Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8586SV: [ANE-2] Re: Was Dan "in ships", or "complacent"?

Expand Messages
  • Thomas L. Thompson
    Jul 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear 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

      Thomas L. Thompson
      University of Copenhagen

      ________________________________

      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com på vegne af frankclancy
      Sendt: ma 30-06-2008 19:32
      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      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
      Jerusalem.

      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
      Solomon.

      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!

      Frank Clancy






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 106 messages in this topic