Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

The earliest references to the Chaldeans spell the name with an L.  That’s 
mat kaldi by the Assyrians, referring to the land of the Chaldeans, and of 
critical importance the Babylonians themselves always refer to the Chaldeans 
with an L:  “BTW, you must take into account that in the Bible the Chaldeans 
are called kasdim <kasdu, whereas in the Babylonian inscriptions they are 
already called kaldu….”  1/4/2000 post by Jonathan D. Safren, Dept. of 
Biblical Studies, Beit Berl College, Israel.
 
There is no basis in secular history whatsoever for the proposition that the 
Chaldeans had earlier been called Kasdim, or ever had any letter other than L 
for the second letter in their name.  
 
Prof. Yigal Levin wrote:  “The Bible uses "Kasdim" for the 1st millennium 
Babylonians in books like Kings, Jeremiah and Daniel, because at that time, 
the Neo-Babylonian Empire was in fact ruled by a "Kasdi/Chaldean" dynasty 
(this includes the infamous Nebuchadnezzar).”
 
But unlike later books in the Bible, Genesis 11: 28, 31 is  n-o-t  referring 
to “the 1st millennium Babylonians”, that’s for sure.  We should then 
consider whether those later books in the Bible picked up K%DYM from Genesis 
11: 28, 31 and applied that Biblical word, somewhat anachronistically, to the 
later Chaldeans.  We should not assume that Daniel is correct in using the 
word Kasdi to refer to the Chaldeans, since Daniel is so unreliable.  Rather, 
if we look to the Late Bronze Age, Kasdim is redolent of Karaduniyas under 
Kadasman and the Kassites, and the Chaldeans are not yet in existence. 
 
On 5/23/09 Prof. Yigal Levin wrote:  “[U]se of the term "Ur Kasdim" (Ur of 
the Chaldees) [at Genesis 11: 28, 31] is an obvious anachronism, since the 
"Kasdim/Chaldeans" are a Aramean tribe not known before the 9th century BCE.” 
 That is simply not true.  Kasdim at Genesis 11: 28, 31 is appropriate Late 
Bronze Age nomenclature for Karaduniyas under Kadasman and the Kassites.  In 
the Patriarchal narratives (unlike the rest of the Bible), Kasdim has nothing 
to do whatsoever with the not-yet-in-existence Chaldeans.
 
It’s not fair to talk about an “anachronism” in the Patriarchal narratives 
unless that charge is based on secular history, rather than such charge being 
based on post-exilic books in the Bible such as Daniel.  If we’re talking 
secular history, then here’s the brute fact:
 
The Chaldeans are  n-e-v-e-r  referred to by anyone outside of the Bible as 
Kasdim!
 
There is no anachronism at Genesis 11: 28, 31.  In the Late Bronze Age and at 
Genesis 11: 28, 31, K%DYM meant the people of Karaduniyas of the Kassites, 
whose ruler at time of Genesis 11: 28, 31 was Kadasman.  The rest of the 
Bible was composed in the 1st millennium BCE.  Later books in the Bible 
simply picked up this ancient word K%DYM from the Patriarchal narratives and, 
somewhat inappropriately, applied it to the Chaldeans.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois





-----Original Message-----
From: jimstinehart AT aol.com
To: kwrandolph AT gmail.com; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Fri, Jun 4, 2010 9:47 am
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Terakh



Karl, you wrote:

If you can’t even get people who agree with you that the Bible is not 
historic 
o agree with your theories, how do you expect to get people who believe that 
he Bible is accurate history to agree with you?”

 few key issues needed to be clarified before Prof. Yigal Levin can give us 
his 
onsidered opinion about Ur Kasdim.  Prof. Levin had been expecting “Kassim” 
for 
 reference to the Kassites.  But I showed that such would be impossible, 
ecause such a word would instead refer to the Cushites in Africa.  Abdi-Heba 
of 
erusalem refers to the African Cushites as “Kasites” [ka-$i-yi] at Amarna 
etter EA 287: 33.

o now we know that we need to focus, rather, on the Kassite name for their 
own 
ountry.  At  Amarna Letter EA 200: 9, it’s Ka-ra-du-ni-a$, and at Amarna 
Letter 
A 255: 21, it’s Ka-ra-du-ni-ia-a$.

he first three consonants in the Kassite name for their Late Bronze Age 
country 
ppear to be K-R-D.  If we compare the phrase at Genesis 11: 30, we see K%DYM, 
hich may likely be K%D + YM, with the final –YM being a standard, west 
Semitic 
uffix.  If so, then only one letter seems to be the sticking point:  that 
econd letter.  But in that regard, and of critical importance to the 
linguistic 
nalysis (which is the long suit of the b-hebrew list), Kevin P. Edgecomb once 
ade the following fascinating comment about “Kasdim”:

Kasdim is…considered to derive from the Kassite word for Akkad/Babylonia…:  
arduniash.  The presentation of that second consonant alternately as 
/r/l/s/sh/ 
ndicates that it was a lateral fricative, represented in different ways 
epending upon convention.”

o one knows how the Kassite letters actually sounded, because they were 
written 
own in Akkadian (similar to the situation with Hurrian).  Could the R 
lternatively be represented by %?  Moreover, there may also have been some 
onfusion here with the name of the ruler of the Kassites at this time, whose 
ame featured a $, not an R:  Kadashman (at Amarna Letter EA 1: 1).  Both the 
ountry name and the leader’s name featured K and D, which we see in K%D-YM.  
he country name had R, whereas the leader’s name had $, and we see % or $ in 
%D-YM.  Finally, use of % suggests Kassite, a word featuring K and S (or $ in 
kkadian).  All in all it’s pretty darn close, in my opinion, considering that 
e are dealing with the very strange, little known language of Kassite.

et’s see what Prof. Levin’s view of Ur K%DYM is after he has had a chance to 
onsider this additional information.

im Stinehart
vanston, Illinois

-----Original Message-----
rom: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
o: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
ent: Thu, Jun 3, 2010 12:03 pm
ubject: Re: [b-hebrew] Terakh

im:
f you can’t even get people who agree with you that the Bible is not
storic to agree with your theories, how do you expect to get people who
lieve that the Bible is accurate history to agree with you?
n Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:02 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:
  Karl:

 1.  You wrote:  “Where was Ur of the Chaldeans?”

gal answered that quite well. I read years ago that the Ebla tablets also
sted Ur of the Chaldeans (K%DYM) as a separate place from Ur of the
marians.

 Jim Stinehart
 Evanston, Illinois

 order for your theory to stand, you need an early date for the Amarna
riod, which contradicts both the Bible and the findings of archaeology,
d a late date for Abraham which is your way of saying that the Bible is
istorical, that it is but myth.
arl W. Randolph.
_____________________________________________
hebrew mailing list
hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
tp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
=
______________________________________________
-hebrew mailing list
-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
ttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew