By: Daniel Sloan, Ph.D. | January 18, 2025
The names of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are some of the most well-known names in all ancient history because of their significant place in both the Old and New Testaments. However, the Patriarchs have come under attack in recent years from critics of the Bible that argue that they were mythical/literary creations of later Jewish authors and therefore never existed as legitimate historical figures.
Critics argue that because of a lack of direct archaeological evidence of the existence of the Patriarchs that they did not exist. However, while archaeology cannot definitively prove the existence of the Patriarchs, it also cannot definitively prove that the Patriarchs did not exist. Therefore, the argument then becomes about whether it is plausible, based on the evidence, that the Patriarchs existed and then how much evidence is available to show how much plausibility there is for this existence. Today, we will look at three archeological finds that help give credibility to the historicity of the Patriarchs.
The Tomb of Beni Hasan
One of the most important finds that is the tomb of Beni Hasan, found in 1890, that shows Asiatics, like the Canaanites, traveling to and from Egypt during this time, similar to Abraham, Jacob and Joseph.[1] Prior to this discovery, scholars questioned whether it was possible for the Patriarchs to go down to Egypt on several occasions in Genesis 12 and Genesis 37-50. This also shows that Abraham’s trip to Egypt in Genesis 12 would have been very common in Egypt and thus would most likely not have left a record of an outsider coming into the country, especially when Abraham did not represent a political entity. While this discovery does not directly prove the existence of the Patriarchs, it does show that the travel stories of Genesis were not only plausible but were a common occurrence during the time of the Patriarchs.
The Discovery of Haran
A second very important archaeological find was the discovery of Haran, which is mentioned several times in the story of Genesis as both the temporary home of Abraham after leaving Ur and Rebekah, Rachel and Leah’s hometown. The importance of the discovery of Haran was also important because it was discovered to have been destroyed in around 1800 BC and left abandoned for around 1,000 years until 800 BC.[2]
This makes it highly unlikely that if an Israelite author was creating the story of the Patriarchs out of thin air that he would have picked Haran, a place either destroyed or only recently rebuilt, as the location of so many events in the story of Genesis as everyone would have immediately known it was not possible because it had been abandoned for such a long period of time, to the point that it may not have even been known to the average Israelite living before 800 BC. This shows that it is very likely that the author of Genesis was using credible family records, either oral or documented, that spoke of the ancient city of Haran as one of the major locations in the history of Israel, especially when one understands that many of Jacob’s sons that form the various tribes of Israel were born in this location.[3]
The Battle in Genesis 14
A third argument from archaeology is based upon the story of Lot’s capture in Genesis 14. Nine kings are listed in the story from various locations in the region: Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goiim fought against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela. Two aspects of this battle are very significant for archaeological discovery.
Similarity of the Names with the Period
First, the names of the kings, while not directly collaborated in the archaeological records, are very similar to other names from this time period.[4] Also, Sailhamer argues that it is significant that it was a group of nations and kings that invaded into Canaan.[5]
This is significant because if the author of Genesis was writing this story much later as critics suggest, during the time of Assyria and Babylon, then it is strange that he would have several kings align themselves together instead of a single power, which would have been the common invader in the later time period. It is highly unlikely that a Jewish writer centuries later would have been able to create these names and locations and shows that there seems to be an ancient record of this event that he used in writing the passage.
Significance of the Battle’s Timing
Second, the timing of this battle is incredibly significant. Price and House argue, “The political conditions depicted by this alliance and that of the Transjordanian coalition of kings in the Dead Sea basin were possible in only one period of history-the early second millennium BC. Elamites were aggressive and the Mesopotamian alliances were weak during this time.”[6] Indeed, Kitchen argues, “It is only in this particular period (2000-1700) that the eastern realm of Elam intervened extensively in the politics of Mesopotamia-with its armies- and sent its envoys far west into Syria to Qatna.
Never again did Elam follow such wide-reaching policies.”[7] This limits the timeframe that the battle could have taken place to a specific time in history. It also shows that the author of Genesis knew about ancient history and must have had specific ancient sources in order to document this battle as nothing in a later time would have ever been similar to this particular event.[8]
In conclusion, while we currently and may never have a direct archaeological find outside of the Bible that will definitively prove the historicity of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, there is certainly archaeological evidence that points to the plausibility of the stories in Genesis as being historical.[9]
About the Author
Daniel Sloan, Ph.D.
Daniel Sloan is an Assistant Professor at Liberty University. He was mentored by the late Dr. Ed Hindson. After Dr. Hindson’s untimely passing, Dr. Sloan was allowed to teach some of Dr. Hindson’s classes. In addition to his teaching duties, Dr. Sloan serves as an Associate Pastor at Safe Harbor Community Church in Lynchburg, Virginia. Daniel graduated with his PhD in Theology and Apologetics from Liberty University. His research and expertise is in Old Testament studies. He and his wife, Natalie, live in Lynchburg, Virginia. Along with his extensive knowledge of the Bible, Daniel is an avid sports fan.
Bibliography
Kitchen, K A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2006.
Price, Randall, and H Wayne House. Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.
Sailhamer, John H. Biblical Archaeology. Zondervan Quick Reference Library. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1998.
Notes
[1] Randall Price and H Wayne House, Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2017), 74.
[2] Ibid, 76.
[3] The only children not born in this location were Benjamin and then Joseph’s two children that were later adopted in Egypt.
[4] K A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2006), 320.
[5] John H. Sailhamer, Biblical Archaeology, Zondervan Quick Reference Library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1998), 38.
[6] Price and House, Zondervan Handbook, 80.
[7] Kitchen, On the Reliability, 321.
[8] Even if someone were to argue that the rest of the Patriarchal story is fiction, it is very difficult to argue that this could have been a made-up story.
[9] For a much more in-depth study on this topic, see Sloan, Daniel. “The Historicity of the Patriarchs.” Journal of the International Society for Christian Apologetics 12 (2019): 89-120.
(c) 2025. Bellator Christi.
