Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Ian Hutchesson wrote:
I don't think this theory is actually dealing with the text, Jonathan. We

> are told that Abraham was to set off from Ur of the Chaldeans and go to the
> land of Canaan, but when he came to Haran, they settled there. The
> narrative is written ot indicate that Ur was a long way from Haran, which
> is in line with the Ur that we all know and not some northern Ur which may
> have been known to the writer. The first part of the chapter (11) is set in
> southern Mesopotamia.

   You are most definitely right that the text is written to indicate that Ur 
- and
Harran - are a long way off from Canaan.
   But remember, they didn't fly in jet planes in those days. Upper 
mesopotamia, for
the writer's purposes, was the same as Southern Mesopotamia - a long, long 
way off.
   And the fact that the first part of the chapter is set in Southern 
Mesopotamia
doesn't mean a thing. The last part of the chapter mentions  Serug = Serugi 
near the
Balih Valley; 2 Nahors=Nahur on the Upper Habur or Til Nahiri on the Balih or 
Nihriya,
also in Upper Mesopotamia; and Terah = Til Turahi, in the Balih River Valley.
No, Ian, you can't get around it, you'll have to leave off that old-fashioned 
theory
identifying Ur Kasdim with Sumerian Ur, which has nothing to support it but 
the
similarity of the names - and THERE WERE OTHER CITIES NAMED UR!!! (Which is 
why the
author affixes the denominative Kasdim).
  I think I've marshalled enough evidence, both on this list and on the ANE 
list, both
from the Bible and from the ANE, in favor of a northern location, so please 
let's stop
wasting bandwidth and boring people with unnecessary rehashing. Let's simply 
agree to
disagree, as is done in scholarly and other circles.
And if you really think it necessary, I can always repost those letters. 
Prof. Lemche
agrees.
Sincerely,--
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
44905 Beit Berl Post Office
Israel