Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG]

Dear Ian,

What do you mean by "historically contemporary sources"? Inscriptions, 
clay tablets etc? If so, there are no "historically contemporary 
sources" from the (alleged) united monarchy period to support united 
monarchy, divided monarchy, or any sort of monarchy, tribal federation 
or republic! Archaeology doesn't usually answer political questions. 
If we discount the historical documents, as I think you are doing, the 
whole period becomes a blank about which speculation is a waste of 
time.

So how do you account for the later conviction that there had been a 
united people of Israel, a united religion and a united monarchy, 
given that there was no sign of such unity in post-exilic times (with 
the Samaritans being opposed to the Jews=Judeans) any more than in 
late pre-exilic times?

Peter


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: The Origins of the United Monarchy
Author:  mc2499 AT mclink.it at internet 
Date:    01/02/1999 15:48


At 21.37 01/02/99 -0500, Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG wrote: 
>
>In your scenario, surely the question that remains is not "why the 
>divided monarchy?" but "why the united monarchy?" In other words, if 
>the Israelites had such a diverse origin, what made them (even 
>temporarily) into a single united people, with a single language and 
>at least to some extent a single faith?

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


Ian


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.