Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Thomas L. Thompson" <tlt AT teol.ku.dk>]

        Jonathan Safran writes 
> The "anachronism" argument about Ur Kasdim falls if we accapt that the
> appearance of the Chaldeans is tied to the appearance of the Arameans in
> the 12th century and connect this with other evidence that the
> Patriarchal traditions originate in the 12th-11th centuries.
> 
        [Thomas L. Thompson] 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. Certainly, my
Historicity book of 1974 specifically took the beginning of the Iron Age as
the earliest conceivable date that many of the elements in the story could
have existed. I did not however date the composition of the traditions: only
an a quo at that time. However, as I have understood the 'anachronism'
argument, one must also deal with a lot of elements and not merely one or
two of the more datable items. In 1975, Van Seters (Abraham in History and
Tradition) proposed the 6th century as a period where one might best be free
of likely anachronism. I don't see where his arguments need change in regard
to any earlier dating of the texts. In 1992, I proposed a more comprehensive
'anachronism' argument, based on the implicit understanding of 'Israel' in
the traditions, arguing that the traditions imply a post-exilic ideology.
The argument is not as simple as the Ur Kasdim one. Others have made a
variety of arguments in the same direction.
        Thomas