అధ్యాయం 8: సామ్రాజ్యం యొక్క నీడలో

English original

[ 8 ] In the Shadow of Empire (c. 842–720 BCE) A dark sense of foreboding hovers over the kingdom of Israel as the biblical narrative of its history moves toward its tragic climax. Suffering, dispossession, and exile seem to be the inescapable destiny of the people of the breakaway kingdom in punishment for their impious acts. Instead of remaining faithful to the Temple in Jerusalem and to the worship of YHWH to the exclusion of all other gods, the people of northern Israel—and particularly its sinful monarchs—provoked a series of catastrophes that would end in their destruction. Faithful prophets of YHWH arose to call Israel to account and demand a return to righteousness and justice, but their calls went unheeded. The invasions of foreign armies and the devastation of the kingdom of Israel were an essential part of a divine plan. The Bible’s interpretation of the fate of the northern kingdom is purely theological. By contrast, archaeology offers a different perspective on the events in the century that followed the fall of the Omrides. While Judah continued to be poor and isolated, the natural richness and relatively dense population of the kingdom of Israel made it a tempting target for the increasingly complex regional politics of the Assyrian period. The Omrides’ prosperity and power brought jealousies and military rivalries with neighbors—and the covetous ambition of the great Assyrian empire. The wealth of the kingdom of Israel also brought growing social tensions and prophetic condemnations from within. We can now see that Israel’s greatest misfortune—and the cause of its destruction and the exile of many of its people—was that as an independent kingdom living in the shadow of a great empire, it succeeded too well. Faithlessness, God’s Mercy, and Israel’s Final Fall The books of Kings show how all of Elijah’s grim prophecies of doom on the house of Omri were fulfilled to the letter. Yet the biblical narrative goes on to show that

English original

the extermination of the old royal family did not end Israel’s pursuit of idolatry. After the fall of the Omrides, the newly anointed king, Jehu, son of Nimshi (who reigned from 842 to 814 BCE), followed in the footsteps of Jeroboam, Omri, and Ahab in his lack of regard for Jerusalem. For even though he massacred all the prophets, priests, and worshipers of Baal in Samaria and made the house of Baal itself a public latrine (2 Kings 10:18–28), the Bible informs us that Jehu “did not turn aside from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin, the golden calves that were in Bethel and in Dan” (2 Kings 10:29). In other words, though he eliminated the Baal cult, Jehu failed to abolish the rival northern cult centers that challenged the religious supremacy of Jerusalem. Nor did any of the kings of Israel who came after him abolish them. Punishment was not long in coming, as the prophet Elijah had decreed. This time, God’s agent of destruction was Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus, who defeated Israel both in Transjordan and in a campaign of destruction down the Mediterranean coastal plain (2 Kings 10:32–33; 12:17–18; 13:3,7,22). This is a period of decline for the northern kingdom, for throughout the days of both Jehu and his son Jehoahaz, Israel was pressed by Aram-Damascus. Israel’s army was defeated and its territories reduced. But the time of chastisement for the common people of the Kingdom of Israel soon ended, since “the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion on them and he turned toward them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them; nor has he cast them from his presence until now” (2 Kings 13:23). Thus the next Israelite king, Joash,1 was blessed with at least temporary divine favor and took back the cities that Israel lost to Aram (2 Kings 13:25). And the fortunes of Israel seemed to take a decided turn for the better—even after a punitive raid by Joash on Judah—with the accession of his son to the throne of Israel. This, too, was a matter of divine compassion, for Joash’s son, named Jeroboam—after the greatest of all the royal northern sinners—reigned peacefully in Samaria for the next forty-one years (788–747 BCE). Even though this king did not depart from any of the sins of the original Jeroboam in maintaining the idolatrous northern sanctuaries, and though voices of prophetic protests by Amos and Hosea echoed throughout the land, Jeroboam restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet, who was from Gathhepher. For the LORD saw that the affliction of Israel was very bitter, for there was none left, bond or free, and there was none to help Israel. But the LORD had not said that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, so he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash. (2 KINGS 14:25–27)

English original

Yet this period of divine blessing did not last long, for as 2 Kings 10:30 explains, God had promised to Jehu that only four generations of his family would reign. Thus Jeroboam II’s son Zechariah was assassinated after only six months of his reign, and Israel entered another period of civil strife and external pressures. The murderer, Shallum, was soon killed by another, even more brutal pretender, Menahem, son of Gadi, who ruled in Samaria for ten years (747–737 BCE). At this point God prepared a new agent of chastisement for the northern kingdom and a chain of events that would lead to its final destruction. It was the mighty Assyrian empire, whose armies came and demanded a massive tribute, for which Menahem was forced to levy a tax of fifty silver shekels of every wealthy man in Israel (2 Kings: 15:19–20). The outside and internal pressures were building. Menahem’s son and successor, Pekahiah, was murdered by a military officer, Pekah, son of Remaliah. But by that time the Assyrians were no longer content with tribute. They sought to take the rich land of Israel for themselves: “In the days of Pekah king of Israel, Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria came and captured Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried the people captives to Assyria” (2 Kings 15:29). The northern valleys and Galilee were thus conquered (732 BCE) and its inhabitants were deported, reversing the divine promises of the secure inheritance given at the time of the original conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. The kingdom of Israel lost some of its richest lands and was reduced to the highlands around the capital of Samaria. With this disastrous turn of events, the usurper Pekah was assassinated—the fourth Israelite king to be murdered in just fifteen years. Pekah’s assassin and successor, Hoshea, would be the last king of the kingdom of Israel. The Assyrian noose was tightening with the accession of Shalmaneser V, an aggressive new Assyrian king. Hoshea proclaimed himself to be a loyal vassal and offered Shalmaneser tribute, but he secretly sought an alliance with the king of Egypt for an open revolt. When Shalmaneser learned of the conspiracy he took Hoshea captive and invaded what was left of the kingdom of Israel. For three years the Assyrian king laid siege to the Israelite capital of Samaria, eventually capturing it in 720 BCE, “and he carried the Israelites away to Assyria, and placed them in Halah, and on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of Medes” (2 Kings 17:6). Conquest and deportation were not the end of the story. After exiling the Israelites from their land to Mesopotamia, the Assyrians brought in new settlers to Israel: “And the king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva,

English original

Hamath, and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the people of Israel; and they took possession of Samaria, and dwelt in its cities” (2 Kings 17:24). The ten northern tribes of Israel were now lost among the distant nations. Only the kingdom of Judah, with its Temple and Davidic kings, now survived to carry on God’s commandments and to redeem the land of Israel. A Closer Look at Israel’s Later History Archaeologists often speak of long periods of time in which little is changed—but only because the nature of their finds makes it hard to identify chronological divisions. There is, after all, no human society that can remain substantially unchanged for as much as two hundred years. Yet that was the traditional archaeological understanding of the northern kingdom, for since the 1920s archaeologists have excavated some of the most important sites of the kingdom of Israel taking note of no significant change except for its ultimate destruction. As was the case with the archaeological study of the Omrides, the post-Omride era of Israel’s independent history was not considered formative or particularly interesting from an archaeological point of view. In an unconscious echoing of the Bible’s theological interpretations, archaeologists depicted a rather monotonous continuity followed by inevitable destruction. Very little attention was given to the inner dynamics of the kingdom and its economic history (except for some speculation on a single collection of crop receipts from Samaria). As we will see, these are crucial areas of research if we are ever to move beyond the Bible’s exclusively theological interpretation of Israel’s history—that its demise was a direct and inevitable punishment for its sins. The 120 years of Israelite history that followed the fall of the Omrides was, in fact, an era of dramatic social change in the kingdom, of economic ups and downs and constantly shifting strategies to survive the threat of empire. One of the main reasons for this misunderstanding was the conventional dating system, according to which the entire history of the northern kingdom—from rise to fall—tended to be lumped into a single chronological block. Many important centers in the Jezreel valley and on the nearby Mediterranean coast, such as Megiddo, Jokneam, and Dor, were believed to contain only a single stratum spanning the entire history of the kingdom of Israel, from Jeroboam I (in fact, from the Shishak campaign in 926 BCE) to the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE. This despite the evidence of major changes and military defeats that took place during this long period—among the most important of which was the invasion of Israel by King Hazael of Damascus, as recorded in the Bible and on the Dan stele by the scribes of

English original

Hazael himself. Something was wrong in the conventional archaeological understanding: how could it be possible that Hazael captured Dan and spread havoc in the territories of the northern kingdom but left no perceptible archaeological trace of destruction?

TABLE FOUR

ASSYRIAN KINGS INVOLVED IN THE

HISTORY OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH*

Shalmaneser

III

Adad-nirari

III

Tiglath- pileser III Shalmaneser

V

Sargon II Sennacherib Esarhaddon Ashurbanipal * According to Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings. Aram in Israel Hazael’s incursion into the territory formerly controlled by Israel was clearly devastating and did much to weaken the power of the northern kingdom. In the famous stele from Moab, King Mesha boasts that he succeeded in taking Moabite territories from Israel and even managed to expand into Israelite territories farther to the north. The Bible reports that the formerly Israelite-controlled areas of Transjordan to the north of Moab were taken by Hazael (2 Kings 10:32–33). Yet the most striking evidence for Hazael’s offensive is the Tel Dan inscription. While the biblical narrative of the fall of the Omrides connects the massacre of the royal family at their palace at Jezreel with the revolt of Jehu—the reigning king of Israel, Jehoram, being felled by Jehu’s arrow—the reconstructed text of the Dan inscription links the death of Jehoram with an Aramean victory. Hazael boasts: “[I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab] king of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahaz]iahu son of

859–824

BCE

811–783 745–727 727–722 722–705 705–681 681–669 669–627

English original

[Jehoram kin]g of the House of David. And I set [their towns into ruins and turned] their land into [desolation].” So was it Hazael, or Jehu? It is difficult to know for sure. Hazael’s pressure and Jehu’s coup are connected in the biblical text. Hazael may have seen Jehu as his instrument, or perhaps memories of the two events became blurred together during the two hundred years that passed until the first compilation of the Deuteronomistic History. Certainly an all-out offensive by the Syrian leader played a major role in the serious decline of Israel. Hazael’s prime target was control of the fertile and strategic borderland between the two kingdoms, and he apparently not only conquered the Aramean lands formerly taken by the Omrides but also devastated some of Israel’s most fertile agricultural regions and disrupted their trade routes. The Bible mentions no significant long-term territorial conquests by foreign powers in the lands lying west of the Jordan between the time of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua and the Assyrian conquest. The biblical borders of the land of Israel as outlined in the book of Joshua had seemingly assumed a sacred inviolability. Except for the small area reportedly given by Solomon to King Hiram of Tyre in return for his help in building the Temple, the Bible pictures a stormy but basically continuous Israelite occupation of the land of Israel all the way to the Assyrian conquest. But a reexamination of the archaeological evidence supported by new, more precise dating techniques points to a period of a few decades, between around 835 and 800 BCE, when the kingdom of Aram-Damascus controlled the upper Jordan valley and significant areas in northeastern Israel—and devastated major Israelite administrative centers in the fertile Jezreel valley as well. Important new evidence for this has emerged from the excavation of the Omride palace compound at Jezreel, which was occupied for only a relatively brief period in the ninth century BCE as it was destroyed a relatively short while after it was built. There was a small settlement at Jezreel in the later days of the Iron Age, but the site never regained its former importance. There is therefore good reason to associate Jezreel’s destruction with the Jehu revolt or with the invasion of Hazael, which both occurred a few years after the middle of the ninth century. Because Jezreel was occupied for such a relatively short period, the pottery forms found in its destruction level offer a valuable sample of the styles current in the mid–ninth century BCE, and indeed are found in the levels of the “Solomonic” palaces of Megiddo and at parallel strata in sites throughout the north. Readers who were not convinced earlier that the Omrides built these “Solomonic” cities must now consider (in addition to the ceramic evidence, the architectural parallels, and

English original

the carbon 14 dates) the likelihood that the violent destruction of those sites—long ascribed to the Egyptian raid led by Pharaoh Shishak in the late tenth century BCE —took place around 835, at the time of Hazael. Across the fertile expanses of the rich northern valleys, cities went up in flames, from Tel Rehov, to Beth-shean, to Taanach, to Megiddo. On the basis of this new evidence, the Israeli biblical historian Nadav Naaman concluded that these destruction layers represent a devastation of the northern kingdom by Hazael so severe that some of the sites never recovered. The military pressure of Damascus on Israel perhaps culminated in a siege of the capital, Samaria, probably by Bar-hadad III (known in the Bible as Ben-hadad), the son of Hazael. The two sieges of Samaria described in the Bible in the days of Ahab and Jehoram most probably refer to this period. Archaeology has thus discovered something that the Bible neglected to mention: The very heartland of Israel was occupied for an extended period. None of the earlier archaeologists seem to have found evidence of this event. At Hazor, the period between the Omrides and the destruction of Israel was divided by Yigael Yadin into four strata, none of which was specifically connected with Hazael’s invasion. Yet once the city of the six-chambered gate and casemate wall—long associated with Solomon—is placed at the time of the Omrides, its destruction can be associated with the campaign of Hazael. In Dan, the very city taken by Hazael— in which he erected a victory stele proclaiming his recapture of territory for his kingdom—the conventional dating failed to identify a mid-ninth century destruction, much less a period of Aramean occupation. But at Dan too, the alternative dating allows the identification of a destruction layer for the conquest of Hazael that is commemorated in the Dan stele. But Hazael was not strong enough to annex the devastated Israelite centers farther south in the Jezreel and Beth-shean valleys, which were far away from the core area of his rule. He apparently left them in ruins, bringing about the desertion of many sites and the decline of the whole region for a few decades. Some of the centers of this region never recovered; Jezreel and Taanach, for example, never regained their former importance. An analysis of the pottery of Megiddo seems to indicate that this pivotal city for the Israelite administration of the north was deserted for almost half a century. The Israelite kingdom thus lost effective control of some of its most fertile agricultural regions, and even more important, its rival gained a more permanent foothold at the strategic sites of Hazor and Dan in the northeast. Those sites were located closer to Damascus than to Samaria and were situated in territories that

English original

Hazael claimed were originally Aramean. To quote again from Hazael’s own inscription, describing the situation following the death of his predecessor: “And my father lay down, he went to his [ancestors]. And the king of I[s]rael entered previously in my father’s land.” It is inconceivable that Hazael conquered the upper Jordan valley, erected a victory stele at Dan, and then withdrew. Here the victories in the battlefield were translated into long-term territorial dominance. It is therefore likely that the new city built at Hazor immediately after Hazael’s conquest was actually an important link in a chain of Aramean cities and fortresses that guarded Aram-Damascus’s southeastern border against Israel. The city built on top of the destruction layer expanded to include the entire upper Bronze Age acropolis and was surrounded by a new, massive wall. A citadel or a palace was built at its western end, apparently on top of the now destroyed Omride citadel. Even the magnificent rock-cut water system may have been built in this phase of the city’s history. At Dan, the famous stele was no doubt erected in a new city that Hazael rebuilt. The late ninth century city there is characterized by the construction of a formidable stone city wall, similar to the one uncovered at Hazor, and an exceptionally elaborate city gate. The gate features a special element, unknown in the Israelite and Judahite territories of the time: remains of a canopy, or an elevated platform, were found outside of the right-hand tower as one enters the city. They include two carved round stone bases with typical northern (that is, Syrian) features. The commemorative stele itself, which presumably also mentioned Hazael’s building activities, could have been placed either at the gate of the city or at the elaborately rebuilt ashlar cult place, probably rededicated to Aram’s god Hadad. Another formidable stronghold built at the same time—and possibly related to Hazael’s occupation of northern Israel—is a site known as et-Tell on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. It has been tentatively identified by the excavators as the location of the much later settlement of Bethsaida in Roman times. In the ninth century a massive stone wall surrounded the site, similar to the walls built at Hazor and Dan. A huge city gate is similar in shape and size to the one uncovered at Dan. In the front of the city gate the excavators recovered an extraordinary find, which seems to disclose the ethnic, or perhaps more accurately the cultural and political identity of the inhabitants. A basalt stele was found near the right-hand tower as one enters the gate. Its depiction of a horned deity is characteristically Aramean. And its location in front of the gate offers the possibility that a similar stele may have been erected near the Dan gate, under the elaborate canopy. Thus we have hints that Hazael’s invasion of Israel in the mid-ninth century BCE

English original

was followed up by prolonged occupation and the establishment of at least three fortresses—at Dan, Hazor, and Bethsaida—that display common features, some of them characteristically Aramean. And there is further reason to believe that the population in this part of the Israelite kingdom was at least partially, if not mostly, Aramean. This is indicated by the fact that in almost every major Iron Age II site in the region, excavations yielded ostraca written in Aramaic. Assyria Returns The Syrian occupation of Israel did not last long. From Assyrian sources we know that Hazael was able to push to the west and south into Israel because for a few decades in the second half of the ninth century the reigning Assyrian kings were preoccupied with disorders in other parts of the empire. But with the accession of a powerful new Assyrian monarch, Adad-nirari III, in 811 BCE, the balance of power between Aram and Israel changed dramatically. Adad-nirari immediately renewed the military pressure in the west and besieged Damascus, now the strongest regional power. Damascus may have been able to overcome Israel, but it was no match for the armies of the Mesopotamian superpower of the time. Bar-hadad III, the son of Hazael, surrendered and paid massive tribute to Assyria. These events brought the hegemony of Aram-Damascus to an end and terminated the military pressure on Israel. In this light we can begin to understand the enormous impact that Assyrian imperialism had on the course of events in the kingdom of Israel and how so much of the history that is described in the Bible as a function of the impiety or greed of the kings of Israel had far more to do with the winds of international power politics. Although the books of Kings depict Ahab primarily as an idolatrous tyrant, we know from the monolith inscription of Shalmaneser III that he was one of the most energetic opponents of Assyrian domination—sending his massive chariot force to confront the Assyrians at Qarqar. And while Jehu, the rebel, is pictured in the Bible as God’s instrument to destroy idolatry in Israel, the famous “black obelisk” of Shalmaneser shows him bowing low to the ground at the feet of the great Assyrian king. Shalmaneser also notes: “The tribute of Jehu, son of Omri; I received from him silver, gold, a golden saplu-bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king.” (The fact that Jehu is named “son of Omri”—in essence son of the family he is reported to have exterminated— implies only that he ruled a vassal kingdom whose capital city was founded by Omri.)

English original

The resurgence of Israel under Jehu’s grandson Joash (2 Kings 13:22–25) had more directly to do with the Assyrian humbling of Damascus than God’s reported change of heart. The end of the regional hegemony of Aram-Damascus gave the northern kingdom of Israel—which had pledged its loyalty to Assyria as early as the time of Shalmaneser III—a splendid opportunity to be recognized as Assyria’s most- favored vassal. Under the leadership of King Joash the northern kingdom quickly recovered and started regaining its territories that had been lost to Damascus (2 Kings 13:25). And the expansion of Israel apparently continued under Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:25,28), who is reported to have extended Israel’s boundaries well into the former territories of Aram. When we look at the archaeological record, there is clear confirmation that Joash’s son Jeroboam II, whose term was the longest in the history of the northern kingdom, presided over a period of unparalleled prosperity in Israel. Rewards of a New World Order The new phase of prosperity that began around 800 BCE was apparently long remembered as a golden age for the northern kingdom—even in the memory of the people of Judah. The biblical author of the books of Kings was forced to find an explanation for this otherwise puzzling good fortune enjoyed by the sinful northerners. He explained the turn of events by the sudden compassion of the God of Israel (2 Kings 14:26–27), but we can now see that a more likely reason was the Assyrian aggression against Damascus and Israel’s eager participation in the growing Assyrian world economy. At Dan, the victory stele of Hazael was apparently smashed and the fragments reused in later construction (where they would be found by archaeologists some twenty-eight hundred years later), when Israelite builders established a new city there. At Bethsaida, the stele bearing the Aramean-style deity was likewise intentionally upended and laid upside down. And at about the same time, Hazor was taken, destroyed, and rebuilt anew; it may not be complete coincidence that Hebrew inscriptions appear at Hazor for the first time in this building phase. The strength of the Israelite economy during the reign of Jeroboam II may best be demonstrated by Israel’s developments in agriculture and its impressive population growth. For millennia, the highlands around Samaria had formed the best region in the country for the cultivation of vineyards and olive groves. Intensive archaeological surveys in the hilly regions to the south of Samaria have yielded evidence for unprecedented expansion of olive oil production in the Iron Age. In

English original

the eighth century, we see for the first time settlements built on rocky spurs in the heart of the best orchard-growing regions, whose inhabitants apparently specialized in this branch of agriculture (Figure 25). Scores of olive presses and other processing installations were cut in the bedrock around these villages, some of which may have been royal estates or at least built specifically for this purpose. There was no lack of potential markets: the olive oil from the highlands of Israel could have been profitably exported to Assyria and shipped to Egypt, since both Egypt and Assyria lacked prime olive-growing regions. Indeed the famous Samaria ostraca—a collection of sixty-three ink-inscribed pottery sherds written in Hebrew and plausibly dated to the time of Jeroboam II—record shipments of oil and wine from outlying villages to the capital city, Samaria. That agricultural hinterland was, in the meantime, becoming more thickly populated than ever before. Tied to a world economy and facing no significant military threat, the population of the northern kingdom expanded dramatically. The large-scale surveys undertaken in the last few decades throw light on the dramatic demographic growth from the tenth to the eighth centuries BCE. By the late eighth century the northern kingdom—the highlands of Samaria and the northern valleys alike—was the most densely settled region in the entire Levant.2 Figure 25: Plan of an oil-producing site in the highlands, northwest of Jerusalem. After a plan published in Atiqot. Though the numbers are admittedly sketchy, they provide a general estimation that the population of the northern kingdom in the eighth century, including its territory in Transjordan, was about 350,000. By the same procedure scholars estimate that in the Bronze Age, the population of the entire territory of western Palestine

English original

did not even reach 250,000. The demographic growth is particularly dramatic when we consider that the highlands population in the Early Iron Age numbered hardly more than 45,000. Even in the eighth century, the population of the kingdom of Judah did not count much more than 100,000 souls. The population of the Transjordanian states of Ammon and Moab together hardly reached a third of the population of northern Israel. These comparative numbers explain the military might and economic power of the northern kingdom. They also hint at the human resources of Israel, which enabled both a military buildup and impressive building activities. It appears that Joash, or more likely Jeroboam II, undertook major building operations not only at Megiddo (including the great water system and the two huge sets of stables) but also in the rebuilding of Hazor as a stronghold in the territories taken back from the Arameans and in the reconstruction of the city of Gezer, a strategic outpost of the northern kingdom on the borders of Judah and Philistia. A massive new city wall and gate at Gezer may date to this time. The grandeur of the reborn kingdom of Israel is clear from the evidence. It is significant that Jeroboam II is the earliest Israelite monarch for whom we have an official seal. This exceptionally large and beautiful artifact was found in the beginning of the twentieth century at Megiddo. It depicts a powerful, roaring lion and a Hebrew inscription reading: “Belonging to Shema the servant [i.e., high official] of Jeroboam.” The design of the lion on the seal is typical of the eighth century BCE, so it cannot be ascribed to the earlier Jeroboam, who founded the northern kingdom almost two centuries earlier. By the standards of its prosperity, international connections, and expansive building projects, Jeroboam II’s realm may have remained alive in the memory of both Israelites and Judahites as the model for a glorious monarchy. Recall the famous passage of 1 Kings 9:15, which describes the building activities of Solomon at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. Is it possible that the later Judahite author, composing his history almost a hundred years later, romantically (and patriotically) ascribed the ruins of the great structures built by Jeroboam to the golden age of Solomon? The Riddle of the Megiddo Stables—Again Horses, it seems, were one of the northern kingdom’s most prized and most valuable products. Some tantalizing clues to the extent of horse breeding and training in Israel may come from the rebuilding of Megiddo in the time of Jeroboam II (Figure 22, p. 182).

English original

The most prominent element in the last Israelite city of Megiddo is the two large complexes of pillared buildings that the University of Chicago team suggested in the 1920s were stables built by Solomon—and later re-dated by Yadin as stables built by Ahab, who had marshaled such an enormous chariot force against the Assyrians at the battle of Qarqar. Whether arguing for an association with Solomon or with Ahab, the supporters of the stables theory argued that the horses were kept in long, narrow side aisles of the buildings, where they were tied to stone pillars and fed in the mangers placed between the pillars (Figure 17, p. 138). The central aisle, whose floor was covered with smooth plaster, supposedly served as a service area, where the grooms could groom the horses and distribute feed. The archaeologists also suggested that the large courtyard in front of the southern set of stables served as a training and exercise yard. There was only one problem with this attractive theory: no items related to horses, chariotry, or cavalry were found in any of the buildings. And the side aisles of similar structures uncovered at other sites were filled with pottery vessels, which suggested to many scholars that all such three-aisled buildings were used as storehouses. Some theorized that the mangers found in the Megiddo buildings were used to feed beasts of burden, probably donkeys, who brought goods to the storehouses in caravans. Other scholars proposed that the pillared buildings at Megiddo, as well as at other places in the region, served as army barracks or even as public bazaars. In the ongoing excavations at Megiddo, attempts are being made to resolve the problem by the systematic chemical testing of earth recently excavated from the floors of the pillared buildings—to identify traces of feed or animal excrement. So far the results are inconclusive. But one thing has already been clarified in the renewed excavations. We should not expect to find any significant horse-related items in the buildings, since after the Assyrian takeover of the city they were thoroughly cleaned and at least partially reused, and later dismantled at the time of their abandonment. They were intentionally destroyed by having their walls pulled down. Due to the redating of the Megiddo strata—and the reassessment of the archaeological history of the northern kingdom—we can now reject the earlier theories and say with confidence that the stable-like structures at Megiddo belong to the time of Jeroboam II. Ahab, though clearly maintaining a great chariot force, constructed the great palaces at Megiddo that precede the level of the “stables” (even though some scholars suggest that this city too, which was only partially excavated, had stables). But linking the “stables” to Jeroboam II does not definitively settle the

English original

problem of their function. Are there any other clues for highlighting the importance of horses in the kingdom of Israel—and perhaps understanding Israel’s military role in the larger Assyrian imperial society? Critical evidence comes from the Assyrian sources, which reveal that the kingdom of Israel was famous for its chariot forces long after King Ahab faced Shalmaneser III with two thousand chariots at the battle of Qarqar in Syria in 853 BCE. The Assyriologist Stephanie Dalley has found convincing evidence in Assyrian records that some of the empire’s vassal states specialized in the breeding and export of horses used in chariot and cavalry warfare. We know that Jeroboam’s Israel prospered through its specialization in certain commodities. Could it be that what we see at Megiddo is the architectural remains of an important horse breeding center for the famous chariot corps of the kingdom of Israel? And is it possible that in the days of Jeroboam II Israel bred horses not only for its own military requirements but for chariot units throughout the Assyrian empire? A clue in this direction comes from another Assyrian vassal state, the kingdom of Urartu in eastern Anatolia, which was considered to possess the best cavalry in the world. We know from an explicit mention in Assyrian sources that horses were bred there for export. And interestingly, buildings have been uncovered in Iron II sites in Urartu that are strikingly similar in plan to the Megiddo “stables.” But perhaps the most indicative association of Israelites with military horsemanship comes from a period immediately after the conquest of the northern kingdom by Assyria—when a special Israelite chariot unit was incorporated into the Assyrian army. In fact, the research of Stephanie Dalley on Assyrian tablets called the “horse lists” provides information on officials, officers, and units in the Assyrian army in the days of Sargon II. These records indicate that while other specialized troops from conquered regions were incorporated into the Assyrian army as individuals, the Israelite chariot brigade was the only foreign unit permitted to retain its national identity. The Assyrian king Sargon II says it best: “I formed a unit with two hundred of their chariots for my royal force.” It would seem, therefore, that because Israelite charioteers were so famous for their skill, they were allowed a special status. Among other details in the horse lists was mention of an Israelite commander named Shema, probably from the chariot corps, who served in a high post in the Assyrian army and was a member of the king’s entourage. The First Voices of Protest

English original

The prosperity and prominence that the kingdom of Israel attained during the reign of Jeroboam II offered great wealth to the Israelite aristocracy. Although the rather chaotic digging methods of the early twentieth century excavations of Samaria do not permit a detailed analysis of the buildings and renovations of the royal city in the early eighth century, two extremely interesting sets of small finds offer at least a glimpse of the opulence and wealth of Israel’s ruling class. Over two hundred delicate ivory plaques carved in Phoenician style with Egyptian motifs and stylistically dated to the eighth century BCE probably decorated the walls of the palace or the fine furniture of Israelite royalty. They attest to the wealth and cosmopolitan tastes of the Israelite monarchs and the noble families of their kingdom. The famous Samaria ostraca, receipts for shipments of oil and wine delivered from the countryside to the capital city, represent a sophisticated system of credit and record keeping in which the produce of the hinterland was claimed by large landowners or by government tax officials who supervised the collection of the crop. It is at the height of prosperity of the northern kingdom under the rule of Jeroboam II that we can finally identify the full complement of the criteria of statehood: literacy, bureaucratic administration, specialized economic production, and a professional army. It is also the period when we have the first record of prophetic protest. The oracles of the prophets Amos and Hosea are the earliest preserved prophetic books, containing material that reflects the heyday of Jeroboam II. Their scathing denunciations of the corrupt and impious aristocracy of the north serve both to document the opulence of this era and to express for the first time ideas that would exert a profound effect on the crystallization of the Deuteronomistic ideology. Amos is described as a shepherd who wandered north from the rural Judahite village of Tekoa. But whatever his precise social status or reason for preaching in the kingdom of Israel, the oracles recorded in his name provide a searing condemnation of the lavish lifestyles and material reality of Israel’s aristocracy in the eighth century

BCE:

Woe to those who lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat lambs from the flock, and calves from the midst of the stall; who sing idle songs to the sound of the harp, and like David invent for themselves instruments of music; who drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the finest oils . . . (AMOS 6:4–6) Amos goes on to condemn those who “have built houses of hewn stone” (5:11), and his contemporary, the prophet Hosea, speaks out against those who “multiply

English original

falsehood and violence; they make a bargain with Assyria, and oil is carried to Egypt” (Hosea 12:1). In these and many other allusions, the two prophets outline the economic connections and material culture that have been so abundantly illustrated by the archaeology of the kingdom of Israel. Beyond the condemnation of the rich and the powerful, Amos and Hosea both offer searing critiques of the social injustices, idolatry, and domestic tensions that international trade and the dependence on Assyria have brought. According to Hosea, “Assyria shall not save us, we will not ride upon horses; and we will say no more, ‘Our God,’ to the work of our hands” (Hosea 14:3). Amos condemns the wickedness of those who merely pay lip service to the dictates of religion while gathering riches for themselves and abusing the poor: Hear this, you who trample upon the needy, and bring the poor of the land to an end, saying, “When will the new moon be over, that we may sell grain? And the sabbath, that we may offer wheat for sale, and that we may make the ephah small and the shekel great, and deal deceitfully with false balances, that we may buy the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals, and sell the refuse of the wheat?” (AMOS 8:4–6) These prophetic condemnations were preserved by the followers of Amos and Hosea and took on a new meaning after the fall of the kingdom of Israel. For in their critique of the wealthy and in their revulsion at the effect of foreign ways on the life of the people of Israel, they heralded the spiritual and social movement that would leave an indelible impression on the crystallizing biblical text. The Death Throes of Israel With the death of Jeroboam II in 747 BCE, the structure of Israelite society—despite its material prosperity and achievements in architecture and military arts—proved hollow. Factions probably arose among regional administrators, army officers, and special interest groups. King followed king in relatively quick and usually bloody succession. The delicate balance of economic independence and political alliance with, or subservience to, Assyria gradually broke down. The narrative presented in the second book of Kings, supplemented by occasional confirmations in the records of Assyria, is all we have to go on in documenting the fall of Israel. The series of violent dynastic upheavals at Samaria could not have come at a more dangerous time. Great changes were taking place in Mesopotamia. In 745— precisely after two kings were assassinated in Samaria—the ambitious governor of the great Assyrian city of Calah in the Tigris valley revolted against his own overlords and began the process of transforming Assyria into a brutal and predatory

English original

state. This new king, Tiglath-pileser III (also known by his Babylonian name, Pul, in the Bible), began nothing less than a thorough revamping of the Assyrian empire— primarily in its relations to its former vassals, which would now be much more directly controlled. In 738 BCE, he led his army on a great threatening campaign westward, in which he succeeded in cowering Assyria’s formerly semi-independent vassals with unprecedented economic demands. But that was only the beginning. In the era of Assyrian imperialism that Tiglath-pileser had inaugurated, vassaldom would soon give way to conquest and annexation—with local populations being subject to deportation wherever the Assyrian authorities wished. In Samaria, the Israelite capital—with the death of King Menahem in 737 BCE and the almost immediate assassination of his son and successor by a military officer named Pekah, son of Remaliah—the foreign policy of the kingdom of Israel changed. We have no information on the political and personal motives of Pekah, this latest usurper, but he suddenly ended Israel’s obsequious vassaldom to Assyria. Perhaps in a desperate reaction to the change of Assyrian policies and the inability to meet Assyrian demands, Pekah joined a coalition of other local powers— including King Rezin of Damascus and some Philistine cities—in a desperate gamble for independence. What followed was a tragic series of miscalculations that spelled the end of independent Israel—and indeed the possibility that any of the states in the Levant would ever be free to act independently as long as the Assyrian empire survived. Pekah and Rezin hoped to organize a broad, committed front of resistance to Assyria by all the states of the region. The coalition failed to materialize and Tiglath-pileser reacted in fury. After capturing Damascus, executing Rezin, and making his way down the Mediterranean coast, destroying potentially rebellious cities and ensuring that no help for the insurgents would be coming from Egypt, Tiglath-pileser set his sights with full force on the kingdom of Israel. Conquering most of its territories, destroying its main cities, and deporting part of its population, Tiglathpileser brought Israel to its knees. By the time of Tiglath-pileser’s death in 727 BCE, most of the territory of the northern kingdom had been annexed directly to the Assyrian empire. They were then administratively divided into the provinces of Dor (along the northern coast), Megiddo (in the Jezreel valley and Galilee), and Gilead (in the Transjordanian highlands). A relief from the time of Tiglath-pileser III depicting the siege of a city named Gaazru—probably Gezer—indicates that the southern coastal plain of Israel did not escape the bitter fate of the northern provinces. All that was left of the

English original

northern kingdom was merely the hill country around the capital, Samaria. And so Tiglath-pileser could boast in a monumental inscription: “The land of Bit-Humria [i.e., the House of Omri], all of whose cities I leveled to the ground in my former campaigns . . . I plundered its livestock, and I spared only isolated Samaria.” The Assyrianization of the North The new-style Assyrian empire under Tiglath-pileser was not content with mere territorial conquest. The Assyrians viewed all the lands, animals, resources, and peoples of the areas they had conquered as objects—as chattel—that could and should be moved or exploited to serve the best interests of the Assyrian state. Thus the Assyrians deployed a policy of deportation and repopulation on a grand scale. This policy had many objectives, which all served the goals of continuing imperial development. From a military point of view, the capture and removal of native villages had the effect of terrorizing and demoralizing the population and splitting them up to prevent further organized resistance. From an economic point of view, large-scale conscription into the imperial army brought new manpower and military technologies into a framework where the new recruits could be carefully watched. The forced resettlement of artisans in the centers of the Assyrian heartland boosted the trained human resources at the disposal of the Assyrian economy. And finally, the systematic resettling of new populations in empty or recently conquered territory was intended to expand the overall agricultural output of the empire. Tiglath-pileser III initiated these processes almost immediately in the regions of the kingdom of Israel his armies had overrun. The number of deportees given by his annals amounts to 13,500 people. If it is not an exaggeration—as archaeological surveys in lower Galilee, indicating widespread depopulation, suggest—then the Assyrians deported a significant component of the rural population of these areas to Assyria. The disastrous results of Tiglath-Pileser’s initial assault can be seen at many sites. At Hazor, which is specifically mentioned in the Bible in relation to his campaign (2 Kings 15:29), the last Israelite city was destroyed and burned to ashes. There is clear archaeological evidence that in the days before the final Assyrian assault, the city’s fortifications were reinforced—in vain, as events transpired. Wholesale destruction has also been traced at Dan and Beth-shean. But at Megiddo, the Assyrian intentions were somewhat different since it would become a new center of imperial administration. The domestic quarters were set on fire; collapsed, burnt buildings and crushed vessels tell the story of the last hours of the Israelite city. But the

English original

pillared buildings—the famous Megiddo stables—were left untouched and probably reused for a while. The Assyrians intended to rebuild the site for their own ends, and the fine stones in the stable structures proved to be an excellent source of building materials. Megiddo provides the best evidence for the early stages of the Assyrian occupation. After the partial destruction of the last Israelite city, a short period of abandonment was followed by extensive rebuilding. The Assyrians made Megiddo the capital of their new province, covering former territories of the northern kingdom in the northern valleys and the hills of Galilee. Within a few decades, official documents refer to Megiddo as the seat of the governor. The focus of the new city, which was rebuilt in a totally new plan, was near the gate, where two palaces were built in typical Assyrian style. The rest of the city was laid out in a precise grid of parallel east-west and north-south streets forming rectangular blocks for domestic buildings—a method of city planning hitherto unknown in the Levant. In light of the radical changes, it is possible that new people, deported from other conquered areas of the Assyrian empire, were now settled there. The End of the Kingdom Hemmed into the immediate vicinity of Samaria, the rump kingdom of Israel proved to be little more than a tidbit to be gobbled up at the first opportunity by the ascendant Assyrian state. Yet Hoshea, the assassin of Pekah and the last king of Israel, having quickly offered tribute to Assyria, just as quickly began a disastrously dangerous plot. In the brief period of uncertainty about succession between the death of Tiglath-pileser III and the accession of Shalmaneser V, Hoshea reportedly sent secret word to one of the regional lords of the Egyptian delta, hoping that Egypt would now be ready to enter the anti-Assyrian fray. Taking the ultimate gamble, Hoshea ended his tribute payments to the new Assyrian king forthwith. Who could have been surprised at what happened? Shalmaneser V immediately embarked on a campaign of liquidation. He reduced the countryside around Samaria and laid siege to the city itself. After a long siege, the city was stormed and at least part of its surviving population was marshaled off to concentration points from which they were eventually resettled in distant Assyrian domains. There is considerable debate among scholars whether Shalmaneser V survived to see the capture of Samaria or whether his successor, Sargon II, who came to the throne in 722 BCE, was responsible for the coup de grâce. In any event, it is from Sargon’s chronicles that we have the fullest Assyrian account of what transpired:

English original

The inhabitants of Samaria, who agreed and plotted with a king hostile to me not to endure servitude and not to bring tribute to Assur and who did battle, I fought against them with the power of the great gods, my lords. I counted as spoil 27,280 people, together with their chariots, and gods, in which they trusted. I formed a unit with 200 of their chariots for my royal force. I settled the rest of them in the midst of Assyria. I repopulated Samaria more than before. I brought into it people from countries conquered by my hands. I appointed my commissioner as governor over them. And I counted them as Assyrians.

English original

TABLE FIVE

ISRAELITE KINGS FROM JEHU TO HOSHEA

KING:

Jehu

DATES*:

842–814

BIBLICAL TESTIMONY:

Leads a coup against the Omrides and eliminates their family; demolishes the House of Baal at Samaria; confrontation with Aram-Damascus continues; prophet Elisha

ASSYRIAN RECORDS:

Pays tribute to Shalmaneser III

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS:

Hazor and the north in the hands of Aram-Damascus; Megiddo deserted?

KING:

Jehoahaz

DATES*:

817–800**

BIBLICAL TESTIMONY:

Israel is defeated and Samaria besieged by Aram; prophet Elisha

KING:

Joash

DATES*:

800–784

BIBLICAL TESTIMONY:

Defeats the Arameans and Israel recovers; attacks Jerusalem

ASSYRIAN RECORDS:

Pays tribute to Adad-nirari III

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS:

Hazor in Israelite hands again?

KING:

Jeroboam II

DATES*:

788–747**

BIBLICAL TESTIMONY:

Defeats Damascus and extends the borders of the northern kingdom to their greatest extent; prophecies of Hosea and Amos

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS:

Unprecedented prosperity in the northern kingdom; large scale building activities at Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (stables and water system); Samaria ostraca and ivories; a seal carrying his name found at Megiddo

KING:

Zechariah

DATES*:

747

English original

BIBLICAL TESTIMONY:

Reigns for six months, then killed in a coup

KING:

Shallum

DATES*:

747

BIBLICAL TESTIMONY:

Reigns one month and killed in a coup

KING:

Menahem

DATES*:

747–737

BIBLICAL TESTIMONY:

Pays tribute to the king of Assyria

ASSYRIAN RECORDS:

Pays tribute to Tiglath-pilester III

KING:

Pekahiah

DATES*:

737–735

BIBLICAL TESTIMONY:

Killed in a coup

KING:

Pekah

DATES*:

735–732

BIBLICAL TESTIMONY:

Fights with Damascus against Ahaz of Judah; Tiglath-pileser III conquers the Galilee and the Jezreel Valley

ASSYRIAN RECORDS:

Deposed by Tiglath-pileser III; Tiglath-pileser conquers the Galilee

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS:

Destruction of Israelite cities in the north

KING:

Hoshea

DATES*:

Hoshea 732–724***

BIBLICAL TESTIMONY:

Last king of Israel; Shalmaneser V king of Assyria besieges Samaria, takes it, and deports Israelites to Assyria

ASSYRIAN RECORDS:

Installed by Tiglath-pileser III and pays tribute to him * According to the Anchor Bible Dictionary ** Includes years of coregency *** Or 722 BCE

English original

Sargon’s account provides us with the number of the deportees from Samaria— though it is unclear whether it refers to the population of the capital and its immediate surroundings or to the total number taken from the kingdom over the preceding years. The Bible mentions some of the destinations—“Halah, on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of Medes” (2 Kings 17:6). But the ultimate fate of most of them—the ten tribes of northern Israel—would never be known. In the beginning the deportees might have tried to preserve their identity, for instance by continuing Israelite forms of worship or giving Israelite names to their children. But they were soon Assyrianized and assimilated into the empire. It was all over. Two stormy centuries had come to a catastrophic end. The proud northern kingdom and a significant part of its population were lost to history. Deportees and Survivors As they had probably done in resettling key sites in the north such as Megiddo with dependable subjects, the Assyrian authorities brought in new population groups to settle in the heartland of the Israelite highlands in place of deported Israelites: “And the king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the people of Israel; and they took possession of Samaria, and dwelt in its cities” (2 Kings 17:24). A few historical and archaeological clues suggest that these new groups, from rebellious areas of southern Mesopotamia, were settled not only in Samaria but also in the particularly strategic area around Bethel—the old Israelite cult center—on the northern border of the still-independent kingdom of Judah. The biblical historian provides circumstantial testimony about this in the inclusion of Avvim as one of the towns of seventh century Judah in the area of Bethel (Joshua 18:23). This name probably relates to Avva, which is mentioned as one of the places of origin of the deportees. An Aramaic text mentions deportees who were settled in Bethel itself. In addition, a few seventh century cuneiform texts bearing Babylonian names that have been found in Gezer and its vicinity provide tangible evidence of the presence of these deportees in the southwestern territory of vanquished Israel, also near the border of Judah. Finally, Adam Zertal of Haifa University suggested that a special type of pottery carrying cuneiform-like signs, which is found at some sites in the highlands of Samaria, may also be related to these newly arrived groups. But the population exchange was far from total. The gross number given in the Assyrian sources for both deportations—by Tiglath-pileser III from Galilee and by Sargon II from Samaria—is about forty thousand people. This comprises no more

English original

than a fifth of the estimated population of the northern kingdom west of the Jordan in the eighth century BCE. Tiglathpileser III seems to have deported mainly the troublesome villagers of the hills of Galilee and the population of the main centers, such as Megiddo, and it seems that Sargon II deported mainly the aristocracy of Samaria, and possibly soldiers and artisans with skills that were needed in Assyria. As a result, most of the surviving Israelites were left on the land. In the hill country around the city of Samaria, which was destined to serve as the hub of the new Assyrian province of Samerina, the deportation was apparently minimal. The Assyrians had good economic reasons not to devastate the rich, oil-producing area. In the northern valleys, the Assyrians destroyed the Israelite administrative centers but left the rural population (which was basically Canaanite, Phoenician, and Aramean in tradition) unhurt—as long as they remained docile and contributed their share to the Assyrian tribute demands. Even the brutal Assyrian conquerors recognized that wholesale destruction and deportation of the rural population of Israel could have devastated the agricultural output of their new province, so when possible they opted for stability and continuity. Indeed, surveys and excavations in the Jezreel valley confirm the surprising demographic continuity. And about half of the rural sites near Samaria continued to be occupied in subsequent centuries. We may even have a biblical reference to this demographic situation. A few years after the destruction of the northern kingdom, the Judahite king Hezekiah celebrated the Passover in Jerusalem. He reportedly “sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, to keep the passover to the Lord the God of Israel” (2 Chronicles 30:1). Ephraim and Manasseh refer to the highlands of Samaria to the north of Judah. While the historicity of Chronicles may be questioned, Jeremiah also reports, about 150 years after the fall of the northern kingdom, that Israelites from Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria came with offerings to the Temple in Jerusalem (Jeremiah 41:5). The fact that a significant number of Israelites were still living in the hill country of Samaria, including the southern area of Bethel, alongside the new populations brought by the Assyrians would play a major role in the foreign policy of Judah and in the development of the biblical ideology of the seventh century BCE. The Grim Lesson of the Kingdom of Israel We can never know how reliable were the traditions, texts, or archives used by the biblical authors to compile their history of the kingdom of Israel. Their aims were

English original

not to produce an objective history of the northern kingdom but rather to provide a theological explanation for a history that was probably already well known, at least in its broad details. No matter what popular legends might have said about individual kings of Israel, the biblical authors judge each and every one of them negatively. The reigns of most merited only a few words of summation: such-and-such a king “did what was evil in the sight of the Lord; he did not depart from all the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat.” A noteworthy few—like Jeroboam I and the Omrides— were condemned in harsher words and stories. But even the best of the northern kings are still considered sinners: Jehoram, son of Ahab, is credited with removing the massebah, or cult monument, of Baal, and Jehu is praised for wiping out its worship, but at the same time, both are condemned for walking in the footsteps of “Jeroboam son of Nebat.” Even Hoshea, the last king of Israel, who belatedly tried to break Israel away from the iron grip of Assyria, is judged in only a marginally milder way: “He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord yet not as the kings of Israel who were before him” (2 Kings 17:2). Hence, starting with the sins of Jeroboam, the Bible offers a story of doom foreseen. The periods of prosperity that the kingdom of Israel enjoyed, and that were probably remembered for centuries through the monumental remains still visible in many of the north’s cities, posed a serious theological problem for the later Judahite observers who compiled the books of Kings. If the northern kingdom was so evil, why didn’t YHWH wipe it out while Jeroboam I was still in power, or immediately after his reign, still in the days of his own dynasty? Or at the latest, in the days of the Omrides, the lovers of Baal? If they were so evil, why did YHWH allow them to prosper? The Deuteronomistic historian found an elegant way of rationalizing the almost-two-century life of northern Israel by suggesting that its doom was postponed because YHWH found some merits even in the sinful monarchs of the northern kingdom. Seeing “the affliction of Israel,” he could not resist saving it on a few occasions of great calamities. There were undoubtedly competing, elaborate explanations of the rising and falling fortunes of the northern kingdom from the official priesthoods of the northern shrines of Dan and Bethel. It is only natural to assume that there were northern prophets—“who prophesy falsely,” as the Bible might have put it—who were closer to the royal institutions in Samaria. This kind of material could not possibly have entered the Bible as we know it today. Had Israel survived, we might have received a parallel, competing, and very different history. But with the Assyrian destruction of Samaria and the dismantling of its institutions of royal power, any such competing histories were silenced. Though prophets and priests from the

English original

north very likely joined the flow of refugees to find shelter in the cities and towns of Judah, biblical history would henceforth be written by the winners—or at least the survivors—and it would be fashioned exclusively according to the late Judahite Deuteronomistic beliefs. From the point of view of seventh century Judah, in full awareness of the terrible destruction that had been visited on the northern kingdom, the meaning of Israel’s history was clear. It is described succinctly and eloquently in the eulogy for Israel after the description of the fall of Samaria. From the point of view of the Deuteronomistic historian the climax of the story of the northern kingdom is not in the days of Ahab or Jeroboam II, not even in the tragic end, but in the summary that tells the story of Israel’s sins and God’s retribution. This theological climax is inserted in the middle of the great drama, between the two calamities—immediately following the description of the capture of Samaria and the deportation of the Israelites and before the mention of the repopulation of Israel’s land by foreign people: And this was so, because the people of Israel had sinned against the LORD their God, who had brought them up out of the land of Egypt from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods and walked in the customs of the nations whom the LORD drove out before the people of Israel, and in the customs which the kings of Israel had introduced. And the people of Israel . . . built for themselves high places at all their towns, from watchtower to fortified city; they set up for themselves pillars and Asherim on every high hill and under every green tree; and there they burned incense on all the high places, as the nations did whom the LORD carried away before them. . . . They went after false idols, and became false, and they followed the nations that were round about them, concerning whom the LORD commanded them that they should not do like them. And they forsook all the commandments of the LORD their God, and made for themselves molten images of two calves; and they made an Asherah, and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served Baal. And they burned their sons and their daughters as offerings, and used divination and sorcery, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger. Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight; none was left but the tribe of Judah only. . . . When he had torn Israel from the house of David they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king. And Jeroboam drove Israel from following the LORD and made them commit great sin. The people of Israel walked in all the sins which Jeroboam did; they did not depart from them, until the LORD removed Israel out of his sight, as he had spoken by all his servants the prophets. So Israel was exiled from their own land to Assyria until this day. (2 KINGS 17:7–23) Of course, today, through the help of archaeological work and ecological studies, we can see that the end was inevitable. Israel was destroyed and Judah survived because in the grand scheme of Assyria’s imperial designs, Israel—with its rich resources and productive population—was an incomparably more attractive target than poor and inaccessible Judah. Yet to an audience in Judah in the grim years after the Assyrian conquest of Israel, facing the threat of empire and foreign entanglements, the biblical story of Israel served as a hint, a warning of what could

English original

happen to them. The older and once powerful kingdom of Israel, though blessed with fertile lands and productive people, had lost its inheritance. Now, the surviving kingdom of Judah would soon act the part of a divinely favored younger brother— like Isaac, Jacob, or their own ancestral king David—eager to snatch up a lost birthright and redeem the land and the people of Israel.