Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jonathan D. Safren" <yonsaf AT beitberl.beitberl.ac.il>]

Niels Peter Lemche wrote:

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

> [JDSafren[ I saw it. You adduced the Germans and the Vikings. Very good
> examples of peoples living in one area penetrating into other territories. 
> So
> it took time. Same goes for Arameans and Chaldeans.
>
> [NPL[ 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.

[JDSafren] Easy. When this gentilic entered the sphere of Biblical literature,
it was still kasdu in Akkadian  of the 12h-11th centuries BCE. This form
remained frozen in Biblical literature in its archaic form and did not develop
into kaldu, kaldim, kaldaya because it was no longer in its proper linguistic
setting, i.e., the Akkadian language.

--
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
44905 Beit Berl Post Office
Israel