[b-hebrew] Abraham's origin: Kasdim

JimStinehart at aol.com JimStinehart at aol.com
Sun May 24 21:41:03 EDT 2009


Yigal Levin:
 
Why do you see Kasdim/K%DYM at Genesis 11: 28 as being a late reference to “
Chaldeans”?
 
1.  “Kasdu” is an Old Babylonian name, dating all the long way back to the 
Middle Bronze Age.  Kasdim/K%DYM at Genesis 11: 28 is a dead ringer for the 
Old Babylonian word Kasdu.
 
Note that the Old Babylonian term Kasdu pre-dates the time when the 
Chaldeans ruled southern Mesopotamia.
 
The ancient word “Kasdu” was used, more or less continuously, though 
sporadically and in various forms, from the Middle Bronze Age until almost the 
common era, usually referring to southern Mesopotamia.  As such, as I see it 
the presence of the word Kasdu/ Kasdim/K%DYM in a text is consistent with the 
text having been composed any time between the mid-2nd millennium BCE and 
shortly before the common era.
 
Yes, at some point the Assyrians pronounced Kasdu as Kaldu, but what of it?
 
2.  If the Patriarchal narratives were composed in the mid-14th century BCE 
(my controversial view), then there would be a very good reason for the 
early Hebrew author to use the word Kasdim/K%DYM, being the Hebrew version of 
the ancient Old Babylonian word Kasdu.  
 
Consider the historical situation at Ur in the Late Bronze Age, in the 
mid-14th century BCE.  
 
(a)  The rulers were Kassites.  The  name Kassites features K%, just like 
K%DYM.  We know little about the Kassite language.  The author of the 
Patriarchal narratives probably did not know much about the Kassite language 
either.  But note the K-% initial match.
 
(b)  The name of the country that included Ur was Karadunise (per the 
Amarna Letters).  Once again, it starts with  K, and there’s a sin/% there, too.  
There’s a D in the middle, as there is in K%DYM.
 
(c)  Finally, many Kassite rulers were named Kadasman, including the ruler 
during the Amarna Letters period.  The first four letters of the name 
Kadasman are a virtual anagram of K%DYM.  Both names feature K + D + % + M, though 
the Biblical version has the order of the two middle letters reversed.
 
We cannot realistically expect a letter-for-letter equivalence in going 
from Biblical Hebrew to the little known language of Kassite.  But all three 
names that relate to who governed Ur in the mid-14th century BCE seem redolent 
of Kasdim, namely:  Kassite, Karadunise, and Kadasman.  All four feature K 
+ %, and three of the four also have a D in the middle.
 
If we now consider in addition the Old Babylonian word Kasdu, we have five 
words for southern Mesopotamia in the mid-14th century BCE that feature K-%, 
and four words that feature K + % + D [though in the latter case not 
necessarily in that letter order]:  Kasdim/K%DYM [at Genesis 11: 28], Kassite, 
Karadunise, Kadasman, and Kasdu.
 
3.  As to the argument that Ur Kasdim is a glaring historical anachronism, 
here is what famed Biblical Minimalist Thomas L. Thompson said in a 2000 
post on the b-Hebrew list:  
 
“Granted that if the patriarchal stories are to be dated to the 12-11th 
centuries,  the reference to Ur Kasdim--or to the Philistines--could not be 
posed as an argument against that.”
 
The famed Copenhagen School of Biblical Minimalism (with Niels Peter Lemche 
participating on that same thread) basically does not consider the 
150-year-old attack on the historicity of Ur Kasdim at Genesis 11: 28 to be worth 
mentioning.  Of course, the Biblical Minimalists think the Patriarchal 
narratives are late, and fictional, but they seem to recognize that it is hard to 
come up with a weaker argument against the antiquity and historicity of the 
Patriarchal narratives than to focus on the phrase Ur Kasdim at Genesis 11: 
28.
 
Yigal Levin, you’re no Biblical Minimalist.  Why are you repeating an 
argument against the antiquity and historicity of the Patriarchal narratives that 
even the Biblical Minimalists themselves seem reluctant to press? 
 
4.  Why do you see Biblical Kasdim at Genesis 11: 28 as being the mid-1st 
millennium BCE “Chaldeans”, instead of being redolent of Kasdu, Kassite, 
Karadunise, and Kadasman in the Bronze Age?
 
If the author of the Patriarchal narratives was trying to reference Kasdu 
(southern Mesopotamia), being the country called Karadunise in the Late 
Bronze Age, ruled by the Kassite ruler Kadasman in the mid-14th century BCE, then 
what would scholars expect to see at Genesis 11: 28 in connection with Ur, 
instead of K%DYM?  In the mid-14th century BCE, Ur, though no longer a 
political capital, was a wealthy provincial city that was still the #1 place in 
the world to buy lapis lazuli at wholesale prices.  As I see it, “Ur Kasdim” 
fits the world of the mid-14th century BCE perfectly, in the context of 
buying lapis lazuli in southern Mesopotamia.
 
Given the documented presence of the words Kasdu, Kassite, Karadunise and 
Kadasman in the mid-14th century BCE regarding southern Mesopotamia, and the 
continued presence of Ur as the best place in the world to buy lapis lazuli 
at wholesale at that time, on what objective basis can scholars point to Ur 
Kasdim/K%DYM at Genesis 11: 28 as allegedly being a glaring historical 
anachronism?  I am not arguing that a late author could not have used the word 
Kasdim/K%DYM [being a word that doubtless was familiar to any Hebrew who was 
in Babylon during the Exile].  But I honestly cannot see how the presence of 
the word Kasdim/K%DYM in a Hebrew text is inconsistent in any way, shape or 
form with a mid-14th century BCE composition date for such Hebrew text.  
Change the % to an L and there would be a problem.  But as is, Ur Kasdim seems 
to me to be consistent with virtually any proposed date of composition, from 
the Middle Bronze Age to the 4th century BCE, because Kasdim can be viewed, 
but need not be viewed, as being “Chaldeans”.
 
The word Kasdim/K%DYM is perfectly compatible with a Late Bronze Age time 
period, isn’t it, given the documented presence in the Late Bronze Age (in 
connection with southern Mesopotamia) of Kasdu, Kassite, Karadunise, and 
Kadasman? 
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy 
Steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322948x1201367184/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=May
ExcfooterNO62)


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list