Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>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. 

If the first premise is an Ur of the Chaldeans that we already have
documented, which is the one we have, what's the problem with that, Jonathan?

If I remember, your one biblical argument is that the biblical Ur was
qualified with Kasdim, which you reasoned was to distinguish it from some
other Ur. Of course, if you admit so other Ur, then the Chaldean one that
we already have can be distinguished from the one you have newly admitted.
Besides, Babylon was often distinguished in inscriptions with the epithet
of the Chaldeans (I don't actually remember the sources but the references
also included "Babylon, the pearl... of the Chaldeans"), but you wouldn't
argue that there was necessarily some other Babylon being referred to.

>Ian, on the other hand, has not brought any
>evidence. 

This is untrue, Jonathan. I gave a connection between the Chaldeans and the
south. There is no mention of the Chaldeans before the Assyrian references
to the Chaldeans in the ninth century. Not only this but there is no
mention of any movement of the Chaldeans through the more civilized zones
further north. There is therefore nothing to directly connect the Chaldeans
with anything to do with a hypothetical northern Ur of the Chaldeans. Yet
for some reason you postulate the existence of such. I'm sorry if I guessed
at the motivation for your postulation, but it doesn't seem to have
anything I can see to do with any actual archaeology or epigraphic source.

You hypothesize that one of the other Urs was the Ur of the Chaldeans which
Genesis was referring to and not the Ur of the Chaldeans which the
Chaldeans had when they were living between Babylon and the gulf, before
spreading northward, ie they were clearly south before taking control in
Babylon. 

>He merely claims that Ur Kasdim is the southern Ur 

Let's put it this way: we *know* that there was at least one Ur Kasdim and
that was the southern Mesopotamian city. Nebuchadnezzar for example,
according to Woolley, totally reconstructed the whole centre of the city,
so there is an intimate relationship between the Chaldeans and that Ur (in
fact his grandson, Nabonidus, also did extensive building there, so it was
definitely a "Chaldean" city, which fell into decline with the sack of the
Persians, who destroyed much of the Chaldean work). We don't have any solid
indications of any other. 

Add to this Jubilees' understanding (9:4ff) that the territory allotted to
Arpachshad is "all the land of the region of the Chaldees to the east of
the Euphrates, bordering on the Red Sea, and all the waters of the desert
close to the tongue of the sea which looks towards Egypt, all the land of
Lebanon and Sanir and 'Amana to the border of the Euphrates." And for Aram,
"there came forth the fourth portion, all the land of Mesopotamia between
the Tigris and the Euphrates to the north of the Chaldees to the border of
the mountains of Asshur and the land of 'Arara." This cashes out for
Jubilees' understanding of the traditions as southern Mesopotamia and
places south and west for Arpachshad the ancestor of the Hebrews. The first
move recorded in the traditions is that of Terah and his family.

You're asking us to contemplate some other Ur of the Chaldeans
notwithstanding the fact that we've already got one. I'll take the bird and
the hand and not the two in the bush. This is not a claim, Jonathan, this
is one of those rare commodities in this field that seem to verge on fact.
This is not to say that there is not a slim chance for some other Ur being
the real candidate, but it seems so unlikely at the moment given the total
lack of substance for such a position that I see no reason to follow it.

>and therefore
>Kasdim is an anachronism, 

I haven't talked about any anachronisms in this recent discussion.

>and is unwilling to deal with the evidence for the
>northern location of Ur.

Sorry, but I haven't seen anything substantive for a northern location for
an Ur Kasdim. There is nothing to link the Chaldeans to the north.
(Linguistic arguments hold very little weight by themselves, especially
when it is only one feature being examined in isolation.) So, I come to the
position of saying, despite the fact that you've written a lot on the topic
recently, I haven't seen any evidence yet for a northern location for Ur.

It seems insufficient to simply claim that Ur Kasdim was some other Ur than
the one we know of because of the association you make between some names
in the Khabur region and those found in the patriarchal tales. All I need
is something substantive in order to contemplate your proposal with any
seriousness. Linguistic arguments are at best weak.

And I'll leave the rest of your post as it seems totally gratuitous, all
this "there are those who ..." stuff. Who, Jonathan do you have in mind?


Cheers,


Ian


.-----------------------------.------------------------------.
|                             | email:    mc2499 AT mclink.it   |
|  Ian                        |------------------------------|
|                             | Friendly advice: Don't Panic |
|-----------------------------'------------------------------|
|webpage: www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/histreli.htm |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
|  If I knew where I was going, I would probably be scared.  |
'------------------------------------------------------------'