ויחי נחור תשע ועשרים שנה ויולד את־תרח׃
"And lived Nakhor nine and twenty years and fathered Terakh."
ויחי נחור אחרי הולידו את־תרח תשע־עשרה שנה ומאת שנה ויולד בנים ובנות׃
"And lived Nakhor after he fathered Terakh, nine and ten and a hundred years, and fathered sons and daughters."
ויחי־תרח שבעים שנה ויולד את־אברם את־נחור ואת־הרן׃
"And lived Terakh seventy years and fathered Abram, Nakhor, and Haran."
Secular and religion life in Ur
Late in the fourth or early in the third millennium BCE, the Sumerians, a non-Semitic people from Anatolia, the geographical region including Turkey, began to build the city of Ur.
Located about 200 miles (325 kilometers) southeast of present-day Baghdad, Ur became the capital of the whole of southern Mesopotamia during the 25th centuryBCE (first dynasty of Ur).
Throughout its history prior to Abraham, Ur had variously been an independent city-state ruled by a king, a city-state in vassalage to some other southern Mesopotamian city, or the seat of power that ruled over the entirety of southern Mesopotamia.
In all three phases, a system of city administration and government was established. Labor was highly specialized, and included agriculture, fishing, staff to service the temple, and various skilled craftsmen, such as sculptors, seal engravers, smiths, carpenters, potters, and workers in reeds and textiles.
Such specialization in labor was made possible by a system in which part of the population received its daily sustenance from a central distribution supply, in return for its labor in non-agricultural pursuits. Agricultural enterprises formed the mainstay of the economy of ancient Ur.
Utilizing a rotational system, approximately 3,000 acres.
The period usually refers to the 141 years circa 2334-2193BCE defined by the reign of the five kings of the Sargonic Dynasty. The area extended from north of Nippur to Sippar.
Some scholars add another 40 years to this period to include the two later kings of the city-state Akkad--which has not yet been found by archaeologists.
Sargon was King of Kish which implied suzerainty over northern Babylonia when he defeated the principal ruler in Sumer -- King Lugalzagesi of Uruk thus uniting the non-Semitic Sumer with the more northerly Akkad under one kingship.
Ancient historiography ascribed to King Utu-Khegal of city-state Uruk (2133-2113 BCE) the actual role of liberating Sumer by ousting the Gutian hordes. After the death of Utukhegal his brother and general Ur-Nammu asserted his independence and established a kingship in Ur and its surroundings--thus establishing the Third Dynasty of Ur in 2112 BCE. At first however the kingdom of Ur was probably overshadowed by Lagash.
The period between ca. 2112-2004 BCE is known as the Ur III period. Documents again began to be written in Sumerian, although Sumerian was becoming a purely literary or liturgical language, much as Latin later would be in MedievalEurope.[1]
The Dynasty of King Gudea partly overlaps the reign of Ur-Nammu. Ur-Nammu consolidated his control by defeating the rival dynasty in Lagash and soon gained control of all of the Sumerian city-states. The Third Dynasty of Ur came to an end when the Elamites destroyed the city-state and captured Ibbi-Sin (2029-2002 BCE) and deported him to Elam.
The city-state ruler who finally achieved a temporary supremacy and whose dynasty was in some senses the heir to the Third Dynasty of Ur was Ishbi-Erra of Isin. Larsa alternated with Isin in controlling southern Mesopotamia in the first two centuries of the 2nd millennium BCE. Neither state could properly be regarded as sole legitimate ruler of Babylonia
The Sumerian legacy included: cuneiform writing and epic narratives; architectural innovations (the column, arch, vault, and dome); increased specialization of the work force (sculptors, seal engravers, smiths, carpenters, shipbuilders, potters, and workers in reeds and textiles) and agricultural irrigation; etc.
By the late 24th century BCE, the Akkadians, under Sargon I, had established their capital at the newly built city of Akkad (Accad or Agade), north of Ur in the northern portion of southern Mesopotamia, and had created a large empire including: Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon; parts of Turkey and Iran; and possibly Egypt, Ethiopia, and Cyprus. In short, the Akkadian Empire was essentially an empire of the entire known world at that time. In the process, a large percentage of the Akkadians had become urbanized.
After coming to power in Kish, Sargon soon attacked Uruk, which was ruled by Lugal-Zage-Si of Umma. He captured Uruk and dismantled its famous walls. The defenders seem to have fled the city, joining an army led by fifty ensis from the provinces. This Sumerian force fought two pitched battles against the Akkadians, as a result of which the remaining forces of Lugal-Zage-Si were routed.[2] Lugal-Zage-Si himself was captured and brought to Nippur; Sargon inscribed on the pedestal of a statue (preserved in a later tablet) that he brought Lugal-Zage-Si "in a dog collar to the gate of Enlil."[3] Sargon pursued his enemies to Ur before moving eastwards to Lagash, to the Persian Gulf, and thence to Umma. He made a symbolic gesture of washing his weapons in the "lower sea" (Persian Gulf) to show that he had conquered Sumer in its entirety.[3]
Another victory Sargon celebrated was over Kashtubila, king of Kazalla. According to one ancient source, Sargon laid the city of Kazalla to waste so effectively "that the birds could not find a place to perch away from the ground."[4]
To help limit the chance of revolt in Sumer he appointed a court of 5,400 men to "share his table" (i.e., to administer his empire).[5] These 5,400 men may have constituted Sargon's army.[6] The governors chosen by Sargon to administer the main city-states of Sumer were Akkadians, not Sumerians.[7] The Semitic Akkadian languagebecame the lingua franca, the official language of inscriptions in allMesopotamia, and of great influence far beyond. Sargon's empire maintained trade and diplomatic contacts with kingdoms around the Arabian Sea and elsewhere in the Near East. Sargon's inscriptions report that ships from Magan,Meluhha, and Dilmun, among other places, rode at anchor in his capital of Agade.[8]
The former religious institutions of Sumer, already well-known and emulated by the Semites, were respected. Sumerian remained, in large part, the language of religion and Sargon and his successors were patrons of the Sumerian cults. Sargon styled himself "anointed priest of Anu" and "great ensi of Enlil".[9] While Sargon is often credited with the first true empire, Lugal-Zage-Si preceded him; after coming to power in Umma he had conquered or otherwise come into possession of Ur, Uruk, Nippur, and Lagash. Lugal-Zage-Si claimed rulership over lands as far away as the Mediterranean.[10] He was king for 50 years and his empire lasted 100 years after he died.
Around the last half of the 23rd century BCE, the Akkadian Empire was ruled by Naram-Sin, the grandson of Sargon I. Naram-Sin was a man of despotic pride and arrogance, who took the royal titles of "king of the four quarters of the earth" and "god of Akkad". It may be noted here that he installed his daughter, Enmenanna, in the office of high priestess of the Akkadian moon god, Sin, at the temple in Ur, which was one of the major cult cities in ancient Mesopotamia where the moon was the center of worship.
The Empire of Akkad in 2154 BCE, within 180 years of its founding, ushering in a period of regional decline that lasted until the rise of the Third Dynasty of Ur in 2112 BCE. By the end of the reign of Naram-Sin's son, Shar-kali-sharri (2217–2193 BCE), the empire had weakened. There was a period of anarchy between 2192 BC and 2168 BCE. Shu-Durul (2168–2154 BCE) appears to have restored some centralized authority, however he was unable to prevent the empire eventually collapsing outright from the invasion of barbarian peoples from the Zagros Mountains known as the Gutians.
Little is known about the Gutian period, or how long it endured. Cuneiform sources suggest that the Gutians' administration showed little concern for maintaining agriculture, written records, or public safety; they reputedly released all farm animals to roam about Mesopotamia freely, and soon brought about famine and rocketing grain prices. The decline coincided with severe drought, possibly connected with climatic changes reaching all across the area from Egypt to Greece. The Sumerian king Ur-Nammu (2112–2095 BCE) cleared the Gutians from Mesopotamia during his reign.
It has recently been suggested that the regional decline at the end of the Akkadian period (and of the First Intermediary Period that followed the Ancient Egyptian Old Kingdom) was associated with rapidly increasing aridity, and failing rainfall in the region of the Ancient Near East, caused by a global centennial-scale drought.[11][12] H. Weiss et al. have shown "Archaeological and soil-stratigraphic data define the origin, growth, and collapse of Subir, the third millennium rain-fed agriculture civilization of northern Mesopotamia on the Habur Plains of Syria. At 2200 BCE BCE, a marked increase in aridity and wind circulation, subsequent to a volcanic eruption, induced a considerable degradation of land-use conditions. After four centuries of urban life, this abrupt climatic change evidently caused abandonment of Tell Leilan, regional desertion, and collapse of the Akkadian empire based in southern Mesopotamia. Synchronous collapse in adjacent regions suggests that the impact of the abrupt climatic change was extensive.".[13] Peter B. deMenocal, has shown there was an influence of the North Atlantic Oscillation on the stream flow of the Tigris and Euphrates at this time, which led to the collapse of the Akkadian Empire".[14]
The Sumerian King List, describing the Akkadian Empire after the death of Shar-kali-shari, states:
"Who was king? Who was not king? Irgigi the king; Nanum, the king; Imi the king; Ilulu, the king—the four of them were kings but reigned only three years. Dudu reigned 21 years; Shu-Turul, the son of Dudu, reigned 15 years. … Agade was defeated and its kingship carried off to Uruk. In Uruk, Ur-ningin reigned 7 years, Ur-gigir, son of Ur-ningin, reigned 6 years; Kuda reigned 6 years; Puzur-ili reigned 5 years, Ur-Utu reigned 6 years. Uruk was smitten with weapons and its kingship carried off by the Gutian hordes.
However, there are no known year-names or other archaeological evidence verifying any of these later kings of Akkad or Uruk, apart from a single artifact referencing king Dudu of Akkad. The named kings of Uruk may have been contemporaries of the last kings of Akkad, but in any event could not have been very prominent.
In the Gutian hordes, (first reigned) a nameless king; (then) Imta reigned 3 years as king; Shulme reigned 6 years; Elulumesh reigned 6 years; Inimbakesh reigned 5 years; Igeshuash reigned 6 years; Iarlagab reigned 15 years; Ibate reigned 3 years; … reigned 3 years; Kurum reigned 1 year; … reigned 3 years; … reigned 2 years; Iararum reigned 2 years; Ibranum reigned 1 year; Hablum reigned 2 years; Puzur-Sin son of Hablum reigned 7 years; Iarlaganda reigned 7 years; … reigned 7 years; … reigned 40 days. Total 21 kings reigned 91 years, 40 days.
Evidence from Tell Leilan in Northern Mesopotamia shows what may have happened. The site was abandoned soon after the city's massive walls were constructed, its temple rebuilt and its grain production reorganized. The debris, dust and sand that followed show no trace of human activity. Soil samples show fine wind-blown sand, no trace of earthworm activity, reduced rainfall and indications of a drier and windier climate. Evidence shows that skeleton-thin sheep and cattle died of drought, and up to 28,000 people abandoned the site, seeking wetter areas elsewhere. Tell Brak shrank in size by 75%. Trade collapsed.Nomadic herders such as the Amorites moved herds closer to reliable water suppliers, bringing them into conflict with Akkadian populations. This climate-induced collapse seems to have affected the whole of the Middle East, and to have coincided with the collapse of the Egyptian Old Kingdom.[15]
This collapse of rain-fed agriculture in the Upper Country meant the loss to southern Mesopotamia of the agrarian subsidies which had kept the Akkadian Empire solvent. Water levels within the Tigris and Euphrates fell 1.5 meters beneath the level of 2600 BCE, and although they stabilized for a time during the following Ur III period, rivalries between pastoralists and farmers increased. Attempts were undertaken to prevent the former from herding their flocks in agricultural lands, such as the building of a 180 km (112 mi) wall known as the "Repeller of the Amorites" between the Tigris and Euphrates under the Ur III ruler Shu-Sin. Such attempts led to increased political instability; meanwhile, severe depopulation occurred to re-establishdemographic equilibrium with the less favorable climatic conditions.[16]
Perhaps the most intriguing person is the famed patriarch Abraham, whom plays a prominent and pivotal role in the Judaeo-Islamic history. Abraham is central to the mainstream religions that bear his name; Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, and to include–but not limited to–Bahá'í, Druze, Samaritanism, and Yazdânism, hence known as the Abrahamic religions. For thousands of years his known deeds has heralded an example for humankind, in pursuance of humbleness, patience, kind exhortation, giving of charity, self-discipline, and obedience. It was through these benevolent actions and unwavering faith in GOD سبحانه و تعالى, and steadfast in aiding welfare to those in need, which given him the infamous title of "Friend of GOD"; signifying the ever-bearing special, yet unique relationship between GOD سبحانه و تعالى and Abraham.
[al-Qur'an {The Recitations} 4:125] —وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ دِينًا مِّمَّنْ أَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُ لِلَّهِ وَهُوَ مُحْسِنٌ وَاتَّبَعَ مِلَّةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ حَنِيفًا وَاتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ خَلِيلًا
[Yeshayahû {Isaiah} 41:8] —ואתה ישראל עבדי יעקב אשר בחרתיך זרע אברהם אהבי׃
[Divreî ha-Yāmîm B {2 Chronicles} 20:7] —הלא אתה אלהינו הורשת את־ישבי הארץ הזאת מלפני עמך ישראל ותתנה לזרע אברהם אהבך לעולם׃
[Iakōbos {Epistle of James} 2:23] —καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα Ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην καὶ φίλος θεοῦ ἐκλήθη.
[Mets'hafe Kufale {Book of Jubilees} 19:8-9]
|
Whether Abraham was born into an urbanized or a nomadic Akkadian family remains unanswered. Judaeo-Christian scripture, the Qur'an, and Sahih Ahadith provide no concrete evidence regarding whether Abraham's family was urbanized and lived full time in Ur, or whether they were still nomadic and migrated around the rural areas surrounding Ur.
Likewise, one simply doesn't know whether Azar and his sons were skilled artisans working in the city, or whether they were agricultural workers or shepherds, who tended their flocks in the countryside.
It was probably during, or slightly before, the reign of the fourth Akkadian king, Naram-Sin, that Abraham was born.[see Appendix XX]]
Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) stated: All converts are considered descendants of Abraham because the Torah calls him the father of...nations, and therefore a convert can be called a son of Abraham. This means that the spiritual mission of mankind, which began with Adam, was now transferred to Abraham.Abraham back to Adam. Terah is the tenth descendant from Noah, who fathered Abram, Nahor and Haran; Haran fathered Lot. In addition, B'resheith lists two brothers of Abram, i.e. Nahor II and Haran II, and one nephew, i.e. Lot, the son of Haran II.
<-----Sixth or fifth century BCE P strand of B'resheith11:26-27.----->
According to the P strand of B'resheith, there were ten generations from Noah to Abraham. The Mishnah illustrates that it demonstrates how patient GOD is, for all generations kept provoking Him, until the patriarch Abraham came and received the reward of them all.
<-----Mishnah Pirkei Avot 5:2----->
There had been ten generations from Adam to Noah, giving humankind the opportunity to fulfill its responsibility to carry out the plan of Creation; they failed, and the Flood wiped them away. Then the mission fell to Noah and his offspring. The cycle was repeated: the next generation failed as well, but this time Abraham was able to prevent destruction. So great was he and so concerned with helping others that he was able to save the world. Simultaneously, he assumed the role that had previously been that of the entire race: He and his offspring would be the people of GOD, and bear the primary responsibility for bringing the Divine Plan to fruition. The children of Noah would be left with the seven universal laws, but Abraham's progeny would accept the Torah with its 613 commandments.
There have been over two hundred attempts to match the biblical chronology to dates in history, few of the more influential being:
In the book of Genesis, J strand, indicates that Abraham's original name was Abram. Etymologically the name suggests it was had really beenAbi-ram [i.e. "the (my) father is exalted"]. The tractate Berachos 13a interprets the verse (Genesis 17:5) as positive and negative commandments, it is strictly forbidden to refer to Abraham as "Abram."
Three factors should be considered in evaluating the name change as reported inB'resheith.
The rabbinical view holds that since after the Flood, Creation now begins anew, for it was Abraham who would bear the burden of holiness in the world.
Furthermore, Abram's name was changed toAbraham, a contraction representing his new status as av hamon—father of a multitude—whereas the name Avram represented his former status as only av Aram—father of Aram, his native country. Although he was no longer associated only with Aram, the letter was retained.
Abraham's new description as father of a multitude of nations was not rhetorical; it has halakhic implications that shed light on its deeper meaning. In explaining how converts who bring their 'first fruits' (bikkurim) to the Temple can recite the required formula[a] thanking GOD for the land He swore to give ourfathers (Devarim 26:3)—though converts do not descend from the Patriarchs. <-----Qur'an 6:74.----->
<-----al-Bukhari 4:569.----->
Yet, the question remains how one is to reconcile the statement in the P strand ofB'resheith that the father of Abraham was Terah.<-----The identification of Terah as the father of Abraham is also found in Joshua 24:2. While not part of theTorah, Joshuais part of the Hebrew scriptures and this particular verse appears to be from the eigth century BCE E strand.-----><-----Smith, R.H.; The Book of Joshua. In Laymon, C.M. (ed.): The interpreter's One: Volume Commentary on the Bible. Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1971.----->
At least four possibilities exist.
Lewis, E.; Downey, D.G. (eds.): The Abingdon Bible Commentary. New York, Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1929.-----> i.e., to assume that the name Terah refers to the clan of people to which Abraham belonged. This option has the advantage of not rejecting the information in P, of being consistent with the third option, and of accommodating the findings of Biblical archaeology.
The inherent difficulty with utilizing this fourth option is deciding whether references to Terah in the Torah are merely references to Abraham's eponymous clan leader or to Abraham's actual father. In the course of constructing a biographical sketch of Abraham, the deciding factor as to whether a Biblical reference to Terah is to an eponymous clan leader or to Abraham's actual father will be the specificity of the passage in question. Where specific and detailed information is recorded in the Torah about Terah as the father of Abraham, it will be assumed that this information applies to Azar.
The Qur 'an" lists Azar as the father of Abraham, as does Al-Bukhari", and this lineage will be accepted as fact. Yet, the question remains how one is to reconcile the statement in the P strand of Genesis that the father of Abraham was Terah." At least four possibilities exist. (1) One option would be simply to disregard the P strand information. However, this course of action fails to result in any harmony between and any synthesis of the Judaeo-Christian and Islamic information. (2) A second course of action is to assume that Terah and Azar are simply different names for the same individual." However, when confronted with discrepant names between the Judaeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, it would' appear to be irresponsible to assume automatically that we have two different names for the same person, especially when there does not appear to be any linguistic similarity. (3) A third option is to consider Terah as a grandfather or some more remote ancestor than the actual biological father, as the use of the word "son" in the Torah is often used simply to mean a descendant, however many generations removed. This option does no violence to the information conveyed in the P strand of Genesis, and is consistent with the fourth option. (4) A fourth option is suggested by the work of several Biblical scholars," i.e., to assume that the name Terah refers to the clan of people to which Abraham belonged. This option has the advantage of not rejecting the information in P, of being consistent with the third option, and ofaccommodating the findings of Biblical archaeology.
Although the second option cannot be dismissed, it is' the fourth option that will be incorporated within this book. The inherent difficulty with utilizing this fourth option is deciding whether references to Terah in the Torah are merely references to Abraham's eponymous clan leader or to Abraham's actual father. In the course of constructing a biographical sketch ofAbraham, the deciding factor as to whether a Biblical reference to Terah is to an eponymous clan leader or to Abraham's actual father will be the specificity of the passage in question. Where specific and detailed information is recorded in the Torah about Terah as the father of Abraham, it will be assumed that this information applies to Azar.
[B'resheith 11:26–27]
|
In one unreferenced section, al-Tabari inserts the name of Qaynan between that of Arpachshad and that of Shelah, specifically noting that the name of Qaynan was not listed in the Torah. In explaining the absence of this name from the Torah, al-Tabari states that Qaynan's name was deliberately excluded from the Torah, because Qaynan was a magician and sorcerer, who had had the temerity to claim that he himself was a god. As such, the compilers of the Torah believed that Qaynan was not worthy of being mentioned in a holy book.
This same assertion is also found in the non-canonical, third or second centuryBCE Jewish writings known as Jubilees, where Qaynan is referred to as Kainam.
[Jubilees 8:1-6]
|
[Jubilees 11:13-14]
And in this thirty-ninth jubilee, in the second week in the first year, [1870 A.M.] Terah took to himself a wife, and her name was 'Edna, the daughter of 'Abram, the daughter of his father's sister. And in the seventh year of this week [1876A.M.] she bare him a son, and he called his name Abram, by the name of the father of his mother—for he had died before his daughter had conceived a son. |
The Book of Jubilees states that Terah married 'Edna, whom is Abraham's mother, and also is his paternal aunt.
The Talmud, in tractate Bava Basra 91a, records that the mother of Abraham was Amathlai, daughter of Karnebo.
The Midrash notes that anyone whose name is repeated has a share in Olam Haba (World to Come). But Terah was an idolater; this indicates that he ultimately repented and earned a share in Olam Haba.
[Surat Al-'An`ām:74]
|
Regarding the personal lineage of Abraham, the only geographical information provided by theQur'an is that Abraham was the son of Azar, a relationship reiterated in oneSahih Hadith.
[Book 55: Prophets; Hadith 569 (Vol. IV); Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī]
|
Two issues immediately emerge in comparing the lineage information found in theQur'an and in the P strand of B'resheith. First, the Qur'an andPdisagree about the name of the father of Abraham. Second, the P account gives a much more complete genealogy, than does the Qur'an.
This imposes a few problems with the Abrahamic genealogy contained in the P strand ofB'resheith. Normally, a genealogy as complete as that given for Abraham inPwould establish some measure of confidence in the historical accuracy of the genealogy. Typically, the more detail provided, the more confident one is of the account given. However, there are a number of reasons to question the accuracy of P's reported genealogy for Abraham. In what follows, two issues are dealt with in reverse order; these reasons are presented below.
J strand | P strand |
---|---|
קין Cain | שת Seth |
חנוך Enoch | אנוש Enosh |
עירד Irad | קינן Kenan |
מחויאל Mehujael | מהללאל Mahalalel |
מתושאל Methushael | ירד Jared |
למך Lamech | חנוך Enoch |
מתושלח Methuselah | |
למך Lamech |
With only a slight rearranging of the names listed in Table 2, one comes up with the following matches, in which the first name listed is from J strand and the second name listed is from P strand: Enoch = Enoch; Irad = Jared; Mehujael = Mahalalel; Methushael = Methuselah; and Lamech = Lamech. The names are also provided in Hebrew for comparison; as noted by at least one Biblical scholar, it seems fairly obvious that the two lines of descent are really one and the same, though attributed to two different sons of Adam.<-----Robinson, T.H. (1929):Genesis. In Eiselen F.C., Lewis E., Downey D.G.:The Abingdon Bible Commentary. New York, Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1929a.----->
Conclusions
Given the above considerations, the following conclusions can be drawn:
Serûg | Ôrah | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Naḥôr I | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Teraḥ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hanal[?] | Haran I | Azar | Amathlai (='Adna)[?] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yiskâh* | Naḥôr II | Haran II | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Milkah | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lôṭ ﷺ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hagar | Sarah | Abrahamﷺ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Qetûrah* | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ishmael | Ișḥaq | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zimran | Yoqshan | Medan | Midyan | Ishbaq | Shuaḥ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- — - — - — - | Marriage—husband and wife |
—————— | Siblings; offspring |
The J strand of B'resheith states that Haran died before his father Terah, in the land of his birth, in Ur Kasdim. Abram and Nahor took wives; the name of Abram's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife was Milcah.
[B'resheit 11:29-30]
|
All sources, either from Judaic or Islamic texts, agree that Sarah was the first wife of Abraham. However, there is considerable disagreement as to Sarah's lineage and as to how she was related to Abraham. No firm conclusions can be drawn regarding the mother of Sarah.B'resheith states that there is only one generation separating Sarah and Abraham; it is only a 10-year difference in age between Abraham and Sarah, with Sarah being the younger of the two.<-----Sixth or fifth century BCE P strand of B'resheith 17:17.----->
Sarah believed in Abraham's prophetic mission and in the message that Abraham preached.
The following summarizes the different versions that have been presented in the past.
The Torah states that Sarah was Abraham's paternal half-sister,<-----Eight centuryBCE E strand of B'resheith 20:11-12.-----> While this statement occurs only once in the Torah, it is reiterated in Jubilees,<-----Third or second centuryBCE book of Jubilees 12:9-10.-----> and is the version that has traditionally been accepted by the Jewish and Christian communities. Nonetheless, this version raises certain moral and ethical considerations that are repugnant to Muslims and to many Jews, as well as Christians. Granted that the Mosaic Law prohibiting such a marriage had not yet been revealed to Moshe<-----The Mosaic Law prohibiting marriage between paternal half-siblings can be found in sixth or fifth century BCEP strand of Vayikra18:9, 20:17.----->, as Moshe lived many generations after Abraham. Nonetheless, one is still left asking whether a prophet of GODmarried his paternal half-sister. In asking this question, one bears in mind that there was no necessity for such a marriage, such as would have existed with the immediate children of Adam and Eve.<-----Third or second centuryBCE book ofJubilees 4:9-15-----><-----al-Tabari, M.H.:Ta'rikh al-Rusul Wa'l-Muluk. In Rosenthal, F. (transl.): The History of al-Tabari: Volume 1. General Introduction and From the Creation to the Flood. Albany, State University of New York Press, 1989.----->
The Islamic scholar, al-Tabari, on the other hand, suggests different potential lineages for Sarah:
((citation))
: Unknown parameter |booktitle=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (help)-----> However, Josephus failed to distinguish between two potential individuals named Haran: either Haran I, the paternal uncle of Abraham; or Haran II, the brother of Abraham.<-----Josephus, T.F. (1999), Jewish Antiquities, Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications ((citation))
: Unknown parameter |booktitle=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (help)-----> "In the Name of GOD, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful...
[Al-Baqarah (Qur'an) 2:124] —And recall that Ibrâhîm was tried (put to the test) by his LORD with/through certain kalimât (words, commands, decrees, purposes), and he fulfilled them.
[B'reshit (Genesis) 12:1–3] —YHVH said to Abram ("exalted father"):
[B'reshit (Genesis) 12:14–17] —YHVH said to Abram after Lot had parted from him:
[B'reshit (Genesis) 17:1–17] —When Abram was ninety-nine years old, YHVH appeared to Abram and said to him:
|
God appeared to Abram and told him to depart. After settling in Haran, where his father Terah died, God then told Abram to leave his country and his father’s house for a land that He would show him, promising to make of him a great nation, bless him, make his name great, bless those who blessed him, and curse those who cursed him. (Genesis 12:1–3) Following God’s command, at age 75, Abram took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, and the wealth and persons that they had acquired, and traveled to Shechem in Canaan.
God appeared and said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." So Abram left as he was told. He was seventy-five years old at the time. Later on through his travels God spoke to him again, saying that he was confirming their covenant. That it will be kept with Abraham and his descendants. In exchange for land for his family to flourish, every male among them shall be circumcised as a sign of the covenant.
There was a severe famine in the land of Canaan, so that Abram and Lot and their households, travelled south to Egypt. En route, Abram told his wife Sarai, to say that she was his sister, so that the Egyptians would not kill him. (Genesis 12:10–13) When they entered Egypt, the princes of Pharaoh praised Sarai's beauty to the Pharaoh, and she was taken into his palace, and Abram was given provisions: "oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels." However, God afflicted the Pharaoh and his household with great plagues, (Genesis 12:14–17) and after discovering that Sarai was really Abram's wife, the Pharaoh wanted nothing to do with them. He demanded that he and his household leave immediately, along with all their goods. (Genesis 12:18–20)
Main article: Abraham and Lot's conflict |
When they came back to the Bethel and Hai area, Abram's and Lot's sizeable numbers of livestock occupied the same pastures ("and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land.") This became a problem for the herdsmen who were assigned to each family’s cattle. The conflicts between herdsmen had become so troublesome that Abram graciously suggested that Lot choose a separate area, either on the left hand or on the right hand, that there be no conflict amongst "brethren". But Lot chose to go east to the plain of Jordan where the land was well watered everywhere as far as Zoar, and he dwelled in the cities of the plain toward Sodom. Abram went south to Hebron and settled in the plain of Mamre, where he built another altar to worship God. (Genesis 13:1–18)
During the rebellion of the Jordan River cities against Elam, (Genesis 14:1–9) Abram’s nephew, Lot, was taken prisoner along with his entire household by the invading Elamite forces. The Elamite army came to collect booty from the spoils of war, after having just defeated the King of Sodom’s armies. (Genesis 14:8–12) Lot and his family, at the time, were settled on the outskirts of the Kingdom of Sodom which made them a visible target. (Genesis 13:12)
One person that escaped capture came and told Abram what happened. Once Abram received this news, he immediately assembled 318 trained servants. Abram’s elite force headed north in pursuit of the Elamite army, who were already worn down from the Battle of Siddim. When they caught up with them at Dan, Abram devised a battle strategy plan by splitting his group into more than one unit, and launched a night raid. Not only were they able to free the captives, Abram’s unit chased and slaughtered the Elamite King Chedorlaomer at Hobah, just north of Damascus. They freed Lot, his household, possessions, and recovered all of the goods from Sodom that were taken. (Genesis 14:13–16)
Upon Abram’s return, Sodom's King (whom we do not know since the previous king Bera of Sodom perished in Gen14:10) came out to meet with him in the Valley of Shaveh, the "king's dale". Also, Melchizedek king of Salem (Jerusalem), a priest of God Most High, brought out bread and wine and blessed Abram and God. Abram then gave Melchizedek a tenth of everything. The king of Sodom then offered to let Abram keep all the possessions if he would merely return his people. Though he released the captives, Abram refused any reward from the King of Sodom, other than the share his allies were entitled to. (Genesis 14:17–24)
Battle of Siddim | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
Five Kings of the Cities of the Plain Non aligned army
|
Four Kings of Mesopotamia
| ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
King Bera |
King Chedorlaomer | ||||||
Strength | |||||||
Abram's 318 elite[19] | Elamite Empire | ||||||
Casualties and losses | |||||||
No casualty figures; all captives restored | Slaughter of Chedorlaomer and other kings |
The Battle of Siddim, or Battle of the Vale of Siddim refers to an event in the Hebrew Bible book of Genesis 14:1–12 that occurred in the days of Abram and Lot. The Vale of Siddim was the battleground for the cities of the Jordan Plain revolting against the Elamite empire and its Mesopotamian allies.
In the days of Lot, before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, The Elamite empire occupied the Land of Canaan which included all of the Jordan River Plain and many surrounding tribes and cities. The occupation was under the rule of King Chedorlaomer for twelve years. In the thirteenth year, five kings of the cities of the Jordan plain revolted against Elamite rule. According to Jewish tradition, the revolt started with refusing to pay tribute to the Elamite empire. This triggered Chedorlaomer to assemble forces from the four main directions of Mesopotamia. Chedorlaomer's campaign to the Jordan plains began with sacking and looting every city along the way.(Genesis 14:1–7)
In response to the uprising of several kings that Chedorlaomer ruled over, he ensured victory by calling together three other nations, to align with the Kingdom of Elam. These four aligned kings were:
The five kings from the Jordan River Plain rebelled against Elam rule, during Chedorlaomer's thirteenth year of reign over them. Their rebellion caused a domino effect that pushed Chedorlaomer to campaign against at least seven other nearby tribes and cities. The five kings of the plain were:
The Mesopotamian forces overwhelmed the kings of the Jordan plain driving some them into asphalt or tar pits that littered the vale. Those who escaped, fled to the mountains including the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom of Gomorrah were then spoiled of their goods and provisions as well as the taking of captives. Among the captives was Abram's nephew, Lot. (Genesis 14:10–12)
When word reached Abram, he immediately mounted a rescue operation, arming 318 of his trained servants who went in pursuit of the Mesopotamian armies that were returning to their homelands. They caught up with them in the city of Dan, flanking the enemy on multiple sides, during a night raid. The attack ran its course as far as Hobah, north of Damascus where he defeated Chedorlaomer and his forces. Abram recovered all the goods, even the captives who included Lot. (Genesis 14:13–17)
Amraphel has been thought by some scholars such as the writers of the catholic Encyclopedia and the Jewish Encyclopedia to be an alternate version of the name of the famed Hammurabi. The name is also associated with Ibal Pi-El II of Esnunna.[21][22]
Arioch has been thought to have been a king of Larsa (Ellasar being an alternate version of this). It has also been suggested that it is URU KI, meaning "this place here".
Following the discovery of documents written in the Elamite language and Babylonian language, it was thought that Chedorlaomer is a transliteration of the Elamite compound Kudur-Lagamar, meaning servant of Lagamaru - a reference to Lagamaru, an Elamite deity whose existence was mentioned by Assurbanipal. However, no mention of an individual named Kudur Lagamar has yet been found; inscriptions that were thought to contain this name are now known to have different names (the confusion arose due to similar lettering).[23][24] David Rohl identifies Chedorlaomer with an Elamite king named Kutir-Lagamar.
Tidal[25][26][27] has been considered to be a corruption or transliteration of Tudhaliya - either referring to the first king of the Hittite New Kingdom (Tudhaliya I) or the proto-Hittite king named Tudhaliya. With the former, the title king of Nations would refer to the allies of the Hittite kingdom such as the Ammurru and Mittani; with the latter the term "goyiim" has the sense of "them, those people". al ("their power") gives the sense of a people or tribe rather than a kingdom. Hence td goyim ("those people have created a state and stretched their power").
It was common practise for vassals/allies to accompany a powerful king during their conquests. For example, in a letter from about 1770 BC[22] reporting a speech aimed at persuading the nomadic tribes to acknowledge the authority of Zimri-Lim of Mari:
There is no king who can be mighty alone. Ten or fifteen kings follow Hammurabi the man of Babylon; as many follow Rim-Sin the man of Larsa, Ibal-pi-El the man of Eshnunna, and Amut-pi-El the man of Quatna and twenty kings follow Yarim-Lim the man of Yamhad.
The alliance of four states would have ruled over cities/countries that were spread over a wide area: from Elam at the extreme eastern end of the Fertile Crescent to Anatolia at the western edge of this region. Because of this, there is a limited range of time periods that match the Geopolitical context of Genesis 14. In this account, Chedorlaomer is described as the king to whom the cities of the plain pay tribute. Thus, Elam must be a dominant force in the region and the other three kings would therefore be vassals of Elam and/or trading partners.[22]
There were periods when Elam was allied with Mari through trade.[28] Mari also had connections to Syria and Anatolia, who, in turn, had political, cultural, linguistic and military connections to Canaan.[29] The earliest recorded empire was that of Sargon, which lasted until his grandson, Naram Sin.[22]
According to Kenneth Kitchen,[30] a better agreement with the conditions in the time of Chedorlaomer is provided by Ur Nammu. Mari had had links to the rest of Mesopotamia by Gulf trade as early as the Jemdet Nasr period but an expansion of political connections to Assyria did not occur until the time of Isbi-Erra.[22] The Amorites or MARTU were also linked to the Hittites of Anatolia by trade.[22]
Trade between the Harappan culture of India and the Jemdet Nasr flourished between c 2000-1700BC. As Isin declined, the fortunes of Larsa - located between Eshnunna and Elam - rose until Larsa was defeated by Hammurabi. Between 1880 and 1820 BC there was Assyrian trade with Anatolia, in particular in annakum or tin.[28][31][32] The main trade route between Ashur and Kanesh running between the Tigris and Euphrates passed through Haran. The empire of Shamshi-Adad I and Rim-Sin I included most of northern Mesopotamia. Thus, Kitchen concludes that this is the period in which the narrative of Genesis 14 falls into a close match with the events of the time of Shamsi Adad and Chedorlaomer[22]
The relevant rulers in the region at this time were:
When cuneiform was first deciphered in the 19th century Theophilus Pinches translated some Babylonian tablets which were part of the Spartoli collection in the British Museum and believed he had found in the Chedorlaomer Text the names of three of the "Kings of the East" named in Genesis 14. As this is the only part of Genesis which seems to set Abraham in wider political history, it seemed to many 19th and early 20th century exegetes and Assyriologists to offer an opening to date Abraham, if the kings in question could only be identified.
In 1887, Schrader was the first to propose that Amraphel could be an alternate spelling for Hammurabi.[33] 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, so that Ammurapi was a viable pronunciation. If Hammurabi were deified in his lifetime or soon after (adding -il to his name to signify his divinity), this would produce something close to the Bible's Amraphel. A little later Jean-Vincent Scheil found a tablet in the Imperial Ottoman Museum in Istanbul from Hammurabi to a king named Kuder-Lagomer of Elam, which he identified with the same name in Pinches' tablet. Thus by the early 1900s many scholars had become convinced that the kings of Gen. 14:1 had been identified,[34][35] resulting in the following correspondences:[36]
Name from Gen. 14:1 | Name from Archaeology |
---|---|
Amraphel king of Shinar | Hammurabi (="Ammurapi") king of Babylonia |
Arioch king of Ellasar | Eri-aku king of Larsa |
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 Gazza |
Today these dating attempts are little more than a historical curiosity. On the one hand, as the scholarly consensus on Near Eastern ancient history moved towards placing Hammurabi in the late 18th century (or even later), and not the 19th, confessional and evangelical theologians found they had to choose between accepting these identifications or accepting the biblical chronology; most were disinclined to state that the Bible might be in error and so began synchronizing Abram with the empire of Sargon I, and the work of Schrader, Pinches and Scheil fell out of favour. Meanwhile, further research into Mesopotamia and Syria in the second millennium BCE undercut attempts to tie Abraham in with a definite century and to treat him as a strictly historical figure, and while linguistically not implausible, the identification of Hammurabi with Amraphel is now regarded as untenable.[37]
There is rarely ever consensus on any matters involving Bible interpretation; one modern interpretation of Genesis 14 is summed up by Michael Astour in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (s.v. "Amraphel", "Arioch" and "Chedorlaomer"), who explains the story as a product of anti-Babylonian propaganda during the 6th century Babylonian captivity of the Jews:
After Böhl's widely accepted, but wrong, identification of mTu-ud-hul-a with one of the Hittite kings named Tudhaliyas, Tadmor found the correct solution by equating him with the Assyrian king Sennacherib (see Tidal). Astour (1966) identified the remaining two kings of the Chedorlaomer texts with Tukulti-Ninurta I of Assyria (see Arioch) and with the Chaldean Merodach-baladan (see Amraphel). The common denominator between these four rulers is that each of them, independently, occupied Babylon, oppressed it to a greater or lesser degree, and took away its sacred divine images, including the statue of its chief god Marduk; furthermore, all of them came to a tragic end ... All attempts to reconstruct the link between the Chedorlaomer texts and Genesis 14 remain speculative. However, the available evidence seems consistent with the following hypothesis: A Jew in Babylon, versed in Akkadian language and cuneiform script, found in an early version of the Chedorlaomer texts certain things consistent with his anti-Babylonian feelings.[38]
The Chedorlaomer tablets are now thought to be from the 6th or 7th century BCE, a millennium after the time of Hammurabi, but at roughly the time when the main elements of Genesis are thought to have been set down. Another prominent scholar considers a relationship between the tablet and Genesis speculative, but identifies Tudhula as a veiled reference to Sennacherib of Assyria, and Chedorlaomer, i.e. Kudur-Nahhunte, as "a recollection of a 12th century BCE king of Elam who briefly ruled Babylon."[39]
The last serious attempt to place a historical Abraham in the second millennium resulted from discovery of the name Abi-ramu on Babylonian contracts of about 2000 BCE, but this line of argument lost its force when it was shown that the name was also common in the first millennium,[40] leaving the patriarchal narratives in a relative biblical chronology but without an anchor in the known history of the Near East.
A few evangelical scholars continue to argue against the consensus: Kitchen asserts that the only known historical period in which a king of Elam, whilst allied with Larsa, was able to enlist a Hittite king and a King of Eshunna as partners and allies in a war against Canaanite cities is in the time of Old Babylon c 1822-1764 BC. This is when Babylon is under Hammurabi and Rim Sin I controls Mari, which is linked through trade to the Hittites and other allies along the length of the Euphrates. This trade is mentioned in the Mari letters, a source which documents a geo-political relationship back to when the ships of Dilmun, Makkan and Meluhha docked at the quays of Agade in the time of Sargon. In the period of Old Babylon, c 1822-1764 BC, Rim Sin I brought together kings of Syro-Anatolia whose kingdoms were located on the Euphrates in a coalition focused on Mari whose king was Shamsi Adad. Kitchen uses the geo-political context, the price of slaves and the nature of the covenants entered into by Abraham to date the events he encounters. He sees the covenants, between Abraham and the other characters encountered at various points in Abraham's journeys, as datable textual artifacts having the form of legal documents which can be compared to the form of legal documents from different periods.[30] Of particular interest is the relationship between Abraham and his wife, Sarah. When Sarah proves to be barren, she offers her handmaiden, Hagar, to Abraham to provide an heir. This arrangement, along with other aspects of the covenants of Abraham, lead Kitchen to a relatively narrow date range which he believes aligns with the time of Hammurabi.[30]