"Let Ishmael Live Before You!" Finding a Place for Hagar's Son in the Priestly Tradition The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Noble, John Travis. 2013. "Let Ishmael Live Before You!" Finding a Place for Hagar's Son in the Priestly Tradition. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11156812 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA “Let Ishmael Live Before You!” Finding a Place for Hagar’s Son in the Priestly Tradition A dissertation presented by John Travis Noble to The Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts January, 2013 © 2013 –John T. Noble All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisor: Professor Jon D. Levenson John Travis Noble “Let Ishmael Live Before You!” Finding a Place for Hagar’s Son in the Priestly Tradition Abstract Since Julius Wellhausen’s synthesis of the Documentary Hypothesis—and no doubt owing in part to the Protestant Reformation—dominant portrayals of the Priestly material have described a self-interested legist with little or no concern for those outside the Levitical ranks. Though this negative characterization is recognized by some to be reductionist and misguided, none has undertaken to examine Ishmael’s critical role in what is better understood as a universal mode of thinking in P. Examining first the narratives that give indication of Ishmael’s status in J and E, I have contrasted Ishmael with the other non-chosen siblings of Genesis, concluding that he is favored in these sources in a way that the others are not; also, that Ishmael and his mother adumbrate not only the distress of Israel’s bondage in Egypt, but also their deliverance. With this background from J and E, I have sought to elucidate P’s relationship to these sources through its representation of Ishmael in the Abrahamic covenant. It appears that P has recast the promises that Ishmael receives in J and E so that Ishmael is more explicitly excluded from God’s covenant with Abraham, on the one hand; but P also identifies Ishmael with the blessing of fertility, invoking the divine injunction to all humanity through both Adam and Noah to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 17:20), on the other. P’s emphasis on fertility also relates to Ishmael’s own participation—though he is non- chosen—in circumcision as the sign of the covenant. Therefore P accounts for God’s iii universal regard for humanity through Ishmael even in his particular covenant with Abraham. I argue that even though Ishmael is not chosen, he nevertheless figures into P’s larger theological outlook as one whom God favors outside the purview of the Abrahamic covenant. A correlative argument is that this new understanding of Ishmael gives him a more precise definition as a transitional figure between the universal covenant with Noah, on the one hand, and the particular covenant with Abraham on the other. iv Table of Contents Chapter One 1 Introduction The problem of Hagar and Ishmael, and the question of the universal and the particular in P Chapter Two 18 Patterns of Exodus: Hagar, Ishmael and Patriarchal Promise The treatment of Hagar and Ishmael in J and E Chapter Three 59 Particularity and Ambiguity in the Priestly Abrahamic Covenant The use and adaptation of the Ishmael traditions in P Chapter Four 90 Covenant and Context in P The covenantal architecture of P and Ishmael’s place therein Chapter Five 137 Ishmael, Ishmaelites and Biblical Narrative The Ishmaelites and their relationship to the biblical traditions of Ishmael Chapter Six 169 Conclusion Bibliography 176 v Acknowledgements A long list of people deserve my gratitude for their support and encouragement to complete this dissertation and degree. At the top of the list, of course, is my wife, Abi, and our three children: Grace, Henry and Eliot. Their sacrifices have not been few or insignificant. Similarly, my parents, Jerry and Gayle Noble, have been a tremendous support. Gordon College, and specifically Brian Glenney, provided the accommodations necessary for doing the research and writing. Apart from this resource—to say nothing of Brian’s encouragement—the logistics of this work would have been much more difficult. Suzanne Smith has been my writing tutor throughout this project, and her well- trained eyes have been the first to peruse every chapter draft. Suzanne’s many suggestions and encouragements have contributed enormously to the end result. The venerable readers of my dissertation committee, Andrew Teeter and Peter Machinist, have both supplied the kind of careful, constructive criticism that one might expect from scholars of their caliber. Peter deserves my profound thanks, in addition, for overseeing my degree progress and providing the backbone of my education at Harvard. Finally, one does not find a better dissertation adviser than the eminent Jon Levenson. I am indebted to him not only for his generous, timely, and expert guidance throughout the process, but also for his suggestion of the subject at the outset. Most significantly, and as a testament to his scholarship, Jon has graciously given space for my perspective to diverge from his at certain points. To all of these, and no doubt many others, I am deeply indebted. vi For Abi בטח בה לב בעלה vii Chapter 1 Introduction I. The Nature of the Problem The intention of this study is to investigate the significance and function of Ishmael in the patriarchal traditions of Genesis, and particularly in those traditions reflected by the Priestly source (P). The expected conclusion is that Ishmael’s role is, for P, much more than incidental, that he figures into P’s larger theological outlook as a special representative of those non-elect whom God favors outside the purview of the Abrahamic covenant.1 The expression of P’s version of the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17 warrants special consideration in a study of Ishmael because of its peculiar treatment of that non- elect son. Here, in contrast to the accounts of the Yahwist (J) or Elohist (E), there is no expulsion scene, nor any other hostility toward Ishmael. In fact, in P Ishmael remains on the horizon long enough to bury his father Abraham (Gen 25:9, 13–18), and has his own genealogy. It is perhaps most intriguing, though, that Ishmael enjoys very similar promises to those that the deity bestows on Abraham himself in the same passage (17:4– 6). God assures Abraham that he will bless the patriarch’s first offspring, that he will make that son fruitful and very numerous, that Ishmael will father twelve “chieftains” or “princes,” and that God will make of Ishmael, too, a great nation (v. 20). The preceding line, verse 19, makes it clear that the divine covenant is with Isaac, yet the passage also 1 I am assuming as a tentative framework Joel Kaminsky’s three levels of election in the Hebrew Bible: the elect, non-elect and anti-elect. One of his central points, to be tested here, is that divine favoritism does not necessitate alienation of the non-chosen from God or exclusion from his blessings (Yet I Loved Jacob [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007], esp. 16, 34). 1 explicitly mentions Ishmael’s participation with Abraham in the sign of the covenant, circumcision, along with all the other males in Abraham’s household. The question of Ishmael’s status before God is thus ambiguous, and is especially at issue in the theology of P. The curious relationship between Genesis 9 and 17, two P passages that describe covenants of God with Noah and Abraham, respectively, serves as the backdrop for this study: in the first of these two covenants, the terms are universally applied to Noah, his sons and their descendants, and even every living creature with them (9:9–10). According to the covenant established with Abraham, on the other hand, terms are only extended to this one individual and his seed—out of all of the descendants of Noah—and the seed that receives the covenant is restricted to that of the promised son, Isaac (17:19). The reader observes here a movement from the universal to the particular as the divine interests are narrowed or specified. II. Previous Scholarship Previous research relating to this thesis may be considered primarily within two categories of inquiry: election in the Abrahamic cycle, and particularly in the Priestly source; and interpretations of Ishmael in the tradition of Genesis 17. On Universalism and Election in the Abrahamic Cycle and P The issue of God’s favor for Isaac and (to some degree) Ishmael is part of a broader discussion of Abraham’s own election, and bears also on the chosenness of 2 Israel. Therefore its relevance is not only for our understanding of the complexities of universalism in P specifically, but also for our reading of the Abrahamic Cycle.2 The point of departure for any consideration of Abraham’s election is Gen 12:1– 3, a J passage that details YHWH’s promise to Abram that he will make of him a great nation, that he will be a blessing, and, ultimately, that in him all families of the earth will either “bless themselves” (through the use of Abraham’s name as a positive example), or What seems to be at stake is the scope of YHWH’s favor, which 3.(נברכו) ”be blessed“ extends primarily to Abraham and his descendants on the one hand, or to all the families of the earth on the other hand.