Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Gabe:

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Gabe Eisenstein 
<gabe AT cascadeaccess.com>wrote:

> MODERATORS: Although this post begins in response to something from the
> "absence of evidence" thread, I have started anew based on the belief
> that the subsequent textual analysis is germane to the list. Let me know
> if I'm wrong.
>
>
> If Deuteronomy is from the 15th century the mentions of iron seem
> anachronistic, leading Karl to doubt the mainstream archaeological
> account.


No, I don't doubt the archaeological account, because I read that iron
smelting from ores was done as early as 3000 BC according to mainstream
archaeologists. That led me to question, what was the amount of iron usage
there was at 1500 BC? Could it have been more than what many people
presently suppose?

I mention smelting in contrast to meteorite iron. Meteorite iron was very
expensive.

The reason it could have been in greater use is because, though it was
decidedly inferior to bronze for tools and weapons, it was decidedly
superior to wood and stones for tools. And if it was significantly cheaper
than bronze by 1500 BC, would it not have become common among farmers and
others whose need for tools could use the superiority of iron over wood, but
for tools that did not have to keep an edge like bronze?

The next question is, if iron use was greater than what we commonly think it
was, what signs should we expect to find of its use? Here my answer seems to
point to, very little to none. It rusts, and for those who used it, it was
still probably expensive enough that they made sure to recycle as much of it
as they could. So other than references in literature and paintings, there
should be almost no archaeological finds. At least that's how I see it.


> Some of his argument concerned the textual motivation to say
> "iron" (iron yoke in Deut.28) when the reality might have been something
> else. But what is the motivation for telling people NOT to use iron
> tools (Deut.27:5)?


This was only in a ritualistic context, connected with worship. I don't know
why.


> Here there can be no metaphor; rather it is assumed
> that iron tools will be available in Shechem or will be brought there.
> Just a guess: if the text is really quite old, it might reflect a
> situation in which Israelites were in contact with iron-using people,
> but had no history of iron use -- a situation also suggested by Joshua
> 17. Then the use of iron to build a holy altar might be regarded as
> something foreign. (Perhaps there is a whole theological explanation for
> the no-iron thing here, of which I am ignorant.)
>
> But what I really want to talk about is the structure of Deut.28. It is
> well-known that a number of the curses here are also found in
> Esarhaddon's loyalty oath from the 7th century (VTE for Vassal Treaty of
> Esarhaddon below). There can be no doubt that one of the two authors
> read either the other one, or a third text similar to both. It's of
> course possible that late Assyrian scribes had a copy of Deuteronomy.
> But if you compare the two texts, Deuteronomy sounds derivative. Take
> the mention of iron in verse 23...
>
> Deut.28:23 And your skies that are over you will be bronze, and the land
> that is under you iron.
> VTE 526-530: May the gods of this treaty make your ground like iron, so
> nothing can sprout from it. Just as rain does not fall from a brazen
> heaven so may rain and dew not come upon your fields and meadows.
>
> But that's just the beginning. Verses 22,23,26,27,29,30 and31 all
> directly parallel VTE (526, 425, 419, 420, 428, 429).
> Furthermore, the sequence in Deuteronomy seems random, but part of it
> matches the VTE sequence, which is determined by the traditional
> ordering of the gods associated with each of the curses (e.g.
> Sin=leprosy precedes Shamash=blindness [the sun will hide his light]).
>
> But wait, there's more: Deut.28 already shows itself to be composite
> based on internal evidence. Verses 2-10 are blessings with parallel
> curses in 15-20. Verse 25 corresponds to verse 7, it is out of order.
> Verse 10 corresponds to verse 37, which seems like the original end of
> the unit.
> Therefore it looks like the section written by someone familiar with VTE
> was inserted in the middle of the text from another source. Is there any
> other explanation for the sequence of blessings and curses from verses
> 2-32?
>

There is a common thread that claims that the ancient Israelites were rubes,
hicks from the sticks, but the text seems to indicate otherwise.

If Moses were brought up in the royal court as Exodus claims he was, then
would he not be familiar with the language of diplomacy and other
governmental processes? Since he repeatedly pictures God's relation between
God and Israel in the legal status as lord over vassal nation, is it any
surprise to see here another indication of such legalese?

>
>
> Gabe Eisenstein


Karl W. Randolph.