The Patriarchal Period is defined here as those living after the Flood
until the Law was given on Mt. Sinai. Atheists and Liberal Protestantism
scholars claim there is no historical evidence that supports the
Biblical portrayal of this period. On this page we will explore
some of the historical evidences that do support the historicity of
Genesis.
TABLE OF NATIONS
In Genesis 10-11, there are lists of peoples/nations coming from the
three sons of Noah. Including Noah, there are 81 names listed.
Of these, Stewart shows that 31 (39%) names can be confirmed from
ancient Assyrian Records or other ancient sources, excluding the Bible.
1
Clearly, Table of Nations is not some fictitious piece of literature.
Rather, other ancient documents show that the Table of Nations is
credible evidence of
the historicity of Genesis. To see how this list was viewed by
Josephus (A.D. 37-c100), you can find his discussion in
The
Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, Chapter 6.
2
ABRAHAM
In Genesis 14, the life of Abraham intersects with 4 kings who invade
Canaan, and these kings were named Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king
of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and
Tidal king of Goiim. Liberal scholars proclaim this chapter a myth. For
example, Heard makes this statement:
14:1-7 All attempts to identify Amraphel, Arioch Kedorlaomer, and
Tidal with known historical figures have failed.3
However. Dr. John T. Willis in his 1979 commentary on Genesis makes this
statement:
Some scholars have contended that Gen. 14 "is a legend pure
and simple, without the slightest historical basis"
(Morgenstern, Genesis, p. 113). However, by no means is this
the common view, for there is weighty
archeological and linguistic evidence indicating that the core of this
chapter is very ancient and historical.4
Wikipedia
has a good overview of this issue, and offers the following table
summarizing the names in the Bible with the probable names in
non-biblical resources:
| Name from Genesis 14:1 |
Name from Archaeology |
| Amraphel king of Shinar |
Hammurabi (="Ammurapi") king of Babylonia |
| Arioch king of Ellasar |
Eri-aku king of Larsa (i.e., Assyria) |
| Chedorlaomer king of Elam (=
Chodollogomor in the LXX) |
Kudur-Lagamar king of Elam |
| Tidal, king of nations (i.e., goyim,
lit. 'nations') |
Tudhulu, son of Gazza5 |
Among conservative scholars, the association of Amraphel with Hammurabi
has been viewed as the most probable of those mentioned
above. According to T.G. Pinches, there are
two remaining problems with the Amraphel/Hammurabi association.
These are
- The "l" at the end of Amraphel as well as the "ph" instead of "p" or "b"
- The expedition in Genesis 14:1 has not yet be recognized
among the campaigns of Hammurabi.6
The Wikipedia article gives the following explanation for
Pinches' first concern:
The terminal -bi on the end of Hammurabi's name was seen
to parallel Amraphel since the cuneiform symbol for -bi
can also be pronounced -pi. Tablets were known in which
the initial symbol for Hammurabi, pronounced as kh to
yield Khammurabi, had been dropped, such that Ammurapi
was a viable pronunciation. Supposing him to have been deified
in his lifetime or afterwards yielded Ammurabi-il, which was
suitably close to the Bible's Amraphel.7
Pinches' second concern is reasonable. However, it should
be noted that the ancient non-biblical historical texts treated their
self-aggrandizing pagan heroes with the greatest compliments, and were
very reluctant to mention their defeats. A good example of this is
when the Assyrian Sennacherib invaded Judah and conquered every city
except Jerusalem. He had conquered every city up to that point.
He doesn't say he conquered Jerusalem in his own account, but rather
that he shut up Hezekiah like a bird in a cage. Sennacherib didn't
mention that he suddenly lost 185,000 men one night as 2 Kings 19:35
says, or that he had departed in defeat and went back to Nineveh.
Thus, the obvious, that he couldn't conquer Jerusalem, Sennacherib admitted
indirectly, but his defeat is not mentioned
because pagan kings seldom if ever admit such things. You can read
his own account in the translation of his six-sided Sennacherib Prism,
column #3, not only of this incident, but of his extraordinary pride and
arrogance in all his invasions of all people within his reach in all 6
columns of his Prism.
8
Pinches also points out the historical agreements with the
Amraphel/Hammurabi, showing that he is the first one mentioned
in Genesis 14:1, which would be expected because of the renown
Hammurabi had at that time.
In addition there is evidence that Abraham was a contemporary with
these 4 kings and even knew of
Hammurabi's Law. For example, when one considers the
problem of
Sarah not being able to have children, we find
this passage in the Bible:
Genesis 16:1-2 (ESV)
1 Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him
no children. She had a female Egyptian servant whose name was Hagar.
2 And Sarai said to Abram, “Behold now,
the Lord has prevented me
from bearing children. Go in to my servant; it may be that I shall
obtain children by her.” And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.
This
episode is very similar to Hammurabi's 146
th
Law:
If a man take a wife and she give this man a maid-servant as
wife and she bear him children, and then this maid assume
equality with the wife: because she has borne him children her
master shall not sell her for money, but he may keep her as a
slave, reckoning her among the maid-servants.9
As the reader may recall, the dating of the Old Testament discussed in
http://www.wayhome.org/DatingOldTestamentHistory.html shows that
there is good evidence to indicate that Abraham and Hammurabi were
contemporaries. Therefore, the discussion of Abraham on this page
strengthens that conclusion.
In summary, then, Genesis 14:1 does connect Abraham with the wider
political/historical setting of 19
th century B.C.. Genesis
is not a myth.
SODOM AND ZEBOIIM
Liberal theologians say that the cities on the Plain of the Jordan (or
the Jordan Valley, Gen 13:10), namely, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and
Zeboiim, which were destroyed by God because of their sexual immorality,
are fictitious. These cities are mentioned in Gen 10:19; 14:2, 8;
and Deut 29:23, and Zoar is also included in some of these descriptions.
If you look at maps of Palestine drawn for this period of time, you are not likely to find any of
these cities' locations except for Zoar on some maps. Wright says,
Sodom was probably located in a plain S. of the Dead Sea, now covered
with water. The name is still preserved in Jebel Usdum (Mt.
Sodom).10
Others have said that the location of Sodom was on the
eastern side of the Dead Sea, but Canaan was never located
on the eastern side of the Dead Sea because that was the
region of Edom and Moab. Mount Sodom is a hill along
the Southwestern part of the Dead Sea, and it is made out of
halite, or rock salt.
11 Therefore, it seems
likely that the ancient Sodom was located close to Mt. Sodom
on the southwestern end of the Dead Sea.
12
Josephus, after describing the Dead Sea, describes the area
of Sodom:
(483) The country of Sodom borders
upon it. It was of old a most happy land both for the
fruits it bore and the riches of its cities, although it
be now all burnt up. (484) It is related how, for the
impiety of its inhabitants it was burnt by lightning; in
consequence of which there are still the remainders of
that divine fire; and the traces [or shadows] of the
five cities are still to be seen, as well as the ashes
growing in their fruits, which fruits have a color as if
they were fit to be eaten; but if you pluck them with
your hands, they will dissolve into smoke and ashes.
(485) And thus what is related of this land of Sodom
hath these marks of credibility which our very sight
affords us.13
Josephus, commenting again on Sodom, tells about seeing with his
own eyes the pillar of salt that was attributed to Lot's wife:
(203) God then cast a thunderbolt upon the
city, and set it on fire, with its inhabitants; and laid waste
the country with the like burning, as I formerly said when I
wrote the Jewish war. But Lot’s wife continually turning back
to view the city as she went from it, and being too nicely
inquisitive what would become of it, although God had forbidden
her so to do, was changed into a pillar of salt; for I have
seen it, and it remains at this day.14
In more recent history, encapsulated sulfur has been found in this
region, giving further evidence to the account that Sodom and Gomorrah
were destroyed by "sulfur and fire" (Gen 19:24).
15,16
In addition to this information, it appears that the Ebla Tablets may
also refer to Sodom and Zeboiim. In the Afterword by Mitchell
Dahood, S.J., he mentions the possible reference to these ancient cities
in the words
si-da-muki (TM.76.G.524) or
sa-damki
(TM.75.G.2231, obv. X 4) and
sa-bí-imki
(TM.75.G.2231, obv. I 7).
17
Genesis is not a myth.
