Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>]

Yes it was, but cf. my mail on the centre and the periphery.

And I again ask for your comentary on the fact that many biblical sources --
as late as Daniel -- employ the form Kasdim. You cannot ignore that evidence
because it says that the terminus a quo is not the same as the terminus ad
quem. Even if the patriarchal narratives originated in the 2nd century
BCE--the date of Daniel--Ur in Kaldaea (or as it should probably be
translated 'Ur of the Chaldeans') would still in the Hebrew be Ur Kasdim, in
spite of LXX having the other form, Chaldaeoi.

NPL


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan D. Safren [SMTP:yonsaf AT beitberl.beitberl.ac.il]
> Sent: Wednesday, 05 January, 2000 19:53
> To:   Biblical Hebrew
> Cc:   'b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu'
> Subject:      Re: SV: Re[2]: Ur Kasdim II
> 
> 
> 
> Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
> 
> > But you cannot do that in light of present evidence. You have to
> postulate
> > such a connection, and if the people who rather looks in the direction
> of an
> > Arabic background of the Chaldeans are right, it will be hard to argue
> in
> > favour of this cinnection--in spite of Manfred Dietrich.
> >
> 
> I thought the theory of waves of Semitic-speaking peoples emerging from
> the
> Arabian Deserts was discredited long ago.
> -
> Jonathan D. Safren
> Dept. of Biblical Studies
> Beit Berl College
> 44905 Beit Berl Post Office
> Israel
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 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.