Synchronisms for Terah, the Father of Abraham
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 07. 2021
- Christopher Eames has suggested that the Terru of Urkesh that is found in the Mari Letters is the same person as Terah of Ur found in the Bible. But does this hypothesis hold water? In this episode, we read through the Mari Letters that mention Terru of Urkesh and evaluate whether a correspondence with Terah of Ur is viable.
Read Eames original article here: watchjerusalem.co.il/1233-has...
In October I will be hosting a tour of Egypt with Tutku Tours. For more information about this tour in Egypt, please visit Tutku Tours (www.tutkutours.com/00_EGYPT_T....
Also consider purchasing my book, “The Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context: An Illustrated Journey.” Available now through most major book retailers. At the request of some of my viewers, I have also set up a crypto currency wallet for Monero XMR (46RXpVRn5QtK25gU1naVa72tWa1nGdfGwK8npLaAZKwKQp9i8qbe1CDS5cjVcNX4Ug47Uh5Q8kid3eDV5za9b4saQ5sEWf5).
The music for the open and closing credits was provided by Velocirabbit (czcams.com/channels/ksB.html....
If you feel like directly supporting the work of this channel, also consider becoming a patron on my Patreon account ( / egyptandthebible .
We are raising funds for a new book project on the “Ten Plagues of Egypt.” In this book, we plan to delve into the Egyptian culture context of the plagues of the Exodus so as to discover what those plaques would have meant to the Egyptians. If you would like to help us with this project, please consider a donation to my GoFundMe campaign (www.gofundme.com/help-david-f....
This is very fascinating, but the only thing I'm confused by is why the biblical authors would have called it "Ur of the Chaldees" if it was actually Urkesh of the Elamites or whatever.
There is a possibility that "Ur of the Chaldees" is a linguistic corruption, i.e., Urkesh -> Ur Kashdim, "Ur of the Chaldees." I didn't include this in the video because I wanted to think about it some more before suggesting it.
Eames' explanation of urkesh/kasdim is pretty problematic. Kasdim is not only attested in Genesis. We see also see it in Isaiah and Habakkuk, which most definitely speak about the Chaldeans. So seeing as how Urkesh was abandoned long before the Chaldeans got into power, what connection would they have with the city? I don't know anything about Eames' credentials, but I am doubtful about his level of familiarity with ancient languages. In another article of his, he thought that Avaris comes from hebrew avar meaning to cross over. Which is obviously ridiculous. I also don't think that the connection between Terru and Terah works really well. It just seems to be a phonetic similarity. Even at that, Terah's name is spelled with a khet. Does Sasson's book contain a transcription of the Akkadian or just the translation?
@@muhammadkaram6819 I recall him saying in the Abraham video that the last letter of Semitic names often got changed for various reasons, not sure what those would be, but this isn't even as different as Amraphel/Ammurapi.
@@ancientegyptandthebible I've always been curious about the various ways early languages intermixed and evolved over time. At face value, I'm convinced we know much less than we would purport to, academics of all affiliations not withstanding.
I know how much meaning can be lost in a simple conversation with my own family, let alone a dozen languages and several thousand years removed.
@@muhammadkaram6819 Eames is a popularizer. And I certainly do not endorse everything he says. He has some training in archaeology and works as a journalist to popularize archaeology that confirms Bible narratives among other topics. This article would not have even come to my attention if it hadn't been published on the Agade listserv. The Agade mailing list is moderated by Sasson himself, which gives this article at least some street cred. I don't think final het is a major issue given that final consonants are often not changed when transliterating between Semitic languages.
I sometimes get into discussions with skeptic friends about how the Bible is not just fables and fairy tales but is at minimum based in very realistic historical contexts. I wish they would have the intellectual honesty to watch these kinds of videos.
Agreed
Its more than 27,000 credited discovery to back up what your telling them including many different entire lost civilizations .
It is his story of God inspired man made time of writing down calender years
the only thing historians can't figure out is why doesn't this channel have more views? Great video btw
Some mysteries defy explanation.... 😁
Even if Terru cannot be securely linked to the biblical Terah, it is still worthwhile to point out that the Amorite name Terru/Terah belonged to the early 2nd millennium. Onomastics matches the historical period of the patriarchs. Thanks!
Its interesting how the early exodus dating and many other 20th century hypothesis have become so engrained in peoples minds in a dogmatic way. Like it would be devastating to detract them or something, like that would hurt the faith or something.
That's what happens when tradition becomes idolatry. 😣
Thanks to this channel I have become a fan of the late date. I'm glad I found it.
The Terah video has arrived! Rejoice!
Excellent piece of work. ARM 28 46:1'-7' is a real jaw-dropping moment, and your explanation of Šinaḫ has cleared up a conundrum I was having, given that the people of the town by this name were confederates of Šadum-labua's enemies in Ḫurra (2 33 = LAPO 17 583, apud Heimpel, p.479) - so thank you for that! It's also worth noting further evidence in favour of the Urkesh hypothesis, namely the presence nearby of a town called Naḫur, whose ruler Itur-asdu was in communication with Terru (MARI 7 10:11-25).
I also note that Qatna was a power of middle rank during the time frame of Zimri-Lim and Hammurabi, and its ruler Amut-pi'el was suzerain of Hazor. After having a flick through the work of Thomas Schneider and Alexander Ahrens, which broach the possibility of an identification of Qatna (Qdn) with the Qedem (Qdm) of the tale of Sinuhe, I wonder whether Qatna and/or its agents in Canaan might be intended by the Qaḏmōnî of Genesis 15:19.
It's also perhaps of some significance that Amut-pi'el's successor Išhi-Addu attempted to become a vassal of Elam. Perhaps this brought about the situation which, some years later, led to the battle in the Vale of Siddim.
Anyway, it's of real value to see a credentialed scholar discuss the Terru=Terah equasion. Please keep up the excellent work!
GOD be with you & yours.
This is incredible, oh my God.
Thank you.
So this is where Abraham got all his wealth and trained men.
He seems to have picked up a good amount of it in Egypt....
I certainly think this gave Abraham a leg up in life.
Wow. Thank you! I now wonder if Terru's living as an outcast has something to do with Abraham's nomadic lifestyle.
Quite likely.
Yes all true what he said 👏🙌 thanks 😊🙏
This is fantastic! Thank you for all your work, Dr. Falk. Do you think you might do a linguistic overview of the timeline, specifically on Abraham and the Hyksos?
My 2 favorite and fascinating topics- including Mesopotamia... Because of Abraham and his father Teruh/Terah
Saving my "Duckies" to purchase your book!🥳🥳🥳
both with terah and abraham being in the 1800's- 1700's BC approximately.
This would mean that Joseph was in the 1600s BC.
Yes, it does. Sometime after 1666 BC is a good estimate.
Very interesting, thank you!
Thank you. Very well done ❤
In the Hebrew it does not say Chaldees. It says "Ur Kasdiy". This has bothered me for decades. Trying to remember the story now. I once thought the place was present day Sanliurfa(Urfa) in Turkey. Much better fit for one migrating to Canaan. Sanliurfa even has a tomb of Abraham.
Kassdim means « the maji ».
Fantastic content!
Thank you. 😄
Very educational as usual. Thank you!
Nice! Liking all your videos :)
Very informative. Also I got in a discussion with someone on CZcams on Useful Charts video on Moses. I said that Moses would of existed and Exodus would of happened in the 13th Century BC. The person said there is no archeological evidence of that, then said there is no evidence because the site of the Exodus Narrative is in the Eastern Delta.
What? WHAT!!!!? 😲
@@ancientegyptandthebible Popcorn time? Lol
@@ancienthistorygaming Popcorn time! 😁
Wow! This was great.
THE FISH
Love the video. I have held to the idea of Abraham coming from Northern Mesopotamia instead of Ur for quite a while so this fits nicely with that. Do you have any comment on a connection of Sargon of Akkad with Nimrod?
So Abraham`s city was Big Ur. ; )
Pun acknowledged and received the appropriate groan... 🤣🤣🤣
So that's why in Leviticus it is said that the Israelite was descended from a wandering Aramean. After all, 'hapiru' means nomad /outcast/foreigner?
As opposed to wandering Sumerian...
Yup, that's pretty much it.
Wow, I did not expect this to sound so credible coming in.
.
I think you mentioned in some other video that there may or may not be an early linguistic connection between Hebrew and Hapiru.
So might this be an explanation for why Abraham was known as Abram the Hebrew?
.
Also, when Terah talks about praying to his "Lord", was he being monotheistic or was this just one god of many to him?
I know Joshua mentioned Terah serving other gods, but is it possible he changed over time?
I asked a bible teacher about the name disconnect. He gave me a song and dance about it being the area not the city.
🤣🤣🤣
Remarkable!!
This is awesome stuff
Thank you.
So much energy and scholarship goes in to supporting old and erroneous ideas/translations.
This is pretty amazing, although it doesn't really explain why it is called Ur of the Chaldeans in Genesis. That Ur had a desert waste between it and Canaan (assuming the climate was remotely similar to today's), so from Joshua's perspective you'd have to travel into Mesopotamia and then south in order to reach it. So maybe it could have been seen as being 'beyond the river' in that sense. Or Joshua was talking about their history in Charan.
As far as calling it "of the Chaldeans" that could just be a retrojection, possibly.
I also wouldn't think it's a stretch for "mesopotamia" to be a bit on either side of the rivers, in the general area of the 2 rivers. However, he Urkesh thing does seem to have some great exlanatory power.
I'm leaning towards this being a linguistic corruption. That is Urkesh might have been perceived as a scribe to be a mistake and naturally corrected to Urkeshdim.
More patriarch synchronisms please sir!
I promise to seem literate next time I have a question 🤦
Awesome video! Great work brother. Do you think Abraham may tie into the Mitanni or does Terru predate them?
Interesting information!
- Is the fact that Terru leaves Urkesh related to the expansion of Hammurabi's empire?
- could you make a video about the location of Charan? I thought it is more northern Iraq near turkey?
- do the Chaldeans better fit to Urkesh than Ur? You seem to have left that open in the video...
- is there a problem with your theory since Urkesh is different in name from Ur?
- have other people proposed this idea before?
- there is a lot of sumerian numerology in Genesis (numbers based on 6 eg). Does that also fit to Urkesh?
- was mesopotamia really used only for the land between the rivers historically?
Terru being forced to leave Urkesh helped open the door for the Babylonian-Elamite alliance. And I will say that others have suggested that Abraham's Ur was not Ur of Sumer before myself or Eames. Barry Beitzel suggested this long before either one of us.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Thanks!
Dr. Falk, sorry for the off topic question (I can understand if you will not answer it because of that), but I am realy curious in what way do you disagree with dr. Hoffmeier on Atenism?
which book give me complete evidence for Archaeology of the bible (old testament and new testament ) can you suggest me some books name or link , articles , videos
Thank you for this wonderful knowledge, was wondering if you can see what is the connection between Jesus and Egypt.
Hendel’s REMEMBERING ABRAHAM connects Teraḥ with the place-name Til (ša) Turaḫi near Ḫarrān and Naḫur in northern Mesopotamia (p. 52). Could there be a connection between this place and Terru? Specifically , I’m wondering if this place could explain the ח at the end of Teraḥ’s name (תרח), perhaps through later confusion between the king and the place?
Dr. Falk, can you point me to an article or paper that has anything to do with (or explains) the fact that there were 37 men listed as coming with a leader named "Abishai" in the tomb painting at Beni Hassan AND there was a leader of King David's 37(!) "Mighty Men" named Abishai as well?
I mena that seems to me like an amazing synchronicity but I can't find any comments on the connection or why it would be (even just a theory).
Something else I noticed is that the recent 110 tombs found had a section for 37 Hyksos... What is the significance of the number 37 in your field? I know 110 was sacred for Joseph and Joshua as well as the Egyptians but 37 stumps me.
I don't think there's anything special about the number 37.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Ok. Point taken but what about the "Abishai" connection? It was the combination of the two that caught my attention. 37 Mighty Warriors with a leader named Abishai and 37 Hyksos visitors with a leader named Abishai...
Dr Falk, do you have any relations to the Coptic Church in Egypt?
Not really. I frequently talk to them when I'm over in Egypt. But I don't have any official ties to the Coptic Church.
Is shinah referred to shinar?
The problem I see now is that the raid into the Dead Sea cities like Sodom late in Hammurabi's reign would not need
three other kings, especially of Elam, to go along. Unless the alliance was gloss as well.
The timeline could work if Terah was something like 203 when he left Ur.
And Abram left Harrah when Terah died two years later.
Abraham sends his servant to get a wife for Issac at the city of Nahor in Aram Naharaim. Where he had family. But Nahor died in Ur. [Correction Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans] . Nahor and family also moved to Harran.
Well, Hammurabi did have an alliance with Elam, which he later on broke. There are 19 years between the fall of Mari and the death of Hammurabi. That's more than enough time for that little war of the kings to take place.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Hammurabi did start wars with his neighbors and supposed allies of the raid. So the timing has to before any of that. Unless the kings involved were just some city kings in Syria and Abraham (or scribes) got the perps wrong.
Alliances often involved sending support troops. Elam had pledged troops to Ur III previously for example. And Hammurabi defeated the sumerian kingdom on the pretext that they were supposed to help him fight Elam. There was a time when Elam would have pledged troops for Hammurabi's use.
@@501Mobius It could easily be after because what kings normally did was install a puppet who had to send troops and other levies to the capital unless they totally flattened the people they defeated.
Arioch = Rim-sin or Warad-sin
Chedorlaomer = Kutir-lagamar or Kutir-nahhunte I
Amraphel = Hammurabi
Tidal = Tudhaliya I
Terah = Te'irru of Urkesh
🤔🤔🤔
Enmerkar - Nimerod.
@@isaakleillhikar8311 I thought of that as well... NMR-Kar (Kar means hunter) is Nimrod, the mighty hunter.
The Sumerian Epic "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta" also speak of the Confusion of Language.
@@greysenn2905 Kar means hunter in Sumerian ??? Thats what I was looking for the other day. I was listening to Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, twice and couldnt find it. Did you see Paul James Griffiths lecture on CZcams ? Thats where I heard he was called the hunter.
In a midrash, Nimrod's son is called Mardon. Anyway, Marduke and Gilgamesh have in commun that they took on a beast. Gilgamesh is Enmerkar's grandson.
@@greysenn2905 I couldnt find the confusion of lanuages in it either. I saw a shrine made for the greatness of Enmerkars own self. Not confusion of languages. And also, ratta is where they lived before they went to Shinar and built the tower of Babel.
Very, very interesting. How does this match with the generations between Terah and Moses? It seems that it must compact the timeline of the bible.
He has other videos explaining this. He mentioned on talking about how he dates Abraham. Genesis talks about Joseph riding on a chariot which wasn't brought to Egypt until the 2nd Intermediate Period (time of the Hyksos). Moses would have been ~400 years after that.
I think it is consistent. However, it isn't going to make those who hold to American Biblical Chronology happy. 😂
@@ancientegyptandthebible Speaking blasphemies against ABC? ;p All kidding aside I love the videos.
@@charliedontsurf334 It has made me Public Enemy #1 in certain Christian circles. 😉
Note, I said accuracyingenesis not answersingenesis - diametrically opposed:).
Would you mind giving a brief explanation for Terah living 205 years? Is the number symbolic, or is it the number of years for his tribe or is their something else going on with the number of years? As always great job and keep up the hard work.
I also wonder this.
The possibility that 205 years is the age of his tribe is interesting to me since 205 seems roughly what you'd expect the duration of the patriarchal age from Terah to Jacob to be. By the time Jacob dies (or perhaps even his sons) the "memory" of Terah could perhaps have died as well.
I think the 205 years represents the sum of years for Terah's clan as the dynastic rulers of Urkesh.
I have a theory that the patriarch ages were counted from the age of puberty or manhood, in lunar cycles. Terah was (and all after flood were) quite young, most dying around age 30. The pre flood fathers were old, but not 900 years, more like 90. Of course it all assumes the numbers and generations were recorded and passed down accurately.
This theory also explains certain key elements like why Enoch is mentioned as taken by God. 365 years is old enough. But when it's actually like 42, and he's dying before old age, it would have been recorded and remembered that "God took him." And so on. Counting from the age of manhood would also make practical sense, in terms of each person keeping an oral / mental count for themselves. Very unlikely they'd be tracking from infancy, but from adulthood this would be no problem. Also would partly explain some elements like the numeric rounding. Precision wasn't as important as accuracy.
@@coulie27 this is definitely an interesting theory i would like to do some research on. Do you know of any sources I can look into on this subject? And does this theory have a name, or is this just a personal theory you have conceptualized?
In Acts 7:2 Steven says that Abraham was born in Mesopotamia. But in Acts 7:4 "he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran." Ur still is Chaldeans at this time. If he is wrong about the Chaldeans could he also be wrong about it being after his father died that he moved to Canaan?
Urkesh is also closer both to Mari, and to the hypothesized Eden around Lake Urmia.
Link to the Eden claim?
Please don't be David Rohl...
@@deiansalazar140 I am referring to Rohl's hypothesis. I don't know of many other hypotheses, do you know of any that make more sense?
of course it's all to the degree of faith or evidence one puts in there even being an Eden. I surmise Abram had a collection/library of family and business documents and stories, that were handed down, woven together by Joseph, and touched up and copied by Moses along with the rest of the Pentateuch. The Eden story would have been adapted from a tablet possessed by Abram, likely inherited... geographically his family originating from the northern region makes sense to me given place names in Genesis down to his time.
@@coulie27 There's good geological evidence for Eden being in the Persian Gulf. Rohl is infamously poor for his scholarship. It's not his intelligence that's the issue, it's his ignorance of cultural context, linguistics, archeological evidence, etc. Falk despises him for many obvious and huge errors.
I don't see Rohl as credible, he made a terrible mess and made a awful chronology that is contradicted by many corroborations and synchronisms, it's just the worst scholarship I've seen since Andrew Wakefield. I very much recommend Inspiring Philosophy's video on Eden instead. It's much more plausible.
@@deiansalazar140 I do understand all that about Rohl, and Falk's (and others') rejection of his chronology. I view the Eden question as separate from that, may even have preceded it. I'll check out the IP hypothesis. Maybe it'll be more convincing. I'm guessing the headwaters question must be flipped in that case, instead of the beginning of the 4 rivers, it is referring to their outlets. You never know.
Do u ya oí have any information about Moses’s father in law the priest?
Unfortunately, nothing extrabiblical exists for Moses's fathers-in-law.
What are your thoughts about Tel el Hammam being Sodom? Does that line up with the Biblical timeline?
It depends on your biblical time line. There are incompatible numbers about the time from Abraham to the exodus. The more literally oriented persons emphasize the statements that suggest there was 400 years from Abraham until the descent into Egypt and 430 years in Eqypt. In the new testament Paul says it was 430 total. That has the advantage of being consistent with a 18th century BC date for Abraham and a 15th century date for the exodus as well as only three generations between Jacob and Moses and Moses' mother Jochebed doesn't have to be around 247 years old when he is born.
Tall el Hammam destruction fits in here and with Dr Falk's date for Terru.
I think the timing is right. But I have concerns over the excavation itself. I have concerns that recent finding in stratigraphy are not being applied to this site. I would also like to see a detailed archaeological report before making any conclusions. I would need more evidence before concluding that Tell el Hammam was Sodom.
This is definitely bringing the boring textbook names I had in world history class to life. Hammurabi I only remembered a code and that the name was cool. Sumerian was associated with the wheel. And maybe a couple of other things but very boring. This is much more interesting.
Just a correction, isn’t Zimri-Lim actually 1775-1761 BC? Hammurabi ruled from 1792-1750 BC so this would make the 1756-1741 BC incorrect.
What you are referencing here is the high chronology. The high chronology is now widely considered to be obsolete. Most scholars would now accept some kind of low chronology for Mesopotamia. The dates quoted in the video are consistent with the best low chronology dates available at the time the video was made. Two years later, the best dates for Zimri-Lim are 1767-1752 and for Hammurabi are 1786-1743 BC. But that is just part and parcel to the rapidly changing field of modern chronology.
Is tetragrammaton mentioned in any other languages in the ancient world.
Is there any evidence that Abraham had exist ?
I think that's a question for a different video. 😉
@@ancientegyptandthebible ty I’ll be looking for your answer.
I searched this because my name is Terah
Emm Why in Quran the name of Abraham father is Azar in some muslim source which different from Terah completely ? Becuase of what reasons? different source of written ?
According to etymology ,the word " Terah " could not be " Azar " , so Abraham father name is Terah or Azar ,Which one is correct?
@@pakveccha8171 I would go with the Bible on this one. It's closer to the source. And the extra-Biblical sources we have for Terah are a closer match for the Biblical name.
Im not very smart lol, does this prove a biblical figure existed? If so, can you explain who dr falk?
You have a two identities: one Biblical and one historical. Both have almost the same name, come from the same place, lived at the same time, both become sojourners, and both lose sons before becoming sojourners. It is strong evidence that the two identities are one and the same person.
"one doesn't need to cross the river" Okay but people don't always travel in straight lines....they may have traveled north first then west and then back south because there was more civilization along that route.
I am not saying i agree with Chris Earnes....im just saying the river argument is a weak one at best.
I always assumed the river in that passage was the Jordan
Well this is certainly interesting but, I don't agree we should dismiss Abraham's connection to Ur of the Chaldeans so quickly. Nobody here is committed to thinking Terah and his family actually lived INSIDE the city of Ur of the Chaldeans... since the text doesn't even mention that. Rather, it seems implied that they were pastoralists already, and therefore lived around the area of Mesopotamia, moving as semi-nomads, not as city dwellers. So, the fact that Ur isn't exactly within the two rivers wouldn't be that significant.
I go with K. Kitchen here, specifically pages 316-318 of his book "On the Reliability of the Old Testament", in which he says "Terah and his family may have dwelled in the city [of Ur] proper. But if they were already pastoralists, they may equally have lived in rural settlements around Ur, like other such tribal people who gave their names to districts around major Babylonian cities, particularly in the early second millennium. Such were Sippar-Awnanum and Sippar-Yakhrurum around Sippar, taking their names from the tribal groups Awnanum (or Amnanum) and Yakhrurum known from the Mari archives. At Ur itself a Sutean encampment apparently existed opposite someone's abode by the city gate. Settlements of the Mare-Yamina (so-called Benjaminites) were close by other urban centers, also early second millennium."
I also have a problem with interpreting "of the Chaldeans" as merely a scribal glossa, 'cause that would imply the Bible is in error when saying the Ur referred to here is the one of the Chaldeans and not others. No, it seems to me instead that the adding of "of the Chaldeans" was done on purpose exactly to differentiate this city from the one in the North (Urkesh or Urfa).
Besides, K. Kitchen does admit the possibility that Abraham's ancestors were originally from Northern Mesopotamia ("Harran", "Nahor" were names of his ancestors but also of cities in the region) but he doesn't dismiss the connection to the Ur of the Chaldees either. He says:
"Ur of the Chaldees is undoubtedly to be identified with the famous ancient city of Ur in south Babylonia (south Iraq), now Tell el-Muqayyar, and not with sundry Ur(a)s (or Urfa) in northern Mesopotamia. 'Chaldees' is a qualification of alter date than the pre-Mosaic period; it may have been added between 1000 and 500, precisely to distinguish the patriarchal Ur from possible northern counterparts. The Kaldu people (to which Heb. Kas'dim corresponds) lived in south Babylonia, probably from the late second millennium onward - use of their name indicates clearly a belief in a southern location for biblical Ur in the first millennium." (p. 316)
[...]
"As Kupper long ago observed, pastoralists who penetrated the mainly agricultural lands of anciently 'urban' southern Babylonia would have limited scope for their profession, only to be replaced by more newcomers on their turn. He justly remarked, 'It is in this constant flux and reflux of people on the move that one may fittingly situate the migration of Abraham, going back up from Ur to Harran, his true homeland.' We cannot assume that Terah and his forebears had always lived in Ur; he might earlier have come south from the northwest of Babylonia, within the ambit of Mari and Harran, within the vast western arc of the course of the Euphrates. The Mari archives contain ample references to the cities of Harran (at modern Harran/Eski-Harran) and Nakhur (Nahor), of less certain location." (p. 317)
In other places he also connects Abraham's presence in southern Babylonia with the origins of Genesis 1-11, which does bear resemblance to traditions we find in Mesopotamia like the Sumerian King List, the Atrahasis Epic, and the Eridu Genesis. The interesting factor he points out is that none of these creation stories were composed after 1600 BC, only copied and recopied after. So it seems a little odd to posit that Genesis 1-11 would be the only work of this kind to have been composed after that date.
"Given the noncomposition of this type of fourfold and fivefold narrative framework after about 1600, it is logical to suggest that the framework and basic content of Gen. 11 [I think he meant Gen. 1-11 here, since the chapter is about that] goes back to the patriarchal period, and came as a tradition with the patriarchs westward from Mesopotamia. This would be no isolated happening. In the early second millennium, 'cuneiform culture' in therms of scribal use of cuneiform script spread not only to Syria and Anatolia but round and south into Canaan, to Hazor and even as far south as Hebron, with its seventeenth-century administrative tablet of livestock, offerings, and a king. Wherever cuneiform script and learning went, so did its literary traditions, as many other and later finds amply show. So no objections can be taken to the essence of Gen. 1-11 going westward at this epoch; its written formulation in early Hebrew may then have followed later and independently. The patriarchal tradition would have been passed down in Egypt (as family tradition) to the fourteenth/thirteenth century, possibly then first put into writing, then to the monarchy period and beyond as part of the larger whole with the accounts of the patriarchs to form part of the book that we call Genesis. It is part of the oldest levels of Hebrew tradition, as were the Mesopotamian accounts in their culture." (p.426-427)
@@beckc.5084 I don't think this is a quick dismissal but a thoughtful reconsideration of the evidence. Ken is rather enamoured with the Ur of Sumer hypothesis for personal reasons. As a child, he actually met (and was very impressed) with Leonard Wooley. But scholarship does move on, and we cannot become entrenched in the positions of the past.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Well I'll respectfully disagree with that. It's far more likely that "of the Chaldees" really meant THAT well- known Ur and is neither a scribal error nor a corruption of Urkesh. And in my view it's also far more likely that this Terru is not the actual person of Terah but someone with a similar name.
Also, there were changes in the Euphrates River channel over the years. So Ur could of been to the north of the river in the past. One particular change in 1687 is documented. "Changes in the Euphrates River: Ecology and Politics in a Rural Ottoman Periphery, 1687-1702"
well i did learn one thing over all ...
the patriarchs from Abraham- Ishmael- Isaac - Jacob- Joseph and his brothers along with the prophet moses came alot, alot later than i had thought.
interesting. even abraham is past the 2,000 BC mark hes in the 1700's BC mark 0_0 moses put alot of symbology in the numbers in the torah.- moses is in the 1200's BC mark
The biblical literalist when it comes to the Torah/ Pentateuch - im sorry bout when it comes to to the numbers in the torah you been reading it wrong all along. history has proved that. you have to go by the numbers meaning- just as with your apoctalyptic books, like IV Ezra, Daniel, Ezekiel, I-II Enoch, and Johns Apocalypse. this numerology is actually pretty old.
You do great work so understand when I say this as I think your great and helped alot in knowing some things yet I know you're an egyptologist so your sources may be limited so check this out
Cultic resilience and inter-city engagement at the dawn of urban history: protohistoric Mesopotamia and the ‘city seals’, 3200-2750 BC
&
Geology of the Archeological Hills and Monuments, Examples from Iraq
Babylonia at the time of Hammurabi.
Study
Proves the river moved and Ur was in the middle of the Euphrates let alone the word Mesopotamia is only Greek and not used in the Old testament in that way.
I don't think just because Terah sounds like Te'irru (c. 1800 BC) of Urkesh should throw away the fact even scholars like the historian Flavius Josephus writes that Abraham came from Ur amongst other sources.
So I think this recent find should be taken carefully as it's not showing enough proof nor can we conclude they come from the same father's or have the same sons.
Here another perspective.....
Abraham was a Prince from UR. The Son of either the First PriestKing of the NeoBabylonian Empire Naboassar OR the 2nd King Nebuchadnezzar. Not the Son of Terah as the Bible mentioned.. Incidently, Abraham's wife was also a Princess. Eventually, he had a fall out with his father because of the idol worship religion of the Kingdom. The Star/Venus/Ishtar, the, Moon/Sin and the Sun/Shamash Gods. How do we know this...Now lets hear first what the Quran has to say....
AlQuran 6:74-82
And when Abraham said to his father Azar ( NABOASSAR or .NEBOCHADNEZZAR), 'Takest thou idols for gods? I see thee, and thy people, in manifest error.' So We were showing Abraham the KINGDOM OF THE HEAVENS AND EARTH that he might be of those having sure faith.
When night outspread over him he saw a STAR and said, 'This is my Lord.' But when it set he said, 'I love not the setters.'
When he saw the MOON rising, he said, 'This is my Lord.' But when it set he said, 'If my Lord does not guide me I shall surely be of the people gone astray.'
When he saw the SUN rising, he said, 'This is my Lord; this is greater!' But when it set he said, 'O my people, surely I am quit of that you associate. I have turned my face to Him who originated the heavens and the earth, a man of pure faith; I am not of the idolaters.' .......
There's a stone carving with the 3 Star/Moon/Sun God symbols etched on it that the Babylonian worship at the time.
Abraham eventually left UR, went first to Harran (a Religious City) and then to Canaan (a new Promise Land - the KINGDOM OF THE HEAVENS AND EARTH as in the Quran).
From Canaan, he went to Egypt before going on a Hajj Pilgrimage in Mecca...how do we know this...we have to take the story back to the Bible....
Genesis 13:1-4
1 And Abram went up OUT of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, INTO THE SOUTH.
2 And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.
3 And he went on his journeys from the SOUTH even to BETHEL, unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Hai;
4 Unto the place of the ALTAR, which HE HAD MAKE THERE AT FIRST: and there Abram called on the name of the Lord.
Upon EXITING Egypt...Why INTO THE SOUTH (the keyword here), not to the North, to Canaan or to the DeadSea Area...
What is this ALTAR he'd made previously in Bethel...
And where is this place called BETHEL (means House/Place of God)....
Into the South....to Teyma thence Bethel...and Bethel is Mecca
Altar is none other than the Kaaba.
Hai...modern day Ha'il...
Between Ha'il and Bethel....is Medina..
Now this Mecca and Kaaba is a sacred place since Ancient time. The Jews EVEN today tie a miniature Black Cube on their forehead and arm to remember and not to forget this sacred place when they worship. When Abraham left Egypt, he was given much wealth/gifts by the Pharoah. Why...??? Abraham is not some wandering Bedouin out of the desert. As stated, he is a Prince. Pharoah even wanted to marry Sarah, but was unsuccessful and eventually gave his Princess Hagar in marriage to Abraham. But why...??? because Abraham is a Prince and the Pharaoh want to be on the good and safe side with the newly all conquering NeoBabylonian Empire.
Then there's Nabonidus, the Last King of the NeoBabylonian Emipire. He is not the contemporary of Abraham though. His son Belshazzar killed the reigning King LabashiMarduk and Nabonidus gain the throne. This is the time of Daniel. Nabonidus however went to stay in Teyma, Saudi Arabia letting his son ruled the Empire as Regent (Reason Daniel was offered ONLY as the 3rd Powerful man in the Empire after interpreting the dream). Again why Nabonidus went to stay for 10 years in Teyma, SaudiArabia. Its very near to Mecca and Kaaba, of course. Incidently, Belshazzar was eventually killed by Cyrus the Great. Nabonidus was not killed but exiled either in Teyma or in Elam to spend the rest of his life there. This Cyrus the Great is the King that bring the Jews back to Israel. He is a Messiah/Annointed by God in the Bible and as Zulkarnian (seeing a sun setting in the black pool) in the Quran.
The story of Abraham is the story of NeoBabylonian Empire, of Mecca, the Jews and the Arabs people. Really.
Wallahualam...Only God knows.
> Here another perspective.....
Okay...
> Abraham was a Prince from UR.
Uh.. no...
> The Son of either the First PriestKing of the NeoBabylonian Empire Naboassar OR the 2nd King Nebuchadnezzar.
Woah, that's a mashup of history that is not even close!!! The neobabylonian period is 1200 years after the events of Abraham. That's just crazy talk.
> Not the Son of Terah as the Bible mentioned.. Incidently, Abraham's wife was also a Princess. Eventually, he had a fall out with his father because of the idol worship religion of the Kingdom. The Star/Venus/Ishtar, the, Moon/Sin and the Sun/Shamash Gods. How do we know this...Now lets hear first what the Quran has to say....
You've lost me here. You are not talking history but wild speculation. Your ideas here are completely unhinged. Please either re-evaluate what you are saying or seek professional help. I can stop here without engaging anything else you say because you have lost all sense of reality.
> The story of Abraham is the story of NeoBabylonian Empire, of Mecca, the Jews and the Arabs people. Really.
Wallahualam...Only God knows.
No, that is terrible history. And you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please, for pity sake, read a real history book.
I sort of wondered what Nebuchadrazzer has to do with Hamurabi's Dynasty, and then realised it says _Neobabylonian_ 😵 It's like saying... hear me out, Charlemagne was a rival of Alexander the Great that's why he conquered the East not the West!!!
Wasn’t Terah Nimrod’s idol maker?
Please stop making ludicrous claims!!!!!
Terah was not Nimrod's Idol maker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@philipps6032 Why are you so up tight? It was a question.
@@JungleJargon I heard other christians make such similiar claims (Questions) before and I just have to say that they're just really assuming: "Oh, it's the word of god, so we can read our ideas into the text!". So yeah, they should rather investigate what it actually says, and see if that interpretation also holds water🙂
@@philipps6032 I know what the text says. I also know that the house of Nimrod carried his C paternal Y chromosome haplogroup as far south as Australia, east to the Pacific and north to the Americas. DNA doesn't lie.
@@JungleJargon OK..... how are you sure it's Nimrod, and what does this now have to do with Terah being his idol maker?
Genesis is 100% ancient Mesopotamien and maybe in some parts (Moses) Egyptian mythology then thousands of years later adopted and reinterpreted by Jews during babylonian exile about 500 b.c. or after exile back in Israel. Oldest bible scripture is from dead sea 200/300 b.c.
The oldest scripture dates to the 7th century BC (the Ketef Hinnon scrolls), which predates the Babylonian exile. And if Genesis is 100% Mesopotamian, why does it contain so much Egyptian vocabulary? If it contains Egyptian mythology, how can it by 100% ancient Mesopotamian? Woolly thinking.
U cooked him@@ancientegyptandthebible
Several thoughts. I never believed they were from Ur of the Chaldeans because, if they were, then they would have spoken Akkadian and that would have left its mark on the language. Also: Ezekiel 16:3 says are a hybrid race; part Amorite and part Hittite. So I wouldn’t be surprised if “Terru” had a political bride aligning him with the up and coming Hittites. (Or, more likely, as a newly emergent power they were trying to get in good with him.) Finally: I connect Genesis with The Epic of Gilgamesh though the Amorites. They ruled Babylon at the time. They wrote the Epic and made changes that are very intriguing. Among other things, they made Enkidu into a “primal man” (lullû amēlu v. “the adam”) that perfectly lines up with the creation of Adam. Which makes sense if this is originally an Amorite creation story. You should line them up, because there’s lots irony and comedy. Foremost: this Adam was actually made for a Steve: Gilgamesh! Another change they made to the Sumerian characters? They made them into gay lovers.
FINALLY… finally: OH MY GOD!! THEY ACTUALLY CALLED THEMSELVES HAPIRU! THAT’S PROBABLY WHERE “HEBREW” CAME FROM!! But the “why” of that is veeeeery interesting. I remember commenting on that months ago on your video on the Hapiru . “Ridiculous! Abraham would have been insulted!!”
The epic of Gilgamesh is too different to have been a source there's a lack of viability for the hypothesis.