Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

The point of the statues is that they are good evidence only if (like 
the ones of Augustus you mention) they are in a datable context.

I understand that Josephus' account of the siege of Jotapata is not 
borne out by the archaeological evidence, in fact I don't think the 
place has even been found. Of course the evidence may have been lost. 
The same applies to the evidence for Solomon's Jerusalem. Or maybe 
Josephus was making up a story for his own (dubious) glorification. 
Who knows?

You wrote: "Poor Kings has almost nothing to support anything it 
says." Really? I explicitly wrote "2 Kings". How about the Babylonian 
Chronicle for the fall of Jerusalem? How about the Moabite Stone for 2 
Kings 3? How about Sennacherib's records for the siege of Jerusalem in 
Hezekiah's reign? Of course we get a different spin on events in each 
case, history written from a different perspective! Now the times of 
David and Solomon are more difficult, I know, though for just after 
this we have Shishak/Sheshonq's invasion, if for the moment we drop 
David Rohl's reinterpretation of this. Conclusion is just as for 
Josephus: we have reasonable external evidence to confirm the latter 
parts of Kings, but we cannot be sure about the earlier parts which 
must rely on earlier sources of uncertain validity.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: historiography (Peter, again)
Author:  <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    02/01/2000 05:00


At 23.50 01/01/00 -0500, peter_kirk AT sil.org wrote:
>There are of course also statues of King David, including a 
>particularly famous one by Michelangelo. You've seen it in Florence, 
>surely, Ian? Proof that David existed?

Oh, Peter, don't be utterly daft! What is the archaeological context in 
which the Michaelangelo's statue of David was found? Compare that with the 
ancient villa from which a wonderful statue of Augustus was found north of 
Rome. (And we have a good gallery of statues to show the aging of this 
fellow.) The context in which something was found is often very important. 
As to statuary, the style is also important: you can spot statues from 
various ancient eras by use of material, form and movement of figures, 
realism, etc.

When one gives an analogy one needs to make it as apt as possible for the 
desired comparison.

>As someone pointed out,

(Me.)

>Cicero is probably not a good example. But
>please, Ian, what is the evidence for the existence of Josephus?

Let's forget the name "Josephus" for a moment. Writer "X" shows sufficient 
knowledge of the period based on what we know from archaeology, epigraphy 
and literary works from the period to sustain X's credibility regarding the 
particular period of his writing. Do you dispute this fact? The writer 
calls himself "Josephus". That is a convenient name. He might have been 
someone else, but his historical track record is what sustains his name, 
not vice versa.

>This
>question was put before, but you ducked it.

You were probably asking the wrong question.

>Perhaps you're not sure
>which way to jump on this one,

?

>not sure whether others are going to
>use his reliability or his unreliability against you.

You've got to treat him like any witness, with caution. I for one have seen 
that, despite his biases, he has a relatively clear view of historiography 
and is quite critical for his time. He is also a victim of his sources, but 
it is his witness of his own period that is the important part of his 
writing: what he saw and the state of literature at his time.

>Of course the
>MSS are all many centuries later. OK, the author of the works 
>attributed to Josephus knew something about the siege of Masada (but 
>seems to go against archaeology elsewhere),

If you take his testimony as a whole, you'll see that he corrects himself 
-- there are some interesting differences between his Jewish War and his 
later AJ. Got *any* glaring conflicts with archaeology of *his own period* 
to tell us about??

>but then the author of 2
>Kings knew quite a lot

You have an exceptionally warped view of scale here.

>(otherwise attested from inscriptions, the
>Babylonian Chronicle, the Lachich letters, the Mesha inscription etc) 
>about the relationship between Israel and its neighbours from the time 
>of Ahab onwards. In either case, if the author wrote many centuries 
>after the event, you have to find a convincing way in which he can 
>have had at least some accurate information about the ancient past.

Primarily epigraphy and archaeology, as well as the support of literature. 
One uses Josephus mainly for his testimony regarding his own times and the 
immediately prior period. The further back you go, the more suspect he 
becomes as he is relying on his source materials and has no solid way of 
verifying them. His major source of the Hasmonean period is 1Maccabees and 
adds almost nothing to his original text. We usually seek elsewhere for 
scan traces of that period. Poor Kings has almost nothing to support 
anything it says. Your attempt at a comparison only raises a smile, Peter. 
The writer(s) of Kings has not in any sense provided any credentials for 
his own period whatever that may have been or for any earlier period.

>As for the last sentence of your posting, I am becoming tempted to 
>think that I can judge the value of your postings, Ian, by their 
>length, in inverse proportion.

The best thing then for you to do is stop trying to defend your wounded faith.

>This one I have read, but don't tempt 
>me to judge them without reading them!

Good show. At least a little critical spirit is lurking in there. I 
wouldn't want anyone to take anything I say here on face value.


Cheers,


Ian



---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
leave-b-hebrew-14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.e
du
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.