So all of this is just Finkelstein's opinion because he's reading myth as history - exactly what you accuse Arch of doing. You are all taking the Bible literally, but viewing it through different lenses. Arch thinks its literally about a Jewish God and his works. You and the Minimalists think that it's literally about the Jews being lied to about a Jewish God.Minimalist wrote:In 1 Samuel 17 they write out the story of David killing Goliath. In 2 Samuel 19 (cited above) Samuel says Elhanan killed Goliath? Did Sam forget what he wrote in the prior chapter?
Arch wants to use the OT to prove that the stories are literally true. That's just crazy. I am willing, however, to stipulate that the stories that are in the OT are actually written there. So what? There are stories written in Mother Goose that aren't true, either.
Finkelstein's discussion of Josiah goes on for pages and pages. He is portrayed in the OT as the great reformer, virtually the next David, who did what the priests wanted and therefore was regarded as righteous. Then he goes to meet Necho and gets whacked. It is all part and parcel of the same thing, however.
Unlike Hezekiah and Manesseh, we have no extra biblical sources for Josiah. Was he real or was he an idealized monarch such as King Arthur to you Brits? To hear the writers of the OT tell the story he was pious, righteous, brave....he walked on water! Did any of this really happen? Who knows. Only the OT tells us this story. Kings is generally dated to the Exilic period but who knows when it was last edited.
Finkelstein sees the Deuteronomistic History as a poltical document designed to rally the populace for a great effort against Egypt. That it failed is immaterial. His point is that clues in the text and archaeolocial and historical evidence point to the late 7th century as the time of composition (or compilation...as I recall from our earlier discussion.)
The mythological elements of the patriarchal tales are far more evident than the later stories which seem to be far more earth-centered. Would the Jews have been the first to invoke "god" as an assistant for their plans? I think not.
If Arch says something is true because The Bible says it's true, he gets leapt upon for it. But you are all using the same document - The Bible - to make your points. It's all in the interpretation. There's nothing scientific about it.
I think you're all wrong.
Josiah is looking more and more mythical to me by the minute - he's even got the old 'righteousness' (Zedek/Zadok) tag, always a dead giveaway.
On your Samuel point, the compilers in Alexandria wouldn't have been bothered about using two different names for the same story in an environment where everyone understood these stories as myths. If they were really was trying to present them as history, editors would have gone through with a fine toothcomb to iron out any of those anomalies.