5. It may be added that Tuch regards Ur as a Median town called Oiipa by Strabo (xi, 523), a view followed to some extent by Evvald, Lengerke, Kitter, and Knobel.
III. Probable Identification. — It will be seen that of the four or five localities thought to have a claim to be regarded as Abraham's city, two (or three) are situated in Upper JNIesopotamia, between the Mons Masius and the Sinjar range, while the other two are in the alluvial tract near the sea, at least four hundred miles farther south. Let us endeavor first to decide in which of these two regions Ur is more probably to be souglit.
That Chaldfca was, projierly speaking, the southern part of Babylonia, the region bordering upon the Gulf, will be admitted by all. Those who maintain the north- ern emplacement of Ur argue that, with the extension of Chaldaean power, the name travelled northward, and became coextensive with Mesopotamia; but, in the first place, there is no proof that the name Clialdiea was ever extended to the region above the Sinjar; and, secondly, if it was, the Jews at any rate mean by Clialdwa exclu- sively the lower country, and call the upper Mesopotamia, or Padan-Arara (see Job i, 17; Isa. xiii, 19; xliii, 14, etc.). Again, there is no reason to believe that Babylonian power was established beyond the Sinjar in tliese early times. On the contrary, it seems to have been confined to Babylonia Proper, or the alluvial tract below Hit and Tekrit, until the expedition of Chedorlaomer, which was later than the migration of Abraliam. The conjectures of Ephraem Syrus and Jerome, Avho identify the cities of Nimrod with places in the upper Mesopotamian coun- trj-, deserve no credit. The names all really belong to Chaldoea Proper. Moreover, the best and earliest Jew- ish authorities place Ur in tlie low region. Eupolemus has been already ipioted to this eifect. Josephus, though less distinct upon the point, seems to have iield the same view {Ant. i, G). The Talmudists also are on this side of the question ; and local traditions, whicii may be traced back nearly to the Hegira, make the lower coun- try the place of Abraham's l)irth and early life. If Orfah has a ]Mosqne and a Lake of Abraham, Cutha, near Baby- lon, goes by Abraham's name, as the traditional scene of all ids legendary miracles.
Again, it is really in tlie lower country only that a name closely corresponding to the Hebrew "^IX is found. The cuneiform l/ur rejiresents ")^X letter for letter, and only differs from it in the greater strength of the aspi- rate. Isidore's Orrha {"Opiya) differs from Ur cousid-
UR
670
UR
erably. and the supposed Ur of Ammianus is probably uttt Ur, but Adur. The Orchoe (\'>PX(>>l) of Southern Mesopotamia (I'tolemy, Geoip: v. '2(1; ooinp. Strabo, xvi, 1, 6), noted by later writers (Cellarius, Ccd'ir. ii, 700; lionomi, Ximrcli. p. 41, S'.HM. is probably different from the Ovpij ofJosepbus and the O/'p") "t Kupdlemus.
The ariCLiment that Ur should be sougtit in the neigh- borhood of Arrapaehitis and Seruj, because the names Arphaxad and Serug oeeur in the genealogy of Abra- ham (Hunsen, Em/pCs Place, iii, 3Gt), 3157), has no weight lill it is shown that the human names in question are really connected with the places, which is at present assumed somewhat boldly. Arrapaehitis comes proba- bly from Anipkhd, an old Assyrian town of no great consequence on the left bank of the Tigris, above Nine- veh, wiiich has only three letters in common with Ar- phaxad (^Tw^23"lX); and Seruj is a name which does not appear in Mesopotamia till long after the Christian aera. It is rarely, if ever, that we can extract geograph- ical information from the names in a historical gene- alogy; and certainly in the present case nothing seems to have been gained by the attempt to do so.
On the whole, therefore, we may regard it as tolerabh' certain that " Ur of the Chaldees" was a place situated
<?/.
~^r^V:-c^-^
' If / / 'y 'M .
^f « veS"^^^
0
Plan of Mngheir Ruins.
in the real Chaldtea — the low country near the Persian Ciulf. The oidy (picstion that remains in any degree doubtful is whether WarUa or Mugheir is the true local- ity. These places are not far apart, an<l either of them is sufficiently suitable. Both are ancient cities, proba- blv long anterior to Abraham. Traditions attach to both, but periiaps more distinctly to Warka. On the other hand, it seems certain that Warka, the native name of which was Iluruk, represents the Erech of (ien- esis, which cannot possibly be the Ur of the same book. See Eiiiicu. Mugheir, therefore, which bore the exact name oWr or Hur, remains with the best claitn, and is entitled to be (at least provisionall}') regarded as the city of Abraham.
If it be objected to this theor\' that Abraham, having to go from Mugheir to Palestine, would not be likely to take Haran {llarraii) on his way, more particularly as he must then have crossed the Euphrates twice, the answer would seem to be that the movement was not that of an individual, but of a trilie travelling with large flocks and herds, whose line of migration would have to be determined by necessities of pasturage, and by the friendly or hostile disposition, the weakness or strength, of the tribes already in possession of the re- gions which had to be traversed. Fear of Arab plun- derers (.Job i. l.T) may very probably have caused the emigrants to cross the Eu|dirates before quitting Baby- lonia, and having done so, they miglit naturally follow the left bank of the stream to the Belik, up which they might then proceed, attracted by its excellent pastures, till they reached Harran. As a pastoral tribe proceed- ing from Lower Babylonia to Palestine viust ascend the Euphrates as high as the latitude of Aleppo, and per- haps would liiid it best to ascend nearly to Bir, Harran was but a little out of the projier mute. Besides, the whole tribe wliich accompanied Abra- ^"^x^ ham was not going