Historical Identification of Chedorlaomer

In the late 19th century, three Akkadian tablets at the British Museum were published with the claim that they reflected the events of Gen 14 and contained the Akkadian version of the name Chedorlaomer (Emerton, “Some False Clues,” 38). These tablets, properly called the “Spartoli tablets,” came to be known as the “Chedorlaomer tablets,” and various scholars of the ancient Near East, including W. F. Albright, accepted the conclusion that they contained the Elamite name Kudur-Lagamar (Albright, “Third Revision,” 33; Greunthaner, “Date Part 2,” 85). Later evidence has produced the names of over 40 Elamite kings who reigned between 2100 and 1100 bc “and there is no Kudur-Lagamar among them” (Albright, “Third Revision,” 33; see also Hamilton, Genesis, 399).

Albright later favored the identification of Chedorlaomer with Kuter-Nahhunte, an Elamite conqueror known from other Assyrian and Elamite texts (“Third Revision,” 33–34). These texts report that Kuter-Nahunnte sacked and plundered temples and cities in Mesopotamia including Accad and Nippur, probably in the late 17th century bc (Albright, “Third Revision,” 35; Greunthaner, “Date Part 2,” 85). Greunthaner rejects this identification because it would date Abraham much later than his preference for a date around 2000 bc (“Date Part 2,” 86). For that reason, he prefers to connect Chedorlaomer with an unknown Elamite king from around 2100 bc, when the Elamites were dominant in southern Mesopotamia. This unknown king overthrew the third dynasty of Ur and brought its last king, Ibi-Sin, to Anshan, one of Elam’s early capitals (Greunthaner, “Date Part 2”, 86). Generally, the patriarchal period is associated with the Middle Bronze Age (MBA), especially MBA I and IIA (ca. 2100–1750 bc).

Scholars have also connected Chedorlaomer to other Elamite kings. A. Jeremias (1917) and M. Astour (1966) both argued for identifying Chedorlaomer with Kutir-Nahhunte II, a 12th century Elamite ruler who was part of an invasion of Babylonia (Emerton, “Some False Clues,” 38–39). Albright and others, however, found the early second millennium to be a much better fit for Genesis 14’s descriptions of a powerful Elamite ruler allied with other Mesopotamian kings (“Third Revision,” 35; Kitchen, On the Reliability, 320–21). Although much speculation is based on the historical evidence, Chedorlaomer’s identity remains a mystery.