Replies

The Hittites, "The Forgotten Empire", were given a name plucked from the pages of the Bible. In the middle of the 19th century there was an anti-Biblical school of "thought"...

The Testimony of the Monuments
to the Truth of the Scriptures
by Professor George Frederick Wright,
D. D., LL. D., Oberlin College
(Volume 1 ch. XVI)
The fourteenth chapter of Genesis relates that "In the days of Amraphel, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, and Tidal, king of Goiim (nations), they made war with Bera, king of Sodom, and with Bersha, king of Gomorrah, and Shinab, king of Admah, and Shemeber, king of Zeboim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar)." ...This story, told with so many details that its refutation would be easy if it were not true to the facts and if there were contemporary records with which to compare it, has been a special butt for the ridicule of the Higher Critics of the Wellhausen school, Professor Nöldeke confidently declaring as late as 1869 that criticism had forever disproved its claim to be historical... Hammurabi is now known to have had his capital at Babylon at the time of Abraham. Until recently this chronology was disputed, so that the editors and contributors of the New Schaff-Herzog Cyclopedia dogmatically asserted that as Abraham lived nearly 300 years later than Hammurabi, the biblical story must be unhistorical... Chedorlaomer is pretty certainly identified as Kudur-Lagamar (servant of Lagamar, one of the principal Elamite gods). Kudur-Lagamar was king of Elam, and was either the father or the brother of Kudur-Mabug, whose son, Eri-Aku (Arioch), reigned over Larsa and Ur, and other cities of southern Babylonia. He speaks of Kudur-Mabug "as the father of the land of the Amorites," i. e., of Palestine and Syria. Tidal, "king of nations," was supposed by Dr. Pinches to be referred to on a late tablet in connection with Chedorlaomer and Arioch under the name Tudghula, who are said, together, to have "attacked and spoiled Babylon."

Occasionally the much inflated earlier date for Hammurabi still appears in print, but that was deflated 30+ years ago, and the new date is accepted. Not sure if this link is still working, I had the file on the drive.

I have to wonder how things could forever be disproved, when there is so much still in the ground. And in 1869 it was even worse to state such a ridiculous thing. But, that's the Wellhausen school I guess. :')