Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: Gen. 38. The Judah and Tamar story.

The text of Gen. 38 is generally seen as the province of source critics rather than preachers,

but its text and content come together to pack a powerful punch.

The placement of Gen. 38 within the book of Genesis is typically dismissed as the product of shoddy redaction.

Von Rad says, ‘The story of Judah and Tamar has no connection at all with the...Joseph story, at whose beginning it is now inserted’.

Brueggemann says it ‘stands alone, without connection to its context,...isolated in every way’.

And Speiser says it ‘has no connection with the drama of Joseph, which it interrupts at the conclusion of Act I’.

(Quotes can easily be multiplied.)

At times, however, appeals to ‘shoddy redaction’ signal a lack of careful engagement with the text of Scripture,

which seems to be the case here.

True--from a ‘Table of Contents’ perspective, Gen. 38 does indeed interrupt the Joseph story,

but it resonates with its context in a number of significant ways,

and is an integral part of the bigger story of Genesis.

For one thing, it continues to tell out the way in which the story of Abraham’s seed is bound up with acts of deception.

Jacob obtained his birthright by deception. When Isaac was unable to see well, Jacob disguised himself (with goatskins) and hence obtained the firstborn’s birthright.

Yet Jacob the deceiver then became the victim of deception. When Jacob was unable to see well

...(because it was dark), Laban gave him his firstborn (Leah) rather than Rachel.

Gen. 38 continues the story.

In ch. 37, Judah sought to deceive Jacob. After he sold Joseph into slavery, Judah sent Joseph’s robe back to Jacob (dipped in goats’ blood)

...in order to make him think Joseph was dead.

And, here in ch. 38, Judah the deceiver becomes the victim of deception.

Tamar disguises herself in unusual clothes in order to perpetuate her claim to Judah’s inheritance.

The poetic justice inherent in Tamar’s deception of Judah is picked up on in Rabbinic texts.

b. Rabb. 85.9 refers to a time when God says to Judah:

,אתה רמית באביך בגדי עזים, חייך שתמר מרמה בך בגדי עזים

i.e., ‘You lied against your father (with the help of) a kid goat,

(and) so (now) Tamar lies against you (in a matter which involves) a kid goat’.

Textual resonances underscore the aforementioned connection between chs. 37 and 38.

Just as Judah sent (שלח) his father a form of ID (viz. Joseph’s coat) and asked him to ‘examine it’ (הַכֶּר־נָא),

so in ch. 38 Tamar sends (שלח) her father-in-law a form of ID (a seal) and asks him to ‘examine it’ (הַכֶּר־נָא).

As such, ch. 38 continues an important theme in Genesis, and its location in the book of Genesis is significant.

Ch. 37 describes a great evil, and ch. 38 shows us it will not only affect Joseph’s life (per chs. 39-44), but Judah’s as well (ch. 38).

Specifically, Judah’s actions will separate both Joseph and Judah from their brethren. Joseph is brought down (ירד) to Egypt,

while Judah is brought down/back (ירד) to Canaan (vs. 1).

Ch. 38 also resonates with chs. 39-40 in important ways (which would be less obvious had it been placed, say, after ch. 50),

though it does so by means of contrast rather than similarity.

In chs. 38-39, Judah and Joseph are removed from their natural environments and hence from their normal forms of accountability,

at which point temptation comes upon them in the form of a ‘no strings attached’ sexual encounter.

Judah succumbs to temptation, and soon discovers strings *are* in fact attached to his deeds, viz., the ‘cords’ (פתילים) he leaves with Tamar.

Joseph, however, resists temptation, yet is deceived by Potiphar’s wife, who presents his garment to Potiphar as evidence of his guilt.

Again, then, we see clothes involved in an act of deception.

Yet, in the long run, we see Egypt portrayed as a far more healthy environment for Israel to multiply in than Canaan.

Joseph’s righteousness shines out very clearly in ch. 39

...because of the dark backdrop against which it is framed (by the events of ch. 38),

and, when Pharaoh ‘lifts Joseph up from the pit’ and ‘changes his clothes’, it signals a new dawn in Israel’s future (41.14).

Joseph’s exaltation represents a break from the past

...and from the problems associated with Canaan,

which lies under God’s judgment (15.13-16) and which Israel must leave behind them, as Judah’s experiences bear out.

As such, Gen. 38 belongs exactly where it is.

Judah’s life reflects the need for relocation and the effects of past sins, while Joseph’s provides the *means* of relocation and a *break* from past sins.

Indeed, Joseph’s presence in Egypt creates the environment necessary for the seed of the Messiah--described in ch. 38--

to be preserved.

On, then, to the specifics of the text.

The chronology of ch. 38 is not straightforward to determine.

Jacob migrated to Egypt 22 years after Joseph was sold into slavery (cp. 37.2, 41.46-49, 45.6-7),

which would not seem to allow enough time

...for Judah to father three sons,

for all of them to grow up (vs. 14),

for an interval of ‘many days’ to elapse after the death of Onan (vs. 12),

for Judah to mourn the death of his wife (vs. 12),

and for Tamar to give birth to Judah’s child.

I therefore take the events Gen. 38 to have unfolded *after* Jacob and his sons had relocated to Egypt.

Jacob’s sons would have established business contacts in and around Canaan over the course of their stay there,

which they would no doubt have wanted to maintain.

Egypt, after all, shared a border with Canaan,

and the events of 1 Chr. 7.20-22 seem to reflect interaction between the Israelites & the Canaanites after Jacob’s migration (though before the exodus).

Perhaps, then, Judah at least travelled back to Canaan from time to time.

Sheep were sheared at a regular time of year (as is documented in texts from Nuzi),

in which case the events of Gen. 38 may reflect a yearly trip

(and may explain why, on the assumption Chezib is a month name, the month when Shelah was born could be pin-pointed: cp. הָיָה בִכְזִיב בְּלִדְתָּהּ אֹתוֹ in 38.5).

Perhaps, then, the kind of trip described in Gen. 38 had come to function

...as a kind of escape from the realities and responsibilities of life in Egypt.

Who knows?

Note: Both the names ‘Hirah’ and ‘Shua’ can reliably be linked to ‘wealth’ and ‘nobility’.

Relevant lexemes include: BH שׁוֹעַ = ‘wealth’, JAram. 《šwʕ》 = ‘noble’,

...Egyp. 《šʕḫ》 = ‘noble’ (?), Ugar. 《ṯʕy》 = ‘cultic official, master’, Akk. 《šuwāʔum》 = ‘master’, Mand./Arab. 《ḥyr》 = ‘prosperity’, Aram./Syr. 《ḥērāy》 = ‘noble, free’, OffAram. 《ḥērīn》 = ‘free people’, Ugar. 《ḫr》 = ‘noble’ from 《mṭ ḫr》 = ‘noble sceptre’.

I therefore take Hirah and Shua to have been wealthy landowners with whom Judah continued to do business after he moved to Egypt,

and who may have overseen certain affairs for Judah (vs. 20).

Back to the text: The flow of vs. 1-12 is noteworthy since it sets the scene for what is to follow remarkably quickly.

By the time we reach the end of vs. 12, we have read about three marriages (Judah’s, Er’s, and Onan’s), three births (Er’s, Onan’s, and Shelah’s),

...and three deaths (Er’s, Onan’s, and Judah’s wife’s).

We have also read about many failed duties and responsibilities.

Judah has abandoned his duties in Egypt.

Onan was supposed to provide (נתן) his brother with offspring, but didn’t (vs. 9).

Judah was supposed to provide (נתן) Tamar with a wife, but hasn’t (vs. 14, 26).

And, soon, Tamar will ask Judah to give (נתן) her a pledge (vs. 16), which is only reasonable: after all, Judah pledged his youngest son to her, yet has not make good on his pledge.

And now, the days have begun to multiply (רבב), yet Tamar has not (vs. 12).

Note: We may see in Onan’s sin a reflection of his father’s sinful ways, since both men pursue sex as a commodity: they want the pleasure of sex in the absence of what is attached to it.

Tamar therefore decides to take matters into her own hands,

at which point the tables are turned on Judah.

Judah has not been honest with Tamar so far.

After he tells her to ‘remain a widow until Shelah grows up’,

our narrator adds the comment כִּי אָמַר פֶּן־יָמוּת גַּם־הוּא כְּאֶחָיו (vs. 11),

which we can translate either as ‘since Judah thought Shelah would die’ or as ‘*yet* Judah thought Shelah would die’.

Either way, however, the implication is the same.

If Judah feared Shelah would die when he was given to Tamar in marriage, he would surely not have pledged him to her, in which case Judah’s instruction to Tamar (‘Remain a widow until Shelah grows up!’) should be understood as a fob-off rather than a genuine pledge.

And the translation ‘*yet* Judah feared Shelah would die’ leads to much the same thing.

Judah is therefore in the know, while Tamar is in the dark.

Note: That Judah deceived Tamar as far as Shelah was concerned may be hinted at in 38.5,

...where Shelah is connected with the town/month name ‘Chezib’, the root of which (כזב) is connected with ‘deception’.

Yet, in vs. 14, Tamar turns the tables on Judah.

Tamar removes the clothes associated with her widowhood (since soon she will no longer be a widow),

...dresses herself as a prostitute, and waits by the side of the road for Judah to come along.

Note: The text of 38.14 reads וַתְּכַס בַּצָּעִיף וַתִּתְעַלֵּף = ‘And she covered herself with a veil, and wrapped herself up (in it?)’, which is slightly awkward,

since עלף = ‘to wrap’ is not otherwise attested in BH, and would not seem to add much to וַתְּכַס בַּצָּעִיף in any case, hence it is glossed over by some translations.

Should we, therefore, seek to interpret עלף in light of Arb. 《ġalafa》 = ‘to perfume oneself’?

Or perhaps even in light of Ugar. 《ġlp》 = ‘a sea snail, murex’, from which scarlet dye (or possibly perfume) is obtained?

If so, וַתִּתְעַלֵּף could be rendered, ‘And she coloured herself with scarlet’, which is a plausible thing for Tamar to have done.

Red and scarlet have come to be associated with prostitution in many societies, as they are with Rahab. (When the men tell Rahab to tie a scarlet cord in her window, they refer to חוט השני הזה = ‘that scarlet cord’, as if it was present in Rahab’s house at the time.)

A mention of ‘scarlet’ would also resonate with what takes place at the end of our text when a scarlet cord is tied around Zerah’s hand.

Back to the text: Either way, Judah falls for the bait, and Tamar becomes pregnant with his child.

As such, a shift in the balance of knowledge and power takes place.

Tamar now knows what Judah does not know.

That Judah gives his seal, cord(s), and staff to Tamar is quite remarkable.

Judah’s seal and staff are symbols of Judah’s authority and identity

...(cp. ‘the sceptre will not depart...’: 49.10), which Judah hands over, without a moment’s hesitation, to a complete stranger.

(Tamar is actually worse than a stranger since strangers can be recognised if they are seen again.)

And yet, as foolish as Judah’s actions were, they symbolise an important truth,

since, as Tamar receives Judah’s seal and staff, she receives, in a sense, his authority and identity insofar as she will ultimately be grafted into Judah’s line

...and will even come to share in the Messiah’s genealogy (cp. Matt. 1).

But, as we find out in vs. 20ff., Tamar almost does not make it.

Once her pregnancy is discovered, she is sentenced to be burned to death,

but at the last minute Tamar produces Judah’s seal and cord,

at which point Judah realises his hypocrisy and (evidently) annul Tamar’s death sentence.

Note: The text of 38.25 is slightly unusual. Initially, Tamar is said to be given Judah’s ‘signet ring’ (חֹתָם cp. vs. 18),

yet, as she is brought forth to be burned, she produced Judah’s חֹתֶמֶת, which is odd, for why is a different word employed here?

If both words are loans from Egyptian, might חֹתָם denote a ‘signet ring’ (per Egyp. 《ḫtm》)

while חֹתֶמֶת denotes ‘what is sealed’

...(per Egyp. 《ḫtmt》), i.e., ‘a seal impression’.

(Egyp. loans often appear to come over into BH via a 《qōtel》 form--e.g., גֹּמֶא = ‘papyrus’--, in which case חֹתֶמֶת need not be seen as an active form.)

If so, what Tamar produced in vs. 25 may not have been Judah’s signet ring, but an impression of it.

Back to the text: At any rate, the production of the seal (impression) preserves Tamar’s life, and ultimately provides the key not only to her redemption, but to Judah’s,

since it brings Judah to realise the awful truth of the situation he has brought about by means of his sin.

And, remarkably, the seed of Judah and Tamar (namely Perez) represents the very line into which God’s Messiah will be born.

Suffice it to say, God’s ways are not ours.

Final thoughts: That Tamar is sentenced to be burnt in our text is an unusual detail.

In some Rabbinic texts (cf. Targ. PJ Gen. 38.6, Gen. R. 85.10, Num. R. 4.8, 13.4, Lev. R. 25.6), Tamar is thought to have been the daughter of Melchizedek,

which is why the (priest specific) punishment of death by fire could appropriately be applied to her (cf. Lev. 21.9).

If such traditions are reliable, then Jesus would have been a descendant of Melchizedek (!),

though other tradns are also attested, and cannot all be correct.

But Tamar’s sentence is noteworthy for a further reason,

since it highlights a number of similarities between our present text and the events of Judg. 14-16.

Judah’s encounter with Tamar shares a number of points of contact with the Samson story.

For instance: in both cases, we have a man who goes down to Timnah, a foreign woman, a marriage, a death threat, a gift of a goat (גדי עזים), and a notable friend (רעה cp. 38.12 w. Judg. 14.20).

We also have a woman who turns the tables on the text’s main character.

Just as Tamar entices Judah into the exposure/revelation of his identity, so Delilah entices Samson into the exposure/revelation of his identity as a Nazirite.

But the way in which the ‘ingredients’ of the Judah and the Samson stories are put together is quite different.

Samson seeks to marry a woman in Timnah, but (much to his surprise) finds he cannot do so,

while Judah does *not* want to commit himself to the woman he meets in Timnah, but (much to his surprise) finds himself inextricably linked to her.

Samson brings his ‘wife’ a goat in order to (try to) reconnect with her,

while Judah sends Tamar a goat in order to (try to) cut his ties with her.

And Samson’s ‘wife’ is ultimately burnt with fire,

while Judah’s wife is ultimately saved from the fire.

These differences are significant.

Samson marks the end of a line--the last of Israel’s judges.

By the end of his 20 years, Samson’s time has come, and, consequently, God allows Samson, who shows little remorse for his lifestyle, to self-destruct (without descendants).

But Judah’s case is different.

Judah is the *start* of a line--a line from which the Messiah will ultimately arise--,

and God must therefore preserve the line of Judah (who does demonstrate remorse) at all costs,

which is what he does in ch. 38,

and is what he has sent Joseph into Egypt in order to prepare for.

Despite Judah’s best attempts, Judah’s line will not fizzle out, for God’s plans cannot be thwarted.

Hence, although Matt. 1’s genealogy takes us through many dark times and events,

it eventually emerges triumphant in one who will have to undergo many dark times and events himself,

namely Jesus, Isreal’s Messiah.

Note: For my thoughts on Gen. 38 and its links to Judg. 14-16, credit is due to the reflections of @ScottFairbanks1 and @zugzwanged, which @zugzwanged follows up on a video here: .