Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

SV: [ANE-2] David and Solomon

Expand Messages
  • Niels Peter Lemche
    Dear Graham, Well the point is that there is really nothing pointing to the existence of any major coherent political establishment in the central Highlands of
    Message 1 of 18 , Mar 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Graham,

      Well the point is that there is really nothing pointing to the existence
      of any major coherent political establishment in the central Highlands
      of Palestine in the tenth century BCE. Always be careful to speak about
      majority when it comes to biblical studies, as religion plays a major
      role her. Further, scholarship is not a matter of votes and public
      referendas.

      AS it stands, there are two schools (and yes, the one supporting a
      Judean political establishment already in the 10th century is the
      biggest one), one with its center in Tel Aviv saying no (represented by
      archaeologists like Finkelstrein and Ussishkin), the second based at the
      Hebrew University in Jerusalem (e.g., Amy Mazar), saying yes!

      These two 'schools' will really have to come to a conclusion that is
      workable. They are the only ones to control the archaeological material
      as it stands. Other have contributed. We, e.g., have the discussion in
      BAR a few years ago about Jerusalem in the 10th century between the
      American archaeologist Jane Cahill, who says yes (see also the
      contributions in A.V. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew, Jerusalem in Bible
      and Archaeology, Atlanta, SBL, 2003), and the Dutch archaeologist
      Margreet Steiner, who says no. Steiner is the caretaker of the estate
      after Kathleen Kenyon and has among other things read Kenyon's
      notebooks. It was a chock to her, she told, when she realized that
      Kenyon in her syntheses published against what she according to her
      notebooks really found. See also M.L. Steiner, Excavations by Kathleen
      M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961-1967, Volume III: The Settlement in the
      Bronze and Iron Ages, Sheffield, Academic Press, 2001.

      Whatever there was, it was not an empire. Finkelstein for his part see
      no signs of an emerging state in the Jerusalem area before the beginning
      of the 8th century. So, to give in for one theory does not make any
      sense, and what Graham Hagens may believe is the ruling theory, may not
      be the only possible one, and probably not the best one.

      Gaham Hagens:
      > Niels Peter Lemche wrote February 28, 2006:

      in response to my:


      >>Until better candidates are presented this paradigm
      >>should be the one employed to conduct historical research of the
      period.
      >>And yes, if one attempts to displace this model, it would be essential
      >>to.have have evidence of a name or names of alternative candidates.

      >It will not work. Every nation has such names from their legendary
      past.
      >Also my own (a plethora, from Saxo 12 century CE). You cannot use such
      >material for anything. You cannot dismiss names totally (an example is
      >the Viking chief Ragnar Lodbrog who killed a dragon to get his first
      >wife but also is mentioned in a Frankish chronicle from the early 9th
      >century CE, as one of the leaders of a Viking army about to -- as usual
      >-- sack Paris). The only thing you have is the name.
      >To limit possibilities in the way you propose ("the most reasonable
      >hypothesis") does not work. It contributes nothing to scholarship, and
      >makes history bound to individual persons. I mean makes history
      >methodologically look comically odd.I recommend that you invest some
      time
      in the study of folklore,
      >especially of the relationship between heroes and places and plots.

      There are two aspects to this question:
      (1) Does belief in the existence of David & Solomon constitute a
      reasonable
      paradigm? and
      (2) if not, what alternative exists?

      Consider the body of material supporting the hypothesis that they did
      exist.
      Although direct evidence may be weak (Tel Dan, Kitchen's 'dod is dead'
      observation), there is extensive circumstantial evidence: archaeology of
      the
      Canaanite Highlands and Philistia, Tyre and Dor; testimony of Josephus
      (biased yes, but containing pro-Tyrian material), primary literary
      evidence
      from Assyria and Egypt revealing that Canaanite principalities then had
      the
      freedom to act independently, and so on. And then the biblical
      traditions
      with names and reign lengths from Jeroboam/Rehoboam down to the
      extrabiblically attested Omri. And (in spite of your rejection)
      evidence
      that passages relating to the United Monarchy contain authentic
      pre-exilic
      material. There is a lot. Something was definitely going on in the
      Canaanite
      highlands during what we now call Iron IIA, and someone must have been
      in
      charge.
      The best, least disruptive, Ockam friendly, explanation for all this
      material is that David & Solomon actually did exist (though of course
      the
      extent of their activities was considerably embellished in the biblical
      record).

      It is largely because of the wealth of this evidence that the bulk of
      scholarship now accepts this paradigm. There is nothing about it that is
      "methodologically comically odd," and it is not the same as talking
      about
      Logbrod and a dragon. Some real individual was in charge of the
      Canaanite
      Highlands during Iron IIA. If not David or Solomon, who was he?

      To deny it places one in a fringe group. Not that there's anything wrong
      with that. But if one is on the fringe - as I well know - it is
      incumbent
      upon the fringee to argue his/her case effectively. To effect such a
      change
      the revolutionary must have a demonstrable alternative.(Remember: Thomas
      Kuhn teaches that a new paradigm is required when practising scientists
      discover that the old paradigm has failed. The present model has not
      failed - deconstruction only destroyed the embellishments surrounding
      it,
      not the core)

      If the real ruler was King XXX, then it is the onus of those who would
      reject the present model to demonstrate the existence of the thus far
      unattested XXX. And yes, a name would be nice.

      My argument is let research continue by accepting this most reasonable
      hypothesis until such time as someone can come up with better evidence
      to
      support the XXX hypothesis.

      Graham Hagens
      Hamilton, Ontario <
    • Yitzhak Sapir
      ... Dear Niels Peter Lemche, Mazar writes, In historical terms, the MCC utilized here enables to retain most of the traditional archaeological picture
      Message 2 of 18 , Mar 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On 3/3/06, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:

        > Well the point is that there is really nothing pointing to the existence
        > of any major coherent political establishment in the central Highlands
        > of Palestine in the tenth century BCE. Always be careful to speak about
        > majority when it comes to biblical studies, as religion plays a major
        > role her. Further, scholarship is not a matter of votes and public
        > referendas.
        >
        > AS it stands, there are two schools (and yes, the one supporting a
        > Judean political establishment already in the 10th century is the
        > biggest one), one with its center in Tel Aviv saying no (represented by
        > archaeologists like Finkelstrein and Ussishkin), the second based at the
        > Hebrew University in Jerusalem (e.g., Amy Mazar), saying yes!
        >
        > These two 'schools' will really have to come to a conclusion that is
        > workable.

        Dear Niels Peter Lemche,

        Mazar writes, "In historical terms, the MCC utilized here enables to retain
        most of the traditional archaeological picture relating to the 10th century
        BCE and the United Monarchy, though skepticism may arise even
        according to this system. Yet even if we accept the traditional 10th
        century BCE dates of strata like Megiddo VA-IVB, Hazor X, and so on,
        and buildings like the Stepped Stone structure in Jerusalem, the
        emerging archaeological picture would not necessarily point to a United
        Monarchy of an excessive size or magnitude."
        [The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, p. 26]
        http://rehov.org/Iron%20Age%20Chronology%20Debate.pdf

        Finkelstein writes, "As a result of the [Shoshenq] campaign -- in
        cooperation with the Egyptians or after their withdrawal -- the Jerusalem
        rulers took over hill country territories to their north. The large
        territories which were ruled for a few decades from Jerusalem could
        have supplied the memory for the Deuteronomistic notion of a great
        'United Monarchy' in the days of the early Davidides. This phase in the
        history of the hill country came to an end with the rise of the powerful
        Omride Dynasty in Samaria." [ZDPV 118/2, p. 129] In the above,
        Finkelstein places it effectively in late 10th-early 9th centuries.
        Elsewhere, 3 years earlier, he cites Naaman's article on scribal
        activity to the effect that a 10th century nascent state "United
        Kingdom" existed. See the last paragraph here (Hebrew):
        http://mikranet.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=11227
        He disputes this position of Naaman in the ZDPV article, though.

        So with Finkelstein allowing for a short lived and relatively small
        "United Monarchy" and Mazar speaking of a small magnitude
        "United Monarchy," is there really so much of a difference between
        the two positions?

        You had mentioned earlier the study of folk stories to understand the
        development and association of person names and place names. Could
        you recommend a good introduction to the subject?

        Yitzhak Sapir
      • Graham Hagens
        ... I am being very specific in my argument. It is concerned here only with the existence of two individuals, not with the question of a major political
        Message 3 of 18 , Mar 4, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Niels Peter Lemche Friday, March 03:

          > Well the point is that there is really nothing pointing to the existence
          >of any major coherent political establishment in the central Highlands
          >of Palestine in the tenth century BCE.

          I am being very specific in my argument.
          It is concerned here only with the existence of two individuals, not with
          the question of a 'major political establishment.' The demographic
          population estimates of Finkelstein and others do demonstrate a demographic
          shift from the northern provinces to Judah during Iron IIA - which
          admittedly could be late rather than early 10th century: perhaps as many as
          10-20,000 persons between IA-I and IIA. This almost certainly dictates the
          existence of a leader.
          When combined with the other circumstantial evidence there is no strong
          reason to remove the names David & Solomon from the list of likely
          chieftains.

          >Always be careful to speak about majority when it comes to biblical
          studies, as religion plays
          >a major role her. Further, scholarship is not a matter of votes and public
          >referendas.

          'Public' is too ill defined.
          Serious question: how is historiological consensus on any subject attained
          if not by the votes of informed scholars?

          >AS it stands, there are two schools (and yes, the one supporting a
          >Judean political establishment already in the 10th century is the
          >biggest one), one with its center in Tel Aviv saying no (represented by
          >archaeologists like Finkelstrein and Ussishkin), the second based at the
          >Hebrew University in Jerusalem (e.g., Amy Mazar), saying yes!

          Once again: Finkelstein & Ussishkin accept the _existence_ of David &
          Solomon. The nature of their activities is a separate question.

          >These two 'schools' will really have to come to a conclusion that is
          >workable. They are the only ones to control the archaeological material
          >as it stands. Other have contributed. We, e.g., have the discussion in
          >BAR a few years ago about Jerusalem in the 10th century between the
          >American archaeologist Jane Cahill, who says yes (see also the
          >contributions in A.V. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew, Jerusalem in Bible
          >and Archaeology, Atlanta, SBL, 2003), and the Dutch archaeologist
          >Margreet Steiner, who says no. Steiner is the caretaker of the estate
          >after Kathleen Kenyon and has among other things read Kenyon's
          >notebooks. It was a chock to her, she told, when she realized that
          >Kenyon in her syntheses published against what she according to her
          >notebooks really found. See also M.L. Steiner, Excavations by Kathleen
          >M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961-1967, Volume III: The Settlement in the
          >Bronze and Iron Ages, Sheffield, Academic Press, 2001.

          >Whatever there was, it was not an empire. Finkelstein for his part see
          >no signs of an emerging state in the Jerusalem area before the beginning
          >of the 8th century. So, to give in for one theory does not make any
          >sense, and what Graham Hagens may believe is the ruling theory, may not
          >be the only possible one, and probably not the best one.

          Pace. Agreed.

          Graham Hagens was only saying that the ruling hypothesis is that those two
          individuals actually did exist. It appears that you subscribe to this.

          For what it's worth, Hagens' [forthcoming] theory about what actually
          happened is different again. He suggests that the real power behind David
          and Solomon was Hiram of Tyre who bankrolled David's wars in order to gain
          access to the rich copper resources of the Arabah and in order to forge new
          trade routes. Both were needed because 10th century Syro-Palestine was still
          in the Bronze Age (Snodgrass), and because traffic through western Asia &
          Egypt was interrupted by societal unrest. As evidenced by Osorkon's booty,
          these activities were apparently quite successful, and this success is
          reflected in the surviving myths.


          Graham Hagens
          Hamilton, ON
        • Kent Sparks
          Dear ANE Colleagues: I am interested in early examples of historical criticism, in those instances where the ancients questioned the authenticity of written
          Message 4 of 18 , Mar 4, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear ANE Colleagues:

            I am interested in early examples of historical criticism, in those
            instances where the ancients questioned the authenticity of written
            documents. Examples would be akin to Valla's well-known critique of the
            "Donation of Constantine," but of course much older.

            Any leads would be appreciated.

            Warmly,
            Kent Sparks
            Eastern University
          • E Bruce Brooks
            To: ANE-2 [Cc: CGC List] In Response To: Kent Sparks On: Ancient Texts and Authenticity From: Bruce I am myself interested in Kent s query about early
            Message 5 of 18 , Mar 4, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              To: ANE-2
              [Cc: CGC List]
              In Response To: Kent Sparks
              On: Ancient Texts and Authenticity
              From: Bruce

              I am myself interested in Kent's query about "early examples of historical
              criticism," and hope to benefit by future responses. I have been trying to
              gather such instances myself, as part of a general handbook on text
              philology, and incidentally to refute the often made claim that the ancients
              had no concept of authorship, and thus of forgery. It seems that they did
              have such concepts. Not that they always operated.

              One of the most famous instances of ancient authenticity determinations, I
              should suppose, is the determination by Varro (0116-027) that of the many
              plays then attributed to Plautus, only 21 should be considered genuine. In
              this he was following and perfecting the investigations of his teacher L
              Aelius Stilo, called "the first Roman philologist" by OCD2 (p843). Varro was
              among other things a librarian, and the exertions of the Alexandrian
              librarians in text criticism should probably be mentioned (not only in the
              rejection of spurious lines, as in Homer, but in the detection of spurious
              works). I have heard it said that Theopompus (born c0378) challenged the
              genuineness of an earlier treaty because the alphabet in which it was said
              to have been written did not exist at that time; I have not so far been able
              to locate this statement in his surviving works.

              For the honor of civilizations further East, I might throw in that the
              followers of Mencius (not he himself, but in a statement written as though
              from him in a late layer of the Mencian school writings) challenged the
              genuineness of one of the many supposed ancient documents that were then in
              circulation as certifying texts (one purporting to describe the end of the
              war that established the Jou dynasty's supremacy over the Shang dynasty,
              perhaps c01050), in these words, "Rather than have to believe all the Wu
              Chvng, it would be better not to have any of the Wu Chvng." The verdict was
              that only a few lines might be genuine. This is from MC 7B3 (from about
              0250, the late Warring States period). More generally, there is a series of
              critiques of variant traditions about earlier antiquity (not specifically
              about texts embodying those traditions) that runs all through MC 5 (from a
              few decades earlier).

              Forgery has its functions. It permits more theater owners to stage plays by
              Plautus, which helps the economy. The culture of forgery in Warring States
              China underlay the common discussion of Chinese antiquity, and it was very
              rare for any of the disputants to challenge the underlying assumption of
              reality (the Mencian item above is almost a unique case). In the early days
              of the Ohio frontier, the counterfeiter was held in some esteem, since the
              banks of the time couldn't issue enough money to support a rapidly expanding
              economy. I see the Warring States as in part an expanding economy of
              discourse, with quite analogous needs and tolerances. The Mencians merely
              show that such agreed tolerance had also its breaking point.

              (It would run too far afield to consider the provisions, in all ancient law
              sets known to me, against false witness in legal proceedings: the spurious
              oral text).

              Bruce

              E Bruce Brooks
              Research Professor of Chinese
              Warring States Project
              University of Massachusetts at Amherst
            • Bradley Skene
              A well known example is the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry s judgement of the Biblical Daniel as a forgery of Maccabean date in his *Contra Christianos*
              Message 6 of 18 , Mar 4, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                A well known example is the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry's judgement of
                the Biblical Daniel as a forgery of Maccabean date in his *Contra
                Christianos* (ca. 300 AD).

                I have not seen the following as yet, but it will no doubt have the most up
                to date references:


                *Porphyry Against the Christians*, R. M. Berchman, trans., Ancient
                Mediterranean and Medieval Texts and Contexts 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2005).

                Bradley A Skene (ABD)

                On 3/4/06, Kent Sparks <Kent.Sparks@...> wrote:
                >
                > Dear ANE Colleagues:
                >
                > I am interested in early examples of historical criticism, in those
                > instances where the ancients questioned the authenticity of written
                > documents. Examples would be akin to Valla's well-known critique of the
                > "Donation of Constantine," but of course much older.
                >
                > Any leads would be appreciated.
                >
                > Warmly,
                > Kent Sparks
                > Eastern University
              • Gary Greenberg
                I get the impression that this was a hot issue in early Christianity and that a lot of this sort of debate went on. A good source might be Eusebius history of
                Message 7 of 18 , Mar 4, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  I get the impression that this was a hot issue in early Christianity and
                  that a lot of this sort of debate went on. A good source might be Eusebius'
                  history of the church, where he describes what many Christians said about
                  various texts. Bart Ehrman, in (I think) his Orthodox Corruption of
                  Scripture discusses some early Christian charges of forgery. Marcion, a
                  second century Christian follower of Paul gathered Paul's letters and the
                  Gospel of Luke into the first proposed Christian Canon but argued that the
                  pro-Jewish elements in those documents (such as positive descriptions of the
                  Jewish God) were forged additions to the manuscripts and redacted them out
                  of his collection of texts. The Gospel of Peter was apparently read as
                  scripture in some second century churches but Christians debated whether
                  Peter was the original author and the book was eventually banned as
                  heretical or subject to heretical interpretations.

                  Gary Greenberg
                  New York

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Kent Sparks" <Kent.Sparks@...>
                  To: <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 12:02 PM
                  Subject: [ANE-2] Ancient Texts and Authenticity


                  > Dear ANE Colleagues:
                  >
                  > I am interested in early examples of historical criticism, in those
                  > instances where the ancients questioned the authenticity of written
                  > documents. Examples would be akin to Valla's well-known critique of the
                  > "Donation of Constantine," but of course much older.
                  >
                  > Any leads would be appreciated.
                  >
                  > Warmly,
                  > Kent Sparks
                  > Eastern University
                • E Bruce Brooks
                  To: ANE-2 In Further Response To: Kent Sparks On: Ancient Authenticity Judgements From: Bruce One of my learned colleagues on the CGC list has supplied further
                  Message 8 of 18 , Mar 5, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To: ANE-2
                    In Further Response To: Kent Sparks
                    On: Ancient Authenticity Judgements
                    From: Bruce

                    One of my learned colleagues on the CGC list has supplied further
                    information to that list about the classical Greek situation as to forgeries
                    and pseudipigraphia and the detection thereof. I append part of his
                    information below, adding only that the rivalry between Alexandria and
                    Pergamum is an interesting aspect of the early criticism and connoisseurship
                    of texts.

                    E Bruce Brooks
                    Research Professor of Chinese
                    Warring States Project
                    University of Massachusetts at Amherst

                    ---------RESPONSE FROM A CGC MEMBER-------------

                    3. From the late 05c onwards there was much study of rhetoric and therefore
                    of admired speeches.
                    Reproduction and trade in speeches was a humble and haphazard business. A
                    man who, with his
                    literate slaves, reproduced and sold copies of speeches attributed them to
                    famous orators to
                    enhance their commercial value. So many speeches came to be attributed to
                    the wrong authors.

                    4. From ca. 0300 literature already regarded as classical was collected in
                    the Library at
                    Alexandria; it included Attic speeches. For several centuries scholars
                    studied the speeches
                    there. They inquired into questions of authenticity. Some of their findings
                    are preserved in a
                    treatise called "Lives of the Ten Orators" and preserved in the works of
                    Plutarch. For each of the
                    ten canonical orators the author gives the total number of speeches
                    attributed to him and the
                    number which the author recognizes as authentic. This treatise is believed
                    to depend on study by
                    Caecilius of Kale Akte (Calacte), a scholar of the late 01c. Judgments of
                    authenticity are given
                    likewise in the works of his contemporary, Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Also
                    the Byzantine
                    lexicographers occasionally preserve such information.

                    5. For matters noted under 3 and 4 above there is an excellent account
                    within

                    K. J. Dover: Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum (Univ. of Calif. Press 1968).
                  • Kent Sparks
                    Dear ANE Colleagues: Thanks so much for your leads on this topic, both on and off-list. At this point most of the exemplars are, as we might expect, from
                    Message 9 of 18 , Mar 5, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear ANE Colleagues:

                      Thanks so much for your leads on this topic, both on and off-list. At this
                      point most of the exemplars are, as we might expect, from Greeks and
                      afterward. I would appreciate any leads that regard ANE texts, say, from
                      Egypt or Mesopotamia.

                      Several of you have queried about authorship in antiquity, particularly
                      about the extent to which the ancients were, shall we say, "author
                      conscious." Two relevant Mesopotamian texts include a list of texts and
                      authors (see Lambert below) and also the editorial comments by
                      Esagil-kin-apli in his edition of SA.GIG (See Finkel below).

                      W. G. LAMBERT, “A Catalogue of Texts and Authors,” JCS 16
                      (1962): 59–77;

                      I. L. FINKEL, “Adad-apla-iddina,Esagil-kßn-apli, and the Series SA.GIG,” in
                      A Scientific Humanist: Studies in Memoryof Abraham Sachs (ed. E. Leichty, M.
                      deJ. Ellis, and P. Gerardi; OPSNKF 9; Philadelphia: UniversityMuseum, 1988),
                      143–59.

                      Thanks,
                      Kent Sparks
                    • Joe Baker
                      Hi all I have mentioned the following coincidence a few times an the old ANE list. Both the Assyrian and Biblical records tell of an Aramean king who
                      Message 10 of 18 , Mar 6, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi all

                        I have mentioned the following coincidence a few times an the old ANE
                        list.

                        Both the Assyrian and Biblical records tell of an Aramean king who
                        campaigned along the Euphrates bend in the early 10th century. If the
                        Assyrian record is correct then why not the Biblical record?

                        Shalmaneser 3 mentions that during the reign of Assur-rabi 2 the "King
                        of Arumu" captured Mutkinu a city on the eastern bank of the Euphrates
                        (not far from the western bank town of Pitru on the Sagur). That is a
                        Assyrian recognised KING of the Arameans (not just tribal units as per
                        the earlier times of Tiglathpileser 1 and Assur-bel-kala) was capturing
                        towns in the Euphrates bend region sometime during 1013-972 BC.

                        Just so happens that according to the book of Samuel about midway
                        through the reign of David (c. 1010-971 BC) he defeated the forces of
                        Hadadezer king of Zobah. As a result Hadadezer recruited troops from
                        beyond the River [Euphrates]. David again defeated him and Hadadezer's
                        "empire" experienced revolts. As troops of Hadadezer were marching to
                        re-establish control over the River [Euphrates] David defeated him and
                        captured several important towns in the Beqa valley and put a garrison
                        into Damascus. He also made diplomatic contact with the "new" kingdom
                        of Hamath (maybe Hadadezer had weakened the power of W/Patasatini over
                        the middle Orontes allowing other neo-Hittite and Aramean centres to
                        emerge as major centres).


                        Regards
                        Joe Baker ===========\
                        Perth |
                        Western Australia ===/
                      • Niels Peter Lemche
                        ... existence of any major coherent political establishment in the central Highlands of Palestine in the tenth century BCE. ... with the existence of two
                        Message 11 of 18 , Mar 7, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Graham Hagens" <rgrhagens@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Niels Peter Lemche Friday, March 03:
                          >
                          > > Well the point is that there is really nothing pointing to the
                          existence of any major coherent political establishment in the
                          central Highlands of Palestine in the tenth century BCE.
                          >
                          Graham Hagens:
                          > I am being very specific in my argument. It is concerned here only
                          with the existence of two individuals, not with the question of
                          a 'major political establishment.' The demographic population
                          estimates of Finkelstein and others do demonstrate a demographic
                          shift from the northern provinces to Judah during Iron IIA - which
                          admittedly could be late rather than early 10th century: perhaps as
                          many as 10-20,000 persons between IA-I and IIA. This almost
                          certainly dictates the existence of a leader.

                          When combined with the other circumstantial evidence there is no
                          strong reason to remove the names David & Solomon from the list of
                          likely chieftains. <

                          Strong reason about something we know nothing about, apart from much
                          later religiously colored literature?

                          If you par tout want to stay with these two names, for my part do it.
                          If you had any clue to what they might have been, also OK. But
                          everything pertaining to the 10th century is clouded in darkness.

                          Of course it is a problem to your acceptance of some clouded figures
                          that we still cannot be sure taht they ever lived or were not
                          hypostases of divinities like Shalem/Salimmu, David/Dod -- also
                          relevant for Salomo whose second name is said to be Yedidyah.

                          My problem is not that you want to keep these two figires but why you
                          want to keep them.

                          NPLemche
                        • Marc Cooper
                          I see your question as essentially historiographic. I take it that you are following Luckenbill (1926) who wonders if the there is some relation between the
                          Message 12 of 18 , Mar 7, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I see your question as essentially historiographic. I take it that
                            you are following Luckenbill (1926) who wonders if the there is some
                            relation between the loss of Muktinu on the Euphrates under Asshur-
                            rabi and the biblical narrative concerning the construction of
                            David's empire.

                            The problem is this: the two sources do not support each other until
                            each is internally examined for its historical value, ancd accepted
                            as relating events as they happened. In other words, before we use
                            sources, whether they come from a newspaper, a government document,
                            a royal inscription, or a narrative canonical source, we must first
                            subject them to internal criticism. We do this because sources are
                            sometimes biased, corrupted, or simply fantastic. This is a
                            necessary part of the historical method.

                            There are problems in dealing with both of your sources. The issues
                            which arise out of the internal criticism of canonical narrative
                            sources, in particular, are overwhelming. Hence my reaction to your
                            post is that there is a coincidence only if you suspend the
                            historical method and give up source criticism.

                            Marc Cooper
                            Missouri State University


                            --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Joe Baker <joebaker@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Hi all
                            >
                            > I have mentioned the following coincidence a few times an the old
                            ANE
                            > list.
                            >
                            > Both the Assyrian and Biblical records tell of an Aramean king who
                            > campaigned along the Euphrates bend in the early 10th century. If
                            the
                            > Assyrian record is correct then why not the Biblical record?
                            >
                            > Shalmaneser 3 mentions that during the reign of Assur-rabi 2
                            the "King
                            > of Arumu" captured Mutkinu a city on the eastern bank of the
                            Euphrates
                            > (not far from the western bank town of Pitru on the Sagur). That
                            is a
                            > Assyrian recognised KING of the Arameans (not just tribal units as
                            per
                            > the earlier times of Tiglathpileser 1 and Assur-bel-kala) was
                            capturing
                            > towns in the Euphrates bend region sometime during 1013-972 BC.
                            >
                            > Just so happens that according to the book of Samuel about midway
                            > through the reign of David (c. 1010-971 BC) he defeated the forces
                            of
                            > Hadadezer king of Zobah. As a result Hadadezer recruited troops
                            from
                            > beyond the River [Euphrates]. David again defeated him and
                            Hadadezer's
                            > "empire" experienced revolts. As troops of Hadadezer were marching
                            to
                            > re-establish control over the River [Euphrates] David defeated him
                            and
                            > captured several important towns in the Beqa valley and put a
                            garrison
                            > into Damascus. He also made diplomatic contact with the "new"
                            kingdom
                            > of Hamath (maybe Hadadezer had weakened the power of W/Patasatini
                            over
                            > the middle Orontes allowing other neo-Hittite and Aramean centres
                            to
                            > emerge as major centres).
                            >
                            >
                            > Regards
                            > Joe Baker ===========\
                            > Perth |
                            > Western Australia ===/
                            >
                          • Graham Hagens
                            ... I believe you are just playing a game, pretending to be ignorant of the great deal of information we do have about that century, and denying the
                            Message 13 of 18 , Mar 7, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Niels Peter Lemche wrote Tuesday, March 07 in reply to my:

                              --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Graham Hagens" <rgrhagens@...> wrote:

                              >>shift from the northern provinces to Judah during Iron IIA - which
                              >>admittedly could be late rather than early 10th century: perhaps as
                              >>many as 10-20,000 persons between IA-I and IIA. This almost
                              >>certainly dictates the existence of a leader.
                              >>When combined with the other circumstantial evidence there is no
                              >>strong reason to remove the names David & Solomon from the list of
                              >>likely chieftains.

                              >Strong reason about something we know nothing about, apart from much
                              >later religiously colored literature?

                              >If you par tout want to stay with these two names, for my part do it.
                              >If you had any clue to what they might have been, also OK. But
                              >everything pertaining to the 10th century is clouded in darkness.

                              >Of course it is a problem to your acceptance of some clouded figures
                              >that we still cannot be sure taht they ever lived or were not
                              >hypostases of divinities like Shalem/Salimmu, David/Dod -- also
                              >relevant for Salomo whose second name is said to be Yedidyah.
                              >My problem is not that you want to keep these two figires but why you
                              >want to keep them.

                              I believe you are just playing a game, pretending to be ignorant of the
                              great deal of information we do have about that century, and denying the
                              possibility that anyone ruled the burgeoning population of Iron II
                              Palestine.

                              The particular 'names' are not important. That two influential rulers
                              existed in that time and space is. As Dever expressed it, 'everything is not
                              ideology ... something did happen.'

                              It is time (at least for me) to stop before the moderators make that
                              decision.

                              Graham Hagens










                              SPONSORED LINKS Near Ancient Columbia university



                              YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

                              Visit your group "ANE-2" on the web.

                              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              ANE-2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                            • Joe Baker
                              Hi Marc On Shalmaneser s reference to an earlier king of Arumu and his possible identification with Hadad-ezer, king of Aram-Zobah. On the Assyrian side - I
                              Message 14 of 18 , Mar 8, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Marc

                                On Shalmaneser's reference to an earlier king of Arumu and his possible
                                identification with Hadad-ezer, king of Aram-Zobah.

                                On the Assyrian side - I see no reason to doubt that Shalmaneser was
                                making a true statement. Accounts of incidents whereby a ruler proudly
                                details his (re)occupation of cities that had formerly been lost (or
                                never taken) by previous rulers are common during this period. These
                                past events would have been well known to the royal court. Take another
                                example

                                Assur-nasir-apli 2, Shalmaneser 3's father, recalled how he restored
                                Assyrian control over the Upper Tigris cities of Sinabu and Tidu,
                                cities which formerly had been garrisoned by Shalmaneser [1] but which
                                had been forcibly taken by Arameans. Now one may ask just how did
                                Assur-nasir-apli know that Shalmaneser had occupied these cities? No
                                royal inscription of this event has survived (at least into modern
                                times) but some record must have survived into Assur-nasir-apli's
                                reign. (Maybe local inscriptions within the towns). On the other hand,
                                other contemporary records from the days of Shalmaneser 1 support this
                                claim. We know from KAV 119 (Urad-serua 44) that Shalmaneser 1 had
                                control of Sinamu by the limu of Ishtar-eresh. And from a few years
                                earlier IBoT I 34 shows that the king of Hanigalbat was living in
                                Sinamu and was appealing to the Hittite king (and to Halpa-ziti of
                                Aleppo and Ehli-sharruma of Ishuwa) for aid against the demands of the
                                king of Assyria.

                                In the Euphrates bend region we lack almost any inscriptional evidence
                                from the early tenth century. Assyrian inscriptions from before and
                                after this period suggest that the Arameans tribal units in the region
                                east of the Euphrates (at least to the Balih) were not cohesive enough
                                to form a state ruled by a king. But west of the Euphrates we know of
                                several later powerful Aramean states ruled by strong kings. These
                                states probably did not exist at the time Tiglathpileser 1's western
                                campaign. Greater Hatti (ie Carchemish) was the main state on the
                                Euphrates. But the ease with which Tiglathpileser past this state and
                                then moved onto the sea suggests another large central state existed
                                between Carchemish and the sea. Such a state might have been
                                Patasatini. In effect his campaign might have been an earlier version
                                of the later "campaign" of Assur-nasir-apli. The Assyrian version
                                views this as a victorious campaign into Syria but a less bias reading
                                would see it as a Syrian coalition hiring the king of Assyria to war
                                against Luhute-Hamath. Sometime after Tiglathpileser, Taita of
                                Patasatini probably continued to control this region as he left
                                inscriptions at Tall Tayinet (capital of Pattina), Aleppo and Sheizar
                                and Mhardeh (both towns just 20km north west of Hamath - for some good
                                maps of this region see http://www.syriantours.net/jpgmaps_1.asp).

                                Any early Aramean king who assaulted and controlled the Euphrates bend
                                region would have to do it after the breakup (or cause the breakup) of
                                Patasatini, that is after the time of Taita. He would also have to do
                                it before the rise of Hamath (at least prior to Paratas) and
                                Masuwari/Bit Adini, a powerful state by 899 (limu of Ninuaya) and even
                                earlier judging by the genealogy of its local rulers.

                                So maybe it is only a coincidence that the biblical record places a
                                powerful king of Aram-Zobah in this period. But it's a really good
                                coincidence. (At least if we correct the internal chronology of Kings
                                by placing the rise of Jehu in 841 BC. Note that the internal
                                chronology of the Judahean kings would place the battles of David and
                                Hadad-ezer (as worked back from the time Nabu-kudurri-usur's first
                                siege of Jerusalem) some 50 years earlier - too earlier to match
                                Shalmaneser's reference,

                                Now as for the accuracy of the sources for the Hebrew account - well
                                that would require a much longer post. And it also depends on whose
                                view you follow. If one do not believe something existed then no amount
                                of literary analysis is going to convince one otherwise. But then again
                                I may just throw my two cents into the ring and give it a try later.

                                Regards
                                Joe Baker ===========\
                                Perth |
                                Western Australia ===/
                              • Marc Cooper
                                ... possible ... another ... [SNIP] Joe, the snip above contained a fair example of internal criticism. In response to my concern about the reliabity of the
                                Message 15 of 18 , Mar 8, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Joe Baker <joebaker@...> wrote:

                                  > On Shalmaneser's reference to an earlier king of Arumu and his
                                  possible
                                  > identification with Hadad-ezer, king of Aram-Zobah.
                                  >
                                  > On the Assyrian side - I see no reason to doubt that Shalmaneser was
                                  > making a true statement. Accounts of incidents whereby a ruler proudly
                                  > details his (re)occupation of cities that had formerly been lost (or
                                  > never taken) by previous rulers are common during this period. These
                                  > past events would have been well known to the royal court. Take
                                  another
                                  > example


                                  [SNIP]

                                  Joe, the snip above contained a fair example of internal criticism. In
                                  response to my concern about the reliabity of the statement on the
                                  Monolith concerning the loss of Muktinu during the reign of Assur-rabi
                                  II you have provided a set of contemporary inscriptions and concerns
                                  about them. Taken together, it begins to make me feel confident about
                                  the reliability of the statement. There are other inscriptions you might
                                  have brought in to strengthen your argument, but that would be academic
                                  here. Suffice to say that there is a strong argument in favor of the
                                  reliability of the statement dependent mainly on datable Assyrian
                                  inscriptions.

                                  [SNIP]

                                  > Now as for the accuracy of the sources for the Hebrew account - well
                                  > that would require a much longer post. And it also depends on whose
                                  > view you follow. If one do not believe something existed then no
                                  amount
                                  > of literary analysis is going to convince one otherwise. But then
                                  again
                                  > I may just throw my two cents into the ring and give it a try later.

                                  I can only wish you success in attempting to support the reliability of
                                  the Hebrew account. I note that in discussing the Assyrian evidence that
                                  you did not cite the historiography. We could do that, but the argument
                                  depends not on the views of particular scholars but the mass of direct
                                  evidence marshalled in support of your conclusion. For the reliability
                                  of the Hebrew account, as you say, there will be at least some
                                  dependence on the particular views you follow. This is part of the
                                  problem.

                                  To argue the reliability of the account you might say that the author of
                                  a recent book on Syria accepts it at face value. Others reviewing the
                                  book do not. This leaves us with nothing but difficulties. In my view,
                                  until you can handle the Hebrew account like you handled the Assyrian
                                  statement, on the basis of inscriptions and other reliable sources, you
                                  cannot successfully assert that the two pieces of evidence are of
                                  equivalent reliability. That Assur-rabi II lost Muktinu is the
                                  conclusion of a strong argument. The reliability of the Hebrew acount
                                  remains at issue. Good luck.

                                  Marc

                                  --------------------------------

                                  Marc Cooper

                                  Missouri State University
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.