Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jonathan D. Safren" <yonsaf AT beitberl.beitberl.ac.il>]

Dear Jim,
You wrote:

> >If it weren't for chance mention of Israelite and Jodahite kings by
> >Assyrian. Moabite and Aramean epigraphy, then one could claim that the
> >Kingdoms of Israel and Judah never existed.
> >So I ask these questions.
> >1) Perhaps royal inscriptions were not part of the Israelite and
> >Judahite scribal/royal tradition? And/or
>
> This would be extremely unique wouldn't it?  We have precisely this kind of
> material for all of the surrounding cultures, but none for Israel- which
> reached great expanse during the "Solomonic" era.... (according to the DH).
> That is just so odd that it requires some significant consideration, it
> seems to me.

[JDSafren] Notice I wasn't talking about the United Monarchy (David and
Solomon), for which we have no external documentation, but about the 
externally
documented Kingdoms of Israel and Judah from the 9th century on. Couldn't we
expec to find at least ONE royal inscription, if such had existed? Which led 
me
to my first question and then to my second question:

> >2) Perhaps too much is being claimed on the basis of chance findings or
> >non-findings?
>
> That is possibly true.  Chance plays far too great a role in such matters.
> But again, what are the chances that the surrounding civilizations left some
> trace and Israel alone did not?  Let me hasten to say- I think there was an
> "Israel" in the pre-babylonian era.  But I dont think it was what the DH
> says it was.

[JDSafren] If you mean the Deuteronomistic History, I agree with you. Such
details as the typological regnal years ascribed to David (33+7=40) and 
Solomon
(40), the number of Solomon's wives (300) and concubines (700) and such 
stories
as Solomon and the Queen of Sheba or Solomon and the Two Harlots have always
appeared imaginary to me. But these are not of the same cut as the dry, 
somewhat
boring administrative lists appearing for Solomon's reign in 1 Kings 4.

> >3) Perhaps the blanket rejection of Biblical historiography is
> >unwarranted?
>
> Any blanket rejection of anything is unwarranted.  But when evidence is
> lacking for something we must wonder why that is and what really was there.

[JDSafren] Again, I agree with you. Trouble, is, rejection of Biblical
historiography even extends to the sources the authorof Kings claims to be
quoting.
Yours,
Jonathan

--
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
Beit Berl Post Office 44905
Israel