THE ANCESTRAL NARRATIVES

1
The Ancestral
Narratives
GARY A. RENDSBURG

ACCORDING TO THE BIBLICAL TRADITION, the people of ancient

Israel traced their ancestry back to the three patriarchs: Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. The name of the third of these, Jacob, was changed
to Israel (Genesis 32:28-29; 35:10), and thus he becomes the eponymous
ancestor of the people of Israel. Jacob/Israel, in turn, had twelve sons
(Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, etc.), each of whom becomes the epon-
ymous ancestor of one of the twelve Israelite tribes.1

Origins
From the vantage point of modern history and historiography, clearly,
the entire population of a nation does not spring from the offspring of
one man. But such was the biblical tradition, which created an ideal-
ized account of the nation’s origins, and which no doubt played a major
role in the creation of a national consciousness. Since other biblical
sources and archaeological evidence show that the people of Israel
had diverse origins (see chap. 3), the narrative of the Book of Genesis
(along with the rest of the Torah and the Book of Joshua) serves to
unify the entirety of the nation. Regardless of whether one could trace
one’s ancestry back to the patriarchs or not, all of Israel was seen to be
descended from Jacob/Israel, and, in turn, from Isaac and Abraham.2

1
 ANCIENT ISRAEL

The major part of the Book of Genesis (esp. chaps. 12–50), accord-
ingly, narrates the story of a family: the three generations of the patri-
archs and their primary wives. The key individuals, thus, are the
following: Abraham and his primary wife, Sarah; Isaac and his wife
Rebekah; Jacob and his two primary wives, Rachel and Leah. Then
follows the generation of Jacob’s twelve sons and one daughter, with
the most prominent figures of Joseph and Judah, and with Reuben,
Simeon, Levi, Benjamin, and Dinah also playing key roles. The narra-
tive in the Book of Genesis, accordingly, is mainly a family affair.
At a distance of more than 3,000 years, it is difficult enough to find
the people of Israel in the historical documentation (see chaps. 2–3); a
fortiori, it is well-nigh impossible to find a single family or even more so
a single individual within that family in the historical record. As such,
any quest to identify the geographical and chronological horizons of the
ancestral narratives must rely almost solely on the biblical material itself.
Once such has been accorded, we then can seek background material
from the wider ancient Near East. But first a word is due about the
term “ancestral narratives” used within the title of this chapter, which
in the previous editions was called “The Patriarchal Age.”

The Term “Ancestral Narratives”

Throughout much of the 20th century, scholars believed that they could
pinpoint the actual time period when the patriarchs lived, hence the
term “patriarchal age,” with emphasis on the second word. The focus
typically was on the men alone, hence the emphasis on the first word.
Today, scholars are less optimistic about situating the Genesis narra-
tives in a particular historical context dated to a particular epoch, and
there is now a recognition of the gender bias in the word “patriarchal.”
Accordingly, instead of attempting to determine the historical era of
the patriarchs, scholars are much more likely to focus on the narratives
themselves and what they may teach us about ancient Israel. They are
also aware of the prominent role that the female characters play. After
all, the story is about a family, and wives and mothers and daughters
are central to the character and functioning of any family. Hence “The
Ancestral Narratives” instead of “The Patriarchal Age” in the title of
this chapter, even if, by necessity, we will use the latter term occasionally.

2
 THE ANCESTRAL NARRATIVES

LEARN MORE

Matriarchs in a Patriarchal Society

The name of this chapter in previous editions (“The Patriarchal Age”) did not
do justice to the central role of women in the stories about Israel’s ances-
tors. Even a random perusal of the Bible will discover women who are the
antithesis of what we might expect from a patriarchal society. Biblical female
protagonists are not passive, demure, timid, or submissive but rather bold
and assertive, in which they differ significantly from the treatment of women
in contemporaneous Near Eastern literature.
Why the difference, one might ask. It is because these female figures—
although often not Israelites themselves—symbolically represent the newly
emergent nation of Israel. That is, Israel was a small and relatively power-
less nation, struggling to exist on the margins of more powerful, established
empires like Egypt and Assyria. Lacking natural gifts and physical prowess,
the Israelites could only survive through daring and determination. And this
is how the women in the biblical stories are portrayed—from Yael, who killed
the enemy general with a tent peg, to Rahab, whose courage was instru-
mental in Joshua’s entry into Canaan.
Countless other examples are cited in Rendsburg’s engaging article (see
n. 23), which readers are invited to investigate further in the BAS online
library. —ED.

In light of all that is stated here, many scholars view the quest to
establish the putative time and place of Abraham and Sarah and the
ensuing generations to be a “pursuit of the wind.”3 We understand
this scholarly position, but in a book titled Ancient Israel, in which the
reader may expect to find at least some discussion on the topic, we
believe that the quest may be undertaken, even should be undertaken,
albeit cautiously and judiciously.

From Where Did Abraham Come?

Fortunately, the Bible provides sufficient clues for an answer to the
question of Abraham’s origin. In Genesis 11:28, we learn that the
family of Terah (father of Abraham4) originates in the city of Ur of
the Chaldees (Heb. ’ur kaśdim). In verse 31, we read, “And Terah took
Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, the son of his son, and Sarai

3
 ANCIENT ISRAEL

his daughter-in-law, the wife of Abram his son; and they went out with
them from Ur of the Chaldees to go to the land of Canaan, and they
came unto Harran, and they dwelt there.” From this passage we learn
that a journey from Ur of the Chaldees to Canaan would pass through
Harran. Another important clue is offered in Joshua 24:2–3, where we
learn that the ancestors of Israel lived “beyond the Euphrates,” until
God took Abraham from “beyond the Euphrates.”5
These data points allow us to conclude that Abraham came from
the city of Ur in northern Mesopotamia, that is, modern-day Urfa in
southern Turkey. Local Jewish, Christian, and Muslim tradition holds
that the city is the birthplace of Abraham, and there is no reason
to question this belief, since it matches well with the information
provided by the Bible.6 Most likely, this city is the one mentioned as
Ura in cuneiform tablets from Ugarit (14th–13th centuries), where it
is associated with the Hittite realm.7
Many readers will have read elsewhere that Ur of the Chaldees
is the great city of Ur in southern Mesopotamia, located at modern
Tell el-Muqayyar in southern Iraq. There are several problems with
this identification. First, the city flourished during the late third and
early second millennium, which is too early for the date of Abraham.
Second, Ur was a great metropolis of the Sumerians, of whom there
is little or no mention in the Bible. Finally, the geography is all wrong,
because the Ur in southern Iraq is not “beyond the Euphrates” but
rather on the western banks of the river; and a journey from this Ur
to Canaan would not take one via Harran.8
Although the identification of the birthplace of Abraham with Ur
of Sumer in southern Iraq is standard teaching—present in almost all
introductory textbooks of the Bible and the ancient Near East—it is
wrong.9 There is simply nothing to connect Abraham with the city.
So how and why was the identification made? Leonard Woolley, who
excavated the site during the years 1922–1934, uncovered one of the
largest cities of the ancient world, replete with the great ziggurat, tens
of thousands of cuneiform tablets, and the world’s oldest law code, that
of Ur-Nammu, king of Sumer (r. 2047–2030). Woolley simply assumed
that Abraham must have come from only as great a city as Ur of Sumer.10
How, then, does one explain the latter part of the expression “Ur
of the Chaldees”? The Chaldeans were indeed resident in southern

4
 THE ANCESTRAL NARRATIVES

Mesopotamia during the first millennium B.C.E., making the terms

Babylonia and Chaldea virtually interchangeable during the seventh
and sixth centuries B.C.E. (see chs. 5–6). But we know that the
Chaldeans were not native to the land, to which they most likely
had migrated from the northern reaches of Mesopotamia. The best
evidence comes from the Greek historian Xenophon, who mentions
the Chaldeans as a warlike people blocking the way to Armenia
(Anabasis 4.3.4), and as neighbors of the Armenians but at war with
them (Cyropaedia 3.1.34). Xenophon further mentions the Chaldeans
in connection with the Carduchi (i.e., the ancient Kurds) (Anabasis
5.5.17). To this day, the name “Chaldeans” lives on within the Christian
community of the region.
It is further noteworthy that the names of Terah’s father (Nahor)
and grandfather (Serug) are the names of cities in the general region
of modern Urfa. While the precise location in upper Mesopotamia of
Naḫur as known from Akkadian sources remains unknown, Serug—
well known from later Syriac sources and called Suruç in modern
Turkish—lies 29 miles (46 km) southwest of Urfa. In sum, everything
points to a northern Mesopotamian location for Ur of the Chaldees.
The Bible refers to this region generally as Aram Naharaim,
meaning “Aram of the Two Rivers” (Genesis 24:10, etc.). The biblical
tradition of “A wandering Aramean was my father” (Deuteronomy
26:5)—referencing either Abraham or Jacob in the terse retelling of
Israel’s history—similarly situates the ancestral origins in northern
Mesopotamia.
Nevertheless, there most likely is a connection between the great
city of Ur of Sumer in the south and Ur of the Chaldees in the north.
While we have no direct evidence to substantiate the claim, presum-
ably northern Ur was established as a colony of the metropolis in
the south. This would explain the expression ’ur kaśdim, “Ur of the
Chaldees.” The great Ur required no further appellation, but one of its
outposts did. In a similar manner, we must specify “London, Ontario”
when referring to the New World outpost of the great city of England.

When Did Abraham Live?

Chronology of Abraham’s (purported) life is another thorny question.
Scholars have proposed a range of about seven centuries in which to

5
 ANCIENT ISRAEL

situate the first patriarch: anywhere from c. 2100 to c. 1400, with the
more recent date being the one best supported by the evidence.
Genesis 14 tells a story of the war between four invading kings
from the north and east and the local five kings of the Dead Sea
region (including those of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah).
The four invading kings are Amraphel of Shinar, Arioch of Ellasar,
Chedorlaomer of Elam, and Tidal of Goiim. One would hope that
at least one of these royal figures could be identified in the histor-
ical documentation from Mesopotamian sources, but such is not the
case. Of the place names, Shinar most likely is the Hebrew version
of Sumer; Elam is to the east of the Tigris River, in modern-day Iran;
while Ellasar and Goiim are unknown. But we know of no king of
Sumer or southern Mesopotamia by the name of Amraphel nor a king
of Elam by the name of Chedorlaomer. The name Tidal, which is the
Semitic way of writing the Hittite royal name Tudḫalia, was borne by
four individual kings, who reigned during the years 1430–1230. Oddly,
Tidal in the Bible is not associated with the Hittites but the enigmatic
term Goiim (Hebrew goyim), which means simply “nations”. Moreover,
we have no record of any invasion by any of the Tudḫalias as far distant
as southern Canaan, in the region of the Dead Sea. So while Genesis
14 may have some potential in the quest to situate Abraham chron-
ologically, in the end, there is nothing within the chapter that allows
one to pin down a specific date.
In similar fashion, we have no knowledge of any of the local kings
mentioned in the Book of Genesis. This includes the five defending
kings in Genesis 14; Melchizedek king of Salem (also Genesis 14);
Abimelech king of Gerar (Genesis 20 and 26); Hamor king of Shechem
(Genesis 34); and the long list of Edomite kings (Genesis 36). And
while two pharaohs are mentioned in Genesis—one contemporary
with Abraham (Genesis 12) and one with Joseph (Genesis 39–50)—
only the title “pharaoh” or the phrase “king of Egypt” is used, with no
name given in either instance.11 One potential clue is the phrase “land
of Ra’ameses” (Genesis 47:11) as the designation for the eastern Delta,
a term which could have arisen only with the reigns of the first two
pharaohs bearing that name: Ramesses I (r. 1301–1300) and Ramesses
II (r. 1290–1224)—unless the reference is an anachronism.

6
 THE ANCESTRAL NARRATIVES

Years vs. Genealogies

In reaching back to as early as 2100 B.C.E., or even 1800, scholars have
relied too heavily on the years provided in the Bible. The ages of the
patriarchs presented in the Bible are clearly exaggerated and appar-
ently evoke some sort of numerical symbolism:12
Abraham: 175 = 52 × 7 (Genesis 25:7)
Isaac: 180 = 62 × 5 (Genesis 35:28)
Jacob: 147 = 72 × 3 (Genesis 47:28)
Although the significance of these numbers eludes us, they presum-
ably meant something to the author and to at least the informed
portion of his reading audience. To be sure, these figures and others
like them (e.g., Abraham was 100 years old at the birth of Isaac
[Genesis 21:5]) behoove the modern reader not to rely on them as a
chronological guide.
A much better guide is the approximate span of time that can be
calculated based on the genealogies in the Bible.13 Note, for example,
the following lineage in Exodus 6:16–20: Abraham – Isaac – Jacob –
Levi – Kohath – Amram – Moses. The date and nature of the Exodus
are still debated, but almost all scholars agree that c. 1200 offers the
most likely background of the biblical account. Accepting 1200 and
estimating 30 years per generation,14 we can calculate back in the
following manner (using 1230 for Moses, since he already was older at
the time of the Exodus):
1230: Moses 1350: Jacob
1260: Amram 1380: Isaac
1290: Kohath 1410: Abraham
1320: Levi
Dating Abraham to c. 1400 places “the patriarchal age” in the Late
Bronze Age (c. 1550–c. 1150).15

A Possible Middle Bronze Age Setting

Those who date “the patriarchal age” to the Middle Bronze Age (c.
2000–c. 1550), rely on the years expressed in the Bible, not on the gene-
alogies. Their approach must postulate that many generations have
been omitted from the biblical account and/or have been telescoped

7
 ANCIENT ISRAEL

in the genealogies. Both ancient Near Eastern documentation and

modern Bedouin cultural parallels, however, inform us that the gene-
alogies are a much more accurate guide to a relative chronology than
the time spans calculated by given years. For example, Nabonidus king
of Babylon (r. 556–539) asserts that Naram-Sin, king of Akkad (r. c. 2254
–c. 2218), ruled 3200 years before his time,16 when we know that the
distance separating the two rulers is c. 1,700 years. On the contempo-
rary side, one may observe very accurate genealogical reckoning among
the Bedouin, reaching back seven or even ten generations.17
Those who look to the Middle Bronze Age for the background
of the Genesis narrative and/or Israel’s origins often point to cultural
and linguistic parallels forthcoming from Mari, a major city on the
Euphrates in eastern Syria that flourished between c. 1850 and 1750.18
One Mari text refers to the burial of precious metal belonging to the
gods, which may remind us of Jacob burying jewelry near Shechem
(Genesis 35:4). And the Akkadian word merḫ u(m), “high official, royal
agent,” attested in the Mari documents, is cognate to Hebrew mere‘,
which describes the position held by Ahuzzath, adviser to Abimelech
king of Gerar (Genesis 26:26). In general, one observes the coex-
istence of urbanites (at Mari itself) and pastoralists (on the steppe
land), a setting which calls to mind the patriarchs with their flocks
near urban centers.19
While these and other parallels are intriguing, dating “the patri-
archal age” to the Middle Bronze Age still faces the difficulty of the
internal biblical data, especially the genealogical information. A reason-
able way to resolve the issue is to assume that the social patterns,
cultural markers, and linguistic items reflected in the Mari documents
persisted in the general region of northern Mesopotamia (and else-
where) into the Late Bronze Age (and perhaps later still).

The Late Bronze Age Setting

While placing Abraham in northern Mesopotamia (the general region
of modern-day south-central Turkey) in c. 1400 B.C.E., we cannot
make claims about a historical personage per se, for there is no extra-
biblical documentation for said person, his wife, and others in his
circle. Instead, we should understand Abraham as a figure—perhaps
historical, perhaps legendary—representing for the Israelites the

8
 THE ANCESTRAL NARRATIVES

beginnings of their religious, cultural, and national identity.20 And

if not Abraham, then certainly Jacob, whose name was changed to
Israel, in his role as eponymous ancestor. Furthermore, the ancestral
narratives are not historical documents but rather literary creations
told in the most vivid manner.21
We are not at a dead end, though. Once we have properly under-
stood the geographical and chronological setting of the Genesis
narratives, we are in a position to say more about the social, legal, and
cultural norms reflected therein. Two Late Bronze Age sites are partic-
ularly helpful: Ugarit and Nuzi. Ugarit flourished in northern coastal
Syria (reflecting the world of greater Canaan) between 1400 and 1200.
The most relevant material from the site are two literary works: the
Epic of Kirta and the Epic of Aqhat (the former a legendary king,
the latter the son of the legendary king Danʾel), with significant paral-
lels to the Genesis narratives.22 Nuzi, in modern-day northern Iraq
(reflecting Hurrian culture), has yielded approximately 6,000 cunei-
form tablets with documentary texts dated to the 14th century B.C.E.
The documents detail the legal, social, and economic life of the city,
thus providing parallels to customs reflected in the Book of Genesis.

Ugaritic Parallels
The Patriarchal narratives of the Book of Genesis are dominated by
two literary motifs: the childless hero with a barren woman; and the
younger son. The first motif occurs with Abraham and Sarah (much
of chaps. 15–21), Isaac and Rebekah (25:21), and Rachel (29:31; 30:22).
Later in the Bible, the barren woman motif occurs with the wife of
Manoah (Judges 13) and with Hannah (1 Samuel 1). The younger son
motif appears in Genesis through setting aside primogeniture in each
successive generation, so that the younger Isaac supersedes the first-
born Ishmael, Jacob supersedes Esau, Joseph supersedes his brothers,
Perez supersedes Zerah, and Ephraim supersedes Manasseh. This
motif is perhaps foreshadowed with God’s favoring Abel over his
elder brother Cain (Genesis 4) and is further reflected in the Book
of Exodus, where Moses becomes the leader of the Israelites, with
the firstborn Aaron holding second position (see Exodus 7:7). The
motif surfaces yet again in the case of David, whose last-born status
is explicitly noted (1 Samuel 16:1–13), and then once more in the next

9
 ANCIENT ISRAEL

generation, with Solomon (1 Kings 1–2).

These two motifs are part of the epic tradition of ancient Canaan,
as can be observed in Ugaritic literature. The theme of the childless
hero dominates the Epic of Aqhat, with the key couplet repeated
throughout, with reference to Danʾel: “Who has no son like his
brothers, and (no) offspring like his kinsmen” (CAT 1.17 I 18–19; with
parallels at I 42–43, II 14–15).
At the opening of the Epic of Kirta, the hero loses all of his
children, while his wife, Ḥuray, has departed (was taken from Kirta).
The hero’s desire, accordingly, is for new offspring (CAT 1.14 II 4–5)
and for his wife to be restored to him (CAT 1.14 III 38–40). As the
story continues, we learn of the return of Ḥuray to Kirta and the subse-
quent birth of seven sons and an eighth child, a daughter (CAT 1.15
II–III 25). Strikingly, either the god El or the hero Kirta (more likely
the former) declares “the youngest of them I make to be firstborn”
(CAT 1.15 III 16).
If all of this sounds familiar, it is because—as we have just seen—
the same motifs occur in Genesis. The childless heroes Danʾel and
Kirta find their echoes in Abraham and Isaac. And the raising of
the youngest to firstborn status resonates in the stories of Isaac,
Jacob, Joseph, Perez, and Ephraim. Interestingly, while Ugaritic lore
focuses on the male childless heroes, the Bible stories highlight the
female protagonists. In all five biblical cases, the stories are crafted
with the reader’s attention drawn to the barren woman: Sarah,
Rebekah, Rachel, the wife of Manoah, and Hannah. This shift in
focus bespeaks Israel’s desire to identify with the lowly. Israel saw
itself not as a heroic male or a firstborn son but rather as a barren
woman and/or as a younger or youngest son without an inherited
birthright. Israel is not Egypt or Assyria or Babylonia—nations of
old with abundant water, natural resources, political clout, military
might, and more—but rather a new nation, a younger nation, which
flourishes only through a combination of pluck and divine interven-
tion, as Yahweh guides and protects her.23
We observed above that a portion of the Kirta Epic is devoted
to the hero’s need to recover his wife, Ḥuray, for she had been taken
into the foreign palace of King Pebel of Udum (CAT 1.14 III 38–40,
VI 22–25). This motif resonates in the Book of Genesis: Abraham

10
 THE ANCESTRAL NARRATIVES

needs to reclaim Sarah from two foreign palaces, that of the Pharaoh
(Genesis 12) and that of Abimelech king of Gerar (Genesis 20);
while Isaac must do the same with Rebekah, as she, too, is taken by
Abimelech king of Gerar (Genesis 26). The Dinah episode (Genesis
34) provides a variation on this theme: Dinah is the daughter rather
than the wife of the hero, but the need to rescue her from a foreign
palace animates the story.
In the two cases of Sarah and Rebekah, no military action was
necessary, unlike in the Dinah episode. This latter story parallels Kirta’s
need to amass an army and to march on Udum in order to reclaim
his wife. Unfortunately, this part of the text did not survive, but it
appears that in the end King Pebel acquiesced to Kirta’s demand for
the return of his wife Ḥuray. To broaden our horizon further still, all
these tales share the major theme of the Iliad, where Helene of Troy,
the abducted wife of King Menelaos of Sparta, is reclaimed through
what is known as the Trojan War.24

Nuzi Parallels
As we have seen, the Ugaritic texts are important for the literary paral-
lels to the ancestral narratives. By contrast, the importance of the Nuzi
documents lies in their portrayal of the legal, social, and economic life
of the Late Bronze Age. Although we have many law collections from
the ancient Near East (most famously, Hammurabi’s Code),25 the Nuzi
documents—ranging from marriage contracts to court records to real
estate transactions—constitute the single most important window into
“real life” responses to “real life” conditions.26
One legal text among the Nuzi documents is particularly relevant
to two different aspects of the Genesis narrative.27 The tablet informs
us that a man named Shurihil adopts a younger man named Shennima
as his son and rightful heir, and that Shennima must serve Shurihil
for all the days of his life—unless, however, Shurihil fathers a natural-
born son, who then would become chief heir, with Shennima reduced
to secondary position. In a case such as this, presumably Shennima
came from a less well-to-do family, so that his servitude to Shurihil
was a form of investment: he would serve the many years and eventu-
ally would inherit from Shurihil.
Although the Bible does not provide us with the legal underpinnings

11
 ANCIENT ISRAEL

of the relationship between Abraham and his servant Eliezer, we recon-

struct a situation parallel to the one that underlies the Nuzi document.
We know from Genesis 15:2–3 that Eliezer is both chief servant to
Abraham and his heir. And while the biblical account does not refer to
adoption (here or elsewhere), this remains the best possible explana-
tion of the legal relationship between the two individuals. Without a
natural-born son, one must assume that Abraham had adopted Eliezer
as his son, for how else could he refer to him as his heir? As the story
continues, however, God informs Abraham that it is not Eliezer who
will inherit, but rather a biological son to be born (v. 4). This follows
the legal custom attested at Nuzi, whereby a natural-born son outranks
the adopted son.28
The second half of the same cuneiform tablet provides infor-
mation about the marriage of Shennima to a woman named Kelim-
ninu. The contract includes the following stipulation: “If Kelim-ninu
bears (children), Shennima shall not take another wife. But if Kelim-
ninu does not bear, Kelim-ninu shall take a Lullu-woman as wife for
Shennima.”29 The final clause is meant to assure that Shennima can
father an heir, if his wife is unable to bear a child. Note that it is the
responsibility of the wife to supply her husband with a second wife,
here called a “Lullu-woman,” meaning a servant woman.30
The scenario envisioned in this marriage contract is played out
in the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar. When Sarah is unable
to conceive, she takes the first step and presents Hagar to Abraham
(Genesis 16:1–2)—apparently because it was her legal responsibility to
do so, as in the Nuzi document. As the story unfolds, Hagar indeed
bears a child, Ishmael (16:15), though in the ensuing chapters the focus
returns to Sarah, with the promise by God to Abraham that Sarah also
will bear a child (17–18).
In sum, a single Nuzi document provides information relevant to
the two solutions of childlessness: a man either may adopt a son or may
take a second wife. Both avenues are realized in the Abraham story,
with Eliezer serving as Abraham’s adopted son (Genesis 15:2–3), and
with Hagar serving as Abraham’s second wife (Genesis 16:3).

12
 THE ANCESTRAL NARRATIVES

LEARN MORE

Who Wrote Down the Stories of the

Patriarchs and When?
The patriarchal characters and stories in Genesis are some of the most
compelling in the entire Bible, yet are among the most difficult to identify
historically or archaeologically. But even though no material or textual
evidence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Joseph has ever been found, many
early-20th century archaeologists, led by William F. Albright, the pioneer of
American “biblical archaeology,” were convinced that material and textual
discoveries proved that the patriarchs were best understood and had in fact
lived during the first half of the second millennium B.C.E. Yet, as historian and
textual scholar Maynard Maidman makes clear in his insightful BAR article
“Abraham, Isaac & Jacob Meet Newton, Darwin & Wellhausen” (May/June
2006), the Albrightian formulation of the patriarchal period had been undone
by a kind of “archaeology” of the biblical text undertaken by German biblical
scholar Julius Wellhausen over a half-century earlier.
Wellhausen’s so-called “documentary hypothesis,” brilliantly summarized and
defended by biblical scholar Richard Elliot Friedman in his Bible Review article
“Taking the Biblical Text Apart” (Fall 2005), proposed that the patriarchal stories
in Genesis (along with the rest of the books of the Torah, or the Five Books
of Moses) consisted basically of four separate textual strands, or schools of
authors, who wrote at different times and in different contexts during the
Israelite monarchy of the first half of the first millennium B.C.E. (i.e., the Iron
Age), or shortly thereafter. These four authorial strands, which may also include
much earlier traditions, are identified by scholars as the J (or Jahwist) source,
the E (or Elohist) source, the P (or Priestly) source, and the D (or Deuteronomist)
source, all of which give their own spin to the patriarchal narratives. As such,
the written stories of the patriarchs—wherever and whenever the oral traditions
of Israel’s ancestors originated—reflect primarily the Iron Age Israelite context,
in which they were first compiled and edited. —HERSHEL SHANKS

Because the Nuzi archive is unique in providing documentation

about family law in “real life” situations, one cannot know whether
the legal system reflected there was operative also in earlier and/or
later times and whether it was common amongst other peoples or
only the Hurrians of northern Mesopotamia.31 Regardless, it is rather

13
 ANCIENT ISRAEL

striking that the ancestral narratives include episodes that come to

life against the backdrop of legal practices from the Hurrian realm
of the 14th century B.C.E.32
Does all of this mean that Abraham and Sarah are to be dated to this
time period? Northern Mesopotamia in c. 1400 does, indeed, provide
the best historical and geographical context for the ancestral narra-
tives. Yet all we can do is to understand Abraham as a figure—perhaps
historical, perhaps legendary—who represented for the Israelites the
beginnings of their religious, cultural, and national identity.

When Were the Ancestral Narratives Written?

Notwithstanding all that has been said so far, the ancestral narratives
remain first and foremost literature. It is apposite to ask, accordingly,
when might these stories have coalesced into the form presented in
the Book of Genesis? As is often the case regarding the earlier biblical
material, there is no consensus. From a linguistic standpoint, there
can be no doubt that the ancestral narratives date to the time of
the monarchy (c. 1000–586), during the heyday of Standard Biblical
Hebrew, that is, before the Exile (586–538) and the subsequent rise of
Late Biblical Hebrew during the Persian period (fifth–fourth centu-
ries). The only question is: are we able to determine a time for the
creation of the ancestral narratives that is more specific than the four-
century time span noted above (c. 1000–586)? Our answer is yes, with
an eye to the tenth century B.C.E.
It was during this period that the twelve tribes coalesced into a
single United Monarchy under David and Solomon (see chap. 4). The
new polity required a national narrative to unite the tribes and thus
were born the ancestral narratives. This will explain why many of the
literary themes and motifs in Genesis reappear in the Book of Samuel
and why they reflect the reality of the tenth century.
For the former observation, note that both Rachel and Michal use
teraphim to deceive their fathers in order to protect their husbands
(Genesis 31; 1 Samuel 19); that a female character named Tamar
is abused by a male lead, only to be vindicated at a sheep-shearing
festival (Genesis 38; 2 Samuel 13); that the wife of Judah is called bat šua‘,
“daughter of Shua” (Genesis 38:12), while the most famous of David’s
wives is Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11–12), called bat šua‘ in 1 Chronicles 3:5;

14
 THE ANCESTRAL NARRATIVES

and, finally, that both Reuben and Absalom sleep with their fathers’
concubine(s) (Genesis 35:22; 2 Samuel 16:22). These parallels are too
close and too many to be coincidental.33
As for the reflections of the tenth century, note that God promises
Abraham, “and kings will come-forth from you” (Genesis 17:6), and
then again, regarding Sarah, “kings of peoples will be from her”
(Genesis 17:16), in which we may see reflections of the new reality of
monarchy in the tenth century. More specifically, monarchy is associ-
ated with Judah: “And the staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the
ruler from between his legs, until tribute comes to him, and his is the
obedience of peoples” (Genesis 49:10), reflecting the tribal affiliation
of David and Solomon. Note also that the boundaries of the land of
Canaan promised to Abraham in Genesis 15:18 (“this land, from the
river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates River”) accord with
the description of Solomon’s realm (1 Kings 5:1). Finally, it is signifi-
cant that Abraham’s tithing to Melchizedek king of Salem (= Jerusalem)
and priest to El Elyon (Genesis 14:20) adumbrates the centrality of
Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 6–8). Once again, the paral-
lels cannot be coincidental, but must bear greater significance.34
One may conclude that the ancestral narratives were the product
of the tenth century B.C.E.35 As such, we may liken the Book of
Genesis to other literary productions which refract the past through
the present and the present through the past. Shakespeare’s Histories,
for example, describe the lives of earlier monarchs while reflecting atti-
tudes and conditions during the reign of Elizabeth I; Arthur Miller’s
The Crucible narrates the Salem witch trials of the 1690s but simulta-
neously signals the McCarthyism of the 1950s. In the same way, the
ancestral narratives likely contain both a kernel of history and epic or
legendary elements interleaved by the brilliant literati responsible for
the canonical version.
The further back one goes in the history of ancient Israel, the
harder it becomes to reconstruct that history. Notwithstanding that
underlying reality, this chapter has attempted to present a plausible
scenario for the background of Abraham and his circle and for the
stories told about them.

15
 Notes
1. The Ancestral Narratives
1 With two tweaks, though: First, Levi is not 6 This was commonly accepted in 19th-
a proper tribe, but rather is distinguished for century biblical scholarship; see, for example,
sacerdotal service. Second, Joseph subdivides George Bush, Notes Critical and Practical on the
into two tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, Book of Genesis (New York: Gould, Newman &
based on the names of his two sons. Saxton, 1839), 189, whose author is distantly
related to the presidential family of the same
2 The listing of the three patriarchs as “Abra-
name. For a lively discourse on the scholar’s
ham, Isaac, and Jacob” occurs 20 times in the
life, see Shalom Goldman, God’s Sacred Tongue:
Bible, mostly in the Torah (Genesis 50:24
Hebrew and the American Imagination (Chapel
through Deuteronomy 34:4), with two addi-
Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2004),
tional passages in 2 Kings 13:23 and Jeremiah
199 – 207, 314 – 15.
33:26. See also Psalm 105:9 – 10. The listing of
the three patriarchs as “Abraham, Isaac, and 7 See Cyrus H. Gordon, “Abraham and the
Israel” occurs in Exodus 32:13; 1 Kings 18:36; 1 Merchants of Ura,” JNES 17 (1958), 28 – 31;
Chronicles 29:18; and 2 Chronicles 30:6. and Gordon, “Where Is Abraham’s Ur?” BAR,
June 1977, 20 – 21, 52.
3 To quote the phrase used seven times in the
Book of Qohelet (or Ecclesiastes): 1:14; 2:11; 8 The location of Harran in southern Turkey,
2:17; 2:26; 4:4; 4:6; 6:9. just north of the Syrian border, is accepted by
all. The city name is retained until the present
4 At this point in the narrative, the first
day.
patriarch is still called Abram. His name is
changed to Abraham in Genesis 17:5 (see 9 Even the Vatican erred when Pope John
also Nehemiah 9:7). To avoid confusion, we Paul II visited Ur in southern Iraq, believing it
use the latter name throughout this chapter, to be the birthplace of Abraham. See Hershel
unless quoting a biblical passage in which the Shanks, “Abraham’s Ur—Is the Pope Going to
former name occurs. the Wrong Place?” BAR, March/April 2000,
62 – 63.
5 The Hebrew word ‘eber, “beyond,” may
serve as the source of the word ‘ibri, “Hebrew,” 10 However, the identification was made
which thus would mean (in the plural) “those earlier, beginning with Henry C. Rawlinson,
who came from beyond” (the River Euphra- “Biblical Geography,” The Athenaeum, no. 1799
tes), though various other etymologies have (April 19, 1862), 529 – 31.
been proposed. The origins of the names
11 The same is true also with any attempt to
of peoples and countries often are lost in
date the Slavery and the Exodus in the Book
the mists of time, as in the cases of France,
of Exodus 1 – 2; 3 – 15; see further ch. 2.
España (Spain), Sverige (Sweden), etc. Even
when we know the source, sometimes the 12 Nahum M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis
connection is very tenuous: America—simply (New York: Schocken, 1966), 83 – 84.
because the cartographer Martin Waldsee- 13 See Gary A. Rendsburg, “The Internal
müller produced a world map, in 1507, on Consistency and Historical Reliability of
which he named the new continent using the the Biblical Genealogies,” VT 40 (1990),
Latin feminine form of Amerigo Vespucci’s 185 – 206; and Rendsburg, “The Date of the
first name; Canada—from the St. Lawrence Exodus and the Conquest/Settlement: The
Iroquoian word kanata, “settlement,” first Case for the 1100s,” VT 42 (1992), 510 – 27.
recorded in a European language by Jacques
Cartier in 1545; California—used by Spanish 14 Based on the research of David P. Henige,
explorers due to the appearance of the name The Chronology of Oral Tradition: The Quest for
in a popular 16th-century novel for a distant a Chimera (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974),
island (which in turn probably is based on the 121 – 44, much of which is summarized in
word caliph). Henige, “Generation-counting and Late

340
 N OT E S TO PAG E S 7 – 1 2

New Kingdom Chronology,” JEA 67 (1981), 23 See Gary A. Rendsburg, “Unlikely Heroes:
182 – 84. Women as Israel,” BR, February 2003, 16,
18 – 21, 23, 52 – 53.
15 Other biblical lineages cohere with this
overall picture; see Rendsburg, “The Internal 24 These interconnections and many oth-
Consistency” (see n. 13), 186 – 89 (esp. the sum- ers were posited more than 60 years ago
mary chart and family trees on 189). by Cyrus H. Gordon, in his path-breaking
article “Homer and Bible: The Origin and
16 Nabonidus, Sippar Cylinder Inscription,
Character of East Mediterranean Literature,”
col. 2, line 58, for which see Paul-Alain Beau-
Hebrew Union College Annual 26 (1955), 43 – 108;
lieu, “The Sippar Cylinder of Nabonidus,” in
reprinted by Ventnor Publishers in 1967. See
COS 2: 312.
also Gordon, The Common Background of Greek
17 On reflections of modern Bedouin culture and Hebrew Civilizations (New York: W.W.
in the Bible, see Clinton Bailey, “How Desert Norton, 1965).
Culture Helps Us Understand the Bible,” BR,
25 See Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from
August 1991, 14 – 21, 38; and Bailey, Bedouin
Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, Writings from
Culture in the Bible (New Haven: Yale Univ.
the Ancient World, 6 (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
Press, 2018), with genealogies discussed on
1995).
169 – 72.
26 For general introduction and a sampling
18 See Jack M. Sasson, “About ‘Mari and
of documents, see Maynard P. Maidman,
the Bible’,” RA 92 (1998), 97 – 123; Daniel
Nuzi Texts and Their Uses as Historical Evidence,
E. Fleming, “Mari and the Possibilities of
Writings from the Ancient World, 18 (Atlanta:
Biblical Memory,” RA 92 (1998), 41 – 78; and
SBL, 2010).
Abraham Malamat, Mari and the Bible, Stud-
ies in the History and Culture of the Ancient 27 The official designation of this text is HSS
Near East, 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1998). V 67 = Edward Chiera, Texts of Varied Contents,
Harvard Semitic Studies, 5 = Excavations at
19 See Genesis 33:18 – 19, where Jacob pur-
Nuzi, 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press,
chases land from the local people of Shechem
1931), text no. 67 (plates lxi – lxiii). For a com-
on which he pitched his tent (and presumably
plete transcription and translation, see E.A.
pastured his flocks).
Speiser, “New Kirkuk Documents Relating to
20 King Arthur is similarly a historical Family Law,” Annual of the American Schools
figure for some and a purely legendary char- of Oriental Research 10 (1928 – 1929), 31 – 33.
acter for others. For the Welsh, he serves as See also Theophile J. Meek, “Mesopotamian
a “symbol of national renewal and linguistic Legal Documents,” in ANET, 220.
revival” (Geraint Evans, “Modernist Arthur:
28 Though there may be a difference in the
The Welsh Revival,” in H. Fulton, ed., A
two systems: in the Nuzi legal custom, the
Companion to Arthurian Literature, Blackwell
adopted son is reduced to second position,
Companions to Literature and Culture, 58
so that he still would inherit something;
[Chichester: Blackwell, 2012], 447).
while Genesis 15:4 implies that Eliezer would
21 See Gary A. Rendsburg, How the Bible Is inherit naught.
Written (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2019),
29 See Jonathan Paradise, “Marriage Con-
568 – 92, for a literary analysis of the story
tracts of Free Persons at Nuzi,” JCOS Online
of Jacob and Rachel meeting at the well and
39 (1987), 28 – 29.
of their subsequent marriage as narrated in
Genesis 29. 30 All things being equal, if a couple was
unable to produce a child, the ancients
22 For detailed analyses of these two epics,
assumed that the problem lay with the
with comparisons to the biblical material,
woman; hence her responsibility to act in
see Simon B. Parker, The Pre-Biblical Narrative
order to ensure the continuation of the fam-
Tradition, SBL Resources for Biblical Study, 24
ily lineage. The term “Lullu” derives from the
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).
term “Lullubi,” a mountainous area to the east
of Nuzi, in the general vicinity of modern-day
northeastern Iraq / northwestern Iran. Appar-

341
 N OT E S TO PAG E S 1 3 – 2 1

ently, women from this region were used as major scholars of the documents, such as E.
servants, hence the origin of the term. A. Speiser and Cyrus H. Gordon, were wont
to see numerous parallels with the Genesis
31 For some potential parallels, see John Van
narratives. Scholars are less inclined to do so
Seters, “The Problem of Childlessness in Near
today, but the relevance of HSS V 67 to the
Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel,” JBL
Book of Genesis has stood the test of time.
87.4 (1968), 401 – 408, though to my mind the
Nuzi document HSS V 67 remains the most 33 For further discussion, see Edward L.
informative vis-à-vis Genesis 15 – 16. Greenstein, “The Formation of the Biblical
Narrative Corpus,” AJS Review 15.2 (1990),
32 For a general survey, see Barry L. Eichler,
151 – 78, esp. 165 – 67.
“Nuzi and the Bible: A Retrospective,” in
H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M.T. Roth, 34 For a more developed statement, see
eds., Dumu-e2-dub-ba-a: Studies in Honor of Rendsburg, How the Bible Is Written (see n.
Åke W. Sjöberg (Philadelphia: Samuel Noah 21), 443 – 67.
Kramer Fund, University Museum, 1989),
35 The approach taken here views the
107 – 19. See also M.J. Selman, “Comparative
ancestral narratives as a unified literary con-
Customs and the Patriarchal Age,” in A.R.
struct. Most scholars subdivide the Book of
Millard and D.J. Wiseman, eds., Essays on the
Genesis into three separate sources: Yahwist
Patriarchal Narratives (Leicester: Inter-Varsity
(J), Elohist (E), and Priestly (P), of varying
Press, 1980 / Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
dates, though J is typically dated to the tenth
1983), 91 – 139. As both authors note, in the
century B.C.E. (see the Learn More box).
early years of Nuzi studies (1920s and 1930s),

2. Egypt and the Exodus

1 Much of what we present herein is based Rise of the Hyksos: Egypt and the Levant from the
on our earlier treatments: Manfred Bietak, Middle Kingdom to the Early Second Intermediate
“On the Historicity of the Exodus: What Period (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2015).
Egyptology Today Can Contribute to Assess-
3 Percy E. Newberry, Beni Hasan, Part I,
ing the Sojourn in Egypt,” in Thomas E. Levy,
Archaeological Survey of Egypt 1 (London:
Thomas Schneider, and William H.C. Propp,
Egypt Exploration Fund, 1893), 69, pl. XXX.
eds., Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspec-
See more recently: Susan Cohen, “Interpre-
tive: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience
tative Uses and Abuses of the Beni Hasan
(Cham: Springer, 2015), 17 – 36; and Gary A.
Tomb Painting,” JNES 74 (2015), 19 – 38, esp.
Rendsburg, “The Early History of Israel,” in
36; Janice Kamrin, The Cosmos of Khnumhotep
Gordon D. Young, Mark W. Chavalas, and
II at Beni Hasan (London: Kegan Paul, 1999
Richard E. Averbeck, eds., Crossing Boundaries
/ London: Routledge, 2016), 93 – 96; and
and Linking Horizons: Studies in Honor of Michael
Mourad, Rise of the Hyksos (see n. 2), 86 – 90.
C. Astour on His 80th Birthday (Bethesda, MD:
CDL Press, 1997), 433 – 53. 4 See also the meaning “lineage, ancestor(s),”
etc., in Ugaritic, Safaitic, etc. For the Egyptian
2 See in general Donald B. Redford, Egypt,
evidence, see Adolf Erman, Wörterbuch der
Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princ-
Aegyptischen Sprache, vol. 1 (Berlin: Akademie-
eton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1992). This book
Verlag, 1926), 167. For a discussion on the
contains much valuable information on the
problematics of this term, see Thomas
interconnections between Egypt and Canaan,
Schneider, Ausländer in Ägypten während des
but the present authors part company with
Mittleren Reiches und der Hyksoszeit, Teil 2: Die
Redford on issues relating to the Exodus and
Ausländische Bevölkerung, Ägypten und Altes
associated topics discussed in the present
Testament 42 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
chapter. See also Thomas Schneider, “For-
2003), 5 – 7; and Mourad, Rise of the Hyksos
eigners in Egypt: Archaeological Evidence
(see n. 2), 14 nn. 14 – 15.
and Cultural Context,” in Willeke Wendrich,
ed., Egyptian Archaeology, Blackwell Studies 5 See the classic treatment by J. M. A. Janssen,
in Global Archaeology (Oxford: Blackwell, “On the Ideal Lifetime of the Egyptians,”
2010), 143 – 63; and Anna-Latifa Mourad, The

342
 ANCIENT
ISRAEL
From Abraham to the
Roman Destruction
of the Temple
FOURTH EDITION

E D I T E D BY
JOHN MERRILL AND
HERSHEL SHANKS

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY

WASHINGTON, DC
 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Ancient Israel: from Abraham to the Roman destruction of the Temple/

edited by John Merrill and Hershel Shanks.—4th ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-935335-41-2 (hardcover)—ISBN 978-1-935335-40-5 (paperback)
1. Jews—History—To 70 A.D. I. Shanks, Hershel.
DS121.A53 2020
933—dc22 2010027476

© 2021 by the Biblical Archaeology Society

4710 41st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20016

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions

Printed in the United States of America

Design by AURAS Design

ISBN 978-1-935335-41-2 (hardcover)
ISBN 978-1-935335-40-5 (paperback)

ON THE COVER: A section of the original wall surrounding the City of David.
 This Fourth Edition of Ancient Israel is dedicated
to the memory of Hershel Shanks.
Hershel was a person of penetrating intellect
who made the somewhat arcane field of biblical
archaeology accessible to legions of non-specialist
readers. This present volume expands on the solid
foundation that Hershel and his many expert
contributors built upon through the last three editions.
It is said that immortality resides in the succession of
human memories, with the insights gained in one
lifetime being passed on to the generations that follow.
Ancient Israel is part of his worthy legacy.
Contents
xxi Introduction
CHAPTER ONE
1 The Ancestral Narratives
Gary A. Rendsburg

CHAPTER TWO
17 Egypt and the Exodus
Manfred Bietak and Gary A. Rendsburg

CHAPTER THREE
59 The Emergence of Israel in the Land of Canaan
Gary A. Rendsburg

CHAPTER FOUR
93 The Early Monarchy: Saul, David, and Solomon
André Lemaire

CHAPTER FIVE
133 Israel and Judah in Iron Age II
Melody D. Knowles

CHAPTER SIX
213 Exile and Return: From the Babylonian
Destruction to the Beginnings of Hellenism
Eric M. Meyers

CHAPTER SEVEN
245 Judea in the Hellenistic Period: From Alexander
the Great to Pompey (334 – 63 B.C.E.)
John Merrill

CHAPTER EIGHT
293 The Era of Roman Domination
John Merrill

340 Notes
411 Index