Jewish Virtual Library:

Abimelech (Heb. אֲבִימֶלֶך; “the [Divine] Father is King” or “the [Divine] King is Father”), the king of Gerar, and the male offspring of Gideon the Abiezrite by his Shechemite concubine (Judg. 8:31). During the period of the Judges, Abimelech became the ruler of Shechem through the support of his mother’s family and the local oligarchy (“the lords of Shechem”; Judg. 9:2–3 et al.) who financed the hiring of a regiment of “worthless and reckless fellows” (9:4). With their aid, Abimelech murdered all but one of the 70 sons of Gideon (see Jotham ) to eliminate possible claims to the leadership of Shechem. He had reason for apprehension because of Gideon’s special connections with this city.

The Bible does not count Abimelech among the Judges. He is not credited with having “saved” Israel. The placing of his story in the Book of Judges is apparently due to its connection with the traditions about the house of Gideon. At any rate, Abimelech maintained close ties with the Israelites, since he “ruled [not ‘judged’] over Israel three years” (9:22). It is probable that the Manassites submitted to him because of his paternal lineage, though it is possible that he attained power solely by means of the support of his hired regiment. It would seem that Abimelech’s connection with the Israelites did play a decisive role in contributing to his election as a ruler of Shechem. The preservation of normal relations with Israel was of vital importance to Canaanite Shechem which existed as a foreign enclave within the boundaries of the tribe of Manasseh.

According to the narrative, the “lords of Shechem” acclaimed Abimelech “king” over them (9:6). However, all indications point to the fact that the title “king” was used because of the lack of a more appropriate term for the type of ruler that existed in various cities in Syria and Ereẓ Israel who performed the functions and exercised the authority of a king. A ruler of this kind was chosen by the municipal institutions. There is evidence that the ruler was dependent on the city’s institutions, which guarded their own status and power.

Other non-monarchal rulers governed in Shechem at different times: Hamor the Hivite, ruler of Shechem in the days of Jacob (Gen. 34:2), was “chief of the country”; Lab’ayu, chief of Shechem during the 14th century B.C.E., known from the el-Amarna letters, was another such example.

Abimelech appears in several incidents in connection with Abraham and Isaac.

Each of these patriarchs, fearing for his personal safety, represents his wife as his sister. Sarah’s honor is saved through a dream theophany in which Abimelech’s life is threatened; timely detection of the subterfuge preserves Rebekah’s virtue. In both instances the king’s integrity is manifest and he is righteously indignant at the deceit (Gen. 20; 26:1–11).

Abimelech is also involved with both patriarchs in quarrels over wells (21:25; 26:15–16, 18–21). In both events he is accompanied by Phicol, chief of his troops (21:22, 32; 26:26), and concludes treaties (21:27–32; 26:28–31).

Also, Beer-Sheba figures on each occasion (21:31; 26:33). The detailed similarities between the two stories and the resemblances of both to that of Genesis 12:10–20 have generally led critical scholars to assign Genesis 20–21 to the e source and Genesis 12 and 26 to J, regarding all three narratives as variants of a single tradition.

** you do not have permission to see this link **

In the Aggadah

Abimelech was referred to as a righteous Gentile (Mid. Ps. 34). His attempted seizure of Sarah is explained by the fact that he was childless, and that he hoped to be blessed with offspring by marrying such a pious woman (PdRE 26). Among his punishments for his sin were that ruffians entered his house, that boils erupted on his body (Gen. R. 64:9), and that his household became barren (BK 92a). Abimelech, however, clearly did not consider himself to be the only one at fault. According to the aggadic commentary on his words “Behold it is for thee a covering of the eyes” (Gen. 20:16), he said to Abraham “You covered my eyes (i.e., by saying that Sarah was your sister), therefore the son which you will beget will be of covered eyes (i.e., blind).” This prophecy was fulfilled in Isaac’s old age (Gen. R. 52:12). The aggadic treatment of Isaac’s relations with Abimelech is briefer. It records that, although he had heard of Rebekah’s great beauty, Abimelech remembered his previous punishment, and therefore left her alone (Ag. Ber. 20). However, once Isaac had become so wealthy that people kept saying: “Rather the dung of Isaac’s mules, than Abimelech’s gold and silver,” he became jealous, and claimed that Isaac’s wealth was derived from his favors (Gen. R. 64:7).

** you do not have permission to see this link **

The biblical scholar Kenneth Kitchen argues that, from the conquest of Canaan by Joshua until the formation of the first Kingdom of Israel and Judah (c. 1150–1025 BCE), the Israelite tribes may have formed a loose confederation. In this conception, no central government would have existed but in times of crisis, the people would have been led by ad hoc chieftains, known as judges (shoftim).[7] However, some scholars are uncertain whether such a role existed in ancient Israel.[8][9]

Working with the chronology in Judges, Payne points out that although the timescale of Judges is indicated by Jephthah’s statement (Judges 11:26) that Israel had occupied the land for around 300 years, some of the judges overlapped one another. Claiming that Deborah’s victory has been confirmed as taking place in 1216 from archaeology undertaken at Hazor, he suggests that the period may have lasted from c. 1382 to c. 1063.[10]

= = = = = =

Again:
Other non-monarchal rulers governed in Shechem at different times: Hamor the Hivite, ruler of Shechem in the days of Jacob (Gen. 34:2), was “chief of the country”; Lab’ayu, chief of Shechem during the 14th century B.C.E., known from the el-Amarna letters, was another such example.

Other than Abimelech, there was Hamor and Labayu. Abimelech is not Hamor or Labayu.

The stronger argument is that Labayu/a was Saul *not* Abemelech ben Gideon.

Of course there are differences between Labaya in the Amarna Letters and Saul in the book of Samuel.
The Amarna Letters have more prestige as history than the Book of Samuel has. Kitchens is not saying anything to strengthen the argument that the bible is more historical than the Amarna Letters.

Without bringing Rohl into the picture. Anyone seeing the Amarna Letters would recognize
the biblical story of Saul and his son who was a friend of the biblical King David
in the Labaya letters.

And, one would recognize the period before the United Kingdom shows god did not free the Hebrews from Egyps’s domination and influence.

If the biblical King David reigned 1010-970 BCE
If the biblical King Solomon reigned 970-931 BCE
One might think that then the Hebrews stopped bowing to their vassal pharaohs seven times in greetings of letters.
They were finally set free from Egypt.
Ope, nope, 925 BCE, there is the Palestinian campaign of Egypt’s leader Shoshenk I of the 22nd Dynasty.

The 25th Dynasty (747-656 BCE) brought Assyria to Palestine.
God finally frees the Hebrews from the Egyptians for Judah to be defeated by Assyria.

From 925 BCE to 747 BCE, The Hebrews did not defeat Egypt nor have an Exodus from Egyptian dominance or influence in Palestine.

The Book of Exodus is not the historically accurate, successful exodus the Bible would have you believe.