The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings: Perbedaan antara revisi
Konten dihapus Konten ditambahkan
JohnThorne (bicara | kontrib) |
JohnThorne (bicara | kontrib) |
||
Baris 123:
== Penerimaan ==
Rekonstruksi kronologi Thiele tidak seluruhnya diterima oleh para sarjana,<ref>'Tidak semua sarjana diyakinkan oleh pemecahan ini, dan para komentator mengenai kitab-kitab nabi-nabi sering menerima bahwa tanggal-tanggal ini hanya perkiraan.', McConville, G (2002). Exploring the Old Testament, Volume 4: The Prophets (viii). London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.</ref><ref>'Meskipun ada fakta dedikasi kesarjanaan, disertasi Thiele di University of Chicago yang diajukan dengan cermat, atau pun pendapat orang lain, belum mendapat penerimaan universal.', Kaiser, WC (1998). A history of Israel: From the bronze age through the Jewish Wars (293). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.</ref> demikian pula pendapat para sarjana lain dalam bidang kronologi ini. Namun, karya Thiele dan penerus jejaknya telah mendapatkan penerimaan lintas spektrum dibandingkan kronologi serupa yang lain, sehingga ahli mengenai Asyur (Assyriologist''), [[Donald Wiseman|DJ Wiseman]], menulis “Kronologi yang paling banyak diterima hari ini adalah yang berdasarkan studi cermat oleh Thiele,”<ref>Donald J Wiseman, ''1 and 2 Kings'' dalam ''[[Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries]]'' (Leicester: Intervarsity, 1993), 27.</ref> dan, juga menurut Leslie McFall: “Kronologi Thiele dengan cepat menjadi pandangan konsensus di antara sarjana [[Perjanjian Lama]], malah mungkin sudah mencapai titik itu.”<ref>Leslie McFall, “The Chronology of Saul and David,” ''[[Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society]]'' 53 (2010) 215, n. 101.</ref>
Meskipun ada kritik-kritik ini penanganan metodologi Thiele tetap menjadi titik awal umum dari penanganan ilmiah untuk subjek ini,<ref>'Thiele’s work has become a cornerstone of much recent chronological discussion (cf. De Vries IDB 1: 580–99; IDBSup: 161–66);', Freedman, D. N. (1996). Vol. 1: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (1006). New York: Doubleday.</ref> dan karyanya dianggap telah menetapkan tahun perpecahan [[Kerajaan Israel (kerajaan bersatu|Kerajaan Israel bersatu]].<ref>'Following Thiele’s revolutionary work, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, a consensus has emerged that the kingdom under Solomon divided at his death in 931 BC. This date must be the starting point for any chronological reconstruction of previous events.', Merrill, Eugene H, ‘Fixed Dates in Patriarchal Chronology’, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 137. 1980 (547) (237). Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary.</ref><ref>Finegan, ''Handbook'' p. 249.</ref><ref>[[Gershon Galil]], ''The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah'' (Leiden: Brill, 1996), p. 14.</ref><ref>McFall, "Translation Guide," p. 33-34.</ref><ref>T. C. Mitchell in ''Cambridge Ancient History'', "Israel and Judah until the Revolt of Jehu," pp. 445-446.</ref><ref>Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, ''The Bible Unearthed'' (New York: Free Press, 2001), p. 131 ([https://books.google.com/books?id=lu6ywyJr0CMC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=Finkelstein+%22Bible+Unearthed%22+931&source=bl&ots=lQA3Mtd86F&sig=TbXfcHSMjYvizXXLb_jqKnluap8&hl=en&ei=sKzSSbG2B8nfnQf1n-jJBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result Link]).</ref> Kesimpulan ini telah mendapat dukungan independen dari hasil karya J. Liver,<ref>J. Liver, "The Chronology of Tyre at the Beginning of the First Millennium B.C.," ''Israel Exploration Journal'' 3 (1953), p. 113-120</ref> [[Frank Moore Cross|Frank M. Cross]],<ref>Frank M. Cross, "An Interpretation of the Nora Stone," ''Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research'' 208 (1972) p. 17, n. 11.</ref> dan orang-orang lain yang mempelajari kronologi raja-raja [[Tirus, Lebanon|Tirus]].<ref>A summary of these studies is found in William H. Barnes, ''Studies in the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel'' (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), pp. 29-55, and also in Rodger C. Young, "Three Verifications of Thiele's Date for the Beginning of the Divided Kingdom," ''Andrews University Seminary Studies'' 45 (2007), pp. 179-187.</ref> Karya Thiele telah mendapatkan pengakuan meluas dan digunakan lintas disiplin ilmu. Tahun 931 SM hasil perhitungannya, terkait dengan sinkronisme antara Rehabeam dan Firaun [[Sisak]] dalam [[1 Raja-raja 14:25]], digunakan oleh para ahli Egyptology untuk menetapkan tanggal absolut bagi [[Dinasti kedua puluh dua Mesir|Dinasti ke-22 Mesir]], dan karyanya juga telah digunakan oleh para sarjana dalam disiplin-disiplin ilmu lain untuk menetapkan tanggal-tanggal Asyur dan Babel.<ref>'In a 1996 article, Kenneth Strand wrote, “What has generally not been given due notice is the effect that Thiele’s clarification of the Hebrew chronology of this period of history has had in furnishing a corrective for various dates in ancient Assyrian and Babylonian history.”28 The purpose of Strand’s article was to show that Thiele’s methodology accomplished more than just producing a coherent chronology from scriptural data. His chronology, once produced, proved useful in settling some troublesome problems in Assyrian and Babylonian history. As Strand pointed out, this outcome was quite the opposite of what some of Thiele’s critics asserted, namely that Thiele merely juggled the scriptural data until he could match generally accepted dates from the surrounding nations.', Young, Roger, 'Inductive And Deductive Methods As Applied To OT Chronology', Master's Seminary Journal Volume 18. 2007 (1) (112–113). Sun Valley, CA: The Master's Seminary.</ref><!-- Criticism of Thiele's reconstruction led to further research which has refined or even departed from his synthesis. Notable studies of this type include work by Tadmor<ref>'H. Tadmor (EncMiqr 4: 245–310) bases his chronology upon considerations similar to those of Begrich and Thiele, but assumes far fewer systemic fluctuations; items which are inexplicable are regarded as late editorial calculations or errors.', Freedman, D. N. (1996). Vol. 1: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (1006). New York: Doubleday.</ref><ref>'While also somewhat conservative in his approach to the figures in MT, Tadmor’s pragmatic reconstruction delves into the process by which the redactor(s) of Kings compiled their chronological framework from heterogeneous materials, sometimes leaving traces in textual inconsistencies (Tadmor EncMiqr 4: 45).', Freedman, D. N. (1996). Vol. 1: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (1006). New York: Doubleday.</ref> dan McFall.<ref>'It remained then for others to complete the application of principles that Thiele used elsewhere, thereby providing a chronology for the eighth-century kings of Judah that is in complete harmony with the reign lengths and synchronisms given in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. The most thorough work in this regard was Leslie McFall’s 1991 article in Bibliotheca Sacra.22 McFall made his way through the reign lengths and synchronisms of Kings and Chronicles, and using an exact notation that indicated whether the years were being measured according to Judah’s Tishri years or Israel’s Nisan years, he was able to produce a chronology for the divided monarchies that was consistent with all the scriptural texts chosen.', Young, Roger, 'Inductive And Deductive Methods As Applied To OT Chronology', Master's Seminary Journal Volume 18. 2007 (1) (105–106). Sun Valley, CA: The Master's Seminary.</ref>
Kritik Thiele rekonstruksi led untuk penelitian lebih lanjut yang telah disempurnakan atau bahkan berangkat dari sintesis. Penting studi jenis ini mencakup bekerja dengan Tadmor<ref>'It remained then for others to complete the application of principles that Thiele used elsewhere, thereby providing a chronology for the eighth-century kings of Judah that is in complete harmony with the reign lengths and synchronisms given in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. The most thorough work in this regard was Leslie McFall’s 1991 article in Bibliotheca Sacra.22 McFall made his way through the reign lengths and synchronisms of Kings and Chronicles, and using an exact notation that indicated whether the years were being measured according to Judah’s Tishri years or Israel’s Nisan years, he was able to produce a chronology for the divided monarchies that was consistent with all the scriptural texts chosen.', Young, Roger, 'Inductive And Deductive Methods As Applied To OT Chronology', Master's Seminary Journal Volume 18. 2007 (1) (105–106). Sun Valley, CA: The Master's Seminary.</ref> dan McFall.<ref />
Sikap ilmiah terhadap catatan Alkitab Israel monarki dari akhir abad kesembilan belas ke abad pertengahan sebagian besar meremehkan, mengobati records sebagai dasarnya fiksi dan mengabaikan nilai regnal synchronisms.<sup class="cx-segment-block"><ref>'Grabbe suggests that the names and sequence of kings in Israel and Judah, and their approximate chronological placement, agrees with what can be gleaned from extra-biblical sources. To this extent the biblical framework (meaning primarily 1 and 2 Kings) is reliable: even if we had no external sources we could have reasonable confidence in the biblical sequence of Jeroboam I, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Omri, Ahab, Jehu, etc. in Samaria, and David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijam, Asa, Jehoshaphat, etc. in Jerusalem, along with their interrelationships. Beyond that it starts to get more and more tricky, with decreasing reliability in the biblical narrative as the detail increases (this is a general statement, and there are sometimes exceptions in specific instances).', Grabbe, L. L. (2007). Reflections on the Discussion. In L. L. Grabbe (Ed.), Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty (L. L. Grabbe, Ed.) (337). London: T&T Clark.</ref></sup> Sebaliknya, modern sikap ilmiah ke monarki kronologi dan synchronisms dalam 1 dan 2 raja-Raja telah jauh lebih positif setelah pekerjaan Thiele dan orang-orang yang telah mengembangkan tesis lebih lanjut,<ref /> perubahan sikap yang arkeologi baru-baru ini telah memberikan kontribusi.<ref />
|