Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <Yigal-Levin AT utc.edu>]

Hi again

At 09:53 PM 9/18/2002 GMT, Bányai Michael wrote:
>Hallo Yigal,
>
>probably had Finkelstein right dating the destruction of Shiloh to the
middle of the 11th century BC.
>
>BTW the quote from Jeremiah concerning the man of Shiloh, Shechem and
Samaria coming to Jerusalem has a highly symbolical  character. All these
cities were former places of important Jahweh temples which have been
destroyed like just the Jerusalem temple.


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

>
>> Are you saying that Gen. 49 is from the "time of the Judges"?
>
>I dare say yes, as do the Balaam blessings belong actually to Samuel, and
so on. This all does not necessarily mean, these text were written during
those periods. 
>I feel Abimelech had to disappear on obvious grounds. But the reference to
Shiloh and Judah having to go to Shiloh might have appeared delightful to
people like the prophet Ahija. Attributing it to Jacob was a good way to
preserve the blessing and avoid reference to Abimelech. 

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.

>
>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´s
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.

All the best,


Dr. Yigal Levin
Dept. of Philosophy and Religion
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga TN 37403-2598
U.S.A.