Talk:Chaldea

I removed this, which was in quotes, because it doesn't explain who is being quoted (presumably something Biblical).

In former days the vast plains of Babylon were nourished by a complicated system of canals and water-courses, which spread over the surface of the country like a network. The wants of a teeming population were supplied by a rich soil, not less bountiful than that on the banks of the Egyptian Nile. Like islands rising from a golden sea of waving grain stood frequent groves of palm-trees and pleasant gardens, affording to the idler or traveller their grateful and highly-valued shade. Crowds of passengers hurried along the dusty roads to and from the busy city. The land was rich in grain and wine.

Tuf-Kat

Tuf-Kat's hunch was close. The quote is from Easton's Bible Dictionary 1897. It is quoted at various Christian bible webpages, such as this one. It's not needed in the Wikipedia article. --Wetman 09:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ur and Urartu confused

Wait a minute http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/msr/Ethno/gendate3.html stated without a doubt that the Chaldeans were Urartians. Also Urfa is identified as Ur of the Khaldees (aka Urfakasid whence derives the enonymous patriach Arphaksad). Were there two chaldee populations?

No. The site of Ur is well and securely identified by archaeologists. The Qu'ran does place Ur, as "Urfa", somewhere in the north of Mesopotamia, not at issue here, and well discussed at Şanlıurfa, its modern designation. The imagined connection between Ur and Urartu must have been based on an unlettered hunch, based on apparent similarities of sounds. It does not need to be addressed, does it? --Wetman 09:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguous English

Since the discovery of Ur, very few scholars would argue that Abraham (if he existed at all) was from Ur, and therefore probably a Sumerian.

The English phrase "very few... would argue" is ambiguous. It could mean "very few would attempt to make the argument" or "very few would argue against", which are exactly opposite connotations. Could someone revise this? I would do it myself, but I don't know which is the correct meaning here. -- Jeff Q 19:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What is not in doubt is that the narrative concerning Abraham places him at Ur, explained for a 7th-6th century audience as "of the Chaldeans". --Wetman 09:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

""Chaldean" astrologers and mathematicians Roman and later authors used the name Chaldeans in particular for astrologers and mathematicians from Babylonia." I'm not sure what is meant by "mathematicians Roman and later authors". -- Elise van Looij

About Kardu...

Chalde,Chaldea are synonyms of Chardu,Kardu -the first name of the people(ethnicity) and the kingdom known in the world,mentioned by kings of that country millenia ago,the corresponding gushum(cuneiform)texts with the transliterated samples being now on-line at Oxford,Pennsylvanya,California,mirrored at Berlin and elsewhere.Modern family names of the Kardu nation:Kardueli,Kartuelishvili,Qaldani,the regional name of the Republic of Kardu(Sa-Kardu-elo)called 'Qalde' have preserved both forms, so both are correct.These are the first population of the area one(from the Atlantic ocean at the Cordoba/Iberian peninsula to the Dniepr,the Don,the Volga in the north,to the Zagros or better,Zagr(means the mountain range in the Kardu language) in the East,to the Gulf in the south.Modern Kardu language has retained many features and the basic ancient vocabulary attested by ancient inscriptions.King David son of Giorgi XIII of Kardu ,his brother Tsarevitch Teimouraz of Kardu(member of the three academies in Paris,Petersburgh,Copenhagen),Ilia Chavchavadze(Snt.Ilia of Kardu),Micheil Tsereteli(in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,several numbers in 1913),N.Marr,Ivane Javakhishvili,Simon Janashia,Nico Berdzenishvili,Aleksandre Kiknade,Zurab Qapianidze,Natela Popkhadze,Teimuraz Mibchuani,Akaki Gasviani,Nico Jomidava have published ample material on the subject.The Kardu(Kardueli)ethnicity is the modern representative of the ancient Chaldean/Kardu nation. samqharo@posta.ge 15Aug.2005

Is There A Difference?

I quote the following from the wikipedia entry on Chaldean

"Chaldean is the name given to the ancient language Urartian also known as Vannic. It was the official language of Urartu spoken in northeastern Anatolia in the 9th–6th centuries BCE. It along with Hurrian are thought to be descended from the same language. Surviving Chaldean texts are written in Neo-Assyrian script. According to Josephus, Chaldeans were known in Hebrew as "Kasidim" meaning "sorcerers"."

Is there a difference between this and the Chaldeans? who migrated from the Arabian peninsula and were centered in lower mesopotamia?

omerlivesOmerlives 07:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wrong connotation

Consider this quote,

The Biblical ancestor of the Hebrew people, Abraham, was born at "Ur of the Chaldees," since the Chaldean people (Chaldees) ruled Babylonia during the Babylonian captivity, when many minimalist scholars believe the Hebrews wrote the Torah. Nevertheless, in the Hebrew text, the word translated Chaldees is rendered Kasidim, which could also legitimiately refer to the Kassites, who did inhabit Ur during time period which the Exodus is written to have occurred.

The wording of this needs to be revised, I'm sure the writer meant well, but if read literally this means "Abraham was born at Ur of the Chaldees because the Torah was written during the Babylonian captivity, as is believed by many minimalist scholars"

I can't think of how to correct this with minimal adjustment but I'll just throw this out there. Neil Haskins 20:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing is awful - it's clearly a Biblical inerrantist forcing his interpretation on us. Yuck. john k 7 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)

I've inserted in the article the following more nuanced and logical version:

"The Book of Genesis narrative of Abraham places him at Ur, which was at a later time the country of the kasidim— the "Chaldeans", or just possibly the "Kassites". The toponymy is that of the Neo-Babylonian period of the Torah editors, not that of the supposed time of the original patriarch of the Hebrew people himself." --Wetman 09:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Chaldeans are NOT of Arabic origin!

I cannot understand what idiot thinks that Chaldeans are of arabian origin! I myself am a Chaldean, who has studied the history of my race and the Vatican's Historic Knowledge of the Chaldean Race and Chaldea! All Chaldeans know that they are of ancient Sumerian, Akkadian, and Aramaean Blood! Abraham came from Ur of Sumer and Settled in Canaan/Palestine. The Descendents of his son Issac are the Hebrew Race and the decendents of Ishmael are the Arab race. This occured after both Aramaic and Sumerian races had existed for thousands of years! (Anonymous A)

I never said Chaldeans are of Arab origin. I said they migrated from the "Arabian" Peninsula. None that Arabian is in parenthasis. That's the origination of all semites. (Anonymous B)

Kasdim

That means Chaldeans in Hebrew not Chaldea. I removed the reference and moved it to the Chaldeans page. (anonymous)

Since "Chaldees" as in "Ur of the Chaldees" is merely the King James Version translation of kasdim, that is to say of "Chaldeans", withdrawing such a very relevant reference here appears obtuse at best. --Wetman 09:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Modern Chaldeans

The fact that there is a substantial group of people, mostly in Iraq and mostly members of the Chaldean Catholic Church, who call themselves Chaldean should be mentioned in this article. However, the article should simply point one towards more information about them. It should neither proclaim them as proud descendants of ancient Chaldea, nor belittle their existence. --Gareth Hughes 13:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

references

Is Chaldea related to the Saldea of Robert Jordan's Wheel of time series??

Institute representative 02:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)