Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George F Somsel <gfsomsel AT juno.com>]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 18:51:33 -0600 Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
writes:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
____________

Oh, but I didn't say that one was and the other was not predictive
prophecy.  I will accept both as predictive prophecy.  I said that the
mention of Josiah was an insertion into the prophecy.  Prophecy does not
name specific names -- that is its nature.  A prophet might say that the
king of Judah would slaughter (BTW:  I hope that you don't take the use
of the word ZBX as indicating human sacrifice) the priests of Jeroboam's
cultic site.  That the name of Josiah is included can only be ascribed to
a later insertion.  One might accept Immanuel in Is 7.14 as being
something the prophet himself had control over if "the young woman" were
his wife or that he had spoken with this "young woman" who had told him
that should it be a male she would thus name him or perhaps other
speculative reasons regarding the inclusion of a name here (as to its
being a male, he had a better than 50% chance of being right), but this
is all speculative and I choose to not speculate.

george
gfsomsel
___________