Judah before Hezekiah?
mc2499 at mclink.it
Fri Dec 8 18:34:43 EST 2000
>> >How are the links between Lachish and Israel determined,
>> >or between any town you mentioned and Israel?
>> >How do you recognize links between towns?
>> By similarities in architecture. The logic and structure of the outer
>> gateworks is quite similar to a number of Israelite cities including
>> Megiddo. The six-chambered structure that makes up the inner gate there
>> found in such places as Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer.
>> Within gate areas in a number of cities or towns one finds "low plastered
>> stone benches" ranging from Dan to Kuntillat Ajrud.
>There is no necessity in your hypothesis.
Obviously, there's no need to find a reason why an Israelite presence is
there at Kuntillat Ajrud. It is for you no problem whatsoever. It's also no
problem that there are architectural features so particular from Hazor to
Lachish. It's no problem that you support a political existence which has
absolutely no evidence to support it in the ninth century, as we see in the
>One could assume as well for
>example, the six chambered gate would be a Judean typology (try to
>demonstrate the contrary) originating from some Jerusalemite city gates
>(do you know how the 9-th century BC gates of Jerusalem looked like?),
>which expanded northwards.
We clearly have an Israelite state (or whatever one might want to call it),
so talking about its existence makes sense, while talking of a Judean state
doesn't. You still assume some Judean state was there. Why? What
contemporary evidence do you have. The answer is of course, none. You have
nothing whatsoever that is contemporary to make you think what you feel you
have to think.
If there is no evidence for such an existence as Judah, why would you assume
that "the six chambered gate would be a Judean typology"? This is only
We start with what we know and use that, not with what we don't know and use
>You should demonstrate, unto to invalidate
>this, at least following two points:
>1. there is a chain of Judean fortresses at the westborder, opposing the
>Israelite ruled fortress at Gezer and so on along the Shephelah. Secondly,
>that this chain of "Judean" fortresses doesen´t display the same gate
I see no need to deal with your straw man arguments based on unfounded
assumptions. What evidence do you have for assuming a Judah?
>One could assume as well that the northern and southern examples had some
>common forerunners in the 10-th century. What do we know? On the
>assumption of the preexistence of a united monarchy, would it be no
You assume united kingdoms, divided kingdoms, Judahs and whatever else takes
your fancy. You are simply not doing anything that can be recognized as
We know that there was a state in the zone we call Israel or Samaria. It is
not a question whether it existed or not. That state included the cities of
Hazor and Megiddo which featured the six-chambered gates. The Megiddo gate
is so similar in dimension to those of Lachish and Gezer that it is rather
hard to think that they were not done by the same architectural tradition,
perhaps even the same architect.
Rather than stating any evidence of your own for any of those assumptions of
yours, all you seem to do is attempt to diminish whatever evidence there is.
>To exclude this, you should have made an exhaustive study of the
>10-th century gates in Palestine, in first line to be able to make any
>kind of statement about the gates of Jerusalem in the 10-th century BC.
There isn't much need, Michael. The gate formation is so distinctive and the
archaeology of the iron age is so relatively well-known, there are probably
only the six exemplars which have come to light.
>So on... I wish you great luck.
>> >The pottery in early levels of Lachish, level IV for example,
>> >match early pottery at Arad. Does it match Israelian
>> >pottery as well? Would you expect trade to be greater among
>> >Judaean cities, if there was a Judea, and identical to that
>> >with Israelian cities if there was no Judah? Is there only trade,
>> >what else?
>> One usually expects trade to represent local conditions, a town will
>> with those towns in the same area, but I haven't had the opportunity to
>> into the implications of any indications of trade as yet, so ultimately I
>> can't give an informed opinion regarding the tangible evidence.
>> However, I wouldn't like to argue that a town known as "Arad of the house
>> Yeroham" (in the campaign inscription of Sheshonq I at Karnak, 10th
>> was necessarily related to some organisation you might want to call
>Well, you are first time admiting not to know something. Is this something
>so unimportant for the functioning of your argumentation?
You never asked before. You merely assumed you knew better, notwithstanding
your total lack of substantive evidence.
More information about the b-hebrew