Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>]

Hi, John,

you wrote:

<snip>
> 
> Other times we have omissions of information which, even given the
> general practice of brevity of detail, seem to call for some
> explanation.  E.g. Gen 12:10ff Abram goes down into Egypt, Pharaoh takes
> Sarai into his harem, etc.  We are not told: (1) whether Pharaoh's
> marriage was consummated with Sarai (2) how Pharaoh found out the reason
> he was being plagued.  In the similar story (Genesis 20) something else
> is left out which the reader would naturally want to know - why was
> Abraham afraid for his life here, since Sarah has just described herself
> as a wrinkled old lady (Gen 18:12 'axarey belothi hayethah li `ednah)?
> 
> Any thoughts (besides the "sloppy redactor" solution)?

the literary critics like Sternberg, Alter, Berlin, et al. work between the
pull of two schools, that of some traditions of faith in which every detail
of the Scriptures *must* be molded into one coherent history and the
geneticists(source critics) who may over-reach in the opposite direction,
sometimes failing to see the art and thematicism of the text as we have it.
 and so the literary critics have the unique position of coming to the text
with a sort of friendliness to it, a suspension of disbelief in the
writer's(or redactor's) craftsmanship or purposefulness; but they don't
find it necessary to fight with the source critics, either.  as such
literary critics walk the tightrope, they shun interpretations that are
unprincipled as they search for a biblical poetics.  these particular three
have a lot to say about the biblical narrator's use of paucity of detail
and purposeful gap-making.  

as to your specific question about Abraham's two trips south with Sarah,
let me throw in with your two narratives a third for good measure: Isaac's
sojourn with Rebecca in Gen 26.  Alter labels these three narratives the
'sister-wife type-scenes' which must all, to qualify as type-scenes,
contain certain elements which would be familiar to the audience.  all
three sister-wife narratives foreshadow Israel's sojourn in E, and the
providence of God in protecting them there.  the first in Gen 12 is short
on detail as you mention, perhaps as we should expect for an archetype
type-scene.  on the other hand, it is the only one of the three that is set
in E specifically, names the foreign king as Pharaoh, mentions plagues, and
echoes the phrase "you(the female) they will let live"(cp. Exo 1:22),
thereby qualifying it as the best foreshadow of Israel's sojourn in E. 
could Pharaoh have gotten to Sarai?  no way!  God wouldn't allow it.

> 
> A side note for your discussion with Randall "how does it taste" - I
> note that Randall said "there is a tendency in hebrew to use the
> suffix/definite tense for conditions that are "not true".  Answers a
> question I had - why hayethah in Gen 18:12 for contrary to fact (from
> Sarah's perspective) future?  But then the question is why is there this
> tendency?  I recall being taught that Moran showed from Canaanite
> glosses to the Amarna letters that there once was a suffix form which
> was optative.  Any relevance?

probably, although i'm not entirely familiar with Moran's work.  in BH the
qatal is used occasionally in reference to a future hypothetical which has
the irreal mood in common with an optative(volitional form).  a good
example is Jdg 8:19, lu haxayitem 'otam lo' haragti 'etkem  "if only you
were presevers of them alive, then I am not a killer of you."  the qatal
seems to be used in this type of hypothetical when the speaker is confident
he knows the situation is indeed counter-factual.  interestingly, another
example of a qatal in a future hypothetical is in one of our sister-wife
narratives:  Gen 26:10  kim:`at $akab 'axad ha`am 'et 'i$:teka  "like
nothing (and) one of the people is a sleeper with your wife."

shalom,
Bryan






B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208

315-437-6744(w)
315-479-8267(h)