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
|
Excerpts from the
Book of Genesis (1922LeeserI:45-46)
|
Type of
Similarity and Justification |
Ancient Near
Eastern and Egyptian Contexts (Parallels,
Analogies, Similarity, Borrowings, Inversions)
|
|
1 Now these 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 geographical lists from Soleb and Amarah (15th century BCE)
toponyms related to the «land of Shasu» are found, among which is «Seir» – a
mountainous region east of the Arava (Timna) (1993RedfordDB:272). Moreover, «Papyrus Anastasi IV»
(19th Dynasty) states:
«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). According to Goedicke, «As the general setting of the episode related in
Papyrus Anastasi IV 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 approximately 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 another letter (ARM 26/1 140, Mari archive) from Nur-Addu
addressed to Zimri-Lim, «Yakhsib-El, the Canaanite» is mentioned
(1988CharpinD:303–305). The Mari
archive, a key Mesopotamian source, dates to the first half of the 18th
century BCE (1956Munn-RankinJM:106). Furthermore, according to Na'aman, «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 area where they are located in the Late Bronze Age.» (1994NaʾamanN:398).
Notably, «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). Additionally, «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 Regarding the historical presence of the Hurrians, «The earliest
mention of a Hurrian sovereign dates to the period of the Empire of Akkad
(24th–22nd centuries BCE). A certain Tabis-atili of Azuginum is cited in a
year name of Naram-Sin (2254–2218 BCE): «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 In the context of Egyptian mythology, Plutarch (1st–2nd century
CE), discussing the myth of Isis and Osiris, indicated that Nephthys was the
wife of Typhon [Seth] (1996Плутарх:38). Similarly, 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 As noted in scholarly literature, «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). Historically, Dumuzi (Tammuz)
is an ancient Mesopotamian god of shepherds, fertility, water, and
vegetation. Notably, like
Dumuzi, Osiris was revered as a skilled shepherd. For instance, 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). Furthermore, in Spell № 728 of
the «Coffin Texts» corpus (ca. 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). Similarly, 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). Nevertheless,
it is argued that «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 And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau's son : and she bore to Eliphaz Amalek ; these were the sons of Adah, Esau's wife.
|
The Borrowing of the Word «Concubine»
|
Regarding etymology, the specific nature of this ancient term likely
indicates an Anatolian origin (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 Regarding the early presence of equids in Egypt, a horse skeleton
excavated in Buhen, in the southern Nile Valley, is dated approximately to
2055–1650 BCE (2014TatomirR). Furthermore,
the document known as «Be a Scribe» (Middle Kingdom?) implies the
presence of horses, stating:
«The poor man is turned into a driver – and the stable manager supervises
him» (1958КацнельсонИС_МендельсонФЛ:248). Similarly, 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 The history of
wheeled transport in the region dates back to the third millennium BCE. Wagons and horses
are depicted on the Sumerian «Standard of Ur», created during the Early
Dynastic period, which
flourished between 2550–2400 BCE (2003AruzJ_WallenfelsR). Subsequently,
the light chariot became widespread in the Eastern Mediterranean and
throughout the Near East in the second millennium BCE
(2010FeldmanMH_SauvageC). The importance of these vehicles is reflected in
royal correspondence; for instance, in a letter from the royal archives of
Mari (ARM 26/2 285), we learn of a shortage of cedar wood specifically
intended for chariots used in rituals (1988CharpinD_LafontB:15–18). The Mari
archives also provide insight into the livestock trade and military logistics
of the era. In letter ARM 26/1 47, it is reported that Askudum divided the
cattle and horses collected from the Canaanites into organized herds
(1988CharpinD_LafontB:190–199, archibab.fr). Furthermore, in letter
ARM 26/2 533, the author writes about ongoing negotiations for the supply of
white Anatolian horses (1988CharpinD_LafontB:526–527, archibab.fr). The Mari archive, a key Mesopotamian source, dates to the
first half of the 18th century BCE (1956Munn-RankinJM:106). Legal codes of
the period further emphasize the value of these animals. According 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). Furthermore, in a letter (ARM 26/1 140) from Nur-Addu addressed
to Zimri-Lim, «Yakhsib-El, the Hanaean» is mentioned (1988CharpinD:303–305). Additionally, 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 Mari archive, a key Mesopotamian
source, dates to the first half of the 18th century BCE
(1956Munn-RankinJM:106). See note!
|
Gloss
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 widely accepted that the first
king of Israel, Saul, reigned approximately from 1030–1010 BCE, David in
1010–970 BCE, and Solomon roughly from 970–931 BCE
(2006FinkelsteinI_SilbermanNA). However, the historicity of Saul and the United
Monarchy of Israel remains a subject of debate; 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 earliest extra-biblical mention
of the people of Israel is contained in the «Merneptah Stele», erected in the
interval between 1209/1208 and 1203 BCE (2013ClarkeP). Furthermore, it has been
reliably confirmed that Jerusalem began to be actively developed only in the
ninth century BCE (2024RegevJ_BoarettoE). This evidence suggests the first
steps toward the formation of a state with sole rule in the lands of Judah
occurred during this period, but not earlier.
The Kingdom of Israel first appears
on the «Mesha Stele», which most researchers date to the period between 850 and
840 BCE (2013RoutledgeB). Additionally, the «House of David» is mentioned on
the «Tel Dan Stele», dated approximately to the 9th or 8th century 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 Israelite 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 no earlier than the ninth century BCE, which contradicts the
traditional canon.
The Northern Kingdom of Israel
(Samaria), which the biblical narrative describes as 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 disappeared from the historical arena slightly earlier, in 723–722 BCE
(1990Na'amanN). It is also historically proven that Jerusalem, the capital of
the Southern Kingdom, was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE, marking the
end of the Judean monarchy (2024RegevJ_BoarettoE). Consequently, based on
available documentary sources, the ancient Hebrew Kingdoms states existed
primarily 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