> From: Daniel Buck Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 2:03 PM > > Is it certain that the king of Moab sacrificed his own son? Could we not > alternatively read it thus? > > "the king of Moab . . .[tried] to break through to the king of Edom, but they could > not. Then he took [the king of Edom']s eldest son, that should have reigned in his > place, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. > [Steve Miller] I read this interpretation attributed to Radak in the Stone Tanach. These kind of interpretations do not stand upon the text of the Bible, but on supposed extra-Biblical knowledge, which is just speculation or superstition. If you meant to communicate this in English, would you write it this way? Only if the writer was writing in riddles. If this was a prophecy, then maybe, because prophecies are sometimes given in riddles so that they can be understood after the fulfillment, but not before. But this is history. If the writer meant Radak's meaning he should say, "he took the king of Edom's eldest son", not "he took his son". If you can find an instance of "he <verb> his son" in the Tanach, where "his" does not refer to the same person as "he", then you might have a point. Otherwise, I see no merit in this interpretation.
It also doesn't make sense. Also, "he took his eldest son, who should have reigned in his stead", indicates that the taker had his choice of sons, and chose his oldest as the costliest sacrifice. Also, if the Mesha had previously captured the King of Edom's son, then "took" is not the right verb here. He would have previously taken him. Now he would have brought him out, or just sacrificed him. > See Amos 2:1 > "For three transgressions of Moab and for four I will not revoke its punishment, > Because he burned the bones of the king of Edom to lime." > [Steve Miller] This so unspecific to Radak's 2 Ki 3 interpretation as to add nothing. It is like this + a quarter will give you 25 cents (as to this question). To link this to 2 Ki 3 requires extra-Biblical knowledge, which is not there. If you buy the extra-Biblical speculation as true, Amos 2:1 adds nothing. Sincerely, -Steve Miller Detroit www.voiceInWilderness.info Blessed is the man who walks not in the world's counsel of sin, nor standeth in the sinners' way, nor with the scornful stays, because he delights in the law of the Lord, and in awe he meditates both day and night. His mind is being made right. (Psalm 1:1-2) _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
