The Evolution of Abraham

Every superhero has an origin story that explains how they got their superpowers or what motivates them. Nations also have origin stories. Israel has more than one origin story.

This seems like a curious claim. Isn’t the Bible the origin story of Israel? Yes, but as we have seen, the Bible has preserved competing traditions.

Competing Origins

The oldest origin story for Israel is the cycle of narratives surrounding Jacob in Gen 25-35. Judging by the historical context, the substance of the Jacob cycle appears to have been written down at the end of the 8th or the beginning of the 7th century BCE. After cheating his older brother of birthright and blessing, Jacob flees to the land of the Arameans, acquires wives and children and livestock, and obtains recognition as his own tribe (Gen 31). The final chapters have Jacob reconciling with his brother and connect him to sacred sites such as Peniel, Shechem and Bethel.

The Jacob cycle is a complete legend of Israel’s origin. On its own, it explains the existence of the twelve tribes and which are the most important, proves their rights to the hill country of central Palestine, recounts the founding of the main sanctuary at Bethel, and so on. But this Israel is not the one we know from other traditions in the Bible. This Israel is not a community of believers nor a warring nation, but a tribe struggling for recognition.

Compare the origin story of Jacob with the better-known origin story of Moses and the Exodus. Moses, too, had to flee to a foreign land where he married the daughter of a desert sheikh, only to finally return to his homeland with a mission. But Moses is not a patriarch, his sons play no role in the formation of Israel. According to the Exodus story, one is not a son of Israel through genealogy but by hearing the call from YHWH through his prophet Moses. Israel’s origins lie not in the tents of Laban, but in Egypt and the desert.

If this theory of competing origin stories sounds highly speculative to you, there is some hard evidence to support it. In chapter 12 of the Book of Hosea (end of 8^th century BCE), the prophet invites his audience to choose between the competing and conflicting legends of origins. Hosea’s challenge closes with this:

Jacob fled to the land of Aram,
there Israel served for a wife,
and for a wife he guarded sheep.

By a prophet YHWH brought Israel up from Egypt,
and by a prophet he was guarded.

Hosea seems to be asking his audience: Who do you want to be? Biological descendants of a scoundrel or a people called by God? He hoped to persuade his audience to choose Moses but, in the end, Israel refused to choose one origin story over the other and kept both.

Abraham: The Promise by Israeli artist Zvi Leonhard (https://zviandariane.com/). God uses the dust of the earth and stars of the heavens as metaphors for descendants beyond measure (Gen 13:16; 15:5)

Growth of the Abraham Legend

Is the Abraham cycle yet another origin story?

First of all, the Abraham cycle is not as old as the Jacob cycle. References to Abraham don’t appear outside Genesis until Ezek 33:23-29 and Is 51:1-3 (both 6^th century). The Ezekiel reference says Abraham came to possess the land. The reference from Isaiah says YHWH blessed Abraham and Sarah and made them parents of multitudes. In both citations we see expressed the dual theme of the Abraham cycle: the land and offspring.

Despite the fact that the references are 6^th century, biblical scholars believe that the origins of the Abraham legend were formed around the same time as the Jacob cycle (8^th-7^th centuries BCE). The core set of narratives (Gen 13; 16; 18-19; and 21:1-4) is centered on Hebron and the sacred oak of Mamre. Abraham (under his original name of “Abram”) has two sons, but only one belongs to Israel. Through Lot, Abraham is also related to the Moabite and Ammonite people. If the Abraham cycle is an origin story, it is not just an origin story of Israel.

Based on the core narratives, Abraham is an indigenous hero of the south. Isaac, too, is a legendary hero of the south, centered around Beersheba. Early on, Isaac was joined to the Abraham cycle as Abraham’s son. What remains of Isaac’s story (Gen 26) and was recast as narratives involving Abraham (Gen 20 and 21:22-34). Outside of Gen 26, Isaac only appears as either a son of Abraham or a father of Jacob.

After the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel to the Assyrians in 721 BCE, the survivors brought their national origin story (the Jacob cycle) to the southern kingdom of Judah where it was merged with the combined Abraham-Isaac cycle. During the Babylonian exile, the conjoined Abraham/Jacob cycle of stories was modified to reflect a promise of land because the Israelites were no longer in possession of the land. A Babylonian backstory was provided for Abraham. The divine command that came to Abraham in Ur to go forth to Canaan was a call for the exiles to leave Babylon and return to the promised land.

With the addition of the primeval history and Joseph narrative, Genesis became a prequel to the Exodus story.

The Ecumenical Patriarch

While it may have started as legends of a southern hero, the Abraham cycle evolved into something else. What is his ultimate role in the OT?

One clue can be found in  a curious note (Gen 15:9) made upon the death of Abraham:

His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite, east of Mamre, the field that Abraham purchased from the Hittites.

We thought we had seen the last of Ishmael back in Gen 21:8-21 when he and his mother Hagar had been expelled to the desert. At a story level, the purpose of Ishmael's exile was leave Abraham only one remaining son when God called for a sacrifice (Gen 22). Yet the P source brings Ishmael back into the story as a reminder that Abraham is not only the father of Israel or Judah or the Jews, but is the ancestor of many nations.

According to an interesting article by Albert de Pury, Professor for OT studies at the University of Geneva, Abraham was ultimately seen as an “ecumenical patriarch.” In contrast to other traditions that found their way into the Bible insisting the promised land must be taken from the Canaanites in a war of conquest that ends in the extermination of all the land’s former inhabitants, Abraham is seen as peacefully co-existing with the various Canaanite clans. He is the father of or is closely related to neighboring nations such as the Arabs (Ishmael is the ancestor of the twelve tribes of the Arab federation), the twelve tribes of Israel (through his grandson Jacob), Edomites (through his grandson Esau), Midianites (through his second wife Keturah), and Ammonites and Moabites (through Lot).

De Pury uses the adjective “ecumenical” in the sense of “worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application.” As the father of many nations (Gen 17:5), perhaps a better adjective – although more technical – for Abraham’s role in Genesis would be “transethnic” or “transnational” patriarch.

The more commonly-used meaning of the word “ecumenical” is “of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches.” It is in this sense that the term “ecumenical patriarch” is appropriate for how Abraham is viewed today.  Abraham is venerated by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. If the children of Abraham can focus on him as a symbol of what we have in common rather than what divides us, the world will be a better place.

Hail and Well Met

One of the books that became a major influence on how I approach the Bible is The Art of Biblical Narrative by Robert Alter. A professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature at UC Berkeley, Alter sees the OT with the eyes of a literary critic, subjecting the biblical texts to the kind of critical analysis one might apply to the works of Shakespeare. The texts display literary artistry and are not simply cobbled together from various sources.

In chapter 3 of the book, Alter speaks of something I’ve written about in previous articles, how the same story gets told two or three times, sometimes with the same characters:

Three times a patriarch is driven by famine to a southern region where he pretends that his wife is his sister, narrowly avoids a violation of the conjugal bond by the local ruler, and is sent away with gifts. Twice Hagar flees into the wilderness from Sarah’s hostility and discovers a miraculous well and that story itself seems only a special variation of the recurrent story of bitter rivalry between a barren, favored wife and a fertile co-wife or concubine. That situation, in turn, suggests another oft-told tale in the Bible, of a woman long barren who is vouchsafed a divine promise of progeny, whether by God himself or through a divine messenger or oracle, and who then gives birth to a hero. (p. 49)

Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear

Alter provides a modern-day example that particularly stuck with me over the years. Think of the gun-slinging hero in Westerns, able to draw and outshoot the bad guys before they can even pull their triggers. In a similar analogy I used way back when I began my blog five years ago, suppose that centuries from now, only a dozen Western movies have been preserved. In all but one, the hero has such a “hyperreflexive arm”. In the one exception, the hero has a withered arm and has taught himself to shoot from a rifle slung over his back.

Alter imagines that, having studied the surviving samples of 20^th-century Western cinema, future scholars might hypothesize these are all derivations of one original story of a hero with lightning reflexes. The oddball story of the rifleman with a withered arm would be a variant from a different source tradition.

Unlike these imaginary scholars of Western cinema studies, we who have seen untold number of Westerns from the Lone Ranger to Matt Dillon know that the image of the quick-on-the-draw gunfighter is a convention in that genre. When you have a major departure from the convention, the uniqueness tells you something about the character or story. In this case, it might be the hero’s determination to overcome a physical handicap or the rifle provides some advantage over the typical six-shooter.

Alter calls these conventions “type-scenes” and identifies several in the Bible: “the annunciation … of the birth of the hero to his barren mother; the encounter with the future betrothed at a well; the epiphany in the field; the initiatory trial; danger in the desert and the discovery of a well or other form of sustenance; the testament of the dying hero” (p. 51).

Betrothal type-scenes

Alter spends the rest of the chapter discussing a particular convention he calls the “betrothal type-scene” in which the hero of the story meets his future bride at a well in a foreign land. He draws water for the “girl” (how she is usually referenced) who then rushes home bringing news of the stranger. The stranger is invited to a meal, after which the betrothal between the stranger and the girl is finalized. 

I’ll skip over the first betrothal type-scene in Genesis for now and return to it later. In the second example (Gen 29:1-20), Jacob, escaping from his brother’s wrath, arrives at a well in a foreign land. Rachel arrives to water her flock but a large stone covers the well’s mouth. Jacob moves the massive stone and waters her flock. After Jacob informs Rachel that he is her kinsman, she runs to tell her father, Laban. The closed well is a metaphor for Rachel’s closed womb and Jacob’s labor in moving the stone foreshadows the various obstacles he will need to overcome in securing his bride and making his fortune. Stones also feature prominently in the Jacob cycle of stories.

The third example comes from Exodus (2:15b-21) where Moses, escaping from Pharaoh’s wrath in Egypt, arrives by a well in Midian. Zipporah and her six sisters come to water their flock but are driven off from the well by shepherds. Faced not just with an inanimate obstacle but with enemies, Moses drives off the hostile shepherds and waters the flock of Zipporah and her sisters. How Moses rises to the challenge is entirely appropriate for someone who has killed an Egyptian taskmaster, will later face off with Pharaoh to liberate his people, and become Israel’s military commander for the next forty years. That the tale is briefly told is typical of how the Torah doesn’t dwell on Moses’ personal life.

Elizarus and Rebekah at the Well (1670s) byJohann Carl Loth. The name of Abraham's oldest and most-trusted servant isn't given in Gen 24, but earlier in Gen 15:2 Abram laments that without a son, "Eliezer of Damascus" will be his heir.

Rebekah takes charge

Now that we have reviewed a couple of examples, let’s return to the first betrothal type-scene (Gen 24:10-61) and see how it differs from the simpler stories we just examined.

The main difference is that it is Abraham’s servant – instead of Isaac – who travels to the foreign land. The servant showers Rebekah with gifts that her brother is quick to notice. This is revealing of Laban’s grasping nature and why he will later become one of Jacob’s obstacles.

Alter says this is the only example in the Bible of a surrogate meeting the future bride. This is fitting because Isaac is a passive and shadowy figure in Genesis. We last saw him about to be sacrificed at God’s request. He’s not mentioned again until this betrothal episode, and then he only appears at the end to take Rebekah as his wife. Isaac appears in Gen 26 but these are recycled stories (wife-sister, treaty with Abimelech, dispute over wells, and origin of the name of Beersheba) from the Abraham cycle. Isaac plays a part in Gen 27 in which Jacob steals his blessing from Esau, but by then Isaac is old and blind.

The other major departure is that Rebekah draws water for the stranger (= the servant) instead of the other way around. The number of actions (11 verbs in the four verses of vv. 16-20) Rebekah takes (drawing water, filling her jar, pouring, giving drink, etc.) are emblematic of the dominant role she later plays (taking, cooking, dressing, giving) in the story of securing the blessing for her favored son, Jacob (Gen 27). As the most-controlling of all the matriarchs, it is appropriate that she dominates her betrothal scene.

Jesus the Bridegroom

Being a professor of Hebrew literature, Robert Alter limits his analysis to the OT. But if we include the NT, we see something that looks like a betrothal type-scene in the story of Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4:1-42. Once again we have a stranger (Jesus) in a foreign land (Samaria) who is sitting beside Jacob’s well about noon when a Samaritan woman arrives to draw water. A conversation ensues, after which the woman leaves her water jar behind and returns to the city to inform its citizens of the stranger she just met. Moved by her testimony, they invite Jesus to stay with them for a couple of days.

A major difference in this version is that, instead of a maiden, we have a five-times married woman. There is no actual exchange of water, although the subject of water is the lynchpin of the dialogue that ensues in which Jesus contrasts the stagnant water of the well with his living water (the gift he has to offer). The episode ends not with a betrothal contract but with the townsfolk coming to believe in Jesus.

Understanding the literary conventions puts the modern reader of the Bible in the mind of the originally intended audience. When we watch a Western and see the hero face off with the bad guy on a dusty street in front of a saloon, we expect a shootout. Similarly, when the ancient audience saw the hero arrive at a well in a foreign land, they expected he would meet his future wife there. Knowing how the scene is supposed to play out, the audience – modern or ancient – revels in any twists from the standard convention. As the saying goes, “God is in the details.”

The Camel's Nose Under Moses' Tent

A popular trope in the media is the science-proves-the-Bible story and I reviewed a couple of those (Sodom destroyed by meteor and Joshua witnessed an eclipse) recently. Not quite as popular is the science-disproves-the-Bible story and we have a recent example of that from 2013 where two researchers from Tel Aviv University dated the introduction of domesticated camels in the area south of the Dead Sea to the latter third of the 10^th century BCE.

How does this disprove the Bible? Well, camels are featured prominently in some of the stories in Genesis and these stories supposedly took place hundreds of years before the Exodus. Yet the scientific evidence shows domesticated camels only came into widespread use after the time of Solomon.

The article itself doesn’t address the anachronistic reference to camels in Genesis. That was brought out in media reports in early 2014 such as the one in the New York Times: “Camels Had No Business in Genesis”. Reports like this in the popular media unleashed a wide range of critics questioning the original research in order to defend the accuracy of Genesis.

The problem, though, is that camels aren't the only anachronisms in Genesis.

Handler offering camel rides in the Australian Outback. Camels are not native to Australia. They were imported in the 1800s for use as transportation in the desert. When the camels became displaced by motorized transportation in the 1920s, they were released into the wild. (photo by author, 2012)

Who Wrote the Five Books of Moses?

Traditionally, Genesis and the other four books of the Torah (or Pentateuch) were attributed to Moses. That’s why they are called “the Five Books of Moses”. And when I say “attributed”, I don’t mean people only thought the traditions in them go back to Moses. No, the commonly-held view for centuries was that the Torah was entirely penned by Moses. Some allowance was made for Joshua recording the events of Moses’ death and burial (for obvious reasons) but that was it.

However, over the centuries astute students of the Torah noticed Moses was unlikely to have called himself “more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Num 12:3). That’s not the sort of thing a humble man would say.

Other verses point to the Torah having been written long after Moses:

• “Canaanites were then in the land” (Gen 12:6) implies that Canaanites were no longer in Canaan
• “before any king ruled over the Israelites” (Gen 36:31) implies that kings had ruled over Israel at the time this was written
• “since then, no prophet has arisen in Israel like Moses” (Deut 34:10) implies that the present time of the author is long after that of Moses

In addition to the aforementioned camels, references to “Philistines” in the Torah are out of place as the Philistines did not arrive at the coastal areas of Canaan until around 1200 BCE (more than a century after Moses). Genesis 11:28 refers to “Ur of the Chaldeans” but the Chaldeans did not occupy the region containing the city of Ur until about 1000 BCE.

Clearly, the Torah wasn’t written in Moses’ time. Nor, as we have seen from studying the creation and flood stories, was it written by a single author. There was a Yahwist source (J) and a Priestly source (P) who contributed the bulk of Genesis through Numbers with the Deuteronomist (D) who was largely responsible for Deuteronomy. Based on internal clues, J’s setting best fits in the 9^th/8^th centuries BCE and P belongs to the 6^th century BCE (after the fall of Jerusalem).

Writing in the 9^th or 8^th century BCE, the author would be familiar with the idea of domesticated camels. Camels would have been part of the cultural milieu for one or two centuries. Writing down a story about Abraham or Isaac, the Genesis author would have naturally assumed the patriarchs used camels as well.

Cultural Memories

Unlike stories of the exodus or conquest that could be proven or disproven by archaeology, the patriarchal narratives of Gen 12-50 are family stories and, barring the excavation of a clay tablet recording Abraham’s purchase of a burial plot or an inscription announcing the appointment of Joseph to pharaoh’s court, verifying the existence of individuals through archaeology is next to impossible. The destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone would be one possible avenue to archaeological verification, but the evidence presented so far seems extremely weak.

True, just because the patriarchal narratives were written down hundreds of years after they occurred doesn’t mean truly old traditions couldn’t have been handed down orally for generations. But I think we need to be very modest as to what can reasonably go back to the period of 2000-1500 BCE. Details of individual events will be lost after a few generations, but events happening in the longer timescales of society, religion, and ethnicity are more likely to be recalled centuries later.

Given all this, what aspects of the patriarchal narratives may go back to a pre-Israelite period? Two things stand out: the location of the ancestral home in the Haran region and worship of the Canaanite god El.

The older J source places Abraham’s home in Haran, a city in upper Mesopotamia. The names of Abraham’s ancestors – Serug, Nahor, Terah – are all place names in the region around Haran. The P source overwrote the tradition of the ancestral home of Haran with “Ur of the Chaldeans”, a major city in lower Mesopotamia, but still retained Haran as a stopover point. Abraham’s relatives (including Laban) remained behind in Haran when Abraham continued his journey to Canaan.

By the time the stories were collected into the Torah, Arameans occupied the ancestral homeland. That’s why we see references to “Laban the Aramean” (Gen 25:20; 31:20, 24) and “my father was a wandering Aramean” (Deut 26:5). The current occupants of the Haran region were assumed to have existed at the time of the patriarchs just as camels were.

The other element of pre-Israelite cultural memory is the worship of the Canaanite God, El. The P source is quite clear that YHWH was known to the patriarchs only as El Shaddai (Ex 6:2-3). Bethel and Penuel, two prominent cultic sites in the patriarchal narratives are compounded with the name El, as is the name Israel itself. Although the J source insists that the name YHWH was invoked from almost the very beginning, there are no names compounded with YHWH until the era of Moses (Jochebed and Joshua are the first).

In my view, it is clear that the stories in Genesis were written centuries after the time they supposedly took place. The patriarchal narratives may retain some accurate cultural memories of an ancestral homeland in Haran and the worship of the Canaanite god El prior to the introduction of the YHWH cult. But the individual stories of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph are simply not historical in the same sense as those pertaining to David, Jeremiah, and other figures appearing later in the Bible.

Ark Twain

In my previous article, I made some (hopefully) educated estimations that allowed me to calculate how heavy the fabled Ark of the Covenant would have been had it been constructed according to the instructions in Exodus chapter 25. That exercise clarified some issues for me.

His Ark is Bigger than is Right

First, my estimated weight of 165 kg (362 lbs) for the ark leads me to conclude it would have been too heavy to be carried by four men. While soldiers sometimes carry backpacks of over 100 lbs of equipment needed for special missions, that weight is being distributed across both shoulders. Levites carrying the ark would have all that weight coming down on one shoulder, greatly reducing the amount they could comfortably carry.

Second, the estimated weight of the chest and the lid are about equal, so the center of gravity would sit at the point where the lid meets the chest. This would be the most balanced place to locate the rings for the carrying poles, yet the instructions in Exodus state that the rings should be attached to the feet of the chest. Underneath the ark next to the feet would be the strongest area to place the poles but it would also make the ark top-heavy and prone to tipping over.

Third, the ark’s purpose was to hold the stone tablets on which were written the Ten Commandments. 1 Kings 8:9 insists that “There was nothing in the ark except the two stone tablets that Moses had placed in it at Horeb.” But the ark’s dimensions are much larger than needed to accomplish that goal.

One of the six pairs of tablet props made for 1956 film The Ten Commandments sold for $60,000 at an auction in 2012. The lettering is in an early Canaanite script practiced in the late Bronze Age.

Take Two Tablets…

The Bible does not provide us dimensions for the two stone tablets, but does tell us that Moses carried it “in his hand” as he climbed up and down the mountain of God (Sinai or Horeb, depending on the tradition). The size of the stone tablets would be limited to what Moses could comfortably carry while climbing a mountain.

The dimensions of the prop tablets from the classic movie The Ten Commandments starring Charlton Heston were 23.5 x 12 x 1.25”. The props were made of fiberglass. Had they been made of actual stone, they would have weighed something like 15 kg (32 lb) each.  Quite a load for poor old Moses to schlep up and down the mountain twice!

But even with such oversized tablets, there’s more than enough room in the ark with the dimensions given in Exodus 25 (2.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 cubits). You could lay the tablets side by side on the gold-covered floor of the ark and they would take up only half the floor space. And there would be 2.5 feet of wasted space above the tablets.

An ark properly built for such movie-size stone tablets would be much, much smaller. By stacking the tablets on top of each other, you could reduce the footprint to something like 27 x 14” (roughly, a half-cubit by quarter-cubit) and only 3” height. More reasonable dimensions for the stone tablets would yield an even-smaller ark.

A cedar and ebony chest (33 x 24 x 25") found in King Tut's tomb has similarities to the ark as described in Exodus 25. The width is roughly equal to the height, it has a cornice around its opening, and carrying poles slide through metal rings near the chest's feet. The poles are retractable!

The “Other” Ark

To these observations, we can mention that the source of Exodus 25 is the Priestly narrative (P), typically dated to the exilic period (6^th-5^th century BCE), after Jerusalem and its Temple had been destroyed. Many scholars have cited this as reason alone to doubt that the ark ever existed at all.

While it is definitely possible that the Ark and Tabernacle never existed, the detailed descriptions in Exodus could imply that the author was familiar with the items, knew they no longer existed, but wanted to preserve their memory so that one day they might be recreated. But even if we accept this as a possibility, it doesn’t mean that the ark from Exodus 25 originally existed in the form described.

The ark is also mentioned in other parts of the Bible outside of those attributed to the Priestly writer. Deuteronomy comes from a different source tradition. Signified as “D”, this source is typically dated towards the last years of the Kingdom of Judah (7^th-6^th century BCE). Moses says in Deut 10:1-3:

At that time Yhwh said to me, “Carve out two tablets of stone like the former ones, and come up to me on the mountain, and make an ark of wood. I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets, which you smashed, and you shall put them in the ark.” So I made an ark of acacia wood, cut two tablets of stone like the former ones, and went up the mountain with the two tablets in my hand. 

In this older tradition, the ark is a simple chest of acacia wood – no gold cladding, solid gold lid or angels.

But the purpose of the ark was not solely to store the tablets of the covenant, but also for religious processions. Many ancient (and modern) cultures carry sacred relics or images in religious procession. These images would be placed on or in a box that would be carried on poles. Not allowed to use graven images, the tablets of the covenant were a substitute for an image of Yahweh. Such an object intended for public display would be larger and more resplendent than a simple wooden chest.

Ark Evolution

Suggested only as a hypothesis, the early Israelites could have employed the concept of the portable shrine. If Levites had a semi-monopoly on cultic practices and if Levites hailed from Egypt, the portable shrine would have been built along the Egyptian models they were familiar with. Containing a statue or maybe even stone tablets, it probably would have been smaller than the ark described in Exodus. Built of wood, maybe covered in thin gold foil rather than sheets of gold plate.

Once all cultic practices were centralized in Jerusalem and there was no longer a need to keep the chest portable, a new container may have been built to take its place. Much as the Temple replaced the Tabernacle, a new golden ark would have replaced the old wooden book box. Perhaps the old, sacred chest may even have been placed inside of the golden ark.

If the golden ark as described in Exodus 25 really existed and held an older, smaller wooden ark, that would explain why it is so much larger than needed to hold two stone tablets. The extra size and weight would not be an issue if the golden ark was intended to have its permanent home in the Jerusalem temple and would never be moved.

Echoes of Egypt

In the last few articles, I’ve reviewed the archaeological evidence that the Israelites emerged from the existing Canaanite population. There was no military conquest in which migrating Israelites displaced an indigenous Canaanite people as recounted in the biblical book of Joshua. The only thing that seems to set “Israelites” apart from “Canaanites” is their distinctive style of house and a lack of pig bones in their garbage dumps.

Examining the source traditions that make up the Bible, the Elohist (E) and Priestly (P) traditions insist that the divine name of Yahweh was revealed in Egypt. While the deity may have been known under the Canaanite name of El in the past, his real name is Yahweh. The worship of Yahweh as the chief deity is another distinctive belief of the Israelites.

Is there any evidence that a small group of people may have migrated from Egypt to Canaan, bringing with them some of their religious traditions, including a belief in a god named Yahweh?

Egyptian Names

The exodus and wilderness narratives mention several individuals with names that seem to be Egyptian in origin: Hur, Phinehas, Merari, Mushi, and of course Moses.

As odd as it may seem, one of the most frequently-mentioned names in the OT is not Hebrew in origin. The name Moses derives from the Egyptian mose, “is born.” We see it frequently in the names of the Egyptian pharaohs like Thutmose (“Thoth is born”) and Ramesses (“Ra is born”). In the case of Moses, the name of the Egyptian deity was lost.

Hur was the companion and assistant of Moses and Aaron. His name derives from the Egyptian god, Horus. Phinehas was the grandson of Aaron. His name derives from the Egyptian words meaning “the southerner.” Merari was the third son of Levi and Mushi was his son. The name Merari derives from the Egyptian words meaning “to love.” Mushi has the same derivation as Moses.

To be clear, Egyptian names alone mean nothing. Someone composing the stories centuries later could have made up Egyptian names to provide verisimilitude to the story. But when it comes to Moses, it does not seem as though the tradition realized his name was Egyptian in origin.

In the story of Moses being rescued from a basket (Ex2:3b-10), the Pharoah’s daughter called him Moses (Hebrew mosheh) “because I drew (Hebrew, mashah) him from the water.” She’s making a pun on the name as though it were of Hebrew origin, not a shortened form of an Egyptian name. It’s as though she is saying, “I’ll name him ‘Drew’ because I drew him from the water,” not realizing that “Drew” is a shortened form of the name “Andrew”.

The evidence suggests the name of Moses was handed down in the tradition but not its Egyptian origin. Those who later wrote it down came up with a Hebrew derivation for the name. This militates against the idea that Egyptian names were created to provide local color to the story.

Pharaoh’s daughter finding baby Moses by Konstantin Flavitsky (1830–1866) 

Egyptian Artifacts

Seven chapters in Exodus (25-31) provide the blueprint for the Tabernacle and its furnishings and six chapters (35-40) describe how those instructions were followed in its construction. As the Bible relates it, the Tabernacle was the center of Israelite religion in the pre-monarchial days just as the Temple was central to worship in the days of Solomon and beyond.

As befitting a people on the move, the Tabernacle was essentially a fancy tent with the Ark of the Covenant in its inner sanctum. As Moses and his people left one campsite, they would disassemble the Tabernacle and carry its furnishings (the Ark, lampstand, altar, etc.) to the next campsite where they would then reassemble it until it was time to move again. Once the Israelites reached Canaan, the Tabernacle was eventually established at Shiloh until David had the Ark moved to Jerusalem.

Just as the Exodus is questioned as historical fact, biblical scholars and archaeologists have doubted if such a Tabernacle ever existed. Some think it was the Priestly author’s idea for a scale model of the Jerusalem Temple adapted for desert wanderings. Others have found parallels in tent shrines built by neighboring people.

Perhaps the best comparison for the Tabernacle as described in Exodus may be the battle tent of the Pharaoh Ramesses. Both feature the main tent situated inside a courtyard. The battle tent is divided between a larger reception area and the inner sanctum where the Pharaoh resides. This matches the Tabernacle with its larger Holy area and the inner Holy of Holies where the Ark of the Covenant, the footstool of YHWH resides. The 2:1 proportions between the inner and outer sanctums are roughly the same in both.

The Ark, too, has an Egyptian parallel in the sacred bark, a ritual object resembling a boat, usually carried on poles by priests in procession. Its main purpose was to transport gods and mummies.

A Tribe Called Levi

Looking back on the evidence so far, a pattern begins to emerge. References to Egypt as the location where God revealed his name as YHWH only come from the E and P sources, both of them of Levite origin. Of the individuals mentioned with Egyptian names, the Bible tells us most belonged to the tribe of Levi. The Tabernacle and Ark are strongly tied to cultic practices which could only be undertaken by members of the tribe of Levi.

Could it be that a small group who escaped from Egypt became known as the tribe of Levi?

References to the Levites in the Bible are not consistent and somewhat confusing, but two points stand out: the Levites were not given a territory of their own in Canaan and were the only tribe allowed to serve as priests. These are not unrelated.

Outside the urban economy of the Canaanite city-states, there was little opportunity for artisans, craftsmen, and so on. Most of the residents of the Canaanite hill country needed land to grow food for subsistence. If an incoming group from Egypt arrived after territory had already been doled out to various clans and tribes, they would have found themselves landless and in need of a way to make a living. Serving as priests of the central sanctuary of Shiloh and at local shrines throughout the countryside would have sufficed.

These Egyptian refugees would accommodate their religious beliefs and practices to those of the indigenous Canaanite population. The god Yahweh that they had worshipped in Egypt (and perhaps earlier if they were originally from Midian) would be recast as another name for the Canaanite god El who the locals already worshipped. As the official teachers of religion, the Levites could instruct the Israelites in the Egyptian practice of circumcision, the kind treatment of slaves, and tales of the plagues.

Because they were resident aliens, perhaps it is not surprising that the Levite sources in the Bible commands 52 times that resident aliens are not to be mistreated “because we were once aliens in Egypt.”

Out of Egypt, I am Called Yahweh

Previous articles have discussed evidence for multiple sources in the creation and flood stories. In the final version of these stories that appears in our bibles, the Bible’s editor (called the “redactor”) sometimes keeps the sources intact (as in the two separate creation tales) and other times interweaves them (as in the combined flood story). Scholars can identify the separate strands based on terminology, consistent themes, and narrative flow. One of the themes that sets one source apart from the other is when God’s name is revealed.

What’s in a Name?

According to the source known as the “Yahwist” or “J”, God revealed his name around the time of Adam’s grandson:

To Seth also a son was born, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to invoke the name of YHWH.” (Gen 4:26)

Thereafter, the J source exclusively uses the name YHWH (usually translated as “the Lord” in modern bibles) in narration. That is why this source was named the “Yahwist.” Ancient Hebrew consisted of only consonants, so we don’t know for sure exactly how it was pronounced, but scholars believe it would have been “Yah-WEH” (accent on last syllable).

Other sources – the “Elohist” (E) and “Priestly” (P) – hold that the divine name YHWH was first revealed to Moses. Before Moses, God was known to the ancestors under different names. For example, in the P account of the covenant with Abram, we read,

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, YHWH appeared to Abram, and said to him, “I am El Shaddai.” (Gen 17:1)

The P source explains in this verse that Abram only knows the deity by the name El Shaddai (“God Almighty” in most English translations). But when YHWH speaks to Moses, the text reads:

God also spoke to Moses and said to him: “I am YHWH. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name ‘YHWH’ I did not make myself known to them.” (Ex 6:2-3)

These verses are taken from the P version of the call of Moses (Ex 6:2-12). God’s commission to Moses to lead his people out of Egypt is a “triplet,” a story recounted in three sources: P, J, and E. The P version is isolated and intact, but the J and E versions are combined in an earlier passage (Ex 3:1-4:23). The E source predominates in this longer passage:

But Moses said to God, “If I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” He said further, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I am has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘YHWH, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ (Ex 3:13-15)

There’s a lot going on in this passage that doesn’t concern us at this point. The key thing to note is that, as in the P version, the ancestors knew the deity under different names but God first reveals his true name to Moses. Both E and P agree on this point: the name YHWH only came into use after the exodus from Egypt.

Could this be a clue that refugees from Egypt brought the worship of YHWH with them to Canaan?

Charlton Heston as Moses learns the name of God in the burning bush scene from Cecil B. DeMille's 1956 version of The Ten Commandments.

The Midianite Connection

In my last article, we saw that archaeology revealed the early Israelites were Canaanites, speaking a Canaanite dialect and practicing the Canaanite religion. In that religion, the main god was known as “El” (as in El Shaddai). Of the hundreds of city names in Canaan, many include the name El (for example, Beth-el, for “house of God”) but none include the name YHWH. Yet the worship of YHWH eventually became synonymous with Israel (etymology uncertain, perhaps means “God rules”).

How did Canaanites go from worshipping El to YHWH? Let’s go back to Exodus 3-4 and the commission of Moses. Other than Moses being told God’s true name, we also have the indication of where this occurred:

Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian; he led his flock beyond the wilderness, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. (Ex 3:1)

Both J and E tie Moses to Midian, even going so far to say that Moses’ father-in-law was a Midianite priest. Both also locate God’s mountain (called Sinai in J and Horeb in E) in or near Midian. It is reasonable then to look for the origins of the cult of YHWH in Midian. (Midian was located east of the Gulf of Aqaba, south of present-day Jordan, in what would now be the extreme northwest corner of Saudi Arabia.)

We also have Egyptian texts from the 14th-13th centuries BCE that mention semi-nomads called the “Shasu of yhw3” who were located in the general vicinity of Midian. Egyptologists derive the name “Shasu” from an Egyptian verb meaning “to wander.” The Egyptian hieroglyphs transliterated as “yhw3” would probably have been pronounced “Yahu” and is strangely similar to the name of Israel’s God, YHWH. It may have been a place name or it could have been their patron god.

The pieces seem to fit together. Let’s say you have a small group who escape from Egypt – perhaps captured Canaanites or Midianites who had been enslaved – and, on their way to eventually settling in the hill country of Canaan, they pass through Midian. When they finally arrive in the central hill country, they bring with them their story of deliverance from Egypt and attribute their freedom to the god they followed in Midian, who they now call Yahweh.

Certainly the Midianite connection is strong, but so are the Egyptian connections. There are Egyptian details in the story that may go back to the original story told by those who escaped Egypt. We’ll look at those in the next article.

An Epiphany of Sorts

The word epiphany comes from the Greek word meaning “appearance” or “manifestation.” In the Church calendar, the feast of Epiphany is traditionally celebrated on January 6 in commemoration of the coming of the magi to the Christ Child and marks the end of the 12 days of Christmas. Called “Three Kings Day” in some countries, the festival celebrates the first manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles. In conversational usage, “epiphany” means a sudden flash of understanding or insight through a simple or commonplace experience.

Visit of the Astrologers

Mt 2:1-23 provides the story of the visit of the magi, the flight to Egypt and the massacre of the innocent. The evangelist jumps straight from Joseph naming Jesus after his birth in 1:25 to the magi arriving in Jerusalem in 2:1. The magi, or wise men, were most likely astrologers, not kings. Matthew doesn’t say how many there were or their point of origin other than that they were “from the east.” The popular idea that there were three wise men is based on the three gifts the magi brought: gold, frankincense and myrrh. Later traditions (from the 6th century CE) provide them with names such as Melchior, Gaspar, and Balthasar, different ethnicities and ages (old man with a white beard, young beardless man, and man with black skin).

The Adoration of the Magi, tapestry (designed by Edward Burne-Jones 1888, woven 1894)

Noting the rising of a particular star, the magi determined that it signified the birth of the “king of the Jews.” Thus, it was observations of the natural world that led the Gentile astrologers to the messiah. But, the natural world reveals only so much; the magi must inquire of King Herod the Great in Jerusalem as to the exact location of the child. God’s revelation in Scripture is needed for them to complete their journey.

Herod calls together his “chief priests and scribes” – the same antagonists that the adult Jesus will face in his ministry – and is told that Bethlehem is the birth place based on Micah 5:2. Although Herod and his scribes have the Scriptures, they do not believe and hence cannot use that information themselves. Herod learns the exact time of the star’s appearance – presumably the date of the child’s birth – from the magi and asks them to report back to him once they have found the newborn king.

The magi set out towards Bethlehem and the star led them to the exact location (2:9). Many have speculated if the “star” was a supernova, comet, or planetary conjunction. None of these could be used to pinpoint a particular house in Bethlehem. And it is a house in Bethlehem, according to v. 11. In Matthew’s telling, Mary and Joseph were residents of Bethlehem.

About those gifts...Matthew is not explicitly citing Isaiah, but may have him in mind: “all those from Sheba shall come bearing gold and frankincense and proclaiming the salvation of the Lord” (Is 60:6, LXX). We’re all familiar with gold. Frankincense was usually burnt as incense in religious ceremonies. Myrrh, an aromatic spice, was used as incense, as perfume, and as a cosmetic. Mixed with wine, it was offered as a painkiller to Jesus on the cross (Mark 15:23) and, with aloes, was used to embalm Jesus (John 19:39). Certainly, they were gifts befitting a king.

Refugees in Egypt

After the magi failed to return to Herod, he ordered the death of all boys two years of age or younger in the vicinity of Bethlehem. If the population of Bethlehem was about 1000, the number would be less than 20 boys. There are no records of Herod ordering this, but he was notoriously paranoid and it sounds like something he could have done. Matthew tells us that Herod decided on two years based on the time of the star’s first appearance (v. 16). The clues in the story tell us that Jesus would have been one or two years old, not the newborn babe in the traditional nativity story.

Joseph was warned of the danger by an angel in a dream and told to take his family and flee to Egypt until further notice. Only after the death of Herod (in 4 BCE) does the angel re-appear to Joseph in a dream and instruct him to return to Israel “for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead” (v. 20). This is a clear echo of Exodus 4:19 when Moses is told the same thing while he is an exile in Midian.

Joseph planned to return to Bethlehem until he learned that Herod’s son Archelaus was ruling over Judea. An angel had to instruct Joseph in one more dream that he should go instead to Galilee, whereupon he made his home in Nazareth. Why didn’t the angel simply tell Joseph in one dream to go directly to Galilee from Egypt? The awkwardness probably stems from Matthew adding vv. 22-23 to material that he inherited. Matthew is taking pains to explain to his audience how Jesus could have been born in Bethlehem – because that’s was Joseph’s home – yet was known to have come from Nazareth. (Luke uses the census to explain how Joseph and Mary, residents of Nazareth, found themselves in Bethlehem for Jesus’ birth.)

Mosaic Pattern

The imagery in Matthew’s narrative is reminiscent of stories surrounding Moses. It is not mentioned in the OT, but the Jewish historian Josephus, writing around the time of Matthew (80-90 CE), told the story of an Egyptian pharaoh who was informed by one of his fortune-tellers that a child born of the Israelites would be the downfall of the Egyptians. This caused the pharaoh to order the deaths of the male babies. But Moses’ father Amram was visited by God in a dream and told that his unborn child would be the one feared in the Egyptian prophecy. Later, as an adult, Moses fled to Midian to save his life, only returning to Egypt once he was told that those seeking his life were dead.

Much later still, when Moses was leading the Israelites to the promised land, Balak the king of Moab, called upon Balaam, a practitioner of the magical arts (the NT would call him a magus), to curse Israel (Numbers 22-24). Instead of cursing the Israelites, Balaam blessed them, predicting that “a star shall rise out of Jacob and a scepter shall come forth from Israel” (Num 24:17). This was understood as referring to the Davidic monarchy, but later was re-interpreted as a prophecy of a messianic king in the line of David.

Gospel in Miniature

Having reviewed Mt 1-2, we can see why the infancy narrative is called “a gospel in miniature.” In these two short chapters, Matthew explains various christological titles ascribed to Jesus: Christ, Son of Abraham, Son of David, Son of God, and King of the Jews. He also shows the reactions to this revelation, both good (the magi) and bad (Herod). Despite having the guide of the Scriptures, Herod (representing the Jews) rejects the messiah and tries to kill him, but he is accepted and paid homage by the magi (representing the Gentiles). This reflects the situation in Matthew’s community, which is predominantly Gentile. Although his opponents tried to kill Jesus, God protected him and later brought him back.

Studying the infancy narrative here and in Luke more than 30 years ago, was sort of an epiphany for me. I began to see that the imagery and symbolism had layers of meaning far deeper than I could have imagined. They were no longer background stories for nativity plays and Christmas specials. Understanding their true purpose helped me put the adult Christ back into Christmas.