Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> You wrote: "Poor Kings has almost nothing to support anything it 
> says." Really? I explicitly wrote "2 Kings". How about the Babylonian 
> Chronicle for the fall of Jerusalem? How about the Moabite Stone for 2 
> Kings 3? How about Sennacherib's records for the siege of Jerusalem in 
> Hezekiah's reign? Of course we get a different spin on events in each 
> case, history written from a different perspective! Now the times of 
> David and Solomon are more difficult, I know, though for just after 
> this we have Shishak/Sheshonq's invasion, if for the moment we drop 
> David Rohl's reinterpretation of this. Conclusion is just as for 
> Josephus: we have reasonable external evidence to confirm the latter 
> parts of Kings, but we cannot be sure about the earlier parts which 
> must rely on earlier sources of uncertain validity.
> 
> Peter Kirk
> 
        [Niels Peter Lemche]  But remember. you only have the date 597 BCE
confirmed by the Babylonian Chronicle, It breaks off around 590 BCE (Where
they hide the second part I do not know--always thought that some of the
museum basements would be wonderful places for archaeologists to dig).

        Sennacherib is OK, the first part of it, but not the part about
Yahweh's revenging angel. Mesha and 2 Kgs 3 is doubtful as evidence. The
only things in common are the name of Mesha and the idea that there was a
war between Moab and Israel sometimes at the end of the 9th century BCE.
Shishaq/Shoshenk is even more dubious as he has nothing to add to the idea
of attacking what was shortly before (if the chronology is right) an empire.
Nothing from Judah is mentioned by Sheshonk. As if it never existed. And
finally, Peter what do you talk about when you distinguish between early and
latter parts of Kings? I suppose that you wema also the Shoshak/Sheshonk
evidence confirmed, and Shishak is in the earlier part.

        NPL