When the enclosure of Ê-zida (the great temple-tower of Borsippa, identified with the tower of Babel by modern scholars) was broken down, Ibi-Tutu, apparently a Babylonian prince, fled to Tiamtu, the region of the Persian Gulf, and there founded a temporary capital. The invader thereupon seems to have proceeded to Borsippa, and to have taken the road to Mesech—that is to say, to the north—where he continued his ravages. That he intended to go so [pg 232] far as Mesech, however, is very unlikely, his object being to subdue the princes of the immediate neighbourhood of Babylon, and after collecting the spoil and goods of all the temples, he carried them away with him to Elam.
Cyrus, when he entered Babylon, spoke peace to the city, and promised peace to all the land. In later documents even than the time of Cyrus, “the enemy, the Elamite,” is spoken of, and there is every probability that the legend here recounted was popular with the Babylonians as long as any national feeling was left, hence these incomplete remains which have come down to us—due, perhaps, to some period when the old hostility was aroused by some inroad from the mountains on the east, where the Elamites held sway apparently to a comparatively late date.
Whether Êri-Eaku (or Eri-Aaku), Tudḫula, and Kudur-laḫgumal be Arioch, Tidal and Chedorlaomer respectively, I leave to the reader to decide for himself. The first of these will probably be regarded as sufficiently near to be exceedingly probable. With regard to the two others, it may be noted that Tidal was pronounced, in Hebrew, Tidghal, as the Greek Thargal (for Thadgal, d and r being so much alike in Hebrew as to be easily interchanged) shows, and Chedorlaomer was Chedorlaghomer, as the Greek Chodollogomar likewise indicates. Doubt concerning the reading can only be entertained with regard to this last name.[48]
Whatever may be thought about the interesting and remarkable inscriptions of which an account has just been given, of one thing there can be no doubt, and that is, that the Elamites and Babylonians were quite powerful enough, at the time of Abraham, to make an expedition of the magnitude described in [pg 233] Genesis xiv. Sargon of Agadé held sway over this district, and he reigned, according to Nabonidus's indications, more than 1500 years earlier. His son, when he came to the throne, added Elam to his dominions as well. That the position should, at a considerably later period, be reversed, is easily conceivable, and it was to all appearance the Elamites who held sway in a part of Babylonia, of which country many of the states undoubtedly acknowledged Elamite overlordship, though with exceeding unwillingness. One point of the undoubted history is noteworthy. Kudur-mabuk, son of Simti-šilḫak, who ruled at Larsa, bears, like his father, an Elamite name. His son, Êri-Aku, has an Akkadian name—perhaps, as already suggested, from motives of policy, and likely enough from the same motive, he may have Semitizised it later on, making it Arad-Sin. Êri-Ekua (-Eaku) is likewise an Akkadian name, and must be a fanciful variant of that of Êri-Aku or Arioch. His son, however, bears the Semitic name of Durmaḫ-îlāni, “the bond with the gods.” This is apparently a case of carrying the policy of conciliation a step farther, for by doing this he not only bears a native name, but also claims to be the intermediary with the gods of his country.
After the retreat of the conquering army of Elamites and Babylonians with their booty, with Lot, Abraham's nephew, as prisoner, and his goods as part of the spoil, comes the interesting account of the way in which Abraham rescued his relative and recovered his property, with a portion of that belonging to the king of Sodom. On his return with the spoil, Melchizedek king of Salem meets him, offering him bread and wine, and blessing him as Abraham of El-Elyon, “the most high god.” Certain supposed confirmatory statements in the correspondence of Abdi-ṭâba, ruler of Jerusalem, which was found among the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, has been the subject of much discussion, and [pg 234] it is apparently regarded as being of much importance, though there are various opinions concerning it. The prince in question, when writing to his suzerain, the reigning king of Egypt, makes the remarkable statement that it was not his father nor his mother who had set him in that place (i.e. Uru-salim or Jerusalem) as king, but “the mighty king”—
“Behold, this land of Jerusalem, neither my father nor my mother gave (it) to me—the hand (arm[49]) of the mighty king gave it to me.”—(Tablet, Berlin, 103.)
“Behold, I am not a prefect, I am an employé of the king my lord,—behold, I am an officer of the king, and one who brings the tribute of the king. Neither my father nor my mother, (but) the arm of the mighty king has set me in the house of my father.”—(Tablet B. 104.)
“Behold, I, neither my father nor my mother set me in this place. The arm of the mighty king caused me to enter into the house of my father.”—(Tablet B. 102.)
As Abdi-ṭâba then goes on to emphasize his faithfulness to the king of Egypt, apparently on account of his having been made ruler of Jerusalem by him, these passages merely resolve themselves, to all appearance, into a statement of the writer's indebtedness to his royal master. It may be disappointing, but to all appearance the “mighty king” is the king of Egypt, and not the god of Uru-salim.
Nevertheless, the description of Melchizedek in Heb. vii. 3, “without father, without mother,” makes it a quite legitimate question to ask: may not Abdi-ṭâba, in what he said to his suzerain, have made some mental reservation when writing what he did? Or is [pg 235] it not possible that, when speaking about his independence of his father and his mother for the position that he occupied, he was unconsciously making use of words familiar to him, and recorded in some document of the archives of the city? We have yet to learn the history of the preceding period—we know not whether Abdi-ṭâba had really a right to the position which he occupied (he seems to have been placed as ruler of Jerusalem by the foreign power to which he refers), and until we get more information, there is no escape from the necessity of regarding him, from his own letters, as being in a different position from that which, in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, Melchizedek occupies.