Robert F. Smith Posted November 6, 2011 Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) Thoughts?Frank Moore Cross maintains that, far from being an anachronism, "Ur of the Chaldees" is either a "late editorial updating," or "an explicating glosse." Cross, From Epic to Canon (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ., 1998), 30n.The late C. H. Gordon identified Abraham's Ur of the Chaldees as Ura, north-northeast of Harran, or Urfa/Edessa (Syriac Orhai), northwest of Harran (in southern Turkey) -- Gordon, JNES, 17 (1958), 28; Gordon, "Abraham of Ur," in Hebrew and Semitic Studies: G. R. Driver Festschrift (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 77-84; Gordon, "Where is Abraham's Ur?" BAR, III/2 (June 1977), 20. See H. W. F. Saggs, "Ur of the Chaldees: A Problem of Identification," Iraq, 22 (1960), 200-209; E. A. Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible 1 (1964), 78, 80-81; H. Shanks, "Abraham's Ur: Is the Pope Going to the Wrong Place," BAR, 26/1 [Jan-Feb 2000], 18-19, 66-67.I thought that this question was dealt with rather effectively on a very recent thread also started by you. Edited November 6, 2011 by Robert F. Smith
Mortal Man Posted November 7, 2011 Posted November 7, 2011 Frank Moore Cross maintains that, far from being an anachronism, "Ur of the Chaldees" is either a "late editorial updating," or "an explicating glosse."This doesn't explain "Ur of the Chaldees" coming out of the mouth of Yahweh.
Olavarria Posted November 7, 2011 Author Posted November 7, 2011 This doesn't explain "Ur of the Chaldees" coming out of the mouth of Yahweh.Translator's anachronism, maybe.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 8, 2011 Posted November 8, 2011 This doesn't explain "Ur of the Chaldees" coming out of the mouth of Yahweh.For those who believe in the plenary theory of inspiration, of course not. However, as I explain in my paper on the "Translation of Languages," http://www.scribd.com/doc/46307834/Translation-of-Languages, I place the plenary notion that the human receiving inspiration is merely a dictating machine on par with the beliefs of evangelical fundamenatlists that the Bible "contains no error of any kind – not only theological error, but error of any sort of historical, geographical or scientific fact, is completely absent from the Bible."*We are after all mere mortal men, and quite fallible. Whatever inspiration we receive is translated into our fallible human understanding, and the Bible (for example) is filled with examples of honest efforts to transmit scripture with explanatory glosses and terms which will be comprehended by those receiving it.* James Barr, Fundamentalism, 40-41. 1
Mortal Man Posted November 8, 2011 Posted November 8, 2011 For those who believe in the plenary theory of inspiration, of course not. However, as I explain in my paper on the "Translation of Languages," http://www.scribd.co...on-of-Languages, I place the plenary notion that the human receiving inspiration is merely a dictating machine on par with the beliefs of evangelical fundamenatlists that the Bible "contains no error of any kind – not only theological error, but error of any sort of historical, geographical or scientific fact, is completely absent from the Bible."*We are after all mere mortal men, and quite fallible. Whatever inspiration we receive is translated into our fallible human understanding, and the Bible (for example) is filled with examples of honest efforts to transmit scripture with explanatory glosses and terms which will be comprehended by those receiving it.* James Barr, Fundamentalism, 40-41.IOW, the author of Genesis just made it up.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) IOW, the author of Genesis just made it up.Depends on who you think the true author of Genesis was, God (who indeed "made" the universe), Moses, or some other tradent or redactor of the tradition who, in his wisdom, included figurative language, catechetical poetry, ritual, and narrative material based on his best understanding of the received tradition. The traditions have been passed on to us according to our language and understanding (2 Nephi 31:3 "for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding"). We are, after all, mere fallible, mortal men.As you are no doubt aware, and as I and the late Ephraim Speiser* have taken pains to point out, the Mesopotamian Creation and Flood Stories have numerous characteristics in common with those which appear much later in the Bible.# If that sort of thing interests you, you might want to have a look at the book Hamlet's Mill by von Dechend and di Santillana and see how they account for the similarities. Or you might want to examine the late Joseph Campbell's beautiful Mythic Image.* Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible 1 (Doubleday, 1964).# Smith, "Chiasm in Sumero-Akkadian," in J. Welch, ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity (Gerstenberg, 1981), 27-30. Edited November 9, 2011 by Robert F. Smith 1
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 Can I just say right now that I love pretty much every post I've read by Olavarria and Smith? You guys are fabulous. I only hope my unabashed fanboy approbation does not tarnish y'alls reputation by association. *grin* Also, here's Hamlet's Mill, because everyone should read it but it's hard to find sometimes.
Ron Beron Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 Can I just say right now that I love pretty much every post I've read by Olavarria and Smith? You guys are fabulous. I only hope my unabashed fanboy approbation does not tarnish y'alls reputation by association. *grin*Also, here's Hamlet's Mill, because everyone should read it but it's hard to find sometimes.Hamlet's Mill was recommended to me years ago and I have failed to read it as well as I should. Time to dig it out.
Recommended Posts