Category Archives: Apologetics

Apologetics, Biblical names, The Book of Samuel

ELKANAH WAS AN EPHRATHITE FROM RAMAH OF BENJAMIN

May 25, 2026 randymccracken Leave a comment

Note to Readers: This was an article of mine recently published in Bibliotheca Sacra 182 (April-June 2025), 163-77. It’s more technical than most of my articles on this blog, but feel free to have a read! (All footnotes have been included here as Endnotes. I’ve also noticed that the footnote notations have not appeared. Sorry for that inconvenience.)

ELKANAH WAS AN EPHRATHITE FROM RAMAH OF BENJAMIN

ABSTRACT

Much disagreement exists in the scholarly literature concerning the identity and home of Elkanah. The problem concerns the meaning of the phrase “hill country of Ephraim” and the word אֶפְרָתִי in 1 Samuel 1:1. Also of key importance is the uncertainty over the geographical location of Ramathaim and Ramah (and whether they are different locales or one and the same), the Land of Zuph (1 Sam. 1:1; 9:5), and the burial place of Rachel (1 Sam. 10:2; cf. Gen. 35:16, 19: 48:7).

This paper seeks to demonstrate that: 1) The “hill country of Ephraim,” includes the tribal territory of Benjamin; 2) Ramathaim and Ramah are the same town located in the tribe of Benjamin (probably modern er-Ram); 3) The grave of Rachel should be located in the tribal territory of Benjamin near Ramah; and, 4) The context of 1 Samuel 1:1 suggests אֶפְרָתִי is best understood as “Ephrathite.” If true, these four conclusions remove any contradictions and demonstrate the consistency of the Samuel narrative regarding the hometown of Elkanah and Samuel.

PROBLEM: THE IDENTITY AND HOME OF ELKANAH

The introduction of Elkanah in 1 Samuel 1:1 provides background information regarding his ancestry and place of residence. The problem, at least for the modern reader, is that several geographical details and names are open to more than one interpretation. For example, the phrase, “hill country of Ephraim,” and the word אֶפְרָתִי, can suggest that Elkanah is a member of the tribe of Ephraim. However, אֶפְרָתִי can also refer to someone who is an Ephrathite (cf., 1 Sam. 17:12). Other biblical passages also provide evidence that “the hill country of Ephraim,” encompassed more than just the tribal territory of Ephraim (e.g., Judg. 4:5). Furthermore the name of Elkanah’s hometown, Ramathaim, is found only here. Elsewhere he (and his son Samuel) are said to be from Ramah (e.g., 1 Sam. 2:11). Do two different names for Elkanah’s (and Samuel’s) hometown suggest two different places? This question is important, for if Elkanah’s home of Ramathaim is in Ephraim, it is equally clear from passages in 1 Samuel that Samuel’s hometown of Ramah is in Benjamin (e.g., 1 Sam. 7:16-17). How then, is this to be explained?

A related problem concerns Saul’s initial encounter with Samuel in the land of Zuph (1 Sam. 9:5ff.). Is the land of Zuph in the tribal territory of Ephraim, as possibly suggested by 1 Samuel 1:1 and Saul’s travels in 1 Samuel 9, or does Saul’s encounter take place in Ramah of Benjamin? The text’s testimony regarding the home and identity of Elkanah concerns the question of whether it presents a mixed, and thus confused, geographical picture, or one that is accurate and coherent. This paper seeks to address this question.

Miller has pointed to four contributing factors related to potential geographical confusion over biblical sites: 1) Biblical writers assume the readers are familiar with the geography of Benjamin, and, therefore, do not provide much detail; 2) A number of Benjaminite names are appellative names that would be duplicated from site to site. For example, Ramah means “the height,” and was a name given to various sites; 3) Modern development in the area of what was ancient Benjamin has made it more difficult to envision what the topography was like in ancient times; and, 4) Literary-critical analysis, which Miller believes has led to the widest divergence of opinion among scholars. Miller’s own view is that biblical stories “. . . provide authentic memory of ancient Benjaminite toponymy. [However], During the process of transmission from ancient times to the present . . . this memory has been skewed in places.”

Each of these factors present challenges, to the modern scholar and should be given due consideration when reaching any conclusions. It is important to remain open to alternative explanations, and to the possibility of new discoveries which may clarify some issues of interpretation or geography. With that in mind, this paper will suggest the biblical data regarding Elkanah’s identity and home can be reconciled without contradiction, while certain aspects must remain tentative (e.g., the exact location of Ramah, or Rachel’s tomb). What follows is an investigation of each of the key words and phrases describing Elkanah’s identity and geographical location.

WHAT GEOGRAPHICAL AREA IS MEANT BY “THE HILL COUNTRY OF EPHRAIM?”

When reading the phrase, “the hill country of Ephraim,” it seems natural that a modern reader would interpret this to mean the hill country contained within the tribal territory of Ephraim. It appears that some scholars have come to a similar conclusion. If one makes this assumption, then it is natural to conclude that 1 Samuel 1:1 is stating that Elkanah’s hometown of Ramathaim, and the land of Zuph, must be in Ephraimite territory. Later passages that suggest that Elkanah’s (and Samuel’s) home is in Ramah of Benjamin would, then, be understood to be in conflict with 1 Samuel 1:1. Kyle McCarter draws this conclusion. He writes,

Apparently there is confusion in the tradition itself. The older narrative recorded Samuel’s home as Ramathaim of the land of Zuph in the Ephraimite hills. In the course of the transmission of the story, the name became associated with the much more familiar Benjaminite Ramah. The result is a mixed picture. In the present episode there is no barrier to maintaining the assumption that Ephraimite Ramathaim is intended.

Miller comes to a similar conclusion:

Note . . . the apparent confusion concerning the identity and location of Samuel’s family home. 1 Samuel 1:19; 2:11; and 7:17 associate Samuel and his father Elkanah with Ramah. Yet the story in 1 Samuel 9–10, Saul’s search for the Donkeys, associates Samuel with the “land of Zuph,” while 1 Samuel 1:1 identifies Elkanah as an Ephraimite from Ramathaim-zophim. This confusion, in my opinion, . . . is to be explained on literary-critical grounds.

Other scholars also conclude that 1 Samuel 1:1 is stating that Elkanah’s home is in the tribal territory of Ephraim, but that other texts place his home in Ramah of Benjamin.

There are texts, however, that suggest the hill country of Ephraim encompasses a wider geographical area. Judges 4:5 informs us that Deborah held court under a palm tree between Bethel and Ramah “in the hill country of Ephraim.” This is clearly Benjamite territory and illustrates that the hill country of Ephraim has a wider geographical reference than the tribal territory of Ephraim. Another passage which may identify the tribe of Benjamin with the hill country of Ephraim is 2 Samuel 20 concerning the rebellion of Sheba ben Bichri. Sheba is identified as a Benjamite (2 Sam. 20:1) who was from the hill country of Ephraim (2 Sam. 20:21). Rainey and Notley rightly state, “The ‘hill country of Ephraim’ is a generic geographical term for the entire block of hills that included the territory of Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh.” The tribe of Ephraim’s prominence appears to be the explanation for this designation. The hill country further south, though still part of the same range, became designated as “the hill country of Judah” (Josh. 21:11), due to the prominence of the tribe of Judah. Similarly, the hill country further north was designated as “the hill country of Naphtali” (Josh. 20:7).

A further example of a geographical feature named for the tribe of Ephraim, but not within the tribal boundary is the “forest of Ephraim,” where David’s men battled Absalom (2 Sam. 18:6). This battle most likely took place on the other side of the Jordan in the area of Gilead, not within the tribal border of Ephraim (2 Sam. 17:24).

That the hill country of Ephraim also includes the tribe of Benjamin has been noted by several recent scholars. Context is therefore important when deciding what is meant by the “hill country of Ephraim.” Just because Elkanah lived in the hill country of Ephraim, does not automatically rule out that he lived within the tribal territory of Benjamin, nor does it mean that he must be an Ephraimite. The misidentification of Elkanah’s home with the tribe of Ephraim has ramifications for other related texts which we will examine below.

RAMATHAIM AND RAMAH: TWO CITIES, OR TWO DESIGNATIONS FOR THE SAME CITY?

The name Ramathaim has puzzled many scholars. 1 Samuel 1:1 is its only occurrence. Elsewhere, both Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:19; 2:11) and Samuel (1 Sam. 7:17; 15:34) are said to have lived in Ramah. Two names and seemingly, two different locations (one in Ephraim, one in Benjamin), have led to the confusion. For example, while convinced that 1 Samuel associates Samuel with Ramah of Benjamin (er-Ram), Klein notes that, based on the identification by Eusebius and Jerome, modern scholars associate Ramathaim with Rentis about 16 miles east of Tel Aviv. Klein further asserts that “Ramathaim is the same as Arimathea in the NT (Matt 27:57).” This leads him to conclude that, “. . . the first verse of the book—and possibly v 19 and 2:11—represent an alternate, Ephraimite tradition.” This conclusion, however, is based on two assumptions. First, that the “hill country of Ephraim,” must refer to a person living within the tribal boundary of Ephraim. Second, that the Hebrew term אֶפְרָתִי, refers to a person living in Ephraim. If these assumptions are removed, then it becomes possible to view Ramathaim and Ramah as two names for the same place as several scholars posit.

The dual form in the name Ramathaim should not automatically be interpreted as referring to a town other than Ramah of Benjamin. Other towns and cities in ancient Israel display the same phenomenon. The most famous of these, as noted by Driver, is Jerusalem (yerushalayim). No one would suggest that the singular and dual spellings of Jerusalem refers to two distinct cities. Another example of this phenomenon is Gittaim of Benjamin (2 Sam. 4:3; Neh. 11:33) which appears in the singular form Gath in 1 Chronicles 7:21 and 8:13. Other examples of cities using a dual form include Kiriathaim (Gen. 14:5), Shaaraim, Adithaim, and Gederothaim (Josh. 15:36), to name a few.

Demsky notes that, “Scholars have explained this linguistic form either semantically or morphologically.” The semantic approach interprets the dual forms literally. For example, Shaaraim (1 Sam. 17:52) means “two gates,” Naharaim (Judg. 3:8, 10) means “two rivers,” etc. Using this approach, Ramathaim would mean “two hills,” an interpretation which is frequently put forward by many commentators. Demsky, rightly in my opinion, dismisses this approach, for the most part, stating, “In general, these semantic explanations are too simplistic and somewhat fanciful, and are unable to explain most of the names in the dual form either topographically or historically.” The morphological explanation, first put forward by J. Barth, contends, “that this dual ending is an expanded long ām ending with the special meaning of a locative.” For example, Rainey and Notley conclude, “Ramathaim is the town of Ramah in Benjamin, here with an adverbial locative or directive suffix (homophonous with the dual suffix).” Demsky also rejects the morphological explanation, maintaining that the dual ending in topographical names, “was actually an alternate form of a more common nominal ending.” For our purpose, it is not necessary to choose between Barth’s and Demsky’s explanations. It is enough to note that the use of a dual ending for towns and cities is not an unusual occurrence in ancient Israel. There are several possible explanations for this phenomenon none of which necessitate that the use of the dual form must refer to a different site. The context in Samuel clearly presumes that the Ramathaim of 1 Samuel 1:1 was the same as Elkanah’s home in Ramah (1 Sam. 1:19; 2:11).

EPHRATHITES AND EPHRAIMITES: THE MEANING OF אֶפְרָתִי

Jan Joosten writes, “In Biblical Hebrew, gentilic adjectives can be derived from proper nouns designating a putative ancestor, a clan, a city, an area or a country.”

In the context of 1 Samuel 1:1, אֶפְרָתִי seems to designate an area that Elkanah’s ancestors came from, although a reference to a clan should not be ruled out. Area, or clan, are possible, given the four-generation genealogy in 1 Samuel 1:1. אֶפְרָתִי is an ambiguous term that may refer to someone from the tribe of Ephraim (Judg. 12:5). However, it may also refer to someone from the clan of Ephrath (1 Chron. 2:50-54; 4:4ff.). This clan settled in the northern region of Judah and gave its name to the area, especially the area associated with Bethlehem (e.g., Ruth 1:2; 1 Sam. 17:12). Context is therefore important in determining its meaning. Elkanah, and his ancestors, are designated as אֶפְרָתִי in 1 Samuel 1:1. The mention of the hill country of Ephraim earlier in the verse causes many to assume that Elkanah must be an Ephraimite. Driver’s comments are representative of many when he writes, “This word appears to represent Elqanah not merely as resident in Ephraim (מהר אפרים), but as an Ephraimite.”

Again, when these assumptions are suspended and one posits that Elkanah’s home was in the tribal territory of Benjamin (which is a part of the hill country of Ephraim), אֶפְרָתִי naturally takes on the meaning Ephrathite (i.e., a person from the district of, and/or descended from the clan of, Ephrath). Other scholars also recognize Ephrathite as the correct rendering in 1 Samuel 1:1.

There are even scholars who equate the hill country of Ephraim with the tribal territory of Ephraim but maintain that אֶפְרָתִי could be rendered as “Ephrathite” in 1 Samuel 1:1. Tsumura, notes that “. . . the gentilic ’eprātî denotes either a member of the tribe of Ephraim (Judg. 12:5; 1 K. 11:26) or an inhabitant of Bethlehem (1 Sam. 17:12; Ruth 1:2). Elkanah might have been of Bethlehemite stock rather than being an ‘Ephraimite,’ even though he dwelt in the hill country of Ephraim.”

Again, while supposing that Elkanah lived within the tribal territory of Ephraim, Leuchter makes the following observation: “The verse tells us that Samuel’s father Elkanah has settled in the hill country of Ephraim; the appearance of אפרתי as a reference to Ephraim in the same verse would be redundant.” He continues,

Other traditions point to sacral figures hailing from Bethlehem and later taking up posts in the Ephraimite hinterland (Judg 17:7–8); Elkanah as an Ephratite sojourning in Ephraim is not an anomaly. We thus have grounds to retain the term אפרתי in 1 Sam 1:1 without emendation, suggesting a strong connection between the religious circles of Ephratah-Bethlehem in Judah and the Shilonites of the Ephraimite hinterland.

While this writer contends it is incorrect to locate Elkanah’s home in Ephraim, the above comments demonstrate that even scholars who do, recognize that אֶפְרָתִי should be read as “Ephrathite.” One reason, similar to Leuchter’s argument above, is that it strengthens the literary tie between the end of the Book of Judges (which ends with two stories about Levites who have connections with Bethlehem and the hill country of Ephraim) and the beginning of 1 Samuel. An Ephrathite origin could also hint at Elkanah’s levitical lineage (along with his descent from Zuph, cf. 1 Chron. 6:33-38), thus, justifying Samuel’s service in the tabernacle and later acting as priest. Furthermore, if Ramathaim is the same as Ramah and is to be located in Benjamin, as is being argued here, then אֶפְרָתִי must be read as “Ephrathite” because Ephraimite would make little sense in the context.

An important related question is, “What exactly is an Ephrathite and does this designation denote someone from Bethlehem?” 1 Chronicles 2:19, 50-54 gives a genealogy of a certain Caleb the son of Hezron of the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 2:18). After the death of his first wife, Caleb married a woman named Ephrath. Ephrath became the matriarch of a clan that bore her name. Ephrath’s descendants are listed in both 1 Chronicles 2:50-54 and 4:1-10. Ephrath gave birth to various sons who became the ancestors of those who lived in various towns in northern Judah. These towns included Bethlehem, Kirjath Jearim, and Tekoa, among others. According to Demsky’s detailed study of this genealogy,

Bethlehem . . . was the primary city of the Ephrathites, whose area of settlement extended at first along the mountain range from Kiriath-jearim to Gedor. Secondary expansion went to proximate villages to the west – Manahath, Hushah and probably Bether and Giloh – and to the east around Tekoa. Tertiary expansion moved down to the Shephelah, to sites such as Zorah, Eshtaol and perhaps Sha’araim. Bethlehem was therefore the epicentre for the larger territory of Ephrath.

Ephrath was, therefore, a large area which encompassed a number of cities, but chief among them was Bethlehem. Identifying Elkanah as an Ephrathite could mean that his ancestors came from any area within the Ephrathite domain. The connection with the stories at the end of Judges suggests that Bethlehem might be in mind. Furthermore, there are only two occurrences of אֶפְרָתִי in the books of Samuel and there is no doubt that it should be rendered as “Ephrathite” in the second passage. In 1 Samuel 17:12 David is described as the son of Jesse “that Ephrathite from Bethlehem.” The fact that the only other occurrence of אֶפְרָתִי is in 1 Samuel 1:1 suggests these two passages should be compared. The use of the word to describe only these two individuals (and their families), suggests a possible link between the two. This is borne out literarily. Elkanah parallels Jesse, as both are fathers of sons who will bring deliverance to Israel. Samuel and David are not only parallel as deliverers, but are directly connected through Samuel’s anointing of David as king.

THE LAND OF ZUPH AND THE TOMB OF RACHEL: LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!

Two other passages that bear on the location of Samuel’s Ramah occur in the introductory story of Saul. When Saul went looking for his father’s lost donkeys, he traveled through the hill country of Ephraim, eventually coming to the land of Zuph and the city of Samuel (1 Sam. 9:4-6). Following his anointing by Samuel, he was given three signs to confirm his anointing. One of those signs involved going by the tomb of Rachel which is described as being “in the territory of Benjamin at Zelzah” (ESV, 1 Sam. 10:2). The mention of the “land of Zuph” automatically recalls 1 Samuel 1:1. Understanding the land of Zuph to be in the tribal territory of Ephraim has led some scholars to suggest a contradiction with 1 Samuel 9:4-5 which places Zuph in the territory of Benjamin.

Similarly, certain passages in Genesis (35:16-20; 48:7) may be interpreted as locating Rachel’s tomb near Bethlehem (which aligns with the current tradition in Israel). These call into question 1 Samuel 10:2, which places Rachel’s tomb in the territory of Benjamin, near Ramah. In this section these passages will be examined and it will be demonstrated that Ramah of Benjamin is once again the best choice when all the data is considered. If it is allowed that ancient Israelite authors knew their history and geography well, then a solution that solves any apparent contradictions should be considered superior to an interpretation that suggests irreconcilable differences.

The Location of the Land of Zuph. One of the challenges in understanding Saul’s journey in looking for his father’s lost donkeys is that several of the place names have not been confidently identified geographically. As Gilmour notes, “Many scholars have attempted to locate these place names but no consensus has yet been reached.” Diana Edelman has also observed that,

1 Sam. 9:1-10:16 has been the subject of many diverse investigations over the past 135 years. No single route and series of identifications has gained acceptance, however, and some scholars have despaired that it is impossible to reconstruct the journey on the basis of the scanty evidence available.”

The mention of “the hill country of Ephraim,” leads many scholars to assume that Saul’s search carried him into the tribe of Ephraim. This seems doubtful for, as already noted, the hill country of Ephraim can apply to the tribe of Benjamin as well. In reading the passage it seems that “the hill country of Ephraim” is a summary statement of the area traversed by Saul and his servant.

Equating the hill country of Ephraim with the tribal territory of Ephraim leads Edelman to suggest that Saul began his search outside of the tribe of Benjamin. The basis of this contention is that the text does not name his hometown and therefore the point of his departure is unknown. While true, the most natural reading of the context suggests that Saul left from his family home and that after three days he was concerned to return there knowing his father would be worried about him (1 Sam. 9:3, 5). It makes little sense for Saul’s search to have begun in Ephraim, rather than starting near his home. As McCarter notes, “Saul began his search, as we might expect, ‘in his own backyard.’”

If Saul began his search from Gibeah of Benjamin, then the lands of Shalishah, Shaalim, Yamin, and finally, Zuph would suggest an ever-widening search for the donkeys in these districts. Cogan and Tadmor state that these names represent family districts in the territory of Benjamin. This certainly fits the designation of the land of Zuph which echoes the ancestral area Elkanah is from (1 Sam. 1:1). It is in the land of Zuph that Saul encountered Samuel at Ramah. This appears to be the northern limit of his search. After three days of wandering all over the territory between Gibeah and Ramah (cf. 1 Sam. 9:20), Saul was ready to return home.

A three day journey, or period of time, is very common in Scripture (e.g., Gen. 22:4; 30:36; Exod. 5:3; 15:22; Num. 33:8; Josh. 1:11; 1 Sam. 20:19; 2 Sam. 20:4; 1Kgs. 12:5; 2 Kgs. 2:17; 1 Chron. 12:39; Jonah 1:17; 3:3). “In the biblical world, three days was a typical period of preparation for something important.” This observation is appropriate to the context here where Saul’s three-day search for the donkeys ended with a sacred meal (1 Sam. 9:19-24) and his anointing by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:1). Context appears to determine whether the three days represents a short or long period of time. For example, the description of Nineveh being a city that takes three days to traverse, suggests a very large city (Jonah 3:3). However, Moses’s request to Pharaoh that the Israelites make a three-day journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to Yahweh, suggests a short journey (Exod. 5:3).

While it is not impossible, it seems a stretch to suggest, as a number of scholars do, that Saul’s search encompassed an area of sixty miles in these three days. This sixty-mile distance is based on the assumption that Saul’s journey took him into the tribal territory of Ephraim. While identification of the geographical regions remains in doubt, it seems that such an area is too large for a three-day search. It is more realistic to suppose that the donkeys would not have wandered that far away and that a thorough search of the area between Gibeah and Ramah would easily take three (or parts of three) days. We are not talking a search in a direct line between Gibeah (modern Tel el-Ful) and Ramah (modern er-Ram), only a distance of about 2 miles or 3 kilometers, but a slow, methodical, ever widening search, traversing east and west in mountainous terrain between these two cities. It also makes more sense for Saul’s father to be worried about him being gone three days if the distance was short, than if a wider area had been canvassed. One would assume that a search of sixty miles would take some significant time, whereas a search in the vicinity of one’s home should be concluded more quickly. Based on the report by the men at Rachel’s tomb (if the tomb is near Ramah), it does appear that the donkeys did not wander far. Therefore, unless further geographical evidence is produced in the future that proves otherwise, nothing suggests that Saul’s search took him beyond the tribal limits of Benjamin.

The Location of Rachel’s Tomb. Another geographical uncertainty of the early chapters of 1 Samuel is the location of Rachel’s tomb. Although 1 Samuel 10:2 and Jeremiah 31:15, firmly locate it in the territory of Benjamin, other scholars point to Genesis 35:16-20 and 48:7 which mention Ephrath, further identifying the area as near Bethlehem. To complicate matters a traditional tomb located near Bethlehem today is identified as Rachel’s tomb. While most scholars maintain that the original site of Rachel’s tomb is in Benjamin, there are a few who prefer the Bethlehem location.

Na’aman has presented the most thorough case for defending the Bethlehem location. He argues that the Bethlehem tradition is older, going back to the Ephrathites who moved into the area from the tribe of Ephraim. Na’aman also believes that the tradition of Rachel’s tomb in Benjamin goes back to a wrong identification which equates the tomb of Deborah (Rachel’s nurse) with Rachel’s tomb (see Gen. 35:8).

When read carefully, however, the Genesis texts do not locate Rachel’s tomb near Bethlehem. Genesis 35:16 states that Rachel gave birth after leaving Bethel while “still some distance from Ephrath” (ESV, NASB). Genesis 35:19 similarly states that Rachel was buried “on the way to Ephrath” (ESV, NASB). When Jacob retells the story (Gen. 48:7), he uses the same expressions found in Genesis 35:16 and 19. Demsky writes,

The idea that Rachel dies near Ephrat (or Bethlehem), just before they got there, is based on a misunderstanding of the phase דרך ‘the road to’ or לבוא ‘the way of/approaching.’ In the Bible, and in general, a road is named after the destination, so it is called ‘the way of Ephrat’ because that is where they were going, but it does not mean they were anywhere near there.”

Sarna points out that a Bethlehem location for Rachel’s tomb is unlikely because Genesis 35:21 states that after burying Rachel, Jacob moved on to Migdal Eder which is identified with a section of Jerusalem (cf. Mic. 4:8). If Rachel was buried near Bethlehem, Jacob would have had to reverse his direction. Instead, Sarna supports Kiriath Jearim as the most likely place for Rachel’s tomb (it being on the Benjamin/Judah border in an area identified with Ephrath). Sarna is not alone in this conclusion. However, there is no ancient or modern tradition connecting Rachel’s tomb with Keriath Jearim. Based on the biblical texts, Ramah of Benjamin remains the best option.

One objection to Ramah as the site of Rachel’s tomb is that Jeremiah 31:15 does not use the Hebrew article he (ה). Normally, when referencing the city of Samuel, Ramah does include the Hebrew article. Thus, some suggest that Jeremiah 31:15 is using the word in its natural Hebrew meaning of “height.” However, Jeremiah 40:1 makes it clear that Ramah was the place from which the exiles were carried away to Babylon and Jeremiah 31:15 is referring to this same event.

Based on a study by Ernst Vogt, Wenham notes that the Hebrew word כִּבְרַת (used in Gen. 35:16; 48:7, and translated as “still some distance”) “. . . equates Hebrew ברה with Akk. bēru, the distance traveled in two hours, roughly eleven kilometers or seven miles.” The distance from Ramah (er-Ram) to Bethlehem is slightly farther, being ten miles or 16 kilometers. If כִּבְרַת is being used in an approximate way, as seems likely from the context in Genesis, then a location near Ramah is reasonable. In fact, Vogt states that the distance communicated by כִּבְרַת is not exact but depends on the time and the gait of a person. Based on the Genesis texts (and 1 Samuel 10:2), Vogt argues that the distance being specified by כִּבְרַת is the distance between Rachel’s tomb (near Ramah) and Ephrath. Thus, there is no need to conclude that a discrepancy exists between the Genesis accounts of Rachel’s tomb and the accounts in 1 Samuel 10:2 and Jeremiah 31:15.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

It has been demonstrated that the “hill country of Ephraim,” also encompasses the tribal territory of Benjamin and that Ramathaim is another name for Ramah, the dual form being a characteristic of other ancient city names. If then, Ramah of Benjamin is the location of Elkanah’s hometown, אֶפְרָתִי in 1 Samuel 1:1 should be understood as “Ephrathite.” The connection with the end of the Book of Judges (Judg. 17:7-8; 19:1) as well as the connection with Jesse the father of David (1 Sam. 17:12), further strengthens this interpretation.

We have also noted that Saul’s search for his father’s lost donkeys need not have taken him beyond the border of Benjamin. In fact, it seems more likely that his search was in a relatively smaller area (between Gibeah and Ramah) than what some scholars suggest, given the three-day time frame of his search and what is realistically known about the complexities and time element involved in such a search. Thus, when Saul met Samuel in 1 Samuel 9:10-14, the city was Ramah of Benjamin and not a Ramah or Ramathaim in the tribal territory of Ephraim as some assert.

We have also demonstrated that there is no conflict between the texts in Genesis and 1 Samuel 10:2. The Genesis texts are more vague in their location of Rachel’s tomb, giving only the general area, which plausibly includes the southern part of the tribal territory of Benjamin. In contrast, 1 Samuel 10:2 and Jeremiah 31:15 clearly locate Rachel’s tomb in Ramah of Benjamin. Vogt, followed by Wenham, has argued that the word כִּבְרַת can reasonably refer to the distance between Ramah and Ephrath.

All scholars are in agreement that the text of 1 Samuel locates the home of Samuel in Ramah of Benjamin (most concluding it is the modern er-Ram). When all of the evidence is considered, it is not only clear that Samuel lived in Ramah of Benjamin, but that his father Elkanah and mother Hannah did as well and that there is no contradiction between the statements of 1 Samuel 1:1, 9:4-5; 10:2, or any other passages in 1 Samuel relating to the identification of his hometown. Thus, the proper understanding of 1 Samuel 1:1 is that Elkanah was an Ephrathite from Ramah of Benjamin.

End Note

All Scripture quotations are from the ESV unless otherwise noted

2 Max Miller, “Notes on Benjaminite Place Names,” JNSL 25.1 (1999): 61–62.

3 Miller, 62.

4 P. Kyle McCarter Jr., 1 Samuel, AB 8 (Doubleday, 1980), 61–62.

5 Miller, “Benjaminite Place Names,” 63.

6 For example, Henry Preserved Smith states, “The genealogy given seems to leave no doubt that Elkanah was an Ephraimite by blood.” A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, ICC (T&T Clark, 1992), 5. See also, Tony W. Cartledge, 1 and 2 Samuel, SHBC (Smyth & Helwys, 2001), 27; and A. Graeme Auld, 1 and 2 Samuel: A Commentary, OTL (Westminster John Knox, 2011), 27.

7 C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin, vol. 2 of Commentary on the Old Testament (Hendrickson, 1996), 372–73. Conversely, Miller contends that the Benjaminites were southern Ephraim clans that settled in the southern hill country of Ephraim. He believes that Benjamin’s tribal status was a literary rather than a historical development. “Benjaminite Place Names,” 62. While there is no solid evidence for this conjecture, Miller’s theory does not negate the suggestion that the hill country of Ephraim encompassed the tribe of Benjamin.

8 Anson F. Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World, 2nd ed. (Carta, 2014), 137.

9 For a fuller discussion, see Henry O. Thompson, “Ephraim, Forest of,” in ABD, ed. David Noel Freedman (Doubleday, 1992), 2:557.

10 Jack M. Sasson, Judges 1–12, AB 6D (Yale University Press, 2014), 188; and Mark S. Smith and Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judges 1: A Commentary on Judges 1:1–10:5, Hermeneia (Fortress, 2021), 259–60.

11 According to Diana Edelman, “Ramathaim of the Zuphites should not be equated with Ramah of Benjamin, which almost certainly is to be identified with er-Rām. The latter lay within Benjamin, just south of the probable geographical border between the central Ephraimite land masse and the territory of Benjamin.” “Saul’s Journey Through Mt. Ephraim and Samuel’s Ramah (1 Sam. 9:4–5; 10:2–5),” ZDPV 104 (1988): 56. Edelman’s statement illustrates that er-Ram is the presumed site of many scholars were it not for the assumption that the Ramathaim of 1 Samuel 1:1 must be located in Ephraim.

12 Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, WBC 10 (Word, 1983), 5.

13 David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT (Eerdmans, 2006), 124–25; John B. Song, “Rathamin,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Lexham, 2016), ebook; and Brandon Ridley, “Ramah of Benjamin,” in Barry, Lexham Bible Dictionary, ebook.

14 S. R. Driver does not believe the dual forms of city names are original but reflect a later artificial expansion of the original. He points out that the Tel el-Amarna letters point to -im as being the original ending for Jerusalem. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 2nd ed. (Clarendon, 1913), 1–2.

15 Wesley I. Toews, “Gittaim,” in Freedman, ABD, 2:1030. This Gath should not be confused with the more famous Gath of Judah.

16 Aaron Demsky, “Hebrew Names in the Dual Form and the Toponym Yerushalayim,” in These Are the Names: Studies in Jewish Onomastics, ed. Aaron Demsky, vol. 3 (Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 11–20.

17 Demsky, 12.

18 Demsky, 12.

19 Rainey and Notley, Sacred Bridge, 143. See also Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, 2nd ed., trans. and ed. A. F. Rainey (Westminster, 1979), 120.

20 Demsky, “Hebrew Names,” 13. Demsky’s reasons for his assertion are beyond the scope of this paper.

21 Jan Joosten, “Construct-Phrase Gentilics: A Distinctive Feature of Classical Biblical Hebrew,” Orientalia Suecana 73 (2024): 61.

22 Some scholars suggest that this is an etymological coincidence. John Mauchline, for example, states, “Ephrathah is derived from a Hebrew verb which means ‘to be fruitful’ (pārāh). Its use for more than one area is intelligible.” 1 and 2 Samuel, NCB (Oliphants, 1971), 42. See also, Lamontte M. Luker, “Ephrathah (Place),” in Freedman, ABD, 2:557-58. On the other hand, Nadav Na’aman contends that ephrati originally referred to Ephraimites who migrated southward into northern Judah, and the area of Ephrath received its name from these Ephraimite immigrants. “The Settlement of the Ephrathites in Bethlehem and the Location of Rachel’s Tomb,” RB 29–516 :)2014 (121.4)

23 Folker Willesen, however, argues that even in Judges 12 the word should be translated “Ephrathite.” “The יתרפא of the Shibboleth Incident,” VT 8.1 (1958): 97–98. Mark Leuchter also argues that the designation יִתָרְפֶא has a theopolitical importance “in presenting Jeroboam as a legitimate Davidic type.” “Jeroboam the Ephratite,” JBL 125.1 (2006): 60.

24 Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg states, “Elkanah . . . is described as an Ephrathite. Here the word is meant to indicate the Ephraimite descent of the family and not, as in Ruth 1:2 (cf. Micah 5:2), to describe a clan of Bethlehem.” 1 and 2 Samuel: A Commentary, trans. J. S. Bowden, OTL (Westminster, 1964), 22–23. Hertzberg’s differentiation appears to be based on his assumption that “the hill country of Ephraim” must mean the tribal territory of Ephraim.

25 Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text, 4 (emphasis original).

26 David G. Firth, 1 and 2 Samuel, ApOTC 8 (InterVarsity Press, 2009), 49; and Harry A. Hoffner Jr., 1 and 2 Samuel, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Lexham, 2015), 1 Samuel 1:1, ebook.

27 Tsumura, First Book of Samuel, 107 (emphasis original).

28 Leuchter, “Jeroboam the Ephratite,” 60.

29 Leuchter, 61

30 Many scholars note the connection between the end of the Book of Judges and the beginning of 1 Samuel. For example, J. P. Fokkelman states, “In Hebrew narrative art a geographical name is often more than a neutral spatial co-ordinate. This phenomenon is well-illustrated by the end of Judges and the beginning of Samuel.”Vow and Desire, trans. L. Waaning-Wardle, vol. 4 of Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, SSN 31 (Van Gorcum, 1993), 6. See also Robert Polzin, 1 Samuel, part 2 of Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History (Indiana University Press, 1989), 23–24, 29–30; and Johanna W. H. van Wijk-Bos, The Road to Kingship: 1–2 Samuel, A People and a Land 2 (Eerdmans, 2020), 16-17.

31 Hoffner makes a similar observation. 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 Sam 1:1, ebook.

32 Aaron Demsky demonstrates that there is a chiastic layout to these chapters, and he provides a helpful map detailing the area of the Ephrathites. “The Clans of Ephrath: Their Territory and History,” TA 13.1 (1986): 46–59.

33 Demsky, 51 (emphasis suppressed)

34 McCarter, for example, takes exception with the reading of the Masoretic Text, since he is convinced that Zuph must be in Ephraim. He writes, “As generally agreed MT ʾereṣ yĕmînî, “the land of Benjamin” (!), cannot be correct. Saul, who has been traveling for some time, is about to reach the land of Zuph. To assume that he has somehow doubled back to Benjamin leaves any reconstruction of the itinerary in shambles.” 1 Samuel, 174.

35 Not all will agree with this presupposition of course, but it seems more reasonable to trust the accuracy of the ancient authors (or redactors), who were closer to the events and geography, than to trust modern interpretations, which are farther removed. The fact that many modern interpreters equate “the hill country of Ephraim” with only the tribal territory of Ephraim is a case in point.

36 Rachelle Gilmour, “Suspense and Anticipation in 1 Samuel 9:1–14,” JHebS 9 (2009): 9, https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2009.v9.a10.

37 Edelman, “Saul’s Journey,” 44. For a detailed summary of the various itineraries suggested by scholars, see 44–48.

38 Edelman notes that K. Budde observed this in 1881. Because Edelman supposes that “the hill country of Ephraim,” must refer to Ephraimite territory, she contends that Budde contradicts himself because he locates the various areas mentioned in 1 Samuel 9:4 within the tribal territory of Benjamin (48).

39 Edelman, 50.

40 McCarter, 1 Samuel, 174.

41 Yamin is often translated as “Benjamin,” which is a possible meaning. Tsumura states, “The term seems to be a designation of a district like Shalishah and Shaalim rather than of the tribal group.” First Book of Samuel, 264n10.

42 Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, 2 Kings, AB 11 (Yale University Press, 1988), 59.

43 Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan, 2001), 307.

44 Scholars can be found who support both positions. For example, D. E. Garland states, “ ‘The Third Day’ is a Semitic idiom referring to an unexpectedly short period of time.” “Third Day,” in ISBE, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Eerdmans, 1977–88), 4:840. On the other hand, Rhiannon Graybill, John Kaltner, and Steven L. McKenzie reference two earlier scholars (Bauer 1958; Eynikel 2005) when they maintain that “three days as a measure of time is frequently a topos for a relatively long period.” Jonah, AB 24H (Yale University Press, 2023), 224 (emphasis original)

45 McCarter, 1 Samuel, 163, has a map of Saul’s travels that suggests a wide area covered while looking for the lost donkeys. V. Philips Long states that if the areas mentioned in 1 Samuel 9:4 are in Ephraimite territory, then Saul’s search covered some sixty miles over its three-day duration. “1 Samuel,” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, ed. John H. Walton (Zondervan, 2009), 2:312. Driver states that to cover this distance in three days “does not seem very probable.” Notes on the Hebrew Text, 70.

46 There is nearly unanimous agreement among scholars that modern Tel el-Ful should be equated with ancient Gibeah. For a summary of the evidence and various identifications of Gibeah, see S. Shalom Brooks, “Gibeah, Geba,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, ed. Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson (Inter-Varsity Press, 2005), 330–32.

47 There is still some question as to the location of Ramah of Benjamin. Most scholars suggest modern er-Ram, which correlates well with the biblical data (e.g., Judg 19:13; Isa 10:29; Hos 5:8). See Patrick M. Arnold, “Ramah,” in Freedman, ABD, 5:613–14. The vicinity of present-day Ramallah is also suggested by some, such as Aaron Demsky, based on the assumption that 1 Samuel 1:1 locates Elkanah’s home near the border of Ephraim and Benjamin. “Where Was Rachel Buried?,” TheTorah.com, updated 2023, https://www.thetorah.com/article/where-was-rachel-buried.

48 The Manasseh Hill Country Survey begun by the late Adam Zertal in 1978 is still in process. The survey consists of a small team meeting each Friday and traversing the country on foot searching for ancient sites. This survey, a little farther north than where Saul and his servant would have been searching for the lost donkeys, illustrates what a painstaking task it is to search for something in the central hill country and the length of time involved in such a search. Serge Frolov, while assuming a larger search area, makes the same point: “All reconstructions of Saul’s journey, including my own . . . represent his route as a line. It is obvious, however, that simply pushing forward would be an ineffective way of looking for the lost animals. If Saul and his servant ever cared about finding their livestock, they had no other choice but to comb one area after another; this is why it took them three days (9.20) to reach the city of anointing that could hardly be more than a dozen miles away.” “The Semiotics of Covert Action in 1 Samuel 9–10,” JSOT 31.4 (2007): 435n10

49 The current structure dates to the Crusades. However, Matitiahu Tsevat points out that the location of Rachel’s tomb (whether in Benjamin or Judah) was already confusing rabbis in the early centuries AD. “Studies in the Book of Samuel: Interpretation of 1 Samuel 10:2: Saul at Rachel’s Tomb,” HUCA 33 (1962): 107n1.

50 E.g., R. Riesner, “Archeology and Geography,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight (InterVarsity Press, 1992), 34.

51 Na’aman, “Settlement of the Ephrathites,” 516–29. See also, Serge Frolov and Vladimir E. Orel, “A Nameless City,” JBQ 23.4 (1995): 252-56.

52 Demsky, “Where Was Rachel Buried?”

53 Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, JPS Torah Commentary (Jewish Publication Society, (1989), 408.

54 See e.g., Tsevat, “Studies in the Book of Samuel,” 112.

55 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50, NICOT (Eerdmans, (1995), 386.

56 Ernst Vogt, “Benjamin geboren ‘eine Meile’ von Ephrata,” Bib 56.1 (1975): 30–36.

57 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, WBC 2 (Word, 1994), 32

58 Vogt, “Benjamin geboren,” 34.

Apologetics, Bible Backgrounds

Revolutionary Revelation in a Cultural Package

July 13, 2020 randymccracken Leave a comment

Revolutionary Revelation in a Cultural Package

OT scholar John Walton refers to divine revelation as “revolutionary revelation” in his OT Theology

The Old Testament (OT) is a strange and foreign world to many, including many Christians. The reason for this is simple: The writings which compose the OT ( or Hebrew Bible) were written in a cultural milieu much different from ours. Yet in spite of its many similarities with the culture of the ancient Near East (ANE), the OT has many unique features and beliefs not found in any other neighboring country or region of that era. OT scholar John Walton refers to this phenomenon as, “revolutionary revelation in a cultural package” (Old Testament Theology for Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring Belief, p. 12–see link below).

This post is about some of the unique features of the OT. Such uniqueness causes one to ask, “How did writers in ancient Israel, come up with beliefs and ideas that were so counter-cultural?” Were they a race of geniuses? Or could it be that their claim of Divine Revelation is actually true? The context in which Walton uses the expression, “revolutionary revelation in a cultural package,” explains his answer to this question and is worth quoting at length. (The bold type and italics in the quote below are Walton’s and serve as one of the subheadings in his introductory chapter):

revolutionary revelation--John Walton — OT scholar and author John Walton

“Theology is to be understood within the framework of the ancient world, yet as the result of revelation that draws the people out of those ways of thinking. The Israelites were thoroughly immersed in the world and cultural framework of the ancient Near East, just as all of us are immersed in our own native cultures. However, God’s revelation of himself, though grounded in a specific culture, is capable of transcending culture. As a result, we can be transformed by that revelation, regardless of the time and space that separate us from the original revelation. The situation with ancient Israel was no different—God’s revelation called them away from the ways in which their culture inclined them to think and to be transformed in their minds. We have, then, a revolutionary revelation in a cultural package. But it is important to note that the Old Testament’s theology is situated against the backdrop of the ancient world’s customary ways of thinking.” (Walton, OT Theology, p. 12).

John Walton is not only an OT scholar, but is a scholar of the ancient Near East. As such, he is eminently qualified to address this topic. His writings include other works on the ancient Near East such as, “Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament,” and “Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context.” The rest of this article will focus on 9 aspects of this “revolutionary revelation” in the OT as revealed in Walton’s Old Testament Theology. These are not the only unique features of Israel’s religion, there are others. These are enough, however, to substantiate that Israel’s outlook and practices were qualitatively different in many aspects, in spite of sharing a common culture with its ancient Near Eastern neighbors.

Revolutionary Revelation in the Old Testament

One Supreme God–this is probably the most obvious difference between Israel and its neighbors. It’s difficult to underscore just how revolutionary this belief is. All the nations of the ANE believed in a pantheon of gods. While one god might be considered the head of the pantheon, this could change. For example, the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish recounts how the god Marduk is elevated to the head of the pantheon. The OT reveals that God has a council of divine beings (e.g., Ps. 82:1, 1 Kgs 22:19-22). However, none of these beings are equal to God. In fact, all were created by God. God allows these beings to participate with Him, just as God allows humans to participate in His plans. Walton explains how foreign this concept was to the other peoples of the ANE. He points out that people functioned and found their identity within community. They believed the gods did likewise. Walton then states, “With this brief discussion as a backdrop, we can understand the challenge of the theology revealed to the Israelites. How could one God do it all? Why would one God do it all? It would have been difficult for them to think of Yahweh as a cosmic deity, a phenomenon deity, a national deity, and a clan deity all at the same time. It just would not have made sense” (OT Theology, p. 38). The fact is, many Israelites had a hard time accepting this belief themselves. The OT is full of examples of Israel worshipping other gods. Given the mindset of the ANE, the idea of one supreme God overall only makes sense if it was received by divine revelation. No one in that culture would come up with such an idea!
Revolutionary revelation: A God who reveals Himself! Courtesy of pininterest
A God who communicates and reveals Himself–I was honestly shocked to learn this one. In the ANE although gods did, at times, reveal answers to oracular questions through divination (Should we go to war?, Will this famine end soon?), they didn’t offer an account of their plans or their attributes the way we are accustomed to seeing the God of Israel do in the OT. Walton states, “In the ancient Near East it was more common for the gods to manifest themselves rather than to reveal themselves. Gods “manifested” themselves in objects, images, names, celestial bodies, or other things that comprised the divine constellation” (OT Theology, pp. 43-44). Revelation of the kind we are used to speaking of, simply was not a thought that occurred to an ancient person. The gods were about having their needs met (see below), not about revealing themselves.
A God of relationship–Of course, one of the reasons for self-revelation is for the purpose of relationship. It appears the gods of the ANE were little concerned with developing a relationship with their worshippers. One of the aspects of the God of Israel is his desire to dwell in their midst (e.g., the tabernacle and temple). Walton states, “Other gods dwelled among people, but they were not prone to claim a people group as their own” (OT Theology, p. 65). No other ANE deity ever said anything like, “I will be your God and you will be My people” (Exod. 6:7; Lev. 26:12; Jer. 7:23; etc.). While the OT is full of expressions of God’s love for His people, and people’s love for God (Deut. 6:4; 7:7-8; 23:5; etc.), such an expression from the ANE gods is rare. Walton writes, “The gods in general are considered to love (e.g., in Akkadian râmu) people, and people likewise love the gods, though it has been demonstrated that terms such as these in the ancient world are sometimes used to express the presence of political relationships rather than emotions. But such expressions from the gods are rare and are more often directed to the king than to the people at large. Even considering the myriads of royal inscriptions wherein the kings speak at length about the relationship between themselves and a god, clear expressions of emotion in either direction are little attested” (OT Theology, p. 57).
Exclusive worship–If God is the one true God then it makes sense that He would require exclusive worship. While other nations had patron deities, for example, the Moabites’ god Chemosh, or the Babylonians’ god Marduk, no one expected them to be worshipped exclusively. After all, exclusive worship would offend the other gods! When one ancient Pharaoh by the name of Akhenaten attempted to force the worship of only one god (the sun god Aten), he was considered a heretic (see wikipedia article here). Walton says that Israel’s practice was, “an idea unmatched in its particularity in the rest of the ancient world” (OT Theology, p. 66). Even today the insistence on worshipping only one God as the true God causes offense to many. Why would Israel go against the grain of ancient society, unless, as they claim, such action had been revealed to them?
The Atrahasis epic contains one version of the Babylonian creation story.
The reason for creation–Perhaps the most revolutionary revelation (besides one supreme God), is in regards to creation. In the accounts of the creation of the world and humanity, there is a significant difference between Israel and the nations of the ANE. Most people who read this blog are probably aware that other nations of the ANE had creation stories (as well as Flood stories!). Scholars have noted some similarities between these accounts with the account in Genesis 1-3. One similarity relates to the creation of humanity. Genesis states that Adam was created from the dust of the ground. The Atrahasis epic states that 7 male and 7 female embryos were fashioned from clay. However, the major difference between the ancient creation accounts and Genesis is why God/the gods created human beings. Walton refers to the ANE ideas contained in the various creation accounts as “The Great Symbiosis.” Several quotes from Walton flesh out what is meant by the Great Symbiosis, and how this contrasts with the biblical account. “According to the theology of the Old Testament, God created the world for humans. This theology, however, stands in contrast to the ancient Near Eastern idea that the gods created the cosmos for themselves. In this view, humans, as afterthoughts, were to function as slaves of the gods to ensure the cosmos would continue to serve the deities’ needs” (OT Theology, p. 71). A few pages later, Walton writes, “The other gods order the cosmos to function for themselves, and people merely function as cogs in the machinery…. But in the Old Testament, Yahweh orders the cosmos to serve people, not himself, and it is ordered to be sacred space (by virtue of his presence there) (OT Theology, pp. 83-84). One final quote from Walton emphasizes the ANE perspective on the creation of humanity: “Conventional wisdom was that the gods wanted to be pampered, and if the people succeeded in meeting their every whim, the gods might just treat them well. After all, if the gods desired all of this pampering, they had to protect and provide for those who were diligent and conscientious in their ministrations. Experience, as the people interpreted it, had taught them that the gods were fickle, demanding, capricious, and disinterested in the cares of humans; the gods were interested only in their own comforts and were concerned primarily with their own needs” (OT Theology, p. 112). I have spent extra space on this point and provided extra quotes from Walton because it is such a significant difference. The idea that humans were created as the slaves for the gods to do the work they didn’t want to do was ubiquitous throughout the ANE. The biblical depiction is clearly superior and certainly more attractive. The question once again arises, “How did Israel come up with such a radically different concept?” As a side note, I find it interesting that many people today have a more ANE view of God than they do a biblical view. The picture of a god who only wants to use people for his own purposes aligns perfectly with the ANE, but is diametrically opposed to the God of the Hebrew Bible.
The Babylonian tablets containing Enuma Elish, one of the ANE accounts of creation.
Cosmic Conflict vs. No Conflict in Creation–We can keep this one short. The Babylonian creation story Enuma Elish speaks of conflict between the gods resulting in the creation of the world. Genesis evidences no such conflict. The Creator God is in complete control and all of the cosmos is created by his sovereign word.
The image of God–The biblical creation story states that all human beings (male and female) are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-28). The image is not a characteristic or quality; it is a status. Humans are to rule the earth as God’s representatives. We have already noted that, in the ANE, humans were created to be slaves to the gods. The only one mentioned as being in the gods’ image is the king. Only the king is granted the status of rulership. Walton states, “…in the Old Testament, the image of God provides the primary description of human purpose and meaning. Human dignity in the Old Testament is found in the status and function people have as God’s image” (OT Theology, p. 97). Because humanity is created in God’s image, this also means that Israel was not to permit any other likeness or image of God. This, of course, is stated clearly in the 10 commandments (Exod. 20:4). Walton writes, “Aniconism is observable in various ways in other times and places in the ancient Near East….However, total aniconism in the ancient Near East outside Israel is unknown. The significance of this is far-reaching and cannot be overstated” (OT Theology, p. 150).
Sin and separation from God’s presence–Walton writes, “There is nothing like the fall in ancient Near Eastern literature because there is no idealized primeval scenario (OT Theology, p. 102). Furthermore, “Even the discussion of sin is problematic in an ancient Near Eastern context” (OT Theology, p. 102). People in the ANE certainly knew what it was like to offend a deity and to suffer for it, but the concept of sacrificing for atonement to restore a relationship was foreign to them (Remember, the gods were not interested in a relationship as such. Their interest was in how they could benefit from human existence). In the biblical understanding, sin separates a person from God. An unrepentant sinner can be driven from the presence of God (Gen. 4:14), or God can remove his presence from a sinful nation (Ezek. 11:22-23). The gods of the ANE would be considered foolish for removing humanity from their presence–they needed them! Humans were created to do the work and to offer the sacrifices that fed the gods. To remove humanity would be devastating! In the Atrahasis epic the gods actually find this out when they attempt to destroy humanity with a flood. They soon realize their mistake as there is no one left to offer them sacrifices to feed them or to do their work. Fortunately, one of the gods, Enki, has saved Atrahasis in a boat (sound familiar?). When Atrahasis leaves the boat, he offers sacrifices to the gods. The story humorously states that the gods gathered around the sacrifice like flies! Although one can see a few similarities with the Genesis story of the Flood, the qualitative differences in the biblical story are undeniable.
The God of the OT (and NT) is a covenant-making God.
A God who makes covenants with people–We have already noted that one of the distinctive features of the Bible is that God is a God of relationship, while the gods of the ANE are not much interested in partnering with people. One of the ways this is expressed in Scripture is the making of covenants between God and people. Once again we have a unique feature that is not found in the ANE. Walton states, “In the ancient Near East, the idea of a god who made a covenant with a group of people was unique to Israel—a circumstance for which we have little precedent. Gods did, however, make covenants with kings… (OT Theology, p. 105). We noted above that the image of God can apply to kings in the ANE, but not with the general public. The same is true of making covenants. But we have no record of gods making a covenant with a group of people. In the OT we read of God making a covenant with Noah and the whole earth, promising not to flood it again (Gen. 9:8-17). Beginning with Abram, God makes a covenant with an individual who will grow into a family, which will, in turn, grow into a nation. Along these lines Walton writes, “The transition from an agreement with a family to an agreement with an ethnic group/nation is paralleled by the transition of Yahweh from a family God (“personal god”) to a national God. No other examples exist in the ancient world of such a relational transition by a god” (OT Theology, p. 120). In other words, once a family god, always a family god. Once a national deity, always a national deity, etc. In the ANE, there was no need for one god to fill many roles, after all, there were plenty of gods to go around. Not so in biblical teaching. Only one God was supreme (see #1 above), and he fulfilled all necessary roles.

Conclusions Regarding Revolutionary Revelation

Very few people go against the values and beliefs that are prevalent in their culture. To do so leads to ridicule, rejection, and in severe cases, persecution and death. In fact, most of us assimilate our cultural values and beliefs without giving it much thought. Throughout this post we have noticed that Ancient Israel, while having many similarities with its neighbors, differed in significant ways. These beliefs and practices were enough to make them “stand out in the crowd.” According to Scripture, this was the purpose. Israel was to be a nation of priests to draw others to the true God (Gen. 12:3; Exod. 19:5-6; 1 Kgs. 8:43, 60). These differences, however, did come with a price (e.g., Daniel 3:8-18).

revolutionary revelation--3 men in the fiery furnace — Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, refused to bend to the cultural practices and beliefs of Babylon.

The OT testifies to the fact that not all Israelites were willing to swim against the current of ANE culture. We read of much compromise in its pages. This leads to the question of why a group within Israel proclaimed and clung to these radically different beliefs and practices–a question I have noted a few times above. Again, we must ask, “Where did these beliefs and practices come from?” Why Israel and no other nation? How is it that every other nation of the ANE had similar beliefs and practices, but Israel was unique? Not only that, but Israel also produced a unique literature we call the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible. This characteristic is not only true of Israel in the Old Testament era, the same can be said for a group of Jewish believers in the New Testament era. Many of the beliefs and practices of early Christianity were also counter-cultural. I have noted some of these counter-cultural beliefs in an article entitled, “Evidences for the Cross and Resurrection.” Did Israelites just have a thing about being counter-cultural? Did they enjoy the ridicule and persecution of others? Why not another nation or group of people? Why always Israel? I believe Walton’s explanation is the best and most logical. Israel was gifted by God with a revolutionary revelation.

Walton’s Old Testament Theology is available at Amazon USA / UK. A digital version is also available at Logos/Faithlife.

Apologetics, Bible Backgrounds, Logos Products Reviewed

Evidence for the Cross and Resurrection

June 29, 2016 randymccracken 4 Comments

Evidence for the Cross and Resurrection

The message of the cross and resurrection of Jesus is so counter-cultural that it could not have been fabricated by the early church.

For anyone who desires to investigate the cross and resurrection of Christ, there are a number of solid evidences for its reality. In this article I will seek to demonstrate that there are several facts inherent in the preaching of the early Christians that, based on the society in which they lived, could not and would not have been fabricated. These facts include items that are so counter-cultural that it is not only unlikely that they would be made up, but impossible to believe that such a proclamation would be accepted by the Jewish, and Graeco-Roman society of the first century, unless there was demonstrable truth behind them. As Bible scholar Ben Witherington III remarks, “When you know the context of the New Testament texts—the world and cultures in and to which these stories were written—you quickly realize that sometimes the incongruities and unusual aspects in the story testify to their historical veracity and authenticity” (Biblical Views: Making Sense of the Unlikely Easter Story, BAR Mar/Apr 2011).

Honor & Shame and the Cross

This graffito, found in the pagan catacombs of Rome (1st-3rd century AD) illustrates how a majority reacted to the idea of a crucified savior. It reads, "Alexamenos worshipping his god." — This graffito, found in the pagan catacombs of Rome (1st-3rd century AD) illustrates how a majority reacted to the idea of a crucified savior. It reads, “Alexamenos worshipping his god.”

The number one reason why the message of the cross could not be fabricated is because of the basic foundational values of honor and shame that pervaded all first century Mediterranean culture. I have written about the significance of this briefly elsewhere (Cross Examination: The Cross of Christ in the Roman World), and so I will only note a few important points here. Being connected with honorable people was important on every level of ancient Mediterranean culture. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that maintaining one’s honor was critical for any kind of quality of life (see the recent podcast on honor and shame by myself and Lindsay Kennedy at Beyond Reading the Bible). The cross was not only intended to torture its victim, but to shame them so that no one would want to be affiliated with them. This is why a person was crucified naked, was beaten, mocked, and spit upon and exposed publicly (e.g., Matt. 27:29-30). The shame of the cross is the backdrop for all of the passion narratives in the gospels and for passages such as 1 Corinthians 1:18 and Hebrews 12:2. Witherington states, “It was not seen as a noble martyrdom of any sort. People in that world believed that the manner of your death most revealed your character. On that basis, Jesus was a scoundrel, a man who committed treason against the state, a man who deserved the punishment used for slave revolts. The Romans called it ‘the extreme punishment,’ and no Roman citizen would be subjected to it” (Making Sense, cited above). The fact is, Roman crucifixion was so effective that it quelled every rebellion in the ancient world. Whether we are talking about the slave rebellion under Spartacus, which saw the crucifixion of 6000 men, or the uprisings of would-be deliverers and messiahs, every movement was put down and silenced by the use of the cross. Every movement that is…except for one! The fact that the early disciples went about preaching “Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2) is an astonishing fact, given the cultural dynamics of honor and shame. No one in this society would think, “I believe I’ll start a new religion and base it on a man who was crucified.” Again Witherington states, “It wouldn’t make sense to create a story about a crucified and risen man being the savior of the world—unless you really believe it is historically true.” Teaching about the cross offered a life of rejection and persecution for those who proclaimed it, and the New Testament bears eloquent witness to this fact. Why would anyone make this teaching a part of their new religion unless it was true? To summarize: In a society of honor and shame, with crucifixion expressing the deepest kind of shame possible, the message of the cross and the resurrection was counter-cultural to the utmost and would never have been considered viable, and would never have been preached, if it were not true.

The Resurrection On the Third Day

Dr. Bock's mobile ed course from Logos goes into various details regarding the cross and resurrection. — Dr. Bock’s mobile ed course from Logos goes into various details regarding the cross and resurrection.

The rest of the information in this article is taken from Dr. Darrell Bock’s Mobile Ed Course entitled: “Introducing the Gospels and Acts: Their Background, Nature, and Purpose,” from Logos/Faithlife Corporation. The quotations which follow will come from this source (unless otherwise noted). Dr. Bock points out that while the Jews (or at least some of them) believed in a physical resurrection at the end of time, the idea that some would be resurrected in the midst of history was a novelty. He states, “So what causes the mutation in the normal Jewish view? One could have defended Jesus and His future and His identity by simply saying, “Well, when the resurrection comes at the end of history, Jesus will run the judgment. He will be raised and exalted and run the judgment.” That would be how to do it on the basis of Jewish precedent and expectation. You wouldn’t need a resurrection in the midst of history. And yet, what we get is the resurrection in the midst of history. Something has put pressure on creating that mutation in Jewish expectation and Jewish thought.” In other words, the disciples of Jesus must have had a reason for changing normal Jewish understanding and expectation. It is much easier to accept a new religion if it falls in line with old beliefs. Why change this expectation of resurrection? Answer: Because it must have happened that way.

Graeco-Roman Philosophy and Resurrection

One of the challenges presented by taking the gospel to the Graeco-Roman world, was not only that the cross was considered a shameful way to die, but also that the Greeks and Romans did not believe in a physical resurrection. To them it was nonsense (e.g., Acts 17:32). Regarding this Dr. Bock states, “the bulk of the Graeco-Roman hope has no resurrection in it. You either died and your body decomposed and there was no hope whatsoever, or there was a belief in some type of immortality of the soul—a spiritual form of resurrection but no physical dimensions to it whatsoever. And so Graeco-Romans either had immortality of the soul or you died at death, so the resurrection would be a completely new concept . . . . a problematic concept for a lot of the Graeco-Romans. Once again we see that the gospel message of the cross and resurrection faced an uphill battle. Anyone seeking to appeal to both the Jews and Gentiles of the time would not have incorporated so many controversial ideas into a religion that they wanted to promote, unless there was some basis for them.

Women As Witnesses

Mary tells the apostles she has seen Jesus.

With all deference to any women reading this post, the testimony of women in the ancient world was considered unreliable. Here is what Bock says on this subject: “It’s very important to appreciate how crucial this idea is, because in the culture of the time, women could not be witnesses and weren’t viewed as credible witnesses. The only time a woman could testify in a court case and be involved as a witness are in some cases of sexual abuse. But otherwise, she didn’t count as a witness, and we have numerous texts both in the Mishnah and in the Talmud that make the statement that a woman’s testimony is not to be taken or trusted.” How is this significant for the preaching of the resurrection? Each of the gospels testifies that it was women who first saw and proclaimed the resurrection to Jesus’ disciples (Matt. 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-7; Luke 24:1-10; John 20:1-2, 11-18). This is not the way anyone in the ancient world would seek to establish credibility for their teaching or new religion. Bock sums it up this way: “So you’re in a PR meeting, and this is going to be the case you’re going to make: ‘I’ll tell you how we keep hope alive. Let’s talk about a resurrection because Judaism expects a physical resurrection. Let’s talk about a resurrection in the midst of history. That’s a new idea. And let’s sell that idea, which is an unpopular idea. Graeco-Romans don’t have it. Let’s sell that idea by having our first witnesses be people who culturally don’t count as witnesses.’ You would never make up the story this way if it were made up. You would figure out a different way to do it. In other words, the women are in the resurrection story because the women were in the original resurrection story.”

Criterion of Embarrassment

The criterion of embarrassment is one of the standards used to determine whether something is historical or not. In other words, if you are making something up (i.e., a new religion) you want to put all the leaders and their actions in the best light. You do not want to tell stories that might discredit them. Yet this is exactly what the gospels do! For example, when the women return to declare to the disciples that Jesus has risen, they refuse to believe, according to Luke 24:11: “And their words seemed to them like idle tales, and they did not believe them.” You mean Peter’s initial reaction, along with the other apostles, was unbelief? We can understand this response. It actually has the ring of authenticity because you and I would react the same way. However, when you are trying to promote a new religion would you really want to put all of the leaders of the new movement in such a bad light? The gospels not only do it here, but in many other places! In fact, one of the statements that causes even skeptical scholars to accept that Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection is the account that immediately follows his prediction. After Jesus tells his disciples about his death, Peter takes him aside and rebukes him which causes Jesus to respond, “Get behind me Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God but the things of men” (Mark 8:33; also Matt. 16:23). Having the leader called “Satan” is certainly an embarrassing fact and would certainly never have been recorded unless it had really happened. Imagine the disciples making up Christianity and in this made up story they have Peter as the leader of the apostles preaching the first sermon on that Pentecost Sunday (Acts 2). The same Peter who denied Jesus and who Jesus also called Satan! This is not the way to begin a new religion if you want your leaders to have credibility! Therefore, the criterion of embarrassment has a ring of authenticity about it. Why would such stories be made up? Although the following quote refers to the historical nature of the Old Testament, it is applicable to our discussion here. In comparing the accounts of other ancient peoples, Hoffner states, “Part of what makes Israel’s historical records so distinctive when compared with those of Egypt, Babylon, Ugarit, and the Hittites is that the kings’ mistakes and sins are so clearly and openly described and rebuked by the prophets” (Hoffner, H. A., Jr., 1 & 2 Samuel, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, Lexham Press, 2015). In other words, it is the nature of biblical writing to be honest about its leaders and this is contrary to the written records of other peoples in the Ancient Near East.

Conclusion: The Validity of the Cross and Resurrection

When one considers the birth of the Christian message which centered around the cross and resurrection of Jesus, the deck was certainly stacked against the possibility of its success, given the social conditions of the Graeco-Roman world. The early Christians proclaimed that their Savior and God was a man who died on a Roman cross (“the emblem of suffering and shame” as one wonderful hymn puts it). This is strike one in a culture based on honor and shame–in fact, it’s really a knock-out punch all on its own. After being crucified, Christians proclaimed that this Jesus had risen from the dead, something that no Gentile in the Roman world believed in, and something that Jews only thought would happen at the end of time (for those who believed there was such a thing as resurrection!). This is strike two. “We can prove it,” say the early Christians, “because there were some women who told us it was true!” Strike number three. Your religion doesn’t have a prayer of being accepted by anyone with testimony like that. But after being down and out with three strikes, the Christians persist by saying that you should listen to Jesus’ disciples even though they all originally denied him, did not believe that he rose from the dead, and that their ring-leader was even called Satan by Jesus himself. Somebody surely needs to give these early Christians some suggestions on how to start a new religion because, clearly, they haven’t got a clue!

And yet history tells a very different story. In spite of the hundreds and thousands of other gods and religions that existed in the first century Roman empire, Christianity outlasted them all. In fact, people came to believe the message of the cross and resurrection so fervently that they stopped worshipping other gods and all of those religions, so much more palatable to the tastes of people at the time, disappeared. The cross, a symbol of shame and reproach, was even transformed into a symbol of victory and honor. Look at all of human history and understand that such things do not happen. The reason Christianity not only survived but thrived, was because it was true and was backed up by the power of God.