The Patriarchs and Matriarchs Their Historicity from the

The Patriarchs and Matriarchs Their Historicity from the Point-of. View of the Biblical Conservatives, the Centrists, and Minimalists

The Biblical Texts on the Patriarchs and the Matriarchs: Genesis 11. 27 -50. 26: The Story of the Ancestors of Israel; Genesis 11. 27 -25. 18: The Story of Abraham and Sarah; Genesis 11. 27 -32: Introduction of the Abraham story; Genesis 12. 1 -3: The LORD’s call and promise to Abraham; Genesis 12. 4 -9: Abraham’s first journey to the land; Gen 16. 1 -16: Hagar bears Abraham a son; Gen 19. 30 -38: Lot the father of Moab and the Ammonites; Gen 21. 1 -21: The Birth of Isaac and the Expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael; 2

The Biblical Texts (Contd. ): Gen 24. 1 -67: A Wife for Isaac; Gen 24. 62 -67: The marriage of Isaac and Rebekah; Gen 25. 19 -36. 43: The Story of Isaac and Jacob; Gen 25. 19 -34: The Birth of Esau and Jacob/Israel – twin sons of Isaac and Rebekah; Gen 29. 1 -30: Jacob’s Marriages: Leah and Rachel; and then Zilpah and Bilhah; (The Ancestors of the Twelve Tribes of Israel are the sons of Jacob and four women. ) Gen 37. 1 -50. 26: The Story of Joseph – a Son of Jacob and Rachel 3

4 Abraham’s Route – Traditional View.

5

6

The Conservatives’ Position Relative to the Stories of the Patriarchs and the Matriarchs: - See the position of R. de Vaux and W. F. Albright on this on pp. 42 -44 of the Textbook; - Many convinced that new discoveries would prove that the Patriarchs were historical figures (Textbook, p. 42); -They found support in that the personal names and landpurchase laws in Genesis are similar to those found in 2 nd millennium B. C. Mesopotamian texts; - a Bedouin way of life practiced by the Patriarchs and Matriarchs and pastoral groups of Mesopotamian origin in Canaan around 2000 B. C. ; - The “Amorite Hypothesis”’ (Albright and the Intermediate Period between the Early and Middle Bronze Age); 7

Bedouin Encampment in the Desert. 8

9

Chronology – Traditional: - Early Bronze IV=Intermediate Bronze Period (22002000 BC); - Middle Bronze II Period (2000 -1550 BC); - Late Bronze Period (1550 -1200 BC); - Iron Age I (1200 -1000 BC); - Iron Age II (1000 -586 BC); - Babylonian and Persian Periods (586 -332 BC); - Hellenistic Period (332 -63 BC). 10

The Conservative Position Relative to the Stories of the Patriarchs and the Matriarchs: - R. de Vaux and the identification of the age of the Patriarchs to the Middle Bronze Age; - Gordon and Speiser: the similarities between social and legal practices in 2 nd m. B. C. Near Eastern texts, e. g. , the Nuzi Tablets (Textbook, p. 44); 11

Cities of Mesopotamia (= modern Iraq) ca. 2000 12

Nuzi Tablets (Late Bronze Age). 13

Difficulties with the Conservative/Traditional Dating of the Patriarchs and the Matriarchs (Finkelstein): - The nomadic way of life – pastoralists (sheep, goats); - The “Amorite Hypothesis”; - Important sites, e. g. , Shechem, Beer-sheba, and Hebron, mentioned in the stories of Abraham did not yield finds from the Intermediate Bronze Age (Textbook, p. 44); - the problem with using the Nuzi Texts to date the period of the Patriarchs; - “Anachronisms” in the text, e. g. , mention of the Philistines and the Arameans; - Camels in the stories; 14 - the mention of Gerar=Tel Haror in Genesis as a Philistine city.

Finkelstein’s Centrist Position: - Stories of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs written from the point-of-view of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah; - The Arameans and the early 9 th century BC; - Stories also reflect the relations that Israel had with its neighbours, namely, Ammon and Moab, in the 8 th and 7 th centuries BC; - Stories of relationships between the brothers Jacob and Esau, the fathers of Israel and Edom, reflect what was happening between Israel and Edom in late-monarchic times (Textbook, p. 47); - the Arabian caravan trade of the 8 th and 7 th centuries BC; - The stories and similarities to the Assyrian and Babylonian empires of the 9 th-6 th centuries BC. 15

The Land of Biblical Israel. 16

Finkelstein’s Position: - The Patriarchal traditions must be considered as a sort of pious “prehistory” of Israel in which Judah played a decisive role (Textbook, p. 50). 17

Martin Noth’s Position: -The Patriarchal stories were separate regional traditions that were assembled into a unified narrative to serve the purpose of politically unifying a heterogeneous Israelite population (Textbook, p. 49); - the geographical focus of the stories provide a clue as to where each of the traditions come from; - the Patriarchs were originally separate regional ancestors which were eventually brought together in a single genealogy in an effort to create a unified history (Textbook, p. 49); 18

Mazar’s Centrist Position: - Parallels between the 2 nd millennium BC culture of the Levant and the cultural background portrayed in the Patriarchal stories are too close to be ignored; - Examples: The MB II period as a time when most of the cities mentioned in the Patriarchal stories, e. g. , Shechem, Bethel, Jerusalem, and Hebron, were settled and fortified; - the personal names in the stories are mostly of the “Amorite” type known from the 2 nd millennium BC; - the stories find parallels in the texts from Mari and Nuzi; - the high position of Joseph in Egypt and the presence of the Hyksos in Egypt; - acknowledgement of the anachronisms in the stories, e. g. camels, Philistines, and Arameans; 19

20

21

Mazar’s Position: -The kernels of these stories are generally considered to be rooted in the MB II period (Textbook, p. 58); (M. Weippert’s position: Patriarchs who lived as Shasu or nomadic people mentioned in the Egyptian texts of the Late Bronze Age. ) -See Textbook, p. 59 for a summary of Mazar’s position; - he acknowledges what happened to the Patriarchal stories in the process of oral transmission and editorial work reflecting much later historical situations; - Patriarchal narratives contain kernels of old traditions and stories rooted in 2 nd millennium BC realia (Textbook, p. 59). 22

The Minimalists’ Position (Textbook, pp. 12 -13): - P. Davies’s position (Textbook, p. 12); - J. Van Seters and T. Thompson (Textbook, p. 58); - Exilic or post-exilic dates for the entirety of the Patriarchal traditions; - No affinity to any 2 nd millennium BC backgrounds; - Today most scholars define the Patriarchal traditions as a late invention with no historical validity (Textbook, p. 50). 23