Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Monday 04 April 2005 17:53, George F Somsel wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:39:16 +0100 Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
>
> writes:
> > On 05/04/2005 00:30, George F Somsel wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > >Peter,
> > >
> > >I hardly believe that you would assert that 1 Kings was written
> >
> > prior to
> >
> > >the time of Josiah.  If you concede that 1 & 2 Kgs constitute one
> >
> > work,
> >
> > >then your assertion that 1 Kg was written prior to Josiah is
> >
> > impossible
> >
> > >-- or do you assert that the account of the conquest of Jerusalem
> >
> > is also
> >
> > >written prior to the event?
> >
> > I made no assertions about the date of 1 Kings, I merely pointed out
> > the
> > confusion in Yigal's logic.
> >
> > I do not hold that the entire book of 1&2 Kings was written in or
> > before
> > the time of Josiah. I do hold that the story in chapter 13 was very
> >
> > probably written before the time of Josiah and later incorporated
> > into
> > the completed book, no doubt with some revisions. And, while I don't
> >
> > want to be dogmatic on this point, I consider it entirely possible
> > that
> > this original story records a genuine God-given predictive prophecy
> >
> > citing the name Josiah. Those who reject this possibility do so only
> >
> > because they reject the possibility of predictive prophecy from an a
> >
> > priori philosophical position.
> >
> > --
> > Peter Kirk
> > peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> > peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> > http://www.qaya.org/
>
> ___________________
>
> Peter,
>
> That is a patent falsehood.  I would say that the Isaianic prophecy of Is
> 7 is predictive and the *young woman* not virginal.  I would also assert
> that the concept of Josiah's being **named** long before his birth is
> nonsense and inserted ex eventu.

But that's precisely the point: there is no good reason to do so unless one 
is 
bound to a particular view of the idea of predictive prophecy.  Both texts 
claim to be predictive prophecies; you can't say one is and the other isn't 
just because one includes a name and the other doesn't, without giving solid 
reasons for doing so.  I have yet to see you do this, and frankly find your 
pick-and-choose methodology both arbitrary and foundation-less.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"No good.  Hit on head."   -Gronk