Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Dear Harold,

In your recent mail, you completely ignored basic questions that
I posed earlier.  For example, you brought up the issue that rust
can completely degrade iron.  Great.  I don't disagree.  That is
not a sufficient explanation that explains why iron isn't found in
early periods.  I already brought up the reasons why it's not in
the previous post to which you responded with your quotes.

Your reading of kly as "tool" and not as "weapon" is based on a
mistaken interpretation of Hebrew.  In Hebrew some words, such
as byt or kly, have a wide variety of particular meanings.  For byt,
for example, you can have "house", "temple", "palace", "dynasty",
"kingdom", "receptacle", "family".  For kly, "tool", "instrument",
"ornament", or "garment" as well as "weapon" are all particular
meanings that could be taken by the word.  The word weapon
even has its phrases including n&) klym - "arms-bearer" as in
Ju 9:54.  (Also, according to some translations, byt klym -
"arsenal/armory" Is 39:2).

Now, if the author of Num 35 wanted to describe murder with an
iron weapon, "kly brzl" is the phrase he would use.  Additionally,
the simplest meaning of Num 35 is that it describes the results
of murder by various kinds of weapons rather than various kinds
of objects that are not generally meant to cause harm.  (This
also has relevance in terms of the law, since using a weapon to
kill someone conveys intent whereas if someone is killed as a
result of accidentally being hit by the kitchen sink, or a bed, that
is not necessarily intent to murder and may be accidental.  In
your views, such accidental deaths would be reason to put to
death the person responsible).  Taken together these two facts
mean that on its own, based on context and linguistics, the
word "kly" in the verse means "weapon."  Your argument appears
to rather say, "well, although the linguistics and context point
to the reading 'kly' = 'weapon', I'd rather not read this equation
into the verse because the only way to substantiate such an
equation is in the late Iron Age, when I believe the verse was
authored much earlier."  But this is wrong methodologically just
like it would be wrong to read in 1 Sam 5:2 "house of Dagon"
without realizing it is a temple, not a simple house.

A different example is given directly in your response, after you
quote a certain geologist, Richard Cowen:
"Although this author does not think that early iron was used
much for everyday items, the early biblical books show that it
was. So I just have to disagree with his conclusions"

First, a little "disclaimer."   For what its worth, Prof. Cowen is a
geologist, and his primary field and studies do not deal with
geology of metal or iron but rather with life.  But I still generally
assume that as a university professor, he would use standard
scientific methodology and would consult experts on the subject
in dealing with fields outside his main area of study.  I think
it is clear for most of the list, based on previous discussions,
that not all university professors do that.

The basic concept in both the above conclusions is that the
Bible is taken a priori to be true and correct and to fit a particular
theological reading.  If that's what you're doing, I don't understand
why evidence matters at all.  For even if evidence does exist,
you would rather try to explain it away, even if the explanation
ends up being very very forced.  Before, I accepted your reading
of Num 35 as possible, but noted that in my opinion it is very
forced.  Now, we have direct examples of disputing scientific
assessments based on the Bible.  I really have no problem with
an explanation based on the belief that the Bible is a priori taken
to be true and to fit certain theological readings of it.  I only have
a problem when that explanation is dressed as based on an
analysis of archaeological or historical or linguistic evidence, as
if given other evidence, other conclusions would be achieved.

Yitzhak Sapir