Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim West [SMTP:jwest AT Highland.Net]
> Sent: Saturday, 01 January, 2000 18:00
> To:   Biblical Hebrew
> Cc:   b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
> Subject:      Re: historiography
> 
> At 06:48 PM 1/1/00 +0200, you wrote:
> >Isn't it odd that, even for those parts of the existence of the Kingdoms
> >of Israel and Judah that are confirmed by external epigraphy, we don't
> >possess even one Israelite or Judahite royal inscription?
> >Notice I'm not talking about administrative documents or letters, which
> >would have been written on perishable materials (only ostraca have
> >survived, and those not from high-ranking officials), but about the kind
> >of inscriptions that woulod have been written on stone or plaster, such
> >as the Mesha Inscription, the Tell Dan Inscription or the Deir Alla
> >Plaster Inscription (not royal).
> >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.
> 
        [Niels Peter Lemche]  It would not unique if there was no Judean
state before the 8th centuy (Jamieson-Drake, Finkelstein and more). In
Israel/Bit Humriya, is is extraordinary and veru strange indeed. The
Arameans wrote royal inscriptions, Arpad, Damascus, Hamat, the Phoenicians
too. We have somerting from Moab and Ammon, but so far nothing from the
west, except--the one from Ekron from early 7th century.

> >2) Perhaps too much is being claimed on the basis of chance findings or
> >non-findings?
> 
        [Niels Peter Lemche] But it an evasion to talk about change finds
when we are speaking about the probably most intensively digged area in the
world. In Syria, yes, because so little has been digged, or in Jordan, but
in Israel/Palestine? Which does not say, of course, that a inscription could
not turn up tomorrow or next year.

> 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.
> 
> >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.
> 
        [Niels Peter Lemche]  Who are talking about blanket rejection? This
is on of the stereotypes of the evangelical part of the community: If you
reject one line, you reject everything. Who among the critical minds have
rejected the idea that there once was a great kingdom of the House of
Omri/Israel of the name Ahab? Or of the kinddom of Judah called Hezekiah? Or
that Sennacherib actually attacked Hezekiah and forced him into submission
without having to burn down Jerusalem (he destroyed the rest)?

        Whose game are we playing by this redundant discussion?
        NPL

> Best, as always,
> 
> Jim
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Jim West, ThD
> jwest AT highland.net
> http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: npl AT teol.ku.dk
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.