Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

No, I did catch all your evidence the first time and answered it. I dealt
with the list of high priests as well, in a previous posting. You may not
agree with my answers, but you cannot claim that I was not interested in
your evidence. Obviously my eye is no more inerrantist than the rest of me.

Just to show that my eye doesn't skip over much: You have introduced another
fallacy here. You added to your list of evidence "The fact that Josephus
knows none of the "special" material in Chronicles." The fallacy here is the
argument from "A does not quote B" to "the author of A does not know B" to
"A is earlier than B". This is logically false. B could be earlier than A
but for some reason not available to the author of A. Or the author may have
known B but a quotation may simply not have suited his or her purposes. In
this particular case, maybe Josephus knew Chronicles but did not consider it
authoritative and so largely ignored it. Again, there are many possibilities
other than the one you prefer.

As for DSS fragments, I don't claim to be an expert, so I will leave this
matter to those who are. Perhaps you could help them by giving
bibliographical details for the work on an alleged Chronicles fragment which
you referred to so negatively.

Peter Kirk


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 AT mclink.it]
Sent: 14 March 2001 22:59
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: Sam, Chr & Josephus


>Well, Ian, I'm sorry if I missed the evidence that Chronicles is later than
>Josephus.

It is actually difficult to talk of Chronicles being later than Josephus. I
mentioned that Josephus may have used the same prinipial source as that used
by the
books of Sam/Kgs and Chr. I have indicated that the high priestly list in
1Chr6 is
later than Josephus and Ezra.

>I didn't see any. It must have been so meagre that my eye passed
>straight over it. Perhaps you can repost it.

Evidence rarely interests your eye, Peter! The inerrantist eye tends to
minimize,
then to rejecct anything that disturbs the notion of inerrancy.

>Or are you simply referring to your table of comparison between Samuel,
>Chronicles and Josephus?

This is part of the evidence. The high priestly list was another. The fact
that
Josephus knows none of the "special" material in Chronicles.

<snip>