Finding Historical Memories in the Patriarchal Narratives

8/10/2019 Finding Historical Memories in the Patriarchal Narratives

1/13

Finding Historical Memories

in the Patriarchal Narratives1

By Ronald S. Hendel

Dating the Patriarchal Age: Where Kitchen Erred

The search for the historical patriarchs of Genesis has taken some dizzying turns in the

last half-century. From the 1940s through the 1960s, scholars proclaimed that the

patriarchal age of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph had been found among the mass ofnew archaeological data recovered from the second millennium B.C.E. In the 1970s and

1980s, the tide turned, and the patriarchal age was lost again, as the arguments of the

previous decades were shown to be over-interpretations of the data, compounded with

wishful thinking. Nowadays the patriarchs, for many scholars, are no more than aglorified mirage concocted by the Pentateuchal writers, as Julius Wellhausen argued

over a century ago.

Turning against this tide of minimalism, Kenneth Kitchen boldly argues in the

March/April BARthat the maximalist position can be maintained, indeed strengthened,on the basis of our current understanding of the Bible and of the ancient Near Eastern

data. While Kitchen agrees that the criticisms advanced during the 1970s by John Van

Seters, Thomas Thompson, Donald Redford and others were appropriate, and that faultycomparisons and arguments had been made by earlier scholars, he maintains that a re-

examination of the data supports the existence of the patriarchal age in the first half of the

second millennium B.C.E., the period archaeologists call the Middle Bronze Age.Kitchen pursues his task with characteristic erudition, apparently demonstrating that the

facts and the Bible match up in a number of different areas.

Is Kitchen right? Are the minimalists proven wrong? Since this is such an important issuefor students of the Bible, I believe that a careful consideration of Kitchens arguments is

in order. I mean no disrespect to Professor Kitchen in subjecting his arguments to

examinationin fact, quite the reverse. I believe that Kitchen has constructed as strong acase for the maximalist position as can be made at the present time. If his position

withstands close examination, then it should be accepted. If it has flaws, then these need

to be shown. Such is the process of historical scholarshipa conversation over the factsand over how to understand them.

In the sidebar Dating the Patriarchal Age: Where Kitchen Erred, I outline some of theflaws in Kitchens arguments. To summarize, his arguments simply do not work. In eachinstance the relationship between the Biblical texts and the extra-Biblical data is

sufficiently loose that no historical conclusions can be drawn concerning a patriarchal

era. If my criticisms are sound, are we then left with the minimalists claim that thepatriarchs are a glorified mirage concocted by the Pentateuchal writers? I think not

1Hershel Shanks Editor, BAR 21:04 (July/Aug 1995)( (Biblical Archaeology Society,2004; 2004)).


2/13

because the minimalists are wrong, too. Among the wreckage of past scholarship there

are bits of data and historical arguments that show the antiquity of at least some aspectsof the patriarchal traditions.

I will try to untangle and refine the best of these arguments to show that some patriarchal

traditions clearly predate the major Biblical writings concerning the patriarchs (J, E andP), and that some traditions clearly predate the formation of Israel in about the 12th

century B.C.E. (Iron Age I). First let me clarify the nature of this historical task. I am not

trying to prove or disprove the patriarchal narratives the Bible presents in Genesis 1250.Rather, I am trying to clarify the relationship between the patriarchal narratives and

ancient Near Eastern history. In this relationship we are not limited to the simple contrast

between true and false, history and fiction. The actual relationship is somewhere betweenthe two, where history and imagination intermingle. In my understanding of the text and

the historical facts, the patriarchal narratives of Genesis are a composite of historical

memory, traditional folkloreand narrative brilliance. To inquire into the historical

memory in the stories is to address something other than their folklore or literary art. Yet

each of these dimensions of the patriarchal narrativesthe historical, the folkloric andthe literaryis needed to appreciate and understand the whole. When we address

historical questions we need to realize that we are, at least for a time, neglecting the otherdimensions of the text, and that a full investigation will bring all the dimensions together.

History is necessary, but it is not sufficient; it is only the first step toward a modern

understanding and appreciation of the patriarchal narratives.

Having indicated the limitations of our historical inquiry, we may ask what is to be

gained by such an inquiry. If we can find clear indications of historical memories ofevents or milieux that antedate the Biblical writers, then we have falsified the basic claim

of the minimalists that everything is late and fictional. If we find clear evidence that thesestories preserve at least traces of ancient traditions, then we can better understand the

nature of the historical element in Israelite culture. We gain insights into the relationship

between tradition and writer in the creation of Biblical texts. We can even better

appreciate the ways in which the Biblical stories, as a common inheritance, articulated anational, religious and ethnic identity for the Israelites. We may also better perceive the

sacral quality of the stories, as directly relating to the religious life of the people.

But do we find the historical patriarchs or the patriarchal era? I dont think so. In thepresent state of the evidence, historical arguments bear only on the underlying nature of

the patriarchal stories and traditions. We still have no clear evidence concerning the

original Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph or the rest of the cast of Genesis. We do not knowwhen or if any of these characters ever existed. All we can say is that traditions

concerning these figures existed long after the figures themselves were supposed to have

lived and that we can date some of these traditions.

But let me first make one other important point: Even if a historical Abraham did exist

and we could verify his existence, this fact would not solve any other of the historical

questions of the patriarchal stories. We still would not know if the historical Abraham didany of the things recounted in the stories. This is a common situation in narrative

traditions: even when the protagonist is historical, as with Gilgamesh, King Arthur or


3/13

George Washington, this fact doesnt tell us whether the story is historically true or

preserves authentic historical memories. The story of George Washington and the cherrytree is a classic American example (historians say it never happened). The same caution

must extend to the Biblical patriarchs.

If we cannot find the patriarchs or the patriarchal era, then let us try to find at least the

patriarchal traditions in history. Do they predate the major Biblical writers? Do theypredate the era of Israelite society (beginning in about 1200 B.C.E.)? How can we tell?

Three bodies of evidence show that some aspects of the traditions are old, extending in

some instances to the mid-second millennium B.C.E. This is not to say that all aspects of

the tradition are that old. The patriarchal stories, as with other narrative traditions, consistof elements of varying antiquity. The minimalists have emphasized the late elements. Let

us consider the more ancient ones.

In about 925 B.C.E., the Egyptian Pharaoh Sheshonq I (Biblical Shishak) mounted amilitary expedition into the recently divided states of Judah and Israel that replaced the

United Monarchy. Sensing a moment of weakness, Sheshonqs forces devastated theland. The Biblical accounts only begin to suggest the extent of the destruction:

In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, King Shishak of Egypt marched against Jerusalem.

He carried off the treasures of the House of Yahweh and the treasures of the royal palace;

he carried off everything. He even carried off all the golden shields that Solomon hadmade.


4/13

1 Kings 14:2526According to the fuller account in 2 Chronicles 12:212, Shishaks invading army had

1,200 chariots, 60,000 horsemen and innumerable troops. They captured the fortified

towns of Judah and advanced on Jerusalem, where Rehoboam apparently averted

disaster by giving Shishak the Temple treasury.

Upon his triumphant return to Egypt, Sheshonq had a victory stela carved into a wall of

the Temple of Amun in the city of Karnak. On this stela were carved the names ofperhaps 150 sites (many now eroded or illegible) in Judah and Israel that Sheshonqs

army conquered. Roughly 70 of these sites are in the Negev. One of these Negev sites is

called, in Egyptian syllabic writing:p aqrua ibirama. Many Egyptologists

have read the last word in this place-name as the equivalent of Hebrew Abram or

Abiram. (Abram and Abiram are variations of the same name, literally the [or my]

Father is exalted.) A recent comprehensive treatment of Semitic words in Egyptiansyllabic writing concludes that the reading of this word as Abram or Abiram is

entirely certain.

The first Egyptian sign in this place-name is the; the word that follows means either

fort, fortified (from Hebrew gr, to gird) or field (from Semitic ql). I think fort,

fortified is more likely, since the other word is not found in Hebrew. The place-namewould then be The Fort (or Fortified Town) of Abram, or simply Fort Abram.

Who is the Abram of Fort Abram? There are two possibilities. Either it is the Abram

famous from the Biblical stories of the patriarchs, or it is another Abram whom we have

never heard of. The minimalists prefer the second option. For example, John Van Seters,in his important bookAbraham in History and Tradition, notes the existence of the name

Abram in this tenth-century B.C.E. place-name, but argues: There is no reason to

suspect that the name has any connection with the patriarch. This is a possible position.But is it plausible? Let us consider the other possibility, that Fort Abram was named after

the patriarch Abram. Are there any reasons to prefer this possibility? The answer is yes.Geography. The place-name Fort Abram is found on Sheshonqs list of sites in theNegev. The Biblical Abram lived in the Negev and southern Judah. Therefore, Fort

Abram was located in a region that the Bible associates with the patriarch Abram.Chronology. Fort Abram existed in the tenth century B.C.E., shortly after the United

Monarchy divided following the death of Solomon. The site probably existed during theUnited Monarchy. Numerous scholars have found indications in the Bible of Davidic-

Solomonic ideology in the stories of Abram, such as Yahwehs unconditional promises

of land, descendants and greatnessto Abram (Genesis 12:13; 13:1417; 15 et al.) and

David (2 Samuel 7:816; Psalm 89:4, 2937). It makes sense that a fortified site in theNegev, probably during the United Monarchy, would be named by royal officials after

the father of the nation, whose stature would glorify the Davidic king.

Archaeology. Excavations in the Negev have revealed a high density of sites during thetenth century, in accord with the numerous Negev sites listed in Sheshonqs stela. Only a

few sites can be clearly identified with place-names in Sheshonqs list, such as Arad,

which in the stela is called The Fort of Great Arad. Most of these Negev sites were


5/13

fortified by casemate walls enclosing the area, hence the probable sense of the word agr

as enclosure, fortification, fort. Most of these sites were built and settled in the eleventhor tenth centuries, during the United Monarchy. Presumably these new settlements were

named during this period. One motive in the construction of fortified settlements in the

Negev in this period was probably to create a line of defense against Egypt. This is the

archaeological context for Fort Abram. It was probably a new site, built under theauthority of David or Solomon, whose fortifications were intended for the defense of the

kingdom. When a government builds fortifications, it is natural to name them for

illustrious local or national heroes. Abram of Biblical fame surely fits the bill.

A further possible argument under the heading of archaeology was suggested by Yohanan

Aharoni, the excavator of Arad, Beersheba and other Negev sites. Aharoni noted thatArad is mentioned in Sheshonqs list, but Beersheba is not. This omission is strange,

since Beersheba was a prominent site in the region at the time. He suggested, therefore,

that Fort Abram was the term the Egyptians used to refer to Beersheba. In Biblicaltraditions Beersheba was founded by Abraham (see Genesis 21:2233), so the

identification of Fort Abram with the unlisted site of Beersheba is a very real possibility.All this leads us to think that the tenth-century B.C.E. Negev site called Fort Abram wasnamed for the patriarch Abram. The place is right, the time is right, the political setting is

right, and the archaeological data from the region are right. True, we cannot prove that

Fort Abram is testimony to the traditions of Abram. But it is a reasonable historical

argument that simply and elegantly explains the facts. If we weigh the reasons for andagainst, the identification of Fort Abram with Biblical Abram is extremely probable. In

this case, we seem to have good extra-Biblical evidence for the vitality of ancient

traditions of Abram in the tenth century B.C.E.

Two other sets of evidence, both consisting of names, take us back before the tenth

century B.C.E., to the period preceding Israels emergence as a nation or people.The first body of evidence consists of the patriarchal names in Genesis in the aggregate.

The important point to note is the absence of the divine name Yahweh as an element in

any of these names. Commonly, ancient Semitic names were compounded with the name

of a god. But in Genesis the only god-name found in personal names is El (for example,Ishmael, Israel, Bethuel)never Yahweh. Names compounded with Yahweh are not

found until Exodus (Joshua [Yehoshua], Jochebed [with a Y in Hebrew; Moses

mother]). This is a striking difference that deserves an explanation.

The great early 20th-century German scholar Albrecht Alt suggested that the absence ofYahweh-names in the patriarchal narratives indicates a pre-Yahwistic origin for the

patriarchal traditions. Not a bad argument, but I would go even further. As earlier noted,the patriarchal narratives, according to the documentary hypothesis, consist of threeauthorial strands, designated J, E and P, with the earliest strand being the J (Yahwist or,

in German, Jahwist) source. For E (Elohist source) and P (Priestly source), we should not

be surprised at the absence of Yahweh-names, since according to these sources the nameYahweh was not known to the patriarchs. But in Genesis, there are no Yahweh-names at

all, not even in J. This directly contradicts Js view that Yahweh was indeed known to the


6/13

patriarchs. Therefore, we must ask why there is no Yahweh-name in Js Genesis

narrative. It must be because, in fact, there werent any in the tradition that J inherited.Let me unpack this argument a bit: In both E and P, the patriarchs call their god El or

Elohim (with various titles or epithets). In both sources the name Yahweh is first revealed

only in the time of Moses (see Exodus 3 [E]; Exodus 6 [P]). Therefore, it is consistent

with the views of E and P that the patriarchal names not be compounded with Yahweh. Ifsome patriarchal names had actually been Yahweh-names, E and P might have changed

these names to fit their theory, so it is not surprising that we find no Yahweh-names in E

and P.

But J holds a different theory. According to the J narrative, the name Yahweh was known

from the time of Enosh, son of Seth (Genesis 4:26), and was known to all the patriarchs.So why are there no Yahweh-names in the J narrative in Genesis? The fact that the

patriarchal names exclude the divine name Yahweh contradicts Js understanding of the

history of the divine name; for J to list El-names but no Yahweh-names goes against the

writers own intentions. Unlike the case with E and P, there can be no question of Js

manufacturing patriarchal names to delete the Yahweh-element. What J doesnt seem torealize is that the absence of Yahweh in the patriarchal names seems to falsify his theory

that the patriarchs called their God Yahweh.

In light of this problem in J, the absence of Yahweh-names from the patriarchal names in

Genesis is evidence of the validity, or at least antiquity, of the theory shared by E and P,that the patriarchs did not call their God Yahweh. According to E and P, the patriarchal

God was called Elwhich is corroborated by the evidence of names in Genesis.

This analysis of the Biblical evidence correlates with the historical and archaeologicaldata from Canaanite religion and culture of the pre-Israelite period. The evidence, from

Ugarit in the north to Sinai in the south, testifies that during the second millenniumB.C.E. the high god of various local Canaanite pantheons was named El.

Accordingly, the implication of the patriarchal names is historically accurate: The

tradition accurately remembered (as evidenced by the names in the patriarchal narratives)that there was a period sometime in the second millennium B.C.E. when there was an El

religion. The people who venerated El apparently later became part of Israel (another El-

name). In other words, the El religion of the patriarchs preserves authentic pre-Yahwistichistorical memories.

The next body of evidence that takes us to the pre-Israelite period consists of the namesof Abrams close kin and the place they settle. As scholars have long noted, there is a

durable link between Abrams kin and the region of Syro-Mesopotamia between the

Euphrates and Habur rivers Abrams great-grandfather is named Serug. His grandfather isnamed Nahor (as is his brother). His father is named Terah. All of these personal names

correspond with place-names in the Euphrates-Habur region of Syro-Mesopotamia. As

place-names, they are known in various forms from texts of the second and first millennia

B.C.E. Tell (a) Turai and Sargi are known from Neo-Assyrian texts. Nahur is known

from Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian texts; it has been located by the Habur River east


7/13

of Haran. A later site known from Neo-Assyrian texts, Tell Nahiri, is in the immediate

vicinity of Haran.

Haran (Harran in Akkadian) is where Abrams father Terah takes his family to settle

(Genesis 11:31). Terah later dies there. Only Abram, Sarai and Lot go on to Canaan.

Even the name Abrum, listed in Old Assyrian texts, is a place somewhere around thisarea, though its precise location is uncertain. These extra-Biblical place-names seem to

agree with the Biblical evidence in associating Abrams lineage with this region of Syro-

Mesopotamia. Why?

The historical answer to this geographical linkage is far from clear. The problem is that

during the Israelite period this area was Aramean. In Genesis this region is identified asAramean by the terms Aram-Naharaim (Aram of the two rivers, Genesis 24:10 [J]) and

Paddan-Aram (Plain of Aram, Genesis 28:67 [P]). But as the Biblical text amply

testifies, the Arameans were enemies of the Israelites from the time of David. Why wouldthis be the ancestral homeland if it is the home of enemies after the 11th century?

Yet this is the ancestral region where Abrahams kin live, where Abraham sends for awife for Isaac, where Rebekah instructs Jacob to flee and where Jacob marries. Thesemarriages, in kinship terms, are endogamous (literally, marriage within) alliances

within the patriarchal lineage. The importance of kinship ties in the patriarchal narratives

is clear. Elsewhere in the Bible this region is also tied to the patriarchs, as in the famous

prayer beginning My father was a wandering (or perishing) Aramean (Deuteronomy26:5). But why would the patriarchs be identified with the hated Arameans if the

geographical link were not historically accurate?

The only plausible solution to this problem is to look at the Bronze Age of the second

millennium B.C.E., when this region was not Aramean but Amorite. It is entirely

possible, some scholars have argued, that there is a historical connection between thepatriarchal traditions and the Amorite culture of Syro-Mesopotamia during the Middle

and Late Bronze Ages. As we can gather from the cuneiform texts recovered from Mari

and Terqa, Amorite culture was primarily non-urban and tribal. The language they used

was an early form of Northwest Semitic, the language group that includes Hebrew. Anumber of cultural traits common to the Amorite tribes and the later Israelite tribes have

been noted, including numerous social forms and religious customs. The key point is that

the region around Haran and the upper Euphrates was part of the Amorite heartland inthis period. This is the place so strongly associated with Abrams lineage.

It seems likely then, that the names of Abrams lineage and the geographical location of

the patriarchal home refer to the Amorite homeland in this area during the secondmillennium B.C.E. Why does the Bible identify this area as Aramean? Because it wasAramean during the time of the nation of Israel. In other words, the patriarchal traditions

were updated to reflect then-current geographical and ethnic realities (even though these

revisions introduced a problem), tracing the patriarchal origins to the hated Arameans.The patriarchs became wandering Arameans because the ancestral land was now

Aramean. But we know that the original ethnic identity of this region was Amorite. In


8/13

other words, the Biblical terms identifying the ethnic affiliation of this area as Aramean

are a first-millennium updating of a second-millennium tradition.

In this understanding of the facts, the confession My father was a wandering (or

perishing) Aramean makes sense, as do the patrilineal marriages in Syro-Mesopotamia.

It is the Aramean dress that makes the references confusing and problematic. If thesereferences were modernizations of ancient memories of the Amorite homeland, then the

problems disappear. In short, the Biblical authors who traced the lineage of the patriarchs

to the Syro-Mesopotamian heartland appear to have drawn on an historically authentictradition. I do not mean to suggest that we have made our case beyond a reasonable

doubt; but the facts do cohere best with this understanding, and some long-standing

problems are resolved. As a historical theory, it has scope and simplicity, and it fits thefacts.

So whats in a name? In the case of the patriarchal traditions, the names of certain

persons and places provide the best evidence for tracing the historical roots of the

patriarchal traditions. Fort Abram in the Negev of the tenth century is good evidence forthe power of tradition already at that time. The absence of Yahweh in the patriarchal

names in Genesis, even in the J narrative, indicates a second millennium date for at leastsome features of the patriarchal worship of the god El. The geographical references in the

lineage of Abram and the other references to the patriarchal homeland in Syro-

Mesopotamia preserve traces of Amorite kinship bonds from the mid-second millenniumB.C.E. These are the best clues we have for the history and origins of the patriarchal

traditions.

Is it plausible that the patriarchal narratives, written down probably no earlier than the

ninth or eighth centuries B.C.E. (the probable time of J), could preserve memories of pre-Yahwistic religion? Is it plausible that they recall the kinship ties of at least some early

Israelites to the old Amorite homeland in Syro-Mesopotamia? This is another matter that

the minimalists would dispute, claiming that oral tradition can preserve historical

memories no longer than 150 years. Is it possible that some memories in the patriarchalnarratives are over 500 years old?

The answer is yes. A striking example illustrating the potential memory of oral traditionis found in Amos 9:7, as Abraham Malamat has astutely noted. Amos states that Yahweh

brought the Israelites out of Egypt, just has he brought the Philistines from Caphtor

(Crete and the Aegean region) and the Arameans from Qir (probably in the MiddleEuphrates region). Extensive archaeological evidence demonstrates that for the

Philistines this historical memory is accurate. In the early 12th century B.C.E., the

Philistines did arrive from the Aegean region. This accurate historical memory was 400years old at the time Amos recited it. A century and a half later Jeremiah also recalled

this tradition of Philistine origins (Jeremiah 47:4). This is a good Biblical parallel for the

occasional longevity of historical memory in oral traditions. Similar examples from other

cultures are numerous.


9/13

Our conclusion is that the Biblical traditions of the patriarchs do carry some ancient

memories, stretching back to pre-Israelite times in the second millennium. From theseancient roots, the patriarchal stories grew and changed, were adapted and embellished by

storytellers of each age, until they came to be written in brilliant form by the Biblical

authors. We can perceive the antiquity of these traditions only occasionally, but the

power and authority of the past pervades the stories.

What, then, is the patriarchal era? In the most obvious sense it is the time forever

recreated in the Biblical narratives of Genesis 1250. This era consists of memory andmyth, mingled in a way far more compelling than ordinary history. It is an era in sacred

time.

Dating the Patriarchal Age: Where Kitchen Erred

By Ronald S. Hendel

In The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History, BAR21:02, Kenneth Kitchen cites six

factors leading him to conclude that the patriarchs can be dated to the first half of the

second millennium B.C.E., or the Middle Bronze Age. These factors are (1) the priceof slaves, (2) treaties and covenants, (3) geo-political conditions, (4) references to

Egypt, (5) patriarchal names and (6) the social world of the patriarchs. Unfortunately,

this evidence does not add up to a persuasive argument for the early secondmillennium B.C.E. as the time of the patriarchs.

The price of slaves

Kitchen correlates the price of slaves recorded at various points in the Bible with slave

prices in the ancient Near East. He finds that the 20 shekels of silver paid for Joseph

(Genesis 37:28) was the standard slave price in the 19th and 18th centuries B.C.E.; theslave price of 30 shekels listed in Exodus 21:32 matches the going price in the 14th

and 13th centuries B.C.E.; and the tax of 50 shekels imposed by King Menahem in the

eighth century B.C.E.to finance a tribute to the Assyrian king Pul (2 Kings15:20)reflects the slave price at that time.

Is this factual evidence for dating the events of these Biblical passages? Not exactly.King Menahems tax of 50 shekels doesnt necessarily have anything to do with slave

prices, though the coincidence between the amount of this tax and the price of slavesis intriguing.

The slave price of 30 shekels listed in the Covenant Code (Exodus 21:32) may reflect

a historical context of the late second millennium or early first millennium B.C.E. It isdifficult to be more precise within this historical period. The price of slaves reported

in Exodus, however, is a good argument against those who would date the Covenant

Code to the Exilic or post-Exilic periods, when slave prices were roughly triple that


10/13

amount.

The 20 shekels of silver paid for Joseph does correlate with the standard price in Old

Babylonian times. But the standard price often varied according to the age and sex of

the slave. According to Leviticus 27:18, which lists prices for the redemption of

individuals from a life of priestly service (compare Samuel in 1 Samuel 12), theredemption price for an adult male was 50 shekels, the slave price in the eighth and

seventh centuries B.C.E. (when this chapter was probably written). The redemptionprice in Leviticus for a boy between 5 and 20 years old was 20 shekels (Leviticus

27:5), the price paid for Joseph, a lad of 17 years (Genesis 37:2).

So we cannot use the price paid for Joseph as evidence for a Middle Bronze Age date:

Josephs price of 20 shekels reflects the going rate for boy-slaves in the early firstmillennium B.C.E.

Treaties and covenants

Kitchen finds another set of correlations between Biblical and extra-Biblical data inthe treaties or covenants made by the patriarchs. The three patriarchal covenants heconsiders are Abrahams covenant with King Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 21:22

32); Isaacs covenant, also with King Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 26:2631); and

Jacobs covenant with Laban (Genesis 31:4354). Kitchen argues that the form and

structure of these covenants matches the form and structure of ancient Near Easterntreaties of the early second millennium B.C.E. Is he right?

First, two of the three Biblical covenants he cites form a doublet, that is, twovariations of the same story from different Biblical sources. Abrahams covenant with

Abimelech of Gerar is from the E source, whereas Isaacs covenant with the same

king at the same place is from the J source. Each story ends with the origin of thename of Beersheba (Genesis 21:31; 26:33), suggesting that they are variants of a

single tradition concerning the founding of Beersheba. These stories, therefore, cannotbe treated as two independent historical sources.

Does the doublet of the covenant with King Abimelech bear the form and structure ofearly second millennium covenants? And does the treaty between Jacob and Laban

share this form and structure?

According to Kitchen, early-second-millennium covenant agreements in the westernNear East combined the following elements in a specific order: the invocation of

witnesses, the swearing of oaths, the laying-down of stipulations, and the uttering ofcurses. Of these four elements, two are lacking in the doublet of the covenant withKing Abimelech. These texts mention only oaths and stipulations, no witnesses or

curses. The covenant between Jacob and Laban fares better, with three of the four

elements clearly mentioned, and the fourththe cursespossibly implied. Thissketchy picture does not constitute a strong argument for the correspondence between

these Genesis texts and early second millennium political treaties. The

correspondence is fragmentary and partial at best.


11/13

We should not expect the Genesis narratives to be as formally structured as treaties ofinternational law. Kitchen concedes as much: In Genesis, we have only the narrative-

reports of agreements, not verbatim final texts. I would suggest that he is trying to

squeeze too much out of these narrative texts, and that the results are more meager

than he recognizes.

Geo-political conditions

For Kitchen, only the Middle Bronze Age fits the circumstances recounted in Genesis

14, where Abraham defeats a coalition of four kings and armies from Elam,

Mesopotamia, Anatolia and elsewhere. The leader of the foreign alliance is KingChedorlaomer of Elam, who is the overlord of the Dead Sea region.

Kitchen cites two factors that indicate a Middle Bronze Age context for these events:

Only then were there shifting alliances among kings in Canaan and Mesopotamia; andonly then did Elam participate in the affairs of Canaan and the Levant. Neither,

however, is a viable historical argument.

Kitchens only example of Elamite involvement in political affairs in Canaan or the

west is a trip by an Elamite envoy to the city of Qatna in Syria. This is a far cry from

Elamite rule over a region of southern Canaan. Michael Astour is more blunt: No

king of Elam named Kutir/Kudur-Lagamar [the Elamite form of Chedorlaomer] isattested, nor is there the slightest evidence of Elamite political or military engagement

in Palestine at any time in history. The Elamite argument is slim indeed.

Is the Middle Bronze Age the only time when alliances among kings in Canaan and

Mesopotamia are attested? The answer is no. Kitchen states that for Canaan and the

west an alliance among kings must have occurred before the 12th century B.C.E. Butin the ninth century B.C.E., at Qarqar in Syria, an alliance of twelve kings of the

West and the seashore attempted to defeat the mighty Assyrian army. This westernalliance included the three great regional powers of Damascus, Hamath and Israel,

along with a number of Phoenician cities, various Arab tribes, a contingent from

Egypt, and possibly the Aramean state of Beth-Rehob. The annals of Shalmaneser III(858824 B.C.E.) note laconically after one of these battles: The twelve kings rose

against me. I fought and defeated them. But the western alliance inflicted serious

losses on the Assyrian army and slowed their path of conquest.

A number of other western alliances are documented during the ninth and eighth

centuries B.C.E. In the 730s and 720s B.C.E., Israel, Damascus, Tyre, Hamath, Gazaand other western regions formed shifting alliances in rebellion against Assyriandomination. These alliances ended in defeat and exile for the allieswith Samaria, for

example, falling in 722 B.C.E.

For Mesopotamia, Kitchen states that shifting alliances among kings ceased after the

18th century B.C.E. when new empires rose in Babylon and Assyria. A succession of

empires dominated Mesopotamia for the rest of the second and first millennia B.C.E.,


12/13

precluding the formation of alliances. But this is not quite true. Shifting alliances

among kings in Mesopotamia were frequent in the eighth and seventh centuriesB.C.E., involving kings of Babylonia, Chaldea, Elam, Arabia and other regions

opposed to Assyrian rule. This shifting coalition finally achieved victory over Assyria

with the fall of Nineveh in 612 B.C.E.

Possibly related to this era of alliances and warfare in Mesopotamia are the so-called

Chedorlaomer texts. These are a series of Babylonian texts, probably composed inthe seventh to sixth centuries B.C.E., which tell of four kings who attack and flood

Babylon. The first invader, the Elamite king Kudur-Nahhunte, was probably a

recollection of a 12th-century B.C.E. king of Elam who briefly ruled Babylon. The

third invader, a certain Tudhula, appears to be a veiled reference to Sennacherib ofAssyria, who conquered and flooded Babylon in the early seventh century B.C.E.

Several scholars have tried to see connections between the Chedorlaomer texts and

Genesis 14, though such attempts remain speculative. These non-Biblical texts doshow, however, that writers in the first millennium B.C.E. could imagine all kinds of

battles involving kings from various regions and times.

Neither of the factors cited by Kitchen isolates a single historical period that fits the

circumstances of Genesis 14. Elam never exercised political rule in Canaan, and

shifting alliances and wars among kings occurred during the second and first

millennia B.C.E.

References to Egypt

Is Kitchen correct that Biblical references to Egypt provide additional evidence for

dating the patriarchs to the Middle Bronze Age? His reason is that Egyptian kings

resided in the eastern Nile Delta during this periodwhich corresponds to the story ofJoseph recounted in Genesis 47. He also suggests that the record of residences in the

eastern delta corresponds to the story of Abram and Sarai in Genesis 12:1020,though that story does not specify the location of Pharaohs residence.

Kitchen tells us that the Egyptian royal residence was in the eastern Nile delta for

most of the period between 2000 and 200 B.C.E. The only time when the royalresidence was not in the delta was 15501300 B.C.E. Given this chronology, we

cannot say that a meeting with the Egyptian king in the eastern Nile delta could only

have occurred during the Middle Bronze Age. Kitchen, in fact, backs off from his

claim that these facts are evidence for a Middle Bronze Age date: He concedes that itis merely consistent with such a date. But it is also consistent with many other dates

in both the second and first millennia B.C.E.

Patriarchal names

Kitchen contends that the type of name of all the patriarchs except Abram doesbelong mainly to the Patriarchal Age according to the chronology emerging herethe

early second millennium B.C. or Middle Bronze Age. His reason is that this name-

type, which he says is constructed with Amorite imperfective verbs, is most


13/13

common during the early second millennium B.C.E. and less common thereafter.

But does the form of these namesIsaac, Jacob, Joseph and Ishmaelindicate thatthe patriarchs belong to the Middle Bronze Age? The answer is no.

Kitchen is linguistically mistaken when he calls these names Amorite imperfectives.

The verb form is not specifically Amorite, nor is it accurate to call it imperfective.This verb form (Proto-Semiticyaqtul) is found in various guises in all Semitic

languages. Names compounded with this verb form are found in all NorthwestSemitic languages, early and late.

Is it significant historically that this name-type is statistically more prominent in

Amorite culture of the early and mid-second millennium B.C.E. than in later times?Not really. A more pertinent question is whether it is ever absent. These names remain

current through all periods of the Northwest Semitic languages. So the existence of

names of this type is perfectly normal in both the second and first millennia B.C.E.Consider, for example, the names of the Biblical prophets. The three major

prophetsIsaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekielhave names of this type. None of the minorprophets does. Are we to believe that the major prophets are from the Middle BronzeAge? Of course not, and no one thinks so. This name-type belongs to no particular

period. (For a quite different historical argument concerning patriarchal names, see

the accompanying article.)

Social World of the Patriarchs

Kitchens last point concerns the history of laws of inheritance. He notes that inDeuteronomy 21:1517 the first-born son is supposed to receive a double portion,

more than his brother or half-brother. But in Genesis, says Kitchen, there is no hint

of a double portion for the first born. He notes that only in about the 20th centuryB.C.E. was the custom of equal inheritance commonthus he dates the Genesis story

to the early second millennium.

But is there no hint of a double or preferred portion for the first-born son in Genesis?

Jacob, surely, tricks Esau out of the inheritance of the first-born for some good reason;the blessing he receives from Isaac is clearly better than Esaus (see Genesis 27).

Later, when Jacob blesses Ephraim and Manasseh in Genesis 48, Joseph objects that

Jacob is unjustly giving the better blessing to the younger sonsuggesting that the

normal practice was for the first-born to get the prime inheritance. Jacob also givesJoseph one Shechem more than [his] brothers (Genesis 48:22), apparently

bequeathing the city of Shechem as an extra inheritance to Joseph, the first-born ofJacobs favored wife.

The argument that there is no hint of a double or preferred portion for the first-born in

Genesis cannot be sustained. This, too, is a broken reed and cannot be relied on.

Finding Historical Memories in the Patriarchal Narratives

Documents

Transcript of Finding Historical Memories in the Patriarchal Narratives