From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The entry "Sarah" really means that im a 13 year old grandpa thats a girl with mental issues also know as: to start with a disambiguation page. I don't think most people think of the saint first when they think of the name Sarah. Somebody please help with this, I don't know how to set one up.

Done TimothyJacobson (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think sarah is not a "princess" but a ruler or governor. Sarah usally means "rival". In modern-days hebrew Sar is someone sitting in the Knesset (oposition), and sarah is the feemale form of sar. Other sources translate the meaning as "My Woman of High Rank".

The versions of The Bible I am familiar with do not indicate Abraham paid an "exhorbant price" for the burial "area". In fact it was offered for free if I recall.. He (Abraham) insisted on paying for it...

Semitic root Šarai or law. Like El has the sense power, authority, lord, deity, natural law, law .
The Egyptian handmaiden to Šarai law is Hagar as m [hotep] a phrase meaning in law (the doing of what is right and proper) is peace. The story sets the legal precedents for the ten commandments and establishes the relationships, father, husband, wife, sister, handmaiden in terms of an inheritance from the semitic Šarai law and the afroasiatic Egyptian law of Ma3t. The descendants of this union are represented by Israel and its reverence for the written law of the ten commandments and Ishmael with the vision of Hagar and the law of the Koran. Rktect 00:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it true that Sarah is "the only woman whom God deemed worthy to be addressed by Him directly, all the other prophetesses receiving their revelations through angels (ib. xlv. 14)."? I have yo maammaaa but what about Eve's mamma? Didn't God arrest Eve directly in florida? I think there may also be other examples of God directly speaking to women in the Pentateuch.

The top is too long[edit]

We need to shorten the length of the top section. Right now we have to scroll an entire page before you reach the TOC.--Max Talk (add)Contribs 05:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"...after the laughter which Abraham had made when his son's birth was prophesied by the angel." It was Sarah who laughed, not Abraham. (Gen. 18:12) I will make a change to reflect this. Acantha1979 01:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Acantha

Actually, Abraham laughed too when he was first told, saying, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a chld at the age of ninety?" Genesis 17:17. So they both initially laughed. - Anonymous user, 03:36, January 2, 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing sources?[edit]

Can you cite your sources for the last half of this article on the two facts? Seriously, I wish to know these websites and proof that you did not make them up or anything like that. By the way, I have discovered by four reliable websites that "Sarah" is a Hebrew name that is translated as noble or princess. I have proof and I will update this page as soon as I revive the URL again. Fishdert 14:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Fishdert

Here is one of the sites: Behind the Name's take on Sarah

Generally you will find that all semitic names have triliteral roots that go back to *proto semitic and Akkadian sources and then transform into Hebrew over millenia. ENTRY: rr. DEFINITION: Common Semitic noun *arr-, prince, king. 1. Sarah, from Hebrew râ, princess, feminine of ar, prince. 2. sarsaparilla, from Arabic aras, colloquial variant of irs, bramble, from arasa, to be vicious, dissimilated from *araa, from arara, from arra, to be vicious, perhaps ultimately denominative from Semitic *arr-, prince. 3a. Sargon, from Hebrew sargôn, from Akkadian arru-kn, the king is true, legitimate, from arru, king (kn, true; see kwn); b. Belshazzar, from Hebrew blaar, from Akkadian bl-ar-uur, Bel protect the king, from ar, late form of arru, king (bl, Bel (Akkadian god), and uur, protect; see bcl and nr).

In the case of the name change from sarai to Sarah the root is shared with Šaria, a particularly vicious form of the law which punishes crime by cutting off the offending part of the body, if you steal you lose a hand, if you run away you lose a foot and so forth.

ENTRY: rc. DEFINITION: To set, set up, erect, prescribe. shari'a, from Arabic arca, law, from araca, to ordain, prescribe.

No. Shari'a contains the letter 'Ayin. It has nothing to do with the Hebrew root S-R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary to cite sources for the presence of Biblical allegory and wordplay[edit]

One thing you find throughout the wordsmithing of the Pentateuch is parable and allegory. Because this is the book of the law you have to be looking for that relationship. There are over 1 million such on the net. Rktect 13:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't you have to cite sources for everything? Vice regent 20:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
My personal opinion on that is that if a Biblical verse is given (ie Gen 3:11), then no, common sense should dictate that, whether the reader agrees with the point being made therein or not, they should still spot the wordplay. If, however, a reason is given for the wordplay, then the reason must be cited, as that is an opinion (same as any other book) TimothyJacobson (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


The first sentance in this section says that 'Abraham' is 'Ibrahim' in the Islamic tradition and then continually refers to the 'Abraham' instead of 'Ibrahim' within the context of the Islamic tradition. This seems wrong, but I do not know enough about the Islamic tradition to say that the change needs to take place. 15:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

'Ibrahim' is the Arabic term for Abraham; both words refer to the same person. Since this is the English wikipedia, the word Abraham is preferred, though Ibrahim is mentioned once just to clarify.VR talk 07:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


What does half-sister mean? I thought Abraham pretended Sarah was his sister.

unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just in case the above was a genuine question, see Half-sister#Half_sibling -TimothyJacobson (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple: she's both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Abraham claimed she was his sister in Genesis 12:13 and again in Genesis 20:2 (because it worked so well the first time...), making it sound like a deception. After King Abimelech had taken her, Abraham says 'And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.', but this it to King Abimelech, so it's unclear whether this is true, or a deception. Apart from what Abraham says, the Bible doesn't say that Sarah is his sister. I, personally, think that Abraham is lying.--Jcvamp (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that Isaac (Abraham's son) does the same thing with his wife, Rebekah, and they weren't brother and sister. If Isaac can lie, why can't Abraham?--Jcvamp (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe Genesis 11:29 refers to Milcah as being the daughter of Haran, not Sarai. ( King James follows ) "And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah." So Sarai is not Abrams' neice, as stated in the "Sarah in the Bible" section. (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC) DM

I'm assuming Sarah really was his half-sister and also his wife. However, he only mentioned the first bit, so that if the king wanted her he wouldn't feel the need to get rid of her husband (as he didn't know Abraham was her husband). He wasn't lying, but he was twisting the truth a lot in order to decieve. In the case of Isaac, I assume he realised the whole 'sister' thing worked with Abraham, so he copied it, but he wasn't then able to justify it by saying 'she is my sister, so I wasn't really lying...' (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


I have cut this section completely. It was unsourced, comprised of two lines and, I am pretty sure, was referring to a different Sarah TimothyJacobson (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture says Abraham hosted 3 angels. Many Christians actually believe otherwise, because Abraham bowed in worship of these 3, and reffered to them as one LORD (singular), not LORDS (plural).

Adding "Speculations on Hindu connections" section ?[edit]

Regarding "Speculations on Hindu connections" in Abraham article, maybe it should be worth mentioning that Abraham's wife was Sara and Brahma's wife was Saraswati. Shouldn't Saraswati speculation for Sara find place on this page naturally? (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, as per our policies on original research and synthesis. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Naturally. But, I never intended to propose something original. The very same Notes links 19 and 20 for Abraham can be used for Saraswati too. I just thought "somebody" will do the homework; I am not good in making articles. The link even says that identity of Abraham and Sara with Brahma and Saraiswati was first pointed out by the "Jesuit missionaries.(Vol. I; p. 387.)" So making the "Hindu connections" entry only for Abraham and not for Saraswati is only half the job done and seems awkward. (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wife or niece?[edit]

This article is very confusing... is Sarah alledgedly Abraham's WIFE or NIECE? Kateaclysmic (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question, she was both. The Bible says she was his half sister, though some people analyzing the geneology claim she was actually his niece. Yes, nowadays this would be considered incest, but back thousands of years ago it was very common. Remember that God did not command people to refrain from marriage to close family until Moses's time, when genetic diseases came around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Have I missed a passage in the Bible discussing genetic diseases? Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think there are any passages about genetic diseases. What I meant was that one popular theory is that the reason behind inter-family marriage being considered normal in Abraham's day but being restricted in Moses's was the appearance of genetic diseases. God later strictly prohibited the union between siblings, half siblings, parent and child, aunt and nephew, uncle and niece, etc. (Leviticus 18). Sorry if I confused you. And by the way, sorry about not signing correctly before. I didn't know how to. -- (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2011

Don't worry about the signing, you've figured it out now. I've never heard of this idea about genetic diseases - at least I don't think I have, does it link into Creationism in some way? But I think it's irrelevant here anyway. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet another spurious Wikipedia etymology[edit]

I'm sorry, but this is really getting ludicrous. Now Wikipedia is claiming that the Hebrew word 'Sarah' is based on the same root as the Arabic 'Shariah', supposedly from a Semitic root 'law'. This is false. The Hebrew word "Sarah" means princess and is derived from a root meaning "to rule" or "to set in order" (see Gesenius). The Arabic word "shari'ah" meaning "the revealed law," is derived from shar' "revelation" and contains the guttural letter "Ayin", which is altogether lacking in "Sarah".
I think it is time for Wikipedia to seriously start contracting experts to write its articles and develop some kind of peer-review process if it is interested in any kind of respectability. It is simply unacceptable that such a high-profile site should be so profusely littered with the most elementary mistakes.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense?[edit]

Entering "sarah" in the wikipedia search bar sends me here - wouldn't it make more sense for it to send you to the page for sarah as a given name with it linking to here? It seems a little religiously biased that entering a common given name should send you to a biblical character before giving you a choice of articles called or related to the name. Hanii (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hagar:Slave or Handmaiden?[edit]

I really do not know why is there a claim that states Hagar is Sara's slave in the Quran that is not mentioned at all nor in Islamic Traditions which leaves to the conclusion that this statement was taken from the bible and shouldn't be kept in a Islamic section Highdeeboy (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

no it does not say in the article that she is a slave, she was the handmaiden. you should read up on the hadiths. hagar was an egyptian princess who was given by her father (the king) to be a handmaiden of sarah, later sarah asked hagar to marry abraham.

What's the difference? A handmaiden would be a slave. (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Lacking a Christian perspective[edit]

The article claims Sarah as this and that "in the Hebrew Bible and the Quran", without making mention of her role in the Christian Bible/religion. This is a particular oversight, because the text clearly draws on sources not present in the overlap between the Christian and Hebrew Bibles.

I grant that her role in Christianity is comparatively small; however, it is not so small that discounting her is allowable.

(I purposely do not alter this myself, because disentangling what is present in the Christian bible from what is present in the Jewish may require considerable knowledge of the texts.) (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Amendment: Following the link for hebrew bible, I see that I have misunderstood the term. The statement still stands, however, because the sources used appear to be largely Jewish, an outside of the Christian cannon. (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So we need some non-Biblical sources commenting on this. You could try finding those. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusion between Biblical sources and Non-Biblical sources[edit]

This article inter-weaves material from the Bible and from other sources in its account of the life of Sarah. I think that most people who are interested in this topic would prefer that the main account on the life of Sarah be given solely based on the Bible, and then maybe there could be other sections in which information from non-Biblical sources are given. Basically, the whole article needs to be scrapped, and completely re-written. I'm certainly not up to the task, but I really hope that someone else reading this is. -- (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Almost all of the page that is supposedly a "Biblical account" consists of wild myths that have absolutely no Biblical basis. Abraham hiding Sarah in chest when they went to Egypt so Pharaoh wouldn't steal her? Sarah's death the result of the situation with Isaac and dying of either grief or joy? Her breastfeeding all the other children in the area to convince folks that she had given birth to Isaac? Come on. It almost seems like whoever wrote this was actually trying to make the Bible look like some book of urban legends. I have attempted to make corrections, but, despite my citing adequate sources, they keep getting reverted. Sarah is a fairly prominent Old Testament character. She is, in fact, the only woman whose age at death is recorded. There is enough detail in Genesis to fill an article, no need to relish in the previous mentioned myths. Would someone please give me an explanation as to why actual Biblical information is not being allowed to show?

 - Anonymous, January 2, 2011

Please stop blanking text you don't approve of. The article should be more than the biblical story. Yes, I've reverted statements such as " In one passage she and Issac are used to symbolize God's new covenant through the grace of Jesus Christ.[1]" because the statement about the symbolism has no source. You've added similar statements with no sources, just your interpretation of biblical passages. That's what we call original research, see WP:OR. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought I might mention one more thing if you don't mind. It's about the statements in the article linking her death to the time when Abraham was tested by being commanded to sacrifice Isaac. If you do the math, Isaac was thirty-seven when his mother died, but during the incident on Mt. Moriah, he was referred to as being "a boy" (Genesis 22:12), which would imply that he wasn't beyond his teenage years. I really don't think there was any connection between the two events. -- (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation mess[edit]

We've got difficult to understand cites in parenthesis, 'ib', etc. We also have as statements of fact at least one claim that should actually be attributed, ie to Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer. I don't know enough about this to fix it. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Section About the Tomb[edit]

The brief description regarding her tomb is listed under the Islam category. I think it should be moved and discussed separately, as her burial is not exclusive to Islamic teaching. It is part of both Judaism and Christianity as well, and should be treated as such. Could someone please tell me how to make this minor rearrangement without the edit being reverted? -- (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the numbering:

  • (1) Sarah in the Bible
  • (2) New Testametn references
  • (3) In Islam
  • (4) Tomb of Sarah ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not misunderstand the numbering; I was the one who moved Tomb of Sarah to have a separate section. At the time I posted the previous comment, it was only discussed under the category of In Islam. Thank you for taking the time to reply, though. -- (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Galations 4: 21-31