Methods in biblical scholarship (Andrew)
mc2499 at mclink.it
Fri Dec 31 16:18:25 EST 1999
At 18.55 31/12/99 -0000, Andrew Davies wrote:
>I don't agree with the attempts at harmonization that have been proposed
>either, but, with respect, Ian, this is plain ridiculous. It is possible,
>though not to my mind the best explanation, to propose the existence of two
>variant accounts which have both been used in Samuel, but how on earth can
>you conclude they are written sources?
You mean two simultaneously current *oral* traditions reached our writer?
Interestingly novel proposal. Let us assume for a moment that this was the
case: not being written there is no reason to maintain the separate nature
of them when putting them into writing. We have the epitomizer in 1Chr who
coming across the two accounts on the death of Goliath in Samuel appears to
have, like Peter, assumed that the writer was mistaken and harmonised the
text -- an easy matter when the texts are in oral form or when epitomizing
a longer work. It is more economical that the sources were already written
and merely put together by the compiler of the text.
More information about the b-hebrew