Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>]

Ian, it is not a valid refutation of a hypothesis (here, Harold's hypothesis
that Kings and Chronicles preserve accurate historical information about
David's time) to state that the hypothesis is unproven (because the
historical value of these books is unknown). Do you have any evidence to
disprove Harold's hypothesis?

Peter Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 AT mclink.it]
Sent: 04 March 2001 20:42
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: Ripples in the text (foll. Saturating the airwaves)


>Back to the subject of the the price David paid for Araunah's property (2
>Samuel 24; 1 Chronicles 21), please let me add that David originally bought
>the Araunah's threshing floor for the purpose of building an altar, at the
>word of the prophet Gad (2 Sam 24:18). A threshing floor is not that big a
>piece of property, about the right size for an altar. With the oxen and
>threshing sledges included, fifty shekels of silver might be a suitable
>price. But David eventually built the temple on this site:
>
>2Chr. 3:1 Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in
>mount Moriah, where the LORD appeared unto David his father, in the place
>that David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Araunah the Jebusite.
>
>The six hundred shekels of gold mentioned in 1 Chron 21:25 probably refers
>to the cost of the larger site needed for the construction of the temple.

Harold, pardon me for saying so, but this is a common type of "fudging"
found in biblical explanations. You cannot say what is and what is not
probable in this situation as though you were 1) dealing with historical
materials and 2) able to make some statement of probability without knowing
anything more about the context.

>David probably paid this price, since he made all sorts of provisions for
>the building of the temple (1 Chronicles 28).

Now, before you go on, when was Chronicles written? I don't believe you have
the necessary data to be able to answer this in a way meaningful to your
argument. If my belief is correct, then you cannot treat the materials in
the text as though they were significant to the era they cannot be related
to, ie 10th century Jerusalem.

>[..]

>It seems likely that David would have secured a site before drawing up
plans.

Again, what seems likely is not something you can talk about from your
source materials. You can talk about the texts and what they say and perhaps
which version of a tradition has priority. But we are only talking about
texts and I can see no way of getting beyond the text. Can you?


Ian