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.
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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.