Posts
1. In Rolf Rendtorff’s The Old Testament: An Introduction, the following passage on page 38 stood out to me:
The historical reconstruction of the history of the period of the monarchy has to be based almost exclusively on the Old Testament sources. Only from the middle of the eighth century are there cross-references to and from events recorded in the sources of the Assyrian empire, which round this time rose to become the leading power in the Near East. The same is true at the end of the period of the monarchy in the Babylonian empire, which forced the Assyrians out of their position of dominance.
Both maximalists and minimalists would take issue with this statement. Probably everyone would agree that there is no explicit textual evidence prior to the eighth century B.C.E. about the Israelite monarchy. But maximalists would say that there is archaeological evidence that is consistent with the picture that the Bible presents. My memory is vague, but I read that Israelite pottery indicates that the North and the South were united at some point, until we see a difference in pottery styles between the two regions, which shows that Israel became divided. That’s what the Bible has.
Minimalists would take issue with Rendtorff’s notion that we should reconstruct the history of the Israelite monarchy from the Bible, for they don’t trust the Bible.
I wonder why God didn’t allow there to be more evidence that the Bible is historically-accurate.
2. I’m continuing my way through Charles Perrot’s French article, “The Reading of the Bible in the Hellenistic Diaspora.” Perrot refers to Philo’s descriptions of the Therapeutae, a contemplative Jewish sect in Egypt. See Therapeutae – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The wikipedia article cites passages in Philo in which he discusses the sect’s asceticism. Yet, Philo also states that they could really praise God, imitating the Israelites who praised and worshipped God after God’s victory at the Red Sea.
