JBL 109/4 (1990) 599-611

THE "ENDANGERED ANCESTRESS"

AND BLESSING FOR THE NATIONS
MARK E. BIDDLE
Carson-Newman College, Jefferson City, TN 37760

Three times in the book of Genesis the story of the "endangered

ancestress" (Gen 12:10-20; 20:1-18; 26:1-11) relates a patriarch's (twice
Abraham, once Isaac) ruse of portraying his wife as his sister, designed to pro
tect him in the land of a foreign king (once Pharaoh, twice Abimelech). In
classical formulations of the documentary hypothesis of the Pentateuch, this
triplet has been seen to demonstrate the existence of distinct documentary
sources for the book of Genesis. Two versions of the story are conventionally
assigned to J (Genesis 12; 26), and the third (Genesis 20), which is con
sidered more sophisticated theologically and ethically, is assigned to the E
source. M. Noth, an advocate of such a classical view, argued that not only
these ideological distinctions and certain vocabulary items but, more impor
tant, the very existence of multiple versions of a given story requires the
presupposition that documentary sources underlie the present patriarchal
narrative. As he put it: ". .. secondary accretions usually add new materials,
not the same materials in new versions.... I do not know how this situation
could be plausibly explained except by the assumption of two sources. . . 1
Other views of the significance of the endangered ancestress triplet have
been advanced. P. Volz, for example, had already maintained that if there
were an E source, it could not be described as more than a revision of J.2 If
Genesis 20 is a retelling of Genesis 12 in the interests of ethical monotheism
and the religious values of Israel, as is usually held to be the case, then the
Elohist was an Umdichter and not an independent storyteller.3 F. V. Winnett
1

M. Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972)

22. In view of Noth's opinion that doublets must be explained by the existence of separate
documentary sources, how does he explain the presence of a doublet (12 and 26) within J? "[In
Genesis 26] we find a concatenation of various units of tradition which in part are merely
sketched and are not really complete in themselves.... The chapter appears to be an artificial
literary composition. .. . With the aid of a narrative thread running through the whole, J has
gathered up here in a compendium-like fashion everything that the oral tradition known to him
had to say about Isaac" (p. 104).
2
P. Volz and W. Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erzhler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? (BZAW
63; Giessen: Tpelmann, 1933) 13.
3
Volz, Erzhler, 34.

599

600

Journal of Biblical Literature

reiterated Volz's position, arguing that Genesis 20-22 constitutes an E

appendix intended to correct certain disquieting elements of the J parallels.
This implies, in his view, not that E was a separate documentary source but
that E knew and revised J.4
J. Van Seters has noted that whereas Genesis 12 follows the laws of the
oral folktale with regard to simplicity and self-containment, both Genesis 20
and 26 exhibit signs that they are literarily dependent on the earlier version
and, in fact, that Genesis 26 depends also on Genesis 20. In support of his
conclusion regarding Genesis 20, Van Seters argued from the moral and
theological improvements over against Genesis 12 already observed by Volz,
Winnett, and others, and from the presence of many "blind motifs" or
elements of the story that may be understood only if the reader is already
familiar with Genesis 12. With respect to Genesis 26, Van Seters called attention to features that seem to be adapted from either Genesis 12 or 20, to the
lack of any theological revision, and to the author's transparent interest,
signaled in the introduction of the account (Gen 26:1), in paralleling the lives
of Isaac and Abraham.5 Van Seters then characterized material that has
classically been attributed to E, as well as a major J passage, as literary revision of the only specimen of the story that may be attributed to a documentary source.6
Whereas Van Seters argued for the literary interdependency of the three
versions, S. Niditch, utilizing the techniques of folklore analysis with respect
to style, morphology, typology, etc., called into question both the classical
source theory and the views of those such as Van Seters. She argued for
greater sensitivity to the multiplicity that can and frequently does exist in
traditional literature and cautioned against drawing overhasty and overreaching source and redactional conclusions on the basis of phenomena such as
the ancestress triplet. She concluded that the three versions, which can be
described stylistically as "economic" (Genesis 12), "baroque" (Genesis 20),
and "anthological" (Genesis 26) must be attributed to three distinct storytellers. Furthermore, she maintained that since Genesis 12, viewed morphologically, offers a picture of the patriarch as an anti-status-quo trickster,
it is difficult to imagine this depiction as the product of the Yahwist.7

F. V. Winnett, "Re-Examining the Foundations," JBL 84 (1965) 5-7.

J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1975) 183.
6
Others who have questioned the adequacy of the classical documentary hypothesis include
H. H. Schmid (Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung
[Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976]) and R. Rendtorfff'Der 'Jahwist' als Theologe?" in Congress
Volume: Oxford, 1959 [VTSup 28; Leiden: Brill, 1975] 158-66).
7
S. Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore (New Voices in Biblical
Studies; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) 23-69.
5

Biddle: The "Endangered Ancestress"

601

I
The resolution of the questions of source and literary dependence with
regard to these three narratives necessarily involves a description and an
evaluation of the points of contact and discontinuity discernible in the
accounts. The salient questions include the following: (1) Are the three narratives truly a triplet? Do they tell the same story? If so, what is their theme?
(2) Should the problem be addressed primarily as a literary and form-critical
or as a redaction-critical issue? Do the stories have meaning in relation to
their Sitze im Leben or their Sitze im Buch? (3) How does an understanding
of the triplet affect an understanding of the function of the promises to the
patriarchs in the patriarchal narratives? To which of the major elements of
this promise (progeny, land, blessing) do these stories relate?
C. A. Keller and D. L. Petersen have, in fact, denied that Genesis 12, 20,
and 26 are three versions of the same tale. Motif analysis reveals, in their view,
that each specimen is an independent construct built around unique motif
aggregates every element of which is not common to all three versions.
Instead of three versions of the same incident, these narratives are three
different stories that share only the motif of the patriarch who lies about his
wife to save himself.8 Around this common element, other nonshared motifs
from realms of universal, historical, religious-cultic, juridical, and humorous
experience are combined in distinctive ways in each of the specimens.9
Petersen has argued that even this common sister-wife motif serves individual purposes in the three stories. For the author of Genesis 12, the motif
serves as vehicle for the theme of the contrast between Abraham's plan and
Yahweh's plan. For the author of Genesis 20, the motif embodies two central
themes: a dialectic of sin, which emphasizes that, although no one may be
said to be solely guilty, it remains the case that Elohim has been affronted;
and a fear-of-Elohim theme, which is characteristic of the Elohistic narrative.
For the author of Genesis 26, the motif carries the theme of patriarchal
success in a foreign context.10
Niditch, rather than rejecting the relationship between the three versions, sees in them independent elaborations of a single folktale pattern.
Three distinct emphases are the result. Genesis 12, which arose in and for
a popular context, emphasizes the underdog/trickster motif; Genesis 20 has
a courtly interest in the status quo; Genesis 26 offers a homiletical/theological treatment. 11

8
C A Keller, "'Die Gefahrdung der Ahnfrau' Ein Beitrag zur gattungs- und motivgeschichthchen Erforschung alttestamenthcher Erzhlungen," ZAW 66 (1954) 185, 186
9
Ibid, 189-90
10
D L Petersen, "A Thnce-Told Tale Genre, Theme, and MotifT BR 18 (1973) 30-43
11
Niditch, Underdogs, 61-66

602

Journal of Biblical Literature

The more common approach regards all three versions as functioning in

the larger context of the patriarchal narrative as examples of the obstacles the
patriarchs place between themselves and the fulfillment of Yahweh's promise
of progeny. In D. J. A. Clines's representative view, the triplet poses the question central to the patriarchal narrative: "Will there be even one son, let alone
a posterity?"12 In a variation of this progeny interpretation stressing the
synchronic reading of the triplet, R. Polzin has discovered a series of transformations that have been worked on the successive versions to illustrate the
proper relationship between wealth, progeny, and blessing. In order for the
patriarch to be considered blessed according to Yahweh's promise, he must
obtain both wealth and progeny, and both must be acquired in accordance
with Yahweh's standards for propriety.13
With Van Seters, G. W. Coats, on the other hand, has defined Genesis
12:10-20 as a "tale" in that it is simply told with the focus on the plot. He
has pointed out (against Polzin) that the tales themselves do not mention the
promise of progeny and that in each case the issue raised in the plot is the
patriarch's "deception, selfish self-protection, [and] separation," which result
in "plagues [real or potential] on the one who caused disruption" and eventually in "an appropriate remedy for the problem." This issue finds analogy
in the context only in Gen 12:3. The central argument of these stories is that
strife with the patriarch brings curse, no matter who may be at fault:
The focus of the genre on event, not theological proposition, shows the
intention of the story to be a description of circumstances that obtain for
people who support the patriarch in contrast to circumstances that obtain
for people who deny support for the patriarch. Even in the face of the
patriarchs involvement in causing the strife, strife with the patriarch leads
to curse.14
If, as will be argued, Coats has correctly observed that it is the promise
that the patriarch will be the avenue of blessing/cursing to the nations which
12
D. J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978) 45;
L. Helyer has characterized the current state of research in terms of the attention afforded the
tension between promise and fulfillment embodied in the obstacle story technique of Genesis
("The Separation of Abram and Lot: Its Significance in the Patriarchal Narratives," JSOT 26
[1983] 81). He went on in his own study to place central importance on the promise of an heir.
Following Clines he argued that Genesis 12-50 revolves around the concern for posterity. "In
our view the Abraham cycle is dominated by this theme and more precisely with the question,
Who will be Abraham's heir?"
13
Another set of transformations concerns the way in which one discovers the will of God.
"In the Torah it is God's intervention in the events of history" (to which cf. Genesis 12). "In
Nebiim the prophetic vision or oracle is emphasized" (to which cf. Genesis 20). "And in the
Ketubim the theme that stands out most is confidence in man's ability to discover God's will
through his own powers of observation" (to which cf. Genesis 26) (R. Polzin, "The Ancestress
of Israel in Danger' in Danger," Semeia 3 [1975] 89, 94).
14
G. W. Coats, "A Threat to the Host," in Saga, Legend, Tale, NovelL, Fable: Narrative Forms
in Old Testament Literature (ed. G. Coats; JSOTSup 35; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985) 72, 75, 81.

Biddle: The "Endangered Ancestress5

603

forms the proper context for interpreting this triplet, then it must be further
hypothesized that what has heretofore been seen as characteristic of Yahwistic theologynamely, the grand plan of God's saving intention for the
whole race in his election of one family15 is not restricted to J material. It
governs E materials also, so that if Genesis 20 is to be understood as a true
parallel toand, furthermore, as a compositional variant ofGenesis 12,
then it too may be said to function as an illustration of the possibilities open
to the patriarchs and the nations in their relationships with one another.
Furthermore, Noth's basic question with regard to the justification in the
mind of the author/redactor(s) for including multiple accounts of the same
incident (if they do not stem from distinct documentary sources) suggests
that attention should be directed toward the discovery of the unique contributions of each version. Do Genesis 12,20, and 26 offer an identical model
of the blessing/cursing relationship which pertains to the patriarchs and their
neighbors? Genesis 20 is commonly thought to advance a morally and theologically nuanced version of the story over against Genesis 12, an observation
that has been offered in support of its consignment to E. Can a similar
nuance be discovered with respect to Genesis 26? If so, what are the implications for an assessment of the J source? Was it monolithic? Does Gen
12:1-3 represent the theological program of a single author/source, or does
it define the matrix in which the patriarchal narrative was to grow? Is there
a single model of the relationship between the patriarchs and the nations?
These questions involve, of course, a prior issue with respect to the force
of the promise given Abraham. Does the promise of blessing to the nations
(Gen 12:1-3 par.) describe a causal relationship? E. Blum, following a
number of others, has recently argued that the promise to the patriarchs may
not be so understood. He noted once again that brk occurs in the various
repetitions of the patriarchal promise in either the niphal (passive?) or the
hithpael (reflexive?) stems. On the basis of the informative usage of the niphal
as a reflexive in Ps 72:17, he argued that the niphal and hithpael forms are
to be understood as near synonyms and warned that presuppositions about
the theology of the Yahwistic composition must not be allowed to hinder
textually faithful exegesis. The nations will not be blessed by Abraham (and
his family) the patriarchs will not function as the agents of blessingbut
the nations will bless themselves in him (them)the patriarchs will serve as
examples of blessing.16 Admittedly, the semantics and grammar of the patriarchal promise are ambiguous in this regard. However, if the basic contention
15

H. W. Wolff, T h e Kerygma of the Yahwist," Int 20 (1966) 131-58.

E. Blum, Die Kamposition der Vtergeschichte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984) 350-51. For this reading of the blessing in terms of the patriarchs as
exemplars of blessing as opposed to mediators, see also C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36 (BKAT
1/2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981) 175-76; J. Schreiner, "Segen fr die Vlker
in der Verheissung an die Vterr BZ 6 (1962) 7; and . Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977) 177.
16

604

Journal of Biblical Literature

that the endangered ancestress triplet may best be interpreted in terms of

the promise of blessing to the nations is correct, it should also be possible
to interpret the somewhat ambiguous promise in terms of the models that
illustrate it. At least on the level of the formation of the patriarchal narrative,
the endangered ancestress stories may well reveal how the tradition under
stood this promise for the nations.
II.
A basic sequence of events is common to all three versions of the story:
(1) The patriarch journeys to the domain of a foreign king to sojourn there
for a time. (2) To protect himself from the harm that might befall him should
the foreigners become covetous of his wife, he identifies her as his sister.
(3) The subterfuge is initially effective. (4) The ruler discovers the patriarch's
deception and confronts him. (5) Equilibrium is restored. With respect to
several of these elements Van Seters and others have already emphasized the
numerous blind motifs which seem to indicate a literary relationship between
the stories and theological and ethical refinements which seem to have been
introduced into later versions of the story. Coats has observed, with regard
to the positive effects for the patriarch of the subterfuge and the ultimate
resolution of the situation and the negative effects (real or potential) on
Pharaoh/Abimelech, that the stories may best be understood as comple
mentary to the blessing-to-the-nations promise. There are yet three phenom
ena present in these three stories, whose significance has not been fully
recognized: (1) the successive subtlety of the Beschuldigungsfragen (element
4); (2) the participation of the patriarch in the resolution of the situation (ele
ment 5); and (3) the outcome (element 5).
W. Berg has called attention to the Beschuldigungsformel in Gen 12:18b
("What have you done?"; cf. Gen 26:10; Judg 29:25), which functions within
Pharaoh's calling-to-account ("Zur-Rede-stellen") of Abraham. "An answer to
the question is not expected, since this formula is utilized where guilt is
apparent" (cf. Gen 3:13; 4:10; 26:10; Josh 7:19).17 The following Beschuldi
gungsfragen ("Why did you . . . ?" w. 18c, 19a) make specific the nature of
Abraham's misdeed. The question is posed in a negative (18c) and a positive
form (19a); the first suggests the treatment Pharaoh could expect, the second
18
what Abraham, in fact, did.
All three versions of the story contain this element, which in some
respects is the focal point of the plot, the moment when the powerful ruler
discovers the deception of a foreigner, a deception that carries with it at least
17
W Berg, "Nochmals Ein Sundenfall Abrahams der erste Gen 12,10-20," Biblische
Notizen 21 (1983) 12 (my translation)
18
Ibid , 12-15 For more on these forms, see J Boecker, Redeformen des Rechtslebens im
Alten Testament (WMANT 14, 2d ed , Neukirchen Neukirchener Verlag, 1970)

Biddle: The "Endangered Ancestress'

605

the potential for disaster. Each account agrees, at this point, that the patriarch
has behaved inappropriately in subjecting the ruler and his people to the
penalties inherent in the impropriety undertaken or considered with respect
to the patriarch's wife. However, there are significant differences; each successive version places an increasingly more precise term on the lips of the
duped ruler to describe the patriarch's misdeed. In Genesis 12, Pharaoh asks
simply and straightforwardly, "What is this that you have done (*sh) to me?
Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say 'She is my
sister'... ?" In Genesis 20, Abimelech goes on beyond the initial "What have
you done?" question to characterize the circumstances which the patriarch
has brought upon him (b\ hiphil) in terms of the sin (ht*) against Yahweh
mentioned in Yahweh's dream revelation. "How have I sinned against you,
that you have brought on me and my kingdom a great sin? You have done to
me things that ought not to be done." Genesis 26 goes a step further in this
process of refining the nature of the patriarch's actions. Here Abimelech
appends to the opening Beschuldigungsformel a statement that, first, characterizes the danger represented in the patriarch's deception as (luckily) only
potential and, second, defines it even more precisely as 'Sra, "guilt": "One of
the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought
(again, hiphil) guilt upon us."
The exact meaning of the most common form of the root >sm, the
nominal form which means "guilt-offering" and which is encountered frequently in legal-cultic texts, is unclear, particularly with regard to its distinction from sin-offering (from the root ht*). It has been argued that even for the
curators of the Priestly tradition, where the term most often occurs, the
boundaries between these two terms had become blurred.19 N. Snaith maintained that, despite confusion between the terms, the root ht * in the Priestly
materials denoted, for the most part, unwitting sin, whereas the root ysm in
the legal texts of the Pentateuch was reserved for transgressions for which the
damage done could be quantified and retribution could be made.20 While the
several nominal and verbal forms of the root *sm seem to have had a wide
variety of uses, some precise and some less so, there is one distinct category
of usages that seems to shed light on Genesis 26. There are a number of texts
in which the root deals with actions that involve infringement on the taboo
realms of the holy and the unholy and with the consequences of these
actions. Leviticus, for example, describes several cases of the trespass of
sancta in terms of ysm: inadvertent or suspected contact with things impure
19

See R. de Vaux, Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice (Cardiff: University of Wales, 1964)
98-112.
20
N. Snaith, "The Sin-Offering and the Guilt-Offering," VT15 (1965) 73. J. Milgrom has concluded, similarly, "that the asham offering has to do with restitution or reparation.. .. Hence
the usual translation of'guilt offering' is erroneous prima facie because it focuses on man's sinful
condition and not upon its punitive consequences" (Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the
Priestly Doctrine of Repentance [SJLA 18; Leiden: Brill, 1976] 7).

606

Journal of Biblical Literature

(5:2-3); trespass of the sanctity of the Lord's name (violation of the oath, 5:4;
6:4; cf. Judg 21:22); inadvertent contact with "any of the holy things of the
Lord" (5:14-16; 22:16); and violation of the express will of Yahweh (5:17-19).21
The guilt-offering is also regarded as particularly appropriate for cleansing
the impurity of the leper (14:10-32) and for restoring the Nazirite to his
separate state following accidental defilement (Num 6:12). Ezekiel stresses
especially the guilt- and sin-offerings themselves as conveyors of holiness
(40:39; 42:13; 44:29; 46:20). 1 Samuel (6:3, 4, 8, 17) describes the situation
of the Philistine captors of the Ark of the Covenant as one which requires
a guilt-offering, presumably because pagans have come into contact with a
holy object. Idol worship as involvement with the impure may also be
described as guilt (see 2 Chr 24:18; 33:23; Ezra 9:6, 7; Ezek 6:6; Hos 4:15;
5:15; 10:2; 13:1; 14:1).
The objects that can bring guilt upon an individual who has improper
contact with them include cult objects, the person of the deity as signified
in the divine name or will, and any contraband or impure object, practice,
or circumstance. A rather extensive series of texts regard the people Israel
as such a sanctified object, holy to Yahweh, and therefore subject to the
restrictions applicable to contact with sancta (Hab 1:11; Jer 2:3; 50:7; 51:5;
Ezek 25:12; Zech 11:5; 2 Chr 28:10, 13). Two observations may be made with
regard to these passages. First, they are all to be dated from the time of the
Babylonian menace or significantly later, which suggests that the idea of this
particular type of sin that of transgressing sanctawas first applied to the
manner in which the nations treated the covenant people during this time
period and may have been suggested by the importance being assumed at the
time by the Priestly materials, in which "guilt" and "guilt-offering" play such
a prominent role. Second, all of these texts seem to be informed by an awareness that Yahweh can choose an enemy as a means of punishing Israel, so that
the nations are thought to incur guilt not simply because they have harmed
Yahweh's chosen but because they have done their work haughtily, without
regard to Yahweh's sovereignty over the process ("for Israel and Judah have
not been forsaken by their God, the Lord of hosts; but the land of the
Chaldeans is full of guilt against the Holy One of Israel" [Jer 51:5]; "They
sweep by like the wind and go on, guilty men, whose own might is their god!"
[Hab 1:6,11]), and they have done it overzealously, without restraint ("because
they have acted vengefully and become guilty" [Ezek 25:12]; "their enemies
have said, We are not guilty for they have sinned against the Lord'" [Jer
50:7]). 2 Chronicles 28 provides perhaps the most informative example of
this usage of >m. This passage, which relates details concerning the events
of the Syro-Ephraimitic crisis which are not included in the deuteronomistic

21
"Book of Leviticus," Encjud 11 141, see also Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, for thorough
treatment

Biddle: The "Endangered Ancestress"

607

historian's account of the period,22 interprets the crisis as the result of Judah's
sin and Yahweh's decision to inflict punishment upon the errant Judah at the
hands of Damascus and Israel. When, in addition to dealing Judah a serious
blow on the field of battle, Pekah of Israel takes a significant segment of the
Judean population captive, the prophet Oded warns the victorious Israelite
army that it is in danger of overstepping the bounds of propriety and decency,
mistreating the people of Judahwho, although deserving of punishment,
remain Yahweh's holy possession and thereby of becoming "guilty":
Behold, because the Lord, the God of your fathers, was angry with Judah,
he gave them into your hand, but you have slain them in a rage which has
reached up to heaven. And now you intend to subjugate the people of
Judah and Jerusalem . . . as your slaves. Have you not sins of your own
against the Lord your God?
Do these passages, which deal with trespass against the people set apart
to Yahweh, inform a reading of Genesis 26?23 That Gen 26:10 is not to be seen
against the background of private law dealing with recompensatory payments
is indicated by the fact that it is difficult to imagine that King Abimelech
would have been unduly concerned for this and the fact that he was careful
to point out that the entire populace would have been involved. "The community's incurring guilt over against the divinity must be meant here."24
Neither may Abimelech's question concerning the potential for incurring
guilt and his subsequent pronouncement that Isaac and Rebekkah are to be
left unharmed on the penalty of death be understood as a decree formulated
in accordance with the basic legal status of the patriarchal couple as husband
and wife. If Abimelech had understood the prevailing law and custom with
regard to the security of marriage partners to have been applicable and
sufficient to the case, it would have been unnecessary for him to describe
encroachment upon that security with the highly religious term *sm or to
have imposed the death penalty on any violator. It would have been sufficient
for him to have recognized that existing law and custom applied.
In fact, as Schmitt has pointed out, it may be precisely because Isaac and
Rebekkah have no legal standing in the community prior to the royal decree
that Abimelech must establish their status publicly. If Isaac had thought
himself to enjoy the legal rights and privileges of the sojourner, he would not
have seen the need to rely on subterfuge for protection. Abimelech's command does not fall within the parameters of ger-law. "One can . . . say, that
under these legal circumstances the murder of a sojourner involves afine,but
does not usually require a capital penalty."25
22

The historicity of the Chronicler's account, which is disputed, is not at issue here.
This discussion will assume that the narrator of this incident has given an account consistent with the practices and customs of his or her day. This approach should not be understood
as an attempt at historicization.
24
G. Schmitt, "Zu Gen 26 1-14," ZAW 85 (1973) 145 (my translation).
25
Ibid., 155.
23

608

Journal of Biblical Literature

The wording of Abimelech's command also hints at the sacral aspect of

this situation. The crime prohibited by Abimelech because it will bring
"guilt" is that of "touching" (ngK) either the patriarch or his spouse.26 Sur
prisingly, this term, which one might expect to be utilized primarily in a
mundane sense, functions in a plurality of texts (approximately sixty) as a
technical term for just that sort of contact with things holy or unholy which
results in *sm. In fact, four passages (2 Chr 28:9; 2 Sam 14:10; Lev 5:2, 3, 7;
6:11) state the relationship between contact (ng*) and guilt ('sm) explicitly.
This sacral usage is the sole sense in which uses the term (thirty-seven
times; Lev 5:2, 3, etc.; Num 4:15; 16:26, etc.), and it occurs with relative
frequency in other portions of the OT, particularly late texts (Gen 3:3; Exod
4:25; Deut 14:8; 2 Sam 14:10; Isa 52:11; Jer 12:14; Hag 2:12-13; Zech 2:12;
Lam 4:14-15; etc.). Four (five) occurrences (Ps 105:15 = 1 Chr 16:22; 2 Chr
28:9; Jer 12:14; Zech 2:12) of the term describe contact with Israel as a viola
tion of the holy and may be paralleled with the *sm texts which regard the
nations' ill-treatment of Israel as cause for Yahweh's anger. These texts,
incidentally, are all exilic or postexilic in provenance.
Bearing the nuances of "guilt" and "touch" in mind, one may conclude
that Genesis 26 is not the most profane version of the ancestress story owing
to its failure to mention any divine intervention, but a highly sacral telling.
This is especially evident in the completion of the tale in the contract with
Abimelech, who so eagerly seeks the patriarch's benefaction. He has avoided
the curse foretold in Yahweh's promise to the patriarch which comes upon
those who ill-use the patriarch. He has recognized that to "touch" these holy
ones is to incur the "guilt" of trespass against sancta. Now he eagerly seeks
the blessing similarly promised which awaits those who deal kindly with the
patriarch. D. J. McCarthy's study of the covenants between Abraham/Isaac
and Abimelech in Genesis 21 and 26 confirms that Abimelech sees himself
in the inferior position and wants the assurance of a treaty and a binding oath
that, as he has behaved honorably toward the patriarch, the patriarch will
treat him as an ally.27 As Abimelech puts it in Gen 26:28-29: "We see plainly
that the Lord is with you. . . . Let there be an oath between you and us, and
let us make a covenant with you. . . . We have not touched you and have done
to you nothing but good. . . , You are now the blessed of the Lord."
Assuming that the hypothesis is correct that all three of these stories
relate primarily to the promise that the patriarch will bring blessing to the
nations, what may be said at this point concerning the contribution each
story makes to defining this promise by example? Genesis 12 illustrates only
that the nations will be punished for ill-treating the patriarch, even if the
patriarch is primarily at fault. Genesis 20 refines this definition of the
26
That Isaac too is protected by Abimelech's decree supports the view that Abimelech does
not have simply the violation of a marriage relationship in mind.
27
D. J. McCarthy, "Three Covenants in Genesis," CBQ 26 (1964) 180-84.

Biddle: The "Endangered Ancestress'

609

promise in two ways, both of which have to do with the blessing element in
Yahweh's promise and which stress that the patriarch can bring concrete
benefit to one outside the covenant. First, as Genesis 26 does later, Genesis
20 adds an account of Abimelech's graciousness toward the patriarch as
evidence of his recognition that the patriarch can be the source of blessing
for him (i.e., he offers gifts and later seeks a covenant). Second, Genesis 20
does not deny the assertion made by Pharaoh in Genesis 12 that the patriarch
bears responsibility for the Sarah fiasco; in fact it reiterates the claim.
Genesis 20 goes on, however, to show that just as the patriarch presents the
pagan with the opportunity for cursing (and being cursed), the patriarch can
also function as the means of blessing and salvation. Whatever the author of
Gen 12:1-3 intended by the expression "in you shall the nations bless themselves," the author/redactor/compiler of Genesis 20 regarded the patriarch's
role as that o mediator. He has Yahweh explicitly instruct Abimelech to call
upon Abraham, the prophet, to intercede on Abimelech's behalf and win his
pardon. This notion of the patriarch as intercessor calls to mind not only Gen
12:1-3 but also Abraham's intercession for Lot in Genesis 18, an intercession
in which the patriarch mediates blessing to Lot and, in the long term, to his
descendants, Ammon and Moab. Few commentators recognize the possibility of an allusion to Genesis 18 in Gen 20:7, probably because of the
presuppositions of the documentary hypothesis, which calls for Genesis 18
(J) and Genesis 20 (E) to be independent. G. von Rad, for example, saw the
mention of Abraham, the prophet, in Gen 20:7 in association with the
Elohist's ties to prophetic circles.28 But this begs the question, for Genesis
18 (J) also has ties to prophetic circles. Is it not simpler to argue that Genesis
20, which follows immediately upon the conclusion of the Sodom-Lot
episode in which Abraham's intercession succeeds in securing protection for
Lot, alludes to and reprises this theme?
Finally, Genesis 26 brings the process of refinement of the definition of
the promise that the patriarchs will be the instrument of blessing and cursing
a step further in that it points out clearly that the dangers inherent in the
situation brought about by the patriarch's deception are dangers that center
not on some simple moral transgression (hf) implying a lack of "fear" of God
(Gen 20:11) but on the very trespass of sancta ('sra). Unlike Pharaoh and
Abimelech in the earlier versions, Abimelech is challenged in Genesis 26 to
recognize the patriarch for who he truly is, namely, Yahweh's holy one.
Several observations may be made at this point concerning the tenor of the
statement which the "endangered ancestress" stories make with respect to
the types of relationship that may exist between Israel and the nations. First,
in each of the three stories the patriarch recognizes the significance of the
circumstances he has brought upon his host last. He does not intend to bring
harm upon the nations; he is, rather, inept and clumsy, thereby endangering
28

G. von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (OTL; rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) 228.

610

Journal of Biblical Literature

not primarily his spouse, but his host. He presents his host with the opportunity for disaster. In every case the host, twice as the result of God's intervention and once because of a chance observation, recognizes the implications
of the situation and calls the patriarch to account.
Second, each of the stories lays a degree of responsibility for the
disastrous or near-disastrous situation confronting the host at the feet of the
patriarch. The improper behavior of the patriarch is the first cause of the
predicament in which the host finds himself. As Abimelech protests to
Yahweh in the Genesis 20 version, the host has behaved in good faith toward
his guests. He ought not be blamed for their deception.
Third, each of the stories stresses that the patriarch is not merely an
example for the nations, but the means of God's blessing and cursing. The
patriarch's instrumentality is not automatic or mechanically causal, however.
The patriarch does not convey blessing or cursing by his mere presence or
wish: the nations are not passive recipients only. Neither do the nations
appropriate blessing or cursing for themselves without the patriarch's participation. Rather, both parties bear a degree of responsibility. The patriarch
may act in a manner that endangers the nations (i.e., his deception), or in a
manner that offers blessing (as when he lives among them as Yahweh's
blessed). The patriarch presents the nations with the opportunity to choose
whether they will stand in a relationship of blessing or cursing, depending
on their treatment of Yahweh's holy one.
Finally, each of the stories emphasizes a different aspect of this curse/
blessing matrix. Genesis 12, the oldest version, emphasizes the surety of
Yahweh's wrath upon those who harm the chosen. It also introduces the
problem of the patriarch's responsibility for this punishment, but it does not
resolve the issue. Genesis 20 provides an answer to this dilemma in terms of
the patriarchal office of intercessor for the nations and balances the potential
for curse with an illustration of the manner in which the nations may respond
to the offer of blessing (the covenant with Abimelech). Genesis 26 grapples
with the underlying theological question: The nations may either bring curse
or blessing upon themselves in their intercourse with Israel because he is
Yahweh's holy one. The reiteration (Gen 26:3-5, 24) of the original promise
given Abraham (Gen 12:1-3) underscores this emphasis. In the patriarch,
Yahweh has chosen an avenue for the blessing of all the families of the earth.
In turn, they must recognize the key role of the chosen and, by extension,
the sanctity of Yahweh's purpose. They must not bring guilt upon themselves
by a haughty disregard for the holy (Jer 2:3; 50:7; 51:5; Ezek 25:12; Hab 1:11;
2 Chr 28:10, 13).
Ill
The reading of the "endangered ancestress" triplet offered here suggests
at least four conclusions: First, Coats's contention that the story relates

Biddle: The "Endangered Ancestress'

611

primarily to the curse/blessing to the nations element of the promise to the

patriarchs is confirmed. Whereas the first, and presumably most ancient,
version addresses only the danger of the curse upon the nations, the younger
two versions each append a treatment of an episode in which the patriarch's
host, who has successfully recognized and avoided the potential curse
inherent in the patriarch's subterfuge, goes on to recognize and takes steps
to appropriate for himself the potential blessing inherent in proper relationship with the patriarch.
Second, the literary nature of the relationship between the individual
specimens of this story, which has been pointed out primarily by Van Seters
on the basis of the laws of oral folk literature, is further supported by the fact
that all three versions function not in terms of a Sitz im Leben but in terms
of a Sitz im Buch. All three function in the interpretive framework provided
by the promise to the patriarch first enunciated in Gen 12:1-3. Even Genesis
20, which is classically assigned to E must be interpreted as an illustration
of the cornerstone of Yahwistic theology, and furthermore, as has been suggested above, the claim made in Genesis 20 that the patriarch fills an intercessory role ought, perhaps, best be understood as an echo of the same
theme in Genesis 18 (J). These phenomena call the supposed independence
of J and E into question.
Third, the issue of whether the patriarch will be example or source of
blessing, which cannot be answered by means of an analysis of the wording
of the promise alone, may be resolved by an examination of the triplet at
hand. These texts, which are meant to illustrate this element of the promise
to the patriarchs, describe the patriarch as the nations' point of contact with
either curse or blessing. They describe neither a situation in which the
patriarch occupies a position to which the nations can only aspire nor a situation in which the nations are the passive recipients of blessing mediated
through the blessed. Rather, the patriarch and his host are depicted in terms
of a relationship fraught with possibility, both for good and evil, wherein both
parties are responsible for behaving properly toward one another.
Finally, it may be noted that three successive versions grapple with the
meaning of this promise and offer different models. Apparently this issue did
not reach equilibrium in the tradition until several options were explored.
Successive editor/authors found it necessary to reexamine the theme, making
new emphases, exploring new subtleties and adding increased refinement in
their treatment of the problem of the relationship between Israel and the
nations.

^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.