Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Karim · 03-29-2002, 10:39 AM

Leonarde,
I'm not aware of any archeological evidence supporting the existence of SAUL,DAVID SOLOMOM. If you can come up with something please help me out. Do not use the TEL DAN Stella because it's rejected by almost all archaeologists.
Second, Saul, DAVID and SOLOMOM belong all to 10TH century BC -JERUSALEM-. So far 10th century Jerusalem is non existent as far as archaeology is concerned. Jerusalem became a major town only after the destruction of Lashish in 701 BC. So Jerusalem of SAUL, DAVID and SOLOMON did not exist. Did somebody by the name of David exist around Jerusalem, probably yes but that doesn't prove the existence of Jerusalem of DAVID and doesn't prove the existence of the UNITED KINGDOM.
Regards

Sauron · 03-29-2002, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
<strong>

? it works for me. What do you see when you click on it?</strong>

Apologies. It works now. The problem was my ISP's proxy server.

spin · 03-29-2002, 06:49 PM

spin:
----------
"The Philistines arrived in Palestine around 1160 BCE to be precise."
----------

Marduck:
----------
I've read that the Philistines were the relocated Minoans from around Greece, similar arts and crafts etc. any truth to this?
----------

The Philistines, who were part of a much wider phenomenon probably belonged to an Anatolian culture along with many of the other "sea peoples" who were displaced when groups of Greek tribes intruded in the Aegean. It is thought for example that a group known by the Egyptians as the Sherden were relatives of the Sardinians, that the Denyen were relatives of the Danae, the Shekelesh of the Sicilians, etc. That is when the Greeks forced their way into the Aegean they sent the earlier peoples in various directions. However, I don't know what information there is to say that the Minoans were involved in the migration. (They may have.)

Marduck:
----------
The Egyptian expulsion of the Hyksos in the middle of the 2nd millenium BCE is pretty well documented. Even the Biblical narrative supports this somewhat "the Pharoh who new not Joseph" ie. an Egyptian who does not take kindly to foreigners as opposed to the Pharoh who was Joseph's bud (a Hyksos)
----------

The Joseph story is just like the Daniel story and related to the Esther story. They are good Jewish representatives who make it good at the foreign court. I don't think you can make anything out of the fact that Joseph had good relations with a pharaoh. It is a literary trope, ie an image or situation which is repeated very often. Nehemiah had a good relationship before he went to Jerusalem. Zerubbabel had one. These literary efforts say nothing about history.

spin · 03-29-2002, 07:24 PM

Karim:
-----------
But the rise of the israelite state is not a dead issue." So we are here discussing IRON II and down. Even then the United kingdom can barely be proven. SAUL, DAVID and SOLOMON could not make it simply because at the time of the creation of the UNITED KINGDOM 10th century BC neither Jerusalem nor JUDA existed as cities.
-----------

Yes, this is important. There was a prehistory to the state based in Samaria and "northern kingdom" rulers are known from Assyrian records, but there is little sign of a Jerusalemite state from after the time of the Amarna letters down perhaps approaching the time of Hezekiah.

Karim:
-------------
Yet if we admit the late editing of the OT (3rd century BC)we can really look back at all these events as a justification of a state.
-------------

I don't understand this too much. What is this about late editing? Does it imply that there was an early editing? Is the state the religious state of Jerusalem as set up by the Persians or is it the state of Israel as set up by the Hasmoneans?

I don't quite know how the idea of state comes into the picture of a population which had a special relationship with its god. One can think of nomadic tribes with such a relationship to their god.

spin · 03-29-2002, 07:40 PM

Karim:
------------
Jerusalem became a major town only after the destruction of Lashish in 701 BC.
------------

It would seem that you are relating the rise of Jerusalem strictly to the destruction of Lachish. This latter city was apparently rebuilt quickly and was in operation through to its destruction of 586 BCE. It was a lesser city, in that its rebuilt structures were not as good as the previous incarnation.

Nevertheless the connection is an interesting one. Is there a write-up of it?

Karim · 03-31-2002, 12:57 PM

Spin,
Words are also territorial in the sense that Jerusalem can be at least 3 objects or locations. The biblical Jerusalem of SAUL,DAVID AND SOLOMON or the geographical Jerusalem of the 10th century or the archaeological Jerusalem. If I say that Jerusalem of the bible didn't exist I mean the Jerusalem of the United Monarchy stretching from the Euphrates to Egypt didn't exist. What you are implying however is convergences like if some of the bible meets some of the evidence then that's OK. As far as I'm concerned that's not OK. Because we are talking about evidence against Bible version. Literally Jerusalem of the 10th century. Also when we talk about the UNITED Kingdom of the 10th century we need first to find the parts. Jerusalem and Judah. If archaeology cannot find Jerusalem and gives Judah a maximum of 2200 inhabitants then the United Kingdom that stretches from the Euphrates to Egypt falls apart. So _DAVID Ussishkin_ not a single sherd of evidence from the tenth century and then _Finkelstein_ gave the figure of 2200 for Judah at around the 10th century. What kind of conclusion can we draw from this "it's not there: Archeology proves a negative" So I think I answered your first question.
For the second:Justifying a state is my assumption and I will explain it. The late edition of the OT is however a fact nowadays. The only issue still remaining regarding the edition is the distance between edition and composition. Conservatists maintain an early composition and a late edition, minimalists and modern biblicists don't see a big distance between the two. They locate both events as post exilic. Back to the justification. If I assume that the destruction of the temple and the exile have prompted the composition of the OT then I will say that the writers looked at the situation of Israel at that time and tried to compose a fictional history of a regional state that emerged after an original exodus from Egypt guided by Yahweh. They tried to use everything available from events to myths to even folklore to pull together a story that can explain how they got to Palestine and what they did 4 centuries after their arrival.
Regarding Lachish: The fortification of Megiddo, Gezer, Beersheba and Lachish before Jerusalem. Then after their destruction Hezekiah was shut in Jerusalem. Therefore it's at this time that we should talk about the rise of some kind of Jerusalem. Before that Sennacherib didn't even think of destroying or attacking Jerusalem though he destroyed all the fenced cities, 46 cities all together. I would like to quote Margreet Steiner BAR July/AUGUST 1998" The assyrian invasion actually brought an end to the northern Kingdom of Israel in 721 BCE and destroyed much of Judah in 701 BCE. Only then did Jerusalem come to occupy a central position"
Please see also :
1-"FACE to FACE"(BAR July August 1997),
2-"On the problems of reconstructing Pre Hellenistic (Palestinian) History" By Niels Peter Lemche(University of Copenhagen)
3-"The archaeology of the united monarchy, an alternative view” Israel Finkelstein Levant 28(1996)
4-"It’s not there: Archeology proves a negative" Margreet Steiner BAR July/August 1998.

By the way I didn't understand what you meant by the special relation with God, I know it's not germane to the discussion but to satisfy my curiosity?
Also you implied that that there were signs of a Jerusalemite state from after.....
When was that exactly?
Regards

spin · 04-01-2002, 04:22 AM

Karim,

I have no problem at all with the notion that early Jerusalem was a one cow town. That wasn't in doubt. I know that there are conflicting views over what there was and was not. Some archaeologists claim that there was more to early Jerusalem than others.

[W]e are talking about evidence against Bible version. Literally Jerusalem of the 10th century. Also when we talk about the UNITED Kingdom of the 10th century we need first to find the parts. Jerusalem and Judah. If archaeology cannot find Jerusalem and gives Judah a maximum of 2200 inhabitants then the United Kingdom that stretches from the Euphrates to Egypt falls apart. So _DAVID Ussishkin_ not a single sherd of evidence from the tenth century and then _Finkelstein_ gave the figure of 2200 for Judah at around the 10th century. What kind of conclusion can we draw from this "it's not there: Archeology proves a negative" So I think I answered your first question.

Karim:
------
If I assume that the destruction of the temple and the exile have prompted the composition of the OT then I will say that the writers looked at the situation of Israel at that time and tried to compose a fictional history of a regional state that emerged after an original exodus from Egypt guided by Yahweh. They tried to use everything available from events to myths to even folklore to pull together a story that can explain how they got to Palestine and what they did 4 centuries after their arrival.
------

I don't know what a destruction of the temple has to do with what follows, but I guess some of this I can agree with, though I would conclude that the "historical books" were very late. Can you give any good reason for a temple-centred city-state set up by the Persians would waste time contructing a royal history?

Karim:
------
Regarding Lachish: The fortification of Megiddo, Gezer, Beersheba and Lachish before Jerusalem.
------

I don't understand how Beer-Sheba belongs with the other places mentioned. It seems to reflect other towns in southern Palestine such as Tell Beit-Mirsim. I do relate Lachish to Megiddo, Gezer and Hazor (see below).

Karim:
------
Then after their destruction Hezekiah was shut in Jerusalem. Therefore it's at this time that we should talk about the rise of some kind of Jerusalem. Before that Sennacherib didn't even think of destroying or attacking Jerusalem though he destroyed all the fenced cities, 46 cities all together. I would like to quote Margreet Steiner BAR July/AUGUST 1998" The assyrian invasion actually brought an end to the northern Kingdom of Israel in 721 BCE and destroyed much of Judah in 701 BCE. Only then did Jerusalem come to occupy a central position"
------

I guess I would agree with this. I was interested in the apparent linking of Lachish to a Judahite kingdom circa 701 BCE, as though with the fall of Lachish Hezekiah found himself in Jerusalem, as though this was a secondary city of a kingdom including Lachish.

Karim:
------
Please see also :
1-"FACE to FACE"(BAR July August 1997),
2-"On the problems of reconstructing Pre Hellenistic (Palestinian) History" By Niels Peter Lemche(University of Copenhagen)
3-"The archaeology of the united monarchy, an alternative view” Israel Finkelstein Levant 28(1996)
4-"It’s not there: Archeology proves a negative" Margreet Steiner BAR July/August 1998.
------

I wouldn't read BAR out of principle. The guy who runs it is a money shark, who is fundamentally old-style in his understanding of biblical history and uses "minimalists" and the reactions to them as a means of raising circulation. (The format of BAR doesn't really allow much depth to anything anyone says.) A good example of the editor's approach is the attempted carving up of Zeev Herzog in a Jerusalem newspaper a few years back. Herzog gave a position in the same paper based on the archaeologic evidence. Shanks labeled his position minimalist and attacked his minimalist monster.

Steiner I remember reading a while back when she indicated that the terraces of Jerusalem didn't relate to the Millo mentioned in the bible. Lemche has always attempted to stay in touch with archaeological discoveries and has even done work at Jezreel (presumably with Finkelstein). Levant I'll have to chase up, as the article you mention sounds interesting.

Karim:
------
By the way I didn't understand what you meant by the special relation with God, I know it's not germane to the discussion but to satisfy my curiosity?
------

This was a response to your notion of "state" being apparently necessary for the production of certain religious views. The mention of a tribal group with a "special relationship" with a god is merely a means of indicating that a state need not be involved in a religious system.

Karim:
------
Also you implied that that there were signs of a Jerusalemite state from after.....
When was that exactly?
------

Obviously from the time of Hezekiah. I may have said something that was unclear previously.

As I understand the evidence, there are clear signs fo a Jerusalemite state from the time of Hezekiah and not before, though I know of an artifact which mentions Hezekiah's father, suggesting that Hezekiah was not the first in the line leading a state in the area -- there may in fact be some tradition history for the period prior to Hezekiah preserved in the "historical books" of the bible (I don't know). However, the appearance of a "strong" state in the Judahite area seems to be concommitant with the destruction of Samaria, so it should be apparent that Samaria exerted its power to the south into Judahite territory. In fact pre-701 BCE Lachish reflects a gate structure known from various northern cities, Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer each from a period which Finkelstein would date around 900 BCE. Lachish is as far south from Samaria as Hazor is north, yet each of these towns are related through the same gate archtecture. Hazor and Megiddo each have strategic locations, Hazor the strong point in the north and Megiddo the great plain of the Kishon. Gezer and Lachish provide control of the Shephelah. The fingers of Samaria seemed to stretch far into the Negeb with the waystation at Kuntillet Ajrud during the ninth century. I would say that Lachish was still Samarian until 721 when it was set adrift and in 701 BCE Sennacherib took it. It is conspicuous in a report of tribute to an Assyrian king when tribute was listed from Palestine, the list included states around Judah, but Judah itself didn't get a mention. It seems likely to me therefore that Judah didn't exist before the fall of Samaria, but with that fall southern possessions of Samaria came under the control of a new (emerging) state.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-29-2002, 10:39 AM	#71
Karim Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: USA Posts: 8	Leonarde, I'm not aware of any archeological evidence supporting the existence of SAUL,DAVID SOLOMOM. If you can come up with something please help me out. Do not use the TEL DAN Stella because it's rejected by almost all archaeologists. Second, Saul, DAVID and SOLOMOM belong all to 10TH century BC -JERUSALEM-. So far 10th century Jerusalem is non existent as far as archaeology is concerned. Jerusalem became a major town only after the destruction of Lashish in 701 BC. So Jerusalem of SAUL, DAVID and SOLOMON did not exist. Did somebody by the name of David exist around Jerusalem, probably yes but that doesn't prove the existence of Jerusalem of DAVID and doesn't prove the existence of the UNITED KINGDOM. Regards

03-29-2002, 06:49 PM	#73
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	spin: ---------- "The Philistines arrived in Palestine around 1160 BCE to be precise." ---------- Marduck: ---------- I've read that the Philistines were the relocated Minoans from around Greece, similar arts and crafts etc. any truth to this? ---------- The Philistines, who were part of a much wider phenomenon probably belonged to an Anatolian culture along with many of the other "sea peoples" who were displaced when groups of Greek tribes intruded in the Aegean. It is thought for example that a group known by the Egyptians as the Sherden were relatives of the Sardinians, that the Denyen were relatives of the Danae, the Shekelesh of the Sicilians, etc. That is when the Greeks forced their way into the Aegean they sent the earlier peoples in various directions. However, I don't know what information there is to say that the Minoans were involved in the migration. (They may have.) Marduck: ---------- The Egyptian expulsion of the Hyksos in the middle of the 2nd millenium BCE is pretty well documented. Even the Biblical narrative supports this somewhat "the Pharoh who new not Joseph" ie. an Egyptian who does not take kindly to foreigners as opposed to the Pharoh who was Joseph's bud (a Hyksos) ---------- The Joseph story is just like the Daniel story and related to the Esther story. They are good Jewish representatives who make it good at the foreign court. I don't think you can make anything out of the fact that Joseph had good relations with a pharaoh. It is a literary trope, ie an image or situation which is repeated very often. Nehemiah had a good relationship before he went to Jerusalem. Zerubbabel had one. These literary efforts say nothing about history.

03-29-2002, 07:24 PM	#74
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Karim: ----------- But the rise of the israelite state is not a dead issue." So we are here discussing IRON II and down. Even then the United kingdom can barely be proven. SAUL, DAVID and SOLOMON could not make it simply because at the time of the creation of the UNITED KINGDOM 10th century BC neither Jerusalem nor JUDA existed as cities. ----------- Yes, this is important. There was a prehistory to the state based in Samaria and "northern kingdom" rulers are known from Assyrian records, but there is little sign of a Jerusalemite state from after the time of the Amarna letters down perhaps approaching the time of Hezekiah. Karim: ------------- Yet if we admit the late editing of the OT (3rd century BC)we can really look back at all these events as a justification of a state. ------------- I don't understand this too much. What is this about late editing? Does it imply that there was an early editing? Is the state the religious state of Jerusalem as set up by the Persians or is it the state of Israel as set up by the Hasmoneans? I don't quite know how the idea of state comes into the picture of a population which had a special relationship with its god. One can think of nomadic tribes with such a relationship to their god.

03-29-2002, 07:40 PM	#75
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Karim: ------------ Jerusalem became a major town only after the destruction of Lashish in 701 BC. ------------ It would seem that you are relating the rise of Jerusalem strictly to the destruction of Lachish. This latter city was apparently rebuilt quickly and was in operation through to its destruction of 586 BCE. It was a lesser city, in that its rebuilt structures were not as good as the previous incarnation. Nevertheless the connection is an interesting one. Is there a write-up of it?

03-31-2002, 12:57 PM	#76
Karim Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: USA Posts: 8	Spin, Words are also territorial in the sense that Jerusalem can be at least 3 objects or locations. The biblical Jerusalem of SAUL,DAVID AND SOLOMON or the geographical Jerusalem of the 10th century or the archaeological Jerusalem. If I say that Jerusalem of the bible didn't exist I mean the Jerusalem of the United Monarchy stretching from the Euphrates to Egypt didn't exist. What you are implying however is convergences like if some of the bible meets some of the evidence then that's OK. As far as I'm concerned that's not OK. Because we are talking about evidence against Bible version. Literally Jerusalem of the 10th century. Also when we talk about the UNITED Kingdom of the 10th century we need first to find the parts. Jerusalem and Judah. If archaeology cannot find Jerusalem and gives Judah a maximum of 2200 inhabitants then the United Kingdom that stretches from the Euphrates to Egypt falls apart. So _DAVID Ussishkin_ not a single sherd of evidence from the tenth century and then _Finkelstein_ gave the figure of 2200 for Judah at around the 10th century. What kind of conclusion can we draw from this "it's not there: Archeology proves a negative" So I think I answered your first question. For the second:Justifying a state is my assumption and I will explain it. The late edition of the OT is however a fact nowadays. The only issue still remaining regarding the edition is the distance between edition and composition. Conservatists maintain an early composition and a late edition, minimalists and modern biblicists don't see a big distance between the two. They locate both events as post exilic. Back to the justification. If I assume that the destruction of the temple and the exile have prompted the composition of the OT then I will say that the writers looked at the situation of Israel at that time and tried to compose a fictional history of a regional state that emerged after an original exodus from Egypt guided by Yahweh. They tried to use everything available from events to myths to even folklore to pull together a story that can explain how they got to Palestine and what they did 4 centuries after their arrival. Regarding Lachish: The fortification of Megiddo, Gezer, Beersheba and Lachish before Jerusalem. Then after their destruction Hezekiah was shut in Jerusalem. Therefore it's at this time that we should talk about the rise of some kind of Jerusalem. Before that Sennacherib didn't even think of destroying or attacking Jerusalem though he destroyed all the fenced cities, 46 cities all together. I would like to quote Margreet Steiner BAR July/AUGUST 1998" The assyrian invasion actually brought an end to the northern Kingdom of Israel in 721 BCE and destroyed much of Judah in 701 BCE. Only then did Jerusalem come to occupy a central position" Please see also : 1-"FACE to FACE"(BAR July August 1997), 2-"On the problems of reconstructing Pre Hellenistic (Palestinian) History" By Niels Peter Lemche(University of Copenhagen) 3-"The archaeology of the united monarchy, an alternative view” Israel Finkelstein Levant 28(1996) 4-"It’s not there: Archeology proves a negative" Margreet Steiner BAR July/August 1998. By the way I didn't understand what you meant by the special relation with God, I know it's not germane to the discussion but to satisfy my curiosity? Also you implied that that there were signs of a Jerusalemite state from after..... When was that exactly? Regards

04-01-2002, 04:22 AM	#77
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Karim, I have no problem at all with the notion that early Jerusalem was a one cow town. That wasn't in doubt. I know that there are conflicting views over what there was and was not. Some archaeologists claim that there was more to early Jerusalem than others. [W]e are talking about evidence against Bible version. Literally Jerusalem of the 10th century. Also when we talk about the UNITED Kingdom of the 10th century we need first to find the parts. Jerusalem and Judah. If archaeology cannot find Jerusalem and gives Judah a maximum of 2200 inhabitants then the United Kingdom that stretches from the Euphrates to Egypt falls apart. So _DAVID Ussishkin_ not a single sherd of evidence from the tenth century and then _Finkelstein_ gave the figure of 2200 for Judah at around the 10th century. What kind of conclusion can we draw from this "it's not there: Archeology proves a negative" So I think I answered your first question. Karim: ------ If I assume that the destruction of the temple and the exile have prompted the composition of the OT then I will say that the writers looked at the situation of Israel at that time and tried to compose a fictional history of a regional state that emerged after an original exodus from Egypt guided by Yahweh. They tried to use everything available from events to myths to even folklore to pull together a story that can explain how they got to Palestine and what they did 4 centuries after their arrival. ------ I don't know what a destruction of the temple has to do with what follows, but I guess some of this I can agree with, though I would conclude that the "historical books" were very late. Can you give any good reason for a temple-centred city-state set up by the Persians would waste time contructing a royal history? Karim: ------ Regarding Lachish: The fortification of Megiddo, Gezer, Beersheba and Lachish before Jerusalem. ------ I don't understand how Beer-Sheba belongs with the other places mentioned. It seems to reflect other towns in southern Palestine such as Tell Beit-Mirsim. I do relate Lachish to Megiddo, Gezer and Hazor (see below). Karim: ------ Then after their destruction Hezekiah was shut in Jerusalem. Therefore it's at this time that we should talk about the rise of some kind of Jerusalem. Before that Sennacherib didn't even think of destroying or attacking Jerusalem though he destroyed all the fenced cities, 46 cities all together. I would like to quote Margreet Steiner BAR July/AUGUST 1998" The assyrian invasion actually brought an end to the northern Kingdom of Israel in 721 BCE and destroyed much of Judah in 701 BCE. Only then did Jerusalem come to occupy a central position" ------ I guess I would agree with this. I was interested in the apparent linking of Lachish to a Judahite kingdom circa 701 BCE, as though with the fall of Lachish Hezekiah found himself in Jerusalem, as though this was a secondary city of a kingdom including Lachish. Karim: ------ Please see also : 1-"FACE to FACE"(BAR July August 1997), 2-"On the problems of reconstructing Pre Hellenistic (Palestinian) History" By Niels Peter Lemche(University of Copenhagen) 3-"The archaeology of the united monarchy, an alternative view” Israel Finkelstein Levant 28(1996) 4-"It’s not there: Archeology proves a negative" Margreet Steiner BAR July/August 1998. ------ I wouldn't read BAR out of principle. The guy who runs it is a money shark, who is fundamentally old-style in his understanding of biblical history and uses "minimalists" and the reactions to them as a means of raising circulation. (The format of BAR doesn't really allow much depth to anything anyone says.) A good example of the editor's approach is the attempted carving up of Zeev Herzog in a Jerusalem newspaper a few years back. Herzog gave a position in the same paper based on the archaeologic evidence. Shanks labeled his position minimalist and attacked his minimalist monster. Steiner I remember reading a while back when she indicated that the terraces of Jerusalem didn't relate to the Millo mentioned in the bible. Lemche has always attempted to stay in touch with archaeological discoveries and has even done work at Jezreel (presumably with Finkelstein). Levant I'll have to chase up, as the article you mention sounds interesting. Karim: ------ By the way I didn't understand what you meant by the special relation with God, I know it's not germane to the discussion but to satisfy my curiosity? ------ This was a response to your notion of "state" being apparently necessary for the production of certain religious views. The mention of a tribal group with a "special relationship" with a god is merely a means of indicating that a state need not be involved in a religious system. Karim: ------ Also you implied that that there were signs of a Jerusalemite state from after..... When was that exactly? ------ Obviously from the time of Hezekiah. I may have said something that was unclear previously. As I understand the evidence, there are clear signs fo a Jerusalemite state from the time of Hezekiah and not before, though I know of an artifact which mentions Hezekiah's father, suggesting that Hezekiah was not the first in the line leading a state in the area -- there may in fact be some tradition history for the period prior to Hezekiah preserved in the "historical books" of the bible (I don't know). However, the appearance of a "strong" state in the Judahite area seems to be concommitant with the destruction of Samaria, so it should be apparent that Samaria exerted its power to the south into Judahite territory. In fact pre-701 BCE Lachish reflects a gate structure known from various northern cities, Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer each from a period which Finkelstein would date around 900 BCE. Lachish is as far south from Samaria as Hazor is north, yet each of these towns are related through the same gate archtecture. Hazor and Megiddo each have strategic locations, Hazor the strong point in the north and Megiddo the great plain of the Kishon. Gezer and Lachish provide control of the Shephelah. The fingers of Samaria seemed to stretch far into the Negeb with the waystation at Kuntillet Ajrud during the ninth century. I would say that Lachish was still Samarian until 721 when it was set adrift and in 701 BCE Sennacherib took it. It is conspicuous in a report of tribute to an Assyrian king when tribute was listed from Palestine, the list included states around Judah, but Judah itself didn't get a mention. It seems likely to me therefore that Judah didn't exist before the fall of Samaria, but with that fall southern possessions of Samaria came under the control of a new (emerging) state.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.