2 Genesis, Chapter 14 - is you is, or is you ain't, my Abie?
Chapter 14 is even more unusual than usual, so we'll save the exposition until after the presentation and go straight to our fable story:
Dissed, Chedorlaomer got three of his bros together, and they all brought their posses. There was old Chedor himself, Amraph-el, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of El-lasar and Tidal, king of some places the writer isn't sure of, so he just says, "king of nations." And the next year, the four of them and their bangers put on their colors and headed for the hood of the five kings, jackin' and cappin' along the way. They lit up the Rephraims, capped the Zuzims, popped the Emims, and for good measure, smoked the Amalekites and the Amorites, just to show they meant bi'ness.
The kings of Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Adma, and Zeboiim and Bela (the same is Zoar) gathered their peeps and their pieces and headed out for a smackdown in the vale of Siddim, and it was on!
But here, we have a couple of minor problems. 14:10 relates, "the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and fell there" - the verse isn't clear as to whether the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah slipped on the slime, landing on their asses (I'm sure they were riding donkeys), or whether it means, "fell," as in the fall from which you don't get up. Most sources seem to agree it meant the latter, yet 14:17 informs us of Abram, "And the king of Sodom went out to meet him (Abe)...at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale." If that was a new king of Sodom, that must have been one quickie coronation - maybe they had a spare waiting in the wings.
The second issue I have, is the mention in 14:7 that the four kings, on their way to the confrontation, "smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezon-tamar." In the paragraphs below, I'll demonstrate that Biblical scholars believe King Amraphael to have been the great lawgiver, Hammurabi of Babylon, and therein the issue lies. Hammurabi, or Hammurapi was an Amorite, or more precisely, an Amurrite, and though not inconceivable, it's unclear as to why an Amorite king would be smitting Amorites.
Again, the writer of this chronicle appears confused - first, he doesn't know the city-state of which Tidal is king; he can't recall the name of the king of Bela (the same is Zoar), and now, he forgot that Lot is Abram's nephew, and twice called him Abram's brother.
Below, we have a map that should better illustrate the entire event - red, represents the route Lot took, after separating from Abram, purple follows the route of the kings, or Camino Royale, if you will, while the maroon denotes the route Abe and his shepherds took to catch the conscience of the kings.
From Beth-el (the only reference point available since Abe was camped out somewhere on the nearby Plain of Mamre), the distance is 112 miles to Dan, and all the way to Hobah, "on the left hand of Damascus," appears to be roughly another 40-50 miles. So Abram took his 318 cattle- and goat-herders, attacked, by night, the combined, seasoned armies of four kings (that had just severely trounced five entire armies single-handedly), chased them over an area of 180 or more miles, on foot, and recaptured all of the plunder they had taken, so that the four armies apparently limped back to Mesopotamia with their collective tails between their collective legs, sadly relating the tale of how an 85+-year old nomad with 318 shepherds had beaten four armies of trained soldiers. Is that pretty much how you read it too?
See, here I have to interrupt for just a bit. OK, maybe more than a bit. Gen 14:14, above, relates how, as I mentioned, Abe and friends chased the four armies all the way to the city of Dan. Now chronologically, I don't believe anyone will argue with me, that if these people were historical and actually existed, then Abram lived hundreds of years before Moses, the alleged teller of thistall tale, yet - not trying to get too far ahead of the story, but this is important - yet Moses died before Joshua crossed the Jordan on his invasion campaign in Canaan, and the Book of Judges follows the Book of Joshua, so while I have no desire to sit down and determine precisely during what years the Book of Judges took place, suffice to say that it was well after Moses' time, and even further beyond the time of Abram/Abraham. Let's quickly look at Judges - 18:26, which relates that, "the children of Dan went their way" and 18:27 tells us that these kids came to a city named, Laish, where the inhabitants "were at quiet and secure," yet not content to leave them that way, the "Children of Dan" commenced to smitin' "with the edge of the sword," and we all know how that can smart! After the "Children of Dan" finished smiting, they burned Laish to the ground, after which, they built their own city on the spot - they called it, (18:29) "Dan." So, in summary, Moses tells us that Abram and 318 shepherds chased an army of four kings that had just defeated an army of five kings, over 180 miles, to a city that wouldn't be built yet for hundreds of years. I just wanted all of us to clearly understand. You do, don't you?
So, 14:14 says he took 318 of his "trained servants," yet there's no mention of what it was for which they were trained - they could have gone to barber school or culinary college for all we know. We're supposed to assume, I take it, that they were trained for battle, but what tent-dwelling, livestock-raising nomad is going to keep a standing army of Sayeret Mat'kal, regardless of how much swag he gained from pimping out his sister/wife to Pharaoh. In fact, when Abe, et al, entered Egypt in Genesis, Chapter 12, and felt it was essential to tell the Egyptians that Sarai was his sister and have her taken into Pharaoh's harem, for fear the Egyptians would kill him and take her anyway - where were his 318 Samurai Shepherds? If they could chase five trained armies halfway back to Mesopotamia, defending Abe against only the one, single, solitary Egyptian army should have been child's play for them.
Speaking of Jerusalem, and entirely as a sidenote, one source I encountered while researching this chapter related that Jerusalem got its name from the Hebrew words, "Jeru," meaning possession, and "salem," meaning peace - in other words, Jeru-salem, "possession of peace." In fact, "Melchizedek, king of Salem," above, is thought to have been king of Jerusalem, though The New American Bible declares that the Hebrew phrase originally used was, "melek shalem," and informs us that if it had meant king of Jerusalem, the phrase would instead have been, "melek shalom," and that the former phrase may well have been intended to be "melek shelomo," a king allied to him, meaning allied to Abram. It's also interesting to note that Abraham paid tithes to the priest, Melchizadek - think the writer may have been sending the reader a subliminal message?
Another source of the origin of the name, Jerusalem, gave an explanation I rather like better, in that it ties the Hebrew culture even closer to that of ancient Mesopotamia, where most things Hebrew originated. It maintains that the city was originally called, "Uru-salim," Ur, as you'll recall from the origins of Abram, related to the Sumerian city of Ur, and in the process of studying that, we learned that "Ur" simply meant, "City" in Sumerian, but that Sumerian nouns often ended in "u," much as masculine Spanish nouns most often end in "o," which combined, gives us Uru-salim, the "city of peace."
In fact, regarding 14:18-20 above, The New American Bible, published by the Catholic Church, feels it important that you know that the phrase in those verses, "the most high God." was originally written as, "el-elyon." "In Canaanite texts," The NAB relates, "each element may occur separately as the name of a specific deity, or they may be applied to a specific deity, as is done here by the Canaanite priest, Melchizedek. For the Israelites, el became a poetic synonym for elohim (God); elyon ("Most High") became one of the titles of their God, Yahweh." The first thing I would personally take from this, is the fact that Melchizedek is a Canaanite priest, rather than a Hebrew, and the likelihood that he is referring to the same god that Abe worships, is slim to none. Abe's response, however, should be taken to mean that he, may or may not be referring to the god of the Bible, a train of thought we will follow as we learn more about the Amorites in future chapters. Also note, that TNAB appears to differentiate between "el," a term the Canaanite priest uses, and "elyon," which TNAB tell us, "...became one of the titles of their God, Yahweh." At the moment, that will mean little to you, but as the sub-narrative continues through future chapters, you should find reason to say to yourself, "Oh yeah - that's what it meant!"
OK, it's a little clearer now - Abe and his 318 weren't entirely alone, they had the help of Aner, Eshcol and Mamre, three Amorite (Amurrite) brothers with whom Abe must have become friends while pitching his tent on their plains, as 14:13 mentions, "...and these were confederate with Abram." Still, it's just too great a stretch to imagine these three rural landowners having either the manpower or the skills to successfully encounter four professional armies, regardless of how fatigued those may have been from battling the other five armies.
But the thing to which I wanted most to draw to your attention was the part from 14:23, where Honest Abe said, "I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldst say, I have made Abram rich." Say what?!
OK, who are you, and what did you do with the REAL Abram?! Did you hear him saying that to the nameless Pharaoh who was loading him down, making Abe "...very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold"? I heard absolutely no objection.
I think it's safe to say that you won't be overly astonished when I impart some information that most priests and ministers would really rather you didn't know. It may be redundant to keep reminding you of the four groups who ghost-wrote the first five books of the Bible and blamed it on Moses, the J (Yahwist), E (Eloist), P (Priestly), and D (Deuteronimical) Sources, along with the great Redactor, who pieced it all together, for better or for worse (personally, I hate redundancy, I hate redundancy!), but at the same time, I understand how, raised as you likely were to believe Charlton Heston, with his mane of flowing white hair and equally billowy beard, sat down half a millennium before Hebrews developed a written language, and quilled every word of it, with the inspiration of the invisible, but ever-present, holy spirit, likely perched on his shoulder in the form of a dove.
OK, here comes the surprise finish and the reason for this chapter's subtitle, which, surprisingly, is NOT the fact that Abe declined to take loot! In his book, A History of Babylonia and Assyria, the late Dr. Robert William Rogers, Professor in Drew Theological Seminary of Madison, New Jersey, and a life-long student of the ancient Middle East and of biblical scholarship, expressed belief that Genesis 14 was written by an unknown source entirely separate from the four described above.
He writes:
The Jewish Encyclopedia, a publication that one would expect to have a vested interest in maintaining the authenticity of Abram/Abraham as the Founding Father of Judeaism, had this to say:
Thus far, we're fourteen chapters into the book, and we've yet to find a shred of original truth anywhere. But we will keep digging, surely we'll run across some, somewhere.
pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
"13:1 And it came to pass in the days of Amraph-el king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of El-am, and Tidal king of nations;I don't care what anyone says, that's a bunch of smighting! So, to clarify, five kings, Bera of Sodom, Birsha, of Gomorrah, Shinab, of Admah, Shember, of Zeboiim and a king, whose name the writer couldn't remember, of Bela, (the same is Zoar), all served a king named, Chedorlaomer for twelve years, which means the peasants of these five kings worked and toiled and gave their taxes to their king to use to run the kingdom, and the kings paid a part of that money to Chedorlaomer for protection, so Cheddy and his homeys wouldn't come and pop a cap in them, but in the thirteenth year, these five kings got together and decided they'd had about all of the protecting they were going to take, and told Chedorlaomer to go take a flying Funk and Wagnalls, and if he thought he was getting any more money, he should probably back off the crank.
"14:2 That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shember king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.
"14:3 All these were joined together in the vale of Siddim, which is the Salt Sea (Dead Sea).
"14:4 Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.
"14:5 And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaeomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Asteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveth Kiriathaim.
"14:6 And the Horites in their mount Seir, unto El-paran, which is by the wilderness.
"14:7 And they returned, and came to En-mishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezon-tamar.
"14:8 And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Adma, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar;) and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim;
"14:9 With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king of nations, and Amaraph-el king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar: four kings with five."
Dissed, Chedorlaomer got three of his bros together, and they all brought their posses. There was old Chedor himself, Amraph-el, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of El-lasar and Tidal, king of some places the writer isn't sure of, so he just says, "king of nations." And the next year, the four of them and their bangers put on their colors and headed for the hood of the five kings, jackin' and cappin' along the way. They lit up the Rephraims, capped the Zuzims, popped the Emims, and for good measure, smoked the Amalekites and the Amorites, just to show they meant bi'ness.
The kings of Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Adma, and Zeboiim and Bela (the same is Zoar) gathered their peeps and their pieces and headed out for a smackdown in the vale of Siddim, and it was on!
"14:10 And the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and fell there; and they that remained fled to the mountain.The rumble didn't quite turn out like the five kings expected - Chedorlaomer and his homeys cleaned house with them. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah boned out and fell in slimepits and the rest of their crew decided to jet for the mountains. Chedor and his boyz jacked their goods and booked, taking Lot and "all that he had" with them. What they wanted with Lot and his family, once they had all his livestock and possessions, remains unclear - sounds like excess baggage to me, if you know what I mean.
14:11 And they took the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way.
14:12 And they took Lot, Abraham's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed."
But here, we have a couple of minor problems. 14:10 relates, "the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and fell there" - the verse isn't clear as to whether the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah slipped on the slime, landing on their asses (I'm sure they were riding donkeys), or whether it means, "fell," as in the fall from which you don't get up. Most sources seem to agree it meant the latter, yet 14:17 informs us of Abram, "And the king of Sodom went out to meet him (Abe)...at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale." If that was a new king of Sodom, that must have been one quickie coronation - maybe they had a spare waiting in the wings.
The second issue I have, is the mention in 14:7 that the four kings, on their way to the confrontation, "smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezon-tamar." In the paragraphs below, I'll demonstrate that Biblical scholars believe King Amraphael to have been the great lawgiver, Hammurabi of Babylon, and therein the issue lies. Hammurabi, or Hammurapi was an Amorite, or more precisely, an Amurrite, and though not inconceivable, it's unclear as to why an Amorite king would be smitting Amorites.
"14:13 And there came one that escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.Note above, the author's order of importance (14:16): "Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people."
"14:14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
"14:15 And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.
"14:16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his brother, Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people."
Again, the writer of this chronicle appears confused - first, he doesn't know the city-state of which Tidal is king; he can't recall the name of the king of Bela (the same is Zoar), and now, he forgot that Lot is Abram's nephew, and twice called him Abram's brother.
Below, we have a map that should better illustrate the entire event - red, represents the route Lot took, after separating from Abram, purple follows the route of the kings, or Camino Royale, if you will, while the maroon denotes the route Abe and his shepherds took to catch the conscience of the kings.
See, here I have to interrupt for just a bit. OK, maybe more than a bit. Gen 14:14, above, relates how, as I mentioned, Abe and friends chased the four armies all the way to the city of Dan. Now chronologically, I don't believe anyone will argue with me, that if these people were historical and actually existed, then Abram lived hundreds of years before Moses, the alleged teller of this
So, 14:14 says he took 318 of his "trained servants," yet there's no mention of what it was for which they were trained - they could have gone to barber school or culinary college for all we know. We're supposed to assume, I take it, that they were trained for battle, but what tent-dwelling, livestock-raising nomad is going to keep a standing army of Sayeret Mat'kal, regardless of how much swag he gained from pimping out his sister/wife to Pharaoh. In fact, when Abe, et al, entered Egypt in Genesis, Chapter 12, and felt it was essential to tell the Egyptians that Sarai was his sister and have her taken into Pharaoh's harem, for fear the Egyptians would kill him and take her anyway - where were his 318 Samurai Shepherds? If they could chase five trained armies halfway back to Mesopotamia, defending Abe against only the one, single, solitary Egyptian army should have been child's play for them.
"14:17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh (Shiva), which is the king's dale.The Valley of Shiva was located just north of Jerusalem, literally on the northern edge, which is roughly 20 miles south of Beth-el and the Plains of Mamre, which means old Abe and his troops had to march for a day south, fight at night, then chase the four armies some 180 miles north to Hobah, on the left-hand side of Damascus, Syria, meanwhile, the four armies are herding all of Lot's livestock, while both fighting and running for their lives from these 318 shepherds - that must have been the case, because without them continuing to hold Lot and his property (livestock, women, and people), there'd have been no reason on Abe's part for continued pursuit. How much livestock could Lot have had, that made such an effort cost effective?
"14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
"14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram, of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
"14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all."
Speaking of Jerusalem, and entirely as a sidenote, one source I encountered while researching this chapter related that Jerusalem got its name from the Hebrew words, "Jeru," meaning possession, and "salem," meaning peace - in other words, Jeru-salem, "possession of peace." In fact, "Melchizedek, king of Salem," above, is thought to have been king of Jerusalem, though The New American Bible declares that the Hebrew phrase originally used was, "melek shalem," and informs us that if it had meant king of Jerusalem, the phrase would instead have been, "melek shalom," and that the former phrase may well have been intended to be "melek shelomo," a king allied to him, meaning allied to Abram. It's also interesting to note that Abraham paid tithes to the priest, Melchizadek - think the writer may have been sending the reader a subliminal message?
Another source of the origin of the name, Jerusalem, gave an explanation I rather like better, in that it ties the Hebrew culture even closer to that of ancient Mesopotamia, where most things Hebrew originated. It maintains that the city was originally called, "Uru-salim," Ur, as you'll recall from the origins of Abram, related to the Sumerian city of Ur, and in the process of studying that, we learned that "Ur" simply meant, "City" in Sumerian, but that Sumerian nouns often ended in "u," much as masculine Spanish nouns most often end in "o," which combined, gives us Uru-salim, the "city of peace."
"14:21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, give me the persons and take the goods for thyself.Quick note - neither Abe, in 14:22, nor Melchizedek, in 14:18-20, claims their god to be the only god, only, "the most high God."
"14:22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,
"14:23 That I will not take from a thread, even to a shoelachet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldst say, I have made Abram rich:
"14:24 Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me. Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.
In fact, regarding 14:18-20 above, The New American Bible, published by the Catholic Church, feels it important that you know that the phrase in those verses, "the most high God." was originally written as, "el-elyon." "In Canaanite texts," The NAB relates, "each element may occur separately as the name of a specific deity, or they may be applied to a specific deity, as is done here by the Canaanite priest, Melchizedek. For the Israelites, el became a poetic synonym for elohim (God); elyon ("Most High") became one of the titles of their God, Yahweh." The first thing I would personally take from this, is the fact that Melchizedek is a Canaanite priest, rather than a Hebrew, and the likelihood that he is referring to the same god that Abe worships, is slim to none. Abe's response, however, should be taken to mean that he, may or may not be referring to the god of the Bible, a train of thought we will follow as we learn more about the Amorites in future chapters. Also note, that TNAB appears to differentiate between "el," a term the Canaanite priest uses, and "elyon," which TNAB tell us, "...became one of the titles of their God, Yahweh." At the moment, that will mean little to you, but as the sub-narrative continues through future chapters, you should find reason to say to yourself, "Oh yeah - that's what it meant!"
OK, it's a little clearer now - Abe and his 318 weren't entirely alone, they had the help of Aner, Eshcol and Mamre, three Amorite (Amurrite) brothers with whom Abe must have become friends while pitching his tent on their plains, as 14:13 mentions, "...and these were confederate with Abram." Still, it's just too great a stretch to imagine these three rural landowners having either the manpower or the skills to successfully encounter four professional armies, regardless of how fatigued those may have been from battling the other five armies.
But the thing to which I wanted most to draw to your attention was the part from 14:23, where Honest Abe said, "I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldst say, I have made Abram rich." Say what?!
OK, who are you, and what did you do with the REAL Abram?! Did you hear him saying that to the nameless Pharaoh who was loading him down, making Abe "...very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold"? I heard absolutely no objection.I think it's safe to say that you won't be overly astonished when I impart some information that most priests and ministers would really rather you didn't know. It may be redundant to keep reminding you of the four groups who ghost-wrote the first five books of the Bible and blamed it on Moses, the J (Yahwist), E (Eloist), P (Priestly), and D (Deuteronimical) Sources, along with the great Redactor, who pieced it all together, for better or for worse (personally, I hate redundancy, I hate redundancy!), but at the same time, I understand how, raised as you likely were to believe Charlton Heston, with his mane of flowing white hair and equally billowy beard, sat down half a millennium before Hebrews developed a written language, and quilled every word of it, with the inspiration of the invisible, but ever-present, holy spirit, likely perched on his shoulder in the form of a dove.
OK, here comes the surprise finish and the reason for this chapter's subtitle, which, surprisingly, is NOT the fact that Abe declined to take loot! In his book, A History of Babylonia and Assyria, the late Dr. Robert William Rogers, Professor in Drew Theological Seminary of Madison, New Jersey, and a life-long student of the ancient Middle East and of biblical scholarship, expressed belief that Genesis 14 was written by an unknown source entirely separate from the four described above.
He writes:
"The Hebrews preserved a great legend of an expedition into the west of Hammurapi, whose name is written Amraphael, in association with Arioch, king of Ellasar, Chedalaomer, king of Elam, and Tidal king of the nations" (Goyym). Arioch is for Eri-aku, the Sumerian form for Arad-Sin, king of Larsa (Ellasar) and Chedorlaomer is the good Elamite name Kudur-lagamar, not yet found on any Elamite or Babylonian document of this early period, but both the word Kudur (servant of, or worshipper of) Lagamar, an Elamite god, are amply supported. Tidal is a Hittite name, not verifiable, indeed, in any original texts of this period, but identical with the name of a Hittite king of Asia Minor (Boghaz Keui) centuries later, and may well have been borne by a Hittite prince of the period of Hammurapi. The association of four such kings or princes for a campaign in the west, is not in itself improbable, and the Hebrew writer to whom we owe the preservation of the interesting legend (emphasis, mine), which a later day associated with the great name of Abraham, may well have been standing upon some little fragment (ditto) of history, contemporaneous with the great Babylonian king."Rogers concludes:
"It is now generally recognized that Genesis XIV does not belong to any one of the well-known writers of the original documents, neither to J, or to E, or to P, but is rather 'a boulder in the stratification of the Penteteuch' [Skinner], though it does seem to me that its linguistic character gives considerable signs of affinities to P, larger than, for example, Skinner will allow. Whatever its origin, it is, in its present form, no earlier than the Exile. (emphasis, most definitely mine) In light of all of the facts now known of the period, the narrative seems certainly to contain some historical improbabilities. Yet in outline, it may well be based on some historical foundation. The names of Amraphael, Arioch, and probably Chedorlaomer are historical. It is, however, not possible to reconcile the date of Amraphael (Hammurapi) with the date of Abraham (ditto) as the earlier sources give but 400 years between him and the Exodus." (Rogers cites two references: Skinner, Commentary on Genesis, pp.271-276, and O. Proksch, Die Genesis, ubersetzt und erklart, pp.505-515.)The New American Bible adds a note of further confirmation, when it explains the earlier phrase above, regarding "Abraham the Hebrew," by saying that a Hebrew would not have written of Abraham, the Hebrew; that the term, Hebrew would have been a disparaging one to an Israelite, akin to being called an immigrant, and would only have been used by non-Israelites or by Israelites speaking to non-Israelites, but never by Israelites speaking, or writing in this case, to Israelites. The conclusion this Bible drew was that the story was of a possible historical warlike sheik of Palestine, named Abraham, whose story, written by a non-Israelite, was somehow ascribed to our biblical Abe during the Babylonian captivity of 900-600 BCE.
The Jewish Encyclopedia, a publication that one would expect to have a vested interest in maintaining the authenticity of Abram/Abraham as the Founding Father of Judeaism, had this to say:
"What is to be said of the much debated fourteenth chapter? First, it must be divided into two parts: the history of the Elamite invasion, and Abraham's connection with it.So, the hero of the story, if indeed it ever occurred, could not possibly have been Abram, as in the time historically allotted to his life, the kings the hero allegedly battled in the middle of the night, had yet to ever be born. which is appropriate, since the city to which they fled had yet to be built - but other than that, the story is absolutely inerrant. Is it any wonder that William G. Dever, in 2 Genesis, Chapter 13 assured us, "After a century of exhaustive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible 'historical' figures"?
"The first part may be historical, but it no more follows that the second part is historical than the reality of the miraculous role assigned to Moses follows from the reality of the Exodus. (Is this Jewish author casting doubts on the authenticity of the whole Moses-"Let-my-people-go" story? SAY it isn't so!) On the contrary, the mention of Salem and of tithes points to a postexilian origin for the paragraph.
"The invasion may be historical, Chedorlaomer and Arioch are Elamite, and a march from Babylonia to Canaan is conceivable, but no mention of it has been found in inscriptions, and it is not easy to reconcile it with known facts. If Amraphel be Hammurabi, Abraham's date is about 2300 B.C. (The Jewish Virtual Library gives a date of 1823 BCE as a likely date for Abe's birth: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/abraham.html)
www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/360-abraham#anchor24
Thus far, we're fourteen chapters into the book, and we've yet to find a shred of original truth anywhere. But we will keep digging, surely we'll run across some, somewhere.
pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
Posted by archaeopteryx at 1/15/2012 3:30 PM 
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: religion Christianity Judaism Islam atheism Buddha Amraph-el Arioch Chedorlaomer Tidal Bera Birsha Shinab Shember Zeboiim vale of Siddim Lot Hobah Dan Valley of Shiva Jerusalem Uru-salim Dr. Robert W. Rogers A History of Babylonia and Assyria Hammurapi William G. Dever biblical inerrancy biblical mythology Abram The New American Bible the Bible
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: religion Christianity Judaism Islam atheism Buddha Amraph-el Arioch Chedorlaomer Tidal Bera Birsha Shinab Shember Zeboiim vale of Siddim Lot Hobah Dan Valley of Shiva Jerusalem Uru-salim Dr. Robert W. Rogers A History of Babylonia and Assyria Hammurapi William G. Dever biblical inerrancy biblical mythology Abram The New American Bible the Bible
Hey,
This is interesting. The Babylonian connection has been confirmed in other ways as well. It does appear as though the Hebrew narratives were "borrowed" from the East.
From "On the Means and Methods of Mass Deconversion":
Notice that “sun” is spelled as to indicate a star, not a person. And this is not a translation error. The Hebrew term for “sun” is “Shemesh”. In the case of offspring it would have been “ben”. And Shemesh was the word used in Malachi and is the same word for the sun god of the Babylonians. Oops. The actual linguistic connection is through a cognate Hebrew shares with the Akkadian word, suggesting an origin even before the Babylonians! To be clear, Shemesh historically preceded the Abrahamic god by orders of magnitude (was established at least by 2600 BCE). By contrast, the earliest secular reference to the term YHWH (pronounced YO – VUH), or the existence of such a god, is found on the Mesha Stele dated to about 840 BCE. It is also important to understand that the transliteration methods from ancient Hebrew are not a certain science, and it is possible to transliterate YHWH as JHWH, so that even the consonants are not certain. And JHWH is just the name of a volcano god of the Midianites, latinized as “Jahve”. Oddly, King Akehnaton of Egypt, who created the first monotheistic religion, and Hammurabi have narrative parallels to Moses as well. The Midianites are a rather suspicious historical group. It is unclear what their origins actually are but use of this same god is suggestive of the idea that all three derive from a common source.
So, it is important to understand that this indicates that the Hebrew borrowed this word from the Babylonians as it was intended in Hebrew to refer to that god. This is the god whom King Hammurabi received his laws from from atop a mountain (as Moses did). This definitively ties the Abrahamic religion to an origin with the Babylonians.
This is analogous to a real world scenario best described through a thought experiment. Suppose we let “A” be a person who tells a story from her childhood to two friends – call them adherents - years later who did not know her as a child. A also tells both friends her full name. Now, the two friends of A don’t know each other. But suppose some day a man, B, makes the acquaintance of both adherents, even though the two adherents still never meet or know of each other’s existence. Now, suppose B hears the same childhood story of A from both adherents on separate occasions. B now cleverly inquires, , separately and privately of course, of both adherents what the name of the person was who told them this story. Each provides the name of A. Now B knows that this childhood story originated with A, was communicated from A to both adherents, or from A to one witness who passed it to the other. Any number of intermediaries could have existed. And B wisely follows up by asking when did each adherent hear this story, that is, on what date did they TBC --
Reply to this
continuing ...
Now, suppose B hears the same childhood story of A from both adherents on separate occasions. B now cleverly inquires, separately and privately of course, of both adherents what the name of the person was who told them this story. Each provides the name of A. Now B knows that this childhood story originated with A, was communicated from A to both adherents, or from A to one witness who passed it to the other. Any number of intermediaries could have existed. And B wisely follows up by asking when did each adherent hear this story, that is, on what date did they hear the story. B now knows exactly what happened beyond any reasonable doubt. And, if you were in B’s position you would have absolutely no doubt of this. So, you can now so easily see, this fluke of Midianite history is telling us something explosive. The religion of Judaism was in fact a narrative duplicate of a religion from Babylon.
“A” is YHWH, or the person who fabricated YHWH, and the childhood story is the story of Moses/Hammurabi going up on an actively volcanic mountain, obtaining tablets with laws written on them from a god with a specific name, that is, YHWH, and returning back from the mountain to his people to share a set of laws whose content is, at least to some degree, described and specified in the story. The man “B” is the Midianites. The two adherents are the Jewish faith leadership and the Babylonian faith leadership.
The conclusion is irrefutable. This bizarre fluke of history, by itself, seemingly could topple the entire Judaic religion and the Old Testament of Christianity which, by extension, would be all of Christianity. But regardless of the quality of evidence obtained, some degree of quantity is required. In other words, this can’t by itself absolutely prove our contention but it is one of the highest quality pieces of evidence available to demonstrate religious borrowing by Judaism and Christianity.
kirkomrik.wordpresscom
- kk
Reply to this
RE: "a cognate Hebrew shares with the Akkadian word" - that would certainly make sense, since both Akkadian and Hebrew are Semitic languages. I might also suggest you check out "gods 'r' us, Part 6," for my more detailed discussion of Akkadian and Sumerian societies.
RE: "Shemesh historically preceded the Abrahamic god by orders of magnitude (was established at least by 2600 BCE)." - that would place him, according to the comedy team of Ussher and Lightfoot, at around the time of the biblical Noah, which could possibly make Shemish a deification of Shem - I might need to research that possibility.
RE: "...it is possible to transliterate YHWH as JHWH." And this is where the mistranslation occurred that led to the mistaken belief that Jehova was another name for Yahweh.
RE: "JHWH is just the name of a volcano god of the Midianites" - actually, when Moses ascends Mt Sinai or Hebron, depending on whom you choose to believe (while Joshua, the stone-cutter sneaks up the other side), whichever mountain the fictional character climbed, was spewing smoke and lava.
As I've attempted to demonstrate throughout, and will continue to do so, the Hebrew religion originated among the Semitic/Sumerian gods of Akkad and Sumer, the two major cultures of Mesopotamia (actually pre-Babylon, as that was a construction of Sargon). "Edin," for example, was the name given to the lush gardens cultivated on the rich soil of the alluvial plain between Babylon and the Persian Gulf, referenced in the mythological Garden of Eden. Noah/Zuisudra/Utinapishtum are identical. The mythical Nimrod, was equivalent to the historical Sargon, as well as the Moses/Hammurabi connection - it's all there. Even El-l-il became El-ohim, referenced in so many biblical names: Isra-el, Ishma-el, Danie-el, Ezki-el, etc.
While I completely concur about the Moses/Hammurabi connection, and while I believe Moses to be entirely mythological and that no Egyptian exodus occurred (there is no evidence of a massive Hebrew migration from Egypt), still, I'm curious about a possible Egyptian connection to Moses. The name is believed to be Hebrew, an early form of the Jewish name Moishe, but the word, "mose" in ancient Egyptian, meant, "baby," and with such Pharaonic connections as Thutmose (or Djhutmose), I find reason to wonder. But there was so much traffic between Egypt and Mesopotamia, familiarity with Egyptian terms would certainly not have required an actual exodus. We shall see.
And your analogy of A and B also explains the enigma - as a subset of your original postulation - of the two similar but far from exact creation stories (Gen, Chapts. 1 & 2), as well as the two Noah stories (Chapts. 6 & 7).
Reply to this
This is what I find extraordinary about the bible in general. God has just created the earth, the moon, the sun, All the stars and galaxies etc. etc. then he gets himself embroiled in war, which brother belongs to whom, going into different cities, smiting and carrying on like a despot. Time lines never made sense to me, stealing and plagiarizing from other religions and myths. And the majority of people believe this rubbish.
By the by - you dear archaeopteryx, are just ANOTHER person I am in awe. Shoot.
Reply to this
Aw, shucks, Ma'am --
Reply to this
I know, I know, it must be so frigging hard to be humble, then don't be. I know extraordinary talent when I see it. I don't need to be genius, or even clever, to know a frigging clever dick when I see it. You are dead right about being accurate, you will get flack if you aren't, one of the reasons I don't get esoteric, I will get shot down in flames. But you, my dear, the research is amazing. You are going to have to live till you are seven hundred and fourteen years of age. Is that ok with you. And please understand, I don't understand Science and the Universe etc. etc. The numbers are just mind boggling, and my little brain just doesn't cope. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate you, clever dick that you are, talking about it. I have to ask, you being so clever and all, do you get frustrated with people, that sometimes, they (I) don't understand what you are talking about:D
Reply to this
Would like to say something about Buddhism. Most Buddhist adherents say Buddhism is not a religion. While they have a patriarchal hierarchy, keep women subservient, they use women to go into the community, and 'hungry ghosts', they are a run of the mill religion. Certainly they espouse wisdom and psychology, but one doesn't need buddhism to have empathy and compassion, to meditate, to help one's fellow man, of human suffering. Buddhism says be neutral, don't 'expect' from other people.
Guru Rinpoche was born from a lotus. The Dalai Lama is thought of as the latest reincarnation of a series of spiritual leaders who have chosen to be reborn in order to enlighten others - if that is not superstitious rubbish, I don't know what is.
Buddhism lends tacit support to the religious differences in our world. At this point in history, this is both morally and intellectually indefensible—especially among affluent, well-educated Westerners who bear the greatest responsibility for the spread of ideas - Sam Harris
Why my interest in Buddhism, my beloved brother is Buddhist.
Reply to this