Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] OT- perspective (was Josiah's book of the Law)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Brian Roberts <formoria AT carolina.rr.com>
  • To: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] OT- perspective (was Josiah's book of the Law)
  • Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 12:39:24 -0400


On Friday, August 5, 2005, at 12:29 PM, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

On 8/5/05, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:
Dear Yitzhak,

I was wondering, could you name some specific ANE historical source that is
not as complete or as honest as the Bible?

HH: I think James is referring to the tendency of pharaohs and
Mesopotamian kings to avoid their failures and battle losses in their
inscriptions.

Perhaps. I mean, without a specific inscription I wouldn't know.
But, in order to
name such a specific inscription he has to (1) name one, then (2) to
show that we
know that it is not complete, then (3) to show that we know that it is
not honest, then

So, the assumption here begins with the assumption of honesty on the part of Egyptian inscriptions?

(4) to show that there is a place in the Bible that is more complete than this
particular source, then (5) to show that that same place in the Bible
is more honest.

And the assumption here begins that the biblical text is more than dishonest? Or more than honest?

(2) and (3) are tricky, but not as tricky as (4) and (5).

HH: The Bible is not primarily a history book. It is a religious
book. It mentions historical events as they pertain to the nation's
relationship with God. Evidently the battle of Qarqar was not chosen
to highlight aspects of that relationship. James probably meant that
the Bible was complete in its exposure of its protagonists'
weaknesses and failures.

I don't think one can be so complete about failings without being similarly
so complete about strengths. That would be dishonest. In any case, it is
not evident that this is why it wasn't chosen. It is only one possibility,
which may be accepted dependent on certain theological assumptions.

1Kings 22:39 Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did,
and the ivory house which he made, and all the cities that he built,
are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of
Israel?

Where is "and the empire that he fought?" Besides building an ivory house,
I don't see any thing that is so different from other kings who didn't
successfully defend against the Assyrian empire.

Or why does Mesha in the Mesha stele claim he revolted under Omri's son?
Does he have some hidden agenda in claiming that? Is it not possible that
the Bible just "slightly corrected" the date of revolt of Mesha so as to
"fulfill" the prophecy in 1 Kings 21:28 - 29?

HH: Omri was the founder of the dynasty. We all should be familiar
with the fact that the term "son" can mean grandson or even more
distant kinship links. So a revolt at the time of Ahab's son would
fulfill the words of the Mesha stele:

The Mesha stele says: "Omri the king of Israel, and he tortured Moab many
days, for Kemosh has despised his country. And his son replaced him and
said also, "I shall torture Moab!" ... And Omri inherited the country
of Mehedba,
and resided in it through the rest of his days and through the midst
of his son's
days, 40 years." This doesn't sound like he is speaking of Omri's grandson.

Yitzhak Sapir
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


Best Salaams,

R. Brian Roberts
Amateur Researcher in Biblical Archaeology





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page