Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
AVI-MELECH
Compare the following to Genesis 12:11-12:20 and the Yitschak version later (Genesis 26) - they appear to be three tellings of the same tale.
20:1 VA YISA MI SHAM AV-RAHAM ARTSAH HA NEGEV VA YESHEV BEYN KADESH U VEYN SHUR VA YAGAR BI GERAR
וַיִּסַּע מִשָּׁם אַבְרָהָם אַרְצָה הַנֶּגֶב וַיֵּשֶׁב בֵּין קָדֵשׁ וּבֵין שׁוּר וַיָּגָר בִּגְרָר
KJ (King James translation): And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country, and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar.
BN (BibleNet translation): And Av-Raham journeyed from there toward the lands of the south, and pitched his caravanserai between Kadesh and Shur; and he sojourned in Gerar.
NEGEV (נגב): Sometimes it is used to mean "south", sometimes "dry", sometimes it refers specifically to that part of the desert known as "the Negev", as opposed to the Aravah. At what point(s) did the language change?
GERAR (גרר): the name of both a kingdom and its largest town (as is often the case), on the south-western border of Kena'an, where it meets Mitsrayim (Egypt), between Aza and Be'er Sheva. Possibly Wadi Shari'ah, north-west of Be'er Sheva, or Wadi Ghaza, due west of Be'er Sheva. More likely, from the name, Wadi Jerur, 13 miles south-west of Kadesh.
However, what is really significant is the statement that he moved to live between Kadesh and Shur. Go back and look at the Hagar stories (Genesis 16). There he was, already living between Kadesh and Shur; and being crowned king in a ceremony that seemed at the time incomplete. And now here we are, back in that region, with the re-telling of the same wife-sister story; and that story is itself a coronation story, at least in Mitsrayim (Egypt), and probably for Adonis/Tammuz worshippers in Kena'an too. Can we therefore posit that this chapter is in the wrong place and belongs with the Hagar stories? Or is it simply a common myth that has versions among many tribes, all of whom claim it as their own - that version after all was Av-Ram and Sarai, where this is Av-Raham and Sarah, and a different pair of sons will be the descent from it, though the red-haired elder brother in both cases will be cast out and become Edom?
20:2 VA YOMER AV-RAHAM EL SARAH ISHTO ACHOTI HI VA YISHLACH AVI-MELECH MELECH GERAR VA YIKACH ET SARAH
וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל שָׂרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲחֹתִי הִוא וַיִּשְׁלַח אֲבִימֶלֶךְ מֶלֶךְ גְּרָר וַיִּקַּח אֶת שָׂרָה
KJ: And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.
BN: And Av-Raham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister". And Avi-Melech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.
EL ISHTO (אל-שרה אשתו) which means "to Sarah", addressing her; but ACHOTI HI (אחתי הוא) means "she is my sister", speaking about her: is this a mistake? Hertz and others simply translate this as "of" rather than "to”, and thereby evade the issue. And in fact the text renders HU (הוא) not HI (היא) anyway, the commonplace replacement of YUD (י) by VAV (ו) which gives the impression of the masculine where the feminine is intended, and is probably just a scribal error - except that a scribal error in the middle of a grammatical error compounds the issue. Is "sister" an epithet for "wife"? It seems unlikely. Is he really going to make the same mistake that caused so much trouble the last time? Is it the same story, mis-remembered locationally on one or other occasion? Or are we in the realms of the gods and goddesses, and recall that Osher (Osiris) and Eshet (Isis) were siblings as well as spouses in Egyptian mythology? Much more likely, and the story will confirm this as we read on, Av-Raham's fear in the first version, that his beautiful wife will be noticed and in some manner required of or taken from him, has come to fruition.
How do we explain this strange repetition? Two different tribal versions, and a decision to leave both in. Two authentic stories? Perhaps there is a royal marriage rite taking place, as a part of a treat of alliance or suzerainty, and this did happen twice, and then yet again with Yitschak (Isaac) and Rivkah (Rebecca). Perhaps we are speaking of the process of amalgamating two goddesses into one, as Ishtar became Eshet – i.e. the gods are marrying through their earthly surrogates. This needs much more work. Probably we are reading about either an annual or a coronation festival being remembered by three different tribal groups, all of whom wished to have their place in the scriptures.
It is also the case that, treating the book as chronological history, Sarah is now a very old woman, who a while before laughed at the idea of having children, because she was post-menopausal. Is she really a likely target for the affections of Avi-Melech, to the point that Av-Raham fears for his life? Once again: is this tale simply mis-placed chronologically? (The answer is almost certainly no: what we have through these tales is not linear time, but contiguous tribal memory).
On the other hand, if we did put this back at Hagar's time, it would be a much younger Sarah, still barren, pre-Yitschak and Yishma-El.
VA YIKACH ET SARAH (ויקח את-שרה): "And took Sarah": does this mean slept with her, or put her in his harem; or indeed both?
20:3 VA YAVO ELOHIM EL AVI-MELECH BA CHALOM HA LAILAH VA YOMER LO HINCHA MET AL HA ISHAH ASHER LAKACHTA VE HI BE'ULAT BA'AL
וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹהִים אֶל אֲבִימֶלֶךְ בַּחֲלוֹם הַלָּיְלָה וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ הִנְּךָ מֵת עַל הָאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר לָקַחְתָּ וְהִוא בְּעֻלַת בָּעַל
KJ: But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.
BN: But Elohim came to Avi-Melech in a dream one night, and said to him, "Beware, or you will die because of this woman who you have taken; for she is another man's wife."
As with the previous version, what probably came to him in the middle of the night, and not in a dream either, was the discovery that she wasn't a virgin.
AVI-MELECH (אבימלך): Genesis 21:33/4 names him as a king of the Pelishtim (Philistines), which is unlikely as the Pelishtim did not start arriving until the 12th century BCE, whereas this is supposedly a story from the 15th or older. The Pelishtim originated from Kaphtor (Keftiu in the Egyptian, Crete to us), an area which then would have included the entire Minoan territory. Also known as the People of the Sea (and thereby also identified with the Phoenicians), the Egyptians also called them Pulasati and Purasati. Their language was non-Semitic, but some words did get borrowed: notably KOBA = "a helmet", which became in Yehudit any kind of hat or head-covering (KOVA/כובע). In addition they have been identified with the Achi-Yawa of 14th century BCE Asia Minor: but this is unlikely. Achi-Yawa (a variation of the Yehudit Achi-Yah?) seems rather to have been the original Hittite name for the Achaeans (Greek), Achivi (Latin), Chivi (Yehudit) noted in the Bible (Hivites in most translations) as one of the pre-Yisra-Eli tribes of Kena'an – a detail of some significance when we come to consider the tribe of Dan (see my essay "The Leprachauns of Palestine").
Abi-Milki is the name of the Egyptian governor of Tsur (Tyre) in the Tel Amarna tablets.
ASHER LAKACHTA: Confirming that Avi-Melech has indeed "taken" Sarah, though whether by abduction, kidnapping, seduction or simply "droit de seigneur" is not stated. If this is what actually happened in the Egyptian version as well, then it now makes much more sense that Av-Raham was given considerable amounts of sheep and cattle when he went away; not simply a pay-off to encourage him to leave, as we thought at the time, but "damages", reparation for the personal offence and possibly a settlement as an alternative to war (this, after all, was how the Trojan war got started: the abduction of a princess - and Sarah's name means "princess"; and by strange coincidence Menelaus' wife Helen was Achaean).
BE'ULAT BA'AL (בעלת בעל) must give some of the meaning of this away; it could mean "a man's wife", but it could also have religious connotations, i.e. it would be an epithet for Anat the wife of the Kena'ani (Canaanite) god Ba'al.
20:4 VA AVI-MELECH LO KARAV ELEYHA VA YOMAR ADONAI HA GOY GAM TSADIK TAHAROG
וַאֲבִימֶלֶךְ לֹא קָרַב אֵלֶיהָ וַיֹּאמַר אֲדֹנָי הֲגוֹי גַּם צַדִּיק תַּהֲרֹג
KJ: But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?
BN: Now Avi-Melech had not come near her; and he said, "My Lord, will you even wipe out a righteous nation?
Highly ironic in the light of the events of the last two chapters - both the "righteousness" and the not-touching a woman who you shouldn't!
More significantly - and Homer asks precisely the same question in "The Iliad" - why would he slay a whole nation because the king slept with a married woman? Once again we have to see the nature of the divine involvement in these human events; with Sedom it was a natural disaster attributed to the gods; in this case we can imagine a war between the followers of Av-Raham and those of Avi-Melech, one that ended in vast numbers of dead, and all over - what? - the alleged abduction of a princess? That of Helen by Paris, incidentally, is reckoned to have taken place not later than the 8th century BCE - the date at which Homer recounted it, though probably his tale too was mythological, not historical.
20:5 HA LO HU AMAR LI ACHOTI HI VE HI GAM HI AMRAH ACHI HU BE TAM LEVAVI U VE NIKYON KAPAI ASIYTI ZOT
הֲלֹא הוּא אָמַר לִי אֲחֹתִי הִוא וְהִיא גַם הִוא אָמְרָה אָחִי הוּא בְּתָם לְבָבִי וּבְנִקְיֹן כַּפַּי עָשִׂיתִי זֹאת
KJ: Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.
BN: "Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she, even she herself said, 'He is my brother'. In the simplicity of my heart and the innocence of my hands have I done this."
VE NIKYON (ובנקין): nice phrase for "my hands are clean". Pontius Pilate could have used it!
VE HI GAM HI (והיא גם הוא): lovely phrase, but note again the YUD/VAV (י-ו) interchange. The Yehudit actually (incorrectly) reads "VE HI GAM HU".
20:6 VA YOMER ELAV HA ELOHIM BA CHALOM GAM ANOCHI YADA'TI KI VE TAM LEVAVECHA ASIYTA ZOT VA ECHSOCH GAM ANOCHI OT'CHA ME CHATO LI AL KEN LO NETATIYCHA LINGO'A ELEYHA
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הָאֱלֹהִים בַּחֲלֹם גַּם אָנֹכִי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי בְתָם לְבָבְךָ עָשִׂיתָ זֹּאת וָאֶחְשֹׂךְ גַּם אָנֹכִי אוֹתְךָ מֵחֲטוֹ לִי עַל כֵּן לֹא נְתַתִּיךָ לִנְגֹּעַ אֵלֶיהָ
KJ: And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
BN: And Ha Elohim said to him in the dream, "I too am aware that in the simplicity of your heart you have done this, and I also held you back from sinning against me. That is why I made sure that you did not touch her.
HA ELOHIM (האלהים): "the gods"; indicating that this is not a Beney Yisra-El story; or if it is, then a very early one.
In what way is this different from the other version? This time it is all about guilt revealed in dream, and the gods withholding punishment. Any link to the incest laws? Any link to some Yom Kippur-like rite? There do not appear to be any.
The fact that the gods speak to Avi-Melech in a dream is something new to us; its first time, that is to say, in Genesis. We have had visions, voices, direct apparitions, hallucinogenic trances and even psychotic delusions, but until now no dreams. How are these different?
Which sounds like an acceptable outcome, until we remember that Pharaoh later made the same offer to Yoseph for Ya'akov and his brothers (Genesis 47:5-6), and look where that led.
MEY CHATO LI: The sin would be against Ha Elohim, not against Av-Raham. Why is that?
20:7 VE ATAH HASHEV ESHET HA ISH KI NAVI HU VE YITPALEL BA ADCHA VE CHEYEH VE IM EYNCHA MESHIV DA KI MOT TAMUT ATAH VE CHOL ASHER LACH
וְעַתָּה הָשֵׁב אֵשֶׁת הָאִישׁ כִּי נָבִיא הוּא וְיִתְפַּלֵּל בַּעַדְךָ וֶחְיֵה וְאִם אֵינְךָ מֵשִׁיב דַּע כִּי מוֹת תָּמוּת אַתָּה וְכָל אֲשֶׁר לָךְ
KJ: Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.
BN: "Now, therefore, send the woman back to her husband; for he is a Prophet, and he will pray for you, and you shall live; but if you do not send her back, know that you will surely die, you, and everything that is yours."
NAVI HU (נביא הוא): He has never been called that before, and the term is very different in its Biblical meaning than the one we use today; a Prophet was not somebody who could predict the future, but someone who spoke "on behalf of" the deity, which could be achieved in any one of several ways: through the sacred priesthood or the role of priest-king, which is probably the nature of the Av-Rahamic prophetcy, or through teaching and preaching the values and ethics of religion, which was the role of the later Prophets such as Yirme-Yahu (Jeremiah) and Yonah (Jonah). The word is probably of Chaldean origin - we are familiar with it from the Nebu part of Nebuchadnezzar; it also occurs in the Bible as Mount Nevo (Nebo) where Mosheh died (Deuteronomy 34).
But also see my note to verse 13.
20:8 VA YASHKEM AVI-MELECH BA BOKER VA YIKRA LE CHOL AVADAV VA YEDABER ET KOL HA DEVARIM HA ELEH BE AZNEYHEM VA YIYRU HA ANASHIM ME'OD
וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אֲבִימֶלֶךְ בַּבֹּקֶר וַיִּקְרָא לְכָל עֲבָדָיו וַיְדַבֵּר אֶת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם וַיִּירְאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים מְאֹד
KJ: Therefore Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ears: and the men were sore afraid.
BN: So Avi-Melech rose early in the morning, and summoned all his servants, and recounted all these things in their hearing; and the men were very frightened.
20:9 VA YIKRA AVI-MELECH LE AV-RAHAM VA YOMER LO MEH ASIYTA LANU U MEH CHATA'TI LACH KI HEV'E'TA ALAI VE AL MAMLACHTI CHATA'AH GEDOLAH MA'ASIM ASHER LO YE'ASU ASIYTA IMADI
וַיִּקְרָא אֲבִימֶלֶךְ לְאַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מֶה עָשִׂיתָ לָּנוּ וּמֶה חָטָאתִי לָךְ כִּי הֵבֵאתָ עָלַי וְעַל מַמְלַכְתִּי חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה מַעֲשִׂים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יֵעָשׂוּ עָשִׂיתָ עִמָּדִי
KJ: Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done.
BN: Then Avi-Melech called Av-Raham, and said to him, "What have you done to us? What terrible thing did I do to you, that you have brought on me and on my kingdom this dreadful sin. You have done something to me that should not have been done."
The language seems very different from anything previously. The inference is that the same thing has happened again, as in Mitsrayim (Egypt); that the local chieftain has seen a woman who attracts him, has enquired after her, and been informed that she is available, that she is Av-Raham's sister and not his wife. This might have worked in Mitsrayim, when she was somewhat younger and had no child, but - again accepting the historical chronology of this, as orthodox Judaism insists - she is post-menopausal and the mother of Yitschak at this point of the tale, so surely it was obvious that there was a husband somewhere in the tent?
20:10 VA YOMER AVI-MELECH EL AV-RAHAM MAH RA'ITA KI ASIYTA ET HA DAVAR HA ZEH
KJ: And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing?
BN: And Avi-Melech said to Av-Raham, "What did you see, that you have done this thing?"
Interesting phrasing? "Saw" as in dream, vision, or prophecy, or what? Remember that Ha Elohim just told Avi-Melech that Av-Raham is a "navi", a seer or prophet.
20:11 VA YOMER AV-RAHAM KI AMARTI RAK EYN YIR'AT ELOHIM BA MAKOM HAZEH VA HARAGUNI AL DEVAR ISHTI
KJ: And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.
BN: And Av-Raham said, "Because I thought, 'Surely the fear of Elohim is not in this place'; and they will kill me because of my wife.'"
Extraordinary that we rate this man so highly, who would sell his wife into prostitution (and later take his own son for sacrifice) simply out of fear – and not once, but twice. Lot likewise offered his daughters, and Yitschak will offer Rivkah later. And of course, we cannot accept it, and we cannot even find it incredible; and so we need to look for a better explanation. Their nature as gods before they became reduced to patriarchs gives us the clue.
20:12 VE GAM AMNAH ACHOTI VAT AVI HI ACH LO VAT IMI VA TEHI LI LE ISHAH
KJ: And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
BN: "But as it happens she really is my sister, my father's daughter, just not my mother's daughter , and so she became my wife."
She is therefore his half-sister, though Mosaic Law would still prohibit such a marriage (Deuteronomy 27:22). Take another look at Genesis 11:26/31, which gives the family tree of Terach, and clearly denotes Av-Ram as his son, and Sarai as his daughter-in-law, but gives no hint that she was his daughter and therefore Av-Ram's half-sister. At one level this is not unexpected, as the genealogical tables generally focus on the males, and ignore the females; but for so central a couple to have such important information overlooked, especially given these wife-sister tales that follow, is strange - and why was it not mentioned in the Egyptian version? It then becomes more strange when we reach the Yitschak and Rivkah version later, because there we know that they are first cousins. The laws relating to incestuous relationships can be found in Leviticus 18, as well as the Deuteronomy linked above; interesting to note that verse 3 states that: "You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Kena'an, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices" - which may affect our thinking about Avi-Melech's response. Mosheh's own parents, by the way, were aunt and nephew (Numbers 26:59), which his code would also have prohibited. More detail on this subject here.
Hertz on the other hand suggests that she is Terach's grand-daughter and Av-Raham's niece, which is the same relationship as Nachor to Milkah previously. There is no evidence to corroborate this, though it does seem more likely from the lists than her being Terach's daughter; Mosaic Law would still prohibit him from marrying her.
20:13 VA YEHI KA ASHER HIT'U OTI ELOHIM ME BEYT AVI VA OMAR LAH ZEH CHASDECH ASHER TA'ASI IMADI EL KOL HA MAKOM ASHER NAVO SHAMAH IMRI LI ACHI HU
20:10 VA YOMER AVI-MELECH EL AV-RAHAM MAH RA'ITA KI ASIYTA ET HA DAVAR HA ZEH
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ אֶל אַבְרָהָם מָה רָאִיתָ כִּי עָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה
KJ: And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing?
BN: And Avi-Melech said to Av-Raham, "What did you see, that you have done this thing?"
Interesting phrasing? "Saw" as in dream, vision, or prophecy, or what? Remember that Ha Elohim just told Avi-Melech that Av-Raham is a "navi", a seer or prophet.
20:11 VA YOMER AV-RAHAM KI AMARTI RAK EYN YIR'AT ELOHIM BA MAKOM HAZEH VA HARAGUNI AL DEVAR ISHTI
וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם כִּי אָמַרְתִּי רַק אֵין יִרְאַת אֱלֹהִים בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה וַהֲרָגוּנִי עַל דְּבַר אִשְׁתִּי
KJ: And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.
BN: And Av-Raham said, "Because I thought, 'Surely the fear of Elohim is not in this place'; and they will kill me because of my wife.'"
Extraordinary that we rate this man so highly, who would sell his wife into prostitution (and later take his own son for sacrifice) simply out of fear – and not once, but twice. Lot likewise offered his daughters, and Yitschak will offer Rivkah later. And of course, we cannot accept it, and we cannot even find it incredible; and so we need to look for a better explanation. Their nature as gods before they became reduced to patriarchs gives us the clue.
20:12 VE GAM AMNAH ACHOTI VAT AVI HI ACH LO VAT IMI VA TEHI LI LE ISHAH
וְגַם אָמְנָה אֲחֹתִי בַת אָבִי הִוא אַךְ לֹא בַת אִמִּי וַתְּהִי לִי לְאִשָּׁה
KJ: And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
BN: "But as it happens she really is my sister, my father's daughter, just not my mother's daughter , and so she became my wife."
She is therefore his half-sister, though Mosaic Law would still prohibit such a marriage (Deuteronomy 27:22). Take another look at Genesis 11:26/31, which gives the family tree of Terach, and clearly denotes Av-Ram as his son, and Sarai as his daughter-in-law, but gives no hint that she was his daughter and therefore Av-Ram's half-sister. At one level this is not unexpected, as the genealogical tables generally focus on the males, and ignore the females; but for so central a couple to have such important information overlooked, especially given these wife-sister tales that follow, is strange - and why was it not mentioned in the Egyptian version? It then becomes more strange when we reach the Yitschak and Rivkah version later, because there we know that they are first cousins. The laws relating to incestuous relationships can be found in Leviticus 18, as well as the Deuteronomy linked above; interesting to note that verse 3 states that: "You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Kena'an, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices" - which may affect our thinking about Avi-Melech's response. Mosheh's own parents, by the way, were aunt and nephew (Numbers 26:59), which his code would also have prohibited. More detail on this subject here.
Hertz on the other hand suggests that she is Terach's grand-daughter and Av-Raham's niece, which is the same relationship as Nachor to Milkah previously. There is no evidence to corroborate this, though it does seem more likely from the lists than her being Terach's daughter; Mosaic Law would still prohibit him from marrying her.
20:13 VA YEHI KA ASHER HIT'U OTI ELOHIM ME BEYT AVI VA OMAR LAH ZEH CHASDECH ASHER TA'ASI IMADI EL KOL HA MAKOM ASHER NAVO SHAMAH IMRI LI ACHI HU
וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר הִתְעוּ אֹתִי אֱלֹהִים מִבֵּית אָבִי וָאֹמַר לָהּ זֶה חַסְדֵּךְ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשִׂי עִמָּדִי אֶל כָּל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר נָבוֹא שָׁמָּה אִמְרִי לִי אָחִי הוּא
KJ: And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto her, This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother.
BN: "But it happened like this, when Elohim sent me off on a nomadic life away from my father's house, that I said to her. 'This is the kindness which you shall show me; at every place to which we come, say of me, 'He is my brother.'"
And again, why? Does this mean that there were other instances, not included in the Torah? Did they also end badly?
Interesting that NAVO (נבוא) is connected to NAVI (נביא) in verse 7 above - does this offer an alternate meaning for NAVI than "prophet" - HU NAVI perhaps meaning he is "a visitor"? The answer is almost certainly "no", and that it is simply a quirk of the language that the two unrelated words appear to be connected (kerb and curb, storey and story, et cetera in English work in the same way); homonyms is the technical term for it. Nonetheless, given the number of conscious word-games played throughout these texts, we can suggest (given the number of errors throughout the text we can only suggest, and not assert) that the Redactor may have done this deliberately.
20:14 VA YIKACH AVI-MELECH TSON U VAKAR VA AVADIM U SHEPHACHOT VA YITEN LE AV-RAHAM VA YASHEV LO ET SARAH ISHTO
וַיִּקַּח אֲבִימֶלֶךְ צֹאן וּבָקָר וַעֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחֹת וַיִּתֵּן לְאַבְרָהָם וַיָּשֶׁב לוֹ אֵת שָׂרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ
KJ: And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and women servants, and gave them unto Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife.
BN: Then Avi-Melech took sheep and oxen, and men-servants and maid-servants, and gave them to Av-Raham, and sent Sarah his wife back to him.
Exactly the same consequence as in Mitsrayim (Genesis 12:13-2). Are these sacrifices to a god, or gifts to a sheikh (or a very clever form of pimping)? And again, why? Av-Raham is presented as a man of justice and integrity, a prophet of the deity; if this was Ya'akov, the man who perpetrated a trick to cheat Laban out of his sheep, we might well suspect the whole saga as being my bracketed scam.
Giving these things to buy her in the first place makes sense; giving them now makes none, except as "damages" for a wrong, or payment to prevent a war.
20:15 VA YOMER AVI-MELECH HINEH ARTSI LEPHANEYCHA BA TOV BE EYNEYCHA SHEV
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ הִנֵּה אַרְצִי לְפָנֶיךָ בַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֶיךָ שֵׁב
KJ: And Abimelech said, Behold, my land is before thee: dwell where it pleaseth thee.
BN: Then Avi-Melech said, "Look. My land is before you. Live where it pleases you."
Which sounds like an acceptable outcome, until we remember that Pharaoh later made the same offer to Yoseph for Ya'akov and his brothers (Genesis 47:5-6), and look where that led.
20:16 U LE SARAH AMAR HINEH NATATI ELEPH KESEPH LE ACHICH HINEH HU LACH KESUT EYNAYIM LE CHOL ASHER ITACH VE ET KOL VE NOCHACHAT
וּלְשָׂרָה אָמַר הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי אֶלֶף כֶּסֶף לְאָחִיךְ הִנֵּה הוּא לָךְ כְּסוּת עֵינַיִם לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר אִתָּךְ וְאֵת כֹּל וְנֹכָחַת
KJ: And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved.
BN: And to Sarah he said, "See, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; and behold, let it serve as a veil to anyone who is with you; and before all men your honour is restored."
Then it is clear: these are the equivalent of "damages" in today's parlance, public proof that he has not bedded her, or cash to the value of her blighted honour if he has. It seems that Pharaoh in his response, and Avi-Melech here, are considerably more honourable than Av-Raham, if we take the tale at face-value. And which is worse, selling your wife, as Av-Raham effectively does here, or bedding your daughters while drunk, as Lot did previously? A fine moral tale, this Torah.
20:17 VA YITPALEL AV-RAHAM EL HA ELOHIM VA YIRPA ELOHIM ET AVI-MELECH VE ET ISHTO VE AM'HOTAV VA YELEDU
וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אַבְרָהָם אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים וַיִּרְפָּא אֱלֹהִים אֶת אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וְאֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאַמְהֹתָיו וַיֵּלֵדוּ
KJ: So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children.
BN: And Av-Raham prayed to Elohim; and Elohim healed Avi-Melech, and his wife, and his maid-servants; and they bore children.
Wait a minute – who ever said they were sick (see the next verse)? They were threatened with death, but the dream saved them; they may have been threatened with war, and the damages saved them. But this adds information not previously given, and with it the answer to all our previous questions begins to surface! Elohim heals Avi-Melech and his wife etc - but no one said they were sick: the sickness, as per the next verse, will turn out not to be medical sickness, but an epidemic of infertility among the women. But now, Elohim (not YHVH - the next verse, the healing, will be YHVH) gives her and her maidservants children - but no one said they were barren. Then Sarah must be the fertility-goddess and Av-Raham the great father-god after all, just as we have been suggesting all along; and yet again the Redactor has taken some ancient epic of the gods, one in which husband-wife and brother-sister was the norm, one in which liturgy and ceremony and ritual were contained, and expurgated it to leave nothing but an artificial piece of Beney Yisra-El folk-legend... one that does not really make sense as history, one in which we can see the "ghost file" of the original, but without sufficient substance to piece it back together.
20:18 KI ATSOR ATSAR YHVH BE AD KOL RECHEM LE VEYT AVI-MELECH AL DEVAR SARAH ESHET AV-RAHAM
כִּי עָצֹר עָצַר יְהוָה בְּעַד כָּל רֶחֶם לְבֵית אֲבִימֶלֶךְ עַל דְּבַר שָׂרָה אֵשֶׁת אַבְרָהָם
KJ: For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham's wife.
BN: For YHVH had closed up all the wombs of the house of Avi-Melech, because of Sarah Av-Raham's wife.
Why the sudden switch from Elohim to YHVH?
Closed up their wombs because of Sarah - or the fertility priestess' arrival at Avi-Melech's court was a major festival for them, which is why he gave thanks to the man who brought the teraphim with him - or the priestess was she? - with gifts of sheep etc. No wonder Av-Raham got rich if he carried the power of fertility with him, presumably in the form of a gold statue of the goddess and Sarah the Priestess, his wife, or sister, or both, or neither, to perform the sacred rituals at his side.
There is something of the legend of the fisher-king running through this - though of course that is true of several of the tales in the Tanach.
Surf The Site
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
Copyright © 2020 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment