A Place for Hagar's Son, John T. Noble and Abdalrahman Abulmajd

 

We have a fresh opportunity to reflect about Ishmael.

At this point professor John  Noble isn’t going to speak about his views on A Place for Hagar's Son but he also speaks about His dissertation investigating the literary and theological functions of Ishmael in the Abrahamic Covenant, too.                                            

 

Dr. John T. Noble.

Dr. John T. Noble is Assistant Professor of Bible & Religion and Director for the Centre for Non-Western Studies at Huntington University, Indiana since fall 2012. He holds the AM and PhD in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations from Harvard University. His dissertation investigating the literary and theological functions of Ishmael in the Abrahamic Covenant was accepted with distinction and is scheduled to appear in May 2016 as A Place for Hagar’s Son: Ishmael as a Case Study in the Priestly Tradition (Fortress Press).

 

Q : First of all, we thank you for agreeing this interview, I wonder what prompted you to take up a Place for Hagar's Son.

JTN: Thank you for the honor of addressing your readership. I’m drawn to the question of Hagar and Ishmael first out of exegetical interest. Their story represents an interpretive problem in the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament), namely, why are these figures given so much positive attention in the traditions of Genesis if the covenant is intended for Abraham’s other son, Isaac, and then the sons of Israel? My teachers have always emphasized the importance of details and close reading, and my supposition is that the authors of Genesis may have intended more for Hagar and Ishmael than we often hear about from traditional Jewish or Christian explanations. But one of my greatest hopes for this book goes beyond the academy—that some of the ideas might be fruitful for dialogue, if in some small way, and a cause for mutual respect among adherents of the great Abrahamic religious traditions.

 

Q: You carefully examine their roles and depictions in the P and non-P Genesis traditions I wonder what new you discovered?

JTN: A little background may be helpful. Modern scholars recognize that the first five books of the Bible—typically known as Torah or Pentateuch—are comprised of various sources. There is persisting disagreement about the precise nature of these sources, but one source is widely acknowledged—the “Priestly” tradition. Other source material that does not have consensus description is often referred to simply as “non-P,” though in this book I’ve been more specific in identifying both P and the non-P material for Hagar and Ishmael: 16:1–14 (Yahwist source, or “J”);17:1–27 (Priestly source, or “P”), and 21:8–21 (Elohist source, or “E”). First I’ll comment on the non-P traditions, including J and E.

 

Much of what I’ve written synthesizes other observations or is derived. For example, one idea that I build on comes from the Jewish scholar Joel S. Kaminsky (Yet I Loved Jacob), who, citing Ishmael, notices that Genesis doesn’t neatly distinguish between “elect” and “anti-elect” in the patriarchal stories, which are largely oriented around the mysterious divine favor of one sibling or family member over another. My observation is that Ishmael stands out in comparison to other family members of Genesis who are not elect, and exhibit negative characteristics that would seem to justify their dis-election. Ishmael and his mother are not portrayed in J and E as undeserving, but instead are downtrodden and even victimized in the household of Abraham and Sarah.

 

In these non-P traditions, God is attuned to Hagar and Ishmael, and Genesis 16 (J) puts special focus on God’s sensory perception in his attention to their plight. Thus, the name God intends for Hagar’s son is Ishmael, meaning “God hears.” And when Hagar names God—she is the only person in the entire Bible who gives God a name—she calls him El Roi, “God who sees me.” I understand God’s pronouncement to Hagar that Ishmael will be a “wild ass of a man with his hand against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him” to be a word of consolation to an oppressed slave—Hagar’s son will not be servant to anyone. (Her grateful response is an indication of Hagar’s satisfaction with God’s description of Ishmael.) It is worth noting that the Hebrew consonants of Hagar’s name, h-g-r, also spell “the alien,” a special category of protected persons in various legal sections of the Pentateuch.

 

Another observation I’ve made is that the story of Hagar and Ishmael foreshadows Israel’s own experience in Exodus. As Hagar is an Egyptian slave to Abraham and Sarah—Israel’s forebears—so too will Israel come to serve Egypt at the beginning of the Exodus story. (Recall that the Ishmaelites bring Joseph to Egyptian slavery in the first place in what appears to be a type of quid pro quo justice.) And in Genesis 21 (E), God provides for and redeems Hagar and Ishmael in the wilderness after they’ve left Abraham’s household, just as God will provide for and redeem his people Israel after their departure from Egyptian oppressors. 

 

Q: Could you elaborate on the patriarchal promises to Abraham, showing that Ishmael is clearly favored, though not chosen.

JTN: Here I am dependent on the work of another Jewish scholar, the eminent Jon D. Levenson (The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son), who also supervised this project as a dissertation. Levenson first notices that the Bible exhibits a pattern of humiliation and exaltation, or death and resurrection, among those whom God sets apart as his beloved. Examples include but are not limited to Isaac’s near sacrifice; Joseph’s near fratricide and prison sentence preceding his rise in Pharaoh’s court; and even Jesus’ passion, death, and resurrection in the New Testament.

 

In this book, I claim that the pattern extends to Hagar and Ishmael, who also experience humiliation and nearness to death before God brings exaltation in the non-P stories. This is a marker of God’s favor that is unknown to other figures of the patriarchal traditions who are not chosen and not included in the particular covenant that God makes with Abraham and Isaac.

 

Q: I wonder how you find the profound ambivalence of the biblical portrayals of Hagar and Ishmael.

JTN: Besides the non-P texts discussed above, Genesis 17 (P) portrays God’s covenant with Abraham with considerable ambivalence regarding Ishmael. There are indications that this Priestly source is familiar with the older stories about Abraham’s first son, but presents his ambiguous status in a different way, using language that points both toward Ishmael’s exclusion and inclusion in the Abrahamic covenant. God says explicitly that his covenant will be established with Isaac, but Ishmael enjoys the covenantal blessing of a multiplication of offspring; God makes clear that the rite of circumcision is central to the covenant, but Ishmael is circumcised, along with every other male among Abraham’s household; and Abraham curiously pleads to God that Ishmael might “live before you!” when he hears of Isaac’s coming birth. In response, God invokes Ishmael’s name, saying “I have heard you,” but reiterates that he will establish his covenant with Isaac. If anything is definite, it is that the Abrahamic covenant is constructed to be ambiguous, with Ishmael as simultaneous insider and outsider.

 

Q: Dr. John as you're  Director for the Centre for Non-Western Studies I didn’t know why I didn’t find any prove from the Qur’an though Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac appear in many ayas and chapters, Isaac mentioned 17 times too. If only if you studied them in the Qur’an, you enlarged your ideas completely. (I’m not completely sure what this question is asking. I think you’re saying that I should have considered the occurrences of Ishmael and Isaac in the Qur’an.) 

JTN: Yes, of course there is much more to consider when we come to Ishmael and Isaac in the Qur’an. This material is outside of the scope of the present project, but I hope to think more seriously in the future about the reception history of Ishmael in other literatures, including Islamic traditions. 

 

Q: I don’t know why Ishmael must be seen as a key figure in the Priestly material, and how does the covenant with Noah relate to the covenant with Abraham?

JTN: Both the Noahic covenant of Genesis 9 and the Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 17 are the domain of P, and the two covenants have some important things in common: a “sign of the covenant,” a declaration that the covenant is “everlasting,” and an emphasis on the multiplication of offspring. P intends for the two covenants to relate to each other. Perhaps the biggest difference between the two covenants is that Noah’s covenant is universal—extending to all humanity through Noah as progenitor of all peoples after the flood—whereas Abraham’s covenant marks the beginning of God’s particular relationship with a subset of humanity. With this in mind, Ishmael can be viewed as a kind of link for the two covenants. At the moment when the focus of God’s covenantal relationship is narrowed to Abraham’s son Isaac, his first son Ishmael is given a covenantal blessing. Ishmael also participates in circumcision, and he also enjoys the blessing of a multiplication of offspring, so that he, too, is to become father of a great nation.

 

I find useful the interpretation of Konrad Schmid, for whom all of these factors add up to Ishmael’s partial inclusion in the Abrahamic covenant. This is true insofar as the covenant is characterized by two different circles, one for the broader family of Abraham, and one for the people of Israel. Ishmael is a key figure in the Priestly tradition, then, because he highlights the universal outlook of P, according to which all descendants of Adam, Noah, and even Abraham fall within the purview of God’s compassion and concern.

  

Q:  “A negative portrayal of the origin and reputation of the Ishmaelites, the predecessors of modern-day Arab Muslims.  How can should be treated to be in true peace, God promised Abraham that His blessing should be upon Ishmael,” Ishmael’s cry shall be heard and a great nation shall come forth.  Remember Ishmael too comes from Abraham’s seed!” Genesis 17:20, 25 - And as for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold. I will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly.  He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.  What would you add?

JTN: See below.

 

Q:  As a path to resolving contemporary Jewish/Muslim tensions.  Identifying divergent treatments of Ishmael and Hagar, Bridge exposes the Yahwist as condemnatory but finds that the Priestly/Elohist sources maintain a place for cherishing and blessing Ishmael in addition to Isaac.  Could you elaborate on that please?

JTN: You are referring to Steven Bridge, Getting the Old Testament (Hendrickson, 2009). I appreciate that Bridge wishes for blessing rather than endless conflict for the communities of the earth called by Abraham’s name (66), and I concur with his assessment that the non-P sources tell similar stories about Hagar and Ishmael and their departure from the household of Abram/Abraham. But I disagree to a great extent with his characterization of the difference between the two accounts, concluding, as you say, that the Yahwist is condemnatory concerning Hagar and Ishmael. Concerning Gen 16:1–14, he writes:

 

Clearly, this episode presents a negative portrayal of the origin and reputation of the Ishmaelites, the predecessors of modern-day Arab Muslims. According to it, they are destined for nothing but conflict in their relationships with their Semitic relatives, the modern-day Jewish people. Moreover, this tradition lays the blame for such conflict squarely upon the shoulders of Ishmael’s progeny (63).

 

Bridge’s interpretation represents a popular conception of Hagar and Ishmael in this passage, and is based on 1) Hagar’s identification as the “troublemaker” because of her contempt for Sarai (v 4); 2) the Angel of YHWH’s instruction to have her submit to Sarai’s mistreatment (v 9); and 3) the pronouncement of Ishmael’s contentious nature (v 12).

 

These factors paint a bleak picture on the surface, but there is more to the story that comes to light from close reading. As I’ve mentioned above, there is an established pattern of humiliation and exaltation attending those whom God favors in the patriarchal traditions and in the Bible as a whole, and Hagar and Ishmael fit this pattern in Genesis 16.

 

Here are a few specific points from A Place for Hagar’s Son in support of a sympathetic reading of Hagar and Ishmael in this J passage. First, this story follows a familiar scene type attested in other ancient, regional epic literature—including the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh and the Ugartic Epic of Aqhat—in which the protagonist offends a superior and must face the consequent fury. The significance is that the reader is intended to sympathize with Hagar. Second, Hagar’s orders to submit to Sarai involve the same verb found in the previous chapter—also a J source—when God announces to Abram that his descendants will be “oppressed” as slaves in a foreign land as “an alien” (Gen 15:13). This language parallels that of Hagar (“The alien”), who suffers “oppression” as an Egyptian slave to Israel’s ancestors. The parallel usage of these terms constitutes a foreshadowing of Hagar and Ishmael as a microcosm for the people of Israel, a theme that is also present in Gen 21:8–21 (see above). Finally, whatever one makes of the announcement of Ishmael’s career, it is clear that he will not be a slave and that he will be Hagar’s son—two truths that bring comfort to Hagar who suffers from her contingent status as both slave and surrogate. In my opinion, then, the Yahwist and Elohist accounts are not so different as Bridge proposes.

 

To be sure, both Gen 16:1–14 and Gen 21:8–21 see to the removal of Ishmael from the household of Abram/Abraham, making space for Isaac to be heir to the covenant. Yet the portrayal of Hagar and Ishmael is more complicated than that, and they enjoy God’s compassion, blessing, and, I have argued, even favor. The Bible’s greatest blessing for Ishmael, however, is found in the Priestly covenant of Genesis 17, where he participates in the Abrahamic covenant and becomes father to twelve princes and a great nation. 

 

AA: Thank you very much, Dr. John. 

Thank you for the opportunity.