여호수아 8:30-35, 세겜 언약에 대하여 - 2. 몇 가지 주석들 - ⓑ
Hess, R. S. (1996). Vol. 6: Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (190). Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press.
30–33. The role of the Mosaic instruction (Heb. tôrâ) had its source in the Lord God. It was passed on to Israel in writing through the Lord’s servant, Moses. Joshua 8:30–32 is a fulfilment of Deuteronomy 27:4–8, that which Moses the servant of the Lord had formerly commanded (Josh. 8:33). Thus Joshua builds an altar of uncut stones upon Mount Ebal. Burnt offerings and fellowship offerings are offered there. Joshua copied on stones the law of Moses.
There are parallels with Deuteronomy 27:12–13. In order to pronounce the curses and the blessings, half of Israel stood in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal. Deuteronomy adds details such as covering the stones with plaster in order to write upon them.203 Thus the image is not that of cuneiform tablets in which the characters are impressed on the clay. Instead, it is similar to the plaster writings about Balaam that covered walls at Tell Deir ʿAlla in the Jordan Valley.204
The covenant renewal takes place when Israel has entered the land (Deut. 27:2) and as it prepares to occupy it. Mount Gerizim lay to the south of Shechem and Mount Ebal to the north. Shechem is situated in the heart of the central hill country where Israel began its settlement. Shechem is nowhere mentioned as having been attacked by Israel, leaving open the possibility that it may have been occupied peacefully or joined Israel in alliance (note the mention of aliens twice in Josh. 8:30–35).205 The patriarchs, especially Abram and Jacob, visited Shechem. The building of Abram’s first altar (Gen. 12:6) and Jacob’s first purchase of land for his tent (Gen. 33:19) took place here. It is the patriarchs’ initial residence after their journeys from their families in Syria. Its location in the hill country may serve as a symbol of the habitation of the Canaanites in general. Like the Israelites in Joshua, the patriarchs have really entered Canaan when they reside at Shechem. Although its violent associations in Judges and Kings overshadow the accounts of Joshua, chapters 8 and 24 describe a place of unity before God. On the background and theological nature of the covenant, and the role of the curses and blessings, see comment on Joshua 24 (pp. 329–340). For the Christian, the covenant renewal recalls the need to come together regularly and to renew commitment to God and obedience to God’s will (see Heb. 10:25).
Additional note: Joshua’s altar on Mount Ebal?
When excavators at Tell Balatah, the site of ancient Shechem, first uncovered the sanctuary and found an altar and a standing stone from the time of Israel’s appearance in Canaan, they identified these with texts such as Joshua 24:26–27. However, if these finds have any correlation with the biblical text, it is more likely that it is with the sanctuary of El-berith in Judges 9:46.206 Surveys and excavations on Mount Ebal have revealed a site there, on the third highest peak, that the excavator suggests could be identified with Joshua’s altar.207 Several details have led to this proposal. Firstly, there is the date of occupation. Two levels were found at the site. On the basis of Egyptianized scarabs, a small decorated limestone ‘seal’ and the pottery, the earlier level extends to c. 1200 bc and the later level terminates c. 1150 bc. The site was then abandoned. Secondly, the excavator, Zertal, has interpreted the stone structure in the centre of the site as an altar. Constructed of uncut field stones, its later phase includes a ramp up to what he has identified as a veranda around the altar. In the centre, there is burnt ash. Thirdly, bones found at this structure indicate animals appropriate for Israelite sacrifice, such as sheep, goats and cattle. Fourthly, the absence of figurines at the site has led some archaeologists to doubt that it possessed a religious significance, and to suggest a house or tower. However, a faith that rejected images in its worship would not use images. Debate continues as to whether this discovery has associations with Joshua.208 It remains the only thirteenth–twelfth-century bc structure found on Mount Ebal.
--------------------------
Boling, R. G., & Wright, G. E. (2008). Joshua: A new translation with notes and commentary. Includes indexes. (246). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
8:30. Then it was that Joshua built. The unit begins with another freighted time expression, such as were noted above in 1:2 and 3:7. Hebrew ʾāz yibnēh is here strongly disjunctive. Normally the pattern ʾāz + finite verb is used to pinpoint action within a larger narrative unit (for example, 10:12 and 33), but twice in Joshua this pattern is used to introduce units: here and in 22:1. Thus the two altar-building stories in the book are rhetorically related. The Shechem altar is the legitimate one; the Jordan altar is the problematical one.
near. The preposition b has the same sense here it has in Deut 27:4 and in Josh 5:13. To say “on” Mount Ebal and “on” Mount Gerizim, Deuteronomic usage is ʿal (Deut 11:29; 27:12–13).
Mount Ebal. This is the northern and higher of the two mountains flanking the important east-west pass through the north-central hill country. It is opposite Mount Gerizim (v 33) and looks down on the city of Shechem. See Map B, 112. Ebal is an unavoidable reference point:
Looking south, you have at your feet the pass through the range … the site of ancient Shechem; then over it the mass of Gerizim, with a ruin or two; and then twenty-four miles [38.4 km] of hill-tops, at the back of which you dimly discern a tower. That is Nebi Samwil. Jerusalem is only five miles [8 km] beyond, and to the west the tower overlooks the Shephelah. Turning westwards, you see—you almost feel—the range letting itself down by irregular terraces to the plain; the plain itself flattened by the height from which you look, but really undulating to mounds of one and two hundred feet [30.3 and 60.6 meters]; beyond the plain the gleaming sandhills of the coast and the infinite blue of the sea. Joppa lies south-west thirty-three miles [53 km]; Caesarea north-west twenty-nine [46.4 km]. Turning northwards, we have the long ridge of Carmel running down from its summit perhaps thirty-five miles [56 km] distant, to the low hills that separate it from our range; over the rest of this the hollow that represents Esdraelon; over that the hills of Galilee in a haze, and above the haze the glistening shoulders of Hermon, at seventy-five miles [120 km] of distance. Sweeping south from Hermon, the eastern horizon is the edge of Hauran above the Lake of Galilee, continued by the edge of Mount Gilead exactly east of us, and by the edge of Moab away to the south-east.… It is only twenty-five miles [40 km] away, and on the near side of it lies the Jordan Valley—a wide gulf, of which the bottom is out of sight. On this side Jordan the foreground is the hilly bulwark of Mount Ephraim, penetrated by a valley coming up from Jordan … to meet the pass that splits the range at our feet. (G. A. Smith, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 94–95.)
From Ebal the only part of the land not in view is the Negeb. Throughout the second millennium b.c., whoever commanded the pass around Ebal could control all the hill country from a point not far north of Jerusalem almost to the plain of Esdraelon.
From The Ruin to Ebal is about twenty miles [32 km] in a straight line. In the narratives we hear nothing of any military resistance to the movement of Joshua and his force in this region.
It is an interesting fact that the great city-state center at Shechem is not mentioned by name in this unit or in any of the Deuteronomic background texts (Deut 11:29–32; 27:1–8, 11–13). Probably this is a reflex of the course of actual history as it is now known from excavations. Shechem was destroyed in the mid-twelfth century b.c. What had been a briefly flourishing Yahweh-Covenant cultus became a cyclical pilgrimage place, attracting only a few worshipers to the ruined sanctuary. This would be quite analogous to what was happening at about the same time in the Jordan valley, where there was no sizable settlement but an important pilgrimage sanctuary—Gilgal. The difference is that Shechem, unlike Gilgal, was not a new Israelite foundation, but had a history going deep into the patriarchal past. See Comment.
31. Moses Servant of Yahweh. He is mentioned exactly five times, in this compact unit. As in 1:13, 15; cf. 1:2.
Perhaps the tradition which associates Joshua with the oracle of the Tent of Meeting in the desert (Exod 33:11) and with Moses himself in the original Covenant at Sinai (Exod 24:13) should be taken more seriously than Alt has treated it (“Johsua,” Kleine Schriften I, 176–177), though we must respect his caution in the paucity of evidence. (John Gray, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 45–46.)
book. Hebrew sēper. Whether the word here refers to inscribed documents carried in the Ark or to the oral teaching perpetuated by “the Levite-priests” is moot.
Treaty-Teaching. As in 1:7.
whole stones. Exodus 20:25. This perhaps means that altars of hewn stones such as the great horned altar found in the Beersheba excavations (from the monarchy period) were regarded as standing in the pagan tradition. For the Beersheba altar, see Yohanan Aharoni, “Nothing Early and Nothing Late: Rewriting Israel’s Conquest,” BA 39 (1976) 65. The same shape altar in smaller form was found at Megiddo. See ANEP, # 575. The prophet Amos denounced the cult of Beersheba, bracketing it with the northern royal sanctuaries in his day at Dan and Bethel (Amos 5:5; 8:14).
burnt offerings. Hebrew ʿlwt, sacrifices which were consumed entirely by the fire of the altar.
peace offerings. Hebrew šlmym. The latter can be rendered as “conmunion-sacrifices.” This was a joyous offering, partly eaten by the one who presented it. It “implies the idea of a tribute offered to God to maintain or to establish good relations between him and his worshippers”; De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 427.
32. he wrote on the stones. The stones of the altar? More likely it refers to sacred pillars which had been divested of their old fertility-cult significance, to serve somehow as treaty witnesses (24:26–27; cf. Exod 24:4). Three large standing stones associated with Fortress-Temples of MB-LB Shechem were found there. Treaty inscriptions were written on a plaster surface (Deut 27:2–3) on such stones. Examples of writing on plaster have been found at Deir ʿAlla in the Jordan valley and at Quntillet ʿAjrud in the northern Sinai.
a copy of the Treaty-Teaching of Moses. Hebrew mšnh twrt mšh, which LXX took to be “a second law, the law of Moses” (deuteronomion nomon Mōusē), and which in turn gave a name to the fifth part of the Torah: Deuteronomy. What the original intends, however, is that Joshua found the precedents for the Shechem Valley treaty—and no doubt its basic ethical guidelines—in the Sinai agreement.
which he recorded. Lacking in LXX, this may be secondary. It counters any lingering uncertainty that it was the same teaching that Moses had sponsored. The sudden clustering of words and phrases having to do with Moses and tôrâ, which have not been used since chap. 1, suggests that this has been the goal of all the intervening narrative, in the finished book.
33. All. Hebrew wĕkōl. Disjunctive use of explicative w.
elders. See above, on 8:10.
officers. Hebrew šôtĕrîm.
judges. Probably the best comparison here is with the so-called “minor judges” listed in Judg 10:1–5 and 12:8–15, plus Jephthah, whose story is framed by those two units.
Ark. This was last mentioned in 6:13, and is otherwise not explicitly associated with Shechem; it has therefore been suggested that this reference also belonged originally to a Gilgal story. Otto Eissfeldt, “Gilgal or Shechem?” in Proclamation and Presence, 91.
the Levite-priests. Mentioned here for their responsibility in transporting and protecting the Ark.
the resident aliens. Hebrew gr used as a collective here presumably stands for all the Hebrews present, most of whom had long been resident in the area.
the aborigines. Hebrew ʾzrḥ, a collective term for persons who are native to the area. We get a picture of two groups facing each other in the narrow pass, while the leaders are gathered around Joshua as he executes the text. The idea was to create a new bond between them.
and the other half. The unusual form with double determination (wehaheṣyô) continues to resist explanation. A supposed parallel in the Karatepe inscription has been disproved by M. Patrick O’Connor, “The Grammar of Getting Blessed in Tyrian-Sidonian Phoenician,” in Rivista di Studi Fenici 5 (1977) 5–11. Notable for its absence here is any listing by tribes, such as is found in Deut 27:12–14. The latter derives from a period when the twelve administrative districts (“tribes”) of the covenant league had been more or less clearly defined, presumably along the lines described below in chaps. 13–19. At this point, however, the population of Israel is only in the process of being united.
to bless. The covenant liturgy is patterned on the order of historical experience with Yahweh: blessing comes first, to be followed by obligation.
34. After that. Prior benevolence sets the context.
stipulations. Literally, “words” in a well-known Deuteronomic usage.
the Blessing and the Curse. See especially Deuteronomy 27–28 and cf. Leviticus 26. Blessing and Curse are two standard elements in the treaty form used in Israel to provide a model for the community’s relationship to God and to order its internal affairs. Without that context Blessing and Curse have been seriously misunderstood to bespeak an ancient doctrine of legalistic rewards and punishments. But these two elements especially belong to Yahwism’s answer to the pagan power monopoly, reinforced as it was by the mythic and cultic interfacing of heaven and palace sanctuary. In contrast, where Yahweh was acknowledged to be king, “His authority was exercised in the first place by the community’s obedience to His commands, and secondly by His control over all those powers of nature and history that man individual and corporately could neither control nor predict” (Mendenhall, Ten Gen, 25). Considered from this angle there could be no more appropriate abbreviation for the new constitution in the region west of the Jordan than “The Blessing and the Curse.”
Stele. Hebrew sēper is here clarified from the strictly analogous use of the Aramaic cognate in the Sefire treaty inscription. Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, 46 and 85. The inclusio with sēper, translated “book” in v 31, is most effective. See also Dennis Pardee, “An Overview of Ancient Hebrew Epistolography,” JBL 97 (1978) 331 n. 50.
35. assembly. Hebrew qāhāl. In the Book of Joshua this is our first introduction to an institution that was extremely important to Dtn (see Deut 5:19; 9:10; 10:4; 18:16; 23:2, 3, 4, 9; 31:30; cf. qhlt in 33:4). In those passages the qāhāl is the deliberative and decision-making assembly of the people or their representatives (see also the verb forms of qhl in Deut 4:10; 31:12, 28; and again in the literature from the exilic and post-exilic period). The word qāhāl is ubiquitous in Chronicles where it stands for the post-exilic worshiping community. This is the revival of a word from the early days when the qāhāl that gathered to renew the covenant was to include all categories of persons in the population.
It is highly significant that these qhl-words occur only rarely in the books of Samuel and Kings, which afford the oldest historical description of the entire monarchy period. The verb occurs twice where Solomon is in direct control (1 Kgs 8:1–2, a context which is notoriously blatant in its effort to undergird the Solomonic reaction!) and one where the son of Solomon is the subject (1 Kgs 12:21). The only other occurrence is 2 Sam 20:14, which describes the rally in support of Sheba’s rebellion! This passage is part of the famous “Court History,” an old document which Dtr 1 did not revise.
The noun qāhāl in Samuel and Kings shows a strikingly similar distribution. With one exception it is confined to contexts where David (1 Sam 17:47) or Solomon (1 Kgs 8:14, 22, 55, 65) is the center of attention. The exception is 1 Kgs 12:3, where “all the assembly of Israel” supports Jeroboam against the son of Solomon. This is the last reference to a qāhāl in the old style or any other style during the entire period of monarchy in Dtr.
This telltale distribution was overlooked by Weinfeld in his monumental work, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. He attempts to dissociate the use of qāhāl in Deuteronomy from the “amphictyonic assemblies” and understand it simply as pedagogical rhetoric. The very low frequency of Deuteronomy’s favorite assembly-words in the work of the pre-exilic Jerusalem historians indicates that they made selective use of Dtn. Those historians make it quite clear that the reforming king Josiah had very wide popular support among the ʿam-hā-ʾāreṣ, “the people of the land.” But there is a vast difference between a covenant renewed by the power of the throne (2 Kings 22–23) and one which would arise out of popular initiative, making monarchy largely irrelevant. Dtn’s covenant is of the second type. (Scholars regularly recognize the “law of the kingship” in Deut 17:14–20 as secondary.)
That the qāhāl in Israel was for so long eclipsed may surely be traced to administrative design. Solomon had
sought to transform Israel into a full-fledged Oriental monarchy and was prepared to ignore or to flout older institutions in his determination to centralize powers and to consolidate his realm. In his ambition to raise the outlandish little kingdom to an exalted place among the sophisticated states … he overreached.… That is another story, however, and we are here interested in the shattering of Solomon’s empire only as it illuminates the extent and violence of his innovations. (Cross, CMHE, 241.)
It was, however, Dtr 2—who lived through the final “shattering of Solomon’s empire”—that first pointed out all of this by inserting older material such as these verses about the Shechem Valley Covenant.
COMMENT
These verses cannot be considered apart from chap. 24, which recapitulates at much greater length a covenant ceremony explicitly located at Shechem. That chapter is a self-contained literary unit, which scholars generally regard as older than the bulk of the literary work to which it is related. Placed at the end of the era of Joshua (see 1:5, kl-ymy-ḥyyk, “as long as you live”) as a liturgically based conclusion to all the fighting and dividing of the land, chap. 24 looks like the redactional contribution of Dtr 1. The insertion of 8:30–35 is, in this view, a corrective made to indicate that the important Shechem tradition had been launched very early in the career of Joshua. There was, as indicated above, a deeply rooted teaching that Moses had said, in effect: Once you get into the land of Canaan, go to Shechem. Why Shechem?
According to the patriarchal traditions in Genesis 34, it was at Shechem that Levi and Simeon had sabotaged the agreement by which their sister Dinah might have been happily married to another newcomer in the area. Hamor is called a “Hivite” in MT. This points to a homeland in Cilicia (see below on 9:7). A rival tradition in LXX calls Hamor “the Horite,” which would point to the Middle Euphrates Valley. The names Simeon and especially Levi are best explained as non-Semitic, with closest parallels in Anatolia. See below on 19:1 and 21:1. In the story of Genesis 34 the names Simeon and Levi stand for two constituencies in the unreformed, pre-Mosaic Israel, also known as the Bene Jacob, its worship centering on the Divine Patriarch (ʾEl). The story in Genesis 34 concerns the collapse of an early treaty agreement between the Shechem city-state and the Bene Jacob. See the notice about Jacob’s land purchase in Gen 33:18–20.
Only the bare outlines of the subsequent history of these two tribes can be made out. It is clear that Simeon was at last swallowed up by the mighty tribe of Judah. In the meantime it was Levite families which had been stranded in Egypt that formed the militant core, and earliest leadership, in the religious movement of Mosaic Yahwism. It was some of their offspring who returned at last to Shechem, bearing the Ark of Yahweh’s Covenant.
And there were other memories attracting Yahwists to the Shechem area. Jacob on his return from Paddan-aram camped there and built an altar which he dedicated to “El, the God of Israel” (Gen 33:20). Probably his arrival had been less idyllic than the brief notice suggests, for finally he says to Joseph: “As for me, I give you, as the one above your brothers, Shechem, which I captured from the Amorites with my sword and bow” (Gen 48:22; AB 1 [1964] 356). The Shechem tradition in Genesis stems from an early period in the pre-Mosaic league, when the “house of Joseph” were also known as “sons of the left (or north)” balancing Benjamin, literally, “son of the right (or south).” See the pair of essays by Albright published posthumously: “From the Patriarchs to Moses: I. From Abraham to Joseph,” BA 36 (1973) 5–33; “II. Moses Out of Egypt,” ibid., 48–76. In those early days “Benjamin” had extended even farther south, as shown by old Benjaminite clan names absorbed in Judah.
The archaeology of Shechem is instructive. After a long and influential career in the Middle Bronze Age, especially throughout the Hyksos era, Shechem was violently suppressed in three military campaigns (possibly four). This can only be understood in relation to the Egypt’s reconquest of its Asiatic realm in the sixteenth century, with the rise of the powerful Eighteenth Dynasty. This brought to an end a period of flourishing religious variety at Shechem, represented not only in the great Fortress-Temple but also in a royal chapel (“temple 7300”) and an outlying mountainside sanctuary on the lower slope of Gerizim (the neighborhood formerly known as Tananir). Temple 7300 and the palace both went out of use in the last phase of Middle Bronze II C (c. 1525), when a new casemate defense system was built (Wall E). William G. Dever, BASOR 216 (December 1974) 31–52. This suggests the possibility of a nonmonarchical form of government in the last phase of MB II C at Shechem. The Tananir building was discovered by the German team when it resumed work at Tell Balata in the late 20s. It has been reexcavated by the writer and interpreted as an outlying covenantal league sanctuary for people whose loyalty was not centered on the great Fortress-Temple or the royal chapel inside the castle walls. See Robert G. Boling, “Excavations at Tananir, 1968,” in Report on Recent Archaeological Work, ed. George M. Landes. Campbell and Wright, “Tribal League Shrines in Amman and Shechem,” BA 32 (1969) 104–116.
It is about a century after the Egyptian campaigns against the Hyksos strongholds that Shechem again comes into focus, in the famous Amarna Letters. See especially Edward F. Campbell, Jr., “The Amarna Letters and the Amarna Period,” BA 23 (1960) 2–22; reprinted in BAR 3 (1970) 54–75. In those letters Shechem is notorious for its resistance to directives from the foreign office in Egypt. The local prince Labayu and his sons are accused of having given the land of Shechem to the Habiru, and the sacred area at Shechem seems to be referred to as “city of God.” Moreover, Labayu is bitterly accused by other city-state princes of maintaining relations with the “sons of Arzawa” (somewhere northwest of Cilicia). On the mound at Shechem, the Fortress-Temple (which itself had replaced a series of courtyard structures reflecting Anatolian design) was rebuilt on a broad-room plan. There can be no doubt that a pre-Mosaic cult of El-berit (God of the Covenant) was celebrated here. In Judges 9 it is Abimelech’s attempt to exploit once again the pre-Mosaic covenant cult that explains the scorn and contempt with which Abimelech’s story is told.
For this period, however, perhaps the most important archaeological results from the Joint Expedition to Balata come from its archaeological survey of the broader area that comprised the Shechem city-state. Throughout the centuries of the Middle Bronze period (2000–1525), the strongly fortified “city” of Shechem stood virtually alone as the spacious castle of the local lord. And yet it was precisely in the generally turbulent Amarna era that unwalled towns and villages sprang up for the first time all over the Shechem Valley. It had become a good and safe place to live. See the list of sites and descriptions by Edward F. Campbell, Jr., “The Shechem Area Survey,” BASOR 190 (April 1968) 19–41.
This pacification and rapid multiplication of settlements around Shechem is paralleled a century and a half later in the uplands north of Jerusalem, stretching from Gibeah to The Ruin and on to Shiloh. At the same time the powerful Kingdom of Hazor was collapsing and new settlements were being founded all over the least accessible heights of northern Galilee (see below on chap. 11).
What then shall we make of these verses at the end of chap. 8? The usual solution is to move as quickly as possible to discussion of chap. 24. Thus Soggin rearranges the text to read 8:30–35 after 24:27. But this ignores the rhetorical structure of the finished book and obscures a nagging question about reliable historical memory.
An exceedingly complex history is involved, as indicated by an obscure reference to Gilgal in an important background passage, Deut 11:30. According to Eissfeldt’s study cited above in the fifth Note on v 33, that Gilgal passage belongs to the first of two sets:
1) Deut 27:1–8 and Josh 8:30–35
2) Deut 11:29–32 and Deut 27:11–13
Eissfeldt concluded that the first set had originally served to link the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20–24) with the Hexateuch narrative in a pre-Deuteronomic form. It had its setting originally in Gilgal but was secondarily transformed into a link with Deuteronomy.
Cross has considerably refined the analysis. Building upon the work of Eissfeldt and others, Cross sees in Deuteronomy, with appropriate reservations, “disintegrated materials of the old fall festival of Shechem.” It was originally an annual covenant-festival which was “perhaps replaced by a seven-year cycle of pilgrimage festivals during the era when Shechem lay abandoned. Cf. Deut 31:10.” CMHE, 84 n. 15. However, Cross continues, in the old traditions the clearest ties of the cultic traditions of Sinai are to the spring celebration of the covenant and entry into the land, at Gilgal. In other words, the confusion that Eissfeldt sought to unravel is due not so much to competition as to collaboration among sanctuaries which served as early league centers. Some such “collaboration explosion” must in fact be posited at Shechem in order to understand the reaction that came within half a century in the career of Abimelech. Surely his mid-twelfth-century destruction of Shechem is related to the prominence of Shiloh in the latter half of this period. With the subsequent destruction of Shiloh by the Philistines, in turn, the place of the Israelite muster once again became Gilgal in the days of Samuel and Saul. It was there, with Israel on the brink of expulsion from the land, that the Israelite experiment with monarchy began. In all of the unusually full tradition on the transition era in 1 Samuel, there is one institution that is most notable for its absence: the qāhāl, people’s assembly, which had been pivotally important at the Shechem Valley Covenant.
Two hundred years of prosperity and relative peace in the Shechem Valley, from Labayu to Abimelech’s massive reactionary move, was once interrupted by a violent destruction of the city. That was in the late fourteenth or early thirteenth century, when, however, there is no clearly corresponding biblical tradition. On the archaeological evidence for the destruction of Late Bronze Age Shechem, see Lawrence E. Toombs, “Problems of the Early Israelite Era,” in Symposia I, 69–84. In our judgment the destruction of Late Bronze Shechem came too late to be associated with the story of the rape of Dinah (Genesis 34) as Toombs suggests. More likely it is to be explained in terms of rival reaction to the expansionist policies of Labayu’s successors, or else as Egyptian reaction against the pre-Mosaic Israel, of the same sort that is documented in the Merneptah stele. If Genesis 49 in fact reflects Merneptah’s raid, the LB destruction of Shechem might be associated with the tradition of Israel’s capture of Shechem from the Amorites in Gen 48:22. So Freedman, “Early Israelite Poetry and Historical Reconstructions,” Symposia I, 85–96.
2020/07/03 - [나의 공부/내 마음대로 공부하기] - 여호수아 8:30-35, 세겜 언약에 대하여 - 1. 성경 본문
2020/07/03 - [나의 공부/내 마음대로 공부하기] - 여호수아 8:30-35, 세겜 언약에 대하여 - 2. 몇 가지 주석들 - ⓐ
댓글