Iron and Bronze.
iangoldsmith1969 at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Aug 30 09:55:08 EDT 2002
Yes. I'd thought of most of this already, but when do
you suppose this part of Genesis to have been written?
Was it during the so called iron-age or bronze?
Are we giving Genesis a date of formulation after
David etc? If so it may solve the problem, but if it
was composed during the bronze-age, how does iron get
into the equation?
--- Yigal Levin <Yigal-Levin at utc.edu> wrote: >
>>===== Original Message From Ian Goldsmith
> <iangoldsmith1969 at yahoo.co.uk>
> >>Now if the writer/s were familiar with the new
> >>innovation of iron against the older bronze, why
> >>mention iron in antiquity before bronze? If this
> >>is indeed written later than Kings etc (not that I
> >>hold this view personally), why mention iron at
> >>If I were to write a story about my ancestors I
> >>wouldn't put in their hands items that didn't
> exist in
> >>their day, it'd be pointless. So why is Tubal-cain
> >>mentioned as the first iron worker?
> At 09:01 AM 8/30/2002 -0400, Trevor Peterson wrote:
> >Do you suppose that they knew their ancestors
> didn't use iron? I think
> >probably most of us have a reasonable idea of when
> would be inappropriate to
> >portray people as not using computers, because it's
> only been a generation
> >two since computers came into use. But aside from
> specialists, how many
> >would know how far back you'd have to go to find
> people who didn't know what
> >paper was? Who knows when the first pencil was
> used? Sure, we know when
> >started using iron, but before archaeology really
> got going, was it widely
> >known? Is there any intrinsic reason to think that
> the use of metals should
> >have progressed over time? I think this is the
> general idea--that they were
> >assuming what would be only natural to assume at a
> point distant from the
> Bisides which, why do you assume that the author(s)
> of this part of Genesis
> were even trying to portray what we would call
> "history". Do you think that
> even if they had been aware that Iron was a
> relatively late development, it
> would have mattered to them?
> Another thought: while I don't doubt that "barzel"
> means "iron", could it
> be used in this passage as a geneic name for all
> metalworking? Which would
> solve your question.
> Dr. Yigal Levin
> Dept. of Philosophy and Religion
> University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
> 615 McCallie Avenue
> Chattanooga TN 37403-2598
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as:
> [iangoldsmith1969 at yahoo.co.uk]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> To subscribe, send an email to
> join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.
Dibrah Torah kilshone bnei-adam
'The Torah spoke in the language of ordinary men.'
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
More information about the b-hebrew