Bibliotheca Sacra 134 (April-June 1977) 123-30
Copyright © 1977 by
Abraham in
History and Tradition
Part 1: Abraham the Hebrew
Donald J. Wiseman
The study of Abraham in history and
tradition has recently
been
revived. However, it is accompanied by a recrudescence of a
critical
trend in Old Testament scholarship which virtually dismiss-
es Abraham as an eponymous ancestor, a
mythological hero of
legendary
sagas, or the projection into the past of later Jewish
ideologies
seeking for a "founding father." On this basis the Genesis
patriarchs are
considered by many scholars to be unhistorical, and
it is
argued that this is no problem because their historicity is
irrelevant to
the theological value of the biblical narratives. With
this
development, Old Testament scholars have reacted against and
reappraised the extrabiblical evidence which has led to the more
conservative understanding and interpretation of a second-millen-
nium B.C. "Patriarchal Age."1
Both viewpoints will now need to be
reevaluated in
the light of the recent texts discovered at
reveal for
the first time the history, language, and culture of the
1 John van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (
Patriarchal
Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (
de Gruyter, 1974).
2 Giovanni Pettinato, "Testi cuneiformi
rinvenuti nelta campagna 1974 a Tell MardIkh=
361-74; and
paper read at the XXIIIeme Rencontre
Assyriologique Inter-
EDITOR'S
NOTE: This is the first in a series of four articles, prepared by
the
author for the W. H. Griffith Thomas Memorial Lectures at Dallas Theo-
logical
Seminary in November, 1976. The editors regret that illness forced
Dr. Wiseman
to cancel the lectureship, but they are pleased to present the
series in
print.
124 /
Bibliotheca Sacra -April-June 1977
It is true that some of the comparisons
made between the
social
background reflected in Genesis and extrabiblical
evidence
have
arisen from the desire of scholars to find parallels in ancient
Near Eastern texts. However, dismissing those parallels would not
of
itself argue against the historical origin or nature of the Genesis
texts so
much as against the various theories proposed for their
interpretation.3 Van Seters has rightly questioned some
of these but
goes
beyond the evidence when he argues that "there is no real
portrayal of a
nomadic pre-settlement phase of Israelite society, nor
any hint
of the migratory movements or political realities of the
second
millennium B.C."4 For him the Abrahamic
tradition as it
stands
reflects "only a late date of composition and gives no hint
by its
content of any great antiquity in terms of biblical history."5
His argument
is that the few nomadic details--the references to
camels and
tents, the patriarch's presence and movements primarily
confined to
the Negeb, and their contact and political agreement
with the
Philistines--are all indications of a mid-first millennium
B.C. origin.
It is the primary purpose of this paper to
examine some of
these contentions.
However, these contentions will be examined
more from
an interpretive standpoint than from the chronological
standpoint,
since it can be shown that in the long "continuity" of
tradition in
the ancient Near Eastern traditions, social custom, legal
convention, or
literary form are by themselves no sure means of
chronological identification.6
THE EXTENT OF PATRIARCHAL NOMADISM
Was Abraham a "nomad"? The
Genesis account relates the
movements of
Abraham primarily in relation to two factors: the
nationale,
Royal Archives of Tell Mardikh-Ebla,"
The Biblical Archaeologist 39 (May
1976): 44-52. It is reported that these texts make reference to
tine, and
and the appearance of
personal names such as "Abraham" can be paralleled
in other cuneiform texts
(cf. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal
Narratives, pp. 22-36).
3 M. Selman, "Published and Unpublished Fifteenth Century
B.C. Cuneiform
Documents and Their Bearing on the Patriarchal Narratives of the
Old
Testament" (Ph.D. diss., University
of Wales, 1975) and his article in The
Tyndale Bulletin 27 (1976), forthcoming.
4 Van Seters, Abraham in History and
Tradition, pp. 121-22.
5 Ibid.
6 Donald J. Wiseman, "
B.C.," Journal of Northwest
Semitic Languages 5 (1977), forthcoming.
Abraham the
Hebrew / 125
divine
call, and the divine land-grant to his posterity. Thus the
ultimate
destination is declared from the beginning when "Terah
took
Abram his son and
forth with
them from
renewed call
is still for Abraham to leave "land, family, and
father's
house to go to the land I will show you" (Gen. 12:1).7
No details
are given of the route, method, or time of travel. There
is no
reason to assume that a journey from southern
to Syro-Palestine was undertaken only by (semi-) nomads in antiq-
uity. Movements in stages by groups of
persons, possibly merchants,
are
attested by records of Old Babylonian itineraries.8
Gordon's suggestion that
fied with Ura'
(modern
has been
adequately answered by Saggs, who has stressed, in addi-
tion to the philological weakness, the
unlikely nature of a move
eastward by
Abraham before retracing his steps toward Canaan.10
Moreover,
Gordon's thesis, coupled with similarity of Old Baby-
lonian place-names with patriarchal patronyms (e.g., Serug, Gen.
still be
evidence against van Seters' late date for such
allusions.
Moreover,
emphasis is placed on the crossing of the
River ('Eber nari,' cf. Josh. 24:2-3).
Genesis places no stress on Abraham's
"nomadism"; it merely
states that
he moved in response to the divine call from
the
to Shechem (Gen. 12:6). The route would have taken him through
or near
some of the city-states known to have dominated the region
in both
the second and first millennia B.C. At Moreh, near Shechem,
Abram built
an altar to the Lord after He in a theophany granted
as a
gift the land where he then was (Gen. 12:7). It is noteworthy
that the
first mention of "tents" is now made, and it is suggested
that here
(as subsequently near
the
tents indicate not so much his mode of living as a tent-shrine
set up
symbolically at places where he publicly avowed the promise
7 This is usually taken as an early source; it is quoted by
Stephen (Acts
7:2-4).
8 William W. Hallo, "The Road to Emar,"
Journal of Cuneiform Studies 18
(1964): 57-88.
9 Cyrus H. Gordon, "Abraham and the Merchants of Ura," Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 17 (1958): 28-31.
10 H. W. F. Saggs, "
126 /
Bibliotheca Sacra -April-June 1977
of the
land as a token of its take-over.11 A further journey to
near
which another altar was erected and named in association with
a
"tent-site" (Gen. 12:8), was followed by a short journey south-
ward.
Following the diversion to
ously occupied tent- and altar-site near
Following the separation from
Canaanite
opposition and insufficiency of grazing for the flocks
and
herds, Abraham was given a further revelation about the extent
of the
land (Gen. 13:5-13). From a vantage point on high ground
he was
able to look north, south, east, and west at the covenant-
promised
territory before walking throughout its length and breadth
(
it. The
southward measurement was made by Abraham first; he
moved to Mamre (
There a
further theophany reaffirmed the possession of the
land
through an
heir. Then he went further south between Kadesh and
Shur
(20:1) to stay in the land then dominated by Abimelech
of
Gerar (20:1-18) which
bordered
over and
was marked as a special place by tent and altar and
"sacred tree," to become the symbol of the southernmost
part of
the
promised land stretching "from Dan to
ences to "tents" used by Abraham's
successors refer principally to
these same
sites except for the use of a tent by
establishing a permanent lodging in a house in
19:2) and of
Jacob's inclusion of tents and camels in his caravan
on the
flight from Laban (31:28). He is described as staying
"among the settlements ['tents,' AV]" (Gen. 25:25) when
his set-
tled life is contrasted with the nomadic and
hunting existence of
Esau. Jacob
himself settled in a house at Succoth (33:17).
These scant references to tents are not in
themselves indicative
of any
special type of nomadism, even of the "enclosed nomadism"
described by
Rowton.12
THE TYPE OF PATRIARCHAL NOMADISM
The Genesis picture is not specifically
one of semi-nomadism
though it
could be compared in some features with the well-docu-
mented nomadism of
11 Donald J.
Wiseman, "They Lived in Tents," Studia
Biblica et Theologica
7 (1977), forthcoming.
12 M. B. Rowton, "Enclosed Nomadism,"
Journal of the Economic and
Social
History of the Orient 17
(1974): 1-16.
Abraham the
Hebrew / 127
second
millennium B.C. or with the even earlier activities of the
Sutu (ca.
2700 B.C.) or Egyptian ssyw.13 Some
scholars, however,
have
tended to exaggerate the supposedly "nomadic" elements by
reference to
named groups in the same region at different periods
(e.g., Amurru, Aramu) and to their
sedentary condition by refer-
ence to the settled life of the same tribes.
Rowton has shown
that long-range nomads, dependent on the
limitations of
the desert and rainfall, are rare and probably confined
throughout
history to north and south
from the
true self-sufficient long-range "external nomadism"
of
central Asia
and central
engaged in
pastoral nomadism, owning livestock and a few camels,
and
their migration might have involved tribal communities. Such
combinations of camels, sheep, goats, and donkeys moved slowly
and
never more than a day's journey from water. They followed
the
seasons and interacted with the local market where their more
sedentary
brethren lived.14 For this reason there is no single term
in the
ancient Near Eastern texts for such people who could be
designated by
their role or settlement. The individual group with its
family head
or chief (abum, "father") and elders
might be referred
to by
several names (e.g., Ubrabum, Yahrurum,
Amnanum), which
could
denote the total group (e.g., Bene-Yamina =
"Benjamin-
ites").15 Nomads and sedentary
members of a single tribe linked
the
former to an urban base as has been suggested for Abraham
and Nahur (
illustrated from
the traditional genealogies of the second millennium
B.C. (Hammurapi);17 Assyria
(King List);18 and
13 R. Giveon, Les bedouins
shosou des documents egyptiens
(
Brill,
1971); also references are made to nomads in the
14 M. B. Rowton, "Autonomy and Nomadism
in
42 (1973):
252.
15 So also Midian, Amalek, and Bene-Qedem, all Midianites (Moshe
Anbar,
"Changement thes noms thes tribus
nomades dans la relation
d'un meme
evenement,"
Biblica 49 [1968]: 221-32).
16 A. Malamat, "Aspects of Tribal Society," in La Civilisation de Mari,
ed. J.
R. Kupper (
de l'Universite de
17 J. J.
Finkelstein, "The Genealogy of the Hammurapi
Dynasty," Journal
of
Cuneiform Studies 20
(1966): 95-118; cf. W. G. Lambert, "Another Look
at Hammurabi's Ancestors," Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 22 (1968): 1-2.
18 F. R.
Kraus, Konige die in Zelten
wohnten (
Hollandsche Uirgevers Maarschappij, 1965);
cf.
Tudiya with the Duddia of Assur, a vassal of Ebrum of Ebla.
128 /
Bibliotheca Sacra -April-June 1977
and Nahor, Gen. 22:20-24; 25:1-4). Such semi-nomads could be-
come very
influential and take over the government of an urban
settlement.19
The designation and characteristic
functions of these groups
varied but
little over the centuries. The Amorites (Amurru
-"west-
erners" centered on Jebel
Biri) are first named in texts from Fara
(ca. 2600 B.C.) and in a date formula of the reign of sar-kalli-sarri
(2250 B.C.) and last as an ethnic group in
of Ammisaduqa (ca. 1645 B.C.).20 The Habiru ('Apiru), though
occasionally mentioned in
and Alalah, are increasingly referred to as semi-nomads in the
west
from the
seventeenth century B.C. They performed similar functions
within the
same general area as the Amorites and disappeared with
the Hurrians about the thirteenth century. Opinions are divided
as
to
whether these Hapiru (Egyptian 'prw) are to be equated with
the
Hebrew 'ibri(m) linguistically or in function, since Habiru desig-
nates a sociological phenomenon rather than an
ethnic group.21
The role of
the semi-nomad is then taken up into the term Aramu
(Aramean), though before the thirteenth century this is
already
used of a
place-name in the
B.C.) and at Mari, Alalah, Drehem, and
sumption that references to Arameans
or to related groups must
always
portray first millennium B.C. background is therefore open
to
strong criticism. The designation Ara/i/bu
(Arab) for semi-
nomads in
the
sixth year
among the allies facing him at the Battle of Qarqar
(853
B.C.) and thereafter is primarily used by the Assyrians in their
rare
references to
rulers in northern
the
Assyrian provincial system precludes this from being taken as
the
background of the Abrahamic narratives.
It has been proposed that Amurru, (H)apiru,
Aramu, and
Arabu are
to be understood as dialectical variants, used at different
periods, of
a term for "semi-nomad."23 Many attempts have been
made to
identify "Abram the Hebrew" (Gen. 14:13, ha'ibri)
with
the Habiru of their fellows; though lately it has been argued
to be
19 E.g., the
founders of second millennium dynasties: Naplanum at Larsa;
Sumu-Abum at
20 M. Liverani, "The Amorites," in Peoples of Old
Testament Times, ed.
Donald J.
Wiseman (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1973), pp. 100-133.
21 H. Cazelles, "The Hebrews," in Peoples of Old
Testament Times, p. 23.
22 A. Malamat, "The Aramaeans," in Peoples of Old Testament Times,
pp.
134-35.
23 Ibid., p. 135.
Abraham the
Hebrew / 129
a
denominative from Eber (Gen. 10:21 ), now equated by
some
with Ebrum king of
ences to the "Hebrew" slaves (Gen.
39:14, 17; Exod.
to
indicate these semi-nomadic groups rather than an identifiable
ethnic
identification.24 However, there seems to be no logical re-
quirement for taking either "Abram the
Hebrew" or "the ancestor
who was
a roving Aramean" (Deut. 26:5, possibly Jacob)
as late
interpolations, in the light of the early and frequent occurrences of
both
terms.
While it may be argued that the
designation "Abraham the
Hebrew"
accords with much of the traditions of the early semi-
nomads or Habiru, there is no certainty as to the meaning of the
word
"Hebrew." Suggestions include "dusty ones" (epru); "provid-
ing/receiving
subsidies" (eperu; 'pr);25
"transferred, without a stable
habitat"
('apr); "confederates" (ebru); "lord" (Hurr.
ewri);26 or,
more
likely, "one who passes through, crosses territory" ('eberu) ,
i.e., a
stranger who has left his country and crossed a frontier or
"one who seeks a new means of existence after having lost his
place
in the
old order of things."27 Though this last agrees with the
Septuagint
interpretation of Genesis 14:13, which describes Abra-
ham as
"the wanderer, the transient, he who passes through," it can
be
questioned whether this is in keeping with the stated life of the
patriarch.
ABRAHAM AND THE PROMISE OF THE LAND
The references to Abraham in the land are
primarily concerned
with the
land as promised to him by divine grant. This does appear
to
place the Genesis narratives outside the limited theme of any
land
which may be shown to have been inherited by semi-nomads
(even though the form or structure of the narrative does show
similarities with royal grants of land, as argued by Weinfeld).28
24 J. Weingreen, "Saul and Habiru," IVth
World Congress of Jewish Studies
(Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies,
1967), 1:63-66.
25 G. Posener,
"Textes Egyptiens,"
in Le probleme des Habiru,
ed. J.
Bottero
(Paris: Imprimerie Nationale,
1954), p. 166.
26 Cazelles, "The Hebrews,"
pp. 4-16; F. F. Bruce, in Archaeology and Old
Testament Study, ed. D. Winton Thomas (
Press, 1967), pp. 12-15.
27 Donald J. Wiseman, The Word
of God for Abraham and Today (
28 M. Weinfeld, "The Covenant of Grant
in the Old Testament and in the
Ancient Near East," Journal of the American Oriental
Society 90 (1970):
184-203; S. E. Loewenstamm, "The
Divine Grants of Land to the Patriarchs,"
Journal of the American Oriental Society 91
(1971): 509-10.
130 / Bibliotheca
Sacra -- April-June 1977
While such
grants might associate tribes with sedentary groups,
Abraham is
concerned not with his "nomadism" but with
his status
as a
"(resident-) alien" (ger), and a
landless one at that (ger
wetosab). But this is when he is in Canaanite Kirjath-Arba bargain-
ing for a burial place for Sarai (Gen. 23:4; cf. 37:1; 35:27).29 All
other
references to his status as a ger refer to his
temporary resi-
dence outside the land granted him by God --
when in
cf. 28: 4 ) .
There is therefore no reason to think that
Abraham considered
himself only
temporary, or merely a transient, or without rights, in
the very
land granted him by his God. In this lay the measure of
his
faith, in claiming de facto and de jure
what had been promised
by God de
jure. Hebrews 11:14, 16 certainly agrees with
this
interpretation, for there too the description of the great faith of this
"resident-alien and exile" (cf. "strangers or
passing travellers,"
land
(Heb. 11:9). This does not mean that he, like any man, was
unaware of
the transitory nature of life or of the temporary status
of life
on earth (cf. Ps. 39:12; 1 Chron. 29:15).
29 Manfred
R. Lehmann's interpretation of this transaction as
Hittite
("Abraham's
Purchase of Machpelah and Hittite Law," Bulletin
of the
American
Schools of Oriental Research 129 [1953]: 15-18) has been ques-
tioned by Gene M. Tucker ("The Legal
Background of Genesis 23," Journal
of
Biblical Literature 85
[1966]: 77-84). However, Tucker's (and van Seters'
[Abraham
in History and Tradition, p. 99]) equation of the
literary structure
of
Genesis 23 with Zweigesprachsurkunde
(following Herbert Petschow,
"Die Neubabylonische Zwiegesprachsurkunde
und Genesis 23," Journal of
Cuneiform
Studies 19 [1965]:
103-20, a late neo-Babylonian form) ignores
the fact
that this type of document occurs also in the earlier (old Babylonian)
period (Bibliotheca
Orientalis 22 [1965]: 171; Cuneiform Texts in
the British
Museum [
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Dr.
Roy Zuck
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: