Iron and Bronze. The tribe of Dan
Yigal-Levin at utc.edu
Wed Sep 18 16:00:30 EDT 2002
At 06:31 PM 9/18/2002 GMT, you wrote:
>nothing against theories, even if their argumentation is more than wondrous,
>but what are you than doing with the occurence of Shiloh in the text of
>Shiloh has according to Finkelstein disappeared long before the time of
Solomon, even if we record the biblical figure of the prophet Ahijah of
Shiloh in the late years of Solomon/ early Jerobeam.
1. I never claimed to have all the answers.
2. The fact that the Deuteronomistic Historian of 1 Kings could tell of
Ahijah the Shilonite in the late years of Solomon/early Jerobeam, not to
mention the pilgrims from Shiloh after the destruction of Jerusalem in Jer.
41:5, just go to prove the limitations of archaeology. Either there was a
small village on or near the site throughout the monarchy, which the
excavations just didn't pick up on (not surprising, considering that the
whole top of the tell is eroded - but it's still worth the visit!), or at
least there was a literary tradition of there being such a village, or
"Shiloh" in Gen. 49:10 does not mean that the actual city of Shiloh was
still in existence (cf. Jer. 7 and 26, where he uses the destruction of
Shiloh as a lesson for Jerusalem), or the word "shiloh" in Gen. 49:10 does
not mean the city at all (cf. the NIV, which has "until he comes to whom it
[tribute] belongs", reading "shello". Pick any of the above.
>Would you expand about this division of the text between the predavidic
period and postsolomonic times?
Which text? Gen. 49? I never said any of it was predavidic.
>I don´t see here any evidence in favour of the exposed theory,
>still less having been recognised(I may err here), but rather an apodictic
>statement about what this Dan occurence might reflect.
I didn't understand that sentance.
Dr. Yigal Levin
Dept. of Philosophy and Religion
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga TN 37403-2598
More information about the b-hebrew