Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

>>... the fact that Judah does in fact spring into history a generation
>>before Hezekiah.
>>
>>PK: OK if you mean "is first attested in the archaeological record". But
>>please don't even think of taking this to mean "first came into
existence".
>
>Please don't tell me what to, or not to, think, Peter.
>
>PK: OK, think what you like. And I'll think what I like of your thoughts.

You are naturally free to think what you like, but you don't expect to be
taken seriously, when you tell someone not to examine possibilities while
offering no method or reasoning for taking such a step.

I can see no reason why I should not contemplate for a moment that the
kingdom of Judah "first came into existence" -- contra your instructions --
at least approximately at that time. It's a valid hypothesis.

>>You have no evidence of when that took place except that it was not later
>>than this, although there is some evidence that it was not a large and
>>powerful state. But then this largely agrees with the record in 1-2 Kings,
>>for the period from Rehoboam to Ahaz - there are very few recorded
>>activities outside the immediate area of Jerusalem, so perhaps Judah was
>not
>>much more than a city state. Also, the records suggest that at least in
the
>>time of Ahaziah, grandson of Ahab, and his mother Athaliah Judah was in
>>effect subject to Israel (2 Kings 8:25-29, ch.11).
>
>How much before Hezekiah was this state of Yaudi in existence? It's  not
>wise to cite texts as though they have some bearing when any bearing cannot
>be shown.
>
>PK: In the above paragraph I am discussing the picture presented in 1-2
>Kings, in order to compare it with the picture suggested by archaeology.

What has a work whose earliest manifestation is perhaps 2nd century BCE got
to do with a historical situation seven centuries earlier? As it stands,
such undatable sources give no means of showing their relevance.

>That is why I am citing texts. Am I not even allowed to talk about the
text?
>This is the b-hebrew list, remember!

Discussing (literal) significances of texts is not the same thing as doing
history. As long as you are aware you are not doing history, you can discuss
to your heart's content. When you think for some reason that what you are
doing is history, then, unless you have changed your methods and started
working using contemporary evidence, you are deluding yourself.

>><snip>
>>
>>Naturally the thesis stands, ie Judah didn't come to the fore until the
end
>>was upon Samaria. It might have been nice to produce something out of the
>>hat like a ribbone of Rehoboam or something of that ilk to get us into an
>>important Judean kingdom at the height of Israel.
>>
>>PK: Who said it was "to the fore" and important?
>
>We can therefore happily discard the "divided monarchy" stuff?
>
>PK: No! My tentative theory, which is compatible with the archaeological
>evidence

ie that there is evidence to connect "Judean" cities with Israel but not
Jerusalem.

>and with the books of Kings, is as follows: there was once a
>"united monarchy" of Israel ruled from Jerusalem,

This is not your theory, Peter. This is you citing the literalist biblical
view. Let's call things as they are.

>then there was a
>rebellion, coup, civil war or whatever you want to call it after which a
>small area, Judah, remained under the control of Jerusalem and most became
a
>larger kingdom of Israel.

This is biblical tradition verbatim and nothing to do with any theory of
yours.

>So, a rather unequally divided monarchy. Judah
>became important again only after Israel was defeated by the Assyrians.

Theories are usually based on something called evidence. While there is
evidence of Judah becoming important after the defeat of Assyria, there is
no evidence to justify you insertion of "again" in the sentence.

>I accept that there is little external evidence for the "united monarchy",

None in fact.

>but
>I outline below good evidence for the divided one (taking "divided" to
imply
>only lack of present unity, not necessarily previous unity).

You are not using evidence at all, but misapplying the mathematics of
probability.

><snip>
>
>I don't see how you can. The earliest record of Judah (Yaudi) you have is a
>seal of Hezekiah's father, precisely the time when Samaria was suffering at
>the hands of Assyria. Lots of evidence for Samaria before that, none for
>Yaudi. You've got nothing to hang your divided kingdom on.
>
>PK: Yes, I have. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is a 50%
>probability that the correct name of any one king of Judah or Israel is
>recorded in the book of Kings.

Peter, you are joking. I can imagine what you would do with a book called
"Creation", which gets so much history right despite the fact that it was
written long after the events, that, according to your attempts at importing
probability into a field where evidence is the rule, your probabilistic
calculations would thrill you.

>[Omitted probabilities]
>Conclusion: very probably the names of the kings of
>Judah in the books of Kings are actual names of rulers of at least a small
>state of Judah, "divided" from Israel. Isn't this argument a reasonable
one?

Obviously not. It's validity is terminally impaired when you think of the
example I gave of a book called "Creation", which describes the ins and outs
of the Persian empire with uncanny exactness. It has a lot of other
unverified material, but, given the exactness of the historical content, the
unverified material must be correct as well according to your logic.

I'm withholding information about "Creation" just as information is not
available to you for the books of Kings. You know nothing about the
writer(s), the means available, sources, or the purposes of writing. This
lack of vital information should show the total irrelevance of your
mathermatics. I know for a fact that the unverified material in "Creation"
is not based on what happened in the past, but your mathematics cannot know
or show that.

>I know it's not absolute proof, but there is absolute proof of almost
>nothing in this game.

I think the evidence of a strong Israelite presence at Kuntillat Ajrud is as
close as anything you might want to call absolute proof of their presence
there, a presence which argues against any notion of a divided monarchy.


Ian