Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Lot as a Hostage
 
A.  Traditional View Does Not Make Sense
 
If the four attacking rulers in chapter 14 of Genesis were “Mesopotamia-based”
 kings, it would not make sense for them to take Lot, Lot’s wife, and Lot’s 
daughters as hostages.  If ransom money were the rationale for taking 
hostages, the 4 kings would have left Lot’s wife behind in Sodom to try to 
raise 
ransom money.  Genesis 14: 16 confirms that Lot’s wife and daughters were all 
taken 
hostage.  It would not make sense for a king of the predecessor of Persia to 
take Lot, Lot’s wife, and Lot’s 4 daughters all the long way back to the 
predecessor of Persia, east of Mesopotamia, certainly.
 
Abraham’s military attack also makes no sense on the traditional view.  Four 
kings from Mesopotamia would certainly still be a unified force until they 
had 
gone a long ways north and east of Damascus.  This unified force had just now 
devastated much of Canaan.  Abraham could possibly snatch the hostages in the 
dead of night, and then steal away, but that is not what Genesis 14: 14-15 
says:
 
“And when Abram heard that his brother [Lot] was taken captive, he led forth 
his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued 
as 
far as Dan.  And he divided himself against them by night, he and his 
servants, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left 
hand of 
Damascus.”  Genesis 14: 14-15
 
If “Dan” means Lus/Laish, at the southern foot of Mt. Hermon/Mt. Lebanon, as 
traditionally viewed, then Abraham drove all 4 Mesopotamia-based kings more 
than 50 miles from Dan to Damascus, and then beyond that to Hobah, though 
there 
is no Hobah on the Kings’ Highway north of Damascus.  Abraham’s men could 
not possibly have forced the combined armies of 4 Mesopotamia-based kings to 
flee more than 50 miles.  That is preposterous.  And in the Patriarchal Age, 
the 
town at the southern foot of Mt. Lebanon was not called “Dan”, but rather was 
called “Lus”, to which Jacob gave the personal nickname “Bethel” in honor 
of Jacob’s “Jacob’s Ladder” religious experience there.  Genesis 27: 19;  35: 
15;  48: 3  That town was not called “Dan” until the period of the Judges.  
Judges 18: 29  So neither the geography, nor Abraham’s military maneuvers, 
make any sense on the traditional view.
 
B.  Everything Makes Sense on the Historical View
 
Based primarily on the linguistic analysis in prior posts of the nicknames 
used in chapter 14 of Genesis for the four attacking rulers and for their 
homelands, we have determined that the four attacking rulers, from south to 
north, 
were historically as follows:  (1) “Amrapel of Shinar” is west 
Semitic-speaking princeling ruler Aziru of Amurru, in northern Lebanon (near 
Mt. 
Lebanon/Shenir/Shinar);  (2) “Arioch of Elassar” is the Hurrian princeling 
ruler Etakama 
of Qadesh, who had been re-educated in Year 13 by the Hittites in the Hittite 
heartland at Alisar (Biblical “Elassar”);  (3) “Chedorlaomer of ’Eylam” is 
west Semitic-speaking princeling ruler Niqmaddu II of Ugarit, who 
iniquitously 
sold out Ugarit to the dreaded Hittites without a fight in Year 14 (of 
Akhenaten’s rule, “in the fourteenth year” referenced at Genesis 14: 5);  and 
(4) “
Tidal king of nations” is Suppililiuma I, the mightiest Hittite king of all 
time, a true king of nations, who had seized the Hittite throne by the 
dastardly 
expedient of murdering his own older brother named Tudhaliya/“Tidal”.  The 
Hittite heartland was in Anatolia, well north of Ugarit.
 
The Hittites took Lot, Lot’s wife, Lot’s daughters, and several other 
families of defeated city-states as hostages with the plan to try to 
re-educate them 
in the Hittite heartland near Alisar.  If Lot proved to be a quick study, as 
Etakama (Biblical “Arioch”) had the previous year, then the Hittites might 
decide to install Lot as the new leader of Sodom, with Lot being forced to be 
a 
compliant Hittite vassal.  So Lot’s family was not taken hostage in hopes of 
any ransom money, but rather because the Hittites hoped to develop several 
Hittite vassals from the defeated peoples who would then rule these defeated 
city-states as Hittite vassal states.
 
Abraham passes north through Amurru, Qadesh in northern Lebanon, and Ugarit 
as well, looking for Lot.  Abraham only finds Lot when Abraham has gone all 
the 
way to Danuna (Biblical “Dan”), immediately north of Ugarit.  The three 
attacking rulers who were mere princelings had gone back home by this point.  
Only 
the Hittites were proceeding north of Ugarit, on their way back home to 
Anatolia.  So we know that it was the Hittites, whose leader was Suppililiuma 
I 
(Biblical “Tidal”), who were holding Lot hostage.  
 
But most of the Hittite forces would have gone far ahead, eager to return 
home.  A small detachment of Hittite soldiers was bringing up the rear, 
lazily 
guarding the hostages, and holding a small portion of the loot the Hittites 
had 
taken from many places in Canaan, which as good luck would have it happened 
to 
be the loot taken from Sodom.  Abraham catches up with this small detachment 
of Hittite soldiers in southern Danuna, just north of Ugarit in western 
Syria, 
and plans a surprise attack.  Abraham will surprise the hostage holders by 
circling around and attacking them from the north, driving the hostage 
holders 
south, away from the bulk of the Hittite forces, who are already far to the 
north on their way back home to Anatolia.  At night, Abraham launches a 
surprise 
attack from various positions to the north, Abraham having “divided himself 
against them”.  Abraham successfully routes the hostage holders, who abandon 
their hostages and the loot and flee south, away from Abraham.  Abraham 
chases 
them a short distance south, from the southern border of Danuna (immediately 
north of Ugarit) to Hobah in the northern Bekka Valley.  Biblical “Hobah” is 
probably historical Hasabu, which we know from Amarna Letter 174: 8 was 
probably 
located in the northern Bekka Valley, well north of Damascus.  (Speaking of 
Amarna Letters, all 4 of the attacking rulers, and Danuna and Damascus as 
well, 
are mentioned in Amarna Letter #151, written by our good friend Abimilki of 
Sur (Biblical “Abimelech”).)  
 
Note that no casualties are mentioned on either side.  Abraham did not defeat 
4 “Mesopotamia-based” kings on the open field of battle.  That would not be 
credible.  Rather, Abraham realistically routed a small contingent of Hittite 
soldiers, and took the hostages and loot that this small contingent of 
Hittite 
soldiers abandoned in their panicked flight away from Abraham.  By the time 
the main body of Hittite troops heard what had happened, they were already 
back 
home in Anatolia.  The Hittites’ revenge would have to wait until the next 
military campaigning season (which is indirectly referred to in chapters 18 
and 
19 of Genesis, but there is no space to discuss that here).  Note, however, 
that the Sodom story is not over at the end of chapter 14 of Genesis.  The 
nefarious Hittites would not give up that easily.  Sodom was by no means out 
of the 
woods yet, but Abraham had at least given Sodom a fighting chance, a second 
chance.
 
The northern pre-Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives brilliantly 
portrays Abraham as doing exactly the opposite of what had historically 
happened 
the previous year (in Year 13 of Akhenaten’s reign) to Etakama.  Etakama of 
Qadesh had been taken hostage by the Hittites, re-educated at Alisar in the 
Hittite heartland, and then promptly installed as the new Hittite puppet 
leader of 
Qadesh, replacing the legitimate princeling ruler of Qadesh, who was 
Etakama’s 
own father.  Etakama then began terrorizing Lebanon with his good friend 
Aziru of Amurru, as they opportunistically took part in whatever looting 
opportunities arose, often in conjunction with the Hittites’ military 
maneuvers.  
Abraham bravely refuses to let that happen to Sodom and Lot.  Abraham rescues 
Lot, 
who is never re-educated by the Hittites.  Abraham then promptly hands Lot 
over to the King of Sodom, who had not been captured or killed by the 
Hittites.  
(Abraham proceeds south through Damascus and then down the east bank of the 
Jordan River.  Abraham sends messengers ahead to have the King of Sodom meet 
Abraham the moment Abraham steps foot in Canaan proper, at the hamlet of 
Salim on 
the west bank of the Jordan River, a short distance east of Shechem.)  The 
King of Sodom resumes his place as the rightful leader of Sodom, and Lot 
resumes 
his place as a loyal resident of Sodom, with neither of them being Hittite 
vassals.  (Sodom is not comprised of violent male homosexual gang rapists, as 
traditionalists and Prof. Robert Alter argue.  If that were the case, Abraham 
would not link arm in arm with the King of Sodom in chapter 14 of Genesis, 
nor 
would Abraham return Lot to Sodom and to the King of Sodom.  Ignoring the 
secular historical context of the Patriarchal narratives leads to all sorts 
of 
nonsensical results like that.)  The brilliant Hebrew author is showing how 
the 
Hittites should be dealt with.  Rather than iniquitously selling out to the 
Hittites, the princeling rulers of Canaan should count on their fellow 
Canaanite 
princeling rulers, the tent-dwelling habiru/Hebrews, and temporarily 
monotheistic Egypt, to keep the powerful Hittites out of Canaan.
 
Note that the entire sequence makes perfect sense, in the historical context. 
 What happens to Lot in chapter 14 of Genesis is exactly the opposite of what 
had happened, historically, the year previously to Etakama (Biblical “Arioch”
) of Qadesh in northern Lebanon.  The burning question of the moment, in Year 
15 of Akhenaten’s reign (which is when the Patriarchal narratives were 
composed), was whether Canaanite city-states like Beth Shan in Canaan proper 
were 
going to go the route of Qadesh and Amurru in northern Lebanon and sell out 
to 
the nefarious Hittites, or rather whether Canaan and Egypt would stand united 
against the feared onslaught of the dreaded Hittites.  (Egypt’s two most 
prized 
possessions in Canaan were Qadesh and Beth Shan.  Qadesh was now lost to the 
Hittites.  Would Beth Shan be next?  Sodom in many ways represents Beth Shan 
in the Patriarchal narratives, although historically it was Qatna, not Beth 
Shan, that was permanently destroyed by fire after having opposed the 
Hittites.)  
You see, the physical existence of the first Hebrews was in the balance here. 
 The brilliant northern pre-Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives is 
trying to convince everyone to stand tall against the dreaded Hittites, so 
that 
Canaan could remain free and the Hebrews would not be wiped out by invading 
Hittites.
 
Rather than being nonsensical and non-historical, chapter 14 of Genesis in 
fact is closely based on the well-documented secular history of the mid-14th 
century BCE.  To the first Hebrews, it seemed that YHWH had answered their 
fervent prayers, since the Hittites in fact never did invade Canaan proper.  
That 
was the foundational event of Judaism.  This is not a fairy tale made up by 
J, 
E, P and D as southern Hebrews 700 years later in the mid-1st millennium BCE. 
 
No, this is actual secular history, and is the historical background for the 
birth of Judaism.  The Patriarchal narratives are the rock-solid historical 
foundation of Judaism.  J, E, P and D had nothing to do with the Patriarchal 
narratives.  One proof of that is the stunning, pinpoint historical accuracy 
of 
chapter 14 of Genesis in identifying the precise ethnic origins of the four 
attacking rulers who terrorized northern greater Canaan in Year 14 of 
Akhenaten’s 
reign (“in the fourteenth year”), and who potentially threatened all of 
Canaan proper in the years to come.  Chapter 14 of Genesis is very closely 
based on 
the actual secular history of the mid-14th century BCE.  Unlike the 
traditional view of the case, chapter 14 of Genesis does not deal with a 
single “
Mesopotamia-based” ruler.  No “Mesopotamia-based” ruler would have taken Lot 
and Lot
’s entire family as hostages.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.     
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)