Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>Both the books of Kings and "Creation" contain some material which has been
>confirmed by archaeology, and neither contains material which can be proved
>to conflict with archaeology. Agreed?

(The reason why the discussion about Kuntillat Ajrud was started was that it
indicates that there was not an entity known as Judah at that time. So we
have no agreement here.)

>So I can say the same of both: either
>they are ancient (or based on ancient sources now lost) and a generally
>accurate record of their periods; or they are modern and based on good
>research into what is known today of their periods. The difference comes in
>that we know that Kings is ancient, at least 1st century BCE. The
>implication from this is that it is a generally accurate record.

This is not accurate. At the time Kings was written it may have been modern,
"based on good research into what" was known at the time of the earlier
period. This is also the case for Creation. Your distinction seems to be
arbitrary and irrelevant. Would you agree that Manetho had relatively good
information about the Egypt of a thousand or two before his time? (This
doesn't mean that I would trust Manetho.)

----------------------

>By the way, I have not talked at all about Hebrew religious literature.

Are we not talking about a text whose preservation has only been through its
incorporation in a group of Hebrew religious texts? Is this not a text whose
use of its source materials shows that it has a religious purpose (compare
how Chronicles and Josephus use the same sources differently)?

>I am referring to Hebrew literature which is presented as historical.

I don't see that Kings is presented as historical. The writers consistently
use religious phraseology, someone did what was right in the eyes of the
Lord, while someone else didn't. Something happened because someone had
sinned against the Lord. Someone did not obey the Lord and transgressed his
covenant... God talks to Hezekiah through the mouth of Isaiah. The kings who
do what God wants are painted as good, the others painted as bad.

I don't see your plea for treating Kings as other than Hebrew religious
literature is tenable.


Ian

>Of course I
>don't claim that it is without certain biases, but then no history is free
>of these.