I think you are really making more over the failings of Joseph than you should, and not giving him nearly the credit he deserves.  He was sold into slavery, but very nearly left for dead.  His journey and redemption was far more remarkable.  Where Judah  was able to come to terms with his father's faith over many years in the comfort of his home, Joseph received a front seat in the school of hard knocks, not once but several times.  If any person in this narrative has a right to be bitter against humanity in general and his own family specifically, it is Joseph. 

 Joseph doesn't play cat and mouse with his brothers.  He does work to see his younger brother and he does test them to see what manner of men they have grown to become.  While Joseph was a man, and one deeply flawed by pride in his youth, you cannot overlook his excellencies.  Specifically, his mercy was demonstrated in that he pittied and provided for his family in their time of need.  The fear of his brothers was not caused by his actions but by their guilt and it says so in the text. 

This was not a nefarious plan to put the Jews into slavery and an "indirect" cause of their slavery can by no means be laid at his feet.  Consider his wisdom in centralizing the Egyptian society.  Much suffering and death was averted by his efforts.  Consider his devotion to one wife at a time when many were the norm.  Consider his loyalty to a Pharoah, a ruler that was not of his own people, who in fact despised his people as a matter culture.  Consider how he is rewarded by the best of the land because of his service to the Egyptian people.  Consider his response to his brothers, they meant their actions to be his downfall, but God meant it for his good. 

 Judah was redeemed in my estimation, but how much better is an early redemption followed by a lifetime of service than a  late redemption follwed by a moment of honesty?

Welcome, Eric!
And thanks for finding that bug in the new account page.

I am not sure how much the character of the sons of Israel play out in Israel's later history, but there seem to be significant correlations - in both the location/inheritance of each tribe in the Land of Israel as well as their later roles in the nation. The inheritance for each of Joseph's sons was very rich and profitable land while the Messiah came from the line of Judah. These examples seem to show that the tribes follow in the character of their progenitor.

It does seem that there is merit in judging the patriarchs by the choices of their respective tribes, but attributing the enslavement of Israel to Joseph's character is too much of a stretch for me. If Joseph were complicit in this, I should think that his sons would have been exempted from the slavery if not outright inflicting it themselves.

We can bring up many examples of God choosing the unlikely and confounding humanity, but that is not necessarily true. It is something of a matter of interpretation. And such interpretations can run into troubles..huge troubles perhaps.

Consider another example of God choosing the least likely: Saul, Israel's first king. He came from the tribe of Benjamin. Benjamin was Jacob's last-born son. It was also the smallest tribe because of that horrific incident where all Israel nearly wiped out the tribe of Benjamin because of the Levite's concubine. This shows that the least likely was truly the least worthy.

But when we consider God's secod choice for a king, we can find several indications that this was the intended choice all along. 1) Jacob's blessing, “the scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet.” (Genesis 49:10).
2) The account  of Judah's redemption (Genesis 38) and the evidence in Genesis 44:33 where he offers to be the substitute for Benjamin remaining in Egypt.
3) The disqualification of Reuben for sleeping with his father's mistress (Genesis 35:22, 49:3-4)
4) The disqualification of Simeon and Levi by their violence over the rape of Dinah (Genesis 34:25-31, 49:5-6).

This leaves Judah. Though he is Jacob's fourth-born son, he is also a son of Leah, Jacob's first wife. What does indicate God's approval of a nation or a tribe? The possibilities are many and overlapping.

Thanks for your comments, Eric and Brian! I go away for a few days and a full-blown conversation erupts! Eric, I was overstating the case because Joseph is viewed so strongly in our circles as a positive character. I remember hearing that since the text says nothing bad about him, and there are so many good points exhibited about him, then he is a strong model for us to follow and a "type" of Christ. But the point of Genesis is not to give us role models. Genesis only rarely gives editorial opinions. I think that Joseph is in the same spot as Abraham. The text does not condemn Abraham for his actions, but neither does it approve them. The similar case is with Joseph. I want to make sure that people know that Joseph had flaws. He had many good points as well, but he is not presented as perfect at any point in his life. Just because he was blessed does not mean he always acted rightously - note Abraham's experience in Egypt. And while he was faithful to his one wife, notice that she was the daughter of  foreign priest. What would Ezra say about that!?

So I would agree that Joseph is the "hero" literarily of the story, and perhaps a type (depending on how it is defined), but that we should not necessarily view him as a role model. The point of the author is much bigger than that.

Brian, I have been intruiged for awhile about the connection between the patriarchs and the tribes. I read Genesis 34 this morning with its story of Reuben and Levi killing lots of people. How does the murderer and deceiver receive the holy tribe? Not the expected outcome of the statement about not receiving land as a punishment! 

Yes Charlie, you have missed an entertaining conversation to say the least.  I just have one other thought to leave you with on this subject.  Frequently these days we see role models brought to their knees with one scandle after another.  I am speaking of historical role models on this point.  Ben Franklin was a party animal, Thomas Jefferson a slave holder and Joseph was married to daughter of a priest. 

I think we all understand as we get older that these were just men, and they had failings just like anyone else.  I do think that you are on weak ground arguing that Joseph's choice for a spouse was a reasonable cause against him.  We don't know if Ezra would have approved or disapproved in the case of Joseph, and the times and circumstance he lived in were very different.  

 My question to you is; is it neccessary to pull down our role models?  I would say not.  We do not lift up role models as perfect, rather we lift up the characteristics that the individual displayed that we admire.  I admire the industry of Franklin, I admire the intellect of Jefferson and I admire the grace of Joseph in the midst of difficult experiences.  When we seek to expose the failings of such individuals, we merely lower the bar of expectation for ourselves and make allowances for our own mediocrity.  After all, we're only human, and there is nothing extraordinary about that.