ovde - vera znanje mir

have preceded Hammurabi. Other misreadings of the Chedorlaomer Text [citation needed] were pointed
out, causing them to be associated with entirely different personages known from archaeology. It
seemed that the theory of Schrader, Pinches and Scheil had fallen utterly apart.
Mainstream scholarship in the course of the 20th century has given up attempts to identify
Abraham and his contemporaries in Genesis with historical figures. [18] While it is widely admitted
that there is no archaeological evidence to prove the existence of Abraham, apparent parallels to
Genesis in the archaeological record assure that speculations on the patriarch's historicity and on
the period that would best fit the account in Genesis remain alive in religious circles. "The Herald
of Christ's Kingdom" in Abraham - Father of the Faithful (2001) implies a historical Abraham by
stating "At one time it was popular to connect Amraphel, king of Shinar, with Hammurabi, king of
Babylon, but now it is generally conceded that Hammurabi was much later than Abraham."
A traditional chronology can be constructed from the MT as follows: If Solomon's temple was
begun when most scholars put it, ca. 960-970 BC, using e.g. 966, we get 1446 for the Exodus (I
Ki. 6:1). There were 400 years reportedly spent in Egypt (Ex. 12:40), and then we only need add
years from Jacob's going into Egypt to Abraham. So, we can add that Jacob was supposedly 130
when he came to Egypt (Gen. 47:9), Isaac was 60 years old when he had Jacob (Gen. 25:26) and
Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born, and we get 1446 + 400 + 130 + 60 + 100 = 2136 BC for
Abram's birth.
A considerable variety of scriptural chronologies is possible. For example, unlike most modern
translations, according to all the oldest Bible versions not dependent on the mediaeval rabbis -- the
Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls -- the 430 years of the sojourn is
the period "in Canaan and Egypt" (probable text of Exodus 12: 42), thus reckoning from the time
of Abraham. Cf Paul's belief in Gal 3:17. Therefore the figure is more than two hundred years less
(1446 + 430 = 1876 BC).
Thus, if one adheres to an Early Exodus theory, then Abram is usually synchronized with Sargon
I, or sometimes other figures in the Sumerian Empire. If one favors a Late Exodus theory, and then
Abraham's life could overlap that of Hammurabi's empire.
Gen. 10:10 has it that Babel was the beginning of Nimrod's empire. Before the location of
Sargon's capital city, Agade, was identified, it was sometimes supposed that Nimrod was Sargon I,
and that Agade was Babel. But even so, there are reasons to prefer the equation of Hammurabi
with Amraphel. The Nimrod of Gen. ch. 10 precedes the Amraphel of ch. 14, and Nimrod's
kingdom began with "Babylon, Erech, Akkad, and Calneh, in Shinar" (Gen. 10:10). Mentions of
Nimrod both precede and follow those of Abram. Furthermore, Nimrod is associated with the
Tower of Babel, not the Tower of Agade, in the Bible.
Rabbinic materials are full of an accounts of Abram being thrown into the furnace used for making
bricks for the Tower of Babel by Nimrod, but Abram was miraculously unharmed, while the
furnace spread to the rest of the city, causing the "Fire of the Chasdim". [citation needed] The conclusion
then, based on these assertions, would be that Nimrod and Abram were more or less
contemporaries. But only during the time of Hammurabi did Babylon become the beginning of an
Empire in its own right.
If one insists that Gen. Ch. 14 reads as a testament of historical authenticity, then the Old
Babylonian Empire, like Nimrod's, extended into the Trans-Jordan, but only during the reign of
Hammurabi's son; whereas the Sumerian Empire by contrast did not. The city of Babel was not
only the beginning of the Old Babylonian Empire, it was its capitol. After the end of the Old
Babylonian Empire with the defeat of Hammurabi's son by the Elamites, there was not another
empire ruled from the city of Babel until the Neo-Babylonian Empire, which was much too late to
be synchronized with Abraham.
There are no archaeological correlates for the life of Abram, whereas the Exodus can be correlated
with traces of a Semitic presence in Egypt, as per Bietak, as well as numerous transitions in Israel