More of Abraham in Hinduism

Name
Email
Detail
Security Code:	Type the two words:Type what you hear:Incorrect. Try again.

Disclaimer: The AMAIC does not necessarily endorse every view expressed in this post, see e.g. further comment in red below (Damien F. Mackey).

Abraham: Genealogy

Abraham’s story is structured as follows:

• We show that the Indian story of Rama runs parallel to that of Biblical Abraham.
• Rama’s story is mostly placed in the Ganges basin, Central India and Sri Lanka. Our proposition is that Rama-Abraham is the same person who lived in the Indus Valley. We give some key features that suggest that the Indian story may indeed be located here.
• The place-names in Abraham’s story are examined by their descriptions pre- and post-Exodus. It is shown that the descriptions at the two points are qualitatively different. This leads to the conclusion that the pre-Exodus names were carried to Palestine.
• The place-names are located in the Indus Valley and compared with the conventional locations in West Asia.
• The social and economic context described in the Bible is situated in the Indus and West Asian contexts.
• The philosophic contribution of Abraham is situated in the Indus and West Asian contexts.

Rama-Abraham equivalence

The Semitic tradition regarding Abraham is contained mostly in the holy book of Bible. The Indian tradition is much soft. Different versions of the Ramayana are found in different parts of India. The dominant and most influential version is of Valmiki. The Jaina tradition also gives Rama’s story in Vimalsuri’s Paumcariyam. There are more versions in Southeast Asia—Indonesia etc. We have relied on the Valmiki and Vimalsuri versions here. We rely on the more popular Valmiki in the main and refer to Vimalsuri only where there is a point of difference that needs elucidation.
The limited objective here is to show that the Biblical story of Abraham and that of Rama has great similarities. The implication is that they may be derived from a common kernel. Both Valmiki’s Ramayana and Vimalsuri’s Paumcariyam are huge volumes running into 500-plus pages. Abraham’s story in the Bible is contained in barely 20 pages of Genesis 11-25. Obviously all narratives of the Rama story are not found in the Bible. The converse is also true. Some narratives of the Bible are not found in Rama’s story. This need not deter us, however, since there is a long hiatus in the transmission of these texts. Further, we draw the parallels not to ‘prove’ the identity of Abraham and Rama but only to establish such a possibility. The reader is to draw his own conclusions.

From Ur of the Chaldeans to Haran
The Bible tells us Terah had three sons—Abraham, Nahor and Haran. Haran’s son was Lot. Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans. Terah migrated from Ur to Haran with Abram, Nahor and Lot. Terah died at Haran (Gen 11.27-32).
The Indian version is identical except that Dasaratha had four sons—Rama, Lakshmana, Bharata and Shatrughna. We shall show later that the description of Lakshmana matches that of Biblical Lot. The difference is that Terah had 3+1 accompaniments while Dasaratha had 4.
Valmiki says Dasaratha reestablished Ayodhya, the Biblical Haran, on a larger scale than earlier (Bal 5.9). He gives no details of what such reestablishment means though, it must be admitted, the ambience is of larger scale only. But Vimalsuri gives details that are closer to the Bible. He says that Dasaratha lived in the fear of Ravana—whom we will encounter as the Egyptian Pharaoh later. Then he married Kaikeyi in a swyamvara and returned to Saket—another name for Ayodhya—thereafter (23.16, 24.34). This entry to Ayodhya-Saket may be mentioned in the Bible as migration from Ur of the Chaldeans to Haran. Dasaratha dies at Ayodhya-Haran in both narratives as also in the Bible.
Another small point of difference is that the Biblical narrative mentions the migration of Abram and Sarai with Terah from Ur of the Chaldeans to Haran which means that Abram and Sarai were married at Ur. Vimalsuri, on the other hand, mention this marriage after migration to Ayodhya (28.129).

Haran to Bethel
The Biblical narrative continues with Abraham migrating from Haran to Canaan along with Sarah and Lot. Within Canaan he travels to Shechem, ‘Terebinth tree of Moreh’ and settles between Bethel and Ai. Bethel has mountains on the East. Here there was famine and Abraham went to the South to Egypt. In Egypt he asks Sarah to mention she was his sister so that the Egyptians will not kill him. Sarah was, as expected by Abraham, taken to the Pharaoh. But the Pharaoh was plagued with great plagues. He then returned Sarah to Abraham and sent him away with his possessions. Abraham returns to Bethel (Gen 12.5-13.3).
This story contained in 16 verses in the Bible occupies about 300 pages each in both Valmiki and Vimalsuri. We give here only the key similarities. Rama is asked to leave for the forests for 14 years by his father. He, Sita and Lakshmana travel for a long time in the forests and in the end settle at Panchvati with River Godavari and mountains nearby (Aranya 16.13-14). This is similar to Bethel and Ai of the Bible.
Sita is abducted by Ravana at Panchvati. Rama attacks Ravana’s Lanka and rescues Sita and returns with her to Ayodhya. They pass through Panchvati, i.e. Biblical Bethel, where Sita was abducted (Yuddha 123.45). Here there is a difference. Rama moves on from Panchvati to Ayodhya-Haran and further narrative takes place from Ayodhya while the Bible mentions rest of story with Bethel as the center. Another difference is that the Biblical narrative mentions Rama’s reluctant acquiescence to Sarah being taken to the Pharaoh while the Indian texts mention her being abducted. The common thread is that of Abraham-Rama’s wife being taken to the foreign King.
An important statement in the Bible is Abraham’s statement that Sarah is his sister. In later reference to Abimelech he explicitly states Sarah is daughter of his father but not daughter of his mother (Gen 20.12). The main Indian tradition has no such story. However, Jinsenacharya in Jaina Mahapuranam says that … [add Mahapuranam]. Further, Sita’s birth is shrouded in mystery in Valmiki Ramayana. It is possible this has something to do with birth of Sita.

Sequence of Lot’s separation to Sarah’s death
The Bible gives five key events after Abraham’s return from Egypt.
• Abraham and Lot separate due to strife between their herdsmen. Lot is captured by Chedorlaomer king of Elam and then rescued by Abraham. Lot dies (Gen 13-14).
• Abraham journeys to Gerar in Kadesh in the land of Philistines. Sarah is taken to king Abimelech and then released (Gen 20). Then a friendship is made between Abimelech and Abraham (Gen 21.32).
• Hagar is expelled. Her son becomes an archer in the wilderness (Gen 21-14-20).
• Abraham undertakes to sacrifice Issac (Gen 22).
• Sarah dies at Kirjath Arba. She is buried in land bought by Abraham (Gen 23).
These five modules are found with some variation in both Valmiki and Vimalsuri but the order is different as shown in Table below:

Order of four modules in Gen 13-23

Order in genesis	Valmiki (Numbers refer to sequence in the narrative)	Vimalsuri (Numbers refer to sequence in the narrative)
1 Separation of Abraham and Lot and latter’s death	5 Sage Durvasa visits Rama and Lakshmana is expelled.	5 Lakshmana is in coma upon being told of Rama’s death and dies.
2 Conflict and friendship with Abimelech of Philistines	2 Shatrughna attacks Madhurapuri and conquers it.	1 Shatrughna attacks Madhurapuri and conquers it.
3 Hagar expelled. Son becomes an archer.	1 Sita is expelled. Sons Lav and Kush become warrior.	2 Sita is expelled. Her sons launch war against Rama’s kingdom and are united with him.
4 Isaac’s sacrifice.	3 Rama undertakes Aswamegha Yajna.	3 (Lavan and Ankush attack Ayodhya and are united with Rama).
5 Sarah dies and is buried.	4 Sita is subjected to fire test and then sinks into the earth.	4 Sita undergoes fire test and becomes ascetic.

Valmiki’s Uttar Kanda, where these stories are found, is known to be a later addition. Hence, change in sequence of modules is pardonable. The sequence of Bible and Vimalsuri is similar except for interchange of modules 1 and 2. Having noted this difference in sequence, we now proceed to show their similarities.

Separation of Abraham and Lot and latter’s death
There was strife between herdsmen of Abraham and Lot after Abraham’s return from Egypt. Lot thereupon decides to settle in the plains of Jordan while Abraham remains at Canaan. Subsequently Lot is captured by King Chedorlaomer from Sodom. Abraham rescues Lot. Thereafter Lot lives in Sodom which is destroyed by God but Lot escapes to Zoar where his daughters get him drunk and cohabit with him to produce sons. Thereafter Lot is not mentioned in the Bible. One presumes he died (Gen 12.7, 14, 18.20 and 19.30).
The story in Valmiki Ramayana is very short. Rama was in serious discussion at one time. He appointed Lakshmana to guard the gates and ensure no one entered. At that very time Sage Durvasa visits and seeks audience with Rama. Lakshmana is caught in a dilemma. He decides to allow Durvasa to meet Rama, who expels him for this misdeed. Lakshmana controls his breath and dies (Uttara 105-106). The theme of Abraham-Lot conflict is found here.
Vimalsuri gives the story as follows: Two Angels decide to test the love of Rama and Lakshmana for each other. They come to Lakshmana and in jest inform him that Rama has died. Thereupon Lakshmana enters a coma and is not revived despite medical treatment and dies (110). Lakshmana’s going into coma resonates with Lot’s daughters getting him drunk. Conflict between Abraham and Lot is missing here but Lakshmana goes into coma and dies which is similar to Lot getting drunk and thereafter not being heard of in the Bible.

Conflict and friendship with Abimelech of Philistines
Abraham sojourns in Gerar in the land of Philistines after return from Egypt. Again he asks Sarah to say she is his sister and she is taken to the king and subsequently released upon knowing she is Abraham’s wife. Thereafter, Abimelech comes to Abraham and makes a treaty of friendship (Gen 20, 21.22-32).
The parallel in Valmiki possibly lays in Shatrughna’s attack on Madhurapuri. The common link is provided by the seafaring character of the Philistines. The King of Madhurapuri is son-in-law of Lanka which is also a seafaring country. However, Shatrughna, unlike Abraham, kills the king of Madhurapuri. This episode does not close with friendship (Uttara 69). Vimalsuri gives an identical story (87).
The similarity between the Biblical and Indian narrative is admittedly tenuous. The common point is another conflict with seafaring people after return from Egypt-Lanka.

Hagar expelled. Son becomes an archer
Sarah did not have a child till this time. Sita, likewise, also did not have a child till this time.
Sarah asks Abraham to go into her maid Hagar who bears Ishmael. Soon thereafter Sarah bears Issac. Thu Abraham has two sons. Likewise Rama has two sons Lav and Kush according to Valmiki or Lavan and Ankush according to Vimalsuri. The common point is that Abraham-Ram has two sons.
Abraham expels maid Hagar and her son Ishmael who becomes an archer (Gen 22.20). Similarly, Sita is expelled by Rama and bears Lav and Kush, who become great warriors. The difference is that in the Biblical account Hagar is expelled after the birth of the two sons while in the Indian account they are born after Sita is expelled.
Another difference is that Abraham has three wives—Sarah, Hagar and Keturah whom he marries later. Valmiki, however, says Rama had only one wife—Sita. This is extolled as a virtue. Rama wanted to undertake the Aswamegha sacrifice and that required presence of his wife. Then he makes a golden statue of Sita to complete the rites. This is contradictory to the Biblical narrative. However, this is partly nullified by Vimalsuri’s assertion that Rama had four wives—Sita, Prabhavati, Ratinibha and Sridama (91.18).

Isaac’s sacrifice
Abraham then received a call from God asking him to sacrifice his son Issac. Abraham proceeds to do the same (Gen 22).
The parallel story in Valmiki Ramayana is of Rama undertaking Aswamegha Yajna (Uttara 91-92). There is no story of sacrificing son Issac though. Rama is united with sons Lav and Kush during this sacrifice. Vimalsuri mentions the same uniting with sons during attack by the sons and mentions no sacrifice (99-100).
The common strand is that of a sacrifice (Bible and Valmiki). This sacrifice is associated with sons—in Isaac’s sacrifice or in the union of sons with father.

Sarah dies and is buried
Sarah dies at Kirjath Arba (Hebron) and Abraham “came to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her” (Gen 23.2). The tone is as if Sarah died away from Abraham and he ‘came’ to mourn for her.
The death of Sita is more dramatic in the Indian tradition. Rama asks her to take oath of chastity in public. She does this and enters Rasatala—the depths—which is similar to being buried in the earth (Uttara 97.19-20). Vimalsuri, however, says Sita became an ascetic (102.46).
Abraham dies soon thereafter and is buried with Sarah (25.8-9). Rama dies soon thereafter in the Indian tradition as well.

Joseph in Goshen
The Bible gives the following genealogy of Abraham’s descendants: Abraham-Issac-Jacob-Joseph. Joseph is appointed Zapanath-Paaneah or the Chief Minister (Gen 41.45). The Hebrews are given the land of Goshen to live in. Their descendants are enslaved and suffer for 400 years when Moses leads them out of the Pharaoh’s tyranny in the Exodus.
The Indian tradition has no similar story of Joseph. We shall show in the next chapter that Moses’ story is similar to that of Krishna in the Indian tradition. We do have a link to show a similar genealogical line. We have previously shown the similarity of the two genealogies as follows: Raghu-Shighrag-Nahusa-Dasaratha-Rama.
According to the Indian tradition, Nahusa’s another son was Yayati. From him the Yadus descended among whom Krishna was born (Mani 420). Thus both traditions confirm the descent of Moses from Abraham’s line. The difference is that Bible tells descent from Abraham while the Indian tradition from his grandfather Nahusa.
Corroborating evidence is that of Ekavira who falls 6th in the lineage from Nahusa. Joseph also falls 6th from Nahor. The correspondence is given below:

Biblical Name	Indian Name of Rama’s Line	Indian Name of Yadu Line (Mani 269)
Reu or Raghai	Raghu	Raghu
Serug	Shighrag	Shighrag
Nahor	Nahusa	Nahusa
Terah	Dasaratha	Yayati
Abram	Rama	Yadu
Issac		Sahasrajit
Jacob		Satajit
Joseph		Ekavira

We have a great confirmation from Jaina tradition. Gunabhadra gives the following details of descenadants of Rama:
Sita had eight sons of pious nature named Vijayaram etc. Of these the seven eldest sons did not accept kingship thus they gave kingship of Mithila to the youngest named Ajitanjaya. They retreated to the forest named Siddhartha of the city of Ayodhya (3.68.705-7).
Here we have the kernel of Joseph’s story—eight sons of which the youngest gets kingship.
There is some vague similarity between the story of Joseph and Ekavira (Mani 269). Ekavira was born on earth from a mare that had been expelled from the heavens for her not listening attentively to Vishnu. Rachel similarly bears Joseph while Joseph is working for Laban to pay for his wife Rachel’s bride price i.e. Jacob is not born in his own true house (Gen 30.22-24).
Infant Ekavira is abandoned by her mare and horse parents and adopted by King Satajit who was doing penance for a son. This could possibly a reference to Joseph’s adoption by the Pharaoh.
Ekavira is crowned by Satajit. Joseph is given the coloured tunic and is the favourite of father Jacob.
Ekavira is the founder of the Hehaya dynasty. Joseph is the founder of the Hebrew peoples in Goshen. The name Ekavira means ‘lone warrior’ which fits Joseph well.
Another interesting episode regarding the Hehaya dynasty is like this. The Hehaya kings gave huge gifts to their priests the Bhargavas. In due course the Bhargavas became rich. The Hehaya were in difficulty at one time. They asked Bhargavas for a loan. The latter refused. Subsequently the Hehaya were in trouble. This episode is similar to Israel first being comfortable in Goshen and then being enslaved by the Pharaoh.
Admittedly the correspondence is weak. Yet, I felt it may be mentioned for further study by other scholars. This much is clear that the two descriptions are parallel and non-conflicting.

Assessing similarities and differences
There are many points of similarities between the Biblical account of Abraham and Indian story of Rama. There are many differences also. The difference, however, have to be evaluated in relation to the West Asian correspondence. Our objective is to examine whether Abraham lived in the Indus Valley or in West Asia. Let us examine the evidence for Abraham in the West Asia.

Linear versus parallel dynasties
The evidence for Abraham in West Asia most presented on ‘stand alone’ basis i.e. the descriptions given in the Bible are tallied with the archaeological evidence obtained in West Asia. The evidence is considerable. There is a good possibility that Abraham traversed these lands. But a sample of one is problematic. There is some description and it matches somewhat with the archaeological evidence. That leads to no conclusion. A fit of 20 percent is ‘good’ since it provides some evidence of Abraham in West Asia.
Our objective is somewhat different. We aim to compare the Biblical description with the archaeological evidence in West Asia and Indus Valley. Thus the relative fit of the descriptions is more important. The same fit of say 20 percent in West Asia becomes ‘unacceptable’ in comparison with a fit of say 50 percent in the Indus Valley. Thus we cast no aspersions on the scholar’s finding of evidence of Abraham in West Asia. We only request its comparative evaluation vis-à-vis the Indus Valley.
We shall take up identification of places and similarities in social customs later. In this section we focus on genealogy. We have given above the similarity between Indian Rama and Biblical Abraham. We here try to examine whether a similar personality exists in the West Asian texts. In this section we rely substantially on the excellent article “From Abraham to Hezekiah -A historical and stratigraphical revision” by Damien Mackey [182] and synopsis of David Rohl's book A Test of Time by John Fulton [136].
Our objective is to locate an Abraham-like personality in West Asia—Mesopotamia, Syria and Egypt—the three areas conventionally Abraham is said to have visited. The problem is that correlation with local history is difficult because unreliability of the same. Specifically, the histories of these areas are narrated in a linear manner i.e. one dynasty or king following other. That assumes that there was only one dynasty at a time and one followed the other. But it is known that each of these areas had multiple dynasties at any one point of time. Many dynasties, therefore, existed contemporaneously. It is possible that a dynasty numbered at 10 or 12 may actually have existed at the same time as dynasty 3 or 4. Mackey quotes Kathleen Kenyon on this:
In trying to fit into place the cultures these communities represent, we should learn a lesson from the progress of research in European prehistory. Earlier European scholars tried to place each culture observed into a regular sequence. Now it is recognised that many cultures represent regional developments, and several may have existed side by side. The older sequence-method tended to produce very inflated chronologies, which have had to be considerably reduced now that the picture has become more coherent. This we should bear in mind in trying to piece together the jigsaw puzzle which our present state of knowledge in Palestine represents, and in fact some of the new pieces of the jigsaw ... do suggest that the whole picture will eventually portray a number of groups of people living side by side each with their own distinctive culture, but with just enough links with other groups to suggest contemporaneity [182].
This point is well taken. The next step adopted by most scholars is to look for similarities in characters of the local histories with the Biblical narratives. Denial of the liner approach enables us to place two characters that are conventionally separated by many centuries at the same time.
A survey of literature available on the internet gives four such similar characters:

Emmet John Sweeney: Abraham is Menes and Joseph is Imhotep
In his book The Genesis of Israel and Egypt [111] Sweeny shows that “the epoch of Abraham, the founding father of Israel, and the epoch of Menes, the founder of pharaonic Egypt, were one and the same. Both these characters are said to have lived just a few generations after the waters of a great flood had receded from the face of the earth. Furthermore, both of them share many of the characteristics of the god Thoth, or Mercury/Hermes, who in ancient tradition was said to have bequeathed civilization to mankind. Indeed, both Abraham and Menes were regarded as founders of civilization. The problem here, of course, is that Abraham is conventionally placed around 2000 BC, whereas Menes is dated to 200 BC. How then, could they be contemporary? Our investigation reveals that both the Egyptian and Hebrew chronologies have been grossly over-extended. All literate civilization, in fact, begins around 1000 BC, and whilst 1000 years have been artificially added to Hebrew history, over 2000 have been added to the Egyptian. It was just these unnaturally extended chronologies that kept Egyptian and Hebrew histories 'out of sync' and contradictory.”
The next 'match' comes with Joseph and Imhotep. Egyptian tradition tells us that two centuries or so after Menes lived Djoser, 'The Wise' king, whose vizier, Imhotep, was regarded as the greatest of all Egyptian sages. Djoser and Imhotep, the legend says, lived during a famine lasting seven years, and it was a dream of the king's that provided Imhotep with the clue to solving the crisis. Similarly, Hebrew history tells us that two centuries after Abraham there lived Joseph, the great seer and visionary, who became pharaoh's vizier, and helped solve the crisis of a seven-year famine by interpreting the king's dreams.
The problem here is that there is no equivalence of genealogy. We shall deal with other similarities in due course. Our limited objective here is to ascertain whether there is a genealogical concordance between Abraham-Jacob-Joseph and Menes-‘x’-Imhotep. As far as this author can understand no such genealogical link is shown.

The AMAIC thinks that David Rohl below has located Joseph where the later Moses should actually be.

David Rohl: Joseph correlated with the rein of Amenemhat III
Rohl says on the basis of revised parallel chronology that Joseph was appointed vizier of Egypt in the 12th Dynasty in the long reign of Amenemhat III [136]. Rohl finds three evidences in his favour.
One, the occurrence of a series of extra-high floods during the rein of Amenemhat III: “This would have brought down three or four times the normal volume of water to the Delta. By the time the floodwaters receded, it would have been too late in the year to plant the crops, so resulting in a number of years of famine as mentioned in Bible during the period of Joseph.”
Two, in a tomb of a chieftain of Amenemhat III, called Khnumhotep III at Beni Hasan, a scene depicting a trading party of Asiatics arriving in Egypt is found: “This party is very similar to the Midianite caravaneers to whom Joseph's brothers sold him when he was brought to Egypt (Genesis 37). The inscription below one of these reliefs reads, the chief of the hill country, Abishai' - a good biblical name! These caravaneers are wearing very colourful garments, again showing that it was the custom in the Levant at this time to wear such colourful clothes, cf. Joseph's coat of many colours, presented to him by his father Jacob!”
Three, during the reign of Amenemhat III, “the local chieftains ceased to build their tombs, indicating that they had had their power removed. At the same time, Amenemhat III rose to be one of the most powerful pharaohs of the 12th Dynasty. The reason for this is recorded in Genesis 47:13-21 where even the wealthy were forced to sell their land and possessions to Pharaoh in exchange for grain during the famine.”
Four, Amenemhat's pyramid in which he was buried at Hawara stands beside the ruins of one of the most impressive buildings of the ancient world - the Egyptian Labyrinth - built during his reign. This has thousands of storerooms and the reason for its building can be determined under David Rohl's new chronology. This was Joseph's administration centre, set up to organize the distribution of grain during the famine. Also nearby is an impressive water work undertaken during the time of Amenemhat III. A canal from the Nile to Lake Moeris (Birket Karun today) in the region of Faiyum was built to channel excess water from the annual Nile flood into this basin to help lower the Delta flood waters. Its modern name is Bahr Yussef - the waterway of Joseph!
The point to note is that there is no reference to Joseph’s genealogy—his parents or descendants. All we have is a character similar to Joseph—standing alone in historical time.

Damien Mackey: Joseph is Imhotep
Mackey also suggests that Joseph was Imhotep [182]. His reasons:
One, Mackey holds other scholar’s argument that the 1st and 3rd dynasties were contemporaneous. The famine of Uenephes of the 1st dynasty is to be synchronized with the famine at the time of Zoser, a 3rd dynasty king. Zoser's famous vizier, Imhotep, was Joseph. Imhotep, according to a late tradition, alerted pharaoh Zoser to a coming seven-year famine” as in Gen 40:27.
Two, Abraham can be located in the 10th dynasty. That pharaoh mentions a shameful incident which may be his taking Sarah to his palace. Pharaoh Khety III is considered to have restored order in Egypt after a general era of violence and food shortage. That would match with the famine that led Abraham to migrate to Egypt. Further Khety III was possibly referring to the Sarai incident when, in his famous Instruction addressed to his son, Merikare, he recalled:
Lo, a shameful deed occurred in my time.
Though it happened through my doing,
I learned it after it was done.
Three, the names of kings during the conflict between the coalitions (Gen 14) are Admah, Zeboim and Bela. These names also occur in the Ebla tablets as trading partners with that city. The names of the kings involved in the conflict between coalitions can be identified with various rulers of Sumer at that time. He proposes the following structure for the coalition: Amar-Sin is Amraphel, the great king. Susa is referred to as Elam in the Bible. The governor of Susa, namely Gudea is Chedorlaomer. Assur is Arioch of the Bible.
The point is that none of the above scholars have traced Abraham’s lineage. There is no mention of his ancestors or descendants as in the story of Rama in India. The other similarities, though important, loose weight in absence of genealogical concordance. The stories of (1) Abraham and Menes sharing characteristics of the god Thoth; (2) dreams followed by 7-year famine or floods; (3) Selling of land to the Pharaoh; (4) A ‘shameful’ act of the Pharaoh; and (5) Building in non-Egyptian style would be very valuable if hoisted on a genealogical similarity. In absence of such foundation they are of little value. It must be remembered that Egypt and West Asia has been in contact with India since the times of Adam. It is possible that some key patterns have been imported from India and flowered variously in the host environments.

The name ‘Abraham’ in West Asia
Evidence adduced for the existence of Abraham in West Asia is finding of a similar name. Let us examine these.
First evidence: The names of kings during the conflict between the coalitions, (Gen 14) Admah, Zeboim and Bela occur in the Ebla tablets [182]. But Jim A. Cornwell notes, “Attempts to find patriarchal names in the important texts discovered at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) in north Syria (1929-1937) have proved unsuccessful.” This dilutes the importance of this find. Second, Mackey tries to develop a similar correspondence of names of the kings of coalitions with the king names of Mesopotamia [182, please see below]. Thus we have the same correspondence at two entirely different places. Third, the Ebla tablets “are currently dated to the mid-late C3rd millennium BC” [182]. That would be before the migration of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldeans to Haran and then to Canaan around 2000 BC.
Second evidence: The names of the Mesopotamian kings of the conflict between coalitions can be identified: Amar-Sin is Amraphel, Gudea is Chedorlaomer and Assur is Arioch of the Bible [182]. The difficulty here is that Abraham was located in Canaan at the time of the conflict. The context is that of a battle nearby. Location of these names in Mesopotamia is, therefore, not meaningful.
Third evidence: The name Abraham is found in Mesopotamia in the second millennium B.C. under the forms A-ba-am-ra-ma, A-ba-ra-ma, and A-ba-am-ra-am. Further, the name Jacob, which stands for Ya’qub-‘el, "May El Protect," occurs as Ya-ah-qu-ub-il in the tablets of the 18th century B.C. from Chogar Bazar in northern Mesopotamia [140]. The difficulty here, as mentioned above, is that Abraham left Mesopotamia early in his life. It is unlikely that these names refer to Abraham of Bible. Joseph never traveled to Mesopotamia. The finding of these names, therefore, suggests their generic use as ‘John’ is used in the Christian world today. The finding of similar sounding names in Syria and Egypt could be related to this common earlier origin.
Fourth evidence: A canal from the Nile to Lake Moeris (Birket Karun today) carries the name Bahr Yussef - the waterway of Joseph [136]. This could support the Biblical narrative. The weakness is that it is not supported by earlier- and later genealogies. The ‘stand alone’ nature of this name increases the possibility of its being drawn from some other tradition. Notably Yusuf is a common name in West Asia.
Fifth evidence: The Amarna Tablets found in Egypt relate to the region of Syria-Palestine. They several times mention the Habiru' people, who are stateless wanderers outside the rule of the city-states of Palestine and Syria, often employed as mercenaries by these rulers to protect their interests [136]. In his summary of David Rohl’s book, John Fulton gives many correspondences between these tablets and the OT. However, all the references relate to post-Exodus chapters of the OT. Hence they could indeed be true references. They establish the influx of Hebrews in Palestine after the Exodus but not before it.
In view of the above our submission is that the evidence of Abraham in West Asia on the basis of similarity of names is weak. We are inclined to agree with Jim A. Cornwell that these are a “speculative argument”. In any case this does not help us locate Abraham in West Asia vis-à-vis the Indus Valley because the names Terah, Abram, Sarai and Lot of the Bible are found almost identically in the Indian texts in the names of Dasaratha, Rama, Sita and Lakshmana in the same relationship. The evidence in favour of India is, therefore, much stronger.
Our submission is that the names Raamses in Egypt, A-ba-ra-ma etc. in Mesopotamia and Rama in India are derived from a common source which may have India origins. This name may be carried to West Asia in the first migration at the time of Noah.

Asiatics in Egypt
Another evidence of Abraham and Joseph’s travels in Egypt is the presence of Semitic people in Egypt.
The first evidence here is related to Egyptian conflicts with Asiatic people:
• Pharaoh Khety III restored order in Egypt after a general era of violence and food shortage. He succeeded in liberating Egypt from the occupying populations of Bedouin and Asiatics [182].
• Josephus identified the Hyksos with the ancestors of the Jews and their expulsion by Pharaoh Alimose with the Exodus [831].
The difficulty here is that the Jews neither ‘invaded’ nor was Egypt ‘liberated’ from their control according to the Biblical narrative. It is more likely these Asiatics were of different stock than the Biblical patriarchs. Further, Josephus writings are late and could be adapted from the earlier version of the Bible. They cannot be presented as a ‘proof’.
The second evidence is of presence of Asiatic people in Egypt:
• The tomb painting of Beni Hasan (2000-1900 BC) depicts Asiatics arriving in Egypt [140].
• On one of the royal tombs excavated 150 miles south of Cairo there is a beautiful painting dated to1900 BC of Semites entering Egypt to sell their wares. Men, women and children are pictured, some with multicolored clothing. They have harps, bows and arrows and spears. Accompanying them are goats and donkeys for food and conveyance. This painting shows people of the same lineage as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob wearing the clothing, caring for the same type of animals and using implements as described in the Bible record [103].
• Egyptian evidence is of “the abundance of Semitic slaves and stories of frivolous Egyptian wives”—matching with Joseph’s experience [103].
• A statue “of a man who had obvious stature in the Egyptian power structure, with the symbol of Pharaoh’s authority, the throw-stick, on his chest. Yet he also has an unusual Semitic hairdo, with flaming red hair, and wears a coat with variegated colors.” This could be Joseph’s statue [105]
• The excavations at Tell ed-Daba show a small village dating to this time when Jacob settled in the land of Goshen. An analysis of the human remains found at the site has shown that the male population derived from outside Egypt, probably from Syria or Palestine, while the females formed a separate distinct ethnic group, originating from the Egyptians of the Nile Delta region. This is consistent with an influx of foreign males, the early Israelites, who married the local Egyptian women [182].
This evidence indicates the presence of an Asiatic people in Egypt. But there is a big jump from ‘Asiatic’ to ‘Biblical’. It is like saying that the evidence from paintings of the 1800 AD in India of an Anglo-Saxon white race in India supports Abraham Lincoln’s invasion of India. Second, Indian traders are known to have trade contacts with most West Asian ports, including Egypt. It is equally possible these painting relate to these traders.
The third evidence is that excavations in Palestine refer to migrations of the Hurrians and Habiru in the period 1700-1570 BC [831]. This does not fit with the Biblical narrative which tells of Jewish intrusion into Palestine only after the Exodus after 1500 BC. This does not fit with our hypothesis either since we suggest that Hebrews entered West Asia after the Exodus. It is possible, as Emmet John Sweeney has suggested that both the Egyptian and Hebrew chronologies have been grossly over-extended. Sweeny suggests that 1000 years have been artificially added to Hebrew history, over 2000 have been added to the Egyptian [111]. Without going into the exact number of years of extension, it is possible that the evidence from Palestine relating to pre-1500 BC may actually relate to post-1500 BC period. Alternatively the term ‘Habiru’ may here refer to some other stock and was later applied to the Jews migrating from India. This evidence needs greater study.

Melchizedek’s blessing
David Rohl has made a case for Jerusalem being ruled those days by the priest-king Melchizedek who—according to Jewish tradition—was none other than Shem, son of Noah [182]. Wayne Jackson makes the same argument in greater detail [126]. Jackson focuses on the statement in Gen 7.3 that Melchizedek, king of Salem (Jerusalem), was “without father, without mother, without genealogy.” Jackson proceeds to show that there were two types of rulers in the area at that time—those who had inherited the kingship and those who had acquired on their own. The statement ‘without father…’ should be read as ‘without inheritance’, he says.
Jackson’s interpretation is acceptable. But it does not help us locate Salem. Our point is that this may be somewhere in the Indus Valley. There is nothing in the narrative that prevents a similar interpretation of this verse at this location.

Little evidence for Abraham and Joseph in Egypt
Our submission is there is little ‘evidence’ of Abraham or Joseph ever having set their foot on the lands of West Asia. There is no parallel genealogy. Similarity of names is a speculative and weak argument. The evidence of Asiatics in Egypt could relate to other peoples from Syria-Palestine-Mesopotamia or to Indian traders. Compare this with the parallel genealogy of Rama in India. The difference is loud and clear. The argument that migration of Abraham and Joseph was ‘small’ and would not leave archaeological evidence is acceptable [182]. But this has to be seen comparatively with the Indian evidence. Since we have much evidence from one location, the absence of same from the other tilts the scale in favour of India.
We would, therefore, agree more with scholars holding that there is little evidence for Abraham and Joseph’s visit to Egypt. These include Gunnar Heinsohn of the University of Bremen quoted by Damein Mackey [182] and Merrill F. Unger quoted by Jim A. Cornwell [140].

Vikas Negi, Tuesday September 2009

http://ramabraham.com/

Name
Email
Detail
Security Code: