The Abrahamic Covenant: Evidence of Akkadian Language?

The Abrahamic Covenant, central to the faith of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is viewed as a divine promise between God and Abraham. However, if you have been following me, you know that I argue this relationship wasn’t originally a divine, supernatural one, but rather a secular covenant between a mortal lord—a Mesopotamian king—and his loyal vassal, Abraham.

The idea may seem absurd at first, but by simply shifting the premise from a deity to a king, the entire framework of evidence holds up. From that point, the finer details emerge and reinforce the concept.

First, the covenant itself closely mirrors ancient treaties. Then, Genesis 14 no longer seems disjointed but now serves as a prologue to the covenant. There is also substantial evidence that the story of Abraham was originally written in Akkadian before being translated into Hebrew. Finally, additional themes, such as the sacrifice and the use of sexagesimal numbers, further support the idea of a secular covenant.

Let’s take a closer look.

1. The Structure of the Abrahamic Covenant Mirrors ANE Vassal Treaties

In the ancient Near East, vassal treaties were common agreements between a suzerain (a powerful king) and a vassal (a subordinate ruler or leader). These treaties established formal relationships where the suzerain offered protection, land, and favor in exchange for the vassal’s loyalty, obedience, and service. The parallels between such treaties and the Abrahamic Covenant are often rejected by scholars on the basis that treaties in which one of the partner is a deity are extremely rare in the ANE, if they exist at all. However, this argument falls flat when arguing that Abraham’s deity was a mortal.

• Granting of Land: In Genesis 15:18, Abraham is promised land for his descendants, from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates. This echoes the common practice in ANE vassal treaties where a suzerain would grant a portion of land to his vassal as a reward for loyalty.
• Loyalty and Obedience: Throughout Genesis, Abraham is repeatedly commanded to demonstrate loyalty to his Lord. In Genesis 17:1, he is told to “walk before me and be blameless.” These demands for obedience mirror the stipulations found in ANE treaties, where vassals were required to obey their suzerain’s commands without question.
• Oath of Blessing and Protection: Genesis 22:16-18 contains an oath from Abraham’s Lord, promising to bless Abraham and make his descendants numerous. In ANE treaties, the suzerain would often swear an oath to protect and favor a loyal vassal, ensuring that the vassal’s lineage would continue to prosper under the suzerain’s protection. The similarity of these blessings to ANE practices strengthens the case for a secular, political interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant.
• Circumcision: The practice of circumcision, which serves as the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 17:9-14), can be compared to the rituals that accompanied vassal treaties in the ANE. While circumcision may not have a direct counterpart, the idea of a physical, irrevocable mark as a sign of loyalty has parallels in other treaty traditions, such as the use of seals or oaths.

2. The Geopolitical Context of the Abrahamic Covenant

Genesis 14 is often regarded as an “erratic” chapter by biblical scholars because it reads more like a stand-alone episode than part of the broader storyline, which primarily focuses on Abraham’s covenant with God, his descendants, and the promised land. The military campaign and the rescue of Lot seem like side events that don’t directly advance the central theme of God’s covenant with Abraham. The introduction of Melchizedek as a king and priest who blesses Abraham adds a mystical, theological element, but his brief appearance feels somewhat disconnected from the overall narrative, creating a sense of discontinuity.

When adopting a secular perspective, Genesis 14 clearly serves as a prologue to the covenant. In this chapter, the people of Sodom are portrayed as vassals who rebel against foreign authority, prompting a punitive campaign. This rebellion sets the stage for future consequences, with the destruction of Sodom in Genesis 19 serving as evidence of the outcome of their defiance. The destruction of Sodom also confirms that Abraham’s Lord is working in concert with the four eastern kings.

The covenant with Abraham then becomes necessary to maintain control over the Valley of Siddim, a region strategically important for trade due to its proximity to key routes like the King’s Highway. This route, running north-south along the eastern side of the Jordan River, connected important trade centers such as Damascus and the Gulf of Aqaba, facilitating commerce between Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Levant.

The geopolitical context of Abraham’s story fits well within the framework of ANE politics, particularly during the time of Babylonian expansion and influence. Kings in Mesopotamia, including Babylonian rulers, often extended their control over regions far from their capitals, using vassal treaties to manage local leaders. Abraham, who travels through Canaan and interacts with various kings (Genesis 14), may have been one such local leader, subject to the authority of a greater Mesopotamian ruler.

In fact, the figure of Amraphel in Genesis 14 is often identified with the Babylonian king Hammurabi. If Abraham’s Lord was indeed Hammurabi (or Hammurapi-El), the covenant between them could easily be understood as a political alliance rather than a purely religious one.

3. Words of Akkadian Origin in the Covenant

Several key words and concepts in the Abrahamic texts also suggest Akkadian influence. This should be expected if Abraham’s Lord proved to be a Mesopotamian king. Here are a few words and themes that may have Akkadian origins:

• “Covenant” (berit – בְּרִית): The Hebrew word berit, meaning “covenant,” could be linked to the Akkadian word birītu, meaning “bond” or “fetter.” This comparison aligns with the idea of the covenant as a binding agreement, much like the contracts that existed between Akkadian kings and their vassals. These covenants were formalized agreements that carried real political weight and consequences.
• “Bless” (barak – בָּרַךְ): The Hebrew word barak for “bless” may be connected to the Akkadian word barāku, meaning “to kneel” or “bless.” In Akkadian, the act of blessing was often tied to an official or formal acknowledgment of loyalty and favor, much like how Abraham is repeatedly blessed for his loyalty to his Lord. This reinforces the idea that the blessings Abraham receives may have originally been tied to a political relationship rather than a divine one.
• “King of Salem” (melech salem – מלך שלם): From Genesis 14:18 comes from the Semitic root mlk, which is typically associated with “king” or “ruler.” However, in Akkadian, the same consonants form the word milku, meaning “advice,” “counsel,” or “wisdom.” This term often refers to someone who provides guidance, fitting the idea of an advisor. The word šulmu is derived from the root šlm, which means “peace” in many Semitic languages, including Hebrew (as in shalom). In Akkadian, šulmu also conveys the sense of “peace” or “well-being.” Thus, “King of Salem” in Hebrew shares the same consonants as milku šulmu, which can be interpreted as “Peace Advisor” in Akkadian—perfectly fitting the role of Melchizedek as both a king and a wise counselor who brings peace.
• “Tithe” (ma’aser – מַעֲשֵׂר): While traditional theological interpretations suggest that Abram gives the tithe to Melchizedek, the use of the pronoun ‘he’ in the text is ambiguous. Technically, since the previous ‘he’ refers to Melchizedek, it implies that Melchizedek is the one receiving the tithe. The Akkadian equivalent of the Hebrew word, meaning “tithe” or “one-tenth,” is esretu. In Akkadian, esretu means “tithe” and refers to one-tenth of agricultural produce, livestock, or other resources, which would be offered as tribute, either to an overlord or to a temple. In a secular context, the text suggests that Abram receives retribution for risking his life and that of his allies in rescuing the people of Sodom and recovering their goods. The Akkadian term esretu is derived from esru, meaning “ten,” reflecting the same numerical basis as the Hebrew ma’aser.
• “Shoelace” (šerokh – שׂרוֹךְ) and “sandal” (na’al – נַעַל): In Genesis 14:23, these words derive from the roots šrk and nʿl, and may result from a mistranslation of Akkadian words that share the same consonants but carry meanings more relevant to ancient Near Eastern (ANE) diplomacy. The literal translation of “shoelace” and “sandal” fails to convey the deeper cultural significance, where even small gifts could create a debt of obligation. More appropriate interpretations are found in Akkadian terms such as šeriktu (gift) and nīlu (portion), which reflect the ANE practice of offering material goods to establish social or political ties. If Abram was properly compensated for his military actions, his refusal to accept even more must be understood as a strategic decision to avoid indebtedness to the king of Sodom, ensuring that he remained independent and not beholden to the king, in a culture where gift exchanges carried significant diplomatic weight. The Akkadian term esretu is derived from esru, meaning “ten,” reflecting the same numerical basis as the Hebrew ma’aser.

3. The Secular Themes in the Akedah (Genesis 22)

The Akedah, or the Binding of Isaac, is traditionally interpreted as a divine test of Abraham’s faith. However, if Abraham’s Lord were a mortal ruler, this story could be seen as an extreme test of loyalty, akin to the demands sometimes made by suzerains in vassal treaties. In ANE culture, while human sacrifice wasn’t common, the willingness to demonstrate total loyalty—even to the point of sacrificing one’s most valuable possession—was a theme in many political and legal contexts.

In this light, the Akedah must be understood as a political test where Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice ‘his son, his only son, the one he loves,’ is a display of ultimate loyalty to his ruler. The intervention at the last moment (Genesis 22:12) may reflect the suzerain’s recognition of Abraham’s loyalty without requiring the actual loss. The blessing that follows this event further parallels the rewards given to loyal vassals.

4. The use of sexagesimal numbers

Another aspect that supports a Mesopotamian origin of the Abrahamic narrative is the use of numbers in the Bible, particularly the unusually high ages of the patriarchal figures. The Babylonians used a sexagesimal (base 60) system for mathematics and astronomy, while the decimal (base 10) system was not fully adopted until around the turn of the 1st millennium BCE. By the time the Hebrew Bible was collated in the 6^th or 5^th century BCE, it is possible that scribes who were unfamiliar with this earlier numerical system attempted to convert sexagesimal numbers into decimal without realizing they were dealing with a different base system. Instead of properly converting the numbers, they may have treated them as fractions rather than whole numbers. This error would explain the implausibly long lifespans recorded for figures such as Abraham and Noah. If we apply the correct conversion factor—multiplying the numbers by 6/10—we arrive at more realistic ages that align with human experience. For example, Sarah’s age of 127 years (Genesis 23:1) would convert to 76 years, which still conveys longevity but within a more believable range.

Conclusion

The Abrahamic Covenant, when examined through the lens of Ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties, aligns closely with the secular, political agreements that were common during the time of Babylonian influence. From the granting of land to the language of blessing and covenant, the motifs in Abraham’s story mirror those found in ANE vassal treaties. Furthermore, the presence of Akkadian words and concepts in the text supports the idea that this covenant may have originally been a secular agreement between a powerful Mesopotamian king and a loyal vassal, rather than a purely divine promise. Understanding the Abrahamic Covenant in this context provides a richer, more nuanced view of its origins and meaning, reflecting the deep interconnections between the cultures of the ancient Near East.

Stay tuned! There is so much more to unpack…

NOTE: The Ancient Near East (ANE) refers to the broader region that includes modern-day Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey, and surrounding areas, known for its early civilizations and cultural advancements. Mesopotamia, a central region of the ANE, encompasses parts of modern-day Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Babylon (located near modern-day Baghdad) was a significant city in Mesopotamia, especially during the Middle Bronze Age when King Hammurabi ruled. Additionally, Akkadian served as the diplomatic language of the era, used for communication between neighboring countries, much like English is today.