Azahari Hassim
Did classical Bible scholars engage in a debate regarding Ishmael’s age at the time of leaving Abraham’s house?
Yes, classical Bible scholars have indeed debated Ishmael’s age when he and his mother Hagar were sent away from Abraham’s household. The primary source of this debate stems from the biblical texts in Genesis.
According to Genesis 21, verses 8-14, the event occurred after Isaac was weaned. Since weaning typically happened around the age of three in ancient times, Ishmael would have been around 17 years old, given that he was 14 years older than Isaac. However, some interpretations of the text suggest that Ishmael is depicted as a much younger child, which has led to discussions about potential inconsistencies or symbolic interpretations within the narrative.
This debate highlights the complexities and nuances in interpreting ancient texts, where cultural, historical, and linguistic contexts play significant roles.
Some people think that Ishmael, when sent away by Abraham in the Torah, was just a young child, not a teenager, based on the phrase “and he grew” in Genesis 21, verse 20. They point out that the Hebrew word “yelid” is used for both Ishmael and baby Moses (Exodus 2, verse 6). How do they explain this argument?
The argument is articulated by pointing out the use of the Hebrew word “yelid” in both Genesis 21, verses 14 to 15, and Exodus 2, verse 6. In these verses, “yelid” is used to describe both Ishmael and infant Moses. Supporters of the argument claim that since “yelid” is used to describe Moses when he was an infant, it should also be understood to mean that Ishmael was still a young child in Genesis 21, verse 20.
Additionally, the phrase “and he grew” in Genesis 21, verse 20, is interpreted by some to imply that Ishmael was still in the process of growing and developing, suggesting a younger age. They argue that if Ishmael were already a teenager or older, it would not be necessary to mention his growth.
It should be noted, however, that interpretations of biblical texts can vary, and different scholars or readers may have different understandings of the intended meaning.
Here is how the Jewish scribe manipulated Ishmael’s story:
- The age of Ishmael at the time of his departure from Abraham’s house.
- Abraham’s son, who was offered as a sacrifice.
Examining Claims of Scribal Interpolation: Who Was Abraham’s Sacrificial Son, Ishmael or Isaac?
Was there a scribal interpolation in the Torah regarding which son, Ishmael or Isaac, Abraham was commanded to sacrifice, as suggested by the celebration of Eid al-Adha (Feast of Sacrifice) in Islam?
Some Islamic scholars argue that Eid al-Adha (Feast of Sacrifice) points to a scribal interpolation in the Torah regarding which son Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. Their argument for scribal interpolation is articulated as follows:
Islamic tradition holds that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. This belief forms the basis for the celebration of Eid al-Adha (Feast of Sacrifice), one of the most important festivals in Islam.
Scholars who support this view present several arguments:
- Primacy of Ishmael: They argue that Ishmael, being Abraham’s firstborn son, was the original heir to the covenant and thus the logical choice for such a significant test of faith.
- Quranic Account: The Quran’s narrative of the sacrifice does not explicitly name the son, but contextual evidence and Islamic tradition point to Ishmael. This interpretation stems from the chronological events presented in the Quran, indicating that the promise of Isaac’s birth occurred after the narrative of the sacrifice, thereby suggesting that Ishmael was the son mentioned in that context.
- Historical Context: These scholars suggest that ancient Israelite scribes may have altered the original text to emphasize Isaac’s role, shifting the focus away from Ishmael to establish a stronger theological foundation for Israelite claims.
- Geographical Inconsistencies: They point out that the biblical account mentions Mount Moriah, while Islamic tradition places the event near Mecca, where Ishmael and Hagar settled.
- Linguistic Analysis: Some argue that careful examination of the original Hebrew text reveals inconsistencies that suggest later editing.
If this interpretation is accepted, it would have significant implications:
It would challenge the traditional Jewish and Christian understanding of the Abrahamic covenant.
It would support the Islamic view of Ishmael as a key figure in the Abrahamic covenant and narrative.
It would reinforce the Islamic belief in the Quran as a correction to earlier scriptures, such as the Torah and the Gospel.
Pre-Islamic Arab Tradition vs Torah
According to established tradition, prior to the advent of Muhammad, the Arabs believed that their ancestor Abraham was on the verge of offering his son Ishmael as a sacrifice to God. It is believed that their pre-Islamic tradition about Ishmael predates the Torah given to Moses. How is their argument articulated?
Scholars argue that the oral traditions of the Arabs, including those surrounding Ishmael, predate the written texts of the Torah. This assertion is based on the notion that oral traditions can be older than their written counterparts, as they may have been passed down through generations long before being codified in scripture.
The argument that the pre-Islamic Arab tradition about Ishmael predates the Torah given to Moses is articulated through several points:
- Historical Narratives: Early Arab traditions held that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the son Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. This belief is deeply rooted in the cultural and religious narratives of pre-Islamic Arabia.
- Religious Significance: The story of Ishmael’s near-sacrifice is significant in Islam, where it is believed that both Abraham and Ishmael willingly submitted to God’s command. This act of submission is seen as a profound demonstration of faith and obedience.
- Cultural Artifacts: Some early Muslim scholars argued that the horns of the ram, which was sacrificed in place of Ishmael, were once displayed in the Kaaba, suggesting a long-standing tradition that predates Islamic scripture.
- Jealousy Argument: There is also an argument that Jews claimed Isaac was the intended sacrifice out of jealousy, as Ishmael is considered the ancestor of the Arabs.
These points collectively support the belief that the tradition of Ishmael’s near-sacrifice has ancient roots, predating the Torah and reflecting the unique relationship between God and the Arab people.
Interestingly, before the rise of Islam, ancient Arabs in Mecca circumcised their children at the age of 13 or 14. Did they inherit this practice from the Torah, which requires circumcision at eight days, or was it a tradition tracing back to Abraham that predated the Torah?
It is plausible that the tradition of circumcision among ancient Arabs in Mecca traced back to Abraham, who is considered a common ancestor by both Jews and Arabs. It could be that this practice was passed down through generations independently of any direct influence from the Torah or Judaism.
Ishmael: The Rightful Heir of the Abrahamic Covenant – Revisiting Biblical Circumcision and Lineage
The Abrahamic covenant stands as a foundational pillar in the sacred histories of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Central to this covenant is the rite of circumcision, instituted by God as a binding sign between Himself and Abraham’s descendants. Traditionally, Jewish and Christian interpretations assert that Isaac, the son born to Abraham and Sarah, is the rightful heir through whom this covenant is fulfilled.
However, a careful reexamination of the biblical chronology challenges this assumption. This article argues that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the first and only son to receive the covenantal sign alongside Abraham himself—prior to Isaac’s birth—thereby establishing Ishmael as the sole and true heir of the original Abrahamic covenant. By exploring the timing, recipients, and implications of circumcision in Genesis 17 and 21, this piece invites readers to reconsider long-held views and appreciate the overlooked centrality of Ishmael in the divine covenant.
1. The Biblical Basis for Circumcision as a Covenant
The Bible establishes circumcision as the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham:
Genesis 17:9–11
“Then God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised… it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.’”
Here, circumcision is the definitive sign of the Abrahamic covenant.
2. The Timing of Circumcision Before Isaac’s Birth
The Bible affirms that circumcision was performed before Isaac was born:
Genesis 17:23–26
“On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him… Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, and his son Ishmael was thirteen.”
At this critical juncture, only Abraham and Ishmael were Abraham’s natural descendants to receive the sign of the covenant. Isaac had not yet been born.
3. Ishmael as the Sole and True Heir of the Abrahamic Covenant
This sequence of events reveals that:
Circumcision is the outward and binding sign of the Abrahamic covenant.
Ishmael was the only son of Abraham present to receive this sign alongside him.
All others circumcised at that time were household members and servants—not Abraham’s direct offspring.
Therefore, Ishmael alone stands as the true and sole heir of the Abrahamic covenant, sharing this foundational covenantal sign with Abraham himself.
4. Isaac as Merely a Participant Like Other Household Members
When Isaac was born, he too was circumcised on the eighth day (Genesis 21:4). However, this circumcision occurred after the covenant was already established through Abraham and Ishmael. Like the other members of Abraham’s household, Isaac simply entered into an existing covenantal practice rather than establishing or uniquely embodying it.
In this understanding:
Isaac’s circumcision parallels that of Abraham’s other household members.
He was brought into the covenantal sign but did not share in the original covenantal enactment alongside Abraham.
Thus, Isaac is seen merely as a participant in the Abrahamic covenant, not as its unique heir.
5. Distinction from the Sinai Covenant
The Sinai covenant was revealed exclusively to the descendants of Isaac through Jacob (Israel), establishing a separate covenantal framework for the Israelites.
In contrast, the original Abrahamic covenant—established through circumcision before Isaac’s birth—finds its complete and exclusive fulfillment in Ishmael, who was the first to embody and share this sign with Abraham.
6. Challenging Traditional Jewish and Christian Views
Traditionally, Jewish and Christian interpretations place Isaac as the sole heir of the Abrahamic covenant. However, this argument radically reorients that view:
Ishmael alone shares the covenantal enactment with Abraham.
Isaac, like the other household members, enters a covenantal practice already established.
Therefore, Ishmael alone emerges as the true and rightful heir of the Abrahamic covenant.
Summary of the Articulation
Circumcision, the outward sign of the Abrahamic covenant, was first performed on Abraham and Ishmael before Isaac was born. This historical reality establishes that while Isaac and others in Abraham’s household were participants in the sign of the covenant, only Ishmael shared in the covenant’s original establishment and thus stands as its true and exclusive heir. In this perspective, Ishmael’s role transcends mere participation—he alone embodies the Abrahamic covenant in its full and foundational form.
ABRAHAMIC THEOLOGY 