Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

> >By "serious" I take it you mean, one that doesn't want
> >to be open to ridicule by suggesting that iron was in
> >use before the "bronze-age" and that the skill of iron
> >working may have been lost.
> 
> No, I mean one who does not state things for which there is no evidence,
> and which in fact contradict what evidence there is.

"Evidence" is a very fluid term.  It can mean the hard data (pottery, 
tools of various materials that have been excavated, written 
documents) but especially in biblical studies, it can also mean "the 
consensus of opinion on how to interpret the hard data" as well as 
"the latest theory on the composition or redaction of book X."  I 
frankly do not consider the last two to be real "evidence."

Where and when exactly did iron-working come about?  Do we even 
know?  And if it began near or around the time of Moses (whether 
early-dated or late-dated) who's to say that, even if the Israelites 
didn't have the technology, they hadn't heard about it or come 
across some iron implements?  I'm not necessarily arguing for 
Mosiac authorship, just playing prophet's advocate.  The fact that 
the character Tubal-Cain is said to be the father of metal-working in 
bronze and iron does not necessarily mean that a) he actually 
worked on both metals, or b) that the narrative mentioning him has 
to be antediluvian in date.  All it has to mean is that, around the time 
of the Exodus (yeah, I know, but this is just for the sake of 
argument) a writer knew of an especially hard metal called iron 
being smelted and used by some people, and that the writer's 
received tradition credited Tubal-Cain with the origin of metal 
smelting.

As so often happens in this field, evidence is one thing, but 
assumptions are everything.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Don't let your mind wander.  
It's too little to be left alone."