- Text of the passage in Nawat
Commentators agree that the text of this chapter had to originate from a different source from any of the rest of the book. That in itself is interesting for us because it is like finding a cutting from an old newspaper which refers to someobody we have heard about from a completely different perspective. It is a kind of confirmation of some of the things we have heard about Abram and at the same time it introduces some new dimensions. It is another matter whether it is possible to reconcile all the perspectives and build up a single consistent picture of a real personage, or whether we should instead contemplate alternative traditions about a legendary personality that may or may not have a basis in "historical" reality. In the rest of the account in Genesis, after all, there is nothing to suggest he was a warrior or took part in wars.
One textual clue suggesting that this passage originated from a "non-biblical" (i.e. independent, hence "historical") source is the expression (14:13) wayyagged l'avram ha‛ivri 'and he told Abram the Hebrew', since it has been pointed out that neither Abram nor any other of the patriarchal characters are ever normally referred to as "Hebrews", which is regarded as an exonym. Now if Abram (a.k.a. Abraham) were merely an Israelite legend, the argument goes, Israelites would be expected to talk about him, but not non-Israelites! If this text had been found as a separate document by archaeologists, it would surely be considered game-changing evidence for Abram's historicity, but the actual circumstance is that we only know of this document because of its incorporation, by the Israelites, into their own textual corpus, rather than from an independent direct source. Is it a "forgery"? Would the editors have gone so far out of their way as to invent a document which refers to their very own Abram as avram ha‛ivri 'Abram the Hebrew' (which is not what Israelites themselves would be likely to have called him)? Here is what CB says, writing over a hundred years ago:
In this chapter we again come in contact with Babylonian records, not, as heretofore, with mythology, but with history. We may regard it as certain that Chedorlaomer and his allies were actual historical personages; that Elam at one period was the dominant power in the lands east of the Euphrates, as implied in verses 5, 9 and 17; and that, in the same period, the dominant power in those Eastern lands claimed and sometimes exercised a certain supremacy in Palestine, which was enforced occasionally by such warlike expeditions as the one described here. It is also not improbable that the four Eastern kings mentioned here were contemporaries, and that Elam was the dominant power in their time. So far the inscriptions confirm this chapter, but no further.See also Speiser's comments (pp. 105-9). Finally, let's end with a brief remark by Everett Fox (p. 59): "Whether the events described in this chapter are historical or part of an elaborate symbolic or mythical scheme has been the subject of debate among biblical scholars. The issue, barring unexpected archeological finds, is likely to remain unsolved."
No inscription at present published mentions a joint expedition of these four Eastern kings against Palestine, or any expedition against Sodom, Gomorrah, and the allied towns, or indeed any expedition which can possibly be identified with the campaign described in this chapter. Nor does any inscription mention Abram, Lot, or Melchizedek.
14:1 amrafel mélekh shin‛ar
Identification of this name with Hammurabi, a Babylonian king known from inscriptions, has been suggested, but is doubted by others. Of course, mélekh shin‛ar would be appropriate! Speiser's objections are in part philological, though he also points out (p. 107) that, were this to refer to the great Hammurabi, it is hardly credible that the joint expedition here described would have been led not by him but by the king of Elam, Chedorlaomer (see below).
aryokh mélekh ellasar
No identification of the place referred to as ellasar has been established. However, Speiser thinks Arioch represents an authentic ancient name of Hurrian origin, adding (EAS, p. 107): "The form is comparatively rare, and not attested after the middle of the second millennium. Its appearance in the present context thus presupposes an ancient and authentic tradition. No late Hebrew writer would be likely to invent such a name and to assign it correctly to a neighbor of Babylonia."
k'dorla‛ómer mélekh ‛elam
Elam is one of the sons of Shem in the Table of Nations (10:22). I quote EAS p. 70: "Elam. Eastern neighbor and traditional rival of Mesopotamian states since the dawn of history... The Elamite language is not related to Semitic, Sumerian, Hurrian, or Indo-European." The ruler's name looks linguistically authentic, say Speiser and CB; the latter explains that it is known from inscriptions that the first components is kudur 'servant' which occurs in known names of Elamite kings.
tid‛al mélekh goyim
Scholars identify the ruler's name with Tudḫaliya which was the name of several Hittite rulers (EAS, p. 107). Speiser adds: "The name itself goes back to pre-Hittite Anatolia. Once again, this is not the kind of name that could be improvised by a late Hebrew writer." The mélekh goyim part (meaning 'king of nations' in H) Speiser thinks may have arisen if this is a translation and in the original this was a title of the king in question, who cannot be identified.
14:2 s'dom, ‛amora, adma, tz'voyim, tzó‛ar
All were mentioned in 10:19 (way'hi g'vul hakk'na‛ani... bo'akha s'dóma wa‛amora w'adma utz'voyim). As for tzó‛ar (Zoar), this is not mentioned there but it is in 13:10 and it is the place where Lot will seek refuge when Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed (ch. 19).
béra‛, birsha‛, shin'av, shem'éver, béla‛
The names of the rulers have not been traced. Speiser hints there must be some "funny business" going on with the putative names of kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, since if we remove the letter ב b with which they both begin, the remaining ra‛ and résha‛ are words meaning 'evil' and 'injustice'!
14:3 xav'ru el...
Thought to mean 'joined forces in...' (EAS, JPS).
‛émeq hassiddim
The "vale of Siddim" is not known as a geographical entity but is presumed to have been the area surrounding the doomed towns of Sodom and Gomorrah which would now be the southern end of the Dead Sea.
yam hammélax
This ('the Salt Sea') is the BH name for the Dead Sea; see my comment on ch. 18, "Disaster."
14:5 ff. r'fa'im, etc.
Several of the ethnonyms occurring in this part are believed to be designations of pre-Israelite, non-Semitic indigenous groups once inhabiting places in the area, about whom very little is known. The r'fa'im (Rephaim) and the emim were popularly believed to be "giants"; both are mentioned again in Deuteronomy, and the r'fa'im are also mentioned in a list in Gen. 15:20. Not much is known either about the zuzim, nor about the xori 'Horite.' The emori 'Amorite' (v. 7) has been identified with the people mentioned in cuneiform texts as the Amurru; they are a non-Canaanite group from Syria, belonging to the West Semitic branch (like the Canaanites and the Israelites), who predated the Israelites by several centuries and played an important role in the region.
14:6 b'har'ram se‛ir
The strangeness of the expression 'in their mountain Seir' has been noted. This mountainous area will be mentioned again several times later in Gen., starting at 32:3. It is located to the southeast of the Dead Sea and the name is sometimes identified with the whole of the country of Edom (which we will also be hearing more about).
14:7 wayyashúvu
Normally means 'they returned' but in this instance, given the context, Speiser suggests it be understood as 'they turned.'
‛en mishpaT hi qadesh
An important oasis at the southern end of Canaan. It is only mentioned a couple of other times in passing in Genesis (in 16:14 and 20:1) but will play an important role later in the Torah, where it will be mentioned often. Normally it is called Kadesh; this is the only occurrence of the name En Mishpat (lit. 'well/spring of judgment').
14:12 et loT... ben axi avram... w'hu yoshev bisdom
The manner in which the text explains who this Lot is, as if we didn't already know, has been adduced as a further argument for the independent source of this text.
14:13 avram ha‛ivri
By the same token, the way in which Abram is here introduced ('Abram the Hebrew') makes it clear that the source document from which this has been copied did not assume the reader to have heard of him or to know that the book we are reading is all about him. On the further point about the use of the term 'ivri, see the comments at the top.
w'hu shokhen b'elone mamre ha'emori
Again, this is valuable and interesting information about Abram given its source. On the one hand it confirms both the information in the rest of Genesis and its own reliability by stating that Abram lived in the neighbourhood of elone mamre, the terebinths of Mamre. Yet at the same time, it adds something new to what we knew: Mamre is generally assumed to be a place, and that seems to be implied by the phrasing in some of its occurrences, yet here it says mamre ha'emori 'Mamre the Amorite' which suggests a different story. I have already talked about this issue here. The dictionaries gloss sh-k-n as 'to dwell, settle (temporarily)' etc., but Speiser thought the verb was particularly associated with living in tents, i.e. 'to camp.'
14:14 nishba
'Had been taken captive.' This is the niphal (medio-passive) of sh-b-h 'to take captive' which will occur a couple more times in Gen. (31:26, 34:29).
wayyáreq
This verb is problematic. LXX has êrithmêsen 'counted, reckoned' which Speiser glosses as 'mustered'; Vulg. follows suit with numeravit. KJV, on the contrary, goes for 'armed' (and RV, armó), ESV for 'led forth', EF has 'drew out', EAS (after pondering the alternatives and admitting to great uncertainty) 'called up'. JPS goes with 'mustered' (following Speiser's gloss of the LXX).
14:18 el ‛elyon
Regarding this and other names of God, see my post on the subject.
14:19 qone shamáyim wa'áretz
Acc. to Speiser, based on Phoenician and Ugaritic usage, in this context q-n-h means 'create', hence qone 'creator.'
14:22 harimóti yadi
'I have raised my hand' or 'I raise my hand'; this is taken by the commentators as a conventional equivalent of 'I have sworn' or 'I swear.'
14:23 im... w'im eqqax...
In emphatic statements such as this one, it is common in BH for im 'if' to carry a negative implication.
mixuT w'‛ad s'rokh ná‛al
Lit. 'from a thread to a sandal strap', i.e. the slightest thing.
14:24 hann'‛arim
Lit. 'the youths', i.e. the "men."
‛aner eshkol umamre
Namely Abram's "neighbour" and his "brothers" (more likely kinsfolk), thus confirming the information in v. 13.
No comments:
Post a Comment