Sei sulla pagina 1di 13

Finding Historical Memories

in the Patriarchal Narratives

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 of
new 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 a
glorified 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 BAR that 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 faulty
comparisons and arguments had been made by earlier scholars, he maintains that a reexamination 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 issue
for 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 a
case 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 facts
and over how to understand them.
In the sidebar Dating the Patriarchal Age: Where Kitchen Erred, I outline some of the
flaws in Kitchens arguments. To summarize, his arguments simply do not work. In each
instance 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 the
patriarchs are a glorified mirage concocted by the Pentateuchal writers? I think not
1

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

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 aspects
of 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 and
P), 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 between
the 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 folklore and 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 and
the 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 other
dimensions 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 of
events 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 these
stories 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 a
national, 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 the
present 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 know
when 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 did
any 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

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 cherry
tree 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 they
predate 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, consist
of 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 a
military expedition into the recently divided states of Judah and Israel that replaced the
United Monarchy. Sensing a moment of weakness, Sheshonqs forces devastated the
land. 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 had
made.

1 Kings 14:2526
According 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 of
perhaps 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 Egyptian
syllabic 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-name
would 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 book Abraham 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 the
Negev. 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 the
United Monarchy. Numerous scholars have found indications in the Bible of DavidicSolomonic 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 the
Negev, 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 the
tenth 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

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 eleventh
or 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 the
authority 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 that
Arad 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 Biblical
traditions 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 was
named 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 and
against, 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 of
Yahweh-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 three
authorial 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 name
Yahweh 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

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. If
some 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 to
realize 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 archaeological
data 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 millennium
B.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 Elname). In other words, the El religion of the patriarchs preserves authentic pre-Yahwistic
historical memories.
The next body of evidence that takes us to the pre-Israelite period consists of the names
of 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 is
named 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

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 this
area, 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 SyroMesopotamia. 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 as
Aramean 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 would
this 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 a
wife for Isaac, where Rebekah instructs Jacob to flee and where Jacob marries. These
marriages, 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 (Deuteronomy
26:5). 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 the
patriarchal 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. A
number 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 in
this 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 second
millennium B.C.E. Why does the Bible identify this area as Aramean? Because it was
Aramean 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

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 these
references 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 authentic
tradition. 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 the
facts.
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 for
the 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 least
some 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 SyroMesopotamia preserve traces of Amorite kinship bonds from the mid-second millennium
B.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 preYahwistic 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 patriarchal
narratives are over 500 years old?
The answer is yes. A striking example illustrating the potential memory of oral tradition
is 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 Middle
Euphrates 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 400
years 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.

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 these
ancient 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 and
myth, 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, BAR 21:02, 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 price
of 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 second
millennium 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.; the
slave 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 Kings
15:20)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 slaves
is 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 is
difficult 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

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), the
redemption 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 redemption
price 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 first
millennium B.C.E.
Treaties and covenants
Kitchen finds another set of correlations between Biblical and extra-Biblical data in
the treaties or covenants made by the patriarchs. The three patriarchal covenants he
considers 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 Eastern
treaties 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, two
variations 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 the
name of Beersheba (Genesis 21:31; 26:33), suggesting that they are variants of a
single tradition concerning the founding of Beersheba. These stories, therefore, cannot
be treated as two independent historical sources.
Does the doublet of the covenant with King Abimelech bear the form and structure of
early 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 western
Near 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 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 fourththe cursespossibly 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.

We should not expect the Genesis narratives to be as formally structured as treaties of


international law. Kitchen concedes as much: In Genesis, we have only the narrativereports 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 King
Chedorlaomer 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; and
only 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] is
attested, 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. But
in 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 western
alliance 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, Gaza
and other western regions formed shifting alliances in rebellion against Assyrian
domination. 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.,

precluding the formation of alliances. But this is not quite true. Shifting alliances
among kings in Mesopotamia were frequent in the eighth and seventh centuries
B.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 in
the 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 of
Assyria, 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 do
show, 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 of
Joseph 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 royal
residence 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 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.
Patriarchal names
Kitchen contends that the type of name of all the patriarchs except Abram does
belong 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 nametype, which he says is constructed with Amorite imperfective verbs, is most

common during the early second millennium B.C.E. and less common thereafter.
But does the form of these namesIsaac, Jacob, Joseph and Ishmaelindicate that
the 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-Semitic yaqtul) is found in various guises in all Semitic
languages. Names compounded with this verb form are found in all Northwest
Semitic 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 minor
prophets does. Are we to believe that the major prophets are from the Middle Bronze
Age? 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 in
Deuteronomy 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 century
B.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 gives
Joseph one Shechem more than [his] brothers (Genesis 48:22), apparently
bequeathing the city of Shechem as an extra inheritance to Joseph, the first-born of
Jacobs 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.

Potrebbero piacerti anche