Chapter XIV: Abram’s Victory over Four Kings

While Abram was at Hebron, a revolt of five petty kings in the Jordan valley against their over-lord Chedorlaomer of Elam brought from the East a great punitive expedition, in which no fewer than four powerful monarchs took part. A successful campaign――the course of which is traced in detail――ended in the complete defeat of the rebels in a pitched battle in what is now the Dead Sea basin, followed by the sack of Sodom, and the capture of Lot (¹⁻¹²). Abram, with a handful of slaves, pursues the victorious allies to Dan, routs them in a night attack, and rescues the captives, including Lot (¹³⁻¹⁶). On his homeward journey he is met by Melchizedek, king of Salem, who blesses him in the name of God Most High, and to whom he pays tithes (¹⁸⁻²⁰); and by the king of Sodom, whose offer of the spoil Abram rejects with proud and almost disdainful magnanimity (¹⁷ᐧ ²¹⁻²⁴).――Such is in brief the content of this strange and perplexing chapter, in its present form and setting. It is obvious that the first half is merely introductory, and that the purpose of the whole is to illustrate the singular dignity of Abram’s position among the potentates of the earth. Essentially peaceful, yet ready on the call of duty to take the field against overwhelming odds, disinterested and considerate of others in the hour of victory, reverential towards the name and representative of the true God, he moves as a ‘great prince’ amongst his contemporaries, combining the highest earthly success with a certain detachment and unworldliness of character.――Whether the picture be historically true or not――a question reserved for a concluding note――it is unfair to deny to it nobility of conception; and it is perhaps an exaggeration to assert that it stands in absolute and unrelieved opposition to all we elsewhere read of Abram. The story does not give the impression that Abram forfeits the character of ‘Muslim and prophet’ (Wellhausen) even when he assumes the rôle of a warrior.

_Literary character._――Many features of the chapter show that
it has had a peculiar literary history. (a) The _vocabulary_,
though exhibiting sporadic affinities with Priestly-Code (רְכוּשׁ,
¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹; יְלִיד בַּֽיִת, ¹⁴; נֶפֶשׁ [= ‘person’], ²¹) or Elohist (האמרי,
⁷ᐧ ¹³; בִּלְעָדַי, ²⁴), contains several expressions which are either
unique or rare (see the footnotes): חָנִיךְ, ¹⁴; (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον);
הֵרִיק, ¹⁴; הַפָּלִיט, ¹³; קֹנֶה, אֵל עֶלְיוֹן, ¹⁸⁻²⁰ᐧ ²²; מִגֵּן, ²⁰; מָרַד, ⁴.¹――(b) The
numerous antiquarian _glosses_ and _archaic_ names, suggesting
the use of an ancient document, have no parallel except in
Deuteronomy 2¹⁰⁻¹²ᐧ ²⁰⁻²³ 3⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁴; and even these are not
quite of the same character. (c) The _annalistic_ official style,
specially noticeable in the introduction, may be genuine or
simulated; in either case it marks the passage sharply off from
the narratives by which it is surrounded.――That the chapter
as it stands cannot be assigned to any of the three sources of
Genesis is now universally acknowledged, and need not be further
argued here. Some writers postulate the existence of a literary
kernel which may either (1) have originated in one of the
schools Yahwist or Elohist,² or (2) have passed through their
hands.³ In neither form can the theory be made at all plausible.
The treatment of documentary material supposed by (1) is
unexampled in Genesis; and those who suggest it have to produce
some sufficient reason why a narrative of (say) Elohist required
to be so heavily glossed. As for (2), we have, to be sure, no
experience of how Elohist or Yahwist would have edited an old
cuneiform document if it had fallen into their hands,――they
were collectors of oral tradition, not manipulators of official
records,――but we may presume that if the story would not bear
telling in the vivid style that went to the hearts of the
people, these writers would have left it alone. The objections
to Priestly-Code’s authorship are equally strong, the style
and subject being alike foreign to the well-marked character of
the Priestly narration. Chapter xiv. is therefore an isolated
boulder in the stratification of the Pentateuch, a fact which
certainly invites examination of its origin, but is not in
itself an evidence of high antiquity.

¹ The singularity of the passage appears to be reflected even
in the translation of LXX, which has some unusual renderings:
ἵππος for רְכוּשׁ, ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹ (nowhere else in Old Testament);
φάραγξ for עֵמֶק, ³ (not again in Pentateuch: twice in Joshua
and 4 times in Book of Isaiah); περάτης (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον) for
עִבְרִי, ¹³,――though this might be explained by the unexpected
occurrence of the gentilic in this connexion (Aquila
περαΐτης).

² So Dillmann, Kittel (_Geschichte der Hebräer_, i. 124,
158 ff.), and (with reserve) Holzinger, all of whom think
of Elohist as the most likely source.

³ So Winckler _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_,
ii. 26‒48, who holds that the original was a cuneiform
document of legendary and mythical character, which was
worked over first by Elohist and then by Yahwist (see below,
page 272).

=1‒4. The revolt of the five kings.=――=1.= The four names (see below) do double duty,――as genitve after בִּימֵי and as subject to עָשׂוּ מ׳――a faulty syntax which a good writer would have avoided (_v.i._). The suggestion that the first two names are genitive and the last two subject,¹ has the advantage of putting _Kĕdorlā‘omer_, the head of the expedition (⁴ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁷), in the place of honour; but it is without warrant in the Hebrew text; and besides, by excluding the first two kings from participation in the campaign (against ⁵ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁷), it necessitates a series of changes too radical to be safely undertaken.――=2.= The group of five cities (_Pentapolis_, Wisdom 10⁶) is thought to be the result of an amalgamation of originally independent traditions.

¹ Winckler _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_,
ii. 27, 30; Peiser, _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen
Gesellschaft_, 1897, 308 ff.; approved by Gunkel.

In chapter 19, only Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned as
destroyed (19²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ [18²⁰]; so 13¹⁰, Isaiah 1⁹ ᶠᐧ, Jeremiah 23¹⁴
etc.) and Zoar (19¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ) as spared. Admah and Ẓeboim are named
alone in Hosea 11⁸, in a manner hardly consistent with the idea
that they were involved in the same catastrophe as Sodom and
Gomorrah. The only passages besides this where the four are
associated are 10¹⁹ and Deuteronomy 29²², although ‘neighbour
cities’ of Sodom and Gomorrah are referred to in Jeremiah
49¹⁸ 50⁴⁰, Ezekiel 16⁴⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ. If, as seems probable, there were
two distinct legends, we cannot assume that in the original
tradition Admah and Ẓeboim were connected with the Dead Sea (see
Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 66 f.).――The old name of Zoar, בֶּלַע
(Destruction?), appears nowhere else.

The four names in verse ¹ are undoubtedly historical, although
the monumental evidence is less conclusive than is often
represented. (1) אַמְרָפֶל (Ἀμαρφαλ) is thought to be a faulty
transcription of _Ḫammurabi_ (_Ammurab[p]i_), the name of
the 6th king of the first Babylonian dynasty, who put an end
to the Elamite domination and united the whole country under
his own sway (_circa_ 2100 B.C.).¹ The final ל presents a
difficulty which has never been satisfactorily explained; but
the equivalence is widely recognised by Assyriologists.² It
is, however, questioned by Jensen³, absolutely rejected by
Bezold,⁴ and pronounced ‘problematical’ by Meyer _Geschichte
des Alterthums_², I. ii. 551.――(On שִׁנְעָר, see 10¹⁰.)――(2) אַרְיוֹךְ
(compare Daniel 2¹⁴, Judith 1⁶), it seems, is now satisfactorily
identified with _Eri-agu_, the Sumerian equivalent of _Arad-Sin_,
a king of Larsa, who was succeeded by his more famous brother,
Rîm-Sin, the ruler who was conquered by Ḫammurabi in the 31st
year of the latter’s reign (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 16, 19). The two brothers, sons of the Elamite
Kudurmabug, were first distinguished by Thureau-Dangin in 1907
(_Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinschriften_ 210 f.;
compare King, _Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings_,
volume i. 68²; Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_², I. ii. page
550 f.). Formerly the two names and persons were confused; and
Schrader’s attempt to identify Rîm-Sin with Arioch,⁵ though
accepted by many, was reasonably contested by the more cautious
Assyriologists, _e.g._ Jensen (_Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, 1896, 247 ff.), Bezold (_op.
cit._ 27, 56), and Zimmern (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 367). The objections do not hold against the
equation _Arioch_ = _Eriagu_ = _Arad-Sin_, provided Arad-Sin be
kept distinct from Rîm-Sin. The discovery by Pinches⁶ in 1892
of the name _Eri-[E]aku_ or _Eri-Ekua_ stands on a somewhat
different footing. The tablets on which these names occur are
admittedly late (not earlier than the 4th century B.C.); the
identity of the names with Eri-Aku is called in question by
King; ⁷ who further points out that this Eri-Ekua is not styled
a king, that there is nothing to connect him with Larsa, and
that consequently we have no reason to suppose him the same as
either of the well-known contemporaries of Ḫammurabi. The real
significance of the discovery lies in the coincidence that on
these same late fragments (and nowhere else) the two remaining
names of the verse are _supposed_ to occur.――(3) כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר
(Χοδολλογομορ) unquestionably stands for _Kudur-lagamar_, a
genuine Elamite proper name, containing the name of a known
Elamite divinity _Lagamar_ (_Die Keilinschriften und das
Alte Testament_³, 485), preceded by a word which appears
as a component of theophorous Elamite names (_Kudur-mabug_,
_Kudur-Nanḫundi_, etc.). It is extremely doubtful, however, if
the actual name has yet been found outside of this chapter. The
“sensational” announcement of Scheil (1896), that he had read it
(_Ku-dur-nu-uḫ-ga-mar_) in a letter of Ḫammurabi to Sinidinnam,
king of Larsa, has been disposed of by the brilliant refutation
of King (_op. cit._ xxv‒xxxix. Compare also Delitzsch
_Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft_,
iv. 90). There remains the prior discovery of the Pinches
fragments, on which there is mentioned thrice a king of Elam
whose name, it was thought, might be read _Kudur-laḫ-mal_ or
_Kudur-laḫ-gu-mal_.⁸ The first element (Kudur) is no doubt right,
but the second is very widely questioned by Assyriologists.⁹
There is, moreover, nothing to show that the king in question,
whatever his name, belonged to the age of Ḫammurabi.¹⁰ (4)
תִּדְעָל (LXXᴱᴸ Θαργαλ, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word)) was identified
by Pinches with a “_Tu-ud-ḫul-a_, son of _Gaz_ ...,” who is
named once on the tablets already spoken of (see Schrader
_Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, 1895, xli. 961 ff.). The resemblance
to Tid‛al is very close, and is naturally convincing to those
who find ’Ariok and Kedorla‛omer in the same document; there is,
however, no indication that _Tudḫula_ was a king, or that he was
contemporary with Ḫammurabi and Rîm-Sin (King, _op. cit._).――גּוֹיִם
can hardly be the usual word for ‘nations’ (LXX, Vulgate,
Targum), either as an indefinite expression (Tuch) or as a
“verschämtes _et cetera_” (Holzinger). We seem to require a
proper name (Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac word)); and many accept
the suggestion of Rawlinson, that _Guti_ (a people North of the
Upper Zab) should be read. Peiser (309) thinks that מֶלֶךְ גּוֹיִם is an
attempt to render the common Babylonian title _šar kiššati_.

¹ See Introduction pages xiv f.

² See Schrader _Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen
Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, 1887, xxxi. 600 ff.

³ _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_,
1896, 252.

⁴ _Die Babylonisch-Assyrischen Keilinschriften_, etc., 1904,
pages 26, 54.

⁵ _Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, 1894, xv. 279 ff.

⁶ See his _Old Testament in the light_, etc., 223 ff.; compare
Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the
Monuments_, 181 ff.; and Sayce’s amended translation in
_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, 1906,
193 ff., 241 ff.; 1907, 7 ff.

⁷ _Letters and Inscriptions of Ḫammurabi_, i. page liii.
Jensen, Peiser, and Bezold also pronounce against the
identification.

⁸ This reading is questioned by King; see liv‒lvi, or the
extract in Driver _Genesis_, _Addenda_ on page 157 _n_.
Sayce now (_l.c._ page 194 ff.) proposes to read
_Kudur-lakhkha-mal_; but the reading appears to be purely
conjectural; and, unless it should be corroborated, nothing
can be built upon it.

⁹ _e.g._ by King, Zimmern (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 486¹), Peiser (who reads it _Kudur-tur-bit_,
_l.c._ 310), Jensen, Bezold, al.

¹⁰ There is no doubt some difficulty in finding room for a
king Kudur-lagamar alongside of Kudur-mabug (who, if not
actually king of Elam, was certainly the over-lord of
Arad-Sin and Rîm-Sin) in the time of Ḫammurabi; but in
our ignorance of the situation that difficulty must not
be pressed. It has, however, induced Langdon (Driver,
_Genesis_⁷, _Addenda_ xxxii.) to revive a conjecture of
G. Smith, that Kudur-mabug and the Kudur-lagamar of this
chapter are one and the same person. It does not appear that
any fresh _facts_ have come to light to make the guess more
convincing than it was when first propounded.

The royal names in verse ² are of a different character from
those of verse ¹. Several circumstances suggest that they are
fictitious. Jewish exegesis gives a sinister interpretation to
all four (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, _Bereshith Rabba_ § 42, Rashi); and
even modern scholars like Tuch and Nöldeke recognise in the
first two a play on the words רַע (evil) and רֶשֶׂע (wickedness).
And can it be accidental that they fall into two alliterative
pairs, or that each king’s name contains exactly as many letters
as that of his city? On the other side, it may be urged (a)
that the textual tradition is too uncertain to justify any
conclusions based on the Hebrew (see the footnote); (b) the
namelessness of the fifth king shows that the writer must have
had traditional authority for the other four; and (c) _Sanibu_
occurs as the name of an Ammonite king in an inscription of
Tiglath-pileser IV. (Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 294,
_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 21). These considerations
do not remove the impression of artificiality which the list
produces. Since the names are not repeated in verse ⁸, it is
quite possible they are late insertions in the text, and, of
course (on that view), unhistorical.――בֶּלַע is elsewhere a royal
name (36³²).

* * * * *

=1.= בִּימֵי] LXX ἐν βασιλείᾳ; Vulgate _in illo tempore_, reading all
the names in the nominative. LXX has the first in genitive and
the rest nominative; LXXᴬ further inserts καί between the second
and third. The reading of the Sixtine edition (first _two_ names
in genitive coupled by καί), which is appealed to in support
of Winckler’s construction, has very little MS authority.
“I have little doubt that both in H. and P. 19 (which is a
rather carelessly written MS) and in 135 the reading is due
to a scribe’s mistake, probably arising from misreading of a
contracted termination and induced by the immediately preceding
βασιλέως. How it came into the Roman edition, I do not feel
sure.”¹――=2.= בֶּלַע] LXX Βαλλα, etc.――שִׁנְאָב] LXX Σεννααρ.――שֶׁמְאֵבֶר] LXX
Συμοβορ, Συμορ _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ שמאבר
(‘name has perished’), Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word).――הִיא] the first
of the 11 instances of this _Kethîb_ in Pentateuch (see on 2¹²).

¹ Private communication from Mr. M‘Lean.

* * * * *

=3.= _all these_] not the kings from the East (Dillmann, Driver), but (see verse ⁴) those of the Pentapolis. That there should be any doubt on the point is an indication of the weak style of the chapter. What exactly the verse means to say is not clear. The most probable sense is that the five cities _formed a league_] of the Vale of Siddim, and therefore acted in concert. This is more natural than to suppose the statement a premature mention of the preparations for battle in verse ⁸.――_the Vale of Siddîm_] The name is peculiar to this narrative, and its meaning is unknown (_v.i._). The writer manifestly shares the belief (13¹⁰) that what is now the Dead Sea was once dry land (see page 273 f. below).――_The Sea of Salt_] one of the Old Testament names for the Dead Sea (Numbers 34³, Deuteronomy 3¹⁷, Joshua 3¹⁶ 15⁵ etc.): see Palestine Exploration Fund: _Quarterly Statements._, 1904, 64. Winckler’s attempt to identify it with Lake Ḥuleh is something of a _tour de force_ (_Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 36 f.; compare 108 f.).――=4.= _they rebelled_] by refusal of tribute (2 Kings 18⁷ 24¹ᐧ ²⁰ etc.). An Elamite dominion over Palestine in the earlier part of Ḫammurabi’s reign is perfectly credible in the light of the monumental evidence (page 272). But the importance attributed in this connexion to the petty kings of the Pentapolis is one of the features which excite suspicion of the historicity of the narrative. To say that this is due to the writer’s interest in Lot and Sodom is to concede that his conception of the situation is determined by other influences than authentic historical information.

* * * * *

=3.= חברוּ אל־] apparently a pregnant construct (Gesenius-Kautzsch §
119 _ee_) = ‘came as confederates to’; but this is rather harsh.
אֶל after חבר naturally refers to that to which one is joined
(Exodus 26³; of a person, Sirach 12¹⁴): that being impossible
here, חבר must be understood absolutely as Judges 20¹¹ (_vide_
Moore or Budde _ad loc._) and the אל may have some vague local
reference: ‘all these had formed a confederacy at (?) the Vale
of Siddim.’――עֵמֶק הַשֵּׁדִּים] LXX τὴν φάραγγα τὴν ἁλυκήν, apparently
a conjecture from the context, Vulgate _vallem silvestrem_.
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ has חקליא (from שָׂדֶה), Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ פרדיסיא; Peshiṭtå
‘valley of the Sodomites’: on the renderings of Aquila and
Theodotion see Field’s Note, page 30 f. It is evident the
Versions did not understand the word. Nöldeke (_Untersuchungen
zur Kritik des Alte Testament_ 160³), Renan (_History_ i. 116),
Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁵ 105), Jeremias
(_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 351), al.
think the true form is שֵׁדִים: ‘valley of demons.’――=4.= וּשְׁלשׁ]
Accusative of time (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 118 _i_); but _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ובשלש is better.――מרד]
rare in Hexateuch (Numbers 14⁹, Joshua 22¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁹
[Priestly-Code]); and mostly late.

* * * * *

=5‒7. The preliminary campaign.=――One of the surprising things in the narrative is the circuitous route by which the Eastern kings march against the rebels. We may assume that they had followed the usual track by Carchemish and Damascus: thence they advanced southwards on the East of the Jordan; but then, instead of attacking the Pentapolis, they pass it on their right, proceeding southward to the head of the Gulf of Aḳaba. Then they turn North-west to Ḳadesh, thence North-east to the Dead Sea depression; and only at the end of this long and difficult journey do they join issue with their enemies in the vale of Siddim.

In explanation, it has been suggested that the real object of
the expedition was to secure command of the caravan routes in
West Arabia, especially that leading through the Arabah from
Syria to the Red Sea (see Tuch 257 ff.). It must be remembered,
however, that this is the account, not of the first assertion
of Elamite supremacy over these regions, but of the suppression
of a revolt of not more than a few months’ standing: hence it
would be necessary to assume that all the peoples named were
implicated in the rebellion. This is to go behind the plain
meaning of the Hebrew narrator; and the verisimilitude of
the description is certainly not enhanced by Hommel’s wholly
improbable speculation that the Pentapolis was the centre of
an empire embracing the whole region East of the Jordan and the
land of Edom (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by
the Monuments_, 149). If there were any truth in theories of
this kind, we should still have to conclude that the writer, for
the sake of literary effect, had given a fictitious importance
to the part played by the cities of the Jordan valley, and had
so arranged the incidents as to make their defeat seem the
climax of the campaign. (See Nöldeke, 163 f.)

The general course of the campaign can be traced with sufficient
certainty from the geographical names of ⁵⁻⁷; although it
does not appear quite clearly whether these are conceived as
the centres of the various nationalities or the battlefields
in which they were defeated.――עַשְׁתְּרוֹת קַרְנַיִם (‘Astarte of the two
horns’:¹ Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10; or ‘Astarte
of the two-peaked mountain’²) occurs as a compound name
only here. A city _‛Astārôth_ of Bashan, the capital of
Og’s kingdom, is mentioned in Deuteronomy 1⁴, Joshua 9¹⁰ 12⁴
13¹²ᐧ ³¹, 1 Chronicles 6⁵⁶ [= בְּעֶשְׁתְּרָה, Joshua 21²⁷]. _Ḳarnaim_ is
named (according to a probable emendation) in Amos 6¹³, and in
1 Maccabees 5²⁶ᐧ ⁴³ ᶠᐧ, 2 Maccabees 12²¹. It is uncertain whether
these are two names for one place, or two adjacent places of
which one was named after the other (‛Astārôth of [_i.e._ near]
Ḳarnaim); and the confusing statements of the _Onomastica Sacra_
(84⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 86³² 108¹⁷ 209⁶¹ 268⁹⁸) throw little light on the
question. The various sites that have been suggested――Sheikh
Sa’d, Tell ‛Aštarah, Tell el-‛Aš‛ari, and El-Muzêrîb――lie
near the great road from Damascus to Mecca, about 20 miles
East of the Lake of Tiberias (see Buhl, _Geographie des alten
Palaestina_, 248 ff.; Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, i.
166 f.; George Adam Smith in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 335 f.).
Wetzstein’s identification with Boẓrah (regarded as a corruption
of _Bostra_, and this of בְּעֶשְׁתְּרָה, Joshua 21²⁷), the capital of the
Ḫaurân, has been shown by Nöldeke (_Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxix. 431¹) to be philologically
untenable.――Of a place הָם nothing is known. It is a natural
conjecture (Tuch al.) that it is the archaic name of _Rabbath_,
the capital of _‛Ammon_; and Sayce (_The Higher Criticism and
the Verdict of the Monuments_, 160 f.) thinks it must be
explained as a retranscription from a cuneiform source of the
word עַמּוֹן. On the text _v.i._――שָׁוֵה קִרְיָתַיִם is doubtless the Moabite
or Reubenite city קִר׳, mentioned in Jeremiah 48²³, Ezekiel 25⁹,
Numbers 32³⁷, Joshua 13¹⁹ (_Onomastica Sacra_, Καριαθαειμ,
Καριαθα), the modern _Ḳuraiyāt_, East of the Dead Sea, a little
South of the Wādī Zerka Ma‛īn. שָׁוֵה (only here and verse ¹⁷) is
supposed to mean ‘plain’ (Syriac (‡ Syriac word)); but that is
somewhat problematical.――On the phrase הַרְרָם שֶׁעִיר, see the footnote.
While שֶׁעִיר alone may include the plateau to the West of the
Arabah, the commoner הַר שֶׁעִיר appears to be restricted to the
mountainous region East of that gorge, now called _eš-Šera‛_
(see Buhl, _Geschichte der Edomiter_, 28 ff.).――אֵיל פָּארָן (_v.i._)
is usually identified with אֵילַת (Deuteronomy 2⁸, 2 Kings 14²²
16⁶) or אֵילוֹת (1 Kings 9²⁶, 2 Kings 16⁶), at the head of the East
arm of the Red Sea, which is supposed to derive its name from
the groves of date-palms for which it was and is famous (see
especially Tuch 264 f.). The grounds of the identification
seem slender; and the evidence does not carry us further than
Tuch’s earlier view (251), that some oasis in the North of the
desert is meant (see Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3584).³ The
‘wilderness’ is the often mentioned ‘Wilderness of Paran’ (21²¹,
Numbers 10¹² etc.), _i.e._ the desolate plateau of _et-Tīh_,
stretching from the Arabah to the isthmus of Suez. There is
obviously nothing in that definition to support the theory that
_’Êl-Pârān_ is the original name of the later _Elath_.――קָדֵשׁ
(16¹⁴ 20¹ etc.), or ק׳ בַּֽרְנֵעַ (Numbers 34⁴, Deuteronomy 1²ᐧ ¹⁹ 2¹⁴).
The controversy as to the situation of this important place
has been practically settled since the appearance of Trumbull’s
_Kadesh-Barnea_ in 1884 (see Guthe, _Zeitschrift des deutschen
Palästina-Vereins_, viii. 183 ff.). It is the spring now known
as _‛Ain Ḳadîs_, at the head of the Wādī of the same name,
“northward of the desert proper,” and about 50 miles South of
Beersheba (see the description by Trumbull, _op. cit._ 272‒275).
The distance in a straight line from Elath would be about 80
miles, with a difficult ascent of 1500 feet. The alternative
name עֵין מִשְׁפָּט (‘Well of Judgement’) is found only here. Since קָדֵשׁ
means ‘holy’ and מִשְׁפָּט ‘judicial decision,’ it is a plausible
conjecture of William Robertson Smith that the name refers to an
ordeal involving the use of ‘holy water’ (Numbers 5¹⁷) from the
sacred well (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 181).
The sanctuary at Kadesh seems to have occupied a prominent
place in the earliest Exodus tradition (Wellhausen _Prolegomena
zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 341 ff.); but there is no reason
why the institution just alluded to should not be of much
greater antiquity than the Mosaic age.――חַצְצֹן תָּמָר is, according to
2 Chronicles 20², _‛Ēn-gĕdî_ (_‛Ain Ǧidī_), about the middle of
the West shore of the Dead Sea. A more unsuitable approach for
an army to any part of the Dead Sea basin than the precipitous
descent of nearly 2000 feet at this point, could hardly be
imagined: see Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_,
i. 503. It is not actually said that the army made the descent
there: it might again have made a detour and reached its goal
by a more practicable route. But certainly the conditions of
this narrative would be better satisfied by _Kurnub_, on the
road from Hebron to Elath, about 20 miles West-south-west of the
South end of the Dead Sea. The identification, however, requires
three steps, all of which involve uncertainties: (1) that ח׳ תָּמָר =
the תָּמָר of Ezekiel 47¹⁹ 48²⁸; (2) that this is the _Thamara_ of
_Onomastica Sacra_ (85³, 210⁸⁶), the Θαμαρω of Ptolemy xvi. 8;
and (3) that the ruins of this are found at _Kurnub_. Compare
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 4890; Buhl, _Geographie des alten
Palaestina_, 184.

¹ See Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen
Denkmälern_, 313; Macalister, Palestine Exploration Fund:
_Quarterly Statements._, 1904, 15.

² Moore, _Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, xvi.
156 f.

³ Trumbull places it at the oasis of _Ḳala‛at Naḫl_, in the
middle of _et-Tīh_, on the Ḫaǧǧ route halfway between ‛Aḳaba
and Suez (_Kadesh-Barnea_, page 37).

The six peoples named in verses ⁵⁻⁷ are the primitive races
which, according to Hebrew tradition, formerly occupied the
regions traversed by Chedorlaomer. (1) The רְפָאִים are spoken
of as a giant race dwelling partly on the West (15²⁰, Joshua
17¹⁵, 2 Samuel 21¹⁶, Isaiah 17⁵), partly on the East, of the
Jordan, especially in Bashan, where Og reigned as the last of
the Rephaim (Deuteronomy 3¹¹, Joshua 12⁴ etc.).――(2) The זוּזִים,
only mentioned here, are probably the same as the Zamzummîm
of Deuteronomy 2²⁰, the aborigines of the Ammonite country.
The equivalence of the two forms is considered by Sayce
(_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, iv. 393) and others to be
explicable only by the Babylonian confusion of _m_ and _w_,
and thus a proof that the narrative came ultimately from a
cuneiform source.――(3) הָאֵימִים] a kind of Rephaim, aborigines of
Moab (Deuteronomy 2¹⁰ ᶠᐧ).――(4) הַחֹרִי] the race extirpated by the
Edomites (36²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 2¹²ᐧ ²²). The name has usually
been understood to mean ‘troglodytes’ (see Driver _A critical
and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy_ 38); but this is
questioned by Jensen (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, x. 332 f.,
346 f.) and Hommel (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated
by the Monuments_, 264²), who identify the word with _Ḫaru_,
the Egyptian name for South-west Palestine.¹――(5) הָעֲמָלֵקִי] the
Amalekite territory (שָׂדֶה), was in the Negeb, extending towards
Egypt (Numbers 13²⁹ 14⁴³ᐧ ⁴⁵, 1 Samuel 27⁸). In ancient tradition,
Amalek was ‘the firstling of peoples’ (Numbers 24²⁰), although,
according to Genesis 36¹² its ancestor was a grandson of
Esau.――(6) הָֽאֱמֹרִי] see on 10¹⁶; and compare Deuteronomy 1⁴⁴,
Judges 1³⁶.――While there can be no question of the absolute
historicity of the last three names, the first three undoubtedly
provoke speculation. Rephāîm is the name for _shades_ or
_ghosts_; ’Emîm probably means ‘_terrible ones_’; and Zamzummîm
(if this be the same word as Zûzîm), ‘murmurers.’ Schwally (_Das
Leben nach dem Tode_, 64 f., and more fully _Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xviii. 127 ff.) has given
reasons to show that all three names originally denoted spirits
of the dead, and afterwards came to be applied to an imaginary
race of _extinct giants_, the supposed original inhabitants
of the country (see also William Robertson Smith in Driver
_A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy_ 40). The
tradition with regard to the Rephaim is too persistent to make
this ingenious hypothesis altogether easy of acceptance. It
is unfortunate that on a matter bearing so closely on the
historicity of Genesis 14 the evidence is not more decisive.

¹ Compare Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen
Denkmälern_, 136 f., 148 ff.

* * * * *

=5.= אֶת־רְפָאִים] The article should be supplied, with _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_. LXX τοὺς γίγαντας; so Peshiṭtå,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ.――בְּעַשְׁתְּרֹח ק׳ The reading of the Sixtine and
Aldine editions of LXX, Ἀσταρωθ καὶ Καρναιν, which even Dillmann
adduces in favour of a distinction between the two cities, has,
amongst the MSS used by the Cambridge editors, the support of
only one late cursive, which Nestle maintains was copied from
the Aldine edition. It is doubtless a conflation of Καρναιν and
the και Ναιν (? Καιναιν) of LXXᴱᐧ ᵃˡᐧ (Nestle, _Zeitschrift des
deutschen Palästina-Vereins_, xv. 256; compare Moore, _Journal
of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, xvi. 155 f.).――הַזּוּזִים]
LXX ἔθνη ἰσχυρά = עִזּוּזִים: so Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ.
Symmachus has Ζοιζομμειν = זַמְזֻמִּים.――בְּהָם] LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå
read בָּהֶם (ἅμα αὐτοῖς, etc.). Some MSS of _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ have בחם, which Jerome expressly says is
the real reading of the Hebrew text.――=6.= בְּהַרְרָם] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate בְּהַרֲרֵי.
Duplication of ר is rare and doubtful (Psalms 30⁸, Jeremiah 17³)
in singular of this word, but common in construct plural. Buhl
strikes out שֶׁעִיר as an explanatory gloss, retaining בְּהַרֲרָם.――אֵיל פָּארָן]
LXX, Peshiṭtå render ‘terebinth of Paran,’ and so virtually
Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, which have ‘plain’ (see on 12⁶).
If the ordinary theory, as given above, be correct, אֵיל is used
collectively in the sense of ‘great tree’ (here ‘palms’).――=7.=
For קָדֵשׁ, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (also Saadya) have רקם,
apparently identifying it with Petra: see Tuch’s Note, page 271
f.――שְׂדֵה] LXX, Peshiṭtå שָׂרֵי, ‘princes.’

* * * * *

=8‒12. The final battle, and capture of Lot.=――=9.= _four kings against the five_] That the four Eastern kings should have been all present in person (which is the obvious meaning of the narrator) is improbable enough; that they should count heads with the petty kinglets of the Pentapolis is an unreal and misleading estimate of the opposing forces, due to a desire to magnify Abram’s subsequent achievement.――=10.= The vale of Siddim was at that time _wells upon wells of bitumen_] The notice is a proof of intelligent popular reasoning rather than of authentic information regarding actual facts. The Dead Sea was noted in antiquity for the production of bitumen, masses of which were found floating on the surface (Strabo, XVI. ii. 42; Diodorus ii. 48, xix. 98; Pliny, vii. 65), as, indeed, they still are after earthquakes, but “only in the southern part of the sea” (Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 518, ii. 189, 191). It was a natural inference that the bottom of the sea was covered with asphalt wells, like those of Hit in Babylonia. Seetzen (i. 417) says that the bitumen oozes from rocks round the sea, “and that (_und zwar_) under the surface of the water, as swimmers have felt and seen”; and Strabo says it rose in bubbles like boiling water from the middle of the deepest part.――=11, 12.= Sodom and Gomorrah are sacked, and Lot is taken captive. The account leaves much to be supplied by the imagination. The repetition of וַיִּקְחוּ and וַיֵּלֵֽכוּ in two consecutive sentences is a mark of inferior style; but the phrase בֶּן־אֲחִי אַבְרָם, which anticipates the introduction of Abram in verse ¹³, is probably a gloss (_v.i._).

* * * * *

=10.= בֶּֽאֱרֹת בֶּֽאֱרֹת] On the nominal appositives and duplication, see
Davidson § 29, _R._ 8; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 123 _e_ (compare
§ 130 _e_). LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ has the word but once.――וַֽעֲמֹרָה] better as
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX וּמֶלֶךְ ע׳.――הֶרָה] On
the peculiar  ֶ, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 27 _q_, 90 _i_.――=11.=
רְכֻשׁ] LXX ἵππον (_i.e._ רֶכֶשׁ); the confusion appears in ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹, but
nowhere else in the Old Testament.――=12.= בֶּן־אֲחִי אַבְרָם] LXX inserts
the words immediately after לוֹט,――an indication that they have
been introduced from the margin. It is to be noted also that Lot
is elsewhere called simply the ‘brother’ of Abram (¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶).――The
last clause is awkwardly placed; but considering the style
of the chapter, we are not justified in treating it as an
interpolation.

* * * * *

=13‒16. Abram’s pursuit and victory.=――The homeward march of the victorious army must have taken it very near Hebron,――Engedi itself is only about 17 miles off,――but Abram had ‘let the legions thunder past,’ until the intelligence reached him of his nephew’s danger.――=13.= _Abram the Hebrew_] is obviously meant as the first introduction of Abram in this narrative. The epithet is not _necessarily_ an anachronism, if we accept the view that the Ḫabiri of the Tel Amarna period were the nomadic ancestors of the Israelites (see on 10²¹); though it is difficult to believe that there were Ḫabiri in Palestine more than 600 years earlier, in the time of Ḫammurabi (against Sellin, _Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_, xvi. 936; compare Paton, _The Early History of Syria and Palestine_ 39 ff.). That, however, is the only sense in which Abram could be naturally described as a Hebrew in a contemporary document; and the probability is that the term is used by an anachronistic extension of the later distinction between Israelites and foreigners.――_Mamrē’ the Amorite_] see on 13¹⁸. In Yahwist (whose phraseology is here followed) מַמְרֵא is the name of the sacred tree or grove; in Priestly-Code it is a synonym of Hebron; here it is the personal name of the owner of the grove. In like manner _’Eškōl_ is a personal name derived from the valley of Eshcol (‘grape-cluster,’ Numbers 13²³ ᶠᐧ); and _‛Anēr_ may have a similar origin. The first two, at all events, are “_heroes eponymi_ of the most unequivocal character” (Nöldeke _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_ 166),――a misconception of which no contemporary would have been capable.¹――_the confederates of Abram_ (LXX συνωμόται)] The expression בַּֽעֲלֵי בְרִית does not recur; compare בַּֽעֲלֵי שְׁבוּעָה, Nehemiah 6¹⁸. Kraetzschmar’s view (_Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 23 f.), that it denotes the relation of patrons to client, is inherently improbable. That these men joined Abram in his pursuit is not stated, but is presupposed in verse ²⁴,――another example of the writer’s laxity in narration.――=14.= As soon as Abram learns the fate of his _brother_ (_i.e._ ‘relative’), he _called up his trained men_ (?: on וַיָּרֶק and חֲנִיכָיו, _v.i._) and gave chase.――_three hundred and eighteen_] The number cannot be an arbitrary invention, and is not likely to be historical. It is commonly explained as a piece of Jewish _Gematria_, 318 being the numerical value of the letters of אליעזר (15²) (_Bereshith Rabba_ § 43: see Nestle, _The Expository Times._, xvii. 44 f. [compare 139 f.]). A _modern_ Gematria finds in it the number of the days of the moon’s visibility during the lunar year (Winckler _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 27).――_to Dan_] Now Tell el-Ḳāḍi, at the foot of Hermon. This name originated in the period of the Judges (Joshua 19⁴⁷, Judges 18²⁹); and it is singular that such a prolepsis should occur in a document elsewhere so careful of the appearance of antiquity.――=15.= _He divided himself_] _i.e._ (as usually understood) into three bands,――the favourite tactical manœuvre in Hebrew warfare (Judges 7¹⁶, 1 Samuel 11¹¹ 13¹⁷, Job 1¹⁷, 1 Maccabees 5³³): but see the footnote.――_smote them, and pursued them as far as Hobah_] Hobah (compare Judith 15⁵) has been identified by Wetzstein with _Hoba_, _c._ 20 hours’ journey North of Damascus. Sellin (934) takes it to be the _Ubi_ of the Tel-Amarna Tablets, the district in which Damascus was situated (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 139, 63; 146, 12). The pursuit must in any case have been a long one, since Damascus itself is about 15 hours from Dan. It is idle to pretend that Abram’s victory was merely a surprise attack on the rearguard, and the recovery of part of the booty. A pursuit carried so far implies the rout of the main body of the enemy.

¹ Dillmann’s remark (page 235), that “it makes no difference
whether Mamre or the (lord) of Mamre helped Abram,” is hard
to understand. If Mamre and Eshcol were really names of
places, and the writer took them for names of individual
men, the fact has the most important bearing on the question
of the historicity of the record. The alternative theory,
that the names were originally those of persons, and were
afterwards transferred to the places owned or inhabited
by them, will hardly bear examination. ‘Grape-cluster’ is
a suitable name for a valley, but not for a man. And does
any one suppose that Yahwist would have recorded Abram’s
settlement at Hebron in the terms of 13¹⁸, if he had been
aware that Mamre was an individual living at the time?
Yet the Yahwist’s historical knowledge is far less open to
suspicion than that of the writer of chapter 14.

* * * * *

=13.= הַפָּלִיט] Ezekiel 24²⁶ 33²¹ (compare הַמַּגִּיד, 2 Samuel 15¹³). For
the idiom, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _r_.――הָעִבְרִי] LXX τῷ περάτῃ
(only here), Aquila τῷ περαΐτῃ.――עָנֵר] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ ענרם, LXX Αὐναν.――=14.= וַיָּרֶק] Literally ‘emptied
out,’ used of the unsheathing of a sword (Exodus 15⁹, Leviticus
26³³, Ezekiel 5²ᐧ ¹² etc.), but never with personal objective
as here. Tuch cites the Arabic _ǧarrada_, which means both
‘unsheath a sword’ and ‘detach a company from an army’ (see
Lane); but this is no real analogy, _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_ has בַיָּדֶק = ‘scrutinize’ (Aramaic). LXX ἠρίθμησεν
(so Vulgate) and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ זריז (‘equip’: so Peshiṭtå and
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ) settle nothing, as they may be conjectural.
Winckler (_Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 102²) derives
from Assyrian _diḳu_ = ‘call up troops’; so Sellin, 937. Ball
changes to וַיִּפְקֹד.――חֲנִיכָיו] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, LXX τοὺς ἰδίους, Vulgate
_expeditos_, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘young men.’ The √ חנך
suggests the meaning ‘initiated’ (see on 4¹⁷), hence ‘trained,’
‘experienced,’ etc. Sellin (937) compares the word _ḫanakuka_
= ‘thy men,’ found in one of the Ta‛annek tablets. If it comes
direct from the ceremony of rubbing the palate of a new-born
child (see page 116), it may have nothing to do with war,
but denote simply those belonging to the household, the
precise equivalent of יְלִדֵי בַיִת. The latter phrase is found only
in Priestly-Code (17¹² ᶠᐧ ²³ᐧ ²⁷, Leviticus 22¹¹) and Jeremiah
2¹⁴.――=15.= וַיֵּחָלֵק] (compare 1 Kings 16²¹). The sense given
above is not altogether natural. Ball emends וַיַּדְבֵּק. Winckler
(_Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 27²)
suggests a precarious Assyrian etymology, pointing as Piel, and
rendering ‘and he fell upon them by night’: so Sellin.――מִשְּׂמֹאל]
Literally ‘on the left.’ The sense ‘north’ is rare: Joshua 19²⁷
(Priestly-Code), Ezekiel 16⁴⁶, Job 23⁹.

* * * * *

=17, 18‒20. Abram and Melkiẓedeḳ.=――“The scene between Abram and Melkiẓedeḳ is not without poetic charm: the two ideals (_Grösse_) which were afterwards to be so intimately united, the holy people and the holy city, are here brought together for the first time: here for the first time Israel receives the gift of its sanctuary” (Gunkel 253). =17.= The scene of the meeting is עֵמֶק שָׁוֵה, interpreted as _the king’s vale_. A place of this name is mentioned in 2 Samuel 18¹⁸ as the site of Absalom’s pillar, which, according to Josephus (_Antiquities of the Jews_ vii. 243), was two stadia from Jerusalem. The situation harmonises with the common view that Šalem is Jerusalem (see below); and other information does not exist.――=18.= _Melkîẓedeḳ, king of Šālēm_, _etc._] The primitive combination of the kingly and priestly offices has been abundantly illustrated by Frazer from many quarters.¹ The existence of such priest-kings in Canaan in very early times is perfectly credible, though not historically attested (compare the _patesis_ of Babylonia). _Šālēm_ is usually understood to be an archaic name for Jerusalem (Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 180; Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jerome [_Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_], Abraham Ibn Ezra al.), as in Psalms 76³, the only other place where it occurs. The chief argument in favour of this view is the typical significance attached to Melkiẓedeḳ in Psalms 110⁴, which is hardly intelligible except on the supposition that he was in a sense the ideal ancestor of the dynasty or hierarchy of Jerusalem.

¹ _Studies in the Kingship_, 29 ff. “The classical evidence
points to the conclusion that in prehistoric ages, before the
rise of the republican form of government, the various tribes
or cities were ruled by kings, who discharged priestly duties
and probably enjoyed a sacred character as descendants of
deities” (page 31).

Whether the name was actually in use in ancient times, we do not
know. The Tel Amarna Tablets have certainly proved that the name
_Uru-Salim_ is of much greater antiquity than might have been
gathered from the biblical statements (Judges 19¹⁰, 1 Chronicles
11⁴); but the shortened form _Salem_ is as yet unattested. It
has been suggested that the cuneiform _uru_ was misread as the
determinative for ‘city’ (see Sellin, 941).――The identifications
with other places of the name which have been discovered――_e.g._
the Salim 8 Roman miles from Scythopolis (where, according
to Jerome [_Epistola ad Evagrius Ponticus_], the ruins
of Melkiẓedeḳ’s palace were to be seen)――have no claim to
acceptance.

* * * * *

=17.= שָׁוֵה (without article) must apparently be a different word
from that in verse ⁵. Hommel and Winckler emend שָׁרֵי (_šarrē_, the
Assyrian word for ‘king’).――=18.= מַלְכִּי־צֶדָק] usually explained as
‘King of Righteousness’ (Hebrews 7²), with _î_ as old genitive
ending retained by the annexion; but more probably = ‘My king
is Ẓidḳ,’ Ẓidḳ being the name of a South Arabian and Phœnician
deity (Baudissin, _Studien zur semitischen religionsgeschichte_
i. 15; Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins_ 128). That
Ẓedeḳ was an ancient name for Jerusalem (see Isaiah 1 ²¹ᐧ ²⁶,
Jeremiah 31²³ 50⁷, Psalms 118¹⁹) there is no reason to believe.

* * * * *

On the name אֵל עֶלְיוֹן (_God Most High_), see below, page 270 f.――_bread and wine_] compare ‘food and drink’ (_akalî šikarî_) provided for an army, etc., in the Tel-Amarna Tablets: _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, 50²² 207¹⁶ 209¹² ᶠᐧ 242¹⁶ (Sellin, 938).――=19, 20.= The blessing of Melkiẓedeḳ is poetic in form and partly in language; but in meaning it is a liturgical formula rather than a ‘blessing’ in the proper sense. It lacks entirely the prophetic interpretation of concrete experiences which is the note of the antique blessing and curse (compare 3¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ 4¹¹ ᶠᐧ 9²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 27²⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ ³⁹ ᶠᐧ).――_Creator of heaven and earth_] so LXX, Vulgate. There is no reason to tone down the idea to that of mere _possession_ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, al.); _v. infra_――By payment of the tithe, Abram acknowledges the legitimacy of Melkiẓedeḳ’s priesthood (Hebrews 7⁴), and the religious bond of a common monotheism uniting them; at the same time the action was probably regarded as a precedent for the payment of tithes to the Jerusalem sanctuary for all time coming (so already in _Jubilees_ xiii. 25‒27: compare Genesis 28²²).

The excision of the Melkiẓedeḳ episode (see Winckler _Geschichte
Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 29), which seems to
break the connexion of verse ²¹ with verse ¹⁷, is a temptingly
facile operation; but it is doubtful if it be justified. The
designation of Yahwe as ‘God Most High’ in the mouth of Abram
(verse ²²) is unintelligible apart from ¹⁸ ᶠᐧ. It may rather have
been the writer’s object to bring the three actors on one stage
together in order to illustrate Abram’s contrasted attitude
to the sacred (Melkiẓedeḳ) and the secular (king of Sodom)
authority.――Hommel’s ingenious and confident solution (_The
Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_,
158 ff.), which gets rid of the king of Sodom altogether and
resolves ¹⁷⁻²⁴ wholly into an interview between Abram and
Melkiẓedeḳ, is an extremely arbitrary piece of criticism.
Sellin’s view (page 939 f.), that verses ¹⁸⁻²⁰ are original
and ¹⁷ᐧ ²¹⁻²⁴ are ‘Israelitische Wucherung,’ is simpler and
more plausible; but it has no more justification than any of
the numerous other expedients which are necessary to save the
essential historicity of the narrative.

The mystery which invests the figure of Melkiẓedeḳ has given
rise to a great deal of speculation both in ancient and
modern times. The Jewish idea that he was the patriarch Shem
(Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Talmud, al.) is thought to be a reaction
against mystical interpretations prevalent in the school
of Alexandria (where Philo identified him with the Logos),
which, through Hebrews 7¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, exercised a certain influence on
Christian theology (see Jerome, _Epistola ad Evagrius Ponticus_;
compare _Jewish Encyclopædia_, viii. 450). From a critical point
of view the question of interest is whether Melkiẓedeḳ belongs
to the sphere of ancient tradition or is a fictitious personage,
created to represent the claims of the post-Exilic priesthood
in Jerusalem (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 312). In opposition
to the latter view, Gunkel rightly points out that Judaism
is not likely to have invented as the prototype of the High
Priesthood a Canaanitish priest-king, and that all possible
pretensions of the Jerusalem hierarchy were covered by the
figure of Aaron (253). It is more probable that Melkiẓedeḳ is,
if not a historical figure, at least a traditional figure of
great antiquity, on whom the monarchy and hierarchy of Jerusalem
based their dynastic and priestly rights.¹ To the writer of
Psalms 110, Melkiẓedeḳ was “a type, consecrated by antiquity,
to which the ideal king of Israel, ruling on the same spot, must
conform” (Driver 167); and even if that Psalm be not pre-Exilic
(as Gunkel supposes), but as late as the Maccabæan period, it
is difficult to conceive that the type could have originated
without some traditional basis.――Some writers have sought a
proof of the historical character of Melkiẓedeḳ in a supposed
parallel between the ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος, of Hebrews
7³ and a formula several times repeated in letters (Tel Amarna)
of Abdḫiba of Jerusalem to Amenophis IV.: “Neither my father
nor my mother set me in this place; the mighty arm of the king
established me in my father’s house.”² Abdḫiba might have been a
successor of Melkiẓedeḳ; and it is just conceivable that Hommel
is right in his conjecture that a religious formula, associated
with the head of the Jerusalem sanctuary, receives from Abdḫiba
a political turn, and is made use of to express his absolute
dependence on the Egyptian king. But it must be observed that
Abdḫiba’s language is perfectly intelligible in its diplomatic
sense; its agreement with the words of the New Testament is only
partial, and may be accidental; and it is free from the air of
mystery which excites interest in the latter. This, however, is
not to deny the probability that the writer to the Hebrews drew
his conception partly from other sources than the verses in
Genesis.

¹ Gunkel instances as a historical parallel the legal fiction
by which the imperial prestige of the Cæsars was transferred
to Charlemagne and his successors.――Josephus had the same
view when he spoke of Melkiẓedeḳ as Χαναναίων δυνάστης, and
the first founder of Jerusalem (_War of the Jews_, vi. 438).

² Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the
Monuments_, 155 ff.; Sayce, _Monuments_ 175; _The Early
History of the Hebrews_, 28 f.; _Expository Times_, vii. 340
ff., 478 ff., 565 f., viii. 43 f., 94 ff., 142 ff. (arts and
letters by Sayce, Driver, and Hommel).

_’Ēl ‘Elyôn._――’El, the oldest Semitic appellative for God, was
frequently differentiated according to particular aspects of the
divine nature, or particular local or other relations entered
into by the deity: hence arose compound names like אֵל שֶׂדַּי (17¹),
אֵל עוֹלָם (21³³), אֵל אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (33²⁰), אֵל בֵּיתאֵל (35⁷), and אֵל עֶלְיוֹן (here
and Psalms 78³⁵).¹ עֶלְיוֹן (= ‘upper,’ ‘highest’) is not uncommonly
used of God in the Old Testament, either alone (Numbers 24¹⁶,
Deuteronomy 32⁸, Psalms 18¹⁴ etc.) or in combinations with יהוה
or אלהים (Psalms 7¹⁸ (?), 47³ 57³ etc.). That it was in actual use
among the Canaanites is by no means incredible: the Phœnicians
had a god Ἐλιοῦν καλούμενος Ὕψιστος (Eusebius _Præparatio
Evangelica_ i. 10, 11, 12); and there is nothing to forbid
the supposition that the deity of the sanctuary of Jerusalem
was worshipped under that name. On the other hand, there is
nothing to prove it; and it is perhaps a more significant fact
that the Maccabees were called ἀρχιερεῖς θεοῦ ὑψίστου (Josephus
_Antiquities of the Jews_ xvi. 163; _Assumption of Moses_,
6¹]).² This title, the frequent recurrence of עֶליוֹן as a divine
name in late Psalms, the name Salem in one such Psalm, and
Melkiẓedeḳ in (probably) another, make a group of coincidences
which go to show that the Melkiẓedeḳ legend was much in vogue
about the time of the Maccabees.

¹ See Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins_ 291
f.――Compare, in classical religion, _Zeus Meilichios_,
_-Xenios_, _Jupiter Terminus_, _-Latiaris_, etc.

² Siegfried, _Theologische Litteraturzeitung_, 1895, 304. On
the late prevalence of the title, see also _A Dictionary
of the Bible_, iii. 450, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 70
(in and near Byblus), and Schürer, _Sitzungsberichte der
Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu
Berlin_, 1897, page 200 ff.

* * * * *

=19.= קָנָה has two senses in the Old Testament (if, indeed, there
be not two distinct roots: see Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴ _s.v._): (a)
‘create’ or ‘produce’ (Psalms 139¹³, Proverbs 8²², Deuteronomy
32⁶ [? Genesis 4¹]); (b) ‘purchase’ or ‘acquire by purchase’
(frequent). The idea of bare possession apart from purchase
is hardly represented (? Isaiah 1³); and since the suggestion
of purchase is here inadmissible, the sense ‘create’ must be
accepted. That this meaning can be established only by late
examples is certainly no objection so far as the present
passage is concerned: see on 4¹.――=20.= After וּבָרוּךְ, LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ
inserts יהוה.――מִגֵּן] only Hosea 11⁸, Isaiah 64⁶ (LXX, etc.),
Proverbs 4⁹. The etymology is uncertain, but the view that it
is a denominative from מָגֵן, ‘shield’ (√ גנן, Brown-Driver-Briggs)
is hardly correct (see Barth, _Etymologische Studien zum
semitischen insbesondere zum hebraischen Lexicon_, 4).

* * * * *

=17, 21‒24. Abram and the king of Sodom.=――The request of the king of Sodom presupposes as the usual custom of war that Abram was entitled to the whole of the booty. Abram’s lofty reply is the climax to which the whole narrative leads up.――=22.= _I lift up my hand_] the gesture accompanying an oath (Exodus 6⁸, Numbers 14³⁰, Deuteronomy 32⁴⁰, Ezekiel 20²³, Daniel 12⁷ etc.).――_to Yahwe, ’El ‛Elyôn_] A recognition of religious affinity with Melkiẓedeḳ, as a fellow-worshipper of the one true God. The יהוה, however, is probably an addition to the text, wanting in LXX and Peshiṭtå while _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ has האלהים.――=23.= _lest thou shouldst say, etc._] An earlier writer (compare 12¹⁶) would perhaps not have understood this scruple: he would have attributed the enrichment of Abram to God, even if the medium was a heathen king.――=24.= The condescending allowance for the weakness of inferior natures is mentioned to enhance the impression of Abram’s generosity (Gunkel).

_The Historic Value of Chapter 14._――There are obvious reasons
why this chapter should have come to be regarded in some
quarters as a ‘shibboleth’ between two opposite schools of Old
Testament criticism (Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as
illustrated by the Monuments_, 165). The narrative is unique
in this respect, that it sets the figure of Abraham in the
framework of world-history. It is the case that certain features
of this framework have been confirmed, or rendered credible,
by recent Assyriological discoveries; and by those who look to
archæological research to correct the aberrations of literary
criticism, this fact is represented as not only demonstrating
the historicity of the narrative as a whole, but as proving
that the criticism which resolved it into a late Jewish romance
must be vitiated by some radical fault of method. How far that
sweeping conclusion is justified we have now to consider. The
question raised is one of extreme difficulty, and is perhaps not
yet ripe for final settlement. The attempt must be made, however,
to review once more the chief points of the evidence, and to
ascertain as fairly as possible the results to which it leads.

The case for the historic trustworthiness of the story (or the
antiquity of the source on which it is founded) rests on the
following facts: (1) The occurrence of prehistoric names of
places and peoples, some of which had become unintelligible
to later readers, and required identification by explanatory
glosses. Now the mere use of ancient and obsolete names is not
in itself inconsistent with the fictitious character of the
narrative. A writer who was projecting himself into a remote
past would naturally introduce as many archaic names as he could
find; and the substitution of such terms as Rephaim, Emim, Horim,
etc., for the younger populations which occupied these regions,
is no more than might be expected. Moreover, the force of the
argument is weakened by the undoubted anachronism involved
in the use of the name Dan (see on verse ¹⁴). The presence of
archæological glosses, however, cannot be disposed of in this
way. To suppose that a writer deliberately introduced obsolete
or fictitious names and glossed them, merely for the purpose of
casting an air of antiquity over his narrative, is certainly a
somewhat extreme hypothesis. It is fair to admit the presumption
that he had really before him some traditional (perhaps
documentary) material, though of what nature that material was
it is impossible to determine.¹――(2) The general verisimilitude
of the background of the story. It is proved beyond question
that an Elamite supremacy over the West and Palestine existed
before the year 2000 B.C.; consequently an expedition such as
is here described is (broadly speaking) within the bounds of
historic probability. Further, the state of things in Palestine
presupposed by the record――a number of petty kingships striving
to maintain their independence, and entering into temporary
alliances for that purpose――harmonises with all we know of
the political condition of the country before the Israelitish
occupation, though it might be difficult to show that the
writer’s knowledge of the situation exceeds what would be
acquired by the most cursory perusal of the story of the
Conquest in the Book of Joshua.――(3) The consideration most
relied upon by apologetic writers is the proof obtained from
Assyriology that the names in verse ¹ are historical. The
evidence on this question has been given on page 257 ff., and
need not be here recapitulated. We have seen that every one
of the identifications is disputed by more than one competent
Assyriologist (see, further, Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_²,
I. ii. page 551 f.); and since only an expert is fully qualified
to judge of the probabilities of the case, it is perhaps
premature to regard the confirmation as assured. At the same
time, it is quite clear that the names are not invented; and
it is highly probable that they are those of contemporary kings
who actually reigned over the countries assigned to them in
this chapter. Their exact relations to one another are still
undetermined, and in some respects difficult to imagine; but
there is nothing in the situation which we may not expect to
be cleared up by further discoveries. It would seem to follow
that the author’s information is derived ultimately either
from a Babylonian source, or from records preserved amongst the
Canaanites in Palestine. The presence of an element of authentic
history in verse ¹ being thus admitted, we have to inquire how
far this enters into the substance of the narrative.

¹ It is to be observed that in no single case is the
correctness of the gloss attested by independent evidence
(see verses ²ᐧ ³ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁷). Those who maintain the existence
of a cuneiform original have still to reckon with the theory
of Winckler, who holds that the basis of the narrative is
a Babylonian legend, which was brought into connexion with
the story of Abraham by arbitrary identification of names
whose primary significance was perhaps mythological. See
_Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 28 ff. The
question cannot be further discussed here.

Before answering that question, we must look at the arguments
advanced in favour of the late origin and fictitious character
of the chapter. These are of two kinds: (1) The inherent
improbability or incredibility of many of the incidents recorded.
This line of criticism was most fully elaborated by Nöldeke in
1869 (_Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_, 156‒172):
the following points may be selected as illustrations of the
difficulties which the narrative presents. (a) The route said
to have been traversed is, if not absolutely impracticable for
a regular army, at least quite irreconcilable with the alleged
object of the campaign,――the chastisement of the Pentapolis.
That the four kings should have passed the Dead Sea valley,
leaving their principal enemies in their rear, and postponing a
decisive engagement till the end of a circuitous and exhausting
march, is a proceeding which would be impossible in real warfare,
and could only have been imagined by a writer out of touch with
the actualities of the situation (see the Notes on page 261).
(b) It is difficult to resist the impression that some of
the personal names――especially _Bĕra‛_ and _Birsha‛_ (see on
verse ²), and _Mamre_ and _Eshcol_ (verse ¹³)――are artificial
formations, which reveal either the animus of the writer,
or else (in the last two instances) a misapprehension of
traditional data into which only a very late and ill-informed
writer could have been betrayed. (c) The rout of Chedorlaomer’s
army by 318 untrained men is generally admitted to be incredible.
It is no sufficient explanation to say that only a rearguard
action may have taken place; the writer does not _mean_ that;
and if his meaning misrepresents what actually took place,
his account is at any rate not historical (see page 267).
(d) It appears to be assumed in verse ³ that the Dead Sea was
formed subsequently to the events narrated. This idea seems
to have been traditional in Israel (compare 13¹⁰), but it is
nevertheless quite erroneous. Geological evidence proves that
that amazing depression in the earth’s surface had existed for
ages before the advent of man on the earth, and formed, from the
first, part of a great inland lake whose waters stood originally
several hundred feet higher than the present level of the Dead
Sea. It may, indeed, be urged that the vale of Siddim was not
coextensive with the Dead Sea basin, but only with its shallow
southern ‘Lagoon’ (South of _el-Lisān_), which by a partial
subsidence of the ground might have been formed within historic
times.¹ But even if that were the true explanation, the manner
of the statement is not that which would be used by a writer
conversant with the facts.――The improbabilities of the passage
are not confined to the four points just mentioned, but are
spread over the entire surface of the narrative; and while their
force may be differently estimated by different minds, it
is at least safe to say that they more than neutralise the
impression of trustworthiness which the precise dates, numbers,
and localities may at first produce.――(2) The second class of
considerations is derived from the spirit and tendency which
characterise the representation, and reveal the standpoint
of the writer. It would be easy to show that many of the
improbabilities observed spring from a desire to enhance
the greatness of Abraham’s achievement; and indeed the whole
tendency of the chapter is to set the figure of the patriarch in
an ideal light, corresponding not to the realities of history,
but to the imagination of some later age. Now the idealisation
of the patriarchs is, of course, common to all stages of
tradition; the question is to what period this ideal picture
of Abraham may be most plausibly referred. The answer given by
a number of critics is that it belongs to the later Judaism,
and has its affinities “with Priestly-Code and the midrashic
elements in Chronicles rather than with the older Israelite
historians” (Moore, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, ii. 677). Criticism
of this kind is necessarily subjective and speculative. At
first sight it might appear that the conception of Abraham
as a warlike hero is the mark of a warlike age, and therefore
older than the more idyllic types delineated in the patriarchal
legends. That judgement, however, fails to take account of the
specific character of the narrative before us. It is a grandiose
and lifeless description of military operations which are quite
beyond the writer’s range of conception; it contains no trace
of the martial ardour of ancient times, and betrays considerable
ignorance of the conditions of actual warfare; it is essentially
the account of a Bedouin razzia magnified into a systematic
campaign for the consolidation of empire. It has been fitly
characterised as the product of a time which “admires military
glory all the more because it can conduct no wars itself; and,
having no warlike exploits to boast of in the present, revels
in the mighty deeds of its ancestors. Such narratives tend in
imagination towards the grotesque; the lack of the political
experience which is to be acquired only in the life of the
independent state produces a condition of mind which can no
longer distinguish between the possible and the impossible. Thus
the passage belongs to an age in which, in spite of a certain
historical erudition, the historic sense of Judaism had sunk
almost to zero” (Gunkel 255).

¹ Compare Driver’s elaborate Note, page 168 ff.; also Robinson,
_Biblical Researches in Palestine_, ii. 187 f.; Gautier,
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 1043 f., 1046; Hull, _A Dictionary
of the Bible_, i. 576ᵇ.

It remains to consider the extent and origin of the historic
element whose existence in the chapter we have been led to admit.
Does it proceed from an ancient Canaanite record, which passed
into the Hebrew tradition, to be gradually moulded into the
form in which we now find it? Or did it come directly from
an external source into the hands of a late author, who used
it as the basis of a sort of historical romance? The former
alternative is difficult to maintain if (as seems to be the case)
the narrative stands outside the recognised literary sources
of the Pentateuch.¹ The most acceptable form of this theory
is perhaps that presented by Sellin in the article to which
reference has frequently been made in the preceding pages (_Neue
kirchliche Zeitschrift_, xvi. 929‒951). The expedition, he
thinks, may have taken place at any time between 2250 and 1750
B.C.; and he allows a long period of oral transmission to have
elapsed before the preparation of a cuneiform record about 1500.
This document he supposes to have been deposited in the Temple
archives of Jerusalem, and to have come into the possession of
the Israelites through David’s conquest of that city. He thus
leaves room for a certain distortion of events in the primary
document, and even for traces of mythological influence. The
theory would gain immensely in plausibility if the alleged
Canaanite parallels to the obscure expressions of verses ¹⁴ ᶠᐧ
(חלק, דיק, חניך) should prove to be relevant. At present, however,
they are not known to be specifically Canaanite; and whatever be
their value it does not appear that they tell more in favour of
a Palestinian origin than of a cuneiform basis in general. The
assumption that the document was deposited in the Temple is, of
course, a pure hypothesis, on which nothing as to the antiquity
or credibility of the narrative can be based.

¹ Page 256 above.

On the other hand, the second alternative has definite support
in a fact not sufficiently regarded by those who defend
the authenticity of the chapter. It is significant that the
cuneiform document in which three of the four royal names
in verse ¹ are supposed to have been discovered is as late
as the 4th or 3rd century B.C. Assuming the correctness of
the identifications, we have here a positive proof that the
period with which our story deals was a theme of poetic and
legendary treatment in the age to which criticism is disposed
approximately to assign the composition of Genesis 14. It shows
that a cuneiform document is not necessarily a contemporary
document, and need not contain an accurate transcript of fact.
If we suppose such a document to have come into the possession
of a Jew of the post-Exilic age, it would furnish just such
a basis of quasi-historical material as would account for the
blending of fact and fiction which the literary criticism of
the chapter suggests. In any case the extent of the historical
material remains undetermined. The names in verse ¹ are
historical; some such expedition to the West as is here spoken
of is possibly so; but everything else belongs to the region of
conjecture. The particulars in which we are most interested――the
figures of Abram and Lot and Melkiẓedeḳ, the importance, the
revolt, and even the existence, of the Cities of the _Kikkār_
and, in short, all the details of the story――are as yet
unattested by any allusion in secular history.

In conclusion, it should be noticed that there is no real
antagonism between archæology and literary criticism in this
matter. They deal with quite distinct aspects of the problem;
and the fallacy lies in treating the chapter as a homogeneous
and indivisible unity: it is like discussing whether the climate
of Asia is hot or cold on conflicting evidence drawn from
opposite extremes of the continent. Criticism claims to have
shown that the narrative is full of improbabilities in detail
which make it impossible to accept it as a reliable contemporary
record of fact. All that the archæologist can pretend to have
proved is that the general setting of the story is consistent
with the political situation in the East as disclosed by the
monuments; and that it contains data which cannot possibly be
the fabrications of an unhistorical age. So much as this critics
are perfectly prepared to admit. Nöldeke, who has stated the
case against the authenticity of the chapter as strongly as any
man, expressly declined to build an argument on the fact that
nothing was then known of an Elamite dominion in the West, and
allowed that the names of the four kings might be traditional
(_op. cit._ 159 f.).¹ Assyriology has hardly done more as yet
than make good the possibilities thus conceded in advance. It
is absurd to suppose that a theory can be overthrown by facts
for which due allowance was made before they took rank as actual
discoveries.

¹ The same admission was made by Wellhausen as long ago as
1889 (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen
Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 310). In view of the
persistent misrepresentations of critical opinion, it is not
unnecessary to repeat once more that the historicity of the
names in verse ¹ has not been denied by any leading critic
(_e.g._ Ewald, Nöldeke, Dillmann, Wellhausen), even before
the discoveries of later years.――For an exposure of Sayce’s
extraordinary travesty of Nöldeke’s arguments, the reader
should consult Driver _The Book of Genesis with Introduction
and Notes_⁷, _Addenda_ to page 173.

* * * * *

=22.= הֲרִמֹתִי] On the perfect, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 _i_.――=23.=
On the אִם of negative asseveration, § 149 _a_, _c_. The second
וְאִם, which adds force to the negation, is not rendered by LXX
or Vulgate.――=24.= בִּלְעָדַי literally ‘not unto me!’ (in Hexateuch
only 41¹⁶ᐧ ⁴⁴ [Elohist], Joshua 22¹⁹ [late]). LXX, Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ seem to have read בִּלְעֲדֵי רַק as a compound
prepositional phrase (= ‘except’).

* * * * *