From jmpfund@bgnet.bgsu.edu Thu Feb 1 07:37:34 2001 Received: from mxu2.u.washington.edu (mxu2.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.9]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW00.12) with ESMTP id HAA68144 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:37:33 -0800 Received: from sp07.notesnet.bgsu.edu (sp07.notesnet.bgsu.edu [129.1.7.7]) by mxu2.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id HAA03023 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:37:33 -0800 Received: from [129.1.87.31] ([129.1.87.31]) by sp07.notesnet.bgsu.edu (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.2b) with ESMTP id 2001020110361261:5344 ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:36:12 -0500 X-Sender: jmpfund.bgsu@popj.bgsu.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A796DE1.814131A0@engr.latech.edu> References: <00ed01c08a71$2baefe00$15049e8d@janicesi> <3A7854F4.A729B2E2@jet.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 To: classics@u.washington.edu From: James Pfundstein Subject: Re: Classical/Biblical parallels X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on MAIL03/SERVER/BGSU(Release 5.0.2b |December 16, 1999) at 02/01/2001 10:36:12 AM, Serialize by Router on MAIL03/SERVER/BGSU(Release 5.0.2b |December 16, 1999) at 02/01/2001 10:36:17 AM, Serialize complete at 02/01/2001 10:36:17 AM Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:36:12 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 8:08 AM -0600 2/1/01, Bruce R. Magee wrote: >The exegesis of Genesis is a "classic" argument _ab silentio_. There is no >mention of Sarah talking to Abraham after the sacrifice; therefore, they >didn't talk. Cf the argument in Hebrews that because Genesis does not >mention the parents of Melchizedek, he didn't have any. The interpretation >is late enough to have been influenced by other sources, but such sources >aren't necessary for its emergence. > >BRM In fact, very little mention is made of Abraham's or Isaac's feelings, and none by the narrative voice. It's not that kind of story. (A world of ironic feelings is suggested by Isaac and Abraham's little conversation before the sacrifice, but not one is mentioned explicitly.) No one has mentioned the obvious-- perhaps it is too obvious. In the Euripidean version of the Iphigenia story exactly the same denoument is used as in Genesis: the god provides a sacrificial animal of the usual sort and the child lives. This ploy could have been developed independently, I suppose. But NE culture was spreading west in the 5th century: e.g. some of the Zodiacal constellations invented by the Babylonians start showing up in Greek culture around this time. It seems possible that these two stories are similar because of a common influence or source. Arguments about influence often seem to beg the important questions, of course; they can be attempts to explain a story rather than understand it. But I'm not sure we can resolve this question by shouting "Those damn feminists!" and slamming the door. JMP("Pylades") .