Abraham and Sarah in Egypt (Genesis 12:10-20): Sexual Transgressions as Apologetic Interpretations in Post-biblical Jewish Sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Normal 0 0 1 156 877 19 5 1096 11.1539 0 0 0 The story of Abraham and Sarah in Egypt (Gen. 12:10-20) is part of the great epos of the three ancestors recounted in the book of Genesis. Despite Abraham’s many positive attributes, such as righteousness and humility, this story raises troubling questions about his character, behavior, and beliefs in relation to both God and Sarah. These questions have given rise, throughout the ages, to many commentaries, interpretations and adaptations, as well as plot expansions. A comparative analysis of post-biblical commentaries highlight that the storyline expands consistently when describing Sarah’s beauty, sexuality, and attractiveness from the male point of view, especially that of the Egyptians and their king. From the point of view of Jewish exegesis, these elaborations stress the hierarchy of power within the confines of the traditional, patriarchal society. On the surface, the post-biblical versions are meant to defend Abraham’s disturbing behavior in the biblical story; in practice, however, they serve as typical expressions of male sexual discourse.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".