Talk:Chaldea

History

Esarhaddon - "He conquered Egypt, Nubia and Libya and entrenched his mastery over the Persians, Medes, Parthians, Scythians, Cimmerians, Arameans, Israelites, Phoenicians, Canaanites, Urartians, Pontic Greeks, Cilicians, Phrygians, Lydians, Manneans and Arabs." - over Pontic Greeks, Phrygians, Lydians - I do not believe that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.143.130.37 (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Mat Kadim?

Jewish Holy texts do not speak of a land known as "Mat" Kasdim... It is Ur Kasdim! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.57.44.107 (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Added

Chaldea was an ancient name for the marshy lands in the far south of Mesopotamia, at the head of the Persian Gulf – present day Iraq and Kuwait. Tribes of settlers who arrived in the region became known as the Chaldeans. Quite where they originally came from is a mystery

John Malam -(Historian, Author and Archaeologist) Mesopotamia and the Near East —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.99.78 (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You may want to consider this as a possible clue to their origin: Isaiah records, "Behold the land of the Chaldeans; this people was not, till the Assyrian founded it for them that dwell in the wilderness: they [the Assyrians] set up the towers thereof, they raised up the palaces thereof;" (Isaiah 23:13).

Perhaps the Assyrians were setting up these settlers from "the wilderness" as a vassal state.

- FreedomWorks! (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure about this (policy-wise) but I think the word "mystery" requires an explanation and a source (because it implies an anomaly), otherwise it should be replaced by the neutral term "unknown". AlexFekken (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody disagreed so I made the change. AlexFekken (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorcerers?

The claim that Chaldeans were somehow masters of sorcery and witchcraft is pretty ridiculous. This may be a historical confusion, but even so it seems to be more associated with the Medes (and one of the tribes: "magi"). This should be either verified or removed, but there is no reason to have a random statement sit there for so long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.186.65 (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It was just a Persian term for Babylonian Astrologers actually. It refers to a societal class among the Babylonians, and not the Chaldean race who had already been absorbed and disappeared as a people, most historians accept the word Chaldean to mean only that. But even that word had died out by about 300 BC, and the Greeks go back to calling them Babylonian Astrologers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed

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)

Sorry, Wetman, but that just isn't the case. The so-called "Ur" was in fact securely identified as being called in Cuneiform tablets, "Urim". The etymology of the name is shown on the Wikipedia article for Ur. The two names are etymologically and phonologically distinct. The imagined connection between Sumerian Urim and Ur Kasdim of Genesis is beginning to look increasing spurious.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2009 (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)

Wetman, you seem to be reiterating a shaky hypothesis put forward by so-called "Biblical critics", that fails even the litmus tests that they themselves created. First, as I mention below, this city was never called Ur by the Sumerians (Urim), by the Akkadians (Uri / Uriwa), and was mentioned in Greek texts as Urie. Unfortunately, the identification of this city as "Ur" has become sacroscanct in the scholarly world, and anyone who questions this identification is counted as a crackpot. Nevertheless, a number of Biblical scholars have pointed out the lack of etymological correlation between the Hebrew name Ur and the aformentioned names in cuneiform.

Second, the name of the city in Hebrew was UR KASDIM. The Cuneiform texts NEVER refer to Kasdim, but rather KALDU/KALDI. If indeed the Hebrew scribes had inserted the name during the period of Ezra and Nehemiah, when the Torah was canonized, they would have used the name Kaldi, and not Kasdi, to refer to each and every reference to the Chaldeans. The Torah does have small-scale anachronisms (after all, theoretically it was supposed to have been redacted by Moses), but nothing even close to the scale of anachronism between the time of Abraham and the entry of the Chaldeans into Babylonia. Also, at least one of the references to Ur Kasdim is referred to by the Biblical critical scholars themselves as being from the "J source", which predates the exilic era by several centuries. 'Kasdim' is not a name selected at random in Hebrew. It is the gentilic form of Kesed (see Gen. 22), who was an offspring of Abraham's brother Nahor, living in the vicinity of Haran in Aram Naharaim, i.e. Syro-Mesoptamia, not in Babylonia or Sumer (Biblical Shinar). When Abraham tells his servant in Genesis 24 to saddle up and "go to the land of my nativity" to get a wife of his son Isaac, he goes to the Haran region of Aram Naharaim, exactly the same place that he had been instructed by God to "get thee out of thy country, thy nativity, and thy father's house to a land that I will show thee." The Biblical account leaves little room for doubt that Abraham's patrimony lay among the semi-nomadic pastoralists of Upper Mesoptamia, and not among the big city dwellers in the ports and canals of Sumer.

• • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2008 (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 were NOT of Arabic origin!

Gen. 10:6-9 says Ham was the father of Cush ("Kush", "Chus"), who was the father of Nimrod. Verse 10-12 tells us that Nimrod built Babylon and Akkad ("Acchad"). The Chaldeans were a Hamitic people, not Semitic. This should be corrected immediately! Ur ("Ir") was a son of Nimrod. So Abraham sojourned around Cush lands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzlion (talk • contribs) 19:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

Youval> the chaldeans migrated from the arabia ?! Please, unless you can back up your statments - Shut the F**K Up!

and also, nowadays arabs are not even ishmalites; read this: http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Arabs.htm

What's this "race" stuff about? Is it about a cultural heritage, or about genetics? Regarding genetics, if say only the Norwegians (a popular example) survive some kind of global cataclysm, then at least 95% of the entire gene pole of all humans will still be retained, because humans, and a very few other species, intermix transversely much more effectively than species containing (imagine some extra emphatic here) true races, f.ex. zebra. Since the variation in one population is much greater than the mean difference between two populations, the term "race" is not applicable to humans, according to biology. Said: Rursus (☻) 19:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The modern Chaldean Catholics are in actuality Assyrians indigenous to Northern Mesopotamia. They were never referred to by themselves or their neighbours as Chaldeans before 1683 AD. They were originally members of the Assyrian Church of the East before splitting from it and entering communion with the Roman Catholic Church in 1553 AD. Rome significantly named this new church as The Church of Athura (Assyria) and Mosul, and only in 1683 AD was this changed to Chaldean Catholic Church. The Chaldean Catholics had always previously been referred to by themselves and others as Assyrians, Assouri, Ashuriyun, Syriac, Syrian, Athurai, Atorayeh or Nestorians before this.

The term is purely Denominational, and not ethnic, as the Patriarch Mar Raphael Bidawid himself points out. There are no accredited academic studies whatsoever, nor written historical records extant, which link the Assyrian converts to Catholicism with the ethnic Chaldeans. Conversely there ARE historical records and serious academic studies which points to them being Assyrians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Chaldeans probably actually migrated from The Levant into south eastern Babylonia some time between 940 BC and 840 BC. They were closely related to other Levantine semi-nomadic peoples like the Arameans and Suteans.

Chaldeans were Not native to Mesopotamia however, they were Immigrants and had Nothing to do with the history of Mesopotamia at all until around 780 BC. So, Chaldeans have Absolutely Nothing to do with Sumeria, Akkad, Assyria, or even Babylonia until the very last days of Babylon. Simply because they WERENT THERE for most of the history of Mesopotamia.

Also, the vast majority of historians, archaeologists and orientalist accept fully that the REAL Chaldeans were completely absorbed into the native population of southern Babylonia during the 6th century BC and DISAPPEARED as a race.

There is no Timeline of Continuity linking the Chaldeans of Southeast Babylonia in the 6th century BC to the founding of the Chaldean Catholic Church in the extreme north of the Assyrian homeland in the late 17th century AD. WHERE were these Chaldeans in the intervening 23 CENTURIES then? Why didnt the Achaemenids mention them as a race or keep a province called Chaldea? Or the Seleucid Empire? Parthian Empire? Roman Empire? Arsacid Empire?, Sassanid Empire? Byzantine Empire? Arab Islamic Empire?, Seljuk Empire? Mongol Empire? Nothing in the records of any of those empires, or in Mesopotamian writings themselves. We do see Assurayu, Assyria, Assyrian Athura, Assuristan, Ashuriyun, Syriac, Sureth, Assyria Provincia, Ator mentioned when talking about native north Mesopotamians throughout that whole period though...but no Chaldean??? There is a reason for that lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

sa puso at kaluluwa siguro nga nung unang panahon tayu ay nagmamahalan nah inulit lang ngayon!~

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)

I think not. They're mentioned in the article Chaldean. If one wish to jump to conclusions, the sentence '"Chaldee" is a term used by older grammarians for Biblical Aramaic.' followed by 'the Chaldean Catholic Church (since 1553)' in there, indicates that "Chaldean" in that context means "those who use Biblical Aramaic in their churches". That's my to-jumped conclusion, not usable as a citation per se, but maybe an indication on how much "Chaldean" have floated around to refer to anything coming from Mesopotamia. Said: Rursus (☻) 19:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The modern Chaldean Catholics are in actuality Assyrians indigenous to Northern Mesopotamia. They were never referred to by themselves or their neighbours as Chaldeans before 1683 AD. They were originally members of the Assyrian Church of the East before splitting from it and entering communion with the Roman Catholic Church in 1553 AD. Rome significantly named this new church as The Church of Athura (Assyria) and Mosul, and only in 1683 AD was this changed to Chaldean Catholic Church. The Chaldean Catholics had always previously been referred to by themselves and others as Assyrians, Assouri, Ashuriyun, Syriac, Syrian, Athurai, Atorayeh or Nestorians before this.

The term is purely Denominational, and not ethnic, as the Patriarch Mar Raphael Bidawid himself points out. There are no accredited academic studies whatsoever, nor written historical records extant, which link the Assyrian converts to Catholicism with the ethnic Chaldeans. Conversely there ARE historical records and serious academic studies which points to them being Assyrians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There is just NO EVIDENCE that speakers of Chaldean Neo-Aramaic are ethnic Chaldeans whatsoever. The term Chaldean is specifically a doctrinal term for a branch of the Catholic Church coined in the 1680's AD. The language originated in the far north of Iraq, among people who had always been called Assyrians and Syriacs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not true there is a lot of evidence that The people who speak Chaldean neo-aramaic are ethnically Chaldeans. You should consider not vandizing Chaldean pages. I speak Chaldean aramaic and I cannot even understand Assyrians when you speak your dialect of Aramaic. This page is about Chaldean neo-aramaic not assyrian neo-aramaic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.89.34 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Shall we look at some FACTS;

1] Both Chaldean Neo-Aramaic and Assyrian Neo-Aramaic are offshoots of Syriac. Syriac emerged in Assyria in the 5th century BC, as a local dialect within Assyria. They were actually dialects of the same language, but diversified further when varying Christian communities in Northern Mesopotamia became detatched geographically from one another. The terms SYRIA and SYRIAC in its original sense SPECIFICALLY meant ASSYRIAN. These facts are accepted by the overwhelming majority of mainstream academic opinion. The language was clearly not called Chaldiac for a very good reason.

2] Chaldean Neo-Aramaic is also spoken by members of the Assyrian Church of the East and Syriac Orthodox Church, so it is NOT specific to Chaldean Catholics at all, any more than Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is specific purely to members of the Assyrian Church of the East.NEITHER is indicative of a specific ethnicity, nor of a specific church.

3] Chaldean Neo-Aramaic did NOT originate in south eastern Iraq, where the Ancient Chaldeans lived between the 9th and 6th centuries BC

4] The region in which Syriac, and by definition the Neo-Aramaic Dialects originate WAS known as Assyria between the 22nd century BC and 7th century AD.

5] The people from that area WERE known as Assyrians throughout that period, as well as as East Syrians, Syriacs and Nestorians, but NEVER as Chaldeans. There is evidence for the useage of all those names in written record, but none for the useage of Chaldean.

6] The terms Assurayu, Assur, Ashur Assyrian, Athura, Assuristan, East Syrian, Syriac, Atorayeh, Ashuriyun, Assouri Athor, Ator etc HAVE been in CONTINUAL use when describing Northern Mesopotamia and its Semitic inhabitants from the 25th century BC onwards. However, the term Chaldean only came into being in 1683 AD, and only then as the name of a CATHOLIC CHURCH, a church that was founded in NORTHERN Mesopotamia (formerly Assyria), a church which had originally been a part of the Church of the East, which was founded in Assyria, and at the time of the founding of the Chaldean Catholic Church, ALL of its members still lived in what had been Assyria, and a church that when it was founded was originally called The Church of Athora and Mosul

7] The term Chaldean in the modern sense is purely a THEOLOGICAL, DENOMINATIONAL and RELIGIOUS term, it has NO ethnic meaning whatsoever, any more than the terms Mormon, Nestorian or Baptist do.

8] Genetic studies, as well as the opinions of RESPECTED historians, as well as geographical reality, show that the Neo-Aramaic people of Northern Iraq, Northwest Iran, Northeast Syria, and Southeast Turkey are the SAME PEOPLE. A people who have in an ethnic sense, always been called Assyrians, Syriacs or variants thereof.

9] There IS evidence supporting Assyrian continuity, there is NONE supporting Chaldean continuity, I wonder why?.

10] If Chaldean Catholics of Northern Mesopotamia are ETHNIC Chaldeans, WHY is there NO MENTION of the term Chaldean in reference to the Semitic Christians of NORTHERN MESOPOTAMIA during the Assyrian Empire, Neo-Babylonian Empire, Achaemenid Empire, Seleucid Empire, Parthian Empire, Roman Empire and Sassanid Empire???? Why did ALL of these empires call the land Assyria and its people Assyrians, or variants thereof? Why did the Arab Muslims call the people Ashuriyun, not Chaldeans? WHERE is there a mention (let alone a large number of written references) of them being called Chaldean BEFORE Rome founded the Chaldean Catholic Church in 1683 AD?

11] The Chaldean Catholic Church was founded in NORTHERN Mesopotamia, among Semitic Assyrians from NORTHERN Mesopotamia, who had all previously been members of The ASSYRIAN CHURCH/CHURCH OF THE EAST, people who had ALWAYS been called Assyrians, Syriacs etc.

12] In addition, that evidence of Assyrian continuity has been provided by a host of respected and published Historians, Orientalists, Assyriologists, Archaeologists, Geneticists, Ethnologists and Linguists (none of whom are Assyrians themselves). UNLESS proponents of a Chaldean ethnic identity can provide a sizeable body of EVIDENCE gleaned from RESPECTED ACADEMIC sources (NOT priests, religious or nationalist websites, blogs, false references or references that do not in fact support Wiki entries made), claims of a link between modern Chaldean Catholics of Northern Iraq and the long extinct Ancient Chaldeans of the far South Eastern Iraq should NOT be posted on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 10:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Chaldean is obviously just the name of a Church in Communion with Rome. There just isnt any connection at all to Chaldea and the Chaldeans of old. They lived in a different part of Mesopotamia, and most experts agree they just became absorbed into the population of southern Mesopotamia and disappeaed as a race. Theres no evidence from historians, written records or archaeological finds that show these Chaldeans survived as a separate race and somehow all moved to Assyria and settled there, maintaining a Chaldean identity!!!! You wont find any evidence for that in Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman or Arabic records, because it never happened. Where do priests and bishops of the old Church of The East write that they were Chaldeans before the Chaldean Catholic Church was founded? Why didnt the neighbors of those people, meaning the Arabs, Persians, Kurds, Turks, Armenians, Syriacs, Greeks and Georgians, call those people Chaldeans? Why did they all call them Assyrians or Syrians? Why did Syriac Christian writers and the Greeks argue during the Middle Ages about the meaning of Syrian Vs Assyrian Vs Aramean, but none of them include Chaldean in the debate. Why dont any mainstream academics and historians argue the case that Chaldean Catholics are the descendants of the ancient Chaldeans, but do argue that they are the descendants of the Assyrians? Why was no one called a Chaldean before the forming of the Chaldean Catholic Church? Why was Chaldean Neo-Aramaic called Sureth or Syriac before the founding of the Chaldean Catholic Church? Why do Sureth and Syriac stem from the word Assyrian, and originate in Assyria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.29.101 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Its basically a load of nonsense to claim some kind of Chaldean ethnic and historic continuity. Every bit of evidence says these people are exactly the same people as those who are called Assyrians. There is nothing at all from any credible source that links Chaldean Catholics of modern northern Iraq to the Chaldean race of ancient southeast Iraq, no historical continuity in written records of any time, no ethnic or geographic link. Its nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

references

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

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

No. Said: Rursus (☻) 19:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

salamat sa lahat nang nakiki research mag visit kayu sa website na www.ok ka ka fairy ku .com

at makakakita ka nang masamang implunwensya

"Sumerian Ur" does not equal "Ur of the Chaldees"

First of all, there was no Sumerian city called "Ur". It was called by the Sumerians Urim, and by the Akkadians Uri/Uriwa. It was a British archeologist, Leonard Wooley, on behalf of the British museum, who excavated in southern Iraq in the '20s in the heyday of British Imperial control in the Middle East, who boldly announced that he had discovered "Ur of the Chaldees". Secondly, no archeological record in "Ur" refers to the city as having belonged to the Chaldeans or associated it with them. Thirdly, the town mentioned in Genesis was not called "Ur of the Chaldees" in Hebrew, but "Ur Kasdim". There were no Kasdim in Babylonia within 1000 years of the Genesis timeframe. Kasdim is the gentilic form of Kesed, who is named in Genesis together with Aram as offspring of Abraham's brother Nahor, living in the vicinity of Haran in the region of Aram Naharaim, i.e. Syro-Mesopotamia, which is in the opposite (northern) end of Mesopotamia from Sumer. The Chaldeans are never mentioned as a tribe or nation in the Pentateuch, but in the later books of the Bible, where they are referred to as a tribal grouping, Kasdim (Chaldeans) or Kasdi (Chaldean). Biblical Hebrew did not name a distinct country called 'Chaldea', but rather an area (Babylon) under Chaldean control which at some point had been conquered by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning is a little circular. The English designations 'Chaldee', 'Chaldea' come from the Greek, possibly via Persian, from the Akkadian Kaldu. The root כשדי, Kaśdi, is shared by Hebrew and Aramaic and is attested across a number of inscriptions as referring to Chaldea. It is generally thought that the name 'Keśed' is a back-formation to explain the origin of Kaśdim rather than the other way round. The origin and journey of Abraham, as portrayed in Genesis, can be rationalised in a number of ways. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

First,as I wrote above, this city was never called Ur. It was called by the Sumerians (Urim), by the Akkadians (Uri / Uriwa), and was mentioned in later Greek texts as Urie. Unfortunately, the identification of this city as "Ur" has become sacroscanct in the scholarly world, and anyone who questions this identification is counted as a crackpot. Nevertheless, a number of Biblical scholars have pointed out the lack of etymological correlation between the Hebrew name Ur and the aformentioned names in cuneiform.

Secondly, no archeological record in "Ur" refers to the city as having belonged to the Chaldeans or associated it with them. The Hebrew/Aramaic form 'Kasdim' as specifically referring to the Chaldean tribe is not found in the Pentateuch or in any writing prior to about the 8th century b.c., which is about the time that they start appearing in Akkadian Cuneiform.

The Cuneiform texts never refer to Kasdim, but rather KALDU/KALDI. If indeed the Hebrew scribes had inserted the name during the period of Ezra and Nehemiah, when the Torah was canonized, they would have used the name Kaldi, and not Kasdi, to refer to each and every reference to the Chaldeans. The Torah does have small-scale anachronisms (after all, theoretically it was supposed to have been redacted by Moses), but nothing even close to the scale of anachronism between the time of Abraham and the entry of the Chaldeans into Babylonia. Also, at least one of the references to Ur Kasdim is referred to by the Biblical critical scholars themselves as being from the "J source", which predates the exilic era by several centuries. 'Kasdim' is not a name selected at random in Hebrew. It is the gentilic form of Kesed (see Gen. 22), who was an offspring of Abraham's brother Nahor, living in the vicinity of Haran in Aram Naharaim, i.e. Syro-Mesoptamia, not in Babylonia or Sumer (Biblical Shinar). It is irrelevant as to whether the chicken or the egg came first here, because the Pentateuch only gives one possible clue as to the origin of the Kasdim, and that is associated with Kesed. Incidentally, the names of various forebears of Abraham, e.g. Nahor, Terah, Serug, Peleg, have been found to be the names of ruined villages in the area of Haran. Also, incidentally, one of the Chaldean clans mentioned by the Assyrians as dwelling in Babylonia was 'Bit Adini' and of clear Aramaic origin. 'Bit Adini' also happened to be the name of a small Aramaean kingdom in northern Mesopotamia which was located, surprise surprise, in the vicinity of Haran. It is called in the Bible 'Beth Eden' and is written exactly the same way as the Garden of Eden.

When Abraham tells his servant in Genesis 24 to saddle up and "go to the land of my nativity" to get a wife for his son Isaac, he goes to the Haran region of Aram Naharaim, exactly the same place that he had been instructed by God to "get thee out of thy country, thy nativity, and thy father's house to a land that I will show thee." The Biblical account leaves little room for doubt that Abraham's patrimony lay among the semi-nomadic pastoralists of Upper Mesoptamia, and not among the big city dwellers in the ports and canals of Sumer. At one point in Deuteronomy 26, it is explicitly and unambiguously spelled out that "My father was a wandering Aramaean".

I have heard various theories about how Abraham and his family would have started a trip in Sumerian Urim, ventured all the way up to Haran, an outpost 1000 km or more to the northwest on the upper Balikh, and then down to Canaan. One is that he was merely following a route to avoid having to go through the desert. The trouble is the trade routes from Babylonia to Canaan never went that far north. They only went as far north as Mari on the mid-Euphrates, and then swung over west via Tadmor and Damascus, and then to Canaan. Another popular theory is that Sumerian Urim was a site for the worship of the moon god Nannar, and Haran was a site for the worship of the moon god Sin, and Abraham and his family were on some kind of religious pilgrimage. It's a tempting theory, but there's a problem: Akkadian Sin and Sumerian Nannar were not equated until quite a bit later (akin to the Romans deciding to equate Juno with Hera). Furthermore, there were many important sites for moon god worship much closer to Sumerian Urim. But most important of all, despite the fact that the Bible mentions that the original Hebrews "served other gods", not once is it stated or implied that one of these gods was the moon god. In fact, in all the Hebrew names of God mentioned in the Bible, there is no etymological connection to the moon god. There is 'Elohim', the Ugaritic pantheon, there is 'el', the standard word for deity in Canaan, there is 'El Shaddai' which has been connnected with a mountaintop and northern Syria, but there is no moon god.

Relevant information on the pre-Israelitic Hebrews is far more likely to be found in the northern Syrian site of Ebla, than anything in the Akkadian and Sumerian cuneiform tablets. In addition to many names corresponding to patriarchal names and places, one deciphered tablet at Ebla actually did mention an "Ur in the territory of Haran". Unfortunately, when these pieces of information surfaced, the archeological team that was excavating at Ebla folded up their tents and flew home, never to return. You know what they say: where there's smoke, there' fire.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.194.68 (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Eeh, ööhh! Then find your relevant academic sources (saying what you just said) outside Wikipedia, and add statements that expresses doubts about the identity "Ur" = "Urim". If science provides sources enough, wikipedia will slowly change accordingly. Mind: the sources should preferably be academic. Said: Rursus (☻) 20:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Reggio Calabria?

Chaldean settlement ties the Middle East to early European history as Chaldean colonists led by Aschenez are thought to have been the founders of the city now known as Reggio Calabria, on the east side of the the straight between Sicily and Calabria, Italy. The city was founded at the end of the 8th century BCE, making it one of the oldest cities of Europe, according to local historians [1].

Is anyone other than me bothered by this passage? I wonder whether someone is confusing Chaldeans with Chalcidians. After all, the linked Italian Wikipedia article on Reggio Calabria [2] mentions Chalcidian colonists but says nothing as far as I can tell about Chaldeans:

"Dopo Cuma, Reggio Calabria è la più antica colonia greca in Italia meridionale, è tra le più antiche città d'Europa visto che, la colonia calcidese fondata nell'VIII secolo a.C. manteneva il preesistente nome di Rhegion (Ρήγιoν), già noto come Erythrà (Ερυθρά), sito in cui sorgeva un antichissimo insediamento risalente al III millennio a.C., precedentemente occupato da popolazioni autoctone quali gli Aschenazi, gli Ausoni, gli Itali governati da Re Italo (da cui il nome di Italia successivamente esteso alla penisola) e dal mitico re Giocasto, la cui tomba sorgeva sul promontorio di Punta Calamizzi (Pallantiòn), punto d'approdo dei coloni greci."

Granted, my Italian is pretty lousy (read: nonexistent), but I don't see any reference to Chaldeans--even legendary, non-historical ones--in this passage. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be removed. The colonists were from Chalkida in Euboea, Greece. 97.117.234.236 (talk) 02:18, February 6, 2009 (UTC)

KJV?

I don't understand why the article repeatedly specifies the KJV Old Testament. This statement implies that the names are different in other translations--but the article never discusses that issue. If other translations give different names, that should be discussed; otherwise, it's probably safe to remove the references to the KJV translation. Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Kaldu vs Kasdim vs kaldan(كلدان)

KJV translation of kasdim as Chaldea is problematic to say the least.[3] I still don't understand why the arabic word kaldan (meaning chaldean people mostly used to refer to adherents of the modern Chaldean Church). Rafy talk 14:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Again someone decided to revert without considering looking here... Why is Ptolemy given as a reference? and why كلدان in arabic in god's name??? Rafy talk 16:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment to fix broken font markup in comments above (by adding 8 closing tags) so as to stop it from propagating to the rest of the Talk page (like it previously did). — al-Shimoni (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Semitic is not a racial slur.

I removed the scare quotes around "Semitic" in the section on Chaldean people. I realise a lot of people, Americans in particular, get squeamish when using words they perceive as "racially" classifying people, but I assure you that Semitic is a very scientific linguistic category (into which Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, Ethiopians, and many others fall), and you don't have to apologise preemptively for using it. That would be like saying 'Opossums are a species of "marsupial" indigenous to North America', or 'The cast of the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica included Americans as well as many "Canadian" actors'. PenitentWhaler (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia

An IP address 81.111.12.105 made Revision as of 21:50, 10 September 2014

See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Other reasons for attributing text

This editor copied text from other Wikipedia articles but did not copy over the long citations from the same articles. I have searched from articles with identical citations and found in the article "Abraham" with also contain the same text on the day before the copy Abraham 9 September 2014.

Therefore I will copy the missing long citations into this article. -- PBS (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Chaldaean vs. Neo-Babylonian

The term "Chaldaean," when used in reference to the polity that existed in southern Mesopotamia from 626 BCE to 539 BCE, is vanishingly rare outside of works published in the 19th century, reprints of those works, and non-specialist dictionaries and encyclopedias that depend primarily upon such works to the exclusion of more recent scholarship. A Google Ngram demonstrates that the term "Neo-Babylonian" (empire, dynasty, etc.) emerges around 1891 and rather rapidly surpasses "Chaldaean" (empire, dynasty, etc.) in terms of references, and indeed the term "Neo-Babylonian" is used in virtually all recent scholarship to refer to this same group. Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Kids writing history will ever and anon be the case. Tradition is a good thing, however. 50.111.49.173 (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

are there people in Canada

who call themselves 'chaldeans' or are called this way by others? stefjourdan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.237.122.50 (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Intro paragraph re Chaldean Dynasty

I removed the paragraph pasted below.

1. It broke up an otherwise continuous intro section. (The next paragraph begins "These nomadic Chaldeans" which certainly does not seem to refer to neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus.) 2. The 2nd half of this paragraph is clearly better suited to a talk page. *This sentence has been in the article since September 2019.* 3. It appears the claims in the 1st half of this paragraph are dubious. I don't own the book in question (dueling refs 4 and 5 both cite Roux) but it certainly looks like a well meaning person does have the book and it doesn't say what this paragraph claims it says.

In case there's anything in the deleted paragraph worth keeping or discussing, the removed text is:

---

The short-lived 11th dynasty of the Kings of Babylon (6th century BCE) is conventionally known [citation needed] to historians as the Chaldean Dynasty, although the last rulers, Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar, were from Assyria. [4][citation needed] (This is not found in Georges Roux - Ancient Iraq. Roux states that Nabonidus "was the son of a certain Nabu-Balatsu-Iqbi, who belonged to the Babylonian nobility but was not of royal blood and of a votaress... of the city of Harran.")[5] Grease Bandit (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This should not have been removed suddenly with no replacement. The Chaldean dynasty is arguably more famous than the ancient Chaldea region or the ancient Chaldean people at large and should unquestionably be mentioned in the lede. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Respect the amount of imprecision in rounded numbers when converting them

If anyone estimates a distance to be "100 miles", that does not mean the distance is estimated to be "slightly over 160,934 meters": the first value suggests high imprecision, and the conversion would be valid if the 100 miles were actual 100.000 miles. Similarly, 100 miles are not 160 kilometers as 1.6 contains more precision - unjustifiedly - than 1. Rough the initial number, equally rough the conversion. Those values should be checked instead of translated automatically.

Note that one risk is that which frequently occurs in literature, of reading that a distance is precisely specified as, say, 1,287 km - which immediately raises the suspect, "have they just mindlessly translated an original rough 800 miles (meaning in fact between 750 and 850) to that?". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.90.1.99 (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Section on "Religion"

The portion of the article which discusses Chaldean religious beliefs, reads, in its entirety, as follows:

Ancient Chaldeans believed in "three heavens".

That's it. Lots of discussion about their history in the region and their origins, but this is the only line discussing their religious beliefs. They're associated with astrology and astronomy, as mentioned in this article, and later (as mentioned in the Wikipedia article "Magic in the Greco-Roman world",) are associated with Zoroaster, magicians, and magic in general.

Is there enough known about their actual beliefs to expand this section a bit? I would love to consult the book cited as a source in the line about the "three heavens," but have no way of doing so short of buying the book. Ormewood (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Left Bank of the Euphrates

Would referral to the West bank of the Euphrates be better? (I'm guessing its is the western Bank from the map, but I'm not an expert.)

"These nomadic Chaldeans settled in the far southeastern portion of Babylonia, chiefly on the left bank of the Euphrates." Paragraph 3, 1st sentence Aot007 (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Assyrian??

This section over here:

”The terms "Assyrian", and its derivative Syrian remained the common ethnicterm for the Aramaic-speaking inhabitants of Northern Mesopotamia. These were used by the people themselves and their Persian, Armenian, Arab, Greek, Georgian and Kurdish neighbours both before and after the advent of Christianity in Iraq, Northeast Syria, Southeast Turkey and Northwest Iran. The Assyrian continuityin these regions is well documented”

has nothing to do with Chaldea. Why is it written here I dont know. It should be removed. 83.250.115.18 (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)