b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>
- To: "'Jonathan D. Safren'" <yonsaf AT beitberl.beitberl.ac.il>
- Cc: "'b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu'" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: SV: SV: Re[2]: Ur Kasdim II*
- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:51:36 +0100
Jonathan, it is a postulate as long as you have no evidence of any
occurrence in the 12th-11th century. If you read carefully the passage about
lingusitics and the Kasdu/kaldu in the RLA--they must have in in the
university libraries in Israel-- you will find possible explanations.
NPL
PS: And why should Genesis 11 be older than, say Jeremiah?
* By the way, already Middle babylonian of the 12th-11th century would have
the change from -sd- to -ld-, as you can see from GAG, the paragraph I
quoted a few days ago, so you have to step even further back.
> ----------
> Fra: Jonathan D. Safren[SMTP:yonsaf AT beitberl.beitberl.ac.il]
> Sendt: 5. januar 2000 22:18
> Til: Niels Peter Lemche
> Cc: 'b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu'
> Emne: Re: SV: Re[2]: Ur Kasdim II
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
-
SV: SV: Re[2]: Ur Kasdim II*,
Niels Peter Lemche, 01/06/2000
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: SV: SV: Re[2]: Ur Kasdim II*, Jonathan D. Safren, 01/06/2000
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.