I should state at the beginning that this post has nothing to do with the reality show “Sister-Wives” on TV involving a man with multiple wives. Since each of these accounts is of a patriarch telling a foreign leader that his wife is really his sister, that point needs a little clarification right off the bat.
Any reputable commentary will point out that in Haran, where Abram lived for some time, there was a custom whereby a man might “adopt” his wife as his sister also which “afforded [her] special privilege and would constitute superior credentials, as in a foreign court.” (Kline) Speiser was probably the first to ascribe that motive to Abram although his theory has come under sharp attack from other scholars. And then there was also the fact that Sarai was indeed Abram's half-sister. Whatever the truth happens to be, Abram's intent was definitely to mislead others in order to protect his own skin rather than trying to claim some sort of protection for her. Hamilton rather pointedly notes that although Abram believed in God's promise that he would father a great nation, he was “giving Yahweh a little assistance” to make sure.
Anyone who is at all acquainted with the histories of the Jewish patriarchs in the first half of Genesis will be struck by the similarities of some of the stories with one another. Especially close parallels exist between the three chapters listed above. I have labeled the major events in each story so that you can see the correspondences more clearly.
Genesis 12-13
A. God tells Abram to leave his country and promises him land.
B. Because of a famine, Abram goes to Egypt.
C. He passes off his wife Sarai as his sister out of fear.
D. Sarai is taken to the Pharaoh's house.
E. Abram's deceit is exposed.
F. Pharaoh sends Abram away.
G. Pharaoh gives orders to his men.
H. Abram is rich.
I. Strife between livestock herders.
J. Agreement between Abram and Lot.
K. Lot chooses Sodom.
L. God renews the promise of land and descendants; altar built.
Genesis 20
B. Abraham travels to Gerar.
C. He passes off his wife Sarah as his sister out of fear.
D. King Abimelech takes Sarah.
E. God reveals Abraham's deceit in a dream.
G. The king tells his servants.
H. The king gives presents to Abraham.
F. The king tells him he can settle anywhere in the land.
J. The king and family are healed after Abraham prays for them.
Genesis 26
B. Because of a famine, Isaac goes to Gerar.
A. God promises him blessings of land and descendants.
C. Isaac passes off his wife Rebekah as his sister out of fear.
E. King Abimelech exposes his deceit.
G. The king warns the people.
H. Isaac becomes rich.
F. The king sends Isaac away.
I. Strife over wells with the Philistines.
L. God renews the promise of land and descendants; altar built.
J. The king makes a covenant with Isaac.
K. Esau marries two Hittite women.
Most of the same elements are present in each of the three narratives. However, only Genesis 12-13 and 26 mention a famine as the reason for moving, and both conclude with a close relative choosing to live among pagan people; Genesis 12-13 and 20 both involve Abraham and Sarah; and Genesis 20 and 26 both involve King Abimelech and an account of strife between two groups.
Source-critical scholars often label two similar accounts found in the Bible as “doublets.” They explain their existence by proposing that the recollections of a single historical event circulated in two slightly different oral or written forms for a number of years before a final editor put together the present version we possess. Sometimes this editor stitched the two accounts together to form one continuous narrative, as in the story of the Flood, but scholars feel that they can pull out the individual sources by looking for duplications, contradictions, and characteristic language. However, in other cases the editors just recorded the two versions separately as if they were different events, as in the “triplet” described above.
Evangelical scholars take a more conservative approach and begin with the assumption that the biblical accounts, as we now have them, accurately represent the historical truth. “But if so, how do we explain the close similarities in the three accounts above? One approach is the literary method. I have demonstrated elsewhere that the Abraham Cycle takes the form of a completely symmetrical, mirror image composition in which Genesis 12-13 and 26 are placed in a parallel relationship to one another. Thus, the two stories and their main themes reinforce one another. However, that does not imply that the author of Genesis made up one of the two stories in order to create that symmetry. It just confirms the fact that God not only inspired the form of the writing of Genesis, but also inspired the events themselves.
Another approach is to demonstrate that the source-critical assumptions and “findings” are not immune to criticism themselves. Here are a few examples:
A. In the first place, the Documentary Hypothesis which proposes multiple sources for the Book of Genesis remains just that – a hypothesis.
D.F. Payne comments on that theory in relation to chs. 12 and 20: “The argument as such is a barren one, for neither proof not disproof is possible.” Allen Ross agrees that “there is no compelling reason to doubt that three incidents occurred that were very similar.” Hamilton also compares the events in chs. 12 and 20 and asks “Who is to say that an individual caught in a potentially dangerous situation, is not capable of stooping twice to use other people?” Wenham adds, “Nor can comparison of the form of these stories actually prove whether they are versions of the same incident, as assumed by most writers.”
B. Secondly, there are as many differences between the three stories as there are parallels.
Payne points out that “conservative commentators have been quick to point out how widely the details vary” between the three accounts. The chart above reveals just some of those differences. Hamilton says that “although sharing some common motifs, the episodes are each unique and probably contemporaneous.”
C. Next, there are some details that make more sense if the three accounts are each historical than the idea that they are all variant versions of the same event.
Carr notes that “Abraham's brief request in 20.2 that Sarah claim to be his sister would not make sense without the explanation of a similar request in 12:11-13.” Wenham picks up on this same point: In 12:11-16, a much fuller account of Abraham's remarks and the royal actions is provided. Without the earlier account, this verse [Gen. 20:2] would be cryptic...” Wenham similarly adds on 12:13, “'When God made me wander from my father's house' shows that the narrator knows the story of 12:10-20.”
Moving to the comparison of chs. 12 and 26, Hamilton says, “26:1 refers clearly to the first incident (ch. 12), and Abimeleck's annoyance with Isaac, as expressed in vv. 10-11 makes most sense if Abimelech (or his namesake) has already had (or almost had) contact with a Hebrew's wife. Thus ch. 26 refers to the incident in ch. 12 and presupposes the incident in ch. 20.” By the way, Kline and others feel that Abimelech may have been a royal title such as “pharaoh” and thus may have been a different person in ch. 26.
D. The aspect of form-critical theory which has drawn the most criticism from evangelical scholars is its misunderstanding of repetition in the Bible.
Garrett has expressed this criticism the most directly: “The use of doublets and repetition as evidence for multiple documents in Genesis is perhaps of all the arguments the most persuasive for the modern student, while in fact being the most spurious and abused piece of evidence...It is an entirely modern reading of the text and ignores ancient rhetorical concepts. In an ancient text, there is no stronger indication that only a single document is present than parallel accounts.”
Allen Ross: “[R]epetition is the essential feature of Hebrew rhetoric, which extends to repetition of motifs and stories.”
Kaiser says regarding critical theory: “Such an attitude betrays a lack of feeling for Hebrew rhetoric, in which repetition was a favorite device.”
If you want numerous biblical examples of the use of repetition rhetorically to stress main points of the text, see my many blog posts with the sub-title “:Introduction to the Literary Structure.”
E. Lastly, we might rightly ask along with Allen Ross: Why bother including all three accounts in Genesis (unless it is just to stress some common point)? The reason is seen in the different ways the similar stories function within their various contexts. As Payne says, “It is certainly right to concentrate attention on the distinctive features of each story, and in particular to investigate the theological purpose of each.”
Genesis 12
Payne notes that in this chapter, “Abram is at the mercy of forces beyond his control...This was an important lesson here for Abram's descendants, who were all too often tempted to pride and self-sufficiency.” Kline adds, “The patriarch's weakness gave occasion for a manifestation of the Lord's faithfulness...” Cassuto sees foreshadowing in this chapter of subsequent events in the history of the patriarchs in Egypt.
Genesis 20
Comparing this account with the first one above, Allen Ross says, “Outside the land [of Canaan], God would protect the blessing, in spite of Abram's deception; inside the land, God would also preserve the purity of the ancestress, in spite of Abram's deception.” In addition, “The story makes it very clear that life is in the hand of God, and for any violations God can interrupt life and the life-giving process.” Finally, he states: The narrative is also about guilt and innocence.”
Hamilton stresses the way this story functions in its immediate context and shows parallels to the previous events in ch. 18-19: Abraham's making intercession, behavior toward a resident alien, sacrificing a woman to preserve a male's life, and the question whether God will destroy innocent parties. He pointedly notes that here “the scriptures are showing that the postcovenant Abraham, for all his spiritual maturation (Gen 15:6), is still much like the precovenant Abraham.”
Wenham similarly looks back two chapters to make the point that “not all foreigners were as godless as Sodom. Thus this incident makes us realize that Abraham is not such a saint as we might have concluded from Chapter 18, nor were all the inhabitants of Canaan so depraved as those who lived in Sodom.” Also, he remarks: “God's mercy is not restricted to Abraham's family; it extends also to the king of a righteous God-fearing nation” and “Abimelek's speeches are not simply harsh condemnation. Rather, they mix moral indignation with a sense of shock, and Abraham's lame replies tend to increase our sympathy for Abimelek.”
Abraham's descendents...had a duty toward foreign peoples...and could bring an Abrahamic blessing upon them.” (Payne)
Wenham also looks forward one chapter when he notes that 20:17-18 ends the chapter with a hint that at last God may open the womb of Sarah in addition so that she can at last give birth to the promised heir.
Genesis 26
Ross expresses the opinion of many commentators regarding the main function of this story when he says, “the central point of the story concerned the development of the promise: the continuation of the blessing. Genesis 26 convincingly reveals that the promises extended to Isaac. Even though he failed as his father failed, the Lord preserved him and blessed him.”
Payne puts it this way: “The repetitive character of the chapter is intended to teach that God's promise is renewed for each new generation.”
Schnittjer: “The ongoing pattern of extended echo-effect stories trains readers to expect that children will act like their parents and God will act again as he has acted.”
The context of this particular story is also significant. Wenham notes that this chapter appears to interrupt the Jacob and Esau stories preceding and following. But in its present location, “chap. 26 serves a most important function, locking together the Abraham and Jacob cycles and highlighting the parallels between Abraham and his son.” Also, occurring right after the strife between Jacob and Esau, “this chapter presents us with an interlude. We see Isaac as a timid, peace-loving man who avoids conflict whenever possible.”
Hamilton, on the other hand, brings out another aspect to the placement of this story in the text by stating that “this chapter provides a pungent illustration of a reversal of fortunes for Isaac. Both chs. 26 and 27 are laced with the theme of deception. The difference is that Isaac is the deceiver in ch. 26 but the deceived in ch. 27.”
In addition, Fishbane feels that there is a larger chiastic (mirror-image) structure to the Isaac Cycle in which ch. 26 is placed in a parallel relationship to ch. 34. This is analogous to my own finding that chs. 12-13 are placed parallel to one another in the chiasm that makes up the Abraham Cycle.
In summary, a conservative approach to Scripture that treats each “triplet” on its own terms leads to much richer understanding that merely dismissing the three stories as variations of the same folktale.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments