Freethought & Rationalism Archive

semiopen · 10-23-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

OK, I checked what my official NIV (obtained from a Liberal Christian) said about authorship and date of writing of those books.

1&2 Kings -

Unknown, kingly author. Written after 562 BC, but before the end of the exile in 538 BC

Isaiah -

Written by Isaiah, who narrated events in his time. Chapters 1-39 were completed by 700 BC, the rest before Isaiah died in 681 BC.

So they don't match.

I googled it, and the apologist response seems to be that they both copied from a real, historical document, hence the repetition. However, that doesn't fit with Isaiah being the author. I think a better apologist response would be that the author of Kings copied Isaiah.

However, that doesn't seem to jive with it being inspired.

Other word for word repetitions are in Kgs vs. Chronicles.

g wrote:

Quote:

...apologists would take the stance that there is one true history of events, and two writers whose texts intersect at the same historical event would necessarily reference that same one true history in their separate accounts.

(my bold)

But they aren't separate accounts - they are word for word identical for hundreds of words in a row. They had to be using a common source or copying from each other, as with kings vs chronicles and the synoptics. I guess apologists would just conclude that copying is OK?

Equinox

The estimates of when these books were written are quite conservative. There are probably at least three Isaiahs, maybe the first one was around 700 BCE, still seems a little early. 2 Kings, I think, was after the return.

The passage refers to the "Annals of the Kings of Judah (and Israel)."

Anat · 10-23-2009, 03:39 PM

Wasn't it hypothesized that Kings was first written around Josiah's time and re-edited after the exile?

I once checked, and among the early kings of Judah kings that are judged as 'bad' by the author's standards had short reigns while kings judged as 'good' or 'mostly good' had long reigns - until Manasseh who is considered 'wicked' but ruled for some 80 years. So I think the author lived in a time when Manasseh was well remembered and the author couldn't get away with changing either Manasseh's years or deeds attributed to him in order to fit a belief in divine retribution against wicked kings.

Equinox · 10-24-2009, 02:44 AM

Semiopen wrote:

Quote:

The estimates of when these books were written are quite conservative. There are probably at least three Isaiahs, maybe the first one was around 700 BCE, still seems a little early. 2 Kings, I think, was after the return.

Right, hence my emphasis that even the "liberal" NIV, provided by a liberal Christian was still changed from the scholarly consensus by fundamentalist influence. That's why it says that all of Isaiah was written by Isaiah - as you point out, Isaiah is relatively well established as having at least 3 authors from different times.

Anat - it would be interesting to see that in graphical form, with say "wickedness" on the x and years on the y, as a point in the discussion of the historicity of the book of kings.

semiopen · 10-26-2009, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

Semiopen wrote:

Quote:

The estimates of when these books were written are quite conservative. There are probably at least three Isaiahs, maybe the first one was around 700 BCE, still seems a little early. 2 Kings, I think, was after the return.

Right, hence my emphasis that even the "liberal" NIV, provided by a liberal Christian was still changed from the scholarly consensus by fundamentalist influence. That's why it says that all of Isaiah was written by Isaiah - as you point out, Isaiah is relatively well established as having at least 3 authors from different times.

Anat - it would be interesting to see that in graphical form, with say "wickedness" on the x and years on the y, as a point in the discussion of the historicity of the book of kings.

Mark Zvi Brettler in "How to Read the Jewish Bible" claims two Isaiahs are clear but hedges about a third. He divides Isaiah roughly into chapters 1-39 being First Isaiah, 40-55 Deutero Isaiah, and perhaps 56-66 Trito Isaiah. First Isaiah is pre exile, probably 7th century BCE. Deutero is exilic, and Trito is post exilic.

He points out that First Isaiah, although beautiful, is very difficult to understand, but that the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE to a large extent invalidates its prophecies.

2 Kings seems to be more pre exilic than I implied, although there is certainly a strong presence of post exilic composition.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-23-2009, 03:39 PM	#12
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	Wasn't it hypothesized that Kings was first written around Josiah's time and re-edited after the exile? I once checked, and among the early kings of Judah kings that are judged as 'bad' by the author's standards had short reigns while kings judged as 'good' or 'mostly good' had long reigns - until Manasseh who is considered 'wicked' but ruled for some 80 years. So I think the author lived in a time when Manasseh was well remembered and the author couldn't get away with changing either Manasseh's years or deeds attributed to him in order to fit a belief in divine retribution against wicked kings.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.