Genesis 37:2

"These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren. And he was a lad with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives: and Joseph brought the evil report of them unto their father."

"These are the generations of Jacob ..." The word here is the great divisional marker in Genesis, [~toledowth], invariably denoting what follows, not that which precedes. This tenth and final division of Genesis "covers the period of Jacob's patriarchal authority, which began upon his return to Isaac in Canaan."[6] Despite the prominence of Joseph in this account, and his being elevated in order to preserve the chosen nation, he remained subordinate to Jacob within the covenant structure. Therefore, the following account is the [~toledowth], not of Joseph, but of Jacob.

"Was feeding the flock with his brethren ..." Joseph was not reared in a life of ease and idleness. Some have read that into the implications of the gift of the special garment (Genesis 37:4), but that appears to be an error.

"And Joseph brought the evil report of them to their father ..." We cannot accept the explanation of this offered by Friedman who wrote: "Joseph did not actually bear tales of the conduct of his brothers to his father. But by his own conspicuous righteousness, he caused Jacob to be displeased with the conduct of his other children."[7] The only thing wrong with such an interpretation is that it denies what the sacred text says. Such errors we believe to be due to the tendency of some scholars to see Joseph as a perfect hero, a paragon of virtue and righteousness. Even Skinner fell into that trap. He wrote:

"The hero is idealized as no other patriarchal personality is. Joseph is not (like Jacob) the embodiment of one particular virtue but is conceived as an ideal character in all the relationships in which he is placed: he is the ideal son, the ideal brother, the ideal servant, the ideal administrator."[8]

Such a view, of course, makes a tattletale brother an "ideal" that few brothers would gladly accept. Leupold, commenting on Skinner's words here, said that they are a case of "misplaced emphasis," and that in the inner spiritual things, "He does not come up to the level of his fathers."[9]