Within those spurious collection of texts known as the Spartoli collection, inside the so-called “Chedorlaomer Tablets” we get an interesting reference to a ruler known as “Tudhula, son of Gazza” who plunders Babylon - specifically going so far as to claim the waters over the Esagila were plundered which is essentially the darkest thing any ancient Babylonian could have heard.1 The text is really unclear, and might say something about this Tudḫula viewing the rites of Annunitum, king of Elam as his lordship.2 Annunitum was a goddess, so it’s not clear what ruler this is trying to refer to exactly, but obviously jumps out as a potential reference to the “Tidal” we are trying to identify.
The key clue here is obviously the specific name Tudḫula, son of Gazza. The obvious Hittite name Tudhaliya is clearly the name we are looking to identify3, but the problem is that there are over six different Tudhaliya who were Hittte Kings - excluding any other potential rulers.4 The poorly named “Tudhaliya I” ruler from around 1430 to 1400 BCE making him fairly late for the chronology we are looking for, but the reality is that the “I” implying “the first” is a bit of a modern misnomer. He is really Tudhaliya I/II, with a proto-Tudhaliya having been the hypothetical king of the Hitittes before the formation of their empire. Scholar’s such as Forlanini suggest this king reigned sometime around the late 17th century BCE and corresponded to the great-grandfather of Hattusili I.
In all actuality this was not a “Hittite” ruler, but a pre-Hittite Hattian king. We will further develop this separation of these two “hittites” in later sections, but notably during our section of Japheth we isolated the later Hittites as Japhethites, and the earlier ones as Hamites. This mixture of peoples would better explain the epithet “Goiim” when referring to the coalition led by these mixed peoples.
Unhelpful is that Tudhaliya I/II was pretty unknown himself and scholars are unsure where to place him chronologically, and which rulers come before, or even after. Some suggest he is the grandson of Middle Kingdom ruler Huzziya II, further noting he might have overthrown Muwatalli I in a coup, potentially providing both a political and linguistic cause for the “son of Gazza”. Muwatalli was likely not from the royal dynasty, and was most probably “Gal Mesedi” or “Chief” of the royal bodyguards.
Either way, this period doesn't fit the ruler we are looking for, and we are probably looking for a proto-Hittite ruler at the onset of the cultural fusing of the Anatolian people on the eve of the Hittite empire's rise. It was probably this cultural fusion that gave the Hittites such command over the administrative channels of the region, allowing them to form a complex bureaucratic system over an extremely multi-cultural area.
Returning to our identification of the Great-Grandfather of Ḫattušili I as the proper identification of Tudḫula we actually should first look at Ḫattušili’s reign. He actually used the title “Labarna” during the early parts of his kingship coming from his predecessor theoretically named Larbarna I. This Labarna I is theoretical because there is no proof he really existed given that this name was used as a title by Ḫattušili.5 Ḫattušili even used the title “Man of Kuššara” in reference to the ancient Hittite home and original capital before installing themselves over on the throne of Neša - the Hittite capital. Much of this supports theories that ‘titles’ were passed around like candy, and treated less seriously at times than they might appear for historiological purposes.
Supposedly, Labarna was actually the founder of the empire making him a fairly important ruler if he was an actual king. We are further unclear of how Ḫattušili took over from Labarna, but it appears peaceful if he was trying to stylize himself in the same way, or he was just pretending he was the same guy for part of his reign. Labarna himself had a similar story, being designated as successor by PU-Sarruma after his own sons revolted against him. Virtually nothing is known about this supposed PU-Sarruma other than his father might have been the Tudhaliya who founded the Hittite power base in the Hatti Lands.
While the name Tudhaliya is seemingly verified through Hittite sources, the challenge to this could come when defining who the “Goiim” actually might represent. Do they represent a single nation, or kingdom? Are they perhaps a group of nations, or a coalition? Or does this term represent the well known “goyim” meaning “nations” as a catch-all term for a general who led a diverse group into battle? One alternative for the translation of “Goiim” as “nations” could be the region, or kingdom, known as Gutium.6 Gutium appears in both Sumerian and Akkadian texts from the 3rd millennium BCE.7
Saving the incredibly long over two thousand years of Gutium history, they were essentially a people group that at different times exerted varying levels of power over the political events in ancient Mesopotamia. They sacked Akkad, and ruled over Sumer for several generations around the years 2200-2055 BCE.8 They were located somewhere along the Zagros mountains just north of Elam, and were quite similar to the Lullubi people of Elam.
At first this seems plausible, but there might actually be a reference to the Guti people in another source from Ezekiel “The children of Babylon and all Chaldeans, Pekod, Shoa, and Koa, all the children of Assyria with them, handsome youths, governors and officers all of them, mighty men and summoned ones, all of them horse riders.”9 Scholars believe these “Koa” could be a reference to the Guti10, who by the era of Ezekiel around the 6th century BCE would have morphed into the pre-”Kurd” term that we know today.
Indeed, these Guti were well known in the Persian period of Cyrus the Great through his famous general Gubaru, described as “governor of Gutium”.11 Given the flourishing of the Jewish community in this period under Cyrus, if this term Goiim was meant to be Gutium they certainly would have used a more accurate name. However, a contrarian might still assert that oftentimes the Assyrian royal annals actually used the term Gutian to refer to populations such as the Medes or Mannaeans showing a similar usage in the ancient world for both the term “Gutian” and “Goiim”. Lacking their own proper language and textual corpus, we don’t really know what ethnic designation the Gutians really had, making them essentially “ancient Goiim” even in the generic sense of the word.
Looking at ancient sources, the non-canonical Book of Jubilees calls him “Têrgâl” which seems totally wrong: “And in this year came Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, and Amraphel, king of Shinar, and Arioch, king of Sêllâsar and Têrgâl, king of nations.”12 Given it’s the Book of Jubilees it’s most likely completely incorrect, but there is the slight off chance Têrgâl hints at a different corruption of the name Tudhaliya. The final ruler of Gutium, although from the year 2055 BCE, was named Tirigan possibly linking to the Book of Jubilees term “Tergal”, but given his involvement with the king of Uruk named Utu-hengal it’s unlikely these events are related to the Battle of Siddim. It’s still possible this name was passed down to other leaders after their proper kingship over the region had ended.
From the important Midrash Genesis Rabbah we are given a discussion of Tidal and the Goyim saying: “Kedorlaomer king of Eilam, and Tidal king of Goyim” – Rabbi Levi said: There is a place there in Rome that is called this [Goyim]. They took one person and made him king over themselves. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Tidal was his name.”13 Rabbi Levi states that there is a place in Rome called Goyim who were ruled by a king. Rabbi Yohanan affirms Tidal was the name of this king. This is strange since Rome didn’t have kings in that period, but an emperor.
Unlikely a coincidence, the emperor of Rome during the Midrashic period was actually Titus, possibly corrupted into the form Tidal with a mixing up of the middle d and t sounds. It seems unlikely to me given Rome didn’t appear until the first millennium BCE that any king of Rome would be related to a story of Abram. Rome was often in this period associated with Edom, and other cyclical notions of Messianic return which throws off our understanding of Rome in this context.
Turning our attention to Rabbinic commentaries we should look at the two most prominent and systematically opposed Rishonim: Rashi and Ibn Ezra. Ibn Ezra personally agrees with this stance that Midrash cannot contradict Peshat meaning of a text. While Goiim may represent Rome in other eras, this doesn’t apply literally to how Goiim is being used as a kingdom of a ruler named Tidal, since Rome didn’t maintain such a political system.
Helping confirm all of this is Ibn Ezra’s actual statement about the Goiim: “KING OF GOIIM. Goiim like Elam is the name of a state. Elam must be the name of a state because shushan ha-birah, which means Shushan the palace, was located in it. On the other hand, king of Goiim may be rendered as king of nations, Scripture not stating their names. The meaning of the verse is that Tidal was king over nations other than Shinar, Ellasar and Elam.”14 Ibn Ezra supports the theory that Goiim here is a series of nations, or peoples unified as a coalition rather than the technical term “nations” as used in it’s generic sense.
Next we have Rashi who says “KING OF GOIIM (nations) — There was a place that was called Goiim because people from many nations and localities gathered there and proclaimed as their king a man named Tidal.”15 Rashi agrees this was a place, and not a metaphoric Midrashic notion. He explicitly discusses a king named Tidal, and goes on to say that the Goiim were a fusion of many nations and localities. In other words, a complex multi-ethnic nation without a singular unified identity. If this name was the proto-Hitites before fully overcoming the Hatti core, it’s possible that they were identified as “Goyim” since they were a unification of multiple descendants of Noah.
Gertoux, Gerard (2015). Abraham and Chedorlaomer: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence. Lulu.com. pp. 27-28.
Pinches, Theophilus (1908). The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia (third ed.). London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. pp. 223-233.
Adam Simon van der Woude; Adrianus van Selms (1968). Adhuc Loquitur. E. J. Brill. p. 36.
Peake's commentary on the Bible (1962)
Melchert, H. Craig, The Luwians, Brill, 2003, 18ff.
Frank Moore Colby; Talcott Williams (1917). The New International Encyclopædia. Dodd, Mead and Company. p. 264.
Walton, John H., and Craig S. Keener. NRSV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible: Bringing to Life the Ancient World of Scripture. Zondervan, 2019. p. 39.
"Sumerian king list page 18". ETCSL.
Ezekiel 23:23
See, for example, Douglas, J. D.; Tenney, Merrill C. (2011). Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary (3rd ed.). HarperCollins. p. 1897.
Oppenheim, A. Leo, "VIII. Assyrian and Babylonian Historical Texts", The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, edited by James B. Pritchard, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 246-286, 2011
Book of Jubilees 13:24
Bereshit Rabbah 42:4
Ibn Ezra on Genesis 14:1:1
Rashi on Genesis 14:1:2