Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

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