Babylonian Historiographic Tradition in the Book of Kings
The redactional history of the Book of Kings is a complex and very disputed issue. Many recent studies offer interesting comparisons between the introductory and concluding summaries of 1-2 Kings and the Mesopotamian Chronicles, but their results are divergent. With no claim at solving the many issu...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publicado: |
Peeters
[2019]
|
| En: |
Biblica
Año: 2019, Volumen: 100, Número: 4, Páginas: 594-600 |
| (Cadenas de) Palabra clave estándar: | B
Bibel. Könige 1.-2.
/ Redacción
/ Assyrien
/ Babylonien
/ Historiografía
|
| Clasificaciones IxTheo: | HB Antiguo Testamento TC Período pre-cristiano |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Sumario: | The redactional history of the Book of Kings is a complex and very disputed issue. Many recent studies offer interesting comparisons between the introductory and concluding summaries of 1-2 Kings and the Mesopotamian Chronicles, but their results are divergent. With no claim at solving the many issues of the redactional history of the Book of Kings, this article suggests the existence of two clues - i.e. the attribution of the fall of Samaria to Shalmaneser V and the use of the hypocoristic form Pûl for Tiglat-pileser III - that allow us to connect some historical information given in Kings with a late Babylonian tradition rather than with an earlier Neo-Assyrian one. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2385-2062 |
| Obras secundarias: | Enthalten in: Biblica
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2143/BIB.100.4.3287299 |