[b-hebrew] Ur of the Chaldees
kwrandolph at email.com
Thu May 12 15:25:18 EDT 2005
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter R. Mattfeld" <mattfeld12 at charter.net>
> Karl has argued that Abraham was a Semite and spoke a Semitic
> language, ergo he was _not_ a Sumerian from Ur of Lower
> Mesopotamia, but of Urfa (modern Edessa) in Northern Syria not far
> from biblical Haran, a site in some Islamic traditions associated
> with him.
First, while not denying the possibility, I never categorically claimed that Abraham was from Urfa (modern Edessa).
But unless you have documents to show that show that Abraham was a Sumerian, contradicting the document that we have, then you must admit that the Bible at least claims that Abraham was a Chaldean.
> Karl "errs" in thinking that because Abraham spoke a Semitic
> language that ergo he could not be of Ur in Sumer, because that
> location spoke a non-Semitic language. As noted by Kramer the
> Semites had become the _dominant ruling class_ of Sumer at least
> 800 years _before_ the birth of Abraham. So a Semitic-speaking
> Abraham would have had no problems in 2100-2000 BCE, with Sumer's
> "Semitic" population.
> Regards, Walter
> Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre, M.A. Ed.
> mattfeld12 at charter.net
Lets go back to archeology: unless the reports I heard were wrong, the tablets at Ebla mentioned that there were two cities named Ur, one was Ur of the Sumerians and the other Ur of the Chaldeas.
Two, the Bible (the only ancient document that records Abrahams existance) states that he came from Ur of the Chaldeas.
The conclusion I draw is that the Bibles claim rules out that Abraham was from Sumeria.
So there were a lot of Semites who intermingled with the Sumerians? That doesnt change the above equation, unless you can show that Ur of the Sumerians and Ur of the Chaldeas were one and the same city. Then how do you explainthe Ebla reference?
Karl W. Randolph.
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
More information about the b-hebrew