Question Concerning Inspiration (Joe)

Peter Kirk Peter_Kirk at sil.org
Thu Dec 7 03:31:13 EST 2000


<snip>

... the fact that Judah does in fact spring into history a generation
before Hezekiah.

PK: OK if you mean "is first attested in the archaeological record". But
please don't even think of taking this to mean "first came into existence".
You have no evidence of when that took place except that it was not later
than this, although there is some evidence that it was not a large and
powerful state. But then this largely agrees with the record in 1-2 Kings,
for the period from Rehoboam to Ahaz - there are very few recorded
activities outside the immediate area of Jerusalem, so perhaps Judah was not
much more than a city state. Also, the records suggest that at least in the
time of Ahaziah, grandson of Ahab, and his mother Athaliah Judah was in
effect subject to Israel (2 Kings 8:25-29, ch.11).

<snip>

Naturally the thesis stands, ie Judah didn't come to the fore until the end
was upon Samaria. It might have been nice to produce something out of the
hat like a ribbone of Rehoboam or something of that ilk to get us into an
important Judean kingdom at the height of Israel.

PK: Who said it was "to the fore" and important?

<snip>

I get the idea, Joe, that you seem to have the idea that the only
alternative idea to the true and faithful record of the histories is simple
making it up.

PK: Ian, you are the one who repeatedly implies that the books of Kings do
not in any way correspond to what actually happened, that they were written
in a period when no memory remained of what had actually happened. Joe has
shown that there is some truth in these records. If there is some truth,
even accurate records of the names and patronymics of some of the kings,
then that is an indication of a good probability that there is more truth
especially in the general picture of the situation at that time. After all,
isn't a memory of the general situation more likely to be preserved than
specific names? Yes, of course I can't argue in this way that Kings is a
completely true and faithful record. But I can argue that it strongly
suggests that there was some kind of divided kingdom.

Ian





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list