Nadav Na’aman, «The Israelite-Judahite Struggle for the Patrimony of Ancient Israel», Vol. 91 (2010) 1-23
The article addresses the controversial issue of the formation of "biblical Israel" in biblical historiography. It begins by presenting the political-cultural struggle between Assyria and Babylonia in the second and first millennia BCE, in part over
the question of ownership of the cultural patrimony of ancient Mesopotamia. It goes on to examine relations between Judah and Israel and compares them to those between Assyria and Babylonia. It then suggests that the adoption of the Israelite
identity by Judah, which took place during the reign of Josiah as part in his cultic reform, was motivated by the desire to take possession of the highly prestigious heritage of Israel, which had remained vacant since that kingdom’s annexation by
Assyria in 720 BCE.
19
THE ISRAELITE-JUDAHITE STRUGGLE
The Book of Kings describes in great detail Josiah’s reform and
his expansion to Bethel (2 Kgs 23,15-18). Religious reform of the
kind attributed to Josiah is a natural place to seek a new identity
embracing all YHWH devotees under a single umbrella. Bethel was a
former major administrative and cultic centre of both Israel and its
successor, the province of Samerina. The inclusion of the city and
its region in the district system of the Kingdom of Judah, as
indicated in Josh 18,21-24, requires an explanation. I have already
mentioned the suggestions by Davies and Knauf that the Bethel
district was transferred to the Kingdom of Judah either at the time of
Ahaz (Davies) or during the reign of Manasseh (Knauf). However,
these suggestions not only lack concrete evidence, but are
improbable, as it is highly unlikely that an Assyrian king would
have detached this important administrative and cultic centre from
the province of Samerina and handed it over to a neighbouring
vassal kingdom as a reward for loyalty. The most likely explanation
for the inclusion of the district of Bethel in Judah’s district list is
that the city was conquered and annexed by Josiah following
Assyria’s withdrawal from the region. Indeed, the author of the
Book of Kings links the conquest of Bethel with the reforms he
carried in his kingdom (2 Kgs 23,15) 43.
In analysing the prophetic narrative of 1 Kgs 13, John Van
Seters dismisses this conclusion and suggests that the description in
2 Kgs 23,15-20 was invented and inserted into the text to fulfil the
prediction of 1 Kgs 13. He thus concludes that “there was no
northern campaign against Bethel or any other of the northern cult
centres by Josiah. Any reform activity and cult centralization was
entirely restricted to Judah ‘from Geba to Beersheba’†44. However,
this conclusion clearly ignores the evidence of Josh 18,21-24,
As suggested by some scholars, verses 16-20 are a later expansion,
43
written by an author who edited the description of the destruction of the altar at
Bethel. See H. SPIECKERMANN, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit
( F R L A N T 12 9 ; Göttingen 1982) 116-119, 427-428; M. O ’BRIEN , T h e
Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis. A Reassessment (OBO 92 ; Freiburg –
Göttingen 1989) 187, 263-264; M. GLEIS, Die Bamah (BZAW 251; Berlin –
New York 1997) 126, n. 77, with earlier literature; NA’AMAN, “Cult Reformsâ€,
135.
J. VAN SETERS, “The Deuteronomistic History: Can It Avoid Death by
44
Redaction â€, The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (ed. T. RÖMER)
(BETL 147 ; Leuven 2000) 213-222 (citation from p. 221).
FOLLOW US