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_,