Abraham and Sarah in Egypt: A Story Composed to Prefigure the Exodus

The principle is sometimes quoted as מעשה אבות סימן לבנים “the acts of the ancestors are a sign for their children.” While the midrash already works with this assumption, see, e.g., Genesis Rabbah (40:6) and Midrash Tanchuma (Lech Lecha 9), the principle is laid out clearly in the medieval commentaries of R. Moses Nahmanides and R. Bahye ben Asher on Genesis 12:10. As will be made clear in this piece, it is not a coincidence that all of these texts choose the story of Abraham going to Egypt as the place to lay out this principle. Editor’s note: For some articles that discuss the principle, see David M. Freidenreich, “What Does Sarah's Expulsion of Hagar Signify for Abraham’s Descendants?” TheTorah (2018); Zvi Ben-Dor Benite, “A Parasha Pregnant with Past, Present, and Future of Israel’s Protagonists,” TheTorah (2016); Yigal Levin, “A Tale of Twelve Brothers,” TheTorah (2014).

Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 2: From Abraham to Noah, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997; repr. of 1961), 334.

John Skinner, Genesis, 2^nd ed., International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930; orig. 1904), 246.

This is the view of Skinner, Genesis, 364–365, and is most forcefully argued by John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), 167–192 (=ch. 8 “The Problem of the Beautiful Wife”).

Note the trenchant comment of the great early critic Abraham Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (Pentateuch and Book of Joshua), 2^nd ed., trans. Philip Henry Wicksteed (London: Macmillan, 1886), 235, “Ch. xii. 10-20 has the least claim to rank as the original.”

Editor’s note: For more on the meaning of “resumptive repetition” and its various functions in biblical literature, see Zev Farber, “The Resumptive Repetition (Wiederaufnahme),” TheTorah (2013).

Editor’s note: For a discussion of how the ancients understood the geographic relationship between Egypt and Canaan, see David Ben-Gad HaCohen, “Ancient Mapping: Israelite Versus Egyptian Orientation,” TheTorah (2017).

This resumptive repetition was first noted in Julius Wellhausen, “Die Composition des Hexateuchs,” Jahrbuch für Deutsche Theologie 21 (1876): 392–450, 413-14; repr. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, 4th ed. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963), 23. The idea was then adopted in the commentaries of August Dillmann and John Skinner (ad loc.), and in Abraham Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 143, to name a few.

See the section titled “A Pre-Enacted Exodus: Genesis 12:10–20,” in Marc Zvi Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London: Routledge, 1995), 51–55, 176–178. See especially the comment in n. 38 [p. 177], after mentioning the problematic narrative flow of the account in context,

It is these narrative difficulties in addition to the strong similarities to the exodus which make the typological interpretation in this case so compelling.

Brettler’s specific discontinuities differ from those I will discuss here. The problems he notes are: a famine story coming so soon after entering the land, the plaguing of Pharaoh’s whole household, that Egyptian officials are sent to escort Abram out, and that Abram is permitted to leave with all the stuff he gained through his dishonest claim about Sarai.

The Aramaic original, as well as the English translation, follow Daniel A. Machiela and James C. VanderKam in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Volume 8A: Genesis Apocryphon and Related Documents, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 120-125.

See also 2 Kgs 4:9.

Perhaps what Sarah may or may not have said would have made no difference, since a woman’s testimony had no legal weight, and they would have asked Abram who she was and if she was available in any case.

One problem of the story here, namely Pharaoh’s unintentional guilt, is expanded on in the later version of the story in Genesis 20, in which Abimelech and God speak about this explicitly.

Gen 41:31, 57; 42:5; 43:1; 47:4

Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 2, 346.

^{בראשית מו:ה} וַיָּקָם יַעֲקֹב מִבְּאֵר שָׁבַע וַיִּשְׂאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת יַעֲקֹב אֲבִיהֶם וְאֶת טַפָּם וְאֶת נְשֵׁיהֶם בָּעֲגָלוֹת אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַח פַּרְעֹה לָשֵׂאת אֹתוֹ. ^מו:ו וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת מִקְנֵיהֶם וְאֶת רְכוּשָׁם אֲשֶׁר רָכְשׁוּ בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן וַיָּבֹאוּ מִצְרָיְמָה יַעֲקֹב וְכָל זַרְעוֹ אִתּוֹ. ^מו:ז בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בָנָיו אִתּוֹ בְּנֹתָיו וּבְנוֹת בָּנָיו וְכָל זַרְעוֹ הֵבִיא אִתּוֹ מִצְרָיְמָה.

^{Gen 46:5} So Jacob set out from Beer-sheba. The sons of Israel put their father Jacob and their children and their wives in the wagons that Pharaoh had sent to transport him; ^46:6 and they took along their livestock and the wealth that they had amassed in the land of Canaan. Thus Jacob and all his offspring with him came to Egypt: ^46:7 he brought with him to Egypt his sons and grandsons, his daughters and granddaughters -- all his offspring.

Benno Jacob, Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis: Übersetzt und erklärt (Berlin: Schocken, 1934; repr. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 2000), 356 (my translation).

Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (New York: Oxford University Press/Clarendon Press, 2004; repr. of, 1988), 376.

This is similar to Exod 8:21, 24; 9:27-28; 12:31.

Another possible parallel, Abraham’s speech to Sarah: וְהָרְגוּ אֹתִי וְאֹתָךְ יְחַיּוּ “they will kill me, but they will let you live”, alludes to the order of Pharaoh to the midwives, in Exodus:

^{שמות א:טז} אִם־בֵּן הוּא וַהָמִתֶּן אֹתוֹ וְאִם־בַּת הִיא וָחָיָה

^{Exod 1:16} If it is a son, you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, she shall live.

This parallel, noted already in Genesis Rabbah (40:4), is questionable, however, since neither the wording nor the situation is especially similar.

This was first observed by Karl Budde, Die Biblische Urgeschichte (Gen. 1–12,5) untersucht (Gießen: Ricker, 1883), 7, who presents a synopsis in Hebrew of 6:1–2 and 12:11, 12, 14.

A third story that may be connected to these two is that of Joseph, who like Sarai is described as “Now Joseph was handsome (יְפֵה־תֹאַר) and good-looking (וִיפֵה מַרְאֶה)” (Gen 39:6). Following this statement, his master’s wife casts her eyes on Joseph and wants to coerce him into have sex with her. This assault likewise happens in Egypt, and also shortly after Joseph arrived there. This may explain why the word יפה is used instead of טובה here, to strengthen the resonance with the Joseph story. Some scholars also see a parallel to the salvation of Moses, whose mother “saw that he was a fine child (וַתֵּרֶא אֹתוֹ כִּי־טוֹב הוּא)” (Exod 2:2), but this is hardly likely, considering the differences in context and narrative.

This was already noticed by the writers of that version of the text that was later translated into Greek. They added לְפָנֶיךָ (ἐναντίον σου) “before you” into Pharaoh’s speech to Abram, making the parallel more complete. See also Devora Steinmetz, From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict, and Continuity in Genesis, Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 51.

This phrase does not appear in the Exodus version of the Decalogue (Exod 20:11). See also, Deut 5:29; 6:18; 12:25, 28.

It is striking that Abraham even puts the anticipated reward of obedience in the first place, before the expectation “that my life may be spared on your account.” This priority seems wrong, “for if a man does not remain alive, he can have no benefit from the gifts” (Cassuto, ad loc.). The sequence emphasizes that the intact relationship with God, that is rewarded with God’s blessing, is more important than survival.

This is the common use of the phrase. Compare Gen 32:10, 13; Exod 1:20; Num 10:32; Deut 8:16; 28:63; 30:5; and more.

Editor’s note: For more on the leaving-with-wealth theme, see Hava Shalom-Guy, “Giving Israel Gold and Silver, Cyrus Improves on a Biblical Motif,” TheTorah (2020); Zev Farber, “Exodus Through Deception: Asking for a Three-Day Festival,” TheTorah (2019). For the ethical struggle commentators have had with this theme, see Leonard Greenspoon, “Despoiling the Egyptians: A Concerning Jewish Legacy,” TheTorah (2017).

The creed is a late, abbreviated summary of the history. See (among others) Brevard S. Childs, “Deuteronomic Formulae of the Exodus Traditions,” in Hebräische Wortforschung: Festschrift Walter Baumgartner, VTSup 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 30-39.

The biblical hook here is not the opening of the Decalogue, but Exodus 13:8, בַּעֲבוּר זֶה עָשָׂה יְ־הוָה לִי בְּצֵאתִי מִמִּצְרָיִם “because of what YHWH did for me when I was leaving Egypt.”

The two versions of the Decalogue, in Exodus and Deuteronomy, have many small variants, but in the case of this verse, the two are identical.

In saving his people from Egypt, YHWH establishes his relationship with them. It is logical that the demand for religious loyalty is connected with this origin.