8586SV: [ANE-2] Re: Was Dan "in ships", or "complacent"?
- Jul 1, 2008Dear Frank,
Can you give me a reference for my rejecting your suggestion of a Hasmonean influence on Kings? I am getting old and I am forgetting things more. But this surprises me. The closest I have ever come to the issue (according to my present memory) is my dating of the Massoretic chronology to post 164 BCE.
Thomas L. Thompson
University of Copenhagen
Fra: ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org på vegne af frankclancy
Sendt: ma 30-06-2008 19:32
Emne: [ANE-2] Re: Was Dan "in ships", or "complacent"?
Dear George - I do not believe Jerusalem ever had a king named David
or Solomon. It is not only the kingdom of David and Solomon that has
been shrinking badly - even according to fairly conservative
archaeologists like Amihai Mazar and Ephraim Stern. Usually the Beth
David inscription found at Tel Dan has been used to bolster the claim
that David did exist and he was a king in Jerusalem. However, the
Beth-David inscription does no such thing. It simply shows that
there was a geo-political entity named Beth-David somewhere in the
area (I shall incur the wrath of of a Danish war god in Sweden now-
Gad!). The only indicator about the location of Beth David is found
in the Meshe Stele (If Andre Lemaire and Nadev Na'aman are correct)
and Meshe had to travel south of Dibon to attack Beth-David not north
toward Jerusalem. In other words, the only piece of possible
evidence about where Beth-David was located points away from
Usually when there has been a great king, others in the dynasty wish
to be compared to that king so we should have David I, II, III and so
on, or Solomon I, II, III etc. Instead, the most common name
is "Ahaz" and in the Biblical texts, every king named Ahaz was a
disaster: Ahaziah son of Ahab, Ahaziah so of Jehoram, Jehoahaz son
of Jehu, Ahaz son of Jotham, and, Jehoahaz son of Josiah. In
addition, we have 2 Jeroboams, 2 Jorams (unless we agree with John
Strange), 3 Jehoash/Joash/Josiah but only one David and only one
In another posting, I mentioned that the "Dan to Beersheva" claim and
its variants are probably "P" texts. See: Anton Schoors, "The Bible
on Beer-Sheba", Te Aviv 17. 1990. However, there is a problem about
the "P" map - Dan to Beersheva. When would a scribe in Jerusalem
promote the novel idea that Israel should be Dan to Beersheva and
ruled from Jerusalem?
I would argue that the book of Kings was written after 141 BCE.
Therefor, the references to the temples of Jeroboam, the sins of
Jeroboam, the promise to David, the chronology, many of
the "historical events" in the Biblical texts are Hasmonaean theo-
political propaganda. Of course, this is a radical position and NP
Lemche, Thomas Thompson and Philip Davies have rejected such a late
date -those "stuck-in-the-mud" Jurassic type scholars! Gad!! Hah!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>