The tribe of Dan. Shiloh

Banyai Michael banyai at
Thu Sep 19 10:32:49 EDT 2002

Hi Yigal,

> I'm not sure that Jerimiah recognized Shechem and Samaria as "important
> Jahweh temples". I prefer to take the passage at face value.

I take it too at its face value, but it was at the same time a symbolic
gesture from the side of the Samaritans and Shechemites. I don´t believe
too Jeremiah perceived it so.

> Wouldn't it have been even better, if it had been written by Ahijah, or at
> least a pro-Jeroboam Israelian? I fail to see the Abimelech connection.

It could well be that it passed through the hands of Ahijah. I take almost
for certain it did. But I don´t see in him the autor of the text. Don´t
forget, Abimelech is traditionally the destroyer of the Shechem temple,
this may account for the extremely negative image made of the Levites in
the text, since he warred on them. Besides, he seems to be the one who
moved the ark of the covenant afterwards to Shiloh, as some tradition
colported by Ginzberg "The legends of the Jews" says. The ark was
transported to Shiloh by a certain Zebul. This is the name given by Judges
to the commander of Abimelech in Shechem.

There is at least a further argument concerning the temple from Shiloh,
which didn´t exist at the time of Ahijah. The ground for Ahijahs turn of
mind about Jerobeam, is that the king didn´t reconstruct him the temple at
Shiloh. It was an important semitic tradition, which I´ll analyse in my
paper to rebuild temples after the pass of exactly 350 years since their
erection. This was exactly the time computed between Abimelech and
Jerobeam´s first regnal year. The temple however remained in heaps,
because Jerobeam decided to build at Beth-El and Dan (some reference to
Beth-El replaces the original name of Shiloh for example in the story
about the crime of the Benjaminites).

I´ll develop on the 350 year cyclus in my paper later on.

> >Samuels benediction had still better reasons to disappear as such, since
> it celebrates Saul as victor over Agag. A highly distasteful legitimation
> of the dynasty of Saul by the mouth of Samuel: "his king shall be higher
> than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted" from the sight of David=B4s
> disident dynasty pretending its legitimity from the same Samuel. Did they
> have anything comparable from the mouth of the prophet? So what would be
> better than unlabel it and attribute it Balaam?
> >
> This actually makes sense. Nice idea.
This explains also the occurence of Assyria in the blessings, because the
Assyrian kings campaigned in the 1080ies in the Levante and took part in a
number of naval expeditions, which are recorded, (where they may have been
defeated by the ships of the Kittim-Cypriots or Greeks), and probably gave
rise to hopes as allies during Samuels generation.

All the best,

Bányai Michael


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list