The Patriarchs and Matriarchs

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

2. 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;

3. 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

4. Textbook: “Using Archaeology to Assess the Bible’s Traditions about ‘The Earliest Times’” (pp. 37-65). The segment on the “Patriarchs”.

5. Abraham’s Route – Traditional View.

9. 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 land-purchase laws in Genesis are similar to those found in 2nd 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);

10. Bedouin Encampment in the Desert.

12. Chronology – Traditional: • Early Bronze IV=Intermediate Bronze Period (2200-2000 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).

13. 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 2nd m. B.C. Near Eastern texts, e.g., the Nuzi Tablets (Textbook, p. 44);

14. Cities of Mesopotamia (= modern Iraq) ca. 2000 B.C.

15. Nuzi Tablets (Late Bronze Age).

16. 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; • the mention of Gerar=Tel Haror in Genesis as a Philistine city.

18. 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 9th century BC; • Stories also reflect the relations that Israel had with its neighbours, namely, Ammon and Moab, in the 8th and 7th 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 8th and 7th centuries BC; • The stories and similarities to the Assyrian and Babylonian empires of the 9th-6th centuries BC.

19. The Land of Biblical Israel.

20. 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).

21. 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);

22. The Land of Biblical Israel.

23. Mazar’s Centrist Position: • Parallels between the 2nd 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 2nd 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;

26. Mari – General View of an Excavated Area.

27. Mari – Plan of the City.

28. Mari Tablets.

30. 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 2nd millennium BC realia (Textbook, p. 59).

31. 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 2nd millennium BC backgrounds; • Today most scholars define the Patriarchal traditions as a late invention with no historical validity (Textbook, p. 50).