Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/375



We have seen that every one of the identifications is disputed by more than one competent Assyriologist (see, further, Mey. GA$2$, ii. p. 551 f.); and since only an expert is fully qualified to judge of the probabilities of the case, it is perhaps premature to regard the confirmation as assured. At the same time, it is quite clear that the names are not invented; and it is highly probable that they are those of contemporary kings who actually reigned over the countries assigned to them in this chapter. Their exact relations to one another are still undetermined, and in some respects difficult to imagine; but there is nothing in the situation which we may not expect to be cleared up by further discoveries. It would seem to follow that the author's information is derived ultimately either from a Babylonian source, or from records preserved amongst the Canaanites in Palestine. The presence of an element of authentic history in v.$1$ being thus admitted, we have to inquire how far this enters into the substance of the narrative.

Before answering that question, we must look at the arguments advanced in favour of the late origin and fictitious character of the chapter. These are of two kinds: (1) The inherent improbability or incredibility of many of the incidents recorded. This line of criticism was most fully elaborated by Nöldeke in 1869 (Untersuchungen, 156-172): the following points may be selected as illustrations of the difficulties which the narrative presents. (a) The route said to have been traversed is, if not absolutely impracticable for a regular army, at least quite irreconcilable with the alleged object of the campaign,—the chastisement of the Pentapolis. That the four kings should have passed the Dead Sea valley, leaving their principal enemies in their rear, and postponing a decisive engagement till the end of a circuitous and exhausting march, is a proceeding which would be impossible in real warfare, and could only have been imagined by a writer out of touch with the actualities of the situation (see the Notes on p. 261). (b) It is difficult to resist the impression that some of the personal names—especially Bĕra and Birsha (see on v.$2$), and Mamre and Eshcol (v.$13$)—are artificial formations, which reveal either the animus of the writer, or else (in the last two instances) a misapprehension of traditional data into which only a very late and ill-informed writer could have been betrayed. (c) The rout of Chedorlaomer's army by 318 untrained men is generally admitted to be incredible. It is no sufficient explanation to say that only a rearguard action may have taken place; the writer does not mean that; and if his meaning misrepresents what actually took place, his account is at any rate not historical (see p. 267). (d) It appears to be assumed in v.$3$ that the Dead Sea was formed subsequently to the events narrated. This idea seems to have been traditional in Israel (cf. 13$10$), but it is nevertheless quite erroneous. Geological evidence proves that that amazing depression in the earth's surface had existed for ages before the advent of man on the earth, and formed, from the first, part of a great inland lake whose waters stood originally several hundred feet higher than the present level of the Dead Sea. It may, indeed, be urged that the vale of Siddim was not coextensive with the Dead Sea basin, but only with its shallow southern 'Lagoon'