Battle of Siddim
|Battle of Siddim|
|Five Kings of the
Cities of the Plain
Non aligned army
|Four Kings of Mesopotamia|
|Commanders and leaders|
|King Bera||King Chedorlaomer|
|Abram's 318 elite||Elamite Empire|
|Casualties and losses|
|No casualty figures;
all captives restored
|Slaughter of Chedorlaomer and other kings|
The Battle of Siddim or Battle of the Vale of Siddim, also often called the War of Kings, refers to an event in the Hebrew Bible book of Genesis 14:1-12 that occurred in the days of Abram and Lot. The Vale of Siddim was the battleground for the cities of the Jordan River plain revolting against the Elamite empire and its Mesopotamian allies.
According to the Bible, in the days of Lot, before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Elamite empire occupied the Land of Canaan which included all of the Jordan River plain and many surrounding tribes and cities. The occupation was under the rule of King Chedorlaomer for twelve years. In the thirteenth year, five kings of the cities of the Jordan plain revolted against Elamite rule. According to Jewish tradition, the revolt started with refusing to pay tribute to the Elamite empire. This triggered Chedorlaomer to assemble forces from the four main directions of Mesopotamia. Chedorlaomer's campaign to the Jordan plains began with sacking and looting every city along the way.(Genesis 14:1–7)
Four kings of Mesopotamia
In response to the uprising of several kings that Chedorlaomer ruled over, he ensured victory by calling together three other nations, to align with the Kingdom of Elam. These four aligned kings were:
- King Chedorlaomer, ruler of the Persian empire of Elam, to the East and commander of the alliance.
- King Amraphel, ruler of Shinar from the southern regions of Babylon.
- King Arioch, ruler of Ellasar, from Assur to the North.
- King Tidal, leader of the Hittites from the West.
Five kings of the Jordan plain
The five kings from the Jordan River plain rebelled against Elam rule, during Chedorlaomer's thirteenth year of reign over them. Their rebellion caused a domino effect that pushed Chedorlaomer to campaign against at least seven other nearby tribes and cities. The five kings of the plain were:
- Bera king of Sodom
- Birsha king of Gomorrah
- Shinab king of Admah
- Shemeber king of Zeboyim
- the king of Bela (renamed Zoar when Sodom destroyed)
The Mesopotamian forces overwhelmed the kings of the Jordan plain driving some them into asphalt or tar pits that littered the vale. Those who escaped, fled to the mountains including the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were then spoiled of their goods and provisions as well as the taking of captives. Among the captives was Abram's nephew, Lot. (Genesis 14:10–12)
When word reached Abram, he immediately mounted a rescue operation, arming 318 of his trained servants who went in pursuit of the Mesopotamian armies that were returning to their homelands. They caught up with them in the city of Dan, flanking the enemy on multiple sides, during a night raid. The attack ran its course as far as Hobah, north of Damascus where he defeated Chedorlaomer and his forces. Abram recovered all the goods, even the captives who included Lot. (Genesis 14:13–17)
After the battle, Melchizedek brought out bread and wine and blessed Abraham, who gave him a tenth of the plunder. (Genesis 14:18-20) Peter Leithart suggests that the bread and wine constituted a victory celebration.
Identifying the kings
Amraphel has been thought by some scholars such as the writers of the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Jewish Encyclopedia to be an alternate version of the name of the famed Hammurabi. The name is also associated with Ibal Pi-El II of Esnunna.
Following the discovery of documents written in the Elamite language and Babylonian language, it was thought that Chedorlaomer is a transliteration of the Elamite compound Kudur-Lagamar, meaning servant of Lagamaru - a reference to Lagamaru, an Elamite deity whose existence was mentioned by Assurbanipal. However, no mention of an individual named Kudur Lagamar has yet been found; inscriptions that were thought to contain this name are now known to have different names (the confusion arose due to similar lettering). David Rohl identifies Chedorlaomer with an Elamite king named Kutir-Lagamar.
Tidal has been considered to be a transliteration of Tudhaliya - either referring to the first king of the Hittite New Kingdom (Tudhaliya I) or the proto-Hittite king named Tudhaliya. With the former, the title king of Nations would refer to the allies of the Hittite kingdom such as the Ammurru and Mittani; with the latter the term "goyiim" has the sense of "them, those people". al ("their power") gives the sense of a people or tribe rather than a kingdom. Hence td goyim ("those people have created a state and stretched their power").
It was common practise for vassals/allies to accompany a powerful king during their conquests. For example, in a letter from about 1770 BC reporting a speech aimed at persuading the nomadic tribes to acknowledge the authority of Zimri-Lim of Mari:
There is no king who can be mighty alone. Ten or fifteen kings follow Hammurabi the man of Babylon; as many follow Rim-Sin the man of Larsa, Ibal-pi-El the man of Eshnunna, and Amut-pi-El the man of Quatna and twenty kings follow Yarim-Lim the man of Yamhad.
The alliance of four states would have ruled over cities/countries that were spread over a wide area: from Elam at the extreme eastern end of the Fertile Crescent to Anatolia at the western edge of this region. Because of this, there is a limited range of time periods that match the Geopolitical context of Genesis 14. In this account, Chedorlaomer is described as the king to whom the cities of the plain pay tribute. Thus, Elam must be a dominant force in the region and the other three kings would therefore be vassals of Elam and/or trading partners.
There were periods when Elam was allied with Mari through trade. Mari also had connections to Syria and Anatolia, who, in turn, had political, cultural, linguistic and military connections to Canaan. The earliest recorded empire was that of Sargon, which lasted until his grandson, Naram Sin.
According to Kenneth Kitchen, a better agreement with the conditions in the time of Chedorlaomer is provided by Ur Nammu. Mari had had links to the rest of Mesopotamia by Gulf trade as early as the Jemdet Nasr period but an expansion of political connections to Assyria did not occur until the time of Isbi-Erra. The Amorites or MARTU were also linked to the Hittites of Anatolia by trade.
Trade between the Harappan culture of India and the Jemdet Nasr flourished between c 2000-1700BC. As Isin declined, the fortunes of Larsa - located between Eshnunna and Elam - rose until Larsa was defeated by Hammurabi. Between 1880 and 1820 BC there was Assyrian trade with Anatolia, in particular in annakum or tin. The main trade route between Ashur and Kanesh running between the Tigris and Euphrates passed through Haran. The empire of Shamshi-Adad I and Rim-Sin I included most of northern Mesopotamia. Thus, Kitchen concludes that this is the period in which the narrative of Genesis 14 falls into a close match with the events of the time of Shamsi Adad and Chedorlaomer
The relevant rulers in the region at this time were:
- The last king of Isin, Damiq-ilishu, ruled 1816-1794 BC.
- Rim Sin I of Larsa ruled 1822-1763
- The last king of Uruk, Nabiilishu, ruled 1802
- In Babylon, Hammurabi ruled 1792-1750
- In Eshnunna Ibal Pi-El II ruled c 1762
- In Elam there was a king Kuduzulush
- In Ashur, Shamsi Adad I ruled c 1813-1781
- In Mari, Yasmah-Adad ruled 1796-1780 followed by Zimri-Lin 1779-1757.
Dating of events
When cuneiform was first deciphered in the 19th century Theophilus Pinches translated some Babylonian tablets which were part of the Spartoli collection in the British Museum and believed he had found in the Chedorlaomer Text the names of three of the "Kings of the East" named in Genesis 14. As this is the only part of Genesis which seems to set Abraham in wider political history, it seemed to many 19th and early 20th century exegetes and Assyriologists to offer an opening to date Abraham, if the kings in question could only be identified.
In 1887, Schrader was the first to propose that Amraphel could be an alternate spelling for Hammurabi. The terminal -bi on the end of Hammurabi's name was seen to parallel Amraphel since the cuneiform symbol for -bi can also be pronounced -pi. Tablets were known in which the initial symbol for Hammurabi, pronounced as kh to yield Khammurabi, had been dropped, so that Ammurapi was a viable pronunciation. If Hammurabi were deified in his lifetime or soon after (adding -il to his name to signify his divinity), this would produce something close to the Bible's Amraphel. A little later Jean-Vincent Scheil found a tablet in the Imperial Ottoman Museum in Istanbul from Hammurabi to a king named Kuder-Lagomer of Elam, which he identified with the same name in Pinches' tablet. Thus by the early 1900s many scholars had become convinced that the kings of Gen. 14:1 had been identified, resulting in the following correspondences:
|Name from Gen. 14:1||Name from Archaeology|
|Amraphel king of Shinar||Hammurabi (="Ammurapi") king of Babylonia|
|Arioch king of Ellasar||Eri-aku king of Larsa|
|Chedorlaomer king of Elam (= Chodollogomor in the LXX)||Kudur-Lagamar king of Elam|
|Tidal, king of nations (i.e. goyim, lit. 'nations')||Tudhulu, son of Gazza|
Today these dating attempts are little more than a historical curiosity. On the one hand, as the scholarly consensus on Near Eastern ancient history moved towards placing Hammurabi in the late 18th century (or even later), and not the 19th, confessional and evangelical theologians found they had to choose between accepting these identifications or accepting the biblical chronology; most were disinclined to state that the Bible might be in error and so began synchronizing Abram with the empire of Sargon I, and the work of Schrader, Pinches and Scheil fell out of favour. Meanwhile, further research into Mesopotamia and Syria in the second millennium BC undercut attempts to tie Abraham in with a definite century and to treat him as a strictly historical figure, and while linguistically not implausible, the identification of Hammurabi with Amraphel is now regarded as untenable.
There is rarely ever consensus on any matters involving Bible interpretation; one modern interpretation of Genesis 14 is summed up by Michael Astour in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (s.v. "Amraphel", "Arioch" and "Chedorlaomer"), who explains the story as a product of anti-Babylonian propaganda during the 6th century Babylonian captivity of the Jews:
After Böhl's widely accepted, but wrong, identification of mTu-ud-hul-a with one of the Hittite kings named Tudhaliyas, Tadmor found the correct solution by equating him with the Assyrian king Sennacherib (see Tidal). Astour (1966) identified the remaining two kings of the Chedorlaomer texts with Tukulti-Ninurta I of Assyria (see Arioch) and with the Chaldean Merodach-baladan (see Amraphel). The common denominator between these four rulers is that each of them, independently, occupied Babylon, oppressed it to a greater or lesser degree, and took away its sacred divine images, including the statue of its chief god Marduk; furthermore, all of them came to a tragic end ... All attempts to reconstruct the link between the Chedorlaomer texts and Genesis 14 remain speculative. However, the available evidence seems consistent with the following hypothesis: A Jew in Babylon, versed in Akkadian language and cuneiform script, found in an early version of the Chedorlaomer texts certain things consistent with his anti-Babylonian feelings.
The Chedorlaomer tablets are now thought to be from the 6th or 7th century BC, a millennium after the time of Hammurabi, but at roughly the time when the main elements of Genesis are thought to have been set down. Another prominent scholar considers a relationship between the tablet and Genesis speculative, but identifies Tudhula as a veiled reference to Sennacherib of Assyria, and Chedorlaomer, i.e. Kudur-Nahhunte, as "a recollection of a 12th century BC king of Elam who briefly ruled Babylon."
The last serious attempt to place a historical Abraham in the second millennium resulted from discovery of the name Abi-ramu on Babylonian contracts of about 2000 BC, but this line of argument lost its force when it was shown that the name was also common in the first millennium, leaving the patriarchal narratives in a relative biblical chronology but without an anchor in the known history of the Near East.
A few evangelical scholars continue to argue against the consensus: Kitchen asserts that the only known historical period in which a king of Elam, whilst allied with Larsa, was able to enlist a Hittite king and a King of Eshunna as partners and allies in a war against Canaanite cities is in the time of Old Babylon c 1822-1764 BC. This is when Babylon is under Hammurabi and Rim Sin I controls Mari, which is linked through trade to the Hittites and other allies along the length of the Euphrates. This trade is mentioned in the Mari letters, a source which documents a geo-political relationship back to when the ships of Dilmun, Makkan and Meluhha docked at the quays of Agade in the time of Sargon. In the period of Old Babylon, c 1822-1764 BC, Rim Sin I brought together kings of Syro-Anatolia whose kingdoms were located on the Euphrates in a coalition focused on Mari whose king was Shamsi Adad. Kitchen uses the geo-political context, the price of slaves and the nature of the covenants entered into by Abraham to date the events he encounters. He sees the covenants, between Abraham and the other characters encountered at various points in Abraham's journeys, as datable textual artifacts having the form of legal documents which can be compared to the form of legal documents from different periods. Of particular interest is the relationship between Abraham and his wife, Sarah. When Sarah proves to be barren, she offers her handmaiden, Hagar, to Abraham to provide an heir. This arrangement, along with other aspects of the covenants of Abraham, lead Kitchen to a relatively narrow date range which he believes aligns with the time of Hammurabi.
- Genesis 14:14
- Freedman, Meyers & Beck. Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible (ISBN 0802824005, ISBN 978-0-8028-2400-4), 2000, p.232
- Leithart, Peter (2000). Blessed are the Hungry: Meditations on the Lord's Supper. Moscow, ID: Canon Press. p. 26.
- Micael Roaf "Cambridge Atlas of Archaeology - king lists p 111 and pp 108-123
- 'Chedorlaomer' at JewishEncyclopedia.com
- Kudur-Lagamar from History of Egypt by G. Maspero
- Akkadian tD ("have stretched themselves")
- (Akkadian verbal stem intensive, reflexive expressing the bringing about of a state)
- Khalifa, Shaika Haya Ali Al; Rice, Michael (1986). Bahrain through the Ages. KPI. ISBN 0-7103-0112-X.
- The Mari letters
- Kitchen, Kenneth A. "The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?" in Shanks, Hershel (ed.) Biblical Archaeology Review 21:02 (March/April 1995)
- Nayeem, Dr. Muhammed Abdul (1990). Prehistory and Protohistory of the Arabian Peninsula. Hyderabad.
- Roaf, Michael (1990). Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. Equinox. ISBN 0-8160-2218-6.
- Orr, James, general editor (1915). "Hammurabi". International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
- "Amraphel". The Catholic Encyclopedia. 1917.
- Pinches, Theophilus (1908). The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia (third ed.). London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
- MacKenzie, Donald (1915). "The Golden Age of Babylonia". Myths of Babylonia and Assyria. p. 247. "The identification of Hammurabi with Amraphel is now generally accepted"
- Browning, W.R.F. (2010). "Amraphel". A Dictionary of the Bible (second ed.). Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-954399-2. "The identification, once popular, that this Amraphel was the famous Hammurabi of Babylon (1728–1686 BCE) is not tenable ... Most scholars doubt whether Gen. 14 describes historical events."
- The Anchor Bible Dictionary, s.v. "Chedorlaomer"
- Hindel, Ronald (1994). "Finding Historical Memories in the Patriarchal Narratives". Biblical Archaeology Review 21 (4): 52–59, 70–72.
- Thompson, Thomas (2002). The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham. Valley Forge, Pa: Trinity Press International. ISBN 1-56338-389-6.