Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jonathan D. Safren" <yonsaf AT beitberl.beitberl.ac.il>]

Jim West wrote:

> 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?

Dear Jim,
There may not be any external corroborating evidence for any of this, but 
when when we
learn from the Biblical narrative that David's sons were priests - a direct
contradiction of Pentateuchal law and of later Israelite and later Jewish 
custom (the
Hasmoneans WERE of priestly lineage); and when we learn from the Biblical 
narrative
that the Davidic kings were priest-kings who owed their legitimacy, in part 
to the
Divine promise in Ps. 110 that they were the legitimate heirs to the 
CANAANITE,
JEBUSITE (my caps) legacy - again in direct contradiction to much of the 
Torah and
other parts of the Bible - then we should give serious consideration to the
possibility that we are reading authentic historical information.

What Second Temple Jewish author, writing at a time when the Torah was 
becoming, or
had already become, the accepted code for all Jews, would have dared written 
such
heresies?
Yours,
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
Beit Berl Post Office 44905
Israel