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...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Peeters
[2019]
|
| Dans: |
Biblica
Année: 2019, Volume: 100, Numéro: 4, Pages: 594-600 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Bibel. Könige 1.-2.
/ Rédaction
/ Assyrien
/ Babylonien
/ Historiographie
|
| Classifications IxTheo: | HB Ancien Testament TC Époque pré-chrétienne |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Résumé: | 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 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Biblica
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2143/BIB.100.4.3287299 |