Abram and Hagar the Egyptian

[Isaac Fried]

Gen. 16:2-3
וַתֹּאמֶר שָׂרַי אֶל אַבְרָם הִנֵּה נָא עֲצָרַנִי יְהוָה מִלֶּדֶת בֹּא נָא אֶל שִׁפְחָתִי אוּלַי אִבָּנֶה מִמֶּנָּה וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם לְקוֹל שָׂרָי וַתִּקַּח שָׂרַי אֵשֶׁת אַבְרָם אֶת הָגָר הַמִּצְרִית שִׁפְחָתָהּ מִקֵּץ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים לְשֶׁבֶת אַבְרָם בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וַתִּתֵּן אֹתָהּ לְאַבְרָם אִישָׁהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה
KJV: " And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.  And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife."

What was the ulterior motive of this sudden move (which eventually proved itself to be a blunder) by Sarai? To test Abram's ability and to exonerate herself?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Isaac:

You wrote: “KJV: ‘And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.’ What was the ulterior motive of this sudden move (which eventually proved itself to be a blunder) by Sarai? To test Abram's ability and to exonerate herself?”

This was no blunder!

Rachel, who knew what Sarah had done, does the same thing at Genesis 30: 3. Leah, though with much less justification, does basically the same thing at Genesis 30: 9.

To answer your question more specifically, Sarai must give Hagar to Abram in order for the story to work right.

Abraham needs to have at least two sons whose mother is not a mere concubine unrelated to anything Sarah does (such as Keturah). By having two sons, Abraham will have to decide which son is his rightful heir. This will be the first of three straight occasions when a Patriarch eventually realizes, against his own original inclinations, that his primary successor must meet all three of the following key tests: he must be (i) a younger son, (ii) who is not his father’s favorite son, (iii) whose birth mother is the Patriarch’s original main wife #1. Ishmael, whose birth mother is Hagar, albeit Ishmael was borne by Hagar at Sarai’s direction, fails all three tests: Ishmael is Abraham’s firstborn son, who is Abraham’s favorite son, and whose birth mother is not Abraham’s original main wife #1.

The next generation means that Isaac will have to make a gut-wrenching choice between two sons: Jacob over Esau. Note that Esau fails the first two tests: Esau is Isaac’s firstborn son, who is Isaac’s favorite son.

The last Patriarch, Jacob, in turn has to make a gut-wrenching decision as to which of two sons to choose as his primary successor. The choice quickly boils down to Judah vs. Joseph. [The other 10 sons don’t have a chance. Reuben, Simeon and Levi are given final curses by Jacob, as is Benjamin, with those curses being well-deserved. The four sons born by the servants of Leah and Rachel of course have no realistic chance of being Jacob’s main heir. Interestingly, the last two sons that Leah herself bears are treated as being minor sons, apparently because Leah had first had her servant bear two sons on her behalf.] As between Judah and Joseph, Joseph fails tests #ii and #iii: Joseph is Jacob’s favorite son, whose birth mother is not Jacob’s original main wife #1 (because Jacob had married Leah 7 days before marrying Jacob’s birth mother Rachel). Judah is the winning son at Genesis 49: 8-10, being properly selected by Jacob to be his father Jacob’s primary heir.

Note that each winning son -- Isaac, Jacob and Judah -- meets all three key criteria: each is (i) a younger son, (ii) who is not his father’s favorite son, (iii) whose birth mother is the Patriarch’s original main wife #1.

If Sarai had not had Abram bear Ishmael on Sarai’s behalf via Hagar, then Isaac would have been the only son of Abraham who had a chance to be Abraham’s primary (or sole) heir. In that event, we would not know that it’s of critical importance that the Patriarch’s winning son cannot be the Patriarch’s favorite son, and rule #i would be directly violated: absent Ishmael, Isaac would be Abraham’s firstborn son (at least if one does not count sons by mere concubines such as Keturah).

But why are those three odd criteria of absolutely critical importance regarding the primary successor of all three Hebrew Patriarchs? The historical reason is that the first Hebrews hoped that they might have their local nemesis, Yapaḫu, removed by a king who historically was (you guessed it) (i) a younger son, (ii) who had not been his father’s favorite son, and (iii) whose birth mother had been the original main wife #1 of his father (the prior king).

To show empathy with that king who might remove the first Hebrews’ local nemesis in southern Canaan, each of the three generations of the Hebrew Patriarchs m-u-s-t be portrayed as being forced to make a gut-wrenching choice between precisely two sons, as to who will be his primary or sole heir. And in all three cases, the winning son must be (like the king whose favor was being sought), and the losing son cannot be, (i) a younger son, (ii) who is not his father’s favorite son, and (iii) whose birth mother is the Patriarch’s original main wife #1.

Sarai did not make a “blunder”. Sarai’s own motive was pure: to provide a son for Abram in the face of Sarai herself apparently being unable to be a birth mother. That was a noble motive, and Sarai/Sarah is not criticized therefor. But as soon as Sarah in fact becomes a birth mother (of Isaac) and Isaac survives weaning, then Sarah righteously, and properly, reams out Abraham, in public, for even considering Ishmael as a proper heir:

“Wherefore she [Sarah] said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman [Hagar] and her son [Ishmael]: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.” Genesis 21: 10

Sarah is buried in honor at the Patriarchs’ Hebron, and Sarah’s blood son Isaac is Abraham’s sole heir. (By contrast, Rachel cannot be buried at Hebron, because she was not Jacob’s original main wife #1, and no blood son of Rachel becomes Jacob’s primary heir.) Sarah did not make a “blunder”. Historically, Abraham m-u-s-t be forced to make a gut-wrenching decision as between precisely two sons, regarding which son will be his primary or sole heir. Ishmael was Abraham’s firstborn son and Abraham’s favorite son, but Abraham properly does what Sarah properly orders Abraham to do: he exiles Ishmael and makes Isaac his sole heir.

Like all winning sons in the Patriarchal narratives, Isaac is (i) a younger son, (ii) who is not his father’s favorite son, and (iii) whose birth mother is the Patriarch’s original main wife #1.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Isaac Fried]

As stated, Sarai hoped to derive from this arrangement a substantial personal gain: אוּלַי אִבָּנֶה מִמֶּנָּה "perchance I will be established by her". Did Sarai really hope to leave a lineage by an Egyptian maid, which she freely gave to old Abe as wife (wife!)?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Isaac:

You wrote: “As stated, Sarai hoped to derive from this arrangement a substantial personal gain: אוּלַי אִבָּנֶה מִמֶּנָּה "perchance I will be established by her". Did Sarai really hope to leave a lineage by an Egyptian maid, which she freely gave to old Abe as wife (wife!)?”

1. The word you translate as “established” could here be alternatively translated as “sonned”. Here is how Prof. Robert Alter explains this at p. 67 of “Genesis” (1996):

“ ‘be built up through her’. The Hebrew ’baneh puns on ben, ‘son’, and so also means, ‘I will be sonned through her’.”

2. As I mentioned in my previous post on this thread, the same dynamic and wording applies to Rachel at Genesis 30: 3, to which
Prof. Alter gives the same explanation at p. 159:

“ ‘built up through her’. As with Sarai in chapter 16, the verb ’baneh puns on ben, ‘son’.”

3. Slight variations on this theme apply throughout the Patriarchal narratives:

(a) Just as Sarai and Rachel give their serving girls to their husband to bear a son on their behalf, so also does Leah at Genesis 30: 9.

(b) Tamar’s husband Er, having died, cannot literally sire a son to be his heir. But Tamar insists on bearing a son on her deceased husband’s behalf, with such husband’s father, Judah, being the biological father. On one level, Judah’s firstborn, deceased son Er retroactively has an heir. Judah’s famous response to Tamar’s audacity and creativity in bringing this about is: “She has been more righteous than I”. Genesis 38: 26.

Note that these women are not criticized for providing for an heir to be born where the son is born “on behalf of”, rather than literally “by”. Ishmael is born on behalf of Sarai, though not literally by Sarai; Dan and Naphtali are born on behalf of Rachel, though not literally by Rachel; Gad and Asher are born on behalf of Leah, though not literally by Leah; and twins Perez and Zerah are born on behalf of Judah’s deceased son Er, though are not literally sired by Er.

The “surrogate wife” custom that Sarai uses with Hagar is particularly well-attested at the Hurrian province of Nuzi in the Late Bronze Age, with such “surrogate wife” custom being commonplace at Nuzi. Scholars don’t like to draw too many close parallels to Nuzi, for fear that the Late Bronze Age ambience of the Patriarchal narratives will be revealed, so here is a typical scholarly statement regarding this matter:

“This practice of surrogate motherhood [as exemplified by Sarai’s use of Hagar] is attested throughout the ancient Orient from the third to the first millennium B.C., from Babylon to Egypt. …[M]uch has been made of the closeness of certain cases of surrogacy in Nuzi and Assyria to biblical practice….” Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 16-50” (1994), p. 7.

4. Also similar here is that Lot’s two youngest daughters, seeing that their father will otherwise have no heir, get Lot to impregnate them. The daughters [likely a young teenager and a pre-teenager] bear sons on behalf of their father’s wife, though such sons are not literally born by their father’s wife.

In Year 13 of Late Amarna, pharaoh Akhenaten tried to impregnate his young teenage or pre-teenage daughters, hoping that his daughters would bear him an heir on behalf of his wife, Queen Nefertiti [who was the birth mother of those daughters], who herself never succeeded in bearing her husband the king a son.

5. Thus to answer your question directly, Sarai hoped to provide a lineage for her husband Abram, even though Sarai herself seemed unable to bear a son, by Sarai having her maid Hagar bear Abram a son on Sarai’s behalf. Hagar would not be a main wife of Abram; rather, Hagar is but a surrogate mother. Sarai is using Hagar in this way in the face of Sarai seeming to be unable to bear Abram a son herself to be his proper heir. Your phrase “hope to leave a lineage by an Egyptian maid” is awkward and misleading; although Hagar is literally the birth mother of Ishmael, Sarai’s plan at this point was that Ishmael would be born on behalf of Sarai, so that Ishmael would be treated as if he had been borne by Sarai, thus being Abram’s proper male heir. Sarai acts properly, and in due course is buried in the place of honor at the Patriarchs’ Hebron.

6. But having said all that, that’s not the real excitement going on here. Rather, as I showed in my prior post, each of the three Patriarchs must be put in a position where he must make a gut-wrenching decision, going against his original inclination, as to which of two sons will be his sole or primary heir. In all three cases, the Patriarch makes the right choice, with the winning son in every case meeting all three of the following key criteria, whereas the losing son fails two or three of these three tests: the winning son must be (i) a younger son, (ii) not his father’s favorite son, (iii) whose birth mother is his father’s original main wife #1. This is shown in Abraham’s choice of Isaac over Ishmael; Isaac’s choice of Jacob over Esau; and Jacob’s choice of Judah over Joseph. It’s the same pattern in all three generations of the Hebrew Patriarchs.

7. The primary reason for the Sarai-Hagar story is to make the key point that an early monotheistic leader must have as his birth mother his father’s original main wife #1. Abraham must make, and does make, the gut-wrenching choice of Isaac over Ishmael as Abraham’s sole heir, even as that entails exiling Abraham’s favorite son -- innocent Ishmael. The king who might remove the first Hebrews’ local nemesis was very sensitive to this issue, as the people of Egypt were whispering loudly behind his back that Egypt would have been much better off if one of his manly half-brothers had been chosen instead of him to be king. But as a monotheist, such king knew he was the rightful king, since his manly half-brothers all failed the key test of needing to have as their birth mother their father’s original main wife #1.

Sarai does not make a “blunder”. Sarai m-u-s-t give Hagar to Abram to bear a son on Sarai’s behalf, so that Abraham, just like the next two Patriarchs, will have to make the agonizing decision as to which one of two sons to choose as his sole or primary heir. One of the main points of the Patriarchal narratives, being one of the essential reasons why it was composed in the first place, was precisely to make the point, over and over again, that the winning son for the early monotheists must be (i) a younger son, (ii) not his father’s favorite son, (iii) whose birth mother is his father’s original main wife #1. The existence and status of Ishmael is a key element of that dynamic.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Isaac Fried]

In the case of Jacob the maids were of the same clan.
The union of Abram and Hagar produced a delinquent, and Sarai had to prevail later upon her husband to send away both mother and son.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Isaac:

1. You wrote: “In the case of Jacob the maids were of the same clan.”

Not true.

(a) “The maids” in the case of Jacob’s minor wives were lowly pre-Aramaic speakers, who were not “of the same clan” as Jacob’s two main wives: high-born Leah and Rachel. The names “Zilpah” and “Bilhah” are Aramaic.

“Zilpah” : זלפה is the Aramaic root zlp plus the standard west Semitic feminine ending -h, and means “beautifying, adornment, splendour, magnificence”:

“…zlp is attested both in Syriac [a form of Aramaic] and in Arabic. In both languages it can express the idea of ‘beautifying’ or even ‘flattery’, but zullapa’ means ‘adornment’ in Syriac, zalpa signifies ‘splendor’, ‘magnificence’, and Zilpah was the name of the girl given by Laban the Aramaean to his daughter Lea. I assume therefore that zlp has the same acceptation in the [9th century BCE Aramaic] Deir ‘Alah inscription.” Edward Lipiński, “Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics”, Volume 2 (1975), p. 153.

“Bilhah” : בלהה is the old Aramaic root blh plus the standard west Semitic feminine ending -h. It literally means “to grow old”, presumably here with the implication of being healthy and strong, so as to prove to be long-lived and able to “grow old”:

“blh…. In its simple stem [in old Aramaic] it would mean ‘to grow old’ and would be intransitive.” Zdravko Stefanovic, “The Aramaic of Daniel in Light of Old Aramaic” (1992), p. 113.

(b) By sharp contrast, the names “Leah” and “Rachel” make good sense in Hurrian, because their mother (Laban’s wife) was a high-born Hurrian woman.

“Leah” : לאה recalls the following attested Hurrian woman’s name at the Hurrian province of Nuzi: El-la-a-a. Gelb and Purves, “Nuzi Personal Names” (1943), p. 43. ella is the Hurrian common word for “sister”. The Biblical version of this name has no theophoric, and hence as a Hurrian-based name means: “Sister”. Jacob famously marries sisters (Leah and Rachel), so “Sister” is a fitting name here for the woman who turns out to be the proper “sister” to be Jacob’s original main wife #1. (Jacob marries Leah 7 days before marrying Rachel. It is critical for the winning monotheistic son to have as his birth mother his father’s original main wife #1. Only a son of Leah can be Jacob’s primary heir.)

“Rachel” : רחל is the Hurrian name Ar-xi -li. A partially legible Hurrian name Ar-xi… is attested at Nuzi. (“Nuzi Names”, p. 24.) Ar means “to give” in Hurrian. Adding a heth/ח at the end turns it into an adjective, which can be translated as: “the one who gives”. -li is a Hurrian theophoric suffix at Nuzi. Ar-xi -li means (in Hurrian): “The One Who Gives Is God”, or “God Is the One Who Gives”.

The Hurrian meaning of the name “Rachel” : רחל : Ar-xi -li is essentially what Jacob tells an irate Rachel at Genesis 30: 2 [when Leah has been bearing Jacob sons but Rachel is frustratingly still childless]. When Rachel demands that Jacob give her sons, Jacob in effect replies: “Rachel [the Hurrian meaning of whose name is “God Is the One Who Gives”], God is the One Who gives -- only God can decide if you will bear sons.” [Genesis 30: 2 reads, per KJV: “And Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God’s stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?”]

2. You wrote: “The union of Abram and Hagar produced a delinquent, and Sarai had to prevail later upon her husband to send away both mother and son.”

Not true. Compare Esau. Esau has a fine mother: Rebekah. But Esau ends up getting essentially the same treatment as Ishmael: Rebekah “had to prevail later upon her husband to send away…[such firstborn, favorite] son.” Esau has to leave Canaan, so that Canaan will be inherited exclusively by his younger twin brother Jacob.

Ishmael is not a “delinquent”. Though disinherited by his father, Ishmael manages to land on his feet, with his descendants spreading far and wide outside of Canaan. But Ishmael fails all three tests that each winning son in the Patriarchal narratives must meet: Ishmael (i) is the firstborn son, (ii) who is his father’s favorite son, and (iii) whose birth mother is not his father’s original main wife #1. Esau fails the first two of those three tests. Joseph fails the second and third of those three tests. Note that the three winning sons -- Isaac, Jacob, Judah -- each meets all three such tests. Each winning son (i) is not the firstborn son, (ii) is not his father’s favorite son, and (iii) has as his birth mother his father’s original main wife #1.

Sarah did nothing wrong in giving Hagar to Abram to bear a son on barren Sarai’s behalf. Rebekah did nothing wrong in dressing up Jacob to look like Esau in order to induce Isaac to choose Jacob (a younger, non-favorite son) over Esau as Isaac’s sole heir. And Leah did nothing wrong in insisting (off-stage, but necessarily implied) that Jacob must follow the pattern of his ancestors Abraham and Isaac in choosing as his primary heir one of Leah’s sons, that is, a son whose birth mother is his father’s original main wife #1. All three of those Hebrew Matriarchs are buried in the place of highest honor -- the Patriarchs’ Hebron. All three of those Matriarchs acted properly with fine motives, including when Sarai gave Hagar to Abram to bear a son on barren Sarai’s behalf. Ishmael is not a “delinquent”, but he is nevertheless properly exiled by his father Abraham (at Sarah’s rightful insistence), because the first two generations of the Hebrew Patriarchs have only one heir, and the winning son must, unlike Ishmael, (i) not be the firstborn son, (ii) not be his father’s favorite son, and (iii) have as his birth mother his father’s original main wife #1.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Isaac Fried]

We have observed before that the names לאה, רחל, זלפה, בלהה contain all the letter L, possibly for אל EL.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Isaac:

You wrote: “We have observed before that the names לאה, רחל, זלפה, בלהה contain all the letter L, possibly for אל EL.”

That’s a nifty observation! Perhaps the presence of the letter L was a deliberate way to link all four of Jacob’s wives.

* * *

But the letter L in “Zilpah” and “Bilhah” probably does not refer to El. Logically and historically, those minor wives should have pre-Aramaic names (not Hurrian names, because they are lowly servants; and not Hebrew names, because these women originate in eastern Syria). As I noted:

1. “Zilpah” : זלפה seems to be based on the Aramaic root zlp, with the name meaning “beautifying, adornment, splendour, magnificence”. zullapa’ means ‘adornment’ in Aramaic; zalpa means ‘splendor’, ‘magnificence’ in Aramaic.

2. “Bilhah” : בלהה seems to be based on the old Aramaic root blh, literally meaning “to grow old”, but presumably here with the implication of being healthy and strong, so as to prove to be long-lived and able to “grow old”.

By contrast, we would expect the names “Leah” and “Rachel” to have both Hebrew and Hurrian meanings (since Laban was a close blood relative of the Hebrews, whereas Laban’s wife presumably was a high-born Hurrian from “Midian”/Midtanni in eastern Syria).

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois