Hi Jim > From: [email protected] <snip> > The scholarly view that K$DYM means “Chaldeans” is untenable on all counts. > That view does not >work linguistically, because the second letter in the > received text is shin/$, not lamed/L. The very first >non-biblical > attestation of the name “Chaldeans” has a lamed/L; the claim that $ changed > to L over time >has nothing whatsoever to substantiate it. <snip> > > The point I am trying to make on this thread [and I certainly welcome hearing > opposing points of view >and alternative theories of the case] is that If we > can get the historical time period right [the Late >Bronze Age, having > nothing to do with JEP], we will find that a-l-l names of native west > Semitic->speaking people in the Patriarchal narratives make good sense in > Hebrew. That stands opposed to the >conventional views that (i) NXWR > nonsensically means “Snorer”, and that (ii) the name HRN does not >make good > sense in context because Haran’s death in allegedly Chaldean southern > Mesopotamia has >nothing whatsoever to do with “mountains”. In fact, the > Hebrew meaning of a-l-l of these names >makes perfect sense in the context > of the Late Bronze Age backdrop of the Patriarchal narratives.
The late bronze age as the time of the patriarchs simply makes no sense archaeologically. However, if "Kasdim" refers to the Kassites, it does make perfect sense if Genesis _was_written_ in the Late Bronze Age; i.e. the time of Moses (not the the patriarchs). It is perfectly possible that Moses referred to Ur as the city then (during his life-time) belonging to the Kassites. There is simply no need to imply or assume that this was actually the time of the patriarchs. Also, to insist that the names of the patriarchs must refer to something that happens in their lives simply doesn't make sense. Why are you called "Jim"? Any reference to anything happening in _your_ life? The fact that the Biblical writer would draw attention to those cases where the name of a person and his given name coincided does not mean that the name of every single person mentioned in the Bible should refer to something happening in his life. Exceptions would be e.g. Gideon being renamed as Jeru-Baál after destroying the Baal altar where a _new_ "nick-name" is given to somebody because of something that happened in his life. But I can see no reason why you would insist this is true for all the patriarchs. Those cases where it is true, are explicitly mentioned. What I would grant you, is that there is also no reason to assume that the names of the patriarchs were West Semitic, since they came from Mesopotamia and if anything more likely spoke Akkadian (or possibly an early dialect of Aramean). But they might have had names from any of the languages spoken in Early or Middle Bronze Age Mesopotamia. These names might have become "Hebraized" later when written down in the Bible. But we are speculating to a large extend when looking at the origins for these names (unless we have the archaeological background and knowledge of ancient languages in addition to Hebrew to show similarities with other names from the same period and place). And this has more to do with archaeology rather than Biblical Hebrew. Shalom Chavoux Luyt _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
