The first eleven chapters of Genesis are a prelude to God’s calling of, and making of covenants with, Abraham. There are clear marks of their having arisen in the area of Mesopotamia, the area from which Abraham came (Ur of the Chaldees).

Creation

While almost unique in its attribution of creation to the One Creator with no thought of the presence or existence of other Gods, it follows the seven-day pattern found in parallel accounts (see Use of Numbers in the Ancient Near East & Genesis), and chapters 2 and 3 clearly centre in Mesopotamia, as is evident from the four rivers outside Eden. There is reference in the Ebla tablets to the work of creation of one great Creator, and certain tribes are known to have ascribed the work of creation to their own tribal god, but in neither case are they quite so exclusive of other gods as Genesis 1.

The Garden of Eden

This is to some extent paralleled in other accounts where there is the thought of a Paradise e.g. the Sumerian Dilmun. It is clear that the racial memory did look back to an ideal land, such as that revealed in Genesis 2 - 3. The idea of the Food or Tree of Life also occurs in several contexts, sometimes connected with a serpent, (however they are not exact parallels, rather indicating a background of such ideas).

The Offerings of Cain and Abel

Both men offered of their produce, and certainly later a cereal offering was as acceptable as an animal offering (see Leviticus 2.1-14; 5.11-13 and often). At this early stage both offerings signify gratitude to God. We are not told that Cain’s offering was rejected because of its content, but because Cain had not “done well”, so that ‘sin’ crouched at his door like a wild animal. It is probable that the acceptance of the offering was known from the consequences, that is, that Abel’s flocks prospered but that Cain’s cereals did not. Thus part of his sin might have been laziness.

Cain’s Wife

We are clearly told that Adam ‘begat sons and daughters’ in his long life. If the race was to be perpetuated there would clearly have to be relationships between them. The account of Cain and Abel assumes this background, for Cain is to be a fugitive from the family, who will require blood vengeance. Cain thus took for wife either a sister or niece (quite possibly by force). He lived in ‘the land of wandering (nod)’, probably the desert areas, driven out from the inhabitable areas. This is why he could no longer produce cereals, which was part of his punishment. The mark that God put upon Cain was possibly the pattern for later tribal markings.

Descent into Evil

The idea of man’s descent into evil, highlighted in the demon possessions of Genesis 6, as being the cause of the Flood, is unique. Genesis is the only Flood account which has genuine moral overtones. (Mesopotamian gods were largely an unholy lot, and men were their playthings and slaves). In the Old Testament the phrase “the sons of god” refers to heavenly beings - see Job1.6; 2.1; 38.7 - and could include Satan among them. Thus the ‘affair’ with human women would appear to refer to some sort of demonic experience, explaining the necessity for a new beginning..

The Flood

Sumerian king lists portray long-lived kings who lived “before the Flood”, itself demonstrating the distant memory of long-lived ancestors and a great flood. There are also a number of connections between the Biblical account and for example, the story of Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh, including the idea of the sending out of birds to scout the land. We have the latter in its later Babylonian form but it undoubtedly looked back to much earlier sources. If such a flood had occurred finding traces in myths is what we would expect.

The Genesis account parallels other accounts in its narrative form combined with statistical information, and rather than suggesting multiple authorship this confirms its firm place in the near Eastern genre. However its morality and description of God’s relationship with the flood, with Noah and with the ensuing sacrifice are outstanding. The flood is a judgment on evil. There is a one to one relationship between the one God and man, the One sovereign, the other obedient. The sacrifice is pleasant to God as a sign of man’s response to the covenant, in contrast with other accounts where the gods gather like flies to eat the sacrifices because they are starving.

We also have remnants of much older accounts, the Sumerian account of Ziusudra and the Epic of Atrahasis. Indeed the idea of a gigantic flood is testified to worldwide. The Epic of Atrahasis is interesting in presenting an account connecting Creation and the Flood in a primeval history, (but not in the pure form in Genesis), which demonstrates that such a composite work was not without parallel.

The Tower of Babel

This clearly looks back to a time of territorial expansion where Babel symbolises empire building. It was possibly a ziggurat, a tower built to represent a mountain, connected with worship and possible connection with, and manipulation of, the gods. Nimrod (see on 10.9-10) may well be in mind. But the empire, if it ever succeeded, fell into decay, and the people scattered and their languages began to differ. The account gives no real grounds for suggesting that the series of events occurred, as it were, overnight. That idea only comes from a superficial reading. There is no reason for denying that it happened over a period of time. The tower is NOT depicted as collapsing.

This is unlike a parallel account where Ur-Nammu (3rd milleniumBC) is commanded by the gods to build a ziggurat, but the gods are then offended and throw it down, confusing men’s languages and scattering them over the earth. The throwing down of the tower is clearly an addition to the story suggesting that the Ur Nammu version is later than the account on which Genesis is based..

What these parallels demonstrate is that these ideas lay in the ancient memory, passed down through the generations, a memory taken up by the Biblical writers under God’s inspiration. This is what we would expect if the Genesis accounts are ‘historical’.

The Table of Nations (Genesis 10)

As far as we know this was unique in the ancient world. It declared God’s interest in all peoples, and demonstrates a remarkable knowledge and awareness of the world around. Nimrod (10.8-10) was almost certainly a ‘hunter’ of men, an empire builder, and that he was so ‘before the Lord’ means that he was so great that even God recognised his greatness. He formed a great empire around Babel in the area which would later be Assyrian and Babylonian.

Genesis 12 Onwards

The Call of Abram.

God calls Abram to leave Ur of the Chaldees and he goes first to Haran and then to ‘Canaan’. His father and ancestors were polytheists (Joshua 24.2), possibly moon-worshippers. Ur and Haran were centres of moon-worship. The statement in Genesis 12.6 describing the situation when he arrived - “the Canaanite was then in the land” (i.e. had arrived) - demonstrates accurate knowledge. We know of no references to “Canaanites” before 19th century BC. However, reference to the land of as Ca-na-na-um is attested in 3rd millenium BC. Once the Canaanites had arrived a connection between the two words was inevitable.

Abram the ‘Prince’.

It becomes clear from the account that Abram is not a solitary nomad, but controller of a large “household” comprising wider family and many servants over which he is Patriarch. He can, for example, call on 318 fighting men (14.14), and as he would surely leave some behind to protect his wife and encampment, this suggests a ‘family’ group of well over two thousand. He is described as “a mighty prince”(23.8), although the latter expression must leave some room for flattery.

After leaving Ur, the group had been further enhanced in Haran (12.5), and he was ‘very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold’ (13.2 compare 13.6; 24.35 ). This must surely suggest that Abram had many trading interests, which might explain his later movements. In order to carry these forward he would need to have someone available who could read and write, and calculate numbers, probably Eliezer, his steward (15.2). His background in Ur would have made him aware of the importance of keeping records, especially of covenants. Thus it is quite to be expected that he would ensure the chronicling of his experiences with God.

The group would remain in one place for a time, e.g. near Bethel (12.8; 13.3), in the plain of Mamre, (‘the same is Hebron’ 23.19) where they had recognised ‘allies’(13.18; 14.13; 18.1), and at Gerar (20.1) where they encounted a Philistine trading settlement, and remained semi-permanently (21.34)). Eventually they would move on, returning back to places as suited them. When Sarah died she was at Kiriath Arba in Hebron and was buried at Mamre. It would appear that they had a fairly settled existence.

This is demonstrated by the fact that they dug wells which they regarded as their own (21.25) sufficiently to establish ownership by covenant (Beersheba 21.30-32; 22.19 compare also 26.18-23). They also planted trees (21.33), and Abraham bought a field as a permanent burial place (23.20). The documents often concentrate on Abraham alone because he was father of the group and the one who received God’s revelation, but it is quite wrong to think of him as a solitary, quiet living, nomadic shepherd and cattle herder.

They would need to have an efficient fighting force, for they would regularly have to be prepared to defend themselves against opportunists, and their prosperity would require that they were well able to look after themselves. Wealth always brings its own problems and has to be constantly protected. This was one reason why they could not be ‘pushed about’ by, for example, Abimelech at Gerar (chapter 20). That may have been a not very large Philistine trading post, but Abimelech would not have paid such a large price otherwise.

(It should be noted that this clearly shows that the author was not mixing them up with the later Philistine occupation. No one could imagine them being willing to pay 1000 shekels to a petty prince).

Their use of tents is parallelled by the “seventeen kings who lived in tents” (Assyrian king list - c.1750BC), the Amorite tent dwellers of the earlier myth of Martu, and references in the Tale of Sinuhe (c.1950BC), while the possesion of camels as a comparative rarity (not mentioned in the general descriptions of wealth, but introduced as part of an important dowry) is in accordance with this period but not the first millenium. Camels are attested in a cuneiform tablet from Alalah (18th century BC), a kneeling camel figure from Byblos (19th century BC), a 19th century BC text from Ugarit and a Middle Bronze Age tomb at Nablus (1900 - 1550 BC), as well as other places.

Isaac.

Isaac and his group are also described as “possessing flocks and herds and many servants” and being envied for them by the Philistine traders (26.13-14), and as sowing crops and reaping the harvest at Gerar (26.12). They too were not endlessly wandering nomads. However, it would appear that all had not gone well on the death of Abraham. The Philistines had stopped up his wells (26.15), possibly because they no longer feared the tribal family under Isaac. His later expansion restored the situation, but it is noteworthy that there is no mention of silver and gold. Possibly Isaac had dropped the trading arrangements. He was not as powerful a force as Abraham who was clearly a man of great character and charisma.

Their Religion

We do not know a great deal about the group’s religious rites, although we know that they built altars, which suggests burnt offerings (compare 22.2-13), and prayed (12.8; 13.4; 13.18; 20.17 ), calling on the name of Jahweh, whom Abram is quite willing to identify with El Elyon, “God Most High” (14.22), El Shaddai, “Almighty God” (17.1) and El ‘Olam “the Everlasting God”. The offerings were probably seen as ‘giving to God’ rather than as specifically sin offerings, but the latter should probably not be totally excluded. The simplicity of their religion confirms the accuracy of the narrative.

Their worship is exclusive to Jahweh, sometimes described as Elohim (intensive plural of El) or as Jahweh Elohim.The use of two names for one god in such circumstances is well attested elsewhere which is fatal for any theory which uses names of God to divide accounts. Jahweh is seen as Creator, and protector and provider (15.1), possessor of Heaven and Earth (14.22). It is clear therefore that the worship of other gods is excluded, while not decrying the worship of their allies. Indeed, as we have seen, Abram is willing to see a god worshipped by Melchizedech as simply another representation of Jahweh (14.22). In a very real sense they were monotheistic, although, with their life style, they were probably never faced with the question of explaining pantheons of gods with whom they had nothing to do.

The idea behind sacrifices at this early stage would appear to be that of an offering to God which is pleasant to Him as an act of worship and thanksgiving (8.20-21).

They began to practise the rite of circumcision, which was common to the nations round about, which was reinterpreted as a seal of their covenant with God (17.10-14, 23-27).

The Celebration of Feasts

They would undoubtedly have celebrated certain feasts such as New Year, (then around April?), the lambing season, and possibly different harvests. At these Feasts they would almost certainly have reminded themselves of their special relationship with their God, and it is probable that at one or another of these Feasts the Creation narrative, reminder of God’s favour and the sabbath, the Flood narrative, guarantee of the seasons which were so important to them, and God’s covenants with Abraham, the guarantee of their future, would be read out in covenant renewing ceremonies.

God’s Covenants with Abram

We have a number of accounts where Abram (meaning ‘my Father is Ram’, suggestive of his father’s polytheism, later changed to Abraham ‘father of many’) has experiences of God, sometimes very vivid and awe-inspiring (15.12), resulting in the establishing of covenants. The accounts were recorded because of the covenants. We may read the accounts in order to use them as illustrations of godly behaviour, but they were not recorded for that purpose. The theophanies and the covenants were all important. They are interspersed with examples of Abram’s covenants made with men. This part of Genesis is a record of different covenants, a ‘covenant’ book.

Oral History and Written Covenants

The history of the family tribe would be remembered orally, and no doubt recounted by the family storyteller, but the covenants (and lines of descent which connected with the covenants?) were put in written form. Examples elsewhere have demonstrated that special words from a god would be recorded, together with the background to the ‘revelation’. We even have traces of the colophons (titles) which would have been placed on the top or bottom of the tablets to make reference easy, “these are the generations of --”(or‘this is the history of’ see Genesis.11.10; 11.27; 25.12; 25.19; 36.1,9; 37.2), although many would have been edited out when they were put together as one account.

Thus we do not have a history of Abraham, but periodic incidents when he experienced manifestations of God. This explains why we know so little of Isaac. He does not appear to have had pneumatic experiences to the same extent as Abraham, although he knew God as “the Fear of Isaac” (31.42), which does suggest the memory of at least one such experience (see also 26.2-5;26.24).

Content of the Covenants.

The promises of the covenants, which were God initiated, but dependent, as all God’s covenants are, on obedience(Genesis 12.1; 17.1; 22.16; 26.5) and faith (which is the father of obedience), (Genesis 15.6) were that:

• God would make of Abraham great nations (12.2; 17.6, 20 (note ‘nations’, Ishmael’s children are included, as v.20 stresses);21.13; 25.1-4 ; 25.23 (Isaac’s sons); 35.11).
• Through him all nations would be blessed (12.3; 17.4-5; 22.18; 28.14).
• Kings would descend from him (17.6; 35.11).
• The land as far as he could see in all directions would belong to his children for ever (13.15; 17.8; 26.3; 35.12).
• His descendants would be innumerable (13.16; 15.5; 16.10 of Ishmael; 17.2; 22.17; 26.4; 28.14).

As we note these promises were renewed to Isaac and Jacob, and, to a lesser extent, to Ishmael and Esau. They were clearly treasured in written form as of prime importance, together with their surrounding histories. Esau’s branch of the family even boasted that they had achieved ‘kingship’ first (36.31). (It is significant in this regard that the term ‘king over the children of Israel’ never occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament. There it is always ‘king over Israel’. This counts against a later scribal explanation, as they would then almost certainly have used the accepted terminology. The words are thus written in the confidence that one day the children of Israel would have a king in accordance with God’s promise to Abraham). This recording of covenants with their surrounding histories is testified to elsewhere, as we have seen.

Background to the Narratives

Albright says “Apart from a few die-hard scholars, there is scarcely a single biblical historian who has not been impressed by the rapid accumulation of data supporting the substantial historicity of patriarchal tradition”, and even the definitely sceptical Thompson has to admit that “many of the customs in Genesis --- fit very well into the context of ancient near-eastern family law”.

Such evidence has to be handled carefully as ‘proving’ anything, as the customs tended to remain similar over hundreds, if not thousands, of years. What it does demonstrate is that Genesis naturally depicts actual customs similar to those in other nations, and that there is nothing inconsistent with a patriarchal date. We can probably even go so far as to say that the better parallels are in the period covered by the lives of the Patriarchs.

Near Eastern Customs

Examples of customs which can be parallelled with ancient texts (such as the Nuzi texts (15th century BC), the code of Hammurabi (18th century BC), the Mari texts (18th century BC), and others), are:

• Adoption of an heir to carry out filial responsibilities in old age (15.2-4).
• A son born subsequently receiving the major inheritance.
• A slave girl being asked to produce an heir when the wife is barren (16.2; 30.3-4)
• The giving of a slave girl as part of a dowry (29.24)
• The description of the eldest son as ‘rab’ (Nuzi - rabu) instead of ‘bekor’ (25.5-6)
• Examples of inheritance being exchanged by brothers (25.33)
• The importance of the family gods for inheritance purposes (31.30)
• Restriction of a man from taking other wives (31.50)
• The importance of the deathbed blessing (49.1-28)
• Disinheritance for family ‘disrespect’ (35.22 with 49.3-4)

  Near Eastern Names.

  Albright points out that “among Amorite personal names in these centuries we have a number characteristic also of Hebrew tradition, such as Abram, Jacob, Laban, Zebulun, Benjamin”, while of the four kings mentioned in Genesis 14 the name Arioch is parallelled by Ariwuku of Mari, and the Hurrian names Ariaku and Ari-ukku, Chedorlaomer, meaning ‘slave of Lagamer’, an Elamite deity, (von Rad comments, ‘there could well have been an Elamite king of that name), is genuine Elamite, and the name of Tidal can be parallelled with the Hittite Tudhalia.

  None of these parallel names need be taken as identification as the specific persons, but they demonstrate that the names fit into the background of the times. Raids by petty kings were a feature of those days, and although Abram and his men tackled them when they were exhausted, they could clearly not have been four major kings with their armies.

  It is interesting that the account of the kings is the only place where Abram is called ‘the Hebrew’. This account would appear to have been recorded by someone outside the tribe, possibly the recorder of King Melchizedek, and preserved by Abram as a record of the covenant relationship he had with Melchizedek, and possibly of his continual responsibility to pay ‘tithes’.

  The use of the term ‘the Hebrew’ might well suggest that Abraham was linked in his neighbours’ minds with the ‘habiru’ who are testified to in many texts. They were wandering peoples, appearing as merchants, mercenaries and invading bands. (Later Israel referred the designation back to their ancestor Eber). Abraham was not a ‘habiru’ but he might well have appeared so to some of his neighbours.

  Summary

  It is clear overall that the accounts are free from those anachronisms we would expect if they had been authored at a later date, and also from the expansion of the details of the life of Abraham that would have accrued in such circumstances. This is further confirmed by the primitive nature of the use of numbers in Genesis (see The Use of Numbers in the Ancient Near East & Genesis).

  The compiler clearly took great care when putting the accounts together that he did not alter the main narrative.

  Move to Home Page
  Move to Part 2
  Please press back button to return to previous page

  IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?

  If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.

  FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.

  THE PENTATEUCH

  GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- PSALMS 1-17--- ECCLESIASTES --- ISAIAH 1-5 --- 6-12 --- 13-23 --- 24-27 --- 28-35 --- 36-39 --- 40-48 --- 49-55--- 56-66--- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 ---

  NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH ---ZECHARIAH --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- REVELATION

  --- THE GOSPELS

  ---

  This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page