Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear Jonathan,

Thanks for the info.

>[Ian] What have you found in the table [ofNations] from the 12th
>century?
>
>[JD Safren] Aram.

It could have been any time. Why go for the a quo?

>[Ian] While not disputing the source you indicate, how did the "n" get
>in the
>name? [Askenaz, written A$.GU.ZA in cuneiform]
>
>[JDSafren] Dissimilation. Madda > Manda (as in Mandaic).

That's sort of clear when you have a doubled consonant. How would A$.GU.ZA
have been manifested to stimulate such dissimilation?

>[Ian] Your argument regarding Ur of the Chaldeans goes against the
>general tendency, ie it is
>in the category of the exception.
>
>[JDSafren] What makes it exceptional? Many Americans remember exaclty
>where their ancestors came from, even if it may have been before the
>Revolutionary War.

Given the inconsistencies we've already looked at with regard to the table
of nations, the war of the plain, add the misinformation about the
Philistines (and hence the likelihood that the traditions postdate the
arrival of the Philistines), the flow is with the muddling traditions. Here
you are proposing a clearheaded tradition, which goes against the flow of
muddledom.

As to your "many Americans remember exactly where their ancestors came
from", in a society that has strongly delineated along racial lines this is
not surprising. The analogy is not appropriate to my understanding because
we are supposedly dealing with a relatively singular group of people if we
judge by the traditions. People went to America -- usually forced -- from a
wide variety of different backgrounds, traditions and heritage. It is only
normal that such heritages were maintained and people tended to aggregate
along racial grounds. Where this is not the case, where there is strong
intermingling then I would think that the maintanence of the separate
heritage is lost. Where there is not a variety of peoples and traditions to
impose social divisions there is no urgency to maintain a strict notion of
heritage.

We are left with the muddledom and your hypothesis that in this case the
traditions are not muddled because they might have remembered correctly.
That seems a hopeful inconsistency at best. Further, we've established that
the table of nations must have been finalised rather late because of the
wide range datable information contained therein. If it is late, ie after
the exile, then there is no solid reason to believe that the reference to
Ur of the Chaldeans is not also post-exilic.


Cheers,


Ian