create that context on their own? does not sin against God it prosper suggests that perhaps this was the point case he did not write a : The allusions when perceived are striking, but they are not immediately recognizable nor are they the only allusions to Israel’s history, and the re­ peated idea that as long as Israel (4,12-21 ; 8,18-20; 11,10; 16,15) the work in the mind of the author ; in this midrash. One final passage should be mentioned, not so much for its own sake but because it has been so emphasized by Bloch —the allegory of Ez 16. She points out the many similarities of thought between Ez 16 and Hos ( 2 ; 8,1- 9,10), Jer (3; 12,7-17) and Dt (4,1-31 ; 8,11-20 ; 32), and concludes that

doi:10.4324/9780203056202-81

Chapter

create that context on their own? does not sin against God it prosper suggests that perhaps this was the point case he did not write a

Chapter

The allusions when perceived are striking, but they are not immediately recognizable nor are they the only allusions to Israel’s history, and the re peated idea that as long as Israel (4,12-21 ; 8,18-20; 11,10; 16,15) the work in the mind of the author ; in this midrash. One final passage should be mentioned, not so much for its own sake but because it has been so emphasized by Bloch —the allegory of Ez 16. She points out the many similarities of thought between Ez 16 and Hos ( 2 ; 8,1- 9,10), Jer (3; 12,7-17) and Dt (4,1-31 ; 8,11-20 ; 32), and concludes that

ABSTRACT

Scripture,” JBL 80 [1961] 105-22) sees the doublets in Gn, Ex, Jgs, and Sm, not as variant traditions, but as examples of midrash : one story is the primitive version, the other a midrashic retelling of it in the manner of GA. Thus, Gn 20 is a midrash on Gn 12,9ff.; Gn 15 expands Gn 12,1; Gn 21,8-21 is a retelling of Gn 16; 1 Sm 24 is a midrash on 1 Sm 26, etc. As Sandmel remarks: “ W e r e we to find this story [Gn 20] in Genesis Rabbah instead of Gn 20, we would promptly recognize it as a haggadah based on Gn 12,9ff.” (p. 111). According to Sandmel we are not dealing with sources blended but with successive haggadic recastings of a single source. Bit by bit over the years embellishments have been added on to the primitive narrative, neutralizing, correcting and interpreting what was already present. Thus, the Abraham of Gn 20 determines and clarifies the character of the Abraham of Gn 12, etc. I t may be that some of the doublets were used in this manner by the various redactors, but as a systematic solu tion to the problem of the origin of the Pentateuchal material it is an impossible one. Cf. ideas similar to Sandmel’s in J. Weingreen, “Exposition in the Old Testament and in Rabbinical Literature,” Promise and Fulfilment, ed. F. F. Bruce (Edinburgh, 1963) 187-201.