An article titled “Gender-Affirming Care Bill Based on Unethical Religious Bias” appeared in the January 25, 2024, issue of the Dayton Daily News. The article was written by Dr. Esther Brownsmith, an Assistant Professor of Hebrew Bible at the University of Dayton.

The opening paragraph reads, “Joseph, we are told, wore an ‘amazing technicolor dream-coat.’ But it wasn’t just any coat; it was, according to 2 Samuel 13:18, the kind of clothing that young princesses used to wear. This is just one of the ways the Bible indicates that the ‘shapely and beautiful’ Joseph (Genesis 39:6) crossed gender boundaries, and he was not the only one: Deborah led an army, Mordecai breastfed his cousin Esther, and Daniel was probably a eunuch.”

The second paragraph of the article begins, “For scholars like me who research the Bible, these are just a few of the ways that scripture portrays gender as a colorful spectrum, not a rigid binary.” Brownsmith proceeds to decry the Ohio legislature’s recent overturn of Governor DeWine’s veto of House Bill 68, which, in her words, “targets trans youth.”

It doesn’t surprise me that a college professor would take such a stance on this issue. However, I want to address the statements this Professor of Bible Hebrew, who claims to be a scholar who researches the Bible, made in her article.

First, the Bible does not tell us that Joseph wore an “amazing technicolor dream-coat.” This descriptive phrase isn’t found in the Bible. It is the title of a musical by Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber based on the character of Joseph.

Joseph’s unique wardrobe is first mentioned in Genesis 37:3, “Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age. Also he made him a tunic of many colors.” Note, this is not a tunic (coat or robe) that Joseph chose for himself. It is a coat that his father made for him.

The article claims this was the same kind of clothing that young princesses used to wear. Brownsmith gave 2 Samuel 13:18 as her prooftext. This verse speaks of David’s daughter Tamar. “Now she had on a robe of many colors, for the king’s virgin daughters wore such apparel. And his servant put her out and bolted the door behind her.”

The Hebrew word translated “many colors” in both verses is pas. Interestingly, this term does not refer to the color of the garment, but the length and breadth of the garment. It means “the flat of the hand or foot” and thus refers to a tunic reaching the palms of the hands and the soles of the feet. The kings dressed their virgin daughters in garments that covered their entire bodies.

David reigned 690 years after Joseph was born. I have a difficult time believing Jacob was dressing his favorite son like a royal princess when that clothing did not become such a custom for another 6 centuries.

Brownsmith would have us believe Joseph was affirming his gender identity by dressing as a young princess. The Bible actually condemns crossdressing. “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deut. 22:5). So much for the Bible affirming the modern-day gender bending trend. Couldn’t we assume a Bible scholar, researcher, and assistant professor would know this verse exists? Strange how it wasn’t mentioned anywhere in her article.

Brownsmith gave Genesis 39:6 as a reference to Joseph being “shapely and beautiful.” The actual descriptive phrase is, “Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance” (NKJV, ESV, NASU). If we are meant to understand this means Joseph was crossing gender boundaries and passing himself off as a woman, why does the following verse say, “And it came to pass after these things that his master’s wife cast longing eyes on Joseph, and she said, ‘Lie with me’”? Are we to understand that Potiphar’s wife had a thing for Hebrew teenage boys who dressed like women?

There is absolutely nothing in the text of the Bible that indicates Joseph was trying to reshape his gender. Like many modern attacks of the Bible, this idea must be brought to the text by depraved minds looking to promote and justify an agenda.

What about her statements about Deborah, Mordecai, and Daniel?

Deborah went with Barak into battle against Sisera’s army, but she is not said to have led the army. Barak would not go into battle unless she went with them. “And Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh; he went up with ten thousand men under his command, and Deborah went up with him” (Judges 4:10, emphasis mine – HR).

Mordecai is said to have raised his cousin Esther. “And Mordecai had brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter, for she had neither father nor mother. The young woman was lovely and beautiful. When her father and mother died, Mordecai took her as his own daughter” (Esther 2:7). This verse doesn’t say anything about Esther’s age when her parents died. The idea that Mordecai breastfed Esther actually comes from a rabbinical tradition, not the Bible. This tradition expounds on the above verse by suggesting Esther’s mother died giving birth to her, Mordecai could not fine a wet nurse, and he miraculously produced milk and nursed her himself.

I agree with the author of the article that “Daniel was probably a eunuch.” Following what history tells us about Babylonian practices, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego were probably all made eunuchs when they began to be trained to serve before the king.

The Bible has been under attack for a long time, but occasionally we hear something new. The claim that Joseph was a crossdressing teen trying to discover his gender was new to me, but it has absolutely no merit. If the arguments set forth in this article are what passes as scholarship in Hebrew Bible at the University of Dayton, this school has nothing to offer us in our efforts to better understand God’s word.