Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: Iron and Bronze.

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ian Goldsmith <iangoldsmith1969 AT yahoo.co.uk>
  • To: b- hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Iron and Bronze.
  • Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:55:08 +0100 (BST)


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?

Thanks.
Ian.


--- 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
> 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?
>
> 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
> 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.
> >
>
> 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.
>
> Yigal
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Yigal Levin
> Dept. of Philosophy and Religion
> University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
> 615 McCallie Avenue
> Chattanooga TN 37403-2598
> U.S.A.
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as:
> [iangoldsmith1969 AT yahoo.co.uk]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to
> join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
>

=====
Ian Goldsmith.
England.

Dibrah Torah kilshone bnei-adam
'The Torah spoke in the language of ordinary men.'
Berakot 31b

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page