Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Dear NPL,

Thank you for your helpful reply. Well, one would hardly expect 
Sennacherib to mention YHWH's angel or even admit to a defeat, would 
you? Kings and Sennacherib give different sides of the same story. And 
I remember Herodotus wrote something about a plague destroying 
Sennacherib's army. I mentioned Shishak/Sheshonq as about the only 
external point of reference (apart from the name Omri) for the first 
half of Kings (what is now 1 Kings). But there is significantly more 
for the second half, because we move into a generally better attested 
period. I am not trying to suggest that there is more than one 
document here or anything like that (doubtless others can argue that 
one if they wish to).

As for the missing Babylonian Chronicles, I suppose we have to assume 
that Babylon suddenly disappeared off the face of the earth in 590 
because there are no more records from it? ;-)

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[5]: historiography: Babylonian Chronicle tc.
Author:  <npl AT teol.ku.dk> at Internet
Date:    02/01/2000 23:53


> 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