spin

bytdwd is mentioned in the Tel Dan stela, but the form of the term indicates that it is a temple, like Bethel, Bethanath and Bethshamash, towns with temples at the center. Bethdaud, the House of the Beloved.

Rubbish. There is nothing to indicate a single realm and Samaria enters history long before Judah does. Judah doesn't get a mention until Samaria faces Assyrian repression. That probably gave Judah the freedom to be independent. The biggest city of the region was not Jerusalem but Lachish. There is nothing to Justify a major center in the one cow town of Jerusalem.

This is not a sensible comparison. You misrepresent Macedon, the most influential power in the Greek peninsula at the time, a realm which controlled vast resources and with a heritage of military prowess among the bellicose Greeks. Judah was a piddly little place surrounding the tiny city of Jerusalem whose most important resources were bitumen from the Dead Sea and man power. The comparison is silly.

What makes you think that the material about Josiah was written before the time of John Hyrcanus circa 120 BCE??


spin

semiopen

The fact that the inscription is on a sherd seems important. Conservatives that I've discussed early writing with don't like to talk about the lack of hard samples like sherds. The idea maybe being that the Israelites somehow bypassed this evolutionary step. So here's a guy in the middle of nowhere writing on a piece of pottery.

The subject matter also seems peculiar. What are the odds that a single random piece would talk about widows and orphans. This is the only piece?

It seems to me that the sherd raises more questions than it answers.

rob117

First: there is no rule of history-writing that says a state must not exist until the Assyrians first encounter it. The Assyrians did not get that far south until the 9th century; they have no reason to mention either Israel or Judah before then. The fact that Ahab was able to send a large force so far north to Qarqar in 853 indicates that he was the king of a political entity that was not just experiencing its first tastes of statehood. It would have taken several generations for Israel to get to that level of organization (professional chariotry) from a developed chiefdom.

Lack of a word divider is irrelevant on the bytdwd inscription. 1) This is Old Aramaic, not Biblical Hebrew, and the inscription lacks a word divider in another area of the inscription where we would expect, namely mlkysr'l. 2) There is no other evidence for such a GN or Temple of "Beth-Daud," whereas there is evidence of a "Beth-David"; 3) The reconstruction of bytdwd on the Mesha stele is "In Horonaim there dwelt bytdwd," which, of course, negates seeing bytdwd as simply a town or temple, since Horonaim is itself a town:

http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Sch..._Dan_Stela.pdf

The material about Josiah--and all the other biblical material that has been dated as pre-exilic for other reasons-- is written in Monarchic Hebrew (which, contra Davies, can be shown to be a diachronic development):

http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Mul...ent_Israel.pdf

Additionally, what possible motive could a 2nd-century BC author have for attributing this story to Josiah, who apart from it would be an insignificant king in Judean historical consciousness? Why not attribute it to David or Solomon? Why would the author admit the following (2 Kings 23)?:

" 21 The king gave this order to all the people: "Celebrate the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in this Book of the Covenant." 22 Not since the days of the judges who led Israel, nor throughout the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah, had any such Passover been observed. 23 But in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, this Passover was celebrated to the LORD in Jerusalem."

This reads like a propaganda piece for Josiah, and essentially concedes that the Passover as celebrated by him was an innovation. What relevance would it have in the Hellenistic period?

Alleged lack of statehood in the 10th century is based on an uncritical acceptance of Finkelstein's low chronology. I'm not going to deal with that here (it would take too much time), but if you want to debate Iron Age ceramic chronology, I'm willing to do so with you in another thread, maybe a formal debate. Amihai Mazar in particular has published a series of rebuttals to Finkelstein that point out how his redating creates more problems than it allegedly solves. A summary of arguments from both Finkelstein and Mazar can be found in the following book, jointly written by both of them:

The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (or via: amazon.co.uk)~ Israel Finkelstein (Author), Amihai Mazar (Author), Brian B. Schmidt (Editor)

Suffice it to say that Finkelstein first published his new chronology in 1996 and in 14 years the majority of Syro-Palestinian archaeologists have not been convinced.

Jerusalem as a "cow town" in the 10th century also depends exclusively on Finkelstein. Again, other archaeologists would argue differently, pointing to things like the "Stepped Stone Structure":

http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Mul...d_Monarchy.pdf

Additionally, there's no archaeological evidence as of yet for a capital at Jerusalem in the Amarna period, but the Amarna Letters indicate that it must have been there:

http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Mul..._Jerusalem.pdf

The fact of the matter is that, yes, later building in Jerusalem has substantially disturbed the evidence from earlier periods.

The idea that Lachish was somehow ascendant over Jerusalem before the 7th century is not held by any archaeologist or historian I know of, and the fact of the matter is that the Sennacherib stele indicates that Hezekiah, ruling from Jerusalem, was powerful enough to dominate the neighboring state of Ekron during the revolt. The fact that the rebellious nobles of Ekron gave their king over to him rather than Sidka, the king of Ashkelon, who was also involved in the revolt, says something about the status of Judah vis-a-vis its neighbors.

The fact that Judah had a smaller population and fewer resources than the north does not mean it could not have briefly ruled it. Macedon was far more developed than Judah, but it was still an underdog when compared to Persia. Persia still had a far greater population. And the fact of the matter is that Persia itself had conquered much larger Media in 6th century BC by chance and diplomacy (e.g. the surrender of Harpagus to Cyrus), much the same type of tactic attributed to David in his securing of control over the north in the biblical texts (e.g. he bribes Abner into giving him the north and gets others to assassinate Ishbaal for him). Judah and the north were both underdeveloped in the 11th-early 10th centuries, and if we do not treat the north as a single unit that must be uniformly hostile to Judahite control, but rather as a collection of shifting tribal and clan entities as it probably was during the time of Saul and David, there is no reason that an emerging Judahite warlord could not have taken advantage of this situation in order to establish, however brief, his and his son's domination over the north.

Finally, the state of Gath, prominent in the David narratives, was destroyed in the 9th century BC and never again became a significant city-state. Before that time, it was a significant regional center, as the archaeological evidence from Tell-es-Safi indicates. This is accurately reflected in the David narratives. Likewise, Zobah, while it existed in the Assyrian period, does not appear to be prominent at that time, the most powerful south Syrian state being Damascus. The status of Damascus in the 9th century and later is accurately reflected in the biblical Kings narrative, yet David never fights it, instead fighting Zobah-- why would a late author choose to have David's wars be with Zobah, which would have had no significance to him? And of course, how could a Hellenistic author, with no sources at his disposal, accurately remember even the status of Damascus seven centuries earlier, let alone the activities of one Hazael? Or the Shoshenq raid for that matter? Or the details about the campaign of Sennacherib? Or the fact that "the Tartan came to Ashdod and attacked and captured it" (Isaiah 20:1) in the reign of Sargon II?

There's just too much evidence that these texts are early and relatively accurate to put them in the Hellenistic period.

Toto

Back to the OP, Hector Avalos has a relevant blog post.

spin

No, if they existed in the area and didn't pay tribute, they would not have lasted long. The first tribute from Judah coincides with not long before the fall of Israel. That basically coincides with the first evidence in the real world for a king of Judah as well.

Is irrelevant for the idea of a united monarchy or a Judah.

Argument based on lacuna. Real strong.

Argument based on silence. Ditto.

But who that has seen the Mesha stone itself has accepted Lemaire's reconstruction??

Umm, which texts from where were written in "Monarchic Hebrew"?


Someone who wanted a bit of tradition behind him, someone like John Hyrcanus.

You're both a mindreader and wrong. Nothing to do with Finkelstein. It's to do with the non-existence of a Judah until the time of Ahaz. It's to do with the fact that the Samarians were happily trampling through territory that was supposed to be Judahite in order to get to their caravanserai at Kuntillet Ajrud. It's to do with the fact that Lachish was the most important city in the area until it was deestroyed by the Assyrians at just the right time.

Wrong again. It's analysis from people all the way from Kathleen Kenyon to Margreet Streeter.

But try to date it.

Interesting tangent. Let me know where it leads you when you get back.

I suppose all the digging under Jerusalem hasn't helped clarify the reality.

You've not substantiated any distinction between allies and hegemony.

I didn't mention the north. I was making a comparison with Macedon and its resources. Judah basically had none and couldn't achieve the possibilities that a Macedon could because of its lack of resources.

9th century? David?

For some reason you don't consider 1) an oral tradition taken to Babylon or 2) the people who stayed in Jerusalem maintained some materials.

There is a famous Shoshenq statue in the area.

The period of Hezekiah is well remembered. You seem to be working on the notion that if there were no biblical literature there was no literature at all. I don't know. I don't know how good oral tradition was maintained. YOu are only guessing with your implications.

See above.

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer at the beginning.

What makes you think that the material about Josiah was written before the time of John Hyrcanus circa 120 BCE??

Oh, right. That's what I said before. The material about Josiah, not all those garden path things you talked about.


spin

Anat

It depicts the Babylonian exile as an equivalent of the wanderings in the wilderness of the exodus tradition and Josiah as a king who unites the remnants of the northern kingdom with the southern one not long before they go on their journey, thus justifying later claims for unity.

semiopen

I think much Samuel and some of Kings is pre exilic. In any case the Chronicler clearly used these as sources, so they have to be from before him.

I missed the passover reference though, thanks for mentioning that... that's just wrong to think that is pre exilic.

Anat

We also have Kings and Chronicles disagreeing whether the celebration was in the days of Josiah or Hezekiah.

rob117

Assumption for which you have given no evidence.

What other reconstruction could be there for mlky[]r'l? Especially in the context of lines 3-4: "And mlky[]r'l entered previously in my father's land."

Additionally, the king later in the inscription is called [LACUNA]-ram son of [LACUNA] King of Israel. After that, (line 8): "And I killed [LACUNA]yahu [LACUNA]k bytdwd."

Now the biblical book of Kings gives us a context in which this fits: two mid-ninth century kings, Jehoram son of Ahab of Israel, and Ahaziah son of Jehoram of Judah, who just so happened to have been on the throne at the same time. These are the same texts that get the general sequence of events and kings accurately for the 9th century BC: the following sequence of Samarian kings is attested-- Omri (Mesha stele), Ahab (Qarqar), Jehu (Black Obelisk); Joash (paid tribute to Adad-Nirari III of Assyria in 798 BC). They are in the same order as the appear in the Bible. If Kings gets the sequence of the Samarian kings correctly it is not at all an unreasonable assumption to assume the same for Judah, and to read the Dan Stele with this background information in mind.

To ignore the correlation hitherto confirmed between the texts and the inscriptional evidence and suggest not only that we have a PN that is otherwise unattested, but also a divine name (Daud) which is also unattested, is to presuppose the inaccuracy and late date of the texts, for which you have given no hard evidence, in the face of what appears to be consistently strong evidence of the relative accuracy of the Kings texts dealing with this period.

Actually it's not purely an argument from silence. It's an argument from silence combined with other evidence. Arguments from silence can in fact be very strong when combined with a totality of other circumstantial evidence. You are addressing each of my points individually, but you are not addressing the totality of the evidence.

In addition, your argument regarding the non-existence of Judah before Ahaz paid tribute to Tiglath-Pileser is also an argument from silence, only this time it is in the face of a totality of circumstantial evidence that suggests otherwise.

I'll admit this is an argument from authority; Avi Hurvitz (the author of the article I linked to) provisiinally accepts it, as does Baruch Halpern. It seems to have been more well-received by epigraphers in general than the other proposed reconstruction, "In Horonaim there dwelt Edomites."

Lemaire's reconstruction was probably the weakest point in my argument but the argument still stands without it.


Well, if you actually bothered to read the article I linked to, you'd know that the texts I was referring to are the Lachish letters, the Siloam inscription, and the Arad ostraca. Kings (including the Josiah episode) is written in a form of Hebrew identical with that of these texts. Putting an obnoxious laughing smiley in your post does not a correct argument make.


Again, why Josiah? Why not David or Solomon? And what evidence do you have that this text is in fact Hellenistic? We have several biblical and extra-biblical books that are indisputably Hellenistic (e.g. Daniel, Ecclesiastes, Sirach, various DSS mss.). These texts show clear Greek influence in terms of thought. This influence is missing in Kings.

Compare the finding of the Book of the Law by Josiah to a similar and roughly contemporary incident in Egypt, where the Nubian pharaoh Shabaqo claims to have discovered a "worm-eaten" papyrus of the Old Kingdom while renovating the temple of Ptah:

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/...baka_stone.htm

Again, with such contemporary parallels put in the context of all the other evidence that these texts are relatively accurate dating to the Iron Age, why would we choose to date these texts to the time of John Hyrcanus?

Judah was tributary to Israel at the time of Kuntillet Ajrud. The stories of Jehosaphat and Ahab, and the notice in 1 Kings 22:44, "And Jehoshaphat made peace with the King of Israel" reflect this, although the author of Kings does not admit it outright, since it would be at odds with his theology (why would a "righteous" king like Jehoshaphat submit to the Omrides?).

Thompson is the only one I've ever heard make the claim that Lachish was more important than Jerusalem before the 7th century. It is never mentioned in Assyrian records apart from Sennacherib's destruction of it in his campaign, nor does it pay tribute to the Assyrians. Judah does. Additionally, the LMLK seals are found at Lachish, indicating that it was part of the same political entity that ruled Jerusalem. Since Sennacherib makes clear that Hezekiah resided at Jerusalem, not Lachish, we can be sure that it was Lachish that ruled Jerusalem, not the other way around.

Here's the distribution of the LMLK seals, which corresponds nicely to the boundaries of the Hezekiah's Judah as described in biblical texts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMLK_seal#Sites


Links to the article where Kenyon claims this? Or a quote? Kenyon died decades ago. Her work is foundational, but it is far from the most current research.

The construction pf the Stepped Stone Structure is usually dated to the 10th century BC at the latest. Mazar prefers a 12th-11th century date for its foundation, but insists it was still in use during the 10th and later. It has Iron I pottery in its foundations, and Iron II pottery has been found inside it; thus it must have been in use throughout the Iron II, and built, at the latest, at the end of the Iron I.

The point I was making is that in the Amarna period, we know that there was a capital at Jerusalem because we have undisputably contemporary texts; yet we haven't found the archaeological evidence. This is an index of the damage done to the city by later rebuilding.

Well Assyria was obviously the hegemon. However, the fact that the Ekronites chose to hand Padi over to Hezekiah, rather than Sidka, is and indication (not proof) that Hezekiah was something of a local "leader" in the rebellion.

And David carving out a regional kingdom hardly constitutes "achieving the possibilities that a Macedon could." Remember, Saul supposedly ruled Israel from Benjamin, which is very close to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is only considered a "southern city" because of its later connection to Judah; in reality it is on the border with the north. Only if we assume that David had no allies in the north do we put ourselves in the conundrum of "the south" ruling over a much larger population in the north.

The point is that Gath no longer existed as a state after the 9th century BC. It did exist in the 10th. The traditions about David and Gath can hardly date to after the 9th century then, and it is not an unreasonable assumption to think they go back to the 10th given the other evidence.


Oral tradition is extremely pliable. Unless you're assuming that the Israelites had some sort of mnemonic epic poetry tradition like the Greeks, which can accurately preserve incidental details, as the 8th-century BC Homeric epics do about the Bronze Age. However, the evidence for such epic poetry in the monarchic period is indirect at best (alleged poetic "layers" in the biblical prose texts, as theorized by Cross), and for the Persian period and later is non-existent.

Your position on earlier written sources is essentially the same as mine. I just happen to think these sources were often incorporated into the biblical texts, and were done so at an early date, along with the majority of professional biblical scholars, who make their case based on diachronic linguistic developments and accepted methods of critical historical research.

See above.

You could try and be less snarky and obnoxious in your responses by the way. It does not make the evidence for your case any stronger.


It's true that the Babylonian exile is equated with the Egyptian sojourn in some texts (e.g. Deutero-Isaiah), but this equation is largely absent from the Deuteronomistic history.

rickP

http://bit.ly/8gZPQ7
While this may show Hebrew was written earlier than thought, I'm not sure how this indicates the texts we have were written at the same time. That's a bit of a stretch.

I was under the impression that the dating was based on a lot more than just how old Hebrew writing was. Does it make sense that that someone invented a fully developed written language and then immediately created the scriptures? That seems to be what they are suggesting scholars believe. It makes more sense that writing developed over a long time before the verbal stories were all collected and written down. I would think many of the stories were written down in some form at different times and just collected and redacted at some point.