Tim,

There have been all kinds of reactions about the contribution this discovery makes to biblical studies. I believe that the finding is significant because it is directly related to historical events in the book of Jeremiah. The discovery does not prove the Bible but it shows that Gedaliah was not an invented character in an invented history.

Claude Mariottini

By  Dr. Claude Mariottini, at August 5, 2008 7:53 AM  

Claude, I largely agree with you. I did not intend to imply that this is not a really interesting find. It is also another that suggests that an extreme minimalist position is not well founded in archaeological evidence. Though I do not think it quite "shows that Gedaliah was not an invented character in an invented history" it does make this position less convincing!

By  Tim, at August 5, 2008 9:19 AM  

When I wrote that, I new I was in dangerous territory. Wait tell you see my post that I'm currently working on! You may be correct and if so, I exposed a significant underlying prejudice. At the conscious level, I thought I was just messing around. On the other hand, over a larger selection of subjects, I doubt that any minimalist worthy of his salt would think me a minimalist. I also doubt that any good maximalist would think me a maximalist. It's hard for me to believe that those two terms are much other than theological invectives with little real meaning beyond, "I don't agree with you about the usefulness of this or that text for the reconstruction of history."

As to my view of Zephaniah and his granddad, I not sure which of your to options, if either, applies. A genealogy to a royal line, even a short one, tends to raise a flag. Once raised, I need to take that flag into consideration in further study. I have not studied this enough to have even a low probability opinion. I only see a flag.

By  Duane Smith, at August 5, 2008 10:59 AM  

While pure max or min -imalists are rare and most of us occupy the spacious and varied (if mythical) "middle ground" the caricatures are a helpful shorthand in describing tendencies. Though in this post I was certainly not intending to label either you or Claude. What interested my was simply a nice example of the way in which our assumptions impact the way we talk and therefore think about these issues. Tendencies that are obscured when we are being more serious than you were!

On (one of) the more serious notes in your comment, my take on royal connections is that (a) they are more likely to be invented or falsely remembered but that (b) there is also more likely to have been some documentary or "authoritative" oral genealogy available and so less likely to be invented out of nothing. Either way I'd think that the claim makes little diffference to the likelihood of this Gedaliah being a real person, so my own prejudice would be to accept his probable existence while being more cautious about his royal descent ;) At least that is my take IF we first accept that his grandson might be a real person - I have not studied Zephaniah, so I make no assessment of that prior question here!

By  Tim, at August 5, 2008 11:39 AM  

I agree with your thought process with regard to Zephaniah's granddad. That is certainly very likely in the case of rather short genealogies, perhaps longer ones also. All most nothing was woven from whole cloth. And I don't actually disagree with your first comment if I'm allowed to put my own nuance on the issue.

By  Duane Smith, at August 5, 2008 4:35 PM  

Post a Comment