The Oxford History of the Biblical World (54 page)

Jehoshaphat’s military development, as reported (with improbably large numbers) in 2 Chronicles 17.14–19 clashes with the presumed weakness depicted in 20.5–30. Given Ahab’s control over Moab and probably Ammon to its north, victory over these neighboring states and even over Edom strains credulity.

One crucial feature of the relations between Israel and Judah, at least by the end of Ahab’s and Jehoshaphat’s reigns, does stand out: apparently the two arranged the marriage of Ahab’s daughter Athaliah to Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram (2 Kings 8.18)—a potent signal of cooperation between the realms.

The kings who succeeded Jehoshaphat and Ahab would reign only about eight years in each kingdom. Here again, problems arise with the number of years assigned to each. In Israel, Ahab’s successors were his sons Ahaziah (parts of two years) and Jehoram (roughly seven, though the DH gives him twelve). In Judah, Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat reigned for seven-plus years and Jehoram’s son Ahaziah for less than a year. The duplication of the name
Jehoram
, even if in reverse order, is startling and has led to speculation that the kingdoms were really under one rule, but Athaliah’s position is evidence enough of close association.

Each of the short-term successions faced an international problem. Ahab’s death seems to have given King Mesha of Moab an opportunity to try to end his subservience to Israel. Notice of this is given in the first verse of 2 Kings, and a remarkable story in 3.5–27 follows it up. Ostensibly, it is another in the series of prophetic stories, in this case involving Elisha, set in the context of a battle plan bringing together Israelite, Judean, and Edomite forces to crush Moab’s rebellion. The prophet promises success, and a ruse leads to an ambush of the Moabite army. But the final verse of the account has the Moabite king sacrifice his son on the wall at Kir-hareseth, his last remaining stronghold. Then “great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew
from him and returned to their own land” (3.27). Whose wrath? Yahweh’s? The Moabite deity Chemosh’s? Whatever is meant, this account is the only one available to correlate with the words on the Moabite Stone:

Omri, king of Israel, humbled Moab many days because Chemosh was angry at his land. And his son succeeded him, and he also said, “I too will humble Moab.” During my days he said this, but I have triumphed over him and over his house, and Israel has perished forever.

Moab had released itself from Israel’s dominance.

For Judah, it was Edom that worked free, during Jehoram’s reign (2 Kings 8.20–22). It was the two rulers in alliance who are reported to have tried to resist Hazael, in the clash at Ramoth-gilead where Jehoram of Israel was badly wounded (8.28–30). Into all this rode Jehu,

Two of the nine chapters the DH devotes to the next 120 years of history concern themselves with the Jehu purge, and a third is given over to Athaliah’s brief queenship in Judah. Then the DH skips rapidly through events of the Jehu dynasty. This was the longest-reigning dynasty, at just about a century, that Israel would ever have—roughly from 842 to 745—and through the fateful final decades of Israel’s life as a nation. By contrast, the Chronicler gives four verses to the Jehu purge and presents episodic coverage of the period’s events in Judah in seven chapters. Complicating historical reconstruction is the fact that the regnal spans given for Judah’s five rulers for this 100-year period add up to 144 years.

On the other hand, the literary portrayal of the period is enriched by three collections of material belonging to the genre of books named for prophets—Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah of Jerusalem. These books present not only the prophets’ words but also minimal accounts of their adventures.

Jehu’s move had been commissioned through prophetic word, presented to Elijah but carried out by Elisha. It commenced at the military post in Ramoth-gilead, where Jehu was holding council with his top army command. Israelite presence at Ramoth-gilead presumes an advance position in the to-and-fro conflict with Damascus. Once again, a military leader was selected, and Jehu is given a two-generation patronymic, son of Jehoshaphat, son of Nimshi (see 2 Chron. 22.7)—which may indicate only that he was “somebody,” though his status is not made clear. The emphasis on prophetic designation is unusual in the DH, since the outcome is disastrous for Israel and Judah, and it does not take a prophet or a DH editorial comment to make that apparent.

Jehu was proclaimed king by his army colleagues and at once set out for Jezreel, where King Jehoram was recuperating. It was a mark of disenchantment with the old regime that the messengers who were sent to meet Jehu as he approached joined his cause. In quick order, Jehoram of Israel, Ahaziah of Judah, Queen Jezebel, and finally seventy sons of Ahab in Samaria were wiped out. In reporting the demise of the seventy, the DH offers a sardonic explanation. Jehu gives an intentionally ambiguous order—“bring me the heads of the royal house” (2 Kings 10.6; my translation)—which the people of Samaria dutifully obey by decapitating the victims. This allows
Jehu to absolve himself of complicity in the massacre of the king’s family, but the report goes on to tell of the sweeping removal of Ahab’s entire government: priests, friends, leaders, cronies—together with the whole religious establishment dedicated to the worship of Baal. The Baal temple was turned into a latrine. Moreover, Jehu’s force encountered kin of Ahaziah of Judah en route to Samaria, whom Jehu instructed to “take alive.” The report is that all forty-two were slaughtered—a curious account, which again implies that Jehu’s intent and the sequel are out of accord (2 Kings 10.12–14).

As for the effects of Jehu’s purge, the evidence comes in from all directions. Jehu had killed Ahaziah of Judah, leaving Athaliah, Ahab’s daughter, a path to the Judean throne, which she quickly secured by wiping out the rest of Ahaziah’s family. Any rapport between Israel and Judah ended. The slaughter of Jezebel must have meant the end of association with Phoenicia. Stresses had already developed with Damascus, as the Dan stela makes plain, and now they escalated; the DH mentions this in an expanded summation of Jehu’s reign in 1 Kings 10.32–33, reporting Hazael’s capture of all the Transjordanian holdings of Israel from Gilead to the Arnon River (Ammon and Moab).

In 841
BCE
by Assyrian reckoning, and hence very soon after Jehu’s purge, Shalmaneser III campaigned westward again. He left an account of his successes on the Black Obelisk, depicting Jehu groveling before him and recording the tribute he exacted: “Tribute of Jehu, son of Omri: silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden beaker, pitchers of gold, lead, staves for the hand of the king, javelins….”

The economic impact of closing off the flow of commerce over the Palestinian land bridge from Phoenicia to the Red Sea can only be guessed. Most farmers and herders, probably 85 percent of the population, would have hardly noticed. Their lot was largely fixed, except that they could elect to turn some of their terraced strips and even valley floors to the raising of surplus olives and grapes if there were consumers with resources to make it worthwhile doing so—and if it seemed worth the risk of turning away from grain staples. Given the uncertainty of sufficient rain from one year to the next, they probably stayed with their survival base, although some would have taken the risk of growing for profit. Presumably, a merchant and commercial element developed, when there was peace along the line of commercial flow. They would have been the ones to feel hardest the impact of choking off trade, as would the royal court, their consumers.

Archaeology indicates that iron smelting and forging to produce agricultural tools was done locally, but the iron ore sources were in the south, on both sides of the Dead Sea and on down into the Arabah. These sources were inaccessible without an entente with Edom and (for Israel) passage through Judah. The importing of more exotic commodities (such as spices, incense, and gold) would have stopped. If the absence of such luxury (and ritual) items marks an economic downturn, both Israel and Judah would have suffered from it during the Jehu aftermath. The DH and the Chronicler gave only the barest of hints about these matters. Prophetic writings and archaeological artifacts point out social and economic conditions more explicitly.

The biblical historians treat Athaliah’s reign in Jerusalem sparely, but the story of court intrigue dominates what we hear. A sister of Ahaziah and daughter of Jehoram—that is, a woman specifically identified as being in the direct line of the
Davidic monarchy—Jehosheba (in Chronicles Jehoshabeath) by name, was able to hide one surviving son of Ahaziah, Jehoash, within the royal palace for six years. A priest named Jehoida, whom the Chronicler identifies as Jehosheba’s husband, engineered this seven-year-old’s placement on the throne. The ceremony and the language marking that placement recall themes both of a royal covenant with the Davidic line and a covenant between deity and community based in the commitments associated with Sinai (compare 2 Kings 23 and the activity of Josiah).

Especially important in this narrative is the appearance of a segment of the population designated “the people of the land” (2 Kings 11.14, 18, 20) who ratified and rejoiced over what had happened. This societal ingredient was important to the DH’s account of reform and the implementation of traditional values throughout the remainder of the Judean monarchy. These people were some sort of landed gentry, a group with tangible political influence. Given what has been said about land tenure and patrimony, they were probably heads of households with landholdings who retained political influence, the younger sons serving in the military and the priesthood. Some such interlock between the people and the monarchy would mean that this was a popular movement, not merely the activity of a small elite, but for such an interpretation much depends on the degree to which land tenure had moved out of the hands of the many and into those of a few. The narrative in 2 Kings 11.4–21 seems to be depicting a popular overthrow of the current rule.

Note that the queen could assert control, and note further that the story does not suggest her gender being the primary factor in DH’s negative judgment on her reign. Instead the focus falls on the existence of a temple to Baal in Jerusalem—the first reference to such an institution there—implying that the fault lay in Athaliah’s membership in the Omri-Ahab line, sharing its religious perspective. When the clash came that ended her reign, she could cry “Treason!” (2 Kings 11:14). Implicitly her rule is conceded by the DH to have been considered legitimate at least by parts of the Jerusalem establishment. The story provides a rare glimpse of the people and institutions of Judah—a cycle of guards captained by military leaders which went on and off duty on the Sabbath; a priest of Yahweh’s Temple who could bring to bear sanction and equipage; a pillar that emblemized royal designation and/or authority; a group called the Carites who formed a kind of praetorian guard; the action of the “people of the land.” For the DH to narrate so much about the Judean monarchs is unusual. The chapter is a unique resource for institutional history. The Chronicler’s account of the incident presents other details, including replacing the cycle of military with Levites from throughout Judah and designating the participants as “the whole assembly.” These are hints of other ideologies at work, but they still indicate a popular movement.

The result of the intrigue was the ascendancy of Jehoash (Joash) for a forty-year reign. We need to adjust this span because it is a round number and because the time frame for the Jehu dynasty must, as previously noted, be compressed; 836 to 798
BCE
is a sensible proposal. The DH approved Jehoash because Jehoida was his mentor (the Chronicler augmented this motif), but he still did not meet the DH’s ultimate test: the removal of the high places. DH focused on the repair of the Temple and the noteworthy claim that, once started, the repairs were carried out with integrity. What that signals in the way of a restoration of popular consciousness hints at
recovery of political and social will. If so, it did not last. Disenchantment with Jehoash set in by the end of his reign, and he was assassinated by his own servants—no talk here of a popular movement—with his son Amaziah succeeding him.

At this point the DH notes that “Hazael set his face to go up against Jerusalem” (2 Kings 12.17). This isolated bit of information, and Jehoash’s response—to buy Hazael off with gifts—is paralleled by the report that Jehoahaz king of Israel, Jehu’s son and successor after a twenty-eight-year reign, also had to deal with Hazael (2 Kings 13.3) and indeed did so for his whole reign (13.22). Hazael, then, had a long reign, from about 842 to almost 800
BCE
. The mention of the threat to Jerusalem places Hazael at Gath in Philistine territory; unencumbered by any constraint from an Assyria that was now tied up with concerns closer to home, he had both Israel and Judah at his mercy. According to 2 Kings 13.7, Jehoahaz was left with a symbolic parade guard of fifty horsemen, ten chariots, and ten thousand foot soldiers (perhaps to be read as ten contingents from various households, or about a hundred men).

This is the period to which many authorities now assign the narratives of encounters with Syria contained in 1 Kings 20 and 22 (see above). In any case, the depiction of the two small kingdoms incapable of coping with Syria applies to the second half of the ninth century
BCE
. The diversion in 2 Kings 13.14–19 to the report of Elisha’s death, which includes Elisha’s instruction to King Jehoash about victories over Syria (Aram) but portrays an omen of an insufficient three victories instead of the needful five or six, coheres with this hypothetical proposal as well. Three successful clashes with Syria were not enough.

One side or the other of the year 800
BCE
, Assyria’s return to the scene had a direct impact on Syria’s power. By that time, Adad-nirari III was on the Assyrian throne and was old enough to begin anew the drive to the west. Probably in 796, but perhaps even earlier, he crushed Damascus and defeated Hazael’s son, Ben-hadad (the third ruler of that name, if the Syrian succession has been correctly reconstructed here). Adad-nirari received tribute from Israel as well, according to his “summarizing inscription” on the Tell er-Rimah stela; but Syria’s threat had been reduced, and Damascus and Hamath apparently returned to fighting one another. The note in 2 Kings 13.25, that Jehoahaz’s son Jehoash recovered territory from Ben-hadad, fits with all this. The most plausible meaning of 2 Kings 13.5, according to which “the L
ORD
gave Israel a savior,” is that Adad-nirari was perceived as the hidden agent of divine relief.