Halakhic Abraham in the encounter with the three visitors

The chapter 18 of Genesis is thematically remarkably rich and has been studied extensively both
as to its Jewish and its Christian Wirkungsgeschichte. Abraham’s circumcision, the encounter
with the three visitors, Sarah’s laughing, the promise of Isaac and the destruction of Sodom are
all related to this chapter. We will focus, however, on one single aspect in the
Wirkungsgeschichte: the halakhic issues connected to this narrative. Abraham as a paragon of
halakhic virtue.To put it in a somewhat broader perspective: we will deal with the halakhic rules
as well as the (less obligatory, but rather recommended) rules for proper behavior which can be
distilled from this episode, according to Rabbinic reading of it.

The flash-back at the announcement to Abraham of his death

First we highlight the flash-back on the episode of the visitors at the occasion of the
announcement to Abraham of his imminent death. The death of a righteous person is often full of
drama in Jewish tradition. We know of David and Moses refusing to join the angel of death.
Abraham is no exception to that. In the pre-rabbinic Jewish document the Testament of
Abraham, which exists in two versions, we read how the angel Michael is sent to take Abraham
with him. Abraham does not recognize the angel and invites him as a guest to his house. He
offers Michael an animal to sit upon but Michael prefers to walk.1 Abraham fills a basin with water
and relates to his son Isaac that this will be the last time he will wash the feet of a guest. When
Isaac washes the feet of the guest he weeps and Abraham weeps with him. Michael also starts
to cry and his tears turn into precious stones in the basin. 2 Abraham discovers the stones and
keeps the secret in his heart. 3

After Michael has ascended to heaven to consult God he returns and eats with Abraham
and his family. However, Michael, called the Archistrategos, brings up a special problem during
his consult with God: “Lord, all the heavenly spirits are without body. They do not eat and drink.
This man has dressed a luxurious table with all sorts of earthly and corruptible goods. What can I
do? How could I forget this when I am sitting at the same table as he with these things?” The
Lord said: “Descend and do not bother about it. When you sit down with him I will send an
omnivore spirit who will let disappear from your hands and mouth whatever is on the table. You
may enjoy with him. You only have to explain the elements of the vision in order for Abraham to
understand the sickle of Death and the unforeseen end of his life”. 4

Afterwards, Sarah recognizes Michael as one of the three visitors who have been at her
house before (cp. Gen 18). She reminds Abraham that the calf they had slaughtered at that
occasion and served on the table had been alive and well afterwards. When Isaac receives a
dream that Abraham will return to God, they all understand the truth, which is simultaneously sad

1
Testament of Abraham, short recension II.12-13; long recension II.11-12. See: Francis Schmidt, Le
Testament d’Abraham. Introduction, edition critique des deux recensions grecques, traduction,
Tübingen 1986. Translation by E.P. Sanders in: J. Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I,
Doubleday: New York 1983, 871-904.
2
Testament of Abraham, short recension III.7-11;
3
Long recension IV.
4
Long recension IV.
and joyful. Angels carry Abraham in a heavenly chariot to heaven, after having a tour around the
world.

This charming tale reflects the visit of the three visitors at Mamre and introduces some of
the same problems which surround that story. Although the Biblical narrative does not indicate
that these visitors are angels, post-Biblical explanations are virtually unanimous about that. The
Letter to the Hebrews speaks about hospitality to angels without knowing it, Justin about two
angels and the Logos (Dialogue 56-59, assuming that the transcendent God will not descend to
earth, the Logos being the active principle), and the Talmud views alternately three angels and
God himself, a solution that can be found in Justin as well. Augustine is one of the first Church
fathers to recognize the Trinity in the three visitors. The problem of angels seeming to eat food,
does not deal with the more specific issues of the menu, such as the dietary prohibition of meat
and milk together. This story merely emphasizes the ontological difference between human
beings and angels. This also explains why the Testament of Abraham could have been
transmitted in the church and why the document even shows traces of Christian redaction.

After this early testimony of Jewish interpretations of Abraham and his visitors we turn to
Rabbinic literature which may be dated at least a century later. From the rich commentaries we
only survey those which have a direct implication for human behavior.

Rabbinic literature about rules for proper behavior in connection with Abraham

The chapter 18 of Genesis is a rich source of halakha and of proper behavior. The behavior of
the host, of a modest wife and how to serve a meal are the central issues. However, first of all,
there is the circumcision of Abraham For Paul is Abraham in his dual existence of uncircumcised
and circumcised believer proof that circumcised and uncircumcised can form one community in
Christ. For later Church Fathers Abraham becomes proof that circumcision has become obsolete
and even nefarious. Continuing the circumcision amounts to the denial of Christ’s saving grace,
the Didascalia maintains.5 Adam and even Melchisedek were uncircumcised, Justin Martyr
claims (Dialogue with Trypho 19:3-4). Even a priest does not need to be circumcised, Tertullian
claims (Adversus Iudaeos 2). This explains why Jewish interpretations in the midrash defend the
surprising view that several pre-Sinaitic heroes have been born circumcised. (Gen Rabba 26:3).
The identification of Melchizedek with Shem in rabbinic literature counters both the Christian (and
gnostic) idea of Melchizedek as heavenly figure and the argument that Melchizedek had been
uncircumcised being outside the patriarchal genealogy. 6

There is even a rabbinical opinion defending that Abraham had been circumcised already
from birth as well (Gen Rabba 47:9). In Genesis 18, Abraham merely discovers his being
circumcised, rabbi Levi maintains. This opinion remains isolated, however, probably because the
Biblical injunction to Abraham to circumcise is too obvious: ”It is a lie and a falsehood! Abraham
felt the pain so that the Lord might double his reward” (ibidem). Hence the opening of Genesis 18
is interpreted as Abraham recovering from his circumcision. Curiously, Abraham is afraid that
travelers will no longer visit him now that he is circumcised (Gen Rabba 47:10). Why would he
think that? Obviously this reflects a certain aloofness of the Jewish community from their non-
Jewish surrounding in the Rabbinic period, an aloofness reinforced because of the dietary laws,
5
The first letter of the name of Jesus is a jota, indicating the re-installment of the Ten Commandments
only, corresponding to the first legislation before the tables were destroyed..
6
See my article: ‘Enoch and Melchizedek in Judaism and Christianity’, in: M. Poorthuis and J.
Schwartz (eds), Saints and Rolemodels in Judaism and Christianity, (Brill: Leiden 2004), 97-120; H.
Spurling and E. Grypeou (eds), ‘Abraham and Melchizedek’, in: The Book of Genesis in late Antiquity,
(Brill: Leiden 2013), 199-238.
which are obligatory for whoever has been circumcised. God’s visit to Abraham should serve as
a consolation or perhaps even as a refutation of Abraham’s fear to become isolated (ibidem and
Gen Rabba 48: 9).

Abraham’s status as a patriarch is firmly connected to the story of the three visitors.
Church Fathers may point to the fact that Abraham was justified even without fulfilling the
ceremonial commandments in the Torah. In a way, for them Abraham testifies to the temporary
status of all ceremonial commandments, given mainly as an antidote to the inveterate idolatry of
the Israelites coming from Egypt and venerating the Golden Calf. 7 There is no doubt that the
Jewish contemporaries of the Church fathers were aware of these polemical motifs. They reacted
in two ways: Abraham produced not only Isaac, but also unworthy offspring, namely Esau. 8
(Esau in rabbinic perspective is far more negative that in Biblical narratives, and would even
become symbol of Rome). The real ancestor of the Jews, according to this line of interpretation,
has not been Abraham, but Jacob, who also according to the midrash, has not been circumcised
at a later age, but had been born already circumcised. Jacob is an “ish tam”, a perfect man (Gen
25:27 in rabbinic interpretation). The rabbis are happy to be able to conclude: that means he was
circumcised, because only then you are complete!

The other Jewish device was to assume that Abraham fulfilled all the ceremonial
commandments already in an implicit way. His explicitly related late circumcision at such a late
age could be explained as a divine injunction when circumcision had not been mandatory yet, or
even regarded as a fault on Abraham’s side, more or less negligible in a righteous life. Another
interpretation allows for historical development by assuming that Abraham fulfilled the Noahide
commandments only, but not the whole of the Torah (

Halakhic issues dealt with by Abraham: standing and sitting

Genesis 18 offers many other debates about halakha and proper behavior. The first verse points
already to a rich theme: standing and sitting. Standing and / or sitting is an important them in
Rabbinic literature. There is an extensive debate whether there is sitting in heaven, a topic
that even affects Christological descriptions (cp. Acts 7:55, the Son of Man standing; Mt 25:
31, the Son of Man sitting). The two metaphors for the heavenly realm, a royal court and a
tribunal, clarify matters: angels are like servants who stand in the royal court. 9 In a tribunal,
the judge is seated (cp Mt 25:31), whereas the advocate is standing (like in Acts 7:55). Gen
18 opens with Abraham encountering the visitors. Abraham is seated before his tent, the
visitors are standing above him. The central issue of standing and sitting, also in the context
of disciples and their teacher, calls for comment here.
18:1 And the Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the entrance of
his tent in the heat of the day. He looked up and behold! Three men standing near him. He

7
The my article on the second legislation due to the Golden Calf :
8
Eugen Mihaly, ‘A Rabbinical Defense of Election’, Esau’s image in rabbinic literature is far more
negative than that in the Bible.
9
Compare the notorious misunderstanding of the ‘heretic’ Elisha ben Abuya who thought that the
angel Metatron, sitting in heaven while keeping record of the deeds of mankind, was like a second
god (Bab Talmud Hagiga 15a). There is even a debate whether angels are capable of sitting: the
misunderstanding might be caused by a supporting device for someone standing!
saw them he ran from the entrance of the tent to meet them and bowed down to the
ground.
Rabbinic tradition presupposes that Abram is recovering from his circumcision. God’s visit to
Abraham can be interpreted as one of the works of charity in which human beings should
imitate God (Bab Talmud Sota 14a; cp Mt 25, 36).

The alternation between the one person and the three has obviously given rise to
mystical speculations about the Trinity, be it roughly from Augustine onward. In Jewish
explanation, three angels are distinguished from God himself. This gave rise to the bold
interpretation that Abraham left God’s presence, the Shekhina, alone for a moment to take
care of the visitors. Abraham as it were left God standing near the tent in order to show
hospitality to the strangers. This striking interpretation finds its conclusion in the phrase:
“whoever offers hospitality to his neighbor, is as if he welcomes the Shekhina” (Midrash
Hagadol I, 267; cp. Bab Talmud Sabbath 127a). It is also a token of God’s humility to remain
standing while Abraham sits (Gen Rabba 48:1). Unlike human kings God acts according to
His own law, for in Lev 19:32 is it stated: “You shall rise before the aged, and defer to the
old; and you shall fear your God: I am the LORD”. Likewise God acted before Abraham (Pal
Talmud Rosh haShana 57b (top).
God fulfills His own Law, is the bold concept behind this hermeneutics. God grants
Abraham this privilege and even extends it to Abraham’s children, as it is said: “God stands
in the congregation of the mighty” (Psalm 82:1, ‘elohim’ interpreted as referring to human
beings, a regular device in Rabbinic interpretation). 10
Concerning the symbolism of seating, there is the famous opening of psalm 110:1,
“The Lord says to my lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies your footstool”.
This verse serves as the central Christological prooftext in the New Testament (e.g. Mt
22:41; Mk 14:61; Lk 20:41; Acts 2:34).11 The same text is consistently applied to Abraham in
early Rabbinic literature, possibly to counter Christological claims. 12 The midrash combines
Abraham sitting before his tent while God stands, with this divine invitation of psalm 110:1,
hereby avoiding any future expectation.13 Characteristically and relevant for our research is
the preoccupation of the midrash with proper behavior, hereby minimizing eschatological
connotations.
This bold interpretation of God standing before human beings did not pass
unchallenged:
10
Tanḥuma Buber Genesis chapter 8:28 applies this to the students of the Torah sitting in the bet
midrash, while God stands amidst them. Cp. ibidem 4:4; Midrash on psalms 18:29; 22:19.
11
Although Platonizing Church Father had difficulty with this clause, the Creed incorporated it: “qui
sedet ad dexteram Patris”. See: Martin Hengel, “Sit at My right hand”, in: Studies in early Christology,
(T&T Clark, Edinburgh 1995), 119-225.
12
A suppressed Jewish Messianic interpretation of psalm 110:1 cannot be ruled out. Cp. Ferdinand
Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel, Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1966, 126-132. Strack /
Billerbeck, ‘Excurs über Ps 110 in der altrabbinischen Literatur’, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
aus Talmud und Midrasch, C.H. Beck: München, 1956, volume IV/1, 452 -465.
13
Cp. Aggadat Bereshit 19.
Rabbi Haggai said in the name of rabbi Isaac: It is not written: ‘standing’ (`omed), but ‘being
on their post’ (nitsawim), like in: “Behold the place with Me and you take your post
(nitsavta) on the rock” (Ex 33:21). (Gen Rabba 48:7).
This quite difficult interpretation seems to reject a too anthropomorphic explanation of the
divine visitors by challenging the idea of a literal standing and sitting. 14 Still, the courtesy
surrounding the standing has not been finished yet. One might get the impression that the
three visitors were at first near Abraham, but afterwards were at a distance. This is
exploited by the Talmud:
Abraham was tying and untying the bandages of the circumcision, hence the visitors
decided: “It is not proper to stand so close to him”. This is why Scripture says: “Abraham ran
to meet them”. (Bab Talmud Baba Mezia 86b). The visitors are no less careful to behave
properly that Abraham.

The non-kosher menu

Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before
8 

them; and he stood by them under the tree while they ate.

We may notice that during the meal, Abraham as a host remains standing, whereas his visitors
are seated. However, we will now direct our attention to the menu. The Bible speaks about a
menu of meat and milk served to the visitors. Not only is here the problem of angels not eating at
all, as we have seen already in the Testament of Abraham, but more specific, the combination of
meat and milk has been forbidden three times in the Tora (Ex 23:19; 34:26 and Deut 14:21),
at least according to rabbinic interpretation. It is forbidden to cook a kid in the milk of his
mother, broadened to the ruling that meat and milk should not be combined.
Of course the matter can be solved by arguing that the three visitors only pretended to
eat, like the angel Michael in the Testament of Abraham. It is a good custom to adapt to the local
mores, according to the Talmud. Moses did not eat bread when he ascended on high (in the
company of angels); likewise the three visitors, although Ministering Angels, ate bread, rabbi
Tanḥum ben Ḥanilai said (Bab Talmud Bava Mezia 86b). He is corrected: “It seemed as if they
ate and drank” (ibidem). Hence it was a matter of politeness. The assumption that angels do not
eat is a widespread.15 Hence we might conclude that actually no one has eaten: Abraham as a
good host stood to serve his guest who were sitting, and Sarah, as a modest wife, remained in
her tent, invisible for the visitors. All the more surprising is an apparently late midrash which
connects the ‘jealousy of the angels’ with their eating milk and meat together.

When Moses ascended for the second time to heaven (at Sinai) after the episode of the
Golden Calf, the angels exclaimed: “Lord of the Worlds, yesterday they transgressed what has
been written: “you shall not have other gods before you”. (Ex 20:3). The Holy One blessed be He
said to them: All the time you act as accusers between Me and Israel, but have you not eaten
milk and meat when you descended towards Abraham? Even their child, when it comes home

14
Note that the pre-Rabbinic Jewish Book of Jubilees silently passes over the whole episode of Gen
18, apparently embarrassed by the anthropomorphic portrayal of the divinity.
15
Tobit 12:19; Philo, Quaest Gen IV:9; Josephus, Antiquitates 1.11.2. Cp. Louis Ginzberg, Legends of
the Jews V, JPS: Philadelphia 1968, 236.
from the house of its teacher and its mother serves bread, meat and cheese to eat, will say: “My
teacher told me today: “You shall not cook a kid in the milk of its mother” (Ex 34:26). 16

Still later interpretations rationalize the problem away by stating that the meat was served only
after the milk.17

Abraham was rewarded for his hospitality measure for measure: his descendants
received the manna for the food, the water from the rock for the water Abraham fetched, etcetera
(Babylonian Talmud Bava Mezia 86b).

Abraham is a paragon of hospitality: he says that he will fetch a morsel of bread, but he
runs to the herd to serve a calf. This calf is described in the Bible as “tender and good” and the
Rabbis do not hesitate to derive from this the existence of three calves!

Abraham speaks about a morsel of bread, but serves a calf, or even three calves! The
following proper behavior can be derived from it: “a righteous person promises little and does
much” (Bab Talmud Baba Mezia 87a).

A certain misogyny may be detected in the following explanation: Abraham says to Sarah: “Make
ready quickly three measures of ‘meal fine’ (qemaḥ solet)”. (Gen 18:6). Rabbi Isaac explains that
women are more inclined to serve ordinary food than men. This is why Abraham added the word
‘fine’ (solet), to ‘meal’ (qemaḥ], in order to persuade Sarah.

The concern for zeni`ut (modesty)

A quite farfetched explanation, offered by the Medieval Tosafists, apparently tries to create an
equilibrium in the interpretation of Gen 18:9. The Bible states: .

Gen 18:9: “They said to him ( ‫וילא‬ elaw), “Where is Sarah your wife?” And he said,
“She is in the tent.”

A rule of conduct is attached to this verse: one does not inquire after the wife of another man,
except asking the husband himself. There is, however, a curious interpretation to the effect that
there has been a question (after one’s well-being? ) both to the husband and to the wife. A
straightforward explanation is that the dots emphasize the word: “to him”, indicating that one
should enquire after the hostess only with her husband. The line of interpretation can be
summarized as follows: They said to him, not to someone else: “where is your wife Sarah?“

The famous clause that Sarah was in her tent underlines her zeniut, her modesty,
according to the Rabbis. However, some sort of difference of opinion arises, indicated by the
noteworthy fact that in the Biblical text the letters alef, jot and waw of the word elaw (= to him)
have a dot above them. The dotted letters ‫י‬,‫א‬ ‫ו‬
and can be read as aye: “where is he?” In
this highly fanciful exegesis a double question surfaces, one to Sarah and one to Abraham:
“Where is he?,Where is your wife Sarah?” 18

16
Midrash on Psalms 8:2 (21). Cp. E. Grypeou and Helen Spurling, ‘Abraham’s Angels: Jewish and
Christian Exegesis of Genesis 18-19’, in: idem, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and
Christians in Antiquity, Brill: Leiden 2009, 188-9. They have overlooked this source in Midrash on
Psalms. See L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews V, JPS: Philadelphia 1968, 235.
17
Ginzberg, ibidem. Halakhic ruling prescribes three hours of waiting in between milk and meat,
however. Curiously, only in the Netherlands one hour suffices.
18
See the Tosafot a.l.
In general, however, it is suspect to inquire about a wife of another man. The rabbis even detect
another concern for zeni`ut in Abraham’s behavior. The Bible states:

Gen 18:9-10: “…Sarah your wife will have a son. And Sarah was listening in the tent-door which
was behind him”

One would assume that the ‘which’ refers to the opening of the tent. Not so the Rabbinical
interpretation. They read: “and he was behind him”, hereby introducing another person. They
suppose that Ishmael stood behind the visitor to avoid the situation of the visitor and Sarah being
in the tent together! The halakha teaches that a man may not be alone with a woman and neither
with two women, although one woman with two men is allowed. (Mishna Kiddushin 4:12).

Once more: the menu

Addressing ourselves once more to the menu, we may note that the combination of milk and
meat has been solved tacitly by assuming that in fact no one has eaten anything. The silence
may be explained as an avoidance of the awkward question of why was this combination of milk
and meat served at all? Perhaps we may interpret in the same light the miraculous feature of the
calf being alive after the meal. We heard that in Sarah’s flashback in the Testament of Abraham,
and we find the same idea in Islam. 19

Another curious feature is that the promising cakes baked by Sarah (18:6) are not
mentioned when Abraham serves the food (18:8). Again a halakhic issue solves the riddle:
Abraham eats ḥullin (ordinary food fit for consumption) only when it is undefiled. Hence the
Talmud (Bava Mezia 87a) ascribes to Abraham a higher degree of observance of purity. The
question remains, however, why Abraham would not have eaten the bread, in other words, why it
would have been defiled? The Talmud explains: this was because of Sarah’s menstruation. This
implicitly tells us that Sarah, who at her age had no menstruation any more, had started to
menstruate again, enabling the pregnancy of Isaac, which the three visitors would promise to
her.20

Sarah baking the cakes may have influenced Christian behavior as well, especially in
connection to female ministry such as known from the Collyridians. 21 There women bake cakes
and offered them to the virgin Mary as the Queen of Heaven. The accusation to their address of
venerating a pagan goddess may have been an attempt to marginalize this group, perhaps
mainly because of the active involvement of women in baking the cakes and offering them. In
addition, indulging in some speculation, the pre-Christian goddess may in reality have been
Sarah! Mamre has been both a Christian, a Jewish and a pagan place of worship, where yearly
celebration with prayer, sacrifice, a market and wine drinking marked the festivities. 22

19
Compare: Al-Kisā’I, Tales of the Prophets, (Wheeler M. Thackston tr.), (Kazi Publications: Chicago
1997), 156: the angel Gabriel brings the calf to life.
20
Louis Ginzberg misses the point when he states that this interpretation of Sarah testifies of a
negative attitude to women; see Legends of the Jews V, 236, note 142.
21
In addition, the three measures of dough baked by Sarah have served Ambrose, De Abrahamo 1.38
to underline the mystery of the Trinity.
22
Bogdan Bucur, ‘The Early Christian Reception of Genesis 18: from Theophany to Trinitarian
Symbolism’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 23:2, 245-272, especially 260. Already Josephus in his
De Bello Iudaico 4:9.7 and Antiquitates 1.10 refers to Mamre as a special sacred location.
 To conclude, the visit of the three visitors contains a dialogue from which a hotly debated
rule of conduct has been derived. Sarah laughs and says to herself: “After I have grown old,
and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?” God repeats what Sarah said to Abraham,
but in a slightly altered way:  

The Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh, and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child,
now that I am old?”

God leaves out Sarah’s reference to Abraham being old! Rabbinic interpretation explains that this
was done for the sake of peace. Abraham would have been hurt in his pride noticing that his wife
had emphasized his old age as a reason for infertility in such a way that the visitor could have
overheard that. Especially the public character of Sarah’s statement would form a sensitive
issue.

Hence Sarah’s statement has been changed somewhat. This has given rise to a whole debate
about telling the truth. Should one always say the truth or may the truth be altered somewhat for
the sake of peace? The German philosopher Immanuel Kant emphatically denies that possibility.

The Qur’an about the visitors to Ibrahim

It is striking how the Rabbinic readings of Genesis 18 manages to distill practical rules of
behavior from that pericope. In contrast, Christian readings are much more interested in
theological issues. The fascination with practical rules of conduct has been preserved in a
surprising way in Islam, however. To conclude, we offer a few rules of conduct distilled from the
story of Ibrahim as told in the Qur’an:

11:69: And certainly did Our messengers come to Ibrahim with good tidings; they said, "Peace." He
said, "Peace," and did not delay in bringing [them] a roasted calf.
11:70 But when he saw their hands not reaching for it, he distrusted them and felt from them
apprehension. They said, "Fear not. We have been sent to the people of Lot."
11:71 And his wife was standing, and she smiled. Then We gave her good tidings of Isaac and after
Isaac, Jacob.
11:72 She said, "Woe to me! Shall I give birth while I am an old woman and this, my husband, is an
old man? Indeed, this is an amazing thing!"
11:73: They said, "Are you amazed at the decree of God? May the mercy of God and His blessings be
upon you, people of the house. Indeed, He is Praiseworthy and Honorable."

The condensed way of telling stories, characteristic for the Qur’an makes it plausible that the
Qur’an presupposes acquaintance of these stories with the audience. There is somewhat less
concern about the visitors directing themselves to Sarah without Ibrahim acting as an
intermediate. This may be explained in that the hosts already realized that the visitors were
angels.

In the centuries after the Qur ‘an, many stories from Jewish or Christian provenance were
integrated into a commentary or even an elaborate re-telling of the Qur’an. Especially the genre
of the Tales of the Prophets is rich in these stories, the so-called Isra’illiyāt. Only after the Biblical
text became known in Islamic milieu, approximately from the 10 th century CE onward, the
existence of these stories, widely different from the Biblical text, became increasingly
problematic. Still they continued to be transmitted within Islam.
 Sarah’s laughing receives several interpretations. First we quote some explanations from
the authoritative Qur’an exegete al-Ṭabarī, who wrote a History of the World.23

23
Ta’a rikh al-rusul wa’l mulūk, M. de Goeje (ed), Annales volume 1, (Brill Leiden 1897), 271-4.
Translation in: W. Brinner (tr.), The History of al-Ṭabarī: Prophets and Patriarchs volume 2, (State
University of New York Press 1987), 65-69.