Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Calvin Lindstrom:
 
You wrote:  “I have a simple question on Genesis 12:17.  The verb used at the 
beginning of the verse is ng' which can have a sexual usage (Gen. 20:6). Is 
it correct to see irony in this story at  this point?  Verse 15 speaks of 
Sarai 
being taken into Pharaoh's house. Verse 16 speaks of Avram being treated well 
for Sarai's sake.  
 And now in verse 17, where we might expect to read the Pharaoh touched 
(sexually) Sarai, we instead read that YHWH touched (plagued) Pharaoh and his 
house.
”
 
I agree with your analysis of the Hebrew verb, but I think you are 
misinterpreting this famous story.
 
1.  “Verse 15 speaks of Sarai being taken into Pharaoh's house.”
 
There is no statement that this was done against the will of Abraham or 
Sarah.  In fact, Abraham, Sarah and Pharaoh have all agreed to this.  One of 
the 
unpleasant tests that Abraham has to go through (such as the unpleasant 
binding 
incident) is to be willing to have his beloved wife be in another’s man’s 
household.  It is unclear whether anything happens in Pharaoh’s household to 
Sarah.  But even if nothing happened, whether at YHWH’s intervention or not, 
it 
still was a most unpleasant test of Abraham’s fortitude, to have to endure 
the 
whispers that would inevitably occur as to the fact that Abraham’s wife had 
been in another man’s household.  
 
Abraham and Sarah believe that this is an unpleasant, but necessary, test 
that they have to endure in order to obtain YHWH’s blessing of a son.  Even 
if 
Pharaoh never touched Sarah, it still was an unpleasant situation for Abraham 
and Sarah.  But Abraham and Sarah want this unpleasant situation to happen, 
because they think that this is the only way that YHWH’s blessing of 
fertility 
will be forthcoming.
 
The text does not present Pharaoh as grabbing Abraham’s wife/sister against 
Abraham’s and Sarah’s will.  No Pharaoh would ever grab a non-virgin woman 
like that, not because pharaohs were particularly righteous or honorable, but 
because that would have been viewed as being demeaning to a pharaoh, to be 
dealing with a non-virgin.  You see, Pharaoh sees himself as doing a great 
favor to 
Abraham and Sarah here.  The cover story, largely for Pharaoh’s benefit, is 
that Pharaoh supposedly is under the misimpression that Sarah is Abraham’s 
sister, not Abraham’s wife.
 
Maybe Pharaoh never planned to touch Sarah.  Or maybe Pharaoh planned to 
touch Sarah, but Pharaoh would not be surprised if a divine being prevented 
Pharaoh from touching Sarah. 
 
2.  “Verse 16 speaks of Avram being treated well for Sarai's sake.”
 
Yes, but Pharaoh gives Abraham nothing, and Pharaoh pays Abraham nothing.  
Pharaoh has agreed (i) to treat Abraham’s private caravan as if it were a 
caravan backed by a political ally of Egypt, (ii) to take Sarah into 
Pharaoh’s 
household for a short while (with it being unclear if Pharaoh was planning to 
try 
to touch Sarah or not), and (iii) to authorize Pharaoh’s regular buyers to 
pay 
top dollar to Abraham for the valuable merchandize that Abraham’s caravan had 
brought from Mesopotamia.
 
All of this is costing Pharaoh nothing, money-wise, because Pharaoh routinely 
paid top dollar to all state-sponsored caravans from Mesopotamia for their 
goods.  It does, however, ensure the great financial success of Abraham’s 
caravan trip.  But of far more importance to Abraham, it does not, at least 
not in 
the short run, result in Abraham having a son by Sarah. 
 
3.  “And now in verse 17, where we might expect to read the Pharaoh touched 
(sexually) Sarai, we instead read that YHWH touched (plagued) Pharaoh and his 
house.”
 
Yes, but as you yourself note, that Hebrew verb is ambiguous.  Being “touched”
 by YHWH could be terrible, but it could also be neutral or pleasant, 
depending on YHWH’s intent.  It’s ambiguous in Hebrew, even though this verb 
is 
usually used in a negative sense.  Note that at Genesis 28: 12, the top of 
Jacob’s 
Ladder “touches” heaven, which is a positive use of this same Hebrew verb.  
 
Note also that it does not seem that the country of Egypt suffers any real 
plague.  A plague is usually fairly slow in coming, whereas here the supposed 
“
plague” seems instantaneous, not like a real plague.  Rather, this all seems 
like a convenient excuse for Pharaoh to return Sarah to Abraham as originally 
planned, while everyone’s honor is more or less kept intact.
 
4.  This story is routinely misinterpreted to reflect terrible Hebrew hatred 
of Egypt.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Unlike the rest of the 
Bible, the author of the Patriarchal narratives is very pro-Egypt.  Chapter 
50 
of Genesis features the younger Pharaoh sending all of Egypt’s top officials 
all the long way to Canaan to attend the super-magnificent funeral of Jacob/“
Israel”.  The Hebrews’ hatred of Egypt came later.
 
5.  The point of this odd story is that Abraham and Sarah are righteously 
willing to undergo any unpleasant test that may be needed, in order to obtain 
the 
divine blessing from YHWH of fertility, so that Abraham can have a son by 
Sarah.  There is no anti-Egypt subtext here.  Pharaoh does Abraham and Sarah 
a 
minor favor, nothing more, nothing less.
 
The anti-Egypt view of the Book of Exodus and of Isaiah is completely absent 
from the Patriarchal narratives, which long pre-date those later books of the 
Bible.  Those later books of the Bible were, unlike the Patriarchal 
narratives, composed after Egypt historically failed to help the Hebrews when 
needed.  
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy 
Awards. Go to AOL Music.      
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)