andrewcriddle

You are possibly misunderstanding 1_samuel/7-2 It should be taken together with verse 3 i.e. it may mean that the ark was twenty years there and then Samuel called the people to revolt against the Philistines.

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv

No Jewish source claims that Saul was king for 40 years. On the contrary, in Jewish tradition he was king for only 2-3 years.

John Kesler

I'm aware that Jewish apologists, just like their Christian counterparts, have ventured all manner of how-it-could-have-been solutions. I actually consider the midrashes and commentaries to be a gold mine of Bible errors, since the "solutions"--like Rashi's positing that there were two different arks-of-the-covenant (!) to explain why one text says that Moses made it (Deut. 10), while another says that Bezalel made it (Ex. 37)--are tacit admissions of error.

I find this unlikely, because the narrative of 1 Samuel 7 continues in verse 4 with no indication of a 20-year interruption, and Samuel is still in charge in the subsequent war with the Philistines. Twenty years later would be halfway through Saul's reign as king.

I guess Josephus doesn't count as a "Jewish source," then, because he said that Saul was king for longer than "2-3 years":

Duvduv

It isn't a question of apologetics. It's a matter of examining the material and its interpretation in context. How do you KNOW. these involve a copyist error? Is there one single source of Jewish exegesis in 2000 years who suggested they were?
Or do you think that no one discovered the anomaly before?
Did you go through the Rashi discussions?
On the matter of Saul, is that "sacred" Josephus the be-all and the end-all of Jewish knowledge and information? Especially when that text itself has its own problems?!

Tenorikuma

Some of the differences with Chronicles' description and dimensions of the temple were deliberate, because the author wanted to harmonize the first temple with the one described by Ezekiel. Van Seters wrote an article on it.

John Kesler

I don't, and neither does anyone else since we don't have the original manuscripts.

I don't know what every Jewish exegete over the last 2000 years has suggested. I was listing examples that Christian apologists usually dismiss as "copyist errors"--with no proof, of course.

Oh, I know that many "anomalies" have been discovered--in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament--and that many, often mutually exclusive, "explanations" have been offered to explain them.

I've read some of Rashi's commentary before, thus my familiarity with his two-arks theory that I mentioned above, and I looked at some of what you referenced. From what I've read of Rashi, he attempts to smooth over difficult texts with exegesis and eisegesis, just as Christian apologists do.

You said that "in Jewish tradition [Saul] was king for only 2-3 years." I really don't care how long Jewish tradition says that Saul reigned, though one source I consulted says that Malbim also accepts a 40-year reign for Saul, and in AJ 10.8.4, Josephus again says that Saul reigned longer than 2-3 years. When I introduced the chronological problem, I cited Acts 13:21, which Christians accept as authoritative.

Duvduv

So you are saying that for over 2000 years everyone was totally dumb and could not make what was an obvious correction that was necessary and NO ONE would have known, cared or noticed?? And only in a few select places? And then you want to say that it is utterly IMPOSSIBLE for there to be any other rational explanation for the discrepancies in the verses, and ipso facto ANY explanation by definition is false?
And someone like Rashi himself did not have the brains to realize it was an easy correction, even after, perhaps, consulting many other sources and manuscripts?
Then you jump back to Saul and rely on the Malbim, who I guess you connect with Josephus. Some exegetes explain that the Saul in Genesis 36 refers to Israelite kings not yet born, but this is not the majority. Ironically it may be that the author of Acts 13:21 understood Genesis 36 to refer to King Saul.