Notes On Lundquist's Abraham In Ebla

[BCSpace]

I'm not trying to demonstrate anything other than that Lundquist's article relies on a whole bunch of suppositions that are not well-supported. Do you really think it's a strong argument? I don't see it.

I have not looked at Lunquist's article (as I indicated) nor do I plan to in the near future. However, when I started looking at these lands and their history as a result of your post, I was suprised to find that ancient references to Ur and Chaldea can mean lots more than just land from the head of the Persian Gulf to modern Baghdad.

I also noted the northern influence putting even Haran into this sphere at the proper times.

Hence, while I am not directly defending Lundquist, I don't see the notion of a northern Ur with Egyptian influence as being implausible at all. Even the Byblos theory of Ullaza, if the BoA Olishem is that location fits quite well so far.

You know what else I am finding? Scholarly disagreement on where some of these places actually are. So while I think I can build a strong case opposed to Chris' theory, I can still find a couple of references that seem to support his (And I'm suprised he hasn't pulled them out or found them yet).

[Chris Smith]

The Cambridge text suggests that Armanum might be Aleppo, and I ran across a couple other sources that made the same suggestion. Here's one:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KT03cWLZb...57xLs#PPA105,M1

However, this source rejects that identification:

http://books.google.com/books?id=IN9_IRYKK...fY-X5vo3pB2oBBI

In any case, certainly it seems that Ebla and Armanum would have had to be near each other.

Compare the location of Ebla w/ Tell Brak, where Naram-Sin had his fortress-palace (on whose bricks archaeologists have found stamped his name):

http://books.google.com/books?id=EnQ8W6AmC...uzhppfg#PPA4,M1

http://www.learningsites.com/Brak/Tell-Brak_home.html

If the campaign to conquer Ebla originated at Tell-Brak, that puts Ebla pretty much on a straight-line trajectory to Ullaza.

You know, in the source claiming that Ulisum could be Ullaza, there is a statement about the mountains and land in question..... "whatever the precise location of Aramanum" which is next to Ullaza. And then a reference to Rish-Adad or Rid-Adad, king of that land. Still showing Rid-Adad and that land being "up the river" as you put it and not in Lebanon or the coasts of Syria. And if Ulisum is nearby as the text indicates.....well, that doesn't seem to bode well for your case.

The text doesn't indicate that Ulisum is any nearer to Ebla than is the "mountain of cedars". In fact, the text pretty clearly indicates that both Amanus (i.e. the mountain of Cedars) and "Ulisum" were "further" than Ebla-Armanus, thus marking the furthest reaches of Naram-Sin's conquests.

Note the parallel structure:

A. Whereas, for all time since the creation of mankind, no king whosoever had destroyed Armanum and Ebla,the god Nergal, by the means of (his) weapons opened the way for Naram-Sin, the mighty, and gave him Armanum and Ebla.

....B. Further, he gave to him the Amanus, the Cedar Mountain, and the Upper Sea.

A. By means of the weapons of the god Dagan, who magnifies his kingship, Naram-Sin, the mighty, conquered Armanum and Ebla.

....B. Further, from the side of the Euphrates River as far as (the city of) Ulisum, he smoot the people whom the god Dagan had given to him for the firdt time, so that they perform service for the god Ilaba, his god.

C. Further, he totally (conquered) the Amanus, the Cedar Mountain.

I feel fairly confident that the "further" clauses are intended to indicate a broader conquest in the "Upper land" land beyond Ebla, as I indicated earlier with my arrows. He got all the way to the Mediterranean for sure, and Amanus may be the northern and Ulisum the southern limit of these "further" conquests (which in any case may be partly scribal exaggeration).

when I started looking at these lands and there history as a result of your post, I was suprised to find that ancient references to Ur and Chaldea can mean lots more than just land from the head of the Persian Gulf to modern Baghdad.

Chaldea can be defined as a fairly small area or a fairly large area, depending on which stage in the conquests of the Neo-Babylonian Empire you're talking about. But any stage will be much too late to be anything other than an anachronism in the BoA. I'm also fairly certain that if you said "Ur of the Chaldees" to a person in the Levant in the Neo-Babylonian period, they'd point you to southern Mesopotamia.

I really can't prolong this conversation any longer, cause I've got a paper to write. But I feel I've made my point well enough.

-Chris

[BCSpace]

In any case, certainly it seems that Ebla and Armanum would have had to be near each other.

Ulisum and Armanum maybe and they are to the east and north of Ebla up the river valley, though as I have indicated there are some sources that do support your view.

Chaldea can be defined as a fairly small area or a fairly large area, depending on which stage in the conquests of the Neo-Babylonian Empire you're talking about. But any stage will be much too late to be anything other than an anachronism in the BoA. I'm also fairly certain that if you said "Ur of the Chaldees" to a person in the Levant in the Neo-Babylonian period, they'd point you to southern Mesopotamia.

Not unless there is a redactor, which was part of my original point.

I really can't prolong this conversation any longer, cause I've got a paper to write. But I feel I've made my point well enough.

You have, but it does not seem much different than mine. The jury is still out. Good luck with your paper.

[BCSpace]

Here is somehting interesting. In this book on page 442......

The Cambridge ancient history

....It speculates about Ulisum being Ullaza but look at footnote 2.....

"Another possibility is the better-known Urs(h)u on the upper Euphrates, see above, p. 426."

Unfortunately, that page is not available. Can anyone get to it?

Edit:

I think this is the Urhai/Urfa/Şanlıurfa/Edessa posited as an alternate birthplace for Abraham (Muslim tradition), but I am not making that argument.

[BCSpace]

As a port city, Ullaza certainly would have been exposed to Egyptian influences. However, Ullaza is not a plain

There cannot be a plain outside the city?

Persuing this line of reasoning further, that Ullaza might be Ulisum...

Byblos is modern day Jbail in Lebanon. 15 kilometers north is Batroun and 5 more kilometers north of that ostensibly would be Ullaza. Not too far away north is the modern Chekka. Notice how close this is to a significant opening of the coastal plain which is south of Tripoli. Ominously close and singularly significant (compared with the rest of the narrow coastal plain of Lebanon) for a BoA critic to be claiming Ulisum in Ullaza imho.

[Chris Smith]

There cannot be a plain outside the city?

Persuing this line of reasoning further, that Ullaza might be Ulisum...

Byblos is modern day Jbail in Lebanon. 15 kilometers north is Batroun and 5 more kilometers north of that ostensibly would be Ullaza. Not too far away north is the modern Chekka. Notice how close this is to a significant opening of the coastal plain which is south of Tripoli. Ominously close and singularly significant (compared with the rest of the narrow coastal plain of Lebanon) for a BoA critic to be claiming Ulisum in Ullaza imho.

So then what happened to Ur? Can we justify suggesting a "Canaanite shift" to get Olishem, since this is rendered "Ullaza" in both Canaanite and Egyptian texts? Given that this hypothetical plain of Ullaza is so far from both "Chaldea" and Haran, does this really constitute any kind of evidence for the BoA?

I think Ullaza could be a plausible locale for the BoA (especially given its proximity to Egypt and probable Egyptian influence), if we're willing to dismiss "Ur of the Chaldees" out of hand entirely, but I don't think it constitutes positive evidence of BoA historicity.

-Chris

[BCSpace]

So then what happened to Ur? Can we justify suggesting a "Canaanite shift" to get Olishem, since this is rendered "Ullaza" in both Canaanite and Egyptian texts?

I don't know. I haven't posited a shift, but rather a greater Chaldea spoken of by a redactor.

Given that this hypothetical plain of Ullaza is so far from both "Chaldea" and Haran, does this really constitute any kind of evidence for the BoA?

[Musing]

The alternative Ulisum (urshu) is not so far away from Haran. A greater Chaldea makes it not so far away no matter where you put it. There is evidence of Palestinian activity by the first king(s) of the Middle Kingdom (spanning the proposed date ranges for Abrahams birth).

Regarding the Hebrew Lexicon (Strongs and Thayers) for "Ur of the Chaldees", I notice it also contemplates a greater Chaldea, in this case incorporating all of Mesopotamia and/or Babylonia.

No, I am not claiming positive evidence for the BoA at this point. But along the lines of negative claims made in this thread, I think such claims themselves are problematic.

Now, some questions relating to Lundquist's claims.

1. It seems that Lundquist is not the only one to claim a northern Ur for Abraham. Josephus, Islamic tradition, and "Jewish authorities like Maimonides" all seem to make the same claim. What has been the answer to these other claims? Are they all based on Lundquist's supposedly discredited theory?

2. Is it really stated specifically anywhere in LDS scripture where Abraham was born; or simply where he lived before moving to Haran?

[Chris Smith]

I don't know. I haven't posited a shift, but rather a greater Chaldea spoken of by a redactor.

"Canaanite shift" refers to the initial vowel in Ulisum becoming an "O".

1. It seems that Lundquist is not the only one to claim a northern Ur for Abraham. Josephus, Islamic tradition, and "Jewish authorities like Maimonides" all seem to make the same claim. What has been the answer to these other claims? Are they all based on Lundquist's supposedly discredited theory?

2. Is it really stated specifically anywhere in LDS scripture where Abraham was born; or simply where he lived before moving to Haran?

I'll leave these to Runtu.

[BCSpace]

So then what happened to Ur? Can we justify suggesting a "Canaanite shift" to get Olishem, since this is rendered "Ullaza" in both Canaanite and Egyptian texts?

I don't know. I haven't posited a shift, but rather a greater Chaldea spoken of by a redactor.

"Canaanite shift" refers to the initial vowel in Ulisum becoming an "O".

Couldn't say. Do we know what 'Olishem' is a transliteration of? In addition, I've seen some references saying that Ulisum is possibly Ullaza. To what are you referring when you say "since this is rendered "Ullaza" in both Canaanite and Egyptian texts"?

[Chris Smith]

Couldn't say. Do we know what 'Olishem' is a transliteration of? In addition, I've seen some references saying that Ulisum is possibly Ullaza. To what are you referring when you say "since this is rendered "Ullaza" in both Canaanite and Egyptian texts"?

Just working within your hypothetical scenario that Ullaza/Ulisum refers to the city as well as to a nearby plain.

Not that I wouldn't be willing to bet money that Ulisum and Ullaza are identical.

[John Williams]

1. It seems that Lundquist is not the only one to claim a northern Ur for Abraham. Josephus, Islamic tradition, and "Jewish authorities like Maimonides" all seem to make the same claim. What has been the answer to these other claims? Are they all based on Lundquist's supposedly discredited theory?

Here's the Jewish Encyclopedia's entry for Ur

A locality mentioned four times in the Bible (Gen. xi. 28, 31; xv. 7; Neh. ix. 7) with the qualification (= "of the Kasdim," or Chaldees), and described as the original home of Abram. Modern scholars, with few exceptions, are agreed that Ur is identical with the mound of ruins in southern Babylonia on the right bank of the Euphrates, known as Al-Muḳair or Al-Mughair. This was an ancient seat of lunar worship; and it was dominant as a political center as early as 3000 B.C. Those scholars who incline to establish a connection between moon-worship ("Sin" = "moon") and the monotheism of Israel ("Sinai") find a corroboration of their theory in the fact that Abram's original home was the seat of the worship of Sin (comp. Jensen in "Zeitschrift f

[BCSpace]

Couldn't say. Do we know what 'Olishem' is a transliteration of? In addition, I've seen some references saying that Ulisum is possibly Ullaza. To what are you referring when you say "since this is rendered "Ullaza" in both Canaanite and Egyptian texts"?

Just working within your hypothetical scenario that Ullaza/Ulisum refers to the city as well as to a nearby plain.

Well, I do seem to recall a complaint that there was no city OR plain......

Working from the map I posted, is there or is there not a significant plain within a few kilometers of the area specified by the Ulisum =Ullaza hypothesis? 3, 5 or even 10 kilometers is a simple walk down the road.

Not that I wouldn't be willing to bet money that Ulisum and Ullaza are identical.

Neither would I. Just working within your hypothetical senario that they are.

And despite your assertion (which I gather is from Wikipedia),

Not my asseration, which is why I put it in quotes.

2. Is it really stated specifically anywhere in LDS scripture where Abraham was born; or simply where he lived before moving to Haran?

Yes, Genesis 11:26-31 tells us that Terah had three sons, born in Ur.

Not specifically as far as I can tell. But perhaps it's neither here nor there.

[Chris Smith]

Well, I do seem to recall a complaint that there was no city OR plain......

huh? No, I do feel quite confident there was a city named Ulisum, somewhere. My complaint is just that the existence of a city named Ulisum-- and even of a hypothetical corresponding plain of the same name-- would not be evidence of the BoA description of a plain called Olishem near a city called Ur.

Neither would I. Just working within your hypothetical senario that they are.

Sorry, double negative. I would bet money that they're the same. Not a lot, but some.

Nice legwork there, Runtu.

-Chris

[BCSpace]

Well, I do seem to recall a complaint that there was no city OR plain......

huh? No, I do feel quite confident there was a city named Ulisum, somewhere. My complaint is just that the existence of a city named Ulisum-- and even of a hypothetical corresponding plain of the same name-- would not be evidence of the BoA description of a plain called Olishem near a city called Ur.

My only complaint is that your argument is too hypothetical and not enough to gainsay an unseen argument (because I have only seen the negative) that Ulisum could be Olishem.

Neither would I. Just working within your hypothetical senario that they are.

Sorry, double negative. I would bet money that they're the same. Not a lot, but some.

There seems to be more evidence that Ulisim is farther nother and or east than that. I wouldn't put any money on either though.

Nice legwork there, Runtu.

Not really. He missed what even Wikipedia didn't. Btw, I'm reasonably sure the Millard article posted at the beginning of the thread was gleaned from Wikipedia as well but it isn't any more scholarly than some of the links supporting this from Wiki.....

Jewish sources say very little about the location of Ur Kaśdim. In Genesis 12:1, after Abraham and his father Terah have left Ur Kaśdim for the city of Haran (spelled differently in the Hebrew text than the name of Abraham's brother) in Aram-Naharaim, God instructs him to leave his land, his moladet, and his father's house. The traditional Jewish understanding of the word moladet is "birthplace". (See for example the Judaica Press translation.) In Genesis 24:4-10, similarly, Abraham instructs his servant to bring a wife for Isaac from his land and moladet, and the servant departs for Aram Naharaim. The general Jewish understanding is thus that the birthplace lay in Aram Naharaim. This view was noted in particular by Nachmanides (Ramban). (See Ramban on Lech Lecha.) This understanding of the term moladet as "birthplace" is not universally agreed; most translations, from the Septuagint to modern English versions, typically render it as "kindred" or "family". However, a further reference in Genesis 24 to the area of Aram Naharaim as being the eretz moladet, i.e. "land of nativity" of Abraham from which a wife is to be found for Isaac, appears to corroborate the traditional Jewish understanding.

Where is Aram-Naharaim? Why it coressponds to the location of the kingdom of Mitanni which is where? To the north!

Not saying it's correct mind you. But Runtu presented such a vague Jewish reference in a way that made it erroneously seem evidence of overall Jewish thought.

[MormonMason]

...

And despite your assertion (which I gather is from Wikipedia), Josephus also locates Ur in Mesopotamia:

...

Just passing through and noticed the above. Notice where Josephus also places Haran?

...they all removed to Haran of Mesopotamia...

[John Williams]

My only complaint is that your argument is too hypothetical and not enough to gainsay an unseen argument (because I have only seen the negative) that Ulisum could be Olishem.

There seems to be more evidence that Ulisim is farther nother and or east than that. I wouldn't put any money on either though.

Not really. He missed what even Wikipedia didn't. Btw, I'm reasonably sure the Millard article posted at the beginning of the thread was gleaned from Wikipedia as well but it isn't any more scholarly than some of the links supporting this from Wiki.....

Where is Aram-Naharaim? Why it coressponds to the location of the kingdom of Mitanni which is where? To the north!

Not saying it's correct mind you. But Runtu presented such a vague Jewish reference in a way that made it erroneously seem evidence of overall Jewish thought.

Let me just say that the piece you quoted from Wikipedia (and no, the Millard article was not "gleaned from Wikipedia") says nothing about the location of Ur. Rather it says that Haran is in Aram-Naharaim, which is indeed in the north. I'm not sure what the point is in locating Haran where it's supposed to be. The distinction here is that your source has Haran being Abraham's birthplace, which is an entirely different argument. Lundquist's theory rests on Ur and the plain of Olishem being in the north, but your source says nothing about that.

And my vague Jewish references were simply in response to the idea that Josephus and Maimonides place Ur in the north.