Abraham

:Abram redirects here. For other uses of Abram, please see Abram (disambiguation).

Historical criticism

Writers have regarded the life of Abraham in various ways. He has been viewed as a chieftain of the Amorites, as the head of a great Semitic migration from Mesopotamia; or, since Ur and Haran were seats of Moon-worship, he has been identified with a moon-god. From the character of the literary evidence and the locale of the stories it has been held that Abraham was originally associated with Hebron. The double name Abram/Abraham has even suggested that two personages have been combined in the Biblical narrative; although this does not explain the change from Sarai to Sarah. But it is important to remember that the narratives are not contemporary, and that the interesting discovery of the name Abi-ramu (Abram) on Babylonian contracts of about 2000 BC does not prove the Abram of the Old Testament to be an historical person, even as the fact that there were Amorites in Babylonia at the same period does not make it certain that the patriarch was one of their number. One remarkable chapter associates Abraham with kings of Elam and the east (Genesis 14). No longer a peaceful sheikh but a warrior with a small army of 318 followers, he overthrows a combination of powerful monarchs who have ravaged the land. The genuineness of the narrative has been strenuously maintained, although upon insufficient grounds.

Related Topics:
Chieftain - Amorites - Semitic - Mesopotamia - Moon - 2000 BC - Elam

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On the assumption that a recollection of some invasion in remote days may have been current, considerable interest is attached to the names. Of these, Amraphel, king of Shinar (i.e., Babylonia, Genesis 10:10), has been in the past identified with Hammurabi, one of the greatest of the Babylonian kings (ca. 2000 BC), and since he claims to have ruled as far west as the Mediterranean Sea, the equation has found considerable favour. Apart from chronological difficulties, the identification of the king and his country is far from certain, and at the most can only be regarded as possible. Arioch, king of Ellasar, has been connected with Eriaku of Larsa — the reading has been questioned — a contemporary with Hammurabi. Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, bears what is doubtless a genuine Elamite name, Kudur-Lagamer. Finally, the name of Tid'al, king of Goiim, may be identical with a certain Tudhulu, the son of Gazza, a warrior, but apparently not a king, who is mentioned in a Babylonian inscription, and has been connected by others with Tudhaliya, a predynastic Hittite king. Goiim (the Hebrew for "gentiles" or "nations") may also stand for Gutim, the Guti being a people who lived to the east of Kurdistan. Nevertheless, there is as yet no monumental evidence for the genuineness of the story, and the most that can be said with certainty is that the author (of whatever date) has derived his names from a trustworthy source, and in representing an invasion of Canaan by Babylonian overlords, has given expression to a possible situation. It may be that only the bare outlines are historical. If it is a historical romance (cf., e.g., the book of Judith), it is possible that a writer who lived in the post-exilic age, and was acquainted with Babylonian history, desired to enhance the greatness of Abraham by exhibiting his military success against the monarchs of the Tigris and Euphrates, the high esteem he enjoyed in Canaan, and the practical character displayed in his brief exchange with Melchizedek. The historical section of the article Tithe provides more evidence on the historicity of the meeting with Melchizedek.

Related Topics:
Amraphel - Shinar - Hammurabi - Mediterranean Sea - Arioch - Ellasar - Eriaku of Larsa - Chedorlaomer - Elamite - Tid'al - Goiim - Tudhulu, the son of Gazza - Tudhaliya - Guti - Kurdistan - Post-exilic - Tigris - Euphrates - Melchizedek - Tithe

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Several minimalist professors of archaeology claim that many stories in the Old Testament, including important chronicles about Abraham, Moses, and others, were actually made up by scribes hired by King Josiah (7th century BC) in order to rationalize monotheistic belief in Yahweh. Mimimalists claim that the neighboring countries that kept many written records, such as Egypt, Assyria, etc., have no writings about the stories of the Bible or its main characters before 650 BC, and vehemently dispute the validity any evidence to the contrary. Such claims are detailed in "Who Were the Early Israelites?" by William G. Dever, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 2003). Another such book by Neil A. Silberman and colleagues is "The Bible Unearthed," (Simon and Schuster, New York, 2001). Of course, the historical annals and tributes to "great kings" are not well-served by preserving great defeats by their enemies (in this case, the Hebrews), and therefore, such records are understandably scanty. Also, many great kings did not long survive great defeats, as it was a sign to their followers that these "great leaders" had lost the favor of their God, gods and goddesses, and the kings were quickly assassinated and replaced.

Related Topics:
Moses - Josiah - 7th century BC - 650 BC

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~