Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Niels Peter Lemche wrote:

> > "Jonathan D. Safren" wrote: [in response to a posting by Ian Hutchesson -
> JSAfren]
> >
> > > 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.
>

I have no problem with anachronisms, Nils. There are plenty of these in the
Torah and elsewhere in the Bible. What bothers me is the writer's underlying
first premise which leads him to interpret Kasdim as an anachronism. I used to
view it myself in exactly the same way, until my research forced me to change 
my
opinion. I therefore have used arguments based on Biblical and extra-Biblical
evidence to buttress my conclusions. Ian, on the other hand, has not brought 
any
evidence. He merely claims that Ur Kasdim is the southern Ur and therefore
Kasdim is an anachronism, and is unwilling to deal with the evidence for the
northern location of Ur.
During the course of my professional career I have been forced by weight of
evidence to change my opinions several times, however much I liked the 
previous
ones. But there are those who have formed their opinions not on the basis of
evaluating evidence, but for various other reasons, preconceived belief being
only one of them.
  I once read an article called "The Psychology of the Scientist", which 
claimed
that the scientist is very much emotionally involved in his theories and
conclusions. But those scientists who have advanced many theories and
conclusions find it easier to discard such when disproved than scientists who
have had only few original ideas in their lifetime. Now I'm not saying this
article's claims are correct, nor am I placing myself in one of these
categories!  But it's food for thought.
Yours,
Jonathan
--
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
44905 Beit Berl Post Office
Israel