Jquip (@Jquip)

Rabbit holes in rabbit holes and it just won't end.  So I previously wrote about the Patriarchs being Hurrian texts, not Semitic.  You can go find it if you want, and read it if you want.  If you're a nerd with a lot of patience. But I had mentioned that the father of Abram, Terah, was the governor of Urkesh under the Amorite king of Mari, Zimri-Lim.  Star Wars names.  Just start taking a drink every time you see one.  There are a number of good reasons to state that this was the case and that Abram came from Urkesh and not "Ur of the Chaldees" But I didn't really get into "Ur of the Chaldees" much.  Because, if you're an academic, you wouldn't say that.  You'd say "Ur in Neo-Babylon during the Chaldean dynasty" or something else even longer.  If you were normal you'd just say "Ur of Babylon" and keep the scholars delightfully confused about which Babylon.  Yeh, there were two of them.  If your sister was a historian, you'd keep the family peace and say "Ur in the Neo-Babylonian Empire."  But who likes their sister that much? And if you go back to the smtc txts, IYKYK, then you'd say something like R Ksd'my.  ... Yeh.  Going by Ebonics that would be Ur Kasdima.  Sorta.  Which we would call Ur of Chaldea.  The notional here is that Kasdi is a person, Kasdim is a plurality of persons, and Kasdima is a nation ruled by a Kasdi. You kinda sorta already get the idea.  German, Germans, Germany.  Briton, Britons, Britannia.  Though we make the name of the nation reflect the multitude of the ethnos.  That is, we accept that Britannia is a nation-state of Britons.  But if the Prime Minister of Britannia was German, the semitics of the day would call it Germania. So when it is stated that Abram left "Ur of the Chaldees", that's wrong.  In every possible way.  What the text says is that Abram left "Ur of Chaldea."  That is, that Abram got on about his merry way during the time of the Neo-Babylonian Empire when it was under the rule of the Chaldean Dynasty.  Yeh, there's that academic bullshit.  It also means that this is obviously false. Without respect to anything else, we know the story of the Patriarchs is Hurrian and so far predates the existence of the Chaldean Dynasty.  Of which, the most notable and longest reigning ruler was the infamous Nebachadenezzur II.  And fuck spellcheck, I'm just guessing here.  It's the guy that sacked Jerusalem and took off a merry portion of the Hebrews back to Babylon.  That guy. A gut that didn't exist until a thousand years after the time of the Patriarchs.  In an empire that didn't exist until a thousand years after the time of the Patriarchs.  But his own dynasty, fresh off the presses, is listed as the homeland of Abram?  Yeh, that's what we call political propaganda.  Nebuchednuzzle II made the Judahites in Jeruslaem edit their holy and uneditable scriptures to make him pleasant.  On pain of death or ethnic cleansing. This is a common thing throughout the ages in history books.  Particularly when there's only one author of those books.  In the case of Jeruasalem, there was only one author of those texts: The Temple in Jerusalem.  Taht's all simple enough and it's not worth mucking further about with -- other than the idea that the Jewish Priests have no problem with political forgeries of convenience. But this comes to the specific matter of the forgery.  You see, Urkesh would have been written something as RKS.  While Ur of Chaldea would have been written something as R.KSDM'Y.  All you have to do is add a dot, a scratch, and two letters.  And just like that, Urkesh becomes Ur Kasdima.  It's trivial to see how Kesh could become Keshdima.  Kesdima.  Kaldima? No vowels in semitic languages so Kaldima is as good as Keldima.  But how does 'l' of Chaldees become 's'?   Because it's bullshit.  The notional tale is that the Hebrews referred to the Chaldeans as Kasdim.  Owing to their notional descent, from the Noah lineages, from Kesed.  Simple, right?  Kesed is KSD and we're done.  Yes well, that's not correct.  Because it would be Kesedi, Kesdim, and Kesedima. In the semitic parlance, if they're called Chaldeans, then they would be Kaldi, Kaldim, and Kaldima.  So that's a wad of nonsense.  And it's hardly the first.  Why are they even called Hebrews in the first place?  Most will say it's becase they're descended from Eber. So they'd be Eberi, Eberim, and Eberima.  Or in the parlance of the KJV, Eberites.  But uniformly they're the Ivri and the Ivrim.  And while 'b' and 'p' interchanges are common in semitic tongues -- such as Habiru and Hapiru -- 'b' and 'v' are not such a thing.  And yes, they're different in the original revised semitic scribbles as well. So where do we even get 'Hebrew' from to begin with?  From Latin, where it's the Hebraios.  Which is translated from the Greek Septuagint Ebraios.  And as near as I can figure out, the Greek 'e' there is less pronounced as 'eh' than it is as 'heh'.  And this word was given to the Greeks in the Septuagint by the Hebrews that translated their scribbles for the Greeks. So they themselves wanted to be known as the Hebri and Hebrim, pining away for their Hebrew empire.  Which is neither Eberi nor Ivri.  No surprise to anyone that notices, but they love to lie about their own writings.  So why the difference? In all liklihood, they associated themselves with the Habiru.  And many have noted the obvious cognate there.  But few have noted that the Book of Joshua and the Amarna Letters about the Habiru describe the same cities being sacked in the same way in the same specific detail.  Except the Amarna Letters have more details than the Book of Joshua. And unless I miss my guess, and I may very well, I'd surmise that the Egyptian Apiru has a 'p' that has a common shift to 'v'.  I hardly know any ancient Egyptian at all, and certainly not enough to do more than suspect.  But I suspect.  Especially given the Merneptah Stele and it's rendering of Isi-ra-ar taken as Israel.  The Egyptians called no one at all by the name they called themselves. And given that Moses was Egyptian through and through, and built the whole religion from scratch, I'd be not at all surprised if he got them to call themselves by the Egyptian name for them.  Well, another time. I'm just bitching because there's no one less honest than a Bible historian but Biblical Archaeologists.  If they'd do their work honestly, I wouldn't have to. Suffice to say that there are many political edits to the 'original' text.  And that the Ivrim (Hebrews) are not claiming descendancy from Eber at all.  Less that they're claiming that the Kasdim (Chaldeans) are descended from Kesed.  Or their own texts would be written differently.