Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

And g'day to you, George!

You wrote:

>Firstly, I agree that the archaeological record is scant when it comes to
settlements
>in the 10th century BCE. [..]
>
>However, I don't think the evidence for the United Monarchy over Israel
and Judah
>really has all that much to do with the archaeology. 

This of course means that the only testimony to such a beast as the united
monarchy is a collection of texts dated earliest to the DSS period.

>What I mean is that the United
>Monarchy appears to have been more of a token political system - one which
was more a
>theoretical construct than an actual construct. It's a bit like me
declaring a new
>Republic of George Athas right here in Sydney, Australia. Now, I can
organise my own
>household to reflect this new republic, I can even convince my neighbours
to follow me
>and be part of it - but in actual fact, the Republic of George Athas is
just a
>theoretical construct which doesn't have all that much practical force.
Now, with
>David and Solomon, I think the case is similar, except that they had a
little more
>impact on things than I would have here in Sydney with my little Republic.
It's not
>surprising, then, that little tangible evidence for a United Monarchy has
turned up.

Would that "little" be functionally equivalent to "no"?

>Having said this, though, I think many of us underestimate the evidence of
the
>archaeology of Jerusalem (by that I mean the excavations in modern Silwan,
on the
>Ophel ridge). 

George, there is no doubt that there was a city there with a similar name
at least from the time of the Amarna letters. There is however no signs of
growth of that city when it allegedly became the centre of a large kingdom,
much larger than anything seen in the area before or after (until the times
of the Hasmoneans). In fact, there are no archaeological signs for the
change of control of the city alleged at the time of David. This is a grave
problem: there are clear signs of the arrival of the Philistines in
Palestine. Perhaps there was in fact no signs of cultural difference
between the Canaanites and the late of Egypt Hebrews.

>I think we often expect to find too much with "United Monarchy" stamped
>on it, so when the evidence turns out to be less, we dismiss the United
Monarchy as
>purely and only a literary-theological concept of much later writers. I
think items
>such as the Stepped Stone structure and the nearby houses do not rule out
a town of
>Jerusalem in the 10th century. It does not appear to be a thriving
metropolis, but it
>doesn't need to be. 

This is quite an understatement, "not... a thriving metropolis". It was in
fact tiny and doesn't seem to have gone through any substantial growth
until the time of Hezekiah. This is a city whose life didn't seem to change
much at all for some centuries after it became the centre of political
power in the region.

>For a primitive grouping of pastoralists-recently
>cum-agriculturalists, a shift from a very spartan rural lifestyle to a
fledgling urban
>lifestyle would have been a significant shift. 

I thought this was a bunch of people who were escaped disenfranchized
workers in the building industry in Egypt who spent their time upon arrival
in Palestine conquering the local inhabitants, before the emergeance of the
desire to have a king. At least that's the story. What makes you think they
were "a primitive grouping of pastoralists-recently cum-agriculturalists"?

>So much so, in fact, that it warranted
>description in grandiose terms. For example, Solomon, it is boasted,
received 666
>talents per annum. Now, for a people such as primitive Judah, this was a
phenomenal
>amount, but in terms of real wealth, it is paltry. Compare it to Egypt or
Babylon and
>it pales in significance. Later writers, who by then were familiar with an
urban
>political system into which Judah had developed a few centuries later, had
traditions
>of Judah's golden age. Now, it is probable that the writers were actually
much better
>off than the people in the 10th century BCE, but since it was always
remembered as a
>golden age, they propogated it as such.

If you can say that later writers were representing the earlier period with
later traditions, what else was contributed by the later writers? Is it not
arbitrary to say this or that was from a later period when there are no
benchmarks to aid such a conclusion?

>> [...] 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).
>
>It is because we don't need to find tangible archaeological evidence of a
theoretical
>structure. It's a bit like asking to find archaeological evidence to
support the
>theories of Sigmund Freud. You'll only find the evidence in literary form,
not in
>stone or pottery.

By this you seem to be putting forward the thesis that the united monarchy
should be relegated to the literature that contains it. It doesn't need
such evidence because it was only theoretical. I gather that that means
"not reflecting anything that existed in the real world".

>> >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.
>
>I'm not sure I follow you. We know that Judah did eventually develop into
a fully
>fledged state in its own right. That is the equivalent: Judah (and Israel)
did
>eventually grow up into well developed states.

The realm of a united monarchy is the still missing adult.

>> >Or, "We have no evidence of statehood or Monarchy at
>> >the time in question - only loosely connected tribes."
>>
>> We don't even have that.
>
>You mean, there is absolutely no evidence of anyone in the hills of
Palestine during
>the 10th century BCE? The place was vacant? Not a roving soul? Not even a
couple of
>shepherds and their sheep?

No. I mean that "loosely connected tribes" is merely conjecture. There may
have been tribes, but "loosely connected"?

>> >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.)
>
>Please explain - don't follow.

Accounts that are admitted by you as not reflecting the real situation in
Jerusalem of the era and having documentary support from texts datable to
the second century BCE, would be like attempting to apply the Epic of
Gilgamesh to a hypothetical reality, or Le Morte d'Arthur, or the Ramayana.
One might attempt to find the speck of truth in those texts, but I doubt if
any historian would go out on a limb and attempt to use them as history.

>> >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.
>
>Of course. I'm just putting forward one of the alternatives.

The "alternative" you are putting forward has archaeological problems and
though it's been around for millennia, it has only lost appeal to
historians, whereas active hypotheses usually generate positive research to
sustain them or fall into inactivity and loss of appeal. The appeal of the
one you are putting forward doesn't seem to have anything to do with facts
stimulated by the hypothesis. I think it's time for serious consideration
of other hypotheses, given the lack of success over the millennia of the
currently dominant one.

                             ----o0o----

You wrote in another post about my showing how archaeology and epigraphy
have unveiled kingdoms (eg Ebla, Hatti) we otherwise would never have known
anything about:

>But Ian, these societies were already well developed at the time, with an
already
>existent infrastructure and political system which had been place for a
long time. 
>In 1000 BCE, Israel and Judah didn't have a well developed political
structure.

Then why do you support such a hypothesis as the united monarchy at all? We
are at best in the realms of conjecture.

                             ----o0o----

I am intrigued by some of the names of kings in the early period that
suggest a lack of historicity. Beside names such as David ("beloved" or
"general"?) and Solomon ("peace"), we come across names such as "Rehoboam"
(related to the sea as in Rahab of Ps89 & Is51) and his son, Abijam ("my
father is the sea"); what about the similarly structure name to Rehoboam,
ie Jeroboam (regarding "contention" -- mere coincidence?), or Baasha
("stinky")? Do any of these reflect real people or are they simply names
generated from Hebrew traditions?




Ian