When is the Evidence Sufficient?

Dr. Alice C. Linsley

I recently had a conversation with a man named Toshio who wanted to know how I came to the conclusion that Abraham was a descendant of Nimrod. He was not satisfied by my answers.

Toshio wants me to show him where in the Bible it says that Abraham is a descendant of Nimrod. He will not be satisfied unless I can cite chapter and verse. This highlights a common misconception about the Hebrew king lists of Genesis 4 and 5, mistakenly called "genealogies." They do not represent simple linear descent from a ruling male to a group of descendants. These are lists of rulers in succession and they present a complex kinship pattern. Analysis of the data in Genesis 4, 5, 10, 11, 25 and 36 reveals a distinctive marriage and ascendancy pattern among Abraham's Hebrew people. They were a ruler-priest caste that practiced endogamy.

The complexity and consistency of the pattern throughout the biblical texts indicates an authentic pattern and adds weight to the hypothesis that the early Hebrew (4000-2000 BC) married only members of their caste. Because of the practice of endogamy, Abraham must be recognized as a descendant of both Cain and Seth (whose lines intermarried), and a descendant of both Ham and Shem (whose lines intermarried).

Moving more directly to Toshio's first concern...

Analysis of the Lamech segment shows that the descendants of Cain and Seth intermarried, which means that Abraham is a descendant of both Hebrew rulers. The lines of Ham and Shem intermarried also, which means that Abraham is also a descendant of both those Hebrew rulers.

In Genesis 10 we read that the Cushite city builder Nimrod left the Nile Valley and became established in Sumer and later in northern Mesopotamia. He married the daughter of a Hebrew ruler named Asshur and she named their firstborn son Asshur, after her father. This distinctive feature of the marriage and ascendancy pattern of the early Hebrew is called the "cousin bride's naming prerogative" because it occurs only in cases where the ruler has taken a cousin wife.

Genesis 10 listed Nimrod as a son of Kush/Cush. He was a sent-away son like Abraham, Moses, Jacob, and Joseph. Nimrod was not Cush's proper heir. Nimrod and his brother Ramah (Gen. 10:6-12) established territories to the east of Kush (the Upper Nile). Ramah ruled in Southern Arabia. Nimrod built his cities in Mesopotamia. Nimrod's movement represents the dispersion of the early Hebrew out of the Nile Valley which is where we find the oldest known site of Hebrew worship at Nekhen on the Nile (c.4000 BC). The practice of sending away non-ascendant sons drove the dispersion of the early Hebrew out of Africa.  

The language of Nimrod's kingdom was Akkadian, the oldest known Semitic language. The roots have close affinity to biblical Hebrew and the languages of the Nile Valley, as has been demonstrated by Christopher Ehret study of the cattle-herding Nilotes as early as 9000 years ago. Among these Proto-Saharan or Saharo-Nubian peoples were some of Abraham's ancestors. Cattle were a source of wealth, and a symbol of divine appointment was the Sun resting in the long horns of the bull. 

The cousin bride's naming prerogative is first found among the early Hebrew rulers listed in Genesis 4 and 5. This is a necessary piece of information for those who want to understand the marriage and ascendancy pattern of the biblical Hebrew.

Analysis of the marriage and ascendancy pattern of Abraham's ancestors reveals a consistent pattern for the ruler who ascends to the throne. That pattern applies to Lamech the Elder, Nahor the Elder, Terah, Esau the Elder, Amram, and others. The pattern involves marriage to two wives.

Note that Lamech the Elder's daughter who is mentioned in Genesis 4 married her patrilineal cousin Methuselah (Gen. 5) and named their firstborn son Lamech, after her father.

We first meet Abraham in Mesopotamia because that is where his Hebrew ancestors settled. Nimrod's marriage to his cousin reveals the distinctive Hebrew naming custom as is found in the case of Lamech the Elder (Gen. 4) and Lamech the Younger (Gen. 5).

Toshia's second concern is that I cannot cite chapter and verse that says Nimrod married the daughter of Asshur. Perhaps he is a Bible "literalist" who accepts as true only what is explicitly stated. If this is true, kinship analysis means nothing to him, and the science of Biblical Anthropology offers him nothing of value. 

To delve deeper into the text, it helps to understand the relationships of the Hebrew rulers, priests and clans. This requires gaining a clearer understanding of their kinship pattern and their marriage and ascendancy pattern. The data is found in the Bible. I apply the tools of cultural anthropology to the biblical texts. Biblical Anthropology employs reliable methods and principles.

As a biblical anthropologist, I must consider the data that is available in the canonical texts. Taken as a whole, after over 36 years of research, there is sufficient evidence of a distinctive Hebrew marriage and ascendancy pattern throughout the Bible.

Science requires acute observation of details, record keeping, and critical thinking. There always is the possibility that the next experiment might not provide the same results or conform to the hypothesis as did earlier experiments.

This radical doubt poses a problem for scientists. It means that the scientific method cannot be said to ascertain beyond doubt. This is Hume's problem of induction. Inductive methods predict or infer and are essential in scientific reasoning. One cannot assume that something is immutable and necessary because it has always or usually been reliable in the past. Though 20 experiments produce the same results, we have no certainty that the results will be the same after experiments 21, or 32 or 45. Though the sun has risen daily on the eastern horizon for many millennia, we have no certainty that it will always do so.

In 1953, Richard Rudner published “The Scientist qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments,” in which he argued that since no hypothesis is ever completely verified, in accepting a hypothesis the scientist must make the decision that the evidence is sufficiently strong to warrant the acceptance of the hypothesis. The induction problem framed by Hume is a problem involving one's decision about which action to take, not proof of the fallibility of science in general.

I assure my readers and Toshio that I have not tried to impose on the text something that is not there. I begin with the biblical text, identify anthropologically significant data, apply an empirical method, and trust that what the texts give is reliable and truthful. Indeed, that is my working hypothesis.

Related reading: Understanding the Science of Biblical Anthropology; Cousin Brides; Hebrew Rulers With Two Wives; BIBLICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: Think like a biblical anthropologist!; Nimrod's Sumerian Wife; Reading the Bible in a Different Way; The Hebrew Hierarchy of Sons