Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/351

 first. Hence the dilemma with which Abram is confronted: if Sarai is known as his wife, her life will be safe, but he will probably be slain; if she passes as his sister, her honour will be endangered, but his advantage will be served. In such a case the true Hebrew wife will not hesitate to sacrifice herself for her husband: at the same time she is a free moral agent: Abram's proposal is not a command but a deferential request. Lastly, it is assumed that in the circumstances lying is excusable. There is no suggestion that either the untruthfulness or the selfish cowardice of the request was severely reprobated by the ethical code to which the narrative appealed.—14, 15. The stratagem succeeds beyond expectation. Sarai attracts the notice of the courtiers, and is brought into Pharaoh's harem. The incident is characteristic of Oriental despotisms generally: Ebers (Aeg. u. d. B. Mosis, 262 f.) cites from the d'Orbiney papyrus an example of the zeal of Egyptian officials in matters of this kind.—16. he treated Abram well, etc.] cf. v.$13$. This feature of the reward is a standing element of the tradition; but in ch. 20 it is only bestowed after the misunderstanding has been cleared up, and in 26$12ff.$ its connexion with the incident is loosened.

The gifts enumerated constituted the riches of the patriarchs: 20$14$ 24$35$ 30$43$ 32$15f.$ (cf. Jb. 1$3$ 42$12$), and were perhaps regarded by this narrator as the foundation of Abram's subsequent wealth. The animals mentioned were all known in ancient Egypt (Ebers, 265 ff.), except the

.—] In Hex. only 30$27$ 39$5$ (J) and 3 t. in Dt.: elsewhere 4 t.—15. ] The title of all Egyptian kings mentioned in OT except Shishak (1 Ki. 14$25$) and Sevé (2 Ki. 17$4$). It corresponds exactly to Eg. Per'o ('Great House'), denoting originally the palace or court, and is not applied to the person of the king earlier than the 18th dynasty (Erman, LAE, 58; Griffith, DB, iii. 819; Mü. EB, iii. 3687). It is needless to go further in search of an etymology, though Renouf, PSBA, xv. 421, may be consulted. A confusion of the name here with the "Pir'u king of Muṣuri" mentioned by Sargon (KIB, ii. 55, etc.), is too readily suspected by Cheyne (EB, 3164, and TBAI, 223; cf. Wi. MVAG, iii. 2 ff.). Even supposing it proved that this is the proper name of a N Arabian prince, the narrative here must be much older than the time of Sargon; and it is inconceivable that the Heb. designation for the kings of Egypt should have been determined by an isolated and accidental resemblance to a native word.—16. After [E] inserts, and puts