Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Terakh

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jimstinehart AT aol.com
  • To: jimstinehart AT aol.com, kwrandolph AT gmail.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Terakh
  • Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:31:52 -0400



The earliest references to the Chaldeans spell the name with an L. That’s
mat kaldi by the Assyrians, referring to the land of the Chaldeans, and of
critical importance the Babylonians themselves always refer to the Chaldeans
with an L: “BTW, you must take into account that in the Bible the Chaldeans
are called kasdim <kasdu, whereas in the Babylonian inscriptions they are
already called kaldu….” 1/4/2000 post by Jonathan D. Safren, Dept. of
Biblical Studies, Beit Berl College, Israel.

There is no basis in secular history whatsoever for the proposition that the
Chaldeans had earlier been called Kasdim, or ever had any letter other than L
for the second letter in their name.

Prof. Yigal Levin wrote: “The Bible uses "Kasdim" for the 1st millennium
Babylonians in books like Kings, Jeremiah and Daniel, because at that time,
the Neo-Babylonian Empire was in fact ruled by a "Kasdi/Chaldean" dynasty
(this includes the infamous Nebuchadnezzar).”

But unlike later books in the Bible, Genesis 11: 28, 31 is n-o-t referring
to “the 1st millennium Babylonians”, that’s for sure. We should then
consider whether those later books in the Bible picked up K%DYM from Genesis
11: 28, 31 and applied that Biblical word, somewhat anachronistically, to the
later Chaldeans. We should not assume that Daniel is correct in using the
word Kasdi to refer to the Chaldeans, since Daniel is so unreliable. Rather,
if we look to the Late Bronze Age, Kasdim is redolent of Karaduniyas under
Kadasman and the Kassites, and the Chaldeans are not yet in existence.

On 5/23/09 Prof. Yigal Levin wrote: “[U]se of the term "Ur Kasdim" (Ur of
the Chaldees) [at Genesis 11: 28, 31] is an obvious anachronism, since the
"Kasdim/Chaldeans" are a Aramean tribe not known before the 9th century BCE.”
That is simply not true. Kasdim at Genesis 11: 28, 31 is appropriate Late
Bronze Age nomenclature for Karaduniyas under Kadasman and the Kassites. In
the Patriarchal narratives (unlike the rest of the Bible), Kasdim has nothing
to do whatsoever with the not-yet-in-existence Chaldeans.

It’s not fair to talk about an “anachronism” in the Patriarchal narratives
unless that charge is based on secular history, rather than such charge being
based on post-exilic books in the Bible such as Daniel. If we’re talking
secular history, then here’s the brute fact:

The Chaldeans are n-e-v-e-r referred to by anyone outside of the Bible as
Kasdim!

There is no anachronism at Genesis 11: 28, 31. In the Late Bronze Age and at
Genesis 11: 28, 31, K%DYM meant the people of Karaduniyas of the Kassites,
whose ruler at time of Genesis 11: 28, 31 was Kadasman. The rest of the
Bible was composed in the 1st millennium BCE. Later books in the Bible
simply picked up this ancient word K%DYM from the Patriarchal narratives and,
somewhat inappropriately, applied it to the Chaldeans.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois





-----Original Message-----
From: jimstinehart AT aol.com
To: kwrandolph AT gmail.com; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Fri, Jun 4, 2010 9:47 am
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Terakh



Karl, you wrote:

If you can’t even get people who agree with you that the Bible is not
historic
o agree with your theories, how do you expect to get people who believe that
he Bible is accurate history to agree with you?”

few key issues needed to be clarified before Prof. Yigal Levin can give us
his
onsidered opinion about Ur Kasdim. Prof. Levin had been expecting “Kassim”
for
reference to the Kassites. But I showed that such would be impossible,
ecause such a word would instead refer to the Cushites in Africa. Abdi-Heba
of
erusalem refers to the African Cushites as “Kasites” [ka-$i-yi] at Amarna
etter EA 287: 33.

o now we know that we need to focus, rather, on the Kassite name for their
own
ountry. At Amarna Letter EA 200: 9, it’s Ka-ra-du-ni-a$, and at Amarna
Letter
A 255: 21, it’s Ka-ra-du-ni-ia-a$.

he first three consonants in the Kassite name for their Late Bronze Age
country
ppear to be K-R-D. If we compare the phrase at Genesis 11: 30, we see K%DYM,
hich may likely be K%D + YM, with the final –YM being a standard, west
Semitic
uffix. If so, then only one letter seems to be the sticking point: that
econd letter. But in that regard, and of critical importance to the
linguistic
nalysis (which is the long suit of the b-hebrew list), Kevin P. Edgecomb once
ade the following fascinating comment about “Kasdim”:

Kasdim is…considered to derive from the Kassite word for Akkad/Babylonia…:
arduniash. The presentation of that second consonant alternately as
/r/l/s/sh/
ndicates that it was a lateral fricative, represented in different ways
epending upon convention.”

o one knows how the Kassite letters actually sounded, because they were
written
own in Akkadian (similar to the situation with Hurrian). Could the R
lternatively be represented by %? Moreover, there may also have been some
onfusion here with the name of the ruler of the Kassites at this time, whose
ame featured a $, not an R: Kadashman (at Amarna Letter EA 1: 1). Both the
ountry name and the leader’s name featured K and D, which we see in K%D-YM.
he country name had R, whereas the leader’s name had $, and we see % or $ in
%D-YM. Finally, use of % suggests Kassite, a word featuring K and S (or $ in
kkadian). All in all it’s pretty darn close, in my opinion, considering that
e are dealing with the very strange, little known language of Kassite.

et’s see what Prof. Levin’s view of Ur K%DYM is after he has had a chance to
onsider this additional information.

im Stinehart
vanston, Illinois

-----Original Message-----
rom: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
o: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
ent: Thu, Jun 3, 2010 12:03 pm
ubject: Re: [b-hebrew] Terakh

im:
f you can’t even get people who agree with you that the Bible is not
storic to agree with your theories, how do you expect to get people who
lieve that the Bible is accurate history to agree with you?
n Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:02 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:
Karl:

1. You wrote: “Where was Ur of the Chaldeans?”

gal answered that quite well. I read years ago that the Ebla tablets also
sted Ur of the Chaldeans (K%DYM) as a separate place from Ur of the
marians.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

order for your theory to stand, you need an early date for the Amarna
riod, which contradicts both the Bible and the findings of archaeology,
d a late date for Abraham which is your way of saying that the Bible is
istorical, that it is but myth.
arl W. Randolph.
_____________________________________________
hebrew mailing list
hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
tp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
=
______________________________________________
-hebrew mailing list
-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
ttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page