Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

I understand that the real reason you want to identify Ur Kasdim with
southern Ur is that this way you can claim that the mention of Ur Kasdim
is an anachronism and the text is late; not because you have any real
evidence to support your theory.
    This means, then, that if you accept that Ur Kasdim is in the north,
one of the linchpins of your whole Weltanschauung is snatched away, and
your theory begins to fall like a row of dominos or a house of cards.
Isn't this the real reason why you insist in identifying Ur Kasdim with
soutern Ur, all evidence - Biblical and extra-Biblical - to the
contrary?
Let;s stop off this argument. You adhere to a certain belief, not an
academic hypothesis, and I can't argue with belief. Had you provided any
real evidence that the Ur Kasdim of the Bible was in the south, I would
have seriously examined it and weighed it against the evidence for the
northern location. But you are not arguing on philological, lggical
criteria., but on the basis of your beliefs.
I have therefore nothing more to say to you on this or any other matter
which pertains to your set of beliefs, just as I have nothing to say to
someone who believes in Creationism or Divine revelation.
Most sincerely and emphatically,
--
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
44905 Beit Berl Post Office
Israel