Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON AT cua.edu>]

>===== 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 text
>is indeed written later than Kings etc (not that I
>hold this view personally), why mention iron at all?
>
>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?

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 or 
two since computers came into use. But aside from specialists, how many 
people 
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 
people 
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 
events.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics