Untitled Sermon
Abraham
ABRAHAM (PERSON) [Heb ʾabrāhām (אַבְרָהָם)]. Var. ABRAM. The biblical patriarch whose story is told in Genesis 12–25.
A. The Biblical Information
1. Outline of Abraham’s Career
2. Abraham’s Faith
3. Abraham’s Life-style
4. Abraham, Ancestor of the Chosen People
B. Abraham in Old Testament Study
1. Abraham as a Figure of Tradition
2. Abraham as a Figure of History
C. Abraham—A Contextual Approach
1. Abraham the Ancestor
2. Abraham’s Career and Life-style
3. Abraham’s Names
4. Abraham’s Faith
5. Objections to a 2d Millennium Context
D. Duplicate Narratives
E. Conclusion
A. The Biblical Information
1. Outline of Abraham’s Career. Abraham is portrayed as a member of a family associated with city life in Southern Babylonia, moving to Haran in Upper Mesopotamia en route to Canaan (Gen 11:31). In Haran, God called him to leave for the land which he would show him, so he and Lot, his nephew, went to Canaan. At Shechem in the center of the land, God made the promise that Abraham’s descendants would own the land (Gen 12:1–9). Famine forced Abraham to seek food in Egypt, where the Pharaoh took Abraham’s wife, Sarah, who Abraham had declared was his sister. Discovering the deception, the Pharaoh sent Abraham away with all the wealth he had acquired, and Sarah (Gen 12:10–12). In Canaan, Abraham and Lot separated in order to find adequate grazing, Lot settling in the luxuriant Jordan plain. God renewed the promise of Abraham’s numberless descendants possessing the land (Genesis 13). Foreign invaders captured Lot, so Abraham with 318 men routed them and recovered Lot and the booty. This brought the blessing of Melchizedek, the priest-king of Salem to whom Abraham paid a tithe (Genesis 14). Following a reassuring vision, Abraham was promised that his childless condition would end and that his offspring would occupy the land, a promise solemnized with a sacrifice and a covenant (Genesis 15). Childless Sarah gave Abraham her maid Hagar to produce a son, then drove out the pregnant maid when she belittled her barren mistress. An angel sent Hagar home with a promise of a harsh life for her son, duly born and named Ishmael (Genesis 16). Thirteen years later God renewed his covenant with Abraham, changing his name from Abram, and Sarai’s to Sarah, and imposing circumcision as a sign of membership for all in Abraham’s household, born or bought. With this came the promise that Sarah, then ninety, would bear a son, Isaac, who would receive the covenant, Ishmael receiving a separate promise of many descendants (Genesis 17). Three visitors repeated the promise of a son (Gen 18:1–15). Lot meanwhile had settled in Sodom, which had become totally depraved and doomed. Abraham prayed that God would spare the city if ten righteous people could be found there, but they could not, so Sodom and its neighbor were destroyed, only Lot and his two daughters surviving (Gen 18:16–19:29). Abraham living in southern Canaan encountered the king of Gerar, who took Sarah on her husband’s assertion that she was his sister. Warned by God, King Abimelech avoided adultery and made peace with Abraham (Genesis 20). Now Isaac was born and Hagar and Ishmael sent to wander in the desert, where divine provision protected them (Gen 21:1–20). The king of Gerar then made a treaty with Abraham to solve a water-rights quarrel at Beersheba (Gen 21:22–34). When Isaac was a boy, God called Abraham to offer him in sacrifice, only staying the father’s hand at the last moment, and providing a substitute. A renewal of the covenant followed (Gen 22:1–19). At Sarah’s death, Abraham bought a cave for her burial, with adjacent land, from a Hittite of Hebron (Genesis 23). To ensure the promise remained within his family, Abraham sent his servant back to his relatives in the Haran region to select Isaac’s bride (Genesis 24). The succession settled, Abraham gave gifts to other sons, and when he died aged 175, Isaac and Ishmael buried him beside Sarah (Gen 25:1–11).
2. Abraham’s Faith. Although it was Abraham’s grandson Jacob who gave his name to Israel and fathered the Twelve Tribes, Abraham was regarded as the nation’s progenitor (e.g., Exod 2:24; 4:5; 32:13; Isa 29:22; Ezek 33:24; Mic 7:20). Israel’s claim to Canaan rested on the promises made to him, and the God worshipped by Israel was preeminently the God of Abraham (e.g., Exod 3:6, 15; 4:1; 1 Kgs 18:36; Ps 47:9). God’s choice of Abraham was an act of divine sovereignty whose reason was never disclosed. The reason for Abraham’s favor with God (cf. “my friend,” Isa 41:8) is made clear in the famous verse, “Abraham believed God and he credited it to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6; cf. Rom 4:1–3), and in other demonstrations of Abraham’s trust (e.g., Gen 22:8). Convinced of God’s call to live a seminomadic life (note Heb 11:9), Abraham never attempted to return to Haran or to Ur, and took care that his son should not marry a local girl and so gain the land by inheritance, presumably because the indigenous people were unacceptable to God (Gen 24:3; 15:16). Throughout his career he built altars and offered sacrifices, thereby displaying his devotion (Gen 12:7, 8; 13:4, 18), an attitude seen also in the tithe he gave to Melchizedek after his victory (Genesis 14). The places sacred to him were often marked by trees, a token of his intention to stay in the land (Gen 12:6; 13:18; 21:33). Abraham believed his God to be just, hence his concern for any righteous in Sodom (Gen 18:16ff.). Even so, he attempted to preempt God’s actions by taking Hagar when Sarah was barren (Gen 16:1–4), and by pretending Sarah was not his wife. In the latter cases, God intervened to rescue him from the results of his own deliberate subterfuge because he had jeopardized the fulfilment of the promise (Gen 12:17f.; 20:3f.).
The God Abraham worshipped is usually referred to by the name yhwh (RSV LORD); twice Abraham “called on the name of the LORD” (Gen 12:8; 13:4), and his servant Eliezer spoke of the Lord, the God of Abraham (Gen 24:12, 27, 42, 48). The simple term “God” (ʾĕlōhı̂m) occurs in several passages, notably Gen 17:3ff; 19:29; 20 often; 21:2ff; 22. Additional divine names found in the Abraham narrative are: God Almighty (ʾel šadday, Gen 17:1), Eternal God (yhwh ʾēl ʿôlām Gen 21:33), God Most High (ʾēl ʿelyôn Gen 14:18–22), Sovereign Lord (ʾădōnāy yhwh, Gen 15:2, 8), and Lord God of heaven and earth (yhwh ʾĕlōhê haššā-mayim wĕhāʾāreṣ Gen 24:3, 7).
Abraham approached God without the intermediacy of priests (clearly in Genesis 22; elsewhere it could be argued that priests were present, acting as Abraham’s agents but not mentioned). God spoke to Abraham by theophanic visions (Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1). In one case, the appearance was in human form, when the deity was accompanied by two angels (Gen 18; cf. v 19). Perhaps God employed direct speech when no other means is specified (Gen 12:1f.; 13:14; 15:1; 21:12; 22:1). Angels could intervene and give protection as extensions of God’s person (Gen 22; 24:7, 40). Prayer was a natural activity (e.g., 20:17) in which Eliezer followed his master’s example (Gen 24). Eliezer did not hesitate to speak of Abraham’s faith and God’s care for him which he had observed (Gen 24:27, 35). God commended Abraham to Abimelech as a prophet (Gen 20:7, nābı̂ʾ). Abraham is portrayed as worshipping one God, albeit with different titles. Abraham’s is a God who can be known and who explains his purposes, even if over a time span that stretches his devotee’s patience.
3. Abraham’s Life-style. Leaving Ur and Haran, Abraham exchanged an urban-based life for the seminomadic style of the pastoralist with no permanent home, living in tents (Gen 12:8, 9; 13:18; 18:1; cf. Heb 11:9), unlike his relations near Haran (Gen 24:10, 11). However, he stayed at some places for long periods (Mamre, Gen 13:18; 18:1; Beersheba, Gen 22:19; Philistia, Gen 21:3, 4), enjoyed good relations with settled communities (Gen 23:10, 18 mentions the city gate), had treaty alliances with some, and spoke on equal terms with kings and the Pharaoh (Gen 14:13; 20:2, 11–14; 21:22–24). He is represented as having owned only one piece of land, the cave of Machpelah (Genesis 23). Wealth flowed to him through his herds, and in gifts from others (Gen 12:16; 20:14, 16), so that he became rich, owning cattle, sheep, silver, gold, male and female slaves, camels and donkeys (Gen 24:35). He may have traded in other goods, for he knew the language of the marketplace (Genesis 23). His household was large enough to furnish 318 men to fight foreign kings (Genesis 14). He was concerned about having an heir, and so looked on Eliezer his servant before sons were born (Gen 15:2), and took care to provide for Isaac’s half-brothers so that his patrimony should not diminish (Gen 24:36; 25:5, 6; cf. 17:18). While Sarah was his first wife, Abraham also married Keturah, and had children by her, by Hagar, and by concubines (Gen 25:1–6). His burial was in the cave with Sarah (Gen 25:9–10).
4. Abraham, Ancestor of the Chosen People. Belief in their ancestry reaching back to one man, Abraham, to whom God promised a land, was firmly fixed among Jews in the 1st century (e.g., John 8:33–58; cf. Philo), and is attested long before by the prophets of the latter days of the Judean Monarchy (Isa 41:8; 51:2; 63:16; Jer 33:26; Ezek 33:24; Mic 7:20). The historical books of the OT also contain references to Abraham (Josh 24:2, 3; 2 Kgs 13:23; 1 Chr 16:16–18; 2 Chr 20:7; 30:6; Neh 9:7, 8) as does Psalm 105. In the Pentateuch the promise is mentioned in each book after Genesis (Exod 2:24; 33:1, etc.; Lev 26:42; Num 32:11; Deut 1:8; etc.).
B. Abraham in Old Testament Study
1. Abraham as a Figure of Tradition. Building on meticulous literary analysis of the Pentateuch, Julius Wellhausen concluded “… we attain to no historical knowledge of the patriarchs, but only of the time when the stories about them arose in the Israelite people; this latter age is here unconsciously projected, in its inner and its outward features, into hoary antiquity, and is reflected there like a glorified mirage.” And of Abraham he wrote, “Abraham alone is certainly not the name of a people like Isaac and Lot: he is somewhat difficult to interpret. That is not to say that in such a connection as this we may regard him as a historical person; he might with more likelihood be regarded as a free invention of unconscious art” (WPHI, 319f.). The literary sources of the early Monarchy, J and E, drawing on older traditions, preserved the Abraham stories. At the same time, Wellhausen treated the religious practices of Abraham as the most primitive in the evolution of Israelite religion. Hermann Gunkel, unlike Wellhausen, argued that investigating the documentary sources could allow penetration beyond their final form into the underlying traditions. Gunkel separated the narratives into story-units, often very short, which he alleged were the primary oral forms, duly collected into groups as sagas. These poems told the legends attached to different shrines in Canaan, or to individual heroes. Gradually combined around particular names, these stories were ultimately reduced to the prose sources which Wellhausen characterized. Gunkel believed the legends arose out of observations of life associated with surrounding traditions, obscuring any historical kernel: “Legend here has woven a poetic veil about the historical memories and hidden their outlines” (Gunkel 1901: 22). The question of Abraham’s existence was unimportant, he asserted, for legends about him could not preserve a true picture of the vital element, his faith: “The religion of Abraham is in reality the religion of the narrators of the legends, ascribed by them to Abraham” (122).
The quest for the origins of these elements has continued ever since. Martin Noth tried to delineate the oral sources and their original settings, building on Gunkel’s premises (Noth 1948), and Albrecht Alt investigated religious concepts of the expression “the gods of the fathers” in the light of Nabatean and other beliefs. He deduced that Genesis reflects an older stage of similar seminomadic life, the patriarchal figures being pegs on which the cult traditions hung (Alt 1966). The positions of Alt and Noth have influenced commentaries and studies on Abraham heavily during the past fifty years. At the same time, others have followed the literary sources in order to refine them and especially to discern their purposes and main motifs (e.g., von Rad Genesis OTL). For Abraham the consequence of these studies is the same, whether they view him as a dim shadow in Israel’s prehistory, or as a purely literary creation: he is an example whose faith is to be emulated. The question of his actual existence is irrelevant; the stories about him illustrate how generations of Jews believed God had worked in a man’s life, setting a pattern, and it is that belief, hallowed by the experience of many others, which is enshrined in them (see Ramsey 1981).
2. Abraham as a Figure of History. Several scholars have searched for positions which allow a measure of historical reality to Abraham. While accepting the literary sources as the channels of tradition, they have seen them as reflecting a common heritage which was handed down through different circles and so developed different emphases. This explains the nature of such apparently duplicate stories as Abraham’s twice concealing Sarah’s status (Gen 12:11–20; 20:2–18). W. F. Albright and E. A. Speiser were notable exponents of this position, constantly drawing on ancient Near Eastern sources, textual and material, to clarify the patriarch’s ancient context. Albright claimed the Abraham stories fitted so well into the caravan society that he reconstructed for the 20th century B.C. “that there can be little doubt about their substantial historicity” (1973: 10). Textual and material sources included the cuneiform tablets from Mari and Nuzi and occupational evidence from Palestine. The Nuzi archives were thought to have yielded particularly striking analogies to family practices in the stories (see Speiser Genesis AB). These comparisons were widely accepted as signs of the antiquity of the narratives, and therefore as support for the contention that they reflected historical events. Even scholars who held firmly to the literary analyses took these parallels as illlumination of the original settings of the traditions (e.g., EHI). In 1974 and 1975 T. L. Thompson and J. Van Seters published sharp and extensive attacks on the views Albright had fostered, Thompson urging a return to the position of Wellhausen, and van Seters arguing that the stories belonged to exilic times (Thompson 1974; Van Seters 1975). The impact of these studies was great. They showed clearly that there were faults of logic and interpretation in the use made of the Nuzi and other texts, and put serious doubt on the hypothesis of an Amorite “invasion” of Palestine about 2000 B.C. In several cases, they pointed to other parallels from the 1st millennium B.C. which seemed equally good, thus showing that comparisons could not establish an earlier date for the patriarchal stories. For many OT scholars the arguments of Thompson and Van Seters reinforced the primacy of the literary analysis of Genesis and its subsequent developments, allowing attention to be paid to the narratives as “stories” rather than to questions of historicity.
Inevitably, there have been reactions from a variety of scholars who wish to sustain the value of comparisons with texts from the 2d millennium B.C. These include an important study of the Nuzi material by M. J. Selman (1976) and investigations of the Mari texts in relation to nomadism by J. T. Luke (1965) and V. H. Matthews (1978). Equally important, however, are considerations of the methods appropriate for studying the Abraham narratives, and these will be discussed in the remainder of this article, with examples as appropriate.
C. Abraham—A Contextual Approach
When the literary criticism of the Old Testament was elaborated in the 19th century in conjunction with theories of the evolution of Israelite society and religion, the ancient Near East was hardly known. With increasing discoveries came the possibility of checking the strength of those hypotheses against the information ancient records and objects provide. Were Genesis a newly recovered ancient manuscript, it is doubtful that these hypotheses would be given priority in evaluating the text. A literary analysis is one approach to understanding the text, but it is an approach that should be followed beside others and deserves no preferential status.
The current analysis is unsatisfactory because it cannot be demonstrated to work for any other ancient composition. Changes can be traced between copies of ancient texts made at different periods only when both the earlier and the later manuscript are physically available (e.g., the Four Gospels and Tatian’s Diatessaron). Moreover, the presuppositions of the usual literary analysis do not sustain themselves in the light of ancient scribal practices, for they require a very precise consistency on the part of redactors and copyists. Ancient scribes were not so hide-bound. Rather, the Abraham narratives should be judged in their contexts. They have two contexts. The first is the biblical one. Historically this sets Abraham long before Joseph and Moses, in current terms about 2000 B.C. (Bimson 1983: 86). Sociologically it places Abraham in the context of a seminomadic culture not controlled by the Mosaic laws, moving in a Canaan of city-states. Religiously it puts Abraham before the cultic laws of Moses, aware of God’s uniqueness and righteousness, yet also of others who worshipped him, such as Melchizedek. To an ancient reader, there was no doubt that Abraham, who lived many years before the rise of the Israelite monarchy, was the ancestor of Israel, a position which carried with it the promise of the land of Canaan and of God’s covenant blessing. That is the biblical context and it should not be disregarded (see Goldingay 1983). The detection of apparently duplicate or contradictory elements in the narratives, and of episodes hard to explain, is not sufficient reason for assuming the presence of variant or disparate traditions, nor are anachronisms necessarily a sign of composition long after the events described took place. These questions can only be considered when the narratives are set in their second context, the ancient Near Eastern world, at the period the biblical context indicates. Only if it proves impossible to fit them into that context should another be sought.
1. Abraham the Ancestor. Although Abraham’s biography is unique among ancient texts, its role in recording his ancestral place is not. Other states emerging about 1000 B.C., like Israel, bore the names of eponymous ancestors (e.g., Aramean Bit Bahyan, Bit Agush). Some traced their royal lines back to the Late Bronze Age, and many of the states destroyed at the end of that period had dynasties reaching back over several centuries to founders early in the Middle Bronze Age (e.g., Ugarit). Assyria, which managed to survive the crisis at the start of the 1st millennium B.C., listed her kings back to that time, and even before, to the days when they lived in tents. In this context, the possibility of Israel preserving knowledge of her descent is real (cf. Wiseman 1983: 153–58). States or tribes named after ancestors are also attested in the 2d millennium B.C. (e.g., Kassite tribes, RLA 5: 464–73). Dynastic lineages are known because kings were involved. Other families preserved their lines, too, as lawsuits about properties reveal (in Egypt, Gaballa 1977; in Babylonia, King 1912: no. 3), but they had little cause to write comprehensive lists. Israel’s descent from Abraham, the grandfather of her national eponym, is comparable inasmuch as he received the original promise of the land of Canaan. The ancient King Lists rarely incorporate anecdotal information (e.g., Sumerian King List, Assyrian King List; see ANET, 265, 564). However, ancient accounts of the deeds of heroes are not wholly dissimilar. Sargon of Akkad (ca. 2334–2279 B.C.), a king whose existence was denied when his story was first translated, is firmly placed in histories as the first Semitic emperor, well attested by copies of his own inscriptions made five centuries after his death, and by the records of his sons. Stories about Sargon were popular about 1700 B.C., and are included among the sources of information for his reign from which modern historians reconstruct his career. Other kings have left their own contemporary autobiographies (e.g., Idrimi of Alalakh, ANET, 557). All of these ancient texts convey factual information in the style and form considered appropriate by their authors. The analyses of their forms is part of their proper study. Finding a biography in an ancient Near Eastern document that combined concepts drawn from the family-tree form and from narratives about leaders, such as Genesis contains, preserved over centuries, would not lead scholars to assume the long processes of collecting, shaping, revising and editing normally alleged for the stories of Abraham.
2. Abraham’s Career and Life-style. Journeys between Babylonia and the Levant were certainly made in the period 2100–1600 B.C. Kings of Ur had links with north Syrian cities and Byblos ca. 2050 B.C., and in Babylonia goods were traded with Turkey and Cyprus ca. 1700 B.C. A detailed itinerary survives for a military expedition from Larsa in southern Babylonia to Emar on the middle Euphrates, and others trace the route from Assyria to central Turkey. If Abraham was linked with the Amorites, as W. F. Albright argued, evidence that the Amorites moved from Upper Mesopotamia southward during the centuries around 2000 B.C. cannot invalidate the report of Abraham’s journey in the opposite direction, as some have jejunely asserted (e.g., van Seters 1975: 23). Where the identifications are fixed and adequate explorations have been made, the towns Abraham visited—Ur, Haran, Shechem, Bethel, Salem (if Jerusalem), Hebron—appear to have been occupied about 2000 B.C. (Middle Bronze I; for a summary of archaeological material, see IJH, 70–148). Gerar remains unidentified, nor is there positive evidence for identifying the site now called Tel Beer-sheba with the Beer-sheba of Genesis (Millard 1983: 50). Genesis presents Abraham as a tent dweller, not living in an urban environment after he left Haran (cf. Heb 11:9).
Extensive archives from Mari, ca. 1800 B.C., illustrate the life of seminomadic tribesmen in relationship with that and other towns (see MARI LETTERS). General similarities as well as specific parallels (e.g., treaties between city rulers and tribes) can be seen with respect to Genesis. Some tribes were wealthy and their chieftains powerful men. When they trekked from one pasturage to another, their passage was marked and reported to the king of Mari. Town dwellers and steppe dwellers lived in dependence on each other.
In Canaan, Abraham had sheep and donkeys like the Mari tribes, and cattle as well. This difference does not disqualify the comparison (pace van Seters 1975: 16), for the Egyptian Sinuhe owned herds of cattle during his stay in the Levant about 1930 B.C. Like Abraham, Sinuhe spent some of his life in tents, and acquired wealth and high standing among the local people (ANET, 18–22; note that copies of this story were being made as early as 1800 B.C.). To strike camp and migrate for food was the practice of “Asiatics” within reach of Egypt, so much so that a wall or line of forts had to be built to control their influx (ca. 1980 B.C., see ANET, 446). The story of Sinuhe relates that the hero met several Egyptians in the Levant at this time (ANET, 18–22); the painting from a tomb at Beni Hasan depicts a party of 37 “Asiatics” (ANEP, 3), and excavations have revealed a Middle Bronze Age settlement in the Delta with a strong Palestinian presence (Bietak 1979). Military contingents brought together in coalitions traveled over great distances to face rebellious or threatening tribes, as in the affair of Genesis 14 (see below C5). In an era of petty kings, interstate rivalry was common and raids by hostile powers a threat to any settlement. To meet the persistent military threat, many cities throughout the Near East were strongly fortified during the Middle Bronze Age; fortification provided well-built gateways in which citizens could congregate (Gen 23:10, 18).
Disputes arose over grazing rights and water supplies. Abraham’s pact at Gerar is typical, the agreement duly solemnized with an oath and offering of lambs. Abraham was a resident alien (gēr), not a citizen (Gen 15:13; 23:4). Concern for the continuing family was normal. Marriage agreements of the time have clauses allowing for the provision of an heir by a slave girl should the wife prove barren (ANET, 543, no. 4; cf. Selman 1976: 127–29). The line was also maintained through proper care of the dead, which involved regular ceremonies in Babylonia (see DEAD, CULT OF). Burial in the cave at Machpelah gave Abraham’s family a focus which was valuable when they had no settled dwelling (cf., the expression in Gen 47:30). Comparisons made between Abraham’s purchase of the cave reported in Genesis 23 and Hittite laws (Lehmann 1953) are now seen to be misleading (Hoffner 1969: 33–37). However, the report is not a transcript of a contract, and so cannot be tied in time to the “dialogue document” style fashionable in Babylonia from the 7th to 5th centuries B.C., as Van Seters and others have argued (Van Seters 1975: 98–100), and at least one Babylonian deed settling property rights survives in dialogue form from early in the 2 millennium B.C. (Kitchen 1977: 71 gives the reference).
3. Abraham’s Names. Abram, “the father is exalted,” is a name of common form, although no example of it is found in the West Semitic onomasticon of the early 2d millennium B.C. The replacement, Abraham, is given the meaning “father of a multitude” (Gen 17:5). That may be a popular etymology or a play on current forms of the name “Abram” in local dialects for the didactic purpose of the context, the inserted h having analogies in other West Semitic languages. The name “Aburahana” is found in the Egyptian Execration Texts of the 19th century B.C. (m and n readily interchange in Egyptian transcriptions of Semitic names [EHI, 197–98]). Genesis introduces the longer name as part of the covenant God made with Abram, so the new name confirmed God’s control and marked a stage in the Patriarch’s career (see Wiseman 1983: 158–60). No other person in the OT bears the names “Abram” or “Abraham” (or “Isaac” or “Jacob”); apparently they were names which held a special place in Hebrew tradition (like the names “David” and “Solomon”).
4. Abraham’s Faith. A monotheistic faith followed about 2000 B.C. is, so far as current sources reveal, unique, and therefore uncomfortable for the historian and accordingly reckoned unlikely and treated as a retrojection from much later times. The history of religions undermines that stance; the astonishing impact of Akhenaten’s “heresy” and the explosion of Islam demonstrate the role a single man’s vision may play, both imposing a monotheism upon a polytheistic society. Abraham’s faith, quietly held and handed down in his family until its formulation under Moses, is equally credible.
Contextual research helps a little. Further study has traced the “gods of the fathers” concept far beyond Alt’s Nabatean inscriptions to the early 2d millennium B.C., when the term referred to named deities, and the god El could be known as Il-aba “El is father” (Lambert 1981). Discussion of the various names and epithets for God in the Abraham narratives continues, revolving around the question whether they all refer to one deity or not (see Cross 1973; Wenham 1983). Some ancient texts which apply one or two of these epithets to separate gods (e.g., the pair ʾl “God” and ʿlywn “Most High,” in an 8th-century Aramaic treaty, ANET, 659), may reflect later or different traditions; the religious patterns of the ancient Levant are so varied that it is dangerous to harmonize details from one time and place with those from another. The OT seems to equivocate over the antiquity of the divine name yhwh. Despite Exod 6:3, the Abraham narratives include the name often. Apart from the (unacceptable) documentary analysis, explanations range from retrojection of a (post-) Mosaic editor to explanations of Exod 6:3 allowing the name to be known to Abraham, but not its significance (see Wenham 1983:189–93). The latter opinion may find a partial analogy in the development of the Egyptian word aten from “sun disk” to the name of the supreme deity (Gardiner 1961: 216–18). However, the absence of the divine name as an indubitable element in any pre-Mosaic personal name should not be overlooked. Abraham naturally had a similar religious language to those around him, with animal sacrifices, altars, and gifts to his God after a victory. He found in Melchizedek another whose worship he could share, just as Moses found Jethro (Gen 14; Exod 2:15–22; 8), yet he never otherwise joined the cults of Canaan.
5. Objections to a 2d Millennium Context. a. Anachronisms. The texts about Sargon of Akkad are pertinent to the question of anachronisms in the Abraham stories. In those texts, Sargon is said to have campaigned to Turkey in aid of Mesopotamian merchants oppressed there. Documents from Kanesh in central Turkey attest to the activities of Assyrian merchants in the 19th century B.C., but not much earlier. Therefore the mention of Kanesh in texts about Sargon and his dynasty is considered anachronistic. At the same time, the incidents those texts report are treated as basically authentic and historically valuable (Grayson and Sollberger 1976: 108). The anachronism does not affect the sense of the narrative. In this light, the problem of the Philistines in Gen 21:32, 34 may be viewed as minimal. Naming a place after a people whose presence is only attested there six or seven centuries later than the setting of the story need not falsify it. A scribe may have replaced an outdated name, or people of the Philistine group may have resided in the area long before their name is found in other written sources. Certainly some pottery entered Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age from Cyprus, the region whence the Philistines came (Amiran 1969: 121–23). A similar position can be adopted with regard to the commonly cited objection of Abraham’s camels. Although the camel did not come into general use in the Near East until after 1200 B.C., a few signs of its use earlier in the 2d millennium B.C. have been found (see CAMEL). It is as logical to treat the passages in Gen 12:16; 24 as valuable evidence for the presence of camels at that time as to view them as anachronistic. Contrariwise, the absence of horses from the Abraham narratives is to be noted, for horses could be a sign of wealth in the places where he lived (cf. 1 Kgs 5:6); horses are unmentioned in the list of Job’s wealth (Job 1:3). Ancient Near Eastern sources show clearly that horses were known in the 3d millennium B.C., but only began to be widely used in the mid-2d millennium B.C., that is, after the period of Abraham’s lifetime as envisaged here (Millard 1983: 43). Comparisons may be made also with information concerning iron working. A Hittite text tells how King Anitta (ca. 1725 B.C.) received an iron chair from his defeated foe. Recent research dates the tablet about 1600 B.C., yet iron only came into general use in the Near East when the Bronze Age ended and the Iron Age began, ca. 1200 B.C. Were the Anitta text preserved in a copy made a millennium after his time, its iron chair would be dismissed as a later writer’s anachronism. It cannot be so treated; it is one important witness to iron working in the Middle Bronze Age (Millard 1988). Alleged anachronisms in the Abraham narratives are not compelling obstacles to setting them early in the 2d millennium B.C.
b. Absence of Evidence. Occasionally the absence of any trace of Abraham from extrabiblical sources is raised against belief in his existence soon after 2000 B.C. This is groundless. The proportion of surviving Babylonian and Egyptian documents to those once written is minute. If, for example, Abraham’s treaty with Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 21) was written, a papyrus manuscript would decay quickly in the ruined palace, or a clay tablet might remain, lie buried undamaged, awaiting the spade of an excavator who located Gerar (a problem!), happened upon the palace, and cleared the right room. If Abimelech’s dynasty lasted several generations, old documents might have been discarded, the treaty with them. Egyptian state records are almost nonexistent owing to the perishability of papyrus, so no evidence for Abraham can be expected there.
Abraham’s encounter with the kings of the east (Genesis 14) links the patriarch with international history, but regrettably, the kings of Elam, Shinar, Ellasar, and the nations have not been convincingly identified. R. de Vaux stated that “it is historically impossible for these five sites south of the Dead Sea to have at one time during the second millennium been the vassals of Elam, and that Elam never was at the head of a coalition uniting the four great near eastern powers of that period” (EHI, 219). Consequently, the account is explained as a literary invention of the exilic period (Astour 1966; Emerton 1971). At that date, its author would either be imagining a situation unlike any within his experience, or weaving a story around old traditions. If the former is true, he was surprisingly successful in constructing a scenario appropriate for the early 2d millennium B.C.; if the latter, then it is a matter of preference which components of the chapter are assumed to stem from earlier times. Yet the chapter may still be viewed as an account of events about 2000 B.C., as K. A. Kitchen has demonstrated (Kitchen 1977: 72 with references). A coalition of kings from Elam, Mesopotamia, and Turkey fits well into that time. To rule it “unhistorical” is to claim a far more detailed knowledge of the history of the age than anyone possesses. The span of the events is only fifteen years, and what is known shows how rapidly the political picture could change. Current inability to identify the royal names with recorded kings is frustrating; scribal error is an explanation of last resort; ignorance is the likelier reason, and as continuing discoveries make known more city-states and their rulers, clarification may emerge. (One may compare the amount of information derivable from the Ebla archives for the period about 2300 B.C. with the little available for the city’s history over the next five hundred years.) Gen 14:13 terms Abram “the Hebrew.” This epithet is appropriate in this context, where kings are defined by the states they ruled, for Abram had no state or fatherland. “Hebrew” denoted exactly that circumstance in the Middle Bronze Age (Buccellati 1977).
D. Duplicate Narratives
A major argument for the common literary analysis of the Abraham narratives, and for the merging of separate lines of tradition, is the presence of “duplicate” accounts of some events. Abraham and Isaac clashed with Abimelech of Gerar, and each represented his wife as his sister, an action Abraham had previously taken in Egypt (Gen 12:10–20; 20; 26). These three stories are interpreted as variations of one original in separate circles. That so strange a tale should have so secure a place in national memory demands a persuasive explanation, whatever weight is attached to it. In the ancient Near East, kings frequently gave their sisters or daughters in marriage to other rulers to cement alliances and demonstrate goodwill (examples abound throughout the 2d millennium B.C.). The actions of Abraham and Isaac may be better understood in this context, neither man having unmarried female relatives to hand. That they were afraid may reflect immediate pressures. For Isaac to repeat his father’s procedure at Gerar is more intelligible as part of a well-established practice of renewing treaties with each generation than as a literary repetition (Hoffmeier fc.).
Abraham and Isaac both had trouble with the men of Gerar over water rights at Beer-sheba. Again, the narratives are counted as duplicates of a single tradition (Speiser Genesis 202), and again two different episodes in the lives of a father and son living in the same area is as reasonable an explanation in the ancient context. One king might confront and defeat an enemy, the same king or his son having to repeat the action (e.g., Ramesses II and the Hittites, Kitchen 1982 passim). The naming of the wells at Beersheba, usually labeled contradictory, is also open to a straightforward interpretation in the light of Hebrew syntax which removes the conflict (NBD, 128).
E. Conclusion
To place Abraham at the beginning of the 2d millennium B.C. is, therefore, sustainable. While the extrabiblical information is not all limited to that era, for much of ancient life followed similar lines for centuries, and does not demand such a date, it certainly allows it, in accord with the biblical data. The advantage this brings is the possibility that Abraham was a real person whose life story, however handed down, has been preserved reliably. This is important for all who take biblical teaching about faith seriously. Faith is informed, not blind. God called Abraham with a promise and showed his faithfulness to him and his descendants. Abraham obeyed that call and experienced that faithfulness. Without Abraham, a major block in the foundations of both Judaism and Christianity is lost; a fictional Abraham might incorporate and illustrate communal beliefs, but could supply no rational evidence for faith because any other community could invent a totally different figure (and communal belief can be very wrong, as the fates of many “witches” recall). Inasmuch as the Bible claims uniqueness, and the absolute of divine revelation, the Abraham narratives deserve a positive, respectful approach; any other risks destroying any evidence they afford.
Bibliography
Albright, W. F. 1973. From the Patriarchs to Moses. 1. From Abraham to Joseph. BA 36: 5–33.
Alt, A. 1966. The Gods of the Fathers. Pp. 1–77 in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, trans. R. A. Wilson. Oxford.
Amiran, R. B. K. 1969. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. New Brunswick, NJ.
Astour, M. C. 1966. Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis 14 and its Babylonian Sources. Pp. 65–112 in Biblical Motifs: Origin and Transformation, ed. A. Altmann. Cambridge, MA.
Bietak, M. 1979. Avaris and Piramesse. PBA 65: 255–90.
Bimson, J. 1983. Archaeological Data and the Dating of the Patriarchs. Pp. 53–89 in Millard and Wiseman 1983.
Buccellati, G. 1977. ʿApiru and Munnabtūtu: The Stateless of the First Cosmopolitan Age. JNES 36: 145–47.
Clements, R. 1967. Abraham and David. SBT n.s. 5. London.
Cross, F. M. 1973. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, MA.
Emerton, J. A. 1971. Some False Clues in the Study of Genesis XIV. VT 21: 24–47.
Gaballa, G. A. 1977. The Memphite Tomb-Chapel of Mose. Warminster.
Gardiner, A. H. 1961. Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford.
Goldingay, J. 1983. The Patriarchs in Scripture and History. Pp. 1–34 in Millard and Wiseman 1983.
Grayson, A. K., and Sollberger, E. 1976. L’insurrection générale contre Narām-Suen. RA 70:103–28.
Gunkel, H. 1901. The Legends of Genesis. Trans. W. H. Carruth. Repr. 1964. New York.
Hoffmeier, J. fc. Once Again, the Wife-Sister Stories of Genesis 12, 20, and 26 and the Covenants of Abraham and Isaac at Beersheba. (Paper read at the SBL Annual Meeting, Boston, 1988.)
Hoffner, H. A. 1969. Some Contributions of Hittitology to Old Testament Study. Tyndale Bulletin 20: 27–55.
Irwin, D. 1978. Mytharion. AOAT 32. Neukirchen-Vluyn and Kevalaer.
King, L. W. 1912. Babylonian Boundary Stones. London.
Kitchen, K. A. 1966. Historical Method and Early Hebrew Tradition. Tyn Bul 17: 63–97.
———. 1977. The Bible in Its World. Downer’s Grove, IL.
———. 1982. Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II. Warminster.
Lambert, W. G. 1981. Old Akkadian Ilaba = Ugaritic Ilib? UF 13: 299–301.
Lehmann, M. R. 1953. Abraham’s Purchase of Machpelah and Hittite Law. BASOR 129: 15–18.
Luke, J. T. 1965. Pastoralism and Politics in the Mari Period. Ann Arbor.
Matthews, V. R. 1978. Pastoral Nomadism in the Mari Kingdom. ASORDS 3. Cambridge, MA.
Mendenhall, G. 1987. The Nature and Purpose of the Abraham Narratives. Pp. 337–56 in AIR.
Millard, A. R., and Wiseman, D. J., eds. 1983. Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. 2d ed. Leicester.
Millard, A. R. 1983. Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Texts. Pp. 35–51 in Millard and Wiseman, 1983.
———. 1988. King Og’s Bed and Other Ancient Ironmongery. Pp. 481–92 in Ascribe to the Lord, ed. L. Eslinger. JSOTSup Sheffield.
Noth, M. 1948. A History of the Pentateuchal Traditions. Trans. B. W. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Repr.
Ramsey, G. W. 1981. The Quest for the Historical Israel. Atlanta.
Selman, M. J. 1976. The Social Environment of the Patriarchs. Tyn Bul 27: 114–36.
———. 1983. Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age. Pp. 91–139 in Millard and Wiseman 1983.
Thompson, T. L. 1974. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives. Berlin.
Seters, J. van. 1975. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven.
Wenham, G. J. 1983. The Religion of the Patriarchs. Pp. 161–95 in Millard and Wiseman 1983.
Wiseman, D. J. 1983. Abraham Reassessed. Pp. 141–60 in Millard and Wiseman 1983.
A. R. MILLARD
ABRAHAM, APOCALYPSE OF. A midrash based on the text of Genesis 15 presented in the form of revelation. The title of the book is preserved only in manuscript S (Codex Silvester), where it runs as follows: “The Book of the Revelation of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor, son of Serug, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech, son of Methusaleh, son of Enoch, son of Jared.”
A. Contents
The main subject of the book is the election of Abraham and the covenant between God and Abraham and his descendants. Chapters 1–8 tell about the call of Abraham out of the midst of idolaters. After a deep reflection on the various forms of their idolatry, Abraham wants to know the true God who created the universe. God then appears to him in the form of fire and commands him to leave the home of his father Terah and to sacrifice a heifer, a she-goat, a ram, a turtledove, and a pigeon (Genesis 15) on the high mountain. Chapters 9–32 describe Abraham’s journey to the mount of Horeb, the offering of the sacrifice, and the visions imparted to him. Abraham sees, among other things, the seven sins of the world (24:3–25:2) and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (27:1–12). God announces to him the punishment of the Gentiles and of the sinners belonging to the people of Israel (chap. 29). The vision of the “man going out from the left, the heathen side” (29:4) foretells the test of the people of God in the last days of this age. Before the age of justice, God will afflict “all earthly creation” with ten plagues (29:15, 30:2–8) and afterward send his Elect One, who will summon the people of God (31:1). Sinners will be punished and the righteous will triumph forever (chap. 32).
B. The Text
The Apocalypse of Abraham (Apoc. Ab.) is preserved only in Old Church Slavonic translation. According to common opinion, it was translated from Greek around A.D. 900 in Bulgaria, although translation from a Semitic original cannot be excluded (see below). The Old Church Slavonic copies of the text were very soon transferred, probably by monks, from Bulgaria to Russia and there diffused within some centuries in different transcripts. This fact explains why the present text of the book is influenced by the old Russian language. All nine extant manuscripts containing this pseudepigraphon are preserved in the museums and the libraries of the U.S.S.R. The oldest manuscript is the Codex Silvester (14th century), which is characterized by many omissions owing mostly to inadvertance of the copyists; the text itself is incomplete. The best text is preserved in manuscript B, which belongs to the Synodal Paleja Tolkovaja (Sin 211, Gosudarstvennyj Istoričeskij Muzej 869, fols. 76–90, Moscow) and dates to the 16th century (see Philonenko-Sayer and Philonenko 1981; Rubinkiewicz 1977; 1987).
C. The Integrity of the Text
Most critics distinguish two parts in the Apocalypse of Abraham: the haggadic section (chaps. 1–8) and the apocalyptic section (chaps. 9–32). The two sections were probably written by different authors. Later, the two documents were most likely joined together into a single work. It seems, however, that only chapter 7 did not belong to the original text of the pseudepigraphon, and maybe also chapter 23 (the description of the sin of Adam and Eve, which undoubtedly reflects Jewish sources; the chapter could have been introduced into the Apocalypse of Abraham from another pseudepigraphon). A special problem is presented by Apoc. Ab. 29:4–13. Generally one assumes that the Man “going out from the left, the heathen side” (29:4), worshipped by the great crowd of the heathen, and insulted by some of the people of Israel, represents the figure of Jesus. Therefore, some critics claim that this passage is a Christian interpolation (ANRW 2/19/1: 137–51) or that it could be a “Jewish view of Jesus as an apostle to the heathen” (EncJud 1: 125–27). However, an exact analysis of the vision in Apoc. Ab. 29:4–13 proves that it must be original, and that it “has little in common with a Christian view of Jesus but recalls the beast in Rev 13:1–4” (Hall 1988). The heathen man may be identified as the Roman emperor. Only “the phrase identifying the man who is worshiped as a child of Abraham (29:9b) must be understood as a gloss, probably by a Christian interpolator who found Christ in the author’s ‘antichrist’ ” (Hall 1988).
In addition to these three passages, we may note some glosses, perhaps because of the Bogomil editor (ANRW 2/19/1: 137–51; Rubinkiewicz 1987; contrary Philonenko-Sayar and Philonenko 1981). The very strange statement that Abraham’s issue are “the people (associated) with Azazel” must be understood in the light of the gloss “ljudii s Azazilomû sii sout” (22:5), “this is the people with Azazel,” found in one of the manuscripts in the correct form. In the other manuscripts it is slightly different and incorporated into the main phrase. This fact explains the strange association of Azazel with the people of God and is in the spirit of the medieval slavonic sect of the Bogomils.
D. Original Language
The original language of the Apocalypse of Abraham was undoubtedly Semitic, either Aramaic or Hebrew. Many Semitisms are found in the text which cannot be explained simply by the influence of Septuagintal style. For example, Apoc. Ab. uses the positive instead of the comparative, indicating a Semitic original. The awkward Slavonic construction “heavy of (a big stone)” (1:5) renders Semitic kbd mn, which should be interpreted “heavier than (a big stone).” Also, prepositions are sometimes used according to Hebrew rather than Slavonic syntax (e.g., 8:4; 12:10; see Rubinkiewicz 1980).
E. Date and Origin
The Apocalypse of Abraham was written after A.D. 70, as is evident from its reference to the destruction of the Temple. If one assumes that plagues 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, (Apoc. Ab. 30:4–8) refer to the events from A.D. 69 and 70, and that plagues 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 (Apoc. Ab. 30:4–8) refer to the eruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79, then it may be surmised that the text was composed between A.D. 79–81. This opinion is reinforced by the symbolic interpretation of the haggadic material found in Apoc. Ab. 1–6 (the idols symbolize the hostile kingdoms and kings: Marumat = Rome, Barisat = Babylon, [Su]zuch = Persia, “five other gods” = Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, and Titus), but this explanation must remain hypothetical (see Rubinkiewicz 1982).
The author of Apoc. Ab. belonged to the priestly environment. Some doctrinal affinities of the text with the Qumran writings—e.g., the opinion regarding the High Priest in the Temple, the liturgical milieu of the pseudepigraphon concentrated around the Feast of Tabernacles as the Feast of the renewal of the Covenant, and predeterminism contained in the text of this work—show at least some dependency on Essene doctrine. Despite these similarities, there is no convincing argument that the author of Apoc. Ab. was an Essene. The views expressed in the pseudepigraphon correspond equally well to the concepts represented by the priestly environment of Palestine in general, not just the Essene environment.
F. Theology
God is eternal (9:3) and He is the God who protects Abraham and his issue (9:4). He has created the universe, has elected Israel, has called her “my people” (22:5; 31:1), and will give her the victory over her enemies (31:1–2).
Angelology plays an important part in the pseudepigraphon. The most eminent person is the angel of God, Iaoel. His features resemble certain features of the Angel of God in Exod 23:20–23. His fundamental role is to protect and fortify Abraham (10:3). The chief of the fallen angels is Azazel (13:7). His power is on the earth (13:7–8; 14:6), but it is not unlimited; for example, Azazel has no power over the just (13:10).
The world is divided into two parts: (1) the land and the garden of Eden, and (2) the upper and lower waters. In the same way, mankind is divided into the people of God (Israel) and the Gentiles (21:3–7). However, there is no ontological dualism in Apoc. Ab. The world created by God is good (22:2). There is no other God except that one for whom Abraham searched and who is beloved (19:3). There is evil in the world, but it is not unavoidable. God has full control over the development of events and does not allow the body of the just man to fall under the control of Azazel (13:10). Azazel is wrong if he thinks that he may scoff at justice and disclose the secrets of heaven (14:4). He will be punished and banished to the desert, where he will remain forever (14:5).
The age of wickedness will consist of “twelve periods” (29:2). After this age comes the last judgment, preceded by the redemption of the righteous. First, however, ten plagues will affect all the world (29:15; 30:2–8). Then God will send his “Elect One” (31:1) and will gather the dispersed people of God. At this time, the Gentiles who oppressed Israel will be punished (31:2) and the apostates will be burned by the fire of Azazel’s tongue (31:6). The Temple will be rebuilt and the cult restored (29:17–18). There is no explicit doctrine of the resurrection in the pseudepigraphon. However, this idea may be suggested by the symbol of the dew (19:4) and by the conviction expressed in 13:10 that the body of the just will not belong to Azazel. This may be connected with the exegesis of Ps 16:10, a Psalm utilized by Christians to prove the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 2:27).
G. The Apocalypse of Abraham and the Bible
The books of Genesis and Ezekiel play fundamental roles in Apoc. Ab. The author begins his work with an allusion to Gen 20:13, adduced in light of targumic exegesis, and closes with reference to Gen 15:13–16 (Apoc. Ab. 32:1–3). Apoc. Ab. 8:4 and 9:1–4 reflect the expression contained in Gen 12:1 and 15:1 seen in the light of Ps 22:2–3 and Deut 33:29. The author quotes Gen 15:9 (Apoc. Ab. 9:5) and employs the image of Gen 15:17a (Apoc. Ab. 15:1). The text of Apoc. Ab. 20:4 reminds one of Gen 18:27 and that of Apoc. Ab. 20:6 alludes to Gen 18:30. Apoc. Ab. 18–19 is based on Ezekiel 1, 10. Abraham sees four living creatures (Apoc. Ab. 18:3–12; cf. Ezek 3:12–13), the throne (Apoc. Ab. 18:3; cf. Ezek 1:26), and the Divine Chariot (Apoc. Ab. 18:12; cf. Ezekiel 1, 10).
There is no direct relation between the Apocalypse of Abraham and the NT. There are nonetheless many parallel expressions which show that the authors drew from the same tradition (for example, Apoc. Ab. 13:3–14 and Matt 4:1–11 par; Apoc. Ab. 9:5–8; 12:1–10 and Gal 4:21–31; Apoc. Ab. 18:11 and Rev 5:9; see Rubinkiewicz 1987).
H. The Apocalypse of Abraham and the Pseudepigrapha
The author of Apoc. Ab. follows the tradition of 1 Enoch 1–36. The chief of the fallen angels is Azazel who rules over the stars and the main part of humanity. It is easy to find here the tradition of Gen 6:1–4 developed in 1 Enoch. Azazel rebelled against God and, together with the other angels, united sexually with the daughters of men. He disclosed the secrets of heaven and caused great misfortune on earth. Therefore, he was expelled to the desert. Abraham, like Enoch, receives the power to tame Satan (Apoc. Ab. 14:3; 1 En. 14:3). The tradition of 1 Enoch 10 about Azazel underlying Apoc. Ab. 13–14 permits us to understand better the difficult text of Matt 22:11–14 (see Rubinkiewicz 1984).
The Apocalypse of Abraham, with its Palestinian origin, early date of composition, common tradition with 1 Enoch, and connections with NT writings, finds a place for itself among the most significant works of the Jewish world in the 1st century A.D.
Bibliography
Charlesworth, J. H. 1976. The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research. SCS 7. Missoula.
Denis, A.-M. 1970. Introduction aux pseudepigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament. SVTP 1. Leiden.
Hall, R. G. 1988. The “Christian Interpolation” in the Apocalypse of Abraham. JBL 107: 107–10.
Lunt, H. 1985. On the Language of the Slavonic Apocalypse of Abraham. Studia Hierosolymitana 7: 55–62.
Philonenko-Sayar, B., and Philonenko, M. 1981. L’Apocalypse d’Abraham. Sem 31.
———. 1982. Die Apocalypse Abrahams. JSHRZ 5. Gütersloh.
Rubinkiewicz, R. 1977. L’Apocalypse d’Abraham en slave. 2 vols. Diss. Rome [typescript].
———. 1980. Les sémitismes dans l’Apocalypse d’Abraham. Folia Orientalia 21: 141–48.
———. 1982. Apokalipsa Abrahama 1–6: Propozycja interpretacji symbolicznej. RocTKan 29/1: 79–94.
———. 1984. Die Eschatologie von Henoch 9–11 und das Neue Testament. ÖBS 6. Klosterneuburg.
———. 1987. L’Apocalypse d’Abraham en vieux slave. Lublin.
Rubinstein, A. 1953. Hebraisms in the Slavonic “Apocalypse of Abraham.” JJS 4: 108–15.
———. 1954. Hebraisms in the “Apocalypse of Abraham.” JJS 5: 132–35.
———. 1957. A Problematic Passage in the Apocalypse of Abraham. JJS.
RYSZARD RUBINKIEWICZ
ABRAHAM, TESTAMENT OF. Although titled a “testament” in many of the extant manuscripts, the Testament of Abraham exhibits few of the traits of that genre. Abraham is instructed to make a testament in preparation for his death, but he neither relates his own personal history in order to instruct his descendants, nor imparts ethical advice to those who have gathered at his bedside. The “Testament” of Abraham is more closely related to the apocalyptic dramas, the descriptions of otherworldly journeys, and the legends about the death of Moses, which circulated widely in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, than it is to the other testamentary literature. The “Testament” focuses on the inevitability of death, God’s just and merciful judgment (in contrast to Abraham’s quick condemnation of sinners), and the fate of souls after death. The figure of Abraham bears some resemblance to the biblical character in that he is presented as hospitable and righteous, but he is also seen in the story as disobedient (refusing to go with God’s appointed messengers) and self-righteous (condemning nearly everyone that he sees during his heavenly journey).
The work survives in two distinct Greek recensions, a longer version (A) and a shorter version (B). The two recensions probably derive from a common source, but neither is directly dependent on the other. Whereas the long version is thought to preserve the more original contents and order, the short version often preserves earlier wording and simpler vocabulary (James 1892: 49; Nickelsburg 1976: 85–93).
The story contains two parallel and symmetrical divisions: In the first part, Michael is sent by God to retrieve Abraham’s soul (chaps. 1–15); in the second part, Death is sent to complete the task (chaps. 16–20; Nickelsburg 1984: 61). In part one, Abraham receives the visitor Michael with great hospitality, but after he discovers why Michael has come, he refuses to die (A2–7; B = Abraham tries to postpone death). Michael continues to try to persuade Abraham to obey God’s will, but Abraham instead strikes a bargain with Michael that would allow him to see all the inhabited world before he dies (A8–9; B = “all God’s creation”). During the journey, Abraham is repulsed by the wickedness that he sees, and he immediately calls for the death of the sinners (A10). God orders the tour to stop before Abraham condemns everyone; he then instructs Michael to take Abraham to the place where Abel is carefully weighing the deeds of the dead so that Abraham can see God’s compassionate judgment (A11–13). God’s merciful treatment of the souls persuades Abraham to pray on behalf of those he had condemned during his journey (A14).
Although Michael has fulfilled his part of the bargain, Abraham still refuses to die. Michael then returns to heaven and God sends Death to reclaim Abraham’s soul (A15–16). Death attempts to frighten Abraham by showing him all manner of gruesome deaths (A17), and then tries to persuade him that a swift death is something to be sought because such a death precludes any further punishment (A17–19). Abraham still is reluctant to die; finally he is tricked by Death, and dies. The story concludes with the angels taking Abraham’s soul to heaven (A20).
Aside from the minor differences mentioned in the summary, the longer and shorter recensions differ in two major ways: (1) the shorter recension places the judgment scene before the tour of the world; and (2) the judgment scene in the shorter recension is much less fully developed.
The two recensions are preserved in approximately thirty Greek MSS ranging from the 13th to the 17th century (for a full list, cf. Schmidt 1986: 1–3; Denis 1970: 32–33). The noteworthy other languages are Coptic (which generally follows B, but some elements resemble A; cf. Sparks’ introduction to Turner 1984: 393), Ethiopic (based on the Coptic; cf. HJP² 3/2: 765), Arabic (also based on the Coptic), Roumanian (cf. Turdeanu 1981: 201–18, 440), and Slavonic (follows B; cf. Turdeanu 1981: 201–18, 440).
Scholars such as Ginzberg and Kohler argued for a Hebrew original for the work, but the consensus today is that the longer version of the Testament was composed in Septuagintal, or Semitic, Greek (cf. OTP 1: 873; Delcor 1973: 32–34). This position is strengthened by the close vocabulary parallels between the long recension and other books such as the Wisdom of Solomon and 2,3,4 Maccabees, which were clearly composed in Greek. The shorter version can easily be retroverted to Hebrew, but as Sanders notes, the Hebrew that results is a classical biblical prose style, not the Hebrew of the Greco-Roman period as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls and early rabbinic literature (OTP 1: 873). It is therefore likely, though still not settled, that the shorter recension was also composed in Greek (cf. Schmidt 1986).
There are no historical allusions in the Testament. Thus estimates of the date of composition have ranged from the 2d century B.C.E. up to the 6th century C.E. (for the final form of the long recension), although most scholars regard the 1st century B.C.E. or 1st century C.E. as the most likely (OTP 1: 874; Schmidt; Delcor: 73–77; Collins: 226; Denis 1970: 36).
An Egyptian provenience for the Testament has been widely accepted (OTP 1: 875; Collins: 226; Denis 1970: 36; Nickelsburg 1984: 63). Cited in its favor are the similarities in vocabulary between the Testament and other works thought to derive from Egyptian Jewry (3 Maccabees, Testament of Job, 3 Baruch), the balancing of deeds (weighing of souls; chaps. A11–13), the three levels of judgment (which may reflect the three levels of jurisdiction in Roman Egypt; cf. Sanders: 875; Delcor: 18), and the portrayal of the figure of death as a heavenly courtier and servant of God (Nickelsburg 1984: 63). Schmidt has argued for a Palestinian provenience (see also Janssen), but he bases his claim on the doubtful position that the shorter recension was composed in Hebrew.
Undoubtedly a Jewish work, the Testament (especially the longer recension) does contain a few Christian additions (most notably in the judgment scene; cf. HJP² 3/2: 763; Nickelsburg 1984: 63). Whether any identifiable group within Judaism is responsible for its composition is still debated. Kohler and Ginzberg suggested that the work derived from the Essenes, and that idea, in a slightly diluted form, has been picked up by Schmidt, who argues that the work originated from “a popular Essenism.” Delcor (70–73) has suggested that the work may have been written by the Therapeutae, an Essenelike group, but Sanders has refuted this position convincingly, noting especially that Abraham is presented in the Testament as a city dweller whereas the Therapeutae were strictly nonurban dwellers (according to Philo), and that the Judaism presented in the Testament is a “lowest-common-denominator Judaism” which lacks any sectarian attributes (OTP 1: 876; but cf. HJP² 3/2: 762).