The tribe of Dan. Shiloh

Yigal Levin Yigal-Levin at
Wed Sep 18 16:08:26 EDT 2002

At 07:40 PM 9/18/2002 GMT, Bányai Michael wrote:
>You are right, Yigal, that you didn´t claimed to have all the answers.
Neither me. Nobody could that.
>You are also right that archaeology has its limitations.
>Jeremiah is contradictory, he probably points at an existing city of
Shiloh but a destroyed temple there. Probably is the archaeological gap
pointed at by Finkelstein somewhat smaller, even if I can not conceive he
is much wrong by 100 years downwards or upwards.
>This however doesn´t allow a lowering of the date of this passus from the
blessing (should we read it in the way as I have pointed) since, following
David Shiloh had lost its extraordinary status, making its privileged role
in the text understandable.

Actually the way Finkelstein read the evidence (and I agree with him - this
is the "old", pre-"no David", Finkelstein), Shiloh was destroyed during the
middle of the 11th century, in connection with the war of 1 Sam. 4.  
>Regarding a lecture of Gen. 49:10: we all know why no two translations of
the Bible are perfectly identical. Nevertheless I see this lecture as
Shiloh as extremely plausible. It is to expect from these strongly
formalised blessings to mention where the location of the main Israelite
temple at the moment of their composition was. 

Are you saying that Gen. 49 is from the "time of the Judges"?

>The translation "until he comes to whom it [tribute] belongs" is a licit
reading, but only obscures the text. Remind you the "bit David" discussion:
how many lexically possible translations running against the simple "house
of David" were made? Not withstanding one concerning a "porneion".
>I decide for a reading making not only lexically sense, but also with an
unveiled meaning, similar to the one from the roughly contemporary blessing
of Deut. 33. 

Why would Deut. 33 be roughly contemporary?

>Judah may retain an independent kingdom till it manages to break its
geographical isolation. We aknowledge this isolation of Judah in the story
about the crime of the Benjaminites. 
>The Benjaminites have a quite ambiguous status in Israel. 

True. I've been working on this for some time.

>It is no paradox that the story of Sodom and Gomorah is modeled following
the story of the crime of the Benjaminites. Please take also a look at the
song of Moses, Deut. 32:32, where  Sodom and Gomorah are used as image for
the enemies of the Israelites (apparently hanging to the same God "their
rock is not like our Rock" "see now that even I am he" or am I wrong in
this point?), of whom the land will be cleansed, Deut. 32:43. 

Interesting point, but I'm not sure.

>I would have wished, that our most respected colleagues would have waged
themselves the pros and the cons for their interesting theory.

>All the best,
>Bányai Michael
The same to y'all.

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 mailing list