Talk:Chedorlaomer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Shortening the article

Created a new section for easy editing.

I agree that some trimming is required. However, I would make two points. Firstly, WP does not currently have a seperate article on the so-called "Battle of the Kings" (I believe it should), so this article is serving as a surrogate for that absence and thus is longer than it would have been. Clearly, if this article was only about the Elamite king then it would be little more than a stub. Secondly, this battle - and the kings involved - is more important than a casual glance might reveal. Of all of the narratives in the pre-Mosaic era of the Bible, this is the one with by far the most evidence of external events and rulers. If there is one story in this era that has any chance of verification it is this battle. This is why a significant number of scholars have devoted a lot of effort into trying to decipher it.

Having said all of that, I agree that the article needs to be trimmed down somewhat. At present there is some repetition; the 'dating' section could easily be merged into the 'identification' section; and I have always felt that Kitchen gets a bit too much of a say, which is why I was happy to expand on van Seters to provide a little balance. On the other hand, the narrative should stay as it is, for the reasons I have set out above.

I will start to trim the article as soon as I have a little time--FimusTauri (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest :). I'll be away for several days, and I'll be interested to see what you come up with. PiCo (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Akkadian added to lead

I am a bit confused about Rktect's edit to the lead [1]. "Akkadian" is added right after "Chedorlaomer," but it is not integrated into the opening sentence in any meaningful way. What connection to Akkadian is being made by this reference? Furthermore, the dissertation cited is 190 pages long, so it would help to know what page is being cited too. I'm going to leave a message on Rktect's page as well to hopefully draw him to this talk page section. Chedorlaomer (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Akkadian refers to the language the word or phrase "Chedarlaomer" is in which is discussed elsewhere in the article and on the talk page above. (see footnote 1) Rktect (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I searched the pdf file, couldn't find the word Chedorlaomer, so what is the point of the reference? We need a source that suggests it is Akkadian, and that one doesn't seem to do so. dougweller (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you find the word Akkadian which the note references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rktect (talk • contribs)

True, and searching "kudur" or "lagamar" doesn't turn up anything equivalent to Chedorlaomer either. Perhaps there are other variants, but frankly I'm not going to keep guessing. Citations should be clear. The page and the material being supported should be included. Honestly, even putting this aside and looking at Rktect's explanation, it isn't clear. Is the word "Chedorlaomer" itself supposed to be Akkadian? I thought that "Chedorlaomer" is in English, and is the transliteration of a Hebrew version of an Elamite king's name. Maybe I just don't get it. Chedorlaomer (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Chedorlaomer is an English transliteration; its language is Akkadian and its part of a phrase rather than a name. You can find a lot of speculation in the literature to the effect that Chedarlomer is a king and see where the name has been tortured every possible way to get it to work somehow but it doesn't. You can find that it doesn't work in the literature also. You can't just delete the article because Genesis 14 is a major passage and most encyclopedias include it so we have to put what most people expect to see but calling Chedolaomer Hebrew just makes us look like we haven't done our homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rktect (talk • contribs)

I am deleting that reference for the moment as it is 'out of place'. The section in parentheses should list the term in other (relevent) languages. Until the Akkadian equivalent is included, along with a reference that explicitly includes that Akkadian equivalent, is included, this cite does not belong.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Right now the lead claims Chedorlaomer is Hebrew. If anybody wants to try and support the existance of Hebrew c 1750 BC I'd be interested to see that. Akkadian is the lingua franca of that period.

The Akkadian Empire established by Sargon I introduced the Akkadian language (the "language of Akkad") as a written language, adapting Sumerian cuneiform orthography for the purpose. During the Middle Bronze Age Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian period, the language virtually displaced Sumerian, which is assumed to have been extinct as a living language by the 18th century BCE.Middle Assyrian served as a lingua franca in much of the Ancient Near East of the Late Bronze Age (Amarna period).

Thats why that is there. As to this link[2] it addresses that point several places

By the middle of this period known as the Early Old Babylonian or Isin-Larsa Period, the kingdom of Isin was much reduced, eclipsed by the expanding fortunes of the kingdom of Larsa in territory, trade, and political authority. It was a period of cultural flux with Akkadian replacing Sumerian as the language of administration and royal rhetoric and rulers with Amorite and Elamite names emerging. Scholarship flourished, with much of the extant literature in both Sumerian and Akkadian copied if not composed in the kingdom of Larsa.

It should go back where it wasRktect (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not without a reference explicitly saying it is Akkadian. As for Hebrew in 1750 BCE, who is claiming that? Who is claiming that the relevant passage in Genesis was written then? Why in the world are we even discussing the 18th century BCE? dougweller (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Those were references stating that at the time the story was compiled c 1750 Babylon when the Atraharis was underway makes this current events for them, then later copied c 970 BC according to the documentary hypothesis. In both periods Akkadian was the lingua franca, that means the language everybody used. Hebrew didn't exist as a language in either of those periods. If you can find a cite that says it did I'll be interested to see it Rktect (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Recognition that the language of Genesis was Akkadian is not recent Akkadian GenesisRktect (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lots of funny ideas around in the 19th century (and now of course). This may well be a Hewbrew transformation of a historical event perhaps first written down in Akkadian, but you need a reference saying that Chedorlaomer is Akkadian in more or less so many words before you can add it to the article. dougweller (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources I gave you above say that. A. Akkadian is commonly accepted by all sources as the lingua franca when Genesis was written. B. Hebrew is agreed by all sources as not having existed as a language when Genesis was written. C Hebrew didn't exist means Hebrew should be removed from where we claim its associated with Chedorlaomer. D. If you want to keep Hebrew there you need to provide a source that says Genesis 14 was written in Hebrew. Rktect (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the sources don't say that; they don't say Chedorlaomer is Akkadian. You are stringing together sources to claim Chedorlaomer is Akkadian, but none of the sources actually state this conclusion. This is original research on your part. You will need to show a source that says, quite plainly, that Chedorlaomer is Akkadian. As far as keeping Hebrew... this is a figure we know from a text written in Hebrew. He is not (indisputably) identified in any other text. Maybe it is just me, but your request seems absurd, to put it lightly. Aside from translations made much later, does Genesis even exist in a language other than Hebrew? You are asking us to prove that a Hebrew text is written in Hebrew. Chedorlaomer (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion higher up on the page that bears on this. Begin with:

A. People have been trying unsucessfully for over a century to match Chedorlaomer up with a king.

B. The documentary hypothesis

the J, or Jahwist, source; written c. 950 BC in the southern kingdom of Judah. (The name Yahweh begins with a J in Wellhausen's native German.) the E, or Elohist, source; written c. 850 BC in the northern kingdom of Israel. the D, or Deuteronomist, source; written c. 621 BC in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform. the P, or Priestly, source; written c. 450 BC by Aaronid priests. The editor who combined the sources into the final Pentateuch is known as R, for Redactor, and might have been Ezra.

This has J writing about half of Genesis in roughly speaking the time when Israel is first established as a kingdom., E writing another third a century latter; P coming along another couple of centuries latter to write Deuteronomy and add in a lot of priestly language, and the redactor coming along c 100 BC. Essentially every editor after J adds something to the story. When J starts writing Hebrew isn't a language yet. Aramaic isn't a language yet, Greek is a language but not widely used. C. Many sources refer to the Bible being written in Hebrew but theu are taking about compositions that are added long after the Penteteuch and include Joshuah, Judges, the covenants, the laws and the remainder of the Old Testament. That isn't what we are talking about. Read the Documentary hypothesis and then read the links to Akkadian and Hebrew and Aramaic, Assyrian and the rest of the Semitic languages so you have a better idea what language J is writing in. Rktect (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC) [3] Jewsish Bible commentary] discusses where passages retain the Akkadian they were written in Rktect (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Rktect has misunderstood a few things. His point (A) states that "people have been trying unsucessfully for over a century to match Chedorlaomer up with a king." What he doesn't say is that the very lack of success has led scholars to stop trying to do this - no serious biblical scholar today is trying to find a real figure behind this Biblical name. (I suppose we could exempt Ken Kitchen, but Kitchen is a marginal figure in modern scholarship). His point (B) is more egregious: he seems to believe that the Wellhausian version of the Documentary Hypothesis is still the scholarly mainstream, when in fact very few scholars today would claim that any substantial part of the Torah was written down before the 6th century BC, or that it was written as documents. PiCo (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the point that Rktect is missing is this: while he may be completely correct in his analysis and his conclusion is an obvious one from the sources, the sources do not explicitly state "Chedorlaomer is an Akkadian word". To state this in the article is to derive this conclusion from reliable sources, rather than quoting a reliable source. This is a direct violation of WP:SYN.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not stating it is an Akkadian word, I'm referencing Akkadian with a source discussing its usage. We can't even state with certainty whether Chedorlaomer is a word or a phrase. We are making a lot of assumptions and speculations when we tag it with Hebrew since Hebrew doesn't exist as a language when its written. If we take Akkadian out then we should by the same logic take out Hebrew also. We do know that Genesis 14 is written in the narrative style of J which dates it to the time Solomon built his temple. It includes the addition at a much later date of a passage tagging Abraham as a Hebrew probably from P the priestly source writing in Hebrew. The covenants of Abraham are added by the Deuteronomist writing in Phoenician and then all of that is edited by the redactor writing in Hebrew. Rktect (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

See my response to your post on the Village pump. The tanakh was written in Hebrew. Therefore, any names therein are Hebrew. They may have been assimilated from other languages, but by the time the current version was laid down they had become part of the Hebrew. By your logic, 99% of English words should no longer be labelled 'English' because they all come originally from Greek, Latin, French, Norse, Arabic etc etc.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(Have we reduced the indent? Ok). Rktect, there are just so many errors in what you've written that I hardly know where to start. Here's a brief attempt: (1) "Hebrew doesn't exist as a language when [Genesis 14]'s written". Most scholars would say Genesis 14 was written about 450BC or after - Hebrew existed. Even if the minority are right and it was written about 950 BC, Hebrew existed. (2) "We do know that Genesis 14 is written in the narrative style of J which dates it to the time Solomon built his temple." That's according to older versions of the Documentary Hypothesis - widely followed 40 years ago, today largely abandoned, although it still has some followers. But even in Solomon's time, Hebrew existed. (3) "It (Genesis 14?) includes the addition at a much later date of a passage tagging Abraham as a Hebrew probably from P..." God knows where you found that idea - lots of people are called Hebrews, it's not a marker of any particular author within the 4-source DH, and in any case, as I note above, the old DH is not widely followed today. (4) "The covenants of Abraham are added by the Deuteronomist writing in Phoenician..." The Deuteronomist writing in Phoenician? Where on Earth did you get that from? All the biblical authors wrote in Hebrew, I've never seen any other idea mentioned. Rktect, you have some very strange ideas about the origins of the Bible, well outside the mainstream, some of them apparently based on an outdated understanding of the scholarly discussion, some quite bizarre. You need to state your sources, but more than that, you need to recognise that an encyclopedia has to describe the mainstream, not what you believe to be true. PiCo (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for when Genesis 14 was written, or even whe it was copied by J? In Genesis J writing c 950 BC is credited with the dramatic narrative style, and about half the document. E with the focus on Elohim and the ark, writes about a third D focuses on the covenants c 620 writing about 1/6 of it.

I will give you P tags Abraham as a Hebrew, thats a single word gloss.

After c 450 BC Hebrew existed but by then Genesis had been around for a couple of centuries.

Prof. Galil's find demonstrates Hebrew in David's time and it can't have arisen suddenly just then so 450 BCE is way too late.

4.249.63.149 (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What replacement for the Documentary Hypothesis do you want to cite here, Van Seter?

Well first decide what DH was supposed to do and then decide if a replacement needs to be developed. But just going along with the fallacious DH which doesn't fit with archaeology or modern and practical Sapir-Whorf linguistic theory isn't rational.

4.249.63.149 (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you cite me something written in Hebrew c 950 BC? The oldest artifact associated with Hebrew is a mention of the name David on a clay tablet, still somewhat contraversial as to whether or not its a reference to king David and what language its written in. The script doesn't prove or disprove the language and given its similarity to other languages of the period the best you can say is there is no conclusive evidence as to whether its Canaanite, Phoenician, proto-Hebrew or something else. I really would be delighted to see some proof that Hebrew exists, can you produce it?

We don't know what language J wrote in. Its likely Akkadian because thats the lingua franca of that period but If you have proof he wrote in Hebrew as I say I'd love to see it.

The Deutronomicist uses a lot of Phoenician terms, Elim, Elat, 40 some off references to Asherah, use of Adonai instead of Melek for king...

"You say all the Biblical authors wrote in Hebrew" ok, show me your proof. I have no doubt that at some point it gets translated into Assyrian, Phoenician, Persian, Greek, Aramaic, and yes even Hebrew, but the earliest evidence comes from c 100 BC

As we discussed earlier, Ken Kitchen goes through looking for textual artifacts in much the same way as the scholars who put together the Documentary Hypothesis. He looks at the form of contracts used for Genesis 14. They indicate a knowledge of the appropriate seuences of blessings, curses, conditions, witnesses that wouldn't be known to someone writing at a different timeRktect (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You really know nothing about mainstream biblical scholarship, and I don't think it's worth anyone's time talking with you. PiCo (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I offer you the perfect opportunity to show off your superior knowledge and show me some proof but you walk away leaving me with the only possible conclusion, you have none. Tht being the case I am correct to assert that there is no evidence Hebrew exists as a language c 950 BC when Genesis 14 is thought to have been edited by J.

The only reference to Abraham as a Hebrew in the story gets edited in by the Priestly source c 100 BC. Your claims from Van Sert and others who have challenged that its written later are estoppled by Kitchen pointing out that textual artifacts evidence knowledge of the form of contracts.

I'll allow that with much of the material related to the covenants that Kitchen works with being added by the Deuteronomist, as well as the details he fills in, there is the strong suggestion that earlier copies at one time existed, maybe as late as the time of the priestly source, but there is no evidence of any of that or any examples of written Hebrew to support your position. Rktect (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for re-write and new article

FimusTauri has suggested that this article is too long and strays into territory that would be better covered in a separate article on the Battle of the Kings or Genesis 14. I'd agree with this - for a single name mentioned just once, this is far too much. I suggest that this article be cut right back and mention just the following points: 1. The name is found in Genesis 14 as the name of a king of Elam who wages war against rebellious Canaanite cities in the region of the Dead Sea, and is defeated by Abraham; 2. The name has elements which appear to be related to genuine Elamite names (one element from the name of a known Elamite king, another from the name of a god), but neither this name nor the events have ever been identified.

Anything else should go into the new article on Genesis 14, which is my own preferred title for it although I have no objection to other titles. FimusTauri might like to carry this through, since he originally proposed it - but I'd like to hear from other editors too. PiCo (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This article should be of similar size and scope as those on the other kings mentioned. See Amraphel for an example. The bulk of the current article should be retained and renamed (and then reworked to some extent). I prefer the name "Battle of the Kings", as this is the name by which I knew this event in the first place (I had actually typed that into the search box before eventually finding my way to the current article). If that title seems too vague, then maybe "Battle of the vale of Siddim" would be more accurate.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What the heck - time to be bold. Page created.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the vale of siddim is the new page. If anyone can help by adding the appropriate categories I would appreciate it. Clearly any other input and appropriate editing is also welcomed.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work :). I'll have a look at the new page later. You might like also to create a page "Battle of the Kings" with a redirection to your new page, for those who type that into their search. PiCo (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing reference info

"Eerdmans, Chedorlaomer, par.2 " there has got to be a fuller citation that got lost in an edit. 4.249.63.149 (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Archives and Source Cleanup

I set up archives on the talk page, and I'm going to go for a full source cleanup. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Successor/Predecessor of Siwe-palar-huppak?

I've come across "Siwe-palar-huppak" in my reading, but cannot determine whether or not the line of Babylonian kings associates the two. Thanks in advance! Twillisjr (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't get what you are asking about Chedorlaomer. Is there anything out there to suggest some relevance? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you are trying to reconcile Chedorlaomer with the list of actual Elamite kings. This is impossible to answer, as Chedorlaomer is not an Elamite name, but a Hebrew one, and there are no records of any Elamite rulers campaigning in the Trans-Jordan region. More than likely, Chedorlaomer is a mythical figure, not a historical one.Lorzu (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh, who are you talking to? Actually all we can ever do in the article is report what various sources have said or speculated on the subject of Chedorlaomer, not draw any of our own conclusions about it, them's the rules. If you have a source talking about "Chedorlaomer" with another viewpoint not already covered, that would go much farther than just all giving our own opinions. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Reading Ched orla omer as a composite of one Indo Aryan and two Akkadian words.

Indo-Aryan Ergativity in Typological and Diachronic Perspective

https://books.google.com/books

"Ched" 'cut off' from the root 'CHED"-'cut off'.

orla :(https://dhhumanist.org/Archives/Converted_Text/humanist.1990-1991.txt) literally means uncircumcised foreskin.

This is an idiom for illegitimate.

In the sequence of words taken as the name "Chedorlaomer" the illegitimacy refers to "omer".

Omer is a standard of measure for grain.

Indo-Aryan Ergativity in Typological and Diachronic Perspective

https://books.google.com/books

Thus the story isn't about one or more kings its about illigitimate standards of measure.67.253.13.154 (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that back up this interpretation of "Chedorlaomer"? Alephb (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)