Question Concerning Inspiration (was Joe)

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Thu Dec 7 12:40:10 EST 2000



-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kirk <Peter_Kirk at sil.org>
To: Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 at mclink.it>; Biblical Hebrew
<b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Date: giovedì 7 dicembre 2000 9.32
Subject: RE: Question Concerning Inspiration (Joe)


><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".

Please don't tell me what to, or not to, think, Peter.

>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).

How much before Hezekiah was this state of Yaudi in existence? It's  not
wise to cite texts as though they have some bearing when any bearing cannot
be shown.

><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?

We can therefore happily discard the "divided monarchy" stuff?

><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.

I have been fairly consistent with attempts at finding datable elements in
the histories.

>Joe has shown that there is some truth in these records.

We knew that there was 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.

Don't kid me.

>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.

I don't see how you can. The earliest record of Judah (Yaudi) you have is a
seal of Hezekiah's father, precisely the time when Samaria was suffering at
the hands of Assyria. Lots of evidence for Samaria before that, none for
Yaudi. You've got nothing to hang your divided kingdom on.


Ian









More information about the b-hebrew mailing list