Peter,
Thank you very much for the websites.
The identification of the site as a trading center seems
to me odd because I do not know what merchants or an innkeeper or any type of person who would operate such a trading center would have had to do with such writing. ...
The suggestion that the pictures allow us to conclude there was syncretism because they show Egyptian gods
is far fetched. There is no reason to suppose Egyptian gods are involved rather than Baal or Yahweh, especially
in light of the text. ...
Your other points seem to center around the
comparison between use of D material from Kings and
use of J material. If we identify that Kings has
a theological aim in the book to prove that "King
David acted in perfect religious faith to Yahweh and
hence Yahweh preserved his royal line for generations
to come," one cannot now accept historical statements
that seem to have behind them only this theological
aim. To make sure of this we might suggest that any
claim of the book of Kings may be tested for internal
consistency. By this, we might suggest that since
Solomon is said to have had idols in Jerusalem, we
cannot be sure he built the Temple to Yahweh. That
claim seems to overlap the theological aim of Kings
and yet is internally inconsistent with the "idols"
factoid. ...
The Mesha stele is ambiguous. Viewed in light
of the book of Kings, one may suggest worship of
Yahweh alone. Viewed in light of contemporaneous
inscriptions, one may suggest that the Temple
was to Yahweh, but Baal and Asherah may have been present there as well. ...
... My final conclusion is not: J lived at Kuntillet Ajrud, but rather: There isOK, but I would also say that the opposite, that there is no reason that Kuntillet Ajrud should be assumed to represent the established religion of the time. There is simply insufficient evidence either way.
no reason that Kuntillet Ajrud should be viewed in opposition to the established
religion of the time.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.