Parsha Insights Lech Licha 2007

As I noted in the last post, I've already done a post on Gen 17. But, I didn't do it justice. So, I'm going to redo it properly.

Genesis 17 is P. There is one problem with that which is the use of the name YHWH in 17:1. That is indeed a problem for the theory. But, honestly, any theory positing some level of editing can't hope to work out perfectly since that is what happens when you edit stuff. On the other hand we note the following:

Part A - textual problems
1. Avraham laughs right after he is told of the birth of Isaac (v 17)
וַיִּפֹּל אַבְרָהָם עַל-פָּנָיו, וַיִּצְחָק; וַיֹּאמֶר בְּלִבּוֹ, הַלְּבֶן מֵאָה-שָׁנָה יִוָּלֵד, וְאִם-שָׂרָה, הֲבַת-תִּשְׁעִים שָׁנָה תֵּלֵד
One would presume that it is after this laughing that Isaac is named. However, later we find Sarah laughing as well (Gen 18:12):
וַתִּצְחַק שָׂרָה, בְּקִרְבָּהּ לֵאמֹר: אַחֲרֵי בְלֹתִי הָיְתָה-לִּי עֶדְנָה, וַאדֹנִי זָקֵן.
and likewise in Gen 21:6
וַתֹּאמֶר שָׂרָה--צְחֹק, עָשָׂה לִי אֱלֹהִים: כָּל-הַשֹּׁמֵעַ, יִצְחַק-לִי.
all this laughing seems superfluous.
2. In Gen 17, YHWH tells Avrahm of the birth of Isaac. If that is the case, why did Avraham not tell Sarah? If he did, why was she so shocked to hear it in Gen 18?
3. In Gen 17, YHWH tells Avraham of the birth of Isaac. If that is the case, why does he need to tell him again in Gen 18?
4. Avraham's reaction to hearing the prophecy in Gen 17 is to laugh. If that is the case, why does YHWH single out Sarah for criticism in Gen 18:13 since Avraham had the same reaction?
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶל-אַבְרָהָם: לָמָּה זֶּה צָחֲקָה שָׂרָה לֵאמֹר, הַאַף אֻמְנָם אֵלֵד--וַאֲנִי זָקַנְתִּי

Part II - linguistic analysis
Note the following P characteristics:
1. Obsession with dates and ages (17:1), (17:24), (17:25)
2. The name of El Shadai note, also that the name is being introduced here as a new thing. See this post where I explained in greater detail) (17:1)
3. (17:1)
הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי, וֶהְיֵה תָמִים
is reminiscent of Gen 5:22, 6:9, 48:15 all P (others?)
4. (17:2), (17:6), (17:10), (17:11)
בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ
5. (17:2), (17:6), (17:20)
בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד
6. (17:3), (17:17)
וַיִּפֹּל אַבְרָם, עַל-פָּנָיו
7. Elohim (17:3), (17:9), (17:15), (17:18), (17:19), (17:22), (17:23)
8. 17:4 nominativus pendens (not sure about this one)
9. (17:7), (17:19)
וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת-בְּרִיתִי
10. (17:7 twice) (17:8), (17:9), (17:10), (17:19)
זַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ
11. (17:7), (17:9), (17:11), (17:12)
לְדֹרֹתָם
12. (17:7), (17:19)
לִבְרִית עוֹלָם
13. (17:7), (17:8) - not sure about this one
לִהְיוֹת לְךָ לֵאלֹהִים
14. (17:8) - not sure about this one
מְגֻרֶיךָ
15. (17:8) - not sure about this one
לַאֲחֻזַּת, עוֹלָם
16. (17:9), (17:10) - not sure about this one
בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר
17. (17:11)
לְאוֹת בְּרִית
18. (17:13)
לִבְרִית עוֹלָם.
19. Kuret
(17:14)
20. (17:14)
From its nations - (the emphasis here being the referral to nations of the soul - note this is distinct from the kuret)
21. (17:14) - not sure about this one
בְּרִיתִי, הֵפַר
22. Pru U'rivu (17:20)
23. Nasi (17:20)
24. Males giving birth in binyan hifil (17:20)
25. (17:23), (17:26)
בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה
26. Becoming a (great) nation (17:6) (17:16) (17:20)
27. Kings shal come out of you (17:6) (17:16)

Note, already, just in the above, we have 27 distinct P indicators and, counting duplicates, we have 57 P indicators. Since the whole chapter is only 27 verses, this is more than two a verse. This chapter is densely saturated with P indicators and so it is amazing that some chapters, such as this one, are so densely saturated with P indicators and others are nearly total bereft of them.

But, if that wasn't bad enough, many scholars will argue that there is a whole set of P indicators I have missed. Much of chapter 17 has to do with circumcision. Much of the technical language used to describe circumcision is limited only to P. I have excluded these verses since they are pretty rare in the Torah altogether so it seems questionable to me to argue that these verses are uniquely P. If one includes them, the total number of P indicators even higher.

This strong showing of P words, in conjunction with the contradictions and duplicates noted above, makes an exceptional case for the DH in this instance.