Genesis 14. Abraham Conquers the Four Kings and Rescues Lot. This chapter is, as Wellhausen says, like Melchizedek, without father, without mother, without pedigree. In other words, it cannot be affiliated to any of the three main documents J, E, P, though some believe that E supplied its basis, since it relates alliances with native princes (Genesis 21:22-32) and records a military exploit of Jacob's against Shechem (Genesis 48:22 mg.). But the glorification of the sanctuary at Jerusalem, and the mention of tithes as paid there, goes to prove a Judæ an origin, nor does E contain any hint of Abraham's residence in Mamre. There is no reference, in J's narrative of Sodom's overthrow, to the events of this chapter. Nor do the phraseology and general characteristics permit us to assign it to any of the three sources. Some of its phrases occur nowhere else in the Pent., some nowhere else in the OT. Yet it has points of contact with the other sources. The writer knows of Lot's residence in Sodom, he uses J's phrase, the terebinths of Mamre. He employs phrases characteristic of P. And from the first the narrative was designed to stand in its present position. It is accordingly very late, but critical opinion is divided as to whether it is a late revision of an old narrative, or a composition altogether late, or a late composition in which some historical materials have been utilised. In its representation of Abraham as a warrior and the linking of him with contemporary history it has no parallel in Gen. It has been customary among opponents of criticism to assert that here archæ ology has decisively intervened to discredit critical views, and vindicate the accuracy of the Heb, narratives. This has no real foundation. Long before the discoveries were made, Nö ldeke had (in 1869) granted that Chedorlaomer might be a historical character, and that the Elamite empire might have extended to Palestine. In 1884 E. Meyer pointed out that Kudurlagamar (Chedorlaomer) was a name of genuinely Elamite formation, and that an Elamite dominion in Syria was attested by the inscriptions. Both admitted the possibility of an invasion such as is here described. Yet they rejected the historicity of the narrative. What, then, have the inscriptions shown? That there was an Elamite dominion over Palestine at this period, and that the names of the four kings are not improbably mentioned on the monuments. All this and more was fully allowed for by those who disputed the historicity before the discoveries were made. So far the inscriptions have not even attested the fact of the invasion, and they are absolutely silent on the names of the five kings, the historical existence of Abraham or Melchizedek, or any of the incidents related in the narrative. Moreover, there is still considerable dispute among the foremost Assyriologists as to the identifications proposed for the four kings. Even if we accept the prevalent view that Amraphel is Hammurabi and that Arioch is Eri-aku, though the first of these is denied by some of the best authorities, the name Kudurlagamar, while presumably historical, has not yet been discovered, nor that of Tidal as a king. Granted, however, that the four kings here named really lived and were contemporaries, as is probable; granted that they stood in the relationship to each other described; we are no further advanced towards the proof of the historicity of the chapter than thirty years ago. The difficulties are created by the character of the narrative itself. Assuming that the object of the campaign was to crush the rebellion of the five kings, its course as described from Genesis 14:5 to Genesis 14:8 is very curious, especially when it is considered in detail, the ground traversed being often very difficult if not impracticable for an army. The defeat of the great army by Abraham's force, his pursuit of it to Hobah, his capture of all the spoil and captives, can hardly be historical. A night surprise of the rear-guard and recovery of some booty and captives is not impossible; but this does no kind of justice to the terms of the narrative, which affirm a defeat and pursuit of Chedorlaomer and his allies (Genesis 14:15; Genesis 14:17). The names of the five kings seem artificial (the first two contain the words for evil and wickedness); Mamre and Eshcol (Genesis 14:13) are elsewhere names of places; the number 318 is equivalent to the sum of the letters in the name of Abraham's servant Eliezer (Genesis 15:2). The narrative apparently suggests that the Dead Sea came into existence at a later time, for it identifies the vale of Siddim where the battle took place (Genesis 14:8) with the Salt Sea (Genesis 14:3); but the geological evidence decisively proves that the Dead Sea existed as early as the Tertiary period, when, however, it reached up as far as Lake Huleh (p. 32), and its level was many hundreds of feet higher than at present (pp. 26f., Driver, pp. 168- 171). To prove the historical existence of Melchizedek, the case of Abdi-khiba, a governor of Jerusalem in the Tell el-Amarna period, has been quoted. There is no proof that he was a priest-king, and the words he uses with reference to his position, It was not my father, not my mother, who gave it me, but the arm of the mighty king gave it me, ought not to have been imagined to illustrate the words used of Melchizedek, without father, without mother, without pedigree. This description does not occur in Gen. but in Hebrews 7:3, and so far from having been read by the author in his copy of Gen. it is simply a characteristic Alexandrian inference from the silence as to Melchizedek's ancestry in a book which devotes such space to pedigrees as Gen. does. Besides, Abdi-khiba is simply asserting that he owed his position not to his parentage, but to his suzerain, the mighty king of Egypt, Amenhetep IV (pp. 54f.), and in view of his debt was not likely to be disloyal. Melchizedek may of course, have been, like the four kings, historical; and the Hebrew priesthood and royal house at Jerusalem may have claimed him as their predecessor. Or, if not historical, he may have been an ancient legendary figure.
On the whole chapter we should probably conclude that it is very late, compiled with the other documents of the Pent. already before the author and brought together in their present form. The cuneiform document on which three of the four names in 1 are thought to occur is itself very late, and belongs to the fourth or third century B.C. The object of the chapter was to glorify Abraham as a military leader of the first rank, who, with a handful of men, defeated the victorious army of a great confederacy of kingdoms, and as too magnanimous to enrich himself by the spoil. It was also designed to glorify Jerusalem and its priesthood, and supply an ancient precedent for the payment of tithes to it (cf. the tithe at Bethel, Genesis 28:22).