Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 15.28 01/06/00 +0200, Jonathan D. Safren wrote:
>Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>
>> At 19.25 30/05/00 +0200, John Ronning responding to Walter wrote:
>
>>
>> >Another example - Ur-kasdim:
>> >(1) the "bait" - let's consider whether archaeology sheds
>> >light on the historicity (or otherwise) of the call of
>> >Abram.
>> >(2) the "switch" - we'll say that Ur-kasdim of the Bible is
>> >the famous Ur in Southern Babylonia (even though ALL of the
>> >internal evidence of the Bible puts Ur-kasdim in Northern
>> >Mesopotamia near Haran, and the southern Ur is never called
>> >"Ur-Kasdim")
>> >(3) the "sell job" - there were no Kasdim in southern
>> >Babylonia until 1000 years after Abraham supposedly existed,
>> >so genesis is anachronistic.
>> >
>> >Like I said, some may use such bait and switch techniques
>> >deliberately, others simply through shoddy scholarship.
>>
>> We've been through this waltz before, John, and the only thing we find is
>> people like John sending ad hominems about shoddy scholarship. You are
>> deliberately misrepresenting scholarship [..]. Why do people continue to
>> make the connection between Ur of the Chaldees and the Ur of Babylonia?
>> It's in the archives.
>
>You're right, Ian, we've been through this before, both here and, with NPL, 
>on ANE. I never made any claims about shoddy scholarship, so that accusation 
>is unfair. 

Hi Jonathan.

I would never accuse you of such a thing! I was responding to someone else
to whose response mine seemed appropriate.

>What I did say is that you are ignoring Biblical and extra=Biblical evidence 
>for the northern location of Ur, and that there is absolutely no evidence, 
>Biblical or extra-Biblical, for a southern identification of Ur.

As was said at that time, the literature indicates that this Ur was far
from where they stopped in Upper Mesopotamia -- not just a few days travel.
The idea that the Ur referred to was up there does not accord with the
traditions. So you repeat your idea and I repeat mine. I think you're wrong
and you think I am. I have a number of other arguments on the subject in
the archives, but I think we can leave them.

>I also wrote that those who continue to insist on a southern identification 
>of Ur are doing so because this is a linchpin of their assumption of the 
>lateness and nonauthenticity of the Patriarchal Narratives, and without a 
>southern Ur, their whole house of cards collapses.

When did Aramaeans first hit Mesopotamian inscriptions -- not Ahlamu, but
Aramaeans? When the Hebrews were already supposed to have been in
Palestine. When the climatic change drove them out of the steppes and into
more arable lands to survive, causing such trouble for the Assyrians and
Babylonians in the Khabur region and Suhi.

As I also said last post, the Hebrew language, not easily distinguishable
from Phoenician in the ninth century BCE argues against a long tradition
history in Hebrew.

>The Patriarchal Narratives may be legend, but they point to a Northern 
>Mesopotamian origin of the Patriarchs.

You are probably, but partially, right.

>Strangely enough, there may even be support from a recent Y-chromosome study 
>of Jewish populations and host populations which indicates that, by Y-
>chromosome makeup, Jews of all origins are closest to Palestinians, Syrians 
>and Lebanese. Non-Jewish Iraqis were not in the sample, so final conclusions 
>will have to wait.

Interesting.


Cheers,


Ian