in direct contrast with the adventures of Yosef, who we are told time and time again that YHWH makes his plans succeed, and that whatever he touches succeeds, because YHWH is with him. Yehuda’s story helps to make Yosef’s example shine brighter.
Post a Comment