Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <gathas AT mail.usyd.edu.au>]

Ian Hutchesson wrote:

> Come to think of it, Peter, there's no historically contemporary sources to
> the time to support such a hypothesis as the united monarchy.

But Ian, if some kind of hegemony was placed artificially over these two 
polities,
then there probably wouldn't be much evidence for it. Only if the United 
Monarchy had
occured naturally through the undisturbed mechanisms of pristine state 
formation would
we probably find evidence of a United Monarchy "growing". If the biblical 
literature
is correct in reflecting a time in which the polities of Israel and Judah 
were once
under a single regime which was imposed on it for a short period of time, 
then it
would be correct to say that Israel and Judah were not "ripe" for statehood 
at the
time - but it nevertheless was imposed on it, and it was almost inevitable 
that it
tore apart and took a good many years to "grow up". A bit like a five year 
old being
forced to wear a men's extra large jacket. You say, "We have only children's 
clothes
here - no evidence of adulthood." Or, "We have no evidence of statehood or 
Monarchy at
the time in question - only loosely connected tribes." But, if the Monarchy 
was an
artificial construct imposed on still developing tribes, there would be little
evidence for it until much later. So in effect, we have a "United Monarchy" 
de jure,
but a "weak and fledgling political system bound to fail" de facto.

That of course, is if the United Monarchy existed. The problem is that the 
evidence is
silent. But silence of evidence does not mean evidence of silence.


Best as always!
GEORGE ATHAS
Dept of Semitic Studies,
University of Sydney
- Email: gathas AT mail.usyd.edu.au
---------------------------------------------------
Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website at
http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm
---------------------------------------------------