Do you know who the historical Uriah the Hittite was? I’m looking to find the true history of the man or at least as accurate as humanly possible. I was thinking that Solomon probably visited the grave of Uriah, the Hittite, and somehow that information will not be lost because he is related to Uriah the Hittite by his brother, who died the son of David and Bathsheba
There is clearly more than one view of David in the Book of Samuel. There's praise and glorification, and there's criticism. In the past, bible scholars tried to explain the two or more views by saying it was impossible to shut down the criticism when so many people knew about it: either at Solomon's court (when scholars still believed in Solomon's wealth), or after Northerners fled to Judah not to be exiled by Assyrians. Why would Judahites in Babylonian exile tell a story with so many different views, instead of settling on critique or on glorification, like the Chronicler?
Thanks, I agree that Chronicles, at the end of the Hebrew canonical ordering, thus ends OT Scripture with Israel awaiting a son of David to restore the unity of northern (Samaritans) with southern (Judaeans) Israel. And we see this pan-Israelite ideology of the Chronicler manifesting in the fulfillments depicted in Luke-Acts and John, which show the work of Jesus resulting in unity of all Israel (both Judaeans and Samaritans) before Israel incorporates the nations (according to the messianic reunification paradigm seen throughout the prophets).
Do you know who the historical Uriah the Hittite was? I’m looking to find the true history of the man or at least as accurate as humanly possible.
I was thinking that Solomon probably visited the grave of Uriah, the Hittite, and somehow that information will not be lost because he is related to Uriah the Hittite by his brother, who died the son of David and Bathsheba
There is clearly more than one view of David in the Book of Samuel. There's praise and glorification, and there's criticism. In the past, bible scholars tried to explain the two or more views by saying it was impossible to shut down the criticism when so many people knew about it: either at Solomon's court (when scholars still believed in Solomon's wealth), or after Northerners fled to Judah not to be exiled by Assyrians. Why would Judahites in Babylonian exile tell a story with so many different views, instead of settling on critique or on glorification, like the Chronicler?
Thanks, I agree that Chronicles, at the end of the Hebrew canonical ordering, thus ends OT Scripture with Israel awaiting a son of David to restore the unity of northern (Samaritans) with southern (Judaeans) Israel. And we see this pan-Israelite ideology of the Chronicler manifesting in the fulfillments depicted in Luke-Acts and John, which show the work of Jesus resulting in unity of all Israel (both Judaeans and Samaritans) before Israel incorporates the nations (according to the messianic reunification paradigm seen throughout the prophets).