Virgin Islands Uganda Ukraine United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe. View Singles.

TONS OF SINGLES. App Store. Welcome to the best free dating site on the web Abraham's best FREE dating site! Our free personal ads are full of single women and men in Abraham looking for serious relationships, a little online flirtation, or new friends to go out with.

Start meeting singles in Abraham today with our free online personals and free Abraham chat! Abraham is full of single men and women like you looking for dates, lovers, friendship, and fun.

Finding them is easy with our totally FREE Abraham dating service. This event had to have been at a time in Mesopotamian history when no individual dynasty had complete control over the region.

Kenneth Kitchen explains it well:. Kitchen explains it well why so many modern scholars date Abraham to the Isin-Larsa period. However, the search for the Mesopotamian background for Abraham does not stop there. In , the archaeological world was rocked with the discovery of the archives of the ancient city of Ebla in Syria. The archives of the city dated back to before the days of the Akkadian Empire see table 1. These texts reveal that Ebla was a thriving commercial city with contacts stretching in all directions for hundreds of miles.

The discovery affected not only Near Eastern studies but also biblical studies. Shortly after this discovery David Noel Freedman argued that the discovery of the archives gave evidence for placing the patriarchs into the period of Mesopotamian history before Sargon, the founder of the Akkadian Empire.

This would have been the period which Kitchen said was too early for the patriarchs. Freedman noted:. Freedman stated that one of the tablets listed the five Cities of the Plain in the same order in which they were listed in Genesis. It even named one of the five kings in almost the same form as Genesis Birsha. This allowed Freedman to say that the patriarchs lived in the Early Bronze Age EBA which is traditionally dated to the third millennium BC Freedman , pp.

Freedman went on to argue that the Early Bronze Age remains just east of the Dead Sea were where the five cities were located. It was believed that Bab edh-Dhra and four other sites nearby were the Cities of the Plain. This was backed up by the fact that there were no Middle Bronze Age sites in the area but only Early Bronze Age sites. Interestingly the Early Bronze Age was the same period as the Ebla archive Freedman , p.

The tablet does not list all five of the cities and concerning the name of Birsha, John Bimson notes that there are several examples of kings with the same name ruling centuries apart. So just because the name sounds like that of the king mentioned in Genesis 14 does not mean that it was him Bimson , pp.

Freedman himself even noted that the king named Birsha ruled not in Gomorrah but in Admah, contrary to what Genesis says Freedman , p. Bimson says:. Lastly, biblical chronology cannot be stretched back that far into the third millennium BC.

Dating Abraham back before BC is simply too much of a strain on biblical chronology according to both Bimson , p. In summary, most scholars date Abraham to the Middle Bronze Age in which is the period of either Ur III or the Isin-Larsa period. It is clear that one piece of evidence as to why Abraham is dated to these periods is the nature of the Genesis 14 coalition of kings. However, it must be noted that the number one reason for this dating is the acceptance of the standard chronology of the Ancient Near East.

Abraham is dated anywhere between c. However, there have been a number of scholars who have come out against the standard chronology in the recent past. Two separate studies have dated Abraham to sometime during the Early Dynastic or the Old Kingdom periods in Egypt. John Ashton and David Down have dated him to the Fourth Dynasty while this author McClellan , p.

If Abraham is to be dated earlier in Mesopotamian history then in what period did Abraham live in Mesopotamia? What is interesting about the quote by Kitchen above is that he notes that there was another period in Mesopotamian history in which a coalition of kings could have existed; that is, the period before the Akkadian Empire.

What is more interesting is that this is the time period that Freedman dated Abraham. Noted above were two important pieces of information that are vital for this study. First, the fact that both this author and Ashton and Down have dated Abraham to the Early Dynastic or Old Kingdom periods of Egypt; and second, the discovery of the city of Ebla in Syria. What is significant about both of these facts is that they can be used to show in what period in Mesopotamian history Abraham lived.

The city of Ebla is located in present-day Syria. The city was discovered in the remains of Tell Mardikh. Archaeologists have designated this palace as palace G. Interestingly palace G is dated to the Early Bronze Age.

The archive includes more than 17, complete and fragmentary documents. The Ebla archives allow us to connect Mesopotamian chronology with Egyptian chronology during this early period at one very specific point: the name of Pepi I of the Sixth Dynasty was found among the ruins of palace G Archi , p. The name of Pepi I along with another Egyptian king—Khufu, the builder of the Great Pyramid during the Fourth Dynasty was found in undisturbed layers of the debris of palace G which shows us that it was not placed there after the destruction of the palace archive Astour , p.

The Sixth Dynasty is the latest that Abraham could have been in Egypt McClellan Since Pepi I was a king during this dynasty and is dated to the period before the destruction of palace G, we can use the palace archives to date Abraham within Mesopotamia history.

The question is to which period in Mesopotamian history does palace G correlate? There are different opinions, but Ebla is dated using thousands of texts discovered there to show that the palace was destroyed before or sometime during the Akkadian Empire. Sargon and his grandson, Naram-Sin, the first and fourth kings of Akkad, have been the two most cited kings who could have destroyed palace G.

Both kings boast that they conquered Ebla Bermant and Weitzman , p. Paolo Matthiae is one scholar who believes that palace G was destroyed by Naram-Sin. He notes that the name Shariginu in a text found at Ebla may be Sargon and that Akkad is mentioned as A-ga-du ki EN Matthiae , pp. These two names would mean that Sargon reigned during part of the Ebla dynasty before the destruction of palace G Matthiae , pp.

To support the theory of Naram-Sin as the conqueror, the pottery found at Ebla seemed to correspond to the period of Naram-Sin, suggesting that he was, in fact, the conqueror of Ebla and destroyer of palace G Bermant and Weitzman , p. However, there are problems with this thesis. Bermant and Weitzman , p. Names originally translated as Sargon and Akkad were shown to be a nonentity called Shariginu and an unimportant town named Arugadu Bermant and Weitzman , p.

Besides these problems, there are others as well. Astour , p. Also concerning Sargon there is an inscription noting that he conquered Ebla during one of his conquests but Astour believes that Sargon did not destroy the archives Astour , p. He notes that the very latest documents found at Ebla mention that the king of Mari was still ruling his city. If he was still on the throne, then it is clear that the city had not yet been conquered by Sargon. Astour says:. So who destroyed palace G at Ebla?

There are a number of other theories which all point to the period preceding the rise of the Akkadian Empire. Pettinato , p. There is, however, an even more interesting theory.

He believes that it may have been destroyed by a fire, which may have been accidental or perhaps even the result of arson. He notes that the rest of the city was not destroyed at the same time as the palace. Furthermore, the destruction of palace G does not seem to be followed by a break in the cultural development of the city.

He notes that history records many other buildings destroyed not by an invader but rather by arson or even an accident. Is there any evidence that could support a destruction date of palace G before Sargon, as the arsonist-theory or accident-theory requires? Gelb , pp. There is, in fact, a large amount of evidence for dating palace G to this period. This evidence would place the archive in the time known to scholars as the Early Dynastic Period.

All of this information is essential to this study because this means that palace G at Ebla could not have been burned down prior to the reign of Pepi I. This conclusion is crucial since if Abraham is to be dated no later than Pepi I then Abraham would have lived during the Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia more on all of this below.

If he lived afterwards, there is a possibility that he lived during the early years of the Akkadian Empire. However, there is other evidence that supports that the patriarch would have lived before the reign of Sargon and not afterwards. This other piece of evidence is to be found in the 14th chapter of Genesis.

In this chapter, four kings from outside of Palestine invade and fight against five Canaanite kings. The former kings are Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim.

Remember earlier in this article that Kitchen believed that there were two periods in Mesopotamian history that could accommodate the events in this chapter: the Early Dynastic period and the period between Ur III and Hammurabi. Above, we showed that it is likely that Abraham is to be dated to the Early Dynastic Period. Amraphel of Shinar is the first king mentioned in the narrative.

In the past, he was believed to be the same as Hammurabi. However, scholars have now rejected this connection and Hammurabi is now dated later than Abraham Leupold , p. However, most scholars still place Amraphel in Babylon Leupold , p. Kitchen , p. Genesis in Hittite, Syrian, and Egyptian sources in the later second millennium. Aalders breaks the normal equation with Babylon by noting that some scholars have identified Amraphel with Amorapil, who may have been a king of a territory known as Sanhar.

There does, in fact, seem to be some evidence which points to Sanhar as a possible region for the identification of the kingdom of Amraphel. Anne Habermehl has postulated that the land of Shinar was not the same as Babylon but was, in fact, in northern Mesopotamia.

She argues that Shinar was not in southern Mesopotamia as most scholars believe but was in the northern part of the region. The first thing she notes is that the traditional connection between Babylon and Shinar comes primarily from the Tower of Babel. However, she notes the difference in meaning of each word.

Therefore, the names actually do not have the connection that so many assume, having a completely different linguistic origin. Second, Habermehl argues that there are geological difficulties with placing Shinar and the Tower of Babel in southern Mesopotamia.

She notes that there is an important geological feature running east-west from the Euphrates to the Tigris north of Baghdad. From a creationist perspective this geological feature is believed to have been the ancient shoreline where the ocean level would have been immediately after the Flood but before the onset of the Ice Age. If this argument is true, then southern Mesopotamia would have been underwater during the building of the Tower of Babel Habermehl , pp.

Quite simply, Shinar would have had to have been located somewhere besides southern Mesopotamia where so many scholars have placed the country. Habermehl argues that the name Shinar appears in the name of a mountain range in northern Mesopotamia, the Sinjar Mountains.

Interestingly the names Sinjar, Shinar, and Sanhar are all variants of the same name Habermehl , p. If Habermehl is correct and we place Shinar in northern Mesopotamia, would this help us in correctly identifying Amraphel? Sadly, since there is so little historical information available on the politics of the region around the Sinjar Mountains, we cannot know which city in this region Amraphel would have come from.

No king lists from this area have been found. Even if Habermehl is correct in placing Shinar in the north and she very well may be , we have no way to learn more about Amraphel, king of Shinar. The second king was Arioch of Ellasar. Aalders , p. Leupold even makes the suggestion that he is King Rim-Sin of Larsa who ascended the throne in BC he dates the expedition of Genesis 14 to BC.

However, this identification is not accepted by all. Hamilton says that phonetically it is impossible to equate Ellasar with Larsa Hamilton , p. Wenham says that the equation to Larsa is largely based on a misreading of the name of one of its kings, Warad-Sin, as Eri-aku Arioch Wenham , p.

Even so, Henry Morris, although not specifying Larsa, does say that Ellasar was a leading tribe in southern Babylonia Morris , p. However, not all scholars agree with this and some feel that Ellasar was located in northern Mesopotamia Aalders , p.

Wenham , p. But he cannot help giving us a theory. He says:. So the current consensus seems to place Ellasar somewhere either in northern Mesopotamia or possibly as far north as northern Anatolia modern Turkey. The third king is Kedorlaomer of Elam. His name is definitely Elamite. However, no concrete information has been discovered for this king Aalders , pp. Hamilton , p. However, Kitchen is clearly wrong in this regard as Walther Hinz , pp.

The records note that an Elamite king conquered Ur and that he was the founder of a dynasty of three Elamite kings. He says. Tidal king of Goiim is the fourth and last ruler to examine.

Leupold , p. It was the Guti who invaded and conquered the Akkadian Empire. This Hittite name is found among the kings of the Hittites during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, and it is even the name of a private person in Cappadocia during the Middle Bronze Age. He thinks that it may be a Hebrew equivalent of the Akkadian Umman-Manda Manda people who were barbarian invaders of Mesopotamia starting in the last part of the Early Bronze Age.

They are even sometimes associated with the Elamites which makes sense in the context of Genesis 14 Wenham , p. Other possibilities could be a group or federation of Indo-European nations Hittite and Luvian. However, we know very little about the political history of this region during the Early Bronze Age, so discovering who Tidal actually was currently eludes us. One will notice that the precise identification of these kings is currently very difficult to know.

There is a debate about the location of two of the four nations that participated in the Genesis 14 raid: Shinar and Ellasar. The third nation, Elam, is identified but the names of her kings in the Early Dynastic period are lost. Although the records do show that at least one Elamite king invaded southern Mesopotamia we do not know if any other kings also attempted and succeeded in creating an Elamite empire.

Lastly, Tidal king of Goiim seems most likely to be identified with a group or groups of people in the Anatolian region. Sadly, we know very little about the political and even ethnic makeup of this region during this early period Bryce , p.

One of the few political events that we do know of is of a group of 17 local rulers rebelling against Naram-Sin, whose empire Akkad extended into central Anatolia Bryce , p. It is known that Anatolia did have different people groups existing side-by-side during the Early Bronze Age including the Hattians and various Indo-European groups Bryce , pp.

Furthermore, the present lack of direct evidence concerning these kings in the archaeological record does not mean that they never existed.

First, prior to the discovery of the Ebla archive, Early Bronze Age Syria was believed to have been an illiterate region with no great civilization because absolutely no documents had been discovered from this area Astour , p. However, discovery of the Ebla archive proved ancient Syria was a literate region with a very organized and powerful empire.

Second, Aalders , p. He notes that it is unlikely that they are the product of some later Jewish fantasy. Certainly, if all of these names were fictional, there would be no reason for leaving one name out. If Moses was making up the kings of Genesis 14, why would he leave one of them unnamed? There is no reason to think that the names of any of the Genesis 14 kings were imagined. In fact, the information that we know about the four kings discussed shows that this event took place during a period that a coalition of kings could exist and that the Early Dynastic Period is a legitimate background for the Genesis 14 episode to have taken place.

Quite simply, the events discussed in Genesis 14 agree with the conclusions mentioned earlier that Abraham lived during the Early Dynastic Period. A group of kings in this chapter could not have occurred during the years of the Akkadian Empire. The dating of the Ebla archive to the Early Dynastic Period and the evidence that Genesis 14 conforms very well to the same period simply point to the Early Dynastic Period as the Mesopotamian background for the life of Abraham. There is one last topic to discuss briefly, and that is the identification of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Earlier in this article it was noted that Freedman identified five sites on the east side of the Dead Sea as the Cities of the Plain. There are Christian scholars who believe that the same cities that Freedman identified were, in fact, the Cities of the Plain. Bryant Wood, archaeologist with the Associates of Biblical Research, and William Shea both believe that these cities are to be identified as the infamous cities that were destroyed by God.

Wood identifies the sites as: 1 Bab edh-Dhra as Sodom; 2 Numeira as Gomorrah; 3 the site of Safi as Zoar; 4 and the sites of Feifa and Khanazir with Admah and Zeboiim Wood , pp.

A short summary of the evidence that Wood and Shea use to identify these sites as the famous Cities of the Plain follows. All of these sites are dated to the Early Bronze Age Shea , pp. The Bible notes that there were two traumatic events that took place at Sodom and Gomorrah.

The first is recorded in Genesis 14 and the second in chapter There were two destructions at both of these sites Shea , p. Although the Bible does not say that the kings in Genesis 14 destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah Shea , p. Wood notes that the last destruction at Bab edh-Dhra began on the roofs of the buildings. This is consistent with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible Shea , pp. The interval between these two destructions is about 20 years, which fits the biblical data of the interval being between 14 and 24 years Shea , pp.

Shea , p. Although this is only a very short summary of the evidence concerning Sodom and Gomorrah it was important to discuss it since earlier in this article it was shown that many scholars have rejected this identification.

However, these criticisms presented are not as strong as some may think. Bimson presented four criticisms. First, the Cities of the Plain were not mentioned in the Ebla Tablets. Second, the identification of Sodom and Gomorrah as these particular cities during the Early Bronze Age has a problem since no Early Bronze Age remains have been discovered in the Negev which was central to the Patriarchal narratives.

Third, the evidence must show that four of the Early Bronze Age sites must have fallen at the same time. Fourth, that biblical chronology cannot be stretched back that far into the Early Bronze Age BC.

First, the cities of Sodom and Admah are listed in an Ebla atlas Shea Although not all the cities are mentioned it is a great find that at least two of them were. Second, the criticism concerning the Negev holds no weight at all. The Negev is mentioned in Genesis ; ; ; and These verses do not require any form of permanent settlements. There is a good chance that the region at the time of the patriarchs was mostly filled with nomadic people so any kind of archaeological evidence from the Early Bronze Age may not exist.

Third, archaeological evidence cannot tell us the exact years when a city was destroyed unless there is some document or tablet which dates that destruction to a historical event. No such documents or tablets have been discovered in the layers of these five sites.

However, it is reasonable to conclude using the evidence presented by Wood and Shea that these five sites are, in fact, the Cities of the Plain. Fourth, the argument that biblical chronology cannot be stretched back to the Early Bronze Age is based upon the validity of the standard chronology. As noted throughout this paper the standard chronology of the ancient world has been criticized and, as a result, biblical chronology can, in fact, reach back into the Early Bronze Age because the Early Bronze Age chronology has been brought down to the patriarchal period.

This article began with the goal to discover the Mesopotamian background of the life of Abraham. It was noted that he is usually dated to the Middle Bronze Age which was the Mesopotamian equivalent to the Ur III and Isin-Larsa periods. However, with the chronology of the ancient world coming under scrutiny it is only natural that the historical background of Abraham must be redated.

Studies in ancient chronology now show that the life of Abraham was concurrent with the Early Dynastic Period in Mesopotamia, the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdoms in Egypt, and the Ebla Empire in Syria.

It also provides creationist historians and archaeologists with an anchor point for studying the rich pre-Abrahamic period of the Ancient Near East. Aalders, G. Genesis: Volume I. Translated by William Heynen.

Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. Albright, W. The biblical period from Abraham to Ezra: An historical survey. Archer, G. A survey of Old Testament introduction , revised and expanded. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers. Archi, A. Ebla texts. In The Oxford encyclopedia of archaeology in the Near East , vol. Meyers, pp. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Ashton, J. and D. Unwrapping the pharaohs: How Egyptian archaeology confirms the biblical timeline. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.

Astour, M. An outline of the history of Ebla part 1. In Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla archives and Eblaite language , vol. Gordon and G. Rendsburg, pp. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. A reconstruction of the history of Ebla part 2. Bermant, C.

MLA Copy. APA Copy. Chicago Copy. The views expressed in this paper are those of the writer s and are not necessarily those of the ARJ Editor or Answers in Genesis. Mesopotamia, the land that is today part of Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, is home to one of the oldest civilizations to have ever been discovered. It is here that the civilizations of Sumer, Babylon, and Assyria existed. This land is noteworthy in the Bible because it was here that the exiles were taken captive after the destruction of Jerusalem.

It was also here that Abraham had lived before he set out to the Promised Land. For many years, Abraham was believed to have lived at the same time as Hammurabi, king of Babylon. Later scholars would date Abraham to the period shortly before the reign of Hammurabi. However, the result of recent research is that the chronology of the ancient world is being redated.

Hammurabi now appears to be a near contemporary of Moses instead of Abraham. In Egyptian chronological studies, the patriarchs are dated earlier than ever before. In spite of this, there has been little research conducted on the relationship between Abraham and Mesopotamia in this new chronological revolution. This article will look at the current trends in chronological studies and how they relate to the life of Abraham.

It will come to the conclusion that Abraham lived much earlier in Mesopotamian history than what most have realized. Mesopotamia was one of the earliest regions to be inhabited after the great Flood, and it was here that Abraham lived his early life. Although not nearly as popular in the account of the patriarchs as Egypt, Mesopotamia is an important topic for any who undertake research into the historical background of the book of Genesis.

This paper will examine the chronological data known from early Mesopotamia and will attempt to find the historical background of Abraham and the events during his life. This current study will not look at the pre-Abrahamic period as this would go beyond the scope of this article. Instead, by placing Abraham into Mesopotamian history it will allow creationists to have an anchor point to study the rich pre-Abrahamic period and have a better understanding of the development of civilization after the Tower of Babel.

Placing Abraham into the Mesopotamian account has had an interesting history. Before this topic is examined let us briefly look at the chronological history of Mesopotamia as it is understood today by scholars. Table 1 presents the traditional chronology of early Mesopotamia from the Hassunah period to the end of the First Dynasty of Babylon when Hammurabi lived. One should notice that some of these dynasties overlap considerably.

A Bible-believing Christian will, of course, reject the dating of the oldest periods but, as mentioned in the introduction, this paper will not discuss these older periods as it will be shown below that they will have no effect on how we date Abraham. Our focus as it will be understood shortly will be on the Early Dynastic Period and afterwards.

During the 19th and early 20th centuries Abraham was considered to be a contemporary or near-contemporary of Hammurabi, the great king of the First Dynasty of Babylon. William Petrie, in his book Egypt and Israel Petrie , p. Henry Sayce, around the turn of the century, was dating Hammurabi to — Sayce , p. In fact, dating Hammurabi in the range of c. Halley, in his popular Bible handbook, and H. Leupold, in his popular commentary on Genesis, were dating Abraham and Hammurabi to the same period Halley , p.

Today the usual dating of Abraham in Mesopotamia is in either the Ur III or Isin-Larsa periods see table 1. This depends upon the different interpretations concerning biblical chronology. This gives a date for the period between Abraham and Joseph from around — Kitchen , pp. There are other ways of dating Abraham including the use of the popular date of for the Exodus and years between Abraham and the Exodus. It is during this period that Gleason Archer has placed Abraham Archer , p.

Alfred Hoerth, in his Archaeology and the Old Testament , uses this method to date Abraham to this period Hoerth , pp. Using years would place the same event in during the Isin-Larsa period. To make things even more complicated many scholars seem to date Abraham and the other patriarchs to the Middle Bronze Age without being specific on whether Abraham lived during Ur III or Isin-Larsa Albright , pp.

One of the biggest pieces of evidence used for dating Abraham to the Isin-Larsa period is the fact that Abraham fought a coalition of four kings from the East during a period when each city-state had its own ruling dynasty of kings see Genesis This event had to have been at a time in Mesopotamian history when no individual dynasty had complete control over the region.

Kenneth Kitchen explains it well:. Kitchen explains it well why so many modern scholars date Abraham to the Isin-Larsa period. However, the search for the Mesopotamian background for Abraham does not stop there.

In , the archaeological world was rocked with the discovery of the archives of the ancient city of Ebla in Syria. The archives of the city dated back to before the days of the Akkadian Empire see table 1. These texts reveal that Ebla was a thriving commercial city with contacts stretching in all directions for hundreds of miles.

The discovery affected not only Near Eastern studies but also biblical studies. Shortly after this discovery David Noel Freedman argued that the discovery of the archives gave evidence for placing the patriarchs into the period of Mesopotamian history before Sargon, the founder of the Akkadian Empire.

This would have been the period which Kitchen said was too early for the patriarchs. Freedman noted:. Freedman stated that one of the tablets listed the five Cities of the Plain in the same order in which they were listed in Genesis.

It even named one of the five kings in almost the same form as Genesis Birsha. This allowed Freedman to say that the patriarchs lived in the Early Bronze Age EBA which is traditionally dated to the third millennium BC Freedman , pp.

Freedman went on to argue that the Early Bronze Age remains just east of the Dead Sea were where the five cities were located. It was believed that Bab edh-Dhra and four other sites nearby were the Cities of the Plain. This was backed up by the fact that there were no Middle Bronze Age sites in the area but only Early Bronze Age sites. Interestingly the Early Bronze Age was the same period as the Ebla archive Freedman , p. The tablet does not list all five of the cities and concerning the name of Birsha, John Bimson notes that there are several examples of kings with the same name ruling centuries apart.

So just because the name sounds like that of the king mentioned in Genesis 14 does not mean that it was him Bimson , pp. Freedman himself even noted that the king named Birsha ruled not in Gomorrah but in Admah, contrary to what Genesis says Freedman , p. Bimson says:. Lastly, biblical chronology cannot be stretched back that far into the third millennium BC.

Dating Abraham back before BC is simply too much of a strain on biblical chronology according to both Bimson , p. In summary, most scholars date Abraham to the Middle Bronze Age in which is the period of either Ur III or the Isin-Larsa period. It is clear that one piece of evidence as to why Abraham is dated to these periods is the nature of the Genesis 14 coalition of kings.

However, it must be noted that the number one reason for this dating is the acceptance of the standard chronology of the Ancient Near East. Abraham is dated anywhere between c. However, there have been a number of scholars who have come out against the standard chronology in the recent past. Two separate studies have dated Abraham to sometime during the Early Dynastic or the Old Kingdom periods in Egypt. John Ashton and David Down have dated him to the Fourth Dynasty while this author McClellan , p.

If Abraham is to be dated earlier in Mesopotamian history then in what period did Abraham live in Mesopotamia? What is interesting about the quote by Kitchen above is that he notes that there was another period in Mesopotamian history in which a coalition of kings could have existed; that is, the period before the Akkadian Empire.

What is more interesting is that this is the time period that Freedman dated Abraham. Noted above were two important pieces of information that are vital for this study.

First, the fact that both this author and Ashton and Down have dated Abraham to the Early Dynastic or Old Kingdom periods of Egypt; and second, the discovery of the city of Ebla in Syria. What is significant about both of these facts is that they can be used to show in what period in Mesopotamian history Abraham lived.

The city of Ebla is located in present-day Syria. The city was discovered in the remains of Tell Mardikh. Archaeologists have designated this palace as palace G. Interestingly palace G is dated to the Early Bronze Age. The archive includes more than 17, complete and fragmentary documents.

The Ebla archives allow us to connect Mesopotamian chronology with Egyptian chronology during this early period at one very specific point: the name of Pepi I of the Sixth Dynasty was found among the ruins of palace G Archi , p. The name of Pepi I along with another Egyptian king—Khufu, the builder of the Great Pyramid during the Fourth Dynasty was found in undisturbed layers of the debris of palace G which shows us that it was not placed there after the destruction of the palace archive Astour , p.

The Sixth Dynasty is the latest that Abraham could have been in Egypt McClellan Since Pepi I was a king during this dynasty and is dated to the period before the destruction of palace G, we can use the palace archives to date Abraham within Mesopotamia history.

The question is to which period in Mesopotamian history does palace G correlate? There are different opinions, but Ebla is dated using thousands of texts discovered there to show that the palace was destroyed before or sometime during the Akkadian Empire. Sargon and his grandson, Naram-Sin, the first and fourth kings of Akkad, have been the two most cited kings who could have destroyed palace G. Both kings boast that they conquered Ebla Bermant and Weitzman , p.

Paolo Matthiae is one scholar who believes that palace G was destroyed by Naram-Sin. He notes that the name Shariginu in a text found at Ebla may be Sargon and that Akkad is mentioned as A-ga-du ki EN Matthiae , pp. These two names would mean that Sargon reigned during part of the Ebla dynasty before the destruction of palace G Matthiae , pp. To support the theory of Naram-Sin as the conqueror, the pottery found at Ebla seemed to correspond to the period of Naram-Sin, suggesting that he was, in fact, the conqueror of Ebla and destroyer of palace G Bermant and Weitzman , p.

However, there are problems with this thesis. Bermant and Weitzman , p. Names originally translated as Sargon and Akkad were shown to be a nonentity called Shariginu and an unimportant town named Arugadu Bermant and Weitzman , p.

If Habermehl is correct and we place Shinar in northern Mesopotamia, would this help us in correctly identifying Amraphel? However, there are problems with this thesis. The question is to which period in Mesopotamian history does palace G correlate? It was noted that he is usually dated to the Middle Bronze Age which was the Mesopotamian equivalent to the Ur III and Isin-Larsa periods. A survey of Old Testament introduction , revised and expanded.

Categories:

• Best dating
• Dating website
• Free apps
• Dating apps
• Dating sites