Father of Isaac and Ishmael and the sons of Keturah, husband to Sarah, Hagar and Keturah, Abraham is the recipient of the promise of countless descendants, an area of land and a blessing bestowed by God. Unsurprisingly, the language used to describe Abraham throughout the Hebrew Bible is based in masculine pronouns and male-dominated word-choices, mostly through the use of “father” as a title. In Deut. 1:8, for example, Abraham is referred to as “father” to his people (לַאֲבֹתֵיכֶם), who are now charged with claiming the land that was promised to them through him: “See, I have set the land before you; go in and take possession of the land that I swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give to them and to 11their descendants after them.” In Isa. 41:8, the reference to Abraham’s fatherhood is brought up again: “But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend.” The connotation behind the use of זֶרַע, which is regularly glossed “offspring” (NRSV) and sometimes “seed” (KJV, for example), is linked to male virility, and appears only once in relation to female fertility in the Hebrew Bible.^[5]

Even the name “Abraham” is linked to concepts of masculinity and fatherhood. Abraham’s pre-covenantal name “Abram” means either “exalted father” or “father of elevation”, and “Abraham” can be translated as “father of a multitude”.^[6] Abraham’s identity as both “man” and “father” is not only central to his narrative and impact in the Hebrew Bible, it is also used to provide an identity and voice to his descendants. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, references abound to Abraham as father,^[7] or to God identifying himself as the “God of your father(s), Abraham, (Isaac, and Jacob)”.^[8] Mostly, invocations to the patriarchal triumvirate are bound with appeals from the people of Israel to be remembered by God through his covenant with Abraham. The ability to trace their genealogy to Abraham their father is a method of classifying themselves against other groups in the land, as well as for staking a claim on their promised land,^[9] and defining social functions, juridical powers and religious imperatives associated with the genealogical system of the Israelite community.^[10]

For such an important figure who is literarily the father of all of his descendants, it must also be acknowledged that Abraham is not even one of the most recognized figures in the Hebrew Bible.^[11] “Abram” is mentioned fifty-nine times in the book of 12Genesis and a further two times outside of Genesis (1 Chron. 1:27; Neh. 9:7). “Abraham” is mentioned 117 times in Genesis, and only forty-two times outside of Genesis, and the name “Abram” or “Abraham” appears in isolation (i.e., without reference to his descendants),^[12] or without reference to the title of “father”, only seven times outside of the book of Genesis.^[13] From this brief quantitative study, it can be surmised that the connection between Abraham and “father” is consistent throughout the Hebrew Bible.

This indicates that Abraham’s significance extends beyond the role of a character in a series of legends, using descriptions of Abraham that normally include a patriarchal element. However, this count of Abraham’s name also suggests he is not as important a figure as other biblical men, such as Moses, David, or even Solomon, whose names appear in the biblical texts much more frequently,^[14] and unlike these men, he is far more likely to be linked with the concept of father, rather than the idea of his being a great warrior, king, or leader.^[15]

Most current scholarship on the reception of Abraham in the Hebrew Bible is concerned with his identity and role as father and how that relates to possession of territories as promised in his covenant with God.^[16] It is mostly men who have thus far undertaken such scholarship, and the results, though fruitful, challenging and rigorous, are steeped in androcentric perspectives, often reflecting the social location of the scholars. As Frances Klopper notes in relation to biblical studies in general, “[t]raditional male commentators wrote under the guise of neutrality but imposed their assumptions on the text and failed to question its moral difficulties.”^[17] This is true with regards to the reception of Abraham in the Hebrew Bible as well as in other ancient texts.

13

The emphasis on interpreting Abraham as a father figure in Genesis and beyond is so well-established, that considerations of how Abraham achieved that title in the first place—namely because his wives and sexual partners,^[18] Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah, became pregnant and gave birth—have been more or less lost in scholarship. As noted, there are a number of studies on Abraham as a father,^[19] and there are a number of studies on motherhood narratives in Genesis.^[20] However, little consideration has been given to the reception of Abraham in the Hebrew Bible in relation to his wives/partners,^[21] and how the erasure of the mothers throughout the Hebrew Bible impacts the reception of Abraham as father.

To be a father, one must have offspring. Generally speaking, to produce offspring one requires a female, and Abraham had three women in his life: Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah.^[22] Sarah was his first wife and the reader is told she was very beautiful, but infertile.^[23] After a period of time and significant events including the Hagar-Ishmael episode (Genesis 16), Sarah eventually becomes pregnant following a divine proclamation (Gen. 18:10) and gives birth to Isaac in Gen. 21:1-3. Hagar was Sarah’s slave and appears to have no difficulties bearing children, giving birth to Ishmael in Gen. 16:15 after Sarah offers her to Abraham as a way to procure a child. Keturah was married to Abraham after the death of Sarah and was also seemingly fertile as she gave birth to six sons before Abraham died (Gen. 25:2). It is through these women that Abraham is made a father, a patriarch, yet they do not figure in the narratives of the Hebrew Bible which call upon Abraham’s name in remembrance, except for on three occasions.

In contrast to Abraham’s recurring title of “father” in the Hebrew Bible, Sarah is only called “mother” twice in Genesis (Gen. 17:16; 24:67) and her association with motherhood occurs only once outside of Genesis, in Isa. 51:2: “Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you”. That is also the only instance that her name occurs outside of Genesis. Keturah is never given the title “mother” but is named as bearer to Abraham’s children twice in the book of Genesis (25:1; 25:4) and twice outside of Genesis in 1 Chron. 1:32-33. Hagar is given the descriptor of “mother” once within Genesis (21:21) but is not mentioned again in the Hebrew Bible.

Abraham’s identity of father is strongly reiterated throughout the Hebrew Bible as we have seen, yet the handful of references to the mothers who bear his children suggests both that they are unimportant characters within the covenantal narratives, and, as such, they are not significant factors in the future of Abraham and his descendants. Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah do not need to be remembered. Because of this, the memory of the mothers is erased as the reader progresses throughout the Hebrew Bible, so I will now examine the texts of the Hebrew Bible which support this view, and argue that the erasure of motherhood impacts on the characterization of Abraham.

The identity of Abraham as “father” pervades the texts of Genesis. He is first introduced to readers of the narrative as part of a genealogical line connecting 15Noah’s son Shem to Abraham’s father Terah (Gen. 11:10-26), indicating to the reader that Abraham and his brothers, Nahor and Haran, are descended from righteous stock. The genealogical recantation ends with Abraham and his brothers, signaling the beginning of a new narrative which introduces the wives of Abram and Nahor, Sarai and Milcah (Gen. 11:29-30), and tells of Terah’s death (Gen. 11:32). Terah’s death marks the shift from Abraham’s historical family line to his future line in Genesis 12.

In the beginning of his story, Abraham is promised land, a blessing, and descendants who will become a great nation (Gen. 12:1-3).^[24] The text is ambiguous here; it is unclear if this promise refers to direct descendants born to Abraham through his wife Sarah, who is described as infertile in Gen. 11:30, or if the reference is to descendants born through his kin: his brother Nahor, or his nephew Lot, for example. As the narrative progresses in Genesis, Abraham raises this point when he questions God in Gen. 15:3: “You have given me no offspring, and so a slave born in my house is to be heir.” God responds in the negative, reassuring Abraham that “no one but your very own issue shall be your heir” (Gen. 15:4), which Abraham believes, making him righteous in the eyes of his God.

A solution to Abraham’s lack of offspring is presented in Genesis 16 when Sarah gives her slave-girl Hagar to Abraham in order that Sarah may “obtain children by her” (Gen. 16:2). Abraham lies with Hagar and she falls pregnant, but Sarah expels her from the community after Hagar “looked with contempt on her mistress”.^[25] Quite what this means is unclear; suffice to say Hagar has harmed her mistress enough for Sarah to expel the only chance Abraham has had at this point to father a child.

Arguably, Abraham has thus far been central to the covenantal story between himself and God. Sarah has been by his side for the most part but is a secondary character, and Hagar is only introduced at the beginning of Genesis 16. This structure of power in the narrative alters in Genesis 16 as, arguably, Sarah leads the narrative in this chapter. It is her suggestion to use Hagar as a vessel for a child 16(Gen. 16:2), and it is her demand to banish Hagar (Gen. 16:6). Overarchingly, it is Sarah who takes control of ensuring Abraham becomes a father and fulfils God’s covenantal promise, even though Abraham is the character most concerned with his lack of progeny (Gen. 15:3).

Sarah’s initial plan for Hagar to fall pregnant is successful but, as noted above, Hagar’s new status of the bearer of Abraham’s child causes friction between her and Sarah, and Hagar is expelled into the wilderness. Here, she receives a divine visitation from a messenger of God, announcing that she will have a son called Ishmael because God has “heard” her plight (Gen. 16:11).^[26] Abraham is not party to this declaration, and this scene marks Hagar as the first woman in biblical text to receive a divine proclamation from an angel of God. That it is Hagar, a lowly Egyptian slave-girl who receives reassurance and a promise from God concerning her son, and not Abraham—who is partly responsible for banishing her to certain death even though she carries his long-sought after progeny—indicates two things. Firstly, Hagar as mother is the parent concerned for the wellbeing of her child and herself, and requires comfort from God,^[27] but Abraham as father is missing from both the text and the proclamation, which suggests he is seemingly unconcerned with the fate of both mother and child. This reflects the passivity of his response to Sarah expelling Hagar in 16:6, as well as his general passivity in resolving the problem of a lack of children despite covenantal promises (cf. Gen. 15:3). Secondly, this suggests that Ishmael’s fate will never be the concern of Abraham the father but only of Hagar the mother, foreshadowing what is to come in Gen. 21:8-21. The expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael in Gen. 16:6-14 demonstrates that Hagar-the-mother is central to the survival of Abraham’s child, whereas Abraham-the-father is accountable for the near-death of his unborn son. Hagar returns to the family and gives birth to Ishmael in Gen. 16:15, and Abraham becomes a father for the first time. Despite his reputation in the Hebrew Bible as being the ultimate father, he has not shown many fatherly attributes thus far.

The Hagar-Ishmael episode in Genesis 16 is somewhat reversed in Genesis 18. Whereas it was Hagar/mother who received the promise of a son from God without Abraham, in Genesis 18 it is Abraham/father who receives the promise from God that Sarah will bear him a son. This time Sarah/mother is not privy to God’s promise; instead, she must eavesdrop at the door of her tent in order to hear that she will fall pregnant. In this episode, Abraham receives the promise from the visitors in silence, but Sarah is heard laughing, an action which foreshadows the name of her miracle child, Isaac (i.e., “he laughs”).^[28] Sarah’s response of laughter juxtaposed against Abraham’s silence suggests either her disbelief and Abraham’s acceptance or Abraham’s disbelief (he is too shocked to speak) and Sarah’s joy—the text is unclear.

17

Sarah becomes pregnant and gives birth to Isaac in Genesis 21 and, unlike Ishmael who is named by the divine messenger in Gen. 16:11, it is Abraham who names Isaac (Gen. 21:3). This action emphasizes the different treatment of each child by Abraham as father; one child is left to the care of God, the other is cared for under the protection of family with Abraham as head. The banishment of Hagar and Ishmael into the wilderness for a second time follows the birth of Isaac (Gen. 21:10), but not before Abraham displays emotion for the first time towards one of his children:

Abraham’s distress at the thought of banishing Ishmael potentially demonstrates that an emotional bond has developed between father and son since the first time Hagar was cast out while carrying her child.^[29] He is now physically and psychologically unwilling to cast out his son, who he has seen grow up before his eyes. From a contemporary perspective, this suggests Abraham acts as a father to his children only after birth when they are able to interact with him, to play with him, to learn and to grow in front of him, but this bond appears to be either non-existent or much weaker while his children are in utero. However, through the lens of high infant and female mortality rates in antiquity, distance between unborn child and father could also suggest that Abraham did not develop a bond until he knew his child was born safely and healthily. In Gen. 21:12-13, God placates Abraham by promising him that Ishmael will thrive and become a great name if Abraham follows Sarah’s instructions. This reassurance is enough to override any emotional distress Abraham is feeling, and he acquiesces to Sarah’s demand, sending his son and his partner Hagar into the wilderness for a second time.

The display of emotion in that narrative contrasts with the infamously emotionless scene of the Akedah narrative in Genesis 22. Described by Erich Auerbach as “fraught with background”,^[30] God’s command that Abraham sacrifice his son, “his only son, Isaac” (Gen. 22:2) is met with silence from Abraham and a 18resolve to carry out the instruction. Many different interpretations of the Akedah have been written that cover whether or not Abraham was being tested, whether he knew God would intervene and not allow Isaac to be killed, as well as discussions on Isaac and Sarah’s role in the narrative.^[31] For the purposes of my argument, I draw upon it to highlight the disparity between Abraham’s treatment of his sons to reveal how his reputation as a father developed from the texts of Genesis.

As noted in Gen. 21:10, Abraham is reluctant to expel his son for fear that he will not survive. In contrast, when God instructs Abraham to kill his remaining son in Genesis 22, Abraham shows no emotion but sets out to commit the act directly by his own hand. Finally, when the traumatic scenes in Genesis 22 culminate in a reprieve from God and a reiteration of the covenantal promises (Gen. 22:11-18), it appears that Abraham and Isaac go their separate ways, never appearing together again in the texts of Genesis from this point forth.^[32] Viewed through the lens of trauma, it is fair to surmise that such an event would create an irreconcilable rift between father (and would-be killer) and son.

For the ancient reader as much as the modern reader of the Genesis texts, Abraham’s inconsistency in the treatment of his sons creates an awkward and unflattering image of his foray into fatherhood. From a narratological perspective, there appears to be a lack of emotional bond between father and sons except for the single occasion in Gen. 21:11, which is quickly overridden, and there is no reason to suggest that his identity as father is contingent upon developing a relationship with his progeny.^[33] This is further emphasized when his third partner 19Keturah gives birth to six more sons in Gen. 25:1-2, although this could reflect what the ancient author thinks is important for the reader to know, rather than presenting the reader with a more complete picture of Abraham as father.

Here, the biblical text is no more than a short genealogical note and an explanation that before Abraham died, he “gave all he had” to Isaac, but to the sons of his concubines he gave gifts and sent them away from “his son”, Isaac (Gen. 25:5-6). It is Ishmael and Isaac who bury Abraham,^[34] but again the biblical text suggests no emotion connected with the event. To summarize, Abraham’s reputation of “father” is based on confusing interactions with his children, and a difficult relationship which does not appear to be typically that of a father who is good to, or who cares for, his children. This suggests his legacy of father is not about his emotional or physical capabilities, but something else entirely.

Of Abraham’s three wives/partners, Sarah is given the most space in the texts of Genesis. This is not particularly surprising given that she experienced the longest relationship with her husband out of the three. We do not know Sarah’s age when she marries Abraham, and though we know she dies at the age of 127, the text is unclear with regards to whether or not Abraham and Sarah still lived together at the point of her death (Gen. 23:1-2).

Sarah’s introduction to the reader is as Abraham’s wife, who is infertile (Gen. 11:30). The text does not indicate if she is troubled by her lack of childlessness, nor does it suggest Abraham is particularly concerned either. As previously discussed, some thought is given to the issue in Gen. 16:1-2 when Sarah decides that her slave-girl Hagar could be the one to provide Abraham with an heir, an endeavor which is, as we have seen, not altogether successful in how the situation concludes.^[35] 20The practice of using a slave or servant in place of a woman unable to have children was common practice in ancient Near Eastern laws, as demonstrated by scholars such as J. van Seters and N. Sarna, for example.^[36] Any resulting children would belong to the slave-owner and though the status of the slave would be elevated if she bore sons (daughters did not achieve the same status), it could just as easily be lowered if the slave started to act as equal to her mistress. In Genesis 16, then, Ishmael would belong to Sarah, and according to those laws she would be his legal mother.

The biblical text does not recognize this in any capacity: “Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram named his son, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael” (Gen. 16:5). Sarah has little to do with this birth or the child, and indeed is not mentioned in association with Ishmael at any point in Genesis, except for when she observes him playing with Isaac (Gen. 21:9). She has no motherly feeling towards him, despite the fact her husband now has a legitimate heir to the covenantal promises. When Sarah gives birth to Isaac, she acts to prevent Ishmael from sharing in any of Abraham’s inheritance by again asking Abraham to cast out Ishmael and his mother.^[37] Hagar does exhibit emotion toward her son, casting him under a bush because she cannot bear to watch him die (Gen. 21:15-16), and when they are both saved, she continues to care for him and finds him a wife from her own country (Gen. 21:20-21).

Sarah’s experience of mothering Isaac is similarly demonstrative of love, nurture, and emotion. She celebrates with joy, reflected in her son’s name, and in disbelief at finally becoming a mother (Gen. 21:7). She protects Isaac’s future by asking Abraham to cast out Hagar and Ishmael (Gen. 21:10) and God agrees with the matriarch, marking Isaac as the successor to Abraham’s covenant with God. Though no other word is written on Sarah’s relationship with Isaac, these short texts arguably demonstrate a parental connection demonstrably stronger than Abraham’s bond with either of his sons.

Keturah is the anomaly in the characterization of mothers; to her, no narrative is given only to say that she was taken as a wife, and she bore Abraham another six sons (Gen. 25:1-2). There is one other short verse which suggests Keturah’s role of parent was more enduring than Abraham’s to their sons: following the end of a short genealogical list, the writer has concluded “All these were the children of Keturah” (Gen. 25:4b). Similarly, in 1 Chron. 1:32 Abraham’s sons by Keturah are 21described as “the sons of his concubines” suggesting Keturah was the main parent of her children.

Abraham’s actions, emotions, and behavior as a father in the texts of Genesis do not suggest he was regarded as a particularly good, loyal, or responsible father. His reputation in the rest of the Hebrew Bible, as we will see, suggests he is remembered particularly as a model father figure, regardless of his arguably poor relationships with his own children. There exists, then, a discrepancy between Abraham’s characterization of fatherhood discussed above, and the reputation he develops later. In contrast, narratives of motherhood in Genesis suggest that each of Abraham’s wives/partners are characterized as steady, possibly loving mothers, though they are given far less space in the text which makes it difficult to draw out their characters fully. It follows then, that Abraham is not remembered as a model father because of his actions in life, but because of the legacy given to him through the covenantal promises with God. Likewise, Abraham’s wives/partners were not part of those covenantal promises, and their reputations as good mothers in life are not as important for the future destiny of Abraham’s lands, territories, and descendants.

As noted above, Abraham’s name appears only forty-four times outside of the book of Genesis, and the majority of these references are to the patriarchal triad of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As Römer points out: “the triad is used to characterize YHWH as the ‘God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel)’”,^[38] or as an “allusion to the divine land promise” made to Abraham and inherited by the succeeding patriarchs.^[39] The use of Abraham’s name in Exod. 2:24, for example, creates a connection between the covenantal promises in Genesis, and the plight of the Israelites in Egypt—God remembers the Israelites because of Abraham and his descendants. Similarly, in 1 Kgs. 18:36, the prophet Elijah is the one to remind God of his earlier promises by naming him “God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel”. The invocation of Abraham’s name in these passages serves as a connection between the ancestral father and his millions of descendants, but does not appeal to the fatherliness of Abraham’s character.

Römer is among a group of scholars who make the link between Abraham’s memory in the Hebrew Bible and the date of the texts which recall him.^[40] He 22argues that Abraham’s name appears in biblical texts which can be dated to the exilic period. As such, communities exiled from the land promised to Abraham appealed to God to remember his covenant with their “father” Abraham and restore them to their territories. His name is not recalled as frequently (or at all) in texts written pre- or post-exile, because God had already remembered his people, though there are of course exceptions to this.^[41] Hugh G. M. Williamson develops this premise noting that it was not only exiled communities who called Abraham’s name in times of need, but also the communities who remained in Judah during the exile who needed “reassurance and reorientation”.^[42] I will turn now to an examination of these texts to discuss this in more detail.

Ezek. 33:24 is potentially attributed to the non-deported Judean population during the exile, and it can be read as either a call upon God to restore their land to the Judean population by expelling the Edomites, who occupied it during the years in exile, or as a message to those in exile that they are not the true heirs of Abraham because they left the land promised to him.^[43] Clearly, the collective social remembrance of Abraham’s name in this passage is not linked to his fatherhood, but to his claim on the land promised to him by God in Genesis: “Abraham was only one man, yet he got possession of the land” (Ezek. 33:24a). The land is claimed by Abraham, and, as descendants of their patriarch, the Judean population may claim that land in his name. Though there is an indirect reference to Abraham as father through the reminder of the text—that the population in Ezek. 33:24 descends from him—his name is used to reinforce the patriarchal ideology concerning land ownership through patrilineal descent and physical occupation, rather than through descent alone.

Hendel calls this a counter memory of Abraham; that is, the recasting of a memory which refutes, revises, or even replaces an accepted memory of the past, 23usually as a means of recasting a memory in light of a new political or social agenda.^[44] In the case of Ezek. 33:24, the Judeans who remain in the land after the destruction of Jerusalem reconfigure their collective memory of Abraham to claim that it is no longer enough to be descended from Abraham’s genealogical line; one must also be resident in the land to be considered a legitimate child of Abraham.

There is a similar theme in Jer. 33:26. The motif in this passage is primarily concerned with the restoration of Israel, both physically (i.e. a rebuilding of the city), politically, and religiously.^[45] In this verse, Abraham’s name is remembered by God, who uses it to remind his exiled people (and arguably, himself), that their destiny is rooted in an ancient covenant that he made between himself and the patriarch.^[46] C. Lombaard calls the inclusion of Abraham and his succeeding patriarchs in this verse an unexpected occurrence,^[47] arguing that the text brings together separate but “parallel-running” theological streams, including patriarchal kinship, covenantal promise, the kingship of David, and elements of Creation theology.^[48] Lombaard suggests that Jer. 33:26 is a late addition to the biblical text, possibly making it post-exilic. If this is the case, then the inclusion of the patriarch in this verse is potentially designed to carry over the covenantal blessings received by Abraham into the kingship of David, and the priesthood.^[49]

Jer. 33:26, then, is not a recollection of Abraham as father, but a counter memory of Abraham as the receiver of a blessing from God, which must be carried over and married into the political state of his descendants in post-exilic Judea. Brueggemann writes that “the oracle appeals to memory and tradition in order to assert a theological reality that overrides present historical circumstance”,^[50] implying that the tradition of Abraham as father is the key to overcoming the political crisis. Invoking both Abraham and David in the same speech is a powerful political move which speaks to each man’s relationship with God, rather than their status as either father or leader (respectively).^[51]

24

Psalm 105 does not follow the trend of calling upon the memory of Abraham to reinforce claims on land and covenantal blessings. Marty E. Stevens calls Psalm 105 “the cliff notes of the Torah”, arguing that the psalm is concerned with reciting God’s actions towards his people, including the Abrahamic covenant.^[52] Ted Hildebrandt notes that it is unique among psalms, being the only one to refer to Abraham directly (as opposed to Psalm 47 which mentions the “God of Abraham” in v. 9).^[53] A lack of reference to David or Zion is also troubling to Hildebrandt, who argues that the inclusion of Abraham reconnects the people of Israel to the patriarchs during the troubling time of the exilic period. Like those in exile and the disparate few who remained in Judea, the patriarchs were “few in number when they first came into the land; they arrived after wandering from one nation to another; and they were protected by God from the kings who already occupied the land.”^[54] The exiled/remaining communities could identify with parts of Abraham’s history, which offered them hope and reassurance for their uncertain futures.

Though Hildebrandt also suggests that Psalm 105 is a reaffirmation of the Abrahamic covenant by God (for example, the word “land” is repeated ten times in the psalm,^[55] calling to mind that element of the promise between Abraham and God), the main assertion is that Abraham was used as a model to help guide the diasporic communities through their exile until they could return to their land. Though still not recalling Abraham’s memory of his fatherhood, Psalm 105 is concerned with reminding God of the covenantal promise of land, but it seems the poet-writer was most concerned with recalling Abraham’s history as a model/guide for moving forward. Erik Haglund supports this concept, noting that Abraham’s whole history is recalled in Psalm 105, as opposed to just his name. Further, the following themes can be read from the psalm, all of which serve to reinforce the connection between Abraham and land: 1) proclaiming God’s deeds to his people; 2) reflections on God’s deeds; 3) memories and traditions of God’s deeds; and 4) a reminder to keep the commandments.^[56]

25

The use of Abraham’s name in post-exilic texts is mostly to reinforce and claim covenantal themes of land ownership through patrilineal descent. Abraham as father is a symbolic invocation rather than a genealogical affair.^[57] Patrilineal descent is most important in these texts, because it establishes the legitimacy of the father and rules out the idea that the child does not belong to the father. Further, matrilineal descent would make the mother too important in the text, potentially de-legitimizing and removing power from the father.^[58]

This androcentric concept is at work in the above texts where Abraham is recalled as symbolic father, but the names of the mothers are not mentioned, expect on two occasions. Sarah is mentioned in Isa. 51:2, and Keturah appears twice in 1 Chron. 1:32-33. In the latter instance, possession of Abraham and Keturah’s children belongs to Keturah as indicated in the language of the texts of Genesis and 1 Chronicles: “All these were the children of Keturah (Gen. 25:4); ‘The sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: she bore Zimran [. . .]’ (1 Chron. 1:32); ‘All these were the descendants of Keturah’ (1 Chron. 1:33).^[59] The word-choice here indicates to the reader that the children belonged to Keturah which means they are not ‘right’ children—i.e. they are not legitimate because they cannot inherit Abraham’s status as patriarch/become party to the covenantal promises—because Keturah was not the ‘right’ mother; that status belongs to Sarah alone (Gen. 18:15-19).^[60] By aligning the children with Keturah rather than Abraham in this way, there can be no questions raised as to who the true heir of the covenantal promises is.

However, the inclusion of Keturah in 1 Chron. 1:32-33 signifies that God has kept the promise of descendants with Abraham. Even though Isaac (born through the “right” mother Sarah) is the only heir, Abraham has other children who will procreate to expand his lineage. Along with Isaac and Ishmael, Keturah and Abraham’s children are evidence that the promise is being delivered upon, but the continued emphasis on Keturah as parent means they cannot interfere with patrilineal claims on land. That part of the promise belongs to Isaac alone. Invocation to Keturah, then, is another way of claiming the covenantal promise by the righteous heir as opposed to the wrong descendants, and links this passage with themes discussed above.

Isa. 51:2, which is the only time Sarah is mentioned outside of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible, is unusual when considered against the above passages. Williamson suggests that the purpose of this (potentially)^[61] post-exilically-authored chapter is 26not concerned with claims to land; rather, it is concerned with the development of the community of Israel.^[62] Williamson suggests that the restoration of Zion (the people, not the land) and “the formation of the character of the community is also prominent”^[63] in this text, and that is the reason Abraham and Sarah are remembered. Interestingly, there are also intertextual connections with Ezek. 33:23-24; each of the texts present Abraham as “one” from whom “many” descend. But Römer proposes that Isa. 51:2-3 serves as a correction to Ezek. 33:23-24 in the way it suggests overcoming conflict between the remaining Judean population and the exiled communities of the diaspora.^[64]

The solution to the conflict lies in developing the community, an action that begins with looking “to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you” (Isa. 51:2). The invocation to Sarah in this passage, then, is about reinforcing the idea of the “right” descendants who are born through Sarah’s bloodline because she was the recipient of God’s covenantal promise, and she alone of the mothers can deliver legitimate children.^[65] True descendants of Abraham must come from Sarah’s lineage as well, and only in that genealogical line can a true community develop and claim the promises granted to them from God.

In the introduction to this chapter, I argued that Abraham is recalled throughout the Hebrew Bible to reinforce patriarchal ideologies concerning land ownership and patrilineal descent, rather than as a model father figure, which is what he is most remembered for in the texts of Genesis. I also noted that the lack of references to Abraham’s partners in the Hebrew Bible leads to a quandary for readers of the texts, because the memory of the mothers is so thoroughly erased and subsequently forgotten that it can appear that Abraham’s descendants are “motherless” children.

The texts I have discussed above support the idea that Abraham’s name is remembered mostly in connection with claims to the promised land, and the title of father is used to suggest that those claiming the land are descended from Abraham, as his children. Likewise, invocations to the patriarch are concerned with establishing the identity of those who call his name; a signifier that they are the “right” descendants. I have not considered in-depth any texts where God recalls Abraham (such as Exod. 2:24), but there is a general consensus among scholars that these instances are about God reminding himself or his people of the ancient covenant he once made with Abraham. In this respect, Abraham’s name is another way of referring to the covenantal promises made in Genesis, not a remembrance of a father-figure.

27

The connection between Abraham, covenant, and especially land is of primary importance to his descendants who wish to claim the land promised to them; the promise that Abraham will have many descendants is already being fulfilled and is of lesser importance than physical space. Claiming this space through Abraham’s name turns his memory into a metaphor for a geographical location, an idea that manifests itself when Jacob is re-named Israel (Gen. 32:28; 35:10) and is remembered dually as Jacob/Israel throughout the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Exod. 32:13). Abraham as metaphor for land does not require the mothers, because it is a conceptual idea created in a community who practiced patrilineal descent, a practice which does not require mothers for anything other than giving birth since the children are traced through the father’s line.

However, as we have seen, there is such a thing as a “right” and “wrong” mother, and the reader is alerted to this both through the fact that the mothers of Abraham’s children are mostly erased from the Hebrew texts, and because, when they are recalled, it is with the intention of highlighting the correct and incorrect lineages. The author’s explicit word choices in 1 Chron. 1:32-33, which suggest that Keturah’s children primarily belong to her (i.e. not relating them to Abraham in a clear line) indicate that the sons of Keturah are not true descendants of the covenant because Keturah is not the mother who was part of God’s promise in Gen. 18:10. Sarah received that promise, and only a son born from her can inherit Abraham’s status and promises. Invoking Sarah’s name in Isa. 51:2 alludes to this proper lineage by suggesting descendants born of Abraham and Sarah must remember their history and build their community again post-exile. Thus, the lack of attention paid to the mothers in the Abrahamic narratives impacts how the reader understands the figure of Abraham-the-father; his name is moved away from concepts of fatherhood and fatherliness, which are attributed to him in Genesis, and instead, it becomes a metaphor for covenantal promises—mostly in terms of land—made to the patriarch all those centuries before.^[66]