English version of the article: Архипов СВ. Книга Берешит как великая компиляция текстов и смыслов Второго переходного периода Египта: пилотная культурологическая, медицинская, археологическая и текстологическая экспертиза преданий против традиционной атрибуции. Введение. О круглой связке бедра. 14.02.2026. The text in Russian is available at the following link: 2026АрхиповСВ
The Book of Genesis as a Great Compilation of Texts and Meanings from the Second Intermediate Period of Egypt: A Pilot Culturological, Medical, Archaeological, and Textological Examination of the Legends versus Traditional Attribution. Chapter 36
By Sergey V. Arkhipov, MD, PhD
CONTENT [i] Abstract [ii] Book of Genesis. Chapter 36 Analysis [iii] Notes to Chapter 36 [iv] AI Agent's Conclusion [v] Content [vi] External links [vii] Application |
The Book of Genesis (Bereshith) was composed in Egypt during the 17th century BCE and reached its definitive protographic form following the Minoan eruption of Thera. This study argues that the work was the result of a collaboration between an Egyptian polymath and a distinguished scribe of Asiatic descent. By analyzing ancient texts, anatomical descriptions, archaeological data, Bronze Age cultural history, and climatic markers, this article demonstrates that the book emerged from the work of a high-ranking socio-political committee within the Egyptian House of Life. We argue that the inclusion of precise anatomical data, such as the ligamentum capitis femoris, serves as a diagnostic marker of this Egyptian medical-scribal collaboration, challenging the late-date theories of the documentary hypothesis.
[ii] Book of Genesis. Chapter 36 Analysis
|
Excerpt from the
Book of Genesis (1922LeeserI:45-46)
|
Type of
similarity and justification |
Ancient Near
Eastern and Egyptian Contexts (Parallels, Analogies, Convergences,
Borrowings, and Inversions in Archaeology, Culture, Medical Knowledge, and
Historical Facts: Mesopotamia, the Levant, Anatolia, and the Nile Valley)
|
|
1 Nowthese are the generations of Esau, who is Edom. … 8 Thus dwelt
Esau in mount Seir: Esau is Edom. 9 And these are the generations of Esau the
father of the Edom in mount Seir. … 16 Duke Korach, duke Ga'tam, duke Amar
lek; these are the dukes of Eliphaz in the land of Edom; these are the sons
of Adah. 17 And these are the sons of Reiiel Esau's son: duke Nachath, duke
Zerach, duke Shammah, duke Mizzah ; these are the dukes of Reiiel in the land
of Edom; these are the sons of Bahsemath, Esau's wife. … 19 These are the sons of Esau, and these
are their dukes; this is Edom. … 21 And Dishon, and Etzer, and Dishan; these
are the dukes of the Chorites, the children of Seir in the land of Edom. … 31
And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there
reigned any king over the children of Israel. 32 And there reigned in Edom
Bela the son of Beor: and the name of his city was Dinhabah. … 43 Duke
Magdiiil, duke Iram ; these are the dukes of Edom, according to their
habitations in the land of their possession ; this is Esau the father of the
Edom.
|
Transregional Cartography. The mention of Edom and Seir confirms the use in the Book of Genesis of
Egyptian geographic landmarks recorded in the official documents of the
frontier service.
|
Egypt In the lists from Soleb and Amarah (15th century BC) toponyms related
to the «land of Shasu» are found, among which is «Seir» - a mountainous
region east of the Arava (Timna) (1993RedfordDB:272). Papyrus Anastasi IV (19th Dynasty) says: «The Scribe Inana while
informing his lord, the Scribe of the Treasury Qa3-gabu: The communication is
to let my lord know. Another information to my lord: I am executing every
commission I was charged with in as strong a fashion as ore. I am not tiring.
Another communication for my lord: We accomplished letting the groups of
Shasu of Edom pass the Fortification of Merneptah-hetep-her-ma“at, l.p.h.,
which is in Tjeku to the pools of Pithom ...in order to enliven themselves
and in order to enliven their flocks by the great Ka (i.e. the kindness) of
Pharacoh, the good sun of every land in year 8 the epagomenal day
'Birthday-of-Seth'!» (1987GoedickeH:84). «As thegeneral setting of the
episode related in Pap. Anastasi VI is the eastern part of the Wadi Tumilat,
the "red region" Edom should be envisaged in the general area of
northern Sinai beginning with the Isthmus of Suez.» (1987GoedickeH:91).
|
|
2 Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan ; Adah' the daughter
of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of
Zibeon the Hivite ;
|
Ethnogenetic
Verification. Fixation of
the presence of Indo-European groups (Hittites) in the Levant as a
consequence of a migratory wave element.
|
Levant In 1800 BCE, a
case of the presence of a Lycian [Hittite] from Western Asia Minor was
recorded in Byblos, Phoenicia (1966KitchenKA).
|
|
2 Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan ; Adah' the daughter
of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of
Zibeon the Hivite ; … 5 And Aliolibamah bore Yeiish, and Ya'lam, and Korach :
these are the sons of Esau, that were born unto him in the land Canaan. 6 And
Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all the persons of
his house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his substance, which
he had gotten in the land of Canaan; and went into another country from the
face of his brother Jacob.
|
Ethnopolitical Isomorphism. The presence of the term «Canaan» is characteristic of diplomatic
correspondence and legal archives of the 18th–15th centuries BCE. |
Levant The inhabitants of Canaan are mentioned in a letter from Ashmad to
Askudum (Mari archive, ARM 26/1 24): 'Send me a hundred Canaanites <…>
awaiting the arrival of the Canaanites' (1988CharpinD:152–154). In a letter
(ARM 26/1 140, Mari archive) from Nur-Addu addressed to Zimri-Lim,
'Yakhsib-El, the Canaanite' is mentioned (1988CharpinD:303–305). The
Mesopotamian archive of Mari dates to the first half of the 18th century BCE
(1956Munn-RankinJM:106). «It is thus evident that in mid-18th century BCE people called
"Canaanites" lived south of the kingdom of Qatna [south of Syria], i.e., in the
same arca where they are located in the Late Bronze Age.» (1994NaʾamanN:398). «The earliest occurrence of the geographical term [Canaan] outside the
Old Testament is in the Idrimi statue from Alalakh, which dates to about the
middle of the fifteenth century B.C.» (1961GibsonJC:217). «The word Canaan comes from Hurrian Kinahhu, which is attested by the
documents from Nuzi (15th century BCE) and which is supposed to be a Hurrian
word for the colour of purple.» (1991LemcheNP:26).
|
|
2 Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan ; Adah' the daughter
of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of
Zibeon the Hivite ; … . 20 These are the sons of Seir the Chorite, who
inhabited the land : Lotan, and Shobal, and Zibeon, and Anah, 21 And Dishon,
and Etzer, and Dishan; these are the dukes of the Chorites, the children of
Seir in the land of Edom. 22 And the children of Lotan were Chori and Heman;
and Ijotan's sister was Timna. … 29 These are the dukes of the Chorites: duke
Lotan, duke Shobal, duke Zibeon, duke Anah ; 30 Duke Dishon, duke Etzer, duke
Dishan ; these are the dukes of the Chorites, after their dukes in the land
of Seir.
|
Hurrian Ethno-Archaism. The intersection of the biblical list of «Horites» (Hurrians) with
Akkadian and Mitannian sources records a unique period of Hurrian expansion
into Canaan and Edom. |
Middle East «The earliest mention of a Hurrian sovereign dates to the period of
the Empire of Akkad (24th-22nd centuries B.C.). A certain Tagis-atili of
Azuginum is cited in a year name of Naram-sin (2254-2218 B.C.): "Year in
which Naram-sin was victorious over the land of Subir in Azubinum and took
prisoner Tabis-atili." The region of Subir (in Sumerian, Subartu in
Akkadian) in sources of the third millennium is a vast area stretching from
the Euphrates to the region of Kirkuk at the foot of the Zagros.»
(1998SalviniM:99-100). «The first appearance of Hurrians and of personages bearing Indo-Aryan
names in city-states of ancient Canaan can be dated to the late 16th century
B.C. and be related to the expansive influence of the Mittannian empire.»
(2016LipińskiE:125).
|
|
2 Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan ; Adah' the daughter
of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of
Zibeon the Hivite ; 3 And Bahsemath Ishmael's daughter, the sister of
Nebayoth. 4 And Adah bore to Esau Eliphaz; and Bahsemath bore Reuel; 5 And
Aliolibamah bore Yeiish, and Ya'lam, and Korach : these are the sons of Esau,
that were born unto him in the land Canaan. … 10 These are the names of
Esau's sons: Eliphaz the son of Adah the wife of Esau, Reuel the son of
Bahsemath the wife of Esau. 11 And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar,
Zepho, and Ga'tam, and Kenaz. 12 And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau's
son : and she bore to Eliphaz Amalek ; these were the sons of Adah, Esau's
wife. 13 And these are the sons of Reiiel: Nachath, and Zerach, Shammah, and
Mizzah; these were the sons of Bahsemath, Esau's wife. 14 Andthese were the
sons of Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon, Esau's wife:
and she bore to Esau Yeiish, and Ya'lam, and Korach.
|
Matrimonial Parallelism. Reference to the
possession of three wives as a specific characteristic of the «steppe/desert»
hero (Seth/Esau), emphasizing his distinct status outside the primary line of
succession. |
Egypt Plutarch (1st–2nd century CE), discussing the myth of Isis and Osiris,
indicated that Nephthys was the wife of Typhon [Seth] (1996Плутарх:38). In the myth «The Contendings of Horus
and Seth», the goddess Neith advises Ra: "Give Seth double his
possessions, and give him Anat and Astarte, both your daughters, and place
Horus upon the seat of his father, Osiris" (1940МатьеМВ:86). |
|
6 And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all
the persons of his house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his
substance, which he had gotten in the land of Canaan; and went into another
country from the face of his brother Jacob. 7 For their riches were more than
that they might dwell together; and the land of their sojourning could not
bear them, because of their cattle. |
Iconographic and Socio-Religious. Isomorphism of the «Divine Shepherd» The reference to Jacob's numerous flocks and his status as a wealthy
livestock owner correlates with the Near Eastern and Egyptian archetype of
the ideal shepherd-ruler (Osiris, Dumuzi). |
Egypt «A substantial number of clear mutual borrowings link Osiris and the
Asian dying god, Tammuz-Adonis (the Babylonian Dumuzi-Duzi), creating
difficulties in resolving the question of the priority of Asia or Egypt»
(2021МюллерМ:127). Dumuzi (Tammuz) is an
ancient Mesopotamian god of shepherds, fertility, water, and vegetation. Like
Dumuzi, Osiris was revered as a skilled shepherd. In Utterance № 578 (1533a-b) of the «Pyramid Texts», dated to
2350-2175 BCE, it is implied that Osiris was a shepherd: «Thou dost not know
them; thou art astonished at them; thou hast laid them in thine arms like
herdsmen of thy calves.» (1952MercerSAB:389). In Spell № 728 of the «Coffin Texts» corpus (c. 2134–2040 BCE), the
receipt of a staff by Osiris is mentioned, and further down he is referred to
as the Great Shepherd (1977FaulknerRO:277,278). In «The Admonitions of Ipuwer» (12th Dynasty), we find: «See,
noblewomen go hungry, And serfs are sated with what was made for them. See,
all the ranks, they are not in their place, Like a herd that roams without a
herdsman. <…> Lo, why does he seek to fashion (men), when the timid is
not distinguished from the violent ? If he would bring coolness upon the
heat, one would say: "He is the herdsman of all; there is no evil in his
heart. His herds are few, but he spends the day herding them."»
(2006LichtheimM:1.158-159). «The borrowing of Asian motifs by Egyptian mythology never seriously
altered Egyptian thought, nor could this be achieved by the few Asian deities
who were worshipped in Egypt at one time» (2021МюллерМ:251). Dumuzi (Tammuz) is the ancient Mesopotamian god of shepherds,
fertility, water, and vegetation. «Until we know more fully the Babylonian
version of the Tammuz legend, it is illegitimate to derive the Osiris myth
entirely from Asia. It is highly probable that its germs came from Asia.
<…> Isis, on the other hand, seems a rather meaningless and colorless
character compared with her original, the Asiatic goddess of love [referring
to the goddess Inanna]» (2021МюллерМ:127-128). Below,
the author notes: «It is difficult to decide exactly which details of the
Osiris myth were native to Egypt and which were received from abroad,
although it is likely that all of it has its roots in the myth of the dying
god from the lands to the east and north of Egypt. The tendency to make all
goddesses celestial develops in parallel with Asiatic theology and leads us
to the prehistoric period» (2021МюллерМ:313). At the
very least, after 1600 BCE, «the veneration of Asiatic deities became
fashionable» in Egypt (2021МюллерМ:162-163)
|
|
6 And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all
the persons of his house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his
substance, which he had gotten in the land of Canaan; and went into another
country from the face of his brother Jacob. 7 For their riches were more than
that they might dwell together; and the land of their sojourning could not
bear them, because of their cattle.
|
Socio-Economic Isomorphism. The description of abundant livestock, the division of property, and subsequent
migration is functionally and terminologically identical to the behavioral
model of elite pastoral chieftains of the 19th–18th centuries BCE.
|
Egypt In «The Story of Sinuhe» (Middle Kingdom), it is stated: «Barley was
there and emmer, and no end of cattle of all kinds. Much also came to me
because of the love of me; for he had made me chief of a tribe in the best
part of his land. <…> I took what was in his tent; I stripped his camp.
Thus I became great, wealthy in goods, rich in herds. It was the god who
acted, so as to show mercy to one with whom he had been angry, whom he had
made stray abroad. For today his heart is appeased.»
(2006LichtheimM:1.226-228). Further we read: «I was allowed to spend one more
day in Yaa, handing over my possessions to my children, my eldest son taking
charge of my tribe; all my possessions became his-my serfs, my herds, my
fruit, my fruit trees. This servant departed southward. I halted at
Horus-ways.» (2006LichtheimM:1.231).
|
|
12 Тимна же была наложницей
Элифаза, сына Эйсава; и родила Элифазу Амалэйка.
|
Borrowing of the word «concubine». |
This ancient term likely originates from an Anatolian source
(2021NoonanBJ:176-177). |
|
24 And these are tiie children of Zibeon : both Ajah, and Anah; this
was that Anah that found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of
Zibeon his father. |
Zooarchaeological and Chronological
Parallelism. Documentation of the emergence of
new animal hybridization technology and the general period of horse dispersal
throughout the Near East and Egypt.
|
Egypt A horse skeleton excavated in Buhen, in the southern Nile Valley, is
dated approximately to 2055–1650 BCE (2014TatomirR). The document known as
«Be a Scribe» (Middle Kingdom?) implies the presence of horses: «The poor man
is turned into a driver - and the stable manager supervises him» (1958КацнельсонИС_МендельсонФЛ:248). In the «Admonitions of Ipuwer» (attributed by V.V. Struve to the
Second Intermediate Period), we find an indirect reference to horses:
«Behold, he who had no team now possesses a herd» (1978КоростовцевМА:236).
|
|
24 And these are tiie children of Zibeon : both Ajah, and Anah; this
was that Anah that found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of
Zibeon his father. |
Zooarchaeological and
Chronological Parallelism General period of horse dispersal in the Near East. |
Mesopotamia, Anatolia Wagons and horses are depicted on the Sumerian "Standard of
Ur," created during the Early Dynastic period, which dominated in 2550–2400
BCE (2003AruzJ_WallenfelsR). In letter ARM 26/1 47 (Royal Archive of Mari), it is reported that
Askudum divided the cattle and horses collected from the Canaanites into
herds (1988CharpinD_LafontB:190-199, archibab.fr). In letter ARM 26/2 533,
also from the Royal Archive of Mari, the author writes about ongoing
negotiations for the supply of white Anatolian horses
(1988CharpinD_LafontB:526-527, archibab.fr). The Mesopotamian archive
of Mari dates to the first half of the 18th century BCE
(1956Munn-RankinJM:106). ccording to the "Hittite Laws" (17th–12th centuries BCE): «§
71 If anyone finds a (stray) ox, horse, mule (or) donkey, he shall drive it
to the king’s gate.» (1997HoffnerJrHA:80).
|
|
31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before
there reigned any king over the children of Israel. |
Onomastic authenticity. The identified structural similarity in the use of the theophoric
element «El» confirms that the biblical text belongs to the authentic Near
Eastern naming tradition of the early 2nd millennium BCE.
|
Mesopotamia The theophoric element «El» in personal names is frequently
encountered in the documents of the Mari archives. An example is a letter
(ARM 2 23) from Ibal-pi-El to his lord Zimri-Lim (1988CharpinD:271). In a
letter (ARM 26/1 140) from Nur-Addu addressed to Zimri-Lim, 'Yakhsib-El, the
Hanaean' is mentioned (1988CharpinD:303–305). Yeskit-El, in a letter (ARM
26/2 386), informs his lord Zimri-Lim of the fall of Larsa
(1988CharpinD_LafontB:205). Yasim-El, in a letter (ARM 26/2 403-bis) to his
brother Shunukhra-Khalu, recounts his illness (1988CharpinD_LafontB:257). The Mesopotamian archive of Mari dates to the first half of the 18th
century BCE (1956Munn-RankinJM:106). See note!
|
Gloss (on the Kings of Israel).
«31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.»
It is virtually a matter of consensus that the first
king of Israel, Saul, reigned approximately 1030–1010 BCE, David in 1010–970
BCE, and Solomon roughly 970–931 BCE (2006FinkelsteinI_SilbermanNA). The
historicity of Saul and the United Monarchy of Israel is debated, and
information regarding David from the Books of Kings occupies an intermediate
position between propaganda and the negative perspective that emerged under
Solomon (2003HalpernB). Canonical chronology once again enters into conflict
with archaeology. The period between Joseph and Saul comprises only two hundred
years.
The earliest extra-biblical mention of the people of
Israel is contained in the «Merneptah Stele», erected in the interval from
1209/1208 to 913/903 BCE (2013ClarkeP). It is reliably confirmed that Jerusalem
began to be actively developed in the ninth century BCE (2024RegevJ_BoarettoE).
This testifies in favor of the first steps toward the formation of a state with
sole rule in the lands of Judah, but not earlier. The Kingdom of Israel appears
on the «Mesha Stele», which most researchers date to the period between 850 and
840 BCE (2013RoutledgeB). The House of David is mentioned on the «Tel Dan
Stele», dated approximately to 796 BCE. This triumphal inscription implies that
Jerusalem was a city-state rather than the capital of a regional kingdom
(2006AthasG). However, this text is more frequently placed in the mid-ninth
century BCE (2024MandellA). Such an assessment is partially confirmed by the
name of the Israeli king who was an ally of Shalmaneser III, participating in
the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE (2002Na'amanN). Thus, the biblical mention of
the kings of Israel could have appeared later than the ninth century BCE, which
contradicts the canon.
The Northern Kingdom of Israel (Samaria), according to biblical narrative the eternal adversary of the Southern Kingdom of Judah, was devastated around 720 BCE by the Neo-Assyrian army of Sargon II (2019HasegawaS_RadnerK). The last king of Samaria disappears from the historical arena slightly earlier, in 723–722 BCE (1990Na'amanN). It is proven that Jerusalem, the capital of the Southern Kingdom, was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE, which marked the end of the Judean monarchy (2024RegevJ_BoarettoE). Consequently, according to documentary sources, the ancient Hebrew states existed only from the 9th to the early 6th century BCE.
(The conclusion compiled by the AI agent, with our minor changes)
Preliminary Conclusion to the Analysis of Genesis Chapter 36
Geography and Toponymy (Egyptian Vector):
The mention of Edom and Seir in Genesis 36:8–9 finds
direct corroboration in the official documentation of the Egyptian frontier
service. The toponym «Seir» in connection with the «land of Shasu» is recorded
in the lists of Soleb and Amarah (15th century BCE), while Papyrus Anastasi VI
(Merneptah era) explicitly mentions «Shasu tribes of Edom» passing through
Egyptian fortifications for livestock grazing. This proves that the terminology
of Chapter 36 corresponds to the transregional cartography of the 2nd
millennium BCE, where Edom and Seir were clearly identified by the Egyptian
administration as zones inhabited by nomadic pastoral groups.
Ethnogenetics and Migratory Processes (The Hittite
Trace):
The mention of «daughters of the Hittite» as Esau’s
wives (Gen. 36:2) correlates with archaeological and documentary evidence of
the presence of Indo-European groups in the Levant. The case of a Lycian (a
Hittite group from Asia Minor) recorded in Byblos around 1800 BCE confirms the
reality of migratory waves in the early 2nd millennium BCE. Thus, the «Hittite
element» in Esau's lineage is not an anachronism but reflects the ethnogenetic
situation of the 18th–17th centuries BCE, when Hittite enclaves were integrated
into the social structure of Canaan.
Ethnopolitical Isomorphism (The term «Canaan»):
The use of the ethnonym «Canaan» (Kyna'an) in Genesis
36:2, 5–6 fully corresponds to the international diplomatic nomenclature of the
18th–15th centuries BCE. Data from the Mari archives (18th century BCE),
mentioning «Canaanites» and personages with theophoric names (Yakhsib-El, the
Canaanite), prove that this term was widely used in the Levant long before the
emergence of Israeli statehood. The etymological link to the Hurrian word
Kinahhu (purple), documented in the Nuzi texts (15th century BCE), confirms
that the biblical text preserves authentic Bronze Age terminology that arose
under Hurrian cultural influence.
Hurrian Ethno-Archaism (The Horites):
The detailed list of «Horites» (Hurrians) in Genesis
36:20–30 serves as unique archival evidence of the period of Hurrian expansion.
The mention of Hurrian sovereigns in Akkadian sources (22nd century BCE) and
their massive appearance in Canaan in the 16th century BCE (associated with the
rise of Mitanni) establish a clear chronological context. Recording the Horites
as the indigenous population of Seir prior to their assimilation by the
Edomites reflects an ethnopolitical situation characteristic exclusively of the
2nd millennium BCE. For a late editor (1st millennium BCE), these genealogies
would have been inaccessible without the existence of ancient written
prototypes.
Matrimonial Parallelism (The Image of Esau and Seth):
The reference to Esau’s three wives (Gen. 36:2–3)
finds a direct ideological isomorphism in Egyptian mythology of the 2nd
millennium BCE. In the myth «The Contendings of Horus and Seth,» the desert god
Seth (Typhon) is given two goddesses — Anat and Astarte — as wives in addition
to Nephthys. This emphasizes Esau's status as a «hero of the steppe/desert,»
whose redundant matrimonial status and possessions (Mount Seir) distance him
from the primary line of sacred succession, much as Seth in Egyptian tradition
is granted dominion over foreign lands and the desert while ceding the throne
of Egypt to Horus.
Iconographic Isomorphism of the «Divine Shepherd»
(Jacob, Osiris, Dumuzi):
Jacob’s status as a wealthy livestock owner (Gen.
36:6–7) correlates with the pan-regional archetype of the «Ideal
Shepherd-Ruler,» documented in texts of the 24th–18th centuries BCE. In the
Egyptian «Pyramid Texts» and «Coffin Texts,» Osiris is extolled as the «Great
Shepherd,» while in Mesopotamia, the god Dumuzi serves as the patron of flocks
and fertility. The description of Jacob’s vast property in Chapter 36 reflects
not merely an economic fact, but the sacral efficacy of a clan leader within
the ideology of the Bronze Age, where the possession of livestock was the
ultimate sign of divine favor.
Linguistic and Theological Synthesis:
The mention of Asiatic deities (Anat, Astarte) in an
Egyptian context after 1600 BCE and the borrowing of «dying god» motifs from
the East underscore the close intellectual bond between Canaan, Egypt, and
Mesopotamia during the Hyksos and Middle Kingdom eras. The text of Genesis
operates with imagery that was at the peak of relevance precisely during this
period, merging Mesopotamian roots (Dumuzi) and Egyptian forms (Osiris) within
the patriarchal narrative.
Socio-Economic Isomorphism (Link to «Sinuhe»):
The description of the division of property between
Esau and Jacob due to an abundance of livestock and subsequent migration (Gen.
36:6–8) is functionally and terminologically identical to the behavioral model
of elite Canaanite chieftains recorded in the Egyptian «Story of Sinuhe»
(Middle Kingdom, 19th–18th centuries BCE). The transfer of authority to the
eldest son and the movement southward toward Egypt reflect a unified
historical-literary template of the Bronze Age, where wealth in livestock
serves as a direct indicator of divine favor and legitimacy.
Zooarchaeological and Chronological Parallelism (Mules
and Horses):
The mention of Anah finding «mules in the wilderness»
(Gen. 36:24) records the emergence of new animal hybridization technology,
which chronologically aligns with the period of horse dispersal in Egypt and
the Levant during the 21st–17th centuries BCE. Archaeological finds in Buhen (a
horse skeleton c. 1650 BCE) and Middle Kingdom texts (Be a Scribe, Admonitions
of Ipuwer) confirm the transition to a new system of draft power management
(«possessing a herd,» «stable manager»). This renders the mention of Anah in
Chapter 36 not an incidental detail, but a precise chronological marker of the
early 2nd millennium BCE.
Linguistic Verification:
The use of the term «concubine» (pilegesh), which has
Anatolian (Hittite) roots, combined with zooarchaeological data, indicates
active cultural exchange between Canaan, Egypt, and Anatolia during the Middle
Bronze Age. The text operates with terms and realities that were «living» and
relevant precisely during this period.
Chronology and Horse Dispersal (Mesopotamia and
Canaan):
The mention of Anah finding mules (the result of
horse-donkey hybridization) in the wilderness (Gen. 36:24) finds direct
corroboration in the Mari archives (18th century BCE). Askudum’s correspondence
(ARM 26/1 47) regarding the division of horses collected from Canaanites into
herds, as well as negotiations for white Anatolian horses (ARM 26/2 533), prove
that during the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE, horses and their hybrids
were already a vital element of the region's economy and diplomacy. This
confirms that the author of Genesis operates with the technological realities
of the Old Babylonian period rather than later eras.
Legal Isomorphism (Hittite Law):
The brief mention in Genesis 36:24 that Anah «found»
the animals while pasturing his father's donkeys resonates with the spirit of
the Hittite Laws (17th–12th centuries BCE). Paragraph § 71, which mandates
bringing found oxen, horses, and mules to the «king's gate,» indicates that the
discovery of a valuable hybrid animal (a mule) in the wilderness was a legally
significant event worthy of genealogical record. The text of Genesis reflects
the legal environment of the Bronze Age, where the finding and identification
of livestock (especially rare ones) were recorded as achievements that elevated
the status of a clan leader.
Onomastic Authenticity (Link to Mari):
The names of Esau’s sons and grandsons (Gen. 36:10–13)
containing the theophoric element «El» (e.g., Reuel, Jeush) find direct
structural and semantic analogies in the Mari archives (18th century BCE).
Personal names from Zimri-Lim's correspondence (Ibal-pi-El, Yakhsib-El,
Yasim-El) confirm that the anthroponymic model of Chapter 36 is not a late
invention but reflects the living West Semitic tradition of the first half of
the 2nd millennium BCE. This indicates that the lists of Edomite chieftains
derive from authentic Bronze Age archival prototypes.
Chronological Gloss and Redactional Stratigraphy:
The phrase «before there reigned any king over the
children of Israel» (Gen. 36:31) represents a classic late editorial gloss.
Archaeological and documentary data (Merneptah Stele, Mesha Stele, Tel Dan
Stele) indicate that Israeli statehood was consolidated no earlier than the
9th–8th centuries BCE. The presence of this note within a text saturated with
18th-century BCE archaic onomastics points to a multilayered document: an
explanatory commentary was added to the ancient primary source (the Edomite
King List) during the monarchic era to actualize the ancient chronicle for an
Iron Age audience.
General Conclusion
The analysis of Genesis 36 reveals a complex,
multi-layered textual structure where an archaic Bronze Age factual core is
enclosed within a later editorial framework. The study confirms a systematic
isomorphism with 2nd-millennium BCE realities across the following parameters:
Ethnopolitical and Toponymic Accuracy: The mention of
«Seir» and «Edom» in the context of Shasu groups fully corresponds to Egyptian
archival lists from Soleb and Amarah (15th century BCE) and Papyrus Anastasi
VI. The terminology of «Canaan» (Kyna'an) finds etymological and semantic
confirmation in the Hurrian term Kinahhu from the Nuzi and Mari archives
(18th–15th centuries BCE).
Hurrian Substratum: The detailed list of «Horites»
(Hurrians) and their chieftains serves as unique ethnographic evidence of the
period of Hurrian expansion into Canaan (18th–16th centuries BCE). The
precision of this genealogy would have been impossible for a 1st-millennium BCE
compiler without access to authentic ancient prototypes.
Socio-Economic and Technological Model: The
description of Esau's migration and his wealth in livestock is identical to the
behavioral model of chieftains in the Egyptian «Story of Sinuhe» (19th–18th
centuries BCE). The mention of mules (Gen. 36:24) as a result of hybridization
coincides with the period of active horse dispersal in Egypt and Mesopotamia in
the early 2nd millennium BCE.
Onomastics and Sacral Parallels: Theophoric names in
«El» correspond to the West Semitic tradition of the Mari archive (18th century
BCE). Esau's matrimonial status (three wives) and Jacob's image as the «Divine
Shepherd» find direct parallels in the mythological cycles of Seth, Osiris, and
Dumuzi of the Middle Kingdom period.
Final Verdict
Dating of Factual Material (Protograph):
Based on the convergence of data (Hurrian onomastics,
zooarchaeology of mules, Shasu toponymy), the core information of Genesis 36
(lists of chieftains and migration routes) must be dated to the 18th–16th centuries
BCE (Middle Bronze Age).
Dating of the Final Redaction (Glosses):
The phrase «before there reigned any king over the
children of Israel» (Gen. 36:31) is a late editorial gloss, inserted no earlier
than the 9th–8th centuries BCE, when the Israeli monarchy became a historical
reality.
Scholarly Status of the Chapter:
Genesis 36 is an authentic Bronze Age archival
document that was carefully preserved in written or oral tradition and was
finally recorded and annotated by an archivist-editor during the early
monarchic era. It is a «fossilized» text preserving ethnographic details (such
as Hurrian chieftains) that had been completely erased from historical memory
by the Iron Age, confirming its ancient origin.
Sumer (c. 3300 – before 1900 BCE) britannica.com
The Old Kingdom of Egypt (c. 2543 – c. 2120 BCE) britannica.com
The Third Dynasty of Ur (22nd – 21st cent. BCE) britannica.com
The First Intermediate period of Egypt (c. 2118 – c. 1980 BCE) britannica.com
The Old Babylonian period of Egypt (2000 – 1595 BCE) onlinelibrary.wiley.com
The Middle Kingdom of Egypt (c. 1980 – c. 1760 BCE) britannica.com
The Second Intermediate period of Egypt (c. 1759 – c. 1539 BCE) britannica.com
The New Kingdom of Egypt (c. 1539 – c. 1077 BCE) britannica.com
Authors of the article
Arkhipov S.V. – Independent Researcher, MD, PhD, Orthopedic Surgeon, Medical Writer, Joensuu, Finland.
Correspondence: Sergey Arkhipov, email: archipovsv @ gmail.com
Article history
March 16, 2026 - online version of the article published.
Suggested citation
Arkhipov S.V. The Book of Genesis as a Great Compilation of Texts and Meanings from the Second Intermediate Period of Egypt: A Pilot Culturological, Medical, Archaeological, and Textological Examination of the Legends versus Traditional Attribution. Chapter 36. About round ligament of femur. March 16, 2026.
Note
Keywords
Genesis Protograph, Bereshit Protograph, Hyksos-era Scriptorium, Ligamentum Teres, Ligamentum Capitis Femoris, Minoan Eruption Impact, Bronze Age, Middle Egyptian Origin, Cross-cultural Codification, Ancient Medicine, Biblical Chronology
NB! Fair practice / use: copied for the purposes of criticism, review, comment, research and private study in accordance with Copyright Laws of the US: 17 U.S.C. §107; Copyright Law of the EU: Dir. 2001/29/EC, art.5/3a,d; Copyright Law of the RU: ГК РФ ст.1274/1.1-2,7
Comments
Post a Comment