Lecture #4: The Patriarchal Period

Course: Old Testament

Lecture #4: The Patriarchal Period

• In discussing the writings concerning the Patriarchal period the problem is this:
• If the first writings were dated around 700 BCE and the last editor worked around 400 BCE then how accurate can the stories about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob be?
• The fact is that the stories of the patriarchs fit authentically into the milieu of the early 2nd millennium or even earlier, now that the town of Ebla is being excavated.
• Ebla was destroyed around 2250 BCE but there is a great deal of evidence that shows names and customs that were also that of the biblical patriarchs.
• Thus the dates for the patriarchs was probably during the 700 years from around 2200 to 1600 BCE.
  
  
• Scholars today also feel certain that the connection of the patriarchs with Mesopotamia is correct and that it is almost certainly from the Amorite population from which they come. The Amouitles were mixed with the Hittites in Northern Mesopotamia (Southern Turkey)
• The name 'Abraham" is known from Babylonian texts of the 16th Cent.
• Other names such as Abraham's son Ishmael, Terah (Abraham's father), Benjaman, etc. are all names from northern Mesopotamia.
• The connection is with Haran, at the top of the fertile crescent,
• He probably came from, what is today, Urfa in Southern turkey. People there of all faiths, believe that was his home
• Their names fit into the nomenclature of the Amorite population of the early second millennium rather than later.
• Likewise, their customs, their mode of life as semi-nomadic wanderers as donkey nomads (camels were not domesticated till much later) staying mainly in the mountain areas, are all recorded, as far as archeological evidence is concerned, as being an accurate portrayal of life in the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE.
• There is no question that the background of the Hebrews is very complicated and mixed, particularly after the Exodus, but generally they come from Northwest Semitic peoples (and possibly Indo-European people – more later) of Upper Mesopotamia, connected with Syria for the most part.
• Several generations went back to this area for wives rather than find wives among local residents.
• The language of the patriarchs was originally a dialect of Aramaic, but as ties with the homeland grew weaker, they assimilated the Canaanite language, of which Hebrew, like Moabite is but a dialect.

Were they individuals?

• Not at all sure but very likely that there are real clan leaders behind the patriarchs.
• However, one must read the stories as more simple explanations of very complex events.
• They exhibit the tendency of epic to conceal complex group movements behind the doings of lone individuals.
• Thus, behind the simple, schematized narrative of Genesis there lie great clan migrations.
• For example: the account says Abraham set out from Haran with his family and lot and his wife and a few servants and yet later Abraham is able to muster 318 fighting men to rescue Lot from the northern kings!

======= Excerpt from Wikipedia ========

Abraham: modern historical criticism (secularist perspective) [From Wikipedia]

Writers have regarded the life of Abraham in various ways. He has been viewed as a chieftain of the Amorites, as the head of a great Semitic migration from Mesopotamia; or, since Ur and Haran were seats of Moon-worship, he has been identified with a moon-God. From the character of the literary evidence and the locale of the stories it has been held that Abraham was originally associated with Hebron. The double name Abram/Abraham has even suggested that two personages have been combined in the Biblical narrative, although this does not explain the change from Sarai to Sarah.

The interesting discovery of the name Abi-ramu (Abram?) on Babylonian contracts of about 2000 BC/BCE does not prove the Abraham of the Old Testament to be an historical person, even as the fact that there were Amorites in Babylonia at the same period does not make it certain that the 'patriarch' was one of their number (if he existed altogether).

One remarkable chapter associates Abraham with kings of Elam and the east (Genesis 14). No longer a peaceful Sheikh but a warrior with a small army of 318 followers, he overthrows a combination of powerful monarchs who have ravaged the land. The genuineness of the narrative has been strenuously maintained, although upon insufficient grounds. On the assumption that a recollection of some invasion in remote days may have been current, considerable interest is attached to the names. Of these, Amraphel, king of Shinar (i.e., Babylonia, Genesis 10:10), has been identified with Hammurabi, one of the greatest of the Babylonian kings (ruled 1792-1750 BCE) and since he claims to have ruled as far west as the Mediterranean Sea, the equation has found considerable favor. Apart from chronological difficulties, the identification of the king and his country is far from certain, and at the most can only be regarded as possible. Nevertheless, there is as yet no considerable evidence for the genuineness of the story, and the most that can be said is that the author (of whatever date) has derived his names from a trustworthy source, and in representing an invasion of Canaan by Babylonian overlords, has given expression to a recurrent situation in ancient Middle Eastern history. If it is a historical romance, it is possible that a writer who lived in the post-exilic age, and was acquainted with Babylonian history, decided to enhance the greatness of Abraham by exhibiting his military success against the monarchs of the Tigris and Euphrates, the high esteem he enjoyed in Canaan, and the practical character displayed in his brief exchange with Melchizedek. The historical section of the article Tithe deals more extensively with the historicity of the meeting with Melchizedek -- it is also an archaeological story explaining that one should tithe.

Also on the Hebrews Copenhagen School – minimalists

On the other hand, several scholars claim, on the basis of archaeological and philological evidence, that many stories in the Old Testament, including the accounts about Abraham, Moses, and others, were actually made up by scribes under King Josiah (7th century BC/BCE) in order provide a historical framework for the monotheistic belief in Yahweh. Such scholars claim that the archives of neighboring countries that kept written records, such as Egypt, Asyria, etc., show no trace of the stories of the Bible or its main characters before 650 BC/BCE.

======= Excerpt from Wikipedia ========

Images of the patriarchs

• The patriarchs were viewed as national founders, as heroes and as founders of the cult.
• Most of the cult centers of later Israel were shrines taken over from Canaanites. Thus, etiological stories of the patriarchs were used to show that these were Hebrew centers.
• Thus, Canaanite stories of their beginnings were changed to Israelite stories.
• Various cultic centers are associated with various of the Patriarchs.

For example: Abraham is said to have built the first altar at Shechem, a very important center for later Israel.

Jacob had his dream of the ladder reaching to heaven at Bethel & Built an altar there.

• The stories are done in the traditional saga motif. A general tradition is used, and the name of the hero is plugged in

Saga of Jacob (Gen 25+f)

• Though most of the story is taken from the combined JE document, they can be separated, the final editor P is using the saga to say that human action is directed by God and the stories of the patriarchs is only one way in which God directs the Jewish people.
• He does this by having an incident and then a theophany, that is, an appearance of God after each one.
  
  
• I will mention only one of these and that is the story of Jacob wrestling with an angel' (Gen 32:13-32 [Read]) to show how the editors worked.
• The basic story is that Jacob is alone by a river on his way to be reconciled with Esau, his brother.
• He is alone and wrestles with someone till daybreak when the hollow of his thigh is touched, and it was put out of joint. He then demands to know the name of the one wrestling him, but instead is given a new name (Israel).

• What's going on?

• Basically, the E writer is reworking an early story that circulated in that area in which a demon wrestles with someone at night by a river.
• E transformed the story to make Jacob identified with the demon and the one with whom he wrestles, it is implied, is God for he is told "your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed."
• God will not give Jacob (Israel) a name but has the right to rename him.
  
  
• It is a psychological story of self-struggle with which the E writer is concerned.
• E is always concerned with visions, voices, name changes and prophecy and the psychological life of the individual.
• The story is used also to show why Penuel is a shrine (since Jacob passed there after the incident)
• It is also used as an etiological story of why the Israelites do not eat the sinew of the hip which is upon the hollow of the thigh, because God touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh.
  
  
• Gen 29:31-30:24 is a long insert to give a rationale of the tribal names and their beginning as it covers the birth of the 12 sons to Jacob and the rivalry between Leah and Rachel. The story assumes the twelve-tribe pattern of the Israelite confederacy, probably instituted in Joshua's time, and is P's editing of J and E material.
  
  
• The cycle of Joseph stories found in Genesis chapters 37; 39-47 and 50 constitute a single literary form or short story.
• The story has been so thoroughly edited for theological purposes and for moral teaching that it is probably not nearly as historical as the earlier sagas.
  
  
• One thing that needs to be said again, is that the Hyksos, who invaded Egypt around 1720 BCE and were run out by the Egyptians around 1570 BCE could easily be the rulers when Joseph went to Egypt and was favored by the Pharaoh – probably close to the 1570 date
• When a Pharaoh arose "who did not know Joseph" it was probably the resurgent Egyptian nationalism which happened after 1570 BCE.
• It is believed that the Pharaoh spoken of was probably Ramses who reigned from 1290-1224 and was the pharaoh of the Exodus and under whom Moses was raised.
• With the Joseph saga, Egyptian influence is seen in Hebrew Faith and both Mesopotamian and Egyptian influence are seen in the scriptures from here on.

Indo-European connection:

• There are some interesting possibilities concerning the connection between the Hebrew people and the Indo-Europeans who were coming into the area from about 2300 BCE onward.
• Though the Hebrews themselves were semitic in language, there is strong evidence that the Aryans had great influence on them.
• Abraham is continually listed as coming from Harran as his homeland and his father's homeland. This connection is reinforced by the stories of Isaac and Jacob who return there for wives.
• It is from Harran that God told him to go to a land He would show him.
• Harran was located in the very center of a long settled Indo-European group, the Hurrians
• Throughout the Bible, especially in Genesis, there are references to the Hittites and Horite people, some very closely associated with Abraham. These are both Indo-European peoples.
• When Abraham needed a place to bury Sarah he approached the Hittites. The answer, when Abraham offered to pay for the land, was no "You are a mighty prince among us, bury your dead in the best grave we have. "Gen 23:4-7)
• Even many of the names involved with his relatives, such as Na Hor are Indo-European names.
• It is also significant that the Hebrew Bible states (in both versions of the myth) that Noah, primeval ancestor of the Hebrews, started out after the flood from the very same location which the historically attested Indo-Europeans are known to have entered Anatolia (southern Turkey at Mount Ararat).
• The connections of Moses, Joseph and even Abraham with Egyptian royalty should also be considered as a factor in the relationship between the Hebrews and the Indo-Europeans.
  
  
• One Hebrew tribe in particular, the Levites, who were the priestly caste to which Moses and Aaron belonged, could be connected to a tribe of Indo-Europeans closely related to the Hurrians and Hittites known as Luvians of Louvites.
• from the Hoavite texts now deciphered, it is evident that they were into rituals and incantations. It appears that the Luvians or, if true the Levites as they are known in the Hebrew scriptures, may have been a separated priestly caste of the Indo-Europeans, much like the Brahmins of India, or the Druids among the celtic peoples.
• According to the Pentateuch, the Levites were to remain a very exclusive group.
• Only Levites were acceptable as members of the priesthood of Yahweh. Moses, Aaron and the sons of Aaron were the highest priests.
• They were not allowed to marry any woman except from their own tribe.
• The Levites were the judges exclusively. When other tribes complained, they were suppressed.
• penalties for breaking the rules of the Levites was severe. Breaking the sabbath or blasphemously was stoning.
  
  
• Fire sacrifices were extremely important and a major aspect of the rituals of the Levites, much like those of the Brahmins in India.
• The first ten sections of Leviticus are totally concerned with fire sacrifices.
• The Levites were supplied with food and other things by the tribes, through the tithe.
• The general picture rendered is one of rather a well clothed, well fed, well housed, well transported, perfumed aristocracy, who ruled with supreme authority over the other Hebrew people.
• Their position as the ruling class of the Hebrew people, certainly an Indo-European pattern, suggests that they may have been assigned this heritage to justify their relationship to the other tribes.
• We also know from Psalm 107 that all the Hebrews were not of one race. it says:

• So let them say who were redeemed by the Lord, redeemed by him from the power of the enemy, and gathered out of every land, from east and west and north and south.

• This suggests that at the time of the writing of these psalms, Israel saw itself as a group of races gathered together under the direction of the Levites.
• The worship of the Indo-European and Hebrew gods as volcanic mountain Gods may explain the great importance of the fire rituals among both the Brahmins and the Levites.
• it may also explain the name YHWH which has puzzled scholars looking for a semitic word
• In Sanskrit the word Yahweh means ever-flowing, very suggestive of the lava of volcanic eruption.
• connections between the Indo-Europeans and the Hebrews are too numerous to be lightly dismissed though more translation of Luvian texts will be needed to prove it.
  
  
• This connection would explain the very patriarchal laws and attitudes of the Levite priests of the Hebrews in the scriptures and their insistence upon the destruction of the Goddess religion.
• It would also explain the severe laws regarding women and the fact that the people, up until the exile, did not stay with the worship of YHWH but constantly turned back to the goddess worship, their own heritage.

Religion of the Patriarchs

• Moses, whom we will discuss next, was considered the founder of Israel's religion or Yahwehism and we must not try to read back on the patriarchs the religion of later Israel.
• We are told by the later writers that covenants were made with the Patriarchs and renewed.
• One with Noah was made with all humankind and animals, the promise that God would never again flood the world.
  
  
• The covenant with Abraham that he would have land and posterity in the place shown to him, was renewed with Isaac his son and with Jacob (Israel) and his sons.
• Abraham stands as the ultimate ancestor of Israel's faith and, thru Ishmael Abraham's son by Hagar, Islam also looks to Abraham as their father.
  
  
• For the J document the God of the Patriarchs was YHWH who, according to him, was worshiped from the beginning of time.
• for all the other writers however, YHWH doesn't become known until Moses.
• Thus, E and P studiously avoid mention of YHWH until Moses and the burning bush and speak of God either as Elohim (E) or El Shaddai (P).
  
  
• However, the writers E and P were aware that the same God was involved and that the Patriarchs worshiped the same god whether consciously or unconsciously.
• Whatever the origins of the worship of YHWH, no trace of it before Moses has yet been found.

So–what was their religion?

• In the Genesis narrative, each patriarch is represented as undertaking by free and personal choice the worship of his God, to whom thereafter he entrusted himself.
• There was thus a close personal tie between the clan father and his god.
• The God was the patron deity of the clan, and each leader would swear by the God of his father's clan.
  
  
• Parallels adduced from Aramean and Arab Societies of the early Christian centuries, make it almost certain that the establishing a personal and contractual relationship between clan chief and clan god represents a phenomenon widespread and ancient among Semitic nomads. The picture of the patriarchal covenant seems in this respect most authentic.
• Because of names, both personal and divine, it is abundantly evident that the Hebrew ancestors worshiped God under the name "EI".
• Names such as Ishmael (“may El” or God hear), Jacob-el (may god protect), El Shaddai, Elohim, etc. it may be assumed that this name is of pre-Israelite origin and basically means God.
• the names in any event, attest a belief in a God who is most high, enduring, in power and who watches over the affairs of his people.
• The name Shaddai ("Mountain one" or “Breasted one”) suggests that the patriarchal god was possibly already influenced by the Indo-Europeans as early as Abraham.

The Nature of their religion

• It is impossible to describe the religion of the patriarchs in detail but whatever the personal religious experiences of the patriarchs it is certain that Israel s forebears had once been pagans.
• this is affirmed by the Bible itself (Josh 24:2,14)
• However, the Genesis picture of a personal relationship between the individual and his God, supported by promise and sealed by covenant.
  
  
• Thus, it was a clan religion and would be wrong to call this type of religion monotheism.
• It is probable that the story of the near sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22) reflects the conviction of Israel – a conviction certainly correct – that her ancestors had never indulged in the practice of human sacrifice, known among their neighbors.
  
  
• the cult was exceedingly simple,
• At its center was animal sacrifice, as among all smites: but this was performed without organized clergy, wherever they were, with the clan chief doing the ritual.
• As the Patriarchs moved into Palestine they came into contact with various shrines and there is no doubt the cults were practiced and perpetuated in identification with the cults already at home at those places.
• The patriarchal cult was never a local one, but always the cult of the ancestral deity of the clan.

the Patriarchs and Israel's faith

• As the patriarchal clans (not all of whom went to Egypt with Jacob, but more on that later) and their cults were subsumed into Yahwehism it did a great deal to shape Israel’s structure and faith.
• There is no question that Israel's legal tradition was probably transmitted to her by her own semi-nomadic forebears, from Mesopotamian origin rather than Canaanitic sources.
• Yahwehism has been shaped much the same way giving her distinctive theology and history.
  
  
• Above all, there was in Israel's heritage a feeling of tribal solidarity between people and God, that must have contributed more than we can guess to that intensely strong sense of peoplehood so characteristic of her for all time to come.
• Beyond this, the pattern of promise and covenant embedded itself in the Israelite mind.
• the notion of a covenant supported by the unconditional promises of God lived on, for good or ill, in the Hebrew mind, powerfully shaping the national hope.
• The Bible's picture of the patriarchs is deeply rooted in history.
• This is extremely important, for it was the Jews who first developed the concept that history was linear, that is, that instead of going in circles as the surrounding religions taught, including the Aryans and Brahmin priests still today in India, History has a purpose.
• They saw history as moving from a beginning to an end and that God was in control of the whole thing.
• This idea has had great ramifications for all western thinking since it is out of this context that the concept of progress comes making science and technology possible.
  
  
• Abraham began far more than he knew. it is, therefore, not w/o sound historical reason that Christian, Jew and Muslim alike hail him as the father of all faith.