Historicity of the Patriarchal stories in the Bible

abraham · Site Admin Joined: 30 Jul 2005 Posts: 53

The life of Abraham has been variously interpreted. Some like Philo of Alexandria call it an allegory, some as an exaggeration of a historical figure, some say it is a fiction, but others affirm it is historical and trust worthy. The biblical description of the background and setting of the patriarchs fits exactly with the culture of the second millennium B.C. Archeology has cast interesting light upon the background of this section.

The Mari age was one of considerable political and cultural importance for Assyria. Parrot, the French Archaeologist, discovered a highly developed civilization there. “Even more important was the discovery of over twenty thousand clay tablets in various rooms of the palace. They included correspondence between Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim, the last king of Mari, as well as a huge collection of business documents.” This period of Amorite history is very important as it throws light on the lives and practices of the Patriarchs. Some tablets contain reference to the “Habiru”, Some of the place names that survived in the area of Haran corresponds with the Patriarchal names: The names of cities like Serug, Terah, and Nahor were all located in the vicinity of Haran, The names like Abraham, Isaac, Laban, Jacob and Joseph seemed to have been in common use at this time: A-ba-am-ra-ma, A-ba-am-ra-am, and Ya-”qub”-e1 and Ya-ah-qu-ub-i1. The Mari tablets also have a reference to a warlike nomadic tribe known as Banu-Yamina. Some scholars see the similarity with Benjaminites of the Biblical narratives.

The texts of Nuzu (a Horite city in northern Mesopotamia) also have some bearing on the patriarchal time. The adoption of Eliezer by Abraham (Gen.15:2f) bears similarity to the adoption law found here which states the responsibilities of the adopted son to the childless parents and forfeiting of these rights in case of the birth of a legal son after adoption. These tablets also talk about the barren wife obliged to give her handmaid for raising children to her husband. Because procreation was understood to be the chief purpose of marriage (cf.Gen.16: 2; 30:3; 21: 11). According to Nuzu tablets the “birthright” of first born is negotiable (cf. Esau’s forfeiting birthright). Even Rachel’s stealing of “teraphim” could be understood in these customs. The Nuzu law recognized as the leader of the family (associated with the right of inheritance) the one who possessed the household idols.

These and many more could be said about the historicity of the Patriarchal stories in the Bible. They also confirm the historical accuracy of the Biblical narratives.

.

The Truthteller · Guest

If believers actually had substance to back up their beliefs, why do they cling to such straw-man arguments? The existence of OT names in archaeological texts doesn't prove the talking snake, the talking ass, the firey flying serpents, nor any of the other supernatural claims of the bible. Indeed, it appears that Genesis does derive from second millennium BCE sources, since customs, place names and personal names suggest they did. This is not to say that we are being told a straight version of events. How about talking about how the conquests of Hazor and Meggiddo take place about two hundred years closer to the time of Solomon than the Bible allows? There is a column on which Pilate's name is inscribed. He undoubtedly was a real person. This does nothing to prove that there was ever a real person, i.e. the Jesus of the Christian scriptures, that stood before him. Archaeology has never confirmed a single miracle. To hear "true believers" tell it, archaeology has nearly proven the Bible to be accurate, but they leave out this last bit. If you have read this, then you can never, in all honesty, claim that archaeology has proven the Bible, because now you know better. Archaeology has never proven the giants supposedly found in Canaan, e.g., but they misrepresent the plausiblity of the historical setting as proof of miracles, which, if they have been informed on this point, must now be regarded as intellectual dishonesty. Why lie to support the Bible? Doesn't Paul suggest we do exactly this in Galatians, in Rom. 3:7? (I know it looks like I might be taking it out of context, but after much study, I don't think I am. After all, some Church Fathers came to the same conclusion about what Paul was saying.) But if so, then how can we trust anything they say?