Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polycarp66 AT aol.com]

In a message dated 2/1/2004 7:55:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
peterkirk AT qaya.org writes:
>>>THE ISRAELITES IN HISTORY AND TRADITION
>>>by Niels Peter Lemche (c) 1998
>>>      
>>>
>>Page 95
>>
>>...
>>    
>>
>
>I don't know what to think of Lemche or the thoroughness of his research.
>It is news to me that anyone has been searching for a temple at Shiloh;  I
>always understood the shrine at Shiloh to be only a shrine.
>
>  
>
This seems to be typical of certain kinds of scholarship. One scholar 
erects a theory that there was a permanent and impressive temple at 
Shiloh although the records don't say there was. Another demolishes this 
theory and then presumes that he has discredited the account which 
didn't support the theory in the first place. Anyway it is extremely 
hazardous to conclude anything from negative evidence in archaeology, 
failure to find something. There are so many reasons why evidence can 
have disappeared, or not be in the expected place.
________

Sounds nice, except in this case it does say that there was a temple there.  
See 1 Sam 1.9 which reads in part

W:("LiY HaKoH"N Yo$"B (aL_HaK.iS.") (aL_M::ZW.ZaT H"YKaL YHWH

Sounds like a temple to me.

gfsomsel