> ......................................
> > If all of Scripture is authoritative witness to revelation then what later
> >biblical writers say about Genesis (e.g., Paul in Romans 5) certainly
> gives further
> >insight into the significance of it.
> > This is also the case when a later writer adds "details" which are
> >non-historical in order to make a theological point. E.g., the
> exaggerated sizes of
> >armies (e.g., 2 Chron.13:3, 14:9) & amounts of wealth (I Chron.22:14,) in
> Chronicles
> >are part of the Chronicler's way of turning the history of the Davidic
> monarchy
> >in Samuel-Kings into a vision of the Kingdom of God.
>
> How do we know that was his intention? It doesn't say that in the Bible,
> and there are no extra-biblical accounts which attest to that being the
> motive of the prefabricator of the armies. And how do we know that the guy
> that added the detail really had a pure theological motive? Couldn't it be
> just plain braggadocia [sic?]?
>
> See, in order to hold this view, you must decide that you can read the mind
> of the redactor and know that his motives are pure and what they were.
> Shoot, I can't even know your motives much less a man who lived 2500 years
> ago in a culture that is as foreign to me and you as China is.
Of course statements today about the motives of any ancient writer are to some
degree conjectural, but there are well founded & ill founded conjectures. In this case
we can compare the tendency of the entire work of Chronicles with that of Samuel-Kings
and see that the differences are consistently in the direction of glorifying the piety,
splendor, & successes of the rulers of Judah and focussing attention on the Jerusalem
temple & its cult. It starts with the first human being & concludes with the command to
build "a house" for "the God of heaven". It is not an unreasonable conjecture to say
that there is some purpose behind the way in which the writer has dealt with his
sources, and that the tendency of these modifications helps us to understand that
purpose.
Just multiplying the sizes of armies, amounts of gold &d could be chalked up to
bragging. But the _omission_ (see below) of the Bathsheba-Uriah episode, Solomon's
idolatry &c cannot be sp easily explained in that way. But this is consistent with an
attempt to portray the Davidic line as the ideal kings.
Understanding a text is not a matter of reading the author's mind, but it does
require careful reading of the _text_ with the assumption that the writer did have some
purpose in writing it & _without_ the assumption that we already know what he or she is
trying to do.
> The _omission_ of all the seamy
> >details about David & Solomon serves the same function. Of course
> {sarcasm mode on}
> >Glenn will be able to explain that the Ethiopian army of 10^6 men
> (unmentioned in
> >Kings) is really quite reasonable and that David could easily have had
> 4000 tons of
> >gold. {Sarcasm mode off}
>
> As I have said, I am not an inerrantist although you try to shoehorn me
> into one. There was a David, he was rather rich and there was an Ethiopian
> army which was large. Those kinds of details I can live with if the Bible
> is in error. What I can't live with is a view that would posite that
> Pharoah Neco was really David (both are kings just as the Mesopotamian
> flood and Noah's flood are both floods). Nor could I live with a view that
> says there was no David, he was just a legend.
> > Again the disclaimer: The point is not that the Bible is wrong or
> contradicts
> >itself. It is that we should not force our assumptions of ways in which
> truth can be
> >conveyed on Scripture.
>
> And my point you consistently forget is that I am not an inerrantist. Why
> you forget it, I can't say because I can't determine your motives like you
> are able to determine the motives of the redactor of the OT.
> glenn
I know you aren't an inerrantist. You are a concordist & generally want there
to be as much historical detail as possible in a text consistent with archaeological &c
data. (Recall our discussion of Jonah.) The example of Chronicles & Samuel-Kings is
valuable because without the latter we would have what on the face of it seems to be a
straight historical narrative & our tendency as people who believe it to be inspired
Scripture might be to say that that was the way it really happened, million man army &
all. When we compare it with the equally inspired Samuel-Kings we can see (with some
study) that while the Chronicler has made use of historical material, it has been
modified consistently to make a sustained theological statement.
Now you can say here, "OK, but Chronicles still has a core of history & thus
satisfies my basic concordist requirement." Let's focus then on the specific episode
of the million man army in 2 Chron.14:9-15. From your language above & your general
approach, my guess (but you may surprise me) is that you'll argue that there was _some_
Ethiopian army which was defeated by Asa. In view of the fact that this episode is
unknown to Kings, that we have no knowledge of any "King Zerah", as well as the fact
that an army of 10^6 men in the field at that time seems implausible, I think it's much
more likely that the whole episode is fictional, again serving the overall purpose of
showing how the ideal kingdom defeats all enemies through its reliance on the Lord.
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/