An Archaeology for Abraham and its Effect on Conventional Chronology

by

Damien F. Mackey

I have often referred to, or quoted from, Dr. John Osgood’s important article, “Times of Abraham” (Ex Nihilo T.J., Vol. 2, 1986, pp. 77-87), in which he archaeologically nails Abram’s four Mesopotamian contemporaries (as named in Genesis 14:1) - in relation to En-geddi - to the Late Chalcolithic/Ghassul IV phase of Palestine. Osgood had concluded that one of the caves in the region, called the “Cave of the Treasure”, was where the local Amorites had stashed their possessions, as itemised by Pessah Bar-Adon who published details of this cave: “… axes and chisels; hammers; ‘mace heads’; hollow stands decorated with knobs, branches, birds, and animals such as deer, ibex, buffalo, wild goats, and eagle; ‘horns’ … smooth and elaborately ornamented 'crowns'; small baskets; a pot; a statuette with a human face; sceptres; flag poles; an ivory box; perforated utensils made … from hippopotamus tusks; and more”. (Bar-Adon, P., 1980. The Cave of the Treasure, Exploration Society, Jerusalem. As cited by Osgood, p. 82.)
Bar-Adon, Osgood said, queried the reasons for the articles in this context as if somebody had left them there and had intended to return, but was not able to:

"What induced the owners of this treasure to hide it hurriedly away in the cave? And what was the event that prevented them from taking the treasure out of its concealment and restoring it to its proper place? And what caused the sudden destruction of the Chalcolithic settlements in the Judean Desert and in other regions of Palestine" ….

(Bar-Adon, P., 1962. Israel Exploration Journal, 12: 218-9).

Osgood firstly after that showed how this En-geddi culture linked with Ghassul IV, sill in Palestine (op. cit., ibid.):

The remarkable thing about this culture also was that it was very similar, if not the same culture, to that found at a place in the southern Jordan Valley called Taleilat Ghassul (which is the type site of this culture), and also resembles the culture of Beersheba. The culture can in fact be called 'Ghassul culture' and specifically Ghassul IV.
The Ghassul IV culture disappeared from Trans Jordan, Taleilat Ghassul and Beersheba and the rest of the Negev as well as from Hazezon-tamar or En-gedi apparently at the same time. It is remarkable when looked at on the map that this disappearance of the Ghassul IV culture corresponds exactly to the areas which were attacked by the Mesopotamian confederate of kings. The fact that En-gedi specifically terminates its culture at this point allows a very positive identification of this civilization, Ghassul IV, with the Amorites of Hazezon-tamar.
If that be the case, then we can answer Bar-Adon's question very positively. The reason the people did not return to get their goods was that they had been destroyed by the confederate kings of Mesopotamia, in approximately 1,870 B.C. [Osgood’s date, not mine] in the days of Abraham.
Now as far as Palestine is concerned, in an isolated context, this may be possible to accept, but many might ask: What about the Mesopotamian kings themselves? Others may ask: What does this do to Egyptian chronology? And still further questions need to be asked concerning the origin of the Philistines in the days of Abraham, for the Philistines were closely in touch with Abraham during this same period (Genesis 20). So we must search for evidence of Philistine origins or habitation at approximately the end of the Chalcolithic (Ghassul IV) in Palestine. All these questions will be faced.

Then, next, Osgood showed how Ghassul IV in turn connected up archaeologically with Mesopotamia (ibid., pp. 82-84):

THE MESOPOTAMIAN COMPLEX OF
CHEDORLAOMER
Ghassul IV corresponds in Mesopotamia to the period known as the Jemdat-Nasr/Uruk period, otherwise called Protoliterate (because it was during this period that the archaeologists found the first evidence of early writing). Ghassul IV also corresponds to the last Chalcolithic period of Egypt, the Gerzean or pre-Dynastic period …. Let us look, therefore, at both of these geographically and archaeologically, and see what we find.
Uruk is so called because it refers to a culture associated with the archaeological site called Warka (Uruk of Mesopotamian history or biblical Erech - Genesis 10:10) in the land of Sumer or biblical Shinar … and we note that one of the kings of the Mesopotamian confederacy came from Shinar, namely Amraphel,
Jemdat Nasr is a site in northern Sumer, northeast of Babylon …. It is a site that was found to have a pottery with similarities to the culture of Elam and corresponding in time to the later phases of the Uruk culture.
We have in Mesopotamia, therefore, archaeological evidence that there was a period in which the Uruk culture, and an Elamite culture typified by Jemdat Nasr, were in some sort of combination, and this corresponds to the period in Palestine when the Ghassul culture disappeared. The writing of this period does not allow us to recognise at this point any particular kings from contemporary records for it is undeciphered, but all that is known archaeologically is in agreement with the possibility of a combine of nations of the description of Genesis 14 existing. Considering the war-like attitudes of Sumer and Elam in later years this is all the more remarkable, for no other period of Sumer/Elamite relationship accepts the possibility of such a semi-benevolent relationship.
Archaeology in Iran, in the plain of Susiana, has demonstrated a resurgent Elamite culture contemporary with Jemdat Nasr in Mesopotamia and this fits the biblical suggestion of a dominant Chedorlaomer (Genesis 14). ….

[End of quote]

Having determined all of this, Osgood now turns his attention towards Egypt: (ibid., pp. 84-85):

BUT EGYPT!

At this stage there will be many objections to the hypothesis here presented, for it is totally contradictory to the presently held Egyptian chronology of the ancient world. However, I would remind my reader that the Egyptian chronology is not established, despite claims to the contrary. It has many speculative points within it. Let us continue to see if there is any correspondence, for if Abraham was alive in the days of the Ghassul IV culture, then he was alive in the days of the Gerzean culture of pre-Dynastic Egypt, possibly living into the days of the first Dynasty of Egypt.
The correspondence between this period in Palestine and in Egypt is very clear, and has been solidly established, particularly by the excavations at Arad by Ruth Amiram … and at Tel Areini by S. Yeivin. ….
Such a revised chronology as here presented would allow Abraham to be in contact with the earliest kings of Dynasty I and the late pre-Dynastic kings, and this would slice a thousand years off the presently held chronology of Egypt. To many the thought would be too radical to contemplate. The author here insists that it must be contemplated. Only so will the chronology of the ancient world be put into proper perspective. Long as the task may take, and however difficult the road may be, it must be undertaken.
In order to support the present revised chronology here held, the author sites another correspondence archaeologically, and this concerns the Philistines and Egypt.

[This section by Osgood, some of whose argument I shall be modifying and also developing further on, comes from ibid., pp. 85-86]:

THE PHILISTINE QUESTION

Genesis 20 makes it clear that Abraham was in contact with the Philistines, yet the accepted chronological record presently held does not recognise Philistines being in the land of Philistia at any time corresponding with the days of Abraham. Yet the Bible is adamant.
The Scripture is clear that the Philistines were in Canaan by the time of Abraham … or at least around the area of Gerar between Kadesh and Shur (Genesis 20:1), and Beersheba (Genesis 21:32) …. A king called Abimelech was present, and his military chief was Phicol (Genesis 21:22).
The land was called the Land of the Philistines (Genesis 21:32). According to Genesis 10:14, the Philistines were descendants of one Egyptian ancestor, Casluhim, but apparently they dwelt in the region occupied by Caphtor which was apparently the coastlands around the delta region. Now many attempts have been made to associate Caphtor with Crete, but the attempt is strained and unsubstantiated.

[Bill Cooper, in After the Flood (pp. 191 & 193), has suggested instead that Capthor’s descendants pertain to the Kaptara of the Assyrian inscriptions, whilst Anamim, another son of Mizraïm, are the adjacent A-na-mi; both in Phoenicia, not Crete].

Here, now, I shall temporarily interrupt Osgood’s very interesting discussion, to give my own views on Abimelech, on the Philistines, and on some of the sons of Mizraïm.
In a recent article of mine:

Does the Bible Name Abram’s “Pharaoh”?
Yes it does.

I concluded that the toledôt (Toledoth) theory of Genesis enables for us actually to identify the “Pharaoh” encountered by Abram (later Abraham) and Sarai (later Sarah) upon their entry into the Promised Land. For Abraham’s history was written by two of his sons, Ishmael and Isaac, who give their different accounts of the famous encounter between Abram and Sarai, on the one hand, and Pharaoh, on the other. Whilst Ishmael, whose mother was the Egyptian woman, Hagar, tells the story from an Egyptian perspective, hence he calls the king, “Pharaoh”, Isaac, a Hebrew, calls him by the Hebraïsed personal name, “Abimelech”.
I then took this identification a step further, and identified Abimelech with one of Mizraïm’s (or Egypt’s) sons, Lehabim (thought to have been the founder of the Libyans). From Osgood’s argument we would know that it would be most likely for Abram to have been a contemporary of the next generation after Mizraïm. Now, though Lehabim and Abimelech would normally be considered as being two entirely different names, I think that one can see how a Hebrew (such as Isaac) might Hebraïse the (probably originally) Mesopotamian name, Lehabim, to Abim-[e]lech, or Abimelek.
Interestingly, a reader of the above-mentioned article, Ken Griffith, whilst initially rejecting my identification of Abimelech with Lehabim on the grounds of these two Genesis names having different meanings, later concluded that it might be correct after all, because, as he found, a chiastic structure of this part of the Book of Genesis amazingly brings “Pharaoh” and “Abimelech” into a parallel convergence. As if the Holy Spirit had locked in the answer to the query: What was the name of Abram’s “Pharaoh”?
That makes me very confident that my conclusion on this has been a sound one.

It is most unlikely then, if Abimelech were Lehabim, that Abimelech were an actual Philistine. For it was not from Lehabim (my Abimelech), the presumed third son of Mizraïm, that the Philistines arose, but from Casluhim, Mizraïm’s sixth son (Genesis 10:13-14). They were brother peoples of course. And, for the most part, Abimelech is not called a Philistine. We first encounter him as “Pharaoh” of Egypt (12:15), I believe; then, under the name of Abimelech, as “King Abimelech of Gerar” (20:2); then simply as “Abimelech” (21:22), though now residing in “the land of the Philistines” (v. 32). Finally, we meet him as “King Abimelech of the Philistines” (26:1, 8). Not an actual Philistine, I suggest, but a king ruling over “the land of the Philistines”.
When, why, and how did “Pharaoh” Abimelech make the move from Egypt to southern Palestine? That, I believe, is tied up with Abram’s defeat of the Mesopotamian coalition led by Chedorlaomer. And I am now going to attempt to identify similarly, from the Book of Genesis (as in the case of Abimelech/Lehabim), the two leading Mesopotamian kings of Genesis 14:1: namely, Amraphel and Chedorlaomer.
It needs to be noted here that three of the coalitional kings, Khedorla’omer, Ariokh, and Tidhal (i.e., Chedorlaomer; Arioch and Tidal), have in fact been historically identified in the Spartoli Collection; whilst king Hammurabi of Babylon (once thought to have been the other coalitional member, Amraphel himself - and some still do claim this) also refers to the main protagonist, Chedorlaomer. I quoted this in my above-mentioned article, in this section:

Biblical Amraphel Was Not Abraham But Lived Much Earlier

Taken from "The Wars of Gods and Men":
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/sitchinbooks03_05.htm

thus:

"....The second discovery was announced by Vincent Scheil, who reported that he had found among the tablets in the Imperial Ottoman Museum in Constantinople a letter from the well-known Babylonian King Hammurabi, which mentions the very same Kudur-laghamar!

When I wrote this I was thinking - in line with some ancient views - that the elusive Amraphel may have been Nimrod himself (some say his father, Cush), who, I had estimated, had grown old and had therefore allowed his subordinate, Chedorlaomer, to take the lead. I have accepted the identification of Nimrod with the historical Enmerkar of the Uruk I dynasty (and I was wondering if Chedorlaomer might perhaps have been e.g. Enmerkar’s presumed son, Lugalbanda – the two are actually coupled together in an epic). But now I am looking at an entirely different scenario: one that again involves Abimelech (Lehabim).
Here is what I think Genesis 14 may be about.

Genesis 14:1: In the days of King Amraphel of Shinar ….

Here the author, who may perhaps be drawing upon an historical record, prefaces, with a general date, the account of the invasion of Palestine by the Mesopotamian kings. It happened, we are told, at the time of King Amraphel. But Amraphel himself plays no apparent part in what follows. Instead it is “King Chedorlaomer of Elam” who emerges most prominently. “Twelve years [the kings of Pentapolis] had served Chedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled” (v. 4). So, it was Chedorlaomer, and not Amraphel, who was the current master of Palestine. This all leads me to suggest that Amraphel, a ‘brother’ to the coalition, was our friend “Pharaoh” Abimelech in Egypt, whose origin however was, as the text says, “of Shinar”, and that the coalitional leader, Chedorlaomer, was one of his brothers. When Mizraïm left the land of Shinar to settle in Egypt (as his other name “Egypt” would suggest - and indeed the name “Mizraïm” has become synonymous with Egypt), his son Lehabim and others must have accompanied him there. We are now in the next generation, and this Lehabim (Abimelech) has become the ruler of Egypt. But at least one of the Mizraïmites must have gone eastwards to Elam, rather than westwards. He, I believe, appears in this Genesis text by the name of “Chedorlaomer”; but I suspect that he must be the “Casluhim” from whom arose the Philistine nation. This may be a reason why Bill Cooper can find no positive trace of Casluhim (op. cit., p. 192). We have read that he, as Kudur-laghamar was a real historical personage. As we can see, this Elamite name has two elements. I suggest that the Genesis writer simply truncated both elements of this disagreeable name, Chedor-laomer/Kudur-laghamar, to yield the more manageable Kud-lagham, or Kuslaham, hence Kasluhim (or Casluim).
This would mean that the origins of the Philistines, through Casluhim, were in fact Elamite, eastern. Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky in his Peoples of the Sea, had discerned such a similarity in appearance between the Peleset (Philstines) of the time of Ramses III, and the Pereset, thought to be Persians, that he radically transferred Ramses III to the Persian period. In my university thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background (2007), I made the following comment on this (pp. 352-353 of Volume One):

Velikovsky had brought some surprising evidence in support of his sensational view that Ramses III had actually belonged as late as the Persian period, with his identification of the Peleset arm of the ‘Sea Peoples’ – generally considered to indicate Philistines – as Persians. This Velikovsky did through comparisons between the Peleset, as shown on Ramses III’s Medinet Habu reliefs, and depictions of Persians for instance at Persepolis, both revealing a distinctive crown-like headgear. And he also compared Ramses III’s references to the Peleset to the naming of Persians as P-r-s-tt (Pereset) in the C3rd BC Decree of Canopus.
My explanation though for this undeniable similarity would be, not that Ramses III had belonged to the classical Persian era, but that the ‘Indo-European’ Persians were related to the waves of immigrants, hence to the Mitannians (who may therefore connect with the Medes), but perhaps to the Philistines in particular. ….
[End of quote]

The name, “Amraphel”, might perhaps derive from Lehabim, Rehabim – Imrab[el]. If Amraphel can be equated with the name “Hammurabi”, as many claim, then I think that my suggestion may not be too far fetched. My only explanation for why either of Abraham’s sons might have used this new designation for the king, as “Amraphel”, would be that this section of Genesis may have been lifted from an historical document.
So, we have the incident of Genesis 14 taking place at the time of Pharaoh Abimelech/Amraphel, who, as Lehabim, was related to the leader of the invasion, Chedorlaomer, as Casluhim, but who himself (Amraphel) played no obvious part in it. He may have supplied some troops as Egypt was wont to do. Then, after his brother was defeated, and the Elamite rule over Palestine had ceased, Abimelech/Amraphel had moved in to fill the vacuum. He then perhaps re-located to Gerar, and came to rule over the Philistines, or Casluhim-ites, who had been stationed there.
He, Pharaoh Abimelech, a Sumerian who had conquered Egypt, would now be the ideal person for identification with the mysterious Pharaoh Narmer (of apparent Mesopotamian connection: The king's stance is similar to Mesopotamian pictures of royalty and points to the influence Mesopotamia seems to have had on Egypt even in these early times. http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/narmer/index.html) of this very same archaeological (Gerzean) period, as attested at Arad (see following quote) or perhaps Narmer was Chedorlaomer (same ‘mer’ element in name), if Chedorlaomer had also controlled Egypt.

I resume Osgood’s discussion (op. cit., pp. 85-86):

…. We have placed the end of the Chalcolithic of the Negev, En-gedi, Trans-Jordan and Taleilat Ghassul at approximately 1870 B.C., being approximately at Abraham's 80th year. Early Bronze I Palestine (EB I) would follow this, significantly for our discussions. Stratum V therefore at early Arad (Chalcolithic) ends at 1870 B.C., and the next stratum, Stratum IV (EB I), would begin after this.
Stratum IV begins therefore some time after 1870 B.C. This is a new culture significantly different from Stratum V.
Belonging to Stratum IV, Amiram found a sherd with the name of Narmer (First Dynasty of Egypt) … and she dates Stratum IV to the early part of the Egyptian Dynasty I and the later part of Canaan EB I. Amiram feels forced to conclude a chronological gap between Stratum V (Chalcolithic) at Arad and Stratum IV EB I at Arad. …. However, this is based on the assumption of time periods on the accepted scale of Canaan's history, long time periods which are here rejected.
The chronological conclusion is strong that Abraham's life-time corresponds to the Chalcolithic in Egypt, through at least a portion of Dynasty 1 in Egypt, which equals Ghassul IV through to EB I Palestine. The possibilities for the Egyptian king in the Abrahamic narrative are therefore:

1. A late northern Chalcolithic king of Egypt, or
2. Menes or Narmer, be they separate or the same king (Genesis 12:10-20).

Of these, the chronological scheme would favour a late Chalcolithic (Gerzean) king of northern Egypt, just before the unification under Menes.
Thus the Egyptian Dynastic period would start approximately 1860 B.C. Clearly, if this were the case, by this scheme the Philistines were in Canaan already, and must therefore have at least begun their migration in the late Chalcolithic of Egypt and Palestine.
Therefore, we need to look in southwest Canaan for evidence of Egyptian (cum Philistine) migration, beginning in the late Chalcolithic and possibly reaching into EB I (depending on the cause and rapidity of migration), in order to define the earliest Philistine settlement of Canaan from Egyptian stock. Is there such evidence? The answer is a clear and categorical YES.
Amiram, Beit-Ariah and Glass … discussed the same period in relationship between Canaan and Egypt. So did Oren. ….
Of the period Oren says:
"Canaanite Early Bronze I-II and Egyptian late pre-Dynastic and early Dynastic periods". …. He says of the findings in Canaan:
"The majority of Egyptian vessels belong to the First Dynasty repertoire while a few sherds can be assigned with certainty to the late pre-Dynastic period." (emphasis mine) …. He continues:
"The occurrence of Egyptian material which is not later than the First Dynasty alongside EB A I-II pottery types has been noted in surface collections and especially in controlled excavations in southern Canaan. This indicates that the appearance and distinction of the material of First Dynasty in northern Sinai and southern Canaan should be viewed as one related historical phenomenon." (emphasis mine) ….
The area surveyed was between Suez and Wadi El-Arish. EB I-II had intensive settlement in this area.
He continues further:
"Furthermore, the wide distribution of Egyptian material and the somewhat permanent nature of the sites in Sinai and southern Canaan can no longer be viewed as the results of trade relations only. In all likelihood Egypt used northern Sinai as a springboard for forcing her way into Canaan with the result that all of southern Canaan became an Egyptian domain and its resources were exploited on a large scale." (emphasis mine) ….
And again:
"The contacts which began in pre-Dynastic, times, were most intensive during the First Dynasty Period ….
Ram Gopha … is bolder about this event or phenomenon, insisting on it being a migration:
"Today we seem to be justified in assuming some kind of immigration of people from Egypt to southern Canaan. . ." ….
Further:
"...the Egyptian migration during the First Dynasty period may be seen as an intensification of previously existing relationships between the two countries. These relations had already begun in the Ghassulian Chalcolithic period but reached sizable proportions only in the Late Pre-Dynastic period" (first phases of Palestinian EB 1). (emphasis mine) ….

[My comment] What this could mean in my context is that, after the defeat of the Mesopotamian collation, which had controlled Palestine, the Casluhim-ites, th brother Lehabim-ites (Abimelech) moved into the vacuum. Or, as Oren says: “In all likelihood Egypt used northern Sinai as a springboard for forcing her way into Canaan with the result that all of southern Canaan became an Egyptian domain and its resources were exploited on a large scale."

Osgood continues:

The testimony is clear. Excavation at Tel Areini identifies such an Egyptian migration and settlement starting in the Chalcolithic period. …. There was definitely a migration of Egyptian people of some sort from northern Egypt into southern Palestine, and particularly the region that was later known as Philistia." ….
The testimony of Scripture is clear that there were Philistines who came from Egypt into Palestine in the days of Abraham. This revised chronology identifies such a migration in the days of the Ghassulians, who I insist, perished during the early days of Abraham's sojourn in Canaan. This period must then be grossly redated in accordance with biblical expectations, instead of evolutionary assumptions.

Osgood concludes this wonderful paper with the following (p. 87):

SUMMARY

In summary, Abraham entered the land of Canaan at approximately 1875 B.C.. In his days there was a settlement of Amorites in En-gedi, identified here with the Ghassul IV people. This civilization was ended by the attack of four Mesopotamian monarchs in a combined confederation of nations, here placed in the Uruk-Jemdat Nasr period in Mesopotamia. They were a significant force in ending the Chalcolithic of Palestine as we understand it archaeologically, and Abraham and his army were a significant force in ending the Jemdat Nasr domination of Mesopotamia, and thus the Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia, by their attack on these four Mesopotamian monarchs as they were returning home. Egypt was just about to enter its great dynastic period, and was beginning to consolidate into a united kingdom, when from northern Egypt a surge of Egyptian stock, including the Philistines, moved north into southern Palestine to settle, as well as to trade, identified in a number sites in that region (most notably in the strata of Tel Areini, Level VI then V) as the Philistines with who Abraham was able to talk face to face. The biblical narrative demands a redating of the whole of ancient history, as currently recognised, by something like a one thousand year shortening - a formidable claim and a formidable investigation, but one that must undertaken.

The Era of Abraham

Late Chalcolithic-Ghassul IV-Early Bronze I
Early Dynastic II
Uruk I Dynasty (Mesopotamia)
Pre-dynastic Egypt; and Hyksos (15th dynasty)
Conventional date: c. 3150 BC (& 1650 BC for Hyksos)
TCAO date: c. 1960 BC
(Toledôt: Genesis 11:10b-11:27a &11:27b-25:19a)

There is real historical evidence for Abraham and his clan.

The first important point is to recall, from the article at the beginning of this book about Archeological and historical evidence of Biblical accuracy, that real, ancient historical documents, the Ebla tablets, refer to Abram (Ab-ra-mu or Abarama), and also to other biblical people and places:

"The names of cities thought to have been founded much later, such as Beirut and Byblos, leap from the [Ebla] tablets. Damascus and Gaza are mentioned, as well as two of the Biblical cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah. ... Most intriguing of all are the personal names found on the Ebla tablets. They include Ab-ra-mu (Abraham), E-sa-um (Esau)...."[5]

And Herb Storck has shown, in an article "The Early Assyrian King List ... and the 'Greater Amorite' Tradition" (Proc. of the 3rd Seminar of Catastrophism & Ancient History, C&AH Press, Toronto, 1986, p. 43), that there is a genealogical link among (i) Abraham; (ii) the genealogy of king Hammurabi; and (iii) the Assyrian King List.
Storck commences his important article with the following explanation:

The Assyrian Kinglist (AKL) is one of the most important chronographic texts ever uncovered. Initially it was thought to represent a long unbroken tradition of rulership over Assyria. A closer look at the AKL by Benno Landsberger (1890-1968) ... however, dispelled this somewhat facile approach to AKL tradition. Subsequent studies by Kraus ... and Finkelstein ... have demonstrated a common underlying Amorite tradition between parts of the AKL and the Genealogy of Hammurapi (GHD). Portions of this section of the AKL containing 17 tent-dwelling kings have also been compared to biblical ... and Ugaritic ... Amorite traditions.
Storck's purpose will be "to take a closer look at the 17 Assyrian tent dwellers and the greater Amorite tradition, as evidenced primarily in the genealogy of the Hammurapi [Hammurabi] Dynasty and other minor traditions" [380]. The names of all 17 tent-dwelling kings are preserved in various lists. They are:

1. Tudija
3. Janqi
5. Harharu
7. Imsu
10. Hanu
12. Nuabu
14. Belu
16. Ushpia
8. Harsu 2. Adamu
4. Sahlamu
6. Mandaru
9. Didanu
11. Zuabu
13. Abazu
15. Azarah
17. Apiashal

What is striking is that many of these names can be linked with names in the GHD, which gives the names in couplet form. Thus, for example, names 3 & 4, Janqi(Janqu) & Sahlamu are given in GHD as Ya-am-qu-us-ha-lam-ma. Name 11, Zuabu, may be connected with Sumuabi, an ancestor of Hammurabi. Thus Herbert A. Storck [400]:

Poebel sought to connect the name with Su-mu-a-bi, the name of the first king of the first dynasty of Babylon, even though in our list it is written with the sign ZU. .... Kraus, however, expressed his personal doubts as to whether this would work .... But in a recently published fragment of this portion of the AKL (E) this name was indeed written with an initial SU for ZU, thus supporting Poebel's contention somewhat. "Nevertheless, the genealogy edited by J.J. Finkelstein has Zu-um-ma-bu in the apparently parallel line, hinting that the reverse may be the case. The presence of ma as restored eases the interpretation of the name Sumu-abu" ....
Storck concludes the first part of his study by claiming that: "Nine of the 17 tent-dwelling AKL kings can reasonably be identified with GHD ancestors of Hammurapi. This would appear to be sufficient to establish that these two genealogies drew upon a common `Amorite' tradition." [420]
He has also found various important connections with name 9, Didanu [430]:
This name is mentioned in the pre-Sargonic inscriptions of Lagash; it appears to be the oldest known West Semitic (WS) tribal name ... and is almost synonymous with Amurru .... Furthermore, mention of this term is made by Shu-Sin of Ur in his fourth year name and in the time of Gudea. "Tidanum a mountain district of Amurru" .... - Poebel also connects this form with the Biblical Dedan .... Finally and most interestingly, an "assembly of Didanu" .... is mentioned in a kinglist of Ugarit recently treated by K.A. Kitchen. He proposes that Didanu was a shared common ancestor with Assyria and Babylon's Amorite tradition.
Storck, "in the light of these interconnecting pieces of evidence", proceeds to consider the biblical genealogies [440]:
The first is Genesis 25:2-4 .... Here late in life Abraham takes a second wife by the name of Keturah. This name is definitely cognate with the Arabian tribal name Qetura .... But couched here in the language of physical relationships appears to be an ancestor line reminiscent of AKL and GHD. Keturah bore Abraham the following sons (partially excerpted):

Keturah > Jokshan - Medan - Midian - Ishbak - Shuah
Jokshan > Sheba and Dedan
Dedan > Asshurim - Letushim - Leummim
Midian > Ephah - Epher - Hanoch - Abdiah – Eldaah

Poebel pointed out that there exists "at least the possibility that these Assurim, a subdivision of the better known tribe of Dedan, are in some way connected with the Assyrian nomads" ....
Storck, who had previously argued that personal names can be used to denote tribal names and toponyms, shows how three of these names from the Genesis list may be treated in the same way, to forge a connection with AKL names [450]:



A. Dedan =
B. Hanoch =
C. Ishbak = Didanu
Hanu
Ushpia AKL 9
AKL 10
AKL 16
Other names in the AKL seem to occur in place names that we referred to above, at the time of Abraham, in regard to the Genesis 14 conflict between the coalitions of kings in the Valley of Siddim, and would as Storck says, "almost seem to force the concept of partial contemporaneity [of the tent-dwelling kings] upon our sometimes reluctant minds" [470]. These are Admah (Adamu) [Joshua 19:36], Zeboim (Zuabu) [Nehemiah 11:34] and Bela (Belu) [Genesis 14:2; Zoar?], names that, as we saw, also occur in the Ebla tablets as actual trading partners with that Syrian city.
[End of quotes]

Soon I shall make the suggestion that Abram himself may be referred to as No. 10 above, Hanu.

Abram (later Abraham) and his wife Sarai (later Sarah) were also to become an integral part of Hindu mythology, as, respectively, Brahman and Saraisdati.
(See e.g. http://hindufocus.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/abraham-brahma-sarah-saraswati & also our site “Lost Cultural Foundations of Eastern Civilsation”: http://easterncivilisationamaic.blogspot.com) When did this likely happen?
I think probably after the Jews had been exiled to Babylonia (c. 530 BC, revised dates), and whose toledôt histories later came to influence India through the Persian empire that succeeded the Babylonian (Chaldean) one.

Abram may be somewhat difficult to pin down archaeologically, since he was basically nomadic. Some have wrongly identified he and his family as the nomadic Middle Bronze I (MBI) people (c. 2100 BC, conventional date), who will become most important in Chapter Eight, as in fact the wandering Israelites of the Exodus. This superficially plausible scenario (Abram and MBI) has actually disastrous consequences for a biblically compatible archaeology (stratigraphy).
Nor did Abram-Abraham personally sign off a toledôt history, as did some of the other famous Patriarchs, though his sons Ishmael (Genesis 25:12) and Isaac (25:19) did.
The great man, Abraham, must remain somewhat obscure at this stage.
But Dr. Osgood has made a pretty good fist of what evidence there is to be had in his article, “The Times of Abraham” (Journal of Creation 2:77–87 April 1986, http://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham), for at least providing an archaeological era for Abram. Particularly impressive is Osgood’s archaeology for the attack on Palestine by the Mesopotamian coalition at the time that Abram was in Palestine.
Taking the biblical account of the route of conquest by these four kings, Osgood has shown that they attacked Hazezon-tamar, or Engedi, west of what is now the Dead Sea.



Now the only archaeological occupations for this site, Osgood informs us, are:

(i) Chalcolithic;
(ii) Roman; and
(iii) Byzantium,

with the latter two being quite irrelevant to this period. Thus, by a process of elimination, Osgood will opt for the Chalcolithic phase at Engedi as being that of the time of Abram and the four kings, and he is able to reconstruct the scenario of flight by the locals and their stashing of their valuables in a secret location.

But for us the really crucial historical question now is: Who was the pharaoh whom Abram encountered in Egypt? (Genesis 12:10-20)
And, along similar lines: Who were the four coalitional kings who attacked Palestine from the east at about this time? (Genesis 14:1-16)

David Rohl and I had, quite independently, arrived at basically the same conclusions to both questions (Both wrongly, I now think). Read on.

1. Abram and Egypt
We had both identified Abram’s ill-fated pharaoh as a 10th Egyptian dynasty pharaoh Khety. Rohl numbers him as Khety IV Nebkaure, whereas I had numbered him as Khety III (though N. Grimal has a Khety II Nebkaure, A History of Egypt, pp. 144, 148). If the so-called 10th Egyptian dynasty were really to be located this early in time, then this would have had major ramifications for any attempted reconstruction of Egyptian history. Anyway, I had thought that having Abram’s pharaoh in the 10th Egyptian dynasty fitted well with my view that Joseph, who came about two centuries after Abram, had belonged to (among others) the 11th Egyptian dynasty.
But I have recently rejected this placement and have written a new version of Abram’s pharaoh. Here is the relevant part of it (slightly modified):

Does the Bible Name Abram’s “Pharaoh”?
Yes it does.

….
Now here is my new view about Abram’s pharaoh (*****).
The Book of Genesis gives us two accounts of an attempted seizure of Abram’s-Abraham’s wife, Sarai-Sarah. As is apparent from the following chart, these accounts have their basic elements in common (Taken from: http://www.jcu.edu/bible/200/Readings/AncestressParallels.htm).

{11} When he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, "I know well that you are a woman beautiful in appearance; {12} and when the Egyptians see you, they will say, 'This is his wife'; then they will kill me, but they will let you live. {13} Say you are my sister, so that it may go well with me because of you, and that my life may be spared on your account." While residing in Gerar as an alien, {2} Abraham said of his wife Sarah, "She is my sister."
{14} When Abram entered Egypt the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful. {15} When the officials of Pharaoh saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. {16} And for her sake he dealt well with Abram; and he had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male and female slaves, female donkeys, and camels. And King Abimelech of Gerar sent and took Sarah.
{17} But the LORD afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife. {3} But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "You are about to die because of the woman whom you have taken; for she is a married woman." {4} Now Abimelech had not approached her; so he said, "Lord, will you destroy an innocent people? {5} Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she herself said, 'He is my brother.' I did this in the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands." {6} Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart; furthermore it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her. {7} Now then, return the man's wife; for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you shall live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all that are yours." {8} So Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants and told them all these things; and the men were very much afraid.
{18} So Pharaoh called Abram, and said, "What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? {19} Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife, take her, and be gone." {20} And Pharaoh gave his men orders concerning him; and they set him on the way, with his wife and all that he had. {9} Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said to him, "What have you done to us? How have I sinned against you, that you have brought such great guilt on me and my kingdom? You have done things to me that ought not to be done." {10} And Abimelech said to Abraham, "What were you thinking of, that you did this thing?" {11} Abraham said, "I did it because I thought, There is no fear of God at all in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. {12} Besides, she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. {13} And when God caused me to wander from my father's house, I said to her, 'This is the kindness you must do me: at every place to which we come, say of me, He is my brother.'" {14} Then Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and male and female slaves, and gave them to Abraham, and restored his wife Sarah to him. {15} Abimelech said, "My land is before you; settle where it pleases you." {16} To Sarah he said, "Look, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; it is your exoneration before all who are with you; you are completely vindicated." {17} Then Abraham prayed to God; and God healed Abimelech, and also healed his wife and female slaves so that they bore children. {18} For the LORD had closed fast all the wombs of the house of Abimelech because of Sarah, Abraham's wife.
In common: The Patriarch claims that his beautiful wife is his sister; the ruler takes her for his wife (but does not lay hands on her because); plagues intervene; the ruler confronts the Patriarch for his apparent deception; but he nevertheless lets him go, loaded with wealth.

I now submit that these are two different accounts of the very same incident, and that Abram’s un-named “Pharaoh” is simply Abimelech, the presumably Philistine (?) king, who then ruled over Philistia and Egypt at this time. And whose army captain had the name of Phicol.

It should not surprise us that the contributions of two authors are present here, because this part of Abraham’s story was written by his sons, Ishmael and Isaac.

When we examine the Toledoth structure of this narrative, we find that it concludes with the Toledoth (“family histories”) of Ishmael (Genesis 25:12) and of Isaac (Genesis 25:19). Thus two hands were at work here, Ishmael’s and Isaac’s. They have rendered us two different accounts of the one incident. In fact one perhaps ought to be able to determine which account belongs to whom – presumably the second story, the one pertaining to Abimelech, belongs to the author of the second Toledoth, Isaac – especially since Isaac will later have his own encounter with this Abimelech and Phicol (Genesis 26:1-31). That would mean that the first Toledoth belonged to Ishmael, which again is fitting since Ishmael’s mother was an Egyptian, Hagar (16:1-15; cf. second account, 21:9-21), and the story has an obvious Egyptian flavor.
So here we have the two accounts of the one story. The name Sarai and Abram are correctly used in the first account, but Isaac used their later names, Sarah and Abraham; the names by which he knew them.
The incident must have occurred in pre-dynastic times, after Babel, when the Mizraïmites (from which came the Philistines) were ruling the country, and before its unification.

So my answer is: Yes, the Book of Genesis does name Abram’s Pharaoh.
He is ABIMELECH.
[End of article]

A reader, Ken Griffith, has further confirmed the merging of “Pharaoh” with “Abimelech”, when kindly providing the following chiastic structure, respectively B and B’, for this part of the Book of Genesis:

Genesis 12-

A - Promise, Test (leave father's house), Worship
Promise of Blessing
Leave and go to another land.
Abraham & Lot Depart
Promise of Land
Builds Altar

B - Crisis, Attack, Conflict, Child

1 - Attack on Woman (Pharoah)
Famine
Goes down to Egypt
Call yourself my sister
Plagues
Abram leaves with wealth

2 - Crisis with Lot and Canaanites ( Sodom plundered )

Abraham "comes up" from Egypt
Great Wealth
Parts the land with Lot
God promises all the Land he can see.
dwelt by Terebinth trees of Mamre
Amraphel 4 kings invade
Abram Rescues Lot
Melchizedek blesses Abram
Bread and Wine
Plunderestored

3 - Promise Hagar Sarah Conflict I

Vision "I am your shield and reward"
Abram - I have no children
Your descendants shall be as stars
Proof of giving land
Covenant with halved animals
Prophesy of Egyptian bondage
God goes between pieces
Promise of land from Nile to Euphrates

Sarai No children
Gives Hagar in 10th year
Child Conceived
Hagar offends Sarai

Hagar flees pregnant, prophecy of Ishmael
Hagar returns, bears Ishmael, Abram 86

C.

Abram 99, God makes new covenant
Abram -> Abraham, father many nations, very fruitful
Circumcision
Sarai -> Sarah, will have son
Abraham circumcised Ishmael, and household

B' – Crisis, Attack, Conflict, Child (Sodom destroyed)

2'. Crisis with Lot and Canaanites
Lord appears by terebinth trees of Mamre, judgment on Sodom
Son will appear in a year
Sarah laughs, his name shall be laughter (Isaac)

Abraham intercedes for Sodom
If there were 50 I would save it.
If there are 10 I would save it.
God & Abraham depart

Angels enter Sodom
Lot gives lodging
Men of City demand men
Angels blind them
Angels say, collect your family
Son in laws don't listen
Lot flees with family
Lot escapes to Zoar
God overthrows cities
Lot's wife turned to vapor
Abraham goes to where he had met with God
Sodom and Gomorrah and plain smoking like furnace
God remembered Abraham and delivered Lot

Lot with his daughters
Birth of Moab and Ammon

1' - Attack on Woman II leading to Child (Abimelech -> Isaac)
Abraham journeys South (goes down), delt between Kadesh and Shur
"she is my sister"

Abimelech King of Gerar sends for Sarah
God warns in dream
Abimelech judges Abraham sends him away with money.

Lord visits Sarah as promised,
Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son, at set time.
Abraham calls his son Isaac.
Abraham circumcised Isaac.
Sarah rejoices.

3.' [ Promise + Sarah -> Hagar conflict II ] (This time Hagar gets the promise.)
Child weaned and feasted.
Ishmael scoffed and sent away.
Hagar meets God again in desert.
God promises great nation to Ishmael
Hagar finds water and gets a wife for her son from Egypt.

Abraham makes a covenant with Abimelech
Abraham finds his own well of water at Beersheeba.
Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, in land of Philistines.

A' Promise, Test, Worship
God calls Abraham, tells him to go to Land of Moriah
Abraham goes.
God tests him with Isaac.
Builds Altar
Abraham obeys.
God promises many descendants, stars of heaven and seashore, possess gates of enemies. Blessing.
Abraham returns to Beersheba and dwelt there.
[End of chiasmus]

B. 1 and B’. 1’ merge beautifully with “Pharaoh” in B. 1 reflecting “Abimelech in B’. 1’.
I should like to take this even a bit further and propose that this Abimelech, was a son of the man after whom Egypt was named, Mizraïm (or Egypt), a son of Ham (Genesis 10:6) - that the name Abimelech (thought to mean “father of the king”) is the same as Lehabim, the third son of Mizraïm (10:13). Lehabim, in turn, is often considered to have been the father of the Libyans.
This people was at least related to the Philistines (10:14).
The Libyans were later to be a leading group amongst the Indo-European tribes of “Sea Peoples” who attacked Egypt at the time of Ramses III (see Chapter Eighteen). One of these tribes was called Shikelesh. Now, in association with Abimelech was his commander, Phicol. And Abram had an ally called Eshcol (14:13). If Phicol and Eshcol be the same commander, then the amalgam, Phi-col-esh, reads very much like Shikelesh.

Finally, for a tentative identification of Mizraïm in the historical records, I should suggest an early king of Ur, the little known, Mesilim (Mesarim = Mizraïm?). Historians are coming to think that this Mesilim is the far better known Mesopotamian potentate, Mesa-anni-padda.

Abram and Mesopotamia
I had also concluded, like Rohl - based on Herb Stock’s “The Early Assyrian King List, The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty, and the ‘Greater Amorite’ Tradition”, Proceedings of the Third Seminar of C&AH held in Parma, Ohio, and Ontario, Canada, 1986, pp. 43-50 - that the four coalitional kings had belonged to the sophisticated Ur III dynasty (c. 2120 BC, conventional dating) of Mesopotamia, and that the biblical “King Amraphel of Shinar” (Genesis 14:1) was Amar-sin of that same Ur III.

I now reject both of these conclusions, regarding Abram and Egypt and Abram and Mesopotamia. I consider that both the 10th dynasty of Egypt and the Ur III dynasty of Sumer to have been way too late (especially in the latter case) for the time of Abram (even though Rohl had made a compelling case for a linguistic identification between Amraphel and Amar-sin).
In more recent times I had come to the view that Ur III was many centuries after Abram-Abraham. But that now left a gaping hole in my historical reconstruction of this era. Here is what I recently wrote as a result this new view of things (whilst still, at this stage, holding to the Khety-as-Abram’s-pharaoh view):

Until very recently [since dropping the Ur III = time of Abram idea], I had absolutely no idea who were the four coalitional kings of Abram’s era, revised: namely, Amraphel of Shinar; Arioch of Elasar; Chedorlaomer of Elam and Tidal of Goi-im (Genesis 14:1), except for a tradition that Amraphel was Nimrod (our Enmer-kar) himself (of many names and identities as we have read), though some tradition also has his father Cush as Amraphel. This tenuous clue had led me at least to substitute the era of Uruk I (Enmerkar’s) for the Ur III period that I had come to reject for Abram. But not to be able to find any of the other kings (though the Tudija named above by Herb Storck is like the name of one of these kings, Tidal), was extremely disappointing. It was the major hole in this entire reconstruction of history. Then, however, I read on the Internet that king Hammurabi himself had referred back to three of these kings. Here is the relevant part of the article:

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Biblical Amraphel Was Not Abraham But Lived Much Earlier

Taken from "The Wars of Gods and Men":
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/sitchinbooks03_05.htm

Chapter Thirteen
ABRAHAM: THE FATEFUL YEARS

And it came to pass
in the days of Amraphel king of Shin’ar,
Ariokh king of Ellasar,
Khedorla’omer king of Elam,
and Tidhal king of Go’im -
That these made war
with Bera King of Sodom,
and with Birsha king of Gomorrah,
Shinab king of Admah,
and Shem-eber king of Zebi’im,
and with the king of Bela, which is Zoar.

"Thus begins the biblical tale, in chapter 14 of Genesis, of an ancient war that pitted an alliance of four kingdoms of the East against five kings in Canaan. It is a tale that has evolved some of the most intense debate among scholars, for it connects the story of Abraham, the first Hebrew Patriarch, with a specific non-Hebrew event, and thus affords objective substantiation of the biblical record of the birth of a nation.

"....For many decades the critics of the Old Testament seemed to prevail; then, as the nineteenth century was drawing to a close, the scholarly and religious worlds were astounded by the discovery of Babylonian tablets naming Khedorla’omer, Ariokh, and Tidhal in a tale not unlike the biblical one.

"The discovery was announced in a lecture by Theophilus Pinches to the Victoria Institute, London, in 1897. Having examined several tablets belonging to the Spartoli Collection in the British Museum, he found that they describe a war of wide-ranging magnitude, in which a king of Elam, Kudur-laghamar, led an alliance of rulers that included one named Eri-aku and another named Tud-ghula - names that easily could have been transformed into Hebrew as Khedor-la’omer, Ariokh, and Tidhal. Accompanying his published lecture with a painstaking transcript of the cuneiform writing and a translation thereof, Pinches could confidently claim that the biblical tale had indeed been supported by an independent Mesopotamian source.

"With justified excitement the Assyriologists of that time agreed with Pinches reading of the cuneiform names. The tablets indeed spoke of "Kudur-Laghamar, king of the land of Elam"; all scholars agreed that it was a perfect Elamite royal name, the prefix Kudur ("Servant") having been a component in the names of several Elamite kings, and Laghamar being the Elamite epithet-name for a certain deity. It was agreed that the second name, spelled Eri-e-a-ku in the Babylonian cuneiform script, stood for the original Sumerian ERI.AKU, meaning "Servant of the god Aku," Aku being a variant of the name of Nannar/Sin. It is known from a number of inscriptions that Elamite rulers of Larsa bore the name "Servant of Sin," and there was therefore little difficulty in agreeing that the biblical Eliasar, the royal city of the king Ariokh, was in fact Larsa. There was also unanimous agreement among the scholars for accepting that the Babylonian text’s Tud-ghula was the equivalent of the biblical "Tidhal, king of Go’im"; and they agreed that by Go’im the Book of Genesis referred to the "nation-hordes" whom the cuneiform tablets listed as allies of Khedorla’omer.

"Here, then, was the missing proof - not only of the veracity of the Bible and of the existence of Abraham, but also of an international event in which he had been involved!

"....The second discovery was announced by Vincent Scheil, who reported that he had found among the tablets in the Imperial Ottoman Museum in Constantinople a letter from the well-known Babylonian King Hammurabi, which mentions the very same Kudur-laghamar! Because the letter was addressed to a king of Larsa, Father Scheil concluded that the three were contemporaries and thus matched three of the four biblical kings of the East - Hammurabi being none other than "Amraphael king of Shin’ar."

"....However, when subsequent research convinced most scholars that Hammurabi reigned much later (from 1792 to 1750 B.C., according to The Cambridge Ancient History), the synchronization seemingly achieved by Scheil fell apart, and the whole bearing of the discovered inscriptions - even those reported by Pinches - came into doubt. Ignored were the pleas of Pinches that no matter with whom the three named kings were to be identified - that even if Khedorla’omer, Ariokh, and Tidhal of the cuneiform texts were not contemporaries of Hammurabi - the text’s tale with its three names was still "a remarkable historical coincidence, and deserves recognition as such." In 1917, Alfred Jeremias (Die sogenanten Kedorlaomer-Texte) attempted to revive interest in the subject; but the scholarly community preferred to treat the Spartoli tablets with benign neglect.

"....Yet the scholarly consensus that the biblical tale and the Babylonian texts drew on a much earlier, common source impels us to revive the plea of Pinches and his central argument: How can cuneiform texts, affirming the biblical background of a major war and naming three of the biblical kings, be ignored? Should the evidence - crucial, as we shall show, to the understanding of fateful years - be discarded simply because Amraphel was not Hammurabi?

"The answer is that the Hammurabi letter found by Scheil should not have sidetracked the discovery reported by Pinches, because Scheil misread the letter. According to his rendition, Hammurabi promised a reward to Sin-Idinna, the king of Larsa, for his "heroism on the day of Khedorla’omer." This implied that the two were allies in a war against Khedorla’omer and thus contemporaries of that king of Elam.

It was on this point that Scheil’s find was discredited, for it contradicted both the biblical assertion that the three kings were allies and known historical facts: Hammurabi treated Larsa not as an ally but as an adversary, boasting that he "overthrew Larsa in battle," and attacked its sacred precinct "with the mighty weapon which the gods had given him."

"A close examination of the actual text of Hammurabi’s letter reveals that in his eagerness to prove the Hammurabi-Amraphel identification, Father Scheil reversed the letter’s meaning: Hammurabi was not offering as a reward to return certain goddesses to the sacred precinct (the Emutbal) of Larsa; rather, he was demanding their return to Babylon from Larsa.

"....The incident of the abduction of the goddesses had thus occurred in earlier times; they were held captive in the Emutbal "from the days of Khedorla’omer"; and Hammurabi was now demanding their return to Babylon, from where Khedorla’omer had taken them captive. This can only mean that Khedorla’omer’s days were long before Hammurabi’s time.

"Supporting our reading of the Hammurabi letter found by Father Scheil in the Constantinople Museum is the fact that Hammurabi repeated the demand for the return of the goddesses to Babylon in yet another stiff message to Sin-Idinna, this time sending it by the hand of high military officers. This second letter is in the British Museum (No. 23,131) and its text was published by L.W. King in The Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi.

"....That the goddesses were to be returned from Larsa to Babylon is made clear in the letter’s further instructions.

"....It is thus clear from these letters that Hammurabi - a foe, not an ally, of Larsa - was seeking restitution for events that had happened long before his time, in the days of Kudur-Laghamar, the Elamite regent of Larsa. The texts of the Hammurabi letters thus affirm the existence of Khedorla-omer and of Elamite reign in Larsa ("Ellasar") and thus of key elements in the biblical tale. ….

End of article]

Amraphel himself may still be Nimrod as according to some traditions.

Now to Egypt.
Again, whilst still holding to the Khety-as-Abram’s-pharaoh scenario, I had sought an identification of Abraham himself in the historical records. And I came to conclude tentatively that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were shepherd kings, or ‘Hyksos”. Here is a part of my reasoning:

Abram-Abraham became a rich and powerful man, strong enough to rout a coalition of raider kings. One would thus expect that there would be evidences of him from Egypt to Mesopotamia, despite his being nomadic.
The Book of Jasher (14:1-33) tells of a supposed contemporary of Abraham’s an intellectual from Shinar by the name of Rikayon, who went to Egypt and contributed to Egyptian learning, just as extra-biblical stories (e.g. Josephus above) say about Abraham. My new suggestion is that this Rikayon was in fact Abram-Abraham himself and that the kayon element in the name may derive from Khyan, a “Hyksos” or “Shepherd King” (as would befit Abraham); Khyan being a somewhat shadowy figure, but one nonetheless of very wide-ranging influence, who, according to N. Grimal (op. cit., p. 188):

[Khayan, Khyan or Khian]… cannot be said to have ruled an actual empire, although his name appears frequently – not only in Egypt, on an architectural fragment at Gebelein and at Bubastis, but also in foreign countries, on a stone vessel in the palace at Knossos [Island of Crete], scarabs and seal impressions in Palestine and a granite lion at Baghdad.

Khyan, of the 15th Egyptian dynasty (Hyksos, foreign rule) is currently thought to date to c. 1610-1580 BC.
The Danish Egyptologist, Kim Ryholt, who published an extensive catalogue of the monuments of all the numerous pharaohs of the Second Intermediate Period notes an important personal detail regarding this king's family. He states that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyan):

…. a stela set up in Avaris contains the nomen and prenomen of Khayan and a now lost dedication … below which are inscribed the title and name of the Eldest King's Son Yanassi. The association of Khayan with those of his eldest son upon this stela suggests that the latter in fact was his designated successor, as also implied by his title.[1]

[End of quote]

If Abraham be Khayan, as I most tentatively suggest, then his son and designated successor, Yanassi, must be Isaac. Certainly the name, Khayan, appears to be Amorite, as was Abraham’s. “Ryholt notes that the name, Khyan, generally has been "interpreted as Amorite Hayanu (reading h-ya-a-n) which the Egyptian form represents perfectly, and this is in all likelihood the correct interpretation." [5]” And again, “The name Hayanu is recorded in the Assyrian king lists—see "Khorsabad List I, 17 and the SDAS List, I, 16"--"for a remote ancestor of Shamshi-Adad I (c.1800 BC [sic])."[5] Khyan's name is transcribed as Staan in Africanus' version of Manetho's Epitome”.
Abram, as Khayan-Hayanu, could thus now be the Hanu (= Henoch/Enoch?) listed as No. 10 of the “17 Assyrian tent dwellers” in Herb Storck’s above-mentioned article.
The 15th dynasty, comprised of foreign names, such as Sharek, Yaqub-Har and Khyan, may then be, in part, Abraham’s very own dynasty, that God promised would become so numerous. Elsewhere I have identified Sharek as Sharrukin, Sargon the Great, and, following Dean Hickman, as (Sargon of Akkad =) Cushan-rishathaim.

Abraham and His Contemporaries

Chapter Thirteen
ABRAHAM: THE FATEFUL YEARS


And it came to pass
in the days of Amraphel king of Shin’ar,
Ariokh king of Ellasar,
Khedorla’omer king of Elam,
and Tidhal king of Go’im -
That these made war
with Bera King of Sodom,
and with Birsha king of Gomorrah,
Shinab king of Admah,
and Shem-eber king of Zebi’im,
and with the king of Bela, which is Zoar.

"Thus begins the biblical tale, in chapter 14 of Genesis, of an ancient war that pitted an alliance of four kingdoms of the East against five kings in Canaan. It is a tale that has evolved some of the most intense debate among scholars, for it connects the story of Abraham, the first Hebrew Patriarch, with a specific non-Hebrew event, and thus affords objective substantiation of the biblical record of the birth of a nation.

"....For many decades the critics of the Old Testament seemed to prevail; then, as the nineteenth century was drawing to a close, the scholarly and religious worlds were astounded by the discovery of Babylonian tablets naming Khedorla’omer, Ariokh, and Tidhal in a tale not unlike the biblical one.

"The discovery was announced in a lecture by Theophilus Pinches to the Victoria Institute, London, in 1897. Having examined several tablets belonging to the Spartoli Collection in the British Museum, he found that they describe a war of wide-ranging magnitude, in which a king of Elam, Kudur-laghamar, led an alliance of rulers that included one named Eri-aku and another named Tud-ghula - names that easily could have been transformed into Hebrew as Khedor-la’omer, Ariokh, and Tidhal. Accompanying his published lecture with a painstaking transcript of the cuneiform writing and a translation thereof, Pinches could confidently claim that the biblical tale had indeed been supported by an independent Mesopotamian source.

"With justified excitement the Assyriologists of that time agreed with Pinches reading of the cuneiform names. The tablets indeed spoke of "Kudur-Laghamar, king of the land of Elam"; all scholars agreed that it was a perfect Elamite royal name, the prefix Kudur ("Servant") having been a component in the names of several Elamite kings, and Laghamar being the Elamite epithet-name for a certain deity. It was agreed that the second name, spelled Eri-e-a-ku in the Babylonian cuneiform script, stood for the original Sumerian ERI.AKU, meaning "Servant of the god Aku," Aku being a variant of the name of Nannar/Sin. It is known from a number of inscriptions that Elamite rulers of Larsa bore the name "Servant of Sin," and there was therefore little difficulty in agreeing that the biblical Eliasar, the royal city of the king Ariokh, was in fact Larsa. There was also unanimous agreement among the scholars for accepting that the Babylonian text’s Tud-ghula was the equivalent of the biblical "Tidhal, king of Go’im"; and they agreed that by Go’im the Book of Genesis referred to the "nation-hordes" whom the cuneiform tablets listed as allies of Khedorla’omer.

"Here, then, was the missing proof - not only of the veracity of the Bible and of the existence of Abraham, but also of an international event in which he had been involved!

"....The second discovery was announced by Vincent Scheil, who reported that he had found among the tablets in the Imperial Ottoman Museum in Constantinople a letter from the well-known Babylonian King Hammurabi, which mentions the very same Kudur-laghamar! Because the letter was addressed to a king of Larsa, Father Scheil concluded that the three were contemporaries and thus matched three of the four biblical kings of the East - Hammurabi being none other than "Amraphael king of Shin’ar."

"....However, when subsequent research convinced most scholars that Hammurabi reigned much later (from 1792 to 1750 B.C., according to The Cambridge Ancient History), the synchronization seemingly achieved by Scheil fell apart, and the whole bearing of the discovered inscriptions - even those reported by Pinches - came into doubt. Ignored were the pleas of Pinches that no matter with whom the three named kings were to be identified - that even if Khedorla’omer, Ariokh, and Tidhal of the cuneiform texts were not contemporaries of Hammurabi - the text’s tale with its three names was still "a remarkable historical coincidence, and deserves recognition as such." In 1917, Alfred Jeremias (Die sogenanten Kedorlaomer-Texte) attempted to revive interest in the subject; but the scholarly community preferred to treat the Spartoli tablets with benign neglect.

"....Yet the scholarly consensus that the biblical tale and the Babylonian texts drew on a much earlier, common source impels us to revive the plea of Pinches and his central argument: How can cuneiform texts, affirming the biblical background of a major war and naming three of the biblical kings, be ignored? Should the evidence - crucial, as we shall show, to the understanding of fateful years - be discarded simply because Amraphel was not Hammurabi?

"The answer is that the Hammurabi letter found by Scheil should not have sidetracked the discovery reported by Pinches, because Scheil misread the letter. According to his rendition, Hammurabi promised a reward to Sin-Idinna, the king of Larsa, for his "heroism on the day of Khedorla’omer." This implied that the two were allies in a war against Khedorla’omer and thus contemporaries of that king of Elam.

It was on this point that Scheil’s find was discredited, for it contradicted both the biblical assertion that the three kings were allies and known historical facts: Hammurabi treated Larsa not as an ally but as an adversary, boasting that he "overthrew Larsa in battle," and attacked its sacred precinct "with the mighty weapon which the gods had given him."

"A close examination of the actual text of Hammurabi’s letter reveals that in his eagerness to prove the Hammurabi-Amraphel identification, Father Scheil reversed the letter’s meaning: Hammurabi was not offering as a reward to return certain goddesses to the sacred precinct (the Emutbal) of Larsa; rather, he was demanding their return to Babylon from Larsa.

"....The incident of the abduction of the goddesses had thus occurred in earlier times; they were held captive in the Emutbal "from the days of Khedorla’omer"; and Hammurabi was now demanding their return to Babylon, from where Khedorla’omer had taken them captive. This can only mean that Khedorla’omer’s days were long before Hammurabi’s time.

"Supporting our reading of the Hammurabi letter found by Father Scheil in the Constantinople Museum is the fact that Hammurabi repeated the demand for the return of the goddesses to Babylon in yet another stiff message to Sin-Idinna, this time sending it by the hand of high military officers. This second letter is in the British Museum (No. 23,131) and its text was published by L.W. King in The Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi.

"....That the goddesses were to be returned from Larsa to Babylon is made clear in the letter’s further instructions.

"....It is thus clear from these letters that Hammurabi - a foe, not an ally, of Larsa - was seeking restitution for events that had happened long before his time, in the days of Kudur-Laghamar, the Elamite regent of Larsa. The texts of the Hammurabi letters thus affirm the existence of Khedorla-omer and of Elamite reign in Larsa ("Ellasar") and thus of key elements in the biblical tale.

Abram's Mesopotamian Contemporaries

Taken from "The Wars of Gods and Men": http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/sitchinbooks03_05.htm

....
Chapter Thirteen
ABRAHAM: THE FATEFUL YEARS


And it came to pass
in the days of Amraphel king of Shin’ar,
Ariokh king of Ellasar,
Khedorla’omer king of Elam,
and Tidhal king of Go’im -
That these made war
with Bera King of Sodom,
and with Birsha king of Gomorrah,
Shinab king of Admah,
and Shem-eber king of Zebi’im,
and with the king of Bela, which is Zoar.

"Thus begins the biblical tale, in chapter 14 of Genesis, of an ancient war that pitted an alliance of four kingdoms of the East against five kings in Canaan. It is a tale that has evolved some of the most intense debate among scholars, for it connects the story of Abraham, the first Hebrew Patriarch, with a specific non-Hebrew event, and thus affords objective substantiation of the biblical record of the birth of a nation.

"....For many decades the critics of the Old Testament seemed to prevail; then, as the nineteenth century was drawing to a close, the scholarly and religious worlds were astounded by the discovery of Babylonian tablets naming Khedorla’omer, Ariokh, and Tidhal in a tale not unlike the biblical one.

"The discovery was announced in a lecture by Theophilus Pinches to the Victoria Institute, London, in 1897. Having examined several tablets belonging to the Spartoli Collection in the British Museum, he found that they describe a war of wide-ranging magnitude, in which a king of Elam, Kudur-laghamar, led an alliance of rulers that included one named Eri-aku and another named Tud-ghula - names that easily could have been transformed into Hebrew as Khedor-la’omer, Ariokh, and Tidhal. Accompanying his published lecture with a painstaking transcript of the cuneiform writing and a translation thereof, Pinches could confidently claim that the biblical tale had indeed been supported by an independent Mesopotamian source.

"With justified excitement the Assyriologists of that time agreed with Pinches reading of the cuneiform names. The tablets indeed spoke of "Kudur-Laghamar, king of the land of Elam"; all scholars agreed that it was a perfect Elamite royal name, the prefix Kudur ("Servant") having been a component in the names of several Elamite kings, and Laghamar being the Elamite epithet-name for a certain deity. It was agreed that the second name, spelled Eri-e-a-ku in the Babylonian cuneiform script, stood for the original Sumerian ERI.AKU, meaning "Servant of the god Aku," Aku being a variant of the name of Nannar/Sin. It is known from a number of inscriptions that Elamite rulers of Larsa bore the name "Servant of Sin," and there was therefore little difficulty in agreeing that the biblical Eliasar, the royal city of the king Ariokh, was in fact Larsa. There was also unanimous agreement among the scholars for accepting that the Babylonian text’s Tud-ghula was the equivalent of the biblical "Tidhal, king of Go’im"; and they agreed that by Go’im the Book of Genesis referred to the "nation-hordes" whom the cuneiform tablets listed as allies of Khedorla’omer.

"Here, then, was the missing proof - not only of the veracity of the Bible and of the existence of Abraham, but also of an international event in which he had been involved!

"....The second discovery was announced by Vincent Scheil, who reported that he had found among the tablets in the Imperial Ottoman Museum in Constantinople a letter from the well-known Babylonian King Hammurabi, which mentions the very same Kudur-laghamar! Because the letter was addressed to a king of Larsa, Father Scheil concluded that the three were contemporaries and thus matched three of the four biblical kings of the East - Hammurabi being none other than "Amraphael king of Shin’ar."

"....However, when subsequent research convinced most scholars that Hammurabi reigned much later (from 1792 to 1750 B.C., according to The Cambridge Ancient History), the synchronization seemingly achieved by Scheil fell apart, and the whole bearing of the discovered inscriptions - even those reported by Pinches - came into doubt. Ignored were the pleas of Pinches that no matter with whom the three named kings were to be identified - that even if Khedorla’omer, Ariokh, and Tidhal of the cuneiform texts were not contemporaries of Hammurabi - the text’s tale with its three names was still "a remarkable historical coincidence, and deserves recognition as such." In 1917, Alfred Jeremias (Die sogenanten Kedorlaomer-Texte) attempted to revive interest in the subject; but the scholarly community preferred to treat the Spartoli tablets with benign neglect.

"....Yet the scholarly consensus that the biblical tale and the Babylonian texts drew on a much earlier, common source impels us to revive the plea of Pinches and his central argument: How can cuneiform texts, affirming the biblical background of a major war and naming three of the biblical kings, be ignored? Should the evidence - crucial, as we shall show, to the understanding of fateful years - be discarded simply because Amraphel was not Hammurabi?

"The answer is that the Hammurabi letter found by Scheil should not have sidetracked the discovery reported by Pinches, because Scheil misread the letter. According to his rendition, Hammurabi promised a reward to Sin-Idinna, the king of Larsa, for his "heroism on the day of Khedorla’omer." This implied that the two were allies in a war against Khedorla’omer and thus contemporaries of that king of Elam.

It was on this point that Scheil’s find was discredited, for it contradicted both the biblical assertion that the three kings were allies and known historical facts: Hammurabi treated Larsa not as an ally but as an adversary, boasting that he "overthrew Larsa in battle," and attacked its sacred precinct "with the mighty weapon which the gods had given him."

"A close examination of the actual text of Hammurabi’s letter reveals that in his eagerness to prove the Hammurabi-Amraphel identification, Father Scheil reversed the letter’s meaning: Hammurabi was not offering as a reward to return certain goddesses to the sacred precinct (the Emutbal) of Larsa; rather, he was demanding their return to Babylon from Larsa.

"....The incident of the abduction of the goddesses had thus occurred in earlier times; they were held captive in the Emutbal "from the days of Khedorla’omer"; and Hammurabi was now demanding their return to Babylon, from where Khedorla’omer had taken them captive. This can only mean that Khedorla’omer’s days were long before Hammurabi’s time.

"Supporting our reading of the Hammurabi letter found by Father Scheil in the Constantinople Museum is the fact that Hammurabi repeated the demand for the return of the goddesses to Babylon in yet another stiff message to Sin-Idinna, this time sending it by the hand of high military officers. This second letter is in the British Museum (No. 23,131) and its text was published by L.W. King in The Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi.

"....That the goddesses were to be returned from Larsa to Babylon is made clear in the letter’s further instructions.

"....It is thus clear from these letters that Hammurabi - a foe, not an ally, of Larsa - was seeking restitution for events that had happened long before his time, in the days of Kudur-Laghamar, the Elamite regent of Larsa. The texts of the Hammurabi letters thus affirm the existence of Khedorla-omer and of Elamite reign in Larsa ("Ellasar") and thus of key elements in the biblical tale.

....

Dr John Osgood Establishes Archaeology of Abraham

The Times of Abraham

By Dr A.J.M. Osgood

Introduction

This article, 'The times of Abraham', attempts to show that the present accepted archaeological period placement of Abraham in the Palestinian Middle Bronze I period (MB I A nomenclature) has no basis in substance, and attempts to show that only the late Chalcolithic culture of Palestine satisfies the biblical criteria, so forcing a radical revision of the accepted chronology of the ancient world, in terms of biblical statements.

Many a reader of the Bible is impressed with the narrative of the life of Abraham as though it was written about a real person who lived in a real time and a real world. He has the strengths and the weaknesses of real men.

However, particularly since the documentary hypothesis (J.E.D.P. theory), the theological world has increasingly expressed doubts about the reality of the existence of a man called Abraham. The question has ebbed backwards and forwards. Increasingly however, archaeological finds confirm a correctness of the traditions associated with the Abrahamic story.

However, the documentary hypothesis has seriously impaired the willingness of many to see the Biblical narratives as straightforward stories based on historical reality. As John Bright puts it (after discussing the JEDP theory):

‘As for the patriarchal stories, though they were valued for the light they cast on the beliefs and practices of the respective periods in which the various documents were written, their worth as sources of information concerning Israel's prehistory was regarded as minimal if not nil. Abraham Isaac and Jacob were commonly explained as eponymous ancestors of clans, or even as figures of myth, and their real existence was not infrequently denied. The patriarchal religion as depicted in Genesis was held to be a back-projection of later beliefs. In line with evolutionary theories abroad at the time, the actual religion of Israel nomadic ancestors was described as an animism or polydaemonism.’¹

The problem concerning Abraham historically is compounded by the combined problems discussed in 'The Times of the Judges - the Archaeology', namely:

1. The theory of evolution,
2. The documentary hypothesis,
3. The accepted yardstick of the Egyptian chronology of Monetho, and
4. Acceptance of dating methods as being truly objective.

The resultant confusion leaves us today with a conviction that Abraham was an historical figure, yet with no really convincing time slot archaeologically in which to place him, which can bear up to solid scrutiny, and certainly no positive identification of events in Abraham's life occurring at any particular time slot archaeologically.

Present time placement of Abraham

The accepted or evolutionary time scale for the Paleolithic to Iron Age sequence, when placed side by side with the known time relationships in the Scripture concerning Abraham, allows a placement of Abraham of somewhere around the Middle Bronze I period (abbreviated MB I variously referred to as Early Bronze IV (EB IV) in Palestine, or Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze (see Figure 1). The placement originally of Abraham in this time slot can be largely traced to Nelson Glueck, with support from William Albright. Nelson Glueck was one who asserted the correctness historically of Scripture, yet held an evolutionary chronology and so placed Abraham in Middle Bronze I.

Figure 1. Time scheme of the accepted evolutionary chronology.

‘If one believes, as we do, in the validity of the historical memories of the Bible, and if one accepts as real flesh and blood human beings the personages reflected in the portrayals of the Biblical Patriachs. then the Age of Abraham must be assigned to the MiddIe Bronze I period. Ending in the nineteenth century B.C... The only archaeological framework in which the person and period of Abraham in the Negeb can be placed is Middle Bronze I.’²

In that same discussion, Nelson Glueck insists that the destructions of MB I settlements corresponded to the biblical account of the destruction inflicted by Chedorlaomer and his confederates (Genesis 14). However, apart from the statement of such, he offered no positive evidence to confirm that such an historical link-up can be made more secure than the simple statement of belief.

William Albright was quick to ally himself with Nelson Glueck and established a belief that Abraham was one who plied a trade as a donkey caravaneer between Mesopotamia and Egypt. This is a belief that was Albright's, but certainly does not conform to the Scriptures, in the literal sense.

‘Nelson Glueck was prompt to associate the biblical traditions of Abraham with the MB I remains in the Negeb; he also recognised the fact that the settlements from this age were connected with old caravan routes.’³

So the MB I period of Palestine has since been indelibly associated with the time of Abraham in the minds of many. The characteristics of this age have been argued over time and time again, and they are still the subject of lively debate.

Essentially then, the time of Abraham has been fixed in MB I for the following reasons:

1. It fits the presently accepted chronology as far as DATING is concerned if one accepts the time relationships the Bible claims. (It is then keyed in on an evolutionary time scale.)
2. The MB I period does have characteristics that suggest a nomadic people, and as Abraham had certain nomadic characteristics, the belief is made to stick.

However, placement of Abraham in the Middle Bronze I Age has nothing more positive than that to offer. There are no positive identifying features that can make it certain that Abraham is to be placed in this age. It still remains a 'correct' fit as far as the accepted chronology is concerned and that is where the matter rests.

A need for a re-evaluation

In no way can it be said that the times of Abraham have been established. Moreover, there is much about the presently accepted archaeological time slot which makes one feel quite uneasy. Abraham was the product of a generation that can be traced in the Bible ten generations from the Flood, the Bible narrative giving the impression that only about 430 years elapsed from the time of the world wide catastrophic Flood until the times of Abraham in Canaan (see Figure 2). Yet on the accepted time scale we are to admit huge amounts of time for the development of civilizations prior to the times of Abraham.

Figure 2. Biblical details of the patriarchs.

This leaves us with three possible options:

1. To accept the present chronology and minimize the historicity of the biblical genealogies, a point that those who hold its message dear for faith find extremely difficult;
2. Disbelieve the historicity of Abraham altogether and claim that the biblical record is simply an allegory for some pious religious purpose. This is the position adopted by many documentary hypothesists; or
3. Re-evaluate the whole archaeological record in terms of the Bible's time framework alone. This is the task of the present author.

   There is much at stake in this discussion, for the whole historical validity of the Scriptural message of hope is at stake. The reality of the promises and covenants (legal agreements) of the spiritual message of hope rest on the historical validity of those promises and covenants. The world's hope stands or falls on this issue. It cannot just be left to be dealt with in the cold halls of the intellectual who otherwise has no interest in the biblical message, for it is of dynamic concern to all people.

   The genealogy of Genesis 11 has been put under the microscope by many, often without due regard to the Hebrew text. Some would claim that there are gaps in this genealogy. This of course would solve part of the problem, if such gaps exist. However, the formula of the genealogy leaves this impossible if one is to accept the Hebrew text as correct, for it has the following formula:

   X at age Z begat Y

   That is, a named person at a named age begat a named person. Such a formula absolutely resists the input of gaps, unlike the genealogy of Matthew's gospel (Matthew 1), which allows a gap without denying the historical reality of missed generations in that genealogy.

   Matthew's formula of 'A begat B' allows gaps. Genesis does not. We must insist that if the Hebrew words mean anything they must be taken at face value and resist the insertion of gaps. The issue is one of correctness historically or otherwise of this whole record.

   A new placement of Abraham's time against the archaeological record

   In order to arrive at an approximate guide as to where we should look for the times of Abraham we start with the biblical dates from the Flood to Christ, as years B.C., and attempt to reinterpret all the archaeological data against that time scale. This has been done before in 'The Times of the Judges - the Archaeology' (see Osgood, EN Tech. J., this volume). The resultant chronological table is reproduced here in Figure 3 with the area of Abraham pin-pointed.

   Figure 3. Composite archaeological table.

   It can be seen against this archaeological table that Abraham fits somewhere towards the end of the Neolithic of Jericho passing into the Chalcolithic of Jericho. It is around that approximate area we will now look in the archaeological record to see if we can make positive identification of the times of Abraham. The reader will no doubt appreciate the huge difference in time on the accepted scale between the Chalcolithic of Palestine and the MB I of Palestine. What I am insisting here is that the whole archaeological chronology must be re-evaluated against the biblical record. Let us begin that reevaluation.

   In order to make positive identification of the period of Abraham we will begin with a narrative in the life of Abraham as taken from Genesis 14.

   Genesis 14 is a narrative which begins with a confederation of four Mesopotamian kings:-

   1. Amraphel, king of Shinar
   2. Arioch, king of Ellasar
   3. Chedorlaomer, king of Elam
   4. Tidal, king of Goiim (Genesis 14:1)

   These extended their empire to include Palestine, or at least the Jordan valley, and in particular they brought under their suzerainity the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim and Bela - the five cities of the plain. For twelve years (verse 4) this continued, but in the thirteenth year the kings of the plain rebelled, so in the fourteenth year the four kings of Mesopotamia, apparently with Chedorlaomer as chief, came and attacked the whole region.

   Now many have been the attempts to identify these kings, for most have realised that if they can be identified in the archaeological record, then the times of Abraham can be found for certain. As R.K. Harrison has put it:

   ‘The chronology of the patriarchal period would be stabilized if a reliable identification of the four invading Mesopotamian Icings could be made. This may emerge as the result of future excavations in the area, but in the meantime the chronology of the period under consideration must be placed between the twentieth and the late seventeenth centuries B.C.’⁴

   The problem is not so much one of identification of the kings, for they are named in the narrative and their nations are given. Rather it is a problem of identifying the period from which these kings came in an archaeological context. So far this has defied success. However, it is my hope that the discussion here will lay to rest that search as we identify the only period when such a confederation could conceivably have existed.

   In order to achieve this we will continue the narrative and the search for the details of this narrative in the life of Abraham.

   Figure 4. Route of Chedorlaomer.

   When the four kings of Mesopotamia attacked, they followed a particular course which can be seen on the maps in Figures 4 and 5. They came down through Syria into the Bashan area where they attacked the Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim (Genesis 14:5). Then they proceeded southwards into Trans Jordan to the later Ammonite area and attacked the Zuzim in Ham. (These are later mentioned in Deuteronomy 2:20.) Moving further south into the region later identified as Moab, they attacked the Emim (Deuteronomy. 2:10), and then on they went down into the region which later became Edom, where they attacked the Horites in Mt Seir (see Deuteronomy 2:22). Having completed their conquest of Trans Jordan, they crossed the Arabah into the Negev of later Israel and attacked both En Mishpat (Genesis 14:7) (most likely Kadesh Barnea), and the area later inhabited by the Amalekites which was westward of Kadesh Barnea. Having completed that, they then headed northwards again along the Jordan valley and attacked the Amorites in Hazezon-tamar. Continuing further north, they met in battle the kings of the five cities of the plain, defeated them, took captives and headed north. They were then pursued by Abram with his own private army allied with Aner, Eshcol and Mamre, the Amorite chieftains (Genesis 14;24). They overtook the Mesopotamian kings in Syria defeated them, and returned with the spoils to Canaan.

   Figure 5. Course of Chedorlaomer (as proposed).

   As is often the case, the positive clue comes from the most insignificant portion of this passage. In Genesis 14:7 we are told that the kings of Mesapotamia attacked 'the Amorites who dwelt in Hazezon-tamar'. Now 2 Chronicles 20:2 tells us that Hazezon-tamar is En-gedi, the oasis mentioned in Scripture a number of times on the western shore of the Dead Sea.

   The passage in Genesis chapter 14, therefore, allows us to conclude that in the days of Abraham there was a civilization in En-gedi on the western shore of the Dead Sea, a civilization of Amorites, and that these were defeated by Chedorlaomer in his passage northward.

   Focus on En-gedi

   Happily for us. En-gedi has been excavated.^5,6 The excavations found only three major periods of settlement at En-gedi:-.

   1. The Roman period - not relevant here
   2. During the Kingdom of Israel - not relevant here
   3. During the Chalcolithic of Palestine - the largest and most prolific settlement period.

   In fact, a building complex was discovered situated on a hill terrace above the spring of En-gedi approximately 150 metres north. This appeared to be a sacred enclosure, similar to the Chalcolithic sanctuary discovered in Stratum XIX at Megiddo. Notably, the enclosure at En-gedi was not destroyed, but was abandoned with the people apparently taking their cult furniture with them.

   I believe it is more than coincidental that corresponding to our new match on the archaeological table we find that there was in fact a civilization in En-gedi during this archaeological period. The picture becomes even more illuminated when we are led into the various caves around the En-gedi region, and particularly to one called the Cave of the Treasure.

   In 1960 an expedition of urgency into the Judean desert was conducted by the Hebrew University, the Department of Antiquities, and the Israel Exploration Society with help from the armed forces of Israel. The precipitating motive was to rescue antiquities, such as finds like the Dead Sea Scrolls, from destruction, and to do a complete search of the caves of the Judean desert to look for antiquities for preservation (see Figure 6).

   Figure 6. Significant Chalcolithic finds.

   Many caves were found and finds were such that it was clear that the greatest time of occupation was the Chalcolithic period. Although the caves themselves were apparently occupied for only a brief period, they testified to prolific civilization and a significant population density in this area greater than for any later one. The conclusion can almost certainly be drawn that the sanctuary at En-gedi was the focal point for their worship.

   One of the most remarkable caves was the cave of the treasure in Nahal Mishmar. Details have been fully published in 'The Cave of the Treasure' by Pessah Bar-Adon.⁷ A significant treasure of cult artifacts and weapons was found, testifying to a wealth of culture at this period.

   Bar-Adon comments:

   ‘It took us three hours to remove the articles, which were wrapped in a straw mat, from their hiding place - four hundred and twenty nine in all. Apart from six of haematite, six of ivory and one of stone, all the rest are of metal. They were all of a surprisingly high technical standard of workmanship.’⁸

   And he goes on:-

   ‘The hoard comprised the following: axes and chisels; hammers; 'mace heads'; hollow stands decorated with knobs, branches, birds, and animals such as deer, ibex, buffalo, wild goats, and eagle; 'horns' (in one of which there was still a piece of thread running through the perforations at the edge); smooth and elaborately ornamented 'crowns', small baskets; a pot; a statuette with a human face; sceptres; flag poles; an ivory box; perforated utensils made - as subsequently determined by Prof. Haas - from hippopotamus tusks; and more.’⁸

   They dated it to the Chalcolithic period.

   Bar-Adon queried the reasons for the articles in this context as if somebody had left them there and intended to return but was not able to. He continues on:-

   ‘What induced the owners of this treasure to hide it hurriedly away in the cave? And what was the event that prevented them from taking the treasure out of its concealment and restoring it to its proper place? And what caused the sudden destruction of the Chalcolithic settlements in the Judean Desert and in other regions of Palestine.’^8:226

   The remarkable thing about this culture also was that it was very similar, if not the same culture, to that found at a place in the southern Jordan Valley called Taleilat Ghassul (which is the type site of this culture), and also resembles the culture of Beersheba. The culture can in fact be called 'Ghassul culture' and specifically Ghassul IV.

   The Ghassul IV culture disappeared from Trans Jordan, Taleilat Ghassul and Beersheba and the rest of the Negev as well as from Hazezon-tamar or En-gedi apparently at the same time. It is remarkable when looked at on the map that this disappearance of the Ghassul IV culture corresponds exactly to the areas which were attacked by the Mesopotamian confederate of kings. The fact that En-gedi specifically terminates its culture at this point allows a very positive identification of this civilization, Ghassul IV, with the Amorites of Hazezon-tamar.

   If that be the case, then we can answer Bar Adon's question very positively. The reason the people did not return to get their goods was that they had been destroyed by the confederate kings of Mesopotamia, in approximately 1,870 B.C. in the days of Abraham.

   Now as far as Palestine is concerned, in an isolated context, this may be possible to accept, but many might ask: What about the Mesopotamian kings themselves? Others may ask: What does this do to Egyptian chronology? And still further questions need to be asked concerning the origin of the Philistines in the days of Abraham, for the Philistines were closely in touch with Abraham during this same period (Genesis 20). So we must search for evidence of Philistine origins or habitation at approximately the end of the Chalcolithic (Ghassul IV) in Palestine. All these questions will be faced.

   The Mesopotamian complex of Chedor Laomer

   Ghassul IV corresponds in Mesopotamia to the period known as the Jemdat-Nasr/ Uruk period, otherwise called Protoliterate (because it was during this period that the archaeologists found the first evidence of early writing). Ghassul IV also corresponds to the last Chalcolithic period of Egypt, the Gerzean or pre-Dynastic period (see Figure 7). Let us look, therefore, at both of these geographically and archaeologically, and see what we find.

   Figure 7. Correlation of national archaeological periods.

   Uruk is so called because it refers to a culture associated with the archaeological site called Warka (Uruk of Mesopotamian history or biblical Erech - Genesis 10:10) in the land of Sumer or biblical Shinar (see Figure 8), and we note that one of the kings of the Mesopotamian confederacy came from Shinar, namely Amraphel.

   Jemdat Nasr is a site in northern Sumer, northeast of Babylon (see Figure 8). It is a site that was found to have a pottery with similarities to the culture of Elam and corresponding in time to the later phases of the Uruk culture.

   We have in Mesopotamia, therefore, archaeological evidence that there was a period in which the Uruk culture, and an Elamite culture typified by Jemdat Nasr, were in some sort of combination, and this corresponds to the period in Palestine when the Ghassul culture disappeared. The writing of this period does not allow us to recognise at this point any particular kings from contemporary records for it is undeciphered, but all that is known archaeologically is in agreement with the possibility of a combine of nations of the description of Genesis 14 existing. Considering the war-like attitudes of Sumer and Elam in later years this is all the more remarkable, for no other period of Sumer/Elamite relationship accepts the possibility of such a semi-benevolent relationship.

   Figure 8. Location of Uruk, Jemdat Nasr and other important sities in Mesopotamian history.

   Archaeology in Iran. in the plain of Susiana, has demonstrated a resurgent Elamite culture contemporary with Jemdat Nasr in Mesopotamia,⁹ and this fits the biblical suggestion of a dominant Chedorlaomer (Genesis 14).

   Considering the fact that the Bible allows the interpretation of Chedorlaomer being the chief of the combine of kings, one could even theorise that Jemdat Nasr may have been a site deliberately built by the Elamite king to assist control of the region of Sumer, but that remains highly speculative.

   We have then so far, in summary, the following evidence as a witness that the end of the Chalcolithic in Palestine was during the days of Abraham:-

   1. A fit on the archaeological table previously presented that corresponds.
   2. Positive identification of a culture, corresponding exactly geographically to the biblical story, which disappeared from the scene at that period of time in Palestine and Trans Jordan.
   3. Archaeological evidence in Mesopotamia which is consistent with a combination of Sumerian and Elamite kings, and which definitely allows the possibility of other confederates.

   But Egypt!

   At this stage there will be many objections to the hypothesis here presented, for it is totally contradictory to the presently held Egyptian chronology of the ancient world. However, I would remind my reader that the Egyptian chronology is not established, despite claims to the contrary. It has many speculative points within it. Let us continue to see if there is any correspondence, for if Abraham was alive in the days of the Ghassul IV culture, then he was alive in the days of the Gerzean culture of pre-Dynastic Egypt, possibly living into the days of the first Dynasty of Egypt.

   The correspondence between this period in Palestine and in Egypt is very clear, and has been solidly established, particularly by the excavations at Arad by Ruth Amiram¹⁰ and at Tel Areini by S. Yeivin.¹¹

   Such a revised chronology as here presented would allow Abraham to be in contact with the earliest kings of Dynasty I and the late pre-Dynastic kings, and this would slice a thousand years off the presently held chronology of Egypt. To many the thought would be too radical to contemplate. The author here insists that it must be contemplated. Only so will the chronology of the ancient world be put into proper perspective. Long as the task may take, and however difficult the road may be, it must be undertaken.

   In order to support the present revised chronology here held, the author sites another correspondence archaeologically, and this concerns both the Philistines and Egypt.

   The Philistine Question

   Genesis 20 makes it clear that Abraham was in contact with the Philistines, yet the accepted chronological record presently held does not recognise Philistines being in the land of Philistia at any time corresponding with the days of Abraham. Yet the Bible is adamant.

   The Scripture is clear that the Philistines were in Canaan by the time of Abraham, approximately 1850 B.C., or at least around the area of Gerar between Kadesh and Shur (Genesis 20:1), and Beersheba (Genesis 21:321) (see Figure 9). A king called Abimelech was present, and his military chief was Phicol (Genesis 21:22).

   The land was called the Land of the Philistines (Genesis 21:32). According to Genesis 10:14, the Philistines were descendants of one Egyptian ancestor, Casluhim, but apparently they dwelt in the region occupied by Caphtor which was apparently the coastlands around the delta region. Now many attempts have been made to associate Caphtor with Crete, but the attempt is strained and unsubstantiated.

   Figure 9. Proposed route of migration of the Philistines from Egypt ot Palistine.

   The Philistines migrated out of Caphtor northeast to Canaan (Deuteronomy 2:23, Jeremiah 47:4. Amos 9:7) (see Figure 9), dispossessing the ancient Canaanites, locally called the Avims (Deuteronomy 2:23), some of whom were still in existence in the days of Joshua (Joshua 13:3). This migration was Egyptian, but in fact the stock were the later Philistines. It may have included more than just the Philistines, but the Philistines apparently superseded the others. They are called the 'remnant of the country of Caphtor' (Jeremiah 47:4).

   We have placed the end of the Chalcolithic of the Negev, En-gedi, Trans Jordan and Taleilat Ghassul at approximately 1870 B.C., being approximately at Abraham's 80th year. Early Bronze I Palestine (EB I) would follow this, significantly for our discussions. Stratum V therefore at early Arad (Chalcolithic) ends at 1870 B.C., and the next stratum, Stratum IV (EB I), would begin after this.

   Stratum IV begins therefore some time after 1870 B.C.. This is a new culture significantly different from Stratum V.1¹²

   Belonging to Stratum IV, Amiram found a sherd with the name of Narmer (First Dynasty of Egypt),^{10, 13} and she dates Stratum IV to the early part of the Egyptian Dynasty I and the later part of Canaan EB I. Amiram feels forced to conclude a chronological gap between Stratum V (Chalcolithic) at Arad and Stratum IV EB I at Arad.^12:116 However, this is based on the assumption of time periods on the accepted scale of Canaan's history, long time periods which are here rejected.

   The chronological conclusion is strong that Abraham's life-time corresponds to the Chalcolithic in Egypt, through at least a portion of Dynasty I of Egypt, which equals Ghassul IV through to EB I in Palestine. The possibilites for the Egyptian king of the Abrahamic narrative are therefore:-

   1. A late northern Chalcolithic king of Egypt, or
   2. Menes or Narmer, be they separate or the same king (Genesis 12:10-20).

   Of these, the chronological scheme would favour a late Chalcolithic (Gerzean) king of northern Egypt, just before the unification under Menes.

   Thus the Egyptian Dynastic period would start approximately 1860 B.C.. Clearly, if this were the case, by this scheme the Philistines were in Canaan already, and must therefore have at least begun their migration in the late Chalcolithic of Egypt and Palestine.

   Therefore, we need to look in southwest Canaan for evidence of Egyptian (cum Philistine) migration, beginning in the late Chalcolithic and possibly reaching into EB I (depending on the cause and rapidity of migration), in order to define the earliest Philistine settlement of Canaan from Egyptian stock. Is there such evidence? The answer is a clear and categorical YES.

   Amiram, Beit-Ariah and Glass¹⁴ discussed the same period in relationship between Canaan and Egypt. So did Oren.¹⁵

   Of the period Oren says:

   ‘Canaanite Early Bronze I-II and Egyptian late pre-Dynastic and early Dynastic periods’^15:200

   He says of the findings in Canaan:

   ‘The majority of Egyptian vessels belong to the First Dynasty repertoire while a few sherds can be assigned with certainty to the late pre-Dynastic period.’^15:203(emphasis mine)

   He continues:

   ‘The occurrence of Egyptian material which is not later than the First Dynasty alongside EB A I-II pottery types has been noted in surface collections and especially in controlled excavations in southern Canaan. This indicates that the appearance and distinction of the material of First Dynasty in northern Sinai and southern Canaan should be viewed as one related historical phenomenon.’^15:203(emphasis mine)

   The area surveyed was between Suez and Wadi El-Arish. ED I-II had intensive settlement in this area.

   He continues further:

   ‘Furthermore, the wide distribution of Egyptian material and the somewhat permanent nature of the sites in Sinai and southern Canaan can no longer be viewed as the results of trade relations only. In all likelihood Egypt used northern Sinai as a springboard for forcing her way into Canaan with the result that all of southern Canaan became an Egyptian domain and its resources were exploited on a large scale.’^15:204(emphasis mine)

   And again:

   ‘The contacts which began in pre-Dynastic times, were most intensive during the First Dynasty period’^15:204(emphasis mine)

   Ram Gopha¹⁶ is bolder about this event or phenomenon, insisting on it being a migration:

   ‘Today we seem to be justified in assuming some kind of immigration of people from Egypt to southern Canaan...’^16:31

   Further:

   ‘the Egyptian migration during the First Dynasty period may be seen as an intensification of previously existing relationships between the two countries. These relations had already begun in the Ghassulian Chalcolithic period but reached sizable proportions only in the Late Pre-Dynastic period’ (first phases of Palestinian EB I).^16:35(emphasis mine)

   The testimony is clear. Excavation at Tel Areini identifies such an Egyptian migration and settlement starting in the Chalcolithic period.¹⁷ There was definitely a migration of Egyptian people of some sort from northern Egypt into southern Palestine, and particularly the region that was later known as Philistia.^16:32

   The testimony of Scripture is clear that there were Philistines who came from Egypt into Palestine in the days of Abraham. This revised chronology identifies such a migration in the days of the Ghassulians, who I insist, perished during the early days of Abraham's sojourn in Canaan. This period must then be grossly redated in accordance with biblical expectations, instead of evolutionary assumptions.

   Further details of the Philistines

   Although in this discussion we are concerning ourselves with the days of Abraham, it is pertinent that we also elaborate on the question of the Phiistines at a later period, in order that the overall perspective of these people be understood. Modern archaeological interpretation first allows the Philistines in the days of Ramesses III of the 20th Dynasty, dated 1182 to 1151 B.C.¹⁸

   An inscription of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu reports an attack made by the peoples of the sea, among whom are a group called the Peleset. Ramesses claims to have defeated these in a sea battle. The Peleset are said to have settled in the area of the Philistines at approximately this time, and naturally it is assumed that the Philistines therefore first settled in Palestine at this period, and that they originated from the Aegean area as the peoples of the sea.

   The Scripture, however, gives no credibility to such an interpretation. Thus, there is a conflict?

   It is clear, from what has been said before of the narratives of Abraham and Isaac, that the Philistines were already in Palestine at approximately 1850 B.C., some 700 years before present archaeological interpretation accepts them as there. The Scripture also seems to indicate that they originated from Egypt, and not from the Aegean area. Is there any way to satisfy both the biblical claims, and the artifactual archaeological evidence? I believe there is. But first we must accept the biblical statements at face value and scan the Scriptures for anything that might fit at approximately 1100 to 1000 B.C., and for a people who could in fact be identified with the Peleset 'of the relief of Ramesses III' Indeed, we do meet a people, first in 2 Samuel 8:18, and then subsequently in 2 Samuel 15:18 and 27:23, 1 Kings 1:38 and 44, 1 Chronicles 18:17, Ezekiel 25:16, and Zephaniah 2:5. They are called the Pelethites, and they are associated with the Cherethites and also, in at least one passage, the Gittites who were indeed a group of Philistines from the city of Gath.

   Now it does not take much to realise that the word 'Pelethite' is an even better match with the word 'Peleset' in the Egyptian reliefs than is the word 'Philistine'. So if the Bible allows a group of people by the name of Pelethites who clearly were associated in some way with the Philistine region, and who also were associated with the Cherethites (whom many believe to be the Cretians, who in one text, namely Ezekiel 25:16, are called the remnant of the sea coast), then we have all the conditions necessary to solve an apparent conflict. We have no need to reject the Philistines of Egyptian descent in Palestine at 1850 B.C., and we can accept a second wave of people known as the Pelethites and Cherethites, who settled on the sea coast before the days of Saul and David, who are evidenced by the archaeological record, and who apparently had an Aegean origin. There would still be some difficulty in this revised chronology in associating the initial settlement of the Pelethites and the Cherethites with the same event as recorded by Ramesses III. Rather, they would need to be seen as allies to the other peoples of the sea when they themselves were already settled in a land base in Philistia prior to the days of Ramesses III, but I will leave this to be detailed at another time. Sufficient to conclude here that the Pelethites and Cherethites of Scripture were first able to be identified at approximately 1012 B.C. in the later years of Saul, king of Israel. Contingents from these groups formed part of the guard of David, yet the true Philistines were of Egyptian descent and were already in the land of Palestine by 1850 B.C. in the days of Abraham. This narrative we should be able to accept literally as a direct statement of history, and to see it as most likely being the written correlation of the late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I settlement of Egyptian stock in southern Palestine, as the archaeological record testifies.

   Summary

   In summary, Abraham entered the land of Canaan at approximately 1875 B.C.. In his days there was a settlement of Amorites in En-gedi, identified here with the Ghassul IV people. This civilization was ended by the attack of four Mesopotamian monarchs in a combined confederation of nations, here placed in the Uruk-Jemdat Nasr period in Mesopotamia. They were a significant force in ending the Chalcolithic of Palestine as we understand it archaeologically, and Abraham and his army were a significant force in ending the Jemdat Nasr domination of Mesopotamia, and thus the Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia, by their attack on these four Mesopotamian monarchs as they were returning home. Egypt was just about to enter its great dynastic period, and was beginning to consolidate into a united kingdom, when from northern Egypt a surge of Egyptian stock, including the Philistines, moved north into southern Palestine to settle, as well as to trade, identified in a number of sites in that region (most notably in the strata of Tel Areini, Level VI then V) as the Philistines with whom Abraham was able to talk face to face. The biblical narrative demands a redating of the whole of ancient history, as currently recognised, by something like a one thousand year shortening - a formidable claim and a formidable investigation, but one that must be undertaken.

   References

   1. Bright. J., 1972. A History of Israel, The Westminster Press and SCM Press Ltd., p.66.Return.
   2. Glueck, N.. 1958. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 152: 20.Return.
   3. Albright W.F.. 1961. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 163: 44.Return.
   4. Harrison, R.K., 1970. Old Testament Times, Eerdmans Publishing Co.. p.86.Return.
   5. Maser et al., 1966. En-gedi Excavations, Jerusalem.Return.
   6. Avi-Yonah, M., 1976. Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. VII, Jerusalem and London. pp.370-380.Return.
   7. Bar-Adon, P., 1980. The Cave of the Treasure, Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.Return.
   8. Bar-Adon, P., 1962. Israel Exploration Journal, 12: 218-226.Return.
   9. Ghirshman, H.. 1954. Iran, Middlesex. England, p.45.Return.
   10. Amiram, R.. 1974. Israel Exploration Journal. 24: 4-12.Return.
   11. Yolvin, S.. 1960. Israel Exploration Journal 10: 193-203.Return.
   12. Amiram, R., 1978. Early Arad I, Jerusalem.Return.
   13. Amiram, R.. 1976. Israel Exploration Journal, 26: 45.Return.
   14. Amiram, Beit Arieh, and Glass, 1973. Israel Exploration Journal. 23: 193.Return.
   15. Oren, E.D.. 1973. Israel Exploration Journal, 23: 198-205.Return.
   16. Gophna, Ram, 1976. Tel Aviv, 3(1): 31-37.Return.
   17. Weinstein. J., 1984. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 256:61-69.Return.
   18. Gardiner, A.. 1961. Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford.Return.

Taken from: http://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham