The Elamite king who, with his associates, took Lot hostage and was defeated by Abram (Abraham) when the latter went out to rescue his nephew (Gen 14).
Kedorlaomer (or Chedorlaomer, KJV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NKJ) had five vassals in the Jordan Valley—Bera (the king of Sodom), Birsha (the king of Gomorrah), Shinab (the king of Admah), Shemeber (the king of Zeboiim) and the king of Bela (or Zoar). After twelve years of subjection, these vassals decided to rebel against him. A year later, in the fourtheenth year, Kedorlaomer—in the presence of his three allies, Amraphel (king of Shinar), Arioch (king of Ellasar) and Tidal (king of Goiim)—rode south to punish the rebels. Amidst the fighting, Lot (Abraham's nephew, who was then living in the region of the wars) was collaterally captured and carried away as a hostage (Gen 14:12). On hearing the news, Abram (Abraham) gathered his 318 trained men and went in pursuit. Catching up with them at Dan, Abraham routed the coalition's men and, while on the way home, was met and blessed by Melchizedek (14:18).
The narrative, in reporting this event, emphasizes the fact of Yahweh's blessing on Abram; he was not just a rich pastoral chieftain but stages on the same stage as world leaders like the great kings.
This mention of Kedorlaomer has, for long, intrigued scholars. His name, and those of his allies, are genuine Elamite names. In the late 19th Cent the British Museum purchased three late Babylonian tablets from an antiquity seller. When they were later studied in detail, they were found to contain three of the four names in the biblical account. Until today there is no historical evidence of any kind (other than the Genesis account) of Elamite involvement in the affairs of Palestine at any time. No Elamite king has, historically, been involved in the affairs of the lands so far south. How then should scholars make sense of this apparently genuine historical account in Genesis? What is, if any, the relationship between the names of the three individuals in the British Museum tablets (which though late, were evidently copies of earlier reports) and Gen 14? Only further findings—if only hopeful—will tell.
©ALBERITH
190421lch