This is part 12 of the The History of the World Series ; Introduction is part 1.
Click here to read in series

Abraham left Egypt a rich man and went back to Canaan, the land God had promised to give his heirs one day. Upon arriving, he and Lot divided the grazing land among them, and Lot chose the plains of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 13:10-11), which were across the Jordan River from Israel and thus are called the Transjordanian cities.

Lot settled there in the city of Sodom, and things seem to have been peaceful for a time, until he was kidnapped by Chedorlaomer (Genesis 14). Before we get into that story, let’s jump ahead and work backward, so we can date Lot’s kidnapping precisely, as it’s crucial to our timeline.

In Genesis 15 God appeared to Abraham and promised him a son; as a direct result of this, Abraham had a child by Hagar (incorrectly thinking that’s how God meant for it to happen), and Ishmael was born when Abraham was 86. Therefore, God appeared to him when he was 85 years old (‑1937).

Narratively connected to these events (Genesis 15:1), Melchizedek appeared to Abraham (Genesis 14:17-20) – therefore, also when he was 85. This is important, because Melchizedek appeared to Abraham while he was returning from warring with a group of Mesopotamian kings who had kidnapped Lot, a battle which we can now confidently date to ‑1937.

Genesis 14:1-3 It happened in the days of Amraphel, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, and Tidal, king of Goiim, that they made war with [five kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, etc]. All these joined together in the valley of Siddim (the same is the Salt Sea).

Casually reading Genesis 14, you might get the impression that there were two incursions by these four kings; a first one to establish dominance, and a second trip 14 years later, to restore control after the Canaanites rebelled; but that’s actually not what is recorded in Genesis 14; there certainly was an earlier mission to establish dominance, but not necessarily by all of these same kings. But there was only one battle of Siddim, in the 14th year.

Genesis 14:4-5 Twelve years they [had] served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year, they rebelled. In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer came, and the kings who were with him…

The Mesopotamian kings fought many other kingdoms on their way to the Transjordan; so although the Bible focuses on the narrative involving these five kings, they were only a small part of a much larger rebellion of the entire territory from Syria to Arabia.

When they arrived, the kings of the cities of the plain of Sodom and Gomorrah – across the Jordan River from Israel – came out to meet them and battle against them. Given that this was a fight for survival, we would expect that all the able-bodied men of the five cities in the Transjordan would be conscripted, thus the armies should have numbered in the thousands, perhaps ten-thousands. And yet they still lost. So this was no mere “policing” operation from Mesopotamia, this was a significant army.

Verses 10-12 Now the valley of Siddim was full of tar pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell there, and those who remained fled to the hills. They took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their food, and went their way. They took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who lived in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

Verses 14-15 When Abram heard that his relative was taken captive, he led out his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan. He divided himself against them by night, he and his servants, and struck them, and pursued them to Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.

This is quite plausible, even if the invasion force numbered in the thousands – the element of surprise counts for a lot against a drunken, sleepy enemy. Regardless, it seems like all of the kings of Mesopotamia were killed.

Verse 17 The king of Sodom went out to meet [Abraham], after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, at the valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley).

However – and this becomes important later – the text does permit us to surmise that one king might have survived the “slaughter of Chedorlaomer and the kings with him,” plural, means that Chedorlaomer and two kings could be killed and one of the four might have escaped.

We do know for a fact that some men escaped, because after Abraham “struck them,” he pursued them to Hobah – where no further slaughter is mentioned, which implies Abraham felt they’d not be a problem again after that and let them go.

We glean some key facts from this story; most interesting is that in Genesis 14:4 the kings of the Transjordan were already paying tribute to Mesopotamia before Abraham ever set foot in Canaan. Since the battle of Siddim is dated to Abraham’s 85th year or so, and the kings came in the 14th year to collect tribute, it means that the Transjordan had been paying tribute since Abraham’s 71st year or so, or about ‑1951, while he was still in Haran – or possibly even still in Ur.

And at that point, Sumerian cities were able to project enough power to conquer every Canaanite city over 1,000 miles away from home – and enough fear to collect tribute for over a decade. A mighty empire indeed. There’s just one problem; according to historians, it never happened.

But before we join them in denouncing the Bible as mythical, let’s hear all the evidence.

SUMERIAN CONTROL OF JORDAN

Most historians, if they believe in the historicity of Abraham at all, tend to put him roughly contemporary with Hammurabi; since they know that Hammurabi did not have an empire which stretched as far as Sodom and Gomorrah, therefore the story in Genesis is utter fantasy.

However, their dates for Hammurabi are off by 500 years, which means we can look in a completely different section of history for connections to Abraham. The SKL tells us that during the time of Abraham the city-states in southern Sumer kept growing, bickering, warring, and occasionally one would become dominant over another.

Yet most historians would tell you that Mesopotamians continued this bickering amongst themselves without major foreign intervention, nor with any empire-building that could possibly have stretched as far as the Mediterranean, let alone all the way to the Transjordan, until the time of Sargon (‑1900). But Sargon’s empire existed too late to be Abraham’s foe.

Sargon the Great, was the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire, known for his conquests of the Sumerian city-states in the 24th to 23rd centuries BC [‑1897 to ‑1841 by our dating, at least 50 years after Abraham first entered Canaan]. He is sometimes identified as the first person in recorded history to rule over an empire. (Wiki, Sargon of Akkad)

Notice their claim that he is the first person to rule over an empire. Thing is, their own evidence shows this isn’t true. Sargon was not the first person to unite the city-states. A generation earlier, Lugal-zage-si (whom Sargon is said to have conquered) claimed to have conquered the world as far as the Mediterranean…

“Enlil gave to him “all the lands between the upper and the lower seas,” that is, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf … Although his incursion to the Mediterranean was, in the eyes of some modern scholars, not much more than “a successful raiding party,” the inscription “marks the first time that a Sumerian prince claimed to have reached what was, for them, the western edge of the world.” (Wiki, Lugal-zage-si)

Note the dismissive tone by the some modern scholars; “he wasn’t really king over that region, he simply led a raiding party.” That may perhaps be true, but they have no way of knowing that for certain. But the fact is, this most certainly is not “the first time that a Sumerian prince claimed to have reached what was, for them, the western edge of the world,” and they know that. Wikipedia goes on to say…

Historical accounts from much later tablets asserted that Lugal-Anne-Mundu of Adab, a slightly earlier king, had also conquered as far as the Mediterranean and the Taurus mountains, but contemporary records for the entire period before Sargon are still far too sketchy to permit scholars to reconstruct actual events with great confidence. (Ibid)

Note their statement: “records… are far too sketchy to permit scholars to reconstruct actual events with great confidence.” And yet somehow, they are able to confidently state that the records they DO have are not true…? That this king did not, in fact, rule as far as the Mediterranean?

They tell us that Sumerian kings never projected power that far into Canaan at this point in history; and if they had been there, it would have been a mere raiding party, not a proper army with the personal presence of the kings of Sumer. But by claiming that, they disagree with their only sources of information!

One king of Adab, Lugal-Anne-Mundu, appearing in the Sumerian King List, is mentioned in few contemporary inscriptions; some that are much later copies claim that he established a vast, but brief empire stretching from Elam all the way to Lebanon and the Amorite territories along the Jordan. (Wikipedia, Adab)

The Amorite territories along the Jordan are the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah! What a shocking coincidence, that the SKL records a Sumerian presence in Israel precisely when and where Abraham encountered them!

LITERARY FICTION

You will run across the phrase “literary” often when reading ancient history, which is basically a way historians say “fictional.” They apply this label to anything they can’t understand or explain; if it doesn’t fit what they already believe, it must have been a fantasy novel. It’s a very easy way to dismiss an idea, and it’s used all the time to avoid considering ancient texts as actual history.

The idea of a king of Sumer ruling as far as the Jordanian plain, this far back – around ‑1950 in our chronology, but roughly ‑2500 in their chronology – is unacceptable to historians. And so, in response to that quote above describing a Sumerian empire in precisely the place Abraham encountered it, this is what historians say…

In this connection, one might also mention the figure of Lugal-anemunDU [Lugal-Anne-Mundu above], … Lugal-anemunDU is also the subject of an Old Babylonian literary composition (Güterbock 1934: 40–47), which ascribes to him the creation of an empire, extending from the Mediterranean to the Iranian plateau, and embracing within its scope the lands of Elam and Marhashi (the latter ruled by a governor named Migir-Enlil). But since the existence of such an Adab ruler finds no corroboration in any other data, one may confidently conclude that both Lugal-anemunDU and his alleged exploits are poetic inventions which were perpetrated sometime in Old Babylonian times (for reasons that completely escape us). (The Birth of Elam in History, Piotr Steinkeller)

So because there is no corroboration for this story, they are certain it didn’t happen. Only… there IS corroboration! Genesis 14 corroborates this data! Firmly establishing that, at roughly this point in history, Sumerian forces extracted tribute from the tribes along the Jordan for over a decade!

Yet historians stubbornly refuse to accept the Bible as a source, even when it agrees with their other sources. So instead, Steinkeller believes that a Babylonian scribe thought it would be fun to make up a story about an obscure king (Lugal-Anne-Mundu) who lived almost a millennium earlier in a city-state that no one cared about (Adab), and ascribe to him a world-ruling kingdom that just happens to confirm Abraham’s story.

Really?

Don’t get me wrong, Sumerians made stuff up all the time. But they did so with a purpose; they did so to deify the ancestors of their kings, to praise their gods, to try and show the primacy of their own town or deities. If this were fabricated, then as Steinkeller admitted, it was “for reasons that completely escape us”; because it makes no sense why they would have made up such a story!

And yet, having conceded that, he is still arrogant enough to state, simply because they have no corroboration yet, at least nothing that they will accept, that “we can confidently conclude… his alleged exploits are poetic inventions.”

But, logically, the absence of corroboration doesn’t allow you to confidently conclude anything. Right? Back me up here.

And yet somehow they feel confident in telling us that one day a priest was suddenly inspired to invent an awesome fan-fiction about a man from a minor city-state who was not worshipped, not deified, not the ancestor of any important king – and, if the historians are right, wasn’t even powerful and probably did not even exist!

And get this – the priest would have been writing this fantasy story… for the benefit of a population that could not read! And who would never even hear it read to them! Because the historian’s belief is that these documents were only circulated within the inner circle of priests.

So we can see why Steinkeller says this was done “for reasons that completely escape us.” Because it’s an absolutely absurd theory. Literally any alternative theory would be better. And so when Genesis firmly corroborates the existence of such an empire, at precisely the era of Lugal-Anne-Mundu, we are happy to believe it.

But there is also a third witness to this story.

THE SPARTOLI TABLETS

Genesis 14 gives us four names of kings, and the region they ruled over, which should make our job easy. Unfortunately, they don’t match up with any contemporary kings of Sumer; at least, not at first – but then again, we had that problem with Enmerkar/Nimrod and Utu/Shamash/Ham didn’t we? So this is solvable.

The name “Chedorlaomer” has long been the subject of controversy, that has increased, rather than diminished, since the discovery of native Elamite and Babylonian documents. The first clue to an identification of the name is found in the fact, everywhere now regarded as established, that the name is a correct Elamite compound. Its first half, “Chedor” (= “Kudur,” “servant of,” or “worshiper of”), is found frequently in Elamite proper names, such as “Kudur-nanḥundi” (“naḥunte” in Susian or Elamite) and “Kudurmabuk.” The latter half of the name, “la’omer,” (= “lagamaru”), is the name of an Elamite deity, mentioned by Assurbanipal. (Jewish Encyclopedia, “Chedorlaomer”)

So the first take-away is that whoever wrote the Bible – Moses, in our view – either they were telling the truth, or else they were skilled enough at Elamite, a language quite different from Hebrew spoken over a thousand miles away, to concoct a plausible fake name using elements of well-attested Elamite names.

Which is more probable? Fake or fact? Any objective scientist would say that it is implausible that it was faked; every historian says it was faked, a “literary composition.” Think about that.

The precise name Chedorlaomer or Kudur-Lagamaru is not attested in any contemporary, ~2000 BC source. And yet… the name is attested in a much later copy, in exactly this form, as an Elamite and in connection with the names of Arioch and Tidal!

In the so-called “Chedorlaomer Tablets,” from the Spartoli tablets collection in the British Museum, a “king of Elam” called Kudur-Laḫgumal is mentioned as defeating “Dur-ṣil-ilani, son of Eri-e-Aku” and “Tudḫula, son of Gazza-X.” These tablets, written sometime between the 7th and 2nd centuries BC… (Wiki, Battle of Siddim).

Statistically, it’s quite possible to find similar names in ancient history that may be connected; Medai, Medes, Mitanni, and so on may all derive from one source – or be completely unconnected, their similarities coincidental. So it’s not too persuasive to find the name Kudur-lahgumal on a tablet; the formula “servant + deity” is common.

So it is interesting that the Spartoli tablets mentions a person with the same name as Chedorlaomer of Genesis 14. It may or may not be the same person. However, when you find three out of the four names in the same place, there is absolutely a connection.

Random chance cannot place kings named Arioch, Tidal, and Chedorlaomer at the same place and time without there being a connection – especially when it says that Kudur-Lahgumal was a king of Elam! So late Babylonian fantasy or not, this tablet directly connects four facts in one place, precisely as the Bible arranges them; Kudur-Laḫgumal the Elamite, Arioch, and Tidal.

Surely no reasonable person can deny that there has to be some connection between these names and the ones mentioned in Genesis 14.Of course, critics find a way. Their theory is that this was an allegory written in the ‑3rd century about Elamite kings from the ‑12th century. A sort of political satire lampooning Elamite invaders.

But let’s think about that. They’re saying that one day in the ‑3^rd century a scribe wanted to bash some long-dead kings from Elam, a nation that no longer existed. Weird in its own right, but let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.

Thing is, having decided to write a tale about these long dead kings, he for some incomprehensible reason changed their names. And then he just happened to use names from Genesis 14 instead. Does that make sense to you? Really?

First, what possible reason could they have to write about these kings from an extinct nation at all, 900 years after the fact? Ancient history wasn’t very important in ancient times, except as it affected deities or royal legitimacy.

And if they did write such a fantasy, why hide it in metaphor by alluding to these ‑12th century kings with random names? Why not just use the names of the people you’re talking about?? Were they worried about hurting the feelings of these long-dead kings?

And finally, granting that they decided to choose random names to hide their identities… why choose names which just happen to match the names of ‑20th century kings the Bible says invaded the Transjordan??

I mean… is the historian’s theory really more likely than a gap in historians’ understanding of 2000 BC Mesopotamian political intrigue?

Really?

I think not, particularly since they admit they don’t know enough about the era to draw firm conclusions even though they constantly do it anyway!

It’s times like this that cause me to say that historians must bend over backwards to dismiss the facts of history; because it takes effort to get around these facts. It is easier to believe that the Bible is recording an accurate record of events than to believe that the Spartoli tablets are a fiction.

We have the moral high ground here, and we should act like it. Therefore, we will treat these tablets as history, not fantasy – because that simply makes more sense.

CHEDORLAOMER

One reason no researcher has ever reliably proven this connection is that they are, without exception, looking five centuries too late, in the wrong era of history altogether. They start with the present, work backwards trusting the chronological opinions of modern historians, and invariably have dynasties ruling Egypt and Mesopotamia centuries before the Bible states the flood happened.

By starting with the flood, the sons of Noah, and moving forward, not arbitrarily trying to connect 2000 Bible history to what historians think the ‑2000 Sumerian political situation looked like (they’re off by about 500 years at this point), and instead using the Bible’s firm chronology as our anchor point, we are looking at history very differently – and that opens up possibilities to us that no other historian would see.

So to that end, we begin by looking for Chedorlaomer, or more properly, Kudur-Laḫgumal, about two centuries forward from Babel and Enmerkar, since that’s how long after Nimrod Abraham lived. This part of the SKL is actually reasonably agreed upon by historians, as much as they agree on anything, so we know roughly when to look for possible matches, either in name or in deed.

One of the quirks of the SKL is that it presents a long list of sequential dynasties which were not in fact sequential; however, the dynasties are broken up into pieces, at the end of each something is said like “Then Kish was defeated and the kingship was taken to E-anna [the temple at Uruk].”

This generally, if not always, reflects the fact that at this point in the dynasty it was conquered; thus Aga or Aka king of Kish was the last king of the first dynasty of Kish (Kish I) before it was conquered by Uruk.

However remember that the SKL had a political motivation to present these dynasties as sequential; because of this, it invariably misrepresents the conqueror as the first king of the succeeding dynasty, when we know for a fact that in this case it was Gilgamesh, 5th king of Uruk I, who conquered Aka.

This means that the earlier rulers of Uruk extended back from that point, overlapping with the latter kings of Kish. We cannot prove this relationship for every dynasty, but we will take it as true in general – in agreement with Thorkild Jacobson.

In our chronology, Kish I ended around ‑2023, Uruk I ended around ‑2012, and Ur I ended around ‑1936. These dates are not reliable enough to be perfect yet, but are probably accurate to within 20-30 years at least.

Which means we would expect, based on this pattern alone, and how it matches with the expected dates of Abraham’s battle in Jordan with an Elamite empire, to find the 4th dynasty in just about the right chronological place around ‑2000‑1900.

And what do you know? Following Ur, the SKL says “kingship was taken to Awan.” And Awan was a city of Elam! Thus, the fourth dynasty was an Elamite kingdom! This is an amazing coincidence, for now we have proved that it was at least possible for an Elamite to invade Jordan, because an Elamite dynasty was leading Mesopotamia just when Abraham rescued Lot!

Unfortunately the names on this part of the SKL are badly preserved; the first name is gone, the second name is just “…lu,” and all we can make out of the third king is that he reigned for 36 years, and the first part of his name…

Sumerian: 𒆪𒌌, romanized: ku-ul-x; transliterated: ku.ul.x; anglicized: Ku-u [l – . . . ]; also: Kul[…]; alternatively: Kur-Ishshak. (Sjöberg, Leichty & Tinney 2024) (Wiki, Kur-Ishshak)

Linguistically, the part of the name least likely to change is the consonants, and particularly the first consonants of the name. Thus, the third and final king of the dynasty starting with a Ku – sound, just as Kudur-Laḫgumal does, is encouraging.

Now these are Elamite, not Akkadian or Sumerian names, and in Elam, no name is attested to have begun with Ku-ul. However Ku-du is another possible way of reading the second cuneiform sign, and that is a highly popular Elamite name element, usually in the form of Kudur or Kutur, meaning “servant of…” and followed by the name of a deity.

On the SKL, there are traces which suggest the third sign is an “L.” Thus, we have Kudur-L…; and there is only one Elamite deity that I can find which begins with L, a very common one named Lagamal or Lagamar.

So then the only name this could be, is Kudur-Laḫgumal meaning “Servant of Lagamar” – precisely the name from the Spartoli tablets!

Then just take all the vowels away, and spell it in Hebrew, add vowels back in and translate it into English and you have Chedor-laomer, king of Elam, final king of the first dynasty of Awan! Final, because Abraham killed him, plunging Sumer into anarchy! But more on that later.

TIDAL, KING OF NATIONS

The Bible mentions four names, Amraphel of Shinar, Chedorlaomer of Elam, Arioch of Ellasar, and Tidal “king of nations.” This last title is a very generic term – king of which nations? Clearly not Sumerian nations, for we already have a king of Sumer (Amraphel of Shinar).

This is where we have the advantage over historians, for we have confidence that the Bible meant for us to understand this. Remember, Moses wrote this for his Israelite audience – he wanted them to understand it. So what would they have understood by “the nations?”

Deuteronomy 7:1 When Yahweh your God shall bring you into the land where you go to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before you, the Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and mightier than you;

While the word “nations” (goyim in Hebrew) refers to any nation, by far the most frequent use of the term in the books of Moses is to refer to the Canaanite tribes. Thus, this is what Moses’ audience most likely understood. So Tidal, therefore, was king over these nations, at the time of Abraham.

Note also that the first nation Moses mentioned was the Hittites. And as it happens the name Tudḫaliya – which in the Hebrew-English transmission would become Tidal – is a very common Hittite royal name, with no less than eight Wikipedia entries for different Hittite kings bearing that name over the course of a thousand years.

“Tudḫaliya (sometimes called Tudḫaliya I) is deduced from his early placement in a later offering list as a hypothetical pre-Empire king who might have reigned in the early 17th century BC. (Wiki, Tudhaliya, disambiguation)

Basically, that means he was worshipped as a deity by later kings, and that he existed before any of the other kings by that name; perhaps the 17th century BC, perhaps later, they really don’t know. Which means my guess is as good as theirs.

The point is Tudhaliya, in Hittite, would be spelled Tidal in Hebrew – and he was king of the (Canaanite) nations, specifically of the Hittites. Thus, although we cannot date Tudhaliya I, he is an attested ancient person and is almost certainly the Tidal whom Abraham fought.

THE HITTITE CONQUEST OF CANAAN

When you think about it, this identity makes a lot of sense; for the Sumerians to come this far west, they would have to make some agreement with the Hittite tribes who dominated this region; so either by conquest or treaty, the Hittites would have had to be involved in any military action in Canaan.

It’s also interesting that Jordan and Canaan were inhabited, at that time, primarily by Amorites – not Hittites; for when God promised the land he stood on to Abraham, he specifically mentioned the Amorites’ lack of sin (Genesis 15:16).

At the same time, God did promise him the land of a variety of tribes – specifically including Hittites and Amorites – which stretched from the Euphrates in Syria to the Nile in Egypt (Genesis 15:18-20). But the place he was, apparently, belonged to the Amorites.

Abraham dwelt by the oaks belonging to Mamre, the Amorite (Genesis 14:13), who was an ally of Abraham. Why did Abraham need allies? Against whom? Hittites, whom he had fought in the previous chapter!

And yet when Sarah died and Abraham buried her in the cave of Machpelah (Sarah died at 127, Abraham was 137 at the time, hence in the year ‑1885), we find Hittites living there, not Amorites. Something happened between these two events to change the ethnicity of Canaan.

Genesis 23:10, 18 And Ephron dwelt among the children of Heth: and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the audience of the children of Heth, even of all that went in at the gate of his city, saying [and he sold it]… Unto Abraham for a possession in the presence of the children of Heth, before all that went in at the gate of his city.

So this city was clearly possessed by Hittites now, but 66 years earlier it was an Amorite city. What had happened? It had been conquered by Hittites in the intervening 66 years, no doubt started by the raids with the Mesopotamian confederacy! Because if you read closely, you’ll notice no Hittites were attacked by the Mesopotamians when they came to conquer the Transjordan:

Genesis 14:5-7 And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim, And the Horites in their mount Seir, unto Elparan, which is by the wilderness. And they returned, and came to Enmishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezontamar.

No Hittites were harmed during the raids because Hittites were the aggressors! Whereas no reference to Hittite inhabitants exist from the time of Abraham’s first decade in Canaan, because at that time there weren’t any!

Which suggests how the Mesopotamians had such power so far from home; because they allied with a powerful, much closer, tribe – the Hittites. And it suggests why the Hittites accepted the agreement – it would provide them with new land to settle cities in. And we can support this in an unexpected way:

Ezekiel 16:2-3 …Thus says the Lord Yahweh to Jerusalem: your birth and your birth is of the land of the Canaanite; the Amorite was your father, and your mother was a Hittite.

Thinking of this in a metaphorical sense, as God clearly meant it, a city was “founded” by its father; he planted the seed that became the city. In this case, the Amorites founded Salem. Then a Hittite “nurtured” it, and made it larger, playing the role of a mother.

This tells us that first the Amorites were in the regions around Salem, built the city, and that later it was invaded and occupied by Hittites who expanded upon it. And now we know that this happened in the time of Tidal, king of nations!

TERAH THE PIONEER

Knowing that this was the political situation around ‑1950, with Sumer recently having conquered Canaan and extracting tribute from it, we can now finally explain Terah’s move from Ur and his stopping at Haran without actually going to Canaan.

Terah was an Arphaxadite, and could have gone in literally any direction. For some reason – probably family drama – he chose not to go east to the Indus, preferring instead to strike out on his own in the west. But why Canaan, specifically?

Why travel 1,000 miles with everything you own to a land you’ve never seen, full of hostile foreigners whose language you don’t speak? He must have had reasons to think this was a good place to go. Historically, settlers trying to escape religious oppression head to the newest frontier on the edge of civilization.

And this tells us that when Terah chose to go to Canaan, it was because it had recently been conquered by Sumer, and he could expect a Sumerian military presence to help him settle and keep him safe until he had made local contacts.

But the inherent instability in newly subjugated lands suggests a reason why Terah didn’t, in the end, make it to Canaan – because Haran was, at the time, on the border between the relatively civilized Euphrates valley and the tribes of Canaan who probably weren’t that excited about paying tribute to Mesopotamia.

So Terah, arriving at the border of Canaan, must have heard rumbles of dissatisfaction from the subjugated natives that made him afraid to keep going, so he decided to stay in friendly territory and make a home there. In other words, he chickened out at the last minute.

Abraham, having more faith, and with a direct commandment from God, decided to travel there anyway (Psalms 105:9-15). God protected them, but it was still hostile territory; Jacob claimed to have carved out his inheritance in Canaan with his sword and bow from the Amorites (Genesis 48:22).

This just goes to show you that you can’t really understand the Bible without knowing the historical perspective in which it took place… but you also can’t understand that history without the Bible.

ARIOCH OF ELLASAR

Although there is some room for debate, Ellasar, if you remove the vowels which are absent in Hebrew, would be L-S-R. If the letters were swapped in transcription, it’s quite easy to get to L-R-S, which could spell Larsa – a well-known city in southern Sumer, which was powerful – although its heyday was much later, around ‑1600‑1400, little is known about it from this period.

Now if the name Arioch were written in Sumerian, it would most likely be rendered as Eri-aku, which means “servant of the moon.” This name, translated literally into Akkadian, would be rendered as Warad-sin.

There is no known historical person by this name at the right place in history (‑1937), but there is no information about most of the cities in Sumer for this time, even though we know most had kings. But much later there is a person by the name Warad-sin on the SKL, one of the final kings of Larsa (approximately ‑1375).

Most people, since they are heavily guided by traditional history and are all too willing to dismiss the Bible, try to connect Abraham to this Warad-sin/Eri-aku/Arioch anyway; by moving Abraham too late (~1800 BC) and Warad-sin far too early to match (~1800 BC).

But that’s totally unnecessary and frankly, wrong. We know quite a bit about the life and times of Warad-sin of Larsa ‑1375; and the events of the Spartoli tablets did not happen in his lifetime. These are the well-documented times of Hammurabi, and there was no Elamite king dominating all of Sumer, nor did Warad-sin die in Canaan.

We have enough information about the period to be confident that we would know if Kudur-Laḫgumal had an empire as far as the Mediterranean in that era. Thus, the Warad-sin of Hammurabi’s era is certainly not Abraham’s adversary… but he might be his namesake!

As we see with Tudaliya, Ramses, Henry, and Popes named John, there is a strong tendency to recycle old names of powerful kings and use them for your own regnal name. Larsa had been a significant city dating back the earliest times in Sumer, and had been ruled over by kings or at least governors for most of the time.

Unfortunately we do not have any records of the kings of Larsa going back to the time of Abraham. But since kings almost always choose names from kings of their own nation, the fact that there is an Arioch of Ellasar in the ‑14th century tells us there probably was also an Arioch of Ellasar in the ‑20th century! One who was a confederate or vassal of Kudur-Laḫgumal!

THE STORY OF CHEDORLAOMER

Having identified the timeframe and most of our key players, it’s finally time to read the only story that tells the history of Kudur-Laḫgumal from the perspective of his Babylonian subjects, which is recorded in the Spartoli tablets.

Note that in the following quotes, his name is spelled Kudur-KUKUmal; the KU-KU represents the name of the sign used to spell the name, not how it was pronounced. No one is quite sure what these symbols sounded like (there are several possibilities, reading cuneiform is complicated). But La-Ga-Mal is definitely possible.

Also, like most ancient tablets from this part of the world, there are missing pieces and so it is sometimes necessary to add words in [brackets] with suggested words to fill gaps or unclear parts in the text. The following bracketed words are supplied by the translators, not me.

With their firm counsel, they [the gods] established, Kudur-KUKUmal; king of Elam. Now, one who is pleasing to them [-] will exercise kingship in Babylon, the city of Babylonia (…) What king of Elam is there who provided for Esagila and … ? The Babylonians… and their message: “(As for) [the wo]rds that you wrote: ‘I am a king, son of king, of [royal seed e]ternal, [indeed] the son of a king’s daughter who sat upon the royal throne.” (Wiki, Chedorlaomer)

The tablets are fragmented, and it’s not clear precisely what is happening. But it seems that the gods legitimately gave the kingdom to the Elamites, Kudur-Laḫgumal in particular, because he responded that he was “king, son of a king, of royal seed eternal.” And yet despite that, the Babylonians were unhappy with his rule. The tablet continues…

[As for] Dur-ṣil-ilani son of Eri-e[A]ku, who [carried off] plunder of [-], he sat on the royal throne… [-] [As for] us, let a king come whose [lineage is] firmly founded from ancient days, he should be called lord of Babylon … (Ibid)

This seems to be the people complaining to Kudur-Laḫgumal about Dur-sil-ilani, son of Eri-aku (Arioch) who sat on the throne of Babylon, and had plundered something – in context, perhaps a temple?

Clearly the people of Babylon did not consider Dur-sil-ilani as a legitimate king and wanted to replace him with someone “whose lineage is firmly founded from ancient days.” Since the scribe is telling this story after the fact, this means that after the dust settles, we will expect to find a king on the throne that can trace his dynasty back to a proper royal house – Kish, Ur, Uruk or some such.

So it’s interesting that in the SKL, the next king to rule over Ur and Uruk (and many other cities besides) after the Awan I dynasty dies with Kudur-Laḫgumal is Lugal-Kinishi-Dudu (also spelled Lugal-Kiginne-dudu), who was a king of Kish, Ur, and governor of Uruk; all of them the most royal of royal houses!

“For An, king of all the lands, and for Inanna, mistress of Eanna. Lugalkiginnedudu, the king of Kish. When Inana gave to Lugalkiginnedudu en-ship in addition to kingship, she allowed him to exercise en-ship in Uruk, and she allowed him to exercise kingship in Ur.” — Inscription of Lugal-kinishe-dudu. (Wiki, Lugal-kinishe-dudu)

Back to the Spartoli tablets; the sin of Dur-sil-ilani, and probably that of Kudur-Laḫgumal as well, was stealing from the temple, particularly the temple of Enlil, chief of the gods.

The Elamite hastened to evil deeds, for the Lord devised evil for Babylon. When the protective genius of justice stood aside, the protective spirit of Esharra, temple of all the gods, was frightened away. The Elamite enemy took away his possessions, Enlil, who dwelt therein, became furious. (Wiki, Chedorlaomer, quoting the spartoli tablets)

This seems like the Elamite dynasty was in trouble. At first, he was deemed “legitimate” and then he, or his governors, began to rob the temples; that’s typically only done when you are having a money crisis and need to bribe armies or kings (compare to 2 Kings 18:16).

This, in turn, typically happens because you need loyal manpower to crush local rebellions; no one liked having an Elamite king, obviously. And as a result of this sacrilege, Enlil – chief of the gods – called the Umman-manda and Enlil, not Kudur-Laḫgumal, laid waste to Sumer at their side.

[The god had] become furious: he commanded for Sumer the smashing of En[lil]’s land. Which one is Kudur – KUKU[mal], the evil doer? He called therefore the Umman-man (da he level) led the land of Enlil, he laid waste (?) [-] at their side. (Ibid)

Umman-manda seems to have been a generic term for “barbarian horde.” Most people believe it was the Gutians, a barbarian tribe from the north-east of Sumer, modern Iran, who may have been early Medes – possibly related to the Indus people, in my opinion.

These Gutians were about to be a major player in Sumer, inhabiting, and then dominating, Mesopotamia for over a century. And this is quite possible; Gutians and Elamites were neighbors, who had a shared hatred of Sumerians, and naturally would form alliances.

But Umman-manda applies to any barbaric race in Sumerian; which, in this context, makes it also quite likely that it meant Hittites. Who were also, by Sumerian standards, a savage race. And of course, it’s also quite possible that the word “barbarians” was used precisely because both Gutians and Hittites were invited into Sumer by the Elamite.

The Elamite [enemy] sent forth his chariotry, he headed downstream toward Borsippa. He came down the dark way, he entered Borsippa. The vile Elamite toppled its sanctuary, he slew the nobles of … with weapons, he plundered all the temples. He took their possessions and carried them off to Elam. He destroyed its wall, he filled the land [with weeping …] (…) an improvident sovereign [-] he felled with weapons Dur-ṣil-ilani son of Eri-[e]Aku, he plundered [-] water over Babylon and Esagila, he slaughtered its [-] with his own weapon like sheep, [-] he burned with fire, old and young, [-] with weapons, [-] he cut down young and old. (Ibid)

Most people read this unnamed “Elamite” as the same earlier king Kudur-Laḫgumal, but he is not mentioned by name. According to this story, Kudur-Laḫgumal was a good king at first. Furthermore, why would Kudur-Laḫgumal kill the son and heir of his ally Arioch?

Historians struggle to make sense of this narrative precisely because they’ve made the assumption that Kudur-Laḫgumal is “the vile Elamite.” But when you think about it, Kudur-Laḫgumal doesn’t appear in this narrative at all, except in the beginning as a background figure.

Nor do the Sumerians complain about Kudur-Laḫgumal. He was the legitimate king who was appointed which is why he appears on the SKL, a list of legitimate kings! The only negative is his temple robbing, making him “an evil doer.”

Still, the body of the complaint is about Dur-sil-ilani. Why? Because he is the only king actually present in Sumer. Where is his father Arioch in all of this? Clearly, it’s his lineage as a king of Ellasar (Larsa) that gives Dur-sil-ilani what legitimacy he does have; yet Arioch is not a part of the story.

Again, why? Because both Arioch and Chedorlaomer had gone to Canaan, and were already dead when these events happened! In fact, it was the power vacuum caused by the loss of four great kings of Sumer that so weakened the country that “the gods,” specifically Enlil, sent the barbarians to Sumer.

This was rationalized by the later Sumerians as due to Kudur-Laḫgumal’s sins against the gods (compare Jeremiah 44:18-19). As for the identity of the unnamed Elamite who sacked Sumer… we’ll come back to him a bit later.

THE BARBARIANS INVADE

Abraham killed Kudur-Laḫgumal and at least some of the “kings” who were with him; but there was one king who must have escaped; because the Spartoli tablets tell us that Tudhula – Tudḫaliya, Tidal king of nations – took the opportunity to invade Mesopotamia and sack the temples for plunder!

Tudḫula son of Gazza[-], plundered the [-] water over Babylon and Esagila, [-] his son smote his pate with his own weapon. [-] his lordship to the [rites] of Annunit[um] [king of] Elam [-] plundered the great …, [-] he sent like the deluge, all the cult centers of Akkad and their sanctuaries he burned [with fi]re Kudur-KU[KU]mal his son c[ut?] his middle and his heart with an iron dagger, [-] his enemy he took and sought out (?). The wicked kings, criminals, [-] captured. The king of the gods, Marduk, became angry at them (…) [The doer] of evil to him [-] his heart [-] the doer of sin must not [-] (Ibid)

It’s a bit hard to read this part, as you can see from all the missing words. But what is clear is that this Tudhula is the king who is doing the plundering – the leader of the Umman-manda, the barbarian horde whom Enlil had called to punish Sumer for Kudur-Laḫgumal’s sins.

But now we can fill in the real story, because it was Kudur-Laḫgumal who had robbed the temples already to bribe the Hittites to help him conquer Canaan. Thus Kudur-Laḫgumal rightly bears the blame for opening the door to the savages because he invited them, as mercenaries, into a confederacy with Sumer… but with Kudur-Laḫgumal dead, there was no one to control the Hittites.

And there’s a very odd phrase here at the end; “Kudur-KU[KU]mal his son c[ut?] his middle and his heart with an iron dagger.” Who is Kudur-Laḫgumal the son of here? Or is it speaking of Kudur-lagamar’s own son? Historians are divided, but we have a leg up because we know what happened in Canaan – Kudur-Laḫgumal is already dead.

Which means this passage must refer to the son of Kudur-Laḫgumal, the “vile Elamite” who stayed behind to mind the fort in Sumer, and mounted an insufficient defense against Tidal’s fury – who, after conquering him, made sure the dynasty ended with him.

Thus, the reading should be “Tudhula killed Kudur-lagamar’s son and cut out his genitals and his heart with an iron dagger.” This makes sense because it’s standard practice; when you invade a country, you castrate and/or kill the royal house to avoid any focal points for rebellion later (compare Jeremiah 52:10).

There is no logical reason to introduce the word “son” in this context, unless it is to show how the wicked dynasty of Elam, who did not properly worship the gods, saw their just and fitting end at the hand of barbarians they allied themselves with.

And so the Babylonians must have loved the poetic justice that these same barbarians whom Kudur-Laḫgumal hired to control them and expand his empire wound up murdering his son and extinguishing his dynasty.

Whereas from Tidal’s point of view, he was the sole surviving king from the battle of Siddim and was just collecting the payment he was promised for his services to the king of Elam. He didn’t stay to rule Sumer because he didn’t want to; he came for gold, and he got it, and went home to begin what would one day become the Hittite empire, for which he would later be deified by his descendants, many of whom would take his name.

Without knowing about Abraham’s involvement, none of this makes sense. With it, all the pieces fall into place without even trying.

This is part 12 of The History of the World Series

Previous: Abraham in Egypt