Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

I 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.

And George responded:
>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". 

Dear George,

It would seem then that you agree with me that there is, at least at the
moment, no archaeological or epigraphic evidence to support a literal
interpretation of the biblical narratives centred around the united
monarchy. If this is the case, are you open to interpretations of the
narratives that don't take a literal approach? (For example that they may
represent a metaphorical approach to another era, such as the Maccabean
period.)

>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". 

I can't see how you get to the "nevertheless" in this statement, if you
accept that there is no evidence to come to that conclusion (as your
initial statement here seems to imply).

>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." 

The analogy of course is not good. You have the knowledge from uniformity
that children grow up to adulthood. There is nothing equivalent in what you
are applying your analogy to.

>Or, "We have no evidence of statehood or Monarchy at
>the time in question - only loosely connected tribes." 

We don't even have that.

>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.

(You'd be basing all this on evidence of a type you wouldn't use in other
circumstances.)

>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.

It does give scope for contemplating other alternatives, for there is no
evidentially favoured position.


Cheerio,


Ian