CHAPTER XVI.
_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.
* * * * *