Abram and the Kings (14:1–24)
Amraphel king of Shinar (14:1). Amraphel is a Semitic name that has many possible connections to names known from the ancient Near East.312 Both the “Amar” element and the “a-p-l” element occur in personal names.313 Shinar refers to the southern Mesopotamian plains (see comment on 11:2). During the early part of the second millennium southern Mesopotamia was characterized by independent city states with cities such as Isin or Larsa at times enjoying prominence. By the eighteenth century this gave way to the Old Babylonian period.
Arioch king of Ellasar (14:1). One name from the second millennium similar to this one is that of Zimri-Lim’s subordinate Arriwuk, from the eighteenth-century Mari archives. A city named Ilan-ṣura is also known from those texts in the vicinity of Shubat-Enlil north of Mari, though it does not seem prominent enough to figure here. Others have noticed the vague similarity to Larsa, a prominent city-state in Mesopotamia during the first half of the second millennium.314
Kedorlaomer king of Elam (14:1). Elam is the usual name for the region that in this period comprised all the land east of Mesopotamia from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf (modern Iran). Only in the first several centuries of the second millennium was Elam involved in international politics in Mesopotamia and the West,315 largely because of its role as supplier of tin, which was alloyed with copper to make bronze.316 During the first two centuries of the second millennium, Elam is ruled by the Šimaški dynasty (2050–1860).317 In the middle of the second millennium the Mari texts make it clear that Elam was attempting to extend its control throughout Mesopotamia, but no information suggests Elamite control of sections of Palestine.
Kedorlaomer appears to be the head of the coalition. The first part of the name is a common element in Elamite royal names (compare Kutir-Nahhunte, who ruled during the Old Babylonian period, the Elamite sukkalmah period). Nahhunte is the name of an Elamite deity, as is Lagamar (represented in the Hebrew laʿ ōmer). Though the two elements of Kedorlaomer (=*Kutir-Lagamar) are thus attested as authentic, so far that combination is not known among Elamite royal names.318
Regions of the Kings of the East
Tidal king of Goiim (14:1). Goiim (Heb. “nations”) is the most vague, but is generally associated by commentators with the Hittites (located in the eastern section of present-day Turkey), mostly because the king’s name, Tidal, is easily associated with the common Hittite royal name, Tudhaliya. The earliest occurrence of this name for a ruler, however, is about 1400 B.C.,319 far too late to match this context. Furthermore, the names of the Hittite kings as early as the mid-eighteenth century are known, and none of them bears any resemblance to Tidal.
The history of Anatolia prior to that time is sketchy. As a reference to a group of people, Goiim could be handled in a number of different ways. One option is that it reflects how the population of Anatolia called themselves. They do not use a gentilic (e.g., “Hittite”) but refer to themselves as “peoples” from the land of Hatti.320
A second option is that it should be considered a way to refer to a coalition of “barbaric” peoples, like the Akkadian designation Umman Manda, a term associated with the Gutians who overran Mesopotamia at the end of the Dynasty of Akkad toward the end of the third millennium.321 The Gutians came from Anatolia and swept southeast all the way to Elam. The term Umman Manda continues to be used as a reference to enemies of the Hittites and the Babylonians in the mid-second millennium.322 The trouble with this interpretation is that the Umman Manda would not likely be involved in a large, formal coalition of nations. None of these options offers clarification of this king’s identity.
Rephaites in Ashteroth Karnaim … Hazazon Tamar (14:5–7). Ancient Near Eastern campaign reports throughout the biblical period regularly preserve the itinerary of the armies. The route described in Genesis 14 represents a straightforward march through the land going south on the main route through Transjordan, the King’s Highway, to where it cuts west at Bozrah. This international artery runs across the top of the plateau about ten to fifteen miles east of the Jordan River and the rift valley. From Bozrah they depart from the King’s Highway (which cuts west) and follow the southern branch (Way of the Wilderness) to the tip of the Gulf of Aqaba. From there they come north on the “Way of the Red Sea” to Kadesh Barnea, where they rejoin the King’s Highway, taking it east to Tamar and from there north to the cities of the plain in the vicinity of the Dead Sea.
Ashtaroth was the capital of the region just east of the Sea of Galilee near the site of Karnaim, a later capital. This area provided some of the sources of the Yarmuk River and was the home to people known as the Rephaim. Little is known of the Rephaim as an ethnic group, though the same term is used in other places both in and out of the Bible as a reference to the heroic dead. Zuzites, Emites, and Horites, judging by the cities identified with them, are the inhabitants of Transjordan in the regions eventually occupied respectively by the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites. Ham is located in northern Gilead, and Shaveh, also known as Kiriathaim, was in Reubenite territory when the land was divided among the tribes.
El Paran should probably be equated with Elath at the tip of the Gulf of Aqaba.323 Some have tentatively suggested that Elath is Tell el Kheleifeh, though no remains on the site predate the Iron Age.324 The Amalekites are engaged at Kadesh Barnea (En Mishpat), located in the northeastern Sinai near the southwestern extremity of Canaan (about fifty miles southwest of Beersheba). It is identified with Wadi el-ʿAin near ʿAin el-Qudeirat. It boasts one of the most productive water sources in the region in its oasis.
Finally, the Amorites are met at Hazazon Tamar. Rainey and Aharoni identify the site as located some forty miles southwest of the southern tip of the Dead Sea,325 whereas 2 Chronicles 20:2 identifies it with En Gedi, halfway up the western shore of the Dead Sea. The association with En Gedi is problematic if the cities of the plain are along the southeastern rim of the Dead Sea, since the itinerary then requires significant retracing of steps. No known routes travel the western bank of the Dead Sea to En Gedi.326
Army Routes from Genesis 14
Tar pits (14:10). Bitumen was used as a mastic in the ancient world, generally as an adhesive or for waterproofing. The Dead Sea is one of the source zones for bitumen since it was available there close to the surface, both on the water and on the land.327 The procurement of bitumen by digging created the tar pits referred to in the text. These would have been more the size of wells than of large stone quarries. The language of the text allows for the possibility that the kings went down into these pits intentionally for the purpose of hiding.
A tar pit in the United States shows the bubbling of tar to the surface. In the Dead Sea region, people may have had to dig down to reach the tar.
Daniel Schwen/Wikimedia Commons
Abram the Hebrew (14:13). The designation of Abram as a “Hebrew” may reflect a social status more than an ethnic identity. The term is usually used in the Bible to identify Israelites to foreigners (Gen. 39:14–17; Ex. 2:11; 1 Sam. 4:6; Jon. 1:9). As a social status it seems to have referred to dispossessed or disenfranchised peoples. This is the usage of a similar sounding term throughout a wide range of ancient texts (often transliterated ḫabiru, more accurately, ʿapiru) referring to various people groups throughout the second millennium.328
They are documented through eight hundred years of history from Ur III down to the XXth Dynasty in Egypt. They are never mentioned as pastoralists, and the preserved personal names of people bearing this designation are from no single linguistic group. There are Semites, Hurrians and others. They never belong to tribes. They may worship various deities. Geographically they are known from east of the Tigris, to Anatolia, to Egypt, in short, over the entire Ancient Near East.329
This label gives someone an “outsider” status and at times implies that the people are unsettled or even lawless renegades. Other times they are refugees or political opponents. In the Amarna texts they sometimes serve as mercenaries. The term cannot be considered as a reference to ethnic Israelites, but it is possible that ethnic Israelites (and here, Abram) are being classified socially as ʿapiru.
318 trained men (14:14). The word translated “trained” (ḥānîk) occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament, but does occur in an Akkadian letter of the fifteenth century B.C. from Taʿanach, referring to military retainers.330 Canaan in this period was predominantly occupied by herdsmen and villagers, and even within the later Middle Bronze Age when there were more fortified settlements, this army would have been a match for any other armed force in the region. Even as late as the Amarna period the armies of any particular city-state were not much larger.
Despite this comparison, we have no information about the size of the invading force in order to ascertain whether Abram was outnumbered. We would expect international coalitions to have fielded armies in the thousands rather than in the hundreds. One text from early in the second millennium has the marauder, Ashduni-iarim king of Kish, lamenting that his army has been reduced to only three hundred.331 In the Mari letters, a force of three hundred is considered optimum for foray expeditions.332
Dan (14:14). It is difficult to imagine what route would have taken the armies of the east through Dan if they were traveling from the cities of the plain. If these cities are on the eastern side of the Dead Sea (as they are by anyone’s assessment), it makes the most sense for the armies to rejoin the King’s Highway straight up to Damascus, which does not bring them within twenty-five miles of Dan. The only route that would take them through Dan proceeds north along the spine of hills through Jerusalem, Shechem, and Hazor—and there is no indication that they went that far west or had any reason to do so.
Thus, most likely the route through Dan is not traveled by the armies but by Abram and his allies as they try to cut off the armies traveling by the King’s Highway. Dan is mentioned not as the place where he catches them, but as a marker that he is leaving the land. The only other alternative is to maintain that the whole region was different at this time before the destruction in the region in Genesis 19.
Valley of Shaveh (14:17). The text indicates that this is also called the “King’s Valley,” which locates it with some degree of probability (based on 2 Sam. 18:18) at the confluence of the Kidron and Hinnom Valleys at the base of the south end of the ridge that became the City of David in Jerusalem.
Melchizedek, king of Salem (14:18). If we base our analysis solely on information from Genesis 14, Melchizedek is a city-state king of Canaanite, Amorite, or Hurrian extraction, and apparently one of the chief petty kings of the region. His city is Salem, generally considered to be Jerusalem (cf. Ps. 76:2), though early Christian evidence and the Madeba map associate it with Shechem.333 Archaeological finds, though scant, attest to the fact that Jerusalem was settled at this period. The city is mentioned in extrabiblical literature as early as the Egyptian execration texts from around 1900 B.C.
Mosaic known as the Madaba Map shows Salem in a location near Shechem near building in top left quadrant.
Z. Radovan/www.BibleLandPictures.com
Execration text referring to Jerusalem from about 1900 B.C.
Z. Radovan/www.BibleLandPictures.com
Bread and wine (14:18). It is unclear whether the bread and wine are shared by all of Abram’s men or just in council between Melchizedek and the victorious commander(s). It would seem to be meager fare if the latter were the case. Abram’s success has signaled the possibility of a major shift of power in the region, and it appears that Melchizedek is taking the opportunity of the army’s return to explore what ambitions or loyalties Abram might have. It was common for a meal to be shared when treaty negotiations were being finalized, but generally meat was part of the meal as sacrifices were made in association with oaths to the respective deities.
Priest of God Most High (14:18). “God Most High” is a translation of El Elyon, a compound divine name/title. El is well known as the chief Canaanite god in Ugaritic and Phoenician literature, but it is sufficiently generic to use for any high God. Though Hebrew regularly uses the plural form Elohim for the God of Israel, El is also sometimes used. Consequently, El could refer to either a Canaanite deity or to Abram’s.
The epithet Elyon (ʿelyôn) is used parallel to the Canaanite El as well as of Baal, but El Elyon never occurs as a compound in Ugaritic texts.334 No evidence of Elyon as an independent deity is found until the writings of Philo.335 Since El Elyon can designate a Canaanite god, we have no reason to think of Melchizedek as a worshiper of Yahweh or even as monotheistic. It is Abram who identifies El Elyon as Yahweh.
El, the Canaanite high god
Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY, courtesy of the National Museum, Damascus, Syria
Tenth of everything (14:20). Tithing is known in the ancient Near East and the Old Testament in a variety of contexts.336 Evidence from the ancient Near East occurs as early as about 2000 B.C. in Sumerian Ur III texts, where the obligatory tithe is in goods given to the temples. Akkadian texts referring to tithes appear in both Old Assyrian texts and Old Babylonian texts.337 In some of these, the tithe is paid annually to the temples from the barley harvest.
In this period there is also reference to a tithe of the palace. Ugaritic texts attest to grain payment tithes to the royal storehouses being made from villages rather than individuals. No texts suggest a tithe of booty taken in battle,338 though Pagolu attempts to include this in a larger category that he labels “tithe following an expedition.”339
The question, then, is whether this tithe was paid to Melchizedek in his role as priest (thereby indirectly to the god El Elyon) or in his role as king (tribute and acknowledgment of his political position). Hittite treaties did not require vassals fighting on the suzerain’s behalf to give the suzerain a share of their “take,” but allowed them to keep captives and booty (though the land remained in the possession of the suzerain).340 In light of all of this information, Abraham’s payment of a tithe to Melchizedek stands as unique both in the Bible and the ancient Near East.
I will accept nothing (14:23). Though it seems likely that the armies of the east did not traverse the territory west of the Jordan, they had come into possession of much land in the region by virtue of conquest. Abram’s defeat of them would have theoretically given him possession of that land, however its boundaries would be drawn. This right has suddenly made him a political power to be reckoned with and explains Melchizedek’s overtures. Abram, instead of exerting his newfound political leverage, relinquishes any and all claims to the land.