They took that which Micah had made, and the priest whom he had, and came to Laish, to a people quiet and secure, and struck them with the edge of the sword; and they burnt the city with fire.
"Until the days of the captivity of the land"  (Judges 18:30).  Keil did not accept the view that this is an editorial insertion, but accepted it as a legitimate part of the text.  Keil also refused to apply the words either to the Assyrian captivity in 721 B.C. or to the Babylonian captivity later, basing that conclusion on the basis that, "If that Danite shrine had still existed in the days of Jeroboam I, that monarch would certainly not have established a second worship in Dan of the same kind under a priesthood that was not Levitical ...  The words, therefore, can only refer to some event that took place in the last years of Samuel, or the first part of the reign of Saul."[17]  We accept this alternative explanation as absolutely satisfactory and as also avoiding the allegation of an "editorial comment." The only problem with it is the fact that the Bible does not reveal any "captivity of the land" until a time long afterward. Even this, however, is not a fatal objection to Keil's explanation, because there are many, many things which happened in the history of Israel that are NOT recorded.