AMORITE
(Amʹo·rite) [perhaps, mountain dweller].
The “Amorite” appears among the list of the sons of Canaan, but elsewhere this term, always in the singular in the Hebrew text, is used collectively of the Canaanite tribe descended from the original Amorite. They were, therefore, a Hamitic race.—Gen. 10:6, 15, 16; 1 Chron. 1:13, 14.
In Abraham’s time a coalition of Mesopotamian kings raided to the S of Canaan and defeated some of the Amorites dwelling at Hazazon-tamar, thought to be located SW of the Dead Sea. Three Amorite men living near or in Hebron were then “confederates of Abram,” and as such aided him in pursuing and defeating the invading kings, thereby rescuing his nephew Lot. (Gen. chap. 14) Still, sometime thereafter God advised Abraham that, when the error of the Amorites had finally “come to completion,” Abraham’s descendants would return to Canaan from an alien land and would take possession of the Amorites’ land.—Gen. 15:13-21.
Shortly before Jacob’s death in Egypt, that patriarch promised Joseph: “I do give you one shoulder of land more than to your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Amorites by my sword and by my bow.” (Gen. 48:22) Since the word rendered “shoulder” in this text is Shechem in Hebrew, some have claimed that Jacob was here referring to the plot of ground he had purchased near that city. (Gen. 33:18, 19) The purchase was a peaceable transaction, however, and there is no record of any battle waged by Jacob in connection with the land. While Jacob’s sons later did make a savage attack on the people of Shechem, Jacob disavowed responsibility for the act at the time (Gen. 34:30); and, now on his deathbed, he cursed the anger of Simeon and Levi that had motivated the attack. (Gen. 49:5-7) Thus, it seems more reasonable to understand Jacob’s promise as a prophetic utterance in which he envisioned by faith the future conquest of Canaan as though it were already effected, with Jacob ‘taking the land of the Amorites’ vicariously through the sword and bow of his descendants.
A DOMINANT TRIBE IN CANAAN
Some commentators consider that the term “Amorites” is used at Genesis 15:16 and 48:22 as representing the peoples of Canaan as a whole. The Amorites do appear to have been the principal or dominant tribe in Canaan at the time of the Israelite exodus from Egypt. (Compare Deuteronomy 1:6-8, 19-21, 27; Joshua 24:15, 18; Judges 6:10.) If this is so, then it would be understandable that, at times, other subordinate and related tribes should be referred to under the name of the dominant tribe of the Amorites. Thus, at Numbers 14:44, 45 the account states that “Amalekites” and “Canaanites” handed the Israelites their first military defeat, whereas Moses’ recapitulation of the events of the exodus at Deuteronomy chapter 1 simply says “the Amorites” administered the defeat. (Deut. 1:44) Likewise, Jerusalem is called an Amorite kingdom at Joshua 10:5 (compare Ezekiel 16:3, 45), but is shown elsewhere to be inhabited by Jebusites. (Josh. 15:8, 63; Judg. 1:21; compare also the case of Gibeon at Joshua 9:7 and 2 Samuel 21:2.) In a similar manner, the name of one tribe of the nation of Israel, Judah, came to apply to all Israelites through the appellative “Jew.”
Nevertheless, the Amorites are also listed separately among the independent Canaanite tribes. (Ex. 3:8; 23:23, 24; 34:11-15) They composed one of the “seven nations more populous and mighty” than Israel, all devoted to destruction, with whom Israel was to make no covenant, form no marriage alliance, nor share in false worship.—Deut. 7:1-4.
The twelve spies Moses sent into Canaan found the mountainous region occupied by Amorites, Hittites and Jebusites, while the Amalekites resided in the Negeb, and the Canaanites dwelt by the sea and by the Jordan. (Num. 13:1, 2, 29) As previously in Abraham’s time, Amorites still resided at Hebron as well as other cities in the mountains W of the Jordan. (Josh. 10:5) However, by the time of Israel’s exodus they had invaded Moabite and Ammonite territory E of the Jordan, taking possession of the region from the torrent valley of Arnon in the S (thereafter the border of Moab), up to the torrent valley of Jabbok in the N (the border of Ammon). (Num. 21:13, 24, 26; Josh. 12:2; Judg. 11:22) This was the realm of Amorite King Sihon, described by Josephus the Jewish historian as ‘a land lying between three rivers [the Jordan, the Arnon and the Jabbok] after the manner of an island.’ (Antiquities of the Jews, Book IV, chap. V, par. 2) Additionally, to the N of Sihon’s realm, there was another Amorite kingdom centered in Bashan under King Og. The southern border of his kingdom seems to have been contiguous with the territories of Sihon and of the Ammonites, thus extending from the Jabbok in the S up to Mount Hermon in the N.—Deut. 3:1, 8.
CONQUEST BY ISRAEL
Drawing near the Promised Land and under divine orders not to trespass the territories of Moab and Ammon (Deut. 2:9, 37), the Israelites requested a transit permit from King Sihon at his capital city, Heshbon, offering stringent guarantees: “Let me pass through your land. We shall not turn off into a field or a vineyard. We shall drink water of no well. On the king’s road we shall march until we pass through your territory.” Instead, Sihon struck at Israel with his combined forces and was summarily defeated a few miles S of Heshbon, at Jahaz, his entire territory falling into Israelite possession. (Num. 21:21-32; Deut. 2:24-36) Invading neighboring King Og’s territory, Israel also vanquished this Amorite ruler, capturing sixty fortified cities. (Num. 21:33-35; Deut. 3:1-7) The fall of these powerful Amorites kingdoms to Israel caused a sense of sickening dread to pervade Moab (Num. 22:2-4) and also the people of Canaan, as revealed by Rahab’s words to the Israelite spies. (Deut. 2:24, 25; Josh. 2:9-11) The territory of the two defeated Amorite kings now became the inheritance of the tribes of Reuben and Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh.—Num. 32:31-33, 39; Deut. 3:8-13; see OG; SIHON.
As for the Amorites W of the Jordan, “their hearts began to melt” upon hearing of the Israelites’ miraculous crossing of the Jordan. This miracle, combined with the smashing victories Israel had already obtained, may explain, in part, why the Amorites made no attack upon the Israelite camp during the ensuing period in which the Israelite males were circumcised nor while the Passover was celebrated. (Josh. 5:1, 2, 8, 10) However, after the destruction of Jericho and Ai, a massive alliance of the tribes of Canaan was formed to present a united front against Israel. (Josh. 9:1, 2) When the Hivite men of Gibeon elected to seek peace with Israel, they were promptly attacked by “five kings of the Amorites” and only escaped destruction through an all-night march by Joshua’s forces and Jehovah’s miraculous intervention.—Josh. 10:1-27.
After this battle and after Joshua’s succeeding campaign throughout the land, the power of the Amorites in the S of Palestine was evidently broken. Still, the Amorites in the northern regions joined with other tribes in an alliance that engaged Israel in battle at the “waters of Merom” N of the Sea of Galilee. Disastrously overwhelmed, the Amorites are never again mentioned as constituting a major danger to Israel. (Josh. 11:1-9) A remnant remained, but their territory was greatly reduced and in course of time they came into forced labor under Israelite domination. (Josh. 13:4; Judg. 1:34-36) Amorite women were taken as wives by Israelites, resulting in apostasy (Judg. 3:5, 6), and the Amorites generally seem to have continued to be troublesome for some time, for it is mentioned that in Samuel’s day, after a decisive defeat of the Philistines, “there came to be peace between Israel and the Amorites.” (1 Sam. 7:14) Amorites were again among those put to forced labor during Solomon’s reign. (1 Ki. 9:20, 21) Their idolatry and wickedness, evidently representative of that of all the Canaanites, was proverbial. (1 Ki. 21:26; 2 Ki. 21:11) The taking of Amorite wives still constituted a thorny problem among the returned Israelites after the Babylonian exile. (Ezra 9:1, 2) Eventually, however, the Amorite people, once the foremost ones of all Canaan, passed completely out of existence, like a tall, massive tree with its fruit removed and its roots destroyed.—Amos 2:9, 10.
THE “AMURRU”
Secular historians regularly associate the Amorites of the Bible with the people called the Amurru in early Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian) cuneiform texts. The Amurru are represented as invading Mesopotamia early in the second millennium B.C.E. and having had a kingdom in Babylonia for several centuries. Hammurabi, famed lawgiver of that period, is often referred to as of “Amorite” origin.
The evidence concerning the Amurru, however, does not appear to warrant the strong conclusions that are advanced as to their positive identification with the Biblical Amorites. Amurru in the ancient cuneiform texts basically meant “west” as referring to the region W of Mesopotamia. A. H. Sayce, in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 120), says of the name Amurru that it “included in the Bab[ylonian] period all the settled and civilized peoples west of the Euphrates to whatever race they might belong.” While Mari, an ancient city on the Euphrates in northern Mesopotamia, is referred to by modern secular historians as a “center” of the expansion of the Amurru into Mesopotamia, the thousands of tablets recovered there were almost all in the Semitic Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian) language, with some names appearing of West Semitic origin. As noted, however, the Biblical Amorites were Hamitic, not Semitic, and, while the adoption of a Semitic tongue by some branch of them is not an impossibility, it is equally possible that the early Amurru were simply “westerners” from among the Semitic peoples living to the W of Babylonia. Professor John Bright in A History of Israel (p. 43) says: “For some centuries [of the late third millenium and early second millennium B.C.E.] the people of northwestern Mesopotamia and northern Syria had been referred to in cuneiform texts as Amurru i.e., ‘Westerners.’ This became, apparently, a general term applying to speakers of various Northwest-Semitic dialects found in the area including, in all probability, those strains from which later sprang both Hebrews and Arameans.”
The Encyclopædia Britannica (1959 ed., Vol. 1, p. 829) refers to these Amurru as “forerunners of the Aramaeans”; and G. Ernest Wright (Biblical Archaeology, p. 42) also says that some of the Amurru “may well have been early Arameans who settled in Paddan-Aram, or at least a group from which the later Arameans descended.” Finally, referring to the Babylonian dynasties of the Amurru (including that of Hammurabi), Douglas’ New Bible Dictionary (1962, p. 31) states: “. . . While these dynasties were clearly of western origin, their right to the name ‘Amorite’ is disputed.”
It may also be noted that the time when the Amurru dynasties were in power in Mesopotamia (according to the chronological calculations of modern authorities) is the same period when the four kings from Mesopotamia threatened Palestine and there, after defeating the five kings around the Salt Sea, attacked “the Amorites who were dwelling in Hazazon-tamar.” (Gen. 14:7) This seems unlikely if the ruling element of Mesopotamia were of the same race as the Biblical Amorites.
Later historical references
In a later time period of secular history, toward the middle and latter half of the second millennium B.C.E., Egyptian texts refer to a city-state of Amor located N of Palestine in the region of Syria-Lebanon. Also of that period, cuneiform tablets found at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt use the term Amurru, but always with reference to such a region N of Palestine. In the Assyrian inscriptions of the early part of the first millennium B.C.E. the name Amurru was also used to refer to an individual city or city-state in the vicinity of Lebanon. Some associate these references with Biblical mention of Amorites to the N of Palestine at Joshua 13:4, where the “border of the Amorites” is listed in connection with the Sidonians of Phoenicia (Lebanon). Whether such connection exists or not, it is of interest to note that on the Egyptian monuments “the Amorites are depicted as a tall race, with fair skins, light (also black) hair, and blue eyes . . . They thus resembled the Libyans (the Berbers of today), . . . ” (Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, pp. 84, 85) The Libyans of North Africa were also apparently descended from Ham, probably through the Lehabim (descendants of Ham’s son Mizraim).—Gen. 10:13.
Thus, it can be seen that the term Amurru was early used in a very broad and general way and later came to apply to a specific political region or state. In view of this flexibility, there can be no real certainty as to whether it applied, even in the later periods, to the Biblical Amorites.
[Map on page 70]
(For fully formatted text, see publication)
AMORITE TERRITORY
The Great Sea
AMORITES
MOAB
AMMON
AMORITE KINGDOM OF SIHON
AMORITE KINGDOM OF OG
Mt. Hermon
Salt Sea
Jordon River
T.V. of Jabbok
T.V. of Arnon