Talk:Chedorlaomer/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Some points need clarification: When the article says "at least three kings named that ... ruled Canaanite cities" - what is meant by "that"? Amraphel or Hammurabi? Also - which Canaanite cities? When? What are the sources? Erudil 18:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC) I think that by "that" is meant Amraphel. I shall edit accordingly. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Erudil 16:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If anyone has the technical ability to include a map showing the location of

All those maps exist. Above is a link to a map of the Genesis 14 area of the ANE you can edit with irfanview (size for most purposes should be less than 600px). Genesis 14 would put Elam and Larsa down where the Euphrates drains into the Persia Gulf, Hatti up at the Headwaters of the Euphrates, Mari at its big bend and the 5 kings on a line from the Dead Sea down to Elat at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba. The Amalek, Emim, Anakim, Zuzim, Nephelim and Rephidim were the seven foot tall "sons of god" and the original inhabitants of Canaan that were driven out by Josuah during the conquest. They all lived in the Seir along that line. The Hurrians would be north east of Hatti, the Mitanni southeast. Mesopotamia would generally not be the entire land of the two rivers but just the area from Babylon south depending on period. The rest of the two rivers area is better labeled Assyria or whatever according to the period.

In the Old Babylon period, in the time of

• Amraphel of Eshunnah on the Tigris was allied with Larsa and Hatti
• Ariock of El Larsa on the Euphrates was allied with Eshunna and Elam
• Chedorlaomer of Elam was allied with Larsa across the Dyala river
• Tidal of Hatti had an empire that included the Mitanni of Syria as vassals

Gen 14:1 And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations;

Their enemies were in the seir or transjordan along the border of Edom and Moab

Gen 14:2 [That these] made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.

Gen 14:5 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

Rephaims in Asteroth Karnaim (Canaan in the time of the im) Zuzims in Ham (the Egyptian Sinai and Negev) Emims in Shaveh Kiriathim (the Araba north of the Gulf of Aqaba and south of the Dead Sea)

Gen 14:6 And the Horites in their mount Seir, unto Elparan, which [is] by the wilderness.

Horites in Mount Seir unto el Paran (The Edomite border with the Sinai as far south as Paran or Feiran, a wadi which runs across the southern Sinai from Suez to the Gulf of Aqaba. All cult sites and habitation are along the west coast of the Gulf of Aqaba.

Gen 14:7 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.

Amorites in hazontamar (Hazor and Aram as far east as Bashan) Amalakites in Enmishpat (Kadesh Barnea mid way between Elat and Gaza)

Gen 14:8 And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same [is] Zoar;) and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim;

Gen 14:9 With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king of nations, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings with five.

Rktect (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rktect, you are insistant on including some information that is exceptionally dubious in its current form. I shall assume good faith and give you the chance to respond to the criticisms below before I go ahead and edit this section:

• The only known historical period in which a king of Elam 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.

You need to provide evidence that this is the 'only' time. Such an alliance could easily have been formed around the time of Sargon or his grandson Naram-Suen, to give two examples.

• In the context of Abraham traveling south from Haran making covenants with el Shaddai the lord of the land in Mari, Allepo, Hamath, Damascus, Hazor, Aram and Kadesh, Yahwah the lord of the Air in Canaan, El Roi the lord of the well in Edom and Ham

The implication of this line is that Abraham is travelling up and down the Levant making covenants with various gods along the way, when one of the virtues for which Abraham is noted was his monotheism.

• Yahwah the lord of the Air in Canaan

The view that Yahweh was a local god adopted by the Israelites is certainly not the most common one - and amongst those who do propose this there is considerable disagreement as to which local god was adopted.

• There is also a major subthread in the mention of the Amalek of the Sinai...

This whole section is littered with error. Firstly, it is not directly relevant to the article. Secondly, the height of the 'giants' is greatly in dispute. Third, these 'cultures' were not destroyed by Chedorlaomer's army, merely defeated and subdued (and they rose to self-determination almost immediately after Abraham's defeat of Chedorlaomer). Finally, the identifiaction of Adoni-Zedek with Melchizedek and Salem with Jerusalem remains very hotly disputed.

You have very specific dates in there - please specify by which chronology those dates are arrived at. Finally, you will need to provide some pretty unshakeable references to prevent a serious edit.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how you place an alliance with Hittites before c 1650 BC, maybe with Kanesh but not Hatti. Naram-Suen (also transcribed Narām-Sîn, Naram-Sin), ca. 2190 – 2154

The Penteteuch is essentially the book of the law. The development of common law precedent similar to the law codes of Hammurabi is not limited to the decalouge. In Genesis we have secular contracts with the lord of the land Shamsi Adad of Mari, and el Roi the power of the well who like the pharoah partake of the divine rule of Kings. as Kenneth Kitchen shows the form of contracts, the price of slaves and the geopolitical context are datable with the textual artifacts being compared to archaeological artifacts as for example in the sequence of blessings and curses, conditions, names of deites or lugals securring the agreement, consequences of breach; etc.

The Exodus of a people who had lived 430 years in Egypt and assimilated its attitudes values, culture and language was as is shown with Aaron and the golden calf and Solomons worship of Asherah, Yahway's consort, anything but monotheism. Monotheism with its Sons of God, angels, demons, Sa aten or son of Aten, Son of God, Mother of god, holy ghost, heavenly host, prophets, saints, heaven and hell etc; is anything but monotheistic.

El, Al, Baal, Al, iah are considered equivalent, but then all of them have consorts. In Judges we learn that the people of Israel lived among other people and worshipped their gods. So did their leaders. In Genesis we have a number of paired opposites presented in a creation myth that is essentially identical to all the pantheons and natural philosophies of Egypt and Mesopotamia.

For what its worth in the story of the ten commandments we have something carved in stone, housed in an ark and the ark housed in a sanctuary. Thats the way the Egyptians treated their gods. They carved their image in stone, housed the stone in an ark and placed the ark in a sanctuary. In this case whats being worshipped and made sacred is The Written Law. Its made sovreign over all the other gods meaning a contract in writing takes precedence over an oral agreement made with a pharoah who is the personification of a god and for whom up until then his word had been law. Moses whose name mes ses means protect the birth is the midwife of a new religion which holds the law sacred.

re the amelek, emim, zuzim, nephelim etc; The references to them in Genesis 14, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshuah, Judges, the story of Samson, David and Goliath, Og of Bashan etc; are consistent with the description in papyrus Anastasi I and the inscriptions of the battle of Kadesh porteaying the Shashu. They are four cubits of 21 inches or five cubits of 18 inches; seven feet tall. Tall as an Amelek, giants. Research this in strongs concordance, you may be suprised.

re the dates for Adoni-Zedek, Melchi-zedek and agreement between Salem and Jerusalem. the names are composed of two parts of which the second agrees by identity. Adonai is Phoenician and Melchi semitic for king. It works time wise and there really is only one sequence which agrees acroos the board with Abraham, Moses, the Exodus, Judges, Joshuah, the Egyptian campaigns against the king of Kadesh.

re Jerusalem its been pretty exhaustively excavated and dated. Its started out as a trading area first formalized by an Egyptian fortified well dating back to the 18th dynasty. Trudy Dothan wrote about a whole string of them running from Gaza up into Canaan some years back. The Akkadian name for Jerusalem was URU URU salaam KI. The triliteral semitic roots are identical.

There is a lot more that could be said, a lot more detail that we could go into but lets discuss your cites for your alternative hypothesis first. Rktect (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my online time is currently limited, so I cannot provide any citations until after the weekend. In the meantime, can I ask that you do the following:

• Please 'tidy up' what you have inserted so that it is actually clear what you trying to say. There are parts of what you last inserted that do not belong in the 'dating' section (having, I presume, been copied from the introduction). Please do not take offense, but what you have entered is very difficult to follow.
• If any of what you have inserted are quotations, please mark them as such - and provide the source.
• Please be aware of
  WP:NOR
  . If what you have pasted lacks citations, it will be classed as original research and deleted (not necassarily by me).
• Assuming your text is not original research, you should consider the fact that many alternative viewpoints exist and include this in your text. As it stands your text clearly violates
  WP:NPOV
  and, again, is liable to deletion.

If you can at least take this into consideration, I will be happy to discuss further the specific details.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to begin with CAM, Michael Roaf, see ref below. pp 108-123 covering the Amorites and Hurrians, the transcaucasian and the rise for power in Mesopotamia, the rise of Isin, trade in the Gulf, king lists for Isin, Larsa, Uruk, Babylon, Eshnunna, Elam, Ashur Mari, the rivalry between Isin and Larsa,Ashur, Assyrian trade with Anatoloia, The conqueror Shamsi Adad, Mari in the reign of Zimri Lin the Levant and Palestine, Hammurabi and sucessors; c 2017 -1595 BC.

Elams importance is related to Gulf trade "The ships of Meluhha, Dilmun and Makkan dock at the quays of Agade." is a quote attributed to Sargon of Agade c 2334-2279 BC. Mari is only a short distance up the Euphrates from Agade or Babylon so there is a connection there. Going north up the Habur river from Mari brings you to the Hurrians at Subartu, Tell Brak and the Tigris. Going west takes you to Allepo and Damascus close to the Orontes and the borders of Syria and Lebanon with Canaan and the Amorites.

Over the next half millenia the trade routes to Anatolia and canaan develop enhanced by the use of horses and sailing ships, sometimes boats with horses used to pull them upstream. After Sargon Akkadian gradually replaces Sumerian.

Naram Sin c 2254-2218 is an Akkadian ruler of a trading empire extending from Lothal in India to Mari in Syria. After the collapse of the Akkadian empire Gudea of Lagash presides over the neo Sumerian revival.

His Sucessor Ur Nammu establishes the third dynasty of Ur c 2112-2095 that controls territory from Anshan up to Ninevah and Ashur along with Sumer, Akkad and Eshunna almost as extensive as modern Iraq butt still some distance short of extending to Syria. Meanwhile in central Anatolia at Alaca Hyuck there are early Bronze II tombs that have been attributed to the Luwians and Hittites but little evidence of their influence.

In 2017 Isbi Erra fiunded a new dynasty of Isin which controlled most of what had been the core area of Ur. Records of merchants who traded with Assyria have been unerarthed at kanesh. The archives at Mari have 20,000 tablets.

Along with the Amorites (Amurru in Akkadian) who spoke a west semitic dialect they established a trading presence in Syria which engaged with the Hittites in Anatolia. A Hurrian state in Northern Mesopotamia engaged with both. Hepa was invoked by the king of Yamhad and and Teshup was adopted under the name Tishpak in Eshunna.

"The situation was summed up 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 Quatna and twenty kings follow Yarim-Lim the man of Yamhad. The last king of Isin Damiq-ilishu rules 1816-1794 BC. Rim Sin I of Larsa eules 1822-1763, The last king of Uruk Nabiilishu rules 1802, in Babylon Hamurrabi rules 1792-1750, in Eshnunna Ibal Pi-El ii rules c 1762, in Elam there is a king Kuduzulush, in Ashur Shamsi AdadI rules c 1813-1781 and in Mari Yasmah-Adad rules 1796-1780 followed by Zimri-Lin1779-1757. Trade with the Harrapan culture of India at its height in the jemdet nasr continues from c 2000-1700BC. As Isin declined the fortunes of Larsa located between Eshnunna and Elam rose until Larsa was defeated by Hamurrabi. 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 Shamsi Adad and Rim-Sin included most of northern Mesopotamia. Yamhad at Aleppo, Quatna, Ugarit and Hazor, Jerusalem, Ashkelon, Beth-Shean and Byblos along with Aram, Kadesh and Megiddo covered the routes south toward Canaan. This is the only period in which the narrative of Genesis IV, Shamsi Adad and Chedorlaomer makes sense.

Rktect (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Checking Strongs concordance for the Amalek, Emim, ZuZim, Rephadim, Nephalim, produced some interesting results re: the source of these original inhabitants. The range extends from the people of Timnah; their places of habitation in the Seir east of the Jordan in Moab and Ammon north to Hamath. There is some linguistic linkage to Chedorlaomer, in the Akkadian phrase "water lord of the ammonites"; essentially this has the same meaning as what we see in the Narmer stance from the Narmer palette and the images of Naram Sin.

The waters in question would be those flowing down from the highlands of Hammath, Kadesh, Ammon and Moab to the Dead Sea where reside Sodom and Gomorrah so there is some possibility that the fight is local rather than spread out across Syro-Anatolia from the Persian Gulf to Hatti.

From CAM and Michael Roaf we get the equivalence between Amurru, MARTU and Ammonite. Acknowledging the semitic definitive article "Ha" and abi= father we have the king of Old Babylon Hammurabi = Ha Amur abi (father of Ammur)just as Chephar-haammonai = "village of the Ammonites" (Amurru). Can we allow that Chephar and Chedor are phonetically equivalent and if so in what language, family and group; Phoenician ?, Akkadian ?, Assyrian?, Canaanite ?, Hittite or Luwian?, Aramaic?, Arabic?, Egyptian?, Persian?.

• Chedor laomer - Root: of the following Persian, Assyrian and Akkadian provide the simplest linguistic agreement. Sumerian provides some etymology and Egyptian provides some datable context while the other languages provide a baseline.

• Persian: Kĕdorla`omer Pronunciation ked·or·lä·o'·mer
• Sumerian: Kur = enemy from the mountians; Kurd
• Akkadian: Hydor = water; aomer = amorites; el = lord (water lord of the amorites) as in he who controls the water controls the land
• Egyptian: Gardiner L1 khprr - dung beetle (incorporated in 12th dynasty catouches of xeper-ka-ra son of the sun Usertsen I and II cartouche list p526 from "the Nile" Budge) (Kheperkare (Senwosret I 1971-1926 BC, and Kha'kheperre Senwosret II 1897-1878 BC, 13th Dynasty 1783-1640 minor Hyksos kings sexeper-en-ra dates from king list p 36 Baines and Ma'lek)
• Hittite: khatta, khatti, hatti "Children of Heth". (Heth is a son of Canaan.) hedor of the amurru of Kanna or Kanaan
• Assyrian: Kudurlagamar; Kudur-Mabuk was a ruler in the ancient Near East city-state of Larsa from 1770 BC to 1754 BC. His sons Warad-Sin and Rim-Sin I were kings of Larsa
• Hebrew: kippur = day of atonement
• Sodom: hedor from the arabic; an obnoxious odor as of the slime pits of bitumen; see legends of the jews
• Dor: hedor from the arabic; an obnoxious odor as of rotting fish
• Canaanite: Dor - generation; Dura - dwelling
• Semitic: Ha adad - the storm god - shamsi adad
• Hebrew: Adah - feminine - Hittite
• Phoenician: kaphaph masculine n. Pronunciation kä·faf' - village
• Crete: kaphtor - Crete

• Original country of the Philistines before their emigration into Palestine, whence their name, "Caphtorim" (Deut. ii. 23; Amos ix. 7; Jer. xlvii. 4, where they are called "the remnant of the country [Hebrew, "island"] of Caphtor"). The ancient versions render "Caphtor" by "Cappadocia" (Persian, "Katpadhuka"), changing the final consonant to k, which is evidently only a very bold conjecture. According to Gen. x. 14 and I Chron. i. 12 (where the gloss-like remark, "out of whom came the Philistines," has, as is now generally believed, been misplaced by copyists, being properly after "Caphtorim," not after "Casluhim"), Caphtor wassupposed to have been a region of Egypt. The city Koptos (Egyptian, "Kebtο[yu]") has, however, nothing to do with it, and the hypothesis of Ebers, "Keft-ur, Great(er) Phenicia," is entirely un-Egyptian. The country "Kft" of the hieroglyphics (earlier "Kftyw," to be vocalized probably as "Keftο"), which is not Phenicia but probably the southern coast of Asia Minor, may have had some indirect connection with Caphtor. An Egyptian inscription of the most recent period has been found, however, which, copying an earlier geographical list, enumerates "K(a)ptar" among Asiatic nations, insuring thus the correctness of the Hebrew tradition as against the versions. The popular identification with Crete (Dillmann, etc., following Calmet) rests on Jer. xlvii. 4 (see LXX.; the word "Caphtor" is a later addition, so that the passage is at least doubtful) and on the identification of the Cherethites with the Cretans (LXX., etc.), which would, if correct, probably determine the original home of only a part of the Philistines, without necessarily identifying Caphtor itself.

• Arabic: kaphaph masculine n. Pronunciation kä·faf' v. to cover over
• Aramaic: kopher masculine n. Pronunciation ko'·fer - village
• Kurdish: Kurd

The origin of the Amalek is in Timnah in the southern Seir down the Arabah near Elat near Midian. At Rephidim we have Hur the Midianite holding up the right hand of Moses as he fights the Amalakites at Horeb with Jethro priest of Midian. From Genesis 14 to Deteronomy 1:1 we have the relatives of Abraham living in Edom in more or less continuous struggle with the Amalek and thereafter the battles continue to the present day. Rktect (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Rktect, all of the above is fascinating in itself, but you have completely missed the point. You have gathered numerous sources together and presented them as a conclusion. This is original research - see

If what you have placed in the article is the opinion of a (or many) scholar(s), you must state whose opinion this is ("according to..." or some such) and give references in the article - it is no use placing references in the discussion page - and you must give inline citations linking to those references.

If you do not re-write what you have placed in the article, along with appropriate references, so that it no longer reads like original research and it presents a balanced view of academic opinion, then I will have no choice but to remove what you have written.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I placed references on the discussion page. I'm happy to key them into the article and refer to page numbers, I'm not sure what you think should be re-written. I have added references whereever there was a fact tag giving book and page. Rktect (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the work you have done. It is a vast improvement. However, there are some points that I feel still need to be worked on. There are a few places that could do with some 'tidying up' (grammatical errors and improved sentence flow) and I am happy to make the necessary changes. The main problem area remains the 'Dating' section. I will attempt to re-write parts of that to give it a better 'flow' (without changing the meaning of what you have written); once that is achieved we can discuss the specific points that I feel still need addressing.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.Rktect (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rktect, the most contentious passage that you have inserted reads:

In the context of Abraham traveling south from Haran making covenants[26] with El Shaddai [27]the lord of the land in Mari,[28] Alepo, Hamath, Damascus, Hazor, Aram and Kadesh, Yahwah the lord of the Air in Canaan[29], El Roi[30] the lord of the well in Edom and Ham and passing his first born through the ritual of Chemosh in Moab[31][32], the rebellion follows in his wake.

If the above is actually intended as a quote, you must mark it as such, cite the author and, above all, place it in context. As it stands at the moment I can guarantee that another editor would simply delete it, for the following reasons:

• This claims that Abraham made covenants with a series of gods as he travelled south. This is in direct contradiction to the biblical account, where he is called by god to leave Ur and at every point where a covenant is made it is the same god making the covenant. I would also refer you to Josephus, who makes a point of singling out Abraham's monotheism. See [1]

• The passage contends that Yahweh is nothing more than an adaptation of a Canaanite Air God. Not only is this offensive to Jews and Christians, it is also highly contended amongst scholars. Rather than dig out references, can I just direct you to the Wikipedia page
  Criticisms and theories on Yahweh.--FimusTauri (talk
  ) 16:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I should also add that I do not see this passage as being very relevent to the story of Chedorlaomer anyway - if anything it belongs in the article on Abraham.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Its relevence would be datable textual artifacts such as the geo-political context, the form of contracts and the price of slaves^[1] The covenants of Genesis have a sequence of blessings and curses, conditions, rewards for adherence to the terms, consequences for breach, that Kitchen compares to other contracts, treaties, deeds, rituals of worship, governed by common law, and written statute and finds datable. The Penteteuch is named the Book of the Law for a reason. I haven't been aware of any one complaining their beliefs are challenged by Kitchens book or position.

There is no contradiction between the powers involved being secular such as the lord of the land, natural powers of man and god such as the power of storms or armies storming ramparts being celebrated, worshipped, reverenced, considered awesome and terrible all at the same time. There is no difference between an authority coming from the common law or the written law or the divine right of kings until the written law comes along to be soverign over all the other gods; carved in stone, the stone housed in an ark and the ark placed ina sanctuary where it is considered to be a power that is unchanging and absolute forever. I would add to that that just as the form of languages, the shapes and decorations of pottery, the construction techniques used to build houses, boats, chariots, looms; contracts and standards of measure are datable.

Its not that "Yahwah is nothing more than", yahwah is what it is, the sense that there is something in the air, a sense of change, a storm brewing; its the same iah or awe that comes from worshipping or reverencing or celebrating the warmth of the sun and the light which illuminates the darkness as a crescent moon. el,al, allah, iah are all considered equivalent at that time in the middle east as the references I gave point out. The mean "The power of". The power of the lord. The power of the storm. The authority of the law. Abrahams monotheism is found in his reverence for the law.

This really isn't about Abraham, its about the concept of a covenant to be law abiding and the consequences of a failure to agree to that in the context of Sodom and Gomorrah who are destroyed by the power of the lord. Whether we think that power is a consequence of the actions of Chedorlaomar, el Shaddai, Yahwah, El Roi, or Moloch doesn't really matter. Rktect (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It occured to me that I should mention I have mixed feelings about citing Kenneth Kitchen. I think his concept and execution using textual artifacts as a tool is good solid science. I think his assumptian that Exodus is solidly dated to the time of Ramesses is such a horrible mistake that it almost ruins his whole premise. First off the capital of Egypt in the

Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt is at Thebes. Secondly it has been shown ^[2] that Ramesses and Pithom are not treasure cities or palaces, they are part of a Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt canal system. Thirdly the borders of Egypt extended up to Gaza in that period and were protected by a series of fortified wells ^[3]

Kitchen has begun by introducing an error of some 150 years. People looking for the wrong things in the wrong places have come up dry time and again. Kitchen has a great idea but it needs to be tweaked in the light of new evidence.

As they pastured their flocks up and down Canaan, the patriarchs needed to make agreements with their neighbors that can be characterized in Biblical terms as covenants or treaties. In Genesis 14:13, for example, we learn that Abraham enters into an alliance with three Amorite rulers, Mamre, Eshcol and Aner. Rktect (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you have much to say that is interesting, but bypasses the important points. What is important here is what the reader will take from the article. Many WP editors will go to enormous lengths to ensure that the way a passage reads is absolutely correct for the context of an encyclopedia (I have been involved with the Noah's Ark article and it has taken three years to achieve a compromise on the use of the word 'mythology' in the opening sentence - the debate still goes on and has now come down to the location of a full stop!!!)

There are very good reasons for this. It is vital that any article remains neutral. The passage in question reads as saying that Abraham made covenants with numerous gods and that Yahweh started out as a Canaanite air god. Both of those assertions are extremely contested and the first is frankly wrong.

Given this, and your own doubts about the sources, I would suggest simply deleting this passage. I still feel that it does not belong in this article. The argument that it provides dating evidence is rather slim, as any such evidence would apply over quite a range of dates anyway. Further, any such dating evidence is being used to back up the idea that the events occured during the reign of Rim Sin I. This is classed as

WP:NOR link because it is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that you have read that article because, at present, much of what you have placed in Chedorlaomer still looks like original research. While you have provided a host of references and citations, most of them are not actually linked to the text (where you have put inline citations, they mostly link to a short explanatory note, not to an actual reference.) Few editors, and almost no reader, will have the time to sift through all of the references provided to find the relevant passage to back up the claims you have made in the article. I am genuinely trying to help you here. Most other editors would be simply deleting whole chunks of what you have placed in the article. I can see that you are intelligent and well-read and am trying to co-operate to produce a quality article. --FimusTauri (talk

) 09:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns and your help. Your first concern, what the reader will take away from the article, depends on how well its written. In removing any hint of WP:OR and referencing virtually every word I can see that you expect Wikipedia should eventually arrive at something close to useful information. I feel that to be useful it should include names, dates, places, and events, but also some sense of the stories point.

Re the better linking of references; that I can do but what I need from you is a way to incorporate all of the above in a single really well written sentence so we can put it inthe story without overwhelming it or getting off track. Rktect (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Section break for easy editing

I am more than happy to work with you on this. I do feel that you have a tendency to write far too much (both in articles and in discussions) - please do not take offense by this, I understand that it is better to be complete in your explanations than to risk misunderstanding for the sake of brevity. However, this can lead to convoluted arguments that I find a little difficult to navigate. I will try and address the issues:

• It should be possible to simply state that Abraham made several covenants on his journeys without explicitly listing them. This would avoid any possibility of offense or (equally importantly) presenting a single POV. This equally would avoid the implication that Yahweh is an elaboration of a Canaanite air god.
• I wholly concur that there are extraneous elements that need to be drawn together to help the dating. However, at present these sections a far too long when compared to the rest of the article and therefore appear to have
  undue weight
  . I am willing to help you with this, but the process will not be fast.
• I also agree that the relationship between Abraham and Sarah provides useful dating evidence. However, the details of why this is the case do not belong in this story. This would be best summed up in a single sentence, with a reference to a footnote that expands the reasoning only slightly and also includes a reference to a verifiable author who states this. I am unfortunately very limited in my ability to research at the moment so cannot look for such a reference. Do you have one? It will need to match an entry something like:
  • (In the body of the article) "The relationship between Abraham and Sarah sheds some light on the timeframe for these events, because [brief explanation of why]. This would date the events to approximately [insert date range]"
  • (In the footnotes)Brief explanation (if necessary) and reference that explicitly states the same date range as in the article.
• I must take issue with the relationship of Mosaic law to the Code of Hamurrabi. The law codes revealed in the Ebla tablets pre-date Hamurrabi and are geographically closer. As I understand it the common consensus is that, assuming a precedent for Mosaic law, it would be Ebla as a common base for both it and Hamurrabi. You may need to check the dates for the Kenneth Kitchen source, as recent discoveries may have affected his views.
• On that point, I am assuming that your section on geo-politics and the related dating evidence are based on Kenneth Kitchen. That being the case, you must state that these are his views. It will also be important to provide some information as to alternate viewpoints. I must stress that I am not making a value judgement of Kenneth Kitchen - however, others likely will. If the alternate POVs are not presented, or presented so lightly as to allow Kitchen's to dominate, then future editors will, without doubt, making scything changes to the article.
• As regards summarising your words above in one sentence - that will require some thought, and may be affected by your response to the points I have made here.

A final (repeated) point. Brevity is desirable in WP articles, but not at the expense of important details. You may want to consider whether all of the points you raise are suffieciently important to include here - if they are dealt with in the references then it may not be necessary to include them in this article.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with you having a shot at summarizing my words in one sentence, I think we can definitely use a disciplined edit. We are in essential agreement, shoot for inclusive brevity and see what you come up with, I'll try and come up with a few clear references, probably CAM, BAR, Nayim; maybe Strong's.Rktect (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In order to simplify this process, I have created a copy of the article, but excluded the references and images. We can use this copy to edit the wording until we are both comfortable with the results. Then we can add the references and move the copy back to the original. Feel free to use this copy at any time if it will help you to organise your own ideas. You can find it at User:FimusTauri/Chedor. Please do not add any references yet to the copy (but please continue to 'tidy up' the references in the original article)--FimusTauri (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Take your time, maybe notify me on my talk when you are ready for me to have a look at it. I like your "cite needed" method of indicating where you want a reference; we may also want to work on the map; find or create a better one with a route marked on it that addresses the line of march. I'm inclined to think it should have standard military formation symbols and arrows along with regnal dates re: Chedorlaomar and labels as to where Abraham went and made his covenants. I'm visualizing something that shows how and where the armys gathered over the 12 years of the rebellion, where they staged and had their battles as per the text. I used a blank screen capture from a google satellite map and Irfanview to create the first one. We could crop a bit to get more detail. If you think its useful I might work on that while I wait to hear from you. Rktect (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave the images up to you - they're not my strong point, but I recognise their value in aiding the reader's understanding of the text. I'll let you know when I have made significant progress on the text - or if I need any clarification of any points.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just one point on the images:

The previous map was too large and intrusive. It is customary in Wikipedia to use smaller images ("thumbnails") that link to a sub-page with the full-sized image on - where you can make the image as big as you like.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Section break for clarity

I have now been through the article and made substantial changes. I hope that I have managed to convey what you have been trying to say in a clear, concise way. I have placed ^{[citation needed]} marks for every fact I believe needs to be properly referenced. Please read through this new draft (User:FimusTauri/Chedor) carefully and let me know what changes you feel need to be made.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who has been following this discussion will realise that Rktect and I have worked quite intensively on improving this article. You can find our work at User:FimusTauri/Chedor and the associated discussion page. Further edits are welcome, but we would ask that any major changes be discussed here.

Rktect - could you re-insert the relevant images please?--FimusTauri (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been asked to look at the article and if possible suggest how it might be improved. It is clear from this talkpage that there is considerable interest in the subject. My own specialist knowledge is relatively small, so I will mainly confine myself to matters concerning style and presentation.

Before I do that, though, you may be interested to know that my Bible Who's Who surmises that the name "Kedorlaomer" derives from "kedor", an Elamite word meaning "servant", and "Laomer", probably the name of an Elamite god. Thus, "servant of Laomer". If you want to use this information, the reference is: Philip Comfort and Walter Elwell (eds): The Complete Book of Who's Who in the Bible, Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, Ill., 2004,

• The direct links to external websites must be replaced with properly formatted citations. The "cite web" template is probably the best to use. See WP:citation templates on how to do this.
• Printed sources need author's name, book or magazine title, publisher, date and location of publication and, in the case of books, ISBN number. All references must be as specific as possible - page number, issue number of magazine, etc.
• The bullet-point information should be rendered into prose.
• The lead section needs expanding to become a general summary of the whole article.
• The article needs a map, and preferably other images. It seems that work is in hand to provide these.

I will be happy to give further help of a "how to do" nature, if required, and when some of the issues I have raised have been attended to, I am prepared to check over the prose. I am pleased to see articles like this in Wikipedia - it's hard to find them anywhere else. Brianboulton (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at the article. Some of us who have been working on it recently will attempt to address your concerns. Please do continue to be involved.

There is a lot of speculation as to who Chedorlaomer was in the reference literature. Where we get a source that

surmises that the name "Kedorlaomer" derives from "kedor", an Elamite word meaning "servant", and "Laomer", probably the name of an Elamite god. Thus, "servant of Laomer".

So far we have been considering that speculative. It may be that we should include such speculations on the talk page so people who want to make the references less speculative can do so.

We originally had a passage saying

Since the discovery of documents written in the Elamite language and Babylonian language, it has been generally acknowledged 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. No mention of an individual named Kudur Lagamar has however been found; inscriptions that were thought to contain this name are now known to have different names (the confusion arose due to similar lettering)[4]. As for Chedorlaomer's allies; Amraphel was once thought by most scholars to be a corruption of the name of the famed Hammurabi, but this is now considered implausible since at least three kings named Amraphel are now known to have ruled Canaanite city states[citation needed]; Arioch was once thought to have been a king of Larsa (Ellasar being a corruption of this), but is now thought to be more likely to have been Ariukki, a Hurrian king[citation needed]; and Tidal is now considered to be a corruption or transliteration of Tudhaliya - either referring to the first king of the Hittite New Kingdom (Tudhaliya I) or the proto-Hittite king named Tudhaliya[5]. With the former, the title king of Nations would possibly thus refer to the historic conquest of much of Asia Minor by Tudhaliya, with the latter it is unclear to what this title refers.

Maybe we are in a situation where we have to use sources we know are wrong because they are "Reliable Sources". Certainly most people reading the article would accept them without question. On the other hand most sciences would not lead off a journal article with a failed hypothesis stated as as a fact; at least not without some language pointing out that questions have been raised about it. I would consider us up in the air about it and not wanting to weasel too much.

In composing this we never liked the fact that neither Tidal or Chedorlaomer worked. There were no such kings in the same time and place, and even allowing there were, the distance between Elam and Anatolia wouldn't suggest it would be the role of the Elamite king to prosecute the campaign. The logistics of a supply line stretching the length of the Euphrates would require some infrastructure of which there is no evidence that has been found. References in the source literature to all the kings had to be tricked out with speculations to say anything sensible about them.

The text itself, even in translation to English, strings together fragments of mostly Akkadian rather than Elamite roots. "Ched" however is an IE suffix used to indicate a state of being; mar/ched, tou/ched, deta/ched etc; An omer is a common ANE measure of about a half gallon. The Akkadian root "rl" means uncircumcised and in context here means illigitimate.

In Akkadian it makes perfect sense to have one king Amraphel in power "URU Ki" or at "this place here", rather than a second king Arioch or Aruki. Rather than "Arioch king of Ellasar" we would now have (URU Ki el asar ched o rl a omer tD Elam) all perfectly good Akkadian, most of it grammatical and an interesting comment. Putting all the sources listed below together for that against the weight of reputable sources even when they have been shown to be wrong would be WP:SYN

Genesis 14:1 gives a list of four names: "It was in the time of Amraphel king of Shinar, Aricoch king of Ellasar, Chedor-laomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of the Goiim..." Traditionally these have been taken as four separate kings

As a single title for one king who has unified several states it comes out Amraphel king of Shinar (ruler of Eshnunna),(URU KI el in charge of this place here) asar ched o rl a omer Elam (illigitimately ruling by the standards of Elam) Tidal goiim (those people) have created a state and stretched the extent of their power).

Amraphel ruler of Eshnunna; in charge of this place here illigitimately ruling by the standards of Elam, those people have created a state and stretched the extent of their power.

While that is OR, I expect it can be used here on the talk page as an example of some of the reasons for dissatisfaction with the assumptions of the source material. It makes citing the names of the kings and speculating where they come from almost an embarasement.

Its also a bit frustrating that we are linking together kings in an empire before there were really kingdoms let alone empires, or at best right at the window where technological advances like the use of horses and sailing ships begin to make that possible. In a time when most social organization is by gene, oinchos and phratre, City states and their vassals remain the height of political organization up until Hammurabi and Rim Sin I so we have a passage suggesting either we are making the jump from city state to empire virtually overnight or the dating is way off.

Ethnolinguistically a Syro-Anatolian empire of that size running the whole length of the Euphrates from the upper to the lower sea is mind boggeling even in the time of the Mari letters. It would indicate our ideas about the development of proto Indo European language need to be reconsidered as transmitted by the ickthiophagi or sea people rather than the land folk. That idea has been put forward as a series of essays by different people in the discussion of a Syro-Anatolian empire in "Bahrain through the Ages" but its a long way from being universally accepted so far.

Notes

Amraphel has been thought by some scholars such as the writers of the

catholic Encyclopedia and the

Jewish Encyclopedia

to be a corruption of the name of the famed Hammurabi.

The name is also associated with Ibal Pi-El II of Esnunna.

Amraphael

Micael Roaf "Cambridge Atlas of Archaeology - king lists p 111

Arioch has been thought to have been a king of Larsa

(Ellasar being a corruption of this.)

It has also been suggested that it is URU KIel, meaning "in charge of this place here".

Following the discovery of documents written in the

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).

Kudur-Lagamar

Tidal

Akkadian tD ("have stretched themselves")

(Akkadian verbal stem intensive, reflexive expressing the bringing about of a state)

tD

Tidal has been considered to be a corruption or transliteration of Tudhaliya - either referring to the first king of the

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")

Maybe for the king lists a table format as is used elsewhere is appropriate. What we want to do as a first step is to get a proper outline with minimal speculation and then as you suggest improve the format. Rktect (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked in here because I was curious about this experiment. Might I just say, without wishing to be offensive, that most if not all of the references are not quite suitable for an encyclopedia article. They'd be fine for a learned paper in a journal, but they're all either obscure or of marginal relevance. And major works which really do need to be mentioned just don't appear at all - I'm thinking, notably, of Van Seters. You don't have to agree with him, but you can't simply ignore him. PiCo (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd better come back and explain a little more fully what I'm talking about. Genesis 14 became the centre of a considerable controversy in the 1970s when John Van Seters published Abraham in History and Tradition, one of the seminal books of biblical scholarship in the 20th century. (Which is why you can't have an article on this subject that doesn't mention it - like an article on safety at sea that fails to mention the Titanic). Before Van Seters the academic stage was held by the Albrightians and "Biblical archaeology" - far more than just the use of the bible to explain archaeological findings, this held that, while the details of the Bible narrative might be wrong, the broad outlines were trustworthy, and that this had been proven by archaeology. That was one leg of the two-legged stool that constituted academic orthodoxy up to the 70s. The other was the "history-tradition" school of German scholarship, which held that the broad outlines of the biblical narrative were probably not quite so trustworthy, but that the bible did preserve ancient traditions, and that these traditions could be teased out of the text through the tools of textual criticism which clever German scholars had devised. Van Seters set a bombshell under both of them. He showed that both were wrong. And one of the centrepieces of his book was a whole chapter on Genesis 14. He demonstrated (insofar as anything in literary scholarship is demonstrated) that this chapter was late, possibly as late as the 5th century BC, and that it had been written to serve certain purposes of that late period. Well, as I said above, you don't have to agree with Van Seters, but this is one of the major books of the last fifty years, and it can't just be omitted. PiCo (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I find your comment interesting, other than mentioning Van Seters, to whom you can see we are sympathetic, what other questions would you like to see addressed by cites?

Would you include Kenneth Kitchens rebuttal in "The Patriarchal Age" That there are "textual artifacts" such as the geo-political context, the order of the blessings, curses, witnesses, conditions of contracts or covenants, and the price of slaves that a later author simply wouldn't have known about? We already have a couple of articles on John Van Seters, and Abraham in History and Tradition maybe all we really need to do is just mention and wikify.Rktect (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to see it turned into a tennis match, A rebuts B rebuts C rebuts D - that would be exactly what an encyclopedia should not do (i.e., make an argument). What the article should do is set out the history of scholarly discussion of Gen.14. It should set out the outline of that history (I personally see Van Seters as the fulcrum to understandings of the chapter among the scholarly community - if Kitchen thinks it necessary to rebut Van Seters, that demonstrates the importance of Seter's book, which is something quite separate from the force of his arguments). The article at present gives no hint that the study of Genesis 14 has a history, nor does does it dispassionately sum up where the weight of scholarly views lies today. PiCo (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Kitchen doesn't actually mention Seters he just pokes his argument full of holes. Our basic rule on this is that if you can say it in a sentence and cite it you can put it in. Feel freeRktect (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia, nobody pokes anybody's argument full of holes. Encyclopedias aren't for making arguments. They're for presenting the main ideas relating to a subject. Van Seter's book was a major landmark. Any other major landmarks? Please note them here and we can start. PiCo (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The way I see Van Seters coming into this article is to point out that his influence came from an examination of Genesis 14 that was taken to demonstrate its writing was late, possibly as late as the 5th century BC, with the conjecture that it had been written to serve certain purposes of that late period compared to Kitchens counterpoint in "The Patriarchal Age" that the textual artifacts of the story such as the geopolitical context, the form of contracts and the price of slaves argued differently. The only thing I like about Ken Kitchen is that phrase, "textual artifacts". Van Seter seems to have missed them, or at least I'm not aware that he commented on where he observed them.

Incorporating that wouldn't be hard. The tricky part would be to condense the ideas mentioned on the talk page into a single sentence awash with brevity. The story is rife with implications and it might be good to give them some voice as to what they tell us about when the story was written.

It might even be fair to allow another sentence or two to give some context.

You describe Albright and those who follow him as Biblical archaeologists and express the opinion that they were persuaded "while the details of the Bible narrative might be wrong, the broad outlines were trustworthy". Some Biblical Archaeologists excavate the Penteteuch looking for textual artifacts and cracked pottery. Their work takes the details as essentially correct but covered up with a gloss or patina of belief, and they challenge the outline as the contrivance of editors. Thats where your Documentary hypothesis comes in.

There are archaeologists who like to poke around a bit in the dirt and take away what they find for others to study. They point out that if Moses wrote the bible there wouldn't be so many places where he is referred to in the past tense. That sets up Kitchen and his textual artifacts.

You have frequently mentioned the documentary hypothesis and its editorial functions c 900 BC. Even before that you have the input of the Old Babylonian scribes who put together the Sumerian and Akkadian versions of Genesis in the time of Genesis 14 when it was current events. Kitchen is arguing that the authors of Genesis 14 have current knowldge later authors wouldn't have. It has the flavor of having been written in the time of Hammurabi.

Once that patina of belief is brushed off, and the editorial functions have been examined you have a good story which as bit by bit it is revealed continues to get shouted down by the crackpottery. As to the textual artifacts, I don't want to come across as a believer. The only thing I like about Ken Kitchen is his invention of that phrase, its a useful thing to keep in mind.

After the dust from all the brushing off is settled, the idea that the Kings of Genesis 14 were real kings was rather thoroughly examined, and left in situ as a riddle for future BAR articles to speculate on, but Kitchens work on covenants touches on something else, there are an awful lot of them in the Penteteuch, its not called the Book of the Law for nothing.

You mention the ""history-tradition" school of German scholarship, which held that the broad outlines of the biblical narrative were probably not quite so trustworthy, but that the bible did preserve ancient traditions"

We could look at Genesis 14 (briefly) from the perspective that the Penteteuch is a lawbook examining the common law and trying to get it carved in stone. Essentially its a title search.

To start with Canaan is cursed. Its a loosly organized outlaw territory full of renegades, nomadic raiders, warlords, mercenaries, pirates, prostitutes, and thieving merchants situated in between two hungry powers that both want to devour its milk and honey. The authors having knowledge of that refers to the geo-political context Kitchen goes on about. Nobody knew much about the Hittites in the 5th century. There is mention in the bible of the Assyrians, Phoenicians, Phillistines and other 5th century geo-political contexts elsewhere in the Penteteuch but not so much of that here.

It could be observed that from the perspective of the kings of Canaan, and the biblical patriarchs Chedarlaomer has no legal authority over them. They are in rebellion and have formed an alliance to struggle against the oppression of the foreigners from Elam that are imposing Chedarlaomer on them. The analogy of the sister of another mother is examined in terms of what is a legitimate relationship. Egypt has abandoned its claim, put aside its covenants of protection, looked elsewhere for its heirs, is not married to the idea of Canaan being its territory at this point. Canaan is left as some bastard about to be consumed on the altar and needs an angel of deliverance.

The protagonist of the story is not on Chedarlomers side nor does he favor Egypt or any of the other neighbors who might be perceived to have a claim on the land. Neither the northern alliance nor the Egyptians have a legal claim on Canaan regardless of how wicked the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are perceived to be, they have been destroyed, what of the rights of inheritence of those who remain?

Genesis examines the precedents both secular and religious and plays them off one another. That flow clearly combines Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian and other wisdom literature from the creation myths through the law codes of Hammurabi. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy keep moving the ball down the field. It poses the question what is right and proper in as many different ways as it can imagine. What are the rights of a landlord whose tenants fail to heed the terms of their covenant that says they can live in the garden but not eat the fruit?

Bottom line the bombshell Van Seter dropped in the seventies has turned out to be a bit of a dud forty years later... Rktect (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Rktect, and I just don't know how to say this without sounding dismissive, but you seem to be an autodidact - is that so? There's nothing wrong with wide reading of course, quite the reverse, but it does lead a situation akin to a bag of fruit without the bag - everything jumbled and no real organising principle. In your case, there's a clear commitment to the concept that the bible is reliable history. What's lacking is an idea of what the mainstream world of biblical scholarship is thinking and saying. As I said, I'm deliberately trying to be dismissive, but it's the unvarnished impression I get reading what you put here - a man, no doubt a good man, and not unintelligent, who has read widely, but not deeply, and without guidance, and consequently lacks to means to bring proportion and order to what he has read. Sorry if that's not put tactufully, but it's put honestly, and without any real intention to hurt. PiCo (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be dismissive of you either. My young college students used to be a little more polite, but there were always some who had read a book and wanted to tell me all about it...

I have re-written the 'dating' section to try to accomodate you, PiCo. Please feel free to comment/expand on what is there.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks FT, but it's not really a matter of putting a little more Van Seters in. The article needs to be much shorter (we're aiming at a general readership, not specialists), and it needs to reflect mainstream scholarly opinion (being an article about a scholarly subject). A single section would be ample. There should be a paragraph briefly summarising the narrative (no need for a whole section), and then two or three paragraphs summarising the main things the leading scholars have said on the subject. The place to go looking for this would be the tertiary sources - e.g. the Anchor Bible Dictionary entry on this, assuming there is one. Could you look it up for us and tell us what it says? And any other major tertiary source - those are better than secondary sources because they already summarise the subject, and what we're after is simply a distillation of those summaries. PiCo (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest we include sources more or less evenly from Biblical commentary, archaeology, history, and linguistics. The most readable and detailed source I have come across on most of that is the "Cambridge Atlas of Mesopotamia" edited by Michael Roaf. It is reasonably current, is a standard reference work and it very readably goes into a lot of detail about everything to do with Genesis 14, providing king lists maps and discussions of the peoples mentioned. I'd suggest either Pritchard for the basic discussion of the ANE and go through the BAR for relevant articles and add them to a further reading list. In particlular if you want to mention Van Seter, the Documentary hypothesis and Kitchen on textual artifacts I'd like to bring in some discussion of the Old Babylonian scribes writing the Atra-hasis for whom all this would have been relatively current events and the Phoenicians whose edits come in c 600 BC.Rktect (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)