[b-hebrew] OT- perspective (was Josiah's book of the Law)

Read, James C K0434995 at kingston.ac.uk
Fri Aug 5 04:51:38 EDT 2005

I think it is a little unfair to lable the 'bible' as one source and
'archeology' as another source.
The writers of the scrolls that now form part of the tanakh had no idea
that they were forming a larger book which would become known as the 
bible and so each scroll has the right to be an independent source.

You say that we cannot use the scroll of kings as evidence because it 
is this scroll that makes the claim and that we must therefore look at 
external sources.

Chronicles was written by a completely different person in a completely 
different time and makes the same claim. It is a little unfair to put 
them both under the same unmbrella and call them the 'bible' because 
the author did not have this in mind.
And so there are two independent sources which make such a historical claim
and furthermore absolutely no reason what-so-ever to doubt that Solomon did 
build the temple.

The fact that there are small discrepancies between Kings and Chronicles shows 
that the Chronicler was independent.

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Jim West
Sent: Fri 8/5/2005 12:08 AM
To: Peter Kirk; b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] OT- perspective (was Josiah's book of the Law)

Peter Kirk wrote:

> On 04/08/2005 20:50, Jim West wrote:
>> The DtrH does not find its genesis (thats a funny yet ironic phrase) 
>> in the period of Josiah.  It was written after the exile.  And 
>> probably during the Hasmonean period. ...
> What evidence do you have for this unqualified assertion? I note that 
> in a later posting you qaulified it with "in my estimation". But why 
> didn't you write that the first time?

Well one can generally presume that anytime anyone writes anything they 
are expressing their views.  I presume, for instance, that what you 
write is what you think.  Further, I take it at face value that if you 
think something you dont need to have 4000 other people think it for it 
to be valid or invalid.  each thought has either merit or lack thereof 
and truth is not determined by a popularity contest.  thats why i dont 
generally play the "so and so says in this or that place".  I realize 
some do not and cannot think for themselves, but i think better of you 
than that and thus do not require your every word to drip bibliography.  
As for evidence, the language of the text itself is sufficient to 
establish its lateness, as the late Fred Cryer also recognized.  (see 
any of his writings for confirmation of his views- which i share with him).

>> ... But you are right- there is scant archaeological evidence for 
>> anything in the Hebrew Bible.
> What, not even for Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus?

And what do Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzer do to prove the Bible's account of 
Israel's history?  As I said to Brian offlist- the problem, i think, is 
that archaeology is made to bear a burden of proof it cannot.  you have 
artifacts and you infer from them certain things that you find in texts- 
but that inference may not be correct and archaeology itself cannot , 
and does not, prove the connection.   The same must be said of the 
materials to which you refer.  you would have them prove the bible and i 
submit to you that your reasoning is circular.



D. Jim West

Biblical Studies Resources -  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
Biblical Theology Weblog -  http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com

b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list