Talk:Ur of the Chaldees

Identifying Ur

I'll get to this later. But basically, the dispute is that the view that Ur is Ur is far, far more widespread among scholars and archaeologists today than any theory that ever identified it with Edessa. Also. you have to provide some more kind of source from anyone that says the Biblical Ur was Edessa, I seriously doubt it can be called a "traditional" view in anyone's tradition at any time. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Edessa is the traditional site of Abraham's birthplace which is an Islamic shrine although the tradition is not exclusively Muslim and was upheld by Jews of the area and is also the earliest view in Christian sources. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"The traditional site of Abraham's birth is placed in ... Edessa." This needs a cite. Also, the last ¶ mentioning Eusebius indicates that it is apparently not part of his tradition which seems to favors Tell el-Mukayyan. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)mannanna51

Moladet

The Jewish understanding of the word moladet is "birthplace", despite King James and related translations rendering it as "kindred". Will try a compromise wording. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Easton's Bible Dictionary: Mowledeth (mo-leh'-deth); Noun Feminine, Strong #: 4138

1. kindred, birth, offspring, relatives

a.kindred

b. birth, circumstances of birth

c. one born, begotten, issue, offspring, female offspring

KJV Word Usage and Count

kindred 11

nativity 6

born 2

begotten 1

issue 1

native 1

The translation of "kindred" is far older than King James; the Septuagint does too. Indeed, most of the occurences of the word in the Tanach don't make any sense with any other interpretation. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This is incorrect. In fact, many of these translations of 'moledet' as 'kindred' found in the KJV were revised in other translations. In most cases, this translation does not fit. One of the cases in point is in Genesis 12, which is relevant to this discussion. When Abraham is told to leave his "country", his "moledet", and his "father's house" in Haran, it is clear that he is not being asked to leave his kindred, seeing as his father was already dead and he was told simply to leave his father's house (no need for repetition), and all the surviving kindred he had with him (Lot and Sarai) he took along with him to Canaan. The interpretation that better fits the context would be "nativity" or "native area". This is confirmed in Genesis 24, where Abraham sends his servant to find a wife for his son Isaac, back to the same place as his father's house in "eretz moladeti". This is unambiguously translated as "the land of my nativity". This is corroborated in the Septuagint as well.

The repeated message communicated in Genesis is that Abraham's birthplace (as well as the origins of his family) and the town of Haran in Aram-Naharaim were in the same general region.

Probably a better translation for the "kindred" sense of "moledet" would be "those of the same nation", as described by Gesenius in the Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon. In this sense, "moledet" and "nation" are derived from a root word for "birth, born" in Hebrew and Latin respectively.

205.68.95.65 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[2009-1-10 To be corrected: I see the reference to "Babylonian city Camarina", where there is a link to "Camarina". The link is to a city in Sicily, so the link should be deactivated or redirected - Roy M. Kay, Montville, Ohio kayfamily1@windstream.net] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.3.96 (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Delinking done. SamEV (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To do list

1. Criticism of Ur Kasdim = Urfa, identification seemingly based on similar name only, other traditional origins of name Urfa would invalidate this then
2. Septuagint translation as region of Chaldeans not a city name + similar use of Ur in Akkadian
3. Eupolemus on Camarina = Ouria
4. Marcellinus on castle Ur near Hatra + counter argument
5. Sumerian Ur most favoured + Cyrus Gordon's counter arguments + Woolleys claims
6. Complications due to so many similar names now known
   1. Ura near Ugarit but not possible because in Cilicia
   2. Ura and Ure near Allalakh
   3. Ura + Uri near Ebla
   4. Big and small Uri near Nuzi
   5. Uru near Sippur
7. Something about Acts talking about Abraham in Mesopotamia and how this relates to Aram Naharaim (the two are not strictly identical)
8. Something about Midrashic interpretation of the name and legend of Nimrod throwing Abraham into fire

Site of "Ur" in Sumeria was in fact called Urima in Sumerian, Uriwa in Akkadian

Ur is, in fact, a misnomer. The city was properly called Urima, and later Uriwa. The designation URU before the name of a city is a Sumerian definitive prefix for city, i.e. "city of ..." In Hebrew, the word UR means flame or fire, not city.

The archeologist who excavated at Ebla, Giovanni Pettinato, was interviewed by B.A.R. on his findings in 1980. While he was in general very non-commital about linking any archeological findings to events in the Bible, he was emphatic about the existence of a city UR IN THE TERRRITORY OF HARRAN: http://members.bib-arch.org/nph-proxy.pl/000000A/http/www.basarchive.org/bswbSearch.asp=3fPubID=3dBSBA&Volume=3d6&Issue=3d5&ArticleID=3d5&UserID=3d0&

BAR: Does the city Ur appear in the territory of Haran in the Ebla tablets? Abraham was born in Ur, and travelled with his father to Haran. P: I remember. BAR: There has been some dispute about where the Biblical Ur is. P: I know. BAR: I wonder if the Ebla tablets shed any light on this. P: We know from the Ebla tablets that a city Ur was surely in northern Mesopotamia. BAR: You know this? P: In the territory of Haran. But that is all we can say. It was a city. If this is the city where Abraham came from 200, 300, or 400 or 500 years later, we don’t I know. BAR: But is this Ur in the territory of Haran? P: Yes. BAR: And it’s referred to as Ur in the territory of Haran? P: Yes. In one tablet, but we have the city itself mentioned often. In one tablet it is mentioned in Haranki, which can mean only in the region, in the territory of Haran. It is important for people to know this.

It should be added that since the most ancient Greek form of Edessa was spelled ORRA or ORROA, and since Edessa is indeed 'in the territory of Harran', it is definitely a prime candidate for Ur. Finally, the word 'Kasdim' is etymologically connected to one personal name in Genesis 22:22, Kesed, a nephew of Abraham and son of Nahor. Nahor, with his family, is explicitly mentioned as living in the vicinity of Haran in Aram Naharayim, and one of his descendants via a brother of Kesed is himself called Aram. I think this, and other information in Genesis about the association of the patriarchs in Northern Mesopotamia, tends to place Ur in that region. --JB

a defacto pov fork

This page is currently a de facto pov fork. Although not necesarrily created this way, This page is always going to be focusing on the "northern ur" theory, because no one would ever think to come to this page unless they already held doubts about normal Ur being Ur of the Chaldees. Adherants to Ur of sumerian fame in the Ur III period would just consider ur of the chaldees to be Ur and go there accordingly. Perhaps the page would be more appropriatly named "Northern Ur Theory" or somthing, since such a page could justifiably be all about Gordon's theory. Thanatosimii 01:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ur "of the Chaldees"

Apparently to distinguish it from similar names (in Hebrew?), the writer of the scripture called it the "Ur of the Chaldees." But it was written down long after Moses left. So long indeed, that the writer did not know that the Chaldees had not lived there "forever." Most scholars today agree that Ur was not inhabited by the Chaldees when any usual chronological Moses lived there. This "little" point about scholarly disagreement should be pointed out somewhere. The fact that not everyone concurs with their assessment can be pointed out indirectly. Student7 (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this has come up over the years at Talk:Chaldea. To be accurate, the scripture called it "Ur Kasdim", not "Chaldees". The form "Kasdim" is believed to derive from meaning "descendants of Kesed", himself a descendant of Arphachsad. The form "Kaldi" (Chaldea) is quite late (9th century BC when Adad-Nirari first uses it), and some viewpoints hold that it is actually of a totally different derivation than "Kasdim", but that much later they both became merged in people's minds as "Chaldees". Another common view takes the position that the form Kasdim was later changed to Kaldim (the later form being "Chaldees"). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Urfa!

NOT Ur! Böri (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of material yielding meaningful date

Someone deleted explanation embedded within the following:

"The Book of Jubilees states that Ur Kaśdim was founded in 1687 Anno Mundi (about 2073 B.C.E.) by "'Ur, son of Keśed", presumably the offspring of Arphaxad, adding that wars began on Earth that same year." The 2073 BCE was deleted.

Of course, most of us don't have calendars with Anno Mundi on them, but rather calendars (see my signature below) with CE, or, in this case BCE. A look at the article Anno Mundi will show base year 0 (or maybe 1) as 3750 to 5500 BCE. 1687 subtracted from one of these two, or an average will yield the BCE number. Which is needed, since it is meaningless without it. Take whichever you like, but put it into modern terminology or it is useless. Student7 (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree and restored it. Also, I'd missed the change from BCE to BC in a couple of places done by an IP and reverted them as WP:ERA requires agreement here to make such changes - this is a BCE article and has been for about 10 years. Doug Weller (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Student7 I've taken this to WPNORN#Is it OR to translate an Anno Mundi into a possible BC/BCE date? as I've been reverted. Doug Weller (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Photo deletion

The alleged Abraham house in Ur city, Dhi Qar, southern Iraq

I believe this photo was deleted recently due to the fact that its a recently reconstructed "unrepresentative" structure. but don't you think it should be included as it is actually there now regardless of its legitimacy? The structure was built based on an original structure so i don't see harm in including it while making it clear that this whole Abraham connection is made up? i don't see why an image of another alleged site in turkey was included but not this? Aziz1005 (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Who alleges this? And in any case I doubt that it is a single "house". Doug Weller talk 05:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed end of the lead

I recently removed the following from the end of the lead paragraph:

"Recent archaeology work places the location in present day Nasiriyah, Iraq where the ancient Ziggurat of Ur is located."

The reason I removed it is because it is entirely misleading. Not a single one of the sources address the location of Ur Kasdim; they all refer to archeological work at the Sumerian city of Ur and then mention that Ur is also referenced in the Bible as the birthplace of Abraham. Essentially, this is not new archeology discovering the site of Ur Kasdim or even proving a connection between Ur Kasim and Ur of Sumeria. It was simply archeological work at the already known location of Ur in Sumeria and then mentioning the popular theory that the Ur in Sumeria is the same Ur mentioned in the Bible. I'm preserving the original sentence and references here in case they can be reworked into the article.108.46.147.132 (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The first article is titled "Home of Abraham, Ur, unearthed by archaeologists in Iraq". and it is a Christian News Source. If that isn't a good enough reliable source, I have no idea what is. You edit is WP:OR unless you have more recent sources that refute this source and even then, both the old and new sources should probably be in the article as long as there is a controversy among reliable sources. Lipsquid (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. I have no interest in getting into a further edit war. I get it, based on the article history, you edited it in in the first place and thus have a personal investment in keeping it there. Revert it, keep it, I don't care as I have better things to do with my time. I'll just say this, including the lead like that, as is, is deliberately misleading. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the sources. The fact of the matter is that not one of those sources mention anything about proving Ur in the Bible is the Ur of Sumeria, as the removed sentences states. None of them discuses "placing the location" anywhere; they simply presuppose the location based on the popular theorized connection between the two sites. The articles are simply about archeological work done at Ur of Sumeria NOT archeological work to identify the location of the Biblical Ur.108.46.147.132 (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any secondary sources that state these opinions on the primary sources or is it original resource? You can make silly attac±ks if you like and blame others for you lack of clarity on how Wikipedia works, but my questions are reasonable regardless of who wrote any text in the article. If you have sources to back-up your assertion, by all means add them. Anything that makes the article more Encyclopedic is my only goal. I will wait for your reply to make any edits. Lipsquid (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Requested move 12 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Guanaco 10:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Ur Kaśdim → Ur of the Chaldees – Per WP:COMMONNAME Oncenawhile (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE Genealogizer (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This should be mentioned

The Chaldeans only became associated with Southern Mesopotamia due to the expansion of Aramaic-speakers resulting from the decline of Assyria in the centuries around 1000 B.C. So the modifier "of the Chaldees" presupposes a southern Mesopotamian location, but is 500 years or more anachronistic to the period when Abraham would have lived. AnonMoos (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Ur

joshua 24:3 But I took your father Abraham from the land beyond the Euphrates and led him throughout Canaan. İndicates was West of the Euphrates. Usernamestress (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Chaldees/Chaldeans

The first sentence says "commonly translated as Ur of the Chaldeans", but surely the common translation is "Ur of the Chaldees" as in the article title and in the Bible section. I would have just changed it, but it seems to be a long-established sentence. Is there any reason not to change it? Robina Fox (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

No response, so I'm changing it. Robina Fox (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)