27.10.2014 Views

Sheba

Sheba

Sheba

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

34<br />

THE SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE<br />

indicates that he invaded Judah and captured several cities but not<br />

Jerusalem, where he was bought off by Reheboam. This would indicate that<br />

Jerusalem was still a wealthy and powerful city. The Egyptians either did<br />

not feel confident enough to capture the city or believed that accepting<br />

tribute would establish a precedent for future relations. This implies that<br />

Jerusalem still controlled valuable trade routes to the south, and it was<br />

better to conclude a lucrative punitive expedition than to destroy the<br />

commercial and central administrative well-being of a state that could<br />

continue to provide Egypt with wealth. This certainly does not match the<br />

archaeological remains of Palestine’s Jerusalem. Reheboam’s Jerusalem<br />

must have been elsewhere. There is no unanimity about the consequences<br />

of finding no evidence to confirm that the events of Old Testament belong<br />

to Palestine. One theory is that the change from Bronze Age to Iron Age<br />

was as undramatic as the archaeological evidence testifies. In this scenario<br />

the Promised Land was already partially occupied by an earlier but peaceful<br />

Hebrew migration; and Joshua merely moved into Hebrew territory,<br />

achieving hegemony by a show of force rather than by force itself. Another<br />

theory is that Joshua led his Iron Age pastoralists to marginalized land<br />

away from the Canaanite peasantry and later took control of them, even<br />

though marginalized land would be of no use to Iron Age smelters. A third<br />

suggestion is that there was no invasion but merely an internal power<br />

struggle. All three hypotheses maintain that the Old Testament record is<br />

therefore exaggerated or inaccurate. An interesting re-assessment by J. M.<br />

Miller and J. Hayes accepts the Old Testament account as being accurate in<br />

terms of local standards:<br />

Solomon was probably an unusually wealthy and powerful ruler by the<br />

standards of Early Iron Age Palestine. Yet viewed in the broader<br />

context of the ancient Middle East, he is to be regarded more as a local<br />

ruler over an expanded city-state than as a world class emperor. 5<br />

A fourth suggestion is based purely on faith and maintains that, irrespective<br />

of evidence, the Old Testament not only took place in Palestine but<br />

Israelites left it to settle in northern Europe:<br />

The Jews are not the only descendants of the ancient 12-tribed nation of<br />

Israel, which includes the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic people and the British<br />

Commonwealth and certain countries in northwestern Europe. “British<br />

means “covenant man” being derived from two Hebrew words, “Brith”,<br />

meaning covenant, and “ish”, man. 6

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!