With the exception of Jesus Christ alone, there is no other figure as centrally important to the drama of Biblical history than the Old Testament patriarch Abraham.  Judaism, Christianity and Islam all look to him as the “Father” of faith.  Such a designation matches not only his name, which translates to mean “Father of a multitude”  (Young, pg. 8) but his very character.  Throughout each stage of his life, when asked to do what might seem unthinkable, Abraham obeyed.  As a result Abraham is the ideal example of true faith. 
 One of the first examples of this faith comes in the initial test the Lord offered Abraham.  Genesis 12:1-3 records the charge:
 

Now the LORD had said to Abraham: “Get out of your country, From your family and from your father’ s house, To a land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (NKJV).

In the New Testament Stephen, the first Christian martyr recites to his accusers a panorama of Jewish history declaring of Abraham:
 

– The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said to him, “Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you.” Then he came out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran. And from there, when his father was dead, He moved him to this land in which you now dwell. (Acts 7:2-4, NKJV). 

This was a great act of faith in that Abraham left the land of his people, believing the promise of God.  The New Testament writer of the book of Hebrews includes Abraham in the great list of the faithful in Hebrews chapter eleven.  He says of him:
 

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God. (11:8-10, NKJV).

From this text we see that Abraham “went out, not knowing where he was going” because “he waited for the city with foundations” (i.e. eternal life with God).  This is a perfect metaphor for a life of faith in that believers are called on to journey through life’ s uncertainties in faithfulness believing that God will give them what He has promised in the life to come.

     We can easily identify the land of Abraham’ s inheritance.  It is the region of the modern nations of Israel and Palestine.  There is uncertainly, however regarding the exact location of Abraham’ s original homeland.  In the text above the Holy Spirit, through Stephen claimed that God called Abraham while he was in “Mesopotamia” (Acts 7:2) and that he came out of the “land of the Chaldeans” (Acts 7:4).  In the account in the book of Genesis this place is called “Ur of the Chaldeans” (Genesis 11:28, 31).  These references are the only Biblical clues regarding the location of Abraham prior to his move to Haran and then on to Canaan.  Until the twentieth century Biblical scholars debated the exact location of “Ur of the Chaldeans”.  Some identified it with the city in Eastern Turkey known as Sanliurfa (or Edessa) a few miles north of Haran, some placed it in the regions of Kurdistan & Armenia (now also in Eastern Turkey) and others identified it with a tel located in southern Iraq just north of the Persian Gulf known as Mukayyar. Since the early 1900’ s when Mukayyar was excavated it has come to be viewed exclusively as the “Ur of the Chaldeans” spoken of in the Bible.  In this short study we will reevaluate the question - “Where is ÎUr of the Chaldeans’ ?”

Evaluation of the Clues

“Mesopotamia”

     Stephen’ s clue that Abraham was born in “Mesopotamia” definitely narrows the possibilities.  The word Mesopotamia is actually a transliterated Greek word meaning “between rivers...the land between the two rivers Tigris and Euphrates”  (Liddell & Scott, abr. pg. 436).  Both the Tigris and Euphrates rivers empty into the Persian Gulf stretching a length of 1150 and 1700 miles  respectively (World Book Encyclopedia, Vol.19, pg. 224, Vol. 6, pg. 304).  If Abraham was born in “the land between the rivers” then we know that it must have been somewhere between these two rivers.

“The land of the Chaldeans”

     The second clue is Stephen’ s reference to “the land of the Chaldeans”.  This clue is perhaps the most complex given the fact that the word “Chaldean” has meant a variety of things during the thousands of years spanning from Abraham to Stephen.  George Henry Liddell and Robert Scott in their monumental work A Greek-English Lexicon give a brief summary of the word’ s usage.  Under the definition for the word Chaldios they write:

 
Originally, a nomadic people in northern Assyria and the Armenian mountains (Xenophon) [ca. 430-340 BC.]– Strabo [ca. 58 BC.-24 AD.]– places them in the south of Babylonia on the Persian gulf.  Xenophon– mentions Chaldeans also as a warlike people on the borders of Armenia. ÷ Later the priests of the Babylonians were so called, famed for their knowledge of astronomy and astrology, and famed for their interpretation of dreams– an astrologer, caster of nativities, since the Chaldeans were much given to such pursuits (Cicero) [106-43BC] (pg. 1642). (Dates from Smith, pg. 316,277, 82).

From this we see at least three different meanings of the word used in two different time periods.  As late as 400 BC. a “Chaldean” was considered “nomadic” and associated with the Northern area of Mesopotamia.  As early as 100 BC. a “Chaldean” was one living near the Persian gulf or one who practiced astrology.

     This later usage of the word appears to have been the idea used in Scripture in Daniel chapter two.  Calling on the magicians of Babylon to interpret Nebuchanezzer’ s dream Scripture says: 

Then the king gave the command to call the magicians, the astrologers, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans to tell the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king. (2:2, NKJV).

     The second usage is also evident from Scripture.  In describing the assault of Nebuchanezzer, the king of Babylon on Jerusalem the book of Second Kings claims “the army of the Chaldeans pursued the king” (25:5), “the army of the Chaldeans – broke down the walls of Jerusalem all around” (25:10) and “The bronze pillars that were in the house of the LORD, – the Chaldeans broke in pieces, and carried their bronze to Babylon” (25:13).  Ezra 5:12 speaks of Nebuchanezzer’ s siege of Jerusalem declaring:
 

– because our fathers provoked the God of heaven to wrath, He gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, the Chaldean, who destroyed this temple and carried the people away to Babylon. (NKJV).

     Our question relates specifically to the first definition offered by Liddell and Scott; that originally Chaldeans were “nomadic” peoples associated with Armenia.  The siege of Jerusalem is dated at around 588 BC.  Abraham lived around 1900 BC. with Moses writing about him during ca. 1490-1450 BC. (The Bible Text-Book, pg. 209,211).   According to Dr. Victor H. Matthews and Dr. Don Benjamin in their work Old Testament Parallels: Documents from the Ancient Near East during the period of Abraham and Moses’ lives Mesopotamia was not associated with the “Chaldeans”.  In an outline of the history of Mesopotamia they break these years down as follows:
 

• 2006-1792 BC. Amorite Period÷Struggle between Assyrians and new dynasties  founded by Amorite leaders (Amurru) based at Larsa, Mari and Babylon.
• 1792-1750 BC. Reign of Hammurabi, unified most of Mesopotamia and compiled law code.
• 1595-1168 BC. Kassites ruled southern Mesopotamia for 400 little known years.  Aided by the overthrow of Hammurabi’ s dynasty during the brief invasion of the Hitties. (pg. 5).

Some suggest that during the time of Abraham “Chaldeans” were associated with Northern Mesopotamia and Armenia rather than Southern Mesopotamia.  Xenophon, writing as late as the 400’ s BC. may offer some clues to this end.  In his work entitled the Cyropaedia  as the Persian king Cyrus is near the mountains of Eastern Turkey he claims “these mountains which we see belong to Chaldea” (Book III, 2:4, pg. 251).  Describing Chaldeans he claims:
 

– the Chaldeans carried each a wicker shield and two spears, and they were said to be the most warlike of the peoples in that region.  They also serve for hire when any one wants them, for they are fond of war and poor of purse; for their country is mountainous and only a small part of it is productive.  (Book III, 3:7, pg. 253).

Xenophon claims that they were farmers with pasture land (Book III, 2:20-21, pg. 261) who helped Cyrus in the Seige of Sardis (Book VII, 2:3, pg. 231).  In the Anabasis he speaks of them as “mercenaries” and an “independent valiant people” (Book IV, 3:4, pg. 25).
 We are left with at least two possible conclusions.  First we may conclude that the “Chaldeans” of which Xenophon speaks are not the same as those of the seige of Jerusalem.  Walter Miller, the editor and translator of Xenophon’ s Cryopaedia holds this view writing: 
 

Although confused by the earlier Greek writers and most modern scholars with the Chaldeans of Babylonia (in scripture), there was no connection, as is shown by the latter Greek use of xald?a [Chaldia] by an entirely different form in the Armenian writings– (Vol. II, pg. 467).

The Fourteenth Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica reaches this same conclusion.  In their article on “Chaldea” they suggest:
 

– There is no connection between the Black sea people called “Chaldeans” by Xenophon (Anabasis VII, 25) and the Chaldeans of Babylonia. (Vol. V, pg. 195).

They even speculate that the Babylonian “Chaldeans” may have first entered Southern Mesopotamia from Arabia.  (Ibid.).

     A second conclusion is that northern Mesopotamia approaching Armenia was in fact the homeland  of  the  people  who  had  controlled  Babylon  until it fell to the Medes and the Persian.  William Gesenius the great Hebrew scholar of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries in his work A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament discusses the Hebrew word translated “Chaldeans”.  He writes:
 

Besides the Chaldeans inhabiting Babylonia, Greek writers mention a people of this name as dwelling among the Carduchian mountains bordering on Armenia– Nor is the opinion improbable, as held by many that the primitive seat of this people was the mountainous region (now occupied by the Kurds); and that under Assyrian sway a portion of them migrated into Mesopotamia and Babylonia, of which they afterwards became the masters– (pg. 494). 

This view appears to be in line with the thinking of the great religious scholar of the last century John Kitto.  In his work The Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature he suggests:
 

As in all periods of history hardy and brave tribes of mountaineers have come down into the plains and conquered their comparatively civilized and effeminate inhabitants, so these Armenian Chaldeans appear to have descended on Babylon, made themselves masters of the city and the government, and eventually founded a dominion to which they gave their name– (Vol. I, pg. 407).

As to the timing of this immigration, Kitto writes:

Authentic history affords no information as to the time when the Chaldean immigration took place.  It is possible that, at a very early period, a tribe of Chaldees wandered into Babylon and gave to the land seven Chaldee kings mentioned by Berosus [an ancient writer who produced a history of Babylon]; but it is possible also that the Chaldeans entered in a mass into Babylonian territory for the first time not long before the era of Nabonassar (BC. 747)– (Vol. I, pg. 408). 

If this is correct, we would find that during the time of Abraham (ca. 1900 BC.) and Moses (ca. 1400 BC.)  Chaldeans were associated with Northern Mesopotamia and Armenia rather than Southern Mesopotamia.  The book of Job associated by some with the Patriarchal Age of Abraham may use the term in reference to these “Chaldeans” declaring in Job 1:17:
 

– The Chaldeans formed three bands, raided the camels and took them away, yes, and killed the servants with the edge of the sword; and I alone have escaped to tell you! (NKJV) 

Are these “Chaldeans” the highly cultured inhabitants of Southern Mesopotamia carrying out raids?  Or are they the nomadic, warlike herdsman which Xenophon will describe many years latter?

“Ur” of the Chaldeans 

     The final Scriptural clue is the name “Ur” found in Genesis 11:28, 31, 15:7 and  Nehemiah 9:7.  According to Francis Brown in his revision of Gesenius’ lexicon the Hebrew word translated “Ur”  has as its primary definition “light” or “flame” (Brown, pg. 21,22).  Most modern lexicons define the word, when used as a noun of location as a reference to Muqayyar (ibid.).  However, Gesenius himself mentions a fortified castle near the Tigris called Ur and suggests a link between Eastern words meaning fortress castle and and the Hebrew word (pg. 26).  The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced before the time of Christ translates the word with the Greek word chora meaning “country” or “land” (Bauer, pg. 889).  Thus “the country of the Chaldeans”.

CONSIDERATION OF LOCATIONS 

     Having analyzed the clues offered in Scripture we now have the task of matching the evidence to an actual site.  As mentioned at the beginning of our study there are three primary suggestions:  Mukayyar (Southern Mesopotamia), Sanliurfa (Northern Mesopotamia near Haran) and simply the mountainous region of northern Mesopotamia approaching Armenia.  Since Mukayyar has been so widely accepted in this century as the authentic site of “Ur of the Chaldees” let us begin with it first.

Mukayyar 

      Cunningham Geike in his set of books entitled Hours with the Bible writing in 1905 offers the primary reason the twentieth century would find such widespread acceptance of Mukayyar as “Ur of the Chaldees”,   namely the fact that tablets taken from the ruins identify the name of the city in ancient times as Uru  (Vol. I, pg. 238).  As a result of the excavations it has been discovered that Uru was a magnificent city with a fortified wall and a huge pyramid-like temple known as a “ziggurat” in the center.  James Hastings in his Dictionary of the Bible suggests that there is some historical tradition pointing to Uru as “Ur of the Chaldeans”.  According to Hastings the Christian historian Eusebius quotes Eupolemus, who lived around 150 BC. as speaking of a city in Babylonia named Camirine (or Urie by some) where a man named Abraham lived.  This Abraham was said to be “of noble race and superior to all others in wisdom” (Vol. IV, pg. 836).

      There are at least two problems however, with identifying Mukayyar (or Uru) as “Ur of the Chaldeans:  1.)  There is no evidence that the people of southern Mesopotamia were known as “Chaldeans” in either the time of Abraham or the time of Moses.  Although the name Ur (or Uru) has been unearthed, references to “Chaldeans” has not been found (prior to the era associated with the Jewish captivity).  2.)  Abraham is always pictured as a nomadic tribesman with a substantial flock (Genesis 13:1-18).  Little if anything in Scripture suggests to us that he was accustomed to the sophistication and lifestyle of a large city like Uru. 

Sanliurfa

      Unlike Mukayyar Sanliurfa can make no claim to extensive ruins revealing the cities ancient past.  However, like Mukayyar  there is some historical tradition identifying Sanliurfa with “Ur of the Chaldees”.  Known in New Testament times as Edessa, according to Hastings Isidore, the great scholar of the Middle Ages makes some comments which would seem to suggest that he associated Sanliurfa with “Ur of the Chaldees”. (Vol. IV, pg. 836).  Many Muslims claim Sanliurfa was the birthplace of Abraham.  When I visited the city in the summer of 1995 we went to the “Mosque of Abraham.”  In the mosque there is a cave in which Muslims claim Abraham was born.  A picture I took of the cave may be seen to the right.  Everett C. Blake and Anna G. Edmonds in their book Biblical Sites in Turkey claim that Sanliurfa dates back to the second millennium BC. and may have been the capital of the Hurruan state.  According to Blake and Edmonds the city has been known as Orrhoe, Orhai and Osrhoene.  They point out that Abraham’ s name in Chaldean was Orham which they claim may show a “similar relationship.”  (pg. 41).  Kitto accepted Sanliurfa  as “Ur of the Chaldees” (Vol. II, pg. 900) as do the well-known commentators Robert Jamieson D.D. , A.R. Fausset  A. M. and David Brown D. D. in their work Commentary: Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (pg. 24).  Although Geike accepts Mukayyar  as “Ur of the Chaldees” he notes that fact that Arthur Stanley, the Dean of Westminster in the last half of the nineteenth century believed that Sanliurfa was “Ur of the Chaldees” and wrote to this effect in his work entitled Jewish History (Stanley, Vol. I, pg. 7, Geike, Vol. I, pg. 238). 

     As with Mukayyar there are some problems with accepting Sanliurfa as “Ur of the Chaldees”: 1.)  Sanliurfa is almost too close to Haran to match the Biblical account.  Sanliurfa and the modern village of Haran (with the ancient tel on which it is built) are no more than 60 miles apart.  When we were there in the summer of 1995 we stayed in Sanliurfa but made an afternoon excursion to Haran.  The Biblical account claims:
 

And Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot, the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram’ s wife, and they went out with them from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to the land of Canaan; and they came to Haran and dwelt there. (Genesis 11:31, NKJV). 

The impression is that they had “set their sights” to go to Canaan, yet on the way had to stop in Haran to live for a time.  If Sanliurfa is “Ur of the Chaldeans” we have Abraham’ s family just beginning the journey (in essence) only to stop in Haran!  2.)  Although Sanliurfa may match more closely the region with which the Chaldeans were associated the historical evidence identifying Sanliurfa with an ancient city identified as “Ur of the Chaldees” seems speculative at best.

CONCLUSION

      It is clear from the evidence we have considered that scholars of the twentieth century have “jumped on the bandwagon” (so to speak) with respect to the matter of identifying Mukayyar  with the Biblical “Ur of the Chaldees”.  Regardless of how conclusively the majority of modern Biblical writings present this matter, as we have seen it is an issue far from being settled.  Yet given the fact that Sanliurfa does not seem to solve the issue to any greater satisfaction what other choices are left to us? 

     I conclude, that while we must reject both Mukayyar and Sanliurfa as the exact sites of “Ur of the Chaldees” it is reasonable to identify “Ur of the Chaldees” with the general area of Northern Mesopotamia approaching Armenia or perhaps even an unidentified city of this region.  I reach this conclusion for the following reasons: 

 1.)  Although there is no evidence associating “Chaldeans” with Southern Mesopotamia during Abraham and Moses’ times, there is evidence associating “Chaldeans” with Northern Mesopotamia.

 2.)  It seems unreasonable to conclude that the “Chaldeans” of which Xenophon speaks are totally unrelated to the “Chaldeans” of the Jewish Babylonian captivity.  Xenophon wrote in the 300’ s BC. speaking of Cyrus the Persian king who had brought to an end the reign of the Chaldean kings of Babylon.  It is unreasonable to imagine that Xenophon was ignorant of the Chaldeans which Cyrus had deposed.

  3.)  Given that we must explain how, when and from where the Chaldeans came into Babylon it seems more reasonable to conclude that they had migrated from the region where some continued to call themselves “Chaldeans” rather than speculating that they “appeared” from Arabia.

 4.)  The description which Xenophon gives of the “Chaldeans” seems to fit perfectly the Biblical character of Abraham.  He was nomadic (Genesis 13:11,12), a herdsman (Genesis 13:2-5) and accomplished in warfare (Genesis 14:1-24).  Clearly Xenophon wrote some 1300 to 800 years after Abraham and Moses.  Yet, given the geography of this area, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the “Chaldeans” of Xenophon’ s day lived much as they had in Abraham’ s day.  Indeed, during my own travels from Sanliurfa to Ararat we frequently observed nomadic herdsman living much the same way now 2300 years after Xenophon. The picture to the right I took showing goat-skin tents of nomads slightly north of the Tigris.  The picture below was taken South of the modern city of Van in the region associated with Xenophon’ s “Chaldeans”.

5.)  While there is some question as to the precise meaning and significance of the word “Ur,” it may be that the identifying phrase  “Ur of the Chaldees”   is highly significant.   Dr. Jesse Curtis Pope, former professor of Biblical Studies at Florida College in Temple Terrace Florida, my own brother and traveling companion through Eastern Turkey, has observed that when one refers to a major city, such descriptive phrases are unnecessary.  For example, if one refers to “Paris” they do not need to say “Paris France.”  Yet if they are speaking of “Paris Texas” a descriptive identifying phrase is necessary.  By the same token, if “Ur of the Chaldeans” was in fact a city named “Ur” somewhere in northern Mesopotamia it clearly paled in comparison to the major metropolis of the Babylonian Ur (or Uru).  Thus the Bible distinguishes it not simply as “Ur” but “Ur of the Chaldeans”.  On the other hand if the word “Ur” was not a proper name but a reference to a fortress city (Gesenius) or simply a “country” (Septuagint) then Scripture is associating Abraham with “A city of the Chaldeans” or “A region of the Chaldeans.”

     Let us hope that more research and study will be devoted to this issue.  Certainly there remain questions to resolve even with the conclusion I have drawn.  Yet given the evidence, in my judgment this is the most reasonable conclusion.

Bauer, Walter, William Arnt and F. Wilbur Gingrich.  A Greek-English Lexicon of the
    New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.  (Chicago:  University of
    Chicago Press, 1979). 

Blake, Everett C. Blake and Anna G. Edmonds. Biblical Sites in Turkey.  (Istanbul:
    Redhouse Press, 1977).

Brown, Francis, D.D., S.R. Driver, D.D. and Charles Briggs, D.D. A Hebrew and
    English Lexicon of the Old Testament.  (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1975).

The Bible Text-Book. (New York: American Tract Society).

The Encyclopaedia Britannica.14th ed. (New York:  Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. 1929).

Gesenius, William. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament.  11th ed.
    (Boston:Crocker & Brewster, 1860).

Hastings, James, M.A., D.D.  A Dictionary of the Bible.  (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark,
    1902).

The Holy Bible, The New King James Version. (Nashville, TN:  Thomas Nelson Pub.,
    1985).

Jamieson, Robert, D. D., A. R. Fausset, A.M. and David Brown, D. D. Commentary: 
    Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible.  (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan
    Publishing House). 

Kitto, John, D.D., F.S.A. The Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. (New York:American
    Book Exchange, 1881).

Liddell, George Henry and Robert Scott.   A Greek-English Lexicon.  (New
    York:Harper & Brothers, Pub., 1869).

Liddell, George Henry and Robert Scott. A Lexicon Abridged from Liddell & Scott’ s
    Greek-English Lexicon.  17th Ed.  (Boston:Ginn & Heath, 1878).

Matthews, Dr. Victor H. Matthews, and Dr, Don Benjamin. Old Testament Parallels:
    Documents from the Ancient Near East.  (Published by the Author, 1988).

Smith, Sir William. Smaller Classical Dictionary.  rev. by E. H. Blakeney and John
    Warrington. (New York:  E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1958).

The World Book Encyclopedia.  (Chicago: Field Enterprises Educational Corp., 1974).

Xenophon. Trans. by O. J. Todd.   Anabasis, Books IV-VII (Cambridge, Mass.:
    Harvard University Press, 1961).

Xenophon.  Trans. by Walter Miller. Cryopaedia.  (Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard
    University Press, 1960).