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.
2 NADAV NA’AMAN
BCE 2. The worshipping of the same national god in the two
kingdoms was a major factor in the formation of a unified identity.
At a certain historical moment — yet to be established — Judahite
scribes and the elite may have felt that the two entities belonged
together. With this in mind, they cleared the name “Israel†of its
former specific geographical and national-political connotations,
and imprinted upon it a new cultural and religious meaning. “Israelâ€
became the name for the unified entity of the people of God of both
Israel and Judah, and the object of the divine blessing and
judgement. In the historiographical domain, the new concept of
Israel was projected upon the early history of Israel and served as
the name of the wider ethnic-religious entity around which the early
history of Israel was woven.
Recently, some scholars have suggested that use of the name
“ Israel †to denote the two kingdoms predated the Assyrian
conquest. Reinhard Kratz, for example, suggested that in the Books
of Hosea and Amos the name “Israel†already refers to the two
kingdoms of Israel and Judah 3. However, the few references that
appear to support this suggestion (i.e. Hos 10,11; 12,1; Amos 7,2.5.8;
8,2) are ambiguous, and his interpretation of the textual evidence is
not compelling 4. We may recall that during the 8th century, Israel
and Judah fought each other twice: during the reign of Joash of
Israel and Amaziah of Judah, and that of Pekah of Israel and Ahaz
of Judah, respectively. Indeed, there is no evidence that relations
between the two kingdoms were even cordial at any stage during the
final years of the Kingdom of Israel 5. Thus the assumption that — in
This observation was already made by G.B. GRAY, A Critical and
2
Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I-XXVII (ICC ; Edinburgh 1912)
87 ; L. ROST, Israel bei den Propheten (BWANT IV/19; Stuttgart 1937) 41-47.
For recent discussions, see J. HØGENHAVEN, Gott und Volk bei Jesaja.
Untersuchung zur Biblischen Theologie (Acta Theologica Danica 24; Leiden
1988) 10-14, 17-22; R.G. KRATZ, “Israel als Staat und als Volkâ€, ZTK 97 (2000)
8-17 ; idem, “Israel in the Book of Isaiahâ€, JSOT 31 (2006) 111, 114, 123.
KRATZ, “Israel in Isaiahâ€, 116-117. The suggestion was already made by
3
J. JEREMIAS, “Jacob im Amosbuchâ€, Hosea und Amos. Studien zu den
Anfängen des Dodekapropheton (FAT 13 ; Tübingen 1996) 257-271.
For a different interpretation of the texts, see HØGENHAVEN, Gott und
4
Volk, 20-22; W.D. WHITT, “The Jacob Traditions in Hosea and their Relation to
Genesis â€, ZAW 103 (1991) 20-23.
For the suggestion that there was enmity between the two kingdoms in the
5
FOLLOW US