Abram Shot First

Every true Star Wars fan knows Han shot first. In the original 1977 Star Wars film, Han Solo is confronted by the alien bounty hunter Greedo in the Mos Eisley cantina. Before Greedo can bring him to Jabba the Hutt, Han sneakily guns down Greedo. The scene cemented Han’s image as a bad boy.

Director George Lucas was unsatisfied with the scene because Han is a hero, not a cold-blooded killer. Lucas wanted to show Han only shot in self-defense, so in the 1997 Special Edition release, he tinkered with the scene to show Greedo firing first (and missing from four feet away). This angered fans who felt it both weakened Solo’s character and turned Greedo into the galaxy’s most incompetent bounty hunter. The DVD version, therefore, shows them firing almost simultaneously.

And now with the launching of the Disney+ streaming service, we get yet another version of the scene. In this one, Greedo says something that sounds like “maclunkey” before he and Solo exchange fire. Apparently, this is supposed to be a threat in Greedo’s language along the lines of “I’ll get you.”

Greedo confronts Han Solo in the Mos Eisley cantina on Tatooine (scene from Star Wars, 1977)

What does this Star Wars minutia have to do with the Bible? Chapter 14 of Genesis is the biblical version of the Han/Greedo scene that has been undergone many alterations.

The Maclunkey Version

Genesis 14 reads like nothing that comes before it (or after it) in Genesis. Describing a battle, it starts off with a mind-numbing list of kings and cities. It is reminiscent of the sort of narratives you find in the Second Book of Kings (for example, 2 Kings 24:1-2). When the passage finally gets around to Abram in v. 13, he is called “Abram the Hebrew”, unique in Genesis. In gathering 300 men to fight off a much larger army, Abram acts more like one of the Judges (Gideon, for example) than he does a patriarch.

Gen 14 has frequently been referred to as a “puzzle” or “enigma”. Biblical scholars have been unable to attribute the chapter to any of the usual sources like J or P. Older scholarship thought that maybe it could be an independent account that found its way into the Bible. If we knew who the various kings of Shinar, Ellasar, and Elam were, we could determine the approximate date when such a battle could have taken place. Unfortunately, historians have been unable to identify the characters of Amraphel, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer. The names given for the kings of Sodom (Bera = “in wickedness”) and Gomorrah (Birsha = “in evil”) seem a little too on-the-nose to be historical (sort of like naming a bounty hunter “Greedo”).

The story breaks down into two distinct pieces. First, there is the battle account in vv. 1-12. The kings of four regions in the East wage war against the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the other cities of the Jordan Plain. The battle ends badly as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fall into asphalt pits along the Dead Sea and the enemy takes all their goods, as well as Abram’s nephew Lot and other hostages.

The second part of the narrative (vv. 13-24) recounts how Abram and his Amorite allies lead a rescue mission, defeat the foreign kings, and return the goods and people to the king of Sodom. But, before reaching the conclusion of the rescue story, King Melchizedek of Salem pops up out of nowhere (vv. 18-20), bearing bread and wine and offering a blessing. In return, Abram gives him 10% of the recovered plunder. Returning everything else to the king of Sodom, Abram refuses to take as much as a shoe-string.

The Original Release

A closer reading highlights various oddities besides the mysterious appearance of Melchizedek. Although the foreign kings made war against the five kings of the Plain, only the goods from Sodom and Gomorrah were carried away and Abram only returns the goods (and hostages) to the king of Sodom. Who, by the way, was last mentioned as having fallen into an asphalt pit. Although the king of Sodom allows Abram to keep the recovered plunder, Abram almost ostentatiously declines the offer.

We seem to have here a narrative that has been rewritten multiple times. Based on clues found on a close reading [1], the original story probably went something like this: 

The kings of Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela made war with the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah went out and joined battle with them in the Valley of Siddim. Now the Valley of Siddim was full of bitumen pits; and as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, they fell into them. So the enemy took all the property of Sodom and Gomorrah and went their way. They took Lot and all his property and went their way.
 When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he mustered the slaves born in his house and went in pursuit as far as Dan. And he divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and routed them. And he brought back all the property, and also his relative Lot and his property he brought back.

In this reconstructed telling of the original story, Abram the warrior chieftan rescues Lot and enriches himself in the process. In Gen 13, we are left thinking that Lot got the better part of his separation from Abram, only now to find Abram in possession of Sodom’s property through right of conquest.

The Special Editions

Apparently the thought that Abram profited from notoriously sinful people like the Sodomites bothered the early story-tellers. In version 2.0 of the story, the king of Sodom is reclaimed from the asphalt pits to meet Abram at the Valley of Shaveh. The king tells Abram to hand over his people but keep the property; Abram refuses the offer. Much as a politician needs to return a campaign contribution made by an unsavory donor, Abram needs to demonstrate that he cannot be bought; his allegiance is to YHWH alone.

In yet a third re-writing, kings from nations in the East are added as the antagonists and the original enemy, the small-fry kings of neighboring cities, became allies of the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah. Before meeting the combined armies of five cities, the foreign kings first must defeat both mythological and historical inhabitants of regions to the east and south of Canaan. These are the same nations defeated by Moses and the Israelites on their way to the promised land (Deut 2:8-25). With a much more powerful army to defeat, Abram is given Amorite allies, and the hero warrior is recast as the leader of a military coalition. Defeating world-class armies means that Abram’s role is elevated to be on par with these other sovereigns.

The final layer is the introduction of the verses (18-20) referring to Melchizedek. The character of Melchizedek (= “my king is righteousness”) has intrigued many theologians. For Christians, as both king and priest he is frequently seen as a forerunner of Christ (Heb 7), his gifts of bread and wine a precursor to the Eucharist.

Melchizedek from the city of Salem is supposed to represent the post-exilic priesthood of Jerusalem and the importance of paying tithes. The priestly origin of the insertion is evidenced by Abram’s blessing coming through the priestly mediation of Melchizedek instead of directly from YHWH as in the rest of Genesis. If a goal of version 2.0 was to demonstrate that Abram owes his allegiance only to YHWH, the goal of version 4.0 was to show through his tithing that even Abram acknowledges the authority of the priesthood.

To me, peeling away the various layers of rewriting explains inconsistencies and contradictions in the final version of the Gen 14 narrative. You see how each re-edited version tried to redirect the meaning of the previous layer. It allows you to see and understand the original and intermediate levels in a way that is not possible if you only study the canonical narrative as it appears in the Bible. It enriches my understanding of the passage.

[1] Christoph Berner, “Abraham amidst Kings, Coalitions and Military Campaigns” in The Reception of Biblical War Legislation in Narrative Contexts (BZAW 460, Berlin/Boston, 2015), pp. 23-60.

Split Decision

Originally I wasn’t planning on discussing chapter 13 of Genesis because it didn’t seem that significant. To briefly recount the passage, disagreements arise between herdsmen for Abram and those for his nephew Lot. Abram proposes that they separate from one another and offers Lot first choice. Lot chooses the well-watered Jordan valley and they part amicably.

My initial impression was that the episode merely serves to explain how Abram’s nephew found himself in the city of Sodom; this point is key to Abram’s rescue of Lot in the following chapter. The passage has been sermonized as contrasting the generosity of Abram vs. the selfishness of Lot or as an example in conflict resolution. But a closer reading of the text indicates that this is a critical moment in Abram’s life.

A Little About Lot

We first encounter Lot in the genealogy of Terah in Gen 11:27-32 where Lot is mentioned as the son of Haran, who then dies. When Terah leaves Ur, he takes his son Abram and his orphaned grandson Lot with him and they settle in Haran. Abram later leaves Haran for Canaan and brings his nephew Lot along (12:4-5). We don’t hear of Lot again until he is mentioned going up from Egypt with Abram to the Negeb (desert region in southern Canaan) in 13:1.

The implication from all this is that Abram has adopted Lot as his heir. After all, we were told early on in 11:30 that Abram’s wife, Sarai, is barren. YHWH also told Abram in 12:2 that he would become a blessing and that the land of Canaan would be given to his descendants (12:7). Not having any children of his own, Abram must have assumed that his descendants would be through Lot, unless by some chance Sarai was to conceive or Abram took another wife.

This has two important implications. First, Abram’s welfare was key to fulfilling the promise. As long as he was alive, he could still father a child (through Sarai or someone else). Second, Lot was his backup plan. If something were to happen to Abram or he could not father a child of his own, as his heir Lot would inherit the land of Canaan and fulfil the promise of being a great nation.

From this perspective, Sarai’s welfare was secondary. Knowing this helps us understand Abram’s motivations in Egypt in passing off Sarai as his sister in 12:10-20. In order to fulfill the promise, Abram needed to preserve his own life at all costs. If that meant selling off Sarai to Pharaoh, then so be it. Little did Abram realize at the time that Sarai was absolutely necessary to the promise. His mistaken actions actually put the promise at risk and YHWH had to bail him out by causing a plague in Egypt that led to Pharaoh expelling Abram and his people.

Choice of Lot

Gen 13 literally returns Abram to where he was before his excursion into Egypt. In 12:8 he pitched his tent in the hill country between Bethel and Ai and then travelled by stages – presumably following the flocks as they grazed – down to the Negeb. When famine hit the region, Abram continue moving on to Egypt. In 13:1-3 this migration is reversed. Abram went up from Egypt to the Negeb and then travelled by stages back to “the place between Bethel and Ai where his tent had formerly stood.”

Lot makes his choice (artist unknown)

By this point, the flocks and herds owned by Abram and Lot were too numerous for the land to support and quarrels developed. Instead of remaining together and over-grazing the land, Abram proposes they go their separate ways and thereby utilize the resources of the entire land. As the elder, Abram could have selected the best portion for himself, but instead he allows Lot to choose and Abram will take what remains. Lot chooses the well-watered plain of Jordan and sets out eastward, leaving Abram to settle in the land of Canaan.

As mentioned above, I never saw this passage as all that significant. But biblical scholar Larry Helyer has studied the passage in detail and sees implications in Lot’s choice for his status as Abram’s heir.

Helyer [1] points out that Bethel sits atop the ridge of hills that runs through central Canaan. It also sat between the northern pasturage centered around Shechem and the southern pasturage centered around Hebron and Beesheba. The stories in the Jacob cycle are located on the northern pasturage and those in the Abraham cycle are mostly associated with places set in the southern pasturage.

According to Helyer, Abram is presenting Lot with a choice of northern or southern pasturage. You can visualize the two of them standing on the ridge overlooking the land with Abram saying, “If you prefer the left, I’ll go to the right; if you prefer the right, I’ll go to the left.” If they are facing west, the “left” is the southern pasturage and the “right” is the northern pasturage.

Abram provides a binary choice that would keep the land “in the family”, but Lot thinks outside the box. Lot looks behind them and sees how well-watered is the whole “kikkar of the Jordan”. Usually translated as “plain of the Jordan,” kikkar means something round and flat. It could be referring to a circular oasis, a flat plain, or an area bounded by a loop of the Jordan. Whatever the “Jordan Disk” was, it must have been a sight to behold. The narrator compares it favorably to both YHWH’s garden in Eden and Egypt.

Legal Separation

Lot leaves Abram and heads east, finally pitching his tents near Sodom, one of the cities of the Jordan Disk. The narrator does some foreshadowing here of events in Gen 19, informing us that YHWH has yet to destroy Sodom and the other cities of the Disk because of their great wickedness. The reader would be left to wonder what will befall Lot when his new home is destroyed, but Abram would be unsettled for a completely different reason.

From Abram’s perspective, Lot’s choice meant his heir would be leaving the promised land of Canaan. The Jordan River marks the eastern boundary of Canaan. By choosing to live among the cities of the Disk, on the eastern bank of the Jordan (the Transjordan), Lot has removed himself outside the boundaries of Canaan; he will no longer have a share in the promised land. He won't be inheriting the family business.

YHWH tries to cheer up Abram by confirming (13:14-17) that all the land he can see will indeed be given to his descendants. But the problem still remains that Abram has no descendants of his own. That particular plotline is still unresolved and will continue to work its way through the rest of Abraham’s story.

[1] “Abraham’s Eight Crises,” Bible Review, Vol. 11, No. 5 (October 1995), pp. 20-27, 44.

Take My Wife -- Please

Abraham is renowned in the Bible for being a man of faith. Maybe that’s how he ended up, but he certainly didn’t start off that way.

Abram Goes Down to Egypt

The first time we see Abraham – then named Abram – in action is Gen 12:10-20 and it’s not exactly edifying Prefiguring what will happen later in Genesis and Exodus, a famine hits the land of Canaan and Abram goes down to Egypt. Because his wife Sarai is so beautiful, Abram fears he will be killed for her. But if he announces she is his sister; instead of being killed, Abram will get the bride price for her. The plan works. Pharaoh brings Sarai into his harem and rewards Abram with much livestock (including camels) and slaves. YHWH afflicts Pharaoh and his household with plagues on behalf of Sarai. Learning of the ruse, Pharaoh expels Abram and Sarai.

The story is rather unsettling on many levels. Many modern interpreters view the passage as illustrating Abram’s lack of trust in YHWH. Despite having been promised earlier in 12:1-9 that YHWH would make him into a great nation, Abram thought he needed to take matters into his own hands to protect YHWH’s promise. But by endangering Sarai he put the promise in jeopardy and YHWH had to bail him out by punishing the Egyptians.  

An older view is that Abram did nothing wrong. He knew Egypt was a land of evil-doers and there’s nothing wrong with deceiving people who would try to do you harm. In fact, Abram turned the situation to his advantage. Instead of being killed, he walked away much wealthier. Abram is not condemned for what he did but the Egyptians are certainly punished for abducting Sarai.

Sarai is Taken to Pharoah’s Palace by James Tissot (1836-1902) [courtesy: Wikimedia Commons]

Because It Worked So Well the First Time…

You would have thought he had learned his lesson the first time, but amazingly Abram pulls the same stunt again in Gen 20.

In that passage, Abram – now called Abraham – finds himself in Gerar, in Canaan. Again, he passes off his wife – now called Sarah – as his wife and Abimelech, the king of Gerar, takes her. Unlike the previous version of the story, we are told that God prevents Abimelech from touching her. Later we learn there is a plague of infertility throughout the land (a plague of impotence, perhaps?). God (not YHWH) appears to Abimelech in a dream, sentences him to die, and Abimelech defends his innocence. God agrees. Abimelech demands an explanation from Abraham, returns Sarah to him, and gives him money to restore her honor. Abraham prays on behalf of Abimelech and God lifts the plague.

In this story, it is clear that Abimelech is a god-fearing man. He is horrified to learn that he had unwittingly taken another man’s wife (“I did this in the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands”). He’s also outraged at Abraham’s deception (“What were you thinking?”). Abraham’s pathetic defense is that Sarah is his half-sister, so he wasn’t telling a complete falsehood, just leaving out an important bit of information (in Catholic theology, this would be referred to as a “mental reservation”).

In the lengthy dialogues between God and Abimelech and Abimelech and Abraham, the biblical author of this passage is making it clear that Abraham is the guilty party, even if the outcome was to his benefit.

And, just to prove the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, in Gen 26:1-11 Abraham’s son Isaac pulls the exact same ruse when he tries to pass off his wife Rebekah as his sister with King Abimelech of the Philistines in Gerar. Seriously.

Multiple Versions, Multiple Sources

One possible explanation for multiple versions of essentially the same story is that we are dealing with multiple sources. Gen 26 explicitly references Gen 12 (this famine is different from that of Abraham, “do not go down to Egypt”), but is completely unaware of Gen 20 (does not try to explain why Abimelech fell for the trick again). Gen 12 and 26 mostly use the name YHWH in reference to the deity whereas Gen 20 uses Elohim (God). Gen 20 also has the motifs of God appearing in a dream, “fearing God”, and Abraham as a prophet. The character of Abimelech is tied to parallel narratives (in Gen 21 with Abraham and 26 with Isaac) describing how Beer-sheba got its name.

Based on these indicators, Gen 12 and 26 are usually attributed to the same source (J) while Gen 20 is attributed to a second source. This particular source is called the Elohist (E) because it refers to God as Elohim prior to Exodus. Other hallmarks of the Elohist source are God appearing in dreams, the need to “fear God”, and the establishment of prophetic authority.

If two sources are involved, it is not surprising that we have two versions (doublets) of essentially the same story. There are many examples of this in Genesis. What is surprising, however, is that we have doublets (Gen 12 and 26) within the same source.

Although Gen 12 and 26 apparently come from the same source, they do not appear to come from the same time. Of the two, Gen 12 is the more archaic. As we saw earlier, through his quick-thinking, Abram turns a bad situation into a money-making opportunity. The patriarchal narratives are rife with characters who use deception to advance in the world.

But the version that appears in Gen 26 seems from a later time. In this version, Abimelech is very much the innocent party; he does not take Rebekah into his house. Had he not spied Isaac and Rebekah making a very public display of affection, Abimelech would not even have been aware of their deception. Unlike the other versions of this narrative, God is not involved, neither to plague the kings nor to inform them of the deception.

What About Sarah?

Lost in all of the focus on Abraham is Sarah. A 2015 article from Christianity Today titled “David Was a Rapist, Abraham Was a Sex Trafficker” gets to the heart of the matter: Abraham profited by pimping out his wife. The utilitarian argument could be made that Sarah would have been abducted whether or not Abraham told the truth, so his lie saved his life and made him richer. But what exactly was the rest of the plan? Had God not intervened, what would have happened to Sarah? Would Abraham ever have been able to reclaim her?

Typically, when a king wants to make an alliance with another king, he will give one of his daughters in marriage to seal the deal. The author of Genesis wants to portray Abraham or Isaac as the equivalent of a king, even though they were more akin to tribal chief or sheik. But neither Abraham nor Isaac had daughters that could be married off, therefore the need to pass off their wife as their sister. The sources seem bound to the story-telling convention of a kingly alliance but had to contort it to take account of the daughterless patriarchs, no matter how nonsensical the resulting tale became. (For comparison, Jacob did have a daughter to bargain with the king of Shechem in Gen 34 but that didn’t turn out so well.)

One could say that I’m inappropriately applying 21^st century concepts of women’s personhood and agency to a culture that saw women as the property of men. But if my reading of the variations in the stories are correct, the idea that Abraham would sell Sarah to some foreign potentate bothered the authors three millennia ago. This uneasiness with the patriarchs’ deception may have been due to the development of law codes around adultery and perjury in a legal system that simply did not exist when the original narrative first circulated in an oral tradition.

Opening Up the Bible

The varying nuances and interpretations for odd stories like the wife-sister triplets are one of the reasons why I love a critical approach to studying the Bible. If you believe that the wife-sister stories happened exactly as reported, then you are limited to thinking Abraham was either devious or lacking in faith. He was also very reckless to try his ruse a second time and Abimelech was foolish not to suspect Isaac was pulling the same scam.

However, if you accept a critical approach to understanding the Bible, new avenues of interpretation open up to you. You can explore the possibility of multiple sources or a literary variation on the standard alliance-through-marriage narrative. Why is the author repeating essentially the same story multiple times? What is he trying to say by slightly varying the narrative each time? Can the story be better understood by looking at what happened immediately prior to it or does it shed light on what is to come?

Once you open up the world of the Bible, the Bible opens up for you.