by badboy 15 Replies latest jw friends
I saw an interesting article(ideally I should include a web link), it seems that it was a hurrian custom thereby a wife become the husband's sister(something like that), also abraham may have been lived in a hurrian area(Haran).
What is anyone's take on this interesting idea?
Sorry, I don't have a language/grammar decoder ring. Is there any way you could clearly communicate your thoughts?
Straightened out thinking:
Abraham was a Hurrian.
He married Sarah - who as his wife was also regarded as his sister in Hurrian tradition.
Therefore when he told Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister, technically he wasn't lying and Pharaoh ought to have known better!
Then again, Abraham only told Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister so that he wouldn't get bumped off, which suggests that the Hurrian tradition was unknown in Egypt, otherwise Pharaoh might still have had Abraham killed.
Ok that's enough thinking for me for now
Despite the deceit, the Bible still states that Sarah is a close blood relation of Abraham, specifically his half sister, and hence many modern cultures (and even the Bible itself, see Leviticus 18:9) would view her also being his wife as a form of incest. However, in some significant ancient cultures, such as the Hurrian and Egyptian cultures, biological sisters were often raised to the position of a wife in order to give the sister a greater standing in society, and this tradition is one with which Abraham would be likely to have come into contact during his migration.
On the other hand, there has been ancient tablets recently recovered from the ancient city of Mari that suggest otherwise. These ancient Semite legal records show that when a woman is married to a man, she is then formally adopted by his father as a full daughter as well[1]. Like Abraham, many ancient Semites were Nomads and it was customary for the daughter-in-law to be officially adopted as a full daughter in case her husband is to die while she is traveling with his family.
According to Genesis 12.5, Sarah left her family to set out for the land of Canaan, which puts her in this same position as suggested in the ancient tablets of Mari (a Semite city which Abraham is presumed to have visited). This suggests that Sarah was not Abrahams half-sister, but adopted sister by law. Thus, Abraham did not lie, nor did he commit incest. However, there is little question that the deception was intentional.
Still, many believe that the verse concerning the 'cover of the eye' is probably instructions that Sarah should wear a veil in order to show her marital status, as was the custom of many ancient pagan cultures. By doing this she would clear up any confusion as to her availability (yet still be able to claim that Abraham his her brother).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_wife_confused_for_a_sister
I WONDER IF ABRAHAM WAS A HURRIAN SPEAKER.
What difference do you think it would make whether he was or wasn't?
IF ABRAHAM WAS A HURRIAN SPEAKER,THEN HE DIDN'T SPEAK A SEMITIC LANGUAGE!
HOW COME HIS DESCEDANTS SPEAK A SEMITIC LANGUAGE WHEN HE DIDN'T?
I think the two options in Sad Emo's quote would allow for Abraham call Sarah his sister without being of the Hurrian culture or speaking its language.
In some significant ancient cultures, such as the Hurrian and Egyptian cultures, biological sisters were often raised to the position of a wife in order to give the sister a greater standing in society, and this tradition is one with which Abraham would be likely to have come into contact during his migration.
On the other hand, there has been ancient tablets recently recovered from the ancient city of Mari that suggest otherwise. These ancient Semite legal records show that when a woman is married to a man, she is then formally adopted by his father as a full daughter as well[1]. Like Abraham, many ancient Semites were Nomads and it was customary for the daughter-in-law to be officially adopted as a full daughter in case her husband is to die while she is traveling with his family.
The mention of Hurrians as the original inhabitants of Seir prior to the Edomites (Genesis 36:20ff; cf. 14:6; Deuteronomy 2:12,22) clearly shows that the Torah writers had strictly no clue about the older Hurrian empire -- except the name itself. That two out of three wife-sister stories are situated in a Philistine context (whereas there were no Philistines in the region before the 12th century BC) confirms that the patriarchal stories are later literary creations -- not recollections from the first part of the 2nd millenium.
patriarchal stories are later literary creations
You mean to say, the Bible contains made-up history?
