Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary

North California Campus

________________________

“Abraham: The Man of Faith, or a Man of the Faith?

A Second Quest for the Historical Abraham”

A Paper Submitted for Partial Fulfillment of

L5141: HISTORIOGRAPHY

Dr. V. Philips Long

________________________

By Kyle D. Rapinchuk

4,277 Words

________________________

Fall 2011

© 2011 Kyle D. Rapinchuk

iii

CONTENTS

Abbreviations ……………...……………………………………………………………………..iv

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………….....1

Challenges to the Historical Abraham…………………………………………………………….1

John Van Seters…………………………………………………………...………………2

Thomas L. Thompson……………………………………………………………………..3

Problems with the Challenges .…………………………………………………………………..4

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence .........................................................................6

Evidence Supporting an Historical Abraham ...……………………………………………..……8

Archaeological Evidence of Customs and Culture ...........................................................8

Literary Continuity .…………………………………………………………………….10

Structure: Complex-Chain Narratives and the Evidentiary Support of Exodus.. 11

Genre: Genesis to Second Kings and Historical Verifiability….………………..12

Biblical Witness ...………………………………………………………………..……..13

Inference to the Best Explanation ….…..……………....……………………………………..13

Conclusion...……….…………………………………………………………………………….14

iv

ABBREVIATIONS

ANE Ancient Near East or Ancient Near Eastern

JSOTSupp. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

ABBREVIATIONS OF BIBLICAL BOOKS

OT Old Testament

Gen Genesis Eccl Ecclesiastes

Ex Exodus Song Song of Solomon

Lev Leviticus Isa Isaiah

Num Numbers Jer Jeremiah

Deut Deuteronomy Lam Lamentations

Josh Joshua Ezek Ezekiel

Ju Judges Dan Daniel

Ru Ruth Hos Hosea

1 Sam 1 Samuel Joel Joel

2 Sam 2 Samuel Amos Amos

1 Kg 1 Kings Ob Obadiah

2 Kg 2 Kings Jon Jonah

1 Chron 1 Chronicles Mic Micah

2 Chron 2 Chronicles Nah Nahum

Ezra Ezra Hab Habakkuk

Neh Nehemiah Zeph Zephaniah

Esth Esther Hag Haggai

Job Job Zech Zechariah

Ps Psalms Mal Malachi

Prov Proverbs

NT New Testament

Mt Matthew 1 Tim 1 Timothy

Mk Mark 2 Tim 2 Timothy

Lk Luke Titus Titus

Jn John Ph Philemon

Acts Acts Heb Hebrews

Rom Romans Ja James

1 Cor 1 Corinthians 1 Pet 1 Peter

2 Cor 2 Corinthians 2 Pet 2 Peter

Gal Galatians 1 Jn 1 John

Eph Ephesians 2 Jn 2 John

Phil Philippians 3 Jn 3 John

Col Colossians Jude Jude

1 Th 1 Thessalonians Rev Revelation

2 Th 2 Thessalonians

1

Abraham: The Man of Faith, or a Man of the Faith?

A Second Quest for the Historical Abraham

Introduction

In recent decades, the long-held view that Abraham was an historical figure, the father of

the Israelites and their Yahwistic religion, has been under attack. Thomas Thompson and John

Van Seters have been at the forefront of a group of scholars that rejects the historicity of

Abraham. Thompson goes so far as to argue that the historicity of the patriarchs is “hardly

possible and totally improbable.”1 Although Thompson and Van Seters both provide some valid

critiques against certain methods of proving the historical Abraham, there remains convincing

evidence to maintain at least the plausibility of an historical Abraham. When one considers the

problems with the challenges to an historical Abraham, the problem with arguing that absence of

evidence is evidence of absence, and the various arguments in favor of an historical Abraham,

the traditional view of an historical Abraham emerges as plausible and reasonable. Thus, it

remains possible that Abraham truly was the man of faith who became the father of Israel, and

not rather a man simply created by post-exilic authors to be a representative man of the faith.

Challenges to the Historical Abraham

The challenges to the historical Abraham began in earnest in the mid-1970s with the

1 Thomas L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the

Historical Abraham (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002), 328.

2

publication of works by John Van Seters and Thomas Thompson.2 Since that time, much of the

evidence for an historical Abraham has been challenged or completely discredited. Nevertheless,

though Van Seters and Thompson are united in their opposition to an historical Abraham, their

positions are not identical, and thus deserve individual treatment.

John Van Seters

Van Seters approaches the issue of Abraham‟s historicity from the perspectives of

literature and tradition. He challenges the common acceptance of the antiquity of the Abrahamic

tradition. He suggests that three types of evidence are involved in the complex problem of dating

the Abraham tradition: the references in the stories to peoples and places, social customs, and

economics; the literary formation of the text; and “reflection of particular stages in Israel‟s self-

understanding as a people and the development of its social and religious consciousness and

concerns.”3 He assumes that “the data important for dating actually arise through a literary and

form-critical analysis of the tradition itself and cannot, therefore, be dealt with prior to, or

independent of, such a study.”4

Van Seters systematically attempts to discredit historical Abraham arguments with

respect to patriarchal nomadism, the personal names, people, and places of the accounts, the

social customs of the patriarchs, and the archaeological evidence. Van Seters highlights the lack

of agreement among proponents of an historical Abraham on when in the second millennium

B.C. the patriarchs lived. He also posits that the contradiction of illustrating nomadic origins for

the patriarchs from non-nomadic parallels must be resolved. Moreover, Van Seters suggests that

evidence for a later date is overlooked on account of those who are determined to find an early

2 John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale, 1975);

Thompson, The History of the Patriarchal Narratives.

3 Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 3.

4 Ibid., 2.

3

date.5 In light of these issues, Van Seters proposes a date for the Abraham tradition in the exilic

period.6

Thomas Thompson

Thompson approaches the issue with more historical concerns in mind than Van Seters.

He asserts that the text of Genesis is not an historical document, that no part of Genesis can be

assumed as history unless its literary character is historiographical, and that archaeological

materials cannot be dated on the basis of written texts.7 Thompson then attempts to demonstrate

that the arguments for an historical Abraham cannot stand up to criticism. Once he has

established his case against an historical Abraham, he proposes that the entire history of Israel

was written during the Persian period and is a literary form which has its own historical context

in that period.8 He concludes that these narratives are not in any way historical, but are rather

“unhistorical constructions, based in folklore and wisdom traditions.”9 Consequently, Thompson

argues that there is no salvation history. Nevertheless, Thompson asserts that such unhistorical

roots for Israel does not nullify Israel‟s faith, but rather serves “to express the reality that Israel

experienced.”10

Israel can maintain its faith because its faith was never justified on evidence of

5 Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 8-10.

6 Ibid., 310.

7 Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 2-3.

8 Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 328; idem., Early History of

the Israelite People from the Written & Archaeological Sources (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 422-423.

9 Thomas L. Thompson, “Reiterative Narratives of Exile and Return: Virtual Memories

of Abraham in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods,” in The Historian and the Bible: Essays in

Honour of Lester L. Grabbe, ed. Philip R. Davies and Diana V. Edelman (London: T & T Clark,

2010), 46.

10 Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 330.

4

past events, but was rather a faith that found expression in God‟s promises for the future.11

Problems with the Challenges

Van Seters and Thompson, though differing in their approaches, both argue convincingly

against certain long held positions in support of an historical Abraham, most notably W.F.

Albright‟s caraveener hypothesis.12

Despite some valid critiques, however, there are numerous

problems with both Van Seters‟ and Thompson‟s approaches. There are at least six significant

problems associated with Van Seters‟ conclusions. First, Van Seters argues against those who

say certain evidence reflects only a second millennium date, suggesting that many of those

practices could have been current at a later date. However, he does not allow for the possibility

that evidence supporting a first millennium date may not reflect older practices that preserve “far

more ancient antecedents.”13

Second, it is difficult to comprehend why a post-exilic writer would

write incidents about national heroes that were “offensive to the religious consciousness of the

time,” most notably Abraham‟s marriage to his half-sister, Jacob‟s marriage to two sisters at the

same time, and David‟s lineage from the incestuous Judah-Tamar relationship.14

Third, certain

customs (Abraham‟s oath-taking with a hand on the thigh), names (27 of the 38 names connected

with patriarchal families never recur), and uses of the divine El names (El Elyon, El Ro’I, El

‘Olam, and El Beth’El) are unlikely to have been the product of post-exilic “inventiveness”, but

rather reflect “authentic reflection of early historical tradition.”15

Fourth, Van Seters argues that

11 Ibid., 329.

12 Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 87; Thompson, The Historicity of the

Patriarchal Narratives, 196-297; cf. W.F. Albright, “Abraham the Hebrew: A New

Archaeological Interpretation,” BASOR 163 (1961): 36-54.

13 Nahum Sarna, “Abraham in History,” Biblical Archaeology Review 3 (1977): 8.

14 Ibid., 9.

15 Ibid.

5

the use of “sister” to refer to Abraham‟s wife is a parallel with a sixth century B.C. marriage text

from Egypt in which a wife with no blood relation is called sister. However, if the Genesis 12

account were a first millennium text, then it would make no sense because it would require that

an Egyptian pharaoh did not understand a custom of his own country and time.16

Fifth, in the

Genesis 20 account of Abraham‟s dealings with the Egyptian pharaoh, there is reference to a

“great sin,” a reference which Van Seters matches to an Ugaritic text of the thirteenth century

and an Egyptian marriage contract of the ninth to sixth centuries B.C. In this case, the Ugaritic

parallel is outside of his first millennium time frame. Thus, rather than requiring the biblical

account to be in the first century, this evidence seems to point to the legitimacy of the assertion

that many of these practices found in first millennium texts have more ancient antecedents.17

Finally, Van Seters has insufficient textual evidence to make his case about Laban selling his

daughters. He betrays this weak foundation by admitting that “it may be difficult to decide which

marriage custom provides the best explanation of the Biblical passage,” and then subsequently

justifying his choice with the statement “in my mind.”18

He adds that even if one accepts the

alternative interpretation, it still cannot be used for a second millennium date, since the phrase

“to consume money” in Genesis 31:15 also appears in identical contexts in Nuzi and Akkadian

texts dating to the second millennium.19

Considering the weakness of Van Seters‟ argument on

this point and a plausible alternative, it is best to reject Van Seters argument that this narrative is

best interpreted in a first millennium context.

Thompson‟s arguments fail in many of the same respects as Van Seters, and he raises

16 M.J. Selman, “Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age,” in Essays on the

Patriarchal Narratives, ed. A.R. Millard and D.J. Wiseman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983),

122.

17 Ibid., 122; Sarna, “Abraham in History,” 9.

18 Van Seters, “Abraham in History and Tradition,” 84.

19 Selman, “Comparative Customs,” 123.

6

additional issues that are equally problematic. For instance, Thompson‟s approach is to attack

and discredit several of the arguments used in favor of an historical Abraham, yet Thompson‟s

approach often contradicts his own method. For example, he argues that many “share the

common categorical error of assuming the very history they seek to reconstruct.”20

His own

method, however, is highly skeptical and rejects the possibility of the historicity of the text. One

could just as easily argue that Thompson and others of his school share the common categorical

error of assuming the very lack of history they seek to deconstruct. In a similar manner,

Thompson rejects the possibility of historical veracity from the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and

Chronicles on account of how long after the events they were written.21

Yet if such is the case,

how can Thompson maintain any level of objectivity or verifiability in his own historical

reconstructions that are at least two thousand years more removed from the events than the

authors of those texts? Third, he asserts that it is only after one accepts “philosophical

presuppositions which are antagonistic to historical positivism” that one can “take the Bible

seriously.”22

Such a claim is yet another unsubstantiated presupposition, the very thing he

accuses the positivists of doing.

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence

Despite these challenges from Van Seters and Thompson, many have maintained a

position in favor of an historical Abraham, perhaps none more prominent than Kenneth Kitchen.

In one response to the challenges against Abraham‟s existence, Kitchen argues that “absence of

20 Thomas L. Thompson, “Text, Context and Referent in Israelite Historiography,” in The

Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel’s Past, ed. Diana Vikander Edelman (Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 74.

21 Ibid., 92.

22 Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 328.

7

evidence is not evidence of absence.”23

After looking at the arguments of Van Seters and

Thompson, it does appear that their primary goal is to deconstruct all the evidence for Abraham

and, lacking any evidence in support of Abraham, reject his historicity. But is Kitchen‟s

argument legitimate? Can one really still hold to Abraham‟s historicity in the face of a lack of

evidence? Or does the lack of evidence prove a lack of existence?

In his work entitled Primary Philosophy, Michael Scriven argues that absence of

evidence can be legitimate evidence of absence, but only if two conditions are met. The first

condition requires that the entity must not be one which might leave no traces. That is, if it is

reasonable that the entity in question could have existed without leaving traces, then absence of

evidence is not sufficient for evidence of absence. The second condition states that one must

comprehensively examine the area where such evidence would likely appear, if there were any.24

Applying this conclusion to the question of Abraham‟s historicity, then, what can one conclude?

Regarding the first condition, it is not likely that Abraham would have left much, if any, direct

evidence of his existence. Van Seters allows that while Abraham was not a caraveener and

nomad as Albright supposed, he was a resident alien who moved about in the land.25

And if it

can be shown, as the next section will attempt to do, that the best explanation for the date of the

patriarchs, if they existed, would be in the second millennium B.C., then one cannot reasonably

expect to find direct evidence of his existence thousands of years later. Regarding the second

point, there are currently numerous archaeological digs being performed in Israel in areas that

have never previously been surveyed. If any evidence of Abraham existed, it would be buried in

layers and not on the surface of the land. Consequently, as long as areas of the land which

Abraham inhabited (modern day Israel) are not surveyed, one cannot meet the second condition.

23 Kenneth A. Kitchen, “The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?” Biblical Archaeology

Review 21.2 (Mar/Apr 1995): 50. Emphasis original.

24 Michael Scriven, Primary Philosophy (New York: McGraw Hill, 1966), 102-103.

25 Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 16.

8

Thus, one cannot use the absence of evidence to defend evidence of absence since it fails to meet

either of the two criteria for legitimacy. However, is there really such an absence of evidence as

Van Seters and Thompson lead one to suppose?

Evidence Supporting an Historical Abraham

Despite the claims of Van Seters and Thompson, when one surveys the parallels of the

biblical account with archaeological evidence of customs and culture, considers the implications

of its literary continuity, and surveys the biblical witness, there remains an abundance of

evidence that can help establish the plausibility of an historical Abraham. Additionally, the

sections above have demonstrated that Van Seters and Thompson have not discredited as much

evidence as they thought. Furthermore, there is an abundance of evidence that neither have

addressed. Since that evidence remains credible, it can be used in conjunction with other

evidence to build a strong inductive proof.

Archaeological Evidence of Customs and Culture

Biblical chronologies tend to place Abraham in late third to early second millennium

B.C.26

One might expect, then, that if Abraham is historical, then the narratives would reflect the

culture and customs of that time—and they do. Perhaps a good starting point for the numerous

points of contact between the Abraham narratives and the early second millennium ANE culture

would be those points that Thompson has either explicitly or implicitly accepted. Selman

highlights four parallels between the biblical text and ANE sources that Thompson accepts. The

first is the practice associated with a wife‟s slave girl, which is found in Genesis 16:1-4 and 30:1-

13 and paralleled by numerous extra-biblical texts.27

A second parallel is the clause in Genesis

31:50 that restricts a man from taking a second wife, a restriction which appears in some

26 See Appendix A for an example.

27 Selman, “Comparative Customs,” 119; cf. Thompson, The Historicity of the

Patriarchal Narratives, 270-271.

9

cuneiform marriage contracts.28

Third, the arrangement of Rebekah‟s marriage by her brother

Laban is paralleled by a number of instances of a brother‟s responsibility for his sister in ANE

marriage contracts.29

Fourth, the birthright could arbitrarily be bestowed on any son. Thompson

makes this relationship clear when he writes that “it cannot be doubted that there is a real basis

for comparison between the Nuzi inheritance practices, particularly the father‟s discriminating

power over the inheritance, and the rules governing inheritance reflected in several places in the

Old Testament.”30

In addition to those points of contact between the biblical narratives and the culture of the

ANE in the second millennium B.C., Selman finds numerous others. One example is the use of

rab instead of bekor for the eldest son in Genesis 25:23, a phrase which shows up only in tablets

of the mid-second millennium. Another example is the parallel between the adoption of Ephraim

and Manasseh by their grandfather, which is similar to Ugaritic texts about the adoption of a

grandson. Moreover, the phrase “they are mine” is almost identical to the Laws of Hammurapi

paragraph 170. Both of these parallels confirm similarities between the biblical text and second

millennium culture. Selman also notes parallels with respect to the inability to sell inherited

property, the loss of birthright due to a serious offense against one‟s own family, the custom of

bearing “upon the knees” as an adoption rite, and certain oral statements accompanying

28 Selman, “Comparative Customs,” 119; cf. Thompson, The Historicity of the

Patriarchal Narratives, 269-270.

29 Selman, “Comparative Customs,” 119; cf. Thompson, The Historicity of the

Patriarchal Narratives, 249-250 (esp. note 236).

30 Selman, “Comparative Customs,” 120; cf. Thompson, The Historicity of the

Patriarchal Narratives, 285. Thompson argues, however, that these common practices are

between the OT practice and all ANE cultures, not just Nuzi, and throughout the whole OT, not

one specific period. Nevertheless, the parallel is helpful if other evidence points towards a

second millennium dating for the patriarchs.

10

recognized rituals that are similar to Jacob‟s blessing of grandsons in Genesis 48.31

Kitchen similarly presents an abundance of evidence for customs in the biblical text that

match a second millennium date. Among his many arguments, Kitchen highlights similarities

with respect to the price of slaves, the form and structure of treaties and covenants, the geo-

political conditions, references to Egypt, patriarchal names, and the social world.32

In his work

The Reliability of the Old Testament, Kitchen divides the evidence into five groups, each based

on the time period to which the evidence can be dated.33

The first group consists of features

specific to the early second millennium or earlier. Group two contains features common to early

and late second millennium. Groups three and four contain features specific to, or beginning in,

the late second millennium and early first millennium respectively. Finally, group five notes

features that are constant through the third, second, and first millennium. Kitchen concludes on

account of this survey that the maximal possible supporting data for a second millennium date

numbers twenty-eight items, with only six retouches added later on. Thus, while one may argue

about the legitimacy or dating of specific points, the overwhelming evidence points to a second

millennium B.C. date, which is consistent with an historical Abraham according to traditional

biblical chronology.

Literary Continuity

Addressing literary continuity is helpful because one can use Thompson‟s own

conclusions about the literature to expand the field of reference. The previous section, which

briefly surveyed the numerous parallels between the biblical text and the culture of the second

millennium, suggested that the patriarchal history, whenever one argues it was written, was a

31 Selman, “Comparative Customs,” 135-138. See Appendix B for Selmen‟s thirteen

points of contact.

32 Kitchen, “The Patriarchal Age,” 52-57, 88-92.

11

faithful historical record that was carried on in tradition. Even limiting oneself to the patriarchal

narratives, numerous pieces of evidence were available. However, using Thompson‟s

conclusions on literary continuity in the areas of structure and genre opens up additional points

of reference that lend credibility to an historical Abraham.

Structure: Complex-Chain Narratives and the Evidentiary Support of Exodus

Thompson argues that the text of Genesis 1 through Exodus 23 exhibits a two-fold

structure of literary continuity. First, he argues that many of the individual narratives in the book

of Genesis were constructed as complex-chain narratives, which Thompson believes were “an

ancient narrative genre.”34

These complex-chain narratives, which were self-contained oral or

literary units, were then collected and given a secondary editorial structure, the Toledoth

structure, which held the narratives together in “historiographical and thematic continuity.”35

He

then adds that it is important that neither Exodus as a whole nor its first part has a clear

beginning. Such is the case because Exodus 1:1-6 is an “editorial connective” patterned after the

Toledoth form, thus making the exodus narrative a continuation of the patriarchal narratives.36

Granted the literary continuity proposed by Thompson himself, one can now include the

narratives of the Joseph account and the Exodus in supporting the historical veracity of the

patriarchal narratives since an historical reading of Genesis 39 through Exodus 15 is compatible

33 See Appendix C for a detailed list.

34 Thomas L. Thompson, The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel: I. The Literary

Formation of Genesis and Exodus 1-23, JSOTSupp., ed. David J.A. Clines and Philip R. Davies

55 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 156. See Appendix D for Thompson‟s portrayal

of the Abraham complex-chain narrative.

35 Ibid., 156.

12

with what is known from Egyptian history. James Hoffmeier highlights six points of contact

between the Joseph narrative and the knowledge from Egyptian texts: slavery in Egypt, Egpytian

personal names, magicians, pharaoh‟s birthday/coronation day, Joseph‟s status, and Joseph‟s age

at death.37

Genre: Genesis to Second Kings and Historical Verifiability

Another way in which Thompson has weakened his own position is his insistence that

there is no change in genre from Genesis to Second Kings. He writes, “I hope it is true that the

great divide between Genesis 11 and 12, demarcating myth from history or heroic epic, has

finally disappeared from our textbooks. Nowhere in the narrative tradition of Genesis-2 Kings do

we have such a watershed.”38

Though Thompson‟s point is to convince people to associate the

patriarchal narratives with the primeval “history” that he sees as so obviously unhistorical, he

rather allows that the genre of Genesis is the same genre of the Deuteronomistic History. Though

one may have an easier time trying to explain how the authors intended the patriarchal narratives

as myth on account of long life spans and frequent direct encounters with God, it is much more

difficult to put Kings in the same category. The task becomes more difficult because many of the

narratives of Kings are paralleled by ANE accounts and archaeological discoveries. Thus, if

Thompson is willing to associate the genre of the Deuteronomistic History with the genre of

Genesis, one more step can be taken towards a position that the patriarchs were historical

individuals.

36 Ibid., 167.

37 James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus

Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 83-95.

13

Biblical Witness

One final piece of evidence is worth mentioning: the biblical witness. Thompson argues

that the biblical writers did not think the patriarchs were historical, but since the faith of Israel

was based on God‟s future promises and not the past, such a determination was irrelevant.

However, a closer look at the biblical text suggests otherwise. Numerous biblical texts point to

hope in God precisely on account of His saving acts in history.39

That so many biblical texts

point to historical events for their justification makes it difficult to reject them as unhistorical.40

Moreover, many other texts speak of Abraham in a manner that suggests he was historical.41

Thus, contrary to Thompson‟s future-only emphasis, Bernhard Anderson is more correct in

suggesting that it is on account of the historical truth of the Abrahamic covenant that Israel lives

as a people “who gratefully recall the past, who live obediently in the present, and who face the

future in the assurance of God‟s promises.”42

Inference to the Best Explanation

The biblical witness for an historical Abraham will perhaps convince only those already

predisposed to believe in his existence already. However, it is an important point because it

38 Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 73.

39 One example is the identification of the LORD as the one who brought them out of

Egypt; on account of this truth they should respond (Josh 24:5-6, 14; Ju 2:1; Mic 6:4-8).

40 John Goldingay, “The Patriarchs in Scripture and History,” in Essays on the

Patriarchal Narratives, ed. A.R. Millard and D.J. Wiseman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983),

28-29.

41 For example: Ex 3:6; 33:1; Josh 24:2-3; 1 Kgs 18:36; 2 Kgs 13:23; Neh 9:7; Ps 105:9,

42; Isa 51:2; Jer 33:26; Ezek 33:24; Mic 7:20; Mt 22:32; Jn 8:39-58; Acts 3:13; Rom 4:1-16; Gal

3:8-9; Heb 6:13-15; Ja 2:21.

14

raises questions as to which view is the inference to the best explanation. Which position best

explains the available data? While not proving Abraham‟s existence, the fact that the biblical

writers in the both the Old and New Testaments, as well as Jesus Himself, seem to assume the

historicity of Abraham, must be one piece of the puzzle. Is it best to assume that all of the

biblical writers were mistaken in Abraham‟s historicity (or that the majority of biblical exegetes

have misread the text), or is it better to assume that Abraham was in fact an historical person,

attested in Scripture and tradition? Is it best to accept Van Seters‟ arguments for a first

millennium date, requiring that one reject all of the second millennium parallels of the biblical

text with the ANE texts as irrelevant, or is it better to accept that the first millennium parallels

reflect traditions and practices that began in the second millennium and carried on into that time

period? Is it best to see corroborating evidence in ANE parallels to Kings or Exodus and extend

that confidence back to the patriarchal narratives, or is it best to begin with skepticism of Genesis

1-50 and argue that absence of evidence is sufficient grounds to determine evidence of absence?

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper is not to settle the debate about the historicity of Abraham.

Rather, the purpose is to consider the evidence and ask whether holding to an historical Abraham

is a plausible and reasonable position. On account of some poor arguments by Van Seters and

Thompson in opposition to an historical Abraham, keeping in mind that much of the argument

against Abraham hinges on an absence of evidence that was demonstrated to be insufficient

grounds for rejection, and considering the evidence that remains to confirm the biblical accounts‟

accuracy with respect to customs and culture, holding to a belief in the historical Abraham does

in fact seem to be a plausible and reasonable position to maintain.

42 Berhard W. Anderson, “Abraham, the Friend of God,” Int 42 (1988): 365-366.

15

Appendix A

Biblical Chronology of the Patriarchs43

43

Eugene Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel, second edition (Grand Rapids: Baker

Academic, 2008), 47-48.

16

Appendix B

Selman‟s Thirteen Points of Contact of the Biblical Text

with the ANE customs of 2nd

Millenium B.C.44

1. Practice of granting a birthright, that is, additional privileges to an eldest son, is mentioned

several times in patriarchal narratives and in ANE.

2. In Gen 25:23, the term for eldest son is rab rather than the normal bekor. The Akkadian word

rabu is used of eldest son, but only turned up in tablets of mid-second millennium, from

Nuzi, Alalah, Ugarit, and Middle Assyria.

3. Alteration of a man‟s inheritance prospects was never subject a father‟s arbitrary decision,

whether it involved the loss of birthright privilege or disinheritance, but was brought about in

every case by serious offence against one‟s own family (e.g. Reuben).

4. Man‟s ability to sell inherited property is documented at different periods in the ancient Near

East.

5. Custom of the adoption of one‟s own slave that is found only in the Larsa letter and Gen 15.

6. Adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh by their grandfather may be compared to similar

adoption of a grandson at Ugarit and the phrase “they are mine” is almost identical to Laws

of Hammurapi paragraph 170.

7. Custom of bearing „upon the knees‟ has frequently been interpreted as an adoption rite. It

occurs three times in the patriarchal narratives and is attested in two Hurrian myths and

several Neo-Assyrian blessings.

8. Gift of a female slave as part of a dowry (three times in the patriarchal narratives) is well

known in the ANE at various periods.

9. Father‟s prohibition forbidding his prospective son-in-law to take a second wife in place of

his daughter is found regularly in marriage contracts and in Laban/Jacob—Gen 31:50.

10. Marriage arranged by the bride‟s brother in several instances in Old and Neo-Babylonian

periods.

11. Description of adultery as a great sin is known also at Ugarit and in Egyptian marriage

contracts.

12. Certain oral statements were accompanied by recognized rituals and ceremonials which

functioned as legal safeguards, similar to Jacob‟s adoption and blessing of grandsons in Gen

48.

13. Use of the phrase ‘akal kesep in the complaint of Laban‟s daughters may be compared with

the Akkadian equivalent kaspa akalu which is used five times in marriage contracts at Nuzi

for the withholding of a dowry.

44

Adapted from M.J. Selman, “Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age,” in Essays on the

Patriarchal Narratives, ed. A.R. Millard and D.J. Wiseman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 135-138.

17

Appendix C

Kitchen‟s Five Groups of Supporting Evidence for Patriarchs in the Second Millennium B.C.45

Group Parallels between the biblical text and ANE culture/customs

Gro

up

1

Fea

ture

s sp

ecif

ic t

o e

arly

sec

on

d m

ille

nn

ium

(or

earl

ier)

Wide scope of travel

Wide transhumance and related pastoral movement (Van Seters argues against this point in

chapter 2, “The Nomadism of the Patriarchs,” 13-38).

Long distance marriages by related groups

East Delta residences of pharaohs

Gen 14 eastern alliances

Gen 14 Elam, interventions in Upper Mesopotamia, and interests westward

Gen 14 and close literary parallel in Yahdun-lim‟s text, Mari

Gen 14 Tid‟al Old Hittite names and as chief of groups

Types of treaties (cf. Gen 21, 31, 36 with Mari and Tell Leilan)

Prices of young male slaves

Social usages (heir by adoption or proxy) early second millennium, changing later on. (Van

Seters claims that “while there is obviously a long continuity of legal custom, there also

seems to be evidence of some social development in terms of the specific rights of the wife.

The patriarchal customs would seem to reflect more closely the latter part of this continuum,

the mid-first millennium, than the early or mid-second millennium as formerly proposed” [70-

71]. Yet Van Seters gives little evidence for his conclusion other similarities to a text from

Nimrud dated 648 BC. Even if one accepts the parallel, it does not entail that the Genesis

account is of a mid-first millennium origin, but rather one could accept the parallels with

older accounts, noting that such action may have continued into later period.)

Patriarchal religion suggests second millennium, changing later on

Patriarchal Canaan is the land of the Execration Texts and archaeological horizon of MB II

Patriarchal proper names and early West Semitic imperfectives that are limited later on;

Egyptian names also belong to this period rather than later

Shepherding under old Babylonian conditions rather than later epochs

45

Adapted from K.A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006),

352-355.

18

Servant “in the house” mainly old/middle kingdom term

Saris, not eunuch in Egypt G

rou

p 2

F

eatu

res

com

mo

n t

o e

arly

an

d

late

2nd m

ille

nn

ium

Ur was an important center in the late third to late second millennia, but not later

Shi‟nar was a western term for Mesopotamia by late 2nd

millennium

In Joseph narrative, Egyptian word shesh is used for linen instead of bwts (6th

C and

following)

Aegeans in Canaan before Philistines

Archaeological data for patriarchal places in Canaan, MB, and LB period

Features of appointment to high office

Ideal age of 110 years

Gro

up

3

Fea

ture

s sp

ecif

ic t

o,

or

beg

innin

g

in,

late

2nd m

ille

nn

ium

Land of Ramses Gen 47:11 in 13-12th

centuries only

Dan for Laish a revision of twelfth century

Term Philistines for all Aegeans from early 12th

century

Form of name Potiphar, 13th

C onward

Gro

up

4

Fea

ture

s sp

ecif

ic t

o e

arly

1st m

ille

nn

ium

Chaldeans to identify Ur

Gen 36:1, kings of Edom before any king reigned for bene-Israel

Gro

up

5

Co

nst

ants

th

rou

gh

3rd

, 2

nd

,

and

1st

mil

len

ia

Camels

Feast and famine in Egypt

Religious celebrations for deity after military victory

Places that were occupied for long periods

19

Appendix D

Thompson‟s Portrayal of the Abraham Complex-Chain Narrative46

46

Thomas L. Thompson, The Origin of Ancient Israel: I. The Literary Formation of Genesis and Exodus 1-

23, JSOTSupp., ed. David J.A. Clines and Philip R. Davies 55 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 160.

20

Bibliography

Albright, W.F. “Abraham the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation.” BASOR 163

(1961): 36-54.

______. From Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process. Second

Edition. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1967.

Alexander, T. Desmond. Abraham in the Negev; A Source-Critical Investigation of Genesis 20.1-

22.19. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997.

______. “Genesis 22 and the Covenant of Circumcision.” JSOT 25 (1983):17-22.

______. “A Literary Analysis of the Abraham Narrative in Genesis.” PhD thesis; The Queen‟s

University of Belfast, 1982.

Alt, Albrecht. Essays on Old Testament, History and Religion. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

Press, 1989.

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. Revised and Updated. New York: Basic Books,

2011.

Anderson, Bernhard W. “Abraham, the Friend of God.” Int 42 (1988): 353-366.

Arieti, Silvano. Abraham and the Contemporary Mind. New York: Basic Books, 1981.

Averbeck, Richard E. “Factors in Reading the Patriarchal Narratives: Literary, Historical, and

Theological Dimension.” In Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament

Historical Texts, ed. David M. Howard Jr. and Michael A. Grisanti, 115-137. Grand

Rapids: Kregel, 2003.

Baker, D.W. “Diversity and Unity in the Literary Structure of Genesis.” In Essays on the

Patriarchal Narratives, ed. A.R. Millard and D.J. Wiseman, 197-215. Winona Lake:

Eisenbrauns, 1983.

Bimson, J.J. “Archaeological Data and the Dating of the Patriarchs.” In Essays on the

Patriarchal Narratives, ed. A.R. Millard and D.J. Wiseman, 53-89. Winona Lake:

Eisenbrauns, 1983.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New

York: Doubleday, 1992.

______. Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early

Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.

Blythin, I. “The Patriarchs and the Promise.” SJT 21 (1968): 56-73.

Bodoff, L. “God Tests Abraham—Abraham Tests God.” BR 9.5 (1993): 52-56, 62.

21

Braswell, J.P. “The Blessing of Abraham‟ versus „the Curse of the Law.‟” WJT 53 (1991): 73-91.

Bray, G. “The Promise Made to Abraham and the Destiny of Israel.” SBET 7 (1989): 69-87.

Bright, John. Early Israel in Recent History Writings. Studies in Biblical Theology 19. Chicago:

Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1956.

______. A History of Israel. 4th ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000.

Bruckner, James K. Implied Law in the Abraham Narrative: A Literary and Theological

Analysis. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, ed. David J.A.

Clines and Philip R. Davies 335. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001

Chew, H.C. “The Theme of „Blessing for the Nations‟ in the Patriarchal Narratives of Genesis.”

PhD Thesis; University of Sheffield, 1982.

Clements, R.E. Abraham and David: Genesis 15 and its Meaning for Israelite Tradition. SBT

2.5. London: SCM Press, 1967.

Dever, William G. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Grand

Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2003.

Deurloo, K.A. “Narrative Geography in the Abraham Cycle.” In In Quest of the Past: Studies on

Israelite Religion, Literature and Prophetism, ed. A.S. Van der Woude, 48-62. OTS 26.

Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1990.

_____. “The Way of Abraham.” In Voices from Amsterdam, ed. M. Kessler, 95-112. Atlanta:

Scholars Press, 1994.

Donoghue, Richard Kingston. Abraham, Friend of God: A Religious Biography. New York:

Exposition Press, 1960.

Dumbrell, W.J. “The Covenant with Abraham.” RTR 38 (1982): 42-50.

Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.

Gaubert, Henri. Abraham, Loved by God. Trans. Lancelot Sheppard. The Bible in History, Vol.

1, ed. Joseph Rhymer. London: Darton, Longman & Todd LTD, 1968.

Genette, Gerard. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Trans. Jane E. Lewin. Ithaca:

Cornell University Press, 1980.

_____. Narrative Discourse Revisited. Trans. Jane E. Lewin. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,

1988.

Goldingay, John. “The Patriarchs in Scripture and History.” In Essays on the Patriarchal

Narratives, ed. A.R. Millard and D.J. Wiseman, 1-34. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

22

Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. Trans. Mark E. Biddle. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997.

Translation of Genesis. 3rd edition. Gottinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1.

Gottingen: Vandernhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977.

Hamilton, Victor P. Handbook on the Pentateuch. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,

2005.

Hendel, Ronald S. “Finding Historical Memories in the Patriarchal Narratives.” Biblical

Archaeology Review 21.4 (Jul/Aug 1995): 52-55, 58-59, 70-71.

_____. “Dating the Patriarchal Age.” Biblical Archaeology Review 21.4 (Jul/Aug 1995): 56-57,

72.

Hoffmeier, James K. Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition.

New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Holt, John Marshall. The Patriarchs of Israel. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1964.

Howard, David M. “History as History: The Search for Meaning.” In Giving the Sense:

Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts, ed. David M. Howard Jr. and

Michael A. Grisanti, 25-53. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003.

Hunt, Ignatius. The World of the Patriarchs. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1967.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age Through the Jewish Wars.

Nashville: Broadman & Homan, 1998.

Kirkpatrick, Patricia G., and Timothy Goltz, eds. The Function of Ancient Historiography in

Biblical and Cognate Studies. New York: T & T Clark, 2008.

Kitchen, K.A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

_____. The Bible in Its World: The Bible and Archaeology Today. Downers Grove; InterVarsity

Press, 1977.

_____. “The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?” Biblical Archaeology Review 21.2 (Mar/Apr

1995): 48-57, 88-95.

Klement, Herbert H. “Modern Literary-Critical Methods and the Historicity of the OT.” In

Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays on Ancient Israelite Historiography, ed. V.P.

Long, 439-459. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, ed. D.W. Baker, vol. 7.

Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999.

Lodahl, Michael. Claiming Abraham: Reading the Bible and the Qur’an Side by Side. Grand

Rapids: Brazos Press, 2010.

Long, V. Philips. The Art of Biblical History. Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, Vol.

5. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

23

Luke, John T. “Abraham and the Iron Age.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 4 (1977):

35-47.

McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr., and Ronald S. Hendel. “The Patriarchal Age: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,

in Ancient Israel.” In Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the

Temple, ed. Hershel Shanks, revised edition, 1-21. Washington, D.C.: Biblical

Archaeology Society, 1999.

McKane, William. Studies in the Patriarchal Narratives. Edinburgh: The Handsel Press, 1979.

Mendenhall, G.E. “The Nature and Purpose of the Abraham Narratives.” In Ancient Israelite

Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P.D. Miller Jr., P.D. Hanson, and

S.D. McBride, 337-356. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

Merrill, Eugene H. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel. Second edition.

Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Millard, A.R. “Abraham.” In Volume 1 of Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman,

35-41. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

_____. “Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Texts.” In Essays on the

Patriarchal Narratives, ed. A.R. Millard and D.J. Wiseman, 35-51. Winona Lake:

Eisenbrauns, 1983.

Miller, Amos W. Abraham, Friend of God: An Ethical Biography of the Founder of the Jewish

People. Middle Village, New York: Jonathan David Publishers, 1973.

Noth, Martin. The History of Israel. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1960.

_____. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. Bernhard W. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs:

Prentice-Hall, 1972.

Pagolu, Augustine. The Religion of the Patriarchs. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Supplement Series, ed. David J.A. Clines and Philip R. Davies 277. Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic Press, 1998.

Provan, Iain W., V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel.

Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2003.

Rendtorff, Rolf. Canon and Theology: Overtures to an Old Testament Theology. Minneapolis:

Fortress Press, 1993.

_____. The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch, trans. John J. Scullion.

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 89, ed. David J.A. Clines

and Philip R. Davies 89. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.

24

Rooker, Mark F. “Dating of the Patriarchal Age: The Contribution of Ancient Near Eastern

Texts.” In Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts,

ed. David M. Howard Jr. and Michael A. Grisanti, 217-235. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003.

Ross, Allen P. “Did the Patriarchs Know the Name of the LORD?” In Giving the Sense:

Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts, ed. David M. Howard Jr. and

Michael A. Grisanti, 323-339. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003.

Sarna, Nahum. “Abraham in History.” Biblical Archaeology Review 3 (1977): 5-9.

Scriven, Michael. Primary Philosophy. New York: McGraw Hill, 1966.

Selman, M.J. “Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age.” In Essays on the Patriarchal

Narratives, ed. A.R. Millard and D.J. Wiseman, 91-139. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,

1983.

Siker, Jeffrey S. Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy. Louisville:

Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991.

Speiser, E.A. Genesis. The Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday, 1964.

Thomas, Matthew A. These are the Generations: Identity, Covenant, and the Toledot Formula.

Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 551. London: T & T Clark, 2011.

Thompson, Thomas L. Early History of the Israelite People from the Written & Archaeological

Sources. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

_____. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham.

Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002.

_____. The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel: I. The Literary Formation of Genesis and Exodus

1-23. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, ed. David J.A.

Clines and Philip R. Davies 55. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987.

_____. “Reiterative Narratives of Exile and Return: Virtual Memories of Abraham in the Persian

and Hellensitic Periods.” In The Hisotrian and the Bible: Essays in Honour of Lester L.

Grabbe, ed. Philip R. Davies and Diana V. Edelman, 46-54. London: T & T Clark, 2010.

_____. “Text, Context and Referent in Israelite Historiography.” In The Fabric of History: Text,

Artifact and Israel’s Past, ed. Diana Vikander Edelman, 65-92. Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic Press, 1991.

Van Seters, John. „„Abraham.‟‟ Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Lindsay Jones. 2nd ed., 13-17.

Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005.

_____. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975.

25

_____. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical

History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.

_____. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis. Louisville: Westminster/John

Knox, 1992.

Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Trans. John McHugh. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1997.

_____. The Early History of Israel. Trans. David Smith. London: Darton, Longman and Todd,

1978.

_____. “The Hebrew Patriarchs and History.” In Israel’s Past in Present Research Israel’s Past

in Present Research: Essays on Ancient Israelite Historiography, ed. V.P. Long, 470-

479. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, ed. D.W. Baker, vol. 7. Winona Lake,

IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999.

von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. Volume 1. OT Library. Trans. D.M.G. Stalker.

Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the

Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Warner, S.M. “The Patriarchs and Extra-Biblical Sources.” Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament 2 (1977): 50-66.

Wenham, G.J. “The Religion of the Patriarchs.” In Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, ed.

A.R. Millard and D.J. Wiseman, 161-195. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

Westermann, Claus. “The Old Testament‟s Understanding of History.” In Israel’s Past in

Present Research: Essays on Ancient Israelite Historiography, ed. V.P. Long, 220-231.

Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, ed. D.W. Baker, vol. 7. Winona Lake, IN:

Eisenbrauns, 1999.

_____. The Promises to the Fathers; Studies on the Patriarchal Narratives. Trans. David E.

Green. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

_____. Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg

Publishing House, 1985.

Wheaton, Byron. “Focus and Structure in the Abraham Narratives.” Trinity Journal 27NS

(2006): 143-162.

Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. Journal for the Study of

the Old Testament Supplement Series, ed. David J.A. Clines and Philip R. Davies 53.

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987.

26

Williamson, Paul R. Abraham, Israel and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise and its

Covenantal Development in Genesis. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Supplement Series, ed. David J.A. Clines and Philip R. Davies 315. Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic Press, 2000.

Wilson, Marvin R. Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Wiseman, D.J. “Abraham Reassessed.” In Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, ed. A.R.

Millard and D.J. Wiseman, 141-160. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

Woolley, Sir Leonard. Abraham: Recent Discoveries and Hebrew Origins. London: Faber and

Faber Limited, 1936.

Wright, G.E. The God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital. Chicago: Henry Regnery

Company, 1952.

Yudkowsky, Rachel. “Chaos or Chiasm? The Structure of Abraham's Life.” The Jewish Bible

Quarterly 35, no 2 (Ap-Je 2007): 109-114.