Genesis on Trial: Were the Patriarchs Real Historical Figures?
Overview: A general outline of the arguments for and against the historical credibility of Patriarchal Genesis, the responses of each side, by comparing it to ancient documents from that time.
“Is Tanakh a Historically Reliable Document” was the discussion of the overall credibility of Tanakh as a historical record. We have discussed several parts in particular including early Genesis (chapters 1-11, see here) and the Exodus account (see here). We now turn our attention to the Patriarchal narratives of Genesis.
When it comes to the question of historical credibility of Genesis, five options come to mind.
- It is an authentic recording of actual history with no error whatsoever.
- It was a later innovation by Israelite scribes for propaganda purposes in the pursuit of their political or religious agendas. The stories reflect nothing of real history and were entirely fabricated.
- The stories were intended to be mytho-history, i.e. metaphor – as discussed in “Early Genesis as a Metaphor.”[1]
- The narratives are overall historically authentic, yet contain embellishment in the details just like many other ancient documents (see “History of Torah” section in this article).
- There was an original purely historical document and some fictional details (or even narratives) got added over the years. Being that there are many stories and details in the narratives, it is likely that there’s a combination of both fact and myth, and perhaps some of mytho-history plus embellishment. This option seems the most likely and it’s merely a question of how much fact and how much myth(o-history).
In the chart below, we will go through the specific details found within the storyline that scholars and historians have examined in an attempt to prove one way or another. Some details point in favor or a reliable history for Genesis, while others point against its reliability. In each case, we will also try to present the response of the opposing view, in order to give an overall picture and let the reader make their own judgment. It’s important to stress that even if some details are proven to be accurate history, that doesn’t paint the entire book as reliable history. Similarly, if parts are shown to be inaccurate, that shouldn’t paint the entirety of Genesis as inaccurate.
The Patriarchal narratives are said to have been at about the 18th-15th centuries BCE (during the Middle Bronze Age). Critical scholars, however, believe that it was written many centuries later, either during the Monarchy in Israel (ca. 7th-century BCE) or during the Babylonian exile (ca. 6th-century BCE) and some parts as late as the Persian or even the Ptolemaic era. Therefore, when examining the narrative details, special attention is given to when these details would have made more sense – during the alleged Patriarchal era (18th-15th centuries BCE) or the 7th-3rd centuries BCE such that we can know if these stories actually happened as stated or if they were fabricated at a later point.
PROS
|
Arguments in favor: |
Responses: |
| The name Abraham has been found as early as the 16th and 15th centuries BC – the right timing for when Abraham would have existed.[2] | This name is also found later in the first-millennium BCE.[3]
Also note Abraham means “the father is exalted” which seems designed for the story in which Abraham is to become the patriarch of the Israelites. |
| The city of Ur, Abraham’s birth-city, was thought to be mythical, until it was discovered in southern Sumer. It enjoyed an advanced civilization until roughly 2,000 BC (exactly the time of Abraham).[4]
Ur was a metropolitan city during Abraham’s times and was destroyed several centuries later (only to be rebuilt in the 6th century by Nebuchadnezzar). |
Perhaps just a coincidence. Abraham could have been born in a small city.
Also note, Ur was rebuilt in time for a later date. This is only a problem for a monarchical date of the passage. Some argue that Ur was a city in Northern Mesopotamia, not in the currently-believed city of Ur.[5] |
| The custom of marrying the wife’s maid – Sarah and her maid Hagar – was common practice at the time.[6] | Parallel also found in Neo-Assyrian times. Also the parallels are often overstated and there’s much difference between the Nuzi tablets and the Genesis account.[7] |
| If fabricating the stories, why not make Abraham a native of Canaan to better strengthen the political rights to the Land?! | Perhaps written before/after the return to Israel after Babylonian exile and thus giving them a sense of Abraham their ancestor. |
| Abraham’s practice of having the adopted son Eliezer being “son of his house” (Gen. 15:2) was common practice according to the Nuzi texts. It was also customary to set this aside in light of a biological son (as Abraham did, when Isaac was born).[8] | The adopted inheriting is a common idea and we can assume that many cultures had this idea – not just in Nuzi Law.[9] |
| Scientists have uncovered the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah – and it’s covered in pitch and intensely heated rock, leading them to believe it was hit by a meteorite some 3,700 years ago – exactly the right timing as the biblical account.[10] | Perhaps a kernel of truth to an otherwise, arguably, inaccurate story. May have been a spiritual twist to the natural event of a meteoroid.
There are arguments against identifying Tall el-Hammam – the site of the meteorite explosion – as Sodom and Gomorrah from a biblical perspective (although much less persuasive given the direct correlation between the Sodom narrative and the meteorite hitting at that time period).[11] |
| The general absence of theophoric names – names that contain God’s name within them – in Genesis (to the exception of Judah) in contrast to the Monarchical period until the Second Temple era in which theophoric names were very common.[12]
Similarly, the names of the patriarchal era are almost never reused in Tanakh.[13] We would expect them to use common names if they made up the story in the 7th century. The names like Isaac and Jacob appear to be more Amorite than Semitic.[14] Moreover, the names Jacob, Isaac, Ishmael, and Joseph are all attested in the correct time period.[15] |
We have argued for the non-historicity of early Genesis here. This is despite the fact that theophoric names are listed there. So here as well we shouldn’t give historical credibility merely because of these names.
Similarly Amorite imperfect names are also found for the major prophets. Although less popular at the time, the names Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Ishmael etc. do appear in the first-millennium BCE. It would be ludicrous to date a person based on their name’s popularity times.[16] |
| The actions of the patriarchs in Genesis are greatly opposed to the Law of Torah. Jacob marries his sister-in-law (which is biblically prohibited[17]). If this were all written later, after the giving of the Torah, then why would they write the story this way? It would contradict the legal system that they were trying to implement. This would be a political nightmare.
Similarly, Reuben’s idea of promising the life of his two sons[18] seems to be taken from common practice at the time based on the Code of Hammurabi.[19] This practice would have been shunned upon in ancient Israel after the giving of the Torah which forbids punishing a son for the sins of their father.[20] |
Perhaps these biblical laws were written by different authors than the Patriarchal narratives and they would have only become contradictory after the Redactor (see here) would have stitched these stories together with the rest of the Torah.
The part in Hammurabi is about proportional punishment where one family member is punished for another’s sin. Whereas here, it isn’t a punishment; it’s a promise by Reuben that fits well with the storyline. Thus, it may have been pure coincidence that it fits better with pre-Israelite history. |
| 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.; the slave price of 30 shekels listed in Exodus 21:32 matches the going price in the 14th and 13th centuries BCE.[21] | The 30 Shekels may have also been the price of slaves in the early first-millennium BCE (it is hard to be precise within that range of several centuries).
The 20 Shekel for Joseph was perhaps because he was a lad of only 17 years of age (consistent with Leviticus 27:5) whereas an adult male would have been at a higher price – as per first-millennia pricing.[22] |
| Patriarchs are described as nomads similar to many Ancient Near East inhabitants of the time. A few hundred years later, this was no longer a popular thing to do as towns and cities started to flourish in the mid Bronze Age.[23] | Perhaps just a literary frame considering this is before the settling of Israel in the received story. Thus, it may have been pure coincidence that it fits better with the Middle Bronze Age period. |
| All of the many cities in genesis are attested to in the Middle bronze age (with exception of Beersheba – see below).[24] | Most cities from monarchical Israel would have been around in the Middle Bronze Age. May have been pure luck that the monarchical writers would have gotten them right. |
| Elam only engaged in Mesopotamian politics during the Middle Bronze age. It was common to make alliances during this time.[25] | The 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.[26] |
| The Genesis 15 ritual matches AT 456 2nd millennium treaty making culture. The other treaties also match the 2nd millennium treaty culture.[27] [28] | Early-second-millennium covenant agreements in the western Near East combined the following elements in a specific order: the invocation of witnesses, the swearing of oaths, the layinGodown of stipulations, and the uttering of curses. Of these four elements, two are lacking in the doublet of the covenant with King 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 fourth—the curses—possibly implied. This sketchy 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.[29] |
| Customs regarding adopted heirs such as with Abraham and Eliezer found in the Nuzi tests dated to about the same time. [30] | May have also been the custom at later points.
Moreover, the parallels are less convincing than it may first appear. First of all, Eliezer is a servant, and the Nuzi texts do not deal with the adoption of servants, but rather with free people who can enter into a mutually binding contract. Second, Genesis 15:4 indicates that Abraham having a son would invalidate Eliezer as an heir, but that is not how the Nuzi texts prescribed things. Rather, the Nuzi texts guarantee the right to an inheritance portion by the adopted, even if the father has children.[31] |
CONS
|
Arguments against: |
Responses: |
| Philistines didn’t show up in coastal Canaan until after 1200 BCE, yet Abraham and Isaac are described as visiting them. | May have been different philistines, the later ones adopting the name of the former ones. Alternatively, “Philistines” may have been a term for any non-Canaanite Aegean people in south Canaan.[32]
That’s why different cities attributed to them (Negev instead of coastal cities). Described as peace-makers with Abraham versus later (in Judges) where they are sworn enemies of Israelites. Semitic names like Abimelech versus later they had non-Semitic names.[33] Also, a tiny population who were apparently scared of Abraham’s amateur force of 318 men can hardly be compared to the later militant Philistines. Moreover, Kitchen notes, “We know so little about the Aegean peoples as compared with those of the rest of the Ancient Near East in the second millennium BC, that it is premature to deny outright the possible existence of Philistines in the Aegean area before 1200 BC.”[34] |
| Domesticated camels were not introduced to Palestine until the late ninth century.[35] | Although originally thought to have only been domesticated in 12th century in the Ancient Near East, more recent findings found evidence for domesticated animals much earlier.[36] Yes, it was more limited than the 12th century scope of domestication but it still was around (and perhaps the wealth of the patriarchs was a factor – see Gen 12:16 in which camels are a gift from Pharaoh to Abraham, and the King was likely to have foreign goods much before the nation as a whole got access to those goods).[37] |
| Jacob’s sheep story involves maternal impressions which do not exist in reality.[38] | Jacob was mistaken, just as everyone was at the time, but God has provided for him with a miracle. |
| Beersheba was not settled until after the Patriarchal period, an apparent error by the later Israelite scribes in their attempt to rewrite history. | Some suggest that there is no indication from the verses that it was actually a city then. They argue that it actually seems like a mere well-site that was within proximity of the later Beersheba.[39] In fact, there is evidence of some level of human occupation in the area from at least the 4th-millenium BCE.
But the verses seem to imply that it was likely a city, or at least a popular camping site (see Gen 22:19 and Gen 46:5). Tel Sheba, located some two and a half miles east of modern-day Beersheba, may not be the proper site for Beersheba.[40] |
| Lack of mention of Abraham in early Prophets dated by bible critics to 8th and 7th centuries (Hosea, Zephaniah, Amos, and early Isaiah). | Only mentioned once in the books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Micah – suggesting that if not for that one reference those prophets would have been believed to have not known of Abraham.[41]
Isaiah 29:22 may refer to Abraham as a historical person but it’s not clear. |
| Origin stories of Ammonites and Moabites seems like nasty propaganda and a smear campaign against the later Israelite adversaries. | Mere speculation and suspicion, with no evidence to support this assertion. |
| Etymologies of cities (such as Mt. Moriah, Beersheba, Betel, Mahanaim, and Sukkoth) are suspicious. It’s unlikely that so many cities would be established and named by just three people. | Mere speculation and suspicion, with no evidence to support this assertion. |
| Judah is the only brother besides Joseph to get his own story (perhaps written by Israelite scribes as propaganda against Judah, and the positive stories of Joseph as well since Israelite Kingdom’s capitol was in Shomron in the land of Joseph). | Perhaps these stories are what gave the tribe of Joseph the merit for kingship and servitude of the other tribes. It was the micro version by the Tribe’s patriarchs that influenced the macro version in the tribe of Joseph.
The story of Judah finishes off the Judah’s repentance and piety. Hardly a good ending for an attempt to paint Judah as a sinner. |
| Reference to Israelite Kingship in Gen 36:31, indication that this was written after the establishment of Israelite kingship in the 10th-century BCE. | Seems like a break in narrative, probably of later addition (see here).
Genesis may have been written after the 10th-century BCE but based on overall valid scrolls and oral legends. |
| The reference to Dan in Genesis 14:14 is a reference to a later name – see Judges 18:29. Therefore must have been written after the conquest of Canaan. | This can be an example in which later scribes updated the text of Torah for the convenience of later readers (see here). We see updates in many aspects including from the old Hebrew script (ksav ivri) to the new one (ksav ashurit) and the matres lectionis (such as the vav in karov), which were only invented much after the writing of the Torah (see here). |
| The patriarchs live ridiculously long lives, an unrealistic element in the storyline. | The numbers may be symbolic and interesting patterns in the numbers may indicate that (see here). Also, there may be some hint to symbolic significance in ancient lifespans from ancient literature. See for example the significance of the year 110 in ancient Egypt, and interestingly Joseph and Joshua are said to have lived to that age.[42] |
| The twelve tribes may have been a later development, and some biblical texts seem unaware of 12 tribes.[43] | Perhaps, like all early nations struggling with identity, the tribes were vague at first; but ultimately there’s no doubting that there were eventually twelve tribes that the later Israelites identified with (see, e.g., the books of Nehemiah and Ezra as well as Samuel, Kings, and the Pentateuch). There are explanations for the anomalies in some places in the counting of the tribes.[44] |
| The products carried by the Ishmaelites to Egypt in the Joseph story — gum, balm, and myrrh — are mentioned in texts of the Ptolemaic period (305–30 BCE) and don’t seem to have been brought to Egypt before this time.[45]
Similarly, “gum, balm and myrrh” were the main Arabian products during the 8th-7th centuries BCE under Assyria, not in the Patriarchal period.[46] |
Although not attested to earlier, these commodities may have been traded at earlier times. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. |
| Ishmaelites only appear in late biblical texts (Chronicles, Psalms, as well as Judith[47]). They and similar nomads inhabited the Negeb after Judah as a kingdom ceased to exist.[48] | These chronological timetables are constantly evolving. For example, Edom was once thought to be a much later kingdom until recent chance discoveries proved a much earlier date for the Edomite kingdom.[49]
Ishmael isn’t regarded as a significant nation yet. Merely described as the descendants of Abraham, they may very well have been a small startup nation at the time only to become a noteworthy nation at a later point. |
| It is only in the Late Period (664–331 BCE) that we have evidence for an international slave trade in Egypt. Furthermore before that period slaves were state property and weren’t bought by private individuals.[50] | We know of slaves much earlier, isolated instances of Midianites selling to Egyptians make perfect sense.
Potiphar was a prominent person in Pharaoh’s court so it’s not inconceivable that Pharaoh would allow Potiphar to have some slaves. In fact, the records show that the State would assign slaves to individuals.[51] |
| Ur was not Chalean (Kasdim in Hebrew) until the 7th century BCE.[52] | May have been a part of the linguistic updating of later scribes that we know happened (discussed earlier). |
| The name potiphar did not exist at the time of the Joseph narrative.[53] | It’s a modernization of Pa-didi-(p)re from an original Didi-re from the 13th century onward. Same goes for “The land of Rameses” (Gen. 47:11) |
| “Long live the king” and not “long live pharaoh” was used in oaths before the 9th century. See Gen. 42:15 and 42:16 for cases of this being used.[54] | This can be attributed to scribal updating as explained earlier. Or this narrative was in the first place written at a later time, though based on earlier oral traditions that didn’t put attention to exact quotations. |
| There’s a number of other more minor Persian and Ptolemaic era dating arguments for the Joseph narrative. These include:
1. Cows did not represent years in Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs until the Ptolemaic era as they do in the Joseph story.[55] 2. The idea of 70 days of mourning is known as early as the 18th dynasty and sporadic examples can be found through the 21st dynasty but the majority of cases come from the Saite, Persian, and Ptolemaic eras.[56] 3. The “agrarian reforms” in Gen 47:13-26 describe the exemption of the temples from royal taxation, a practice that was documented from the 8th century BCE onwards.[57] |
|
| The parallel stories of wives disguising as sisters (Abraham with Pharaoh, in Gen 12, and with Abimelech, in Gen. 20, as well as Isaac, in Gen. 26) seems to reflect different versions of the same story. | Perhaps the same person knows his own plot well and therefore executes it when needed. Similarly, his son would be inspired to do the same. |
| There are different traditions about genealogies such as Laban who’s identified as the son of Nahor (Gen. 29:5) or Betuel (28:5) seem to imply historical inaccuracy. | Perhaps, as sometimes done in ancient times, people are referred to by their primal ancestry instead of their direct lineage.[60] This is especially so in the informal setting of Gen. 29:5 in which the grandfather would have been better known to the towns-people. |
| Abraham’s descendants never inherited many of the lands promised to him in Gen. 15:18-21. | He didn’t inherit it, but his descendants will thousands of years later during the Messianic era.[61]
Alternatively, it may be a proof of authenticity because who would make up such a narrative? Perhaps fulfilled by King David and Solomon whose land is said to have stretched from the Euphrates till the Egyptian Sea (perhaps referring to the Red Sea).[62] |
| Gerar was an insignificant village during the iron age. During the Assyrian era it was a big stronghold.[63] | It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly where Gerar was.[64]
Moreover, limited excavations can often yield insufficient data to make conclusions like this. |
| Arameans are not mentioned as a group of people in any Ancient Near Eastern texts until 1100 BCE.[65] Yet the Torah describes Laban as an Aramean (Gen. 25:20), seemingly before the people of Aram took that name upon themselves. | Every reference has a first and there’s nothing wrong with saying that Genesis is the first to reference Aram as an ethnicity.
The name Aram as a place appears in several early documents.[66] It is reasonable to assume that its inhabitants would acquire that name for themselves as a people. Alternatively, later scribes updated the text for the readers of that time who would have been familiar with Laban’s townspeople as being Aramean (the idea of scribal updates was discussed earlier). |
| The kedarites and the rest of Ishmael’s sons mentioned in Genesis 25 are first mentioned in the Assyrian records in the 8th century BCE.[67] | Nonexistence of the rulers themselves cannot be alleged without tangible reasons (of which there are none). This is because of another example. If Assyrian mentions are the sine qua non (the absolute criterion) for a king’s existence, then Egypt and her kings could not have existed before the specific naming of (U)shilkanni, Shapataka, and Ta(ha)rqa in 716-679! But of course, as in the case of Shishaq (above), we have a relative abundance of monuments from many sites in the large land of Egypt attesting her existence and kings for millennia before the Neo-Assyrian kings ever got there![68] |
| Tamar (Ein Haseva) in Genesis 14:7 only existed in the late iron age. Same for Ein-mispat, that is kadesh[69] | The identification of Tamar is unclear, making such assertions unwarranted.[70]
Kadesh is not described as a city, but as a geographical reference point. |
For the sake of brevity, a number of arguments are only referenced in an addendum in the footnotes section.
____________
Addendum
Pros
| Arguments for: | Response: |
| Bedouin flights to Egypt for famine (just as Abraham and Jacob did) was a known practice at that time.[71] | People did go to Egypt at later times, despite being less common. It’s hardly inconceivable that someone came up with such a narrative plot.[72] |
| Shishak captured a place called “the plains of Abraham” this implies Abraham existed.[73] | This would still be 700 years after Abraham would’ve existed allowing for there to be more than enough time for legend to evolve.
This also tells us nothing about the historical Abraham and whether the accounts that have come down to us are reliable. Alexander existed but there are plenty of legendary stories about him. |
| The Nuzi documents support the practice of selling your birthright, as seen in Esau and Jacob (Gen. 25:33).[74] | The practice of selling (not yet) inherited rights was common in several periods, not just in the Patriarchal period.[75] |
| Pharaoh’s attraction to Sarah is plausible in light of the evidence that the Pharaoh’s sought out foreign women to include in their harims at this time.[76] | Very circumstantial evidence at best. |
| Sending escorts as in Genesis 12:20 was a common Egyptian custom as evident from the tale of Sinuhe (ca. 1850).[77] | Pharaoh’s detailing men to escort Abraham out of Egypt is the reverse pendant to an earlier king’s detailing men to escort the returning courtiter Sinuhe back into Egypt.[78] |
| The narrative of Genesis 14 shares the same structure as Yakhdun-lim of Mari, a Middle Bronze Age narrative. This would indicate a similar period of narrative retelling using the same literary style and narrative structuring.[79] | The comparisons may be overemphasized since they are not identical enough to say Genesis was following a similar narrative telling.[80]
Especially considering that number 5 is a very generic category and religious celebrations after battles were always standard.[81] A war, establishing vassals, and then having another revolt happens frequently enough that this is unsurprising.[82] |
| Cherdorlaomer is an Elamite name (Kudur-Lagamar – servant of the Elamite god Lagamar). Tid’al is a Hittite name Tudkhalia, and the “king of peoples” (melekh goyim) description given to him is a fair equivalent of “ruba’um rabium” (paramount chiefs), known in Anatolia in the twentieth-nineteenth centuries BCE.[83] Amraphel is the king of Shinar; this was a frequent term for Babylon in the 2nd millennium BCE. Arioch is also attested in the Mari archive as Arriwuk/Arriyuk and Ariukki at Nuzi, from the Patriarchal era.[84] | There is no record of this war between the four and five kings.[85] And neither are there records of these four kings existing among the oft-extensive Babylonian and Elamite kingslists (to the possible exceptions of Tid’al and Arioch). [However, this may be because of alternative spellings/pronunciations of the names in different languages, as is often the case.]
Tidal may be the name of a neo-Hittite king (of the 12-8th centuries BCE), thus not specific to the Patriarchal era.[86] Also, melekh goyim, formerly translated as “king of peoples,” may in fact be the king of a place called Gutium.[87] |
| Servant “in the house” (Egyptian Hery-per) was a mainly old/middle kingdom term[88] | This is one word in Hebrew b’beit and is not hard to chance upon. |
| Mentions of 110 years (Joseph’s death age) cluster at Ramesside period[89] when this number was apparently a symbolic lifespan for completion. | Kitchen himself admits this is found in all eras despite being most common at that time. |
| Pharaoh resided at an east delta residence – in contrast to the first-millennium BCE – which would make more sense for Abraham coming in from the east and meeting with the Pharaoh.[90] | 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 royal residence was not in the delta was 1550–1300 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 it is 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.[91]
|
| Abraham’s night raids were common at the time.[92] | While rare in ancient history (to the exception of the Middle Bronze Age), night raids did exist and were not unthinkable.[93] |
Cons
| Arguments against: | Response: |
| Constant repetition such as Jacob being named Israel twice (35:10 and 32:29) | Repetition was normal in ancient literature.[94] |
| Babies can’t switch places in the womb as they do in Genesis 26 and 38.
Similarly, there is no evidence at all of babies exiting the womb with their arms outstretched. Yet biblical accounts of childbirth contain explicit and implicit descriptions of the hand as the first limb to emerge from the womb.[95] |
Unlikely to have been an “error” since there were female religious leaders as well in ancient Israel (e.g. Huldah and Deborah) who would have “realized” this error, had it actually been an error.
Perez and Zerah (Gen. 38): An important review of births of twins facing in the opposite directions revealed that a majority of cases where one twin had his or her hand out of the birth canal, the other twin was born first.[96] This suggests not only that twins are able to switch positions during the birthing process, but also that there was nothing unusual about Zerach being born after Peretz. There are instances of outstretched arms at birth and the survival rate for such babies (including twins) is high.[97] Jacob and Esau (Gen. 26): The abnormalities in this birth, then, amount first to the early rupturing of Jacob’s membranes, which would enable him to grasp the ankle of his brother. The second anomaly would be the almost simultaneous births of the two brothers, with the added complication of Jacob grasping his brother’s ankle – anomaly number three. Interestingly, conditions that would facilitate or increase the likelihood of the last anomaly are themselves quite normal: the intrauterine position of the twins and the grasp reflex. In any case, the first two abnormalities are hardly unprecedented, and the third (grabbing the ankle), though unprecedented, is certainly conceivable.[98] |
| The Egyptians not eating with the Hebrews is an anachronistic projection of Persian era purity codes.[99] | This purity code may have existed in earlier times, but we have barely 1% of papyri surviving in Eastern Egypt. Thus, this Persian-era association is nothing more than supported speculation.
The Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt describes how at banquets “seating varied according to social status, with those of the highest status sitting on chairs, those slightly lower sat on stools and those lowest in rank sat on the raw floor.”[100] It does not require a great leap of the imagination to suggest that disdained foreigners would not have been expected to dine at the table of the Egyptian Viceroy. In fact, Egyptians had a unique hatred for Asiatics to the point that separate seating arrangements is easily fathomable.[101] |
| The term seris (as in serisei pharoh – see Gen. 40:7) only occurs in Persian era Egyptian sources. This is because the term was imported from Akkadian.[102] The author mistakenly assumes the eunuch (seris) title existed in Egypt earlier based on his knowledge of other courts at his time. | This may be attributed to scribal updating described earlier. |
| The way Amorite is used as a generic term for the inhabitants of Canaan is neo-Assyrian in origin and the text is therefore later than that. (Eg. “they will return in the fourth generation because the sin of the Amorites will not be complete until that time” Gen 15:16).[103] | Also used as a specific nation/ethnicity in many verses (e.g., Gen. 10:16, 14:7), thus not clearly reflecting neo-Assyrian phraseology. |
| The apparent knowledge of the Zodiac in Joseph’s second dream indicates a late date. The earliest known reference to the twelve zodiacal signs is dated to 419 BCE.[104] | Dream may be referencing the 12 tribes in the figurative form of 12 stars, rather than the divisions of the neo-Babylonian Zodiac. In fact, the verse speaks of individual stars rather than constellations. |
| The term “overseer” (peqidim) used in Gen. 41:34 gained its technical meaning around the fifth century.[105] | May have been a textual update from later scribes.
May have also been written in the first place at that time, although based on a true story going back several centuries. |
| Ishmael’s dwelling in the west reflects Persian-period conditions. In earlier periods they were easterners.[106] | There is no text in Genesis that describes Ishmael – as a nation – to the West. This argument is speculating that since Ishmael – as a person – is described as being in the West, it must mean that the biblical author thought of the Ishmaelites as Westerners. But this is with zero basis. |
| Palestine only came to be called “the land of the Hebrews” (Gen. 40:15) in the Saite period (7th-6th centuries BCE) on.[107] | May have been a textual update from later scribes.
May have also been written in the first place at that time, although based on a true story going back several centuries. Some identify the word ‘Hebrews’ in this verse with the Habiri, the invaders of Palestine in the 14th century BCE, who are mentioned in the Tell-el-Amarna tablets.[108] |
| The angel says to Abraham “I will surely return to you next year and your wife Sarah will have a son” (Genesis 18:10). This visit, however, never happens. | Several possible answers:
1) It was once in the Torah but no longer is. 2) The narrator forgot about it. 3) The visit should be identified with Gen 21:1 and p-k-d should be translated as “visited” as in Judges 15:1.[109] 4) The angels only meant they would visit if they were sent by God.[110] 5) It happened offstage.[111] This seems like a plausible solution. 6) Translate “shov ashuv” not as generally understood to mean “I will surely return,” but rather as “I will surely restore (fulfil).”[112] |
| Birthday celebrations for the king are not attested until the first millennium in Ancient Egypt. During the Persian and Ptolemaic eras they became common.[113] | Just because it wasn’t attested to, doesn’t mean that it hasn’t happened in earlier times. It should be noted that we have much fewer records of earlier Egypt than of later times.
Yom huledet (day of birth) may refer to the birth of a child rather than his personal birthday.[114]
Also may be referring to the anniversary day that the king ascended to the throne and became Pharaoh, as attested to in ancient documents.[115] In Egypt this was called the Sed festival and is well attested to at that time.[116] |
| The virtually complete silence of the rest of scripture on the Joseph Story strongly suggests that the narrative did not exist when the historical and prophetic books were written.[117] | Perhaps it was a trivial story unnecessary of any specific mention.
It was mentioned in Psalm 105. |
| One of Pharaoh’s officials is hanged, but the ancient Egyptians used impalement for capital punishment. Hanging fits the Hellenistic period better according to Thomas Romer’s Egyptologist colleagues.[118] | Many translations use impale. This is because, as Robert Alter explains in his commentary on Genesis 40:19, “Despite the fact that the Hebrew verb generally means “to hang,” hanging was not a common means of execution anywhere in the ancient Near East, and there is evidence elsewhere that the same verb was used for impalement, which was frequently practiced. The baker’s dire fate would seem to be first decapitation and then exposure of the body on a high stake.” |
| Close parallels to the famine can be found in a description of a seven-year famine on a stele found near Aswan (Elephantine), where there was a Jewish colony. The stone was produced around 187 BCE, and tells of Pharaoh Djoser consulting with the wise man Imhotep, who has been associated with the biblical Joseph by some scholars in the past. | Famine was common and Pharaohs consulting with wise-men was common. We ought to find parallel narratives from time to time and this need not surprise us. |
| Joseph’s charge of spying assumes that Canaan belongs to an enemy power. The only historical period that really fits is the early second century BCE, when Palestine was part of the rival Seleucid empire. During the time the story is alleged to have happened Canaan was under Egyptian control and during the monarchy the kingdom of Judah and Israel would rely on Egyptian help often.[119] | The charge of Joseph to the brothers being spies could have been true for any of the city-states of Canaan, which although under Egyptian control, were very likely attempting to gain political freedom at times. The ancient Egyptians are known to have had a hatred towards all Asiatics. |
| Several Akkadian loanwords in the story suggest that it was written by a Jewish community that had returned from Babylonian exile. These words such as Abrekh (connected to Akkadian abarakku) and Kenim (connected to Akkadian Kenu) are alleged to be Egyptian[120] | As for Abrekh the etymology is disputed.[121]
Akkadian loanwords are common in ancient Hebrew and this may be another example of an Akkadian word being used in Hebrew. The Egyptian narrative context of the word in no way suggests that the word is Egyptian. |
| Ishmaelites are selling Joseph though Ishmael was last generation. This seems way too fast to have happened. | They may have been a small family clan at the time and not the Ishmaelite nation they were soon to become. |
| In the Joseph story, Benjamin is but a child; so young that his father will not allow him to accompany his brothers to Egypt. Yet according to the tradition preserved in Gen. 46: 21, when the family of Jacob moved to Egypt only months later, Benjamin took along ten sons! In the first year of the famine Reuben had two sons (42: 37); one year later he has four (46: 9).
According to a secondary passage in the Joseph Story (41: 50-2), Joseph’s two sons were born in Egypt of an Egyptian mother, and presumably died there before the Exodus. The old tradition preserved in the Chronicler, however, represents Ephraim as living on Palestinian soil (1 Chron. 7: 21-3), and Manasseh as intermarrying with an Aramaean (I Chron. 7: 14). Outside the Joseph Story there is not the slightest trace of an Egyptian origin or Sojourn for these two tribes.[122] |
The Hebrew word naar does not only apply to young children (see, e.g., II Samuel 4:12 for an example where it’s clearly not young children). Jacob’s concern was that this is the last child of his loved wife Rachel – not that he was a young child.
There is indication that not all these descendants of Jacob were already born at the time of descent into Egypt (see end of “210 to 430: How Long Were the Israelites in Egypt For”). As for Reuben, it is also possible that he bore twins and thus gave birth to two in one year. Or, he (as well as Benjamin) had multiple wives. Manasseh may have intermarried an Aramaean who resided in Egypt. The sons of Ephraim may have entered into Canaan and attempted to steal the cattle of the natives of Gath (thus, the emphasis on “born in the Land”). This emphasis would rule out the sons of Ephraim as natives to the Land, since specifically the men of Gath are described as “born in the Land” (possibly to emphasize their claim to the cattle in the region and why they killed the sons of Ephraim). |
| Assyrian texts mention towns near Haran with names resembling Terah, Nahor, and Serug.[123] This seems unrealistic that people are called by city names and thus the story doesn’t seem historical, but rather mytho-historical. | People are often named after cities or vice-versa (e.g. Washington, Jamestown, Montgomery, Dan, and Constantinople). If Abraham’s family had a connection with these Northern Mesopotamian towns, then their move to the land would make sense.
These cities are attested to in the 18th-century BCE Mari archives, meaning this is not problematic.[124] |
| The biblical narrator seems to have forgotten that Joseph’s mother died in an apparent error.[125] Such errors have been made by authors before.[126] | One possibility offered by the rabbis is that this part of the dream was not prophetic.[127] [128]
The “moon” in the dream can be referring to anything, not necessarily his mother (and Gen. 37:10 was said sarcastically having known that his mother died). |
[1] Unlike early Genesis (chapters 1-11), the patriarchal narratives have no internal indications of metaphor or archaeological indications for such. Instead, there is a consistent, mostly realistic, storyline that was most likely intended as literal history. The long lifespans of the patriarchs may reflect embellishment to the otherwise realistic storyline. There are a number of miracles occurring to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but these miracles are presented as miracles – giving it a real historical impression. However, all options must remain on the table and it is possible that this was intended as mytho-history.
[2] Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Third Edition. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1998. 177.
[3] Thomas Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 316-319.
[4] Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Third Edition. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1998. 227.
[5] https://www.thetorah.com/article/ur-kasdim-where-is-abrahams-birthplace
The city names Serug, Terah, Haran, and Nahor are all in Northern Mesopotamia, suggesting family roots from that region. Also the road from Southern Ur to Canaan does not extend as far North of the Euphrates to the city of Haran. The Haran region is also described as being the birthplace of Abram. This all assumes a Northern Mesopotamian origin for Abram’s family.
Is there a place called Ur in Northern Mesopotamia and is it also associated with the Chaldeans?
A Hittite inscription found in Ugarit, talks of a city named Ura in Northern Mesopotamia (possibly modern-day Urfa in Turkey). The Chaldeans are thought to be a collection of West Semitic tribesmen who migrated to Southern Mesopotamia to eventually have a power-struggle with the Babylonians. But in origin, they were Arameans, Suteans, and Kaldu who stemmed from the Levant and Northern Mesopotamia. Uru may have been a part of their land and this would make sense of much of the issues laid out here with a Southern identification of Ur. Indeed, kesed is mentioned as a nation-figure alongside other Northern Mesopotamian nations such as Aram and Haran (Genesis 22:22).
It’s also very possible that the massive city near Haran, called Urkesh, is the site of Ur Kasdim (note how in Hebrew the shin and sin letters are interchangeable.)
Finally, the great city of Ur in the South would have required no description. “Of the Chaldeans” suggests a city different from the typical Ur. A contemporary example would be London, which naturally refers to the great city located in England. In contrast, London, Ontario requires identification with Ontario, since it isn’t “the” London.
[6] Code of Hammurabi section 146 as well as Nuzi law.
Kelim-ninu has been given in marriage to Shennima…. If Kelim-ninu does not bear children, Kelim-ninu shall acquire a woman of the land of Lulu (i.e., a slave girl) as wife for Shennima. – Nuzi Law. Taken from https://www.biblia.work/sermons/thenuzi-tablets-reflections-on-the-patriarchal-narratives/
See To This Very Day by Amnon Bazak p. 257-258.
[7] Thompson, Historicity,321-324. Also see https://youtu.be/RSwvt0vaJ_k?t=872
[8] Abraham’s practice of having the adopted son Eliezer being “son of his house” (Gen. 15:2) was common practice (according to the Nuzi texts). It was also customary to set this aside in light of a biological son (as Abraham did, when Isaac was born).
To This Very Day by Amnon Bazak p. 259.
The tablet of adoption belonging to Ehelteshup, son of Puhiya, who adopted Zigi, son of Aknya. Accordingly, all my lands, my buildings, my earnings, my domestics, one (part) of all my property, I have given to Zigi. In case Ehelteshup has sons (of his own), they shall receive a double portion and Zigi shall be second. If Ehelteshup has no sons then Zigi shall be the (principal) heir…. As long as Ehelteshup is alive, Zigi shall serve him; he shall provide him with garments. – taken from https://www.biblia.work/sermons/thenuzi-tablets-reflections-on-the-patriarchal-narratives/ can also be found here http://www.jaas.org/edocs/v13n2/Paulissia1.pdf
[9] The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narrative by Thomas Thompson p. 207-208 (although he does speak of a slightly different claim – i.e. a sale-adoption of Nuzi Law – the same logic would apply to our case. See page 213 where he discusses our typical adoption case).
[10] https://phys.org/news/2018-12-meteor-air-years-obliteratinGodead.html
[11] https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/biblical-archaeology-sites/arguments-against-locating-sodom-at-tall-el-hammam/ http://www.radioscribe.com/MerrillRebuttal.pdf
However, it should be noted that the chronological basis for discrediting Tel el-Hammam as the site for Sodom is based on a maximalist view of the chronology. If we take a more minimalist approach to the biblical chronology, we can date Abraham to about 3,700 years ago – the time of the destruction of Tell el-Hammam. Most scholars assume that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus (see here in the footnotes for a discussion on that). If we combine that with a minimalist view of the enslavement in Egypt (see here) [or a more radical re-approach to the lifespans of the Patriarchs], then we have the year 3,700 for Abraham and the destruction of Sodom.
[12] To This Very Day by Amnon Bazak p. 256-257.
[13] They only first reappear during the second temple era when it becomes common to name after ancestors (custom until this very day).
[14] The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History, by Kenneth Kitchen (can be found here).
[15] Hoffmeier writes, “A comprehensive study of more than 6,000 recorded West Semitic names shows that this type of name occurs most frequently during the first half of the second millennium BC, and usage drops by 55 per cent in the second half of that thousand year period. The name-type of Abraham is also attested.” Hoffmeier, James Karl. The Archaeology of the Bible. Oxford: Lion, 2008. 42.
[16] Dating the Patriarchal Age: Where Kitchen Erred by Ronald S. Hendel
[17] Lev. 18:18.
[18] Gen 42:37.
[19] Code of Hammurabi sections 229-230.
[20] Ex. 21:31 and Deut. 24:16.
[21] The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History, by Kenneth Kitchen (can be found here).
[22] Dating the Patriarchal Age: Where Kitchen Erred by Ronald S. Hendel.
[23] To This Very Day by Amnon Bazak p. 260.
[24] Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar, Quest for the Historical Israel,44.
[25] The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History, by Kenneth Kitchen (can be found here). Kitchen, Reliability, 321.
[26] Dating the Patriarchal Age: Where Kitchen Erred By Ronald S. Hendel.
[27] The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History, by Kenneth Kitchen (can be found here).
[28] Kenneth Kitchen provides the following table (Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 324):
| elements | Mari/Leilan | Gen 21:Beersheba I | Gen 21: Beersheba II | Gen 26; Isaac,Gerar | Gen 31: Jacob/Laban |
| witnesses | Yes | 23b:God | 30”gift,lambs | (29:YHWH) | 44:covt;50:God 51f:cairn,stela |
| oath | Yes | 23a-24:swear | 31:swore oath | 28,31: oath | 53b:oath |
| stipulations | Yes | 23c: good neighbors | 30b: accepted, well = Abram’s | 29: good neighbors | 52:respect boundary |
| ceremony | Yes” (in narr.) | _____ | 33:tree planted | 30:feast | 54:sacrifice, & meal |
| curse | (final draft) | ——– | ——- | (31:implied | 53: God, judge |
[29] Dating the Patriarchal Age: Where Kitchen Erred By Ronald S. Hendel.
[30] See Code of Hammurabi 191 and Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 220.
[31] https://jamesbradfordpate.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/thompson-on-the-nuzi-texts-and-genesis-15/
The History of the Patriarchal Narrative, Thomas L. Thompson, 225-226.
[32] Kenneth Kitchen, Reliability, 341.
[33] To This Very Day by Amnon Bazak p. 254-255.
[34] See footnote in Kitchen, Kenneth Anderson. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1966. 80.
[35] Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50),195, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/2/140210-domesticated-camels-israel-bible-archaeology-science/
[36] To This Very Day by Amnon Bazak p. 251.
[37] Also see here: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/bce-biblical-camels-explained/
Kenneth Kitchen ,Reliability, 338-339.
Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bTMNFJZcSw
[38] https://www.thetorah.com/article/maternal-impressions-from-sheep-to-humans
[39] Gen 21:31, 26:31:33. See To This Very Day by Amnon Bazak p. 252-253. Kitchen, Reliability, 354.
[40] To This Very Day by Amnon Bazak p. 253-254.
[41] Micah 7:20, Jer. 33:26, Ezek. 33:24.
[42] http://www.asor.org/anetoday/2018/04/Getting-Old-In-Ancient+Egypt
[43] https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/the-twelve-or-so-tribes-of-israel/ https://isthatinthebible.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/tribes-of-israel1.pdf
[44] Although in the Pentateuch the 12 tribes seem well-established, this may have changed once the Israelites entered Canaan and the Land was split. With new geo-political circumstances, the tiny tribe of Simon would have been overshadowed by the mammoth tribe of Judah. Similarly, various city alliances may have resulted in new tribal identities that would have been unknown earlier on and at later periods. Other circumstances may have resulted in the other anomalies in the tribes.
[45] Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50),192-194
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2020/01/26/from-robes-to-riches-the-fairytale-of-joseph/
[46] Israel Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed,37
[47] Ishmaelites appear in Judges 8:24 as well. However, many critical scholars date the book of Judges to a later period although the book itself claims to portray events of early Israelite settlement in Canaan.
[48] Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50),.,194
[49] https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-a-chance-discovery-changes-everything-we-know-about-biblical-israel-1.8003920
[50] Redford,198-199.
[51] Redford, 198.
[52] Johnson, History,10.
[53] Kitchen, Reliability, 359.
[54] Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50),233
[55] Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50),205
[56] Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50),240
[57] Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50),236-239
[58] http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/ba9VK4iRQUybd1KMGnRimQ#:~:text=Cows%20were%20revered%20in%20Egypt,and%20mother%20of%20the%20pharaoh.&text=When%20cows%20were%20first%20domesticated%20people%20could%20not%20drink%20their%20milk.,-It%20took%20a
[59] https://www.ancient.eu/article/1012/ancient-egyptian-taxes–the-cattle-count/#:~:text=Taxes%20from%20the%20Egyptian%20Cattle,build%20the%20pyramids%20at%20Giza.&text=Further%2C%20in%20return%20for%20their,priesthood%20from%20taxation%20in%20perpetuity
[60] The Talmud usually refers to Moshiach as “the son of David” (see, e.g. Sukkah 52b and Sotah 48b) since his main ancestor is King David. Similarly, Josiah King of Judah is referred to as the son of David despite being his distant descendant (See II Kings 22:2). Some also suggest this about the lineage of Mordechai recorded in Esther 2:5 (see the commentary of Yosef ibn Yechiyah on that verse as well as the commentary of Megilas Starim. Also compare to Psalms 7:1 – the Kush/Kish difference may have been a Persian alternation of the ancient Hebrew pronunciation of the name).
[61] Rashi on the verse.
[62] 2 Sam 8:1-18: Over the next few years, David defeats the Philistines, the Moabites, the Syrians of Zobah, the Arameans of Damascus, and the Edomites in the Valley of Salt (the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea). His kingdom and vassal states now stretch to the River Euphrates.
2 Sam 10:1-19: David defeats the Ammonites at Rabbah (modern-day Amman) and the Arameans under Shupak at Helam.
[63] Israel Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed,38
[64] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerar
[65] Israel Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed,39
[66] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aram_(region)#Early_references
[67] Israel Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed,41
[68] Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament,12
[69] Israel Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed,42
[70] https://bibleatlas.org/hazazon-tamar.htm
[71] Phyllis Saretta, Asiatics in Middle Kingdom Egypt Perceptions and Reality, 57
[72] Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament,355
[73] https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2020/01/24/shishak-an-archaeological-biography/
[74] Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Third Edition. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1998. 179.
[75] https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/epn_4_selman.html, J. van Seters, Abraham, p.93; cf. above, pp.111-112.
[76] Kenneth Kitchen, Genesis 12-50 in the Ancient World in R. S. Hess, Gordon Wenham, Philip E. Satterthwaite, He Swore an Oath, Second Edition: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12-50.
[77] https://youtu.be/RSwvt0vaJ_k?t=518
[78] Kenneth Kitchen, OnThe Reliability of the Old Testament, 319.
[79] The following table is provided by Kenneth Kitchen (Kitchen, On The Reliability of the Old Testament,322):
| Schema | Yakhdun-lim:s | Yahdun-lim:W | Genesis 14 |
| 1.1st raid, and made vassals | (1st raid and vassals implied, not cited) | 1st raid on W, made vassals, II.28-66 | 1st raid, and made vassals (1-4) |
| 2.revolt | Revolt, 3 vassalls,II.69ff | ———– | Revolt (4) |
| 3. 2nd raid, victory | (2nd) raid, victory,II.80-98 | Secured timber & victory, II. 51-66 | Victory in W (5-12)
______ Abram victory (13-16) |
| 4. Religious celebration | Dedication text & temple: all; 99-107 | Made offerings to med. Sea (45); temple | Melkisedek ceremony & tithe (17-20) |
| 5.Other acts | Curse: harm name & temple, II.118ff | (see previous) | Settling spoils (21-24) |
[80] Here’s the relevant part of the inscription:
Indeed, Shamash did promptly come to the aid of Yahdun-Lim and while no other king residing in Mari had ever—since, in ancient days, the god built the city of Mari—reached the (Mediterranean) Sea, (ii) nor reached and felled timber in the great mountains, the Cedar Mountain and the Boxwood Mountain, he, Yahdun-Lim, son of Ya(g)gid-Lim, the powerful king, the wild bull among the kings, did march to the shore of the sea, an unrivaled feat, and offered sacrifices to the Ocean as (befitting) his high royal rank1 while his troops washed themselves in the Ocean. He (also) entered the great mountains, the Cedar Mountain and the Boxwood Mountain, and felled such trees as boxwood, cedar, cypress, and elammak]{u-Xxt&%. He made (this) razzia, established (thus) his fame and proclaimed his power. He subjected that (entire) region on the shore of the Ocean, united it under (his) command, made it furnish him troops, (iii) He imposed a permanent tribute upon it and they are still bringing him their tribute. In that same year the following kings rebelled against him: La’um, king of Samanum and the country of the Ubrabians, Bahlu-kulim, king of Tuttul and of the country Amnanum, Ajalum, the king of Abattum and the country of the Rabbeans; an army of Sumu-epuh from the country of Jamhad came to their help, in the town of Samanum, they all gathered against him, the center of nomads,2 (but) he (Yahdun-Lim) defeated these three kings of the nomads in a big battle. He routed their army and the army who had come to their help, made a massacre (among them). (Then) he erected piles of their corpses. He razed the walls of their (cities), turning them into mounds of rubble. The city of Haman (belonging to) the center of the Haneans, which all the sheikhs of Hana had built, he razed and (iv) made into mounds of rubble. He also defeated its king, Kasuri-hala, annexed their (the Haneans’) country. Then he built up the embankment of the Euphrates8 (in Mari) and erected (there) the temple of his lord Shamash for his (own) well-being; he made for him (Shamash) a temple of perfect construction in every aspect of craftsmanship, befitting his godhead, and installed him in this magnificent abode. He named this temple: Egirzalanki (which means): “The-temple-which-is-the-pride-of-Heaven-and-Nether-World.” May Shamash who resides in this temple grant forever to Yahdun-Lim, who built his temple, his beloved king, a mighty weapon (able) to defeat the enemies, a long and happy rule and everlasting years of abundance and happiness.
[81] E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_triumph.
[82] E.g. Judah during the Neo-Babylonian period.
[83] https://www.worldhistory.biz/ancient-history/53658-3-the-anatolian-states.html\
[84] Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 320.
[85]https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/ctxnw7/battle_of_the_vale_of_siddim_historical/
[86] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_(king)
[87] Frank Moore Colby; Talcott Williams (1917). The New International Encyclopaedia. Dodd, Mead and Company. p. 264 (under the header “Tidal”).
[88] Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 353
[89] Kitchen, Reliability, 354
[90] Kenneth Kitchen, The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History
[91] Handel, Dating the Patriarchal age where Kitchen erred
[92] Kitchen, Reliability, 322.
[93] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_combat#Classical_antiquity
[94] Ani Maamin by Joshua Berman p. 10.
[95] https://www.thetorah.com/article/why-does-the-torah-describe-babies-born-hands-first
[96] Weissberg S, O’Leary J. Compound Presentation of the Fetus. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1973;41(1):60-64.
[97] While the hand emerging first is rare, medical records dating back to the 17th-century have recorded the occurrence and survival rates of such births. According to the Oxford Textbook of Obstetric Anesthesia, when the hand emerges first, the baby is considered to have a compound presentation.
While the death rate is higher for compound presentations with twins, it is not significantly higher than regular twin births, which have a seven to ten-fold higher mortality than single births. So, while the chance of death is higher, the baby’s living is still statistically a more likely outcome (Clark V, Van M, Fernando R. Oxford Textbook of Obstetric Anaesthesia. Oxford University Press; 2016).
It is also worth noting that case studies from midwives show successful deliveries in very similar circumstances without medical intervention (https://www.midwifery.org.uk/articles/hand-presentation-prolapsed-shoulder/?fbclid=IwAR1Ed0-tZeUqErT3-5Fh9aktjCCTIbnYXuDlAeD5yj5b6PBXmch3nD7-B6s).
[98] John Makujina, “Male Obstetric Competence in Ancient Israel: A Response to Two Recent Proposals”, VT 66.1 (2016): 78-94.
[99] https://www.thetorah.com/article/shepherds-and-eating-with-hebrews-an-abomination-to-the-egyptians
[100] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_cuisine#Meals
[101] See here for an interesting discussion on this matter http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/ote/v22n1/08.pdf
[102] Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50), 201.
[103] https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/09/20/canaanites-amorites-and-hittites-in-history-and-the-bible/
[104] Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50),204
[105] Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50),207-208
[106] https://www.thetorah.com/article/ishmael-king-of-the-arabs
[107] Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50),202
[108] Hertz, Pentateauch,151, commentary on Gen. 40:15.
[109] Ramban on Genesis 18:10.
[110] Rashi on the verse.
[111] Ibn Ezra as cited by Ramban on the verse. For others examples of such (the first being narrative and the other two being law), see Gen. 42:21, Deut. 26:14, and Num. 31:23.
[112] Ramban on the verse.
[113] Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50),206
[114] See first explanation in Radak on the verse. Also see Rabenu Bechaye.
[115] https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/11/pharaohs-birthday-and-yosefs-historicity/
[116] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sed_festival
[117] Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50),250
[118] https://www.college-de-france.fr/site/en-thomas-romer/course-2016-03-24-14h00.htm Thomas Romer 41:00 minutes in
[119] J.A. Soggin (1993), Notes on the Joseph Story, Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honor of George Wishart Anderson, 1993.,339
[120] J.A. Soggin (2000), Dating the Joseph Story and other Remarks, Joseph Bibel und Literatur: Symposion Helsinki / Lathi 1999, 2000,16
[121] https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/abrech
[122] Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50),248
[123] Israel Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed,44
[124] Albright 1924a, 385-388; Hendel 1995, 59; Kitchen 1998, 49; 2003b, 317; Hess 2009b, 85-89.
[125] https://www.thetorah.com/article/joseph-dreams-that-the-sun-moon-and-stars-bow-to-him-does-it-come-true
[126] Many such errors can be found in the Book of Mormon. For example, Mosiah 21:28 contains a serious error. In this passage, “king Benjamin” is spoken of as being alive. Apparently, however, the writer forgot that fifteen chapters earlier he recorded this man’s death. What he meant to write was “king Mosiah.” The second edition of the Book of Mormon made this change. In making this change, the Mormon church has admitted the error.
[127] Berakhot 55a.
[128] While this reading solves the deceased-mother problem, it is not very satisfying. Why include this dramatic scene, with Jacob rebuking his favorite son for the dream if, in the end, it remains unfulfilled? All of the other dreams in the Joseph saga—the wine-steward’s, the baker’s, and Pharaoh’s—are fulfilled in their every detail, so this would be a strange exception.
Please wait...