From The Alpha and the Omega - Volume III
by Jim A. Cornwell, Copyright © October 30, 2006, all rights reserved
"Volume III - Abram the Hebrew"
WHAT IS A HEBREW?

    A different tradition of Hebrew beginnings is reflected in Ezek. 16:3 ff., "And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Am'-or-ite, and thy mother an Hit'-tite", therefore we see a mixed ancestry - Amorite, Hittite and Canaanite to represent the Jerusalemites.
    Jerusalem was a Jebusite stronghold which did not become a Hebrew city until the time of David (2 Sam. 5).
    The firstfruits liturgy (Deut. 26:5 "And thou shalt speak and say before the LORD thy God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous:") promoting Hebrew ancestry to the Aramaeans, but the designation appears to be used in a broad rather than a specific sense.
    Etymological analyses of the term "Hebrew" ('ibri) has not been finalized, as many see the term meaning "to go over" or "to go across"; hence, a "Hebrew" would be one who crossed over or one who went from place to place, a nomad, a wanderer, a designation that would fit some aspects of patriarchal behavior.
    A similar term, habiru, is found in cuneiform documents from the twentieth to the eleventh centuries, often used interchangeably with another word, SA.GAZ.    At times the Habiru appear to be settled in specific locations; at times they serve in the army as mercenaries, or are bound to masters as servants.
    The El Amarna tablets refer to invaders of Palestine as 'apiru, a word bearing close relationship to the terms habiru and "Hebrew."
    Extensive research has led many scholars to the conclusion that the term "Hebrew" was first used as an appellative to describe foreigners who crossed into settled areas and referred not to a specific group but to a social caste.    If the word "Hebrew" parallels habiru or 'apiru, we know that these people on occasion were employed, at times created settlements of their own, and at other times attacked established communities.    The suggestion that the terms 'apiru, habiru and "Hebrew" relate to those who have renounced a relationship to an existing society, who have by a deliberate action withdrawn from some organization or rejected some authority, and who have become through this action freebooters, slaves, employees or mercenaries presents real possibilities.
    In the Bible the word Hebrew becomes an ethnic term used interchangeably with "Israelite."
    Perhaps the best that can be said is that the Hebrews of the Bible appear to be one branch of the Northwest Semitic group, related linguistically to Canaanites, Edomites and Moabites, who moved from a semi-nomadic existence to settled life in the Bronze Age.    Although the Bronze Age has periods: Early I (6000-2900 B.C.); Early II-III (2900-2300 B.C.); Intermediate (2300-2000 B.C.); Middle I (2000-1800); Middle II-III (1800-1550 B.C.); and Late I-III (1550-1130), which then entered the Iron Age.
    Other sources state a Hebrew is a name applied to the Israelites in Scripture only by one who is a foreigner (Gen. 39:14, 17; 41:12, etc.), or by the Israelites when they speak of themselves to foreigners (40:15; Ex. 1:19), or when spoken of as contrasted with other peoples (Gen. 43:32; Ex. 1:3, 7, 15; Deut. 15:12).    In the New Testament there is the same contrast between Hebrews and foreigners (Acts 6:1; Phil. 3:5).
    These are the following three derivations.
(1.) The name is derived, according to some, from Eber (Gen. 10:24), the ancestor of Abraham.    The Hebrews are "sons of Eber" (10:21).
(2.) Others trace the name of a Hebrew root-word signifying "to pass over," and hence regard it as meaning "the man who passed over," viz., the Euphrates; or to the Hebrew word meaning "the region" or "country beyond," viz., the land of Chaldea.    This latter view is preferred.    It is the more probable origin of the designation given to Abraham coming among the Canaanites as a man from beyond the Euphrates (Gen. 14:13).
(3.) A third derivation of the word has been suggested, viz., that it is from the Hebrew word _'abhar_, "to pass over," whence _'ebher_, in the sense of a "sojourner" or "passer through" as distinct from a "settler" in the land, and thus applies to the condition of Abraham (Heb. 11:13).
Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

    The following is an email conversation that I had with Harvey Freilich, an elderly man who has spent his life on promoting what and who the word Hebrew meant.    He approached me regarding my web page at http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterFour/TheHebrewConnection.htm which discusses "Discovery of Sargas, Sa.gaz, Sargon, King Scorpion of Predynastic times and Abram the Hebrew."
--------------------------------------------------------
    Greetings, Jim.
    Your site is most interesting.    I am particularly interested in your breakdown of Gen. 14:13 ["Abram the Hebrew"].    For most of my almost seventy years I, too, have been interested [I consider myself to be of Hebrew origin].    May I propose an additional term be added to your consideration of the sentence structure at Gen. 14:13, as it appears most who read the sentence usually gloss over the fact that an alternative word is used to describe the manner by which Abram dwells [i.e. the utilization here of nkX, rather than bXy]!    "...for he dwelt."    Semantically, it would appear the redactor is implying a causative explanation as being offered for the reason Abram being identified as an Hebrew is because of how he is dwelling at the tents of Mamre in Hebron.
    I know; it sounds much too simplistic ... maybe that's what intrigues me so much for so long regarding my observation of its utilization.    If you will note the earlier references to how Abram, and his nephew Lot dwell upon the land, and the use of the dwelling term in describing other so-called Hebrews in the Biblical text, you might begin to see why I feel to be an Hebrew is to be more the displaced person, than one simply from across a river, etymologically sprung from an Eberite, or a mercenary hired out to kings.
    Thanks for listening; we can talk about it, if you like.    With respect, and in friendship,
Harvey Freilich
--------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Cornwell
To: Harvey Freilich
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Gen. 14:13
Hi Harvey
    I have not heard a peep out of you in a long time.
    As to your question.    I am not sure just why the difference in the word Dwelt verses Dwell (Dwelled) is proving anything.    I take it your goal is that if they are dwelling then they were not roaming as in displaced.    Wanting to settle verses had settled.    As you know I believe that Abram and his (barren wife Sarai, princess) was a tribe of many generations, and God took the last Abram and his horde and moved them into a new place, safe from harm, and renamed him Abraham (father of many nations), whose then unbarren wife Sarah had children, in order that the 400 years would pass for his posterity.    Yes indeed things were odd.
    Gen. 14:13 "And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mam'-re the Am'-or-ite, brother of Esh'-col, and brother of A'-ner: and these were confederate with Abram."
    Dwell, Dwelled - Heb. yashab, yaw-shab', a prim. root, properly to sit down (spec. as judge, in ambush, in quiet) by implication to dwell, to remain; causation to settle, to marry.
    Dwell seen in Gen. 4:20, 13:6, 16:12, 19:30, 20:15.
    Dwelled seen in Gen. 13:7 (Perrizzite), 13:12 (Abram, Lot), 20:1 (Kadesh).

    Dwelt - Heb. shakan, shaw-kan', a prim. root [apparently akin (by transmission) to Heb. shakab, shaw-kab', a prim. root, to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease, or other purposes), thus through the idea of lodging, to reside or permanently stay.
    Dwelt also seen in Gen. 9:27, 14:12-13, 16:3, 16:12, 19:29, 49:13.
    If you have any valid insight on this let me know.
Jim A. Cornwell
Mazzaroth@msn.com

--------------------------------------------------------
    Please forgive me Jim.
    It has been a while - I forgot that I tried once before to make my point on this issue...well - it only took twenty-three years for the publisher of the Miami Herald to "get it."
    It took as many years to change seventeen dictionaries and half that number of encyclopediae to correctly identify the Hebrews.    Since we last talked years ago, the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language cites me when defining certain Biblical terms...and me without a degree or credential.
    Now, if only I could get you to say you understand - - only because I have great respect for your intellect, and your perspective on Biblical exegeses.    It's not about "dwelled" or "dwelt."    It's about the use of the Hebrew "shawkan" where the term, "Hebrew" is first seen, rather than "yawshab" [at Gen. 14:13].    In the earlier reference [13:18], regardless "yawshab" has already been utilized to define Abram's permanent 'dwelling' at the terebinths of Mamre at Hebron, the redactor chose "shawkan" in reiterating what had already been stated, apparently when the "Hebrew" citation is used to describe how Abram dwells.    Thus, added significance becomes attributed to both the "Hebrew" term, as well as the dwelling term utilized in the sentence.
    Being a Hebrew is important; it defines the children of Israel in the Pentateuch as specific to the manner by which they dwell upon the land [and as you point out, the Septuagint definition, as descriptive of a "displaced," wandering, Bedouin-like, tent-dwelling, non city-state dwelling people].    Since it's mine own heritage, and one important to me, I am irritated, if not totally frustrated that even my peers in the scholarly sense cannot see the connection between the use of specific Hebrew terms to define "The People of the Book."
    Let me know if you ever "get it," regardless of how insignificant and irrelevant this seeming exercise in semantics may appear to you.    If you don't, will you at the least ask me a question or two; it will help to keep my argument honed.
    Thanks, Jim, and the best of the Holiday Season to you and yours.    With respect, and in friendship,
Harvey
--------------------------------------------------------
    I then posed the following information to Harvey, which he responded to.
[Jim]: I have been trying to look at the Abram in the Bible, where and how he lived, and the designation given to him.    Below are my thoughts on this.    What is it that you feel that I am not seeing or understanding?    Is Abram and Abram the Hebrew two different entities?
[Harvey]: You have the patience of a saint...one more time...

[Jim]: Gen. 13:6-12 Abram returned from Egypt with his unbarren and beautiful Sarai, to where his tent had been before (place of the altar), both him and Lot were cattlemen here, who had to move to sustain their herds, against the Canaanites and Perrizzite.    Lot left and dwelled in the cities of the plain (Sodom).    Abram dwelled (still in a tent, not permanent) in the land of Canaan.
[Harvey]: Right; Lot dwelled [yawshab], and Abram dwelled [yawshab].

[Jim]: Gen. 13:18 Abram (was he a Hebrew or not?) removed his tent (not permanent) and came and dwelt in the plain of Mam'-re (assuming a tent again, Abram lived by the "great trees of Mamre").
[Harvey]: Abram was he a Hebrew or not?    Not yet so identified as such!    Abram removed his tent (not permanent) ["not permanent;" your definition - remember] and came and dwelt [yawshab] in the plain of Mam'-re (assuming a tent again, Abram lived by the "great trees of Mamre").

[Jim]: Gen. 14:12 Lot, who dwelt in Sodom was taken by the kings of the region.
[Harvey]: Lot, who dwelt [yawshab] was taken away.

[Jim]: Gen. 14:13 Abram the Hebrew for he dwelt (who was living - This is the same Abram in Gen. 13:18?) in the plain (by the oaks) of Mamre [Gen. 13:18 Heb. Mamre', mam-ray'] the Amorite [Gen. 14:7 for Amorites, who was allied with Abram (Gen. 14:13, 24).
[Harvey]: As to Gen. 14:13 - Here we are again, then! "...for he dwelt [shawkan] - - - who dwelt?    Abram, the Hebrew did!    What is the reason for his dwelling in the manner of shawkan?    for he, The Hebrew shawkan!    (who was living - Is this the same Abram in Gen. 13:18?).    Yes; of course.

[Jim]: Mamre is a place a few miles north of Hebron where oak trees grew.    Are you saying that Abram the Hebrew permanently dwelled there, and never left?
[Harvey]: Not at all; but the Talmudic Rabbinate insinuates the meaning of shawkan here as either "undisturbed" or more settled; more permanent...but that cannot be, as his sojourning at the great trees of his confederates is just that: a temporary sojourn.    Thus, the use of shawkan, as seen in the same sentence structure as the first use of the "Hebrew" term is significant, and portends something more than an exercise in semantics.

[Jim]: Gen. 15:12-21 here a Covenant and miracoulous supernatural event occurred to the last Abram.
[Harvey]: No response.

[Jim]: Gen. 16:3 Abram (was he still a Hebrew after this?) and Sarai (Was she still barren as stated in 16:1?) had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan.
[Harvey]: Hebrew so recognized, and his progeny forevermore!
    As to Sarai, "Was she still barren as stated in 16:1? had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan.    The birth of Ishmael to Hagar occurred at Abram when he was 86 years of age, leading to 12 princes of the Arab world today.    Exactly!    A long sojourn of ten years; how do they dwell?    Yawshab!    What is the difference in the terminology?    Yawshab is the same in all cases; but shawkan relates to a specific manner by which so-called Hebrews reside, and the term relates solely to them.    They are displaced non-citizens of any given community within which they reside or better, sojourn.    [Lech Lacha]="Go out from your home and land to another land that I will show you!"...in effect: a displacement!    [such as that suffered upon the Hebrew children of Israel who served with vigor as slaves to the Egyptian]

[Jim]: Gen. 17:1 When the last Abram (still a Hebrew?) was ninety years old, and the name changed in verse 5 to Abraham (father of many nations) and wife became Sarah (unbarren).
[Harvey]: Okay.

[Jim]: Gen. 18:1 Abraham lived by the "great trees of Mamre," but the LORD appeared to him in the plains of Mam'-re (note plains not the plain), in the tent door (still not permanent).    This place derived its name from the Amorite above who lived there.    The burial cave in the field of Machpelah is described as located before Mamre (23:17, 19, 25:9, 35:27, 49:30, 50:13).
[Harvey]: No; not "lived;" sitting by the "great trees of Mamre," [term used? Yawshab...as you say, still not permanent - - - but shawkan has nothing to do with permanence or impermanence; it has to do with sojourning Hebrews, displaced from their homelands or former lives to dwell as the Bedouin might - in tents, and moving among populations without choosing to become citizens of the community [sort of, like gypsies, as the Septuagint infers in their definition of "an Hebrew"].

[Jim]: The modern name of the site is Ramet el-Khalil, which can be viewed as Herodian ruins.
[Harvey]: No argument.

[Jim]: Isaac was born in Gen. 21:1-4, when newly named Abraham was 100 years old.
[Harvey]: And he is not identified as an Hebrew, for he is not displaced from his homeland, as is the later Joseph, who is known to Potiphar's wife as, "that Hebrew!"    Who else "shawkans?"    Those displaced Hebrews; sometimes in the majestic sense of the word "as the lion dwells [shawkan] in Zion," or, in the simplest sense, those displaced who live in tents, and sojourn amongst populations not of their own heritage or from the "land of the Hebrews."    It's a perspective regarding the definition of a term as applied to a specific type of individual, residing in an exclusively unique manner than those of the native society within which they "sit" or sojourn.    Still friends?

Jim
--------------------------------------------------------
Harvey
    I understand.    If you had said it this way from the beginning I would have grasped it easier.
    Without the title Hebrew and (shown with yashab - dwell, dwelled, sat) you are not displaced.
    With the title Hebrew and (shawkan, dwelt) you are displaced and considered a soujourning entity.

    So after all this semantic exercise.    Why did you contact me about it?    What is it that you want or need me to do?
    http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterFour/TheHebrewConnection.htm    If this page has content that you would like me to expand for your view on it, let me know.    Do you need me to add a page to this page to explain that concept?    Still understand that my goal is to show or find that Abram was a tribe through many generations, until the last Abram, became Abraham.    If you find any Talmudic Rabbinate insinuates that can add to that concept I would appreciate it.    Without archaeological evidence this is very hard to prove.    The KJV Bible has many words, like your situation that can change the whole meaning of a concept that people have believed all of their lives.    The one where Moses refers in Hebrew to Dan (originally Leschem), which he could have not known about, is a prime example of the Bible being written and revised by other sources.

Jim
--------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jim
    Nothing my dear friend; you understand...to me.    That's like being offered champagne.    My object is to restore relevance to the term, Hebrew, by exposing the altered mind set the Talmudic Rabbinate has placed upon its use and meaning.    It is my heritage, and although history and circumstance have caused a misunderstanding as to who was whom before they became what they are known to be, I must continue to clarify the errant perspective for those who simply don't know the history of the matter.
    Modifications in the Biblical texts have always been attempted by the surviving authoritative [spell that religious] remnant of a People.    For example, take 2nd Samuel 12:31.    Pre 1985 editions of the Books of the Bible, published by the Jewish Publication Society, correctly declared David's slaughter of the citizens of Rabbah.    But after 1985's alteration of the texts, David has left his enemies, not only alive, but manufacturing the very weapons by which they were destroyed in the original English text, produced in 1903 and 1917.    This modifies the Davidic image to suit the modern redactors, but does nothing to respect the heritage of the ancient scribes who are responsible to history, rather than the Rabbinate or Orthodoxy.    I remain your friend, and continue to respect your work and knowledge.    May our dialogue continue, and may I wish you and yours the best the season has to offer.    Happy Holidays.
Harvey
--------------------------------------------------------
    So I have created this page on behalf of Harvey Freilich.
    So now for some further information on Abram and Abraham.
    As I have commented on previous pages the archaeologist Professor D.N. Freedman of the University of Michigan in his 1978 lecture entitled 'Archaeology and Biblical Religion', and the discovery of the Ebla Tablets (dated during the 23rd century B.C.) he stated that: "It is now my belief that the story in Genesis 14 not only corresponds in content to the Ebla Tablet, but that the Genesis account derives from the same period. ... Briefly put, the account in Genesis 14, and also in Chapters 18-19, does not belong to the second millennium B.C., still less to the first millennium BC, but rather to the third millennium B.C." (quoted in 'Ebla Tablets - Secrets of a Forgotten City' by Dr. Clifford Wilson, p.126-127, Master Books, 1979).
    Did Abram of Gen. 13-16 or Abraham of Gen. 17-20 live in the 23rd century B.C.?    Some sources claim the date of 2,305 B.C. as Abram's birth based on any version of Scripture.    The chronology prior to Abraham depends on which text type is used and the chronological information in Genesis 5 and 11.    So which was the original text?
    There are great differences between chronology in the original text.    Many of the early Church Fathers followed the LXX in Genesis 5 and 11, staying with the teachings of the Apostles, who based their writings on the Vorlage or the LXX.
    As I have promoted for strong support for the LXX chronology, in the Gospel of Luke 3:36, he includes Cainan in the post-Flood listing of Patriarchs, just as the LXX does.    Genesis 5 and 11 form the basis and the difference between the LXX (Septuagint) and MT (Masoretic Text) are seen in Genesis 5 to amount to 600 years and in Genesis 11 over 700 years.
    On top of the fact that there may be missing generations in the chronology of the Old Testament, some sources claim the MT may be incorrect on dating because of Hebrew character change plus later vowel pointing.    The deviation of the MT from the SP (Samaritan Pentateuch) and LXX could have been from a cipher for 100 being dropped or omitted in copying from the paleo-Hebrew to the MT in these chapters only.    It was noted that this also occurred in the New Testament in Acts 27:37 that 276 people were on board Paul's ship when it was wrecked in the storm, and some manuscripts read 76.    Therefore the cipher for 200 was dropped, and may have also occurred in the drop of 1,300 years from Genesis 5 and 11 in the MT.
    As some sources claim that the birth of Abram or Abraham occurred in 2,305 B.C. if this be the case then using the LXX version chronology to get back to Adam, the Flood occurred 1,232 years before in 3,537 B.C., and the Creation 2,256 years earlier in 5,793 B.C.    Some claim this is in agreement with the early church fathers who favored dates around 5,500 B.C.
    All these sources generally support the LXX chronology, but differ on the date of Abram or Abraham's birth as much as 352 years, not including 130 years for Cainan's genealogy.
    The dates on the MT become 2,657 B.C. for the Flood, with the Creation being 1,656 years earlier in 4,313 B.C. for a maximum using the long chronology.
    If the short chronology is used from the Temple destruction to Abraham, these dates will reduce by a further 352 years to become 2,305 B.C. for the flood, and 3,961 for Creation.
    In the world of the ancient Egyptians the calendar was based on the Sothis star and Nile flooding, which had its beginnings with the Sothic Cycle on the first day of the first Egyptian month.    One of these Cycles ended in 139 A.D., which took 1,457 years to complete.    By subtracting two Cycles or 2,914 years from 139 A.D., we arrive at the date of the calendar of 2,775 B.C. (range 2,767 B.C. to 2,783 B.C.).    This date coincides with the era for Dynasty One, plus or minus 150 years (range of 2,920 B.C. to 2,770 B.C.) for the start of the 1st Dynasty.    Modern archaeologists have uncovered a Dynasty Zero that extends into 3,200 B.C. with the concept of King Scorpion, whereas the first Dynasty is promoted by some as dating at 3,100 B.C. to as low as 2,700 B.C.    Of interest is this calendar had to be introduced by some source, whom I propose was sojourning through Egypt during that time frame.    Also take note that 2,700-2,200 B.C. was called the Age of the Pyramids.
    One thing is sure, that the division of Peleg, the Babel story, the Deluge all had to occur earlier than 2,770 B.C.    But for those holding on to the short (MT) chronology, would have Noah's Flood occurring in 2,305 B.C. and have to argue against the foundation date for the Dynasties and the Sothic Cycle.    Flood traditions existed even in pre-Dynastic Egypt and in the Thinite Period.    However, on the LXX chronology, the Flood occurred in 3,537 B.C., with Babel around 3,300 B.C., Dynasty 1 therefore began 500 years after Babel and 230 years after the Peleg continental division that occurred around 3,000 B.C.    The LXX chronology thereby is supported by the evidence from early Egypt.    That's great!    Now for the rest of the story.
    As you may have already read on my website that I have promoted that Genesis is a story of the reorganization of the Earth by the Elohim after a Glaciation Age beginning around 21,810 B.C., which led to the Fall of Adam and Eve around 7,656 B.C., thus subtracting the 1,656 years before the Flood brings us to around 6,000 B.C., placing us at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age.    The offspring of Noah eventually led to the tribe of Abram, which may have spanned many generations before the LORD God (Yahweh) took the last Abram and all his entourage and moved them to safety, and then renamed this last head of the Abram tribe to Abraham, which better coordinates with all the above dating of placing Abraham around 2,305 B.C. at the beginning of the Intermediate Bronze Age.
    Hermann Gunkel, in his work 'Genesis', (Eng. trans. of the 1910 revised German ed.- Mercer: Macon, Georgia, 1997, p. 162), studied pagan religions of the ancient Middle East, and promoted the idea that the "creation stories" and the "patriarchal legends" in Genesis are literary reworkings by Hebrew story-tellers, dating from the fifteenth century B.C. and later, of much more ancient myths about the pagan gods derived from the surrounding cultures.
    Gunkel tried to present evidence that Abraham and Sarah were derived from a myth about the gods of the city of Haran.    In Genesis 11:29, he tried to parallel the names of Sarai ("princess"), the wife of Abram, and Milcah ("queen"), the wife of Abram's brother Nahor, with the pagan mythology of Babylon on Šarratu ("queen") and Malkatu ("princess").    Gunkel suggested that the family of Abram and Sarai were originally the mythological family of Sin, the chief god of Haran, and his wife and daughter.    Many looked at Gunkel's work as far-fetched, as to ancestors of the Hebrews names relating to pagan gods and goddesses, having no evidence of real historical existence.    All the persons named in Gen 11:26-29 were born into a pagan culture and "served foreign gods" (Joshua 24:2).    But the goddesses of Haran to whom Gunkel appealed were actually named Nin-gal and Ishtar, while šarratu and malkatu are generic words that could apply to any queen or princess.    Gunkel found no mythological connection for the name of Abram.
    My take on this is that Abram was a tribe name as in Abramu, and Sarai was the tribe name for princess and the wife of the head Abram.    Gunkel's reasoning fell out of favor after twentieth century archaeological discoveries indicated that the name and culture of Abram, as depicted in Genesis, relate precisely to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries B.C., based on "The mention of Melchizedek," the reference in 14:14 to Abraham's 318 retainers (with an Egyptian word used in the 20th century B.C., and later for the retainers of Asiatic chieftains, and the Hittite address to Abraham as 'prince of God' (Gen 23:6) all illustrate the high rank of Abraham in the world of that day as reflected by Hebrew tradition).
    The figure of 'Abram the Hebrew' a caravaneer of high repute in his time, the chief traditional representative of the original donkey caravaneers of the 19th century B.C., when this profession reached the climax of its history" (W.F. Albright, "Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation," in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 163 [Oct., 1961], p. 52) and they demonstrated as scientifically "certain" that the Hebrew patriarchs were real historical persons, "Who were the Hebrew Patriarchs?" ... Some formerly held that the Patriarchs were really depotentized gods who were transformed by legend into human beings and lost their divine characteristics.    Others have thought that, in the course of many centuries of story-telling, the Hebrew Patriarchs came to reflect early ethnic movements.    Thanks to our present evidence [1967], it is certain today that the Patriarchs were indeed human beings who were the heroes of stories handed down from the Patriarchal Age" (W.F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan [Athlone: London, 1968], p. 56)] although there were never any historical grounds for doubting this.
    Who was Iscah?
    In Genesis 11:29, "And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai (his half-sister); and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah (his orphaned niece), the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah (some sources claim sister of others brother of Lot and Milcah)."    Haran was the father of Lot, Milcah and Iscah, but died in the land he was born in leaving these three orphaned.
    In Strong's concordance Iscah (is'-cah), Hebrew Yiçkâh, yis-kaw', from an unused root meaning to watch; observant; Jiskah, sister of Lot.    Milcah (mil'-cah), Hebrew Milkâh, mil-kaw', a form of malkâh, mal-kaw', meaning queen, Milcah, the name of a Hebrewess and of an Israelite.
    The following shows some relevence into the connection between the Biblical Iscah and the Sumerian Ischara, remember Nahor, Milcah and Iscah did not sojourn with Terah, only Abram, Sarai and Lot.    Did this group stay and develop into the Sumerian influence of Agade and Sargon from as early as 3,200 B.C. to as late as 2,350-2,200 B.C.?    Also these may represent the four invading kings of Genesis 14, or even the kings of the cities of the plain.    This division does correlate with the time frame for the Taurus (it's opposite is Scorpius) 4,530 B.C. to 2,370 B.C. start of Aries.
    The star name J Girtab, which is a very old Sumerian word for "scorpion," in modern star names it is seen as q which is located in the tail of the Scorpius constellation.
    But more rarely it, is called Sargas, another Sumerian word.    It's Babylonian title also means "seizer" and "smiter."
Is this a connection to Sargon?     Sargon (sar'-gon) is found in Isaiah 20:1.    Hebrew Çargown, sar-gone', of foreign der., Sargon, an Assyrian king, Sargon.    Some sources claim that sargon, means "the constituted king."
    Sargon I, was different than the one mentioned above in Isaiah, this one was a famous king of early Babylon who founded an empire that extended to the Mediterranean (2400 B.C.).    He is not referred to in the Bible.    The story is told that he (like Moses) had been put by his mother into an ark of bulrushes in the river, there to be rescued--by Akki the irrigator.    Interesting, since he predates Moses by 900 years.
    From the 30 stars Tablet from Birs Nimroud (Borsippa) the lunar mansion for Scorpius is:     Therefore "The Scorpion (GIR.TAB), is also called d.Ishchara, Governess of all Lands.
    In "Hamlet's Mill" by Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend, Gambit Inc. 1969 it states on page 409, "See P.F. Gossmann, Planetarium Babylonicum (1950), 94: mulGIR2.TAB dIshara tam-tim."    "Anton Deimeil (Pantheon Babylonicum [1914], pp 148f.) takes mulGIR.TAB for beta delta alpha Scorpii only: 'Ishara est dea quaedam partus, quae relatationem habet ad Gestin anna, Adad'."    "Egyptian Selket/Serqet, is compared to the Mesopotamian Ishara tamtim, the Scorpion goddess."

    Gen. 11-25, Abram and the story of the Hebrews begins, as he was summons to leave his ancestral home and journey to Canaan, accompanied by a promise (Gen. 12:2) that becomes a sub motif in patriarchal accounts, re-appearing again and again (cf. Gen. 13:14 f., 15:5 f., 18:10, 22:17, 26:24, 28:13 f., 32:12 f., 35:9 ff., 48:16), finally taking covenantal form (Gen. 17:14 ff.).        Upon a divine summons, to leave Mesopotamia and journey to Canaan:     Late Bronze Age I-III (1550-1130), which then entered the Iron Age.
    Abraham also traveled to Gezer, Beer-sheba and back to Hebron where he (Gen. 25:8) and his wife Sarah eventually died and were buried.    This journey was a pilgrimage, leading to the starting point in nationhood, under the protection of Yahweh.
    The descriptions of Abram/Abraham are not uniform: at times he appears as:
     In fact this individual seems to have multiple personalities.    If he was all of the above personalities in one lifetime, this brings me to the concept that maybe Abram did represent various leaders over a couple of thousands of years.


    Dating the patriarchal period for biblical chronology is very complex.
    In the P source, 215 years pass between the time of Abram's journey to Canaan and Jacob's migration to Egypt (see Gen. 12:4b, 21:5, 25:26, 47:9), and the period spent in Egypt is given as 430 years (Exod. 12:40 f.), making a total of 645 years before the Exodus.
    Most scholars date the Exodus near the middle of the thirteenth century, assuming that Abram left Mesopotamia at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and Jacob's journey to Egypt would occur about 1,700 B.C.
    Date variations occur in some manuscripts.
    In the LXX, Exod. 12:40 includes time spent in both Egypt and Canaan in the 430-year period (some manuscripts read 435 years).    According to this reckoning, Abram's journey would fall in the seventeenth century and Jacob's in the fifteenth century.
    The early nineteenth century date for Abram places his departure from Mesopotamia at the time of the Elamite and Amorite invasion.    It harmonizes with the conclusions of Nelson Glueck, who found that between the twenty-first and nineteenth centuries B.C. the Negeb was dotted with hamlets where inhabitants, having learned how to hoard water, engaged in agriculture and tended small flocks.    Such settlements would provide stopping places for Abram and his retinue.    The seventeenth century date for Jacob's settlement in Egypt coincides with the Hyksos invasion of Egypt, lending support to Josephus' hypothesis, for Hebrews may have been part of this movement.
    The second pattern of dating would place Abram in the time of Hammurabi of Babylon and would give strength to the argument that the mention of King Amraphel of Shinar in Gen. 14:1 is a Hebraized reference to Hammurabi.    Abram would, therefore, be in Canaan during the Hyksos period, and Joseph would have risen to power in the Amarna age.    The close of the Amarna period brought to power leaders hostile to Akhenaton and possibly also to those he had favored.
    Whatever the correct date for Abram may be, he represents the beginning of the nation to the Hebrews.    Yahweh's promise to the patriarch and his successors is considered to be the guarantee of national existence (Num. 32:11).
    There are no references to Abraham in the writings of the eighth century prophets, for then stress was laid on the Exodus as the starting point of the nation.
    In the seventh and sixth centuries, and in the post-Exilic period, the Abrahamic tradition came to the fore once again.

    It is clear from biblical tradition that, at the beginning of their history, the semi-nomadic Hebrews with flocks of sheep and goats were at the point of moving into a settled way of life.    The patriarchs are chiefs of large families or clans living, for the most part, in peace among their neighbors with whom they enter covenants.    From family and clan beginnings came tribes linked to one another by ancestral blood ties.    Bonds between clans or tribes were so strong that the group might be described as having an existence of its own, a personality embodying the corporate membership.    This phenomenon of psychic unity, labeled "corporate personality" by H. Wheeler Robinson, placed particular responsibilities upon each member of the group.    Because group life was a unity, injury to a single member was injury to all demanding repayment by the next of kin, the go'el.    Blood shed was tribal blood requiring redemption by the next of kin.    Should a man die without offspring, his next of kin had to bring the widow to fruition, and the child born to her became the child of the dead man, the one carrying his name (Ruth 4:4-10).    As the father was at the head of the family, so the tribal chief and elders led the larger group, seeking the well-being, peace and psychic health of the members.    The corporate nature of the group afforded great protection, for wherever a member went, he was backed by the strength of the tribe to which he belonged.    Fear of reprisal tended to be - but was not always - a restraining factor in violation of social mores (Judg. 19-20).    When the head of the household died, the widow and orphan were cared for by the next of kin and ultimately by the total group.
    Tribal and family religion centered in holy places where a local priesthood tended shrines, kept altar fires burning, and shared in offerings (I Sam. 2:12-17).    The father seems to have acted as ministrant on behalf of the family (I Sam. 1).    Offerings were made and a meal shared through which the participants were bound more firmly together.    There is no evidence that the deity was believed to participate in the meal.    Agreements made at holy places were witnessed by the deity who guaranteed fulfillment of terms (Gen. 31:51 ff.).    The shrine of Ba'al-berith (Judg. 9:4) or El-berith (Judg. 9:46), the "covenant god" at Shechem, may have been a holy place where covenants were made in the presence of the god.    An important custom in Hebrew society was the practice of hospitality.    A guest was honored and entertained, even at considerable expense to the host (Gen. 18:1-8, 24:28-32).    Once under the host's roof, or having shared food, the guest was guaranteed protection (Gen. 19, Judg. 19).    Should a stranger settle in the community, he enjoyed most of the rights and responsibilities.    From time to time new groups were grafted into the family tree of Hebrew tribes, and the heritage of the larger group became that of the adopted ones, as when the Calebites united with the tribe of Judah (Josh. 14:6-15, 15:13).    When confronted by common problems or enemies, tribal federations were formed (see Judg. 4-5).    On the other hand, when a famine or food shortage occurred, one group might leave to seek new territory (Gen. 13).    Tribal activity in Canaan is portrayed as a twelve-tribe federation often called an amphictyony, after Greek tribal federations.    However, clear distinctions between Greek and Hebrew patterns must be recognized.    Greek cities united in an amphictyony centered about a shrine where peoples from the surrounding cities worshiped and where decisions affecting the participating members were made.    The Hebrew amphictyony was centered in the Ark of Yahweh, a moveable shrine.    Some scholars have argued that a primitive amphictyonic ritual was observed at the shrine at Sliechem, but the hypothesis rests only upon probabilities.    A six-tribe federation, which preceded the twelve-tribe grouping, has also been postulated involving the Leah tribes: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulun and Issachar.22

    This file was created on October 30, 2006.

To return to the Volume III New Released Files.
Return to the Table of Contents or the Zodiac of Denderah