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

2. 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. 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. 4 Abraham’s Route – Traditional View.

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7 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 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);

8. 8 Bedouin Encampment in the Desert.

9. 9

10. 10 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).

11. 11 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);

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

13. 13 Nuzi Tablets (Late Bronze Age).

14. 14 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.

15. 15 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.

16. 16 The Land of Biblical Israel.

17. 17 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).

18. 18 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);

19. 19 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;

20. 20

21. 21

22. 22 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).

23. 23 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).