Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12: 17?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12: 17?
  • Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:25:00 EDT


Yigal Levin:

You wrote: “Actually, Jim, you're ignoring the context.”

O.K., so then let’s try out your theory of the case, i-n c-o-n-t-e-x-t.

You wrote: “[T]he verse continues to state what God "touched" Pharaoh "and
his house" with - "nega'im gedolim". So you have to look at the noun "Nega'".
The most common usage of this word in the Bible by far specifically refers to
leprosy. In other cases it clearly refers to some disease. It does not
appear
elsewhere in Genesis,
but it Exodus 11:1 it also refers to something that God is about to bring
down on Pharaoh and on Egypt - we soon find out that it refers to the death
of the Egyptian firstborn. So in my analysis, a "nega'" is (usually) a
divinely-incurred disease, brought upon a specific person or persons in order
to
punish them or to warn
them (remember, this is how leprosy was viewed as well, which is why it was
"cured" by a priest and not by a doctor).”

On your theory of the case, Pharaoh has brought Sarah into his harem.
Pharaoh and his household then come down with leprosy. Whereupon this is
what
happens:

“And Pharaoh called Abram, and said: 'What is this that thou hast done unto
me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? Why saidst thou: She
is
my sister? so that I took her to be my wife; now therefore behold thy wife,
take her, and go thy way.'” Genesis 12: 18-19

On your theory of the case, why would Pharaoh associate the outbreak of
leprosy upon Pharaoh and his household as having anything to do with Sarah?
If
Pharaoh had honestly thought that Sarah was an unmarried woman when he
brought
Sarah into his harem (which I presume may be your theory of the case, since
many
scholars make that assumption), why then would Pharaoh think about Sarah when
this outbreak of leprosy occurred?

How did Pharaoh find out that Sarah was a married woman? On your view, did
YHWH say that to Pharaoh? If not, how could Pharaoh have guessed it? If
YHWH
said that to Pharaoh, then why does YHWH also cause an attack of leprosy to
infest Pharaoh and Pharaoh’s household? If Pharaoh had not known that Sarah
was
a married woman, then what was it that Pharaoh did wrong in bringing into his
harem a woman whom Pharaoh honestly thought was an unmarried woman?

But look again now at Genesis 12: 18-19 quoted above. Isn’t that, in point
of fact, actually official Egyptian government propaganda? Isn’t that
Pharaoh’
s public, self-serving claim that Pharaoh is innocent of the charge of
knowingly bringing a married woman into his harem?

I hope you may agree with me that the Hebrew author of the Patriarchal
narratives was sophisticated enough to set forth an accurate account of what
Pharaoh
s-a-i-d publicly, without expecting a Hebrew audience to assume that an
Egyptian Pharaoh is necessarily speaking the truth.

Since Sarah was a middle-aged woman who accompanied middle-aged Abraham into
Egypt, isn’t it much more realistic to think that Pharaoh knew darn well from
the get-go that Sarah was not a virgin, and was not an unmarried woman? What
is accurately set forth in the text at Genesis 12: 18-19 is not the
unvarnished truth, but rather is an accurate, unvarnished account of an
official
Egyptian government propaganda claim. Although Abraham, Sarah, YHWH and
Pharaoh know
better, Pharaoh is proclaiming to the Egyptian public that Pharaoh did not,
immorally, knowingly bring a married woman into his harem, because Pharaoh
has
supposedly only just now found out that Sarah is Abraham’s wife.

As I noted in my first post on this thread, it is likely that Abraham had
predicted to Pharaoh, based on divine advice Abraham had gotten from YHWH,
that
in due course Pharaoh would receive a divine indication as to the proper time
to return Sarah to Abraham. (If Abraham had no such divine advice and made
no
such prediction, and Abraham honestly believed that he was losing beloved
Sarah forever, then Abraham would thereby be portrayed as being cowardly and
immoral, which does not make sense for a portrait of great Hebrew Patriarch
Abraham
in Hebrew sacred scripture.) Pharaoh (and Pharaoh’s household) duly got that
NG(/“mysterious, harsh divine t-o-u-c-h, which had great meaning”, just as
Abraham had predicted. Pharaoh immediately complies with that divine
message.


The reference to "nega'im gedolim" literally means “with great touchings”.
That is needed at Genesis 12: 17, where Pharaoh’s entire household receives
this divine “touching”, whereas at Genesis 32: 25/26 it is only Jacob alone
who
receives the divine “touching”. That “touching” in chapter 12 of Genesis
has to impact Pharaoh’s entire household, in order to guarantee that this
will
be a public matter. One key divine test that Abraham and Sarah are
undergoing
here is being willing to put up with the malicious gossip that would have
swirled around Egypt as Abraham and Sarah returned to Canaan. That malicious
gossip was not accurate (Pharaoh never touched Sarah, and Abraham was neither
cowardly nor immoral), but that salacious gossip was very real, very
prominent,
very unpleasant, and very predictable.

On your view of the case, I fail to see how an outbreak of leprosy in Pharaoh’
s household (which also afflicted Pharaoh himself) would have caused Pharaoh
to think about Sarah, one way or the other. Pharaoh might rather have
thought
of any other number of vices, big or small, of Pharaoh’s own. Whereas on my
view of the case, Pharaoh is waiting for the divine communication regarding
Sarah that the monotheist Abraham has sagely predicted. Pharaoh’s harsh
words
to Abraham at Genesis 12: 18-19 are for public consumption only, being
official
Egyptian government propaganda, not the unvarnished truth, on my view of the
case. (If Abraham had really been cowardly and immoral in Egypt, and had
been
properly and righteously rebuked therefor by an Egyptian pharaoh, of all
people, then why on earth would beloved Hebrew Patriarch Abraham be portrayed
as
going to Gerar and doing the same cowardly, immoral thing a second time, in
chapter 20 of Genesis, right after Abraham has twice been told that YHWH
guarantees that Sarah will bear Abraham a male heir less than 12 months from
now? Is
that a sensible theory of the case? What Hebrew author would make up a
horrible storyline like that? Certainly that cannot be the correct
interpretation
of what the Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives is intending to
portray
in these memorable stories. Abraham is no coward, Abraham is not immoral,
Abraham does not fear for his life in tightly-governed Egypt (the safest
place
to be on the face of the planet at that time; as to totally lawless,
dangerous
Canaan, see the chilling Amarna Letters), Pharaoh does not lust after 65-“year
”-old Sarah, for heaven’s sake, and Abraham does nothing dishonorable
regarding Sarah. Rather, Genesis 12: 18-19 is public propaganda issued by
the
Egyptian government for the benefit of the Egyptian public, which Pharaoh
well
knows will be understood for the false official propaganda it is by Abraham,
Sarah
and YHWH.)

Interpreting the Patriarchal narratives in light of the Book of Exodus, as
you have done (along with most other scholars), is fraught with danger,
because
the authors of the much later Book of Exodus are anti-Egypt, whereas the
author of the Patriarchal narratives is pro-Egypt, as I noted in my first
post on
this thread. The mindset of the Patriarchal narratives is very different
from
the mindset of the Book of Exodus. In Exodus, both Pharaoh and Egypt are
evil, and richly deserve all the terrible plagues they get from YHWH. (That
fits
the JEPD mindset perfectly.) Whereas in the Patriarchal narratives, by sharp
contrast, the old Pharaoh’s actions make Abraham rich; Pharaoh allows
Abraham
to keep Sarah and all the great possessions that Abraham acquires in Egypt
(Abraham not having tricked Pharaoh at all); the young Pharaoh later places
Joseph in charge of all Egypt, even before the first feast year (much less a
famine year) has transpired; the young Pharaoh graciously welcomes all the
starving Hebrews to live off “the fat of the land” in Egypt indefinitely
(despite
the fact that Egypt notably faced 5 more terrible famine years, so that no
other immigrants would have been welcomed into Egypt at that time); Pharaoh
personally meets with old Hebrew Patriarch Jacob on a cordial basis; and in
the
last chapter of Genesis, the young Pharaoh authorizes the finest funeral
imaginable for great Hebrew monotheist Jacob/“Israel”, incredibly even
featuring all
of Pharaoh’s top officials going all the long way to Canaan for that
ultra-magnificent funeral for Israel. (That is antithetical to the JEPD
mindset!)
That is to say, in the Patriarchal narratives, so unlike the rest of the
Hebrew
Bible, these two Pharaohs give “special treatment”, of a very positive kind,
to their fellow monotheists -- Abraham, Joseph and Jacob/“Israel”, whom these
two Pharaohs instinctively trust and admire deeply. This pro-Egypt feeling
of the early Hebrews didn’t last long, but it’s there on full display in the
truly ancient Patriarchal narratives.

YHWH “touches” Pharaoh at Genesis 12: 17, and likewise YHWH “touches” the
great Hebrew Patriarch Jacob at Genesis 32: 25/26. That’s the argument I am
making, based on the wording of the Patriarchal narratives, interpreted in
the
context of the Patriarchal narratives. To me, that is the natural reading of
the text, if one does not go astray by viewing the Patriarchal narratives
through the anti-Egypt lens of the much later Book of Exodus.

How one interprets the Hebrew word NG( at Genesis 12: 17 has a profound
impact on one’s entire interpretation of the Patriarchal narratives. To my
mind,
NG( at Genesis 12: 17 and Genesis 32: 25/26 means that YHWH applied “a
mysterious, harsh divine t-o-u-c-h, which has great meaning”. NG( as a verb
means “
touch”. A translation of “plague”, though admittedly within the range of
semantic meaning at Genesis 12: 17, is nevertheless not a good translation,
as it
hides the intimate connection to the same Hebrew verb, NG(, at Genesis 32:
25/26. Making that precise connection is, in my opinion, of critical
importance
in understanding the Patriarchal narratives.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page