Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Bill Rea <cctr114 AT it.canterbury.ac.nz>]

Samuel wrote:-

>There is no need to try to accommodate the two accounts. It is quite obvious
>what has happened. The writer of Samuel is thinking only of what the GROUND
>would have been worth, and merely wants to make it clear that David paid a
>generous price, amply more than it was worth. For the writer of Chronicles
>this is not enough. He is thinking of what the TEMPLE was worth. Such a
>paltry sum as a mere 50 shekels of silver as an initial outlay is unworthy
>of the temple. The price should be a figure that sets a standard for the
>opulence and slpendour of the temple. So he makes the figure 600 shekels of
>gold.
>
>This is the way religious history is written.

It seems Ian hasn't beaten you for making such statements so I'll do
his job for him. 

This is nothing more than pure conjecture. It tells us more about your
belief system than it does about the text.  It is no more plausible
than other attempts to harmonize the accounts or the suggestion that
the original tradition was split in to two at some indeterminate point
in the past and continued to develope independently. Can you give us
any other evidence, apart from your personal belief, that your version
is correct? Can you demonstrate "This is the way religious history is 
written"? Even if you can, how can you be sure you can apply it in this
particular case?




Bill Rea, Information Technology Dept., Canterbury  University  \_ 
E-Mail b dot rea at it dot canterbury dot ac dot nz             </   New 
Phone   64-3-364-2331, Fax     64-3-364-2332                   /)  Zealand 
Unix Systems Administrator                                    (/'