Assimilation versus Separation: Joseph the Administrator and the Politics of Religion in Biblical Israel

by Aaron Wildavsky (Editor)

How to behave in the diaspora has been a central problem for Jews over the ages. They have debated whether to assimilate by adopting local customs or whether to remain a God-centered people loyal to their temporal rulers but maintaining the peculiar customs that separated them from their host nations. The question not only of survival, but of the basis for survival, is also a central problem in the Joseph stories of the Book of Genesis. The work shows its readers the grand alternatives of Judaism, instilled in two larger-than-life figures, so its readers can reassess for themselves the road Judaism did not take, and understand why Joseph though admirable in many respects, is left out of the rest of the Bible.The question is answered through the stories about how Joseph, the son of Jacob, saved his people/family from famine by becoming a high-ranking administrator to Pharaoh. By analyzing his behavior to the people over whom he exercises power, Joseph lords it over his brothers, grieves his father, takes lands from Egyptian farmers, and engages in forced deportation. Wildavsky explains why Joseph-the-assimilator is replaced in the Book of Exodus by Moses-the-lawgiver. The book ends by demonstrating that Joseph and Moses are, and are undoubtedly meant to be exact opposites.As in his earlier book on The Nursing Moses as a Political Leader, Wildavsky combines analysis of political and administrative leadership with both traditional and modern study of thematic linkages via plot, grammar, dreams, poetry, and religious doctrine. Thus the chapter on "Joseph the Administrator" is preceded by a chapter on Joseph as The Dream Lord" and followed by an analysis and explanation of why Jacob's obscure blessings to his sons are more like curses. Always the emphasis is on the reciprocal influence of religion and politics, on rival answers to questions about how Hebrews should relate to each other and to outsiders. New, in paperback, the book will be of interest to biblical scholars and readers as well as those concerned with the interaction of religion and political life.

246 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1992

About the author

Aaron B. Wildavsky

Reviews

[Bill Dauster · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wildavsky, a political scientist and budget expert, does a splendid job as a Torah scholar. He takes a provocative and unconventional view of Joseph, and backs it up well.

[Michael Lewyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I suspect that most Jews and Christians have generally thought of Joseph as a pretty good guy: avoiding sexual temptation from Potiphar's wife, saving his family and many Egyptians from famine, and bringing his children up as proto-Jews in a difficult situation. But in this book, an eminent political scientist compares Joseph and Moses, arguing that Joseph is a role model of what not to do: enslaving Egyptians, working for a idol-worshipping king, being a little tricky with his brothers, and leads his family into Egypt rather than taking them out. He also compares Joseph unfavorably with Daniel (who rose through the ranks of Babylon while being far less assimilated than Joseph) and Mordecai (who refused to bow before pagans).

Wildavsky is interesting but generally not persuasive. Even though Joseph was somewhat flawed, he lacked the advantages that Moses and later prophets had: he didn't have direct Divine guidance, he didn't benefit from any of the miracles that Moses benefitted from, and he didn't have the Torah telling him what to do. Perhaps Joseph was a failed role model- but if so, this was not because he was a bad guy, but because his successors had God and Torah steering the way for them.

In some ways, Joseph is actually more successful than the role models Wildavsky praises (with the exception of Moses). Joseph saves people's lives; Daniel mostly just delivers gloomy prophecies, and Mordecai almost gets lots of people killed.