Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Initial Consonant Clusters in Biblical Hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jimstinehart AT aol.com
  • To: klriley AT alphalink.com.au, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Initial Consonant Clusters in Biblical Hebrew
  • Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:08:27 -0400


Kevin Riley wrote: “When the speakers of language A come across a word in
language B that doesn't fit the syllable structure of their language, they
treat it as if it does. If language A has ka-$ra and language B allows
ka$-ra but not ka-$ra, it will be heard as ka$-ra.”

I agree.

That then raises the issue of what the Hebrew author of Genesis 11: 28, 31
had heard when he decided to record the name of Kassite Babylonia as K$DYM.
Along with many other early Hebrews, he knew that the rulers of Babylonia
were the Ka$-$u [in English: “Kassites”]. However, very few early Hebrews
would have known that the peculiar Akkadian version of the Kassite name of
Kassite Babylonia was, per the Amarna Letters, Ka-ra-du-ni-a$. The Hebrew
author wanted to make sure that his Hebrew audience would not think that he
was referring to ancient Ur in its glory days, 700 years previously, in a
mythical setting recalling the Early Bronze Age. In the Late Bronze Age
[when the Patriarchal narratives were composed, which is also the time period
being overtly described in the text], Ur was still important as the best
place for a caravan to buy lapis lazuli at wholesale, though it no longer had
any other importance whatsoever.

Thus to take away what might otherwise cause his composition to have a
mythical feel, the Hebrew author wanted to make absolutely certain that every
Hebrew in his audience would associate Abraham’s Ur with the Ka$-$u, so that
they would know he was talking about contemporary Ur, that is, Ur of the
Kassites. Accordingly, instead of passively using the Akkadianized version
of Ka-$ra, namely Ka-ra, as the first two consonants of the Hebrew version of
the Kassite name of Kassite Babylonia, per the Amarna Letters, which his
audience [who did not know such name] might have viewed as being an ambiguous
reference timewise, the Hebrew author actively and brilliantly changed the
first two consonants to be Ka-$a. Now his entire Hebrew audience would know
that he was talking about contemporary Ur of the Kassites, since the
Hebraized version of the Kassite name of Kassite Babylonia started with
Ka-$a, which is obviously very similar to the well-known word Ka$-$u [that
is, the “Kassites”].

For anyone who is willing to look at the secular history of the Bronze Age
instead of relying exclusively on the post-exilic Book of Daniel, in
analyzing the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives, it honestly should
be fairly obvious, it seems to me. We know that Semitic people referred to
the Kassites as Ka$-$u, featuring the two consonants K + $, in that order.
When one looks at K$DYM at Genesis 11: 28, 31, how can one miss it? The
first two consonants are K-$! It’s right there in the received text, plain
as day.

Anyone out there who is willing to take a new look at Genesis 11: 28, 31,
without having their minds already irrevocably made up on the basis of the
post-exilic Book of Daniel, will see that the first two letters of K$ + D +
YM naturally recall Ka$-$u, and hence are referencing Kassite Babylonia.

Remember, the entire historicity of the Patriarchal narratives is riding on
this issue. If we passively let scholars tell us that K$DYM is an
historically unattested forerunner of the name Kaldu [English: “Chaldeans”],
with the scholarly “proof” for such farfetched idea being, believe it or not,
the post-exilic Book of Daniel, then we have no one but ourselves to blame
for the following unfortunate situation. University scholars teach the
freshmen every year that the vast bulk of the Patriarchal narratives was
composed by multiple 1st millennium BCE authors, who were so clueless as to
the Bronze Age that they didn’t even know that by the time the Chaldeans come
into existence in the 9th century BCE, Ur was, for all intents and purposes,
no more. Needless to say, scholars n-e-v-e-r mention to their students
that there is not a scintilla of support in the secular history of the
ancient world for the scholarly dream that K$DYM is a forerunner of the name
Kaldu. The earliest Assyrian and Babylonian references to the Chaldeans
consistently refer to these new people as Kaldu. If no one but me is willing
to take on the professors as to these linguistic and historical matters,
don’t expect anything to change at the universities.

Here is another non-historical attempt to link Kasdim to the Chaldeans [this
time citing Job, not Daniel]: “Kasdim is possibly…derived from the Assyr-Bab
root kasadu, ‘to capture’, suggesting that the Chaldeans were originally
tribes of nomadic plunderers (compare Job 1: 17).”
http://bibleatlas.org/chaldea.htm

Note that no one ever claims that there’s any inscription from the ancient
world that refers to the Kaldu [English: Chaldeans] by an earlier name,
which has $ or % instead of L for the second letter. That’s because there
isn’t any such inscription. Historically, the Chaldeans were called Kaldu
from day #1.

Remember, there’s n-o-t-h-i-n-g in the secular history of the ancient world
to support the scholarly view that Genesis 11: 28, 31 is a glaring historical
anachronism, and/or that it is, impossibly, referring to the 1st millennium
BCE Chaldeans. N-o-t-h-i-n-g. There’s no there there, linguistically or
historically.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page