spin

So, when do you think the Greek style Job symposium, with that article, was written? What is your first datable example of the use of Satan as a name?

And what terminus would you give for the Davidic descent of 1 Chr 3?

As I said, I have lots of reasons.

But then, I hate this: someone puts forward an idea, especially one for which evidence is intimated, and no-one actually contemplates the situation seriously. They almost inevitably try to counter it. It's the sort of thing that says, why bother telling people about it? Why not let it die?


spin

CJD

True, the Chronicles Satan is the first time the name appears without a definite article. But while the proposed discontinuities between the Satan of Chronicles and the other two references in the TNK are notable, they are not so much so as to warrant a major difference in the amount of time between the compositions.

The correlative pericope in 2 Samuel 24, of course, doesn't even mention Satan in conjunction with the census. Instead of seeing this as a way to shift the blame off of God (or as a means to "apologize" for the actions of David), why not see this as the Chronicler's filling in the gap regarding the means with which God "moved David" (2 Sam. 24:1)?

Regarding ha-satan, in this thread I argued for a 200 BC terminus ad quem for Job (though I think it was largely done in the 7th century BC). As for Chronicles, my post in "Rain/Vapor" thread suggested a terminus ad quem of 390 BC. I argued for this mainly because of the geneology of 1 Chron. 3. The line of David takes us to at least two generations after Zerubbabel.

It seems quite clear (to me at least) that the Chronicler relied heavily on the material of Kings (as he did on the Samuels). For this and other reasons heretofore unexpressed (but alluded to by Apikorus already), I think 1&2 Kings were written during the exile, around 550 BC.

I gather that it is not so much that folks refuse to contemplate certain ideas as it might be an under-estimation of the readership on the part of the one putting forward certain ideas. In other words, they don't just disagree, they know exactly why they disagree.

Regards,

CJD

spin

One thing for certain, I'm not going to list a dozen indicators of the lateness of Chr. I've already supplied a few. That should be a start for anyone interested in contemplating the proposal.

No problem with that. It's just the method of shifting the blame... onto Satan.

A parenthesis profferred without any support?

Surely you mean a terminus a quo here, the earliest starting point.

1 C 3:21 is pretty strange but the passage indicates about ten generations.

Based on what???

Naturally I don't agree, although this is once again the popular belief. Josephus is an interesting tool to show that while he always favoured a single source which he added to as it went, his source version of the Kings/Chronicles material is between the two.
And of course, where did Chronicles get the names Ishbaal and Meribaal if it were using Sam/Kings? Why did Chr so blithely remove all the priestly trappings of David? or was it Sam/Kings that added them?

Naturally, I think it's wishful baloney based on no evidence whatsoever.

Sorry, but you've shown no exact reasons why you disagree. I wouldn't mind, if you actually had some evidence to the contrary, but here there's no evidence at all.

Hopefully, you'll get the idea that I've heard most of the stuff going on these issues.


spin

DrJim

I can't see any reason to constrain the dating of Kings to the so-called "exilic" period around 550 bce. It is a pretty narrow span of time and it is very possible that after an initial edition of sorts, Kings continued to grow. The same could also be said of Chronicles, too.

spin

Obviously much of Chronicles and Sam/Kings are reliant on the same material, I think so much so that one can't just posit that one relies on the other nor that they long independent development. And Josephus seems to give a third attestation for that material used by both the others.

Why should priests running the tiny Jerusalem outpost be interested at all in a royal chronicle?


spin

DrJim

ooops. hit the wrong button and sent my last post before it was finished...

As I said in another post somewhere, I think Kings is "exilic" in theology, or ideology: meaning it leaves the story with the Judeans "in exile". I suspect that is because the book is addressed not only to a Jerusalem audience in the Persian period, but also to the continuing diaspora. I also think the writers may have disagreed with some extent as to the religious significance of the "restoration" by the Persians, and so have not enjoyed books like Ezra and Nehemiah had they existed in his time. I figure Kings articulates a sacrality for the first temple, and the continuing sacrality for the Temple site, but this is not readily automatically transferrable to any "second temple" that would have been built. In any case, the writer does not tell of any such second temple, so all of this is pretty speculative. There seems to be a lot of illigitimate temple restorations, modifications etc in Kings along with Hezekiah's and Josiah's own 'legitimate' reforms. I suspect Kings is about providing models for appropriate restorations by appropriate people.

I don't think we have much to go on as far as a firm date for the book, although the book seemed to be pretty unstable in parts for some time: notice the two alternative stories of Jeroboam I in the LXX.
Anyway, the standard argument of dating Kings or its Dtr2 manifestation, to ca. 550 by means of its lack of a narrative of the restoration (look up almost any Kings commentary), is non-starter as far as I'm concerned.


JRL

CJD

To explain the sorry current state of affairs and encourage the little outpost to retain their hopes in a restoration of the Davidic throne (and to show the legitimacy of the cursed Jeconiah's royalty), and to work toward that end.

Well, read the thread!

I think it is relative in this case. The point of contention is just how many generations after Zerubbabel are mentioned in 1 Chron. 3? Ten, you say? At least two, I say.

Noting Dr. Jim's post, why, if all the signs point toward an exilic theology or ideology must the terminus a quo of 550 BC be withheld? Are there any substantial reasons for this? I mean, it is not as if the books weren't revised over time, but a large amount of the material seems to fit nicely in the exilic period.

spin

Does that make Daniel also '"exilic" in theology or ideology'?

Sorry to harp, but on what grounds do you see the book addressed at least partly to the audience of the Persian period?

Where do the Persians make their presence felt in the ideology of the author(s)? Is it just because that's the last time reference? Looking back to a history, real or unreal, is a Hebrew literary trope.

(Can't get away from those Persians.)

(And there was one, was there?)

As I don't get enough of this suspicion to understand clearly, could you develop the idea?

I guess you're right. I still have to contemplate under what conditions a text claiming to be a royal chronology was written. Under the theocracy seems totally inappropriate to me. I'll ask again, why would a group of priests want to write such a text (given that it had no interest in local kings and that the powers that were were kingly overlords).

It's typical though, a basic conservative outlook, disinterested in evidence, wouldn't you think?


spin

spin

My rough ten was taken from after Jeconiah:

Shealtiel
Pedaiah
Zerubbabel
Hanaiah
Jeshaiah*
Rephaiah*
Arnan*
Obadiah*
Shecaniah
Shemaiah
Neariah
Elioenai
Hodaviah

Those with asterisks are indicated with the Hebrew BNY, ie "sons (of)".

Any problems with the literal text as I represent it here?


spin

spin

I didn't notice that many to warrant your "all", and I've dealt with Dr Jim's post.


spin