IN THE ARENA

Southland Times, Issue 22107, 30 August 1933, Page 3

IN THE ARENA

THE FIRST DEBATE 8.1. REPLIES The following proposition is presented for debate between the Rev. Frank Sampson (affirmative) and 8.1. (negative): “That the Jews are fully representative of Israel and Judah, meaning by Israel the socalled kingdom of Israel and by Judah the so-called kingdom of Judah.” 1. 8.1. has drawn attention to the admissability and credibility of several kinds of evidence. Does he admit circumstantial evidence? Answer. Yes. Murray’s Oxford. Dixtionary defines it as “indirect evidence inferred from circumstances which afford a certain presumption, or appear explainable only on one hypothesis.” Circumstantial evidence is not as valuable as the direct statement of a credible eye-witness, because its interpretation depends upon opinion, and opinions often differ. Still, it is valuable evidence, and I have used it on occasions in this debate, notable instances being the matter of the plague of lions and of Josiah’s passover. 2. 8.1. says “The writer of the Book of Kings says definitely that “all of Israel’ went to Assyria on this occasion (2nd deportation), leaving only Judah.” Why does 8.1. use the words ‘all of Israel’ when they are not in the Scripture; also how does 8.1. make Judah include Benjamin, when the Scripture says ‘Judah only’? Answer: (a) I say that ‘all of Israel’ went to Assyria on this occasion because ‘lsrael’ in 2 Kings XVII.IB, being unqualified, necessarily means all the 61 tribes that were left in Israel. Israel (unqualified) being then “removed out of God’s sight”, this can only intelligently mean a total deportion. Such a total deportation of 10-tribed Israel had been the subject of prophecy: “I will utterly take them away” (Hos. 1.6); “Within 65 years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people” (Is. VII. 8) A. feeble remnant may have been left to till the ground as was the case with Judah’s captivity (2 Kings XXV. 12), but Scripture does not record this as a fact. The omission is significant in view of the fact that a remant of Judah is recorded as being left. The Bible does record that people from Assyria replaced 10-tribed Israel, and it does not record any such replacement of Judah. This again is surely significant. There may well have been refugees from Israel to Syria or Judah who returned when all was safe. Even so, however, these appear to have been rounded up during the reign of Manasseh of Judah by later Kings of As-syria—Esar-haddon and Asnaper (Ezra 1V.2,10). See the Assyrian inscriptions deciphered by George Smith and others and commented on by Anstey in pages 195/221 of his Bible Chronology and in the Tables to that work. In view of the following statement of the Book of Kings—hitherto unquoted—it would seem impossible for a judicial-minded man to resist the conclusion that for practical purposes ‘all of Israel’ went under Sargon: “And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cutha, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria INSTEAD OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. And they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof.” (2 Kings XVII 24). (b) The Scripture says the ‘tribe’ of Judah. There are three Hebrew words for tribe and they appear to be interchangeable, so exegesis seems no use here. If we were to insist that only the actual ‘tribe’ of Judah was left when Sargon deported his captives, this presupposes an invasion of Judah and the taking of Benjamin and the Levites captive, as well as GJ-tribed Israel. This would have involved a siege of Jerusalem, for that city was in Benjamin’s territory (Judg. XVIII. 28). No such invasion is known to history, whether sacred or profane. Moreover, Benjamin was still in union with Judah 180 years later (Ezra 1.5 and the Book of Ezra and Nehemiah generally). To be reasonable, then, we must understand that all the kingdom of Israel was then taken, and all the KINGDOM of Judah was then left for Nebuchadnezzar to overthrow later. 3. It was understood that 8.1. accepted both Davidson’s and Gesenius’ lexicons as evidence. They are standard lexicons and used by anyone learning Hebrew and have never been objected to as far as can be learned. The fact that Gesenius may have been a rationalist does not detract from his authority as a lexicographer, any more than the foct that Murray of the Oxford Dictionary was an Anglican should make that dictionary unreliable to a Methodist. The meaning of a word is entirely independent of ‘views’. Am I to understand that whenever the meaning of a word in Gesenius is contrary to 8.1. meaning, 8.1. will refuse to accept the authority of Gesenius? Answer: No, certainly not. The position is that Mr Samson and myself each agreed to accept Davidson’s and Gesenius’ authority as binding for the meaning of a Hebrew word, and I have no wish to avoid such obligation. When, however, these men cease to be lexicographers and express opinions on the question of whether the Jews represent all 12 tribes or not, their witness is on the same level as that of other scholars who lived two and a half millenniums after the event. As regard such scholars, what I say is indisputable, namely, that my Anstey and Rawlinson are fundamentalists, while Mr Sampson’s are all rationalists of modernists. 4. Where is 8.1.’s evidence for any ‘migration’ of 10-tribed Israel? Answer: I do not think I used the word ‘migration’, but >1 did suggest ‘emigration’ as one of the means of the “cutting-short” of Israel after the time of Jehu (2 Kings X. 32). One Scriptural instance of such a partial emigration on the part of Simeon is in 1 Chron. 1V.41/3 in the days of Hoshea of Israel and Hezekiah of Judah. Another such on the part of that tribe is told in 1 Chron. 1V.39,40. Readers may verify these references for themselves. 5. Where does 8.1. find the words ‘from plague, pestilence, and famine, from battle and murder and from sudden death’ in relation to 10-tribed Israel? Answer: Nowhere. The “cuttingshort” process of Israel after Jehu is stated as a fact by the writer of the Book of Kings (2 Kings X. 32). And reader can see for himself how the relentless cutting-short of Israel was carried out—by invasions, wars, insurrections, famines, pestilences. I covered all these by a quotation from the Book of Common Prayer. It is a felicitous literary quotation only, but well describes the post-Jehu history of 10-tribed Israel as given in the Bible. 6. 8.1. quotes the instance of all Israel’s assembly on Carmel. Does he suggest that this means that all members of 10-tribed Israel were present? Answer: No. Mt Carmel would have far too small to accommodate the many millions of 10-tribed Israel. Ahab was commanded to gather ‘all-Israel’ unto Mt Carmel (1 Kings XVHI.I9). Those gathered by Ahab were (a) the 850 prophets of Baal and of the grove, and • (b) “all the people.” To be intelligent, ; we must understand the presence of “all the people” as a representative only, 1 and not total. Heads of tribes would be there, and heads of families. To pack every citizen of Israel there — young and old, infants in arms, the sick—would have been inhuman and impossible. My point is indefeasible,

namely, that Judah was not there, yet Elijah built his altar of 12 stones. 7. How does 8.1. reconcile the fact that all members of 10-tribed Israel were carried away with the fact that large numbers of 10-tribed Israel were in Palestine in the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah? Answer: (a) Only in one of these reigns was the presence of large numbers of 10-tribed Israel in Palestine a fact, namely, Hezekiah's, and only for 6 years of that reign. As to this being so, it could never be doubted by an intelligent reader of the Book of Kings, where every statement practically is dated. Hezekiah of Judah came to the throne in the 3rd year of Hoshea of Israel (2 Kings XVIII.I/2). Samaria was taken by Sargon in the 6th year of Hezekiah of Judah (2 Kings XVIII. 10). During those first 6 years of Hezekiah’s reign, therefore, 10-tribed Israel had her normal population. Hezekiah’s passover is not recorde’d in the Book of the Kings, but only in 2 Chron.XXX, and unfortunately the event is not there dated. The circumstantial evidence of the narrative leads, however, to the hypothesis that this dearest wish of Hezekiah was realised near the beginning of his reign, and therefore most probably in the first 6 years, (b) As regards an allegedly large remnant of Israel present in Palestine during Josiah’s reign, I submit that I have already shown in my statement that this is. an altogether unwarrnatable assumption, and do not propose to cover that ground again. I submit that Dr Gaster—Mr Sampson’s main authority for Josiah’s reign—merely said it was so. In other words he committed the logical fallacy of begging the question. 8. Is. IX.I/2 does not refer to the captivity but to the advent of the Messiah. The terms ‘lightly afflict’ and ‘grievously afflict’ represent two different words in the Hebrew, meaning ‘lightly esteem’ and ‘bring to honour’ according to both Davidson and Gesenius. The Revised Version translates these words so. Does 8.1. accept this? Answer: Assuming for the moment that the Authorised Version was a correct rendering, then it would be a statement of fact about the captivity, though contained in a prophecy. The position is, however, that the Hebrew is doubtful. It would appear to be a case for the textual critic and . the translator, rather than for the lexicon. The Authorised Version renders the verses as quoted by me—so does a modem translator, Ferrar Fenton. The Revised Version and Moffat render it as Mr Sampson says. Doctors of equal authority differing, the evidence cannot be considered conclusive for either side. lam perfectly willing to abandon the passage. It is not a 8.1. proof-pas-sage. I submit that my case is scripturally so unassailable as to be independent of the support of these verses. 9. 8.1. charges me with putting forward a fusion-theory. Will he point out where I have done so? Answer: The fact that Mr Sampson stated in your issue of the 11th instant that “From the earliest days of the separate kingdoms there, were many out of 10-tribed Israel who fell away to Judah, so that when Judah was deported she took numbers of Israel along with her into captivity” was taken by me to mean that he agreed with the pre-Zedekiah fusion-theory put forward by such typical anti-8.1. writers as Barron and John Wilkinson. Those writers claimed that as soon as Israel apostatised to idolatry, thenceforth Judah was in the sight of God officially representative of all 12 tribes. They “proved” it by quoting the occasions of religious fraternisation between the kingdom during the reign of Asa, Hezekiah, etc. They supposed that all who went from Israel to attend a passover remained as permanent citizens of Judah. If Mr Sampson does not agree with these writers, and will acknowledge it, I shall be saved the necessity, of futher demolishing this fusiontheory in my summing-up letter.