An expanding research programme / First edition
Who gets to tell
the story of our past?
Begin with the Torah. Follow the sources. Trace how an account becomes an authority.
The larger question
Accounts of Israel’s past have histories of their own. What gave them their evidential force—and what gave them the power to define what a serious person may believe?
This inquiry begins within Torah and traditional Judaism. It follows competing accounts through texts, interpreters, discoveries, institutions and public reception. An argument’s merits and the history of its influence both deserve sustained attention.
Abraham is the first journey. His story opens several connected questions: what the Jewish sources preserve, where Ur Kasdim was understood to be, what archaeology can establish, and how judgments about the patriarchs change as they travel.
The standpoint & the method ↗Begin reading
One inquiry. Several depths.Abraham before the modern debate
What do the sources actually say about birth, home, departure and resistance?
From Ur Kasdim to “country of the Chaldeans”
The Hebrew and Greek, competing explanations, and the words of Philo and Josephus.
Reading Bochart
Two original pages, a selected Latin passage, and the structure of his northern argument.
Standpoint, power & evidence
Why this matters, what we mean by genealogy, and how a claim earns its place on the page.
Four threads to keep in view
The journey ahead.
Open a stage to see its branchesThis is a map of questions and present research, not a chain of proven influence. The traditional Jewish lane continues through every period.
01The foundational textsBegin with the Jewish sources
First dossier open
Begin with the Jewish sources
First dossier openTanakh, early rabbinic testimony, and later commentators. Ask separately about birthplace, household, departure, rescue and the challenge to idolatry.
Alongside the rabbinic lane: Jubilees, Philo and Josephus. Date each surviving witness and investigate its transmission.
Read this stage ↗02Ancient translation & receptionFollow the words as they travel
Source study open
Follow the words as they travel
Source study openUr Kasdim becomes “country of the Chaldeans” in Greek Genesis. Compare the Hebrew and Greek, then ask how Philo and Josephus formulate their accounts.
A translation, a regional description and a named city carry different information. Similar wording is a lead for investigation; dependence needs evidence.
Read this stage ↗03Early modern inquiry · 1646 onwardRead the geographers at their desks
Bochart notebook open
Read the geographers at their desks
Bochart notebook openBochart joins Babel, ancestral language and classical geography. The original pages let us see his argument before judging later accounts of it.
Parallel authorship lane: Spinoza, Richard Simon and Astruc. Later geographical reception: Bryant and Bush. These are source leads, not a demonstrated succession.
Read this stage ↗04The nineteenth centuryDecipherment, excavation, reconstruction
Sources to acquire
Decipherment, excavation, reconstruction
Sources to acquireRawlinson and Taylor in the geographical lane; Wellhausen and his predecessors and critics in the composition lane. Identify the exact publication, inscription and inferential step.
Saggs points to an 1850 Rawlinson intervention; Frolov discusses an 1862 argument. Reconcile the publications before calling either date a single decisive turn.
05Biblical archaeology · twentieth centuryWhen an excavated city becomes Abraham’s city
Selected reports checked
When an excavated city becomes Abraham’s city
Selected reports checkedRead Woolley’s own reports beside expedition organization, permits, funding and public presentation. Separate identifying ancient Ur from connecting it to Abraham.
Penn Museum’s retrospective accounts explain the “AH” house designation and the joint expedition. Such accounts document presentation; they do not establish Abraham’s residence or explain a field’s agreement.
06Reconstruction under debateTest what the parallels can bear
Bibliographic trail assembled
Test what the parallels can bear
Bibliographic trail assembledGordon and Saggs on Ura; Thompson and Van Seters on patriarchal reconstruction; later disputes involving Davies and other interlocutors. Read claims and the strongest responses in matched pairs.
A challenge to one historical reconstruction does not prove another. Davies’s 2010 account is a participant’s framing, not an independent survey of disciplinary agreement.
07The account a reader receivesTrace the final change in confidence
Reception sample to build
Trace the final change in confidence
Reception sample to buildFollow a particular argument into a textbook, museum label, map or video. Preserve dates, citations and the precise words that reach each audience.
Rendsburg (2019) and Frolov (2024) disagree about Urfa. That documents disagreement. It does not measure present consensus or show how often popular accounts erase qualifications.
Every argument has
a source trail.
Inspect the checked passages, editions and translations; see which books are still leads and which questions remain open.
Open the source index ↗