Find About America Blog in Here
It has become fashionable in recent decades for biblical scholars, sometimes termed “biblical minimalists,” to deny thoroughly the historicity of virtually all biblical narratives. 2 Kings 3 has not escaped this trend to repudiate reconstructions that harmonize the biblical account with extrabiblical data, in this case with the Mesha Inscription (Moabite Stone). Rather, such minimalists label 2 Kings 3 “historical fiction” with the emphasis on fiction and see little genuine history in the chapter. This paper examines the arguments of biblical minimalists concerning 2 Kings 3 in comparison with the Mesha Inscription and presents what can be termed a “historical maximalist” response for this story, evaluating the arguments of the minimalists while providing a positive historical reconstruction of this period on “maximalist” assumptions. It is concluded that a reconstruction that takes both 2 Kings 3 and the Mesha Inscription as essentially accurate history is possible, and that the objections raised by historical minimalists to such a reconstruction, though not without weight, are by no means conclusive. Hence, historical maximalism for 2 Kings 3 appears to be a viable option.
The find is being hailed as the most important find in Biblical Archaology for 100 years, Prof. Irving Finkel of the British Museum is quoted as saying:Then all the officials of the king of Babylon came and took seats in the Middle Gate: Nergal-Sharezer of Samgar, Nebo-Sarsekim a chief officer, Nergal-Sharezer a high official and all the other officials of the king of Babylon. [NIV]
This is a fantastic discovery, a world-class find, ... If Nebo-Sarsekim existed, which other lesser figures in the Old Testament existed? A throwaway detail in the Old Testament turns out to be accurate and true. I think that it means that the whole of the narrative [of Jeremiah] takes on a new kind of power.A writer who set out to write about the fall of Jerusalem might be expected to know the name of the Babylonian king that captured the city, but such secondary details demonstrate that the book is, as it claims, a contemporary eyewitness account.
These various considerations suggest that the Chronicler was a serious historian, who sought to give his readers a reliable account of certain aspects of the history of Judah and the dynasty of David. That there are certain difficulties in his account―though their number and importance should not be exaggerated―must be admitted; but an examination of the rest of the evidence, and an assessment of the Chronicler’s methods, render it most unlikely that he was prepared to invent material to suit some purpose of theological outlook or propaganda. We may therefore place confidence in the reliability of his information, even when it is unsupported by Samuel-Kings.My thanks to Dr Payne for his kind permission to republish his article.
