Dates and order of Torah

[JoyJuice]

Hi all,

How do we know that in tradition, Genesis was the first book written?

Is there any argument for a proper order of books through scholarship?

[TheBigKahoona]

How do we know that in tradition, Genesis was the first book written?

How do we know chapter one is the first chapter?

[JoyJuice]

How do we know that in tradition, Genesis was the first book written?

How do we know chapter one is the first chapter?
We don't. Sometimes they start a movie by beginning it from the end.

Ever see Pulp Fiction?

So again, any suggestions?

[johntheapostate]

Hi all,

How do we know that in tradition, Genesis was the first book written?

Is there any argument for a proper order of books through scholarship?


There is some textual evidence that Genesis or parts of Genesis were written at a later date than many of the other books of the Hebrew scripture.

For example Genesis 36:31 " These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned " It goes on to list the kings.

By presupposing the reign of Israelite kings, the text shows that this particular passage was written after some or all Israelite kings would doubt the validity of a 250 year document if it contained the statement " These are the presidents who were elected before the twin towers fell"

It is also interesting to note 1 Chronicles 1:43 " These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned" This and the next verses are word for word exactly the same as in Genesis.

In my opinion the probability that the verses from Genesis were copied from Chronicles is much greater than the other way round


There is another example that is of concern to those believers who believe that it is crucial that the claim that Moses wrote Genesis is correct.


Genesis 14:14 " When Abram that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan"

To the casual reader this would not raise much concern but one must remember that A city named Dan did not exist until the conquest of Canaan.

Judges 18:28-29 " The Danites rebuilt the city and settled there. they named it Dan after there forefather Dan, who was born to Israel, though the city used to be call Laish"

So we can see that the city did not exist until after Moses died and certainly not at the time of Abram.

[Celsus]

How do we know that in tradition, Genesis was the first book written?
We don't. By convention it is the first because the subject matter it deals with is chronologically of the earliest times (from Creation to Egypt).
Is there any argument for a proper order of books through scholarship?
Actually there are many. It's not a simple story though, and the arguments are long and tedious, consensus non-existent, so I'll just give the gist. Scholars study the Pentateuch (first 5 books) or Tetrateuch (first 4 books) of the Bible together, and the division into "books" was in no small part due to the size of the scrolls these would have had to fit into (Pentateuch literally means 5 containers, for the 5 scrolls). Scholars used to divide the Pentateuch into 4 broad sources, termed "J" (Yahwist), "E" (Elohist), "P" (Priestly), and "D" (Deuteronomist), which were dated more or less to the 9th, 8th, 7-4th, 7th centuries respectively (with tendency toward later datings). Unfortunately, there has been little enthusiasm for retaining the J-E distinction (J in Genesis gives away plenty of information that makes the source seem exilic at earliest). Alternatively, even JE, P, and D's orders have been disputed, some thinking that JE comes after D, P is usually last, etc. You could probably randomly order these and find a scholar to support your position (P is usually given the status of superstructure, but whether it came first or last is hard to determine).

As for the other books of the Bible, their order was never chronological. Ruth is a post-exilic pulp fiction, and is always treated separately from the Joshua-Kings section, known as the Deuteronomistic History because the writing style and influence generally seems to be similar to the Deuteronomist of the Pentateuch. Chronicles comes later, and seems to be based on Kings, or else Kings and Chronicles have an earlier, independent source. The prophets are a big mess, and no one can agree on their dating, especially given that a lot of them purported to write of an age when they were actually criticising later regimes. Both Zechariah and Isaiah have at least two writers (Isaiah usually divided into 3). Malachi is probably actually part of Zechariah as well. Psalms, Proverbs, Daniel and Esther were probably the last books of the Bible to be written/compiled (Daniel gives plenty of internal clues), sometime in the 2nd-1st centuries BCE. Meanwhile, Job has alternatively been seen as one of the last or one of the first books to be written, but it definitely bears the hand of two distinct sources.
How do we know chapter one is the first chapter?
By convention again. Chapters and verses were added much later (and are completely arbitrary), by the Masoretes I believe. For example most people speaking of the first creation story in Genesis will describe it as going from 1:1 to 2:4a, because that's where it probably ends, right in the middle of verse 4 of the second chapter (a and b are conventions for splitting verses into the first and second halves).

Joel

[Clivedurdle]

If Daniel is as late as first second century BCE does that mean it is not an eye witness account? Would it be better to think in terms of genres, so that in fact Daniel and Revelation are very similar not just in content but time?

[Anat]

Celsus, TMK the division into chapters and the numbering of verses was done by an English priest in the 13th century. The Jews accepted this numbering because it helped Jews in locating quotes during debates with Christians. However the Masoretic version has a different method of subdividing the text. For subdivisions they insert a Hebrew P (for p'tuhah = open) which serves as an 'end-of-line' sign - the text continues on the next line, or a Hebrew S (for s'gurah = closed) which means one must leave some open space and continue on the same line. Thus, in case of your example of the first creation story, there is a {P} After each day of creation (See Genesis 1 (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm)), including one after Genesis 2:3. After that it does get a bit weird: The next subdivision is in the middle of chapter 3, where verse 16 (the woman's fate) is separated by two {S} marks, then there is a {P} after verse 21 (after YHWH dresses the 2 people with fur coats, but before expelling them from Eden) and then a {S} after verse 24 (when the expulsion is complete).

Internal division of verses can be done based on the Masoretic cantilation marks (ta'amei mikra). You can view an example in Gen 1 with cantilation (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/c/ct/c0101.htm). There is a mark in each word, placed at the beginning of the stressed syllable of the word. There is a heirarchy of these marks, signifying heirarchial subdivision of the text in the sentence according to syntax - from the most major dividers - more or less equivalent to modern '.' and ';' through lower ranking dividers (more or less equivalent to commas) to the lowest level, that actually serve to connect syntactically related words together. Which mark is used from the syntactically relevant category determines whether the word should be read in rising or falling tone etc, which determines the 'melody' of the reading - this is important for liturgy.

[Anat]

Celsus, on authorship and documentary sources, I understand there isn't even consensus regarding which verse belongs to which source (other than the most obvious cases). On the net I have found so far at least 2 versions, one in Larue's article (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/index.shtml) and one based on Friedman (http://www.cygnus-study.com/pagefive.html), and I found some differences between them. How would it be possible to date the various sources if there isn't agreement on what comes from whom? And since there are signs of redaction and editing, how can there be an objective criterion for placing a verse or a segment of a verse in one source rather than another? Is there a non-circular way to solve this problem?

[Celsus]

If Daniel is as late as first second century BCE does that mean it is not an eye witness account?
Yes. The anachronisms are stark to all but those with a firm theological commitment to inerrancy (see here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=46373).
Would it be better to think in terms of genres, so that in fact Daniel and Revelation are very similar not just in content but time?
They already are grouped together, as "Apocalyptic" literature, which flourished from about the 2nd century BCE to 2nd century CE. Parts of Ezekiel are also recognised as Apocalyptic, or at least proto-Apocalyptic.

Joel

[Celsus]

Celsus, on authorship and documentary sources, I understand there isn't even consensus regarding which verse belongs to which source (other than the most obvious cases). On the net I have found so far at least 2 versions, one in Larue's article (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/index.shtml) and one based on Friedman (http://www.cygnus-study.com/pagefive.html), and I found some differences between them. How would it be possible to date the various sources if there isn't agreement on what comes from whom?
A better question to ask is whether applying these "sources" is a valid argument in the first place. I wrote about the problems with Friedman's approach (which applies in some ways to the other documentarians) at my forum here (http://www.eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=575). There are large agreements about P and D is pretty much Deuteronomy (with some earlier sources), so we could stab at them when dating it. We have a fixed terminus ante quem for the sources at the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and some of the texts may well be earlier (For instance, Numbers 6:24-26 may be very early indeed (http://www.iht.com/articles/540868.html)).
And since there are signs of redaction and editing, how can there be an objective criterion for placing a verse or a segment of a verse in one source rather than another? Is there a non-circular way to solve this problem?
It's a matrix which is essentially circular. Starting from simple principles (e.g., obsession with geneaologies, law codes = P material, use of "Yahweh" before the burning bush revelation to Moses = J), scholars build a coherent picture of what the sources are characterised by, and then in turn use those general characteristics to identify further material as part of those sources. For example, the J-E distinction was originally developed only to explain two sources found in Genesis up to the burning bush of Exodus. Later scholars expanded it till they found J and E material everywhere in the Tetrateuch, except that no one could agree on whether it was J or E, or J1, J2, J3, J4, or E1, E2 etc. Understanding the general theology of these materials then leads to speculation of a suitable Sitz im Leben for the material, and thus the date. We might, for instance, note the calling of Moses is uncannily similar to the calling of the later prophets, and thus presupposes them (once we distance ourselves from apologetic silliness that Moses wrote the books). This might suggest a terminus post quem for that set of material (in this case the 8th-7th centuries). Alternatively, if we understand the deep Mesopotamian roots of Genesis or the tower of Babel unit as a satirical work on Babylon's ziggurats, then the late pre-exilic/exilic period (6th century) might also prove to be a safe estimate for a bottom date for that part of the material. But the short answer to your last question is simply, "No."

Joel

[Anat]

Thanks, Joel.

What kind of linguistic work has been done on the sources? For example, if you take the Genesis doublet regarding the escape/expulsion of Hagar, Genesis 16 (J version) uses the word 'shifha' for handmaid, whereas Genesis 21 (E version) uses the word 'amah'. Is this difference in vocabulary carried to other instances? What about differences in grammatical forms?

[Killer Mike]

I would recommend the textbook "Introduction to the Old Testament" by Bernard Anderson.

[Anat]

Could the Mesopotamic influence on the supposed J in Genesis 1-11 have been transmited via a western Semitic tradition? How many of those stories have equivalents in Ugarit, for example?

OTOH, if J (and E, or should I say - non-P, non-D materials?) aren't unique documents but collections of stories from a variety of sources over a long period the above question isn't as important. However, I cannot see how the patriarchal stories could possibly be later than D, as they seem to reflect an earlier stage of the development of the YHWH cult, with legitimate altars all over the country.

As I see it, the purpose of the patriarchal stories is to justify territorial claims to 'the promised land' (while excluding closely related nations) and to sanctify the holy cities - Shechem, Bethel, (Jeru)salem, Hebron, Ber-Sheva (any others?). Then the Joseph story (with the side story of Judah and Tamar) is about the rivalry between the two kingdoms, with the leadership of Judah vs Joseph, and Benjamin stuck in the middle (Joseph and Judah have their confrontation over his fate, the way the land of Benjamin was the location of the border skirmishes between the kingdoms). I'm still not sure what to make of Reuben's role as the firstborn, though he obviously loses his status to Judah in more than one way. Am I making any sense?

Anyway, now that I am aware of the controversy over the documents, I appreciate the attitude of the Israeli Ministry of Education to teach that the text is probably the result of a compilation of previous sources without going much into the specifics.

[Benni72]

Have you heard about the works of Alexander Nemirovskii? This Russian historian of the Near East, despite being a committed nontheist, claims that there is a historical core to the Patriarchal tradition. From his PoV, it didn't make any sense for ancient Hebrews to invent a Mesopotamian origin of their people, given their antipathy to Babylon and Assyria. This theory also explains why they called themselves ibri (those who had crossed a river), reserving the name Canaanites for their enemies, which seems rather strange if the Hebrews evolved in Canaan as well. Nemirovskii dates the migration of the Semitic tribes that later gave rise to Israel, Edom, Moab and Ammon from Mesopotamia via Damascus to Transjordan and Palestine at 1400-1350 BC, which seems to be confirmed by local contemporary sources as well. As for the archeological and lingustical evidence, it is hardly conclusive.

[Anat]

So why did Abraham and Isaac spend so much time in a 7th century BCE town (B'er Sheva)? With a 14 century BCE patriarchs, what does Nemirovskii do with the Egypt story? When does he place it if at all? And the conquest story?

Why couldn't there have been traditions about a local founder (Abraham), an Aramaic founder (Jacob) harmonized together into one lineage, with the Mesopotamian origin added on during post-exilic times?

[Benni72]

AFAIK, Nemirovskii considers B'er Sheva a later embellishment. The stay in Egypt is placed late under XIX dynasty, and the conquest about 1180 BCE. As for your version, what was the reason for adding the Mesopotamian origin?

A book by Nemirovskii (in Russian) is available at http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/1904319/ He is also the founder and moderator of the Web forum http://www.wirade.ru/cgi-bin/wirade/YaBB.pl

[Anat]

Those returning from exile in Babylon would have added the Mesopotamian origin as inspiration for themselves and for others to follow them.

[Anat]

So Nemirovskii places the conquest later than the Merneptah stele? And what evidence does he have for any conquest in Canaan, other than that of the Sea Peoples?

[dlrs]

About the order of the OT prophets: almost all of them were ordered by length (number of chapters). That's why they are called major and minor due to their length.

[Benni72]

Those returning from exile in Babylon would have added the Mesopotamian origin as inspiration for themselves and for others to follow them.

Doesn't seem very plausible to me. But I'll tell Nemirovskii if I have a chance of contacting him again. (He is a rare guest on the Net, and even his forum is run mostly by other mods.)

So Nemirovskii places the conquest later than the Merneptah stele?

Yes. According to him, the Merneptah stele refers to the first attempt of the early Israelites to make it into Canaan.

And what evidence does he have for any conquest in Canaan, other than that of the Sea Peoples?

Biblical tradition. And how can one tell cities destroyed by the Sea Peoples apart from those conquered by Israelites? Anyway, the conquest was rather long and gradual, even according to Judges and Samuel.

[Celsus]

What kind of linguistic work has been done on the sources? For example, if you take the Genesis doublet regarding the escape/expulsion of Hagar, Genesis 16 (J version) uses the word 'shifha' for handmaid, whereas Genesis 21 (E version) uses the word 'amah'. Is this difference in vocabulary carried to other instances? What about differences in grammatical forms?
Hi Anat,

Unfortunately, I'm not a linguist, and I'm not familiar with the linguistic research. If you want to check the grammatical differences, you're going to need to take Hebrew, and I can't help you on that since I'm not a Hebraist either. You could ask spin, he might have something for you.

Joel

[Anat]

I'm a native Hebrew speaker, but never thought to comb through the HB with grammar in mind. :) There are forms every child will identify as 'Biblical' but whether they all show up evenly or some are associated with some texts is not clear to me.

[Anat]

Haven't forgoten you, Benni72.

Since I can't read Russian I guess I can't access Nemirovskii's ideas directly. Is his approach that statements regarding history made in the Bible are true unless clearly impossible (eg giving birth at extremely advanced ages) or clearly contradicted by external evidence?

The Biblical stories couldn't have possibly been written down prior to the 8th century BCE, as that is when literacy first emerges among Israel. So whatever original written version there was, any basis on previous history must have been through oral traditions. It is also not clear at all that the authors intended to transmit their best approximation of historical truth in a modern sense, nor were they ethnographers preserving traditions as close as possible to the original. Considering the nature of historiography from neighboring cultures at the time, the work is likely to have been intended as propaganda, to promote certain religious and political views.

In the absence of written historical resources, the writers relied on information from their own times. Hence references to places like Jericho, which was meagerly occupied and unfortified in the Late Bronze Age, but might have been sparsely resettled in the 9th century, and significantly more in the 7th. Hence also anachronisms such as mention of camel caravans in the stories about the patriarchs.

The earliest Biblical persona that can be verified clearly from external sources are the Omride kings. OTOH whether or not previous kings existed, archaeological evidence makes a unified kingdom with Jerusalem as its capital extremely unlikely. IOW even if there was a king named David, he couldn't have been more than a head of a clan of a few thousands of people. However, a story of an expanded Davidic kingdom served the purpose of claiming the territories of the fallen northern kingdom to Judah, which had meanwhile grown economically and culturally after the disappearance of Israel.

So what about earlier periods? I'd say, the further back in time, the lower the reliability of described events. I see Nemirovskii does not rely on Biblical accounts for timing - with just 200 years between patriarchs and conquest. What is his opinion of Biblical population numbers of 600,000 men with their families migrating from Egypt to Canaan? How does he deal with the lack of physical evidence for their occupation anywhere in the Sinai Peninsula, nor even in Kadesh-barnea, where the migrants were supposed to have spent most of the time of their wanderings. (OTOH it and other 'stations of the exodus' were known to have been settled in the 7th century BCE - another case of retroactive application of geography from times familiar to the authors.) Also, how does he deal with the estimated population sizes of the hill country in early Iron Age times of only 50,000 or so?

Neither chronology nor geography nor population sizes as given in the Bible match the physical evidence (or lack thereof). I guess it is impossible to rule out that a small group might have migrated from Egypt to Canaan, but that wouldn't be the bulk of the population of Israel.

You mentioned a lengthy conquest process, lasting centuries. Does that mean Nemirovskii ignores the Joshua account completely? That does help avoid many contradictions with archaeology (see Appendix A in Introduction to Biblical Archaeology 3 (http://www.eblaforum.org/library/bcah/intbibarch03.html) as well as contradictions between Joshua and Judges such as Jabin ruling in Hatzor in Judges 4 after Joshua had burnt the town down in Joshua 11. Similarly, there are cities that were listed as captured in Joshua but uncaptured in Judges. But even if we ignore Joshua entirely, Judges 1:18 reports the capture of Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron by the tribe of Judah, when we know those remained Philistine cities well into Monarchic times.

AFAIK some of the enemies mentioned in Judges are anachronistic such as the kingdoms of Aram and Moab - I think it is too early for them to be organized as kingdoms.

In summary, the Biblical account looks self-contradictory, inconsistent with archaeology of late Bronze Age and early Iron Age and more consistent with late Monarchic propaganda, whose intent is to justify territorial claims and the legitimacy of the Davidic king of the time, Josiah, whose religious reforms were supposed to ensure the continued independence of the expanded Judah from foreign rule.

As to the original point about Mesopotamian origin, as much as the Babylonians were hated as conquerors, they must have been admired enough for other reasons - as the cultural center that they were or for some other reason. After all, the leader of those returning from exile was named Zerubbabel, meaning 'seed of Babylon'.

[Benni72]

Haven't forgoten you, Benni72.

Since I can't read Russian I guess I can't access Nemirovskii's ideas directly. Is his approach that statements regarding history made in the Bible are true unless clearly impossible (eg giving birth at extremely advanced ages) or clearly contradicted by external evidence?

Not quite so. He does his best to provide independent arguments for each claim.

The Biblical stories couldn't have possibly been written down prior to the 8th century BCE, as that is when literacy first emerges among Israel. So whatever original written version there was, any basis on previous history must have been through oral traditions. It is also not clear at all that the authors intended to transmit their best approximation of historical truth in a modern sense, nor were they ethnographers preserving traditions as close as possible to the original. Considering the nature of historiography from neighboring cultures at the time, the work is likely to have been intended as propaganda, to promote certain religious and political views.

Still, the epics of neighboring (and other) cultures, even those written up long after the events (such as Iliad), were shown to contain some historical core deep under the layers of propaganda and mythologization. Nemirovskii tries to find something of the sort in the Bible as well.

In the absence of written historical resources, the writers relied on information from their own times. Hence references to places like Jericho, which was meagerly occupied and unfortified in the Late Bronze Age, but might have been sparsely resettled in the 9th century, and significantly more in the 7th. Hence also anachronisms such as mention of camel caravans in the stories about the patriarchs.

According to Nemirovskii, these anachronisms are not that numerous, and show just that the tradition was tampered with (which is beyound doubt anyway), but do not suffice to disprove the authenticity of the core. Is it plausible that the Hebrews forgot their relatively recent history and invented a completely different story? How could it get universally accepted so that no competing accounts survived?

The earliest Biblical persona that can be verified clearly from external sources are the Omride kings. OTOH whether or not previous kings existed, archaeological evidence makes a unified kingdom with Jerusalem as its capital extremely unlikely. IOW even if there was a king named David, he couldn't have been more than a head of a clan of a few thousands of people. However, a story of an expanded Davidic kingdom served the purpose of claiming the territories of the fallen northern kingdom to Judah, which had meanwhile grown economically and culturally after the disappearance of Israel.

I don't think Nemirovskii would disagree with anything in this paragraph.

So what about earlier periods? I'd say, the further back in time, the lower the reliability of described events. I see Nemirovskii does not rely on Biblical accounts for timing - with just 200 years between patriarchs and conquest. What is his opinion of Biblical population numbers of 600,000 men with their families migrating from Egypt to Canaan? How does he deal with the lack of physical evidence for their occupation anywhere in the Sinai Peninsula, nor even in Kadesh-barnea, where the migrants were supposed to have spent most of the time of their wanderings. (OTOH it and other 'stations of the exodus' were known to have been settled in the 7th century BCE - another case of retroactive application of geography from times familiar to the authors.) Also, how does he deal with the estimated population sizes of the hill country in early Iron Age times of only 50,000 or so?

Numbers are really one of the least reliable elements of tradition. They can easily be an epical exaggeration, just as 1200 Greek ships in Homer etc.

Neither chronology nor geography nor population sizes as given in the Bible match the physical evidence (or lack thereof). I guess it is impossible to rule out that a small group might have migrated from Egypt to Canaan, but that wouldn't be the bulk of the population of Israel.

Given your estimates, even a group of several thousand migrants could be a considerable force in Canaan.

You mentioned a lengthy conquest process, lasting centuries. Does that mean Nemirovskii ignores the Joshua account completely? That does help avoid many contradictions with archaeology (see Appendix A in Introduction to Biblical Archaeology 3 (http://www.eblaforum.org/library/bcah/intbibarch03.html) as well as contradictions between Joshua and Judges such as Jabin ruling in Hatzor in Judges 4 after Joshua had burnt the town down in Joshua 11. Similarly, there are cities that were listed as captured in Joshua but uncaptured in Judges. But even if we ignore Joshua entirely, Judges 1:18 reports the capture of Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron by the tribe of Judah, when we know those remained Philistine cities well into Monarchic times.

I don't think he ignores the account completely. But the details (including lists of cities taken) can be established, if ever, only by cross-examination of both literary and archaeological evidence.

AFAIK some of the enemies mentioned in Judges are anachronistic such as the kingdoms of Aram and Moab - I think it is too early for them to be organized as kingdoms.

But they may have existed as tribes (in fact, Moab is mentioned in Egyptian sources as well).

In summary, the Biblical account looks self-contradictory, inconsistent with archaeology of late Bronze Age and early Iron Age and more consistent with late Monarchic propaganda, whose intent is to justify territorial claims and the legitimacy of the Davidic king of the time, Josiah, whose religious reforms were supposed to ensure the continued independence of the expanded Judah from foreign rule.

It is quite probable that the conquests of Joshua and his successors were widely exaggerated for this purpose. One can make an elephant from a fly. But one still needs the fly. :)

As to the original point about Mesopotamian origin, as much as the Babylonians were hated as conquerors, they must have been admired enough for other reasons - as the cultural center that they were or for some other reason. After all, the leader of those returning from exile was named Zerubbabel, meaning 'seed of Babylon'.

Sounds plausible, too. In fact, being a layman, I'm not quite sure about Nemirovskii's points. He is just the only scholar I had a chance to communicate with on the subject. I know he represents a minority view (along with Albright, de Vaux, and the late Dyakonov), so thank you very much for introducing me to some of the mainstream arguments. :notworthy

[Anat]

Would people 'forget' their recent history and invent an alternative one? Of course they will. They do it all the time. Look at any controversial topic in recent history. People are inspired by heroic stories, and if such a story supports a certain ideology proponents of said ideology will spread the appropriate rumor or glorify their hero of choice. I don't want to get into politics so I won't get into details of examples unrelated to the Bible. (In the book 'Collapse of Chaos' by Jack Cohen and Ian Stuart an alien says something along the lines of 'Lies. We find them very useful in the education of children.')

As for the Bible: Take the Bible's account of some of Judah's kings just prior to Josiah. Hezekiah is portrayed as a righteous king whose piety saved Jerusalem from Assyria. However Assyrian records, confirmed by archaeological finds show that Hezekiah's rebellion against Assyria resulted in the conquest of the fortified city of Lachish and the whole Shephelah region, the most productive part of Judah. OTOH his son, Manasseh, is portrayed as an evil idolatrous king. But Manasseh's moderate policy of subjugation to Assyria preserved the integrity of what remained of Judah and ensured peace throughout his long rule. Moreover, the loss of the Shephelah was compensated for by expanding agriculture into the deserts. Judah prospered from involvement in the Arabian trade and the export of olive oil. These economic developments are likely to be the result of central policy that dealt with populations that were depossessed by the loss of the Shephela and running agriculture in unfavorable locations. Yet within a generation the assessment of the two kings became contrary to their actual achievements, purely for ideological reasons.

Going further back exaggerations and total fictionalizations of the past are even more plausible, as can be obviated from the legends of the glorious empire of David and Solomon, compared with the material evidence from those supposed times.

As for the patriarchs - is Nemirovskii's dating to the 14th century BCE based on legal documents? You say the anachronisms aren't numerous - that might be because the general nomadic lifestyle hasn't changed much over millenia. It was thought that some customs displayed in Genesis reflect the reality of the times of the Nuzi tablets, but there are also Assyrian documents indicating similar laws.

[Benni72]

Would people 'forget' their recent history and invent an alternative one? Of course they will. They do it all the time. Look at any controversial topic in recent history. People are inspired by heroic stories, and if such a story supports a certain ideology proponents of said ideology will spread the appropriate rumor or glorify their hero of choice. I don't want to get into politics so I won't get into details of examples unrelated to the Bible. (In the book 'Collapse of Chaos' by Jack Cohen and Ian Stuart an alien says something along the lines of 'Lies. We find them very useful in the education of children.')

As for the Bible: Take the Bible's account of some of Judah's kings just prior to Josiah. Hezekiah is portrayed as a righteous king whose piety saved Jerusalem from Assyria. However Assyrian records, confirmed by archaeological finds show that Hezekiah's rebellion against Assyria resulted in the conquest of the fortified city of Lachish and the whole Shephelah region, the most productive part of Judah. OTOH his son, Manasseh, is portrayed as an evil idolatrous king. But Manasseh's moderate policy of subjugation to Assyria preserved the integrity of what remained of Judah and ensured peace throughout his long rule. Moreover, the loss of the Shephelah was compensated for by expanding agriculture into the deserts. Judah prospered from involvement in the Arabian trade and the export of olive oil. These economic developments are likely to be the result of central policy that dealt with populations that were depossessed by the loss of the Shephela and running agriculture in unfavorable locations. Yet within a generation the assessment of the two kings became contrary to their actual achievements, purely for ideological reasons.

It was just that - change of assesment criteria from political to religious ones. This does happen often in modern history as well. Some facts get forgotten, other ones exaggerated. But inventing a whole alternative timeline is a horce of another color.

As for the patriarchs - is Nemirovskii's dating to the 14th century BCE based on legal documents? You say the anachronisms aren't numerous - that might be because the general nomadic lifestyle hasn't changed much over millenia. It was thought that some customs displayed in Genesis reflect the reality of the times of the Nuzi tablets, but there are also Assyrian documents indicating similar laws.

His dating is based on many sources, in particular on steles of the XIXth Egyptian dynasty, where Israelites and related tribes get mentioned for the first time, while the Amarna letters are still unaware of them. Also, there is a Mesopotamian text describing the withdrawal of some Sut(h)ians (probable ancestors of Hebrews et al, as one can see comparing their genealogies with biblical ones) to the West.

[Anat]

Note how few times Ur is mentioned as Abraham's birth place. Are there any locations other than Genesis 11: 27-32 and Genesis 15:7? And calling it Ur of the Chaldees is obviously an exilic version. IMO prior to the exile the tradition was that the patriarchs came from Haran. (And I suspect that there was an earlier tradition in which only Jacob was from Haran, and Abraham's origin from there was added when the traditions about them were united to become the story of a single lineage.) Joshua 24:2-3 mentions origin 'beyond the river' without specifying a place. The Ur origin was tacked on to give more prestige to Abraham, as coming from a major cultural center and as inspiration for following his footsteps by the returnees.

As for the ties with Aram - the northern part of Palestine was an area of conflict between the Israeli kingdom and the Arameans and was under Aramean control much of the time (see the Tel Dan stele and Aramean findings there, but also evidence for destruction by Aram in sites from the Jezreel valley northwards). There is reason to suspect that the population in northern Israel had a significant Aramean component, as evidenced by ostraca in Aramaic in many Iron Age II sites.

Since Aram first appeared in the Iron Age, and became a kingdom in the 9th century the background to the Jacob-Laban story cannot come from before those times.

Regarding the acts of the patriarchs in Canaan - we have Abraham erecting an altar in Bethel, later Jacob arriving there, apparently unaware of the place's significance until his dream of the angels, naming the place Bethel, and at a later time erecting an altar there, and then later, in monarchic times it is a major cultic center - first of the northern cult, but later it is reclaimed for YHWH worship by Josiah. Doesn't this look like later legends invented to explain, or give more authority to the sanctity of a cultic center?

Anyway, my problem with 'core of truth' scenarios is that when one peels away the obvious later additions and anachronisms, the obvious exaggerations and mythifications, considers those elements of historical background that aren't specific to any particular period, and all that is left is 'our ancestors came from Haran, and we are related to the people of the nearby countries'. Big deal. If there was any migration from Haran, then within a few centuries the whole population of Canaan would be a mixture of Canaanite and Haranite origin (even from the biblical text - consider that Abraham's shepards weren't celibate, and Jacob's 10 eldest sons married local women). So what we have is a subpopulation using this migration story to set itself apart from its immediate neighbors.

The story of the exodus, wandering in the wilderness and conquest: Since the expulsion of the Hyksos the Egyptian border was under tight control. And there is no evidence for the wandering period. What is the largest group that could escape from Egypt unnoticed and cross the desert without leaving a sign?

OK, so then we arrive at the conquest. The central hill area of Canaan had flourishing city life in the Middle Bronze Age, but not much of that remained in the late Bronze Age. From 220 sites it is down to 25. There wasn't much to conquer in the first place. (This doesn't necessarilly mean the hill country was devoid of population, but settled people may have reverted to nomadism, either due to climatic factors or political ones). Where the settled population was concentrated in the Late Bronze age was along the coast and in the planes and valleys, along the commercial routes. those were canaanite city-states, controlled by Egypt. Much of that region remained uncaptured according to both Joshua and Judges. OTOH we do know the Sea Peoples did invade in the 12th century, and that the Philistines established themselves along the southern coastal plane, while collapsing Egyptian rule in the area. Other than Shishak's campaign in 922 BCE, the Egyptians disappear until the 7th century BCE.

Whether the Israelites infiltrated into the hill country from across the Jordan, or if they were refugees from Canaanite cities in other areas of Palestine, or just plain hill-country herdsmen that were forced into subsistence agriculture due to the collapse of the Canaanite cities (their source of grain and other produce until then), military campaigns played a minor if any role in their settlement process. In monarchic times they did have a well organized military, especially the northern kingdom. And whether the Israelites arrived from outside or formed within Canaan, at least culturally they weren't that different from the Canaanites, especially linguistically.

I agree that in late monarchic times there must have been a tradition about migration from Egypt, as evidenced by mention by various prophets. That tradition might have been based on an actual migration or on the freedom from Egyptian control as a result of the invasion of the Sea Peoples. Without physical evidence for migration I wouldn't take such a tradition as history.

The example I gave about the assessment of Hezekiah vs Manasseh goes beyond difference in emphasis. In Hezekiah's case a military defeat is being sold as a miraculous deliverance. And this is about a recent king relative to the presumed author. Also, Manasseh's economical achievements are credited to earlier kings, Solomon and Azariah/Uzziah. How much easier was it to produce a fictionalised account of earlier periods?

[Benni72]

Anat, thank you very much for your questions. Unfortunately, my spare time is quite limited at the moment. I hope to be able to answer you on the week-end.

[Benni72]

Note how few times Ur is mentioned as Abraham's birth place. Are there any locations other than Genesis 11: 27-32 and Genesis 15:7? And calling it Ur of the Chaldees is obviously an exilic version. IMO prior to the exile the tradition was that the patriarchs came from Haran. (And I suspect that there was an earlier tradition in which only Jacob was from Haran, and Abraham's origin from there was added when the traditions about them were united to become the story of a single lineage.) Joshua 24:2-3 mentions origin 'beyond the river' without specifying a place. The Ur origin was tacked on to give more prestige to Abraham, as coming from a major cultural center and as inspiration for following his footsteps by the returnees.

As for the ties with Aram - the northern part of Palestine was an area of conflict between the Israeli kingdom and the Arameans and was under Aramean control much of the time (see the Tel Dan stele and Aramean findings there, but also evidence for destruction by Aram in sites from the Jezreel valley northwards). There is reason to suspect that the population in northern Israel had a significant Aramean component, as evidenced by ostraca in Aramaic in many Iron Age II sites.

Since Aram first appeared in the Iron Age, and became a kingdom in the 9th century the background to the Jacob-Laban story cannot come from before those times.

In fact, Nemirovskii argues that the Haran story was a later addition, not only for the reasons you mentioned, but also due to the fact that it was far off any reasonable way from the Lower Mesopotamia to Canaan at the time. Ur (without mentioning the Chaldeans) may have been original. But what really seems to be an ancient element, is Abraham's stay in Damascus. It isn't stated explicitly, but a vague phrase in Gen. 15:2 may be possibly understood (and here I have to rely on Nemirovskii's command of Hebrew) as a corruption of "I don't have a heir I could leave my feud - that is, Damascus - to". Moreover, there was a independent local narrative about Abraham in Damascus, cited by Pompeus Trogus, a Hellenistic writer. If it was a later invention, why wasn't the author more explicit on the subject?
Likewise, the names of Abraham's ancestors Heber, Peleg and Rehau that symbolize crossing the Euphrates, dividing lands etc. also seem to belong to a genuine tradition, where they could have been first mentioned as events and later personified. Other versions of the same tradition, that seem to different for having been borrowed from Hebrews, are found in Arabic sources.

Regarding the acts of the patriarchs in Canaan - we have Abraham erecting an altar in Bethel, later Jacob arriving there, apparently unaware of the place's significance until his dream of the angels, naming the place Bethel, and at a later time erecting an altar there, and then later, in monarchic times it is a major cultic center - first of the northern cult, but later it is reclaimed for YHWH worship by Josiah. Doesn't this look like later legends invented to explain, or give more authority to the sanctity of a cultic center?

Yes, it does, but these legends do not necessarily belong to the "historical core" according to Nemirovskii.

Anyway, my problem with 'core of truth' scenarios is that when one peels away the obvious later additions and anachronisms, the obvious exaggerations and mythifications, considers those elements of historical background that aren't specific to any particular period, and all that is left is 'our ancestors came from Haran, and we are related to the people of the nearby countries'. Big deal. If there was any migration from Haran, then within a few centuries the whole population of Canaan would be a mixture of Canaanite and Haranite origin (even from the biblical text - consider that Abraham's shepards weren't celibate, and Jacob's 10 eldest sons married local women). So what we have is a subpopulation using this migration story to set itself apart from its immediate neighbors.

Sorry, how does this contradict Nemirovskii's argument?

The story of the exodus, wandering in the wilderness and conquest: Since the expulsion of the Hyksos the Egyptian border was under tight control. And there is no evidence for the wandering period. What is the largest group that could escape from Egypt unnoticed and cross the desert without leaving a sign?

I don't think the control was really tight during the invasion of the Sea Peoples - and it is Nemirovskii's timing of the Exodus. He also claims that Hebrew is the only Semitic language that uses a dual form for the name of Egypt, similarly to the Egyptian language itself, which is also consistent with the tradition of Egyptian sojourn where the form could have been borrowed. As for the number, even some Bibilcal scholars translate it as "600 families" rather than "600 thousand".

OK, so then we arrive at the conquest. The central hill area of Canaan had flourishing city life in the Middle Bronze Age, but not much of that remained in the late Bronze Age. From 220 sites it is down to 25. There wasn't much to conquer in the first place. (This doesn't necessarilly mean the hill country was devoid of population, but settled people may have reverted to nomadism, either due to climatic factors or political ones). Where the settled population was concentrated in the Late Bronze age was along the coast and in the planes and valleys, along the commercial routes. those were canaanite city-states, controlled by Egypt. Much of that region remained uncaptured according to both Joshua and Judges. OTOH we do know the Sea Peoples did invade in the 12th century, and that the Philistines established themselves along the southern coastal plane, while collapsing Egyptian rule in the area. Other than Shishak's campaign in 922 BCE, the Egyptians disappear until the 7th century BCE.

Whether the Israelites infiltrated into the hill country from across the Jordan, or if they were refugees from Canaanite cities in other areas of Palestine, or just plain hill-country herdsmen that were forced into subsistence agriculture due to the collapse of the Canaanite cities (their source of grain and other produce until then), military campaigns played a minor if any role in their settlement process.

How could it be established in the absence of written sources?

In monarchic times they did have a well organized military, especially the northern kingdom. And whether the Israelites arrived from outside or formed within Canaan, at least culturally they weren't that different from the Canaanites, especially linguistically.

I agree that in late monarchic times there must have been a tradition about migration from Egypt, as evidenced by mention by various prophets. That tradition might have been based on an actual migration or on the freedom from Egyptian control as a result of the invasion of the Sea Peoples. Without physical evidence for migration I wouldn't take such a tradition as history.

The example I gave about the assessment of Hezekiah vs Manasseh goes beyond difference in emphasis. In Hezekiah's case a military defeat is being sold as a miraculous deliverance. And this is about a recent king relative to the presumed author. Also, Manasseh's economical achievements are credited to earlier kings, Solomon and Azariah/Uzziah. How much easier was it to produce a fictionalised account of earlier periods?

I agree that this version is quite plausible. But the evidence I cited before (and Nemirovskii has more) still needs explanation.

[Anat]

In fact, Nemirovskii argues that the Haran story was a later addition, not only for the reasons you mentioned, but also due to the fact that it was far off any reasonable way from the Lower Mesopotamia to Canaan at the time.

The Haran-Ur distance cuts both ways. If they both shouldn't be taken as part of the same story, that in itself doesn't tell us which of them is more likely. However, Haran is the central location of the Jacob cycle. At least Jacob, the wandering Aramite, was believed to be from there. Ur is hardly mentioned at all and removing it doesn't change the story much.

Ur (without mentioning the Chaldeans) may have been original. But what really seems to be an ancient element, is Abraham's stay in Damascus. It isn't stated explicitly, but a vague phrase in Gen. 15:2 may be possibly understood (and here I have to rely on Nemirovskii's command of Hebrew) as a corruption of "I don't have a heir I could leave my feud - that is, Damascus - to". Moreover, there was a independent local narrative about Abraham in Damascus, cited by Pompeus Trogus, a Hellenistic writer. If it was a later invention, why wasn't the author more explicit on the subject?

The reading of Gen 15:2 requires the verse to have completely changed from its original, as the syntax clashes heavily with Nemirovskii's reading. But whichever way, it isn't important. Which author do you expect to be more explicit? The one of the version that had Abraham from Haran? The one who had Abraham from Ur? I don't think any author claimed Abraham was from Damascus, only that Eliezer was from there.

Likewise, the names of Abraham's ancestors Heber, Peleg and Rehau that symbolize crossing the Euphrates, dividing lands etc. also seem to belong to a genuine tradition, where they could have been first mentioned as events and later personified. Other versions of the same tradition, that seem to different for having been borrowed from Hebrews, are found in Arabic sources.

Most of the genealogical information in Genesis is considered to be exilic or post-exilic and to represent place names that were known at the time. Note that it includes Arabian tribes that were not known to Israelites/Judahns before the establishment of trade in the late 8th, early 7th century and nations like Assyria that rise to power in the 8th century. (And the assignment of ancestry of tribes to one of the Noachide lineages reflects ideology rather than historical or cultural ties.)

Yes, it does, but these legends do not necessarily belong to the "historical core" according to Nemirovskii.
...
Sorry, how does this contradict Nemirovskii's argument?

The point is - what remains of this supposed 'historical core'? Is there enough 'meat' left for it to make a difference? What I see as more important is that the non-historical elements of the story tell about ideologies and beliefs of later times.

I don't think the control was really tight during the invasion of the Sea Peoples - and it is Nemirovskii's timing of the Exodus.
The control was tight on land, the Sea Peoples attacked from the sea.

He also claims that Hebrew is the only Semitic language that uses a dual form for the name of Egypt, similarly to the Egyptian language itself, which is also consistent with the tradition of Egyptian sojourn where the form could have been borrowed.

So? There was Judahite presence in Egypt in late monarchic times (as mercenaries in the Egyptian army) and later, as people left collapsed Judah in Babylonian times. There was Egyptian presence in Palestine since the 7th century. A good time for cultural influence, considering this is close to the time the stories are thought to have been composed.

As for the number, even some Bibilcal scholars translate it as "600 families" rather than "600 thousand".

Never saw this reading. So, roughly 3000 people (what is the carrying capacity of desert land for herdsmen anyway?) Why would they need to conquer Canaan at all? Late Bronze Age Canaan, just prior to the Sea Peoples invasion, had city states in the planes and lower hills overlooking them, but the central hill (supposed territories of Simeon, Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh) was mostly nomadic, with very few small permanent settlements. There wasn't much to conquer in a military campaign. 3000 nomads could just join the locals without being noticed much. The Iron Age I population of the hill country is estimated at about 50,000, in 250 sires, about 90% in the northern half (Samaria hills) and 10% in the southern part (Judah). It is controversial whether this growth is the result of settlement of local nomads, settlement of population from the planes or settlement of nomads from outside, and your mini-exodus could be part of the latter. But for the majority of the hill country population to be derived from an invading population, one would have to see a cultural change, which isn't observed (though it was thought to have been). At most, one sees variations within a culture that is attributable to changes of lifestyle.

How could it be established in the absence of written sources?

It isn't important. What matters is that there needn't actually have had to be a mass exodus from which the whole nation descended for such a story to be believed. The existence of a story doesn't mean it should be taken literally or even semi-literally.

[lpetrich]

An interesting question is how far a "Jewish" or "Israelite" ethnicity can be traced back. The first reference to it that I know of is in Merneptah's famous Victory Stele of around 1200 BCE:

Israel is laid waste, his seed is gone.

One apologist argument is that the continuity of this ethnicity to the present day somehow indicates the divine inspiration of the Bible or something similar. However, there are a few other long-lived ethnicities, notably the Greek one.


As Merneptah's scribes were carving that victory stele, Mycenaean Greek scribes were recording numerous bookkeeping details of their palace economies, including offerings made to various deities. These include such familiar Olympians as Zeus, Hera, Athena, Artemis, and Poseidon, as well as several now-obscure ones.

They wrote in the Linear B script, which first appeared around 1500 BCE. It was a modifcation of the Minoan Linear A script, which goes back to 2000 BCE, and which was used to write a language that was almost certainly not Greek.

Mycenaean Greece was remembered in later times in Greek mythology, which records such Mycenaeanisms as bronze armor, boar's-tusk helmets and various Mycenaean centers. The maziness of the "Palace" of Knossos was also remembered, as well as some connection with bulls; it was made out to be a very spooky and dangerous place.


Also, the Chinese ethnicity may also be a very long-lived one, at least if one counts the Shang dynasty (started around 1600 BCE).

[Anat]

An interesting question is how far a "Jewish" or "Israelite" ethnicity can be traced back. The first reference to it that I know of is in Merneptah's famous Victory Stele of around 1200 BCE:

Israel is laid waste, his seed is gone.

One apologist argument is that the continuity of this ethnicity to the present day somehow indicates the divine inspiration of the Bible or something similar.

I'd say it is evidence for the power of ideology, formed by a religious elite and forced on the masses, to form a focus for an identity that is preserved despite exile, as opposed to the northern kingdom of Israel.

(BTW Greek identity was preserved continuously in Greece, but not in the many places around the Mediterranean and the Black Sea where Greeks expanded to)

[lpetrich]

That's reasonable. And some parts of the Bible have a related subtext: establishing claims to the land of the two kingdoms.

In Genesis, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have descendants who become the legendary ancestors of the twelve tribes of Israel, complete with each one being allotted some land.

After the Israelites go off to Egypt, they are enslaved, then miraculously rescued, after which they then make the long journey home. Once there, Kings David and Solomon then build a magnificent empire that covers the two kingdoms; in later times, Solomon is even credited with several books.

Other claimants to the land are to killed, even if that means genocide.


Also of interest would be the early years of the YHWH-only faction; the Israelites had started out as not being very religiously different from their neighbors.

That faction must be credited with inventing an ingenious theological doctrine: its nation's misfortunes are not the fault of that nation's protector deity's incompetence, but instead are punishments for that nation's sins, like worshipping other deities.

And the exiles in Babylon must be credited with not wanting to go the way of the ten tribes deported by Assyria some decades earlier -- they were never heard from again, and they likely assimilated into the populations they were deported into.

[Celsus]

An interesting question is how far a "Jewish" or "Israelite" ethnicity can be traced back. The first reference to it that I know of is in Merneptah's famous Victory Stele of around 1200 BCE:

Israel is laid waste, his seed is gone.

One apologist argument is that the continuity of this ethnicity to the present day somehow indicates the divine inspiration of the Bible or something similar. However, there are a few other long-lived ethnicities, notably the Greek one.
That's not the only possibility. An identity that is viewed as ideal may be co-opted by cultures that do not have legitimate claims to descendence. For instance, some groups in the modern Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) are claiming cultural descendence from Alexander the Great's peoples without an iota of evidence other than the same name. When one looks at the Bible and sees "Hebrews", "Israelites", "Jews", and "Samaritans", it seems clear that the contest of identity was always there, with the victors writing the histories.

Furthermore, the "Israel" of the Merneptah stele is "I.si.ri.ar", with the determinative indicating a people, whereas the other groups mentioned refer to regions. This might indicate a landless or nomadic group, since they have no region associated with them. This differs from the biblical account of conquest, since they supposedly rapidly took most of Canaan under Joshua. The second point is that following Merneptah, we have a very long gap before we see Israel mentioned again, with most 8th-7th century mentions refering to the House of Omri (even Jehu's mention in the famous Black Obelisk refers to him as "Yua bit Humri", which again differs from the Biblical account of Jehu ridding Israel of the Omrides). Heck, the Moabite stone hints the Omrides were Yahwists. From what we can conclude, for a few centuries, Israel, possibly Yahweh-worshiping, was "Omri", before a process of reforging an identity was begun, perhaps not unlike the modern Macedonians.

Joel

[Benni72]

The Haran-Ur distance cuts both ways. If they both shouldn't be taken as part of the same story, that in itself doesn't tell us which of them is more likely. However, Haran is the central location of the Jacob cycle. At least Jacob, the wandering Aramite, was believed to be from there. Ur is hardly mentioned at all and removing it doesn't change the story much.


Hence, it didn't make any sense to invent this detail, did it?

The reading of Gen 15:2 requires the verse to have completely changed from its original, as the syntax clashes heavily with Nemirovskii's reading. But whichever way, it isn't important. Which author do you expect to be more explicit? The one of the version that had Abraham from Haran? The one who had Abraham from Ur? I don't think any author claimed Abraham was from Damascus, only that Eliezer was from there.

I mean the author of the final version, who (according to Nemirovskii's reading) makes a hint that Abraham _stayed_ in Damascus (no matter what his home city was), but doesn't describe this stay.

Most of the genealogical information in Genesis is considered to be exilic or post-exilic and to represent place names that were known at the time. Note that it includes Arabian tribes that were not known to Israelites/Judahns before the establishment of trade in the late 8th, early 7th century and nations like Assyria that rise to power in the 8th century. (And the assignment of ancestry of tribes to one of the Noachide lineages reflects ideology rather than historical or cultural ties.)

But some of these names have counterparts in much earlier Semitic genealogies. And how do you explain similarities between the Cainite genealogy in Gen. 4 and the Sethite one in Gen. 5, if not by an ancinet common source?

The point is - what remains of this supposed 'historical core'?

The fact of migration from Mesopotamia to Damascus to Canaan to Egypt and back to Canaan, significant enough to become the core of national tradition.

As for the rest, I'd better leave the discussion to more knowledgeable people.

[Anat]

Hence, it didn't make any sense to invent this detail, did it?
Actually it just shows how easy it was to add it on, at a time when such an origin would have been desireable. (As I said, it added prestige and as a precedent for the ones returning from exile.)



I mean the author of the final version, who (according to Nemirovskii's reading) makes a hint that Abraham _stayed_ in Damascus (no matter what his home city was), but doesn't describe this stay.
That assumes a total reconstruction of the original, based on nothing but circular logic.



But some of these names have counterparts in much earlier Semitic genealogies. And how do you explain similarities between the Cainite genealogy in Gen. 4 and the Sethite one in Gen. 5, if not by an ancinet common source?
The question isn't how far back can you find the names, but what is the latest that you find them in other sources. I have seen it claimed that Abraham and Jacob have parallels in Assyrian literature, but I don't know about their claimed ancestors.



The fact of migration from Mesopotamia to Damascus to Canaan to Egypt and back to Canaan, significant enough to become the core of national tradition.
What I am saying is that if such migrations took place they equally influenced the heritage of the rest of the population of Canaan, since those were migrations of groups, not individuals, and those groups did not remain seggregated for long. The whole population of Canaan would have been a mix of local, Mesopotamian, Aramic and Egyptian origin. The only difference is that at some point one group chose to emphasize the external ancestors as opposed to the local ones, and the reason for this choice was a later ideology.