Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polycarp66 AT aol.com]

In a message dated 9/4/2002 11:19:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Yigal-Levin AT utc.edu writes:


> No, but the point is (forgive me for butting in) that the mention of Iron
> is neither a proof of the antiquity of iron or of the lateness of the text.
> Both have to be evaluated independantly, and then combined. But if it could
> be established that iron was not known (or at least not used) until the 8th
> century, this would be proof that at least that part of that redaction of
> that particular text did not reach its present form until the 8th century.


It would a fortiori (qal wahomer for talmudic scholars) need the diffusion of the knowledge of iron production if, as has been suggested that "ironmonger" may have become a generic term for "metalworker" since prior to the discovery of methods of producing iron the only iron which was worked was that from meteorites.  This surely would have been insufficient to warrant the term's becoming a generic.

gfsomsel