Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: Ur Kasdim

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>
  • To: 'Ian Hutchesson' <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
  • Cc: "'b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu'" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Ur Kasdim
  • Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:11:15 +0100


I think we should a bit cautious here. What is the first inscription that
mentions the Chaldeans? RLA Says Ashurnasirpal II (883-859), but the article
is from the late 1970s. So I am simply asking for information, so much more
because it is also a much discussed theme whether or not the Chaldeans were
really Aramaeans (although they spoke Aramaic when they assumed power in
Mesopotamia). The ABD says were much the same (Richard Hess) and it also
stresses the difference between the Chaldeans and the Arameans. I tried to
find evidence of Arameans at Mari but do not not have the later edition of
the index analytique at home. It could be the old hoax created by Noth 40
years ago in an essay (Die Ursprunge des alten Israels im Lichte neuer
Quellen), Köln 1961. I think that it was refuted by Dietz Otto Edzard
shortly after it appeared. But if newer evidence should have appeared, I
would of course be interested. Ur Kasdim does not point--if such new
evidence is not availabel--to a date back at the beginning of the Iron Age
or earlier--it is definitely a reference as most authors have it to the Ur
in the region of the Chaldeans, and there region was since the 9th century
southern Mesopotamia and not northern Mesopotamia. But of course, new
evidence may be available, but I would like to know it and have precise
references.

NPL


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hutchesson [SMTP:mc2499 AT mclink.it]
> Sent: Sunday, 02 January, 2000 20:39
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: historiography (Jonathan: was Solomon)
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> Thanks for a nice meaty post.
>
> >Ian:
> >> What about the term Ur of the Chaldeans?
> >
> >Jonathan:
> >The only problem with Ur of the Chaldees is the groundless identification
> of this city
> >with Sumerian Urim (Tel el-Mukayer). In one of the volumes of Repertoire
> Geographique
> >des Textes Cuneiformes that I checked, there were 4 different Urs.
> >This would explain why the Bible tacks on the word Kasdim (Chaldeans) to
> Ur - to
> >differentiate between it and the other Urs known to him. In a similar
> fashion, the
> >Bible distinguishes between Qadesh Barnea, Qedesh Naftali, and Qadesh in
> the Galilee
> >(and there was also Qadesh on the Orontes).
> >The only reasons Woolley and later Albright identified Ur Kasdim with
> Sumerian Urim
> >were that it was called Ur and had been the center of a glorious material
> >civilization.
> >
> >If you check closely everything the Bible has to say about Ur Kasdim, you
> must
> >conclude that it was situated in Upper Mesopotamia, where Abraham's
> family
> continued
> >to reside (in the City of Nahor and Harran) long after he had left. This
> would also
> >explain very simply why Terah passed through Harran on his way to Canaan
> (as against
> >Hallo's convoluted explaniation in "The Road to Emar", JCS 15.
> >
> >Moreover, both the Chaldeans and the Arameans are first mentioned in
> Middle Assyrian
> >sources as residing in Upper Mesopotamia from the 12th century BCE on.
>
> I've tried to chase up the part about the Chaldeans but so far to no
> avail.
> I'll leave this in abeyance for the moment. The Aramaean presence as
> nomads
> in the Mari region is well-known, providing us with our first information
> about the bani-yamini tribe.
>
> >Serugi (Biblical Serug) is a city in the Balih Valley in the vicinity of
> Harran, also
> >mentioned from the 12th century on. There are a number of candidates for
> the City of
> >Nahut - al Nahur, located somewhere in the Habur Triangle and mentioned
> in
> 18th
> >century OB Mari texts; Nihriya, probably in the Balih Valley, mentioned
> in
> the same
> >collection of texts; and Til Nahiri, in the Balih Valley, and mentioned
> in
> >Neo-Assyrian texts. Then there's also Til Turah'i, also in the Balih
> Valley and
> >appearing in NA texts.
>
> There have been speculations regarding the area with the rationale that
> bit-Adini provides the name behind the Eden tradition, and, as you've
> mentioned the Balikh, the same range of speculation puts the name of that
> river behind the biblical name Bilhah. There was more, but I can only
> retain so much of this kind of stuff!
>
> >My conclusion is that the Patriarchal Traditions originate in the
> 12th-11th centuries
> >BCE, with the Sitz in Leben being the migration of some Chaldean and
> Aramean clans to
> >Canaan. This later gave rise to the Patriarchal Narratives.
>
> Naturally, I find this hopeful, looking at other information in Genesis.
> Think for example about the war between the cities of the plain (Sodom et
> al.) against such kings as those of Elam and Shinar (as well as one of
> Ellasar, which GenAp gives as Capadoccia). Is this a likely scenario in
> your mind: kings from distant parts of Mesopotamia in a local squabble in
> the Dead Sea zone?
>
> Consider the table of nations in Gen 10. There are names such as Tubal and
> Meshekh which are two post-Hittite states, the latter to become known to
> us
> as Phrygia, both appearing sometime after 1000 BCE. Then there is a son of
> Kush called Shabtaka, who just so happened to be a pharaoh of the Kushite
> dynasty in Egypt of the eighth century. The Philistines a Hamitic people??
> (It's interesting that the naughty peoples who were in Palestine before
> the
> emergence of a Hebrew consciousness are Hamitic -- despite, for example,
> the "Canaanites"' obvious Semitic background.) There are many more juicy
> tid-bits in the table, but the point is that we have a hotch-potch of
> traditions being sewn together.
>
> You might find a single rationalisation for the "Ur of the Chaldeans"
> phrase, but, taken in context of the various other indications in the book
> of Genesis, you seem to be creating an exception to, rather than
> following,
> the rule of distant memories of a patchwork of traditions from various
> ages
> and cultural backgrounds shaped by later cultural, political and religious
> needs.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Ian
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: npl AT teol.ku.dk
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.



  • RE: Ur Kasdim, Niels Peter Lemche, 01/02/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page