ShallowTime

The Patriarchal Age 

By Vern Crisler

Copyright, 2006

Rough Draft

 

1.  Old Kingdom Dynasties

2.  Criticism of Courville’s Model

3.  Abraham’s Journey of Faith

4.  The Sojourn of a Family: Isaac to Joseph

 

 

1.  Old Kingdom Dynasties

 

In the previous essay, we have noted that Courville regards the 3^rd dynasty of Egypt as an offshoot of the 1^st dynasty, and that the 2^nd dynasty was contemporaneous with the 4^th and 5^th dynasties.  In the second part of his discussion of the pre-famine period in Egypt, Courville says that he can provide evidence for the correctness of these concepts.  (EP, 1:186.)  This evidence consists of (1)  The kings in the Book of Sothis are listed as following the 1^st dynasty but are really the kings of the 4^th and 5^th dynasties.  (2)  The time of the 4^th and 5^th dynasties must be abbreviated to a great extent.  (3)  The power of the 4^th dynasty was usurped by the first king of the 5^th dynasty, and this event also usurped the power of the 2^nd dynasty.  (4)  A “unique” incident happened at the ends of both the 2^nd and 4^th dynasties that provides a synchronism between these two dynasties.  (5)  Uncertainties in regard to the Palermo Stone show that the early Egyptian dynasties did not rule in sequence.

 

Before discussing Courville’s understanding of the 4^th and 5^th dynasties, we should provide a chart of the kings of the latter part of the Old Kingdom, so that the discussion will be easier to follow.  It is based in part on the previously cited reference works, e.g., Clayton, Verbrugghe, et al.:

 

4th Dynasty	5th Dynasty	6th Dynasty
Soris, 29 – Snefru
Suphis, 63 – Khufu, Cheops
Suphis, 66 – Djedefre
—–Khafre, 25
—–Hardjedef, Kheper, 19
—–Baufre (or Rabaef), 5
Mencheres, 63 – Menkaure
Ratoises, 25
Bicheris, 22
Sebercheres, 7 – Shepseskaf
Thampthis, 9 – Djedefptah
	Usercheres, 28 – Userkaf
	Sephres, 13 – Sahure
	Nephercheres, 20 – Nefer-irkare, Kakai
	Sisires, 7 – Shepseskare Isi
	Cheres, 20 – Neferefre, Khaneferre
	Rathures, 44 – Niuserre
	Mencheres, 9 – Menkauhor
	Tancheres, 44 – Djedkare, Shukare
	Onnos, 33 – Unas
		Othoes, 30 – Teti
		Phios, 53 – Meryre Phiops, Pepi 1
		Methusuphis, 7 – Merenre Antyemsaf 1
		Phiops, 99 – Neferkare, Pepi 2
		Menthesuphis, 1 – Merenre Antyemsaf 2
		Nitokris, 12 – Neterkare, Netjerikare Menkare
		—–Neferka
		—–Neferes 2
		—–Ibi 4

 

 

As his first line of evidence Courville offers the Ra-skhem-kha (or Sekhemkere) inscription, which lists the number of kings that Sekhemkere served under, three from the end of the 4^th dynasty and two from the beginning of the 5^th dynasty.  It is pointed out that if Manetho’s reign lengths are taken literally for this period, the elapsed years for Sekhemkere would have been about 180 years.  (EP, 1:187.)  Courville then references Mertitefs (or Mertityotes), the queen of Sneferu, who says she lived during the days of Snefru, Khufu, and Khafre.  Manetho’s figures would give 92 years for the time between Snefru and Khafre, and Mertitefs would have been 110 years old at the beginning of Khafre’s reign, and thus could not have been described as a “favorite of the young king Khafra.”  (Idem.)  Courville’s solution is that the reigns of Khufu and Khafra must have overlapped significantly.

 

Courville also references the Westcar Papyrus and its “Tales of the Magician.”  (EP, 1:188.)  This was written during the 5^th dynasty in an attempt to prove the legitimacy of the kings of the 5^th dynasty as true successors of Khufu.  The story claims that Kakai, the third king of the 5^th dynasty, was born during the days of Khufu, the second king of the 4^th dynasty.  Even leaving Khufu and the 5^th dynasty kings aside, calculation of reign lengths results in an elapsed time of at least 200 years, giving too great an age for Kakai.  Courville believes that this tale, combined with the Ra-skhem-kha material, shows that it should be taken seriously as a factual account, and that a great abbreviation of the time between the 4^th and 5^th dynasties is required.

 

Moving on, Courville argues that Khufu is to be identified with Osirophis of the Sothis list, and the remaining kings of the 4^th dynasty are to be correlated to the Sothis kings who follow Osirophis.  (EP, 1:189, 190.)  The question of whether Shepseskaf is to be identified with Bicheris or Sebercheres is resolved in favor of the latter, and it is said that Bicheris has a different identity.  (Idem.)  Courville sums up his chronology to this point:

 

“[T]he total period of Dynasty IV was encompassed by the sole reigns of Khufu and Khafra, and the total reign of Menkaure; the remaining kings had reigns that fell entirely within the reign of Menkaure.  The total for the dynastic period was thus 135 years, excluding Soris (Shaaru) who may have been a progenitor of the dynasty but who belongs to the era of the decadent phase [sic] of Dynasty III.”  (Exodus Problem, 1:191.)

 

This summation is regarded by Courville as insufficient given the time constraints of the Sekhemkere inscriptions and the Westcar Papyrus.  Userkaf (brother of Kakai) would have been an improbable 113 years at his death even under a shortened chronology.  Courville, therefore, believes that a better solution is required if the Westcar Papyrus is to be regarded as containing factual material.  This solution consists in regarding the “usurpation” of the 4^th dynasty by 5^th dynasty king Userkaf as occuring earlier in the reign of Menkaure, and at the accession of Rhatoises.  (EP, 1:191.)  The “usurper” triplets of the Westcar Papyrus began contemporaneous reigns, each ruling a different section of Egypt.  Userkaf set up an independent 5^th dynasty at Elephantine and “permitted Menkaure to continue to rule as a figurehead” for his remaining years.  (Ibid., p. 192.)  Sahure is to be identified with 4^th dynasty king Bicheris, and ruled for a time at Memphis before moving to Elephantine to rule as coregent with Userkaf.  After Sahure left Memphis, Shepseskaf (or Sebercheres) took his place and restored the line of Menkaure on an ephemoral level.  With respect to the third triplet, Kakai (Nephercheres), Courville says that he “usurped the power of Dynasty II at about this same time” and is to be identified with Nephercheres of the 2^nd dynasty.  Courville says,

 

“According to the developing chronology, the position of this king [Nephercheres] in the list falls in line with the incident of the usurpation of Dynasty IV by Userkaf.”  (EP, 1:194.)

 

This putative usurpation during Menkaure’s 30^th year was the event that “prompted him to abandon his uncompleted burial pyramid and to construct a second pyramid.”  (Idem.)  Courville, of course, is making these adjustments because he accepts the Westcar Papyrus story as factual, and wants to abbreviate the elapsed time as much as can be done.  “This placement [of the usurpation],” says Courville, “reduces by another 33-34 years the length of the period from Khufu to the beginning of the reign of Userkaf, thus providing a chronology well within the area of possibility in terms of the specifications of the Westcar Papyrus inscription.”  (Idem.)

 

Courville goes on to argue that Rhatoises is to be identified with Userkaf, and says:  “While there is not the faintest resemblance between the names, this is no evidence per se against the proposed identification, since Egyptian kings commonly had a variety of names.”  (Ibid., p. 195.)  His basis for making the correlation is from the Theban king list, and he makes a further identification of the 12^th king in the list, Chnubos or Gneuros, with 2^nd dynasty king Cheneres.  In addition, the 13^th king of the Theban list is named Rayosis, who is identified with Userkaf, while the 14^th king, Biyes, is identified with Sahure.  Courville says,

 

“But these names are quite obviously but different renderings of the names Rhatoises and Bikheris, the two names following Menkaure in Manetho’s Dynasty IV and occupying the positions demanded by the developing chronology for the usurper kings, Userkaf and Sahure.”  (EP, 1:195.)

 

If this is regarded as insufficient proof for the revised chronology, Courville refers to the Sothis list where the two names, Chamois and Miamus, are to be equated with the names Userkaf and Sahure.  He says, “But Manetho’s name for Sahura in Dynasty V is rendered Sefres [Sephres], while the Sothis name coinciding in position with Bikheris, the alternate name of Sahura, is given as Akesephthres, the resemblance being too close to explain by mere coincidence.”  (Ibid., p. 196; note: Courville is comparing Sephres with Akesephthres.)

 

In the next section of his discussion, Courville provides a detailed timeline of Userkaf’s rule, which we do not need to pursue.  His next point is in reference to the Ptahshepses inscription, another source that provides the names of the kings of the 4^th and 5^th dynasties, though Courville does not devote much time to discussing it.  After this Courville calls on the Sothis list to fill in the 5^th dynasty, correlating the remaining Sothis kings after Chamois and Miamus with the subsequent 5^th dynasty kings given by Manetho.  (Ibid., pp. 196, 197.)  Amesesis of the Sothis list is equated with Manetho’s Rathures, while Mencheres of the 4^th dynasty is equated with Mencheres of the 5^th dynasty.  In this case, Menkaure (Mencheres) is regarded as having outlived the “usurper” triplets, Userkaf, Sahure, and Kakai.  (Ibid., p. 198.)  Manetho’s Siseres is equated with Sebercheres (Shepseskaf), and Tancheres is regarded as having ruled within the reigns of Amesesis and Unas.  Courville pauses to sum up his discussion:

 

“The total dynastic period to the end of Dynasty V may then be calculated as having been 479± X years where X represents any minor discrepancy from the difference in time between the end of Dynasty I and the beginning of Dynasty IV.”  (EP, 1:199.)

 

The chronology of the 2^nd dynasty is then discussed.  Courville says that the Sothis list cannot help in correlating 2^nd dynasty kings since they are considered as vassals to the 4^th and 5^th dynasty kings.  On his premises, the Sothis list only records the main line of kings, not vassals of contemporary dynasties.  Courville appeals instead to the Theban king list, and thinks the kings from Stoichos to Chnubos should be equated with the kings of Manetho’s 2^nd dynasty.  (Ibid., p. 200.)  “Tentatively,” says Courville, “we identify Gesormies with Binothris or Manetho, Mares with Tlas and Anoyphis with Sethenes.  Sirius is then the same king as Sesochris and, as noted previously, Chnubos is the same as Cheneres.  As also noted previously, the next two names are Rayosis and Biyres whom we have identified as the coregents of Usercheres in Dynasty IV following the usurpation, Rathothis and Bikheris by name.”  (Idem.)  Courville then discusses the reign lengths of these various kings, which we can also pass over.

 

Courville equates Zazay or Beby of the ending part of the 2^nd dynasty with Unas, the last king of the 5^th dynasty, on the basis of famine inscriptions in their respective reigns:

 

 “That the reign of Unas was marred by a severe famine is portrayed by the now famous famine inscription of this king.  The inscription is a pictorial one and contains little by way of explanatory information.  However, the protruding ribs of the victims cannot be, and has not been, misinterpreted.  Egypt [sic] experienced a severe famine in the reign of Unas.  But there was also a severe famine in the era of Zazay, or Beby….”  (EP, 1:203.)

 

Emile Brugsch found a famine inscription of one “Baba,” whom he dated to the 17^th dynasty of Egypt.  More specifically, Heinrich Brugsch-Bey dated “Baba” to the time of Seqenenre Ta’o 3, predecessor of Kamose, last ruler of the 17^th dynasty.  (Egypt Under the Pharaohs, 1902, Bracken edition,  p. 121.)  Courville notes that Vandier disagreed with Brugsch and dated the inscription of “Bebi” to the 13^th dynasty.  Arthur Weigall is less certain and dated the tomb of “Beba” to the period between the 13^th and 17^th dynasties.  (A Guide to the Antiquities of Egypt, p. 326.)

 

Nevertheless, Courville agrees with Vandier that the famine inscription of Bebi is to be dated to the early 13^th dynasty but also equates it with the famine of Ameny, who lived during the time of 12^th dynasty king Sesostris 1.  From this it follows that the 12^th and 13^th dynasties overlapped to some extent.  In addition to the correlation with the 12^th dynasty, Courville also equates the Bebi-Ameny famine to the time of 5^th dynasty king Unas, noted above, who records a famine during his reign (depicted on the causeway of his tomb).  In addition to this, the Bebi-Ameny-Unas famine is equated to the time of “Bebi” of the 2^nd dynasty.  (EP, pp. 136, 204, 205.)  It follows, then, that the 2^nd dynasty did not end until the time of Sesostris 1 of the 12^th dynasty, and that the 12^th dynasty is to some extent contemporary with the end of the 5^th dynasty and beginning of the 6^th dynasty.  Courville says,

 

“In a preceding chapter [EP, 1:136], the famine inscription of Bebi was shown to meet the specifications for the famine of Joseph and hence should be identified with the famine in the reign of Sesostris I of Dynasty XII.  If this inscription of Bebi belongs to the decadent phase of Dynasty II and is still to be identified with that in the reign of Sesostris I, then we are forced to the conclusion that dynasties II and V extended past the beginning of Dynasty XII and into the era of Sesostris I.”  (Exodus Problem, Vol. 1, p. 205.)   

 

Thus, the 2^nd, 5^th, 12^th, and 13^th dynasties are regarded as roughly contemporaneous dynasties.  Courville is confident that his interpretations are completely consistent and result in an exactness that rules out coincidence:

 

“This attempt to alter the early chronology of Egypt thus stands or falls with the feasibility of tying the structure thus far developed to that of the XIIth Dynasty in a manner that is totally consistent.  The resulting structure will be so far removed from anything previously suggested that the chances are exceedingly remote that these two structures shall fit together in a manner to yield a consistent panorama of the history of Egypt, except as the developed structure is correct, at least in its larger aspects.  The next chapter [EP, 1:211] is devoted to a demonstration that this can be done with an exactness that does not allow for any significant deviation.  Yet the demands are so specific that it cannot be rationally concluded that the agreement is one of mere coincidence.”  (Exodus Problem, Vol 1, p. 205.)

 

2.  Criticisms of Courville’s Model

 

In our opinion, Courville’s reconstruction of the chronology of the 4^th through the 6^th dynasties is unnecessarily complicated.  This is due primarily to his desire to treat the story of the magician in the Westcar Papyrus as a significant chronological datum.  This tale is a piece of propaganda from the 5^th dynasty, attempting to justify its usurpation by connecting itself to the revered 4^th dynasty king Khufu.  For that reason alone its value as a chronological datum is questionable.  There is an even greater reason to reject it.  What is remarkable about Courville’s Westcar chronology (and all its complications) is his apparent lack of knowledge of the fact that as early as 1906, J. H. Breasted had already provided a satisfactory chronology of the 4^th through the 6^th dynasties.  In fact, Breasted based his chronology on the inscriptions of the three individuals already cited by Courville, who left us records from the Old Kingdom recording the names of the kings they served under during the 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th dynasties.  (For the inscriptions, see Breasted’s, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. 1, pp. 37; 134.)  The names of these individuals, Mertityotes, Sekhemkere, and Ptahshepses, are given with the names of the kings they served under:

 

 

King	Dynasty	Servant	Prince	Son-in-Law
1.    Snefru	4th	Mertityotes
2.    Khufu	4th	Mertityotes
3.    Djedefre	4th	Mertityotes
4.    Khafre	4th	Mertityotes	Sekhemkere
5.    Menkaure	4th		Sekhemkere	Ptahshepses
6.    Shepseskaf	4th		Sekhemkere	Ptahshepses
7.    Short reigns	4th		Sekhemkere	Ptahshepses
8.    Userkaf	5th		Sekhemkere	Ptahshepses
9.    Sahure	5th		Sekhemkere	Ptahshepses
10.  Neferirkare	5th			Ptahshepses
11.  Shepseskare	5th			Ptahshepses
12.  Khaneferre	5th			Ptahshepses
13.  Niuserre	5th			Ptahshepses

 

 

It is granted that these individuals may have lived short lives, but if we allow that they lived normal lives, say 70 or 80 years apiece, it does require a certain amount of temporal spread for the two dynasties in question.  Taking these overlapping lifetimes, Breasted estimated the period from Snefru to Nuserre as 200 years, and calculates the elapsed years for the 4^th and 5^th dynasties to be not more than 300 years.  (Breasted, Ancient Records, p. 38).  The remaining kings of the 5^th dynasty are: Menkauhor (8 years), Djedkare (32 years), and Unas (30 years).

 

According to Breasted, the average reign length of the 4^th and 5^th dynasties is 16.6 years; the average reign length of the 1^st and 2^nd dynasties is 23 years; and the average reign length from the 1^st to the 8^th dynasties is about 19 years.  (Breasted, p. 37.)  This is very close to the 20 year average reign length suggested by Newton and which we have used for estimating dynastic periods among the Greeks.  (See the essay, “Mycenaean Times.”)  Since there are 15 kings in the 4^th and 5^th dynasties (using the overlaps above), an average reign length of twenty years multiplied by the number of kings gives us approximately 300 years for the total length of both dynasties.  This is the same estimate as calculated by Breasted on the basis of overlapping inscriptional material.

 

“Three lifetimes somewhat overlapping, a matter of 200 years at most, run parallel, as stated above, with the end of the Third Dynasty, the whole Fourth, and the first half of the Fifth.  The Fourth and Fifth Dynasties thus lasted not more than 300 years.  (Ancient Records, p. 38.)

 

This is quite a bit less than Manetho, who gave us 500 years for the 4^th and 5^th dynasties.  Given the inscriptions as interpreted by Breasted, or the use of average reign length calculations, there is really no need to adopt either Manetho’s longish chronology, nor the complicated short chronology of Courville to arrive at a satisfactory chronology of the 4^th and 5^th dynasties (and much of the 6^th dynasty as well).

 

(Note:  Using average reign length calculations works for the 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th dynasties because we have independent inscriptional evidence indicating that these dynasties were consecutive.  Average reign length calculations can be skewed if a king ruled for an excessive period of time.  Also, the average reign length method would not work with parallel dynasties, for we would first have to establish the extent of any parallelism.  It so happens that from the end of the 2^nd dynasty (Khasekhemwy & Djoser) to the end of the 6^th dynasty, we have inscriptional evidence indicating that these dynasties were consecutive..)

 

In addition to the three individuals with overlapping lives, we also have two other inscriptions, one for the 5^th to 6^th dynasty transition and the other for the beginning of the 6^th dynasty.  The first inscription is from Sabu, who lived under Unas, last king of the 5^th dynasty, and also under Teti, first king of the 6^th dynasty.  The second inscription is from Uni, who indicates that he lived under the first three kings of the 6^th dynasty.  The correlations are as follows:

 

 

King	Dynasty	Servant	Servant
1.  Unas	5th	Sabu
2.  Teti	6th	Sabu	Uni
3.  Pepi 1	6th		Uni
4.  Merenre	6th		Uni

 

 

One of Sabu’s inscriptions reads: “Attached to (King) Unis, high priest of Ptah, more honored by the king than any servant.  He descended into every barge; a member of the court, [when he entered] the ways of [the southern palace] at feasts, Sabu (S’bw), whose beautiful name was Ibebi (Ybby).”  (Breasted, Ancient Records, p. 131.)  Another reads in part, “Today in the presence of the Son of Re: Teti, living forever…Sabu.”  These inscriptions make it clear that the transition between the fifth and sixth dynasties was consecutive.

 

With regard to the order of reigns of the 6^th dynasty kings, the following is from one of Uni’s inscriptions:  “[Count, governor of the South], chamber-attendant, attached to Nekhen, lord of Nekheb, sole companion, revered before Osiris, First of the Westerners, Uni (Wny)…[I was a child] who fastened on the girdle under the majesty of Teti (Tty); my office was that of supervisor of [...] and I filled the office of inferior custodian of the domain of Pharaoh.”  (Ibid., p. 135.)  Uni subsequently served as a judge under Pepi 1, as well as an army leader:  “[I was] eldest of the [privy?] chamber under the majesty of Pepi (Ppy).”  (Ibid., p. 141.)  “While I was judge, attached to Nekhen, his majesty appointment me as sole companion….” (Idem.)  “His majesty sent me at the head of this army….”  (Ibid., p. 143.)  Under Merenre, Uni became governor of the south, and presumably died in Merenre’s reign: “When I was master of the footstool of the palace and sandal-bearer, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Mernere (Mr-n-R’)”  (Ibid., p. 147.)

 

Teti reigned for 12 years, Pepi 1 for 49 years, and Merenre for 5 years, which is 66 years.  These three kings multiplied by an average reign length of 20 years would have ruled an elapsed time of about 60 years.  The rest of the 6^th dynasty was nearly filled by one long-lasting king named Pepi 2, who reigned 94 years.  He was followed by Merenre (1 year) and Nitocris (2 or more years).  The 7 rulers of the 6^th dynasty multiplied by average reign length of 20 years gives us 140 years for the elapsed time, but modern scholars give it 165 years.  The difference is probably due to the excessive reign length of Pepi 2 which almost amounts to an “outlier” for purposes of statistical comparison (i.e., something that skews the results of averaging).

 

Some of Courville’s other arguments for a shortening of the 4^th & 5^th dynasties do not seem to carry much weight.  For instance, the idea that the very old woman Mertitefs would not have been described as a “favorite” of Khafre is not conclusive.  It is likely that the description “favorite” was simply a title for the old woman, not a romantic designation.  Moreover, the appeal to the Sothis list, where Khufu becomes Osirophis, etc., is without value for chronological reconstruction, since the Sothis list is dismissed by modern scholars as a piece of ancient fakery (as was discussed previously.)  Courville’s reliance on this list is therefore misplaced.  Additionally, we must criticize Courville’s long and involved reconstruction of the supposed events of the 5^th and 6^th dynasties as being mainly based on the “name game.”  This is an attempt to prove a synchronism between two kings or events based on similar sounding names.  Most of the names do not really match, and even the ones that might look similar are based on Courville’s comparisons of the English names, not on what they might look like in the Egyptian language.  Finally, the famine inscriptions of the 2^nd, 5^th, 12^th and 13^th dynasties cannot in themselves say whether they were referring to the same event, though the latter two have a greater chance of being correlated.  Certainly, it is simply fallacious to correlate all these famines and then claim that they constitute a proof of a proposed chronology.  Since they are correlated in the first place by the chronology in question, any further use of them as evidence would constitute a circular argument.

 

New Courville adopts the chronology of the 4^th through the 5^th dynasties as set forth by Breasted.  We do not see a need for shortening it on the basis of the Westcar story, nor do we see any evidence that the 12^th dynasty is connected to all the famines brought together into one time by Courville, who thinks his chronology stands or falls with the placement of the 12^th dynasty in relation to earlier dynasties.  We in fact think this is unnecessary brinkmanship on Courville’s part, as a more satisfactory chronology can be developed without the need of the Westcar story or the Sothis list.  We will need to return to the 12^th dynasty in a future essay, as Courville sets so much store by it, and thinks he can demonstrate his chronology “with an exactness” that cannot be ascribed to coincidence.

 

There is one thing we do agree with Courville about, and that is the total elapsed time of the first 6 dynasties of Egypt.  This is “a period not in excess of 750 years and more probably within a period of seven centuries.”  (EP, 1:163.)  Using the average reign length, with each dynasty regarded as consecutive, New Courville calculates the time as amounting to 780 years.  However, if the 2^nd  dynasty overlaps the 1^st dynasty, this would be even less time.  We are thus very close to Courville’s figures, and we did not need to use complicated means to shorten the chronology.  Manetho’s figures for the elapsed time from the 1^st to the end of the 6^th dynasty add up to nearly 1500 years, which is about twice as much as a more reasonable approach would arrive at.

 

3.  Abraham’s Journey of Faith

 

New Courville accepts Classic Courville’s idea that Abraham migrated from Mesopotamia to Canaan during Egypt’s 4^th dynasty.  We think the best choice for the pharaoh of Abraham’s time is Khephren—he of the Sphinx fame–though this choice is only a tentative correlation.  Abraham would have been living in Ur during what has become known as the First Dynasty of Ur, whose kings were Mesannepadda, 80 yrs.; Eannepada, ? yrs.; Meskiagnanna, 36 yrs.; Elulu, 25 yrs.; and Balulu, 36 yrs.  Nevertheless, it is not easy to tell (or even guess) which king Abraham lived under. 

 

According to the Bible Abraham’s travels were the following: from Ur to Haran; then to Shechem; on to Moreh-tree (Gen. 12:6); set up camp between Bethel & Ai (Gen. 12:8); sojourned in Egypt (because of famine); from there to the Negev (Gen. 13:1); resettled at Bethel & Ai (Bethel formerly Luz, Gen. 28:19); then moved to Alon Mamre in Hebron (Gen. 13:18).  In addition, the Bible also gives us some information about a Mesopotamian war, in which the following peoples were attacked (Gen. 14):

 

1.  Rephaim	in Ashteroth Karnaim
2.  Zuzim	in Ham
3.  Emim	in Shaveh Kiriathaim
4.  Horites	in Seir mountains to El Paran
5.  Amalekites	in En Mishpat (Kadesh)
6.  Amorites	in Hazezon Tamar

 

Abraham was an ally of the Amorites (Gen. 14:13), who are named as Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner.  The Mesopotamian coalition was made up of the following kings:

 

 

Location	Shinar	Ellasar	Elam	Goyim
King	Amraphel	Arioch	Chedorlaomer	Tidal

 

 

These fought against the Canaanite kings:

 

 

Location	Sodom	Gomorrah	Admah	Zeboiim	Bela
King	Bera	Birsha	Shinab	Shemeber	King-x

 

 

In the above, we can see that Shinar (now the Sumerians) are allied with Elam, though the names cannot be matched with any known kings.  However, the following are some suggested name variants: a) Amraphel:  This name could be an early version of the name Hammurabi  (Amarabi-el).  Or perhaps it is a name similar to that of Amar-Sin of the 3^rd dynasty of Ur, hence Amar-piel, Amar-p-ilu, or similar.  Our preference is that it is an early form of Hammurabi; b) Arioch:  Uriaku, Erra-aku, or similar; c) Chedorlaomer:  Kudur-laomer, or similar; d) Tidal: Tuttal, or similar.

 

Abraham, in alliance with the Amorites, defeated the Elamite king Chedorlaomer (Gen. 14:17), then after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, he dwelt between Kadesh and Shur and sojourned in Gerar.  The latter city was ruled by Abimelech, a Philistine (Gen. 20: 1ff.; 21:32).  This places the origins of the Philistines in the Early Bronze Age (4^th dynasty of Egypt) at least, not during the beginning of the Iron Age.  From Gerar, Abraham went to a place where he swore an oath with Abimelech, and it became known as Beersheba (Gen. 21:31).  It is unlikely that the current archaeological site identified with the biblical city is the Beersheba of the patriarchal era, since this modern tell only starts with Iron age material, and even on a conventional basis, Abraham is placed in the Middle Bronze Age, much too early for the Iron Age city.

 

After a time, Abraham went to Hebron to bury Sarah (Gen. 23), and purchased a cave in the field of Machpelah before Mamre.  The philosopher John Locke makes an interesting point about Abraham’s travels:

 

“For we see, that in that part of the world which was first inhabited, and therefore like to be best peopled, even as low down as Abraham’s time, they wandered with their flocks, and their herds, which was their substance, freely up and down; and this Abraham did, in a country where he was a stranger.  Whence it is plain, that at least, a great part of the land lay in common….”  (The Second Treatise of Government, 5: 38.)

 

Since Abraham had to purchase a cave from the Hittites, it is clear that private property had already been in existence by the time of Abraham.  Title to property probably was required in urban environments due to population pressure, but outside of the jurisdiction of the city and its immediate surroundings, population pressures diminished, and lands became common.  The original town in this area did not go by the name “Hebron” or even “Kirjath Arba” since those were later names for the city.  More than likely the town was simply called Mamre, or else the biblical writer did not know the name and merely ascribed the town to the sons of Heth (i.e., the Hittites).

 

If Abraham lived during the Mesopotamian Early Dynastic 3 phase (1^st dynasty of Ur), then we can look to this period in Ur to get a sense of what life was like for Abraham.  This period is famous for the Royal Standard of Ur, the death pit of Ur, the Stela of the Vultures, and during a time when Mesopotamia was once again dominated by one king, the Sumerian ruler Eannatum.  (Note: The ram caught in a thicket is really a fertility idol, so cannot be related to Abraham.)  The city of Ai was in existence at this time, with Early Bronze Age 3 occupation, and Bethel shows signs of at least some EB3 occupation.  The following are a list of cities from the EB2 and EB3 periods as given by Mazar (Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, p. 109):

 

1.    Ai: strata 5 to 6

2.    Hazor: strata 21, begins at EB3

3.    Beth-Yerah, strata 12 to 11

4.    Beth-Shean, strata 13 to 12

5.    Megiddo, strata 18 to 17

6.    Far’ah (North), ends at strata f; no EB3

7.    Jericho, strata G to F

8.    Gezer, strata 23 to end of EB2; no EB3

9.    Yarmuth, Area B, strata 4 to 3

10.  Yarmuth, Area A, strata 3 to 4

11.  Tell el-Hesi, strata 10-4

12.  Tel Erani, strata 13, no EB2

13.  [pseudo]-Arad, strata 1 to EB2; no EB3

 

We call EB2 Arad “pseudo-Arad” since we do not think it is really the site of the post Exodus Arad.  The cities that were destroyed or abandoned at the end of EB2 were:

 

a)  Tell el-Far’ah (N)

b)  Gezer

c)  pseudo-Arad

 

Nevertheless, between EB2 and EB3 there was cultural continuity (Mazar, p. 109).  The Early Bronze 3 period begins somewhere around 2500 BC (on conventional dating), and the conventional dates for the Early Dynastic period of Mesopotamia are:

 

ED1  = 2900-2750 BC

ED2  = 2750-2650 BC

ED3a = 2650-2500 BC

ED3b = 2500-2370 BC

 

Thus EB3 matches Mesopotamian Early Dynastic 3, which is where we would tentatively place Abraham.  In our opinion, the current placement of Abraham in the Middle Bronze age will not work because the city of Ai was not in existence during this period.  Thus, Abraham would have to be at least a pre-Middle Bronze Age individual.  We have presented evidence that the MB1 strata is the best fit with the biblical account of the Exodus & Conquest (citing especially the MB1 material in the Negev & Kadesh-barnea).

 

Abraham has been the subject of wide discussion, especially since the time of Kierkegaard, who wrote extensively on the akedah or binding of Isaac for sacrifice.  Many in Kierkegaard’s day thought the episode to be obscene, sanctioning child sacrifice, and earlier Kant had said that the sacrifice of Isaac should have told Abraham that the command had not come from God.  (Cf., eds. J. Chamberlain & J. Ree, The Kierkegaard Reader, p. 74.)  Kierkegaard’s response to all this was to claim that the story of Abraham is about “paradox” and the “teleological suspension of the ethical.”  (Fear and Trembling.)  Abraham, in this view, is about moving beyond thinking; it is about grasping the “strength of the paradox,” of standing in an “absolute relation to the absolute.”

 

In our opinion, these philosophical interpretations of Abraham do not represent good exegesis of the biblical text.  In Abraham’s case, he had no need for faith in order to believe in the existence of God, or to believe that God had communicated with him. Abraham knew this, for God had not only communicated with him about the covenant (Gen. 12; 15), but also appeared to him to reconfirm his promise (Gen. 17).  In addition, God showed his great wrath and power in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), and also gave a son to Abraham while he and his wife were too old for normal childbirth (Gen. 18; 21).  Abraham, therefore, had no good reason to doubt that the command came from God.  The test was not whether Abraham merely believed in God, but rather whether he believed in the goodness of God.  Abraham had to believe in the covenantal promise of God regarding Isaac, despite unexpected challenges amid the dark paths of human existence.

 

In his intercession for the city of Sodom, Abraham asked the important question: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25).  St. Paul says of Abraham: “He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God….” (Rom. 4:20.)  Thus, Abraham, retained his hope in the future of his posterity, a hope based upon the faithfulness of God.  By this test, God demonstrated to Abraham that he was not a cruel, arbitrary tyrant, like the pagan gods—who required endless magic and ritual–but was faithful to his promises, and only required of Abraham that he walk in the steps of faith (Rom. 4:12).

 

4.  The Sojourn of a Family: Isaac to Joseph

 

The patriarchal narratives are not national histories, but are the narratives of one family’s journey through time and space, hoping for a promised land, a homeland where they would no longer be strangers.  As such, the narratives contain very little information that could be of significance for a chronologist, but are certainly of great significance to the family whose history is being recorded.  We hear, for instance, of a bride for Isaac (Gen. 24ff.), something a family would be interested in.  After this comes the burial of Abraham (Gen. 25:7ff), the genealogies of Ishmael and Isaac (Gen. 25:12ff.), the Lord’s promise to Rebekah that the older twin (the firstborn) would serve the younger twin (Gen. 25:23), and from there, the mistake made by Esau in selling his birthright to Jacob (Gen. 25:29ff.), thus fulfilling the promise.

 

We hear that Esau married two Hittites, Judith the daughter of Beeri, and Basemath the daughter of Elon (Gen. 26:34), and that Jacob, helped by his mother, obtained the blessing from Isaac (Gen: 27ff.).  Esau’s lament that Jacob had stolen away his birthright and his blessing is important to the family (Gen. 27:30ff.).  So also is Jacob’s departure from Isaac to take a wife from the daughters of Laban, in Padan Aram (Gen: 28ff.)  Along the way, we are told of Jacob’s dream, his meeting with Rachel, his marriage to Leah and Rachel and all the troubles of serving under Laban (Gen. 29:15ff.).  Nevertheless, Jacob prospered and eventually escaped from Laban, and was also reconciled with his brother Esau (Gen. 32ff.).  Jacob journeyed to the city of Shechem, where his daughter Dinah was raped by Shechem ben Hamor, who was later killed, along with his fellow Shechemites, by the Israelites in revenge.

 

In keeping with the familial nature of the patriarchal narratives, the Bible lists the names of Jacob’s twelve sons and the genealogy of Esau, as well as the chiefs of Edom, the sons of Seir the Horite, the kings of Edom, and the chiefs of Esau (Gen. 35:23; 36:1, 15, 20, 31, 40).  Unfortunately, our knowledge of secular history for this period is so fragmentary that we have very little to go on with respect to the Horites (or Hurrians) of this period in history.  Nor does the Bible enlighten us any further since these narratives, as noted, were a history of only one family, not of the nations of the world.

 

After this comes the familiar story of Joseph, who was hated by his brothers because of his father’s favoritism toward him, and for his prophetic dreams, in which Joseph implies that he will rule over his brothers (Gen. 37:3ff.).  After being sold by his brothers, Joseph eventually found himself in Egypt, and was placed in prison on the basis of a false accusation  (Gen. 39ff.).  He becomes the de facto administrator of the prison, and through the correct interpretation of dreams, first of the Pharaoh’s servants, and then of the Pharaoh himself, becomes exalted to be the ruler of the Egyptian nation, second only to Pharaoh.  When the famine came upon the land of Egypt, and upon all lands for seven years, the family of Jacob along with many other people traveled to Egypt to buy grain.  Joseph recognized his brothers but they did not recognize him, so he treated them roughly at first and tested them.

 

The rest of the story is heartbreaking and wonderful, for the brothers eventually returned to Egypt with Benjamin, and Joseph once again tested their loyalties by threatening to keep Benjamin, but Judah offers his own life as surety in place of Benjamin (Gen. 44:18).  Finally, Joseph reveals his identity to his brothers, and they return to Canaan and tell their father about Joseph’s rule in Egypt.  Jacob’s journey to Egypt is described and then just as one would expect from a family history, a genealogy is placed in the middle of the narrative of descent into Egypt.  Once this is done, the narrative resumes with the dramatic reunion between Jacob and Joseph, then Joseph’s continuing administration during the famine.  This process saw the Egyptians giving up most of their money, their personal property, their real property, and their service, to the king of Egypt.  This would eventually allow the Pharaoh to institute a tax of one-fifth of the produce from all Egypt.  But the Egyptians have few choices, either that or starvation, a good example of the importance of subjective-marginal utility in establishing market prices.  The remaining chapters show us Jacob blessing the sons of Joseph, and then giving out blessings to his sons.  The death of Jacob is described, then the death of Joseph, with his final request that his bones be taken back to the land of promise (Gen. 50:25).  Again, all of great interest to the patriarchal family.

 

Some references to the outside world—outside of the family, that is—can be found scattered throughout the narratives.  These references are clues that may help with chronological matters, but too often we know little about these foreign references.  For instance, we are told of Ephron and Sohar, described as Hittites, but nothing much about the Hittite people in general during this period.  We have already mentioned Seir the Horite, and a similar lack of interest in their history.  The narratives make reference to various locations, but it is sometimes not clear whether these are contemporary references or later anachronistic references.  Of the Ishmaelites were are told that “they dwelt from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt as you go toward Assyria” (Gen. 25:18).  We hear of Isaac’s father-in-law, Bethuel the Syrian of Padan Aram, and his brother-in-law, Laban the Syrian (Gen. 25:20).  Yet we know very little about these individuals or their culture and history, outside of what the Bible mentions.

 

The Philistines come into focus briefly when a famine settles upon the land during Isaac’s day (Gen. 26ff.)  The king of the Philistines was Abimelech in the city of Gerar.  This king was very concerned about preventing sexual immorality, primarily the kidnapping of foreign women (Gen. 26:9).  This sets the Philistines apart from the later Trojans and Greeks, who apparently had no qualms about stealing wives (e.g., Paris’s kidnapping of Helen).  Nevertheless, the Philistines were not quite as circumspect when it came to property, for they envied Isaac’s wealth and stopped up the family wells (Gen. 26:14ff).  Despite Isaac’s move to the Valley of Gerar, the Philistines quarreled with Isaac’s herdsmen over water rights and wells.  The quarreling stopped only when Isaac moved far enough away from the Philistines.  However, the Philistine king recognized the signs of God’s blessings upon Isaac and made a covenant with him to do no harm (Gen. 26:29).  Unfortunately, however, the Philistines are almost as much a mystery as the Hittites and Horites, and the scholarly confusion of the Philistines with the Sea Peoples clouds the issue even further.

 

The narratives of Joseph in Egypt tell us some things about the customs of the Egyptians, but do not mention the name of the Pharaoh of the famine period.  Still, the famine of Joseph’s day is an important datum for determining the correct chronology of this period.  Our own view, which will be defended in the next chapter, is that Unas, the last king of the Fifth Dynasty, was the king who exalted Joseph to the status of ruler over Egypt, where he became the savior of the Egyptians, as well as of his own family.

 

End