The Wars of Abraham
Chapter 14 of the Book of Genesis tells a story of a war waged by a coalition of 4 kings from the east against the kings of the Cities of the Plain, as the cities in the lower valley of the Jordan and around the Dead Sea were called. During that war, Lot, Abraham's nephew, was captured together with his family and retainers. Abraham has organized his retainers, built a coalition of his own, and pursued the invaders and released Lot and the other captives. This is the story of Chapter 14 and this chapter here. However, it is difficult to understand the story if one did not read Chapter 13 of Genesis, which explains why Lot reached the area of the Cities of the Plain, and how he became a captive.
Chapter 13 tells the story of the separation of Abraham and Lot, and the conditions that brought him to the Cities of the Plain, and to eventual captivity. Although, Chapter 14 is full of wars, battles and captivity, Chapter 13 is much more important, as far as history is concerned. The reasons for that importance are detailed here.
When Abraham and Lot returned from Egypt, they were rich men. They were rich before their trip too, but according the Old Testament Abraham received many gifts from Pharaoh before leaving Egypt. The Old Testament says:
"Abraham was very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold." It is important to note the order of the wealth, it is led by cattle, which has some importance. On their return from Egypt, they reached a place between Beth-el and Ai, where they camped when first came to Canaan, and where Abraham has built an altar. Lot was also a rich man, with flocks and herds and tents. It came about that the land around Beth-el was insufficient for both herds, and there was strife between their herdsmen.
Abraham wanted to avoid further conflict, so he proposed that they separate. He offered Lot the first choice, and added generously that he will accept any choice Lot will make. Lot has decided to descend to the valley of the Jordan and settle there. Gen. 13.10 comments: "…it was well watered every where, even as the Garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar."
It should be pointed out that from the heights of Beth-el, one couldn't see the whole of the Dead Sea. One can only see the valley of the Jordan and the north corner of the Sea, The view is obstructed by the mountains of the Judean desert, which reach nearly to the sea. In order to view the whole of the sea, one has to descend to the valley; only from the mouth of the Jordan one can view the whole.
In order to emphasize the beauty of the land, it is compared to the Garden of the Lord, the Meydan-e Shah in Tabriz Valley, and to the valley of the Nile. They are apt comparisons. The Jordan then probably was probably less exploited than it is now; it might have arrived at the Dead Sea as a river and not as a trickle.
So, Lot took his people and descended to the valley, for further adventures with the coalition of the eastern kings. Abraham remained on the highland. According the Bible, the Lord told him again that he should look around and everything he sees will belong to him and his descendants. Up to now it is the summary of Chapter 13.
There are two contents in the chapter; one is theological and the second is historical. Here, the two contents are hopelessly mixed. The theological content says, that Abraham knew that he acted under the Lord's permission, instructions even, to come and settle Canaan, where the whole land before him is his. According the chapter, it is implicitly stated that the land is his for the taking, even though "the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land."
In the story, there was a conflict between the herdsmen of Abraham and Lot, but nothing is said about a possible conflict with other herdsmen or with farmers, whose land may have been trampled under the feet of their cattle. Either there were no other persons, or were unimportant if they were. It is entirely possible that the land was depopulated because of the extended period of drought, so Abraham and Lot could wander about without disturbing anyone. It is an unrealistic assumption, and moreover, it is beside the point.
It is unrealistic, in a sense, to assume that if the land was unsuitable for agriculture, it was unsuitable for husbandry as well, otherwise neither Abraham nor Lot would have remained there. If it was suitable for them, it must have been suitable for the Canaanite and the Perizzite too. They might not have cattle, but they certainly had flocks of sheep and goat.1
It should be added here that there is no intentions whatever to look at the situation from an ethical point-of-view. A historian has to look at his subject from the historical point, without value judgments. So, the question here is not whether Abraham and Lot were good or bad, but what they did and why, and this is exactly what this chapter is going to do.
Judging by the contents of the Book of Genesis, Abraham and the other Patriarchs belonged to one of the tribes of cattle-nomads, who lived on the border between the Semitic and the non-Semitic world. Both races had their origin in a pastoral way of life; with one basic difference between them. The Semites, who originated in the Arabian Peninsula, had flocks of sheep and goats, while those who came from the north had herds of cattle. The cause of that differentiation was environmental. The southern lands around the border of the desert were unsuitable for cattle. Abraham and Lot, and their descendants, while they had flocks of sheep and goats, they were primarily cattle-nomads, who came from somewhere north of the dividing line.
One day, Abraham and Lot, decided to leave their home in the valley of the river Balikh and turned south to find a new home in Canaan. According to the Old Testament, it was a divine promise that guided Abraham, but the motive which made them pull up stakes and relocate is irrelevant as far as a historical analysis is concerned. Colonization and conquest were always divinely approved. This subject was discussed in detail in the chapter: Historical Survey. Here we should not bother with the why's of the act; only with what they left and what they found in their new home.
Even today we would say that they left Haran, which was in the valley of Balikh, and arrived to Beth-El and later to Hebron, both in the highlands between the Jordan and the sea. That territory might have been called Canaan, just as the territory they left might have been called Padan-Aram. Both names were meaningless labels; there was no substance behind them. The existence of large territorial and political units is a recent addition to our political vocabulary, certainly not earlier than the middle of the 17th century AD, and that in the western civilization alone.
Outside of the western civilization, the concept of nation state does not exist even today; and if it exists then it is a borrowed concept, not really accepted by all. Abraham and Lot started their journey in Haran, which at their time was called Padan-Aram, and today is called southeastern Turkey. This is what is written on the map. However, there is another map partly overlapping the territory and there the area is called Kurdistan. Looking more closely, we might discover many more maps, all different and all representing some actual reality, unconnected to the official map.
In the early days it was even more so. The map of the Middle East, or the whole known world, was a jumble of towns, villages, tribal alliances and roving bands. Each roving band carried their law wherever they went and wherever their power could reach. In this respect too, there were no racial differences. The Benjaminite tribal encampments, known from the archives of Mari, a Mesopotamian town on the middle Euphrates valley, had their religion, customs and laws, as had the roving bands of the Umman Manda, who were probably Indo-European Scythians. The roving clans of Abraham and Lot, with their retainers, herds and tents, were no exceptions. They were part of the ever-shifting mosaic of the Middle East in the early years of the 2nd millenium BC.
The case of Canaan was no exception. It was the rule. The whole of the Middle East was a crazy quilt of city-states, each with its ruler, tradition, gods and laws. It was only later that larger combination survived the founder. The subject of Chapter 14 is probably the best example. A coalition of four eastern kings goes to war, or to a raid that was more likely, against a coalition of 5 kings of the cities of the plain. The war involves a number of tribes who were living along the line of attack, and a number of additional kings who joined Abraham in recovering his nephew. The warbands, who came from the north, must have had an easy time.
The modern expansion, which is the obvious following of the prehistorical beginning, is well documented; so is the classical colonization. About the beginnings from earliest times, there is very little evidence, and whatever there is, it is in a format of mythological tales or epic poetry. Robert Graves, the high priest of Mediterranean mythology, wrote that the Greeks came to Greece in small warbands, driving their cattle before them, and settled as mercenaries in existing towns. The only testimony of that period are mythological tales, where Zeus, or some other male member of the Pantheon, marries or rapes the local representative of the Great Goddess, usually in the form of a nymph. If the tale tells about rape, then the eventual takeover was violent, if the story is about marriage then the takeover was peaceful.
The story of the Patriarchs is probably a unique case, where the intrusion of a tribe of cattle-nomads is recorded in detail, from before they started on the journey, until they have firmly settled in their new home. Chapter 13 of the Book of Genesis is an important part of the story. It was not the only one. The story of Dinah, Jacob's daughter, and the slaughter which her brothers, Simon and Levi, made in Schechem, is probably another example. Abraham's example was peaceful with no violence. If there was violence, it was against foreign invaders, which is the subject of Chapter 14.
There were a number of reasons why Abraham's case is peaceful. First, it was during an extended drought and most of the country was probably depopulated.2 Second, Abraham was a chief of a strong tribe. If he could organize 318 warriors out of his retainers and cope with the coalition of four eastern kings, then he probably could have coped with any local power. Third, he defended Canaan against foreign invaders, which was probably the sole legitimate action, which an aristocracy can do to receive local acceptance. It is true that he did it to free his nephew, but he did free the other captives too and recovered the booty that the invaders carried with them. Moreover, he refused to take his share, apart of the cost, i.e. what his people ate during the campaign.
Last but not least, he did not come to unknown territory. The story of the Patriarchs mentions a number of contacts with Hittites, moreover the contacts are more like among kin, than among strangers. Abraham settles in Hebron and buys a burial cave from a Hittite, who knew him and greeted him as a great prince amongst them. His grandson Esau married two Hittite girls from Beer-Sheba. In the Book of Joshua it is written that the spies reported that the Canaanites were occupying the seashore and the valley of the Jordan, the Amalekites the southern fringes of the desert, and the Hittites the central highland. (See Map 3). According to historical sources, in the period of the Late Bronze there were many Canaanite towns with rulers who had Indo-European sounding names. It seems that the infiltration had started much earlier and Abraham was part of that process.3
The fragmentation of the cattle-nomads was not less than that of the settled people. When the Indo-European tribes invaded India in the middle of the second millennium BC, they settled in the eastern part of the valley of the Indus. There were many individuals, or groups of individuals, who continued to the east, and settled as far away as the Bengal. They were not happy under the strict rule of the kings and the Brahmins, and preferred to continue to live in their accustomed freedom. It is possible that the Hittites of Canaan, and Abraham himself, arrived under similar circumstances.
Chapter 14 of the Book of Genesis tells about a raid of 4 eastern kings, led by the king of Elam, against the kings of the 5 Cities of the Plain, i.e. the cities along the valley of the Jordan and around the Dead Sea. The cause for the invasion was that the Canaanite kings were vassals of the Elamite king for twelve years, and they rebelled in the thirteenth year.
The king of Elam, Chedorlaomer organized his allies, Amraphel of Shinar, Arioch of Ellasar and Tidal of the Goiim, and a year after the rebellion, he led his army along the King's Highway. On their way south, they defeated the tribes living in the area, and returned from the south and attacked the kings of the Cities of the Plain. He defeated them, took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and went north on his way home. The allied army also took captives, amongst them Lot, who was living then in Sodom.
Abraham heard about his nephew's captivity, organized his retainers, and some of his friends and allies, and followed the raiding party. He found them north of Damascus, defeated them and brought back the captives and all the goods stolen by the Elamites. On his way back from Damasus, he was met by Melchizedek, the king of Salem (Jerusalem) who was the priest of the high God. Abraham gave tithe to Melchizedek. He also returned all the captives and goods, retaining only the parts due to his allies, who joined him in the fight, and what his retainers consumed during the campaign.
This is the summary of the story of Chapter 14. It looks authentic enough. There are names, events and geographical locations. One only has to identify the names and the events, and one can easily decide whether the story of the Patriarchs is real history, or whether it was taken from some mythological legend. As it could have been expected, the answer is neither yes, nor no. There are a number of causes for the confusion. Before analyzing the relevant data, let's check the signs, which point to the authenticity of the story, and also against it.
Those for historicity are:
 |
The names of the participants sound realistic in the context of the late 3rd
millennium BC |
|
The line of advance of the allied force was a good tactical solution. They
moved along a line east of the Dead Sea, mopping up the possible allies
of their enemy. They moved south until they nearly reached the Red Sea,
doubled back and attacked from the southwest. Whoever wrote this
chapter, and whenever it was written, knew the area very well and had a
good sense of tactics, or that he indeed reported on an actual campaign.
|
|
The story tells of a campaign led by the king of Elam, who was certainly
an active participant in the murky politics of Mesopotamia. At the time of
the campaign, Elam was the dominant power in Mesopotamia. They could
have organized the raid under the name of Babylon. The great king,
Hammurabi was the ruler of Babylon who freed Babylon from the Elamite
domination. |
The arguments against accepting the story as real history are:
|
There is no direct historical evidence of Elam being directly involved
in the affairs of Canaan. They were deeply involved in Mesopotamian
politics, but not in Canaan.
|
|
The story tells that Abraham mobilized 318 of his retainers, and together
with his Amorite allies, Aner, Eshcol and Mamre, cornered the retreating
allies, defeated them, freed the captives and recovered the loot. According
to those who disagree with the historicity of the story, the number of people
Abraham and his allies could put on the field, were insufficient to defeat an
allied army, if indeed it was an allied army |
|
The names of the participants in the eastern coalition sound authentic
enough but there is no direct evidence either for their existence or for
their possible cooperation.4 |
It would be simple enough to decide that the question is problematic. After all, it happened more than 4000 years ago and our knowledge about that period is patchy at best. Names are important but they do not mean too much in that period. Egyptian Pharaohs had 6 official names for different occasions, and rulers could, and did, assign themselves titles as they went along. They were expert in political propaganda and manipulation of public opinion, not less than their modern counterparts, and names were useful tools to that purpose. The name of the Elamite leader was Chedorlaomer, which is a Hebrew transliteration of a real Elamite title: Kudur (meaning 'son of' or 'servant of') and Lagamar (One of the Elamite goddesses). So, Chedorlaomer might be in the original Kudur-Lagamar, which any Elamite leader could have assigned to himself.
There are two problems in connection with names. One of the problems is that on the tablets the names are written either in pure cuneiform, which is a syllabic writing, or in ideograms. The Old Testament, however, was written in alphabetic Hebrew writing. The second problem is that a ruler of one country might be known under one name in his own country and under another outside of it. It might be a nickname, but even nicknames can cause confusion.
The analysis of Chapter 14 had to cope with both types. A good example for the first type is the attempt to identify Hammurabi with Amraphel. If one looks at the names in their modern form, and is not familiar with the secrets of ideogram writing, the two names are not similar at all. However, the name of Hammurabi in the original is written with two ideograms. One ideogram is read as Hammu, and the second is –rabi, meaning 'being great'. The second ideogram has a second meaning, which is –rapaltu – meaning about the same as –rabi. So, a Babylonian could look at the connected ideograms and read Hammu-rabi or Hammu-rapaltu, and both readings will be correct. The second reading is closer to Amraphel.
The second problem concerns the fact that one person may have one name in his own country and a different name outside of it, or that a person has a number of titles and is known by different titles in different countries. Queen Victoria was known as Queen of England in London, and the Empress of India in Bombay, and both of them were correct.
Similarly, an Elamite ruler could have been known in his own country as Kudur-Mabug, meaning 'The Son of (or The servant of) Mabug' and in Canaan as Kudur-Lagamar – the Son of Lagamar. Both titles were correct, he might have had other titles too, they did not confuse anybody in their time. They left the confusion to unfortunate historians.
The primary aim of this exercise is to decide whether a story, which is generally accepted as a legend of mythology, the story of the Patriarchs in the Book of Genesis, can be seen as part of real history or not. The decision about the question should be done here, in connection with the story of the Elamite war. After all, the story of the Patriarchs is not that type of story of which one expects to find traces in some Middle Eastern archive. The main story of the Book of Genesis is one of a family: How one finds a wife, how wives get babies, how to resolve problems among siblings and how babies receive inheritance? It is a real human story, but not the type one finds in royal archives.
The names of the Patriarchs are common enough but their actions were at most belonging to a small barbarian tribe, attempting to find a place to settle in Canaan. The story, if it was indeed a story and not a legend, was important to the tribe, but it certainly was not high politics.
The war, or raid, as it was described in Chapter 14 of Genesis, is another matter. It is a story that ought to be represented in the archives. Even by granting the fact that the events occurred some four millennia ago, and that most of the archives are still covered by sand somewhere, and even most of the tablets recovered from the existing archives were not deciphered yet, there must be something known to justify the decision for historicity of the story.
Historical research must have a basic honesty. Even the most intensive wish to prove something cannot replace missing facts on the ground. If nothing can be found about the story of the chapter in the archives, then the story should be declared as pure legend, at least until some new evidence comes to light.
This is the reason why this chapter is considered a pivotal one in the book, and why a great effort was made to collect and analyze all what is known about the subject. The readers, and the author himself, should be convinced beyond any reasonable doubt, that the decision, in whatever direction it falls, is correct and objective.
Elam and Chedorlaomer
Elam was an ancient state, shown on Map 1 in the lower right corner. It lies on the eastern shore of the Persian Gulf. The Elamites were probably the aborigine inhabitants of the area.They are assumed to have been Dravidians, who lived, and are still living, in the south of India. Today they are called Tamils and are well known because of the war in Sri Lanka.
According to Chapter 14, it was an Elamite king, Chedorlaomer who led a coalition of 4 kings against the 5 kings of the Cities of the Plain. The Cities of the Plain were cities along the lower valley of the Jordan and around the Dead Sea. It is true that Elam had no suzerainty over Canaan and the kings of the cities did not have to pay tribute directly to Elam, but it seems that at the time when Abraham entered Canaan, Elam held suzerainty over Babylon, and as such it was involved in Canaanite affairs.
According to an inscription of Assurbanipal, the grandson of Senacherib, his armies conquered Susa, the capital of Elam, and recovered a statue of the goddess Nana, which was carried away from Babylon by an Elamite king, named Kudur-Nankhundi. The Assyrian conquest was in 660 BC., therefore 1635 years before it puts the Elamite conquest at about 2280 BC.5 Babylon was relieved from the Elamite yoke by Hammurabi, who ruled in the 17th century BC. At the time of the war against the Cities of the Plain, the Elamites were the suzerains in Babylon.
The tablet of Assurbanipal is not the only one mentioning possible Elamite connection with Canaan. It was reported both by Eberhard Schrader and St. Chad Boscawen6 that an Elamite king, called Kudur-Mabug, claimed the title of Addu-Martu, literally 'Father of the Land of the Setting Sun' and also the title of 'Father of the Land of the Amorites'.
There was one more tablet found that mentions three out of the four names appearing in Chapter 14, in the same order as in the Old Testament. The tablet is among a find, called the Spartoli tablets. It was translated by an English scholar, Theophilus Pinches.7 The name of Chedorlaomer was written on that tablet as Kudur-Lahmil, probably another of the titles of Kudur-Mabug.
Amraphel of Shinar
The second king of the coalition was Amraphel of Shinar, which is the biblical name of Babylon. Accordingly, scholars were looking for a ruler of Babylon with that name, or close to it, to allow for the transliteration of the cuneiform to alphabetic writing. There was a time when scholars thought that Amraphel was the Hebrew transliteration of Hammurabi, as it was explained above. Hammurabi had indeed relations with Elam. At the beginning of his rule, which was between 1726 and 1686 BC., Elam was Babylon's suzerain and Hammurabi held his post in the name of Elam. Eventually, he rebelled and freed Babylon from Elam. So, at the beginning of his rule, he could have participated in the venture on Elam's side. However, the dating of Hammurabi does not fit the dating of Abraham, which is put by most scholars in the 21st century BC. Because of the dating and also because on philological grounds, most modern scholars think that the identification with Hammurabi is unlikely.8
Joseph P. Free has pointed out that the Babylonian equivalent to the Hebrew Amraphel, could have been Amur-pi-el, who was one of the rulers of Mari, or Amurru-ipul (the god Amurru paid back).
It seems that the solution to the question of Amraphel should be simple. In the 21st century BC., the estimated period of the war, Mesopotamia was under Elamite control. It was also divided into two kingdoms, the northern part Babylon, the biblical Shinar, and the southern part Larsa, the biblical Ellasar,
The 'el' is the Hebrew form of 'alu' – Babylonian for city, so Ellasar if the 'City of Larsa'. Chedorlaomer, the suzerain of Mesopotamia, made his raid upon the cities of the Plain, in that capacity. Looking at it from his point of view, it was not so much a war, but a punishment raid, assisted by two of his viceroys, in Babylon and Larsa, and by mercenaries, led by Tidal of the Goiim.
Arioch of Ellasar
Two possibilities were found in the archives that could identify the name in Chapter 14. Both of them could have been associates of Chedorlaomer.
The first possibility is Eri-Aku from the city of Larsa. There are two inscriptions that identify Eri-Aku as the ruler of Larsa and the son of Kudur-Mabug, who was at that time the suzerain of Mesopotamia. As Mesopotamia was divided into two kingdoms, Babylon and Larsa, he appointed his son as lord over one of the kingdoms.9
There are scholars who do not accept that identification and suggest the identification with Ariwuk of Mari. Ariwuk is a Hurrian name and is mentioned in the Mari tablets. This identification does not explain Ellasar, while the first identification does.10
Tidal of nations
The identification of this king is probably the most interesting part of the search after the historicity of the story. Amraphel, Arioch and Chedorlaomer are identified with Babylon, Larsa and Elam. Somehow Tidal is identified as a king without a land. In Hebrew the expression 'Goyim' means 'other people' in the plural. So, the other three kings could point to a territory and claim that it is theirs; they each had a kingdom. Only Tidal was a king of some undefined nations. Not even a single nation, but of many nations. It is definitely worth to be investigated in depth.
As far as the name Tidal is concerned, there are a number of candidates for that name. Some historians thought that Tidal was Tudhaliya, the name of five kings of the Hittites11 while others connected the name to an Amorite chief named Tidnum or Tud-Ghula.
The Amorite connection is not very plausible, as it does not give solution to the 'nations'. Surely, in the case of an Amorite chief, it would have been written as Tidal the Amorite. Moreover, as the war was against the Cities of the Plains, who themselves were Amorites, it does not make much sense that an Amorite chief should lead 'nations' against other Amorites
The first choice, that of Tudhaliya, is much more plausible. There were five Hittite kings with that name; the first among them was in the approximate period of Abraham. He might have organized mercenaries belonging to various Indo-European tribes, hence the 'nations'. The mercenaries might have belonged to the horde of Umman-Manda, an Indo-European conglomeration of tribes, probably Scythians. The name Umman-Manda was used in old Babylonian times. Naram-Sin, the Grandson of Sargon I, had a bad experience with them.
Indo-European tribes were wandering around the Middle East since at least from early third millennium BC, probably even earlier. This, in addition to the Hittites, who were native people of Anatolia, who remained there after the disaster of the Euxine Lake.The Indo-European connection definitely would explain the use of the word 'goyim'. The writers of the Old Testament knew very well the ethnic composition and the names of the countries of the Middle East. Indeed, the list of Noah's descendants was the limit of their knowledge.For them, the marauding tribes, coming from the north through the Caucasus, were 'nations' without specific names. If they were indeed Indo-European mercenaries, then it was reasonable that they were hired and led by the king of the Hittites, who at least could talk to them and knew their habits. So, if Chedorlaomer needed mercenaries, he hired them through the Hittites.
Summary
After analyzing the names and the historical circumstances, the following historical narrative emerges:
|
The kings of the Cities of the Plain, those from the lower valley of the Jordan, were paying tribute to Babylon. Because of some reason they stopped paying the tribute. The tribute was probably in the form of bitumen, mined around the Dead Sea, the 'slime pits', and it was a very desirable commodity in Mesopotamia. Balsam from the plantations around Jericho could have been included too. It is known from classical times that there were extensive plantations of balsam around Jericho, which were the private properties of Cleopatra, the queen of Egypt. It is possible that they had to deliver copper too, from the copper-mines of the bay of Eilat.
|
|
Mesopotamia was under Elamite suzerainity at that time, and moreover, it was divided into two kingdoms, Babylon and Larsa. The kings of the two kingdoms called their suzerain, whose name might have been Kudur-Mabug and one of his titles was Kudur-Lagamar. He was also the father of the king of Larsa, whose name was Eri-Aku, or Arioch in Hebrew.
|
|
In order to increase his power, Kudur-Mabug hired Indo-European , probably Scythian mercenaries, through the good office of the king of the Hittites. The use of Scythian mercenaries seems to have been an accepted practice, before and after this particular war. In later times, they were instrumental in the destruction of the new Assyrian Empire, as they were earlier in the downfall of the dynasty of Sargon. They were familiar with the area. The Greek name of Beit-Shan, the main crossing on the Jordan, was Scythopolis – the town of the Scythians.
|
|
It is possible that the allied expedition was more of an armed sortie of tax collection and not a major war. The route, which the allied forces were taking, revealed it. They did not come from Babylon directly through the desert, but came through Syria, which was a longer road. The major part of the expedition was probably pack animals, to carry back the tribute, so water for the animals must have been a logistical consideration. That they started the return journey near the Red Sea shows that copper from the mines there must have been part of the plan.
|
|
The ease by which Abraham and his allies succeeded to surprise the raiders north of Damascus is also easier understood if one considers that it was a tribute collection and not a major war.
|
There was another objection to the possibility of the intervention of Abraham and his allies. The objection was that 318 men from Abraham, and equal numbers from the allies, were insufficient to challenge a major army. When considering this objection, one has to take into consideration that it was in the 21st century BC, before the period of the mass armies, which arrived about a millennium later. Even as late as the great battle of Megiddo, in 1479 BC., the army of Pharaoh Thotmes III killed 83 of the enemy and captured 740 prisoners. So, the numbers of people Abraham and his allies had were equal to the task.
Thus, judging from the participants, the route taken, and the numbers involved, it seems that the story is more or less an accurate rendering of some obscure tribute collecting expedition. It was certainly not a major war, otherwise there would be more traces in the archives. Based on the narrative, which can be supported by historical, non-biblical evidences, the story can be accepted as historical. Other stories from the third millennium BC, based on less documentation, were accepted as histories.
There is one more point here. As far as it can be seen from the Old Testament itself, Abraham was not a Semite. His home country was to the north of the dividing line between the Semites and the non-Semites. According to Robert Graves he was an Armenian, according the Hittites of Hebron, he was one of them, even a great prince, but it is also possible that he was a Hurrian. If he was a Hittite, then here he fought against a force led by a Hittite king. In order to understand the situation he was in, it is worth while to remember one of the verses of the Rig-Veda.
The Rig-Veda tells about a war between the Aryans and the Dasyus. The first were the Indo-European invaders and the last the aborigines. There is no consensus in this, as there are scholars who claim that the Dasyus were the descendants, probably mixture, of an earlier Indo-European invasion. One of the verses warns the Aryans that they have to fight against the Dasyus with one hand, and with the other they have to defend themselves against a new wave of other Indo-Aryan invaders, who might stab them in the back. It is possible that there was some sort of solidarity, based upon similar languages, customs and religion, but not when it came to conquest and booty. Then everybody was for himself, and against everybody else
Notes
| 1. |
Thomas L. Thompson, The Mythic Past, op.cit. pp. 130 – 136
|
| 2. |
Idem.,pp.132 – 122
|
| 3. |
Merrill F. Unger, op.cit. p.19
|
| 4. |
John van Seters, op.cit.,p.115 is the leading opponent for accepting the story as history. There are many, who are willing to give at least the benefit of the doubt. Among them, Merrill F. Unger, op.cit., pp. 25,117 , Wenham, op.cit. ,pp. 319 – 320,Custance, op.cit.,p.9/20, W.F. Albright, The Archaeology of the Bible, op.cit.,p.133
|
| 5. |
Arthur C. Custance, op.cit.,p.10/20 quotes Eberhard Schroeder, The Cuneifom
Inscriptions and the Old Testament, Williams and Moorgate,London, 1885, p.122
|
| 6. |
Eberhard Schroeder, op.cit.,p.122, ref.17, W. St.Chad Boscawen, Historical Evidences of
the Migrations of Abraham, Tr. Victoria Institute 20, 1888, p.100, ref.4, Joseph P. Free, op.cit, p.53
|
| 7. |
Robert L. Bradshaw, op.cit.,p.9/13; Arthur C. Custance, op.cit.p.12/20; T.G. Pinches, The
Old Testament in the Light of Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylon,
SPCK, London, 1908, pp.45-65
|
| 8. |
Gordon J. Wenham, op.cit. p.308, Joseph P. Free, op.cit., p.52, n.15, Robert L. Bradshaw, op.cit. p.3/13
|
| 9. |
Idem, p.9/13, Arthur C. Custance, op.cit. p.10/20; T.G.Pinches, op.cit.,p.219
|
| 10. |
Joseph P. Free, op.cit.,p.52, Gordon J. Wenham, op.cit.p.308
|
| 11. |
Ignatius Hunt, op.cit.,p.141; Gordon J. Wenham, op.cit., ibid; Joseph P. Free, op.cit, ibid
|
|
|
|
