Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Hi Jonathan!

>> >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.
>
>[JDSafren] You're looking in the wrong period. The DUMU.ME$ Yamina are
from the Old
>Babylonian Period (circa 19th century BCE, time of Hammurapi); 

Point accepted regarding date, though the interest was to show traditions
that linked possible Hebrew connections to the area around the Balikh and
the Khabur.

>the Chaldeans and the
>Arameans first pop up in the Middle Assyrian Period (12th century BCE).
>     Also, I hope you are not positing any connection between the
DUMU.MES$ Yamina of
>Mari and the Israelite tribe of Benjamin. This proposal was rejected a
long time ago

Some total rejection hasn't happened, Jonathan. Ahlstrom says that
"southerners" is a term found in several countries, but he's got his
unstated reasons. Liverani sees no reason not to use the term.

>(even the reading bani- or binu- Yamina was rejected by Tracy Luke, I
believe, who
>claims that the correct reading of the cuneiform logograms should be mare,
with long
>two long vowels).

At the same time Ahstrom and Liverani both use the form, mixed with the
maru- form.

>     Among the tribes mentioned in the Mari texts there is also the
DUMU.ME$ Sim(h)al.
>"the Northerners", as opposed to the DUMU.ME$ Yamina, "the Southerners".
This holds
>well for what is known of the wandering grounds of these two pastoralist
tribes.
>Whereas the Israelite tribe of Benjamin, whose name also means
"southerners",  lived
>in the South relative to the other tribes of Israel (Judah and Simeon not
being
>originally Israelite).

Now this is you giving your own explanation as to how the bani-yamini got
their name. We have no contemporary, or near contemporary, traditions to
back up your explanation. It's very hard to know how the various tribes
were "originally Israelite". the bani-yamini are still an option. I've seen
Yoel Arbeitman and Giovanni Garbini argue that the tribe of Dan was one of
the Sea Peoples, ie the Danyen. You yourself say that Judah and Simeon
weren't originally Israelite. How can one say who were?

>> 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. ...
>
>[JDSafren] The guiding principle behind such speculations is a sound one:
that many of
>the names mentioned in the Genesis genealogies as PNs are actually GNs.
But any
>identification of Bilhah (written with two heshs) with Balih' (written
with a velar
>xeth), doesn't hold water.

(I wouldn't think much of this stuff can hold water.)

>> ... kings from distant parts of Mesopotamia in a local squabble in
>> the Dead Sea zone?
>
>[JDSafren} From what we know of ANE History, it doesn't sound very likely 
>(Benjamin Mazar considered Gen 14 a "historical novelette"). But then there 
>are some big holes in our knowledge of ANE history.

Admittedly, but I can't see any possible way to render this one possible!

>> The table of nations:
>> but the point is that we have a hotch-potch of traditions being sewn
together.
>
>[JDSafren} Agreed. Some are from the 12th century BCE and perhaps earlier, 
>others are from the 7th century (e.g., Ashkenaz, cuneiform A$.GU.ZA, the 
>Scythians, of Gen. 10) and perhaps later.

What have you found in the table from the 12th century?

While not disputing the source you indicate, how did the "n" get in the name? 

>> 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.
>
>[JDSafren] How is that? What is this "rule of distant memories" and how
have I
>contradictred it?

Gen. shows a wide range of support for the notion of "a patchwork of
traditions from various ages and cultural backgrounds shaped by later
cultural, political and religious needs" this is reflective of distant
memories, ie memories preserved over a long period of time. This is the
general tendency, ie the rule, from what we can verify. Your argument
regarding Ur of the Chaldeans goes against the general tendency, ie it is
in the category of the exception.


Cheers,


Ian