Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

You are presupposing that "Genesis 12, 20 and 26, and Exodus17/Numbers 20"
are examples of doublets. In order to support this thesis you will, I
expect, "have to posit lost sources and traditions for the which no evidence
is presented", i.e. JEDP or whatever. My preference, to take these as
approximately repeated real events, "takes account of the text as it stands
and it doesn't have to posit lost sources and traditions..."

Peter Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: b.gardner AT abdn.ac.uk [mailto:b.gardner AT abdn.ac.uk]
Sent: 09 March 2001 02:11
To: Biblical Hebrew
Cc: dependabol AT hotmail.com
Subject: A 'Thrashing' Floor?


Hi Bill,
        May I recommend Jacob Neusner's 'Between Time and Eternity' for just
one alternative way of seeing the biblical accounts? You are correct that
the
remarks by Samuel must indicate an underlying philiosophy - doesn't
everything?

However, the approach Samuel represents to you takes account of the text as
it
stands and it doesn't have to posit lost sources and traditions for the
which
no evidence is presented it seems, to explain the uncomfortable
discrepancies.

Those discrepancies show evolving theological perspectives inside a growing,
overall, Jewish tradition which involves both the editing and canon, and the
Kings/Chronicles analogy is, at least, one clear, logical way of seeing the
HB.

For other examples of theological history revised from different
perspectives,
look at the 'doublets', such as the wife/sister stories in Genesis 12, 20
and
26, and Exodus17/Numbers 20 versions of water from the rock...


<snip>