For anyone looking for gender-queer representation in The Bible, it’s hard to do better than Joseph and his flamboyant coat of many colors.
I’m hardly the first person to address this. From the winks around the technicolor dreamcoat and the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical of the same name, this is something we “know” on an intuitive level.
Joseph’s performance of gender varies tremendously, from how he dresses, how he is treated and even how he acts––including a “performance” where he acts male to fool his brothers who knew him best in his female garb before he “comes out” to reveal himself.
While some critics may see this as retroactive “woke” pandering, these interpretations are correct: The Bible is a living document, and our experiences help us shed new knowledge on ancient text.
Joseph is clearly and explicitly gay––so much so that this isn’t even the mic-drop of my opening.
Get ready: not only will I prove that not only is Joseph explicitly queer in the biblical text but that he was gay with Pharaoh.
That’s right; The Bible’s wildest power couple is hiding in plain sight.
Surprised? Don’t be.
Centuries of rabbis have retroactively sought to avoid this obvious truth for the obvious social reasons of their time. Cleared from their burdens, we can state the truth clearly and plainly.
Let’s begin.
We all know Joseph; he’s the flamboyantly attired young son of Jacob, the most exciting of the twelve tribes of Israel––although, curiously, not given the title of a Patriarch himself.
Joseph was loved more than all his other brothers and given a multicolored tunic. This is how we meet him and how we remember him.
In Hebrew, this is כְּתֹ֥נֶת פַּסִּֽים; the exact same Hebrew is used in exactly one other story in The Bible; it’s Tamar’s, a princess with her own sibling problems to manage. Let’s check the text.
2 Samuel 13:18: And she [Tamar] had a garment of diverse colors (כְּתֹ֣נֶת פַּסִּ֔ים) upon her: for with such robes were the king's daughters that were virgins apparelled
2 Samuel 13:19: And Tamar put ashes on her head, and rent her garment of diverse colors that was on her, and laid her hand on her head, and went on crying.
Besides the obvious gender swap (this garment is specifically for royal virgin daughters!) the unsavory context of this chapter is when Tamar is raped by her brother Amnon.
So, right off the bat, any biblical reader should have wide eyes for Joseph, the young sibling in the family, and his overly loved / overly despised familial dynamic. His garment, too, will be torn––but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.
Next, we have Joseph's dreams of dominance, which aren’’t queer or queer-coded in any way that I can decipher (fellas: is it gay to dream??) before he approaches his brothers who conspire to kill him––but then sell him into slavery.
This, critically, is gay. Not the slavery itself but the price; they charge 20 Shekels for Joseph, which, crucially, is of note.
We know from Exodus 21:32 that thirty shekels was a standard price for a man; this reduction to twenty shekels reflects the lesser status and “worth” placed on women.
The choice to sell Joseph into slavery also reflects his unusual position. In war or battle, males were usually slain and females kept for slavery and concubinage––something we will later observe in Egypt when the next Pharaoh demands the males be executed and the females preserved.
Joseph, read as queer, is sold into sexual slavery in Egypt; an action which is then followed by the rending of Joseph’s garments which mirrors Tamar rending her clothing after her brother sexually assaults her. Joseph’s assault is merely abstract.
How do we know we are to read Joseph as sold to sexual slavery? Immediately following his sale, we are presented with a bizarre story: Judah, a brother of Joseph, accidentally hires his daughter-in-law as a prostitute and impregnates her.
Why mention this? The anecdote makes more sense when seen as a nudge to our attention: the sexuality of these brothers is presented as both interesting and atypical.
When we resume the story of Joseph, he is in Egypt. Much as Sodom and Gomorroah are presented as “other” and alien, so too is Egypt coded as more cosmopolitan.
This also explains why The Bible takes such care to mention that “God was with Joseph”; it is to explain how Joseph was not sexually taken by Potiphar.
Not convinced?
Take a look at the odd sentence of Genesis 39:6!
Genesis 39:6: So Potiphar left everything he had in Joseph’s care; with Joseph in charge, he did not concern himself with anything except the food he ate. Now Joseph was well-built and handsome.
This sentence is bizarrely structured unless you understand the context: Potiphar left everything to Joseph. Furthermore, he did not concern himself with anything except the food he ate––signaling to the reader that Potiphar is bypassing one physical pleasure for another, innocuous one.
Lastly, that detail has Joseph’s physical description wedged into it specifically in this verse about his male master, Potiphar. And if that’s not enough, hold on to your gender-appropriate garments, because the Hebrew has this verse of Joseph’s description exclusively in the feminine.
That’s right, the text is better translated as “Joseph was beautiful of form and beautiful of appearance” with the more feminine adjectives.
How do we know this? Hebrew genders its words, for male and female meaning: and in this sentence these words are unambiguously female. Furthermore, the Hebrew is almost letter for letter identical to the description of his hot mom, Rachel!
Roll the tape!
Genesis 29:17: And Leah's eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful of form and face.
The English translation is different, but the Hebrew is nearly identical.
Starting to get it now?
We’re not even close to done so buckle in, because the very next verse gives us more detail:
Genesis 39:7: And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me.
Joseph doesn’t, of course; he ascribes it to God. But, crucially, Joseph being sexually attractive and in the female way is in the sentence dealing with Potiphar; it is not structurally part of this sentence with the wife, despite fitting in there grammatically!
But it doesn’t stop there;
Genesis 39:10: As she spoke to Joseph day after day, he did not listen to her to lie beside her or be with her.
And even:
Genesis 39:12: She caught him by his garment, saying, "Lie with me!" And he left his garment in her hand and fled, and went outside.
Man; may we all have these problems.
Now, refusing to sleep with his master’s wife doesn’t inherently make Joseph gay, but it is curious the intensity of her approach. As discussed, in the previous chapter we see Judah unwittingly impregnate his daughter-in-law who he had hired as a prostitute; that heterosexual interest is contrasted with Joseph’s repeated refusal.
It also awakens a curious question: why was Potiphar’s wife so interested in sleeping with Joseph?
In Judaism, there is something called Midrash, which is more speculative commentary. My attempt here––less grounded in the text and more an appeal to our imagination––is that Potiphar’s wife was desperate for male attention because her husband, Joseph’s buyer, was gay!
Female desire is extremely rare to be expressed in The Bible; for it to be incessantly mentioned is, absent procreation or other moral qualifications, is equally bizarre.
At minimum, this is designed for us to note that Egyptian sexuality is unusual and extreme; at most, we’re left to wonder why this wife is so starved for male attention.
Now, Potiphar’s wife is angry that she was spurned and lies that Joseph attempted to rape her, but she doesn’t tell her husband––she first tells everyone outside.
This, snidely, is his wife taking power, insulting Potiphar cleverly. Potiphar does not believe this story, nor is he supposed to. The damage is done because Potiphar’s wife slandered Joseph out loud, forcing Potiphar to defend his masculinity––sending off the one he actually loves to protect the one he is supposed to love.
This is why Joseph is placed in what is essentially protective custody, in the king’s jail. He is not free from danger (see the upcoming story) but slaves have been killed for far less than this offense.
Joseph is jailed––another location with stereotypical gay sex––but again, he is protected by God.
Of course, Pharaoh has his famous dreams and needs Joseph to interpret them: but let’s see how that goes.
Genesis 41:14: So Pharaoh sent for Joseph, and he was quickly brought from the dungeon. When he had shaved and changed his clothes, he came before Pharaoh.
Free from the prison, Joseph receives his true gender identity; a small clue, but a telling one.
Joseph gives suggestions, and Pharaoh loves them––much more than you’d expect.
Look what he announces upon Joseph’s advice.
Genesis 41:40: You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.”
But the English translation hides deeper Hebrew truths.
Let’s run the translation back one more time with a little retranslation:
Genesis 41:40: You shall be in charge of my house, and all my people. Kiss your face! Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.”
Wait, what?
In Hebrew, Pharaoh clearly says “house” implying a domestic partnership. Furthermore, the word “submit” or “יִשַּׁ֣ק” is synonymous with “kiss”––and, in fact, is more commonly a kiss! On the same note, the word translated as “orders” or “words” is literally “mouth” or “face.”
The second translation is arguably truer and inarguably gayer.
Still, these interpretations require creativity. So, let’s operate with verses that are point-blank obvious with this new interpretation:
Genesis 41:42: Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck.
Genesis 41:43: He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Bow the knee!”
Come on. He marries Joseph in a public ceremony!
This is a wedding, a public ritual involving the dressing in fine robes of linen (aligned with ancient Egyptian weddings) and, of course, a ring on the finger and a gold chain around his neck.
More? You want more proof?
How about this: the last detail, the phrase “Bow the knee” is a fanciful translation; the actual word here, אַבְרֵ֑ךְ, is never used before or after, a rarity in The Bible, implying the word itself may be Egyptian itself.
My translation? Obvious in context of a singular exclamation: “Congratulations.”
This marriage, like all marriages, has political and legal ramifications. It is given a dramatic public ritual.
Speaking of, there’s one more key detail here:
Genesis 41:45: Pharaoh gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-Paneah.
Ah, interesting; here we see Pharaoh changing Joseph’s name––another tradition of marriage!
But the name Pharaoh gives him––Paneah––is doubly meaningful. The latter half, in Hebrew, can be connected to the Hebrew word for “mouth” or “face”––Paneh. Many contemporary translations deem this to mean “Godly Mouth” which is homoerotic enough if you sidestep his acts of prophecy.
As interesting as Joseph’s story in exile goes, it is his familial reunion that squares both his identities into his singular, full self.
Joseph, as you may remember, gets his dramatic and theatrical revenge on his brothers, hiding his identity (hmm) to surprise the latter. Later, after sobbing heavily, we’ll also see him “come out” to his brothers in a dramatic unmasking of his identity.
But before then, amidst the drama, note what his brothers fear when being brought to his house:
Genesis 43:18: Now the men were frightened when they were taken to his house. They thought, “We were brought here because of the silver that was put back into our sacks the first time. He wants to attack us and overpower us and seize us as slaves and take our donkeys.”
Boring? Sure. But let’s see what they really say, with the Hebrew translated as literally as possible:
“He wants to roll us over and fall upon us, take us as slaves and take our male asses.”
Okay, so the “male asses” pun only works in English; still, with every word so sacred, can anything be called a coincidence?
The brothers have Joseph lurking in their mind; he is not only coded as queer but was sold into sexual slavery.
After Joseph embraces his brothers, he forgives them for the actions that led him to his happiness: he comments.
Genesis 45:8: “So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt.
The translation is admirably accurate here; the word here is “father” as a verb (לְאָ֜ב) and every word counts.
But the order does too.
This English translation messes with that order, so let me give you a new, more accurate version that establishes the sentence in the Hebrew order.
Genesis 45:8: “So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He gave me to Pharaoh, to be father and lord of his entire household and ruler of all the land of Egypt.
Joseph, a partner of the domestic house of Pharoah, is “daddy.”
This is a sign of a happy life; he explains such to his brothers and even introduces his father to his partner.
Genesis 47:7: Then Joseph brought his father Jacob in and presented him before Pharaoh. [And] Jacob blessed Pharaoh.
Pretty unusual to have Jacob bless Pharaoh––unless, of course, he is now sanctioning this very profitable marriage as the father of the bride.
Things continue to go well for this couple and their intertwined families until the Pharaoh dies and a new king emerges to persecute the Jews.
But not just any king; every word matters, and let’s see how he’s distinguished.
Exodus 1:8: Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.
Let’s linger on “did not know” Joseph. The translation is correct, and rabbis have argued over what this means.
He didn’t remember Joseph’s accomplishments? The historical man?
Not quite.
In The Bible, “knowing” is a euphemism as a man “knows” his wife.
This Pharaoh did not “know” Joseph because he wasn’t, ahem, “knowing” him in the biblical sense. That biblical sense matters––this is The Bible!
So there we have it; biblical citations to prove what we all know subconsciously to be true.
Joseph is gay. His partner was the good Pharaoh. And this is the alliance that breaks, enslaving the Jews in Egypt.
This matters tremendously not just for the clear representation it gives queer Jews and people, but for the representation of an accepting, multi-racial and successful ancient Egypt.
That cooperation made Egypt stronger for everyone; Joseph’s reforms saved the country and established it as an empire. The new Pharaoh who follows, a reactionary, chooses to enslave the Israelites––the course of actions that will ultimately break Egypt.
The story of Exodus focuses largely on the reactionary, painful experience in Egypt: but it is contrasting that experience with Joseph’s acceptance in Egypt that makes the story both important and resonant for Jewish communities who have settled across the world, finding and losing their acceptance.
Joseph and Pharaoh queer married and joined their ethnic groups in a successful, multicultural Egypt; it is only when those strands break that the problems emerge.