Etiology

Parshat Vayetze

Why the book of Bereishit (Genesis) was written, is a question that scholars and rabbis both ask. Prolific medieval commentator Rashi poses it in Bereishit 1:1, offering the option that the Torah should begin partway through Exodus when the first mitzvot are written.  Traditionally, Jewish commentators have attempted to extract moral, and sometimes disastrously, scientific and historical lessons from the various stories.  We will provide one alternative reason for various stories in Bereishit.  We'll note that one reason cannot suffice for all the stories, many of which may have been written at different times for different purposes.  This week we will look at etiological reasons, and next week we will look at another reason, which I'll leave for a surprise.

Etiology, in the context I'm using it, basically means explanations for why things are the way they are, usually with mythical or historical reasons. These are sometimes used to explain why things are named the way they are. For example, Homer describes the naming of the Greek city of Delphi as arising because of the transport of people to the city on dolphins (the actual origin likely has to do with a similar sounding word meaning womb.) Sometimes, these stories are used to explain why certain religious activities are performed. An example here could be the Aztec belief that the sun was a deity that required continual human sacrifice to be sustained or he would fail like the four previous suns did.  The story of the four previous suns gives an etiological reason justifying the current human sacrifice ritual.  Sometimes these explain physical phenomena, an example from the Torah would be the explanation of why rainbows exist at the end of the flood story.

The Torah furnishes lots of examples of etiological stories. These stories are present in pretty much every culture that has provided us with a record of beliefs.  It's not surprising that the ancient Israelites would provide us with their stories also.

The naming of places

In this week parsha, we have etiological examples of place naming. After Yaakov (Jacob) has his famous dream with the ladder to the heavens, he wakes up and says: (Gen 28:17-19),

17 And he was afraid, and said: 'How full of awe is this place! this is none other than the house of God (beth elokim), and this is the gate of heaven.' 18 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put under his head, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. 19 And he called the name of that place Beth-el, but the name of the city was Luz at the first.

The Torah tells us how the city of Luz got the name of Beth-el. It's because Yaakov associated it with the house of God, beth elokim.  Beth-el actually gets named a second time, also by Yaakov (Gen 35:7), for a different reason.  And furthermore, it seems to have already had this name by the time Avraham came through (Gen 12:8).

This parsha also informs us of how all the tribes got their names, providing etiological explanations for all of them. Just one example will suffice (Gen 29:32)

And Leah conceived, and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben; for she said: 'Because the LORD hath looked (ra'ah) upon my affliction; for now my husband will love me.'

The name Reuben is explained to derive from the root ra'ah, to look. The other tribes are named similarly.  These etiological origins for names are all over the Torah, sometimes in cases that make no sense.  For example, Moshe (Moses) is a well known Egyptian name, but in the Torah etymology, she is named by an Egyptian princess with a pun that only makes sense in Hebrew.

At the end of the parsha we are given one more example of an etiological naming, the area of Gilead, is explained as to have arisen from the words Gal Ed, literally, monument-witness. This is because Lavan (Laban) set up a monument as a witness for a non-aggression treaty with Yaakov.

Ritual explanations

Unfortunately, this parsha doesn't furnish us with an example of an etiological reason for a ritual, however, next week's does, so we'll look ahead a little.

The story of Yaakov's wrestling with a mysterious man provides us with lots of etiological reasons for things. It gives an explanation of why Yaakov is also known as Yisrael, because he "strove" (saritah) with God (or gods) (elohim). It tells us why the river is called Yavok, because a man "wrestled" (vayeavek) with him. It explains why the place gets the name Penuel, because Yaakov saw God face (panim) to face. And lastly, and relevant to this topic, it explains the religious restriction on not eating a particular part of an animal (32:33).

Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sinew of the thigh-vein which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day; because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh, even in the sinew of the thigh-vein.

The beginning phrase of this sentence, here translated "therefore" is in Hebrew al cain, and is often written in the Torah prior to an etiological reason for a specific practice. Similarly the phrase "until this day" is used in a lot of etiological contexts. The simple way to interpret these phrases is something like, "this is the way these things are at the time of writing, and here is why."

Natural Phenomena

Most of the Torah's examples of etiological explanation for natural phenomena occur in the first two parshiot. We learn why it rains from the sky (there's water above that's kept there by a rakiah, a firm boundary). We learn why women have pain during childbirth, and why agriculture is so darn hard. We learn why there are rainbows, and why it's impossible to understand the weird speaking neighbors to the east.  At least we learn the mythological stories that the ancient Israelites invented over the course of many years to explain these things. We actually know the real reasons for these phenomena nowadays, and many religious Jews interpret these stories allegorically, because the etiological explanation have since been proven false. 

There is one example from a recent parsha of a natural phenomenon with an allegorical explanation.  Normally regions surrounding bodies of water are lush areas, full of plant an animal life.  However, the region near the dead sea is the exact opposite, it is completely devoid of life, a barren wasteland.  The sea itself has a salt concentration far higher than what life can thrive in.  How did this region become so?

The Torah's answer was that it once was fertile, just like every other body of water.  But it was wicked and was turned into what it is today as punishment from God, and all the population were killed.  Just like the stories earlier in Genesis, we know today that there was no catastrophic geological behavior in this region in the last 10,000 years.  This is another example of the ancient Israelites inventing explanations for the world around them etiologically.

Understanding the World

Etiology is a manner in which many ancient people used to understand the world.  This is a great human desire from the dawn of time, and it's no surprise that every culture has these kinds of stories.  One question to ask, for people who hold the Torah to have some special divine value, is whether the Israelite stories differ in style or verifiability from the many other stories that have been passed to us from other cultures.  Having read a lot of these stories, it is my opinion that there is no noticeable difference.  However, perhaps you have a different view.  I'd love to hear. 

Next week we'll talk about another, sometimes overlapping reason, for why the book of Bereishit was written.

The Patriarchs in the Nevi'im

Parshat Toldot

One of the main differences between how I studied the Torah as a religious Jew and how I approached it as an atheist is the relative weight given to the prophetic writings versus the Torah. In the religious world, the Torah is paramount, and the rest of the Tanach is of far less importance. The Torah came first, was written directly by God, and the rest was written later, and was more subject to human error. However, these assumptions are not clear from the biblical text itself, and indeed, modern academics argue that many of the prophetic writings predate the Torah and represent an earlier view on these topics. If you remove the assumption that the Torah is earlier, it may be possible to recreate how various stories developed by looking at how the prophets viewed them, and only afterward, do you decide which timeframe best fits the composition of the Torah itself.

This week we'll look at the prophets for clues on how they related to the early patriarchs.  We'll note, that as we discovered last week, Yaakov (Jacob) is associated with locations in the northern kingdom, while Avraham and Yitzchak (Isaac) are associated with locations the southern kingdom.  We also noted that the stories with Yitzchak were much fewer than with Avraham and Yaakov. We come in with the expectation that the northern kingdom prophets will focus more on Yaakov while the southern prophets will focus more on Avraham. 

The early prophets

There are four prophets that self-proclaim the dates of their composition to be in the late 8th century BCE, making them the earliest of the prophets which left writing.    The four prophets are Hoshea (Hosea), Amos, Michah (Micah), and Yishayahu (Isaiah). Yishayahu is a bit of a problem, since modern academia is pretty confident that everything from at least chapter 40 onwards was written by later authors and appended to the text, and therefore falls under the term "pseudopigraphia". We won't discuss the reasons for that this week, but we'll only consider chapters 1-39 as the relevant chapters of Isaiah for this exercise.  We'll look at these prophets in turn.

Hoshea, was a northern prophet, who focuses mainly on the north. He prefers the term Ephraim for the northern kingdom, but also uses Yaakov (Jacob) as a synonym for Yisrael (Israel). Hoshea seems familiar with the basic outline of the story of Yaakov. He writes (Hos. 12:3-5):

3 The LORD hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways, according to his doings will He recompense him. 4 In the womb he took his brother by the heel, and by his strength he strove with a godlike being; 5 So he strove with an angel, and prevailed; he wept, and made supplication unto him; at Beth-el he would find him, and there he would speak with us;

12:13 also mentions Yaakov fleeing to Aram. Hoshea does not mention Avraham or Yitzchak at all.  He is either unaware of them, or does not think they are relevant.  Out of all the prophets Hoshea is actually the only one with what looks like clear references to biblical stories, the event at his birth, the wrestling with an angel, and the sojourn in Aram.

The next prophet to look at is Amos. He is a bit of an oddity in that he was born in the southern kingdom but appears to have spent most of his time in the northern kingdom. Amos is the only prophet to mention Yitzchak, however he spells the name differently with a sin instead of a tzadi. To Amos, Yitzchak is a synonym for the kingdom of Judah (Amos 7:9, 7:16). Like Hoshea, and indeed nearly every other prophet, Yaakov is used a synonym for the northern kingdom (Amos 3:13). Amos makes no mention of Avraham, although he does mention Yosef (Joseph), and associates him with Bethel (Amos 5:6).

Michah is the third prophet. He was a southern prophet and spoke in the south. The very last sentence, 7:20, is the only mention of Avraham. Yitzchak is not mentioned at all, and Yaakov is associated with the north (1:5) specifically Samaria.  Incidentally, Michah also is the only prophet in this set to mention Moshe (Moses), Aharon (Aaron), and Miriam (Mic. 6:4).

Yishayahu is by far the most prolific author in this group.  He is a southern one prophesying in Judah. Although in all 39 chapters that are clearly attributable to him, Avraham is only mentioned once (29:22) and Yitzchak not at all. Like the others Yaakov is a synonym for the north.

Looking at these four as a group, we see that only the purely northern Hoshea makes no mention of Avraham. Only Amos, a southern transplant to the north, knows about Yitzchak. Everyone seems to know about Yaakov, but mostly this is a name for the north, synonymous with the kingdom of Israel (not necessarily the person.)  Only Hoshea, a northern prophet, mentions things that reference the Patriarchal stories that we are familiar with in Bereishit (Genesis).  

This fits very well with the conclusions from last week based on the locations where each patriarch was most associated with. Avraham and Yitzchak were associated with southern locations, with Avraham having a much more extensive story. Yaakov is associated with the north, and indeed in nearly all the prophetic texts it is synonymous with the northern kingdom, often to the exclusion of the southern kingdom, which is usually Yehudah (Judah).

Prophets after the Destruction of the Northern Kingdom

In the period after the destruction of the northern kingdom, but before the southern kingdom (722 BCE - 586 BCE), there were several prophets.  The most prolific was Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah), but also we have Zephaniah, who unfortunately mentions none of the Patriarchs in his short work.

Yirmiyahu mentions Avraham and Yitzchak exactly once, and this mention is in a string that includes all three Patriarchs in the correct order.  He is the first prophet to mention all three.  Verses (Jer.) 33:25-26 read:

"25 Thus saith the LORD: If My covenant be not with day and night, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; 26 then will I also cast away the seed of Jacob, and of David My servant, so that I will not take of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for I will cause their captivity to return, and will have compassion on them."

This is the earliest we can claim for certain that all three Patriarchs were known and ordered together.  Although even in these verses, Yaakov is also mentioned as a synonym of the north, here contrasted with David, who represents the south.

Patriarchs in Exilic and Post-Exilic Prophets

The towering figure in this era is Yehezkel (Ezekiel), who wrote in the time of the Exile.  He makes no mention of Yitzchak, and only mentions Avraham once, but in the role of a Patriarch (Ezek. 32:34).

 Son of man, they that inhabit those waste places in the land of Israel speak, saying: Abraham was one, and he inherited the land; but we are many; the land is given us for inheritance.

Even in the relatively late date of Yehezkel, Yaakov is associated with the north specifically, usually in exclusion of the south.  For example, 39:25

Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD: Now will I bring back the captivity of Jacob, and have compassion upon the whole house of Israel; and I will be jealous for My holy name.

and 20:5

and say unto them: Thus saith the Lord GOD: In the day when I chose Israel, and lifted up My hand unto the seed of the house of Jacob, and made Myself known unto them in the land of Egypt, when I lifted up My hand unto them, saying: I am the LORD your God;"

For other post-exilic prophets, the only one worth mention is Malachi who mentions that Yaakov and Esav (Esau) are brothers in his opening sentence.

There are further mentions in the books from Yehushua (Joshua) to the end of Melachim Beth (2 Kings), however the dates of composition of these works are by no means certain.  Unlike the prophets, the author is not identified.  There are also a few mentions in the remaining prophets that do not give a time stamp, but most of these works are short, and the absence of a Patriarch has minor meaning.

What Does it all Mean?

If all you knew about the Patriarchs came from Nevi'im (excluding Yehushua - Melachim which are traditionally grouped in Nevi'im, but are clearly different styles of work), you would produce a picture that placed Yaakov as the name of the northern kingdom, along with Yisrael, and sometimes Ephraim.  You might conclude, at least from Hoshea, that there was a actual person by this name, but this wouldn't be too surprising considering that most Israelite works assume that nations are named after human founders (a poor assumption in reality.)

You would then probably relate Avraham to the southern kingdom, and conclude that Yitzchak was a minor character, only playing a significant role in one of the prophets (Amos).  This is exactly the same as the hypothesis we had last week from looking at the Torah alone.

You'd also then be hard-pressed to come up with a time period when Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov were considered the Patriarchs of both the southern and northern kingdoms.  While, you might get as much from Yirmiyahu, the later Yehezkel, clearly associates Yaakov only with the north.

For these reasons, and for the reasons we discussed last week, many academic scholars see the final codification of these stories, the ones that appear in the Torah, to post-date the Exile.  The actual time period varies greatly depending on scholar from around the Exile to all the way into the Hellenistic period.  It's possible that individual narratives existed much earlier, at least we can glean as much from the stories of Hoshea which seem to be aware of some of the stories in Bereishit.  But none of the other stories, especially the ones of Avraham seem to be known, or at least were not important, to the prophets.

As a final note, there's an important point in that last sentence.  Assuming the prophets were writing for an audience, and were prophesying to the people of their time, then one might expect them to reference popular stories from the Torah.  The Rabbis in our shuls certainly do this in their weekly sermons.  This is especially poignant in that these references are powerful.  God promises things to Avraham and Yitzchak in various visions.  If these stories were known, one might expect prophets to refer to them when trying to convince the Israelites to keep up their end of the bargain.  But they don't.  They are not found at all, except for some brief mention in Hoshea.  This is very peculiar, and it seems to indicate that the stories of the patriarchs, one that are known to almost all Jewish and Christian children, were not well known at all when the kingdom of Israel and Judah stood.  The fact that the prophets do not refer to the Patriarchal stories, makes the traditional timeline extremely unlikely.

The Wanderings of the Patriarchs

Parshat Chayei Sarah

This will be a two part post, split into two weeks. In the first week, we'll look at the various wanderings of the patriarchs, Avraham, Yitzchak, (Isaac) and Yaakov (Jacob), throughout the book of Genesis. We'll focus on the places that they went to, and we'll notice that even though the patriarchs are supposed to represent all Jews, both in the northern kingdom of Israel, and the southern kingdom of Judah, the patriarchs tend to be leave their mark exclusively in sites near the north (Yaakov) or the south (Avraham, Yitzchak), and only travel to the other region for story continuity reasons.  This is a topic we'll pick up next week where we will get more support from this hypothesis from the prophets.

Additionally, we'll discuss some of the reasons that academic scholars think that multiple traditions, or indeed multiple authors, are represented in these stories.  There are multiple stories in which the same patriarch, or a different one, travels to the same place and does the exact same thing, with some slight alterations, and no indication that there ever was someone that did this previously.  We'll also briefly touch on some of the historical anachronisms in the stories, which are indications that they were written much later than traditional thoughts, and represented a world closer to the 1st millenium BCE rather than the 2nd millenium BCE.

When I started researching this topic, I wasn't exactly sure what I would find.  This type of approach, where you are unsure of the answers, and you accept whatever answer the data give, is more in line with a scientific type of thinking.  This is completely different from the theological type of thinking in which the answer is already determined, and the verses are interpreted to support it.  Personally, I find the scientific approach much more satisfying.

All verses, unless otherwise noted, are from Bereishit (Genesis)

Abraham, wanderer of the South

On the fairly poorly made graphic below, I've attempted to plot out the paths of the patriarchs, starting with Avraham in red and continuing with Yitzchak in green, and finally Yaakov in blue. Avraham begins his journey well off the map in Ur Cashdim far in eastern Mesopotamia. He winds up in Haran in the northeast of Israel where God tells him to go into Canaan (12:4). This is the red dashed line on the plot. Avraham passes briefly through Shechem (12:6), and his first encampment is between Beth-el and Ai (12:8).

 Poorly made graphic of the wanderings of the Patriarchs.  Red represents Avraham, Green is Yitzchak, Blue is Yaakov. 

After this Avraham, makes a trip to Egypt because of famine, and we encounter the first story of a patriarch journeying to a different land and telling the ruler that his wife is his sister.  This causes trouble for the ruler who then takes the matriarch as a consort and is punished for it (12:10-19). After Egypt, Avraham returns to the camp between Beth-el and Ai briefly (13:3) where he splits up with Lot. Then Avraham travels to Elonei Mamre which later verses indicate is in Hebron (13:18). This is the home base of Avraham from here on out, and he remains here all the way until Chapter 20.

In 20:1 Avraham travels to the Philistine city of Gerar (an anachronism) and repeats the wife-swapping misadventure with a new king. Avraham dwells somewhere in that land when Yitzchak is born, the place is not indicated. However, 21:33 places him in the vicinity of Be'er-Shebah and a story is given for how that place got its name.

The last adventures of Avraham begin with Akedat Yitzchak, the sacrifice of Isaac, which is not placed explicitly in the Torah, but traditionally occurred in Yerushalayim (Jerusalem). As such I've put his path there. Afterwards, Avraham returns to Hevron where he is buried (25:9).

The most important points to note in the travelings of Avraham is that the vast majority of the places he visits are southern locations. He very briefly passes near Shechem, and camps near Beth-el for a short time, but there are no real events that occur there.  Beth-el was a very important city on the border of the two kingdoms, but in the territory of the northern kingdom of Israel. Most of the events of his life occur in the south, in Hevron, Be'er-Shebah, Egypt, and even possibly Yerushalayim. Peripheral events, like the adventures of Lot in S'dom and Amorah (Sodom and Gemorrah) are also southern locations.

The wanderings of Yitzchak

Yitzchak gets the least attention out of the three Patriarchs, and he never leaves the southern areas. He starts at Be'er Lahai Roi (25:11) a place that is somewhere in the Negev, but otherwise not well known. He repeats his father's adventure in Gerar, where he tells the same Philistine king, with the same captain of the guard, that his wife is his sister, and similar bad things occur (26:1-17). Afterwards, Yitzchak digs a bunch of wells in the desert, culminating at Be'er-Shebah (26:33) where Yitzchak seemingly has forgotten that his father named the place in the past, renames it with the same name, but for a different reason! Presumably, Yitzchak settles here, because at this point the focus of the story switches to his son Yaakov.

The wanderings of Yaakov

Yaakov begins his adventures proper when he leaves his childhood home of Be'er Shebah (28:10), traveling to the north, to Aram. He makes a pit stop in Beth-el where he has the famous dream with the ladder (28:11-22) and at this point he names the place Beth-el (28:19). That verse also mentions that the previous name of the place was Luz, which is somewhat confusing, because when his grandfather Avraham passed through, the place was called Beth-el and not Luz.

Nevertheless, Yaakov, reaches Aram, and lives there for 20 years, siring 12 of his 13 children. Yaakov leaves in chapter 31, and has an encounter with Laban somewhere in Gilead, and the Torah gives an explanation for why that area got its name. On his return home, Yaakov has adventures in multiple places mostly on the east side of the Jordan river (transJordan). The first adventure is in Mahanaim where he encounters a bunch of angels and names the place accordingly (32:3). He then has the famous encounter with the angel at Penuel, near Nahal Yabbok. (32:22-32), providing names for both of those places, as well as giving the reason why Yaakov is also known as Yisrael (Israel). Yaakov then travels to Sukkot (33:17) and explains the naming of that place, finally winding up back across the Jordan in Shechem (33:18) where he remains for a while.  He never makes it back to Be'er Sheba.

In 35:1 God tells Yaakov to go to Beth-el. The Torah informs us again that the place was once called Luz (35:6) and Yaakov names it Beth-el a second time, again for a different reason (35:7). Afterwards, (35:9-10) God changes his name to Yisrael, even though it was already changed in the past. The final travels of Yaakov has him going to Beth-lehem, where Rachel is buried (35:19) and then he buries his father in Hevron (35:27-29). Chapter 37 opens with the Torah giving no more specific location of Yaakov than that he was in Canaan. At this point the story shifts to focus on his children, mainly Yosef (Joseph).

If Avraham is the hero of the south, then Yaakov is the hero of the north. He is strongly associated with the city of Beth-el, an extremely important city of the northern kingdom of Israel. Not to mention that he shares his adopted name Yisrael, with that of the northern Israelite kingdom. Other cities like Shechem, and the various locations east of the Jordan river, are in the territories of Israel.

Geographical Associations

Looking at where the patriarchs spent their time, we have Avraham, who starts far in the north, but spends all of his adult years in the south, with his northernmost location near Beth-el. Yitzchak who never leaves the south at all. And Yaakov, who begins far in the south, but spends all of his adult life in the north, before returning to the south in order for the story to connect with that of Yosef which occurs in Egypt. Each one is associated with specific places, Avraham with Hevron, and Be'er Shebah, Yitzchak with Be'er Shebah, and Yaakov with trans-Jordan locations, Shechem, and most importantly, Beth-el. 

From here we have the basic framework of our first hypothesis.  Avraham and Yitzchak, were the patriarchs of the south.  Yaakov was the patriarch of the north.  They were essentially separate stories, but at some point, the two stories merged into one.  A good guess for when this happened was after the northern kingdom was destroyed in 722 BCE, and residents of it fled to the south.  With the merging of the stories, the patriarchs became a single hereditary line: Avraham - Yitzchak - Yaakov. For continuity's sake, they then had to live in the other's territory at the beginning and ends of their lives.  

Based on the data, this is the hypothesis I've come up with.  But in order for it to be believable, it needs support from writings outside the Torah. We'll test the hypothesis next week when we'll look at some supporting information from this from the prophets.  We'll see that the prophets strongly associate Avraham and Yitzchak with the south, and Yaakov with the north. 

Repeated Events (Doublets)

Also, we see that the Torah repeats events. There are three stories of a patriarch trying to pass a wife off as a sister, and bad things happening to the king who is taken by the ruse. It also gives multiple explanations for place names, each one seemingly unfamiliar with previous explanations.  There are two separate explanations for the naming of Be'er Shebah, and similarly, two separate instances for the naming of Beth-el. It is these features that have led academic scholars to hypothesize that these various stories represent different traditions that were later compiled together. A hypothesis called the Documentary Hypothesis which we've already hinted at, but will deal with in more detail throughout the year, goes a step further.  It states that there were actual separate documents that were redacted together and relates these documents to specific historical time periods in different locations. Scholars who aren't comfortable with multiple documents, hypothesize that these stories arose from multiple conflicting oral traditions that existed at the time that the author was writing the Torah, and that author wished to incorporate as many of the conflicting oral traditions as possible. Either way, the presence of these duplicated events create huge problems for traditional readings, and traditional explanations require tortured readings of the text.

Anachronisms

One of the most glaring anachronisms in the Patriarchal stories is the presence of the Pelishtim (Philistines).  Both Avraham and Yitzchak visit the lands of the Pelishtim, and live there for several years.  They also feud over territory in the south, in the vicinity of Beer-Shebah.  In later years, Pelishtim were rivals of both kingdoms throughout the monarchial period.  They controlled the coasts, including lucrative trade routes, and fertile lands by the Mediterranean, while the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were relegated more to the inner highlands.  However, the Pelishtim were not always there.

In the beginning of the 12th century BCE, the "sea peoples" arrived and destroyed many lands.  They were responsible for the destruction of Ugarit in the north.  And they also took control of the coastal regions from the Egyptians, who then retreated back to Egypt.  Before the arrival of the Sea Peoples, Egypt controlled all of Canaan.  After this, the "sea peoples" settled in the cities and built new ones.  Their arrival is attested archaeologically by the destruction of various cities, and the presence of new Aegean pottery which was found starting at this time at key cities of the Pelishtim.  Furthermore, Rameses III mentioned the Pelishtim as one of the Sea Peoples [1].  So we are pretty certain that the Sea Peoples included the Pelishtim, and thus, the Pelishtim could not have been in Israel before 1200 BCE.  Therefore, these stories must have been written much later, after all memories of the arrival of the Pelishtim were forgotten.  [2]

The city of Gerar as the capital of the Pelishtim, is even more problematic. 

Quoting Finkelstein/Silberman,"Gerar is today identified with Tel Haror northwest of Beersheba, and excavtions there have shown that in the Iron Age I [~1200 - 900 BCE] - the early phase of Philistine history - it was no more than a small insignificant village.  But by the late eighth and seventh century BCE, it had become a strong, heavily fortified Assyrian administrative stronghold in the south, an obvious landmark. [3]" 

And on the choice of cities that the Patriarchs visited, they say the following:

"The Middle Bronze [~2000-1500 BCE, a traditional dating for the Patriarchs] was a period of advanced urban life.  Canaan was dominated by a group of powerful city-states, ruled from such capitals as Hazor and Megiddo.  These cities were strongly fortified by huge earthen ramparts with massive gates.  They had great palaces and towering temples.  But in the biblical text we do not see this at all.  True, a few cities are mentioned, but not necessarily the most important ones.  Shechem (as a city) is not there, nor are Bethel and Jerusalem - all three were massive Middle Bronze strongholds.  And in the plains we should have heard about Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, not Gerar.  The biblical story of the patriarchs is clearly not the story of Middle Bronze Canaan. [4]"

Now, some caution is in order when dealing with specific dates, as Finkelstein's proposed dating system is not universally agreed on.  However, the disagreement usually run in the order of about 100 years, and we're talking about discrepancies of over 500.  The conclusion is inescapable.  The authors of these stories were living in a time much later than the supposed events, and did not know what the land looked like at the distant past time period in which they chose for the setting.  Rather they placed them a mythical nomadic past, which may have been accurate at some points in the history of Canaan, but not at the time they chose! 

Ok, that's enough for this week.  Next week we'll look at what the Nevi'im have to say about the patriarchs

---

1. Redford, "Egypt Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times" Princeton Univ. Press, 1992, p. 246. ^

2. For more on this see Finkelstein and Silberman, "The Bible Unearthed," Simon and Schuster, 2001, p.86-90. ^

3. Ibid. p. 38.^

4. Ibid. p. 323.^

A Brief History of Ancient Circumcision

Parshat Vayera

This weeks parsha begins with Avraham sitting in front of his tent after he recovers from his circumcision, mentioned at the end of last weeks parsha. It also presents the first mention of ritual circumcision on an 8 day old infant, with the circumcision of Yitzchak (Isaac). Therefore, we will spend this weeks post discussing circumcision.

This post will talk about the ancient origins of the practice. While I definitely have opinions on the moral aspects of circumcision, I will refrain from discussing them here. This post will produce a lot of speculation on the evolution of the procedure, which is hard to avoid, since there's so little information, biblical or otherwise to go on.  But I will present everything I've dug up.

Circumcision in Ancient Egypt
 
A common argument for Judaism is that the religion has so many bizarre and burdensome commandments, that it would be hard to convince people to uphold them if there wasn't a really good reason, such as a divine revelation of said commandments. However, this argument tends to fall apart for most of the commandments that it's used for, mainly because there's evidence of origins for the practice that began in other cultures in earlier times.  So at the very least, it doesn't take a divine commandment to get people to do it.  Presumably the other cultures who performed the same bizarre rituals didn't also receive a Torah from God outlining the practices. Circumcision is one of those commandments.  It's often upheld as a practice that would be impossible for a religious charlatan to convince a population to do.  Therefore, the argument goes, it could not have been invented by man, and must be divine.  However, as we'll see in a moment, circumcision existed in a nearby culture to the Israelites, much earlier than any date offered for Avraham in Egypt.

David Gollaher gives a rundown of what we know about the Egyptian practice in his book "Circumcision - A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery."  Most of the book deals with modern practice, which is of less interest to us this week.  But the beginning of the first chapter discusses some of the ancient history.  Gollaher says that the earliest reference to circumcision comes from a relief in the necropolis at Saqqara and dates to 2400 BC. An image of the relief is reproduced below.

 Relief of necropolis at Saqqara [1].

Among the text is written in hieroglyphics: "Hold him and do not allow him to faint (left image)". and, (circumcisee to circumciser) "thoroughly rub off what is there" [2]

Later textual descriptions of circumcision in the 23rd century BCE has an Egyptian describe himself being circumcised along with 120 other people. Furthermore, X-ray scans of mummies indicate that circumcision dates back all the way to the 4th millenium BCE.  The purpose of Egyptian circumcision is unclear. It is possible that it was restricted only to the elites. Gollaher conjectures that a likely purpose of circumcision is to eliminate the production of smegma, and restore a natural orderly flow to the body's fluids, an obsession of ancient Egypt religious ideas [3].

It is important not to read too much into an Egyptian/Israelite connection of the ritual.  For one the length of time between our Egyptian sources and the Israelite ones is very long.  Redford, an expert on Egyptology and it's relationship with Canaanite culture, does not include circumcision in the list of Israelite practices that were derived from Egypt [4].  Rather the point is merely that there were people who practice circumcision with presumably no prompting from God.  This allows for a precedent where the Israelites could also have done the same.  Whether it originated in Egypt, Israel, or native is superfluous to the main point.

Circumcision in the Torah
 
Unraveling the history of circumcision in the Torah is fraught with difficulties. It is a very bizarre commandment, in that it is only mentioned as a positive commandment in Genesis, and the other mentions of it are in either metaphorical terms, such as circumcising one's heart (Deut 10:16, 30:6) or in agricultural terms (Lev. 19:23-25). Additionally, while not mentioning the words for circumcision itself, the Torah marks that uncircumcised people cannot partake in the Pesach (Passover) offering (Ex. 12-48).  Lastly, there's the account of the sons of Yaakov (Jacob) convincing the population of Shechem to circumcise themselves so that the heir to the throne can marry their sister, and then summarily slaughtering them all (Gen 34).

The passage in Genesis (17:14) in last week's parsha states: 

"And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.

The phrase "cut off from his people" is a commonly occurring phrase in the laws of Leviticus and Numbers, but is entirely absent from Deuteronomy. This leads scholars to associate this passage with the authors of most of Leviticus and Numbers, all of which were relatively late in the standard chronology

In addition to the above references, there is one very confusing passage about circumcision in Exodus 4:24-26 that deserves special mention.

24 And it came to pass on the way at the lodging-place, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his (whose?) feet; and she said: 'Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me.' 26 So He let him alone. Then she said: 'A bridegroom of blood in regard of the circumcision.'

This passage has led to many explanations both from Rabbis and academic scholars. The academic position is that this represents a very early account of circumcision in Israel. The idea being that circumcision is thought to have some salutary properties.  It is a way to ward off death or disease. In this way, we can posit a possible connection to the Egyptian ideas behind the practice.

The "bridegroom of blood" is very strange, as it's unclear when in the history of Israel circumcision was actually called this.  One suggestion is that the early Israelite culture performed circumcision as a prenuptial rite (in most cultures it's an adult thing, not a child thing), and that is the real origin of the phrase.  However, at this point, infant circumcision is already the norm, so the author needs another explanation for this phrase [5].
 
Another passage mentioning circumcision that could be argued to be early is from the book of Joshua.

2 At that time the LORD said unto Joshua: 'Make thee knives of flint, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.' 3 And Joshua made him knives of flint, and circumcised the children of Israel at Gibeath-ha-araloth. 4 And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: all the people that came forth out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came forth out of Egypt. 5 For all the people that came out were circumcised; but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, had not been circumcised.

Here we have a circumcision procedure done not to infants, but to adult men. Furthermore, there is the claim that circumcision was not practiced at all in the wandering of the desert.  Something very strange given the commandment that no one who is uncircumcised can partake in the Pesach offering, which certainly occurred in the desert (Numbers 9:6-8 for example). Later in the biblical chronology we see that circumcision is used as a distinction between Israel and other nations, most notably the Philistines. 

Circumcision as a Cultural Marker

The practice continued in the same way in Israel until it became a clear cultural divide between them and various neighbors. Such divides are very useful for ethnic continuity, and as such, the procedure became central to the identity as Jews.  It's not clear when it started being performed on infants, but I would guess that it was established by the time of the exile, if not earlier. One of the important issues for the Babylonian exiles, and indeed Jews in the later Persian and Hellenistic periods, was the establishment of Jewish identity. In fact, circumcision gets the most attention during the Hellenistic period when it was considered a mark of shame for many Jews, so much so that they made themselves fake foreskins!  The book of  1 Maccabees (1:15-16) relates:

15 And they built a place of exercise in Jerusalem, according to the laws of the nations: 16 And they made themselves prepuces, and departed from the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathens, and were sold to do evil." 

Here we see the power of something like circumcision as a cultural factor.  It's an inescapable mark on your body that automatically assigns you to a specific group, despite whether you want to be associated or not.  It's no surprise that all the branches of Judaism that have survived until this point consider this commandment to be extremely important.

In Summary

Circumcision predated the biblical commandment by over 1000 years, and perhaps up to 3000.  It is a very old practice, and one with origins that are shrouded in mystery.  However, it is certainly not a divine commandment given only to the descendents of Abraham, as the Torah claims.  It is found to be practiced in earlier times by cultures not derived from him.

Early references to the practice in the Tanach like the story with the circumcision of Gershom, the son of Moshe and Tzipporah, and later with Yehoshua, indicate a practice that was important, but not as a cultural marker.  If you want to claim that the origins were for some health benefits, as is popular in some circles today, the story of Gershom's circumcision lend some support.  The circumcision of Gershom prevented someone's death.

Later though, in Babylon, and under Persian and Greek control, circumcision was a key cultural marker.  It forced Jews to identify as Jews, unless you were able to craft a fake foreskin in order to properly assimilate.  It is still just as important today.

While I will eschew mentioning my own position of the morality of the practice, I will note that if the public view changes so that infant circumcision is considered highly immoral, Judaism will have a very difficult choice to make.  It seems inconceivable, to me at least, for Judaism to let go of this central practice.  But if the alternative is societal isolation?  It's hard to say.    

---

1. Image source ^

2. Gollaher, "Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery" Basic Books, 2000, p. 2 ^

3. Ibid pp. 3-6 ^

4. Redford, "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times" Princeton Univ. Press, 1992, p. 383.^

5. Kugel, "How to Read the Bible" Free Press, 2006, p. 220, and sources therein.^

Melchizedek: Priest of what exactly?

Parshat Lech Lecha

In this parshah we hear about the war between the 4 kings and the 5 kings.  Originally, I was going to talk about the nations represented and the historicity problems of them, but that would turn out to be too similar to last week.  So instead, I'll focus on the following bizarre passage that occurs after the war concludes (Gen 14:17-24):

17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him, after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him, at the vale of Shaveh--the same is the King's Vale. 18 And Melchizedek king of Salem (shalem) brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High. (el elyon) 19 And he blessed him, and said: 'Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth; (el elyon, koneh shamayim va'aretz) 20 and blessed be God the Most High, (el elyon) who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.' And he (who?) gave him (whom?) a tenth of all (of what?). 21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram: 'Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.' 22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom: 'I have lifted up my hand unto the LORD, God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth,  (yhwh, el elyon, koneh shamayin va'aretz) 23 that I will not take a thread nor a shoe-latchet nor aught that is thine, lest thou shouldest say: I have made Abram rich; 24 save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, let them take their portion.'

This small section has some very interesting facets, which we will explore today.

An insertion into the text?
 
One speculation which deserves mention is that verse 18 is an insertion into the story. Currently the story reads that the King of Sodom met Avram, and immediately after, Melchizedek, a name that finds its first mention here, arrives with food and wine, blesses him and, one of the people gives a tenth of something to the other. Then just as quickly, Melchizedek seems to disappear and we pick back up with a conversation between the king of Sodom and Avram. In fact, the disappearance is so complete, that there's only one other possible mention of Melchizedek (Psalms 110:4) in all of Tanach.

If you remove verse 18, everything looks fine, except now it would be the King of Sodom who blesses Avram. It's possible that one of the authors was not comfortable with a somewhat righteous King of Sodom, and therefore altered it so that Melchizedek is the one who's invoking divine blessing. Another option is that the entire blessing section of verses 18-20 are all inserted into the text. However, this isn't really what I most want to focus on, it's just an interesting idea that's worth thinking about when approaching passages like this, and provides an alternative to the various traditional explanations to the purpose of the elusive Melchizedek.

El Elyon Koneh Shamayim Va-Aretz
 
I have a bit of quibble with the translation above, and this presents one of the problems with reading only translations into English or another language. The Hebrew phrase, I want to focus on is what Melchizedek says, and Avram later echoes. It is:

Baruch avram l'el elyon, koneh shamayim va-aretz. (Blessed is Avram to El Elyon koneh heavens and earth)

later Avram says:

Harimoti yadi l'YHWH el elyon, koneh shamayim va-aretz. (I raise my hand to God, El Elyon, koneh heavens and earth.)

The word koneh translated often as "maker" or "creator" is not the usual word for this type of divine action in the Tanach. You might expect something like boreh (create) or oseh (make). Koneh usually means something like purchase or obtain, or in contexts like this, establish.  Regardless, it's somewhat nonstandard, and it makes it seem like we're dealing with a title.

The many names of God
 
It is no secret that the Torah has many different names and titles for God. Traditionally, Jewish commentaries have attempted to assign specific attributes to various divine names.  For example, I remember being taught in grade school that the name YHWH represented mercy, and Elohim represented justice.   However, modern scholars have looked at it differently, and think that different names of God represent actual different deities, or different cultures names for the same deity.  And later, all these aspects became merged into one deity.  The modern scholars view arose from discoveries in Ugarit and elsewhere of ancient Canaanite theology, in which the head deity was named El.  El wasn't just a word for a god, as it's used in the Tanach, it was a word for the god.  So, when confronted with a strange name for God, as we are here, it's worth taking a look through some other cultures and seeing if we see any similar names.

For this specific name, we need to look at Hittite mythology.  The Hittites were a large empire based in modern day Turkey that vied with Egypt for control over Syria during the Late Bronze Age (roughly 1600-1300 BCE).  They never quite made it as far south as Canaan proper, and eventually were destroyed by the Sea Peoples (13th century BCE) [1]. Some Hittite fragments have survived throughout the ages and from them we can construct their pantheon. Among the gods is the creator god, Elkunirsa, which in Hebrew might have been understood as El Koneh Eretz, very similar to the name of God used by Melchizedek and Avram in this passage.  This provides a neat little explanation for the title given, specifically, for the choice of the word koneh. 

It should be understood that a lot of the views we have of clean demarcations of gods was probably not shared by people around this time.  Many of the gods in different culture, where the same god, with different names.  Elkunirsa could very well have been the Hittite equivalent to the Ugaritic El.  In biblical Judaism, El and YHWH refer to the same god, so probably, Elkunirsa does also.  At this point, it's possible to go off on all sorts of wild speculations of why this name was chosen for this story, but I do not wish to do that. Instead, I will just simply conclude here with the point that the deity's name, Elkunirsa, survived, with some modifications, and found its way into the Torah.

Bonus Speculation
 
Since this was short for this week, I'll add some bonus speculation. In this week's parsha, Avram's name is changed to Avraham. As usual for biblical names, an explanation is given, he will be the father of many nations, Av hamon goyim, with Av Hamon sounding similar to Avraham. As far as biblical name explanations go, this one is a fairly big stretch, and it's worthwhile to look externally for another source for the name Avraham. Liverani gives a tantalizing explanation [2].

In a stele dating to the 15th century BCE, the Pharaoh Seti 1 records a victory over 'banu raham,' the sons of Raham. The stele was found in Beth Shean, which was then an Egyptian city just south of the Galilee. The speculation here is that the patriarch of this specific clan was the father of Raham, or Avraham. Later this patriarch was absorbed into Israelite culture, even as the original name of the tribe faded from memory. Is this explanation better than the biblical one?  Hard to say.  I'll leave that judgment to the reader.

---

1. Much much more on the Sea Peoples and their relationship to the biblical Philistines later.^

2. Liverani, "Israel's History and the History of Israel" Equinox pub, 2005, p. 263^

The Table of Nations

Parshat Noach

If you were to take some survey of what Rabbis tend to talk about during Parshat Noach, you'd probably get a breakdown where some 90% of the topics were based on the flood. Some 9% or so, the Rabbis who want to choose something different this year, will talk about Migdal Bavel (The Tower of Babel). If you have a super non-conformist Rabbi, you might here the story about Noach (Noah) getting drunk. However, I've never heard anyone talk about what Academicians call "The Table of Nations," which comprises most of chapter 10, and describes the various descendents of the sons of Noach. This is precisely what I will talk about today.

Specifically, I will point out two major things that we can learn from this chapter. The first is a chronological issue. From the names of the nations presented, we can get some information about the earliest date that this could have been written. We'll see that based on the nations mentioned, it could not have been written before the 7th century BCE. The second is a contradiction issue. From descendents that appear through different tree lines, we see contradictory storylines emerging from where these nations arose from.

I've personally made a map of best guesses for the locations of various nations using my impressive image editing skills (sarcasm). Most of the information for the sons of Yephet and Shem come from Russell Gmirkin [1]. In progressing to a conclusion I don't agree in, he describes the best guesses for these nations. The descendents of Ham come from various other sources, most notably Donald Redford [2]

Before we start, I'll take a moment to describe what we are looking at.  The "Table of Nations" is a description of the various nations of the region, giving their origin.  It follows a traditional Ancient Near East motif, where a nation is named after a founding patriarch, something that almost never occurs historically.  In some places, like with the descendent of Mitzrayim (Egypt), the nation is given as a plural instead.  Also, the table is interrupted in the middle to give a brief story of Nimrod, and describe various cities in the Mesopotamian region.  

Chronology
 
One of the most puzzling nations in the list for Academicians is Lud, which elsewhere in the Tanach[3] is clearly meant to mean the nation of Lydia. It's puzzling, because based on the map, Lydia should be counted among the children of Yephet. This is true both geographically and from what we know about their culture.

Gmirkin writes about Lydia:

"The Lydians were known as Maionians in earliest times when they were ruled by a local dynasty known as the Tylonids. The kingdom of Lydia was established by Gyges, who overthrew the Tylonids and founded the Mermnad dynasty ca. 680 BCE... The name Lydia is first encountered in Assyrian inscriptions shortly after 700 BCE referring to Gyges of Lydia ("Guggu of Luddu"). These facts indicate that the Table of Nations was written no earlier than 700 BCE." [4]

Gmirkin then reads a lot into the placement of Lydia on the map to indicate a very late date of composition (after 300 BCE). Specifically, their inclusion among Shem must indicate close political ties with these nations. Based on that Lydia doesn't appear until the late 8th century BCE, and that prior to that time we have another nation with another name living there, the most basic conclusion that it cannot realistically have been written earlier than 700 BCE.

To make matters even more complicated, Ludim is also listed as a descendent of Ham. It's not clear who Ludim is supposed to represent, if Lud is Lydia, but it's possible that there was some confusion about the origin of Lydia, which is indicated by them appearing in both lists.

This is not the only place where we can glean some Chronological information.  We now turning our attention to the sons of Ham, (Gen 10:6)

And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan.

 Cush is Ethiopia, Mizraim is Egypt, and Put is Libya.  Quoting Redford [5]:

"The order here is not geographical but political.  The prcedence of Kush over Egypt is a clear reflection of the political preeminence of the kingdom of Kush (Napata) enjoyed from its conquest of Egypt about 711 B.C. down to its defeat by Psammetichos II (c. 593 B.C.)."

Redford is applying a very common biblical theme. Older children are more prominent than younger ones. When children represent tribes or nations and are listed in order of birth, the eldest is the largest. In situations where there are changes, one tribe or nation grows at the other's expense, the Torah gives a story as to why that occurs. This occurs with Yaakov (Jacob) and Esav (Esau), Ephraim and Manashe and in other places as well. Applying this motif to these passages, we see that for Cush to be listed before Mizrayim it must have been dominant over Mizrayim at this point in time. Otherwise Mizrayim would be listed first. The order is important. Therefore, this could not have been written before 711 BCE, because before then, there would be no reason to ever place Cush before Mizrayim.  Looking now at Mizrayim itself.  The descendents of Mizrayim are actually very difficult to identify securely.  Redford makes some educated guesses and then notes the following about the children of Egypt [6]:

"When we plot on a map the geographical extent of Egypt's "family," we find it reaching into Libya and along the north African coast, to the Aegean [7] and Asia Minor [8]; absent is Kush and the coast of Palestine and Syria.  This is precisely the limits of Egypt's sphere of influence and interest during much of the Saite Period."

The Saite period, also called the 26th dynasty, extended from 685 to 525 BCE.  While this is a more speculative claim than the other ones, the fact that we have another date range beginning near 700 BCE converges well with our previous estimate based on Lydia's history, and the preeminence of Cush.

For one last estimate, we go to the nation of Cush, universally thought to refer to modern day Ethiopia.  Astour writes about Cush [9]

"For the compiler of the Table of Nations, Cush certainly represented Ethiopia, for he made him a brother of Egypt. But when he tried to enumerate the descendents of Cush, he knew so little about the African Ethiopians, that he was compelled to utilize his much better information on the other land of Cush, and to cite names of Arabic tribes."

"There was however a period when the Ethiopians suddenly emerged as a major power in the East Mediterranean. This occured when they conquered Egypt under Picanhi and clashed with Assyria under his succcessors. Sabaka (712-700) actively supported the anti-Assyrian coalition of Palestinian states headed by Hezekiah, king of Judah...Sabak died and was succeeded by his brother Sabataka, who ruled from 689 or 688... Sabataka certainly, and Sabaka quite probably [are found] in the Table of Nations. Their place is not altogether wrong, for they are listed among the descendants of Cush and are the only genuine Ethipian names there, though personal and not ethnic."

Astour goes on to indicate that the spelling of Sabtecha, with a samech indicates an Assyrian source.  Ethiopia is not too geographically distant from the Arabian peninsula. An author with a limited geographical knowledge might think that the Red Sea did not extend so far south, and the lands were joined in that region. Anyway, the point to make here is a chronological one. The name Sabtecha has no other reasonable association besides with the Ethiopian Pharaoh of that name. This gives us roughly the same earliest date of composition that we can get from Lydia, and the arrangement of Ham's children.

The same procedure can be undertaken for other nations, and what we see is that this map indicates geo-ethnic realities between about 700 BCE and 200 BCE. It cannot describe a world earlier than that.

Contradictions

There are some contradictions both within the Table of Nations itself and with other places in Bereishit, which we will now examine. Shva (Sheba) is Yemen, from whence the queen who visited Shlomo (Solomon).  It is listed twice, once among the descendents of Cush and once again in the descendents of Yoktan. Yoktan is the ancestor of the Arabian tribes, as many of the names listed there are attested as Arabian tribes in other sources. Similarly, Havilah, which is not known with any reasonable degree of certainty, is listed twice. Astour attributes this to confusion from the author, or from compilation of this section from two separate lists [10], one which attributes this area to Cush and one to Arabia.

Also among the descendents of Cush, is Ra'amah. Ra'amah gives birth to two children, one of which is Shva mentioned earlier. The other is a fairly well known Arabic tribe, Dedan. Genesis 25 mentions the children of Avraham (Abraham) through his third wife Keturah. One of his children is Yokshan, eerily similar to the Yoktan in the Table of Nations. Even more troubling however are the children of Yokshan, Shva and Dedan! Also attributed to Abraham is Midyan which is biblically equivalent to Madai, listed as a son of Yephet.  So we see a strong contradiction in the Torah for where these nations originate.
 
This isn't the only problem. One of Shem's kids is Aram, a well known kingdom to the northeast of Israel, also known as Aram-Dameshek. Of Aram's kids are Utz and Mash. Utz, is attested elsewhere biblically, and is thought to be equivalent to Edom, a much smaller kingdom, and a reasonable descendent of Aram. Mash is more difficult, but it might be equivalent to Moab due to its similarity to a common king name Mesha, and the patron god of Moab, C'mosh. This is somewhat speculative though.

The problem is that in Bereishit 22, the children of Nachor, the brother of Avraham are listed. Among them is Utz, mentioned earlier. Even more problematic, is that another kid of Nachor is Kemuel, who is referred to as the father of Aram! In Bereishit 10, Aram is the father of Utz, and in Bereishit 22, he is his nephew.

All these problems lead to one inescapable conclusion. These nation lists were compiled from different sources, or by different people who wished to indicate ethnic similarities and possibly political alliances at the time they were living. They may have been originally formulated at different times, or they might just reflect competing traditions present at the time of composition. The only way to retain a divine and flawless text, is to say that none of these names actually indicate the tribes we know about, and that even though the names are identical in different places in the Torah, they must be different people with the same, unique, name. Personally, I don't find this compelling at all. It is just ignoring completely what the Torah is telling you, and forcing your own preconceptions onto it.

Retrospective
 
When I was younger, I was always fascinated by these passages. To me this was a description of the entire world, all the nations were represented by these weird sounding names that I've never heard of before. They'd have to be, because this was God's writing. It was only much later that I realized just how small the "world" of the Israelites was. They seem to know some nations north of the Black Sea, and some as far south as Ethiopia, but they know nothing in Europe, nothing east of Assyria (no Persia, no India, certainly no China). Forget about the Americas. If there was a divine author, something like this Table of Nations would have been a great way to demonstrate knowledge beyond what a human author could have known. This is an idea that we will revisit in the future. For now, we are left with two conclusions. The first is that many verses in this Chapter could not have been written before the 7th Century BCE. Lydia did not exist before then, neither did the name, Sabtecha. Furthermore, Ethiopia listed before Egypt was only a reality at one time in history.
Edit: Some minor typos were fixed.

---

1. Gmirkin, Russell "Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus" T&T Clark, 2006 ^

2. Redford, Donald, "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times" Princeton Univ. Press 1992.^

3. See Isa. 66:19, Eze. 30:5, 27:10, Jer. 46:9^

4. Gmirkin p. 143^

5. Redford, p. 404^

6. Redford, p. 407^

7. Redford identifies the biblical Caphtor with Keftiu a region of the Aegean, likely Crete. p. 406^

8. Redford places Lydia among the Egyptians. As to it's placement among the sons of Shem, he says, "...by what rationalization it was brought into the family of Shem remains a mystery" (p. 405).^

9. Astour, "Sabtah and Sabtecah, Ethiopian Pharaoh names in Genesis 10", Journal of Biblical Literature 84 4, 1965^

10. Friedman, for example, identifies two different authors for this section. (see appropriate verses in R.E. Friedman, "The Bible with Sources Revealed")^

The "Third" Story of Creation

Parshat Bereishit

The opening of the Torah begins with the creation of the world, and then follows with the story of Adam and Eve in the garden. Academic scholars have long thought that both of these stories come from different sources, and pointed to things like the usage of different names for God, and various apparent contradictions as evidence. Rabbis and Christian theologians saw the first chapter as a broad view of creation, and the Garden of Eden story as a detailed view. They also had various exegetical means for resolving the contradictions. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, I will not focus on these arguments.  Instead I will talk about a "third" creation story that appears elsewhere in Tanach, and in other cultures in the Ancient near east. At the end, I will argue that the creation account in Genesis 1 is partly meant to refute this "third" creation myth, or at very least, to repurpose it into an idea which was more appropriate for monotheistic Judaism.

Enuma Elish and the Baal Cycle

Before we dig into the content in the Tanach itself, it's necessary to spend a few minutes discussing two creation myths that we have recovered from the ancient city of Ugarit (The Baal Cycle) and from various cities in Babylon and Assyria (Enuma Elish). Enuma Elish was probably written at some time before the 12th century BCE. It describes the creation of the world as the result of the chief god Marduk over the chaos-serpant Tiamat. After the battle, the foundational creation of the world is described as following.

While he divided the flesh of the ... , and devised a cunning plan.
He split her up like a flat fish into two halves;
One half of her he stablished as a covering for heaven.
He fixed a bolt, he stationed a watchman,
And bade them not to let her waters come forth.
He passed through the heavens, he surveyed the regions thereof,
And over against the Deep he set the dwelling of Nudimmud[1].

The Baal cycle has a somewhat similar story, but the names have changed. It was found in the city of Ugarit and dated roughly to the 16th century BCE. I was unable to find an online translation, unfortunately, so a brief summary will half to suffice. In the story, Baal defeats the chaos god of the sea, Yam, after which he is raised to the top of the pantheon.  In the process, Baal also defeats the servant of Yam, Lotan, a wriggling serpent with seven heads. The story continues with Baal battling against the god of death Mot, being defeated by Mot, and then appearing suddenly again after Mot is dispatched by his allies. The Baal Cycle predates Enuma Elish in all likelihood, and it's not known how well the Israelites knew it by the time the Jewish Monarchy was in full swing.

Leviathan and Rahav

In the Yom Kippur post, I mentioned the book of Iyov (Job), and how it describes God's answer to Iyov.  I mentioned that God justifies his behavior by claiming that Iyov, a mere human, has no way of understanding God's power.  But I didn't go into details. The specific manner in which God describes his power is important here. God describes himself pitched in battle with a giant beast Behemoth, and the great sea serpant, Leviathan. Leviathan is cognate with Ugaritic Lotan from the Baal cycle. A few verses will suffice (Job 40:25, 31-32) [2].

Canst thou draw out leviathan with a fish-hook? or press down his tongue with a cord? Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish-spears?
Lay thy hand upon him; think upon the battle, thou wilt do so no more.

If you didn't read Job 38-41 after the Yom Kippur post, I entreat you to read them in full now. If you are too lazy, I'll give you the tl;dr. God tells Iyov that only he is strong enough to conquer Leviathan, and this is the heart of the "might makes right" aspect of the argument.   

Iyov isn't the only place where these ideas of pitched battle between God and other beings come into discussion. The other place where they appear is in Psalms. Psalm 74:13-14 are interesting.

13 Thou didst break Sea[3] in pieces by Thy strength; Thou didst shatter the heads of the sea-monsters in the waters.
14 Thou didst crush the heads of leviathan, Thou gavest him to be food to the folk inhabiting the wilderness.

We see here some ideas of battle not only between God and Leviathan, but also between God and Yam.[4] It should be noted that the descriptions in the Tanach are very different from the ones in Enuma Elish and the Baal Cycle. Baal and Marduk are depicted as equal adversaries to Yam and Tiamat. Not so in the Tanach where God is depicted as being a cut above everything else. There are no setbacks here, like Baal suffered at the hands of Mot. Indeed, in another appearance in Psalms 104:26, Leviathan is beneath consideration as a rival.

There go the ships; there is Leviathan, whom Thou hast formed to sport therein.

Psalm 104 can be read as a creation myth very similar to that of Genesis 1. It's worth reading it with Genesis in mind for comparison's sake.

Genesis 1 - Refutation of the Chaos Combat Myth

The argument I will make is that the author of Genesis 1 (and Psalm 104) was familiar with these creation myths from pitched combat between two or more deities, and wished to refute them explicitly. In Genesis 1:2 we see Tiamat appear in the cognate word Tehom. But Tiamat is not a fearsome chaos-god sea serpent. Tehom is understood to be inert, it is just the chaotic deep waters.

The idea of making a fixed boundary to hold back the waters of heaven, appears in both Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish, but in Genesis, God fashions the rakiah (firmament) himself. There is no carcass of the chaos god to deal with. Leviathan, does show up briefly in Day Five. But here, as in Psalm 104, it is just another aspect of creation. God makes the great sea serpents, taninim gedolim.

In Genesis 1, God is depicted as the sole actor. There is no rival on his plane. The old rivals of the creation myths of Enuma Elish and the Baal cycle, Tiamat and Leviathan (and perhaps even Yam) appear, but they are not deities equivalent in power. They are either inert or just another aspect of creation. The author of Genesis 1 makes this completely clear. 

Furthermore in comparing Genesis 1 to Psalm 104, we see that the words used to describe creation seem to relate to different myths altogether.  In Genesis 1, tehom = Tiamat shows up as a reference to a Babylonian god, but none of the Canaanite Gods appear, even in normal words.  Not only is the Leviathan = lotan not mentioned, but the text goes seemingly out of its way to avoid using names of the Babylonian gods shemesh (sun) and yerach (moon), instead using the words meor hagadol (big light) and meor hakaton (small light).  Similarly, it's always yamim and never Yam.  Not so in Psalm 104, where shemesh, yerach, yam and levyatan all show up.  We've seen the last two, the first two appear in verse 19

Who appointedst the moon (yareach) for seasons; the sun (shemesh) knoweth his going down

I've argued in several places that the traditional order in which the Tanach was written, the five books of the Torah first and everything else after, should not be assumed correct a priori.  Here we see a good reason for stating that Psalm 104 was written before Genesis 1.   Psalm 104 is directly refuting Canaanite creation myths which were alive and well at Ugarit, and represent an earlier cultural threat.  Genesis 1 is refuting Babylonian myths, which Israelites would not have encountered until much later, and would not have needed an explicit refutation until the exile.  Next week we'll see some more evidence that sections of Genesis were not written until much later than the traditional timeline suggests.

---

1. Enuma Elish, 4th tablet, tablets of creation.^

2. The verse numbering here follows the Hebrew tradition. Christian bibles have these verses at the start of Chapter 41^

3. The English translation in the JPS translation is incorrect. The Hebrew leaves out the definite article for "the." The proper reading is: Thou didst break Sea (Yam)into pieces by Thy strength, not "the sea." This makes a big difference if you consider Yam as a proper noun for an anthropomorphism of the sea. ^

4. cf. Mark Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism p 36-40.^