A Study of the Descriptive Aspects of Patriarchal Religion

A STUDY OF THE DISTINCTIVE ASPECTS OF PATRIARCHAL RELIGION __________________ A Paper Presented to Dr. T. J. Betts The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary __________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for 82220 __________________ by Adam J. Howell September 10, 2010 A STUDY OF THE DISTINCTIVE ASPECTS OF PATRIARCHAL RELIGION Introduction Patriarchal religion is predominantly a study of the relationship between Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their God Yahweh. One may think this statement is obvious, but unfortunately, it needs to be stated from the beginning. Many authors reject the notion of patriarchal religion based on historical reconstructions of the biblical text, therefore discounting the historicity of the biblical narrative.1 If there is no historicity in the book of Genesis, then there is no legitimate reason to study the religious practices of the patriarchs. Other scholars reconstruct the biblical texts, but see value for studying the patriarchal narratives only because they shed light on what later Israel thought to be their history and origins.2 These scholars at least attempt to study patriarchal religion even though they continue to discount the actual events narrated in Genesis 12-50. In the present study, we will seek to describe patriarchal religion as it is presented in the narrative of Genesis 12-50. Rather than attempting to reconstruct the texts we will read them as they are presented believing that the original authors presented an accurate historical account of the patriarchs and their lifestyle. This lifestyle naturally included their understanding of God and their religious practices resulting from that understanding. This task cannot be accomplished without difficulties, primarily because there is little comparative evidence in the realm of archaeology. 1 William Dever, Did God Have A Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005); William McKane, Studies in the Patriarchal Narratives (Edinburgh: Handsel Press, 1979); Keith W. Whitelam, The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History (New York: Routledge, 1996); J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 2nd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006); J. Alberto Soggin, A History of Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1984). 2 E.g. Albrecht Alt, “The God of the Fathers,” in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion ed. by Albrecht Alt (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), 3-66. 1 2 Therefore, this study is based predominantly on the biblical record and presents only minimal archaeological evidence. Since patriarchal worship of Yahweh was distinct from other neighboring religions, one will see in this study that many of the patriarchal religious practices are a response to the covenantal character of Yahweh. Although similarities exist between the religious practices of the patriarchs and their neighbors, the patriarchs demonstrate dependence on and trust in Yahweh as they carry out their cultic practices. The following characteristics of patriarchal religion find their impetus in Yahweh’s covenantal relationship with his people. Characteristics of Patriarchal Religion In this section of the present study we will seek to discover what are the distinctive aspects of patriarchal religion. We will look first at the patriarchal understanding of God, and then move to the various practices resulting from this understanding of God. Patriarchal Understanding of God (Yahweh) A fundamental problem one must address when trying to understand the patriarchal God is who that God is. Many scholars, who rule out the historicity of the patriarchs unnecessarily, look to ancient Ugarit and argue that the patriarchs worshipped the same pantheon of El gods as the Canaanites.3 These same scholars occasionally argue for “Israelite” nuances to the El pantheon, but they adamantly rule out any notion of the patriarchs’ knowledge of Yahweh. The primary argument from this camp centers on the exegesis of Exodus 6:2-3. In conjunction with the epigraphic evidence from ancient Ugarit, the case is strong that God did not reveal himself to the patriarchs as Yahweh, but that the patriarchs identified their God with the gods of the Canaanites. After examining two leading scholars who hold this view, we will look closer as some of the names of God in the patriarchal narratives to determine whom the patriarchs actually 3 Dever, Did God Have a Wife?, 252-264; F. M. Cross, “Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs,” HTR 55, no. 4 (1962): 225-59; Albrecht Alt, “The God of the Fathers;” William McKane, Studies in the Patriarchal Narratives, 195-224; Otto Eissfeldt, “Jahwe, der Gott der Väter” TL 88, no. 7 (1963): 481-90. Cf. Ignatius Hunt, The World of the Patriarchs (Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966), 70, who says, “The El of ancient Canaan hardly measures up to the El of the Pentateuch.” 3 worshiped and how they understood his character. The monumental work of Albrecht Alt provided a helpful argument for the historicity of the patriarchal narratives. However, as it pertains to the god the patriarchs worshipped, Alt is certainly lacking. Alt represents the view that as the patriarchs moved into Canaan, they infiltrated the area as separate clans or tribes, each with their own deity and cultic experience. As they entered Canaan, these pre-Israelite clans began to synchronize their worship with the local deities already giving them new El names based on their respective character.4 Only later did Israel unite in their worship of Yahweh, probably following Yahweh’s revelation to Moses in Exodus 3. This explanation naturally leads Alt to understand the various names used for God in the patriarchal narratives as expressions of the Canaanite gods worshiped by the patriarchs. Therefore, Alt views patriarchal religion as the syncretistic cult worship of Canaanite deities rather than worship of Yahweh. A second proponent of this view is Frank M. Cross, and he only modifies his view slightly from that of Alt. They both work from the same presupposition, namely, the patriarchs certainly worshiped Canaanite gods to some extent. In contrast to Alt, Cross argues that the El names for God used in the patriarchal narratives are expressions of already-existing El deities in Canaan at the time of the patriarchal arrival. These names did not arise out of the syncretistic combination of the patriarchal clan gods and the Canaanite El gods. Rather, the Canaanites used these names extensively to describe their understanding of the divine, and the patriarchs simply borrowed their language. El Elyon and El Shaddai are both common names of Canaanite deities, both of which occur in the patriarchal stories. Cross argues that Israel began to use the name Yahweh as a borrowed, abbreviated form of the Canaanite deity ´ël dù yahwì, which means “God who causes to be.”5 Regardless of how Cross determines his final understanding of the patriarchal God(s), his final conclusion is, “we must establish the identity of the god on the basis 4 Alt, “The God of the Fathers,” 9. 5 Cross, “Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs,” 255. 4 of evidence other than that of the biblical formula itself.”6 Alt and Cross fail to give full attention to the biblical data, but unfortunately, one does not have to take a strong critical stance on the biblical narrative to draw these conclusions. One of the most difficult arguments to circumvent regarding the identification of the patriarchal God is the text of Exodus 6:2-3. The passage says, “And God (~yhila { /) spoke to Moses and he said to him, ‘I am the LORD (hwhy). And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty (yD"v; lae), but by my name, LORD (hwhy), I did not make myself known to them.’” A mere preliminary reading of this passage presents ominous difficulties for one who is attempting to argue that the patriarchs had the same perception of Yahweh as the Israelites who lived in the post-Mosaic era. The issue becomes even more difficult when one reads Exodus 6:2-3 alongside Genesis 15:7, where God reveals himself to Abraham as Yahweh, who brought him out of Ur. Who then did the patriarchs worship? The God who called Abraham to leave his home identified himself to the patriarch as Yahweh, and yet when the same God appears to Moses, he tells him that he had not previously revealed himself as Yahweh. It is reasonable then that scholars feel the need to devote so much attention to this aspect of patriarchal religion. Some scholars have attempted to reconcile these apparently contradictory passages in order to argue that the patriarchs actually knew the name Yahweh. Jeffrey Cohen argues that El Shaddai in Exodus 6:3 is the combination of the two words, she, meaning “the one who has to be content,” and dai, meaning “that which is (merely) sufficient.”7 From this etymology, Cohen argues that God is revealing himself as the God who provides what is sufficient for that time, while patriarchs remained the ones who must be content with the provision God gives. Since the patriarchs never saw the fulfillment of God’s covenantal promises made with Abraham, they were continually in a state of being content with God’s present provision, and that provision was sufficient. Cohen concludes then, along with the medieval Jewish exegetes, that God revealed 6 Ibid., 236. 7 Jeffrey M. Cohen, “How God Introduced Himself to the Patriarchs,” JBQ 37, no. 2 (2009): 119-20. 5 only a particular aspect of his character to the patriarchs, namely, El Shaddai. According to Cohen, God uses this revealed name during his self-revelation to Moses (Exod 6:3) because Moses is now going to pick up the torch on behalf of the patriarchs in order to carry the promises of God forward. Moses will now be the one who continues the revelation of El Shaddai as he trusts God’s sufficiency and is content with what God gives him at the time. Cohen further argues that the niphal of “to know” in Exodus 6:3 (instead of the more common hiphil) indicates that God did in fact make his name Yahweh known to the patriarchs, but not in regards to the covenantal promises. In Cohen’s argument, had God revealed himself as Yahweh in regards to the covenantal promises, it would have implied immediate fulfillment similarly to how Moses invoking the name of Yahweh brought about immediate results against Pharaoh. Cohen applies the typical exegesis of medieval Jewish scholars who place a significant reverence on the biblical text, and a significant emphasis on the meaning of names. Cohen errs on the side of speculation, but his attempt to reconcile the evidence is commendable. A more balanced argument for reconciling these difficulties comes from Nahum Sarna and others who look at the grammar of Exodus 6:2-3. The first point that Sarna addresses is similar to Cohen in that he argues that when God says he did not reveal himself as Yahweh to the patriarchs, he is only saying that “the patriarchs did not experience the essential power associated with the name YHVH.”8 God is not saying that he did not make known to the patriarchs his name as Yahweh; rather, he did not make known to them the character of Yahweh by immediately fulfilling all of the covenantal promises made to Abraham. Sarna appeals to Isaiah 52:6 and Jeremiah 16:2 for support of this point. Sarna argues secondly from the syntax of Exodus 6:2. He says that there is clear evidence of other Near Eastern royal inscriptions in which the king introduces himself as “I am . . . .” Notable examples are “I am Mesha,” “I am 8 (1991), 31. Nahum Sarna, Exodus, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 6 Shalmaneser,” and “I am Esarhaddon.”9 Sarna argues that these introductions of “I am . . .” only have effect if the entity mentioned is already known. Consequently, had the name Yahweh not already been known in Israel, then for God to present himself anew to Moses would potentially fail to bring about the submission God intended. God revealed himself using a name that was known to Moses because it was a name known to the patriarchs. It was a name with the connotations of a great covenant and providential care throughout the patriarchal journeys, both of which Moses needed to be aware for his own task. W. J. Martin provides additional grammatical support for this argument in Exodus 6:3. The negative sentence in which it appears God did not make himself known as Yahweh does not have to be read as a direct negative.10 Rather, the sentence can be read as a rhetorical negative. In this sense, the sentence would read, “Did I not make my name, Yahweh, known to them?” Following this translation, Exodus 6:2-3 says the opposite of what critical scholars claim. Exodus 6:4 provides further evidence for this reading. ~g:w>, which begins verse 4, seems out of place immediately following a negative. On the other hand, if this construction immediately follows a positive statement (albeit a rhetorical one), then the flow of the narrative continues. Therefore, it seems more likely that the Lord is telling Moses the patriarchs were well aware of his name, Yahweh, and yet they did not necessarily experience the fullness of his covenantal name because the promises were not yet fulfilled. Although the patriarchal narratives reveal many epithetical names for God, one is not required to conclude that the covenant name Yahweh was foreign to the patriarchal understanding of God. Instead, as the patriarchs experience the covenantal faithfulness of Yahweh, they experienced his strong and consistent power (El-Shaddai). They were aware of and trusted that Yahweh would be faithful throughout all their generations (El-Olam). The 9 Ibid. 10 W. J. Martin, Stylistic Criteria and the Analysis of the Pentateuch (London: Tyndale, 1955), 18; Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 330. 7 patriarchs experienced Yahweh as the God who dwells with his people in a covenantal relationship and they named the places of theophanic vision correspondingly (El-Bethel). Perhaps some or all of these epithets were borrowed from the Canaanite El pantheon, but in the words of Vawter, the Israelites freely appropriated the names and titles of pagan deities, applying them to the one, true God. The Jewish writers reasoned that Yahweh, not the pagan gods, had the real right to be called Most High and Everlasting. Far from cheapening their theology, this procedure gives evidence of their uncompromising monotheism.11 There is no good reason to think that just because the patriarchs utilized the names of Canaanite deities indicates that Yahweh was unknown to them. The total character of God, expressed in language common to the patriarchs, was unified in the expression and self-revelation of Yahweh to the patriarchs. Consequently, the patriarchs responded to this great God in acts of worship and dedication to which we now turn. Patriarchal Altars As we move to a discussion of the specific religious practices of the patriarchs, one will see a consistent theme that the cultic activity of the patriarchs is both similar and dissimilar to the Canaanite cult. The patriarchs were very much a product of their cultural milieu. Simultaneously, they were distinct from the surrounding nations. One particular activity in which the patriarchs are similar and dissimilar to the Canaanites is the building of altars. The patriarchs regularly built altars as they traveled around ancient Palestine.12 Sometimes altars were directly connected to sacrifice (Gen 22 Isaac’s sacrifice), while others were sites of worship and homage to Yahweh. Smaller, stone-built altars are particularly indicative of the nomadic lifestyle in which the patriarchs found themselves.13 VanBuren 11 Bruce Vawter, A Path Through Genesis (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1956), 135. 12 Gen 12:7, 8; 13:4, 18; 22:9; 26:25; 28:20-22; 33:20; 35:1, 3, 7. 13 See Victor Matthews, “Pastoralists and Patriarchs,” BA 44, no. 4 (1981): 215-18 for a fine treatment of nomadic lifestyle of the patriarchs. 8 supplies evidence of Akkadian portable altars in the archaeological record.14 Although a direct correlation is impossible, the Akkadian altars demonstrate that nomadic or family worship took place in addition to community worship at the cultic centers. It is most likely that the patriarchs worshipped Yahweh using these smaller, perhaps portable altars, in more intimate family settings.15 Two thoughts support the view that the patriarchs erected small altars for their family worship. First, the patriarchs built their own altars. There is no indication in the biblical narrative that the patriarchs were skilled stone-workers capable of hewing out elaborate altars. Rather, the narratives state that the patriarchs themselves built/raised/made altars, apparently taking little time to finish them. The use of the hiphil bC,Yw: : (“erected”) in Genesis 33:20 probably indicates that the altar was made using stacked stones rather than hewn stones.16 Secondly, the altar, which Abraham built when he went to sacrifice Isaac, was evidently a quickly constructed altar (Gen 22:9). The altar built for Isaac’s sacrifice was apparently large enough to support the wood for the burnt offering and Isaac. However, the altar was also small enough for Abraham to reach out his hand to slaughter his son. Although this altar was probably larger than the other family altars, the point still stands that the patriarchs were capable of building/erecting their altars quickly and without the need of a professional. These points seem to indicate that the patriarchs could build small altars from which their families could remember the revelation of God or their providential migration into a new territory. The patriarchal use of altars also sheds light on where their worship took place. There is no evidence in Genesis 12-50 that the patriarchs worshipped in existing Canaanite temples or 14 Elizabeth D. VanBuren, “Akkadian Stepped Altars,” Numen 1 (1954): 228-34. 15 Augustine Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs, JSOTSS, vol. 277 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 61. 16 Ibid., 71. 9 cult centers.17 Rather, the patriarchs regularly built altars where altars did not already exist, indicating that they settled in non-cultic areas and worshipped Yahweh exclusively.18 The archaeological record demonstrates the differences between the altars of the Canaanite cult centers and the small family altars of the patriarchs. Many of the unearthed Canaanite altars dating to the same time as the patriarchs are large outdoor altars probably for animal sacrifices. They were relatively simple, some with four horns around the top corners.19 These altars were probably used for cultic sacrifices at temples and sanctuaries. However, some of the four-horned altars are small altars that Dever describes as incense altars since they are too small to hold a typical bovine animal sacrifice.20 These altars are perhaps similar in appearance to the patriarchal altars, but the function was likely different. There is no evidence that the patriarchs used altars for incense offerings, but it would be an argument from silence to claim they never did so. However, the distinction between the large sacrificial altars from Canaanite temples and the small patriarchal altars indicates that the patriarchs worshiped outside of these cult centers. Beyond the structure of patriarchal altars, a more important question involves their use. Why did the patriarchs build altars? The two most common reasons that the patriarchs built altars were in response to a theophany or when they moved into a new area in which to settle.21 As for theophanies, the altar was probably built as a memorial of the event that occurred there. Often, the patriarchs would “call on the name of the Lord” and/or recite a name of God indicative of his character in the previous revelation (Gen 12:8; 13:4; 26:25; 33:20; 35:1, 3, 7). Commonly, when the patriarchs would move to a new settlement, they would build an altar as a 17 Ibid., 61; Benjamin Mazar, The World History of the Jewish People, vol. 2: Patriarchs (Israel: Jewish History Publications, 1970), 240. 18 Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs, 56-60. 19 Dever, Did God Have a Wife?, 100. 20 Ibid. 21 Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs, 60, Mazar, World History, 241. 10 memorial of their settlement (Gen 12:8; 13:4; 26:25; 33:20). Some may object to this point saying that Abraham neglected building an altar at Haran when the Lord appeared to him there (Gen 12:1-4). Likewise, Abraham did not always build an altar when he relocated to a new area in Canaan. These objections are poignant, but the remainder of the evidence in the patriarchal narratives indicates that when the patriarchs did build altars, it was in response to theophany or resettlement. Therefore, one should not be pressed to explain every instance where the patriarchs fail to build an altar. After the patriarchs built their altars, it is possible they could have been used for various cultic functions. However, it is most likely that the altars were memorials used as sites of general homage to the God who was revealed at that place.22 The number of occasions when the patriarchs “call on the name of the Lord” after building an altar indicates that the altar was for general worship of Yahweh.23 By contrast, in the narrative of Isaac’s sacrifice, the altar was for sacrificial purposes. This thought, along with other references to patriarchal sacrifices, indicates that altars were occasionally used for sacrifice as well. However, the distinguishing characteristic of patriarchal worship relating to altars is that they built them following a revelation of the divine when they moved to a new settlement. In doing so, the patriarchs claimed their land for the exclusive worship of Yahweh.24 Patriarchal Sacrifices A second aspect of patriarchal religion that is important in the biblical record is 22 Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs, 61, n. 79. 23 In Pagolu’s section on patriarchal prayer, he says that the phrase “calling on the name of the Lord” was indicative of worship in a general sense rather than petitionary prayer. See Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs, 134. 24 Iain Provan, V. Phillips Long, and Tremper Longman, III, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 109; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Yahweh and Other Deities: Conflict and Accommodation in the Religion of Israel,” Interpretation 40, no. 4 (1986): 356. One must keep in mind that Blenkinsopp approaches the patriarchal stories from different historical presuppositions than the present author. Blenkinsopp argues that Israel’s earliest forms of religion were during the time of the conquest and settlement. His thought here on claiming a land for the deity remains germane. 11 sacrifice. We have briefly mentioned sacrifices already as a possible use of household altars, but we will investigate further the practice and purpose of patriarchal sacrifices in this section. The first characteristic of patriarchal sacrifices is that the head of the household performed them rather than a priest.25 This aspect of patriarchal sacrifice sheds further light on the nomadic lifestyle of the patriarchs. Because of regular migration, they would need either a “household priest” or they would need to migrate to large cultic centers in order to perform sacrifices. However, there is no evidence of either in the patriarchal narratives, and yet one reads about Abraham and Jacob, both offering sacrifices on their own terms (Gen 15:7-21; 22:1-14; 31:54; 46:1). Therefore, the nomadic lifestyle of the patriarchs even affected their sacrificial worship. Although patriarchal sacrifices were intended for worship, they were not necessarily intended to represent a specific aspect of the patriarchal relationship with God; rather, they were probably irregular expressions of general worship and homage. Several characteristics distinguish patriarchal sacrifices from those of the Canaanites. First, God initiated at least some of the sacrifices (Gen 22:1-14). In response to theophanies, the patriarchs initiated spontaneous worship at altars.26 In this sense, worship at the family altars was a response from the grateful patriarch rather than a direct command of God. As for the sacrifices of Isaac, God initiated it to test Abraham. In Canaanite sacrifices, the sacrifices were offered to appease the gods or to serve as a pious act, thus indebting the gods to act on behalf of the people. These aspects of sacrificial worship are absent from the patriarchal narratives. Secondly, patriarchal sacrifices were apparently one-time events. They were not part of a regular calendar of sacrifices and festivals. Rather, patriarchal sacrifices were in response to theophany or to make a covenantal request of God on special occasions. Thirdly, issues of cultic purity were absent from the patriarchal sacrifices. Instead, their sacrifices were based on covenant, usually between God and his people. 25 Mazar, World History, 241. 26 This thought does not disregard the fact that God indirectly initiated worship by revealing himself to the patriarchs, but in the sense of Genesis 22:1-14, the sacrifice was a direct command from God. 12 Abraham offers sacrifices because of his childlessness in response to God’s covenantal promise to give him offspring.27 Abraham also freely offers Isaac as a sacrifice as he indirectly trusts the covenantal promise of God to give him offspring. Jacob offers a sacrifice as a seal of the covenant between he and Laban. All of these sacrifices are based on a covenant either between God and man, or between two men. None of them are continuous; nor are they for the purpose of ritual purity. Based on these points, it seems that patriarchal sacrifices were for the purpose of expressing the covenantal relationship between God and his people. Whether the patriarch was expressing his obedience (Gen 22) or making a request (Gen 15), both were based in the covenantal promises of God. In this sense, patriarchal sacrifices were not part of their “regular” worship, but were probably special expressions of their covenant with God. Finally, patriarchal sacrifices show similarities to the sacrifices of their Canaanite neighbors regarding preparation and form, but not meaning. Ignatius Hunt says, “There was a basic similarity between Canaanite sacrifice and that offered by the Israelites. However, there is always the possibility that the use of similar terms did not have the same technical connotation for the Canaanites and the Hebrews.”28 Kenneth Kitchen offers an example from Middle Kingdom Egypt (2nd millennium BC) demonstrating that the patriarchal sacrifices were similar to other sacrifices offered during this time. A shipwrecked sailor, who after making it safely to shore and getting something to eat, “made a fire-stick, produced fire, and made a burnt offering to the gods.”29 This sacrifice represents similarities with the patriarchs since the sailor was probably offering a thanksgiving offering for having survived the shipwreck. In addition, the use 27 Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs, 63; Hunt, World of the Patriarchs, 81; See Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. by James B. Pritchard (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 149-50 for Ugaritic parallels in the stories of Keret and Dan’El, who also offered sacrifices for childlessness. These parallels are interesting, but one must keep in mind that the sacrifices, both in type and practice were different from that of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. 28 Hunt, World of the Patriarchs, 78-79. 29 Kitchen, On the Reliability, 328. 13 of fire probably indicates a burnt offering similar to the one that Abraham prepared for Isaac.30 Kitchen offers a second story from 1980 BC in which Mentuhotep IV sends men to get a stone sarcophagus and lid.31 The men saw a gazelle near a suitable block, and there the gazelle gave birth. The men saw this as a sign from the gods, killed the gazelle, and offered her as a thanks offering immediately. This story also parallels patriarchal sacrifices in form. The gazelle served as a burnt offering (cf. Gen 22), and the gazelle was apparently a thanksgiving offering because of the favor of the gods (cf. Gen 46:1). Both of these stories of sacrifice indicate that the sacrifices could be performed at any location rather than being restricted to cultic centers, again showing similarities to patriarchal sacrifices. These stories present contemporary parallels to the practice of patriarchal sacrifice. Although patriarchal sacrifices were similar in form to Canaanite and Egyptian sacrifices, their purpose was quite different. Richard Hess looks to 18th century BC Mari documents that indicate sacrifices were for “consecration of divine status, life passages (birth, marriage, interment), for purification, for exorcism and sorcery, for ordeals and the conclusion of contract, and for the army.”32 The only similarity in purpose between the Mari documents and the patriarchal narratives is the conclusion of contracts (Gen 31:54). Even in Jacob’s contract with Laban, there is no cultic significance, whereas Canaanite sacrifices appear to be loaded with cultic allusions. Therefore, the purpose of patriarchal sacrifices was different than that of their neighbors. Furthermore, Hunt states that Canaanite sacrifices were performed to nourish the 30 Daniel Ussishkin, “Ghassulian Temple in Ein Gedi and the Origin of the Hoard from Nahal Mishmar,” BA 34, no. 1 (1971): 29; M. Ottoson, Temples and Cult Places in Palestine (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell), 63-65, 99-101, 128-30. These scholars reference indications of ashes and animal bones near altars during excavations at Calcolithic En Gedi and Middle Bronze Megiddo, Ai, Shechem, Hazor, and Gezer. 31 Kitchen, On the Reliability, 328-29. 32 Hess, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 88. 14 deity.33 Although there is evidence in the patriarchal narratives of sacrificial meals (Gen 26:2830; 31:44-54), these meals were not intended to nourish God, but were ceremonial ratifications of covenantal contracts. Mazar says that patriarchal sacrifices were forms of peace offerings (Gen 31:54; 46:1) and thanks offerings (Gen 22:13) rather than attempts to obligate God to action.34 Hunt further compares patriarchal sacrifices with the Canaanite practice of child sacrifice in order to distinguish the two religions.35 Hunt points to evidence from Tell el-Fâr‘ah, where infants have been found buried in pottery jars under the gate complex of the city. He interprets these finds as evidence of child sacrifice, probably beseeching the gods to protect the city. Hunt sees the potential sacrifice in Genesis 22 as a polemic in the patriarchal narratives against child sacrifice.36 If Hunt is correct in his understanding of the Tell el- Fâr‘ah discoveries then patriarchal sacrifice is once again dissimilar from Canaanite sacrifices. Patriarchal sacrifices were used neither to nourish the deity, nor for protection of a city/settlement. The archaeological evidence from ancient Palestine sheds helpful light on the form of patriarchal sacrifice, but one must look to the biblical record for the purpose of patriarchal sacrifices. The patriarchs offered sacrifices in response to God’s covenantal relationship that he established with Abram when calling him out of Haran. The patriarchs sacrificed as an act of obedience (Gen 15:9-11; Gen 22). They offered sacrifices of thanksgiving after the sparing of Isaac and the news that Joseph was still alive (Gen 22; 46:1). They also offered sacrifices of peace between fellow men (Gen 31:54). In each of these instances, one is safe to conclude that the form involved sacrificial altars, wood, fire, and sometimes dismemberment (Gen 15:10). In these respects, patriarchal sacrifices were similar to their Canaanite neighbors. However, 33 Hunt, World of the Patriarchs, 81. Cf. with Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh who both offer sacrifices to nourish the deity (See Hunt, World of the Patriarchs, 81 for discussion). 34 Mazar, World History, 241. 35 Hunt, World of the Patriarchs, 78. 36 Ibid. 15 patriarchal sacrifices regularly carried a different meaning as the patriarchs made sacrifices in response to the covenantal character of God. Patriarchal Pillars/Monuments The next aspect of patriarchal worship is similar to altars discussed above. However, patriarchal pillars seem to have a slightly different function. In this section, we will also address sacred trees as monuments. In contrast to altars, which were designed to express homage and worship to God, pillars and monuments were set up predominantly as memorials. Archaeologists separate stone pillars into four categories: legal pillars, memorial pillars, commemorative pillars, and cultic pillars.37 Surprisingly, there are parallels to each of these categories in the patriarchal narratives. The pillar raised by Jacob in Genesis 31:45–48 was apparently a legal pillar representing a witness to the agreement between Jacob and Laban.38 Jacob piled a heap of stones and said that they represented the witness between he and Laban regarding the contract they just ratified. Following the expression of the contract between Jacob and Laban, the text says that Jacob offered a sacrifice and ate a meal with his kinsmen. It does not necessarily follow that Jacob offered the sacrifice on the pillar, indicating that it served a cultic function. The text merely states that the pillar serves a legal function, as a witness to the contract or perhaps a quasi-boundary marker.39 An example of a memorial pillar is the one Jacob raised beside of Rachel’s tomb. There is no indication that this pillar served as a cultic site, or that this pillar represented a legal boundary marker. That later authors mention this pillar again probably indicates that it was an 37 Pagolu, Religion of the Patriarchs, 145-50. 38 Ibid., 147, Cf. Exod 24:4; Josh 24:26-27. 39 Ibid. 16 important memorial in the life of Israel (1 Sam 10:2).40 The meaning and purpose of memorial pillars was probably very similar to the altars built by the patriarchs. They merely represent an important place or experience in their family’s life. Memorial pillars are distinct from commemorative pillars predominantly in the sense of theophany. Jacob built several pillars that represent a commemoration of divine interaction or theophany (Gen 28:18; 38:13). These pillars also serve an obscure cultic function since Jacob anointed them with oil, but the reason that the pillar was built in the first place was because of a divine encounter. That Jacob would name the place where he built the pillar Bethel indicates his recognition of God’s presence.41 He thus built a pillar commemorating his experience there. A final type of pillar erected by Jacob was apparently for cultic use (Gen 28:18; 35:14). These pillars were erected for commemorative purposes, but Jacob went further than mere commemoration. Jacob anointed these stones with oil, and on one of them, he poured a libation. Pagolu argues that Jacob anointed these stone pillars in order to separate them for cultic use.42 His argument is unconvincing though. Jacob pours the libation on the pillar prior to pouring oil on it (Gen 35:14). Furthermore, it is possible that the pillar in Genesis 28:18 is the same pillar as that in 35:14. In this case, Jacob sets up one pillar arguing for a single, irregular act as opposed to a cultic pillar for continued use. Even if they are separate pillars, there is no indication in Genesis 28:18 that the pillar there serves a cultic function. If anything, it is a commemoration of Jacob’s divine encounter. Therefore, it is difficult to support the conclusion that the oil was for the consecration of these pillars for cultic use. Even so, anointing with oil and libation are certainly cultic practices. Although it may 40 Mazar, World History, 245. 41 Pagolu provides evidence that stone pillars in Canaan were often used to worship the deity who lived in the stone. This however is not the case with Jacob. He merely names the place of his experience as a response to how God revealed himself at that place. (Pagolu, Religion of the Patriarchs, 163). Dever also tends toward this explanation of stone pillars based on extra-biblical evidence. He sees stone pillars as a “palpable symbol of the divine presence.” (Dever, Did God Have a Wife?, 119). 42 Pagolu, Religion of the Patriarchs, 164. 17 be difficult to determine Jacob’s purpose for his cultic activity, one can still conclude that these pillars were for cultic purposes. Mettinger cites many examples in the ancient Near East where oil was used to effectuate a relationship between two parties.43 This relationship was expressed as one of peace and friendship. Therefore, Sarna concludes that Jacob probably anointed the stone pillar as a “symbolic act establishing a contractual bond between Jacob and God.”44 In addition to pouring oil on the stones, Jacob makes a vow that binds him in an obligation to God (Gen 28:20-22). The close connection between Jacob anointing the stone pillar and making a vow is seen in Genesis 31:13. Therefore, this cultic function of the stone pillar probably represents Jacob’s expression and commemoration of his “contractual bond” with God. In this sense, the libation Jacob offers can be understood merely as a gift offering similar to what one would find on a patriarchal altar.45 Patriarchal stone pillars apparently served multiple functions in their religious practices. Many times, they represented a mere memorial. Other times, the pillars served as cultic objects. However, in each instance, the pillars were set up as expressions of God’s dealing with his people, either through theophany (Gen 28:18; 35:14), remembrance of a God-given matriarch (Gen 35:19-20), or an expression of thanks for God-given protection in their land (Gen 31:45-48). Each of these pillars represents the appropriate response of God’s people to his benevolent covenantal relationship. A discussion about patriarchal pillars and monuments is not complete without at least mentioning sacred trees. Trees in the patriarchal narratives often seem like side notes in the larger literary structure (Gen 12:6; 13:18; 14:13; 18:1; 21:33-34; 35:8). However, when one considers these references, one finds that trees serve similar functions as memorial pillars in 43 Mettinger, King and Messiah (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1976), 211-24. 44 Nahum Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 200. 45 Pagolu, Religion of the Patriarchs, 170. 18 patriarchal religion. Sacred trees appear to serve the combined function of altars (for worship) and pillars (as memorials). Nahum Sarna presents the best evidence that these sacred trees served some sort of worship function. Arguing from the evidence in Genesis 12:6 and 21:33–34, Sarna says that the trees were probably similar to altars since they represented the place of theophany, the place of general worship, or the place where Abraham “called on the name of the Lord.”46 Theophany, general worship, and prayer were all uses of patriarchal altars, and sacred trees seem to function similarly. Speaking of Genesis 12:6 in particular, Sarna says that sacred trees in non-Israelite circles represented the special place of divine revelation. The stump of the tree represented the “navel of the earth,” while the treetop represented the heavens. In this sense, the ANE understanding of trees represented “the bridge between the human and divine spheres, and it becomes and arena of divine-human contact.”47 It is difficult to determine if this was the exact reason for settling near trees or planting new ones, but it is certain that the patriarchal narratives mention trees in relation to theophanic visions and patriarchal responsive worship.48 The second function of trees in the life of the patriarchs is only evidenced in one passage. Genesis 35:8 mentions that Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, was buried under an oak near Bethel. Jacob then subsequently named that place “Allon-bacuth,” or “the oak of weeping.” This oak tree apparently played an important part in the burial of Deborah since it is the memorial site of her grave, and the name given to that place includes the tree. According to this evidence, one could rightly assume that at least this tree served as a funerary memorial for Deborah’s tomb, similarly to how the stone pillar served as a memorial for Rachel’s tomb. In 46 Sarna, Genesis, 149. 47 Ibid., 91. 48 Hess, Israelite Religions, 91. Richard Hess presents evidence from the 2nd millennium Egypt of a Canaanite-style temple. In the temple there were altars with decorative carvings of acorns around the side. This evidence further supports that trees had important cultic functions although their remembrance during sacrifices is not attested in the patriarchal narratives. 19 this sense the tree does not carry any cultic function, but was simply a memorial. Patriarchal Prayer Throughout the patriarchal narratives, explicit prayers, or allusions to prayers are quite common.49 According to Augustine Pagolu, patriarchal prayers are “preserved as a conversation between the patriarchs and God.”50 In this sense, the prayers of the patriarchs are an “informal dialogue.”51 The patriarchs speak to God as if speaking to a neighbor. Pagolu argues that in Genesis 15:2, when Abraham speaks to God about his lack of offspring, the introduction, “And Abram said,” indicates only a conversation rather than a formal request.52 In addition, the fact that there is no mention of an epithet for God in Genesis 18:23-33 when Abraham prays on behalf of Sodom leads one to believe that this was an informal discussion and request from Abraham rather than an attempt to formally beseech God on the grounds of individual piety or ancestral figures.53 A second aspect of patriarchal prayer that is worth noting is similar to other characteristics of patriarchal religion. Their prayers were not associated with a cultic center, but were expressed as individual, spontaneous conversations with God or in family settings.54 This aspect of patriarchal religion again coincides with their nomadic lifestyle. The patriarchs felt the freedom to engage God in conversation about the issues of life without the need of a priest or 49 E.g. Gen 15:2; 17:18; 18:23-33; 20:17; 24:12-14, 26-27, 60, 63; 25:21, 22; 27:27-29; 32:10-13; 48:1416, 20; 49:1-27. 50 Pagolu, Religion of the Patriarchs, 134. 51 Ibid., 110. See also Hunt, World of the Patriarchs, 82, who called them “spontaneous individual outbursts.” 52 Pagolu, Religion of the Patriarchs, 110. 53 The prayers recorded from ANE sources regularly refer to the pious actions of an ancestor or one’s own piety as a ground for one’s request. This is not the case with the patriarchs. Instead, they hearken back to the covenantal promises as the ground for God’s gracious response to prayers. See Pagolu, Religion of the Patriarchs, 112; Walter Brueggemann, “A Case Study in Daring Prayer,” LP 2, no. 3 (1993): 12. 54 Hunt, World of the Patriarchs, 82. 20 cult official. There is no evidence that patriarchal prayers were liturgical in nature unlike many of the prayers of the ANE.55 Instead, their prayers were individual expressions of need grounded in the covenantal relationship God had with his people. More specifically, patriarchal prayer was offered for a variety of reasons. First, the patriarchs offered prayer in response to a difficult situation or to a time in which it seemed impossible for God’s covenant to be upheld. Abraham prayed to God concerning his lack of offspring recognizing that if God did not act according to his covenantal promises, he would fail to have an heir (Gen 15:2). Isaac prayed in a similar manner regarding his desire for children (Gen 25:21). Jacob prayed prior to his encounter with Esau because of the great fear with which he approached the situation (Gen 32:9-12). Jacob’s prayer has the sound of desperation as his brother comes nearer to the meeting place. A second reason the patriarchs prayed was intercession. Abraham is the sole example of intercessory prayer, but he prayed twice on behalf of others. In Genesis 18:23–33, Abraham dialogues with God regarding the situation in Sodom. In that prayer, he beseeches God to act according to his character (Gen 18:25). Abraham’s request is grounded in God’s justice and mercy. Abraham also offered a prayer of intercession for Abimelech (Gen 20:17). The text gives no further details than that Abraham prayed for him, but the prayer was effective to heal Abimelech. A third situation in which the patriarchs prayed was when they built an altar or planted a tree. The biblical text says that the patriarchs “called on the name of the Lord” after building an altar for worship (12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25). Pagolu concludes that this phrase probably represents worship in general rather than specific requests.56 In addition to the general idea of a conversation with God and the specific aspects of patriarchal prayer listed above, the prayer of Jacob in Genesis 32:10–13 and Isaac’s blessing on Jacob in Genesis 27:27–29 shed some light on the patriarchal understanding of guilt. Augustine Pagolu again is helpful for this discussion. In Genesis 27:27–29, Isaac blesses Jacob even in the 55 See the liturgical Hymn of Aton in ANET, 370-371. 56 Ibid., 108, 134. 21 midst of an elaborate act of deception. The striking thing about this passage is that it omits any mention of Jacob’s guilt regarding his deceptive behavior. Pagolu says that for the average reader, Jacob’s guilt would be highlighted in this text, but, in fact, it is the very detail that is missing from the text.57 Therefore, one is left to conclude that the patriarchs did not have a formal understanding of guilt or the consequences of guilt in a way similar to those under Mosaic legislation. Secondly, in Genesis 32:9–12, Jacob’s grand lament fails to supply one aspect of a formal lament, namely, the confession of guilt. In a typical lament structure, the one who presents the request usually includes a confession of guilt in case he was the culprit of the present situation. However, Jacob is afraid of his encounter with Esau because of his previous deception regarding the birthright, and he fails to mention it in his personal lament. Pagolu concludes, “This clearly suggests that the patriarchal traditions are not aware of the Mosaic legislation on sin and guilt.”58 These passages seem to push Jacob’s actions under the rug with no consequences whereas under the later Mosaic legislation, there would be stern discipline for such deception. With this conception of guilt in mind, one is not surprised then to find little attention given to patriarchal sacrifices offered for sin or atonement. Although the patriarchs were recipients of a unilateral covenant with God, they were not mute characters in the story. Their prayers seem to have been a normal part of their religious activity even if they were spontaneous and individually oriented. Unlike the prayers in the ANE, patriarchal prayers were not a magical means to an end. Rather, they were expressions of trust in and dependence on their covenantal God. Patriarchal Tithes Only two passages in the patriarchal narratives indicate that the patriarchs paid tithes as part of their nomadic lifestyle. In these passages, the evidence is inconclusive as to whether 57 Ibid., 127-28. 58 Ibid., 127-28. 22 tithing was a regular part of patriarchal religion. However, ANE sources supply abundant evidence of tithing as a cultic and civil activity. In the Ur II dynasty (21st century BC), a tithe of animals and millstones was given to the god Nanna.59 This tithe represents a religious tithe present at a time relatively close to the patriarchal period. A second type of tithe is found in Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian records dating to the middle to late 19th century BC. In this period, tithes were given as an obligatory tax, as business proceeds, or as cultic rituals.60 When one reads Ugaritic sources, tithes were mainly paid in the form of taxation. These tithes do not necessarily give one a clear picture of patriarchal tithing, but that is more due to the lack of biblical evidence on the nature of patriarchal tithes. Although the patriarchal narratives contain minimal evidence on tithing, there are at least some data. In Genesis 14, Abraham pays a tenth of the spoils of war to Melchizedek. Pagolu points to ancient Sumerian documents from the dynasty of Larsa as a parallel to this type of tithe.61 In these documents, a tithe is paid following a lengthy expedition. The text of Genesis 14 does not supply any reason why Abraham paid this tithe, but only that he paid it. Kenneth Matthews says that Melchizedek recognized Abraham’s God as sovereign and King over the universe, and blesses him with appropriate language in his benediction.62 Hence, it is possible that Abraham paid this tithe to the local priest who now confesses Yahweh as his God (cf. Gen 14:22). In this sense, the tithe would closely resemble the cultic tithes of the ANE. However, since Abraham’s tithe was only a one-time payment, Sarna argues that it was not part of a ritualistic annual tithing system.63 Disregarding Pagolu’s interpretation about the nationality of 59 Ibid., 173. 60 Ibid., 175. 61 Ibid., 183. 62 Kenneth A. Matthews, Genesis 11:27-50:26 New American Commentary, vol. 1B (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 150 63 Sarna, Genesis, 110. 23 Melchizedek, he attempts to describe Abraham’s tithe as “not part of his own normal religious practice, but, being a deeply religious person, he did not hesitate to pay a tenth to the Canaanite priest-king who extended hospitality and blessing.”64 This conclusion does not indicate that Abraham began to worship the Canaanite God El-Elyon, nor does it indicate that Abraham began a new religious practice. Abraham’s tithe was a one-time gift to Melchizedek. It was a gift rather than a tax. It was voluntary, not obligatory. Therefore, one cannot conclude from this passage that tithing was part of patriarchal religion. The second passage that relates to tithing lends itself to the same conclusion regarding the patriarchal practice of tithing. In Genesis 28:22, the Bible records Jacob’s words in which he makes a vow to give a tenth back to God from all that God gives him. One is left without any information on the frequency, setting, or content of the tithe. In addition, when one reads further in Genesis, one finds that this vow is mentioned once more (Gen 31:13), but the tithe is neither fulfilled nor recalled. Therefore, it is again difficult for one to conclude that tithing was a regular part of patriarchal worship. In this instance, Jacob vows a tenth to God, but does not indicate what specifically would be given. Sarna argues that for a nomadic people, “this tithe appears to be a one-time votive offering from the flocks and the products of the soil, not an annual obligation.”65 In this sense then, Jacob’s vow of a tithe sounds much more like an offering to God rather than the annual tithing of a cultic ritual. In addition, Jacob’s vow of a tithe indicates that he would offer it as a response to God’s fulfillment of his covenant rather than as a request for God’s benevolence. Jacob says he will offer this tithe if God will be with him so that he comes again to his father’s house in peace. Jacob vowed a tithe in response to the condition that God just said he would fulfill (Gen 28:15). Therefore, Jacob’s vow of a tithe—had he actually fulfilled it—would have been an act of responsive worship, not a request for benevolence. The most that one can conclude about patriarchal tithing is that on at least one 64 Pagolu, Religion of the Patriarchs, 189. 65 Sarna, Genesis, 110. 24 occasion, a tithe was actually paid, and on another occasion, a tithe was vowed, but never paid. Jacob’s vow of a tithe that was never paid actually sheds more light on the idea of patriarchal tithing than Abraham’s tithe. However, the horizon is still unclear as to the nature, purpose, or context of patriarchal tithing. The most that can be concluded is that patriarchal tithing was voluntary, one-time gifts in response to a gracious act of God. God brought Abraham through the battles with surrounding kings, and in response, he paid a tithe to the priest-king who confesses Yahweh as the Most High. Jacob vowed to pay a tithe if God would only act according to his covenant in which he swore to be with Jacob and to bring him safely back to his land. These references to tithing indicate that tithing was not a regular religious practice for the patriarchs. And yet, this conclusion about tithing is what one would expect from a nomadic people who distanced themselves from foreign cultic centers (in which tithing was an annual religious practice) and “urban” centers (in which taxation tithes would be prevalent). Patriarchal Vows Only two passages in the patriarchal narratives mention a vow, and they refer to the same vow (Gen 28:22; 31:13). Similarly to patriarchal tithing, little evidence exists that would indicate vows were a regular part of patriarchal religion. That Jacob would make a vow and not Abraham or Isaac perhaps indicates that Jacob was more familiar with the vows of his ANE neighbors. Pagolu present significant evidence of ANE vows that appear quite similar to Jacob’s.66 Some of the similarities are that the vow involved cultic actions (commitment to the deity, building a pillar, paying a tithe) and the vow arose out of a dire situation in which Jacob pleads for help from God.67 However, one is hard pressed to conclude that this type of vow was a regular part of patriarchal worship. An examination of the passage may shed some light on the nature of Jacob’s vow. 66 Pagolu, Religion of the Patriarchs, 193-199. 67 Mazar explicitly calls this a “cultic vow” due to the cultic expressions found in it. See Mazar, World History, 241. 25 The context of the vow is that Jacob has just seen a vision from the Lord, and the Lord has promised to be with him, and to bring him safely back into the land that he swore to his family. In addition to land, God mentions other covenantal promises like offspring and blessing. Following this vision, Jacob performs the typical patriarchal cultic act of erecting a pillar. However, in this instance, he goes further and makes a vow that if God will uphold his end of the covenant, then Jacob will recognize Yahweh as his God and he will subsequently perform more cultic acts. Sarna describes well the elements of this vow. The commitment to Yahweh is a resolution to the vow, the stone pillar is a witness of the vow, and the tithe is a one-time gift in thanks for God’s provision.68 Some interesting features of this vow begin to surface when placed in the larger context of patriarchal religion. We have already seen the regular practice of setting up pillars. Pillars were erected as memorials, to commemorate a divine encounter, and as a legal witness in contractual agreements. Each of these elements of patriarchal pillars could be a reason for Jacob’s vowing to set up a pillar. Therefore, this element of the vow is not surprising; rather, it seems to be a normal patriarchal practice that Jacob just happens to bind with a vow. Second, Jacob’s vow of allegiance to Yahweh following Yahweh’s covenantal provision seems to be redundant. God just told Jacob that he would do the very things upon which Jacob conditions his vow (Gen 28:15). Therefore, Jacob’s vow is only a more explicit expression of the covenantal relationship between he and Yahweh, similarly to how altars, pillars, monuments, prayers, etc. are all grounded in God’s covenantal relationship.69 Hence, the only element of this vow that is unique to patriarchal religion is the vow of a tithe. As we saw in the previous section, Jacob apparently never fulfilled this part of the vow, and so we should not understand it as a vital part of the vow, nor as a vital part of patriarchal religion. Since two of the three elements of the vow 68 Sarna, Genesis, 200-201. 69 Matthews says that Jacob was merely asking God to fulfill his covenantal, “self-imposed” obligations that were just revealed in the dream sequence. See Matthews, Genesis, 454). 26 are regular patriarchal religious practices, and since the third element is inconsequential, one could argue that Jacob’s vow expresses nothing more than his explicit recognition of the greatness of God’s covenant as it was expressed in his dream. With this understanding of the passage, one can draw at least two conclusions about patriarchal vows. First, vows were not a regular part of patriarchal religion as a cultic practice. Pagolu points out that for Israel, vows were made in the context of prayer, but the fulfillment of the vow implied a cultic context.70 However, since two of the three elements of Jacob’s vow were already part of the nomadic, cultic practices of the patriarchs, and since the third element was never fulfilled, one should not press Jacob’s vow into a cultic fulfillment. Rather, it was a one-time vow that represented very clearly Jacob’s commitment to Yahweh and his devotion to maintain patriarchal religious practices apart from Canaanite cult centers. Secondly, Jacob’s vow was grounded in the revelation of God’s unconditional covenant as it was expressed in Jacob’s dream. As we have seen before, elements of patriarchal religion find their foundation in God’s covenantal promises and action. The same is true for vows. Jacob does not make this vow as if he is the one who by his pious cultic activity is going to bring about God’s blessings.71 Rather, God is the one who applies these “self-imposed” obligations upon himself and promises to fulfill them. Therefore, one understands Jacob’s vow as an expression of his commitment to God and to regular, common patriarchal religious practices. Patriarchal Understanding of Death and the Afterlife The final aspect of patriarchal religion for this study is the patriarchal understanding of death and the afterlife. Many passages in the patriarchal narratives record death and burial.72 70 Pagolu, Religion of the Patriarchs, 199. 71 Pagolu incorrectly asserts that Jacob makes a vow in line with his character as a bargainer and trickster. This however is not the context of this vow even though he does not fulfill every element of the vow. See Pagolu, Religion of the Patriarchs, 212-213. 72 Gen 23; 24:67; 25:7-10; 35:8, 19; 35:29; 47:29-30; 49:29-32; 50:5, 13, 25. 27 These passages present a vague, but multi-faceted view of the patriarchal understanding of death. First, there is evidence that the patriarchs believed in an afterlife following death. Hunt points out the great care with which the patriarchs buried their dead. He indicates that they believed in an afterlife and they wanted their ancestors to make it there.73 The presence of a family cave and the expression “gathered to their people/ancestors” also indicate that the patriarchs believed in an afterlife.74 Some argue that Joseph’s embalming Jacob while in Egypt was evidence of a belief in an afterlife, but it is more likely that Joseph was preparing his father for the long journey back to the family land.75 None of this evidence for a belief in an afterlife gives one any more understanding on what that afterlife looked like for the patriarchs, but it is important for their religious purposes to recognize that they believed in an afterlife. Second, there is no indication that the patriarchs thought of the dead as causing impurity or defilement.76 Pagolu argues from Genesis 23 and 50 where mourning rituals are involved in order to demonstrate this aspect of the patriarchal understanding of death. The patriarchs were not afraid to handle or transport the dead. They brought the dead to the family cave with no indication that they performed ceremonial cleansings either for the dead or for themselves. They performed lengthy mourning periods for the dead instead of burying them immediately. Therefore, the patriarchs were apparently unconcerned with ceremonial impurity caused by the dead. Third, the patriarchs performed a sort of mourning ritual for the dead, at least on two occasions (Gen 23:2; 50:10). In these instances, the text uses the cultic language of dps and 73 Hunt, World of the Patriarchs, 93. 74 Pagolu, Religion of the Patriarchs, 77; Hunt, World of the Patriarchs, 92. Klass Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, vol. 219 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Brecker, 1986), 240-241. 75 Eun Chul Kim, “Cult of the Dead and the Old Testament Negations of Ancestor Worship,” AJT 17, no. 1 (2003): 4-5. 76 Pagolu, Religion of the Patriarchs, 230. 28 hkb probably to indicate a ritualistic mourning. Some ANE texts indicate that mourning rituals involved some sort of descent into the netherworld, but Pagolu argues, to the contrary, that “mourning” and “weeping” indicate only a specified period of mourning.77 In Genesis 50:10, one discovers that the great company who went to bury Jacob mourned for seven days, again indicating a ritual of some type. Although these texts are vague regarding the nature of patriarchal mourning for the dead, Klingbeil argues that ritual texts are often intentionally vague because they are written to an audience who already understood the ritual.78 Therefore the author of the narrative needed only to indicate that the patriarchs mourned rather than explaining the details of the mourning ritual. The final aspect to address in regards to the patriarchal understanding of death and the afterlife is the “cult of the dead.” Some scholars argue that the patriarchs participated in the cult of the dead similarly to the Canaanite cult. In this cult, the thought was that mourning rituals and caring for the dead brought nourishment and vitality to the dead in the afterlife.79 Luker points to the presence of a gravestone at Rachel’s tomb and the tree near Deborah’s tomb as indications of the activity of the cult of the dead. He argues from 1 Samuel 10:2 that the stone at Rachel’s tomb was shiny because of the pilgrimages to her tomb when people touched her gravestone in hopes of gaining her blessings.80 This interpretation is based on a faulty reading of 1 Samuel 10:2, and the patriarchal narratives only indicate that the pillar at Rachel’s tomb was a memorial, not a cultic object. In relation to the cult, the tree at Deborah’s grave is equally as insignificant as Rachel’s grave memorial since she was relatively unimportant in the overall religious activity 77 Ibid., 79. 78 Gerald A. Klingbeil, “Altars, Ritual and Theology – Preliminary Thoughts on the Importance of Cult and Ritual for a Theology of the Hebrew Scripture,” VT 54, no. 4 (2004): 513. 79 Pagolu, Religion of the Patriarchs, 84; P. S. Johnston, “The Underworld and the Dead in the Old Testament” (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1993), 159. 80 Luker, “Rachel’s Tomb,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary ed. by David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 5:609. 29 of the patriarchs.81 The presence of the cult of the dead in patriarchal religion can be refuted in several ways. First, if the cult of the dead existed for the patriarchs, it is likely that they would bury all of their family members in the family cave where they could be nourished and cared for together. However, the patriarchs do not bury Ishmael or Rachel in the family cave (Gen 25:17; 35:19), and Joseph’s bones end up being buried in Shechem (Josh 24:32). Secondly, as mentioned above, the verbs for mourning and weeping were more likely expressions of a normal period of mourning, but not overly cultic. Thirdly, there is no indication that the patriarchs venerated their dead ancestors.82 Rather, they seem to have offered them a respectful burial and allowed life to move on. Therefore, it is unlikely that the patriarchs participated in the Canaanite cult of the dead. The patriarchs did not take death lightly since they understood there to be a life after death. Their exact understanding of that afterlife is difficult to determine from the texts in the Bible. However, because of their understanding of the afterlife, the patriarchs mourned for their dead, took great care to bury their dead, and buried them in the family caves. For those who were not buried in the family cave, they commemorated the death with a pillar or a tree (Gen 35:8; 35:19). Although ritual action may have been present in patriarchal mourning periods, there is no indication that the patriarchs participated in the cult of the dead in order to nourish and guide their ancestors in the afterlife. Conclusion It is certainly true that patriarchal religion parallels Canaanite religion on several fronts. What else would one expect from those men who lived in the area of such cultic ritual and practice? Although patriarchal religion parallels Canaanite religion, the present study argued 81 Pagolu, Religion of the Patriarchs, 84. 82 Ibid., 81. 30 that patriarchal religion was distinctive, primarily because the cultic activity of the patriarchs was based in the covenantal character of God rather than in an attempt to appease a pantheon of fickle gods. God revealed himself to the patriarchs as Yahweh, their covenantal God. Perhaps Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob borrowed names of Canaanite deities to speak of Yahweh’s revealed character, but regardless of if they did, Yahweh was still the God of the patriarchs. Hence, the religious and cultic practices of the patriarchs mimicked this covenantal relationship with Yahweh more than they mimicked Canaanite worship. These great men of Israel’s history laid the ground for future generations of God’s people to respond to their covenantal God with reverence, fear, and appropriate worship. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abraham and Family: New Insights into the Patriarchal Narratives. Edited by Hershel Shanks. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2000. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. Edited by James B. Pritchard. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. The World History of the Jewish People, vol. 2: Patriarchs. Edited by Benjamin Mazar. Israel: Jewish History Publications, 1970. Albertz, Ranier. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period: From the Beginnings to the End of the Monarchy, vol. 1. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1994. Albright, William F. “Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 163 (1961): 36-53. Albright, William F. “From the Patriarchs to Moses, Part 1.” Biblical Archaeologist 36, no. 1 (1973): 5-33. Albright, William F. “From the Patriarchs to Moses, Part 2.” Biblical Archaeologist 36, no. 2 (1973): 48-76. Alt, Albrecht, “The God of the Fathers.” In Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, 3-66. Translated by R.A. Wilson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Yahweh and Other Deities: Conflict and Accommodation in the Religion of Israel.” Interpretation 40, no. 4 (1986): 354-66. Bloch-Smith, E. Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 123. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1992. Bray, Jason S. “Genesis 23 – A Priestly Paradigm for Burial.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 60, no. 4 (1993): 69-73. Brueggemann, Walter. “A Case Study in Daring Prayer: Genesis 32:9-12.” Living Pulpit 2, no. 3 (1993): 12-13. Butterworth, Michael. “Revelation of the Divine Name.” Indian Journal of Theology 24, no. 2 (1975): 45-52. Chinitz, Jacob. “Death in the Bible.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 32, no. 2 (2004): 98-103. 31 32 Cohen, Jeffrey M. “How God Introduced Himself to the Patriarchs.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 37, no. 2 (2009): 118-20. Cross, Frank M. “Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs.” Harvard Theological Review 55, no. 4 (1962): 225-59. Dever, William G. Did God have A Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Eissfeldt, Otto. “Jahwe, der Gott der Väter.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 88, no. 7 (1963): 481-90. Hess, Richard S. Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Hunt, Ignatius. The World of the Patriarchs. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966. Jay, Nancy. “Sacrifice, Descent, and the Patriarchs.” Vetus Testamentum 38, no. 1 (1988): 52-70. Johnston, P. S. “The Underworld and the Dead in the Old Testament.” PhD. diss., Cambridge, University, 1993. Kim, Eun Chul. “Cult of the Dead and the Old Testament Negation of Ancestor Worship.” Asian Journal of Theology 17, no. 1 (2003): 2-16. Kitchen, Kenneth A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Kitchen, Kenneth A. “The Patriarchal Age.” Biblical Archaeology Review 21 (1995): 48-57. Klingbeil, Gerald A. “Altars, Ritual and Theology – Preliminary Thoughts on the Importance of Cult and Ritual for a Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures.” Vetus Testamentum 54, no. 4 (2004): 495-515. Lewis, Theodore J. Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. Harvard Semitic Monographs, vol. 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Luker, “Rachel’s Tomb.” Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5, 608-609. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Manley, G. T. “The God of Abraham.” Tyndale House Bulletin 14 (1964): 3-7. Martin, W. J. Stylistic Criteria and the Analysis of the Pentateuch. London: Tyndale, 1955. Matthews, Kenneth A. Genesis 11:27-50:26. The New American Commentary vol. 1B. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2005. Matthews, Victor H. “Pastoralists and Patriarchs.” Biblical Archaeologist 44, no. 4 (1981): 21518. 33 May, Herbert. “The God of My Father: A Study of Patriarchal Religion.” Journal of Bible and Religion 9, no. 3 (1941): 155-58. McKane, William. Studies in the Patriarchal Narratives. Edinburgh: The Handsel Press, 1979. Mettinger, T. N. D. King and Messiah. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1976. Miller, J. Maxwell and John H. Hayes. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 2nd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. Ottoson, M. Temples and Cult Places in Palestine. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1980. Pagolu, Augustine. The Religion of the Patriarchs. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 277. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Petersen, David L. “Genesis and Family Values.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 1 (2005): 5-23. Provan, Iain, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman, III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Rendsburg, Gary A. “Notes on Genesis 35.” Vetus Testamentum 34, no. 3 (1984): 361-66. Rooker, Mark F. “Dating of the Patriarchal Age: The Contribution of Ancient Near Eastern Texts.” In Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts, pp. 217-36. Edited by David M. Howard and Michael A Grisanti. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003. Ross, Allen P. “Did the Patriarchs Know the Name of the Lord?” In Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts, pp. 323-39. Edited by David M. Howard and Michael A Grisanti. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003. Ross, Allen P. “Studies in the Life of Jacob, Part 1: Jacob’s Vision: The Founding of Bethel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 142, no. 567 (1985), 224-37. Ross, Allen P. “Studies in the Life of Jacob, Part 2: Jacob at the Jabbok, Israel at Peniel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 142, no. 568 (1985): 338-54. Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis. JPS Torah Commentary Series. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Sarna, Nahum M. Exodus. JPS Torah Commentary Series. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991. Selman, Martin J. “The Social Environment of the Patriarchs.” Tyndale Bulletin 27 (1976), 11436. Soggin, J. Alberto, A History of Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1984. 34 Spronk, Klaas. Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Alter Orient und Altes Testament, vol. 219. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1986. Stern, Ephraim. “Pagan Yahwism: The Folk Religion of Ancient Israel.” Biblical Archaeology Review 27, no. 3 (2001): 21-29. Tappy, Ron E. “Recent Interpretation of Ancient Israelite Religion.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 123, no. 1 (2003): 159-67. Tsan, Tsong-Sheng. “The Family Religion in Ancient Israel – Ancestor Cult.” Taiwan Journal of Theology 23 (2001): 67-80. Ussishkin, D. “The ‘Ghassulian’ Temple in En Gedi and the Origin of the Board from Nahal Mishmar.” Biblical Archaeologist 34, no. 1 (1971): 23-39. Van Buren, Elizabeth D. “Akkadian Stepped Altars.” Numen 1 (1954): 228-34. Vawter, Bruce. A Path Through Genesis. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1956. Warner, Sean M. “The Patriarchs and Extra-Biblical Sources.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2 (1977): 50-66. Wenham, Gordon J. “The Religion of the Patriarchs.” In Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, 161-195. Edited by A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980. Whitelam, Keith W. The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History. New York: Routledge, 1996. Wifall, Walter R. “El Shaddai or El of the Fields.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92, no. 1 (1980); 24-32. Wyatt, Nicolas. “The Meaning of El Roi and the Mythological Dimension in Genesis 16.” Scandanavian Journal of Theology 8, no. 1 (1994): 141-51.