Having laid this background, our journey starts with the Italian Archaeological Mission, led by Paolo Matthiae, who began a dig in 1964 at Tel Mardikh in Syria. Later in 1968, a statue of Ibbit-Lim, King of Ebla, was discovered there. This also revealed that the goddess Ishtar was the object of worship and for some time there was a hope of discovering the city of Ebla which had been referenced in ancient Near Eastern texts, but its location was unknown. However, the discovery of the statue gave a strong indication that the site of Ebla may be close. In 1974 until 1976, further work revealed the Royal Library and at last the city of Ebla had been found. The library, which dated to about 2500 BCE, included about 2,000 complete tablets from one inch to over a foot long, 4,000 fragments and over 10,000 chips and small fragments, making this the largest library ever discovered from the third millennium BCE. What was interesting about this discovery was the language on the tablets. It was a Semitic tongue that had echoes in Hebrew script. Whilst there was sharp debate about this significant find, Giovanni Pettinato commented:
‘Since the discoveries at Ras Shamra beginning in 1929, many biblical scholars have shown a certain reluctance to exploit this new textual material because they felt that it was too early (circa 1375-1190) and too far away to be relevant for solving problems in texts composed in Hebrew and in Palestine in the first millennium B.C. In his review of L. Sabottka, Zephaniah, a work which attempts to apply Ugaritic data to the text of the prophet which bristles with difficulties, F. C. Fensham writes, ‘One must, however, be very cautious in comparing Ugaritic material from the fourteenth to twelfth centuries BC with the Hebrew of Zephaniah (ca. 612 B.C.), with the interval of about six hundred years in which the meaning of a word or a literary device could have changed enormously. In cases where one has no choice but to compare Ugaritic and Hebrew so far apart, it would be wise to put a question mark after one’s solution.’ But Ugaritic and Hebrew no longer seem to be so far apart, thanks to the Ebla Tablets of 2500 B.C. which illumine the Hebrew text on point after point and which in turn are elucidated by the biblical record. Scholars are, in fact, beginning to remark facetiously that the Ugaritic texts may be much too recent to be relevant for biblical research! Not the least of Ebla’s contributions will be the gradual demolition of the psychological wall that has kept the Ras Shamra discoveries out of biblical discussions in some centers of study and from committees convened to translate the Hebrew Bible into modern tongues.’1
It is only right to point out that Pettinato and his conclusions are a matter of debate and there is disagreement on his conclusions. The weight to put on the findings does depend on the particular views of the interpreter. Whilst the many now dismiss Pettinato’s conclusion, there are a substantial number who believe the jury is still out.
One particular name was found on the tablets; Ebrium. This is the name Eber in Hebrew, the language of the Jews. James Watson wrote:
‘One of the most striking correspondences is between the name of the great king of Ebla, Ebrium, which is semantically and linguistically equivalent to the name Eber in Genesis 10:26 (and other places), who is one of the ancestors of Abram (= Abraham), the name Eber gives rise to the Gentilic form Ibri (= Hebrew, the general term for Abraham and his descendants) The correlation is intriguing although there is no evidence from the tablets linking the two persons or, to be sure, from the Bible.’2
On its own, the name would not carry a great weight but over the various tablets there are references to other Biblical names and places. Robert Althann rightly concludes:
‘J.L. Ska cautions that only long and patient work will allow us to determine the links which existed between Ebla and the biblical world. Similarity does not automatically imply dependence, and a culture can borrow certain elements from another and profoundly transform them. Ebla cannot be expected to provide “proofs” of the existence of biblical persons or of the historicity of certain facts narrated in Scripture. But Ebla does allow us to see increasingly clearly the roots of the Bible in the history of the ancient near east. The material from Tell Mardikh premises to be of the greatest value for illuminating points that are still obscure in the history and language of the Bible. On the linguistic side, we can expect a considerable reduction in the number of texts whose translation remains uncertain. On the other hand, we can hope to be able to measure more precisely the degree of historicity to lie accorded the patriarchal traditions and therefore to appreciate better the narratives of Israel’s origins. Thus we may expect our knowledge of the Bible to be deepened and enriched.’3
Indeed, Israel Finkelstein said in a documentary, ‘Abraham is beyond recovery’. However, the fact of his existence should not be dismissed. If we hold that a tribal people have a spoken tradition that is passed from generation to generation, it is no great stretch to see that the Genesis account, when written down, may indeed have the traditional history of a man called Eber noted in the tablet. Indeed, Titus Flavius Josephus, born Joseph ben Matityahu, was a first-century Romano-Jewish scholar historian. He is a reliable source for many aspects of the Hebraic history. He also records Eber as part of the oral tradition. What is important for us is that as far as the self-understanding of the Jewish people is concerned, Eber is a figure in the genealogy of their existence. From him comes the lineage that leads to Terah. This name appears in cuneiform tablets that have been found but as is very usual with such finds the significance is debated. Tad Szulc comments:
‘If archaeology denies us any direct evidence of Abraham, Terah’s name appears tantalizingly in cuneiform tablets. Ömer Faruk Harman of Marmara University in Istanbul cautions that “Terah” almost certainly is not a personal name. It is probably a clan name or the name of a town in extreme northern Syria or, more likely, south-eastern Turkey, not far from Haran. Still, Abraham was a son of Terah, which may establish the connection between Abraham and Haran.’
Szulc quotes Rabbi Menahem Froman who said, ‘For me Abraham is philosophy, Abraham is culture. Abraham may or may not be historical. Abraham is a message of loving kindness. Abraham is an idea. Abraham is everything. I don’t need flesh and blood.’ Perhaps the wisdom of William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona is apposite:
‘The fact is that archaeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible. Archaeologists can often tell you what happened and when and where and how and even why. No archaeologists can tell anyone what it means, and most of us don’t try.’
As the debate continues, Abraham, the son of Terah, still remains the focal point for not only the Jewish people but for Christians and Moslems. Therefore, it is a matter of faith as to the existence of an actual man called Abraham. That does not remove the idea of the beginning of a people from the Ur region that has been a part of their tradition for millennia. It is no different from the oral traditions of many diverse people who trace their origins from the mist of the past. Aborigines, Native American Indians and even the origins of Britons/English rely on the hand down of myths and legend and genetic investigations are now the popular method to attempt to trace origins. What can be accepted is that the history and understanding of a particular period can support an oral tradition that certain activities took place. Traditional historical criticism is a methodology of Biblical criticism that was developed by Hermann Gunkel an Old Testament scholar who belonged to the History of Religions School at Göttingen and whilst the oral tradition may have exaggerations it contains elements that point to a real past. Often it is true that real history becomes legend and legend becomes myth and modern sceptical minds too often dismiss the myth without intelligent investigation into its origins. In the case of Ur, we do know that many nomads moved around that area, seeking out their own futures. It is not impossible that one man did in fact make such a journey and has been given that name, Abraham. He embarked on a journey which is the beginning of the journey of the Jewish people.
It has to be stressed that Abraham was not a ‘Jew’ at the start of his travels. He was referred to as a ‘Hebrew’. This is interesting as at Mari, one of the principal centres of Mesopotamia during the third and early second millennia BCE, archaeologists discovered tablets that had a reference to the ‘Habiru’. Abraham too originates in Mesopotamia, and belongs to a family who were polytheistic. It has to be said that the name ‘Habiru’ is a matter of debate as to its meaning, but it is generally accepted that they were Western Semites active in Mesopotamia. The Jewish Scriptures tell us in Genesis 11:31:
‘And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.’
In what is modern Iraq there stands, in a barren area, the remains of a ziggurat (a large structure that reached high towards the sky and had a temple built on its top) which is the site of Urim (Ur), an important Sumerian city in ancient Mesopotamia. It is located at the site of modern Tell el-Muqayyar in southern Iraq. The ziggurat was built around 2100 BCE by UrNammu. Originally a huge structure four times its current height, the Iraqi government restored the base that remains for tourists to see. The city was a centre of cultic worship and whilst many gods were honoured there, some centres were dedicated to a particular god. In Ur this was Nanna, who was intimately connected with the cattle herds that were the livelihood of the nomadic people in the marshes of the lower Euphrates River, where the cult developed. Piotr Michalowski, the George G. Cameron Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, an expert on the area, describes a thriving urban centre, with bustling, narrow streets full of shops, where craftsmen manufactured leather goods and precious ornaments. It was a major commercial centre, a place of bustling trade and it had links to what are now modern Iran, Turkey, and Afghanistan, Syria, Israel and Egypt. It was agriculturally abundant with irrigation canals from the Euphrates and the Tigris which then flowed closer to the city. It allowed many crops such as barley, lentils, onions, garlic. The husbandry of sheep and goats supplied ghee and wool. Michalowski, also editor of the Journal of Cuneiform Studies, describes the wealth of information available from the period that allows us this understanding of these conditions. Terah and his sons would have prospered in such a place and developed the great skills of business and leadership that Abraham would later display. Terah and his family would have been involved in this activity as well as the cultic activity and when they travelled to Haran, they would have come into contact with the god Sin, another form of Nanna. Mesopotamia, much like the Middle East today, was a place of regular armed conflict, with marauding bands that would threaten villages and trade caravans. Terah and his sons would develop their military skills and the ability to protect and defend their families and goods and it was at Haran the path of Terah and his son Abraham would divide and the Jewish journey start.