Please feel free to reference that modern scholarship. I do my best to keep abreast of it and know of no one who would speak in such absolutes. Most formal and highly politicized folk histories are rife with exaggeration, false etiology, and fabrication. But such lore owes its acceptance and staying power to the fact that these emendations are effectively woven around the memories of the memories of a people. Using the books of Samuel and Kings to inform history and archaeology requires exceptional caution, but rejecting Samuel and Kings as 100 % myth is not modern scholarship but extreme denial.
outhouse, you should really consider stepping away from your search engine and taking the time to read the scholarship that you too frequently misrepresent.
jay I thank you for trying to help my education.
I do have a limited knowledge of how different mythology has different amounts of historicity, and I do understand oral tradition, and last year, you pointed out to me and I followed through and learned about the pieces and how the early collections were compiled over centuries and redacted along teh way.
Using the books of Samuel and Kings to inform history and archaeology requires exceptional caution, but rejecting Samuel and Kings as 100 % myth is not modern scholarship but extreme denial
Jay, I do know better then to throw it all out. I understand the different amounts of historicty that apply.
Soloman for example may have been the king who had a copper smelting factory set up. I dont really deny david existed, I understand its not fiction.
And I also understand the minimalist and maximalist and know which side I have found myself in through study
i do understand the context these later books were written under, and how it applies to that generation of theology.
And I still have more to learn, and im sure you can point me in the right direction.
