Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

G'day Ian!

Certainly there is no question that the literary material we are dealing
with is much later than the period is purports to talk about. There is
also no argument that it is an ideological statement from a later
period. Pinpointing the mien of this ideology is a bit harder, like
pinning the tail on the donkey.

However, I don't think the archaeological record contradicts a concept
of a United Monarchy. I'm trying to revise the concept of such a
political system throught he lens of archaeology. It mean we must cut
and trim here and there, giving us a very different shape of things.
Nevertheless, the archaeological record doesn't preclude a weak
political system, based more on ideology than firm socio-economic
factors. So it doesn't surprise me to find hardly any evidence of a wide
ranging political system holding sway over all corners of Palestine in
the 10th century BCE, because that's not what the United Monarchy
appears to have been. The archaeology does not mean we must reject the
United Monarchy outright. A modified model certainly fits.

Now, why even try to fit it if the tradition is from a much later
period? Well, because there just may well be some historical seeds in
it. Classic example is Hezekiah v Sennacherib. This is certainly a point
where the literary material and the archaeological evidence do kiss, and
this allows us to further solidify what kind of bias is inherent in the
texts. Added to this, we have other points where the texts and the
archaeology meet. There is something there in the text which goes back
to actual original events. If it happens, then let's try and see if we
can do it with the United Monarchy. The result is certainly not as clear
cut since the traditions point to this period as the golden and
formative age. Let's strip as much baggage as we can, and see what we
have left. Does it contradict the archaeology? Then revise it. I'm not
advocating that David actually said to his mate Jonathan what the texts
specifically claim he said while the armour bearer fetched his arrows.
I'm talking about the general situation which forms the backdrop to the
texts. Does it grate against the archaeology? The answer is no. The
archaeology allows for suggestions that a primitive warlord gained
somekind of ascendancy over a few people, developing the ideology that
ascendancy was his by right over a much wider region. Like you nodded
at, I'm trying to reinterpret the texts.

Now, as per other issues:

Rehoboam's name has to do with "width", the root resh-heth-beth. Rahab
the prostitute also has the same root as her name. However, Rahab the
sea monster of Psalms and Isaiah is definitely spelled with a heh - not
heth.

With Jeroboam, my point was that it is a real historical name. So, if
some guy in the late 10th century had such a name, it doesn't mean we
have to cringe and doubt it. But, it may well be a characterisation.
Take the name Jezebel (Iy-zebel) - I don't think a queen would have
really had such a name. It's probably been changed to reflect a value
judgment of the writer's ideology.

Regarding Daniel, I think the hellenistic context of the Maccabean
struggles is the correct context to see it in. It's very hard to see it
in any other context.

Best,
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
---------------------------------------------------