Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Well, Ian, I'm sorry if I missed the evidence that Chronicles is later than
Josephus. I didn't see any. It must have been so meagre that my eye passed
straight over it. Perhaps you can repost it.

Or are you simply referring to your table of comparison between Samuel,
Chronicles and Josephus? I did deal briefly with that meagre evidence on
11th March, and Stephen Carlson did in more detail. As we demonstrated,
there are several possible interpretations of that evidence, only one of
which has Chronicles later than Josephus.

Meanwhile, perhaps you can deal properly with the evidence which has been
presented as disproving your hypothesis. You wrote about a Qumran text:
"Also I haven't seen the tiny Chr frag which is described as having one or
two words left on each line. It's marvelous that there was enough to attempt
an identification." Well, I suggest that you try to see this fragment and
make a proper assessment of the evidence, rather than make this sort of
unsubstantiated slur against what are presumably others' scholarly findings.

Peter Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 AT mclink.it]
Sent: 14 March 2001 02:24
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: Sam, Chr & Josephus


>Perhaps he or she would if she or he had any evidence. Perhaps you would if
>you have any evidence.

I was under the impression that I had, Peter. Your job I think is to deal
with the
meagre evidence I had posted rather than ignoring it as it so often appears
to me
that you do with evidence.

>If there is none, then let's count the "Chronicles
>is dependent on Josephus" hypothesis as unprovable speculation, which
>furthermore might be falsified by those Qumran fragments.

This is typical: I'll say nothing about any evidence presented and pretend
it's not
there. Well done!


Ian