Where did Abraham come from?

Good arguments can be made for Urfa or for Ur in Sumeria. It hinges on the term Chaldean. This is a Greco-Roman transliteration of Aramaic Kaldu and Hebrew Kasdim.

The Chaldeans were a West-Semitic people that settled Southern Mesopotamia following the collapse of Old Babylon, in fact briefly coming to rule Babylon itself for a dynasty. They were West Semitic interlopers in East Semitic Mesopotamia, giving their name to the southern plain thereof (hence Ur in Chaldea would be Mesopotamian Ur). They were likely a confederation of various groups though, rather than a single 'nation'.
By Hellenistic times Chaldea had become extended to mean 'Babylonian' in general - hence Berossus' history thereof is called both the Babylonaica and the Chaldaica. Judaism followed this practice, sometimes refering to Mesopotamia in general as Kasdim. So this supports Ur of the Chaldees as being Ur in Sumeria, as this reading is based off the Hellenistic LXX.

Now Josephus says the descendents of Arphaxad came to be called Chaldeans. Now Aphaxad is Urfa (Urfa-Ksad or Urfa of the Kasdim - ?Ur of the Chaldees). So we have a good Hellenistic source connecting Urfa and the Chaldeans too, as well as a potential etymologic connection. The Mesopotamian Chaldeans were West Semitic, so to argue they came from the area of Urfa originally is plausible. They only went to Mesopotamia much later, after Abraham's presumed time, so Ur in Sumeria, if correctly identified as Ur of the Chaldees, would be anachronistic (like saying the Romans conquered France, say, instead of Gaul).

So it boils down to when you think the Torah was completed. If an early date, then Urfa is more plausible and the later connection to Mesopotamia merely confusion. If a later date of final redaction, then the overwhelmingly common usage of Chaldea to refer to Southern Mesopotamia, and the LXX translators, makes the argument for Southern Mesopotamian Ur more plausible.

Perhaps the truth lies somewhere inbetween. It is instructive though that Hebrew is a West Semitic language, and Abraham a West Semitic name, rather than East Semitic as one would perhaps have expected of a Southern Mesopotamian of the 2nd Millenium BC. The cultural mileue might have altered the language though, and Abraham has always been more of a title than a 'name' perhaps (akin to Israel vs Jakob).

Wick Stick said:

Thanks for the well framed response.

Ur Kasdim is something of an enigma. It's not even clear that it is the name of a city, as various scholars have suggested that Ur perhaps should be translated, either as 'region' or 'furnace.' The latter seems to be a re-loading of Jewish mythology on top of history, but the former is plausible.

The identification of Kasdim with Chaldeans is also problematic, as you yourself pointed out a potential anachronism. I've seen it suggested as referring perhaps to the Kassites as well, though that comes with its own set of problems.

Click to expand...

The difference between a city and a region is often paper-thin, especially in the Levant. Think of the Decapolis, a region but really a confederation of 10 cities; or the city-states of Sumeria or Greece. Even today we use a city to represent a region by metonymy, as when we say "London is doing X" meaning really the government of the UK in entirety. This was very common in the ancient world too (think of Rome).

I think the final redaction of Genesis - Numbers was no earlier than David. But this question is always a tough one, because we're left to try and assign what the priests added and what was original, and if original, when/where/who did it come from? While Deuteronomy is thought by more liberal scholars to be later, I think the opposite. It seems to me to be the earlier work - the original seed of Judaism from which all the rest grows. What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I am far too careful to say definitively, but we know it existed by the time of the LXX, and probably by Ezra's day (although some place Priestly redaction this late). Before then, much of the information was certainly circulating, but showing it put together in its modern form is difficult. Head on a block, I'd opt for an 8th century BC date, myself. But I am not willing to pontificate, and I agree that much Deuteronomist information is likely early.

And it is styled similarly to the titles given to the Philistine kings, who are all Abimelech.

I guess what I'm driving towards... as I take Genesis apart and put it back together, I'm struck by the dueling origin stories.

On the one hand, we have Abraham and Isaac in Hebron and Gerar and the Hebrews coming out of Egypt... a distinctly southern origin.

But then we have Isaac and Jacob traveling north to their historic homeland for a wife, a genealogy that traces itself back to Urartu and Mittani, and Jacob bequeathing land that he won from the Amorites... all pointing to a different and northern origin.

Click to expand...

Is this not just the standard documentary hypothesis that you are getting at? Of a Northern Elohist and a Southern Yahwist account spliced together?

What of Isaac and Jacob traces to Mitanni or Urartu in the biblical account? They were practicing endogamy, so these were all marriages in Abraham's extended family (that lived in Harran, essentially in Mitanni or Aram-Neharaim in Biblical terms, I'd grant you). Abraham did buy land from the Hitittes, and they called him a prince, so what to make of that is another question.

Wick Stick said:

I'm not sure the idea of regions based on geographic boundaries (as we think of them) exists in that time period. In my reading, the closest analog is a reckoning based on posterity or ownership. Grammatically, in B-Hebrew that's usually accomplished by suffixing a final nun (ן‬).

Click to expand...

No, I agree. That is more an artifact of Roman Provinces, which developed out of an amorphous grant of Imperium. There was a rough idea though, as when borders are set up in treaties (for example following Kadesh).

It comes down to Josiah, I think. Did he have Deuteronomy fabricated to support his reforms? Or did he legitimately find an already-extant Book of the Law?

Click to expand...

True, which is difficult to say. I'd opt for the latter, or at least his reforms expanded an existing prototype. It is easier to do that, then instituting a complete religious innovation.

It's not altogether dissimilar, but the questions I have aren't answered to my satisfaction by the JEPD crowd, which seems to have deconstructed the Bible but forgotten to put it back together afterwards.

Doesn't the Bible itself take a split into account? The repeated theme of Genesis seems to be brothers divided. Compare:

Cain is exiled to wander, Abel is murdered, and Seth becomes the elect seed.
Abraham emigrates, Haran dies young, and Nahor remains in the homeland.
Ishmael is exiled, Isaac becomes a human sacrifice, and afterwards inherits anyway.
Esau loses his birthright, Jacob wrestles God and has his identity changed, becoming Israel who gains the promise.

Perhaps it is a leap of logic, but it seems to me that I'm reading one story told several different ways, and perhaps from different perspectives. In all cases, one is disowned and has to leave, one inherits, and one dies (literally or figuratively).

I find that fascinating as a framework for understanding the Bible. It is the history of not just 2, but 3 nations. Edom is exiled, Israel the dead brother, and Judah inherits. Fast forward to New Testament times, and we have Judah and Edom mixed together as tares and wheat, and the thrust of Jesus message is the resurrection of dead Israel.

Click to expand...

Interesting take. Makes me think of the Prodigal Son and his brother, too; or Romans' Jew and Gentile of Paul.
I do think you are getting at something, but I don't think it necessary to conceive Israel as a separate 'nation' here. It is more perhaps Israel vs Edom/Jacob vs Esau, followed by Northern vs Southern kingdom/Judah vs Israel; etc. The idea of calling forth the 'righteous Israel' from within the Jews makes sense though.
Idumaea (Edom) had been converted under the Hasmonaeans, so technically Jacob and Esau were mixed, but I don't see that element as important in the Gospels. If anything, the Jew/Samaritan duality is of more import, and of course the Samaritans claim descent from the Northern Tribes, so are Israel as well.

The Biblical genealogy given traces itself to Noah/Shem at Ararat, which is the same thing as Urartu.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it traces all of humanity back to Ararat, not specifically Abraham's patriliny. This is anyway a tad anachronistic itself, as Urartu only became prominent historically concurrent to the Neo-Assyrians.

Abraham's grandfather is Nahor, and his country is "the city of Nahor" in the Biblical account. The Egyptian name for Mittani is Naharin. Harran is on the borders of the Mittani empire, Urfa/Edessa is within them.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Bible loves name-based aetiologies, but this argument can be equally taken back a generation to Arpaxad and be used to hunt for connections elsewhere. As I said, they came from within Aram-Naheraim, so you see the Egyptian Naharin present there already. It is nowhere explicitly connected to Nahor himself though, as Terah leaves to Harran.

There is the link between Urartu and Mittani as well - the ruling class of Mittani appears (albeit from scant archaeological evidence) to descend from Urartu, and they practice endogamy despite otherwise assuming the cultural trappings of the Hurrians and Arameans they rule over.

Click to expand...

You are a tad confused. The rulers of Mitanni were an Indo-European aristocracy related to the Indo-Aryans. The Hurrians however, were ethnically related to Urartu, speaking similar non-Indo European and non-Semitic languages.
So Mitanni's rulers were likely from the Iranian plataeu or distant relatives of the Hittites, rather than related to Urartu. What is your source for this?
They maintained their own gods and names, too. Perhaps Chariots or horses had been their means of seizing power there? They then formed a warrior Aristocracy, which by its very nature marries in an endogamous way if it is to maintain power over a large native underclass. We see British in the Raj do the same, up until the arrival of the first 'Fishing Fleets' and the mem-sahibs. How much this was original cultural practice is thus difficult to quantify.

Meanwhile Ab-ram/Ab-raham and his wife Sarai/Sarah have names that read like the titles of aristocracy.

The chronology fits well enough, though perhaps your mileage may vary depending what chronology you follow.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Which is why Abraham being 'like a prince amongst us' according to the Hittites, seems to be saying something. Similarly, the double 'Sarah is my sister' act with Egypt and Tyre, seems to sussurate the brother-sister language of Bronze Age royalty, where wifes and foreign kings become called such.

Wick Stick said:

You have to separate Israel. The prophets have Israel on a different prophetic timeline than Judah or Edom. They unanimously declare Israel's destruction, calling it "dry bones" and "cut off" and "not a people." They also foretell its resurrection and reinstatement.

Many consider that restoration to be the return of the Babylonian captivity after Cyrus decree. I don't think that holds water. Israel wasn't carried into captivity (except for the ~29K inhabitants of the city of Samaria proper as recorded on the Assyrian stele). They were destroyed.

The OT records them as destroyed, even going so far as to contrast Israel's destruction to the Judah's exile. The NT also takes the view that Israel remains "not a people" and has Jesus signaling that the time of their restoration is "at hand." If anything, the whole NT message is centered on the restoration of Israel, and that makes no sense if they were already restored hundreds of years earlier.

Click to expand...

Israel is a slippery term. Are we refering to the 12 tribes as a whole, or the Northern Kingdom? I think it leaves much room for interpretation.

Wheat and tares - no?

Click to expand...

You can argue the Idumaean Herod the Great and Herod Antipas are fake Kings vs Jesus the real King of the Jews. I have never interpreted the parable in such stark terms though.

The Bible nowhere accepts that claim, though. I believe the history actually repudiates it, showing them as a migrant people relocated to the area by the Assyrians, though they converted.

Click to expand...

True, the Bible never confirms it. Implicitly though, Jesus talking with the woman at the well and juxtaposing a Good Samaritan to a Priest and a Levite, it accepts a connection, especially as Christ says He comes now 'for the lost sheep of Israel'.
They do have Kohanim markers, so an ethnic relationship with the Jews is probable scientifically. Historically it is dubious, so they are likely at least partialy descended from Assyrian transplants, as the traditional Jewish belief has it.

I'm probably remembering wrong. I read Piotrovsky's The Ancient Civiliation of Urartu. I looked for archaeological reports after reading it, but didn't come up with a lot.

Click to expand...

One must be careful. There is a lot of Armenian Nationalism that muddies stuff about Urartu. They like to claim them as direct ancestors, in spite of Urartu speaking a non-Indo European language. So a lot of supposition and sophistry comes from that quarter. They are related, perhaps a Sprachbund spieel in the area, before Armenia arose.

The main thing is - why does the Bible connect to Urartu? Because it does, both by locating Noah and their ancestral home there, and with Isaiah trying to conjure them as an ally.

Click to expand...

Why does it connect to Egypt? It might just be what was prevalent then. Isaiah might be conjuring an ally, like Mediaeval Christendom conjured Prester John against the Muslims.

It should be kept in mind that Urartu is an exonym. They didn't call themselves that (they called themselves after Lake Van, so Vanni or Biali or somesuch). There is also no linguistic connection between Hebrew and the Urartru-Hurrian languages. So if they are related to the Ararat area, the hypothesis would entail a significant amount of migration and linguistic change itself. The Bible hints at that with Babel and the 70 nations though...
It might just be that as the highest land they were aware of, the Armenian highlands and Caucasus is the natural place to end a worldwide flood narrative.

More studying on this for me. Any thoughts to share? One thing that sticks out to me about Abraham purchasing the burial plot from the Hittites - what were Hittites doing near Hebron? I've never seen anybody put the extent of their empire any further south than Damascus.

Click to expand...

The Hittites sometimes established vassal states outside their realm. Many of these were in Syria, and some, the so-called Neo-Hittite states, survived the fall of their Empire.
The Hittites and the Egyptians struggled over the Orontes and the area for a very long time, so for the Hitites to cultivate forward connections or some 'behind enemy lines' makes sense. There were certainly dynastic marriages going on. The Egyptians also sometimes settled enemies or captives on land to try and pacify them, or use them for manpower themselves (notably the Peleset/Philistines). It is similar to how the Romans settled barbarians as Foederati behind the frontier.

The Bible still mentions people as 'Hittites' long after the Empire, such as Uriah the Hittite, Bathsheba's husband and David's soldier.

So a number of avenues are open. I think a dynastic marriage or a Hititte vassal most plausible. For instance, some Byzantine Emperors were termed 'the Khazar', because their mothers had been. But such things are speculative, though finding Hittites at Hebron not strange therefore though.

Wick Stick said:

The problem is that this path makes no sense. If one is traveling from Ur to Beersheva (as pictured), then this path means you traveled hundreds of miles in the wrong direction. Abraham's family would have had to do that on foot, which would have taken months at minimum and possibly a couple years.

Click to expand...

If you look at the river systems the map makes sense. They had herds traveling with them in large numbers and would follow the rivers to water the flock.

Not much water if they made a straight line. Been out there not very hospitable and way before any major canal systems.

Wick Stick said:

I think the final redaction of Genesis - Numbers was no earlier than David. But this question is always a tough one, because we're left to try and assign what the priests added and what was original, and if original, when/where/who did it come from? While Deuteronomy is thought by more liberal scholars to be later, I think the opposite. It seems to me to be the earlier work - the original seed of Judaism from which all the rest grows. What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

JEDP is a theory without historical foundation.

Wick Stick said:

You have a point, but it doesn't validate traveling to Haran. A logical path would have gone through Mari and Damascus along the established road, missing Haran by hundreds of miles.

Click to expand...

There's a lot we could analyze. Perhaps the more direct route at that period did not have enough pasture and water.

But it seems from Genesis 11:31 Terhah decided to settle in Haran and not continue to Canaan.

So much to consider. Main direct routes even back then had bandits and robbers.

The problem with a debate about following the river system, is that the rivers have changed over time.
The Tigris and the Euphrates have both shifted their courses. It is an alluvial flood plain, not a gorge system, so various paths have been cut in the past. For instance, Sumerian Ur is today in the desert, but it used to lie on the Euphrates river. The rivers also had different openings into the gulf in ancient times, but today both use the Shatt al Arab. The Middle East is full of wadi systems that represent old river systems that dried up or shifted course. The argument for locating Eden in Sumeria or Dilmun, is based on the Pishon and Gihon being represented by such archaic waterways, as an example.

Some areas are also less fruitful today, as destructive agricultural practices, such as too shallow irrigation ditches, or deforestation and erosion, salinated or destroyed areas that used to be famed for fertility. A good example here is Tunisia, though in North Africa. In Roman times it was famed for fertility, with its riches prompting Cato to declare "Carthago delenda est", but mismanagement from the Vandal conquest onward has left it much desertified.

The predominant trade routes also shifted. In Roman times they went up across Palmyra to reach Antioch, bypassing Damascus almost entirely. The major trading partner would probably be the Hitittes in Anatolia at the time, so a northern trade route from Mesopotamia makes sense here.
This was before large scale maritime commerce by the Phoenicians really started (for instance Carthage was only founded in the 8th or 9th century BC), so while a Southern trade system makes sense once the Mediterranean was factored in, it is less likely at the presumed date of Abraham, I would think.
I have never investigated the actual trade routes of the 2nd millenium BC before, but a northern trade route out of Mesopotamia across to the Issus gates in Tarsus makes more sense to me, thus going past Harran. It would also explain why Carchemish and control of the Orontes valley would be so important to the Hittites.

Wick Stick said:

In the paragraph I wrote (to which you are here responding) I am referring to the Northern Kingdom. While Israel is ambiguous in many books, the prophecies I mentioned are specific. Ezekiel contrasts Judah and Israel within his prophecy (Eze 37:19). Isaiah refers to Ephraim (Isa 7:8).


Too specific. Jesus is talking about the people, not just royal houses.


I don't think it implies that.

As I read it, Jesus sought to reform the definition of "who is an Israelite" in meritocratic terms (John 8). Jesus' doctrine is that those who act like Abraham are Abraham's true children. The Pharisees don't act like Abraham, so they are "children of the devil" and "a generation of vipers" in spite of their pedigrees.

Further, it seems adherents of The Way extended that definition retroactively. When Jesus questions his opponents' paternity, he brings up the historic misdeeds of their "fathers" and concludes that their fathers were also illegitimate. (e.g. Mat 23:31)

As I understand it, John and Jesus sought to re-establish Israel through mass adoptions. (Baptism is fundamentally an adoption ceremony.) Abraham was to literally become a father of goyim.

The connections you mention are examples of merit. The point is not to link the Samaritans. The same sort of examples also exist for other foreigners and marginalized groups, as the Roman centurion, the Canaanite woman, and the ritually unclean woman.


Interesting.


I copy that. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Attaching additional significance is done at our own peril.

Click to expand...

As you pointed out, much of the Bible has a similar story structure, of the older being surpassed by the younger (Cain and Abel; Esau and Jacob; Eleasar and Phinehas; Ephraim and Mannaseh; etc.).
Samaria was also richer than Jerusalem, and the original centre of the Israelite confederation seems to have been based on Shechem in the North, before David shifted it to Jerusalem in his own tribal lands (the younger son therefore).

This structure was already noticed by Augustine. If I recall correctly, he alludes to it in City of God as prefiguration of the Christian Church, the greater but younger, arising from the Jews - the City of God, Jerusalem, the Heavenly City vs the city of the world, which through original sin often takes primacy before we are redeemed. This is related to the Tares and the Wheat, the Elect, from within the mixed world where people are either citizens of God's Jerusalem or the worldly empire.

This is similar to your dead Israel being called forth, I take it. I don't really see why the Jew vs Edomite features here necessarily.

redleghunter said:

There's a lot we could analyze. Perhaps the more direct route at that period did not have enough pasture and water.

But it seems from Genesis 11:31 Terhah decided to settle in Haran and not continue to Canaan.

So much to consider. Main direct routes even back then had bandits and robbers.

Click to expand...

What is meant by Canaan though? Terah stopped at Haran, but might Haran not be in Canaan too? For the promised land is not the entirety of historic Canaan.
The Phoenicians called their land Canaan as well, and themselves Canaanites. Even the Punic settlers in North Africa called themselves Chananii.

Canaan seems to mean 'lowlands' as opposed to Aram, meaning highlands (though disputable). So an hypothetical descent from Aram Nehairam at Urfa, would be going to Canaan, the lowlands, if settling at Haran perhaps. I don't think Genesis 11:31 is clear enough that we can say Haran was not perhaps considered to be in Canaan as well, but such a reading obviously makes no sense if Ur of the Chaldees is taken to mean low-lying Sumerian Ur.

I heard a presentation a few weeks ago proposing to trace the origins of Abraham through studying mitochondrial DNA and the likely migration patterns that result from tracing a particular haplogroup. I don't have the lecture handout in front of me just now and won't dare to dive into specifics, but the field of study is called 'Biblical anthropology.'

thanks for the informations I am new here




Kodi Lucky Patcher nox