IPS 417 Ancient Israeli Scripture Term Paper, Fall 2009
Joseph Narrative Ambiguous on Sexuality
by
David Bottorff (LUC ID# 00001277175)
[M 23 N 2009; 2522 words]
by
David Bottorff (LUC ID# 00001277175)
[M 23 N 2009; 2522 words]
The Uncensored Bible: The Bawdy and Naughty Bits of the Good Book[1] by John Kaltner et al fails to substantiate the conclusion it was “highly unlikely” Joseph of Genesis fame was transgendered.[2] Chapter 17, titillatingly titled “Was Joseph a Cross-Dresser,” specifically examines whether Jacob’s son Joseph[3] was a transvestite, but also looks at arguments advanced by Theodore W. Jennings Jr. of the Chicago Theological Seminary[4] that the story cloaks the protagonist’s gender nonconformist identity.[5]
The story of Joseph is about a boy who falls victim to sibling rivalry only to upstage his evil brothers and return their cruelty with kindness. Jennings argues the narrative is “actually the story of a young man in a family of males who are all struggling with issues of sexuality and difference,” Kaltner says.[6] “The transgendering of Joseph is by no means restricted to Joseph's attire … . If we take this clue, then we may begin to detect in the narrative other signs of transgendering at work,” Jennings says.[7] “Jacob/Israel has produced the queer Joseph, transvestited him, and thereby transgendered him as a sign of his own masculine desire. And the progeny of Israel had engaged in the first instance of queer bashing.”
This exegesis will show that, although Uncensored successfully concludes there is not enough concrete evidence to substantiate the Jennings hypothesis, the book also fails to plausibly refute.[8]
Clothing Optional
Kaltner et al first examine the garment given Joseph by his father, Jacob. Beneath the regolith we see two questions: Is this garment worn exclusively by women and does wearing this garment denote a person above manual labor?
Both questions revolve around the Vorlage term “ketonet passim,” also written “kethoneth passim.” These words only appear in one other place in the Hebrew Bible, 2 Samuel 13:11-19, where used to describe the garment worn by female rape victim Tamar, “[F]or this is how the virgin daughters of the king were clothed in earlier times.” Of note, this is not the same Tamar mentioned in the salacious Genesis 38, in which Onan is killed by God for either adultery – a crime for which men usually are not punished in the Hebrew Bible – or coitus interruptus.[9] Some believe onanism plays a tangential role in understanding the Joseph story.[10]
Joseph + Tamar
Form and Source Criticism reveal a number of parallels and divergences between the Joseph story in Genesis and the Tamar story in 2 Samuel. The similarities reveal the ketonet passim to be a garment of status but do not establish gender specificity. Differences between the stories reveal some hazards behind scripture interpreting scripture.
Form Criticism[11] shows both passages are written in a similar novella narrative employing both poetry and prose, although the Joseph story is a Legend Cycle spanning several units and the Tamar story stands as a single unit in a single chapter.[12] [13] The emphasis on Joseph’s clothes – when young, when violated and thought to be dead, when enslaved, when jailed, when under the Pharaoh, and when gifted to brothers – signals scholars to pay special attention to the symbolism of Joseph’s ketonet passim. In both the Joseph and Tamar stories, the ketonet passim symbolizes violation and mourning: Tamar tears her ketonet passim after being raped by her brother Amnon; Joseph is stripped and sold into slavery after nearly being killed. The ketonet passim is destroyed in both stories and both Tamar and Joseph grieve over their treatment.
Source Criticism[14] reveals questions over Joseph narrative authorship, but the Yahwist (J) and the Elohist (E) generally are credited.[15] Under the Document Hypothesis, many observers assume there were “two distinct versions of the Joseph Story (J and E), each of which contained all or most of the incidents found in the final version; and that these were fitted together, at some points by the omission of material from one or other of the sources, and at others by their conflation.”[16] In contrast, 2 Samuel is seen as derived from the Deuteronomistic Historian (D), except that parts, possibly including the Tamar story, may have originated from a source called Succession Narrative.[17]
Differences in time, space and culture also exist for the two stories. For example, 2 Samuel is thought to have been written around 500 B.C.E. and involves events from between 1005 and 928 B.C.E.[18] In contrast, Genesis 37-50 is thought to have been written roughly 400 years earlier than 2 Samuel and involves events during the Hyksos period from the mid-17th to the mid-16th centuries B.C.E.[19]
Taking both similarities and differences into consideration, a description of the ketonet passim worn by Joseph must be established independent of the Tamar story. The most inclusive definition is that the ketonet passim is a unisex garment.[20]
Passim: Neither Here nor There
Regarding the word “ketonet,” the Encyclopaedia Judaica describes it as as a short, closed tunic, usually made of linen, covering the top part of the body and worn by both men and women. [21] This resource goes on to state:
Clothes, particularly the dress-like garment and the tunic, were considered essential though expensive articles, both because of their value, which of course was related to the work that went into producing them, and by reason of their importance in indicating a man's status, position, character, and living style. It is for this reason that the Bible and royal documents frequently list the quantities of clothing given as gifts (Gen. 45:22) or taken in war (Judg. 14:12).
As opposed to the ketonet, more debate swirls around the meaning of passim. The King James Version Bible was translated into English from the Septuagint (LXX), which in turn was a late-fourth to mid-third century B.C.E. Koine Greek translation of the Vorlage.[22] This Greek translation and transliteration introduced the passim’s polychrome taint. More popularly, the word passim denotes a garment that reaches the hands and feet, and worn by priests when they served in the Tabernacle and the Temple in Jerusalem.[23] Noted biblical scholars such as Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag)[24] and David Kimhi (Radak)[25] concur.
Kaltner et al conclude the word ketonet describes something like a coat and postulate the term passim means a garment that reaches the hands and feet. “We might describe it as a full-length tunic,” they say. Indeed, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible calls the garment “a long robe with sleeves.” Finally, to iron out the last wrinkles, we turn to biblical scholar Michael D. Coogan, who says the garment “probably a special robe worn by royalty.”[26]
Whatever it is, the ketonet passim was not worn exclusively by women or male transvestites. There being no substantive evidence to the contrary, we find the ketonet passim most likely was a unisex garment worn by the privileged.
A Eunuch Theory
Let us move on to the larger question of sexual identity by taking a rhetorical magnifying glass to the eunuch. Assuming the ketonet passim gift was a unisex garment representing high social status, we can infer Jacob intended to save Joseph from a life of hard labor. A long-sleeved ornamented garment of fine material would not be appropriate for fieldwork. The fact Jacob was not remarkably well endowed financially makes gifting the special ketonet passim all the more symbolic of Joseph’s privileged status in the family. We must ask, “What kind of boy, even if favored, would not be tasked with manual labor when living on a farm?”
Eunuchs, which come in several flavors, may hold the answer: Some have been emasculated from birth, some are made that way by man, and some make themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.[27] [28] The Hebrew word saris is translated into Greek as eunouchoi,[29] an overarching term for gender nonconforming men, including homosexuals.[30] Yet, far from being condemned, some parts of the Bible insert eunuchs into favorable roles. In Isaiah 56:3-5 we read:
Do not let the foreigner joined to the LORD say,
“The LORD will surely separate me from his people”;
and do not let the eunuch say,
“I am just a dry tree.”
For thus says the LORD:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
I will give, in my house and within my walls,
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.
“The LORD will surely separate me from his people”;
and do not let the eunuch say,
“I am just a dry tree.”
For thus says the LORD:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
I will give, in my house and within my walls,
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.
Tossing the painful double entendre aside, we see throughout the Hebrew Bible a privileged role for men lacking traditional heterosexual masculinity. Eunuchs were considered safe to have around the master’s women and as titular heads of house,[31] it may have been the case that Joseph was considered safe to run the master’s house as a chamberlain for he would have no interest in women. Given Jacob’s experience with rape, incest and wife swapping, it might make sense to have his delicate son – dressed in a pretty housecoat in lieu of Levis – in charge of the house.
Queer Logic
The second half of Chapter 17 investigates various arguments advanced by Jennings and others that Joseph exhibited transgender behavior in ways other than his garb.
Paralleling the Book of Daniel, Joseph was able to woo powerful men while in Egypt. In the first case, Joseph’s master, Potiphar, put the young man in unique charge of the house. While there, Joseph refused to have an affair with Potiphar’s wife. This may have indicated a lack of interest in women but Joseph himself excuses his way out of the encounter by saying it would represent a sin against God. Joseph again loses his drapery in the ensuing scuffle and, again, his garments are used to perpetrate deceit, this time as proof of wrongdoing.
In the second and third instances, Joseph found favor with his jailer and with the Pharaoh. While locked up, “The chief jailer committed to Joseph’s care all the prisoners who were in the prison.” While same sex encounters are common in detention centers,[32] there is no explicit evidence to substantiate such conjecture here.
Joseph’s bond with the Pharaoh ostensibly is linked to his ability to interpret dreams, not to physical attraction. Allegedly androgynous Pharaoh Akhenaten, who was married to Nefertiti and died in 1336 B.C.E., is linked by some to Moses and the introduction of monotheism.[33] Another spin holds Akhenaten’s maternal grandfather was Yuya, also known as Joseph of ketonet passim fame.[34] Incidentally, evidence of same-sex relationships dates back to roughly 2400 B.C.E. and the tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, two Pharaoh manicurists buried as a married couple.[35]
None of the pro-transgender arguments and observations put forward by Jennings gain traction with Kaltner et al. For example, Jennings notes the text calls attention to Joseph’s good looks.[36] What this says about Joseph’s transgender status is not clear, although one could infer his pleasant appearance stems from effeminacy or at least metrosexuality. Interestingly, King David, who had friendly relations with young Jonathan,[37] also was lauded for being handsome.[38] Other observations – the name of Joseph’s father-in-law (Potiphera) as similar to that of his first master (Potiphar) and Jacob’s blessing of Joseph’s two sons, thereby making him, and not Joseph, the father – appear to have nothing to do with Joseph’s alleged gender nonconformity.
Septuagint Sexuality
Historical and contemporary stigmas against gender nonconformity works against our ability to drag Joseph’s truth out of the metaphoric closet. History does not widely publicize the almost certain fact Socrates, Plato, Catullus, Virgil, Horace, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Fredrick the Great, King James, William of Orange, Lawrence of Arabia, and Alexander the Great,[39] to name but a few, were transgender.[40]
Even the few explicit acts of male sexual bonding in earlier versions of the Hebrew Bible get bowdlerized in recent translations. The NRSV version of Genesis 47:29 and 24:2 have one man putting his hands on the testicles of another man to swear an oath, but you would not recognize such intimate touching from what appears in print. Similarly oblique homoerotic language appears in Genesis 9.22 regarding Noah and his son Ham, and in Genesis 21.9 regarding Ishmael and Isaac. Even erstwhile prohibitions against homosexuality are debatable. Some construe Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13[41] to not necessarily condemn all same-sex relationships.[42] In early Christianity, same-sex union ceremonies called adelphopoiesis were conducted, and some argue condemnation of homosexuality only began in the 12th century C.E.[43] In short, the picture of gender nonconformity in the Hebrew Bible is heliographic at best.
The Uncensored Bias
Complicating the discussion is the obvious bias Kaltner et al bring to the discussion. They say Jennings demonstrated “good fashion sense” when he concluded 2 Samuel 13 proves the ketonet passim is an exclusively female garment, playing on stereotypes about homosexual men as fashion forward. They say Jennings is “ever on the lookout for cross-dressing Bible characters,” implying a lack of objectivity. They say Jennings is on a “jag,” slang for an unrestricted indulgence. They say Jennings “predictably sees a homoerotic element” when he perceives patterns of same-sex attraction. They ask rhetorically whether Jennings is “off in some Elton John fantasy.” They state that if the reader is balking at the Jennings thesis, “we don’t blame you.” Kaltner et al go so far as to conclude Jennings’s arguments are “just a naked attempt” to “force the story to fit his preconceived interpretation.” Hardly the kind of objectivity we expect from biblical scholars.
David’s Reign Concludes
Sexuality is discussed throughout the Bible,[44] sometimes in explicit terms. To grasp the truth about Joseph, however, we must be willing to consider the larger picture of sexuality in history; to engage in a kind of Contemporary Midrashim. We must ask: Is it possible Joseph was among the many transgender people roaming Earth at the time of his story? If so, it is not surprising the truth was coded. The “highly unlikely” conclusion drawn by Kaltner et al regarding Joseph’s possible transgender status is not substantiated.
The Joseph story is intelligible, coherent and paints a realistic tale of morality. Many Bible critics comment on the narrative’s grace and flow, to the point there is some confusion over how to subdivide it into discrete form units.[45] The story’s cogent morality is true to many Hebrew Bible passages. What curiously is lacking in the Joseph story is the kind of explicit talk of human sexuality found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, especially conjoined sections of Genesis. For example, women are hardly mentioned at all while nearby passages contain lurid stories about rape and incest and adultery and male genital mutilation.
Ultimately, I do not feel the Joseph story is credible or factually accurate. There is, for example, no extrabiblical corroborating evidence of a Joseph as second in control of Egypt.[46] By reading the Joseph story as legend, myth or historical fiction, those of us who need a transgender hero can find one if we choose.
I see the story of Joseph as one of vindication. It is the tale of a young man, frowned upon by his sibling peers but loved by his parents, achieving great things despite a rough start. The meaning I derive is that people, even of questionable sexual orientation, can overcome great adversity and, having achieved a sense of accomplishment and self-esteem, demonstrate kindness to a disdaining world.
Bibliography
Boswell, John (1994). Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. New York: Villard Books.
Clancy, F. (2002). The Date of LXX. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 16(2), pp. 207-225. http://search.ebscohost.com.flagship.luc.edu.
Clifford, R. (2004). Genesis 38: Its Contribution to the Jacob Story. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 66(4), 519-532. http://search.ebscohost.com.flagship.luc.edu.
Coogan, Michael D. (2006). The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, p. 75. New York: Oxford University Press.
DeYoung, James B. (June 1991). The Contributions of the Septuagint to Biblical Sanctions Against Homosexuality. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 34(2), pp. 157-177.
Encyclopaedia Judaica (2007, 2d rev. ed.). Skolnik, Fred (Ed.). Jerusalem: Thomson Gale.
Gear, Sasha (May 2005). Rules of Engagement: Structuring Sex and Damage in Men's Prisons and Beyond. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 7(3), pp. 195-208. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4005491.
Gunkel, Hermann (1901). The Legends of Genesis. Translated by W.H. Carruth. Chicago: Open Court, p. 45, passim. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/log/.
Gunkel, Hermann (1964). The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History. New York: Schocken Books. http://search.ebscohost.com.flagship.luc.edu.
Hyatt, J. Philip (May 1940). Freud on Moses and the Genesis of Monotheism. Journal of Bible and Religion, 8(2), pp. 85-88.
Jennings Jr., Theodore W. (1979). Theological Perspectives on Sexuality. Journal of Pastoral Care, 33(1), pp. 3-16. http://search.ebscohost.com.flagship.luc.edu.
Jennings Jr., Theodore W. (2005). Jacob's Wound: Homoerotic Narrative in the Literature of Ancient Israel. London: Continuum.
Kaltner, John, McKenzie, Steven L., & Joel Kilpatrick (2008). The Uncensored Bible: The Bawdy and Naughty Bit of the Good Book. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
New Standard Revised Version Bible (1989), Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., as contained in The HarperCollins Study Bible (Rev. ed.) (2006). New York: HarperCollins.
Nissinen, Martti (1998). Homoeroticism in the Biblical World A Historical Perspective. Translated by Kirsi Stjema. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Njino, Joseph (December 2004). Christian Marriage in the Era of Homosexuality. African Ecclesial Review, 46(4), pp. 339-365.
Osman, Ahmed (1988). Stranger in the Valley of the Kings. New York: HarperCollins.
Reames-Zimmerman, Jeanne (1999). An Atypical Affair? Alexander the Great, Hephaistion, and the Nature of Their Relationship. The Ancient History Bulletin, 13(3).
Reeder, Greg (October 2000). Same-Sex Desire, Conjugal Constructs, and the Tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep. World Archaeology, Thomas A. Dowson (Ed.), 32(2).
Sayler, Gwen B. (2005). Beyond the Biblical Impasse: Homosexuality Through the Lens of Theological Anthropology. Dialog, 44(1), pp. 81-89. http://search.ebscohost.com.flagship.luc.edu.
Strong, James (2007 ed.). Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html.
Whybray, R. (1968). Joseph Story and Pentateuchal Criticism. Vetus Testamentum. 18(4), pp. 522-528. http://search.ebscohost.com.flagship.luc.edu.
[1] Kaltner, John, McKenzie, Steven L., & Joel Kilpatrick (2008). The Uncensored Bible: The Bawdy and Naughty Bits of the Good Book. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
[2] This is the thesis statement.
[3] Genesis 37-50. Unless otherwise noted, the scripture references drawn from New Standard Revised Version Bible (1989), Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., as contained in The HarperCollins Study Bible (Rev. ed.) (2006). New York: HarperCollins.
[4] Jennings Jr., Theodore W. (2005). Jacob's Wound: Homoerotic Narrative in the Literature of Ancient Israel. London: Continuum.
[5] “Cross-dressing” denotes an action and does not ascribe any causes. Because Chapter 17 conflagrates several terms, we have chosen to use the word “transgender” as a catch-all for any gender nonconforming behavior, thought or deed as defined by contemporaneous male and female stereotypes, including what today is termed transvestitism, homosexuality, male effeminacy or female masculinity, etc. Terms such as “homosexual” as used today may not be applicable for a time when, perhaps, relationships were defined by the role one played, not by one’s genetic sex.
[6] Kaltner, op. cit., p. 132.
[7] Jennings, op. cit., p. 182.
[8] This is an augmentation of the thesis statement.
[9] Genesis 38 falls awkwardly toward the beginning of the Joseph story. It is not superfluous to note the many sexual exploits tangentially involving Joseph: His sister Dinah was raped by a neighborhood boy in Genesis 34; Joseph’s brother Reuben laid his father’s concubine Bilhah in Genesis 35:22; and Joseph’s step-mother Leah loaned her maid Zilpah to his father Jacob in Genesis 30:9 to make a couple children before miraculously recovering from menopause and having a few more herself, including the unlucky Dinah, a few verses later in Genesis 30:21.
[10] Clifford, R. (2004). Genesis 38: Its Contribution to the Jacob Story. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 66(4), 519-532. http://search.ebscohost.com.flagship.luc.edu.
[11] The setting, or sitz im leben, form of criticism was advanced by Hermann Gunkel and Sigmund Mowinckel.
[12] Gunkel, Hermann (1964). The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History. New York: Schocken Books. http://search.ebscohost.com.flagship.luc.edu.
[13] Gunkel, Hermann (1901). The Legends of Genesis, p. 45, passim. Translated by W.H. Carruth. Chicago: Open Court. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/log/.
[14] Pentateuch scholar Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) advanced Source Criticism.
[15] Coogan, Michael D. (2006). The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, p. 75. New York: Oxford University Press.
[16] Whybray, R. (1968). Joseph Story and Pentateuchal Criticism. Vetus Testamentum. 18(4), pp. 522-528. http://search.ebscohost.com.flagship.luc.edu.
[17] Coogan, op. cit., p. 248.
[18] Ibid., p. 241.
[19] Ibid., pp. 55-56, 98. During the Second Intermediate Period, called the Hyksos Period and which occurred between 1650 and 1550 B.C.E., Egypt was briefly ruled by dynasties originally of Semitic origin, possibly allowing the rise to prominence of a Semite like Joseph. The timing of the Exodus relative to the Hyksos period brings up many interesting questions that cannot be addressed here.
[20] Ibid., p. 75.
[22] Clancy, F. (2002). The Date of LXX. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 16(2), pp. 207-225. http://search.ebscohost.com.flagship.luc.edu.
[23] Genesis 37:3; Leviticus 16; Song of Solomon 5:3; Exodus 28:2 and 28:39-40; and 2 Samuel 13:18.
[24] Levi ben Gershon (1288–1344 C.E.), known as Gersonides or by the Hebrew acronym Ralbag, was a philosopher, Talmudist, mathematician, astronomer and astrologer. He was born at Bagnols in Languedoc, France.
[25] David Kimhi (1160–1235 C.E.), known by the Hebrew acronym as the RaDaK, was a medieval rabbi, biblical commentator, philosopher, and grammarian. Born in Narbonne, Provence, France, he was the son of Rabbi Joseph Kimhi and the brother of Rabbi Moses Kimhi, both biblical commentators and grammarians.
[26] Coogan, op. cit., p. 75.
[27] Sayler, Gwen B. (2005). Beyond the Biblical Impasse: Homosexuality Through the Lens of Theological Anthropology. Dialog, 44(1), pp. 81-89. http://search.ebscohost.com.flagship.luc.edu.
[29] Strong, James (2007 ed.). Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html.
[30] Nissinen, Martti (1998). Homoeroticism in the Biblical World A Historical Perspective. Translated by Kirsi Stjema. Minneapolis: Fortress.
[32] Gear, Sasha (May 2005). Rules of Engagement: Structuring Sex and Damage in Men's Prisons and Beyond. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 7(3), pp. 195-208. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4005491.
[33] Hyatt, J. Philip (May 1940). Freud on Moses and the Genesis of Monotheism. Journal of Bible and Religion, 8(2), pp. 85-88.
[35] Reeder, Greg (October 2000). Same-Sex Desire, Conjugal Constructs, and the Tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep. World Archaeology, Thomas A. Dowson (Ed.), 32(2).
[36] The Qur’an in Sura Yusuf dedicates an entire chapter to Joseph’s beauty.
[37] Jennings, op. cit., p. 25, passim, re 1 Samuel 18-19.
[39] Reames-Zimmerman, Jeanne (1999). An Atypical Affair? Alexander the Great, Hephaistion, and the Nature of Their Relationship. The Ancient History Bulletin, 13(3).
[40] Njino, Joseph (December 2004). Christian Marriage in the Era of Homosexuality. African Ecclesial Review, 46(4), pp. 339-365.
[42] DeYoung, James B. (June 1991). The Contributions of the Septuagint to Biblical Sanctions Against Homosexuality. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 34(2), pp. 157-177.
[44] Jennings Jr., Theodore W. (1979). Theological Perspectives on Sexuality. Journal of Pastoral Care, 33(1), pp. 3-16. http://search.ebscohost.com.flagship.luc.edu.
[45] Whybray, op. cit., p. 522.
[46] Coogan, op. cit., p. 75.
.jpg)