Rowdy

Obviously, the Pentateuch (first five biblical books) was written way after many of the events described in could have occured.....it's filled with endless errors, yada yada....we all know this stuff here. But how many of the places described in it, particularly in Genesis existed? I'm guessing that a lot of them were modern cities at the time of the writing of these books, in order for people to go "Hey, I know where Liza of Gherbon is" or whathaveyou, but I'm wondering if any of these were historical cities that no longer existed. Like, did the writers include towns or cities that they knew existed some three or four hundred years earlier and then place them in there for effect? If so, there would be SOME historical relevance to these books, however miniscule, as they would be presenting long gone places to the masses....obviously, they can be used as a historical document for the period they were written, but I'm just wondering if there's any historical info to things that existed hundreds of years prior.

Hope what I said makes some sense and that I'll see some replies with examples and such. And please, I don't want to see theists running in here and saying "The whole thing is true because God said so" when practically every verse can be discredited for being historically inaccurate.

funinspace

Well I don't know of cases that show that the Pentateuch, where written hundreds of years after an existence of a place, shows anything. There are a couple of problems right from the get go. When were these books finally compiled into something that is close to the current form? How does one discern real historical writing from borrowing from older stories, from other cultures? The apologists make many claims, but I have not seen ones that definitively show anything one way or another. They presume an awful lot to get to their claims. One anti-example I can think of is Abraham coming from Ur of Chaldia. The Chaldian people came hundreds of years after Abraham was supposed to have lived. So the location label is backwards projected with a more modern names within the story. Now that doesn't necessarily make it false, but it certainly weakens arguments for accuracy. One can say that the more modern reference was used so the, then current people, could understand where it was.

DK

Amlodhi

Hi funinspace,

I personally agree with most everything you stated in your post. It should be noted here, however, that there is some argument for the position that Abram hailed from the town of Urfu near Haran, rather than the Ur further south in Mesopotamia.

I don't mean for this to hijack Rowdy's post though. If this proves to be a highly contentious issue, I would be interested in the arguments from all sides under a separate topic heading.

Amlodhi

Lafcadio

This is not an anti-example, but an illustration of a frequent nomination in chronicles. The writers of the Pentateuch were during the time of the Chaldeeans or after them. Ur of Chaldeea, means the city of Ur (ancient sumerian name) in the territory of the chaldeeans (people which probably everyone else know where they live). It has absolutely no implications in contemporaneity, it's just a matter of describing a reality using some associations at hand.

funinspace

This was the essence of the question:

My comments were answer to that, which is why I provided an example showing the Hebrew Bible, if anything did the opposite, in terms of providing historical context (i.e. anti-example). I made no claim of falseness, just that it's week in terms of providing quality historical information. If all one went by was the Bible, most fundies would be claiming that Ur was ruled by the Chaldeeans during Abrahams time, if it were not for historians and archeologists. Just like most fundy layman don't realize that Babylon really means "gate of god" vice confusion et.al. Our western adoption of Yahwehism, has colored our knowledge of history. Another example is that Roman soldiers would not go running off to their officials and say they fell asleep at their post, for that would be a death sentence for a Roman soldier. They might have done allot of things if the events happened as claimed, but this scenario is most unlikely. Most people fully assume it's true, just because a bunch of books have been labeled holy canon. It doesn't matter how incredulous the story is in it's historical context, as long as there are no competing evidence showing a different reality.

I wouldn't argue about there being some contention on which "Ur" or "Urfu". But it doesn't change the timeframe either way. I have no idea which one would be more accurate.

Dr_Paine

No doubt there are historical nuggets that can be teased out of the text. Many ancient historians - e.g., Herodotus, Tacitus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Cicero, Plutarch, and Livy - are known to be biased and in some cases fantastic. However, it does not follow that their works are without historical value.

Of course, analysis of the text can often draw out the prejudices and leanings of an author. Extra-textually, one can look to archaeology and corroborating, or at least non-contradictory, texts from other sources.

Obviously, demonstrating the existence of a town called Jericho, for example, does little to substantiate the dubious claim of the falling walls as recorded in Judges. (This is often a leap made by biblical defenders).

Sifting the wheat from the chaff, can be tricky. But in some cases, much can be gleaned in the area of cultural history: how did they live, what did they grow, what were the flora and fauna........ This type of information is likely accurate, as no motive for deception on these issues could be assigned.

Lafcadio

I second Dr. Paine. At least Herodotus is one of the greatest all time liars. Still some consider him as "father of history"

funinspace, the Bible is no history book. Those who want to learn history from Bible they chose the wrong way. Now if a historian which knows already history seeks for certain details in the Bible, there's a totally different thing.
And the questions says of ancient cities mentioned for effect. But when Abraham supposedly lived (end of millenium III, start of millenium II BCE), the city of Ur existed so this information is correct. If the description of Ur is coloured with the epithet of "chaldeean" (which is newer btw, and not older for an ex-antiquo effect) is a descriptive hint for the contemporaries of the narrator not for us, people living thousand years after.

spin

The reference to Chaldeans only provides a terminus a quo, ie the earliest it could have been written about. As an adjective "Chaldean" (from Kasdim) was even used for the Hebrew language in later times. The Chaldean dynasty cropped up a generation or so before Nebuchadnezzar. That's when Ur could first be called Ur of the Kasdim, though you find various apologetic attempts to make Ur into something else: Urfa (in Turkey) or Urkesh (an early Mitannian capital), etc.


spin

Lafcadio

Thank you for your information and I will like to complete it.
They are in fact a semitic tribe (from Arabia?) which were found into various areas of Syria and Mesopotamia, first under the dominance of Assyrian Empire. Together with the meds they gave the last strikes to the Assyrian Empire, and created a one century neo-babylonian empire before their fall against the persians of Cyrus.
And yes, as you say, that proves the texts that refer to Abraham were written (or at least transcribed) after the babylonian captivity.

I wonder: what are the basis (historical and/or Bible quotes) for relating Abraham to one of the other two cities?

Amaleq13

"Thou art the LORD the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham; And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous: And didst see the affliction of our fathers in Egypt, and heardest their cry by the Red sea;" (Neh 9:7-9, KJV)