"before there reigned any king over the children of israel."
mods: i'd like this to be a collected thread of various arguments, not limited to the ones i've present here. i will post each discussion of an anachronism to a new subthread, so we can keep track, i hope. "bible study" or "accuracy and inerrancy" whichever you feel is best. either could fit, as discussion should be limited to anachronisms in the bible, and how they relate to when the text was written.
the verse that prompted this discussion, off-topic in one of the exodus threads:
quote:And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.
now, this seems like a pretty simple excercise in reading comprehension and basic logic. an author cannot write about israel having kings, unless israel has or had kings in their past. this is not a prophecy, this is a (folk) history, and a relatively straight-forward verse.
edom had kings before israel had kings. "before" implies knowledge. so this verse rules out mosaic authorship. now, some people have some problems with this, namely IamJoseph. rather than continue to draw that thread off-topic after an admin warning, i'd like to discuss anachronisms in the text here.
It could only be written when no kings existed, as a pointer to the other nations and the events in question; and by the fact it is stated by one who was not around when kings of israel appeared in the future.
it seems there is some basic reasoning fault going on here. how could a text only have been written before the things it describes? this would be like me saying a history of the life of george washington could only have been written before he lived. that's just not so. how is this case any different? it describes two events, "edom has kings" and "israel has kings" and says that one happened before the other.
Its like Moses writing about Adam - before any other humans existed; the verses are retrospective to the narrative's and setting's spacetime.
exactly -- moses wrote after other humans existed. not before. let's remove the "moses" bit for a second, and simply look at the statement: "adam lived before any other human." was the verse written before any other human lived? or by another human being who lived when other human beings did?
quote:And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
quote:As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.
"jerusalem" is made of two hebrew words. the first verse is back in the days of abraham, the first person called "hebrew." now, we could argue that the language itself might go back to its namesake, eber, but it's rather futile. what would non-hebrew people be doing calling their city by a hebrew name?
we are left with two options: either the name "jerusalem" is being applied anachronistically, or it is a translation/coincidental transliteration from another language.
The name 'JERUSALEM' was coined by Abraham and Melchizedek.
well, there's a problem with this. "abraham" didn't exist in the above verse from genesis. he was known as simply "abram" them. melchizedek was already priest of yahweh in salem when he met abram. and even supposing that melchizedek spoke hebrew (his name is made from two hebrew words), that's still just "salem." half the name. where does the other half come from, and why is the city called "jerusalem" in the book of joshua? are we to believe that the jebusites called their city by a hebrew name?
no, of course not. they're called "jebusites" because they're from jebus. where is jebus? jebus = jerusalem.
quote:And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem, which is Jebus; where the Jebusites were, the inhabitants of the land.
First Chronicles 11:4
so let's review -- jerusalem is called "salem" by the author of genesis. the actual name at the time of events is questionable. jerusalem is called "jerusalem" by the author of joshua. the actual name at the time of events is "jebus." "jerusalem" is used at a later time, when david takes over the city from the jebusites. so references to "jerusalem" must be written after david. that probably includes genesis's "salem."
David established Jerusalem as the Capital after defeating the Philistines; the name was established by Abraham;
jebusites, not philistines. jebusites are canaanite natives, philistines come from the west by way of sea -- probably cyprus originally. there is no evidence that the name was established by anyone other than david.
Jacob knew about the sacredness of this place and its name, as the point his father Isaac was offered as a sacrice by Abraham.
solomon's temple is, according to chronicles, on mount moriah. please note, however, that neither jacob, nor isaac, nor abraham call it by any other name, certainly not "jerusalem."
There was no such place as Palestine or christianity during Jesus' time - he was not a christian or European. Its historical revisionism, better allocated to a belief system only.
"palestine" is an anglicized word that comes from the hebrew palushtim, which we normally render as "philistine" in christian bibles. yes, i know brian told you about herodotus, but it actually goes back to the bible. ironically, it is only according to the bible (and not archaeology) that says they were there before the hebrews.
it is actually the commonly accepted english word to describe the area -- the coastal region of the levant -- prior to the establishment of the modern state of israel, and after the destruction of the sovereign kingdoms of judah and israel. it is, apparently, appropriate for the first century, as josephus used the name. "palestine" is a geographical region that includes the modern states of israel, palestine, lebanon, and jordan.
it is however ironic that you could try to point out what you assumed was an anachronism, in a discussion so stupifyingly full of them, and fail in that regard. yes, "palestine" was what rome called israel after the jewish-roman wars -- it's actually the correct term at that point in history.
Your use of the term 'rebellion'by the jews is somewhat naive here!
no, it's accurate. the "roman holocaust" occured in response to the rebellion, resulting in many deaths (a million sounds about right), and the destruction of the second temple. the point, however, that you were supposed to gather (and did not) is that the children of israel were not a sovereign state at this point. they were ruled by rome, under the threat of violence.
WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME ROME'S GREATEST WAR?
actually, had you read any history books, you would know that rome was actually quite allowing (and respectful!) of judaism. israel was the only place rome allowed to print their own currency -- so they wouldn't have to use "unclean" and idolatrous roman currency in their temples. thus the money changers in the temple. they even allowed jews to abstain from official roman feasts in honor of caesar (unkosher food) and to avoid paying homage to roman gods. they allowed them to keep the sabbath. this is all rather well known from history.
i don't recall specifically what started the rebellion that led to the wars. might have been another bout messianic craze, which was quite common during the first centruy.
The variant, grotesque and antithetical reading of this texts is yours, not mine. This is true by concencus, period of time, and almost every commentary throughout a host of writings by the sages in this spacetime between the OT and the last hebrew books before 70 CE; then again from that point to today. Subtle point?
yes, that arguments from authority are often wrong. for instance, my chumash cites one author that states the verse must have been written during the reign of jehoshaphat, "but for expressing this opinion his book deserves to be burnt." good stuff, that. ironically, the bit before it describes that the eight kings listed for edom are symbolic of the eight kings it took judah for edom to regain its independence (jehoshaphat being the 8th king of judah, btw).
it is not a variant or grotesque reading. it is a plain and simply literal reading. it is a reading that requires one read, think, understand, comprehend, and then be willing to apply some logic that might fly in the face of dogma that commands books to be burnt for recognizing the obvious.