Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jim West <jwest AT Highland.Net>]

At 06:23 PM 1/26/99, you wrote:

> Though trying to follow this thread, I'm floundering somewhat out of my
> depth!  Is it not the case that David, when he finally conquered the
> stronghold of Zion ("City of David"), 2 Samuel 5:7-9, then made his sons
> priests KoHa:NiYM, 2 Samuel 8:18?   So then there is a continuous Royal
> Priesthood in [Jeru]Salem in a line from Melchitsedek, Genesis 14:18,
> through Adonitsedek, Joshua 10:1, to David and his sons (2 Samuel 8:18;
> Psalm 110:4).
>
> Just a thought...
> Shalom
> Ben

Ben

The problem is that:
1- there is no historical evidence that "david" conquered the city.
2- That his sons were priests.
3- that melchiz. was an historical personage
4- that the narrative of the dtr "historian" is historical!

In short- what you have done is simply adopted the biblical narrative as an
historical description of actual fact.  But archaeology and near eastern
history know nothing of these events.  The material culture of Jerusalem was
not changed in any respect in the 10th century bce.  If "david" conquered
the city, where is the inevitable cultural material which would demark
inhabitation by a new population?

The problem, in terms of biblical study, of accepting the biblical narrative
at face value (which of course you are certainly free to do) is that it
results in hypotheses which rest on one leg.  The biblical legislation
itself requires that facts be established on the testimony of two or three
witnesses.  There are no other witnesses for your chronology.  Therefore it
remains theory rather than fact.  Possibility, rather than probability.

Best,

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Quartz Hill School of Theology

jwest AT highland.net
http://web.infoave.net/~jwest