Holy Moly: Side Characters

In Genesis 14 we begin with a story which sounds way, way more interesting than Abram's fruitfulness and multiplicity.

While Amraphel was king of Shinar, Ellasar’s King Arioch, Elam’s King Chedorlaomer, and Goiim’s King Tidal declared war on Sodom’s King Bera, Gomorrah’s King Birsha, Admah’s King Shinab, Zeboiim’s King Shemeber, and the king of Bela, that is, Zoar. These latter kings formed an alliance in the Siddim Valley (that is, the Dead Sea). For twelve years they had served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they revolted. In the fourteenth year, Chedorlaomer and the kings of his alliance came and attacked the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, and the Horites in the mountains of Seir as far as El-paran near the desert. Then they turned back, came to En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and attacked the territory of the Amalekites, as well as the Amorites who lived in Hazazon-tamar.

Then the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bera (that is, Zoar) took up battle positions in the Siddim Valley against King Chedorlaomer of Elam, King Tidal of Goiim, King Amraphel of Shinar, and King Arioch of Ellasar, four kings against five.

Now the Siddim Valley was filled with tar pits. When the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah retreated, they fell into them; and the rest fled to the mountains.

I have no idea who any of these people are.  I'm not an early near-eastern historian.  But boy, doesn't this sound like something straight out of Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings?

We've got place names and characters I can't pronounce (I could take a stab at it but fortunately I don't have to, this being a textual medium).  We've got rebellions and kings and infighting.  We've got armies being swallowed up by tar.

But there's no escaping the fact that this is the Bible, not the Silmarillion, so the only reason all of this is important is that Lot, who is living in Sodom, gets captured when the victorious kings sack the city.  We don't hear about pitched battles or strategy.  This is the Bible, and Abram and Lot are the important part.

Did any of this actually happen?  No idea.  The Bible as historical record is... well, we're still in Genesis, and Genesis is as old as dirt.  We're only a few scant chapters away from a great flood which wiped out everyone on earth.  We've covered a lot of ground, what with generations of men who were considered young at 300.  But still, we're in myths and legends territory here.

And beyond that, I have no reason to doubt that all these places and kings had some deep meaning to people in late Stone Age/early Bronze Age Mesopotamia.  It's likely that, as they sat around the fire, proto-Jews would have heard this story and thought, "Oh boy, King Chedorlaomer, he's the king who defeated fifteen dragons in the story we heard last night.  You do not want to fuck with him.  Just more stupidity on the part of those idiots in Sodom, huh?"  But they didn't bother to write down the story of King Chedorlaomer, so he makes this brief appearance in the Bible and then is gone again.  Maybe his story wasn't popular.  Maybe it didn't have a good lesson, just plenty of gratuitous sex and senseless violence.  Maybe King Chedorlaomer would have been played by Bruce Willis.

It's useless to speculate.

It's not fair to say that Abram and Lot are minor characters in this story: they're just not in the epic battle.  Abram mounts a daring rescue and manages, with a small strike force, to see off Lot's captors and bring him, his people, and the loot back to Sodom.

And here we meet King Melchizedek.  King Melchizedek has a terrific name, and if he showed up in a fantasy movie fighting dragons I would not be in the least surprised.  He's the high priest of what I'm somewhat reliably informed is a deity of some sort, although possibly not the same deity worshiped by Abram.

It's important to note here (and elsewhere, but we'll get there) that Abram might have worshiped the god who winds up being the head honcho in the Bible, but he believed in other gods.  These proto-Hebrews were polytheistic.  This is prior to the Ten Commandments (and even then, monotheism only meant worshiping one god before others, not only believing in one god, but we'll get there when we get there).  So Abram, being a pragmatic man, gives a tithe of 10% to Melchizedek, who then goes back into the background (or possibly Melchizedek gives a tithe to Abram; the text is ambiguous, but it makes more sense to me that Abram is tithing to the priest-king rather than the other way around, rescuing hero or not).  We'll run into Melchizedek's name again, way after we've all forgotten who he is.

The King of Sodom offers Abram the loot as a reward, but Abram says, "No, sorry: god says I shouldn't take anything from you so you can't take credit for me being awesome."  I have to imagine that this the King of Sodom had somewhat mixed feelings about this response.  On the one hand, Abram's refusing a reward, so Sodom gets the loot back.  Sodom has just lost its army and its city has been sacked, so I imagine that the king is happy enough to have a little loot.  But on the other hand, Abram is being a dick.  He's refusing a kingly gift and saying, "Um, sorry, no, I don't need your shit; I'm awesome."

Abram does make sure that his followers are rewarded, so it's possible that this should be read as humbleness and care, and maybe that's how it was received.  Still, if I were king and I just offered you loot, to decline would be a bit rude, but to decline because you say god told you not to owe me any favors... that's got to make me wonder just why you don't want to owe me any favors.

Abram talks about the god who told him this using the same name as the god for whom Melchizedek is priest, so maybe this should be read differently.  Maybe Melchizedek passed on a message from his god in exchange for the tithe, and El Elyon said for Abram not to take the reward.  Maybe El Elyon is the Hebrew God, and it's all very confusing.  This latter possibility is certainly borne out later when later writers use Melchizedek as the ancestor of Hebrew priests.  Still, since Melchizedek doesn't seem to have any purpose in this story beyond being name-dropped (he clearly had other stories about him which didn't make it into the Bible) I think believing that maybe he had something to do with Abram's refusal is justified, if not certified.

In any case, this should probably all be read as, "Abram is special.  Abram is awesome.  You are descendants of Abram.  Therefore, you are special and awesome."  Just so.  There's nothing wrong with this.  All tribes and groups tell founding stories about how special they are.  No need to fret: God and the Bible will continue to reinforce this message.