The first is Duane's abnormally interesting, and credulous(?), Isaiah 38:9-20: An Abnormal View in which he provides a strong sketch of arguments that might be made to claim that Hezekiah actually wrote part of the Bible in his own hand. (At the moment I hope he does expand the post to a paper, it would be fun to hear the discussion! And perhaps I will as I continue to follow the blogs over the next few days/weeks :)
The second I am also noting for my Genesis class reading list (for next semester) where John (Hobbins) asks: Does Genesis 1 describe the creation of things or the assignment of functions to things? A Response to John Walton frankly he takes John (Walton)'s special pleading more seriously than I would, but he provides a really good clear discussion that I want my students to follow.
[Since writing the post above I have been able to interact more closely and careful;y with Walton's arguments - not least his monograph has appeared in the meanwhile - I am increasingly convinced by them and more fully recognise the force of his ontological argument.]
Two fine examples of why (biblio/biblia)blogging is both fun, and useful!
Labels: biblical.studies, genesis, is.38, isaiah, open.biblical.studies
ΒΆ 2:00 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
Tim,
Thanks
for your interest in my post on Isaiah 38:9-20. I continue to think
about developing this into a paper. The main problem is one of
methodology. Whatever is going on here, it is likely too
underdetermined to say much of anything with certainty. As to
"credulous:" I tried to be as equivocal as possible and still be more
or less coherent. I doubt very much that Hezekiah wrote any or much of
this. Some part of it may, I say "may," go back to him. Despite a
complex history of editing, even in Isaiah, every text began with
something. My underlying purpose in doing this post is to (continue to)
lay some groundwork for something quite different. What that is will
unfold over time.
By 
Duane Smith, at
May 5, 2008 3:48 AM
The word was probably badly chosen, what I meant to mean was that I
find the argument intriguing, fairly convincing, but only because it is
an idea I like. If I am properly critical there are too many
"probables" in it that maybe multiply together into an "unlikely".
But
I still think discussing it is abnormally interesting and could be fun.
(And useful too, if only in that it might help clarify some of the
issues, such as the distribution and nature of literacy in the Iron Age
Levant.
By Tim, at
May 5, 2008 6:11 AM
Dr. Walton is "the man" - just had to say it.
By Tim, at
May 7, 2008 1:50 AM
I haven't met him, though he writes and speaks (judging by the Wheaton 'cast http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/research/symposia/conferences03/ ) clearly and simply yet with interesting and useful ideas - a great combination when one finds it in my book :)
By Tim, at
May 7, 2008 6:27 AM
