It remains to consider the extent and origin of the historic element whose existence in the chapter we have been led to admit. Does it proceed from an ancient Canaanite record, which passed into the Hebrew tradition, to be gradually moulded into the form in which we now find it? Or did it come directly from an external source into the hands of a late author, who used it as the basis of a sort of historical romance? The former alternative is difficult to maintain if (as seems to be the case) the narrative stands outside the recognised literary sources of the Pentateuch.¹ The most acceptable form of this theory is perhaps that presented by Sellin in the article to which reference has frequently been made in the preceding pages (Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, xvi. 929–951). The expedition, he thinks, may have taken place at any time between 2250 and 1750 B.C.; and he allows a long period of oral transmission to have elapsed before the preparation of a cuneiform record about 1500. This document he supposes to have been deposited in the Temple archives of Jerusalem, and to have come into the possession of the Israelites through David’s conquest of that city. He thus leaves room for a certain distortion of events in the primary document, and even for traces of mythological influence. The theory would gain immensely in plausibility if the alleged Canaanite parallels to the obscure expressions of verses 14 f. (חלק, דיק, חניך) should prove to be relevant. At present, however, they are not known to be specifically Canaanite; and whatever be their value it does not appear that they tell more in favour of a Palestinian origin than of a cuneiform basis in general. The assumption that the document was deposited in the Temple is, of course, a pure hypothesis, on which nothing as to the antiquity or credibility of the narrative can be based.
On the other hand, the second alternative has definite support in a fact not sufficiently regarded by those who defend the authenticity of the chapter. It is significant that the cuneiform document in which three of the four royal names in verse ¹ are supposed to have been discovered is as late as the 4th or 3rd century B.C. Assuming the correctness of the identifications, we have here a positive proof that the period with which our story deals was a theme of poetic and legendary treatment in the age to which criticism is disposed approximately to assign the composition of Genesis 14. It shows that a cuneiform document is not necessarily a contemporary document, and need not contain an accurate transcript of fact. If we suppose such a document to have come into the possession of a Jew of the post-Exilic age, it would furnish just such a basis of quasi-historical material as would account for the blending of fact and fiction which the literary criticism of the chapter suggests. In any case the extent of the historical material remains undetermined. The names in verse ¹ are historical; some such expedition to the West as is here spoken of is possibly so; but everything else belongs to the region of conjecture. The particulars in which we are most interested—the figures of Abram and Lot and Melkiẓedeḳ, the importance, the revolt, and even the existence, of the Cities of the Kikkār and, in short, all the details of the story—are as yet unattested by any allusion in secular history.
In conclusion, it should be noticed that there is no real antagonism between archæology and literary criticism in this matter. They deal with quite distinct aspects of the problem; and the fallacy lies in treating the chapter as a homogeneous and indivisible unity: it is like discussing whether the climate of Asia is hot or cold on conflicting evidence drawn from opposite extremes of the continent. Criticism claims to have shown that the narrative is full of improbabilities in detail which make it impossible to accept it as a reliable contemporary record of fact. All that the archæologist can pretend to have proved is that the general setting of the story is consistent with the political situation in the East as disclosed by the monuments; and that it contains data which cannot possibly be the fabrications of an unhistorical age. So much as this critics are perfectly prepared to admit. Nöldeke, who has stated the case against the authenticity of the chapter as strongly as any man, expressly declined to build an argument on the fact that nothing was then known of an Elamite dominion in the West, and allowed that the names of the four kings might be traditional (op. cit. 159 f.).¹ Assyriology has hardly done more as yet than make good the possibilities thus conceded in advance. It is absurd to suppose that a theory can be overthrown by facts for which due allowance was made before they took rank as actual discoveries.
22. הֲרִמֹתִי] On the perfect, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 i.—23. On the אִם of negative asseveration, § 149 a, c. The second וְאִם, which adds force to the negation, is not rendered by LXX or Vulgate.—24. בִּלְעָדַי literally ‘not unto me!’ (in Hexateuch only 4116. 44 [Elohist], Joshua 22¹⁹ [late]). LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, TargumOnkelos seem to have read בִּלְעֲדֵי רַק as a compound prepositional phrase (= ‘except’).