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

Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Re: Origins of the Book of Kings

Expand Messages
  • Kevin P. Edgecomb
    ... I write: This is not quite correct. Classical historical-criticism, as formulated by Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette and his supporters and synthesized
    Message 1 of 67 , Jun 29, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      NP wrote:
      > It is not us who are doing harm to Judaism and the Jews but
      > classical historical-critical scholarship whp moved these books back
      > to the time of "ancient Israel", denying Judaism any important
      > part. As usual i can refer readers to my The OT between theology
      > and history where you find this explained. Some of it not far from
      > real anti-Semirism (also think of the context in which such ideas
      > originated).

      I write:
      This is not quite correct. Classical historical-criticism, as
      formulated by Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette and his supporters and
      synthesized so well by Julius Wellhausen in his /Prolegomena/ were the
      first to insist on a late dating of the Pentateuch. Deuternomy was
      dated to Josiah's time or later (de Wette's suggestion) with the rest
      of the books of the Pentateuch following even later (J.K.W. Vatke's
      contribution). This was all tied to the idea that an original
      vivacious, free, and unlegislated /Hebraism/ degenerated into the
      later dead, enforced, and legalist /Judaism/, all to be superseded by
      Christianity, which restored the spirit of /Hebraism/. This dialectic
      was clearly partaking of philosophic, social-democratic, and
      Romanticism's aesthetic strains current from the late 17th to late
      19th centuries in German-language scholarship. It is all clearly part
      of an apologetics that is meant to prove that liberal German
      Protestantism was the ultimate expression of human religiosity, and
      liberal German Protestant scholarship the peak of human intellectual
      achievement.

      Nearly all of the foundational documents of this era are available
      through Google books: de Wette's /Beitrage/ and /Biblische Dogmatik/,
      Vatke's /Biblische Theologie/, and of course Wellhausen's
      /Prolegomena/, and many, many more. One can read for oneself the
      bile, which over the ages of summarization and synopsis has been
      passed over, while the methodologies based upon such peculiar and
      unacceptable notions has remained.

      NP is right, though, that this anti-Judaism of earlier scholarship
      cannot be equated with antisemitism, as this latter (in currently
      formulated distinctions, at the very least) requires a theory of
      racialism which simply didn't exist earlier, and only comes into play
      in the last third or so of the nineteenth century.

      I do think, however, that the conscience of scholarship on the matter
      deserves examination, and issues of the retention of methods that were
      based in such a sordid mindset and agenda need to be addressed.
      George was very certainly right that there is a very clear denigration
      of the Jews found in various aspects of the inheritance of
      scholarship, particularly the historical-critical method. But we must
      be sure to keep the baby, and throw out only the bathwater.

      I highly recommend the new title by Anders Gerdmar, /Roots of
      Theological Anti-Semitism: German Biblical Interpretation and the
      Jews, from Herder and Semler to Kittel and Bultmann/ (Brill, 2009).
      The dissertation of James Pasto, /Who Owns the Jewish Past? Judaism,
      Judaisms, and the Writing of Jewish History/ (Cornell University,
      1999; available from UMI) covers much of the same territory.

      Regards,
      Kevin P. Edgecomb
      Berkeley, California
    • RUSSELLGMIRKIN@aol.com
      The episodes you mention predate the Babylonian Chronicles and do not involve the Mesopotamian empires. Russell Gmirkin There may be historical material in
      Message 67 of 67 , Jul 17, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        The episodes you mention predate the Babylonian Chronicles and do not
        involve the Mesopotamian empires.

        Russell Gmirkin

        There may be historical material in Kings not derived from the Babylonian
        chronicles.

        Ahab was described as going to fight the King of Aram in Ramath Gilead
        east of the Jordan River (Ramath Gilead was supposed to be the birthplace of
        Elijah the Tishbite). This would have been near the land of the Moabites.
        Ahab was killed in the battle.

        The Moabite stela claimed Mesha killed the son of Omri and took land from
        Israel. Mesha of Moab may have sided with Aram at Ramath Gilead and used
        the Aramaen victory to temporarily displace Israel as claimed in his stela.

        2Kings 1:1 After Ahab's death, Moab rebelled against Israel.

        In Kings 3 Israel claimed Mesha and Moab who used to be subservient had
        rebelled and afterward Israel entered Moab with a large force attacking from
        the direction of Edom to the south instead of Aram to the north put down
        the rebellion.

        Was this history in Kings II not from Berossus?

        David Q. Hall




        **************Can love help you live longer? Find out now.
        (http://personals.aol.com/articles/2009/02/18/longer-lives-through-relationships/?ncid=emlweu
        slove00000001)


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.