Thank you, George. I quite agree with everything you said. My own view can be seen in a couple of places: my 1991 article in Trinity Journal, downloadable here:
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/josiah.zip and my novel about Josiah, based on the above article, which can be found here: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/89444 Again, thanks for your contribution, and thanks for ending this thread. On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:49 PM, George Athas <[email protected]> wrote: > There is absolutely nothing in the text that demands the interpretation that > the scroll which Hilkiah found was written in cuneiform. The suggestion > comes from factors outside the text, but which again are in no way dependent > on the text. Therefore, Jim's scenario has no evidence from the text itself, > and is a purely speculative hypothesis that cannot in any way be proved or > disproved. It is, therefore, for all intents and purposes, curious but of no > value at all for understanding the text. > > I don't see why we need to continue this conversation any further on list. > It is not advancing our understanding of Biblical Hebrew language or > literature, though it is giving us a glimpse at Jim's interesting > imagination (the proposed scenario would make a nice visual scene in > "Josiah: The Movie (adapted from the Bible)". > > Everyone can have one final post on this subject, and then the thread ends. > > ONE post each, followed by END OF THREAD. > > > GEORGE ATHAS > Co-moderator of B-Hebrew > Sydney (only for another couple of hours), Australia > > > On 13/12/2012, at 8:48 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Gentlemen: > The Biblical authors of II Kings were primarily interested in portraying > King Josiah as a righteous ruler, who brought Judah back to the proper > practice of true Judaism. As such, King Josiah can also be expected to have > a fine high priest of the Temple in Jerusalem, with whom King Josiah works > well. But the Biblical authors have zero interest in praising King Josiah’s > scribe!!! > Everyone is hung up on the first verse I quoted, II Kings 22: 8: “And > Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, ‘I have found the > book of the law in the house of the LORD.’ And Hilkiah gave the book to > Shaphan, and he read it.” > Note what that verse does n-o-t say. Though the high priest Hilkiah will > be presented as being an important, positive religious figure, nevertheless > the text does not say that Hilkiah read the sacred find, and specifically > denies that Hilkiah gave the sacred text to King Josiah, much less read it > to him. No, the text says that Hilkiah gave the book to King Josiah’s > scribe, who read it. > Remember, the Biblical authors have no interest whatsoever in portraying > Shaphan as being an important, positive figure. > I have set forth a logical, simple explanation for the foregoing verse which > fits everything the verse says and makes sense: the sacred text was written > in cuneiform (using west Semitic words), and therefore the only human being > in Jerusalem who could read the darn thing was the guy whose professional > duties required him to be able to read cuneiform letters written to Judah > from Assyria and Babylonia. Yes, those cuneiform letters were written in > Assyrian or Akkadian, but cuneiform could be used just as easily to write > west Semitic (as we know from the dozens of west Semitic words in the Amarna > Letters). A native Biblical Hebrew speaker who can read cuneiform letters > in Assyrian and Akkadian could easily read a sacred Hebrew text written in > cuneiform using west Semitic words. > Now let’s look at the alternative scenarios that you fellows have creatively > floated. > 1. Dave Washburn wrote: “I don't know where you got this idea that there > was such a sharp division between religious and secular matters….” > I don’t know where you got the idea that I think any such thing. On the > other hand, the first inclination of the authors of II Kings and Chronicles > would be to show high priest Hilkiah as working directly with King Josiah > regarding this important sacred discovery. Why bring King Josiah’s scribe > into the picture? Your comment that there was not “a sharp division between > religious and secular matters” explains nothing. > Dave Washburn continued: “Now I remember why I usually don't read your > material.” > You mean you’re not super-excited about investigating the possibility that > some of the oldest parts of the Torah may have been written in cuneiform > using west Semitic words, thereby enabling there to be sacred Hebrew > religious w-r-i-t-t-e-n texts dating all the long way back to the Late > Bronze Age? If that’s not an exciting possibility, then what in life is > exciting? > 2. Prof. Yigal Levin made a series of alternative suggestions, starting > with the following: “Jim, I just re-read the passage. Nowhere does it say > that Hilkiah and Josiah could not read the book that had been found.” > It doesn’t? Gosh, if two different Biblical authors (II Kings and > Chronicles) are trying to build up King Josiah, and show him as correctly > interpreting Judaism with his high priest Hilkiah, then why would the text > not say that Hilkiah read the sacred find, or that Hilkiah took the sacred > text to King Josiah? Why say that Hilkiah gave the text to the scribe, who > read it? > Prof. Levin continued: “Not because the king could not read, but because > reading to the king was the scribe's job.” > Is there any support in the Bible, or outside of the Bible, for that? The > assertion is that the King could read just as well as the scribe, but the > King had a scribe read things to the King? Doesn’t it make much more sense > here that the sacred text was written in cuneiform, and only the scribe > could read that writing system? > Prof . Levin then specifically supported Dave Washburn’s odd comment above: > “I agree with Dave. And remember that Shaphan was in charge of the repairs > to the Temple in the first place. So quite naturally anything of importance > that was found would be brought to him.” > Yes, any gold or silver found in the Temple would be handed over to the > scribe, that’s for sure. But an ancient sacred religious text? What are > high priests of Jerusalem good for if not for examining and commenting on > ancient sacred Hebrew religious texts? > 3. Nir Cohen had so many alternative ideas that there’s not room to set > forth all of them here. Nir Cohen starts out: “the scribe (SOFER) was > there specifically to read and write.” > Yes, but we know for a fact that King Josiah could read alphabetical Hebrew > very well, as II Kings 23: 2 specifically says: “And the king went up to > the house of the LORD, and with him all the men of Judah and all the > inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests and the prophets, all the people, > both small and great; and he read in their hearing all the words of the > book of the covenant which had been found in the house of the LORD.” > Nir Cohen continued: “his job may have included not just the physical > reading, but also the grammatical interpretation, and even political > censorship of certain difficult passages in the text. it must have been > considered a very responsible job.” > Wait a minute! The Biblical authors are bound and determined to build up > King Josiah. King Josiah, in conjunction with the high priest of Jerusalem, > is interpreting this important ancient sacred Hebrew religious text. King > Josiah is definitely n-o-t relying on his scribe here for “political > censorship of certain difficult passages in the text”. > Ni Cohen then wrote: “moreover, the SOFER had to read the text LOUDLY in > front of a gathered assembly, a task which the priest or the king may have > considered unworthy of office. could even be embarrassing if these > dignitaries had glitched over a complicated word.” > The text explicitly denies all of that. See II Kings 23: 2 quoted above. > Switching gears, Nir Cohen then came up with this interesting argument: > “both priest and king may have been totally absorbed in the hectic > reconstruction work in the temple and desperate defence plans in view of > incoming invasions. they did not have time to read.” > But King Josiah d-i-d read the sacred text to himself, once it had been > transformed from cuneiform to alphabetical Hebrew by the scribe, and then he > d-i-d take the time to read this text to all the assembled multitude of > Jerusalem and Judah. > 4. Finally, Karl W. Randolph weighed in as follows: “There’s another > consideration that was common before the typewriter: even in societies with > near universal literacy, there was ready employment for anyone who could > write with good, clear penmanship.” > But that’s not the issue here. First and foremost was determining precisely > what this ancient text was. Hilkiah gave it to the scribe to read, and then > later the scribe read it to King Josiah. Penmanship isn’t the issue. > Rather, the problem was that this ancient sacred text was written in > cuneiform (using west Semitic words), and accordingly the only one in > Jerusalem who could read it was Shaphan the scribe, who as part of his > regular duties read cuneiform letters sent to Judah from Assyria and > Babylonia. > * * * > Guys, the only realistic way that part of the Torah can be a w-r-i-t-t-e-n > text dating all the long way back to the Bronze Age is if the writing system > used was cuneiform, using west Semitic words. That’s the “missing link” to > discover the true antiquity, and pinpoint historical accuracy, of the > Patriarchal narratives. > Jim Stinehart > Evanston, Illinois > > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > -- Dave Washburn Check out my Internet show: http://www.irvingszoo.com Now available: a novel about King Josiah! _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
