Evidence from Biblical scholars indicate Abraham is fiction

[_Fortigurn]

Both the Mari and Nuzi tablets helpfully corroborate the accuracy of the Genesis description of the cultural environment in which Abraham would have lived.

This argument was laid to rest more than thirty years ago (see esp. Thomas L. Thompson, The History of the Patriarchal Narratives [1974; repr. 2002] and John Van Seters's Abraham in History and Tradition [1975]).

Even conservative scholars now disavow the alleged parallels between the Nuzi and Mari texts and the patriarchal narratives. One recent "maximalist" treatment notes, for example, that these arguments in favor of the historicity of the patriarchs "have turned out to be weak" and that Thompson and Van Seters et al. have rendered an important service by "disabusing readers of false comparisons" (Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III, A Biblical History of Israel [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003], 115).

We meet again Nevo. As a matter of fact, whist it is true that 'false comparisons' have been debunked, valid comparisons still remain. The main argument which was debunked was that the Nuzi and Mari tablets were substantive evidence that the patriarchal narrative was describing historical persons. That argument was never sustainable.

All the Nuzi and Mari tablets could do was to prove substantive evidence that the patriarchal narrative was true to (or at least not contradictory to), its putative milieu. This they still do, without resorting to parallelomania. Van Seter's own errors of parallelomania make his objections the more amusing. Of course he has his agenda, and will undoubtedly stay with it regardless.

It is worth noting that the class of commentators who attempt to minimize the parallels between the patriarchal narrative and the Nuzi/Mari tablets are the same class of commentators who wish to snatch at the slightest narrative similarities between one or two text traditions of the Gilgamesh Epic and the Genesis flood record in an attempt to prove that the Genesis account was a late recension of the Assyrian text.

It's difficult to take such an attitude seriously.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Probably the most important evidence for the historicity of these narratives is their onomastica. It dates very much to the proper time period. Another interesting evidence is that Abraham is said to have done things that don't fit all that well with later Jewish sensibilities; given a tithe to a priest of El, been commanded to sacrifice his son, etc. It has been suggested that the laws allowing animals to be used to redeem firstborn human sons hearkens back to a time when human sacrifice was actually practiced by Israel's ancestors. I suspect that Abraham comes from such a time; perhaps the story of the ram that stood in for Isaac was the beginning of Israel's redemptive-sacrifice tradition. As for some of the later narratives, for a discussion of the Exodus accounts from a conservative point of view, I recommend James K. Hoffmeier's book Israel in Egypt, and Baruch Halpern has made a good literary case for the existence of King David.

I don't put much stock in anything further back in the Genesis narratives than Abraham, but I do tend to think ole Abe was a real person, even if the narratives about him have been mythologized. Probably our earliest biblical texts (a total of about 3 chapters) date to 1200 BC and seem to take for granted the Exodus and the existence of Moses.

[_Fortigurn]

Good points Celestial Kingdom.

[_Nevo]

Probably the most important evidence for the historicity of these narratives is their onomastica. It dates very much to the proper time period.

Again, see Thomas L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (1974; repr., Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002), esp. ch. 2, "The Names of the Patriarchs and the 'Patriarchal Period'".

Thompson notes that "although all must agree that the names of the patriarchs are clearly not fabricated but fit well into the common Near Eastern nomenclature, many conclude on the basis of this authenticity that the essential historicity of the narratives has been established" (17). As Thompson goes on to show, this conclusion is highly problematic. Regarding the onomastic evidence, Joseph Blenkinsopp notes that "the names of the patriarchs . . . draw on the common stock of west Semitic nomenclature by no means confined to that period. The link between the tribe of Benjamin and the 'Benjamite' nomads in the Kingdom of Mari in the eighteenth century B.C. has not held up" (Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible [ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992], 128; emphasis added).

As John J. Collins has recently observed, "there is . . . no positive evidence that requires us to set the background of the patriarchs in the early or middle part of the second millennium. Moreover, several considerations tell against such a background . . ." (John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004], 85).

In other words, "it [remains] problematic to grant any historical substance to the patriarchal stories as such" (Mark S. Smith, The Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004], 19).

Another interesting evidence is that Abraham is said to have done things that don't fit all that well with later Jewish sensibilities; given a tithe to a priest of El, been commanded to sacrifice his son, etc. It has been suggested that the laws allowing animals to be used to redeem firstborn human sons hearkens back to a time when human sacrifice was actually practiced by Israel's ancestors.

If by "later Jewish sensibilities" you mean those of the Deuteronomists, then I agree. The patriarchal stories belong to a period prior to the Deuteronomic reform. As for human sacrifice, that wasn't simply a Canaanite practice but a pre-exilic Israelite practice as well (see Jon D. Levenson, The Death and the Resurrection of the Beloved Son; the Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993]; cf. Micah 6:6-8).

[_Fortigurn]

Probably the most important evidence for the historicity of these narratives is their onomastica. It dates very much to the proper time period.

Again, see Thomas L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (1974; repr., Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002), esp. ch. 2, "The Names of the Patriarchs and the 'Patriarchal Period'".

Thompson notes that "although all must agree that the names of the patriarchs are clearly not fabricated but fit well into the common Near Eastern nomenclature, many conclude on the basis of this authenticity that the essential historicity of the narratives has been established" (17). As Thompson goes on to show, this conclusion is highly problematic. Regarding the onomastic evidence, Joseph Blenkinsopp notes that "the names of the patriarchs . . . draw on the common stock of west Semitic nomenclature by no means confined to that period. The link between the tribe of Benjamin and the 'Benjamite' nomads in the Kingdom of Mari in the eighteenth century B.C. has not held up" (Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible [ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992], 128; emphasis added).

As John J. Collins has recently observed, "there is . . . no positive evidence that requires us to set the background of the patriarchs in the early or middle part of the second millennium. Moreover, several considerations tell against such a background . . ." (John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004], 85).

In other words, "it [remains] problematic to grant any historical substance to the patriarchal stories as such" (Mark S. Smith, The Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004], 19).

No, in other words it's evidence but not proof. That is why it doesn't require us 'to set the background of the patriarchs in the early or middle part of the second millennium'.

If by "later Jewish sensibilities" you mean those of the Deuteronomists, then I agree. The patriarchal stories belong to a period prior to the Deuteronomic reform. As for human sacrifice, that wasn't simply a Canaanite practice but a pre-exilic Israelite practice as well (see Jon D. Levenson, The Death and the Resurrection of the Beloved Son; the Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993]; cf. Micah 6:6-8).

I hope you're not equivocating pre-exilic heteropraxy and pre-exilic orthopraxy.

[4xbros]

If by "later Jewish sensibilities" you mean those of the Deuteronomists, then I agree. The patriarchal stories belong to a period prior to the Deuteronomic reform. As for human sacrifice, that wasn't simply a Canaanite practice but a pre-exilic Israelite practice as well (see Jon D. Levenson, The Death and the Resurrection of the Beloved Son; the Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993]; cf. Micah 6:6-8).

I hope you're not equivocating pre-exilic heteropraxy and pre-exilic orthopraxy.

Well, however you want to define it, it was an Israelite practice. Patrick Miller believes it was "brought in from the outside in the assimilation of cults of other deities to the worship of Yahweh" (Patrick D. Miller, The Religion of Ancient of Israel [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000], 59) but nonetheless "at one time child sacrifice was part of the official cult" (Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001], 362). According to Levenson, "only at a particular stage rather late in the history of Israel was child sacrifice branded as counter to the will of YHWH and thus ipso facto idolatrous" (Levenson, Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, 11).

Mark Smith notes that Ezek. 20:25-26 "provides a theological rationale for Yahweh causing child sacrifice," which indicates that "in the seventh century child sacrifice was a Judean practice performed in the name of Yahweh. Isaiah 30:27-33 appears as the best evidence for the early practice of child sacrifice in Israel. According to Paul Mosca, the image of child sacrifice in this eighth- or seventh-century passage serves as a way to describe Yahweh's coming destruction of Israel. In this text there is no offense taken at the tophet, the precinct of child sacrifice. It would appear that Jerusalemite cult included child sacrifice under Yahwistic patronage" (Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, 2d ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002], 171-72).

More recently, Saul Olyan has written: "There is vestigial evidence for child sacrifices and offerings to the dead in biblical materials, and these may well have played a more central role in Israelite cultic life than extant texts might suggest. The Hebrew Bible preserves several polemics against child sacrifice (e.g., Lev. 20.2-5; 2 Kings 21.6), including texts that associate the practice with an alleged (but not securely attested) Canaanite deity Molech. Nonetheless, some texts suggest that child sacrifices in Israel were made to YHWH himself and that the practice was legitimate in at least some Israelite circles (e.g., Gen. 22; Exod. 13.2; Judg. 11; Jer. 7.31; Ezek. 20.25-26, 30-31; Micah 6:6-8, which all suggest that YHWH was the recipient of child sacrifices)" (Saul M. Olyan, "Sacrifice, Offerings, and Votives: Israel," in Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide, ed. Sarah Iles Johnston [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004], 335).

All this suggests that the command to sacrifice Isaac was quite compatible with Israelite sensibilities during the ninth to eighth centuries BCE (and later).

[_Fortigurn]

Well, however you want to define it, it was an Israelite practice.

Ah, but in exactly what context was it an Israelite practice? Was it heteropraxy or orthopraxy? To take a most relevant current example, we can say that shooting people at schools and colleges is 'A North American practice'. But is it heteropraxy or orthopraxy? What's your answer?

Patrick Miller believes it was "brought in from the outside in the assimilation of cults of other deities to the worship of Yahweh" (Patrick D. Miller, The Religion of Ancient of Israel [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000], 59)...

I agree with this. The Old Testament record says the same.

...but nonetheless "at one time child sacrifice was part of the official cult" (Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001], 362).

Define 'official cult'.

According to Levenson, "only at a particular stage rather late in the history of Israel was child sacrifice branded as counter to the will of YHWH and thus ipso facto idolatrous" (Levenson, Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, 11).

And at what particular stage would that be, and what evidence is there for the conclusion?

Mark Smith notes that Ezek. 20:25-26 "provides a theological rationale for Yahweh causing child sacrifice," which indicates that "in the seventh century child sacrifice was a Judean practice performed in the name of Yahweh.

Here's the relevant passage:

Ezekiel 20:
25 I also gave them decrees which were not good and regulations by which they could not live.
26 I declared them to be defiled because of their sacrifices – they caused all their first born to pass through the fire – so that I would devastate them, so that they will know that I am the Lord.’

That is not 'a theological rationale for Yahweh causing child sacrifice', that is a declaration of Yahweh's prophet that Israel was practicing child sacrifice in blatant contravention of His commands.

Isaiah 30:27-33 appears as the best evidence for the early practice of child sacrifice in Israel. According to Paul Mosca, the image of child sacrifice in this eighth- or seventh-century passage serves as a way to describe Yahweh's coming destruction of Israel. In this text there is no offense taken at the tophet, the precinct of child sacrifice. It would appear that Jerusalemite cult included child sacrifice under Yahwistic patronage" (Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, 2d ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002], 171-72).

That it took place is not under dispute. That it took place 'under Yahwistic patronage' is under dispute. Find me one recognised priest or prophet which taught child sacrifice as orthopraxy within the Yahweh cultus.

More recently Saul Olyan has written: "There is vestigial evidence for child sacrifices and offerings to the dead in biblical materials, and these may well have played a more central role in Israelite cultic life than extant texts might suggest. The Hebrew Bible preserves several polemics against child sacrifice (e.g., Lev. 20.2-5; 2 Kings 21.6), including texts that associate the practice with an alleged (but not securely attested) Canaanite deity Molech. Nonetheless, some texts suggest that child sacrifices in Israel were made to YHWH himself and that the practice was legitimate in at least some Israelite circles (e.g., Gen. 22; Exod. 13.2; Judg. 11; Jer. 7.31; Ezek. 20.25-26, 30-31; Micah 6:6-8, which all suggest that YHWH was the recipient of child sacrifices)" (Saul M. Olyan, "Sacrifice, Offerings, and Votives: Israel," in Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide, ed. Sarah Iles Johnston [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004], 335).

Emphasis mine. Again, this is simply telling us what we already know - that child sacrifice existed in certain contexts in Israelite history. We don't need scholars to tell us that, it's in the Bible (and indeed, that's where they get most of their information from on this subject). But there is no evidence here that child sacrifice existed as orthopraxy within the Yahweh cultus. The best we have here is 'in at least some Israelite circles'. That one simple phrase defangs the entire paragraph.

In any case, the story of the binding of Isaac in Gen 22 is at home in the Israel of the ninth to eighth centuries BCE (and later).

For what reason?

[_Nevo]

Mark Smith notes that Ezek. 20:25-26 "provides a theological rationale for Yahweh causing child sacrifice," which indicates that "in the seventh century child sacrifice was a Judean practice performed in the name of Yahweh.

Here's the relevant passage:

Ezekiel 20:
25 I also gave them decrees which were not good and regulations by which they could not live.
26 I declared them to be defiled because of their sacrifices – they caused all their first born to pass through the fire – so that I would devastate them, so that they will know that I am the Lord.’

That is not 'a theological rationale for Yahweh causing child sacrifice', that is a declaration of Yahweh's prophet that Israel was practicing child sacrifice in blatant contravention of His commands.

Smith renders the passage as follows: "Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the Lord."

Additional support for this reading is found in Moshe Greenberg's Anchor Bible commentary on Ezekiel and George Heider's article, "A Further Turn on Ezekiel's Baroque Twist in Ezek 20:25-26," JBL 107 (1988): 721-24. See also John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 96: "YHWH is said to have commanded human sacrifice in Ezek 20:25-26. . . ."

According to Ziony Zevit, "Ezekiel here acknowledges and confirms a tradition that passing the firstborn through fire (the idiom is truncated in verse 26) was divinely ordained in a lawgiving that took place in the land. This seems to be an acknowledgment of the antiquity of the practice and a recognition of its claim to Yahwistic sanction and legitimacy (Gras et al., 1991: 153). Ezekiel, however, claims that this was done by YHWH out of spite in order to incriminate Israel and render her culpable" (Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches [London, New York: Continuum, 2001], 565).

[_Fortigurn]

Smith renders the passage as follows: "Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the Lord."

On what basis does he do so? Can you provide any modern translation which gives this rendering?

Additional support for this reading is found in Moshe Greenberg's Anchor Bible commentary on Ezekiel and George Heider's article, "A Further Turn on Ezekiel's Baroque Twist in Ezek 20:25-26," JBL 107 (1988): 721-24. See also John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 96: "YHWH is said to have commanded human sacrifice in Ezek 20:25-26. . . ."

Without evidence and argument, this is not 'Additional support for this reading', it is simply a restatement of an unproven claim.

According to Ziony Zevit, "Ezekiel here acknowledges and confirms a tradition that passing the firstborn through fire (the idiom is truncated in verse 26) was divinely ordained in a lawgiving that took place in the land. This seems to be an acknowledgment of the antiquity of the practice and a recognition of its claim to Yahwistic sanction and legitimacy (Gras et al., 1991: 153). Ezekiel, however, claims that this was done by YHWH out of spite in order to incriminate Israel and render her culpable" (Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches [London, New York: Continuum, 2001], 565).

Ditto. Cards on the table please. I would like to see evidence of independent thinking as well, not simply hit and run copy/pastes of material found on Google.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Nevo,

Passing all the firstborn through the fire is a well-known phrase from the Pentateuch (Numbers, I think) referring to the firstfruits Yahweh demanded from all the flocks and herds (as well as firstborn sons, who could be redeemed by substituting an animal). It therefore does not necessarily refer to human sacrifice. A number of period texts seem to look down their noses at the practice of animal sacrifice; indeed, Jeremiah even goes so far as to say that YHWH did not command Israel's fathers concerning sacrifices and burnt offerings, and shortly thereafter implies that the scribes have altered the law (I think that's 7:22 and 8:8). Other prophets assert that sacrifice takes second place to a heart-orientation (Isaiah, the Psalms, Joel). Ezekiel 20 seems to resolve the problem by making sacrifice a divinely-instituted law, but explaining that it is designed as retribution for Israel's hardheartedness. Deuteronomy, of course, limits sacrifice to the cult-center.

To have human sacrifice mandated by the official YHWHistic cult in this era is extremely problematic, in my opinion.

-CK