Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 11-03-2005, 03:57 PM

Can anybody direct me to good sources of information or comment on the historical basis and significance, if any, of Chapter 14 of Genesis?

Toto · 11-03-2005, 04:23 PM

Could you be a little bit more specific?

Genesis narrative

Quote:

Suddenly, the life of the patriarch was inserted into a slice of history in which several important persons ("kings") intervene: Amraphel of Shinar, Arioch of Ellasar, Ched-or-laomer of Elam, and Tidal of Goiim. Scholars of previous generations tried to identify these names with important historical figures--e.g. Amraphel with Hammurabi of Babylon--but little remains today of these suppositions. The whole of chapter 14 of Genesis, in which this event is narrated, differs completely from what has preceded and what follows. It may be an extract from some historical annals, belonging to an unknown secular source, for the meeting of Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of God Most High (El 'Elyon), and Abraham is impressive. The king-priest greets him with bread and wine on his victorious return and blesses him in the name of God Most High.

J-D · 11-04-2005, 01:51 PM

OK, I'll be more specific.

Genesis Chapter 14 is the only part of the Pentateuch that makes reference to international military and political affairs. It has no evident ideological-religious significance. It refers to the military and political intervention in the Jordan River region of an alliance under Elamite leadership (identification of the kings of 'Shinar' and 'Ellasar' may be uncertain, but Elam must be Elam, surely?). At the time this story was presumably incorporated in the larger narrative, the writers would most likely never even have heard of Elam, and would certainly have had no reason to invent a story about an Elamite king having local significance.

So what's going on here? What are the chances that the story could preserve an earlier tradition of actual events? If it does, how much of it might plausibly be true? Have historians investigated these questions, and what sort of conclusions have they reached?

J-D · 11-08-2005, 02:24 AM

No answers then? Oh, well, it was worth a try.

Benni72 · 11-08-2005, 03:39 AM

According to a hypothesis of Alexander Nemirovskii, the chapter consists of two distinct parts. The first one (verses 1-12), a sort of digression from Abraham's story, contains actual names of Mesopotamian rulers from about 1775 BCE, and it is quite possible that a warfare described there really took place in this period. The second part (verses 13 etc.) deals with migration of proto-Hebrews to Canaan, which may have occurred some 400 years later (so Nemirovskii). Unfortunately, his papers are in Russian and, AFAIK, not available on the net.

pharoah · 11-08-2005, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

OK, I'll be more specific.

Genesis Chapter 14 is the only part of the Pentateuch that makes reference to international military and political affairs. It has no evident ideological-religious significance. It refers to the military and political intervention in the Jordan River region of an alliance under Elamite leadership (identification of the kings of 'Shinar' and 'Ellasar' may be uncertain, but Elam must be Elam, surely?). At the time this story was presumably incorporated in the larger narrative, the writers would most likely never even have heard of Elam, and would certainly have had no reason to invent a story about an Elamite king having local significance.

So what's going on here? What are the chances that the story could preserve an earlier tradition of actual events? If it does, how much of it might plausibly be true? Have historians investigated these questions, and what sort of conclusions have they reached?

I have to disagree with your assertion that the story has no ideological-religious significance. It depicts Abraham as a great hero figure, overthrowing an oppressive military presence with a ragtag lot of servants, something that a combination of kings had been unable to do for 13 years.

It also seems to me that the reference to Melchizedek king of Salem being a priest of the most High God was inserted by someone who favored Jerusalem as the center of worship and was trying to establish an historical basis for it.

Anat · 11-09-2005, 07:02 AM

Also, consider that among those saved by Abraham in this story is the king of Sodom, and the reason Abraham got involved in the whole mess was that his nephew Lot was among the prisoners. Yet in chapter 19 the people of Sodom are threatening because Lot has a couple of guests over. How ungrateful of them!

J-D · 11-09-2005, 07:34 PM

Benni

Thank you for your efforts. That sounds like it might be exactly the kind of thing I was looking for: except for the part about being in Russian. Too bad for me that I don't know Russian, I suppose.

pharoah

You make some interesting points, which would be worth covering in any historical discussion of the text, if anybody feels like having one. Personally, what I was trying to find out was whether it has already been discussed in a serious scholarly fashion taking into account historical/archaeological evidence, and unfortunately for me the only lead I've received is one I can't use.

Anat

An interesting observation, but without any bearing on questions of historicity as far as I can see.

Anyway, thanks all, I appreciate your taking an interest!

Anat · 11-10-2005, 11:11 AM

My response was intended to be in line with pharoah's about the ideological intent of the chapter.

11-03-2005, 03:57 PM	#1
J-D Moderator - General Religious Discussions Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New South Wales Posts: 27,330	Genesis Chapter 14 Can anybody direct me to good sources of information or comment on the historical basis and significance, if any, of Chapter 14 of Genesis?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-04-2005, 01:51 PM	#3
J-D Moderator - General Religious Discussions Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New South Wales Posts: 27,330	OK, I'll be more specific. Genesis Chapter 14 is the only part of the Pentateuch that makes reference to international military and political affairs. It has no evident ideological-religious significance. It refers to the military and political intervention in the Jordan River region of an alliance under Elamite leadership (identification of the kings of 'Shinar' and 'Ellasar' may be uncertain, but Elam must be Elam, surely?). At the time this story was presumably incorporated in the larger narrative, the writers would most likely never even have heard of Elam, and would certainly have had no reason to invent a story about an Elamite king having local significance. So what's going on here? What are the chances that the story could preserve an earlier tradition of actual events? If it does, how much of it might plausibly be true? Have historians investigated these questions, and what sort of conclusions have they reached?

11-08-2005, 02:24 AM	#4
J-D Moderator - General Religious Discussions Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New South Wales Posts: 27,330	No answers then? Oh, well, it was worth a try.

11-08-2005, 03:39 AM	#5
Benni72 Regular Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Rostock, Germany Posts: 143	According to a hypothesis of Alexander Nemirovskii, the chapter consists of two distinct parts. The first one (verses 1-12), a sort of digression from Abraham's story, contains actual names of Mesopotamian rulers from about 1775 BCE, and it is quite possible that a warfare described there really took place in this period. The second part (verses 13 etc.) deals with migration of proto-Hebrews to Canaan, which may have occurred some 400 years later (so Nemirovskii). Unfortunately, his papers are in Russian and, AFAIK, not available on the net.

11-09-2005, 07:02 AM	#7
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	Also, consider that among those saved by Abraham in this story is the king of Sodom, and the reason Abraham got involved in the whole mess was that his nephew Lot was among the prisoners. Yet in chapter 19 the people of Sodom are threatening because Lot has a couple of guests over. How ungrateful of them!

11-09-2005, 07:34 PM	#8
J-D Moderator - General Religious Discussions Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New South Wales Posts: 27,330	Benni Thank you for your efforts. That sounds like it might be exactly the kind of thing I was looking for: except for the part about being in Russian. Too bad for me that I don't know Russian, I suppose. pharoah You make some interesting points, which would be worth covering in any historical discussion of the text, if anybody feels like having one. Personally, what I was trying to find out was whether it has already been discussed in a serious scholarly fashion taking into account historical/archaeological evidence, and unfortunately for me the only lead I've received is one I can't use. Anat An interesting observation, but without any bearing on questions of historicity as far as I can see. Anyway, thanks all, I appreciate your taking an interest!

11-10-2005, 11:11 AM	#9
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	My response was intended to be in line with pharoah's about the ideological intent of the chapter.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.