_The Flight of Hagar and Birth of Ishmael_
(Yahwist and Priestly-Code).
Sarai, having no hope of herself becoming a mother, persuades Abram
to take her Egyptian maid Hagar as a concubine. Hagar, when she finds
herself pregnant, becomes insolent towards her mistress, from whose
harsh treatment she ultimately flees to the desert. There the Angel of
Yahwe meets her, and comforts her with a disclosure of the destiny of
the son she is to bear, at the same time commanding her to go back and
submit to her mistress. In due course Ishmael is born.
In the carefully constructed biographical plan of the editors
the episode finds an appropriate place between the promise of a
bodily heir in 15 and the promise of a son through Sarai in 18
(Yahwist) or 17 (Priestly-Code). The narrative itself contains
no hint of a trial of Abram’s faith, or an attempt on his
part to forestall the fulfilment of the promise. Its real
interest lies in another direction: partly in the explanation
of the sacredness of a certain famous well, and partly in the
characterisation of the Ishmaelite nomads and the explication
of their relation to Israel. The point of the story is obscured
by a redactional excrescence (⁹), obviously inserted in view of
the _expulsion_ of Hagar at a later stage. In reality chapter 16
(Yahwist) and 22⁸⁻²¹ (Elohist) are variants of one tradition; in
the Yahwistic version Hagar never returned, but remained in the
desert and bore her son by the well Lahai Roi (Wellhausen _Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments_² 22).――The chapter belongs to the oldest stratum
of the Abrahamic legends (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ), and is plausibly
assigned by Gunkel to the same source as 12¹⁰⁻²⁰. From the
main narrative of Yahwist (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ) it is marked off
by its somewhat unfavourable portraiture of Abram, and by the
topography which suggests that Abram’s home was in the Negeb
rather than in Hebron. The primitive character of the legend is
best seen from a close comparison with the Elohistic parallel
(see page 324).
_Analysis._――Verses ¹ᵃᐧ ³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ belong to Priestly-Code: note
the chronological data in ³ᐧ ¹⁶; the naming of the child by the
father ¹⁵ (contrast ¹¹); אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, ³; and the stiff and formal
precision of the style.――The rest is Yahwist: compare יהוה,
²ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³; שִׁפְחָה, ¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸ (also ³ [Priestly-Code]);
נא, הִנֵּה־נָא, ².――The redactional addition in ⁹ ᶠᐧ (_v.s._) betrays
its origin by the threefold repetition of וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ יהוה, a fault
of style which is in striking contrast to the exquisite artistic
form of the original narrative, though otherwise the language
shows no decided departure from Yahwistic usage (Dillmann, but
see on verse ¹⁰).
=1‒6. The flight of Hagar.=――=1.= Hagar is not an ordinary household
slave, but the peculiar property of Sarai, and therefore not at the
free disposal of her master (compare 24⁵⁹ 29²⁴ᐧ ²⁹: see Benzinger,
_Hebräische Archäologie_² 104 f., 126 f.).¹――_an Egyptian_] so verse
³ (Priestly-Code), 21⁹ (Elohist); compare 21²¹. This consistent
tradition points to an admixture of Egyptian blood among the
Ishmaelites, the reputed descendants of Hagar.²――=2.= _peradventure
I may be built up_――or _obtain children_ (_v.i._)――_from her_] by
adopting Hagar’s son as her own; compare 30³.――=3= is Priestly-Code’s
parallel to ²ᵇᐧ ⁴ᵃ.――=4.= _and went in, etc._ (see on 6⁴)] the
immediate continuation of ²ᵇ in Yahwist.――_was despised_] a natural
feeling, enhanced in antiquity by the universal conviction that the
mysteries of conception and birth are peculiarly a sphere of divine
action.――=5.= _My wrong be upon thee_] _i.e._ ‘May my grievance
be avenged on thee!’――her injured self-respect finding vent in a
passionate and most unjust imprecation.――=6.= _Thy maid is in thy
hand_] Is this a statement of fact, or does it mean that Abram _now_
hands Hagar back to her mistress’s authority? The latter is Gunkel’s
view, who thinks that as a concubine Hagar was no longer under the
complete control of Sarai.――_treated her harshly_] The word (עִנָּה)
suggests excessive severity; Hagar’s flight is justified by the
indignities to which she was subjected (verse ¹¹).
¹ “Some wives have female slaves who are their own property,
generally purchased for them, or presented to them, before
their marriage. These cannot be the husband’s concubines
without their mistress’s permission, which is sometimes
granted (as it was in the case of Hagar); but very seldom”
(Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern
Egyptians_ i. 233 [from Driver]).――On the resemblance to
Code of Ḫammurabi § 146, see Introduction, page xvii.
² The instance is one of the most favourable in Genesis to
Winckler’s theory that under מִצְרַיִם we are frequently to
understand the North Arabian land of Muṣri (Gunkel; compare
Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3164; _Die Keilinschriften
und das Alte Testament_³, 146 f.). Yet even here the case
is far from clear. An Egyptian strain among the Bedouin
of Sinai would be easily accounted for by the very early
Egyptian occupation of the Peninsula; and Burton was struck
by the Egyptian physiognomy of some of the Arabs of that
region at the present day. (Driver _A Dictionary of the
Bible_, ii. 504ᵃ).
* * * * *
=1a= is assigned to Priestly-Code partly because of אשת אברם
(compare verse ³), and partly because the statement as to
Sarai’s barrenness supplies a gap in that document, whereas in
Yahwist it is anticipated by 11³⁰.――=1b.= שִׁפְחָה] (from the same √
as מִשְׁפָּחָה) is originally the slave-concubine; and it is a question
whether the purpose of presenting a newly-married woman with a
שִׁפְחָה may not have been to provide for the event of the marriage
proving childless. In usage it is largely coextensive with אָמָה,
and is characteristic of Yahwist against Elohist, though not
against Priestly-Code.――הגר] The motive of Hagar’s ‘flight’ may
have been suggested by a supposed connexion with Arabic _haǧara_,
‘flee.’ For another etymology, see Nöldeke _Encyclopædia
Biblica_, 1933².――=2.= אִבָּנֶה] (so only 30³) may be either a
denominative from בֵּן (so apparently LXX, Vulgate, Symmachus),
or a metaphor from the family as a house (Exodus 1²¹, 1 Samuel
2³⁵, Ruth 4¹¹ etc.).――=5.= חמסי] genitive of objective,
Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 128 _h_ (compare Obadiah ¹⁰). LXX ἀδικοῦμαι
ἐκ σοῦ.――וביניֹך] The point over י indicates a clerical error: read
(with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_) וּבֵינֶך.
* * * * *
=7‒14. The theophany at the well.=――=7.= _the Angel of Yahwe_] (see
below) is here introduced for the first time as the medium of the
theophany. The scene is a _fountain of water_ (as yet nameless:
verse ¹⁴) _in the desert ... on the way to Shûr_. Shûr is an unknown
locality on the North-east frontier of Egypt (see Driver _A Dictionary
of the Bible_, iv. 510ᵇ), which gave its name to the adjacent desert:
20¹ 25¹⁸, Exodus 15²², 1 Samuel 15⁷ 27⁸ (_v.i._).
The מַלְאַךְ יהוה (or מ׳ אֱלֹהִים) is “Yahwe Himself in self-manifestation,”
or, in other words, a personification of the theophany. This
somewhat subtle definition is founded on the fact that in very
many instances the Angel is at once identified with God and
differentiated from Him; compare _e.g._ verses ¹⁰ᐧ ¹³ with ¹¹.
The ultimate explanation of the ambiguity is no doubt to be
sought in the advance of religious thought to a more spiritual
apprehension of the divine nature. The oldest conception of the
theophany is a visible personal appearance of the deity (chapter
2 f., Exodus 24¹⁰, Numbers 12 etc.). A later, though still early,
age took exception to this bold anthropomorphism, and reconciled
the original narratives with the belief in the invisibility of
God by substituting an ‘angel’ or ‘messenger’ of Yahwe as the
agent of the theophany, without, however, effacing all traces
of the primitive representation (Gunkel 164 f.). That the idea
underwent a remarkable development within the Old Testament
religion must, of course, be recognised (see especially Exodus
23²¹); but the subject cannot be further investigated here. See
Oehler, _Theologie des Alten Testaments_³ 203‒211; Schultz, _Old
Testament Theology_ ii. 218‒223 [Engish translation]; Davidson,
_A Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 94; Delitzsch _Neuer Commentar
über die Genesis_ 282 ff.
* * * * *
=7b= seems to be a duplicate of ¹⁴ᵇ, and one or other may be a
gloss. The words במדבר――שור are omitted by LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ entirely, and
partly in several cursives: Peshiṭtå omits על־העין].――שׁוּר (‘wall’)?
has been supposed (doubtfully) to be a line of fortifications
guarding the North-east frontier of Egypt. The חגרא of
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (if an Arabism) may express שׁוּר in the
sense of ‘wall’: Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac word) (= גְּרָר, 20¹).
* * * * *
=8.= The Angel’s question reveals a mysterious knowledge of Hagar’s
circumstances, who on her part is as yet ignorant of the nature of her
visitant (compare 18² ᶠᶠᐧ).――=9, 10= are interpolated (_v.i._).――=11,
12.= The prophecy regarding Ishmael (not ¹² alone: Gunkel) is in
metrical form: two triplets with lines of 4 or 3 measures.――_Behold,
etc._] The form of announcement seems consecrated by usage; compare
Judges 13⁵ᐧ ⁷, Isaiah 7¹⁴.――_Yishmā‛ēl_] properly, ‘May God hear,’
is rendered ‘God hears,’ in token of Yahwe’s regard for the mother’s
distress (עָנְיֵךְ; compare וַתְּעַנֶּהָ, ⁶).――=12.= _a wild ass of a man_] or
perhaps _the wild ass of humanity_ (Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Abraham
Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, al.)――Ishmael being among the families of mankind
what the wild ass is amongst animals (Job 39⁵⁻⁸, Jeremiah 2²⁴). It is
a fine image of the free intractable Bedouin character which is to be
manifested in Ishmael’s descendants.――_dwell in the face of all his
brethren_ (compare 25¹⁸)] hardly ‘to the east of,’ which is too weak a
sense. עַל־פְּנֵי seems to express the idea of defiance (as Job 1¹¹), though
it is not easy to connect this with the verb. Possibly the meaning
is that Ishmael will be an inconvenient neighbour (שָׁכֵן) to his settled
brethren.――=13, 14.= From this experience of Hagar the local deity
and the well derive their names. =13.= _Thou art a God of vision_]
_i.e._ (if the following text can be trusted) both in an objective
and a subjective sense,――a God who may be seen as well as one who
sees.――_Have I even here_ (? _v.i._) _seen after him who sees me?_]
This is the only sense that can be extracted from the Massoretic Text,
which, however, is strongly suspected of being corrupt.――=14.= _Bĕ’ēr
Lahay Rōî_] apparently means either ‘Well of the Living One who sees
me,’ or ‘Well of “He that sees me lives”’. The name occurs again
24⁶² 25¹¹.――_between Ḳadesh and Bered_] On Ḳadesh, see on 14⁷. Bered
is unknown. In Arab tradition the well of Hagar is plausibly enough
identified with _‛Ain-Muweiliḥ_, a caravan station about 12 miles to
the West of Ḳadesh (Palmer, _The Desert of the Exodus_ ii. 354 ff.).
The well must have been a chief sanctuary of the Ishmaelites; hence
the later Jews, to whom Ishmael was a name for all Arabs, identified
it with the sacred well Zemzem at Mecca.――=15, 16.= The birth of
Ishmael, recorded by Priestly-Code.
The general scope of ¹³ ᶠᐧ is clear, though the details are very
obscure. By a process of syncretism the original numen of the
well had come to be regarded as a particular local manifestation
of Yahwe; and the attempt is made to interpret the old names
from the standpoint of the higher religion. אֵל רֳאִי and לַחַי ראי are
traditional names of which the real meaning had been entirely
forgotten, and the etymologies here given are as fanciful as
in all similar cases. (1) In לַחַי ראי the Massoretic punctuation
recognises the roots חי, ‘live,’ and ראה, ‘see,’ taking ל
as circumscribed genitive; but that can hardly be correct.
Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 323 f.),
following Michaelis and Gesenius (_Thesaurus philologicus
criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_ 175),
conjectures that in the first element we have the word לְחִי,
‘jaw-bone’ (Judges 15¹⁷), and in the second an obsolete animal
name: hence ‘Well of the antelope’s (?) jaw-bone.’ Von Gall
(_Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 40 ff.) goes a step further
and distinguishes two wells, עֵין (בְּאֵר) רֳאִי and בְּאֵר לֶֽחִי, the former
peculiar to Yahwist and the latter to Elohist (compare LXX of
24⁶² 25¹¹).――(2) אֵל רֳאִי, whatever its primary significance, is of
a type common in the patriarchal narratives (see page 291). Of
the suggested restorations of ¹³ᵇ, by far the most attractive
is that of Wellhausen (_l.c._), who changes הלם to אלהים, reads
ראי as רָאְיִי, inserts ואחי between ראיתי and אחרי, and renders, “Have I
actually seen God and lived after my vision?”――an allusion to
the prevalent belief that the sight of God is followed by death
(Exodus 33²⁰, Judges 6²³ 13²³ etc.). The emendation has at least
the advantage of giving a meaning to _both_ elements in the
name of the well. Gunkel’s objection that the emphatic ‘here’
is indispensable, is of doubtful validity, for unfortunately הֲלֹם
does not mean ‘here’ but ‘hither.’
* * * * *
=9, 10= are a double interpolation. The command to return
to Sarai was a necessary consequence of the amalgamation of
Yahwist and Elohist (22⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ); and ¹⁰ was added to soften the
return to slavery (Gunkel). ¹⁰ is impossible before ¹¹, and
is besides made up of phrases characteristic of redactional
additions to Jehovist (compare 22¹⁷ 32¹³).――הרבָּה] Infinitive
absolute; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 ff.――=11.= וְיֹלַדְתְּ for וילֶדֶת] so
Judges 13⁵ᐧ ⁷ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 80 _d_).――=12.= פרא אדם] see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 128 _k_, _l_. Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac phrase),
and Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ מרמי לערוד בבני נשא.――=13.= אתה אל ראי] LXX Σὺ ὁ θεὸς
ὁ ἐφιδών με, Vulgate _Tu Deus qui vidisti me_: both reading רֹאִֽי
(participle with suffix).――For אַתָּה, Ball would substitute אִתָּהּ,
deleting אליה.――The רֹאִֽי of ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁴ᵃ is not the pausal form of
the preceding רֳאִי (which would be רֹֽאִי: 1 Samuel 16¹², Nahum 3⁶,
Job 33²¹), but Qal participle with suffix. The authority of
the accentuation may, of course, be questioned.――=14.= קָרָא]
indefinite subjective, for which _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_ substitutes קראה.――בֶּרֶד] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word),
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ הגרא (see on verse ⁷). Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ has חלוצא
(Elusa), probably _el-Ḥalaṣa_, about 12 miles South-west of
Beersheba. It has been supposed that בֶּרֶד may be identical with
a place Βηρδάν in the Gerar district, mentioned by Eusebius
(_Onomasticon_, 145² [Lagarde 299⁷⁶]), who explains the name
as Φρέαρ κρίσεως (= בְּאֵר דָּן): see von Gall, _Altisraelitische
Kultstätten_ 43.
* * * * *