Ripples in the text (foll. Saturating the airwaves)

Peter Kirk Peter_Kirk at sil.org
Mon Mar 5 08:53:20 EST 2001


However complex a hypothesis may be, it can be disproved only evidence, not
by ridicule or Monty Python style repetition of the same tired old denials.

Peter Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 at mclink.it]
Sent: 05 March 2001 01:31
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: Ripples in the text (foll. Saturating the airwaves)


>Ian, it is not a valid refutation of a hypothesis (here, Harold's
hypothesis
>that Kings and Chronicles preserve accurate historical information about
>David's time) to state that the hypothesis is unproven (because the
>historical value of these books is unknown). Do you have any evidence to
>disprove Harold's hypothesis?

I'm sorry, Peter, but the hypothesis I was referring to was here:

>>The six hundred shekels of gold mentioned in 1 Chron 21:25 probably refers
>>to the cost of the larger site needed for the construction of the temple.

This is based on the hypothesis you refer to. It is a hypothesis on a
hypothesis.


Ian


>>Back to the subject of the the price David paid for Araunah's property (2
>>Samuel 24; 1 Chronicles 21), please let me add that David originally
bought
>>the Araunah's threshing floor for the purpose of building an altar, at the
>>word of the prophet Gad (2 Sam 24:18). A threshing floor is not that big a
>>piece of property, about the right size for an altar. With the oxen and
>>threshing sledges included, fifty shekels of silver might be a suitable
>>price. But David eventually built the temple on this site:
>>
>>2Chr. 3:1 Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem
in
>>mount Moriah, where the LORD appeared unto David his father, in the place
>>that David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Araunah the Jebusite.
>>
>>The six hundred shekels of gold mentioned in 1 Chron 21:25 probably refers
>>to the cost of the larger site needed for the construction of the temple.
>
>Harold, pardon me for saying so, but this is a common type of "fudging"
>found in biblical explanations. You cannot say what is and what is not
>probable in this situation as though you were 1) dealing with historical
>materials and 2) able to make some statement of probability without knowing
>anything more about the context.
>
>>David probably paid this price, since he made all sorts of provisions for
>>the building of the temple (1 Chronicles 28).
>
>Now, before you go on, when was Chronicles written? I don't believe you
have
>the necessary data to be able to answer this in a way meaningful to your
>argument. If my belief is correct, then you cannot treat the materials in
>the text as though they were significant to the era they cannot be related
>to, ie 10th century Jerusalem.
>
>>[..]
>
>>It seems likely that David would have secured a site before drawing up
>plans.
>
>Again, what seems likely is not something you can talk about from your
>source materials. You can talk about the texts and what they say and
perhaps
>which version of a tradition has priority. But we are only talking about
>texts and I can see no way of getting beyond the text. Can you?
>
>
>Ian
>
>
>




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list