Ur? It is entirely possible--especially if there are either Amorite or
Aramean connections in these two situations separated by approximately
900 years.
3.0 Conclusion: Although the problem has not been fully resolved to date, there are
Abraham was from "Ur of the Chaldeans." A Mosaic use of
3.2
Arpachshad to establish themselves in the region of Ur prior to the time of
Moses. Indeed, there is time for the descendants of the latter to be thus
established prior to the time of Abraham.
3.3
weak argument. The fraction of surviving material evidence that has been
located, excavated, identified, and published is so infinitesimally small
that it is not a sound practice to leap to the conclusion that what we do
have is sufficient to overturn a direct declaration of the biblical text or to
put traditionally held Mosaic authorship in question. The Hittites were
unknown outside the OT until the late 1800's and the ultimate
extrabiblical proofs were not unearthed until after 1906. Look at the
silence concerning the existence of King David until the discovery of the
Tel Dan Stela in 1993.
3.4
choice for the interpreter: (a) Seek to harmonize the apparent
contradiction between the biblical text and the present state of obviously
limited extrabiblical knowledge--if need be, by providing yet another
hypothetical that lacks proof and that goes contrary to established
evangelical doctrine; or, (b) accept the text as it stands, choosing to look
for options that allow it to stand without modification of either the
declaration or the authorship--admitting that the real problem is the
[
Ltd., 1971], 3:253) or an example of textual updating. The earliest clear reference to the Arameans in
extrabiblical sources is in the cuneiform annals of Tiglath-pileser I (1116-1076 B.C.)--ibid., 3:254; Wayne
T. Pitard, "Arameans," in Peoples of the Old Testament World, ed. Alfred J. Hoerth, Gerald L. Mattingly,
and Edwin M. Yamauchi (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1994), 210.