Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>I'm not sure what you think you have demonstrated, Ian,

That there was a dominant Israelite presence at Kuntillat Ajrud in the
ninth/eighth centuries.

That Kuntillat Ajrud was not built by local peoples, nor did it feature any
local wares.

That, as the waystation there was not built for religious or private
purposes, it was probably a(n Israelite) state-built establishment.

That there is no other feasible trajectory to get there based on the
evidence available than through the Shephelah which shows signs of being
within an Israelite dominion.

That there is no hard evidence for a Judah before the time of Hezekiah
roughly.

That the first evidence for a Judah springs from the time of the demise the
Israelite state.

That, despite the fact that the "divided monarchy" is popular, it is not
supported by anything and the evidence I have put forward suggests that
there was in fact no such thing.

>but if the best
>evidence is what you have presented (and apart from the evidence of the
>books of Kings),

There is no evidence on the matter in the book of Kings -- at least not at
the moment. Come back with a contemporary copy and we'll definitely listen.

>then we are the ones "without knowledge of the true power
>balance in Palestine before the period of Hezekiah."

If there was no "divided monarchy" as the evidence I've outlined suggests,
then my original statement is correct:

<<If the archaeological indications I have put forward are in fact related
to
what the situation was, then we have a good indication that the sources for
much of the material was compiled without knowledge of the true power
balance in Palestine before the period of Hezekiah.>>

Linguistic games will not change this. You need to do more than minimise the
evidence against and be tacit on the lack of evidence for such an idea as
the "divided monarchy".

>We would need to know a
>lot more than we do before we could hope to say that we know better than
the
>ancient, or not quite so ancient, texts.

Relative chronological proximity is no substitute for evidence.

Given its conditional, my original statement is still valid.


Ian