JOHN, G.S., Abrahamic Wife-Sister Stories

FACOLTÀ DI TEOLOGIA
Dipartimento di Teologia Biblica
Tesi di Licenza
LESSONS FROM THE ABRAHAMIC

WIFE-SISTER ACCOUNTS
A Narrative Reading of Gen 12,10-20 and 20,1-18
Studente: George Sejin John

Matr: 165880
Direttore: Prof. Fabrizio Ficco
Anno Accademico 2020 - 2021

PONTIFICIA UNIVERSITÀ GREGORIANA
FACOLTÀ DI TEOLOGIA
DIPARTIMENTO DI TEOLOGIA BIBLICA
__________________________________________________________
GEORGE SEJIN JOHN

165880
LESSONS FROM THE ABRAHAMIC

WIFE-SISTER ACCOUNTS
A NARRATIVE READING OF GEN 12,10-20 AND 20,1-18
Direttore
PROF. FABRIZIO FICCO
ROMA 2021
INTRODUCTION
The Wife-Sister accounts of Gen 12,10-20; 20,1-18 and 26,1-16 have

always intrigued scholars and much has been written and rewritten on it. For
a modern reader, the action of the patriarch in each of the narrative passing
his wife as sister, thus allowing the matriarch to be vulnerable before foreign
men, especially rulers, in exchange for their own safety in a foreign land is
unacceptable. Besides the moral problem that the presence of such a passage
has posed, there is the additional literary problem, i.e., the repetition of the
accounts thrice in the book of Genesis. Hence, the duty of a biblical
commentator affronting these passages are two-fold: first, to decipher what
the biblical author/authors of each narrative wish to convey by the respective
narration of such a problematic episode; second, to account for the repeated
presence of the same passage, albeit with similar or dissimilar characters and
locations.
The three narratives are similar in their basic plot outline. The patriarch
and his household journey to a foreign land. The patriarch perceives his life
to be in threat due to the matriarch’s beauty. Hence, he declares that his wife
is his sister and eventually the matriarch ends up in the harem of the local
ruler. This is followed generally by divine intervention afflicting the ruler
and his household with plagues. The ruler finds out that the matriarch is
actually the wife and not the sister of the patriarch. The patriarch is accused
of having brought harm over the ruler. Finally, either the patriarch is sent off
from the land or allowed to stay and cultivate. At a certain point the ruler
endows the patriarch with gifts and in the end, the patriarch always ends up
wealthier than he was.
Despite the basic outline, the narratives often take the liberty to suppress
one or many of the elements or to introduce new elements, etc. This dialectic
of similarity and dissimilarity, along with the aforementioned moral
4 LESSONS FROM THE WIFE-SISTER ACCOUNTS
problems and repetition of accounts have bothered readers and scholars from
the post-biblical times itself, provoking a series of responses.
In the past, the documentary hypothesis had tried to solve these problems
by attributing different accounts to different authors, 12,10-20 and 26,1-16
to J and 20,1-18 to E1. There have been authors like E.A. Speiser who have
even scanned the cultural horizons of the ancient near east to trace if there
was a prevalent culture of accepting wives as sisters2. It was only later in
1981, would a breakthrough arrive when R. Alter would apply the then newly
discovered literary device of the “type scene” to the Hebrew Bible and
propose that the three episodes are in fact “type scenes” repeated by the
author for the purpose of characterization, conveying theological ideas,
express connection between themes, etc3. Since then, many have visited and
revisited the wife-sister accounts and proposed various theories regarding
the author’s purpose in laying three similar accounts side by side. In this
study, we too make a humble attempt, through the method of narrative
analysis, to discover the lessons that the biblical author has left for his readers
through the wife-sister narratives.
Two of these three accounts are found in the cycle of Abraham and one in
the cycle of Isaac. Due to the limited scope of this work, we shall limit
ourselves to the first two accounts of the Abraham cycle. Our method would
be to do a close reading of the texts from a narrative analytical method and
compare and contrast them in order to, first of all, decipher the theological
message of the author and secondly to respond to the problems posed by the
accounts. The work will chiefly be divided into three chapters. Chapters 1
and 2 would consist of the close readings of 12,10-20 and 20,1-18
respectively and Chapter 3 would synthesise the findings of the first two
chapters by comparing the texts. In the same chapter, we would also go
through the various ways in which readers and scholars have responded to
the text down the centuries, and understand why the narrative analytical
method could be very effective in dealing with the text in hand.
Altogether, we are dealing with a problem that is not only ancient but also
difficult and complex in many aspects. Yet, the theme is appealing and the
biblical accounts are worth exploring. With the narrative analytical method
in hand, we can safely take the plunge.
1
For example, cf. H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 158-222.
2
Cf. E.A. SPEISER, Genesis, 92.
3 R. ALTER, The Art of biblical Narrative, 47-62.
CHAPTER I
Abram and Sarai in Egypt (Gen 12,10-20)
We begin with a close reading of the first of the three wife-sister episodes.
Immediately after receiving his call and divine promise of progeny, land and
blessing, Abram4 goes down to Egypt, or, as the text emphasises, is forced
to go down, due to a famine in the land of Canaan. In the context of this
journey for survival, we encounter the dark side of the patriarch who seeks
to trade his wife Sarai5 in exchange for personal safety and prosperity. This
episode comes as a shock to the readers who would question the morality of
such an act. But as is typical of the biblical narrator who is economical with
words, the narrator offers no comment or explanation and leaves the reader
to figure things out. Since the narration time is short, there are many gaps
and blanks which the reader is left pondering over. This challenge is accepted
and taken over by scholars who have tried to fill in the ellipses and give some
interpretation of the episode. In this chapter, we join the scholars in search
for a meaning into the strange behaviour of Abram who presents his wife as
his sister, endangering her for his selfish motives and find out what message
the text offers us.
1. Delimitation of the pericope

Our discussion on this passage begins with the delimitation of the pericope.
The general opinion among scholars is that the pericope is limited to 12,10-20.
However, there are differing opinions among scholars who also include the
4 Abraham was called Abram before God changed his name in Gen 17. In this work,
we shall use Abram as the name of Abraham for the first chapter and those sections that
deal with Gen 12,10-20, since it is the name used by the text.
5 The former name of Sarah. Cf. Footnote no. 4.
transitional verses bracketing the pericope. In this section, we shall now discus
and examine for ourselves how the pericope can be delimited.
1.1. The beginning of the pericope
The beginning of the pericope is clear and is generally agreed upon by

scholars, but with a few exceptions. The second sub-unit (12,4-9) of the
previous pericope (12,1-9), speaks of Abram embarking on a journey (‫ַו ֵּילְֶך‬
‫ )אַ בְ ָרם‬on the command of YHWH in 12,1 (‫ְֶך־לָך‬
ְְ ‫ )ל‬and the journey ends in 12,9
with Abram reaching Negeb. So far, Abram, according to what the text
communicates, seems to have made every leg of his journey by his own will,
although responding to the divine command. However, in 12,10 there is a
break introduced by the temporal modifier wayhî (‫)וַיְהִ י‬6. Suddenly there is a
famine in the land, and the repetition of the phrase “famine in the land” (ְ‫ָר ָעב‬
‫ )בָ אָ ֶרץ‬at the beginning and end of the verse forms an inclusion with the
expression “Abram went down to Egypt to sojourn there” in the centre as if
to say that the famine forced Abram to do so. As Wenham notes, the above-
mentioned literary arrangement makes the verse into a title of the following
section7. A few disagreements include authors like H. Gunkel8 and J.
Skinner9 who consider 12,9 as the beginning of the pericope. We shall
discuss their disagreements in the following section.
1.2. The conclusion of the pericope

With regard to the conclusion, we have a majority of authors agreeing on
12,20 (N.M. Sarna10, G.J. Wenham11, V.P. Hamilton12, E.A. Speiser13 etc.).
Different views include that of G. von Rad14, J.G. Janzen15, J. Skinner and
others who agree among themselves on 13,1 and authors like Gunkel who
would extend the pericope further until 13,4. The different views are
particularly due to the fact that whereas 12,8-9 traces the southward journey
from Shechem to the place between Bethel and Ai to Negeb, 13,1-4 traces
6
Cf. P. JOÜON – T. MURAOKA, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §118k.
7
Cf. G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 1-15, 285.
8 Cf. H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 168.
9 Cf. J. SKINNER, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 247.
10 Cf. N.M. SARNA, Genesis, 93.
11 Cf. G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 1-15, 285-286.
12 Cf. V.P. HAMILTON, The Book of Genesis 1–17, 379.
13
14
Cf. G. VON RAD, Genesis. A Commentary, 167.
15 Cf. J.G. JANZEN, Abraham and All the Families, 24.
CH. I: ABRAM AND SARAI IN EGYPT (12,10-20) 7
the entire journey back. Hence, for authors who consider 12,9-13,1 or 12,9-
13,4 as a unit, the back-and-forth journey forms the introduction and
conclusion. However, it is to be noted that even they consider 12,10-20 as
the central unit within the pericope16. Moreover, if one takes away 12,8-9 or
just 12,9 from the preceding unit of 12,4-9, which primarily speaks of
Abram’s journey, we would find Abram in 12,7 in the middle of the journey
without the narrator having stated the purpose of his narration. Worse still is
the successive unit which speaks of the separation of Lot. The separation
only makes sense because both Abram and Lot have grown immensely
wealthy. Abram’s wealth is mentioned in 13,2 and Lot’s in 13,5. Without
13,2-4, the successive pericope would not stand on its own. Now regarding,
12,9 and 13,1, we may say that they do bracket the unit of 12,10-20, but that
is not sufficient to say it is part of the unit. At the most, the function of the
back-and-forth journey narrative would be to act as transitional verses used
by the redactor to link 12,10-20 with the preceding and succeeding units.
1.3. The unity of 12,10-20

There are several criteria that can be used in determining the unity of a
narrative. Some of them could be dramatic criteria such as change of place
or time, entry and exit of principal personages etc. Others could be stylistic
criteria such as repetition, inclusion, etc17. Of the several criteria that could
determine the unity of 12,10-20 the chief ones are changes of place and time.
One of the features that binds the unity of 12,10-20 is its setting in Egypt.
Not only is the event entirely taking place in Egypt, but it is particularly
Abram’s fear of the Egyptian immoral behaviour that triggers the events of
this episode. Accordingly, in 12,10 Abram “goes down” to Egypt and in
12,20 he is “sent away” from Egypt. Accordingly, his journey to Negeb
either in 12,9 and or in 13,1 has nothing to do with our episode, except that
it establishes a continuity with the preceding and successive pericopes.
Wenham notes here that though the final verb in 12,20, “sent away” has no
explicit subject, 13,1 introduces Abram, an indication that it is the beginning
of a new pericope18.
Moreover, according to Gunkel, the J author intended to narrate Abram’s
journey from Haran to his home in Hebron, for which, Shechem and Bethel
would be way stations since they lie on the direct route. Thus, the journey to
16
For example, cf. H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 168.
17
Cf. J.L. SKA, Our Fathers Have Told Us, 2.
18 G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 1-15, 286.
Egypt is a disruptive excursus19. He also points to the total absence of Lot

from the plot as a noteworthy feature of 12,10-20. Gunkel’s point is that this
account, i.e., 12,10-20 did not originally belong to its present context.
However, for us, Gunkel’s hypothesis underlines the unity of 12,10-20.
The introduction of famine leads to a change of time, a time of famine and
starvation forcing a migration, which in turn leads to the threat to life and
honour. The “famine in the land” motif emphasised through repetition in
12,10 also marks the verse as a new beginning, as we have noted. It is the
desperation caused by the famine that has led him to exchange his wife in
return for food security. The famine motif inaugurates the theme of the
episode, namely the threat to the promise, be it in the form of threat to
Abram’s life or to Sarai’s honour. This threat is resolved in 12,20 when they
leave Egypt. We can say here that the central triad of motifs which include
famine–Egypt–threat to promise is introduced in 12,10 and concluded in
12,20 with not even a trace of its presence to be found in the preceding and
succeeding pericopes.
Hence, by the merit of the majority agreement among authors and that of
the above arguments, we may safely consider 12,10-20 as the pericope for
our study.
1.4. The pericope’s relation to the rest of the Abraham cycle

Gunkel believes that every unit of the book of Genesis is an individual
legend in its original form and that any connection between individual
legends is either of later origin or a result of the exegete’s hallucination20! It
is no wonder then that according to him, 12,10-20 does not fit into the context
in which it is presently found. Von Rad too makes a similar observation,
when he notes that the story of Abram in Egypt is loosely connected with the
rest of the Abraham narratives. He sees here “an older, simpler, and clearer
narrative sequence” which does not know of Abraham’s journey into Egypt
and if one connects 12,8 to 13,2 skipping 12,9-13,1, it would make perfect
sense in terms of continuity21. We must note here that Gunkel and von Rad’s
remarks are valid from a diachronic point of view. However, from a
synchronic point of view, this pericope, is very essential to the Abraham
cycle on two accounts: first, it underlines the centrality of barren Sarah’s role
in the promise when God did not allow Abram to discard her very easily22;

20
H. GUNKEL, «Legends of Genesis», 390.
21
G. VON RAD, Genesis. A Commentary, 167.
22 Cf. Section 4.1 of this chapter for a discussion on the Centrality of Sarai.
second, that it offers a peak into the character of Abram who was not perfect
when he was called. As the Abraham cycle advances, we would see him
develop into a “round character”. Third, and most importantly, it offers a
glimpse of the God of Abraham who comes across as faithfulness to His
promise and who is ready to intervene to save His chosen ones. These
important aspects shall be developed later in the chapter. We may say here,
even if this episode be of a different origin, the final editor has placed it in
its present spot very consciously.
2. Significant textual notes

v. 11a: The Samaritan Pentateuch (Smr) replaces ‫ את‬with ‫אתי‬. The latter
seems to be an archaic form of the former, still preserved in texts such as
Judg 17,2; 1Kings 14,2; 2Kings 4,16.23; 8,1; Jer 4,30 Ezek 36:13 (ְ‫)אָ ְתי‬23. It
is possible that the Smr preserved the archaic form when the MT text was
updated.
v. 12a: ‫וְ הָ ְרגּו אֹ ִתי וְ אֹ תָ ְך יְ חַ יּו‬: The sequence of verb-object-object-verb (litt.
“[they will] kill me and you, let live”) forms a chiastic structure ABBA
according to Wenham, which renders killing and sparing as different aspects
of one action24. However, it could also be that in the second clause, the object
precedes the verb in order to break the notion of succession and render the
clause disjunctive ([they] will kill me, but they will spare you)25.
v. 12b: ‫וְ אָ ְמרּו‬: LXX uses the conjunction ὅτι to introduce the direct speech.
v. 13: ‫א ְמ ִרי־נָא‬: ִ LXX, V and S use conjunctions to render the sentence
syndetically. According to the BHQ, the asyndetic expression found in MT
is archaic26.
v. 13b: ‫אָ תְְ אֲחֹ ִתי‬: LXX and S introduce direct speech instead of the indirect
speech syndetically and the pronouns are changed in order to express, “I am
his sister”, perhaps for the sake of maintaining the uniformity of the pattern
of direct speeches in the narrative.
v. 16: Instead of ‫( בקרו‬and cattle) one finds the more generic ‫מא ְדוְ כב ְד מקנה‬
(and very numerous livestock) in Smr, harmonizing with 13,2: ‫בַ ִמקְ נֶה ְמאֹ ְד כָבֵּ ְד‬.
The order of the gifts is also changed in the Smr which places the asses after
“female servants” and totally omits male servants, thus bringing an order to
23 Cf. L. KOEHLER – et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 100.

24
G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 1-15, 285.
25
Cf. P. JOÜON – T. MURAOKA, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §119d.
26 Cf. TAL, A. – et al., Biblia Hebraica Quinta. 1. Genesis, 108.
the list. However, the reading of MT is to be maintained as the lectio

difficilior.
v.16 (MT): … and he had sheep and oxen and asses and male servants and
female servants and she-asses and camels.
v.16 (Smr): … and he had very numerous livestock, and female servants, and
asses, and she-asses, and camels.
v. 17a: To the adjective “great” qualifying the plagues, LXX adds καì
πονηροῖς “and evil” harmonizing with Deut 6,22: ‫וְ ָרעִ ים גְ דֹ לִ ים‬. Again, through
the agreement of the witnesses and the principle of lectio difficilior, we can
retain the MT reading.
v. 17b: ‫וְ אֶ ת־בֵּ יתֹֹ֑ ו‬: This phrase rendered “and his house/household” is
considered a gloss by the BHS to harmonize with 20,17: ‫ת־א ְשתֹ ְו אֶ ת־אֲבִ ימֶ לְֶך‬
ִ ֶ‫וְ א‬
‫וְ אַ ְמהֹ תָ יו‬. The BHQ reports an identical reading in Smr, LXX and V while the
S has ‫ܘܠܒܢܝ ܠܗ‬ ̈ ‫( ܒܝܬܗ‬him, his sons and his house/household). The BHS is
perhaps uncomfortable with the idea that God would punish the household
for the sins of one person. A similar proposal is also given in the notes 20,4
to solve the same problem there. But the notion of punishing or rewarding
the collective for the sin or righteousness of one person, respectively, is very
much a biblical idea. This problem would be discussed in detail in the next
chapter27. Altogether, there does not seem to be a need to consider the phrase
as a gloss.
v.19: LXX adds ἐναντíον σου (before you) to Pharaoh’s words: “Here is
your wife”. Here, through the principle of lectio brevior the MT reading is
to be maintained.
v.20: Smr and LXX add “and Lot with him” (Smr: ‫ עִ מֹו וְ לֹוט‬/ LXX: καὶ
Λωτ μετʼ αὐτοῦ). It seems that Smr and LXX are harmonizing the reading
with Gen 12:4 making it the simplest lesson. Despite the fact that rules of
textual criticism prefer a difficult reading over a simple reading, the strong
agreement between the ancient authoritative sources like Smr and LXX is
formidable. However, the said expression is also missing from the later
sources like S and V. The Smr and LXX addition creates a perfect verbal
repetition in 12,20 and 13,1. For example, in the LXX we find:
12,20 (LXX): And Pharaoh commanded men about him, and they sent
away him and his wife and all that he had and Lot with him.
13,1 (LXX): So Abram went up from Egypt, he and his wife, and all that
he had, and Lot with him, into the Negeb.
27 Cf. Chapter 2: Textual notes of v.4b, Sections 3.2, 3.4, and 4.4.
3. A close reading of 12,10-20

The plot of a biblical account supersedes in importance any of the other
narrative elements, according to J.L Ska, since the biblical author focuses
more on action than on elements such as development of characters. Hence,
according to him, priority should be given to the study of the plot over other
elements28. Speaking of the plot as a narrative tool, scholars speak of two
types of plots: the unified plot and the episodic plot. The unified plot is one
in which all the episodes are relevant to the narrative and have a bearing on
the outcome of the events narrated. Every episode is connected to what
precedes and what follows. The episodic plot on the other hand, are made up
of individual episodes whose order can be changed, and knowledge of former
episodes are not necessary to understand the following ones since every
episode is an individual unit29. The cycle of Abraham is said to be somewhat
between a unified plot and an episodic plot. At first sight it seems to be an
episodic plot, however, some threads may connect the different episodes (the
promises for instance and especially the promise of a son)30. Our pericope,
12,10-20 is an episode within the Abraham cycle, but, prima face, it would
appear to be a fully independent episode that does not add any factual
information or contribute anything to the plot of the entire cycle as a whole.
However, as we shall soon discover, the episode is thematically and
theologically linked to the entire cycle.
Between a plot of revelation and a plot of resolution, our plot is the later
one. A plot of revelation is one where there is more of description than
action, as in modern short stories and novels. A plot of resolution is a
traditional type of plot where time, evolution, and order of events are
essential, and development is an “unravelling”31. We find this unravelling in
our plot and one thing leads to another in continuous action. The famine
causes the travel to a foreign country and this in turn triggers an insecurity
in the mind of Abram. In order to solve this, he comes up with the wife-sister
idea and that leads to her abduction followed by the divine intervention and
final restitution of Sarai to him.
Finally, when speaking of the plot, we need to ask the crucial question,
“what is the main transformation that occur in the story”? Based on the
changes that occur, plots can be divided based on “change of knowledge”,
28 Cf. J. L. SKA, Our Fathers, 2.

29
Cf. J. L. SKA, Our Fathers, 17.
30
“change of values” or “change of situation” 32. When there is change of

knowledge, the reader knows something that was unknown at the beginning.
When there is an evolution of the characters, we can call it the “change of
value” type of plot. The “change of situation” plot are, as the word signifies,
when the situation changes, for example, after a war. Applying these to our
episode, we may ask the following questions: What do we learn in this
episode that we did not know before? Have the principal characters
undergone transformation? Has the situation changed from good to bad or
vice versa?
Regarding change in the knowledge, we may say that the centrality of Sarai
in the promise made to Abram is now made known by the divine intervention
in the form of plagues. The promise of progeny is not to Abram alone, but also
to Sarai. This means two things: one, the promise to Abram is not to be fulfilled
by “any” woman, rather Sarai alone. Second, the promise is not to the patriarch
alone, but to both the patriarch and matriarch as a couple. Another idea that is
revealed is the image of a God who saves his people and thereby His promise.
God intervenes in history to take control of it despite human actions. Both these
will be dealt with while talking about the theology that emerges from the
narrative. With regard to the transformation of characters or change in situation,
there is nothing much significant to be discussed. Hence, we may say that this
plot is a plot based on “change of knowledge”.
The narration of our episode is very rapid, and the narration time is shorter
than the narrative time33. In two places, one on the road to Egypt where
Abram makes the strange request to Sarai and another in Pharaoh’s discourse
to Abram, dialogues are inserted where the narration time is parallel to the
narrative time. But at other times, the narration is short and fast leaving many
gaps and blanks34.
The biblical authors employ two modes of narration: telling and showing.
In the telling mode, the narrator speaks directly to the audience giving, for
example a summary statement, or an opinion or judgement about a character,
whereas in the showing mode, the narrator tends to “show” a scene as if
displayed on a stage. The telling is usually from a distant focalization,
32
33
Cf. J. L. SKA, Our Fathers, 7-8.
34
Cf. Technical details about gaps and blanks and the difference between them in J.
L. SKA, Our Fathers, 8.
whereas showing is from a close focalization displaying, or rather narrating,

a vivid and detailed scene35.
Generally, it is said that there are four moments in the narrative arc of a
plot. It begins with exposition which serves as an introduction, followed by
a complication leading to a dissolution or denouement provoked by a
decisive action ending finally with the epilogue36. Ska is more flexible with
his approach by including a moment between exposition and complication,
which he calls inciting moment and omits the epilogue to maintain the total
number at four. However, Ska, being flexible, gives a range of options to
choose from, since no two plots are the same 37. As Wénin says, “So much
for the theory. In practice, things are often less straightforward, as the actual
stories do not necessarily conform in all respects to the theoretical model”38.
Moreover, when narrative analysts talk about moments of the plot, they have
large narratives in mind, like an epic, for example. In such a case, it is the
individual episodes that serve as the moments of the entire plot. However,
our episode is relatively small, and the scope of our application too shrinks
to a micro level. Hence, we use our liberty here to identify six moments in
the narrative arc of the plot of 12,10-20:
Exposition: The famine and the consequent journey (v.10)
Inciting moment: Scheming on the way (vv.11-13)
Complication: Sarai in Pharaoh’s household (vv.14-16)
Climax: YHWH intervenes for Sarai (v.17)
Resolution: Abram before the Pharaoh (vv.18-19)
Conclusion: The expulsion from Egypt (v.20)
3.1. Exposition: The famine and the consequent journey (v.10)

The opening verse of the pericope, v.10 is the exposition, since it acts as
an introduction and prepares the background for the entire episode39.
35 Cf. S. BAR-EFRAT, Narrative Art in the Bible, 34; According to Sonnet, apart from
narrating the story, the telling and showing modes are exploited on a large scale by the
biblical authors for the purpose of characterization: Cf. J.-P. SONNET, «L’analisi
narrativa», 67-69.
36 Cf. A. WENIN, «De l’analyse narrative», 374; Cf. J.-P. SONNET, «L’analisi
narrativa», 56.57.
38 Actual quote in French, «Voilà pour la théorie. Dans la pratique, les choses sont
souvent moins simples, car les récits concrets ne se conforment pas forcément en tous
points au modèle théorique», A. WENIN, «De l’analyse narrative», 374.
39 Cf. S. BAR-EFRAT, Narrative Art in the Bible, 111.
However, there are certain typical criteria of exposition which this verse does
not strictly follow. For example, according to Sonnet:
In ebraico, l’esposizione è abitualmente espressa da forme verbali yiqtol o
weqatal (frequentative o «iterative»), mentre l’apparizione di un wayyiqtol
(preceduto o meno da un wayehì, «fu» + indicazione temporale) segnala il
passaggio all’azione (si veda anche 1Sam 1,3-4; 2Re 4,8)40.
On the other hand, we find the pericope inaugurated with the temporal
modifier wayhî followed by a wayyiqtol which according to Sonnet’s criteria,
signals the initiation of action. However, considering the role played by the
verse in the episode, we could still consider it as an exposition. The mode of
narration is telling and narration time is brief. The presence of the repetition
of the phrase “famine in the land (ְ‫ ”)בָ ָ ֹ֑א ֶרץ ָר ָעב‬forms an inclusion with “Abram
went down to Egypt to sojourn there (ְ‫ ”)שָ ם לָגּור ִמצְ ַריְ מָ הְ אַ בְ ָרם ַוי ֵֶּרד‬in the centre.
Considering the brevity of the episode, the repetition with the mention of its
severity the second time is noteworthy.
10
And there was famine in the land and Abram went down to Egypt to sojourn
there, for severe was the famine in the land.
The key words here are famine, Egypt and the verbs “to go down” and “to
sojourn”. The entire episode is set in the context of a famine. The famine
stands for the fight for survival and the helplessness of the protagonists.
Abram is “forced” by the famine (the repetition “famine in the land”) to go
to Egypt and “sojourn” there as an alien without rights. It is the helplessness
induced by the famine that “forces” him to lie about his wife in order to save
his life and due to which Sarai is “taken” to the Pharaoh’s house. Throughout
the episode, the protagonists are on the defensive. They act defensively. Even
their act of scheming and lying are for defending themselves and surviving.
Though Canaan was part of the fertile crescent extending from
Mesopotamia up to Egypt, the land was in constant threat of famines due to
its agriculture being dependent on rainfall. In contrast, Egyptian agriculture
was always supplied with constant water irrigated from the Nile River 41.
Recurrent famines and subsequent resettlements are a regular feature of the
biblical narratives: 26,1; 43,1; 47,4; Ruth 1,1; 2 Sam 21,1; 2 Kings 4,38; 8,1.
Gunkel mentions that the Canaanite Hyksos conquest of Egypt enabled a
welcoming attitude to emigrants from Canaan42. There are Egyptian sources
J.-P. SONNET, «L’analisi narrativa», 56.

40
41
Cf. G. VON RAD, Genesis. A Commentary, 168; Also cf. V.P. HAMILTON, The Book
of Genesis 1–17, 380.
which mention regular emigration of people of Asian origin sojourning in

Egypt to escape famine. Once such source is mentioned by Sarna in his
commentary to the book of Genesis. It is a report of an Egyptian frontier
official during the time of Ramses II sent to his senior officer addressed as
“Scribe of the Treasury” concerning the Edomite shepherds to whom
permission was given to cross into Egypt for seasonal pasturing of their
flocks. It reads, “We have finished letting the Bedouin tribes of Edom pass
the fortress … to keep them alive and to keep their cattle alive”43.
Since this pericope is part of the Abrahamic narratives, this verse needs to
be read in that wider context not only to draw meaning, but also to get
introduced to our characters and their Sitz im Leben. Immediately after
recounting the call of Abram and God’s promise to him in 12,1-9, the
narrator now reports a threat to the very call and promise. This threat follows
an already barren marriage (cf. 11,30). Abram discovers that the promised
land is not unaffected by famines or similar disasters. Hence, he goes down
to Egypt to reside there as an alien.
Abram responds with “conventional wisdom” like any transient pastoral
community responding to local famine44. The verb used to describe the
journey to Egypt is ‫ ַוי ֵֶּר ְד‬. It is the wayyiqtol form of the verb ‫ יר ְד‬meaning
“descend” or “to go down”. The Hebrew Bible regularly describes travel
from Palestine to Egypt as “going down” (‫ )ירד‬and the reverse trip as “going
up” (‫ )עלה‬since the former is geographically on a higher elevation with
respect to the other45.
Egypt is mentioned here for the first time in the Bible as a factor in
Israelite history. According to Sarna, the narrative prefigures the ambiguity
of future relationships, at times as a place of shelter and succour in time of
distress, yet at other times, as a place of suppression, slavery and mortal
danger. Sarna also notes that there is no hatred of Egypt in the Bible, despite
the slavery and the Exodus, a fact that is well reflected in this passage.
Moreover, even the Pharaoh of this episode is presented as a just and
righteous figure in contrast to the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
Abram is going down to Egypt in order “to sojourn” there. The Hebrew
word used is ‫גּור‬. It is the Qal infinitive construct form of the verb ‫ גור‬which
basically implies a temporary stay in a foreign land (cf. Gen 19,9; 35,27;
Deut 26,5; 2Sam 4,3 etc.). Whereas nearly every author understands
43 J.B. PRITCHARD, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 259. Quoted from N.M. SARNA,
Genesis, 93.
44
Cf. J.G. JANZEN, Abraham and All the Families, 24.
45 Cf. E.A. SPEISER, Genesis, 90.
Abram’s sojourn in Egypt to be short and temporary, Wenham understands

it as a long-term settlement, something alien to Abram’s nomadic lifestyle.
But, nonetheless, the general sense of the term gives the impression of a short
residence. D. Kellermann sheds light on the legal position of the sojourner
in the foreign land. The sojourner or ger (‫ )גֵּר‬occupies an intermediate
position between a native (‫ )אֶ ז ְָרח‬and a foreigner (‫)נָכְ ִרי‬. Living among people
who are not his blood relatives, he lacks the protection and the privileges
which usually come from blood relationship and place of birth. His status
and privileges are entirely dependent on the virtue hospitality that the native
would or would not extend to him46. In the Hebrew Bible, the ger is counted
among the deprived and underprivileged of society, such as the orphan and
the widow, whom it is forbidden to oppress and to whose needs one must be
particularly sensitive47. Perhaps this could explain Abraham’s anxiety in the
next verse.
But was it the will of God, who directed Abram’s moves? Was it a lack of
trust for God’s promise48? Facing a famine, immediately after setting out,
Abram could have protested or murmured against Him who called him.
Perhaps it was his faith that prevented him from doing so49. One could even
say that this famine was a test for the faith of Abram50. Our narrator is silent
on all of this and leaves the readers to ponder. The narrator’s mention that
he went down to “sojourn” and not settle in Egypt tells us that he has not yet
given up on the Promised Land. According to Janzen, conventional wisdom
is often taken as an implicit will of God. Abram’s decision opens up the
debate as to when faith acts according to common sense and when according
to uncommon sense51. Those who are critical of Abram’s initiative to travel
to Egypt base their reason on the fact of this narrative being a predominantly
J source. According to the J’s theology, acting on one’s own authority
without YHWH cannot lead to any good52. As this story goes, it only
endangered the promise and eventually, YHWH had to intervene.
The narrator mentions only Abram going down to Egypt. He does not
mention whether his entourage followed him there. But given that Abram
cannot leave his servants and animals in the famine to die, we can presume
46 D. KELLERMANN, «‫»גּור‬, 443.

48 Cf. W. OSWALD, «Die Erzeltern als Schutzbürger», 80.
49 Cf. MIDRASH R ABBAH, Genesis, 326.
50
Cf. RASHI DE TROYES, Commento alla Genesi, 88.
51
52 Cf. Section 4.3 of this paper.
that “Abram” in this verse stands for the whole community of people and
possessions following him53.
3.2. Inciting Moment: Say you are my sister! (vv.11-13)

With vv.11-13 we are coming to the inciting moment in the plot where the
action begins. We have not arrived at the complication. Rather, in this
section, we only perceive with the eyes of the protagonist of a future
complication. This section too opens with the temporal modifier wayhî and
the subsequent verb, ‫ ַוי ֹאמֶ ר‬, another wayyiqtol, opens the direct speech that
continues up to v. 13. The mode of narration is that of showing. This section
can be counted as the first scene of the narrative with the two principal
characters on stage54. The beauty of Sarai, the expression “‫ ”הִ נֵּה־נָא‬and the
concept of “wife as sister” need special mention here. This unit portrays the
dark and selfish side of Abram. Just before arriving in Egypt, Abram realizes
that his wife of sixty-five is beautiful despite the weariness of the travel. He
entreats her with a strange request:
11
And it came to be that as he was about to come to Egypt, he said to Sarai, his
wife, “Behold now, I know that you are a woman beautiful in appearance. 12And
it will be that when the Egyptians would see you, they would say, “This is his
wife.” And they will kill me, but they will let you live. 13 Please say you are my
sister so that it may be well with me on account of you and my soul shall live
because of you”.
The entire episode revolves around the beauty of Sarai. We find the motif
repeated again in v.14. Despite her advanced age, Sarai is conceived as
beautiful, not only by her husband, but also by the Egyptians. Calculating
from the chronological data provided by the P sources, the age of Sarai is
agreed upon by scholars as sixty-five55. This is the mid-life of Sarai, since in
23,1, she dies at one hundred and twenty-seven years. The fact that Sarai was
53 “The narrative, in contrast to what precedes and follows, does not seem to know
Lot”. G. VON RAD, Genesis. A Commentary, 168; We do notice the narrator changing
often from singular to plural and vice versa when talking of the movement of Abram. For
example, in 12,5, all verbs of movement have third person plural subjects indicating the
people and possessions following him, whereas from 12,6 up to 12,10, the singular
“Abram” is used and again in 12,20 and 13,1 we have indications of the entourage.
54 In the scenes in Biblical narratives, particularly in Genesis “it is rare that all the
persons of the story appear at once, but only a few, usually only two, are shown us at
once”: H. GUNKEL, «Legends of Genesis», 390.
55
Cf. H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 169; N.M. SARNA, Genesis, 94; V.P. HAMILTON, The Book
of Genesis 1–17, 380.
desirably beautiful even at an advanced age has intrigued scholars who have
come up with multiple explanations. Wenham, for example, reminds us that
women who haven’t given birth preserve her beauty better than the women
who have. Besides, according to him, the ideas of feminine beauty in
traditional societies differ from western concepts. In certain civilizations,
well-endowed matronly figures, not slim youthful ones, tend to represent
their ideal of womanhood. By such criteria, Sarai might well count as very
beautiful even at her age56. Until recent years, modern scholarship had
perceived the very purpose of this episode to glorify the beauty of the
national matriarch. As every other nation, Israelites are convinced that
Hebrew women are more beautiful than other women57. It is no wonder that
Midrash Rabbah emphatically proclaims that not only is Sarai beautiful
despite the weariness of the travel, but she is more beautiful than Eve
herself58.
Since it is for the first time that Abram opens his mouth in the Bible, we
need to pay attention closely to his words, since they offer a glimpse into his
character59. On one hand we see the farsightedness and pragmatic approach
of Abram to life’s challenges. On the other hand, we come across his
insecurities and anxiety which eventually also seems to reveal his selfish side
when he tries to save himself in exchange of the honour of Sarai. We see him
manipulating his wife by describing her beauty first and then scaring her with
the thought of his death, followed by the selfish request so that “it may go
well with him60.
Abram perceives that the foreign land would pose a threat for him due to
his beautiful wife. He knew that he was a refugee (sojourner) in the land of
Egypt and was therefore dependent on the mercy of the citizens of the land.
Some authors like Wenham61, for example wonder why Abram would have
such a fear in Egypt and not in Canaan for he was a wandering alien in both
lands. One probable reason could be that in Canaan, Abram lived as an expat
and not as a refugee. While agriculture still flourished, he could feed himself
through tilling the land and also pay taxes, whereas, in Egypt, he is a destitute
due to the famine. Another reason could be unfamiliarity with the language
of the Egyptians. In contrast, the Canaanites spoke a variant of the Semitic
56
57
Cf. H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 169.
59 Cf. A. WÉNIN, Abramo e l'educazione divina, 29.
60
For a detailed characterisation of Abram’s darker side evident in vv.11-13, cf. A.
WÉNIN, Abramo e l'educazione divina, 29-30.
61 Cf. G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 1-15, 287.
language which Abram himself spoke. But we can only speculate since the
narrator does not leave clues.
In Abram’s speech of vv.11-13, the Egyptians are portrayed negatively,
i.e., as a sexually promiscuous population. In the following verses we see
that his fears were not unfounded and that in no time, Sarai was abducted
into Pharaoh’s house. What we know is that in ancient times, kings used to
collect wives both for dynastic succession and for abundant marital pleasure.
Examples from the Ancient Near Eastern epic of Gilgamesh, to the biblical
account of David and Bathsheba give us ample reasons to believe that the
honour of beautiful wives and the life of their husbands are always at stake
before a sexually promiscuous king62. Thus, Abram might have thought that
the brother of a beautiful woman might be far safer abroad than her husband
would be63. However, this view of the Egyptians and especially the Pharaoh
is bound to change towards the end of the episode.
The word ְ‫ הִ ֵּנה‬is usually translated as “behold, look”, but when joined with
the particle ‫נָא‬, it is generally translated as “please, I pray”. The dynamics of
the phrase works as follows: The ‫ הִ נֵּה‬draws attention to what one is going to
say, and ‫ נא‬begs the hearer to pay attention to the thing announced by ‫ הִ נֵּה‬and
to look favourably upon the request that follows, which often contains a
second ‫נא‬, in our case following the entreating imperative ‫א ְמ ִרי‬. ִ Thus, we
may also say that the second follows as a logical sequence to the first,
“Behold, I know … therefore, please say…”64.
The twice-repeated ‫( נָא‬vv.11.13) here reveals a manipulative husband.
According to Gunkel, the purpose of the very legend was to extol the ingenuity
of the patriarch. He points out to the narratives that speak of the cleverness of
Noah (8,6ff), Jacob who deceived his brother Esau and Laban, etc. He
concludes that ancient Israel regarded the lie much more mildly than we do65.
But his theory is not supported by the Midrash Rabbah which holds that
«Abraham becomes subordinate to Sarai when he said, “Say, I pray, that you
are my sister” since it is written, “And he dealt well with Abram for her
sake”»66.
Was it morally right on the part of Abram to leave his wife to Pharaoh?
The narrator is silent and does not make a judgement. The narrator leaves it
to the actions of God to reveal what is right and wrong. Even towards the
62 Cf. J.G. JANZEN, Abraham and all the Families, 24.

63 Cf. G. VON RAD, Genesis. A Commentary, 168.
64
Cf. P. JOÜON – T. MURAOKA, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 105c.d.
65
66 MIDRASH R ABBAH, Genesis, 329.
end, the narrator refuses to comment on the action of Abram. Abram passing
off his wife as sister is a shocking matter for readers of all times. That it was
highly immoral even in ancient times is seen from Pharaoh’s words towards
the end as well as the author’s treatment of the episode. In chapter 20, where
the wife-sister motif appears again, Abram (who is Abraham by then) tells
Abimelech that Sarai was his half-sister (20,12). In that case, here it is a half-
truth passed as a lie.
E.A. Speiser, after having done remarkable research sheds ample light on
the topic. He points to the fact that marrying close relatives was a feature of
the patriarchs. For example, Abraham’s brother Nahor married Milcah, the
daughter of his younger brother Haran (cf. 11,27-30). Speiser would say that
under the law of Hurrian centres such as Uarran and Nabur, a marriage of
this type would carry with it the wife-sister provisions. Accordingly,
Abraham too marries the daughter of his father Terah, but not by Abraham's
own mother67. According to Speiser, this alone would make Sarah eligible
for “sistership” status under the law of the land of Haran from which
Abraham had set out on his journey to Canaan, with all the associated
protections and privileges which that law provided68. In a later article69,
Speiser would produce documents in the form of certain Nuzi texts which
recorded a marriage practice among the upper Hurrian classes, a practice
unparalleled in any other Near Eastern society, which allowed a wife to be
adopted by her husband as his sister. Further, a woman, given in marriage by
her brother, as in the case of Rebekah and Isaac, where Laban, her brother
gives her off in marriage, the wife would legally become the husband’s sister.
However, this theory has been heavily criticised by later scholars and
presently it is disregarded particularly due to the consensus that Speiser may
have mistranslated or misinterpreted some of the documents70.
According to Janzen, Abram might have thought that since it was him who
received the divine call, Sarai was not central to the plan. This is especially
due to the patriarchal culture which permitted many wives and/or
concubines. Janzen says that Abram supposed that the promise to him of
descendants can be fulfilled through some other woman71. Janzen’s
hypothesis seems to be quite satisfactory as to explain Abram’s unusual
67
Gunkel believes that this is an information created by the narrator of chapter 20 ad
hoc and is not based on any previous tradition: cf. H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 221.
68 Cf. E.A. SPEISER, Genesis, 92-93.
69 Cf. E.A. SPEISER, «The Wife-Sister Motif», 62-82.
70
Cf. Section 1.2 of Chapter 3 for a detailed discussion; Cf. V.P. HAMILTON, The Book
of Genesis 1–17, 381; Cf. G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 1-15, 288.
behaviour. The discussion of Sarai’s centrality to this episode is also relevant

because of the repetition of the motif “on account of” or its equivalents. In
Hebrew, the words used are: ְַ‫ב‬+‫( עֲבּור‬on account of: vv.13.16), ‫( ָגלָל‬because
of: v.13) and ‫ַל־דבַ ר‬
ְ ‫( שָ ַרי ע‬for the sake of Sarai: v.17).
Another equally satisfactory explanation is offered by Wenham and Sarna.
They speak of a well-known sociolegal institution of “fratriarchy” in the Near
East according to which for a woman who has no father, the brother is the
legal guardian and takes upon himself the responsibility of marrying her off.
According to them, Abram while passing Sarai as his sister, thought that
anyone who wished to take her as wife, would have had to negotiate with him.
He could then fend them off with promising marriage but never giving her
away (cf. 24,55: Laban and Rebekah; 34,13-17: Dinah and her brothers)72.
What the reader would expect here is the reaction of Sarai to Abram’s
request. But the silence of the narrator on it is intriguing. Some authors inter-
pret Sarai’s silence as her assent73. The two-fold ‫ נָא‬implies that it is more of
a request than a command74 (cf. Gen 16,2; 19,2). But is Sarai free to refuse?
In this episode, the only speakers are Abram and Pharaoh, whereas Sarai is
passive and silent. God is silent, but acts. Janzen observes that the “actions
and speech of others frame Sarai’s silence and veiled behaviour, the interior
character of which the reader is left or invited to wonder about”75. But despite
her passivity, Janzen notes, “taken into Pharaoh’s harem, she not only saves
Abram’s life but enables his enrichment”76.
3.3. Complication: Sarai in Pharaoh’s household (vv.14-16)

Verses 14-16 brings us to the complication of the plot. Abram and Sarai
have now entered Egypt, and we are told by the narrator that the Egyptians
could not help but notice that Sarai was beautiful, just as Abram had
predicted. This section 14-16 is unified by the theme of Egyptian response
to Sarai’s beauty. The readers now know that her beauty was not the
subjective imagination of a “neurotically jealous husband”77. Indeed, Abram
was right on two accounts: that his wife was extremely beautiful (v.14: ‫ָיפָה‬
‫מאֹ ְד‬,)
ְ and that the Egyptians would desire to have her. But things go beyond
the prediction of Abram when even the ruler of the land shows interest in
72 Cf. G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 1-15, 288; N.M. SARNA, Genesis, 95.
73 Cf. V.P. HAMILTON, The Book of Genesis 1–17, 382; Cf. H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 288.
74 Cf. P. JOÜON – T. M URAOKA, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 105c.
75
Cf. J.G. JANZEN, Abraham and all the Families, 26.
76
her. The officials of Pharaoh see that Sarai is beautiful and they praise her to
the Pharaoh who eventually “takes” her to his house. The matriarch’s beauty
is no longer “next-door” quality but that which is fit for the Pharaoh of Egypt.
We note that the mention of Sarai’s beauty is repeated here and the whole
plot revolves around it:
14
And it came to be that when Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw the
woman that she was very beautiful. 15 And the officials of Pharaoh saw her and
praised her to Pharaoh, and she was taken to the house of Pharaoh. 16 And to
Abram he dealt well for her sake and he had sheep and oxen and male donkeys
and male servants and female servants and female donkeys and camels.
The principal actors of the scene are the Egyptians courtiers and Pharaoh
whereas Abram and Sarai are relegated to a passive role. The Egyptians saw
that Sarai was very beautiful and the word of it passed from the streets to the
palace of the Pharaoh. In v. 15. the three verbs show a slow progression of
events. The officials of Pharaoh “see” Sarai, and they “praise” her beauty to the
Pharaoh and as the verse goes, she “was taken” (Hof. of ‫ )לק ְח‬to Pharaoh’s
house. For a modern reader, the translation “taken” may mean perhaps nothing
more than a forceful abduction. Hence, a look into the shades of meaning of the
word ‫ לק ְח‬might throw some light into the actual interpretation of the verse.
Primarily meaning “to take, grasp or seize” (cf. Gen 2,15; 8,20; 22,2; Ex 17,5
etc.), it could even mean to take something as one’s property, as a slave or adopt
someone as one’s son or daughter” (cf. Job 40,28; 2Kings 4,1; Esth 2,7).
But one of the major shades of meaning is “to take a woman in marriage”.
In fact, this term, “to take a wife” or “to take (a woman) as one’s wife” (cf.
Gen 4,19; 11,29; 20,2f; 24,3f) is apparently the terminus technicus for
marriage78. The expression would involve the syntagma ‫ לקח‬+ ‫אשָ ה‬. ִ In fact, a
separate word for marriage or related concepts does not exist in the Hebrew
Bible. Typical expressions for the process of marrying involve words for
giving or taking. A study on the terminology used for marriage in the Hebrew
Bible would reveal that either a male character takes (‫ )לָקַח‬a woman to be his
wife (‫)אשָ ה‬,ִ or a male guardian gives (‫ )נָתַ ן‬a woman dependent on him as a
wife (‫)אשָ ה‬ִ to another man (cf. Gen 25,1; 24,4; 34,16; 1Kings 7,8).
In our pericope, not only do we come across the syntagma in v. 15, but
also in Pharaoh’s speech in v. 19, where he admits, “Why did you say that
she is your sister, that I “took” her as a wife (‫)אשָ ה‬
ִ to me”. Thus, we have
good reason to believe that the “taking of Sarai” was a matrimonial alliance,
but perhaps not in the monogamous sense that we have today. At the most,
78 Cf. H. SEEBAS, «‫»לָקָ ח‬, 19.

it could have only possibly given her a position as one among the many
concubines of Pharaoh. This could also lead us to believe that the gifts
enumerated in v. 16 could be the bridal price that Pharaoh paid to Abram for
Sarai79. If the original plan of Abram was to fend off suitors by promising
Sarai in marriage and not fulfilling it, then it is now frustrated by Pharaoh’s
abduction of Sarai80.
There is a general consensus among scholars that actual adultery had taken
place between the Pharaoh and Sarai compared to the potential adultery in
20,3-481. Some verbal indications might help us here. The “house” of
Pharaoh (‫ )פ ְַרעֹה בֵּ ית‬mentioned here could be more a mere residence. The
word “Pharaoh” itself means “a big house” indicating the palace of the ruler,
probably a metonym. As per the usage of the term ‫ בֵּ ית( בַ יִ ת‬is the construct
form) in the Hebrew Bible, it could have more nuanced meanings. Dwelling
place, palace, temple etc. are certainly some of the primary meanings. On a
secondary level, it could mean clan, tribe or even household, in the sense of
a family82. There is one instance, in Esth 2,2b.3, where it has been used for
a harem which in Hebrew renders “house of women” (‫)בֵּ יתְהַ נ ִָשים‬. In the case
of Sarai, it could now either mean that she was “taken” (ְ‫ )לקח‬into the
household of Pharaoh through matrimony (clearly not a monogamous one)
or that she ended up in the royal harem as a concubine. Either way, an
adulterous relationship would be on the way for sure.
Jewish sources either, just like the account itself, maintain silence on this
topic, or they vehemently deny any sexual intercourse at all. However,
certain statements may betray an implicit admission. For example, Midrash
Rabbah would try to associate the plagues caused with Pharaoh’s reluctance
to release Sarai even when he knows that she is Abram’s wife. In one
instance it is written, “…whoever comes to attack Israel eventually receives
his deserts on their account, the proof being that because Pharaoh took
possession of Sarah for one night, he and his household were smitten with
plagues…” Here we see how the Midrash does not explicitly affirm sexual
relation between Pharaoh and Sarah, but by using the words “took
possession”, it brings an ambiguity which can be interpreted in the
affirmative. Similarly, in another instance, it affirms that Sarai “lay prostrate

80 Cf. G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 1-15, 289; Also cf. N.M. SARNA, Genesis, 95.
81
Cf. G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 1-15, 289; Also cf. V.P. HAMILTON, The Book of Genesis
1–17, 382.
82 Cf. H.A. HOFFNER, «‫»בַ יִ ת‬, 113-115.
on the floor and cried to YHWH the whole night”83, but a little further, it also
says that the plagues were severe since Pharaoh would not “leave her”
despite her telling him that she was a married woman84.
The reader who is shocked at Abram’s proposal in vv.11-13, begins to
hate Abram by v.15, when Sarai is taken to Pharaoh’s harem, then by v.16
cannot help but outright despise Abram. If the purpose of the entire scheming
of Abram in v.13 was that it might “go well (ְ‫ )יטב‬with him for the sake (‫עֲבּור‬
+ ְְ‫ )ב‬of Sarai” in Egypt, then that purpose is served here, since, in v.16,
Pharaoh deals “well (ְ‫ )יטב‬with Abram for the sake of (ְ‫ עֲבּור‬+ ְְ‫ )ב‬Sarai”.
Practically, it meant an increase in wealth through the abundance of gifts. In
the patriarchal narratives, enumeration of gifts usually served to display the
riches of the patriarchs, e.g., 20,14; 24,35; 30,43; 32,15f; etc. and here it
could have been regarded by this narrator as the foundation of Abram’s
subsequent wealth85. Either as bridal money or as a goodwill towards Sarai’s
“brother”, Pharaoh lavished Abram with sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male
servants, female servants, female donkeys and camels.
The order of the gifts is strange since it places male and female servants
between the male and female donkeys. Probably, the gifts were arranged in
the order of their value, which indicates that for the Egyptians, the value of
slaves was either equal to or lesser than animals. Already in the textual notes,
we have seen how Smr sought to reorder the gifts placing the slaves before
the asses preceded only by the generic mention of “numerous livestock”.
Scholars, on their part, have tried to iron out the difficulty by positing late
additions either in the case of male and female servants86 or in the case of
asses and camels87. No traces of evidence have been found for the presence
of camels in the period of time. While most scholars have dismissed it as a
case of an error of anachronism by a later author, Sarna, pointing out to the
presence of camels in other instances, namely chapters 24 and 31, also within
the patriarchal narratives, where camels are an integral part of the narrative,
puts forth a different theory. According to him, certain bilingual Sumerian-
Akkadian lexical texts from Mesopotamia equate a domesticated animal
called “a donkey-of-the-sea-land” with a dromedary. But the scribes of the
time were able to differentiate between the dromedary and the Bactrian
83
MIDRASH RABBAH, Genesis, 333.
84
Cf. MIDRASH RABBAH, Genesis, 334.
87
Cf. J. SKINNER, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 249. There is a general
tendency among scholars of a certain generation to iron out every other difficult reading
by calling it an “addition”, a tendency frowned upon in recent times.
camel, as is evident from Sumerian texts of that period. This means that
though camels were a rarity, the scribes of the time were aware of its
existence. Moreover, the domestication of camels at first spread very slowly,
and was considered a status symbol. This would explain their presence with
the gifts and in occasions where the wealth of the patriarchs has to be
displayed, for example, chapter 2488.
In accepting the gifts of Pharaoh without a tinge of guilt, Abram comes
across as a dark character and the reader might even wonder if this was the
same Abram who is seen before and after the episode. Unlike other biblical
individuals who owe their material prosperity to divine blessing, Abram
gains it through other means (cf. Prov 10,22)89. Hence even if the narrator or
the redactor considered Abram to be ingenuous, this story does not make him
an ideal biblical character.
3.4. Climax: YHWH strikes Pharaoh for Sarai (v.17)

The plot has reached its climax in v.17 due to the decisive action on the
part of YHWH to bring the building tension surrounding the abduction of
Sarai and the possible threat to the promise to a resolution which will be
taken up in the next section, vv.18-19. Though some scholars group v.17
with the following vv. 18-19, in this work, we shall deal with it as a separate
unit within the episode, for the following reasons: Firstly, a new leitmotif,
that of plague is introduced and concluded here. It is presented as a
consequence of the development of plot in the previous verses and affects
the following verses. But it is never explicitly mentioned before or after.
Secondly, a new character is introduced here, YHWH. Again, despite acting
decisively and centrally to change the course of the plot, this character is
mentioned only in this verse, not before, not after. Thirdly, this is the unique
moment in the episode, where we find the convergence of all the principal
characters of the episode, “And YHWH afflicted Pharaoh … because of90
Sarai, the wife of Abram” marking it as the climax of the plot.
88
Cf. N.M. SARNA, Genesis, 96.
90 Literally, at the words of Sarai (‫ַל־דבַ רְשָ ַרי‬
ְ ‫)ע‬. According to Midrash Rabbah, an angel
is sent to assist Sarai and when she said “strike”, the angel struck (cf. footnote no. 95);
Rashi of Troyes gives this expanded version as the meaning of what the text means by
‫ַל־דבַ רְשָ ַרי‬
ְ ‫ע‬, cf. RASHI DE TROYES, Commento alla Genesi, 90. But modern commentators
translate it as “because of”, cf. V.P. HAMILTON, The Book of Genesis 1–17, 379; cf. also
the translation in NRSV; Cf. Wénin’s comments on the same in A. WÉNIN, Abramo e
l'educazione divina, 38-40.
17
And YHWH plagued Pharaoh (with) great plagues for the sake of Sarai, the
wife of Abram.
Until now, Abram, though helpless, was to an extent in control of the
story. Even when he had to face threats, he played smart, turning the
challenges to his profit, as everything “went well with him” in the face of
tragedy. YHWH who spoke to Abram and guided the course of the story was
silent and inactive till now. But now, in this verse, YHWH takes control of
the story from Abram, and consequently, of the history of Israel91. Even
while taking control, YHWH is silent, but acts decisively. We note that the
divine intervention is not to punish Abram for his lie and betrayal, but to save
Sarai92 and Sarai is saved because she is righteous93.
The verb used to introduce the divine action is ‫וַיְ ַנגַע‬, a wayyiqtol, and Piel
form of the verb ‫ נגע‬which means “to afflict, strike”. It is interesting to note
that the Qal form of the verb has the meaning “to touch sexually” especially
where a sexual relation is prohibited94. Hence what we have is a play of
words. YHWH ‫ נגע‬Pharaoh, because Pharaoh ‫ נגע‬Sarai. The nature of the
punishment is not defined95, though biblically, ‫ נגע‬often refers to skin
diseases (Lev 13–14; 2 Kings 15:5) leading scholars to suggest that it was a
plague of boils96. If the talk of plagues and boils on Pharaoh’s household
reminds us of the Exodus events, it is not surprising, since the same verb is
used there too (Ex 11,1) proposing a parallel97. Due to the sexual connotation
attached to the verb ‫נגע‬, Sarna proposes that the plagues could have had a
connection to Pharaoh’s passion for Sarai, i.e., some sort of temporary sexual
impotence (Gen 20,17f)98.
There is no mention of how Pharaoh connected the plague to his sin, nor
whether he was cured later. According to von Rad, the narrative offers no
91
Cf. V.P. HAMILTON, The Book of Genesis 1–17, 384.
92
93
Cf. MIDRASH RABBAH, Genesis, 332.
94
Cf. L. SCHWEINHORST, «‫» ָנגַע‬, 206; Cf. Gen 20,6.
95 Midrash Rabbah mentions varieties of boils, leprosy etc. According to it, Sarai
prayed to God (the Holy One) who sent an angel to her aid. «…when she ordered “Strike”,
he struck, and when she ordered, “Desist”», he desisted. Cf. MIDRASH RABBAH, Genesis,
333. Also cf. N.M. SARNA, Genesis, 96. The fact that these are Jewish sources point,
understandably, to how embarrassing the episode is for the Jews.
96
Cf. MIDRASH RABBAH, Genesis, 333; G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 1-15, 289.
97
Cf. Section 4.5 of this chapter.
98 N.M. SARNA, Genesis, 97.
answers because after the divine intervention, all these become unim-
portant99. Certainly, the aim of the narrative is not to satisfy the curiosity of
the reader but to convey his point to the reader. In this case, the centrality of
Sarai to the divine promise is what the narrator intended, since it was ְ‫ַל־ד ַ ַ֥בר‬ ְ ‫ע‬
‫“ אַ בְ ָ ָֽרם ֵּ ַ֥אשֶ ת שָ ַ ַ֖רי‬because of Sarai, the wife of Abram” that it happened. If
Abram had thought that Sarai was dispensable and that only his life mattered
as far as the promise is concerned, he is proven wrong by the divine inter-
vention100. Abram who is called to be a blessing has now become a source
of curse for Pharaoh and ultimately, he alone is to be blamed for bringing
disaster upon Pharaoh’s household101.
If for Abraham, Sarah was the reason for his being treated well, for
Pharaoh, the same Sarah is the reason for his disaster, i.e., for the afflictions
that Yahweh has brought upon him and his household. Sarah, however, is
closely connected with Abraham. Not only is she emphatically called “his”
or “Abraham's wife” several times (v.11.12.17.18.19.20), but she is also the
object, the “means” for Abraham's (guilty) action towards Pharaoh.
Therefore, it is actually Abraham’s behaviour that is the cause of YHWH
bringing hardship on Pharaoh102.
3.5. Resolution: Abram before the Pharaoh (vv.18-19)

In vv.18-19 we have reached a position of resolution. The highest point of
the story is well past with the plagues on Pharaoh’s household. Pharaoh real-
ises his mistake though the narrator does not say how and then calls Abram
and reprimands him for his lie. The wayyiqtol form of the verb ‫ קרא‬introduces
the section and it suggests the urgency and seriousness of Pharaoh. With a
volley of three back-to-back questions, Pharaoh accuses Abram of lying and
Abram is silent.
18
And Pharaoh called Abram and said, “What is this that you have done to me?
Why didn’t you tell me that she was your wife? 19 Why did you say “She is my
sister” that I took her as my wife? And now behold your wife, take and go.”
Pharaoh’s question “What is this that you have done?” reminds us of the
divine interrogation of Eve in Gen 3,13 and of Cain in 4,10 and will be
repeated in the other two wife-sister accounts (20,9 and 26,10). The word
‫ עַתָ ה‬meaning “now”, is found mainly in the passages of discourses,

100
101
Cf. D. GORDIS, «Lies, Wives and Sisters», 354.
102 Cf. W. BERG, «Nochmals. Ein Sündenfall Abrahams», 10.
conversation and prayer. In most of the cases of its occurrence, it seeks to

activate a speech situation. Within a passage of discourse, this activation
usually affects an entire clause (the next rhetorical unit). In some 220
occurrences of the ‫וְ עַתָ ה‬, following mention of circumstances that divert from
the actual situation of the discourse, ‫ וְ עַתָ ה‬returns to this situation to introduce
a reaction103. Here, following the fierce but short accusations, the Pharaoh
dismisses Abram with the words, “Now (‫)וְ עַתָ ה‬, behold your wife, take and
go”.
Was Abram wrong in his assessment of the Pharaoh? Or was the Pharaoh
acting a saint and lying that he wouldn’t have taken somebody’s wife?
Anyway, Abram is silent, either because he is convinced of his wrongdoing,
or because he knows it would be unwise to reprimand a ruler. Most authors
certainly do hold Abram guilty for his actions,
Was the departure from Canaan already an act of unbelief in the sense of the
narrative? Perhaps so. But what concerns us most is the betrayal of the ances-
tress, and one must not exactly restrain one’s thoughts if they recognize in the
bearer of the promise himself the greatest enemy of the promise; for its greatest
threat comes from him104.
For D. Gordis, among the three wife-sister “type-scenes” of the similar
story in Genesis (others being 20; 26,1-16), this particular episode was
woven by the author in such a way as to portray the craftiness and the dark
side of Abram. For him, Abram’s silence is the narrator’s powerful tool to
narrate his guilt105.
On the other hand, this episode portrays Pharaoh in a positive light. He is
portrayed as a noble character, something one would not expect from the
Hebrew writers, given the exodus experiences. That he was able to trace the
source of the plagues to his sin, highlights the sensibility of Pharaoh. His
sense of grief is evident in his three questions106. Pharaoh assumes the double
role of judge and of the contending party, something which the Hebrew
scriptures would attribute to God alone (cf. Isa 1)107. For Gunkel, what is
reflected in this scene is a popular religious attitude of Israel: “Israel’s oppo-
nents may be in the right or wrong, it will go poorly for them in any case.
For Yahweh (YHWH) is Israel’s God”108. This religious attitude, says Gunkel,
103 Cf. KRONHOLM, T., «‫»עֵּת‬, 445.

104 G. VON RAD, Genesis. A Commentary, 169.
105 Cf. D. GORDIS, «Lies, Wives and Sisters», 354.
106
107
108 H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 171.
would later be combated by the prophets. Israel’s understanding of its pagan

neighbours is well evident in the fact that Abraham presents the Egyptians
as potential assassins whereas Pharaoh’s extraordinary mercy is manifest
when he allows Abraham to part off in the end with all the gifts (v.20).
3.6. Conclusion: Abram driven out of Egypt (v.20)

The episode concludes with Pharaoh commanding his men concerning
Abram and to escort him out of Egypt and here we have our epilogue. The
last and the final section is again introduced by a wayyiqtol, ‫וַיְ צַ ו‬, the Piel
form of the verb ‫ צוה‬meaning “to command”. Normally, according to J.-P.
Sonnet, the reversal of the action, by reversal or recognition, leads to the
epilogue. Sometimes it is determined by the death of the protagonist while
in other cases, the conclusion occurs as the principal characters leave the
scene of the action. According to him, the epilogue of this episode stands
out: “A variant of this technique is observed when certain protagonists are
sent elsewhere, as in the account of Abraham and Sarai's stay in Egypt”109.
20
And Pharaoh commanded men concerning him, and they sent him and his
wife and all that was his away.
Pharaoh commands men concerning Abram and they set him on the way
with his wife and all his belongings. The verb ‫ שלח‬in its Piel form, again a
wayyiqtol, here means “to set someone or something in motion towards a
goal”110, “to accompany, escort” or even “to expel, send away” 111, again
reminding us of the Exodus narratives, where the verb is often used to
describe the exit of Israel from Egypt (cf. Ex 5,1-2; 6,1; 7,2 etc.). The worst
punishment that Abram has received for deceiving a ruler into sin and to
cause plagues upon him, is to be sent away escorted by soldiers. The narrator
with great emphasis, tells us that Abram, rather than returning the gifts that
the Pharaoh had given him in exchange for Sarai, leaves Egypt with them,
adding them to his wealth. This emphasis is evident in the repetition with the
following verse, 13,1.
It is unclear whether Pharaoh’s men were to escort Abram across the
border as a sign of protection honour, or in order to enforce his expulsion
from his territory112. Gunkel says that it was for protection, “That Pharaoh
109 J.-P. SONNET, «L’analisi narrativa», 57-58.

110 Cf. F.-L., HOSSFELD, «‫»שָ לַח‬, 59.
111
Cf. L. KOEHLER – et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 1515; Also cf. F.-L.,
HOSSFELD, «‫»שָ לַח‬, 68.
has Abram taken across the border is by no means disgraceful in the legends’
view, but praises Abram. Pharaoh learned how dangerous he is. Therefore,
takes care that no further injustice occurs to him”113. This could also be partly
due to his theory, mentioned above regarding the religious attitude of the
Israelites to portray their ancestors victorious despite shortcomings. But
Wenham gives a different opinion, “The scene ends with Abram’s leaving
Egypt in silent ignominy”114.
In shame or in honour, Abram gets to keep the gifts that Pharaoh gave
him. The words “he, his wife and all that is his” at the end of the verse is
repeated verbatim again 13,1, leading Gunkel to exclaim “the narrator has a
grin all over his face”115 meaning it was a win-win situation for Abram.
12,20: And Pharaoh commanded men concerning him, and they sent him
and his wife and all that was his (ְ‫ת־א ְש ַֹ֖תוְוְ אֶ ת־כָל־ ֲאשֶ ר־לָֽ ו‬
ִ ֶ‫ )אֹ תֹֹ֛ וְוְ א‬away.
13,1: So Abram went up from Egypt, he and his wife, and all that he had
(‫) ֠הּואְוְ ִא ְשתֹֹּ֧ וְוְ כָל־אֲשֶ ר־לֹ֛ ו‬, and Lot with him, into the Negeb.
As we had noted in different instances before, the episode foreshadows
the Exodus events116. A significant difference, however, would be the
portrayal of Egypt not as a nation of oppressors but as a symbol of safety and
provision, not only in this episode, but throughout Gen 12–50117. For
example, here, Pharaoh is presented in a very positive light. As seen in
section 3.5, Pharaoh assumes the dual role of judge and one of the contending
parties. Hamilton does a decent job of characterising Pharaoh in this episode.
“We should give this Egyptian king some credit”, says Hamilton, “Upon
learning of his embarrassing mistake … he immediately returns Sarai to her
husband”118. He points out to the fact that his three questions to Abram
reveals that he had an idea of adultery as a sin. According to his estimation,
Pharaoh does not operate by the principle of divine right of kings who would,
like Jezebel (1Kings 21), kill to get what he wants. On the other hand, he
emerges rather saintly, in contrast to Abram who appears sinister despite
being “the one in whom the Egyptians and other nations are to be blessed”119.

114 G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 1-15, 291.
116 Cf. Section 4.5 of this chapter.
117
118
V.P. HAMILTON, The Book of Genesis 1–17, 385.
119 V.P. HAMILTON, The Book of Genesis 1–17, 385.
4. The theological message of the pericope
4.1. Centrality of Sarai

Sarai is presented as a woman of extreme beauty, this, despite the fact that
she is sixty-five years old and that she has travelled a long distance. In fact,
the whole narrative revolves around her and her beauty and the whole weight
of the episode falls on her120. Abram feels threatened because of her beauty
and manipulates her into saying that she is his sister, so that it may go well
with him “on account of her” (ְַ‫ב‬+‫ ;עֲבּור‬v.13) and that his life shall be spared
“because of her” (ְ‫ ; ָג ָלל‬v.13). The Egyptians are mesmerised at her beauty.
The officers of Pharaoh sing her praises (‫ )וַיְהַ לְ לּו‬to Pharaoh and Pharaoh
“takes” her to his house. Abram is treated well “for the sake of Sarai” and
YHWH punishes Pharaoh, again, “on account of her”. In short, she is a
catalyst for good and for evil121.
All this despite the fact that Sarai never utters a word nor initiates an action
from her part. She is the pivotal character, yet she is the most passive
character. She is acted upon, but she herself does not act and YHWH had to
act instead of her. At every turn of events, as readers, we expect the opinion
of Sarai and her reactions to whatever is happening because of her. But the
narrator disappoints us all and the reader is left guessing. Perhaps she stands
as a representative of all women whose voices are silenced by those around
her, whose voices are unheard in the society and whose opinions are not
counted. No wonder that Gunkel points out that the legend presents Sarai as
a faithful woman who, as a good wife should, surrenders her own honour in
order to protect the life of her husband122.
It is Janzen who puts forward the idea of the centrality of Sarai as the
theological message of this pericope. Janzen proposes that when Abram
passes off his wife as his sister, what was in his mind was that a barren Sarai
would not be able to fulfil the divine promise of progeny in 12,1-3.
According to Janzen, it could be possible for Abram to think that since the
promise was exclusively to him and since YHWH did not explicitly say that
it was through Sarai that it would be fulfilled, he could have thought that she
was dispensable and hence, not central to the promise. In a patriarchal culture
that would permit numerous wives and concubines, Abram might have
supposed that the promise could be fulfilled by some other woman other than
the barren Sarai. In such a case, if Yhwh was moved to act for Sarai’s sake,
120
121
then, according to Janzen, the first signal is given here that Sarai is integral
to the divine promise along with Abram123.
Sarai, who is otherwise only referred to as “wife” or “woman”, is
mentioned in her person in two places: when Abram addresses her in his
introductory remarks, and when the narrator gives the reason for God's
affliction of Egypt in v. 17. If Sarai was just “his wife” or “his sister” to
everyone else, to YHWH, she held the value of a person in herself to be
rescued. But even here, the narrator is quick to add that she is the “wife of
Abram” reflecting the social thinking of the day. The fact that YHWH chose
to act on her behalf, shows her centrality not only to the plot124, but also to
the promise that binds the whole Abraham cycle and the entire story of the
people of Israel. As Frolov notes, “the matriarchs’ agency remains crucial,
seeing that the “wife-sister” stories are the only ones in the Abraham and
Isaac cycles where the deity explicitly intervenes on their behalf”125.
4.2. A God who saves His people

The image of God that emerges from the narrative is that of a God126 who
acts decisively in favour of His people, surpassing their human weaknesses.
As the God who called Abram and gave him a promise, YHWH acts not only
in favour of Abram, but also the barren Sarai, through whom the power of
God would be manifest when she would bear a son in her advanced age.
In the preceding pericope, YHWH is the one who calls Abram and promises
him progeny, land and blessing, thus setting in motion the Abraham cycle.
Abram responds to this call and sets on a journey. The journey of Abram is
seen to be commanded by YHWH. Hence it is surprising to the reader that in
12,10, Abram moves to Egypt without any explicit consultation with YHWH.
In the process, Abram endangers the promise and his wife’s honour.
Von Rad affirms that the great promise of 12,1-3 overarches this pericope.
Hence, according to him, the unfolding of events from 12,10 until 12,16 calls
into question everything that Yhwh had promised to do for Abram. In this
pericope, YHWH may be relatively silent, as Sarai too is, but he is not passive.
123
124
125 S. FROLOV, «Sarah, Rebekah, and the Unchangeable Ruble», 5.
126 Notwithstanding the documentary hypothetical division of the cycle into multiple
sources, particularly J and E, we take the cycle as one whole continuous narrative and
that God is addressed alternatively as YHWH or Elohim. Hence, here, we do not enter the
discussion about some passages being Yahwistic and others being Elohistic and the
differences between them.
“Yhwh does not allow his work to miscarry right at the start; he rescues it
and preserves it beyond all human failure”, says von Rad. Von Rad asserts,
and he is right in doing so, that one of the basic interpretations of the pericope
is that Yhwh would always act on behalf of those whom he has called and
would go to any lengths to salvage His promise127.
4.3. Discernment of the will of God

We have already seen in 4.1, how different authors had taken up the
question of whether Abram had discerned God’s will while setting forth for
Egypt. We had talked about how according to Janzen, responding to a crisis
according to traditional and conventional wisdom was akin to discerning
God’s will and that other authors seriously believed that Abram acted against
the will of God. One such staunch opponent would be Berg who would say:
Trotzdem war das Verlassen des “Landes” nicht in Ordnung, wenn dies auch
nur indirekt ausgesprochen wird. Ihm ging kein Befehl Jahwes voraus, wie dies
etwa in Gen 12,1 der Fall ist. Abraham handelte eigenmächtig, wenn auch nach
menschlichen Maßstäben vernünftig, denn er entkam so der Hungersnot im
Land. Mit dem Verlassen des Landes gefährdete er die Erfüllung der
Landverheißung (vgl. Gen 12,1.6-9). Da in der jahwistischen Theologie
eigenmächtiges Handeln, ohne Jahwe, nicht zum Guten führen kann, zog
Abraham neue Not auf sich (vgl. V.12b). Zwar gelingt es Abraham, dieses
Unheil zu vermeiden, doch nur durch erneutes eigenmächtiges und dazu noch
gefährliches Handeln. Er gibt seine Frau preis und damit die
Nachkarmenschaftsverheißung (vgl. Gen 12,2a). Dies wird im Lauf der
Erzählung als die eigentliche, größere Schuld Abrahams betrachtet128.
According to von Rad, the discernment of the will of God is one of the
three things that we need to learn from the story129. He says that we as
readers, often tend to miss this point since the moral problem of Abram’s
guilt would tend to worry us more. According to him, the power and mystery
of Yhwh’s activity limits our determination to understand this and that as
readers we need to know this limit. In other words, he says that if Yhwh is
willing to not let his work of sacred history go astray, then it doesn’t matter

128 W. BERG, «Nochmals. Ein Sündenfall Abrahams», 9-10.
129
The other two being that patriarchal story narratives have very little suggestions or
details to give to the reader and that meaning of the individual narrative is to be sought
within the whole.
if Abram had acted on his will or not. What is important is that His word be
heeded because he is faithful130.
4.4. Connection with Gen 2–3

Authors like Wenham and Wénin see a connection between the pericope
and the second and third chapters of Genesis. According to them, 12,11-16
has many terminologies and ideas in common with Gen 2 and 3. Sarai and
the trees of the garden are both depicted as “beautiful” and “pleasant” in
appearance (2,9; 12,11). Consequently, there is a “seeing” and a “taking” of
the desirable person or fruit (3,6-7; 12,15-16)131. Moreover, Pharaoh’s
interrogation, “What is this that you have done to me” (v.18) is reminiscent
of the divine interrogation to Adam after the fall, “What is this that you have
done” (3,13; 12,18). Finally, the mode of Abram’s expulsion from Egypt
coupled marked by the verb “‫( ”שלח‬v.20) reminds Hamilton of Gen 3,23
where God sends Adam and Eve away from the garden132.
How do we understand or interpret this similarity? Did the final editor of
the book of Genesis want to see in every human failure a trace of the failure
of the first parents? In this case, the failure would refer to the greed of the
first parents reflected in the greed of Abram (“that it may go well with me
because of you”: v.13). According to Janzen, this kind of a similarity of terms
and themes between the supposedly separate section of Gen 1–11 and Gen
12–50, is due to the later of the two authors showing familiarity with the
former. He points out that the similarity is not limited to our pericope, but
something that runs throughout the Patriarchal history. Based on these
similarities, Janzen proposes that Gen 1–11 is to be taken as a preface to the
rest of the Old Testament, which is then understood as primarily the story of
the relation between God and Israel. The earlier chapters form the foundation
and continuing frame of reference for that story133.
4.5. Connection with Exodus

If the connection between our pericope and Gen 2–3 was seen in glimpses
and bits, the connection with the story of Israel’s liberation from Egypt is
very explicit and is encompasses the entire episode. Both here and there, the
130
131
132 Cf. V.P. HAMILTON, The Book of Genesis 1–17, 386; For further discussion, cf. A.
WÉNIN, Abramo e l'educazione divina, 31-34.

133
For a detailed discussion on the relation between Gen 1–11 and Gen 12–50, cf. J.G.
JANZEN, Abraham and All the Families, 2-6.
famine makes them go to Egypt. In both instances, there is threat to the male
and sparing of the female Hebrews. In both instances, God intervenes
bringing down plagues on Egypt, a parallel marked by the verb ‫נגע‬. And
finally, the expulsion/liberation from Egypt is marked in both cases, by the
verb ‫שלח‬. Both Abram and Israel leave Egypt with many possessions, one
escorted and the other chased by Pharaoh’s men134.
Scholars like T. Römer see the similarity in terms of polemic. According
to him, Gen 12,10-20 wishes to demonstrate that Abram should not live in
Egypt, but in the land Yhwh gave to him. He sees in the narrative a polemic
against the Egyptian Diaspora whose foundation is rooted in the people’s
own initiative and against God’s will (cf. Jer 41–42). At the same time, he
says, there is also a polemic against the official Exodus ideology seen in the
positive depiction of the pharaoh135.
According to Janzen, such similarities that connect widely separated
events with the earlier foreshadowing the later, and the later recalling the
earlier, present to us a theology of time and human history. In other words,
they remind us that human history is not just “one damned thing after
another”136 but a sequence of meaningful events held by the thread of time,
the different phases of which have meaning, one in light of the other. Though
there may be many threads, says Janzen, the Weaver remains constant. The
crisis facing a whole Hebrew subculture, as in Exodus, may differ from the
crisis facing a family, as in Gen 12,10-20. But the underlying God-
experience is the same and God uses every one of such events, however large
or small to communicate to speak his people137.
4.6. Connection with the Babylonian Exile

An interesting connection is made by B. Becking between our passage and the
exile of the Jews in Babylon. He says that this is a text to be read in exile. It is in
exile that the theme of the promises to the patriarchs assume great significance.
In this story both the promise of land and progeny are threatened: In Egypt he
would be outside the promised land and with Sarai in Pharaoh’s harem the
prospect of progeny is at stake. Becking says that in an exilic age, the people of
Israel – both in Mesopotamia and in Judah – could identify themselves with
Abram. For them, the deportation to Babylon implied a return to the beginnings,
i.e., they were back at position one in and around “Ur of the Chaldeans”. This
134 Cf. MIDRASH RABBAH, Genesis, 331.

135
T. RÖMER, «The Exodus in the Book of Genesis», 8.
136
Janzen quotes Henry Ford in J.G. JANZEN, Abraham and all the Families, 27.
137 J.G. JANZEN, Abraham and all the Families, 27.
identification with Abram in Exile would have had two different sides. Abram
arrived in Egypt as a result of his own conduct and behaviour bringing threat to
the divine promises. In a different way, but in a similar vein, the Israelites and
Judaeans had been exiled from their land as a result of their own behaviour and
trespasses. Becking then goes on to say that even the historical figure of
Nebuchadnezzar II is a mirror image of the unnamed Pharaoh. Thus, the story
gives hope that a day will come when “Pharaoh’/a Babylonian king driven – by
the chilliness of history – will give permission to the Israelites to part away from
exile”138. As an assessment we may say that Biblical narratives are such that at
any period in history we can make an association with it. That is why the stories
are still relevant in modern times. But what Becking is proposing is not a mere
connection. He is proposing that our Abram in Egypt story was shaped and
formed from the perspective of the exile, a unique proposal that needs more
scholarly attention and study.
5. Conclusion
As we conclude our discussion on the first of the wife-sister motifs, we
understand that the episode of Abram and Sarai in Egypt, the first of the wife-
sister motifs, as we have seen, is not a naïve ancient episode solely to praise
the beauty of the ancestress and the ingenuity of the ancestor as scholars used
to think. From our discussions on this episode, we understand that first of all,
as a person whose every move was divinely directed, Abram’s descend to
Egypt was without any such direction which led him and his wife, and along
with it, the promise and the blessing, into danger. The dark side of Abram’s
character is seen in that he considers his life more important than his wife’s
honour. Perhaps he was, as Wenham and Sarna would say, trying to act like
a brother giving his sister in marriage so that he and his wife could use the
time for negotiations to save themselves. Or perhaps, Abram, thinking that a
barren Sarai was not important or central to the promise was trying to give
her up, as Janzen would say. The abundant gifts received without any
hesitation would give more credence to Janzen theory. However, with the
timely intervention, YHWH takes back His control of the story of Abram who
would later become Abraham. In the process, He not only establishes
Himself as a God who saves His chosen people and His promise, but also
established the centrality of Sarai in the promise made to Abram. With these
thoughts and reflections, we move to the second wife-sister episode in the
next chapter.
138 B. BECKING, «Abram in Exile», 44-45.

CHAPTER II
Abraham and Sarah in Gerar (20,1-18)
According to the narrative of the Abraham cycle, years have passed by

since Abraham’s disastrous presentation of his wife as sister in Egypt. In the
meanwhile, the character of Abraham has evolved from a helpless wanderer
into a formidable, wealthy and powerful pastor, despite continuing his
nomadic lifestyle. Sarah has evolved from a barren woman to an oppressor 1
and into her more complex role as the bearer of a promise (18,9.14) which is
soon to be fulfilled. But just as the reader was expecting the fulfilment by
the birth of a son to Abraham, lo and behold, Abraham repeats his Egyptian
fiasco, now in a different place, Gerar, before a different king, Abimelech
(20,1-18). The problems facing the readers of this passage are: how could
Abraham make the same mistake again? From a technical point of view, why
the repetition of this motif? Is it a mere coincidence? In what way does this
account differ from the previous one? If there are differences, are they
merely accidental or are they deliberately made to differ by an author or a
redactor to convey a point? These are some of the questions that we would
seek to answer in this chapter.
1. Delimitation of the pericope

The delimitation of the pericope is quite simple and very demarcated and
hence there are no disagreements between scholars. This pericope is
sandwiched between the account of the shameful origin of Moab and
Ammon in 19,30-38 and the birth of Isaac in 21,1-7. Thus, the whole of the
twentieth chapter constitutes the pericope.
1
For an interesting reading of Sarah’s role as a victim and later as an oppressor and its
bearing on our modern times, cf. J. REAVES, «Sarah as Victim and Perpetrator», 483-499.
1.1. The beginning of the pericope

The account of the origin of Moab and Ammon concluded perfectly in
v.38 of chapter 19 by summarizing what became of the sons born to the
daughters of Lot. Verse 1 of chapter 20 begins with a wayyiqtol, a verb of
movement and immediately has Abraham as its subject. We note that the
previous episode was a break from the Abraham story. We see Abraham last
in 19,28 looking at a destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and a mention in v.29
of God remembering him. In this episode, he is now reintroduced, thus
marking the beginning of a new account, and therefore, a new pericope.
1.2. The conclusion of the pericope

The pericope concludes with the resolution of the two crises, one of wife-
stealing by Abimelech and second, the consequent threat to the life and
progeny of Abimelech. Vv.17-18 speak of Abraham praying for the healing
of Abimelech’s household and the subsequent healing with a flashback in
v.18 which covers a major gap left in the narrative, thus bringing it to a
conclusion. The next verse opens by reminding the readers of the motif of
the “promise” made by Yhwh with a declaration of its fulfilment, thus
marking a new beginning. Hence, we can say that our pericope concludes in
20,18 and 21,1 is the beginning of a new one, where the keyword of
“promise” underlines the theme of what is to follow.
1.3. The unity of 20,1-18

In the past, the historical critical method had challenged the unity of this
pericope. Traditionally, it was thought to be the first continuous narrative of
the Elohist author2, a fact heavily challenged in our times3. Scholars like
Gunkel, held that our present author/redactor had added significant
apologetic portions to an otherwise old wife-sister legend4. From Gunkel’s
words, we understand that according to him, this “old legend” seemed to be
an independent source from which all the three narratives (Gen 12, 20, 26)
had drawn, of which 12,10-20 is the most faithful. Accordingly, for him
verses 4a, 5 and 11-13 are supplementary. Moreover, v.18 is a total addition,
2
3
Cf. Cf. G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 16–50, 69; Cf. H. KANG, Reading the Wife/Sister
Narratives, 4-5; Also cf. Section 1.2 of Chapter 3 in this work.
CH. II: ABRAHAM AND SARAH IN GERAR (20,1-18) 41
not only due to the presence of ‫ יְהוָה‬but also because it modifies the
narrative’s perspective to reveal a gender bias5.
However, much of these findings are today considered outdated and
modern scholarship tends to posit one single author (who would probably be
a redactor collecting from various sources) who composed/set together the
entire book in an orderly way. Secondly, today, the greater tendency of the
scholars is to view the text in its final form, even if they accept the proposals
of the historical critical method. Accordingly, in this work we would be
dealing with the text as it is found in the present canon of the Hebrew Bible.
1.4. The pericope’s relation to the rest of the Abraham cycle

Van Seters challenges many accepted theories regarding this pericope.
One of them is that this episode is an independent parallel version of the
story in 12,10-20. Rather, according to him, this account presupposes the
earlier account in chapter 12. His reasons are as follows: Firstly, the remark
in v 2, “She is my sister,” is quite obscure unless the reader already knows
Abraham’s motives as explained in 12,11-13. Secondly, in 20,13, Abraham
states, “When God made me wander from my father’s house, I said to her”.
This shows that the narrator of chapter 20 simply not only knew the earlier
account but also knew it in its present setting which is, following the call of
Abraham in 12,1. Third, we see that chapter 20 is attempting to deal with
some of the questions raised by 12,10-20. For example, why did Abraham
lie about Sarah being his sister. The answer offered is that Abraham’s story
is a half-truth prompted by the godlessness of Gerar (vv.11–12). In this way
this story is connected to the whole of the twelfth chapter6.
But a deeper connection of this episode is with the episodes in its
proximity. Sarna notes a thematic connection and continuity of this narrative
with the preceding. The opening phrase presupposes a knowledge of
Abraham’s residence at Mamre-Hebron. The mistreatment of the foreigner,
a characteristic of the Sodomites, is feared by Abraham to prevail at Gerar
as well. The trading of the female relative for safety is seen in both stories.
The theme of divine justice appears in the discussion between Abimelech
and God as it was between God and Abraham. Finally, the role of the
5
Throughout the account the impression is that the sexual impotency was a problem
of both sexes, but v.18 reverses it. Cf. Section 3.7 of this paper.
6 Cf. J. VAN SETERS, Abraham in History and Tradition, 171-175.
patriarch as intercessor is seen in both narratives7. Similarly, this chapter is

then also closely connected to the chapters that follow. The journey of
Abraham in the first verse which leads him from his former house to Gerar
gives rise to a series of narratives that are grouped together as the Beersheba
narratives8.
2. Significant Textual Notes

v.1: ‫גְ ָרר‬: S consistently uses ‫( ܓܕܪ‬Geder) as the name (cf. 10,19; 20,1;
26,1.6.17.20.26). In Josh 12,13, we find Geder enlisted among the cities
whose kings were defeated by the Israelites. It is likely that S has confused
the two identical letters dolad and resh: ‫ ܕ‬and ‫ܪ‬.
v.2: ‫אֶ ל־‬: This preposition is normally used to refer to the audience of a
direct speech (cf. 12,11-13), but here it means “about/in reference to”. Here
‫ אֶ ל‬has come in the place of ‫ עַל‬and Rashi assures us that there is no need of
an emendation since in this particular case, ‫ אֶ ל‬has the same meaning of ‫עַל‬
(cf. 1Sam 4,21)9. With the exception of Smr, all versions substitute an
appropriate preposition that would lend the meaning “about” for the
problematic preposition “to”. In fact, ‫ אֶ ל‬is seen to function like ‫ עַל‬in many
cases (cf. 2 Kings 19,32; Jer 22,18; 27,19)10.
v.3: ‫עַל‬: Smr inserts ‫ אֹ דֹות‬rendering the phrase ‫עַל־אֹ דֹות‬, given very rarely as
an alternative to ‫עַל‬. While ‫ עַל־אֹ דֹות‬has no other meaning than “on account
of” (cf. 21,11.25)11, ‫ עַל‬has several meanings of which one is “on account
of”12. Here, the Smr could be trying to remove the ambiguity. But such a
substitution would be unnecessary, since the word ‫ עַל‬alone fulfils the
intended meaning “on account of”.
v.4a: Some Manuscripts substitute ‫ אֲדֹ נָי‬with ‫יהוה‬, perhaps to harmonise
with v.17. But it is unlikely that the biblical author would put the revealed
name of God in the mouth of a pagan king13 hence ‫ אֲדֹ נָי‬would be the preferred
reading.
7
Cf. N.M. SARNA, Genesis, 140. Janzen noting the similarities between Sodom and
Gerar quips, “each city the recipient of a divine visitation, and each city the burden of
Abraham’s intercession”. Cf. J.G. JANZEN, Abraham and all the Families, 68.
9 Cf. RASHI DE TROYES, Commento alla Genesi, 155.
11
Cf. L. KOEHLER – et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 13.
12
Cf. L. KOEHLER – et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 825-826.
13 Cf. G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 16–50, 69.
v.4b: ‫ הגוי‬is considered as a dittography and the BHS apparatus proposes

it to be deleted and the interrogative to be attached to the successive word as
in: ‫ ֲהגַם תַ ה ֲָֽרֹ ג צַ ִ ַ֖די ְק‬which would render the meaning, “Will you kill even a
righteous (man)?” This is to iron out the difficulty of thinking why God
would punish an entire nation for the sin of one man. According to Wenham,
this is not necessary since such an expression is frequently employed in the
sense of an exaggeration14. The BHQ points out another problem: In the MT
sequence of words, the ‫“ גַם‬precedes a noun/adjective and does not seem to
fulfil its task as a conjunction positioned between two equal parts of
speech”15. LXX and V add the “missing” noun/adjective and translate ‫ גַם‬as
καί: ἔθνος ἀγνοοῦν καί δίκαιον”. Other sources have tried to propose other
readings by rearranging the order of words: “even a righteous nation” (TJ, S,
TN) or by introducing accent marks appropriately “a nation, even righteous,
will you slay?” (TO)16. The reading of TO seems reasonable to be preferred
over others, since it proposes a sensible reading without emending the text.
v.5: ‫וְ הִ יא־גַם־הִ וא‬: (even she herself?): The BHQ points out that the
syntactical construction is odd, but at the same time, but point to sources (TO,
TJ with MT) who take the repetition as an emphasis. In the LXX we have the
simple “καὶ αὐτή” (and she said) agreeing with the Smr ‫וְ הִ יאְגַם‬. S has a better
emphasis than LXX, ‫( ̣ܗܝ ܘܐܦ‬she too), but not as much as MT. The BHS
proposes the reading ‫וגםְ היא‬. But in the observation of F.I. Andersen, the
word ‫ גַם‬is also used to specify similarity between two words or phrases that
are otherwise in juxtaposition. According to him, in a regular contrast
sentence “‫]ְוְ הִ יאְאָ ְמ ָרה‬...[ְ‫ ” ֤הּואְאָ מַ ר‬would be antithetical, “He said this, but she
said that”. The use of ‫ גַם‬would avoid the antithesis17, hence, again, an
emendation is not necessary.
v.9 ְָ‫לָנּו ע ִָשית‬: S reads ‫ܥܒܕܬ‬ ̇ ‫( ܠܟ‬What have I done to you”?) and since the
same idea is repeated in the next sentence anyways with greater emphasis,
the MT reading here is to be preferred.
v.10 ‫ר ִִ֔איתְָ ָמָ֣ה‬:ָ BHS proposes the emendation ‫ י ֵָּראתְָ מַ ה‬i.e., “What did you
fear”, instead of “What did you see” to match the reading in 26,7. Though a
formidable suggestion, it is better to retain the lectio difficilior as the
preferred one. The meaning of ‫ ראה‬could also be stretched beyond “seeing”
14 Cf. G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 16–50, 67. Also see the discussion in Section 3.3. of this
chapter.
15 TAL, A. – et al., Biblia Hebraica Quinta. 1. Genesis, Stuttgart 2015.
16
Cf. detailed discussion in TAL, A. – et al., Biblia Hebraica Quinta. 1. Genesis, 127.
17
F.I. ANDERSEN, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, 160. Andersen gives this verse as
an example of it in the book.
to the realm of “understanding” or “reasoning”18. Moreover, as we shall see,

in this chapter, “fear” is a word reserved to Abimelech and his men (v.8) and
not to Abraham.
v.11 ‫אָ מַ ְר ִתי כִ י‬: The Smr substitutes ‫( כיְיראתי‬because I feared) to harmonize
with 12,11-13 and logically it makes sense too. But the comments of the
previous note are applicable here too.
v.12 The Smr uses the more frequent word ‫( אמנם‬14x: e.g., 2Kings 19,17;
Job 9,2 etc.) instead of the rare ‫( אמנה‬Josh 7,20). Both mean “indeed” or
“truly” and therefore either reading can be selected.
v.13a: ‫התעו‬: The hiphil plural form of the verb is substituted with the
singular in the Smr to affirm a monotheistic reading which for several
reasons is not necessary19.
v.13b ‫אָ בִ י ִמבֵּ ית‬: Smr adds ‫( ומארץְמולדתי‬and from the land of my kindred)
to harmonise with 12,1. Given the context of the speech, such a detail does
not seem necessary and, noting that the LXX and S does not agree with it,
the lectio brevior of the MT is to be preferred.
v.14: The Smr and LXX adds ‫( כסףְוְאלף‬a thousand silver) to the gifts to
assimilate the text to v.16. The agreement of the witnesses and the following
verse 16, would compel us to consider it an original reading. But again, the
MT being a lectio difficilior, we shall retain that reading here.
v.16a: ‫אתָ ְך אֲשֶ רְ לְ כֹ ל‬:
ִ The syntactic position of MT is problematic and BHQ
mentions that other versions try to ameliorate by adding a conjunction or
preposition. For example, Smr along with some Hebrew manuscripts add the
conjunction waw and respectively before ‫ לְ כֹ ל‬conveying the meaning “may
it be a covering of the eyes to you and to all those who are with you” (LXX:
καὶ). The LXX uses πρόσωπον instead of the expected ὀφθαλμός and stresses
that Sarah’s company was entirely female: πάσαις ταῖς μετὰ σοῦ. According
to S, it is rather Abimelech’s company and not Sarah’s: ‫ܕܥܡܝ ܕܟܠ‬. The MT
version supplemented with the conjunction waw before ‫ לְ כֹ ל‬would be the
preferred reading here.
v.16b: ‫וְ נֹ כָחַ ְת כֹ ל וְ אֵּ ת‬: The BHQ calls this phrase “impossible”20 while
Skinner, “untranslatable”21 and gives an exhaustive list of the various
proposals of several sources which would be beyond the scope of this paper
Cf. L. KOEHLER – et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 1159.

18
19
See the exegesis of this verse towards the end of Section 3.5 of this chapter for a
discussion on this; Also cf. how sources sought to tackle the negative connotation of the
verb with God as subject giving the idea that God led Abraham astray in TAL, A. – et al.,
Biblia Hebraica Quinta. 1. Genesis, 127-128.
20
TAL, A. – et al., Biblia Hebraica Quinta. 1. Genesis, 128.
and superfluous to repeat22. Here, we can go with the proposal of the BHS
which suggests moving the waw before ‫ נֹ כָחַ ת‬to after ‫כֹ ל‬, converting the
conjunction to a suffix and repointing ‫ כֹ ל‬to ‫כֻּלֹו‬. It could be either rendered as
‫( נכחת כֻּלֹו ואת‬and you will be justified before all of them) or ְְ‫( נכחת כֻּלֹו וְ אַ ת‬and
you will be justified in all these things). Of these, the later one seems more
sensible since the idea expressed by the former is already conveyed in the
preceding phrase.
3. A close reading of 20,1-18

A lengthier plot than the previous episode of 12,10-20, here we see the
narrator’s ingenuity in employing quite a few of the narrative techniques to
churn out his story. First of all, is the mode of narration. The narrator
employs alternatively the technique of showing and telling to tell his story,
as usual, but what is different in this episode is that the author does not hurry
up in the showing scenes. The narration time too alternates between superfast
and super-slow, compared to the previous episode where the narrator tended
to keep the pace fast even in the showing scenes. Here, on the other hand
every scene unfolds slowly, and the conversations are mostly two-sided and
complete, unlike in the previous episode. The narrator seems to make up for
the lost time, by hurrying the telling (cf. v2). For a short episode, it took six
verses for Sarah to arrive at Pharoah’s harem in 12,10-20, whereas here, she
is already there in the second verse.
Another narrative element that the narrator has used skilfully is the lacuna
or gap as we call it in this paper. The narrator has the habit of dropping a gap
here and there and then filling it with the missing information in the coming
verses, thus building suspense and then revealing the information at the
opportune time. The ingenuity of the narrator at the skilful use of gaps has
inspired Gunkel to say, “Whereas the usual style recounts things in their
natural sequence, this more refined narrative intentionally leaves a lacuna at
the beginning in order to fill it in gradually in the course of the account”23.
Speaking of the plot, we may say that it is an episode in the unified plot of
the Abraham cycle24. Secondly, it is a plot of resolution, in the manner of the
traditional “unfolding” of the action25. Here, we come across two plots
interwoven with different complications demanding different resolution and
22 Cf. detailed discussion in TAL, A. – et al., Biblia Hebraica Quinta. 1. Genesis, 128.
24
The cycle of Abraham is said to be somewhat between a unified plot and an episodic
plot: cf. J.L. SKA, Our Fathers, 17.
25 Cf. J.L. SKA, Our Fathers, 18.
the narrative arc varies according to which plot we consider as the primary
plot. The well recognizable plot is that of the wife-sister narrative with the
usual threat to the honour of the matriarch and to the promise. But here, we
have a more dominant plot that pushes the wife-sister plot to the secondary
level, that of the threat to Abimelech’s life and household and its subsequent
resolution. From the perspective of the wife-sister plot, the narrative arc
peaks at v.2 (or even vv.3-7) and from then onwards, the descend begins,
which makes a very disproportionate arc26. Hence, we can treat the plot of
Abim-elech as the primary and dominant plot which follows the narrative
arc quite proportionally. Accordingly, we are to understand that the narrator
employs the wife-sister motif here to put across another theme which the plot
of Abimelech would reveal27. The narrative arc of 20,1-18 and its internal
divisions can be organized in the following manner:
A Exposition: Abraham’s journey to Gerar (v.1)
B Inciting Moment: Sarah is “taken” by Abimelech (v.2)
C Complication: Discourse between God and Abimelech (vv.3-7)
D Turning point: The men were afraid (v.8)
C' Falling Action: Discourse between Abimelech and Abraham (vv.9-13)
B' Resolution 1: Restoration of dignity and honour (vv.14-16)
A' Resolution 2: Abraham’s prayer restores Abimelech (vv.17-18)
3.1. Exposition: Abraham’s journey to Gerar (v.1)

In this pericope too, the opening verse serves as the exposition of the plot,
though the presence of three back-to-back wayyiqtols defies Sonnet’s
definition of an exposition28. If the previous plot of 12,10-20 revolved around
Sarah, then this plot revolves around Abimelech, as we shall soon see, and
Abimelech is the king of Gerar. Hence, this verse sets the background for the
episode by displacing Abraham “from there”, i.e., the place where he was
26
In a normal plot, the climax usually comes in the second half, at about three quarters
of the length of the plot. Here already in the first half we would have the climax if we
consider the wife-sister plot as the primary one.
27
Also cf. cf. A. WÉNIN, Abramo e l'educazione divina, 163. Vocabulary-wise, except
in this paragraph, whenever we speak of “plot” in the whole chapter, we refer to the
unified plot of 20,1-18.
28 According to Sonnet, one always expects a yiqtol or weqatal in the exposition. But
here as well as in the previous episode (cf. Section 3.1 of chapter 1), the exposition
contains wayyiqtols, which usually indicate the beginning of action. However, in our case,
the actions are still in the background and constitute the setting of the plot. These
wayyiqtols do not initiate the narrative action of the plot. Hence, Sonnet’s definition does
not apply to both our expositions. Cf. J.-P. SONNET, «L’analisi narrativa», 56.
until then and sets him on a journey until he is in Gerar, under the kingship
of Abimelech. It is this displacement to a hitherto foreign land and an
encounter with a hitherto unacquainted king that causes the unfolding of
events of the chapter. It is to be noted that every wife-sister narrative is
characterized by the patriarch and matriarch’s presence in an untraversed
foreign land and before a pagan ruler.
1
And Abraham journeyed from there to the land of Negeb and dwelt between
Kadesh and Shur and sojourned in Gerar.
The “journeying” of Abraham reinforces his image as a nomad. The mode
of narration is that of telling and the narration time extremely shorter than
the narrative time so that the journey of many days and several stages is
given in a brief summary. The motive of the journey remains a gap which
the reader needs to fill in. Perhaps it was after the habit of pastors who went
about in search of new pastures or it was a famine as the parallel narratives
(12,10-20; 26,1-16) suggest. It could even have been to get away from the
images of a destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah29. Midrash Rabbah harps on
Abraham’s virtue of hospitality as the real motive, an interesting theory
though not sustainable. It says that since the nearby cities are now burnt,
there are no more travellers visiting and Abraham does not have enough
opportunity for hospitality as in chapter 18. Hence, he shifted his residence
to Gerar30. The starting point of the journey, “from there” is a point of
discussion. The last we saw Abraham, he was in Mamre hosting the divine
visitors (18,1) and later, looking over the immolation of Sodom (19,28) from
a point which was a little further away from Mamre (cf. 18,16). Hence it
could be to either of these places that the narrator is referring to here.
Skinner notes that the words ‫ בִ גְ ָרר ַו ָיגָר‬is a paronomasia31. The verb ‫ַו ָיגָר‬
reminds us of the discussion of the rights that a sojourner had, in the previous
chapter32. A geographical discussion over the places mentioned here would
lead to a discussion beyond the scope of this work33, but the problem can be
stated in short. The verse states that Abraham, on his south-bound journey to
Negeb, settled (ְ‫ ) ַויֵּשֶ ב‬between Kadesh and Shur and resided as an alien (ְ‫) ַו ָי ָגר‬
in Gerar. The use of the verb ‫ גור‬along with the paronomasia reminds us of
29Cf. G. VON RAD, Genesis. A Commentary, 227.

30Cf. MIDRASH RABBAH, Genesis, 451.
32
Cf. the discussion in Section 3.1 of Chapter 1.
33
Cf. H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 218ff. or J. SKINNER, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary, 316 for a detailed discussion.
the vulnerability of an alien34. This gives the impression that Gerar is a place
either between Kadesh and Shur or is another station on the southward
journey. The fact is that Gerar is further north to any of these places, and on
a southward journey from Mamre-Hebron the places would appear in the
following order: Gerar, Negeb, Kadesh, Shur, considering that one is not
traveling in a straight line35. Geographically, Shur is the place farthest away
from Canaan, appearing on the western part of the Sinai Peninsula. Hence, it
does not make sense to say that Abraham on his way to Negeb, first settled
between Kadesh and Shur and later went to Gerar36, for then, that would not
be “the way to Negeb”. We are to then understand that, either, as Wenham
says, “he turned back from this region”37 to sojourn in Gerar or that it was a
further stage in the journey38. But we could also look at a third possibility,
i.e., a different translation and interpretation.
A different possibility could be found perhaps in the way some translate
the waw before the second verb of settlement. A literal translation, for
example, given by Wenham, would yield the result: “… and dwelt between
Kadesh and Shur and settled in Gerar”39. On the other hand, Speiser,
Hamilton, the NRSV, etc. would translate the second verb of settlement with
the temporal indicator “while” giving the result, “… and settled between
Kadesh and Shur and while he was sojourning in Gerar …”. Since, the verse
does not have any clue of a temporal modifier40, the translation, though not
literal or grammatically accurate, can be said to be geographically accurate
and actually makes sense. According to such a translation, the summary of
Abraham’s journey was that he travelled from Mamre-Hebron to Negeb and
further to the place between Kadesh and Shur. But, during the course of this
journey, there was a time, when he had to sojourn in Gerar, and “while
sojourning in Gerar…”.
34 Cf. the discussion surrounding “‫ ”גור‬in Section 3.1 of Chapter 1.

35 More precisely it is a south-westward since if one traces the path of the fertile
crescent, then after Kadesh, one needs to make a slight turn towards the west, on to a path
passing through Shur which would lead to Egypt.
36
For example, cf. N.M. SARNA, Genesis, 141.
37 G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 16–50, 70.
40 Strictly speaking, the sequence of wayyiqtols in vv.1-2, “‫וַיִ סַַּ֨ ע‬... ְ‫וַיֵּ ַ֥שֶ ב‬... ‫וַיָ ַָּ֖֖גָר‬... ‫ ַו ֹּ֧י ֹאמֶ ר‬...
‫ַיִש ַַ֗לח‬
ְ ‫ו‬... ְְ‫וַיִ ַ ַ֖קח‬...” would rather indicate succession without break. Cf. JOÜON, P. –
MURAOKA, T., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §166b, and there seems to be no
possibility that the rule of simultaneity i.e., an instantaneous action in the course of a
durative action (§166c), can also be applied here.
3.2. Inciting Moment: Sarah is “taken” by Abimelech (v.2)

Introduced by a wayyiqtol and followed up by two more, this verse serves
to be the inciting moment of the narrative arc. This would call for discussion,
since in the previous episode, the “taking” of Sarai was considered to be the
complication of the plot. The difference is due to the fact that in the first
episode, the narrative focused precisely on the threat to the honour of Sarai
and to the promise, whereas, here, the threat is to the life of Abimelech, who
stands as a representative of potential enemies of Israel, and as such, the real
complication would come about in the conversation between God and
Abimelech. Unlike in the previous episode, here the narrator, not resorting
to any detailed conversation between husband and wife regarding her beauty
or any threat to his life, in the briefest possible way, declares that Abraham
said that Sarah was his sister, and that she was “taken” by Abimelech.
2
Abraham said of Sarah his wife, “She is my sister” and Abimelech, the king
of Gerar sent and took Sarah.
Wénin notes that the employment of the phrase ‫אֶ ל־שָ ָרה אַ בְ ָרהָם ַוי ֹאמֶ ר‬, would
make the readers expect Abraham to speak directly to Sarah, instead one
finds the speech directed not to her. We find “she is my sister” instead of
“you are my sister”, thus making her the object of his speech rather than his
interlocutor41. We are reminded of the discussion in the textual notes where
Rashi, finding the preposition ‫ אֶ ל‬in the place of ‫עַל‬, proposes that the former
is to be interpreted with the meaning of the latter42.
The brevity of the narration gives Hamilton the impression that the
episode here is spontaneous whereas the one in Egypt, planned43. The telling
mode of narration coupled with the brief narration time, again leaves many
gaps and blanks in the story. For example, why did Abraham say yet again
that Sarah is his wife? This time what was his excuse? This is a gap that the
author would fill only by vv.11-12, by use of a flashback through the words
of Abraham in v.11 and a hitherto unknown information in v.12. Regarding
whether Sarah’s consent was taken, the narrator’s very words, “Abraham
said of Sarai his wife” implies that it was solely Abraham’s decision and
action, and that Sarah was not consulted44.
But a huge and inexplicable blank can be encountered regarding the
desirability of Sarah. It is clear that Sarah is well over ninety years of age
41 A. WÉNIN, Abramo e l'educazione divina, 164.

42
Cf. Textual notes of v.2 in Section 2 of this chapter.
43
(17,17) and the Mamre narrative makes it clear that Abraham and Sarah were
old and advanced in age. Sarah was well past menopause and the age of
sexual pleasure, “it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women”
(18,11.12). It is to be noted that unlike the Egyptian account, here Sarah’s
beauty and desirability is not mentioned even once. Von Rad proposes that
the problem is redactional. According to him, the inclusion of this episode in
the Yahwistic composition and its later combination with P (18,12 and
17,17) caused an inconsistency that the redactors could not remove45. Sarna
quotes ancient rabbinic sources who fancied that Sarah’s “flesh was
rejuvenated, her wrinkles smoothed out, and her original beauty was
restored”46 presenting that her body was being consistent with the miraculous
renewal of her vitality. Sarna himself puts forward a very notable proposal:
the “taking” of Sarah, which refers to marriage as we have seen in the
previous chapter47, could be a diplomatic alliance between the powerful
nomad that Abraham was and the local king, Abimelech.
The name “Abimelech” meaning “my father is king”, was a common
Canaanite personal name appearing in Ugaritic texts and other historical
documents48. The most important character of this episode, he is graced by a
divine visitation, albeit in his dream. Just as the Pharaoh of the previous
episode, Abimelech is acting typical of a powerful king collecting wives49.
Though the brevity of the narration makes it look less offensive50, the
question still remains whether Abraham, for all his spiritual maturation, is
still much like the Abraham when he had just received the covenant51.
The verb ‫ שלח‬used to signify the procurement of Sarah is found here in a
different context compared to the previous episode and indicates cooperation
of the courtiers. This makes them share in the guilt too. Hence, when
Abimelech asks God, “Will you slay an innocent nation?” (v.4), a collective
share in the guilt (cf. also v.9) is evident and there is no need to translate or
interpret these verses differently. We shall discuss this further when we deal
with the verses.

46 BAVA METSIA 87a. Quoted from N.M. SARNA, Genesis, 141.
47 Cf. Section 3.3 of Chapter 1.
49
50
3.3. Complication: Discourse between God and Abimelech (vv.3-7)

The theme of death frames this section which becomes the complication of
the plot. The mode of narration shifts to showing and the first scene of the plot
is played out with God and Abimelech as the principal actors. God, who
appears to Abimelech in a dream begins with the announcement of his death
and the conversation concludes with the threat of death for non-compliance
with whatever has been said. Thus, the real threat here is more to the pagan
king, rather than to the life of the patriarch or the honour of the matriarch. That
threat is obviously there, but it merely lurks in the background. If this story is
Abimelech’s story, as Janzen rightly says52, then the threat to his life should
be the actual moment of complication of the story (and not the abduction of
Sarah) and we would arrive at the resolution only when the threat would be
finally eliminated, and the house of Abimelech restored (cf. v.17-18).
3
And God came in a dream to Abimelech and said, “Behold you are dead
because of the woman you have taken for she is married to a husband”. 4 Now
Abimelech had not approach her and said, “Lord, will you slaughter even an
innocent nation? 5 Was it not he who said, “She is my sister” and even she
herself had said “He is my brother”. In the integrity of my heart and innocence
of my hands have I done this. 6 And God said to him in the dream, “Even I know
that in the integrity of your heart you have done this and I myself kept you back
from sinning against me. Therefore, I did not allow you to touch her. 7 Now,
restore the woman to the man for he is a prophet, and he will pray on your behalf
and you shall live. But if you do not return, know that you will surely die, you
and all that are yours.
Throughout Genesis, we see God speaking in dreams with the patriarchs
(15,1; 28,12; 46,2; etc.), but perhaps for the first time, we see God conversing
with a pagan king in a dream, a fact which Von Rad finds “audacious”53. The
Rabbis writing the Midrash are shocked too, but the Midrash Rabbah sees an
edge over the fact that it was a dream and not a direct apparition, “What is
the difference between the prophets of Israel and those of other nations? …
The Holy One, blessed be He, reveals Himself to heathen prophets with half-
speech only”54. Half speech here refers to incomplete prophesy, precisely
because it was a dream and not direct apparition or word. Then it goes on to
reassure its readers that God hears only the prayers of the prophets of Israel.
After all, Abraham’s prayers are required to heal Abimelech. Gunkel
52
53
54 MIDRASH R ABBAH, Genesis, 453.
reminds us that dreams were considered to have revelatory powers in the

ancient religions and continues to be so in historical religions. According to
him, dreams express a more spiritualized concept of God. It enables the deity
to communicate with the earthly without a real physical interaction which
helps maintain the transcendental aspect of the deity even while in
communication. He affirms this by pointing to the repetition of ‫חֲלֹו ְם‬
(vv.3.6)55.
God’s opening clause is intense: “Behold you are dead”. The brevity of
the Hebrew ‫ מֵּ ת הִ נְ ָך‬makes it intense. Comparing it with the previous verse
where brevity in fact made the matter look less offensive and intense, we can
marvel at the ingenuity of the biblical author who can use the same tool for
two different effects. The translation of ‫ מֵּ ת הִ נְ ָך‬is not agreed upon. When the
particle ‫ הִ נֵּה‬is attached to the pronominal suffix, in this case second person
singular, is usually translated as “here you are”56. ‫ מֵּ ת‬is in the participle form
and the clause can be translated as “Behold, you are dead”, where the “here”
is substituted by “behold” as ‫ הִ נֵּה‬is usually translated so. Wenham is of the
opinion that ‫ הִ נֵּה‬+ participle is often a prediction, based on the observance
of the appearance of the combination in Gen 6,13.1757, a claim also backed
by reputed grammars58. Not only Wenham, in fact, most translations
including Gunkel, Speiser and even modern editions like NRSV translate in
the sense of a future probability, “you are about to die”. This may be perhaps
to reconcile with the fact that Abimelech does not physically die immediately
and even at the end of the conversation, he is let off with a warning and a
choice between life and death. But this theory of future probability does not
go with verse 7, where God recommends Abraham’s intercession so that
Abimelech might “live”, meaning he is already dead. This leads us to the
question on what is actually meant by death in verse 3. The death referred to
here is neither physical death59, nor terminal illness60, but rather, the closing
of wombs as Janzen would suggest61. J. Ronning reminds us of the Jewish
55
Cf. P. JOÜON – T. MURAOKA, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 102k.
56
57 G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 16–50, 70.
58 Cf. P. JOÜON – T. M URAOKA, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 121e.
59 A remembrance of Gen 2–3, where the primordial parents do not physically die after
eating the fruit as God said they would, would also help us understand that the author of
Genesis does not mean physical death when he uses the terminology of “death” as a
punishment for sin.
60
Cf. G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 16–50, 70.
concept of one having “life” through one’s children. Accordingly, albeit in a

different context, he says that:
When Abraham and Sarah entered the promised land with a promise of
offspring they were “alive” with respect to being able to have children. […] But
while waiting for the promise, they both “died” with respect to being able to
have children (17:17; 18:12). After they “died” they were “brought back to life”
so that Isaac could be born and the promise fulfilled 62.
But whatever be the case, it is better to leave the ambiguity of the Hebrew
text as it is while translating, so as to leave the room open for further
discussion and study.
The motive behind Abimelech’s supposed death is clear: the woman he
had taken was ‫בָ עַל בְ ֻּעלַת‬, literally, “owned by an owner” or “married by a
husband”63. The relationship between a husband and a wife in the time of the
patriarchs could be best explained in the words of Wenham:
A wife is seen as much more than the property of her husband; she is his alter
ego and one flesh with him (cf. 2,18-24); she is at least her husband’s most
precious possession, and to take her is the worst kind of theft. So, although the
threat of death is not surprising here, it is unusual for it to come from God.
Usually, it was the aggrieved husband who demanded it64.
Wenham makes a point when he says that it was God rather than the
husband of the woman who demanded the life of Abimelech. This is one
place where the Israelite belief deviates from the neighbouring Canaanite
beliefs. For Israel, the sanctity of marriage is a divine commandment (Gen
2,24; Ex 20,14) and the violation of it, aka adultery, is a sin against God
(2Sam 12,13; Ps 51,6[4]).
But the readers could now heave a sigh of relief since, the narrator declares
that Abimelech did not “approach” Sarah (v. 4). The waw-X-qatal
construction signifies a break from the sequence65. The verb ‫ קָ ַרב‬meaning “to
approach” is a euphemism for sexual intercourse in the Hebrew Bible (cf.
Gen 20,4; Lev 18,6.14.19; 20,16; Dt 22,14 etc.)66. The narrator is providing
the reader with information which both the characters had in advance, so that
the reader can follow the conversation between God and Abimelech. Not
62 J.L. RONNING, «The Naming of Isaac», 16.

63 Cf. J. DE MOOR – M.J. MULDER, «‫»בָ עַל‬, 182.
64 G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 16–50, 71; For a detailed exposition of this theme, cf. A.
WÉNIN, Abramo e l'educazione divina, 168.

65
Cf. P. JOÜON – T. MURAOKA, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §155n.
66 Cf. also R.E. GANE – J. MILGROM, «‫»קָ ַרב‬, 138.
only is Sarah not violated, but Abimelech is saved from death too. The reason
why Abimelech had not yet approached Sarah is not narrated, a gap left until
v.6.
Abimelech pleads innocence to God’s charges asking him if he would
punish a nation that is innocent67 (v.4). One cannot agree more with Wenham
when he says that the mention of “‫( ”גֹוי‬nation/peoples) here is unexpected
which has led many commentators to emend the text68. But he himself goes
with Gunkel who points out “Abimelech takes it for granted that God’s wrath
will fall not just on the king but on the whole people”69. This idea that the
sin of a ruler would bring disaster on the subjects is not new to the Hebrew
Bible. For example, in Lev 4,3, the sin of the high priest brings guilt on the
whole people, and in 2 Sam 24 and frequently in 1–2Kings, the sin of the
kings brings judgment on the nation70. In this very account, the following
verses, i.e., 7.8.9.17.18 implies that Abimelech’s guilt is not only upon
himself. Moreover, as seen in verse 2, the verb ‫ שלח‬implies the cooperation
of Abimelech’s men in the sin and hence their terror in v.8. The motif of
destruction of a nation reminds us of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
and our understanding of a God from chapter 18 gives us hope that
Abimelech’s prayer would be answered. Moreover, the narrator, through his
insightfulness into the extent of his punishment, his ability to receive divine
visions, his honourable dealing with Abraham and Sarah seen later, is
perhaps portraying Abimelech as a wise pagan king.
Abimelech’s direct quote of Abraham and Sarah (v. 5) is a flashback to
v.2 where the incident was narrated briefly and is a valid point to prove his
innocence. He claims innocence by saying that he was lied to not only by
Abraham, but also by Sarah, although the narrator does not mention Sarah
saying so. He further claims that whatever he had done was done “in the
integrity of his heart and innocence of his hands”. Hand and heart refer to
thoughts and deeds, interior and exterior, thus total innocence. The word ְ‫תָ ם‬
meaning “integrity” is often used to define outstanding biblical characters
such as Noah (6,9) and Job (Job 1,1.8; 2,3). Strangely enough, it was
Abraham whom God had commanded to be ‫( תָ ם‬17,1).
The word ‫ צַ ִדיק‬translated as “righteous” could mean “innocent” in this context. Cf.
67
L. KOEHLER – et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 1002; Also cf. Gen 18,23-
25.26.28.
68
Cf. G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 16–50, 71; Cf. Textual notes of v.4b in this chapter.
69
H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 222.
God’s response to Abimelech’s pleading for innocence (v. 6) confirms that

God agrees with him. This verse not only confirms the omniscience of God,
but also his omnipotence when He declares that it was not to Abimelech’s
credit that he refrained from “approaching” Sarah, but it was He Himself
who did not allow him to approach (‫ )נגע‬her, thus protecting the promise. We
had already seen this verb in the previous chapter where it was used in the
sense of “to strike”, “And YHWH plagued (‫ )וַיְ ַנגַע‬Pharaoh with great plagues
for the sake of Sarai, the wife of Abram” (12,17) wherein it was already
mentioned that the same verb can be used in a sexual context. Here we have
an example to it. With this statement, the narrator not only fills the gap
regarding why Abimelech didn’t approach Sarah in v.4, but also leaves
another gap, i.e., how exactly did God prevent him, which will be answered
later.
As a final imperative, God commands Abimelech to restore Sarah to
Abraham since he is a “prophet” who will “pray on his behalf” which would
in turn allow him “to live” (v. 7). The imperative comes with a warning, that
in failing so, not only Abimelech, but his entire household would “die”.
We note here that the character of Abraham is becoming increasingly
associated with “intercession”. But the surprising element is the connection
of the office of prophet to the role of an intercessor. Westermann notes that
the ‫כִּי‬-clause appears to give a wrong motivation for restoring Sarah:
“Restore the woman … for he is a prophet” presenting the prophet as a
potentially dangerous man. But Westermann argues that actually, the author,
through the ‫ כִ י‬clause is preparing the way for the removal of harm to
Abimelech since he is innocent. In other words, Abraham as a prophet is not
a threat but a solution. Further, Westermann says that he is described as a
prophet because of his function as intercessor and since this is the only
instance where he is described so, we may understand the word in a general
sense of its meaning, i.e., a “man of God” and not in a technical sense of the
word71. In other words, in Abraham one can see a “man of God who
intercedes” on behalf of sinners. After the successful intercession in favour
of Lot in the Sodom-Gomorrah case, God himself acknowledges Abraham’s
intercessory powers. In presenting Abraham as an intercessor before
Abimelech and consequently the readers, the narrator now seeks the agency
of God to further endorse the concept of human intercession introduced for
the first time in chapter 1872. After v.17, with two successively successful
intercessions, Abraham’s role as an “intercessor” would be etched in the
71
C. WESTERMANN, A Continental Commentary, 324.
72 Cf. Section 4.5 of this chapter.
minds of the reader who would be immediately reminded of a similar role

played by Moses in Ex 32–34.
The motif of death is brought in again to close the conversation. “You and
all yours will die” is a phraseology similar to 2,1773. In the opening verse,
v.3, it was a warning, but now it is a choice of life and death a reminiscent
of the Deuteronomistic author (cf. Deut 30,15).
3.4. Turning point: The men were afraid (v.8)

Where most commentators have classified this verse with the following
section consisting of Abimelech’s conversation with Abraham (vv.8-13)74,
or shoved it away without any mention75, this paper along the lines of
Wenham, presents this verse as the central scene (Wenham) and turning
point of the narrative arc. This is due to the understanding of the story as the
story of Abimelech and the threat to his life, as we had discussed in the
previous sections. Abimelech and his kingdom embody the adversaries of
Israel and hence, the main highlight of this story, then, is the way Israel’s
God dealt with Israel’s adversaries. Israel’s adversaries were whole nations
and not individuals. This story served as a warning to the nations who were
against Israel. Whether they thought they were acting justly or wrongly,
Israel’s God was bound to be against them if they even “approached (v.4)”
Israel. Accordingly, the plot kept building up along the theme until the
narrator emphatically declares: “the men were afraid”. We must note here
that, unlike in the account of 12,10-20, it is not the divine action that turns
the plot, rather the “fear” induced by the divine revelation. Hence this verse
is the climax or, better, the “turning point” of the plot.
8
And Abimelech rose early in the morning and called all his servants and told
all these things in their hearing and the men were very afraid.
What could have been a well-played out court scene is reduced to a brief
and quick narration in the mode of telling. The rising early in the morning
underlines the seriousness of the matter and how the revelation had affected
Abimelech (cf. 19,27). It is also the usual response after a divine revelation
in the dream (cf. 22,3; 28,17; 28,18; etc.). The personal revelation which he
had in the dream had to be made public. The “men were afraid”, since, they
had the sense that the punishment was not going to be individual and
73
74
Cf. V.P. HAMILTON, The Book of Genesis 18–50, 65; etc.
personal, but collective. The men seem to be aware of the biblical idea that
the punishment for the sin of an individual is often borne by the collective76.
What motivated Abimelech to call the assembly of his men early in the
morning was nothing but “fear”. By narrating his dream to his men, he
transfers that fear onto them. The highlight of the verse is the statement that
“they became very afraid,” The element of fear is valued very much by the
narrator since through it he can portray God’s protection for Abraham
through it77. Wénin points out that since this verse with its brief narration,
does not have any bearing on the action, then we must revisit what its purpose
should be. He proposes that its purpose is the characterisation of the
characters:
On the one hand, the king's reaction shows that he, following the dream and the
dialogue with God, is fully aware of the seriousness of the situation and of the
fact that it does not concern him alone. The account suggests this, emphasizing
the haste with which he summons his servants and using an expression,
“speaking in the ears of”, which connotes both the urgency of the
communication and the importance of its content. On the other hand, the
reaction of the courtiers clearly shows that they are not indifferent to this foreign
God, because what they hear causes them great fear78.
3.5. Falling action: Discourse between Abimelech and Abraham (vv.9-13)

In the court of Abimelech, the anti-climax or the falling of action unfolds.
Abimelech and his men having expressed their fears, now is the time to undo
the wrong in order to move towards a resolution. The narrator switches back
to showing of the scene, to bring out the dynamics between the pagan king
Abimelech whose life and household is under threat and the patriarch who
has his own reasons to justify his lies. In the exchange that follows, through
the mouth of Abimelech and Abraham, what comes forth is the mutual
distrust and fear between Israel and its neighbouring nations. The narrator
also uses this conversation to fill in the gaps left so far, not only in this
narrative, but also in the previous wife-sister account of 12,10-20.
9
And Abimelech called Abraham and said to him, “What have to done to us?
What sin have I done to you that you have brought on me and on my kingdom
a great sin? Deeds that are not done you have done to me. 10 And Abimelech
said to Abraham, “What did you see that you have done this thing?” 11 And
Abraham replied, «Because I said surely there is no fear of God in this place,
76
Cf. our discussion in Section 3.3 of this chapter over the mention of “‫ ”גֹוי‬in v.4.
77
78 A. WÉNIN, Abramo e l'educazione divina, 170.
and they will kill me on account of my wife. 12 And also indeed, she is my sister,
the daughter of my father only not of my mother and she became to me a wife.
13
And it was that when God caused me to wander from the house of my father,
I told her: This is the kindness which you will do to me in all the places to which
we come, say of me there, “He is my brother”».
V.9 contains two rhetorical questions and a deep-seated moral statement.
P. Bovati observes that often accusations in the Hebrew Bible are in the form
of impassionate rhetorical questions79. Wenham gives us a good
characterization of Abimelech from his words. He compares Abimelech’s
words with that of the Pharaoh’s in the previous episode. Instead of the
Pharaoh’s singular, Abimelech always uses the plural, i.e., keeping in his
mind his subjects and his kingdom. Thus, “what have you done to us?”
“What … brought on me and my kingdom a great sin?” etc. are marks of a
good ruler who seeks his subjects’ welfare according to Wenham. Moreover,
the phrasing, “what have I sinned against you” and his description of adultery
as “a great sin” implies his moral earnestness80.
In comparison to the other wife-sister accounts where the patriarch has no
response to the allegations of the ruler (cf. 12,18-19; 26,9-10), here the
narrator tries to balance between the righteousness of the ruler and the
apparent lack of guilt of the patriarch. Abraham’s excuses seem to be lame
but at least, they provide the reader with some information and insight into
his reasoning.
The repetition of the ‫ ַוי ֹאמֶ ר‬in v.10 indicates a silence from the part of
Abraham to the first volley of Abimelech’s questions and it is not a sign of
insertion as Gunkel would have us believe. Abraham’s inability to respond
makes Abimelech to continue his accusations. This time it is an open
question has been added, “What did you see that you have done this thing?”
with the intention of invoking Abraham to respond81. To the question, “What
have you seen…”, Janzen responds in a very profound way:
In Abimelech, Abraham has “seen” a typical royal figure who would act in
typical royal ways. He was of course not entirely wrong. Yet such a seeing,
insofar as it was informed only by stereotypes and failed to allow for differences
in individual kings, worked an injustice on the king. […] human knowing
cannot adequately take account of all the actual details of a given situation, but
“sees” them in terms of typical past experiences and common understandings.
79
Cf. P. BOVATI, Re-Establishing Justice, 75-83, esp. 75.77.83.
80
[…] In such situations, one’s fear of the other may lead to misperceptions which
in fact may wrong the other82.
From Abraham’s response we may say that he “saw” no fear of God in the
place (v. 11). In ancient times, when the law could not protect people,
especially sojourners, religion was the only sanction of international
morality, the ger having no civil rights83. Rashi supports Abraham’s claim
by asking, “Certainly, when a foreigner come, instead of asking if he needs
to eat or drink, they ask about his wife”84. However, from the discussion
above, we can be assured that the situation has been misread by Abraham.
To the reader, the answer supplemented by the revelation in v.12, fills a gap
left by the narrator in v.2, i.e., why Abraham said that Sarah was his sister.
Hamilton’s connection of Abraham with the sons-in-law of Lot is very loose
and cannot be sustained85.
Abraham’s statement that Sarah was his half-sister (v.12) comes as a
revelation to the readers of the Abraham cycle who so far had no clue about
such a relationship. According to Gunkel, it was invented ad hoc by the
narrator86 to defend Abraham not only here, but in the previous account as
well. However, this excuse, as it seeks to justify Abraham in one aspect,
makes him guilty in another for such unions are banned in later biblical law
(Lev 18,9.11; 20,17; Deut 27,22; 2 Sam 13,13; Ezek 22,11)87. Sarna vouches
for the antiquity of the tradition since “it is inconceivable that a late author
would invent a tale ascribing to the patriarch a practice abhorrent to the
sexual morality of Israel as it found legal expression in the Torah codes”88.
Abraham finally explains to Abimelech (v.13) that it is not specifically
against him alone that he has done this. In fact, it is his “standard policy”
since the time he was chosen by God and asked to “wander” to the land of
promise (12,1). With this excuse, Abraham now incriminates both God and
Sarah89. The word ‫ תעה‬that he uses refers to “leading astray”90 but has a wide
range of meaning from straying of cattle (cf. Ex 23,4) to erring morally (cf.
Isa 53,6) and here it is employed specifically to appeal to Abimelech’s
82
J.G. JANZEN, Abraham and all the Families, 69.
83
Cf. J. SKINNER, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 318.
84 RASHI DE TROYES, Commento alla Genesi, 157.
86 Cf. H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 221. This information is missing in the genealogy of 11,27-
30 outlining the descendants of Terah.

88
N.M. SARNA, Genesis, 143.
89
V.P. HAMILTON, The Book of Genesis 18–50, 68.
90 Cf. U. BERGES – U. DAHMEN, «‫»תָ עָה‬, 734.
sympathy91. Hence, Abraham here is subtly accusing God who exposed him
to dangers away from the security of his father’s house that he is forced to
“err morally”. Moreover, the use of the verb in the third person plural with
God as subject has provoked debates whether it has polytheistic
connotations, so much so that Smr has even emended the text to render the
verb in singular. Rashi says it is not a case to be wondered at since, the divine
plural has been usually employed in multiple cases as Gen 39,20; 42,30; Es
22,14; Deut 5,26; 10,17; Josh 24,19; 2Sam 7,2392. Since the problem of the
plural reference to the divine is not unique to this text, there is no need for
any emendation to this text. Rather studying the interpretation of the multiple
texts with divine plural would be a better approach93. Among modern
scholars, Gunkel argues that it is not a plural rather an archaic singular form
of the verb94 whereas Wenham says that it could be plural to accommodate
the polytheistic outlook of Abimelech95.
3.6. Resolution: Restoration of dignity and honour (vv.14-16)

This plot seems to have double resolution, first, a resolution of the wife-
sister narrative and then, a resolution of the threat to Abimelech’s life and
household which we would deal with in the next section as the conclusion.
The first resolution is seen in vv.14-16 where the mode of telling is deployed
in v.14 and showing in vv15-16. The dignity and honour of the matriarch is
restored, and Abimelech seeks to pacify the patriarch and probably through
the patriarch, his God, by giving him several gifts and presenting him with
the prospect of settling in the land. This account differs from the previous
wife-sister account in three ways. To begin with, donkeys and camels are
missing from the gifts. Secondly, instead of driving Abraham away (also
compare 26,15), he is asked to settle in the land. Thirdly, the dignity of Sarah
is restored, and she is publicly vindicated.
14
And Abimelech took sheep and oxen and male and female servants and gave
to Abraham and returned to him Sarah his wife. 15 And Abimelech said, “Behold
my land before you, settle where it pleases you”. 16 And to Sarah he said,
“Behold I give a thousand silver to your brother. May it be to you a covering of
the eyes to all those who are with you and in all these you are vindicated”.
91
92
Cf. RASHI DE TROYES, Commento alla Genesi, 158.
93 For the different interpretations of the presence of plural references to the divine in
Genesis, cf. KEISER, T.A., The Divine Plural, 131-146.

94
Midrash Rabbah critiques Abraham for the serious repetition of his fault,
“You went to Egypt and made merchandise of her, and you came here and
traded in her. If you desire money, here is money and cover up [your] eyes
from her”96. Rashi is definite that the gifts are given for reconciliation for to
send her without gifts, will make people say that Abimelech has “he sent him
away after having abused her”. Rather, with gifts, people would recognize
that a miracle had indeed restrained him97. Gunkel adds that that the gifts
apart from being a restitution for the injustice also seeks to obtain Abraham’s
friendship so that he might pray for him98.
The translation of v.16 as we have seen is quite complicated, especially
two phrases, one being the phrase ‫ עֵּינַיִם כְ סּות‬which renders literally “covering
of the eyes” but could be a euphemism for restoration of honour or
vindication. The second difficult translation is for the words ‫וְ נֹ כָחַ ת כֹ ל וְ אֵּ ת‬
which can either be “and you are justified before all of them” or “and you
are justified in all these things”99. The verb “‫ ”יכח‬rendered here as “justified”
or “vindicated” actually means “to set right” and could be a legal term 100.
For Gunkel, the first phrase that goes with the covering of the eyes, “‫אֲשֶ ר לְ כֹ ל‬
‫”אתָ ְך‬
ִ can be translated as: “in regard to everything that has befallen you” and
the following phrase regarding vindication, “you are vindicated in its totality
(that is, in all this)” which goes with the second proposal of the BHS101. Von
Rad, on his part, translates the covering of eyes as “vindication in the eyes
of” (in German, Augendecke) which means that the gifts are a means by
which the critical eyes of others will be covered so that they will be unable
to discover anything shocking in Sarah102.
Abimelech addressing Abraham as the brother of Sarah is also a point of
discussion. According to Von Rad, it is “legal” and “official” way of
speaking. In fact, according to him, this was to avoid humiliating Abraham
96 MIDRASH RABBAH, Genesis, 458.

97 Cf. RASHI DE TROYES, Commento alla Genesi, 159.
98
Cf. H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 222; Cf. also V.P. HAMILTON, The Book of Genesis 18–
50, 69: According to Hamilton, the giving of gifts was a legal procedure in the Middle
Assyrian laws of the 15th-12th centuries BC in the case of one taking another’s wife
without knowing that she was married.
99 Cf. Textual Notes in section 2 of this chapter.
100 Cf. G. Mayer – H.-J. Fabry, «‫»יכח‬, 65; Also cf. RASHI DE TROYES, Commento alla
Genesi, 160 for Rashi’s note on the translation of the verb.

101
102
G. VON RAD, Genesis. A Commentary, 229; Cf. also V.P. HAMILTON, The Book of
Genesis 18–50, 70-71.
publicly103. On the other hand, for Sarna and others it was a sarcasm on the
part of Abimelech, but this does not fit into the character of Abimelech we
had seen till now104.
An assessment of the gifts showered by Abimelech on Abraham and Sarah
would make us appreciate the former’s generosity. A thousand silver was a
large amount of money. The unit of measure is not mentioned, but it is
understood to be shekels105 and one shekel weighed around 12 grams106. The
maximum ever asked for in bride money was fifty shekels (Deut 22,29) and
the wage of a Babylonian labourer then was about half a shekel a month107.
The invitation to settle in the land of choice echoes Abraham’s generosity to
Lot (Gen 13,8-9)108. In short, Abimelech does everything to demonstrate
Abraham’s and Sarah’s honourableness, for no one can give gifts of honour
to disgraced people without discrediting himself. After all, how much more
humiliating for Abraham were the gifts in Gen 12,16109!
3.7. Conclusion: Abraham’s prayer restores Abimelech (vv.17-18)

We have now arrived at the second and actual resolution of the narrative,
and thereby its conclusion. If the story belonged to Abimelech as Janzen
holds, then the threat to his life and his household is the central theme of this
narrative. Accordingly, it is only apt that the conclusion of the narrative
would bring about a resolution in form of a nullification of the threat. The
mode of narration continues to be telling and the narration is very fast. The
final verse, v.18 which seems to be an addition serves as a flashback to fill
in certain gaps left by the narrative till then.
17
And Abraham prayed to God and God healed Abimelech and his wives and
his female servants and they bore children. 18 For YHWH had closed fast all the
wombs in the house of Abimelech on account of Sarah the wife of Abraham.
After introducing Abraham as a prophet in v.7 who would intercede to
restore the life of Abimelech, it is in v.17 that he actually prayed (ְ‫)וַיִ ְת ַפ ֵּלל‬.
And as one can expect, God heard the prayer of Abraham and healed (‫)וַיִ ְרפָא‬
Abimelech and his wives and female servants, thus breaking the spell of
103
104
Cf. N.M. SARNA, Genesis, 144; Cf. G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 16–50, 74.
105 Cf. H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 222; Cf. P. JOÜON – T. MURAOKA, A Grammar of Biblical
Hebrew, §142n.
107
108
childlessness. The verb ‫ וַיִ ְרפָא‬meaning “he healed” and the final verb ‫ַו ֵּילֵּדְּו‬
meaning “and they bore children”, read along with vv.6-7 would lead us to
understand that Abimelech’s illness was a type of sexual impediment,
immediately filling the gap in v.4 on why Abimelech had not yet approached
Sarah. The gift of effective intercession, according to an older conception,
was what made a man a real prophet (Num 12,13; 21,7; Deut 9,26; 1Sam
12,9-23)110.
Traditionally, the second verse of the section, v.18 was considered a later
addition, an idea derived from the presence of the divine name ‫( יְהוָה‬YHWH)
instead of the Elohist’s preferred term ‫( אֱלהִ ים‬God)111. This traditional view
can’t be totally refuted, since, according to Gunkel, there is more to it than
mere terminology. Reading v.17 alone in the light of vv.6-7, would give the
impression that the disease was either sexual impotency or something that
impeded sexual intercourse which affected both men and women of the
household. But the addition of v.18 fixes the problem on women alone112.
The verb ‫ עצר‬means primarily “to hold back/restrain etc.” and is used in
the present context, along with the word ‫ ֶרחֶ ְם‬to mean “close the wombs” a
reference to a woman’s inability to conceive. Wenham notes that in 16,3, the
same verb is used in the case of Sarah with the same meaning (also cf. Isa
66,9)113, noting a connection since after all, it has happened ‫ַל־דבַ ר‬
ְ ‫( שָ ָרה ע‬for
the sake of Sarah). Certainly, it seems that there is a connection after all,
since the moment the wombs of the women in Abimelech’s house are
opened, Sarah’s womb too is opened, and the successive pericope would
celebrate the birth of Isaac.
The Midrash Rabbah once again dwells on the phrase ‫ַל־דבַ ר‬ ְְ ‫ שָ ָרה ע‬and
connects the two accounts , “We know that Pharaoh was smitten with
114
leprosy and Abimelech with closing up. How do we know that what is said
here is to be applied there and vice versa? Because “for the sake of” occurs
in both places, so that an analogy should be drawn”115.

111 Wenham has certain reservations which seem to be valid: cf. G.J. WENHAM,
Genesis 16–50, 69.
114
Once again, the Midrash treats it literally and refers back to the story of Sarah asking
the angel to “strike” and to “hold”. Cf. footnote no. 95 of Chapter 1.
4. The theological message of the pericope
4.1. God as omnipotent and omniscient who protects his people

The first figure of God that emerges from this pericope is that of a God
who is not only omnipotent and omniscient but also one who uses these
attributes to protect His promise and His chosen ones. In this account as in
the previous, we see the God intervening into the undesirable unfolding of
events to protect the promise made to Abraham and Sarah, though here the
intervention is more scenic than dramatic. “Behold you are dead because of
the woman whom you have taken” is a fierce warning to the one who sought
to harm the promise and thereby the chosen people. The fierce language to
the enemies of God’s people in fact reveals the love of God for his own. God
uses his omnipotence to come to the aid of his servant by preventing a king
from approaching her. Moreover, he has the power to heal and to appoint
prophets and to enable intercessions.
4.2. God as the author of life and death

A second image of God is that of Him as the “author of life and death”,
i.e., one who has control over births and deaths. The lives of powerful kings
are in his hand and he operates on a moral principle to allow them to live or
to die. He has the power to open and close wombs. By using the verb ‫ עצר‬in
v.18, the narrator connects the infertility of the women in Abimelech’s
household to the infertility of Sarah (16,3). By opening their wombs, the
narrator presents God as the one who would not have difficulty in opening
the womb of an old Sarah who was nonetheless barren. Thus, the infertility
to fertility shift of the narrative prepared us to see the divine power behind
the miraculous birth of Isaac in the next pericope. By emphasising that
Abimelech did not touch Sarah, the narrator clarifies every doubt that Isaac,
the son of promise is not a son of adultery. Rather, the birth of Isaac to
Abraham and Sarah who are well past their fertile years, is attributed to the
power of God alone116.
4.3. Salvation for pagans through Israel?

Gunkel time and again shared the proposal that Israel had the idea that
God would take her side against her enemies, no matter what, even when she
would be in the wrong. The divine action against the relatively innocent
Pharaoh then, and Abimelech now is a proof of this mentality that is
116 Cf. G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 16–50, 71.74.

“embedded into the religiosity of Israel”, says Gunkel117. However, Gunkel’s

observation is not adequate enough. First of all, we need to distinguish God’s
treatment of Pharaoh and Abimelech. With Pharaoh, the punishment was
directed to save Sarah. But from the discourse of vv.3-8 and the final
resolution in vv.17-18, we are to understand that God wanted the salvation
(not in the theological sense) of Abimelech and his household as much as
Sarah’s. Objectively, this text speaks more of the healing of Abimelech than
his punishment. First of all, if God’s intention was punishment, an
apparition, albeit in a dream, with a dialogue would be too extravagant.
Secondly, the resolution, as we have observed, was not about Sarah’s rescue,
rather the healing of Abimelech. Hence, the motif of Abimelech’s salvation
outweighs his punishment. This salvation of Abimelech, which is so central
to the text is brought about by the Abraham, who is a “prophet” and
“intercessor” who would “pray” on behalf of Abimelech to the omnipotent
God of Israel. Thus, through this text, the narrator, among other matters is
conveying that salvation (theological sense or otherwise too), even for
pagans, comes from the God of Israel, through the medium of the “holy men”
of Israel. In effect, this theology is only a development of 12,3.
4.4. Sin, guilt, and punishment

This text deals with two major moral problems: punishment of the
innocent and punishment of the collective for the individual. Abimelech’s
plea, “Lord, will you even slaughter an innocent nation?” (v.4) bears the
burden of both these problems. With regard to the punishment of the
innocent, on the first level, we can be assured that God saw to it that the
innocent Abimelech was finally relieved off punishment. On a deeper level,
abuse of power to foster an unbridled pursuit of carnal pleasure leading to
excessive sexualization and objectification of women and increasing sense
of insecurity to the common man is not very innocent. Abimelech’s claim of
integrity of heart and innocence of hands is to be taken only with a pinch of
salt. Those who argue for Abimelech would point out that it was customary
of kings to do so. Again, the moral question that poses itself is: is something
right just because it is common practice or socially acceptable. Hence, God’s
sense of justice can be vindicated here.
The second question is more problematic and perhaps without an answer.
Already in 12,10-20, Pharaoh’s household is also punished for something he
alone has done. Here, Abimelech himself senses that God has sentenced his

whole kingdom to death. The question why God often punishes a large group
for the sin of an individual is, perhaps, one of modern origins. However, our
narrator presents this as a matter of fact and though God addresses the issue
of Abimelech’s righteousness, the issue of why the whole household is under
the sentence of death is never addressed. What is surprising is that
Abimelech already knew the idea of divine justice punishing the collective
for the individual and the narrator too presents it as a matter of fact118.
Having said this, we need to remind ourselves, that this divine policy is
not limited to punishment alone, but to salvation as well. In chapter 18, God
was ready to save a whole city because of the righteousness of ten people,
but now He is ready to destroy the whole kingdom for the guilt of one man.
Does this idea of an individual for the collective, not open the door for the
NT idea of collective salvation due to the righteousness of one man? After
all, Paul sums up the dynamics of individual vs collective in the sphere of
condemnation and salvation as:
Therefore, just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s
act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. For just as by the one
man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience
the many will be made righteous (Rom 5,18-19).
4.5. Theology of intercession

In chapter 18, the narrator presents Abraham as an intercessor and in this
episode presents God as endorsing this role of Abraham. This opens up for
the first time in the Bible an idea that God hears the prayer of his chosen men
and women on behalf of those who might need salvation. The chosen person
is seen as having an access to God which an ordinary person would not have.
Von Rad especially notes that Abraham had access to God and interceded
for Abimelech, despite the fact that he was guilty too.
“Our narrator thinks of Abraham as the bearer of an office of mediator and
prophet by virtue of which he has special access to God. Abraham apparently
has authority for his effective intercession for the objectively guilty,
subjectively innocent Abimelech without any regard for his own large share in
the guilt. How complicated are the theological ideas that the narrative thus
suggests”119!
Indeed, the theology of intercession is complicated. As Von Rad points
out, if one who is guilty intercedes for another who is guilty, what could the
118
Cf. the discussion in Section 3.3 of this chapter.
119 G. VON RAD, Genesis. A Commentary, 228.
criterion for God’s choice of the intercessor? Secondly, what is the point of
God appointing an intercessor? If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then a
human intercessor would only be superfluous. We see that the endowment
of the role of the intercessor elevates the chosen person before his
adversaries. We had already noted how Gunkel believed that Abimelech’s
gifts were to appease Abraham in order that he might pray for him120.
With an effective intercession (v.17), Abraham’s role as an intercessor and
a prophet, in the sense presented here, is fixed in salvation history. It was the
gift of effective intercession, according to an older conception, that made a
man a real prophet (Num 12,13; 21,7; Deut 9,26; 1Sam 12,9-23)121. It is after
all, through his office as intercessor and prophet that the promise that “in him
all families shall be blessed” (12,3) is fulfilled122. As the story of Israel
progresses, this role of intercessor and prophet would be placed upon the
shoulders of Israel (cf. Isa 42,6: “I am the Lord, I have called You in
righteousness, I will also hold You by the hand and watch over You, and I
will appoint You as a covenant to the people, as a light to the nations). In a
way, this narrative puts forth the idea which would be central to the bible:
that the gentiles, if they want to experience salvation, they can do so only
through Israel.
5. Conclusion
To sum up, in the narrative of 20,1-18, the narrator employs the wife-sister
motif to uncover the dynamic relationships between Israel and its pagan
neighbours, represented here by Abraham and Sarah, the chosen couple, and
Abimelech, the king of Gerar respectively. In their mutual interactions, the
key player is the God of Israel who being omnipotent and omniscient, is
always partial to Israel. Israel, like Abraham, is not free of guilt and
sometimes settle for compromises, doing “things they are not supposed to
do” (cf. v.9). Some of these compromises could be due to the vulnerable
nature of a wanderer on the face of the earth. But if the pagan nations exploit
this vulnerability, they acquire guilt on themselves and God is always ready
to intervene and punish them. If they are to escape the guilt and punishment
and receive salvation, then their salvation would be dependent on the
intercessory prayers of Israel. In other words, their salvation comes through
Israel. The sense of justice of the God of Israel is difficult to understand,
since he could punish whole nations for the sins of one person while also
120
Cf. Section 3,5 of this chapter; Cf. H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 222.
121
G. VON RAD, Genesis. A Commentary, 229.
willing to spare whole nations for the righteousness of a few (18,22-33).

Altogether, the narrative is theologically very profound. The questions that
we have asked ourselves at the onset, i.e., why the repetition of the wife-
sister motif, why do narratives differ, etc., have been answered to a certain
level through our close reading of the pericope. But to answer it more
decisively, a comparative study of the two narratives is needed which will
be taken up in the next and final chapter.
CHAPTER III
Towards a Narrative Analytical Response
In the first and the second chapters, through a close reading of the biblical
texts we sought to understand in depth what the texts would like to speak to
us. In the process, we could also discover the magnitude of the problems and
the different ways in which the biblical author/redactor himself sought to
solve them. Along with this, the view of the different commentators and
scholars have also enriched our study. In this chapter, we shall begin with an
assessment of the major solutions and responses offered from the post-
biblical times until now and move onwards to propose a narrative analytical
solution to the problems posed by the text. For the sake of convenience, we
shall assign the conventions of A, B and C to 12,10-20; 20,1-18 and 26,1-16
respectively. Further, to avoid ambiguity, the names of the protagonists shall
always be Abraham and Sarah even when referring to A.
1. A survey of responses so far
1.1. Traditional Jewish Responses

The post-biblical responses, as one can expect were mostly Jewish, and
they often responded to the challenges posed by the texts by composing new
variants of the story, by changing certain elements to fill in gaps, resolve
moral issues, and incorporating exegetical elements into the story line. Thus,
it is not surprising when Tohar claims that the Jewish tradition has at least
forty different written versions of the story1. One of the most ancient of the
1 V. TOHAR, «Abraham and Sarah in Egypt», 2.

response that can be traced back to the first century BC/AD2 is the Genesis
Apocryphon (1Q20) discovered in 1946 among the Dead Sea scrolls. The
story, narrated by Abraham in first person, can be summarized as follows:
Abraham has to go to Egypt due to the famine. On the night before their entry
into Egypt, he dreams a threat to his life because of the beauty of Sarah which
when he narrates to Sarah she weeps. Then he tells her, “This is the kind deed
you must do in every city we enter, say “He is my brother” so I may live because
of you. She hid from the men of the land for five years during which the princes
of Egypt came to seek wisdom from Abraham. One day they discover Sarah and
describe her beauty in every detail to Pharaoh Zoan and he took her as his wife.
Abraham wept bitterly and asked God for assistance. God sent pestilence upon
Pharaoh and his household for two long years so that he could not have sexual
relations with Sarah. Eventually, Pharaoh sends messengers to bring in
magicians who prayed for a cure but in vain. Finally, Abraham was sent for to
pray for the Pharaoh, to which Lot, who replied that Sarah, the wife of Abraham
should be released first. This was how the Egyptians came to know that Sarah
was Abraham’s wife. The accusations of Pharaoh followed and Abraham was
asked to leave Egypt before which he was to heal Pharaoh. After his recovery
Pharaoh restored Sarah to Abraham and gave him lots of gifts and sent men to
escort him out of Egypt3.
As is very evident, the recreated narrative transposes the first and the
second story in such a way that all gaps have been filled and every problem,
moral or otherwise, resolved. G. Sarfatti observes that the text as a whole is
considered a mix between apocryphal literature and rabbinic midrash, i.e.,
though the style is apocryphal, the author has enriched the biblical narrative
“by approximation of different verses, by the same dialectical mechanism
according to which the midrash of the rabbis will develop”4.
The above example would suffice to give an idea on how the Jewish
sources respond to the problems. They respond by retelling the story and
treating the issues in part or in whole and often adding exegetical elements
to the narrative. Thus, for the last two millennium, we have had a number of
Jewish sources that have told and retold the biblical narrative in their own
ways5.
2
On the dating of the present manuscript, cf. D.A. MACHIELA, The Dead Sea Genesis
Apocryphon, 136.
3 For the full text with translation in English, cf. D.A. MACHIELA, The Dead Sea
Genesis Apocryphon, 70-77.

4
G. SARFATTI, «Un Libro Apocrifo Sulla Genesi», 106.
5
Apart from the Genesis Apocryphon, Josephus Flavius’s Antiquities of the Jews (first
century), the Midrash Genesis Rabbah (fifth century) which we have quoted frequently
CH. III: TOWARDS A NARRATIVE ANALYTICAL RESPONSE 71
In general, these sources treat the story A as a primary story and often tend
to read the unique elements of B and C into the story of A. The exegetical
and apologetical nature of these sources is evident. The Midrash Rabbah for
instance, seeks to defend every word of the biblical text by inventing a story.
In 12,14, we see Abraham alone entering Egypt while the text presupposes
that Sarah has accompanied Abraham. The Midrash responds to the
whereabouts of Sarah by narrating a story of Abraham hiding her in a box.
Again, as a literal interpretation of “‫ַל־דבַרְשָ ַרי‬
ְ ‫ ”ע‬in 12,17, the Midrash posits
the presence of an angel of pestilence to whom Sarah would say “Strike” and
he would do so ‫ַל־דבַ רְשָ ַרי‬
ְ ‫( ע‬at the word of Sarah)6. The principal motive of
every midrashic exegesis is to save the patriarch from moral accusation while
ensuring the matriarch is undefiled7, a thin line to walk on. On the whole, we
may say that the rabbinic literature’s primary occupation is of a moral nature,
and anything more than that could be said only after an exhaustive study of
the resources, which is beyond the scope of this study.
1.2. Historical Critical responses

One of the earliest of the modern responses to the wife-sister narratives
was the much-acclaimed historical critical method which dominated biblical
interpretation for a vast period of time. Within the method, the approaches
varied and different scholars approached the text with different questions in
mind. Some of the questions with which the proponents of this method
approached the texts have been:
Which story is the original? Why are three stories needed? What is the
relationship among the stories? Do they have an oral tradition? Do they have an
ur-story? Are they historical? What are the theological implications of the
stories in their own context? Did three authors or different sources, make three
distinctly separately stories? Or are all three stories the work of a single author8?
in this work, Midrash Tanhuma (seventh century), Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer (eighth
century), Yalkut Shimoni (thirteenth century), Midrash Hagadol (fourteenth century),
Midrash Hahefez (fifteenth century), Sefer Hayashar (sixteenth century), Kol Aggadot
Yisrael (nineteenth century), and Aggadot HaYehudim (twentieth century) are some of
the sources that have dealt with, or at least alluded to the wife-sister stories: R. FIRESTONE,
«Difficulties in Keeping a Beautiful Wife», 200.
6 Cf. R. FIRESTONE, «Difficulties in Keeping a Beautiful Wife», 205-206; Cf. M IDRASH
RABBAH, Genesis, 333; Also cf. footnote no. 95 of Chapter 1.

7
V. TOHAR, «Abraham and Sarah in Egypt», 11.
8 H. KANG, Reading the Wife/Sister Narratives, 2.
Consequently, the solutions and responses that they have arrived at

correspond to the questions they had asked. J.L. Ronning summarises these
responses in the following manner:
For the source critic, this is a classic example of multiple versions of the same
original story, demonstrating a multiplicity of sources underlying our present
book of Genesis. For the OT form critic, they provide a rare opportunity to
compare three parallel accounts and postulate an origin and development in the
oral and literary tradition. For the redaction critic, they present a challenge to
explain how the accounts function in their present contexts; i.e., not as variant
versions of one event, but as different episodes in the lives of Abraham and
Isaac9.
Source critics have always thought of the wife-sister accounts as a
classical proof for documentary hypothesis. Having seen the repetition of the
narratives as a problem they sought to solve it by attributing A and C to the
J source; and B to the E source10. Often the argument is that J, despite having
two accounts, does not repeat the details, i.e., the characters, the locale etc,
thus, arguing for the consistency within the sources11 and B displays lot of
elements typical of the E source12.
However, there are differences of opinion over the attribution. Observing
the absence of Lot in the A story, Gunkel writes that the account does not
stem from the main strand of J (Ja), but from a related source (Jb)13. Even in
C, Gunkel attributes vv.7-11 to Ja and verses 1-6 to Jr, a redactor of J14. The
attribution of B to E is all the more challenged by recent scholarship. Kang
follows Wenham when he says that the use of different divine names is to be
understood in the light of different literary intentions. Already Wenham had
said that the biblical author did not allow the revealed name of God, YHWH
to be used by pagans. Even Israelites while talking to non-Israelites did not
refer to that name (cf. 20,13; Joseph when talking to Egyptians: 41,25.28).
Wenham also points to Ex 6,3 which discloses that God had not revealed his
name to the patriarchs. He is of the opinion that the greater frequency of
“Elohim” in chapters 20–22 may suggest that at some earlier phase the
tradition behind these chapters had a history different from other parts of the
9J.L. RONNING, «The Naming of Isaac», 1.

10E.A. SPEISER, Genesis, 89.91. For the rationale behind attributing B to the E source,
cf. Section 1.3 of Chapter 2.
11 E.A. SPEISER, Genesis, 151.
12
See Section 1.3 of Chapter 2.
13
Cf. H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 168:
Abraham cycle. The claim that dreams are confined to E and the specific use
of ‫ אמה‬over ‫ שפחה‬for female slaves have also been rubbished by Wenham15.
For form critics, the primary goal was to find in what form the narrative
existed before its insertion into the biblical text. The basic concept of the
form critical approach accepts the premise that the original story existed in
an oral form, which was transmitted to diverse places over a long period of
time16. For them, Genesis 12 was a saga, Genesis 20 a legend, and Genesis
26 a narrative, a classification pointing to the evolution of the story17. In
other words, determining the chronology of the origins of the narratives as
well as tracing the original story have been their interests. Gunkel for
example, observing that B and C improved upon and filled in the gaps in A,
considers A as the original story and B and C as later ones respectively18.
E.H. Maly, refutes this and places C before A followed by B. His
arrangement is in order of the developing religious tone in the narratives19.
Van Seters presents B and C as presupposing A and as its literary variants
something which T.D. Alexander refutes20. According to Alexander,
“without independent external evidence any conclusions regarding the origin
of the wife/sister accounts must always be hypothetical”21.
While the discussion on the original account continues, some scholars
have even managed to reconstruct the original story. J. Ronning quotes the
reconstruction of K. Koch as follows:
Because of famine Isaac travelled from the desert in southern Palestine to the
nearby Canaanite city of Gerar, to live there as a “sojourner”, i.e., to keep within
the pasturage rights on the ground belonging to the city. He told everyone that
his wife was his sister so that his life would not be endangered by those who
desired her. However, Rebekah's beauty could not pass unnoticed. The king of
the city, Abimelech, took Rebekah into his harem, amply compensating Isaac.
As a material sin was about to be committed, God struck the people of the palace
with a mysterious illness. Through the medium of his gods, or a soothsayer,
15 Cf. G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 16–50, 69. Kang summarises the arguments of a number
of scholars who do not accept the attribution of B to the E source. Being a recent work, it
also contains a brief and updated history of the use of source criticism for the wife-sister
narratives. Cf. H. KANG, Reading the Wife/Sister Narratives, 4-5.
16 Cf. H. KANG, Reading the Wife/Sister Narratives, 6.
17 Cf. J.K. HOFFMEIER, «The Wives’ Tales», 82.
19 Cf. E.H. MALY, «Genesis 12,10-20; 20,1-18; 26,7-11», 260.
20
Cf. J. VAN SETERS, Abraham in History and Tradition, 171-175.
21
T.D. ALEXANDER, «Are the Wife-Sister Incidents of Genesis Literary Compositional
Variants?», 153.
Abimelech recognized what had happened. Abimelech called Isaac to account:

“What is this that you have done to me?” He then restored him his wife and sent
him away, loaded with gifts22.
H.S. Pappas refutes the idea of such a reconstruction and the existence of
an original version. He posits the presence of a basic set of narrative elements
which were chosen by each story teller who omitted, expanded or
emphasized particular segments of the story23.
Writing about the role of the wife-sister accounts in the redaction of
Genesis, Ronning writes that the priority of redaction criticism is not to find
how the accounts are related to each other, rather to find out how the accounts
are related to their contexts. He says that there is no relation between the
accounts per se, and that if any relation exists, it is because they have been
inserted into the story of the lives of the patriarchs. Thus, many have tried to
study the chiastic structure of the Abraham cycle to find the role of these
accounts in the redaction of Genesis but have not been successful in pointing
out its real role or significance24. Many of the conclusions have been
unconvincing.
The historical critical method has its flaws and often the critique of the
diachronic method by those advocating the synchronic method have been
scathing. For example, Polzin would say, “Traditional biblical scholarship
has spent most of its efforts in disassembling the works of a complicated
watch before our amazed eyes without apparently realizing that similar
efforts by and large have not succeeded in putting the parts back together
again in a significant or meaningful way”25. Thus, in the recent years, more
attention has been paid to the final text in its received form. As Gordis says,
“In the past, the emphasis was upon analysis of the elements which entered
into the final text. In recent years, scholars have recognized that it is the
synthesis of these elements and the final product that emerged, the Torah,
that ought to be the focus of critical attention”26. P.T. Reis would add, “As
the Bible comes to us as a single text, I prefer to treat it as a unified entity,
and to focus on its literary and narrative qualities. At the supposed “seams”
22
K. KOCH, Growth of Biblical Tradition, 126. Quoted from J.L., RONNING, «The
Naming of Isaac», 5.
23 Cf. H.S. PAPPAS, «Deception as Patriarchal Self-Defense», 50.
24 Cf. J. MAGONET, «Abraham and God», 162; Cf. J.L. RONNING, «The Naming of
Isaac», 25; Cf. R. YUDKOWSKY, «Chaos or Chiasm», 111.

25
R. POLZIN «“The Ancestress of Israel in Danger” in Danger», 82.
26 D. GORDIS, «Lies, Wives and Sisters», 344.
where source critics discover rough stitching together of disparate texts, I

see, not fault lines, but gold mines of subtlety and allusion”27.
1.3. Socio-historical responses

Among the socio-historical responses, two prominent theories stand out.
First among them is Nuzi sisterhood adoption (ahātūti) theory of E.A.
Speiser and secondly, is the idea of Hoffmeier and others that the accounts
are diplomatic contracts between a powerful Abraham and the local kings.
Speiser approaches the accounts with the question as to why tradition
insisted on recording these accounts in the first place. He answers this by
referring to the superior status of the wife-sister in Hurrian customs. Speiser,
having studied certain marriage documents from Nuzi, concludes that in the
Hurrian society, there existed a custom wherein the wife was given the
juridical status of a sister simultaneously, despite blood relations.
Accordingly, a man was able to marry a girl and then adopt her as his sister,
in two separate steps recorded in two separate legal documents. He says that
violation of the sistership contract was punished more severely than of
marriage contracts. According to him, the practice reflected the fratriarchal
system in those societies which gave the adoptive brother greater authority
than the husband. Reciprocally, the adopted sister enjoyed correspondingly
greater protection and higher social status. This practice, he records, was
found primarily among the upper strata of Hurrian society. He further adds
that an adoptive brother has the same authority over his sister after the
father’s death as a blood brother, and when a brother, whether natural or
adoptive, gave his sister in marriage, the law regarded the woman as a wife-
sister in such cases as well28. Speiser is convinced that the wife-sister
episodes as well as the episode of Laban giving his sisters to Jacob in
marriage point towards such a practice among the patriarchs29 who branched
out from the Western Semites living in close cultural symbiosis with the
Hurrians. Speiser notes that these customs were peculiar to Hurrian society
and were practiced in centres such as Harran30. Thus, answering his own
question regarding the accounts, Speiser says that Sarah and Rebekah being
wife-sisters enjoyed a high status in the society and being “vital links in the
chain through which the biblical way of life was being transmitted and the
purity of the line had a bearing on the quality of the content”, tradition is
27 P.T. REIS, «Take My Wife, Please», 306.

28
29
Cf. E.A. SPEISER, «The Wife-Sister Motif», 77-82.
30 Cf. E.A. SPEISER, Genesis, 91.
bound to cherish any detail that points towards the privileged position of the
patriarchs’ wives31.
But this theory is refuted by later scholars who re-examined the
documents. S. Greengus for example, found that the wife who was adopted
usually belonged to socially inferior classes32 and that in every case, the
adopted sister was not married by the adoptive brothers and on the other
hand, in ten out of thirteen cases, the text openly states that the adopting
brother is expected to marry off his new sister to another man and is entitled
to receive a bride-price for her33. As a closure to the discussions, Freedman
says, “If the present analysis of the ahātūti documents holds, any alleged
parallels to the Bible are premature. As for the biblical texts themselves, the
best key we have for understanding the wife-sister motif in Genesis is careful
reading of the text itself”34.
Another interesting theory is that offered by Hoffmeier who having
studied the diplomatic marriages and contracts between rulers of ancient
Near East and Egypt, proposes that the patriarchs presenting their wives as
sisters and giving them away to local rulers is to be seen as an attempt at a
diplomatic contract. According to him, since the patriarchs were sojourners
without rights (ger) in Canaan and Egypt and at the mercy of the local rulers,
they were fearful of the threats to life and property. Hence, they sought to
establish mutually beneficial treaties. Thus, he connects the wife-sister
accounts in Gerar to the covenants that followed between Abimelech and the
patriarchs, first Abraham and then Isaac (21,22-34; 26,26-33)35.
The pastoralists (i.e., Abraham and Isaac) would obtain water and grazing
rights, while the agriculturalist (i.e., Abimelech) would have his fields fertilized
by the herds, and exchanging goods and services of the respective economies
benefited both parties36.
He contends that since Abraham and Isaac did not have daughters and that
giving a concubine would not suffice for the status of one’s daughter, and
because adultery was considered a sin even by the pagans, the only option
31
Cf. E.A. SPEISER, Genesis, xli.
32
Cf. S. GREENGUS, «Sisterhood Adoption at Nuzi», 15.
33 Cf. S. GREENGUS, «Sisterhood Adoption at Nuzi», 18.
34 R.D. FREEDMAN, «A New Approach to the Nuzi Sistership Contract», 84.
35 Cf. J.K. HOFFMEIER, «The Wives’ Tales», 92; Also cf. R.F. B RIN, «Abraham as
Diplomat», 33-34.
36 J.K. HOFFMEIER, «The Wives’ Tales», 92; Also cf. V.H. MATTHEWS, «Pastoralists
and Patriarchs», BA 44/4 (1981) 215-218.

was to present their wives as sisters37. This theory is problematic, since, first
of all there is no evidence of textual or thematic connection between the wife-
sister accounts and the covenants of Beersheba, except that the location and
characters are the same. Secondly, the covenants were made after the wives
were already returned to the patriarchs and hence, if giving a woman to the
ruler in marriage was part of the covenant, surely, the patriarchs did not fulfil
their obligation. Thirdly, in both the covenants it was the ruler who initiated
the covenants, so the proposition that the patriarchs were distressed does not
stand. Finally, such a covenant is missing with the Pharaoh who on the other
hand drove the patriarch out of the land.
The drawbacks of the above-mentioned proposals thus make us look
forward to a better answer or answers to the questions posed by the accounts.
1.4. Synchronic approaches

The development of the synchronic methods in the recent decades has led
to the accounts being approached from a synchronic perspective.
Accordingly, the main concerns have shifted from the original account or
their sources to an investigation into how the accounts relate among
themselves and among their immediate as well as wider contexts. In other
words, as Kang says, these stories must be viewed as “parts of a whole” 38.
Accordingly, many scholars have put forward various propositions which we
shall briefly examine.
There are a number of others who having used the synchronic method have
arrived at different conclusions. R. Polzin focusing on the before and after
transformations brought about by the story, concludes that the stories centred
around the theme of “wealth, progeny and divine blessings”39. P.T. Reis
views them as a polemic against Israel’s enemies, namely the Egyptians and
Philistines. He contends that the stories explain why God never condemned
those nations to oblivion as the other nations, despite centuries of conflict.
God favoured them since the forefathers had wronged them, making the
theological point that the love of God is a surpassing virtue40. A few other
scholars too have contributed more or less in this regard41.
37 Cf. J.K. HOFFMEIER, «The Wives’ Tales», 92.

39 R., POLZIN «“The Ancestress of Israel in Danger” in Danger», 88.
40
Cf. P.T. REIS, «Take My Wife, Please», 315.
41
For the similar contributions of authors, cf. H. KANG, Reading the Wife/Sister
Narratives, 15.
A more differentiated approach would be that of R. de Hoop and W.

Oswald who have applied a diachronic approach standing on the foundation
of the synchronic perspective. That is, accepting that the accounts are
corelated and that a single author/redactor has put them together for his
theological intention, they sought to trace the historical background of that
redactor. Accordingly, de Hoop traces the redactor to Davidic times, noticing
the connection between the stories and the adultery of David with the murder
of Uriah, David’s marriage to half-sister Abigail42, Amnon’s affair with
Tamar, etc43. Though his arguments are not very convincing, his idea that
Israel’s pre-history in Genesis was a political and historical allegory44 could
stand the test of future studies. Oswald notices the motif of ger in the
repetitions and traces the accounts to the time of Ezra when peaceful
coexistence was advocated in the contest of the conflict that arose between
those who were already in the land and those who were returning from the
exile45.
But amidst all these responses, there are responses that follow from the
narrative analysis method which is one of the most prominent methods of
biblical interpretation in recent times. Since we have adopted this method in
our study, we will devote the next section entirely to it, following which we
shall synthesis what we have studied in the previous chapters using this
method.
2. A narrative analytical response

The narrative analysis method seeks to view the biblical texts, particularly
narratives from the point of view of literature, since a close study of the texts
have revealed that the biblical author has an art of telling stories and has
employed several literary devices to state his message. In the last two
chapters we had studied the use of various devices like plot, scenes, time,
characterisation, narration, discourses, dialogues, gaps and blanks, telling
and showing, etc. that the biblical author has employed in the wife-sister
episodes in the life of Abraham. Through such a study, we have excavated a
gold mine of theological ideas hidden in the individual texts as well as with
relation to their immediate context. Here we synthesise our findings through
a comparative study of the texts.
Clearly Abigail David’s wife (cf. 1 Sam 25) and Abigail, David’s sister (cf. 2 Sam
42
17.25 1 Chr 2,13-16) are two different people.

43
R. de HOOP, «The Use of the Past to Address the Present», 367.
44
R. de HOOP, «The Use of the Past to Address the Present», 369.
45 W. OSWALD, «Die Erzeltern als Schutzbürger», 88.
2.1. A comparison of the texts

Since we had concentrated only on the first two wife-sister accounts which
occur in the cycle of Abraham, we are mainly comparing only them.
However, at times when we would have to refer to the third one too, we shall
do so in the footnote. A comparison of the texts would reveal to us the
following similarities46:
1. The setting is always a foreign land. There is a journey in which the patriarch
and the matriarch shift from their present location to the foreign land where
the plot unfolds (12,10; 20,1)47.
2. The theme of the “ger” i.e., the patriarch’s status as a vulnerable alien and
sojourner without rights is found in both A and B (12,10; 20,1) 48.
3. The patriarch presents the matriarch, his wife as his sister and the ruler of the
land takes her to his harem (12,12-13; 20,2)49. The threat to the life to the
patriarch is given as the motive (12,12; 20,11).
4. God intervenes dramatically and decisively to punish to the monarch and his
household and to save the matriarch (12,17; 20,3-7), following which the
monarch realises that Sarah is the wife of Abraham and not his sister. In both
the narrative, God makes it clear that it is “because of” Sarah that the
monarch is punished (12,17: ‫ ;עַל־דְ בַ רְשָ ַרי‬20,3: ‫)־הָ ִאשָ העַל‬.
5. The shocked monarch now calls the patriarch and confronts him for his
deception and accuses him of bringing punishment upon him (12,18-19; 20,9-
10).
6. The matriarch is restored to the patriarch (12,19; 20,14).
7. The monarch endows the patriarch with a bounty of gifts (12,16; 20,14-16).
8. Resolution of the conflicts and return to status quo (12,20; 20,17-18).
9. Common vocabulary: ְ‫( ֲאח ִֹתיְהִ וא‬12,19; 20,5), ‫ָשיתָ ְלִ י‬
ָ֣ ִ ‫( מַ ה־ז ֹאתְע‬12,18; 20,9)50,
ְ‫(גור‬12,10; 20,1)51.
From the similarities that we have noted, we understand that the narratives
follow a specific outline of plot implying that we have a “repetition” of
46 For the similarities and dissimilarities in all the three texts together, cf. H.S. PAPPAS,
«Deception as Patriarchal Self-Defense», 48; Cf. D. GORDIS, «Lies, Wives and Sisters», 347.
47
If C is also taken into account, the motif of famine would be a common factor
between A and C (cf. 26,1).
48 The verb “‫ ”גור‬is also found in C (26,3).
49 The element is also found in C (26,7). In A and C, the beauty of the matriarch draws
the attention of the local men.

50 M. Kesley has made an interesting study on the occasions in the bible where this
question has been repeated. Two occasions are M. KELSEY, «Jacob and the Wife-Sister
Stories», 226-230.
51 Cf. H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 223; In C, they are found in 26,7; 26,10; 26,3 respectively.
accounts. However, we also notice considerable deviations or innovations

from the common outline. As R. Alter says, “what is really interesting is not
the schema of convention but what is done in each individual application of
the schema to give it a sudden tilt of innovation or even to refashion it
radically for the imaginative purposes at hand” 52. Further comparing our
texts, we find the following basic differences between them:
1. In A, the motive for the patriarch’s transfer to the foreign land is given as
famine (12,10), rather in B the motive is not mentioned (20,1) 53.
2. Abraham is seen explaining the threat to his life and the wife-sister motif is
presented as a proposal to Sarah in A (12,11-13). But in B, the narrator
hurries to introduce the motif54 without giving speech to Abraham (20,2)55.
3. A makes elaborate and repeated references to the beauty of Sarah
(12,11.14.15) whereas B is silent on it56.
4. Regarding adultery between the monarch and the matriarch, A presents it as
“actual adultery” whereas in B, it is only “apparent adultery”57. The gifts given
in A was in exchange for Sarah, made to look as a bridal price (12,16) whereas,
in B, they are given as a compensation (20,14-16). Also, the gifts are varied58.
5. The plagues are introduced differently. In A, it is a short narration (12,17),
whereas, in B, there is an elaborate conversation between God and the
monarch (20,3-7). In A, the nature of the plague is not mentioned, whereas
B states it as sexual impotency (20,17-18).
6. In A, there is no reply by the patriarch to the accusations of the monarch
(12,18-19) whereas in B, the patriarch states his response, albeit
unconvincing (20,11-13).
7. In A, the patriarch is escorted out of the country (12,20) whereas, in B, he is
invited to settle in the land (20,15).
8. In B, the patriarch is to intercede and pray for the healing of the monarch and
his household from the plague (20,7.17), a detail missing in A.
What we derive from the above seen dissimilarities is that though they
agree on the basic outline of the plot and certain major elements, the
52R. ALTER, The Art of biblical Narrative, 52.

53
In C, again the motive is mentioned as famine (26,1).
54
The speed of the narration could be attributed to the presumption that the reader is
already familiar with A.
55 In C, the patriarch is seen to introduce his wife as sister as a response to the queries
of the local men (26,7).

56 The motif of the beauty of the matriarch returns in C (26,7).
57 R. POLZIN «“The Ancestress of Israel in Danger” in Danger», 87. In C, we have
“potential adultery”.
58
Our patriarch of narrative C also acquires immense wealth after the incident, but it
is not given by the monarch, rather it was because “the YHWH blessed him” (26,12-14).
differences are in the details. In other words, we have before us what could
be called a “type scene”. The similarities bind the episodes into a relationship
among themselves while the dissimilarities distinguish their uniqueness.
Hence, any attempt to answer the questions posed by the repetition of the
texts or of their very purpose within in the entire Abrahamic cycle, should
seek to consider the dynamics between the similarities and differences, since
the “dialectic between the constant and non-constant aspects of the plot is
what gives the post-biblical versions their strength and distinctiveness”59.
2.2. The concept of type-scenes

Perhaps one of the most revolutionary ideas to interpret the repetition of
accounts in the Bible is the idea of “type-scene” put forward by R. Alter in
his study “Biblical Type-Scenes and the Uses of Convention”60. Type-scenes
contain a given set of repeated elements or details, not all of which are always
present not always in the same order, but enough of which are present to
make the scene a recognizable one61. He borrows the concept from W.
Arend’s study Die typischen Scenen bei Homer, who proposed that there are
certain predetermined situations and actions that the audience of the epic
expected the poet to include in his narrative. Applying it to the biblical text,
Alter proposes that even the biblical author at times was constrained by the
expectations of the audience. In literature or in modern cinema, we see that
there are always set expectations and conventions and the writer of the plot
can only express his creativity within that framework. For example, when
we talk of a James Bond movie, the audience know already what to expect.
The main characters and the plot outline would most often be the same with
variations seen only in the setting and details of the plot. Speaking of type
scenes, a university scene where one always expects bullying or romance, a
family dinner scene where conflicts between family members pour over
conversations, etc. could be some recognizable examples of type scenes in
modern cinemas. One cannot say that one film has copied it from a previous
film, rather, all the scenes are inspired from certain conventions and
59 V. TOHAR, «Abraham and Sarah in Egypt», 4.

60 Alter first published this study as an article in a journal called “Critical Inquiry” in
1978 [cf. R. ALTER, «Biblical Type-Scenes and the Uses of Convention», Crit Inq 5/2
(1978) 355-368] and later published it in his book The Art of Biblical Narrative in 1981
which we refer to in this work. This would also explain how J.G. William’s article based
on Alter’s study predates Alter’s book that we quote here.
61
Definition of type-scene by A.B. Lord, quoted by Ska in J.L. SKA, Our Fathers Have
Told Us, 36.
expectations in the minds of the audience and is presented in such a way as

to convey a specific idea about the characters, about the course of the plot
etc62. Alter brings in all these ideas and applies them to the biblical
narratives. Accordingly, he identifies a number of “type-scenes” beginning
from Genesis and continuing throughout the biblical literature. The
annunciation of the birth of the hero to his barren mother; the encounter with
the future betrothed at a well; the epiphany in the field; the initiatory trial;
danger in the desert and the discovery of a well or other source of sustenance;
the testament of a dying hero63 are some of the type-scenes identified by
Alter in the Bible.
2.3. The wife-sister episodes as type-scenes

Though Alter makes an allusion to the wife-sister episodes, he does not
go ahead with a study on it. In time, other scholars who have taken the study
of type-scenes ahead have contributed with their studies on the wife-sister
accounts as type-scenes. Thus, J.G. Williams would identify a set of
similarities which would make the episodes qualify as a type-scene.
1. Famine in Canaan.
2. Patriarch and family travel to foreign land.
3. Patriarch lies about his wife, presenting her as his sister.
4. The wife is taken for the royal harem.
5. Divine intervention.
6. King demands explanation.
7. Benefits conferred upon patriarch64.
He then lists a number of cases where the plot has deviated from the
conventions:
Convention 1. In Gen 20 famine in Canaan not mentioned as the reason for
the sojourn. The journey is commanded by YHWH in Gen 26.
Convention 3. The wife turns out actually to be the patriarch's half-sister in
Gen 20.
Convention 4. Wife not taken for the royal harem in Gen 26.
Convention 5. No divine intervention in Gen 2665.
62
Here, we are only modernizing what Alter has expressed through the example of the
Hollywood westerns in his book. Cf. R. ALTER, The Art of biblical Narrative, 48ff.
63
Cf. R. ALTER, The Art of biblical Narrative, 51.
64
J.G. WILLIAMS, «The Beautiful and the Barren», 108.
65 J.G. WILLIAMS, «The Beautiful and the Barren», 109.
Having done a similar exercise before in this chapter, we cannot but agree
with the above observations of Williams. How does he then account for the
differences in the pattern? And secondly, how does this dialectic between the
similarities and differences help us in answering the questions raised by the
plot? Already, Alter had said that the variations in the conventions are not
random and hence, the repetition of the accounts cannot be attributed to a
scrambling of transmissions or allusions of previous texts to former ones 66.
From his example of the type-scene of the betrothal by the well, Alter
observes how through the variations brought into the conventions, the type-
scene has been “handled with a flexibility that makes it a supple instrument
of characterization and foreshadowing”67. Speaking further, he says:
[…] these variations, as we have seen, are finely tuned to the special thematic
and structural requirements of each particular narrative and protagonist, and
thus they suggest an accepted common framework of narrative situation that the
writer could then modify for the fictional purposes at hand 68.
Speaking of the dialectics between the conventions and their variations,
Williams seeks to explain how conventions works and how the variations
contribute to the literary elements of the plot.
Conventions provide a stylized set of expectations that an audience can
anticipate. A complex of information is presented compactly “at a glance” or
“in a word” through the use of formal scenes, images and symbols. However,
when the convention becomes highly predictable it ceases to give information
that seems important and we cease to look or listen. There is therefore a
dialectical tension between conventions, which maintain continuity with the
past, and those elaborations and variations that present a new dramatic emphasis
or a new insight. It is important, then, to note not only formal patterns but also
reworkings of these patterns that contribute to new plays of words, personages,
images and symbols without complete departure from ancient forms 69.
However, Williams, despite going in the right direction with his analysis,
could not come up with an adequate response as to what message or
messages each account had to convey uniquely apart from one another. This
task would be taken up by D.H. Gordis who does a close reading of the
accounts from the type-scene perspective.
66 Cf. R. ALTER, The Art of biblical Narrative, «Chapter 3». This passage was added
by Alter to the end of Chapter 3 in the revised and updated ebook version.
67
R. ALTER, The Art of biblical Narrative, 56.
68
R. ALTER, The Art of biblical Narrative, «Chapter 3».
69 J.G. WILLIAMS, «The Beautiful and the Barren», 111.
Gordis concludes that in the account A, the narrator “seeks to display the
rather human, darker side of Abraham’s personality”70. Just as we had noted
in the discourse of Abraham in 12,11-13 and in his lack of words to defend
himself before the Pharaoh in 12,18-19, Gordis too notes that “almost each
element of the section is carefully designed to highlight his guile and the
absence of any legitimate explanation or defence for his actions”71. To add
to this, from our own study, we are convinced that the divine intervention in
favour of Sarah not only underlines the centrality of the matriarch in the
divine plan promised to Abraham, but also the figure of God as the one who
protects His chose people and His promise. The connection of the passage
with Gen 2–3 and the Exodus events, again underlines how human actions
without divine assistance leads to difficult situations and how divine
intervention is needed for salvation from such situations.
In B, on the other hand, Gordis notes that the main issue is a moral one
that parallels the story of the destruction of Sodom. He notes the parallel
between Abimelech’s words: “Lord, will you slaughter even an innocent
nation?” (20,3) and the similar question by Abraham in 18,23. He derives
that the notions of the complexity and subtlety of moral judgements, coupled
with issues of fairness in punishment and divine justice are at play in this
episode72. An added moral problem we have observed is the biblical notion
of holding the innocent collective responsible for the guilt of one while
pardoning the guilty collective for the righteousness of one. Complementing
the observations of Gordis from our study, we may say that the the narrator’s
depiction of the God of Israel as an omnipotent and omniscient God who is
also the author of life and death is above all a very powerful derivation from
this narrative. Here too, we see God intervening to save his people and His
promise. From the point of view of characterization, Abraham is presented
as a prophetic intercessor, a role through which he becomes a blessing to the
nations also a notable derivation. Compared to the previous episode,
Abraham is portrayed in a more positive light and through his detailed
discussion with Abimelech in 20,9-13 the narrator allows Abraham to justify
himself and clear himself of any suspicion in the mind of the reader.
However, the added problem of incest and the fact that Abraham, now with
Sarah as accomplice (20,5) has put the promise twice in jeopardy, this time
more seriously with the promise of the birth of a son (chapter 18), cannot be
wiped away. Sarah is offered a better “role” here than in the previous
70
D. GORDIS, «Lies, Wives and Sisters», 350.
71
D. GORDIS, «Lies, Wives and Sisters», 351.
episode. In 20,16, Abimelech addresses her and restores her dignity. In fact,
we see a progressive development of Sarah’s role as a protagonist from
chapter 18 onwards, having come far from her passivity of chapter 12.
Regarding the third and final narrative, already Alter had observed
through the betrothal type-scene, that Isaac has been portrayed as a weak
character73. According to Gordis, the account C also further seeks to portray
his weakness and passivity, consistently overshadowed by the towering
personalities of his father and his brother74.
Our analysis so far has helped us understand that the biblical author has
employed the wife-sister motif in each case to characterize our main
protagonists, convey his theological ideas, discuss moral issues etc. But, is
there a common theological thread that connects all the wife-sister accounts?
Kang, who is the most recent of authors who have approached the text
through the textlinguistic and literary type-scene analysis, concludes his
works by asserting that the three episodes are “not the products of different
authors or sources but should be recognized as well-organized stories
reflecting a single author’s literary and theological intention”75. Accordingly,
having looked for a single unifying theme that runs across the accounts,
Kang concludes:
The crisis in each of the three wife-sister stories is primarily a crisis of promises.
The three stories thus emphasize that God will protect His promises to the
patriarchs, in spite of their weaknesses. As we see throughout the three wife-
sister stories, the patriarch’s weakness and unfaithfulness repeatedly place the
promises in jeopardy, but God faithfully keeps His promises to the patriarchs.
This is why the patriarch’s characterization becomes progressively more
negative, while YHWH’s intervention becomes increasingly explicit76.
Kang seems to be right in pointing out that the threat to the promise from
various sources and God’s consistent intervention to sustain and safeguard it
is a major thread that binds the episodes. But a major problem with Kang is
that he negates the individuality of each episode, for example, he denies the
connection of A with the Exodus77. In other words, he denies the plurality of
ideas conveyed by each account. But our study as well as biblical scholarship
of the past centuries have revealed that the biblical text is so rich that it does
not fit into our limited framework. Hence, we can safely propose that even
73 Cf. R. ALTER, The Art of biblical Narrative, 53.

75
H. KANG, Reading the Wife/Sister Narratives, 170.
76
77 Cf. H. KANG, Reading the Wife/Sister Narratives, 16 (footnote 63), 73.
when there is one underlying theological thread connecting the accounts,

each account could transcend it to put forth a plurality of ideas. Time and
again, the power of the biblical text exudes any final answers and
conclusions. Hence, the only way ahead is to keep digging and keep finding.
3. Conclusion
We began the chapter by analysing the responses of scholars down the
centuries to the wife-sister accounts. We were able to observe that each
response depended on the question the scholar/s asked the text. At the end of
evaluating the responses, we have understood that behind every question lies
a set of assumptions. Often the success and failure of the approaches depend
on whether the assumptions have been right or wrong. The Historical Critical
method, despite its brilliant propositions fell short due to the assumption that
the biblical text might be a collection of ancient legends from neighbouring
folklores. Others assumed that the text is naïve and static and that one answer
could solve the problems once and for all. Our assumption, in tune with the
narrative analytic scholarship of our times, is that the biblical author is a
genius in terms of literature, theology and spirituality. He is adept at
employing literary tools skilfully to make emerge characters, plots, images,
motifs and types that would frame and give flesh to his theological and
spiritual ideas. With this assumption, our question has always been: What do
we learn from the wife-sister episodes? Having approached the texts with
this question from the beginning, is clear that so far we have learnt a good
deal.
From our analyses of the approaches so far, the synchronic approach,
especially the narrative analytical method which presents the episodes as
“type-scenes” would be the best possible way to understand and interpret the
episodes and make emerge its lessons for the readers. Already, through the
betrothal type-scene which Alter so well demonstrated, scholars have
interpreted the Samaritan woman scene in John 4 as an image of Christ the
spouse courting his bride the Church. This is a very good example of how
the type-scene analysis aids in theologisation. It is this very approach that we
have followed in this work through which we could discover the lessons that
emerged from the texts.
CONCLUSION
We had begun our journey by stating that the duty of a biblical

commentator affronting these passages are two-fold: to decipher what the
biblical author wishes to convey by the narration of such accounts with erotic
content that is morally problematic and secondly, to account for the repeated
presence of the same motif, albeit with similar or dissimilar characters and
locations. We sought to answer them through a close reading of the two
biblical accounts of 12,10-20 and 20,1-18 through the lens of the narrative
analytical method. We shall now summarize all the lessons that we can take
away from these episodes.
First of all, regarding the text and its author, we may say that, after a
century of speaking of multiple sources and different authors, we can safely
posit one biblical author338 over many, who could perhaps be a redactor
collecting from different sources. But it was the genius of this final redactor
who wove the different strands into one coherent literary masterpiece that
withstands the scrutiny of time. Hence from a narrative analytical
perspective, this redactor can be called the “author” of the book of Genesis.
The text itself is not a collection of legends put together by sloppy editing,
rather it is a tapestry of theological ideas woven together by the above-
mentioned author with the threads of literary skills and artful storytelling.
Thus, what we have discovered is that these accounts are not independent
strands, but they are theologically connected among themselves as well as
with other accounts of Bible. Modern biblical scholarship has now begun to
take these facts into account. In a lighter vein, Ronning would remark that
through the wife-sister accounts, the biblical author “has played a highly
successful joke on readers and scholars down through the centuries”339.
338
339 J.L. RONNING, «The Naming of Isaac», 27.
With regard to the theological ideas that have emanated from the accounts,
the first is that of an omnipotent and omniscient God, the author of life and
death, who intervenes in human history if only to time and again protect His
promise and the people to whom this promise is given. The threats to this
promise could be from without, but often, it is from within, i.e., from the part
of the bearers of the promise themselves. Here Abraham is guilty of
endangering the promise, not once, but twice. However, neither God nor the
narrator passes any judgement on him or accuses him. It seems from the
narration of the accounts that despite the bearers being beneficiaries of the
promise, God is the one who unproportionately bears the burden of its
safeguarding.
Secondly, we have a picture of Abraham who despite having received the
promise and the blessing, often floundered in his paths. If in the first account,
Abraham was seen as greedy and selfish, in the second, he has only learnt
to defend his lies and nothing more. The events and God-experiences that
shaped him between the first and second accounts do not prevent him from
making the mistake a second time. But God, overlooking this, declares him
as “prophet” and “intercessor”. Through his successful intercession, he has
proved himself to be a man of God.
Sarah is figure who is passive in the first account. She who was defined
first by her barrenness, then by her beauty in our first account, comes across
as the bearer of the promise in the second. With every passing episode of the
Abraham cycle, she seems to be rising from her passivity and taking control,
all under the shadow of God who intervened twice on account of her. This
divine assistance in her journey assures us that Sarah is indeed as central to
the promise as Abraham is.
Finally, we see the picture of Israel projected into the accounts. The
relationship of Israel with its pagan neighbours in a later period of time is
reflected in the relationship of Abraham with Pharaoh and Abimelech. The
fears and anxieties of Israel is reflected in the fears and anxieties of Abraham.
Often real experience might have proven the fears untrue as in the accounts
and the pagan neighbours could be morally upright people. However, their
salvation would be dependent on the God of Israel, who has power over their
lives and deaths too. The God of Israel, on the other hand would effect healing
and salvation to them only through the intercession of the holy men of Israel.
Of course, the lessons do not end here. We have been able to draw out
only what the limited scope of this work has allowed us. If the biblical text
is a well, every scholar, every reader who approaches it with the right tools
could barely leave the well without having drawn enough.
ABBREVIATION
AncB Anchor Bible

Anton Antonianum
AT Antico Testamento
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch
BA The Biblical Archaeologist
BHQ Biblia Hebraica Quinta
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
BN Biblische Notizen
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CJud Conservative Judaism
Crit Inq Critical Inquiry
Diss. Dissertation
E Elohist author/redactor
esp. especially
GHAT Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
GOTR Greek Orthodox Theological Review
HThR Harvard Theological Review
HTS HTS Teologiese Studies
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
ITC International Theological Commentary
J Yahwist author/redactor
Ja-Ling Janua Linguarum. Series Practica
JANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia
JBQ Jewish Biblical Quarterly
Jdm Judaism (A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought)
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JPSTC JPS Torah Commentary
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOT.S Journal for the Study of the Old Testament – Supplement
Litt. literally
LXX The Septuagint

MT Masoretic Text
NICOT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
NT New Testament/Nuovo Testamento
NVB Nuova versione della Bibbia dai testi originali
OT Old Testament
P Priestly author/redactor
RasIsr La Rassegna Mensile di Israel
RExp Review & Expositor
RJE The Redactor JE
RTL Revue théologique de Louvain
S Syriac Peshitta
SEA Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok
Smr Samaritan Pentateuch
SPhiloA The Studia Philonica Annual
StTDJ Studies on the Texts of the Deserts of Judah
SubBi subsidia biblica
T Targum (a reading attested by all extant Pentateuchal Targumim)
TDOT G.J. BOTTERWECK – et.al., ed., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten
Testament, I-IX, 1973-2000; English trans., Theological Dictionary
of the Old Testament, I-XV, Grand Rapids 1977-2006.
TJ Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Pentateuch
TN Targum Neofiti to the Pentateuch
TO Targum Onqelos to the Pentateuch
TOC The Open Court
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
V Vulgate
VT Vetus Testamentum
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WIJ Women in Judaism
WThJ Westminster Theological Journal
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADELABU, F., Say It Again, “You Are My Sister”. A Rhetorical-Functional

Narrative Analysis of Gen 12,10-20; 20; 26,1-11, Excerpta Diss., Rome
2019.
ALEXANDER, T.D., «Are the Wife-Sister Incidents of Genesis Literary
Compositional Variants?», VT 42 (1992) 145-153.
ALTER, R., The Art of biblical Narrative, London – Sydney 1981; Revised and
Updated (ebook), New York 2011.
ANDERSEN, F.I., The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, Ja-Ling 231, The Hague – Paris
– New York 1974.
BAR-EFRAT, S., Narrative Art in the Bible, Sheffield 19973.
BECKING, B., «Abram in Exile», in A.C. HAGEDORN,– H. PFEIFFER, ed., Die
Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition, Fs. M. Köckert, Berlin 2009, 35-
47.
BERG, W., «Nochmals: Ein Sündenfall Abrahams – der erste – in Gen 12,10-
20», BN 21 (1983) 7-15.
BERGES, U. – DAHMEN U., «‫»תָ עָה‬, TDOT, XV, 732-737.
BOVATI, P., Re-Establishing Justice. Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the
Hebrew Bible, JSOT.S 105, Sheffield 1994.
BRIN, R.F. «Abraham as Diplomat: Reconsidering the Wife-Sister Motif»,
Reconstructionist 50 (1984) 33-34.
de HOOP, R., «The Use of the Past to Address the Present. The Wife-Sister-
Incidents (Gen 12,10-20; 20,1-18; 26,1-16)», in A. WÉNIN, ed., Studies
in the book of Genesis. Literature, Redaction and History, Leuven
2001, 359-369.
De MOOR, J. – MULDER, M.J., «‫»בָ עַל‬, TDOT, II, 181-200.
ELLIGER K. – RUDOLPH W., ed., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart 1967-
1977, 19975.
FIRESTONE, R., «Difficulties in Keeping a Beautiful Wife: The Legend of Abraham

and Sarah in Jewish and Islamic Tradition», JJS 42 (1991) 196-214.
FREEDMAN, R.D., «A New Approach to the Nuzi Sistership Contract», JANESCU
2 (1970) 77-85.
FREEMAN, G.M., «Wives and Sisters: A Contemporary Exegesis», CJud 44 (1992)
50-55.
FROLOV, S., «Sarah, Rebekah, and the Unchangeable Ruble: Unrecognized
Folkloric Background of the ‘Wife-Sister’ Stories in Genesis», BN 150
(2011) 3-7.
GANE R.E.– J. MILGROM, «‫»קָ ַרב‬, TDOT, XIII, 135-148.
GELJON, A.C., «Abraham in Egypt: Philo’s Interpretation of Gen 12,10-
20», SPhiloA 28 (2016) 297-319.
GIUNTOLI, F., Genesi 12–50. Introduzione, traduzione, commento, NVB 2,
Cinisello Balsamo 2013.
GORDIS, D., «Lies, Wives and Sisters: The Wife-Sister Motif Revisiting», Jdm 34
(1985) 344-359.
GREENGUS, S., «Sisterhood Adoption at Nuzi and the “Wife-Sister” in Genesis»,
HUCA 46 (1975) 5-31.
GUNKEL, H., «Legends of Genesis», TOC, 15/7 (1901) 385-398.
————, Genesis, GHAT, Göttingen 1910; English trans., Genesis, Georgia
1969.
HAMILTON, V.P., The Book of Genesis 1–17, NICOT, Grand Rapids 1990.
————, The Book of Genesis 18–50, NICOT, Grand Rapids 1995.
HOFFMEIER, J.K., «The Wives’ Tales of Genesis 12, 20 and 26 and the Covenants
at Beer-Sheba», TynBul 43 (1992) 81-99.
HOFFNER, H.A., «‫»בַ יִת‬, TDOT, II, 107-116.
HOSSFELD, F.-L., «‫»שָ לַח‬, TDOT, XV, 49-72.
JANZEN, J.G., Genesis 12-50. Abraham and All the Families of the Earth, ITC,
Edinburgh – Grand Rapids 1993.
JOÜON, P. – MURAOKA, T., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, SubBi 27, Roma 2006.
KANG, H., Reading the Wife/Sister Narratives in Genesis. A Textlinguistic and
Type-Scene Analysis, Eugene 2018.
KEISER, T.A., The Divine Plural. A Literary-Contextual Argument for Plurality in
the Godhead, JSOT 34 (2010) 131-146.
KELLERMANN, D., «‫»גּור‬, TDOT, II, 439-449.
KELSEY, M., «Jacob and the Wife-Sister Stories», JBQ 46 (2018) 226-230.
KOCH, K., Growth of Biblical Tradition. The Form Critical Method, London 1969.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 93
KOEHLER, L. – et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament,
Leiden 1994–2000.
KRONHOLM, T., «‫»עֵּת‬, TDOT, XI, 434-451.
MACHIELA, D.A., The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon. A New Text and Translation
with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13-17, F.G.
MARTÍNEZ – et all., ed., StTDJ 79, Leiden – Boston 2009.
MAGONET, J., «Abraham and God», Jdm 33 (1984) 160-170.
MALY, E.H., «Genesis 12,10-20; 20,1-18; 26,7-11 and the Pentateuchal Question»,
in CBQ 18 (1956) 255-262.
MATTHEWS, V.H., «Pastoralists and Patriarchs», BA 44/4 (1981) 215-218.
MAYER, G. – FABRY, H.-J., «‫»יכח‬, TDOT, VI, 64-71.
Midrash Rabbah. Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices.
Genesis. I-II, ed. tr. H. Freedman, London 1983.
NIEHOFF, M.R., «Mother and Maiden, Sister and Spouse: Sarah in Philonic
Midrash», HThR 97 (2004) 413- 444.
NOBILE, M., «Il Ciclo di Abramo (Gen 12-25). Un Esercizio di lettura
Semiotica», Anton. 60 (1985) 3-41.
OSWALD, W., «Die Erzeltern als Schutzbürger: Überlegungen zum Thema von
Gen 12,10-20 mit Ausblick auf Gen 20.21,22-34 und Gen 26», in BN
106 (2001) 79-89.
PAPPAS, H.S., «Deception as Patriarchal Self-Defense in a Foreign Land: A Form
Critical Study of the Wife-Sister Stories in Genesis», GOTR 29 (1984) 35-
50.
POLZIN R., «“The Ancestress of Israel in Danger” in Danger», Semeia 3 (1975)
81-98.
RAHLFS, A. – HANHART, R. ed., Septuaginta, Stuttgart 2006.
RASHI DE TROYES, Commento alla Genesi, tr., L. Cattani, Casale Monferrato 1985.
REAVES, J., «Sarah as Victim and Perpetrator: Whiteness, Power, and Memory in
the Matriarchal Narrative», RExp 115 (2018) 483-499.
REIS, P.T., «Take My Wife, Please: On the Utility of the Wife/Sister Motif», Jdm
41 (1992) 306–315.
ROBINSON, R.B., «Wife and Sister through the Ages: Textual Determinacy and the
History of Interpretation», Semeia 62 (1993) 103-128.
RÖMER, T., «The Exodus in the Book of Genesis», SEA 75 (2010) 1-20.
RONNING, J.L., «The Naming of Isaac: The Role of the Wife/Sister Episodes in the
Redaction of Genesis», WThJ 53 (1991) 1-27.
SALANGA, V.R., Three Stories of the Endangered wife. Gen 12,10-20; 20,1-18; 26,1-
11. A Narrative and Stylistic Analysis, Excerpta Diss., Manila 1993.
SARFATTI, G., «Un Libro apocrifo sulla Genesi», RasIsr 23 (1957) 99-115.
SARNA, N.M., Genesis, JPSTC, Philadelphia – New York – Jerusalem 1989.
SCHWEINHORST, L., «‫» ָנגַע‬, TDOT, IX, 203-209.
SEEBAS, H., «‫»לָקָ ח‬, TDOT, VIII, 16-21.
SKA, J.L., La parola di Dio nei racconti degli uomini, Assisi 2000.
————, Our Fathers Have Told Us. Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew
Narratives, SubBi 13, Rome 2000.
SKINNER, J., A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis, ICC, New York
1910, 247-251.
SONNET, J.-P., «L’analyse narrative des récits bibliques», in M. BAUKS – C.
NIHAN, ed., Manuel d’exégèse de l’AT, Genève 2008, 47-94; Italian
trans. Manuale d’esegesi dell’Antico Testamento, Bologna 2010, 45-85.
SPEISER, E.A., Genesis, AncB, New York 1964.
————, «The Wife-Sister Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives», in J.
FINKELSTEIN – M. GREENBERG, ed., Oriental and Biblical Studies.
Collected Writings of E. A. Speiser, Philadelphia 1967, 62-82.
STRINE, C.A., «Sister Save Us: The Matriarchs as Breadwinners and their Threat to
Patriarchy in the Ancestral Narrative», in M.A. HALVORSON-TAYLOR –
K.E. SOUTHWOOD, ed., Women and Exilic Identity in the Hebrew
Bible, London–Oxford–New York–New Delhi–Sydney 2018, 53-66.
TAL, A. – et al., Biblia Hebraica Quinta. 1. Genesis, Stuttgart 2015.
The Peshitta, Leiden 2008.
TOHAR, V., «Abraham and Sarah in Egypt (Genesis 12,10-20): Sexual
Transgressions as Apologetic Interpretations in Post-Biblical Jewish
Sources», WIJ 10 (2013),
<https://wjudaism.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/wjudaism/article/view
/20896>.
TUSHIMA, C., «Exchange of Wife for Social and Food Security: A Famine
Refugee’s Strategy for Survival (Gn 12,10–13,2)», HTS 74 (2018),
<https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/4769/11043>.
VAN SETERS, J., Abraham in History and Tradition, New Haven – London 1975.
VON RAD, G., Das erste Buch des Mose. Genesis, ATD 2-4, Göttingen 19729;
English trans., Genesis. A Commentary, London 1972.
WENHAM, G.J., Genesis 1-15, WBC 1, Waco 1987.
————, Genesis 16–50, WBC 2, Dallas 1994.
WENIN, A., «De l’analyse narrative à la théologie des récits bibliques», RTL, 39
(2008) 369-393.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 95
————, Abramo e l'educazione divina. Lettura narrativa e antropologica della

Genesi, II, Gen 11,27-25,18, Bologna 2017.
WILLIAMS, J.G., «The Beautiful and the Barren: Conventions in Biblical Type-
Scenes», JSOT 17 (1980) 107-119.
YUDKOWSKY, R., «Chaos or Chiasm: The Structure of Abraham’s Life», JBQ 35/2
(2007) 109-114.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER I: Abram and Sarai in Egypt (Gen 12,10-20) .................................... 5
1. Delimitation of the pericope .......................................................................... 5
1.1. The beginning of the pericope ............................................................... 6
1.2. The conclusion of the pericope .............................................................. 6
1.3. The unity of 12,10-20 ............................................................................. 7
1.4. The pericope’s relation to the rest of the Abraham cycle ...................... 8
2. Significant textual notes ................................................................................ 9
3. A close reading of 12,10-20 ........................................................................ 11
3.1. Exposition: The famine and the consequent journey (v.10) ................ 13
3.2. Inciting Moment: Say you are my sister! (vv.11-13) ........................... 17
3.3. Complication: Sarai in Pharaoh’s household (vv.14-16) ..................... 21
3.4. Climax: YHWH strikes Pharaoh for Sarai (v.17) .................................. 25
3.5. Resolution: Abram before the Pharaoh (vv.18-19) .............................. 27
3.6. Conclusion: Abram driven out of Egypt (v.20) ................................... 29
4. The theological message of the pericope .................................................... 31
4.1. Centrality of Sarai ................................................................................ 31
4.2. A God who saves His people ............................................................... 32
4.3. Discernment of the will of God ............................................................ 33
4.4. Connection with Gen 2–3 .................................................................... 34
4.5. Connection with Exodus ...................................................................... 34
4.6. Connection with the Babylonian Exile ................................................ 35
5. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER II: Abraham and Sarah in Gerar (20,1-18) ..................................... 39
1. Delimitation of the pericope ........................................................................ 39
1.1. The beginning of the pericope ............................................................. 40
1.2. The conclusion of the pericope ............................................................ 40
1.3. The unity of 20,1-18 ............................................................................. 40
1.4. The pericope’s relation to the rest of the Abraham cycle .................... 41
2. Significant Textual Notes ............................................................................ 42
3. A close reading of 20,1-18 .......................................................................... 45
3.1. Exposition: Abraham’s journey to Gerar (v.1) .................................... 46
3.2. Inciting Moment: Sarah is “taken” by Abimelech (v.2) ...................... 49
3.3. Complication: Discourse between God and Abimelech (vv.3-7) ........ 51
3.4. Turning point: The men were afraid (v.8) ............................................ 56
3.5. Falling action: Abimelech and Abraham (vv.9-13) ............................. 57
3.6. Resolution: Restoration of dignity and honour (vv.14-16) .................. 60
3.7. Conclusion: Abraham’s prayer restores Abimelech (vv.17-18) .......... 62
4. The theological message of the pericope .................................................... 64
4.1. God as omnipotent and omniscient who protects his people ............... 64
4.2. God as the author of life and death ...................................................... 64
4.3. Salvation for pagans through Israel? .................................................... 64
4.4. Sin, guilt, and punishment .................................................................... 65
4.5. Theology of intercession ...................................................................... 66
5. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 67
CHAPTER III: Towards a Narrative Analytical Response................................ 69
1. A survey of responses so far........................................................................ 69
1.1. Traditional Jewish Responses .............................................................. 69
1.2. Historical Critical responses ................................................................ 71
1.3. Socio-historical responses .................................................................... 75
1.4. Synchronic approaches ........................................................................ 77
2. A narrative analytical response ................................................................... 78
2.1. A comparison of the texts .................................................................... 79
2.2. The concept of type-scenes .................................................................. 81
2.3. The wife-sister episodes as type-scenes ............................................... 82
3. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 86
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 87
ABBREVIATION ................................................................................................ 89
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 91

JOHN, G.S., Abrahamic Wife-Sister Stories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

JOHN, G.S., Abrahamic Wife-Sister Stories

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOHN, G.S., Abrahamic Wife-Sister Stories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACOLTÀ DI TEOLOGIA

Dipartimento di Teologia Biblica

LESSONS FROM THE ABRAHAMIC

Studente: George Sejin John

Anno Accademico 2020 - 2021

GEORGE SEJIN JOHN

LESSONS FROM THE ABRAHAMIC

PROF. FABRIZIO FICCO

The Wife-Sister accounts of Gen 12,10-20; 20,1-18 and 26,1-16 have

Abram and Sarai in Egypt (Gen 12,10-20)

1. Delimitation of the pericope

1.1. The beginning of the pericope

The beginning of the pericope is clear and is generally agreed upon by

1.2. The conclusion of the pericope

1.3. The unity of 12,10-20

Egypt is a disruptive excursus19. He also points to the total absence of Lot

1.4. The pericope’s relation to the rest of the Abraham cycle

19 Cf. H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 168.

2. Significant textual notes

23 Cf. L. KOEHLER – et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 100.

the list. However, the reading of MT is to be maintained as the lectio

3. A close reading of 12,10-20

28 Cf. J. L. SKA, Our Fathers, 2.

“change of values” or “change of situation” 32. When there is change of

whereas showing is from a close focalization displaying, or rather narrating,

3.1. Exposition: The famine and the consequent journey (v.10)

J.-P. SONNET, «L’analisi narrativa», 56.

which mention regular emigration of people of Asian origin sojourning in

Abram’s sojourn in Egypt to be short and temporary, Wenham understands

46 D. KELLERMANN, «‫»גּור‬, 443.

3.2. Inciting Moment: Say you are my sister! (vv.11-13)

62 Cf. J.G. JANZEN, Abraham and all the Families, 24.

behaviour. The discussion of Sarai’s centrality to this episode is also relevant

3.3. Complication: Sarai in Pharaoh’s household (vv.14-16)

78 Cf. H. SEEBAS, «‫»לָקָ ח‬, 19.

79 Cf. G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 1-15, 289.

3.4. Climax: YHWH strikes Pharaoh for Sarai (v.17)

3.5. Resolution: Abram before the Pharaoh (vv.18-19)

99 Cf. G. VON RAD, Genesis. A Commentary, 168.

conversation and prayer. In most of the cases of its occurrence, it seeks to

103 Cf. KRONHOLM, T., «‫»עֵּת‬, 445.

would later be combated by the prophets. Israel’s understanding of its pagan

3.6. Conclusion: Abram driven out of Egypt (v.20)

109 J.-P. SONNET, «L’analisi narrativa», 57-58.

113 H. GUNKEL, Genesis, 171.

4. The theological message of the pericope

4.1. Centrality of Sarai

4.2. A God who saves His people

4.3. Discernment of the will of God

127 Cf. G. VON RAD, Genesis. A Commentary, 169.

4.4. Connection with Gen 2–3

4.5. Connection with Exodus

WÉNIN, Abramo e l'educazione divina, 31-34.

4.6. Connection with the Babylonian Exile

134 Cf. MIDRASH RABBAH, Genesis, 331.

138 B. BECKING, «Abram in Exile», 44-45.

Abraham and Sarah in Gerar (20,1-18)

According to the narrative of the Abraham cycle, years have passed by