Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> "Jonathan D. Safren" wrote:
> 
> > 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.  .. 
> 
        [Niels Peter Lemche]  Jonathan, you don't need to be afraid of
accepting an anachronism. It does not in itself prove the text and narrative
to be late, it can be a late intrusion into the texts. I believe that a
great many commentators have made that observation. In my Prelude to
Israel's Past I distinguish between anachronisms that are not really
essential parts of a narrative and anachronisms that seem part of the
narrative. So, although we have chosen to disagree on the location of Ur and
the dating of the story, the 'kasdim' is not a decisive argument either or.

        NPL