The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah: 2 Chronicles 10–36: A New Translation and Commentary 9780567671714, 9780567671738, 9780567671721

Citation preview

THE CHRONICLES OF THE KINGS OF JUDAH: 2 CHRONICLES 10–36

THE CHRONICLES OF THE KINGS OF JUDAH: 2 CHRONICLES 10–36

A New Translation and Commentary

Yigal Levin

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Imprint previously known as T&T Clark 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published 2017 © Yigal Levin 2017 Yigal Levin has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN:

HB: ePDF:

978-0-5676-7171-4 978-0-5676-7172-1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) Printed and bound in Great Britain

C o n t en t s

List of Maps Preface and Acknowledgments The Division of Solomon’s Kingdom – 2 Chronicles 10

vii ix 1

The Reign of Rehoboam – 2 Chronicles 11–12

14

The Reign of Abijah – 2 Chronicles 13

38

The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

50

The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

84

The Reign of Jehoram – 2 Chronicles 21

162

Ahaziah and Athaliah – 2 Chronicles 22–23

178

The Reign of Joash – 2 Chronicles 24

197

The Reign of Amaziah – 2 Chronicles 25

216

The Reign of Uzziah – 2 Chronicles 26

237

The Reign of Jotham – 2 Chronicles 27

264

The Reign of Ahaz – 2 Chronicles 28

270

The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

287

The Reigns of Manasseh and Amon – 2 Chronicles 33

364

The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

386

The Last Kings, Exile and Redemption – 2 Chronicles 36

445

Bibliography 468 Index of Names and Places 499 Index of Authors 511

L ist o f M a p s

1. Jerusalem During the First Temple Period

xvii

2. The Division of the Kingdom

7

3. Rehoboam’s “Cities for Siege”

21

4. The Wars of Abijah and Asa

49

5. The Wars of Jehoshaphat

142

6. The Wars of Amaziah

225

7. The Kingdom of Uzziah

248

8. The Attacks Against Ahaz

281

9. The Kingdom of Josiah

390

P refa c e a n d A c k n o wl e dgme n ts

This commentary is the end product of a very long process. My interest in the book of Chronicles began in the late 1980s, when I participated in a graduate seminar led by the late Professor Anson F. Rainey, who suggested that as a research project I look into the way the Judean Shephelah is pictured in the book of Chronicles. At about the same time, Professor Aaron Demsky was teaching a class on biblical genealogies, and suggested that I focus on the genealogies in the book of Chronicles. All of this eventually led to both professors serving as joint advisors for my dissertation on the Historical Geography of the Chronicler, which was submitted and accepted in 1999. Over the following years, I continued to follow my interest with several papers on Chronicles, genealogies and the Chronicler’s genealogies in particular, which I presented at various conferences and published in various venues. Several years later, my friend and colleague Lisbeth S. Fried connected me with the late Professor David Noel Freedman, at that time editor of the Eerdmans Critical Commentary series, who was looking for someone to write a commentary on Chronicles. We agreed on a three-volume commentary, with vol. I including the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9, vol. II covering the United Monarchy from 1 Chronicles 10 through 2 Chronicles 9, and vol. III being dedicated to the kings of Judah in 2 Chronicles 10–36. However, soon after Professor Freedman’s death in 2008, Eerdmans discontinued the series and my project was put on hold. In 2010, Professor David J.A. Clines, co-founder and publisher of Sheffield Phoenix Press, decided to take up the initiative with a Sheffield Critical Commentary series, and I was asked to continue where I had left off. I suggested that we begin with the third volume, progressing to the second and finally ending with the first. This way, I would be able to write all of the various essays about the book, its composition, sources, messages and so on, essays which are an integral part of any modern commentary and which usually appear in the introductory chapters, after I had already written the commentary. Additionally, quite a number of important commentaries on 1 Chronicles had appeared on the market

x

Preface and Acknowledgments

in recent years, but not all of them had yet managed to continue into 2 Chronicles. This, of course, serves to explain why the present volume has been published first, and to promise that all of that “introductory material” will indeed appear, in due time. In January of 2016, I sent Professor Clines a note, informing him that I was about ready to submit the volume on 2 Chronicles 10–36, and in reply received a formal letter (followed by a more personal email), informing me that as of February 2016 Sheffield Phoenix Press would not be publishing any new titles, and was basically shutting down. However, David, as an academic, was aware of the consequences of such a step for the authors who had spent so much time and effort on various publication projects, and had first negotiated an agreement with Bloomsbury T&T Clark, to the effect that Bloomsbury would publish those titles that had already been accepted for publication by Sheffield Phoenix Press, and here we are. The Translation and Commentary This treatment of Chronicles is comprised of three “layers”: translation, notes and commentary. Each of these warrants a few explanatory comments. The Translation The “core” of this book is an all-new translation of the book of Chronicles from the original Hebrew into modern English. The translation of Scripture into the vernacular follows a long and respectable tradition that can be traced back to the Septuagint, produced in Alexandria in the third and second centuries BCE, not long after Chronicles itself was first written. Since that time, literally hundreds of translations have been produced by Jews and by Christians, including the Aramaic Targumim, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshiṭta and others. Those just mentioned, in fact, pre-date the finalization of the Hebrew Masoretic Text by the rabbis and scribes of the tenth century, and are often used by modern critical scholars to aid in reconstruction of the text in its earlier form. The tradition of translating the Bible into contemporary English can be traced back to the Tyndale, Geneva and Bishop’s Bibles of the sixteenth century, and of course the King James or Authorized Version of 1611, which basically defined “Biblical English.” However, these early translations, as masterful as they may have been at the time, are both difficult for the modern reader to understand, and of course could not take advantage of our present knowledge of the development of the biblical text and of the



Preface and Acknowledgments

xi

languages, literature and reality of the time in which the Hebrew original was composed. This translation, like many contemporary translations of the Bible, attempts to integrate the long tradition of Bible translation with our current knowledge, in order to create a translation that is both as faithful as possible to the original, and as clear as possible to the modern reader. The basis for the entire translation has been the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). This received Hebrew text has been compared to additional manuscripts and to older versions such as the Greek Septuagint (LXX), the Latin Vulgate and others, with alternative readings consistently recorded in the notes. In selecting the style of translation, we have used the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989) as a guide, referring equally to the New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (NJPS, 2nd ed. 1999), and, as needed, to the older Jewish Publication Society version (JPS, 1917), the New English Bible (NEB, 1970), the Revised Standard Version (RSV, 1971), the New International Version (NIV, 1978) and others. We have also referred to the translations offered by some of the modern commentators on the book of Chronicles, such as Myers (1965), Dillard (1987) and Klein (2012). Any translation, and certainly a translation of such a text as the Bible, is a constant negotiation of choices. Our first choice was to use the MT as the basis for our translation. This means that we avoided, as far as possible, incorporating emendations of the MT in the translation itself, even where such emendations are both “logical” and are supported by such versions as the LXX or the Vulgate. Instead, we noted the problem created by the MT and the various alternative versions in the notes. This, we believe, will allow the readers to make their own choice between the versions, instead of being forced to accept a choice that we had made.1 Similarly, in those places in which the chapter and verse divisions of the MT differ from the tradition followed by most English Bibles, we have followed the MT, noting the English tradition in square brackets. The most prominent example of this in the chapters covered in this volume is in ch. 14: what in the MT is 13:23 is 14:1 in the English, MT 14:1 is English 14:2, and so on until MT 14:14 [Eng. 15], which is the last verse of the chapter. This is also true for references made to other scriptural passages. For example, the Tenth Commandment, “You shall not covet,” is cited as “Exod. 20:14 [Eng. 17]; Deut. 5:18 [Eng. 21].” 1.  As an example, 2 Chron. 21:2 calls Jehoshaphat “king of Israel.” The Septuagint, the Vulgate and even some Hebrew manuscripts have “king of Judah,” which is of course the “correct” title. Many modern English translations have adopted this emendation. Our translation retains the MT, with the alternative recorded in the notes.

xii

Preface and Acknowledgments

Another major choice that we made was to adopt a “formal equivalence” method of translation, conveying, as closely as possible, what the Hebrew text says rather than what we think it means. Of course any translation is also an interpretation, but we have made every effort to reproduce the actual text, including its syntax and grammar, as far as possible within the bounds of clear modern English. We feel that the readers will then be able to make their own choices about what the text actually intends to convey. One example of this is our choice to translate the word ‫אבתיו‬, abôtâw, as “his fathers” rather than “his ancestors.” The fact is that Biblical Hebrew does not have a separate word to connote a person’s progenitors, and simply uses “father.” Clearly, when 2 Chron. 29:2 calls David Hezekiah’s “father,” it does not mean that David was his biological parent. But our readers should know that the text actually does use the same word, which is something that other translations’ use of “ancestor” obfuscates. There are also words, mostly from the realm of cult and belief, which we decided to leave untranslated, because all of the “traditional” renderings simply do not convey their full range of meanings. Such words include bamâh, traditionally translated “high place” but more likely being a sort of “shrine”; ašerâh, often rendered either as the proper name of a female deity “Asherah” or as “sacred tree, pole, or grove,” which we render as asherah; and tôrâh, “law,” “instruction” or “teaching,” which we render as Torah. In these and other cases, the term, its meaning, uses and various translations are discussed when the word is first encountered. Additional appearances are referred back to the original discussion. One word that we did not attempt to transliterate was the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name ‫יהוה‬, YHWH. In keeping with the tradition that goes back to the Second Temple Period (the time at which Chronicles was written), that the Divine Name either cannot or should not be pronounced, but rather is to be replaced by adônâi in Hebrew, κύριος in Greek and Dominus in Latin, we have retained the traditional English “Lord.” Despite this, in the notes and commentary we do use “Yahweh” as an accepted rendering of the “proper” or “personal” name of the God of Israel. We have also followed the tradition of using the capitalized “God” when referring to the God of Israel, and “god” or “gods” when referring to other deities, despite the fact that Hebrew, which does not employ uppercase letters, uses ‫אלהים‬, elôhîm, for both. In keeping with our choice of “formal equivalency,” we almost always treat every biblical verse as a single sentence, even when the result is slightly cumbersome in English. Since in many such cases it would be possible to sub-divide the verses in several different ways resulting in different meanings, we usually prefer to note the suggestions made by



Preface and Acknowledgments

xiii

the various translators and commentators and to allow the readers to form their own opinion. The same is true for direct speech within the text. Some English translations employ an array of double and single quote marks to show direct speech and direct speech within direct speech. The Hebrew text, however, often has more than two “layers” of speech, and in any case does not use quote marks. A translator’s inserting such marks is in effect forcing the reader to accept his or her interpretation of the syntax. For this reason, we do not use quote marks in our translation. We do mark the beginning of direct speech with a colon and by capitalizing the first word of the speech, even in mid-verse (such as in 2 Chron. 15:2, “And he went out before Asa and said to him: Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: The Lord is with you, while you are with him”), but we see no reason to distract the reader with additional marks. And finally, a word about “and.” In Biblical Hebrew, a very large number of verses begin with the particle waw, often, but not exclusively, as part of the wayyiqtol verbal form. The most common use of this waw is for the conjunction “and,” and the Septuagint almost always renders it as καὶ. So does the KJV, in which many verses begin with “and.” In more modern translations it has become common to render some appearances as “but,” “so,” “thus” and so forth according to context, and if none of these is appropriate, to leave the particle out altogether. We have decided to return to using “and” in almost all cases, leaving the reader to discern the particle’s precise meaning – just as would anyone reading the text in the original Hebrew. It is our hope that these choices that we have made will ultimately enhance our readers’ understanding of the text as it was written, while at the same time affording them a pleasurable reading experience. The Notes The translation is accompanied by several hundred footnotes, which are meant to elucidate both the text and our translation of the text. Many of the notes deal with textual matters: alternative readings in the different versions and emendations suggested by various commentators. Others deal with translation issues: they often explain the literal meaning of words and phrases and the way in which we have decided to translate them. Some compare our translation with other translations, ancient and new. Some of them include long discussions of lexical issues. The notes also point out the differences between the text of Chronicles and its parallels, especially in Samuel and Kings.

xiv

Preface and Acknowledgments

Within the notes, we often copy the text in its Hebrew form, mostly unvocalized and unaccented. The Greek of the Septuagint and (where relevant) of 1 Esdras is also printed in Greek characters. This allows the reader to follow discussions of copy errors or graphic similarity between words. In those cases in which the vocalization of the Hebrew is important the word is transliterated. Following the suggestion of our publishers, the consecutive numbering of the notes is “restarted” with every major section of the book (chapter or group of chapters).

The Commentary

The commentary is intended to be as comprehensive and as thorough as possible within the existing limitations. It is intended to address as many of the textual, literary, ideological and historical issues of each section of the book as possible. As a running commentary, we have not included long discussions on general issues such as the Chronicler’s ideology or his use of sources; these will be included in the introduction to the volume on 1 Chronicles 1–9. The commentary on the chapters covered in this volume is intended to inform the reader of matters relevant to these chapters only. Since the Chronicler himself treated the different kings of Judah differently, so did we treat the Chronicler’s treatment of them. In most cases, the Chronicler devoted a single chapter to each king.2 In such cases, this chapter is followed by a chapter of commentary, giving first an overview, then a running verse-by-verse discussion of the chapter, and then a few concluding remarks. In those cases in which the Chronicler devoted more than a single chapter, we had the choice of either commenting on each chapter in turn, or on all of them together, and we chose whichever method best fit the content of those chapters. Within the commentary itself, we exercised a maximum of flexibility, depending on the content. Where appropriate, we gave an expanded historical overview of the specific period under discussion. Some chapters had archaeological or geographical issues that required discussion. In others the main issues were cultic, linguistic or literary. The specific composition of the commentary for each section, including its division into headings and subheadings, reflect that need for flexibility. It is our hope that our readers find this flexibility to be more elucidating than confusing.

2.  Of course, technically speaking, the chapter and verse divisions that we follow today are later additions to the original text, but they do follow the content and composition of the text itself.



Preface and Acknowledgments

xv

The Bibliography The bibliographical list at the end of this volume includes well over five hundred items. Some of them, such as certain modern commentaries and dictionaries or major works on the history, geography and archaeology of biblical Israel, are referred to hundreds of times throughout our work, and our readers will undoubtedly become familiar with them though their reading of our commentary. Others, such as journal articles on more specific issues, are referenced only once or twice. Some of the items are discussed, others are only referred to for the sake of those readers who wish to expand their investigation of Chronicles with additional reading. For all of them we have decided to use a standard “author date, page” citation method, which we hope will allow our readers easy access to the full bibliographic details, without being too cumbersome. Acknowledgments As this first stage of this Chronicles Commentary project comes to a close, I wish to acknowledge the many people without whom I would have never come so far. I have already described the contribution of the late professors Rainey and Freedman, as well as that of Professor Aaron Demsky, who remains my mentor and supporter. Of my various colleagues at the departments of Jewish History, Bible, Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology at Bar-Ilan University, all of whom have been more than supportive, I will mention especially the present Dean of Jewish Studies Professor Elie Assis, whose support in the final stages of the project was instrumental. My thanks to Professor David J. A. Clines of the University of Sheffield, whose contribution has already been described. And at the final stages, to Dominic Mattos, Publisher (Biblical Studies) at Bloomsbury T&T Clark and all of the Bloomsbury staff who helped move this volume from manuscript to publication. And finally, to Duncan Burns of Forthcoming Publications, whose excellent work on the final proofs was instrumental in producing the volume which you now hold in your hands. None of this could have been done on my own. My mother, the late Chasia Levin, who passed away thirteen years before the completion of this volume, and my father Aryeh Levin, who has followed it from its inception, have both supported my academic career in so many ways. My late father-in-law C. Michael Copeland, known to all as “Copey,” was a translator par excellence, and actually gave me my first academic translating job. My children Matar, Nitsan, Asaph, Aviv and Amit, for whom “the book” has been a part of their lives for as long as they can remember. And finally Sharon, my partner in everything, who has borne most of the burden, and to whom this book belongs as much as it does to me.

Map 1. Jerusalem During the First Temple Period

T h e D iv isio n o f S o lo m on ’ s K in gdo m – 2 C h r o n ic les 10

Introduction The reign of Rehoboam, son of Solomon, was a pivotal point in the history of Israel. After three generations of unity, even if not perfect, under Saul, David and Solomon, the kingdom split along the old “Israel– Judah” divide. And while, historically, many different reasons have been given for the so-called schism, with some historians even going as far as to deny the very existence of a “united monarchy” in the first place,1 thus making its division a non-event as well, within the Deuteronomic History the issues are clear. According to 1 Kings 11, Solomon “loved” (and married) many foreign women, who led him to build shrines to their gods, which eventually led him to worship their gods himself.2 This, of course, is the ultimate betrayal of the covenant between Israel and Yahweh: And the Lord said to Solomon, since this has been your mind and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and give it to your servant. Yet I will not do it in your lifetime for the sake of your father David; I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However, I will not tear away the entire kingdom; one tribe I will give to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen. (1 Kgs 11:11–13)

1.  The best-known of these in recent years being Finkelstein and Silberman (2001). 2.  As a subtext, not actually spelled out but nonetheless clear, Solomon was also guilty of transgressing the rest of the things forbidden to a king of Israel according to Deut. 17:16–17, “Only, he must not have many horses for himself, or return the people to Egypt in order to have many horses, since the Lord has said to you, you must never return that way again. And he must not have many wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; also silver and gold he must not have in great quantity for himself.”

2

The Division of Solomon’s Kingdom – 2 Chronicles 10

Despite the divine promise recorded above, the dismantling of the empire that David had built up began during Solomon’s own lifetime. God raised “adversaries” against him: an unsuccessful rebellion in Edom and a successful one in Damascus, and, worst of all, the Ephrathite Jeroboam son of Nabat, who had been “a servant of Solomon” in charge of the levy from the House of Joseph, “raised his hand against the king” (1 Kgs 11:26–28), and then fled to Shishak king of Egypt to await Solomon’s death. On the way, he was met by the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite, who repeated God’s message, clarified that he, Jeroboam, was the servant to whom God would give those ten tribes, and symbolically tore his robe into twelve pieces, giving ten to Jeroboam. The chapter then concludes with what will become the standard formula: “And the rest of the acts of Solomon and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written on the book of the acts of Solomon? The days that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel were forty years. And Solomon lay with his fathers and was buried in the city of David his father; and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead” (1 Kgs 11:41–43). Chronicles, on the other hand, tells nothing of Solomon’s sins and God’s message, of the rebellion of Jeroboam or of Ahijah’s prophecy to him. But in his concluding regnal formula for Solomon he writes: And the rest of the acts of Solomon, the first and the last, are they not written in the words of Nathan the prophet and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Je‘eddo the seer concerning Jeroboam son of Nebat? And Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel forty years. And Solomon lay with his fathers and they buried him in the city of David his father; and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead. (2 Chron. 9:29–31)

The Chronicler’s account of the reign of Rehoboam is divided into three chapters. Chapter 10, which describes the division of the kingdom, is almost identical to its parallel 1 Kings 12. Chapter 11, which describes most of the events of Rehoboam’s reign, is based partially on material from Kings, but also adds a significant amount of independent material, while ignoring most of the material about Jeroboam that appears in 1 Kings 12–14. In ch. 12, the Chronicler returns to his Kings Vorlage, but once again changes and adds according to his own needs. McKenzie (2004, 260–61) considers chs. 10 and 12 to have “a negative orientation on Rehoboam’s reign surrounding ch. 11, which is positively oriented.” This division, he belives, was driven by the Chronicler’s own theological considerations; since the Chronicler did not recount Solomon’s sins, the actual split of the kingdom cannot be Solomon’s fault and must be blamed at least partially on Rehoboam. The same is true for the invasion



The Division of Solomon’s Kingdom – 2 Chronicles 10

3

of Shishak, which must be Rehoboam’s “fault.” All the positive things that were attributed to Rehoboam were placed in between. This approach, though it might miss some of the nuances of the text of all three chapters, does serve to remind us that the arrangement of the material within the reign of any king may not necessarily be chronological – the Chronicler, no less than any other biblical writer, may have had other issues in mind when creating his narrative. Chapter 10: 1 And Rehoboam3 went to Shechem, for to Shechem all Israel had come4 to make him king. 2 And when Jeroboam son of Nebat heard, for he was5 in Egypt where he had fled from King Solomon, and Jeroboam returned from Egypt.6 3 And they sent and called him; and Jeroboam and all Israel7 came and said to Rehoboam as follows: 4 Your father made our yoke heavy; and now8 lighten the hard service9 of your father and his heavy yoke that he placed on us, and we will serve you. 5 And he said to them, three more days and return to me, and the people went away.10

3.  The name ‫ רחבעם‬is comprised of the elements raḥab, “wide,” “expand,” and am, “nation,” the second of which is usually understood as being an epithet for the deity: “God will expand.” However Jarick (2007, 88–92) points out the irony of the fact that the king whose name means “the nation expands” or “he expands the nation” is the king who actually loses control of the majority of the territory and tribes that he had inherited from his father. 4.  ‫באו‬, “came,” in the plural. Kings has singular ‫בא‬. In principle, this could mean that the Chronicler considered “the people” as a group of individuals, while Kings sees them as a collective, but see the note on v. 5. 5.  1 Kgs 12:2 has “was still,” superfluous in Chronicles because Chronicles has omitted the story of Jeroboam’s rebellion and flight to Egypt as told in 1 Kgs 11:26–40. 6.  Kings has ‫וישב ירבעם במצרים‬, “and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt.” Chronicles reads Kings’ wayyēšeb, “he dwelt,” as wayyāšob, “he returned,” and renders ‫במצרים‬, “in Egypt,” as ‫ממצרים‬, “from Egypt.” The Greek version of Chronicles actually preserves both readings, “and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt, and Jeroboam returned from Egypt.” This presumably reflects the translators’ familiarity with the text of Kings and their wish to harmonize. 7.  1 Kgs 12:3 has “all the assembly of Israel”; Chronicles deletes the word “assembly” (‫)קהל‬. If this is not a scribal error, it is perhaps because to the Chronicler, the word ‫ קהל‬has cultic connotations of “Yahweh’s assembly,” and would lend legitimacy to this gathering. 8.  ‫ועתה‬. Kings had ‫ואתה עתה‬, “and you now,” using two near homonyms in Hebrew. 9.  The Hebrew ‫ עבודה‬could mean either “labor” (thus in NJPS and other translations) or “service” (as in NRSV). We chose the latter because the same word is used at the end of the verse: “lighten our service…and we will serve you.” 10.  ‫ וילך‬means “and he walked” or “went.” “Away” is added for better English. Here Chronicles uses the singular form of the verb for “the people,” while Kings uses the plural ‫וילכו‬, the opposite of v. 1.

4

The Division of Solomon’s Kingdom – 2 Chronicles 10 6 And King Rehoboam took counsel with the elders who had stood before his father Solomon while he was alive, saying: How do you advise me to answer this people? 7 And they said to him thus: If you will be good to this people and appease11 them, and speak good words to them, then they will be your servants for all time.12 8 And he disregarded the advice that the elders gave him, and consulted the youths13 who had grown up with him, who stood before him.14 9 And he said to them: What do you advise that we answer this people who have said to me, lighten the yoke that your father put on us? 10 And the youths who had grown up with him said to him: Speak thus to the people who said to you: Your father made our yoke heavy, and you lighten it for us; tell them thus: My little (member)15 is thicker than my father’s loins. 11 And now, my father laid a heavy yoke on you, and I will add to your yoke; my father disciplined you with whips, and I16 with scorpions. 12 And Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day, as the king had said, Come back to me on the third day. 13 And the king answered them17 harshly; and King Rehoboam disregarded the advice of the elders.18 14 And he spoke to them in accordance with the advice of the youths, saying: I will make your yoke heavy,19 and I will add to it; my father disciplined you

11.  Kings has “be a servant and serve them and answer them.” Chronicles apparently wished to “soften” the idea of the king “serving” the people (so Japhet 1993, 648), although as shown by Weinfeld (1982), the idea of the king as “servant” of the people is well attested in both the Bible and in ANE literature. 12.  ‫כל־הימים‬, literally “all the days.” 13.  ‫ילדים‬, “children,” although, as his contemporaries they must have been around forty years old! 14.  Or “attended him” (NRSV). 15.  Literally the Hebrew ‫ קטני‬means “my little.” The tradition of translating this word as “little finger” goes as far back as the Septuagint ὁ μικρὸς δάκτυλός μου and the Vulgate eis minimus digitus meus and is followed by almost all translations, but the comparison to the loins or thigh makes it clear that this is meant as a euphemism for the penis. According to Dillard (1987, 87), this “would add rash vulgarity to the charge of foolishness against the young men.” 16.  The clause “will discipline you” is present in Kings but missing in Chronicles. This is unlikely to be a scribal error since the same omission is repeated in v. 14. More likely, it is a purposeful shortening of the young men’s answer in order to emphasize their brashness. 17.  Where Chronicles has one word, ‫ויענם‬, “and he answered them,” Kings has three, ‫ את העם‬..‫ויען‬, “and he answered the people.” 18.  Chronicles continues to shorten Rehoboam’s speech when compared to Kings. See Hognesius 2003, 145. 19.  Hebrew ‫אכביד‬, “I will make heavy.” Kings, as well as the Greek, Latin and some Hebrew mss., has ‫אבי הכביד‬, “my father made heavy.” It is easy to see how ‫א[בי ה]כביד‬



The Division of Solomon’s Kingdom – 2 Chronicles 10

5

with whips, but I20 with scorpions. 15 And the king did not listen to the people, because it was a turn brought about by God so that the Lord might fulfill his word, which he had spoken by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam son of Nebat.21 16 And when all Israel [saw]22 that the king would not listen to them, the people answered the king, saying: We have no share in David!23 And no inheritance in the son of Jesse! Each man to your tents, O Israel! Look now to your own house, O David! And all24 Israel went to their tents. 17 And the people of Israel who were dwelling in the cities of Judah – Rehoboam reigned over them. 18 And King Rehoboam sent Hadoram,25 who

was corrupted to ‫אכביד‬, and most translators follow the Kings version, but one could argue either that Chronicles was attempting to minimize Solomon’s tyranny, or that he was attempting to make Rehoboam sound all that more arrogant. See Williamson 1982, 239; Dillard 1987, 83. 20.  See note on v. 12 above. 21.  This verse, which includes the only theological statement in the entire chapter, is worded slightly differently here than in 1 Kgs 12:15, but without any change of meaning. Kings’ ‫סבה‬, “turn (of events),” is ‫ נסבה‬here. The first mention of ‫( יהוה‬the Lord) in Kings is replaced by ‫אלהים‬, God, which is typical of Chronicles (see Japhet 1997, 30–37), although the second reference to Yahweh is left as is. For more on this verse and its function, see Machinist 1995 and the commentary below. 22.  Missing in MT of Chronicles but extant in Kings. Without the verb the sentence makes no sense. Klein (2012, 150), following Williamson, leaves out the verb and understands the syntax to be “…to Jeroboam the son of Nabat and all Israel, for the king did not listen to them.” 23.  Many translations, such as KJV and NRSV, take the first colon of this four-line poem to be a question, beginning with the inquisitive ‫מה‬: “What share do we have in David?” However, the parallelism between the first two colons indicates that they both be taken as proclamations (so NJPS). The NIV has taken both to be part of a single question: “What share do we have in David, what part in Jesse’s son?” See also Machinist 1995, 106. 24.  The word “all” is absent in Kings, added by Chronicles perhaps to emphasize the totality of the rebellion. 25.  Kings has “Adoram.” Presumably this is the same official as the one appointed by David in 2 Sam. 20:24, whom 1 Kgs 4:6 calls “Adoniram son of Abda, in charge of the forced labor.” If so, he would have been one of the “elder advisors” whom Rehoboam had spurned, now sent to repair the damage that had been done. According to Ben Zvi (2003, 68–69), the change of Kings’ Ado(ni)ram, meaning “my (divine) master is exalted,” to Hadoram, a name that refers to the god Hadad, should be seen as part of the Chronicler’s attempt to depict Rehoboam as “de-Israelizing” the northerners.

6

The Division of Solomon’s Kingdom – 2 Chronicles 10 was over the forced labor, and the people of Israel stoned him and he died, and King Rehoboam arduously26 mounted his chariot to flee to Jerusalem. 19 And Israel rebelled27 against the house of David to this day.

Commentary Chapter 10 of 2 Chronicles recounts Rehoboam’s failed attempt to obtain the acquiescence of the northern tribes, henceforth called “Israel,” to his succession to Solomon’s throne. The text is almost completely identical to 1 Kgs 12:1–19, with just a few textual variations, some of which are probably scribal in nature, while others might have been effected by the Chronicler. Unlike the internal struggles that accompanied Solomon’s ascension, both Kings and Chronicles picture the initial transition from Solomon to Rehoboam as a peaceful one. In the verse just preceding this chapter, 2 Chron. 9:31 tells us simply that “Solomon lay with his fathers and they buried him in the city of David his father; and his son Rehoboam reigned in his stead.” The text does not clarify why Rehoboam felt it necessary to appeal to the northern tribes in Shechem, nor exactly who those “all Israel” and their representatives were. Williamson (1977, 103) understood this as referring to all twelve tribes, but the narrative is more logical if we regard the title as referring to the northern “Israel” in the narrower sense.

26.  ‫התאמץ‬. Most modern translations, following KJV’s “made speed,” translate “hurriedly” (NRSV; NJPS) and the like. However MṢ more generally has the meaning of “strong” or “courage,” denoting that he made an effort to mount his chariot. NIV translates “managed to get into his chariot.” Keel (1986, 638) cites rabbinic midrashim, which claimed that Rehoboam had been stricken with gonorrhea (Hebrew ‫)זיבה‬, making it difficult for him to mount his chariot. 27.  ‫ויפשעו‬. The noun ‫פשע‬, peša, literally means “crime” and as a verb, “to commit a crime.” Besides its use for simply “a crime,” it is often used to denote a serious break with God (for example Isa. 1:2; 43:27; 66:24; Jer. 2:29; Hos. 7:13). It is used for “to rebel” against a human overlord, instead of the more common ‫מרד‬, marâd, in 2 Kgs 1:1; 3:5, 7 (Moab’s rebellion against Israel) and in 2 Kgs 8:20, 22 and 2 Chron. 21:8, 10 (Edom’s rebellion against Judah, followed by a rebellion in Libnah) – all cases of states or cities, not of individuals rebelling against their own government. The term may, as suggested by Keel (1986, 727), refer to the breaking of an oath of fealty, which would be a religious sin as well as an act of political rebellion. Here, and in the parallel 1 Kgs 12:19, the use could be seen as having both a political and a theological connotation.



The Division of Solomon’s Kingdom – 2 Chronicles 10

Map 2. The Division of the Kingdom

7

8

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

There are quite a few hints in the biblical text, that the “United Monarchy” of Israel and Judah was not quite a perfect union. David’s becoming king of Judah after the death of Saul (2 Sam. 2:4) while Ish-bosheth ruled “Israel” (2 Sam. 2:8–9), the two parts united only after the latter’s assassination (2 Sam. 5:1–3), the dispute between the men of Judah and Israel over David’s return after the death of Absalom (2 Sam. 19), the rebellion of Sheba son of Bichri and “all Israel” against David (2 Sam. 20 – note the similarity of v. 1 there to v. 16 in our chapter), and even Solomon’s establishing a taxation system over “all Israel” in 1 Kgs 4:7–19 with no mention of Judah – all of these indicate that at least on some level “Israel” and “Judah” were never fully integrated (on this see Tadmor 1982). In light of all this, it is possible that while Davidic rule over Judah was considered to be perpetual, the dynasty’s rule over Israel had to be reconfirmed at the ascension of each new king. So Rehoboam, while becoming king of Judah “automatically” after his father’s death, was forced to request that his kingship over Israel be ratified by the assembly at Shechem. Miller (1987, 283) suggested that “the people of the north had already given signals of disloyalty to Jerusalem and the Davidic dynasty, one clear signal being their failure to send representatives to Jerusalem confirming Rehoboam in the first place.” The Chronicler, in any case, makes no mention of any of the above, except for his two versions of David’s anointment at Hebron: 1 Chron. 11:1–3, which is almost identical to 2 Sam. 5:1–3, and then his own much grander version of the ceremony at 1 Chron. 12:24–41 – which actually depicts David as being enthroned by a unified nation. In our context, all of this very much serves to emphasize how far the house of David had fallen – from all the tribes’ coming to Hebron and begging David to take them under his wing to Rehoboam’s journey to Shechem, from which he barely escaped with his life. Shechem itself, situated in the center of the hill-country north of Jerusalem, near the boundary between the major tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, had a long history of both political and cultic importance. In both the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (c. 2000–1200 BCE), the city was the well-fortified “capital” of a chiefdom that ruled over the region. Within the Bible, both the city and its nearby cult site are mentioned in the Patriarchal narratives (Gen. 12:6; 33:18–34:31). In the process of the conquest of the land, Joshua held an initial convocation on the nearby summits of Mounts Gerizim and Ebal (Josh. 8:30–35; see also Deut. 11:26–32 and 27:1–26) and a final one at Shechem itself (Josh. 24). Gideon, who was almost proclaimed king in Israel, had a concubine from Shechem (Judg. 8:29–31), whose son Abimelech was proclaimed king by the people of the city, setting off a “civil war” among the local tribes



The Division of Solomon’s Kingdom – 2 Chronicles 10

9

(Judg. 9). Organ (2006, 125) suggested that both Joshua 24 and Judges 9 were in the mind of the Deuteronomistic author of the Kings account – “Echoes of both experiences have their role to play in this narrative.” “Shechem” was also the name of one of the clans of the tribe of Manasseh (Num. 26:31; 1 Chron. 7:19), presumably referring to the Israelites living in the city and its environs. As such, we are not surprised to find Shechem serving as a de-facto “capital” of the northern tribes, although the text does not inform us exactly who represented the tribes and what their authority was assumed to be.28 However, as Ben Zvi (2003, 63–66) has pointed out, to the Chronicler, the choice of Shechem over Jerusalem as the venue of Rehoboam’s coronation is even more surprising, since this would seem to be a negation of the unique position of Jerusalem and its Temple. But perhaps this is just the point that the Chronicler wished to make: the northern tribes, in their rejection of the Davidic dynasty, had also spurned the Temple and the Holy City. As mentioned above, Jeroboam son of Nabat is previously referred to in 1 Kgs 11:26–40, as an Ephraimite who was appointed by Solomon to be in charge of the forced labor of “the House of Joseph,” “raised his hand” (rebelled) against Solomon, was met by the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite and then fled to Egypt, where he was given refuge by King Shishak. Thus, readers of Kings are not surprised to learn that he was called back after Solomon’s death and led the gathering that met Rehoboam. This is, however, the first time he is mentioned in Chronicles, once again affirming that the Chronicler assumed that his readers were familiar with the Kings narrative. The Chronicler’s reading of v. 2 makes Jeroboam return from Egypt on his own accord, giving him a greater share in the responsibility for the northern tribes’ rebellion (Knoppers 1990, 435; Klein 2012, 157). The “heavy yoke” and “forced labor” that Solomon had imposed upon Israel is mentioned several times in Kings, especially when telling of his preparations for building the Temple and his other construction projects. According to 1 Kgs 5:27–30 [Eng. 13–16], “King Solomon conscripted forced labor from all Israel; the levy numbered thirty thousand men. He sent them to the Lebanon, ten thousand a month in shifts; they would be a month in the Lebanon and two months at home; and Adoniram was in charge of the forced labor. Solomon also had seventy thousand porters and eighty thousand stonecutters in the hill country, besides Solomon’s three thousand three hundred supervisors who were over the work, having charge of the people who did the work.” Additionally, according 28.  For an attempt to correlate the Rehoboam episode and the known archaeological data from Shechem see Boling and Campbell 1987.

10

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

to 1 Kgs 9:15–23, Solomon conscripted “all the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the people of Israel, their descendants who were still left in the land, whom the Israelites were unable to destroy completely, these Solomon conscripted for slave labor, and so they are to this day. But of the Israelites Solomon made no slaves; they were the soldiers, they were his officials, his commanders, his captains, and the commanders of his chariotry and cavalry. These were the chief officers who were over Solomon’s work: five hundred and fifty, who had charge of the people who carried on the work.” Of these two passages, 2 Chron. 2:16–17 reworked the first, both abbreviating it and adding that the 70,000 people who were conscripted were actually taken from “the resident aliens (gērîm) who were in the land of Israel” (that is, those who were not Israelites!), the Chronicler perhaps taking his cue from the second passage, which he does not repeat at all. In any case, the cumulative effect is that in Chronicles itself, there is no mention of the Israelites’ having been forced into labor by Solomon, until the issue is brought up at the Shechem gathering. In Klein’s reading (2012, 158), this makes the people’s demand look like an excuse to rebel. The “three days” requested by Rehoboam to formulate his answer would have been too short a time for him to go to Jerusalem, seek counsel and return to Shechem, indicating, if taken literally, that he had brought both groups of advisors with him in advance. The time he took allowed his opponents to organize and emphasized his weakness (Keel 1986, 1832, quoting the fifteenth-century Isaac Abrabanel; Japhet 1993, 653). Machinist (1995, 105) considers the delay to be a ploy by the narrator in order to build up suspense. On the other hand, “three days” is a common time-frame in biblical literature, from Abraham’s journey to Moriah (Gen. 22:4) to the attack of Jacob’s son on Shechem (34:25), from the Israelites’ wait at the foot of Mount Sinai (Exod. 19:11) to their wait at the fords of the Jordan (Josh. 1:11), so that these “three days” could be a literary convention as well. It is not quite clear who the two groups of advisors were. While “elders” as figures of at least local authority and bearers of wisdom are well-known in both the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern sources (see, for example, Malamat 1963b; Fox 2000, 63–72; Walzer 2008; Wells 2010; Tigay 2011), neither Kings nor Chronicles ever mentions them as an organized advisory body to either David or Solomon. The same is certainly true for the “youths.” In this case the Hebrew term yelâdîm has a connotation of “children,” which, while certainly not referring to their physical age (as Rehoboam himself was supposedly 41 years old at the time) serves to



The Division of Solomon’s Kingdom – 2 Chronicles 10

11

emphasize their irresponsibility as a group.29 In any case, if read carefully, the elders’ advice was not actually to lessen the people’s burden, but to make it seem as if he would, at least until he was confirmed as king (for slightly different readings see Weinfeld 1982; Machinist 1995; Organ 2006). In other words, the elders advised Rehoboam to play politics. The yelâdîm, on the other hand, told him to “show them who’s boss” and to concede nothing. Boer (2011) has characterized the Chronicler’s version of their advice and its outcome as “Machiavellian.” Their coarse figures of speech, only some of which Rehoboam actually repeated, serve to emphasize their immaturity. As put by Walzer (2008, 237), this is “the only example in the Bible of intergenerational political disagreement.” As already noted, the Chronicler’s version of v. 14 is different from the Kings version in two significant ways. The first is that where Kings has “My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to it,” Chronicles has “I will make your yoke heavy, and I will add to it.” The second is that where Kings has “my father disciplined you with whips, but I will discipline you with scorpions,” Chronicles has “my father disciplined you with whips, but I with scorpions.” Both changes could be simple scribal errors and indeed many translations and commentators assume that they are. However, the first change actually serves to absolve Solomon from blame for the people’s condition, which fits nicely into the general picture of the rebellion in Chronicles, and the second, which occurs in v. 12 as well, emphasizes once again Rehoboam’s curtness and brashness. Also notable is that while Rehoboam seems to repeat his “young” advisors’ words verbatim, he actually leaves out the vulgar first line. Jarick (2007, 91) calls this “a reticence which may show some element of thoughtfulness on the part of this otherwise headstrong new ruler: such imagery for the new king’s potency may amuse the young bucks gathered in a privy council, but in the public assembly its youthful arrogance may sound rather less clever.” Or, as stated by Organ (2006, 127), “Ironically, he seems to recognize that he is not so large a man as his father.” Verse 15 includes the only theological statement in the entire chapter, which otherwise is all about politics. The verse is worded slightly differently here than in Kings, but without any real change of meaning. However, the difference in its wider context is striking. In Kings, mention of Ahijah’s prophecy to Jeroboam is only natural, since that prophecy had been described in the previous chapter. There, Ahijah is a major figure in 29.  Klein (2012, 159) suggests that at least some of the “elders” and the “youths” were brothers of Solomon, Rehoboam’s uncles, and Rehoboam’s own brothers respectively, but in any case agrees that they had no official standing. For an in-depth discussion of the yelâdîm and possible Egyptian parallels, see Fox 2000, 72–80.

12

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

the story of the division of the kingdom, and the fact that he is described as a “Shilonite,” coming from Shiloh, the place of the ancient Tabernacle at which Samuel was first called to prophecy, could not have been lost on the readers. His prophecy, recalled here, was that the division of the kingdom was a punishment for Solomon’s sins. Chronicles, however, had not described the previous encounter of rebel and prophet, so that the reader here could just as well assume that Ahijah had bestowed a prophetic blessing on Jeroboam (so Frisch 2000, 22). Johnstone (1997, 2:24–25) believes that to the Chronicler, Rehoboam’s failure was in his very acquiescence to participate in the Shechem assembly, which he considers as illegitimate in the first place. McKenzie (2004, 263) suggests that to the Chronicler, the division itself was actually a divine reaction to Rehoboam’s own arrogance rather than the sins of Solomon. In any case as it stands, in the context of Chronicles, the statement serves to remind the reader that all events are “turned” by God. Ahijah’s function here is not significantly different from that of other prophets in Chronicles, named and unnamed.30 Verse 16, taken almost verbatim from Kings, is a symbolic, rather than actual, description of the act of rebellion. After “all Israel” (whoever they may have been) realized that Rehoboam was not about to yield, they “answered the king” with a four-line “war-cry,” the first three of which are almost identical to the call of Sheba son of Bichri in 2 Sam. 20:1 (compare also to Amasai’s call in 1 Chron. 12:19). To the reader of Samuel–Kings, this similarity, reinforced by the final line “Look now to your own house, O David!,” served once more as a reminder of how far the kingdom had fallen since the days of David: then, David sent his army after Sheba and the rebellion was quelled; now, Rehoboam fled in shame back to Jerusalem. Johnstone (1997, 2:28) considers the northerners’ use of the patronymic “son of Jesse” to be intended to stress David’s “commoner origin,” equating him to the “son of Nabat.” The mention of tents is also usually seen as symbolic (see, for example, Num. 24:5), although both David’s army in 2 Samuel 20 and the tribes gathered here at Shechem may well have pitched tents for the event. One can picture the people turning their backs on Rehoboam and walking angrily back to their tents. The chapter concludes with Rehoboam’s sending Adoram/Hadoram the tax-collector or taskmaster to negotiate and with his being lynched by the mob. This can also be read as harking back to the Sheba incident, since the first mention of this official was upon his appointment by David right 30.  On prophets and prophecy in Chronicles in general see Japhet 1997, 178–89. See also the excursus on prophetic figures in Chronicles in Klein 2012, 161–63. Klein notes that Ahijah is never actually called “a prophet.”



The Division of Solomon’s Kingdom – 2 Chronicles 10

13

after that rebellion had been quashed. Upon seeing his emissary lynched, Rehoboam fled back to Jerusalem. The final verse, “And Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day,” seems more appropriate in the context of Kings, although it is used not infrequently in Chronicles as well, often in passages that have no parallel in Kings. In this context, what the Chronicler may have intended to show by leaving it as it is in Kings, is that even the exile and dispersion of the northern tribes, and perhaps even the division between Judah and Samaria of his own day, had their roots in the tribes’ initial rebellion against the House of David. Verse 20 of 2 Kings 12 continues with the coronation of Jeroboam as king over Israel. The Chronicler finds recounting this detail to be unnecessary, since, unlike Kings, he does not consider Jeroboam to be a legitimate, prophetically anointed king. In general from this point on, the Chronicler does not systematically recount the history of the northern kingdom, which he considers to be illegitimate. The northern tribes are still part of the nation of Israel, but as long as they remain in rebellion against the House of David, their political organization is a sinful one. The Chronicler, while changing the Kings version of the chapter very little, gave it a whole new meaning. To the Deuteronomist, the division of the monarchy was part of a divinely willed process of punishment for the sins of Solomon. Solomon sinned gravely against God and against the people, was warned, deserved to lose his entire kingdom, but this punishment was both delayed and reduced “for the sake of David your father…and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen” (1 Kgs 11:12– 13). Jeroboam was chosen by God, anointed by a prophet from Shiloh and offered a covenant just like David’s (1 Kgs 11:38). The people’s actions vis-à-vis the foolish Rehoboam are in fulfillment with the divine plan, for which they cannot be faulted. The Chronicler, however, did not tell us about Solomon’s sins and thus cannot claim that the people’s rebellion was justified. Solomon had never conscripted them into labor, only the gērîm, so their complaints were as unjustified as those of Sheba son of Bichri. As pointed out by Frisch (2000, 21–22), Chronicles also does not repeat 1 Kgs 12:20, which tells of Jeroboam being elected king “over all Israel” by “the assembly” (the edâh), since that would have legitimized his rule. Perhaps if Rehoboam had listened to his wiser advisors, the whole affair would have ended differently. But he didn’t and it didn’t, and the Chronicler’s readers are meant to realize that in the end, it was God who “turned” the events.

T h e R eig n o f R eh ob o am – 2 C h r o n ic les 11–12

Chapter 11: 1 And Rehoboam came to Jerusalem, and he assembled the house of Judah and Benjamin,1 one hundred and eighty thousand chosen warriors,2 to fight against Israel,3 to restore the kingdom to Rehoboam.4 2 And the word of the Lord5 came6 to Shemaiah the man of God: 3 Say to Rehoboam son of Solomon king of Judah,7 and to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin:8 4 Thus says the Lord: You shall not go up or fight against your brethren;9 return each man to his home, for this thing has been done by me; and they heeded the words of the Lord and turned back from going against Jeroboam.10 1.  Kings has, “all the house of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin.” Chronicles lacks “all” and “tribe,” perhaps giving less of a sense of totality. 2.  ‫בחור עשה מלחמה‬, literally “chosen makers of war.” 3.  Kings has “the house of Israel.” As noted by Japhet (1993, 659), Chronicles never uses this term and changes it whenever it appears in his sources. For the Chronicler, the struggle is not between two “houses,” but between Rehoboam and a break-away kingdom, an illegitimate political entity. 4.  Kings has “to restore the kingship to Rehoboam son of Solomon.” Chronicles replaces the somewhat lofty ‫מלוכה‬, “kingship” with the more common ‫ממלכה‬, “kingdom.” 5.  Kings has “the word of God.” In this unique instance, Chronicles renders ‫יהוה‬, “Lord,” where Kings has ‫האלהים‬, “God.” One can only surmise that perhaps his source also had ‫יהוה‬. Indeed, the Greek for 1 Kgs 12:22 has λόγος κυρίου, “word of the Lord.” 6.  The Hebrew does not actually have the verb “came,” but rather ‫ויהי‬, “and the word of the Lord was to Shemaiah…” 7.  This is the first time that Chronicles uses the title “King of Judah” in the narrative section of the book. While the Chronicler does occasionally also use “Israel” for the southern kingdom, he recognizes the de facto division of the kingdom from this point. 8.  Kings has “and to all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the rest of the people.” In Kings, Shemaiah’s speech, while aimed primarily at Rehoboam’s kingdom, was also meant for “the rest of the people” – the northerners as well. In Chronicles, the speech is only aimed at those Israelites who were “in Judah and Benjamin” – those who had remained loyal to Rehoboam. 9.  ‫אחיכם‬, literally “your brothers.” Kings has “your kindred (or brothers) the people of Israel.” 10.  In Kings it is “turned back from going, according to the word of the Lord,” with no specific mention of Jeroboam. The remainder of Kings ch. 12, all of ch. 13, and the first 24 verses of ch. 14 have no parallel in Chronicles.



The Reign of Rehoboam – 2 Chronicles 11–12

15

5 And Rehoboam resided in Jerusalem, and he built cities for defense11 in Judah. 6 He built Bethlehem, Etam, Tekoa, 7 Beth-zur, Soco, Adullam, 8 Gath, Mareshah, Ziph, 9 Adoraim, Lachish, Azekah, 10 Zorah, Aijalon, and Hebron, which are in Judah and in Benjamin, fortified cities.12 11 And he strengthened the fortresses, and he put commanders in them, and stores of food and oil and wine. 12 And in every city (he put)13 shields and spears, and made them very strong; and Judah and Benjamin were his. 13 And the priests and the Levites who were in all Israel presented themselves to him from all their territories.14 14 For the Levites had left their pasturelands15 and their holdings and had come to Judah and to Jerusalem, because Jeroboam and his sons had caused them to desist16 from serving as priests17 of the Lord. 15 And had appointed his own priests for the bamôt,18 and for 11.  This term, ‫ערים למצור‬, as well as ‫ ערי מצרות‬in v. 10 and just ‫ המצרות‬in v. 11, as well as several variants, is found only in Chronicles (cf. 2 Chron. 8:5; 11:23; 12:4; 14:6; 21:3). Literally, it means “cities for siege,” and is often translated “fortified cities” and the like. Also see Japhet 1993, 666–67. 12.  ‫ערי מצרות‬. A variant of ‫ ערים למצור‬above. Here we have translated “fortified cities” for clarity in English. 13.  The Hebrew lacks the verb, which is inserted for clarity in English. 14.  The Levites, including the priests, were supposedly settled in 48 towns spread throughout Israel, schematically four towns in each of the twelve tribes, as commanded in Num. 35:7. See the commentary on 1 Chron. 6 and below. 15.  ‫מגרשיהם‬, a term used specifically and repeatedly for the land around the Levitical towns in Josh. 21 and in 1 Chron. 6. It is often translated “common land” or “pastureland.” According to Num. 35:4–5, these lands should extend 1000 cubits from the city wall, making a square of 2000 cubits on each side. For an attempt to better define the term, see Portugali 1984. In Chronicles, the term is also used in 1 Chron. 5:16; 13:2 and 2 Chron. 31:19, each with a slightly different meaning. 16.  ‫הזניחם‬. ZNḤ has a basic meaning of “to abandon,” with a negative connotation of causing something to become ruined. See 1 Chron. 28:9; 2 Chron. 29:19. 17.  The Hebrew has ‫מכהן‬, literally “from priesting” for the Lord. 18.  The Hebrew word ‫במה‬, pl. ‫במות‬, is related to the general Semitic word, known in Ugaritic and in Akkadian, that refers to the back or flanks of an animal or of a mountain. A similar expression in the Bible is ‫ במותימו‬in Deut. 33:29, referring to Israel treading on their enemies’ “backs.” ‫ במתי־ארץ‬in Deut. 32:18 is translated “the heights of the land” by NRSV and “atop the highlands” by NJPS. In Mic. 1:3 and in Amos 4:13, it is God who strides “upon the heights of the earth.” In Isa. 14:14, the Shining Son of Dawn (the Vulgate’s Lucifer qui mane oriebaris) wishes to ascend to “the top/back of a cloud.” In Job 9:8, it is God “who alone stretched out the heavens and trampled the backs of the Sea.” However in the Bible, the term bamâh and its plural bamôt are most often used to refer to places of worship (even worship of Yahweh!) outside the Jerusalem Temple. Some of these, such as Samuel’s bamâh in 1 Sam. 9 or “the great bamâh” at Gibeon in 1 Kgs 3:4 = 2 Chron. 1:3, are considered legitimate by the biblical writers, but most are not. Specifically in Chronicles, the singular bamâh is used only in reference to the legitimate

16

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

the goat-demons,19 and for the calves20 that he had made. 16 And following them, from all the tribes of Israel, those who had set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the Lord God of their fathers. 17 And they strengthened the kingdom of Judah, and they encouraged21 Rehoboam son of Solomon for three years, for they walked in the way of David and Solomon for three years. 18 And Rehoboam took as his wife Mahalath daughter of Jerimoth son of David,22 (and of)23 Abihail daughter of Eliab son of Jesse. 19 And she bore him sons: Jeush, Shemariah, and Zaham. 20 After her he took Maacah daughter of Absalom,24 who bore him Abijah, Attai, Ziza, and Shelomith. 21 And Rehoboam loved Maacah daughter of Absalom more than all his wives and concubines, for he took eighteen wives and sixty concubines, and begot twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters. 22 And Rehoboam appointed as head Abijah son of Maacah as chief25 among his brothers, for (he intended)26 to make him king. 23 And he acted wisely, and he spread some of his sons through all the lands of Judah and Benjamin, in all the fortified cities; he gave them abundant food, and sought many wives (for them).27 shrine at Gibeon (1 Chron. 16:39; 21:29; 2 Chron. 1:3, 13), while the plural bamôt is used in all other cases, and refers to illegitimate places of worship. There is a debate on the precise structure and function of such bamôt and whether it is possible to connect specific archaeological remains with such structures (on which see Nakhai 1994; Catron 1995; Fried 2002; Hardy and Thomas 2012). In the Greek, the most common (but not only) term used for bamôt is ὑψηλῶν, which means “lofty” or “high.” This was followed by the Latin excelsorum, which became “high places” in most English versions. This is, however, misleading, since there is no reason to think that all bamôt were either on hilltops or included raised platforms. NJPS uses the more ambiguous “shrines.” We have chosen to simply retain bamôt. 19.  Hebrew ‫ שעירים‬is used as a forbidden object of worship only in Lev. 17:7 (and perhaps also in 2 Kgs 23:8, Isa. 13:21 and Isa. 34:14, although these are debated), and is often assumed to be a type of “devil,” often translated “satyrs.” In non-cultic contexts, the word means “male goat.” See Münnich 2006. Snaith (1975) believes that the reference is to Canaanite rain-gods. 20.  Referring to the golden calves that Jeroboam placed at Dan and at Bethel according to 1 Kgs 12:28, which is not recounted directly in Chronicles. 21.  From the Hebrew root ‫אמץ‬. Often translated as “strengthened” or “made secure.” 22.  Although no such son of David is mentioned elsewhere. 23.  The “and of” is absent the Hebrew, leading some commentators to suggest that Abihail was actually a second wife. However, the following verses are worded in the singular: “she bore him,” “after her.” So Mahalath’s parents were first cousins, related to the royal family. 24.  For whom see the commentary. 25.  The Hebrew uses both rōš, “head” and nagîd, which is often understood as “heir apparent” or “king-elect.” See Halpern 1981, 1–11. 26.  Absent in the Hebrew but implied by the context. 27.  “For them” is absent in the Hebrew but implied by the context. An alternative proposal would be to re-divide the words ‫וישאל המון נשים‬, “he sought many women,” as



The Reign of Rehoboam – 2 Chronicles 11–12

17

Chapter 12: 1 And it came to be that when the rule of Rehoboam was established and he grew strong, he abandoned the Torah28 of the Lord, and all Israel with him. 2 And it came to be in the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, because they29 had been unfaithful to the Lord. 3 With one thousand two hundred chariots and sixty thousand horsemen, and there was no counting the people who came with him from Egypt—Libyans, Sukkites and Kushites.30 4 And he captured the fortified cities31 of Judah and came as far as Jerusalem. 5 And Shemaiah the prophet came to Rehoboam and to the officials of Judah, who had gathered in Jerusalem because32 of Shishak, and said to them, Thus says the Lord: You abandoned me, so I have abandoned you to the hand of Shishak. 6 And the officials of Israel and the king submitted and said, The Lord is righteous. 7 And when the Lord saw that they submitted, the word of the Lord came to Shemaiah, saying: They have submitted; I will not destroy them, and I will grant them a small deliverance, and my wrath will not be poured out33 on Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak. 8 For34 they shall be his servants, and they will know my service and the service of the kingdoms of the lands.”35 9 And Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem; he took the treasures of the house of the Lord and the treasures of the house of the king, he took everything; he took the shields of gold36 that Solomon had made. 10 And King Rehoboam made in place of them shields of bronze,37 and entrusted them to the hands of the officers of the runners,38 who guarded the door of the king’s house.

‫וישא להמון נשים‬, “and he married them to many women” (thus NRSV; Japhet 1993, 662) or ‫( וישא להם נשים‬McKenzie 2004, 267). 28.  The noun ‫ תורה‬literally means “teaching” or “instruction” and is often translated “law.” On our decision to translate tôrâh in Chronicles as a proper noun see the commentary. 29.  Referring to Rehoboam and “all Israel.” 30.  NRSV and most translations have “Libyans, Sukkiim, and Ethiopians.” 31.  The Hebrew has the same ‫ ערי המצרות‬as used in the previous chapter. 32.  The Hebrew ‫ מפני שישק‬implies that they had fled to the capital in fear. 33.  The Hebrew ‫ תתך חמתי‬has the connotation of hot molten metal being poured out. It appears in Chronicles only here and in 2 Chron. 34:17 (literally, referring to silver), 21 and 25 (figuratively, like here, referring to the Lord’s wrath). See there for further discussion. 34.  KJV, NEB, NRSV etc. have “nevertheless,” which fits the context. 35.  In other words, “they will know the difference between serving me and serving the kingdoms of the lands” (NRSV; NJPS). 36.  1 Kgs 14:26 has: “all the shields of gold.” 37.  The Hebrew ‫נחשת‬, “copper,” is also used for “bronze,” which is a copper alloy. 38.  The ‫רצים‬, literally “runners,” were the royal escorts. They are mentioned in 1 Sam. 22:17; 2 Sam. 15:1 and more. The usual translation is “guards,” but “runners” gives a feeling of a king who insists on unnecessary pomp and ceremony. Cf. 1 Sam. 8:11. For the use of “runners” for “messengers” see 2 Chron. 30:6, 10.

18

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

11 And whenever the king went into the house of the Lord, the runners would come along bearing them, and would then bring them back to the chamber of the runners. 12 Because he had submitted, the wrath of the Lord turned from him, so as not to destroy39 completely; and there were also good things in Judah.40 13 And King Rehoboam grew strong in Jerusalem and reigned; for Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he reigned; and seventeen years he reigned in Jerusalem, the city that the Lord had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel to put his name there, and his mother’s name was Naamah the Ammonitess. 14 And he did evil, for he did not set his heart to seek the Lord. 15 And the acts of Rehoboam, the first and the last, are they not written in the records of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer, to be enrolled?,41 and wars of Rehoboam and Jeroboam continuously.42 16 And Rehoboam lay with his fathers43 and was buried in the city of David; and his son Abijah44 reigned in his stead.

Commentary Overview: The Reign of Rehoboam Chapters 11 and 12 tell the story of Rehoboam’s reign over Judah. The story is clearly divided into two parts of more-or-less equal length: in ch. 11 Rehoboam is a righteous and successful king, loyal to Yahweh 39.  The object of “destroy” is not spelled out. NRSV has “them”; NJPS and others have “him.” 40.  This verse is absent from Kings. Williamson (1982, 248) compares this statement to 2 Chron. 19:3 and understands it as referring to there being some cultic faithfulness left in Judah. 41.  Hebrew ‫“ – להתיחש‬to be listed by lineage.” KJV has “concerning genealogies”; NRSV, “recorded by genealogy”; NJPS, “in the manner of genealogy.” The term ‫יחש‬, meaning “related,” always in the reflexive hitpael, appears 24 times in the Bible, of which 15 are in Chronicles, 10 of those in the “genealogical introduction” in 1 Chron. 1–9. There, interestingly enough, it is not used for either Judah or Benjamin (see Beentjes 1999). Japhet (1993, 682) considers this to be the title or description of Iddo’s book. 42.  The Hebrew lacks a verb, making the sentence seem incomplete. Kings has “And there was continuous war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam,” which most translators of Chronicles follow. However the Chronicler may have meant that the continuous wars were recorded in Iddo’s book (so Keel 1986, 654) – in other words: “are they not written in the records of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer, to be enrolled, and wars of Rehoboam and Jeroboam continuously?” 43.  The common euphemism for dying, similar to being “gathered unto his people” (such as in Gen. 25:8). “Father” here obviously does not only refer to a person’s biological parent, and as such is often rendered “ancestor” in modern translations. 44.  Kings consistently names Rehoboam’s son ‫אבים‬, “Abijam,” where Chronicles has ‫אביה‬, “Abijah.” See the commentary on ch. 13.



The Reign of Rehoboam – 2 Chronicles 11–12

19

and rewarded accordingly; in ch. 12 he “abandoned the Torah of the Lord” and “did evil, for he did not set his heart to seek the Lord” and was duly punished, although the punishment was mitigated by his timely repentance. The first period is characterized by his fortifications, his taking in the priests, Levites and others who had abandoned the sinful Jeroboam, and his having many wives and children – all signs of divine blessing. At the center of the second period is the invasion by Shishak – seen as a punishment for his sins. However, while Rehoboam is said to have ruled seventeen years (2 Chron. 12:13), Chronicles quite specifically divides his reign into two unequal periods: the first period, that of righteousness and success, lasted only three years (11:17 – stated twice in succession for emphasis!); after that began the period of unfaithfulness and punishment. This division is unknown in Kings; its apparent reason is the Chronicler’s well-known doctrine of “immediate retribution” – in the Chronicler’s view, bad things happen as a direct result of evil-doing. As such, since the date of Shishak’s invasion in Rehoboam’s fifth year was a “given” in the Chronicler’s source in Kings, he and the people must have begun sinning in the fourth year, meaning that the time of righteousness and success could only have lasted through the third (Japhet 1997, 162–71). Jarick (2007, 95) emphasizes the connection between the “three years” of this chapter and the “three days” of the previous chapter (10:5, 12); he believes that the Chronicler has “a certain fondness for threefold durations of time.” These two chapters are paralleled by 1 Kgs 12:21–14:31, but the material is re-worked to such an extent that it pretty much tells a different story. Both versions begin with Rehoboam’s initial attempt at winning back his kingdom by force of arms and the intervention of the prophet Shemaiah. Then, however, Kings goes on to recount the acts of Jeroboam and his sins, concluding with his death and the enthronement of his son Nadab. Chronicles simply skips over all of this: he is writing a history of Judah, which in his eyes is the true “Israel,” not of the apostate northern kingdom. Some of the events told in 1 Kgs 12:21–14:20 are mentioned in Chronicles, but only vis-à-vis their influence on Judah. 1 Kings 14:21–31 then gives a very short account of Rehoboam’s reign: the standard ascension formula, his doing evil in the eyes of the Lord and the people’s worship of abominations, Shishak’s invasion and plunder of Jerusalem, a note on Kings’ sources (“the chronicles of the kings of Judah”), a final comment on the unceasing warfare between the kingdoms, Rehoboam’s death and burial and the ascension of Abijam. This short account is expanded by Chronicles three-fold, from Kings’ eleven verses to his own 34, both by re-working the existing material and by adding additional information. The overall picture is very different from that given in Kings.

20

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Chapter 11: The Three Good Years Verses 1–4 tell of Rehoboam’s initial attempt to reunite the kingdom by force. These verses are taken from 1 Kgs 12:21–24, however with some subtle changes. Kings’ “house of Judah and tribe of Benjamin” becomes “house of Judah and Benjamin,” making the two tribes into one “house,” while Kings’ “house of Israel” is just “Israel”: the northern tribes are not a “house” at all. And where Kings does name “the house of Judah and Benjamin, and the rest of the people,” Chronicles has “all Israel in Judah and Benjamin” – those who dwell in Rehoboam’s realm are “all Israel”; the people living under Jeroboam are marginal. However, where earlier scholars such as Rudolph (1955, 227) believed that to the Chronicler, the northerners themselves no longer counted as “Israel,” more recent studies have emphasized that it is the northern kingdom that is illegitimate – the people of the north are always to be welcomed back into the fold (Williamson 1977, 99; Dillard 1987, 95; Japhet 1993, 659). Ben Zvi (2003, 67–70) went even further, proposing that Chronicles pictured Rehoboam as systematically “de-Israelizing” the northerners, by planning to subject them to forced labor (which according to Chronicles Solomon had only imposed on foreigners), which the Chronicler himself objected to, as can be seen by Shemaiah’s referring to the northerners as “your brothers.” Rehoboam’s plans are foiled by “Shemaiah the man of God.” In Kings, this is Shemaiah’s only appearance and we have no further information about him. In Chronicles, he also appears in the Shishak affair (12:5, 7) and as the writer of Rehoboam’s history (12:15). In both of those references, he is designated “Shemaiah the prophet.” In his speech here, Shemaiah emphasizes that the division of the kingdom was an act of God and that the men of Judah should not fight against their “brethren” (in Hebrew literally “brothers”). Frisch (1988) points out the repeated play on the root ŠWB, “to return”: Rehoboam wished to return the kingdom to his control, while God orders the men to return home. Rehoboam, by accepting Shemaiah’s orders unquestioningly, proves that he is indeed a righteous king (for the moment). McKenzie (2004, 265) also considers Rehoboam’s obeying the word of the prophet in these verses to be the reason for his prosperity through the rest of the chapter. Rehoboam’s “Cities for Siege” Verses 5–12 tell of Rehoboam’s building activity. As pointed out by Japhet (1997, 170–71) and others, the Chronicler, throughout his work, considers success at building and fortification to be a reward for faithfulness. Thus Rehoboam’s building fifteen “cities for siege” or “cities for defense” must be assigned to his three “good” years.



The Reign of Rehoboam – 2 Chronicles 11–12

21

This list of cities, and indeed the very idea that Rehoboam was involved in extensive construction, are totally lacking in Kings. All fifteen cities are well-known, and all but one, Adoraim, are mentioned in other biblical texts, most quite prominently. Adoraim (Adora) is known in the Persian and Hellenistic periods, although Iron Age II pottery was found there as well (Kochavi 1972, 62–63).

Map 3. Rehoboam’s “Cities for Siege”

The one city on the list whose identification has been seriously debated is Gath. While several cities called Gath are known from both the Bible and other ancient sources (for which see Levin 2012a, 141–43), the best known one is the famous Philistine city, home of Achish and of Goliath. And while over the years there has been a debate on the identification of this Gath as well, recent excavations at the huge site of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi, on the

22

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Elah stream about 5 km west of Azekah, have shown without reasonable doubt that this is the most likely candidate (Rainey 1975; Maeir 2012a, 1–107). However, from both the Bible and the archaeological record we know that this Gath was still a flourishing Philistine city in the late tenth century BCE, and most scholars have found it very unlikely that a weakened king such as Rehoboam could have taken over and fortified Philistine Gath. For this reason many have suggested that the “Gath” referred to here is in fact Moresheth-gath, hometown of the prophet Micah (Mic. 1:1, 14; Jer. 26:18), with the name shortened to just “Gath” by either common usage or, more likely, by haplography caused by the similar name Mareshah appearing right after. There is, however, no consensus on the identification of Moresheth-gath either, with either Tell el-Judeideh, Tell Eitun or Tel Harasim as the major candidates (for a summary of the arguments see Levin 2002).45 In general, the cities listed form a ring that would protect the main approaches into the heart of the Judean hills from the southeast (Bethlehem, Etam, Tekoa) south (Ziph and Adoraim) and west (Lachish, Mareshah, Adullam, Socoh, Azekah, Zorah, Aijalon), with Beth-zur and Hebron serving as a “backup” for the southern line. However none of the cities are situated to the north of Jerusalem, and the entire Negeb region is ignored (for a slightly different description see Johnstone 1997, 2:32). It would be expected that such a list of fortifications attributed to a king otherwise portrayed as weak, that is not even hinted at in the Kings account, would raise suspicion among scholars as being a fabrication of the Chronicler’s, intended to serve his own theological agenda. However even Curtis and Madsen (1910, 366–67) assumed it to be genuine, and since the pioneering study by Gustav Beyer (1931), most scholars have considered the list to be both historical and an integral part of the Chronicler’s portrayal of Rehoboam and his kingdom (for some examples see Rudolph 1955, 227–30; Myers 1965, 2:69; Kallai 1971; 1986, 79–83; Aharoni 1979, 330–32; Williamson 1982, 241; Japhet 1993, 666). Be that as it may, the list of cities has raised a number of questions. For example, why would Rehoboam not fortify his northern border? Why would the important sites and trade routes of the Negeb be left outside the southern line of fortifications? Aharoni (1979, 330–32) proposed that Rehoboam had not fortified his northern border because he desired 45.  Another proposal, is that this “Gath” be identified with the Gittaim of Neh. 11:33, perhaps the same as that mentioned in 2 Sam. 4:3, maybe the same as the Gath of 1 Chron. 7:21 and 8:13 (Keel 1986, 642), identified by Mazar (1954, with no reference to Rehoboam), at Râs Abû Ḥamîd, north of Gezer. It seems unlikely, however, the such a northerly site would be within the area controlled by Rehoboam.



The Reign of Rehoboam – 2 Chronicles 11–12

23

to expand in that direction. He explained the lack of cities in the Negeb by suggesting that the Levitical cities, built, in his opinion, during the reigns of David and Solomon, already covered the southern part of the kingdom. He was also of the opinion that despite their position in the text, the fortifications must have been built after Shishak’s campaign. Both Kallai (1971) and Rainey (1983a, 12), disputed this, citing both the clear chronological order in the text itself, and their own logic, that while at the beginning of his reign Rehoboam was strengthened by the influx of Levites and others from the north, after Shishak’s campaign he would have been too impoverished to undertake such a project. Kallai (1971, 247) disputed the view that the list reflected the actual, truncated, boundaries of the kingdom, seeing them instead as sitting along the main routes leading to Jerusalem, within the populated areas and not along the frontiers. Yeivin (1976, 350) went even further and, based on the reference to “stores of food and oil and wine” proposed that the whole system was actually economic in nature, and that the cities were “commercial centers.” Over a century ago Winkler (1903, 241) proposed that the building of these military centers was made necessary by wide-spread insurrections within Judah itself, hence the Chronicler’s comment in v. 12, “and Judah and Benjamin were his.” While this suggestion was rejected by Curtis and Madsen (1910, 367), it was revived eight decades later by Miller (1987, 282–83), and later by Hobbs (1994), both of whom, while not going as far as to claim that rebellion had already broken out in Judah, considered the cities, commanded by Rehoboam’s own sons, to be a sign that this possibility was imminent. Miller considered the question of whether the project was carried out before or after Shishak’s campaign to be irrelevant, since it would have been an ongoing project, little affected by Shishak’s invasion, which for the most part seems to have bypassed Judah (for further discussion see below). The first to suggest that the list, while historical, actually represented a reality other than the time of Rehoboam were Junge (1937) and Alt (1953). Their arguments were repeated by Fritz (1981), who attempted to match the list with the archaeological evidence available (in the late 1970s) from the sites mentioned. However at the time, the only two sites that had undergone fairly modern excavations were Beth-zur (partially excavated in the 1950s) and Lachish (partially excavated in the 1930s and undergoing further excavation at the time of Fritz’s writing). Fritz showed that both of these sites had been fortified in the seventh century BCE, and reiterated Junge and Alt’s argument that the list best matched the time of Josiah and that the Chronicler had transferred it to the reign of Rehoboam

24

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

for ideological reasons. Na’aman (1986a) accepted Fritz’s arguments against dating the list to the reign of Rehoboam, but since he had a much more minimalistic view of Josiah’s kingdom, he felt that the reality that best fit the list was that of the late eighth century BCE, when King Hezekiah was fortifying and supplying the towns of Judah in preparation for Sennacherib’s expected invasion of the country. Na’aman claimed that the distribution of the cities partially matched the distribution of the “lmlk” stamp impressions on jar handles, also widely regarded as dating from this time. This theory was attacked by Garfinkel (1988), who reaffirmed the traditional dating of the list to Rehoboam (but see Na’aman’s reply, 1988; McKenzie 2004, 265 claims that “many scholars” accept the Hezekian dating). More recently Zadok (1998, 244–45) proposed that the list should be dated to the Chronicler’s own time, the late Persian or early Hellenistic periods, while Finkelstein (2011) claimed that, based on his analysis of the archaeological and textual evidence, vv. 5–11 are a late addition to the text of Chronicles, and that the list best fits the reality of the Hasmonean period, specifically early in the reign of John Hyrcanus I (134–104 BCE), after his conquest of Idumea and before his conquest of Samaria. The common denominator of all of these treatments is the assumption that the cities listed in vv. 6–10 must have actually been fortified and that by matching the list with those sites at which fortifications have been found, it should be possible to determine the historical reality that best fits the list. Another sort of a solution was proposed by Herrmann (1989). He suggested, that the reason that some of those cities that have been excavated do not seem to have been fortified during Rehoboam’s time is that the list of cities is actually a plan, drawn up in the days of Solomon (hence no need for fortifications in the north) most of which was never completed, either by Solomon or by his son. Thus, it should be no surprise that not all of the cities were actually fortified. All of which reinforces a comment made by Dillard (1987, 94): “While skill in archeological method continues to grow, this data is often subject to reinterpretation: today’s results…become tomorrow’s footnotes about earlier errors. At a methodological level one has to question the relative weight of the epigraphic and archeological evidence…against the interpretation of data from partial excavations.” This remains true today as well: we really do not have enough archaeological data to comment on the historicity of the list as is; the best we can do is to attempt to understand its geo-strategic logic and its significance within the Chronicler’s portrayal of Rehoboam and his kingdom.



The Reign of Rehoboam – 2 Chronicles 11–12

25

Rehoboam’s Further Successes Verses 13–15 tell of the migration of priests and Levites to Judah, citing Jeroboam’s apostasy as the reason. This is a partial re-working of 1 Kgs 12:28–33, but seen from a later Judahite perspective. Chronicles does not mention Jeroboam’s reform of the calendar, which would not have affected Judah. He also does not give such specifics about Jeroboam’s bamôt (the so-called high places; see the note on v. 15) or golden calves as their location or Jeroboam’s reasoning in creating them. The reason or source for his addition of śe‘irîm (“goat-devils” or “satyrs”) to the “high places” and calves is not clear. Dillard (1987, 97), Japhet (1993, 668) and McKenzie (2004, 266) emphasize the connection to Lev. 17:7, claiming that the reference serves to further delegitimize Jeroboam’s cultic standing. Dillard further points out that Chronicles is more explicit about Jeroboam’s rejection of the Levitical priests, where Kings simply reported that he appointed non-Levites as priests. Since Chronicles had already told us about the special connection between the Levites and the Davidic dynasty (1 Chron. 26; see the commentary there), it stands to reason that in his mind, the Levites would have been considered “collaborators” with the Davidic regime and would thus have been expelled. They then presented themselves to Rehoboam, ready to serve the legitimate king. As emphasized by Johnstone (1997, 2:33), this is not so much to Rehoboam’s credit as it is “the inevitable consequence of the secession of the north.” It is not really clear whether the people “from all the tribes of Israel, those who had set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the Lord, God of their fathers” (v. 16) is intended to refer to all northerners who were loyal to Yahweh, or to additional priests and Levites, or even to southerners, and whether the meaning is that they came specifically to sacrifice in Jerusalem, or whether they, too, migrated permanently to Judah. In any case, to the Chronicler, their “strengthening” or “encouraging” Rehoboam only lasted through the first three years of his rule, as long as he was loyal to Yahweh himself. The listing of Rehoboam’s many wives and children is meant to further emphasize the blessings bestowed on him, although it is doubtful that the Chronicler could have intended his readers to believe that they were all born during the first three years (this contra McKenzie 2004, 267; Johnstone 1997, 2:37 calls this the Chronicler’s “timeless contemporaneity”). In fact, since Rehoboam only became king at the age of forty-one, it is reasonable to assume that he had married at least his first wife and perhaps his second as well before assuming the throne, while still crown prince. Befitting his rank, Rehoboam’s two chief wives, the only two

26

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

who are named, are both Davidic royals. The first, Mahalath, was the daughter of an otherwise unknown son of David and of a niece of David, a daughter of David’s brother. She was thus a cousin of Rehoboam’s on both sides.46 The second wife, “Maacah daughter of Absalom,” mother of Rehoboam’s successor Abijah, is more difficult to identify. Obviously, the first “Absalom” who comes to mind is David’s famous son, whose mother, in fact, was also named Maacah, and was the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur (2 Sam. 3:3; 1 Chron. 3:2). Indeed, since Absalom’s murder of his half-brother, flight, return, rebellion and execution, recounted at length in 2 Samuel 13–19, are not mentioned in Chronicles, mention of Absalom here as Rehoboam’s father-in-law would have no negative connotations and would make this Maacah simply another royal cousin. However, it is not as simple as all that. According to 2 Sam. 14:27, Absalom had three sons and one daughter, whose name was Tamar; 2 Sam. 18:18 mentions his having “no son,” presumably meaning that the three died in childhood, but no mention is made of the fate of Tamar. So while it is possible that Absalom later had another daughter named Maacah (thus Keel 1986, 646), his untimely demise makes this unlikely. Furthermore, according to 1 Kgs 15:2, the mother of Abijam (Chronicles’ Abijah) is indeed “Maacah daughter of Abisalom,” agreeing with our passage. However there, the parallel 2 Chron. 13:2 has Abijah’s mother as “Micaiah daughter of Uriel from Gibeah,” while according to 1 Kgs 15:10, “Maacah daughter of Abisalom” is the mother of Asa, son of Abijam. This is confirmed by mention of the monstrous asherah set up by “his mother Maacah,” which 2 Chron. 15:16 renders specifically “Maacah mother of Asa.” Japhet (1993, 671) proposes to solve a part of this conundrum by assuming that “Micaiah” and “Maacah” were one and the same, and that she was the daughter of Tamar and of Uriel, making her a granddaughter of Absalom. In fact, this was already suggested by Josephus (Ant. 8.249), but it does not solve the problem of Maacah also being the mother of Abijah’s son Asa. Japhet, like other commentators before her, plays with the idea of Asa being the brother of Abijah, but since this totally contradicts the information provided by both Kings and Chronicles, she rejects the idea, summarizing that “no one solution can encompass all the evidence.”47 46.  Or, as calculated by Klein (2012, 176), “Rehoboam and Mahalath were second cousins on her mother’s side and first cousins on her father’s side.” 47.  For a review of previous suggestions, again concluding that none of them seems to be sufficient, see Arbeli 1985, 165–70.



The Reign of Rehoboam – 2 Chronicles 11–12

27

In any case, according to Chronicles, despite his prolific progeny, whom he appointed as officers throughout the land, including in his fortified cities, Rehoboam appointed the eldest son of his most beloved wife as his heir, similar to the appointment of Solomon, son of Bathsheba, by David. The differences, however, are easy to see: Solomon’s appointment was made in secret, at the height of a struggle for succession. Abijah, according to Chronicles, was appointed in advance and served as “chief prince” for an unspecified time. Spanier, in a note in her study of “queen mothers” in the Judean court (1998, 136 n. 4), seems to believe that Abijah’s appointment was due to his mother’s political position, which was a result of her foreign origin, ignoring the fact that no such foreign origin is actually mentioned, and that the text unabashedly says that the reason was that Rehoboam loved Maacah more than any of his many other wives and concubines. This, too, can be seen as a part of the blessings bestowed on Rehoboam during his first three years. A very different view of “Rehoboam’s amours” is presented by Johnstone (1997, 2:36–39). In his opinion the Chronicler, while not actually saying so, at least implies that Rehoboam’s taking many wives, in contradiction of the law in Deut. 17:17, symbolizes the beginning of his “falling away” from the Lord. Chapter 12: Rehoboam’s Sins and their Consequences At the beginning of ch. 12, the atmosphere changes. Rehoboam, having become strong, “abandoned the Torah of the Lord, and all Israel with him.” The Meaning of the Term “Torah” in Chronicles In the Septuagint, the word tôrâh is most often translated νόμος, which simply means “law,” or “custom.” This convention is followed by the Vulgate legem, which also means “law.” For this reason, in most English translations, hattôrâh is most commonly rendered “the Law.” However the noun tôrâh literally means “instruction” or “teaching,” and is used in the Bible in various contexts and with various meanings. It can refer to a specific set of rules, such as “the tôrâh of the burnt offering” (Lev. 6:2), “of the meal offering” (ibid. 6) or “of the guilt offering” (7:1), of animals which may or may not be eaten (11:46), of “leprosy of cloth” (13:59), of the nazirite (Num. 6:13) and more. It is used for legal decisions (Deut. 17:11). In other contexts, “the tôrâh of the Lord” refers generally to the commandments and statutes which Yahweh gave the people of Israel (Exod. 13:9; 18:20), which the pious Israelite will always do his best to observe (such as in Ps. 119, multiple times; Prov. 28:4; 29:18). For the classical prophets, the tôrâh is the central component of the covenant

28

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

between Israel and Yahweh, and Israel’s abandonment of the tôrâh is cited as the reason for their eventual exile (Hos. 4:6; Amos 2:4; Jer. 42:23 and many more). A specific corpus of written tôrâh is first mentioned in Deuteronomy, usually with the definite article, the tôrâh (Deut. 1:5; 4:8, 44). A written book of the tôrâh, written by Moses and intended to be read by the people, is referred to several times (27:3, 8; 28:61; 29:20; 30:10; 31:9, 11, 24, 26; Josh. 1:8; 8:34). In 2 Kgs 22:8, a “book of the tôrâh” was said to have been found in the Temple. As will be discussed in our commentary on 2 Chronicles 34, the precise contents of that book is unknown, but at least at some point during the post-exilic period, the existence of an authoritative “book of the tôrâh,” in which God’s commandments were written, seems to have become a given (for example, multiple times in Neh. 8 and 10). Furthermore, at some point this book was definitely identified with what we call the Pentateuch, the Five Books of Moses. This was certainly so by the Hellenistic Period (the late fourth through the first centuries BCE), as can be shown by such compositions as the Wisdom of Ben-Sirah (also known as Sirach or Ecclesiasticus), the Letter of Aristeas and of course by the physical evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls (for more on this process see Watts 2011).48 The book of Chronicles seems to reflect an early stage within this process. As we shall see as we read through the book, more often than not, the word tôrâh seems to refer to a specific “canonical” written book of God’s instructions, laws, and covenants, in other words, “the Torah.” This book is first referred to in 1 Chron. 16:40, where Zadok is said to have sacrificed at the bamâh at Gibeon “according to all that is written in the tôrâh of the Lord, which he commanded for Israel.” It is then referred to during the reigns of Jehoshaphat, Amaziah, Hezekiah and Josiah. In light of all this, we agree with Shaver (1989, 76–82), that these must refer to a written book (see also Japhet 1997, 234–44 for a short discussion on the concept of Torah in Chronicles). For this reason, and even though we certainly cannot know exactly what form this Torah was envisioned as having, we have decided to translate “the tôrâh of God/the Lord/Moses” and so on as a proper noun – the Torah. That having been said, we will admit that our particular passage does not specifically refer to a written book of the tôrâh, making it possible that the meaning here is more generally “God’s laws.” But for consistency, we retained “Torah” here as well. 48.  Even later, the rabbis expanded the term to include the wide body of received custom, midrash (exegesis) and halakhah (rabbinic law), as the “Oral Torah” which complements the “Written Torah.”



The Reign of Rehoboam – 2 Chronicles 11–12

29

Rehoboam’s Sins, Punishment and Repentance: The Invasion of Shishak As pointed out by Japhet (1993, 676), the basic concept in this chapter is similar to that of Deut. 8:11–17: Take care that you do not forget the Lord your God, by failing to keep his commandments, his ordinances, and his statutes… When you have eaten your fill and have built fine houses and live in them…and all that you have is multiplied, then do not exalt yourself, forgetting the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt… Do not say to yourself, my power and the might of my own hand have gotten me this wealth.

“All Israel” here refers to those faithful who had joined him in Judah, since the northerners are seen as already acting sinfully, emphasized in order to justify the punishment being brought on the people as well as their king. It is interesting to note that in the 1 Kgs 14:22–24 version of events, it is actually “Judah” who “did what was evil in the sight of the Lord; they provoked him to jealousy with their sins that they committed, more than all that their fathers had done. And they also built for themselves bamôt, standing stones, and asherim on every high hill and under every green tree. And there were also male prostitutes in the land; they committed all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.” Specifically, Rehoboam himself is not mentioned as taking part in the wrong-doing – in Kings, Rehoboam is foolish and weak but not evil. In his account of the invasion of Judah by Shishak king of Egypt, Chronicles uses the Kings account but adds material of his own. The opening v. 2 is identical to v. 25 in Kings, but adds the words “because they had been unfaithful to the Lord,” making it clear, unlike in Kings, that the invasion was a punishment for the wrongdoing recounted in the previous verse, although Johnstone (1997, 2:40) is correct in pointing out that the specifics are not fully drawn out. Verse 9 then repeats, “And Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem” and continues, through v. 11, to duplicate Kings’ vv. 26–28. The material in between, vv. 3–8, is the Chronicler’s own. Shishak himself is mentioned previously in 1 Kgs 11:40 as having given refuge to Jeroboam, a passage that does not appear in Chronicles. Besides this, the Bible gives no additional information about him. However, since the early days of modern Egyptology, the biblical Shishak has been identified with Sheshonq I, a Lybian general who became founder of the Egyptian 22nd dynasty, ruled approximately in 945–925 BCE, and briefly united Egypt in the midst of what is now called “the Third Intermediate Period,” which was a time of disunity and weakness. This Sheshonq I left

30

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

a monumental inscription on the Bubastite Portal of the Karnak temple complex in Upper Egypt, describing a military campaign to the Levant, carried out near the end of his reign (although no precise date is given). The inscription includes a “topographical list” of over 150 “name-rings,” listing towns that he supposedly conquered. Not all of the names are readable and not all of those that are can be identified, but most of these that can be identified are in the central and northern parts of the country, such as Aijalon, Beth-horon, Gibeon, Rehob, Beth-shean, Shunem and Megiddo. In the Negeb, the name Arad appears (twice), and some more obscure names as well. None of the readable names are in the Judean hills or Shephelah, and Jerusalem is especially conspicuous in its absence. The kingdoms of Judah and Israel and their kings are not mentioned by name either. However, despite the differences in detail, the vast majority of scholars have seen the Karnak inscription as evidence that the biblical account, at least that of Kings, is based on a historical source that recalled an actual invasion of the land of Israel, and there seems to be some archaeological evidence of this invasion as well, including a fragmentary stele of Sheshonq I found at Megiddo. As such, the Sheshonq/Shishak invasion is the earliest single event recounted in the Bible for which there is also contemporary evidence, and Sheshonq/Shishak himself is the earliest biblical character to be mentioned in contemporary written sources. The presumed synchronism between Rehoboam’s fifth year and the end of Sheshonq’s reign (c. 925 BCE) has become a cornerstone of biblical-period chronology. The discrepancies between the biblical account, which claims that Shishak attacked Jerusalem and took treasures from Rehoboam, and the Karnak inscription in which neither Jerusalem nor Rehoboam are mentioned but which shows that Sheshonq’s main target was actually the north of the country, have been explained in various ways. For example, because Rehoboam bribed off Shishak before the latter actually arrived at Jerusalem, or because recognizing a foreign capital was contrary to “Egyptian practice”; because of the Bible’s focus on Jerusalem and the Temple or on Solomon’s golden shields, or because all of the information that the author of Kings had at his disposal was from a short chronicle that only mentioned the tribute paid by Rehoboam.49 However, from our perspective, it is the Chronicler’s additions to the Kings text that are significant. These can be divided into three categories. The first is what seems to be factual information about the invasion itself: “With one thousand two hundred chariots and sixty thousand 49.  The literature on the Sheshonq/Shishak campaign is vast. For a sampling see Noth 1938; Aharoni 1979, 232–330; Kitchen 1986, 294–300, 432–47; Na’aman 1998a; and more recently Levin 2010; Ben Dor Evian 2011.



The Reign of Rehoboam – 2 Chronicles 11–12

31

horsemen, there was no counting the people who came with him from Egypt—Libyans, Sukkites and Kushites. He captured the fortified cities of Judah and came as far as Jerusalem” (vv. 3–4). Taken at face value, it would seem that the Chronicler, who obviously must have wanted to emphasize the great force that God sent against Rehoboam as punishment for his unfaithfulness, must have utilized some ancient source that he had at his disposal, while exaggerating the numbers, as he often did (so Williamson 1982, 246–47; Japhet 1993, 677; for exaggerated numbers in Chronicles in general, without particular reference to this pericope, see Klein 1997). The specific information supplied by Chronicles was examined more recently by Sagrillo (2012) who confirmed that indeed while the numbers are unrealistically large, an Egyptian army of the time would have been composed of charioteers, cavalry and infantry (thus he understands the reference to “the people who came with him from Egypt” listed after the chariots and horsemen). As far as their ethnic makeup, the Egyptian military at the time did have large numbers of Lybians (Meshwesh and Libu in Egyptian sources), members of the king’s own tribe. The “Sukkites” are more elusive, this being the only place they are mentioned in the Bible. They are often identified with the Tjekten (ṯktn), who apparently lived in the western deserts, and while this has been debated, Sargillo accepts this identification. Even more problematic are the “Kushites,” i.e. “Ethiopians” or “Nubians.” Nubia, the region directly south of Egypt (present-day Sudan) had a long history of Egyptian influence and rule, and in later times Nubian kings ruled Egypt as the 25th dynasty. As such, it would seem to be natural to find Nubian troops in the Egyptian army, but as Sargillo has carefully shown, there is a total lack of evidence of any Egyptian involvement in Nubia (or vice-versa) during the 22nd dynasty. So while Sargillo admits that there is some possibility that Nubian mercenaries did serve in the Egyptian military, it is very unlikely that Nubians would have formed a major component in Shishak’s army. In Sargillo’s opinion, the Chronicler might have expected “Kushites” to have been a part of the Egyptian army because he knew that they were a part of it in later times, closer to his own. In general, Sargillo concludes that while the Chronicles text does contain some anachronisms, it also contains information that points to the Chronicler’s having used some ancient source that was not utilized by the author of Kings. The mention in v. 4 of Shishak’s capturing “the fortified cities of Judah” is an obvious allusion to the cities fortified by Rehoboam in the previous chapter. The significance of the statement is to show that what God gives as a reward for faithfulness he takes away as punishment for sin. Historically, the only one of the cities listed there which can also be

32

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

identified on the Karnak list is Aijalon, and since the site of Yâlu, identified as ancient Aijalon, has never been excavated, there is no archaeological evidence that either supports or contradicts its destruction by Sheshonq I. As mentioned above, the Karnak list seems to indicate that the Judahite heartland was not Sheshonq’s prime target. The second type of “additional” material in this story is that connected to the speech of the prophet Shemaiah and its result, as told in vv. 5–8. Shemaiah appears before Rehoboam and the officials of Judah, who had apparently taken refuge in Jerusalem, and makes a one-sentence proclamation in the name of Yahweh: “You abandoned me, so I have abandoned you to the hand of Shishak.” As noted by Japhet (1993, 679), the mention of “the officials of Judah,” also called “the officials of Israel,” alongside the king serves to emphasize their collective responsibility – they all sinned, they were all punished, and they must all repent. Shemaiah the prophet is of course the same as the “Shemaiah the man of God” who had appeared to Rehoboam in 11:2. That appearance had been paralleled by 1 Kgs 12:22, but Shemaiah does not appear elsewhere in Kings. In Chronicles, Shemaiah appears both here and in v. 15 below as one of the chroniclers of Rehoboam’s reign. The general consensus among scholars is that Chronicles uses prophetic figures and their speeches as rhetorical devices, putting his own philosophy in their mouths. However, different scholars have understood their precise roles differently. Japhet (1997, 176–79) sees it primarily to warn the people of impending punishment. However, not all of them do so directly; Shemaiah, for example, simply points out the facts (“you abandoned me, so I have abandoned you to the hand of Shishak”), which suffices to cause the king and his officials to repent.50 Once the king and his men do repent, it is again Shemaiah through whom God pronounces his mitigation of their sentence: rather than destroy Jerusalem he will simply give them a taste of subjugation, as a warning for the future.51 As noted by Dillard (1987, 101), this would be the first time that Jerusalem had suffered military defeat since it had become “the city of David.” The Chronicler’s message for future generations was clear. Verses 9–11, after repeating “and Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem,” return to following the text of Kings, with very minor textual variations. However, the context is very different. In Kings, 50.  For additional views on the functions of prophets in Chronicles see Schniedewind 1997 and Amit 2006. 51.  Although Shemaiah is not reported as repeating God’s words to the king and his men. This is either assumed, or perhaps it is assumed that this prophecy was recorded as part of “the records of Shemaiah the prophet” mentioned in v. 15 below.



The Reign of Rehoboam – 2 Chronicles 11–12

33

Shishak’s “taking” the treasures of the Temple and the palace could be seen as a punishment for Judah’s idolatry mentioned previously, but could hardly be seen as an existential threat. In Chronicles, the same “taking” comes as a relief, a reduced punishment when compared to God’s threat to “pour his wrath” over Jerusalem. Verse 12, joining the comment in v. 2 to frame the entire episode, is once again the Chronicler’s own summary: since they had submitted, God refrained from destroying them totally, and there was yet some good to be found in Judah. The Chronicler’s Summary of Rehoboam’s Reign Verse 13 seems somewhat out of place. Most of it is taken from 1 Kgs 14:21, where it serves as a standard ascension formula, introducing Kings’ account of Rehoboam’s reign over Judah. In Chronicles, it is part of the four-verse summary of his rule. As such, Kings’ “and Rehoboam son of Solomon reigned in Judah” is replaced by the words, “and King Rehoboam grew strong in Jerusalem and reigned.” This, especially the verb wayyitḥazzēq, “grew strong,” brings us back, on one hand, to 11:11 (“he strengthened the fortified cities”) and 11:17 (“they strengthened the kingdom of Judah”), both from his “good three years,” but also to 12:1 (“When…he grew strong, he abandoned the Torah of the Lord”) – a fitting review of his reign (this despite the interpretation of Keel 1986, 653, that it refers to Rehoboam regaining strength and reestablishing his rule after Shishak’s withdrawal). The rest of the information in this verse is parallel to 1 Kgs 14:21, including his age at ascension, the length of his reign, the comment about “Jerusalem, the city that the Lord had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel to put his name there,” which is especially apt in the Kings context, coming right after the expanded account of Jeroboam’s kingdom, and the naming of his mother, Naamah the Ammonitess. Naamah is actually the only one of Solomon’s famous “thousand wives” to be named anywhere in the Bible. Somewhat surprisingly, neither Kings nor Chronicles have anything negative to say about this union or about the fact that the heir to the Davidic line is the son of an Ammonitess, especially since Deut. 23:4–7 [Eng. 3–6] forbids any union with Moabites and Ammonites. Moreover, if we are to take the biblical chronology of Solomon’s forty-year reign and of Rehoboam being forty-one years old at his ascension literally, it would seem that Solomon’s marriage to this Naamah occurred in the latter days of David’s reign, and reflects his policy, not Solomon’s (Keel 1986, 653; Malamat 1999). In fact, even if we are to understand Solomon’s forty years as being typological rather than historical, Kings’ claim that Rehoboam was forty-one on his ascension may have been intended to signify just that – that their marriage was

34

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

part of David’s policy and not part of Solomon’s sins. According to the Greek version of 1 Kgs 12:24, Naamah was the daughter of Hanon, son of Nahash, kings of Ammon in the days of Saul and David. The rabbis (b. Bava Qama 38b) assumed that she, like Ruth the Moabitess, was a “righteous convert” and explained that Moses had been commanded not to fight against Moab and Ammon (Deut. 2:9, 19) for the sake of these two women, who would be born in the future and become the ancestresses of the Davidic line. In v. 14, Chronicles took the opening phrase of 1 Kgs 14:22, “And Judah did evil,” which then goes on to tell of the idolatry that was rampant in the kingdom, cut out the word “Judah,” thereby making Rehoboam himself the evildoer, and added, “for he did not set his heart to seek the Lord.” Keel (1986, 653) understood this as meaning that after Shishak’s withdrawal Rehoboam returned to his evil ways, but it seems more likely to be part of the Chronicler’s general assessment of Rehoboam’s reign (so Williamson, 1982, 249). The final two verses are based once more on Kings, but this time on Kings’ standard summary of Rehoboam’s rule in vv. 29–31, again making changes in both style and content. Instead of Kings’ “And the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did,” Chronicles has “and the acts of Rehoboam, the first and the last.” The word “rest,” indicating that there was more to tell, is deleted, and “all that he did” becomes “the first and the last” – both typical of Chronicles’ summary formulae (cf. 1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29; 16:11; 20:34 and more). Also typically, “the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah” is replaced by reference to works by prophets, in this case “the records of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer, to be enrolled.” This Iddo is known only from Chronicles, although Josephus (Ant. 8.231) identified him as the unnamed “man of God” who appeared before Jeroboam in Bethel (1 Kgs 13:1). Unlike Shemaiah, even Chronicles does not preserve any record of Iddo’s activity, except for citing him as a source for the reigns of three kings: Solomon (29:29 – there spelled yeddi/yeddô in the MT and usually assumed to refer to iddô), Rehoboam and Abijah (13:22). The term lehityaḥēs, “to be enrolled” or “to be listed,” is either meant as the title of Iddo’s book (so Japhet 1993, 682) or as referring to the type of material that was copied from Iddo’s book – perhaps genealogical material (Keel 1986, 654). Keel believes that the information about “continuous war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam” also came from Iddo’s book, although this comment also appears in the parallel passage in Kings.52 Verse 16 differs from 1 Kgs 14:31 in three 52.  For an in-depth discussion of these prophetic sources in Chronicles in general, see the introductory chapters in the first volume of this commentary.



The Reign of Rehoboam – 2 Chronicles 11–12

35

ways. The first difference is that the phrase “with his father” appears only once, not twice as in Kings. The second is Chronicles does not mention Naamah the Ammonitess. Since both some of the Greek versions and the Peshiṭta of Kings do not include these repetitions either, Japhet (1993, 683) believes that Chronicles might preserve a more accurate rendering of the source. The third difference is that where Kings calls Rehoboam’s son and heir Abijam, Chronicles consistently names him Abijah. This will be discussed below in the commentary on ch. 13. Overall, the reign of Rehoboam is pictured very differently in Chronicles than it is in Kings. As emphasized by Ben Zvi (2003), the Chronicler began with what, to himself and his audience, were a set of “facts,” as set out in Kings: the ascension of Rehoboam, the gathering at Shechem, the northerners’ demands and Rehoboam’s refusal, the return of Jeroboam, the split of the kingdom, Rehoboam’s attempted use of force and Shemaiah’s objection, the northerners’ apostasy, Shishak’s looting of Jerusalem. However, Chronicles reshaped and remodeled this material and added much more, giving us a very different view of Rehoboam’s reign. The first major difference that stands out to the reader, is that in Kings Rehoboam is pictured as a somewhat foolish and rather inept victim of circumstances. The division of the kingdom is a result of Solomon’s sins, not his own, but his own foolish behavior and lack of leadership only made things worse. He was not an evil person, certainly not when compared to Jeroboam. He immediately submitted to Shemaiah’s orders, but under him the people of Judah worshipped idols and suffered the humiliation of Shishak’s raid. Chronicles took these “facts” and restructured them, giving them new meaning. He also added additional material – on Rehoboam’s construction projects, the arrival of the northern priest and Levites, on Shishak’s army and on the role of Shemaiah in Rehoboam’s reaction to that invasion. To what extent any or all of this material is based on the Chronicler having access to historical records of any kind must be left for further discussion of the Chronicler’s use of sources, but in any case it is obvious that this material, too, was chosen and shaped in such a way as to fit the Chron­ icler’s overall historiographical scheme. The Chronicler’s restructuring of the history of Rehoboam was affected by several factors. The first of these is the fact that the Chronicler had neglected to tell his readers about either Solomon’s sins nor about the heavy taxes and corvée labor that he had imposed on his subjects. The second was his well-known theology of “immediate retribution” (as expressed by Japhet 1997, 165–72). He was thus forced to justify the division of the kingdom as a reaction to more immediate events. Since

36

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Rehoboam had not yet had a chance to sin, Chronicles placed the blame for what he considered to be a total apostasy on the northerners and on Jeroboam. Rehoboam’s main fault, at this stage, was weakness of character. And since Rehoboam did obey Shemaiah’s demand to desist from military action against the north, he is pictured as beginning his reign as a faithful king as well. For this, he is rewarded: he engages in extensive construction, his realm is strengthened by an influx of faithful northerners (giving the Chronicler a chance to recount Jeroboam’s many sins), he has many wives and is the father of many sons. All this, however, lasts for only three years. This time-frame is once again dictated by the idea of direct retribution: since the invasion by Shishak, which must have been a punishment for Rehoboam’s wrongdoing, occurred in his fifth year (a “fact” set down in the Chronicler’s sources), he must have sinned in his fourth year. The cause of his sin was pride: “When the rule of Rehoboam was established and he grew strong, he abandoned the Torah of the Lord, and all Israel with him” (12:1). However, all was not lost. Once again, the prophet Shemaiah appeared to Rehoboam and his people and explained that their suffering was caused by their own iniquity. And the king and his men took heed, humbled themselves, and were saved. In the end, “there were (still) good things in Judah” (12:12). The Chronicler’s description of the reign of Rehoboam is in many ways paradigmatic, setting the pattern for his treatment of the succeeding kings of Judah. Each king is judged by his own deeds and is rewarded or punished accordingly. The northern kingdom is a priori illegitimate, and its history is only recounted when it has a direct influence on events in Judah. The people of the north, on the other hand, are still Israelites, and as such are constantly invited to return to the fold. Within Judah, various prophetic figures appear in order to make Yahweh’s will known to the king and to his people, and these prophets are also involved in recording the history of the nation. Our study of the reign of Rehoboam also gives us a chance to investigate two types of historical material and their relationship to the “real” history of Iron-Age Israel. The first of these was exemplified by the list of “fortified cities” built by Rehoboam. This list does not appear in Kings or in any other pre-Chronistic source that we know of, forcing us to debate its authenticity and historical context. Since the list does seem to be grounded in a geographical reality, we could also discuss its geography and, in theory, the relevant archaeological data as well. However in the end, all we could produce were probabilities, concluding that what really matters is the way in which the Chronicler used the material, whatever its source.



The Reign of Rehoboam – 2 Chronicles 11–12

37

Much the same is true for the material on the invasion by Shishak. In this case, we have an event which can, in itself, be verified by external sources – a novelty, since no such material is available for the preceding periods of Israel’s history. Even so, the gap between the information given in those sources and the information given in both Kings and in the Chronicler’s additions is so great that, in the end, we have a series of possibilities, and our analysis of the way in which the Chronicler used the material he had at his disposal in order to convey his messages.

T h e R eig n o f A bij ah – 2 C h r o n ic les 13

Chapter 13: 1 In the eighteenth year of King Jeroboam,1 and Abijah reigned2 over Judah. 2 Three years he reigned in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Micaiah daughter of Uriel of Gibeah,3 and there was war between Abijah and Jeroboam.4 3 And Abijah engaged in battle with an army of valiant warriors,5 four hundred thousand picked men; and Jeroboam arrayed battle against him with eight hundred thousand picked men, valiant warriors. 4 And Abijah arose on the summit6 of Mount Zemaraim that is in the hill country of Ephraim, and said: Listen to me, Jeroboam and all Israel! 5 Do you not know7 that the Lord God of Israel gave the kingship over Israel to David forever, to him and to his sons

1.  1 Kgs 15:1 has “Jeroboam son of Nabat.” This is the only place in which Chronicles quotes a synchronism with the northern kingdom from Kings. Johnstone (1997, 2:50) believes that this is meant to emphasize the conflict between the two, which is the main topic of the chapter. 2.  Kings has the past perfect ‫מלך‬, “reigned.” Chronicles’ ‫וימלך‬, changed perhaps under the influence of the previous verse 12:16 (so Japhet 1993, 688), does not necessarily have a different meaning, but most translators render “began to reign” (KJV; NRSV) or “became king” (NJPS). 3.  Kings has “Maacah daughter of Abisalom.” See commentary on 11:20 above. In Kings this is the end of v. 2. 4.  In Kings this clause appears four verses later, in v. 6, after Kings’ short description of Abijam’s reign. There are two additional differences between 1 Kgs 15:6 and 2 Chron. 13:2b: Kings, perhaps due to scribal error, renders “And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam” rather than “Abijam and Jeroboam,” and Kings adds “all the days of his life,” which is missing in Chronicles. The following verses in Chronicles, vv. 3–20, are independent of Kings. 5.  NJPS has simply “warriors,” not translating the phrase ‫גבורי‬, “heroes of.” 6.  Literally “arose over Mount Zemaraim.” NRSV unexplainably has “stood on the slope.” 7.  NJPS has “Surely you know,” reading the verse as a statement rather than a rhetorical question.



The Reign of Abijah – 2 Chronicles 13

39

by a covenant of salt?8 6 And Jeroboam son of Nebat, servant9 of Solomon son of David, arose and rebelled against his master. 7 And empty men of no worth10 gathered around him boldly against11 Rehoboam son of Solomon, and Rehoboam was a youth and soft of heart12 and could not withstand them. 8 And now you are intent on withstanding the kingdom of the Lord in the hand of the sons of David, and you are a great multitude and have with you the golden calves that Jeroboam made for you as gods. 9 Did you not drive out the priests of the Lord, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and make priests for yourselves like the peoples of the lands? Whoever comes to be consecrated13 with a young bull and seven rams becomes a priest of no-gods. 10 As for us, the Lord is our God and we have not abandoned him; (we have)14 priests ministering to the Lord who are sons of Aaron, and Levites at (their) work.15 11 They offer to the Lord burnt offerings every morning and every evening16 and fragrant incense

8.  The term “covenant of salt” appears in Num. 18:19 in reference to the Aaronide priests: “All the holy offerings that the Israelites present to the Lord I have given to you, together with your sons and daughters, as a perpetual due; it is a covenant of salt forever before the Lord for you and your descendants as well.” Lev. 2:13 mentions “salt of the covenant”: “You shall not omit from your grain offerings the salt of the covenant with your God; with all your offerings you shall offer salt.” Presumably, salt was a symbol of perpetuity. The eleventh-century commentator Rashi comments on the passage in Numbers that the covenant, like salt, “never becomes smelly,” i.e. never goes bad. 9.  In English one could read either “a servant,” meaning “one of Solomon’s servants,” or “the servant,” implying that he had some special status. The Hebrew ‫ עבד‬is more ambiguous. 10.  ‫אנשים רקים בני בליעל‬. The Septuagint reads ἄνδρες λοιμοὶ υἱοὶ παράνομοι, “men outside the law, sons of pestilence.” The KJV, following the Vulgate, translates “vain men, the children of Belial.” More modern translations have “worthless scoundrels” (NRSV), “riffraff and scoundrels” (NJPS) and the like. See the commentary below. 11.  ‫ויתאמצו על‬. KJV renders “strengthened themselves against.” NRSV has “defied”; NJPS has “pressed hard upon.” The verb ‫ אמץ‬means “strong,” usually referring to inner strength or courage. 12.  ‫ נער ורך לבב‬reminds one of David’s description of Solomon in 1 Chron. 22:5, “Solomon my son is ‫ – נער ורך‬young and tender” (KJV). Here Rehoboam, “young” at 41, was mostly “inexperienced,” while “soft of heart” can mean either “indecisive” or “incapable.” 13.  Literally “to fill his hand,” the same term used for the consecration of Aaron and his sons in Exod. 28:41. 14.  “We have” is implied by the context; see NRSV. NJPS renders “The priests who minister to the Lord are the sons of Aaron.” 15.  The word ‫מלאכת‬, “work,” would seem to be in the construct, as in 1 Chron. 9:19, ‫מלאכת העבודה‬, “the work of the service,” with the second word missing, or perhaps a shortened form of ‫מלאכתם‬, “their work.” 16.  ‫בבקר־בבקר ובערב־בערב‬, literally “in the morning-in the morning and in the evening-in the evening.”

40

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

and set out the rows of bread on the pure table, and the golden lampstand so that its lamps may burn every evening; for we keep the charge17 of the Lord our God, and you have abandoned him. 12 And here, at our head18 are God and his priests, and the trumpets of sounding to sound19 against you; Sons of Israel! do not fight against the Lord God of your fathers; for you will not succeed. 13 And Jeroboam sent the ambush around behind them; so they20 were in front of Judah, and the ambush was behind them. 14 And Judah turned, and the battle was in front of them and behind them, and they cried out to the Lord, and the priests blew the trumpets.21 15 And the men of Judah shouted, and when the men of Judah shouted, God routed Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah. 16 And the sons of Israel fled before Judah, and God gave them into their hands. 17 And Abijah and his people inflicted a great defeat on them; five hundred thousand picked men of Israel fell slain. 18 And Israel was subdued at that time, and the people of Judah were strengthened, because they relied on the Lord the God of their fathers. 19 And Abijah pursued Jeroboam, and captured cities from him: Bethel and its villages22 and Jeshanah with its villages and Ephrain23 with its villages. 20 And Jeroboam did not gain power again in the days of Abijah, and the Lord struck him and he died. 21 And Abijah grew strong, and took fourteen wives and begot twenty-two sons and sixteen daughters. 22 And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways and his words,24 are written in the midrash of the prophet Iddo.25 23 [Eng 14:1]26 And Abijah lay with his 17.  Literally “watch” or “guard,” referring to the Temple service. 18.  Meaning “God leads us.” NJPS translates “God is with us as our chief,” but this seems too literal. Keel (1986, 660) suggests that the reference is to the Ark, which might have accompanied the army to battle. 19.  NRSV has “and his priests have their battle trumpets to sound the call to battle against you,” but in the MT, it is God and his priests who are at the head (of the camp), and the identity of these trumpets, “battle trumpets” is not explicitly spelled out. 20.  Presumably the main body of Jeroboam’s army. 21.  ‫מחצצרים בחצצרות‬, literally “trumpeting the trumpets.” 22.  Literally “its daughters,” referring to the small farmsteads surrounding the towns. 23.  MT has ‫ עפרון‬as the ketib and ‫ עפרין‬as the qeri. Most English translations, following the Greek and Latin, prefer “Ephron.” Presumably this is the same town as the better-known Ophrah, about 25 km north of Jerusalem. 24.  ‫דרכיו ודבריו‬, often translated “his conduct and his acts” (NJPS) and the like. 25.  ‫מדרש הנביא עדו‬. See the commentary. 26.  This verse both concludes the reign of Abijah and begins the reign of Asa, for whom Chronicles does not have an introductory formula. This “double-duty” is reflected in the chapter-and-verse numbering traditions: while in the Hebrew MT and in the Greek Septuagint this verse is the last in ch. 13, while in the Latin Vulgate, followed by most English and other Western translations, it is the first verse of ch. 14.



The Reign of Abijah – 2 Chronicles 13

41

fathers, and they buried him in the city of David, and his son Asa ruled in his stead; in his days the land had rest for ten years.27

Commentary Chapter 13 recounts the reign of Abijah, favorite son and successor of Rehoboam. His reign was short – only three years – and apparently relatively uneventful. In fact Kings, besides the general comment about there being conflict between Abijam and Jeroboam,28 does not recount a single specific event that occurred during his tenure. All 1 Kgs 15:3 has to say is that Abijam “committed all the sins that his father did before him; his heart was not true to the Lord his God, like the heart of his father David,” with the following two verses actually reminding us how wonderful David had been. By v. 8 Abijam is dead and buried in the city of David and his son Asa is on the throne. The Chronicler’s account of Abijah’s reign is totally different. Chronicles makes no mention of Abijah’s sinning. Instead, it takes off from the mention of war between the two kingdoms, and describes Abijah as gathering a great force of 400,000 warriors and setting out to attack Jeroboam who had a doubly great force of 800,000 men. En route, Abijah ascends a mountaintop and delivers a sermon, in which he denounces the northerners and their king as apostates who had rebelled, not only against the Davidic kingdom, but against Yahweh himself. Jeroboam then attempts to out-maneuver Abijah, but following the people’s outcry and the priests’ trumpet-blasts Yahweh personally wipes out the northern army, and the northerners surrender. Abijah, in hot pursuit of Jeroboam, conquers three towns from the north. Jeroboam, stricken by God, eventually dies, while Abijah procreates, marrying fourteen wives and fathering twenty-two sons and sixteen daughters. In this version, Abijah is a holy warrior, God’s messenger, and an altogether successful ruler. 27.  The first part of the verse is the same as 1 Kgs 15:8 with just the name of Abijam changed to Abijah, but “in his days the land had rest for ten years” is an addition by the Chronicler. 28.  This comment, in fact, appears twice. The first time, in 1 Kgs 15:6, recalls warfare between Rehoboam and Jeroboam, but the context is that of Abijam’s reign, so mention of his father is most probably a scribal error (but see NRSV for a “creative translation”). Also, this reference says that this warfare lasted “all the days of his life,” implying that it went on continuously. The second time is in the next verse, this time as part of the summary formula of Abijam’s reign. Here the name of the king is correct, and the words “all the days of his life” are absent, perhaps implying that the war between the kings was a one-time event.

42

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

As noted above, the king called Abijah in Chronicles is consistently called Abijam in Kings. This is not a scribal error, since the substitution appears several times in different contexts. This leads to the question of which form is the original and why it was changed by the other. Since this monarch is mentioned nowhere in the Bible outside of Kings and Chronicles, there is no additional direct evidence. The Greek consistently uses Αβια in Chronicles. In Kings, however, the form used is Αβιου, which seems to reflect a Hebrew “Abihu,” not “Abiam.” “Abijah” is a typically Yahwistic theophoric name, meaning “Yah(weh) is (my) father,” and is used in the Bible for at least five additional men and two women: the younger son of Samuel (1 Sam. 8:2 / 1 Chron. 6:13 [Eng. 6:28]); a descendant of Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:8); at least one, perhaps two, returnees from Babylon (Neh. 10:8; 12:4) and a post-exilic priest (Neh. 12:17); a priestly course (1 Chron. 24:10), and finally also a son of Jeroboam who died young (1 Kgs 14:1). As a woman’s name it is used for a wife of Hezron (1 Chron. 2:24)29 and for the mother of King Hezekiah (2 Chron. 29:1; in 2 Kgs 18:2 it is abbreviated to “Abi”). However we should note that besides 1 Sam. 8:2 and 1 Kgs 14:1, all of these appearances are in post-exilic sources. As such, “Abijam” has the advantage of being both the “earlier” form and of being the lectio difficilior. Both Albright (1942a, 158, 219 n.104) and Malamat (1963a, 9) emphasized the assumed non-Israelite origin of Abijam’s mother Maacah, whom, according to their calculations, must have been married to Rehoboam while Solomon was still on the throne, as a part of Solomon’s policy of political unions. This Maacah, we are soon to learn, would eventually introduce worship of Asherah into Jerusalem (1 Kgs 15:13; 2 Chron. 15:16). Williamson (1982, 250) suggested that perhaps the “Yam” ending in the king’s name referred to the Canaanite god of the sea, which Chronicles replaced with “the more acceptable Yahwistic ending.” This idea was also mentioned by Dillard (1987, 101) and further developed by Jones (1994, 442), who assumed that the original name was given by his foreign mother and reflected “some sort of syncretism,” while the Chronicler used the Yahwistic version of the name in line with his more favorable assessment of the king. Japhet (1993, 683–84) rejected this idea, calling it “theoretically possible” but “not supported by the source material itself.” She noted that elsewhere Chronicles has no problems with retaining non-Israelite theophoric elements in names such as Eshbaal, Ahimoth, Jeremoth and so on. She then suggested that it was Kings that changed the name of the king, in order to avoid confusing him with the son of Jeroboam who had 29.  Although this reference is textually uncertain – see notes and commentary there.



The Reign of Abijah – 2 Chronicles 13

43

the same name. This was one of the suggestions mentioned by Curtis and Madsen (1910, 373), together with the possibility that the change was simply “euphonic,” or that he wished to avoid using the name of Yahweh with “so godless a king” (suggestions similar to the first two of these were also offered by Keel 1986, 656). Jarick (2007, 101), ignoring the Kings form, points out that “Yahweh is my father” is a fitting name for the favorite son of the king who is pictured as preserving the proper worship and Temple in the face of northern succession and apostasy. We have already commented above on the different versions of Abijah’s mother’s name, “Micaiah daughter of Uriel of Gibeah” in Chronicles and “Maacah daughter of Abisalom” in Kings. Here we can only add that if indeed Rehoboam had married a woman from Gibeah in Benjamin, this could be seen as one more reason for some of the Benjaminites’ continued loyalty to the Davidic dynasty. Abijah’s War against Jeroboam and his “Sermon on the Mount” Verses 3–19 tell of Abijah’s war against Jeroboam. This account is often divided into two sections, with the story of the actual fighting in vv. 3 and then 13–19 on one hand and Abijah’s speech in vv. 4–12 on the other being treated as two separate pericopes. Some scholars have accepted the war narrative as being based on historical fact (however embellished) while considering the speech to be a Chronistic composition. Myers (1965, 2:80–81), conjectured that Abijah’s success was due to a treaty with Damascus, noting that the number of soldiers in Jeroboam’s army is identical to that given for Israel in Joab’s census (2 Sam. 24:9), while Judah’s is actually lower, and claiming that “verse 19 is certainly based on authentic information.” On the other hand, what he calls “Abijah’s sermon on the mount” is “typical of the Chronicler…an excellent specimen of Levitical preaching30 directed at the situation prevailing at the time of the writer.” Indeed, the numbers are unreasonably large, but this is not a problem that is specific to this story, and other scholars have also assumed that the very fact of the war itself, especially the list of captured cities in v. 19, must be based on a historical source (for example, see Williamson 1982, 250–51; Deboys 1990, 61; Japhet 1993, 688). Others, however, have been more skeptical, citing the fact that there is no independent evidence of this war ever having taken place and doubting that the Chronicler could have had such a source (see Curtis and Madsen 1910, 363; Coggins 1976, 70 and especially Klein 1983; 2012, 196–97, who believes that the 30.  Perhaps taking his cue from von Rad’s 1934 discussion of “The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles,” although von Rad surprisingly did not refer to Abijah’s speech in his paper.

44

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Chronicler actually copied the names of the places mentioned from some version of the list of Benjaminite towns in Josh. 18:21–28; Dillard 1987, 105–106 seems undecided on this issue, while McKenzie 2004, 273–74 admits the possibility of the story being based on a border skirmish, but believes that had Abijah won a major victory over Israel, he would have forced the northern tribes to rejoin his kingdom, which there is no sign of his doing). Some scholars (such as Curtis and Madsen 1910, 375; Rudolph 1955, 238; Welten 1973, 127–29; Mosis 1973, 172–73, 200–201) have interpreted Abijah’s speech as an attempt to exclude the rebellious northerners from the “true Israel” – that of the Davidic kingdom, with a view to the relations between Jews and Samaritans in the Chronicler’s own day. Others, such as Williamson (1982, 251), De Vries (1989, 295) and Jones (1994, 424) claim the exact opposite: the Chronicler, using Abijah as a mouthpiece, is inviting the northern tribes to repent and to return to the fold, certainly never excluding them from the nation of Israel. Knoppers (1993) emphasized this point. He reads the war not as a simple civil war, but rather as a “sacral war” of the legitimate leaders of Israel (Abijah as the Davidic king) against idolatrous tribes led by Jeroboam, as commanded in Deuteronomy 13 and carried out in Judges 19–21. To him, the very fact that Chronicles portrays Abijah’s campaign as such a “sacral war” is proof that to him, the northerners were still Israelites – which also had repercussions on the way the Chronicler thought of the people living in the north in his own time. The speech itself (vv. 5–12) is addressed to “Jeroboam and all Israel,” although in practice only to the 800,000 troops present. It does, however, reaffirm that the northerners are, indeed, “Israel.” The speech proper begins by reminding the northerners that “the Lord God of Israel” – their God! – “gave the kingship over Israel forever to David and his sons.” In other words, the northern monarchy lacks all sacral legitimacy. The term “covenant of salt” in v. 5 is taken from Num. 18:19, where it describes the perpetual covenant between God and the Aaronide priests; here Chronicles uses it to describe God’s covenant with David, perhaps giving the Davidic covenant sacral significance. According to Frisch (2000, 24), the Chronicler sees Jeroboam, the rebellious servant, as being personally responsible for the rebellion, with no mention of Ahijah’s supportive prophecy as recounted in Kings. Jeroboam was joined by “empty men of no worth,” often translated as “sons of Belial,” and took advantage of Rehoboam’s inexperience and “softness of heart.” They then set up false gods and appointed false priests. This is contrasted with “us,” the people of Judah, who remained loyal to Yahweh, with “our” true Aaronide



The Reign of Abijah – 2 Chronicles 13

45

priests and attendant Levites, who diligently perform the Temple rituals. The final verse, v. 12, is intended as both a warning and a plea: we, the faithful, have the ultimate weapons – God, his priests and their trumpets; you, Israel, please do not resist God, for you cannot win. That “Abijah’s speech” is a prime example of Chronistic rhetoric, designed to reflect the Chronicler’s own ideology, is almost universally accepted. Eaton (1994, 10) includes it among several examples of the genre of “flyting” in the Bible in general and in Chronicles in particular. It is also well-established that the Chronicler drew heavily on earlier biblical texts in composing his speech. The reference to “a covenant of salt” in v. 5 harks back to Num. 18:19. The description in v. 9 of the consecration of Jeroboam’s false priests is reminiscent of the consecration of Aaron and his sons in Exodus 28–29. Verse 11, which describes the service of the Aaronide true priests and Levites, also evokes the Torah (Exod. 29, Num. 28, Lev. 24 and more). And finally, the reference to the priests blowing trumpets harks back to Num. 10:1–8 and especially 9: “When you go to war in your land against the adversary who oppresses you, you shall sound an alarm with the trumpets, so that you may be remembered before the Lord your God and be saved from your enemies.” This is exactly what happens in the battle itself: despite Jeroboam’s outnumbering and outmaneuvering Abijah and his troops, the priests’ trumpeting and the peoples’ shouting are enough to cause God to “rout” Jeroboam and “all Israel,” killing 500,000. This left Israel submissive and defenseless, and allowed Abijah to pursue Jeroboam, capturing three towns along the way. Of the three places captured, Bethel and Ephrain/Ophrah are wellknown, both situated on the central road leading north from Jerusalem towards Shechem, and both considered to be towns of Benjamin according to Josh. 18:22–23, although both are actually situated north of the Benjamin–Ephraim border described in Josh. 18:13. Bethel is also often referred to as being in “Mount Ephraim” (such as in Judg. 4:5 and in the Ephraimite genealogy in 1 Chron. 7:28). Aharoni proposed to solve this conundrum by following Alt in dating the tribal boundaries to the pre-monarchic era while assuming, with Cross and Wright (1956, 226), that the town-lists of Judah and Benjamin reflect the boundaries of the kingdom of Judah during the days of Jehoshaphat, perhaps including Ophrah and Bethel in “Benjamin” as a result of this very war. Kallai (1986, 398) agreed, although there are differences of opinion as to whether the area was reconquered by Israel in the days of Baasha. There is also no agreement on the identity of Mount Zemaraim. A town by the same name appears in the list of the towns of Benjamin in Joshua 18; vv. 22–23 list “Beth-arabah, Zemaraim, Bethel, Avvim, Parah, Ophrah,”

46

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

within a section of towns in either the Jordan Valley or the eastern hills. Since in our v. 19 Abijah proceeds to conquer Bethel, Jeshanah and Ephrain – presumably the same as Ophrah31 – all towns situated on the main ridge road, it would make sense to search for Zemaraim in the same area, and for “Mount Zemaraim” as a nearby peak. Zemaraim also seems to be mentioned in the Sheshonq I list at Karnak (Aharoni 1979, 325), also positioned in the central hills. The name “Zemaraim” (‫ )צמרים‬seems to have been derived from the word ṣammeret, which appears only five times in the Hebrew Bible, all in Ezekiel (17:3, 22; 31:3, 10, 14), with the meaning of “tree-top.” Assuming that the word could have a wider meaning as “top” or “summit” of a hill as well, it would fit well with other Benjamin/Ephraim toponyms such as Gibeah, Geba, Gibeon (all meaning “hill”), Ramah/Ramathaim (“hight”), and Mizpah (“lookout”).32 Of the suggested locations, Râs eṣ-Ṣâmarah, near eṭ-Ṭayyibeh (ancient Ophrah), seems to preserve the name but has been found to be archaeologically unsuitable. The site of Râs eṭ-Ṭaḥuneh, near el-Bireh, seems better suited (see discussion in Kallai 1986, 401). It has also been suggested (Keel 1986, 657) that Mount Zemariam specifically (separately from the town of Zemaraim) is to be identified with Jebel ‘Uṣur, known today as “Mount Baal Hazor.”33 However it is difficult to imagine Abijah delivering his speech from this 1016-meter-high peak, so far above the assembled armies, unless one was to assume that Chronicles was more interested in effect (cf. the unrealistic numbers of troops as well) than in reality. That the area of Zemaraim, Bethel and Ophrah should be called “Mount Ephraim,” despite these towns being listed as towns of Benjamin in Josh. 18:21–28, is consistent with both the Benjamin–Ephraim border depicted in vv. 12–13 of the same chapter as running south of Bethel, and of the general conception of both Kings and Chronicles that since the tribe of Benjamin was part of the southern kingdom, anything north of the border was “Ephraim.” The specific inclusion of Bethel in Abijah’s conquests presents a problem. As we know, Bethel was one of the places at which Jeroboam placed his golden calves (1 Kgs 12:29); this is even mentioned in Abijah’s speech (albeit without reference to Bethel itself). As pointed out by Curtis and Madsen (1910: 377), had Abijah conquered Bethel, we would surely have heard of the destruction of golden calf. However the opposite is true: 31.  In the Hebrew, ‫עפרה‬, Ophrah – ‫עפרין‬, Ephrain. 32.  The suffix “-aim,” however, does not necesarity indicate a dual form, despite Johnstone’s “twin-peaks” (1997, 2:52). For “-aim” names in general see Levin 2012b. 33.  Which may or may not be identical with the Baal-Hazor of 2 Sam. 13:23; see Levin 2011a.



The Reign of Abijah – 2 Chronicles 13

47

Bethel remained a northern cultic site for many generations (mentioned, for example, in Amos 7:17). Perhaps for this reason Aharoni (1979, 323) excluded Josh. 18:21–25 from his “Benjamin district” of Jehoshaphat’s kingdom. On the other hand, this may be the reason that the Chronicler never actually says that the calf was at Bethel – to him, Bethel was a city of Benjamin within the kingdom of Judah, not a part of the apostate northern kingdom. The inclusion of Jeshanah in the list of Abijah’s conquests is equally problematic. This is the only passage in in the Bible in which this place is mentioned specifically, although a “Jeshanah Gate” in Jerusalem is mentioned in Neh. 3:6 and 12:39.34 Some scholars emend the “Shen” mentioned in 1 Sam. 7:12 to “Jeshanah” as well, based on the Septuagint τῆς παλαιᾶς (“the old” – which is the literal meaning of the Hebrew noun yešanâh) and the Targum (McCarter 1980, 142), and Klein (1983, 216) has conjectured that the Vaticanus rendering of Βησανα (“Besana”) for Bethel in Josh. 18:22 is in reality a conflation of Βαιθηλ καὶ Ἰσανα, “Bethel and Isana (Jeshanah).” A town by the name of Isanas is also mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 14.485) as the place where Papas was defeated by Herod. From all these references, Charles Clermont-Ganneau identified Jeshanah at ‘Ain Sinia, not far from Bethel and Ophrah. Albright (1923), upon visiting the site, concluded that it was not appropriate topographically and phonetically and suggested instead the nearby site of Burj el-Isaneh (also called Burj el-Lisaneh or simply el-Burj). In any case, while the assumed location of Jeshanah does fit in with Bethel and Ephrain/Ophrah, along the main road leading from Jerusalem north, its inclusion here is strange. Klein (1983, 216) assumed that Chronicles simply copied all four names (including Zemaraim and a reconstructed Jeshanah) from the list of Benjaminite towns in Joshua 18, and that the whole story is a fabrication. Japhet (1993, 687) arrived at the opposite conclusion: the fact that this list brings together four places that are in geographical proximity to each other but are not mentioned together in any previous text, supports the historical authenticity of the passage. Another possibility, one that Japhet rejects but that must be kept in mind, is that the four sites were known to the Chronicler in his own day and were used in order to give substance to his story of Abijah’s military success.

34.  If, indeed, the reference is to the name of a specific gate, as understood by the Septuagint and NJPS, rather than simply to “the old gate,” as translated by the Vulgate, KJV and NRSV. Burrows (1935, 37–38) quotes Kittel as suggesting that the name should be amended to ‫שער המשנה‬, “the Mishneh gate” that led to the “secondary” part of the city.

48

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

The Summary of Abijah’s Reign Jeroboam’s defeat by the hand of God led to his becoming weak and dying. Japhet (1993, 693) understands v. 20 as meaning that Jeroboam died within Abijah’s lifetime, and finds it necessary to explain the chronological issues involved. However that is not really what the verse says; just that Jeroboam did not recover during Abijah’s lifetime and that he (eventually) died. What is more important, however, is that Jeroboam’s sad end (sad enough even without mentioning the death of his son, also named Abijah, as told in 1 Kgs 14) is contrasted to Abijah’s success: fourteen wives and thirty-eight children – a sure sign of blessing! The vast majority of commentators consider the Chronicler’s portrayal of Abijah to be a positive one, in total opposition to Kings, in which Abijam is portrayed (briefly) as evil. McKenzie (2004, 269), for example, is of the opinion that since Rehoboam was at least partially to blame for the division of the kingdom, the Chronicler was forced to turn to his son for “a model for future kings of Judah in its relationship to Israel and to God.” This, however, meant that he had to present him as an exemplary figure. Jarick (2007, 104), punning on his name, calls him “a worthy father-figure for all Israel.” One dissenting voice is that of Deboys (1990, 49–61), who has pointed out that although Chronicles does not mention Abijah as evil, he does not really praise him either. The fact that his son Asa is forced to cleanse the land of idolatry, including that of his mother (Abijah’s wife!), indicates that Abijah had not done so. In Deboys’ opinion, the Chronicler had access to an account of the war which he interpreted as showing that God favored Abijah over Jeroboam. The source that Chronicles gives for Abijah is “the midrash of the prophet Iddo” (v. 22). This is Iddo’s third appearance in Chronicles as an author of an ancient record (the previous ones being 2 Chron. 9:29 and 12:15), besides which we have no information about him. Japhet (1993, 700) feels that it is possible that “there was a persistent tradition about a prophet by that name,” although just what he did and wrote is impossible to know. The term “midrash” appears in the Bible only here and in 2 Chron. 24:27, there also as a written source. It is derived from the root DRŠ, which means “seek” or “request.” In later rabbinic sources, the term took on the meaning of “exegesis” but its precise meaning here is unclear – most translations (such as KJV, NRSV, NJPS) render simply “story,” although NIV actually has “annotations.” We have no information on the details of Abijah’s death, and the very same verse introduces us immediately to the reign of Asa with the comment, “in his days the land had rest for ten years.”



The Reign of Abijah – 2 Chronicles 13

Map 4. The Wars of Abijah and Asa

49

T h e R eig n o f A s a – 2 C h r o n ic les 14–16

Chapter 13:23 [Eng. 14:1]1 And Abijah lay with his fathers, and they buried him in the city of David, and his son Asa ruled in his stead; in his days the land had rest for ten years.2 Chapter 14: 1 [2] And Asa did what was good and right in the eyes of the Lord his God.3 2 [3] And he removed the foreign altars and the bamôt,4 and broke down the standing stones,5 and hewed down the asherim.6 3 [4] And he told

1.  In MT this is the concluding verse of the preceding chapter. Accordingly, the MT v. 1 is the English v. 2 and so forth, all the way to the end of the chapter, where MT v. 14 is English v. 15. 2.  The first part of the verse is the same as 1 Kgs 15:8 with just the name of Abijam changed to Abijah, but “in his days the land had rest for ten years” is an addition by the Chronicler. In 1 Kgs 15, “in his stead” is followed by vv. 9 and 10: “And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Asa king of Judah reigned. And he reigned in Jerusalem forty-one years, and the name of his mother was Maacah daughter of Abisalom.” 3.  1 Kgs 15:11 lacks the word “good” and instead of “his God” has “like David his father.” 4.  NRSV “high places,” NJPS “shrines.” See the note on 2 Chron. 11:15. 5.  Hebrew ‫מצבות‬, literally “standers.” KJV has “images” but most modern translations, such as NRSV and NJPS, have “pillars.” The general meaning of this word in modern English, however, brings to mind a tall, carved stone post, while archaeological evidence shows that most such maṣṣebôt were in reality roughly carved, if at all, and usually not tall. NIV’s “sacred stones” is somewhat more appropriate, but in the Hebrew the “sacred” nature of the maṣṣebôt is implied, not explicit. 6.  ‫ אשרים‬is a masculine plural form of asherah. Asherah was clearly a sacred object made of wood, although it is unclear whether it was considered to be a deity in its own right or a wooden representation of a deity. Many translations render “groves” (KJV), “sacred poles” (NEB; NRSV), “sacred posts” (NJPS), but some render “Asherim” (RSV) or “Asherah poles” (NLT; NIV). See the commentary for a more detailed discussion. The parallel verse in 1 Kgs 15:12 conveys a similar idea but uses very different terminology: “He removed the male prostitutes out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.” The following chapter and a half in Chronicles are lacking in Kings, with the two accounts joining again at 2 Chron. 15:16.



The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

51

Judah to seek the Lord God of their ancestors, and to observe7 the Torah8 and the commandment. 4 [5] And he removed from all the cities of Judah the bamôt and the ḥammanîm,9 and the kingdom had peace10 under him.11 5 [6] And he built fortified cities12 in Judah, for the land had peace and he had no war in those years, for the Lord gave him rest. 6 [7] And he said to Judah: Let us build these cities, and surround them with walls and towers, gates and bars; the land is still ours13 because we have sought the Lord our God; we have sought (him)14, and he has given us rest on all sides, so they built and were successful. 7 [8] And Asa had an army of three hundred thousand from Judah, carrying shields15 and spears, and two hundred and eighty thousand from Benjamin who carried shields and drew bows; all these were mighty warriors. 8 [9] And Zerah the Kushite16 came out against them with an army of a thousand thousands, and three hundred chariots, and came as far as Mareshah. 9 [10] And Asa went out before him,17 and they arrayed for war in the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah.18 7.  Hebrew ‫לעשות‬, “to do,” has a more active connotation than the English “to observe” or “to keep.” 8.  ‫תורה‬. Most translations have “law,” following the Greek τὸν νόμον. On the status of “Torah” in Chronicles see the commentary on 2 Chron. 12:1. 9.  ‫חמנים‬. Cultic objects of an obscure nature, also mentioned in Lev. 26:30; Isa. 17:8; 27:9; Ezek. 6:4, 6; and again in 2 Chron. 34:4 and 7. The Greek has simply εἴδωλα, “idols,” followed by KJV “images,” but some interpreters, assuming a connection with the relatively rare word ‫חמה‬, “sun,” render “pillars of the sun.” Most modern translations simply render “incense stands” and the like. However, the Vulgate translates fana, “shrines,” and more recently it has been claimed that these ḥammanîm were actually some sort of shrine or cultic structure (for which see Williamson 1982, 260; Japhet 1993, 706; Klein 2012, 215, who renders “chapels”). 10.  Literally “was quiet.” 11.  Literally “before him.” 12.  ‫ערי מצורה‬, a term similar to Rehoboam’s ‫ ערים למצור‬and ‫מצרות‬. 13.  ‫לפנינו‬, literally “before us.” 14.  “Him,” referring to God, is implied in the Hebrew. 15.  This verse includes two different Hebrew terms that have been translated “shields”: first ‫ צנה‬and then ‫מגן‬. Different translations have used different terms, such as “targets… shields” (KJV) or “large shields…shields” (NRSV) or “shields…bucklers” (NJPS). The second, mâgên, is the more common term, but the real difference between them, if there was one, is unknown. 16.  “Kushite,” often spelled “Cushite” or translated “Ethiopian,” following the Greek. However biblical Kush was actually the same as ancient Nubia, modern Sudan, north of modern Ethiopia. 17.  ‫לפניו‬. NRSV “to confront him.” 18.  The Greek has ἐν τῇ φάραγγι κατὰ βορρᾶν Μαρισης, “in the valley north of Marisa.” Apparently the Hebrew ‫ צפתה‬was replaced by ‫צפונה‬, with either the letter ‫ ת‬being corrupted into ‫ ונ‬before the passage was translated into Greek, or vice versa. Since a town or valley named Zephath(ah) are not known in the area of Mareshah, it is difficult to know

52

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

10 [11] And Asa cried to the Lord his God and said: O Lord, it is nothing for you to help, whether the mighty or the powerless; help us, O Lord our God, for it is on you that we rely, and in your name we have come against this multitude. O Lord, you are our God;19 let no mortal20 hinder you. 11 [12] And the Lord routed the Kushites before Asa and before Judah, and the Kushites fled. 12 [13] And Asa and the people with him pursued them as far as Gerar,21 and the Kushites fell until no one remained alive; for they had been broken before the Lord and his camp, and they22 carried away a great quantity of booty. 13 [14] And they smote all of the cities around Gerar, for the fear of the Lord was on them, and they plundered all the cities; for there was much plunder in them. 14 [15] And they also attacked the tents of (those who had) livestock,23 and captured sheep in abundance, and camels, and they returned to Jerusalem. Chapter 15: 1 And Azariah son of Oded – the spirit of God was upon him. 2 And he went out before Asa and said to him: Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: The Lord is with you, while you are with him; if you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you abandon him, he will abandon you. 3 For many days Israel was without a true God,24 and without a teaching priest, and without Torah.25 4 And (when) they returned in their26 distress to the Lord, the God of Israel, and sought him, and he was found by them. 5 In those times it was not safe27 for those who went and came, for there were great disturbances on all the inhabitants of the lands. 6 And nation was pounded28 by nation and city by city, for God shocked them with every sort of distress. 7 But you, be strong! Do not let your hands be weak, for there is reward for your endeavors.

which is the original. However, for the possibility that the reference may be to Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi, usually identified as the Philistine Gath, see Levin 2002, 32; Wimmer 2007. 19.  Or: “You are the Lord our God.” The Hebrew can support either translation. 20.  ‫אנוש‬. Literally “human,” but the context demands “mere human”; “mortal.” 21.  Here and in the following verse, the Greek has Γεδωρ, “Gedor,” ‫גדר‬, instead of MT’s Gerar, ‫גרר‬. Most commentators (such as Japhet 1993, 712) see the MT as preferable. 22.  The army of Judah. 23.  ‫ אהלי מקנה‬is literally “tents of livestock,” but we can assume that it was the herders who actually lived in the tents. 24.  Or: “God of truth.” Keel (1986, 671), following Qimḥi and other Medieval commentators, suggests understanding “no true gods” as referring to a lack of judges who judge truthfully. 25.  Or “instruction.” See the commentary on 2 Chron. 12:1. Môreh, “teaching” and tôrâh, are both derived from the same root, YRH. 26.  “Their” and “they” in the singular in Hebrew, referring to “Israel” as a collective. However “and sought him, and he was found by them” is in the plural. 27.  ‫אין שלום‬, “there was no peace.” 28.  ‫וכתתו‬. Also used in 2 Chron. 34:7 – see there for the translation.



The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

53

8 And when Asa heard these words, the prophecy (of) Oded the prophet,29 he was strengthened, and put away the abominations from all the land of Judah and Benjamin and from the towns that he had taken in the hill country of Ephraim, and he repaired the altar of the Lord that was in front of the vestibule30 of the Lord. 9 He gathered all of Judah and Benjamin, and those who were sojourning with them from Ephraim, Manasseh and Simeon,31 for many from Israel had come to him32 when they saw that the Lord his God was with him. 10 And they assembled in Jerusalem in the third month of the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa. 11 And they sacrificed to the Lord on that day, from the spoils (that)33 they had brought, cattle seven hundred and sheep seven thousand. 12 And they entered into the covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul. 13 And anyone who would not seek the Lord God of Israel would be put to death, from small to great,34 man or woman.35 14 And they took an oath36 to the Lord with a loud voice and with shouting, and with trumpets and with horns. 15 And all Judah rejoiced over the oath; for they had sworn with all their heart, and had sought him with all their will, and he was found by them, and the Lord gave them respite all around.

29.  So MT, as well as the Greek, Latin, KJV and most older versions, followed by NJPS. However, the syntax of the Hebrew, lacking the “of,” is problematic, and v. 1 introduced this as the prophecy of Azariah son of Oded, which has led many translators and commentators to either render “the prophecy of Azariah son of Oded,” or to assume that the MT’s reference to Oded here is a gloss, leaving just “When Asa heard these words, he was strengthened…” See Curtis and Madsen 1910, 385; Williamson 1982, 269. Otherwise the assumption would be that Azariah repeated a former prophecy of his father Oded or spoke in his name (Keel 1986, 673). 30.  ‫אולם‬. Basically meaning “hall,” and probably a synonym for the Temple. See also 2 Chron. 8:12; 29:7, 17. However the nonstandard term and the Greek τοῦ ναοῦ κυρίου, “the naos of the Lord,” have caused many commentators to assume that the reference is to the outer or front part of the Temple. The Vulgate has ante porticum Domini, and modern translations have such as “vestibule,” “porch” or “portico.” 31.  ‫והגרים עמהם‬. NRSV takes the ‫ גרים‬to refer to “resident aliens,” but there is no reason for this. ‫ גרים‬in this context simply means “residing.” 32.  ‫נפלו עליו‬. Literally “had fallen upon him.” 33.  The relative particle “that” or “which” (‫ )אשר‬is missing in the Hebrew. Japhet (1993, 725–26), following JPS, suggests redividing the verse as “They sacrificed to the Lord on that day from the spoils; they brought seven hundred oxen and seven thousand sheep.” 34.  The Hebrew ‫ למן־קטן ועד־גדול‬is often translated “from young to old,” but see commentary. 35.  Literally “from man to woman.” 36.  ‫וישבעו‬, “and they swore.”

54

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

16 And also Maacah the mother of Asa the king, he removed her37 from her position of authority38 because she had made for Asherah39 a horror,40 and Asa cut down her horror, and crushed41 and burned (it) in the Kidron Valley. 17 And the bamôt were not removed from Israel;42 nevertheless the heart of Asa was complete43 all his days. 18 And he brought the things that his father had dedicated and those that he had dedicated44 into the house of God,45 silver, gold and vessels. 19 And there was no war until the thirty-fifth year of the reign of Asa.46 Chapter 16: 1 In the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa,47 Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah, and built Ramah to prevent anyone from going

37.  In 1 Kgs 15:13 this is a direct continuation of the acts of Asa, and thus it has “And also Maacah his mother,” the reference to Asa being clear. Here, coming after the assembly of “all Judah” in Jerusalem, the Chronicler found it necessary to introduce the reference to Asa. If one was to ignore the MT punctuation, “Maacah the mother of Asa, the king removed her” would also be possible. Most translations have “King Asa even removed his mother Maacah” (NRSV) and the like. 38.  ‫גבירה‬, literally “strong-woman,” a title often used of a king’s favorite wife or his mother. Cf. 1 Kgs 11:19; 2 Kgs 10:13; Jer. 13:18. See the commentary. 39.  This is the only instance in Chronicles of ‫ אשרה‬in the singular, proceeded by the definite article. In 2 Chron. 19:3 and 33:3 it is in the plural, ‫אשרות‬. For the meaning of the term see the commentary. 40.  ‫מפלצת‬. The term is a hapax legomenon, appearing only here and in the parallel 1 Kgs 15:13, which actually has the terms in reverse order, “made a mipleṣet for Asherah.” For its meaning see the commentary. 41.  ‫וידק‬, “crushed” or “ground to a thin dust,” is missing in Kings. The same verb is used in a similar context in 2 Chron. 34:4, and see there. 42.  “From Israel” is missing in Kings. Assuming it to be an addition of Chronicles, does it refer to the northern kingdom, in which case how could Asa be held accountable? Or does it refer to Judah? See the commentary. 43.  ‫שלם‬, literally “whole.” Kings has “the heart of Asa was whole with the Lord.” Here translated “perfect” (KJV), “blameless” (RSV), “true” (NRSV), “wholehearted” (NJPS) and the like. 44.  “Things dedicated” after KJV. RSV and NRSV have “votive gifts.” NJPS has “things that he and his father had consecrated.” 45.  Kings has “house of the Lord.” Exchange of “Lord” (Yahweh) for “God” (Elohim) is common in Chronicles. See Japhet 1997, 30–37. 46.  1 Kgs 15:16 claims exactly the opposite: “And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days,” leading directly into the story of the war. See the commentary. 47.  The reference to Asa’s thirty-sixth year does not appear in Kings, where Baasha’s attack on Asa comes as a direct continuation of the previous verse, “And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days.” In Kings, this is all part of the same chapter on Asa. In Chronicles, this was taken as the beginning of a new chapter.



The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

55

out or coming in to48 Asa king of Judah. 2 And Asa took out49 silver and gold from the treasures of the house of the Lord and the king’s house50 and sent them51 to Ben-hadad52 king of Aram, who resided in Darmascus,53 saying: 3 There is an alliance between me and you,54 and55 between my father and your father; here I have sent to you silver and gold;56 go, break your alliance with Baasha king of Israel, so that he may withdraw from me. 4 And Ben-hadad listened to King Asa, and he sent the commanders of his armies to57 the cities of Israel, and they struck58 Ijon,59 Dan, Abel-maim,60 and all the storehouses of

48.  NRSV adds “to the territory of” for clarification. Ramah was on the main road leading from Shechem to Jerusalem, meaning in effect that Baasha imposed a blockade on Jerusalem. 49.  Kings has simply “took.” 50.  Kings has “Asa took all the silver and the gold that remained in the treasures of the house of the Lord and the treasures of the king’s house.” In Chronicles the financial loss is much less significant. 51.  In Kings it is “and gave them to the hand of his servants and sent them to Ben-Hadad…” 52.  Kings has Ben-hadad’s pedigree: “Ben-hadad son of Tabrimmon son of Hezion.” 53.  The spelling of the name in Chronicles, ‫דרמשק‬, “Darmascus,” rather than the standard ‫דמשק‬, “Damascus,” in Kings, might be an Aramaism (so Keel 1986, 678). Hognesius (2003, 165) considers it to be a deliberate change by Chronicles. This spelling also occurs in 2 Chron. 24:23 and 28:5, 23. 54.  RSV and NRSV translate “Let there be an alliance between me and you.” The text itself indicates that there was already such an alliance since the days of their fathers. 55.  The context implies either that “and” means “like that,” like the alliance that their fathers had had (so Hognesius 2003, 165), or that their present alliance is a continuation of their fathers’ alliance. 56.  Kings includes the word ‫שחד‬, “a bribe,” which Chronicles omits. 57.  ‫אל‬. Kings has the more explicit ‫“ – על‬against.” The difference could be due to scribal error. 58.  Most translations have “ravaged” (NJPS), “conquered” (RSV, NRSV) and the like, although the Hebrew ‫ ויכו‬does not really indicate the amount of damage done to these towns. Kings has ‫ ויך‬in the singular, referring to Ben-hadad, while Chronicles refers to his commanders in the plural. 59.  The town was at the very northern boundary of Israelite territory. 60.  Kings has “Abel-beth-maacah,” which is a well-known city (cf. 2 Sam. 20:14) near Ijon and Dan. The change is usually simply attributed to a textual corruption, but it is worth noting that ‫ מים‬as vocalized here, mâyyîm, means “water,” which has the same basic meaning as abêl, “watercourse.” Rudolph (1955, 246) suggested reading with the Targum miyyam – “seaward,” meaning “to the west,” since Abel-beth-maacah is to the west of the other two. However, it seems more likely that the Targum was trying to make sense of the difficult form. If this is a purposeful change on the part of Chronicles, it may perhaps be an attempt to avoid the name of Maacah, which is the same as that of Asa’s sinful mother mentioned above.

56

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

the cities of Naphtali.61 5 And when Baasha heard, he stopped building Ramah, and ceased his work.62 6 And Asa the king took all Judah,63 and they carried the stones of Ramah and its timber, which Baasha had built, and with them he built Geba and Mizpah.64 7 And at that time Hanani the seer came to Asa king of Judah, and said to him: Because you relied65 on the king of Aram, and did not rely on the Lord your God, the army of the king of Aram66 has escaped from your hands. 8 Were not67 the Kushites and the Libyans a huge army with exceedingly many chariots and cavalry, yet because you relied on the Lord, he gave them into your hand. 9 For the Lord – his eyes range throughout the entire earth, to strengthen those whose heart is whole with him; you have acted foolishly in this, for from now you will have wars. 10 And Asa was angry at the seer, and put him in the prison-house,68 for he was in a rage with him because of this; and Asa crushed69 some of the people at that time.

61.  Kings has “and all Chinneroth upon all the land of Naphtali.” Since the Greek has περιχώρους Νεφθαλι, “the surroundings of Naphtali,” Dillard (1987, 115) suggested that the text read ‫ מסבות‬or ‫סביבות‬, which Chronicler then read as ‫מסכנות‬, “storehouses.” 62.  Kings renders, “he stopped building Ramah, and he sat (meaning ‘resided’) in Tirzah,” which should perhaps read “he returned to Tirzah” (so Hognesius 2003, 166 n. 550). The Chronicler’s version is probably the result of a corruption. 63.  Kings has “King Asa called up all Judah, none were exempt.” 64.  Kings: “King Asa built Geba-benjamin and Mizpah.” The next four verses in Chronicles, 7–10, have no parallel in Kings. 65.  ‫בהשענך‬, literally “by your leaning.” The second clause also uses ŠN, “lean” for “rely.” 66.  The Lucianic recension of the Septuagint has “Israel” instead of “Syria” (“Aram”), but this is usually thought to be an attempt by the editor of that translation to “make sense” of the context. See the commentary. 67.  ‫הלא‬, “is/were not.” The question is of course rhetorical. Most translations (NRSV; NJPS etc.) do not translate the expression at all. 68.  The Hebrew ‫ מהפכת‬is used only here and in Jer. 20:2–3; 29:26. From the context it obviously refers to a prison, although the specific meaning is unclear. The word seems to be derived from HPK, meaning “turn over” or “reverse.” Keel (1986, 683), based on the Targum here and in Jeremiah, suggests a small chamber for solitary confinement, perhaps a sort of oubliette. NJPS translates “stocks,” while RSV and NRSV have “in the stocks, in prison,” which seems excessively repetitive. 69.  ‫ רצץ‬literally means “to crush,” as in Ps. 74:13–14, “You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the serpents in the waters. You crushed (‫ )רצצת‬the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.” In the context of the king’s treatment of his own people, various translators have attempted to reduce the connotation of cruelty that this term evokes by rendering “oppressed” (KJV), “mistreated” (Myers 1965, 2:92), or “inflicted cruelties” (RSV; NRSV; NJPS). See the commentary.



The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

57

11 And behold, the acts of Asa, the first and the last, are written on the book of the Kings of Judah and Israel.70 12 And Asa became diseased in the thirty-ninth year of his reign in his feet, and his disease became severe;71 yet even in his disease he did not seek the Lord, but the physicians.72 13 And Asa lay with his fathers, and died in the forty-first year of his reign.73 14 And they buried him in the tomb that he had hewn out for himself in the city of David, and they laid him on a bier that had been filled74 with spices of various kinds, blended by the perfumer’s art, and they burnt (for) him a very great fire.75

Commentary Overview: The Reign of Asa Chapters 14, 15 and 16 tell the story of Asa’s reign over Judah. Asa, like his predecessors, is a devout king, and the Chronicler attributes his prosperity and long reign to that piety. Only at the very end of his reign does Asa stray lightly, and is punished by a “foot disease.” Unlike his coverage of Abijah, here Chronicles repeats all of the information given in Kings, with only some minor (but significant) changes. But like in his accounts of Rehoboam and of Abijah, the Chronicler also adds a good amount of material, including a war, two prophetic sermons and more. As noted by Japhet (1993, 702–703), this “thorough reworking” leaves us with a narrative that is three times as long as the Kings version, “integrated into one coherent chronological framework…the most elaborate provided for any monarch, in either Kings or Chronicles.” This begins with the initial ten years during which “the land had rest” (14:1), continues to the assembly “in the third month of the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa” (15:10), states that “there was no war until the thirty-fifth year” (15:19), 70.  The formula given in 1 Kgs 15:23 is very different: “And the rest of all the acts of Asa, all his might and all that he did and the cities that he built, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah?” The same verse then concludes, “But in his old age he was diseased in his feet.” In Chronicles this is the beginning of the next verse, and is followed by his sin in seeking help from physicians rather than from God. 71.  ‫עד־למעלה חליו‬, literally “his disease went to the top.” 72.  The bare fact of the disease is mentioned in Kings, but the year, the severity, and Asa’s seeking help from physicians rather than from God are unique to Chronicles. 73.  The year of Asa’s death is not mentioned in the Kings account, but the fact that he ruled 41 years had already been mentioned there as part of his ascension notice in v. 10. 74.  The Hebrew ‫אשר מלא‬, “he had filled,” implies that Asa filled his bier with spices in preparation for his own funeral. 75.  Kings does not mention Asa’s special tomb, the spices or the fire, stating simply that “Asa lay with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of his father David,” concluding with “and his son Jehoshaphat reigned in his stead,” which in Chronicles is the beginning of ch. 17.

58

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

which is followed by the war with Baasha in the thirty-sixth (16:1), Asa’s disease in his thirty-ninth year (16:12) and his death in his forty-first (16:13). The only one of these dates found in Kings is the total forty-one years of Asa’s reign. The rest are obviously a part of the Chronicler’s “literary and theological restructuring of Asa’s history.” Among modern scholars there are those (such as Rudolph 1955, 239–40) who consider all the other dates to be literary inventions of the Chronicler, others who would prefer them all to be historical, and yet others who choose a middle path, such as counting some of the dates (such as 16:1) from the division of the kingdom. The amount of space devoted to these issues by Williamson (1982, 255–58), Dillard (1987, 122–25) and Japhet (1993, 703–705), all without arriving at a satisfactory solution, is probably a good indication that we would be better off attempting to understand the text as it stands and the various dates as a part of the Chronicler’s narrative. Chapter 14: Asa’s Piety As an example, we may examine the opening statement that after Abijah’s death and Asa’s succession, “the land had rest for ten years.” In the MT, in which this is the closing statement of ch. 13, this comes as a reward for Abijah’s faithfulness and perhaps political success as well, which then gave his son Asa an initial period of peace. In the Septuagint, followed by most English versions, placing this verse at the beginning of ch. 14 makes it a part of one’s reading of Asa’s reign – the ten years of peace are due to his piety (see, for example, Klein 2012, 212; McKenzie 2004, 276 points out that not since Solomon, at 1 Chron. 22:9, had “rest” of the land and the kingdom been noted as characteristic of a king’s reign). The formula is similar to that used at the end of the careers of many of the Judges, and the specific time, ten years, is probably meant to be symbolic. Japhet (1993, 705) points out that the roots ŠQṬ (“quiet”) and NWḤ (“rest”) are repeated in this chapter and the next at least six times, as compared to none in the Chronicler’s account of Solomon. Presumably, most of what is described in vv. 2–7 is meant to have occurred during those years. Chronicles deleted Kings’ standard comparison of Asa to David (1 Kgs 15:11), preferring to allow his piety to stand on its own. Chronicles also changed the details of the idolatrous practices which Asa removed from the land. According to 1 Kgs 15:12, “he removed the male prostitutes out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made,” followed immediately by the removal of his mother Maacah and her Asherah-idol. In Chronicles, “he removed the foreign altars and the bamôt, broke down the standing stones, and hewed down the asherim.” In Japhet’s opinion (1993, 706), the Chronicler changed the terms used for the idolatrous



The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

59

practices, replacing the qedešîm (“male prostitutes”) and gillulîm (“idols”) with more general terms, “from the strongest conviction that its [male prostitution] existence should be silenced altogether.” The objects that he does mention, such as altars, idols, standing stones and asherim, are all mentioned as forbidden in Deut. 7:5 and 16:21–22, among others. His avoiding mention of the fact that such objects had been made by Asa’s “fathers” (1 Kgs 15:12) is probably due to the fact that to him, neither David nor Solomon, nor Rehoboam or Abijah, ever did engage in such forbidden acts. The identity of “asherah” and the various forms and contexts in which the word is used in the Bible has been discussed since the beginning of modern biblical study, with no real consensus so far. Many references to “asherah”s being planted, cut down and burnt are clear indications that they were made of wood, although there is no agreement as to whether they were some sort of pole or actual, living, trees. The singular form is feminine, although both feminine and masculine plural-forms are used. There is also no consensus about whether “asherah” was a deity in her own right (hence the form “Asherah” in English), or a general term for “goddess,” or simply a cultic object (“an asherah”). Since the discovery of inscriptions from the time of the Israelite monarchy at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud in the Sinai and at Khirbet el-Kôm in the Judean Shephelah (usually identified as the biblical site of Makkedah) that seem to mention “Yahweh and his asherah,” some scholars have considered Asherah to have been the “consort” of Yahweh, venerated by many Israelites but forbidden by the “official” Jerusalem cult and eventually all but expunged from biblical memory, but there is no consensus on this either (see Dever 1999; Gilmour 2009). As such, there can hardly be any agreement on the nature of the object mentioned here, and so the large variety of translations as well. This is the only instance in Chronicles of ašerâh in the singular, preceded by the definite article, and it is of course copied from Kings. In 2 Chron. 19:3 and 33:3 ašerôt appears in the feminine plural, while in 2 Chron. 14:2; 17:6; 24:18; 31:1; 33:19; 34:3, 4, 7 it is rendered in the masculine plural ašerîm. While none of these forms are unique to Chronicles, it would seem that most of them refer to cultic objects that were placed near or at bamôt, “high places” (for a recent summary see Park 2011; Aḥituv 2014). We would follow Klein (2012, 214–15), in considering 2 Chron. 15:16 to be the only actual reference in Chronicles to “the goddess Asherah,” while considering the other ten asherim or asherot to be ritual objects. However, unlike Klein, who translates those asherim or asherot as “sacred poles,” we prefer to leave the term untranslated, due to the ambiguity of its actual form and function.

60

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

At this point, where Kings goes on to mention the removal of Maacah and her idol, Chronicles inserts nearly two chapters of independent text, returning to Maacah and the Kings narrative only at 15:16. The intervening text includes several matters. The first issue with which Chronicles deals is to an extent a direct continuation of the previous verses. Asa’s piety is such that he does not only destroy objects of forbidden worship; he actively exhorts Judah “to seek the Lord, the God of their ancestors, and to observe the Torah and the commandment.” As noted by Japhet (1993, 706–707), the Chronicler attributes such positive guidance of the people to David, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and Josiah.76 The phrases used, such as “seek the Lord,” “God of your fathers” and “Torah and commandment,” are standard, so that no special meaning can be attached to their use here. Japhet believes that Chronicles intended to credit Asa with “quite a comprehensive religious reform, similar to that attributed to Hezekiah,” and then goes on to comment on the fact that this “reform” of Asa’s is historically illogical, since none of Asa’s predecessors are pictured as having worshipped idols. Our reading is different. The Chronicler is admitting that even during the reign of so pious a king as Abijah or Asa, there were elements in the population of Judah, perhaps even the king’s own mother (see below), who engaged in idolatrous acts. It is the duty of every Davidic king to act in order to eradicate such activity. Asa’s “telling” (commanding or encouraging?) the people “to follow the Torah and the commandment” is a direct expansion of the law in Deut. 17:18–19: “When he has taken the throne of his kingdom, he shall have a copy of this Torah written for him in the presence of the Levitical priests. It shall remain with him and he shall read in it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, diligently observing all the words of this Torah and these statutes.” Where in Deuteronomy the king is to write the “Torah” and observe it himself, in Chronicles a good king teaches and encourages the people to observe its commandments. The ḥammanîm mentioned in v. 4 were discussed in the note. They are often assumed to have something to do with a solar cult, but there is no way to know for sure. The real question is that of the relationship between this verse and the preceding verses. Why repeat the removal of bamôt and of idols, only one verse after making a very similar statement? One possibility is that there was a difference between the bamôt mentioned in v. 2 and those in v. 4; perhaps the former were places of idolatrous worship and the latter were places of worship of Yahweh (so Japhet 1993, 706), 76.  Interestingly enough, 1 Kgs 8:61, which attributes such an exhortation to Solomon, is passed over by Chronicles.



The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

61

or perhaps these bamôt of ḥammanîm that were situated in the cities of Judah were different from the bamôt that were used for foreign worship (so Williamson 1982, 260). Conversely Myers (1965, 2:82) understood the relationship to be one of causality: “Because he removed the high places and the incense altars from the cities of Judah, the kingdom under him was undisturbed” (Keel 1986, 667 offers a similar explanation). We should also note the chiastic structure of these verses: A the land had rest. B Asa did good and removed forbidden worship. C Asa encouraged Judah to seek the Lord and observe the Torah. B′ Asa removed forbidden worship. A′ the kingdom had rest.

This structure emphasizes the centrality of seeking the Lord and observance of his instructions in the Chronicler’s thought. It is at the center of all of Asa’s success. Verses 5–7 continue the theme, but this time Asa’s success is evidenced by his building activities. Like Rehoboam before him, Asa builds “cities of siege,” which, for the Chronicler, were a sure sign of divine favor. This is emphasized by the reminder that “the land had peace and he had no war in those years, for the Lord gave him rest.” And then, like his “saying” to “Judah,” that is the people, to seek the Lord in v. 3, in v. 6 he again “said to Judah” to fortify these cities, emphasizing once more that all of this peace and success is due to their seeking the Lord. The historical value of this statement is impossible to evaluate. Since no details such as the names of the cities are given, there is no way to verify the information. Some commentators do refer to the statement in 1 Kgs 15:23 about the cities that Asa built, uniquely among all the kings of Judah, as indicting that the Chronicler must have known Asa to have been a builder (Curtis and Madsen 1910, 382; Williamson 1982, 260, with reservations). Japhet (1993, 706) suggests that the reference may have been based on his reported building of Geba and Mizpah (1 Kgs 15:22/ 2 Chron. 16:6). Jeremiah 41:9 would also seem to refer to something built by Asa. The Invasion of Zerah the Kushite Verse 7 can be seen as transitional. On one hand, reference to Asa’a large army is a further sign of his piety and subsequent success. On the other hand, as in the case of Abijah before him, mustering an army is a prelude to war. As before, we will not attempt to explain the unreasonably large numbers, but three comments are in order. The first is that Asa’s total

62

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

of 580,000 warriors is larger than Rehoboam’s 180,000 (2 Chron. 11:1, taken from 1 Kgs 12:21), and more even than Abijah’s 400,000 (2 Chron. 13:3); in Chronicles the Judahite kings grow progressively stronger. The second is that in Asa’s case, Chronicles emphasizes that the army was composed of two parts, 300,000 spear-bearers from Judah and 280,000 archers from Benjamin. This is one of several passages in which the Chronicler supplies specific details of the army of Judah; for example, 2 Chron. 17:14–19 (Jehoshaphat); 25:5 (Amaziah); 26:11–15 (Uzziah). Scholars have long debated the possible source of this information, with some (such as Welten 1973, 195) claiming it to be a free composition of the Chronicler, and others (such as Noth 1943, 141; Williamson 1982, 261–63) assuming it to be based on a pre-exilic source that the Chronicler had at his disposal. As with most of the Chronicler’s building accounts, it is really impossible to “prove” either way, and our assessment must depend, to a large extent, on our general evaluation of Chronicles’ sources and of the Chronicler’s use of those sources. The third comment to be made here is that this is not the only place in which the Benjaminites are characterized specifically as archers. Benjaminite archers are also mentioned in 1 Chron. 8:40 (as an addendum to the tribal genealogy); 12:2 (among those who came to David at Ziklag, where the Benjaminites are also ambidextrous!); 2 Chron. 17:17 (as part of Jehoshaphat’s army). This, too, could be a literary topos, perhaps influenced by “the bow of Jonathan” (who was a Benjaminite) in David’s lament in 2 Sam. 1:22. That the Chronicler envisioned the ideal army of Israel as being made up of tribal components can be seen from his description of the tribal units that came to crown David in 1 Chron. 12:25–41 (in which, incidentally, the Benjaminites are not said to be archers). To him it would make sense, that in the southern kingdom that now included only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, each tribe would retain its own sort of “tribal militia,” at least at first. On the other hand, this is also historically logical, if, indeed, the Chronicler had access to some sort of historical record. Williamson’s suggestion (1982, 262–63) that by this time the names “Judah” and “Benjamin” had “lost their strictly tribal affiliation and become the names of the ‘heavy’ and ‘light’ regiments” instead, is possible, but not really necessary. Verses 8–14 tell of the invasion of one “Zerah the Kushite” (often translated “Ethiopian” – see note). In its theme and structure, this pericope is like many other war stories in Chronicles, though the details vary: a fearsome enemy with a superior army, the king and people of Judah calling out to God, God “smiting” the enemy, the Judahites taking in large amounts of loot. Its overall purpose is to show that God protects and supports those kings who are loyal to him.



The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

63

However, most commentators have also pondered the historical background of the story. Curtis and Madsen (1910, 382) first called the story “a good example of Midrash,” and then stated that it probably “has a historical basis in an Egyptian or Arabian inroad.” Others have taken a similar attitude. So, is it possible to identify a “historical” Zerah? Was he Egyptian or Arabian? Some scholars have assumed that only a Pharaoh could field such an army of men and chariots, and have tried to identify Zerah with a contemporary king of Egypt. However no king of Egypt whose name resembles anything like “Zerah” is known. Assuming that the chronology of both Asa’s reign and of the 22nd dynasty are known, the Egyptian king during Asa’s time would have been Osorkon I (c. 924–889 BCE according to Kitchen 1986, 302), son of Sheshonq I (biblical Shishak), founder of the 22nd dynasty. However, Shoshenq and his descendants were of Lybian origin, not Nubian/Kushite, and Osorkon I is not known to have undertaken any sort of campaign in the Levant. Curtis and Madsen (1910, 382) suggested that the invader was in fact Osorkon II (c. 874–850 BCE according to Kitchen 1986, 313), but this suggestion involves “stretching” Asa’s reign unreasonably. Kitchen (1986, 309) attempted to solve the issue by assuming that Zerah was in fact “a general of Nubian extraction” sent by Osorkon I. In this Kitchen actually revised an old theory by Albright (1924, 146–47), according to which this Zerah was actually the leader of a Nubian colony established by Sheshonq I at Gerar in the western Negeb,77 supported by local nomadic elements. A third approach was taken by Keel (1986, 668), Na’aman (1987, 264), Japhet (1993, 709–710), Rainey (1997, 57) and others: that these “Kushites” were actually nomadic tribes living in the deserts south of Judah, and that this encounter is to be seen as part of a wider conflict over the southern trade routes. This would seem to be supported by mention of tents, sheep and camels. In fact, Curtis and Madsen (1910, 382) even suggested amending ‫ערים‬, “cities,” in v. 14 to read ‫ערבים‬, “Arabs.” There are several passages in the Bible in which “Kush” is used as a synonym for “Midian,” such as in Hab. 3:7 or in Exod. 2:16, in which Moses’ Midianite wife is called a “Kushite.” The Midianites are often portrayed as tent-dwelling nomads.

77.  Albright also read the name of the city which 1 Kgs 9:16 claims was captured by Pharaoh and given to Solomon as Gerar, rather than the MT Gezer. For the proposed identification of Gerar at Tel Haror (Tell Abū-Hureireh), about 20 km west of Beer-sheba, see Oren, Morrison and Gilead 1986.

64

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

A somewhat more radical approach is that taken by Jonker (2006), who attempted to understand the significance of the Chronicler’s use of the term “Kushites” in the context of his own time, that of the Persian Empire. In his view, the “Kushites” or Nubians were viewed by the Chronicler’s contemporaries as a powerful kingdom that even the Persians had difficulty subduing. Their mention here as a powerful force that was defeated by Yahweh’s might is meant to show that Yahweh is even more powerful than them, and perhaps more powerful than the Persian Empire. And while some of the details of Jonker’s theory are difficult to accept, the point of the story is indeed clear: to show how even a most formidable enemy is no match for Asa, provided that the king of Judah retains his faith in God and trusts in none but him. Chapter 15: The Sermon of Azariah and Asa’s Reforms Chapter 15 relates two separate but related matters: the sermon of Azariah son of Oded (vv. 1–7) and Asa’s cultic reforms (8–17), carried out in response to Azariah’s sermon. However, we should note that vv. 16–18 are actually adapted from Kings, while the sermon and the first eight verses of the reforms are unique to Chronicles. The prophet Azariah son of Oded is otherwise unknown, although Azariah in itself is a fairly common name. Oded seems to be the name of two people – the father of this Azariah, and an Oded who approached the armies of Pekah king of Israel that returned to Samaria in 2 Chron. 28:9. Since the publication of the Old Aramaic inscription of King Zakkur of Hamath, in which ddn seems to parallel ḥzyn, “seers,” it has been suggested that dd (“Oded”) is a term for a kind of prophet or seer, rather than a proper name. However, Barstad (2003) seems to be correct in concluding that the comparison does not rest on solid ground and that it would be better to treat Oded as a proper name. Japhet (1993, 717) has shown that of all the prophets cited in Chronicles, only relatively unknown prophets are said to be influenced by “the spirit of God.” She suggested that this idiom is used by the Chronicler to mark the first (or only) utterance of “non-professional” prophets. This might explain why this Azariah is not known other than in this passage. Japhet pictures Azariah as going out to meet Asa and his victorious army upon their return to Jerusalem, although the text does not actually link Azariah’s “going out before Asa” to Asa’s return from battle. As such, it is difficult to determine if the phrase “the Lord is with you” refers to the victorious battle, or if it is a part of his general exposition: “as long as you are with the Lord he is with you.” In any case, the principles expressed in v. 2 are typical of Chronicles.



The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

65

Verses 3–7 continue the prophet’s speech: he speaks of an undefined time in the past, in which “there was no true God, no teaching priest, and no Torah.” This was a time of no safety, of anarchy and of war. Only when Israel sought God, was he found by them. The wording of the passage seems to be based on Hos. 3:4–5, “For the Israelites shall remain many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the Israelites shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; they shall come in awe to the Lord and to his goodness in the latter days.” However, that vision seems to refer to the future; here the Chronicler’s Azariah is speaking about the past, although different commentators have different ideas on the specific period. De Vries (1989, 307), for example, thinks that it “can refer only to the Egyptian bondage and wilderness wandering.” Rudolph (1955, 245), Myers (1965, 2:88), Japhet (1993, 719) and others assume that the reference is to the time of the Judges, Keel (1986, 671) thinks that it refers to Asa’s immediate predecessors Rehoboam and Abijah (and, following the Targum, even more so to the northerners under Jeroboam),78 while Williamson (1982, 268) emphasized the relevance of the message to the Chronicler’s own time. In any case, the prophet concludes his history lesson with words of encouragement: “But you, be strong! Do not let your hands be weak, for there is reward for your endeavors.” Verses 8–15 tell, once again, of Asa’s cleansing the land of “abominations,” repairing the altar of the Lord and assembling the people in Jerusalem to sacrifice and to reaffirm their covenant with God, presented as a result of Azariah’s (or Oded’s – see note) words. This passage is independent of Kings, and its source and historicity are debated. Japhet (1993, 723) points out that the ceremony described lacks many of the elements typical of Chronicles, such as priests, Levites, singers or a royal speech, and thus assumes it to be based on “a historical model.” Williamson (1982, 269) considers this pericope to be “a parallel account” of the religious reforms already described at the beginning of ch. 14, and then adds that this one appears “historically more probable.” I would suggest, regardless of whether the convocation “actually happened,” that we examine it within the framework of the Chronicler’s overall picture of Asa’s reign. Since he began with the ten years of peace earned by the piety of his father Abijah, there would have been no need to cleanse the land of idolatry. Thus, we should see 14:1–5 as a general description of his reign, rather than referring to events of his early years. The fortification of cities described in vv. 6–7 can be read as either a 78.  For which see also Dillard 1987, 120.

66

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

continuation of this general picture, or, coming after “the kingdom had peace under him,” as referring to his successes during the ten years of peace. The war with Zerah must have occurred after those ten years, and the convocation, as described in 15:10, happened in his fifteenth year. Another point of contention among commentators is the reference in v. 8 to “the towns that he had taken in the hill country of Ephraim,” since not only had no mention of such conquests been made, but they would seem to be at variance with Asa’s having enjoyed ten years of peace. Some scholars (such as Rudolph 1955, 245) assumed this to refer to the towns of Geba and Mizpah, which Asa would later take from Baasha (16:6), but these cities could only be thought of as being in “the hill-country of Ephraim” if the term is used very loosely, besides which, 16:1 places the war with Baasha in Asa’s thirty-sixth year. Others have suggested that the reference is to the three cities that had been captured by Abijah (13:19), which were not described as ever having been returned to northern control (so Curtis and Madsen 1910, 384; Kallai 1960, 58; Keel 1986, 673; Japhet 1993, 722). However, it would be unusual for the Chronicler to attribute the father’s conquests to the son, and in fact 2 Chron. 17:2 mentions Jehoshaphat putting garrisons “in the cities of Ephraim that his father Asa had taken.” And so it would seem that the Chronicler definitely had a tradition that Asa had conquered northern towns at some stage of his reign. Myers (1965, 2:89) even suggested that these were the same cities that Abijah had conquered, but that Baasha had taken them back during Asa’s early years. Or, perhaps, they had even been taken back by Jeroboam, and then taken by Asa during the turmoil of Baasha’s coup. All this is of course possible, but without further evidence impossible to know for certain. Verse 9 refers, not to northern areas captured by Asa, but to people from “Ephraim, Manasseh and Simeon,” also referred to as “many from Israel,” who were living in Asa’s kingdom together with “Judah and Benjamin.” This is actually reminiscent of the list in 1 Chron. 12:23, of the northerners who had joined David at Ziklag, while he was still a refugee from Saul. In fact, v. 20 uses the same unusual phrase as does our verse, “they fell upon him.” In both cases, the Chronicler intends that the reader understand that the ruler whom these people had left (Saul or Baasha) was illegitimate, and these Israelites had gathered around the true anointed king. The list of tribes represented by these people is surprising. While Ephraim and Manasseh did make up the core of the northern kingdom, why would Chronicles mention them and thus exclude the other tribes? Were there not people from Naphtali or Asher who also recognized that



The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

67

God was with Asa? And why Simeon? The known territory of that tribe was actually in the south of Judah (Josh. 19 1–9; 1 Chron. 4:28–43), and the usual assumption was that they were absorbed into Judah (cf. Japhet 1993, 724). One possible solution can be found in 2 Chron. 24:6, where Simeon is once again seemingly mentioned among northern tribes, those whose territories were cleansed by Josiah: “And in the towns of Manasseh and Ephraim and Simeon and as far as Naphtali.” This has led some scholars to suggest that there may have been a group of people who were identified as “Simeonites” in the northern part of the land, perhaps during the pre-exilic period, but more likely in the Chronicler’s own day. This was first suggested by Noth (1930, 77; 1943, 178), who took his cue from the tradition of the attack of Simeon and Levi on Shechem in Genesis 34 (to which we might also add their attack, together with Judah, on Bezek in Judg. 1:3–5). The idea was further developed by Grintz (1957, 33), who noted that Judith and other inhabitants of Bethuliah in that clearly late book are said to be descended from the tribe of Simeon (Judt. 6:15; 8:1; 9:2). Grintz, who believed that the book of Judith represents a Persian-Period reality, deduced from these passages, together with some “northern” place-names which he claimed to have “southern” origins (Bethuliah – Bethul/Bethuel of Josh. 19:4/1 Chron. 4:30; Marisa – Mareshah; Kefar Othnai [the later Legio, near Megiddo] – Othniel, the southern judge; Akrabah – the ascent of Akrabbim), that there were indeed “Simeonites” living in the hills of Samaria and the Jezreel Valley in the Chronicler’s time (for a recent summary of views on the date and reality of Judith, see Levine Gera 2014, 26–44 and in her running commentary on the various passages cited). Rainey (1981, 149–50; 1997, 46; Rainey and Notley 2006, 196), on the other hand, suggested that here and especially in 2 Chron. 34:6 the reference is not to Simeon as a tribe at all, but rather to the city of “Shim‘on” in the north-western Jezreel Valley. This city, attested several times in sources ranging from the eighteenth century BCE to rabbinic times, is represented by a large tell which, to date, has not been excavated. This city appears three times in the Bible, all in Joshua (11:1; 12:20; 19:15), and while some versions of the LXX preserve the spelling Συμοων, in the MT, all three are spelled “Shimron.” In Rainey’s opinion, in both Asa’s time and in Josiah’s, this city replaced the recently destroyed Megiddo (first by Shishak, then by Tiglath-pileser III) as the main center of Israelite population in the Jezreel Valley. Be that as it may, this still does not explain why people from the Galilee and Transjordan did not come to join Asa. Perhaps Chronicles lists these tribes because there were people in his own time, in Persian-period Yehud,

68

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

who were thought to be descended from them, while the Galilean and Transjordanian tribes were thought to have been “lost” to the Assyrian exile. In the end, no answer seems to be totally satisfactory. The date of the convocation, baḥôdeš haššelišî, could mean either “the third new moon” or “the third month,” without specifying which day in that month. The Hebrew word ‫( חדש‬vocalized ḥôdeš) literally means “new,” and is often used to refer to the new moon. The new moon was a minor festival with its own special sacrifices, and is often listed together with the Sabbath and with other festivals. In 1 Samuel 20, ḥôdeš is the term used for the new moon sacrifice from which David was absent. Isaiah 1:13 proclaims, “New moon (Hebrew ḥôdeš) and Sabbath, calling of convocation – I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity.” Two examples from Chronicles are “and whenever burnt offerings are offered to the Lord on Sabbaths, new moons (Hebrew ḥôdašîm), and appointed festivals, according to the number required of them, regularly before the Lord” (1 Chron. 23:31) and “Then Solomon offered up burnt offerings to the Lord on the altar of the Lord that he had built in front of the vestibule, as the duty of each day required, offering according to the commandment of Moses for the Sabbaths, the new moons (Hebrew ḥôdašîm), and the three annual festivals—the festival of unleavened bread, the festival of weeks, and the festival of booths” (2 Chron. 8:12–13). So the new moon would have been a fitting occasion for such a gathering. On the other hand, ḥôdeš is also the regular word for “month.” Thus Solomon began to build the Temple “in the second month (ḥôdeš) on the second (day), of the fourth year of his reign” (2 Chron. 3:2). The third month (counting from the spring month during which the Passover is celebrated; see Exod. 12:2) would have been the month during which the pilgrimage festival of Weeks (Pentecost, Shavu‘ot), was celebrated. However, nowhere in the Bible is this festival given a precise date. Leviticus 23:15 and Deut. 16:9 instruct that the festival be celebrated seven weeks or fifty days after the Passover harvest – hence its name in both Hebrew and Greek. Since the Passover is celebrated on the fifteenth day of the first month (called Abib in the Pentateuch and by its Babylonian name Nisan in post-exilic sources), fifty days later would be between the third and seventh day of the third month. Later Jewish tradition, taking its cue from Exod. 19:1 which says that the Israelites arrived at Sinai “on the third ḥôdeš” (month or new moon) after leaving Egypt, understood the festival of Weeks to be the anniversary of the Sinai revelation as well.79 In our case, the Targum actually rendered 79.  In later Judaism, the date of Shavu‘ot became an issue of debate between Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, the Qumran sect and later between Rabbinic and Karaite Jews. See Weinfeld 1978; Wagenaar 2005; Henshke 2008.



The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

69

the day given for Asa’s convocation as “on the festival of Weeks” (‫ בחגא דשבועיא‬in Aramaic). Weinfeld (1978, 11) is of the opinion that Chronicles did indeed intend to make the connection, “undoubtedly constituting a renewal of the first Sinaitic covenant ratified by a pledge accompanied by sacrifices.” He points to the repeated use of the term ‫“( שבעה‬oath,” written identically to the term for “seven” and “week”), which shows that this was the writer’s intention. However most commentators, while pointing out the connection between Shavu‘ôt and “oath,” do not accept the further connection between this and the Sinai theophany, assuming that this identification was only made much later (see Williamson 1982, 270; Japhet 1993, 724). To this we would add, that no pre-exilic source outside the Pentateuch ever mentions the actual celebration of Shavu‘ôt. The fact that the festival, which Chronicles does recognize (cf. 2 Chron. 8:13), is not mentioned here by name, probably indicates that he did not identify Asa’s convocation with that holiday. It is, however, very likely that he did identify “the third month” with the Sinai theophany, and, as shown by Weinfeld, designed his description of the convocation to evoke such an identification in the minds of his readers. The sacrifice of the cattle and sheep taken as spoil serves to remind us that this whole event was initiated as a reaction to Asa’a victory over Zerah – that while the sacrifice is an integral part of the covenant ceremony, it is also a celebration of thanksgiving. The numbers of animals, rather than having some connection with the root for “oath” (‫שבע‬, “seven” and also “oath”), are probably typological. The actual covenant-ceremony, complete with shouting, oath-taking and trumpetblowing, includes elements from different earlier events, but also reminds us of Azariah’s speech in the preceding verses. The clause in v. 13, that “whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, would be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman” would seem excessively draconian, especially if ‫ למן־קטן ועד־גדול‬is understood as “whether young or old,” in other words including children and elders. This interpretation can already be found in the Septuagint, which renders ἀπὸ νεωτέρου ἕως πρεσβυτέρου, “from younger to elder,” and can be found in such modern translations as the RSV and NRSV. The Vulgate, on the other hand, retains a more literal a minimo usque ad maximum, followed by the KJV’s “whether small or great” (so also NIV, NJPS and others), indicating status, not age (so Keel 1986, 675).80 Several 80.  This may be compared with Moses’ admonition to Israel’s judges in Deut. 1:17, to hear both ‫ קטן‬and ‫ גדל‬equally, which NRSV renders “hear out the small and the great alike,” and NJPS translates “hear out low and high alike.” I know of no-one who considers this passage to refer to children and elders!

70

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

commentators (such as Williamson 1982, 271; Dillard 1987, 122) have remarked that this is in accordance with the commandments found in Deut. 13:6–10 and 17:2–7, but this is not so. There, the death penalty is imposed on those who actively engage in idolatry. Here, it is expanded to include all those who passively do not “seek the Lord.” Japhet (1993, 726–27), who does assume the threat to extend to “young or old, man or woman,” “without consideration of age or sex,” sees this to be “typical of warning statements from the Persian period, i.e. is of the Chronicler’s own provenance.” Keel (1986, 675) compares this passage with other biblical passages in which those who do not “seek” (Hebrew ‫דרש‬, DRŠ) the Lord are condemned, such as Zeph. 1:4–6 or Amos 5:4–6.81 Keel also cites Deut. 17:2–6, but there the root ‫דרש‬, “seek,” is not used of those who do not seek the Lord, but rather of the judges who must “investigate and seek well” before pronouncing capital punishment on transgressors. The scope and severity of the people’s oath here is unparalleled in the Bible. The Removal of Maacah’s Asherah and Other Idols With the mention of the removal of Maacah from her position in v. 16, Chronicles returns to following the parallel passage in 1 Kings 15. However there this is a direct continuation of the short description of his cleansing of the land: “Asa did what was right in the sight of the Lord, as his father David had done. He put away the male temple prostitutes out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made” (1 Kgs 15:11–12). In fact, after the reference to “all the idols that his fathers had made,” the next verse, “he also removed his mother Maacah…” follows naturally. Here, the reference to Maacah comes rather suddenly nearly two chapters later, after ten years of peace, fortifications, the invasion of Zerah, Azariah’s speech and the assembly in Jerusalem. Following the notice in 2 Chron. 11:20 that one of Jeroboam’s wives was Maacah daughter of Absalom who gave birth to Abijah, and that of 1 Kgs 15:2 that “Abijam’s” mother was Maacah daughter of Abisalom (which 2 Chron. 13:2 renders “Micaiah daughter of Uriel”), some 81.  Zeph. 1:4–6: “I will stretch out my hand against Judah, and against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut off from this place every remnant of Baal and the name of the idolatrous priests; those who bow down on the roofs to the host of the heavens; those who bow down and swear to the Lord, but also swear by Milcom; those who have turned back from following the Lord, who have not sought the Lord or inquired of him.” Amos 5:4–6: “For thus says the Lord to the house of Israel: Seek me and live; but do not seek Bethel, and do not enter into Gilgal or cross over to Beer-sheba; for Gilgal shall surely go into exile, and Bethel shall come to nothing. Seek the Lord and live…”



The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

71

commentators consider the Maacah mentioned here as Asa’a mother was actually his grandmother (Keel 1986, 675; Dillard 1987, 113–15 actually “translates” the MT as “grandmother”!). We have dealt with this conundrum above and failed to arrive at a satisfactory solution. Maacah was removed from her position as ‫גבירה‬, gebîrâh. The noun ‫גביר‬, gebîr, in the masculine form, appears only in Gen. 27:29 and 37, in the context of Isaac’s blessing of Jacob as “master” over his brother Esau. The term is obviously derived from GBR, meaning, as a very common verbal root, “to overcome,” as a noun meaning “man” (referring to the “masculine” aspects of manhood – other terms are used for “man” as “male person”), and as an adjective or title, gibbôr, meaning “hero,” “strong-man” and the like. The feminine form gebîrâh (and its variant geberet) appears fifteen times in the Hebrew Bible. In Gen. 16:4, 8, 9 it refers to Sarah as Hagar’s mistress. In 2 Kgs 5:3, it refers to the wife of Naaman when spoken to by her Israelite servant-girl. Isaiah 24:2, Ps. 123:2 and Prov. 30:23 all refer to the mistress of a servant-girl. Isaiah 47:5 and 7 speak of Babylon as “the mistress of kingdoms.” In all of these, the term gebîrâh simply means “mistress,” with no connotations of royalty. However, in 1 Kgs 11:19, we are told that Hadad the Edomite prince, after finding refuge with Pharaoh, was married to “the sister of his [Pharaoh’s] wife, the sister of Tahpenes the gebîrâh,” universally understood as “queen”; Tahpenes the gebîrâh was Pharaoh’s wife, and her sister was given to Hadad in marriage. In 2 Kgs 10:13, Jehu finds the brothers (or kinsmen) of the recently murdered King Ahaziah of Judah, who describe themselves as “coming down to visit the sons of the king and the sons of the gebîrâh.” Whatever the precise relationship, the gebîrâh here is obviously the mother of some of the members of the royal household. Jeremiah 13:18 describes the destitute position of Judah: “Say to the king and to the gebîrâh: Take a lowly seat, for your beautiful crown has come down from your head.” In this context as well, gebîrâh quite obviously means “queen.” The same is true of Jer. 29:2: “This was after King Jeconiah, and the gebîrâh, the court officials, the leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, the artisans and the smiths had departed from Jerusalem.” Interestingly, the Hebrew text both in Kings and here does not actually render “Queen Mother” as a title, as in “Maacah the Queen Mother.” Here it is “Maacah the mother of Asa the king, he removed from (being) gebîrâh,” while in Kings it is simply “Maacah his mother, he removed from (being) gebîrâh.” Yet nearly all modern commentators and translations assume that both the position of Queen Mother and that of gebîrâh were official positions in the Judahite and Israelite courts, and powerful ones at that. Various studies have attempted to illuminate the position

72

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

of Queen Mother and the power it carried in the courts of Judah and Israel, claiming that this position had cultic significance as the curators of Asherah, and citing evidence from the biblical accounts of Jezebel and Athaliah, from Ḫatti (the so-called Hittite Empire), from Ugarit and from various modern investigations into African tribal societies (for all of which see Andreasen 1983; Arbeli 1985 and references there). In all of the examples cited above, the only one in which the gebîrâh is obviously also the mother (or grandmother) of the king is in the case of Maacah. All of the older translations (LXX, Vulgate, KJV, JPS etc.) of 2 Kgs 10:13, Jer. 13:18 and Jer. 29:2 render simply “mistress” or “queen.” Only the newer translations (RSV, NRSV, NIV, NJPS etc.), influenced by these studies, universally translate these three cases of gebîrâh as “Queen Mother.”82 To summarize, there were obviously queens, such as Maacah and Jezebel, who attained positions of prominence and power within the royal court. Some, such as these two, outlived the kings to whom they had been married, and as mothers and grandmothers of the succeeding kings, continued to exert influence. They were often addressed by the honorific gebîrâh, “mistress” (a title never used, by the way, of Bathsheba, Jezebel or Athaliah). Brenner (1985, 15) has reasonably argued that in the case of Maacah, the queen mother probably stepped in as regent as an emergency measure (since Asa was probably very young at his ascension), and then lost her authority when the king became an adult. But to claim, as some have, that the gebîrâh was an official, permanent, title for the Queen Mother, and that the Queen Mother/gebîrâh was a permanent feature in the court of every, or even most, kings of Israel and Judah, seems to be overreading the evidence by far.83 Asa relieved his mother or grandmother Maacah from whatever position of honor and authority she had managed to attain over the years, because her worship of Asherah was not in line with his conception of proper worship of Yahweh. No more can be read into this incident. The term ‫מפלצת‬, mipleṣet, that Maacah made for Asherah, is a hapax legomenon, appearing only here and in the parallel 1 Kgs 15:13. From the context it was obviously an image of some sort, perhaps of wood since Asa burned it, which would fit our understanding of Asherah as well. In all

82.  Except for Klein 2012, 231, who translates “Great Lady.” 83.  During the latter years of the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the seventh century BCE, we have evidence of several women who held the title of ummi šarri, “Queen Mother” (literally “mother of the king”). For a discussion of this and other titles of Neo-Assyrian queens, see Kertai 2013.



The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

73

of the cases in which PLṢ appears in the Bible (Isa. 21:4; Jer. 49:16; Ezek. 7:18; Ps. 55:6 [Eng. 5]; Job 9:6; 21:6), it means something like “horror,” “trembling” and the like. So what Maacah made and Asa cut, crushed and burned, was a “horrible image” of or for Asherah. By burning the mipleṣet of Asherah, Asa fulfilled the specific commandment of Deut. 12:3. The Kidron Valley is the deep and narrow ravine that lies to the east of the city of Jerusalem, separating the city from the Mount of Olives. The Gihon spring, which is the only perennial source of water in the city’s immediate vicinity, lies at the bottom of the Kidron Valley. From Jerusalem, the valley runs south, joined by the Ben-Hinnom Valley which borders the city on the west, and then runs about 34 km through the Judean Desert to the Dead Sea, dropping over 1000 m in the process. In Chronicles, the Kidron Valley is mentioned again only in the context of Hezekiah’s cleansing of the Temple (2 Chron. 29:16 and 30:14, both not paralleled in Kings). In 2 Sam. 15:23, David’s crossing the Kidron symbolizes his flight from Jerusalem in fear of Absalom. In 1 Kgs 2:37, Solomon places Shimei son of Gera under “house arrest” in Jerusalem, warning him that he will be executed if he dare cross the Kidron Valley. According to 1 Kgs 11:7, Solomon built shrines to Chemosh and Molech “on the mount which is across from Jerusalem,” universally identified with the Mount of Olives. And finally, in a context very similar to ours but on a much larger scale, 2 Kgs 23:4–12 (not paralleled in Chronicles) tells of Josiah: The king commanded the high priest Hilkiah, the priests of the second order, and the guardians of the threshold, to bring out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; he burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron, and carried their ashes to Bethel… He brought out the Asherah from the house of the Lord, outside Jerusalem, to the Kidron Valley, burned it in the Kidron Valley, beat it to dust and threw the dust of it upon the graves of the sons of the people. He broke down the houses of the male prostitutes that were in the house of the Lord, where the women did weaving for Asherah… He defiled the topheth, which is in the valley of Ben-hinnom, so that no one would make a son or a daughter pass through fire to Molech. He removed the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun, at the entrance to the house of the Lord, by the chamber of the eunuch Nathan-melech, which was in the precincts; then he burned the chariots of the sun with fire. The altars on the roof of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars that Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the Lord, he pulled down from there and broke in pieces, and threw the rubble into the Kidron Valley.

74

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

From all of this it is clear that the Kidron Valley was thought of as being outside the city itself, and as such, a place beyond which “unorthodox” cultic practices were sometimes tolerated and a place into which their refuse was thrown by the more vigorous reforming kings. The above passage from 2 Kgs 23:6 also mentions “the graves of the sons of the people.” As we know from both text and archaeology, the Kidron Valley and especially the Mount of Olives to its east served (as it does to this day!) as a necropolis for Jerusalem (for which see Ussishkin 1993). It is possible that the impurity inherent in such places was a factor in the choosing of the site for the destruction of idolatrous items, but the text itself does not make this claim. The following verse, v. 17, informs us that “the bamôt were not removed from Israel, nevertheless the heart of Asa was complete all his days.” In 1 Kgs 15:14, in which the words (actually one word in the Hebrew) “from Israel” do not appear, this seems to be a very slight blemish in Asa’s reforming activities, mitigated by the fact that his heart was in the right place. In Chronicles, two issues arise. The first of these is how to reconcile this statement with the twice-stated claim of the previous chapter, 2 Chron. 14:2 [3] and 4 [5], that Asa “removed the foreign altars and the bamôt, broke down the standing stones, and hewed down the asherim…removed from all the cities of Judah the bamôt and the incense altars.” The second is what Chronicles meant by adding the phrase “from Israel.” These issues have been dealt with in various ways. Curtis and Madsen (1910, 386) claim that the addition of “from Israel” was intended to indicate that the bamôt that remained were, indeed, in the northern kingdom and not under Asa’s jurisdiction. However as Japhet (1993, 278) asks, if this is so, how could it be held against him? Rudolph (1955, 241) after rejecting two previous suggestions, then offers his own: vv. 16–18 were actually not part of the original Chronicles version (thus eliminating the problem) and were then inserted by a later editor to whom the contradictions were not significant, a solution rightfully rejected by Japhet, who admits the inconsistency but has no real solution. Actually, both of the ideas that Rudolph rejected have been raised by later scholars as well. Myers (1965, 2:89) sees the entire comment as indicating that Asa was unable to completely eradicate idolatry, while Keel (1986, 276) follows rabbinic tradition in assuming that while Asa did wipe out idolatry, people in both kingdoms continued to worship Yahweh at bamôt, a practice of which the biblical authors did not approve, but which they admitted existed. A final idea was suggested by Williamson (1982, 272): perhaps the “Israel” that the Chronicler had in mind was that part of the hills of Ephraim that Asa had captured – there the people, despite Asa’s best



The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

75

intentions, continued to worship at “high places.” Asa’s dedicating gifts, perhaps, but not necessarily, spoils of war, to the Temple would have been considered a fitting conclusion to his cleansing of the land from idolatry, and reminds us of 1 Chron. 26:26–28: “This Shelomoth and his brothers were in charge of all the treasuries of the dedicated gifts that King David, and the heads of families, and the officers of the thousands and the hundreds, and the commanders of the army, had dedicated. From booty won in battles they dedicated gifts for the maintenance of the house of the Lord. Also all that Samuel the seer, and Saul son of Kish, and Abner son of Ner, and Joab son of Zeruiah had dedicated—all dedicated gifts were in the care of Shelomoth and his brothers.” The concluding verse, informing us that there was no war until Asa’s thirty-fifth year, seems to contradict not only the parallel verse in 1 Kgs 15:16, “And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days,” but even the preceding story in Chronicles about the invasion of Zerah and the hint of Asa’s capturing towns in Israel. One solution adopted by many translations is to add the word “more” – “and there was no more war until the thirty-fifth year of the reign of Asa” (KJV, RSV, NIV, NRSV, JPS etc.) – no more war from Asa’s cleansing of the land until his thirty-fifth year. Williamson (1982, 272) rejects this addition, preferring to assume that the Chronicler considered the Kings statement as referring to a “cold war” [sic], which only developed into a real conflict after year thirty-five. Similar interpretations are offered by Myers (1965, 2:89–90), Keel (1986, 677) and Dillard (1987, 122). Japhet (1993, 729) believes the exact opposite, that Chronicles “utterly altered” the statement in Kings in order to portray the first part of righteous Asa’s reign as one of total peace. Chapter 16: The War between Asa and Baasha and the Conclusion of Asa’s Reign The date given in the next verse, 16:1, “the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa,” brings us back to the issue of chronology. The story of the war between Asa and Baasha in Chronicles is almost identical to the account in 1 Kings 15, but the date appears only in Chronicles. The problem, of course, is that according to 1 Kgs 16:8, Baasha died and was succeeded by his son Elah in Asa’s twenty-sixth year (twentieth according to the Greek version). So at least in Chronicles, Asa’s enemy had already been dead for ten years! In scholarship, there have been several basic approaches to this issue. The first approach, already taken in rabbinic literature, is the harmonistic one. This approach assumes that while the statement in Kings about the length of Asa and Baasha’s reigns is correct, so must the statements in

76

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Chronicles, if counted from the division of the kingdom: 17 years for Rehoboam, 3 for Abijah and then 15 peaceful years of Asa’s reign, brings us to year 35, with Zerah’s invasion in that year and the war with Baasha occurring in Abijah’s sixteenth year, which was the thirty-sixth since the division. In fact, had Asa put his faith in God rather than turning to the king of Aram, he would have regained control over Israel and the division within the nation would have ended (Keel 1986, 677; Kriger 1997 and references there). A similar solution, without reference to rabbinic sources and their reasoning and assuming that the words “of the reign of Asa” in both 15:19 and 16:1 are a gloss added by an editor, was suggested by Thiele (1983, 86–87) and adopted by Williamson (1982, 255–58) and Rainey (Rainey and Notley 2006, 196). However as Japhet (1993, 704) pointed out, were this the case, it would be the only case in the entire Bible of years being counted from the division of the monarchy. An opposite approach raised by Albright (1942b, 1945), would be to take the numbers in Chronicles to be historically more accurate than those in Kings. The basis for this was Albright’s identification of the “Bir-hadad” whose stele dedicated to the god Melqart was found near Aleppo in the late 1930s as the same as the “Ben-hadad” whom Asa asked to invade Israel and as the same as the “Ben-hadad” with whom Ahab waged three wars in the mid-ninth century BCE. However, as both the identity and the date of the king who wrote the inscription have been seriously challenged (for examples see Cross 1972; Pitard 1988; Puech 1992), Albright’s suggestion is no longer considered tenable. The third approach, taken by Curtis and Madsen (1910, 387), is to assume a textual error and amend the text in Chronicles to “sixteen” or “twenty-six.” This seems unlikely, because it would entail changing the “thirty-five” of the previous verse as well. One attempt to solve this is the suggestion by Tetley (2005, 133–36) that in the original Hebrew chronicle the numbers were written using either Egyptian Hieratic numerals or (paleo-)Hebrew letters used for their numeric value, either of which could have been confused because of the similarity of the signs for “ten,” “twenty” and “thirty.” However, the use of Hebrew letters as numbers is not known until much later, besides which, if Baasha did rule for twentysix years, it would mean that Baasha died soon after his defeat, a fact that would probably have been mentioned, at least in Kings. The fourth approach, that taken by Rudolph (1955, 239–40), Dillard (1987, 122–23) and Japhet (1993, 703–705), is to take the Chronicler’s chronology here as serving his ideology, dividing the reign of Asa into sections, in which the fortune of the kingdom reflects the religious behavior of the king. As articulated by Klein (2012, 211), “The Chronicler



The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

77

was either unaware of the chronological problems he had created or chose to ignore them.” It is, however, difficult to accept that the Chronicler so completely disregarded the information that was contained in his sources (i.e. whatever version of Kings he was using) as to create an event that would have been impossible – Baasha’s invading Judah ten years after his death! The only solution to this would be that the Chronicler was not familiar with the northern kings’ dates as recorded in 2 Kgs 15:25–16:34, and was thus free to construct the relative chronology of the two kingdoms in any way he saw fit. This would mean that the version of “Kings” that was used as the Chronicler’s Vorlage was rather different from the canonical book of Kings. It is worth noting in this connection that the Asa-Baasha war recorded in 1 Kgs 15:17–22 is part of the Asa chronicle, and is not even referred to in the Baasha chronicle in 1 Kgs 16:1–7. In his description of the war against Baasha, the Chronicler follows Kings closely, making a few small but significant changes. He adds the date, year thirty-six of Asa, as discussed above. In v. 2 especially, he changes and shortens the text of 1 Kgs 15:18: “all the gold and the silver that remained in the treasuries of the house of the Lord and the treasuries of the house of the king” is shortened to “silver and gold from the treasures of the house of the Lord and the king’s house,” minimizing the cost of his actions. The pedigree of the Aramean king is deleted, as well as the word “bribe” in v. 19. Some of the names of the northern towns captured by Ben-hadad have been altered slightly, as noted above, and Kings’ v. 21, “and he sat (meaning ‘resided’) in Tirzah” is changed to “and he ceased his work” – Tirzah, which served as the northern kingdom’s capital city for some twenty-five years, is not mentioned anywhere in Chronicles. Kings’ “Geba-benjamin” is shortened in Chronicles to just “Geba.” Until recently, the general scholarly consensus was that 1 Kgs 15:17–21 represent a more-or-less accurate account of a historical event, and most treatments attempted to understand its causes and consequences and to identify those consequences in the archaeological record. As mentioned above, Albright (1942b) read the name “Bir-hadad son of Tabrimmon son of Hezion” as the writer of the “Melqart Stele” from near Aleppo, and assumed him to be the same as that mentioned here, but even after this reading was proven wrong, no-one doubted the existence of “our” Ben-hadad. Cross (1972, 42) listed four Damascene kings of this name in the ninth and eighth centuries BCE, the first of whom was “Ben-Hadad I (son of Ṭābramān).” In his preliminary report on his excavation at Tel Dan, Biran (1994, 181–83) identified Ben-hadad I as the conqueror of stratum IV of the cultic center (“the bamâh”) at Dan, which Biran assumed to have been built by Jeroboam I. Biran even commented on the

78

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

author’s choice of the word “smote” (which we translated “struck”), as reflected in the fact that the city was not totally destroyed.84 Yadin (1972, 143) attributed the destruction of the “Solomonic” strata X and IX to Ben-hadad as well, even though Hazor is not even mentioned in the text. Aharoni (1979, 333) saw the Aramean invasion (which he also assumed to have damaged Hazor) as a major factor in the weakening of Israel and the rise of Damascus as a regional power.85 Pitard (1987, 107–14) used the biblical account as a primary source in his reconstruction of the history of Aram-Damascus. The so-called Great Wall at Tell e-Nasbeh, commonly identified as Mizpah, has long been associated with this report of Asa “building” (presumably fortifying) the city (Zorn 1993, 160–61, 319; 1997, 59). Elgavish (2000) devoted a study to the purposes behind Baasha’s invasion of Judah, rejecting previous proposals that Baasha had wished to besiege Jerusalem and to take over Judah, in favor of viewing the whole affair as an “adjustment” of the border between the two kingdoms: since the territory of Benjamin was split between them (for which see also Levin 2004), both kingdoms occasionally attempted to make minor changes, and Baasha’s actions should be seen in this context. More recently, in the wake of the “low chronology” first proposed by Wightman (1990) and then developed by Finkelstein and others, some archaeologists have proposed to “lower” the dates of these strata and of their destruction from the tenth century BCE to the ninth, which would mean that in the late tenth and early ninth centuries, Dan (Arie 2008), Hazor (Finkelstein 2000, 240–43) and Mizpah (Finkelstein 2012), were actually either unfortified or abandoned. Finkelstein (2012, 25), for example, suggested that the “Great Wall” at Mizpah, conventionally attributed to Asa, was actually built by Jehoash, who ruled in the late ninth and early eighth centuries. Following this, he considers its attribution to Asa to be an etiology based on the campaign of Ben-hadad son of Hazael and the conquests of Tiglath-pileser III in 733, as reflected in the very similar story that appears in 2 Kgs 15:29. Arie (2008, 38) concluded that Dan was actually an Aramean city until it was conquered by Joash of Israel in the early eighth century. If taken at face value, all this would 84.  In fact, in his preliminary analysis of the Aramaic stele found at the site in 1993, Biran (1994, 277–78) suggested that it was written by Ben-hadad I in commemoration of this very campaign, although after the subsequent discovery of two more fragments of the stele he changed his mind in favor of Hazael (see also Hagelia 2009, 32–33). For more on this stele and its context, see our commentary on ch. 22 below. 85.  Although Ben-Tor (1998, 12), while confirming the stratigraphy suggested by Yadin, did note “one possible exception: it may be that the ash layer encountered in Stratum IXb (IXa?) is of a local, apparently industrial, nature and not necessarily the result of a military conquest of Hazor.”



The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

79

mean that the entire episode is totally a literary construct, devoid of any historical value. In fact, the very existence of a late-tenth- to early-ninthcentury “Ben-hadad I” has been called into question (see Knauf 2000, 224 n. 24 and references there). The reality, however, is not nearly so simple. Knauf (2000, 223–29), based on his analysis of the finds at Tel Kinrot (Tell el-‘Oreme, the city of Kinneret on the Sea of Galilee), which he assumed was referred to by 1 Kgs 15:20, actually considered the “low chronology” dating to be more in line with the biblical text than the traditional dating. In any case, both the validity of the “low chronology” and its interpretation are still a matter of debate (see also Ben-Tor 1998 and Lemaire 2010 on Hazor and references there). All of this, however, seems to have been of little consequence to the Chronicler. Johnstone (1997, 2:71), building upon the names of the protagonists Baasha (which he tentatively understands as “Baal has heard”) and Ben (“son of”) Hadad (which Johnstone sees as “the proper name of the deity who bore this title” of Baal), while Asa represents the Davidic house as “son of the Lord” (as in Ps. 2:7; 1 Chron. 17:13 and more). Asa’s appeal to Ben-hadad “amounts to a recognition of the superiority of Baal to the Lord.” The Hanani episode (vv. 7–10) does not appear in Kings, and was either taken from a source available to the Chronicler or composed by him as a means of relaying the message of faith contained in Hanani’s speech. The words “at that time” (‫ )בעת ההיא‬which appear at the beginning of v. 7 and at the end of v. 10 are an inclusio, which serves to “bracket” and to define the boundaries of the pericope (see De Vries 1989, 303). “Hanani the seer” is not known elsewhere, but 1 Kgs 16:2 and 7 (unparalleled in Chronicles) mention a Jehu son of Hanani who brought God’s words to Baasha; in the second of these he is specifically called a “prophet” (‫)נביא‬. In 2 Chron. 19:2 Jehu son of Hanani, called a “visionary” or a “seer” (‫)חזה‬, brings God’s word to Asa’s son Jehoshaphat; in 20:34 his words are written in “the book of the kings of Israel.” Keel (1986, 681–82) suggested that Hanani may have come from northern Israel, apparently because of his title of “seer,”86 and that he “might possibly” be the father of the prophet Jehu son of Hanani. Other commentators consider this “possibility” to be a foregone conclusion, with Japhet (1993, 734) commenting that “while there is in principle no apparent reason to deny his authenticity, the prevalent scholarly view is that he was not historical.” 86.  Keel quotes 1 Sam. 9:9, “Formerly in Israel, anyone who went to inquire of God would say, ‘Come, let us go to the seer’; for the one who is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer,” but does not specifically explain his reasoning.

80

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Japhet then goes on to cite the rabbinic adage that “every prophet whose patronym was recorded; both he and his father were prophets” (Lev. Rab. 6.7), suggesting that Chronicles might have employed similar thinking. Most other modern commentators simply assume that Hanani is a fabrication of Chronicles, based on the mention of his “son” in Kings. Hanani’s message, that Asa was wrong to put his trust in the king of Aram rather than in God, is typical of Chronicles, but similar themes appear elsewhere in the Bible. One example of this is Isa. 31:1: “Alas for those who go down to Egypt for help and who rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the Lord.”87 According to Hanani, had Asa put his faith in God, he would not only have fended off Baasha, but also defeated his ally Ben-hadad, negating the need to bribe him into switching sides. Several commentators assume the mention of the king of Aram to be forward-looking to the many wars which Judah and Israel would wage against Aram in the future. While from the Chronicler’s point-of-view this may be true, it is not spelled out in the text; “from now on you will have wars” would seem to be a much more immediate threat. Asa’s thirty-five-year age of peace could have been restored, but due to his foolishness, it was gone forever. Unlike his positive reaction to the words of Azariah, Asa responded to Hanani with rage. Keel (1986, 683) notes that “the seer’s” name is missing here, and quotes the eighteenth-century Vilna Gaon as suggesting that since Hanani’s speech did not begin with “thus says the Lord” or the like, Asa understood the seer’s criticism to be his own opinion and not the word of God. Commentators who take the entire episode to be a creation of the Chronicler, assume that Asa’s violent reaction is meant as an explanation for his deadly disease, and its particulars, including Hanani’s incarceration in the bêt hammahpeket (prison, “stocks”; see textual note above), must be based on Jer. 20:2–3 and 29:26. There, however, the prison is called simply mahpeket, without the added “house,” and there is also no mention of the king harming the prophets’ collaborators from among the people, differences which could indicate that Chronicles was unitizing some kind of independent source. Asa’s anger was not limited to the seer himself, but also to “some of the people,” whom he “crushed.” While Keel (1986, 783) tried to explain this as referring to heavy taxes, most commentators understand it more literally as referring to physical cruelties. Ben-Shem (1973) built up his 87.  Williamson (1982, 274) cites a similar motif in Isa. 7:9: “If you do not stand firm in faith, you shall not stand at all.” Both Japhet (1993, 736–37) and Klein (2012, 242) point out the many references that Hanani’s speech makes to other biblical texts.



The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

81

own reconstruction of events: many of the people of Judah agreed with Hanani’s blaming of Asa for the Aramean conquest of northeastern Israel and, showing their solidarity with their northern brethren, rebelled against their king. This compelled Asa to use force against them, turning the final years of his reign into a time of violence. However, this would seem to be taking the evidence a bit too far. Japhet (1993, 737) reflects the general consensus: “How and why Asa would have punished the people for the prophet’s rebuke is not made clear; we can only say that the general and vague phrasing may preserve some historical memory, but no more.” The last four verses of ch. 16 and of the Chronicler’s description of Asa seemingly return to following 1 Kgs 15:23–24, but even then they have a very different effect. Like Kings, Chronicles first summarizes Asa’s reign, then mentions his final disease, and then describes his death and burial. But each of these are handled differently. The rather lengthy formula given in 1 Kgs 15:23 – “And the rest of all the acts of Asa, all his might and all that he did and the cities that he built, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah?” – is replaced by Chronicles’ rather terse, “and behold, the acts of Asa, the first and the last, are written in the book of the Kings of Judah and Israel.” The question implied in the standard formula in Kings is stated affirmatively here and Kings’ standard “book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah” becomes “the book of the Kings of Judah and Israel.” This is the first time that Chronicles refers to this source. The Chronicler’s account of the succeeding kings of Judah will include several variations on this title. In Kings, this verse then concludes by mentioning, as if by-the-way, “but in his old age he was diseased in his feet.” In Chronicles the disease struck specifically in Asa’s thirty-ninth year, in keeping with the internal sequence of Asa’s last years: peace until year 35, war with Baasha in year 36, (presumably) Hanani’s critique of Asa in year 37 and Asa’s violent reaction in year 38, and now, in year 39, Asa is punished for his immediate past behavior. He is even given a chance to repent and to seek the Lord, but instead, he seeks help from physicians. There have been various conjectures as to the specific nature of Asa’s disease, including dropsy, gout, gangrene, peripheral obstructive vascular disease, prostate and other cancers (see, for example, Williamson 1982, 276; Keel 1986, 683 and most other commentaries on both Chronicles and Kings). Some have pointed out the similarity of Asa’s name (‫ )אסא‬to the Aramaic word for “physician” asya (‫)אסיא‬, although this hardly explains the matter.88 88.  Jarick (2007, 105) agreed that while it is probable that the meaning of Asa’s name in Aramaic may have been the source of the Chronicler’s story of his taking counsel with the doctors, this does not explain the historical Asa’s “Aramaic” name. He suggested that

82

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

An additional approach has been to read “feet” as a euphemism for “genitals” and to suggest that Asa was struck by a sexually related disease (Klein 2012, 243). In any case, the biblical writers obviously cared much less about the medical diagnosis and much more about the theological meaning of Asa’s illness. Schipper (2009), taking his cue from rabbinic midrash, suggested that Asa was indeed struck by a genital dysfunction, which at least in Kings was seen as punishment for his not exempting newly married men when mustering “all of Judah, none were exempt” to build Geba and Mizpah (1 Kgs 15:22).89 However Chronicles actually omits the phrase “none were exempt,” but then adds the comment about his seeking the help of physicians rather than God. In the present sequence of events, the disease is obviously a punishment for Asa’s treatment of Hanani and his followers. His seeking out physicians was not a sin in itself, but seeking God might have saved him. As it was, the disease became increasingly worse, and at least by implication eventually led to his death. The description of Asa’s burial is the most elaborate in all of Chronicles. Where Kings merely states that “Asa lay with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of his father David,” Chronicles repeats the length of his reign, replacing Kings’ “and Asa lay with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father” with “and they buried him in the tomb that he had hewn out for himself in the city of David.” This is the only case, in either Kings or Chronicles, in which specific mention is made of a king being buried in a tomb which had been hewn (Hebrew ‫ כרה‬karâh), meaning cut into the rock. While no mention is made of King David’s tomb having been “hewn,” it is usually thought to have been a rock-cut chamber, although its precise location has long been debated (see Zorn 2012). Archaeologists have discovered hundreds of rock-cut burial caves in the general area of Judah and especially in the vicinity of Jerusalem (see for example Ussishkin 1993). These are usually thought to represent only the burials of the elite, since most people would have been buried in simply-dug and unmarked trenches. There are also several references to such rock-cut tombs in the Bible, most famously in perhaps Asa’s father Abijah had established a close relationship with Damascus (as noted in 2 Chron. 16:3), to which we would add the Aramaic origin of the name of Maacah, Asa’s mother. 89.  As commanded in Deut. 24:5: “When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be charged with any related duty. He shall be free at home one year, to be happy with the wife whom he has married.” As Schipper pointed out, the word translated here as “free” is ‫נקי‬, literally “clean,” while the “none were exempt” of 1 Kgs 15:22 is ‫אין‬ ‫נקי‬, “none was clean.”



The Reign of Asa – 2 Chronicles 14–16

83

Isa. 22:15–16, in which a certain “Sheba, who is over the household” in the time of Hezekiah is asked, “What right do you have here? Who are your relatives here, that you have cut out a tomb here for yourself, cutting a tomb on the height, and carving a habitation for yourself in the rock?” The appearance of such tombs in Jerusalem is usually dated to the later part of the ninth century (see Faust and Bunimovitz 2008; Fantalkin 2008), which would be slightly after Asa’s time, although it would be possible that the king would be the first to adopt this kind of burial, then to be emulated by the upper classes. However the fact that this tomb is not mentioned in Kings might mean that the Chronicler, living in Second Temple-period Jerusalem and being familiar with the old burial caves that surrounded the city, simply assumed that Asa would have been buried in one. It is also possible that the Chronicler was familiar with a local tradition in his time that attributed such a tomb to Asa specifically. There does not seem to be a reason that he would invent a story about Asa preparing his own burial cave which was near the tombs of the Davidic line, rather than being buried in the tomb of David, as his predecessors had been. The Chronicler’s description of Asa’s funeral is also unusual in its length and detail. Assuming that the tomb that the Chronicler had in mind was a typical Judahite rock-cut tomb (for which see Bloch-Smith 2002), the “bier” (miškâb, “laying-down-place”) would not be an actual coffin or sarcophagus, but rather a “bed” carved into the rock, perhaps even with a “pillow” for the king’s head. The spices and fire were apparently part of the regular burial ceremony. 2 Chronicles 21:19 mentions that at the death of Asa’s grandson Jehoram, who also died of a disease, “his people made no fire in his honor, like the fires made for his fathers,” and Jer. 34:4 says of Zedekiah, “and as spices were burned for your fathers, the earlier kings who preceded you, so they shall burn spices for you.” Despite the lapse in his old age and the harsh appraisal that he received from scholars such as Japhet (1993, 740) and Snyman (2011), the Chronicler’s Asa was one of the “good” kings: he combated idolatry and was successful in building, in war and in diplomacy. At the end of his days he received a send-off fit for a righteous king.

T h e R eig n o f J eh o s hap hat – 2 C h r o n ic les 17–20

The four chapters that the Chronicler devotes to Jehoshaphat, more than any other king except Hezekiah,1 are an indication of the importance that he attaches to the son of Asa and his reign. However, unlike Hezekiah, who is also an important figure in Kings, Jehoshaphat there rates only 11 verses (1 Kgs 22:41–51), with a cumulative score that could be described as “good but not excellent.” The fact that three of the Chronicler’s four chapters on Jehoshaphat are almost totally independent of Kings is testimony of the extent to which the Chronicler was willing to go in order to “build up” his character by adding material from various sources. The general structure of Jehoshaphat’s reign is rather simple: Chapter 17 sets the stage by establishing that Jehoshaphat was both pious and wildly successful, building fortifications, subjugating neighbors, receiving tribute, keeping a huge army, but also removing places of illicit worship and sending out emissaries to instruct the people in God’s laws. Chapter 18, using material that is adapted from 1 Kings 22 but given a different twist, shows Jehoshaphat’s alliance with the idol-worshipping House of Omri to be potentially disastrous. Despite prophetic warnings Jehoshaphat joins Ahab in an ill-fated military venture and is almost killed in the process, saved only by divine intervention. Chapter 19, once again using unparalleled material, tells of Jehoshaphat’s so-called judicial reform, obviously intended to be seen as a high-point in the righteous king’s career. Chapter 20, in what can be defined as a typical Chronistic war-story, shows once again the rewards of righteousness. Judah is attacked by a coalition of eastern nations who advance through the Judean wilderness to the outskirts of Jerusalem, and are fought off by Yahweh himself. At the very end of this chapter, Chronicles turns once again to 1 Kings 22, expanding on the story of Jehoshaphat’s failed maritime venture, to show once again the folly of cooperating with the House of Omri. 1.  As pointed out by Knoppers (1991, 500), 101 verses for Jehoshaphat as compared to 117 for Hezekiah.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

85

Chapter 17: 1 And his2 son Jehoshaphat reigned in his stead, and strengthened himself over3 Israel. 2 And he placed troops in all the fortified cities of Judah, and set4 garrisons5 in the land of Judah, and in the cities of Ephraim that his father Asa had captured. 3 And the Lord was with Jehoshaphat, because he walked in the earlier6 ways of his father David7 and did not seek the Bealîm.8 4 For he sought the God of his father and walked in his commandments, and not like the deeds of Israel. 5 And the Lord established the kingdom in his hand, and all Judah gave tribute9 to Jehoshaphat, and he had wealth and honor in

2.  His – referring to Asa. In 1 Kgs 15:24 the words “and his son Jehoshaphat reigned in his stead” conclude the verse that tells of Asa’s death and burial. Here they open the next verse and chapter, leaving the object with the possessive suffix ‫בנו‬, “his son,” without an implicit subject. The rest of the chapter is unparalleled in Kings. 3.  The preposition ‫ על‬literally means “on top of” or “over,” and is translated this way by the Greek ἐπὶ. This would imply that Jehoshaphat ruled over “Israel.” The Vulgate, however, translated contra, “against,” and is followed by the KJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV etc. NJPS and Klein (2012, 245) prefer “over,” as do we. See the commentary. 4.  Both “placed” and “set” translate the same Hebrew word ‫ויתן‬, which literally means “gave.” 5.  The word ‫נציבים‬, neṣibim, or ‫נצבים‬, niṣṣabim, could mean either “garrisons” or “governors.” The Greek has ἡγουμένους, “leaders.” Keel (1986, 686) also understands this to refer to the officers who were in charge of the troops. 6.  ‫הראשונים‬, literally “the first.” 7.  The name “David” is missing from the Greek A and B recensions and some Hebrew manuscripts, and while the Vulgate, KJV, NIV, NJPS and others leave it as is, the RSV and some other modern translations leave it out, indicating that “his father” refers to Asa rather than David. See the commentary. 8.  Sometimes rendered “Baals.” The chief Canaanite deity Baal, whose name means “master” or “lord,” sometimes with additional epithets such as “Baal-peor,” appears dozens of times in the Bible, and is often considered to be Yahweh’s main rival. The plural-like form Bealîm appears 18 times, of which five are in Judges (2:11; 3:7; 8:33; 10:6, 10), five in Chronicles (2 Chron. 17:3; 24:7; 28:2; 33:3; 34:4), three in Hosea (2:15, 19; 11:2), two in Samuel (1 Sam. 7:4; 12:10), two in Jeremiah (2:23; 9:13) and one in Kings (1 Kgs 18:18). There are three basic views on the meaning of the plural form: that the plural-seeming form is not a plural at all, but an “enclitic -m” left over from the Canaanite or Ugaritic languages (for which see Boling 1975, 74); that it refers to the different manifestations of Baal (for which see Soggin 1981, 43); or that it refers to all Canaanite deities in general (Sasson 2014, 190: “generic for all false divinities, powers, or numina, of either sex, who might have swayed Israel away from the only God they needed to worship”). In any case, it seems impossible to know exactly which of these the Chronicler had in mind when he decided to use this form. 9.  ‫ מנחה‬brought to a king would ordinarily mean “tribute” but as Japhet (1993, 747) comments, this term is usually reserved for tribute brought to a king by subordinate states, not by his own subjects. Apparently this is the reason that some translations render “presents” (KJV; NJPS), “gifts” (Dillard 1987, 131) and the like.

86

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

abundance. 6 His heart was exalted10 in the ways of the Lord; and furthermore he removed the bamôt11 and the asherim12 from Judah. 7 And in the third year of his reign he sent to his13 officials, to Ben-hail,14 to Obadiah, to Zechariah, to Nethanel and to Micaiah, to teach in the cities of Judah. 8 And with them were the Levites, Shemaiah, Nethaniah, Zebadiah, Asahel, Shemiramoth, Jehonathan, Adonijah, Tobijah, and Tob-adonijah15 the Levites,16 and with them Elishama and Jehoram the priests. 9 And they taught in Judah, and with them was a book of the Torah of the Lord;17 and they went around through all the cities of Judah and taught among the people. 10 And the fear of the Lord was on all the kingdoms of the lands18 around Judah, and they did not make war against Jehoshaphat. 11 And from Philistines19 they 10.  The unusual phrase ‫ויגבה לבו‬, literally “and his heart became high,” has been translated in different ways: the Greek has ὑψώθη καρδία αὐτοῦ, “his heart was elevated”; Myers (1965, 2:96) has “his mind was so firmly set”; NJPS renders “his mind was elevated”; Dillard (1987, 131) has “his heart exulted” [sic]. The comment here is meant positively – see the commentary. 11.  Often translated “high places” or “shrines” – see the note on 2 Chron. 11:15. 12.  Rendered “sacred poles” and the like by most translators. See the commentary on 2 Chron. 14. 13.  The Hebrew includes the preposition ‫ל‬, literally “to his officials, to Ben-hail, to Obadiah…,” meaning that what he sent was not the officials themselves, but instructions to the officials, telling them to teach the law. Most commentators and translators ignore the preposition and assume that it was the officials themselves that were sent. 14.  While Obadiah, Zechariah, Nethanel, and Micaiah are fairly common names, ‫בן־חיל‬, Ben-hail, is unique. However the plural ‫בני־חיל‬, benē-ḥayyil, is a common designation for “valiant men,” leading the Greek and some others to translate “outstanding men” (so Myers 1965, 2:96), understood as referring to the next four. 15.  The rather strange name “Tob-adonijah” does not appear in the Greek. Most commentators assume that it is a dittographic condensation of the previous two names, Adonijah and Tobijah (Tobias), leaving eight Levites. 16.  The phrase “the Levites” occurs at both the beginning and the end of the list, one of which seems superfluous. The NIV, Rudolph (1955, 250) and Klein (2012, 245) simply delete the second reference. RSV and NRSV connect the second reference to the next part of the verse: “and with these Levites, the priests Elishama and Jehoram…” Japhet (1993, 743) correctly notes that this ignores the punctuation and syntax of the MT. Dillard (1987, 131) has “…Adonijah, Tobijah, and Tob-adonijah – all Levites.” Keel (1986, 689) also suggests that the second mention of their being Levites is to emphasize that they were all Levites. 17.  This could be rendered in different ways: “A book of the instruction of the Lord,” “The book of the Law of the Lord,” “The book of the Torah of the Lord” and so on. See commentary on 2 Chron. 12:1 above. 18.  “The kingdoms of the lands” seems repetitive, but appears in all the versions. 19.  ‫מן־פלשתים‬. Most English translations (KJV; NIV; NRSV etc.) render this as



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

87

brought Jehoshaphat tribute20 and silver of burden;21 and the Arabs also brought him flocks; seven thousand seven hundred rams and seven thousand seven hundred male goats.22 12 And Jehoshaphat became greater and greater,23 and built in Judah forts24 and storage cities.25 13 And he had many assets26 in the “Some of the Philistines” rather than just “The Philistines.” Keel (1986, 689) explains it as meaning “From the land of the Philistines,” while the NJPS has similarly “From Philistia.” 20.  Here ‫ מנחה‬certainly refers to tribute brought by vassal kingdoms. Some translations render “gifts” in order to leave the word “tribute” for ‫משא‬, for which see the following note. 21.  ‫ משא‬literally means “burden” that is “carried,” and often refers to the burden of subjugation. See, for example, Hos. 8:10, “They shall soon writhe under the burden (‫ )משא‬of kings and princes.” From the context here ‫ כסף משא‬is obviously silver brought to Jehoshaphat as a tribute of some sort. Rudolph (1955, 250) and Keel (1986, 689) take it to mean that the tribute (‫ )מנחה‬was brought in the form of loads of silver. NJPS goes as far as to translate the entire sentence, “From Philistia a load of silver was brought to Jehoshaphat as tribute.” 22.  The word ‫תיש‬, “male goat,” appears only four times in the Bible (the others being Gen. 30:35; 32:15; Prov. 30:31), all in connection with non-Judahites. It is, however, standard in Aramaic and in Arabic (see Rendsburg 2014, 175). If the Chronicler or his source was aware of this, he may have intended to emphasize the foreign source of the goats. 23.  ‫הלך וגדל עד־למעלה‬, literally “going greater to the top,” is sure to remind the reader of Asa’s disease, which is described in 16:12 as ‫עד־למעלה חליו‬, literally “his disease went to the top.” Jehoshaphat’s success is contrasted with his father’s disease. 24.  ‫ בירניות‬appears only here and in 2 Chron. 27:4 (where Jotham also builds biraniyyôt), apparently a plural of birā, from the Akkadian birtu, “fortress.” Birā appears often in post-exilic contexts such as Est. 1:2, 5 etc.; Neh. 1:1; Dan. 8:2, and more. The Aramaic form byrta, apparently referring to fortified cities, is well known from Persianperiod epigraphic sources such as the papyri from Wadi Daliyeh (Samaria) and from Elephantine in Egypt. The form biraniyyôt seems to be a diminutive, perhaps referring to small forts, as opposed to fortified cities. 25.  The term ‫ ערי מסכנות‬is used to describe the cities that the Israelites built for Pharaoh in Exod. 1:11, the towns built by Solomon, along with cities for chariots and cities for cavalry, in 1 Kgs 9:19, and in 2 Chron. 32:28 (there without the word “cities”) as a place to store grain, wine and oil. So despite the Greek translation πόλεις ὀχυράι, “fortified cities,” and the Vulgate’s urbesque muratas, “walled cities,” it would seem that the Aramaic Targum’s ‫אוצריא‬, “storehouses” is correct. The term miskenôt is apparently a loan-word from the Akkadian maškantu/maškattu, which has a similar meaning. This has recently been confirmed by frequent mention of the ‫ מסכנתא‬at Makkedah in the fourthcentury BCE “Idumean” ostraca, which record shipments of grain to this “storehouse” in southern Judea (for which see Porten and Yardeni 2007). 26.  ‫ מלאכה‬can mean “business,” “trade,” “work,” “crafts” as well as the products of such trade or crafts. The idea of the verse is to show that Jehoshaphat’s kingdom was prosperous. The translation preferred by NEB, NRSV, NJPS, Klein (2012, 245), “he carried out great works” implies more building activity, which is not warranted. The “had

88

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

cities of Judah, and men of war, valiant heroes,27 in Jerusalem. 14 And these were their listings by their patriarchal houses: of Judah, the commanders of the thousands: Adnah the commander, with three hundred thousand valiant heroes. 15 And next to him Jehohanan the commander, with two hundred eighty thousand. 16 And next to him Amasiah son of Zichri, a volunteer for the Lord,28 with two hundred thousand valiant heroes. 17 And from Benjamin: a valiant hero, Eliada, with two hundred thousand armed29 with bow and shield. 18 And next to him Jehozabad with one hundred eighty thousand front line troops.30 19 These were in the service of the king, besides those whom the king placed in the fortified cities throughout Judah.

Commentary Jehoshaphat’s Piety, Power and Prosperity Chapter 17, using material that is totally independent of Kings, introduces Jehoshaphat’s reign as one of unprecedented power and prosperity. The events in the northern kingdom that are recounted in five and a half chapters in 1 Kings are totally ignored: this is the story of the kingdom of Judah and its Davidic kings. However, the reference in v. 4 to Jehoshaphat’s seeking God and walking in his commandments, not like the deeds of Israel, shows that the Chronicler expected his audience to be familiar with the idolatrous practices of the northern kingdom. This sinfulness of the northern realm and its kings is a major theme in the following chapters. an abundance of supplies” offered by Myers (1965, 2:97) and Dillard (1987, 131) seems too specific. A similar phrase ‫ עבדה רבה‬appears in Gen. 26:14 and in Job 1:3, where it is translated “a great household.” Also problematic is the masculine verb ‫היה‬, “he had,” which does not match the feminine noun ‫מלאכה‬. This is corrected in some mss. (see Klein 2012, 246), but remains a problem in the MT. 27.  ‫גבורי חיל‬. Almost identical to the term used for David’s “mighty men” in 1 Chron. 11:26, and similar to additional references throughout the Bible. 28.  The root NDB means “to give of one’s own free will.” It can refer to “freewill (i.e. ‘voluntary’) offerings” or to a person “volunteering.” In this context, most translations prefer the latter, that Amasiah was a volunteer (perhaps unlike the rest, who were conscripts). The term can be compared to Judg. 5:9. NJPS prefers the former meaning: “Amasiah son of Zichri, who made a freewill offering to the Lord.” 29.  The specific term ‫נשקי‬, while obviously being derived from ‫נשק‬, “weapon,” is only used in Ps. 78:9, 1 Chron. 12:2 and here, and in all three cases it refers to people armed with bows, archers. It may be a technical term having to do with archery. 30.  ‫חלוצי צבא‬. Usually rendered “armed for war” and the like, but ḥalûṣ often appears as a designation of those who lead the army, the vanguard; see Num. 32:17, 20, 27; Deut. 3:18; Josh. 6:7, 9, 13 and more.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

89

Japhet (1993, 744) divides the chapter into three distinct sections: vv. 1–6 and again 10–19 are general summaries of Jehoshaphat’s reign, while 7–9 tell of a specific episode that occurred at a specific date – Jehoshaphat’s third year. She also noted that most of the chapter deals with military matters, with Jehoshaphat’s religious acts taking up only a few verses. Knoppers (1991, 505) sees a chiastic structure: A Fortifications and Army B Commendation C Tribute and Respect D Reform D′ Further Reforms C′ International tribute and Respect B′ Increasing Greatness A′ Fortifications and Army

17:1–2 17:3–4 17:5 17:6 17:7–9 17:10–11 17:12a 17:12b–19

A more diachronic approach would see vv. 1–6 as describing his actions upon taking the throne – securing his position and consolidating his father’s conquests by garrisoning the already-existing fortresses, seeking the Lord as his father (David) had done and receiving divine favor, and removing the bamôt and asherim. Verses 7–9 then focus on what Jehoshaphat did in his third year – sending his officers, Levites and priests to teach the Torah throughout the kingdom. The rest of the chapter then tells of his increasing greatness, ending with 18:1: “Now Jehoshaphat had great riches and honor; and he was married with Ahab.” Chapter 17 begins by commenting that Jehoshaphat “strengthened himself over Israel.” As noted, some commentators (such as Dillard 1987, 133, as well as KJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV etc.) have taken “Israel” to refer to the northern kingdom and have assumed this to indicate tension between the two kingdoms. This interpretation goes back to the Vulgate translation of ‫ על‬as contra, “against.” However Chronicles often uses the name “Israel” when referring to the southern kingdom. Williamson (1977, 102) lists eleven cases in which “there is no reasonable cause for doubt” that “Israel” refers to the southern kingdom, including 2 Chron. 21:2, 4, which are part of the Jehoshaphat narrative. However, he actually has his doubts about the passage under discussion here. Japhet (1993, 745) and McKenzie (2004, 287) do understand it as referring to Jehoshaphat’s strengthening his hold over his own kingdom, and suggests that “‘Israel’ should be understood in its general connotation as ‘the people’ or ‘the kingdom’.”31 As in 2 Chron. 1:1, the phrase ‫התחזק על‬, “strengthened 31.  The view reflected by McKenzie (2007, 301), that this reflects the Chronicler’s

90

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

himself over…,” is often used of a king “establishing his rule” over his own kingdom. Keel (1986, 686) and Japhet (1993, 745) considered this to be an indication that Jehoshaphat faced some internal opposition to his ascendancy. Ben-Shem (1973) went even further, claiming that Jehoshaphat was forced to overcome a rebellion that had begun with his father’s imprisonment of Hanani the seer and his “crushing” of his supporters (2 Chron. 16:10, and see the commentary there). He takes the term ‫ נציבים‬here as referring specifically to military commanders, whom Jehoshaphat appointed over the kingdom. Japhet (1993, 746) pointed out that some of the terminology used in this section, such as ‫ בצרות‬for “fortified,” ‫ נציבים‬for “garrisons” or “governors” and even “land of Judah,” are rare in Chronicles and could be a sign of the particular source that the Chronicler was using here. The reference to “the cities of Ephraim that his father Asa had captured” refers to the unnamed cities mentioned in 2 Chron. 15:8 (and see our commentary there). The reference to Jehoshaphat’s walking “in the earlier ways of his father David” by not seeking the Bealîm has been much discussed. The concept of David being the “father” of all the Davidic kings is not unknown in Chronicles. 2 Chronicles 21:12 quotes a letter by Elijah to Jehoram, Jehoshaphat’s son, as saying, “Thus said the Lord, God of your father David.” 2 Chronicles 28:1–2 tell of Ahaz that “he did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord like his father David. And he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and he also made cast images for the Bealîm.” In the following chapter (29:2), Hezekiah “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father David had done.” The same with Josiah (34:2–3): “He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and walked in the ways of his father David; he did not turn aside to the right or to the left. For in the eighth year of his reign, while he was still a boy, he began to seek the God of his father David.” So the very fact that David is referred to as Jehoshaphat’s “father” is not problematic.32 There are, however, two additional issues. The first, is that the name “David” is missing from some of the manuscripts that belong to the A and B belief that “the North was apostate and the real people of Yahweh, the remnant of the twelve tribes, were preserved in Judah,” seems to be taking things too far. Williamson also lists 51 cases in which “Israel” specifically refers to the northern kingdom, one of which is at the end of v. 4 of our chapter! For an in-depth discussion of the Chronicler’s attitude towards the northern kingdom, see Japhet 1997, 308–24. 32.  Although some modern translations such as NRSV translate ‫ אביו‬in all of these passages as “his ancestor” rather than “his father” in order to bring the term into line with modern English usage.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

91

recensions of the Septuagint and some Hebrew manuscripts (Japhet 1993, 742), although it is preserved in the L recension, in the Vulgate and in most standard manuscripts of the MT. Some commentators have attempted to explain this discrepancy. BHS, for example, has suggested that the word ‫דויד‬, “David,” was formed as a result of dittography of ‫בדרכי‬, “in the ways of” (Klein 2012, 245). McKenzie (2007, 302 n. 7) writes: It is tempting to see the problems in vv. 2–3 as related to one another. Abijah’s name may have been lost from v. 2 by haplography, due to its similarity with ‫ויבא‬, ‘his father’. Then, Asa’s name may have subsequently been misplaced from v. 3 into v. 2, though this does not explain the presence of David’s name in v. 3.

The more serious problem, however, is exegetical: if, indeed, the reference to David is original, what does the Chronicler mean by “the earlier ways of his father David”? Those commentators who assume that the reference to David is secondary, point out that David’s reign in Chronicles is not divided into an early, “good,” period and a later, “bad” period (as perhaps one might claim that it is in Samuel). However, the reign of Asa, Jehoshaphat’s actual father, was divided in just that way! In fact, the word rišônîm, which we translated here as “earlier,” literally means “first” (in the plural, “the first things”), and immediately brings to mind v. 11 of the preceding chapter, which tell us of “the acts of Asa, the first and the last.” In other words, Chronicles is pointing out that Jehoshaphat’s actions were similar to those of “his father” Asa’s “in his good years.”33 This interpretation certainly makes sense, however we do not think that it is the only possible explanation, and do not see a compelling reason to amend the MT. In general, vv. 3–6 continue the chapter’s positive appraisal of Jehoshaphat in every way: he sought God and not the Bealîm, he removed the bamôt and asherim, he behaved like a king of Judah should behave, and not like the kings of (northern!) Israel.34 For this he was rewarded: Yahweh “established” his kingdom and he had honor and riches. The positive use of the phrase “his heart became high” in v. 6, which we, following most translations, rendered “exalted,” is unique to this passage. In all other cases of a person’s heart being “high,” the context 33.  In fact Jarick (2007, 117) calculates that Jehoshaphat must have been born during the earlier part of Asa’s reign, which to him explains the son’s purely Yahwistic name, meaning “Yahweh judges.” 34.  As pointed out by Klein (2012, 249), this is the first time that Chronicles compares a king of Judah with the kings of Israel.

92

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

demands that the phrase be understood as referring to that person’s having excessive hubris. This theme is spelled out in Deuteronomy 8, with v. 14 reading, “then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage,” and is repeated often throughout the Bible, including in Chronicles. As Japhet (1993, 748) pointed out, Jehoshaphat succeeded where even Hezekiah and Josiah failed – in turning the temptation of pride into a “positive pride in the ways of the Lord.” Jehoshaphat’s “Teaching Mission” At least some of this “positive pride” can be seen in the unique episode described in vv. 7–9: in his third year, Jehoshaphat sent a delegation of four or five officials, accompanied by eight or nine Levites and two priests, to teach the Torah in the cities of Judah. In fact, they even carried “a book of the Torah of the Lord” with them! There is a lot that is unclear about this pericope. As already pointed out in the notes, the name given for the first of the five officials, “Ben-hail,” is unique, and is often assumed to be a corruption of the more common benē-ḥayyil, “valiant men,” referring to the four next-named officials that were actually sent. There is a similar problem with the name of the ninth and last in the list of Levites: the unusual name “Tob-adonijah” does not appear in the Greek versions and many commentators assume that it is a dittographic condensation of the previous two names, Adonijah and Tobijah (Tobias), leaving only eight Levites. And then the word “Levites” itself appears a second time unnecessarily. Besides these two names, the others are rather standard Biblical Hebrew names, most with the Yahwistic theophoric element that one would expect in ninth-century Judah. None of the specific people named are known from other sources, although a northern Israelite prophet named Micaiah plays a key role in the following chapter, and Jehoram is the name of both Jehoshaphat’s younger contemporary, king of Israel (2 Kgs 3:1) and his son and succes­ sor, king of Judah (2 Kgs 8:16). Assuming that both emendations of the Hebrew text are correct, we are left with two priests, four Levites and eight “secular” officials – which seems like a rather artificial arrangement. In fact, the whole episode seems rather artificial – while it is often cited as the king’s “mandating education in torah to his whole people” (Knoppers 1991, 501), there is no way that even the Chronicler could have imagined that 14 itinerant teachers carrying a single copy of the Torah would have been expected to educate the entire nation! The actual identification of the ‫ספר תורת יהוה‬, “book/scroll of the law/ instruction/Torah of Yahweh,” is much debated, and depends to a large degree on one’s opinion of the historicity of this particular event. The



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

93

traditional interpretation would assume that the event was historical and that the “book” was in fact the Torah of Moses, the Pentateuch.35 With the rise of modern critical approaches to the biblical text, both assumptions were challenged. Wellhausen, for example, pointed out the “impossibility” of such a judicial system, based on “the Book of Law,” including both priests and Levites, existing in the pre-exilic period. He also pointed out the Chronicler’s use of “his own language, which is unmistakable,” and surmised that the system described was actually the “synedrium of Jerusalem” of the Chronicler’s day, retrojected to Jehoshaphat’s time because of the meaning of his name: “Yahweh judges” (Wellhausen 1957 [1883], 191). However, in 1950 Albright published his seminal article on “The Judicial Reform of Jehoshaphat,” in which he argued that the description in Chronicles is largely historical, a claim that became part of the scholarly consensus for decades. This came into conflict with another modern scholarly consensus, which is that the Pentateuch as we know it was only composed during the exilic or post-exilic period. If this is true, then obviously “the book of the law” that Jehoshaphat’s emissaries carried with them could not have been the Pentateuch! This was then “solved” by explaining that “the book of law” promulgated by Jehoshaphat was either some sort of royal decree or one of the source-documents of the Pentateuch, such as the so-called holiness code or a predecessor of the Deuteronomic code.36 Other assessments of this passage, however, have emphasized its similarities to a more post-exilic setting. In fact, the very idea that the Levites are assigned with teaching the Torah is reminiscent of Nehemiah 8, especially v. 9: “And Nehemiah, who was the governor, and Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who taught the people…” As Japhet (1993, 749), Klein (2012, 250) and others have pointed out, Jehoshaphat’s appointing teachers for the people reminds us of Ezra’s appointment by Artaxerxes: And you, Ezra, according to the wisdom of your God which is in your hand, appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province Beyond the River, all such as know the laws of your God; and those who do not know them, you shall teach. (Ezra 7:25)

35.  See, for example, Keel 1986, 689, who quotes Deut. 17:18, according to which the king should write a “copy of this Torah on a book/scroll before the Levitical priests.” 36.  The latter according to Weinfeld 1972, 163–64, who finds a parallel to this episode in Assyrian texts from the reign of Sargon II, in which royal officials went out among the people to teach them “the teaching of fearing god and king” (palaḫ ili u šarri).

94

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Following this, many more recent evaluations of this episode have deemed it to be a Chronistic composition. However, since this episode is obviously related to that of Jehoshaphat’s “judicial reform” described in ch. 19, we shall continue to discuss this issue there.37 Power and Prosperity According to v. 10, “all the kingdoms of the lands around Judah…did not make war against Jehoshaphat.” As often in the Bible and in Chronicles in particular, “peace” and “rest” are Israel’s reward for their piety, while war is a punishment for infidelity. This particular verse emphasizes this by stating that the peace was brought about by “the fear of the Lord,” rather than by Jehoshaphat’s own diplomatic or military successes. Verse 11, then, is more specific: it was only the Philistines and the Arabs who actually brought tribute, the former of silver and the latter in the form of flocks. Many commentators have suggested that the specific description of the tribute-bringers, as well as their geographical location on Judah’s southwestern border, lends historical credibility to this passage, despite its not being mentioned in Kings and despite its mention of “the fear of the Lord.” Williamson (1982, 283), Japhet (1993, 750–51) and Klein (2012, 252) all consider it quite reasonable to assume that Jehoshaphat enjoyed the fruits of Asa’s successes (and perhaps even David’s!), especially in light of his son Jehoram’s losses on just that front (2 Chron. 21:16). The Philistines here are regarded as a collective, and despite the possibility of translating min-Pelistîm as “some of the Philistines,” as do KJV, NIV, NRSV, Myers (1965, 2:97), Klein (2012, 245) and others, the more literal translation, followed by the Greek καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλλοφύλων, is simply “from the Philistines.” In the Deuteronomic History, while each of the five main Philistine cities is represented as being ruled by a seren38 (for example, Josh. 13:3), they are often presented as acting in tandem (1 Sam. 6; 29), giving rise to the modern concept of the “Philistine Pentapolis.” On the other hand, when the Assyrian kings of the eighth and seventh centuries (Tiglath-pileser III, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon and 37.  This despite the observations made by Jackson (2007, 391–92), on the various differences between the “teaching mission” and the “judicial reform” and between the “teaching mission” and Ezra’s commission. 38.  Usually translated as “captain,” “chief” and the like and perhaps related to the Greek word tyrannos, “tyrant” and the Luwian title tarwanis. Actually the Bible only preserves the plural form seranîm and the plural construct form sarnē-pelištîm. See Pintore (1983), who suggests that the MT vocalization of ‫סרן‬, ‫ סרנים‬is based on that of melek, “king.”



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

95

Ashurbanipal) refer to the Philistine cities, they are each considered to be an independent state with its own king. This state of affairs continues into the Neo-Babylonian period, until each of the cities is destroyed in its turn. The one exception to this is in the very first Assyrian king to mention the Philistines, Adad-Nirari III, who campaigned against Damascus in 796, and mentions receiving tribute from KurPalastu, which Tadmor (1973, 149) translated “Philistia.” In his study on the Philistines’ political organization, Shai (2006, 358) considers both representations to be historical. In his opinion, the Philistines were “united or, at the very least, had some sort of cooperative framework in terms of their foreign policy,” a situation that continued into the tenth and ninth centuries, changing only in the eighth and seventh centuries. Our passage, if indeed it reflects the historical situation of the mid-ninth century, seems to fit into this scheme. The other tribute-bearers are ‫הערביאים‬, “the Arabs” or “Arabians” in different English translations. The Hebrew terms ‫ערבי‬, ‫ערבים‬, and so on are obviously cognate to the cuneiform lúArabu, kurArabu and their variants. The earliest appearance of this term is in Shalmaneser III’s Kurkh Monolith, which mentions a certain “Gindabu the Arab” who joined the battle of Qarqar in c. 853 BCE with 1000 camels. Their next appearance is over a century later, in the annals of Tiglath-pileser III, after which they appear with increasing frequency in Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, Achaemenid (Persian) and Greek sources (for a list of sources see Eph‘al 1982, 21–214). In the Bible, the term ‫ערבים‬, ‫ ערביים‬or ‫ ערביאים‬as it is spelled here, in the plural, occurs five times, four in Chronicles (2 Chron. 17:11; 21:16; 22:1 and 26:7) and once in Neh. 4:1. In the singular, ‫ ערבי‬occurs in Isa. 13:20; Jer. 3:2 and Neh. 2:19 and 6:1 (both of these as the moniker of “Geshem the Arab,” Nehemiah’s enemy). The place-name ‫ערב‬, “Arabia,” as part of the phrase “all the kings of Arabia,” appears in Jer. 25:24 and in 2 Chron. 9:14;39 and Isa. 21:13 records “The oracle concerning Arabia; In the thickets in Arabia you will lodge…” Besides these few mentions of “Arabs,” the Bible often refers to various nomadic groups: Minianites, 39.  2 Chron. 9:14, referring to Solomon’s receiving gold and silver from “all the kings of ‫ ערב‬and the governors of the land,” is both the contextually “earliest” reference to Arabs and the most textually uncertain. It is also the only one of the Chronicles references to have a parallel in Kings. However, the MT of the parallel in 1 Kgs 10:15 is ‫וכל־מלכי הערב‬, haereb instead of Chronicles’ arab. While most translations of Kings simply ignore the discrepancy and render “kings of Arabia” and the like, and Cogan (2000, 317) even calls the MT of Kings “erroneous,” other commentators understand the word to mean “west,” “mixture or peoples” and even “beyond” (‫ – )עבר‬see Keel 1989, 230; Mulder 1998, 526–27.

96

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Amalekites, Qedarites, Maonites, Hagarites, “Peoples of the East” (benê qedem), Buz, Dedan, Dumah, Ephah, Massa, Nebaioth, Tema and more. Specifically mentioned only in Chronicles are Jetur, Naphish and Nodab (1 Chron. 5:19).40 In the genealogy of Abraham’s descendants, many of these groups are classified as “sons of Keturah” (Gen. 25:1–4) or “sons of Ishmael” (Gen. 25:12–16).41 Many of these and more also appear in cuneiform sources. However, they are rarely identified as “Arabs” in early sources, leading Eph‘al (1982, 9) to conclude that the term “Arabs” originally referred specifically to the desert dwellers of “the cup of the fertile crescent and northern Arabia,” with its meaning only later being extended to the desert dwellers in general. By the Persian period, the term “Arab” was used more broadly, including such groups as the Qedarites (for which see, for example, Levin 2007). In our case, the “Arabs” are presented, together with the Philistines, as bearing tribute to Jehoshaphat. Numbers aside, the rams and goats that they are said to have brought would be appropriate to their status as desert-dwellers. This leaves us with three questions: 1. By “Arabs,” did the Chronicler have in mind a specific group, located in a specific area? 2. If so, can this group and area be identified? 3. Does the identification and location of this group reflect the reality of Jehoshaphat’s time in the ninth century BCE, or that of the Chronicler’s time in the fourth century? In answer to the first question, no specific location is mentioned in our verse. The juxtaposition with the Philistines does not necessarily mean that they were pictured as dwelling in the same area. However, Arabs and Philistines are mentioned together twice further in Chronicles. In the first of these, 2 Chron. 21:16, “The Lord aroused against Jehoram [Jehoshaphat’s son] the spirit of the Philistines and of the Arabs who are near the Kushites.” In the second, 2 Chron. 26:7, God helped Uzziah “against the Philistines and against the Arabs who lived in Gur-baal and the Meunites.” Neither of these references specifically place the Arabs near the Philistines, but it is hard to believe that their being mentioned together three times is coincidental. The Kushites of 2 Chron. 21:16, of course, remind us of Zerah the Kushite who attacked Asa, Jehoshaphat’s father, in 2 Chronicles 14. In vv. 12–13 [Eng. 13–14] of that chapter Asa 40.  For the full list of references see Eph‘al 1982, 60–63. 41.  Both of which are repeated with slight variants in 1 Chron. 1:29–37. See Eph‘al 1982, 231–40.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

97

chased the Kushites to the region of Gerar. In our commentary there, we saw that several modern authorities believe that these “Kushites” were actually nomads living on the southern fringe of Judah, and mentioned the suggestion made by Curtis and Madsen (1910, 382) to amend ‫ערים‬, “cities” in v. 14 [Eng. 15], to read ‫ערבים‬, “Arabs” – “And they defeated all of the Arabs around Gerar, for the fear of the Lord was on them… They also attacked the tents of (those who had) livestock, and carried away sheep in abundance, and camels…” Gerar, of course, is known as the home of Abimelech “king of the Philistines” in Genesis (chs. 20, 21, 26) and is located in the Negeb, between Beer-sheba and Gaza, probably along the Besor stream or one of its tributaries; Gen. 26:17 mentions a “Naḥal (stream of) Gerar.” As such, Tell Abu Hureireh (Modern Hebrew Tel Haror) seems to be a likely candidate (Oren, Morrison and Gilead 1986). And while Gerar is not specifically mentioned in 2 Chron. 17:10 or 21:16, the combination of Kushites, Arabs and Philistines in these two passages clearly points to the desert area of the southern fringes of Philistia. While the mention of “the Arabs who lived in Gur-baal and the Meunites” in 2 Chron. 26:7 will be analyzed below, the combination, once again, of Philistines and Arabs seems to point to the same geographical area, inhabited first by “Kushites” and later by “Meunites.” The third question is more difficult to answer. In our analysis of 2 Chron. 26:7 below we will show that there is indeed evidence of a people called “Meunites” living in the southern coastal region during the eighth century. On the other hand “Kushites” is a term that is used in so many different contexts that it cannot be used to “prove” anything. Historically, as shown by Eph‘al, use of the term lúArabu, “Arab” (and its variant forms), evolved gradually from a term for a very specific group of nomads in northern Arabia in the ninth century, to a general term for all desert nomads in the sixth and especially the fifth. The Chronicler’s use of “Arabs” to designate the nomads of the southern coastal plain and the western Negeb would seem to be anachronistic, reflecting the presence of the Qedarites and other “Arabs” in the area in the Persian period. This, however, does not preclude his having knowledge of ninth-century historical events and then framing them in language that would be familiar to his own audience. The description of Jehoshaphat’s greatness, as demonstrated by his building of forts and storage cities and by his amassing of wealth, contributes to his presentation as a much-blessed king. Perhaps the reader is meant to understand that these projects were funded by the tribute that he received. In any case, the text does not supply us with any specific details.

98

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Jehoshaphat’s Army The Chronicler does supply details about Jehoshaphat’s army, naming five heads of troops, three from Judah and two from Benjamin. The three Judahites are listed as ‫שרי אלפים‬, translated here as “the commanders of the thousands,” but then only the first two are actually called ‫השר‬, “the commander,” while the third is “a volunteer for the Lord.” The first of the Benjaminites is “a valiant hero,” and the second has no title at all. The noun ‫ש ֹר‬, śâr, is very common in both the Bible and in Northwest Semitic inscriptions, and has a fairly wide range of meanings in military, administrative, fiscal and even cultic contexts. It is etymologically related to the Akkadian šarru, “king,” but in Northwest Semitic is not used for the supreme ruler of a realm.42 It can, however, mean “representative of the king,” “person of note,” “leader of a group,” “overseer,” “chief,” and even refer to “a messenger of God/an angel.”43 In the Chronicler’s version of David’s conquest of Jerusalem, David declares that “the first to strike a Jebusite will become a chief and a śâr,” a task immediately carried out by Joab (1 Chron. 11:6). Joab is later called śar-ṣâbâ, “chief of the army” (1 Chron. 27:34); he is joined by other śârê hââm, “chiefs of the people” (1 Chron. 21:2). 1 Chronicles 27:1 tells of “the list of the people of Israel, the heads of patriarchal families, the commanders (śârê) of the thousands and the hundreds, and their officers who served the king.” Despite the particularities, this description of Jehoshaphat’s army is quite systematic. The numbers of troops commanded by each commander are listed in descending order: 300,000, 280,000 and 200,000 for Judah, followed by 200,000 and 180,000 for Benjamin. As pointed out by Japhet (1993, 753) and others, 300,000 and 280,000 are the same as the numbers given for Judah and Benjamin respectively in Asa’s army (2 Chron. 14:7 [Eng. 8]). The total of 1,160,000 troops is larger than Zerah’s “thousand thousand” (14:8 [Eng. 9]), twice as large as Asa’s total and in fact larger than the army of any king except David, who, according to 1 Chron. 21:5 had 1,100,000 “men who drew the sword” from Israel and another 42.  An interesting example of the uses of these titles is in the seventh-century Ekron dedicatory inscription, in which the ruler Akhayus (spelled like the biblical ‫אכיש‬, “Achish,” vocalized “Ikausu” in Assyrian inscriptions), who is called “king of Ekron” by the Assyrians, chooses to call himself ‫שר עקרן‬, “śār of Ekron,” in his own inscription. The excavators (Gitin, Dothan and Naveh 1997, 11) ask, “Is this an expression of the vassal’s loyalty to the Assyrian king, or does ‫ שר‬mean ‘king’ in the Philistine-Canaanite dialect?” In a note they also reference Judg. 9, where in v. 6 Abimelech is said to have been made “king” (‫)מלך‬, while v. 22 uses the rare verb ‫וַ ּיָ ַׂשר‬, “ruled,” derived from ‫ש ֹר‬. 43.  For these and more meanings see HALOT 1350–53. For a discussion of the etymology and meanings of the term ‫ש ֹר‬, including possible Egyptian connections, see Fox 2000, 158–63.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

99

470,000 from Judah. As already stated in our commentary on Asa’s troops, despite the several attempts to “explain” these impossibly large numbers, no such explanation is really satisfactory. It is obvious, though, that a king’s possession of a huge army is seen by the Chronicler as a sign of divine favor. An additional point of comparison between Jehoshaphat’s army and that of his father is the division between the troops conscripted from Judah and those taken from Benjamin, with at least some of the Benjaminites characterized as archers. This division disappears in the armies of later kings (Amaziah in 2 Chron. 25:5 and Uzziah in 26:11–15), which, if historical, could reflect the gradual shift from a clan/tribal-based conscript army in the early monarchy to a professional military in later periods. In fact, Williamson (1982, 284) thinks that Chronicles might be confusing the two here, while Japhet (1993, 752) believes that the conscript army supplemented the professional forces hinted at in v. 19, which specifies that these soldiers “were in the service of the king, besides those whom the king placed in the fortified cities throughout Judah.” This, of course, assumes that the author had some kind of historical source for his information, which most modern commentators consider to be impossible to prove. Chapter 18: 1 And Jehoshaphat had great riches and honor; and he was married44 with Ahab.45 2 And he went down years later46 to Ahab in Samaria, and Ahab slaughtered47 an abundance of sheep and cattle for him and for the people who were with him, and induced48 him to go up to49 Ramoth-gilead. 44.  Most modern translations have “made a marriage alliance” (NRSV) and the like. It is reasonable to assume that this was indeed the purpose of the marriage, but the Hebrew does not say so explicitly. 45.  Greek: ἐν οἴκῳ Αχααβ, “with the house of Ahab.” According to 2 Chron. 21:6 = 2 Kgs 8:18, Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram was married to Ahab’s daughter. This daughter is presumably the same as Athaliah, mother of Jehoram’s son Ahaziah (2 Chron. 22:10 = 2 Kgs 11:1 – but see notes and commentary there). 46.  The Hebrew text literally says “at the end of years,” without noting how many. Most modern translations render “after some years” and the like. The reference to “years” comes from 2 Kgs 22:2, in which Jehoshaphat’s visit to Samaria happened after three years of cease-fire between Israel and Aram. Keel (1986, 694) notes that this would be the end of Ahab’s years, as he was to die in the ensuing war. 47.  The word ‫ זבח‬usually has cultic connotations, so while there is no mention of this feast being a sacrificial meal, this may be implied. 48.  The Hebrew ‫ ויסתהו‬has the negative connotation of “seduced.” 49.  Most translations (NRSV, NJPS etc.) have “to go up against Ramoth-gilead,” which is indeed the context, but the verse itself does not specify the purpose of the journey.

100

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

3 And Ahab king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat king of Judah: Will you go with me to Ramoth-gilead? And he said to him: I am like you, and my people are like your people; and with you in war.50 4 And51 Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel: Seek today the word of the Lord. 5 And the king of Israel gathered the prophets, four hundred men,52 and said to them: Shall we go53 to war to54 Ramoth-gilead, or shall I refrain? And they said: Go up; and God55 will give it into the hand of the king. 6 And56 Jehoshaphat said: Is there no other prophet of the Lord here of whom we may inquire? 7 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat: There is still one other by whom we may inquire of the Lord, and I hate him, for he never prophesies anything favorable about me, but only bad things all his days;57 he is Micaiah son of Imlah, and Jehoshaphat said: Let the king not say so.58 8 And the king of Israel summoned an official59 and said: Hasten Micaiah son of Imlah. 9 And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah were sitting each on his throne, arrayed in their robes; sitting at the threshing floor at the entrance of the gate of Samaria, and all the prophets were prophesying before them. 10 And Zedekiah son of Chenaanah made for himself horns of iron, and he said: Thus says the Lord: With these you shall gore the Arameans until they are destroyed. 11 And all the prophets were prophesying the same and saying: Go up to Ramoth-gilead and succeed; the Lord will give it into the hand of the king. 12 And the messenger who had gone to summon Micaiah said to him: Look, the words of the prophets with one accord are favorable to the king; let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak favorably. 13 And Micaiah said: As the Lord lives, whatever my God60 says, that I will speak. 14 And he came to the king, and the king said to him: Micah,61 shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to war, or shall I62 refrain? And he said: Go up The parallel text in 1 Kgs 22:4 has “Will you go with me to war at Ramoth-gilead?” In Chronicles the word “war” is part of Jehoshaphat’s reply. 50.  This is a truncated versions of Kings’ “I am as you are; my people are as your people, my horses are as your horses.” 51.  Many translations have “but Jehoshaphat said…,” assuming this to be a condition for Jehoshaphat’s cooperation with Ahab. 52.  Kings has “about four hundred men.” 53.  Kings has “shall I go.” 54.  Kings has ‫על־רמת גלעד‬, “against Ramoth-gilead.” 55.  Kings has ‫אדני‬, “the Lord,” but not, as one would expect, “Yahweh.” 56.  Many translations have “but Jehoshaphat said…” here as well. 57.  The clause “all his days” is missing in Kings. 58.  NRSV: “Let the king not say such a thing.” 59.  The Hebrew in both Chronicles and Kings calls the official a ‫סריס‬, literally a “eunuch,” but the title is often used of just “court officials.” 60.  Kings renders, “whatever the Lord says to me.” 61.  Here Chronicles uses the shortened form of the prophet’s name, while Kings retains the longer form. 62.  Kings has “we,” in line with the first part of the question.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

101

and succeed63 and they will be given64 into your hand. 15 And the king said to him: How many times must I make you swear that you will tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord? 16 And he65 said: I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, like sheep without a shepherd; and the Lord said: These have no master;66 each man shall return to his home in peace. 17 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat: Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy anything favorable about me, but only bad? 18 And he67 said: Therefore68 hear69 the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, with all the host of heaven standing70 on his right and his left.71 19 And the Lord said: Who will entice Ahab king of Israel,72 so that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? Then one said like this, and another said like that.73 20 And the spirit74 came out and stood before the Lord, saying: I will entice him, and the Lord said to him: With what?75 21 And it said: I will go out and be a spirit of falsehood in the mouths of all his prophets, and he76 said: Entice and succeed; go out and do it. 22 And now, here77 the Lord has put a spirit of falsehood in the mouths of these your prophets;78 and the Lord has spoken bad of you.79 63.  “Go up and succeed,” ‫עלו והצלחו‬, here in the plural, but in Kings ‫ עלה והצלח‬in the singular. 64.  In Kings it is “and the Lord will give them into the hand of the king.” “They,” presumably, refers to the enemy. 65.  NRSV adds “Michaiah” for clarity. 66.  The Hebrew ‫ אדנים‬is plural in form, but is often used for a single “master.” As an example, “hard master” in Isa. 19:4 is ‫אדנים קשה‬, in which the noun ‫ אדנים‬is plural, but the adjective ‫קשה‬, “hard,” is in the singular. 67.  NRSV adds “Michaiah” for clarity. Other translations add “(Michaiah).” 68.  The Greek οὐχ οὕτως seems to represent a Hebrew ‫לא כן‬, “not so,” instead of ‫לכן‬, “therefore.” 69.  In Chronicles the verb “hear” is ‫שמעו‬, in the plural; in Kings it is the singular ‫שמע‬. 70.  In Chronicles the verb “standing” is ‫עמדים‬, in the plural; in Kings it is the singular ‫עמד‬. 71.  Kings has “standing over him on his right and on his left.” 72.  “King of Israel” is absent from Kings. 73.  “Like this” and “like that” are actually the same word in Hebrew: ‫ככה‬. Kings has ‫ בכה‬for both, meaning “in this/in that.” 74.  Or “a spirit” despite the definite article in the Hebrew. 75.  Most translations: “How?” 76.  NRSV adds “the Lord” for clarity. Other translations capitalize “He” to indicate “the Lord.” 77.  ‫הנה‬. NRSV has “you see,” Klein (2012, 257) renders “behold,” NJPS leaves the word unrepresented. 78.  Kings has “these all your prophets.” Klein (2012, 257) includes it here as well. 79.  Meaning not that “the Lord has spoken badly of you,” but that “the Lord has spoken evil concerning you” (RSV; NRSV etc.). Dillard (1987, 138) and Klein’s

102

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

23 And Zedekiah son of Chenaanah came forward and struck Micaiah on the cheek, and said: Which way did the spirit of the Lord pass from me to speak to you? 24 And Micaiah said: You will see on that day when you go in to hide in an inner room.80 25 And the king of Israel said: Take Micaiah, and return him to Amon the governor of the city and to Joash the king’s son. 26 And say: Thus says the king: Put this81 in prison, and feed him little bread and little water82 until I return83 in peace. 27 And Micaiah said: If you return in peace, the Lord has not spoken by me, and he said: Hear, you peoples, all of you!84 28 And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah went up to Ramothgilead. 29 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, I will disguise myself and go85 into battle, but you wear your clothes, and the king of Israel disguised himself, and they went86 into battle. 30 And the king of Aram had commanded the officers of his chariots,87 saying: You will fight with no one small or great, but only with the king of Israel himself. 31 And when the officers of the

rendering, “Yahweh has decreed against you disaster” (2012, 257), while certainly reflecting the outcome of the story, seems to take the meaning of the text itself too far. NJPS’s “misfortune” is perhaps closest to the mark. 80.  ‫חדר בחדר‬, “a room in a room.” The same term is used of the hiding place of Ben-hadad, Ahab’s enemy, in 1 Kgs 20:30. 81.  Most translations render “put this one,” “put this fellow” and the like, but the Hebrew ‫ שימו זה‬conveys a tone of contempt, as if Micaiah was an object of scorn rather than a prophet of God. 82.  ‫לחם לחץ ומים לחץ‬, “bread of pressure and water of pressure.” NRSV has “reduced rations of bread and water.” NJPS and Klein have “scant bread and scant water.” 83.  Kings has “until I come in peace.” 84.  ‫עם‬, “people” usually means “nation,” but can also refer to a gathering of people, such as in v. 2 above. The plural ‫ עמים‬almost always means “nations.” In this context, it is not clear who Micaiah is addressing. Dillard (1987, 138) changes it to “people,” the people assembled at Ahab’s court. Bodner (2003) suggested that the speaker was in fact Ahab, mimicking a well-known prophetic utterance. But the phrase ‫שעמו עמים כלם הקשיבי‬ ‫ארץ ומלאה‬, “Hear, you peoples, all of you; listen, O earth, and all that is in it,” is also the opening statement of the prophecy of the identically named Judahite prophet Micah (1:2), on which see the commentary. 85.  ‫ התחפש ובוא‬in both Kings and Chronicles would seem to be a third-person imperative, in which case Ahab would be ordering Jehoshaphat to disguise himself. This, of course, would then contradict the rest of the verse, “and you wear your (regular royal) clothes, and the king of Israel disguised himself.” The accepted solution is to assume that ‫ התחפש ובוא‬are actually infinitive absolutes, which can then be treated as if they were in the first person (see Klein 2012, 257). 86.  Kings has “he went.” 87.  Kings informs us that there were 32 of these. This may be a reference to the 32 Aramean kings whom Ben-Hadad had replaced with governors in 1 Kgs 20:1, 24, which is not paralleled in Chronicles (so Klein 2012, 47).



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

103

chariots saw Jehoshaphat, they said: He is the king of Israel, and they turned88 towards him to fight; and Jehoshaphat cried out, and the Lord helped him, and God drew them away from him.89 32 And when the officers of the chariots saw that it was not the king of Israel, they turned back from behind him. 33 And a man drew his bow unknowingly90 and struck the king of Israel between the joints and the armor;91 and he said to his chariot-driver: Turn around, and take me out of the camp, for I am wounded. 34 The battle increased92 that day, and the king of Israel was propped up in the chariot facing Aram until evening; and he died at sunset.93

Commentary Prelude to the Battle of Ramoth-gilead – Jehoshaphat at Samaria The Chronicler’s version of Jehoshaphat’s joining with Ahab in the latter’s final war against Aram is closely based on 1 Kings 22, with not a few significant differences. The first of these is in the context: 1 Kings 22 is an integral part of the Ahab account, in which the king of Judah plays but a minor part. There, this war comes in the footsteps of two previous 88.  The Hebrew ‫ ויסבו‬could mean “they surrounded” as rendered by Klein (2012, 257), but the standard “turned” is also possible. The MT of Kings has ‫ויסרו‬, “they turned aside (towards him),” although the Greek of Kings seems to support “surrounded” as well. In any case, the two are so graphically similar that the difference is probably the result of a copyist’s mistake. 89.  “And the Lord helped him, and God drew them away from him,” absent from Kings, is probably an addition of the Chronicler, although the first part does appear in the L version of the Septuagint. See the commentary. 90.  ‫לתמו‬, literally “in his innocence.” The Greek has εὐστόχως, which Myers (1965, 2:103) renders “with good aim” or “at full strength.” 91.  The Hebrew terms used for the two pieces between which the arrow penetrated are not clear. ‫ דבקים‬seems to be derived from ‫דבק‬, “to stick together,” “to glue,” something that was connected to the breastplate, such as leather straps or metal scales. ‫ שרין‬seems to be a by-form of ‫שריון‬, which is the term used twice in 1 Sam. 17:5 to describe Goliath’s armor (the first of which is ‫שריון קשקשים‬, “scale armor”), and again in v. 38 to for the armor with which Saul dressed the young David. Different translations use various terms such as “mail,” “scales” and “breastplate.” 92.  ‫ותעל‬, literally “went up.” Some translations have “raged” (Myers 1965, 2:103; NJPS) or “grew hot” (RSV; NRSV; Klein 2012, 258). 93.  Literally “at the time of the setting of the sun.” The parallel sentence in 1 Kgs 22:35 is, “The battle increased that day, and the king was propped up in the chariot facing the Aram; and he died in the evening,” and then adds, “and the blood of the wound spilled into the chariot.” “Sunset” is mentioned in the next verse, as the time at which the news spread through the camp. Kings then goes on to tell of Ahab’s burial and to summarize his reign. Chronicles does not bother with these details, and continues with another two chapters of mostly unparalleled material on Jehoshaphat.

104

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

encounters (both recounted in ch. 20), followed in ch. 21 by the framing and murder of Naboth and Elijah’s subsequent rebuke and prophecy of doom for Ahab and his house. Chapter 22 then begins with the comment that there was no war between Aram and Israel for three years, at the end of which Jehoshaphat king of Judah “went down” to visit the king of Israel.94 All of this, however, goes unmentioned by Chronicles. Here, ch. 18 is a direct continuation of the previous chapter’s description of Jehoshaphat’s piety and success, making it a part of the story of Jehoshaphat’s reign rather than Ahab’s. Verse 1, “Now Jehoshaphat had great riches and honor; and he was married with Ahab,” serves to connect the two chapters and to clarify the nature of the two kings’ relationship: allied by marriage. Historically, this alliance would have brought both kingdoms a much-needed peace after several generations of struggle, allowing both kingdoms to turn their energies elsewhere. Berman (2004, 184) considers Kings’ estimation of the alliance as “wholly positive.” Within the context of Chronicles, the marriage serves to put Jehoshaphat on parity with Ahab – for while we later (21:6) learn that the marriage was actually between Ahab’s daughter and Jehoshaphat’s son, here “Jehoshaphat was married with Ahab.” Unlike Kings, the Chronicler does not clarify his attitude towards the alliance at this point. As Japhet (1993, 758) commented, at first glance the Chronicler’s attitude may also seem positive or at least neutral, as a direct continuation of Jehoshaphat’s “great riches and honor.” However, knowing its disastrous consequences, of Athaliah’s reign of terror following her son Ahaziah’s death (2 Chron. 22:10–12), the Chronicler’s assessment cannot have been positive. This is reflected in the words that he attributes to Jehu son of Hanani the seer in 19:2, “Will you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Because of this, wrath is against you from before the Lord.” Jehoshaphat’s alliance with Ahaziah son of Ahab is also criticized, this time by Eliezer son of Dodavahu, in 20:37. As Berman (2004, 185–86) has pointed out, in his summary of Jehoshaphat’s reign in 2 Chron. 20:31–34, which is taken almost verbatim from 1 Kgs 21:41–47, the Chronicler totally skips v. 45 of Kings: “And Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel.” 94.  It is often assumed that the 853 BCE battle of Qarqar, in which “Ahab the Israelite” and “Adad-idri of Damascus” stood together with additional allies against Shalmaneser III of Assyria, must have occurred during those three years (for example see Aharoni 1979, 336). This of course is only possible if “Adad-idri” (perhaps originally “Hadad-ezer”) is to be identified with “our” Ben-Hadad II, an identification that not all scholars accept (for further discussion see Younger 2007, 258).



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

105

Jehoshaphat’s “going down” to visit Ahab in Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom, is taken from 1 Kgs 22:1, although the timeframe, “at the end of three years” there, becomes “after years” or “at the end of years” here. The chronology in Chronicles is not Ahab’s, but Jehoshaphat’s, who enjoyed the riches and honor gained in the previous chapter for many years before succumbing to the temptation of an alliance with his powerful neighbor. Johnstone (1997, 2:83) further emphasizes that in Chronicles, whenever a Davidic king leaves Jerusalem, it is “the signal for a disastrous turn of events… The indiscretion is compounded: not only does he, the legitimate king of Israel, deem it appropriate to leave Jerusalem to go parley with the son of a usurper of the throne of a country which by right belongs to himself but he treats it as an equal by allying himself to it by marriage. Even worse, he thereby introduces a foreign poison into the system of his own kingdom.” According to Kings, Jehoshaphat participated in a council of Ahab and “his servants,” during which Ahab presented his plan to re-conquer Ramoth-gilead and then invited Jehoshaphat to join him. Chronicles depicts the situation differently: Ahab arranged a huge feast for his guest, which seems to have been part of his plan to “seduce” Jehoshaphat to join him in his attack. The Chronicler, having already omitted the history of the Israel–Aram conflict, also omits the rationale for the war as presented in Kings (that Ramoth-gilead had previously belonged to Israel), making the whole enterprise seem to be a caprice of Ahab’s, which Jehoshaphat was “seduced” into joining.95 Jarick (2007, 121) emphasizes that by going to war against Aram, Jehoshaphat was breaking an old alliance, attacking the country that had saved his father Asa from Ahab’s predecessor. And as pointed out by Japhet (1993, 759), Chronicles’ amended version of Jehoshaphat’s reply, replacing “my horses are as your horses” with “and with you in war,” once again pictures the two kings as equals. Jehoshaphat is as much to blame for the folly as is Ahab. The Prophecy of Micaiah Son of Imlah The pericope of Jehoshaphat’s request for divine approval and the oracles of Micaiah son of Imlah and of the other prophets (2 Chron. 18:4–27 = 1 Kgs 22:5–28) has drawn much scholarly attention, mostly focusing on

95.  Although, as pointed out by Jarick (2007, 121), according to 1 Chron. 6:65 [Eng. 6:80], Ramoth-Gilead had been a Levitical city within the territory of Gad, making its recapture seem like a legitimate venture. For recent discussions of the identification, history and archaeology of Ramoth-Gilead, see Knauf 2001; Finkelstein, Lipschits and Sergi 2013.

106

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

the Kings account.96 As pointed out by many of these studies, the pericope seems intrusive; had vv. 4–27 (Kings’ 5–28) not been there, they would not have been missed. The narrative would have proceeded seamlessly from Jehoshaphat’s accepting Ahab’s offer to “and the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah went up to Ramoth-gilead.” In fact, to the reader of Kings even Ahab’s violent death had already been prophesized by Elijah (1 Kgs 21:17–20), making Micaiah’s oracle redundant, or, as put by Moberly (2003, 1), “a cameo appearance within a sequence of narratives where Elijah consistently features both previously and subsequently.” This has led many scholars to treat the Micaiah story as a late addition to the Kings narrative and to speculate on its original purpose and setting.97 On the other hand, as Long (1983, 199–202) has shown, the episode has been constructed in a way that creates a unified structure. The need to read the entire chapter as a having an “essential unity” was also underscored by Cogan (2000, 497). As emphasized by Ben Zvi (2010, 90), whatever the story’s redactional history, the “primary readers” of Kings would have read the story as associated with Ahab, while the “primary readers” of Chronicles would have seen it as being connected with Jehoshaphat. The Chronicler’s account of this story is so similar to the Kings version that we can safely assume most of the differences between the two accounts to be simple textual variants. For example, in v. 5, Ahab’s query in Kings “shall I go to war against Ramoth-gilead” is rephrased as “shall we go to war.” At first glance, this would seem to be another instance of Chronicles’ emphasizing the basic parity between the kings. However, the second part of the question, “or shall I refrain,” is left untouched in Chronicles, indicating that the Chronicler did not intentionally reword Ahab’s question. In v. 14, in which Ahab poses the same question to Micaiah, exactly the opposite happens: in Kings the question is “shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to war, or shall we refrain?” while in Chronicles the second “we” becomes “I.”98 So it is the difference in context that results in a difference in meaning, more than any specific change of terminology. In Kings, the Micaiah pericope is meant to emphasize Ahab’s arrogance that ultimately led to his death. Jehoshaphat, who seems in the Kings version 96.  Besides the standard commentaries on Kings and on Chronicles, see the book-length treatments by Haller (1960) and De Vries (1978), and more recently the chapters by Long (1983), Berman (2004, 181–98) and Ben Zvi (2010). 97.  For example De Vries (1978), who divides the story into originally independent “A” and “B” narratives and then speculates on their origins. 98.  Actually in this case the Hebrew pronouns “we” and “I” are not written as separate words but are attached to the verb ‫חדל‬, “refrain”: ‫ נחדל‬in Kings and ‫ אחדל‬in Chronicles.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

107

to be inferior to Ahab, serves the narrative purpose of creating tension between the over-confident Ahab and Jehoshaphat as a voice of caution, who repeatedly insists on seeking the word of God (so Grossman 2011, 168–69). As noted by Japhet (1993, 759), the “four hundred prophets” versus Micaiah’s lone voice is reminiscent of Elijah’s confrontation with the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and four hundred prophets of Asherah (1 Kgs 18:19). However there is a basic difference: here, Ahab’s four hundred are prophets of Yahweh. Within the Kings narrative this seemingly contradicts 1 Kgs 18:4, 13, according to which only one hundred prophets of Yahweh had been saved from Jezebel,99 but this problem does not exist in Chronicles, which does not recount the Elijah cycle. The story itself is full of irony. In v. 9 we learn that the two kings were sitting, gloriously robed, in a threshing floor by the city gate. The threshing floor, while ostensibly a common agricultural installation, might also have a more symbolic role. Threshing floors are often associated with cultic activity, as in Gen. 50:10 or 2 Sam. 6:6 and 24:18–14. So are city gates, which are also associated with royal judgment, as in 2 Sam. 15:2. In 1 Sam. 14:2, Saul is pictured as sitting “on the outskirts of Geba sitting under a pomegranate tree, which was on the threshing floor,”100 about to consult with the priest Ahijah, who was carrying an “ephod.” Here the two kings are seen “holding court” in a threshing-floor by the gate, consulting with prophets. McCarter (1980, 239) compares this scene with a scene from the Late Bronze Age Ugaritic story of Aqhat, in which the ancient Dan’il101 “sits erect by the gate, under the mighty tree which is on the threshing floor. He judges the cause of the widow, decides the case of the orphan.” So to the biblical reader, the idea of a king convening his court and his prophets by the city gate on a threshing-floor would not have seemed all that strange. Additionally, since the purpose of the prophetic gathering was to give divine justification to Ahab’s plans, it would have been useful for such a gathering to have been held in a public space, rather than within the confines of the palace. 99.  Keel (1986, 695), citing a variety of Medieval Jewish commentaries, offers several solutions to this conundrum: that they were false prophets; that they were actually the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who also prophesized in the name of the God of Israel; or even that they were true prophets, whose very unanimity made their prophecy suspect! Japhet (1993, 759) makes a similar point by quoting the Talmud (b. Sanh. 89a), that “no two prophets prophesy in precisely the same way.” 100.  This accepting the common emendation of the MT bemigrôn “at Migron” to e b mô-gôren, “within the threshing-floor,” for which see McCarter 1980, 232, 235. 101.  McCarter actually uses the “biblical” spelling “Daniel.”

108

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Not surprisingly, Ahab’s four hundred court prophets tell the two kings what they know their master wants to hear, although we should remember that their words were actually intended to sooth Jehoshaphat’s doubts. One of them, Zedekiah son of Chenaanah, even uses “horns of iron” as a tangible prop, similar to other prophets’ occasional use of symbolic acts or devices.102 Jehoshaphat, however, insists on hearing a second opinion, perhaps because he realizes that the prophets are playing their assigned roles. Some commentators have seen the names Zedekiah (“Yahweh is just”) and Chenaanah (which could be related to “Canaan”) as ironic for the leader of a band of “false prophets” (see Klein 2012, 263). However neither the narrator nor Jehoshaphat ever insinuates that the four hundred were “false prophets.” Ahab then admits that there is one more prophet, Micaiah son of Imlah, but adds that he hates him because he always prophesizes bad things.103 This is a fascinating comment on the role of the prophet as perceived by the author’s characterization of Ahab. The prophet is not just God’s messenger, and not only a seer of future events, but also has the power to influence those events. Should Ahab only hear the favorable prophesies of the four hundred, events will turn out favorably, but should he also hear Micaiah’s negative words, the events will justify those words.104 Micaiah son of Imlah is not mentioned by name anywhere outside of this story (in Kings and Chronicles), but both rabbinic sources (b. Sanh. 89b) and Josephus (Ant. 8.389–396) identified this prophetic adversary of Ahab with the anonymous “one of the sons of the prophets” who had condemned Ahab for releasing Ben-hadad in 1 Kgs 20:35–43 (see also Keel 1986, 696). In fact, some of these ancient commentators even assumed that Micaiah had been imprisoned by Ahab previously, an idea 102.  See, for example, Jer. 27 or Ezek. 4. See Stacey 1990 for an analysis of “prophetic drama.” In this case, Stacey (1990, 89) emphasizes the importance of horns in biblical imagery in general, and suggests that Zedekiah’s act was based on a known pre-battle ritual that involved horns. 103.  As emphasized by Firth (2000), the reader of Kings would have doubtless been surprised that the one prophet whom Ahab hates and who always says bad things about him was not Elijah. To the reader of Chronicles this would have been less of a surprise, since Chronicles does not relate the entire Elijah cycle. 104.  This idea has been expanded by Noll (2012), who sees the four hundred as “true” prophets and Micaiah as a “false” prophet, who in the end conveys a true message from Yahweh. In his view, the Micaiah story was originally written as a criticism of the test between true and false prophets in Deut. 18:22. Rofé (1976, 240) considers Micaiah and the four hundred to have belonged to different “classes” of prophets: while Micaiah was an actual witness to the divine council, the four hundred were forced to depend on “spirits” for their prophecies, and this one happened to be “a lying spirit.”



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

109

that could be supported by the fact that Ahab’s messenger in v. 8 seems to know exactly where to find Micaiah quickly enough, so that the kings were still assembled by the gate when he returned with his charge.105 The name Micaiah, ‫מיכיהו‬, literally means “who is like Yahweh,” and also appears in the abbreviated form ‫מיכה‬, Micah. While this is not obvious in translation, in the Hebrew text of our story in both Chronicles and Kings the longer form predominates, but the shorter form is used in 2 Chron. 18:14, and v. 8 features the form ‫ מיכהו‬as the ketib, vocalized ‫ מיכיהו‬in the qeri. The shortened form Micah is also the name of the late eighth-century prophet Micah the Morashthite (“Micah of Moresheth” in NRSV), whose name is mentioned only in the superscription of the book that bears his name (Mic. 1:1) and in a later reference in Jer. 26:18 (the ketib there being ‫)מיכיה‬. Another well-known character by the same name is the protagonist of the story in Judges 17–18, where the longer form ‫ מיכיהו‬is used in 17:1 and 4, followed by an additional 19 occurrences of the shorter form through the end of ch. 18. A “Micaiah son of Gemariah son of Shaphan” is also mentioned in Jer. 26:11 and 13, although there the MT spells it ‫מכיהו‬. One of the officials listed in 2 Kgs 22:12 is “Achbor son of Micaiah” (MT ‫)מיכיה‬, while the parallel text in 2 Chron. 34:20 calls him “Abdon son of Micah” (‫)מיכה‬. Several additional minor characters bearing this name are scattered through the Bible, one of whom is Micah son of Merib-baal son of Saul, spelled ‫ מיכה‬in 1 Chron. 8:34–35 and 9:40–41, but ‫ מיכא‬in 2 Sam. 9:12. The exchange of the final he for aleph, incidentally also occurs in the spelling of the name of our Micaiah’s father Imlah, consistently spelled ‫ ימלה‬in 1 Kings 22 and ‫ ימלא‬in 2 Chronicles 18. Japhet (1993, 762) notes one additional peculiarity of the Micaiah story: despite the fact that Micaiah is presented as someone who “prophesizes” bad things in v. 7 and despite his “prophet-like” behavior, he is never actually called a “prophet.” In this story, the “prophets” are Ahab’s four hundred. The sentiment here is possibly similar to that seen in Amos 7:14–15: “I am no prophet, nor a prophet’s son; but I am a herdsman, and a dresser of sycamore trees, and the Lord took me from following the flock, and the Lord said to me, Go, prophesy to my people Israel” – the true messenger of God is not necessarily a professional prophet, divining at a royal temple, but rather someone who has received God’s calling. 105.  This idea was further developed by Zucker (2013, 157–59); he understands Ahab’s words to Micaiah in v. 15 – “how many times must I make you swear that you will tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?” – as indicating that Ahab and Micaiah must have met before on several occasions, and suggests that Micaiah had accompanied his master Elijah on several of his confrontations with the king.

110

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Micaiah’s reply to the messenger who warns him to speak favorably, “as the Lord lives, whatever my God says, that I will speak,” evokes memories of another seer, who is also never called a “prophet,” and who also did not say what the king who summoned him wished to hear but rather what God told him to say: Balaam son of Beor (Num. 22:38; 23:12, 26; 24:13). However in the case of Balaam, a foreign king hired a foreign seer intending to hear a negative prophecy about Israel, and heard Israel being blessed instead. Here, two Israelite kings summon an Israelite seer, wishing to hear good tidings but receiving bad news instead. Did the writer of the “original” Micaiah story have Balaam in mind? It would seem impossible to know for sure. Considering all of this, Micaiah’s first answer to Ahab’s query is surprising: “Go up and succeed and they will be given into your hand” is exactly what we would think that the king wanted to hear, and presumably not what God had told Micaiah! The king’s reaction is also surprising: rather than turning to Jehoshaphat and claiming vindication, he demanded that Micaiah tell him “the truth.” Only after hearing Micaiah’s short parable, which he interpreted as bad news, did Ahab feel vindicated. The first part of Micaiah’s parable is clear enough: the vision of Israel as sheep in need of a shepherd appears in Num. 27:17; Isa. 13:14; Jer. 23:1–4; Zech. 10:2; 14:7 and more. Nahum 3:18 speaks of the people of Assyria as sheep scattered on the mountains while their shepherds slumber. The parable also brings to mind David’s plea for the people of Israel in 2 Sam. 24:17 = 1 Chron. 21:17, “but these sheep, what have they done?” The second part of the parable, “these have no master; each man shall return to his home in peace,” is more difficult to understand, since usually only the victor of a battle returns home in peace. Here, however, Israel’s peaceful return is dependent on their losing their master.106 Ahab understands this, and later, in v. 26, has Micaiah imprisoned until his own peaceful return, to which Micaiah replies, “if you return in peace, the Lord has not spoken by me.” If the entire Micaiah episode seems to be artificially placed within this chapter, Micaiah’s vision of the heavenly court seems even more so. Micaiah had already foreseen the outcome of the battle, and a direct transition from v. 17 to v. 25 would have been smooth enough. However, in 106.  The difficulty in understanding the literal meaning of this phrase caused Keel (1986, 699) to offer four alternative proposals: (1) that they will return in peace despite having no master; (2) that this reflects the king of Aram’s orders in v. 30 to harm no-one but the king of Israel; (3) following Qimḥi in his commentary on Kings, that only a few Israelites were harmed in the battle; (4) that the “man” in “each man” refers to Jehoshaphat, who indeed did arrive home in peace (19:1).



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

111

the present form of the narrative, Micaiah now proclaims a second vision, this time of the heavenly court, preceded by a typical oracular, “therefore hear the word of the Lord,” which does not really fit the context, since what follows is not God’s speech but Micaiah’s own vision.107 Micaiah’s vision of the heavenly court has been compared to several other such visions in the Bible, such as Isa. 6:1–13 and Job 1:6. But here the most immediate comparison is to the two kings sitting enthroned on the threshing floor by the gate; all their earthly glory means little when compared to Yahweh’s own court. And this court is convened for the specific purpose of “enticing” Ahab to be defeated at Ramoth-gilead. As noted by Klein (2012, 264), the “spirit” (rûaḥ) that volunteers for the task is “a personification of the spirit that possesses other prophets,” such as Samuel and Elijah. But now the task that Yahweh himself assigned to the spirit is to deceive Ahab, to be “a spirit of falsehood in the mouths of all his prophets.” Micaiah’s closing statement, “and the Lord has spoken bad of you,” is an answer to Ahab’s grievance that Micaiah only prophesizes bad things: the “bad” prophecies come from God; Micaiah is only the messenger. The reaction of Zedekiah, head of the “professional” prophets, is quite understandable; having just been called, at least in essence, a false prophet by Micaiah, he strikes Micaiah on the face and challenges his authenticity as a prophet. Conversely, Micaiah’s reply about Zedekiah’s hiding in an inner room is rather enigmatic. It is usually taken to refer to the upcoming military defeat (for example, by Klein 2012, 265), although we should recall that Micaiah’s prophecy was that only Ahab would be killed and that his men would return home peacefully. Rofé (1976, 237) understood it as meaning that Zedekiah would hide himself because of the shame of his prophecy not being fulfilled. Keel (1986, 701) and Japhet (1993, 766) understood Micaiah’s “you will see…” as referring to Zedekiah’s inner sight – from his “inner room,” Zedekiah will be forced to acknowledge the truth of Micaiah’s vision. The king’s reaction is also understandable, even predictable. He orders Micaiah imprisoned until his own return. Japhet (1993, 766) pointed out that while in Kings this is the first and only time that a prophet is imprisoned (Kings does not tell of Jeremiah’s imprisonment), Chronicles actually has a precedent: Asa’s imprisonment of Hanani the seer in 2 Chron. 16:10. However, there is a difference: Hanani was imprisoned simply in order to appease the king’s anger. Micaiah’s detainment was not 107.  Rofé (1976, 238) considers vv. 17–18 (in Kings; 16–17 in Chronicles) to be a secondary addition to the oracle.

112

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

necessarily just out of spite: Micaiah, with his prophecies of defeat, might dishearten the troops. Additionally, if the king did believe that the prophet could have some influence on the outcome of his prophecy, his imprisonment with minimal rations until the king’s return “in peace,” would be a good incentive for the prophet to act (by prayer or mantic activity) towards that outcome. Micaiah’s reply, “if you return in peace, the Lord has not spoken by me,” is a reaffirmation of his insistence that he only said what God told him to say, and also matches the test of the true prophet in Deut. 18:22: “If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.”108 Neither Amon the governor of the city or Joash the king’s son are known from additional sources. Amon is the name of a future king of Judah and men named Joash are to rule both kingdoms. Both titles are also known from other biblical texts and from inscriptions. “Governors of the city” are mentioned in Judg. 9:30; 2 Kgs 23:8 and 2 Chron. 34:8.109 Additional “sons of the king,” who are not specifically known to be the actual sons of the king, appear in 2 Chron. 28:7; Jer. 36:26 and 38:6, the last two in relation to the imprisonment of the prophet Jeremiah. Some scholars are of the opinion that these individuals were actually not members of the royal family, and that “son of the king” was the title given to some sort of palace official. However, Fox (2000, 43–53) has shown that there is no justification for this theory and that in Egypt and in Mesopotamia as well, royal sons held various posts within the palace administration. It may be pointed out that the story of Michaiah’s imprisonment parallels that of Jeremiah’s (Jer. 38) in more ways than one. In both stories, the prophet insisted on delivering his message of doom to the king. In both stories, the prophet was then imprisoned for disheartening the people. In both stories, it is “the son of the king” who is in charge of the prison. In both stories, the prophet’s opponent is a Zedekiah – in one case a court prophet, in the other case the king himself. Both stories actually mention that the prophet will go hungry in prison – in one case as a part of his punishment, in the other because there was no bread left in the city. However, the point of the prophets’ incarceration is different: Jeremiah was thrown into a muddy pit or cistern and almost left to die; Micaiah’s imprisonment was supposed to be a test of the veracity of his prophecy. And finally, while Jeremiah is eventually rescued, first from the 108.  Or “by him,” depending on whether the object is the prophet of his word. 109.  For a discussion of this title and its Mesopotamian and Egyptian parallels see Fox 2000, 150–58.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

113

pit and then from prison, Michaiah’s fate remains a mystery. We are not told if, after Ahab’s death, he is recognized as a true prophet and set free, or blamed for the tragedy and put to death, or perhaps simply left to rot in prison. The very last words attributed to Micaiah, “hear, you peoples, all of you!,” seem to have been “grafted” to the end of v. 27, with little connection to the narrative. As already noted, it is not totally clear who the speaker is: Bodner (2003) suggested that it was actually Ahab, in mockery of standard prophetic utterances. But even assuming that the speaker is Micaiah, who is he addressing and for what purpose? Who are “you peoples, all of you”? Within the context of the narrative, Micaiah would seem to be addressing his final words to all those present on the threshing floor, and Dillard (1987, 183), following the NIV, renders “Mark my words, all you people.” However, while the Hebrew word am can mean “assembly,” the plural ammîm, as appears here, almost always refers to “nations” or “peoples.” Gevaryahu’s suggestion (1985, 429) that the reference is to the kings and people of the two “nations” of Israel and Judah seems to miss the point: Micaiah’s final words are not intended for Ahab’s court, but for the world at large. But this still seems out of place in this specific setting.110 What is very clear is that Micaiah’s last words echo the opening words of the canonical prophet Micah in the book that bears his name: “Hear, you peoples, all of you; listen, O earth, and all that is in it; and let the Lord God be a witness against you, the Lord from his holy temple” (Mic. 1:2). We have already shown that the two prophets basically shared the same name, “Micah” being a shortened form of “Micaiah,” with the Hebrew text of the Bible not always differentiating between the two. What is also clear, is that Micah the Morashthite lived “in the days of Kings Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah of Judah” (Mic. 1:1), which would place him in the second half of the eighth century BCE, over a century after Micaiah son of Imlah would have appeared before Ahab and Jehoshaphat. So the two are very definitely not the same person. What, then, is the connection? Not a few commentators have assumed that either the author of 1 Kings 22 or a later redactor (assuming these words to have been “a gloss” or “a later addition”)111 either confused the two (Myers 1965, 2:104) or even actually “sought to identify Micaiah 110.  Keel (1986, 702) noted that ammîm sometimes refers to the tribes of Israel, but even that does not seem to fit the context here. 111.  They are absent from some mss. of the LXX B, were thus relegated to a marginal note in the 1970 NEB translation. This was criticized by Ball (1977, 94) and other commentators.

114

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

with the late-eighth-century prophet, Micah the Morashtite” (so Cogan 2000, 493; for additional expressions of the same opinion see Curtis and Madsen 1910, 398; Shinan and Zakovitch 1986, 274; Dillard 1987, 142; Sweeney 2007, 261).112 However, as recognized by Ball (1977, 92), this is highly unlikely. The editors of Kings and of Chronicles were certainly aware of the century or more that separated the reign of Jehoshaphat from those of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, and later redactors were not likely to confuse the two. On the other hand, as Ball also pointed out, there is more in common between the book of Micah and the short oracle of Micaiah than just his closing exclamation. Like Micaiah, Micah too is concerned with false prophecy, specifically with prophets who prophesize that all will be well (2:11; 3:5–11). Micah also speaks of a “spirit of falsehood” (2:11).113 Like Micaiah, Micah also prophesizes to both kingdoms (albeit from a Judahite perspective and without confronting the kings themselves). And finally, Micah also uses the imagery of Israel as a flock of sheep (although with a different outcome; 2:12–13; 5:3). In Ball’s opinion, Micaiah’s final words were purposely added by the Deuteronomistic editors of Kings, not in order to identify the two prophets, but rather in order to draw the reader’s attention to the common themes that serve to connect the two books. Rofé (1976, 239–422) stressed one additional difference between the prophecy of Micaiah and that of the four hundred, which may lead us to a solution of sorts. In his speech, Micaiah claimed to have been privy to God’s own council, which was the source of his vision. The four hundred, Zedekiah included, had only been informed by “the spirit” – and a lying one at that! In Rofé’s opinion, prophecy “by the spirit” (sometimes called “enthusiasm”) is typical of early, pre-classical prophets such as Samuel, Saul, Ahijah, Elijah and Elisha, while the later “classical” prophets such as Jeremiah considered prophecy by the spirit to be an inferior and even false class of prophecy (a similar view is expressed by Cogan 2000, 497). Accordingly, Rofé defined the Micaiah story as a “paradigm” and considered it to reflect the concerns of a late-monarchic-period writer, rather than those that would have befitted its ninth-century setting (such

112.  Japhet (1993, 766) agrees that this “secondary gloss” was “intended to identify Micaiah the son of Imlah with ‘Micah of Moresheth’,” then adds, “For the Chronicler, however, who found this exhortation in his Vorlage, it strikes the final chord for Micaiah’s exit: the whole world must witness his authenticity as a prophet.” 113.  This is not obvious in most English translations, which render the Hebrew ‫לו־איש‬ ‫ הלך רוח ושקר כזב‬as “if someone were to go about uttering empty falsehoods” (so NRSV), obfuscating the Hebrew word for “spirit.”



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

115

as the struggle against Baalism). As such, we should be much more concerned with the meaning of the story than with the historicity and actual identity of the protagonists. Another problem that has been dealt with by a multitude of scholars is what would seem to be a basic theological conundrum: at least on its surface, the Micaiah narrative seems to indicate that Yahweh purposely sent “a lying spirit” in order to entice Ahab to his death. The four hundred are presented as neither “idolatrous” nor “false” – they tell the truth as conveyed to them by a spirit sent by Yahweh himself, which only Micaiah claims is false. Why would God lie to four hundred prophets who prophesy in his name? To some scholars, this conundrum is indicative of a basic flaw in biblical theology. Carroll (1991, 44) called it “a prime example of Yahweh’s involvement with lies.” Most, however, have attempted to deal with the problem within a general framework of biblical theology, coming up with a wide range of solutions. Goldenberg (1982), based on his interpretation of rabbinic exegesis of the Micaiah story, sees the rabbis as dealing with the problem of divinely inspired false prophecy by detaching “the spirit” from God: “the spirit” that volunteered to mislead Ahab was none other than the spirit of Naboth, recently murdered by Ahab, now returned to take his revenge.114 According to Japhet (1993, 763–64), the theological problem is that while Ahab’s death in battle had been decreed, he must also “be granted an element of free choice.” So Ahab is given two prophecies and must choose between them. His choice is determined by his character, his disposition and his reading of the situation. The fact that he ignores Micaiah shows that his agreeing to Jehoshaphat’s request was simply lip-service to “the word of the Lord”: he was only going to accept that prophecy that would fit his plans. In Japhet’s own words, “the idea presented here…that a bone fide prophet of the Lord may declare a false inspired message, is daring in the extreme.” It portrays all of the prophets, Micaiah and the four hundred, as “unresisting channels” for God’s messages, even should they be false. This shakes the credibility of the prophet “on the human plane.”

114.  The idea that “the spirit” was that of Naboth appears in b. Sanh. 89a and in the Targum. However Goldenberg (1982, 96–98) admits that the use of this identification in order to distance God from its “lies” is his own extrapolation from what the rabbis wrote, here and in other contexts. For a summary of previous analyses of the Micaiah story see Roth 1982.

116

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Moberly (2003) argued that Micaiah’s vision, like Nathan in his confrontation with David (2 Sam. 12:1–7), was intended to move Ahab to correct his ways. The vision was not primarily about Ahab’s death but rather about Israel without a leader; it was Ahab who interpreted it as being specifically aimed at himself. According to Sweeney (2007, 258) the story is meant “to point to YHWH’s control of Ahab’s death” – to ensure that the readers understand that Ahab deserved to die, and Yahweh made it happen. Sweeney then goes on to point out that Ahab seems to be dealt with more harshly than David had for pretty much the same crime – arranging the death of an innocent man who happened to possess something that the king wanted. Ben Zvi (2010), who considered the story to reflect the concerns of the literati in Persian-period Yehud, saw it as a sort of intellectual exercise meant to test the limits of prophetic (that is, human) knowledge of the divine. God, like the earthly kings on which he is modeled, may use “strategic misinformation” to achieve his plans. It is his human agents who might have difficulty discerning truth from untruth. The Micaiah story, then, despite its brevity and whatever its redaction history, would seem to play an important role in its present setting in Kings. However, our final question must be about its role in Chronicles. Why, of all the prophetic stories in Kings, did the Chronicler decide to keep this one? In what way was Micaiah more meaningful to him than his “contemporaries” Elijah or Elisha? While it is possible that the Chronicler was as interested in the profound questions of truth and prophecy as was the author of Kings, it would seem that his prime interest in this story was the role played by Jehoshaphat. As already pointed out, Chronicles transfers this story from the context of Ahab’s rule to that of Jehoshaphat. As shown by Klein, where Kings gives no reason for Jehoshaphat’s visit to Samaria, in Chronicles his visit is mentioned right after the reference to his marriage alliance with Ahab, although Klein probably went too far when he claimed that “the trip was part of the marriage agreement” (1995, 647). The statement “and he went down after years” serves to signify that the alliance (and the marriage) had been in effect for some time; Jehoshaphat’s journey was a visit of one respected king to another, and the feast that Ahab served is proof of this. The alliance, however, was not a good thing in the Chronicler’s view. Because of it, Ahab could “seduce” Jehoshaphat into participating in a war in which he had no business. Jehoshaphat was about to join Ahab on a journey, which God himself in his heavenly council had decreed would lead to Ahab’s death. Jehoshaphat’s insistence on hearing an additional prophet does not really change the negative picture, since Jehoshaphat



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

117

did not follow through on Micaiah’s vision and followed Ahab into battle anyway (so Robertson 1982, 144). Although Micaiah’s almost final words, “If you return in peace, the Lord has not spoken by me,” are stated in the singular (‫)אם־שוב תשוב‬, in the Chronicler’s mind they seem to be addressed to Jehoshaphat as well as Ahab. The Battle of Ramoth-gilead and Jehoshaphat’s Near-Death The description of the battle in vv. 28–34 continues to parallel 1 Kgs 22:29–35 closely, but with subtle differences that become more pronounced as the narrative progresses. The two kings march toward Ramoth-gilead. Ahab disguises himself in an attempt to evade the prophecy of his own death in battle,115 but asks (or orders) Jehoshaphat to remain in his own royal gear. Why does the king of Judah not fear death? Does he feel that the prophecy of death does not apply to him? That his righteousness protects him? In Chronicles at least, Jehoshaphat’s joining with Ahab depleted much of his moral credit. As Klein (2012, 266) commented, “By giving orders to Jehoshaphat, Ahab showed his political and military superiority. By taking orders from Ahab, Jehoshaphat showed his theological weakness.” However there is no thwarting the decrees of the divine council. Even the king of Aram played his part to the letter, by commanding his officers to aim their attack only at the king of Israel. The divine plan almost went off course when the Arameans mistakenly identified the royally garbed Jehoshaphat as their target and quickly closed in. Jehoshaphat’s cry for help is the first major divergence between the Kings version of the battle and that of Chronicles. Kings does not specify what or to whom Jehoshaphat shouted out – he may have been calling his troops for help, he may have been telling the Arameans that he was not their target, or he might have been shouting out to God. The Chronicler chose the latter option, and added the words, “and the Lord helped him, and God drew them away from him,” making Jehoshaphat’s shout a prayer which was immediately answered. This is usually taken as an interpretative addition by the Chronicler’s own hand, although as noted, the words “and the Lord helped him” do appear in the Lucianic recension of the Greek text of Kings, which may be an indication that it was already in the Chronicler’s source. In any case, taken with the outcome of “and God drew them away from him. And when the officers of the chariots saw that it was not the king of Israel, they turned back from pursuing him,” Chronicles’ end 115.  We should remember that in Kings, Ahab had been destined to die by Elijah back in ch. 21, before the Micaiah affair. In Chronicles Ahab’s death is predicted only by Micaiah.

118

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

result is that God came to Jehoshaphat’s rescue, causing the Arameans to realize their mistake, where in Kings they recognized it on their own. Jehoshaphat, unlike Ahab, is worthy of such rescue. Following this, Chronicles once again follows Kings almost to the letter until v. 34 (35 in Kings). At that point, after Ahab had been injured by a stray arrow that penetrated his armor and had asked to be taken back, Kings has “The battle increased that day, and the king was propped up in the chariot facing Aram; and he died in the evening, and the blood from the wound spilled into the chariot,” and then goes on to tell of the scattering of the army (as per Micaiah’s vision) and Ahab’s burial in Samaria while the dogs licked his blood and the prostitutes washed “as the Lord had said” (to Elijah, following the murder of Naboth). Chronicles adds “of Israel” to “the king,” and ends the story, and the chapter, with “and he died at sunset.” Since in Chronicles this whole story is a part of Jehoshaphat’s biography rather than Ahab’s, the gristly details of Ahab’s death are minimized and those of his burial and succession are simply ignored. As Chronicles had not recounted Elijah’s prophecy, there was no need to tell of its fulfillment. The only surprise is that the Chronicler neglected to point out the fulfillment of Micaiah’s prediction to Ahab. Its effect on Jehoshaphat will be made evident at the beginning of the next chapter. Chapter 19: 1 And Jehoshaphat king of Judah returned to his home, in peace, to Jerusalem.116 2 And Jehu son of Hanani the seer117 went out to face him,118 and said to King Jehoshaphat:119 Will you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Because of this, wrath is120 against you from before the Lord. 116.  The word order “returned to his home, in peace, to Jerusalem” is awkward in the Hebrew original as well. Most translations simplify with “returned in safety to his house in Jerusalem” (RSV), but as Japhet (1993, 768) points out, the verse follows Micaiah’s prophecy from 18:16 (“each shall return to his home in peace”) to the letter. 117.  The Greek here calls him “the prophet,” as he is designated in 1 Kgs 16:7, where he is recorded as prophesying to Baasha of Israel. 118.  ‫ויצא אל־פניו‬, literally “went out to his face,” rather than the usual ‫לפניו‬, “before him.” Most translations have “to meet him,” although Dillard (1987, 138) renders “appeared before him.” 119.  In the Greek, Jehoshaphat’s name is part of Jehu’s speech: “and said to the king, ‘Jehoshaphat, Will you help the wicked…’.” 120.  The noun ‫ קצף‬is used once in in the Bible to describe “foam upon water” (Hos. 10:7). In all other cases, the noun refers to “divine wrath.” The verbal form, which is never used in Chronicles, can sometimes refer to human anger as well (Gen. 41:10; Est. 1:12; 2:21). The verb that is usually used to describe divine qeṣep is ‫יצא‬, “to go/come out” as in Num. 17:11 [Eng. 16:46]. However, wrath can also simply “be,” as in 2 Kgs 3:27 (‫ ;ויהי קצף־גדל‬NRSV translates “great wrath came upon”). Here there is no verb at



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

119

3 Nevertheless, good things have been found in you,121 for you destroyed the asherot122 out of the land, and have set your heart to seek God. 4 And Jehoshaphat resided in Jerusalem; and he went out again123 among the people, from Beer-sheba to the hills of Ephraim, and brought them back to the Lord, God of their fathers. 5 And he appointed124 judges in the land, in all the fortified cities of Judah, city by city.125 6 And said to the judges: Consider126 what you do, for you judge not for man but for the Lord;127 he is with you in matters of judgment. 7 And now, let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take care what you do, for with the Lord our God there is no injustice, or partiality, or taking of bribes. 8 And also in Jerusalem Jehoshaphat appointed of the Levites and the priests and the heads of families of Israel, to give judgment for the Lord and for disputes; and they returned128 to Jerusalem. 9 He commanded them, saying: Thus you shall act in the fear of the Lord,129 in faithfulness, and all, leaving different translators to add both verb and tense at their discretion. See the commentary. 121.  Myers (1965, 2:107): “some good things are to your credit”; NJPS: “there is some good in you”; Klein (2012, 258): “good things were found in you.” 122.  Usually translated “sacred poles/groves/trees” and the like. See the commentary on 2 Chron. 14. 123.  ‫וישב‬, wayyešeb, “and he resided (literally ‘sat’)” and ‫וישב‬, wayašob, “and he returned” (went out again) are spelled identically in the unpointed Hebrew text and sound similar, lending a sense of connectivity between Jehoshaphat’s returning to dwell in Jerusalem after the war and his setting out to reform the nation. Dillard (1987, 146), “Though Jehoshaphat lived in Jerusalem, he went out…,” and Klein (2012, 271), “…but he again went out…,” consider there to be a tension between Jehoshaphat’s residing in Jerusalem and his going out among the people. NRSV and NJPS consider the connection between the two to be temporal: “Jehoshaphat remained in Jerusalem a while and then went out among the people…” 124.  ‫ויעמד‬, hiphil of ‫עמד‬, “to stand,” meaning literally “he made to stand.” As pointed out by Klein (2012, 274), in Chronicles this form is regularly used to mean “to appoint.” 125.  Keel (1986, 706) understands the repetition as indicating both fortified and unfortified cities. 126.  ‫ראו‬, literally “see,” by context “take heed” (KJV), “pay attention” (Dillard 1987, 146), “consider” (NRSV, NJPS). Klein (2012, 271) is more literal: “look how you act.” 127.  NJPS: “not on behalf of man, but on behalf of the Lord.” NRSV is similar. 128.  So the MT and NJPS. The plural form ‫וישבו‬, “they returned” is difficult if it refers to Jehoshaphat returning after his “going out” in v. 4 and having completed his mission. Keel (1986, 707) takes it to refer to Jehoshaphat and his men. Others assume a slight corruption and render “and they lived in Jerusalem” or “for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” For additional options see commentary. 129.  The MT takes “Thus you shall act in fear of the Lord” as a single clause, explained by “in faithfulness, and with a whole heart.” Dillard (1987, 146) agrees: “You must serve in the fear of Yahweh with faithfulness and singleness of heart,” and Klein (2012, 271) translates in similar vein. RSV takes it slightly further: “Thus you shall do in

120

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

with a whole heart. 10 And any dispute that comes to you from your brethren who dwell in their cities, between blood and blood,130 between instruction131 and commandment and laws and statutes,132 you shall advise them, so that they may not incur guilt before the Lord, lest there be wrath upon you and your brethren; do so, and you will not incur guilt. 11 And behold, Amariah the head priest133 is over you in all matters of the Lord; and Zebadiah134 son of Ishmael, the governor of the house of Judah in all matters of the king; and the officerLevites135 are before you; be strong and act,136 and may the Lord be with the good!137

Commentary: Jehoshaphat Appoints Judges Jehoshaphat and Jehu the Seer The first three verses of ch. 19 could be seen as a direct continuation of the previous chapter. The connection is accentuated right from the start: Jehoshaphat’s return “to his home in peace” after his narrow escape from the battle of Ramoth-gilead, is a literal fulfillment of Micaiah’s prediction in 18:16. However, unlike the end of ch. 18, which was adapted from 1 Kings 22, all of ch. 19 is unparalleled in Kings. Jehoshaphat, upon arriving in Jerusalem, is greeted by Jehu son of Hanani the seer. Jehu himself is known from 1 Kgs 16:1, 7 as a prophet who rebuked King Baasha of Israel, and is presumably assumed by the Chronicler to be the son of Hanani the seer, who was imprisoned by the fear of the LORD, in faithfulness, and with your whole heart: whenever a case comes to you…” NRSV and NJPS understand the opposite: they take “Thus you shall act” as the basic instruction, and “in fear of the Lord, in faithfulness and with wholeness of heart” as the details of that commandment. 130.  ‫בין דם לדם‬. Klein (2012, 271): “Between one kind of homicide and another.” See the commentary. 131.  In this case, we have translated ‫ תורה‬as “instruction” rather than “Torah.” See the commentary. 132.  For various translations and explanations of these terms see the commentary. 133.  ‫ כהן הראש‬is usually translated “chief priest” and taken to be the equivalent of “high priest,” but see the commentary. 134.  A few Hebrew, Syriac and Arabic manuscripts have ‫זכריהו‬, Zechariah, instead of ‫זבדיהו‬, Zebadiah (Dillard 1987, 146), reflecting the interchange of the graphically similar ‫ב‬/‫ כ‬and ‫ד‬/‫ר‬. 135.  It is not clear whether the text means that the Levites who were there were to act as officers (so Klein 2012, 271) or that there were Levites whose regular task it was to be officers (so NJPS: “the Levitical officials”). See the commentary for a discussion of the meaning of the term šoṭerim. 136.  NRSV: “Deal courageously.” NJPS: “act with resolve.” 137.  Dillard (1987, 147): “and may Yahweh be on the side of the good.”



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

121

Asa. We have no information, however, about the relationship between Hanani’s son and Asa’s son before the incident recounted here. Jehu’s rebuke is a strange one. Jehoshaphat is admonished for “loving” the “wicked” Ahab (whose name is not mentioned) “who hates the Lord.” As shown in the past by Moran (1963) and by Thompson (1974, 1979), the terms “love” (‫ )אהב‬and “hate” (‫ )ש ֹנא‬can have political connotations in ancient Near Eastern treaties and diplomatic correspondence. In this case, “a political alliance (love) with Ahab, a man who hated (śanâ) Yahweh was not acceptable to Yahweh” (Thompson 1979, 203). As pointed out by Jarick (2007, 126), Jehoshaphat, who had insisted on consulting prophets of Yahweh before going to war, had apparently not done so before making a marriage alliance with Ahab in the first place. For this, there was/is/will be “wrath” (divine anger) against him. The absence of the verb preceding the noun “wrath” in the Hebrew makes it impossible to know whether this is meant to warn of future punishment, to explain the present situation (perhaps Jehoshaphat’s depleted military after the defeat at Ramoth-gilead) or to clarify the past. Assuming the latter, we would read it as “you, who joined the wicked Ahab, deserved to die with him. However, since you do have some good in you, you have returned home in peace.” If the former, Keel (1986, 705) pointed out that the divine qeṣep, “wrath,” plays a central role in the defeat of Jehoshaphat and Joram son of Ahab in Moab in 2 Kgs 3:27, and Williamson (1982, 279) suggested that Jehoshaphat’s admonition to his judges in v. 10, “lest there be wrath,” is the Chronicler’s way of showing how Jehoshaphat avoided that very “wrath.” McKenzie (2007, 307) feels that Jehoshaphat’s lack of reaction to Jehu’s rebuke, contrasted to Asa’s imprisonment of Hanani, actually serves to confirm Jehu’s statement about his righteousness, while Wilson (1983, 244) feels that the ensuing judicial reform was itself a response to Jehu’s rebuke. In any case, as Japhet (1993, 768–69) and others have emphasized, the language is typically Chronistic, making this section more a statement of the Chronicler’s ideology than anything else. Jehoshaphat Appoints Judges in Judah The rest of ch. 19 deals with Jehoshaphat’s famous “judicial reform.” According to this section, Jehoshaphat appointed judges in all the fortified cities of Judah and in Jerusalem as well, under the authority of Amariah the chief priest and Zebadiah son of Ishmael as well as additional priests and Levites, ordering them to “act in the fear of the Lord, in faithfulness, and with a whole heart.” This section is unparalleled in Kings, and scholarly attention has for the most part revolved around the following issues:

122

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

1. What is the ideology that lies behind the judicial system that is described in this chapter? 2. What is the relationship between this “judicial reform” and Jehoshaphat’s “teaching mission” in 2 Chron. 17:7–9? 3. To what extent can the episode be considered “historical”? 4. How does this pericope contribute to the Chronicler’s overall picture of Jehoshaphat’s reign? However before dealing with these questions, we should first examine the text itself more closely. Verse 4 is actually a story in its own right. In it, Jehoshaphat is described as personally going out among the people “from Beer-sheba to the hills of Ephraim” and causing them to “return” to the Lord. In the Hebrew, this verse is almost a pun, with three very similar verbs, wayyēšeb, “he sat (resided),” wayyâšôb, “he went back” (“went out again”), wayšibêm, “he returned them” (“brought them back”), leading the action. The geographical description, “from Beer-sheba to the hills of Ephraim” is unusual. Beer-sheba is the chief city of Israel’s southern area, the Negeb, and as such is often mentioned in the phrase “from Dan to Beer-sheba,” schematically denoting Israel’s northern and southern frontiers.138 After the division of the monarchy, Beer-sheba retained its position as the southern city of Judah. The southern kingdom’s northern border, however, seems to have fluctuated. 2 Chronicles 17:2 has already told us of Jehoshaphat’s control of cities in the hills of Ephraim. Historically, Jehoshaphat’s alliance with the kings of Israel makes it seem unlikely that he would retain any territory to which the northern kingdom laid claim, so “hills of Ephraim” both in 17:2 and here must either refer to the area of Benjamin (south of Bethel, which seems to have remained under northern control) or be a purely literary construct.139 The verse does not tell us what means he used to convince the people to repent, or even why Jehoshaphat felt the need to do so. He had already destroyed the asherot, and the text does not tell us that the people had taken up idolatry again. Perhaps this is meant to be Jehoshaphat’s response to Jehu’s rebuke in the previous verses. Although v. 4 is usually considered to be the beginning of the “judicial reform” story, there is also no explicit connection between Jehoshaphat’s 138.  See, as one example of many, 2 Sam. 24:2, and note that the parallel text in 1 Chron. 21:2 reverses the order – “from Beer-sheba to Dan.” 139.  Might there be a connection between this description of Jehoshaphat’s realm and judiciary with that attributed to Samuel, who “went on a circuit year by year to Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah; and he judged Israel in all these places. Then he would come back to Ramah, for his home was there, and there also he administered justice to Israel (1 Sam. 7:16–17),” and whose sons “were judges in Beer-sheba” (8:2)?



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

123

“bringing them back to the Lord” and his appointment of judges. The waw in wayyamēd, “and he appointed,” could be a sign of consecutive action (“and then he appointed”), but it could also simply refer to an additional act of the king (“and he also appointed”). The actual “judicial reform” narrative begins with v. 5. The “judicial reform” itself actually consists of two parts. In vv. 5–7 Jehoshaphat appoints judges “in the land, in all the fortified cities of Judah, city by city,” admonishing them to fear the Lord when judging, to be impartial and not to take bribes. The text does not identify the judges as being priests or Levites or as belonging to the royal bureaucracy. The description of the places in which Jehoshaphat placed his judges, “in the land, in all the fortified cities of Judah, city by city,” seems rather repetitious. However, as many commentators have noted, there is a distinct connection between this account of Jehoshaphat’s actions and the law of appointing judges as set out in Deut. 16:18–20: You shall appoint judges and officials throughout your tribes, in all your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, and they shall render just decisions for the people. You must not distort justice; you must not show partiality; and you must not accept bribes, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of those who are in the right. Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, so that you may live and occupy the land that the Lord your God is giving you. (NRSV)

As such, Jehoshaphat’s “in the land” may be seen as equivalent to Deuteronomy’s “throughout your tribes,” naturally adjusted to the reality of the divided monarchy. The next phrase is slightly more problematic. Where Deuteronomy seemingly says “all your towns,” Chronicles has “in all the fortified cities of Judah, city by city.” Not a few commentators have pointed this out as a major difference between the law in Deuteronomy and the Jehoshaphat narrative – Jehoshaphat, as pictured in Chronicles, only appointed judges in fortified centers. Japhet (1993, 775), for example, sees Chronicles as “specifically limiting” the Deuteronomic stipulation. Jackson (2007, 380), assuming that Jehoshaphat’s reforms antedate the Deuteronomic legislation, sees Deuteronomy as “an expansion of the jurisdiction here attributed to Jehoshaphat.” Klein (2012, 274–75) assumes that Jehoshaphat located his judges in the fortified centers mentioned in 17:2, in which he had already stationed military forces, adding that the expression “city by city” is the way the Chronicler typically shows “distribution.”140 140.  See Klein 2012, 275 n. 19 for additional examples of this type of repetition in Chronicles.

124

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

However, the Chronicler’s description of Jehoshaphat’s actions may not be all that different from the law in Deut. 16:18. The Hebrew text there actually says not “in all your towns” as rendered by NRSV, but “in all your gates”;141 the understanding of this as meaning “all your towns” may have begun with the Greek πάσαις ταῖς πόλεσίν σου, but it is certainly possible that the Chronicler read “gates” (in whatever form he knew the law of Deut. 16:18) and inferred that this referred to fortified cities, since unfortified towns do not necessarily have gates.142 Keel (1986, 706), while assuming that Deut. 16:18 does imply “all your towns” and also assuming that this law was known to Jehoshaphat, took “all the fortified cities of Judah, city by city” to mean “first the fortified cities, and then the rest.” Jehoshaphat’s instructions to the judges also reflect the language of Deuteronomy: “You must not be partial in judging: hear out the small and the great alike; you shall not be intimidated by anyone” (Deut. 1:17); “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who is not partial and takes no bribe” (10:17); “You must not distort justice; you must not show partiality; and you must not accept bribes, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of those who are in the right” (16:19). This intertextual relationship between 2 Chronicles 19 and Deuteronomy will be further discussed below. The Jerusalem “High Court” and its Officials Verses 8–11 tell of Jehoshaphat’s establishing a court in Jerusalem. This court is described very differently from those set up throughout the land. Here, the court was made up of Levites, priests and “the heads of families in Israel,” in other words the aristocracy, led by “Amariah the chief priest” and by “Zebadiah son of Ishmael, the governor of the house of Judah.” The purpose of this court was to adjudicate “any dispute that comes to you from your brethren who dwell in their cities, between blood and blood, between instruction and commandment and laws and statutes, you shall advise them,” once again reflecting Deuteronomy (17:8–9): If a judicial decision is too difficult for you to make, between blood and blood, between judgment and judgment, between affliction and affliction143—any such matters of dispute in your gates—then you shall arise and go up to the place 141.  ‫ – בכל שעריך‬see the Vulgate “in omnibus portis” and the KJV “in all thy gates.” 142.  For a recent reassessment of the archaeological and historical data for Israelite gates and fortifications, with an emphasis on the ninth century BCE, see Ben-Ami and Wazana 2013. 143.  NRSV translates “between one kind of bloodshed and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another.” We have translated as literally as possible in order to emphasize the similarity between this text and that of 2 Chron. 19.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

125

that the Lord your God will choose. And you shall go to the Levitical priests and to the judge who shall be in those days; they shall announce to you the decision in the case.

As shown by Japhet (1993, 778), Chronicles begins its list of case-types for the Jerusalem court with exactly the same expression as that used by Deut. 17:8, “between blood and blood” (in other words, between different types of homicide), but then purposely diverges. Where Deuteronomy continues to list different types of cases using the “between…and…” formula, Chronicles goes on with a list of four different types of law: tôrâh, miṣwâh, ḥuqqîm, mišpaṭîm. These four categories of law, whatever their specific meanings, appear quite often in the Bible, giving Chronicles plenty of sources on which to draw. The first and fourth, in fact, appear in the very same passage in Deuteronomy (17:11): “Do according to the tôrâh that they instruct you and by the mišpaṭ that they tell you; do not stray from what they tell you left or right.” Examples of other combinations of these terms can be found in Exod. 18:16; Lev. 19:37; 26:3; Num. 36:13; Ps. 81:5; Ezra 7:10 and many more. Nehemiah 9:13 specifically states that all four were included in the Sinai revelation: “You came down also upon Mount Sinai, and spoke with them from heaven, and gave them right mišpaṭîm and true torôt, good ḥuqqîm and miṣwôt.” Chronicles takes all four as a group. In its rendering of Manasseh’s sins, where 2 Kgs 21:8 has, “if only they will be careful to do according to all that I have commanded them (ṣiwwitîm),144 and according to all the tôrâh that my servant Moses commanded (ṣiwwâh) them,” 2 Chronicles 33:8 adds: “if only they will be careful to do all that I have commanded them (ṣiwwitîm), all the tôrâh, the ḥuqqîm, and the mišpaṭîm by the hand of Moses.” In our case, Chronicles has Jehoshaphat instructing his judges to rule on all four. The Jerusalem court was to be headed by “Amariah the chief priest” and by “Zebadiah son of Ishmael, the governor of the house of Judah.” Neither are known from other sources. Two priests named Amariah, both of whom were fathers of Ahitubs and grandfathers of Zadoks, appear in the “list of the high priests” in 1 Chron. 5:33–38 [Eng. 6:7–12]. The second of these (assuming that they were two distinct individuals), was the son of an Azariah, “who served as priest in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem.” Considering the six decades or so between the death of Solomon and the enthroning of Jehoshaphat, and not knowing when in For ‫ נגע‬as “assault,” see Nelson 2002, 201–14. For “affliction,” with its connotations of disease, see Rofé 2001, 99–100. 144.  ‫צוה‬, ṣiwwāh, “commanded,” being the verbal equivalent of ‫מצוה‬, miṣwâh, “commandment.”

126

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Jehoshaphat’s twenty-five-year reign this appointment took place, both Azariah and Amariah would have had to have officiated for a very long time for that Azariah to be the same as this one – possible but not probable.145 His title kohên harôš, “head priest,” or more literally “priest of the head,” occurs mostly in Chronicles and is usually assumed to be equivalent to kohên gadôl, “great priest,” both referring to what in English is known as the “high priest.” However, our picture of the status and function of the high priest is mostly informed by sources from the Second Temple period, when the high priest was often the de facto, and sometimes the de jure, head of the Jewish nation. During the time of the monarchy, the king was head of the nation and the priests were under his charge. Rooke (1998, 194–96) even went as far as suggesting that kohên harôš be understood as “the head’s priest,” the “head” being the king. Amariah, then, is the king’s appointed priest, acting as judge “in all matters of the Lord.”146 The name Zebadiah and its shortened form Zabad (with several alternative spellings in the Hebrew) appears only in Chronicles and in Ezra, as the name of several different individuals. Most immediately, Zebadiah was one of the people sent out by Jehoshaphat to teach in the town of Judah in 2 Chron. 17:8, although there he was listed as a Levite while here he is “governor of the house of Judah.” The term nagîd, here translated as “governor,” seems to have different specific meanings in different situations. In many texts, most famously in 1 Samuel 9–10, the nagîd is the king or king-designate over all Israel. The term also seems to be used in this way by the Chronicler in describing the heirs of both David (Solomon, 1 Chron. 29:22) and Rehoboam (Abijah, 2 Chron. 11:22). In other contexts, a nagîd is simply the “head” of a group. In 1 Chron. 12:28, Jehoiada is nagîd of the 3,700 Aaronides (i.e. priests) who came to see David anointed at Hebron. In the list of the officials who were “over the tribes of Israel” in David’s day (1 Chron. 27:16–22), the first, over the Reubenites, is called a nagîd, implying that the rest also held this title. Conversely, at the end of the list, they are collectively called śarē šibṭē yiśrāel, usually translated as “chiefs/leaders/princes of the tribes of Israel.” However, even assuming that nagîd and śar are more or less synonymous, it is impossible to know 145.  For a more in-depth analysis of the lists of priests see the commentary there. 146.  Keel (1986, 708) suggested that the kohên harôš was the priest who was in charge of the Temple administration, which he saw as a separate function from that of the kohên gadôl. An alternative view is that of Mizrahi (2011), who sees the two titles as basically having the same meaning, that of “high priest,” with kohên gadôl being the normative term in pre-exilic Hebrew, and kohên harôš being a term coined in the exilic or early postexilic period, in order to emphasize that the head priest should also be “head” of his family, that is, the eldest brother.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

127

from this context whether these “chiefs over the tribes” were locally elected tribal leaders or royal appointees over the tribes. In other contexts, it is clear that the nagîd is an appointed official. In 1 Chron. 9:11, paralleled by Neh. 11:11, the priest Azariah (Seraiah in Nehemiah) is “nagîd of the house of God.”147 In 1 Chron. 9:20, Phinehas son of Eleazar the priest is mentioned as the former nagîd over the Korhites. In 1 Chron. 26:24 a certain Shebuel son of Gershom son of Moses is nagîd over the treasuries. And in 2 Chron. 31:12–13, “The nagîd in charge of them was Conaniah the Levite, with his brother Shimei as second…by the appointment of King Hezekiah and of Azariah the nagîd of the house of God.” In 1 Chron. 13:1, “David consulted with the commanders of the thousands and of the hundreds, with every nagîd” seems to mean “officers” of various ranks. As summarized by Halpern (1981, 11), the title nagîd, even if was originally associated with divine, prophetic, priestly or “charismatic” bestowal, eventually simply came to mean “appointee.” So what sort of nagîd was “Zebadiah son of Ishmael, nagîd of the house of Judah”? This, apparently, would depend on the meaning of the term bêt yehudâh, “house of Judah.” Dillard (1987, 146), by translating “the leader of the tribe of Judah,” seems to assume that Zebadiah’s source of authority was from his position within his own tribe. Keel (1986, 708) makes a similar assumption: “the nagîd is the head and chief of the tribe of Judah.” This interpretation is certainly justified in some cases. The term bâyit, “house,” often refers to a patriarchal kinship unit, including what we call a “tribe.” In 1 Chron. 28:4, David says: “the Lord God of Israel chose me from all my father’s house to be king over Israel forever; for he chose Judah as leader (nagîd!), and in the house of Judah my father’s house, and among my father’s sons he took delight in making me king over all Israel.” In 2 Sam. 2:4–11, the term “house of Judah” is used four times to define the people who had made David their king, as opposed to the “Israel” that recognized Ish-bosheth son of Saul. Here “house of Judah” refers to the tribe-turned-kingdom. However, in 1 Kgs 12:21, we find that Rehoboam “assembled all the house of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin…to fight against the house of Israel.” The term “house of Judah” is now juxtaposed to “house of Israel,” as the designations of the southern and northern kingdoms. In v. 23, Shemaiah the man of God addresses “all the house of Judah and Benjamin and the rest of the people.” Jeremiah frequently uses “house of Judah” and “house of Israel” when referring to the two kingdoms. Two examples of this are Jer. 11:10, “the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant that 147.  Which may or may not be the same as the high priest. See commentary there.

128

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

I made with their ancestors,” and 31:30 [Eng. 31], “The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.” Ezekiel 4:4–6 also compares the sins of the house of Israel to those of the house of Judah, although he more often speaks only of the house of Judah – the kingdom of Judah. Not surprisingly, when Neh. 4:10 [Eng. 16] uses this expression, it refers to the people under Nehemiah’s governorship, who were busy building the walls of Jerusalem. In Chronicles the expression “house of Judah” is not used frequently. In the 2 Chron. 11:1 version of Rehoboam’s mustering his troops, Kings’ “all the house of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin” becomes “all the house of Judah and Benjamin” – a single “house”! Even more surprising, where 2 Kgs 11:1 tells of Athaliah’s murdering “all the seed of the kingdom” (the royal family), 2 Chron. 22:10 adds, “of the house of Judah.” Considering all of this, it seems fair to assume that “Zebadiah son of Ishmael, nagîd of the house of Judah” was a royal official, appointed over the judiciary of the kingdom of Judah, rather than of the tribe of Judah as a patriarchal unit. The importance of this conclusion will become apparent in our discussion of the system as a whole. The šôṭerîm The final element of the Jerusalem court is the “officer-Levites.” The word that we rendered “officer” is šôṭerîm, the plural of šoṭêr, which appears in the singular only in 2 Chron. 26:11. Altogether, the word appears 25 times in the Bible, six of which are in Chronicles and seven in Deuteronomy. In fact, the term appears in Deut. 16:18, at the very beginning of the Deuteronomic law on which Jehoshaphat’s judiciary seems to be based. A close translation would be: Judges and šoṭerîm you shall appoint in all your gates that the Lord your God is giving you for your tribes, and they shall judge the people righteous judgment.

The noun šoṭêr is usually assumed to be connected to the Akkadian verb šaṭāru, “write, copy, register,” and the noun šaṭāru(m), “document, copy,” and to the later Aramaic ‫שטר‬, “document” as well, leading to the Greek and Syriac translations of the term as “scribe.” Weinfeld (1977, 83) claimed that the šoṭêr “fulfilled secretarial functions…‫ סופר‬and ‫ שוטר‬are very close in meaning.” Rofé (2001, 98–99) went even further, claiming that sopêr and šoṭêr actually are synonymous, the former being preferred in most of biblical historiography, the latter, derived in his opinion from the Aramaic, used in the Pentateuch and Joshua for its “archaic quality.” Only in the later Chronicles do the two appear concurrently. However, as



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

129

noted by Fox (2000, 192–96), Akkadian does not have a noun šaṭāru(m) that means “scribe,” and Biblical Hebrew has neither a verb from this root which means “to write,” nor are šôṭerîm ever explicitly described as writing. So, while the terms may be related etymologically, the only actual information we have about the biblical šoṭêr is from the Bible itself. Within the Bible, most šôṭerîm seem to be government officials, but their specific function is not clear. In Exodus 5, they are part of the Egyptian slave-drivers, but designated “the šôṭerîm of the children of Israel,” as if they were chosen from among the Israelites. In Deut. 1:15; 20:5–8 and in Josh. 1:10; 3:2 they seem to have a military function, perhaps as orderlies or sergeants-major. In Num. 11:16 and Deut. 29:9; 31:28 they are listed together with the tribal elders. In Josh. 8:33 we find “their elders and their šôṭerîm and their judges.” Joshua 23:2 and 24:1 are similar: “their elders and heads, their judges and šôṭerîm.” And Prov. 6:7 speaks of the energetic ant, who does not have “any officer (qaṣîn) or šoṭêr or ruler (mošêl).” Within Chronicles the šôṭerîm appear six times. In 1 Chron. 23:4, six thousand “šôṭerîm and judges” are appointed by David from among the 38,000 Levites that were involved in the establishment of the Temple, listed after 24,000 Levites who “had charge over the work in the house of the Lord” and before “four thousand gatekeepers and four thousand who offer praises to the Lord.” In 1 Chron. 26:29, Chenaniah and his sons, of the Izharite Levites, were appointed “for outside duties for Israel” (i.e. outside the Temple), once again “as šôṭerîm and judges.” It is worth noting that in the following verses, the Hebronites, another Levitical family, were appointed “west of the Jordan for all the work of the Lord and for the service of the king,” and others east of the Jordan, “for everything pertaining to God and for the affairs of the king.” In 1 Chron. 27:1, the šôṭerîm are listed in a non-Levitical context, one that seems more military or administrative: “This is the list of the people of Israel, the heads of families, the commanders of the thousands and the hundreds, and their šôṭerîm who served the king in all matters concerning the divisions that came and went, month after month.” This is very similar to Deut. 1:15: “So I took the leaders of your tribes, wise and reputable men, and installed them as leaders over you, commanders of thousands, commanders of hundreds, commanders of fifties, commanders of tens, and šôṭerîm for your tribes” – only there they are responsible to Moses rather than to David. In 2 Chron. 26:11 the šôṭerîm also seem to have a military-administrative function: “Uzziah had an army…according to the muster made by the Jeiel the scribe (sopêr) and Maaseiah the šoṭêr, under the direction

130

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

of Hananiah, of the king’s officers.” And finally, in a Chronistic addition to the story of Josiah’s renovation of the Temple in 2 Kings 22, 2 Chron. 34:13 tells us that “over the burden bearers and directing all who did work in every kind of service; and some of the Levites were scribes, and šôṭerîm, and gatekeepers.” In light of all of the above, we should not be surprised to find šôṭerîmLevites in the Chronicler’s description of the Jerusalem court. In three of the five other appearances of the šôṭerîm in Chronicles, they are listed together with judges. In two of these and one other place, they are specifically said to be Levites. Weinfeld (1977, 84–86) listed three tasks which he thought were assigned to “the šoṭēr attached to the judge”: “a secretary for recording, a constable for executive-punitive measures, and a messenger or attendant for rendering service to the court… [I]t seems clear that the šoṭerîm attached to the judges is a comprehensive term which includes all the subordinate personnel.” We can only add that šôṭerim also seemed to have additional functions as well, and that at least in the Chronicler’s view they often came from the Levitical class. The Judicial System as a Whole The system as a whole seems to have been two-tiered. The lower tier consisted of local judges. Considering what we know of Iron Age society, these probably convened in the available public spaces, which, at least in the case of fortified cities, meant the gates and their adjacent plazas.148 These judges are not described as coming from any particular “class” such as the Levites, priests or scribes, or as having any special training. There is no mention of their having any such specialists as šôṭerîm or scribes to aid them in their work. They are instructed to judge fairly and justly with “the fear of the Lord” upon them, but with no reference to any specific code of law, written or unwritten. In other words, they were to judge by custom, common sense and fairness, and their judgments were to be carried out by the townsfolk and their elders.149 The upper court, convening in Jerusalem, was more specialized. Its members were drawn from the Levites, the priests and the aristocracy, and assisted by Levitical šôṭerim, who, as explained above, fulfilled a variety of functions. They were expected to decide in cases that were sent to them 148.  Such plazas have been excavated at Beersheba, Lachish, Dan and additional sites. For Egyptian parallels of judgment being meted out from gates and their adjoining structures, see Van den Boorn 1985. 149.  Jackson (2007, 377–79) is of the opinion that the judges were thought to be divinely inspired, which he calls “ ‘charismatic’, rather than ‘rational’ adjudication,” and reads Deuteronomy in a similar vein.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

131

by their “brethren (brethren judges? brethren Israelites?) in their cities,” again similar to the model described in Deut. 1:17, in which Moses instructs the judges, “any case that is too hard for you, bring to me, and I will hear it” (see also Jethro’s advice to Moses in Exod. 18:22). From this point of view, the Jerusalem court was not an “appellate court” as not a few commentators have stated (cf. Williamson 1982, 290), but rather a “referral court” to which cases that were too “difficult” or “weighty” were referred by the local judges, although as pointed out by Jackson (2007, 384), the criteria by which they did so are not spelled out. The judges of the Jerusalem court were instructed to rule “between blood and blood, between tôrâh, miṣwâh, ḥuqqîm and mišpaṭîm,” which we translated as “instruction and commandment and laws and statutes.” As we have seen, all four of these appear countless times in the Bible, referring to the different types of laws given by God to Israel. Keel (1986, 708), following rabbinic tradition, understood “between blood and blood” as differentiating between premeditated murder and unintentional manslaughter, tôrâh and miṣwâh as referring to “religious” or “sacral” laws, and ḥuqqîm and mišpaṭîm referring to “secular” or “civil” legislation.150 In any case, unlike the lower courts, the Jerusalem judges were expected to refer to existing bodies of law. Japhet (1993, 778) understands these four terms as referring to four “different kinds of written law” (emphasis in the original). This would make sense, if we assume that Levites, priests and aristocrats living in the capital would have had a higher level of literacy than the inhabitants of the small towns scattered throughout the kingdom.151 Just what this written code was and whether it had any relationship to the Torah as we know it, depends on our estimation of the process of the development of the written Torah, a matter discussed above in our commentary on 2 Chron. 14:4 and 17:9. We should mention, however, that unlike 2 Chron. 17:9, this chapter does not 150.  In rabbinic terms, bêyn adâm lammaqôm (“between man and the Almighty”) and bêyn adâm leḥaberô (“between man and his fellow”). 151.  From the archaeological evidence (albeit mostly from the eighth and seventh centuries BCE rather than from the ninth), we know that in Judah, much more than in Israel, there was a significant gap between the size and urban development, including such indicators as quality of construction, between the “primate city” – Jerusalem – and the other cities in the kingdom (for which see Faust 2012a, 159–206). There is also much less evidence of writing outside the capital before the late eighth century. The idea that countryside courts would operate without recourse to a written law code, while the Jerusalem court judges would use such a code, seems to fit this model. Jackson (2007, 383) also calls the Jerusalem judges “members of the educated elite.” For a recent assessment of the levels of literacy in biblical Israel in general, see Demsky 2014.

132

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

make specific mention of a “book of the Torah,” while that chapter does not mention “miṣwôt, ḥuqqîm and mišpaṭîm.” The two stories seem to be based on different sets of terminology. The Jerusalem court was overseen by a “head priest” (who may or may not have been the “high priest”) and a “civil” “nagîd of the house of Judah,” whose title, although not altogether clear, certainly denotes a highlevel official. It is worth noting that these two men are not described as “chief magistrates” or “presidents of the court” (contra Williamson 1982, 290), but rather as the officials who are “over” the court, the king’s representatives, one in “all matters of the Lord” and the other in “all matters of the king.” This “division of jurisdictions” seems to be a change from 1 Chron. 26:29–32, in which the Chronicler has David appoint Levites as “judges and šôṭerîm,” responsible for “all matters of God and matters of the king.” However, as pointed out by Jackson (2007, 386–88), despite the division in terminology, there is no evidence that there were separate courts for “religious” and “secular” matters. A priest was responsible for “religious” matters, a Judahite nagîd for “civil” matters, Levites served as šoṭerîm, the judges were taken from all three classes, and all operated within the legal framework set down by the king. The status of the inhabitants of Jerusalem itself within this system is not clear. Did they have their own “lower courts,” or were they expected to petition the high court in all matters? Verse 8, after telling us that Jehoshaphat appointed judges in Jerusalem, then concludes wayyašûbû yerûšalâim, “and they returned to Jerusalem,” which seems out of place. The plural verb “they returned” does not match the singular subject “Jehoshaphat.” Keel (1986, 707) understood it to refer to Jehoshaphat and his men, but context-wise, Jehoshaphat had already returned to Jerusalem, since he was busy appointing judges there. The KJV resolved this by translating “when they returned to Jerusalem,” but this actually solves little. The Septuagint renders καὶ κρίνειν τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐν Ιερουσαλημ, “and to judge the inhabitants of Jerusalem,” reading weyôšbê, “and those who sit/dwell,” inhabitants, instead of wayyašûbû, “and they returned.”152 This emendation, making the Jerusalem court act as a first-tier court for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, has been adopted by Curtis and Madsen (1910, 404), Rudolph (1955, 256), Myers (1965, 2:106), Jackson (2007, 384), Klein (2012, 271, 276, who admits that it is based on a reconstruction that 152.  In unvocalized Hebrew, ‫ וישבי‬instead of ‫וישבו‬, a simple (and very common) exchange of ‫ י‬for ‫ו‬. See Heller 1974, who attempts to trace the various stages of vocalization and interpretation of the word ‫וישבו‬, including a stage in which “returned” was understood as “bring back to the Lord” as in v. 4 above!



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

133

“is not certain”) and others.153 Dillard (1987, 149) objected to this interpretation on the grounds that “allowing direct access to the appeals court [sic] in Jerusalem for the inhabitants of that city would seem contrary to the equity and fairness that prompted the reform itself.” Whether or not one accepts his reasoning, his reconstruction of “and they lived in Jerusalem,” referring to those appointed to the Jerusalem court, while not being based on any of the ancient versions, does make sense contextually, and has been adopted by many modern translations (RSV; NEB; NIV; NRSV) and somewhat hesitantly by Japhet (1993, 776–77) and by ourselves. The fact is that none of the suggested readings is entirely satisfactory, and that we cannot define the position of the inhabitants of Jerusalem within this system with any certainly. Jehoshaphat’s Judges in Context The debate about the “historicity” of the “judicial reform” that Chronicles attributes to Jehoshaphat has been raging for over a century, and has been tightly connected to the general debate on the Chronicler’s date and reliability. Wellhausen (1957, 191), who in general had a low opinion of Chronicles, considered the existence of such a judicial system in “antiquity” to be an “impossibility,” suggested that what is actually described is the “synhedrion” of the Chronicler’s time, and asserted that this system is attributed to Jehoshaphat is a play on the king’s name, “Jehovah is Judge” [sic]. This assessment was adopted by Curtis and Madsen (1910, 402) and became the common scholarly opinion until Albright’s seminal article, most of which is actually a general defense of the Chronicler’s reliability. His rebuttal of Wellhausen’s proposed etiology is “the reform of the judiciary may equally well have been suggested to the king or his advisors by his very name itself” (1950, 75). Albright then cited the “judicial reforms” of the fourteenth-century BCE Egyptian king Ḥaremḥab (now usually spelled Horemheb, considered the last Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty) as precedent for Jehoshaphat’s reforms, even suggesting that such “Egyptian ideas and practices…were certain to be adopted by the highly intelligent Israelites” (1950, 82). Following Albright’s article, scholarly consensus adopted his position, and most studies written during the latter half of the twentieth century took a generally positive view of the Chronicler’s report (for example: Myers 1965, 2:108; Whitelam 1979,

153.  Williamson (1982, 290–91) goes one step further by suggesting that the Jerusalem court heard “secular” cases from the inhabitants of Jerusalem and “sacral” matters from the entire country.

134

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

185–206, although rejecting the Horemheb connection;154 Williamson 1982, 289;155 Wilson 1983, 245–48, while allowing that some of the details actually reflect a Persian-period reality; Jackson 2007, 394, also rejecting the Horemheb parallel).156 This consensus, however, was attacked by Knoppers (1994), who attempted to show that both the language and the ideology of the Chronicler’s account of Jehoshaphat’s “reforms” are so Chronistic that they must reflect the Chronicler’s own views on what Judah’s judiciary should have looked like, more than any real knowledge of what they really looked like so many centuries in the past. This is also Kalimi’s opinion, reviving Wellhausen’s suggestion: “The Chronicler wove an entire story concerning acts of justice, the appointment of judges, and so on, around the name of Jehoshaphat” (Kalimi 1995, 38). A more balanced and nuanced view was expressed by both Japhet (1993, 772–79) and McKenzie (2007, 308–10): that the basics of the system may very well have been put into place in the ninth century BCE, but both the language and many of the details are definitely the Chronicler’s own. Klein (1995, 651) expressed a similar view: “the Chronicler’s source seems to…reflect the period of Jehoshaphat in some matters but seems later than the time of Jehoshaphat and the end of the Southern Kingdom in its distinction between the matters of the king and the matters for Yahweh.” As to the relationship between Jehoshaphat’s “teaching mission” in 2 Chron. 17:7–9 and his “judicial reform” in 2 Chron. 19:5–11, despite Albright’s opinion that the former “may well be a misunderstood doublet of the tradition of judicial reform” (Albright 1950, 82), and Myers’ “Both were really two aspects of the same movement of whose general historicity there can hardly be any doubt” (Myers 1965, 2:108), most scholars have come to realize the basic differences between them. In the first, Jehoshaphat sends out his officials to teach the tôrâh in all the cities of Judah; here he appoints judges. There, the officials carry a written text of the tôrâh (which we understand the Chronicler understanding as “the Torah”); here, the “lower tier” judges are not expected to refer to a written text at all, and even the instructions given to the Jerusalem court, despite 154.  Of course Egyptologists’ evaluations of the Horemheb decree have also become more nuanced than they were in Albright’s day. For a sampling see Allam 1986, 2000; Gnirs 1989. 155.  “To attribute such a reform to Jehoshaphat is eminently reasonable, though of course it cannot be ultimately proved beyond doubt.” 156.  Shinan and Zakovitch 1986, 271, present an intermediate view: on one hand they claim that the Chronicler, “by a word-play on the Hebrew root ‫( שפט‬to judge)” made Jehoshaphat a judicial reformer, while on the other hand they claim that “this is in addition to the known sources which well serves [sic] the world-view of the Chronicler.”



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

135

their reference to “instruction and commandment and laws and statutes,” do not actually refer to a canonical “code of law.” And while both passages do mention Levites and priests, 2 Chron. 17:7 calls the officials in charge śarîm, a term not used in ch. 19, while judges, šôṭerîm, “the nagîd of the house of Judah” and the “chief priest” are not mentioned in ch. 17. And of course there is context: Jehoshaphat’s “teaching mission” is specifically dated to his third year, in other words an integral part of his early successes. His “judicial reform” occurs after his ill-fated alliance with Ahab and his narrow escape from Ramoth-gilead, much later in his reign. In other words, if, underneath the Chronicler’s terminology and contextualizing, either or both of these pericopes contain any substantial historical information, they cannot be “reflections of the same tradition.” And finally, a few words on the relationship between 2 Chron. 19:5–11 and Deuteronomy. As we have pointed out throughout our discussion, 2 Chron. 19:5–11 is obviously connected to various passages in Deuteronomy, including parts of chs. 1, 16 and 17. These connections are both textual and contextual. Intertextuality, however, is a many-edged sword. What we have before us is the final form of both Deuteronomy and Chronicles. Both books, and each individual segment within each book, has its own history, which in most cases we can only conjecture about. When was Deuteronomy as we know it composed? When were the various parts, in this case the laws relating to judges and to the king, composed? Did they exist in an actual “document” before the composition of Deuteronomy as a whole? Was the language of this “document” anything like the language that we now see, or was the original “document” so completely rewritten by the “Deuteronomists” as to make its original terminology unrecoverable? And what of 2 Chron. 19:5–11? As realized by Knoppers (1994, 61), Chronicles is obviously dependent on Deuteronomy (and Exod. 18), not vice-versa. However, it is difficult to know if the “Deuteronomic” phraseology is actually the Chronicler’s, or was already extant in his source material. Furthermore, even if it was in his source material, was the source already quoting “Deuteronomy,” or was it quoting a pre-Deuteronomic source? Moreover, even assuming our narrative to be a more-or-less accurate depiction of Jehoshaphat’s actions – did he have some early form the Deuteronomic code to refer to? Was there a “code of law” in Israel/ Judah prior to Jehoshaphat? Is it really possible to place “Jehoshaphat’s reform” within a history of the development of Israelite law, from the “tribal” to the more centralized, as assumed by Jackson (2007). Shapira (2009, 324–26), sees Jehoshaphat as attempting to expand his own (indirect) influence on the judiciary, by taking it out of the hands of the

136

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

tribal leaders and establishing a hierarchy that was ultimately answerable to the king. He points to the laws of judges and of kings in Deuteronomy 16–17 as evidence that under Deuteronomic law, these two branches of government are meant to be independent of each other. In any case, historical or not, was the Chronicler attempting to depict Jehoshaphat as obeying the law of Deuteronomy, or as “reforming” it? This, of course, would depend on the extent to which the Chronicler considered Deuteronomy as “canonical” – a question that which will have to remain unanswered at the present time. Chapter 20: 1 And after this the Sons of Moab and the Sons of Ammon, and with them of the Ammonites157 came against Jehoshaphat for war. 2 And they158 came and told Jehoshaphat, saying: A great multitude is coming against you from across the sea from Aram;159 and they are at Hazazon-tamar – that is, En-gedi.160 3 And he161 was afraid; and Jehoshaphat set his face to seek the Lord, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah. 4 And Judah gathered to ask of the Lord; even162 from all the towns of Judah, they came to seek163 the Lord. 5 And Jehoshaphat stood in the assembly of Judah and Jerusalem in the house of the Lord, before the new court.164 6 And he said: O Lord, God of our 157.  The MT “Sons of Ammon, and with them of the Ammonites” is obviously redundant. Most translators and commentators, beginning with the twelfth-century David Qimḥi, follow the Greek ἐκ τῶν Μιναίων, “of the Meunites” (which some translations render “Meunim”), assuming ‫ מעונים‬to be the original reading and the MT ‫עמונים‬, “Ammonites,” to be a gloss or assimilation caused by the preceding reference to the Sons of Ammon. The Aramaic Targum, on the other hand, has “Edomites who joined the Ammonites,” apparently due to the reference to the inhabitants of Mount Seir. For more on the Meunites see the commentary. 158.  The subject of the verse is not specified. Many translations add “messengers” and the like. 159.  Assuming “the sea” to refer to the Dead Sea, MT’s ‫ארם‬, “Aram,” actually reinforced by the Greek Συρίας and Vulgate Syria, seems not to make sense geographically, so most modern translations follow a single Medieval Hebrew manuscript in reading ‫אדם‬, “Edom,” assuming a confusion of ‫ ד‬and ‫ר‬. See the commentary. 160.  It is not clear from the text if the words “that is En-gedi” are intended as part of the information given to Jehoshaphat or as a gloss by the Chronicler intended for his readers. On the identification of Hazazon-tamar see the commentary. 161.  Again, the subject of the verse is not specified. Many translations add “Jeho­ shaphat.” 162.  ‫גם‬, literally “also.” 163.  “Ask of” and “seek” in this verse translate the same Hebrew word, ‫לבקש‬, but in the first instance the word is followed by ‫מ־‬, “from,” and is sometimes translated “beseech” (NJPS) and the like, while the second is followed by ‫את‬, indicating that “the Lord” is the object of “seek.” 164.  We know of no additional reference to a “new court” in the Temple compound.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

137

fathers, are you not God in heaven, and do you not rule165 over all the kingdoms of the nations?166 And in your hand are power and might, and no one is able to stand besides you.167 7 Did you not, O our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before your people Israel, and give it forever to the descendants of your friend168 Abraham? 8 And they settled in it, and they built you a sanctuary for your name there, saying: 9 If evil comes upon us, sword, judgment,169 and pestilence and famine, we will stand before this house and before you, for your name is in this house, and cry to you in our distress, and you will hear and you will save. 10 And now, here are the Sons of Ammon and Moab and Mount Seir, whom you would not let Israel enter170 when they came from the land of Egypt, and whom they bypassed and did not destroy. 11 And here they reward us by coming to drive us out of your inheritance that you have given us to inherit. 12 O our God,171 will you not judge among them?172 for we have no power

It must have been one of the outer courts, in which the general, non-priestly public could have assembled. 2 Chron. 4:9 mentions the “Great Court” of Solomon’s Temple, in a section unparalleled in 1 Kgs 7. Ezek. 46:1 mentions “the gate of the inner court which faces east.” Many commentators (such as Curtis and Madsen 1910, 406; Myers 1965, 2:113; Williamson 1982, 295; Klein 2012, 286) assume that all three references (or at least the two in Chronicles) allude to the same structure, and that they actually reflect the reality of the Second Temple, with which the Chronicler was personally familiar. However as recognized by Japhet (1993, 788), there is really not enough information to establish either the date or the location of this structure. 165.  In the Hebrew, only the initial “are you not” is phrased as a rhetorical question, while the second is simply “and you rule.” 166.  Beentjes 1994, 267 comments on the similarity of this verse to a section of David’s prayer in 1 Chron. 29:12, “you rule over all and in your hand are power and might,” but then shows how the different contexts gave the words a different specific meaning. 167.  ‫ עמך להתיצב‬is treated by most translations as “to withstand you” or “to oppose you,” but could also mean “to stand besides you” – “none are your equals.” 168.  ‫ אהבך‬is literally “your lover,” but in English this has a connotation that it does not have in Hebrew. 169.  The Hebrew ‫ שפוט‬is an unusual form. It is apparently derived from ‫שפט‬, “to judge,” with an idea similar to ‫ שפטים‬in Exod. 12:12, “I will execute judgments,” leading NJPS to render “the punishing sword” here. However, unlike in Exod. 12:12, here it is “evil,” against which God is expected to protect Israel. Dillard (1987, 153) points to Ezek. 23:10, ‫ושפוטים עשו בה‬, “they killed her with the sword; judgment was executed upon her,” as a possible parallel. The Lucianic version of the Septuagint has άκρις, “flood,” instead of κρίσις, “judgment.” Dillard (1987, 151) and Klein (2012, 279) take this to be the original and translate accordingly. 170.  NRSV clarifies “invade.” 171.  The Greek has κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, “O Lord our God.” 172.  ‫תשפט־בם‬, NRSV: “execute judgment upon them”; NJPS: “punish them”; Klein (2012, 279): “bring judgment on them.”

138

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

against this great multitude that is coming upon us, and we do not know what to do, for our eyes are upon you. 13 And all Judah were standing before the Lord, with their little ones, their wives, and their sons.173 14 And Jahaziel son of Zechariah son of Benaiah son of Jeiel son of Mattaniah, a Levite of the sons of Asaph, the spirit of the Lord was upon him, in the midst of the assembly. 15 And he said: Listen, all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and King Jehoshaphat: Thus says the Lord to you: Do not fear or be dismayed at this great multitude; for the war is not yours but God’s. 16 Tomorrow go down to them; they will come up by the ascent of Ziz;174 you will find them at the end of the valley, facing the wilderness of Jeruel. 17 This is not for you to fight; take position, stand, and see the salvation of the Lord for you, Judah and Jerusalem,175 do not fear or be dismayed; tomorrow go out before them, and the Lord be with you. 18 And Jehoshaphat bowed down with his face to the ground, and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem fell down before the Lord, to prostrate themselves to the Lord. 19 And the Levites, of the sons of the Kohathites and of the sons of the Korahites, stood up to praise the Lord God of Israel, with a loud, rising voice.176 20 And they rose early in the morning and went out into the wilderness of Tekoa; and as they went out, Jehoshaphat stood and said: Listen to me, O Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: Believe in the Lord your God and you will be vindicated; believe in his prophets and you will succeed.177 21 And he took counsel with the people, he appointed singers to the Lord and those who would praise in holy splendor, as they went before the vanguard, saying: Give thanks to the Lord, for his grace is forever. 22 And at the moment they began to sing and praise, the Lord set ambushes against the Sons of Ammon and Moab and

173.  “Their little ones” (‫ )טפם‬and “their sons” (or “children,” ‫ )בניהם‬seems redundant. Dillard (1987, 151) has “their dependents, wives and children,” and Klein (2012, 279) renders “their families, their wives and their children.” Keel (1986, 713) prefers to harmonize: ‫ טפם‬are small children; ‫ בניהם‬are older children. The Greek has simply καὶ τὰ παιδία αὐτῶν καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες, “and their children and their wives.” 174.  Dillard (1987, 153), Klein (2012, 280) and others propose that ‫ הציץ‬is a copyist’s error for ‫חציץ‬, which would then be related to the ‫חצצון־תמר‬, “Hazazon-tamar,” of v. 2. 175.  It is not clear where the prophet stops quoting God. NRSV and Klein (2012, 280) have single quote mark here, and double quote marks at the end of the verse, indicating the end of the prophet’s own speech. NJPS has both single and double marks at the end of the verse, taking “Do not fear or be dismayed” etc. as the end of God’s words. 176.  ‫בקול גדול למעלה‬. Most translations have “a very loud voice” or the like. NJPS renders “at the top of their voices.” 177.  As emphasized by Petersen (1977, 55), in the Chronicler’s view Israel’s success is closely connected with its prophets. For some reason, NRSV omits the final “and you will succeed.”



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

139

Mount Seir who came to Judah, and they were routed.178 23 For the Sons of Ammon and Moab stood over the inhabitants of Mount Seir to exterminate and annihilate them; and when they had finished with the inhabitants of Seir, they each helped to destroy one another. 24 And Judah179 came to the lookout over the wilderness, and they faced the multitude; and they were corpses lying on the ground; and not one had escaped. 25 And Jehoshaphat and his people came to take their plunder, and they found on them180 a great amount, goods, corpses181 and desirable objects,182 which they took for themselves until they could carry no more; for three days they plundered the booty, because there was so much. 26 And on the fourth day they assembled in the Valley of Beracah,183 for there they blessed the Lord; therefore that place has been called the Valley of Beracah to this day. 27 And all the men of Judah and Jerusalem, with Jehoshaphat at their head, returned to Jerusalem with joy, for the Lord had caused them to rejoice over their enemies. 28 And they came to Jerusalem, with harps and lyres and trumpets, to the house of the Lord. 29 And the fear of God was on all the kingdoms of the lands, when they heard that the Lord had fought against the enemies of Israel. 30 And the realm of Jehoshaphat was quiet, and his God gave him rest all around. 31 And Jehoshaphat reigned over Judah;184 he was thirty-five years old when he reigned, and twenty-five years he reigned in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Azubah daughter of Shilhi.185 32 He walked in the way186 of his

178.  ‫ וינגפו‬from ‫נגף‬, “plague” or “pestilence,” and so a word stronger than just “defeated” is needed here. 179.  The men of Judah, as a collective. The following verb ‫בא‬, “came,” is singular: “And Judah came.” 180.  ‫בהם‬, literally “in them.” The Greek has κτήνη, “cattle,” apparently reflecting an original ‫בהמה‬. Many modern translators, including NRSV, Dillard (1987, 152), and Klein (2012, 280) accept this and translate “livestock” or “cattle.” 181.  ‫פגרים‬. The Greek has σκῦλα, “plunder, booty,” repeating the beginning of the verse. Many modern translators, including NRSV, Dillard (1987, 152), and Klein (2012, 280) have “clothes” or “garments,” assuming MT ‫ פגרים‬to be a corruption of ‫בגדים‬, “clothes.” 182.  ‫כלי חמדות‬. ḤMD means “desire.” NRSV translates “precious objects.” The expression ‫ כלי חמדה‬appears in Jer. 25:34; Hos. 13:15; Nah. 2:10; as well as in 2 Chron. 32:27 and 36:10. 183.  ‫ברכה‬, “blessing.” NJPS translates “the Valley of Blessing.” 184.  At this point Chronicles returns to following the Kings account at 1 Kgs 22:41, which returns to the kings of Judah after having followed the northern kings since reporting the death of Asa and Jehoshaphat’s succession at 1 Kgs 15:24. However there, “and Jehoshaphat son of Asa reigned over Judah” is the beginning of Kings’ very short description of his reign, while in Chronicles it is the beginning of the summary of his reign. 185.  All identical to 1 Kgs 22:42. 186.  The Greek has “ways,” plural. Kings has “all the way of his father Asa…” The

140

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

father Asa and did not turn aside from it,187 doing what was right in the eyes of the Lord. 33 But the bamôt188 were not removed;189 and the people had not yet set their hearts upon the God of their fathers.190 34 And the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, the first and the last, are written on the words191 of Jehu son of Hanani, on the book of the kings of Israel.192 35 And after this, Jehoshaphat king of Judah joined with193 Ahaziah king of Israel; he did wickedly.194 36 He joined with him to build ships to go to Tarshish;195 they built the ships in Ezion-geber. 37 And Eliezer son of Dodavahu of Mareshah prophesied about196 Jehoshaphat, saying: Because you have joined with Ahaziah, the Lord has destroyed197 what you have made; and the ships were wrecked and were not able to go to Tarshish. Chapter 21: 1 And Jehoshaphat lay with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and his son Jehoram reigned in his stead.

lack of the word “all” could be seen as lessening his piety, but the rest of the verse negates this. 187.  “It,” referring to “the way,” is feminine in Chronicles but masculine in Kings. 188.  “High places” or “shrines.” See the note on 2 Chron. 11:15. 189.  Taken verbatim from Kings, this seems to contradict the report in 2 Chron. 17:6. Keel (1986, 720) understands the former reference as being to sites of foreign worship, and this as referring to bamôt dedicated to Yahweh. 190.  This clause, which replaces Kings’ “and the people still sacrificed and offered incense on the high places,” is perhaps meant as an excuse: the high places were not taken away because the people were still using them. Chronicles then skips 1 Kgs 22:44: “And Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel.” 191.  ‫דברי‬, often translated “chronicles.” 192.  1 Kgs 22:45 (NRSV): “Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his power that he showed, and how he waged war, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah?” 193.  ‫ אתחבר‬is an unusual Aramaic-type conjugation of the verbal root ḤBR. Job 40:30 [Eng. 41:6] uses ‫חברים‬, ḥabbarim, for a group of sailors (KJV “companions,” NRSV, NJPS “traders”), so here as well, the word may have a specific connotation of “joining as trading partners.” The root is repeated in vv. 36 and 37. 194.  From the Hebrew, it is not quite clear who did wickedly. Some translations, such as NJPS, have “thereby acting wickedly,” understanding this to be a comment on Jehoshaphat. Others, such as NRSV and Klein (2012, 281) have “who acted wickedly,” meaning Ahaziah. Dillard (1987, 152) renders “who provoked him to do wrong” – the wrongdoing was Jehoshaphat’s, but it was Ahaziah’s fault. 195.  In Kings it is “ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir to the gold.” See the commentary. 196.  ‫על‬, “on.” Most translations have “against.” 197.  ‫פרץ‬, “break up.”



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

141

Commentary: The Attack from Across the Sea and Summary of Jehoshaphat’s Rule The Attack from Across the Sea The final chapter in the Chronicler’s narrative of Jehoshaphat’s reign includes three sections of unequal length. Verses 1–30 tell of an invasion by the Transjordanian nations, repelled by a prayer, a prophecy and a miracle. Verses 31–34 are a rather standard summary of Jehoshaphat’s rule, based on 1 Kgs 22:41–48 but differing in significant details. Verses 35–37, like their Kings counterparts, are a sort of “addendum” telling of Jehoshaphat’s ill-fated fleet. After all this, 2 Chron. 21:1 tells of Jehoshaphat’s death and burial. The story of the Transjordanian invasion begins with the words “and after this,” “this” being all of the preceding narrative. In other words, this story is clearly placed after the death of Ahab at Ramoth-gilead and after Jehoshaphat’s judicial arrangements, although we have no way of knowing how long after. According to 1 Kgs 22:52, the sickly Ahaziah son of Ahab became king of Israel in Jehoshaphat’s seventeenth year and ruled “two years.” Then, according to 2 Kings 3, he was succeeded by his brother Jehoram.198 This, we are told, was during Jehoshaphat’s eighteenth year.199 According to 2 Kgs 1:1, after the death of Ahab, Mesha king of Moab rebelled against Israel. 2 Kings 3:4–5 gives more background: Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheep breeder, who used to deliver to the king of Israel one hundred thousand lambs, and the wool of one hundred thousand rams. And when Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel.

198.  In the Bible this name is spelled both ‫יורם‬, Joram, and ‫יהורם‬, Jehoram, both meaning “Yah(weh) is exalted.” It is the name of both the son of Ahab, king of Israel, and of the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. It is often assumed that “Joram” reflects northern Israelite orthography while “Jehoram” reflects the Judahite form, but the MT is inconsistent in its use of the two. Most English translations use “Jehoram” for both. The fact that both kingdoms had kings called Je(ho)ram and kings named Ahaziah (brother of Jehoram of Israel, son of Jehoram of Judah) is an indication of the very close relationship between the two kingdoms during the latter half of the ninth century. 199.  Meaning that Ahaziah ruled for part of Jehoshaphat’s 17th year and part of his 18th, which counted for Ahaziah as “two years.” For one possible explanation see Thiele 1983, 98–99.

142

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Map 5. The Wars of Jehoshaphat



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

143

Even more information can be retrieved from the famous “Mesha Stele” or “Moabite Stone,” a large basalt monumental inscription discovered in 1868 in Dhiban, biblical Dibon, in what is now Jordan. In it, “Mesha son of Chemosh[yat?], king of Moab, the Dibonite” tells how Omri king of Israel had subjugated Moab. After the death of Omri’s son (Ahab is not mentioned by name), Chemosh, the deity of Moab, commanded Mesha to liberate Moab, which he did, slaughtering and enslaving the Israelites of such towns as Ataroth and Nebo and Medaba (for more on the stele see Rainey and Notley 2006, 211–12). While these specific events are not recorded in the Bible, 2 Kgs 3:6–27 tells how Jehoram of Israel, joined by Jehoshaphat of Judah and an unnamed “king of Edom,” attacked Moab from the south, through “the wilderness of Edom,” and ravaged Moab until, following a desperate king of Moab’s sacrifice of his own son, there was “great wrath” (qeṣep gadôl) on Israel, forcing the allies to retreat.200 It would seem that Mesha, taking advantage of the sudden death of Ahab and the weakness of his sickly son, quickly threw off Israelite rule and actually took over the “Mishor,” the plateau north of the Arnon River (today’s Wadi Mujîb), long contested between Israel, Moab and Ammon. Jehoram, taking over after his brother’s death, attempted an attack from the south together with his father’s long-time ally Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom who may have been a vassal of Judah, and failed, for whatever reasons. However, all of this is not even mentioned in Chronicles. In our chapter, the invasion of Judah by “the Sons of Moab and the Sons of Ammon, and with them of the Ammonites” is unprovoked. There is no mention of Israelite rule of Moab, no Moabite rebellion, and no further alliance between Jehoshaphat and a king of Israel. The “fighting” occurs on Judahite soil. The Moabite king is not mentioned by name, nor does the anonymous “king of Edom” of 2 Kings 3 make an appearance. Instead, the enemies are much more general: “the Sons of Moab and the Sons of Ammon” (or, as preferred by some translations, “the Moabites and the Ammonites”) treats the two Transjordanian nations as tribal groups, rather than kingdoms. This is somewhat reminiscent of such passages as Deut. 2:8, “and we passed from our brethren the Sons of Esau”; or 19, “as you approach the frontier of the Sons of Ammon.” The third group listed, “and with them from the Ammonites,” is problematic, since “the Ammonites” and “the Sons of Ammon” supposedly would refer to the same people. Furthermore, in vv. 10, 22 and 23, the 200.  There has been a lot of speculation as to the meaning of the “great wrath” that caused the Israelite withdrawal. For one recent analysis see Morschauser 2010.

144

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

list is “the Sons of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir,” “Mount Seir” being the common biblical reference to the area of southern Transjordan in which the Edomites dwelt, going back to Gen. 32:3.201 Ammon, Moab and Edom, of course, are the three Transjordanian nations/kingdoms, whom biblical tradition considers to be most closely related to Israel: the Edomites were descended from Esau, son of Isaac and elder twin brother of Jacob, while Moab and Ammon were descended from Lot, nephew of Abraham. The Israelites coming from Egypt were instructed not to attack these nations or to conquer their land (e.g. Deut. 2 and see v. 10 here), although biblical historiography, beginning with Judges 3 and 11, is full of wars between Israel and its eastern neighbors. “Ammonites” or “Meunites”? Considering all this, the third group mentioned in v. 1 must be understood as someone other than “the Ammonites.” As noted above, the Aramaic Targum translated “Edomites who joined the Ammonites.” Keel (1986, 709 n. 95), cites a rabbinic source that identifies the invaders as “Amalekites disguised as Ammonites.”202 Most Greek manuscripts have ἐκ τῶν Μιναίων, “of the Minaion.” Within the Bible, a group called Meunîm, rendered “Meunim” or “Meunites” depending on the translation, are known only in Chronicles. 1 Chronicles 4:41 mentions “those registered by name, came in the days of King Hezekiah of Judah, and attacked their tents and the Meunites203 who were found there, and exterminated them to this day, and settled in their place, because there was pasture there for their flocks.” The following verse, which may or may not refer to the same episode or time-frame, speaks of sons of Simeon who went to Mount Seir. If the two verses do refer to the same episode, this might place the Meunites in the vicinity of Mount Seir/Edom, which would fit the context of our story as well. The second reference to Meunites is in 2 Chron. 26:7, “God helped him [Uzziah] against the Philistines, against the Arabs who lived in Gur-baal,204 and against the Meunites,” followed by, “The Ammonites paid tribute to Uzziah, and his fame spread even to the border of Egypt, for he became very strong.” Here, on one hand, the connection with the Ammonites 201.  Although the actual relationship between “Seir” and “Edom” is much more complex. See the commentary on 1 Chron. 1:38. 202.  Perhaps following the juxtaposition of “Maon” and “Amalek” in Judg. 10:12. Keel himself prefers the reading “Meunites” (for which see below). 203.  The MT ketib there is ‫מעינים‬, “Meinites,” but the qeri ‫מעונים‬, “Meunites,” is universally acknowledged as correct. 204.  For a discussion on “Gur-baal” see the commentary on 2 Chron. 26:7.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

145

is mentioned again, while on the other, mention of the Philistines and the border of Egypt would seem to place the whole story in the western Negeb, near the Philistine coast.205 In scholarship of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it was common to assume that the Meunites of Chronicles were identical with the Minaeans known from Greek sources, whose kingdom, centered in Ma‘in in Southern Arabia, existed from the fifth to the first centuries BCE. Others identified them with the town of Ma‘an, west of Petra in Edom (Curtis and Madsen 1910, 117; Musil 1926, 243–47; Myers 1965, 2:115). In either case the assumption was that the indications that pointed to their location to the southeast of Judah were more pertinent than those that pointed to the southwest. However, in 1971 Tadmor published a re-reading of a fragmentary annalistic inscription of Tiglath-pileser III from Nimrud known as ND 400.206 According to Tadmor’s re-reading, in 734–733 BCE, Tiglath-pileser III subjugated a certain Siruatti KUR Mu’unaya, which he rendered “Siruatti the Meunite.” According to this document, this Meunite was located “under (i.e. south of) Egypt.” Tadmor then equated “Egypt” with what in the Bible is called “the Brook of Egypt,” which is the boundary between Canaan/Israel and the northern Sinai desert (for example in Num. 34:5). Since the conventional identification of “the Brook of Egypt” is at the Wadi el-‘Arish in northern Sinai, Tadmor assumed that these Mu’unaya lived in the northern Sinai, southwest of Judah. This, in his view, proved that the Chronicler’s Meunites indeed lived in the deserts to the southwest of Judah in the ninth and eighth centuries BCE, and that there could be no connection between them and the much later Minaeans of either Ma‘in or Ma‘an in Arabia.

205.  A town in southeastern Judah called Maon, ‫מעון‬, is mentioned in Josh. 15:55; 1 Sam. 23:24–25; 25:2 and is probably also implied in 1 Chron. 2:24; 4:14. This, however, is obviously not the enemy referred to in our story. An enemy of Israel called Maon is also mentioned in Judg. 10:12, together with Egypt, the Amorites, the Ammonites, the Philistines, the Sidonians and Amalek, but this list is of such a general nature that it can teach us nothing about the location or nature of this “Maon.” A city in Moab called Baal-meon or Beth-baal-meon, that for a while was occupied by Reuben, is mentioned in Num. 32:38; Josh. 13:17; Jer. 48:32; Ezek. 25:9 and 1 Chron. 5:8, and while the difference in vocalization between “Maon,” “Meon” and Meun(ites)” is not significant, there does not seem to be a connection, and it is doubtful that the Chronicler would depict what he had listed as a Reubenite city attacking Judah! A group called ‫בני־מעונים‬, “Sons of Meunites,” are listed among the temple servants in Ezra 2:50/Neh. 7:52. While there may or may not be a connection of some sort, this listing does little for our understanding of the chapter under discussion. 206.  Originally published by Wiseman 1951. Tadmor repeated his reading in Borger and Tadmor 1982, 250–51.

146

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Tadmor’s identification of Tiglath-pileser’s Mu’unaya with the biblical Meunites and their location on the southwestern frontier was accepted by Na’aman (1979)207 and Eph’al (1982, 30, 65–70, 219–20).208 Knauf (1985) rejected the identification on linguistic grounds, but also because of his presupposition that the story reflects the Chronicler’s own time, during which the Arabian Minaeans were known, rather than the time of Jehoshaphat – an issue we shall return to below. Another solution was suggested by Williamson (1982, 294), Dillard (1987, 155–56), Japhet (1993, 786) and Rainey (2000), all of whom point out that while “Mount Seir,” which appears later in the story instead of the Meunites, is usually identified with Edom in southern Transjordan, the term is used on occasion to describe the area south of Judah, southwest of the Dead Sea. If indeed this is the “Mount Seir” referred to in this passage, this could mean that the Meunites, whose range of trade and pastoralism covered much of what today is called the Negeb and northern Sinai, may have come into conflict with Judah in the ninth and eighth centuries BCE, and with Tiglath-pileser in 734–733. Topographical Issues The geographical conundrum continues with the report sent to Jehoshaphat: “A great multitude is coming against you from across the sea from Aram; and they are at Hazazon-tamar – that is, En-gedi” (v. 2). En-gedi is the well-known oasis near the western shore of the Dead Sea, at about its mid-way point. The heartland of Moab lies directly across the sea, to the east. From this and from the following narrative it seems clear that the enemy forces had crossed the sea and were now climbing up through the Judean Desert towards Jerusalem.209 207.  Although Na’aman rejected the identification of “the Brook of Egypt” with Wadi el-‘Arish, preferring the Naḥal Besor (Wadi Shallaleh) further to the northeast. For a summary of the arguments on this matter see Levin 2006, 56–58. Even if Na’aman’s identification of “the Brook of Egypt” is correct, the Meunites would still be in the desert to the southwest of Judah. 208.  It is possible that the name of Khirbet Ma‘in southeast of Gaza (now Ḥorvat Ma‘on near today’s Kibbutz Nirim), surveyed by Abel in the 1930s (1967, 384) and the site of a Late Roman-period synagogue (Levy 1971; Magness 1987) preserves a connection to the Iron-Age Meunites, but this cannot be proven with the available evidence. 209.  Although Ilan (1973, 206–208) made the reasonable objection that the manufacture or gathering of a large number of boats in the arid Dead Sea area, in which there is usually no maritime traffic at all, would be next to impossible. He suggested that the Transjordanians marched around the southern tip of the sea (in a reversed emulation of Jehoram and Jehoshaphat’s march in 2 Kgs 3) or marched across a very shallow point in the sea itself.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

147

“Aram,” however, is not “across the sea.” The land/kingdom of Aram was in what is now called Syria, east and north of the Jordan Valley and the Sea of Galilee. An attack from Aram would logically come down the Jordan Valley and cross the river near Jericho, north of the Dead Sea, approaching Jerusalem from due east. Furthermore, the Arameans are not mentioned again throughout the chapter. For this reason, many modern translations and commentators follow a single Hebrew manuscript in “correcting” the text to “Edom,” assuming that the original ‫אדם‬, “Edom,” was corrupted to ‫ארם‬, “Aram.”210 Others, however, have not been so quick to emend the MT. Geographically, Edom is not really “across the sea” from Judah either. The Septuagint’s Συρίας, “Syria,” which is its standard translation for “Aram,” followed by the Vulgate and by almost all Hebrew manuscripts, forced even Dillard, who accepted the emendation, to admit that “the textual witnesses in favor of the reading Edom are not at all compelling” (1987, 156). Williamson (1982, 294), Keel (1986, 710), Aharoni (1979, 332), Rainey (2000) and Jarick (2007, 127) all opposed the emendation, suggesting that perhaps mention of Aram is a reflection of Aramean incitement of the Transjordanians to attack Jehoshaphat, who had joined Ahab in his war on Aram. However, this solution has its weaknesses as well: the Arameans are not further mentioned as a factor in the war, and interpreting “from across the sea, from Aram” as referring to Aramean incitement is a stretch in any case. En-gedi, mid-way along the western shore of the Dead Sea, would be a reasonable place for an expedition that had crossed the sea from Moab to make a landing, and the wilderness of Tekoa mentioned in v. 20 would be on one of the (very difficult) routes leading up from there towards Jerusalem. However, the reference to “Hazazon-tamar” is an additional complication. The only additional reference in the Bible to a “Hazazon-tamar” is in the itinerary of Chedorlaomer and his allies to the Dead Sea area in Gen. 14:7. There, the allies travelled south along the so-called King’s Highway as far as “El-paran on the edge of the wilderness,” and then turned north and west, through Kadesh and the Amalekite country (the Negeb), arriving at Hazazon-tamar by “the Valley of Siddim, that is, the Dead Sea.” A place called “Tamar” is also mentioned as the south-eastern corner of the Land of Israel in Ezek. 47:18–19 and 48:28, associated there with “the waters of Meribath-kadesh.” This Tamar is usually identified with the Thamara of the Roman-Byzantine period, which Eusebius and Jerome describe as being a day’s journey from Mampsis (today’s Kurnub/Mamshit), on 210.  This is done by RSV, NRSV, NIV, Curtis and Madsen 1910, 405; Myers 1965, 2:110; Japhet 1993, 780–81; Klein 2012, 279.

148

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

the road from Hebron to Aila (Elath, today’s Aqaba in Jordan). The site appears on the Byzantine-period Madaba and Peuntinger maps and is mentioned by Ptolemy and in several other sources (for a list see Aharoni 1963, 30; Notley and Safrai 2005, 8–9). Of the various identifications proposed, Alt’s suggestion of Qaṣr el-Juheiniye, today’s Meṣad Tamar 18 km east of Kurnub, seems to best fit the Roman-Byzantine site, but no Iron-Age or Persian-period remains have been found there. On the other hand, Aharoni’s suggestion of Ain Ḥuṣb (today’s ‘En Ḥaṣeva) has the advantage of having been used as a fortress from the Iron Age through the Byzantine period, including, in the Iron Age, what is often considered to be an “Edomite” shrine (see Cohen 1994; Cohen and Yisrael 1995; Ben-Gal 2011). None of this, however, solves the problem of “our” Hazazon-tamar, which is said to be the same as En-gedi. To begin with, it is not clear from the text whose comment the words “that is, En-gedi” are supposed to be. Are they part of the report to Jehoshaphat and thus part of whatever source the Chronicler was using, or are they a gloss of the Chronicler’s, meant to elucidate the text to his own audience? Aharoni (1963, 32) simply wrote the identification off with “impossible in the light of Gen. 14,” but offered no better explanation. Keel (1986, 710), assuming the report in Genesis to be “earlier” than that of Chronicles, suggested that “Hazazon-tamar” was the ancient (Canaanite) name of the oasis, while “En-gedi” was its Israelite name, but offers no proof of this reconstruction. In our opinion, the approach taken by these scholars is misleading. The toponym “Hazazon-tamar” should not be seen as an alternative name for the town or fortress of Tamar, but rather as meaning that the place called Hazazon is in the district of the better-known Tamar. This is similar to the names “Lebo-hamath” of Num. 13:21; 34:8 etc., meaning “Lebo in the district of Hamath” (Mazar 1986) or “Moresheth-gath” of Mic. 1:14 being the town of Moresheth in the district of Gath (Levin 2002). For our purposes, it is not really important if Tamar itself is to be identified at Meṣad Tamar, at ‘En Ḥaṣeva or at any other site in the Dead Sea district.211 This “Hazazon,” in the district of Tamar, was to be found in the vicinity

211.  The name ‫תמר‬, Tamar, means “date palm,” a tree for which the Dead Sea area is famous. Jericho, to the north of the Dead Sea, is referred to as ‫עיר התמרים‬, “city of the date palms,” in Deut. 34:3 and in Judg. 3:13 (where the geographical context clearly indicates that ‫ עיר התמרים‬is Jericho). In Judg. 1:15, ‫ עיר התמרים‬seems to be located at the southern end of the Dead Sea, perhaps at Zoar. In fact, the modern Israeli administrative unit which includes the southwestern shore of the Dead Sea and stretches from ‘En Gedi in the north to ‘En Ḥaṣeva in the south is called the Tamar Regional Council.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

149

of the oasis of En-gedi. However, ancient place-names are not always preserved in the name of a ruined settlement. Sometimes, such names are preserved in the names of nearby geographical features such as an adjacent stream, spring, well, ravine or even a venerated sheikh’s tomb (Aharoni 1979, 123). In this case, Noth (1945, 42–53) and Ilan (1973, 206), both of whom conducted detailed studies of the topography of this narrative, suggested that the name Hazazon is preserved in the name of the deep ravine of Wadi Ḥaṣāṣa (today called Naḥal Haṣaṣon), near the northern border of the En-gedi oasis. If this is indeed a genuine preservation, it would mean that “Hazazon-tamar,” be it the name of a settlement or of a feature such as a ravine, was the place at or near En-gedi at which the enemies gathered after their crossing of the Dead Sea. Besides the names of the enemy nations, “the sea,” Hazazon-tamar and En-gedi, the pericope includes four additional geographic references. In v. 16, the enemies are expected to ascend (from En-gedi towards Jerusalem) by “the ascent of Ziz,” maalê haṣṣîṣ, literally “the ascent of the ziz.” There are several possibilities for reading and understanding this name. One is that the he prefix be understood not as the definite article but as a corrupted ḥet, ‫ חציץ‬instead of ‫הציץ‬. This “ascent of ḥaṣṣîṣ/ Haziz,” then, could be another form of “Hazazon,” and might actually be identified with Wadi Ḥaṣāṣa (Curtis and Madsen 1910, 408; Rudolph 1955, 260; Klein 2012, 280).212 Another possibility is to read the MT as is, “ascent of the ṣîṣ.” According to HALOT (1023), the noun ‫ציץ‬, ṣîṣ, has two basic meanings in Biblical Hebrew. The first of these is “flowers, blossoms, rosette,” as in Isa. 40:6, “flowers of the field” and 8, “dried-up flowers.” Understood in this way, maalê haṣṣîṣ would be “the ascent of the flowers” – an unusual name for a place in the harsh Judean Desert. However another meaning of the word ‫ציץ‬, known from Ugaritic but attested in the Hebrew Bible only in Jer. 48:9, is “salt”: “Set aside salt (‫ )תנו־ציץ‬for Moab, for she will surely fall; her towns shall become a desolation, with no inhabitant in them.” Given the geographical context, this last interpretation, “the ascent of salt” seems to be the most likely. Geographically, this ascent should probably be identified, if not with Wadi Ḥaṣāṣa, then with the Nāqb ‘Ein Jeddi, the ancient road that leads from the En-gedi oasis up towards the area of Tekoa, east of Bethlehem and southeast of Jerusalem (Harel 1967; Ilan 1973, 208).

212.  Dillard (1987, 153) points out that the various Greek transcriptions treat the initial letter as a part of the word and transcribe it with an initial alpha. However, it is impossible to know if this alpha represents the Hebrew he or ḥet.

150

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

The second toponym mentioned in v. 16 is “the wilderness of Jeruel.” This place is at “the end of the valley,” at which point the enemies will be “facing (‫ )פני‬the wilderness of Jeruel.” According to v. 20, Jehoshaphat and his people would see them from their vantage point in “the wilderness of Tekoa.” The word ‫מדבר‬, midbâr, commonly translated as either “desert” or “wilderness,” actually means “grazing land” or “pasture.” Thus, “the midbâr of Tekoa” is the grazing area around the village of Tekoa, that part of the desert that is within about a half-day’s walk from Tekoa and reasonably accessible to the shepherd and his flock. This would mean avoiding the steep drop from Tekoa eastward towards the next “step” down to the Dead Sea. Beneath this “step,” east of Tekoa, would be the place to look for “the midbâr of Jeruel.” However, no such place as Jeruel, whose grazing area this midbâr would be, is known from any other source. The name ‫ירואל‬, yerûel, can mean either “seeing God” or “fearing God” and could be a pun on both. Several commentators have commented on the similarity of the name to the phrase ‫בהר יהוה יראה‬, “In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen” (KJV), the name given to the place of the binding of Isaac in Gen. 22:14. Some have assumed from this that “Jeruel” refers to Jerusalem itself (cf. Keel 1986, 715), but Ilan (1973, 208–209 showed that this would not make sense geographically. Gunkel (1997 [1901], 238–39) actually claimed the opposite – that the “original” story of Isaac actually occurred at a place called Jeruel, near Tekoa, and that in Genesis 22 this tradition was transferred to “Moriah” and was later understood to refer to Jerusalem. Tekoa itself is well known, identified at Khirbet Tequa east of Bethlehem. It is listed as the hometown of the prophet Amos, who was himself a “sheepbreeder” (1:1), and according to 2 Chron. 11:6, was one of the “fortified cities” built by Rehoboam. As emphasized by Ilan and others, Tekoa is situated at the top of the road that ascends from the En-gedi oasis to the hills south of Jerusalem. The final place mentioned in this story is “the Valley of Beracah,” the place where the people of Judah “blessed the Lord” on the fourth day (v. 26). The name “Beracah” means “blessing” and the verse itself portrays the name as etiological. Despite this, several commentators have attempted to identify the place in the vicinity of Tekoa or Bethlehem (cf. Curtis and Madsen 1910, 410; Ilan 1973, 210; Williamson 1982, 300; Keel 1986, 718–19; Klein 2012, 293). Japhet (1993, 798) comments on how rare such outright etiologies are in Chronicles and suggests that in this case, the etiology was already included in the Chronicler’s source for the story.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

151

Following all of this it is easy to see that, despite its clearly theological structure and purpose, the story of the Transjordanian invasion has a well-grounded geographical setting, which seems to fit the reality of the Judean Desert perfectly. Several of the sites mentioned, while unknown from other sources, seem to reflect a real knowledge of the area and the conditions that existed there. And while this does seem to support the story’s historical reliability, it certainly cannot be considered absolute proof. The Historical Context Regarding the basic historicity of the story, there are three principal approaches. The first of these considers the story to be a Chronistic fabrication, based loosely, if at all, on some local tradition, but rewritten in such a way as to have lost all connection to historical reality. Curtis and Madsen (1910, 404–405), for example, considered it to be a “Midrashic” embellishment of 2 Kings 3. A more recent restatement of the same idea is that of McKenzie (2007, 310–11). Welten (1973, 140–53) thought that the story reflected the threats against Persian-period Yehud, the Judah of the Chronicler’s own time. Davies (1992) went even further, suggesting that the entire episode is meant to exemplify a spiritual war against the Moabite, Ammonite and Edomite neighbors of the Yehud community of the Chronicler’s day. The second approach is that the story’s geographical accuracy must mean that it is based on an actual event, but not necessarily an event from the time of Jehoshaphat. Noth (1945), for example, thought that the story was based on a Nabatean incursion that occurred close to the Chronicler’s own time, in the fourth or third centuries BCE. Japhet (1993, 798) considered the story to be based on a pre-existing source, but did not hazard a guess as to the reality behind that source. Klein (1995, 653) takes a similar approach. The third approach sees the story as being based on a real event that occurred during the reign of Jehoshaphat, obviously retold in such a way as to reflect the Chronicler’s ideology and literary needs. This approach was adopted by Rudolph (1955, 259–59), Ilan (1973), Rendsburg (1981, 70), Dillard (1987, 154), Rainey (2000) and others. But even among those scholars who do accept the description of the Transjordanian invasion at more-or-less face value, there are disagreements as to the event’s exact chronology and real significance. Williamson (1982, 293), who considered the geographic details as proving that there must have been an authentic tradition behind the story, suggested that the Chronicler took “an originally fairly insignificant incident and magnified

152

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

it for didactic reasons.” Others see the Moabite-led invasion as a part of the ongoing struggle between Moab and Israel, to be read together with 2 Kings 3 and the Mesha Inscription in order to reconstruct a complete picture. In Rendsburg’s reconstruction, Mesha had subjugated Edom, previously a vassal-state of Judah, as part of his rebellion against Israel. The Edomites were then forced to march against Judah together with Moabite and Ammonite forces, and then, when the invasion failed at the wilderness of Jeruel, Mesha turned on the Edomites, killed their king and burned his bones.213 2 Kings 3, in his opinion, was a reaction to these events. Rainey (2000, 174–75), assuming that the “and after this” of vv. 1 and 35 (introducing Jehoshaphat’s joint maritime venture with Ahaziah of Israel) are both intentional and historically correct, also believed that the Moabite invasion must have occurred while Ahaziah was still king of Israel, during the year after Ahab’s death, 853 BCE in Thiele’s reckoning. Jehoshaphat’s joining Jehoram’s campaign, as described in 2 Kings 3, must have been in revenge for the Moabite rebellion. However, this is not necessarily the case. The maritime incident that begins with v. 35’s “and after this” actually comes after the regnal formula that summarizes Jehoshaphat’s reign, and both the summary and the incident are adapted from 1 Kgs 22:41–51, where they appear in the same order. Since the maritime alliance with Ahaziah could only have occurred during the 17th or 18th year of Jehoshaphat’s 35-year reign, this means that “and after this” is more a rhetorical device than a chronological indicator. In both Kings and Chronicles, the maritime incident is recounted out of chronological order. This in turn means that mention of Ahaziah there has no significance for our understanding of the Transjordanian invasion. It would seem reasonable to assume that Mesha’s rebellion as described in his inscription occurred immediately after the sudden death of Ahab. In fact, Mesha probably took advantage of the shock of Ahab’s death and the disorganized state of the Israelite court and military during the short reign of the sickly Ahaziah, to rebel and take control of the Transjordanian plateau. The Israelite side only reacted seriously after Ahaziah’s death and the institution of Jehoram’s rule, during or after Jehoshaphat’s year 18. Jehoshaphat, as a loyal ally of the Omrides, joined Jehoram, as did his vassal the king of Edom. The defeat of the coalition encouraged the king of Moab to form his own coalition and to attack Judah via its “soft underbelly” – the Judean Desert. This, however, seems to have been beyond his capabilities. 213.  Rendsburg (1981, 70) gathers this from the reference in Amos 2:1 about Moab’s “burning the bones of the king of Edom into lime.” Amos, he reminds us, was from Tekoa, and lived only a few years after these events.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

153

The Invasion in the Context of Chronicles In any case, there is general agreement among scholars that the narrative as we now have it very much reflects the ideology and the style of the Chronicler himself. In fact, it is the longest Chronistic battle account, and includes all of the elements typical of such accounts. Jehoshaphat, in particular, is depicted as acting exactly as the Chronicler would expect a pious king to behave.214 Upon hearing of the vast invading multitude he immediately “set his face to seek the Lord,” perhaps implying private prayer, and publicly proclaimed a nation-wide fast. As emphasized by Beentjes (1994, 265–66), the term ‫את יהוה‬/‫דרש ל‬, “to seek Yahweh,” which means both “to inquire of Yahweh” in the technical sense but also “to be devoted to Yahweh” in a more general sense, is extremely important in the Chronicler’s thought. Fasting is also an “appropriate” response to danger (cf. Jonah 3:5; Est. 4:16 and many more). The reaction of the people of Judah is also an act of piety: without being summoned, they spontaneously gather in Jerusalem, “to seek the Lord” like their king. Jehoshaphat’s speech to the assembly gathered “before the new court” of the Temple is usually classified as a prayer, although Beentjes (1994, 266) further classifies it as a “national lament.” Jehoshaphat’s prayer can be divided into three sections. In vv. 6–9, Jehoshaphat recounts the history of God’s grace with Israel, leading up to the present situation: the Lord, God of our fathers is God in heaven and rules over all nations, with no equal. He drove out the people of the land and gave it to Israel, “the descendants of your friend Abraham,” who built the Temple and who trust in God. In fact, according to v. 9, in any case of “evil” coming upon them, the remedy is to do exactly what they were doing at that very moment: “we will stand before this house and before you, for your name is in this house, and cry to you in our distress, and you will hear and you will save.”215 Verses 10 and 11 describe the people’s immediate predicament: the Sons of Ammon, Moab and Seir, whom the Israelites did not conquer in the first place because God commanded them not to, are now “rewarding” Israel for their benevolence by invading Israel’s territory. In a way, God “is to blame” for the attack, and in fact its purpose is to undo God’s work: “coming to drive us out of your inheritance that you have given us to

214.  Japhet (1993, 787) sees Jehoshaphat as being paralyzed with fear, “reluctant to take any tactical initiative,” with an “attitude of total resignation.” In my opinion, his lack of military action is seen as indicating great faith, not ineptitude. 215.  Petersen (1977, 72) suggested that the shift to the third person in vv. 8 and 9 may indicate that these verses were drawn from a pre-existing liturgy.

154

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

inherit.” Verse 12, the climax of the prayer, is the logical conclusion: God brought this trouble upon them, they did exactly what God commanded them to do, and now “our eyes are upon you.” Verse 13 then reinforces the scene: “all Judah,” including women, children and infants, stand and await God’s salvation.216 As many commentators have shown, Jehoshaphat’s prayer draws upon various precedents, both within Chronicles and in other parts of the Bible. A careful reader will notice references to the Exodus, to Deuteronomy, to David and to Solomon. The reference to Abraham as God’s “friend” is taken from Isa. 41:8 (for more detail see Williamson 1982, 295–96; Japhet 1993, 788–92; Knoppers 1999, 65–69). The Prophecy of Jahaziel Jahaziel son of Zechariah son of Benaiah son of Jeiel son of Mattaniah is not mentioned elsewhere, although all five of the names in the lineage are known from other contexts. A Jahaziel is mentioned in 1 Chron. 12:5. 1 Chronicles 16:6 mentions a Benaiah and a Jahaziel, both priests. A Levite Jahaziel is mentioned in 1 Chron. 23:19 and another at 24:23. More importantly, our Jahaziel is descended from “Mattaniah, a Levite of the sons of Asaph.” According to 1 Chron. 6:16–28 [Eng. 31–43], Asaph, a fourteenth-generation descendant of Gershom son of Levi, was appointed by David as one of the singers who stood before the Ark in the House of the Lord. According to 1 Chron. 25:1–2, “David and the officers of the army also set apart for the service the sons of Asaph and of Heman and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy with lyres, harps, and cymbals… Of the sons of Asaph: Zaccur, Joseph, Nethaniah, and Asarelah, sons of Asaph, under the direction of Asaph, who prophesied under the direction of the king.” Asaph himself is also identified as the composer of twelve of the Psalms (50, 73–83). 2 Chronicles 29:30 mentions Hezekiah commanding “the Levites to sing praises to the Lord with the words of David and of the seer Asaph.” Verse 13 of that chapter also mentions a Mattaniah “of the sons of Asaph.” A “Mattaniah son of Mica, son of Zichri, son of Asaph” also appears among the Levites in 1 Chron. 9:15, paralleled by Neh. 11:17. This post-exilic Mattaniah is further mentioned in Neh. 11:22; 216.  Some translations, such as Dillard (1987, 151) and Klein (2012, 279), put v. 13 at the beginning of the next paragraph, seeing it as setting the scene for the prophecy of Jahaziel. RSV and NRSV, while not breaking up the paragraph, achieve the same effect by beginning v. 12 with “meanwhile all Judah stood before the Lord.” However Beentjes (1994, 270), referring to both the MT and to the passage’s internal logic, breaks the paragraph after v. 13, as do we. Japhet (1993, 780) ambiguously leaves v. 13 as a paragraph of its own.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

155

12:35; 13:13. In 1 Chron. 25:4, 16, a Mattaniah is associated with Heman, the “brother” of David’s Asaph. In other words, in the Chronicler’s view, since David had appointed Asaph, together with Heman and Jeduthun, as singers before the Ark, they and their descendants had held on to that role all the way to the post-exilic period, close to the Chroniclers’ own day. And a part of that role included some sort of “prophesying.” So when a member of this line appears with “the spirit of the Lord upon him,” we are not surprised. This same “spirit of God” also came upon Azariah son of Oded in Asa’s day (2 Chron. 15:1); like him, Jahaziel seems not to have been a “professional” prophet, but rather one who was bestowed with the spirit for this specific occasion. Jahaziel’s speech is the perfect answer to Jehoshaphat’s prayer. He addresses the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem and the king, not denying the danger of “this great multitude” but telling them not to fear, because, as Jehoshaphat had already said, “the war is God’s.” To Jehoshaphat’s “we do not know what to do” he gives them exact instructions. The instructions, however, do not tell them how to fight, but rather how best to witness God’s salvation. They are to go out and to stand and watch, actually doing nothing.217 Jehoshaphat, in a grand gesture of piety, led the assembly in bowing down before the Lord, while the Levites stood and praised the Lord in a loud voice. The identification of these Levites as “of the sons of the Kohathites and of the sons of the Korahites” raises some problems. While “the sons of Korah” are considered to be psalmists (Pss. 42–49, 84–85, 87–88), elsewhere in Chronicles they are listed as gatekeepers and not as singers (1 Chron. 9:19; 26:1). Furthermore, since Korah himself was a descendant of Kohath (Num. 16:1), listing both “the sons of Korah” and “the sons of Kohath” seems superfluous. For this reason some commentators (such as Rudolph 1955, 262; Keel 1986, 716 n. 112; Klein 2012, 280) understand this as meaning “of the sons of the Kohathites, namely of the sons of the Korahites,” while others (such as Japhet 1993, 796) have suggested that mention of the Korhites is a corrupted dittography of “of the sons of the Kohathites.” 217.  As pointed out by Japhet (1993, 795), v. 17 is an almost exact reflection of Moses’ charge to the Israelites before the Red Sea in Exod. 14:13–14: “Do not be afraid, stand firm, and see the deliverance that the Lord will accomplish for you today… The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to keep still.” This is expanded further by Beentjes (2010, 96–97), who connects Exod. 14:31, “and they believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses,” Isa 7:9, “if you do not believe you will not be believed,” and v. 20 here, “believe in the Lord your God and you will be vindicated; believe in his prophets and you will succeed.”

156

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

The Salvation The events of the following morning are more a religious precession than a battle. The procession is led by the king himself. His exhortation seems to be related to Isaiah’s words to Ahaz in Isa. 7:9b, “If you do not believe, you shall not be vindicated,” but stated in positive terms and expanded to include belief in the prophets, a common theme in Chronicles (Japhet 1993, 797; Klein 2012, 291). Jehoshaphat’s “taking council” has been described as a part of the Chronicler’s “democratizing tendency” (Japhet 1993, 797) – he emphasizes the active participation of “the people.” It is not clear whether “the singers” and “those who would praise in holy splendor” are one and the same. It is also strange that they are not specifically described as Levites. Their refrain as they walk before the army, “give thanks to the Lord, for his grace is forever” is well-known. In 1 Chron. 16:34, the fuller form, “give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his grace is forever,” is part of a psalm recited by David’s Levitical singers.218 In v. 41 the shorter form is repeated. In 2 Chron. 5:13; 7:3, 6 it is sung during Solomon’s Templededication. And it is also featured in Psalms 106, 118 and 136. While the singers were singing, God “set ambushes” and routed the invaders, with the Sons of Moab and Ammon turning on the inhabitants of Seir, and then on each other. All that was left for Jehoshaphat and his people to do was to plunder the corpses – so many with so much loot, that the task took three days. There is no reason to search for “natural” or “military” explanations for the invaders’ demise – God simply made them turn on one another until all were dead. This is similar to the battles described in Judg. 7:22, 1 Sam 14:20 and 1 Kgs 3:23, except that there the divinely caused panic in the enemy camp helped the Israelites achieve victory. Here, the Israelites do not have to fight at all – once again reminiscent of the Egyptians’ demise at the Red Sea. The aftermath of the miraculous victory is a total reverse of the beginning of the event. The king and his people gathered in the “Valley of Blessing” to give thanks to the Lord, and then marched back to Jerusalem, singing and playing instruments all the way. Fear is replaced by jubilation. They assembled once more in the Temple, this time “with harps and lyres and trumpets.” Instead of Judah’s fear of the vast multitude of enemies, “the fear of God was on all the kingdoms of the lands.” And now, finally, “the realm of Jehoshaphat was quiet, and his God gave him rest all around.” Possibly, the possessive ‫אלהיו‬, “his God,” rather than just “God” or “the Lord,” is meant to emphasize that the “rest” (peace) that Jehoshaphat had achieved was due to his personal piety and his relationship with God. 218.  Itself composed from pieces of other biblical psalms – see the commentary there.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

157

The Summary of Jehoshaphat’s Reign With v. 30, Chronicles returns to following 2 Kings 22, from which it had departed at the end of ch. 18. However, we should remember, that the previous section that Chronicles had taken from 2 Kings 22 had been taken from the narrative of the reign of Ahab, who had died and been buried in v. 40. Verses 41–51 are basically all that Kings has to say specifically about Jehoshaphat; his previous appearance in the battle of Ramoth-gilead had been part of the Ahab story, and his upcoming role in the failed invasion of Moab (2 Kgs 3) is a part of the Elisha cycle. The remaining eight verses can be divided into three sections. Verses 31–34 are what seems to be a standard summary of Jehoshaphat’s reign, taken mostly from 2 Kgs 22:41–48. The differences between the two sections are mostly a result of Chronicles’ shortening the Kings text. Verse 31 skips both Jehoshaphat’s identification as “son of Asa,” superfluous after four chapters of Jehoshaphat’s reign, and the synchronism with the reign of Ahab. Verse 32’s “he walked in the way of his father Asa” rather than Kings’ “he walked in all the way(s) of Asa his father” has been understood as an attempt to harmonize this statement with that of 2 Chron. 17:3, at the very beginning of Jehoshaphat’s reign, that “he walked in the earlier ways of his father…” – only Asa’s good ways, not his sinful ones (see, for example, Japhet 1993, 800; Klein 2012, 294). We must remember, however, that this insight depends on amending the MT of 2 Chron. 17:3, which actually refers to “the earlier ways of his father David,” an amendment which we are hesitant to accept (see the commentary there). But even if 2 Chron. 17:3 does not refer to Asa, the slight modification here might still be an attempt by the Chronicler to tone down the comparison, as his overall evaluation of Jehoshaphat seems to be more positive than that of Asa. The Chronicler’s amendment of his source here continues in v. 33. The opening clause, “but the bamôt were not removed,” is identical, but Kings’ second part, “the people still sacrificed and offered incense on the bamôt,” is replaced by “and the people had not yet set their hearts upon the God of their fathers.” In both cases, the second part of the verse can be seen as an explanation for the king’s not having abolished the bamôt, in both cases putting at least part of the blame on “the people,” but the statement in Chronicles seems more forceful. In any case, the statement seems to contradict 2 Chron. 17:6, “he removed the bamôt and the asherim from Judah,” as well as the general evaluation of Jehoshaphat as a king who had promulgated the Torah throughout Judah, and his people as also behaving in accordance to God’s laws. Because of this contradiction, Rudolph (1955, 263) considered this entire section to be a secondary

158

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

addition to Chronicles. Willi (1972, 62–63), Japhet (1993, 800), and Klein (2012, 294) simply point out the contradiction without trying to solve it. Williamson (1982, 302) thinks that the Chronicler wished to convey a message to his readers: while his appraisal of both Jehoshaphat and his people was positive, there was always a danger that they might “fall away…the Chronicler will have wished his readers to draw from this the…need for constant faithfulness and vigilance.” Chronicles totally skips over Kings’ v. 45, “And Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel.” The reader, of course, would be well aware of this from both the preceding chapters and the following section, and would know that it was much more than just “making peace” – it was a close relationship that included a marriage alliance and joint military and commercial ventures. It was also the Chronicler’s main criticism of Jehoshaphat’s otherwise flawless behavior. Perhaps he omitted it here in order not to blemish his summary of Jehoshaphat’s reign. The final verse of the summary is a typical Chronistic “reworking” of the parallel summary in Kings. It is possible that he wished to de-emphasize Jehoshaphat’s military exploits, one of which ended in near-disaster, while the other was “won” by God, not by the king. Instead of Kings’ “and his power that he showed, and how he waged war,” Chronicles cites “the first and the last” (of his deeds), a typical Chronistic formula. Kings’ generic “book of the annals of the kings of Judah” is replaced with “the words (or ‘chronicles’) of Jehu son of Hanani, on the book of the kings of Israel.” The prophet Jehu son of Hanani is known from 1 Kgs 16:1, 7 as having rebuked Baasha king of Israel, and from 2 Chron. 19:2 as having done the same for Jehoshaphat. The claim here is that this prophet wrote some sort of chronicle, which was used in composing “the book of the kings of Israel” – supposedly a source used by the Chronicler. His use of “Israel” here instead of “Judah” is also common in Chronicles. The next two verses in Kings, “The remnant of the qadēš219 who were still in the land in the days of his father Asa, he exterminated. And there was no king in Edom; a prefect was king” (1 Kgs 22:47–48), are missing in Chronicles. These are two very different types of statements, and it is difficult to define a single reason for their omission. The qedēšîm that existed in the days of Asa are mentioned in 1 Kgs 14:24 and 15:12; it would have only enforced our sense of Jehoshaphat’s piety to know that he had stamped them out. On the other hand, as pointed out by Dion

219.  Usually understood as “male temple prostitutes” and the like. See Cogan 2000, 387.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

159

(1981), qedēšîm are omitted by Chronicles in all of the four cases in which they are mentioned in Kings (1 Kgs 14:24; 15:12; 2 Kgs 23:7 and in our passage). In his opinion, the reason for this is that by the Chronicler’s time the practice of cultic prostitution had ended, so that it was no longer an issue for the Chronicler. Jehoshaphat’s Ships The second statement, which in effect meant that Edom was a vassal of Judah, was necessary to explain Jehoshaphat’s freedom to act in Ezion-geber, at or near Elath on the Red Sea, since without control of Edom Judah’s access to this site would have been very difficult. Edom’s rebellion against Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram is mentioned in 2 Chron. 21:8–20 (= 2 Kgs 8:20–22), making it even more difficult to explain why Edom’s subservience to Judah is omitted here. According to 1 Kgs 22:49–50, “Jehoshaphat made Tarshish-ships to go to Ophir for gold; but he did not go, for the ships were wrecked at Eziongeber. Then Ahaziah son of Ahab said to Jehoshaphat: Let my servants go with your servants in the ships. But Jehoshaphat was not willing.” Jehoshaphat attempted to emulate the achievements of Solomon (1 Kgs 9:26–28; 10:11, 22 = 1 Chron. 8:17–18; 9:10, 21), and even when his ships had been wrecked, he refused Ahaziah’s offer to help. This is a postscript on Jehoshaphat’s rule, out of sequence (remembering that Ahaziah ruled during years 17 and 18 of Jehoshaphat’s 25), and with no theological explanation at all. Chronicles’ version is rather different. From the first, Jehoshaphat “joined” with Ahaziah, contrary to his refusal to do so in Kings. This was an evil thing to do – preparing the reader for the consequences. Those consequences were announced by the otherwise unknown prophet Eliezer son of Dodavahu of Mareshah,220 who gave the destruction of Jehoshaphat’s fleet a theological reason: “Because you have joined with Ahaziah, the Lord has destroyed what you have made” – and indeed the ships were wrecked.

220.  Although this particular prophet is unknown, the name “Eliezer” is fairly common, while ‫דדוהו‬, “Dodavahu,” seems to include the elements dôd, “beloved” (as in ‫דוד‬, “David”), and an abbreviated form of the divine name YHWH, “beloved of Yahweh.” 2 Sam. 23:9 = 1 Chron. 11:12 lists an “Eleazar son of Dodo” among David’s heroes. Zadok (1998, 245) suggested that the Chronicler “created” a prophet from Mareshah, which in his day was the chief city of Idumea, because his “prophecy” concerned Ezion-geber in Edom, which was the “predecessor” of the Idumea of the Chronicler’s day.

160

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

In the Bible in general, “Tarshish” is a place, apparently somewhere in the Mediterranean, perhaps at Tartessos in Spain or at Tarse in Cilicia, although other identifications have been suggested (for an overview see Lemaire 2000; López-Ruiz 2009). “Ophir” is also a place, known as a source of gold, probably either in eastern Africa or on the Arabian coast (Wachsmann 1990; Cogan 2000, 306). “Ezion-geber” was the port used by Solomon on the Red Sea coast by or at Elath (for more on the specific identifications see the commentary on 2 Chron. 8). In Kings, “ship of Tarshish” is a type of ship, capable of long-distance travel, probably of Phoenician design. Building such ships at Ezion-geber in order to sail to Ophir in east Africa or to Arabia would make sense. The Chronicler, however, seems so have misunderstood his source, assuming that “Tarshish” was the ships’ destination, with no mention of Ophir. The possibility that these ships actually were meant to sail from Ezion-geber on the Red Sea to Tarshish in the Mediterranean by circumnavigating Africa has been raised by several scholars (such as Wachsmann 1990, 78), but is considered unlikely by most.221 The Chronicler’s Jehoshaphat, developed over four long chapters, is a character as complex as the sources that inform his narrative. He is righteous, he promulgates the Torah, he establishes judges and officers throughout the land, he (mostly) abolishes bamôt and asherot, he is militarily powerful and receives tribute, but trusts in God rather than in his army to defend his kingdom. On the other hand, he does have one major fault – his alliance with the “evil” kings of northern Israel. This alliance almost leads to disaster at Ramoth-gilead, leads to prophetic denunciation, and is also given the place of pride as causing the very last – and once again disastrous – event recounted in his reign.222 McKenzie (2007, 313) has called this “ambivalence” in the Chronicler’s attitude towards Jehoshaphat. I would consider it to be historical realism – Jehoshaphat was good, but some of the events of his reign were not. This must mean that Jehoshaphat was at fault in some way. This fault, his “joining” with the sinful northerners, can be used to explain the misfortune that befell him at times.

221.  Herodotus, in his Histories 4.42, tells of Egyptian sailors during the reign of Necho II who made a similar journey around “Lybia,” from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. In Wachsmann’s opinion this might lend plausibility to the possibility that Jehoshaphat’s sailors would attempt to do the same. In any case, it might explain how the Chronicler would think that such a journey would be possible. 222.  Although we must remember that the position of the Ezion-geber incident is taken from Kings.



The Reign of Jehoshaphat – 2 Chronicles 17–20

161

Our final notice about Jehoshaphat’s death and burial and the ascension of his son Jehoram begins a new chapter in Chronicles. It is identical to the parallel 1 Kgs 22:51 except that there the word ‫אביו‬, “his father,” follows “city of David.” King’s ch. 22 then goes on to introduce Ahaziah son of Ahab king of Israel, which is unnecessary in Chronicles. Chronicles also skips over the first seven and a half chapters of 2 Kings, which deal mostly with Elijah and Elisha.

T h e R eig n o f J eho r am – 2 C h r o n ic les 21

Chapter 21: 1 And Jehoshaphat lay with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and his son Jehoram1 reigned in his stead. 2 And he had brothers, the sons of Jehoshaphat:2 Azariah, Jehiel, Zechariah, Azariahu,3 Michael, and Shephatiah; all these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel.4 3 Their father gave them many gifts, of silver,5 of gold and of valuable possessions,6 with fortified cities in Judah; but7 the kingdom he gave to Jehoram, because he was the firstborn. 4 And Jehoram rose up over8 his 1.  The name ‫ יהורם‬means “Yahweh is exalted,” and is the name of both the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, and of the more-or-less contemporary son of Ahab, king of Israel. The MT of both Kings and Chronicles is not consistent in its use of ‫ יהורם‬and of the abbreviated ‫ יורם‬for both kings. In the Greek and in the Latin, both are Ιωραμ, Ioram. We shall follow the English convention of using “Jehoram” for both forms, unless we wish to emphasize a specific case in which the MT uses “Joram.” 2.  The Septuagint has ἕξ, “six.” The position of this word at the end of the clause (“and he had brothers, the sons of Jehoshaphat – six”), might indicate that the number was inserted in order to assure copyists that the following names, two of which are identical in the Greek, were indeed six and not five with one copied twice. See Allen 1974, 2:144. 3.  In most English translations, the names of both the first and the fourth brother are identical, “Azariah,” following the Greek Αζαριας and the Latin Azariam. In the Hebrew, however, the first is ‫ עזריה‬and the second is ‫עזריהו‬. Nonetheless both of these are very close variant spellings of the same name (cf. ‫ אליהו‬and ‫אליה‬, both “Elijah,” or ‫ ירמיהו‬and ‫ירמיה‬, both “Jeremiah”). See the commentary. 4.  The Septuagint, the Syriac and many manuscripts of the Hebrew have “king of Judah,” but the Vulgate and the better MT manuscripts have “Israel,” and most modern scholars agree that since Chronicles often uses “Israel” when referring to Judah, this apparent lectio difficilior should be accepted as the original reading. 5.  Of silver, of gold, of valuables – the Hebrew uses the preposition ‫ל‬, meaning “to,” “for,” “of.” Its repetition is cumbersome. 6.  ‫ – מגדנות‬from meged, which can mean either “precious, excellent” or “choice produce” and is thus open to various interpretations: “precious things” (KJV), “valuable possessions” (NRSV), “[other] presents” (NJPS), “other costly items” (Dillard 1987, 162), “the best of precious stones, garments and fruits” (Keel 1986, 722–23). The Greek has ὅπλα, which could be either “implements” or more specifically “shields.” 7.  The word “but” is implied by the context and appears in all modern translations; the Hebrew and the Greek have “and.” 8.  ‫על‬...‫ – ויקם‬can have the meaning of “to ascend to (the throne),” as in Exod. 1:8, ‫ויקם מלך חדש על מצרים‬, “and a new king arose over Egypt,” or “to rise (violently)



The Reign of Jehoram – 2 Chronicles 21

163

father’s kingdom9 and strengthened himself,10 and killed all his brothers by the sword, and also some of the officials of Israel.11 5 Thirty-two years old was Jehoram12 when he reigned, and eight years he reigned in Jerusalem. 6 And he walked in the way13 of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab, for the daughter of Ahab was his wife;14 and he did evil in the eyes of the Lord. 7 And15 the Lord did not wish to destroy the house of David for the sake of the covenant that he had made with David,16 and as he had promised17 to give a furrow18 to him and to his sons for all time.19 8 In his days Edom rebelled20 from under the against,” as in Deut. 19:11, ‫וקם עליו והכהו נפש ומת‬, “and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die” (KJV; most modern translations are less literal). Most translations (LXX, Vulgate, KJV, RSV etc.) assume the former, such as NRSV’s “When Jehoram had ascended the throne of his father.” However Japhet (1993, 805), after quoting RSV, comments “better ‘rose against the kingdom of his father’ ” and then asserts that “The term qūm al is used throughout the Bible as ‘rise against’… This is the only case where this idiom is used of a king vis à vis his own kingdom; to consolidate his control, Jehoram ‘rose against the kingdom of his father and slew all his brothers’…” (Japhet 1993, 808). Klein (2012, 298) also asserts that “‫ קום‬followed by ‫ על‬refers to an act of rebellion” and translates “when Jehoram had risen up against his father’s kingdom.” However, as seen above from the example of Exod. 1:8 (and others), this is not always true. NJPS obfuscates the issue by combining this clause with the following ‫ויתחזק‬: “Jehoram proceeded to take firm hold of his father’s kingdom.” 9.  The Greek has “his kingdom,” not his father’s. 10.  So the Greek ἐκραταιώθη and KJV. Others have “was established” (NRSV) or “became strong” (Klein 2012, 298). 11.  The usual assumption is that, like in v. 2, “Israel” means “Judah.” For other options see the commentary. 12.  2 Kgs 8:17 has ‫היה במלכו‬, “(he) was when he reigned,” with the object “he” (Jehoram) implicit. Chronicles replaces ‫היה‬, “was,” with ‫יהורם‬, “Jehoram,” literally: “thirty-two years old Jehoram when he reigned.” 13.  NJPS: “he followed the practices.” 14.  This is usually assumed to refer to Athaliah, but see the commentary on ch. 22. The Peshiṭta has “sister” instead of “daughter.” 15.  By the context meaning “yet” or “but.” 16.  The parallel text in 2 Kgs 8:19 has “Judah” instead of “House of David,” and does not mention “the covenant”: “Yet the Lord did not wish to destroy Judah for the sake of David his servant.” 17.  ‫אמר‬, literally, “said.” The parallel in 2 Kgs 8:19 has ‫אמר־לו לתת לו‬, “said to him to give him”; the first ‫ לו‬is lacking in Chronicles. In the LXX, it is Chronicles that has “said to him to give him,” while Kings has “said to give him.” For additional differences between this verse and its parallel see the commentary. 18.  ‫ניר‬, nîr. Often translated as “lamp” or “candle,” assuming nîr to be a by-form of ‫נר‬, nēr. See the commentary. 19.  ‫כל־הימים‬, literally “all the days.” 20.  The noun ‫פשע‬, peša, literally means “crime” and as a verb, “to commit a crime.” For its more specific meaning as an act of rebellion against God and state, see the note on 2 Chron. 10:19.

164

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

hand of Judah and enthroned a king over themselves.21 9 And Jehoram crossed over with his officers22 and all his chariots,23 and he arose at night and smote Edom who surrounded him and the chariot officers.24 10 And Edom has been in rebellion against the rule of Judah25 to this day; then Libnah rebelled against his rule26 at that time, because he had forsaken the Lord, the God of his fathers. 11 Also he27 made bamôt28 in the hills29 of Judah, and prostituted30 the inhabitants of Jerusalem and made Judah go astray.31 21.  ‫פשע אדום‬, “Edom rebelled,” is singular, while ‫וימליכו עליהם מלך‬, “they enthroned a king over themselves,” is plural. ‫ עליהם‬is literally “over them,” but the context implies “over themselves.” RSV and others have “setup a king of their own” and the like. 22.  Instead of ‫ויעבר יהורם עם־שריו‬, “and Jehoram crossed over with his officers,” 2 Kgs 8:21 has ‫ויעבר יורם צעירה‬, “and Joram crossed to Zair.” However, since no such place as “Zair” in the vicinity of Edom is known, some scholars have proposed reading an original ‫צערה‬, “to Zoar,” which is usually identified at Ghor-eṣ-Ṣâfi, at the southeastern corner of the Dead Sea (Aharoni 1979, 340). Others have suggested that the “original” reading was ‫שעיר‬, “Seir,” a common name for Edom, which was corrupted to ‫ צעיר‬in Kings and to ‫שריו‬ in Chronicles (so Curtis and Madsen 1910, 415; Japhet 1993, 810). 23.  Literally “with his officers and all the chariots with him.” 24.  In theory, the syntax could support an understanding that “he smote Edom and the [Edom’s!] chariot officers,” but the context, especially mention of Jehoram’s officers and chariots previously, seems to indicate that Edom had surrounded Jehoram and his chariot officers. In Kings the verse ends “and the people fled to their tents,” which is missing in MT Chronicles but present in the Greek. 25.  Literally “from under the hand of Judah” as in v. 8. 26.  Literally “from under his hand.” The explanation “because he had forsaken the Lord, the God of his fathers” and everything that follows to the end of the chapter does not appear in Kings. 27.  ‫גם־הוא‬, “also he.” This could mean either “in addition to the above, Jehoram made,” leading to the KJV, RSV, NRSV, NJPS etc., “moreover,” or it could mean, “also he, Jehoram, in addition to the previous kings, made…” or “he, too, made…” 28.  “High places” or “shrines.” See the note on 2 Chron. 11:15. 29.  ‫בהרי יהודה‬. The Septuagint ἐν πόλεσιν Ιουδα and the Vulgate in urbibus Iuda, “in the cities of Judah,” seem to reflect ‫בערי יהודה‬, which appears in some MT mss. as well. However, most commentators see no reason to doubt the MT as is. Keel (1986, 729) is reminded of Deut. 12:2, “You must demolish completely all the places where the nations whom you are about to dispossess served their gods, on the mountain heights, on the hills, and under every leafy tree.” So, unlike Asa and Jehoshaphat who did not demolish the bamôt, Jehoram actually built more of them. 30.  ‫ויזן‬, from ‫זנה‬. Zônâh is a common word for “prostitute,” and the comparison of an unfaithful Israel or Judah to a prostitute appears throughout the Bible (for example in Exod. 34:16; Deut. 31:16; Hos.1:2 and many more). The rendering “led the inhabitants of Jerusalem into unfaithfulness” and the like, found in most translations, is, as stated by Japhet (1993, 811), “a circumlocution for the idea of ‘incitement to whoredom’.” Dillard’s “seduced” (1987, 162) comes closer to the original meaning. 31.  ‫וידח‬, “lead astray,” “seduce away from the Lord,” appears three times in Deut. 13 with just that meaning.



The Reign of Jehoram – 2 Chronicles 21

165

12 And a letter32 came to him from Elijah the prophet, saying: Thus said the Lord God of your father David: Because you have not walked in the ways of your father Jehoshaphat and in the ways of Asa king of Judah. 13 And you have walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and have prostituted Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem like the prostitution of the house of Ahab, and also killed your brothers, your father’s house,33 who were better than you. 14 Behold,34 the Lord will strike a great blow35 on your people, on your sons, on your wives, and on all your possessions. 15 And you will have severe diseases,36 with a disease of your bowels, until your bowels come out, because of the disease, day after day.37 16 And the Lord aroused against Jehoram the spirit38 of the Philistines and of the Arabs who are near the Kushites.39 17 They came up against Judah and breached it,40 and carried away all the property that was found in the king’s 32.  ‫מכתב‬, literally “a writing.” As a term for “a letter” it is unique, the usual term being ‫ספר‬. On the significance of its use here see the commentary. 33.  The Greek has υἱοὺς τοῦ πατρός σου, “your father’s sons.” 34.  ‫הנה‬, “here,” a typical opening for a prophetic oracle. 35.  The words we translated as the verb “strike” and the noun “blow” are both derived from ‫נגף‬, NGP, which can mean either “plague” or “military defeat,” and has been translated as either. The following verses suggest that both are intended. 36.  The verb “will have” is missing from the Hebrew. Literally, the verse is “and you in many diseases, in disease of your bowels…” 37.  ‫ימים על ימים‬, literally “days on days.” See v. 19 below. 38.  In what seems to be a post-exilic expression, for God “to arouse the spirit” of someone is to arouse him to action. In 1 Chron. 5:26 God “aroused the spirit of Pul king of Assyria,” in Hag. 1:14 “the Lord aroused the spirit of Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,” and in Ezra 1:1 = 2 Chron. 36:22, “the Lord aroused the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia.” In Ezra 1:5, “The heads of the families of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and the Levites – everyone whose spirit God had aroused – got ready to go up and rebuild the house of the Lord in Jerusalem.” In all of the above, NRSV translates, “stirred up the spirit of…”; its rendering here of “aroused the anger of,” seems unwarranted. The Greek omits the word “spirit,” producing “and the Lord aroused against Jehoram the Philistines and the Arabs…” 39.  ‫כושים‬, “Kushites,” often spelled “Cushites” or translated “Ethiopians,” following the Greek. However, biblical Kush was actually the same as ancient Nubia, modern Sudan, north of modern Ethiopia. See the commentary on “Zerah the Kushite” in 1 Chron. 14. 40.  ‫ בקע‬means “to break,” “to split” or “to breach,” and is in fact the same verb as that used for the “splitting” of the Red Sea (Exod. 14:16; Ps. 78:13 – in v. 15 the same verb is used of God’s “splitting rocks in the wilderness”). NJPS adds “breached its defenses.” Dillard (1987, 162) translates “broke down her defenses.” KJV has “brake into.” RSV, NRSV and Klein (2012, 299) chose the less literal “invaded it.” The form here is feminine, “and they breached her,” which could refer to either a land or a city, both of which are feminine in Hebrew, but nowhere else is this verb used to mean “invading” a country – as an act of war, it always refers to the “breaching” of a city, specifically the city’s walls. In 2 Chron. 32:1, Sennacherib intends to “breach” the fortified cities of Judah. It is possible

166

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

house, as well as his sons and his wives,41 so that no son was left to him, except Jehoahaz42 the smallest43 of his sons. 18 And after all this the Lord struck him in his bowels with an incurable disease. 19 And it came to be in days of days, at the time when the end came out for two days,44 his bowels came out because of his disease, and he died in horrible sickness; and his people did not make him a fire, like the fire of his fathers. 20 He was thirty-two when he reigned and eight years he reigned in Jerusalem, and he departed unlamented,45 and they buried him in the city of David, but not in the tombs of the kings.46 that by “Judah” the Chronicler or his source actually meant “Jerusalem.” The city of Jerusalem is actually called “City of Judah” (āl Yahūdū) in a Neo-Babylonian chronicle, and this was also the name of a town of Judahite deportees in Babylonia in the sixth century BCE (see Zadok 2014, 113 n. 22, who also quotes several analogies from different periods). 41.  The Greek has τὰς θυγατέρας αὐτοῦ, “his daughters,” instead of “his wives.” Allen (1974, 1:131) sees this as “a free rendering” of the translator, influenced by the previous “sons.” 42.  Jehoahaz son of Jehoram is usually called Ahaziah, in both Kings and Chronicles (e.g. 2 Kgs 8:24 = 2 Chron. 22:1). He is called Jehoahaz only here and in 2 Chron. 25:13, where the parallel 2 Kgs 14:13 uses Ahaziah. ‫יהואחז‬, “Jehoahaz,” and ‫אחזיהו‬, “Ahaziah,” are actually the same name, with the order of the element aḥaz, “hold,” “support,” and the divine name YHW in reverse order. This is similar to the name ‫יכניה‬/‫יהויכין‬, “Jehoiachin”/“Jechoniah.” There were also a Jehoahaz son of Jehu king of Israel and a Jehoahaz son of Josiah king of Judah. 43.  ‫ – קטן‬literally “smallest,” presumably meaning “youngest,” which is the common translation. 44.  This entire verse is hopelessly convoluted, making it extremely difficult to both understand or to translate. ‫ויהי מימים לימים‬, “and it came to be in days of days,” obviously refers to Elijah’s prediction in v. 15, but here as well as there its meaning is unclear. It could mean “after a few days” or “after many days.” Keel (1986, 732), Japhet (1993, 816), RSV, NJPS and others assume “days” to refer to years, “some years later, when a period of two years had elapsed” (NJPS). Dillard (1978, 163) and Klein (2012, 299) take the first phrase as “after some time,” and the second as “two days before his demise.” 45.  ‫וילך בלא חמדה‬, literally “and he went without love.” The verbal root ḤMD means “to desire strongly.” In the Tenth Commandment (Exod. 20:14 [Eng. 17]; Deut. 5:18 [Eng. 21]), lô taḥmôd is usually translated “you shall not covet.” As an adjective, ḥemdâh, ḥamūd and the like mean “beloved,” “desirable,” “precious” and so forth. Belô ḥemdâh here has been translated in various ways: “without being desired” (KJV); “with no-one’s regret” (RSV); “unsung” (NEB); “unpraised” (NJPS); “unlamented” (Myers 1965, 119); “to no one’s sorrow” (Dillard 1987, 163). A proposal by Abramson (1988, 381–82), repeated by Japhet (1993, 817), that based on rabbinic sources the root ḤMD here means “to burn” and that “with no ḥemdâh” means “without being burned,” as a repetition of the previous verse, seems unlikely. 46.  Contra 2 Kgs 8:24, which specifically says that “he was buried with his fathers in the city of David.” See the commentary.



The Reign of Jehoram – 2 Chronicles 21

167

Commentary The eight-year reign of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, is the beginning of a dark period in the history of Judah, both from a political and military point of view, and, more importantly for the Chronicler, theologically.47 In both areas, this represents a complete turn-about when compared to the reigns of Asa and of Jehoshaphat. This is emphasized not only in “Elijah’s letter” in v. 13, but throughout the chapter, which includes all of the nineverse account in Kings, supplemented by over twice as much additional material. The first such addition is meant to explain why Jehoram became king in the first place and, perhaps, how he led such a total reversal of his father’s policies. Jehoshaphat, generous and law-abiding, duly appointed his oldest son to succeed him. However, once Jehoram was firmly on the throne, he proceeded to murder his six brothers, whom he presumably saw as threatening his rule; perhaps they did not share his syncretistic religious views. The verse refers to them all as “his brothers, sons of Jehoshaphat,” but does not tell us if they were all sons of a single mother, or if they were all the sons that Jehoshaphat had. Their names are all fairly standard “Israelite,” four of them including the specifically Yahwistic theophoric and the other two including the element “El,” common to all Northwest Semitic cultures, Israel and Judah included. The fact that the first and the fourth names, Azariah and Azariahu, are practically identical (and are rendered identically in the Greek, Latin and most modern translations – see note) has led to a certain amount of speculation. Curtis and Madsen (1910, 414) were quick to assert that “the second of this name should be struck out” and that if the total is indeed six, as indicated by the LXX gloss ἕξ, an additional name must be missing. Williamson (1988, 304) stated that, “It is unlikely that two brothers would have the same name. Either one occurrence should be deleted, or the second emended to ‘Uzziah’.” Dillard (1987, 163), on the other hand, pointed out the minor difference in the MT spelling of the two and suggested that they might have been born of different mothers. Jarick (2007, 132) suggested that “either…the Annalists have made an error or that the earlier Azariah had died before the younger one was born.” Both Keel (1986, 722) and Japhet (1993, 807–808) point out that in 1 Chron. 3:6, 8; 14:5, 7, David has two

47.  In fact McKenzie (2004, 300), believes that “the reigns of Jehoram, Ahaziah and Athaliah are best understood as a single story in Chronicles that traces the negative results of Jehoshaphat’s alliance with Ahab.”

168

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

sons each by the names of Elishama and Eliphelet.48 They further suggest that each of the six may have been the firstborn son of a different mother (as listed for David in 2 Sam. 3:2–5 = 1 Chron. 3:1–4), giving him certain rights and privileges, and making him a potential threat to Jehoram. If Jehoshaphat’s many sons and much wealth were a sign of divine blessing, Jehoram’s murdering of those sons heralds a time of trouble. Jarick (2007, 133) points out that this is the first time in Chronicles that a king of Judah performs such an act. The “officials of Israel” that were murdered together with Jehoshaphat’s sons were presumably those Judahite officials who were loyal to those sons and not to the king. This seems to hint at some sort of struggle within the royal household; perhaps the brothers challenged Jehoram’s legitimacy, either because of his northern-Israelite grandfather or because of his Phoenician grandmother – although, as the Chronicler seems to be hinting somewhat apologetically, neither would have been a legal obstacle to his installment. With v. 5, Chronicles returns to following Kings with the standard regnal formulae. According to 2 Kgs 1:17, Jehoram of Israel (son of Ahab) began his reign in the second year of Jehoram of Judah (son of Jehoshaphat). According to 2 Kgs 3:1, Jehoram of Israel became king in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat, who, according to 1 Kgs 1:42 (= 2 Chron. 20:31), ruled 25 years. According to 2 Kgs 8:16, “in the fifth year of Joram son of Ahab king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah, Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat become king over Judah.” The way all of this is usually reconciled is by assuming a five-year co-regency of Jehoshaphat and his son Jehoram (see Thiele 1983, 57–58, 99–101). Dillard (1987, 165) posits that Jehoram’s appointment as coregent occurred when Jehoshaphat marched to join the battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE, and lasted until Jehoshaphat’s death in 848/9. This is of course possible, but since there is no evidence that Jehoshaphat actually participated in that battle, it must remain within the realm of speculation. Even more speculative is the suggestion of Strange (1975), according to which Jehoram of Judah and Jehoram of Israel were one and the same. In his reconstruction, Ahab had one son, Ahaziah, and one daughter, Athaliah, who married Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat. Upon Ahab’s death, his son Ahaziah took his place, but he died childless after less than a year, and his brother-in-law Jehoram, already coregent in Judah, became king in Israel. Upon Jehoshaphat’s death Jehoram also became king of 48.  Although in 14:5 the first of these are actually rendered “Elishua” and “Elpelet” and in the parallel 2 Sam. 5:15 the first is “Elishua” and the second is altogether missing. See commentary there.



The Reign of Jehoram – 2 Chronicles 21

169

Judah, but since the center of his affairs was at Samaria, he appointed his son, Ahaziah, as coregent in Judah. When, in 2 Kgs 8:28–29, Jehoram (of Israel) was wounded and taken to Jezreel, Ahaziah “king” of Judah, really Jehoram’s son and coregent in Judah, came to visit him, and both were assassinated by Jehu (2 Kgs 9; 2 Chron. 22 and see the commentary there), leading to a change in dynasty in Israel, and to the reign of Athaliah in Judah. However, Strange’s reconstruction has not won widespread approval among scholars. Jehoram’s Sins The standard biographical note is followed, in both Kings and Chronicles, with the comment that he “walked in the way of the kings of Israel as the house of Ahab had done, for the daughter of Ahab was his wife, and he did evil in the eyes of the Lord.” In other words, Jehoram’s evildoing was not due to his own nature, but rather caused by his close association with the “evil” house of Ahab. Of course, this close association had begun during the reigns of Jehoram’s father and grandfather, but at least according to Chronicles’ “letter of Elijah” (v. 12), Jehoram was at fault for not measuring up to their standards. The “daughter of Ahab” who was Jehoram’s wife is presumably Athaliah, although the present passage does not give her name. In Chronicles, the marital union between the two kingdoms was first alluded to in 2 Chron. 18:1, according to which Jehoshaphat, Jehoram’s father, “was married with” Ahab, although no details were given at the time. Here, as well as in the parallel 2 Kgs 8:18, Jehoram’s “walking in the way” of the house of Ahab is blamed on the fact that a “daughter of Ahab” was his wife. Only in 2 Chron. 22:2 = 2 Kgs 8:26, in the announcement of the ascension of Jehoram’s son Ahaziah, do we hear that “the name of his [Ahaziah’s] mother was Athaliah daughter of Omri” (and Kings continues: “king of Israel”). These and other discrepancies have led to a certain amount of biographical speculation, which will be discussed below (in the commentary on ch. 22). For the moment, what is important is that Jehoram’s alliance with the sinful northerners was to be the cause of his downfall. However, despite Jehoram’s sinfulness, “the Lord did not wish to destroy the house of David for the sake of the covenant that he had made with David, and as he had promised to give a furrow to him and to his sons for all time.” The Nîr that God Had Promised David As noted above, the nîr which God had promised David and his sons has been discussed quite a lot in the scholarly literature. Although in

170

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Chronicles the expression appears only here, in Kings it appears three times: in 1 Kgs 11:36, in Ahijah’s speech to Jeroboam, explaining why Rehoboam son of Solomon would be allowed to retain a small part of his kingdom; in 1 Kgs 15:4, explaining why God did not wipe out the sinful Abijam king of Judah; and in 2 Kgs 8:19, parallel to our own passage, in which a similar explanation is given for God’s not destroying Jehoram. In all four passages, the context is obviously of a lasting privilege, reminiscent of the “dynastic oracle” of 2 Samuel 7 = 1 Chronicles 17, although the word nîr in not used there. The various ancient translations offer different meanings for the word nîr. The Greek for 1 Kgs 11:36 is δοῦλος, “slave,” in 1 Kgs 15:4 it is καταλειμμα, “remnant,” in 2 Kgs 8:19 and in 2 Chron. 21:7 it is λύχνος, “lamp.” The Vulgate uses lucernam, “lamp” for all four. The metaphoric likening of the Davidic dynasty to “a lamp” or “an eternal flame/candle,” that spreads its light on its surroundings and will never be extinguished certainly fits the context, and also reflects such passages as Ps. 132:17, “there I will make a horn sprout for David; I have prepared a lamp for my anointed one.”49 This has become the standard translation in almost all modern versions. However, not all translations and interpreters concur. As pointed out by Ben Zvi (1991, 20), the Aramaic Targum translates nîr as malkû, “kingship,” “dominion,” and the various medieval commentaries are divided on the literal meaning of the word. The basic problem with the translation of nîr as “lamp” or “candle,” is that the word that has that meaning in all other passages in the Bible, including 2 Sam. 21:17 and Ps. 132:17 in which the term is actually used of David, is ‫נר‬, nēr. For nîr to have the same meaning, it must be understood as a unique by-form of nēr, used only in this context and no other. A suggestion by Hanson (1968) that nîr be understood in light of the Akkadian and later Aramaic nīru, meaning “yoke,” here used metaphorically as “dominion,” was rejected by Cogan and Tadmor (1988, 95) on the grounds that nīru in Akkadian has negative connotations and thus could not have been used of the Davidic dynasty. However, nîr also has a different meaning; in the three other places in which it appears, Prov. 13:23, Jer. 4:3 and Hos. 10:12, nîr definitely means “furrow” or “ploughed soil.” In fact, in the latter two of these it even appears as both a verb and a noun: ‫נירו לכם ניר‬, “plough yourselves a 49.  In 2 Sam. 21:17, David’s men tell him, “You shall not go out with us to battle any longer, so that you do not quench the lamp of Israel.” See also Prov. 13:9, “The light of the righteous rejoices, but the lamp of the wicked goes out,” and Job 18:5–6.



The Reign of Jehoram – 2 Chronicles 21

171

furrow.”50 This meaning of the word is also common in Rabbinic Hebrew. For this reason Ben Zvi (1991) suggested that the term originally meant “land” and was used here metaphorically for “dominion.” A more imaginative proposal was put forward by Na’aman (2013): that the nîr that God prepared for David refers metaphorically to the “cultivated field” that was ready to receive David’s “seed,” his everlasting dynasty, as promised in 2 Sam. 7:11–12. And while all this might be stretching the metaphor a bit too far, it certainly does show that the “traditional” translation of nîr as “lamp” is far from satisfactory. In any case, as shown by Zimran (2014, 320–22), the covenant with David was the only thing that ensured Jehoram and his descendants’ continued survival. The Rebellion of Edom and Libnah The story of the Edomite rebellion is another element that is common to Kings and Chronicles, and is usually assumed to reflect a historical event. Within biblical tradition, Edom had been conquered by David (2 Sam. 8:13–14 = 1 Chron. 18:12–13) and ruled by Solomon (1 Kgs 11:14–22), who used the port at Elath/Ezion-geber (1 Kgs 9:26 = 2 Chron. 8:17). Although the Bible does not say so, it is reasonable to suppose that after the division of the kingdom, the weak Rehoboam could not have held on to Edom (so Aharoni 1979, 321–22). If Edom did break away, it must have been reconquered by either Asa or Jehoshaphat, since 1 Kgs 22:48 informs us that in the time of Jehoshaphat, “there was no king in Edom; a prefect was king,” 2 Kings 3 mentions an unnamed “king of Edom” who joined Jehoram son of Ahab and Jehoshaphat in their attack on Edom, and Jehoshaphat also attempted to operate the Elath port (on all of these, as well as the “sons of Seir” who participated in the Moabite attack on Judah, see the commentary on the previous chapter). Aharoni (1979, 340) seems to assume that the Edomite rebellion was influenced by the successful rebellion of Mesha against Israel, while Jarick (2007, 134) thinks that the infighting and purges within the Jerusalem court were seen by the Edomites as giving them the opportunity to rebel. The actual account of the battle is difficult to reconstruct from either the Kings version or that of Chronicles, since the present text seems to claim an initial victory for Jehoram, which ended with Edomite independence. Japhet (1993, 810) proposes to solve this contradiction by the addition of a single letter: where the present v. 9 (21 in Kings) has ‫( ויך את אדום‬wayyak et edôm, “he struck Edom”), she proposes a missing waw, ‫( ויך אתו אדום‬wayyak ôtô edôm), reading “he was struck by Edom.” Another possibility is that 50.  Two less-certain appearances of this word are in Num. 21:30 and in Prov. 21:4, but “lamp” does not fit the context there either.

172

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Jehoram managed to escape the Edomite encirclement of his camp by an aggressive counterstrike. In any case, the result is clear – Edom gained its independence “to this day.” The story of the Edomite rebellion is followed by a brief note about an uprising in Libnah, although in this case there is neither a description of an attempted counterattack nor a comment of Libnah’s continued independence. Since, however, the note about Libnah appears in Kings as well, it is also usually assumed to be historical. However, very different interpretations of the event have been offered. Japhet (1993, 810–11), citing references to Libnah as a former Canaanite city-state (Josh. 10:29–30; 12:15), suggested that it had “kept its Canaanite character and was not absorbed into the Judaean kingdom; its inhabitants regarded Judaean rule as foreign, and were ready, when the opportunity was right, to seize their independence.” A similar understanding was offered by McKenzie (2004, 303). Japhet also admitted, however, that there is not enough information to truly understand the incident. Rainey’s understanding of the pericope (1983a, 13) is almost diametrically opposed to Japhet’s. He emphasized Libnah’s position as a Levitical town (Josh. 21:13 = 1 Chron. 6:42 [Eng. 57]), and postulated a widespread Levitical revolt against Jehoram’s “political and religious policies, influenced largely by his marriage alliance with the royal house of Omri.” In Rainey’s view, Libnah led the entire Shephelah in rebellion, as can be seen by v. 11’s reference to his erecting bamôt specifically in “the hills of Judah.” If this reading is correct, the Chronicler’s comment at the end of v. 10, “because he had forsaken the Lord, the God of his fathers,” is to be read as a “historical” explanation for Libnah’s revolt, rather than just as a “theological” explanation for God’s allowing Libnah to fall away. However, Rainey’s assumption that Libnah stood at the center of a general revolt of Levites or others in the Shephelah against Jehoram’s idolatry seems to read too much into the existing evidence. In any case, 2 Kgs 19:8 seems to indicate that by the reign of Hezekiah Libnah was once more a part of the kingdom of Judah (for a similar interpretation see also Dillard 1987, 166; Jarick 2007, 134; Klein 2012, 506). The precise position of Libnah has been debated since the very beginnings of biblical historical geography, but the site of Tell Burnâṭ/Tel Burna, some 10 km north-north-west of Lachish, on what would have been the westernmost boundary of the kingdom of Judah, seems to fit the requirements (Rainey 1983a, 10–11; Suriano, Uziel and Shai forthcoming). If so, the statement, in both Kings and Chronicles, about both Edom and Libnah rebelling, has the effect of showing that Jehoram was beset from all directions. Verse 11 continues the theme of his forsaking



The Reign of Jehoram – 2 Chronicles 21

173

the Lord by actively erecting bamôt and leading the people astray, as expressed in the harshest possible terms. The “Letter” from Elijah The “letter” which Jehoram “received” from Elijah, who is mentioned in Chronicles only here, is widely recognized as a composition of the Chronicler (see, for example, Dillard 1987, 167–68), with the following reasons usually being cited: 1. Nowhere in Kings is Elijah ever recorded as writing or leaving behind any written documents. 2. Despite his excursion to Beer-sheba and from there to Horeb (1 Kgs 19:3–18), Elijah was active exclusively in the northern kingdom, and is not known to have had any contact with the kings of Judah. 3. Had such a document been known to the author of Kings, he would have doubtlessly used it. This is, admittedly, an argument from silence and as such cannot be considered to be conclusive. 4. According to a straightforward reading of the chronology of Kings, especially 2 Kings 2–3, Elijah was “taken up to heaven” during the reign of Jehoshaphat, which means that by the time Jehoram had killed his brothers, an act which is referred to in the “letter,” Elijah would have been gone. This, however, is also inconclusive, since 2 Kgs 1:17 refers to the ascension of Jehoram of Israel “in the second year of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah,” before telling of Elijah’s ascent to heaven. 5. The “letter” is perfectly in accordance with the usual pattern of “prophetic speeches” in Chronicles, in which a prophet warns the king of the consequences of his evil deeds. What is unique in this case, is the medium by which the message is delivered. This final point raises an additional question: Why did the Chronicler choose the format of a “letter,” rather than simply having the prophet appear in Jehoram’s court? Several commentators have pointed out that as Ahab’s prophetic nemesis, Elijah would have been particularly appropriate for the task of denouncing Jehoram, who was both Ahab’s son-in-law and “walked in his ways.” However, since Elijah was not known to have dealings with the kings of Judah, and in the Chronicler’s mind he may have already “ascended,” having him rebuke Jehoram without being physically present would have made sense. Begg (1989, 41) suggested that it was Jezebel’s “letters” framing Naboth (1 Kgs 21:8–14) and Jehu’s “letters” ordering the killing of Ahab’s seventy sons (2 Kgs 10:1–11) that

174

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

inspired the Chronicler’s making use of this device as well. However, had this been the case, the Chronicler would probably have used the same word for “letter” as that used in both episodes in Kings and in many other passages – ‫ספר‬, sêper. The use of the very rare ‫מכתב‬, miktâb, literally “a writing,” is unexpected. The term appears in Exod. 32:16 (twice!) and in Deut. 10:4 as God’s engraving of the Tablets of the Law, in Exod. 39:30 in reference to the words “Holy to Yahweh” that were engraved upon the high priest’s golden diadem, in 2 Chron. 35:4 referring to the written instructions of David and Solomon for the Temple service,51 and finally in Ezra 1:1 = 2 Chron. 36:22, in which the proclamation of Cyrus was transmitted “by voice throughout his kingdom, and also by miktâb.” Based on these references, Bickerman (1946, 272–73) defined miktâb as a technical term for words engraved on tables, signets and pillars, and assumed that Cyrus’ oral proclamation was also inscribed on “a slab” as “a poster.”52 He admits, however, that it would be difficult to explain our case, Elijah’s miktâb to Jehoram, as an “inscription.” However, if we ignore the textually uncertain references in 2 Chron. 35:4 and in Isa. 38:9, we are actually left with only four references besides our own: two references to the stone tables’ being inscribed by God, a reference to the divinely-ordained golden diadem with the words “holy to Yahweh,” and Cyrus’ proclamation, described as being “in fulfillment of the word of the Lord as spoken by Jeremiah,” after “the Lord stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia.” A miktâb, then, is the word of God inscribed in writing.53 The Chronicler apparently considered it fitting that Jehoram’s rebuke be delivered by Elijah. He also apparently understood the chronology of Kings as indicating that Elijah had already “gone up to heaven.” And, like the author of the closing verses of Malachi (3:22–24 51.  However this reference is textually problematic. See our notes and commentary there. 52.  The term miktâb also appears in the MT of Isa 38:9, as the “title” of Hezekiah’s “thanksgiving psalm.” Bickerman explained this by stating that the psalm “was inscribed on a slab.” However, most modern commentaries assume that ‫ מכתב‬there is actually an error for ‫מכתם‬, miktâm, which, whatever it means, serves as the title of Pss 16, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60 (Wildberger 2002, 455–56), which makes it irrelevant for our discussion. 53.  This understanding of miktâb is further developed by Mishnah Abôt 5:6, which lists, among the “ten [miraculous] things [that] were created on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight: the mouth of the earth [Num. 16:32]; the mouth of the well [Num. 21:16–18]; the mouth of the ass [Num. 22:28]; the rainbow [Gen. 9:13]…the ketâb (the writing as a noun; the Hebrew alphabet); the miktâb (as a verb; the act of writing); and the tables of stone [of the ten commandments].” In other words the rabbis also understood miktâb as referring to divine writing (for a translation of the Mishnah see Neusner 1988, 686; for commentary see Safrai 2013, 312–17).



The Reign of Jehoram – 2 Chronicles 21

175

[Eng. 4:4–6]), he saw in Elijah, who was “in heaven” but had never actually died, a divine messenger who would call for remembrance of the Torah.54 The content of “Elijah’s letter” is a perfect summary of the Chronicler’s view of Jehoram, and every clause of the “letter” has its parallel in the narrative itself: Jehoram’s forsaking of “the God of his father David” and “the ways of Jehoshaphat and Asa,” his “walking in the ways of the kings of Israel” and “prostituting Judah and Jerusalem like the prostitution of the house of Ahab,” and finally the killing of his brothers, “who were better than you.” The punishment predicted by “Elijah” is comprised of two main, interconnected parts. Verse 14 promises “a great blow on your people, on your sons, on your wives, and on all your possessions.” As noted, the verb nôgêp and the noun maggepâh, both derived from NGP, can refer to either a military defeat or to a plague or disease, and, as seen in the narrative, here actually refers to both. Verse 15 then promises Jehoram personal affliction: severe diseases and constant suffering. Jehoram’s Punishment The device by which God fulfills the first prediction is “the Philistines and the Arabs who are near the Kushites.” Since Asa had defeated “a thousand thousand” Kushites (2 Chron. 14:8) and Jehoshaphat had received tribute from the Philistines and the Arabs (2 Chron. 17:11 – see the commentary on both passages), it was only fitting that Jehoram, who had forsaken the ways of both Asa and Jehoshaphat, be defeated by just these peoples, all apparently on the southwestern and western frontier of the kingdom. Although the details are sparse, many scholars assume a historical background to this story, perhaps one of “a raid of smaller bands…with the intention of looting and taking captives” (so Japhet 1993, 814–15, who also pointed to 1 Kgs 5:2 and 2 Kgs 13:20 as examples of similar events against northern Israel). Japhet explains this as the Chronicler’s “adaption” of “a short chronicle about the raid of a local Arab band,” turning it into a specific punishment of the king and his household. If, however, the enemy attack was just a raid on the frontier, the very specific outcome seems impossible: the “carrying away” of all of Jehoram’s property, wives and sons “except Jehoahaz the youngest of his sons.” Even if some of Jehoram’s sons had been stationed in various fortresses that had been captured, surely others, as well as his wives and 54.  A tradition that continued to develop in later Judaism. For the development of the Elijah tradition see Wright 2004; Hedner-Zetterholm 2010, 589–605; Assis 2011; Valve 2011.

176

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

possessions, would have been in Jerusalem. As noted above, the verb BQ, when used to define an act of war, never refers to an attack upon a country. Specifically, it is the walls of a city that are “breached.” It is possible, in light of the Neo-Babylonian use of the name āl Yahūdū (“City of Judah”) for Jerusalem and the existence of a town of Judahite deportees in Babylonia in the sixth century BCE (see Zadok 2014, 113 n. 22), that the Chronicler, too, meant to use “Judah” as a name for the nation’s capital. In any case Klein (2012, 309) considers the killing of Jehoram’s sons (as clarified in 22:1) to be case of “the law of talion” – the killing of his sons for his killing of his brothers. The survival of Jehoahaz was God’s way of fulfilling the dynastic promise to David. The second part of “Elijah’s” prediction is fulfilled in vv. 18–19. As noted, both vv. 15 and 19 are very difficult to understand in detail, leading to endless speculation about the nature of Jehoram’s disease, when it struck and how long he suffered before he finally died. As Japhet (1993, 816) pointed out, bowel diseases were common and kings were not exempt from them, but there is not enough information for a more precise diagnosis. Zimran (2014) points out that the term mêî, here translated as “bowels” or “intestines,” actually has a much wider semantic range. She connects the disease in Jehoram’s mêî which yaṣa (his “bowels” which “came out”) to the dynastic promise to David in 2 Sam. 7:12, “and I shall raise your offspring after you, who shall come out (yêṣê) from your mêî,” here meaning “loins” or male genitalia. In other words Jehoram, who had murdered his brothers who had “come out” of his father’s “loins,” was now punished by the death of the issue of his own “loins” – both the death of his sons and finally his own death by a disease of his mêî. The burning of fires, usually with various spices, were apparently part of the regular burial ceremony for kings. 2 Chronicles 16:14 mentions that at the death of Jehoram’s grandfather Asa, who also died of a disease, “they laid him on a bier that had been filled with spices of various kinds, blended by the perfumer’s art, and they burnt (for) him a very great fire,” and Jer. 34:4 says of Zedekiah, “and as spices were burned for your fathers, the earlier kings who preceded you, so they shall burn spices for you.” The lack of a fire for Jehoram was a public sign of dishonor. This dishonor is repeated in v. 20, which begins with a repetition of the standard formula already stated in v. 5 (= 2 Kgs 8:17), but then emphasizing once more “and he departed unlamented, and they buried him in the city of David, but not in the tombs of the kings.” Although burial in the city of David was an honor reserved for the kings of Judah, and Jehoram was accorded this honor, it was mitigated by the fact that he was only buried in the city of David, but not in the Davidic family tombs – a slight of which Kings seems to be unaware.



The Reign of Jehoram – 2 Chronicles 21

177

In general, Kings’ nine-verse description of Jehoram’s reign is that of a king who was influenced to doing “evil in the eyes of the Lord” because of his marriage to a daughter of Ahab, and who suffered two major military/ political defeats. Kings, however, does not detail his evildoing, nor does it specifically connect his defeats with that evildoing. Besides the comment about Yahweh’s not wishing to destroy Judah because of the nîr that he had promised David, there is nothing extraordinary about his reign. Chronicles, by both re-writing the Kings material and by adding 13 verses of additional material, “constructed a monster” (as put by Begg 1989) of the moderately bad Jehoram of Kings. Unbeknown to Kings, Jehoram murdered his own brothers as well as “some of the officials of Israel.” He then constructed bamôt and “prostituted” Judah to worship there. He was the recipient of a prophecy of doom by none other than Elijah himself, fulfilled by military defeat, the loss of (most of) his own children, and finally by his own horrible disease and uncelebrated death and burial. These additions obviously serve the Chronicler’s purpose and are molded, together with the material taken from Kings, in accordance with the Chronicler’s theology of divine retribution. The question of their source and historicity is debated. Various scholars have assumed that such episodes as Jehoram’s murderous behavior, his defeat by the Arabs and the Philistines, the (perhaps partial) wiping out of the royal family, his disease and death, must have been based on independent sources, which the Chronicler then “molded” just as he did with the Kings material. Williamson (1982, 308) is of the opinion that the unique form “Jehoahaz” for Jehoram’s surviving son must have been taken from a source which Kings did not use. Myers (1965, 2:123) makes a similar claim for the account of Jehoram’s ignoble burial. Begg (1989, 51), on the other hand, finds it “more satisfactory and economical to admit that, in constructing the ‘monster’ Jehoram the Chronicler has let himself be inspired by cues offered by Dtr as well as by the immediate and wider context of his own work, rather than to posit his dependence on non-Dtr (historical) traditions.” The fact that where Kings notes the standard “book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah” (2 Kgs 8:23), Chronicles actually avoids mentioning a source for Jehoram, may or may not be significant. In any case for the Chronicler, Jehoram was the first of a series of “bad” kings, who almost brought about the destruction of the Davidic line.

A h a zia h a n d A t hal iah – 2 C h r o n ic les 22–23

Chapter 22: 1 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made his1 youngest2 son Ahaziah king in his stead; for all of the older ones3 had been killed by4 the band5 that came with the Arabs to the camp;6 and Ahaziah son of Jehoram

1.  His – referring to Jehoram. This verse is a direct continuation of the last verse of ch. 21, whose subject had been Jehoram. The parallel in 2 Kgs 8:24 includes the notice about Jehoram’s death and burial, and ends with “and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.” Kings does not mention that Ahaziah was Jehoram’s youngest son or the killing of his older brothers. 2.  ‫ – קטן‬like in 21:17, literally “smallest,” presumably meaning “youngest,” which is the common translation. 3.  All of the older ones, meaning Jehoram’s older sons. In the Hebrew, ‫כל־הראשנים‬, literally “all of the first ones.” 4.  “By” is implied. The syntax of the Hebrew is problematic. Literally it reads, “because all the first ones killed the band that came in the Arabs into the camp.” 5.  ‫ גדוד‬is a “band of men,” usually a band of fighting men. The type of band, whether a band of marauders such as in 1 Sam. 30:8, soldiers as in 1 Chron. 7:4, rebels as in 1 Kgs 11:24 or even the hosts of heaven, the angels, as in Job 25:3, depends on the context. The reference is obviously to 2 Chron. 21:16–17, although the word gedûd is not used there. Here, the Greek uses λῃστήριον, “bandits,” KJV has “band of men,” NRSV and NJPS have “troops,” Myers (1965, 2:124) has “freebooters,” Dillard (1987, 171) has “marauders” and Klein (2012, 311) renders “band,” each with its particular connotation. The verse does not disclose the identity of the members of the “band.” 6.  ‫ מחנה‬generally means “camp” or “encampment.” In this context, it is not clear which “camp” the “band” came into: that of the Arabs, or that of Judah, perhaps leading to the killing of Jehoram’s sons. The Greek has τὸ λῃστήριον τὸ ἐπελθὸν ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, οἱ ῎Αραβες καὶ οἱ Αλιμαζονεῖς, “the bandits who came against them, the Arabs and the Alimazoneis.” Curtis and Madsen (1910, 419) understood “Alimazoneis” as “a tribal or geographical name of the Arabians.” Allen (1974, 2:21) and Dillard (1987, 171) suggested that the Greek “Alimazoneis” is a corruption of “lamahana,” “limaane” or the like, transliterating lammaḥaneh, “to the camp,” rather than translating it. Rudolph (1955, 268) suggested emending ‫ מחנה‬to ‫מלחמה‬, “war,” while Japhet (1993, 817) believes that the two words are at least partially synonymous anyway, citing 2 Sam. 1:2–4 as evidence.



Ahaziah and Athaliah – 2 Chronicles 22–23

179

reigned as king of Judah.7 2 Forty-two8 years old was Ahaziah when he reigned and one year he reigned in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Athaliah, daughter9 of Omri.10 3 He also walked in the ways11 of the house of Ahab, for his mother was his counselor in doing wickedly.12 4 And he did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord like the house of Ahab; for they were his counselors after the death of his father, to his ruin.13 5 He even followed their counsel, and 7.  This final clause seems superfluous, since the enthronement of Ahaziah was already mentioned at the beginning of the verse. Japhet (1993, 818) sees it as a return by the Chronicler to “a strict reproduction of his source,” as well as having a “double capacity of concluding one pericope, the history of Jehoram, and opening the next, the Ahaziah narrative.” Chronicles as usual skips the synchronizing note of 2 Kgs 8:25 about Ahaziah’s becoming king in the twelfth year of Joram son of Ahab king of Israel. 8.  The parallel 2 Kgs 8:26 has “twenty-two,” the LXX of Chronicles (except the Lucianic recension) has “twenty.” Almost all modern commentators assume “twenty-two” to be correct and some emend the text accordingly. The main reason for this is the fact that, according to 2 Chron. 21:5, 20 and 2 Kgs 8:17, Ahaziah’s father Jehoram died at the age of forty, which would make it impossible for any of his sons, much less his youngest, to have been forty-two at his death. One exception to this is Keel (1986, 734), who quotes Qimḥi in assuming that “forty-two” includes a twenty-year period in which the diseased Jehoram and his son Ahaziah shared a co-regency, for which there is no additional evidence. Dillard (1987, 171) suggests a confusion of ‫ כ‬and ‫מ‬, which have the numerical values of 20 and 40 respectively. This suggestion assumes that Hebrew letters were being used as numerals at a fairly early stage, an assumption that is unproven at best. For the development of “gematria” in Hebrew see Sambursky 1978. 9.  ‫ בת‬generally means “daughter.” However the precise relationship is unclear; 2 Chron. 21:6 = 2 Kgs 8:18 claims that Jehoram was married to a daughter of Ahab, who was Omri’s son. The LXXL here has “daughter of Ahab,” while many modern translations render ‫ בת‬as “granddaughter.” See the commentary. 10.  Kings adds, “king of Israel.” As pointed out by Ben Zvi (2007, 43, 48), this is the only reference to Omri in all of Chronicles, and he is not even called king of Israel. Based on Chronicles alone, we would have no reason to think that he, rather than Ahab, was the founder of the dynasty. 11.  In Kings it is “He walked in the way.” The use of the plural and of the word ‫גם‬, “also,” emphasize that the Chronicler “is tracing the baneful effect of the house of Ahab on the house of David through several generations” (Johnstone 1997, 2:117). 12.  This last clause, “for his mother was his counselor in doing wickedly,” is not in Kings, while the ending of the next verse in Kings, “for he was a son-in-law of the house of Ahab” is missing in Chronicles. The effect in Kings is to emphasize the evil inherent in the alliance with the house of Ahab, while Chronicles stresses Athaliah herself as an evil influence. 13.  The first part of the verse, “he did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord like the house of Ahab,” is taken verbatim from 2 Kgs 8:27, but Chronicles then skips Kings’ “for he was a son-in-law of the house of Ahab” and adds “for they were his counselors after the death of his father, to his ruin.” The beginning of v. 5, “he even followed their counsel,” is also missing from Kings. Chronicles emphasizes that it was Athaliah and her counselors who brought Ahaziah to ruin.

180

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

went with Jehoram14 son of Ahab king of Israel to war against15 Hazael king of Aram at Ramoth-gilead, and the Arameans16 struck Joram. 6 And he17 returned to be healed in Jezreel because of18 the wounds that he had been wounded19 at Ramah, when he fought Hazael20 king of Aram; and Azariah21 son of Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Jehoram son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was ill. 7 And the downfall22 of Ahaziah was from God, that he should come to Joram, and when he came he went out with Jehoram to Jehu son of Nimshi, 14.  Kings uses the spelling “Joram” consistently in this pericope (although not in the next chapter, most of which is missing from Chronicles), while Chronicles shifts from “Joram” to “Jehoram” and back again. 15.  Chronicles has ‫על‬, “against,” while Kings has ‫עם‬, “with.” Whether the difference is due to a scribal error or stylistic preference, it does not change the basic meaning of the clause. 16.  Kings has ‫ארמים‬, “Arameans,” without the definite article: “and Arameans struck Joram.” The MT of Chronicles has ‫הרמים‬, “the Rameans.” This is almost universally assumed to be either a scribal error or an assimilation of the initial aleph of aramîm to the preceding article he, and is thus read as “the Arameans.” However many of the Greek versions have τοξόται, “archers,” reflecting either an original ‫רמים‬, “shooters” or “throwers,” as in Jer. 4:29 (‫רמה קשת‬, “shooter of the bow”) or perhaps ‫מרים‬, with the same meaning, as in 1 Sam. 31:3 = 1 Chron. 10:3 (see the commentary there). Keel (1986, 735) suggested that rammîm was meant as a play on the name Ramah, the abbreviated form of Ramoth-gilead that appears in the following verse. 17.  Kings spells out the subject: “King Joram.” 18.  The Hebrew ‫כי המכים‬, literally “because the wounds,” is awkward. Kings has ‫מן‬ ‫המכים‬, “from the wounds,” which is matched by the Greek of Chronicles ἀπὸ τῶν πληγῶν as well. The Vulgate of Chronicles has multas enim plagas, “from the many strikes,” which Rudolph (1955, 268) sees as reflecting an original ‫כי רבים המכים‬, “for the wounds were many.” 19.  Literally “the strikes that he had been stricken.” Kings adds, “the strikes that the Arameans had stricken him.” 20.  The name of the Aramean king is spelled here ‫חזהאל‬, “Hazahel,” rather than the standard ‫חזאל‬, “Hazael,” as in the previous verse. Kings uses “Hazahel” in both verses. 21.  From the context and the parallel 2 Kgs 8:29, the reference is obviously to Ahaziah. “Azariah” is the name by which Kings consistently calls the king whom Chronicles calls Uzziah (see the note and commentary on 2 Chron. 26:1). Most commentators and translations, including the LXX, the Syriac, KJV, RSV, NRSV etc. assume that “Azariah must represent a scribe’s error” (Dillard 1987, 172). However, the Vulgate retains Azarias, which shows that the “error” was present in very ancient manuscripts of what became the MT. NJPS also retains Azariah. 22.  The form ‫תבוסת‬, ‫תבוסה‬, here translated as “downfall,” is unique. It is usually assumed to be derived from the root BWS, which means “to trample,” and is used for “to defeat” only in such poetic passages as Pss 44:6 [Eng. 5]; 60:14 [Eng. 12] and 108:14 [Eng. 13]. Klein (2012, 311) follows Rudolph (1955, 268) in proposing to understand the word as being derived from SWB, “to turn,” as in 1 Kgs 12:15 = 2 Chron. 10:15 or 1 Chron. 10:14, and translates “It was a God-given turn of fate for Ahaziah to visit Joram.”



Ahaziah and Athaliah – 2 Chronicles 22–23

181

whom the Lord had anointed to cut down the house of Ahab. 8 And it was when Jehu was executing judgment on23 the house of Ahab, that he found the officials of Judah and the sons of Ahaziah’s brothers24 who served Ahaziah, and he killed them. 9 And he searched for Ahaziah, and they caught him while he was hiding in Samaria,25 and they brought him to Jehu, and they put him to death26 and they buried him, for they said: He is the son27 of Jehoshaphat, who sought the Lord with all his heart; and there was none in house of Ahaziah to assume power over the kingdom.28 10 And Athaliah, mother of Ahaziah, saw that her son was dead, and she arose and destroyed29 the entire royal seed30 of the house of Judah.31 11 And 23.  Literally, ‫ כהשפט יהוא עם‬means “when Jehu was being judged with.” This is a reference to the story told in 2 Kgs 9 about Jehu’s coup d’état and the assassination of Jehoram and his mother Jezebel, which is not recounted in Chronicles. 24.  2 Kgs 10:13–14 tell of Jehu’s execution of 42 of “Ahaziah’s brothers” on the road to Samaria. Here they must be “sons of Ahaziah’s brothers” since according to Chronicles all of Ahaziah’s brothers had already been killed by the Arabs and the Philistines. 25.  According to 2 Kgs 9:27–28 Ahaziah was captured and killed in Megiddo and buried “with his fathers in the city of David” in Jerusalem. See the commentary. 26.  ‫וימתהו‬, vocalized waymîtuhû, “and they killed him.” The LXX, the Vulgate, the Syriac and a few Hebrew mss. read waymitêhû, “and he killed him” – Jehu himself, not his men, killed Ahaziah. 27.  Ahaziah was actually Jehoshaphat’s grandson, and many translators, such as RSV, NLT, NRSV, translate “grandson.” Klein (2012, 311) uses “descendant.” 28.  While the meaning of this sentence is clear, its exact translation is difficult. For example: “So the house of Ahaziah had no power to keep still the kingdom” (KJV); “And the house of Ahazi’ah had no one able to rule the kingdom” (RSV; NRSV); “None of the surviving members of Ahaziah’s family was capable of ruling the kingdom” (NLT); “So the house of Ahaziah could not muster the strength to rule” (NJPS); “could assume power over the kingdom” (Dillard 1987, 171); “And there was no one left to the house of Ahaziah who had the ability to reign (Klein 2012, 311). Theoretically, it could even be a continuation of the direct speech of the killers: “and there is none in house of Ahaziah to assume power over the kingdom.” 29.  ‫ותדבר‬. The parallel in 2 Kgs 11:1 has ‫ותאבד‬, “made to be lost,” meaning “destroyed.” As a verb meaning “to subjugate,” DBR is used only here and in Pss 18:48 [Eng.47] and 47:4 [Eng.3], both translated “subdued” by NRSV and “made subject” by NJPS. As a noun, deber means “pestilence” or “plague,” a deadly disease, as in the fifth of the “ten plagues” of Egypt (Exod. 9:3). So wattedabbēr here could mean that she destroyed the royal household like a plague, or that she “trampled” and “subjugated” them. The narrative seems to point to the former. Williamson (1982, 314) suggested an Akkadian cognate dabāru, “overthrow,” but this seems totally hypothetical. Watson (1972, 193) suggested the Akkadian verb duppuru, “to pursue.” Alternatively Williamson also proposed a simple corruption of Kings’ watteabbēd, which remains the most likely explanation. 30.  Seed, zera, meaning “offspring” as in many other passages. NRSV translates “royal family”; NJPS has “royal stock”; Klein (2012, 318) has “heirs of the kingdom.” 31.  “Of the house of Judah” is missing in Kings.

182

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Jehoshabeath32 the daughter of the king33 took Joash son of Ahaziah and stole him away from among the king’s sons who were being killed, and she put him and his nurse in the bedroom;34 and Jehoshabeath, daughter of King Jehoram and wife of Jehoiada the priest, because she was the sister of Ahaziah,35 hid him from Athaliah and she did not kill him.36 12 And he remained with them37 in the house of God,38 hiding for six years, and Athaliah reigned over the land. Chapter 23: 1 And in the seventh year Jehoiada was strengthened,39 and took the commanders of the hundreds, Azariah son of Jeroham, Ishmael son of Jehohanan, Azariah son of Obed, and Maaseiah son of Adaiah and Elishaphat son of Zichri40 into the covenant with him.41 2 They went around Judah and 32.  Jehoshabeath, ‫יהושבעת‬, is Jehosheba in Kings, ‫יהושבע‬, without the final taw. Both forms are unique to this pericope only. The name means “Yahweh vows” or “oath of/ to Yahweh,” and is similar in meaning and in form to that of Elisheba, ‫אלישבע‬, sister of Nahshon and wife of Aaron in Exod. 6:23. The addition of the final taw in Chronicles, giving the name a more definitely feminine form, is comparable to Elisheba’s becoming Ἐλισάβετ, “Elizabeth” (a descendant of Aaron, mother of John), in Luke 1. McKenzie (2004, 308) comments that “her name resembles that of Jehoshaphat, the last righteous king of Judah.” This, of course, is only true of the Chronicler’s version. 33.  Kings has “Jehosheba the daughter of King Joram, sister of Ahaziah,” which is information that the Chronicler leaves for later in the same verse. Without this information we might have thought that she was a daughter of Ahaziah, sister of Joash. 34.  ‫ חדר המטות‬appears in the Bible only here. Keel (1986, 740) offers several different explanations, based on different rabbinic commentaries: a storehouse for bedding within the palace, Jehoshabeath and Jehoiada’s private bedroom, the sleeping quarters of the priests who were on duty, or an actual part of the Temple. The Targum translates “the Holy of Holies,” perhaps assuming that this would be the only place in which Athaliah’s men would not search. 35.  The biographical information “daughter of King Jehoram and wife of Jehoiada the priest, because she was the sister of Ahaziah” is missing from the Kings version, which has yet to mention Jehoiada. In fact, Kings never mentions that Jehoiada was Jehosheba’s husband. Pakkala (2012, 245) believes that “this idea is probably an invention of the Chronicler to increase the influence and involvement of Jehoiada.” 36.  Kings has, “and he was not killed.” 37.  Kings has ‫אתה‬, “with her,” instead of ‫אתם‬, “with them,” since Jehoiada has not yet been mentioned. 38.  Kings has “house of the Lord.” 39.  ‫התחזק‬. Many translations have “took courage” and the like, but Myers (1965. 2:127) has “determined to make a pact” and Dillard (1987, 176) has “consolidated his power.” 2 Kgs 11:4 has “sent,” leading to the following “and took.” 40.  Instead of this list of names, 2 Kgs 11:4 has “of the Carites and the runners.” For the meaning of these terms, the first of which is often assumed to represent foreign mercenaries, see Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 126. 41.  ‫ברית‬, usually translated “covenant,” could refer to Israel’s covenant with Yahweh, or to a more mundane pact or conspiracy, as indicated by the words “with him.” The MT vocalization babberît indicates a known covenant, “the covenant.” The Greek has εἰς οἶκον,



Ahaziah and Athaliah – 2 Chronicles 22–23

183

gathered the Levites from all the towns of Judah, and the heads of the fathers’ houses42 of Israel, and they came to Jerusalem.43 3 Then the whole assembly44 made a covenant in the house of God with the king, and he said to them: Behold, the king’s son will reign, as the Lord promised concerning the sons of David. 4 This is what you are to do: the third of you, who come on the Sabbath,45 priests and Levites, shall be gatekeepers of the thresholds.46 5 And the third in the house of the king, and the third at the Gate of the Foundation;47 and all the people in the courtyards of the house of the Lord. 6 And none will enter the house of the Lord except the priests and the serving Levites;48 they shall

“into the house,” which could refer to either the Temple, the palace, or any closed space. A minority of Greek mss. have οἴκῳ τοῦ θεοῦ, “the house of God,” the Temple. Since the difference between ‫ברית‬, “covenant,” and ‫בית‬, “house,” is a single letter, and both appear consecutively in v. 3, either the Greek or the MT could represent an assimilation of one into the other. 42.  ‫ראשי האבות לישראל‬, literally, “the heads of the fathers of Israel.” In pre-exilic Israel and Judah, the bêt ab, “father’s house” or extended patriarchal family, was the basic kinship unit. In the post-exilic period both the social situation and the terminology changed, and bêt ab was replaced by abôt. Most translations (such as NRSV; Dillard 1987, 176; Klein 2012, 318) use “heads of the families of Israel”; NJPS has “chiefs of the clans of Israel.” 43.  Kings, after having skipped the list of names in v. 1 and all of v. 2, has “and brought them [the Carites and the runners] to him [Jehoiada] to the house of the Lord” instead of Chronicle’s “and they came to Jerusalem.” 44.  Kings has, “and he made a covenant with them and made them swear in the house of the Lord, and he showed them the king’s son.” “They” are the commanders, the Carites and the runners. There are no Levites, no heads of families, no assembly, no public acclamation and no reference to the sons of David. 45.  ‫באי השבת‬, literally “comers of the Sabbath.” Verse 8 mentions ‫באי השבת עם יוצאי‬ ‫השבת‬, “the comers of the Sabbath with the goers-out of the Sabbath.” This is usually taken to refer to those priests and Levites who were either on or off duty in the Temple on that Sabbath, leading to translations such as “who come on duty on the sabbath” (NRSV), or, assuming “Sabbath” to stand for the weekly shift, “who are on duty for the week” (NJPS). For further analysis see Levin 1982, 39–42. 46.  Kings has neither the priests and Levites nor their role as gatekeepers. For an analysis of differences in the two descriptions of the uprising see the commentary. 47.  Kings has “Gate of Sur.” Since Kings’ ‫ סור‬and Chronicles’ ‫ יסוד‬are graphically similar, it is reasonable to assume that one is a corruption of the other, but since neither are attested in any other context, it is impossible to determine which form is the original. The Greek πύλῃ τῶν ὁδῶν, “gate of the road” for Kings and πύλῃ τῇ μέσῃ, “gate of the middle” for Chronicles is not helpful, but the rule of lectio difficilior potior seems to favor the Kings reading and the assumption that Chronicles or its source attempted to make sense out of the unfamiliar name. 48.  A more literal translation would be “the priests and those who serve of the Levites.” The Greek has οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ οἱ Λευῖται καὶ οἱ λειτουργοῦντες τῶν Λευιτῶν, “the priests and the Levites and those who serve the Levites.”

184

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

enter, for they are holy, and all the people shall keep the Lord’s watch.49 7 And the Levites50 will surround the king, each with his weapons in his hand; and whoever enters the house51 will be killed; and be with the king in his coming and his going.52 8 And the Levites and all Judah53 did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded, and each brought his men, those who came on the Sabbath with those who left on the Sabbath; for Jehoiada the priest had not dismissed the divisions.54 9 And Jehoiada the priest gave to the commanders of the hundreds the spears and the shields and the quivers55 that had been King David’s, which were in the house of God.56 10 And he set all the people,57 each with his weapon58 in hand, from the right side of the house to the left side of 49.  This is often understood as a repeated warning that those who are not priests or Levites must not enter the Temple, and translated “but all the people shall keep the charge of the LORD” (RSV); “but all the other people shall observe the instructions of the Lord” (NRSV); “but all the people shall obey the proscription of the Lord” (NJPS); “but all the people must observe the commandment of Yahweh” (Dillard 1987, 176); “and let all the people keep the command of Yahweh” (Klein 2012, 318). 50.  Since in Kings, the previous verse did not mention the priests and the Levites, neither does this one: “and you will surround the king.” 51.  Instead of ‫הבית‬, “the house,” referring to either the Temple of the palace, Kings has ‫השדרות‬, usually referring to a row of columns but here understood as a row of troops and translated “the ranks” (Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 127). 52.  Kings and some of the versions have “in his going and his coming.” 53.  Kings has “the commanders of the hundreds” instead of “the Levites and all Judah.” 54.  That is, did not dismiss those who were off duty, either for the Sabbath or for the week. Kings does not mention the divisions, but has simply “and they came to Jehoiada the priest.” 55.  Chronicles mentions three kinds of weapons. ‫חניתים‬, the plural of ‫חנית‬, is understood as some kind of spear or lance, although the more common plural form is ‫( חניתות‬Isa. 2:4; Mic. 4:3). ‫מגנות‬, plural of ‫מגן‬, are shields of some type. ‫ שלטים‬are more problematic. Besides here and in the parallel 2 Kgs 11:10, 2 Sam. 8:7 = 1 Chron. 18:7 mentioned David’s taking Hadadezer’s golden šelaṭîm, Cant. 4:4 speaks of the šelaṭîm of the mighty being hung on Solomon’s bed, Ezek. 27:11 tells of šelaṭîm being hung on the walls of Tyre. In all of these, the common translation of šelaṭîm is “shields” as well, leading to our passage being translated “large and small shields” (NRSV) and the like, to express the difference between magenîm and šelaṭîm. The Greek uses θυρεοὺς for the first and ὅπλα for the second. However Jer. 51:11 mentions šelaṭîm as something that is filled, listed right after “arrows.” This has led some modern scholars to translate “quivers” or “bowcases,” a translation supported by the Akkadian šalṭu, having just that meaning. See Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 128. 56.  Kings has “spear and quivers that had been King David’s, which were in the house of the Lord.” Cogan and Tadmor (1988, 127–28) assume an original plural “spears” there as well. 57.  Kings has “the runners” instead of “all the people.” 58.  Kings uses the generic ‫כלי‬, “his vessels” for “weapons,” but Chronicles uses the more specific ‫שלח‬. As a type of weapon, šelaḥ appears about eight times in the Bible,



Ahaziah and Athaliah – 2 Chronicles 22–23

185

the house,59 of the altar and the house, around the king. 11 And he brought out the king’s son, and put the diadem60 and the testimony61 on him; they made him king, and Jehoiada and his sons62 anointed him; and they said:63 Live the king! 12 And Athaliah heard the noise of the people running and acclaiming64 the king,65 and she went to the people in the house of the Lord. 13 And she saw and there was the king standing at his pillar in the entrance, and the officers and the trumpets beside the king, and all the people of the land rejoicing and blowing the trumpets, and the singers with their musical instruments were leading the acclamation,66 and Athaliah rent her clothes, and cried: Conspiracy! Conspiracy!67 14 And Jehoiada the priest brought out68 the commanders of the hundreds who were set over the troops, and said to them: Bring her out most famously in Neh. 4:11, but none of these supplies enough information to identify the specific type of weapon. The Greek uses ὅπλα here as well, while the Vulgate has pugiones, “daggers.” 59.  Here “the house” is obviously the Temple, and NJPS capitalizes “the House.” “Right” and “left” are often used for “south” and “north,” leading some to translate “from the south end of the house to the north end of the house” (so NRSV; NJPS etc.) 60.  ‫נזר‬, rather than the expected ‫כתר‬, “crown.” But this term is also used for Saul’s crown in 2 Sam. 1:10, and also in reference to the crown of David in Ps. 132:18 and to the defiled crown of a king in Ps. 89:40 [Eng. 39], where NJPS translates symbolically, “dignity.” Keel (1986, 741) reads this as indicating that the crown was kept in the Temple. 61.  The noun ‫עדות‬, “testimony,” can have several meanings, including “covenant” or “law.” This has been understood as either some sort of jewel or symbol (even assuming that ‫ עדות‬is a corruption of ‫אצעדות‬, “armbands,” as in what Saul wore together with his diadem in 2 Sam. 1:10), some sort of document (Dillard 1987, 176 translates “a copy of the covenant”), specifically the Ten Commandments (McKenzie 2004, 311) or even the entire Torah, based on Deut. 17:18 (Keel, 1986, 746). For further discussion see Klein (2012, 326–27). 62.  Kings does not mention “Jehoiada and his sons,” making it less clear who exactly anointed Joash. 63.  In Kings, the proclamation is accompanied by clapping. 64.  ‫מהללים‬, from HLL, which usually means “to praise,” and thus translated by NRSV and most others. However this translation does not fit the context, in which the king had not yet done anything praiseworthy! CAD 1/1, 329, cites the related Akkadian onomatopoeic interjection or refrain alāla, which as a verb can mean “to hail, acclaim, to utter a cry,” and suggests that in our context specifically, HLL is used for “to acclaim.” This is also the translation of NJPS. 65.  Kings does not mention the “acclamation” or “praise” of the king. 66.  ‫מודיעים להלל‬, literally “informing the ‫הלל‬. NRSV has “leading the praise” and NJPS “leading the hymns,” but in keeping with the previous verse, what Athaliah heard was the sound of Jehoash being “acclaimed” as kings. The singers and their “acclaiming” or “praising” are not mentioned in Kings. 67.  ‫קשר קשר‬, usually translated “treason, treason.” However QŠR means “to tie” and qešer is the coming together to commit treason. 68.  Kings has ‫ויצו‬, “Jehoiada the priest commanded” instead of ‫ויצא‬, “brought out.” The difference is presumably a scribal error.

186

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

between the ranks;69 anyone who follows her is to be put to death by the sword; for the priest said: Do not put her to death in the house of the Lord.70 15 And they laid hands on her; she went into the entrance of the Horses Gate71 of the king’s house, and they killed her there.72 16 And Jehoiada made a covenant between himself73 and all the people and the king that they should be the Lord’s people. 17 And all the people came to the house of Baal, and smashed it down; its altars and its images they broke,74 and Mattan, the priest of Baal, they killed in front of the altars. 18 And Jehoiada assigned the charges of the house of the Lord75 to the Levitical priests76 whom David had organized over the house of the Lord, to offer offerings to the Lord, as it is written in the Torah of Moses, with rejoicing and with singing, in the manner77 of David. 19 And he stationed the gatekeepers at the gates of the house of the Lord so that nothing that was unclean should enter. 20 And he took the commanders of the hundreds and the nobles78 and the governors of the people, and all the people of the land, and they brought the king down from the house of the Lord, coming through the upper gate79 69.  Sederôt here and in Kings is the same word as that used by Kings in v. 8, where the parallel v. 7 in Chronicles uses “house.” The translation “ranks” assumes the same meaning as in Kings above, although here it could just as well refer to the colonnade or portico of the Temple. 70.  Presumably because killing her there would defile the Temple, although the text does not say so explicitly. It is also not clear who “the priest” is: does this refer to Jehoiada? 71.  Kings lacks the word “gate,” making “the entrance of the horses to the king’s house.” A “corner of the Horses’ Gate eastwards” is mentioned in Jer. 31:39 [Eng. 40], but that seems to be a gate leading out of the Temple complex to the Kidron Valley, while this one seems to lead into the palace. There is no additional mention of a gate by this name. 72.  Kings has “and she was killed there.” 73.  In Kings the covenant is between the Lord, the king and the people, and then again between the king and the people. Jehoiada is not personally a party to the covenant. 74.  Kings has “they broke properly.” 75.  In Kings, “and the priest assigned charges over the house of the Lord” ends the previous verse. The rest of Chronicles’ v. 18 and v. 19 do not appear in Kings. 76.  ‫הכהנים הלוים‬, literally “the priests the Levites.” In Chronicles this phrase appears only here and in 2 Chron. 30:27, but it is very common in Deuteronomy (17:9, 18; 24:8 and more) and in Ezekiel (43:19; 44:15), in all of which it is usually taken to mean “the priests that are Levites” (perhaps indicating that there were priests who were not Levites) and translated “the Levitical priests.” In this case, the Chronicler was probably following his source, although this part of the verse does not appear in the parallel in Kings. 77.  ‫על־ידי דויד‬, literally “by hand of David.” NRSV translates “according to the order of David.” 78.  ‫אדירים‬, literally “great ones.” Instead of “the nobles and the governors of the people” Kings has once more “the Carites and the runners.” 79.  Kings has “gate of the runners.” ‫ שער העליון בית המלך‬could mean either “the upper gate to the king’s house” or “the upper gate of the king’s house.” An “upper gate of the house of the Lord” is mentioned in 2 Chron. 27:3, and see the commentary there.



Ahaziah and Athaliah – 2 Chronicles 22–23

187

to the king’s house, and they set the king on the royal throne.80 21 And all the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was quiet, and Athaliah they killed by the sword.

Commentary The Reign of Ahaziah Chapters 22 and 23 tell of what was perhaps the greatest crisis faced by the house of David throughout its pre-exilic history: this is the only episode in which the Davidic line is threatened with usurpation and potential annihilation. From the Chronicler’s point of view, the root cause of the crisis was in the unholy alliance that the kings of Judah had made with the house of Omri and Ahab. This alliance had almost led to Jehoshaphat’s downfall, it had corrupted Jehoram and led to his painful death, and now it was directly responsible for Ahaziah’s untimely end, and even more so for the horrors that followed. The Chronicler’s special treatment of Ahaziah had actually begun in ch. 21, with the notification that “Jehoahaz” was the youngest son of Jehoram and the only one to survive the Arab and Philistine “raid,” of which Kings knows nothing. Where 2 Kgs 8:24 tells of Ahaziah routinely succeeding his father, 2 Chron. 22:1 emphasizes that he was enthroned by “the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” This is the only case in which this particular group is credited with king-making, although not the last time in Kings and Chronicles in which various groups of “citizens” take such action (Joash by the military in 2 Kgs 11:4 = 2 Chron. 23:1; Azariah/Uzziah by “the people of Judah” in 2 Kgs 14:21 = 2 Chron. 26:1; Josiah by “the people of the land” in 2 Kgs 21:24 = 2 Chron. 33:25 and Jehoahaz his son, also by “the people of the land” in 2 Kgs 23:30 = 2 Chron. 36:1). In all of these cases, the previous king had been killed suddenly, so it would seem that there was a need for some sort of special action in order to assure the line of succession. The usual assumption is that “the people of Judah/of the land” refers to the landed aristocracy (for this and other explanations see Ishida 1975, 23–24; Dillard 1987, 270; for yet a different view see Thames 2011). However, in our case, the notice is missing from Kings, and the designation of the group is different. If historical, the Chronicler must have received the information from a source independent of Kings (so for example Myers 1965, 2:126). Williamson (1982, 310), Keel (1986, 733) and Klein (2012, 312) understand this to mean that at least in the Chronicler’s mind, there must have been doubts about the right of 80.  In Kings it is “and the king sat on the throne of the kings,” making it Joash’s initiative.

188

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

succession. This seems strange, since it is precisely the Chronicler who told us that Ahaziah was Jehoram’s only surviving son, making his succession automatic. Japhet (1993, 818) sees this as simply emphasizing that in the Chronicler’s view the death of Jehoram should not be regarded as natural. In any case, we are left wondering whether the Chronicler intended us to understand “the inhabitants of Jerusalem” as being inherently the same as “the people of Judah/of the land” or as being a different group. Ishida (1975, 25) and Dillard (1987, 173) suggest that if they are not the same, the Chronicler may be indicating that Ahaziah was enthroned by the Jerusalemites without consulting the outlying districts, even that there was conflict between the capital and the countryside. On the other hand Klein (2012, 312) may be correct in pointing out that according to the previous chapter, it had been “the inhabitants of Jerusalem” whom Jehoram had led astray (21:11, 13). To the Chronicler their “choice” of Ahaziah as king, or at least their complicity in his ascension to the throne, may have proved their own continued unfaithfulness. Introducing Athaliah The precise identity of “Athaliah the daughter of Omri,” whom v. 2 cites as Ahaziah’s mother, has perplexed scholars. 2 Chronicles 21:6 = 2 Kgs 8:18 claims that Jehoram was married to a daughter of Ahab, who we know (from Kings – Chronicles never actually says so) was Omri’s son, and we can assume that both passages refer to the same union. It is also usually assumed that this “daughter,” here named Athaliah, was in fact the daughter of Ahab and his Tyrian wife Jezebel, which is then often cited as an explanation for her “idolatrous behavior.” As stated by Japhet (1993, 809): “the thorough penetration of Baal-worship into Judah and the attempt at a political and religious coup can only be explained if Athaliah was indeed Ahab’s daughter by Jezebel.” Brenner (1985, 30) also claims, “Like Jezebel – her sister-in-law, mother or step-mother – she introduced the Baal cult into her realm.” None of this, however, is as clear as it seems. To begin with, while exegetes through the ages have assumed that this evil queen could only have been the daughter of a previous evil queen, nowhere do either Kings or Chronicles identify Athaliah’s mother. If Athaliah was indeed a daughter of Ahab, she could have been the daughter of Ahab’s notorious Baal-worshiping wife, but she could just as well have been born to him by a different wife. We should note that despite the apparent Phoenician etymology of the name ‫איזבל‬, “Jezebel” (for which see Pruin 2007, 216–19), ‫עתליה‬, “Athaliah,” also spelled ‫עתליהו‬, “Athaliahu,” is as completely Yahwistic as are the names of Ahab’s sons Ahaziah and Jehoram, and is in fact the name of at least two men in the Bible as well (Ezra 8:7; 1 Chron. 8:26–27). Additionally, the above



Ahaziah and Athaliah – 2 Chronicles 22–23

189

statement by Japhet (similar to statements by other commentators) about “the thorough penetration of Baal-worship into Judah and the attempt at a…religious coup” is also not really warranted by the existing evidence. The text does indeed mention a “house of Baal” and a “priest of Baal,” but it does not tell of any attempt by Athaliah to desecrate the Temple of Yahweh (such desecration is mentioned posthumously in 2 Chron. 24:4, and see the commentary there), and Jehoiada seems to have retained some measure of autonomy. There is certainly no evidence of outright persecution of priests or prophets of Yahweh, such as Jezebel was known for in Kings. Read as is, the short account that we have seems to depict Athaliah’s ambitions as being more personal and political than religious. The conflicting notices about Athaliah’s father, or course, complicate things further. In fact, as shown by both Etz (1996, 39–53) and Barrick (2001, without necessarily accepting either of their proposed solutions), the entire genealogical relationship of the Omrides to Jehoshaphat and his descendants is problematic. As noted above, the usual assumption that she was the daughter of Ahab mentioned in 2 Chron. 21:6 = 2 Kgs 8:18 has led many scholars to either follow the LXXL of 2 Chron. 22:2 and of 2 Kgs 8:26 and emend the text to “daughter of Ahab,” or to interpret bat, “daughter,” as meaning “granddaughter,” “descendant,” “kinswoman” and the like (for example, Japhet 1993, 809; Barrick 2001; McKenzie 2004, 308). Other scholars, such as Rudolph (1955, 264) and Katzenstein (1955), follow the Peshiṭta in making Athaliah a “sister” of Ahab. According to Katzenstein’s calculations, an actual daughter of Ahab would have been too young to have married Jehoram and given birth to Ahaziah. He suggested that Athaliah was indeed a daughter of Omri and a sister of Ahab, but that following the death of Omri she was raised in Ahab’s court under the tutelage of Queen Jezebel. The Death of Ahaziah What is very clear is that to the authors of both Kings and Chronicles, Ahaziah’s evil ways were a direct result of his relationship to “the house of Ahab.” However, where 2 Kgs 8:27 states simply that “for he was married to the house of Ahab” and then that he joined Joram son of Ahab in his war against Hazael, 2 Chron. 22:3–5 tell us that his mother gave him evil counsel, as had the house of Ahab after his father’s death, and that it was because of their counsel that he joined the war, with its disastrous results. The war itself is recounted in both Kings and Chronicles very briefly, without any significant difference in content, but with a slight difference in context. In Kings, the short notice about the reigns of Jehoram and Ahaziah of Judah (2 Kgs 8:16–29) is inserted within the much longer

190

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

narrative of Elisha (roughly chs. 2–9, continuing later on), with the presence of Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah at Jezreel after the battle “leading” to Elisha’s anointing Jehu and sending him to wipe out the house of Ahab. In Chronicles, the slightly longer report of their reigns seems to be in its “natural” position within the larger account of the kings of Judah (for a closer analysis of the various accounts see Joosten 2012). The Chronicler skips over most of Kings’ report of Jehu’s coup, commenting only that “the downfall of Ahaziah was from God, that he should come to Joram, and when he came he went out with Jehoram to Jehu son of Nimshi, whom the Lord had anointed to cut down the house of Ahab.” Chronicles does disagree with Kings on the precise circumstances of Ahaziah’s death and burial. Where 2 Kgs 9:27–28 tells that Ahaziah fled the coup in Jezreel, was wounded in Ibleam and died in Megiddo and was then taken to Jerusalem and buried with his fathers in the city of David, according to Chronicles he was caught hiding in Samaria, killed in front of Jehu, and buried in an unspecified place, presumably Samaria! McKenzie (2004, 308) believes that the Chronicler wished to portray him as a coward, and that the lack of a burial citation is intended to show disrespect. Furthermore, where 2 Kgs 10:12–14 tells of Jehu’s killing 42 of “Ahaziah’s brothers” on the road from Jezreel to Samaria as a sequel to his killing of the seventy sons of Ahab, in Chronicles Jehu “found the officials of Judah and the sons of Ahaziah’s brothers who served Ahaziah,” presumably part of Ahaziah’s retinue at Jezreel, and killed them all. As in many other outright contradictions between Kings and Chronicles, most scholars have taken one of three approaches. The first, favored by “traditionalist” interpreters, is to attempt to harmonize the two accounts. Keel (1986, 738) suggests understanding “Samaria” as referring to “the land of Samaria,” of which Megiddo was a part, and that his unspecified place of burial makes it possible that he was taken to Jerusalem (this particular point was also made by Dillard 1987, 173). However this reading seems very artificial. The second approach is to assume that the Chronicler’s version came from a source other than Kings (so, for example, Myers 1965, 2:126). However Williamson, who had postulated the existence of an additional source earlier in the Ahaziah narrative (1982, 308), considers such a postulation here “not necessary.” In his view, the Chronicler assumed that his readers were familiar with the Kings account, and would understand this account as “a theological commentary on the original story” (1982, 312). Other more recent commentators tend to agree. Japhet (1993, 824) sees Ahaziah’s burial “somewhere in Samaria” to be a statement of the Chronicler that “none



Ahaziah and Athaliah – 2 Chronicles 22–23

191

of the Judaean rulers affiliated with the Ahab line was buried in a manner that was proper to descendants of the house of David,” listing Jehoram, Ahaziah and Athaliah, and neglecting to mention Jehoshaphat, whose piety actually assured Ahaziah a burial at all – this serves to highlight the huge difference between grandfather and grandson. There is, however, an additional account of the deaths of Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah. In 1993 and 1994 archaeologists excavating at the site of the biblical city of Dan uncovered three fragments of a royal stele, apparently from the late ninth century BCE (they were found in secondary use in the early eighth century gate plaza). The inscription is in Aramaic and seems to have been written in the name of either Hazael or his son Ben-Hadad, one of whom apparently conquered Dan near the end of the ninth century – an event not specifically mentioned in the Bible. In the standard reconstruction of the text, the Aramean king claims “[I killed …]ram son of […..] king of Israel, and I killed […..]iahu son of [….. kin]g of the House of David.” Assuming that this reconstruction, as suggested by the excavators Biran and Naveh (1995, 13) is correct, this could only refer to “Jehoram son of Ahab king of Israel” and “Ahaziahu son of Jehoram king of the House of David (i.e. Judah)” – in other words, here an Aramean king claims to have done exactly what the Bible claims was done by Jehu king of Israel! And while the literature on the Tel Dan Inscription is vast and many of the details are debated (see for example Suriano 2007), for our purposes this serves to remind us that the differences between the Kings version and that of Chronicles are not necessarily to be seen as being between a “historical” account and a “theological” one. The inscription shows us that the Kings account may not be “historical” either. Or perhaps the Aramean king responsible for the inscription gave himself credit for something done by Jehu, whom he considered to be his vassal. What is certain is that Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah were both killed as part of the violent end of the house of Omri and Ahab in Israel. The Reign of Athaliah Ironically, the house of Omri and Ahab did live on in Judah. Upon hearing of Ahaziah’s death, his mother, Athaliah, whose problematic pedigree has already been discussed, “arose and destroyed the entire royal seed of the house of Judah.” This immediately brings two questions to mind: What exactly did Athaliah do, and why did she do it? The answer to the first question seems almost obvious: despite our discussion above of the various possibilities of understanding Kings’ watteabbêd and Chronicles’ wattedabbêr, the context seems to assume that Athaliah killed all of the

192

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

royal princes except Joash, who was rescued by his aunt Jehoshabeath and her husband Jehoiada. But there are still details which remain unclear. Were all of “the royal seed” Athaliah’s own grandchildren? Or did Jehoram have other wives besides Athaliah, who gave him additional children? Even within Chronicles, in which all of Jehoram’s sons, Ahaziah’s “older brothers,” were killed by the Arabs and Philistines, at least some of them must have had sons of their own (as in our v. 8). Ahaziah’s forty-two “brothers” mentioned in 2 Kgs 10:13–14, even if “brothers” there actually refers to “kinsmen” and not to siblings, seems to indicate that the royal family was quite extensive. Jehoshabeath, then, may have been a daughter of Jehoram by some wife other than Athaliah, and as such was actually Ahaziah’s half-sister. Which brings us to the question of motive. As we noted above, the common notion, that Athaliah’s actions were intended to impose the worship of Baal on Judah, is little more than conjecture. Athaliah’s supposed relationship to Jezebel, whom Dutcher-Walls (1996, 111) calls “Athaliah’s analogue,” is unproven; the “house of Baal” with its priests may have existed for decades before these events, and the very fact that Jehoiada and his royal wife seem not to have been persecuted in any way, force us to look for an alternative interpretation of the events. The most reasonable explanation would seem to be simple survival instinct on the part of Athaliah. Whether or not she would have had any official capacity as “queen mother,” the execution of her son, the murder of many of his “brothers,” “sons of brothers” or even just “kinsmen” and the overthrowing of Athaliah’s own brother (or nephew) in Israel by Jehu, would certainly have made her fear for her own life. Within such circumstances, her removal of any opposition within the royal court would have seemed quite a reasonable course of action. As put by Ishida (1975, 26): “this was her pre-emptive attack against the opposing power.” This brings us to a final question: How and why was Joash allowed to survive? Our very long and convoluted v. 11 says that he was rescued from the carnage by his aunt Jehoshabeath and her husband Jehoiada the priest, and hidden “in the bedroom” (whatever that means) “from Athaliah.” In other words, had he not been hidden, Athaliah would have killed him (her own grandson) as well. Of course ancient literature is full of stories of rulers who wished to kill their own sons or grandsons whom they perceived to be a threat, but this story seems different. Assuming that Joash was indeed the sole surviving son of Ahaziah and thus the direct heir to the throne and an infant as well, it seems incredulous that Athaliah would have “not noticed” that he was not among the dead, and, upon realizing that he was not, would not have made every effort to track him down. These efforts would certainly have included a thorough interrogation of her daughter



Ahaziah and Athaliah – 2 Chronicles 22–23

193

or step-daughter Jehoshabeath and her priestly husband and a thorough search of such public facilities as the Temple. Johnstone’s supposition that Jehoshabeath, “thanks to her position as high priest’s wife…is able to keep Joash concealed in an area inaccessible to the laity for six years” (1997, 2:121), assumes that Athaliah would have avoided sending her troops into the Temple, an assumption that does not seem realistic. By all reason, Joash should have been found. All of this makes it seem reasonable that Joash was not killed because Athaliah did not want him to be killed. After all, her infant grandson would have been seen as legitimizing her own rule as regent. We can suggest two scenarios: one in which Athaliah did in fact kill off any of the “royal seed” who could pose a threat to her infant grandson (as suggested by Ishida 1975, 26), and the other in which it was actually not Athaliah but an anti-Omride faction, perhaps connected to Jehu of Israel, who attempted to destroy the “Ahabites” that ruled Judah as well, that perpetrated the massacre of “the royal seed.” In either, it would seem reasonable that Jehoshabeath and Jehoiada actually hid the infant Joash for Athaliah, rather than from her. The writer of Kings or his source, later followed by the Chronicler, either misunderstood or misconstrued the actual situation, depicting Athaliah as even more of a monster than she really was.81 Athaliah is, in fact, the only woman who was ever known to reign over pre-exilic Israel or Judah, but her exact status remains unclear. Athaliah is often compared with Jezebel, but whatever power was wielded in practice by Jezebel, she was officially the king’s wife, not an independent agent. After the death of Ahab she is not known to have had any influence on affairs of state – all we know is that she was at the royal complex at Jezreel at the time of Jehu’s uprising. Athaliah’s situation seems to have been different. As pointed out by Brenner (1985, 29), she was said to have been a counselor to her son – although the Chronicler does not provide very much detail about her official capacity. In any case, the very fact that she was able to step in and take over the kingdom – and hold onto it for six years – shows that she must have had some support. In Spanier’s opinion, it was her ability “to muster the allegiance of the Judaean armed forces, and to gain the support of those units in the Israelite army who remained loyal to the Omrides…served to maintain Judaean independence” from Jehu (Spanier 1998, 143). The verb môleket, used of Athaliah in both 81.  Knauf (2002, 28), while calling this story “one of the ugliest biblical examples of besmirching a great person’s (in this case, woman’s) memory,” suggests another scenario: that “the conspirators managed somehow to get hold of the person of the infant king, and whoever had the person of the king (much more than whoever had the Great State Seal) had the power.”

194

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

2 Kgs 11:3 and in 2 Chron. 22:12, means “to reign” – as a sovereign king, or in this case a sovereign queen. As articulated by Smith (1998, 156), while Athaliah did indeed “reign over the land…it is clear that the biblical writer struggled with the fact that she did so.” On the other hand, within biblical thought, and probably within Iron-Age Israelite and Judahite practice as well, a woman could not hold the throne of Israel or Judah. It is significant that neither Kings nor Chronicles give Athaliah a “regnal formula” at either the beginning or the end of her rule. To both writers, Athaliah was a usurper of the throne of David, and as such deserving of condemnation. Jehoiada’s Coup d’État and the Coronation of Joash The Chronicler’s description of Jehoiada’s coup d’état in ch. 23 is obviously based on 2 Kgs 11:4–20, but with so many differences that scholars are left wondering if he had an additional source at his disposal (cf. Dillard 1987, 179) or whether all of the differences reflect the Chronicler’s needs and ideology (so, for example, Williamson 1982, 312–13, 315; Pakkala 2012, 244). The story of the coup begins in both Kings and Chronicles with Jehoiada taking action in the seventh year. As noted by Klein (2012, 323), in the Kings version, Jehoiada “appears from nowhere, with no introduction (leading some Greek manuscripts to add ‘the priest’ to his name).” In Chronicles he had already been introduced two verses before, as the priest and husband of Jehoshabeath, a piece of information that some scholars assume that the Chronicler drew from some source, while others (such as Pakkala 2012, 245–46) believe is a simple invention of the Chronicler’s, perhaps as an explanation for Jehoiada’s position of power, or of Jehoshabeath’s living in the Temple complex. Jehoiada is often assumed to be the “high priest” (for example by Williamson 1982, 313), but neither Kings nor Chronicles say anything about his status or his pedigree. Only later, with Joash firmly on the throne, does 2 Chron. 24:6 call Jehoiada “the head” or “the chief” (without the word “priest”), where 2 Kgs 12:8 calls him simply “the priest.”82 Certainly his later role in the uprising and his influence over Joash as young king seem to point to his having a position of power, but it is possible that this position was attained as a result of the uprising and not one that he held previously. Might “was strengthened” in the Chronicler’s version of the uprising (23:1, instead of “sent” in 2 Kgs 11:4) indicate that, at least in the 82.  Another Jehoiada, the father of David’s warrior Benaiah, is called “the head priest” in 1 Chron. 27:5. A “Jehoiada chief of (the house of) Aaron,” who may or may not be the same person, is listed in 1 Chron. 12:28 [Eng. 27].



Ahaziah and Athaliah – 2 Chronicles 22–23

195

Chronicler’s mind, Jehoiada initiated the coup only after finally achieving a position of power? In the Kings version of the uprising, the previously unknown Jehoiada sends for “the commanders of the hundreds of the Carites and the runners,” all military personnel, brings them into the “the house of the Lord,” swears them to some sort of pact, and “shows them the kings son,” who had been hiding there for the past six years. In the Chronicler’s version, the just-strengthened Jehoiada, whom we already know to be a priest and married to a member of the royal family, “takes” the commanders of the hundreds “of” five specifically named individuals, sends them all over the country to gather Levites and heads of families to Jerusalem, brings “the whole assembly” to the house of God, and, after making a covenant with them, publicly presents the king’s son, who “will reign, as the Lord promised concerning the sons of David.” The secret conspiracy supported by some of the military has become a public uprising supported by Levites and leaders of families from the whole country. The “Carites and the runners,” perhaps foreign mercenaries, are systematically deleted, in Pakkala’s view because the Chronicler could not have foreigners enter the Temple (2012, 247). The five named leaders of the uprising – Azariah son of Jeroham, Ishmael son of Jehohanan, Azariah son of Obed, Maaseiah son of Adaiah and Elishaphat son of Zichri – are otherwise unknown, but all of the names, except for Elishaphat, are known from other contexts. Many commentators have pointed out that all of them, once again except Elishaphat, are known in other passages as names of Levites, and some have assumed that the Chronicler intended for these five to be taken as Levites as well. However, the text does not actually call them Levites, and nowhere else in Chronicles are Levites arranged by “hundreds.” Rather, these five are “the commanders of the hundreds,” and where the actual names came from is not known. While it is possible to read the Kings description in different ways, generally speaking, it has “the commanders of the hundreds of the Carites and the runners,” in other words all of the conspirators, divided into three “divisions”: one third who “come on the Sabbath and guard the king’s house,” another third at the Sur Gate, and the final third at “the gate behind the runners.” The first of these are to guard “the house” (presumably the Temple) from within, and the other two, those who “go out on the Sabbath,” are to guard “the house of the Lord to the king” (who, we should remember, was still hiding in the Temple). In the Chronicler’s version of the events, which he created by changing parts of the Kings text and adding a few choice details of his own, it is only the Levites that are divided into three groups (those “who come on

196

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

the Sabbath, priests and Levites, shall be gatekeepers of the thresholds, and the third in the house of the king, and the third at the Gate of the Foundation”), while “all the people” (who do not exist in Kings) are to remain in the Temple courtyards, careful that none but priests and “serving Levites” actually enter the Temple. Following this, in Chronicles it is the Levites who surround the king and lead him to the courtyard, where he is the surrounded by the commanders of the hundreds, brandishing “King David’s” weapons that were taken from the Temple. Only when “all the people” (to Kings’ “runners”) were on guard in the courtyard was Joash produced and publicly crowned and anointed, with the Chronicler emphasizing that he was anointed by “Jehoiada and his sons.” The description of Athaliah’s death in vv. 12–15 follows Kings very closely, with but a few stylistic changes. The only significant changes are the addition by the Chronicler of the people “praising the king” in v. 12 and of “the singers with their musical instruments leading the praising” in v. 13. The final segment of ch. 23, vv. 16–21, tell of Jehoiada’s installment of Joash as king, and more importantly of Jehoiada’s consolidation of his own power as the young king’s chief counselor. Once again, the Chronicler, by artfully manipulating his source material, changes some of the messages as well. A prime example of this is v. 16. In 2 Kgs 11:17, “And Jehoiada made the covenant between the Lord and the king and the people, that they should be the Lord’s people, and between the king and the people.” Jehoiada himself was not a party to either covenant, only a facilitator. In Chronicles, the covenant is between “Jehoiada and all the people and the king.” The emphasis is on Jehoiada himself, and on all the people. In the following verse in Kings, “all the people of the land,” a term usually assumed to refer to the aristocracy, destroy the house of Baal and kill its priest. In Chronicles it is “all the people,” not just the aristocracy. This verse in Kings ends with “and the priest assigned charges over the house of the Lord,” giving no further detail. In Chronicles, “the charges of the house of the Lord” are assigned to the Levitical priests who were assigned by David to sacrifice and to sing and praise the Lord as commanded by the Torah of Moses, as well as gatekeepers whose task was “that nothing that was unclean should enter.” When Kings tells of “the commanders of the hundreds, the Carites and the runners and all the people of the land” (again the aristocracy) taking the king from the Temple to the palace, in the end the king “sat on the throne of the kings.” In Chronicles, besides the differences in participants, the end result is “they set the king on the royal throne” – Joash is not yet a free agent.

T h e R eig n o f J o as h – 2 C h r o n ic les 24

Chapter 24: 1 Seven years old was Joash1 when he reigned;2 and forty years he reigned in Jerusalem; and his mother’s name was Zibiah from Beer-sheba. 2 And Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the days of Jehoiada the priest.3 3 And Jehoiada got him4 two wives, and he fathered sons and daughters. 4 And after this, it came to Joash’s heart5 to renew6 the house of the Lord. 5 And he assembled the priests and the Levites7 and said to them: Go out to the cities of Judah and gather silver8 from all Israel to strengthen the 1.  In the Hebrew, “Joash” here is spelled defectively, ‫יאש‬. The Hebrew texts of both Kings and Chronicles use both ‫יואש‬, “Joash,” and ‫יהואש‬, “Jehoash,” interchangeably. We will use the shorter form “Joash” for both. For a discussion on the meaning of the name see Jarick 2012. 2.  The opening formula for Joash’s reign follows 2 Kgs 12:1–3 with certain changes. At this point, Chronicles skips Kings’ synchronic “in the seventh year of Jehu [of Israel] Joash reigned.” 3.  This is slightly different than Kings’ “did what was right in the sight of the Lord all his days, as he was instructed by Jehoiada the priest.” Klein (2012, 332) believes that Chronicles’ reading is based on a non-MT text of Kings. At this point Chronicles begins to vary from Kings: Kings’ v. 4, about the people still worshipping at bamôt, is missing from Chronicles. 4.  ‫וישא־לו‬, literally “carried for him.” NŚ, “to carry,” is one of the common Hebrew terms for marriage (i.e. the man “carries away” his bride), although in the pre-exilic books the more common term is LQḤ, “to take.” As Japhet (1993, 841) points out, from a grammatical point of view the verb could be reflexive, Jehoiada “got himself” two wives, but the context seems to favor the common understanding, that Jehoiada, acting in loco parentis, arranged for the young king to marry two wives as soon as this was possible. Myers (1965, 2:133) translates “Jehoiada had him marry two wives.” This piece of information does not appear in Kings. 5.  ‫היה עם־לב יואש‬, literally “it was with Joash’s heart.” Most translations use expressions like “Joash was minded” (KJV), “Joash decided” (NRSV; Myers 1965, 2:133), “Joash had an idea” (NJPS), and so on. The Greek ἐγένετο ἐπὶ καρδίαν Ιωας, “it came to be on Joash’s heart” is closer to the Hebrew. 6.  Meaning “repair,” “restore,” “renovate.” 7.  The Chronicler assumes that the actual task was given to the Levites. The parallel passage in 2 Kgs 12 speaks only of the priests and does not mention the Levites at all. 8.  ‫ כסף‬literally means “silver,” and is used as such in most biblical passages. Silver was used both as a metal from which implements were made (as in v. 14 below) and as

198

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

house of your God, year by year;9 and you act zealously10 in this matter; but the Levites did not act zealously.11 6 So the king summoned Jehoiada the head,12 and said to him:13 Why have you not required the Levites to bring in from Judah and Jerusalem the burden14 that Moses the servant of the Lord (imposed on)15 the congregation of Israel for the tent of testimony?16 For Athaliah the wicked,17 her sons18 had broken into the house of God, and had even used all a means of payment (as in Gen. 23:15–16). In this case, the latter is intended, which has led some translators to translate “money” (Latin pecunia; KJV; NRSV; NJPS and more). The Greek renders ἀργύριον, “pieces of silver.” We should remember, however, that coins did not yet exist during the time of Joash. Whether they existed and how common they were at the time of the writing of the Kings’ account would depend when that account was written. They did exist at the time of the Chronicler, although their importance in the Temple economy at that time is a matter of debate. 9.  ‫מדי שנה בשנה‬, “year by year,” “annually.” Is Joash giving the Levites a task that they are to perform annually, or is he telling them to take charge of the already-existing annual tribute? 10.  ‫תמהרו לדבר‬, usually translated “act quickly in this matter,” but see the commentary. 11.  In the Kings account, the priests (not the Levites!) were supposed to have taken the tribute-silver to “strengthen the cracks of the house,” which they did not do for twentythree years. 12.  Presumably meaning “head priest.” Kings has “Jehoiada the priest and the priests.” 13.  According to Kings, Joash asks “them” (“Jehoiada the priest and the priests”) simply “why do you not strengthen the cracks of the house?,” with no reference to Moses, the tent of testimony, the wicked Athaliah or the Bealîm. 14.  ‫משאת‬, “burden.” The reference is to the half-shekel “tax” mentioned in Exod. 30:11–16, later understood to have been an annual “tax,” which is the word used by most translators here as well. See the commentary. 15.  “Imposed on” implied but not written. 16.  ‫אהל העדות‬. NRSV translates “tent of the covenant.” In any case, the reference is to the Tabernacle built by Moses. NRSV and NJPS place the closing quote marks here at the end of v. 6, assuming v. 7 to be an editorial comment. Dillard (1987, 185) even puts v. 7 in brackets. Conversely Klein (2012, 332) places the closing quote marks at the end of v. 7, assuming it to be part of Joash’s admonition of Jehoiada. 17.  ‫מרשעת‬, “wicked,” in the feminine, often translated “wicked woman.” The word is derived from the common RŠ, “evil,” although this particular form is unique in the Bible. Klein (2012, 332) goes as far as to comment “the feminine incarnation of evil.” 18.  “Athaliah…, her sons” is syntactically awkward in Hebrew as well. Williamson (1982, 321) suggests reading “Athaliah…and her sons,” which in Hebrew would mean the addition of a single letter waw to the word “sons.” This reference to Athaliah’s “sons,” which does not appear in Kings, is surprising, since her son Ahaziah was supposedly the only remaining son of Jehoram, and it would have not been likely that she had borne children outside of her royal marriage. Curtis and Madsen (1910, 435) comment that this is “either an example of the Chronicler’s complete disregard of historical consistency, or sons is used figuratively denoting adherents. The reading ‘her priests’ has been proposed.” Williamson (1982, 321) also mentions the possibility of these being her sons before they were murdered, and the possibility of these being “her adherents” as a possible emendation



The Reign of Joash – 2 Chronicles 24

199

the things dedicated of the house of the Lord for the Bealîm.19 8 And the king commanded,20 and they made a chest, and set it by the gate of the house of the Lord outward.21 9 And they proclaimed22 in Judah and Jerusalem to bring to the Lord the burden23 that Moses the servant of God (had imposed)24 on Israel in the wilderness. 10 And all the officers and all the people rejoiced and brought it and threw it into the chest until it was full.25 11 And when the chest was brought for the king’s inspection by the Levites,26 and when they saw that the silver was of bânêhâ, “her sons” to bônêhâ, “her builders,” referring to the looting of the Temple by the builders of the house of Baal (a suggestion also made by McKenzie 2004, 315–316). Dillard (1978, 186) suggests an original kôhanêhâ, “her priests,” again referring to the priests of Baal. Klein (2012, 332) rejects this suggestion but translates “her associates.” See the commentary. Keel (1986, 756) believes that these must have been her (and Jehoram’s) sons who had been killed by the Arab marauders (2 Chron. 21:17; 22:1), an event known only in Chronicles. This explanation seems at first rather forced, but it may have been the Chronicler’s way of explaining why there were no funds for repair of the Temple, if the annual tax ordered by Moses had indeed been collected. 19.  For this plural form of Baal see the note on 2 Chron. 17:3. It is also used in 2 Chron. 28:2; 33:3 and 34:4. 20.  The Hebrew ‫ויאמר המלך‬, literally “and the king said,” and our translation, are somewhat awkward. KJV has “And at the king’s commandment”; NRSV has “So the king gave command”; NJPS has “The king ordered”; NIV, “At the king’s command”; Klein (2012, 332), “The king gave orders.” In Kings the verse says “And Jehoiada the priest took a chest,” with no direct order from the king. 21.  Most translations have “outside the gate,” but ‫ חוצה‬actually means “outward.” Whether that means that it was on the outside of the gate or on the inside facing out is a matter of interpretation. According to Kings, the chest, which had a hole in its cover to enable the placing of donations, was placed to the right side of the altar, which was within the inner courtyard of the Temple. Chronicles’ version does not necessitate the donors to actually enter the inner courtyard. 22.  ‫ויתנו־קול‬, literally “and they gave voice,” meaning “issued an oral proclamation.” 2 Chron. 36:22 = Ezra 1:1 distinguishes between “he proclaimed (‫ )ויעבר־קול‬throughout his kingdom and also in writing.” See also 2 Chron. 30:5 and Ezra 10:7. 23.  ‫משאת‬, “the burden of [Moses],” as in v. 6 above. 24.  The words “had imposed” are not in the Hebrew, which is actually a long construct chain: “the burden of Moses servant of God on Israel in the wilderness.” This entire verse does not appear in Kings. 25.  ‫עד־לכלה‬, literally “until it was finished.” This could refer either to the chest being full, or to the silver being depleted. 26.  ‫ אל־פקדת המלך‬is usually translated “the king’s officers” and the like, meaning that the Levites brought the money to the king’s men. This interpretation assumes that pequddâh is a collective noun, or what Klein (2012, 342, who translates “king’s supervisors”) calls “an abstract noun.” Japhet (1993, 846) argues against this interpretation, claiming that pequddâh should be rendered “charge, task, commission,” in this case “the commission of the king.” Myers (1965, 2:136, 136) has “for royal inspection; literally, ‘for the inspection of the king’.”

200

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

plenty, the king’s scribe and the officer27 of the head priest came and emptied the chest and took it and returned it to its place; this they did day after day, and they collected silver in abundance.28 12 And the king and Jehoiada29 gave it to those who did the work for the service of the house of the Lord, and they hired masons and craftsmen30 to renew the house of the Lord, and also workers in iron and bronze31 to strengthen the house of the Lord. 13 And the workers worked, and the mending32 succeeded in their hands, and they restored33 the house of God to its design34 and strengthened it. 14 And when they had finished, they brought the rest of the silver before the king and Jehoiada, and made of it vessels for the house of the Lord, vessels for service, buckets35 and ladles, and vessels of gold and silver; and they offered burnt offerings36 in the house of the Lord always, all the days of Jehoiada.37 27.  In Kings the word “officer” is absent, reading “the king’s scribe and the high priest.” 28.  In Kings, they count the silver that has been collected. There is no reference to repeating the collection daily. 29.  Kings has “and they gave,” referring to the scribe and the high priest. The king is not directly involved and the high priest is not named. 30.  ‫ חרשים‬can be any kind of craftsmen, and the verse goes on to mention ‫חרשי ברזל‬ ‫ונחשת‬, “craftsmen of iron and bronze.” The parallel verse in 2 Kgs 12:12 has ‫לחרשי העץ‬ ‫ולבנים‬, “to the craftsmen of wood and to the builders.” Since our verse also mentions masons and metalworkers, ‫ חרשים‬here is commonly translated “carpenters.” 31.  ‫ נחשת‬is literally “copper.” However in the ancient world, ‫ נחשת‬also referred to copper alloys such as bronze and brass, which were used for making tools, weapons and vessels. 32.  The basic meaning of ‫ ארוכה‬is the healing of wounds, as in Jer. 8:22; 30:17 and 33:6. In Neh. 4:1 [Eng. 7] we find the same word referring to the repair of the walls of the city. 33.  ‫ויעמידו‬, literally “and they stood [the house of god],” in the sense of “made it stand.” 34.  ‫ מתכנת‬means “design” or “form.” Most translations add “restored to its original form/design.” 35.  ‫והעלות‬, vocalized wehaalôt, is a hapax legomenon, but from the context refers to some sort of vessel, as in NJPS: “service vessels: buckets and ladles, golden and silver vessels.” See also Keel 1986, 759 for a discussion of the specific type of vessel, as understood by medieval commentators. Other commentators assume that it is to be vocalized as wehaôlôt, “and the burnt offerings” (Greek ὁλοκαυτωμάτων), meaning that the vessels were for “service and for burnt offerings, ladles and vessels of gold and silver” (so, more-or-less, KJV; RSV; NRSV; NIV; Myers 1965, 2:134; Dillard 1987, 148; Klein 2012, 332). 36.  Here ‫ מעלים עלות‬definitely refers to the type of sacrifice commonly translated “burnt offerings.” 37.  2 Kgs 12:14–17 tells that the surplus funds were given to the priests and not used to make other utensils for the Temple. Kings does not specifically mention the offering of sacrifices, nor is the death of Jehoiada noted. Chronicles’ vv. 15–22 have no parallel in Kings.



The Reign of Joash – 2 Chronicles 24

201

15 And Jehoiada grew old and full of days, and died; he was one hundred thirty years old at his death. 16 And they buried him in the city of David with the kings, because he had done good in Israel, and with God and his house.38 17 And after the death of Jehoiada, the officials of Judah came and bowed to the king; then the king listened to them. 18 They abandoned the house39 of the Lord the God of their fathers, and served the asherim40 and the graven images,41 and there was wrath42 upon Judah and Jerusalem for this guilt of theirs. 19 And he sent prophets among them to bring them back to the Lord; they testified to43 them, and they did not listen. 20 Then the spirit of God enveloped44 Zechariah45 son of Jehoiada the priest and he stood above the 38.  “His house” presumably refers to the Temple, and some translations have “temple” instead of “house.” Keel (1986, 760) sees a double meaning: the house of David, with whom Yahweh made an everlasting covenant, and the house of Yahweh, which was built by David and Solomon. 39.  The phrase “abandon the house of the Lord” appears nowhere else in the Bible and some have proposed to amend it. The Greek A and B recensions omit the word “house,” making it “abandoned the Lord” (Klein 2012, 333 accepts this reading). Some manuscripts have ‫ברית‬, “covenant,” instead of ‫בית‬, “house” (so Rudolph 1955, 276). However most retain the MT (Dillard 1987, 186 translates “temple” for clarity). 40.  ‫ אשרים‬is a masculine plural form of asherah. Many translations render “groves” (KJV), “sacred poles” (NEB; NRSV), “sacred posts” (NJPS), but some render “Asherim” (RSV) or “Asherah poles” (NLT; NIV). See the commentary on 2 Chron. 14:2. 41.  ‫ – עצבים‬a somewhat uncommon term for “idols,” which is the usual translation. Apparently derived from the root ṢB, “to form, fashion” (see Job 10:8: ‫ידיך עצבוני ויעשוני‬ – “your hands fashioned and made me”). The term appears in Chronicles only once more, in 1 Chron. 10:9 = 1 Sam. 31:9. Interestingly, where 2 Sam. 5:21 uses aṣabbēhem in reference to the Philistines’ gods, 1 Chron. 14:12 substitutes elôhēhem, “their gods”; see the commentary there. 42.  ‫קצף‬. See 2 Chron. 19:2 and the note there. 43.  Many translations (KJV; NRSV) have “testified against them” based on the context. NJPS has “admonished,” Dillard (1987, 186) and Klein (2012, 333) have “warned.” 44.  ‫לבשה‬, literally “clothed itself with.” A similar expression appears in Judg. 6:34 (“and the spirit of the Lord enveloped Gideon”) and in 1 Chron. 12:19, there without naming God. The meaning is clear from the context, and various translations use different terms: “came upon” (KJV; NIV); “took possession” (RSV; NRSV); “enveloped” (NJPS); “invested” (Dillard 1987, 186); “clothed” (Klein 2012, 333). Myers (1965, 2:134) who translated, “the spirit of God put on Zechariah…” Keel (1986, 762) rightfully comments that the image is not of Zechariah “putting on” the spirit, but of the spirit filling Zechariah, like a man filling his clothing. See also Job 29:14, ‫צדק לבשתי וילבשני‬, “I put on righteousness, and it clothed me.” 45.  Most Greek mss. have Αζαριαν, “Azarias” instead of Zechariah. Allen (1974, 2:31) sees this as being caused by confusion with the chief-priest Azariah mentioned in 2 Chron. 26:17, 20, and comments that “these two names are frequently confused in the LXX, probably partly because an Azariah and a Zechariah ruled as contemporaries on the thrones of Israel and Judah.” This last claim seems rather unlikely.

202

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

people46; and he said to them: Thus said God:47 Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord, and you will not succeed? For you have forsaken the Lord, and he has forsaken you.48 21 And they conspired against him, and they pelted him with stones by command of the king in the court of the house of the Lord. 22 And Joash the king did not remember the kindness that Jehoiada his father had done with him, and killed his son; and as he died he said: The Lord will see and requite!49 23 And it was at the turn of the year,50 the army of Aram came up against 46.  Presumably on some podium so that he would be heard better, although Lamentations Rabba (quoted by Keel 1986, 762) understands that as the king’s relative he considered himself “above” the common people. Klein (2012, 345), assuming that Jehoiada had only one wife, Jehoshabeath daughter of Jehoram and Joash’s aunt, calculates that Joash and Zechariah were first cousins. 47.  Actually ‫ האלהים‬with the article – “the God.” 48.  While the meaning of Zechariah’s speech is clear, different translations have understood the syntax and tenses in different ways, resulting in different translations. For example KJV: “Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you”; NIV: “Why do you disobey the LORD’s commands? You will not prosper. Because you have forsaken the LORD, he has forsaken you”; NLT: “Why do you disobey the LORD’s commands so that you cannot prosper? You have abandoned the LORD, and now he has abandoned you!”; RSV, NRSV: “Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has also forsaken you”; NJPS: “Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord when you cannot prosper? Since you have forsaken the Lord, He has forsaken you”; Myers (1965, 2:134): “why have you transgressed the commandments of Yahweh so that you cannot succeed; for if you abandon Yahweh, he will abandon you”; Dillard (1987, 186): “Why do you transgress the commandments of Yahweh and therefore not prosper? Since you have forsaken Yahweh, he has forsaken you”; Klein (2012, 333): “‘Why are you transgressing the commandments of Yahweh? You will not succeed.’ Since you have forsaken Yahweh, he has forsaken you.” Note that in Klein’s rendering, the initial question and statement are Yahweh’s, while the closing comment is Zechariah’s. 49.  The root DRŠ has a basic meaning of “require,” “demand.” In this case, it is often translated “avenge” and the like. Most translations render the entire sentence as a wish or prayer: “may the Lord see and requite!” Kalimi (2010, 203) thinks that Zechariah’s words are based on Exod. 5:21, with weyišpôt (“will judge”) there replaced by weyidrôš in order to evoke Gen. 9:5 as well. 50.  ‫תקופת השנה‬, “the turn of the year.” Sometimes translated imprecisely “the end of the year.” Apparently from QWP, meaning “round” or “circuit.” The same expression is used in Exod. 24:22 for ‫חג האסיף‬, “the festival of ingathering,” celebrated in the fall/ autumn, which is the beginning of the agricultural year. This does not necessarily mean that the Aramean invasion occurred in the fall/autumn, since most military campaigns were carried out in the spring, after the rains. In 1 Sam. 1:20, Hannah conceived ‫לתקפות‬ ‫הימים‬, “after the end of a period of days,” which was not necessarily in the fall/autumn (NRSV “in due time” seems more accurate than NJPS “at the turn of the year” in that



The Reign of Joash – 2 Chronicles 24

203

him,51 and they came to Judah and Jerusalem, and destroyed all the officials of the people from the people,52 and all of their plunder they sent to the king of Darmascus.53 24 For the army of Aram had come with few men, and the Lord delivered into their hand a very great army, because they had abandoned the Lord, the God of their fathers; and they executed judgments54 on Joash. 25 And when they went from him, for they left him with many wounds, his servants conspired against him because of the blood of the sons55 of Jehoiada the priest, and they killed him on his bed, and he died; and they buried him in the city of David, but56 they did not bury him in the tombs of the kings. 26 And these were the conspirators against him: Zabad son of Shimeath the Ammonitess, and Jehozabad son of Shimrith the Moabitess.57 27 And (of) his sons, and the many58 oracles against him, and the foundation59

context). The only other occurrence of ‫ תקופת‬in the Bible is in Ps. 19:7 [Eng. 6], in which the sun’s teqûpâtô is translated “circuit” by both NRSV and NJPS, but the expression is used often in DSS and Rabbinic Hebrew (see DCH 8:671). 51.  NRSV adds “against Joash” for clarity. Klein (2012, 333) inexplicably deleted the word “Aram” from this verse. 2 Kgs 12:18–19 [Eng. 17–18] identifies the Aramean king as Hazael, mentions a war against Gath, and tells of Joash preventing a siege of Jerusalem by sending the treasures of the Temple and the king’s house to Hazael. See the commentary. 52.  A strange expression, but the meaning is clear. NJPS: “wiped out all the officers of the people from among the people”; Klein (2012, 333) has “destroyed all the officials of the people from among them.” 53.  The name of the Aramean capital is not mentioned in the Kings account of the story. The spelling of the name in Chronicles, ‫דרמשק‬, “Darmascus,” rather than the standard ‫דמשק‬, might be an Aramaism (so Keel 1986, 763). Hognesius (2003, 165) considers it to be a deliberate change by the Chronicler. This spelling also occurs in 2 Chron. 16:2 (where the parallel in Kings has ‫ )דמשק‬and 2 Chron. 28:5, 23. 54.  NJPS: “inflicted punishments.” 55.  The Greek and Latin have “son,” and many versions (NIV; NLT; RSV; NRSV; Myers 1965, 2:135; Dillard 1987, 186; Klein 2012, 333) follow their lead. Klein suggests that the extra yod making ‫בן‬, “son,” into ‫בני‬, “sons,” occurred because of dittography with the first letter of the following word ‫יהוידע‬, “Jehoiada.” On the other hand 2 Chron. 23:11 does mention “Jehoiada and his sons” anointing Joash, and Keel (1986, 764) posits that these sons were murdered together with Zechariah. 56.  “But” implied. Kings says that he was buried “with his fathers in the city of David,” and does not mention his not being buried in the royal tombs. 57.  Kings, who gives the assassin’s names as Jozacar son of Shimeath and Jehozabad son of Shomer, does not mention their mothers being foreigners. See the commentary. 58.  Most translators and commentators follow the qeri ‫ורב‬, “many.” The ketib, ‫ירב‬, could be understood as an imperative “may they/he be many,” as in Dillard’s “may the prophecies against him increase” (1987, 187; also Curtis and Madsen 1910, 440) or as something to do with a struggle or fight. See also Keel 1986, 765–66. 59.  ‫יסוד‬. Most translations render “rebuilding,” “renovation” etc.

204

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

of the house of God are written in the midrash60 of the book of the Kings; and his son Amaziah reigned in his stead.

Commentary In both Kings and Chronicles, the reign of Joash begins with great hope and ends ignominiously. Joash, the sole survivor of the house of David, saved as an infant by Jehoiada the priest, becomes king while still a child and begins his long reign (as long as those of David and Solomon!) under the priest’s tutelage. He began his reign by doing “what was right in the eyes of the Lord,” and Chronicles even skips Kings’ caveat that the people were still worshiping at the bamôt, making Joash’s reign truly a time of piety, a piety that was quickly rewarded with progeny. The almostdestroyed house of David was now on the path to recovery! However, even here, Chronicles makes a small but significant change. Where 2 Kgs 12:3 says that Joash “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all his days, as he was instructed by Jehoiada the priest,” the Chronicler tells us that he did so “all the days of Jehoiada the priest.” In doing so, the Chronicler is warning us that after the days of Jehoiada the priest things will change. Joash Repairs the Temple The most important single episode in the Joash narrative, 12 of the 27 verses of ch. 24, is that of Joash’s initiative to repair the Temple. The Chronicler’s version of the story is obviously based on Kings, but with so many important differences that some scholars have postulated his use of an additional source (a claim that was refuted by Williamson 1982, 318). Neither version tells us exactly when Joash began to take an interest in the upkeep of the Temple. We might conjecture that since he apparently spent the first six years of his life in the Temple compound, he actually grew up more involved in such matters than most young kings would have been. Perhaps after moving into the palace, which was probably wellmaintained, he began to realize what poor shape the Temple had fallen into. But the Chronicler adds an additional, more immediate concern: according to v. 7, Athaliah the wicked and her sons (for which see the 60.  ‫מדרש ספר המלכים‬. The only other appearance of the term midrash in the Bible is in 2 Chron. 13:22, there as the Chronicler’s source for Abijah. In the past, it was common to understand the term as it is used in later rabbinic literature, as a form of exposition and exegesis (see Curtis and Madsen 1910, 23). Conversely, Japhet (1993, 854) and Rainey (1997, 38) explained the term as being derived from the root DRŠ, “to search, seek,” referring to a work “in which the acts of the king were recorded in more detail.”



The Reign of Joash – 2 Chronicles 24

205

note) had broken into the Temple and had looted it, thus necessitating repairs. There are, however, several problems with this claim. The first is that no such looting was ever mentioned in ch. 23. Indeed, it could be claimed that it was Athaliah’s non-interference in the affairs of the Temple that had made it possible for Joash to have remained hidden there and for Jehoiada to hatch his plot against her. Additionally, even assuming that the Temple had been looted by Athaliah, such looting would not have necessitated repairs of the building itself! Keel’s suggestion (1986, 756) that the Levitical gatekeepers had physically resisted Athaliah’s men, forcing them to break through the walls of the Temple enclosure, seems to take the story much further than the text would allow. In any case, both Kings and Chronicles trace Joash’s involvement in the maintenance of the Temple as evolving in two stages. In Kings’ version, Joash initially instructs the priests to take all of the money that is dedicated or donated by the people, as well as any other funding that they can obtain, to repair the bedeq habbâyit, probably best translated “cracks in the house.” When, in his twenty-third year, Joash realizes that the repairs had not been carried out, he instructs the priests to stop taking money for this purpose. Instead, Jehoiada takes a chest, makes a hole in its side, puts it by the altar, and instructs the priests to collect all of the money that is brought to the Temple, specifically for repairs. When the chest was full, the money was counted out by the king’s scribe and the high priest (in that order!), and used to pay the builders and suppliers of building materials. The final verses (14–17) specify that this money was not to be used for the making of Temple vessels or for the priest’s livelihood, which were funded by “guilt money and sin money.” The Chronicler’s version begins with Joash’s “heart” expressing the wish to repair the Temple. This expression is similar to the words that Chronicles attributes to David when planning to build the Temple (1 Chron. 22:7; 28:2) and to Hezekiah when planning to renew the covenant (2 Chron. 29:10). The comparison of Joash to these two kings shows what high hopes the Chronicler attributed to the beginning of his reign. Joash then gathers the priests and the Levites and instructs them to go out annually throughout the country and collect money for the upkeep of the Temple. In his instructions, Joash admonishes the priests and the Levites, weattem temaharû laddâbâr, usually translated “and you act quickly in this matter” and the like. The Levites, however, did not act “quickly.” This admonition, “do it quickly,” seems out of place. If this collection of funds is supposed to be an annual task, what would matter would be the

206

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

annual balance, not the speed with which it was achieved. Also, the king’s rebuke of Jehoiada in v. 6 seems to imply that the priests and the Levites had been lax in collecting “Moses’ burden,” which Chronicles seems to have understood as an annual tax. The problem was not the “speed” at which this collection done, but rather that it was not done at all! One possible solution to this would be that Joash was instructing the priests and the Levites to take charge of an already-existing collection system, which they were supposed to do “quickly,” but the narrative does not seem to support this. Williamson’s suggestion that vv. 5b (from “year”) and all of 6 are a secondary addition to the narrative (1982, 320) might also be seen as a solution, although his suggestion is based on other issues, and both Dillard (1987, 189–90) and Klein (2012, 339–40) have argued against it. An alternative suggestion would be to interpret the words temaharû and miharû in a different manner. In the vast majority of cases, the root MHR does indeed mean “to hasten,” or “quick” as an adjective. However, there are at least two additional meanings. In some cases, the root MHR has a meaning of “to acquire,” especially “to acquire a wife” (as in Exod. 22:15); the noun môhar means “bride-price,” the “gift” paid to the bride’s father (also in 1 Sam. 18:25). In Ps. 16:4, the word is used of “acquiring” a god. So it might be possible to understand Joash as telling the priests and the Levites to go out and to “acquire” funding for the Temple, which they failed to do. Another possibility is in the adjective mâhîr, “skilled, expert,” as in Ezra 7:6, Ps. 45:2 and Prov. 22:29, “see a man skilled at his work.” In fact DCH (5:164) suggests reading mehîr ṣedeq in Isa. 16:5, which NRSV translates “swift to do what is right,” as “skilled in justice” or “zealous for justice” (see also NJPS, “zealous for equity”). In a similar vein, we would interpret Joash’s instructions to the priests and the Levites as telling them to be “skilled” (that is, “professional”), “zealous,” or perhaps “diligent” about collecting the Temple funds – which they were not. After some (unspecified) time had passed and the king realized that the priests and the Levites had not been “diligent” about their duties, he called in Jehoiada and reprimanded him. His reference to Moses and the tent of the testimony (the Tabernacle) can actually be understood as indicating that Joash had not imposed any new duties on the Temple staff – he simply demanded that they carry out their traditional tasks “diligently”! (See also Japhet 1993, 844, who also emphasizes the connection that the Chronicler makes, as in other places, between the Temple and the Tabernacle.) The reference to Athaliah’s looting the Temple would then serve to emphasize (to Jehoiada and to us, the readers) the great need for these funds.



The Reign of Joash – 2 Chronicles 24

207

The next step in the Chronicler’s version is also taken by the king, who commands that a “collection box” be placed by the Temple gate, as opposed to Kings, in which Jehoiada places the chest by the altar. This change in location is often understood as bringing the story into line with the practice of the Chronicler’s own time, during which only priests and Levites were allowed to enter the inner courtyard (Williamson 1982, 321; Dillard 1987, 191). Japhet (1993, 845), suggests a different explanation: in Kings, the offerings are given to the priests, who then place them into the chest (see v. 10). In Chronicles, they are deposited directly by the people (also v. 10). So the difference is actually in the act of collection itself, not only in the location of the chest.61 Verse 11 tells of the collections of the funds from the chest. In Kings, once the chest was full, the king’s scribe and the high priest packed and counted what had been collected. There is no indication if this was a one-time act or if it was repeated more than once. In Chronicles, first the chest was brought by the Levites to the king’s officers, then the funds were taken away by the king’s scribe and the officer of the high priest (not the high priest himself, perhaps because in the Chronicler’s view the high priest would not stoop to such a menial job), and then the chest was put back in its place, and the collection continued “day after day.” After being counted, the funds were then handed over to “those who did the work,” presumably referring to either the regular Temple maintenance staff (if there was such a thing) or to what we would call “contractors,” who then paid them out to the various craftsmen. The specific details are different: in Kings it is “they,” the previously mentioned scribe and high priest, who allocate the funds; in Chronicles it is the king and Jehoiada in person. Kings lists “wood-workers and builders…and fence-makers and stone-masons” while in Chronicles it is “masons and craftsmen…and also workers in iron and bronze.” Kings mentions the purchase of wood and quarried stone, while Chronicles does not. Kings mentions “repairing the cracks (bedeq) of the Lord’s house,” while in Chronicles it is “to renew the house of the Lord” and “to strengthen the house of the Lord.” The Chronicler never uses the term bedeq, whether by design or by default – on which see below.

61.  Klein (2012, 341) actually mentions both possibilities. Keel (1986, 757) quotes y. Sheq. 6 as stating that the reason that the chest was placed outside the courtyard was so that people who were ritually impure could also donate. The assumption there is that it was placed outside the outer courtyard, reflecting an anachronistic view of the Temple complex.

208

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

The final four verses of this pericope in Kings (2 Kgs 12:14–17) emphasize that this money was not used for making vessels for the Temple but only for repairs, that the work was completed with no accounts made of the money paid to the workers “because they worked faithfully” and that “money from guilt (offerings) and money from sin (offerings) was not brought into the house of the Lord; it belonged to the priests.” The equivalent verses in Chronicles (2 Chr 24:13–14) speak of the workers’ success in “restoring the house of God to its design and strengthening it,” and then using the surplus funds, with the permission of the king and Jehoiada, to make various vessels for the Temple. As Japhet (1993, 846) pointed out, in the Chronicler’s view it was imperative to replace the vessels that had been stolen by Athaliah and her “sons.” As stated by Williamson (1982, 319): “It is generally agreed that the arrangements made in 2 Kgs 12:4–16 were intended to, and did, establish a continuing system for the maintenance of the temple. The Chronicler…has chosen to present this as a single act of restoration which was necessitated by a particular situation (v. 7).” The basic historical plausibility of the account of a king such as Joash being directly involved in the raising of funds and in the execution of repairs to the Temple is usually not thought to be in doubt. Throughout the ancient Near Eastern world, kings were considered to hold ultimate responsibility for the funding and functioning of temples, although there were many different ways in which they carried out this responsibility (Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 140–41). In some cases, temples were simply funded from the royal coffers. In others, they were expected to fund themselves from tributes, tithes and the like. As Oppenheim (1947, 117–18) pointed out long ago, some Neo-Babylonian documents refer to a quppu, which he translates as “cash box,” also called an arannu,62 being placed “near the gate of the sanctuary, not near the altar as was the case in the Temple at Jerusalem” (citing 2 Kgs 12:9, and not mentioning that in Chronicles the box was placed at the gate!). Of course there is a difference between an account’s being plausible and its actually having happened. Nevertheless, based on the very specific details and language of the Kings account, Na’aman (1998b, 337–44) hypothesized that it was actually based on a royal inscription set up by Joash after his renovations and discovered during the later renovations by Josiah about two centuries later, which Na’aman believed was close to the time of the Deuteronomistic writer of Kings. 62.  Which would be cognate to the word arôn used in our story. For more on Neo-Babylonian Temples and their fiscal administration see Kleber 2013.



The Reign of Joash – 2 Chronicles 24

209

In 2001, just such an inscription “turned up” in the hands of an Israeli antiquities dealer. The “Jehoash Inscription,” as it came to be known, includes 15 lines of clear Paleo-Hebrew script carved on a blackish sandstone tablet, with at least one more line apparently missing from the beginning of the text. In the inscription, “….hazyahu m… udah,” presumably “[Jehoash son of A]haziahu k[ing of J]udah,” tells of his making a collection of silver from all Judah, and then using the funds to buy stone and wood and “Edomite copper” and to repair the Temple. If authentic, this inscription would be the only known royal inscription from either Judah or Israel, and one of just a handful of epigraphic sources that relate directly to specific biblical narratives. However, the inscription’s unspecified provenance aroused suspicion, and several prominent linguists, epigraphers and archaeologists have pronounced it a clever forgery. Despite a 2012 ruling by an Israeli court according to which there is no conclusive proof that the inscription is a forgery, most scholars continue to treat it as such.63 For the Chronicler, of course, there was no doubt of the “historicity” of the Kings account, and as we have already stated, the general consensus is that the differences between the Kings account and that of the Chronicler have more to do with the Chronicler’s understanding of the events than with any additional information that he may have had at his disposal. Joash’s Apostasy and the Murder of Zechariah The note on the death of Jehoiada, missing from Kings, serves a double purpose. On one hand it accentuates the priest’s prominent role in the very survival of the house of David, and his great age, more even than Moses or Aaron, is a sign of his piety.64 Japhet (1993, 847) notes the similarity of this passage to the notices of the death of kings elsewhere in Chronicles and that this is the only case of such a notice for a non-royal. Jehoiada’s burial “in the city of David with the kings” is another sign of his great importance to the Chronicler. On the other hand, the death of Jehoiada 63.  One of the items which raised scholars’ suspicion was the use of the phrase ‫בדק‬ ‫ הבית‬in the inscription. In 2 Kgs 12, the term “bedeq habbayit” is used for cracks in the walls of the house, which must be “strengthened” or fixed. In Modern Hebrew, the term has come to mean “the inspection of the house.” The inscription’s “and I made/did the bedeq habbayit” seems closer to the modern meaning than to the ancient one. We should remember that Chronicles does not used the term at all. For more information on the inscription see Shanks 2003a, 2003b; Shanks and Greenstein 2003; Greenstein 2012. For a more positive, albeit still inconclusive, evaluation of the inscription, see Cohen 2007. 64.  As pointed out by Klein (2012, 343), if taken literally, Jehoiada would have been over one hundred when he led the coup against Athaliah, and about sixty-five years older than his wife Jehoshabeath.

210

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

serves to divide Joash’s reign into two periods: the first, in which the very presence of his mentor-priest ensured his own piety, and the later years, during which the king was influenced by other advisors. These new advisors quickly led the king down the wrong path. The next six verses (17–22) are all the Chronicler’s and typically so. Despite the couple of linguistic idiosyncrasies (“abandoned the house of the Lord” and the unusual aṣabbîm for “graven images,” on both of which see the notes), the story itself is exactly what we would expect in Chronicles: the people are unfaithful, God sends prophets to warn them, they do not listen and finally kill one of those prophets (none other than the son of Jehoiada!). The next pericopes, those of the Aramean war and of Joash’s assassination, which are based on Kings, are presented by the Chronicler as divine retribution for these sins. We should, however, note that Chronicles “builds up” Joash’s guilt gradually. At first, his only fault is in listening to the wrong advisors. It is “they,” the people, who abandon the house of the Lord; it is “they,” the people, who worship idols; it is “they,” the people, who ignore the prophets; and even “they,” the people, who are addressed by Zechariah. Even his admonition of “for you have forsaken the Lord, and he has forsaken you” is worded in the plural. It is even “they” who conspired against Zechariah and pelted him with stones, but at this point the tone changes, for it turns out that Zechariah was murdered “by command of the king.” Verse 22 finally says it outright: “King Joash did not remember the kindness that Jehoiada his father had done with him, and killed his son.” Zechariah’s final words are obviously aimed at the king himself: “The Lord will see and requite!” Although the story itself appears only in Chronicles, and in fact even the very fact that Jehoiada had a son named Zechariah is not known from any other source, some scholars (for example, Williamson 1982, 324; Kalimi 2010, 206) do find it possible that the Chronicler may have been working from some sort of historical tradition and that the pericope does preserve information about tensions between the king and the priesthood, but there is no way to prove this. In any case, it is clear that many elements in the story are modeled after pre-existing biblical texts, and stated in such a way as to highlight the Chronicler’s own message. For example, Zechariah’s admonition, “why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord, and you will not succeed?,” is clearly modeled on Moses’ words in Num. 14:41, “Why do you transgress the command of the Lord? That will not succeed.” The comment “for you have forsaken the Lord, and he has forsaken you” appears, with variation, in 2 Chron. 12:5 and 15:2. The “conspiracy” (qešer) which ended in the stoning of Zechariah reminds us



The Reign of Joash – 2 Chronicles 24

211

of the “conspiracy” (qešer) led by his father Jehoiada which brought Joash to the throne in the first place. Some commentators have also compared the stoning of Zechariah to the stoning of Naboth in 1 Kings 21, although that story does not use the word qešer. The theme of qešer definitely befits Joash’s own death at the hands of conspirators at the end of the chapter (vv. 25–26). The location of Zechariah’s death, “in the court of the house of the Lord,” certainly conflicts with Jehoiada’s concern that Athaliah not be killed in the Temple (2 Chron. 23:14), presumably in order not to defile it. This horrible story of betrayal and murder in the Temple itself was repeated in later literature. According to the apocryphal Lives of the Prophets 23:1–2, after “the house of David poured out his blood if front of the Ailim,” the priests were no longer able to use the Urim, or to enquire of God by means of the Ephod as they had before (see Kalimi 2009a, 72). This was seen as the end of prophecy. In rabbinic traditions spread throughout the various Talmuds and midrashim, the murder of Zechariah in the Temple courtyard was considered to be one of the acts that eventually led to the destruction of the Temple. The grievous sin occurred, according to some sources, on the Day of Atonement which was also a Sabbath, thus multiplying the sacrilege, and the blood of Zechariah would boil up from the ground every year on that date, until the destruction of the Temple. The verses in Lam. 2:20, “should priest and prophet be killed in the sanctuary of the Lord?,” and in Eccl. 3:16, “in the place of justice, wickedness was there,” were interpreted as referring to this crime as well (for further references see Keel 1986, 762–63). Another possible later allusion to this story appears in the gospels of Matthew and of Luke, in which Jesus is quoted as saying: “so that this generation may be charged with the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation” (Luke 11:50–51). Matthew 23:35 also gives us the name of Zechariah’s father, “Barachiah.” Many modern commentaries (see, for example, Dillard 1987, 193) follow Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew in assuming that the gospels’ murdered Zechariah and Chronicles’ murdered Zechariah are one and the same, and deal with the different patronymic in various ways. Jerome himself explained that “Barachiah” and “Jehoiada” basically have the same meaning (see Gallagher 2014, 131). The gospels’ choice of this Zechariah to be juxtaposed with Abel, the first person to have been murdered, is often cited as “proof” that the writers (or even Jesus himself) were familiar with the canon of the Hebrew Bible, in which Genesis and

212

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Chronicles are at the beginning and the end of Scripture (McKenzie 2004, 318–19; for different analyses of the various issues involved see Kalimi 2010; Klein 2012, 346; Gallagher 2014). None of this, however, is as simple as it might seem. Despite the list of books recoded in the beraitha in b. Bava Bathra 14b, which does place Chronicles last among the Writings, even Jerome, who supposedly learned the Jewish order from Jewish informants, does not. In other Jewish sources, including the tenth- and eleventh-century CE Masoretic Aleppo and Leningrad Codices, Chronicles is actually placed at the beginning of the Writings. So there is no reason to assume that the either Jesus or the evangelists would have assumed that the murders of Abel and of Zechariah appear in the first and last books of the Hebrew Bible. Beyond this, as shown recently by Gallagher (2014), the Greek Church Fathers who preceded Jerome did not identify “Zechariah son of Barachiah” with Zechariah son of Jehoiada. One reason for this in that in the Greek version of Chronicles the murdered priest is called Αζαριαν τὸν τοῦ Ιωδαε τὸν ἱερέα, “Azarias son of Iodae the priest,” so that the early Christian exegetes, reading the Old Testament in Greek, would have no reason to identify the two! Origen, for example, writes: “They killed one, such as Zechariah between the Temple and the altar. They stoned another, such as Azarias the priest, son of Iodae, just as it is written in the second [book] of Paralipomena…” (Gallagher 2014, 125). Other early Patristic Fathers identified the Zechariah of Matthew and Luke with the “Zechariah son of Jeberechiah” of Isa. 8:2, with the “Zechariah son of Berechiah son of Iddo” of the canonical book of Zechariah (1:1), with Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, who some apocryphal traditions claim was murdered in the Temple, and even with one Zechariah son of Bareis, whom Josephus (War 4.333–344) writes was murdered in the Temple during the Great Revolt (Gallagher 2014, 127–28). What all of this shows, at least, is that the common assumption that the gospels’ “Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary” must refer to the son of Jehoiada, is far from proven. The Aramean Invasion and the Death of Joash The Aramean invasion as told in 2 Kgs 12:18–19 [Eng. 17–18], which served as the Chronicler’s main source, comes as somewhat of a surprise, immediately following Joash’s successful renovation of the Temple: “Then Hazael king of Aram went up and fought against Gath and conquered it, and Hazael set his face to come up against Jerusalem. And Joash king of Judah took everything that Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, and Ahaziah, his fathers, the kings of Judah, had dedicated, as well as his own votive gifts, and all the gold that was found in the treasuries of the house



The Reign of Joash – 2 Chronicles 24

213

of the Lord and of the house of the king, and sent them to Hazael king of Aram, and he went up from Jerusalem.” There seems to be no pretext, either political or theological, for the attack, the significance of Hazael’s conquest of Gath is not explained, and in any case, the threat to Jerusalem is evaded by paying heavy tribute to Aram. Hazael king of Aram-Damascus is of course well-known, both historically and biblically. On a statue found at Ashur, Shalmaneser III of Assyria states: “Hadad-ezer (Adad-idri) passed away. Hazael, son of a nobody (mār lā mammāna), took the throne.” According to 1 Kgs 19:15, it was Elijah, at Yahweh’s behest, who anointed Hazael over Aram. In any case numerous Aramean and Assyrian inscriptions, as well as several stories in the book of Kings, are evidence that after usurping the throne of Damascus around 841 BCE, Hazael conquered most of the smaller kingdoms of Syria and effectively reduced Israel under Jehu and his successors to the status of a vassal kingdom (see 2 Kgs 10:32–33; Pitard 1987, 145–75; Younger 2005; Kahn 2007, 70–73). The identity of the “Gath” besieged by Hazael’s was a long-standing riddle. Mazar (1954, 230–31), assuming that the famous Philistine Gath was located in the southern Shephelah, asserted that the Gath of this pericope must have been further north, at Râs Abû Ḥamîd, near modern Ramle. However, since the identification of Philistine Gath at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi has become more accepted, it has become common to assume that this was the Gath attacked by Hazael as well (both Aharoni 1979, 342 and Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 139 mention both possibilities). Excavations at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi have revealed that in the tenth and ninth centuries BCE, Philistine Gath was a huge city, obviously a leading local power in the southern Levant. This powerful city was totally destroyed in the late ninth century, after being surrounded by an impressive siege trench, often cut several meters into bedrock. The excavators have related that destruction with the information conveyed in 2 Kgs 12:18, as well as the admonition of Amos 6:2 (Maeir 2004; Younger 2005, 265; Levin 2012a, 146–47). This, together with late ninth-century destruction levels at Dan, Hazor, Megiddo and Jezreel, fills out the picture that we get from Kings of Hazael’s destructive subjugation of Israel and its neighbors. The precise date of Hazael’s invasion within Joash’s 40-year reign is unknown, but both Kings and Chronicles place it towards the end. However, this placement is not necessarily historical. Rainey, for example, argued that it must have taken place in 797 BCE, before the western campaign of Adad-nirāri III of Assyria, which effectively broke the Aramean supremacy (Rainey and Notley 2006, 215). More recently, Maeir (2012b, 242–343) has argued for a date closer to 830 or even earlier, based on both radiocarbon dates from the destruction level at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi and on his own

214

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

logic, that Hazael would have established his domination over the area in the immediate aftermath of the coup against Athaliah and the enthroning of a child-king over Judah. All of this seems not to have mattered to the Chronicler, who appears to have simply followed Kings in placing the invasion in the latter part of Joash’s reign, presenting it as one of the consequences of the king’s straying from the path after the death of Jehoiada. Chronicles does not even bother to supply the name of “the king of Damascus.” In fact Hazael, whose name appears 20 times in Kings, is mentioned in Chronicles only in 2 Chron. 22:5–6, which are taken from Kings. To the Chronicler, Hazael is not an independent player, but a vessel through which Yahweh “executes judgments” on Joash. This is emphasized in v. 24, according to which it was Yahweh who delivered the “very great army” of Judah into the hands of the Arameans’ “few men” – a complete reversal of Yahweh’s usual support of the more righteous kings’ small armies against the enemy multitudes. The story of the Aramean invasion in Chronicles is different from its “source” in Kings in almost every detail. As articulated by Klein (2000, 117), the Chronicler “would have been surprised and even offended by the idea that Joash’s successful efforts to repair the temple” would be followed by an invasion and by the assassination of the righteous king himself. In this version, not only is Hazael’s name not mentioned, it seems as if Jerusalem was attacked by only a small force, while “the king of Darmascus” remained at home waiting for the plunder. Where in Kings the actual attack on Jerusalem is avoided by paying tribute, here the Arameans not only carry off loot from Jerusalem itself, but also wipe out “all the officials of the people,” using the same word for “officials,” śarîm, as that used of “the officials of Judah” who were responsible for the apostasy in the first place (v. 17), presumably indicating that these very same officials had now received their rightful punishment. And not only the officials: the Arameans also “executed judgments” on Joash himself, wounding him, perhaps mortally. It was not the Arameans, however, who finally killed Joash. His final executioners were his own servants, seeking retribution for the murdered “sons” of Jehoiada (on the plural “sons” see the textual notes). In Kings, the note about Joash’s being murdered by two of his servants, who are not identified as sons of foreign women, at “Beth Millo which descends to Silla,”65 comes after the standard source formula (“Now the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the 65.  Perhaps related to the “Millo” in Jerusalem mentioned in 2 Sam. 5:9 and 1 Chron. 11:8, but otherwise unidentified.



The Reign of Joash – 2 Chronicles 24

215

chronicles of the kings of Judah?”) and has nothing to do with the Aramean invasion. In Chronicles, Joash is killed by sons of an Ammonitess and a Moabitess while lying in his bed, wounded by the Arameans, followed by the summary of his reign. In Kings he is buried “with his fathers in the city of David,” while Chronicles admits that he was interred in the city of David, “but not…in the tombs of the kings” – in sharp contrast with Jehoiada, who was interred in a royal tomb. In both the case of the Aramean war and that of Joash’s assassination, scholars are divided over the possibility of the Chronicler’s having made use of sources other than Kings. Some (such as Rudolph 1955, 279–80; Myers 1965, 2:139; Williamson 1982, 325–26), cite “the midrash of the book of the Kings” mentioned in v. 27 as a possible source. Japhet (1993, 852) denies an additional source for the Aramean invasion, but considers it “more likely” that the identification of Joash’s assassins as sons of foreign women was present in the Chronicler’s source and omitted in Kings (1993, 854).66 In any case it is clear that the Chronicler took whatever information he had and molded it in such a way as to present the story of Joash, king of Judah, as a cautionary tale: even such a king as Joash, mentored by none other than Jehoiada the righteous priest, who began his reign by carrying out much-needed repairs on the Temple, can fall away, and if he does so, he will be punished.

66.  Curtis and Madsen (1910, 439) assumed that the Chronicler changed the assassins’ fathers’ names into those of foreign women in order to doubly humiliate Joash, and also as a negative comment on marriage with foreign women in general.

T h e R eig n o f A m aziah – 2 C h r o n ic les 25

Chapter 25: 1 At the age of twenty-five years Amaziah reigned,1 and twentynine years he reigned in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Jehoaddan2 of Jerusalem.3 2 And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, only not with all his heart.4  3 And once the kingdom was firmly upon him5 he killed6 his 1.  Instead of the usual ‫שנה במלכו‬...‫בן‬, “…years old when he began to reign” or “when he reigned” (such as the parallel 2 Kings 14:2 or the previous 2 Chron. 22:2 and 24:1), our verse has ‫מלך‬...‫בן‬, “at…Ahaziah reigned.” Keel (1986, 768) understands this to mean that he was already reigning at twenty-five, perhaps because of his father’s having been wounded by the Arameans. There seems, however, to be no evidence to support this. 2.  The name, as well as the ketib “Jehoadin” in Kings, is unique. It means “Yahweh will be gentle” or “Yahweh will give/take pleasure.” 3.  Klein (2012, 351) points this out as one of only five places in the entire Hebrew Bible in which the MT spells ‫ ירושלים‬in plene, with the second yod, as opposed to 692 defective spellings of ‫ירושלם‬. The others are 1 Chron. 3:5; 2 Chron. 32:9 (for each of which see our notes in situ); Est. 2:6 and Jer. 26:18. Plene spelling is a common feature of Late Biblical Hebrew. For more on the specific spelling of ‫ ירושלים‬see Demsky 2002, 15–18. 4.  ‫ שלם‬means “whole,” but some translations prefer “not with a blameless heart” (RSV), “not with a true heart” (NRSV), “wholeheartedly” (NEB; Myers 1965, 2:140; Dillard 1987, 195) and the like. The parallel passage in 2 Kgs 14 begins with the usual synchronism between the reigns of Joash of Israel and Amaziah of Judah. Verse 2 there is almost identical to our v. 1. Verse 3 there begins like our v. 3, but instead of “only not with a whole heart” Kings has “only not like David his father, like all that Joash his father had done.” Kings’ v. 4 then informs us that the people continued to worship at bamôt. For the significance of this see the commentary. 5.  ‫ חזקה הממלכה עליו‬is literally “the kingdom was strong over him,” which would usually mean that the kingdom defeated, or controlled, him, Amaziah. However the context indicates the exact opposite. Kings has “once the kingdom was firmly in his hand,” as does the LXX of Chronicles. Many translations (RSV; NRSV) simply use the Kings version. Klein (2012, 351) uses “in his grasp.” Others are more interpretative: “when the kingdom was established to him” (KJV), “after the kingdom was firmly in his control” (NIV), “firmly under control” (NJPS) and so on. 6.  Kings has “struck the servants who had struck his father the king.” “To strike” is a common euphemism for “to kill” or “to defeat” and is usually used in context of war. Possibly Kings meant to indicate an extensive internal struggle, perhaps even a “civil war.” In any case, this is lost in Chronicles.



The Reign of Amaziah – 2 Chronicles 25

217

servants who had struck the king his father. 4 And their sons7 he did not put to death, for8 as is written in the Torah, in the book of Moses,9 which the Lord commanded, saying: Fathers shall not die10 for sons, and sons shall not die for fathers, for11 each shall die for their own sin.  5  And Amaziah gathered Judah,12 and set them by fathers’ houses, by commanders of thousands and by commanders of hundreds for all Judah and Benjamin;13 and he counted14 them from twenty years old and upward, and found that they were three hundred thousand picked troops fit for war,15 wielding16 spear and shield.  6 And he hired one hundred thousand mighty warriors17 from Israel for one hundred talents18 of silver. 7 And a man of God came to him, saying: King!19 The army of Israel shall not go with you,20 for the 7.  Kings has ‫ואת בני המכים‬, “and the sons of the strikers,” instead of Chronicles’ ‫ואת‬ ‫בניהם‬, “and their sons.” It is possible that the Chronicler’s version is a result of haplography, with ‫ בני המכים‬bring shortened to ‫בניהם‬. 8.  The word ‫כי‬, “for,” is missing in Kings. The phrase ‫כי ככתוב‬, “for as is written,” is indeed strange. Keel (1986, 769) reads “for (he did) as is written…” 9.  ‫בתורה בספר משה‬. Kings has ‫בספר תורת משה‬, “in the book of the torâh of Moses.” See the commentary. 10.  All three “die” in this verse are the qal plural ‫ימותו‬, “they shall/will die.” In Kings all three are hophal, “shall be put to death,” with the first two plural ‫ יומתו‬and the third singular ‫יומת‬. The law referred to is in Deut. 24:16, in which all three are the hophal plural ‫יומתו‬. For the significance of this difference see the commentary. 11.  The word ‫כי‬, “for,” is followed in Kings by ‫אם‬, together meaning “but.” 12.  The Greek has τὸν οἶκον Ιουδα “the house of Judah.” Some modern translations have “the men of Judah” (RSV; NJPS), “the people of Judah” (NRSV; NIV) and the like. 13.  The Greek has παντὶ Ιουδα καὶ Ιερουσαλημ, “all Judah and Jerusalem.” This is a common phrase throughout Chronicles. 14.  The verb ‫ פקד‬in this case means “to take a census,” with an emphasis on mustering troops for war. 15.  ‫בחור יוצא צבא‬, literally “picked who go out to the army.” “Men,” “troops” and the like implied. 16.  ‫ אחז‬means “holding.” Many translations render “able to handle” and the like, although it is possible that the Chronicler was assuming that each man arrived with his own weapons. 17.  The MT has ‫גבור חיל‬, “mighty warrior,” in the singular. The sebirin and some mss. have the plural ‫גבורי‬, and most translations follow. 18.  The Hebrew ‫ ככר‬refers to something round: an area of land, a loaf of bread or a “loaf” of metal. At some point the kikkar became a standard weight measure for metals, approximately 25 kilograms. The Greek τάλαντον, Latin talentum, has the same meaning and is the source of the commonly used “talent.” 19.  ‫המלך‬, “the king,” is rendered by the vocative Βασιλεῦ in the Greek and o rex in Latin, most translations have “O king.” Hebrew, however, does not really have a vocative form. 20.  Often translated, “do not let the army of Israel go with you” (NRSV; NJPS). Dillard (1987, 195) has, “these troops from Israel must not go with you.”

218

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Lord is not with Israel, all the sons of Ephraim. 8 But rather come21 yourself, act forcefully in the war; God22 will cause you to fail23 before the enemy;24 for there is power in God to help or to make fail. 9 And Amaziah said to the man of God: But what shall be done about the hundred talents that I gave to the troop of Israel? And the man of God said: The Lord can25 give you much more than that. 10 And Amaziah separated26 the troop that had come to him from Ephraim, to go to their place, and they were very angry with Judah, and returned to their place in fierce anger.  11 And Amaziah strengthened himself, and led his people and went the Valley of Salt,27 and struck the sons of Seir, ten thousand.28 12 And ten thousand were captured alive by the sons of Judah, and they brought them to the top of the rock,29 and threw them down from the top of the rock, and were all dashed to pieces.30 13 And the men31 of the troop whom Amaziah sent back from going with him to war, raided the cities of Judah from Samaria to Beth-horon, and struck three thousand of them, and plundered much loot.

21.  ‫ בא‬here is usually translated “go,” but actually means “come.” The Greek has ἐν τούτοις, “with these,” instead of the Hebrew ‫בא‬, leading Allen (1974, 2:85–86) to cite Driver as suggesting that ‫ בא‬is an abbreviation of ‫באלה‬, which would have the same meaning as the Greek. This, however, would depend on one’s understanding of the verse as a whole, on which see the commentary. 22.  Interestingly, both times that the word ‫אלהים‬, “God,” appears in this verse, the Greek translates κύριος, “Lord.” For more on this phenomenon see Allen 1974, 2:146–48. The Vulgate follows the MT with Deus, “God.” 23.  The basic meaning of the verb ‫ כשל‬is “to stumble,” with an expanded meaning of “to fail.” 24.  The Greek renders “enemy” here in the plural, τῶν ἐχθρῶν, as it sometimes does for collective nouns (see Allen, 1974, 1:47). The MT here is difficult. After telling Amaziah to leave his northern mercenaries behind and admonishing him to take courage, why would God would cause him to fail? 25.  Literally “the Lord has.” Different translators use different forms to clarify: “for God has power” (KJV; NRSV; NEB; NIV), “the Lord has the means” (NJPS), “God is able” (Myers 1965, 2:141), “Yahweh can give” (Dillard 1987, 195), “Yahweh has the ability to give” (Klein 2012, 35). 26.  ‫ ויבדילם‬is often translated “discharged,” “released” and the like. 27.  ‫ גיא המלח‬in Hebrew, valle Salinarum in the Vulgate, interestingly transliterated Γαιμελε in the LXX of Kings, and translated κοιλάδα τῶν ἁλῶν in the LXX of Chronicles. 28.  This is the only part of the war in Edom that 2 Kgs 14 tells about. Verse 7 there reads, “He struck Edom in the Valley of Salt ten thousand, and captured the Rock in war, and called its name Joktheel to this day.” 29.  ‫ראש הסלע‬, literally “the head of the rock,” reads ἄκρου τοῦ κρημνοῦ in the Greek, praeruptum cuiusdam petrae in the Latin. 30.  NJPS translates ‫ נבקעו‬more literally: “and every one of them was burst open.” 31.  ‫ובני‬, literally “and the sons.”



The Reign of Amaziah – 2 Chronicles 25

219

14 And it was after Amaziah came from striking the Edomites, and he brought the gods of the sons of Seir, set them up as his gods, and before them he bowed and to them he burned incense. 15 And the Lord was very angry with Amaziah and sent him a prophet, who said to him: Why have you sought the gods of a people who did not deliver their people from your hand? 16 And as he was speaking to him, he32 said to him: Have we made you a counselor to the king? Stop! Why should they strike you?33 And the prophet stopped, and said: I know that God has determined to destroy you, because you have done this and have not listened to my counsel.  17 And Amaziah king of Judah took counsel34 and sent to Joash son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu king of Israel, saying: Let us go face each other.35 18 And Joash king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah, saying: The thistle that is in the Lebanon sent to the cedar that is in the Lebanon, saying: Give your daughter to my son as a wife; but the wild animal36 of the Lebanon passed by and trampled thistle. 19 You say, here you37 have struck Edom, and your heart has lifted you up heavily;38 now sit in your home; why do you provoke trouble so that you 32.  Many translations add “the king” for clarity. 33.  The RSV and NRSV have “why should you be put to death,” and NJPS has “Stop, else you will be killed,” which may be the intention, but is not really what the text says. Dillard’s “why should they cut you down?” (1987, 196) and Klein’s “Why should they strike you down” (2012, 352), have the same meaning. Others, such as KJV’s “why shouldest thou be smitten?” or NIV’s “Why be struck down?,” are closer to the literal meaning, which leaves open the possibility of the prophet’s being flogged rather than killed. 34.  The remainder of the chapter, vv. 17–28, is based on 2 Kgs 14:8–20 with some significant differences. Kings’ v. 8 does not mention Amaziah taking counsel, but begins “Then Amaziah sent messengers…” Kings also does not mention that Amaziah was “king of Judah.” It is possible that Kings’ ‫מלאכים‬, “messengers,” is the origin of Chronicles’ ‫מלך‬ ‫יהודה‬, “king of Judah.” 35.  Literally, “Let us go look one another in the face.” NJPS translates the meaning: “Come, let us confront each other!” 36.  ‫חית השדה‬, literally “the animal of the field.” 37.  Some versions and some modern translations (NEB; NRSV and so on) have “I have struck,” but Klein (2012, 352) correctly prefers the MT lectio difficilior. Thus also NIV “you say to yourself that you…” and NJPS “you boast that you have defeated the Edomites.” Kings does not have the word ‫אמרת‬, “you say,” and instead of ‫הנה הכית‬, “here, you have struck,” has ‫הכה הכית‬, “you have surely struck,” with the common doubling of the verb for emphasis. The nun of ‫ הנה‬and the kaph of ‫ הכה‬are graphically similar enough to make it possible that one of the two versions was originally a scribal error. 38.  The word ‫כבד‬, “heavy,” also means “honor,” “glory,” leading translators to translate by the context. Myers (1965, 2:141) has “your ego has been inflated to seek even greater glory.” Dillard (1987, 196) has “now you are proud and arrogant.” Klein (2012, 352): “your heart has lifted you up in boastfulness.” NJPS: “you are ambitious to get more glory.” The parallel v. 10 in Kings has slightly different syntax: ‫הכבד ושב בביתך‬, literally, “be honored and sit at home,” translated “Be content with your glory, and stay at home”

220

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

fall, you and Judah with you? 20 And Amaziah would not listen, for this was from God, in order to hand them over,39 because they had sought the gods of Edom.  21 And Joash king of Israel went up and they faced each other,40 he and Amaziah king of Judah, at Beth-shemesh which belongs to Judah. 22 And Judah was routed before Israel, and they fled each man to his tent.41  23 And Joash king of Israel caught42 Amaziah king of Judah, son of Joash, son of Jehoahaz,43 at Beth-shemesh; he brought him44 to Jerusalem, and breached the

(NRSV); “stay home and enjoy your glory” (NJPS) and the like. The difference in syntax and vocalization could be the result of a misreading, but Klein (2010, 244) assumes that the change is intentional, “so that it states that Amaziah’s proud heart is expressing itself in boastfulness.” 39.  Literally “to give them in hand,” seemingly missing the object, into whose hand they were given. Some versions and translators fill in “into the hand of Joash” (Myers 1965, 2:142); “into his hand” (suggested by BHS and quoted by Klein 2012, 352, although he actually translates “in order to hand them over”). NJPS translates the general meaning and ignores the “hand”: “in order to deliver them up.” Everything from “for this” to the end of the verse is an addition of the Chronicler and does not appear in Kings, which continues “and Joash king of Israel went up….” 40.  Literally “they looked each other in the face” as in v. 17 above. 41.  A common expression, often understood as “to his home” rather than to the actual tents in a military camp. See 1 Sam. 4:10 and 2 Chron. 10:16 and the commentary there. The Hebrew is literally “to his tents,” in the plural. 42.  The Hebrew, in both Kings and Chronicles, names Amaziah first, using the particle ‫ את‬to mark him as the direct object, leaving Joash as the subject of the verse but still emphasizing that the story is that of Amaziah. The way this could be done in English would be to render the verb ‫תפש‬, “caught,” in the passive: “Amaziah…(was) caught (by) Joash.” 43.  Kings calls Amaziah’s grandfather by his usual name Ahaziah, and while the Vulgate and KJV in Chronicles follow the MT, many modern translations (e.g. RSV; NRSV; NIV; Myers 1965, 2:142) follow Kings and replace “Jehoahaz” with “Ahaziah.” The Septuagint of Chronicles does not name Amaziah’s grandfather at all, and Rudolph (1955, 280) and Klein (2012, 352), following some manuscripts (see also Curtis and Madsen 1910, 446), assume that “son of Jehoahaz” was transposed from the name of Joash of Israel, and render “Joash the king of Israel the son of Jehoahaz arrested Amaziah the king of Judah the son of Joash.” Dillard (1987, 197) considers this unnecessary and reminds us that “Jehoahaz” and “Ahaziah” are actually alternate forms of the same name, and that Amaziah’s grandfather actually is called “Jehoahaz” in 2 Chron. 21:17 (see note there). Keel (1988, 778–779) suggests that Amaziah’s father and grandfather are listed, because all three died by assassination, while Ben Zvi (2008, 81–82) thinks that the Chronicler evoked the name of the northern king purposely, in order to “northernize” the image of the sinful Amaziah in the eyes of his readers. 44.  ‫ויבאהו‬. Kings has ‫( ויבאו‬ketib) and ‫( ויבא‬qeri), “he came,” referring to Joash, not mentioning that Amaziah was brought as well. The Greek in Kings, ἦλθεν ἦλθεν ἦλθεν, is also singular. See the commentary.



The Reign of Amaziah – 2 Chronicles 25

221

wall of Jerusalem from45 the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate,46 four hundred cubits. 24 And all the gold and the silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of God47 with Obed-edom;48 and the treasuries of the king’s house, and the hostages;49 and he returned to Samaria.50  25 And Amaziah son of Joash king of Judah lived fifteen years after the death of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel.51 26 And the rest of the deeds of Amaziah, the first and the last,52 are they not written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel?53 27 And from the time that Amaziah strayed from the Lord, they made a conspiracy54 against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish, and they sent after him to Lachish, and killed him there. 28 And they transported him on horses; and they buried him with his fathers in the city of Judah.55 45.  ‫משער‬. Kings has ‫בשער‬, “in the Gate.” ‫ מ‬and ‫ ב‬are graphically similar enough to explain the confusion. 46.  Kings has ‫שער הפנה‬, which certainly means “Corner Gate.” Chronicles’ ‫שער‬ ‫ הפונה‬could be rendered “Turning Gate,” but would not a turn in the wall be the same as a corner? 47.  Kings has “house of the Lord,” as does the Greek of Chronicles: οἴκῳ κυρίου. 48.  “With Obed-edom” presumably means that the treasures were “in the custody of Obed-edom” (NEB; NIV; NJPS). RSV and NRSV understand that Obed-edom was taken into custody with the treasures. The reference to Obed-edom is strange, and is absent in Kings. See the commentary. 49.  The term ‫בני התערבות‬, translated “hostages,” is unique to this passage in Kings and Chronicles. However ‫ערבון‬, ‫ערובה‬, “collateral” or “pledge,” as both a noun and a verb, is well known. See, for example, Gen. 38:18; 43:9; 44:32 and more. The Greek τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν συμμίξεων translates the Hebrew literally, “the sons of mixing,” which makes no sense in this context. 50.  In Kings, this verse begins with ‫ולקח‬, “and he took.” In Chronicles the verb is missing, leaving the main part of the verse without a verb. Some translations (such as NRSV or Klein 2012, 352) add “and he seized” and the like. NJPS uses the “he returned” as the verb for the entire verse: “Then, with all the gold… he returned to Samaria.” 51.  In Kings this synchronism is preceded by a notice of Joash’s death, repeated from 2 Kgs 13:12–13. 52.  “The first and the last” not mentioned in Kings. 53.  Kings, as usual, references “the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah.” 54.  Literally, “they conspired a conspiracy against him.” The previous words, “from the time that Amaziah strayed from the Lord,” are found only in Chronicles. Kings begins with “they made a conspiracy.” 55.  Kings has “and he was buried in Jerusalem, with his fathers in the city of David.” The Greek ἐν πόλει Δαυιδ and the Latin in civitate David seem to indicate that this was the original, and this version has been adopted by some modern versions as well (RSV; NRSV; Rudolph 1955, 280; Williamson 1982, 331; Klein 2012, 352). Allen (1974, 2:98) suggests that the scribe was confused by the appearance of “cities of Judah” in v. 13, which Allen assumes was “in the preceding column,” and then cites Rehm (1937, 71) who explains the shift from ‫ דוד‬to ‫ יהודה‬by assuming that the ‫ ה‬had been misread as ‫דו‬. Others (KJV; NIV; NJPS; Myers 1965, 2:144; Dillard 1987, 197; Japhet 1993, 872) retain the MT, explaining

222

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Commentary Like his father Joash, Amaziah is a tragic figure, a king whose reign begins with hope and promise, doing what is good in the eyes of Yahweh and being rewarded accordingly, but then straying and ending his life in disaster. Like in the case of Joash, the core of the Chronicler’s narrative is taken from Kings, but the Chronicler refined and redefined his source material in order to bring it into line with his ideology. Graham (1993, 81–84) identified the structure which the Chronicler built up around the Kings account as “concentric,” centered on the report of Amaziah’s idolatry in vv. 14–16. The first such adaptation of the narrative by the Chronicler is in v. 2, parallel to vv. 3 and 4 in 2 Kings 14. Chronicles starts out by following Kings to the letter, “And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, only not…” The “not,” however, is defined differently: where Kings has “only not like David his father, like all that Joash his father had done,” going on to tell us that the people continued to worship at bamôt, Chronicles simply says, “only not with all his heart.” This is not the only place in which Chronicles deletes a reference to bamôt (see 2 Chron. 24:2, 26:4 and 27:2). In Dillard’s opinion, the Chronicler’s reference to Amaziah’s not doing right “with all his heart” “depicts Amaziah as fundamentally half-hearted and mediocre from the beginning” (Dillard 1987, 198) – a sign of things to come. At first reading, Amaziah’s execution of his father’s assassins would seem to reflect positively on the king, since he not only did what one would expect of a king, but he was also careful to follow the Torah of Moses, and avoided killing the assassins’ sons. The specific law cited is Deut. 24:16: “Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, and sons shall not be put to death for fathers, each shall be put to death for his own sin.” As pointed out by Shaver (1989, 77), this is the Chronicler’s only direct quote of a Pentateuchal law, and even here, his use of ki, “but,” shows his dependence on his “Deuteronomistic Vorlage.” the alternate version as “harmonistic” and pointing out that āl Yahūdū, “City of Judah,” is used as a name for Jerusalem in the Babylonian Chronicle. More recently it has become known that this was also a name used for a settlement of Judahite deportees in sixthcentury BCE Babylonia (see, for example, Wunsch 2013, 251). This does not, however, actually explain its use here. Japhet (1993, 872) suggested that perhaps the Chronicler intended to replace Jerusalem with an anonymous “city of Judah,” leaving Amaziah in an unmarked grave, but admits that his being buried “with his fathers” contradicts this. Kalimi (2005, 109–10), also citing the Babylonian source, notes that the Chronicler tends to minimize use of the title “city of David,” preferring other appellations for Jerusalem. None of these, however, really provide a satisfactory explanation for the unusual form.



The Reign of Amaziah – 2 Chronicles 25

223

However, as pointed out in the notes, in both Deut. 24:16 and in 2 Kgs 14:6 the verb MWT, “to die,” is conjugated in the hophal “shall be put to death,” while here it is in the qal, “they shall/will die” – not necessarily by human agency. And where for Curtis and Madsen (1910, 442) this may mean that the Chronicler “simply quoted inaccurately,” Japhet (1993, 861), showed that “for the Chronicler this is the key to a different theological principle: vicarious punishment is to be avoided not only in the sphere of human judicial procedure, but also in the divine management of the world.” Keel (1986, 769) points out that for some of the Medieval commentators, the rule in Deut. 24:16 was seen as contradicting Exod. 20:4 and Deut. 5:8 [Eng. 9]: “for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, who visits the iniquity of fathers on their sons, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me.” Japhet’s comment accentuates this conflict, since in her understanding not only may the court not “pass guilt” from generation to generation, but neither may God himself. The War in Edom The most significant difference between the Chronicler’s description of Amaziah’s reign and that of Kings is in the story of the war on Edom. In Kings this episode is dealt with in one verse: “He struck Edom in the Valley of Salt ten thousand, and captured the Rock in war, and called its name Joktheel to this day” (2 Kgs 14:7). In Chronicles, the equivalent but rather different vv. 11 and 12 are preceded by six verses describing Amaziah’s army and the episode of his northern mercenaries, and are followed by more on the mercenaries, and then by Amaziah’s apostasy and prophetic rebuke. The war story begins, as usual, with the mustering of the army, although the description here is unusually detailed. The army came from “Judah,” the kingdom, which was comprised of the “fathers’ houses” (that is, patriarchal family units) of “all Judah and Benjamin,” the two main tribal components of the kingdom. The minimum age of twenty for recruits is identical to and perhaps based on Num. 1:3. The actual number of recruits, 300,000, is comparatively low for Chronicles; David had 1,100,000 from Israel and another 400,000 from Judah (1 Chron. 21:5, where 2 Sam. 24:9 has 800,000 and 500,000), Abijah had 400,000 against Jeroboam’s 800,000 (2 Chron. 13:3); Asa had 300,000 from Judah and 280,000 from Benjamin (2 Chron. 14:7); Jehoshaphat had 1,160,000 (2 Chron. 17:14–18, also divided into Judah and Benjamin). Amaziah’s son Uzziah had 310,100 (2 Chron. 26:12–13). As usual, different scholars have different opinions on the source and historicity of these figures, but the comparison is important. As pointed out by Klein (2012, 356), the

224

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

sharp decline in numbers since the days of Asa and Jehoshaphat might have been caused by the defeats suffered by Amaziah’s predecessors, and may have been seen as the reason for his hiring of northern mercenaries. In any case, the various descriptions of the army of Judah in Chronicles do show an additional trend: from David through Jehoshaphat, the troops of Judah and Benjamin are counted as separate units, while in the armies of Amaziah and of his son Uzziah they are listed as a single organization. If indeed these descriptions are based on some sort of reality, they might reflect a social and/or administrative change that took place in the kingdom of Judah: whereas in the earlier period the tribe of Benjamin still held on to some sort of internal autonomy, by the late ninth or early eighth century any such divisions were gone. The kingdom was “Judah and Benjamin,” but the army was one. As already mentioned, the comparatively small numbers of his troops may have caused Amaziah to hire mercenaries from the northern kingdom. Ben Zvi (2006, 61) asks why the text does not have Amaziah hire the troops directly from king Joash of Israel, and posits that the Chronicler’s intention was to make Joash look like a weak king who could not control the 100,000 “freelance” warriors who were at large within his kingdom. Klein (2012, 357) is correct in commenting that the actual amount of silver – 100 talents – that Amaziah paid them in advance is not reasonable and not important; the huge sum is meant to emphasize the substantial strength of the auxiliary force. This then makes the demand by the anonymous “man of God” that Amaziah send them home – and lose his investment in them – all the more difficult, and at least at face value makes Amaziah’s compliance, even if hesitant, all the more admirable. Verse 10 forewarns us of the trouble yet to come. “Ephraim” is often used in such books as Isaiah, Hosea and Jeremiah as an appellation for the entire northern kingdom, and its use here, somewhat unusual in Chronicles, may reflect the source that underlies this material (see Japhet 1993, 863–64). However Williamson (1982, 329) could be correct in thinking that the redundancy may actually indicate that the mercenaries did come specifically from the area near the border between the two kingdoms. The prophet’s statement that “the Lord is not with Israel, all the sons of Ephraim,” is understood by some commentators (Dillard 1987, 199; Klein 2012, 357) as a general statement negating the legitimacy of the northern kingdom, while others (such as Williamson 1982, 329; Japhet 1993, 863) see it as describing the situation at that moment: God is not with the northern kingdom as long as it continues to sin against him.



The Reign of Amaziah – 2 Chronicles 25

Map 6. The Wars of Amaziah

225

226

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

The actual campaign in Edom is described briefly in 2 Kgs 14:7: “He struck Edom in the Valley of Salt ten thousand, and captured the Rock in war, and called its name Joktheel to this day.” The description in Chronicles also begins with “the Valley of Salt,” but then differs in several interesting ways: the emphasis on the war being led by Amaziah in person, the use of the designation “sons of Seir” instead of “Edom,” the capture of ten thousand live prisoners besides the ten thousand who were “struck” in the battle, and their murder by being tossed from “the top of the rock.” Hassela, “the Rock,” which in Kings is a proper place-name which is then changed to “Joktheel,” is taken here as a topographical object, from the “head” of which the “sons of Seir” were thrown. The identification of “the Valley of Salt” and of Hassela, “the Rock,” often rendered as “Sela” without the definite article, is much debated. “The Valley of Salt” was previously mentioned as the location of David’s victory over the Edomites in the parallel 2 Sam. 8:13 (there reading ‫אדם‬, “Edom,” instead of MT ‫ארם‬, “Aram”), Ps. 60:2 (where the victor is Joab) and 1 Chron. 18:12 (where it is his brother Abishai, and see the commentary there). The obvious connotation of “the Valley of Salt” is Yam Hammelaḥ, “the Sea of Salt” or “Dead Sea,” which lies in a deep depression. However the sea itself is usually considered to be the boundary between Judah and Moab, with Edomite territory laying to the south and south-east of the sea. Some early geographers noted the name Wadi el-Milḫ for a ravine lying east of Beer-sheba, in the region of Arad. This, however, is usually considered to have been Judahite territory, not Edomite, and most modern commentators prefer to identify “the Valley of Salt” with the salt plains that are directly south of the Dead Sea (Aharoni 1979, 440; Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 155; Rainey and Notley 2006, 216; Klein 2012, 358 discusses both options). Control of these plains would have given Amaziah control over traffic running through the southern Jordan Valley along both shores of the Dead Sea, as well as that travelling from the Philistine coast via Beer-Sheba and Arad into southern Transjordan. In 2 Kings 14, “Sela,” which literally means “rock,” seems to be used as a proper toponym, the name of a city or fortress in Edom. The Greek and Latin translations rendered “rock” as Πέτρα and Petra, leading many early explorers to assume the reference to be to the famous Nabatean “City of the Red Stone” in southern Edom, or with the nearby Iron Age site of Umm el-Biyāra (for example Myers 1965, 2:143, 145). However the ancient Semitic name of Petra was Reqem/Raqmu, not Sela, and more recent evaluations assume the reference to be to one of several sites that still preserve the name es-Sila in northern Edom, just south of the Dead



The Reign of Amaziah – 2 Chronicles 25

227

Sea (Bennet 1966, 125; Dillard 1987, 200; Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 155; Rainey and Notley 2006, 216; Klein 2012, 358). This would limit the extent of Amaziah’s campaign to the very northern tip of Edom. It would seem that the Chronicler was not familiar with “Sela” as a proper name, and took it to mean simply a high “rock” from which Amaziah’s soldiers could toss the captive Edomites. Most commentators and translations assume that these were an additional ten thousand, besides those killed in battle (for example Klein 2012, 358), but Keel (1986, 772 n. 21) claims that they were the same ten thousand mentioned previously, now telling how they were “struck.” In any case, the text does not offer an explanation or reason behind this seemingly barbarous act, although several commentators have connected this passage with Jer. 49:16 and Obadiah 3, both of which speak of the Edomites as sitting “in the clefts of the rock,” as well as Ps. 137:7–9, “Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem’s fall…who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!” (Klein 2012, 358; Keel 1986, 772 n. 26). The Chronicler’s exchange of Kings’ “Edom” for “sons of Seir” in v. 11, followed by “the gods of the sons of Seir” in v. 14, seems to be no more than stylistic variation. Kalimi (1995, 32) even suggests that the change from Edom to Seir in v. 11 was made as a sort of “pun,” which he defines as “paronomasia,” placing the similar-looking words ‫עשרת‬, “ten (thousand)” and ‫שעיר‬, “Seir” in close proximity for aesthetic purposes (see also Ben Zvi 2006, 61). While historically the relationship between “Edom” and “Seir” is complex (see Bartlett 1969; MacDonald 2011), to the Chronicler they were pretty much synonymous, as can be seen from his own reference to “the Edomites” in v. 14 and “the gods of Edom” in v. 20, both of which are not copied from Kings. The Mercenaries from Ephraim Verse 13, which tells us that the northern mercenaries whom Amaziah had released now plundered “the cities of Judah from Samaria to Beth-horon,” killing three thousand, raises three questions: when, why and where? In answer to the first of these questions, Keel (1986, 773) explains the waw at the beginning of the verse (“and the men of the troop…”) as indicating time: this happened while Amaziah and his army were busy in Edom. Japhet (1993, 865), while rendering the waw as “but (as for)” also argues for a “casus pendens” and arrives at the same conclusion, as does Klein (2012, 359). The second question is more difficult to answer. There are actually two issues. The first is within the story: what were the mercenaries so upset about? They had been paid a large sum, 100 talents, in advance,

228

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

and were then released from having to fight. Presumably they would have expected a share in the spoils of Edom which they were now denied, but that would hardly justify such an attack on Judah itself. The second part of this question is theological. Amaziah sent the mercenaries home, after all, after being told to do so by a prophet and after receiving assurances that God would (or at least could) compensate for the loss of Amaziah’s investment. So why would God now allow these mercenaries to wreak havoc on the “cities of Judah”? Dillard (1987, 198, 200) offered two attempts at answering these questions. First of all, Dillard cited Williamson’s opinion (1982, 128), that the episode must have been dependent on an additional source available to the Chronicler. Following this, Dillard then suggested that the incident may have been intended as “an inciting incident for Amaziah’s challenge against Jehoash after his victory over Edom,” which certainly does come as a surprise in Kings. An additional suggestion was made by Klein (2010, 242): “although this may seem to contradict the man of God’s assertion…it may be the Chronicler’s way of asserting that the initial mistake in relying on the number of soldiers in his army to gain victory had its own consequences.”56 Ben Zvi (2006, 63–64) preferred a more theological and perhaps allegorical explanation: these “cities of Judah from Samaria to Beth-horon” represent the power of the king of Judah vis-à-vis the northern kingdom, so long as the king of Judah is loyal to Yahweh. The attack by the mercenaries, which occurs “once Amaziah sinned or was about to sin, anticipates YHWH’s tool for judgment, the Israelite/Ephraimite army. As one takes the cities of Judah in the north, the other does so those in Judah proper, as one raids the northern cities, the other raids the temple in Jerusalem, and both are, of course, governed by YHWH.” Which of course brings us to the geographical question: just what “cities of Judah” were there “from Samaria to Beth-horon”? How do we understand the geographical area which was raided by the mercenaries? Taken at face value, both of the sites mentioned are well known. Samaria, of course, is the name of the capital of the northern kingdom, built by Omri (1 Kgs 16:24), mentioned an additional seven times in Chronicles, and still the capital of the province of Samaria during the Persian and Hellenistic periods. Geographically, the city of Samaria was actually within the tribal territory of Manasseh, although the area could also be called “Mount Ephraim” in the general sense of the term (Aharoni 1979, 28–29). Beth-horon is actually two villages, often defined 56.  Although in his commentary, Klein (2012, 359) suggests that the incident may have come from the Chronicler’s source.



The Reign of Amaziah – 2 Chronicles 25

229

as “Lower Beth-horon” and “Upper Beth-horon” (for example in 2 Chron. 8:5), which are located on either end of the ascent from the Aijalon Valley towards Gibeon, north-west of Jerusalem. Historically, control over this strategic road may have shifted between the two kingdoms, but 1 Chron. 6:53 [Eng. 68], following Josh. 21:22, considers Beth-horon to have also been a town of Ephraim. What this means is that the territory raided by the northern mercenaries in their rage against the king of Judah, seems to have been located within the northern kingdom! If so, in what way did this cause damage to Amaziah and his kingdom? The various attempts to make sense of this passage can be divided into four types. The first attempts to reconstruct a historical situation, in which at least some of “Mount Ephraim” was controlled or settled by the kingdom of Judah during the late ninth century BCE. We should remember, that at least according to the Chronicler, Asa had already conquered some towns in Ephraim, which were still under Judahite control in the days of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 17:2). Japhet (1993, 865) suggested that these cities, within the territory of Ephraim, still belonged to Judah, and that these were the target of the attack. Similarly Rainey (1997, 62) understood “Samaria” as meaning “the northern kingdom” in general, rather than the city itself, and “wead,” commonly rendered “to (Beth-horon)” as “near”: “the reference is thus to some settlements in the area of southern Mt Ephraim, which at that time were under Judean control (cf. 2 Chron. 17.2; 19.4).”57 A second explanation is that “from Samaria to Beth-horon” does not refer to the scope of the raid, but to the origin of the raiders. Keel (1986, 773), for example, assumes that after their release by Amaziah, the northerners went home to Ephraim, which stretched “from Samaria to Beth-horon” and only then did they regroup in order to raid Judahite territory. This, however, is far from the simplest way to read the text. The third type of explanation for this verse assumes that our understanding of “from Samaria to Beth-horon,” based on the common identification of both sites, is mistaken. Rudolph (1955, 278), for example suggested that ‫שמרון‬, “Samaria,” may be an error for ‫מגרון‬, “Migron,” a town in the eastern part of the Benjaminite hills, known in the Bible only in 1 Sam. 14:2 and in Isa. 10:28. Myers (1965, 2:143) and Williamson (1982, 330) tend to agree. This would mean that the raid actually occurred on an east–west axis along the boundary between the two kingdoms. However, at least the first of these readings of “Migron” is contested 57.  Rainey credits Ginsberg (1951) as first pointing out this use of the preposition ‫ עד‬in Biblical Hebrew, although it was Rainey who first applied this interpretation to our passage.

230

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

by various scholars (for example, McCarter 1980, 235 and Tsumura 2007, 357), as is the location of the place mentioned in the second (see Feldstein 1993), all of which makes Rudolph’s suggested emendation of the text here rather unlikely. A similar approach was applied by Demsky (1993, 71). He read “Shomron” (“Samaria”) here as a by-form of the “Shomer”/“Shemer” that appears in the genealogy of Asher in 1 Chron. 7:32–33, which he understands as being the same as “Shemed, who built Ono and Lod” in 1 Chron. 8:12.58 If so, the raid began in the area of Lod, in the lower Aijalon Valley, and proceeded up the Beth-horon ascent, presumably all within the kingdom of Judah. The fourth type of explanation for this passage is more allegorical and less geographical. Ben Zvi (2006, 61–63), for example, after rejecting the various geographical and historical proposals mentioned above, then suggests that “the primary readerships were supposed to approach the text from a perspective other than representing in a fully mimetic manner a past reality.” In other words, to the Persian-period readers, Samaria was Samaria, there were no “cities of Judah” in the territory of Ephraim, but Amaziah, so long as he followed Yahweh faithfully, was the more powerful of the two kings. As soon as he stopped following Yahweh, this power “evaporates, in a miraculous way,” and Amaziah is transformed into the simple thornbush of Lebanon. Or, put in other words, “a literary device meant to express the power and blessed status of Judah at the time when its king follows YHWH. Such a status is substantially enhanced vis à vis that of northern Israel” (Ben Zvi 2008, 80). Such an approach has its difficulties, especially in that it assumes that the intended readers of the story were also intended to totally ignore geo-political reality in favor of allegory. But exactly which geo-political reality, real or imagined, the readers were intended to envisage, is very difficult to ascertain. Amaziah’s Apostasy The next section in the Chronicler’s portrayal of Amaziah is the story of his worshipping “the gods of the sons of Seir” and the prophetic rebuke that followed (vv. 14–16). This is the only place in the entire Bible in which explicit mention is made of the gods of Edom/Seir. Historically, we know very little about Edomite religion. At some point in the late Iron Age we begin to see Edomite inscriptions that include names with the theophoric element QWS (usually vocalized “Qaus” or Qos” by scholars). Such names become more common among the Persian- and 58.  In the Greek “Shemed” is spelled Σεμμηρ, “Shemer,” reflecting a Hebrew original ‫שמר‬. This is also true in some Hebrew manuscripts. The interchange of ‫ ר‬and ‫ ד‬is quite common because of their graphic similarity.



The Reign of Amaziah – 2 Chronicles 25

231

Hellenistic-period “Idumeans,” who settled in southern Judah, but information is still limited (see Levin 2015a). Within our narrative, the basic purpose of this pericope seems obvious: in Kings, Amaziah goes from righteousness and success to foolishness and downfall rather suddenly and without a “real” explanation. This is rectified by the Chronicler, who gives a reason for his downfall: his worship of foreign gods. In this, the Chronicler’s Amaziah follows the pattern set by several of his predecessors, including his father Joash, of a “pious” first part of their reign and a “sinful” second part, leading to their downfall. However, the details of no two kings’ downfall are alike. Amaziah, as pious as he may have been at first, is presented here as being exceedingly foolish. This is emphasized by the unnamed prophet, who asks what Amaziah thought to gain by worshipping the gods who had just failed their own people! And like Joash before him, Amaziah also forced the prophet to cease his warning, although unlike Joash, Amaziah only threatens violence, and we do not hear of the prophet coming to actual harm. But like the prophet Zechariah (2 Chron. 24:22) and like Micaiah to Ahab and Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 18:27), this unnamed prophet also has the last word: “I know that God has determined to destroy you, because you have done this and have not listened to my counsel.” The root YṢ, “counsel,” “advise,” is used three times, once by Amaziah (“Have we made you a counselor to the king?”), once by the prophet (“you have not listened to my counsel”) and again in the next verse by the Chronicler as narrator, in an addition to Kings (“And Amaziah king of Judah took counsel”), serving to heighten the irony of Amaziah’s actions. Amaziah’s War with Joash of Israel The story of Amaziah’s war with Joash of Israel (vv. 17–24) is taken almost verbatim from 2 Kgs 14:14, with only three significant additions. The first of these is in v. 17, in which Amaziah’s actions are a result of his having “taken counsel.” This addition, as already noted, first of all serves the literary purpose of connecting the war to Amaziah’s previous refusal to listen to the “counsel” of the prophet, but Japhet (1993, 868) also sees it as a part of the Chronicles general idea of “shared responsibility” – since not only the king is about to suffer, the guilt must not have been his alone either. The second addition to the Kings text is in v. 20, in which Kings’ “and Amaziah would not listen” is followed by the Chronicler’s commentary: “for this was from God, in order to hand them over, because they had sought the gods of Edom.” The Chronicler once again emphasizes the real reason behind Amaziah’s defeat.

232

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

The third addition is in v. 24, in which the treasures of the house of God are said to be “with Obed-edom” – usually understood as meaning that they were in the charge of Obed-edom. “Obed-edom the Gittite” was the person in whose house the Ark was kept for three months before being brought to Jerusalem by David (2 Sam. 6:10–12 = 1 Chron. 13:13–14; 15:25). In the Chronicler’s addition to that narrative, Obed-edom then appears both as one of the Levitical gatekeepers appointed by David for the Ark (1 Chron. 15:18) and as one of the musicians (15:21; 16:5, 38). According to the list of the Temple gatekeepers attributed to David in 1 Chron. 26:15, Obed-edom was in charge of the southern gates, and his sons, listed there in vv. 4–8, were in charge of “the house of asuppîm” (translated “storehouse,” “gatehouse,” “vestibule” and so on – see Japhet 1993, 459 and our discussion there). This would presumably explain the connection between Obed-edom and the Temple treasures. However, since some two hundred years separated Amaziah from David, some scholars (Rudolph 1955, 280; Williamson 1982, 331) see the mention of Obed-edom here a secondary addition to Chronicles. Another approach is taken by Japhet (1993, 871), who pointed out the “poetic justice” of Amaziah, who was an ôbed edôm (a worshipper of Edom – or at least Edom’s gods), having his treasures, kept by Obed-edom, looted by the northern kingdom. However, while this irony may very well have been intended, it would be difficult to imagine the Chronicler inserting such a reference only for its literary value, and it would seem that we can assume that he intended to indicate that Obed-edom’s descendants had remained at their post since the days of David (so also Keel 1986, 779; Dillard 1987, 202). The rest of the war narrative follows Kings closely. Amaziah, for no other apparent reason that his own hubris,59 challenges Joash of Israel and is answered by a short fable:60 “The thistle that is in the Lebanon sent to the cedar that is in the Lebanon, saying, ‘Give your daughter to my son as a wife’; but the wild animal of the Lebanon passed by and trampled thistle.”

59.  Na’aman (1985) offered an alternative understanding: Amaziah’s Judah was nominally subservient to Joash’s Israel, and Amaziah’s message to Joash was an attempt to re-define their relationship more favorably from his perspective. The outcome shows how miserably he failed. Thiele (1983, 73) and Jarick (2007, 149) even went as far as understanding the fable in v. 18 to indicate that Amaziah had suggested a marriage alliance with Joash. 60.  For the definitions of “fable” as used in the study of biblical literature and the difference between “fable” and “parable” see Vater Solomon 1985a.



The Reign of Amaziah – 2 Chronicles 25

233

Many of the commentators who have studied this fable, in the context of both Kings and Chronicles, have noted its obvious relationship to “Jotham’s Fable” that is embedded in Judg. 9:8–15. Both feature talking trees, both are set in the Lebanon, and both include a comparison between a “thornbush” and a cedar of Lebanon (although in Hebrew, the first of these is not the same bush: in Judges it is an aṭâd and here it is a ḥôaḥ). And of course, as defined by Vater Solomon (1985b, 127), both are political fables. However there are also significant differences. First of all, Jotham’s fable is longer – seven verses as compared to Joash’s one. It also has more characters: “the trees” as a collective, the olive tree, the fig tree, the vine and finally the thornbush; the cedar is actually not an active character, but an image of mighty trees in general. The destructive climax there, the fire consuming the cedars, is a future possibility, not the actual ending of the fable; here, the story ends with the wild animal trampling the bush. And of course, the aim of the fable is different: in Judges it is a warning against the dangers of kingship; in our story it is a warning to Amaziah to understand his place in the real world. In v. 19 Joash spells out the meaning of the fable, in case Amaziah – or the readers – miss the point. And in v. 20 the Chronicler makes that point even more clear: this is God’s will. The actual battle, presumably at Joash’s initiative, took place “at Beth-shemesh which belongs to Judah.” The author’s need to point out that this Beth-shemesh is in Judah, as opposed to two rather obscure similarly named towns in Issachar (Josh. 19:22) and Naphtali (Josh. 19:38) has prompted several commentators (Curtis and Madsen 1910, 445; Dillard 1987, 202; Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 156) to see this as an indication that the story in Kings was taken from a northern-kingdom source (Japhet 1993, 869, writes of “the northern point of view of the narrator”). While this may be true, we should remember that even in Kings, this story is part of the narrative of Amaziah’s reign, not of Joash’s, which was recounted briefly in the previous chapter (2 Kgs 13:10–13; v. 12 mentions “that he fought with Amaziah king of Judah”). Both Dillard (1987, 201) and Japhet (1993, 870) comment on the fact that Beth-shemesh, along the Sorek stream in the northern Shephelah, was not on the much foughtover Benjamin frontier between the two kingdoms, and concluded that Joash must have intended a major offensive against Judah. However, this is certainly not the way the story is presented in our chapter. Here, the war was altogether the initiative of the foolish king of Judah. We should remember that Gezer, on the Aijalon stream just north of the Sorek, was traditionally a town of Ephraim, and we do not really know just where the boundary between the two kingdoms ran and any given time.

234

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

The outcome of the battle, according to v. 22, was the routing of Judah and the fleeing of its army. There is no mention in the text of any damage to the city itself, but Aharoni (1979, 352) conjectured that “it would be contrary to the general rule if Beth-shemesh was not looted and burned at the same time (if for no other reason, to reward the victorious troops),” and even suggested this as a date for the Judahite town list of Josh. 15:21–62, from which Beth-shemesh is conspicuously missing. The widespread destruction of the town near the end of the ninth century BCE has been confirmed by more recent excavations, and the excavators (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2009, 136) also cite the invasion of Joash as a probable cause. Verse 23 tells of the capture of Amaziah by Joash and the latter’s coming to Jerusalem, dismantling a section of the city wall. As noted above, where Chronicles has Joash bringing the captured Amaziah to Jerusalem (waybiēhû), the qeri of 2 Kgs 14:13 is wayyabô, “and he came,” in the singular. This has led some scholars (Japhet 1993, 870; Rainey and Notley 2006, 217) to speculate that Amaziah was taken as a captive to Samaria, where he spent the next fifteen years as a hostage, assuming that this is the reason for the enthronement of sixteen-year-old Azariah/Uzziah (2 Kgs 15:2 = 2 Chron. 26:3). Be that as it may, the Chronicler seems to have assumed that Amaziah was brought to Jerusalem. The dismantling of a 400 cubit-long (about 200 meters) stretch of the city wall may indicate that the people of the city resisted Joash for a while, but is usually understood to be an act of punishment (Japhet 1993, 870, offers both explanations; Keel 1986, 779, prefers the second). The Ephraim Gate is mentioned, in a Persian-period context, in Neh. 8:16 and 12:39, and would seem to have been somewhere along the northern wall, leading towards Mount Ephraim. Jeremiah 20:2 mentions an “Upper Benjamin Gate in the House of the Lord,” also mentioned in Jer. 37:13. This may have been the same gate,61 or there may have been more than one gate in the northern wall. Zechariah 14:10 prophesizes the rebuilding of the city “from the Gate of Benjamin to the place of the First Gate, to the Gate of the Corners and the Tower of Hananel,” which seems to be almost identical with the section mentioned here. Jeremiah 31:38 expresses a similar idea: “See, a day is coming, says the Lord, when the city shall be rebuilt for the Lord from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate.”

61.  Several of Jerusalem’s gates today have more than one name. The northern “Damascus Gate” is also called “Nablus Gate” or “Shechem Gate” in Hebrew and Bāb el-Ammûd (“the Gate of the Pillar”) in Arabic.



The Reign of Amaziah – 2 Chronicles 25

235

The taking of hostages from a defeated kingdom is well documented in the ancient world. Presumably, they would have been members of the nobility, imprisoned in order to assure the “good behavior” of the subjugated kingdom (Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 157). Examples of this within the Bible are the taking of Jehoahaz son of Josiah by Necho (2 Kgs 23:33) and of Jehoiachin by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 24:15). As mentioned above, some scholars speculate that Amaziah was taken to Samaria as well, and assume that this lies behind the statement in v. 25, about Amaziah outliving Joash by fifteen years (Thiele 1983, 78). This may be true, but it seems strange that the authors of neither Kings nor Chronicles mention the fact. From 2 Kgs 14:21 = 2 Chron. 26:1 it seems as if the authors assumed that the sixteen-year-old Azariah/Uzziah was made king after his father’s death and burial. If indeed there was a co-regency, unmentioned by the biblical authors, it could just as well have been a result of Amaziah’s inability to reign after his humiliating defeat. In fact, his move to Lachish, presented here as a fleeing from conspirators, may well have been a sort of “forced retirement,” while his son Azariah/ Uzziah effectively ruled the kingdom (so Keel 1986, 780, citing Rashi on Kings). The Chronicler’s addition to v. 27, indicating that the conspiracy began “from the time that Amaziah strayed from the Lord,” which Williamson (1982, 331) calls “artificial,” and Japhet (1993, 871) and Klein (2012, 363–64) understand as meaning that Amaziah’s death was ultimately brought about by his own sins, might actually indicate that in the Chronicler’s understanding, the plot actually had been brewing since the Edomite war. In any case, as pointed out by Jarick (2007, 150), this was “an ignoble end” for the man who had begun his own reign by killing his father’s assassins, to end it by being assassinated himself. The summary of Amaziah’s reign is made up of two standard formulae. “The rest of the deeds…the first and the last” is used in Chronicles for nine different kings, beginning with David (1 Chron. 29:29). Keel (1986, 790) surmises that the Chronicler’s intention was to emphasize the “good” early period in Amaziah’s reign (until his apostasy) and the “bad” later period. “The book of the kings of Judah and Israel” or “Israel and Judah” is used for an additional five kings who reigned after Amaziah (Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Josiah and Jehoiakim). The placing of the circumstances of Amaziah’s death and burial after the summary is also typical, and in this case follows the structure in Kings. Unlike the assassination of Joash, in this case we are not told who conspired against Amaziah and why – a lacuna that has led to a certain amount of speculation. Dillard (1987, 202) thought that “perhaps the same military and cultic alliance that had dethroned Athaliah and installed Joash

236

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

(2 Chron. 23) was once again involved to avenge the military humiliation and the spoliation of the temple.” Cogan and Tadmor speculated that Amaziah may have attempted to regain the throne and remove Azariah/ Uzziah from his co-regency, and that the fact that the conspirators went unpunished (unlike the assassins of Joash) indicates that “perhaps Azariah may have been himself been implicated in the regicide” (1988, 159). In any case Uzziah seems to have been enthroned with the support of “all the people of Judah” (2 Chron. 26:1 – but see the commentary there). We are also not told why Amaziah chose to flee to Lachish, which was the “district capital” of the Shephelah and eventually became the second largest city in Judah.62 Did he have supporters there (Rainey 1983, 14)? Was he actually exiled there for a long period of time, or did he flee there just prior to his death? Why the emphasis on his body being transported to “the city of Judah” (presumably Jerusalem, but see the note) on horseback? Our sources are unfortunately silent.

62.  For the archaeological evidence of Iron-Age Lachish see Ussishkin 2014 and references there. In 1955, a collective farming village (a moshav) was established near the site of Lachish and given the name Amaziah, after the king of Judah. An additional moshav established adjacent to the site was given the name Lachish, which is also the name of the regional council that was established the following year.

T h e R eig n o f U zziah – 2 C h r o n ic les 26

Chapter 26: 1 And all the people of Judah1 took Uzziah,2 and he was sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father Amaziah. 2 He built3 Eloth4 and restored it to Judah, after the king lay with his fathers.  3 Sixteen years old was Uzziah when he reigned,5 and fifty-two years he reigned in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Jecoliah from Jerusalem. 4 And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father Amaziah had 1.  An unusual expression. The Greek text of Chronicles (but not of Kings), has ὁ λαὸς τῆς γῆς, “the people of the land.” According to Dillard (1987, 205), “this variant probably represents an unconscious harmonization with the more frequent phrase rather than an earlier and more correct text.” 2.  The name Uzziah, ‫ עזיה‬or ‫עזיהו‬, means “Yahweh’s might” or “Yahweh is my might.” In Kings, this king is almost always called “Azariah,” ‫ עזריה‬or ‫עזריהו‬, “Yahweh’s help,” although the form “Uzziah” is used in 2 Kgs 15:13, 30, 32, 34, the first three in regnal formulae that are not paralleled in Chronicles, and the fourth, which is paralleled, in a passage that actually refers to Jotham. The form “Uzziah” is also used in Isaiah (1:1; 6:1; 7:1), Hosea (1:1), Amos (1:1) and Zechariah (14:5). In Chronicles, the form “Azariah” is used for the king only in the Davidic genealogy in 1 Chron. 3:12, but is actually used for several other people throughout the book. Opinions are divided on whether the difference between the two forms is scribal (addition of the letter resh in some sources, see Klein 2012, 364) or reflects the fact that he actually used both names, perhaps in different contexts, such as one being the king’s personal name and the other a regnal name (so Dillard 1987, 205; Jarick 2007, 151). Brin (1960) showed that while the roots ZR and ZZ have different meanings and etymologies, they are often interchanged in biblical texts. Scholars are also divided on whether the use of one form or the other by different writers reflects differences in their source material or their own preferences (for which see Klili 2008, 284). 3.  Usually rendered “rebuilt” in translation, but this depends on historical analysis. See the commentary. 4.  This form of the name is also used in 2 Chron. 8:17. The parallel 2 Kgs 14:22 has “Elath,” but the form “Eloth” is also used in 2 Kgs 9:26. The LXX of our passage has Αιλαθ. 5.  What seems here to be a close repetition of information already given in v. 1, comes in 2 Kgs 15:2 in a new chapter, after the eight-verse-long description of the reign of Jeroboam II son of Joash in Israel.

238

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

done.6 5 And he sought God7 in the days of Zechariah, instructor in the visions of God,8 and in the days that he sought the Lord, God9 gave him success. 6 And he went out and made war against the Philistines, and breached10 the wall of Gath and the wall of Jabneh and the wall of Ashdod; and he built11 cities in Ashdod and in the Philistines.12 7 And God helped him against the Philistines 6.  The next verse in Kings tells of the bamôt at which the people still worshipped, and then of Azariah’s leprosy. Chronicles does not mention the bamôt, but then adds the following fifteen verses before mentioning the leprosy. 7.  ‫ויהי לדרש אלהים‬, literally “and he was seeking God.” NRSV has “he set himself to seek God”; NJPS: “he applied himself to the worship of God”; Klein (2012, 367) has, “he determined to seek God.” 8.  ‫המבין בראת האלהים‬, literally, “who (makes to) understand in seeing the God.” Following the MT, this would indicate that Zechariah was a prophet, perhaps one who had a special understanding of his visions of God (Klili 2008, 260). The Vulgate, intellegentis et videntis Deum, and the KJV, “had understanding in the visions of God,” follow a similar interpretation. An additional opinion, quoted in the b. Sotah 48b, is that Zechariah was a priest who “asked of God through the Urim and Tummim,” and Rashi, in his commentary there, identified him with Zechariah son of Jehoiada, who was both a prophet and a priest. Keel (1986, 785), noting that Zechariah son of Jehoiada had been murdered in the reign of Joash, Uzziah’s grandfather, suggested that this verse is actually about Amaziah, whose name is mentioned in the previous verse: it was Amaziah who “sought God in the days of Zechariah” (son of Jehoiada), even before he was king, and as long as he did, God brought him success. Conversely, Jarick (2007, 153) suggests that this Zechariah was an otherwiseunknown high priest, who had the same sort of relationship with Uzziah as Jehoiada had had with Joash. Some Hebrew manuscripts and some of the ancient versions have ‫ביראת האלהים‬, “in the fear of God” (Greek ἐν φόβῳ κυρίου), which is the source of most modern translations: “who instructed him in the fear of God” (NRSV; Myers 1965, 2:146; Dillard 1987, 204; Klein 2012, 367), assuming “fear” to mean “worship” or observance of God’s commandments. However, in any case, the text does not really say that Zechariah instructed the king in anything, just that he was “an instructor.” 9.  In the Hebrew, this verse has ‫אלהים‬, “God,” three times, and Yahweh, “Lord,” once. The Greek has κύριος, “Lord,” for all four. 10.  The Hebrew ‫ ויפרץ‬is the same word used for Joash’s breach of the wall of Jerusalem in 25:23 above. RSV’s “broke down” and even Dillard’s “broke through” (1987, 204) seem too strong. 11.  There are several textual difficulties here. The unopocopated form ‫ויבנה‬, “and he built,” is unexpected; we would expect ‫ויבן‬. The verb is also identical in spelling to the name of the town ‫יבנה‬, “Jabneh,” which led Williamson (1982, 335) to surmise that the entire phrase is based on an erroneous dittograph of the first part of the verse. Rudolph (1955, 282) suggested reading ‫ויבז‬, “and he plundered,” which was accepted by Klein (2012, 367). However the Greek ᾠκοδόμησεν, “built,” “strengthened,” supports the MT. The translation “rebuilt” used by NIV, Dillard (1987, 204) and others is incorrect. 12.  Since “Ashdod” is a city and “the Philistines” are a people, it is difficult to understand how one could build cities in either. Also, Ashdod was a city of the Philistines, making the comparison unclear. Most modern translations “fill in” “the territory of Ashdod and elsewhere among the Philistines” (NRSV) and the like.



The Reign of Uzziah – 2 Chronicles 26

239

and against the Arabs who dwelt in Gur-baal13 and the Meunites.14  8 And the Ammonites15 gave tribute to Uzziah, and his name16 went even to the approaches of Egypt,17 for he became very strong.18 9 And Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem at the Corner Gate,19 at the Valley Gate20 and at the Side,21 and strengthened them. 10 And he built towers in the desert and hewed out many 13.  Gur-baal is an otherwise unknown place, while the preposition ‫ועל‬, “against,” is missing for the third element, the Meunites. Moreover, the Greek ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς Μιναίους, “against the petra/rock and against the Meunites,” seems to assume a Hebrew ‫ועל צור ועל המעונים‬, “against Ṣur and against the Meunites,” in which ‫צור ועל‬ became ‫גור־בעל‬, “Gur-baal.” Since no Ṣur (Tyre) is known in this region, the first part of the name, Gur, was identified by Alt with the alāni mātGa-ri (“towns of the land of Gari”) mentioned in El-Amarna letter 256, which Alt surmised was in the eastern Negeb (Rinaldi 1963, 229) and thus with ‫יגור‬, “Jagur,” of the Negeb district in Josh. 15:21 (Abel 1967, 340). An alternative proposal, based on the Targum, reads ‫גרר‬, “Gerar,” instead of ‫( גור‬see Rudolph 1955, 282; Japhet 1993, 880; Klein 2012, 367). 14.  The Greek has καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς Μιναίους. Some Hebrew manuscripts have ‫העמונים‬, “the Ammonites,” instead of ‫המעונים‬, “the Meunites.” See the next verse. 15.  The Greek has οἱ Μιναῖοι, “the Meunites,” and many modern commentators (Myers 1965, 2:147; Dillard 1987, 204, 206; Japhet 1993, 880; Klein 2012, 367) prefer this version. Most translations, however, including modern ones (NRSV, NJPS, NIV etc.), retain the MT “Ammonites.” See the commentary. 16.  Other translations have “fame” or “reputation.” 17.  The Hebrew ‫ לבוא מצרים‬is an unusual expression. It is modeled after the ‫לבוא‬ ‫ חמת‬which is used to delineate the northern boundary of the land of Canaan in Num. 13:21; 34:8 and related texts, including 2 Chron. 7:8 (copied from 1 Kgs 8:65) and 1 Chron. 13:5 (independently). Traditionally, this has been understood as “the approaches to Hamath,” from the verb B, “to come,” and referring to the important city of Hamath (modern Hama) in northern Syria, although in modern times Mazar (1986) showed that it originally referred to a town called Lebo (modern Lebweh) in the district of Hamath (see also Aharoni 1979, 72–73; Levin 2006, 56–57), and some modern translations (such as NJPS) have adopted the form “Lebo-Hamath.” Its adaptation by the Chronicler here and in 1 Chron. 5:9 (“the approaches to the desert”) seems to indicate that Chronicles, at least, understood ‫ לבוא‬as a description, not as a proper place name. 18.  Literally, “his strength went to the top.” 19.  This is presumably the same gate that was destroyed by Joash of Israel during the reign of Uzziah’s father (2 Chron. 25:23); its repair may indicate a change in the relationship between the two kingdoms. 20.  The Valley Gate is mentioned in Neh. 2:13, 15 and 3:13, as one of the destroyed gates from the pre-exilic wall that was rebuilt during the Restoration. It is usually assumed to lead to the valley that separated the eastern hill (“the city of David”) from the western hill (today’s “Mount Zion”), but its precise location is unknown. 21. The term ‫ מקצוע‬is mentioned in reference to the walls of Jerusalem in Neh. 3:19–25, probably on the eastern wall. As a noun meaning “side” or “corner,” the word is used in Exod. 26:24 and 36:29 (as a “corner” of the Tabernacle) and in Ezek. 41:22 (the “sides” of the altar) and 46:21–22 (the “sides” of the Temple courtyard). The Greek uses

240

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

cisterns, for he had much livestock22 in the Shephelah23 and in the plain,24 farmers25 and vinedressers26 in the hills27 and in the Carmel,28 for a lover of the earth was he.  11 And Uzziah had an army of warriors,29 who went out to the host in troops according to the numbers of their enrollment by the hand of Jeiel30 the scribe the same word, γωνία, for both the “Corner Gate” and for the ‫מקצוע‬. Most translations have “Angle,” but this seems too specific. 22.  ‫ מקנה‬often refers to “cattle” (and is translated so by NJPS; Klein 2012, 367), although some translations prefer the more general “herds” (NRSV) or “livestock” (Dillard 1987, 204). 23.  The Hebrew ‫ ובשפלה‬is prefixed with a waw, usually the conjunction “and” (“he had much cattle, and in the Shephelah…”), but sometimes acting as a waw explicativum: “he had much cattle, that is in the Shephelah.” On the difficult syntax of this verse see the commentary. The word ‫ שפלה‬literally means “low country” and is often translated as such (NJPS “foothills”), but it is often used as the proper name of the Judean foothills (as in Josh. 15:33). In this case the Greek Σεφηλα took it to refer to the Judean foothills in particular. 24.  This could also be read as a proper name “Mishor,” but the Greek τῇ πεδινῇ understands it as simple “the plain.” See the commentary. 25.  ‫ אכרים‬is a rare word in Hebrew, apparently a loanword from the Akkadian ikkaru, “farmer,” ultimately from the Sumerian. In the Bible, it appears only in “late” books: its earliest use is in Amos 5:16 (roughly contemporary with the reign of Uzziah), then in Jer. 14:4; 31:24; 51:23; Joel 1:11 and Isa. 61:5. In Chronicles it is used only here. In most of these, ‫ אכרים‬appears together with ‫“( כרמים‬vinedressers,” but see the following note). However in Jer. 31:24 it is coupled with “those who wander with flocks” and in Jer. 51:23 it is ‫אכר וצמדו‬, “ikkâr and his team (of oxen),” indicating that the ‫ אכר‬engaged in plowing. In the Greek version of our verse, the word ‫ אכרים‬is missing, perhaps through haplography, due to the similarity of the next word, ‫וכרמים‬. 26.  ‫כרם‬, kerem, is the common word for “vineyard,” and the kôrmîm (pl.; the presumed sing. kôrêm does not appear in the Bible) would be “vinedressers.” Keel (1986, 789) notes that Judg. 15:5 mentions ‫כרם זית‬, “a kerem of olives,” to show that the term could refer to an olive grove as well, although most translations of Judges 15:5 read the two words as separate: “vineyards and olive groves” (NRSV). 27.  In many older translations (such as the Greek τῇ ὀρεινῇ, the Latin montibus, KJV) ‫ הרים‬is rendered “mountains.” However considering that the average altitude of the hârîm of Samaria and Judea is about 700 meters with only a few peaks reaching 1000 meters, almost all modern translations prefer “hills.” 28.  Reading “Carmel” as a proper name with the Greek καὶ ἐν τῷ Καρμήλῳ. Many translations prefer “fertile lands” (NRSV) and the like. See the commentary for the geographical issues. 29.  The syntax is unclear. NRSV has “an army of soldiers, fit for war” and NJPS has “an army of soldiers, a battle-ready force,” but the Hebrew ‫ עשה‬means “doers” or “makers.” Klein (2012, 367) renders “an army for making battle.” 30.  Ketib ‫יעואל‬, “Jeuel,” qeri ‫יעיאל‬, “Jeiel.” Identical ketib–qeri variations of the same name are to be found in 1 Chron. 9:35; 11:44 and 2 Chron. 29:13.



The Reign of Uzziah – 2 Chronicles 26

241

and Maaseiah the officer,31 under the command32 of Hananiah, of the king’s commanders.33 12 The whole number of the heads of fathers’ houses34 of valiant warriors was two thousand six hundred. 13 And under them35 was an army of three hundred and seven thousand five hundred, who made war36 with mighty power,37 to help the king against the enemy. 14 And Uzziah prepared for them – for the entire army – shields and spears and helmets and armor38 and bows and sling-stones.  15 And he made in Jerusalem cleverly designed devices39 to be 31.  The noun ‫ שוטר‬appears in the singular only here, but the plural ‫ שוטרים‬appears in several different contexts. For a discussion of the term see our commentary on 2 Chron. 19:11. 32.  ‫על יד‬, literally “by the hand,” which could mean “next to,” but in this context probably means “under the hand of,” “under the command of.” 33.  The Greek τοῦ διαδόχου τοῦ βασιλέως, “the second to the king,” could be based on a Hebrew reading ‫ משנה המלך‬instead of MT ‫משרי המלך‬, which Japhet (1993, 882) finds “rather attractive.” 34.  NJPS has “clan chiefs.” 35.  ‫ועל־ידם‬, literally “and by their hand,” which could either mean “next to them” or “under their command.” 36.  ‫עושי מלחמה‬, literally “makers of war.” NRSV has “who could make war,” Myers (1965, 2:148) “ready for war,” Dillard (1987, 205) “trained for battle” and Klein (2012, 367) “for making battle.” 37.  The relationship between ‫ כח‬and ‫חיל‬, both of which mean “power,” “might” and the like, is not clear. NRSV (“with mighty power”), Myers (1965, 2:148, “a powerful enough force”), Dillard (1987, 205, “a powerful force”) assume the first to be an adjective. NJPS and Klein (2012, 367) render “might and power.” 38.  The word translated here as “helmet,” ‫כובע‬, appears in Chronicles only here, and is rather rare in the rest of the Bible. It first appears in 1 Sam. 5 and 38 as the head-gear of Goliath, and this is the only other context in which it appears in a historiographical narrative. Besides this, it appears in prophetic passages in Isa. 59:17 (as God’s “helmet of salvation”!); Jer. 46:4; Ezek. 23:24; 27:10; 38:5. The fact that in 1 Sam. 17:38 and in Ezek. 23:24 it is spelled ‫קובע‬, and that its first appearance is as part of the armor of a Philistine warrior, as well as its lack of cognates in Semitic languages, have led scholars to search for an Indo-European, perhaps Greek, Hittite or Luwian origin for the term, more distantly related to the Latin capita and to English “cap.” The same is true for the next term, ‫שרינות‬, more commonly ‫שריון‬, “armor” or “mail.” See Sapir 1937; Speiser 1950; Galling 1966; McCarter 1980, 292; Tsumura 2007, 441. However by the time of the Chronicler and perhaps his source, these terms had become standard in Hebrew. 39.  ‫חשבנות מחשבת חושב‬, repeating the root ḤŠB, “to think,” “to design,” “to plan” three times. The usage is similar to that in the description of Bezalel’s skills in designing the Tabernacle in Exod. 31:4 (NRSV “to devise artistic designs”) and 35:35 (“skilled designer”). It is also used in a similar context in 2 Chron. 2:13 [Eng. 14], in the description of the skills of Huram-abi. In our passage, Japhet (1993, 883) suggests “devices, the devising of devisers.” The Greek has μηχανὰς μεμηχανευμένας λογιστοῦμηχανὰς μεμηχανευμένας λογιστοῦ μηχανὰς μεμηχανευμένας λογιστοῦ and the Vulgate translates diversi generis machinas. RSV has “engines, invented by skilful men,” NRSV has

242

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

set40 on the towers and the corners to shoot arrows and large stones, and his name41 spread far, for he was marvelously helped42 until he became strong.  16 And as43 he became strong his heart rose to corruption,44 and he transgressed against the Lord his God, and entered the Temple45 of the Lord to burn incense46 on the altar of incense. 17 And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him eighty priests of the Lord who were men of valor.  18 And they stood against47 Uzziah the king, and said to him: It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but for the priests the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated burn incense; get out of the sanctuary, for you have transgressed, and you will have no honor from the Lord God. 19 And Uzziah was angry, and the censer48 was in his hand to burn incense;49 and as he became angry with the priests the leprosy50 shined51 on his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord, “machines, invented by skilled workers,” and NJPS has “clever devices.” For further discussion of these “devices” see the commentary. 40.  “Set” not in Hebrew, but implied. 41.  Like in v. 8 above; other translations have “fame” or “reputation.” 42.  ‫ הפליא להעזר‬are actually two verbs, the first in the active hiphil, the second in the passive niphal. A literal translation would be “he wondered to be helped.” The multiple use of the root ‫ עזר‬may be a play on the king’s alternate name ‫עזריה‬, Azariah, “Yahweh helps.” 43.  Most translations render the ‫ כ‬as marking time: “when he became strong,” which is, indeed, typical usage in Chronicles (see Japhet 1993, 885). However the English “as,” like the Hebrew ‫כ‬, leaves open the possibility that the meaning is casuistic: “The more powerful he became, the prouder.” 44.  Klein (2012, 367) has “to the point of acting corruptly.” The usual translations are “to his destruction” (NRSV), “to his downfall” (Dillard 1987, 205) and the like. Japhet (1993, 885) feels that the JPS “acted corruptly” better fits the Chronicler’s idiom and line of thought. 45.  The word used here for the Temple, ‫ היכל‬instead of the usual ‫בית‬, “house,” is an Akkadian loanword which is used often in poetic passages in the Bible (such as Ps. 29:9) and in exilic and post-exilic contexts such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Ezra–Nehemiah, Zechariah and Haggai. In Chronicles, the term is used only eight times: 2 Chron. 3:17; 4:7, 8 and 22 in the description of Solomon’s Temple, 2 Chron. 26:16; 27:2 and 29:16 in the acts of Uzziah, Jotham and Hezekiah, and finally in 36:7, in which Nebuchadnezzar placed the vessels of the house of the Lord in his own hêkâl in Babylon. Specifically, the term seems to be used to indicate the inner space of the Temple structure, while the more general “house of the Lord” refers to the entire complex. 46.  In Hebrew, “to burn incense” is a single verb – ‫להקטיר‬. 47.  ‫ויעמדו על־‬, literally “stood over.” NRSV has “withstood,” while most other modern translations have “confronted.” 48.  The word used here for the vessel that held the incense, ‫מקטרת‬, is otherwise known only from Ezek. 8:11. The more common word for this implement is ‫מחתה‬. 49.  Keel (1986, 794) cites Pseudo-Rashi as commenting that Uzziah was about to strike the priest with the censer, and was stopped by the outbreak of leprosy. 50.  We translate ‫ צרעת‬as “leprosy” following common practice, but see the commentary. 51.  The verb ‫ זרח‬is used almost exclusively for the shining of the sun, and in Deut.



The Reign of Uzziah – 2 Chronicles 26

243

over the altar of incense. 20 And Azariah the head priest52 turned to him, with all the priests, and here he was, leprous on his forehead; and they rushed him from there, and he also pushed53 to get out, because the Lord had afflicted him.54  21 And Uzziah the king was leprous to the day of his death, and he lived,55 leprous,56 in the house of ḥopshit,57 for he was cut off58 from the house 33:2 and Isa. 60:2 also for the sudden appearance of God. Its use here is meant to reflect the suddenness and strength with which the affliction appeared. This effect is missed by most translators’ “broke out.” 52.  ‫כהן הראש‬. This title also appears in 2 Chron. 19:11 and 24:11, as well as in 2 Kgs 25:18 = Jer. 52:24, and the almost identical ‫ הכהן הראש‬in 2 Chron. 31:9. For discussion see the commentaries on 2 Chron. 19:11 and 31:9. 53.  This is a literal translation of ‫נדחף‬. The root DḤP appears only here and in Esther (3:15; 6:12; 8:14), but is known in Akkadian (daāpu – “to push away”) and in later Hebrew and Aramaic (see HALOT). Most translations have the more general “hastened.” 54.  The words “the Lord afflicted him” begin a short section, through v. 23, in which Chronicles returns to following 2 Kgs 15. The parallelism between vv. 21–23 in Chronicles and vv. 5–7 in Kings is only partial. Where the words “the Lord afflicted him” end our v. 20, most of which has no parallel in Kings, there they form the beginning of v. 5: “The Lord afflicted the king, and he was leprous to the day of his death…” 55.  ‫ישב‬, literally “sat.” 56.  The word “leprous” is missing in Kings. 57.  The term ‫ בית החפשית‬is unique to this passage and its parallel in Kings, and has been the subject of much discussion. From the context, it would seem to be some sort of quarantine, isolating the king because of his leprosy, but the exact meaning of the term is unclear. The Vulgate translates domo separate, followed by RSV, NRSV, NIV, Dillard (1987, 205) and Klein (2012, 368, all “separate house”), NJPS (“isolated quarters”), Myers (1965, 2:148–49, “house of quarantine”). The term ḥopšī appears most often as a term for the freeing of slaves, as in Exod. 21:2, 5, 26, 27; Lev. 19:20; Deut. 15:12–18; Jer. 34:9–16. As such, some of the traditional Jewish exegetes, such as Qimḥi, understood this “house of ḥopšīt” (in the feminine) as “house of freedom,” meaning that Uzziah was “freed” of his duties (see also Montgomery 1941; Keel 1986, 795). KJV translates “a several house,” apparently from “sever – to break free.” Others understand it as a euphemism for a place in which the king was effectively confined (so Rudolph 1955, 284). The term bt ḫpṯt in the Ugaritic Baal Epic has been understood as the “basement” of the underworld (Albright 1934, 131). In Job 3:19, “the slave is free (ḥopšī) of his master” is part of a description of death. Ps. 88:6 [Eng. 5] speaks of the dead as ḥopšī (NRSV, “like those forsaken among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave,” with ḥopšī translated “forsaken”), leading Keel (1986, 795) to suggest that the “house of ḥopšīt” is a “house of the dead,” recalling that in Num. 12:12, the leprous Miriam is described as “like dead.” In leaving the term untranslated we have followed the lead of Cogan and Tadmor (1988, 167). For further discussion see the commentary. 58.  ‫נגזר‬, literally “cut.” Most translations render “excluded” and the like, missing the tragic overtone of the king who attempted to usurp priestly prerogatives being barred from the Temple. The words “for he was cut off from the house of the Lord” (only four words in Hebrew) do not appear in Kings, and are presumably a comment by the Chronicler.

244

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

of the Lord; and Jotham his son was over the house of the king,59 judging60 the people of the land.  22 And the rest of the acts of Uzziah, the first and the last, Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet wrote.61 23 And Uzziah lay with his fathers; and they buried him with62 his fathers in the burial field of the kings, for they said: He is leprous; and Jotham his son reigned in his stead.

Commentary Overview: The Reign of Uzziah The long reign of Azariah/Uzziah, shared partially with his son Jotham,63 was a major turning point in the history of Judah. After decades of foreign domination, first by Hazael of Aram-Damascus and then by Jehoahaz and Joash of Israel, Judah finally gained a sort of parity with Israel and domination over the southern part of the land. Uzziah’s activity at the Red Sea port of Eloth/Elath, reported in both Kings and Chronicles, could only have been possible after the establishment of control over Edom, apparently expanding whatever control his father Amaziah had gained.64 59.  Kings has “and Jotham the king’s son was over his house,” with the word ‫מלך‬, “king,” in a different position in the clause. The Greek text of Chronicles has “and Jotham his son was over his kingdom,” with no mention of a house. 60.  “Judging” with the more general meaning of “leading.” NRSV, NJPS and others have “governing.” 61.  Kings has “And the rest of the acts of Azariah and all that he did, are they not written on the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?” See the commentary. 62.  NRSV and others translate ‫ עם אבתיו‬as “near his fathers” in order to accommodate the fact that he was buried in the field and not in the city of David, but the Hebrew says “with his fathers,” which is a common expression for “dying.” Kings says that he was buried with his fathers in the city of David, with no mention of his leprosy. 63.  Different scholars offer several different reconstructions of Azariah/Uzziah’s reign, including a supposed co-regency with his father Amaziah, a definite co-regency, but of indefinite length, with his son Jotham, and even a possible short co-regency with his grandson Ahaz. See Thiele 1983, 217; Galil 1996, 147 and all of the commentaries. 64.  A bronze signet-ring engraved with the word lytm (“of Ytm”) was found at Tell el-Kheleifah (perhaps biblical Elath, now in Aqaba, Jordan, but on the identification see Pratico 1993, 17–22) in the 1938–40 excavations directed by Nelson Glueck, was identified by Albright and by Avigad (1961) as belonging to Jotham son of Uzziah, perhaps indicating that he served as governor of Elath during his father’s reign. However, later reassessments of both the stratigraphy of the site and the orthography of the name on the signet (since “of Jotham” would be spelled lywtm, making “Yatom” a more likely vocalization of the name on the ring) have brought this identification into doubt (see DiVito 1993, 53, and Avigad 1995, who accepted this new assessment, commenting that the name was more likely Edomite).



The Reign of Uzziah – 2 Chronicles 26

245

His refortification of Jerusalem, including his repair of the Corner Gate that had been breached by Joash of Israel, must have meant a change in the relationship between the two kingdoms. However, there are different opinions on just what this new relationship was. On one side is the view expressed by Vogelstein (1945, 7–12): he thought that the two kingdoms were actually united, under the leadership of Jeroboam. The most common assumption is that after the death of Joash and the ascension of his son Jeroboam II, the two kingdoms began to cooperate closely. Aharoni (1979, 345), stated: “The two sister kingdoms were the strongest power in Palestine and Syria during that period, and together they ruled an area about as great as the kingdom of David” (see also Dillard 1987, 207). This view was taken even further by Tadmor (1961, 248–52), who proposed that after the death of Jeroboam II (in his view in 748 BCE), Azariah of Judah became the dominant power in the Levant. In the annals of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria, he is said to have been opposed in his 738 BCE campaign to northern Syria by a certain Azriyahu of the land of Yaudi. Early twentieth-century scholars assumed that this must refer to Azariah of Judah, proving that this king of Judah was involved in events far to the north, as the leading ruler of the Levant. In 1961 Tadmor published a long essay which defended this position against its various dissenters.65 However Na’aman (1974) showed that one of the inscriptions that connected this Azriyahu to a land called Yaudi was actually attributed to Tiglath-pileser III erroneously, and was actually a part of an inscription by Sennacherib describing his campaign to Yaudi/Judah in 701, long after the death of Azariah. Following this, most scholars, including Tadmor, dropped the identification of Azriyahu with Azariah/Uzziah, at most assuming that there may have been a local ruler in northern Syria with a similar name, perhaps even a person of Israelite origin (Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 165–66; but see Rainey and Notley 2006, 227, who continued to believe that “nor is there any reason to suppose that this is not Azariah/Uzziah of Judah”). Following his disassociation between the north-Syrian Azriyahu and Azariah/Uzziah of Judah, Na’aman (1993) developed a thesis that saw the kingdoms of Israel and Judah as actually hostile to each other. He pointed out that, as opposed to the relationship between Jehoshaphat and his successors with the Omrides, neither Kings nor Chronicles actually records any cooperation between Azariah/Uzziah and Jeroboam II. If true, 65.  Those who opposed the identification of Azriyahu of Yaudi pointed out that nothing in the Bible suggests such involvement by Azariah in the north, and that Yaadi was the Aramaic name for the Kingdom of Samal, located at today’s Zincirli Höyük in southern Turkey; see Tadmor 1961 for more details.

246

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

this would change the way in which we should assess the history of the early and mid-eighth century, but it is doubtful whether it actually had any effect on the way in which the Chronicler retold the story of Azariah. The first major difference between the account of Azariah in Kings and the account of Uzziah in Chronicles, besides the different names used for the king (on which see the note on v. 1 above), is its contiguity. The account in Kings is split into two sections: 2 Kgs 14:21–22 tells of the enthroning of Azariah by “the people of Judah” after the assassination of his father and his subsequent building of Elath, after which the chapter goes on to report on the reign of Jeroboam II. Chapter 15 then begins with a standard ascension formula for Azariah, relates that “he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father Amaziah had done,” adding that the people still worshipped at the bamôt, and then immediately goes on to tell of his leprosy, his confinement, his death and his burial in the city of David. In Chronicles, which does not deal with the reign of Jeroboam II, Uzziah’s reign is recounted continuously. The second difference between the accounts is of course in their length: nine verses in Kings compared with 23 in Chronicles. This is achieved by Chronicles’ addition of 16 verses that tell of Uzziah’s piety, his military and economic successes, his building projects, and then of his pride, sin and fall. In doing so, the Chronicler repeats the pattern that we have seen in his account of the reigns of several previous kings: an initial period of piety and success, followed by a second period of sinfulness and downfall. Particularly in the case of Uzziah, this helps explain, within the framework of the Chronicler’s ideology of retribution, why Uzziah, who was blessed with a very long reign – a sure sign of God’s favor – ended up as a leper, cut off from Temple and kingdom – which could only have been the result of divine displeasure. Uzziah’s Piety and Prosperity The first section of the chapter, vv. 1–2, is identical to 2 Kgs 14:21–22, except for the name of the king (Uzziah instead of Azariah) and the spelling “Eloth” instead of “Elath.” However, there is also a difference in context: in Kings, these verses are actually the conclusion of the reign of Amaziah, while the reign of Azariah begins in the following chapter. In Chronicles, they are the beginning of Uzziah’s reign, although the standard ascension formula then appears in v. 3. In v. 1 we are told that “all the people of Judah” made Uzziah king instead of his assassinated father Amaziah. This designation is similar to “the people of the land” who had been involved in the coup against Athaliah (2 Chron. 23:13, 20–21), although Ishida (1975, 33) who



The Reign of Uzziah – 2 Chronicles 26

247

considers “the people of the land” to refer to the commoners, sees “all the people of Judah” as including the nobility and officials as well. Keel (1986, 791) takes the opposite position, comparing “the people of Judah” here to “the men of Judah” in 2 Sam. 19:41–42, which he takes to refer to “the great men of Judah,” the nobility. In any case it would seem that the assassination of Amaziah made it necessary for “the people” (whoever this group may have included) to take action to assure orderly succession. The reference to Uzziah’s building of Eloth raises several interesting questions. Eloth/Elath was the port used by Solomon on the Red Sea coast, at or near “Ezion-geber” (for more on the specific identifications see the commentary on 2 Chron. 8). In 2 Chron. 20:35–37 we were told of Jehoshaphat’s failed attempt to operate a fleet at Ezion-geber, and in 21:8–10 we were told of an Edomite rebellion in the days of his son Jehoram. In our reading of Amaziah’s activities in Edom (25:11–13), he only raided the northern part of that country, which means that if Uzziah indeed “restored it to Judah,” he must have also re-conquered Edom, a fact not specifically mentioned in either Kings or Chronicles. The question of just when all this was accomplished is a complex one. What does v. 2 mean by stating that it was “after the king lay with his fathers”? Which king? And why does this comment come after the note on the death of Amaziah, but before the note on the ascension of Uzziah? According to Curtis and Madsen (1910, 448), in the context of 2 Kings 14, the king who “restored” Eloth to Judah must have been Amaziah, with the words “after the king lay with his fathers” being a gloss, but in Chronicles, the notice was taken to be about Uzziah, with the dead king being Amaziah. This was rejected by Cogan and Tadmor (1988, 158), who assumed that the restoring and building of Eloth referred to Uzziah (or rather, Azariah) in Kings as well, and that the note was placed before the ascension of Uzziah, “because the relations between Judah and Israel are the leitmotif of 2 Kings 14, the editor placed this notice concerning Elath here so as to round off his narration.” Alternatively, Na’aman (1993, 229) suggested that the king who “lay with his fathers” was actually Joash of Israel, whose death is recounted in just those words, “and Joash lay with his fathers,” only six verses earlier in the Kings version. In his opinion, only after the death of Joash could Uzziah act to expand his reach southward. The strange-seeming position of the note in Chronicles is a result of the Chronicler cutting out the information about the northern kings and the synchronisms between the two kingdoms, leaving it without its original context. In any case, as noted by Klein (2012, 364), the reference to Eloth invites comparison between Uzziah and Solomon (2 Chron. 8:17–18).

248

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Map 7. The Kingdom of Uzziah



The Reign of Uzziah – 2 Chronicles 26

249

The main narrative of Uzziah’s reign begins with his ascension formula in v. 3, copied from 2 Kgs 15:2, without the preceding synchronism. His mother’s name, spelled slightly differently in the Chronicles ketib and qeri and in Kings, seems to mean “Yahweh has power” or “Yahweh provides,” and is otherwise unknown, although the masculine name Jehucal/Jucal, known from Jer. 37:3, 38:1 and from epigraphic sources, seems to have the same meaning (Keel 1987, 784; Klein 2012, 370). The marriage of Amaziah, whose mother was also from Jerusalem (25:1), to a local woman, may have had political significance. Verse 4, telling us that Uzziah “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father Amaziah had done” is also taken from Kings. However in Kings, in which Amaziah’s only fault was that of hubris, the comparison of Uzziah to his father is meant favorably. In Chronicles, where Amaziah had done “what was right in the eyes of the Lord, only not with all his heart” (25:2), then going on to worship the gods of Edom, the comparison is turned into at least a tongue-in-cheek criticism, hinting at bad things to come. Like Amaziah, Uzziah was righteous in the first part of his reign and then sinned and was punished (McKenzie 2004, 327). And like in the case of Amaziah, Kings’ mention of the people’s worshipping at bamôt is deleted. The Chronicler is interested in the king, not in the people. Verse 5 is the beginning of Chronicles’ independent narrative of Uzziah’s reign. It begins by mentioning a certain “Zechariah, instructor in the visions of God,” in whose days Uzziah “sought God” and was rewarded with success. Zechariah is a very common name in the Bible, although only three of the twenty or so individuals with this name appear in “pre-exilic” literature: Zechariah son of Jeroboam II king of Israel and a younger contemporary of Uzziah (2 Kgs 14:29), a Zechariah son of Jeberechiah in the days of Uzziah’s grandson Ahaz (Isa. 8:2), and the father-in-law of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:2 = 2 Chron. 29:1). All the additional individuals with this name appear in Ezra, Nehemiah, in the book named for the post-exilic prophet of this name, and in Chronicles, which has several references to “pre-exilic” individuals with this name, including the priest-prophet who was murdered by Joash in 2 Chronicles 24. Keel (1986, 785) cites Pseudo-Rashi in assuming this Zechariah to be the same as that murdered in the days of Joash and that the reference is to the days of Uzziah’s youth in his father’s court. Conversely McKenzie (2004, 328) suggests that “the Chronicler may have chosen this name for the prophet precisely because it was the name of Jehoiada’s son,” implying that in his view, the story itself is a Chronistic composition, although Japhet (1993, 878) comments that as the Chronicler usually calls those prophets about

250

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

whom he has no specific information simply “prophet” or “man of God,” his giving this one a name implies that he had some sort of tradition about him. From a literary and ideological point of view, this Zechariah serves much the same function as had Jehoiada in the days of Joash: to instruct the young king in the ways of God. As long as the king listened, he prospered, and while the narrative does not tell us when or why he stopped listening, it apparently happened just when the king was at the peak of his power (v. 16). Uzziah’s great success is manifest in three areas: military conquest, construction and in the building up of his army. It is interesting, that unlike in the case of previous kings, the Chronicler does not say that Uzziah was blessed with either great wealth or progeny, both typically included in his description of “good kings.” This may have been due to the fact that such blessings were not included in his sources. Despite Uzziah’s supposedly great military success, his activity seems to have all been focused towards the western borders of Judah. The Philistines, a traditional enemy, had apparently taken advantage of Judah’s weakness to throw off whatever hold Jehoshaphat had established over them (2 Chron. 17:11), but they too had been weakened by the events of the previous generation. According to 2 Kgs 12:8, Hazael of Damascus had besieged and conquered Gath before arriving in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 24:23 tells only of the raid on Jerusalem, but does not mention Gath). Archaeological discoveries at the site of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi, identified with the Philistine Gath, have uncovered massive siege-works and near-total destruction of the huge city, dated by the excavator to about 830 BCE (Maeir 2012b, 244). An additional catastrophic event that may have affected the area is the famous earthquake that occurred “in the days of Uzziah king of Judah and in the days of Jeroboam son of Joash king of Israel” (Amos 1:1), and remembered to have caused great panic: “and you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah” (Zech. 14:5). While there have been various opinions on the actual magnitude and effect that this earthquake may have had, the excavations at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath have shown that after the town lay deserted for several decades following its destruction by Hazael, it was once again devastated, this time by a massive earthquake. The excavators identified this event with the “Uzziah Earthquake” of the Bible and dated it to about 762 BCE (Maeir 2012b, 245). By the end of the eighth century, Gath was a small town within the kingdom of Hezekiah, and Micah (1:8) included it in his list of destroyed Judahite towns: “tell it not in Gath, weep not at all” (Levin 2011b; Maeir 2012a, 146–48). However, while this information gives us the general background, there seems to be no evidence of Gath



The Reign of Uzziah – 2 Chronicles 26

251

having been walled, much less having its wall “breached,” at any time during the reign of Uzziah. Jabneh is known in the Bible by this name only here. Joshua 15:11 mentions a “Jabneel” on the north-western border of Judah between Ekron and the sea, which is usually assumed to be the same place. Jabneh is better known during the Second Temple and Roman periods, often by the form “Jamnia.” Excavations and surveys carried out over the years have shown that the site was occupied throughout the Iron Age, and an interesting favissa or “repository pit” for cultic vessels dated to the late ninth and early eighth centuries BCE was found there (Kletter and Ziffer 2010), but no signs of fortifications have as yet been uncovered (Fischer and Taxel 2007, 216). Ashdod is well known as one of the main Philistine cities. When the site was excavated in the 1960s and 70s, the excavator identified a “partial destruction” during the early eighth century, which he attributed to Uzziah (Dothan 1972, 9–10). However later analysis of the finds shows that the remains of this level are meager at best (Finkelstein and SingerAvitz 2001, 244–46). What all of this seems to mean is that while the historical background of Philistine weakness in the late ninth and early eighth centuries is certainly clear, there is as of now no positive evidence of Uzziah or of anyone else “building” in Ashdod or in any of the other coastal cities until the middle of the eighth century, by which time the area had come under Assyrian hegemony. As already noted, both the name “Gur-baal” and its location are uncertain, but the most reasonable proposal, the one that works best within the geographical context, is to read ‫גרר‬, “Gerar,” instead of ‫גור‬, “Gur,” and to understand the ‫בעל‬, “baal,” as a corruption of ‫ועל‬, “and against” (the Meunites). Gerar is best known as the home of Abimelech in Genesis 20 and 26, and must be somewhere in the western Negeb, between Beer-sheba and Gaza (see also Gen. 10:19). If Gerar is indeed the name of a city, it is commonly identified at Tel Haror (Tel Abū-Hureireh), about 20 km west of Beer-sheba. The site, excavated in the 1980s, was a well-fortified city in the Middle Bronze Age and also settled in the Late Bronze Age and in the Iron Age I and Iron Age III, but seems to have been pretty much abandoned during Iron Age II (Oren, Morrison and Gilead 1986). Gerar is mentioned by name in the MT of Chronicles only in 2 Chron. 14:12 and 13, but in 1 Chron. 4:39, where the MT reads “Gedor,” the Greek reads Γεραρα, “Gerara.” Verse 41 there, which deals with a raid by members of the tribe of Simeon during the reign of Hezekiah, also mentions an attack on the Meunites. These Meunites, who are also mentioned in Assyrian documents from the eighth century BCE, seem to

252

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

be a nomadic tribe that inhabited the western Negeb and northern Sinai (and see the commentary on 1 Chron. 4:41 and on 2 Chron. 17:11). Verse 8 begins with Uzziah receiving tribute from “the Ammonites.” As noted, the Greek has οἱ Μιναῖοι, “the Meunites,” and many modern commentators (Myers 1965, 2:147; Dillard 1987, 204, 206; Japhet 1993, 880; Klein 2012, 367) prefer this version, citing three reasons: the logic of continuity from the previous verse, the fact that the common name for the Ammonites in the Bible, including in Chronicles, is Benê Ammôn, “Sons of Ammon,” not Ammônîm, “Ammonites,” and the fact that all of Uzziah’s wars in this chapter seem to take place on the southwestern borders of Judah while the Ammonites were located to the east, across the Jordan. If they paid tribute to anyone, it would have been to Jeroboam II of Israel, who controlled all of the territory “from Lebo-hamath66 to the Sea of Arabah” (2 Kgs 14:25). On the other hand, 2 Chron. 27:5 speaks of Uzziah’s son Jotham as defeating “the Sons of Ammon” and receiving their tribute for three years, and 1 Chron. 5:17 tells of a census in Israelite Transjordan “in the days of Jotham king of Judah and in the days of Jeroboam king of Israel,” indicating perhaps some sort of joint rule in Transjordan. If, contra Na’aman (1993), we assume that the two kingdoms did cooperate and coordinate, it is possible that Judah received its share of the spoils from Ammon as well. Since Jotham was regent during the latter part of Uzziah’s reign, those spoils could have been recorded both in the annals of Uzziah and in the annals of Jotham. The comment about Uzziah’s “name” (that is, his “fame”) going “to the approaches of Egypt” is a nice complement to the note in 2 Kgs 14:25 about Jeroboam II ruling “from Lebo-hamath to the Sea of Arabah.” Taken together, they make the joint realm of Uzziah and Jeroboam seem to be equal to that of David (1 Chron. 13:5 – “from the Shihor of Egypt to Lebo-hamath”) and Solomon (2 Chron. 7:8 = 1 Kgs 8:65 – “from Lebo-hamath to the Brook of Egypt”). Moreover, since the above passage about David refers to his bringing the Ark to Jerusalem and the passage about Solomon refers to the dedication of the Temple, we are now being prepared for Uzziah’s wishing to make his mark on the Temple. Uzziah, however, is neither David nor Solomon. The next section of the description of Uzziah’s successes deals with his building projects, always a sign of divine favor in Chronicles. Verse 9 focuses on Jerusalem: towers at the Corner Gate, at the Valley Gate and at “the Side.” As noted, “the Corner Gate” is presumably the same as that destroyed by Joash of Israel, and its reconstruction may have symbolized the redefined relationship between the kingdoms after the deaths of Joash 66.  For which see the note on “the approaches of Egypt” in our verse.



The Reign of Uzziah – 2 Chronicles 26

253

and of Amaziah. However, the fact that no mention is made of “the Ephraim Gate” shows that this account was not simply copied over from 2 Chron. 25:23 or from 2 Kgs 14:13. Various scholars have attempted to identify “the Valley Gate” and “the Side,” but there is really just not enough information to do so. Since the excavations led by Nahman Avigad in the late 1960s and 70s on the western hill of Jerusalem (today’s Jewish and Armenian Quarters and “Mount Zion”), it became clear that the first time in its history that the city expanded from the eastern hill (the “city of David” and the Temple Mount) to the western one was during the eighth century BCE. The view first proposed by Broshi (1974), which eventually became a sort of scholarly consensus, is that most of the westward expansion was caused by refugees who arrived in Jerusalem following the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom in 722–20 BCE, and that the area was first fortified by Hezekiah in preparation for Sennacherib’s attack in 701. However not all scholars accept this reconstruction. For example, Na’aman (2007), after a careful analysis of both the archaeological and the textual evidence, suggested that the city’s expansion to the western hill actually began gradually in the early part of the eighth century, and while he does not actually credit Uzziah, it is possible that the economic and military prosperity which the Chronicler ascribes to Uzziah’s reign was in fact the background for the beginning of settlement on the western hill of Jerusalem (for a reconfirmation of Broshi’s hypothesis see Finkelstein 2008; for a summary of the debate see Faust 2014). Verse 10, after telling us about Uzziah’s towers and cisterns in the desert, then goes on to agricultural issues. The internal syntax of the verse, exactly which element belongs to which geographical area, is not totally clear. Were only the towers in the desert, or were the cisterns there as well? If they were meant for the “livestock,” then it must have been “in the desert,” but if so, what was in the Shephelah and in the plain? Just what and where were the “desert,” the “Shephelah,” the “plain,” the “hills” and “the Carmel”? The term midbâr appears scores of times in all genres of biblical literature, with a range of meanings from “grazing land” to “wilderness,” as reflected by the wide variety of translations used in different contexts: “desert,” “wilderness,” “steppe,” “wasteland” and more. It is often qualified by reference to a specific area (such as “the midbâr of Sinai” in Exod. 19:1; Num. 1:1; or “the midbâr of Paran” in Num. 12:16). A midbâr is often named after the nearest town – almost always a town on the wilderness frontier (“the midbâr of Beer-sheba” in Gen. 21:14; “the midbâr of Maon” in 1 Sam. 23:25; “the midbâr of Ziph” in 1 Sam. 26:2; “the midbâr of Gibeon” in 2 Sam. 2:24; “the midbâr of Tekoa” in

254

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

2 Chron. 20:20 and so on). In these cases, the town’s midbâr is certainly the grazing range of the town’s shepherds, just beyond the cultivated fields. But within the general geography of the land of Judah, the midbâr par excellence is Midbâr Yehudâh, the Judean Desert that descends from the central hills eastward towards the Dead Sea. This midbâr is mentioned, for example, in Judg. 1:16. In the four-fold geographical division of Judah in Josh. 15:20–62, the sparsely inhabited midbâr is listed fourth, after the Negeb, the Shephelah and the hills. Within Chronicles, the term midbâr appears eleven times. Of these, two are in passages copied from earlier biblical books (1 Chron. 6:63 [Eng. 78]; 2 Chron. 8:4), three are independent but relate to the theme of “Moses in the wilderness” (1 Chron. 21:29; 2 Chron. 1:3; 24:9) and one more is in the genealogy of Reuben, referring to the Transjordanian desert (1 Chron. 5:9). Of the remaining five, three appear in the story of the Moabite invasion in the days of Jehoshaphat, which occurred in the Judean Desert (2 Chron. 20:16, 20, 24). One tells of the Gadites who went to David to the fortress in the midbâr (1 Chron. 12:9). And finally, there is our passage about Uzziah building towers “in the midbâr.” From their context we can presume that these two also refer to the Judean Desert. The Shephelah, as already noted, must refer to the Judean foothills, the second of the four geographical regions into which Joshua 15 divides the land of Judah of the land of Judah in Joshua 15 (for which see Rainey 1983a). The third area mentioned in our verse is the mîšôr. Literally, the word means “straight” or “flat” and appears 23 times in the Bible, often figuratively (such as in Ps. 143:10: “Let your good spirit lead me on a level path [ereṣ mîšôr]”; or Isa. 40:4: “the uneven ground shall become level [mîšôr]”). As a geographic term, mîšôr could be (and usually is) translated “plain.” In 1 Kgs 20:23, 25 the servants of the king of Aram suggest fighting Israel “on the mîšôr” and not in the hills. But mîšôr there is a general term, as opposed to “hills.” Here, however, in the only mention of mîšôr in Chronicles, something more specific must be meant. Rainey (1982, 58) proposed that mîšôr here refers to the coastal plain, the Mediterranean coast. In Deut. 1:7, the land of Canaan that the Israelites are going to conquer is described as follows: “in the Arabah, in the hills, in the Shephelah and in the Negeb and on the coast of the sea (ḥôp hayyâm).”67 “Arabah,” the area of the Jordan Valley from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea, is the “all Canaan” equivalent of Judah’s midbâr, which is its southern part. This passage, then, refers to the same four areas as Joshua 67.  This can be compared to the description of the land as conquered by Joshua (12:8), which does not include the coast: “in the hills and in the Shephelah and in the Arabah and in the slopes and in the midbâr and in the Negeb.”



The Reign of Uzziah – 2 Chronicles 26

255

15, with the addition of the mîšôr. In Rainey’s understanding, Uzziah’s conquest of Philistine territory, some of it on the coast, gave him land in this area, “crown property,” on which Uzziah in turn placed his farmers. The problem with Rainey’s thesis is that nowhere in the entire Bible is the coastal plain ever referred to by the word mîšôr. In fact, in the nine appearances of mîšôr as a specific area, usually with the definite article (Deut. 3:10; 4:43; Josh. 13:9, 16, 17, 21; 20:8; Jer. 48:8, 21), the reference is always to the Transjordanian Plateau, the Mîšôr of Moab, extending roughly from the River Arnon northward to the Madaba plains. The two references to “the mîšôr” in 1 Kgs 20 (vv. 23 and 25) could refer to this area as well, but they certainly do not refer to the coastal plain. This identification of “the mîšôr” here with the Transjordanian Plateau was assumed by some commentators (such as Curtis and Madsen 1910, 450; Keel 1986, 789), who connected this to Uzziah’s defeat of “the Ammonites” in v. 8 and the references in 2 Chron. 27:5 and in 1 Chron. 5:17 to Jotham as having some sort of control of areas in Transjordan, either in cooperation with Jeroboam II or after the assassination of his son Zechariah (as proposed by Aharoni 1979, 347). Other commentators, following Rainey, are less certain. Williamson (1982, 337) preferred identifying “the mîšôr” here with “the plain of Sharon” (the coastal plain), adding, “though others look, less probably, for a transjordanian setting.” Klein (2012, 374) simply writes “coastal plain” with no discussion. Japhet (1993, 881) does not discuss the term either, but simply writes “the plains” (in the plural, after translating “the plain” in the singular!), without specifying which “plains” are meant. Her assumption seems to be that the Chronicler used the term in a non-specific manner, simply as an addendum to “the desert” and “the Shephelah.” The issue, then, is both historical and literary. If one is to assume that the Chronicler’s picture of Uzziah as a king who expanded to rule of Judah over Edom in the south, into Philistine territory and “to the approaches of Egypt” to the west are in fact historical, as are the references to Jotham’s activities in Transjordan, understanding mîšôr as being the Transjordanian Plateau would make sense. We should add, that the area of the Transjordanian mîšôr was well known for its grazing (for example, Num. 32:4; 2 Kgs 3:4). In fact, even if Uzziah and Jotham’s expansion into Transjordan are but a literary reconstruction of the Chronicler’s, it would make sense for the Chronicler to use the term mîšôr in the same way it is used elsewhere in the Bible. It is, however, also possible that the Chronicler used the word in a non-specific way, simply contrasting “the plain” with “the desert,” “the Shephelah,” “the hills” and “the Carmel.”

256

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

The final two areas, “the hills” and “the Carmel,” must also be explained. In the various descriptions of the land’s internal divisions quoted above, “the hills,” hehârîm in Hebrew, sometimes, such as in Josh. 15:48, in the singular hahâr, always refers to the central hills of the Land of Israel: the hills of Judea, Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh, or, in the case of a specifically Judahite context such as here or in Joshua 15, the hills of Judah, perhaps including Benjamin as well. What is unusual about our passage, 2 Chron. 26:10, is that besides “in the hills,” Uzziah’s farmers and vinedressers are said to have been “in the Carmel” as well. The word karmel has several different meanings. As a general noun, karmel can refer to newly ripened wheat (such as in Lev. 23:14 or 2 Kgs 4:42, “fresh ears” in NRSV). It can also refer to any cultivated garden or orchard (such as in Isa. 10:18 or in Jer. 2:7, which NRSV translates “plentiful land” and NJPS renders “country of farm land”). It is also the proper name of two different places. The first is the famous Mount Carmel on the northern coast, the area of modern Haifa. This mountain is referred to clearly, among others, in Josh. 12:22 and 19:26; 1 Kgs 18:18, 19, 42; 2 Kgs 2:25 and 4:25 and in Jer. 46:18, “like Tabor among the mountains, and like Carmel by the sea.” The second is the town by that name, in the hills south of Hebron, first mentioned in Josh. 15:55. In 1 Sam. 15:12, Saul erected a monument to himself at this Carmel. 1 Samuel 25 tells the story of David’s dealings with Nabal of Carmel, ending with Nabal’s death and David marriage to his wife Abigail. It is also presumably the home of Hezro the Carmelite, one of David’s mighty men (1 Chron. 11:37 = 2 Sam. 35). So is the karmel in which we find Uzziah’s farmers and vinedressers a general term for “good farmland” or “orchards” or is it a specific area, and if so, how is it different from “the hills,” in which the southern town of Carmel is located? Keel (1986, 789) prefers the first option, “a land of fields and gardens,” although he does not explain why. Japhet (1993, 881) also prefers RSV’s “fertile lands,” since the northern Mount Carmel would have been controlled by the northern kingdom, and the southern Carmel “was an area of grazing and some farming, certainly not of vineyards.” Klein (2012, 374) is of the same mind. The alternative opinion was stated by Jepsen (1959), followed by Williamson (1982, 337), and most emphatically by Rainey (1982, 58–59): “the Carmel” is certainly the area centered on the southern town of Carmel. In Rainey’s opinion, “the Carmel” here refers to the two southernmost sub-districts within “the hills” of Joshua 15 (Josh. 15:48–51; 55–57). The specific delineation of this area as being separate from “the hills” is, in his view, “unique but not really obscure.” He explains: “That zone has a character distinct from the main hill regions



The Reign of Uzziah – 2 Chronicles 26

257

north of Hebron; its soil is less productive, and the altitude is lower.” And while Rainey does not address Japhet’s assertion that this was not vine-growing territory directly, he does point out that the name of the town Anab, in this very area (Josh. 15:50), means “grape.” In any case, within these two “districts” the vinedressers could have been concentrated in the Hebron hills, and the “farmers” in “the Carmel.” We should also remember that this passage, whatever its source, is not an administrative document listing exactly what Uzziah grew where, but a literary passage highlighting Uzziah’s God-given prosperity. Rainey’s reconstruction of “royal estates on crown lands” (see also Knoppers 1997, 187–89, who compares Uzziah’s “estates” to those of David in 1 Chron. 27:25–31) and even more so J. M. Graham’s (1984, 56) assertion that the “vinedressers and farmers” were actually “forced labor” both go way beyond what the texts actually say. Uzziah’s successes at warfare, construction and agriculture are all parts of the Chronicler’s picture of a pious king, lover of God and country. This is highlighted by the unique title that the Chronicler awards Uzziah, not used for any other person in the Bible: “for a lover of the earth was he.” Uzziah’s Army This unique treatment of Uzziah continues into the next section, vv. 11– 13, which describes the composition of his army. Uzziah is the fourth king whose army is described in detail by the Chronicler. The details, however, change as he progresses from king to king. In his description of Asa’s army (2 Chron. 14:7), the Chronicler listed the men of Judah and the men of Benjamin as different units, each with their own armaments and specialties: “and Asa had an army of three hundred thousand from Judah, carrying shields and spears, and two hundred eighty thousand from Benjamin who carried shields and drew bows; all these were mighty warriors.” This continues with his son Jehoshaphat, who has three (or four) commanders for troops from Judah and two (or one) from Benjamin (17:14–18). For Amaziah (25:5) it was “And Amaziah gathered Judah, and set them by fathers’ houses, by commanders of thousands and by commanders of hundreds for all Judah and Benjamin.” The first “Judah” is the kingdom, not the tribe: “all Judah and Benjamin” are counted together, with no internal division. And now, with Uzziah, while the mustering is still by “father’s houses,” there is no tribal division at all. The integration of Judah and Benjamin, a process that must have begun during the reign of Rehoboam, was complete – at least within the military.

258

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Three officers are described as being in charge of the troops’ enrollment: Jeiel the sôpêr and Maaseiah the šôṭêr have fairly common titles, the latter of which was discussed extensively in our commentary on 2 Chron. 19:11. Since both the sôpêr and the šôṭêr seem to have had clerical (in the sense of “secretarial” or recordkeeping) duties, it is difficult to determine the precise division of duties between them. In any case, they were both “under the command of Hananiah, of the king’s commanders.” The word śar, translated here as “commander,” appears many times in the Bible in general and in Chronicles in particular, often, although not always, in a military context, with the commander of the army being called śar (haṣ)ṣabâ (such as Joab in 1 Chron. 27:34). Whether this Hananiah was commander of the entire army, or only appointed over this particular unit, is not known. Verses 12–13 seem to describe a two-tiered military, of 2,600 “heads of fathers’ houses” who were in command of 307,500 warriors. Japhet (1993, 882) assumed that this means that each of the 2,600 was in command of about 120 warriors (the real number is slightly over 118), which she then took to be the size of a traditional “hundred,” which “seems reasonable enough.” Klein (2012, 376), conversely, commented that the overall size of the army “is highly exaggerated.” However we should note that within Chronicles, an army of less than 400,000 is not overly large. For comparison, Asa had 300,000 from Judah and 280,000 from Benjamin (2 Chron. 14:7), Jehoshaphat had 780,000 and 380,000 (17:14–18) and Amaziah had 300,000 (25:5). David, according to Joab’s census, had 1,100,000 from Israel and 470,000 from Judah (1 Chron. 21:5; according to 2 Sam. 24:9 it was 800,000 and 500,000) while his “standing army” had twelve tribal units of 24,000, a total of 288,000 (1 Chron. 27:1–15). It would seem that even if the Chronicler was using an authentic source on the army of Judah at various periods of time, from which he learned of its enlistment by “fathers’ houses,” of its two-tier structure and of the decreasing role of separate tribal units, he then increased its overall size in accordance with his literary needs. On the weapons which Uzziah “prepared” for his troops, Klein (2012, 376) comments that in earlier generations soldiers were expected to supply their own arms, while by Uzziah’s time they were supplied centrally, although since we have no additional sources, this is difficult to ascertain. According to Dillard (1987, 209), Uzziah’s providing his troops’ weapons, in departure from the accepted practice, reflects his “prosperity under divine blessing.” Like the troops themselves, the different weapons are no longer attributed to the different tribes, either.



The Reign of Uzziah – 2 Chronicles 26

259

The exact nature of the “cleverly designed devices” that Uzziah had built on the towers of Jerusalem has been debated. The “traditional” interpretation, going back to the Septuagint and to Josephus, is that Uzziah placed catapults or similar “machines” on the walls (see Keel 1986, 792). This has led some scholars (such as Welten 1973, 111–14) to conclude that this must be a Chronistic anachronism, as catapults are not known to have been introduced until the Hellenistic period (and in fact as evidence of the Hellenistic-period composition of Chronicles). On the other hand, Yadin (1963, 326–27) understood these “machines” to have been special structures built on the towers and battlements, which protected the defenders and allowed them to shoot arrows and throw stones more easily. In his opinion, just such structures can be seen on Sennacherib’s reliefs showing the siege of Lachish, and if so, perhaps reflect the reality of Uzziah’s time as well. However, while this interpretation has been adopted by many commentators (Williamson 1982, 338; Dillard 1987, 209–10; Japhet 1993, 883; Klein 2012, 376), others have rejected it and preferred the later date for this description of Uzziah’s army (Bianchi and Rossoni 1997; Eph‘al 2009, 100–101). Uzziah’s Transgression and Punishment Verses 16–21 tell of Uzziah’s transgression of the sanctuary and subsequent punishment with life-long leprosy. While the very facts of his leprosy and confinement are recounted in Kings, these are not explained in any way. In Chronicles’ much longer account, they are explained as a punishment for the king’s hubris, which led him to sacrilege. In the larger scheme of things, the Chronicler, to whom a long reign must have been seen as a reward for Uzziah’s piety, then needed an explanation for the pious king having been stricken with life-long leprosy. From a purely narrative point-of-view, the story is simple. The overproud Uzziah entered the Temple with the intention of offering incense, which was a prerogative of the priests. He was confronted by Azariah the head priest together with eighty additional priests, and just before actual violence broke out, Uzziah’s forehead “shined” with leprosy, both making him instantly impure and serving as a sign from God that he had sinned. The king was rushed from the sanctuary, offering no resistance, and was eventually (no specific time is given) quarantined in “the house of ḥopshit” and his son Jotham declared regent. From a literary pointof-view, v. 16 is the key to the entire pericope, with at least four of the Chronicler’s favorite terms (‫חזק‬, “strong”; ‫גבה לבו‬, “his heart rose”; ‫שחת‬, “destroy” or “corrupt”; ‫מעל‬, “transgress”) occurring in just that verse. Beentjes (2000, 63) sees the verbal form ‫וכחזקתו‬, “and as he became

260

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

strong,” as being intended to remind the reader of Rehoboam’s forsaking the Torah (2 Chron. 12:1), as this exact form is used only in these two passages (and in Dan. 11:2, which is unlikely to be related). The name of Azariah the head priest, whether or not derived from a pre-existing source,68 serves as a clear counterpoint to the king: it is the king’s “other” name, used mostly in Kings but also in 1 Chron. 3:12, and in this case, the two names’ meanings might have been intended to resonate with the reader: “Azariah” meaning “Yahweh helps,” against “Uzziah” which may have been taken here as meaning “hard against Yahweh,” like az pânîm in Deut. 28:50: “a grim-faced nation showing no respect to the old or favor to the young” (NRSV). The story is written in such a way as to evoke two Priestly narratives in the Pentateuch: that of Korah and his friends’ challenge to Aaron’s priesthood by burning their own incense, for which they were swallowed up by the earth (Num. 16–17), and that of Miriam’s speaking against Moses, for which she was punished with leprosy and forced to spend seven days in quarantine outside the camp (Num. 12). And of course the choice of Uzziah’s forehead as the location of his leprosy is a way of making his shame both public and undeniable. The legal assumptions here are also Priestly. According to the Priestly code, only Aaronide priests may perform sacral duties such as offering sacrifices and incense (Exod. 30:7–10; Num. 18:1–5).69 According to Leviticus 13–14, a person (or object) suspected of having contracted leprosy must be diagnosed by a priest, after which he (or it) must be quarantined as “impure” for seven days and can only reenter the camp after a cleansing ritual is performed. Keel (1986, 794) understood Azariah’s “turning to” Uzziah with the other priests (v. 20) as the priest’s declaring Uzziah to be ritually impure, evoking Aaron’s “turning to” Miriam and seeing her leprosy (Num. 12:10, using the same verbal form wayyipen, “and he turned”). It is now widely accepted that the bacterial disease known today as “leprosy” and more properly as “Hansen’s disease” (after the Norwegian bacteriologist Gerhard Hansen who identified the microorganisms in 1872), which only arrived in the Middle East from India at the beginning of the Hellenistic Period (perhaps “imported” by Alexander’s soldiers), 68.  As pointed out by Beentjes (2000, 65), there are 29 individuals called Azariah in the Hebrew Bible, 18 of whom are mentioned in Chronicles, and at least six of those are priests. This makes it entirely likely that one of the “head priests” during Uzziah’s long reign was called Azariah. However, even if this is true, the literary effect is still there. 69.  Klein (2012, 377) points out that where 2 Sam. 6:17 has David offering sacrifices, the parallel 1 Chron. 16:1 has “they sacrificed,” making it a collective offering, presumably performed by the priests.



The Reign of Uzziah – 2 Chronicles 26

261

is not identical with the biblical ṣârâat. The ṣârâat of the Bible, translated Λέπρα in the Septuagint and commonly rendered “leprosy” in English Bible translations, seems to refer to any of several skin diseases, including psoriasis, vitiligo and favus, all characterized by the appearance of scales on the skin and all considered chronic (Cohen 2011–12, 255–58; Dvorjetski 2011–12, 227–36). For this reason, several modern translators (such as NJPS) prefer to use “scale disease” and the like for ṣârâat instead of “leprosy.” We, however, will continue to use the “traditional” term, both in order to avoid confusion, and because the actual “error” is not in the translation of ṣârâat as “leprosy,” but rather of the use of the ancient term “leprosy” for the “modern” “Hansen’s disease.” We should also remember, that Leviticus 13–14 also deal with ṣârâat of objects such as fabric, leather and even masonry. These types of ṣârâat would seem to be various moulds. One salient fact about the “leprosy” of the Bible, is that whatever medical conditions it may represent, it was conceived more as a divinely caused “affliction” (nega) than as a natural disease (ḥolî), and that the cure for “leprosy” was not brought about by a medical practitioner but by a priest (or, in the case of Naaman in 2 Kgs 5, a prophet). According to Leviticus 13–14, the leper is impure and must be separated from the camp for seven days before being allowed to undergo a purification ritual (for Mesopotamian parallels to this see Klein 2011–12). Stories such as that of Miriam (Num. 12:14–15) or of the four lepers at Samaria (2 Kgs 7:3–4) seem to assume a similar practice of separation, although neither of them mentions a purification ritual. And while Leviticus 13–14 does not say that leprosy is acquired for a reason, Numbers 12, 2 Sam. 3:29 and 2 Kgs 5:27 all indicate that leprosy is incurred as divine punishment. In fact, Deut. 24:8–9 seems to have just that in mind when the injunction “guard against an affliction of leprosy by being very careful; you shall carefully observe whatever the Levitical priests instruct you, just as I have commanded them” is immediately followed by “remember what the Lord your God did to Miriam on your journey out of Egypt.” Later rabbinic literature identified the specific sins for which a person is struck with leprosy as those of slander and of blasphemy (see Gafni 2009). The Chronicler’s portrayal of Uzziah could be classified as an intermediate step in this development: he is struck with leprosy because of his blasphemy, he is ushered from the Temple because of his impurity; however the “level” of his blasphemy, brought about by his heightened hubris, precludes his ever being able to purify himself and to rejoin society. He is indeed “cut off” for life from kingdom and Temple. In the Chronicles version, he is even buried in “the burial field of the kings” because of his leprosy, where in Kings he is buried with his fathers in the city of David. Whether this

262

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

notice is taken as historical or not, it would seem to reflect a development of the Priestly law, in which there are no special rules for the burial of lepers. It is possible that this was the custom in the Chronicler’s time, although we have no evidence of such a custom. The Death and Burial of Uzziah The location of “the burial field of the kings” in which Uzziah is buried in Chronicles instead of Kings’ “city of David” is not known. Josephus (Ant. 9.227) writes that Uzziah was buried alone in “his garden,” and several scholars have wondered if this might have been influenced by the mention of the burial of Manasseh and of Amon in “the Garden of Uzza” (2 Kgs 21:18, 26; the name is missing from the parallels in Chronicles), which he may have understood as “the Garden of Uzziah.” Interestingly, Klein (2011–12, 23–24) quotes a section from the Gilgamesh epic in which Enkidu informs Gilgamesh that lepers, upon arriving in the netherworld, must eat and drink alone, and sit outside the city. At least in that tradition, a leper for life remains a leper in death as well. The burial of Uzziah outside of the walls of Jerusalem seems to have given rise to a variety of local traditions, and the supposed site of his tomb in the “Valley of Jehoshaphat” (Kidron Valley) is mentioned by several Medieval visitors to Jerusalem, including the famous twelfth-century Benjamin of Tudela. Sometime in the early 1930s, Hebrew University archaeologist Eliezer Lipa Sukenik visited the collection of relics at the Russian church on the Mount of Olives and noticed a square-shaped stone engraved with the inscription, “To here were brought the bones of Uzziah king of Judah and do not open,” in the Aramaic dialect and script typical of the late Second Temple Period. It would seem that at some point in late antiquity there was a tomb attributed to Uzziah, the contents of which were emptied and reinterred in an unknown place (Ben-Eliahu 2000). Azariah/Uzziah ruled at a critical juncture in the history of Judah. He began his long reign at a young age, son of a foolish king who was perhaps exiled, certainly assassinated, ruling under the shadow of a much more powerful northern Israel. If, as many scholars believe, his military exploits are based on historically accurate sources, he seems to have achieved some sort of parity with Jeroboam II, either through close cooperation or (as thought by Na’aman) by fierce competition. Neither Kings nor Chronicles gives us any information on the relationship between the two kingdoms. The story of Uzziah’s “pride and fall,” his sacrilege and leprosy, while apparently a literary expansion of the short note in 2 Kgs 15:5, does give us an opportunity to better understand how the Chronicler worked with the sources that were available to him.



The Reign of Uzziah – 2 Chronicles 26

263

The Chronicler’s final comment, attributing his knowledge of Uzziah’s reign to something written by Isaiah son of Amoz, has elicited some discussion. While Chronicles often cites various prophets as its source, Isaiah is the only one of the canonical prophets (those who have “their own” books in the Bible) that is cited (2 Chron. 35:25 mentions Jeremiah as mourning for Josiah, but not as a source for his reign). Isaiah’s appearance as a source for Hezekiah in 2 Chron. 32:32 – “Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his good deeds, are written in the vision of the prophet Isaiah son of Amoz in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel” – seems “natural,” considering Isaiah’s intimate involvement in Hezekiah’s reign. Uzziah, however, is only mentioned three times in the book of Isaiah (1:1; 6:1; 7:1), the first two as a chronological reference and the third simply as part of the lineage of “Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah.” According to the second of these, Isaiah only began to act as a prophet in the year of Uzziah’s death, which, considering his long incarceration, would actually have been many years after the events of his reign. Even more puzzling is the non-mention of Isaiah as a source for the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz (2 Chron. 27:7; 28:26). Also unusual is the way in which the source citation for Uzziah is written: it begins with the Chronicler’s typical “and the rest of the acts… the first and the last” but then switches rather abruptly to “Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet wrote,” without the similarly typical “book of the kings of Judah and Israel.” Among scholars, opinions range from those who believe that the citation is a literary invention (such as Begg 1988a, 101) to those who assume that Isaiah actually “contributed a chapter” to “the book of the kings of Judah and Israel” (Rainey 1997, 51). As put by Dillard (1987, 211), “either the Chronicler had access to some writings otherwise unknown to biblical tradition, or the Isaiah traditions he cites were part of a larger work on the history of the kingdoms.” A different approach was suggested by Olley (2003), who noted that in the Greek version of our v. 22, the prophet was called Ιεσσιου τοῦ προφήτου, without the patronymic “son of Amoz.” Also, the spelling Ιεσσιου is unique, since Isaiah’s name in Greek is rendered Ησαιου everywhere else, including in 2 Chron. 32:32 (where his patronymic also appears). Olley’s conclusion is that the original source was attributed to an unknown prophet called ‫( ישיהו‬yiššiyyāhu, “Ishiah the prophet”), as reflected in the Greek spelling. In the Hebrew, this otherwise unknown name was confused with ‫ישעיהו‬, Isaiah, leading to the unique citation that we have now.

T h e R eig n o f J o th am – 2 C h r o n ic les 27

Chapter 27: 1 Twenty-five years old was Jotham1 when he reigned and sixteen years he reigned in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Jerushah2 daughter of Zadok. 2 And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord just as Uzziah his father had done;3 only he did not enter4 the Temple5 of the Lord; and yet the people acted corruptly. 3 He built the upper gate of the house of the Lord,6 and built extensively on the wall of the Ophel.7  4 And cities he built in the 1.  This verse is identical to 2 Kgs 15:33, except that in Kings it is preceded by the synchronism, “in the year two of Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel, Jotham son of Uzziah king of Judah reigned,” and since Jotham’s name had already appeared, v. 33 has “twenty-five years old was he when he began to reign.” 2.  The name ‫ירושה‬, spelled ‫ ירושא‬in Kings, is not otherwise known as a personal name. It seems to mean something like “inheritance.” Her father’s name, Zadok, is often associated with the priesthood, although Klein (2012, 386) thinks that there is no reason to assume that this individual was a member of the priesthood. The lack of reference to Jerushah’s home town may indicate that she was from Jerusalem (so Keel 1986, 799), which would certainly make sense if her father were a priest. 3.  The first part of this verse is identical to 2 Kgs 15:34, which ends with an additional ‫עשה‬, “he did.” “Only” there is the beginning of a new verse, which says that the people continued to worship at bamôt, and that he built the upper gate of the house of the Lord. In Chronicles “only” is to Jotham’s credit: he did not enter the Temple like his father had. 4.  RSV has “invade,” but this is not warranted by the Hebrew. In any case the reference is to the sin of Uzziah, to whom Jotham is contrasted (McKenzie 2004, 332). 5.  The word used here for the Temple, ‫היכל‬, instead of the usual ‫בית‬, “house,” is relatively rare. In Chronicles, the term is used only eight times: 2 Chron. 3:17; 4:7, 8 and 22 in the description of Solomon’s Temple, 2 Chron. 26:16; 27:2 and 29:16 in the acts of Uzziah, Jotham and Hezekiah, and finally in 36:7, in which Nebuchadnezzar placed the vessels of the house of the Lord in his own hêkâl in Babylon. Specifically, the term seems to be used to indicate the inner space of the Temple structure, while the more general “house of the Lord” refers to the entire complex. Here, it is obviously meant to compare with Uzziah’s unauthorized entrance into the hêkâl in the previous chapter. 6.  In Kings, this is the end of the verse, and the end of the acts of Jotham. The next three and a half verses in Chronicles have no parallel in Kings. 7.  “The Ophel” is mentioned again in Chronicles only in 2 Chron. 33:14. Some translators (NRSV; NJPS etc.) delete the article and have simply “the wall of Ophel,” assuming it to be a proper name. On the meaning of the term and its possible identification see the commentary.



The Reign of Jotham – 2 Chronicles 27

265

hill-country of Judah,8 and in the woods9 he built forts10 and towers. 5 And he fought with the king of the sons of Ammon and prevailed against them, and the sons of Ammon gave him in that year one hundred talents of silver, ten thousand cors of wheat, and of barley ten thousand; this the sons of Ammon returned to him,11 and in the second year and the third. 6 And Jotham became strong because he set his ways12 before the Lord his God. 7 And the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all his wars and his ways,13 are written in the book of the 8.  The expression ‫ הר יהודה‬in the singular, literally “the hill/mountain of Judah,” is unique in Chronicles and rare elsewhere, but its use is not different than the much more common ‫הר אפרים‬, “Mount Ephraim,” which is also a large area and not a single range. Note that Amos alternates between ‫הר שמרון‬, “Mount Samaria” (4:1; 6:1), and ‫הרי שמרון‬, “the hills of Samaria” (3.9). 9.  The plural form ‫ חרשים‬is unique in the Bible. ‫חרש‬, ḥôreš, in the singular, appears in Isa. 17:9 (‫החרש והאמיר‬, where the Greek, followed by NRSV and many others, translates “Hivites and Amorites”; NJPS renders as proper names, “Horesh and Amir”; NIV translates the MT “thickets and undergrowth”) and in Ezek. 31:3. 1 Sam. 23:15 tell of David hiding “in the wilderness of Ziph, in the ḥôršâh.” The word ‫ חרשה‬has been understood by some as a proper place-name and by others as referring to a wooded area. Myers (1965, 2:157) compared it to the Akkadian ḫarāšu, “to plant trees,” and suggested that Jotham joined Uzziah’s “program of reforestation.” Mazar (1952–53, 81–84) suggested that all of these, together with the ‫חרשת הגוים‬, “Harosheth-goyyim/of the nations,” of Judg. 4:2, actually mean “wooded mountain region,” and are related to the Akkadian ḫuršânu, “mountains.” This was opposed by Rainey (1983b), who preferred to derive ḥarôšet from ḤRṮ, “to cultivate, plough,” but did not offer a solution for our ḥôrešim. 10.  ‫ בירניות‬appears only here and in 2 Chron. 17:12, where Jehoshaphat also builds bîrâniyyôt. See the note there. 11.  The Hebrew ‫ השיבו לו‬literally means “returned to him” or “paid him back,” and our translation follows Klein (2012, 384). Most others translate “paid,” adding “the same amount in the second and third year.” Keel (1986, 801) suggests that the Ammonites “returned” to paying tribute, after ceasing to pay the tribute that they had paid in the reign of Uzziah, but also notes that the verb hêšîb is used for the payment of tribute in 2 Kgs 3:4 (Mesha) and in Ps. 72:10 (the kings of Tarshish and the Islands) and for offerings in the sanctuary in Num. 18:9. Note also the same verb in 1 Sam. 6:3, in which the Philistines “return” guilt-offerings together with the Ark. The MT here has a setumah, an in-line space, before “and in the second year and the third.” 12.  ‫ הכין דרכיו‬is a unique expression, but similar to 1 Sam. 7:3, there translated as “direct your heart to the Lord” (NRSV; NJPS). The general meaning here is clear, but different translations give different nuances: “ordered his ways” (RSV; NRSV), “walked steadfastly” (NIV), “maintained a faithful course” (NJPS), “determined to walk obediently” (Dillard 1987, 213), “established his ways” (Klein 2012, 27). 13.  With v. 7 Chronicles returns to following 2 Kgs 15:36, except that Kings does not mention “his wars and his ways” but rather “all that he did”; and instead of “the book of the kings of Israel and Judah” cites the usual “book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah.” The next verse in Kings, “In those days the Lord began to send Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah against Judah” is missing in Chronicles.

266

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

kings of Israel and Judah. 8 He was twenty-five years old when he reigned and sixteen years he reigned in Jerusalem.14 9 And Jotham lay with his fathers, and they buried him in the city of David; and Ahaz his son reigned in his stead.15

Commentary Unlike most of the reigns described in Chronicles, the reign of Jotham, as befitting his name “Yahweh is whole/perfect,” is “all good,” without the typical division into a “good” part and a “bad” part. In fact, he was even more pious than Uzziah had been, since he did not profane the sanctuary. The only caveat is that “yet the people acted corruptly” (v. 2), but even this is “toned down” compared to the parallel in Kings, according to which the people were still worshipping at bamôt. Like all good kings, Jotham is credited with extensive building and with foreign conquest and domination, and even the one verse in 2 Kgs 15:37 that hints at brewing trouble in foreign affairs is omitted from the Chronicler’s version. Historically, Jotham spent his entire reign, or at least most of it, as co-regent with his quarantined father Uzziah. This would make it pretty much impossible for the historiographer to distinguish his achievements from those of Uzziah, as the same item may have appeared in the records of both kings. “The upper gate of the house of the Lord,” which is the only item mentioned in both Kings and Chronicles, has no definite identification. An “upper Benjamin Gate of the house of the Lord” is mentioned in Jer. 20:20 and an “upper gate, which faces north” is referred to in Ezek. 9:2. If these are the same gate as that mentioned here, it would be on the northern wall of the Temple Mount, and if so, it would not be the same as “the upper gate of the king’s house” of 2 Chron. 23:20 (contra Keel 1986, 799), since the king’s house – the palace – seems to have been south of the Temple. In the modern archaeology of Jerusalem, the term “Ophel” (usually with an uppercase O) has been used in various ways to refer to various features, most of them related to the south-eastern spur, south of and below the Temple Mount, which we now know was the primary built-up part of the city until the mid- or late eighth century BCE (from Uzziah 14.  Unlike Chronicles, Kings does not repeat v. 1. Instead, 2 Kgs 15:37 comments on the international situation: “In those days the Lord began sending Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah against Judah.” In Chronicles the “Syro-Ephraimite War” is mentioned only in the following chapter. 15.  2 Kgs 15:38 is worded slightly differently: “And Jotham lay with his fathers, and he was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father; and Ahaz his son reigned in his stead.”



The Reign of Jotham – 2 Chronicles 27

267

to Hezekiah), and once again during the Persian and Hellenistic Periods (late sixth to early first centuries BCE). Today it is mostly used to refer to the area that connects the south-eastern spur (often referred to today as “the city of David”) to the Temple Mount. The identification of the feature called “ophel” in the Bible, however, is a more complicated issue. To begin with, the only two passages which refer specifically to a feature called “ophel” in pre-exilic Jerusalem are our reference to Jotham’s building “extensively on the wall of the ophel,” and of his grandson Manasseh’s building “an outer wall for the city of David west of Gihon in the valley, reaching the entrance at the Fish Gate and around the ophel” (2 Chron. 33:14). The only other passage that may refer to an “ophel” in pre-exilic Jerusalem is Mic. 4:8, in which ‫ עפל בת־ציון‬is rendered “hill of daughter Zion” by NRSV and “Outpost of fair Zion” by NJPS. The context of Micah’s prophecy, however, indicates that the reference is probably allegorical. Even more allegorical is the use of the doublet “ôpel and baḥan” in Isa. 32:14: “for the palace will be forsaken, the populous city deserted; the hill and the watchtower will become dens forever, the joy of wild asses, a pasture for flocks” (NRSV). But while there is no definite mention of a pre-exilic “ophel” in Jerusalem, 2 Kgs 5:24 does mention an “ophel” in Samaria (there called “tower” by KJV and “citadel” by NRSV and NJPS),16 and the Moabite Mesha Inscription (line 22) mentions a “wall of the ophel” in ninth-century Dibon, capital of Moab. So we know that the capital cities of two neighboring kingdoms, Israel and Moab, featured “ophels,” apparently citadels of some sort. In Jerusalem, the “ophel” is mentioned as what seems to be a residential area in Neh. 3:26–27 and 11:21, all, of course, in the post-exilic period. So while there was certainly an “ophel” in Iron-Age Samaria and Dibon, all non-poetic references to such a place in Jerusalem are post-exilic, and the two passages in Chronicles, which are unparalleled in Kings, are basically post-exilic references to a feature in pre-exilic Jerusalem. Theoretically, this could either mean that there was, indeed, such a place in pre-exilic Jerusalem, which happens not to be mentioned in pre-exilic sources, or that there was such a place only in post-exilic Jerusalem, and that the two references in Chronicles are anachronistic. The more interesting question, of course, is just what, or where, the “ophel” may have been. The term seems to be related to the verbal root PL, which appears only twice in the entire Bible. The first of these is in 16.  The Septuagint of 2 Kgs 5:24 has σκοτεινόν, meaning “dark” or “secret,” apparently resulting from a confusion of ôpel, “Ophel,” and ôpel or apel, “dark.” Interestingly, the Midrash Tanhuma, quoted by Rashi, has a similar explanation for the verbal form of ôpel in Num. 14:44.

268

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Num. 14:44, in which the Israelites defy God and Moses and ‫ויעפילו לעלת‬ ‫אל־ראש ההר‬, translated “but they presumed to go up to the heights of the hill country” by NRSV and “yet defiantly they marched toward the crest of the hill country” by NJPS. Both of these translations have “presume” or “defiant” and an additional verb, “go up” or “marched.” This in fact follows the traditions of some commentators who understand PL as meaning “to go up” and others who read it as “to defy.” Also in Habakkuk 2:4, the apparent adjective uplâh is understood by some as “lifted up” (KJV), “proud” (NRSV), “puffed-up” (NJPS) and so on. So the meaning of “ophel” as a topographical feature is something like “raised-up area,” perhaps “acropolis” or “upper city,” perhaps more specifically a “citadel” or a “tower.” Many scholars assume that the “ophel” was a natural feature, while others, such as Franklin (2014) understand it to be a structure. As of yet, it is impossible to arrive at a definite decision. The remaining projects attributed to Jotham, “cities he built in the hillcountry of Judah, and in the woods he built forts and towers” (v. 4), are seemingly generic, and Williamson (1982, 424), following Welten (1973, 27–29, 66–68) considered them to be a case of the Chronicler’s composing a parallel “to the positive period of his father’s reign.” Japhet (1993, 892), on the other hand, points out the differences between these projects and Uzziah’s, and the fact that such terms as “ophel,” ḥôrešim, bîrâniyyôt and har Yehudâh are rare in Chronicles, if not unique, suggesting that the Chronicler took them from some pre-existing source. Jotham’s campaign against the sons of Ammon and their three-year subjugation would at first seem strange, since Judah and Ammon did not share a common border. However, we are then reminded of Uzziah’s domination of “the Ammonites” (2 Chron. 26:8, and see our notes and commentary there), as well as the note in 1 Chron. 5:17 about a census taken in Transjordan “in the days of Jotham king of Judah and in the days of Jeroboam king of Israel.” So, despite the opinion of Curtis and Madsen (1910, 454) that the correct reading here would be “people of Ma‘on” (that is, “Meunites”), most scholars accept that the Chronicler did have a tradition about a prominent Judahite role in Transjordan during the reigns (or co-regencies) of Uzziah and Jotham (see, for example, Noth 1943, 142; Aharoni 1979, 347), either as part of the former’s cooperation with the northern kingdom, or after the northern kingdom’s loss of power following the death of Jeroboam II and the assassination of his son Zechariah. As pointed out by Klein (2012, 387), the note about Jotham’s receiving tribute from the Ammonites for three years can be read either positively (making up an enormous total, just reward for a righteous king) or



The Reign of Jotham – 2 Chronicles 27

269

negatively (only three years), and while he leans to the latter, it really is impossible to know for certain. Japhet (1993, 892) points out the lack of typical Chronistic features such as prophetic prayer and divine intervention, and the logic in the types of tribute (if not in the amounts) as pointing towards the Chronicler utilizing a pre-existing source for this material. The final four verses of the account of Jotham’s reign are an affirmation of his being a “good” king: v. 6 tells us that he “became strong because he set his ways before the Lord his God.” In v. 7, the usual “first and last,” referring perhaps to the “good” and “bad” parts of a king’s reign (such as with Uzziah in 26:22), are replaced here with “all his wars and his ways,” and while he does not live into old age, he does seem to die peacefully and after his death he is interred in the city of David, the final resting place of most “good” kings.

T h e R eig n o f A h az – 2 C h r o n ic les 28

Chapter 28: 1 Twenty years old1 was Ahaz when he reigned, and sixteen years he reigned in Jerusalem, and he did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord2 like his father David. 2 And he walked in the ways3 of the kings of Israel,4 and he also5 made cast images6 for the Bealîm.7  3 And he offered incense8

1.  A few manuscripts preserve a reading of “twenty five” (see Klein 2012, 380). 2.  2 Kgs 16:1, with the usual synchronism between the two kingdoms, is not repeated in Chronicles, and v. 1 here is identical to v. 2 in Kings. The only difference is that in Kings, “the eyes of the Lord” are followed with ‫אלהיו‬, “his God.” This word does appear in the Syriac and in some Hebrew manuscripts of Chronicles (Klein 2012, 390). 3.  Kings has “way” in the singular. 4.  Kings’ v. 3 has “And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and made his sons pass through fire.” The end of v. 2 and the beginning of v. 3 in Chronicles do not appear in Kings. 5.  Some translations, such as NRSV and NJPS, translate ‫ וגם‬here as “even.” 6.  ‫מסכות‬. The verb NSK means “to pour” and nesek is commonly used for a libation of wine or other liquids, often added to an animal sacrifice, for which see Gen. 35:14; Exod. 29:40; Lev. 23:13; Num. 28:7, 8, 9, 15, 24 and many more. In Chronicles this use appears in 1 Chron. 11:18 and 29:21. ‫ מסכה‬is something made of “poured” metal, that is “cast” or “molten,” and is often used of an object of idolatrous worship. Exod. 32:4, 8 describe the “golden calf” as ‫עגל מסכה‬, while Exod. 34:17 and Lev. 19:4 command the Israelites not to make ‫אלהי מסכה‬, “molten gods.” In Chronicles, this type of idol appears only here and in the list of items destroyed by Josiah in 2 Chron. 34:3–4. 7.  For a discussion of this plural-like form of the Canaanite deity Baal, see the note on 2 Chron. 17:3. It is also used in 2 Chron. 24:7; 33:3 and 34:4. The preposition ‫ ל‬can mean either “to,” “for” or “of,” the difference being whether the “cast (or ‘molten’) images” were representations of the Bealîm or some sort of metal objects used in their worship. Dillard (1987, 217) renders, “He erected cast idols for worshipping the Baals.” 8.  ‫ הקטיר‬means to offer ‫קטורת‬, incense. However the verb is sometimes used in reference to the actual burning of sacrifices (such as in 2 Chron. 13:11), leading some translations (NRSV, NJPS and others) to render “he offered sacrifices” or “he made offerings.”



The Reign of Ahaz – 2 Chronicles 28

271

in the Valley of Ben-Hinnom,9 and he burned his sons by fire,10 like the abominations of the nations whom the Lord dispossessed11 before the people of Israel. 4 And he sacrificed12 and burned incense13 at the bamôt and on the hills, and under every lush14 tree. 5 And15 the Lord his God gave him into the hand of the king of Aram, and they defeated him16 and they took from them many

9.  ‫גיא בן־הנם‬, “the Valley of Ben-Hinnom” or “the Valley of the son of “Hinnom,” is the valley that lies to the west of Jerusalem’s western hill, which may have first been settled during this time. It is mentioned thirteen times in the Bible (both with and without the “Ben”), in Josh. 15:8 and 18:16 and in Neh. 11:30 as a boundary marker, but more famously in 2 Kgs 23:10 and in Jer. 7:31, 32; 19:2, 6 and 32:35 as the site of the “topheth,” at which sons and daughters were made to “pass through fire” or were sacrificed to Molech (on the varied scholarly conceptions of this rite see Stavrakopoulou 2012–13). The Ben-Hinnom Valley is mentioned only twice in Chronicles, once here and again in 2 Chron. 33:6. In both of these, the reference to the valley itself is missing from the parallel text in Kings, which does mention passing sons through fire, leading some scholars (such as Klein 2012, 396) to suspect that the place-name was added by the Chronicler because of the association with “child sacrifice” and fire in Kings and Jeremiah. 10.  The parallel in 2 Kgs 16:3 says, “and also his son he passed in the fire”: “son” in the singular, “passed” as in “passed through” rather than burned, and with no mention of the Ben-Hinnom Valley. Kings’ ‫העביר‬, “passed,” and Chronicles’ ‫ויבער‬, “burned,” are close enough graphically that some scholars assume Chronicles’ “burned” to be an error (so Klein 2012, 390, although he admits that “some scholars believe that the reading in the MT represents a heightening of Ahaz’s wickedness”; the NRSV simply copies the Kings text, “made his sons pass through fire”). RSV, NJPS and Japhet (1993, 898), however, have no doubt that the Chronicler wrote just as he intended, portraying Ahaz as performing the horrendous act of child-sacrifice. 11.  The word ‫אתם‬, “them,” which appears in Kings (“whom the Lord dispossessed them”) is absent in Chronicles. This does not change the meaning of the clause in any way. 12.  This word is lacking in the Greek. 13.  As in the previous verse, ‫ ויקטר‬is translated by some (NRSV; NJPS) as “made offerings.” 14.  The adjective ‫ רענן‬appears in Chronicles only here, but the phrase “under every raanân tree,” as a place at which idolatry was practiced, appears in Deut. 12:2; 1 Kgs 14:23, 2 Kgs 16:4; 17:10; Isa. 57:5; Jer. 2:20; 3:6, 13; 17:2 and Ezek. 6:13. In other passages, it refers to the fruit of the olive (Jer. 11:16), to leaves (17:8), to a cypress (Hos. 14:9 [Eng. 8]), an olive tree (Ps. 52:10 [Eng. 8]), olive oil (Ps. 92:11 [Eng. 10]), the trees to which the righteous are likened (Ps. 92:15 [Eng. 14]), and in the feminine ‫ רעננה‬for an allegorical palm-branch (Job 15:32) and for a lovers’ bed in the fields (Song 1:16). The usual translations, depending on context, range from “verdant” and “green” to “luxuriant” and “full of sap.” 15.  The story of the Israelite/Aramean invasion is told in vv. 5–25 very differently than in 2 Kgs 16:5–18, on which see the commentary. The parallelism between the two accounts resumes in v. 26 = 2 Kgs 16:19. 16.  ‫ויכו־בו‬, literally “and they struck him.” Many translations obfuscate the sudden

272

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

captives and they brought them to Darmascus;17 and he was also given into the hand of the king of Israel, who inflicted on him a great defeat.18 6 And Pekah son of Remaliah19 killed in Judah one hundred and twenty thousand in one day, all valiant warriors, because they had abandoned the Lord, God of their fathers.20 7 And Zichri, champion of Ephraim,21 killed Maaseiah the son of the king, Azrikam the officer of the house, and Elkanah second to the king.22 8 And the sons of Israel took captive of their brethren two hundred thousand, women, sons and daughters; and they also took much booty from them, and they brought the booty to Samaria.  9 And there was a prophet of the Lord there, by the name of Oded; and he went out to meet the army that came to Samaria, and said to them: Because of the anger of the Lord, the God of your fathers against Judah, he gave them into your hand, and you have killed of them in a rage that has reached to heaven.  10 And now you intend to subjugate the people23 of Judah and Jerusalem, to be your slaves and maidservants; but you have only sins against the Lord your God.24 11 And now hear me, and send back the captives whom you have captured from your brethren, for the wrath25 of the Lord is upon you. 12 And men of the heads of the sons of Ephraim, Azariah son of Johanan, Berechiah son of Meshillemoth and Jehizkiah son of Shallum and Amasa son shift from the single “king of Aram” to the plural “and they struck him…,” by rendering “who defeated him.” 17.  The spelling of the name of the Aramean capital in Chronicles, ‫דרמשק‬, “Darmascus,” rather than the standard ‫דמשק‬, “Damascus,” might be an Aramaism (so Keel 1986, 763). Hognesius (2003, 165) considers it to be a deliberate change by the Chronicler. This spelling also occurs in 2 Chron. 16:2 (where the parallel in Kings has ‫)דמשק‬, 2 Chron. 24:23 and below in v. 23 of our chapter. 18.  Literally, “struck him a great strike.” 19.  The Greek adds βασιλεὺς Ισραηλ, “king of Israel.” This is the last time a northern king is mentioned by name in Chronicles. 20.  As emphasized by Smelik (1998, 170), this is stated in the plural, to explain that the entire people of Judah, not just Ahaz, had sinned and were now being punished. 21.  The word ‫ גבור‬can mean “hero,” “champion,” “warrior,” “mighty warrior,” “valiant man” and the like. The syntax is also unclear: was Zichri “a gibbôr from Ephraim” (so NRSV; Dillard 1987, 217; Klein 2012, 390) or “the gibbôr of Ephraim,” a known Ephraimite hero (so NJPS)? Other people of this name, all minor characters, appear in Exod. 6:21, Neh. 11:9 and 12:17 and in 1 Chron. 8:19, 23, 27; 9:15; 26:25; 27:16; 2 Chron. 17:16; 23:1). 22.  For these three titles see the commentary. 23.  ‫ בני‬is literally “sons,” but the reference to both male and female slaves necessitates the more general term. 24.  NJPS translates the first part of this verse as a question: “Do you now intend…?” NRSV, Klein (2012, 390) and others translate the second part as a question, “have you not sins…?” and so on. 25.  NRSV has “fierce wrath of the Lord,” apparently in order to translate ‫חרון אף־יהוה‬ here differently than ‫ חמת יהוה‬in v. 9.



The Reign of Ahaz – 2 Chronicles 28

273

of Hadlai, stood up against those who were coming from the war. 13 And they said to them: You shall not bring the captives here, for you propose to bring on us guilt against the Lord, in addition to our sins and guilt, for our guilt is great, and there is wrath against Israel.  14 And the warriors left the captives and the booty before the officials and all the assembly.  15 And those people who were mentioned by name got up and took the captives, and all that were naked they clothed from the booty; they clothed them and shod them and fed them gave them to drink26 and anointed them; and drove all the feeble among them on donkeys, they brought them to Jericho, the city of palm trees, to their brethren;27 and they returned to Samaria. 16 At that time King Ahaz sent to the kings28 of Assyria to help him.29 17 And furthermore,30 the Edomites came and defeated Judah, and captured captives. 18 And Philistines raided the cities of the Shephelah and the Negeb of Judah, and captured Beth-shemesh and Aijalon and Gederoth and Soco and its villages31 and Timnah and its villages and Gimzo and its villages; and they settled there.  19  For the Lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel,32 for he acted without restraint in Judah33 and he transgressed34 against 26.  Like “clothed,” “shod,” “fed,” “anointed” and “drove,” ‫ וישקום‬is also a single word in Hebrew, one of a string of six rhyming verbs. English, however, has no single verb for “gave to drink.” 27.  Just whose brethren lived in Jericho is not clear. See the commentary. 28.  ‫מלכי‬, “kings,” in the plural. Some versions and translations, such as NRSV and NJPS, assume this to be an error and translate “king,” but Dillard (1987, 218) and Klein (2012, 391, following Allen 1974, 2:94) rightly prefer the MT lectio dificilior. Keel (1986, 813) and Klein (2012, 402) suggest that the Chronicler actually did have two kings in mind, and cite 1 Chron. 5:26, which mentions “Pul king of Assyria” and “Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria,” who in reality were one and the same, as if they were two different kings. 29.  As translated here, ‫ לעזר לו‬is ambiguous, and could mean either that Ahaz sent to help the king of Assyria, or that he sent to request help from the king of Assyria. The context obviously favors the latter. 30.  ‫ ועוד‬is understood by NRSV, Dillard (1987, 218), Klein (2012, 391) and others as “again”: the Edomites invaded again. However there is no mention in Chronicles of a previous invasion. 31.  The Hebrew term translated here as “and its villages” is ‫ובנותיה‬, literally “and her daughters,” refers to the small farmsteads that surrounded the towns, some of which were not far removed from being “villages” themselves. The term is quite common in different biblical books, and last appeared in Chronicles in 2 Chron. 13:19. We have no way of knowing why “the daughters” of Soco, Timnah and Gimzo were mentioned and not those of Beth-shemesh, Aijalon and Gederoth. 32.  Some versions read “Judah,” but most MT manuscripts have “Israel” and most scholars retain the lectio dificilior. Keel (1986, 814) suggests that the Chronicler wished to indicate that Ahaz’s behavior was like that of the kings of Israel. 33.  The verb ‫ הפריע‬in the hiphil appears, besides here, only in Exod. 32:25. Klein (2012, 391) reads the verb as “transitive”: “for he made Judah act without restraint.” 34.  ‫מעול מעל‬, literally “transgressed (a) transgression.” In Japhet’s reading (1993,

274

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

the Lord.  20 And Tilgath-pilneser35 king of Assyria came against him, and oppressed him and did not strengthen him.36  21 For Ahaz looted37 the house of the Lord and the house38 of the king and of the officials, and gave39 to the king of Assyria; but it was of no avail to him. 22 And in the time of his distress he continued to transgress against the Lord – this King Ahaz.40  23 And he sacrificed to the gods of Darmascus, who had defeated him, and said: Because the gods of the kings of Aram, they helped41 them, to them I will sacrifice and they will help me, and42 they were the downfall43 of him and all Israel. 24 And Ahaz gathered the utensils of the house of God, and cut in pieces the utensils of the house of God, and he shut up44 the doors of the house of the Lord and made 906–907), maal is a noun, and she reads the verb maôl as referring to both Ahaz and to the people of Judah: “For he made Judah act wildly, and sin against the Lord.” 35.  The form in Kings, Tiglath-pileser, is closer to the Akkadian Tukultī-apil-Ešarra. Tiglath-pileser III was king of Assyria from 745 to 727 BCE. The form “Tilgath-pilneser” is also used in 1 Chron. 5:26. 36.  The Greek lacks “and did not strengthen him.” The common understanding of this is that Tiglath-pileser attacked Ahaz instead of strengthening him as Ahaz had requested, because Ahaz stole from the Temple (next verse), but Japhet (1993, 907) understands it as meaning that he attacked him but did not overcome him, because Ahaz gave him tribute that he stole from the Temple. 37.  The verb translated here “looted” is ‫חלק‬, which literally means “to divide.” It could mean that Ahaz “divided” the property of the Temple, the palace and the official’s houses and gave some of it to Tiglath-pileser, but if so, this would be a unique use of the verb. The Greek has ἔλαβεν, “took,” apparently reading ‫לקח‬, but this would not fit the context, since Ahaz did not “take the house…and gave them to Tiglath-pileser.” Dillard (1987, 218) renders “Ahaz took things from the temple… and gave them to the king of Assyria,” while Johnstone (1997, 2:186) translates “stripped bare.” 38.  The Hebrew has “house.” NRSV and others render the plural “houses.” 39.  To render in proper English, there should be an object here. NRSV adds “tribute.” Myers (1965, 2:160) adds “gave [the proceeds].” Dillard (1987, 218) and Klein (2012, 391) add “them.” NJPS has “and made a gift.” 40.  The phrase “this King Ahaz” seems superfluous. The Greek has καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεύς, “and the king said,” continuing into the beginning of v. 23, ᾿Εκζητήσω τοὺς θεοὺς Δαμασκοῦ τοὺς τύπτοντάς με, “I will seek the gods of Damascus who had defeated me,” reading ‫אחז‬, “Ahaz,” as ‫אמר‬, “said”; ‫ויזבח‬, “and he sacrificed,” as ‫אדרש‬, “I will seek”; and ‫בו‬, “him,” as ‫בי‬, “me.” Dillard (1987, 219) assumes “it is clear that the G translator did not have the present MT before him.” 41.  ‫ מעזרים‬is a very strange form, a hiphil participle. Klein (2012, 392) actually calls it “impossible” and assumes an original ‫ עזרים‬with the mem added through dittography from the previous word ‫הם‬, but Keel (1986, 816) shows several examples of similar forms in the MT. 42.  NRSV and others render “but they” as fits the context. 43.  ‫להכשילו‬. NRSV and NJPS translate “ruin.” Klein (2012, 391): “became a stumbling block.” 44.  Eitan (2007) has suggested that the verb ‫ סגר‬was chosen as a “midrash” on the



The Reign of Ahaz – 2 Chronicles 28

275

himself altars in every corner of Jerusalem. 25 And in every city and city of Judah he made bamôt to burn incense to other gods, and he angered45 the Lord God of his fathers. 26 And the rest of his acts and all his ways, the first and the last, they are written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel.46 27 And Ahaz lay with his fathers, and they buried him in the city, in Jerusalem, because they did not bring him into the tombs of the kings of Israel; and Hezekiah his son47 reigned in his stead.48

Commentary If Jotham was an example of a king who was “all good” in the eyes of the Chronicler, his son Ahaz was “all bad.” Together, their combined reigns can be compared to the “good part” and the “bad part” of the reigns of their predecessors, such as Jehoshaphat, Joash and Uzziah. In the case of Ahaz, the Chronicler apparently started out with 2 Kings 16, informed by Isaiah 7 as well, and then developed the narrative in his own way. He interpreted the comment in Kings that Ahaz “walked in the way of the kings of Israel” by alluding to two of the northern kings’ most famous sins: the molten calf built by Jeroboam (2 Chron. 11:15, which shows that the Chronicler was familiar with 1 Kgs 11:25–30) and the worship name Ahaz, citing Lev. Rab. 11.7 as saying that Ahaz “closed up the synagogues and houses of study.” However, while this may reflect the Rabbis’ view of Ahaz, which was certainly informed by his presentation in Chronicles, it is doubtful if the Chronicler would have gone so far with a name-based midrash. 45.  ‫ויכעס‬. NRSV “provoked to anger.” The verb ‫כעס‬, “to anger,” appears in Deuteronomy’s warnings to Israel not to follow the “abominations” of the people of the land and their idols (Deut. 4:25; 9:18; 31:29; the root then appears five times in the Song of Moses in ch. 32). In Kings it is used of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 14:9, 15), of his son Nadab (15:30), of Baasha and his son Elah (16:2, 7, 13), of Omri and his son Ahab (16:26, 33; 21:22) and his son Ahaziah (22:54), as well as in the explanation given for the final exile of Israel (2 Kgs 17:11, 17). None of these are copied by Chronicles. The first and only king of Judah of which the author of Kings uses this expression is Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:6), which is copied by 2 Chron. 33:6. The use of this expression for Ahaz is unique to Chronicles, and serves to accentuate Ahaz’s sins, since in the eyes of the Chronicler Ahaz was as bad as the kings of Israel had been. 46.  2 Kgs 16:19 reads “And the rest of the acts of Ahaz which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah.” 47.  The one very short fragment of Chronicles discovered at Qumran, 4QChron, reads “Hezekiah son of Ahaz.” See Trebolle Barrera 1992, 526. 48.  2 Kgs 16:20 reads “And Ahaz lay with his fathers, and he was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and his son Hezekiah reigned in his stead.” Since in Chronicles he is buried separately, the reference to “his fathers” is deleted, and “the city of David” becomes “the city, in Jerusalem.”

276

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

of the Phoenician Baal, specifically in the plural form Bealîm, which is otherwise used in 2 Chron. 17:3 as the deity that the pious Jehoshaphat did not worship, and in 24:7 as the god that the evil Athaliah did worship. Ahaz’s making his son “pass through fire” in what may have been some sort of pagan initiation rite, is turned into the sacrifice of his children (in the plural) in the valley of Ben-Hinnom. All this, as well as the operation of the bamôt, was enough to brand Ahaz as an evil king deserving of punishment. The punishment, although not labeled as such, was to be found in Isaiah 7 and especially in 2 Kgs 16:5–10, according to which Rezin king of Aram-Damascus and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel attacked Judah, according to Isa. 7:6 with the intention of deposing Ahaz and making one “son of Tabeel” king in Jerusalem. However, they were unable to capture Jerusalem, and Ahaz remained on his throne. At the same time, the Edomites, apparently with Aramean aid, conquered Elath, which had presumably been in Judahite hands since the days of Uzziah. In his desperation, Ahaz took the treasures of the Temple and of the palace and sent them as a bribe to Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria, asking for his help.49 Tiglath-pileser, happy to oblige, invaded Aram, conquered Damascus and killed Rezin, and Ahaz travelled to Damascus to pay him homage. What this chapter does not mention and to which there is no reference in the parallel account in Chronicles either is the note in 2 Kgs 15:29, that “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 captive to Assyria.”50 These events are also recorded in a number of Assyrian inscriptions, which mention the conquest of Damascus, the defeat of Rezin (Raḫiani in Akkadian, Raḍiyān in Aramaic) and the annexation of Damascus as an Assyrian province, the conquest of parts of “the land of Omri” (Israel), the death of Pekah and his replacement by Hosea, and the receipt of tribute from Ahaz, called by his full name Jehoahaz (Iauḫazi), by which he is never known in the Bible.51 The Chronicler’s version of these events is very different. He obviously took the material that he had at his disposal and reshaped it. Whether he also had additional information about such matters as the war with Aram 49.  For different views of the background of this so-called Syro-Ephraimite War, see Oded 1972 and Smelik 1997, 270–71. 50.  This event is mentioned at the end of the genealogies of the Transjordanian tribes in 1 Chron. 5:26, on which see the commentary there. 51.  For the general background and the various cuneiform documents that record these events see Rainey and Notley 2006, 225–32; Siddall 2009.



The Reign of Ahaz – 2 Chronicles 28

277

and Israel or the invasion of Tiglath-pileser III is debated among scholars. Also debated is the precise year in which Ahaz replaced Jotham as king. According to Rainey (Rainey and Notley 2006, 228), Jotham, who had previously established a Judahite foothold in Gilead and subjugated Ammon and was now inclined to join the anti-Assyrian coalition led by Rezin and Pekah, was forced into retirement in 735 BCE by the Jerusalem nobility, who then installed Ahaz, but not all scholars agree with this reconstruction. One important part of the Chronicler’s narrative that seems to have no pre-existing source is the story of the Judahite captives taken by Rezin and Pekah. According to v. 5, the king of Aram took “many captives and they brought them to Darmascus,” never to be heard of again. Pekah, on his part, killed 120,000 warriors, while his champion Zichri killed Maaseiah the son of the king, Azrikam the officer of the house, and Elkanah second to the king. Another 200,000 Judahite non-combatants were taken off to Samaria, together with much plunder. The extent to which this account actually contradicts the bare facts of 2 Kings 16 and Isaiah 7 can be debated. On one hand, it would seem that in the Chronicler’s account, Aram and Israel are seen as attacking separately, each taking its own prisoners, but this could be a matter of emphasis. Kings and Isaiah claim that Jerusalem was saved, and do not mention prisoners from other parts of the country. Chronicles emphasizes Judahites being exiled by Edom, Aram and Israel, and while nowhere does it actually say that any of these were taken from Jerusalem, and in theory the king’s son, the officer of the house and the second to the king could have been captured from outside Jerusalem, the Chronicler does not bother to tell us this. And mention of “the people of Judah and Jerusalem” in Oded’s speech (v. 10) could be just a figure of speech, but it could also signify that the group of prisoners included inhabitants of the capital city. Whether this account, even ignoring the obviously much exaggerated numbers, is based on a historical source, is debated. Zichri, Maaseiah, Azrikam and Elkanah are not known from any other source. However, the king’s son holding an official position of some sort is well documented (for example Jer. 36:26 and 38:6; 1 Kgs 22:26 = 2 Chron. 18:25, and see the commentary there; for seals from Judah with this title see Avigad 1992). Assuming Maaseiah to be a son of Ahaz, he would have been the older brother of Hezekiah, a fact not mentioned specifically. Jarick (2007, 162–63) considers it “an interesting touch” that Yahweh “took away” the son of the king who had been described as sacrificing his own children. But since Ahaz himself was only 20 when he became king, Maaseiah must have been very young at this time, which would contradict his having an official title and apparent military role. For this reason Etz (1996, 51–52),

278

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

following Curtis and Madsen (1910, 458), suggests that Maaseiah was actually a son of Jotham, full or half-brother of Ahaz, but the text itself does not indicate this. The precise title negîd habbâyit, “officer/commander of the house,” does not appear elsewhere, but it is similar to negîd bêt haelôhîm, “officer/commander of the house of God,” in 1 Chron. 9:11 = Neh. 11:1; 2 Chron. 31:13 and 35:8 (the latter in the plural). These are obviously officials who were in charge of the Temple, although their exact function is debated. Our negîd habbâyit may have had the same function, but “the house” could also refer to the palace rather than the Temple, in which case the negîd habbâyit could be the same as the better-known ašer al habbâyit, apparently the manager of the palace household or “royal steward” (see 2 Kgs 18:18 = Isa. 36:3; also Isa. 22:15 and many more, and also Avigad 1953 and Layton 1990 for a fuller analysis and for epigraphic evidence). It is worth noting that according to 2 Kgs 15:5, when King Azariah was put into quarantine, weyôtâm ben-hammelek al habbâyit, “and Jotham the king’s son was over the house,” Jotham seems to have combined both functions. The Chronicler’s version is a little less clear, “and Jotham his son was over the house” (2 Chron. 26:21). Yet another possibility is that negîd habbâyit was the same as the nagîd lebēyt yehudâh mentioned in 2 Chron. 19:11 (probably a royal judicial official, on which see there). The title mišnēh hammelek, “second to the king,” is less well-attested for pre-exilic Israel or Judah, although the title is given to Mordecai in Est. 10:3, and is at least hinted at in 1 Sam. 23:17 and in the Greek text of 2 Chron. 26:11 (and see the note there). Given these very specific titles, which are not common in Chronicles, Japhet (1993, 901) is “inclined to regard them as authentic reflections of some unknown incident from Ahaz’ times.” Rainey (1997, 64) also believed that the story “has the ring of authenticity.” Na’aman (2003, 52), on the other hand, believes that the Chronicler basically created all of these titles by “adapting” the designations found in pre-existing biblical texts, and thus does not consider them to be a sign of the text’s historicity. The fate of these prisoners is somewhat surprising, but at the same time typically Chronistic. The Judahites exiled to Edom and Aram are not heard of again. However, the northern army returning with its 200,000 prisoners to Samaria was met by a prophet named Oded, who explained that the Lord had intended for Judah to be punished but not to be enslaved. Upon hearing this, four of the local leaders took the initiative and first ensured that the captives’ physical needs were attended to, and then sent them to Jericho, to be returned from there to Judah. Neither the defeated king of Judah nor the victorious king of Israel are mentioned as having had anything to do with this, but individual “good Samaritans” (as they are dubbed by Jarick 2007, 160) did exist among the northerners. As pointed



The Reign of Ahaz – 2 Chronicles 28

279

out by Smelik (1998, 170), this account was obviously influenced by both 1 Kgs 12:21–24, in which the prophet Shemaiah ordered Rehoboam to stop his attack on Israel, and 2 Kgs 6:21–23, in which Elisha ordered the release of Aramean prisoners. Rainey (1997, 64) was of the opinion that the story “was probably in the original of the ‘Chronicles of the Kings of Judah’,” and that it was the Deuteronomist who “was not interested in admitting Yahwistic tendencies among the prophets and other leaders of Israel.” In Kings’ version of the story, Ahaz’s turning to Tiglath-pileser, even at the expense of the Temple and palace treasuries, is not necessarily a negative act. In fact, Ahaz’s actions are narrated in almost exactly the same words as those attributed to Asa in 1 Kgs 15:18–19 (= 2 Chron. 16:2–3), and the list of towns captured by Tiglath-pileser in 2 Kgs 15:29 is almost parallel to those captured by Ben-Hadad in 1 Kgs 15:20. If seen as a diplomatic move, Ahaz’s actions are understandable, even successful. Dion (2006) has shown that it would have been the natural move for the ruler of a small kingdom besieged on all sides, and that there are many parallels to Ahaz’s actions, both within the Bible and in ancient inscriptions. Smelik (1998, 154), failing to find condemnation of Ahaz’s act in Kings, turns to Isaiah 7 to show how Ahaz is portrayed as an unbeliever, but this just accentuates the fact that within Kings, Ahaz’s act is not condemned. Within the world of the Chronicler, however, had Ahaz been less “bad,” he would have realized that it was Yahweh who had brought all of this upon him, and turned to Yahweh for help. Instead, Ahaz chose to turn to the king of Assyria, an act first mentioned in v. 16. The Edomite and Philistine invasions are then presented as a result of Ahaz’s lack of faith. While the one specific detail of the Edomite invasion in Kings – the conquest of Elath – is missing in Chronicles,52 the Chronicler does add Edom to Aram and Israel as taking captives from Judah. The main addition to the Chronicler’s account of this war is that of the Philistine invasion in v. 18. The account begins with the Philistines “raiding” “the cities of the Shephelah and the Negeb of Judah,” followed by a list of six specific towns, all in the Shephelah (which could be seen as indicating that the list is incomplete). Of the six, Beth-shemesh, Aijalon, Soco and Timnah are well known and positively identified, with the sites of Beth-shemesh and Timnah also having been extensively excavated. A Gederoth appears in the southern Shephelah section of Judah in Josh. 15:41, and the identification of Gimzo, mentioned in the Bible only here, with the 52.  Rainey (1997, 66) considers this omission by the Chronicler “remarkable” and postulates that “his eye may have skipped over the Elath incident.”

280

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

village of Jimzu east of Lod, is dependent on the general geographical context and on the preservation of the name through the ages.53 Assuming these identifications to be correct, the narrative represents a coordinated attack on all of the main roads leading into the heartland of Judah from the west, which Rainey (1997, 66) called “Jerusalem’s lifelines to the outside world.” Moreover, the final comment “and they settled there” seems to assume that unlike the northern Israelites and the Arameans, the Philistines remained in the towns that they conquered, at least for a while. One of the issues which scholars have debated over the years has been that of the historical reliability of this list, which seems on one hand to be very detailed and to present what at face value would be a logical outcome of Ahaz’s geopolitical situation, but on the other seems to fit within a theologically driven big picture of a sinful Ahaz being punished for his sins by attacks from all sides (Israel in the north, Aram in the east, Edom in the south and the Philistines in the west). On one hand are those commentators who are certain that the Chronicler must have had an authentic source at his disposal. Thus Williamson (1982, 345) states that “it may be confidently concluded that he had access to a separate and valuable alternative source.” Also Rainey (1997, 66) considers the mention of Gimzo, known only here in the Bible, as a sign of the report’s authenticity. Other scholars are less positive. Curtis and Madsen (1910, 460), for example, consider the story “not unlikely, yet no mention of such a fact appears in 2 K. or in Is.” In Dillard’s words (1987, 220), “The writer appears to have been elaborating and interoperating the events reported in the parallel history in accord with some other sources at his disposal; one can only speculate regarding the nature of these additional materials. Some of the divergences from the earlier account may represent the Chronicler’s own inferences; he does not appeal to any source other than ‘the book of the kings of Judah and Israel’.” Japhet (1993, 906), calls the story in Chronicles “both specific and probable,” but also notes that this Philistine victory over Judah seems to contradict Isa. 14:28–29, according to which Philistia had suffered a defeat “in the year that King Ahaz died.” Siddall (2009, 99) goes even further, citing Tiglath-pileser’s “Summary Inscription 8” as recording a campaign to Gaza and “the Brook of Egypt” in 734, which shows that the territories captured by Uzziah had been lost to Ahaz even before the Israel–Aramean invasion, and supplying the background for the Philistine invasion of Judah. 53.  Several rabbinic sources tell of a Rabbi Nahum “man of Gamzo,” who lived near the end of the first century BCE. The name of his hometown became the source of the story, recounted in several versions, that he would reply to bad news with the Hebrew phrase gam-zô letôvâh, “this, too, is good.” See Rozenfeld 1999–2000.



The Reign of Ahaz – 2 Chronicles 28

281

Map 8. The Attacks Against Ahaz

Na’aman (2003, 50) goes further still. He considers the entire account of Ahaz’s reign in Chronicles to be “merely the author’s artificial construct.” The separate attacks by Israel, Aram, Edom and Philistia are intended to portray Ahaz as being besieged from all sides, and are in fact in contradiction to the logic of their wanting Judah to join their anti-Assyrian coalition. He considers the entire description of the attacks on Ahaz to reflect the situation of Judah during the Persian period – the Chronicler’s own time – including the conflict with Samaria, the title of the officials listed in v. 7 and the inclusion of Jericho within Judah (which is his interpretation of v. 15, but is not necessarily the only one possible). Na’aman

282

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

also assumes that Aijalon, and thus also Gimzo, must also have been a part of the northern kingdom in Ahaz’s time, and that the narrative as a whole reflects the western border of Persian-period Yehud. The Chronicler, in his opinion, wished to portray Ahaz as reversing the successes of Uzziah: the latter conquered three cities in Philistia (2 Chron. 26:6), “whereas Ahaz lost twice that many Judahite cities on Philistia’s border; Uzziah captured southern Philistia and subdued its inhabitants, whereas Ahaz was defeated by the Philistines even in the Negeb. The description of the Philistine invasion in the reign of Ahaz ‘in the Shephelah and the Negeb of Judah’ was intended to heighten his defeat and punishment, and depict Ahaz as the opposite of Uzziah, whose reward for his faith in God was to defeat the Philistines throughout their territory, north to south” (Na’aman 2003, 62). A different view is presented by Evans (2013a). Putting the question of additional sources to one side, he sees the Chronicler as building up his narrative through a process of dialogue, not only with 2 Kings 16, but also with Isaiah 7, in an attempt to interpret one in light of the other. Thus, the Chronicler’s seeming to present Israel and Aram as acting separately, each successfully attacking Judah, rather than together as presented in Kings, is his interpretation of Isa. 7:7–9, that the coalition would fail, together with his own need to show that the wicked Ahaz was indeed punished. Evans sees the Philistine invasion as the Chronicler’s interpretation of Isa. 7:18, according to which Yahweh will call “the fly at the end of the waters of Egypt and the bee in the land of Assyria.” Since there is no other record of Egyptian involvement in these events, he posits that the Chronicler considered “the land of the Philistines” and “the borders of Egypt” to be parallels, as they are in 2 Chron. 9:26, and then equated “the fly” with Baal-zubub, god of Ekron (2 Kgs 1:2). The word zebûb, “fly,” is used in the Bible only in 2 Kings 1 (four times, all as part of the name Baal-zubub), Isa. 7:18 and Qoh. 10:1. Evans admits that this may not have been what Isaiah intended, but it is, in his opinion, what the Chronicler inferred from the text of Isaiah. While Evans’ thesis does not really answer the question of “historicity,” it does have the advantage of reminding us that the Chronicler should not be seen as either a historian or an exegete or a theologian, but rather as all three. Evans finished by quoting McKenzie (2004, 34) as saying that in ancient historiography in general, there is no distinction between history and theology. Verse 19 makes it clear that as far as the Chronicler was concerned, this was all a part of God’s punishment of Ahaz’s behavior, which included the looting of the Temple and the palace for treasures to send the king of Assyria, all to no avail, simply making him a vassal of Assyria – which led him to sin even further.



The Reign of Ahaz – 2 Chronicles 28

283

The same sort of problem can be cited for vv. 20–21, according to which “Tiglath-pilneser king of Assyria came against him, and oppressed him and did not strengthen him.” Neither Kings nor any known Assyrian records tell us of a visit by Tiglath-pileser III to Jerusalem, so if this is to be taken literally, the Chronicler must have either received it from his sources or invented it. Conversely, it is possible that the Chronicler did not actually mean that Tiglath-pileser came to Jerusalem in person; a messenger bearing a demand for tribute would have been enough. The kî, “for,” “because,” at the beginning of v. 21 could mean either that Tiglath-pileser’s demands now were a “result” of Ahaz’s earlier appeal to the Assyrians (v. 16), which was in all probability accompanied by lavish gifts (as admitted by 2 Kgs 16:8), or it could have meant that his present giving of “loot” to the Assyrians “was of no avail to him.” According to 2 Kgs 16:10–17, when Ahaz travelled to Damascus to do homage to Tiglath-pileser, he saw the altar of Damascus and sent its image back to Jerusalem, with instructions to Uriah the priest to make a replica and to place it in the Temple courtyard instead of the altar that was already there. Upon his return from Damascus, Ahaz instructed Uriah to use this new altar, which Uriah did. On the historical background of this episode there are two main opinions. According to some scholars, the new altar was actually an Assyrian cultic object, which Ahaz adopted, or was forced to adopt, as a sign of his status as an Assyrian vassal.54 Olmstead (1923, 198–99) even went so far as to assume that Ahaz, “logical according to his lights,” replaced the worship of Yahweh with that of Ashur, the main Assyrian deity. Other scholars, following Morton Cogan (1974, 72–22), differentiate between Assyrian provinces, in which the worship of Assyrian gods was expected and even enforced, and vassal kingdoms like Judah, in which it was not.55 According to the text of Kings, the new altar was Aramean, not Assyrian, and nowhere does the text indicate that it was used for worship of any deity other than Yahweh. Since Isa. 8:2 refers to Uriah the priest as a “reliable witness,” it is unlikely that he would have been involved in idolatry. Smelik (1998, 156–57) proposes that the basic story in Kings was derived from a source that described “changes in the Temple of Jerusalem,” to which the author had access (direct or 54.  This was first proposed by Kittel (1900, 270) and adopted by most scholars of the early twentieth century. 55.  For a similar analysis see Miller 2006. However, Miller does believe that while not forced to do so, some Assyrian cult practices were eventually adopted by the people, priests and kings of Judah simply through emulation and fear of their vastly superior overlords.

284

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

indirect). But in Smelik’s opinion, while this source was “neutral,” the author of Kings was not. By commenting that Ahaz “walked in the ways of the Kings of Israel,” he wished to equate his “reforms” with those of Jeroboam, who created the molten calves and prevented the people from worshipping in the Jerusalem Temple. The Chronicler, however, removed any ambiguities which may have been read into the Kings account. In Chronicles, Ahaz did not simply emulate an altar that he saw in Damascus, “he sacrificed to the gods of Darmascus, who had defeated him, and said: Because the gods of the kings of Aram, they helped them, to them I will sacrifice and they will help me.” So in the Chronicles account, Ahaz actually did practice idolatry, not understanding that his defeat at the hand of Aram had been brought about by Yahweh, not by the gods of Aram. The final two verses (24–25) tell that he basically shut down the Temple and forced the people to worship “other gods” at the bamôt, again equating him with Jeroboam. And while the Chronicler did not have a record of an untimely death or a horrible disease for Ahaz, he did at least have him buried “in the city” rather than in the royal tombs in “the city of David.” Ahaz, king of Judah, lived in a critical and frightening time. During his short lifetime (according to v. 1, and ignoring the various scholars’ calculations of co-regencies, he lived to the age of 36) he saw both Israel and Judah fall from their previous status of regional powers to that of Assyrian vassals, the utter destruction of Aram-Damascus and the beginning of the exile of Israel. In Kings and in Isaiah, he is presented as making some bad choices, as not having enough faith, as perhaps not living up to his father and grandfather’s piety, but not much beyond that. However, in Chronicles, Ahaz is presented as the absolutely most sinful of all of the kings of Judah. He adopted foreign gods, sacrificed his own children, and finally plundered and shut down the Temple. And he was joined, at least in part, by the people of Judah. For all of this, both he and his people were punished: they lost all of their predecessors’ territorial and financial gains, myriads were killed and exiled, and the now tiny kingdom of Judah was enslaved by the new huge empire of Assyria. On the other hand, it is surprisingly the northerners, the men of “Ephraim,” who are presented as virtuous: they trust in Yahweh, obey the prophet Oded and treat the Judahite captives with compassion. Williamson (1982, 343–48) has commented that the Chronicler basically presents Ahaz’s Judah and the “Ephraim” (northern Israel) of his day as having reversed the roles that they had played since the division of the monarchy, especially as presented in Abijah’s speech in 2 Chronicles 13. Then, the northern kings were apostates, adopting foreign deities and



The Reign of Ahaz – 2 Chronicles 28

285

making molten images, and they were overcome by the military might of the pious kings of Judah; now, it is the king and people of Judah who sin, and are overcome by pious Ephraim. Then, the prophets supported Judah but limited the extent of Judah’s war on its northern brethren; now, the leaders of Ephraim obey the prophet Oded and treat their Judahite brethren humanely. Then, the northern apostasy was led by the northern kings; now, it is Ahaz who “walked in the ways of the kings of Israel,” while in the north, Pekah disappears from the narrative while “the men of the heads of the sons of Ephraim” take the initiative. As already noted, Pekah is the last northern king mentioned in Chronicles, and the Chronicler does not tell of the exile of the northern tribes (with the exception of the Transjordanians). So, while he does not actually deny their exile, to him, it is the northern kingdom that is destroyed by the Assyrians, thus removing the basic cause of the division of the nation. So now, by the end of our chapter, the northerners, “Ephraim,” were no longer especially sinful, and Judah was certainly not especially pious. The moment had come for the nation to be reunited. All that was missing was a David-like king to seize that moment. Smelik (1998, 179–82), while accepting much of Williamson’s thesis, does add one more pertinent thought. In comparing the Chronicler’s account of the last few kings of Judah to that of Kings, he notes that whereas in Kings, the most sinful of kings is Manasseh, whose wrongdoings are partially alleviated by the pious Josiah, in Chronicles both of these roles are transferred to Ahaz and Hezekiah. In his view, the reason for this is that where the culmination of Kings is the fall of Jerusalem, which needs an immediate cause (Manasseh), in the Chronicler’s longer view, the “nadir” of sinfulness had already passed, and the exile, limited to seventy years, was only a phase in the longer history of the nation. A literal reading of the various chronological notes would make the birth of Hezekiah occur when Ahaz was about 11 years old. While this is theoretically possible, Etz (1996, 50–53 and see there for the chronological details) has suggested that Hezekiah was actually Ahaz’s younger brother rather than his son. This suggestion has not met with widespread support. Be that as it may, the transition from Ahaz to Hezekiah in Chronicles is certainly one of the most dramatic transitions in the entire book. The Qumran Chronicles Fragment The only known remaining fragment of Chronicles found among the Dead Sea scrolls was discovered in Qumran’s cave 4, and dubbed 4Q118, later identified as 4QChron. It contains only six lines, the first with no readable

286

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

text, the rest with just enough to identify them as containing the last words of 2 Chron. 28:27, “and Hezekiah his son56 reigned in his stead,” and the first two and a half verses of 2 Chronicles 29, up to “opened the doors” in v. 3. This small fragment contains a few minor variations of the MT, for which see Trebolle Barrera’s preliminary edition (Trebolle Barrera 1992) and the notes below.

56.  The fragment actually reads “Hezekiah son of Ahaz” rather than “Hezekiah his son.”

T h e R eig n o f H eze kiah – 2 C h r o n ic les 2 9–32

The Reign of Hezekiah: An Introduction The twenty-nine-year reign of Hezekiah was a time of vast changes for the people and for the kingdom of Judah, in both the external and the internal arenas. Externally, the years 722–720 saw the final demise of the northern kingdom at the hands of Shalmaneser V and Sargon II of Assyria, followed by the deportation of a large percentage of the kingdom’s population and the importation of foreign elements. In this, the biblical narrative, mainly that of 2 Kgs 17:1–6 and 24 (which is not paralleled in Chronicles), although obviously selective in the details that it provides, is fully in accord with epigraphic and archaeological evidence (for which see Na’aman 1986c, 74; Levin 2013). Over the following years, the Assyrians became the uncontested masters of the Levant, turning all of the local kingdoms into either provinces or tribute-paying vassals. Isaiah 20:1–6 mentions a campaign of Sargon to Ashdod in 712 BCE, one of several recorded in Assyrian inscriptions (for a summary of Sargon’s activities in the area see Rainey and Notley 2006, 234–39). However in 705 Sargon was killed on the battlefield and his body reportedly desecrated, and “soothsayers and prophets everywhere must have heralded Sargon’s demise as a sign from heaven, a call to freedom from the Assyrian yoke” (Rainey and Notley 2006, 239). Upon becoming king, his son Sennacherib was challenged by a series of rebellions stretching from Babylon in the southeast to Sidon, Ekron and Ashkelon in the southwest. In his “prism inscriptions” found at Nineveh, Sennacherib describes his defeat of the rebels. In 701, with Babylon defeated and devastated, Sennacherib set out for the west, chasing off Luli king of Sidon, capturing towns that belonged to Ṣidqa of Ashkelon, and retaking Ekron, whose nobles had imprisoned the loyal king Padi and sent him off in fetters to Jerusalem. An Egyptian force was defeated at Eltekeh. In Judah itself, the “Azekah Inscription” mentions capture of a Philistine royal city, either Gath or Ekron (the name is missing; Na’aman 1974, 27; Rainey and Notley 2006, 243 prefer to read “Gath,”

288

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Galil 1995, who dates the inscription to Sargon’s campaign in 712, prefers “Ekron”), and of course the reliefs recovered by Austen Henry Layard in 1845–47 from the walls of Sennacherib’s place in Nineveh afford us a graphic description of the destruction of Lachish, the second largest city in all of Judah (for a comparison of the reliefs with the findings at the site of Lachish see Ussishkin 1980; 2014, 75–98). Sennacherib claims to have captured forty-six of Hezekiah’s fortified cities, blockading him in his city of Jerusalem “like a bird in a cage” until his ultimate surrender, upon which Sennacherib collected Hezekiah’s tribute and left the region, leaving Judah wounded and humiliated. Internally, the late eighth century BCE in Judah was a time of unprecedented prosperity and growth, brought to an abrupt end by the events of 701. Cities such as Lachish, Beth-shemesh, Beer-sheba and especially Jerusalem expanded and were refortified. Jerusalem especially grew: from a small city limited to the narrow eastern ridge now called “the city of David” and the Temple Mount, the city expanded westward to include an area of well over 400 dunams (40 hectares or 100 acres). A short part of the massive wall that surrounded the new areas was uncovered in the late 1960s. The city’s water supply system was also rebuilt, and the previous channels that had conducted the water of the Gihon spring in the Kidron Valley east of the city to the fields to its south were replaced with what is now known as the Siloam Tunnel, cut through solid rock from the Gihon to a pool between the eastern and western hills. The precise chronology and causes of this prosperity are very difficult to establish. It may have begun during the reign of Uzziah, whom at least 2 Chronicles 26 records as having been a prosperous king. Many scholars assume that the fall of Samaria brought an influx of northern Israelite refugees into Judah; these must have brought both demographic and cultural changes with them.1 Others deny that the Assyrians would have allowed this to occur. A “traditional” view of the fortifications found in Jerusalem and elsewhere is that they reflect Hezekiah’s preparations for the Assyrian invasion, and that the various biblical descriptions of Hezekiah’s efforts, in both Kings and Chronicles, are more-or-less accurate (for example, Rainey and Notley 2006, 240). A more nuanced view recognizes that such fortifications and other works could not have all

1.  Rendsburg and Schniedewind (2010) have even argued that the famous Siloam Tunnel Inscription includes features of “Israelean” (northern Israelite) Hebrew and must have been engraved by northern refugees who were employed as workmen on Hezekiah’s construction projects.



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

289

been accomplished within such a short time, and must reflect the general trend of at least the earlier part of Hezekiah’s reign (for which see Vaughn 1999, 171).2 What does seem to be clear is that Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah resulted in a tremendous amount of destruction. Sennacherib himself boasts of destroying 46 of Hezekiah’s fortified cities, and while he does not supply further details, the archaeological record does. Besides the famous destruction of Lachish, we now know that most of the cities and towns of Judah, at least in the Shephelah and in the Negeb, were in fact devastated as well. According to Faust (2008, 169), “Archaeologically speaking, a destruction layer attributed to this campaign, was unearthed in almost every site excavated in Judah.” He then goes on to list the excavated sites with known destruction layers from this time: Beth-shemesh, Hebron, Tel Halif, Beer-sheba, Tel Malhata, Tel ‘Eton, Tel Goded, Tell Beit Mirsim, Tel Batash, Kh. Rabud, Ramat Rahel “and many others.” Sennacherib also tells of transferring territory from Judah to the control of the loyal Padi of Ekron. Judah after Sennacherib’s campaign was humbled, impoverished and depopulated. Sennacherib’s campaign also made a huge impression on the writers of the Bible. It stands in the center of 2 Kings 18–20 and of the parallel Isaiah 36–38, and many scholars believe that the lament for the cities of Judah in Mic. 1:8–16, Isaiah 1 and perhaps additional passages as well, also reflect this devastating event. The miraculous salvation of Jerusalem “like a booth in a vineyard, like a hut in a field, like a city besieged – had not the Lord of Hosts left us some survivors, we would be like Sodom, similar to Gomorrah” (Isa. 1:8–9) likewise left a huge impression, and probably enhanced the divine status of “God’s city” in the eyes of many of the people of Judah. A critical issue in our understanding of the historical situation is that of chronology. 2 Kings 18, which is our main source of chronological information, seems to supply conflicting sets of data. From the Assyrian records, we know that Hosea of Israel rebelled in 722, which was the year in which Shalmaneser V died, and that Samaria finally fell to Sargon II in 720. We also know that Sennacherib arrived in Judah in 701. According to 2 Kgs 18:9, Shalmaneser arrived in Hosea’s seventh year which was Hezekiah’s fourth. Since this could only have been 722, it would mean that Hezekiah became king in 726 BCE, and that he was king during the fall of Samaria and the exile of its people. Since he ruled for 29 years, this 2.  For recent summaries of the various positions see Faust 2000, 2014; Na’aman 2007; Finkelstein 2008; Ussishkin 2014.

290

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

would mean that he died in 697, only four years or so after Sennacherib’s devastation of his kingdom.3 On the other hand, according to 2 Kgs 18:13 (and Isa. 36:1), Sennacherib arrived in Judah in Hezekiah’s fourteenth year, and since we know that this happened in 701, Hezekiah must have become king in 715, five years after the final fall of Samaria. According to this calculation, Hezekiah continued to rule for 24 years after Sennacherib’s campaign, and died only in 686 BCE. Is there a way to reconcile the two sets of dates? Over the history of research, some scholars have preferred either one or the other, while others have tried to reconcile them. Thiele (1983, 168–73), for example, adopts the later date and ignores the former. As support for this, he mentions the fact that nowhere does the Bible record any contacts between Hezekiah and Hosea, the fact that if indeed Hezekiah died in 686, the dates for the remaining kings of Judah seem to fit seamlessly, and his opinion that Hezekiah would not have been able to act as he did according to 2 Chronicles 29–30, inviting the northern Israelites who had survived the Assyrian onslaught to Jerusalem, with Hosea still in power. This, of course, assumes a priori the historicity of the Chronicler’s account, an assumption that many scholars would consider problematic. Galil (1996, 98–104) represents the opposite opinion: that Hezekiah became king in 726 and died in 697/6, and that he was indeed king during the fall of Samaria. Na’aman (1986c, 84–85) can be said to represent the harmonizing school. He first lists various theories that have been proposed over the years, and then adopts one of them: that Hezekiah was made co-regent with his father Ahaz at the age of eleven in 728, and became sole king in 715. In his opinion, this was the norm throughout the history of the kingdom of Judah, although the lack of a specific term for “co-regent” in the Bible obfuscates this fact (Na’aman 1986c, 91). Be as it may, what is really important for our purpose is less the historical reality of the late eighth century BCE and more the way in which the Chronicler understood that reality. Did he assume that the northern kingdom had fallen by Hezekiah’s “first year” (2 Chron. 29:3)? As many commentators have pointed out, the Chronicler never actually mentions the fall of the north and the exile of its inhabitants, as he does for the Transjordanian tribes (1 Chron. 5:25–26), although he does have Hezekiah’s messengers call to the northerners to “return to the Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, and he will return to the remnant of you that remain from the hand of the kings of Assyria” (30:6). He does not 3.  All of these calculations do not take such matters as the exact dates of ascension of the kings involved into account, and could be off by a year or so.



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

291

even mention the last northern king, Hosea. The northern kingdom simply “ceases to exist” and its inhabitants revert from being “Israel” to being “Ephraim,” “Manasseh,” “Zebulun,” “Asher” and so on. We should keep this in mind as we read through the Chronicler’s description of Hezekiah’s reign. 2 Chronicles 29 – Hezekiah Purifies the Temple Chapter 29: 1 Hezekiah4 reigned when he was twenty-five years old5 and twenty-nine years he reigned in Jerusalem and his mother’s name was Abijah daughter of Zechariah.6 2 And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as David his father had done.7 

4.  In Hebrew, the king’s name is almost always spelled ‫ יחזקיהו‬in Chronicles and ‫חזקיה‬ or ‫ חזקיהו‬in Kings and in Isaiah, but none of the three is totally consistent. For example, vv. 18 and 27 of our chapter use ‫חזקיהו‬, while 2 Kgs 20:10 and Isa. 1:1 use ‫יחזקיהו‬. Hos. 1:1 and Mic. 1:1 use the unique form ‫יחזקיה‬. The Greek and Latin use Εζεκιας and Ezechias to transcribe all of the various Hebrew spellings, as does “Hezekiah” in English. In any case, the meaning of the name is “Yahweh strengthens.” As usual, Chronicles skips the synchronism to the rule of Hosea son of Elah of Israel given in 2 Kgs 18:1. Verse 1 in Chronicles is mostly parallel to v. 2 in Kings, except that there was no need to mention Hezekiah’s father Ahaz since he appeared in the previous verse (28:27). 5.  The ascension formula here is unusual. When introducing every king since Jehoram (2 Chron. 21:5), the Chronicler, like Kings, first gives the king’s age, and then follows with “he reigned” (such as 2 Chron. 26:3: “Sixteen years old was Uzziah when he reigned, and fifty-two years he reigned in Jerusalem”). Here the order is reversed. Keel (1986, 820) suggests that this was done in order to emphasize Hezekiah’s uniqueness. Jarick (2007, 163) points out that if, as presented in 2 Chron. 28:1, Ahaz had been 20 at his ascension and had reigned for 16 years, this would make him 11 years old at Hezekiah’s birth, possible but unlikely. Furthermore, since Hezekiah had presumably had an older brother, Maaseiah (28:7), who must have been born even earlier, the figures used here must be mistaken. 6.  Kings uses the shorter form ‫אבי‬, “Abi,” instead of ‫אביה‬. In the Qumran fragment of Chronicles 4QChron the spelling is ‫איבה‬, apparently a scribal error (Trebolle Barrera 1992, 527). The Greek form, Αββα in Chronicles and Αβου in Kings, may hint at an original ‫אבה‬ or ‫ אבי‬as in Kings, since whereas Abijah is the name of at least six men in the Bible, the only other place in which it appears for a woman is 1 Chron 2:24, which is a problematic text in its own right (and see notes there). Zechariah is among the most common names in the Bible; Spanier (1998, 144–48) has suggested that Abi/Abijah’s father was actually Zechariah son of Jeroboam, the last king of the Jehuite dynasty, who was assassinated after only six months on the throne (2 Kgs 15:8–10). 7.  This verse is copied from 2 Kgs 18:3, with the usual plene spelling of David ‫דויד‬ instead of Samuel–Kings’ defective ‫דוד‬. After this verse, the Kings and Chronicles versions of Hezekiah’s reign diverge, to re-converge, and even then only partially, in 2 Chron. 32.

292

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

3 He,8 in the first year of his reign, in the first month,9 opened the doors of the house of the Lord and strengthened them.10 4 And he brought in the priests and the Levites and assembled them in the eastern plaza.11 5 And he said to them: Listen to me, Levites! Sanctify yourselves, and sanctify the house of the Lord, the God of your fathers, and cast the impurities12 out of the sanctuary.13 6 For our fathers have been unfaithful and have done what was evil in the eyes of the Lord our God and they have forsaken him, and have turned away their faces 8.  The word “he” is brought forward for emphasis. This is lost in some of the translations, such as RSV and NIV, but retained in KJV and NJPS. The Qumran fragment has ‫והוא‬, “and he” (Trebolle Barrera 1992, 527). The Greek καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἔστη ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ, “And it came about when he began his kingship,” seems to indicate that instead of ‫והוא‬, the translator read ‫ויהי‬, “and it came to be” (Dillard 1987, 232). 9.  This could refer either to the “first month” of his actual reign or to the first month (Nisan, the month of the Passover) of his first regnal year. See the commentary for more details. 10.  ‫ויחזקם‬. Most translations have “repaired them,” but while they had to be “opened” after Ahaz had shut them, nowhere does the text say that they had been damaged. Klein (2012, 415) sees the use of the verb “to strengthen” as a pun on the verbal root of Hezekiah’s own name. 11.  ‫ רחוב‬is an open space, from ‫רחב‬, “wide.” While quite common in the Bible, in Chronicles the word appears only here and in 2 Chron. 32:6, in which Hezekiah assembles the people in “the reḥôb of the city gate.” Since both gatherings seem to have taken place outside the Temple precincts, and the only other significant open space that most Iron Age cities had were the gate plazas, “plaza” seems to be a better translation than the usual “square.” Whether the “eastern plaza” was the same as the plaza by the “eastern gate,” we have no way of knowing. 12.  The word ‫נדה‬, translated here as “impurity,” is used in Chronicles only here. Its basic meaning is “something impure that is cast aside,” and as a verb, “to cast aside with disgust,” as in Isa. 66:5, “your brethren who despise you, who cast you aside (‫)מנדיכם‬.” Etymologically, it would seem to be related to Akkadian nadu, “to reject” (Tawil 2009, 232–33). In Leviticus (12:2; 18:19 etc.) it refers mainly to a woman’s menstrual flow, either because the blood is impure or because the menstruating woman herself is impure. In Lev. 20:21, the act of taking the wife of one’s brother is niddâh. Num. 19 refers to “waters of niddâh” with which a person who came into contact with the dead may be purified, either because the water is cast on the impure person, or because the impure person is niddâh until purified. Ezek. 18:6 lists “approaching a niddâh woman” as a sin which, like adultery, a righteous man would not commit. He also lists “ravaging the impure niddâh” as one of the many sins of “the city of blood” (22:10). But he also envisions the gold and silver used for idolatry “thrown out onto the streets…turned into niddâh” (7:19–20). In Lam. 1:8 sinful Jerusalem has become a disgraced niddâh (also 1:17). And finally, in Ezra 9:11, the land itself is niddâh with the abominations and impurities of the people of the lands. This seems to be what the Chronicler had in mind. 13.  ‫הקדש‬. NRSV and NJPS have “holy place,” but the writer obviously meant to emphasize the word qôdeš with his triple repetition: hitqaddešû weqaddešû…min-haqqôdeš, “sanctify yourselves, and sanctify the house of the Lord…out of the sanctuary.”



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

293

from the dwelling14 of the Lord, and turned their backs.15 7 They also16 shut the doors of the vestibule17 and put out the lamps, and did not offer incense or make burnt offerings in the sanctuary18 to the God of Israel. 8 And the wrath19 of the Lord was upon Judah and Jerusalem, and he made them an object20 of horror,21 of astonishment and of hissing,22 as you see with your own eyes. 9 And here, our fathers have fallen by the sword, and our sons and our daughters and our wives are in captivity23 for this. 10 Now it is in my heart24 to make25 a covenant with the Lord, the God of Israel, and his rage26 will turn from us. 11 My sons,27 14.  ‫ משכן‬is almost always used, even in Chronicles, for the “Tabernacle” that was built by Moses in the desert and sometimes for the Shiloh sanctuary. It is very rarely used of the Jerusalem Temple, and then mostly in poetry, often allegorically, as in Ps. 26:8. Here it is one of four different terms for the Temple used within the space of three verses. The Greek reads σκηνῆς, which conveys the same meaning. 15.  ‫ ערף‬is literally the back of the neck, but in English the idiom “turned their backs” conveys the same meaning. NJPS and others add “on it.” 16.  ‫ גם‬could also mean “even.” See Keel 1986, 823. 17.  ‫אולם‬. Basically meaning “hall,” the third term used for “Temple.” See also 2 Chron. 8:12; 15:8. However the nonstandard term and the Greek τοῦ ναοῦ κυρίου, “the naos of the Lord,” have caused many commentators to assume that the reference is to the outer or front part of the Temple. The Vulgate has ante porticum Domini, and modern translations have such as “vestibule,” “porch” or “portico.” 18.  Keel (1986, 823) understands ‫ בקדש‬as a state of being, “in holiness,” rather than a place. 19.  ‫קצף‬. See 2 Chron. 19:2 and note there. 20.  The noun “object” does not appear in the Hebrew, but clarifies the text in English and is added by nearly all translations. 21.  Ketib ‫ ;לזועה‬qeri ‫לזעוה‬. Both forms, from the root ZW, “to shake,” appear in the Bible. So a zawaâh/zaawâh is something which causes one to tremble with fear. See the same spellings in Jer. 15:4 and 29:18. The latter also includes the next two terms, šammâh and šerēqâh. 22.  ‫שרקה‬, literally “whistling.” Compare 1 Kgs 9:8 “This house will become a heap of ruins; everyone passing by it will be astonished, and will hiss; and they will say: Why has the Lord done such a thing to this land and to this house?” Dillard (1987, 230) renders the three terms “dread, horror and derision.” 23.  The Greek adds here ἐν γῇ οὐκ αὐτῶν, ὃ καὶ νῦν ἐστιν, “in a land not theirs, even now.” 24.  ‫עם־לבי‬, literally “with my heart.” 25.  ‫לכרות‬, literally “to cut,” which is the standard term for covenant-making. 26.  ‫חרון אפו‬. NRSV “his fierce anger.” 27.  ‫בני‬, “my sons,” is a term of endearment of the sage-teacher to his disciples, as in Prov. 1:10 and many more. Keel (1986, 825) remarks that parts of Proverbs were said to have been copied by “the men of Hezekiah king of Judah” (25:1). The word ‫ בני‬is missing in the Greek, which Allen (1974, 2:133) thinks was caused by a change in word order at the end of v. 10. The Old Latin has edificate, “build,” reading ‫ בנו‬instead of ‫בני‬. See Klein 2012, 409.

294

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

now do not be negligent,28 for the Lord has chosen you to stand before him to serve him, and to be his servants29 and to offer incense.30  12 And the Levites arose,31 Mahath son of Amasai and Joel son of Azariah32 of the sons of the Kohathites; and of the sons of Merari, Kish son of Abdi33 and Azariah son of Jehallelel; and of the Gershonites,34 Joah35 son of Zimmah,36 and Eden37 son of Joah. 13 And of the sons of Elizaphan, Shimri and Jeiel;38 and of the sons of Asaph, Zechariah and Mattaniah. 14 And of the sons of Heman, Jehiel39 and Shimei; and of the sons of Jeduthun, Shemaiah and Uzziel. 15 And they gathered their brethren and sanctified themselves, and went in as the

28.  ‫תשלו‬, niphal of ŠLH, “to be tranquil,” “to do nothing.” Myers (1965, 2:166) translates “do not be remiss”; NJPS reads “do not be slack.” Keel (1986, 825) offers an alternative translation of “do not be in error” or “at fault,” based on the Aramaic ‫וכל־שלו‬ in Dan. 6:5. NJPS, however, translates “negligence” there as well. 29.  ‫לשרתו ולהיות לו משרתים‬. NRSV: “to minister to him, and to be his ministers”; NJSP: “to serve Him, to be His ministers”; Myers (1965, 2:166): “to serve him as his ministers”; Klein (2012, 409): “to minister to him and to be ministers for him.” 30.  The Hebrew literally means “to be his servants and incensers.” Petersen (1977, 80–81) considers the burning or not burning of incense to be a main theme of this speech. 31.  ‫ויקמו‬, most translations have “Then the Levites arose” to indicate the progression of events. 32.  Mahath son of Amasai and Joel son of Azariah appear in the lineage of Samuel, also counted there as a descendent of Kohath, in 1 Chron. 6:20–21 [Eng. 35–36]. Some Greek versions have “Zechariah” instead of “Azariah”; according to Allen (1974, 2:6), “the two names are frequently confused in the LXX.” 33.  “Ethan son of Kishi, son of Abdi” appears on the list of the sons of Merari in 1 Chron. 6:29 [Eng. 44]. 34.  The Greek has καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν υἱῶν Γεδσωνι, “and of the sons of the Gershonites,” following the regular pattern. 35.  Omitted in some Greek versions. See Allen 1974, 2:49. 36.  In 1 Chron. 6:5 [Eng. 20] Zimmah is a descendant of Gershom. 37.  In 1 Chron. 6:6 [Eng. 21] Iddo is the son of Joah, a descendant of Gershom. ‫עדן‬, “Eden,” and ‫עדו‬, “Iddo,” are graphically very similar. 38.  Ketib ‫יעואל‬, “Jeuel,” qeri ‫יעיאל‬, “Jeiel.” The Greek Ιιηλ favors the qeri, as does the Vulgate Iahihel, although they also seem to be influenced by the Jehiel listed in the next verse. KJV has “Jeiel,” but RSV, NRSV, Klein (2012, 409) and some other modern translations prefer the ketib “Jeuel.” Identical ketib–qeri variations of the same name (for different individuals) are to be found in 1 Chron. 9:35; 11:44 and 2 Chron. 26:11, in all of which these translations follow the qeri. 39.  Ketib ‫יחואל‬, “Jehuel,” qeri ‫יחעיאל‬, “Jehiel.” The Greek Ιιηλ favors the qeri, as does the Vulgate Iahihel, although they also seem to be influenced by the Jeiel listed in the previous verse. KJV has “Jehiel,” but RSV, NRSV, Klein (2012, 409) and some other modern translations prefer the ketib “Jehuel.”



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

295

king had commanded by the words of the Lord,40 to purify41 the house of the Lord. 16 And the priests went to the inside of the house of the Lord to purify it, and they brought out all the impurity42 that they found in the Temple43 of the Lord to the court of the house of the Lord; and the Levites received,44 to take out to the Kidron Valley.45 17 And they began to sanctify on the first46 of the first month,47 and on the eighth of the month they came to the vestibule48 of the Lord; and they sanctified the house of the Lord for eight days, and on the sixteenth49 of the first month they finished. 

40.  NJPS renders the syntax differently: “And, gathering their brothers, they sanctified themselves and came, by a command of the king concerning the Lord’s ordinances, to purify the house of the Lord.” 41.  The particle ‫את‬, which would usually be used after ‫לטהר‬, “to purify,” to indicate that “the house of the Lord” is the direct object, is missing here. 42.  ‫ הטמאה‬here is an abstract noun, referring to “impurity,” the state of being impure, related to the much more common adjective ‫טמא‬, “impure.” In the absolute state it appears only in Num. 5:19; Judg. 13:7 and 14; Zech. 13:2 (“the spirit of impurity”) and here. Within the passage, it is analogous to the niddâh of v. 5. Most translations render “unclean things” and the like. A legend cited in the y. Pes. 9:1 and y. Sanh. 1:2 reports that one of the objects found was the skull of Aruna the Jebusite (see Keel 1986, 828). 43.  The word used here for the Temple, ‫היכל‬, instead of the usual ‫בית‬, “house,” is used only eight times in Chronicles: 2 Chron. 3:17; 4:7, 8, 22; 26:16; 27:2; 29:16 and finally in 36:7 (and see the notes on each of them). Specifically, the term seems to be used to indicate the inner space of the Temple structure, while the more general “house of the Lord” refers to the entire complex. 44.  The text does not supply an object for “received,” since the “impure” that was taken out is an abstraction, not a physical object. Most translations, having added “things” to “impure,” now add “them” as the object: the Levites received the “impure things” and took “them” out to the Kidron Valley. 45.  The Kidron Valley, which served as the eastern limit of the city, is where Asa destroyed the “horror” made by Maacah in 2 Chron. 15:16 = 1 Kgs 15:13, and would be mentioned again in a similar context in 2 Chron. 30:14 and in the description of Josiah’s reforms in 2 Kgs 23:4, 6 and 12. See the commentary on 2 Chron. 15:16. 46.  Most translations add “day” after “first,” “eighth” and “sixteenth.” In Hebrew “the first of the first month” and so on is a common idiom. 47.  The Greek has τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ πρώτῃ νουμηνίᾳ τοῦ μηνὸς τοῦ πρώτου, “the first day of the new moon of the first month.” If this is part of the original translation (contra Allen 1974, 1:172), it could be intended to emphasize the importance of the new moon to the calculation of the calendar, especially for the first month, in which the Passover is (usually) celebrated (compare Exod. 12:1). 48.  ‫ אולם‬as in v. 7, and see the note there. 49.  Some versions of the LXX have “thirteenth,” for which see Klein 2012, 410.

296

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

18 And they came50 inside51 to Hezekiah the king and said: We have purified all of the house of the Lord, the altar of burnt offerings and all its utensils, and the table for the rows52 and all its utensils. 19 All the utensils that King Ahaz had abandoned53 during his reign in his unfaithfulness, we have made ready and sanctified; and they are before54 the altar of the Lord.  20 And Hezekiah the king rose early,55 and assembled the officials of the city,56 and went up57 to the house of the Lord.  21 And they brought seven bulls,58 seven rams, seven lambs, and seven male goats59 for a sin offering for the

50.  ‫ויבואו‬. Most translations have “Then they came” to indicate the progression of events. 51.  Presumably referring to the king’s palace, not the Temple, but the use of “inside” without any further definition is strange. NEB and NJPS render, “Then they went into the palace of King Hezekiah.” Japhet (1993, 924) suggests that the word ‫ פנימה‬may be a dittography from ‫ לפנימה‬in v. 16. 52.  The rows of bread that were set out on each Sabbath. See 1 Chron. 9:32. Some translations add “of bread” here as well. 53.  ‫הזניח‬. ZNḤ has a basic meaning of “to abandon,” with a negative connotation of causing something to become ruined. See 1 Chron. 28:9; 2 Chron. 29:19. NRSV translates “repudiated”; NJPS has “befouled”; Dillard (1987, 231), “removed”; Klein (2012, 410), “discarded.” 54.  ‫לפני‬. NRSV, NJPS and others have “in front of.” 55.  ‫וישכם‬. Keel (1986, 830) points out that this verb is often used of the Patriarchs and other leaders such as Moses, Joshua and Samuel, to indicate their arising early to perform God’s commandments. As examples he cites Gen. 19:27; 21:14; 28:18; Exod. 24:4; 44:4; Josh. 3:1; 1 Sam. 15:12 and more. In Chronicles, this verb is used only here and in 2  hron. 20:20, in which Jehoshaphat and his men arise early to go out to the wilderness of Tekoa, at the command of Jahaziel son of Zechariah, who was imbued with the spirit of the Lord. 2 Chron. 36:15 uses the unique phrase ‫ השכם ושלוח‬of the Lord’s messengers, on which see there. 56.  The designation ‫ שרי העיר‬as a group is unique, and the text does not clarify exactly who they were. Since this group seems to be the same as that called ‫הקהל‬, “the assembly,” in v. 23, Japhet (1993, 925) thinks that the term “may designate the dignitaries of Jerusalem rather than a limited body of officials. A rendering like ‘the nobles of the city’ would probably be preferable.” 57.  ‫ויעל‬, “and he went up” is in the singular, as if Hezekiah alone went up, but the following verse shows that it was Hezekiah and the officials. The expected preposition ‫אל‬, “to,” is missing, but added in translation. 58.  In the Hebrew, the numbers are written before the animals for emphasis (“bulls seven, rams seven, lambs seven, and male goats seven”). However, while in Hebrew this is done often, it looks very unnatural in English. 59.  The term used here for “male goats,” ‫צפירי עזים‬, is actually Aramaic, the Hebrew equivalent being ‫שעירי עזים‬, as in the following verse. The form ‫ צפיר‬is used only in the post-exilic Daniel (8: 5, 8, 21, 35) and Ezra (6:17; 8:35) and in the feminine in Isa. 28:5.



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

297

monarchy60 and for the sanctuary and for Judah; and he told61 the sons of Aaron the priests to offer them62 on the altar of the Lord. 22 And they63 slaughtered the cattle,64 and the priests received the blood and dashed it against the altar; and they slaughtered the rams and they dashed the blood against the altar; and they slaughtered the lambs and they dashed the blood against the altar. 23 And they presented the he-goats of the sin offering65 before the king and the assembly; and they laid their hands on them.  24 And the priests slaughtered them and made a sin offering66 with their blood at the altar, to atone for all Israel, for the king had said that the burnt offering and the sin offering were67 for all Israel. 25 And he stationed the Levites at68 the house of the Lord with cymbals, harps, and lyres,69 according to the commandment of David70 and Gad

60.  The usual meaning of ‫ ממלכה‬would be “kingdom” (so NRSV; NJPS), but “Judah” is listed after the sanctuary, creating a redundancy. The Greek solves this by rendering περὶ τῆς βασιλείας καὶ περὶ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ περὶ Ισραηλ, “for the kingdom and for the sanctuary and for Israel,” presumably referring to the northern kingdom. This, however, is not supported by other versions. An alternative solution is to understand ‫ ממלכה‬to mean “the monarchy” or “the royal household” (see Milgrom 1985, 159; Keel 1986, 832, interprets as “the royal family, the house of David”; Klein 2012, 410, translates “the royal palace”). 61.  ‫ויאמר‬. NRSV has “He commanded” and NJPS has “He ordered,” both of which fit the context, but the Hebrew verb does not have that meaning. 62.  ‫להעלות‬, literally “to cause them to go up” – a common term for burnt offerings. 63.  Petersen (1977, 82) argued that “they” referred originally to the assembly, who slaughtered the cattle and gave the blood and then the animal to the priests, following a literal interpretation of the rules of the ôlâh in Lev. 1:4. In his view, the Chronicler added the reference to “the sons of Aaron, the priests” to reflect the sacrificial cult in his day. 64.  NRSV has “bulls” as in the previous verse, but the Hebrew uses ‫ פרים‬there and the more general ‫ בקר‬here. 65.  ‫ שעירי החטאת‬is a construct, indicating that the goats were designated for this purpose. Note the use of the standard ‫ שעיר‬instead of ‫צפיר‬. 66.  ‫ויחטאו‬. There are different ideas in the scholarship about just what a ‫חטאת‬, usually translated “sin offering,” really means, leading to translations such as “purgation rite” (NJPS) or “purification sacrifice.” For more on this issue see Milgrom 1991, 253–92; Gilders 2013. 67.  In the Hebrew the verb “were” is missing, creating an unwieldy sentence: “for all Israel said the king, the burnt offering and the sin offering.” Rudolph (1955, 296) read the sentence as being said by the king: “for ‘for all Israel’, said the king, ‘the burnt offering and the sin offering’.” 68.  The Hebrew lacks the preposition, so “in” or “by” would also be possible. However, since the Levitical musicians, who were not priests, could not enter the Temple building itself, “at” seems to be indicated. 69.  ‫במצלתים בנבלים ובכנרות‬. The same three instruments appear in 1 Chron. 15:16, but there the “cymbals” are listed third. For the possible identification of these instruments see there. 70.  The Greek adds τοῦ βασιλέως, “the king.”

298

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

the king’s seer71 and Nathan the prophet, for by the hand of the Lord was the commandment by hand of his prophets.72  26 And the Levites stood with the instruments of David,73 and the priests with the trumpets.  27 And Hezekiah instructed74 that the burnt offering be elevated75 to the altar; and when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord76 and the trumpets began,77 accompanied by78 the instruments of David, king of Israel.  28 And the whole assembly prostrated themselves, and the song was sung, and the trumpeters trumpeted; all until the burnt offering was finished. 29 And when the offering was finished, the king and all who were present with him knelt and prostrated themselves.  30  And Hezekiah the king and the officials told

71.  Gad is called ‫החזה‬, “the seer” or “visionary,” in 1 Chron. 21:9; 29:29 and here. 1 Sam. 22:5 and 2 Sam. 24:11 call him ‫הנביא‬, “the prophet,” a title never used of him in the MT of Chronicles, and while some Greek versions of our verse do call him τοῦ ὁρῶντος τῷ βασιλεῖ, “the seer of the king,” others have τοῦ προφήτου, “the prophet.” 72.  A very cumbersome phrase, translated in different ways: “for the commandment was from the Lord through his prophets” (NRSV); “for the ordinance was by the Lord through His prophets” (NJPS); “for such was the command of Yahweh through his prophets” (Myers 1965, 2:167); “for the commandment was from the hand of Yahweh by the hand of his prophets” (Klein 2012, 410). As noted by Japhet (1993, 926–27), the Chronicler here combined two common idioms that denote divine inspiration of prophetic speech: “by the hand of the Lord” and “by the hand of his prophets.” Rudolph (1955, 296) cites another suggestion: that instead of ‫ביד־יהוה‬, “by the hand of Yahweh,” the original was ‫בדויד היה‬, “it was by David.” Klein (2012, 411) objects, since transferring the source of the commandment from Yahweh to David would be “a serious diminishment of the meaning of this verse.” 73.  For which see 1 Chron. 23:5; 2 Chron. 7:6; Amos 6:5. Buttenwieser (1926) argued that ‫כלי־שיר‬, usually rendered “instruments of song,” can also refer to the songs themselves, and that here ‫ כלי דוד‬should be understood as the songs (psalms) of David. 74.  ‫ויאמר‬, literally “and he said.” NJPS has “Hezekiah gave the order”; Klein (2012, 410), “commanded.” 75.  The verb LH means “to go up,” and in the hiphil, “to raise.” The noun ôlâh, is something that is “raised up,” and as such the sacrifice that is called ôlâh is commonly translated “burnt offering,” since the offering “goes up in flames.” Here, ‫להעלות העלה‬ could mean “to offer the burnt offering,” but the form ‫להמזבח‬, “to the altar,” rather than ‫על‬ ‫המזבח‬, “on the altar,” indicates that the offering was first raised up to the altar. 76.  NRSV has “song to the Lord,” but ‫ שיר־יהוה‬is a construct. Klein (2012, 410) writes “song of Yahweh.” The Levitical psalms were considered divinely inspired. Compare Ps. 137:4. 77.  NRSV renders, “the song to the Lord began also, and the trumpets,” but the verb ‫החל‬, “began,” is obviously intended for both the song and the trumpets, and the word “also,” while implied by the context, is not in the Hebrew. 78.  ‫ועל־ידי‬. NJPS: “together with.”



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

299

the Levites to praise the Lord79 with the words80 of David and of Asaph the visionary; and they praised ecstatically,81 and they bowed down and prostrated themselves.  31 And in response82 Hezekiah said: You have now dedicated yourselves83 to the Lord, approach and bring sacrifices and thanks84 to the house of the Lord; and the assembly brought sacrifices and thanks, and all who were generous of heart – burnt offerings. 32 And the number of the burnt offerings that the assembly brought was: cattle seventy, rams one hundred, lambs two hundred; all these were for a burnt offering to the Lord. 33 And the sacred offerings:85 cattle six hundred, and sheep86 three thousand.87 34 But the priests were few and could not skin all the burnt offerings, so their brothers the Levites helped them until the work was finished and until the priests88 had sanctified themselves,

79.  NRSV has “to sing praises to the lord,” but the Hebrew does not mention ‫שיר‬, “sing.” 80.  ‫דברי‬, “words,” not “songs.” This, as opposed to v. 27, seems to have been a recitation. 81.  ‫ויהללו עד־לשמחה‬, “they praised to joy,” praised until achieving a state of joy. NRSV’s “they sang praises with gladness,” besides the unwarranted reference to singing, does not seem to capture the intensity of the moment. JPS, Japhet (1993, 928) and Klein (2012, 411) use “rapturously.” 82.  ‫ויען‬, literally “and he answered” (thus Klein 2012, 411), but often used to indicate that the following speech is said in response to an action. Keel (1986, 836) considers it to hint at a sort of ritual chanting in a loud voice, such as in Deut. 26:5. NRSV and NJPS simply ignore the verb and translate “Then Hezekiah said.” Klein, following BHS, adds “to the people,” but this is unwarranted. 83.  ‫מלאתם ידכם‬, literally “filled your hands.” In the Priestly literature this refers to the consecration of priests (as in Exod. 28:40; 29:9 etc.). The ram used in the consecration ceremony is ‫( איל מלאים‬29:22; see also Lev. 8 and 2 Chron. 13:9). Here it is used for the whole assembly, who, while dedicating themselves to the Lord, are not envisioned as being consecrated as priests. Klein (2012, 411), following BHS, translates it as an imperative: “Now consecrate yourselves.” 84.  ‫זבחים ותודות‬. NRSV: “sacrifices and thank offerings.” NJPS: “sacrifices of well-being and thanksgiving.” Klein (2012, 411): “communion sacrifices and thank offerings.” 85.  ‫והקדשים‬, “and the sacred,” with the word “offerings” implied. Dillard (1987, 231) makes it even longer: “The animals consecrated as sacrifices.” However this number only refers to the goodwill and thanksgiving offerings, since the burnt offerings were enumerated in the previous verse. 86.  ‫ צאן‬actually means sheep and goats (see Dillard 1987, 231). NJPS translates ‫בקר‬ as “large cattle” and ‫ צאן‬as “small cattle.” 87.  The LXXB adds “five hundred,” which Allen (1974, 2:102) believes “is a misplaced gloss assimilating to the account of Josiah’s Passover” in 2 Chron. 35:9. 88.  NRSV “other priests.” This is implied but not written.

300

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

for the Levites were more upright of heart89 in sanctifying themselves than the priests. 35 And there were also many offerings of the fat of the well-being offerings, and the libations of the burnt offerings; and the service of the house of the Lord was established.90  36 And Hezekiah and all the people rejoiced because of what God had done91 for the people; for the thing had come about suddenly.

Commentary The first two verses of ch. 29, based closely on 2 Kgs 18:2–3, introduce Hezekiah’s reign, with a slight change in word-order as noted above. Even the very complimentary “he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as David his father had done” is copied verbatim, although it does set the tone. The Chronicler’s “real” story of Hezekiah begins with v. 3: “He, in the first year of his reign, in the first month…” The main theme of this chapter is the story of Hezekiah’s reopening, cleansing and purifying, and then re-consecrating the Temple, along with the priests, the Levites and the people. Hezekiah’s activities in the Temple are said to have begun “in the first year of his reign, in the first month.” While the difficulties of establishing the absolute chronology of Hezekiah’s reign have been dealt with above, they seem not to have worried the Chronicler at all. Cogan (1985, 199–203), compares the Chronicler’s claim that Hezekiah purified the Temple “in the first year of his reign” to the šanat rēš šarrūti, “first year of reign,” in Assyrian royal inscriptions, specifically those of Esarhaddon dealing with his actions in Babylon, to show that this is “a pseudo-date… simply the Chronicler’s way of saying: The pious Hezekiah concerned himself with Temple affairs from his very first day on the throne.” However, we should remember that within the Chronicler’s narrative this was an urgent necessity because of Ahaz’s defilement and closing of the Temple, all of which is not narrated in Kings. That said, the reference to “the first month” of his first year within the narrative is yet another issue. The two possibilities are either that this meant the first month after the death of his predecessor, that is, his first 89.  ‫ישרי לבב‬, literally “straight of heart.” “Upright of heart” follows Klein (2012, 411). NRSV, NJPS and others render “conscientious.” 90.  ‫ותכון‬. NRSV “restored”; NJPS “properly accomplished.” Myers (1965, 2:168) and Dillard (1987, 231) “reinstituted.” The same verb is used for the “establishment” of Solomon’s Temple in 2 Chron. 8:16 and for Josiah’s Passover in 2 Chron. 35:10, 16, and see the commentary there. 91.  ‫הכין‬, literally “established” or “prepared.” NJPS “enabled the people to accomplish” seems exaggerated. Myers (1965, 2:168) “provided” is more reasonable.



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

301

month as king, or the first month of his first regnal year, which presumably would be the first month of Nisan after his ascension to the throne. Most commentators prefer the second option, for both literary and chronological reasons. Cogan (1985, 203 n. 21), true to his understanding of the note on the date of Hezekiah’s acts as a literary topos, adds, “Note the fitness of the choice of the ‘first month’, Nisan; it was the month of the Passover festival, the season of cultic renewal.” Conversely, Keel (1986, 821) points out that according to v. 17 of our chapter, the priests began to sanctify the Temple on the first of the first month, which he understands to mean that the events recounted in the preceding verses must have occurred before that date, in the time from Hezekiah’s first actual month on the throne to the first of Nisan. The next stage of Hezekiah’s program, after physically opening and “strengthening” the Temple doors, was to assemble the priests and the Levites, who made up the core of the Temple personnel, in the “eastern plaza,” which seems to have been outside the Temple precinct. His speech to them (vv. 5–11) can be considered a classic case of Chronistic rhetoric, including many elements that are typical of the Chronicler’s writing. He uses the term “Levites” flexibly, referring both to the entire tribe of Levi, which included the priests, and specifically to the Levitical class, which did not. In v. 5, the word QDŠ, “sanctified,” “sacred,” “holy,” is repeated three times in different forms: hitqaddešû weqaddešû…min-haqqôdeš, “sanctify yourselves, and sanctify the house of the Lord…out of the sanctuary.” He explains the dire situation in which the people were at that moment, by pointing out their “fathers’” sins, using such terms as maal, “unfaithful” and “turning away” from the Lord’s miškān, the Tabernacle. He includes himself with the people, by using abôtênû, “our fathers,” in the first person plural, without specifically mentioning that his own father Ahaz had led the sinning of the previous generation. His use of such strong terms as niddâh (which we translated as “impurities,” but see the note on v. 5), qeṣep (“wrath”), “horror, astonishment and hissing,” the reference to “falling by the sword” and “being in captivity” (referring to the events of the Aramean, Edomite and Israelite invasions of the previous chapter), are all designed to drive home the urgency of the moment. As Japhet (1993, 916–17) has pointed out, the speech is framed by the invocations “Listen to me, Levites!” in v. 5 and “My sons” in v. 11, with a description of the people’s dire state of affairs in between. As Japhet also pointed out, Hezekiah’s aspiration “to make a covenant” is strange, since in the following chapters there is no actual covenantmaking ceremony. She sees it “as an expression of absolute loyalty, of making a complete commitment…represented well by the NEB ‘pledge

302

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

ourselves to the Lord’” (1993, 919). In the final plea to “my sons,” Hezekiah reminds the Levites that it is their duty to serve God. The description of the Levites who “arose” to action is both schematic and unique. Verse 12 lists two representatives of each of the three wellknown clans of the tribe of Levi – Kohath, Merari and Gershon, listed by their proper names and their patronyms. Verses 13–14 then list two each for the clans of Elizaphan, Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun by proper names only, making a total of seven Levitical clans. Many of the names seem to be taken from the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 6 and from other sources, but there are some unique elements as well. In 1 Chronicles 6, each of the clans is represented by only one name, and Elizaphan is not listed at all (the only other place in which Elizaphan appears as an independent group is in 1 Chron. 15:8, there as the fourth of six, followed by Hebron and Uzziel). The first three, Kohath, Merari and Gershon, are the most commonly listed clans of Levites; in Exod. 6:16–19 Gershon, Kohath and Merari are the three sons of Levi, each of whom has several sons of his own. In Numbers 4 it is first Kohath, including the priests, then Gershon and the Merari, each twice in that order. In the list of Levitical cities in Joshua 21, repeated in 1 Chron. 6:39–66 [Eng. 54–79], it is first “the sons of Aaron of the Kohathites,” then “the rest of the Kohathites,” then the Gershonites and then the Merarites. Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun (in the form of “Ethan”) make their first appearance as Levitical singers “who were appointed by David to sing in the house of the Lord, from when the Ark came to rest” (1 Chron. 6:16 [Eng. 31]), with Heman being descended from Kohath, Asaph from Gershom and Ethan from Merari.92 Johnstone (1997, 2:192–93) points out that in Lev. 10:4–5, Elizaphan, who was an uncle of Aaron the priest, helped remove the corpses of Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu from the Tabernacle, and that according to 1 Chron. 16:1–7, Asaph was assigned to praise the Lord in front of the Ark in Jerusalem, while in vv. 39–42, Heman and Jeduthun were assigned to the altar at Gibeon. In Johnstone’s mind, this distinction between Levites who worked in the inner courts and those who remained outside continued through the days of the Chronicler. Whatever the source for the list in 2 Chronicles 29, it clearly envisions the Levitical families of Hezekiah’s day as retaining the same functions as they had been given by David. After purifying themselves, the clan leaders and “their brethren” went on to begin purifying the Temple, with only the priests actually going inside the building, bringing all of the “impurity” out to the Levites, who dumped it in the Kidron Valley, which lies to the east of the city 92.  In the following verses, the genealogies of these clans become more complex, for which see the commentary there.



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

303

and of the Temple Mount. Beginning on the first of the first month with the courtyard, they only began to purify the ûlâm, the “vestibule” or entrance-structure, on the eighth, completing the “sanctification” on the sixteenth. The specific reason for the purification taking sixteen days is not clear. Klein (2012, 419) points out the fact that sixteen years of “filth” of Ahaz’s reign is wiped out in sixteen days. Japhet (1993, 923) sees the tradition of eight days of purification (of each part of the Temple complex) as leading from Solomon (2 Chron. 7:9) to the Hasmoneans (2 Macc. 2:12), although there the eight days refer to the festival of Tabernacles, in “the seventh month.” In any case, the purification of the Temple was only completed on the sixteenth of the month, which serves as an explanation (perhaps one of several) for the postponement of the Passover. In vv. 18–19 the Levites come, presumably to the palace, to report to Hezekiah on the completion of their task. They emphasize “the altar of burnt offerings and all its utensils” besides “all of the house of the Lord,” perhaps because the altar was actually outside of the Temple, in the courtyard. In 2 Chron. 7:1–3, Solomon also dedicated the altar separately, with heavenly fire. It is not clear why the table of the showbread is emphasized as well, although Klein (2012, 420) points out that in 2 Chron. 4:8 and 19, Solomon is said to have made ten such tables. In any case, all of the utensils had been placed before the altar, meaning in the courtyard, as if ready for the king’s inspection, since he could not enter the Temple itself. The Levites also emphasize that the person who had desecrated the utensils in the first place had been King Ahaz, perhaps reflecting a certain tension between them and the king, who in v. 6 had blamed “our fathers” collectively. They were now reminding him that the blame lay specifically with his father. Verses 20–30 narrate the actual ceremony, a ceremony unlike any other recounted in the Bible. To quote McEntire (1993, 28), this is “a stunning spectacle… Suddenly, the pages of the Bible are filled with slaughtered beasts, blood flying onto the altar, skins ripped off, and fat burning.” The participants were, besides the king himself, the “officials,” or, as suggested by Japhet (1993, 925), the “nobles” of the city. Klein (2012, 420–21) compares this with David and Solomon’s assembling all of the leaders of the tribes (1 Chron. 28:1; 2 Chron. 1:2), with Hezekiah “acting like the kings of the united monarchy.” However this is not quite the case, since here the śarîm are only those of the city, not even of all Judah. Our chapter does not detail the many civil, military and religious functions of these officials. Klein is, however, correct in his observation that “from here on out the king does not act alone.”

304

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Also unique is the list and number of animals sacrificed: seven bulls, seven rams, seven lambs and seven male goats, with, as we learn in the following verses, the first three being meant for the ôlâh, the “burnt offering,” and the goats being intended for the ḥaṭṭât, the “sin offering.” The choice of animals seems to be dependent on the narrative of the dedication of the Tabernacle in Numbers 7, in which the leader of each of the twelve tribes brought, besides the various gold, silver and spices, one bull, one ram and one year-old lamb for the ôlâh, and one male goat for ḥaṭṭât, plus another two bulls, five rams, five he-goats and five lambs for the šelâmîm, the “well-being” or “peace” offering. So the animals are the same, but the numbers are different, as is the time-frame: twelve days there as opposed to a single day here. The same animals also appear in Ezekiel’s vision of the future Temple (43:18–27) and in the dedication of the Second Temple (Ezra 6:17 and also 8:35), again with different numbers of animals and different lengths of ceremonies. First to be sacrificed were the goats for ḥaṭṭât, offered “for the monarchy and for the sanctuary and for Judah.” As noted, the term mamlâkâh, juxtaposed as it is with “Judah,” has been understood in different ways, most reasonably as referring to either the king himself or the royal household, meaning that the ḥaṭṭât-goats were offered for everexpanding groups of people: the king (and his household), the Temple (meaning the priests and the Levites) and the common people. In v. 23, the ḥaṭṭât-goats were presented to “the king and the assembly; and they laid their hands on them.” In v. 24, the king ordered that the ḥaṭṭât and the ôlâh were meant “to atone for all Israel.” The closest parallel to this section is the ceremony for the Day of Atonement described in Leviticus 16. There, Aaron the high priest is instructed to take two he-goats for ḥaṭṭât and a ram for ôlâh from the people, but to offer up his own bull for ḥaṭṭât, atoning (kipper) for himself and his household. One of the goats is then offered as a ḥaṭṭât for the people, and the other sent off to the desert (the so-called scapegoat), after the priest “lay both his hands on its head.” Then, after burning incense, he is to sprinkle blood on the altar seven times, purging (kipper) the sanctuary of the sins of “himself, his household and the whole congregation of Israel” (Lev. 16:17). In his study of the Chronicler’s adaptation of the Priestly sacrificial rites, Rendtorff (1996, 263–66) makes a number of points. The first is that the Chronicler’s picture of the sacrificial rites is obviously based on the Priestly sources, or some version of them. The second point is that there are quite a few details in which the Chronicler diverges from the Priestly texts as we know them. For example, the emphasis in our v. 22 on the



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

305

priests’ receiving the blood from the Levites does not appear anywhere in the earlier texts. The Chronicler’s favorite term for “to sacrifice,” heelâh, is never used in the Priestly texts, while the term hiqrîb, which is the standard there, is used only twice in all of Chronicles (1 Chron. 16:1 and 2 Chron. 35:12). Even the ḥaṭṭât, which is central in our chapter, is totally absent from the rest of Chronicles. His conclusion is that the Chronicler, while familiar with the Priestly texts, adapted them to fit his own experience of the Temple in his time and his own literary interests. In v. 24, the king orders that the offerings, both the ôlâh and the ḥaṭṭât, be intended “to atone for all Israel” – twice in the same verse for emphasis! This seems to be a change when compared to v. 21’s “for the monarchy and for the sanctuary and for Judah.” Rudolph (1955, 294) was of the opinion that “all Israel” simply meant “the entire people of Judah,” citing the many other cases of the Chronicler using “Israel” to mean “Judah.” However Williamson (1982, 357–58) believes that in this case “all Israel” means just that – that the king “unexpectedly” “corrected” what the priests and officials had assumed, and informed them that the sacrifices were meant for “the full extent of the population, without regard for the former political division.” Hezekiah’s concern for the remaining northern Israelites is developed further in the next chapter. This is taken even further by Keel (1986, 833), who believed that Hezekiah intended to atone for all the people of Israel, “both for those who resided in the borders of the kingdom of Israel, and for those who had been exiled from it.” A slightly different approach was suggested by Milgrom (1985). In his opinion, the seven bulls, rams, lambs and goats were originally intended to be offered for each of the three “beneficiaries”: the royal house, the sanctuary and the people of Judah, making a total of 84 animals (7×4×3). But 84 is also 12×7, 12 being the number of tribes, and 7 “the number of perfection…especially in sacrificial rituals.” This, in Milgrom’s opinion, “unveils the motive behind Hezekiah’s change of mind… The rededicated temple would henceforth serve ‘all Israel’ and embrace the inhabitants of Northern Israel as well.” This ambition of Hezekiah would be made even clearer when he would invite the northerners to his Passover celebration. Verses 25–26 recount the stationing of the musicians. As elsewhere in Chronicles, David is considered to have been the originator of the Levitical musicians, including the clans of Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun enumerated in vv. 13–14 above. The instruments mentioned are also known from previous contexts: in 1 Chron. 15:16 these are the instruments of the Levites, in v. 24 there the priests blow trumpets, and in v. 28, “all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the Lord with shouting,

306

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

with the sound of the horn, trumpets, and cymbals, and made loud music on harps and lyres” – expanded from 2 Sam. 6:15, which only mentions “shouting and the sound of the horn.” The centrality of David, who is mentioned four times in these five verses, is clear (see for example Jarick 2007, 165), but while the Chronicler’s association of the Levites with David is well-known, more surprising is the sudden mention of “Gad the king’s seer and Nathan the prophet,” neither of whom are associated specifically with the Levites or the Temple musicians in any other text – although 1 Chron. 29:29 does cite them as the source for the Chronicler’s knowledge of David’s reign in general. Williamson (1982, 358) considers this to be a note by the Chronicler, who “was anxious to stress that these arrangements followed a word of commandment…from the Lord, and for his readers this would be accepted as most authoritative if it was understood as having been mediated through his prophets.” Japhet (1993, 927) takes this even further, by seeing in it a sign of the Chronicler’s theology, according to which prophets after Moses also delivered “commandments” to the people, and “even within the sacred realm of cult there was room for change, indicated by the Lord’s continuing inspiration through the prophets.” Even more surprising than the roles attributed to Gad and Nathan, is Hezekiah’s instructions to the Levites in v. 30, “to praise the Lord with the words of David and of Asaph the visionary.” This harks back to 1 Chron. 25:1, in which Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun are said to have “prophesized” (nibbeîm) with their musical instruments (and see the commentary there). However, here it is Asaph who is picked out specifically as the “prophetic” author, together with David, of “words of praise” for the Lord, which Klein (2012, 423) presumes to refer to the Psalms of Asaph (Pss 50; 73–83), although one should be cautious in the identification of specific canonical chapters with those known to the Chronicler. Petersen (1977, 84) reads even more into the naming of Asaph as a “seer.” To him, this is “a move which creates a direct link between prophetic action and the activity of the Levites,” thus making all of vv. 25–30 into a description of prophetic activity. Verses 27–30 describe the carrying out of the ôlâh, the “burnt offering,” with no mention of the ḥaṭṭât, the “sin offering.” Petersen (1977, 83), following Welch, suggested that these verses originally represented a separate event from the one described previously, but then following Rudolph ultimately argues that as is, the Chronicler intended to present the ḥaṭṭât and the ôlâh as complementing each other. Another element of worship unique to this passage is prostration (mištaḥawîm; wayyištaḥawû, which some translations such as NRSV translate as “worship,” following the Latin adore; Gruber 1980, 120,



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

307

considers this to be a “secondary” meaning). And while this gesture of worship appears dozens of times in the Bible, it is rare in Chronicles. The gesture is mentioned in the psalm in 1 Chron. 16:29 (which parallels Ps. 96:9). In 1 Chron. 29:20 the people prostrate themselves “to the Lord and to the king.” But the only case in which multiple prostration in found in a comparable context is in 2 Chron. 7:3, when the people bow down and prostrate themselves when they see the divine flame descend on Solomon’s Temple, and the gesture is repeated within that chapter. Here, as the Levites began singing “the whole assembly prostrated themselves,” then, “when the offering was finished, the king and all who were present with him knelt and prostrated themselves,” and finally the Levites, at the end of their recital, also “bowed down and prostrated themselves.” After the formal ceremonies were finished, Hezekiah turns directly to the people, whom he describes as having “dedicated” themselves to the Lord (using, as had David in 1 Chron. 29:5, the idiom “filled your hands,” which usually describes the consecration of priests),93 and invites them to a mass-celebration. The sacrifices that they are told to bring, zebaḥîm and tôdôt, sometimes translated “goodwill and thanksgiving,” are sacrifices that are eaten by the person offering the sacrifice, similar to the Passover. Some people, those “who were generous of heart,” also brought ôlôt, which were burnt upon the altar. No quotas were set, but the number of animals was so large that the priests were not able to skin all of them and had to call in Levites to help them, “until the work was finished and until the priests had sanctified themselves, for the Levites were more upright of heart in sanctifying themselves than the priests.” The idea that there were priests, who just happened to be “not-sanctified,” seems strange, especially in light of the preceding events. I would suggest that the popular sacrifice took place only some time after the dedication ceremony, and in the meanwhile the priests had gone back to their regular duty-rosters. This would also have provided enough time for the people to arrive with such large numbers of animals for the sacrifice. The priests, who had not foreseen the huge success of Hezekiah’s call, did not call in those who were “off-duty,” and in the meanwhile were aided by the available Levites. Another point to be learned from this story is that, in the eyes of the Chronicler, the skinning of the sacrifices, and presumably their slaughter as well, was a prerogative of the priests. This is opposed to the rules of Leviticus 1, according to which it was the person who offered the sacrifice 93.  Johnstone (1997, 2:197) goes as far as to translate the term as “ordination”: “it is not just the priest, to whom ordination properly belongs…; it is the whole community who, by their united purpose and commitment, have shown their common zeal.”

308

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

who slaughtered and skinned it, and only then was it handed over to the priests. The practice known to the Chronicler was different, and he used the opportunity to praise the Levites at the expense of the priests. The final clause of v. 35, “and the service of the house of the Lord was established” (or “restored,” “reinstituted” and the like), uses the verb wattikkôn, also used of Solomon’s Temple (2 Chron. 8:16) and of Josiah’s Passover (2 Chron. 35:16), bringing Hezekiah into line with these two most illustrious kings. The very last verse reflects the Chronicler’s belief, transferred to Hezekiah, that the whole, sudden, quick re-establishing of the Temple rites could only have been achieved with God’s help, and as such deserves to be considered a miracle. 2 Chronicles 30 – Hezekiah Celebrates the Passover Chapter 30: 1 And Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and also wrote letters94 to Ephraim and Manasseh, to come to the house of the Lord in Jerusalem, to perform Passover95 to the Lord God of Israel. 2 And the king and his officials and all the assembly took counsel96 in Jerusalem97 to perform the Passover98 in the second month. 3 For they could not perform it at that time, because the priests had not sanctified themselves in sufficient number,99 and the people had not assembled in Jerusalem. 4 And this100 was right in the eyes of the king and in the eyes of all the assembly. 5 And they decided101 to send out 94.  ‫אגרות‬. The word is used in Chronicles only here and in v. 6 below, and elsewhere only in Est. 9:26, 29 and in Neh. 2:7, 8, 9; 6:5, 17, 19. ‫ אגרת‬is a loanword from Akkadian, which apparently entered Hebrew, perhaps via Aramaic, during the Neo-Babylonian or Persian periods. 95.  ‫לעשות פסח‬. NRSV and NJPS translate “to keep the Passover,” but the Passover is actually the name of the sacrifice, which is not “kept” but “done.” Also, while “Passover” is often written with the definite article, ‫הפסח‬, in this case it is not. Dillard (1987: 238) has “to celebrate Passover” and Klein (2012, 427) “to carry out a Passover.” 96.  The NRSV, NJPS, Klein (2012, 427) use the past-perfect “had taken counsel” to indicate that this was a “flashback” to the events already summarized in v. 1. The Hebrew ‫ ויועץ‬is more ambiguous, allowing Dillard (1987, 238) to translate “The king… decided.” 97.  NRSV and NJPS have “and all the assembly in Jerusalem had taken counsel,” while Klein (2012, 427) has “had taken counsel in Jerusalem.” Both renderings of the Hebrew are possible. 98.  ‫הפסח‬, this time with the article. 99.  ‫למדי‬, “enough,” “not enough” referring to the number of priests, not to their level of sanctification. 100.  ‫הדבר‬, “the thing” or “the word.” NRSV and Klein (2012, 427) translate “the plan.” 101.  ‫ויעמידו דבר‬, literally, “they caused a word to stand.” NRSV has “so they decreed.” “Decided” follows Dillard (1987, 238).



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

309

a proclamation102 throughout all Israel, from Beer-sheba to Dan,103 to come104 and perform Passover to the Lord God of Israel in Jerusalem; for not many had done as prescribed.105 6 And the runners106 went with the letters from the hand of the king and his officials throughout all Israel and Judah as the king had commanded, saying: Sons of Israel, return to the Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, and he will return to the remnant of you that remain107 from the hand of the kings of Assyria. 7 Do not be like your fathers and like your brothers, who were unfaithful to the Lord God of their fathers, so that he made them desolate,108 as you see. 8 Do not now be stiff-necked109 like your fathers; extend a hand110 to the Lord111 and come to his sanctuary, which he has

102.  ‫להעביר קול‬, literally “to pass a voice.” This refers to the message being proclaimed orally. The same expression is used of Cyrus’ proclamation in Ezra 1:1 = 2 Chron. 36:22, followed by “and also in writing.” 103.  This is a Chronistic variation on the well-know Deuteronomistic “from Dan to Beer-sheba,” referring to the entirety of Israelite settlement in the land. The same expression is used for the extent of Joab’s census in 1 Chron. 21:2, where the parallel 2 Sam. 24:2 has “from Dan to Beer-sheba.” The Chronicler’s southern orientation can also be seen in 2 Chron. 19:4, which defines Jehoshaphat’s kingdom as “from Beer-sheba to the hills of Ephraim.” 104.  ‫לבוא‬. NRSV adds “that the people should come” for clarification. 105.  ‫כי לא לרב עשו ככתוב‬. ‫ לא לרב‬could be understood as “not many” or as “not much.” If “not many,” it could mean that not many Israelites had performed the Passover before. If “not much” it could mean that they had not performed it in the proscribed manner, such as not in Jerusalem or not on the correct date. The various translations reflect the different possibilities, such as NRSV “for they had not kept it in great numbers as prescribed” or Klein (2012, 427) “but they had not done in often as prescribed.” See the commentary. 106.  Runners. A literal translation of ‫רצים‬. Most translations have “couriers,” “messengers” and the like. In 1 Kgs 14:27–28 = 2 Chron. 12:10–11 and in 2 Kgs 10:25; 11:6, 11, 19 (with no parallel in Chronicles), “runners” are members of the royal guard. “Runners” as royal couriers appear only here and in Est. 3:13, 15; 8:10, 14. 107.  ‫הנשארת‬. NRSV: “who have escaped.” 108.  ‫ויתנם לשמה‬. NRSV has “made them a desolation”; NJPS “turned them into a horror”; Dillard (1987, 238) “made them an object of derision”; Klein (2012, 427) “handed them over to desolation.” 109.  ‫אל־תקשו ערפכם‬, literally “do not stiffen the backs of your necks.” The LXXB has καρδίας, “heart,” instead of “neck,” which Allen (1974, 2:15) sees as having been influenced by Ps. 94:8, “do not harden your hearts,” but other recensions of the Greek have τραχήλους, “necks” or “throats.” 110.  ‫תנו־יד‬, literally “give a hand.” The Greek has δότε δόξαν, “give glory,” either because it read ‫תנו־כבוד‬, or simply as a paraphrase (so Allen 1974, 1:52). NRSV “yield yourselves” and NJPS “submit” reflect a very specific understanding, while Dillard’s “reach out” (1987, 238) reflects something else altogether. 111.  The Greek has κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ, “to the Lord God.” Allen (1974, 2:146) suggests that the word ‫ אלהים‬may have moved here from an adjacent column.

310

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

sanctified forever, and serve the Lord your God, and112 his fierce anger will turn away from you. 9 For as you return to the Lord, your brethren and your children will find113 compassion before their captors, and will114 return to this land, for the Lord your God is gracious and merciful, and will not turn away his face115 from you, if you return to him.  10 And the runners passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun; and they laughed at them and mocked them. 11 Only a few116 men from Asher and Manasseh and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. 12 The hand of God was also on Judah to give them a single heart117 to perform the commandment of the king and the officials, according to the word of the Lord. 13 And many people gathered to Jerusalem to celebrate118 the festival of unleavened bread in the second month, a very large assembly. 14 And they arose and removed the altars that were in Jerusalem, and all the incense-altars119 they removed and threw into the Kidron Valley. 15 And they slaughtered the Passover120 on the fourteenth of the second month, and the priests and the Levites121 were ashamed, and they sanctified themselves and brought burnt offerings to the house of the Lord. 16 And they stood at their assigned posts according to the Torah122 of Moses the man of God; the priests dashed the blood from123 the hands of the Levites. 17 For many in the assembly had not sanctified themselves; and the Levites were over the

112.  NRSV has “so that,” assuming causality. 113.  The Hebrew lacks a verb. Klein (2012, 427) follows BHS in assuming ‫יהיו‬. 114.  ‫ולשוב‬, literally “and to return.” 115.  ‫ולא־יסיר פנים‬, literally “and he will not take away (his) face.” As pointed out by Japhet (1993, 946), this is a unique expression, with the more common metaphor being ‫יסתיר פנים‬, “to hide (his) face” (cf. Deut. 31:17, 18; Isa. 59:2 and more), which she suggests may have been the original reading. 116.  ‫ אך‬can be understood as “only,” “but/however,” “a few” or “some.” Compare NRSV “only a few,” NJPS “some of the people,” NIV “nevertheless, some men,” and Klein (2012, 427) “only some people.” 117.  NJPS: “making them of a single mind”; Dillard (1987, 238): “made them of one accord.” The expression is used in the enthronement of David (1 Chron. 12:38) and of Solomon (29:19; there also by David). God influences the heart of men and causes them to do good or bad. See also Exod. 10:20 and more. 118.  ‫לעשות‬, “to do,” “to make.” NRSV and NJPS have “to keep.” 119.  In Hebrew one word, ‫המקטרות‬. The Greek adds ἐν οἷς ἐθυμίωσαν τοῖς ψευδέσιν, “in which they had burned incense for false gods.” 120.  ‫הפסח‬. NRSV: “the passover lamb”; NJPS: “the paschal sacrifice.” 121.  Rudolph (1955, 302) and Klein (2012, 428) read “the Levitical priests,” as in v. 27, but there is no support for such a reading here. See the commentary. 122.  ‫תורה‬, often translated “law” or “teaching.” See the commentary on 2 Chron. 12:1 and below. 123.  NRSV and others add “that they received from the hands” for clarity.



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

311

slaughtering of the Passovers124 for anyone who was not pure, to consecrate125 to the Lord.  18 For most of the people,126 many of them from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had not purified themselves, for they ate the Passover not as prescribed; but Hezekiah prayed for them, saying: The good Lord, atone for all127 19 who set their hearts to seek God, the Lord the God of their fathers, even if not purified for the sanctuary.128 20 And the Lord heard Hezekiah, and healed the people.129  21 And the people of Israel who were present130 in Jerusalem celebrated the festival of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness; and the Levites and the priests131 praised the Lord day by day,132 accompanied by strong instruments133 for the Lord. 

124.  Meaning the lambs. 125.  The object of “consecrate” is not specified, but probably the lamb is intended. In general, the syntax of this verse is difficult. 126.  ‫ מרבית‬is obviously derived from ‫רב‬, “many,” but “many” in this verse and the previous one is indicated by the also unusual form ‫רבת‬. So NRSV translates “a multitude” and Dillard (1987, 239) “a great number,” NJPS has “most” and Klein (2012, 428) “a majority.” 127.  The division in the MT between vv. 18 and 19 is unclear and is ignored by most commentators. See Keel (1986, 849) and Japhet (1993, 951). 128.  Japhet (1993, 953) suggests that haqqôdeš here does not refer specifically to the sanctuary, but more generally to “holy purity.” 129.  This comment seems strange, since there is no record of the people’s having been ill. See the commentary. 130.  ‫הנמצאים‬, literally “who were to be found.” Keel (1986, 850) believes that this is meant to emphasize that they remained in Jerusalem for the entire seven-day holiday, above and beyond the law in Deut. 16:7, which allows them to “return to their tents” on the morning after the Passover sacrifice. 131.  The Greek reverses the order: “the priests and the Levites.” 132.  In the Hebrew, the phrase “(and) praised the Lord day by day” comes before “the Levites and the priests,” making it possible that it was the people who “praised the Lord day by day,” and were accompanied by the Levites and the priests with their instruments. 133.  ‫כלי־עז‬, and in general the use of ‫עז‬, “strong,” to describe a musical instrument, is unique. Curtis and Madsen (1910, 477) emend to ‫בכל עז‬, “with all strength,” citing 1 Chron. 13:8 as an example (but see our note there), and also that one of the instances of “Lord”s in the verse is superfluous. This was adopted by NEB and RSV (“singing with all their might to the LORD”), but the MT was defended by several scholars (such as Buttenwieser [1926], who suggested that ‫ כלי‬referred to “song” and that ‫ עז ליהוה‬were the first words of that song; see also Seeligmann 1955, 137 n. 69), and most newer translations have retained the MT, such as NRSV “loud instruments for the Lord”; NJPS “powerful instruments for the Lord”; Myers (1965, 2:175) and Dillard (1987, 239) “the mighty instruments of Yahweh”; Klein (2012, 428) “loud instruments of Yahweh.”

312

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

22 And Hezekiah spoke to the heart134 of all the Levites who showed good understanding135 for the Lord; and they136 ate137 the festival for seven days, sacrificing offerings of well-being and confessing138 to the Lord the God of their fathers.  23 And the whole assembly took counsel139 to make another seven days;140 so they made seven days of rejoicing.141 24 For Hezekiah king of Judah contributed142 to the assembly143 a thousand bulls and seven thousand sheep for offerings, and

134.  ‫על־לב‬. Usually translated “encouragingly” and the like (NRSV; Dillard 1987, 239). Klein (2012, 439) renders “tenderly” and cites Gen. 50:21 (Joseph speaking to his brothers) and Isa. 40:2 (speaking to Jerusalem) as examples of similar usage. The passage does not relay what Hezekiah said to the Levites. NJPS translates “Hezekiah persuaded all of the Levites… to spend the seven days of the festival,” thus connecting the two parts of the verse. Keel (1986, 851) suggests a similar understanding. 135.  ‫משכילים שכל־טוב‬. Most translations render “skill” (such as NRSV “showed good skill in the service of the Lord”). However ‫ שכל‬usually means “understanding,” “wise,” “enlightened,” “insightful” and the like (see HALOT 1328–330; DCH 8:150–52 – neither of which offer “skill” as an option). The combination of “good śēkel” appears in 1 Sam. 25:3 (referring to Abigail, translated “clever” by NRSV and “intelligent” by NJPS), in Ps. 111:10 (NRSV “good understanding”; NJPS “sound understanding”) and in Prov. 3:4 (NRSV “good repute”; NJPS “approbation”). 136.  The subject here is unclear. It could be the Levites, but why would only they eat and sacrifice and confess for seven days? NRSV has “So the people,” taking this to be the beginning of a new sentence. Keel (1986, 851) agrees that “everyone (Israelites, priests and Levites)” are meant. 137.  ‫“ – ויאכלו‬and they ate.” Of course “festivals” are not eaten, so one must assume that either the festival sacrifices or the festive meals are meant. NRSV and others add “the food of the festival” for clarification. The Greek has συνετέλεσαν, “they completed,” presumably reading ‫ ויכלו‬instead of ‫ויאכלו‬. BHS, Rudolph (1955, 303) and Klein (2012, 428) have adopted this reading, Dillard (1987, 239–40) has not. Allen (1974, 2:99) suggests that the MT was influenced by v. 18’s “eating the Passover,” which obviously does refer to the sacrifice. 138.  As pointed out by Japhet (1993, 954), the rendering of RSV (and NRSV), “giving thanks,” assumes a reading of ‫ מודים‬instead of ‫מתודים‬. Such a reading is not supported by any of the versions, but does raise the question of just what they were confessing. Klein (2012, 439), following Johnstone (1997, 2:205), thinks that they would not have been confessing their sins, and translates “confessing Yahweh the God of their fathers.” 139.  Many translations have “agreed together.” 140.  NRSV has “to keep the festival for another seven days,” which is what the verse means, but the word “festival” is not explicitly mentioned. 141.  NRSV and other translations add “another seven days of rejoicing” for clarity. 142.  ‫הרים‬, literally “lifted” or “raised,” as in the word ‫תרומה‬, a contribution that is “raised.” 143.  The Greek renders ὅτι Εζεκιας ἀπήρξατο τῷ Ιουδα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, “for Hezekiah set apart for Judah, for the assembly.”



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

313

the officials contributed to the assembly144 a thousand bulls and ten thousand sheep, and the priests sanctified themselves in great numbers. 25 And the whole assembly of Judah rejoiced,145 and the priests and the Levites, and the whole assembly that came from Israel, and the resident aliens146 who came from the land of Israel, and those who resided in Judah.147 26 And there was great joy in Jerusalem, for since the time of Solomon son of David king of Israel148 there had not (been anything) like this149 in Jerusalem.  27 And the Levitical priests150 arose and blessed the people, and it was heard in their voice,151 and their prayer came to his holy abode in heaven.

144.  The Greek has τῷ λαῷ, “to the people.” 145.  In the Hebrew, the verb ‫ וישמחו‬is at the beginning of the sentence, followed by all of the various groups of people: the whole assembly of Judah and the priests and the Levites and the whole assembly that came from Israel and the resident aliens who came from the land of Israel and those who resided in Judah. 146.  ‫גרים‬, on which see the commentary. 147.  ‫ והיושבים יוהודה‬could be understood as “and who resided in Judah” – the resident aliens from the land of Israel who were now living in Judah – or as “and those who resided in Judah” – the resident aliens who were living in Judah, in addition to those who had come from the land of Israel. NRSV seems to support the latter: “the resident aliens who lived in Judah.” NJPS has “and who lived in Judah,” seeming to support the former. Dillard (1987, 239) renders “or lived in Judah.” Keel (1986, 852), following the thirteenthcentury commentator Levi ben Gershon (Gersonides, also known by his Hebrew acronym Ralbag), understands these to be northern Israelite refugees who were now “resident aliens” in Judah. 148.  Perhaps emphasizing that the demise of the northern kingdom made Hezekiah the first king over all of Israel since Solomon. 149.  ‫לא כזאת‬, literally “not like this,” awkwardly lacking the verb “was.” NRSV clarifies “there had been nothing like this.” NJPS: “nothing like it had happened.” For the precise object of the comparison see the commentary. 150.  ‫הכהנים הלוים‬, literally “the priests the Levites.” This phrase appears in Chronicles only here and in 2 Chron. 23:18, but quite frequently in Deut. (17:9, 18; 24:8 and more) and in Ezekiel (43:19; 44:15), in all of which it is usually taken to mean “the priests that are Levites” (perhaps indicating that there were priests who were not Levites) and translated “the Levitical priests.” In this case, although some of the versions, including the LXXA and the Vulgate, have the much more common ‫הכהנים והלוים‬, “the priest and the Levites” (cf. vv. 15 and 25 of our chapter), and this is followed by RSV and some other translations, nearly all commentators (Curtis and Madsen 1910, 477; Rudolph 1955, 303; Klein 2012, 429) accept the MT and render “Levitical priests,” citing the tradition that blessing the people is a prerogative of the priests. 151.  ‫וישמע בקולם‬. Referring to their blessing, which God heard in their voices. Most translations ignore the preposition “in.” NRSV and NJPS: “and their voice was heard.” Dillard (1987, 239) adds “God heard their voice” (see also Klein 2012, 428).

314

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Commentary Hezekiah’s Passover: An Introduction The mass-celebration of the Passover, attended by representatives of the northern tribes as well as the people of Judah, is clearly the high-point of the Chronicler’s portrayal of the reign of Hezekiah. As such, while this chapter is obviously a part of the whole and is tied to both the preceding chapter and the one that follows, it also has some singular features of its own. This is true in general for this chapter: some of the language and themes expressed in it are unique, while others fit in well with the general tone of the Chronicler’s presentation of the history of Israel. The first issue with which many commentators have dealt is that of the historical basis of Hezekiah’s mass Passover. Unlike Hezekiah’s “cultic reform” in ch. 31, which is at least hinted at in Kings, the Passover celebration is not mentioned there at all. Moreover, the entire story is very reminiscent of the mass Passover celebrated by Josiah, Hezekiah’s greatgrandson, which is recounted in both 2 Kings 23 and in 2 Chronicles 35, and the parallels are obvious. This has led not a few scholars to assert, sometimes rather adamantly, that the entire episode was invented by the Chronicler, in order to put Hezekiah on par (at least) with Josiah. Curtis and Madsen (1910, 471) stated that “it is probably a purely imaginary occurrence… Since Hezekiah was held to have been a reformer equally with Josiah, it was felt he too must have celebrated in a similar manner the Passover.” Segal (1963, 18–19) pointed out the apparent contradiction between our v. 26, which states that there had never been anything like this since the time of Solomon, and 2 Chron. 35:18, which says that such a Passover as Josiah’s had not been celebrated since the time of Samuel (2 Kgs 23:22 says “from the days of the judges”). This, he stated, was clear evidence of the fabricated nature of our narrative. An additional factor which has led scholars to doubt the historicity of Hezekiah’s Passover is the very nature of the event, which they see as being anachronistic. It is generally agreed in scholarship that the Passover sacrifice (pesaḥ) and the seven-day festival of Unleavened Bread (ḥag hammaṣṣôt) were originally two separate events (see Lev. 23:5–6; Num. 28:16–17): the former was a family sacrifice on the fourteenth of the first month held in the home (as described in Exod. 12:1–11 in connection to the Exodus from Egypt) and the latter one of the three annual pilgrimage festivals (Exod. 23:14–17). These two were combined only in the later Priestly and Deuteronomic codes, and only in Deut. 16:1–7 do we find the explicit commandment to celebrate the Passover “in the place where the Lord will choose to establish his name” (v. 2), and even more specifically, and perhaps apologetically or polemically, “you are not



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

315

permitted to slaughter the Passover in any of the gates that Lord your God will give you; but at the place where the Lord your God shall choose to establish his name, there you will slaughter the Passover” (vv. 5–6). Since Deuteronomy, with its emphasis on centralization of cult, is often considered to be a product of the reformation of Josiah (see for example Nelson 2002, 4–9), it is often asserted that the idea of such an event in the days of Hezekiah must be an anachronism. What is more, the combination of the Passover and the festival of Unleavened Bread, which is clearly assumed in this chapter, is also seen as a late development which the Chronicler anachronistically included in his narrative.152 However, as shown by Klein (2012, 429), “each of these arguments can be challenged” – as indeed they have been. The Josianic date of Deuteronomy, while still assumed by many scholars, is no longer taken for granted, and the relative dating of the various components of the Deuteronomic and the Priestly codes is also debated.153 In any case, a Josianic or later date for Deuteronomy does not preclude the inclusion of earlier materials. Williamson (1982, 364–65) suggested that the festival actually celebrated by Hezekiah was that of Unleavened Bread, only later understood by the Chronicler as including the Passover. But it is entirely possible that the combination of the Passover and the festival of Unleavened Bread was more ancient than assumed, and that the celebration of the Passover at the central sanctuary, if not by “all Judah” then at least by those who made the pilgrimage, was already an accepted ritual. As pointed out by Moriarty (1965) and others since (Dillard 1987, 240–42; Japhet 1993, 939), the very irregularities in the story, such as the expanded role of the Levites and especially the postponement of the Passover to the second month, would have probably not been invented by the Chronicler. More likely, they were included in the traditions or sources used by the Chronicler in writing this story. In fact, even the non-mention of Hezekiah’s Passover in Kings has been seen by some scholars as more a reflection of the Deuteronomistic Historian’s desire to emphasize Josiah than as proof of its fabrication by the Chronicler. As stated by Dillard (1987, 241), “It is far more probable that the deuteronomistic historian has suppressed material in his sources about Hezekiah than that the Chronicler has read Josiah’s Passover back into the reign of Hezekiah.” On the other hand, all scholars admit that the way in which the chapter is written and 152.  This common scholarly view was well articulated by de Vaux 1965, 484–93 and has been repeated by nearly every commentator. For a more skeptical survey of the research on this question see Prosic 2004, 35–71. 153.  For example Friedman 1981 posits a pre-exilic D1 followed by a pre-exilic P1 followed by an exilic D2 followed by an exilic or post-exilic P2.

316

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

many of its main themes are very much the work of the Chronicler, and that it is very difficult to determine just what came from the Chronicler’s sources and what is his own invention. As summarized by Klein (2012, 430), “no final decision is possible.” Chronological Issues In order to understand the chapter itself, we must first address the question of the “internal chronology” of the story. Whereas ch. 29 emphasized that the events recounted occurred in Hezekiah’s “first year, in the first month” (29:1, with the “the first day of the first month” repeated in v. 17), no such date is given here. The Passover is celebrated in the second month, but nowhere does the chapter say in which year. So when were the messengers sent out? The juxtaposition of the two chapters makes it seem like they were sent out right after the purification and the following celebration. That, however, only began sometime after the sixteenth of the first month (29:17), and took at least another week. So, unless the messengers had been sent out while the cleansing was still in progress, which the text does not indicate, they could only have begun their journey after about the twenty-fourth of the first month. Even considering the condition of the roads in early spring, just after the winter rains, and ignoring the geo-political factors involved, it seems unreasonable for the Chronicler to imagine that people as far away as the upper Galilee would hear the messengers, make the radical decision to celebrate at Jerusalem (which had supposedly been off limits to them for over 200 years), organize themselves and make the difficult journey in time for the celebration on the fifteenth of the second month, all within three weeks or less. This leaves us with three possibilities: 1. The Chronicler assumed that some sort of miracle was involved, which is something that is not indicated in so many words. 2. The Chronicler was either not aware of, or did not care about, “realistic” factors in his presentation. 3. The Chronicler assumed that the Passover was held some time after Hezekiah’s first year. No specific date is given and the placement of ch. 30 after ch. 29 indicates that he considered there to at least be a “cause and effect” relationship between them, but there is then no reason to “force” the entire narrative into a timeframe of a few weeks. Hezekiah’s Messengers to the Northern Tribes The chapter begins with the king’s “sending” “to all Israel and Judah” and then “also” writing letters “to Ephraim and Manasseh.” There would



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

317

seem to be a double redundancy here: what did he “send” if not letters, and why are “Ephraim and Manasseh” treated as separate from “all Israel and Judah”? The general consensus is that v. 1 is a sort of “summary” of the following verses, and that “Israel” and “Ephraim and Manasseh” are to be understood as parallels (see Rudolph 1955, 299; Williamson 1982, 365, who thinks that the Chronicler wished to emphasize that “Ephraim and Manasseh” were indeed part of “Israel”; Dillard 1987, 249; Japhet 1993, 936–37, who writes that “the literary structure of this unit displays some roughness”; Klein 2012, 431). Bickerman (1946, 272) argued that the support of oral proclamations with written authorization conveyed by the same messenger “occurred sometimes,” although, taking his cue from Ezra 1:1, he believed that both the miktâb there and the iggerôt here refer to “posters…published on boards.” Be that as it may and despite the difference in terminology, the parallelism between our verse and Ezra 1:1 is striking. Keel (1986, 839) actually has a different view: in his opinion the letters were only sent to the leaders of Ephraim and Manasseh specifically, and notes that Ephraim and Manasseh were the only tribes ruled by Hosea son of Elah during the final decade of the existence of the northern kingdom of Israel. So it would seem that at least in Keel’s view, these events occurred before the final destruction of the northern kingdom. Johnstone (1997, 2:199) also thought that the letters were sent to “reinforce” the oral summons, “to immediate neighbours in the northern hill country,” but he does not explain why they would deserve or need such “reinforcement.” The question of relative tenses continues into v. 2: had the decision to celebrate the Passover in the second month already been made before the messengers of v. 1 were sent out, or did the original call achieve such limited results, that the king and his men decided to try again a month later? Were the messengers of vv. 5–10 the same as those of v. 1, or were they a second delegation? The usual assumption is that the former is intended (for example Johnstone 1997, 2:199), although in our opinion the latter is possible as well. Postponing the Passover The reason giving for postponing the Passover is “because the priests had not sanctified themselves in sufficient number, and the people had not assembled in Jerusalem.” Within the Bible, the celebration of the Passover in the second month is not totally without precedent. According to Num. 9:10–11, anyone who is “unclean through touching a corpse or away on a long journey” on the fourteenth of the first month is to perform the Passover on the fourteenth of the second month; later rabbinic tradition calls this

318

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

“the Second Passover.” At least at first glance, the Chronicler’s Hezekiah seems to have expanded upon this law in five matters: the understanding of “impurity” as referring not only to contact with the dead but also to the general “filth” of the uncleansed Temple; the use of the impurity clause for the priests, rather than for the people (many of whom were still impure anyway); the expansion of “away on a long journey” to refer to the northerners’ journey to Jerusalem; the use of an ordnance intended for individuals in order to postpone the Passover for the entire nation; and finally the postponement of the seven-day festival of unleavened bread along with the Passover, something which is clearly not the intention of Num. 9. But despite these differences, Fishbane (1980, 345) wrote that “verbal and structural similarities clearly link Num 9 and 2 Chr 30.” In his opinion, the Chronicler assumed that Hezekiah had indeed used and expanded on the provisions of Numbers 9, but refrained from stating the connection outright because doing so might suggest “that the Torah of Moses is insufficient when faced with new exigencies.” Dillard (1987, 243–44) calls the Chronicler’s use of Numbers 9 “interpretive extension” and “a good example of intrabiblical legal interpretation.” Klein (2012, 433) calls it “an exegetical shift.” On the other hand, Japhet (1993, 939–40) accentuates precisely the same differences between our story and the law in Numbers 9, in order to summarize: “As the texts stand, there is really no connection between them… What both texts have in common is the possibility in principle of postponing the Passover ceremony, but no closer connection between them may be demonstrated.” In any case we should emphasize that while 2 Chron. 29:17 specifically says that the Temple was only purified on the sixteenth of the first month, which could certainly have been used as a reason for the postponement of the Passover, nowhere is this referred to in ch. 30. A totally different understanding of Hezekiah’s postponement of the Passover was offered by Talmon (1958). Talmon began his interpretation with another “precedent,” that of Jeroboam I’s celebration of “the feast” (of Tabernacles) in the eighth month instead of in the customary seventh month (1 Kgs 12:32–33). In Talmon’s view, this was not a one-time occurrence, but an intentional and permanent break between the cultic calendars of Judah and Israel, which would remain separated by one month throughout the period of the divided monarchy. Only after the demise of the northern kingdom would Hezekiah attempt “to incorporate the remnants of the northern tribes into the southern kingdom” (Talmon 1958, 58). In Talmon’s view, the original messengers sent by Hezekiah to the northerners were met with scorn and derision (v. 10); only after Hezekiah and his people made “one important concession” and deferred



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

319

the holiday to the time in which it was regularly celebrated in the north, did some of the northerners agree to come to Jerusalem. However, in the end, “Hezekiah’s plan to unite Ephraim with Judah did not materialize and it seems that he eventually reverted to the Judaean calendar while the northern tribes kept to their own system of time-reckoning” (Talmon 1958, 62). By Josiah’s time the balance of power had changed, and he could impose the Judean calendar on the northerners. The later Chronicler preferred to “cover up the blemish of this one unorthodox act” by giving what he thought was the more acceptable reason of the priests’ impurity.154 Talmon’s theory has been met with quite a bit of criticism (for example Moriarty 1965, 405; Japhet 1993, 939), mainly on grounds of lack of evidence. It also misconstrues the verses, reading v. 2 as a reaction to v. 10. But it does show us that the Chronicler may well have “hidden” the more “political” motives for Hezekiah’s move behind what to him were more justified “cultic” reasons. The Northern Tribes The various sections of ch. 30 use a wide variety of geographical and tribal names: “all Israel and Judah,” “Ephraim and Manasseh,” “all Israel, from Beer-sheba to Dan,” “the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun,” “Asher and Manasseh and Zebulun” as well as “Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun,” not to mention “the resident aliens who came from the land of Israel.” The diversity of references seems at first glance to be more a matter of style than anything else. Williamson (1982, 368) comments that “there is such variety and inconsistency…that the references should probably be taken as representative or exemplary only.” Japhet (1993, 946) calls them “a synecdochic reference.” Klein (2012, 436) also thinks of Ephraim, Manasseh, Zebulun and Asher, mentioned in vv. 10–11 as “representative of the northern kingdom but not exhaustive.” It may be possible, however, to make a few more specific observations. In v. 1, “Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and also wrote letters to Ephraim and Manasseh.” As we have already observed, most commentators see this verse as summarizing the narrative that follows, but it is also possible to see it as the first act in the story. “Israel and Judah,” repeated in v. 6, are certainly more symbolic than anything else, and “all Israel, from Beer-sheba to Dan,” throughout which the proclamation was made, basically means the same. We have noted the Chronicler’s preference for the south-to-north sequence, but it is impossible to know if the basic text 154.  Talmon (1958, 59–60) also emphasizes the much later Talmudic rabbis’ disapproval of Hezekiah’s act of “intercalating Nisan in Nisan,” and see also Keel 1986, 838–39.

320

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

of the “proclamation” is his own doing, or if it was taken from his source. As Jarick (2007, 167) has pointed out, the references these letters make to “those who remained from the hand of Assyria” (and similar expressions in Josiah’s messages to the northerners) are the only specific reference made in Chronicles to the Assyrian conquest of the northern tribes. Verses 10, 11 and 18, together with the “letters” of v. 1, are a group apart. In these verses, which tell of the actual mission of the messengers and the reactions to their mission, specific tribes are mentioned. “Ephraim and Manasseh” appear in all four verses (Ephraim is missing from v. 11, but see below), either on their own or followed by one or two others. This is significant. Ephraim and Manasseh were the northern tribes closest to Judah and the only ones left under the rule of Hosea after 733. As already noted, we do not know for certain if Hezekiah came to the throne before or after the final fall of Samaria, but surely the status of “Ephraim and Manasseh” was different from that of the Galilean tribes, most of which had been exiled a decade earlier. Also for the Chronicler, “Ephraim and Manasseh” were equal to the province of Samaria of his own day, which may have also been a reason to emphasize them. In other words, if taken from a source, the emphasis on “Ephraim and Manasseh” could tell us something about Hezekiah’s intents towards either the ancient kingdom or the contemporary province to his north; if composed by the Chronicler, it can teach us about the Chronicler’s attitude toward Judah’s northern neighbors in his own time. According to v. 10, the runners “passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun.” According to v. 11, only a few “from Asher and Manasseh and Zebulun” actually came. In v. 18, “most of the people, many of them from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had not purified themselves.” The one tribe beyond Ephraim and Manasseh that appears in all of these is Zebulun. The territory of Zebulun, as it is listed in Josh. 19:10–16 and hinted at in many additional references throughout the Bible, is roughly the northern fringes of the Jezreel Valley and the hills of the central Lower Galilee. The allotment of Issachar (Josh. 19:17–23) was in the southeastern fringes of the Jezreel Valley and the hills of the eastern Lower Galilee (for a geographical and historical assessment of this “allotment” see Gal 1992, 96–109; Levin 2003a). In other words, these two Lower Galilean tribes were the closest to Manasseh, the most easily accessible to runners coming from the south, not a far stretch from Ephraim and Manasseh. In fact, the description of cities and territories conquered and exiled by Tiglath-pileser III in 2 Kgs 16:29, includes “all the land of Naphtali,” which is the only Galilean tribe not mentioned in our story! And while the archaeological evidence of the



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

321

Assyrian conquest of all of Galilee and the northern valleys is clear, we cannot trace the southern limits of the Assyrian conquest of 733 versus 720. In any case, since the political borders of both post-733 Israel and post-720 Samaria (and all the way to the Chronicler’s time!) probably did not follow the biblical “tribal allotments” exactly, it is entirely possible that members of clans still identifying themselves as members of these two tribes were living within the Samarian kingdom or province, both in Hezekiah’s time and in the Chronicler’s. Another item worth noting in this context is the tribal genealogy of Issachar, as listed, with slight variations, in Gen. 46:13, Num. 26:23–24 and 1 Chron. 7:1: “The sons of Issachar: Tola, Puah, Jashub and Shimron.” However Judg. 10:1–2 gives us the following information about the only “judge” that we know from the tribe of Issachar: “Tola son of Puah son of Dodo, and he dwelt at Shamir in Mount Ephraim. He judged Israel for twenty-three years, and he died and was buried in Shamir.” The word used here for “dwelt” is ‫ישב‬, yôšêb, almost identical to ‫ישוב‬, yâšûb, the third “son” of Issachar, and his home town of Shamir reminds us of the fourth “son,” Shimron. “Shimron” is also a town in Lower Galilee (mentioned in the Bible only in Josh. 11:1; 12:20 and 19:15 but also known from additional sources), but according to the latter reference it is in the territory of Zebulun, not of Issachar. In any case, the Lower Galilee is not “Mount Ephraim.” However a city that was in “Mount Ephraim” and had a similar name was the city better known as šômerôn, “Samaria,” which became the capital of northern Israel and of the later province of Samaria. All of this hints, once again, at the possibility of members of Issachar living within “Mount Ephraim”/Samaria in either Hezekiah’s day, the Chronicler’s day or both. According to v. 11, only a few “from Asher and Manasseh and Zebulun” actually came. This list of tribes is odd for two reasons: the position of Asher before Manasseh, and the non-mention of Ephraim. According to Josh. 19:24–31, Asher was settled along the Galilee coast, from the Carmel ridge all the way to the region of Sidon. However, considering the history of the area and the relations between Israel, the Phoenician cities and Assyria during the entire Iron Age II, it is unlikely that much of this territory was controlled by Israel even before the events of 733, which makes the assumption of most scholars, that the mention of Asher here must be simply symbolic, entirely understandable. However, the position of Asher before Manasseh, in other words in the position usually reserved for Ephraim, is telling. The genealogy of Asher in 1 Chron. 7:30–40 seems to focus on clans that were living, not in Upper Galilee, but in southern Ephraim, along the border between Ephraim and

322

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Benjamin, certainly south of Manasseh (for more on this “Asher in Mount Ephraim” see Edelman 1988; Demsky 1993; Levin and Faust 1998; Levin 2003b, 236 and our commentary on 1 Chron. 7). So, in the Chronicler’s mind, at least some parts of Asher were in fact settled south of Manasseh. In other words, either the Chronicler or his sources could very well have been aware of clans who identified as members of Issachar, Zebulun and Asher who were living within the territory of “Ephraim and Manasseh.” So despite the pretentious “all Israel, from Beer-sheba to Dan,” Hezekiah’s runners probably never got further than the Jezreel Valley. They actually visited a much smaller area, in which they found people who identified as members of Ephraim and Manasseh, of Zebulun and of Issachar and of Asher. The reactions were mixed. Many of the people scoffed at the idea of celebrating the Passover in Jerusalem on any date; others actually made the journey, and were accepted by Hezekiah and his people, even in their state of ritual impurity. The text of the “letter” quoted in vv. 6b–9 is obviously a composition of the Chronicler in what Japhet (1993, 943) calls “elevated prose style.” While v. 6a says that the runners went “throughout all Israel and Judah,” the “letter” is obviously aimed at the inhabitants of the north. They are addressed as “sons of Israel” and encouraged to “return to the Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel,” all evoking images of the Exodus (see Exod. 3:6, 15; 4:5 and others), although the exact wording is used only in 1 Kgs 18:36 (by Elijah at Mount Carmel) and in 1 Chron. 29:18 (by David in his prayer at Solomon’s coronation). The use of the verb šwb, “return,” in v. 6 (“return to the Lord…and he will return”) and again in v. 9 (“for as you return to the Lord, your brethren and your children…will return to this land”), as well as a reference to the destruction of the land by “the kings of Assyria” and the exile of “your brethren and your children” because “your fathers and your brothers were unfaithful to the Lord God of their fathers” are all common themes in Chronicles. Interestingly, the “letter,” while exhorting the Israelites to “extend a hand to the Lord and come to his sanctuary, which he has sanctified forever,” does not specifically mention either the planned Passover or its postponement. It is, in reality, addressed to the people of the Chronicler’s day, who are supposed to take an example from those who “humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem.” The Celebration of the Passover Verse 14 tells how all of those now gathered in Jerusalem for the Passover collected all of the (sacrificial) altars and all of the incense-altars that were set up in Jerusalem, and threw them into the Kidron Valley. These altars had been erected “in every corner of Jerusalem” by Ahaz (2 Chron.



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

323

28:24). This is an extension of the previous chapter, in which the priests and the Levites removed such objects from the Temple and its courtyards and had thrown them into the same Kidron. In 31:1, this destruction of altars is extended to include the entire nation. Verse 15 repeats the fact that this Passover was slaughtered “on the fourteenth of the second month,” and then mentions the “shame” of the priests and the Levites and their subsequent sanctification and their bringing ôlôt (“burnt offerings”). This act of purification must have been performed in advance, since without it the priests and the Levites would not have been able to officiate at the Passover sacrifice, and indeed both Williamson (1982, 369) and Klein (2012, 437) translate it in the “pluperfect” tense: they had been ashamed, so they had sanctified themselves. Another possibility is to separate the “cause and effect” of their being ashamed and their sanctifying themselves: their “shame” was about their previous dereliction, now they performed their duties devotedly. For the Chronicler, all of the laws of the Passover, including the way in which the priests and the Levites went about their duties, were a part of the Torah of Moses, even if such details as the receiving of the blood from the Levites and dashing it on the altar are not mentioned in the Pentateuchal Passover laws. Another element that even the Chronicler admits was not in accordance with the Torah of Moses was the eating of the Passover by many of the people, who themselves were impure. In fact, it is the impurity of the people, not the priests, which is cited in Num. 9:10 as the justification for celebrating a “Second Passover” in the first place, since an impure person is not allowed to partake of the sacrifice. Here, since the entire celebration had already been postponed, there was no room for an additional postponement, even for individuals. The Chronicler’s Hezekiah arrives at a compromise: the Levites, who had purified themselves, slaughter the animals in the courtyard, hand them to the priests to roast, and then return them to the people gathered outside, many of whom were impure, for the feast. For this transgression Hezekiah asks the Lord’s mercy. God’s response is obviously positive, but his “healing” the people seems strange, since no illness or malady had been mentioned. Keel (1986, 850) points out several passages in which the verb rp, “heal,” is used as a remedy or an opposite of “sin,” such as Ps. 41:5 [Eng. 4], “heal me, for I have sinned against you.” Even more pertinent is God’s reply to Solomon’s prayer in 2 Chron. 7:14: “if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” While not quite the same, repentance from sin is rewarded by “healing.”

324

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

The Feast of Unleavened Bread The joyous Passover was now followed by the seven-day ḥag hammaṣṣôt, the feast of Unleavened Bread. This is another innovation, since the “Second Passover” rule of Num. 9 allows the postponement of only the Passover sacrifice, not the following pilgrimage festival. Even more innovative, was Hezekiah’s request, put to and accepted by first the Levites and then the whole assembly, to add an additional “seven days of joy,” with the word śimḥâh, “joy,” repeated three times over four verses. As Japhet (1993, 955) points out, these additional seven days have no precedent and meet no scriptural requirement. She considers them to have been motivated by “the people’s wish to continue their festivities,” although we should remember that it was the king’s initiative and the king and his officers who supplied the animals for the additional sacrifices. Japhet also points to the lack of Levitical song and music and calls it “as close to a ‘secular’ celebration as anything connected with the Temple might be,” despite the mention of the priests’ sanctifying themselves for the occasion. Keel (1986, 851) defines the additional sacrifices as šelamîm, “well-being” or “peace” offerings, which could be eaten by those who were still ritually impure. In any case, the addition of seven days reinforces the comparison of Hezekiah to Solomon, who had added the seven days of his dedication of the Temple to the seven-day pilgrimage festival of Tabernacles (1 Kgs 8:65–66 = 2 Chron. 7:8–10).155 The comparison is emphasized again in v. 26. Verse 25 enumerates the different groups who were included in the celebration, in concentric fashion, from the “core” of the people outwards: first the “the whole assembly of Judah,” which included “the priests and the Levites,” then “the whole assembly that came from Israel,” and finally “the gêrîm who came from the land of Israel, and those who resided in Judah.” The term gêr, plural gêrîm, appears over sixty times in the Pentateuch and about half that many times in the rest of the Bible. It is derived from the root GWR, “to dwell,” “to reside,” and usually refers to a “resident alien,” a person residing in a place which is not his “home.” Thus, for example, in Gen. 15:13 God tells Abraham that his descendants will be gêr in a land not their own, and Gen. 23:4 Abraham describes himself to the sons of Heth as a gêr wetôšâb, “a sojourner and a resident,” a common doublet which NRSV renders “a stranger and an alien” and NJPS as simply “a resident alien.” The various legal codes of the Pentateuch often list the gêrîm together with the Levites, the orphans and the widows as the 155.  Although there are also significant differences: the date of the festival in the seventh month and the order in which the events took place.



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

325

weakest sectors of society (cf. Deut. 26:12), and command the Israelites to treat them fairly: “you shall not oppress a gêr; you know the heart of a gêr, for you were gêrîm in the land of Egypt” (Exod. 23:9; cf. also Exod. 22:20; Deut. 23:8). The demand to treat gêrîm fairly was often repeated by the prophets as well (Jer. 7:6; 22:3; Zech. 7:10). More pertinently, gêrîm were also allowed to participate in the Passover sacrifice, albeit with one condition: “If a gêr who dwells with you would offer the Passover to the Lord, circumcise all of his males, and then he shall be allowed to offer it, and he shall be like a citizen of the land…there shall be one law for the citizen and for the gêr who dwells among you” (Exod. 12:48–49). This is also true for the “Second Passover” in Num. 9:14, although there the demand for circumcision is not spelled out. This demand for circumcision and permission for the gêr to participate in the Passover ritual is probably the earliest evidence of the use of gêr as a term for “proselyte” or “convert” to Judaism, which became the common meaning of the term in Second Temple and rabbinic Judaism. Rabbinic discussions of biblical gêrîm often assume that at least in some cases the reference is to a person who had “converted” and adopted the Israelite religion. In Chronicles, gêrîm are mentioned four times. In 1 Chron. 29:15 David prays, “for we are gêrîm before you, and sojourners (tôšâbîm) like all our fathers, our days on earth are like shadow, without hope.” Two more references (1 Chron. 22:2; 2 Chron. 2:16) refer to “the gêrîm who were in the Land of Israel,” who were put to labor by David and by Solomon. These most certainly refer to non-Israelites who were residing in Israelite territory. The reference to gêrîm here, in 2 Chron. 30:25, is slightly different: “the gêrîm who came from the land of Israel, and those who resided in Judah.” This is also the third of four references to “the land of Israel” in Chronicles, the fourth being in 2 Chron. 34:7, there without reference to gêrîm. Here, the term obviously refers to the north – whether to the northern kingdom or to the former northern kingdom depending on the chronological issues discussed above. So the very reference to “gêrîm from the land of Israel” once more connects Hezekiah to both David and Solomon, while the specific meaning here shows Hezekiah as following the Torah-commandment of including the gêrîm in the Passover celebration. Verse 26 emphasizes that there had not been such rejoicing “like this” in Jerusalem since the days of Solomon. The comparison of Hezekiah to Solomon is made throughout the narrative, but to what specifically does kazôt, “like this,” refer? Might it refer to the joy of the dedication of the Temple? Or to the added days of celebration? Or to the very fact that

326

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

representatives of both north and south gathered together in Jerusalem under one king? Perhaps the author left the statement purposely unclear in order to indicate “all of the above.” In the final verse of the chapter, the “Levitical priests” rise and bless the people, again in fulfillment of a Torah-commandment (Num. 6:23–27; Deut. 10:8; see also Lev. 9:22). As noted, the use of the term “Levitical priests” is influenced by Deuteronomy, as is the actual wording of the blessing, which brings to mind Deut. 26:15: “look from your holy abode, from heaven, and bless your people, Israel, and the land which you have given us, O Lord.” 2 Chronicles 31 – Reforms in the Administration of the Temple Chapter 31: 1 And when all this was finished, all Israel who were present156 went out to the cities of Judah and broke down the standing stones,157 chopped158 down the asherim, and smashed the bamôt and the altars159 throughout all160 Judah and Benjamin, and in Ephraim and Manasseh,161 until they were gone;162 and all the children of Israel163 returned, each to his possession, to their towns.164 

156.  Verse 1 is the only verse in ch. 31 that has a partial counterpart in Kings. 2 Kgs 18:4, continuing directly from the previous verse, reads “He removed the bamôt and broke down the pillars and cut down the ašêrâh and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it; and it was called Nehushtan.” Hezekiah’s destruction of the bronze serpent is not mentioned in Chronicles. For possible reasons for this see the commentary. 157.  ‫מצבות‬, also translated “pillars.” 158.  Instead of Kings’ ‫כרת‬, “cut,” Chronicles has the relatively rarer ‫ויגדעו‬, “chopped to a stump.” The same word is used of Asa’s cutting down asherim in 2 Chron. 14:2, and in the piel form giddêa for Josiah in 2 Chron. 34:4 and 7. It is also used for the cutting down of asherim in Deut. 7:5 and “the idols of their gods” in Deut. 12:3. 159.  The Greek translation of Chronicles does not usually use different words for altars to Yahweh and idolatrous ones, using τὰ θυσιαστήρια for both. Only here is the word τοὺς βωμοὺς used for idolatrous altars, as is done in the LXX of the Pentateuch (Allen 1974, 1:57). 160.  ‫מכל‬, literally “from all.” Some manuscripts of the Greek have ἀπὸ πάσης γῆς Ιουδαίας, “from all the land of Judah” instead of ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς Ιουδαίας, “from all of Judah,” apparently confusing γ for τ. See Allen 1974, 2:20. 161.  The Greek has καὶ ἀπὸ Μανασση, “and from Manasseh,” perhaps reading ‫וממנשה‬ instead of ‫ומנשה‬. 162.  ‫עד־לכלה‬. NJPS has “to the very last one.” 163.  ‫בני־ישראל‬, literally “sons of Israel.” NRSV has “people of Israel”; NJPS has “Israelites.” The Greek just has “Israel.” 164.  ‫ – איש לאחזתו לעריהם‬laaḥuzâtô, “to his possession” is in the singular, leârêhem, “to their towns,” is plural. The various translations handle this shift in different ways.



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

327

2 And Hezekiah appointed165 the divisions of the priests and the Levites over166 their divisions,167 everyone according to his task,168 the priests and the Levites,169 for burnt offerings and offerings of well-being, to serve and to give thanks and to praise in170 the gates of the camp of the Lord.171  3 And the portion of the king172 from his own property for the burnt offerings: the burnt offerings of morning and of evening, and the burnt offerings for the Sabbaths and the new moons and the festivals,173 as it is written in the Torah

NJPS, for example, has “then the Israelites returned to their towns, each to his possession,” while Dillard (1987, 247) renders “each to his own town and possession.” 165.  ‫ויעמד‬, literally “made to stand” or “positioned.” NJPS has “reconstituted.” 166.  ‫על‬. Myers (1965, 2:180) translates “according to their divisions,” and Klein (2012, 443) translates “by their divisions,” both of which are possible. 167.  The reason for the repetition, “appointed the divisions…over their divisions” is not clear. NRSV translates “division by division,” while NJPS and Dillard (1987, 247) simply ignore the phrase. 168.  ‫עבדתו‬. NRSV “his service.” 169.  ‫לכהנים וללוים‬, “for/to the priests and for/to the Levites.” The reason for the proposition is not clear – it adds nothing to the meaning of the verse. The Greek presents the following phrases in a different order, making “to serve” relate only to the Levites, and this was picked up by Rudolph (1955, 304), Dillard (1987, 248) and Klein (2012, 443). Japhet (1993, 963) suggested that the word ‫“ והשמרים‬and the guards” originally appeared before ‫בשערי‬, “in the gates” and was lost due to haplography. 170.  Dillard (1987, 248) suggested understanding this as meaning that they served “within/inside” the gates, and not “in” the gates themselves. 171.  The use of “camp of the Lord” as an epithet for either the Temple or its courts is unique to the Chronicler. 1 Chron. 9:18 speaks of “the gatekeepers of the camps of the sons of Levi,” and v. 19 then tells of the Korahites who “guarded the threshold of the tent, and their fathers over the camp of the Lord, guards of the entrance.” Dillard (1987, 284) calls this a “semi-military term” which “may recall the tabernacle traditions (Num 2:3, 9),” reflecting the Chronicler’s “interest in holy war.” The Greek has ἐν ταῖς πύλαις ἐν ταῖς αὐλαῖς οἴκου κυρίου, “the gates of the courts of the house of the Lord” – either the translator or his source used the more familiar term for the Temple compound. 172.  ‫מנת המלך‬. The term, which appears in Chronicles only in this chapter (in this and in the following verse in the singular and in v. 19 in the plural), would usually refer to the portion or share that the king received, as in Exod. 29:26; Lev. 7:33; 8:29 and even in our v. 4, “the portion of the priests and the Levites.” Rudolph (1955, 304) suggested that the word here be amended to ‫מתנה‬, “gift,” and NRSV translates “contribution” here and “portion” in v. 4, but there is no textual evidence to support this amendment. 173.  ‫מועדים‬. The basic meaning of ‫ מועד‬is “appointed time,” which is then used both for pre-set festivals, which have an appointed time in the calendar (see Lev. 23:4), and for “meeting.” In many texts, the “Tabernacle” is called “the Tent of Meeting” – ‫אהל מועד‬ (in Chronicles see 1 Chron. 6:17 [Eng. 32]; 9:21; 23:32; 2 Chron. 1:3, 6, 13; 5:5). ‫מועדים‬ as “festivals” in the sequence “Sabbaths, new moons and festivals” appears in 1 Chron. 23:32; 2 Chron. 2:3; 8:13 and here, all in very similar contexts. In the previous chapter,

328

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

of the Lord.174 4 And he said175 to the people, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,176 to give the portion of the priests and the Levites,177 so that they may be strengthened in the Torah of the Lord.178 5 And as the word spread,179 the people of Israel180 amassed181 the first182 of grain, wine and oil and honey and of all the produce of the field; and they brought in the tithes of everything in abundance. 6 And the people of Israel and Judah183 who lived in the cities of Judah, they also brought a tithe of cattle and sheep, and a tithe of the consecrated things

2 Chron. 30:22, ‫ מועד‬referred to the festival sacrifice. Many translations, including NRSV, have “appointed festivals,” but this is unnecessary. 174.  The Vulgate here has in lege Mosi instead of “the law/Torah of the Lord.” 175.  ‫ויאמר‬. NRSV and others translate “commanded” or “ordered,” and while this is probably what the king’s “saying” meant in practice, the text is less specific. 176.  Japhet (1993, 964) considers “the inhabitants of Jerusalem” to “unexpectedly” qualify “the people” and suggests that these words are a gloss. In this, however, she ignores v. 6, which mentions that “the people of Israel and Judah who lived in the cities of Judah” also contributed. The text purposely differentiates between the inhabitants of the capital and those of the rest of the kingdom. See the commentary. 177.  NRSV and others render “the portion due to the priests and the Levites” for clarity. 178.  ‫למען יחזקו בתורת יהוה‬. Most interpreters assume that the subject of this clause is “the priests and the Levites,” and that the purpose of the people’s donations is that they, the priests and the Levites, should be better able to serve God. In fact NRSV, NJPS, Dillard (1978, 247) and others render “so that they might devote themselves to the law of the Lord” and the like, ignoring the actual meaning of the word ‫יחזקו‬, “be strengthened.” The Greek took this even further with ὅπως κατισχύσωσιν ἐν τῇ λειτουργίᾳ οἴκου κυρίου, “so they may give themselves to the service of the house of the Lord.” Klein (2012, 443) follows Allen (1974, 2:99) in thinking that the end of v. 4 in the MT might have been influenced by the end of v. 3, and translates “so that they might be strong in the service of the house of Yahweh.” Japhet (1993, 964) understands the clause differently, as referring to the people, who are to be strengthened in the Torah by fulfilling its commandments, referring to a similar use of the phrase ‫ אם יחזק‬for Solomon in 1 Chron. 28:7. 179.  ‫וכפרץ הדבר‬, literally, “as the word burst forth.” NRSV and others translate “as soon as the word spread” for emphasis. 180.  ‫בני־ישראל‬, the “sons of Israel” or “children of Israel,” meaning the people. NJPS and Klein (2012, 443) translate “the Israelites.” 181.  ‫הרבו‬, literally “did/made much.” NRSV, Klein (2012, 443) and others have “gave in abundance.” NJPS renders “brought large quantities.” 182.  ‫ראשית‬. The wording here is dependent on Deut. 18:4, “the first of your grain, your wine and your oil and the first shearing of your flock you shall give him.” There, like here, the usual assumption is that ‫ ראשית‬refers to “first fruits,” but Christensen (2001, 396–97), citing Milgrom and Eissfeldt, raises the possibility that ‫ ראשית‬could mean “choicest, best,” since in other contexts, the regular term for “firstfruits” is ‫בכורים‬. 183.  A number of commentators, including Curtis and Madsen (1910, 479), Rudolph (1955, 304), Williamson (1988, 375) and Klein (2012, 449), have suggested that “and



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

329

that had been consecrated184 to the Lord their God, and put them heaps upon heaps.185  7 In the third month the heaps began to be established, and in the seventh month they were completed.186  8 And Hezekiah and the officials came and saw the heaps, and they blessed the Lord and his people Israel.  9 And Hezekiah inquired of the priests and the Levites of the heaps.187 10 And Azariah, the head priest of the house of Zadok, said to him:188 Since the beginning of the contributions brought189 to the house of the Lord, we have eaten and been sated and left over plenty,190 for the Lord has blessed his people, and the left over this multitude.191 

Judah” is a gloss, but others agree that there is no textual evidence of this, and that it makes sense in its present context. 184.  The repetition is in the Hebrew: ‫ומעשר קדשים המקדשים‬. See the commentary. 185.  ‫ויתנו ערמות ערמות‬. Different translators render differently; RSV “laid them in heaps”; NJPS “piling them in heaps”; Myers (1965, 2:181) “placed them on piles”; Dillard (1987, 247) “put it in many heaps.” 186.  Some translations make “them” (the people) to be the subject of this verse, as in NRSV “in the third month they began to pile up the heaps, and finished them in the seventh month,” but actually the subject is the heaps. “The third month” would have been the month after the postponed Passover, and “the seventh month” would be the first month of the rainy season, the month of the fall festivals. The gathering, then, took place through the summer. 187.  Most translations assume that “Hezekiah questioned the priests and the Levites about the heaps” (so NRSV; most others give similar meanings). However, the Hebrew actually uses the same preposition ‫על‬, “on,” “about” for both “the priests and the Levites” and “the heaps,” which Keel (1986, 856) understands as meaning that Hezekiah asked about the priests and the Levites and about the heaps. In Keel’s reconstruction, Hezekiah enquired of Azariah the head priest, whether the priests and the Levites had received their share of the tithes. 188.  The verb ‫ויאמר‬, “and he said” appears once at the beginning of the verse (“And he said to him, Azariah the head priest…”) and once more at the beginning of Azariah’s actual speech. In Hebrew, this repetition gives “meter” or “rhythm” to the verse. 189.  The Hebrew uses the infinitive ‫להביא‬, spelled defectively ‫לביא‬. 190.  The Hebrew uses three infinitive absolutes: “to eat, to be sated, to leave over.” Both ‫שבע‬, “to be sated,” and ‫יתר‬, “to leave over” are Hebrew verbs which do not have precise English equivalents, hence most translations have “we have had enough to eat and have plenty to spare” (NRSV) and the like, losing the rhythm of the Hebrew. This, together with the following “for the Lord has blessed his people” is a paraphrase of Deut. 8:10, “And you shall eat, and you shall be sated, and you shall bless the Lord your God.” See also Ruth 2:14, “and she ate, and she was sated, and she had left over,” and also 2 Kgs 4:43–44. 191.  Generally understood as “we have this great supply left over,” but the syntax with the particle ‫ את‬demands that ‫ההמון הזה‬, “this multitude,” be the direct object, not the

330

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

11 And Hezekiah said to prepare chambers192 in the house of the Lord; and they prepared.  12 And they brought in the contributions, the tithes and the consecrated things faithfully; and the supervisor193 over them was Conaniah the Levite, with Shimei his brother as second.  13  And Jehiel and Azaziah and Nahath and Asahel and Jerimoth and Jozabad and Eliel and Ismachiah and Mahath and Benaiah194 were officials195 under196 Conaniah197 and Shimei his brother, by the appointment of Hezekiah the king and of Azariah the supervisor198 of the house of God. 14 And Kore son of Imnah the Levite, the gatekeeper to the east,199 was in charge of the freewill offerings to God, to distribute200 the contribution of the Lord and the most holy of holies.201 15 And by his side,202 Eden and Miniamin and Jeshua and Shemaiah, Amariah and Shecaniah faithfully in the cities of the priests,203 to distribute to their brethren, by divisions, great and small alike.204 16 Except those listed,205 males from three years old and upwards, all who enter the house of the Lord for day-by-day duty, for their service according to their shifts,206 by their divisions. 17 And207 subject. Keel (1986, 857) cites Qimḥi’s suggestion that the leftover food was enough to feed the multitude of priests and Levites. 192.  ‫לשכות‬. Most translations have “store chambers” and the like, but the word itself does not mean a certain type of chamber. 193.  ‫נגיד‬. NRSV “chief officer,” Dillard (1987, 247) “leader” and so on. The Greek has ὁ ἡγούμενος οἴκου κυρίου, “the hegumen of the house of the Lord.” See the commentary. 194.  The Greek has Βαναιας καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ, “Benaiah and his sons,” apparently reading ‫בניהו ובניו‬, resulting from a dittography. 195.  ‫ במפקד‬...‫פקידים‬, here meaning “appointees… by appointment.” Compare Gen. 41:34; Est. 2:3. 196.  ‫מיד‬, literally “from the hand of.” 197.  Both here and in v. 13, the ketib is ‫ כונניהו‬and the qeri is ‫כנניהו‬. The name is the same as a Levite in David’s day mentioned in 1 Chron. 15:22, and has the same meaning as that of King Jechoniah – “the Lord has established.” 198.  ‫נגיד‬, as in the previous verse, only now referring to the chief administrator of the Temple. NRSV “chief officer,” Dillard (1987, 247) “leader” and so on. 199.  Probably meaning that he was keeper of the eastern gate. 200.  ‫לתת‬, literally “to give.” 201.  The syntax of this verse is difficult. See the commentary. 202.  ‫ועל־ידו‬. NJPS translates “under him.” 203.  NJPS: “in offices of trust in the priestly towns.” The Greek, however, has διὰ χειρὸς τῶν ἱερέων, “by hand of the priests,” ‫על־יד הכנהים‬. Klein (2012, 444) translates “alongside the priests” with no mention of cities. However, since the cities of the priests are also mentioned in v. 19, there is no reason to omit them here. 204.  ‫כגדול כקטן‬. NRSV and others have “old and young.” 205.  ‫התיחשם‬, the typical term in Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah for “being listed by genealogy.” See the following verse. 206.  ‫ – במשמרותם‬literally “by their guards,” the appointed period for which every group of priests and Levites came to serve in the Temple. NRSV translates “offices.” 207.  ‫ואת‬, meaning that “the listing” is a direct object of, but the subject is unclear.



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

331

the listing of the priests was by their fathers’ houses; and of the Levites from twenty years old and upwards was according to their shifts, by their divisions. 18 And they were listed208 with all their children, their wives, their sons and their daughters, for all the assembly;209 for they faithfully sanctified themselves in sanctity.210 19 And for the sons of Aaron, the priests, in the fields of the common land211 of their towns, in every town and town,212 people designated by name were to distribute portions to every male of the priests and to all who were listed of the Levites. 20 And Hezekiah did this in all Judah; he did what was good and right and faithful before the Lord his God. 21 And every deed that he began in the service of the house of God,213 and in the Torah and the commandment, to seek his God, he did with all his heart, and he succeeded.

Commentary Hezekiah’s “Cultic Reforms” This chapter is often discussed under the title of “Hezekiah’s cultic reforms,” although in reality it deals more with administration than with cult. It begins with a partial paraphrase of 2 Kgs 18:4, which, following up on v. 3, which compared Hezekiah’s righteousness with that of David, now tells us that “he removed the bamôt and broke down the standing stones and cut down the ašêrâh and broke into pieces the bronze serpent Japhet (1993, 959) takes the Greek οὗτος as reflecting an original Hebrew ‫זאת‬, which Klein (2012, 444) translates “this is.” 208.  NRSV translates “The priests were enrolled,” but the verse itself does not specify the subject, and most translations have “they.” In all probability, it refers to both priests and Levites. 209.  ‫לכל־הקהל‬, referring to all of the priests and Levites and their families. NRSV translates “the whole multitude”; NJPS and Williamson (1982, 377) “the whole company”; Dillard (1987, 248) “the entire community.” 210.  ‫ – יתקדשו־קדש‬a unique expression. NRSV renders “for they were faithful in keeping themselves holy,” but ‫ יתקדשו‬implies activity, not just passively retaining their holiness. Keel (1986, 861) assumes that this means that they were scrupulous in observing the laws of priestly “holiness” in Lev. 21–22. 211.  ‫מגרש עריהם‬. NRSV “common land by their towns.” ‫ מגרש‬is a term used specifically and repeatedly for the land around the Levitical towns in Josh. 21 and in 1 Chron. 6. It is often translated “common land” or “pastureland.” According to Num. 35:4–5, these lands should extend 1,000 cubits from the city wall, making a square of 2,000 cubits on each side. For an attempt to define the term more precisely see Portugali 1984. In Chronicles, the term is also used in 1 Chron. 5:16; 13:2 and 2 Chron. 11:14, each with a slightly different meaning. The precise phrase ‫ שדה מגרש עריהם‬as written here is taken from Lev. 25:34, which forbids selling the fields of a Levitical town, “for that is their holding for all time.” 212.  ‫בכל־עיר ועיר‬. NRSV: “town by town.” NJPS: “each and every one of their towns.” 213.  The Greek is οἴκῳ κυρίου, “the house of the Lord.”

332

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it; and it was called Nehushtan.” This is followed in vv. 5–8 with another affirmation of his piety, “there was none like him among all the kings of Judah who came before him,” and with a summary of his divinely granted military successes. Chronicles, when taking up this theme, does not mention either the Nehushtan or the victories, but does expand on the first part of Kings’ v. 4 by adding the destruction of altars and the geographical description: “throughout all Judah and Benjamin, and in Ephraim and Manasseh.” Since Kings does attribute some destruction of “illicit” cultic objects to Hezekiah, the “operating consensus” among scholars for many years was that indeed Hezekiah, like Josiah almost a century later, did engage in some sort of “centralization” of the cult, destroying various cultic sites and objects throughout Judah, in order to strengthen the position of the Jerusalem Temple (see for example Weinfeld 1964; Williamson 1982, 372). When a “temple”/“shrine”/“sanctuary” (different scholars have used different terms), complete with maṣṣebôt and both incense and sacrificial altars, which was apparently purposely dismantled and buried, was found within the clearly Judahite Iron Age II fortress at Tel Arad, and when a large stone four-horned altar was found dismantled and buried in the administrative town at Tel Beer-sheba, both were claimed to have been dismantled during either Hezekiah’s reform, Josiah’s reform or both, and were seen as providing archaeological evidence for the historicity of those reforms (see for example Aharoni 1968; 1974; Rainey 1994). These reforms were then understood as part of the background for the tumultuous events of both kings’ reigns. In Hezekiah’s case, the “reform” was taken to be a part of the social and political changes that led up to the rebellion against Assyria. The part of Sennacherib’s speech in which he refers to Hezekiah’s destruction of Yahweh’s bamôt and altars, telling the people to worship only at “this”/“one” altar in Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18:22; Isa. 36:7; 2 Chron. 32:11–12), was seen as proving the connection between the events (Borowski 1995). Later refining of the stratigraphy at both sites made it clear both shrines were demolished toward the end of the eighth century BCE, which would actually strengthen the case for their demolition being connected to Hezekiah’s reform (and not to Josiah’s; see Herzog 2010, 197). However this consensus is not universal. Na’aman, for example, dismissed the biblical accounts of Hezekiah’s reforms as having “been formulated by the historian. No pre-Dtr. written source referring to a large scale cultic reform can be discovered in the history of Hezekiah” (1995, 184). He then went on to argue that the Arad and Beer-sheba discoveries



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

333

do not prove a thing, and even pointed out that since Sennacherib’s reliefs showing the conquest of Lachish show incense burners being taken from that conquered Judahite city, there must have been a shrine within that city before it was destroyed (1995, 191–93), contradicting the claim that Hezekiah had destroyed all the bamôt in Judah. Fried (2002, 444–50) and Edelman (2008) arrived at similar conclusions. However this totally negative assessment has hardly become the new consensus. Finkelstein and Silberman (2006, 269–75) and Herzog (2010) have presented detailed analyses of the archaeological evidence and concluded “that one cannot doubt the fact that these cult centers were intentionally abolished. Still, one has to admit that there is, yet, no direct proof that relates this abolishment with the biblical story about Hezekiah’s cultic reform.” However, he continues, the “unique, exceptional case” of convergence of archaeological, biblical and Assyrian evidence “justifies the conclusion that the acts of abolishment of cult discovered in the archaeological record of Arad and Tel Beer-sheba are a result of Hezekiah’s cultic reform” (Herzog 2010, 196). And Pakkala (2010, 201–202), who arrived at the conclusion that both Hezekiah and Josiah’s reforms “probably did not happen” based on source-critical considerations, admits that “some critical voices that have questioned the historicity of the reforms altogether…still represent the minority.” In any case, there are several major differences in the way that Hezekiah’s “cultic reform” or “centralization of the cult” is described in Kings and the way it is described in Chronicles. The first difference is in the wider context. In 2 Kings, the beginning of ch. 18 is situated between two descriptions of the destruction of the northern kingdom (all of ch. 17 and then 18:9–12), complete with the exile of the northern tribes and the arrival of foreigners who settled in the former kingdom, and is followed by the very detailed account of Sennacherib’s invasion and near-destruction of Judah and Jerusalem (18:13–19:37). Hezekiah’s piety, of which his “cultic reforms” are one manifestation and his military successes are a result, must be seen within that context. Also, as pointed out by Japhet (1993, 961) and Edelman (2008, 397), in Kings the “reforms” are a part of the author’s general assessment of Hezekiah’s reign, and not seen as a single event that happened at a specific time. The Chronicler, on the other hand, does not mention the destruction of the northern kingdom or the exile of its inhabitants, and certainly not the arrival of foreigners. Hezekiah’s reign and deeds follow those of Ahaz and precede those of Manasseh, and should be seen as a contrast to them. Sennacherib’s invasion, while certainly important, takes up only about two thirds of the fourth chapter in the Hezekiah narrative. The beginning of our chapter,

334

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

“when all this was finished,” and the next, “after these things and these acts of faithfulness” (2 Chron. 32:1), place the events within a very clear sequence – after the Passover and before Sennacherib. An additional difference between the Kings account and that of Chronicles is that where the former depicts Hezekiah (“he”) as the initiator and executor of the “reform,” in Chronicles it is the people, “all Israel who were present” in Jerusalem after the Passover and the following two weeks of celebrations. As Japhet (1993, 962) points out, this is the only case of a “popular” religious reform in the Bible, in which the people, following the king’s example and acting with “unity of heart,” are full partners in the events. As noted, the destruction of the Nehushtan, the bronze serpent that had been made by Moses at God’s command (Num. 21:8–9), is not mentioned in Chronicles. Several different reasons for this omission have been suggested. Rudolph (1955, 305) thought that the Chronicler might have preferred not to have to mention that Moses created the Nehushtan in the first place. Japhet (1993, 962) suggested “that what was still a matter of significance to the Deuteronomist had become an obsolete reference to the Chronicler, with no need for repetition.” Jonker (2008) feels that the mention of the Nehushtan’s very existence would have “blemished” the Chronicler’s image of Jerusalem, of the Zadokite priesthood and of Moses himself. Klein (2012, 446) suggested that since the Nehushtan was not created by Ahaz, the Chronicler saw no reason for Hezekiah to dismantle it. The final significant difference between 2 Kgs 18:4 and 2 Chron. 31:1 is the geography. While Kings does not define Hezekiah’s removing the bamôt and breaking down the pillars and cutting down the ašêrâh and destroying the Nehushtan in geographical terms, the casual reader would assume that he could only operate within his own kingdom of Judah. Chronicles, on the other hand, says that these things were done “throughout all Judah and Benjamin, and in Ephraim and Manasseh.” “Judah and Benjamin,” of course, are a common way of defining the southern kingdom, but “Ephraim and Manasseh” were beyond Hezekiah’s realm, in either what was left of the northern kingdom or in the newly formed Assyrian province of Samaria, depending on the chronological issues discussed above. This is, of course, a direct sequel to the previous chapter, in which people from “Ephraim and Manasseh” and a few additional tribes came to Jerusalem for the belated Passover. These people, now full of purpose and enthusiasm, “returned, each to his possession, to their towns,” and expressed their newly found loyalty to the Jerusalem Temple by destroying the shrines in their home towns – or at least this is how the Chronicler presented it.



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

335

How likely is it that this presentation reflects a historical event? Even assuming that there was a “cultic reform” or “centralization” in Hezekiah’s time, how likely is it that it included the territories of “Ephraim and Manasseh” as well? Na’aman (1995, 180–81), for one, thought that “Hezekiah’s involvement in the affairs of the newly founded Assyrian province of Samaria is highly unlikely.” In his opinion, after the final conquest of Samaria by Sargon II in 720 BCE, the exile of many of its inhabitants and their replacement by foreigners, The inhabitants of Samaria became Assyrian citizens. Any involvement of Hezekiah in the affairs of the newly founded province would have been seen as interference in internal Assyrian affairs and would have been severely punished by the energetic and powerful king of Assyria. It seems to me that the Chronicler had no source other than Kings for his account of Hezekiah’s reform, and that the description in II Chr 29–31 is not historically reliable. His description would best me214 omitted from the historical discussion.

Many scholars would agree with Na’aman’s assessment. There are, however, several points which should be made. The first of these is the chronological problem, which we have already pointed out. We simply do not know for certain if the events described in these three chapters are supposed to have occurred before 722 (the beginning of Shalmaneser V’s siege of Samaria) or after the city fell to Sargon II in 720. If Hezekiah indeed became king in 728, 727 or even 726 and “Ephraim and Manasseh” refers to the weakened northern kingdom, one could conjecture that Hosea actually saw Hezekiah as an ally, and in any case had no reason to stop the activities of his original emissaries, who, we should recall, were not all that successful (2 Chron. 30:10–11). If we assume that Hezekiah only came to the throne in 715 and “Ephraim and Manasseh” do indeed signify the Assyrian province, it is still not clear to what extent the Assyrians would have been bothered by cultic activity by the king of Judah, at this point a loyal vassal. And once again we should remember that the abolishment of bamôt and the like, whatever that actually entailed, was not done by Hezekiah himself, but rather by the returning pilgrims. Finally, we should note that while the Chronicler wished to portray Hezekiah’s activity as a great success, bringing “all Israel” back to the true worship of Yahweh at his true Temple, we have no idea what long-term affects this had on the people of the north. Even the Chronicler had to admit that Josiah was forced to initiate a similar “reform” about a century later.

214.  Sic. Should be “be.”

336

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Reforms in the Administration of the Temple and the Tithes The remainder of ch. 31 tells of the arrangements made by Hezekiah in order to ensure the proper functioning of the priestly and Levitical classes, not only in Jerusalem but throughout the kingdom. The text, however, is fraught with textual, lexical and grammatical difficulties, not all of which can be solved to complete satisfaction. Contextually, this is a continuation of 2 Chron. 29:25, but as Japhet (1993, 963) pointed out, the arrangements made before the mass Passover were temporary, “now, when all the excitement is over, it is time to establish the regular service of the Temple personnel, with full rehabilitation of the damage done by Ahaz.” Japhet also pointed out that, while the subject matter is reminiscent of Solomon’s arrangements in 2 Chronicles 8, there are conspicuously no references to David as the founder of the cult, as there are there and as there were in ch. 29. The description begins by stating that the king personally appointed the priests and Levites to their tasks, and while the syntax is not terribly clear, it seems obvious that the verse means that the priests were appointed over “burnt offerings and offerings of well-being” (ôlôt and šelamîm), which are the two main categories of sacrifices: the first being the regular daily, Sabbath and festival sacrifices offered for the entire nation, and the second referring to the various offerings made by individuals. The Levites’ task was “to serve and to give thanks and to praise in the gates of the camp of the Lord.” Verse 3 tells us that the ôlôt were paid for from the king’s own coffers, again evoking the comparison with Solomon. The reference to the Torah of Moses is for the sacrifices themselves, not that the king should pay for them. Hezekiah’s instruction that the “portion” of the priests and the Levites, their livelihood, be contributed by the people was answered by an outpouring of good will and an abundance of tithes. The first of the three categories of products brought for the priests, grain, wine and oil, are considered to be the basic staples of the ancient world, and are listed together, in exactly the same words, in the law of the tithes in Deut. 18:4, “the first of your grain, your wine and your oil and the first shearing of your flock you shall give him.” Honey was a luxury item, not a staple, and was specifically forbidden as part of an offering (Lev. 2:11–12). This, however, did not preclude its being given to the priests as a food supplement. The word debâš, “honey,” appears some fifty-five times in the Bible, but in Chronicles is mentioned only here. In over fifteen places, the Promised Land is called “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; 13:5; Lev. 20:24; Num. 13:27; Deut. 6:3; Josh. 5:6; Jer. 11:5 and more), and “butter and honey” are mentioned in Isa. 7:15 and 22. Since beekeeping is not specifically mentioned in the Bible and



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

337

the only two cases of someone actually eating bee’s honey obviously refer to wild bees (Judg. 14:8–9; 1 Sam. 14:27), it has often been assumed that beekeeping was not practiced in ancient Israel, and that most references to “honey” actually refer to fruit-honey, particularly from dates (Borowski 2002, 127; also Keel 1986, 855; Dillard 1987, 250; Klein 2012, 449).215 However not all scholars agree with this. Many of those biblical references can be shown to make more sense if they refer to bees’ honey (Forti 2006). There is both written and archaeological evidence of beekeeping in ancient Egypt, Minoan and Mycenaean Greece and in ancient Anatolia and Syria as well, and the discovery in 2005 of clay apiaries from the Iron Age IIA (tenth–ninth centuries BCE) at Tel Rehov in northern Israel supplies evidence of “industrial” beekeeping in ancient Israel as well (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2007). All of this, however, does not indicate which type of honey the Chronicler or his source had in mind, or why it was added to the standard trio of staples. Perhaps, together with “all the produce of the field,” it was intended to show how generous the people were in following Hezekiah’s lead. Verse 6 tells us that “the people of Israel and Judah who lived in the cities of Judah” brought tithes of cattle and sheep. If not simply intended as a literary term for “the whole nation,” “the people of Israel” could refer to those northerners who had relocated to the southern kingdom, either following their Passover pilgrimage or in the wake of the fall of the northern kingdom. The latter, of course, is only probable if these events are assumed to have actually occurred after 722 BCE. “Tithes of cattle and sheep – all that passes under the shepherd’s staff” are mentioned only in Lev. 27:32 and nowhere else. Milgrom (2001, 2398–401) does not doubt that such tithes were actually offered, citing Gen. 28:22 and Babylonian precedents. However, in his opinion, as Israelite society became less pastoral and more agrarian, animal tithes came to be considered voluntary and eventually fell out of use. They are discussed theoretically in Qumran, where they are given to the priests, and rabbinic literature, according to which they are eaten after being sacrificed as šelamîm (Keel 1986, 855). The Chronicler probably included them in order to emphasize the people’s generosity. The second type of item listed in v. 6, “a tithe of the consecrated things that had been consecrated to the Lord their God,” is problematic. The phrase seems to be based on Num. 18:19, in which all “contributions of consecrated things” are given to the priests, but these are not called 215.  In modern Arabic, dibs, obviously etymologically related to Hebrew debâš, is used only for fruit-honey, usually from grapes. This seems to have influenced the way modern scholars understood the biblical texts. See Forti 2006, 327.

338

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

“tithes.” Some translations (such as NRSV and Klein 2012, 450) simply omit the word “tithes.” Keel (1986, 856) suggests that the reference is to the Levites’ portion according to Num. 18:26, from which the Levites then also gave “a tithe from the tithe” to the priests. Keel also quotes Gersonides, who thought that the reference was to the rabbinic “second tithe,”216 and Qimḥi, who saw it as another sign of the people’s generosity, since “consecrated things” are usually not tithed. Hezekiah, upon seeing the plentiful contributions, blessed God and the people, and then asked the priests about the “heaps” of produce that had obviously not been used. The priest who responded was “Azariah, the head priest of the house of Zadok,” who in v. 13 is called “Azariah the nagîd (‘supervisor’) of the house of God.” This Azariah was obviously a person of authority, and most commentators assume that he was what other sources call “the high priest.” Azariah seems to have been a very common name among priests. The list of the descendants of Aaron in 1 Chron. 5:29–41 [Eng. 6:3–15] includes three, the second of which is said to have officiated in the days of Solomon (see also 1 Kgs 4:2). “Azariah the head priest” (kôhên harôš – see below) is also the name and title of the priest who confronted Uzziah in 2 Chron. 26:17 and 20, but the identification of that Azariah with this Azariah about fifty years later (possible but unlikely) and of either of them to any of the Azariahs in the list (number 3 if at all) is debated. Williamson (1982, 375) and Dillard (1987, 250) think not and attribute the repetition of the name to papponymy; Japhet (1993, 966) writes that “one may take this lead in regarding this person as a literary rather than a historical figure; or one may claim simply that the name was common in the house of Zadok.” Klein (2012, 450), on the other hand, thinks that Hezekiah’s Azariah is the same as the third Azariah on the list, and the grandson of Uzziah’s Azariah, who was the second of this name. “The house of Zadok” refers to the line of priests who were supposedly descended from Zadok, priest in the days of David and Solomon, and the various lists in Chronicles and in Ezra–Nehemiah trace the lineage of the priests from Zadok, and through him to Aaron of the clan of Kohath son of Levi. However, the earliest source that assumes that the only legitimate priests are of the clan of Zadok seems to be Ezekiel (e.g. 44:15); none of the other priests mentioned by name in the narratives of Kings or in Chronicles (that is, outside of the lists) is ever specifically referred to as 216.  Which was the rabbis’ way of harmonizing the tithe law of Num. 18:21–26, in which the tithes were given to the Levites wherever they may reside, with those of Deut. 12:11–18; 14:22–29 and 26:12, according to which they are given to the priests and must be consumed in the Temple.



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

339

being descended from Zadok. Literally, “the head priest of the house of Zadok” could mean either “the head priest of the Temple, who was from the house of Zadok,” or “the head of those priests who were of the house of Zadok” (while other priestly houses had their own heads). What is more important, of course, is Azariah’s function, or position. In v. 10 he is called hakkôhên harôš. This exact title appears again only in Ezra 7:5 (in reference to Aaron, and there it may mean “the first priest”), but the very similar kôhên harôš is mentioned in 2 Chron. 19:11; 24:11 and 26:20, as well as in 2 Kgs 25:18 = Jer. 52:24. In our v. 13, the same Azariah is also called the nagîd of the house of God, a title also used of an Azariah in 1 Chron. 9:11 (who, in the parallel Neh. 11:11 is called Seriah). In 2 Chron. 19:11, “Amariah the kôhên harôš” is aided in his duties as head of the court by one “Zebadiah son of Ishmael, nagîd of the house of Judah.” In our commentary there, we concluded that the “nagîd of the house of Judah” was some sort of royal administrator. Here, Azariah is both nagîd of the Temple and kôhên harôš, chief administrator and head priest (of the Temple or of one of the priestly clans). We do not have enough information to ascertain whether the two titles refer to the same job (as Keel 1986, 858, states specifically), or whether these were two distinct offices that were occupied by the same person and to what extent they were seen by the Chronicler as being similar to that of the kôhên gadôl, the “high priest.” Keel (1986, 708) suggested that the kohên harôš was the priest who was in charge of the Temple administration, which he saw as a separate function from that of the kohên gadôl. An alternative view is that of Mizrahi (2011), who sees the two titles as basically having the same meaning, that of “high priest,” with kohên gadôl being the normative term in pre-exilic Hebrew, and kohên harôš being a term coined in the exilic or early postexilic period, in order to emphasize that the head priest should also be “head” of his family, that is, the eldest brother. Another nagîd mentioned in this chapter was Conaniah the Levite, who was in charge of storing the leftover tithes and contributions in the chambers prepared at the king’s command, assisted by his brother and ten officials, presumably also Levites, although nothing more is known about them. Klein (2012, 451) sees significance in the total of twelve (Conaniah, his brother and ten more), but this number is not emphasized in the text. The close cooperation between Hezekiah and the Temple officials, however, is very much emphasized. Verses 14–19 describe the distribution of “portions” to the priests and Levites living “in their towns” throughout the kingdom. According to Num. 35:1–8, the Israelites, upon conquering the land, were supposed

340

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

to give the Levites, including the priests, forty-eight towns out of their tribal inheritances. Joshua 21 then tells how this was done, with “the sons of Aaron the priest” receiving thirteen towns from Judah, Simeon and Benjamin, and the Levites from the three other clans receiving the rest. The list of 48 towns also appears as a part of the Levitical genealogy in 1 Chronicles 6 (for a detailed discussion see the commentary there). For our purposes here we should note that while Japhet (1993, 968) seems to assume that the distribution system described in our chapter reflects a Second Temple-period reality, for the Chronicler, the “reality” was that the priests lived in “their” towns throughout the kingdom of Judah (the inheritances of Judah, Simeon and Benjamin), while the Levites, who had left “their inheritances” in Israel in the days of Jeroboam and come “to Judah and to Jerusalem” (2 Chron. 11:13–14), were apparently left landless. In his analysis of the list, Na’aman (1986b, 232–35) concluded that while the list of 48 towns in an artificial construct, the list of thirteen priestly towns is historical, and dates specifically to the time of Josiah, in the seventh century BCE. The reality assumed by the Chronicler in our chapter, “was apparently based on the reality of the time of the monarchy, although the text bears the stamp of the Chronicler.” In any case these “portions,” taken from both “the contribution of the Lord and the most holy of holies,” are put in the care of “Kore son of Imnah the Levite,” who is also in charge of the eastern gate of the Temple complex. 1 Chronicles 9:18 refers to Levites who were in charge of “the king’s gate to the east.” Klein (2012, 452) believes that this was the gate by which the king entered the sanctuary (also citing Ezek. 46:11–18 and 2 Kgs 16:18). While this Kore son of Imnah is otherwise unknown, other Levites who were “sons” of (a) Kore are mentioned as gatekeepers in 1 Chron. 9:19; 26:1, 2, 9. Kore had six assistants, presumably also Levites. The exact criteria for distribution are extremely unclear, and understood differently by different commentators, but in general, both the priests and the Levites who lived outside of Jerusalem are assumed to have served in the Temple in “shifts” and “divisions,” in exchange for which they received their share of the Temple-contributions. There were, however, differences between the two classes. For the priests, all males from the age of three were counted, listed by “fathers’ houses,” i.e. hereditary clans, while for the Levites only males from the age of twenty were counted, as instituted by David in 1 Chron. 23:24, and they were listed by “shifts and divisions.” However, though only males were “counted,” each household also registered young children, wives, sons and daughters (“sons” presumably meaning those who were old enough to serve, but not yet married, since once married



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

341

they would be counted in their own households). In the final position are “those designated by name” who were responsible for the distribution of the “portions” to priests and Levites throughout the land. The final two verses of the chapter are the Chronicler’s equivalent of 2 Kgs 18:5–7a, but stated in his own words, using almost every possible superlative. The Chronicler’s assessment of Hezekiah’s reign is totally positive, which actually makes his omission of the military successes recounted in 2 Kgs 18:7 b–8, his rebellion against the king of Assyria and his defeat of the Philistines, rather strange. 2 Kings 18:9–11 tell how, in Hezekiah’s fourth year, which was the seventh year of Hosea son of Elah, Shalmaneser king of Assyria laid siege to Samaria, and captured it after three years, exiling Israel to Assyria, thus summarizing 2 Kgs 17:1–6. Verse 12, “because they did not listen to the voice of the Lord their God, and they violated his covenant, all that Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded, and did not listen and did not obey,” is a summary of 17:7–23. But just as he had skipped the first recounting of the fall of the northern kingdom, the Chronicler now skips the summary. In fact, as has been pointed out by a number of commentators, nowhere does he specifically tell of the fall of northern Israel or of the importation of new inhabitants, as reported in the remainder of 2 Kings 17. Although he was certainly aware of the geopolitical reality, to him, the inhabitants of Samaria were still “Ephraim and Manasseh.” 2 Chronicles 32 – The Siege by Sennacherib and the Rest of Hezekiah’s Reign Chapter 32: 1 After these deeds and faithfulness,217 Sennacherib king of Assyria came and entered Judah and encamped against the fortified cities, intending218 to breach219 them for himself. 2 And Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib had come and that his face was set for war220 against Jerusalem. 3 And he consulted with his officers and his warriors to stop the waters of the springs that were outside 217.  Dillard (1987, 252–53) and NJPS read the phrase as a hendiadys, “these faithful deeds.” NRSV and others have “after these deeds and acts of faithfulness.” Much of this chapter is paralleled by 2 Kgs 18–19 and by Isa. 36–37. Both 2 Kgs 18:13 and Isa. 36:1 begin with the date, Hezekiah’s fourteenth year, and then tell us that Sennacherib “came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them.” According to Kings (but not Isaiah) Hezekiah’s first reaction was to surrender, sending the Temple and palace treasures to Sennacherib at Lachish. Chronicles’ vv. 2–8 tell a different story. 218.  ‫ויאמר‬, literally “and he said.” NRSV translates “thinking,” NJPS “with the aim.” 219.  ‫לבקעם‬. On the use of this verb for the conquest of a city see the note on 2 Chron. 21:17. 220.  ‫ופניו למלחמה‬. NRSV and NJPS: “intended to fight.”

342

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

the city; and they helped him. 4 And a great many people gathered, and they stopped all the springs and the stream that flows through the land,221 saying: Why should the kings222 of Assyria come and find abundant water?  5 And he strengthened himself223 and built the entire breached wall, and raised the towers,224 and outside the other wall;225 and he strengthened the Millo, the city of David,226 and made weapons227 in abundance and shields. 6 And he appointed officers of war228 over the people, and gathered them to him in the plaza229 of the 221.  The Greek reads διὰ τῆς πόλεως, “through the city.” 222.  The Greek and other versions have “king” in the singular. 223.  ‫ויתחזק‬. Translated “set to work resolutely” by NRSV, “acted with vigor” by NJPS, “went to work with determination” by Myers (1965, 2:185), “took courage” by Dillard (1987, 252). The Greek attaches the verb κατισχύσῃ to “the king of Assyria” of v. 4, and then also copies it to v. 5. NRSV and other translations follow the Greek and add the subject “Hezekiah” at the beginning of the verse to avoid confusion about who was strengthened. 224.  ‫ויעל על־המגדלות‬, literally “and he went up on the towers,” which does not seem to make sense. The Greek καὶ πύργους, “and towers,” and the Latin et extruxit turres, “and he built towers” ignore the verb ‫ויעל‬, reading “and built the breached wall and the towers.” Dillard (1987, 245), Japhet (1993, 975) and Klein (2012, 456) assume that the word division in the MT is faulty, and read ‫ויעל עליה מגדלות‬, “and he raised towers on it” – on the wall. This reading is also followed by NRSV and NJPS, without explanation. Keel (1986, 867) notes the possibility of reading that he raised something onto the towers, the “something” being “machines” like those mentioned in 2 Chron. 26:15. The fem. pl. form ‫ מגדלות‬instead of the more common masc. pl. ‫ מגדלים‬appears twice in Chronicles (1 Chron. 27:25 and here), twice in Ezekiel (26:9 and 27:11) and twice in the Song of Songs (5:13 and 8:10). 225.  Presumably the verb here is “built,” although it is lacking in the text. NRSV has “and outside it he built another wall.” The form ‫ החומה אחרת‬is unusual, since the article would usually appear on either both words or not at all. Some manuscripts and commentators correct to ‫החומה האחרת‬, “the other wall,” others to ‫חומה אחרת‬, “another wall” (see Japhet 1993, 975). Keel (1986, 867), however, points out two examples of just this construction, ‫ העגלה חדשה‬in 2 Sam. 6:3 and ‫ הארץ אחרת‬in Jer. 22:26. 226.  ‫המלוא עיר דויד‬. The “Millo” seems to mean something like a “fill” of earth. The term is first mentioned in 2 Sam. 5:9 = 1 Chron. 11:8, and see there for more information. Our text does not supply a preposition that describes the relationship between the Millo and the city of David. Some translations, such as NRSV, fill in “in the city of David.” Others, such as NJPS, have “of the City of David.” 227.  A ‫ שלח‬is a “missile,” “javelin” or some other weapon that is thrown or shot. The singular form is actually a collective. See DCH 8:389. 228.  ‫ שרי מלחמות‬is a unique phrase, but seems to have the same meaning as the more usual ‫ שרי צבאות‬or ‫שרי צבא‬. NRSV translates “combat commanders,” NJPS “battle officers,” Dillard (1987, 252) “military officers,” Klein (2012, 456) “military officials.” 229.  ‫ רחוב‬appears in Chronicles only here and in 2 Chron. 29:4, in which Hezekiah assembled the priests and the Levites. See the note there on the translation “plaza” instead of the usual “square.”



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

343

gate of the city230 and spoke to their hearts,231 saying: 7 Be strong and be courageous; do not be afraid or dismayed232 by the king of Assyria and before all the multitude that is with him;233 for we have more than he.234 8 With him is an arm of flesh;235 but with us is the Lord our God to help us and to fight our wars; and the people were encouraged236 by the words of Hezekiah king of Judah.  9 After this,237 Sennacherib king of Assyria sent his servants238 to Jerusalem, and he was at Lachish with all his command239 with him, to Hezekiah king of Judah and to all of Judah that were in Jerusalem, saying:240  10 Thus says Sennacherib241 king of Assyria: On what do you rely, and sit in siege in

230.  The Greek reads τῆς πύλης τῆς φάραγγος, “the gate of the valley.” Dillard (1987, 254) thinks that this was influenced by mention of “the valley gate” in 2 Chron. 26:9. 231.  NRSV: “spoke encouragingly to them.” NJPS: “he rallied them.” In 2 Chron. 30:22 Hezekiah spoke “to the heart” of the Levites. 232.  Practically the same words are used in 2 Chron. 20:15. See also Deut. 1:21; 31:8; Josh. 1:9 and more. 233.  ‫ מלפני‬...‫מפני‬. Literally, ‫ מפני‬means “from the face,” and ‫ מלפני‬means “from before”: “don’t be afraid of the face of the king of Assyria…” NRSV: “before the king of Assyria and all the horde that is with him.” 234.  Literally, “there is more with us than with him.” From the following verse it is clear that the reference is to God, but NRSV’s “for there is one greater with us than with him,” meaning “our God is greater than his god,” is incorrect, since the following verse compares “the Lord our God” to his “arm of flesh,” not to his god. 235.  Comparing human power to that of Yahweh. See Jer. 12:5, translated (NRSV): “Cursed are those who trust in mere mortals and make mere flesh their strength, whose hearts turn away from the Lord” – “make mere flesh their strength,” ‫ושם בשר זרעו‬, literally “and make flesh their arm.” 236.  ‫ויסמכו‬. SMK means “to lean on” and in the passive “to be held up by.” They understood that they could “lean on” God, and they were “held/lifted up” by Hezekiah’s words. 237.  At this point Chronicles reconverges with Kings and Isaiah, but since the preparations described in vv. 2–8 are not described there, they do not have “after this.” 238.  Kings identifies the messengers as Tartan, Rab-saris and Rab-shakeh; in Isaiah only Rab-shakeh is mentioned. Kings and Isaiah also say that they are accompanied by an army, and that they are met by three of Hezekiah’s officers. None of this is mentioned by the Chronicler. 239.  ‫ממשלתו‬, “his rulership” – the high command of his army, and perhaps additional senior advisors as well. NRSV has “forces,” NJPS “staff,” Dillard (1987, 252) has “high command.” Omitted by Kings and Isaiah. 240.  The Chroniclers’ version of the speech made by Sennacherib’s emissaries is shorter than that of Kings and Isaiah, and the order is not quite the same. We will point out specific differences here. For the overall picture see the commentary. 241.  Instead of the king’s name, Kings and Isaiah have the Mesopotamian title

344

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Jerusalem?242 11 Is not Hezekiah misleading you,243 letting you244 die by hunger and by thirst, saying: The Lord our God will save us from the hand of the king of Assyria? 12 Is it not this Hezekiah who removed his bamôt and his altars and commanded245 to Judah and to Jerusalem, saying: Before one altar246 you shall bow down, and upon it you shall make burn incense?247 13 Do you not know what I and my fathers have done to all the peoples of the lands? Were the gods of the nations of the lands at all able248 to save their lands from my hand?  14 Who among all the gods of those nations that my fathers utterly destroyed, who was able to save his people from my hand, that your God should be able to save you from my hand? 15 Now therefore let not Hezekiah deceive you or mislead you like this, and do not believe him, for no god of any nation or kingdom is able to save his people from my hand or from the hand of my fathers; certainly your God will not save249 you from my hand! 16 And his servants said even more against250 the Lord God251 and against Hezekiah his “the Great King, King of Assyria.” The Greek translation of Chronicles also lacks Sennacherib’s name, but does not call him “the Great King.” 242.  The point of this phrase seems clear enough, but the wording is problematic. NRSV “that you undergo the siege of Jerusalem” and NJPS “to enable you to endure a siege in Jerusalem” both ignore the verb ‫ישבים‬, “sit” or “dwell.” Dillard (1987, 252) is closer with “that you stay in Jerusalem under siege,” as is RSV “that you stand siege in Jerusalem.” Myers (1965, 2:186) renders, without any explanation, “you who sit in the fortress of Jerusalem,” taking ‫ מצור‬to mean not “siege” but “fortress,” as in 2 Chron. 12:5, 11; 12:4 and more. Klein (2012, 456–57), pointing out that according to Chronicles there was no “siege” of Jerusalem, suggested that perhaps ‫ במצור‬should be translated “in distress.” However while this might be possible linguistically, the “hunger and thirst” of the next verse also seems to assume a siege. See the commentary. 243.  ‫ מסית‬means “to lead astray,” “to seduce.” In the parallel versions of the speech, 2 Kgs 18:32 warns “do not listen to Hezekiah, who will mislead you, saying: The Lord will save us,” and Isa. 36:18, “lest Hezekiah mislead you, saying: The Lord will save us.” 244.  ‫לתת אתכם‬, literally “to give you.” NRSV renders “handing you over.” 245.  ‫ויאמר‬, “and he said,” but in English “said…saying” is awkward. 246.  Isa. 36:7 “before this altar”; 2 Kgs 18:22, “before this altar in Jerusalem.” The Greek of Chronicles also has “this altar,” either by assimilation or reflecting the original. 247.  “Upon it you shall burn incense” not in Kings and Isaiah. 248.  ‫היכול יכלו‬, literally, “did they have the ability to be able?” 249.  ‫לא־יצילו‬, “will not save,” is in the plural, making the preceding ‫אלהים‬, “God” or “gods,” plural as well. ‫אלהים‬, which is plural in form, is used for both Israel’s God, in which case it is usually accompanied by singular verbs and adjectives, or for other “gods,” in which case the verbs are plural. The use of plural verbs, adjectives and so on for the God of Israel is rare but not unknown. In this case, it could be seen as reflecting the Assyrian’s assumption that Judah has “gods.” Some manuscripts have ‫ לא־יציל‬in the singular. 250.  The preposition ‫ על‬could be translated “of,” “about,” but the context indicates that they spoke negatively. The Latin translates contra. 251.  ‫יהוה האלהים‬, “Yahweh the God,” apparently to contrast with the other nations’ gods referred to in the previous verses.



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

345

servant. 17 And he wrote letters in derision252 of the Lord the God of Israel and to speak against him, saying of him thus: Like the gods of the lands who did not rescue their people from my hand, so the God of Hezekiah will not rescue his people from my hand. 18 And they called253 in a loud voice in the language of Judah254 to the people of Jerusalem who were on the wall, to frighten them and to terrify them, in order to capture the city. 19 And they spoke of255 the God of Jerusalem256 as of257 the gods of the peoples of the earth, which are the work258 of human hands.  20 And Hezekiah the king and Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet prayed about this, and cried out to heaven.259  21 And the Lord sent an angel260 and annihilated261 every mighty warrior and commander and officer in the camp of the king of Assyria; and he returned

252.  ‫לחרף‬. NRSV and others translate “to throw contempt”; NJPS “reviling”; Dillard (1987, 253) “defying.” 253.  The Greek, Latin and some Hebrew manuscripts have “he called” in the singular, as well as “he spoke” in the following verse. The subject of the plural in the MT is “his servants” from v. 16. 254.  ‫יהודית‬, “Judean” or “Judahite.” Besides the parallels in 2 Kgs 18:28 and Isa. 36:13, the term is also used in Neh. 13:24. The language began to be called ‫עברית‬, “Hebrew,” during the Hellenistic Period. 255.  The preposition used here is ‫אל‬, which usually means “to,” where ‫ על‬would be expected. The Greek has ἐπὶ, which is the usual equivalent of ‫על‬, and the Latin has contra, “against” as does Dillard (1987, 253), but all Hebrew manuscripts have ‫אל‬. 256.  ‫אלהי ירושלם‬, Greek θεὸν Ιερουσαλημ – a unique phrase, although the idea is widespread throughout the Bible. See, for example, Ezra 1:3: “the house of the Lord, the God of Israel – he is the God who is in Jerusalem.” 257.  ‫כעל‬, using the expected preposition. NRSV: “as if he were like.” 258.  ‫מעשה‬. The Greek, Targum and one Hebrew manuscript have the plural ‫מעשי‬, “works” or “products” (Klein 2012, 457). The wording is based on Hezekiah’s prayer in 2 Kgs 19:17–18 = Isa. 37:18–19. 259.  This verse summarizes most of 2 Kgs 19 = Isa. 37. The following verse rejoins the longer version for the dénouement, their vv. 35–37 = 38–38, but the wording in Chronicles is still significantly different. 260.  Kings: “And it came to be on that night, and an angel of the Lord went out and smote the Assyrian camp….” Japhet (1993, 990) emphasizes that the Chronicler’s wording removes any possibility of the angel acting autonomously – it is simply a messenger of God. 261.  ‫ויכחד‬. NRSV translates “who cut off”; Klein (2012, 457) “made disappear.” Kings and Isaiah have ‫ ויך‬and ‫ויכה‬, “and smote,” claiming that 185,000 Assyrian soldiers were killed by the angel. It is possible that the Chronicler’s version is a result of a misreading or copy error, but it also matches the totality of the destruction: “every mighty warrior and commander and officer in the camp of the king of Assyria.” In Kalimi’s opinion (2014, 42), “the Chronicler uses this verb…because he meant to present a much stronger, decisive and complete divine act.”

346

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

in disgrace to his county,262 and he came into the house of his god,263 and of the issue of his loins264 struck him down there with the sword.  22 And the Lord saved Hezekiah265 and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib king of Assyria and from the hand of all;266 and he guided them round.267 23 And many brought tribute268 to the Lord, to Jerusalem, and gifts269 to Hezekiah king of Judah, so that he was exalted in the eyes of all the nations from then on. 

262.  The parallel versions specify that Sennacherib returned to Nineveh, which was the capital of Assyria at that time. 263.  The parallel versions name the god as Nisroch. Neither the god or his temple are known from Assyrian sources, and it is generally assumed that the name is a corruption of some Mesopotamian god such as Marduk or Nusku (Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 239). 264.  ‫ ומיציאו מעיו‬ketib, ‫ ומיציאי מעיו‬qeri, as in Gen. 15:4; 2 Sam. 7:12; Isa. 48:19. This is the only time the expression is used in Chronicles. In fact, where 2 Sam. 7:12 reads “who shall come forth from your loins,” 1 Chron. 17:11 has “who shall be of your sons.” NRSV and others translate “some of his own sons” and the like. The parallel versions name the sons as Adrammelech and Sharezar, who then fled to Ararat, while Esarhaddon, a third son, became king. Mesopotamian sources corroborate that Sennacherib was killed by one (!) of his sons and that the rival son Esarhaddon then became king (for more detail see Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 239–40). This happened in 681 BCE, twenty years after Sennacherib’s campaign to the west. 265.  Verses 22–23 have no direct parallel in Kings or Isaiah. 266.  ‫ומיד־כל‬. Most translations and commentators assume that there is a noun missing after “all”: NRSV, Keel (1986, 877) “all his enemies”; Myers (1965, 2:186), Dillard (1987, 253) “all others”; NJPS “from everyone”; Klein (2012, 457) “all his army.” 267.  ‫וינהלם מסביב‬, literally “and he guided them around,” which takes some imaginative interpretation. NJPS has “He provided for them on all sides”; NIV “He took care of them on every side.” The Greek καὶ κατέπαυσεν αὐτοὺς κυκλόθεν and the Latin et praestitit ei quietem per circuitum seem to assume a Hebrew ‫ וינח להם‬instead of ‫וינהלם‬, which many commentators have adopted: NRSV, Williamson (1982, 385) and Klein (2012, 457) “and he gave them rest on every side”; Myers (1965, 2:187) “he gave them peace on every side.” Dillard (1987, 254) notes that if the Greek and Latin are correct, “the Chronicler uses the verb ‫נוח‬, “rest,” in a distinctive way…this is one other instance of Hezekiah’s being likened to David and Solomon.” Keel (1986, 877) unadmittedly harmonizes the two by quoting Ps. 23:2 ‫על מי מנוחות ינהלני‬, “on waters of rest he leads me” (NRSV “he leads me beside still waters”). 268.  ‫מנחות‬. NRSV has “gifts”; Dillard (1987, 253) “offerings.” The term ‫ מנחה‬is usually used either of offerings to the deity or of tribute to an overlord. 269.  ‫מגדנות‬. The Greek has δόματα, “gifts,” NRSV “precious things.” The same term is used in 2 Chron. 21:3, and see the note there.



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

347

24 In those days270 Hezekiah became deathly ill,271 and he prayed to the Lord, and he said to him272 and gave him a sign.273 25 And Hezekiah did not respond according to the reward that he received,274 for his heart was haughty,275 and wrath276 was upon him and upon Judah and Jerusalem.  26 And Hezekiah humbled himself277 of the haughtiness of his heart, he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the wrath of the Lord did not come upon them in the days of Hezekiah.  27 And Hezekiah had very much wealth and honor; and he made for himself treasuries for silver and for gold and for precious stone and for spices and for shields,278 and for all desirable objects.279  28 And storehouses for the harvest of grain and wine and olive-oil; and stables for each and every

270.  Verse 24 begins by quoting the beginning of 2 Kgs 20:1 = Isa. 38:1, but then summarizes most of the following chapters there in an additional eight words (in the Hebrew). 271.  Where Kings and Isaiah have ‫חלה חזקיהו למות‬, literally “Hezekiah sickened to die” (‫ חלה‬is a verb, with no need for “became”), Chronicles adds ‫עד־למות‬, “sickened until death.” 272.  ‫ויאמר לו‬, “and he said to him.” The Greek has καὶ ἐπήκουσεν αὐτοῦ, “and he answered him,” which is also used by NRSV and others, but from the context it is difficult to know if this refers to Hezekiah’s prayer or to God’s answer. Dillard (1987, 254) and Klein (2012, 467) discuss but do not adopt the suggestion that this reflects a Hebrew original ‫ויעתר‬, “answered (his prayer),” instead of ‫ויאמר‬. 273.  Where 2 Kings and Isaiah use the usual word ‫ אות‬for “sign,” Chronicles uses ‫מופת‬, which has more of a connotation of “wonder.” The word is not rare in the Bible, but in Chronicles it appears only here, in v. 31 below, and in 1 Chron. 16:12, which is itself taken from Ps. 105:5: “Remember the wonderful works he has done, his miracles (‫)מפתיו‬, and the judgments he has uttered” (NRSV). 274.  ‫ולא־כגמל עליו‬, “and not like the reward upon him.” What that reward was is discussed in the commentary. Verses 25–31 are not paralleled in Kings and Isaiah. 275.  ‫גבה לבו‬, “his heart was high.” NRSV and others translate “his heart was proud”; NJPS “he grew arrogant.” 276.  ‫קצף‬. See 2 Chron. 19:2 and note there. 277.  ‫ ויכנע‬literally means “he surrendered” the haughtiness of his heart. 278.  ‫ולמגנים‬. Both Dillard (1987, 254) and Klein (2012, 458) mention and reject a proposal to read ‫ולמגדנים‬, “(precious) gifts” as in v. 23 above and in 2 Chron. 21:3, citing the fact that Solomon’s shields were also kept in a treasury (2 Chron. 9:16; 12:9). Williamson (1982, 387) favors this “very small, though conjectural, emendation.” The Greek here is ὁπλοθήκας, “armories.” 279.  ‫כלי חמדה‬. NRSV has “all kinds of costly objects,” NJPS has “lovely objects,” Dillard (1987, 253) “valuable things” and Klein (2012, 457) “costly objects,” but see 2 Chron. 20:25 and the note there.

348

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

beast,280 and flocks for pens.281 29 And cities282 he made283 for himself, and flocks of sheep and cattle in abundance; for God had given him very much property. 30 And he – Hezekiah284 – blocked the upper outlet285 of the waters

280.  ‫לכל בהמה ובהמה‬, literally “for every beast and beast.” ‫ בהמה‬can be a wild beast, a grazing animal or an animal for riding (cf. Neh. 2:12). Solomon’s ‫ ארוות‬were certainly for horses (2 Chron. 9:25). The repetition “every beast and beast” could be understood as “every kind of beast” (horses, cattle, donkeys etc.), or individual stalls for each and every individual animal (Keel 1986, 882). 281.  ‫ועדרים לאורות‬. The word ‫אורות‬, awērôt, is otherwise unknown, and it is assumed to be a corruption or a by-form of ‫ארות‬, urâwôt, “stables” or “stalls.” However the word-order “flocks for pens/stalls” seems to break the pattern of the previous objects, and makes less sense then “pens for flocks,” just like the previous “stables for beasts.” The Greek simply reverses the order, which Japhet (1993, 975) tends to accept. BHS suggests deleting these two words and reading ‫עדרים‬, “herds,” instead of ‫ערים‬, “cities,” at the head of the following verse. Most translations sidestep the issue by translating “sheepfolds” (NRSV) and the like. 282.  The mention of “cities” here, among all of the agricultural products, might seem strange, and Klein (2012, 458) follows BHS in changing ‫ערים‬, “cities,” to ‫עדרים‬, “herds.” There is, however, no textual evidence to support this emendation: the Greek and Latin have πόλεις and urbes, “cities.” Both Keel (1986, 882) and Dillard (1987, 254) understand these “cities” to be royal estates. 283.  ‫עשה‬, “made” or “did,” is an unusual term to use for “cities,” where one would expect ‫בנה‬, “built,” and the like. NRSV translates the word here as “provided,” NJPS as “acquired.” 284.  ‫והוא יחזקיהו‬, obviously meant to emphasize the following act of the king, which was considered to be one of his crowning achievements. NRSV translates “And this Hezekiah,” NJPS “It was Hezekiah,” Myers (1965, 2:191) “Hezekiah also was the one,” Dillard (1987, 253) “Hezekiah was the one,” Klein (2012, 458) “This same Hezekiah.” 285.  ‫מוצא‬, from the root ‫יצא‬, “to exit.” Often used of the utterings of the mouth of a person (Num. 30:13; Deut. 23:24; Jer. 17:16) or of God (Deut. 8:3; Ps. 89:35 [Eng. 34]). In poetry, it is sometimes used for the “coming out” of the sun (the east – Hos. 6:3; Pss 19:7 [Eng. 6]; 75:7 [Eng. 6]). In Num. 33:2 (twice!), ‫ מוצאיהם‬are the places from which the Israelites set out on each leg of their journey. In Ezekiel (42:11; 43:11; 44:5) they are the exits of the Temple. But just as often, ‫ מוצא‬is a source of water, a spring from which water comes out of the earth (2 Kgs 2:21; Isa. 58:11; Ps. 107:33, 35). However the ‫ מוצא‬of the Gihon is mentioned only here, and the only other use of ‫ מוצא‬in Chronicles is in 2 Chron. 1:16 (=1 Kgs 10:28), for the “source” of Solomon’s horses. Interestingly, the word is also used in the Siloam Tunnel Inscription and is also the name of a town in Benjamin (usually spelled Mozah in English). Rendsburg and Schniedewind (2010, 194–95) have suggested that ‫ מוצא‬is a specifically Benjaminite–Ephraimite term for “spring.”



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

349

of Gihon286 and directed them287 down westward288 to the city of David, and Hezekiah was successful in all his deeds.  31 And so also289 in the matter290 of the spokesmen291 of the officials292 of Babylon, who were sent293 to him to inquire of the sign that had been in the land, God left him,294 to test him, to know all that was in his heart.295 

286.  This could also be read as “the outlet of the waters of the Upper Gihon” (thus NJPS), but our topographical knowledge of the Gihon spring in the Kidron Valley at the foot of the city of David makes the previous rendering more likely. For more geographical details see the commentary. 287.  ‫ויישרם‬, literally “and he straightened them,” from ‫ישר‬, “straight.” However the water-channel was anything but straight. See the commentary. 288.  ‫למטה־מערבה לעיר דויד‬. NRSV, NJPS, Myers (1965, 2:191), Dillard (1987, 253) and Klein (2012, 458) all translate “down to the west side of the City of David,” but the Hebrew simply indicates the direction in which the water was diverted, not to which side of the city of David it reached. 289.  “And so also” was Hezekiah successful. 290.  The word “matter” is not represented in the Hebrew, but is necessary to make the sentence comprehendible in English. 291.  The term ‫מליץ‬, used here of the Babylonian “envoys” (so the Greek πρεσβευταῖς and the Latin legatione, and so NRSV and others; NJPS “ambassadors,” Myers 1965, 2:192 “representatives”) is unique in Chronicles and rare in the rest of the Bible. In Gen. 42:23 it is often assumed to mean “interpreter” (NRSV). In Job 33:23 it is a “mediator” (NRSV). At Isa. 43:27 the NRSV has “interpreters,” but NJPS seems closer to the mark with “spokesmen.” Keel (1986, 883) cites Prov. 1:6, “to understand a proverb and a ‫מליצה‬ (NRSV ‘figure’; NJPS ‘epigram’), the words of the wise and their riddles,” to suggest that these were Babylonian “wise men” who came because they had heard of the “sign” shown to Hezekiah. Hab. 2:6 seems to use the word in the same way, although elsewhere in Proverbs ‫ לץ‬seems to have a negative connotation. 292.  According to 2 Kgs 20:12 = Isa. 39:1, Merodach-baladan king of Babylon sent letters and gifts to Hezekiah because he was ill. Klein (2012, 458) changes ‫ שרי‬to a single ‫שר‬, “official,” with no explanation, but does comment that some Hebrew manuscripts and the Targum add ‫מלך‬, “officials of the king of Babylon.” 293.  The MT has ‫ המשלחים‬in the active piel, apparently referring to the Babylonian officials who had sent the envoys. The Greek ἀποσταλεῖσιν and most translations assume the passive pual, referring to the messengers that had been sent. 294.  ‫עזבו האלהים‬, “God left him.” See the commentary. 295.  NJPS unnecessarily translates “mind” instead of “heart.” Japhet (1993, 996) points out that the phrase “to test you, to know what is in your heart” is taken from Deut. 8:2, although the sequel there, “whether you would keep his commandments or not” is missing here.

350

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

32 And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his pious deeds,296 are written in the vision of Isaiah son of Amoz297 the prophet on298 the book of the kings of Judah and Israel. 33 And Hezekiah lay with his fathers, and they buried him on the ascent299 of the tombs of the sons of David; and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honor at his death;300 and Manasseh his son reigned in his stead.301

Commentary Chapter 32 can be divided into three uneven parts: the first twenty-two verses relate the Chronicler’s version of Sennacherib’s attack on Judah, the following nine tell of the rest of Hezekiah’s deeds, those not connected with the cultic matters that were described in so much detail in chs. 29–31, and the final two verses summarize his reign and tell of his death and burial.

296.  ‫וחסדיו‬. NRSV has “good deeds,” NJPS “faithful acts,” Myers (1965, 2:192) “devoted acts,” Dillard (1987, 253) “acts of piety,” Klein (2012, 458) “loyal deeds.” This description is used only of Hezekiah and of his great-grandson Josiah (2 Chron. 35:26). 2 Kgs 20:20 summarizes “And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all the mighty deeds that he did, and that he made the pool and the channel and brought the water into the city, are they not written on the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah.” Chronicles does not mention the waterworks at this point, but does mention “the vision of Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet on the book of the kings of Judah and Israel.” 297.  This is identical to the superscription of the entire book of Isaiah (1:1). The Chronicler’s view of the relationship between Hezekiah and Isaiah is discussed in the commentary, but here he seems to mean that “the vision of Isaiah” was a source for his information on Hezekiah. 298.  ‫על־ספר‬, “on the book”: “the visions of Isaiah” are included in “the book of the kings.” Japhet (1993, 997) suggests that the reference might be specifically to 2 Kgs 18–20, which parallel Isa. 36–39. The Greek, Latin, Aramaic and Arabic versions, as well as NJPS, all add “and on the book,” indicating that “the visions of Isaiah” and “the book of the kings” are two totally separate works, both of which were used by the Chronicler. 299.  Japhet (1993, 997) understands ‫ מעלה‬as “upper part” and suggests that this may be a sign of distinction rather than a simple geographical description. She also points out that for no other king, David and Solomon included, does the Chronicler state that “all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honor,” further distinguishing Hezekiah from all other kings. 300.  Literally, this sentence would read “and honor they him did, in his death, all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” The word order was changed for better English. 301.  2 Kgs 20:21 does not give any details of Hezekiah’s burial: “And Hezekiah lay with his fathers, and his son Manasseh reigned in his stead.”



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

351

We should note that even the comparatively large amount of text devoted to Sennacherib’s attack here is but an abridgment of the much more detailed depiction in 2 Kings and in Isaiah, each of which devote the better part of two whole chapters to that affair. However the Chronicler’s version is not just a summary; in many ways the Chronicler reinterprets the events and puts them into a totally new perspective. Sennacherib’s Attack on Judah One result of the Chronicler’s non-mention of the fall of Samaria and of Hezekiah’s rebellion against Assyria (2 Kgs 18:7b) is that the attack of Sennacherib on Judah seems “to come out of nowhere,” unprovoked and with no reason. Kings’ “fourteenth year of Hezekiah’s reign” is replaced by “after these deeds and faithfulness,” harking back to the previous chapter, 31:20, “and Hezekiah did this in all Judah; he did what was good and right and faithful before the Lord his God.” In other words, what is important is not the chronology but the sequence – Sennacherib’s attack occurred after Hezekiah’s “deeds and faithfulness” in cleansing the Temple and celebrating the Passover. Jarick (2007, 170) emphasizes that unlike most previous enemy incursions, this one is not presented as a punishment for the king’s sins. On the contrary, this invasion comes “after these deeds and faithfulness,” perhaps “staged by Yahweh as a marvelous way to facilitate an outcome through which the present king of Judah will be ‘exalted in the sight of all nations from that time forward’ (32:23).” Both Japhet (1993, 980–81) and Klein (2012, 460) suggest that the wording of “after these deeds” is intended to hint at Gen. 22:1, the beginning of the story of the binding of Isaac, the Akedah. Like Abraham, Hezekiah is about to face a test of faith. The details of Sennacherib’s attack in Chronicles are also very different from those relayed in Kings and in Isaiah. Instead of capturing Judah’s fortified cities (2 Kgs 18:13 = Isa. 36:1), he only intends to capture them. According to 2 Kgs 18:14–16, Hezekiah’s initial reaction to the attack was to surrender and to pay heavy tribute;302 no mention of this is made in Chronicles. In Dillard’s opinion (1987, 255) these details are omitted because “they would be out of accord with the faithful acts of Hezekiah” as pictured by the Chronicler. Instead, Hezekiah’s initial reaction is to organize his defenses: he blocks off the outer entrance to the springs and channels water into the city, he rebuilds the broken-down walls and 302.  This apparent disparity between Hezekiah’s initial surrender and then his resistance has led some scholars to posit that there were actually two Assyrian campaigns, with two different outcomes. Most scholars do not accept this idea, citing a total lack of Assyrian evidence. See Cogan 2001 for more details.

352

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

distributes weapons, he appoints commanders and makes encouraging speeches. When Sennacherib sends “his servants” to Jerusalem, they are unnamed, as opposed to the three specific officials listed in 2 Kgs 18:17. The three Judahite officials listed in Kings as meeting them are also unnamed in Chronicles. The “great army” with which the Assyrian envoys arrive at Jerusalem in 2 Kgs 18:17, indicating a siege on the city, is not mentioned by Chronicles. This is often taken to mean that in the Chronicler’s mind there was no actual siege of the city. Japhet (1993, 987), for example, explains this “disharmony” as “a direct result of the Chronicler’s literary method. While carefully reworking the story in contents and phrasing, the Chronicler still insists on producing an adaptation of an existing text and not a new composition; the price to be paid is the unavoidable tension between old and new.” When v. 21 says that the angel “annihilated every mighty warrior and commander and officer in the camp of the king of Assyria,” Williamson (1982, 385) and Klein (2012, 466) write that the reference is to the Assyrian camp at Lachish, since in the Chronicler’s version, Jerusalem was never actually under siege. Kalimi (2014, 38–40) disagrees. He cites the fact that in vv. 10 and 11 the Assyrian officer does speak of a siege, in which the inhabitants of Jerusalem “die of hunger and of thirst,” and suggests that “the mighty warriors” described in v. 21 means that the Chronicler imagined Jerusalem as being besieged by “the mass of elite military forces.” We agree. There is no real reason to insist that the Chronicler intended to deny the existence of the siege, and the “great army” that accompanied Sennacherib’s messengers is just one more detail that the Chronicler did not bother to mention. The Assyrian messengers’ speech (vv. 10–19), while much abridged when compared to the “original” in 2 Kings and Isaiah, does include most of its formal elements, albeit in a different order. It, too, includes two rounds of speech, a letter, and the specification that Sennacherib’s envoys spoke Yehûdît, “the language of Judah to the people of Jerusalem who were on the wall, to frighten them and to terrify them, in order to capture the city” (v. 18), albeit without the request by Hezekiah’s men in the Kings version that the Assyrians speak Aramaic instead.303 In content as well, the two versions of the Assyrian’s speech share the same basic claims: 1. Hezekiah’s reliance on God is misplaced, since no nations’ gods had saved them from Assyria. 303.  For the idea that the Hebrew-speaking Assyrian officer Rabshakeh was an exiled northern Israelite see Levin 2015b.



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

353

2. Hezekiah is in fact misleading the people of Judah by insisting that they rely on God, since Hezekiah, by destroying their God’s bamôt and altars in favor of the altar in Jerusalem, had displeased God, who was certainly not going to come to his aid. However, when the content of the Chronicler’s abridged version is compared to the “original,” it is seen to lack some of the key rhetorical points that are included in the Kings–Isaiah version: 1. The specific identity of Sennacherib’s three messengers, as well as those of Hezekiah’s three officials. 2. The topographical details of their meeting place, “by the conduit of the upper pool, which is on the highway to the Fuller’s Field” (2 Kgs 18:17). 3. The futility of putting faith in Egypt, “that broken reed of a staff, which will pierce the hand of anyone who leans on it” (2 Kgs 18:21). 4. The claim made by Sennacherib’s messenger that Assyria was acting as an agent of God himself, just as God had caused Assyria to destroy Israel for its sins. 5. The Assyrian “dare” to Hezekiah: “I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders on them” (2 Kgs 18:23). 6. The Assyrian’s offer to the people, that if they surrender, they will be sent “to a land like your own land, a land of grain and wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive oil and honey, that you may live and not die” (2 Kgs 18:32). Also missing from the Chronicles version are the long and elaborate prayers of both Hezekiah and Isaiah, which make up most of 2 Kings 19 = Isaiah 37. In our version, these prayers are simply mentioned in v. 20, and not quoted at all. These “lapses” were not caused arbitrarily by the Chronicler’s abridgement of the text. The text as it is presents the Assyrian’s message in a very different mode. According to the Chronicler, the Assyrian’s main mistake is in speaking “of the God of Jerusalem as of the gods of the peoples of the earth, which are the work of human hands” (v. 19). In Kings and Isaiah, Sennacherib and Rabshakeh present themselves as God’s messengers, in a way that is almost credible. In Chronicles, they specifically speak against God, not for him. The Assyrians do not understand that “the God of Jerusalem” is not like other gods. The fact that other gods could not save their peoples is irrelevant; they are but “the

354

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

work of human hands,” while “the God of Jerusalem” is the real God. Hezekiah knows this, Isaiah knows this, the people of Jerusalem know this, and so, hopefully, do the readers of Chronicles. In similar vein, v. 21 of our chapter summarizes vv. 35–37 of 2 Kings 19 (= Isa. 37:36–38), but does not mention the number of Assyrian soldiers who were slain by the angel, the name of Sennacherib’s capital to which he returned, the name of the god in whose temple he was killed, or the names of either the two sons who killed him or the one who succeeded him. These details are not important to the Chronicler, who is more interested in Sennacherib’s demise as divine retribution for his “derision of the Lord the God of Israel.” What the Chronicler does add is Sennacherib’s “disgrace” prior to his death – a fitting end for an enemy of the Lord.304 This is especially true when compared to Hezekiah’s greatness as described in vv. 22–23: “all the nations” recognized that the Lord had saved Hezekiah, and now brought him tribute and gifts. Hezekiah’s Illness and the Divine Sign Verses 24–26 recount the Chronicler’s much-abridged version of most of 2 Kings 20 (which is paralleled by Isa. 38:1–39:8). In the Kings–Isaiah version, Hezekiah becomes deathly ill with boils, and is informed by Isaiah that he will indeed die. Hezekiah prays to God, and God tells Isaiah that he will allow Hezekiah to live an additional fifteen years. Hezekiah asks for a sign, and God first promises and then causes the sun’s shade to move backwards by ten degrees (perhaps on a sundial – v. 11 refers to the shade “on the ascents of Ahaz,” which may or may not be such a device). At this point, the Isaiah version (38:9–20) includes a “letter of encouragement” from Isaiah to Hezekiah. Hezekiah recuperates and comes to the Temple. Hezekiah then receives gift-and-letter-bearing messengers from Merodach-baladan king of Babylon, who had heard of his illness, and shows them all of his wealth. Isaiah, upon hearing of Hezekiah’s excessive hubris, prophesizes that Hezekiah’s descendants will be exiled to Babylon together with all of his treasures, to which Hezekiah replies, “but there will be peace and faithfulness in my days.” The Chronicler’s version begins with almost the same words, “In those days Hezekiah became deathly ill,” although the nature of the disease is not revealed. Hezekiah prays, although unlike in Kings and Isaiah, the prayer itself is not quoted, and God gives him a sign, which again is not

304.  In fact, as pointed out by Kalimi (2014, 46), the Assyrian documents make it clear that Sennacherib lived and ruled for twenty years after his campaign to the west and that his assassination by his sons had nothing to do with that campaign.



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

355

actually described. Chronicles also makes no mention of any role played by Isaiah in these events. The visit by the Babylonian emissaries is not mentioned in this context, but appears later, in v. 31. Verses 25–26 are somewhat puzzling. Verse 25 seems to state that Hezekiah was ungrateful for “the reward that he received, for his heart was haughty,” which brought God’s “wrath” upon him, Judah and Jerusalem, and then v. 26 says that since Hezekiah humbled himself, the Lord’s wrath was postponed until after his days. The similarity of the “delayed sentence” to the end of the pericope in Kings and Isaiah is obvious, but where the context there is that of the Babylonian delegation, here that delegation had not yet been mentioned. So what was “the reward” for which Hezekiah was ungrateful? Dillard (1987, 259) understands the sequence literally: no reason is given for the illness, but Hezekiah’s recuperation is what causes his pride, from which he then must be humbled. Keel (1986, 880), citing the Midrash Rabbah on the Song of Songs, suggests that Hezekiah had been too proud to give thanks to God for staving off Sennacherib, perhaps indicating that his illness had been a punishment for that pride, and that his humbleness was the condition for his healing. Japhet (1993, 992–93) and Klein (2012, 467) reach similar conclusions without the rabbinic source: since, for the Chronicler, disease is always a punishment for a sin already committed, here the reason for the disease must have been Hezekiah’s pride, and his humbleness the reason that his punishment was delayed. Honor and Wealth The question of sequence also comes up for the next four verses: did the Chronicler intend for us to understand that Hezekiah’s successes, manifested in treasures, storehouses, fortifications and waterworks, are the result of his “humbling himself” and only reflect his final years, or is this intended as a general summary of his entire reign? Are the waterworks the same as those already mentioned in vv. 3–4 as part of the preparations for Sennacherib’s invasion, or are these additional projects that were carried out later? There is no clear answer to this question, but Japhet (1993, 994) showed that vv. 27–29, dealing with Hezekiah’s wealth, and v. 30, which deals with the waterworks, are actually two individual literary units, each with its own opening, distinct topic and conclusion. Williamson (1982, 386–87) pointed out while there is no biblical parallel for vv. 27–29, and their inspiration came, in his opinion, from Kings’ story of Hezekiah showing off his wealth to the Babylonian envoys, the waterworks referred to in v. 30 are also mentioned in 2 Kgs 20:20 – although he thinks that the wording is different enough to indicate that the Chronicler had “an alternative source.”

356

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

The account of Hezekiah’s construction projects – and especially of his waterworks – has been the subject of much discussion. In vv. 3–4, Hezekiah was said to “stop the waters of the springs that were outside the city…and the stream that flows through the land (or ‘city’ according to the Greek),” then also rebuilding “the entire breached wall” and raising towers and strengthening “the Millo, the city of David,” all specifically in preparation for Sennacherib’s onslaught. Now, in v. 30, he is said to have “blocked the upper outlet of the waters of Gihon and directed them down westward to the city of David.” All of this is much more detailed than the general description in 2 Kgs 20:20, given as part of the summary of Hezekiah’s reign, that “he made the pool and the tunnel and brought the water to the city.” In the century and more of archaeological exploration of Jerusalem, and especially in the intensified excavations since the late 1960s and the 1970s, it has become clear that up to the eighth century BCE, the only part of the city that was fortified was the eastern ridge, which is now called “the city of David,” and presumably also including its northern peak, the Temple Mount. At some time during the late eighth century, a wall was built around the much wider “western hill,” expanding the city’s fortified area at least fourfold. This much-expanded city was the capital of the kingdom of Judah from the late eighth century until its destruction by the Babylonians in 586 BCE. The “Broad Wall” segment that runs along the northern escarpment of the western hill, excavated by Avigad in the late 1960s, has long been assumed to have been built by Hezekiah as part of his preparation for the Assyrian attack. Another critical discovery, made already in the late nineteenth century, was that of the Siloam Tunnel, a 533-meter-long S-shaped tunnel carved through the solid rock of the eastern hill, bringing the water of the Gihon spring from the Kidron Valley to the east of the hill, to the “Pool of Siloam,” in the valley between the eastern and western hills. The tunnel itself is an engineering wonder, cut by two teams who worked from either end and somehow managed to meet near the middle of the windy tunnel, keeping to a gradient of only 0.6‰ to descend only 30 cm over the entire tunnel. In 1880, a well-executed six-line inscription was discovered inside the tunnel, describing the excitement of the two teams meeting and the flowing of the water in good Biblical Hebrew, but with none of the elements that one would expect: no king’s name, no date, no blessing for the workmen or curse for whoever disturbs the inscription. This tunnel basically cancelled the older “Warren’s Shaft” water system (for more on these discoveries see Reich 2011, 13–39; Hadley 2012, 276–80).



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

357

Soon after the discovery of the Siloam Tunnel, the majority of scholars began to identify it with the water system attributed by both Kings and Chronicles to Hezekiah. This identification was reinforced by the discovery that the western hill was only settled and fortified late in the eighth century, since it would not make sense to construct such a tunnel, unless its purpose was to divert the waters of the Gihon from the Kidron to within the new fortifications. Furthermore, the discovery of several hundred fragments of storage jars with the word lmlk (lammelek – “to/ of the king”), followed by the names of various Judahite cities, in the layer of settlement at Lachish that was destroyed by Sennacherib in 701 BCE and in contemporary strata all over Judah, seemed to indicate that Hezekiah had indeed made massive preparations in advance of Sennacherib’s arrival. All of this seemed to match the biblical descriptions perfectly, so despite a few dissenting voices (for example Rogerson and Davies 1996, who thought that the tunnel was created much later and then attributed to Hezekiah), this became the general consensus – so much so that the Siloam Tunnel is often referred to as “Hezekiah’s Tunnel” (see for example Mazar 1990, 455–58 [on the lmlk stamps], 483–85 [on “Hezekiah’s Tunnel”]; Frumkin, Shimron and Rosenbaum 2003). More recent archaeological analysis has been much more nuanced. While both the tunnel and the inscription do seem to be firmly dated to the late eighth and early seventh centuries BCE, most archaeologists would hesitate to claim that they can be dated precisely to the short time between Sargon’s death in 704 and Sennacherib’s arrival in 701 (Hadley 2012, 283–84; Ussishkin 2014, 94). The same is true of the lmlk jars (Vaughn 1999, 81–187), which are now recognized to have had a longer life-span than just the reign of Hezekiah (Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010). Similar issues arise in relation to the Babylonian envoys. Historically, the person whom Kings and Isaiah call Merodach-baladan (or “Berodachbaladan”) is known to us as Marduk-apla-iddina II, a Chaldean who managed to take control of Babylon twice: from 722–710 BCE, when he was driven off by Sargon II of Assyria, and then again in 703–702, only to be defeated by Sennacherib. If he did indeed send envoys to Hezekiah, these must have been sent during one of these two periods, probably in order to coordinate the two kings’ rebellion against Assyria, which would make the latter of his two “terms” the more likely time for such a mission. In any case the envoys would have had to arrive before Sennacherib’s campaign to Judah, since by 701 Merodach-baladan was no longer in control of Babylon. But neither Kings nor Chronicles presents the delegation within the context of Sennacherib’s campaign: in both, it arrives “afterwards,” and for different purposes altogether.

358

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

The differences between the Kings–Isaiah version of the visit and that of the Chronicler are clear. The former names the Babylonian king, mentions letters and gifts, gives Hezekiah’s illness as the reason for the visit (perhaps indicating a previous relationship between Hezekiah and Merodach-baladan) and has Hezekiah showing off his wealth, which then prompts God’s anger. In the Chronicles version, the Babylonian king is not named, and the messengers become “spokesmen of the officials of Babylon” – not even royal envoys! Their visit has nothing to do with Hezekiah’s illness; they come “to inquire of the sign that had been in the land.” Whether, as already claimed by Curtis and Madsen (1910, 493), their visit had anything to do with the Babylonians’ interest in “the study of the movements of the heavenly bodies” (see also Dillard 1987, 260, who goes as far as to call them “magi” and to cite Matt. 2:1–2!), depends on the extent to which the Chronicler would have expected his readers to be familiar with the Kings–Isaiah version, since nowhere in Chronicles is the “sign” said to have anything to do with astronomy! Reading only Chronicles, one could assume that the “sign” was actually Hezekiah’s miraculous recovery from a near-death disease and perhaps also his great prosperity. Alternatively, Keel (1986, 883) suggested that the “sign” that drew the Babylonians was that of the destruction of the Assyrian army. The fact, noted above, that the Chronicler twice uses the “poetic” word môpêt for “sign” instead of Kings’ more prosaic ôt, could be another indication of his drawing on a different source. The end of v. 31 claims that “God left him [Hezekiah], to test him, to know all that was in his heart.” This “test” is entirely the Chronicler’s; nothing in Kings indicates that Hezekiah was being tested. But just what was this test? Was it the visit by the Babylonians? This seems to be the general consensus (so Keel 1986, 883; Japhet 1993, 996; Klein 2012, 469). But then what about God “leaving” him? How is this to be understood? Was it part of the test as well? The comment azâbô haelôhîm, “God left him,” is understood differently by different commentators. NRSV adds “to himself,” which conveys a similar meaning to Myers’ (1965, 2:192) “left him alone”: God did not interfere with Hezekiah’s handling of the Babylonians’ visit, in order to “test” his behavior. NJPS’s “forsook him” and Klein’s (2012, 458) “abandoned him” are stronger expressions of the same idea, that God stopped helping Hezekiah at some point in order to “test” him. In the analysis of Shinan and Zakovitch (1986, 269), the Chronicler, assuming that the reader would be familiar with the Kings version of Hezekiah’s showing off his wealth, felt that Hezekiah had failed the test, but both Japhet (1993, 996) and Klein (2012, 469) maintain that within Chronicles



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

359

the “test” was successful, as indicated by the words “and so also,” relating to “and Hezekiah was successful in all his deeds” at the end of v. 30. Keel (1986, 883), after first offering an interpretation similar to that of Shinan and Zakovitch, then offers an alternative: not that God “abandoned” Hezekiah, but that azâbô actually means that God “helped” Hezekiah overcome his test, citing Exod. 23:5, in which the verb azâb means “to help” or “to raise.” In fact, going back to the suggestions of both Japhet and Klein that “after these deeds” in v. 1 is intended to hint at the Akedah story of Genesis 22, which was Abraham’s great “test,” we might propose that in the Chronicler’s thinking, the “test” was all of the events related in the entire chapter, including the attack by Sennacherib, the disease, the wealth and the honor. Like Abraham and perhaps like Job, the faithful and successful Hezekiah was “abandoned” by God as a test of his faith, and came through with flying colors. The Chronicler’s Summary of the Reign of Hezekiah The final two verses of the chapter make up a fairly standard Chronistic regnal summary, based loosely on 2 Kings 20–21. However, unlike Kings, Chronicles does not mention Hezekiah’s waterworks, which have already been dealt with extensively. Kings’ gebûrâtô, “his mighty deeds,” is replaced with ḥasâdâw, “his pious deeds” (also mentioned for Josiah in 35:26). Unusually, “the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah” is replaced by what seems to be a reference to two “sources”: “the vision of Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet on the book of the kings of Judah and Israel.” The Chronicler’s use of this “double source” actually leads to two questions: that of the Chronicler’s attitude towards the prophet Isaiah, and that of his concept of the relationship between “the vision of Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet” and “the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel.” As Japhet (1993, 997) observed, “the figure of Isaiah diminishes considerably in the Chronicler’s version of this historical period.” Whereas from the Kings–Isaiah account of Hezekiah’s reign, not to mention the many references in the book of Isaiah to events in the reigns of “Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah” (Isa. 1:1), we would envision Isaiah as one of the more influential figures in Jerusalem of the time, Chronicles paints a different picture. In fact, against the thirteen mentions of the prophet’s name in Kings (all in 2 Kgs 19–20), he is mentioned only three times in Chronicles. Of these, once is the brief mention of his praying with Hezekiah in our v. 20, and the other two are as a source: for Uzziah in 2 Chron. 26:22, and here, for Hezekiah. We have already discussed the first of these above, and pointed out the various textual and historical

360

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

problems that it raises, including the fact that Isaiah is the only one of the “canonical” prophets to be cited by the Chronicler as a “source.” Moreover, with the one exception of 2 Chron. 20:34, “and the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, the first and the last, are written in the chronicles of Jehu son of Hanani, which are taken up in the book of the kings of Israel,” Chronicles always mentions either “the book of the kings…” in its various variations, or a prophet. Only in these two cases does he mention both. In her study of the Chronicler’s use of Isaiah and Jeremiah, Warhurst (2011) showed that despite the “conspicuous omission” of Isaiah from the Chronicler’s Hezekiah narrative, the same narrative seems to have been very much influenced by the book of Isaiah, in language, theme and vision. In her analysis, the Chronicler used Isaiah’s vision of a restored Judah to describe an idealized past history of Judah. The final verse of 2 Kings 20 tells that Hezekiah died, presumably in peace, and was succeeded by his son Manasseh. Chronicles adds the fact that he was buried “on the ascent of the tombs of the sons of David,” and that he was honored by “all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” The specific details of both are unique to the Chronicler’s Hezekiah, and serve to further his distinction as one of the great kings of Judah. The Chronicler’s Sources on Hezekiah Of the many issues that are treated in ch. 32, it has been the attack on Jerusalem by Sennacherib that has drawn the most scholarly attention, followed by the descriptions of Hezekiah’s construction projects. In our commentary, we have noted how the Chronicler built up his narrative, in order to convey those points that he felt were important parts of his message. An important part of understanding how the Chronicler did “build up” his narrative is to understand the sources with which he was working. As in all parts of the Chronicler’s narrative of the kings of Judah, it is quite obvious that his primary source was something very similar to what we call the book of Kings. Not a few scholars assume that that is all that he had, and that any differences between the Kings account and that of Chronicles can be explained by the Chronicler’s own agenda and his own creativity. In most cases, there is very little evidence that could prove otherwise. The Sennacherib episode, however, with its multiple written sources, biblical and non-biblical, and the relevant archaeological data, affords scholars a unique opportunity to explore this problem further. The basic question, then, is: is there any way to show that the Chronicler had access to historical information from the time of Hezekiah, which was not taken



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

361

from his “primary” source, the canonical book of Kings (in some form)? Can it be shown that the Chronicler provides details which are not derived from Kings and which can be correlated by the available epigraphic or archaeological evidence? There is no simple answer. On the one hand, the Chronicler’s specific theological and historiographical interests can be seen throughout the narrative. Of course, neither the Assyrian accounts nor that of Kings or Isaiah can be seen as “objective” (for a recent analysis of the former see Cogan 2014; for some of the latter see Hobson 2013). The very existence of the Assyrian campaign is not in doubt, but the particulars, such as the delegation sent by Sennacherib to Jerusalem, are not detailed in the Assyrian accounts. The Assyrian accounts understandingly do not mention the destruction of the Assyrian army by an angel of Yahweh. Marduk-apla-iddina II, the Bible’s “Merodach-baladan,” and his rebellions against Assyria are known, but there is no documentation of his sending a delegation to Jerusalem, making it impossible to know whether the Chronicler’s version of the details of the visit are more or less “accurate” than that of Kings. The Chronicler’s use of môpêt for “sign” instead of Kings’ ôt could indicate a different source, but it could just as well be the result of the Chronicler’s literary preferences. As to the archaeological evidence, we have already shown that while such details as the Siloam Tunnel and the Broad Wall seem to be reflected in vv. 4–5 and 30 of our chapter, and the expansion of Jerusalem and the use of the lmlk stamps throughout Judah seem to point towards the heightened prosperity mentioned in vv. 27–29, the archaeological record is not able to provide exact dates. Countering the claim made by North (1974, 378–79), that there is nothing in the Chronicler’s description which is not contained in Kings, one could claim that the reference in v. 5 to Hezekiah’s building “the breached wall” and “outside the other wall,” neither of which seem to be mentioned in Kings, might reflect his use of an independent source. On the other hand, Na’aman (2007, 44–45) and Evans (2013b, 109–11) have made the claim that that information is based on Isa. 22:8b–11a: On that day you looked to the weapons of the House of the Forest, and you saw that there were many breaches in the city of David, and you collected the waters of the lower pool. You counted the houses of Jerusalem, and you broke down the houses to fortify the wall. You made a reservoir between the two walls for the water of the old pool. 

362

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

In the opinion of Na’aman (2007, 45), the “Broad Wall” and the “Millo” may have been known during the Chronicler’s time to have been remnants from the First Temple period, but their attribution to Hezekiah “was the author’s own creative imagination.” In other words, while the information itself might reflect a historical reality, it does not mean that the Chronicler took it from an “independent” source. The Chronicler’s View of Hezekiah There can be no doubt of the prominence of Hezekiah in the eyes of the Chronicler. The four chapters (117 verses) devoted to Hezekiah in Chronicles are the most space dedicated to any king besides David and Solomon (next in line is Jehoshaphat, also with four chapters, but with only 101 verses). In fact, some commentators insist that the Chronicler considered Hezekiah to be “a second David” (for example Mosis 1973, 189–92), others insist that he is “a second Solomon” (such as Williamson 1982, 351; Dillard 1987, 229), while others (such Throntveit 1988; Japhet 1993, 998; Klein 2012, 441) point out that he has some of the attributes of both, but altogether he is a character unique unto himself. The book of Kings, of course, also considers Hezekiah to be one of the “best” kings of Judah, who did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as David his father had done. He removed the bamôt, and broke down the maṣṣêbôt, and cut down the ašêrâh, and broke into pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it; and they called it Nehushtan. He trusted in the Lord the God of Israel; and after him there was none like him among all the kings of Judah, or those who were before him. And he held fast to the Lord, and did not depart from following him and he kept the commandments that the Lord commanded Moses. The Lord was with him; wherever he went, he prospered. (2 Kgs 18:3–7a)

The focus there, however, is very different from that of Chronicles. Hezekiah’s “cleansing of the land” is mentioned briefly, his military and economic successes even more briefly, his operations in the Temple, including the mass-Passover, not at all. The vast majority of the three chapters in Kings are dedicated to Sennacherib’s siege, in which the prophet Isaiah also plays a major role. In our commentary above, we have highlighted the difference in the Chronicler’s presentation of these events when compared to that of Kings. Obviously, the different presentations of Hezekiah’s reign reflect the authors’ different theological and social agendas (as emphasized by Kalimi 2014), which are themselves reactions to the authors’ different



The Reign of Hezekiah – 2 Chronicles 29–32

363

historical, social and political circumstances (on which see, for example, Becking 2013, 187–94). One of these differences is the authors’ attitude towards Hezekiah’s great-grandson Josiah. In Kings, it is Josiah who is “the great reformer,” bringing in the remnant of the northern tribes for a great Passover and abolishing idolatry from the land. As we shall see below, Chronicles, while not minimizing his achievements, treats him differently, leaving the role of “great reformer” to Hezekiah. On the other hand, as pointed out by Myers (1965, 2:184), “the Chronicler, despite his obvious bias for Hezekiah, does not go so far as the Deuteronomist in declaring him to have been the best king ever” as in the passage from 2 Kings 18 quoted above. But despite this observation, Hezekiah’s devotion to the Temple ritual, to national unity, his steadfast belief in the face of powerful enemies, are all designed to present him as a paragon of faith, a true son of David.

T h e R eig n s o f M a n a sseh an d A mo n – 2 C h r o n ic les 33

Chapter 33: 1 Twelve years old was Manasseh when he reigned; and fifty-five1 years he reigned in Jerusalem.2 2 And he did evil in the eyes of the Lord, like3 the abominations of the nations whom the Lord had dispossessed4 before the children of Israel. 3 And5 he rebuilt6 the bamôt7 that his father Hezekiah had smashed,8 and erected altars9 to the Bealîm,10 made asherot,11 and bowed before 1.  The A and B recensions of the Septuagint have “fifty,” perhaps dropping the “five” through haplography (Dillard 1987, 263). This would be possible in either the Hebrew ‫ חמשים וחמש‬or the Greek πεντήκοντα πέντε. 2.  Verses 1 and 2 are identical to 2 Kgs 21:1–2, except that the ending clause of Kings’ v. 1, “and the name of his mother was Hephzibah,” is missing in Chronicles, as are the mothers of all kings from here on. See the commentary. Chronicles continues to follow Kings closely through v. 9. 3.  The Greek reads ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν βδελυγμάτων, “from all the abominations,” apparently reading the initial Hebrew ‫כ‬, “like,” as ‫מ‬, “from, more than.” Not all Greek manuscripts have the word πάντων, “all.” 4.  ‫הוריש‬, from YRŠ, “inherit,” so literally “disinherited.” NRSV “drove out.” 5.  NRSV begins v. 3 “For he rebuilt,” making this the explanation of his “abominations.” The Hebrew ‫ וישב‬indicates that this was one of the evil things that he did. 6.  ‫וישב ויבן‬, literally “and he returned and built.” 7.  NRSV and most other English translations have “high places.” NJPS has “shrines.” See the note on 2 Chron. 11:15. 8.  ‫נתץ‬. NRSV “pulled down,” NJPS “demolished.” Kings has ‫אבד‬, from “lost,” which NRSV translates “destroyed.” The Greek has κατέσπασεν for both. ‫נתץ‬, used for “smashing” idolatrous shrines and altars, is a favorite word of the Chronicler. In 2 Chron. 23:17 it is used of Athaliah’s “house of Baal,” in a passage copied from Kings. Here the reference is to 31:1, where Hezekiah, in a part of verse which is added to the Kings version, smashed the bamôt and the altars in all of Judah and Benjamin and Ephraim and Manasseh.” 9.  The Greek στήλας seems to reflect a Hebrew ‫מצבות‬, “standing stones.” 10.  ‫לבעלים‬. Kings has ‫ לבעל‬in the singular. See the note on 2 Chron. 17:3. 11.  NRSV and others translate “sacred poles.” Kings has ‫ אשרה‬in the singular, and then adds “as Ahab king of Israel had done.” We consider the plural ‫ אשרות‬or ‫ אשרים‬to refer to ritual objects, while the singular ‫אשרה‬, used in Chronicles only in 2 Chron. 15:16, refers to a deity. For discussion see the commentary on 2 Chron. 14 and 15.



The Reigns of Manasseh and Amon – 2 Chronicles 33

365

all the host of heaven and served them. 4 And built12 altars in the house of the Lord, of which the Lord said: In Jerusalem shall my name be forever.13 5 He built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord.14 6 And he passed his sons15 through the fire in the valley of Ben-Hinnom,16 and practiced17 soothsaying and augury and sorcery,18 and did19 ghosts and familiar spirits;20 he did much evil in the eyes of the Lord to anger him.21

12.  Here both Kings and Chronicles use the perfect ‫ ובנה‬instead of the usual imperfect ‫ויבן‬. The meaning is the same, but it has the effect of breaking up the succession of “he builts.” 13.  Kings has “In Jerusalem I shall put my name.” 14.  Keel (1986, 889) explains that this refers to the courtyard of the priests and the great courtyard mentioned in 2 Chron. 4:9. The two courtyards are also mentioned in 2 Kgs 23:12. 15.  NRSV “and he made his son pass,” following Kings ‫ והעביר את בנו‬in the singular. The Greek in Kings also has τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ, “his sons,” in the plural, while the Greek in Chronicles has τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ, “his children.” A similar reading of Chronicles’ ‫ בניו‬vs. Kings’ ‫ בנו‬appears in 2 Chron. 28:3 = 2 Kgs 16:3. NJPS translates “he consigned to the fire.” 16.  Many translations render “the Valley of the Son of Hinnom.” The Greek has Γαι-βαναι-εννομ, ‫גי בני־הנם‬. Kings lacks the place-name. See the note on 2 Chron. 28:3. 17.  In the Hebrew ‫ ועונן ונחש וכשף‬are all verbs, so there is no need for “practiced.” It is added in the English to give the clause a verb. 18.  ‫ וכשף‬is missing in Kings. The whole sequence of Manasseh’s sins is based on Deut. 18:10: “No one shall be found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, or who practices divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer.” 19.  ‫ועשה‬, “and made” or “and did.” Exactly what Manasseh “did” depends on the meaning of the next two terms. 20.  ‫ועשה אוב וידעוני‬. NRSV translates “dealt with mediums and with wizards,” while NJPS has “consulted ghosts and familiar spirits” and Dillard (1987, 262), “consulted mediums and spiritists.” These, too, are taken from Deut. 18:11. It is worth noting that while both ôb and yidônî are grammatically singular here as they are in most places, Kings here has yidônîm in the plural. 21.  ‫להכעיסו‬. Many translations have “provoking him to anger,” but the Hebrew does not have “provoke.” Kings lacks the final waw of ‫להכעיסו‬, making simply “to anger.” The verb KS appears in Deuteronomy’s warnings to Israel not to follow the “abominations” of the people of the land and their idols (Deut. 4:25; 9:18; 31:29; the root then appears five times in the Song of Moses in ch. 32). In Kings it is used of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 14:9, 15), of his son Nadab (15:30), of Baasha and his son Elah (16:2, 7, 13), of Omri and his son Ahab (16:26, 33; 21:22) and his son Ahaziah (22:54), as well as in the explanation given for the final exile of Israel (2 Kgs 17:11, 17). None of these appear in Chronicles. Manasseh is the first and only king of Judah of whom the author of Kings uses this expression, which now is taken up by the Chronicler. Chronicles, however, had already used the expression for Ahaz (2 Chron. 28:25), who in his eyes was as bad as the kings of Israel had been. Manasseh now receives the same evaluation.

366

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

7 And he placed the statue of the icon22 that he had made in the house of God,23 of which God24 said to David and to Solomon his son: In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my name forever.25 8 And I will never again remove26 the feet27 of Israel from upon the soil28 that I appointed29 for your fathers,30 if only they be careful to do all that I have commanded them, all the Torah,31 and the statutes, and the ordinances32 by the hand of Moses.33  9 And Manasseh misled34 Judah and the inhabitants 22.  ‫פסל הסמל‬. Pesel is the common word for “statue” or “carved/graven image.” Kings has ‫פסל האשרה‬, “the statue of Asherah,” but Chronicles has semel instead of “Asherah.” The noun semel appears in only three contexts in the entire Bible: in Deut. 4:16, “lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves an statue-image of any semel” (NRSV “an idol for yourselves, in the form of any figure”; NJPS “a sculptured image in any likeness whatever”); in Ezek. 8:3, “semel of jealousy, which makes jealousy” (NRSV “the image of jealousy, which provokes to jealousy”; NJPS “the infuriating image that provokes fury”), repeated in v. 5; and here in 2 Chron. 33:7, repeated in v. 15 below when Manasseh removes the semel from the Temple. From these contexts it is clear that a semel is a sort of image, although its specific meaning or etymology is not known, and Albright’s suggestion (1942, 221 n. 121) that it is related to Akkadian sim(m)iltu, “staircase” or “slab/orthostate,” has not received wide acceptance. The word does appear in a few Phoenician inscriptions, with the same general meaning of “image,” human or divine (see Tigay 1996, 49 and n. 53 on p. 352). The Greek translates τὸ γλυπτὸν καὶ τὸ χωνευτόν εἰκόνα, “the carved and the molten images,” while the Latin has sculptile quoque et conflatile signum. For a possible explanation for the Chronicler’s replacing “Asherah” with semel see the commentary. 23.  Kings has “in the house” without “of God.” 24.  Kings has “the Lord” instead of “God.” 25.  The MT of Chronicles has the unique form ‫ לעילום‬instead of the standard ‫ לעולם‬as in Kings. This form is most likely a scribal error. 26.  ‫להסיר‬. Kings has ‫להניד‬, “to make wander.” 27.  ‫ רגל‬is literally “foot” in the singular. 28.  NRSV, NJPS and others translate “land,” but ‫ אדמה‬is better translated “earth” or “soil.” Myers (1965, 2:195) translates “ground.” 29.  ‫העמדתי‬, literally “made stand” and commonly used in Chronicles for “to appoint.” Myers (1965, 2:195) renders “permitted your fathers to stand.” Kings has ‫נתתי‬, “I have given.” 30.  Kings has ‫לאבותם‬, “to their fathers.” Japhet (1993, 1008) comments that while the Chronicler’s rendering is “syntactically inferior,” it “conveys a stronger attachment to the land, which the Lord ‘appointed for your fathers’.” NJPS retains the third person here like in Kings. 31.  ‫תורה‬, translated variously as “law,” “instruction” and so on. See the commentary on 2 Chron. 12:1. 32.  NJPS: “all the teaching and the laws and the rules.” Kings has only the first of the three – “and all the Torah which my servant Moses commanded them.” 33.  ‫ביד־משה‬, relating to the verb “commanded…by hand of Moses.” NRSV, NJPS and others add “given through Moses” for clarity. Kings has ‫עבדי משה‬, “my servant Moses.” 34.  This is the only use of the verb TH in Chronicles, taken here from Kings. In the



The Reigns of Manasseh and Amon – 2 Chronicles 33

367

of Jerusalem, to do more35 evil than the nations whom the Lord had destroyed before the children of Israel.  10 The Lord spoke to Manasseh and to his people, but they did not listen. 11 And36 the Lord brought against them the officers of the army of the king of Assyria, who captured Manasseh in hooks,37 and bound him in fetters,38 and led him to Babylon.  12 And in his distress he entreated the face39 of the Lord his God and humbled himself40 greatly before the God of his fathers. 13 And he

qal, taâh simply means “to wander about,” such as Hagar in Gen. 21:14 or Joseph in Gen. 37:15, but also meaning “to go astray” as in Ps. 119:110, 176. In the hiphil, it means “to lead astray,” as in Gen. 20:13 or Jer. 50:6. Here Kings has ‫ויתעם מנשה‬, “and Manasseh misled them,” with the object only inferred. Chronicles continues “and Manasseh misled Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” 35.  The word “more” is not in the Hebrew but is inferred by ‫מן־הגוים‬, “from/than the nations.” 36.  Many translations understand this waw as casuistic: NRSV “therefore”; NJPS “so” etc. 37.  ‫חחים‬. The noun ‫חח‬, “barb” or “hook,” appears in Exod. 35:22 as a kind of jewelry, together with ‫נזם‬, “nose-ring” or “ear-ring,” ‫טבעת‬, “ring,” and the mysterious ‫כומז‬. In all its other appearances in the Bible (2 Kgs 19:28; Isa. 37:29; Ezek. 19:4, 9; 29:4; 38:4), ḥâḥ (pl. ḥaḥîm) is an instrument by which a captive king is led into captivity. That Assyrian kings used such methods is evident from such graphic sources as the stele of Esarhaddon, in which Tiharkah of Kush and Baal of Tyre are held in just this way. A related noun ‫חוח‬, meaning “thorn,” “thistle,” is used in Joash of Israel’s message to Amaziah in 2 Chron. 25:18. Our verse is the only example of ‫ חחים‬being vocalized “ḥôḥîm,” and it is often assumed that the vocalization is in error. Many translations ignore the specific meaning of the term and render “manacles” (NRSV; NJPS). Others attempt to be more precise. KJV has “took Manasseh among the thorns”; Klein (2012, 481), “took Manasseh captive with hooks,” and Dillard (1987, 262), even more graphically, “put a ring through his nose.” 38.  ‫נחשתים‬. Neḥôšet is “copper” and also “bronze” and “brass,” which are copper alloys. Neḥuštaim are “double-coppers/bronzes,” a pair of copper or, more likely, bronze manacles or fetters, put either on a prisoner’s hands or feet (as in 2 Sam. 3:34). 39.  ‫חלה את־פני‬. This expression appears some 15 times in the Bible, almost always with God as the object, “to ḥillâh the face of the Lord” (Exod. 32:11; 1 Sam. 13:12; 1 Kgs 13:6; Zech. 8:21–22; Ps. 119:58; Dan. 9:13 and more), and in Chronicles only here. From the context, the expression clearly means “to entreat,” but its literal meaning is far from clear. The root ḤLH, usually in the qal, has a primary meaning of “to be weak” or “to be ill” and is used as such many times. In “to ḥillâh the face of the Lord” it always appears in the piel, and various explanations have been suggested: a use of ḤLH that means “to caress,” or “to make empty,” or, following Aramaic and Arabic cognates, “to make sweet” (see Ap-Thomas 1956, 239–40; Keel 1986, 893–94; Klein 2012, 482). Myers (1965, 2:196), translates “he placated Yahweh his God.” In modern English we might use “to curry favor.” 40.  ‫ויכנע‬, which Klein (2012, 482) considers to be “a standard word for repentance in Chronicles, but here strengthened by the word greatly (‫)מאד‬.”

368

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

prayed to him, and he accepted him,41 and heard his pleading, and returned him42 to Jerusalem to his kingship;43 and Manasseh knew that the Lord was the God.44 14 And after this he built an outer wall for the city of David west of Gihon in the valley and reaching the Fish Gate and surrounding the Ophel, and raised it very much;45 and he placed officers of the army in all the fortified cities in Judah. 15 And he removed the foreign gods and the icon46 from the house of the Lord, and all the altars that he had built on the mountain of the house of the Lord and in Jerusalem, and he threw them47 out of the city. 16 And he built48 the altar of the Lord and offered49 on it sacrifices of well-being and of thanksgiving;50 and he told51 Judah to serve the Lord the God of Israel. 17 But still52 the people sacrificed at the bamôt, only53 to the Lord their God. 18 And the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer to his God,54 and the words of 41.  ‫ויעתר לו‬. In the qal and hiphil, TR means “to entreat,” “to plead,” almost always with God. In the niphal like here, it refers to God’s “accepting” or “granting” the request. Gen. 25:21 has both forms: “Isaac pleaded with (wayyetar) the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord granted (wayyēâter) his prayer.” In Chronicles the term appears only here and in 1 Chron. 5:20. Since the Hebrew here does not specify the subject of either “he prayed” (Manasseh) or “he accepted” (God), NRSV and others expand “God received his entreaty” and the like. Myers (1965, 2:196) has a different solution: “When he prayed to him, he was moved by his entreaties…” 42.  ‫וישיבהו‬. NRSV has “restored him again.” 43.  ‫למלכותו‬. Most translate “to his kingdom,” but that would be superfluous. The point is that he was restored to his status of King. 44.  ‫ האלהים‬with the definite article. NRSV “that the Lord indeed was God.” NJPS “that the Lord alone was God.” Keel (1986, 894) emphasizes the connection to Deut. 4:35 and especially to 1 Kgs 18:39. 45.  ‫ויגביהה מאד‬. NRSV: “and raised it to a very great height.” For a topographical and archaeological discussion see the commentary. 46.  ‫הסמל‬. See the note on v. 7 above. 47.  ‫וישלך‬, “and he threw” lacks the pronoun “them,” which is added to the translation for better English. The Greek καὶ ἔξω τῆς πόλεως, “and out of the city,” lacks the verb “threw” as well. NJPS translates “and he dumped them.” 48.  ‫ ויבן‬qeri. The MT preserves a ketib of ‫ויכן‬, “and he established,” which is supported by the Greek καὶ κατώρθωσεν, and while both readings would be possible, most commentators accept the MT qeri, translating either “built” or “rebuilt” (so NJPS). NRSV, Dillard (1987, 263), Klein (2012, 472) and others render “He also restored” and the like. 49.  ‫ויזבח עליו‬, literally “and he sacrificed on it.” 50.  Ben Zvi (2013, 133) pointed out that the expression here, ‫ זבחי שלמים ותודה‬evokes 2 Chron. 30:22 ‫מזבחים זבחי שלמים ומתודים‬, comparing Manasseh to Hezekiah. 51.  ‫ויאמר‬, literally “said.” Most translations have “commanded.” 52.  ‫אבל עוד‬. NRSV: “however.” NJPS “to be sure.” Nielsen (1983, 130) translates “also,” about which see the commentary. 53.  ‫רק‬. Many translations have “but only” for clarity. 54.  ‫ אל־אלהיו‬could also mean “to his gods,” referring to foreign gods. See the commentary. This verse is modeled, with significant differences, on the parallel 2 Kgs



The Reigns of Manasseh and Amon – 2 Chronicles 33

369

the seers55 who spoke to him in the name of the Lord God of Israel, these are on the words of the kings of Israel.56 19 And his prayer, and his acceptance,57 all his sin and his faithlessness, and the places at which he built bamôt and set up the asherim58 and the statues,59 before he humbled himself, they are written on the words of the seers.60 20 And Manasseh lay with his fathers, and they buried him in his house,61 and Amon his son reigned in his stead. 21:17: “And the rest of the acts of Manasseh and all that he did, and the sin that he sinned, are they not written on the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah.” The next verse in Chronicles has no parallel in Kings. 55.  ‫החוזים‬, from ḤZH, “to see” or “to envision.” While Chronicles uses the title ḥôzeh, “seer” or “visionary” for several characters (Gad: 1 Chron. 21:9; 29:25, 29; Heman: 1 Chron. 25:5; Iddo: 2 Chron. 9:29; 12:15; Jehu: 2 Chron. 19:2; Asaph: 2 Chron. 29:30 and more), this is the only reference in Chronicles to ḥôzîm, “seers,” “visionaries” in general. 56.  ‫ דברי מלכי ישראל‬replacing Kings’ ‫ספר דברי הימים למלכי יהודה‬, literally “the book of the words of the days of the kings of Judah,” commonly translated “the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah.” The Chronicler’s more common source formula is “the book of the kings of…” The formula used here, which mentions “the words of” without “the book of…,” is unique and is translated in different ways: NRSV “the Annals of the kings of Israel” (cap. A in the original); NJPS “the chronicles of the kings of Israel”; Myers (1965, 2:196) and Klein (2012, 472) “the records of the kings of Israel”; Dillard (1987, 263) “the acts of the kings of Israel.” The Greek lacks both the words “of the kings of Israel” and the initial waw conjunction at the beginning of the next verse, creating ἐπὶ λόγων προσευχῆς αὐτοῦ, “on the words of his prayer.” Klein (2012, 472) rejects a suggestion made by Schniedewind (1991b, 456 n. 22) that this was done purposely in order create a reference to the Apocryphal book called “The Prayer of Manasseh.” See the commentary. 57.  Once again, ‫ ויעתר־לו‬as in v. 13. NRSV renders the two Hebrew words as: “and how God accepted his entreaty.” NJPS has “and how it was granted to him.” 58.  Most translations have “sacred poles” and the like. Unlike the feminine plural ašerôt mentioned in v. 3 above, here the term appears in the masculine plural form ašerîm, although the meaning seems the same. 59.  ‫פסילים‬. The standard word for carved images. NRSV and NJPS “images”; Dillard (1987, 263) “idols.” 60.  ‫דברי חוזי‬. The first word is identical to that of the previous “source”: ‫דברי‬, meaning “words,” “records” and the like. MT ‫ חוזי‬literally means “my seers/visionaries” with the plural possessive. Some commentators, following the Vulgate’s sermonibus Ozai, understand “Hozai” to be the personal name of a prophet, perhaps an abbreviation of Haziel (1 Chron. 23:9), Jahzeiah (Ezra 10:15), Hazaiah (Neh. 11:5), Col-Hozeh (Neh. 3:15; 11:5) and the like (Keel 1986, 896; NJPS has “Hozai” and in a footnote adds “Or ‘seers’”). Others, based on the Greek and a few Hebrew manuscripts, assume an original ‫ חוזים‬or ‫החוזים‬, “the seers” (so KJV; NEB; NRSV; Klein 2012, 472 and others). Dillard (1987, 264) alternatively suggests an original ‫חוזיו‬, “his seers.” For a discussion of the various translations see Ellington 1999. 61.  This verse is parallel to 2 Kgs 21:18, with two differences: Kings has ‫ויקבר‬, “and he was buried” for Chronicles’ ‫ויקברהו‬, “and they buried him” (exactly the same shift

370

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

21 Twenty-two years old was Amon when he reigned, and two years he reigned in Jerusalem.62 22 And he did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord, as had done Manasseh his father,63 and to all the statues which Manasseh his father had made, Amon sacrificed and served them.64  23 And he did not humble himself before the Lord, as his father Manasseh had humbled himself, for he, Amon, increased guilt.65 24 And his servants conspired against him and killed him in his house.66 25 And the people of the land67 smote all who had conspired against King Amon; and the people of the land made Josiah his son king68 in his stead.69

occurs in the burial notice of Solomon in 1 Kgs 11:43 = 2 Chron. 9:31, of Asa in 1 Kgs 15:24 = 2 Chron. 16:14, of Jehoram in 2 Kgs 8:24 = 2 Chron. 21:20, of Ahaz in 2 Kgs 16:20 = 2 Chron. 28:27); Kings’ “in the garden of his house in the garden of Uzza” is Chronicles’ “his house” – without the preposition ‫ב‬, “in,” which has been added to the translation. Keel (1986, 896) proposes that “his house” refers to “the house of eternity” – the grave – as it is called in Eccl. 12:5. Others (such as NJPS; Dillard 1987, 264; Japhet 1993, 1012; Klein 2012, 472), following the Greek καὶ ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν ἐν παραδείσῳ οἴκου αὐτοῦ, assume that “the garden” was dropped by error, and render “the garden of his house/ palace” and the like. 62.  Chronicles lacks the end of the verse in Kings: “and his mother’s name was Meshullemeth daughter of Haruz of Jotbah.” See the commentary. 63.  Kings’ v. 20 is exactly identical to Chronicles’ v. 22 up to this point, and ends here. The rest of Chronicles’ v. 22 is paralleled by Kings’ longer v. 21. 64.  2 Kgs 21:21: “He walked in all the way that his father had walked, and served the idols that his father had served and bowed down to them.” 65.  ‫הרבה אשמה‬. NRSV “incurred more and more guilt.” 2 Kgs 21:22 is very different: “he abandoned the Lord, the God of his fathers, and did not walk in the way of the Lord.” Since in Kings Manasseh did not humble himself, Amon cannot be faulted there for not humbling himself “as his father Manasseh had humbled himself.” 66.  2 Kgs 21:23: “and Amon’s servants conspired against him and killed the king in his house.” 67.  ‫עם הארץ‬. For the various interpretations of this term see the commentary. 68.  ‫וימליכו‬, literally “kinged.” 2 Kgs 21:24 is identical except for the first word, which is the singular ‫ ויך‬there and the plural ‫ ויכו‬in Chronicles. 69.  The following two verses in Kings, “And the rest of the acts of Amon that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? He was buried in his tomb in the garden of Uzza; and Josiah his son reigned in his stead,” have no parallel in Chronicles. Japhet (1993, 1014) sees this as being intentional, “with the view of presenting as short a description of Amon as possible.” Most other commentators (such as Rudolf 1955, 316; Dillard 1987, 270; Klein 2012, 478) see it as a textual error caused by homoioteleuton, with the two “Josiah his son in his stead” at the end of Kings’ vv. 24 and 26 causing the copyist to omit the material in between.



The Reigns of Manasseh and Amon – 2 Chronicles 33

371

Commentary The Reign of Manasseh Chapter 33, which “covers” some 57 years in the history of Judah, includes three main sections. Verses 1–10 and then again 18–20 tell of the long reign of Manasseh son of Hezekiah, almost precisely as told in 2 Kgs 21:1–18, with a few phrases changed and without the long prophetic speech of Kings’ vv. 10–16. Verses 11–17 tell of Manasseh’s arrest, “repentance” and later prosperity, all undocumented in Kings, and vv. 21–25 recount the short reign of Amon, again following 2 Kgs 21:19–24 very closely. “Manasseh” is, of course, the name of one of the sons of Joseph and subsequently one of the twelve tribes of Israel, a tribe that was a central component of the northern kingdom. King Manasseh was the only king of Israel or Judah to bear the name of one of the tribes. Considering his young age at his ascension, he must have been born late in the life of Hezekiah, and was possibly named for the tribe and kingdom that had been conquered and exiled by the Assyrians, or as part of Hezekiah’s attempt to win the sympathies of the remaining northerners. To this Jarick (2007, 174) adds an additional explanation: as in the etymology of the original Manasseh, “the deity has made me forget (nāšâ) all my hardship and all my father’s house” (Gen. 41:51),70 so could this Manasseh “be seen as a symbol of a new era, in which the abominable practices of Ahaz would be forgotten and any divine plans to visit misfortune upon the people would be shelved.” Of course, things would not quite work out this way. The precise chronology of Manasseh’s 55-year reign, longer than any other king of Judah, is debated, since it depends on that of Hezekiah’s reign (which was discussed above) and on the possibilities of co-regencies with either Hezekiah or with Amon (see for example Thiele 1983, 173–74, who posits a ten-year co-regency with Hezekiah; Dillard 1987, 266; Galil 1996, 147). In any case, Manasseh ruled over Judah in the shadow of Assyrian domination, with the Assyrian Empire reaching its zenith under Esarhaddon (681–669 BCE) and Ashurbanipal (669–627 BCE), whose inscriptions even mention Manasseh as one of many loyal vassal kings (North 1974, 385; Rainey and Notley 2006, 247–49). Despite the Chronicler’s claims for Hezekiah’s prosperous later years, the kingdom that Manasseh inherited was small, poor and lay partially in ruins, still

70.  Interestingly enough Johnstone (1997, 2:223) understood the etymology in Gen. 41:51 differently: “no doubt in origin referring to how God causes the pain of childbirth to be forgotten in the joy of the birth of a son.”

372

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

suffering from the effects of Sennacherib’s attack (for more on the historical background see Rainey and Notley 2006, 246–50). Manasseh the Sinner The Manasseh presented in 2 Kings 21 is a terrible sinner, in fact the worst of all the kings of Judah. He undid the good that Hezekiah had done, rebuilding the bamôt and even building altars to Baal and Asherah and placing their idols within the Temple precincts. He “made his son pass through fire,” often understood as a description of human sacrifice, and he consulted all manner of necromancers, wizards and mediums, in direct contradiction of God’s Torah (as in Deut. 18:9–12). In the “prophetic speech” of vv. 10–16, he is also accused of spilling “much innocent blood, which filled Jerusalem from end to end,” causing all Judah to sin and basically being to blame for the eventual destruction of the kingdom. Nielsen (1983, 132) connects Manasseh’s spilling of innocent blood to “the late legend of the martyrdom of Isaiah” and sees the comment as serving to equate Manasseh’s acts to those of Ahab in the matter of Naboth in 1 Kings 21, but also comments that “shedding innocent blood” can refer to the crimes of the rich in general, “such as persecution of the poor and the outrageous injustice to widows and orphans.” The initial ten verses of the Chronicler’s depiction of Manasseh’s reign follow Kings closely, but there are a number of interesting differences. The first is in the ascension formula in v. 1, in which Chronicles lacks the name of Manasseh’s mother, Hephzibah.71 This is the beginning of a trend in Chronicles: where up to this point Chronicles repeated all of the names of the kings’ mothers as they appeared in Kings, from here on it does not. Scholars have supposed various reasons for this. McKay (1973, 23–25) considered these women to have been of foreign, more specifically Arabian, origin and a source of idolatrous practices, a thesis that was accepted by Williamson (1982, 390), but most scholars remain unconvinced. Others (such as Macy 1975, 120; McKenzie 1984, 174–76) see this as evidence that from here on Chronicles was utilizing a different source. Baines (2013, 151) suggested that the omission of the mothers of all of the kings after Hezekiah “is a literary device that accentuates Hezekiah’s reign, which serves as a climax to the post-Solomonic Judahite

71.  In Kings, this Hephzibah is the only one of the kings’ mothers to be mentioned with no reference to her place of origin or family. “Hephzibah,” which means “she which I desire,” is used in Isa. 62:4 as an epithet for Jerusalem, and a rabbinic tradition preserved in b. Ber. 10a and y. Sanh. 10b claims that she actually was the daughter of the prophet Isaiah.



The Reigns of Manasseh and Amon – 2 Chronicles 33

373

history.” In Dillard’s view (1987, 267), “though the first such omission in the case of Manasseh could have been in some way theologically motivated and may have set the precedent for the remaining accounts, it is also possible that the author is simply modifying his format for reasons no longer apparent to us.” Verses 2–9, the litany of Manasseh’s sins, follow 2 Kgs 21:2–9 closely, but with some differences. In both versions, vv. 2 and 9 form an inclusio, “framing” the list of sins with references to “the nations whom the Lord had dispossessed before the children of Israel,” indicating that since Judah committed the same sins, it, too, deserved to be “dispossessed.” The list of sinful practices follows the warnings of Deut. 18:9–12: When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the abominations of those nations. No one shall be found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, or who practices divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or one who casts spells, or who consults ghosts or spirits, or who seeks oracles from the dead.  For whoever does these things is abhorrent to the Lord; it is because of such abominations that the Lord your God is driving them out before you.

As already noted, according to Kings, these deeds of Manasseh are indeed the final justification for the exile. Chronicles, however, sees matters differently. The first notable difference between the two versions is that Kings’ Baal and Asherah are turned to plurals in Chronicles, bealîm and ašerôt. McKenzie (2004, 354) believes that these are “local manifestations of these gods.” According to Williamson (1982, 390), this was “intended to accentuate Manasseh’s apostasy”; this may or may not be the case. In our commentary on 2 Chron. 15:16 we suggested that “Asherah” in the singular, used in Chronicles only there, refers to the female deity of that name, while the plural “asherot” and “asherim” refer to ritual objects. Whether here the Chronicler intended to make that distinction is impossible to know. In v. 7, Chronicles changes Kings’ “statue of the Asherah” which Manasseh placed in the Temple to the “statue of the semel,” which, as noted above, is a rare term with an uncertain etymology, but which seems to mean simply “statue” all by itself (in our translation we adopted the Septuagint’s “icon”). By avoiding the name of the goddess Asherah, the Chronicler mitigates Manasseh’s sin: one could understand that the semel is but an “icon” of Yahweh, certainly a forbidden practice, but not so terrible as the actual introduction of a “foreign deity” into the Temple.

374

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

In Kings, Manasseh’s actions are said to have been, “as Ahab king of Israel had done,” a comparison that is certainly relevant, since in fact Ahab is the only king of Israel that is specifically said to have made an altar for Baal and an Asherah “to anger the Lord God of Israel” (1 Kgs 16:32–33). This comparison is missing in Chronicles. Williamson (1982, 390) suggested that the reference to Ahab may have been skipped because the Chronicler did not tell of Ahab’s idolatry. This seems unlikely, considering the many references to Ahab’s evil ways in 2 Chronicles 22, in the story of Ahaziah. Dillard (1987, 268) believes that the Chronicler “may have omitted the comparison as part of his effort to rehabilitate Manasseh” while Japhet (1993, 1006) thinks that the Chronicler perceived the comparison “to be immaterial.” Verses 3 and 5 both mention the construction of altars “for all the host of heaven.” Such worship is specifically forbidden in Deut. 4:19 and 17:3 and is given as one of the reasons for the fall of the northern kingdom in 2 Kgs 17:16, together with all of the rest of the practices of which Manasseh is now accused. References to such cults are also mentioned in Jer. 8:2; Ezek. 8:16; Zeph. 1:5 and as part of what Josiah removed in 2 Kgs 23:4–7 and 11. As in the case of Ahaz and the altar that he made which we discussed in our commentary on ch. 28, here too, many scholars of past generations assumed that the worship of “Mesopotamian astral deities” must have been adopted by Manasseh (and his son Amon) as part of their subservience to Assyria, whereas Hezekiah’s rejection of such practices should be seen in the context of his defiance of Assyrian power. However, as shown by McKay (1973), Cogan (1974), Miller (2006) and others, there is no evidence that the Assyrians ever imposed their religion on their vassal kingdoms, and the details given in the Bible are too general to enable us to identify them with any specific forms of cult. Morrow (2013) drew an interesting parallel from the contemporary temple discovered at Ekron, which, like post-Sennacherib Judah, was a loyal vassal of the Assyrians. There, the temple, cultic vessels and dedicatory inscription are clearly local in design, with only superficial Assyrian influence. There is no reason to think that the situation in Jerusalem would be different – the adoption of some “Assyrian-seeming” practices as a result of emulation of the dominant empire. The worship of “the host of heaven” is only a part of the idolatrous practices which are forbidden by Deuteronomy, and which the Deuteronomistic historian in Kings considers to be a major cause of the fall of both Israel and then Judah. The same seems to be true of Manasseh’s making his sons “pass through fire in the valley of Ben-Hinnom.” Like in the case of Ahaz in 2 Chron. 28:3 = 2 Kgs 16:3, the notice is taken from Kings, but with



The Reigns of Manasseh and Amon – 2 Chronicles 33

375

Kings’ single “son” multiplied to “sons” and with the location added by the Chronicler. Whether this “passing through fire” actually refers to child sacrifice is debated (see Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 266–67; Stavrakopoulou 2012–13). Abadie (2003, 97), assuming that it does, points out that the plural “sons” would indicate that the very survival of the royal line was in danger! But we should note that whereas in the case of Ahaz Kings’ ‫העביר‬, “passed,” became ‫ויבער‬, “burned,” in Chronicles, here both Kings and Chronicles have ‫העביר‬, “passed.” This could be seen either as an indication that the change in 2 Chron. 28:3 was a simple scribal error, or as proof that the change was the Chronicler’s way of making Ahaz seem even more depraved than he was in Kings, and, as a result, more depraved than Manasseh as well. For the writer of Kings, Manasseh’s apostasy reached its zenith when he placed the statue of Asherah in the Temple itself. Japhet (1993, 1006–1007) notes that even Ahab and his Judahite followers such as Athaliah and Ahaz had built separate shrines and altars for Baal and Asherah, but had kept the Temple dedicated to Yahweh. Japhet is not sure whether Manasseh now intended to change “the Temple’s dedication, making the Lord’s Temple into a Temple for the Asherah, or whether it involved a syncretistic concept, which either identifies the Lord with the Asherah, or regards them as a ‘pair’, a god and his consort goddess, residing in the same house.” Japhet then points to the inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud in the Sinai which mention “Yahweh and his Asherah,” as a possible example of this type of belief (for more recent analyses of these inscriptions and their implications see Dever 1999; Na’aman 2011a; Aḥituv 2014). The “quote” of God’s words to David and Solomon72 in vv. 7b–8 expresses the same Deuteronomistic theme: God promised that he would “never again remove” Israel’s inheritance in the land and his own presence in the Temple “if only they be careful to do all that I have commanded them, all the Torah, and the statutes, and the ordinances by the hand of Moses” – which of course anyone who has read Deuteronomy 4, 18 and so on would know that they had not. The first phrase of Kings’ v. 9 continues this directly: “and they [the people of Israel] did not listen [to Moses’ commandments].” In other words, Kings is “setting up” Manasseh’s sins as justification for the exile. Another, more subtle change, is at the end of this “speech.” As mentioned above, Kings’ v. 9 begins “and they did not listen,” referring to the nation’s not listening to the laws of Moses throughout history, eventually 72.  There is no record of these exact words anywhere in the Bible, but they do repeat the general ideas expressed in God’s promises to David in 2 Sam. 7:8–17 and to Solomon in 1 Kgs 6:11–13, neither of which appear in Chronicles.

376

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

leading to their exile. Chronicles skips this comment: his famous theology of “direct retribution” does not see the “blame” for the exile as something that was “accumulated” over generations. Finally, while in v. 10 Chronicles does admit that “The Lord spoke to Manasseh and to his people, but they did not listen,” making them deserving of punishment, he does not repeat the six-verse prophetic speech that comes next in Kings, which claims that Manasseh was worse than the Amorites, was guilty of spilling innocent blood, and promises that the fate of Jerusalem will be like that of Samaria. As we have pointed out several times, the actual destruction of Samaria is not described anywhere in Chronicles. Manasseh’s Captivity and Repentance Instead of the speech that blames Manasseh for the exile, the Chronicler continues his story of Manasseh with an episode totally unknown from any other source. According to Chronicles, Manasseh is taken prisoner by Assyrian officers, who chain him in fetters and drag him off to Babylon. There, in prison, Manasseh repents and prays, God hears and accepts his prayers and returns him to his throne in Jerusalem. Once back, the now-faithful Manasseh reinforces the defenses of Jerusalem and of other cities, dismantles the idols and altars that he had made, rededicates the altar and the Temple and instructs the people of Judah to serve God. This new Manasseh is the exact opposite of the Manasseh of Kings. On the historicity of this story there are basically two schools of thought: those who consider the whole story to be an invention on the part of the Chronicler, designed as a precursor of the capture and exile of Jehoiakim (2 Chron. 36:6: “and he was bound in fetters to be taken to Babylon” – thus the rather unexpected reference to Babylon rather than the Assyrian capital of Nineveh; however, the historical background of that story is also unclear, and see the commentary there), and those who believe that there must have been some real historical event behind the narrative. Myers (1965, 2:198–99), for example, while admitting that it may be possible that Manasseh was summoned by either Esarhaddon or Ashurbanipal and then returned to Jerusalem, was of the opinion that the entire episode was invented by the Chronicler as an explanation for Manasseh’s long life and reign, which he would have deemed inappropriate for an unrepentant sinner. However, Ben Zvi (2013, 124–25) supplies a list of “bad kings” who ruled longer than “good kings,” reminding us that “while longevity and a long regnal period are a blessing, not all pious were blessed this way, and conversely, not all sinners had to die (prematurely).” North (1974, 385–86), after analyzing the Assyrian documents that do mention Manasseh, concluded that these do not leave room for his being summoned to Mesopotamia. Handy (2013, 230) also concluded



The Reigns of Manasseh and Amon – 2 Chronicles 33

377

that the reality of Manasseh’s exile is “probably nill,” seeing the story as a precursor of the Babylonian Exile. In his view, the Bible does not show any familiarity with the historical Assyrians after Sennacherib’s departure, and Manasseh’s “Assyrians” are simply symbolic – “the rod of God’s anger,” as in Isa. 10:5–6. But many of the scholars who have dealt with this issue point to “the Assyrian Civil War” of 652–684 BCE as the possible background to Manasseh’s captivity. In this war, Shamash-shum-ukin, older brother of Ashurbanipal and appointed king of Babylon, rebelled against his brother. In 684 Babylon was sacked, and Ashurbanipal remained in the area for some time. According to Rainey, “Manasseh was surely arrested along with other western rulers suspected of treason. He was brought to Babylon for interrogation before Ashurbanipal… he evidently managed to convince Ashurbanipal of his innocence. The Chronicler gave a profound religious interpretation to these events” (Rainey and Notley 2006, 250; see in more detail Rainey 1993; among others who have made similar assumptions are Curtis and Madsen 1910, 498; Rudolph 1955, 316–17; McKenzie 2004, 355–56; Dillard 1987, 265, points to the rebellions of Abdimilkutti of Sidon in 677 and of Baal of Tyre in 675–673 as alternatives for the arrest of Manasseh, although he also considers the Shamash-shum-ukin revolt to be the more likely setting). On the other hand both Williamson (1982, 392–93) and Japhet (1993, 1009), while thinking it unlikely that the Chronicler would have invented the story from nothing, are skeptical at the possibility of pinning it down to a specific historical event. Klein (2012, 475–77) lists eight possible occasions on which Manasseh could have rebelled or been accused of rebellion, but remains unconvinced by any of them. Be that as it may, historical or not, the Chronicler depicts Manasseh as repenting “in his distress,” his repentance being accepted by God, and subsequently the remainder of his reign as being successful and prosperous. Verses 15–16 picture him as removing all of the idolatrous objects from the Temple and the city, “building” (or rebuilding, or reconsecrating) the altar, and instructing the people of Judah to serve the God of Israel. All of this, of course, is impossible to verify “historically,” but certainly serves the Chronicler’s purpose of picturing Manasseh as a repentant. Manasseh’s Construction Projects According to v. 14, Manasseh built “an outer wall for the city of David west of Gihon in the valley and reaching the Fish Gate and surrounding the Ophel, and raised it to a very great height very much,” and then also “placed commanders of the army in all the fortified cities in Judah.” This

378

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

rather detailed description of fortification in Jerusalem, as well as the very laconic comment about “fortified cities in Judah,” raise at least the possibility of finding archaeological evidence of the purported prosperity of Manasseh’s reign. As mentioned above, archaeological evidence clearly shows that Jerusalem expanded greatly, mostly to the west, during the late eighth century BCE, and while the details differ, most scholars unhesitantly connect this expansion to Hezekiah and to Sennacherib’s invasion. Our passage, however, speaks of an “outer wall for the city of David west of Gihon in the valley,” which reached the Fish Gate and surrounded the Ophel. A “Fish Gate” (presumably one that was near a fish market) is also mentioned in Zeph. 1:10 and Neh. 3:3 and 12:39, in which it seems to be located on the northern wall of the Temple Mount. The “ophel” was previously mentioned in 2 Chron. 27:3 as part of Jotham’s fortifications, but as we showed in the commentary there, all other definite references to an “ophel” in Jerusalem are post-exilic, and in any case the exact nature and location of this object is unknown. In fact, the similarity of the terms used here and those that appear in Nehemiah has led Handy (2013, 225–26) to see Manasseh’s wall-building as a reflection of Nehemiah’s wall-building, a statement on the part of the Chronicler meant to emphasize the centrality and independence of Jerusalem in the Persian Period. Other scholars, however, have looked for more specific archaeological evidence. Since the Gihon spring does indeed lie in the Kidron Valley, which is east of the city, any “outer wall” that was “west of Gihon in the valley” would have to be located near the bottom of the eastern slope of the eastern hill, between the slope and the Gihon which is at its foot. In her excavations of this very slope in the 1960s, Kathleen Kenyon uncovered just such a wall, which she dubbed “wall NA,” which ran east of and below the older wall and which she attributed to Hezekiah. However, subsequent discovery of the massive fortifications on the western hill, which were attributed to Hezekiah (see our commentary on ch. 32), prompted Bahat (1981) to suggest that Kenyon’s “wall NA” was indeed the wall “west of Gihon in the valley” that was built by Manasseh. In later excavations by Shiloh and by Reich and Shukron, more of this wall was discovered, as well as the residential area that it enclosed. However, most of the pottery found in this quarter is from the eighth century, not the seventh, which has led some archaeologists to date the whole enterprise to Hezekiah – a practice which Knauf (2005, 169) calls “goodkingitis.”73 73.  Which he then defines as “an intellectual disability which affects predominantly biblical scholars trying to do history and results in heaping attributions of great



The Reigns of Manasseh and Amon – 2 Chronicles 33

379

Ariel and De Groot (2000, 163) even suggested that 2 Chron. 33:14 is corrupted, and that it originally read that Manasseh did not repair the wall in the valley, which had been built by Hezekiah (see also Reich and Shukron 2003, 212–17). The problem of pottery dating of seventh-century strata is also discussed by Finkelstein (1994, 169–71) by Faust (2008) and by Lehmann (2012), all agreeing that despite the widespread destruction wrought by Sennacherib, there are ample signs to indicate that many sites, especially in the Judean Hills, the Judean Desert and in the Negeb, were either rebuilt or settled for the first time in the seventh century, perhaps reflecting a new, southwardoriented economy meant to compensate for the loss of many of the towns of the Shephelah. And while precise dating is impossible, some scholars have argued that all of this must have happened during the later years of Manasseh’s long rule (see for example Tatum 2003; Knauf 2005). The End of Manasseh’s Reign The final verse of the Chronicler’s “independent” material on Manasseh is particularly interesting. In v. 17, the Chronicler qualifies Manasseh’s “reform” by informing us that “the people” were still sacrificing at the bamôt, which is a statement that would usually be considered typically “Deuteronomistic”: the author of Kings makes just this statement of six of the kings of Judah, and only twice is the statement retained in Chronicles. This, however, is the only case of the Chronicler’s offering such a statement on his own. Klein (2012, 484) sees it as an addition that is meant to link the narrative to 2 Chron. 34:3, in which Josiah begins his reform at the age of twelve, by abolishing bamôt. The problem with this thesis is in the second part of our verse, which states that these bamôt were used for worship of Yahweh, whereas 2 Chron. 34:3–4 have Josiah cleansing Judah from a long list of idolatrous practices, which must have come from somewhere. Nielsen (1983, 130) translates the initial words of v. 17 abâl ôd (which we rendered “but still,” NRSV “however” and NJPS “to be sure”), as “also,” indicating that – to their credit – “also at the local shrines of the Judaean country did people worship the Lord.” This interpretation is tempting, but for the word “but” (abâl), at the beginning of the verse. In any case Japhet (1993, 1011) makes an important observation: this verse offers a distinction between bamôt for idolatry and bamôt for worshipping Yahweh: “Although any worship in high places is undesirable, there is nevertheless room to distinguish between them.” achievements on ‘good kings’ to the detriment of ‘bad kings’ (a distinction which is also a symptom of the affliction).”

380

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Whether “historical” or not, the result of the Chronicler’s description of Manasseh’s reign is a totally different Manasseh than the one described in Kings. Instead of the all-evil despot, Manasseh is the archetypical penitent, an example for all to follow. He is showcased as “proof” that the gates of repentance are always open to even the most terrible of sinners. Abadie (2003, 95) points out that after all of the kings whose reigns the Chronicler divided into “good” parts and “bad” parts (Rehoboam, Asa, Joash, Amaziah and Uzziah), only Manasseh’s tenure is divided into first a “bad” part and then “good.”74 Ben Zvi (2013) attempted to describe the significance of the Chronicler’s memory of Manasseh to the Chronicler’s audience in late Persian-period Yehud. The Chronicler’s Manasseh “embodied Israel,” who had been exiled and had returned. He embodied the importance of prayer and of turning from evil. He had not been punished as harshly as he could have been. “Unlike postmonarchic Israel…he returned to Judah and Jerusalem to rule the land as well as live in it… The story of Manasseh inspired not only repentance but also hope for a future” (Ben Zvi 2013, 134). The Chronicler’s “source formula” for Manasseh is also unique. Where 2 Kgs 21:17 has the fairly standard “and the rest of the acts of Manasseh and all that he did, and the sin that he sinned, are they not written on the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah,” 2 Chron. 33:18–19 are much more elaborate, and should be divided thus: And the rest of the acts of Manasseh, (I a) and his prayer to his God/gods, and the words of the seers who spoke to him in the name of the Lord God of Israel, (I b) these are on the words of the kings of Israel.  (II a) And his prayer, and his acceptance, all his sin and his faithlessness, and the places at which he built bamôt and set up the asherim and the statues, before he humbled himself, (II b) they are written on the words of the seers.

Set out like this, it is easily discerned that the formula actually refers to two sets of sources, each beginning with the word utepillâtô, “and his prayer,” with “and the rest of the acts of Manasseh” serving as an introduction to both. However the relationship of the two parts to each other 74.  A rather more nuanced view of the Chronicler’s Manasseh is offered by Knoppers (2011), who considers the so-called doctrine of immediate retribution to be rather too simplistic to account for all of the evidence. The very fact that the Chronicler chose to retain the description of Amon doing “what was evil in the eyes of the Lord, as had done Manasseh his father” (v. 22) shows that he considered Manasseh’s repentance to have caused only partial change in Judah.



The Reigns of Manasseh and Amon – 2 Chronicles 33

381

and to the preceding text has been understood differently by different scholars. Williamson (1982, 395) sees them both as a single unit, imbued with “leading themes of the Chronicler’s” such as “his prayer,” “faithlessness,” “humbled himself” and so on. Williamson assumes that “the words of the seers” and “the words of the kings” refer to the same source. Dillard (1987, 264) and Rainey (1997, 36) both prefer the Greek version, which is lacking our (I b), “these are on the words of the kings of Israel,” making the whole formula refer to “the words of the seers.” Dillard explains that the “redundant information” and the mention of two sources seem “expanded and corrupt.” Schniedewind (1991b) and Japhet (1993, 1011) basically consider v. 18 (our I a+b) to be a reworking of 2 Kgs 21:17, with v. 19 (our II a+b) to be a different source, which Schniedewind (1991b, 460) considers to be “the Chr’s interpretation of the ambiguities and problems of part one.” Thus Japhet reads “and his prayer to his God” as replacing Kings’ “and the sin that he sinned.” Similarly Klein (2012, 485) considers v. 19 to be “a gloss on the previous verse.” Another possibility is that each part reflects a different part of Manasseh’s career. The prayer in v. 18 would then be “to his gods” (elôhâw could mean either “his God,” the God of Israel, or “his gods,” foreign gods), “the seers” referring to the word of God to Manasseh in v. 10 or that of the prophets in Kings’ v. 10, and “the words of the kings of Israel,” while a unique expression, is meant to be the same as Kings’ “the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah.” As in many other places, the Chronicler uses “Israel” as a synonym for Judah. Handy (2013, 226) sees this as a Persian-period statement that Judah, not Samaria, is the true “Israel.” “The prayer” of v. 19 is of course his prayer in prison at which he humbled himself, with the reference to the bamôt and asherim and statues reminding us what Manasseh had to repent for. Schniedewind (1991b, 456–57) defines the two utepillâtô as a “framing repetition” (for which he uses the German expression Wiederauf­nahme), meant to indicate that the material in between comes from one particular source, in this case “the words of the kings of Israel.” “The words of the seers” might then be a separate source, which is the source of the additional information given in Chronicles. The Death and Burial of Manasseh According to 2 Kgs 21:18, “Manasseh lay with his fathers, and was buried in the garden of his house, in the garden of Uzza, and Amon his son reigned in his stead.” The Chronicles version reads wayyiqberuhû, “and they buried him,” instead of wayyiqqâbēr, “and he was buried,” and where Kings says that he was buried “in the garden of his house in the garden of Uzza,” Chronicles has simply “his house,” or, following the Greek, “the garden of his house.”

382

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

In the book of Kings, every single Davidic monarch from David himself to Ahaz was buried “in the city of David.” No place of burial is given for Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21), while Manasseh and his son Amon are both said to have been buried “in the garden of Uzza.” No specific place is given for Josiah (2 Kgs 23:30), or Jehoiakim (24:6), Jehoahaz died in Egypt (23:34), and Jehoiachin and Zedekiah were exiled to Babylon. There have been several attempts to identify “the garden of Uzza” and to explain the change in the Davidic kings’ burial ground. “The garden of Uzza” is often connected with the incident recounted in 2 Sam. 6:6–8 = 1 Chron. 13:9–11, in which a man named Uzza grabbed hold of the Ark of God and was struck dead, the place in which it happened being then called “Perez-Uzza.” Yeivin (1948, 33–35) explained the name “Uzza” as a contraction of the name Uzziah, and that this “garden” was the place at which Uzziah had been incarcerated for his leprosy – although we should note that in Kings this king’s name is Azariah, and he was actually buried in the city of David (2 Kgs 15:7). Na’aman (2004) suggested that the original burial place of the Davidic kings was in the royal palace (which Kings calls “the city of David”) and that it was actually Hezekiah who ordered himself and his successors buried outside the city, in order to avoid ritual contamination, which had since become an issue. Na’aman identifies “the garden of Uzza” with “the King’s Garden” that is mentioned in 2 Kgs 25:4, Jer. 52:7 and Neh. 3:15, but does not attempt to explain the name “Uzza.” In a small footnote Gray (1949, 81 n. 85) also made the connection between “the garden of Uzza” and “the King’s Garden,” although he suggested that the latter be read “the garden of Mlk to whom human sacrifices were made,” and that “Uzza” refers to the Arabian goddess ‘Uzza, known from various epigraphic sources. This idea was expanded by McKay (1973, 24) and later by Becking (2008), who cited the appearance of ‘Uzza in Persian-period ostraca from Idumea. He agrees with Stavrakopoulou (2006) that the garden of Uzza may have been a “mortuary garden” near the palace, in which some sort of royal ancestor cult was held. Conversely, in Chronicles, Manasseh is the fifth Davidic king who was specifically not buried in the city of David, following Jehoram (2 Chron. 21:20), Ahaziah (22:9), Joash (24:25) and Ahaz (28:27), with Hezekiah’s “ascent of the tombs of the sons of David” (32:33) being somewhat ambiguous. It is not clear why the Chronicler omitted reference to “the garden of Uzza” from Manasseh’s burial: Klein (2012, 486) believes that he may have thought it inappropriate considering Manasseh’s repentance, but this of course assumes that he indeed identified “the garden of Uzza” as a place of illicit worship. Dillard (1987, 269) suggests that the garden was simply unknown in the Chronicler’s own day and was thus irrelevant.



The Reigns of Manasseh and Amon – 2 Chronicles 33

383

The idea of the sinful Manasseh repenting, praying and being saved gave birth to at least two known short Second Temple-period compositions. The first is a fifteen-verse “prayer” that has been preserved in some recensions of the Septuagint and has become a part of the Eastern churches’ deutero-canon. It also appeared in the Vulgate, but is absent from most Western Bibles, Catholic and Protestant alike. It does appear in some Syriac, Ethiopic, Slavonic and Armenian traditions, although at present no Hebrew or Aramaic version has come to light. While there is no agreement on its source or date of composition, it is usually considered to be later than Chronicles, and obviously written with our chapter in mind (see Newman 2007; Handy 2013, 231–34). The second known such composition is a short psalm-like composition in Hebrew found at Qumran and known as 4Q381. This “psalm” begins with the superscription ‫תפלה למנשה מלך יהודה בכלו אתו מלך אשור‬, “A prayer of Manasseh king of Judah, when he was imprisoned by the king of Assyria.” Schniedewind’s (1996) proposal that this “prayer” was actually composed before 2 Chronicles 33 and served as its “source” has been rejected my other scholars (such as Pajunen 2012), who consider it, too, to have been influenced by our narrative. The Reign of Amon The final five verses of the chapter describe the short reign of Amon, son of Manasseh. As in the case of Manasseh, Chronicles omits the name of Amon’s mother, Meshullemeth daughter of Haruz of Jotbah. Aharoni (1979, 405) and Keel (1986, 897) assumed that this “Jotbah” was the town in the Lower Galilee mentioned in the annals of Tiglath-pileser III as [Ia]-aṭ-bi-te and later known as Jotapta, and implied that Manasseh’s marriage to a woman from the northern Israelite population that had not been exiled reflected Judahite policy at the time (of Hezekiah?). McKay (1973, 24), followed by Klein (2012, 486), assumed that this Jotbah is the same as the Jotbathah mentioned in the desert itineraries (Num. 33:33–34; Deut. 10:7), implying an Arabian origin for Manasseh’s wife. Ginsberg (1950, 350) suggested that Jotbah (‫ )יטבה‬should be amended to Juttah (‫)יוטה‬, a town in the southern Judean hills mentioned in Josh. 15:55 and 21:16, which would make this wife of Manasseh a local girl. In any case her non-mention in Chronicles, like the non-mention of Manasseh’s mother and those of the remaining kings, could be attributed to either the Chronicler’s source or to his literary aims. The name of Manasseh’s son, Amon, has also raised a certain amount of speculation. If one is to assume a Hebrew or Semitic derivation of the name, the basic meaning of MN is “faithful” or “true” (as in the words “amen” or “emunah”). As such, the hapax âmôn in Prov. 8:30

384

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

is often been understood as “a confidant” (NJPS; DCH 1:312), but also as “a craftsman” (supposedly derived from Akkadian ummānu; HALOT 1:62; NRSV “a master worker”) or as “ward, nursling” (KJV “as one brought up with him”); Clifford (1999, 99–101) offers “heavenly sage” (for more see Fox 2000, 285–87). An “officer of the city” (of Samaria) by this name is known from 1 Kgs 22:26 = 2 Chron. 18:25, and a group of “sons of Amon” are among the returnees in Neh. 7:59. On the other hand, Amon (Amun) is also one of the major deities of Egypt, and it seems “tempting” to assume that the idolatrous Manasseh would name his equally idolatrous son after a foreign god (see for example Jarick 2007, 75). However, since Manasseh and Amon seem to have been loyal vassals of the Assyrians, it seems unlikely that they would adopt an Egyptian divine name, and Rudman’s (2000) proposal that Amon was named in honor of Ashurbanipal’s 663 BCE conquest of Thebes, called Nô-Amôn in Hebrew, is also not convincing. Verses 22–23, which tell of Amon’s idolatry, are clearly based on 2 Kgs 21:20–22, albeit nonetheless with substantial differences. Obviously Kings could not say that Amon “did not humble himself before the Lord, as his father Manasseh had humbled himself,” since Manasseh’s repentance is unknown in Kings. On the other hand, Chronicles does not repeat King’s “he abandoned the Lord, the God of his fathers,” which might actually indicate that Amon started out as a loyal Yahwist, and only later “abandoned his God.” The statement that both versions do have in common, “and he did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord, as had done Manasseh his father,” basically ignores Manasseh’s repentance. Neither Kings nor Chronicles offer an explanation for the palace plot which resulted in Amon’s assassination, nor of the counter-plot by “the people of the land” who killed the conspirators and enthroned Amon’s eight-year-old son Josiah. Malamat at first (1953) saw Amon’s assassination, which he dated to 640–639 BCE, as an attempt by “the nobles” to join other local kingdoms, such as Akko and Ushu and some Arabian tribes, in throwing off Assyrian rule, and the “counter-revolution” and enthroning of Josiah to be an affirmation of Judah’s loyalty to Assyria. In a later article, Malamat (1973, 271) suggested that “Egyptian instigation” was behind the assassination, and that the am hââreṣ who opposed the assassins were “a steadfastly anti-Egyptian faction.” Ishida (1975, 36) considered them to be neither pro-Assyrian nor pro-Egyptian, but rather concerned with the preservation of the house of David. Nielsen (1983, 132–35) suggested that the coup against Amon was the result of the Jerusalem priesthood’s opposition to Manasseh’s desecration of the Temple, and was countered by the am hââreṣ, which he interprets as



The Reigns of Manasseh and Amon – 2 Chronicles 33

385

“the free-born Judaean population, who felt obliged to support the house of David and probably had no reason whatsoever to want to get rid of Manasseh’s son.” Johnstone (1997, 2:231) thinks that “the fact that the assassins in turn are sentenced to death by the ‘people of the land’… suggests that they are a reform movement without popular support. If so, the impending reform measures of…Josiah, becomes all the more impressive.” We should remember, however, that in the ancient world religion and politics were in no way separated, and the question of whether this internal struggle was “political” or “religious” would have been irrelevant to both the people of Iron-Age Judah and to the authors of the Bible. In any case, those authors chose not to give us that information. “The people of the land” (am hââreṣ) who are said to have executed the conspirators and enthroned Josiah seem to be the same group that was involved in the ousting of Athaliah and the enthroning of Jehoash in 2 Chron. 23:13, 20–21, and perhaps the same as “the people of Judah” who were involved in the enthroning of Uzziah in 2 Chron. 26:1 as well. Dillard (1987, 270) lists five different interpretations suggested by various scholars (a privileged social class of free landowners, a collective designation for free citizens, the population of the provincial towns as distinguished from the inhabitants of Jerusalem, a proletariat of the common folk, a national council of elders) and concludes that there is not enough evidence to prove any of them. Thames (2011) surveyed some of the various interpretations, and concluded that the author meant simply “everyone,” and not some specific group. In any case, Josiah, enthroned by these “people of the land,” was a very different sort of king.

T h e R eig n o f J o s iah – 2 C h r o n ic les 3 4–35

The Reign of Josiah: Background and Overview Since the publication of Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette’s thesis, claiming that “the book of the Law/Covenant/Moses” supposedly “discovered” during maintenance work in the Temple and then read to Josiah was actually the book of Deuteronomy (de Wette 1830, 149–68), and even more so since the publication of Martin Noth’s theory of a unified “Deuteronomistic History” (1943), the central position of the reign of Josiah within that history has achieved almost axiomatic status in modern biblical studies. This status was enhanced even more with the publication of Cross’s theory (1968; 1973, 274–89) that the “original edition” of the Deuteronomistic History was in fact composed during the reign of Josiah, and only updated and redacted during the exile (for a more recent restatement of this idea see Nelson 2005; also Blenkinsopp 2013, 239). And while the historicity of the finding of the book and of Josiah’s “reforms,” the composition of Deuteronomy or even the very existence of a “Deuteronomistic History” have all been debated in modern scholarship, the crucial role of Josiah within the book of Kings has remained a point of consensus. Josiah, already predicted in 1 Kgs 13:2 and about whom 2 Kgs 23:25 says, “Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the Lord with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the Torah of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him,” is seen as the epitome of the righteous king, and while the book of Kings never actually uses the term “messiah,” he is often described as “the lost/failed Messiah” (see, for example, the title of Sweeney 2001). Had all gone as planned, under him the covenant between Yahweh and Israel would have been fulfilled, bringing the nation’s history to its successful conclusion. In fact, according to Cross’s “double redaction” theory, this is exactly what the “original” edition of the Deuteronomistic History did. However, this was not to be. The following verses, 2 Kgs 23:26–27, in what Cross and others believe to be an exilic addition to the history, add: Still the Lord did not turn from the fierceness of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

387

Manasseh had provoked him. The Lord said, I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel; and I will reject this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, my name shall be there.

In the end, the sins of Manasseh and so many of his predecessors tipped the scales against Josiah and his kingdom, and only 23 years after Josiah’s tragic death, the Temple, the city of Jerusalem and the Kingdom of Judah were destroyed. The presentation of Josiah in Chronicles is similar, but there are important differences. While 2 Chron. 34:2 does quote 2 Kgs 22:2 in telling us that “he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and walked in the ways of David his father; and did not stray to the right or to the left,” Chronicles does not repeat the superlatives of 2 Kgs 23:25; to the Chronicler, Josiah also had his faults, and it was Hezekiah who was deserving of the title of most pious king. Historically, the thirty-one-year reign of Josiah, approximately 640–609 BCE, was once again a period of tremendous change for Judah and for the entire region. The so-called Pax Assyriaca1 ended with the death of Ashurbanipal in 627 and the outbreak of renewed rebellion in Babylon. By 623 the Chaldean Nabupolassar was in control of Babylon, and had begun a campaign of conquest up the Euphrates, in conjunction with a westward expansion by the Medes. The Assyrian capitals of Ashur, Nineveh and Haran were conquered in 614, 612 and 610 respectively, and in 609 the last Assyrian king, Assur-uballit II was defeated at Carchemish on the upper Euphrates, and his erstwhile ally Necho II of Egypt, while failing to capture Haran, became master of the Levant (for a more detailed description of these events see Rainey and Notley 2006, 258–60). Josiah, the young king of Judah, was forced to navigate through these confusing events. The book of Kings gives us no information at all about the events in Judah during the first eighteen years of Josiah’s reign. We do not know who held the real power behind the child-king’s throne. We can only assume that there were no drastic changes in either internal or external affairs. According to 2 Kgs 22:3–5, it was in the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign, which would have been 622 BCE, that he initiated 1.  The term “Pax Assyriaca,” modeled on the better known “Pax Romana,” refers to the first 70 years or so of the seventh century BCE, during which the Assyrian Empire was at its greatest extent and there were relatively few internal conflicts or rebellions. In terms of the history of Judah, this period would have overlapped the end of Hezekiah’s reign, the entire reigns of Manasseh and Amon, and the beginning of Josiah’s time as king. During this period, parts of the Levant experienced economic and demographic growth. The extent to which this prosperity can be attributed to Assyrian policy is much debated. For recent summaries see Fales 2008, 2010; Younger 2015.

388

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

repairs to the Temple, which led to the finding of the “book of the Torah,” which led to his famous “cultic reforms.” This of course raises the interesting question of the influence that the events in far-away Assyria and Babylon had on the small vassal-kingdom of Judah, but the Bible, at least, does not supply us with answers. While the book of Kings does not give any explanation for Josiah’s sudden interest in the Temple at the age of 26, the sequence of events is clear: Josiah sends his men to oversee the repairs, they report finding a “book of the Torah,” the book is authenticated by the prophetess Huldah, which leads to Josiah’s covenant renewal and to his purge of illicit worship, not only in Judah, but in Bethel and in “the cities of Samaria” as well (v. 19). Then, still within his eighteenth year, Josiah held the great Passover, the likes of which had not been seen “since the days of the judges who judged Israel” (v. 22). And finally, in a sort of postscript to his reign, we are told that “in his days” Necho king of Egypt, on his way to the Euphrates, killed Josiah at Megiddo (v. 29). Since Necho only became king in 610 and his first northward campaign was in 609, we know that that is when Josiah was killed,2 which means that we have no information about the final 13 years of his reign either. The Debate on the Size and Status of Josiah’s Kingdom There is a basic disagreement among scholars about Josiah’s political and military achievements and about the extent of his kingdom. The “maximalistic” view is that Josiah took advantage of the “vacuum” left by the retreating Assyrians, and basically gained control over most of the territory of the former northern kingdom, including the Galilee. This approach was expressed most explicitly by Aharoni (1979, 401–404). The basis for this view is a literal reading of both 2 Kgs 23:15–20, which claims that Josiah purified Bethel and “the cities of Samaria,” and of 2 Chron. 34:6–7, which says the same about “the towns of Manasseh and Ephraim and Simeon and as far as Naphtali…in all the land of Israel,” and assuming that Josiah could not have been active in these areas unless he actually controlled them. Alt (1927) also assumed that the Galilean tribal territories described in Joshua 19 reflect Josiah’s conquests, and even that Josiah expanded into Transjordan.3 The discovery of a Hebrew-language ostracon containing a legal plea that may have affinities with Torah law at Meṣad Ḥashavyahu, on the coast south of Jaffa, was seen as evidence 2.  For a discussion of the chronological issues involved see Kahn 2013. 3.  This claim of Alt’s was made “in an article never published but quoted by others” (for example, in this case, by Na’aman 1991, 42).



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

389

that that area was part of Josiah’s kingdom as well (see for example Myers 1965, 2:206; Pardee 1978). The origin of one of Josiah’s wives, the mother of his son Eliakim/Jehoiakim, from Rumah (2 Kgs 23:36), ostensibly in the Lower Galilee, was seen as further proof of Josiah’s control of that region. And finally, some scholars have also assumed that Josiah was in control of Megiddo (where he was eventually killed), and that he had even built a fortress there. A more “minimalistic” view considers the Chronicler’s assertion that Josiah’s reforms reached “as far as Naphtali” to be unhistorical, and even Kings’ “cities of Samaria” to be dubious. These scholars (such as Alt 1925), assume that Josiah took over the Bethel region, enabling him to destroy the cultic site there as emphasized in Kings. The claim of 2 Kgs 23:8 that Josiah destroyed bamôt “from Geba to Beer-sheba” was understood by Mazar (1975) to describe the northern and southern borders of his kingdom, and since the well-known Geba of Benjamin is south of Bethel, which was supposedly under Josiah’s control, Mazar identified this particular Geba at et-Tell in the Ephraim hill-country north of Bethel (so also Galil 1993). Malamat (1973) who accepted this thesis, emphasized that Josiah’s death at Megiddo does not mean that he controlled Megiddo, and in fact was of the opinion that Megiddo had already become an Egyptian base. Others denied the existence of a “Geba in Mount Ephraim” altogether; Lipschits (2004) suggested that the description in Kings refers first to the “original” kingdom, and then to the expansion into territory of the former Assyrian province of Samaria as far as the Bethel region, but no further. An even more radical view was proposed by Na’aman (1991), who suggested that control of the Levant actually passed from the Assyrians to the Egyptians in an orderly fashion, and that there was no “vacuum”: Josiah went directly from subordination to Assyria to subordination to Egypt. Josiah did take advantage of the relative prosperity of the region and of the great powers’ preoccupation with other issues to expand his control as far as Bethel, and he probably did carry out some sort of “reforms” aimed at stabilizing his kingdom, but he was not really independent, and certainly no David redivivius. Na’aman also interpreted the site of Meṣad Ḥashavyahu as an Egyptian base, perhaps populated in part by Judahite mercenaries who were allowed to manage their own affairs according to Judahite customs (for similar conclusions see Fantalkin 2001, 143–45). According to Na’aman (1991, 41), the biblical presentation of Josiah, so different from the historical reality of the seventh century B.C.E., is (among other motives) intended to mask the fact that Josiah, the ruler of unparalleled loyalty to God and His precepts (2 Kgs. 23:25), was subordinate to foreign

390

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

rulers for most of his days – a subordination perceived in the Deuteronomistic outlook as unfitting the righteous king. By selecting only specific material, the author was able to present a different picture of the past, thus portraying Josiah as having acted independently of foreign dictates throughout his rule, and having been capable of implementing the necessary reforms without the intervention of a foreign element.4

Map 9. The Kingdom of Josiah 4.  For a survey of scholarly opinions on the extent and measure of Josiah’s rule, including maps showing the different views, see Handy 2007, 422–30.



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

391

Whichever of these approaches to the history of Josiah’s reign is correct, it is clear that the Deuteronomistic portrayal of Josiah, like that of any other king of Israel and Judah, is the end-result of a process of negotiation between whatever historical records or memories the author might have had at his disposal, traditions about that monarch’s role in the history of the nation, and the author’s own purposes and literary needs. The Chronicler’s depiction of Josiah and his reign, however, is twiceremoved from the events themselves. The Chronicler’s main source is the description in Kings, although he may have had access to supplementary material as well. But the Chronicler also had different messages to convey to a different audience. All of this must be kept in mind as we examine the Chronicler’s portrayal of Josiah. Chapter 34: 1 Eight years old was Josiah when he reigned; and thirty-one years5 he reigned in Jerusalem.6 2 And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and walked in the ways7 of David his father; and did not stray to the right or to the left.8 3 And9 in the eighth year of his reign, when he10 was still a youth,11 he began to seek the God of David his father, and in the twelfth year he began to purify12 Judah and Jerusalem of the bamôt and the asherim and the carved images13 and the cast images.14  4 And they smashed the altars of the 5.  The first 28 verses of this chapter follow 2 Kgs 22 fairly closely, albeit with some interesting differences. In v. 1 there are two such differences; Kings has ‫בן־שמנה שנה‬, literally “eight year old” in the singular, a form that is common for numbers above ten; this is “corrected” by Chronicles to ‫בן־שמונה שנים‬, “eight years old.” 6.  As it has been doing since the reign of Manasseh, Chronicles omits the name of Josiah’s mother, given in Kings as “Jedidah daughter of Adaiah of Bozkath.” 7.  ‫בדרכי‬, “in the ways,” a regular plural. Kings has ‫בכל־דרך‬, “in all the way,” a form which Japhet (1993, 1021) calls “collective singular.” 8.  The comment of his not straying to the right or to the left, which Kings and Chronicles use only for Josiah, is an allusion to Deut. 17:20, in which the king is specifically enjoined not to stray from God’s commandment to the right or to the left, “so that he and his sons may reign long over his kingdom in Israel.” 9.  RSV and NRSV have “for in the eighth year,” making this the explanation for the previous statement. This is unwarranted by the text. Most of vv. 3–7 in Chronicles are adapted from different parts of Kings’ ch. 23, with some additions. See the commentary. 10.  ‫והוא‬, literally “and he,” rendered “when he” for clarity in the English. 11.  ‫נער‬. NRSV translates “boy”; NJPS “young,” Dillard (1987, 273) “a young man,” 12.  ‫לטהר‬, which is the common Hebrew word for “to purify” or “to cleanse.” The Greek καθαρίσαι has the same meaning, but the Latin coeperat mundavit has the more specific meaning of “to purge,” and this was picked up by KJV, NRSV, NJPS and most other modern translations. 13.  ‫פסלים‬, statues, as were worshipped by Amon. 14.  ‫מסכות‬, NJPS “cast images,” from NSK, “to pour.” Used in Chronicles only here and in 2 Chron. 28:2, and see the note there. The combination of pesel and massēkâh,

392

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Baalim before him,15 and the ḥammanîm16 which were up above them he cut down, and the asherim and the carved images and the cast images he crushed and grinded,17 and threw over the graves of those who had sacrificed to them. 5  And the bones of priests18 he burned on their altars, and he purified Judah and Jerusalem. 6 And in the towns of Manasseh and Ephraim19 and Simeon and as far as Naphtali,20 in their ruins21 around. 7 And he smashed the altars, which appears in Chronicles only here, is taken from Deut. 27:15: “cursed be anyone who makes an idol (pesel) or casts an image (massēkâh).” 15.  ‫וינתצו לפניו‬. In the Hebrew, the preposition “before him” follows the noun “smashed” with the subject “they”: “and they smashed before him.” NRSV has “in his presence they pulled down,” while NJPS renders “at his bidding, they demolished” and Klein (2012, 489), “they tore down in his presence.” 16.  ‫ חמנים‬are cultic objects of an obscure nature, mentioned only in Lev. 26:30; Isa. 17:8; 27:9; Ezek. 6:4, 6; and here in 2 Chron. 34:4 and 7. The Greek has simply εἴδωλα, “idols,” followed by KJV “images,” but some interpreters, assuming a connection with the relatively rare word ‫חמה‬, “sun,” render “pillars of the sun.” Most modern translations simply render “incense stands” and the like. However the Vulgate translates fana, “shrines,” and more recently it has been claimed that these ḥammanîm were actually some sort of shrine or cultic structure (for which see Williamson 1982, 260; Klein 2012, 497, who renders “chapels”). However Japhet (1993, 706) rightly comments that in our case and in the case of Ezek. 6, the verb ‫גדע‬, which means “to cut down,” as for a tree, would hardly be appropriate way to describe the demolition of a structure such as a “shrine” or “chapel.” It is possible, that even if the term originally did refer to some sort of “shrine,” the Chronicler understood it as having to do with the sun and used it instead of the horses and chariots of the sun which are mentioned in 2 Kgs 23:11. See the commentary. 17.  ‫שבר והדק‬. The second part of the verse is based loosely on 2 Kgs 23:6. There, Josiah removed the Asherah from the Temple to the Kidron Valley and ground it to dust, and then threw the dust over the peoples’ graves. Here, he throws it (no mention of “dust”) on the graves of those who had sacrificed to the asherim. The whole scene is based on Exod. 32:20 and Deut. 9:21, in which Moses grinds the golden calf to dust and feeds it to the people. 18.  ‫כהנים‬, “priests,” without the definite article. This is followed by the Greek and by NJPS, but most translations render “the priests.” The Targum translates ‫כומריא‬, a term used for idolatrous priests (Keel 1986, 901); possibly the Chronicler meant to emphasize that these were not priests of Yahweh. 2 Kgs 23:16 does not mention priests at all, but rather Josiah burning the bones that he had dug up and scattered on the bamôt. Verse 5 there, however, which Chronicles does not repeat, mentions Josiah “stopping” the ‫כמרים‬, “idolatrous priests” and v. 20 says that he “sacrificed all the priests of the bamôt…and burned the bones of men on them.” See the commentary. 19.  Interestingly, the Greek reverses the order of the first two to the more common Εφραιμ καὶ Μανασση, and then leaves the word ‫ עד‬untranslated: καὶ Συμεων καὶ Νεφθαλι. 20.  2 Kgs 23:19 has, “and also all the houses of the bamôt that were in the towns of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke, Josiah removed, and did to them all that he had done to Bethel.” 21.  In the MT, the ketib has two words: ‫בחר בתיהם‬, while the qeri is ‫בחרבתיהם‬, of which the traditional interpretation is “in their ruins” (NRSV; NJPS has “[lying] in ruins on



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

393

and the asherim and the carved images he pounded22 and grinded, and all the ḥammanîm he cut down throughout all the land of Israel; and he returned to Jerusalem.23 8 And in the eighteenth year of his reign,24 to purify the land and the house,25 he sent26 Shaphan son of Azaliah,27 Maaseiah the governor of the city, and Joah son of Joahaz, the recorder, to strengthen28 the house of the Lord his God.  9 And they came29 to Hilkiah the high priest and they gave him30 the every side”), assuming that the reference is either to the ruined towns of the northern tribes (that were exiled by the Assyrians over a century before) or that Josiah ruined them as part of his “purification” of the land. Another interpretation is “with their swords,” from ‫חרב‬, “sword”: Josiah and his men destroyed the altars and bamôt with their swords (see Keel 1986, 902). Other suggestions include reading the ketib, with the Codex Leningradensis, as ‫בהר בתיהם‬, “their houses on the mountain(s),” relating to the ‫בהר‬, “on/in the mountain(s),” mentioned in 2 Kgs 23:16 (so Japhet 1993, 1025). The Greek renders τοῖς τόποις αὐτῶν, “in their places,” perhaps reflecting an original ‫ברחבותיהם‬, “in their plazas,” but Curtis and Madsen (1910, 504) call all of these suggestions “only a guess.” Allen (1974, 1:60) agrees, commenting that the Greek translator also found the text “difficult.” Seeligmann (1961, 202 n. 1) suggested reading the ketib ‫ בחר בתיהם‬as ‫בער בתיהם‬, literally “he burnt their houses” and meaning “he destroyed their sanctuaries.” This reading was adopted by the NEB and by both Dillard (1987, 275) and Klein (2012, 489). 22.  ‫כתת‬. A near synonym of ‫ שבר‬and ‫נתץ‬. The verb is used for what Moses did to the golden calf in Deut. 9:21, and Hezekiah to the Nehushtan in 2 Kgs 18:4. In the prophecies of Mic. 4:3 and Isa 2:4, nations will “pound their swords into spades.” In the meanwhile, ‫ כתת‬is also used to describe defeat in battle, as in Num. 14:45 and Deut. 1:44, and also in the only other place that it is used by Chronicles, in 2 Chron. 15:6: “nation was pounded by nation and city by city.” 23.  The last two words of v. 7, ‫וישב לירושלם‬, are almost identical to the last two words of 2 Kgs 23:20, ending Kings’ version of Josiah’s activities in the north as well. On the different order of the events see the commentary. 24.  2 Kgs 22:3 reads: “And it came to be in the eighteenth year of King Josiah.” At this point our chapter returns to following Kings, with quite a few alterations. 25.  ‫לטהר הארץ והבית‬. The meaning of the phrase, which is missing in Kings, is clear, but achieved differently by different translators: “when he had purged the land and the house” (NRSV); “after purging the land and the House” (NJPS); “when he had purged the land and the Temple” (Dillard 1987, 273); “after purging the land and the temple” (Klein 2012, 489, adding the word ‫ככלות‬, “after finishing” to the beginning of the phrase). 26.  ‫שלח‬. NJPS translates “he commissioned.” Kings has ‫שלח המלך‬, “the king sent.” 27.  Kings adds “the son of Meshullam the scribe,” but then omits the following two officials. 28.  ‫לחזק‬. Most translations have “to repair.” In Kings, Shaphan is simply sent “to the house of the Lord, saying,” and the following four verses are Josiah’s words to Shaphan, with instructions to Hilkiah. 29.  In Kings, this is still part of Josiah’s instructions to Shaphan, and begins with “go up to Hilkiah.” 30.  ‫ויתנו‬, literally “and they gave”; “him” added for good English. NRSV has “they delivered.” Kings has ‫ויתם‬, a hiphil of TMM, “whole,” “complete” and whose specific in

394

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

silver31 that had been brought into the house of God,32 which the Levites,33 the guards of the threshold, had collected from34 Manasseh and Ephraim and from all the remnant of Israel and from all Judah and Benjamin and from the inhabitants of Jerusalem.35  10 And they gave it36 into the hand of37 the craftsmen38 who were in charge39 of the house of the Lord, and the craftsmen who were working in the house of the Lord gave it40 to examine41 and to strengthen the house. 11 And they gave it42 to the carpenters and the masons context this meaning is unclear, but has been understood as “and have him count the entire sum” (NRSV), “and let him weigh” (NJPS), “purify” (Keel 1986, 905), “and have him sum up” (Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 281; they also cite additional proposals, based on the various Greek versions, such as ‫וחתם‬, “and seal up”; ‫ויתך‬, “melt down”; ‫ותכן‬, “measure out,” but prefer to follow the MT). 31.  ‫כסף‬. In later Hebrew, the same word is used for “money,” and many translations, including NRSV, use “money” here as well, but since coinage was unknown in the Iron Age, this would be anachronistic. 32.  Kings has “house of the Lord.” 33.  The word “Levites” is absent in Kings. As in many cases, the Chronicler assumes that the various Temple functionaries must have been Levites. 34.  ‫מיד‬, literally “from the hand of.” Kings has ‫מאת העם‬, “from the people,” without the roster of specific groups listed by Chronicles. 35.  Following the ketib ‫וישבי‬, as do most translations. The qeri ‫וישבו‬, “and they returned” seems to assume that like in Jehoash’s repairs of the Temple in 2 Chron. 24:5, the Levites went through the land collecting funds (so Keel 1986, 905), but there is no actual mention of such a collection in the text. 36.  ‫ויתנו‬, vocalized wayyitenû, “and they gave.” Kings has ‫ויתנהו‬, weyitenuhu, “and they shall give it,” still a part of Josiah’s orders to Shaphan. 37.  ‫על־יד‬, meaning either “to” (NRSV) or “into the custody of” (NJPS). In Kings, Josiah’s order is to give the funds “into the hand” of the overseers, who then will give them to the workers. 38.  ‫עשה המלאכה‬, literally “the doer/maker of crafts,” in the singular. Kings and the Greek of Chronicles, as well as some manuscripts, have ‫ עשי‬in the plural, which better fits the context. NRSV translates “workers.” 39.  ‫המפקדים‬. NRSV “who had the oversight.” 40.  The parallel phrase in Kings, only slightly different in the Hebrew, reads “and they shall give it to the craftsmen who are in the house of the Lord.” 41.  ‫לבדוק ולחזק הבית‬. The parallel in Kings has ‫לחזק בדק הבית‬. The basic meaning of BDQ, with cognates in Ugaritic, Akkadian and Aramaic, is “breach” (HALOT 110–11). The term ‫ בדק‬is used six times in the description of Jehoash’s repairs of the Temple in 2 Kgs 12:6–13; it is systematically avoided in the parallel 2 Chron. 24. In Kings’ Josiah account it is used only here, and only here is it also used by Chronicles, but rendered in the infinitive. Since “to breach and to strengthen the house” does not make sense in this context, it is translated “to repair” (NRSV; Myers 1965, 2:202; Dillard 1987, 273; Klein 2012, 489) or “to examine” (NJPS; DCH 2:96–97 gives both), which is the meaning that the verb acquired in later Hebrew. 42.  ‫ ויתנו‬absent in Kings, in which “the carpenters and the masons and the fencemakers” detail “the craftsmen” of the previous verse.



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

395

to buy43 quarried stone and timber for binders,44 and to girder45 the houses46 that the kings of Judah had damaged.47 12 And the men did the work faithfully,48 and over them were appointed Jahath and Obadiah the Levites of the sons of Merari, and Zechariah and Meshullam of the sons of the Kohathites, to supervise, and the Levites,49 all who were skillful with instruments of music. 13 And over the porters50 and supervising all the craftsmen in every kind of work;51 and some of the Levites were scribes and officials and gatekeepers. 14 And while they were bringing out the silver that had been brought to the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found the book52 of the Torah of the Lord given through Moses.53

43.  Kings has “and to buy,” still part of Josiah’s instructions. 44.  ‫למחברות‬, “for the connecters,” from ḤBR, “to bring together.” The same term is used in 1 Chron. 22:3, and in the singular ‫ מחברת‬in Exod. 26:4 and other texts. NJPS translates “couplings.” Kings has “timber and quarried stone, to strengthen the house,” without mentioning the specific purposes of the timber. 45.  ‫ ולקרות‬is a verb derived from the noun ‫קורה‬, meaning both “rafters, roof-beams” (as in Song 1:17) and the actual roof (as in Gen. 19:8; DCH 7:238). NRSV and Dillard (1987, 273) translate as a noun, “beams,” while NJPS and Klein (2012, 489) add a verb: “making roof-beams” and “constructing the beams.” 46.  Where Kings has “house,” meaning the Temple, Chronicles has “houses,” presumably referring to the various buildings in the Temple complex. 47.  ‫השחיתו‬, in the active hiphil. Despite the Greek ἐξωλέθρευσαν, “utterly destroyed” and the KJV “destroyed,” modern translations tend to use a more modifying passive form, such as “had let go to ruin” (NRSV); “had allowed to fall into ruin” (NJPS; NIV); “had allowed to fall into disrepair” (Dillard 1987, 273); “had allowed to go to ruin” (Klein 2012, 489). 48.  The parallel verse in Kings, still part of Josiah’s instructions, is “But the silver that is given by them shall not be counted, for they work faithfully.” Chronicles uses the phrase “for they work faithfully” as part of his description of the events. The rest of v. 12 and v. 13 are not paralleled in Kings. 49.  The syntax here is problematic, since the task of these Levitical musicians is not clear. Many translations (such as KJV; NRSV, NJPS and others) begin a new sentence with “The Levites – all who were skilled in playing musical instruments” and continue into the next verse: “had charge of the laborers and supervised all the workers from job to job.” See the commentary. 50.  ‫הסבלים‬. NRSV “burden bearers.” 51.  ‫ לעבודה ועבודה‬,‫לכל עשה מלאכה‬, literally “all the doers of crafts, for work and work.” KJV: “and supervised all the workers from job to job”; NRSV: “and directed all who did work in every kind of service”; NJPS: “supervising all the who work at each and every task.” 52.  ‫ את ספר‬is a definite object – “the book.” NJPS translates here and throughout, “a scroll.” See the commentary. For more on the use of ‫ את‬as a marker of the definite direct object see van Loon 2012. 53.  ‫ביד משה‬. Literally, “by the hand of Moses.” This verse does not have a parallel in Kings, which does not actually tell of the repairs being made or of the book being found,

396

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

15 And Hilkiah proclaimed and said54 to Shaphan the scribe: A book of the Torah55 I have found in the house of the Lord; and Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan.56 16 And Shaphan brought the book to the king,57 and also reported back to the king, saying:58 All that was committed to59 your servants they are doing. 17 And they have melted down60 the silver that was found in the house of the Lord61 and have given it into the hand of the supervisors and into the hand

only of Josiah’s ordering that they be made and of Hilkiah’s claiming that the book had been found. See the commentary. 54.  ‫ויען חלקיהו ויאמר‬. Kings has simply ‫ויאמר חלקיהו‬, “and Hilkiah said.” The additional verb in Chronicles literally means “answered,” but is sometimes used to denote public speech. Keel (1986, 908) brings the example of the Israelite’s announcement upon bringing his first fruits to the Temple in Deut. 26:5, ‫( וענית ואמרת‬which NRSV translates “you shall make this response”; we would prefer “you shall proclaim and say”). Keel proposes that the Chronicler used this “high style” in order to indicate Hilkiah’s excitement. Chronicles also deletes the title that Kings gives Hilkiah, “the high priest.” 55.  Unlike in the previous verse, the particle ‫ את‬is absent here, allowing “a book” rather than “the book” as rendered by NRSV and others. 56.  Kings’ “and he read it” is missing in Chronicles. 57.  Kings has “and Shaphan the scribe came to the king,” the difference being three small alterations in the Hebrew: the first word ‫ ויבא‬is vocalized wayyâbô, “and came” in Kings and wayyâbê, “and brought,” in Chronicles; ‫ הספר‬is vocalized hassôpêr, “the scribe,” in Kings and hassêper, “the book,” in Chronicles; and in Chronicles ‫ הספר‬is preceded by the particle ‫את‬, indicating that it is the direct object of the sentence, not its subject. 58.  Kings is missing the word ‫עוד‬, “more,” “also,” and instead of ‫לאמר‬, “saying,” has ‫ויאמר‬, “and he said.” The rest of the verse, “all that was committed to the hand of your servants they are doing,” is also absent in Kings, which continues the “and he said” with their melting down the silver. 59.  ‫כל אשר נתן ביד‬, literally “all that was given into the hand.” 60.  ‫ויתיכו‬. Kings has ‫התיכו‬, both from NTK, which could mean both “to pour out” and “to melt” (specifically metals), a process in which the molten metal is poured into the mold. Here, the Greek ἐχώνευσαν, the Latin conflaverunt, and many modern translations and commentators (NEB; NJPS; Japhet 1993, 1031; Keel 1986, 908–909), translate “melted down” and the like, assuming that at least some of the silver was brought in the form of jewelry that was melted into ingots which were then given to the craftsmen. NRSV and Klein (2012, 490) translate “they have emptied out the money,” perhaps anachronistically assuming some sort of coinage. Both Myers (1965, 2:202) and Dillard (1987, 273) use “they have poured out,” perhaps influenced by the use of the same root in vv. 21 and 25 below. Inexplicably, KJV has “they have gathered together the money,” and NIV has “they have paid out the money.” The same verb is used below in vv. 21 and 25 for the Lord’s ‫חמת‬, his “hot anger” or “wrath.” In the word’s only other appearance in Chronicles, in 2 Chron. 12:7, it is used in the same way. 61.  Kings has just “the house” here, but adds “the house of the Lord” at the end of the verse, where it is absent from Chronicles.



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

397

the craftsmen.62 18 And Shaphan the scribe told the king thus: Hilkiah the priest has given me a book; and Shaphan read from it63 before the king. 19 And when the king heard the words of the Torah,64 he tore his clothes. 20 Then the king commanded Hilkiah,65 and Ahikam son of Shaphan and Abdon son of Micah66 and Shaphan the scribe and Asaiah the servant of the king, saying: 21 Go, inquire of the Lord for me and for those who are left in Israel and in Judah,67 about the words of the book that has been found;68 for great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out69 upon us, because our fathers did not keep70 the word of the Lord, to do as all that is written on this book.71 62.  In Kings the order is reversed, which results in a slightly different meaning: “into the hand of the craftsmen who were set over (the same noun as that translated “supervisors” in Chronicles only there meant to define the craftsmen) the house of the Lord.” 63.  ‫ויקרא־בו‬, literally “read in it.” Kings has ‫ויקראהו‬, “and he read it,” literally all of it. See the commentary. 64.  Kings has “the words of the book of the Torah.” 65.  Kings: “Hilkiah the priest.” 66.  Kings gives this name as “Achbor son of Michaiah.” While both the name ‫עבדון‬ and the name ‫ עכבור‬are attested elsewhere in the Bible, an Elnathan son of Achbor is known from Jer. 26:22 and 36:12, so this person could be his father. The letters ‫ב‬/‫כ‬, ‫ד‬/‫ ב‬and ‫ן‬/‫ ר‬are all similar enough to explain the difference as a series of scribal errors, although, if so, they must have been made at a very early stage of the transmission of the text, since the Greek already has Αβδων υἱῷ Μιχαια. On the transposition of “Michaiah” and “Micah” see 2 Chron. 18 and the discussion there. 67.  Kings has “for me and for the people and for all of Judah.” 68.  Kings has “this book that was found.” 69.  ‫נתכה בנו‬, from the same root NTK as used of the silver in v. 17. Here the image is of Yahweh’s anger “boiling over”; the same image is used in Nah. 1:6; Jer. 7:20; 42:18 and 44:6. Since Kings here has ‫נצתה‬, “flamed,” one can assume that it was changed by the Chronicler, who liked the image. 70.  Where Chronicles has ‫לא־שמרו‬, “did not keep,” Kings has ‫לא־שמעו‬, which literally means “did not hear,” but could also be understood as “did not listen” or “did not obey.” The Greek has ήκουσαν, “hear” in both Kings and Chronicles, making it possible that that was the original, which was changed in the Chronicles MT through scribal error. Conversely, it is possible that the Chronicler changed the phrase purposely, either to make it “more explicit” (so Japhet 1993, 1032, taking Kings’ ‫ לא־שמעו‬to mean “not obey”), or perhaps because whereas Kings could imply that “the book” had not been known previously (and thus “not heard”), in Chronicles, “the Torah” had clearly been known to previous kings. Allen (1974, 1:212) points out that the Chronicler “frequently links ‫ שמר‬with ‫ עשה‬and God’s commands… So the change was probably deliberate.” He also believes that the Greek in Chronicles was probably influenced by the Greek Kings, and that those modern scholars and translators who “jettison the text of Chron MT in favour of Sam-Ki…by rewriting Chron according to Par” are “undoing the Chronicler’s work” (Allen 1974, 1:179). 71.  Kings has: “because our fathers did not hear about the words of this book, to do all that is written upon us.”

398

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

22  And Hilkiah and those whom the king (had commanded)72 went to the prophetess Huldah, the wife of Shallum son of Tokhath son of Hasrah,73 keeper of the clothes,74 and she was sitting75 in Jerusalem in the Mishneh,76 and spoke to her thus.77 23 And she said to them: Thus says the Lord, God of Israel: Tell the man who sent you to me: 24 Thus says the Lord: I am bringing evil78 upon this place and upon its inhabitants, all the curses that are written in the book that was read before the king of Judah.79 25 Because80 they have forsaken me and have offered incense81 to other gods, to anger me with all the works of their hands, my wrath will be poured out82 on this place and will not be quenched. 26 But as for the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the

72.  The MT of Chronicles, “And Hilkiah and whom the king went,” is clearly defective. Kings has “And Hilkiah the priest and Ahikam and Achbor and Shaphan and Asaiah went…” The Greek reads καὶ οἷς εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεὺς, “and whom the kings said/told.” NRSV has “told”; NJPS “ordered”; Klein (2012, 490) prefers “sent.” 73.  In Kings, Shallum’s father and grandfather are Tikvah and Harhas. Presumably the Chronicler’s versions are a result of scribal errors in copying the unfamiliar names. 74.  ‫שומר הבגדים‬, usually translated “keeper of the wardrobe,” some sort of palace or Temple functionary, but Dillard’s assertion (1987, 281), that he was “probably… the temple functionary responsible for production and maintenance of the priestly and Levitical vestments” goes beyond the evidence. An ‫אשר על־המלתחה‬, “he who is over the wardrobe,” is mentioned as bringing out clothes for the worshippers of Baal in 2 Kgs 10:22, but there is no way to know if the two positions were comparable. 75.  ‫והיא יושבת‬, literally “and she was sitting,” is usually translated “and she resided” or “she was living” and the like, following the common expanded meaning of the verb yôšêb, “sit,” as “reside.” We should, however, point out the almost identical introduction of Deborah in Judg. 4:3–4, ‫והיא יושבת תחת־תומר דבורה‬, “she used to sit under the palm of Deborah” (NRSV) – no-one suggests that she “lived” under a palm tree! In this light, it is possible that the Mishneh was where Huldah received her supplicants, but that she and her husband actually resided elsewhere. 76.  The “Mishneh,” literally “second” or “repeated,” is often assumed to be the name of a “second quarter” of Jerusalem (see NRSV), also mentioned in Zeph. 1:10. For its possible location see the commentary. 77.  The final word ‫כזאת‬, “thus,” absent in Kings. 78.  ‫רעה‬. NRSV and others translate “disaster.” 79.  Kings has: “all the words of the book that the king of Judah read.” 80.  The particular phrase ‫תחת אשר‬, “under that…,” indicating payment for a crime, taken here from Kings and not used elsewhere in Chronicles, is typical of Deuteronomic legal language, as in Deut. 21:14; 22:29 and 28:47. It also appears in the curses in Deut. 28:62: “You shall be left a scant few, ‫תחת אשר‬, after having been as numerous as the stars in the skies, because you did not heed the voice of the Lord your God.” 81.  ‫ויקטרו‬. NRSV and others have “made offerings.” 82.  ‫ותתך חמתי‬, where Kings has ‫ונצתה חמתי‬, “my wrath will flame” – just like in v. 21 above, and see the note there.



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

399

Lord,83 thus shall you say to him: Thus says the Lord, God of Israel, (about)84 the words that you have heard: 27 Because your heart was softened85 and you humbled yourself before God86 when you heard his words87 about this place and about its inhabitants, and you have humbled yourself before me,88 and have torn your clothes and wept before me, I also have heard,89 declares the Lord.  28 I gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace; and your eyes shall not see all the evil which I bring on this place and on its inhabitants;90 and they reported back to the king.  29 And the king sent, and gathered91 all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem. 30 And the king went up to the house of the Lord, and all the people of Judah and92 the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests and the Levites,93 all the people from great to small;94 and he read in their hearing95 all the words of the book of the covenant that had been found in the house of the Lord. 31 And the king stood at 83.  Instead of ‫לדרוש ביהוה‬, “to inquire of the Lord,” Kings has ‫לדרוש את יהוה‬, “to seek the Lord.” 84.  The Hebrew simply has “the words you have heard.” English translations add “regarding” (NRSV), “as for” (NJPS) and so on. 85.  ‫רך‬, “soft,” here used as a verb, “became soft.” Dillard translates as an adjective, “tender.” NRSV, Klein (2012, 490) and others render “penitent.” 86.  Kings has “before the Lord.” 87.  ‫את־דבריו‬. Kings: ‫אשר דברתי‬, “that I have spoken.” 88.  Instead of the second reference to Josiah’s humbling himself, which seems redundant, Kings has “to be a desolation and a curse,” referring to “this place and its inhabitants.” Japhet (1993, 1035) sees this as a “changing of tone in the Chronicler’s version.” 89.  NRSV adds “heard you” for clarity. 90.  The phrase “and on its inhabitants” is absent from Kings. 91.  Kings has ‫ויאספו אליו‬, “and (all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem) gathered to him.” This is the first verse of 2 Kgs 23, the first four verses of which are still paralleled in 2 Chron. 34. 92.  Kings has “and all.” 93.  Where Chronicles has ‫והלוים‬, “and the Levites,” Kings has ‫והנביאים‬, “and the prophets.” Both Dillard (1987, 282) and Klein (2012, 506) see this as signifying the Chronicler’s attribution of prophetic functions to the Levites, and that the “Levitical preaching and teaching are a continuation of an earlier prophetic function.” Leuchter (2009) sees the “Levites” here as hinting at the role of Jeremiah, who he believes replaces all other prophets in the final sections of Chronicles. On the other hand, Levites are mentioned only twice in all of Kings (1 Kgs 8:4; 12:31), so their non-mention in 2 Kgs 23:2 is not surprising. Japhet (1993, 1036) warns that “the present change should not be overestimated,” since while the combination of “priests and prophets” is characteristic of Jeremiah and other late-monarchial contexts, that of “priests and Levites” is very common in Chronicles, and the author may have simply replaced an unfamiliar phrase with a familiar one. 94.  Kings: “from small to great.” NJPS translates “young and old.” 95.  ‫באזניהם‬, literally “in their ears.”

400

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

his place96 and made the covenant before the Lord, to follow97 the Lord, to keep his commandments and his decrees and his statutes,98 with all his heart and all his soul,99 to perform100 the words of the covenant101 that were written in this book. 32 And he stood102 all who were present in Jerusalem and in Benjamin; and the inhabitants of Jerusalem acted according to the covenant of God, the God of their fathers. 33 And Josiah removed103 all the abominations from all the lands that belonged to the sons of Israel, and made all who were in Israel serve the Lord their God; all his days they did not turn from behind104 the Lord the God of their fathers.

Commentary Chapter 34, the first of two that portray the reign of Josiah, describes three main episodes: his cleansing the land of idolatry (vv. 3–7, 33), his initiating repairs to the Temple (vv. 8–14) and the finding, authenticating and reading of the book of the Torah (vv. 15–32). In all of these, the Chronicler’s version of the events is quite obviously based on that of Kings or on a similar source, albeit with significant differences. Chronological Issues The first two verses are taken almost verbatim from 2 Kgs 22:1–2, with the now-expected deletion of the name of the king’s mother. The 96.  ‫על־עמדו‬, literally “on his standing.” Kings has ‫על־העמוד‬, “on the stand” or “on the pillar,” which is also reflected by the Greek of Chronicles, ἐπὶ τὸν στῦλον. 97.  ‫ללכת אחרי‬, literally “to walk after.” 98.  ‫ עדותיו וחקיו‬are two categories of “laws,” besides ‫מצותיו‬, “his commandments.” NRSV and Klein (2012, 491): “his decrees and his statutes.” NJPS: “His injunctions and His Laws.” Dillard (1987, 274): “traditions and statutes.” 99.  Kings: ‫בכל־לב ובכל־נפש‬, “with all heart and with all soul,” all of the people’s, not just the king’s. 100.  ‫לעשות‬, literally “to do” or “to make.” 101.  Kings has “this covenant.” 102.  “To stand in the covenant” here obviously implies some sort of oath or commitment. NRSV translates, “then he made all who were present in Jerusalem and in Benjamin pledge themselves to it.” In Kings, the previous verse ends with “and all the people stood in the covenant.” In Chronicles it is the king who “stands” them in the covenant, and “and all the people” become “all who were present in Jerusalem and in Benjamin,” while “the covenant” seems to be missing. For this reason Japhet (1993, 1037), Klein (2012, 506–507) and others assume that ‫ובנימן‬, “and Benjamin,” is actually an erroneous copying of ‫בברית‬, “in the covenant.” 103.  This last verse of 2 Chron. 34 is a summary of most of 2 Kgs 23:4–20. The verse begins with ‫ויסר‬, “and he removed,” and ends with the same verb, ‫לא סרו‬, “they did not turn.” 104.  ‫לא סרו מאחרי‬. NRSV “they did not turn away from following.”



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

401

significant divergences begin with v. 3. In Kings, v. 3 “jumps” directly to Josiah’s eighteenth year, in which he first sent Shaphan the scribe to the Temple with instructions for Hilkiah the high priest to begin repairs in the Temple. The finding of the book and the so-called cultic reforms are all presented as a result of this act. We are told absolutely nothing of the first seventeen years of Josiah’s reign. In Chronicles, the chronology of Josiah’s reign is presented differently. Verse 3 goes to “the eighth year of his reign, when he was still a youth” (he would have been sixteen), during which “he began to seek the God of David his father,” and then to his twelfth year (Williamson 1982, 398 suggested that the age of twenty might have been understood as the age of majority), when he began to purify Judah and Jerusalem of idolatry. In other words, his purification of the land was not a result of the finding of the book of the Torah but rather of his own youthful piety, and the repairs of the Temple, which resulted in the finding of the book, were a part of this process. Theoretically, there is a large measure of logic behind the Chronicler’s presentation of the sequence of events. Whereas in Kings, Josiah’s repairs to the Temple “come out of nowhere,” Chronicles seems to provide the background for this act. Cross and Freedman attempted to find a correlation between Josiah’s eighth, twelfth and eighteenth years and the various stages of the dissolution of Assyrian control of the region, and claimed that “this material apparently was derived from one of the special sources of the Chronicler” (1953, 57). However we now have a better understanding of the chronology of the end of Assyrian rule, and, as Williamson (1982, 397) pointed out, there is no actual evidence that the Chronicler had access to any additional sources for Josiah’s reign. Japhet (1993, 1019) sees the Chronicler’s restructuring of the narrative as his solution to what she calls “severe theological problems” in the Kings version: the fact that despite the high praise that he receives in Kings, Josiah seems to have done nothing about all of the idolatry in the land and even in the Temple itself until the eighteenth year of his reign. For the Chronicler, it would have been unthinkable for Josiah “to have ruled seventeen years in sin and not been punished.” His “rearrangement” of the events solves all if that: Josiah was pious from “youth” and began to take action as soon as he reached adulthood. A different view was presented by Rainey. He pointed out that Josiah’s eighth year, 633/632 BCE, would also be about when his two oldest sons were born. The second of these, Jehoahaz, was the son of Hamutal of Libnah, which is known in 1 Chron. 6:42 [Eng. 57] = Josh. 21:13 as a city allotted to the priests, the sons of Aaron. In Rainey’s view, “it can hardly be coincidental that the young king was influenced by his father-in-law from the priestly city of Libnah” (1997, 68–69).

402

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

The Cleansing of the Land The Chronicler’s description of the actual cleansing is based on that of 2 Kgs 23:4–20, with quite a few changes besides that of the basic chronology. According to Kings, after the discovery, authentication and reading of the book, Josiah held a ceremony in which the people reaffirmed their commitment to the covenant. After this, the king ordered Hilkiah and his people to bring out of the Temple of the Lord all the vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; he burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron, and carried their ashes to Bethel. He deposed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to make offerings in the bamôt at the cities of Judah and around Jerusalem; those also who made offerings to Baal, to the sun, the moon, the constellations, and all the host of the heavens. He brought out the Asherah from the house of the Lord, outside Jerusalem, to the Kidron Valley, burned it in the Kidron Valley, beat it to dust and threw the dust of it upon the graves of the common people. He broke down the houses of the male temple prostitutes that were in the house of the Lord, where the women did weaving for Asherah. (2 Kgs 23:4–7)

Next, Josiah destroyed the bamôt throughout the land “from Geba to Beersheba,” including the Topheth in the valley of Ben-Hinnom, places for the worship of the sun, of Molech, of Chemosh, of Milcom and more. He filled these places with human bones and ashes, grinding them to dust. He then did the same to the altar at Bethel, complete with an allusion to 1 Kings 13 (in which an unnamed prophet had foretold that a king named Josiah would one day do just these things). The next stage was the dismantling of “all the bamôt-houses in the towns of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to anger (the Lord),” sacrificing (!) all of the priests of the bamôt and burning human bones on them, and then finally returning to Jerusalem. The Chronicler’s version is, first of all, much abbreviated, only four verses to Kings’ seventeen. The Chronicler also makes no mention of all of the idolatrous items being removed from the Temple itself, only from “Judah and Jerusalem.” This could be due to the fact that in Chronicles, the Temple had already been cleansed by Manasseh (33:15–16), who had only left bamôt in the land, and Amon, while having been “evil in the eyes of the Lord” (33:22), does not seem to have reintroduced idolatry to the Temple itself. An additional difference between the two descriptions is in the list of idolatrous items and practices that were purged. Kings lists “vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven,” “offerings to Baal,



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

403

to the sun, the moon, the constellations, and all the host of the heavens,” “the Asherah,” “the houses of the qedēššîm (often translated ‘male temple prostitutes’) that were in the house of the Lord, where the women did weaving for Asherah,” “the bamôt of the gates,” “the Topheth in the valley of Ben-Hinnom” at which men “made their son and daughter pass through fire for Molech,” “the horses which the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun,” “the chariots of the sun,” “the altars on the roof and in the two courtyards of the Temple,” “the bamôt that were east of Jerusalem which Solomon had built to Ashtoreth…to Chemosh…and to Milcom…,” “the maṣṣebôt,” “the asherim,” as well as the altar and the bamâh at Bethel. Of all of these, Chronicles mentions only “bamôt and asherim” and “the altars of the Baalim,” adding pesilîm (“carved images”) and massêkôt (“cast images”) and the mysterious ḥammanîm, which, as noted, might have been understood by the Chronicler as having something to do with sun-worship. We have also noted several times above that the Chronicler seems to avoid mention of Asherah as a deity, preferring asherim and asherot as objects, and also prefers Baalim over Baal (the one exception being “Mattan the priest of Baal” in 2 Chron. 23:17, copied from Kings). Chronicles also never mentions Chemosh (who is mentioned three times in Kings and three times in Jeremiah), Milcom (three times in Kings) or Molech (twice in Kings, once in Jeremiah and five times in Leviticus). So besides greatly abbreviating the description in Kings, the Chronicler systematically avoids mentioning the various foreign deities by name, using instead the generic “carved images” and “cast images,” terms taken from the Torah (for example Deut. 27:15). We have also suggested that whatever its origin, the Chronicler used ḥammanîm here as a general term for all objects used for worship of the sun, and perhaps of “all the host of heaven” as well. There are also differences in the actions that Josiah is said to have performed. According to 2 Kings 23, the foreign altars were burned in the Kidron Valley and their ashes taken to Bethel. The ashes of Asherah, on the other hand, were scattered over “the tombs of the sons of the people” (often translated “the common people”). The bamôt and the houses of the qedēššîm were smashed, the Tophet and the bamôt that were east of the city were “defiled” and the horses were “stopped.” According to v. 14, he then “broke down” the maṣṣebôt and “cut down” the asherim, and filled their place with human bones. The altar, bamâh and Asherah at Bethel he smashed, burned and grinded to dust, and the bones from the tombs “that were there in the hill” were burned on the altar to defile it. Then the priests of the bamôt of “the towns of Samaria” were sacrificed on the altars and human bones burned on them as well. According to Chronicles, however,

404

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Josiah’s actions were much less extreme. The altars of the Baalim were smashed before him, he cut down the ḥammanîm, and the asherim and the carved and cast images were broken, grinded and scattered over the tombs of those who had sacrificed to them. The bones of the priests were burned on their own altars. In other words, no-one was “sacrificed,” and only the tombs of those who had actually worshipped the various idols were disturbed. The geography of Josiah’s acts is also different. Unlike Kings, Chronicles makes no mention of the Kidron or Ben-hinnom valleys, of the Tophet or of the various roofs and courtyards of the Temple. The kingdom is defined as “Judah and Jerusalem” rather than “from Geba to Beer-sheba,” and no mention is made of Bethel. “The towns of Samaria” are replaced by “the towns of Manasseh and Ephraim and Simeon and as far as Naphtali.” In other words, Josiah’s cleansing of the land in Chronicles is described in terms that are less detailed, less extreme, with no actual foreign deities named and with no mention of Bethel or of Samaria. The cleansing took place in Jerusalem, and in the tribal units of Judah, Manasseh and Ephraim, Simeon and “as far as Naphtali.” And of course the whole episode occurred in Josiah’s twelfth year, before the repairs to the Temple and the discovery of the book, and not, as in Kings, in his eighteenth year, as a result of the repairs to the Temple and the discovery of the book. The geographical sequence of vv. 5–6 deserves some additional comment. According to Kings, the purification took place first in Jerusalem, then throughout Judah “from Geba to Beer-sheba,” which we discussed at length above, then at Bethel, and finally in “the towns of Samaria.” In Chronicles, the sequence is “and he purified Judah and Jerusalem. And in the towns of Manasseh and Ephraim and Simeon and as far as Naphtali.” We have already noted that Chronicles seems to prefer tribal designations over territorial ones, but the sequence is still unusual. First of all, in most occurrences of the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim together in the Bible, Ephraim is mentioned first – perhaps reflecting the reality of some historical period, in which Ephraim was the more powerful tribe. This is also reflected in Gen. 48:12–20, in which Jacob blesses his younger grandson Ephraim before the elder Manasseh. A very good example of this is in Deut. 33:17, in which Moses’ blessing for Joseph ends with “the myriads of Ephraim and the thousands of Manasseh,” and again in 34:2, in which Moses is shown the tribes’ future inheritances, “and all Naphtali, and the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah, as far as the western sea,” with “Ephraim and Manasseh” appearing in that order, despite the general north–south sequence of the verse. In



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

405

Chronicles specifically, the sequence “Ephraim and Manasseh” appears seven times (1 Chron. 9:3; 2 Chron. 15:9; 30:1, 10, 11, 18; 31:1), while “Manasseh and Ephraim” appear only here and below in v. 9. Keel (1986, 902) suggests that the unusual sequence is meant for stylistic variation, or perhaps to emphasize Josiah’s control of Megiddo, which, according to Josh. 17:11, Judg. 1:27 and especially 1 Chron. 7:29, was part of the territory of Manasseh. We might add, that since this order appears only in the Chronicler’s version of the Josiah narrative, it might have appeared in this way in whatever source he was using. We have already noted that some versions of the Greek retain the usual order of Εφραιμ καὶ Μανασση. The second pair of tribes mentioned, “Simeon and as far as Naphtali,” also deserve our attention. “Naphtali” presumably represents the northernmost reaches of the Galilee, but what of “Simeon,” which is usually assumed to have resided in the south of Judah (Josh. 19:1–9; 1 Chron. 4:28–43) and to have been “absorbed” into Judah and lost its specific identity? The usual explanation is that “Simeon and as far as Naphtali” represent the northern and southern extremes of “all the land of Israel” (v. 7; for example Japhet 1993, 1024; McKenzie 2004, 360). However, the tribe of Simeon has already appeared in a similar position, in the list of tribes whose members joined Asa in worship in 2 Chron. 15:9: “all of Judah and Benjamin, and those from Ephraim, Manasseh and Simeon who were sojourning with them.” In our commentary there we mentioned the suggestion made by Noth and by Grintz that there actually were Simeonites living in the northern hills or in the Jezreel Valley as mentioned in the book of Judith, and also that of Rainey, that the reference is actually not to the tribe of Simeon but to the city of Shim‘on in the north-western Jezreel Valley, the “Shimron” of MT Josh. 11:1; 12:20; 19:15 (for further details see the commentary on 2 Chron. 15:9). It seems clear, however, that within the present context, “Simeon” is meant as a tribal designation, not as the name of a city. If anything we might propose that it was the existence of a city called Shim‘on in the Jezreel Valley that suggested to both the Chronicler and to the author of Judith that there were Simeonites living in the area in the first place. The Repair of the Temple With v. 8, 2 Chronicles 34 “rejoins” the narrative of 2 Kings 22, in Josiah’s eighteenth year, with the repairs of the Temple and the finding of the book. As already mentioned, in Kings this is basically Josiah’s first reported act since becoming king at the age of eight. In Chronicles, Josiah has already cleansed the land, all the way to Naphtali, of idolatry. To the reader, this is a huge difference.

406

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

The Chronicler’s description of the events in the remainder of this chapter is obviously based on that of Kings, but once again with quite a few interesting differences. The first of these is in the narrative framework: whereas all of 2 Kgs 22:3–7 are presented as the king’s instructions to Shaphan the scribe, followed in v. 8 by Hilkiah’s telling Shaphan about the book that he had found but without actually describing the discovery itself, in 2 Chron. 34:8 the king sends Shaphan (and two others) to repair the Temple, and vv. 9–14 describe the actual repairs, in an expansion of the instructions in Kings. As Japhet (1993, 1025) puts it, in Kings Josiah gives the orders but is then not involved; in Chronicles the king gives the orders, provides the funds, and then his men oversee the work. According to Chronicles, Josiah sent three men to Hilkiah: Shaphan son of Azaliah, Maaseiah the governor of the city, and Joah son of Joahaz the recorder. Kings adds both Shaphan’s grandfather’s name and his title, “the scribe,” which Chronicles mentions only in v. 15. On the other hand, Kings does not mention Maaseiah and Joah. Rudolph (1955, 321) and Williamson (1982, 400) believe that these names were in the original and were “dropped” by Kings, Klein (2012, 500) thinks that they were added by the Chronicler, while Japhet (1993, 1026) is unconvinced either way. The names themselves are not uncommon, and a Joah son of Asaph is mentioned as “recorder” in 2 Kgs 18:18 (but not in the parallel 2 Chron. 32:9). 2 Kings 23:8, a part of the story of Josiah’s cleansing that is not paralleled in Chronicles, mentions a Joshua as governor of the city, but there is no way to determine if there was any sort of relationship between him and Maaseiah. In any case the two are not mentioned again in either version. A person by the name of Shaphan is also mentioned as the father of Ahikam in v. 20; this Ahikam is the father of Gedaliah, who eventually becomes the governor of Judah (2 Kgs 25:22). An “Elasah son of Shaphan” is mentioned, together with a “Gemariah son of Hilkiah,” in Jer. 29:3. Jeremiah 36:10–12 mention Gemariah son of Shaphan the scribe as having his own chamber, in which other scribes gathered, and Ezek. 8:11 mentions a Jaazaniah son of Shaphan standing among the seventy elders in the Temple courtyard. A bulla bearing the name “Gemaryahu son of Shaphan” was found during Yigal Shiloh’s excavations in the city of David in the 1980s (Shoham 2000, 33). And while absolute proof is impossible, the fact that all of these appear in contexts relating to the same period, that of the final few decades before the destruction of Jerusalem, and the fact that no other individual named Shaphan is mentioned in the Bible or in inscriptions from Israel or Judah from other periods, make it very likely that they all refer to the same high-ranking official, whose sons were also members of the Jerusalem court and bureaucracy.



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

407

As already mentioned, what in Kings are the king’s orders, “go up to Hilkiah…and count out/measure/melt the silver,” become Shaphan’s actions in Chronicles: “and they came to Hilkiah the high priest and they gave him the silver.” Where Kings writes about “guards of the threshold” collecting silver from “the people,” in Chronicles the guards are Levites, befitting of their duties as described in 1 Chron. 26:1–19 and in other places, and the silver is collected from “Manasseh and Ephraim and from all the remnant of Israel and from all Judah and Benjamin and from the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” Since Josiah had already spread his influence to the areas of the former northern kingdom and cleansed them of idolatry six years previously, the inhabitants thereof would now have had plenty of time to contribute to the Jerusalem Temple. This silver was now given to the various craftsmen. The description of the various crafts in Chronicles is slightly different than in Kings, due to either slightly different sources or the Chronicler’s different understanding of the terms. The only significant addition comes at the end of v. 11, where Chronicles mentions “the houses that the kings of Judah had damaged.” Japhet (1993, 1028) shows that the common tendency among translators to soften the “blunt” Hebrew term hišḥîtû, “destroyed,” to terms such as “let go to ruin” is wrong. In her view, the Chronicler is specifically accusing Manasseh and Amon of destroying the Temple, while not giving their names because of Manasseh’s change of conduct. While she is undoubtedly correct in her understanding of hišḥîtû, Manasseh is actually said to have repaired the Temple (or at least the altar – 2 Chron. 33:16), and Amon, while he did worship idols, is not said to have damaged the Temple itself. This is apparently why the Chronicler changed Kings’ “to strengthen the house,” meaning the Temple, to “to girder the houses”: according to Chronicles, the kings of Judah had “destroyed” (to the extent of having to be re-roofed!) various structures, perhaps in the Temple complex, but not the Temple itself! Verse 7 in Kings, still part of Josiah’s instructions, reads “but the silver that is given by them shall not be counted, for they work faithfully.” In Chronicles, this is expanded to three verses, vv. 12–14, which begin with “and the men did the work faithfully,” but with the silver mentioned only in v. 14. In between we find four Levites, two each from the clans of Kohath and Merari, as supervisors over “the porters and supervising all the craftsmen in every kind of work,” as well as other Levites who were “scribes and officials and gatekeepers.” The fact that only two of the three main Levitical clans are represented has prompted Japhet (1993, 1029) and others to wonder whether the Gershonites had been listed and had fallen out through some error, but there is no way to know this with any certainty.

408

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

The very idea of Levites as being in charge of renovations to the Temple already appeared in the Chronicler’s version of the stories of Jehoash (2 Chron. 24:11) and Hezekiah (29:12–19), but the specific mention that those Levites “were skillful with instruments of music” in this context seems strange. Curtis and Madsen (1910, 506–507) understood that all of the porters, craftsmen, scribes and officials and gatekeepers were supposedly taken from the class of Levitical singers, while Japhet (1993, 1029) quotes the NEB in assuming that the “master musicians” (our “all who were skillful with instruments of music”) are a gloss, added in order to give a complete list of the Levites’ tasks. Other scholars have searched for a real reason for musicians to be involved in the construction or repair of the Temple and for similar situations in ancient Near Eastern sources. Rudolph (1955, 323), citing Möhlenbrink (1934, 213), claimed that building activities in the ancient Near East were often accompanied by music, although Möhlenbrink himself does not cite any ancient sources for this assertion. Dillard (1987, 280), citing Rudolph, explains that “the use of music is well attested from the Ancient Near East; it sets the pace for the various tasks much as the ubiquitous radios on a contemporary construction site.” Is there, indeed, evidence that the use of music to accompany building activities was common in the ancient Near East? If so, did this music have a ritual role, or was it meant for entertainment? CAD (1/1, 328) mentions the Akkadian onomatopoeic phrase alāla (perhaps related to the biblical “Hellelu-yah”) as (among other things) “refrain of a work song,” although all of the examples given are from agriculture, not from construction. More relevant parallels can be found perhaps in the realm of ritual. According to Mirelman (2014, 159), the Gudea Cylinders and the Gudea Stele (now exhibited in the Louvre) show and mention the use of musical instruments which accompany the making of the mold for the bricks for the building of the new Enunnu temple in about 2100 BCE (see also Béatrice 1994). The same instruments were then played at the temple’s dedication as well. Almost two millennia later, in Hellenistic-period Babylon, rituals performed during the rebuilding of temples included a priest, known as the kalûtu, who sung lamentations for the destroyed temple and the god’s absence from it until the repairs were completed (Linssen 2004, 100–109). So the use of ritual music during the construction of temples, if not commonly attested, was at least known in Mesopotamia over a very long period of time. However, it is impossible to determine if the Chronicler had such rituals in mind. As Dillard (1987, 280) commented, the text does not specifically say that this was the Levitical musicians’ role in this case – it describes them as supervisors. In fact, the term used for the



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

409

Levites’ task, lenaṣṣêaḥ in v. 12 and menaṣṣeḥîm in v. 13, can mean either “to oversee, supervise work,” or “to lead, to direct,” in both music and war (see, for example, DCH 5:738), and “to conduct” (an orchestra, as in the superscriptions of Pss 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and more). In fact, in 1 Chron. 15:21, David is said to have appointed certain Levites to lenaṣṣēaḥ with musical instruments, while in 1 Chron. 23:4, other Levites are said to have been appointed to lenaṣṣēaḥ “over the work of the house of the Lord,” followed by “judges and officers…gatekeepers and four thousand who praise the Lord, with instruments which I have made to praise.” As in many other places, the Chronicler seems to have inserted Levites into every possible role, perhaps purposely choosing a term that could be understood as referring to both their role as musicians and their role as foremen. The Finding of the Book of the Torah Verse 14 uses “the silver” from Kings’ v. 7 to describe the actual finding of “the book of the Torah of the Lord given through Moses,” which in Kings is only referred to by Hilkiah. The Kings version also never names Moses as having anything to do with the book, but does call it “the book of the Torah” (vv. 8, 11) and “the book of the Covenant (23:2). According to Kings, it was this discovery of the book and its subsequent “authentication” by Huldah that served as the impetus for Josiah’s “reforms.” Ever since the publication of de Wette’s Dissertatio Critica (1805), the majority of modern critical Bible scholars have assumed that the book “discovered” by Hilkiah was either Deuteronomy or some early form thereof.105 There are, of course, many parallels between various issues dealt with in Deuteronomy and those that seemed to have been included in Josiah’s “reforms”: Dillard (1987, 280) lists seven: (1) the centralization of worship in one place (Deut. 12); (2) the destruction of “high places” and other cultic installations (Deut. 12); (3) the curses of Deuteronomy 27–28, including the threat of exile, are reflected in 2 Chron. 34:24; (4) the central national Passover (Deut. 16); (5) the consulting of prophets as in Deut. 18:9–22; (6) the general view of Kings seems to reflect the laws of Deuteronomy; (7) the book of Deuteronomy shows many features in common with treaties and covenants known from the ancient Near East. 105.  Although both Tigay (1996, xix and notes there) and Viezel (2007), trace the origins of this observation to the Church fathers and to Medieval Jewish commentators. Indeed, Pseudo-Rashi does make this claim in his commentary on 2 Chron. 34:14, although most traditional Jewish sources, from the Talmud to modern times, have assumed that the book found was the entire Torah of Moses, the Pentateuch (for references see Handy 1995, 255 and n. 11). According to Handy, de Wette “merely reflected what was already the general understanding of the text.”

410

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Weinfeld (1991, 16–19) added the prohibition on “pillars” (maṣṣebôt – Deut. 16:22), the references to “astral worship” in Deut. 4:19 and 17:3, and, “no less important for the date of Deuteronomy is the unique style of this book, both in its phraseology and in its manner of discourse (rhetoric),” which, in Weinfeld’s opinion, reflect that of the legal codes and the vassal treaties of seventh-century BCE Assyria. To this Tigay (1996, xx) adds that Deuteronomy is the only book of the Pentateuch that actually calls itself “the words of the Covenant” and “the book of the Torah” (Deut. 28:69; 29:8; 31:24, 26), which are exactly the titles that 2 Kings 22–23 uses for the book that was discovered in the Temple. An additional perception that has been common in scholarship since the nineteenth century is the unlikelihood that an authentic “book of Moses” was actually “lost” or “hidden” in the Temple for centuries, only to suddenly be “discovered” during Josiah’s renovations. This then led to the commonly accepted theory, that the book in question was actually composed, presumably by the priests, during the time of Josiah, as a sort of “justification” or “blueprint” for Josiah’s reform. Whether or not the king himself was a party to this “pious fraud” is usually left as an open question. In more recent years, this reconstruction of events has come under attack. Many scholars have pointed out that not all of Josiah’s reforms, as reported by the book of Kings, are completely in line with the laws of Deuteronomy. It has also been recognized, that Deuteronomy has at least some northern Israelite affiliations (thus, for example, von Rad 1966, 27). Weinfeld, who called the seventh-century composition of Deuteronomy “the Archimedean Point in the History of the Pentateuchal Literature” (1991, 16, meaning that all other parts of the Pentateuch must be compared and dated relative to Deuteronomy), eventually came to the conclusion that “the book was written during the time of Hezekiah, was concealed during the time of Manasseh, and was only rediscovered during the period of Josiah” (1991, 83), a scenario also proposed by Keel (1986, 907). Nelson (2002, 8) offers a more nuanced view of the book’s origins being as “a covert undertaking by dissident scribal circles during the reign of Manasseh and the minority of Josiah,” based on “traditional legal materials,” which were “microredacted” into a “constitutional proposal,” which was then “published” under Josiah, and later expanded even further. Tigay (1996, xix–xxvi) posits an even more gradual composition history, with some parts going back to the United Monarchy, and others to the days of Hezekiah. An alternative approach adopted by some scholars is that the “book” that was “found” was not really even the “kernel” of Deuteronomy, but



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

411

something else. For example Lundbom (1978) has argued that the “Torah of Moses” that was “discovered” was actually the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32. Ben-Dov (2008), without actually defining its content, has suggested that in the “original” story of 2 Kings 22–23, “the book of the Torah” was understood as a divine oracle, sent to legitimize the king’s actions, and as such is part of a well-attested genre in ancient Near Eastern literature. Only in the later redaction of the Deuteronomistic History was this understood as a comprehensive law-book. Another approach in recent scholarship is to assume the entire narrative to be etiological, composed after the fact in order to explain Josiah’s reforms. This was already argued by Handy (1995), who, after examining supposed ancient Near Eastern “parallels” to Josiah’s reform, concluded that the account in Kings is “non-contemporary and unreliable.” Römer (1997, 5–10), also cited a list of Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Greek stories of “book-finding,” and concluded that 2 Kings 22–23 is a “foundation myth” for the (exilic) Deuteronomistic school. Another oft-cited proponent of this approach is Stott (2005), who, citing various examples from Hellenistic literature, argued that the entire episode is simply a literary construct, and that no “real” book was ever found. Likewise Henige (2007) believes that the story of the losing and then finding of such an important book is so “implausible” as to make the etiological explanation the most likely – that the whole thing is nothing more than part of the story. Pakkala (2010, 204–206) argues that the finds from the Persian-period Jewish colony at Elephantine show that a supposed “reform” by Josiah was unknown to them. He called the biblical text describing Josiah’s reform “a puzzle of themes and literary layers, which may have lost so many pieces that it will always remain unsolvable” (2010, 217). Lemche (2010, 17–18) sees the reform “as part of the foundation myth of the later Jewish people which had its centre in Jerusalem but also advanced a claim on the rest of the country…an integral part of the image of the past created by the deuteronomistic historiographers.” Na’aman (2011b), responding mostly to Stott, concluded that it was the source behind 2 Kings 22–23 that was written in order to justify the reforms, with the discovery of the book being an important part of that justification. Davies, claiming “to pick up Na’aman’s baton and run a little further with it” (Davies 2007, 67; referring to Na’aman 1991), posited that the story of the “reform” and that of the book that started it off, as well as the content of Deuteronomy itself, best reflect the situation of fifth-century Judah under Persian rule, and that the story is an attempt to legitimize the “reinstatement” of Jerusalem as the provincial capital at the expense of Bethel.

412

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

The “historicity” of Josiah’s reforms has also been debated from the point-of-view of the archaeological evidence. Since the 1970s, it has been assumed that the purposeful dismantlement of the shrine at the Judahite fortress of Arad and of the large stone altar at Beer-sheba could be attributed to the “reforms” of either Hezekiah, Josiah or both (for example Rainey 1994). However, such scholars as C. Levin (1984), Niehr (1995) and more recently Fried (2002) have re-examined these and other sites in light of new data and chronology and have concluded that the archaeological evidence for a large-scale “cultic reform” in the late seventh century BCE is very scant indeed. Herzog (2010), reflecting on the updated chronology of both sites, believes that they do provide (at least indirect) evidence in support of Hezekiah’s reforms, but not those of Josiah, since Beer-sheba seems to have been destroyed at the end of the eighth century (presumably by Sennacherib) and the shrine at Arad, after being dismantled at the same time, was not rebuilt during the seventh century. In partial response to these claims, Uehlinger (2007) has argued for “a well-grounded minimum,” that Josiah did, at least, remove the “astral cults” from Jerusalem, giving rise to the expanded story that appears in 2 Kings, while Albertz (2007) has claimed that the only appropriate date for Deuteronomy and its associated literature is the late seventh century. Finkelstein and Silberman, who generally take the description of Josiah’s reign in Kings quite literally, state that the various archaeological finds “provide only possible evidence for Josiah’s reforms” (2001, 288 – italics in the original). All of this, however, does not seem to have concerned the Chronicler. To him it was obvious that “the book” that was found was “the Torah of the Lord given through Moses” – all of it, the entire Pentateuch, in whatever form it was known to the Chronicler. This might be reflected in the slight change that v. 18 makes to Kings’ v. 10: instead of Shaphan reading “it” (the book), he only read “from it,” part of the book, since it would have been impossible for him to have read the entire Torah in such a short time. Whether “the book” was “hidden” during the days of Manasseh or “lost” since the time of David was not relevant to the Chronicler, just as the question of why there was only one copy of such an important book never comes up. However, it is important to keep in mind, that the discovery of the book in Chronicles is in no way as important as it is in Kings. In Kings, it is the discovery of the book that causes Josiah’s repentance, reforms and Passover. In Chronicles, Josiah had “began to seek the God of David his father” ten years before and had purified the land of idolatry six years before, all without knowledge of the book. In fact Williamson (1982, 401) reads v. 14 as emphasizing that the finding of



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

413

the book happened because of the repairs, and is actually Josiah’s reward for his piety, a replacement for the building, military success and wealth of other pious kings. “This may be intended to both reflect and encourage the high valued placed on the Torah in the Chronicler’s community.” There are also differences in the sequence of events related to the discovery. In Kings, Hilkiah reports finding the book to Shaphan, gives it to him, and he (Shaphan) reads it. Shaphan then goes to the king, reports on the giving of the silver to the craftsmen, and then mentions that Hilkiah had given him a book, which he then reads before the king. Shaphan was at least aware of the book’s content before he even approached the king. In Chronicles, Shaphan does not read the book first, but only together with Josiah, and even then only parts of it. The King’s Reaction to the Book In both accounts, the king, upon hearing the words of the book, tears his clothes and immediately orders Hilkiah, Shaphan and three others, one of whom may be a son of the same Shaphan,106 to “go, inquire of the Lord… about the words of the book that has been found; for great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers did not keep the word of the Lord, to do as all that is written on this book.” At first reading, it would seem as if Josiah had his doubts about the validity of this newly “discovered” book, and needed a prophetic oracle to verify it. Handy (1994) has shown several cases in which Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian kings “consulted” oracles in order to back up instructions that they claimed came from the gods. Most instructive are those of Esarhaddon and Nabonidus, who rebuilt ruined temples on divine orders, backed up by ancient tablets that they had read. And while Handy recognized that there were also differences, he saw the role of Huldah as “double-checking” the validity of the book. An alternative view is that of Japhet (1993, 1032), who has pointed out that Josiah did not doubt the authenticity and authority of the book, despite its having just been “discovered.” He is certain that Judah will be punished “because our fathers did not keep the word of the Lord, to do as all that is written on this book.” This means that the purpose of the prophetic inquiry was not to “authenticate” the book. Japhet explains the use of the preposition bead, “for,” “on behalf of,” which is used with 106.  As already mentioned, several sons of Shaphan, as well as one grandson, appear in texts relating to the following generation, and it is reasonable to assume that they are indeed members of the same “well-connected” family. On the other hand, one could claim that if this particular “Ahikam son of Shaphan” was understood to be the son of “our” Shaphan, the verse would have said “Shaphan the scribe and Ahikam his son.”

414

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

DRŠ, “to seek” or “to inquire” (of the Lord) only here and in Jer. 21:2, as meaning “to pray for”: the prophet is asked to intervene with the Lord, so that the punishment for not observing the commandments of the book be averted. A question that one could reasonably ask is just which part of “the book” was read to Josiah, which would prompt such a reaction. Keel (1986, 909–10) proposes that the part that was read was the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 28–29, which seems to match the content of Huldah’s oracle (see below) as well. The one difference between Josiah’s instructions to his messengers in Kings and those relayed in Chronicles, is that where in the former, he commands “Go, inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah,” in Chronicles this becomes “for me and for those who are left in Israel and in Judah,” reflecting the fact that in the view of the Chronicler, Josiah had already extended his influence over the territories of the former northern kingdom. The fact that he refers to “those who are left” implies recognition of the exile of some of the northerners, although Chronicles never actually tells of their exile. The Oracle of Huldah Verses 22–28 recount the delegation’s visit to the prophetess Huldah, following 2 Kgs 22:14–20 very closely. We should mention, however, that Josiah’s actual charge to Hilkiah and the others was to “inquire of the Lord,” without specifying how, where and by whom. The choice of Huldah as the specific venue of this inquiry seems to have been theirs, and no explanation is given for their choice. The identity and role of Huldah, unknown from any other context and the only female prophet in the entire Deuteronomistic corpus besides Deborah (on which see Römer 1997, 7), have been the topic of much discussion. Römer (2013, 93) points out the irony of a woman whose name means “mole” to be a “seer.” The rabbis in b. Megillah 14b puzzled about this choice of prophetess, considering that better-known (male) prophets, such as Jeremiah, Zephaniah and perhaps even Ezekiel were also active at this time. The different opinions cited there include that she was a relative of Jeremiah, who happened to be unavailable at that time (he had gone off to bring back the ten tribes!) and that she was a descendent of Joshua and of the prostitute Rahab (whom Joshua had married according to rabbinic tradition). Another opinion quoted there is that they had chosen a female prophet purposely, because “women are merciful,” and they needed all of the mercy and pleading before God that they could muster (see also Ilan 2010). The text itself gives the name and lineage of her husband, who is also unknown, but his description as



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

415

“keeper of the clothes” seems to indicate that he was some sort of palace or Temple functionary. Priest (1980, 367) conjectures that if her husband was “a minor Temple functionary,” then she herself might have been “a cult prophetess” (although no such prophetesses are known in the Bible). Williamson (2010) compared Huldah’s introduction in 2 Kgs 22:14 to that of Deborah in Judg. 4:4–5, both of which include the prophetess’ name, title of “prophetess,” her husband’s name and the place where she “was sitting,” and commented, that the inclusion of these two prophetesses as the first and last named prophets in the entire Deuteronomistic History, as prophets in the tradition of Mosaic succession (as in Deut. 18:15–22), must have been based on a historical tradition that the Deuteronomist could not ignore. He also compared Huldah to the unnamed “prophetess” mentioned in Isa. 8:3, who may or may not have been Isaiah’s wife, but was, in Williamson’s opinion, “so to speak, the predecessor of Huldah in office.” Huldah is said to have resided in the “Mishneh,” which is usually assumed to mean “the secondary [quarter]” of Jerusalem. The more-orless contemporary prophet Zephaniah (1:10–11) prophesized: On that day, says the Lord, a cry will be heard from the Fish Gate, a wail from the Mishneh (NRSV: Second Quarter), a loud crash from the Gebaot (NRSV: hills). The inhabitants of the Maktesh (NRSV: Mortar) wail, for all the Canaanites (NRSV: traders) have perished.

So the Mishneh seems to have been one of the various quarters of Jerusalem. Since a “Fish Gate” (presumably one that was near a fish market) was previously mentioned in 2 Chron. 33:14 as part of the fortifications built by Manasseh, and is also mentioned in Neh. 3:3 and 12:39 in which it seems to be located on the northern wall of the Temple Mount, it is possible that this “secondary area” was the one added by Manasseh’s new fortifications, perhaps in the Kidron Valley (and see our commentary on 2 Chron. 33:14). However, the more common view is that the Mishneh refers to all or part of the western hill of Jerusalem. The excavations directed by Avigad from 1969 to 1982 in Jerusalem’s “upper city” showed that this area, west of the “city of David,” was first built up and fortified during the eighth century BCE, perhaps during the reign of Hezekiah. Geva (2003, 204) assumes that the Mishneh refers to the western hill, while the Maktesh (“crater,” NRSV’s “Mortar”) mentioned by Zephaniah refers to the “central valley” between it and the city of David (on the eastern hill, the older part of the city). During the late Second Temple period this “upper city” was a fairly affluent area, when compared to the older “lower city,” but despite Avigad’s initial assumption

416

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

(1980, 54: “that the Mishneh was probably a well-to do residential quarter is evidenced by the fact that Huldah the Prophetess and her husband, a high court official, lived there”), the archaeological evidence from the First Temple period tells a different story: the area was sparsely settled, the buildings were of simple design with no elaborate monumental architecture, no water installations and no other signs of official activity (Geva 2003, 205–207). The oracle that Huldah addresses to Josiah (vv. 23–28 = 2 Kgs 22:15–20) is often considered to be one of the central pericopes of the entire Deuteronomistic History, “bringing together” some of its main themes and showing how they led the nation to the inevitable catastrophe of exile. The fact that the Chronicler retained the oracle almost verbatim, shows us that he at least understood it as not conflicting with his own ideology. In short, Huldah conveyed the message of Yahweh, that his anger at the people’s sins was unquenchable, and that the “evil,” the punishment that is described in the book, will surely come. However, since the king himself did surrender and repent, God will ensure him a peaceful burial, so that his own eyes will not see the coming evil. One of the few differences between Kings and Chronicles is that where Kings’ v. 16 says, “I am bringing evil upon this place and upon its inhabitants, all the words of the book that the king of Judah read,” Chronicle’s v. 24 has “I am bringing evil upon this place and upon its inhabitants, all the curses that are written in the book that was read before the king of Judah”: specifically “the curses,” not the entire book, and, in line with the narrative itself in v. 18, it was not Josiah who read the book, but Shaphan who read “from the book” before the king. And where Kings’ v. 19 says that “this place and its inhabitants” will be “a desolation and a curse,” Chronicles’ v. 27 repeats the fact that Josiah had humbled himself. Japhet (1993, 1035) sees this as a “changing of tone in the Chronicler’s version,” although Klein (2012, 505) suggests that it is simply the result of a conflation of the source reflected in the MT version of Kings and that reflected in the Greek text of Kings. Even within the Deuteronomistic History, Huldah’s oracle presents the reader with quite a few problems. To begin with, as Japhet (1993, 1033) emphasized, Huldah basically did not respond to Josiah’s “inquiry.” Since Josiah had already accepted the authenticity and authority of the book, what he was looking for was a way to avert the disaster – and all he got was a personal reprieve. The accumulated sins of Judah and especially those of Manasseh, were beyond pardoning. This is re-emphasized by the summary of Josiah’s reign in 2 Kgs 23:26. In fact, it could be said that all of Josiah’s “reforms,” which in Kings are presented as happening after the visit to Huldah, were futile from the start! And of course, there



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

417

is the matter of Josiah’s death, which was certainly not “in peace.” All of this has led not a few scholars to conclude that all or parts of the Huldah pericope should be considered a secondary addition to Kings (see Priest 1980; Japhet 1993, 1033–34). Edelman (1994) went even further by suggesting that the “historical” Huldah was actually a prophetess of Asherah, and that it was the Deuteronomistic Historian who composed the speech that appears in our book of Kings (this contra to Priest 1980, 367–68, who pointed out the idiom “to be gathered” to the grave, used here twice, appears nowhere else in the Deuteronomistic literature, and concluded that at least Kings’ v. 20 is “original”). For the Chronicler, Huldah and her oracle were a given. However, even the oracle as it is presented him with a great difficulty, since his so-called doctrine of direct retribution precludes a king, or even a whole generation, from being punished for sins that they did not commit themselves. Josiah’s death will be dealt with below, and as we shall see in our discussion of ch. 36, the sins that led to the final destruction are those of the next generation. Huldah’s oracle, although copied in its entirety, seems much less central in Chronicles than it is in Kings, since most of Josiah’s “reforms” had already been carried out. Glatt-Gilad (1996) suggests that the Chronicler wanted to portray a continuous prophetic presence in Judah, so instead of dispensing with Huldah oracle altogether, he used it as a turning point: all of Josiah’s reforming activities up to this point had been “personal,” without involving the people. According to Glatt-Gilad, after hearing Huldah’s prophecy of doom, he realized that the people themselves were in danger and that they, too, must change their ways. The covenant-ceremony described in vv. 29–32 and the Passover described in the next chapter were meant to involve the people at large in the reform. This can be illustrated nicely by comparing 2 Kgs 23:3 with its parallel in Chronicles. Where in Kings this long verse tells of the king making the covenant, and ends with “and all the people stood in the covenant,” in Chronicles these last words are the beginning of an entire new verse: “And he stood all who were present in Jerusalem and in Benjamin; and the inhabitants of Jerusalem acted according to the covenant of God, the God of their fathers.” All of the people were active parties to the covenant. In Kings, this covenant-ceremony is the starting point for the lengthy narrative of Josiah’s cleansing of the land, including Bethel and the towns of Samaria, followed by a brief description of the Passover. In Chronicles, the cleansing had already been done, so ch. 34 ends with a brief summary: “And Josiah removed all the abominations from all the land that belonged to the sons of Israel, and made all who were in Israel serve the Lord their God; all his days they did not turn from behind the Lord the God of their

418

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

fathers.” Whether this is intended to reflect further reforms of Josiah after the covenant ceremony or simply a summary of the entire chapter, or perhaps an inclusio for all of Josiah’s acts up to this point, the use of the idiom “all the land that belonged to the sons of Israel” is instructive. Once again we are reminded that in the Chronicler’s mind, Josiah had “brought back” the entire nation of Israel to worshipping God. The celebration of the Passover is a natural extension of this theme. 1 Esdras and its Relationship with Chronicles Textual study of the final two chapters of Chronicles must also include the study of the apocryphal book of 1 Esdras, called Εσδρας αʹ (Esdras a) in the Septuagint, in which it usually appears before Ezra and Nehemiah, and 3 Esdras in the Vulgate, in which it follows the books of Ezra (called 1 Esdras) and Nehemiah (called 2 Esdras). In modern Hebrew it is usually referred to as ‫עזרא החיצוני‬, “the apocryphal Ezra.” In content, it parallels the last two chapters of Chronicles, beginning with Josiah’s celebration of the Passover and continuing with his death, his successors and the destruction and exile of Judah, and continues directly to the edict of Cyrus (which in the canonical books is quoted both at the end of Chronicles and at the beginning of Ezra) and the restoration in the opening chapters of Ezra. It then follows the narratives of Zerubbabel and of Ezra through the end of Ezra 10, adding the reading of the Torah in Nehemiah 8, but skipping all of the rest of Nehemiah. The end of the book, in what is “mid-sentence” in Neh. 8:13, seems to be the result of the Greek text being damaged (Talshir 1999, 6–7). The letter of complaint against the returnees in Ezra 4:6–24 is quoted earlier in the narrative of 1 Esdras, and it is followed by the long “Story of the Three Youths” (1 Esd. 3:1–5:6), which has no parallels in the canonical books. Besides these two major differences, there are numerous smaller differences, many of which can be attributed to different translations of the Hebrew, while others certainly lead back to a Vorlage that is different from that of either the MT or the Septuagint. The usual assumption is that the Greek 1 Esdras that we know is a translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic original, but since no ancient Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts have come to light, there is no “original” text that can be used for comparison. There is an ongoing debate in scholarship about the date and origins of 1 Esdras and about its relationship to the canonical Chronicles and Ezra– Nehemiah. The two main options are:



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

419

1. That 1 Esdras is a “fragment” of the “original work of the Chronicler,” was comprised of all (or at least most) of what we now call Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah, and indeed that 1 Esdras “proves” that these were originally a single composition; 2. That 1 Esdras is a secondary compilation of specific chapters taken from Chronicles and from Ezra–Nehemiah, put together in order to emphasize various issues that are not emphasized in the canonical books. For example, in the opinion of Talshir (1999, 58), “the Story of the Youths was the catalyst for the formation of I Esd – its raison d’être. I Esd was created in order to interpolate the Story of the Youths into the story of the Restoration.” In this case, the question of whether the “original” book actually began with Josiah’s Passover and not earlier and exactly where it was intended to end becomes more critical to fully understanding the book, but must remain theoretical as long as no additional evidence comes to light (for a fuller discussion of these and also of several “intermediate” theories see Eskenazi 1986; Dillard 1987, 286–87; Talshir 1999, 3–109; as well as the various essays brought together in Fried 2011). While we do tend to accept the arguments of Talshir and others for the priority of Chronicles – Ezra–Nehemiah as separate books and that 1 Esdras is a secondary compilation – it is also clear that this compilation was made from Hebrew texts that were often different from both the MT and from the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint. Klein (2011, 226), for example, counts 111 differences between 1 Esdras and the MT in 1 Esdras 1 = 2 Chron. 35–36 alone, of which 70 represent differences in the Vorlage. There are also 28 places in which 1 Esdras differs from the Septuagint, 18 of which represent differences of Vorlage. In other words, from this point until the end of our commentary, we shall treat 1 Esdras as a possible source for an alternative “original” to the MT, and even when not, as an ancient commentary worth understanding in its own right. In our notes on the text of the final two chapters of Chronicles we will refer to differences between the MT and 1 Esdras, as well as the Septuagint. Since both the Septuagint and 1 Esdras are in Greek, we shall refer to 1 Esdras by its name, and leave the moniker “Greek Chronicles” for the Septuagint.

420

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Chapter 35: 1 And Josiah made in Jerusalem a Passover107 to the Lord;108 and they slaughtered the Passover109 on the fourteenth day of the first month. 2 And he installed110 the priests at their watches and strengthened111 them for the service of the house of the Lord.112  3 He said to the Levites who teach113 all Israel, who are consecrated114 to the Lord: Put the holy Ark115 in the house that Solomon son of David, king of Israel, built; you do not have a burden on your shoulders; now serve the Lord your God and his people Israel. 4 And prepare116 by117 your father’s houses,118 by119 your divisions, according to the writing120 of 107.  ‫ פסח‬...‫ויעש‬. NRSV, NJPS and others translate “kept the Passover,” but the Passover is actually the name of the sacrifice, which is not “kept” but “done.” Also, while “Passover” is often written with the definite article, ‫הפסח‬, referring to the sacrificial lamb, in this case it is not, since it refers to the ritual, although both the Greek Chronicles and 1 Esd. 1:1 have τὸ φασεχ, with the article. The Greek Chronicles does not mention Jerusalem, although 1 Esdras does. Dillard (1987: 283) has “celebrated Passover.” In general, 2 Chron. 35:1–19 is an expansion of 2 Kgs 23:21–23. 108.  The Greek reads τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ αὐτοῦ, “to the Lord his God,” while 1 Esd. 1:1 has τῷ κυρίῳ αὐτοῦ, “to his Lord.” 109.  NRSV and many others add “the Passover lamb.” 110.  ‫ויעמד‬, literally “he made stand.” NRSV translates “appointed,” NJPS “reinstated.” 111.  ‫ויחזקם‬. NRSV “encouraged”; NJPS “rallied.” 112.  1 Esd. 1:2 has ἐστολισμένους ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ κυρίου, “dressed for the service of the Lord.” 113.  ‫המבינים‬, literally “who cause to understand.” Klein (2012, 509) translates “who instructed.” Both Greek versions seem to have had another word in their Vorlage. The Septuagint reads τοῖς δυνατοῖς, “those in charge,” while 1 Esdras reads ἱεροδούλοις, which is its usual translation of ‫נתינים‬, a class of Temple servants mentioned in Ezra 2:43, 58 and more. Dillard (1987, 284) suggested an original Hebrew ‫מוכנים‬, which was miscopied as ‫ מבינים‬in the MT and ‫ נתינים‬in 1 Esdras. Talshir (2001, 8) suggests an original ‫נתונים‬, “given over.” However, most commentators assume that the MT preserves original. For its more specific meaning see the commentary. 114.  NRSV and others translate “and who were holy to the Lord” and the like, but the Hebrew lacks the conjunction “and,” making it possible that it was “all Israel” who were “consecrated to the Lord,” rather than the Levites. 115.  ‫ארון־הקדש‬, literally “the Ark of holiness.” This is the only place in the entire Bible in which this appellation is used. 1 Esdras reads τῆς ἁγίας κιβωτοῦ τοῦ κυρίου, “the holy Ark of the Lord,” which Talshir (2001, 10) believes is a conflation of two phrases: ‫ארון הקדש‬, “the holy Ark,” and ‫ארון האלהים‬, “the Ark of God.” 116.  Ketib ‫והכונו‬, “make (yourselves) prepared”; qeri ‫והכינו‬, “make (something) prepared.” 117.  ‫ ל‬can mean “by,” “for,” “to,” depending on whether the Levites are preparing themselves by their fathers’ houses, or are preparing their fathers’ houses. 118.  NJPS translates “clans.” 119.  ‫ כ‬can mean “by,” “according to” or “like,” depending on the context. The LXX and 1 Esdras add “and by your divisions.” 120.  ‫בכתב‬. NRSV: “following the written directions.”



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

421

David king of Israel and the document121 of Solomon his son.  5 And stand122 in the sanctuary according to the branches123 of the father’s houses of your brethren the sons of the people,124 and a division of father’s houses for the Levites.125  6 And slaughter the Passover, and sanctify yourselves and prepare for your brethren,126 acting according to the word of the Lord by hand of Moses.  7  Then Josiah contributed to the sons of the people,127 sheep,128 lambs and kids,129 all as Passover offerings130 for all who were present to the number of thirty thousand, and three thousand cattle;131 these were from the king’s property. 8 And his officials, as a gift132 to the people, to the priests and to the Levites, contributed: Hilkiah, Zechariah and Jehiel, the chief officers of the house of God,133 gave to the priests for the Passover offerings two thousand six

121.  ‫ובמכתב‬. NRSV: “and the written directions.” Klein (2012, 509) follows the Greek and translates “as accomplished by.” See the commentary. 122.  ‫ועמדו‬. NRSV: “take position”; NJPS: “and attend.” 123.  ‫לפלגות‬, from PLG, “to divide,” a synonym of ḤLQ, from which ‫מחלקותיכם‬, “your divisions,” of the previous verse. For an explanation of the different divisions of the Levites in this pericope see the commentary. 124.  Klein (2012, 509) understands this to refer to “the laypeople.” 125.  NRSV: “and let there be Levites for each division of an ancestral house.” NJPS: “by clan divisions of the Levites.” 126.  The MT does not specify what it is that the Levites are supposed to prepare. NJPS adds “it”: “having sanctified yourselves, slaughter the Passover sacrifice and prepare it for your kinsmen.” Dillard (1987, 283–85) and Klein (2012, 511) both follow 1 Esdras in reading ‫והקדשים הכינו‬, “prepare the holy offerings.” 127.  ‫ בני העם‬is a unique phrase, appearing here and in v. 12 below, whose precise meaning is unclear. The Greek τοῖς υἱοῖς τοῦ λαοῦ is a precise translation, but the Latin omni populo, “all the people,” ignores the “sons of,” as do the KJV, NRSV, NJPS and others. Myers (1965, 2:209) and Dillard (1987, 283) translate “to the laity,” but do not offer and explanation for their choice. Keel (1986, 919) suggests that the contribution was intended only for those “of the people” who could not afford their own Passover sacrifice. 128.  ‫ צאן‬is a general term referring to sheep and goats, although “sheep” and “lambs” does sound redundant. NRSV avoids this by translating “lambs and kids from the flock,” while NJPS and Klein (2012, 509) call them “small cattle.” 129.  ‫בני־עזים‬, literally “sons of goats.” 130.  ‫הכל לפסחים‬, literally “all for the Passovers” – obviously referring to the sacrifices. 131.  ‫ בקר‬is a general term for “cattle.” NRSV renders “bulls,” NJPS “large cattle.” 132.  ‫נדבה‬, from NDB, is something given freely. When the reference is to a sacrifice, a ‫ נדבה‬is a “freewill” offering. NRSV and others translate “contributed willingly” and the like, but ‫ נדבה‬here is a noun, not an adjective. 133.  Hilkiah and two others are called negîdîm of the house of God. The title ‫ נגיד‬is fairly common in Chronicles, and is used for officials at different levels. It is used of some of the “high priests” (such as in 1 Chron. 9:20), but not only for them. Keel (1986, 920) speculates that since the Hilkiah mentioned here seems to share his position with two others, this may be a different individual that Hilkiah the high priest.

422

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

hundred,134 and three hundred cattle.  9 And Conaniah, and Shemaiah and Nethanel his brothers,135 and Hashabiah and Jeiel and Jozabad, the chiefs of the Levites, gave to the Levites for the Passover offerings five thousand,136 and five hundred cattle. 10 And the service was prepared,137 and the priests stood at their places, and the Levites in their divisions, according to the king’s command.138 11 And they139 slaughtered the Passover, and the priests dashed from their hand,140 and the Levites were skinning.141  12 They removed the ôlâh,142 to 134.  The MT does not specify what animal was given by the officers. The Greek has πρόβατα καὶ ἀμνοὺς καὶ ἐρίφους, “sheep, lambs and kids,” exactly as in the previous verse. 1 Esdras has only πρόβατα, presumably reflecting an original ‫צאן‬. Scholars debate which version preserves the “original” reading. NRSV adds “lambs and kids,” NJPS “[small cattle],” the brackets indicating that the term is not in the Hebrew, Dillard (1987, 283) does the same without the brackets, and Klein (2012, 509) adds “sheep,” accompanied by a textual note. 135.  ‫אחיו‬. Where the MT vocalizes eḥâw, “his brothers,” both the Greek Chronicles and 1 Esdras ἀδελφὸς assumes a reading of aḥîw, “his brother,” in the singular. The Greek text also adds another name, Βαναιας, “Benaiah,” between Conaniah and Shemaiah. 136.  Here, too, the verse does not specify five thousand of which animal, and commentators assume that the reference is to sheep and goats. 137.  ‫ותכון‬, from KWN, meaning “to be upright,” “to be firm,” “to be secure,” “to be sure,” “to be ready,” “to be lasting,” “to be established,” “to stand firm” (DCH 4:372). On the word’s meaning and use here see the commentary. 138.  1 Esd. 1:10 reads καὶ οἱ Λευῖται ἔχοντες τὰ ἄζυμα κατὰ τὰς φυλὰς, “and the Levites had unleavened bread according to their divisions,” reading MT ‫מצות‬, miṣwat, “command of,” as maṣṣôt, “unleavened bread,” which, according to Exod. 12:8 is an essential component of the Passover sacrifice. 1 Esdras then skips all of 2 Chron. 35:11 and some of v. 12 as well, probably due to a copyist error (see Talshir 2001, 25). 139.  The Levites, as Josiah had commanded in v. 6. 140.  As it stands, the text does not say what the priests “dashed” or “sprinkled,” but from Lev. 1:5 and others we know that “dashing” the blood of the sacrificial animals on the altar was an integral part of the sacrifice. Here, the priests receive the blood from “the hand” of the Levites. The Greek reads καὶ προσέχεαν οἱ ἱερεῖς τὸ αἷμα ἐκ χειρὸς αὐτῶν, “and the priests threw the blood from their hand.” Presumably, the word ‫דם‬, “blood,” was erroneously dropped from the text because of its similarity to ‫מידם‬, “from their hand.” Most modern translations simply add “the blood.” 141.  NJPS, Klein (2012, 509) and others add “the animal” for clarity. 142.  As noted by Japhet (1993, 1052), the term ôlâh, which generally means “burnt offerings,” is used in several different ways even within this pericope. Since most of the Passover sacrifice was roasted and eaten, not burnt on the altar, here the term seems to refer to those fatty parts which were burnt on the altar and not eaten, as in the rules for the šelâmîm (“peace” or “wellbeing”) offering in Lev. 3:9–11, 14–16. Keel (1986, 921) explains the verse as meaning either that the ôlâh-fat was burned “according to fathers’ houses,” or that its removal was a necessary prerequisite for the giving of the animal to the people, to roast and to consume. NRSV’s “they set aside the burnt offerings so that they might distribute them” confuses the issue by making it seem as if the ôlâh refers to a separate “burnt offering.”



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

423

give them143 to the divisions of the fathers’ houses of the sons of the people to sacrifice to the Lord, as it is written in the book of Moses; and the same for the cattle.144  13 And they cooked145 the Passover lamb by fire as prescribed; and they cooked the holy offerings146 in pots,147 in caldrons148 and in pans,149 and ran them150 to all the sons of the people.  14 And afterward, they151 prepared for themselves and for the priests, because the priests the sons of Aaron were offering152 the burnt offerings and the fats until night; so the Levites prepared for themselves and for the priests, the sons of Aaron. 15 And the singers, the sons of Asaph, were at their station according to the command of David and Asaph and Heman, and Jeduthun153 the king’s seer,154 and the gatekeepers at each and every gate;155 they were not to depart from their tasks, for their brethren the Levites prepared for them. 16 And all the service of the Lord was prepared156 143.  “Them” apparently referring to the sacrificial animals, once they had been slaughtered, their blood dashed and their fat removed. 144.  See Lev. 3:1. Both the Greek Chron. and 1 Esdras read ‫לבקר‬, labbâqâr, “for the cattle” as τὸ πρωί, “the morning,” assuming a vocalization of the Hebrew as labbôqer. 145.  The word ‫ בשלו‬refers to “cooking” in general. “Cooking by fire” is roasting, while “cooking in pots” is boiling. 146.  As Keel (1986, 922) explains, these “holy offerings” must mean the additional sacrifices taken from the cattle, not from the Passover sheep. 147.  ‫סירות‬, plural of ‫סיר‬, common in both sing. and pl. Exod. 16:3 speaks of ‫סיר הבשר‬, “the pot of flesh,” that the Israelites had in Egypt. See also Ezek. 11:3, 7; Mic. 3:3 [there translated “kettle” by NRSV]. The plural ‫ סירות‬are among of the Temple vessels in Exod. 38:3; 1 Kgs 7:45; 2 Kgs 25:14; Jer. 52:18–19; Zech. 14:20 and in 2 Chron. 4:11 and 16. 148.  ‫ דודים‬is a unique plural form of ‫דוד‬, which is some sort of large vessel. The sing. form appears in 1 Sam. 2:14; Jer. 24:2; Ps. 81:7 [Eng. 6, translated “basket” by NRSV]; Job 41:12 [Eng. 20, translated “boiling pot” by NRSV]; 2 Kgs 10:7 and Jer. 24:1 have two additional plural forms. 149.  ‫צלחות‬, pl. of ‫ צלחת‬which appears only in 2 Kgs 21:13; Prov. 19:24; 26:15 and in the form ‫ צלחית‬in 2 Kgs 2:20. Probably related to ‫קלחת‬, of 1 Sam. 2:14 and Mic. 3:3. 150.  ‫ויריצו‬. NRSV “carried them quickly”; NJPS “conveyed them with dispatch”; Klein (2012, 510) “brought them quickly.” 1 Esdras uses ἀπήνεγκαν, “carry off,” “hand over” (Talshir 2001, 27), while the Greek Chronicles has ἔδραμον, “they ran” – themselves. 151.  The Levites. 152.  ‫בהעלות‬, “in offering.” NRSV: “because the priests the descendants of Aaron were occupied in offering.” 153.  1 Esdras has Ασαφ καὶ Ζαχαριας καὶ Εδδινους, “Asaph and Zechariah and Eden.” A Zechariah appears alongside Asaph in 1 Chron. 16:5 and a Levite named Eden appears in 2 Chron. 29:12; 31:15, but the reason for the change is not clear (Talshir 2001, 29–30). 154.  Greek Chronicles has οἱ προφῆται τοῦ βασιλέως, “the king’s prophets,” in the plural, presumably referring to all three, and perhaps reflecting a Hebrew ‫ חוזי‬instead of MT ‫חוזה‬. 1 Esdras has οἱ παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως, “those that see the king,” “the kings retinue.” Talshir (2001, 30) suggests that the translator could not imagine singers being referred to as prophets. 155.  ‫לשער ושער‬, “at gate and gate.” 156.  ‫ותכון‬. NJPS translates “arranged.” See the note and commentary on v. 10.

424

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

that day, to make the Passover and to offer burnt offerings157 on the altar of the Lord, according to the command of King Josiah. 17 And the sons of Israel who were present made the Passover at that time, and the feast of unleavened bread seven days. 18 And no Passover like it had been made in Israel since the days of Samuel the prophet; and all of the kings of Israel had not made such a Passover as Josiah made, and the priests and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel who were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.158  19 In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah this Passover was made.159  20  After all this, when Josiah had established the house,160 Necho king of 157.  Again ‫עלות‬, this time probably referring to the additional offerings, besides the actual Passover lambs. 158.  At this point Chronicles returns to following Kings, but again with some differences. 2 Kgs 23:22 reads: “For no Passover like this had been made since the days of the judges who judged Israel; and all of the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah.” The rest of 2 Chron. 35:18 is absent from Kings. Chronicles’ v. 19 once again parallels Kings’ v. 23, except that Kings’ verse begins with ‫כי אם‬, “except that” [in Josiah’s eighteenth year], and ends by emphasizing that the Passover had been offered “to the Lord in Jerusalem.” The next four verses in Kings tell about how Josiah abolished all forms of idolatry from the land, but even so the Lord did not turn from his anger at all of Manasseh’s sins, and was still determined to destroy Jerusalem. This is followed by the standard regnal formula, of which Chronicles’ version is placed at the end of the chapter. 159.  Here, 1 Esdras has two verses that do not appear in either the MT or the Greek Chronicles. Talshir (2001, 36) renders them as follows: “The work of Josiah was well-established (/ the deeds of Josiah were upright) before (/ in the eyes of) the Lord with a heart full of piety (/ with a whole heart and with piety). And the things that came to pass in his days have been written in former times concerning those who had sinned and acted impiously against the Lord beyond every nation and kingdom and how they grieved (/ vexed) him intentionally (/ with their evil) and the words of the Lord against Israel were fulfilled.” The Greek Chronicles also has a long addition at this point, basically translating 2 Kgs 23:24–27: “After all these things that Josiah did in the house. And king Josiah burnt those who had in them a divining spirit, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and the sodomites which were in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, that he might confirm the words of the law that were written in the book which Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the Lord. There was none like him before him, who turned to the Lord with all his heart, and all his soul, and all his strength, according to all the law of Moses, and after him there rose up none like him. Nevertheless the Lord turned not from the anger of his fierce wrath, wherewith the Lord was greatly angry against Judah, for all the provocations wherewith Manasseh provoked him: and the Lord said: I will even remove Judah also from my presence, as I have removed Israel, and I have rejected the city which I chose, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said: My name shall be there.” Scholars are divided over both the source of this material and its originality in the contexts in which it is now found. 160.  ‫את הבית‬...‫הכין‬, Once again from KWN. NRSV “when Josiah had set the temple in order”; NJPS “After all this furbishing of the Temple by Josiah.” 2 Kgs 23:29 has simply “in his days.” 1 Esdras has “after all this that Josiah had done.” Talshir (2001, 45) thinks that 1 Esdras omitted mention of repairing the Temple because its account only begins with the Passover.



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

425

Egypt161 went up to fight at Carchemish162 on Euphrates, and Josiah went out towards him.163 21 And he164 sent messengers to him, saying: What have I to do with you,165 king of Judah? I am not coming upon you today,166 but against the house of my war;167 and God168 has said that I am to hurry;169 cease opposing 161.  Kings calls the Egyptian “Pharaoh Necho,” while 1 Esdras just calls him “Pharaoh,” and does the same throughout the pericope. Talshir (2001, 46) believes that this “may be connected with the misconception of the name” and notes that b. Meg. 3a, the Peshiṭta and the Targum all call him ‫פרעה חגירא‬, “Pharaoh the lame,” understanding ‫נכה‬/‫ נכו‬to mean “lame.” 162.  Kings does not mention Carchemish. See the commentary. 163.  The interpretations given for ‫ ויצא לקראתו‬reflect the interpreters’ understanding of the events. Those who understand Josiah’s intentions as being to block Necho’s northward advance translate “went out against him” (NRSV; NJPS). Myers (1965, 2:214) even translates “to engage him.” Others, including the Greek Chronicles’ εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτῷ and 1 Esdras εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτῷ, as well as Dillard (1987, 284), use the more neutral “went out to meet him.” Klein (2012, 510) has “to confront/meet him.” 2 Kgs 23:29 has: “In his days Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria on the River Euphrates, and King Josiah to meet went to meet him, and he killed him at Megiddo when he saw him.” All the rest of Chronicles’ vv. 21–23 do not appear in Kings. See the commentary. 164.  NRSV: “But Neco.” 165.  ‫מה־לי ולך‬. Dillard (1987, 284) translates more literally. “what is there between me and you.” 166.  ‫לא־עליך אתה היום‬. The ‫ אתה‬seems superfluous. Klein (2012, 513), following previous suggestions and the Greek ἥκω, reads ‫אתא‬, “I have come.” However, both Allen (1974, 2:72) and Dillard (1987, 286) reject this reading, and see the ‫ אתה‬as reinforcing the ‫עליך‬. 167.  ‫ בית מלחמתי‬is a unique phrase, which has been understood in different ways. The Greek Chronicles simply omits it, while 1 Esd. 1:25 reads τοῦ Εὐφράτου ὁ πόλεμός μού ἐστιν, “my war is on the Euphrates,” apparently reading ‫פרת‬, “Euphrates” for ‫בית‬, “house.” The Latin renders venio sed contra aliam pugno domum, “but I fight against another house,” and the KJV, “but against the house wherewith I have war.” Rudolph (1955, 330) suggested either adding or amending to ‫בבל‬, “Babylon.” NRSV renders “the house with which I am at war”; NJPS has “the kingdom that wars with me.” Malamat (1973, 277) suggested that the term means “fortified base” or “garrison city,” and refers to the Egyptian garrisons at Carchemish, at Riblah or even the Egyptian base that he believed already existed at Megiddo itself. 168.  Japhet (1993, 1056) assumes that the “god” to whom Necho refers here is his own Egyptian god, although she admits that the God of the next verse must be Josiah’s God. While this interpretation may have the advantage of not making Necho himself a believer in Yahweh, it does not change the overall picture – Necho’s words came from Josiah’s God. Klein (2012, 526) rightly dismisses Japhet’s interpretation. 1 Esdras’ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ, “the Lord God,” makes it clear that it also understood Necho’s reference to be to Yahweh. 169.  The verse does not actually say to whom God said that Necho should hurry. NRSV, Dillard (1987, 284), Klein (2012, 510) and others understand that God commanded Necho directly. NJPS has “it is God’s will that I hurry.”

426

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

God, who is with me,170 and he will not destroy you. 22 And Josiah did not turn his face away from him,171 for he sought to fight with him;172 and he did not listen to the words of Necho173 from the mouth of God, and he came to fight in the valley of Megiddo.174 23 And the shooters shot at King Josiah;175 and the 170.  ‫חדל־לך מאלהים אשר־עמי‬, literally “stop yourself from God who is with me.” The word “opposing” is inserted by most translations; NJPS prefers “interfering,” while Dillard (1987, 284) avoids this by translating “God is with me, so restrain yourself so he will not destroy you.” Japhet (1993, 1056), who assumed the “god” referred to to be an Egyptian deity, suggested that Necho meant that he was carrying a physical representation of his god. Josiah, of course, would not heed an idol. 171.  NRSV: “But Josiah would not turn away from him”; NJPS, less literally: “but Josiah would not let him alone.” 172.  ‫כי להלחם־בו התחפש‬. The verb ḤPS has a basic meaning of “to search,” although in the hitpael it often means “to disguise oneself, to hide oneself” (DCH 3:290), as in 1 Sam. 28:8. More pertinently, 1 Kgs 22:30 = 2 Chron. 18:29 tells how Ahab king of Israel told Jehoshaphat, “‫ התחפש‬and come to war,” then adding that the king of Israel ‫ ויתחפש‬as well. The general assumption there is that Ahab disguised himself in an attempt to avoid the prophecy of Micaiah earlier in the chapter. Ahab is then killed by a stray arrow, which struck him despite his disguise. Most translations assume that the Chronicler’s version of Josiah’s death is modeled on Ahab’s, and translate accordingly: “but disguised himself in order to fight with him” (NRSV and others). However, Keel (1986, 927) understands that either Josiah “dressed in his battle dress,” or that Josiah suspected that it was Necho who was “disguising” his real intention to fight. The former explanation is also the basis for NJPS “he donned his armor.” The Greek Chronicles has ἐκραταιώθη, “strengthened himself,” perhaps reading or at least understanding ‫ התחזק‬or ‫התאמץ‬. 1 Esdras has ἐπιχειρεῖ, which Dillard (1987, 286) reads as “undertook” and suggests an original ‫;חשב‬ Klein (2012, 514) inexplicably reads “he attempted.” Talshir (2001, 50) suggests “to strive,” “to seek” or “to be determined.” 173.  1 Esdras replaces “Necho” with “the prophet Jeremiah,” probably in order not to attribute prophecy to a foreign king, but see the commentary. 174.  Our passage and Zech. 12:11 are the only places in which ‫ בקעת מגדו‬is mentioned, although in Zechariah the spelling is actually ‫מגדון‬. The addition of the final nun is typical of Second Temple-period and Rabbinic Hebrew. The Greek Chronicles spells it πεδίῳ Μαγεδων, “plain of Mageddon,” as in Zech. 12:11. Talshir (1996, 229) sees this as evidence of the late composition of this passage. Blenkinsopp (2013, 252–55) actually believes that Zech. 12–14 refers specifically to Josiah as the end of the Davidic dynasty. Judg. 5:19 mentions ‫מי מגדו‬, “the waters of Megiddo.” 175.  ‫וירו הירים למלך יאשיהו‬. As Keel (1986, 928) points out, this literally means “and King Josiah’s shooters shot,” suggesting that Josiah was accidentally shot by his own men. 1 Esdras renders καὶ κατέβησαν οἱ ἄρχοντες πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα Ιωσιαν, “and the leaders came down towards King Josiah,” probably reading ‫ וירדו השרים‬or ‫וירדו החרים‬, which makes it unclear just how the king was wounded. Talshir (2001, 51) suggests that these were the enemy officers who were assigned to wound or to kill Josiah. The Greek Chronicles, καὶ ἐτόξευσαν οἱ τοξόται ἐπὶ βασιλέα Ιωσιαν, is similar to the MT, except that the preposition ‫ל‬, “of,” “for,” “to” in the Hebrew is replaced by ἐπὶ, “upon,” leading to the more common translation, “the archers shot King Josiah.”



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

427

king said to his servants: Take me away, for I am wounded badly.176  24 And his servants moved him from the chariot and mounted him in the second chariot that he had,177 and they conveyed him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was buried in the tombs of his fathers;178 and all Judah and Jerusalem179 were mourning180 for Josiah.  25  And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah, and all the singing men and singing women181 have spoken in their laments about Josiah to this day;182 and they set these as an ordinance183 in Israel; and they are recorded in the Laments.

176.  In 1 Kgs 22:34 = 2 Chron. 18:33, Ahab, after being wounded, orders his driver, “take me out of the camp, for I have been wounded.” The verb used here for “take me away,” ‫העברוני‬, is not the same as that used there, ‫הוציאני‬/‫הוצאתני‬, and ‫החליתי‬, which literally means “I have become ill,” is followed here, but not there, with ‫מאד‬, “very much.” And while the MT and the LXX here say simply “take me away,” without specifying from where to take him, 1 Esdras and the Latin actually have “from the battle.” 177.  ‫ רכב המשנה‬is usually understood to mean “second(ary) chariot,” assuming that a king would have such a vehicle at his disposal. Keel (1986, 928) even proposes that this was his “civilian” chariot, which would have been larger and more comfortable than his war chariot. Klein (2012, 528) suggests that he would have been placed in a second chariot, since his first was contaminated with blood. He also mentions the possibility that ‫ רכב המשנה‬actually refers to the chariot of the second-in-command rather than the king’s own second chariot, a reading also adopted by NJPS. In Gen. 41:43, Pharaoh has Joseph ride in his ‫מרכבת המשנה אשר־לו‬, there also understood as either “second chariot” (KJV) or as “the chariot of his second-in-command” (NRSV; NJPS). 178.  2 Kgs 23:30a reads, “And his servants mounted him, dead, from Megiddo, and brought him to Jerusalem and buried him in his tomb.” The second part of the verse, which tells of the enthroning of Jehoahaz, comes in Chronicles at the beginning of ch. 36, after three and a half intervening verses. 179.  Instead of “and all Judah and Jerusalem,” 1 Esdras reads καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ιουδαίᾳ, “and in all of Judah,” with no mention of “Jerusalem.” This entire final part of the verse is absent from Kings. 180.  ‫מתאבלים‬, “were mourning,” rather than the usual translation “mourned” (as in NRSV and most others). NJPS translates “went into mourning.” Keel (1986, 929) suggests “he was buried as all Judah and Jerusalem were mourning him.” 181.  ‫השרים והשרות‬, “the singers (male) and the singers (female).” The reference is presumably to professional lamenters, as were known in many ancient societies. Blenkinsopp (2013, 250) calls them “male and female rhapsodists.” The Greek Chronicles οἱ ἄρχοντες καὶ αἱ ἄρχουσαι, 1 Esd. 1:30 οἱ προκαθήμενοι σὺν γυναιξὶν and the Targum ‫וכל‬ ‫רברביא ומטרוניתא‬, “all the great men and the matrons,” presumably read the Hebrew as ‫הש ֹרים והש ֹרות‬, śarîm and śarôt rather than šarîm and šarôt. However, the context favors the MT. 182.  ‫ עד היום‬actually lacks the usual ‫הזה‬, “this.” The more common ‫עד היום הזה‬, “until this day,” is reflected by 1 Esdras ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης. Talshir (2001, 54) is undecided whether the demonstrative ταύτης was added by the author or was found in his source. 183.  The usual “made these a custom” (as in NRSV; NJPS has “they became customary”) does not reflect the full strength of the word ‫חק‬, which is usually obligatory.

428

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

26 And the rest of the acts of Josiah and his pious deeds184 as is written in the Torah of the Lord, 27 and his acts, the first and the last, are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah.185

Commentary Josiah’s Passover Whereas the description of Josiah’s “reforms” in 2 Kings 23 is much more detailed than that of 2 Chronicles 34, for the Passover Kings devotes only three verses (21–23): And Josiah commanded the entire people, saying: Make a Passover for the Lord your God, as is written on this book of the covenant. For such a Passover as this had not been made since the days of the judges who judged Israel, and all of the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah. For in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, this Passover was done for the Lord in Jerusalem.

In Kings, the celebration of “a Passover as this” was a direct consequence of the finding of the “book of the covenant.” In other words, it is possible that a different kind of Passover had been celebrated “since the days of the judges,” but not one “like this.” If we assume that “the book” was somehow related to Deuteronomy, we can also assume that previously the Passover had been celebrated in the various towns Keel (1986, 929) points out that the combination ‫ נתן חק‬is unique, the usual term being ‫( שם חק‬as in Gen. 47:26; Exod. 15:25; Josh. 24:25; 1 Sam. 30:25 and more). However Pss 99:7 and 148:6 both have ‫חק נתן‬. 184.  ‫וחסדיו‬. NRSV and NJPS: “his faithful deeds”; Myers (1965, 2:214): “his acts of devotion”; Dillard (1987, 284): “his acts of piety”; Klein (2012, 511): “his loyal deeds.” This expression is used only of Josiah and of his great-grandfather Hezekiah (2 Chron. 32:32), and only here is it supplemented by “as is written in the Torah of the Lord.” 185.  1 Esd. 1:31 conflates 2 Chron. 35:25b–27: ταῦτα δὲ ἀναγέγραπται ἐν τῇ βύβλῳ τῶν ἱστορουμένων περὶ τῶν βασιλέων τῆς Ιουδαίας· καὶ τὸ καθ᾽ ἓν πραχθὲν τῆς πράξεως Ιωσιου καὶ τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς συνέσεως αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ κυρίου, τά τε προπραχθέντα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ νῦν, ἱστόρηται ἐν τῷ βυβλίῳ τῶν βασιλέων Ισραηλ καὶ Ιουδα, “and they [the laments] are written on the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah; and the rest of the deeds of Josiah which he did, and his acts of piety, and his understanding of the Torah of the Lord, and his first acts and those now recited, are written on the book of the kings of Israel and Judah.” 2 Kgs 23 does not tell of the mourning for Josiah, and in fact places the regnal summary in v. 28, “and the rest of the acts of Josiah and all that he did, are they not written on the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah,” before telling of Josiah’s death at Megiddo. The chapter then goes on for another seven and a half verses, telling of the reign of Jehoahaz and the ascension of Jehoiakim. In Chronicles, these are part of the final chapter, ch. 36.



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

429

and villages throughout the land, in accordance with the Priestly law (although one must admit that there is no actual evidence of this), but following the discovery of the book and the abolishing of the various bamôt, the Passover was now celebrated “properly” at the Jerusalem Temple, according to the rule in Deut. 16:2, 5–7: “And you shall sacrifice the Passover to the Lord your God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the Lord shall choose to cause his name to dwell there…” Josiah’s Passover in Kings, then, is a direct extension of his “reforms,” which include the centralization of the cult in the Jerusalem Temple.186 It is also worth noting that Kings does not make any reference to northern Israelites taking part in this Passover. Whatever may have happened to Bethel and to “the towns of Samaria” after Josiah’s acts of purification there, the residents of those areas are not said to have joined the people of Judah for the Passover. Chronicles presents a very different picture. The first difference is in length: 19 verses to just three in Kings. But the composition of the description is also very different. In v. 1, Josiah is described as “making” the Passover, rather than just “commanding” as in Kings. Indeed, Josiah’s personal involvement is mentioned several times. Also, there is no specific reference to the book that had been found, although v. 4 mentions “the writing of David king of Israel and the document of Solomon his son,” v. 6 “the word of the Lord by hand of Moses,” and v. 12 “the book of Moses.” In Williamson’s opinion (1982, 404), the Chronicler purposely wished to de-emphasize the importance of the discovery of the book: the rules were already known, and they had been followed at least by Hezekiah. Most of the following narrative has no parallel in Kings. The parallels to Kings’ vv. 22–23 come at the end of the Chronicler’s story, in vv. 18–19, but even they are significantly different from Kings, and will be treated in detail below. Verse 1 serves as a preliminary summary of the entire celebration. It emphasizes that the Passover was performed at the proper time, “on the fourteenth day of the first month,” as set down in Exod. 12:6; Lev. 23:5 and Num. 9:3. Williamson (1982, 404) suggests that this may be in reference to Hezekiah, who had celebrated the Passover in the second month. Josiah was now setting things back on their normal course. This verse also emphasizes that it was Josiah who was “making” the Passover. Japhet (1993, 1046) compares this to the presentation in Kings, which seems to assume that each household would prepare their own sacrifice, 186.  Greenspahn (2014) has arrived at the conclusion that Deuteronomy does not really call for centralization of the cult at all, but admits that Josiah (or the author of 2 Kgs 22–23) may have understood it that way.

430

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

with the main innovation being that they would all come to sacrifice in Jerusalem. In Chronicles, Josiah takes responsibility for the entire affair. Verses 2–10 describe the preparations for the Passover, which presumably began some time before the fourteenth of the first month, and ended on the day of the sacrifice, when “the service was prepared, and the priests stood at their places, and the Levites in their divisions, according to the king’s command” (v. 10). The first stage in the preparations was to install the priests at their watches. It is not clear why they would need to be installed. Perhaps this reflects the idea that some of the priests had been brought in from the various bamôt that Josiah had abolished, and now needed to be assigned to specific tasks, but in the Chronicler’s timeline that would have happened in Josiah’s twelfth year. Josiah’s need to “strengthen” (or “encourage”) the priests has been compared to Hezekiah’s speech to his reluctant priests in ch. 29, but this is not specifically stated here. Japhet (1993, 1047) understands it as a sign of “Josiah’s systematic preparation; in view of earlier precedents…he takes supererogatory precautions to avoid any unnecessary disturbances.” The Levites, on the other hand, are the recipients of special treatment, including a three-and-a-half-verse long speech by the king. They are titled “who mebînîm all Israel, who are consecrated to the Lord.” Despite the fact that both the Septuagint and 1 Esdras seem to preserve a different Vorlage (see the textual note), most commentators assume that the MT preserves the original Hebrew, which means “to cause to understand” – “to teach.” This is somewhat of an innovation. Normally, the teaching of the Torah is considered to be one of the duties of the priests (such as in Jer. 18:18, “for instruction [Torah] shall not be lost from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor oracle from the prophet”; or 2 Chron. 15:3, “for many days Israel was without a true God, and without a teaching priest, and without Torah”). The Levites had originally been in charge of carrying the Tabernacle and its vessels (Num. 8; Deut. 10:8; 1 Chron. 15:2). Once the Ark had been deposited in the city of David and then in the Temple, they were assigned additional tasks by David and Solomon, as gatekeepers, musicians and officers, but these did not specifically include teaching. Klein (2012, 519) points out that 2 Chron. 17:7–9 does depict Levites as teaching the Torah in the days of Jehoshaphat, together with officers and priests, but that the verb used there for “teach” is the usual LMD, not BYN as here. In general, the verbal root BYN is used mostly in Late Biblical Hebrew, and is quite common in Daniel, in Job, in the Psalms and in Proverbs, although it does appear in “earlier” books as well. In Nehemiah 8 the verb is used several times, and most instructively,



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

431

in v. 9, “And Nehemiah who was the Governor and Ezra the priest, the scribe, and the Levites who mebînîm (NJPS ‘who were explaining to’) the people said…” Also instructive is 1 Chron. 25:7–8, set in the days of David, in which the Levites “They and their kindred, melumedê (NRSV: ‘who were trained in’) singing to the Lord, all who were mebîn (NRSV: ‘skillful’), numbered two hundred eighty-eight. And they cast lots for their duties, small and great, mebîn (NRSV: ‘teacher’) like talmîd (NRSV: ‘pupil’).” These examples make it clear that in the Chronicler’s eyes, “teaching” was indeed one of the Levitical duties. We do, however, see a development: where in David’s day what the Levites “taught” was to sing, by Jehoshaphat’s time they assisted the priests in teaching the Torah, and now in Josiah’s day, they were the primary expert teachers of the Torah. Interestingly enough, in Nehemiah they are once again “assistant teachers,” reflecting either a different reality or a different ideology. The actual speech that Josiah delivers to the Levites begins with a command: “Put the holy Ark in the house that Solomon son of David, king of Israel, built.” Assuming that this refers to the Temple, this seems strange, considering the fact that we had not previously been told that it had ever been removed from the there. In fact, the last mention of the Ark in Chronicles was in 2 Chron. 5:2–10 (= 1 Kgs 8:1–9), when Solomon had installed it in the Temple, and in his prayer in the following chapter.187 Since that time, the Ark seems to have been safely ensconced in the Holy of Holies, out of sight and out of the narrative. Perhaps surprisingly, it is not even mentioned as being either desecrated or saved during the reigns of such evil rulers as Athaliah or Manasseh, nor is it mentioned in the restorations of Jehoash or Hezekiah. This incongruity has given birth to quite a few speculations. PseudoRashi and Qimḥi, for example, suggested that the Ark had been removed during the time of Manasseh and was now restored. Dillard (1987, 284) suggested that its restoration was used to symbolically re-enact its original installation by Solomon, although he admitted that there was no additional evidence of this. Haran (1978, 284–88) claimed just the opposite: that Manasseh had removed it from the Temple, after which it disappeared forever. In his view, the reference to the Ark in 2 Chron. 35:3 is not historical but included by the Chronicler “under the influence of the priestly sections of the Pentateuch.” He then cites some of “the proposed emendations to the text” (on which see below), which “may at most clarify its meaning; they can hardly lend it historical reliability.” 187.  It is mentioned incidentally in 2 Chron. 8:11, as part of the reason that Solomon built a separate house for Pharaoh’s daughter, and see the commentary there.

432

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

An even more radical proposal was made by Keel (1986, 918), based on various rabbinic sources. In his opinion, the re-placement of the Ark in the Holy of Holies would have needed no special comment, since that was where it belonged. He also agrees, as does Haran, that had it been there when Nebuchadnezzar captured the Temple, it would have been mentioned. Therefore Keel suggests that “the house that Solomon son of David, king of Israel, built” does not refer to the Temple, but to some other structure; Josiah, having heard Huldah’s prophecy about the inevitable coming destruction, hid the Ark in some other structure, which “Solomon” had built in advance! Other explanations tend to be more textual in nature. The Septuagint’s καὶ ἔθηκαν, “and they put,” as a verb rather than an injunction, may either reflect an original wayyitenû instead of MT tenû. In 1 Esdras the phrase is read as part of a longer sentence: ἁγιάσαι ἑαυτοὺς τῷ κυρίῳ ἐν τῇ θέσει τῆς ἁγίας κιβωτοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ, “sanctify yourselves to the Lord when replacing the holy Ark of the Lord in the house” (Talshir 2001, 7; Talshir then admits that this does not solve the “historical” problem of when or why the Ark was ever removed in the first place). This rendering is also preferred by Curtis and Madsen (1910, 515). Williamson (1982, 405) quotes Kiel as translating tenû as “leave the holy ark.” Rudolph (1955, 326) suggests reading ‫נתנו‬, nâtenû, “they have put,” again making it part of a larger clause, which Japhet (1993, 1048) renders “The holy ark was placed in the house which Solomon…built,” and Klein (2012, 509), “Since the holy ark has been brought into the house.” All of these assume that Josiah is now telling the Levites, that since they are no longer responsible for carrying the Ark, they can now take on other responsibilities. The problem with this interpretation is that, as the text seems to be saying, this had been the situation since the days of Solomon. The reference to Solomon is thought by several of the commentators (such as Dillard 1987, 290; Japhet, 1993, 1048) to be significant, since if the Chronicler’s Hezekiah was “a second David,” then his Josiah was “a second Solomon,” but this still does not answer the question: what, in the Chronicler’s mind, was Josiah telling them? At least a partial answer can be found in the final clause of the verse: since you no longer bear the burden of the Ark, “now serve the Lord your God and his people Israel”: the Levites are not only “servants of God,” but also of the people! Is teaching the Torah a public service, rather than a “religious” one?188 188.  Although Begg (2003, 141–44) wonders why this injunction comes so late in the Chronicler’s history, just prior to the catastrophes that will culminate in the destruction of the Temple? Why could it not have been given by Solomon himself? Begg suggests that



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

433

The comparison with both David and Solomon is further developed in v. 4, in which Josiah instructs the Levites to prepare themselves by clans and divisions, “according to the writing of David king of Israel and the document of Solomon his son.” According to 1 Chronicles 23–26, David had organized the divisions of the Levites, including those of the priests, the musicians and the gatekeepers, the treasurers and other Levitical officials, according to the Levitical clans. In his “will” to Solomon, David says of the plans for the Temple, “All this, in writing at the Lord’s direction, he made clear to me – the plan of all the works” (1 Chron. 28:19 NRSV). 2 Chronicles 8:14–15 emphasize that Solomon retained David’s ordnances as to the division of the priests and the Levites. Here the Chronicler seems to assume that both David and Solomon’s instructions survived as written documents, which were now used by Josiah. As stressed by Japhet (1993, 1048–49), this pericope, more than any other, refers to pre-existing written authority at all levels – Moses, David and Solomon. The Levites are now instructed to take up their positions “in the sanctuary,” presumably meaning the courtyard, divided according to the clans of “the sons of the people,” meaning the non-Levites. Japhet (1993, 1049), relying on much later rabbinic sources such as m. Ta‘an. 4.2, explains that the priests, the Levites and the people were each divided into 24 divisions, called maamdôt, or “courses,” each of which served in turn, and all of which served during the pilgrimage festivals. We should caution, though, that while the 12- and 24-fold division does appear in 1 Chronicles 23–26 it is not specifically mentioned here, so the assumption that the Chronicler had exactly this system in mind is just an assumption. Unlike any other offering, the Passover sacrifice is normally slaughtered by the lay people who bring it. At Hezekiah’s Passover the Levites were in charge of slaughtering for those who were impure, while here they are put in charge of the entire operation, slaughtering for everyone. Japhet (1993, 1049) comments that the injunction to “sanctify yourselves” at this stage of the ceremony seems superfluous, and suggests emending wehitqadešû, “and sanctify yourselves,” to wehaqqôdešîm, “and the holy (offerings).” Keel (1986, 919) understands the command to “prepare for your brethren” in light of the Levites’ role as teachers – instruct your brethren (the non-Levitical Israelites) on the proper preparation of the Passover, “according to the word of the Lord by hand of Moses.” the Chronicler is actually saying that Josiah wrongly told the Levites to neglect the Ark, an order which would contribute to Judah’s eventual demise.

434

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Like Hezekiah, Josiah and his officials are presented as contributing lavishly to the event, with Josiah contributing sacrificial animals for the common people, the chief priests for the other priests, and the chief Levites for other Levites. This may reflect a concern for the fact that since the priests’ and the Levites’ income was mainly from tithes and other offerings, which, once dedicated, could be used only by priests and Levites, their animals could not be redistributed to the common people. The king, whose income was from “secular” sources, was under no such limitations. According to Exod. 12:5, the Passover sacrifice may only be a male lamb or a kid (a young male goat). In our v. 7, the king is described as contributing 30,000 “sheep, lambs and kids, all as Passover offerings,” and we noted there that ṣôn, “sheep,” seems to be a category which includes “lambs and kids.” However, he then also contributed 3,000 bâqâr, “cattle.” This pattern is repeated with the chief priests and Levites, with the former contributing “for the Passover offerings” 2,600, presumably sheep, and then also 300 cattle, and the latter giving “for the Passover offerings” 5,000, again presumably sheep, and then also 500 cattle. Rudolph (1955, 327) suggested that the cattle were meant for the šelamîm (“peace offerings”) that were sacrificed on the festival of unleavened bread the following day. Japhet (1993, 1050) objected since the festival of unleavened bread is only mentioned later in the story, but pointed out that according to Deut. 16:2, both ṣôn and bâqâr may be used for the Passover sacrifice. Both Keel (1986, 920) and Japhet (1993, 1050) point to the later rabbinic interpretation, that the ṣôn was used for the actual Passover, and the bâqâr for the accompanying Shalmei Hagigah, the “peace-offerings” that were offered together with the Passover. In any case the Chronicler certainly made the distinction between the ṣôn, which was intended for the Passover, and the bâqâr, which was not. The ceremony itself is described in vv. 10–16, the first of which begins with wattikkôn hāabôdâh, which we translated “and the service was prepared,” and the last of which begins wattikkôn kol-abôdât YHWH, “and all the service of the Lord was prepared.” Almost identical phrases are used in 2 Chron. 8:16 at the establishment of Solomon’s Temple and in 2 Chron. 29:35 for the re-establishment of the Temple service under Hezekiah, and while in both of those cases the word wattikkôn is better translated by the English “established” and here by “prepared,” to the Hebrew reader the meaning is almost the same – “it was in place.” The word tikkôn is used in Chronicles and elsewhere to denote the “establishment” of a king’s rule (1 Kgs 2:12 of Solomon; Prov. 16:12; 25:5; 29:19, a “throne” in general, in the masc. form yikkôn), and even the



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

435

reign of Yahweh over the universe (Pss 93:1; 96:10; 1 Chron. 16:30: in all three of these NRSV translates tikkôn as “established,” while NJPS translates “stands firmly”). In our case, Josiah’s Passover, even more than the cleansing of the Temple, is a “foundational” or “formative” event, which in Hebrew would perhaps be called mekônên. As the ceremony unfolds, the Levites, at the king’s command, slaughter the animals, the priests collect the blood to sprinkle over the altar, and the Levites proceed to skin the animals. Verses 12 and 13 both differentiate between the Passover sacrifice and the additional offering, called bâqâr, “cattle,” in v. 12 and qodâšîm, “holy offerings,” in v. 13. Verse 12 emphasizes that the ôlâh, probably the fatty parts that are supposed to be burnt and not eaten, were removed “according to the divisions of the fathers’ houses” for both the Passover and for “the cattle.” Verse 13 emphasizes that the Passover was roasted by fire while “the holy offerings” were cooked in pots. Verse 12 refers to “the book of Moses” and v. 13 to “as prescribed,” both probably intending to refer to Exod. 12:1–10, which commands both that the Passover is to be eaten “a lamb for each fathers’ house” (v. 3) and “they shall eat it roasted over the fire with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in water, but roasted over the fire, with its head, legs, and inner organs” (vv. 8–9). The Levites then prepared the Passover sacrifices for themselves, for the priests, for the singers and for the gatekeepers (who were also “brethren” Levites), so that none of them would be forced to leave his assigned station. The singers are collectively called “sons of Asaph,” even though reference is made to David’s having appointed the three, Asaph and Heman, and Jeduthun (in 1 Chron. 25:1–7). Japhet (1993, 1053) assumes that “sons of Asaph” is “a ‘frozen’ term, encompassing all the branches of the singers.” Another possibility is that the Chronicler means that only the sons of Asaph were now fulfilling the mission that had originally been given to all three clans. Asaph is also referred to as a seer in 2 Chron. 29:30; now it is possible that the title refers to all three (and see the notes). In 1 Chron. 25:1, Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun are said to have “prophesized” (nibbeîm) with their musical instruments. Verse 17 brings out two additional items. The first is that the Passover was celebrated by “the sons of Israel who were present” – Israelites from both north and south (Klein 2012, 523). But unlike Hezekiah, Josiah did not send out messengers to invite the northerners to the Passover – since he had already purified the north in the previous chapter, it is taken for granted that the northerners would now join. This is emphasized again at the end of v. 18: “and all Judah and Israel who were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.”

436

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

The second item that v. 17 stresses is that after the Passover itself, the seven-day feast of maṣṣôt, unleavened bread, was observed. Japhet (1993, 1054) emphasized both that the very mention of the feast of unleavened bread is an addition to the Kings account in which it is not mentioned at all, and on the other hand a change from the Chronicler’s own Hezekiah account, in which the festival plays such a prominent role. In other words, Josiah’s Passover and feast of unleavened bread were celebrated in the “proper” way, on the prescribed date and with no addition of days, such as had happened in Hezekiah’s time. With vv. 18 and 19 the Chronicler returns to following Kings, but still makes significant changes to his source. In Kings, v. 22 directly follows v. 21’s statement that the king ordered the people to perform the Passover “as is written in this book of the covenant” with the explanation “for no Passover like this had been made since the days of the judges who judged Israel; and all of the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah.” In other words, since the book had not been known, the Passover had not been conducted “properly,” since the days of the judges. Presumably, to the Deuteronomistic Historian, “like this” meant a centralized, national Passover, and Myers (1965, 2:213) thinks that he may have had Josh. 5:10 in mind as the last national Passover that was celebrated, indeed before the days of the Judges. In Chronicles, this “for” becomes a simple statement of fact, which follows the very detailed description of the celebration: no Passover like it had ever been made, since the days of Samuel. This raises the question of what the Chronicler means by “like it.” He cannot mean that this is the first centralized Passover since the days of Samuel, since Hezekiah had celebrated just such a Passover six chapters previously. However, Hezekiah had not celebrated “by the book”: his Passover had been on the wrong date, and his festival of unleavened bread did not last the proper number of days. Dillard (1987, 291) compared this statement to 2 Chron. 30:26, which states that there was not such a celebration as Hezekiah’s since the days of Solomon. Rudolph (1955, 329), followed by Williamson (1982, 407) and Klein (2012, 523), assumes that the reference is to the role of the Levites, which the Chronicler claims was established by David and Samuel. However, the Levites played a prominent role in Hezekiah’s Passover as well. It seems as if the Chronicler is referring to the totality, the Passover being done “by the book”: in Jerusalem, centrally, for the entire nation, and at its proper time. This had not happened through all of the days of “the kings of Israel,” probably using the term “Israel” in its more inclusive meaning, for the entire nation, instead of Kings’ “and all of the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah.”



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

437

It is not really clear why the Chronicler chose to change the reference to “the days of the judges who judged Israel” to “the days of Samuel the prophet,” except that, as Japhet (1993, 1054–55) points out, the days of the judges are generally rarely referred to in Chronicles, while “Samuel is a person of stature in Chronicles, mentioned by name seven times in different contexts, all of which are particular to Chronicles… he wrote the history of David, and together with him established the role of the gatekeepers.” By comparison, outside of the books of Samuel and Chronicles, Samuel is mentioned only twice in the rest of the Hebrew Bible (Jer. 15:1; Ps. 99:6). In the final part of v. 18, the Chronicler independently stresses once more that the celebrations included all parts of the nation: priests, Levites, “and all Judah and Israel who were present and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” The separate listing of “the inhabitants of Jerusalem” follows the Chronicler’s general tendency to treat Jerusalem as a separate “zone,” in which all parts of the nation had a share (see for example 1 Chron. 9:3 and the commentary there). The Death of Josiah Verse 19, adapted from 2 Kgs 23:23, serves here as a chronological and literary ending to the Passover narrative. Kings now adds a four-verse summary of Josiah’s righteousness, which was still not enough to turn the Lord’s wrath from Jerusalem, because of Manasseh’s sins. This is then followed by the standard regnal formula: “and the rest of the acts of Josiah and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah.” Then, almost as an afterthought, Kings adds, “in his days, Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went up against189 the king of Assyria on the River Euphrates, and Josiah went towards him,190 and he killed him at Megiddo when he saw him” (2 Kgs 23:29).

189.  The Hebrew expression used by Kings, âlâh…al, almost always means “to go up against.” However, the Babylonian Chronicle, as well as the account of Josephus (Ant. 10.74), make it clear that Necho rushed towards the Euphrates as an ally of the Assyrians. Many scholars take this as evidence that Kings’ source was either unreliable or misunderstood. Others conjecture an original more neutral âlâh…el, “went up to.” It is instructive to see how the KJV, faithful to the Hebrew and to the Latin contra, translates “against,” while the more modern translations such as NRSV and NIV translate “to.” NJPS retain “against,” but add in a note that “King of Assyria” actually means “the Chaldean Empire.” 190.  Wayyēlek…liqrâtô, is usually understood as having no belligerent connotations, but see Avioz 2009.

438

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

The manner and meaning of Josiah’s tragic death, and the significant differences between the way in which it is described in Kings and the way it is described in Chronicles, have stood at the center of scholarly debate for many years. In our introduction to the reign of Josiah above, we described the different views on the extent of Josiah’s kingdom and the measure of his independence: those who assume that Josiah had taken advantage of the Assyrian retreat from the region in order to gain control of large parts of the country, those who assume that Josiah’s achievements were less grand, but that he did extend the territory under his rule somewhat, and those who conclude that Josiah began his reign as a vassal of Assyria and continued as a vassal of Egypt, and never really achieved full independence. This debate has enormous repercussions on our understanding of the circumstances of Josiah’s death as well. For example, Aharoni (1979, 405), who assumed that Josiah had indeed taken over a large part of the country, wrote: Josiah attempted to stop Necho in the vicinity of Megiddo, the most strategically located pass on the Via Maris; he evidently hoped to block the Egyptian’s passage (2 Kings 23.29–30; 2 Chron. 35.20–4). We do not know whether Josiah was acting in league with Babylon…his main objective was doubtless to prevent the Egyptian domination of Palestine. His attempt failed. Josiah fell during the battle which took place in the Megiddo Valley, and his death marked the end of Judah’s brief period of independence.

We should note that Aharoni cited both the Kings account and the Chronicler’s, and that his description of the events is basically harmonistic. In a similar vein, Malamat, after first stating that the Chronicler’s description of the extent of Josiah’s reforms “is little more than a late, tendentious expansion” (1973, 271), then writes that for the battle, “we may prefer the fuller version in Chronicles” (1973, 275). On the opposite end of the scale is Na’aman, who holds a “minimalistic” view of Josiah’s kingdom in the first place. When analyzing the circumstances of Josiah’s death, he totally discounts the Chronicler’s account as “no more than a far-ranging, speculative interpretation, given by the author of Chronicles to the brief and unenlightening description in Kings” (Na’aman 1991, 54). Na’aman then speculates that the newly enthroned Necho used his passage northward in order to give his various Levantine vassals, Josiah included, an opportunity to swear their allegiance, for some reason suspected Josiah of treason, and slew him on



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

439

the spot.191 The Chronicler, in adapting the story from Kings, used it “in an attempt to adapt it to his own special doctrine of retribution, while integrating descriptions of the deaths of two rulers – Ahab, king of Israel (l Kgs 22:29–36), and Ahaziah, king of Judah (2 Kgs. 9:27–28) – which he found in his source, the Book of Kings.” Talshir (1996, 217) offers a similar analysis, and compares the situation with that described in 2 Kgs 16:10, in which the king of Assyria summons Ahaz to meet him in Damascus. While Na’aman’s own explanation for Josiah’s death at the hand of Necho is conjectural, he is correct in differentiating between the Kings account and that of the Chronicler. Kings really does not describe a battle, while Chronicles does. Each account should be read on its own. The question of which of the two accounts is more “historically reliable” depends on more than simply comparing the two. However, there exist two additional accounts of the death of Josiah, namely, those preserved in 1 Esd. 1:23–31, and in Josephus, Ant. 10.74– 78. Both of these accounts are quite obviously based on Chronicles or on a source close to it, but both also show significant divergences from Chronicles. Each has been analyzed both as possible sources for the study of the text of Chronicles and as literary compositions in their own right (for example, by Begg 1988b; Talshir 1996; Van der Kooij 1998). The account in Chronicles’ v. 20 begins with a chronological marker, “after all this, when Josiah had established the house.” The term that we have translated “established” is hēkîn, hiphil of KWN which we discussed above. Jonker (2002) has argued that this verb is used by the Chronicler in order to tie together the Passover celebrations of Hezekiah and of Josiah: what Hezekiah founded, Josiah established. Building upon this interpretation, we would read the verse as saying that by “establishing” the “house” with the Passover in his eighteenth year Josiah had completed his task. The events of the following 13 years are not important. According to the second part of v. 10, “Necho king of Egypt went up to fight at Carchemish on Euphrates, and Josiah went out towards him.” The mention of Carchemish, unmentioned in Kings but confirmed by the Babylonian Chronicle, is often taken as “proof” that the Chronicler had access to a historical source other than Kings (for example Williamson 1982, 408–10). On the other hand, Carchemish is mentioned in Jer. 46:2, in an oracle that concerns another battle between Necho and the 191.  Or, as expressed by Blenkinsopp (2013, 241): “If the unfortunate king was not put to death on the grounds of, or on suspicion of, sedition, it may have been simply pour encourager les autre (‘to encourage the others’) in the manner of other imperial despots before that time and since.”

440

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Babylonians that occurred four years later, in 605 BCE. Commentators who assume that the Chronicler did not have access to sources other than Kings (such as Talshir 1996, 214; Klein 2012, 525) explain his knowledge of Necho’s destination as a misreading of the information in Jeremiah. On the other hand, Chronicles does not mention “the king of Assyria” as does Kings, either because the Chronicler thought it unnecessary, or because it was absent in the Chronicler’s source, if that source was different from Kings. And finally, where kings says that Josiah wayyēlek, “went,” towards Necho, Chronicles specifies wayyêṣê, “went out,” which is usually understood to have the meaning of “to go out to war.” Johnstone (1997, 2:256) takes this even further. He relates the Chronicler’s use of the verb YṢ, “to advance” (we would use “to go out”), “to describe the onslaught of the nations”… “as early as 1 Chron. 1.12… but within the wider context of Cush and Nimrod…the rival powers of west and east, that Josiah is caught at this moment.” Actually, the verb YṢ does not appear in the Chronicler’s abbreviated version of “Cush and Nimrod,” but it is used in the longer version in Gen. 10:11, in which Nimrod “went out” from Babylon to Assyria. Johnstone further reminds us that every time a king of Judah “ventured forth…into the international arena,” the result was “the compromising of Jerusalem theology”: the rightful king of Israel should remain in Jerusalem, as the Lord’s agent among the nations of the earth. Verse 21 and most of v. 22 are unhinted at in Kings. Necho sends messengers to Josiah in order to “warn him off,” and in fact presents his northward journey as a mission from God. Josiah’s insistence, he says, will lead to his downfall, as a punishment by God. Ristau (2009, 232) compares this scene with that of Sennacherib’s attack in ch. 32: there, it was the foreign king who attacked Judah, claiming to speak in the name of God; here, Josiah attacked Necho, who indeed did speak in the name of God. And in the following verse, Josiah “did not listen to the words of Necho from the mouth of God.” This presentation of the king of Egypt as a messenger of God is unique. Even Williamson, who did assume that the Chronicler’s account was based on a historical source of some sort, commented that “it is hard to suppose that Neco would have explained his movements theologically” (1982, 409), but on the other hand, points out that the speech is not typically Chronistic either, since the Chronicler would have normally used a typical “Levitical sermon.” 1 Esdras replaces “the words of Necho” with “the words of the prophet Jeremiah.” Talshir (2001, 50) points out that Necho is not mentioned in 1 Esdras at all, and that the words ‫נכו‬, “Necho,” and ‫נביא‬, “prophet,” “have some orthographical features in



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

441

common,” although she does not think that the change was caused by an error. Rather, the author of 1 Esdras was uncomfortable with the idea that a pagan king would serve as a prophet of God. Jeremiah, on the other hand, is mentioned several times more in this chapter and in the next. Leuchter (2013, 408 n. 92) suggests that the original Vorlage might have actually named Jeremiah as the conveyer of God’s message, and it was the Chronicler who made the change to Necho, in order to fit what he read in Kings. Overall, the purpose of this exchange is clear. The Chronicler’s theology of retribution made it impossible for him to accept Kings’ claim that Josiah was to die for the sins of his grandfather Manasseh (who, according to Chronicles, had repented in any case). But since Kings’ Josiah was as close to a perfect king as was humanly possible, his tragic death must be explained as punishment for a sin which he himself committed. This sin, then, was not heeding the word of God, even when conveyed by a foreign king. The common assumption that the Chronicler’s model for a foreigner conveying the word of God was the speech of Rabshakeh in 2 Kgs 18:25 (for example Klein 2012, 527) is problematic, since the Chronicler himself chose not to include that part of the speech, but the principle is clear: had Josiah not been so obstinate, he would have lived. Josiah’s response to Necho’s message was to press on, not to turn away, “for he hitḥapês to fight him.” As discussed in the textual note, this verb is often understood as “to disguise oneself,” and the whole episode assumed to be modeled on the death of Ahab in 1 Kgs 22:30 = 2 Chron. 18:29 (for example Klein 2012, 257). However, not all commentators have accepted this interpretation, and both the Greek Chronicles and 1 Esdras have something like “he made an effort.” Josephus also does not know of Josiah’s “disguising himself.” It is difficult to understand why the Chronicler would have used the evil Ahab as a model for Josiah, especially when such a comparison is not even hinted at in Kings. We, following Talshir (2001, 50) and others, have rendered hitḥapês “he sought” (to fight with him) – once again, Josiah’s sin was his stubbornness, not his attempting any sort of subterfuge. Josiah’s fatal wound, according to v. 23, was caused by the enemy archers. Once again, this could be seen as having been modeled on the death of Ahab, although if Josiah did not disguise himself, the archers were probably targeting him purposely. 1 Esdras has the captains and chiefs of the Egyptian army attack Josiah personally, a version that either reflects the source that it was using, or its own attempt to make Josiah’s death more honorable. 1 Esdras also does not mention Josiah’s being transferred to his “second chariot,” perhaps envisioning him as riding into

442

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

battle on horseback (so Van der Kooij 1998, 101). In fact, where Kings has Josiah dying at Megiddo and being carried back to Jerusalem for burial, Chronicles at least hints that he was wounded in battle and was carried to Jerusalem and died there. Williamson (1982, 409) saw this as “a step toward ameliorating the problem of the non-fulfillment of Huldah’s prophecy that Josiah would be ‘gathered to your grave in peace’,” however Mitchell (2006, 422–23) thinks that the Chronicler is making a pun, using ‫ירושלם‬, “Jerusalem,” for ‫בשלום‬, “in peace” – “Josiah’s death in Jerusalem does fulfill the prophecy, but ironically.” Blenkinsopp (2013, 241) explained it differently: being gathered “in peace” to one’s burial place means “postmortem reintegration into the great kinship unit; therefore, shalom in the final and fullest sense.” This is carried even further by 1 Esdras, in which Josiah’s cry of ἠσθένησα γὰρ λίαν could be understood as meaning that he was simply “weak” or “ill,” rather than wounded, was taken to Jerusalem, and died there with no connection to the battle. This, thinks Klein (2012, 527), means that according to 1 Esdras Josiah actually did die in peace, fulfilling Huldah’s prophecy to the fullest. Wherever he actually died, Josiah was buried in Jerusalem. According to Kings, he was buried “in his tomb,” while Chronicles has “in the tombs of his fathers.” Klein (2012, 528) suggests a metathesis of the final two letters of ‫קברתו‬, “his tomb,” to ‫קברות‬, “the tombs of,” which prompted a copyist to add “his fathers,” like for Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 21:1), Amaziah (25:28) and Uzziah (26:23) before him. The Lament for Josiah and the Role of Jeremiah Josiah is the only king for whom the entire nation of “all Judah and Jerusalem” is said to have mourned, and the attachment of this statement to the verse that describes his burial is perhaps intended to imply that the people were mourning during the funeral ceremony itself. The theme of lamenting for Josiah is continued in the next verse, in which the root QYN, “to lament,” is repeated three times: by Jeremiah, by the singing men and singing women, and as the title of some sort of composition. The historical relationship between Josiah and the prophet Jeremiah is not at all clear. Josiah’s name does appear some seventeen times in the MT of Jeremiah, but most of these are either as dates or as part of references to Josiah’s sons. According to Jer. 1:2, Jeremiah began to prophesize in the thirteenth year of Josiah’s reign, but the only oracle in the entire book which is specifically said to have been uttered during the reign of Josiah is that beginning in Jer. 3:6. This seems strange, considering that Josiah lived for another eighteen years after that thirteenth year, and that his “reform” and his great Passover seem not to be mentioned in the book of



The Reign of Josiah – 2 Chronicles 34–35

443

Jeremiah at all. On the other hand, Jer. 22:11–17 seem to show that the prophet did respect Josiah, certainly when compared to his sons. Sweeney (2001, 208–33) has made a convincing case that Jeremiah was indeed a supporter of Josiah and his reforms, and that most of his prophecies of doom were uttered after the king’s death. There is no way to identify the specific lament that Jeremiah said or wrote for Josiah. Jeremiah 22:10, “Do not weep for the dead, nor bemoan him; weep rather for him who goes away, for he shall return no more to see the land of his birth,” is often cited as such a lament, or at least as evidence that such laments were known. On the other hand, the canonical book of Lamentations, which both the Septuagint and rabbinic tradition attribute to Jeremiah, is often identified with haqqînôt, “the Laments,” mentioned in our verse. Lamentations 4:20, “The breath of our life, the Lord’s anointed, was taken in their pits – the one of whom we said, ‘under his shade we shall live among the nations’,” is assumed by many to refer specifically to Josiah (for example Talshir 1996, 234–36). Others (such as Klein 2012, 528) think that the Chronicler was referring to “an alternate, now lost, book of lamentations.” The idea that mourning for Josiah was “set as an ordinance in Israel” and was practiced “to this day” is reminiscent of the mourning for Jephthah’s daughter in Judg. 11:39, which means that the reference could either allude to a custom still known to the Chronicler (or his source) or it could be a literary device. Blenkinsopp (2013, 248) assumed that there was an actual “transmission down to the time of writing, some two and a half centuries later, of the memory of the traumatic event by means of oral recital, and perhaps also ritual re-enactment.” In his opinion, the attribution of the “funeral dirge” to Jeremiah “is, in itself, feasible” since Jeremiah was active at the time and was “favorably inclined toward Josiah,” but these same features could just as well have led the Chronicler to attribute the lament to Jeremiah. Leuchter (2013, 409) suggested that the Chronicler’s purpose here was to correct what he saw as a problem, which was the non-mention of Jeremiah in Kings. There is, of course, no way to know for sure. The closing formula for Josiah in vv. 26–27 are a typical Chronistic adaptation of 2 Kgs 23:28, unusual only because of the reference to “his pious deeds as is written in the Torah of the Lord,” which, considering the specific events of Josiah’s reign, is not at all surprising. As noted above, the only other king whose ḥasâdâw, “his pious deeds,” are mentioned in his regnal summary is Hezekiah (2 Chron. 32:32). Baines (2013, 144–45), however, has pointed out the basic difference: whereas Hezekiah incurred God’s wrath, repented and lived a long, prosperous life, Josiah, by refusing to listen to God’s word by the mouth of Necho, incurred that

444

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

same anger, and “died a shameful death as a result of an injury incurred in a battle he should not have been involved in, thus marring his legacy.” As pointed out by Blenkinsopp (2013, 242–44), to the Chronicler, Josiah was indeed David redivivus: he began seeking the God of David as a youth, he worshipped as David, the Passover was done as David had ordered, the Levites were arranged as David had arranged them. Josiah brought his reforms to the northern tribes and included them in his rule, like David.

T h e L a st K in g s , E xile a nd R e de mp tio n – 2 C h r o n ic les 36

Chapter 36: 1 And the people of the land took Jehoahaz1 son of Josiah and made him king2 instead of his father in Jerusalem.  2 Three and twenty3 years old was Jehoahaz when he reigned, and three months he reigned in Jerusalem.4  3  And the king of Egypt removed him in Jerusalem5 and he 1.  The B-text of 1 Esd. 1:32 has Ιεχονιαν, “Jechoniah” instead of Ιωαχαζ, “Jehoahaz.” Since the following two references to Jehoahaz in Chronicles are missing in 1 Esdras, it is impossible to know whether this reading was in the Vorlage of the B-text or not (Talshir 2001, 63–64). 2.  ‫וימליכהו‬, literally, “and they kinged him.” In 2 Kgs 24 this is the second half of v. 30, the beginning of which told of the burial of Josiah: “And his servants mounted him, dead, from Megiddo, and brought him to Jerusalem and buried him in his tomb,” then continuing, as here, “and the people of the land took Jehoahaz son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him king instead of his father.” There are, however, three differences between the Kings version and that of the Chronicler: the first word in Kings is the singular ‫ויקח‬, “and…took,” referring to “the people of the land” as a collective, rather than Chronicles’ plural ‫( ויקחו‬although the following verbs are plural in Kings as well); the verb ‫וימשחו אתו‬, “and they anointed him,” which is omitted in the Chronicles MT but retained in the Greek as καὶ ἔχρισαν αὐτὸν, and thus also by Klein (2012, 530); and the final “in Jerusalem,” which is added in Chronicles but not in Kings. It is also absent from the LXXB of Chronicles and from 1 Esd. 1:32. See the commentary. 3.  Kings has “twenty and three,” as do the Greek and 1 Esdras εἴκοσι καὶ τριῶν. 4.  Kings adds, “and the name of his mother was Hamutal daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah,” which Chronicles typically skips. In 1 Esdras, this verse is divided: the king’s age at his ascent is included in the previous verse, while the following verse reads, “and he reigned three months in Judah and Jerusalem; and the king of Egypt removed him [from reigning] in Jerusalem.” The following verse in Kings, “and he did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord, as all that his fathers had done,” is absent from both Chronicles and 1 Esdras. 5.  “Removed him in Jerusalem,” which is a literal translation of ‫ בירושלם‬...‫ויסירהו‬, actually confuses the meaning of the text. 2 Kgs 23:33 reads, “And Pharaoh Necho imprisoned him (‫ )ויאסרהו‬at Riblah in the land of Hamath from reigning (NRSV ‘so that he might not reign’) in Jerusalem.” Chronicles replaced King’s initial ‫ויאסרהו‬, “and he imprisoned him,” with ‫ויסירהו‬, “and he removed him,” and thus avoided having to mention Riblah, which to him was an unnecessary detail. The Greek translates καὶ μετήγαγεν αὐτὸν ὁ βασιλεὺς εἰς Αἴγυπτον, “and he removed the king to Egypt,” but 1 Esdras’ καὶ

446

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

fined6 the land7 one hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold.8 4 And the king of Egypt9 made Eliakim10 his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem,11 and changed his name to Jehoiakim;12 and Necho took Jehoahaz his brother13 and brought him to Egypt.14 

ἀπεκατέστησεν αὐτὸν βασιλεὺς Αἰγύπτου βασιλεύειν ἐν Ιερουσαλημ, “and the king of Egypt removed him from being king in Jerusalem,” makes more sense, and is adopted by Rudolph (1955, 334), Japhet (1993, 1063) and Klein (2012, 530). NRSV and NJPS have “deposed him in Jerusalem” instead of “removed,” while Dillard (1987, 295) follows Kings – “the king of Egypt took him captive,” but then adds “in Jerusalem” instead of “Riblah.” 6.  ‫ויענש‬. Kings has ‫ויתן־ענש‬, “and he put/imposed a fine.” Both as a verb and as a noun, NŠ, usually refers to money paid as punishment, as in Exod. 21:22 or in Deut. 22:19, although it occasionally can mean other types of punishments or tributes. ‫יין ענושים‬ in Amos 2:8 is translated vinum damnatorum by the Vulgate, “wine of the condemned” in KJV, but “wine taken as fines” in NIV, and “wine bought with fines they imposed” in both NRSV and NJPS. For our verse NRSV has “laid on the land a tribute”; Dillard (1987, 294) “imposed on the land a tribute”; and Klein (2012, 530) “he taxed the land.” Cogan and Tadmor (1988, 303) translate Kings’ ‫ ויתן־ענש‬as “he imposed an indemnity.” 7.  Instead of “the land,” 1 Esd. 1:34 has τὸ ἔθνος, “the people.” According to Talshir (2001, 65), this is “probably an attempt to make sense of the text, since it is the people who pay the tribute.” Keel (1986, 936), explained “land” as meaning “the people of the land,” who were punished for enthroning Jehoahaz without Necho’s permission. He based this on 2 Kgs 23:35, and suggested that Jehoiakim was an accomplice in the matter. 8.  1 Esdras has ἀργυρίου ταλάντοις ἑκατὸν καὶ χρυσίου ταλάντῳ ἑνί, “silver talents a hundred and gold talent one.” Various versions of the Greek text add numbers, such as 10, 12 or 100, to the gold talents, which Klein (2012, 531) calls “corrections of a difficult text.” 9.  Kings has “Pharaoh Necho,” as does the Greek text of Chronicles. 1 Esdras here is similar to the Chronicles MT. 10.  1 Esdras calls the brother “Jehoiakim” from the start, with no change of name. 11.  Instead of “Eliakim his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem,” Kings has “Eliakim son of Josiah in place of Josiah his father,” implying that Necho did not recognize Jehoahaz as successor to Josiah. 12.  1 Esdras reads καὶ ἔδησεν Ιωακιμ τοὺς μεγιστᾶνας, “and Jehoiakim imprisoned the officials.” Who these “officials” were supposed to have been is not clear, but in any case no mention is made of the change of name. 13.  1 Esdras has Ζαριον δὲ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, “Zarios his brother,” where “his” is Jehoiakim’s. This means that Jehoahaz is completely absent from 1 Esdras. There is no other record of a “Zarios” among the sons of Josiah. Talshir (2001, 67) calls him “a mysterious brother,” and marks him as “??” in her text. Conversely Delamarter (1998, 198–201) identifies this “Zairos” with the prophet Uriah, whom Jer. 26:20–23 says was imprisoned and then murdered by Jehoiakim. 14.  Kings adds, “and he died there.” Jehoahaz’s death is not mentioned in Chronicles or in 1 Esdras, but 1 Esdras has ἐξ Αἰγύπτου, “from Egypt” instead of “to Egypt.” Since the subject there is Jehoiakin, it seems that Jehoiakin, after imprisoning the “officials,” then



The Last Kings, Exile and Redemption – 2 Chronicles 36

447

5 Twenty and five years old was Jehoiakim was when reigned, and eleven years he reigned15 in Jerusalem,16 and he did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord his God.17 6 Against him18 King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came up,19 and bound him with fetters20 to take him to Babylon. 7 And of the vessels of the house of the Lord Nebuchadnezzar21 brought to Babylon22 and put them in his temple23 in Babylon.  8 And the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and the

brought “his brother Zarios” out of Egypt. Klein (2012, 532) thinks that additional mem in the Vorlage of 1 Esdras ‫ממצרים‬, “from Egypt,” was a result of dittography, but Talshir (2001, 68) rejects attempts to emend this to “to Egypt.” She does not, however, supply an alternative explanation. The following verse in Kings, “And the silver and the gold Jehoiakim gave to Pharaoh, but he assessed the land give the silver according to Pharaoh’s demand, each according to his assessment, he exacted the silver and the gold from the people of the land, to give it to Pharaoh Necho,” is not paralleled in the MT of Chronicles. This additional text does appear in the Greek. 15.  The reference to eleven years is missing in 1 Esdras, perhaps through homoioteleuton of the similar endings of ‫ מלך‬and ‫מלכו‬, “he reigned…he reigned.” 16.  1 Esdras adds “in Judah and Jerusalem.” Here Kings adds, “and the name of his mother was Zebidah daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah.” This ends Kings’ v. 36. Japhet (1993, 1065) notes that by omitting the names of the kings’ mothers, the Chronicler obscures the fact that the sons of Josiah were actually half-brothers. 17.  2 Kgs 23:37 omits “his God,” as does 1 Esdras. Kings adds, “like all that his fathers had done.” In Kings, this is the end of ch. 23. 18.  In Kings, this is the beginning of ch. 24. There, the first word of the verse is ‫בימיו‬, “in his days,” instead of Chronicles’ ‫עליו‬, “against him.” 19.  At this point, 2 Kgs 24:1b–4 reads, “and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him. The Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, the bands of Aram, the bands of Moab and the bands of the sons of Ammon; he sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the Lord that he spoke by his servants the prophets. Surely this came upon Judah at the command of the Lord, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, for all that he had done. And also the innocent blood that he had spilled; for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the Lord was not willing to pardon.” This is omitted in Chronicles MT but included in the Greek, with the addition of “the innocent blood that Joiakim shed.” This is part of a process that can be seen in the Greek versions of the text, of what Delamarted (1998) called “the vilification of Jehoiakim” – showing that he personally shared some of the blame for the exile, and not only Manasseh. Chronicles’ vv. 6b–7 do not appear in Kings. 20.  ‫נחושתים‬. See the note on 2 Chron. 33:11. 21.  “Nebuchadnezzar” here omitted in the Greek Chronicles. 22.  This “Babylon” omitted in 1 Esdras. 23.  The word ‫היכל‬, originally from the Sumerian E.GAL, “big house,” via Akkadian ēkallu and with cognates in Ugaritic, Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic, can mean either “palace” or “temple” in the Bible (HALOT, 244–245). Klein (2012, 538) lists some of the

448

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

abominations24 that he did, and what was found against him,25 are written on the book of the kings of Israel and Judah;26 and his son Jehoiachin reigned in his place.27  9 Eight28 years old was Jehoiachin when he reigned; he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem;29 and he did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord.30

translations that use one or the other, and indeed NRSV, NJPS and others render “palace.” But as Klein and others note, both Ezra 1:7 and Dan. 1:2 mention that the Temple vessels had been put in “the house of his gods.” The Greek ἐν τῷ ναῷ αὐτοῦ, used in both the Septuagint and in 1 Esdras, and the Latin in templo suo make it clear that they understood ‫ היכל‬to mean “temple.” Finally, all other uses of ‫ היכל‬in Chronicles (2 Chron. 3:17; 4:7, 8, 22; 26:16; 27:2; 29:16) all clearly refer to the Temple of Yahweh – there is no reason to think that here the Chronicler would use this word differently. 24.  This verse parallels 2 Kgs 24:5, with a few differences. One is that instead of “the abominations that he did,” Kings simply has “and all that he did.” 1 Esd. 1:40 has καὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκαθαρσίας καὶ δυσσεβείας, “and his abominations and his sins.” Talshir (2001, 71) suggests that this might reflect a Vorlage such as ‫ותעבתיו ורשעתו‬. 25.  ‫והנמצא עליו‬, literally “and what was found on him.” Dillard (1987, 294): “all that was charged against him.” The phrase is missing from Kings, from the Greek Chronicles, from 1 Esdras and from the Syriac. Klein (2012, 532) wonders if this might not be a secondary addition to the MT. 26.  Kings has the usual “book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah.” The next verse in Kings begins, “and Jehoiakim lay with his fathers,” which is missing in Chronicles. 27.  Chronicles omits Kings’ v. 7: “And the king of Egypt did not come again out of his land, for the king of Babylon had taken from the Brook of Egypt to the River Euphrates, all that had belonged to the king of Egypt.” For the geo-political situation see the commentary. 28.  According to 2 Kgs 24:8, Jehoiachin was eighteen years old, ‫ שמנה־עשרה‬instead of ‫שמנה‬. Furthermore, where Chronicles says that he reigned three months and ten days, Kings has only three months. Keel (1986, 941) cites an array of Medieval commentators who attempted to harmonize the two dates: Seder Olam Raba assumes that the “eight” refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s eighth regnal year, Qimḥi suggested that Jehoiakim made his son Jehoiachin co-regent in his own first year, when the son was eight; now, ten years later, at his father’s death, he became sole ruler at eighteen. Malbim (Meïr Leibush ben Yehiel Michel Wisser, 1809–1879) suggested that it had been Necho who had made the eightyear-old Jehoiachin co-regent with his father. However, almost all modern commentators assume that Kings gives the correct figure, and that the ‫עשרה‬, “ten,” was deleted from Chronicles’ “eighteen” and transferred by scribal error to after the “three months,” with the word ‫ימים‬, “days,” then added as a “hyper-correction” (Japhet 1993, 1067), although both the Greek Chronicles and 1 Esdras have both “eighteen years” and “three months and ten days.” 29.  Chronicles skips Kings’ information about Jehoiachin’s mother, Nehushta daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 30.  Kings’ “as all that his father had done” is omitted by Chronicles.



The Last Kings, Exile and Redemption – 2 Chronicles 36

449

10 And at the turn of the year31 King Nebuchadnezzar sent32 and brought him to Babylon, with the precious vessels of the house of the Lord,33 and made Zedekiah his brother34 king over Judah and Jerusalem.  11  Twenty-one years old was Zedekiah when he reigned, and eleven years he reigned in Jerusalem.35  12 And he did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord his God;36 he did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet (who spoke)37 from the mouth of the Lord.  13 And he also rebelled against King

31.  ‫ולתשובת השנה‬, from ŠWB, meaning “to turn” or “to return.” The expression is similar to ‫ תקופת השנה‬in 2 Chron. 24:23, and see our note there. The specific form used here appears only in 1 Kgs 20:22 and 26 (about the king of Aram) and in 2 Sam. 11:1 = 1 Chron. 20:1, both of which read: “and it was at the turn of the year, the time when kings go out,” meaning “go out to battle” (see NRSV). Keel (1986, 941) explains that “turn of the year” can mean either “at the end of a year” from the previous event, in which case Jehoiachin would have been exiled after reigning for a full year, or a specific season, as seems to be the case in 2 Sam. 11:1 = 1 Chron. 20:1, which is probably why NRSV, there and here, renders “in the spring of the year.” Kings here reads simply “at that time.” 32.  According to 2 Kgs 24:10–16, the servants of Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the city, at the end of which Jehoiachin, his mother and a long list of officials, craftsmen and leaders of the city were exiled to Babylon, leaving only the poorest of the land. 33.  The Greek translates ‫ חמדת‬literally as ἐπιθυμητῶν, “desirable.” 1 Esdras has τοῖς ἱεροῖς σκεύεσιν τοῦ κυρίου, “the holy vessels of the Lord,” which Talshir (2001, 74) considers to be its regular translation of “the vessels of the Lords house,” meaning that 1 Esdras leaves ‫ חמדת‬untranslated. 34.  2 Kgs 24:17 has, “and he made Mattaniah his uncle king in his place, and changed his name to Zedekiah.” This agrees with such passages as Jer. 37:1, “Zedekiah son of Josiah became king in place of [Je]choniah son of Jehoiakim.” Some commentators assume that by calling Zedekiah Jechoniah’s son Chronicles is simply mistaken (for example, Myers 1965, 2:218; Williamson 1982, 414), while others assume that “brother” can mean “kinsman” in a wider sense (NJPS; Dillard 1987, 295). The Greek has ἀδελφὸν τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, “brother of his father,” while 1 Esdras simply omits the relationship. This verse in Chronicles replaces vv. 10–17 in 2 Kgs 24. See the commentary. 35.  This verse parallels 2 Kgs 24:18 and also Jer. 52:1 word for word, except that they both end with “and the name of his mother was Hamutal daughter of Jeremiah from Libnah,” which Chronicles omits. 36.  2 Kgs 24:19 = Jer. 52:2 omit “his God,” but add, “as all that Jehoiakim had done.” 37.  The words “who spoke” are not represented in the Hebrew but are necessary to complete the sentence in English. NJPS has “who spoke for the Lord,” while Dillard (1987, 295) has “he did not humble himself before the word of Yahweh from the mouth of Jeremiah the prophet.” 1 Esdras has καὶ οὐκ ἐνετράπη ἀπὸ τῶν ῥηθέντων λόγων ὑπὸ Ιερεμιου τοῦ προφήτου ἐκ στόματος τοῦ κυρίου, “and he did not humble himself before the word of Jeremiah the prophet from the mouth of the Lord.”

450

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Nebuchadnezzar,38 who had made him swear by God;39 and he stiffened his neck and hardened40 his heart against turning to the Lord, God of Israel.41 14 Also all the officers of the priests and the people42 were exceedingly unfaithful,43 like all the abominations of the nations; and they polluted the house of the Lord that he had consecrated in Jerusalem. 15 And the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by hand of his messengers,44 rising and sending,45 because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place.46  16 And they were47 mocking the

38.  The first half of this verse is based on the second half of 2 Kgs 24:20 = Jer. 52:3, “So much was the anger of the Lord on Jerusalem and Judah that he expelled them from his presence; and Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon.” 2 Kgs 25 and the parallel sections of Jeremiah are not represented in Chronicles, in which vv. 13b–21 are an independent composition. 39.  1 Esdras: τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου, “in the name of the Lord.” 40.  1 Esdras: καὶ σκληρύνας αὐτοῦ τὸν τράχηλον καὶ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ, “and stiffened his neck and his heart,” without the verb “hardened.” 41.  1 Esdras: παρέβη τὰ νόμιμα κυρίου θεοῦ Ισραηλ, “from turning to the Torah of the Lord God of Israel.” 42.  ‫כל־שרי הכהנים והעם‬. NRSV: “all the leading priests and the people,” but ‫ שר‬usually refers to an official; ‫ שרי הכהנים‬appear, for example, in Ezra 8:24. It is possible that our verse actually means “the officers of the priests and [the officers of] the people.” 1 Esdras has καὶ οἱ ἡγούμενοι δὲ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τῶν ἱερέων, “the officers of the people and the priests.” ‫ שרי העם‬appears in 1 Chron. 21:2, and ‫ שרי יהודה‬or ‫ שרי ישראל‬are quite common. 1 Esdras has: καὶ πάντες οἱ ἔνδοξοι Ιουδα καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ ὁ λαὸς τῆς γῆς, “all the officers of Judah and the priests and the people of the land.” Japhet (1993, 1070) proposes to emend the text in similar vein. 43.  ‫הרבו למעל־מעל‬. NJPS: “committed many trespasses.” 1 Esdras has πολλὰ ἠσέβησαν καὶ ἠνόμησαν, “much unfaithfulness and transgression.” 44.  1 Esd. 1:48 has τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ, “his messenger,” in the singular. Talshir (2001, 81) assumes that this is a mistake, since “the spirit of the message” is that of God constantly sending warnings to the people. 45.  ‫השכם ושלוח‬. As a verb, ‫ השכם‬means “to rise,” mostly in the morning. In Chron­ icles it is used only in 2 Chron. 20:20 and 29:20 (and see notes there), but it is quite common throughout the Bible. In 1 Sam. 17:16, Goliath would come out to taunt the Israelites ‫השכם והערב‬, “morning and evening.” The term, however, is especially common in Jeremiah, who uses ‫השכם ודבר‬, “rising and speaking” (7:13; 25:3; 35:14); ‫השכם והעד‬, “rising and testifying” (11:7); ‫השכם ולמד‬, “rising and teaching” (32:33); and the very expression used here, ‫השכם ושל(ו)ח‬, no fewer than five times (7:25; 25:4; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4), all within the context of God’s constantly warning the people, and they not taking heed. Most translations use “persistently” and the like. 1 Esdras’ μετακαλέσαι αὐτούς, “to return them,” reads ‫ השבם‬instead of ‫השכם‬. 46.  ‫מעונו‬. The only other use of ‫ מעון‬as God’s dwelling place in Chronicles is in 2 Chron. 30:27, which refers to his heavenly dwelling. 47.  ‫ויהיו‬, expressing that this was a continuous state of being. NRSV: “but they kept mocking.”



The Last Kings, Exile and Redemption – 2 Chronicles 36

451

messengers of God,48 despising his words,49 and scoffing at his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord against his people became so great that there was no remedy.50  17 And he brought up against them the king51 of the Chaldeans,52 who killed their youths53 with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion on youth and maiden, elder or feeble;54 all were given into his hand. 18 And all the vessels of the house of God, large and small, and the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king and of his officers, all these he brought to Babylon. 19 And they burned the house of God, and smashed the wall of Jerusalem, and all its palaces55 they burned with fire, and all its precious vessels56 destroyed.  48.  1 Esdras: τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ, “his messengers.” 49.  1 Esdras: καὶ ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ἐλάλησεν κύριος, “and on the day the Lord spoke.” Talshir (2001, 83) suggests that the Hebrew ‫ ובזים דבריו‬was read ‫וביום דבר יו‬, where the ‫ ז‬of ‫ובזים‬ was read as ‫ו‬, and the final ‫ יו‬of ‫ דבריו‬was read as the abbreviated form of the divine name. 50.  1 Esdras: διὰ τὰ δυσσεβήματα, “for their sins.” Talshir (2001, 83) assumes that the writer was using a different Vorlage than that of the MT. 51.  1 Esdras has “kings” in the plural, as well as the following verbs. 52.  “Chaldeans,” Hebrew ‫כשדים‬, Greek Χαλδαίων, were a group of Aramaicspeaking tribes that moved from northern Syria into southern Mesopotamia during the early first millennium BCE, and eventually became the rulers of the “Neo-Babylonian” Empire that rebelled against Assyria and then took over the Levant – the dynasty that included Nabupolassar and Nebuchadnezzar. They are mentioned frequently in 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, in which “Chaldeans” is practically synonymous with “Babylonians.” In Daniel and in later Second Temple-period literature, the word becomes a title for wise men, magicians or astrologers (for more details see Dietrich, Mayfield and Brummitt 2012; Frame 2013). This is the only mention of “Chaldeans” in Chronicles. 53.  ‫בחור‬, meaning “young man,” appears often in Deutero-Isaiah, in Jeremiah, in Ezekiel and in Lamentations. In Chronicles it is used only in this verse – twice. As in the second time here, it is often paralleled with ‫בתולה‬, “virgin,” “maiden,” “young woman.” 54.  ‫בחור ובתולה זקן וישש‬. NRSV: “young man or young woman, the aged or the feeble.” NJPS: “youth, maiden, elder or greybeard.” The fourth of these, ‫ישש‬, is a hapax legomenon, although ‫ ישיש‬appears four times in Job (12:12; 15:10; 19:8; 32:6), all but the second of these in the plural ‫ישישים‬, and certainly referring to old men. The Greek renders καὶ οὐκ ἐφείσατο τοῦ Σεδεκιου καὶ τὰς παρθένους αὐτῶν οὐκ ἠλέησαν καὶ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους αὐτῶν ἀπήγαγον, “and they did not have mercy on Zedekiah and on their maidens, and the old men they led away,” which Allen (1974, 1:150) ascribes to a series of scribal errors. 1 Esdras has νεωτέρου, “youth,” for ‫ישש‬, which Talshir (2001, 84) explains by either a Vorlage such as ‫נער‬, or the translators lack of understanding the rare noun. 55.  ‫ארמנותיה‬, plural of ‫ארמון‬, which is used in Chronicles only here. From the context of its appearances, it obviously refers to a king’s fortified house (see 1 Kgs 16:18). HALOT (89) suggests that it is derived from RWM, and refers to “the massive fortified residence of the king” and that it is the “indigenous” word, as opposed to the loan-word ‫היכל‬. DCH (1:382–83) translates it “fortress.” In our case, it is translated βάρεις, “fortresses” in the Greek Chronicles, πύργους, “towers,” in 1 Esdras, turres in the Vulgate, “palaces” in KJV and NRSV, “mansions” in NJPS and “citadels” by Klein (2012, 531). 56.  ‫וכל־כלי מחמדיה‬. This reference to the destruction of the “precious vessels” is

452

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

20 And he exiled those who remained from the sword57 to Babylon, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia;58 21 to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed59 its Sabbaths; all the days of desolation it kept Sabbath,60 to fulfill seventy years.  22 And61 in year one62 of Cyrus king of Persia, to fulfill63 the word of the Lord by the mouth64 of Jeremiah, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, and he sent a proclamation65 throughout all his kingdom and also in writing, to say: 

problematic, since the ‫כלי חמדת בית יהוה‬, “precious vessels of the house of the Lord” had already been taken in v. 10, and ‫כל כלי בית האלהים‬, “all the vessels of the house of God” were taken again in v. 18. Keel (1986, 949) explains that these are now the “precious vessels” of Jerusalem, not of the Temple. Japhet (1993, 1073–74) suggests that the text here was originally ‫כל־מחמדיה‬, “all its delights,” referring to the Temple itself, and that the word ‫כל‬, “all” was copied a second time as ‫כלי‬, “vessels.” 57.  ‫השארית מן־החרב‬. NRSV translates less literally, “those who had escaped from the sward.” 58.  The Greek has βασιλείας Μήδων, “the kingdom of the Medes.” 59.  ‫רצתה‬, from RṢH, which can mean either “be pleased, enjoy” or “pay, restore, make amends for” (DCH 7:540–43). NJPS translated “made up.” The same verb is used in the same contexts in Lev. 26:34 and 43, on which see the commentary. 60.  ‫שבתה‬, literally “it sabbathed,” “it rested.” NRSV and NJPS: “it kept sabbath.” Klein (2012, 531) has “it kept the Sabbath year.” See the commentary. 61.  The final two verses of 2 Chron. 36 parallel the first two verses of Ezra 1 and of 1 Esd. 2. 1 Esdras, the Vulgate and the Syriac lack the conjunctive waw at the beginning of this verse. 62.  As pointed out by Carasik (2002, 16), this was actually “year one” of Cyrus as king of Babylon – by that time he had been king of Persia for twenty years. This date, “year one of Cyrus king of Persia” is also repeated in Ezra 1:1; 5:13 and 6:3. In his opinion, this indicates that for the writer (of Ezra), “the years before Cyrus stepped onto the stage of biblical history, before he became king of Babylon, are unimportant.” 63.  ‫לכלות‬, from KLH, would be better translated “to complete.” This verse is taken from Ezra 1:1. In the previous verse, which is the Chronicler’s own, he uses ‫למלאת‬, from ML, “fill,” in exactly the same phrase, “to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah.” It is possible that the difference is the result of confusion between the graphically similar letters ‫ כ‬and ‫מ‬. In the Septuagint of Chronicles, both verses use πληρωθῆναι, from πληρόω, “to fill.” The Greek Ezra uses τελεσθῆναι, from τελέω, “to complete,” and 1 Esdras uses ἀναπλήρωσιν, “to fill,” in 1:54 (= 2 Chron. 36:21) and συντέλειαν, “to complete,” in 2:1. 64.  ‫בפי‬, “in the mouth.” Ezra 1:1 has ‫מפי‬, “from the mouth.” The difference was apparently caused by the graphic similarity of ‫ ב‬and ‫מ‬, and both are perfectly acceptable idioms. 1 Esdras ἐν στόματι reflects ‫בפי‬, like Chronicles. 65.  ‫ויעבר־קול‬, literally, “and he made a voice pass.” NRSV translates “sent a herald.”



The Last Kings, Exile and Redemption – 2 Chronicles 36

453

23 Thus said Cyrus king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth the Lord, God of heaven,66 has given me, and he has charged me to build for him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah; whoever is among you of all his people, the Lord67 his God is with him, and let him go up.

Commentary Chapter 36, the final chapter of Chronicles, can roughly be divided into three sections. In the first, vv. 1–13a, the Chronicler briefly recalls the history of the last four kings of Judah, basically abbreviating the text of 2 Kgs 23:30b–24:20. In the second part of the chapter, vv. 13b–21, the Chronicler conveys his own ideas on the reason for the fall of the kingdom and the exile of Judah. In the final section, vv. 21–23, the Chronicler gives his readers hope for the future, by recounting the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy in the edict of Cyrus. This section begins with a repetition of that prophecy (with v. 21 serving as both the final verse of the second section and as the opening of the third), and then famously cites the edict from Ezra 1:1–3a. Each of these sections has its own unique style and character, and as a whole they bring the story of pre-exilic Israel to an end. The Last Kings of Judah: Jehoahaz According to 1 Chron. 3:15, Josiah had four sons: Johanan, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah and Shallum. However now, according to 2 Kgs 23:30–31 = 2 Chron. 36:1–2, upon Josiah’s death, the “people of the land” enthroned his 23-year-old son Jehoahaz, whose name does not appear in 1 Chron. 3:15 at all. Actually, the Lucianic recension of the Septuagint for 1 Chron. 3:15 does render Ιωαχαζ, “Joahaz,” instead of “Johanan,” but this is generally believed to be a late harmonization. Japhet (1993, 97), for example, assumes that Josiah’s eldest son Johanan must have either died young or was unfit for the throne, and is not mentioned in 2 Kings 23 or in 2 Chronicles 36 because he never actually reigned. Jeremiah 22:11–12 66.  Japhet (1993, 1076) points out that this is the only place in which Chronicles uses the title “God of heaven,” which is common in Persian-period texts. 1 Esd. 2:3 has ὁ κύριος τοῦ Ισραηλ, κύριος ὁ ὕψιστος, “God of Israel, God of heaven.” 67.  Ezra 1:3 reads ‫יהי‬, “let be,” instead of Chronicles’ ‫יהוה‬, “YHWH,” which means that where Ezra reads “let his God be with him, and he shall ascend to Jerusalem which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel, he is the God who is in Jerusalem,” the book of Chronicles concludes, “the Lord his God is with him, and let him go up.” At first glance, such a “truncated” break, in the middle of a phrase, seems strange. However Carasik (2002, 18–19) reads the command to “go up” as a new beginning – the end of the story is when Israel is at the beginning of a new era.

454

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

does speak of a Shallum son of Josiah, who reigned instead of his father and who was exiled, never to return. Since this is exactly what happened to Jehoahaz, it is quite likely that Shallum and Jehoahaz are one and the same, with the former being his birth name and the latter his throne name. Such changes of name would become the rule among Josiah’s sons. The position of Shallum at the end of the list in 1 Chron. 3:15 rather than at its beginning may simply be an error, or it may reflect additional factors that were known to the author and are not known to us. The history of the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the sixth was a turbulent one. Whatever Josiah’s status had been, the status of his sons is clear. Upon Josiah’s death, the ubiquitous “people of the land” enthroned his second son, Jehoahaz. As with the enthronement of Josiah himself, scholars are divided over the question of just who these am hââreṣ were and who they represented. Ishida (1975, 37) insisted that they represented “the nationalistic party.” Japhet (1993, 1059) is not sure whether they are a strictly defined group or a general designation for “the rural gentry,” but also reads their enthronement of Jehoahaz as an anti-Egyptian political statement. The fact that they preferred Jehoahaz over his elder brother Jehoiakim, who would have normally been first in line of succession, may have been due to the former’s anti-Egyptian leanings. Of course, Josiah may have appointed him in advance for some other reason, such as favoring his mother Hamutal over Zebidah, mother of Jehoiakim. The fact that he was “anointed,” as mentioned in Kings, is unusual. In fact, as Cogan and Tadmor (1988, 291) pointed out, this happened previously only to Solomon and to Jehoash, both of whom were enthroned “irregularly.” If the omission of the “anointment” in Chronicles is purposeful and not due to a scribal error (as assumed by Klein 2012, 530), it may be because the Chronicler did not wish to credit “laymen” (that is, non-priests or non-prophets) with such anointing, although Japhet (1993, 1059) also suggests that it may have been because the Chronicler did not wish to ascribe being anointed to a king whose kingship did not last and who ended up dying in exile. In the meanwhile, as we know from the Babylonian Chronicle and other sources, Necho II of Egypt, after his “meeting” with Josiah at Megiddo, continued north with his army, fought against the Babylonians and the Medes at Carchemish on the Euphrates, and attempted to conquer Haran as well. In this he failed, but he did manage to stabilize the lines on the Euphrates, becoming, in effect, ruler of all of the Levant. If Josiah had managed to establish some sort of independent status for Judah, it was now ended (Rainey and Notley 2006, 260). According to 2 Kgs 23:33–34, Necho imprisoned Jehoahaz at Riblah on the Orontes south of Hamath,



The Last Kings, Exile and Redemption – 2 Chronicles 36

455

which he apparently turned into his Syrian base. The text does not say whether Jehoahaz travelled there voluntarily, possibly to swear his fealty or to offer tribute, or whether he was forced to go, perhaps to answer charges of disloyalty. Necho’s imposition of a “fine” or “indemnity” on Judah rather than just the usual “tribute” or “gift,” as well as his taking of Jehoahaz to Egypt where he eventually died, presumably as a hostage who was supposed to insure the good behavior of his brothers, seems to point to the latter, as does Necho’s “changing” Eliakim’s name to Jehoiakim. Such changing of a vassal king’s name is often seen as being intended to establish the suzerain’s authority over the vassal – to name something is akin to owning it (Dillard 1987, 299). Nebuchadnezzar would do the same for Mattaniah/Zedekiah. However in both cases, the “second” name was just as “Judahite” and “Yahwistic” as the first; Necho did not force an Egyptian name on Eliakim, and Nebuchadnezzar did not give Mattaniah a Babylonian name. Considering the fact that Shallum was also called Jehoahaz without the intervention of Necho (as far as we know), we should consider that perhaps there was another, inner-Judahite, reason that all three of Josiah’s sons who came to the throne adopted new names, and that Necho and Nebuchadnezzar’s “changing their names” was at most giving their approval. Chronicles does not mention Jehoahaz’s journey to Riblah or the fact that he died in Egypt. In fact, as pointed out by Williamson (1982, 412), the Chronicler avoids mention of the death of any of the last four kings. This has the effect “of toning down the rigid separation between each of their reigns,” basically combining them all into one episode. According to Japhet (1993, 1064), the Chronicler omits reference to the deaths and burials of the last kings and even the release of Jehoiachin, because they happened outside of the Land of Israel: “the arena of the history of Israel is the land of Israel; whatever happens outside it is beyond the Chronicler’s purview.” The Chronicler also omitted the comment in Kings’ v. 32 that Jehoahaz did evil in the eyes of the Lord, perhaps because he thought that three months was not enough time for him to commit evil. The comment about doing evil in the eyes of the Lord is not omitted in the cases of Jehoahaz’s three successors, although for all of them the Chronicler does omit “as all that his fathers had done,” first of all because the personal father of two of them, Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, had actually been righteous, but mostly in order to emphasize that unlike the writer of Kings, for the Chronicler the kings’ evil was not cumulative – each king in turn was punished for his own sins.

456

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Jehoiakim Jehoiakim ruled for eleven years, approximately from 609 to 698 BCE. 2 Kings 23:36 emphasizes that he oppressed the people and taxed them heavily in order to pay the “fines” that were imposed by Necho on his brother Jehoahaz. In the meantime, the Babylonian Chronicle informs us that the Babylonians continued to press the Egyptians along the Euphrates. Finally, in 605 and 604, the armies of the newly enthroned Nebuchadrezzar II (often spelled Nebuchadnezzar in the Bible) conquered Hamath, came down the coast and destroyed Ashkelon (perhaps because there was an Egyptian garrison in the city; see Fantalkin 2011). A final battle near Gaza in 601 ended the short period of Egyptian rule. 2 Kings 34:7, not quoted by the Chronicler, explains: “And the king of Egypt did not come again out of his land, for the king of Babylon had taken from the Brook of Egypt to the River Euphrates, all that had belonged to the king of Egypt” (for the wider context see Rainey and Notley 2006, 260–64). Most of the rulers of the small Levantine states seem to have hoped that the ongoing struggle between the empires would be to their advantage, and attempted to navigate between them. Jehoiakim of Judah was no different. According to Kings, he first served Nebuchadnezzar, but revolted at the end of three years, perhaps, as assumed by Lipschits (2002, 4), due to renewed Egyptian influence in the area after the failure of Nebuchadnezzar’s attempted invasion of Egypt. In reaction, “the Lord” sent bands of Chaldeans (meaning Babylonians; see the note on v. 17 above), Arameans,68 Moabites and Ammonites (probably symbolic for Israel’s enemies: there had not been a kingdom of Aram since 734 BCE, and Moab and Ammon were Babylonian vassals just as was Judah) who ravaged Judah, as punishment for the sins of Manasseh and as predicted by the prophets.69 Jehoiakim, however, “lay with his fathers,” and was succeeded by his son Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 24:5–6). Smit (1994) understands this as meaning that he was actually killed in battle against Nebuchadnezzar and left to rot on the battlefield, as prophesized by Jeremiah (22:19; 36:30, but see below). Lipschits (2002, 5), after rejecting proposals that he had either been assassinated or had died by his own 68.  It has occasionally been suggested that ‫ארם‬, “Aram,” should be emended to ‫אדם‬, “Edom,” which did still exist and is known to have been an enemy of Judah at the time, but most scholars have rejected this proposal. See Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 306; Lipschits 2002 n. 38. 69.  Lipschits (2002, 8) assumes these “bands” to have been Babylonian “auxiliary forces” who were made up of members of conquered nations and tribes, sent in advance of the main Babylonian army.



The Last Kings, Exile and Redemption – 2 Chronicles 36

457

hand in order to save the city from Nebuchadnezzar’s wrath, claimed that Jehoiakim must have died a natural death, since anything else would have been noted by the author. The reference to Jehoiakim’s “laying with his fathers” is typical of the royal death notices in Kings, and is usually copied by Chronicles as well. What is not typical is the lack of notice of a place of burial. Most of the kings of Judah were buried “in the city of David.” Manasseh and Amon, both evil in Kings, were buried in “the garden of Uzza” (2 Kgs 21:18 and 26), while the pious Josiah was buried “in his tomb” (2 Kgs 23:30). In Lipschits’s view, the place of Jehoiakim’s burial was purposely omitted by the book of Kings, in order not to contradict the prophecy of Jeremiah. The Chronicler’s version is rather different. The sins of Manasseh are not mentioned, nor are the various “bands” that were “sent” against Judah. Instead, the king of Babylon himself came and bound Jehoiakim in fetters, “to take him to Babylon” as punishment for “the abominations that he did, and what was found against him.” Nebuchadnezzar also took some of the vessels of the Temple to display in his own temple in Babylon. No mention is made of Jehoiakim’s death and burial, but the inference is that both occurred in Babylon as well. The differences between these two accounts of Jehoiakim’s fate are significant and seemingly contradictory. Williamson (1982, 414), Keel (1986, 937–38) and Dillard (1987, 299) attempt to harmonize by claiming that the text does not actually say that Jehoiakim was taken to Babylon, only that Nebuchadnezzar intended to do so, and perhaps did not, with just the threat being enough to cower him into submission. They also raise the possibility of a temporary exile from which Jehoiakin returned, as had been Manasseh. From a literary point of view, the connection with the arrest of Manasseh in 2 Chron. 33:11 is clear, even if the historical circumstances are not. Williamson also suggests that the Chronicler misunderstood his source. Japhet (1993, 1066) disagrees: “the unavoidable conclusion seems to be that II Kgs 24.1–6 and the Chronicler’s view are not complementary but deliberately exclusive, expressing alternative views of the fortunes of king and land at that time.” Lipschits (2002, 12–13) notes that in Chronicles all four of Josiah’s successors are exiled from the land, after which they are of no further interest to the author. Another version of Jehoiakim’s death and burial appears in the Greek text of Chronicles (but not of Kings): καὶ ἐκοιμήθη Ιωακιμ μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐτάφη ἐν Γανοζα μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ, “and Joiakim lay with his fathers and was buried in Ganoza with his fathers.” This “Ganoza” can only be Gan Uzzâ, “the garden of Uzza,” mentioned in 2 Kgs 21:18 and 26 as the burial place of Manasseh and of his son Amon,

458

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

which is interpreted by Delamarter (1998, 197) as part of the process of the “vilification” of Jehoiakim: “even in death, Jehoiakim was in bad company.” The schema pictured in Chronicles also seems to have been taken literally by the author of Dan. 1:1–2, who begins his story with the exile of Jehoiakim and “a few of the vessels of the house of God” to Babylon. On the other hand it seems to contradict the prophecies of Jeremiah that Jehoiakim would “be buried the burial of an ass, dragged and tossed outside the gates of Jerusalem” (Jer. 22:19), and that “his corpse shall be thrown out, to the heat of the day and the cold of night” (36:30). We should, however, keep in mind that not all prophecies are meant to be taken literally and, in fact, the latter verse itself begins by stating that no descendant of Jehoiakim shall sit on the throne of David, which of course is exactly what Jehoiakim’s son Jehoiachin did.70 Jehoiakim’s final rebellion against the king of Babylon took place in 600 or 599, probably encouraged by the ultimate failure of Nebuchad­ nezzar’s attempts to conquer Egypt. The Babylonian Chronicle relates that Nebu­chadnezzar marched west in the month of Kislev of his seventh year (December 598–January 597), and in Adar (March–April 597) he conquered “the City of Judah” (Jerusalem), captured the king and appointed a new king “of his own choosing” and brought heavy tribute back to Babylon (see Rainey and Notley 2006, 264). Jeremiah 52:28 says that Nebuchadnezzar carried off 3,023 Judeans in his third year. Jehoiachin The chronicle does not actually name either the captured king or the new one. But from both the biblical and later Babylonian records it seems clear, that by the time Nebuchadnezzar arrived in Jerusalem Jehoiakim was dead (at the age of 36! – Rainey and Notley 2006, 264 suggest that he may have been assassinated, thus fulfilling Jeremiah’s prophecies of his violent death) and that the king who was exiled was the young Jehoiachin, also known as Jechoniah (1 Chron. 3:16–17; Est. 2:6; Jer. 24:1; 27:20; 28:4; 29:2) and Choniah (Jer. 22:24, 28; 37:1). Unlike in the cases of Josiah’s sons, these are not a private name and a throne name, but simply different spellings of the same name. He, too, is said to have done evil,

70.  The seeming discrepancies between the biblical sources led to the question of Jehoiakim’s death being discussed in later generations as well. Josephus, in Ant. 10.96–97, claims that Jehoiakim surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar, who then treacherously killed him. The various rabbinic and Patristic sources have additional traditions about his death. See Begg 1996.



The Last Kings, Exile and Redemption – 2 Chronicles 36

459

but the text does not elaborate, and Chronicles omits the comparison with the sins of “his fathers” here as well. Once again, there is a significant difference between the descriptions of Jehoiachin’s deportation in Kings and in Chronicles. In Kings, At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up to Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to the city, while his servants were besieging it. And Jehoiachin king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he and his mother and his servants and his officers and his palace officials; and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign. And he took from there all of the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the house of king; he cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the Temple of the Lord, as the Lord had said. And he exiled all of Jerusalem, all the officials, all the warriors, ten thousand captives, all the artisans and the smiths; no one remained, except the poorest of the land. And he exiled Jehoiachin to Babylon; and the king’s mother, and the king’s wives, and his officials and the leaders of the land, he took into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon. And all the men of valor, seven thousand, and the artisans and the smiths, one thousand, all of them strong and fit for war, the king of Babylon brought to exile in Babylon. (2 Kgs 24:10–16)

As pictured in Kings, the exile of Jehoiachin was a major stage in the fall of Judah. Jerusalem was “emptied” of thousands of its political, military and economic elite, leaving only “the poorest of the land.” Indeed, from further biblical references we know that this eventually came to be considered the foundational event of the Babylonian exile, and was referred to as such in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Esther, Daniel and more. From Babylonian documents we know that at least some of the exiles settled as a community, and that Jehoiachin himself, and later his sons, were recognized as leaders of that community. The very last verses of 2 Kings (25:27–30), telling how Evil-merodach king of Babylon (Amēl-Marduk, Nebuchadnezzar’s son) released Jehoiachin from prison and awarded him and his sons food-rations for life is confirmed by Babylonian documents (Rainey and Notley 2006, 271). It is quite clear that for many of the biblical writers, Jehoiachin continued to be the “real” king of Judah even after his deportation (for more on this see Avishur and Heltzer, 2007). In fact, the Chronicler himself seems to indicate the same, when he continues his genealogy of the Davidic line in 1 Chron. 3:17 with Jechoniah and his sons. This considered, the low-key description of the Chronicler is surprising. In his version, there was no siege, Nebuchadnezzar did not bother himself to come, he simply sent for Jehoiachin, and Jehoiachin came, together

460

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

with “the precious vessels of the house of the Lord,” whatever that refers to. As Japhet (1993, 1067) points out, only the king himself is affected; he is not accompanied by family or by any entourage. Indeed, unlike in the following verses, in v. 9 only Jehoiachin “did evil in the eyes of the Lord.” No one else sinned, so no one else was punished. Zedekiah This changes when we come to Zedekiah. The Chronicler’s account of Zedekiah’s reign diverges from that of Kings even more than the accounts of his predecessors. As in Kings, Zedekiah was appointed by Nebuchadnezzar to replace Jehoiachin. Chronicles, Kings, Jer. 52:1 and 1 Esd. 1:44 all agree that he was twenty-one years old when he reigned, and that he reigned for eleven years. Kings and Jeremiah mention his mother, Hamutal, whom we remember as a wife of Josiah and the mother of Jehoahaz, and her omission from Chronicles fits the now-familiar pattern. All four sources tell us that he did evil in the eyes of the Lord, but the comparison to Jehoiakim (rather than “his fathers,” interesting in itself) is missing in Chronicles and in 1 Esdras. And, as already noted, where from Kings and Jeremiah it is clear that Zedekiah was actually Jehoiachin’s uncle, a son of Josiah, Chronicles calls him Jehoiachin’s “brother,” which, despite the various attempts at harmonization, seems to reflect a simple error.71 At this point, in the middle of v. 12, the similarities end. The basic story-line, of course, is the same: from a close reading of the Babylonian sources and the various records in Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, we know that by 593 the new king of Egypt, Psamtik (Psammetichus), followed by his son Hophra, was busy trying to convince the small Levantine states, including Judah, to rebel against Babylon. By 589 Zedekiah had joined the rebellion. 2 Kings 24:20 = Jer. 52:3 states, “Because of the anger of the Lord against Jerusalem and Judah he expelled them from his presence; and Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon.” The following verses, 2 Kgs 25:1–2 = Jer. 52:4–5, and also Jer. 39:1–2, say that “in the ninth year of his [Zedekiah’s] reign, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he with all his army against Jerusalem, and encamped against it; and they built siegeworks against it all around. And the city came under siege until the eleventh year of King Zedekiah.” The following 24 verses in Kings, much elaborated in Jeremiah, tell of the breaking down of the walls, of Zedekiah’s 71.  Although Japhet (1993, 1068) believes that the “error” is in the Chronicler’s identification of the king with the Zedekiah son of Jehoiakim who is listed in the Davidic dynasty in 1 Chron. 3:16.



The Last Kings, Exile and Redemption – 2 Chronicles 36

461

flight, capture in the plains of Jericho, trial at Riblah, the execution of his sons and his being blinded and brought to Babylon. This is followed by Nebuzaradan’s systematic destruction of the Temple and the city and his bringing all of the spoil and most of the people to Babylon. The same sources then tell of Gedaliah’s appointment as governor and his subsequent assassination, and finally, the flight of all those who remained to Egypt. The final four verses of Kings tell of Jehoiachin’s release from prison and his “elevation above the thrones of the kings that were with him in Babylon,” leaving the reader with at least some hope for the future of the Davidic dynasty. Chronicles also begins with Zedekiah’s unfaithfulness and rebellion, goes through the destruction and exile, and ends with a hope for the future, but very little in between is the same. The capture and death of Zedekiah and his sons, the appointment and assassination of Gedaliah, the flight of the remnant to Egypt and even the release of Jechoniah are passed over in silence. Where Kings writes of God’s anger without ever mentioning Jeremiah and without repeating what the book of Jeremiah tells of Zedekiah’s interactions with Jeremiah (32:1–5; 34; 37–38), Chronicles says that Zedekiah did not humble himself before Jeremiah, as God’s representative. This is then followed by his rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar, “who had made him swear by God; and he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the Lord, God of Israel.” In other words, Zedekiah’s rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar was a rebellion against God. This is reinforced in vv. 14–16, which tell how not just the king but “all the officers of the priests and the people” were collectively guilty, and how God, in his compassion, had sent multiple messengers, but they were mocked, despised and scoffed at, “until the wrath of the Lord against his people became so great that there was no remedy.” Leuchter (2013, 410–11) sees these prophets as being “subsumed by the topology of Jeremiah, who is mentioned a few verses earlier.” Becking (2011, 258–59) pointed out that v. 14 is the only reference in Chronicles to priests being unfaithful. “Judah is now empty of its God, since king and priests had forced YHWH to take sides with the Babylonian enemy” (2011, 263). The Reasons for the Exile Unlike the detailed description of the last days of Judah in Kings and Jeremiah, Chronicles vv. 17–20 are almost poetic. They give no dates, no details, name no names except “the king of the Chaldeans,” strange in itself because this is the only mention of “Chaldeans” in all of Chronicles. As Japhet (1993, 1072) has commented, Zedekiah himself and his fate disappear from the Chronicler’s story. The same is true for Jehoiachin,

462

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

whose release from prison goes unmentioned. Use of such terms as ‫כנע‬, “humble,” ‫שוב‬, “(re)turn,” ‫מעל‬, “unfaithful,” and ‫מרפא‬, “healing,” “recovery,” all favorites of the Chronicler, connect this chapter with the rest of the Chronicler’s history. However, these verses do not only connect with Chronicles itself; they also resonate with allusions to other descriptions of the destruction. “The Chaldeans,” mentioned only here in Chronicles, appear often in Kings, Jeremiah and elsewhere. The description in v. 17 of “the king of the Chaldeans, who killed their youths with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion on youth and maiden, elder or the feeble; all were given into his hand” is clearly related to Ezek. 9:5–7: Pass through the city after him and kill; your eye shall not spare, and you shall show no pity. Old men, youths and maidens, infants and women, kill and destroy, but touch no one who has the mark; and begin at my sanctuary; and they began with the old people who were in front of the house. And he said to them: Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain – go out; and they went out and killed in the city.

The description is also related to Lam. 2:21: The young and the old are lying on the ground in the streets; my maidens and my youths have fallen by the sword; in the day of your anger you have killed them, slaughtering without mercy.

The king of Babylon having “no compassion” (‫ )ולא חמל‬is reminiscent of Jer. 15:5, “for who will have compassion (‫ )מי־יחמל‬on you, Jerusalem.” The same happens in v. 19: armenôtehâ, “her (fortified) palaces” and maḥamadehâ, “her precious (vessels),” appear in Lam. 2:4, 5 and 7. And “those who remained from the sword” in v. 20 reminds us of Jer. 15:9: “their remnant I will give to the sword before their enemies.” Klein (2012, 544) follows Barstad (1996) and others in claiming that it was the Chronicler’s description of total exile that created “the myth of the empty land” – the assumption of scholars of past generations, that the land of Judah was indeed left desolate and empty, waiting to be resettled by the returnees from Babylon. However, the historical and archaeological reality is that the land was not left totally empty, there were some people who were left behind, and the returnees in fact “colonized” a pre-existing native population. This interpretive trend, which was started by Barstad, has been accepted by quite a few scholars, though not all. Faust (2012b), for example, has emphasized that while certainly there were some people left in Judah, the extent of destruction, as seen in the archaeological record from every city, town and village within the territory of the kingdom of



The Last Kings, Exile and Redemption – 2 Chronicles 36

463

Judah was so great, that it is impossible to speak of any real “continuity” of settlement from the late Iron Age onward. The total disappearance of the pottery, domestic architecture, style of tombs, and even cultic implements typical of Iron Age II Judah shows a major cultural break that occurred during the first decades of the sixth century BCE, leaving the few who did remain to barely subsist in “post-collapse” conditions. In his view, the archaeological evidence of the destruction and exile of Judah cannot be denied. For our purposes here, however, the question is more ideological than purely historical. That the Chronicler recognized that not all the population of Judah had been exiled was noted by Japhet (1993, 1074): “A general expression like ‘Judah was taken into exile out of its land’ (II Kgs 25.21) is not found in Chronicles…according to the Chronicler’s own description, the destruction fell upon Jerusalem alone, its people, its buildings and the house of the Lord; there is no hint in the passage of any damage to the land of Judah or to its people.” This is comparable in a way to the Chronicler’s non-description of the fall and exile of the northern kingdom: in his view, the northern monarchy ceased to exist, but the tribes continued to live in the land. Jonker (2007, 712–13), following Willi (1995, 22–27), thinks that the Chronicler’s intention was to focus specifically on “the empty Jerusalem,” while allowing that in other parts of Judah life went on pretty much as before. In the Masoretic tradition vv. 20–21 are a separate section, with a setumah before and a petuha after, separating v. 20 from being the final verse of the previous section. According to Becking (2011, 262), these two verses “have a bipolar character.” On one side, they continue the theme of emptiness and desolation, and on the other they introduce the prophecy, that after the Sabbath-rest might come salvation. The Prophecy of Jeremiah and the Sabbath of the Land Verses 20–22 introduce three additional, very much interrelated, themes: the prophecy of Jeremiah about the end of the exile, the exile as a “Sabbath” of the land, and the salvation at the hand of Cyrus of Persia. All three of these themes are absent from Kings. We have already mentioned the importance of Jeremiah to the Chronicler. Unmentioned by Kings, it was he who had led the mourning for Josiah and he who led “God’s messengers” in warning Judah, only to be scoffed at and abused. According to v. 20, “those who remained from the sword” were exiled to Babylon and became servants of Nebuchadnezzar and his sons, once again bringing to mind Jeremiah’s prophecy: “all nations shall serve him, and his son and the son of his son, until it is the time for his land” (27:7). But even more specifically, in Jer. 25:11–12, God promises:

464

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

“And this whole land shall be a desolate ruin, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon for seventy years. And when seventy years are fulfilled, I will call on the king of Babylon and on that nation, says the Lord, their sins, and on the land of the Chaldeans, and I shall make it a desolation forever.” And once more, in Jer. 29:10, as part of the letter that Jeremiah sent to the people that had accompanied Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) into exile, the prophet wrote: “for thus says the Lord: for when Babylon’s seventy years are fulfilled I will call on you, and I will carry out my promise of favor, to bring you back to this place.” There is an ongoing debate among scholars on whether the seventyyear prophecy should actually be considered part of the original prophecy of Jeremiah or whether it was written in later, after the fact, and, among those who do consider it original, a debate on just what Jeremiah meant by “seventy years” – was he just saying that the exiles should be prepared for “a long time,” or was he referring to specific events (see, for example, Keown, Scalise and Smothers 1995, 74–75; Leuchter 2004). What is certain is that later writers, such as Zech. 1:12; 7:5 and Dan. 9:2; the Chronicler here, and, without the specific date, Ezra 1:1 as well, all with the advantage of hindsight, did indeed take Jeremiah at his word. Of course the number 70 in general, and 70 years in particular, is a common topos in the Bible and in other ancient Near Eastern sources. In the Bible it appears, among other places, in Gen. 46:27; 50:30; Deut. 10:22; Judg. 1:7 and 1 Sam. 6:19. Ps. 90:10 gives 70 as the number of years that a man lives. Genesis 10 enumerates 70 descendant-nations of Noah, although the total number is not given. Isaiah 23:15–17 tells of a seventy-year long servitude of Tyre. An inscription of Esarhaddon declares that Marduk will punish Babylon for seventy years. And of course, the parameters of those “seventy years” are also debated: do they refer to 605 (the beginning of the “servitude” of Judah to Babylon) to 535 (the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, actually in 539)? Or was it 586 (the destruction of the Temple) to 516 (the dedication of the Second Temple)? Or some other dates, that may have had great significance at the time? Or, as assumed by McKenzie (2004, 371), perhaps the Chronicler did not have any specific dates in mind at all, but simply thought of “seventy” as “a symbolic number that indicates an extended, multi-generational period of time that fully compensates for Judah’s sin. Since the sabbath was the seventh day, the duration of seventy years also plays on the metaphor of the exile as a sabbath period.” To the Chronicler, in any case, Jeremiah’s “seventy years” were a prophecy that had been fulfilled. But he went one step further, and interpreted that prophecy and its fulfillment in light of another set of predictions – those made by Moses, the father of all prophets.



The Last Kings, Exile and Redemption – 2 Chronicles 36

465

In ch. 25 of Leviticus, Moses is commanded to instruct the Israelites, that once they are in their land, every seventh year “the land shall observe a Sabbath of the Lord. Six years you will sow your field and six years you will prune you vines and gather the yield. And on the seventh year the land will have a Sabbath of Shabbaths, a Sabbath of the Lord, your field you will not sow and your vine you will not prune” (vv. 2–4). In Lev. 26:2, Israel is warned once again to keep the Lord’s Sabbaths, and through the rest of the chapter, the people are told that observance of God’s commandments will lead to prosperity, and violation will lead to disaster. Finally, in vv. 31–45: I will lay your cities waste, will make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell your pleasing odors. I will devastate the land, so that your enemies who come to settle in it shall be appalled at it. And you I will scatter among the nations, and I will unsheathe the sword against you; your land shall be a desolation, and your cities a waste. Then the land shall enjoy its Sabbaths, all the days of its desolation, while you are in the land of your enemies; then the land shall rest, and enjoy its Sabbaths. All the days of its desolation, it shall have the rest it did not have on your Sabbaths when you were living on it…  Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob; I will remember also my covenant with Isaac and also my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. For the land shall be deserted by them, and enjoy its Sabbaths by lying desolate without them...  Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them, or abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them; for I am the Lord their God. And I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, to be their God: I am the Lord.

Additional passages, such as Lev. 18:24–28 and Deut. 11:8–9; 28:63–68 make it clear that God’s settlement of Israel on its land was conditional, dependent on their observing his commandments, and that the punishment for violating the Torah is exile. However, as promised by Moses, and also by later prophets such as Deutero-Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, ultimately God will return his people to the land that he promised their ancestors. The Chronicler, in retrospect, brings everything together: the need to observe God’s commandments, the punishment for those who do not, God’s promise of an eventual return, Jeremiah’s seventy-year limit, and the historical fact of the restoration.

466

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah

Cyrus and the Beginning of the Restoration On the third day of Marheshvan (approximately October) 539 BCE, Cyrus II (“the Great”), king of the Persians and the Medes, entered Babylon, after the city and the kingdom had effectively already been conquered by his generals and after Nabû-Naid (Nabonidus), the last “Chaldean” king of Babylon, had fled. Thus ended the Neo-Babylonian Empire, and all of the territories that it had held became a province of the new Achaemenid Persian Empire. Some time later Cyrus issued the proclamation recorded on the “Cyrus Cylinder” (found at Susa, now displayed in the British Museum), stating that it was Marduk who had given him victory and ordering the restoration of the old Babylonian temples that Nabû-Naid had desecrated (for more on these events see Rainey and Notley 2006, 271–77). For at least some of the exiled Judahites, these events signaled a new hope. The anonymous prophet whom modern scholars call “DeuteroIsaiah” proclaimed: Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who by myself spread out the earth. Who frustrates the omens of liars, and makes fools of diviners; who turns back the wise, and makes their knowledge foolish. Who confirms the word of his servant, and fulfills the prediction of his messengers; who says of Jerusalem: It shall be inhabited, and of the cities of Judah: They shall be rebuilt, and I will raise up their ruins. Who says to the deep: Be dry – I will dry up your rivers. Who says of Cyrus: He is my shepherd, and he shall carry out all my purpose; and who says of Jerusalem: It shall be rebuilt, and of the Temple: Your foundation shall be laid. Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him and strip kings of their robes, to open doors before him – and the gates shall not be closed: I will go before you and level the mountains, I will break in pieces the doors of bronze and cut through the bars of iron. I will give you the treasures of darkness and riches hidden in secret places, so that you may know that it is I, the Lord, the God of Israel, who call you by your name. (Isa. 44:24–45:3)

The book of Ezra–Nehemiah opens by citing a proclamation, or “edict,” proclaimed by Cyrus “in year one…, to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah.” In this proclamation, given orally and in writing, Cyrus credits “the Lord, God of heaven” with his victories, claims that the Lord had instructed him to build the Temple in Jerusalem, and allowing “all of his people” who wish to do so, to go to Jerusalem to build the Temple. He also allowed those who wished to remain where they



The Last Kings, Exile and Redemption – 2 Chronicles 36

467

were to send silver and gold and goods and livestock for the Temple. In the book of Ezra–Nehemiah, this is the beginning of the restoration, the founding of the Second Temple and the so-called Second Commonwealth. As a fitting ending for his story of pre-exilic Israel, the Chronicler copied over the initial two and a half verses of Ezra, containing the introduction to the edict of Cyrus and the beginning of the edict itself. Assuming, as we have, that Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah are separate works and that Chronicles was composed after Ezra–Nehemiah,72 we do assume that these verses were used by the Chronicler as a “source” in order to complete his story, as an alternative to that of the release of Jehoiachin in Kings.73 The purview of Kings is exilic; Chronicles is postexilic: he has given us his view of the pre-exilic period, and now he has tied it in to that of the Second Temple Period – the world of his readers.

72.  For an alternative view see Kartveit (1999), and more in the introduction in volume 1 of this commentary. 73.  Leuchter (2011) views the purpose of the Jeremiah tradition in Chronicles as providing authority for the Chronicler’s work, and concludes, “He invites the reader…to place EN alongside the larger legacy of Israel’s literature that he embeds and transforms within his work” (2011, 200).

B ib lio g r a p hy

The following reference works are cited by volume and page number: CAD DCH HALOT

The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago, 1956–2006 Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by David J. A. Clines. 9 vols. Sheffield, 1993–2014 The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–99

AB Anchor Bible BA Biblical Archaeologist BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bib Biblica BN Biblische Notizen BZ Biblische Zeitschrift CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament Historical Commentary on the Old Testament HCOT HTR Harvard Theological Review International Critical Commentary ICC Israel Exploration Journal IEJ Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society JANES Journal of the American Oriental Society JAOS Journal of Biblical Literature JBL Jewish Bible Quarterly JBQ JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Journal for Semitics JS JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JTS Journal of Theological Studies NCB New Century Bible NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament

Bibliography OTE OTL OTS PEQ RB UF VT VTSup WBC ZAW ZDPV

469

Old Testament Essays Old Testament Library Old Testament Studies Palestine Exploration Quarterly Revue Biblique Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplement Series Word Biblical Commentary Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

Abadie, Philippe. 2003. “From the Impious Manasseh (2 Kings 21) to the Convert Manasseh (2 Chronicles 33): Theological Rewriting by the Chronicler.” Pages 89–104 in The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein. Edited by M. Patrick Graham, Steven L. McKenzie, and Gary N. Knoppers. London: T&T Clark International. Abel, Felix-Marie. 1967. Géograpie de la Palestine. Tome II: Géographie Politique. Les Villes. 3rd ed. Paris: Gabalda. Abramson, Shraga. 1988. “In the Scriptures.” Beit Mikra 33: 380–82 (Hebrew). Aharoni, Yohanan. 1963. “Tamar and the Roads to Elath.” IEJ 13: 30–42. ———. 1968. “Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple.” BA 31: 2–32. ———. 1974. “The Horned Altar of Beer-sheba.” BA 37: 2–6. ———. 1979. The Land of the Bible – A Historical Geography. Translated by A. F. Rainey. 2nd ed. London: Burns & Oates. Aḥituv, Shmuel. 2014. “Notes on the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud Inscriptions.” Pages 29–38 in “See, I will bring a scroll recounting what befell me” (Ps 40:8): Epigraphy and Daily Life – From the Bible to the Talmud. Edited by Esther Eshel and Yigal Levin. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Albertz, Rainer. 2007. “Why a Reform Like Josiah’s Must Have Happened.” Pages 27–46 in Good Kings and Bad Kings: The Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century BCE. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. London: T&T Clark International. Albright, William Foxwell. 1923. “New Identifications of Ancient Towns.” BASOR 9: 5–10. ———. 1924. “Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb.” JPOS 4: 131–61. ———. 1934. “The North-Canaanite Poems of Alêyân Baal and the ‘Gracious Gods’.” JPOS 134: 101–40. ———. 1942a. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. ———. 1942b. “A Votive Stele Erected by Ben-Hadad I of Damascus to the God Melcarth.” BASOR 87: 23–29. ———. 1945. “The Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel.” BASOR 100: 16–22. ———. 1950. “The Judicial Reform of Jehoshaphat.” Pages 61–82 in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume (English section). Edited by Saul Lieberman. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

470 Bibliography Allam, Schafik. 1986. “L’administration locale à la lumière du décret du roi Horemheb.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 72: 194–95. ———. 2000. “Der Steuer-Erlaß des Königs Haremhab (Urk. IV 2156, 17 ff.).” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 127: 103–11. Allen, Leslie C. 1974. The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Massoretic Text. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. Alt, Albrecht. 1925. “Judas Gaue unter Josia.” Palästinajahrbuch 21: 100–117. ———. 1927. “Eine galiläische Ortsliste in Jos. 19.” ZAW 45: 59–81. ———. 1953. “Festungen und Levitenorte im Lande Juda.” Pages 306–15 in vol. 2 of Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Munich: C. H. Becksche Verlagsbuchhanlung. Amit, Yairah. 2006. “The Role of Prophecy and Prophets in the Chronicler’s World.” Pages 80–101 in Prophets, Prophecy and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak. New York/London: T&T Clark International. Andreasen, Niels-Erik A. 1983. “The Role of the Queen Mother in Israelite Society.” CBQ 45: 179–94. Ap-Thomas, Dafydd Rhys. 1956. “Notes on Some Terms Relating to Prayer.” VT 6: 225–41. Arbeli, Shoshana. 1985. “Maacah, the Queen-Mother (Gebīrāh) in the Reign Time of Abiah and Asa, and Her Removal.” Shnaton – An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 9: 165–78 (Hebrew with English abstract). Arie, Eran. 2008. “Reconsidering the Iron Age II Strata at Tel Dan: Archaeological and Historical Implications.” TA 35: 6–64. Ariel, Donald T., and Alon De Groot. 2000. “The Iron Age Extramural Occupation at the City of David and Additional Observations on the Siloam Channel.” Pages 155–69 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. 5, Extramural Areas. Edited by Donald T. Ariel. Qedem 40. Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Assis, Elie. 2011. “Elijah and the Messianic Hope: A New Reading of Malachi 3,22–24.” ZAW 123: 207–20. Avigad, Nahman. 1953. “The Epitaph of a Royal Steward from Siloam Village.” IEJ 3: 137–52. ———. 1961. “The Jotham Seal from Elath.” BASOR 163: 18–22. ———. 1980. Discovering Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Shikmona. ———. 1992. “A New Seal of a ‘Son of the King’.” Michmanim 6: 27*–31*. ———. 1995. “A Seal of Jotham from Elath.” Pages 146–49 in Eilat: Studies in the Archaeology, History and Geography of Eilat and the Aravah. Edited by Y. Aviram et al. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Israel Antiquities Authority (Hebrew). Avioz, Michael. 2009. “What Happened at Megiddo? Josiah’s Death as Described in the Book of Kings.” BN 142: 5–11. Avishur, Yitzhak, and Michael Heltzer. 2007. “Jehoiachin, King of Judah in Light of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Sources: His Exile and Release According to Events in the Neo-Babylonian Kingdom and the Babylonian Diaspora.” Transeuphratène 34: 17–36. Bahat, Dan. 1981. “The Wall of Manasseh in Jerusalem.” IEJ 31: 235–36.

Bibliography

471

Baines, Shannon E. 2013. “The Cohesiveness of 2 Chronicles 33:1–36:23 as a Literary Unit Concluding the Book of Chronicles.” Pages 141–58 in Chronicling the Chronicler: The Book of Chronicles and Early Second Temple Historiography. Edited by Paul S. Evans and Tyler F. Williams. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Ball, Edward. 1977. “A Note on I Kings XXII. 28.” JTS 28: 90–94. Barrick, W. Boyd. 2001. “Another Shaking of Jehoshaphat’s Family Tree: Jehoram and Ahaziah Once Again.” VT 51: 9–25. Barstad, Hans M. 1996. The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah During the “Exilic” Period. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. ———. 2003. “The Prophet Oded and the Zakkur Inscription: A Case of Obscuriore Obscurum?” Pages 25–37 in Reading from Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines. Edited by J. Cheryl Exum and H. G. M. Williamson. JSOTSup 373. London: Sheffield Academic. Bartlett, John Raymond. 1969, “The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom.” JTS ns 20: 1–20. Béatrice, André-Salvini. 1994. “Stèle de la musique.” Pages 10–11 in Musiques au Louvre. Paris: Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux. Becking, Bob. 2008. “The Enigmatic Garden of Uzza: A Religio-Historical Footnote to 2 Kings 21:18,26.” Pages 383–91 in Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt; Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Ingo Kottsieper, Rudiger Schmitt, and Jakob Wohrle. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ———. 2011. “More Than a Pawn in Their Game: Zedekiah and the Fall of Jerusalem in 2 Chronicles 36:11–21.” Pages 257–71 in Rewriting Biblical History – Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honour of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2013. “Between Realpolitiker and Hero of Faith: Memories of Hezekiah in Biblical Traditions and Beyond.” Pages 182–98 in Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods: Social Memory and Imagination. Edited by Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beentjes, Pancratius C. 1994. “King Jehoshaphat’s Prayer: Some Remarks on 2 Chronicles 20: 6–13.” BZ 38: 264–70. ———. 1999. “Identity and Community in the Book of Chronicles: The Role and Meaning of the Verb ‘jāḥaś’.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 12: 233–37. ———. 2000. “ ‘They Saw That His Forehead Was Leprous’ (2 Chr 26:20): The Chronicler’s Narrative on Uzziah’s Leprosy.” Pages 61–72 in Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus. Edited by M. J. H. M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2010. “War Narratives in Chronicles.” Pages 87–102 in Visions of Peace and Tales of War. Edited by Jan Liesen and Pancratius C. Beentjes. Berlin: de Gruyter. Begg, Christopher T. 1988a. “The Classical Prophets in the Chronistic History.” BZ 32: 100–107. ———. 1988b. “The Death of Josiah: Josephus and the Bible.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 64: 157–63. ———. 1989. “Constructing a Monster: The Chronicler’s ‘Sondergut’ in 2 Chronicles 21.” Australian Biblical Review 37: 35–51. ———. 1996. “The End of King Jehoiakim: The Afterlife of a Problem.” JS 8: 12–20.

472 Bibliography ———. 2003. “The Ark in Chronicles.” Pages 133–45 in The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein. Edited by M. Patrick Graham, Steven L. McKenzie, and Gary N. Knoppers. London: T&T Clark International. Ben-Ami, Doron, and Nili Wazana. 2013. “Enemy at the Gates: The Phenomenon of Fortifications in Israel Reexamined.” VT 63: 368–82. Ben Dor Evian, Shirly. 2011. “Shishak’s Karnak Relief: More Than Just Name-Rings.” Pages 11–22 in Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature: Proceedings of a Conference at the University of Haifa, 3–7 May 2009. Edited by S. Bar, D. Kahn, and J. J. Shirley. Leiden: Brill. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. 2008. “Writing as Oracle and as Law: New Contexts for the Book-Find of King Josiah.” JBL 127: 223–39. Ben-Eliahu, Eyal. 2000. “The Source of the Tombstone Inscription of Uziah.” Cathedra 98: 157–58 (Hebrew). Ben Gal, Michal. 2011. “The Cultic Assemblage from ‘En Ḥazeva’: The Restoration Process.” Atiqot 68: 177–83. Bennett, Crystal M. 1966. “Notes and News.” PEQ 98: 123–27. Ben-Shem, Israel. 1973. “Hanani the Seer and the Events in Judah in the Days of Asa and Jehoshaphat.” Pages 128–31 in Zer Li’Gevurot: The Zalman Shazar Jubilee Volume. Edited by B. Z. Luria. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer (Hebrew). Ben-Tor, Amnon. 1998. “Hazor and the Archaeology of the Tenth Century B.C.E.” IEJ 48: 1–37. Ben Zvi, Ehud. 1991. “ ‘Once the Lamp has Been Kindled…’: A Reconsideration of the Meaning of the MT ‘Nîr’ in 1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19 and 2 Chr 21:7.” Australian Biblical Review 39: 19–30. ———. 2003. “The Secession of the Northern Kingdom in Chronicles: Accepted ‘Facts’ and New Meanings.” Pages 61–88 in The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein. Edited by M. Patrick Graham, Steven L. McKenzie, and Gary N. Knoppers. London: T&T Clark International. ———. 2006. “Observations on Ancient Modes of Reading of Chronicles and Their Implications, with an Illustration of Their Explanatory Power for the Study of the Account of Amaziah (2 Chronicles 25).” Pages 44–77 in History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi. London: Routledge. ———. 2007. “The House of Omri/Ahab in Chronicles.” Pages 41–53 in Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty. Edited by Lester E. Grabbe. London: T&T Clark International. ———. 2008. “A House of Treasures: The Account of Amaziah in 2 Chronicles 25 – Observations and Implications.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 22: 63–85. ———. 2010. “A Contribution to the Intellectual History of Yehud: The Story of Micaiah and Its Function within the Discourse of Persian-Period Literati.” Pages 89–102 in The Historian and the Bible – Essays in Honour of Lester L. Grabbe. Edited by Philip R. Davies and Diana V. Edelman. New York: T&T Clark International. ———. 2013. “Reading Chronicles and Reshaping the Memory of Manasseh.” Pages 121–40 in Chronicling the Chronicler: The Book of Chronicles and Early Second Temple Historiography. Edited by Paul S. Evans and Tyler F. Williams. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Berman, Joshua A. 2004. Narrative Analogy in the Hebrew Bible: Battle Stories and Their Equivalent Non-Battle Narratives. Leiden/Boston: Brill.

Bibliography

473

Beyer, Gustav. 1931. “Das Festungssystem Rehabeams.” ZDPV 54: 113–34. Bianchi, Francesco, and G. Rossoni. 1997, “L’armée d’Ozias (2 Ch 26,11–15) entre fiction et réalité: une esquisse philologique et historique.” Transeuphratène 13: 21–37. Bickerman, Elias J. 1946. “The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra 1.” JBL 65: 249–75. Biran, Avraham. 1994. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society – Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. Biran, Avraham, and Joseph Naveh. 1995. “The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment.” IEJ 45: 1–18. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 2013. “Remembering Josiah.” Pages 236–56 in Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods: Social Memory and Imagination. Edited by Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth. 2002. “Life in Judah from the Perspective of the Dead.” Near Eastern Archaeology 65: 120–30. Bodner, Keith. 2003. “The Locutions of 1 Kings 22:28: A New Proposal.” JBL 122: 533–43. Boer, Roland. 2011. “Rehoboam Meets Machiavelli.” Pages 159–72 in Rewriting Biblical History – Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honour of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol. Berlin: de Gruyter. Boling, Robert G. 1975. Judges. AB 6A. Garden City: Doubleday. Boling, Robert G., and Edward F. Campbell Jr. 1987. “Jeroboam and Rehoboam at Shechem.” Pages 259–72 in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Memory of D. Glenn Rose. Edited by Leo G. Perdue, Lawrence E. Toombs, and Gary L. Johnson. Atlanta: John Knox. Borger, Rykle, and Hayim Tadmor. 1982. “Zwei Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft aufgrund der Inschriften Tiglapilesers III.” ZAW 94: 244–51. Borowski, Oded. 1995. “Hezekiah’s Reforms and the Revolt Against Assyria.” BA 58: 148–55. ———. 2002. Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Brenner, Athalya. 1985. The Israelite Woman: Social Role and Literary Type in Biblical Narrative. Sheffield: JSOT. Brin, Gershon. 1960. “The Roots ZR – ZZ in the Bible.” Leshonenu 24: 8–14 (Hebrew). Broshi, Magen. 1974. “The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reign of Hezekiah and Manasseh.” IEJ 26: 21–26. Bunimovitz, Shlomo, and Zvi Lederman. 2009. “Renewed Excavations at Tel Bethshemesh, Part 1: The Iron Age.” Near Eastern Archaeology 72, no. 3: 115–42. Burrows, Millar. 1935. “The Topography of Nehemiah 12 31–34.” JBL 54: 29–39. Buttenwieser, Moses. 1926. “‫ בכלי עז ליהוה‬2 Chronicles 30 21: A Perfect Text.” JBL 45: 156–58. Carasik, Michael A. 2002. “Three Biblical Beginnings.” Pages 1–22 in Beginning/Again: Towards a Hermeneutics of Jewish Texts. Edited by Aryeh Cohen and Shaul Magid. New York: Steven Bridges. Carroll, Robert. 1991. Wolf in the Sheepfold: The Bible as a Problem for Christianity. London: SPCK.

474 Bibliography Catron, Janice E. 1995. “Temple and ‘bamah’: Some Considerations.” Pages 150–65 in The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström. Edited by Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Christensen, Duane L. 2001, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9. Rev. ed. WBC 6A. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Clifford, Richard J. 1999. Proverbs: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Cogan, Mordechai. 1985. “The Chronicler’s Use of Chronology as Illuminated by Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions.” Pages 197–209 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Edited by Jeffrey H. Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ———. 2000. I Kings – A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 10. New York: Doubleday. ———. 2001. “Sennacherib’s Siege of Jerusalem: Once or Twice?” BAR 27: 40–45, 69. ———. 2014. “Cross-examining the Assyrian Witnesses to Sennacherib’s Third Campaign: Assessing the Limits of Historical Reconstruction.” Pages 51–74 in Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History and Historiography. Edited by Isaac Kalimi and Seth Richardson. Leiden: Brill. Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor. 1988. II Kings – A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 11. New York: Doubleday. Cogan, Morton. 1974. Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah, and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature – Scholars Press. Coggins, Richard J. 1976. The First and Second Books of the Chronicles. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, Chaim. 2007. “Biblical Hebrew Philology in the Light of Research on the New Yeho’ash Royal Building Inscription.” Pages 222–84 in New Seals and Inscriptions, Hebrew, Idumean, and Cuneiform. Edited by Meir Lubetski. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. ———. 2011–2012. “Literary and Philological Aspects of Biblical Hebrew (BH) ‫צרעת‬.” Korot 21: 255–91. Cohen, Rudolph. 1994. “The Fortresses at En Ḥaṣeva.” BA 57: 203–14. Cohen, Rudolph, and Yigal Yisrael. 1995. “The Iron Age Fortresses at En Ḥaṣeva.” BA 58: 223–35. Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. 1968. “The Structure of Deuteronomic History.” Perspectives in Jewish Learning 3: 9–24. ———. 1972. “The Stele Dedicated to Melcarth by Ben-hadad of Damascus.” BASOR 205: 36–42. ———. 1973. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cross, Frank Moore, Jr., and D. N. Freedman. 1953. “Josiah’s Revolt Against Assyria.” JNES 12: 56–58. Cross, Frank Moore, Jr., and George E. Wright. 1956. “The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kings of Judah.” JBL 75: 202–26. Curtis, Edward Lewis, and Albert Alonzo Madsen. 1910. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

Bibliography

475

Davies, Philip R. 1992. “Defending the Boundaries of Israel in the Second Temple Period: 2 Chronicles 20 and the ‘Salvation Army’.” Pages 43–54 in Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp. Edited by Eugine Ulrich et al. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 2007. “Josiah and the Law Book.” Pages 65–77 in Good Kings and Bad Kings: The Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century BCE. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. London: T&T Clark International. Deboys, David G. 1990. “History and Theology in the Chronicler’s Portrayal of Abijah.” Bib 71: 48–62. Delamarter, Steve. 1998. “The Vilification of Jehoiakim (A.K.A. Eliakim and Joiakim) in Early Judaism.” Pages 190–204 in The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Demsky, Aaron. 1993. “The Genealogy of Asher (1 Chron. 7:30–40).” Eretz-Israel 24 (Avraham Malamat volume): 68–73 (Hebrew with English abstract). ———. 2002. “Hebrew Names in the Dual Form and the Toponym Yerushalayim.” Pages 11–20 in vol. 3 of These Are the Names: Studies in Jewish Onomastics. Edited by Aaron Demsky. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. ———. 2014. “Researching Literacy in Ancient Israel – New Approaches and Recent Developments.” Pages 89–104 in “See, I will bring a scroll recounting what befell me” (Ps 40:8): Epigraphy and Daily Life – From the Bible to the Talmud. Edited by Esther Eshel and Yigal Levin. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. De Vaux, Roland. 1965. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. 2nd ed. Translated by John McHugh. London: Darton, Longman & Todd. Dever, William G. 1999. “Archaeology and the Ancient Israelite Cult: How the Kh. El-Qôm and Kuntillet Ajrûd ‘Asherah’ Texts have Changed the Picture.” Eretz-Israel 26: 9–15. De Vries, Simon John. 1978. Prophet Against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (I Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 1989. 1 and 2 Chronicles. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Dietrich, Manfried, Tyler Mayfield, and Mark Brummitt. 2012. “Chaldeans.” Pages 1141–48 in vol. 4 of Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Edited by Hans-Josef Klauck et al. Berlin: de Gruyter. Dillard, Raymond B. 1987. 2 Chronicles. WBC 15. Waco: Word Books. Dion, Paul-Eugène. 1981. “Did Cultic Prostitution Fall into Oblivion During the Postexilic Era? Some Evidence from Chronicles and the Septuagint.” CBQ 43: 41–48. ———. 2006. “Ahaz and Other Willing Servants of Assyria.” Pages 133–45 in From Babel to Babylon: Essays on Biblical History and Literature in Honour of Brian Peckham. Edited by Joyce Rilett Wood, John E. Harvey, and Mark Leuchter. New York: T&T Clark International. DiVito, Robert A. 1993. “The Tell el-Kheleifeh Inscriptions.” Pages 51–63 in Nelson Glueck’s 1938–1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifah: A Reappraisal. Edited by Gary D. Pratico. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Dothan, Moshe. 1972. “Ashdod – Seven Seasons of Excavations.” Qadmoniot 5: 2–13 (Hebrew).

476 Bibliography Dutcher-Walls, Patricia. 1996. Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case of Athaliah and Joash. JSOTSup 209. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Dvorjetski, Estèe. 2011–2012. “‘A Leper May as Well Be Dead’ (Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 64b): Diagnosis, Prognosis and Methods of Treatment of ‘Leprosy’ Throughout the Ages.” Korot 21: 227–54. Eaton, Margaret R. 1994. “Some Instances of Flyting in the Hebrew Bible.” JSOT 61: 3–14. Edelman, Diana. 1988. “The Asherite Genealogy in 1 Chronicles 7:3–40.” Biblical Research 33: 13–23. ———. 1994. “Huldah the Prophet – Of Yahweh or Asherah?” Pages 231–50 in A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 2008. “Hezekiah’s Alleged Cultic Centralization.” JSOT 32: 395–434. Eitan, Amir. 2007. “A Hidden Name Midrash in 2 Chr 28:24?” BN 234: 45–47. Elgavish, David. 2000. “Objective of Baasha’s War Against Asa.” Pages 141–49 in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kallai. VTSup 81. Edited by Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld. Leiden: Brill. Ellington, John. 1999. “When Footnotes Aren’t Enough: The Case of 2 Chronicles 33.19.” The Bible Translator 50: 417–21. Eph‘al, Israel. 1982. The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th–5th Centuries B.C. Jerusalem: Magnes. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2009. The City Besieged: Siege and Its Manifestations in the Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: Magnes. Leiden: Brill. Eskenazi, Tamara C. 1986. “The Chronicler and the Composition of 1 Esdras.” CBQ 48: 39–61. Etz, Donald V. 1996. “The Genealogical Relationships of Jehoram and Ahaziah, and of Ahaz and Hezekiah, Kings of Judah.” JSOT 71: 39–53. Evans, Paul S. 2013a. “Prophecy Influencing History: Dialogism in the Chronicler’s Ahaz Narrative.” Pages 143–65 in Prophets, Prophecy, and Ancient Israelite Historiography. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Lissa M. Wray Beal. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2013b. “Historia of Exegesis? Assessing the Chronicler’s Hezekiah–Sennacherib Narrative.” Pages 103–20 in Chronicling the Chronicler: The Book of Chronicles and Early Second Temple Historiography. Edited by Paul S. Evans and Tyler F. Williams. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Fales, Frederick Mario. 2008. “On Pax Assyriaca in the Eight-Seventh Century BC and Its Implications.” Pages 18–35 in Swords into Plowshares: Isaiah’s Vision of Peace in Biblical and Modern International Relations. Edited by Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2010. Guerre et paix en Assyrie: Religion et impérialisme. Paris: Cerf. Fantalkin, Alexander. 2001. “Mezad Hashavyahu: Its Material Culture and Historical Background.” TA 28: 3–165. ———. 2008. “The Appearance of Rock-Cut Bench Tombs in Iron Age Judah as a Reflection of State Formation.” Pages 17–44 in Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant During the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein. Edited by Alexander Fantalkin and Assaf Yasur-Landau. Leiden: Brill.

Bibliography

477

———. 2011. “Why Did Nebuchadnezzar II Destroy Ashkelon in Kislev 604 B.C.E.?” Pages 87–111 in The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin. Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na’aman. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Faust, Avraham. 2000. “A Note of Hezekiah’s Tunnel and the Siloam Inscription.” JSOT 90: 3–11. ———. 2008. “Settlement and Demography in Seventh-Century Judah and the Extent and Intensity of Sennacherib’s Campaign.” PEQ 140: 168–94. ———. 2012a. The Archaeology of Israelite Society in Iron Age II. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2012b. Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of Desolation. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. ———. 2014. “On Jerusalem’s Expansion During the Iron Age II.” Pages 256–85 in Exploring the Narrative: Jerusalem and Jordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Edited by Eveline van der Steen, Jeannette Boertien, and Noor Mulder-Hymens. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Faust, Avraham, and Shlomo Bunimovitz. 2008. “The Judahite Rock-Cut Tomb: Family Response at a Time of Change.” IEJ 58: 150–70. Feldstein, Amir. 1993. “Migron and the Battle of Michmash.” Pages 83–90 in Samaria and Benjamin III: Collected Studies in Historical Geography. Edited by Z. H. Erlich. Ofrah: The College of Judea and Samaria (Hebrew). Finkelstein, Israel. 1994. “The Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh.” Pages 169–87 in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Edited by Michael D. Coogan, J. Cheryl Exum, and Lawrence E. Stager. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. ———. 2000. “Hazor XII–XI with and Addendum on Ben-Tor’s Dating of Hazor X–VII.” TA 27: 231–47. ———. 2008. “The Settlement History of Jerusalem in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries BC.” RB 115: 499–515. ———. 2011. “Rehoboam’s Fortified Cities (II Chr 11,5–12): A Hasmonean Reality?” ZAW 123: 92–107. ———. 2012. “The Great Wall of Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah), the First Fortifications in Judah, and 1 Kings 15:16–22.” VT 62: 14–28. Finkelstein, Israel, Oded Lipschits, and Omer Sergi. 2013. “Tell er-Rumeith in Northern Jordan: Some Archaeological and Historical Observations.” Semitica 55: 7–23. Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Asher Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York: The Free Press. ———. 2006. “Temple and Dynasty: Hezekiah, the Remaking of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Pan-Israelite Ideology.” JSOT 30: 259–85. Finkelstein, Israel, and Lily Singer-Avitz. 2010. “Ashdod Revisited.” TA 28: 231–59. Firth, David G. 2000. “Backward Masking: Implicit Characterization of Elijah in the Micaiah Narrative.” OTE 13: 174–85. Fischer, Moshe, and Itamar Taxel. 2007. “Ancient Yavneh: Its History and Archaeology.” TA 34: 204–84.

478 Bibliography Fishbane, Michael. 1980. “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis.” JBL 99: 343–61. Forti, Tova. 2007. “Bee’s Honey – From Realia to Metaphor in Biblical Wisdom Literature.” VT 56: 327–41. Fox, Nili Sacher. 2000a. In the Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press. Frame, Grant. 2013. “The Political History and Historical Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes in Babylonia in the Neo-Assyrian Period.” Pages 87–121 in Aramaeans, Chaldeans and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C. Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien 3. Edited by Angelica Berlejung and Michael P. Streck. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Franklin, Norma. 2014. “Dispelling the Fog Around the Ophel.” Pages 286–96 in Exploring the Narrative: Jerusalem and Jordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Edited by Eveline van der Steen, Jeannette Boertine, and Noor Mulder-Hymens. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Fried, Lisbeth S. 2002. “The High Places (“bamôt”) and the Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah: An Archaeological Investigation.” JAOS 122: 437–65. ———, ed. 2011. Was 1 Esdras First? An Investigation of the Priority and Nature of 1 Esdras. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Friedman, Richard Elliott. 1981. The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works. Chico: Scholars Press. Frisch, Amos. 1988. “Shemaiah the Prophet Versus King Rehoboam: Two Opposed Interpretations of the Schism (1 Kings XII 21–4).” VT 38: 466–68. ———. 2000. “Jeroboam and the Division of the Kingdom: Mapping Contrasting Biblical Accounts.” JANES 27: 15–29. Fritz, Volkmar. 1981. “The List of Rehoboam’s Fortresses in 2 Chr. 11:5–12 – A Document from the Time of Josiah.” Eretz-Israel 15: 46*–53*. Frumkin, Amos, Aryah Shimron, and Jeff Rosenbaum. 2003. “Radiometric Dating of the Siloam Tunnel, Jerusalem.” Nature 425: 169–71. Gafni, Reuven. 2009. “Tzara’at as a Punishment in Scripture and Rabbinic Literature.” Megadim 30: 23–33 (Hebrew). Gal, Zvi. 1992. Lower Galilee During the Iron Age. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Galil, Gershon. 1993. “Geba-Ephraim and the Northern Boundary of Judah in the Days of Josiah.” RB 100: 358–67. ———. 1995. “A New Look at the ‘Azekah Inscription’.” RB 102: 321–29. ———. 1996. The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah. Leiden: Brill. Gallagher, Edmon L. 2014. “The Blood from Abel to Zechariah in the History of Interpretation.” New Testament Studies 60: 121–38. Galling, Kurt. 1966. “Goliath und seine Rüstung.” Pages 150–69 in Volume du CongrèsGenève 1965. Edited by G. W. Anderson et al. VTSup 15. Leiden: Brill. Garfinkel, Yosef. 1988. “2 Chr 11:5–10 Fortified Cities List and the lmlk Stamps – Reply to Nadav Na’aman.” BASOR 271: 69–73. Geva, Hillel. 2003. “Western Jerusalem at the End of the First Temple Period in Light of the Excavations in the Jewish Quarter.” Pages 183–208 in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period. Edited by Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Bibliography

479

Gevaryahu, Haim M. I. 1985. “The Place of Micaiah Son of Imlah in the History of Prophecy.” Pages 19–450 in Studies in the Book of Kings: Proceedings of the Bible Study Group in the Home of the Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, Part I. Edited by B. Z. Luria. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer (Hebrew). Gilders, William K. 2013. “‫ חטאת‬as ‘Sin Offering’: A Reconsideration.” Pages 119–28 in “The One Who Sows Bountifully”: Essays in Honor of Stanley K. Stowers. Edited by C. J. Hodge et al. Providence: Brown University Press. Gilmour, Garth Hugh. 2009. “An Iron Age II Pictorial Inscription from Jerusalem Illustrating Yahweh and Asherah.” PEQ 141: 87–103. Ginsberg, Harold Louis. 1950. “Judah and the Transjordanian States from 734 to 582 B.C.E.” Pages 347–68 in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume (English section). Edited by Saul Lieberman. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America. ———. 1951. “A Preposition of Interest to Historical Geographers.” BASOR 122: 12–14. Gitin, Seymour, Trude Dothan, and Joseph Naveh. 1997. “A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron.” IEJ 47: 1–16. Glatt-Gilad, David A. 1996. “The Role of Huldah’s Prophecy in the Chronicler’s Portrayal of Josiah’s Reform.” Bib 77: 16–31. Gnirs, Andrea. 1989. “Haremhab – ein Staatsreformator? Neue Betrachtungen zum Haremhab-Dekret.” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 16: 83–110. Goldenberg, Robert. 1982. “The Problem of False Prophecy: Talmudic Interpretations of Jeremiah 28 and 1 Kings 22.” Pages 87–103 in The Biblical Mosaic: Changing Perspectives. Edited by Robert Polzin and Eugene Rothman. Philadelphia: Fortress. Chico: Scholars Press. Graham, J. M. 1984. “ ‘Vinedresser and Plowmen’ 2 Kings 25:2 and Jeremiah 52:16.” BA 47, no. 1: 55–58. Graham, M. Patrick. 1993. “Aspects of the Structure and Rhetoric of 2 Chronicles 25.” Pages 78–89 in M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown, and Jeffrey K. Kuan, History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Gray, John. 1949. “The Desert God AṮTR in the Literature and Religion of Canaan.” JNES 8: 72–83. Greenspahn, Frederick E. 2014. “Deuteronomy and Centralization.” VT 64: 227–35. Greenstein, Edward L. 2012. “Methodological Principles in Determining that the So-Called Jehoash Inscription Is Inauthentic.” Pages 83–92 in Puzzling Out the Past; Studies in the Northwest Semitic Languages and Literature in Honor of Bruce Zuckerman. Edited by Marilyn J. Lundberg, Steven Fine, and Wayne T. Pitard. Leiden: Brill. Grintz, Yehoshua M. 1957. Sefer Yehudith [The Book of Judith]. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute (Hebrew with English abstract). Grossman, Jonathan. 2011. “Micaiah’s Narrative and the Death of Ahab (1 Kings 22) – Proactive Editing.” Pages 157–87 in Studies in Bible and Exegesis X, Presented to Shmuel Vargon. Edited by Moshe Garsiel et al. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press (Hebrew with English abstract). Gruber, Mayer I. 1980. Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East. 2 vols. Rome: Biblical Institute. Gunkel, Hermann. 1997. Genesis. Translated from 1901 original by Mark E. Biddle. Macon: Mercer University Press.

480 Bibliography Hadley, Judith M. 2012. “2 Chronicles 32:30 and the Water Systems of Pre-Exilic Jerusalem.” Pages 273–84 in Let Us Go Up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Iain Provan and Mark J. Boda. Leiden: Brill. Hagelia, Hallvard. 2009. The Dan Debate: The Tel Dan Inscription in Recent Research. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. Haller, Eduard. 1960. Charisma und Ekstasis: die Erzahlung von dem Propheten Micha ben Jimla, 1. Kon. 22, 1–28a. Munich: Kaiser. Halpern, Baruch. 1981. The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel. Chico: Scholars Press. Handy, Lowell K. 1994. “The Role of Huldah in Josiah’s Cult Reform.” ZAW 106: 40–53. ———. 1995 “Historical Probability and the Narrative of Josiah’s Reform in 2 Kings.” Pages 252–75 in The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström. Edited by Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 2007. “Josiah in a New Light: Assyriology Touches the Reforming King.” Pages in 414–35 in Orientalism, Assyriology and the Bible. Edited by Steven W. Holloway. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. ———. 2013. “Rehabilitating Manasseh: Remembering King Manasseh in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods.” Pages 221–35 in Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods: Social Memory and Imagination. Edited by Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hanson, Paul D. 1968. “The Song of Heshbon and David’s Nîr.” HTR 61: 297–320. Haran, Menahem. 1978. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Oxford: Clarendon. Hardy, Humphrey H., II. and Benjamin D. Thomas. 2012. “Another Look at Biblical Hebrew bɔmɔ ‘High Place’.” VT 62: 175–88. Harel, Menashe. 1967. “Israelite and Roman Roads in the Judean Desert.” IEJ 17: 18–25. Hedner-Zetterholm, Karin. 2010. “Elijah and the Books of Kings in Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 585–606 in The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception. Edited by Andre Lemaire and Baruch Halpern. VTSup 129. Leiden: Brill. Heller, Jan. 1974. “Textkritisches zu 2 Chr XIX 8.” VT 24: 371–73. Henige, David P. 2007. “Found But Not Lost: A Skeptical Note on the Document Discovered in the Temple under Josiah.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 7, article 1. Online: http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_62.pdf. Henshke, David. 2008. “‘The Day After the Sabbath’ (Lev 23:15): Traces and Origin of an Inter-Sectarian Polemic.” Dead Sea Discoveries 15: 225–47. Herrmann, Siegfried. 1989. “The So-Called Fortress System of Rehoboam, 2 Chron 11:5–12: Theoretical Considerations.” Eretz-Israel 20: 72*–78*. Herzog, Ze’ev. 2010. “Perspectives on Southern Israel’s Cult Centralization: Arad and Beer-sheba.” Pages 169–99 in One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann. Berlin: de Gruyter. Hobbs, T. Raymond. 1994. “The ‘Fortresses of Rehoboam’: Another Look.” Pages 41–64 in Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil Richardson. Edited by Lewis M. Hopfe. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Bibliography

481

Hobson, Russell. 2013. “The Memory of Sennacherib in Late Persian Yehud.” Pages 199–220 in Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods: Social Memory and Imagination. Edited by Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hognesius, Kjell. 2003. The Text of 2 Chronicles 1–16 – A Critical Edition with Textual Commentary. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Ilan, Tal. 2010. “Huldah, the Deuteronomic Prophetess of the Book of Kings.” Lectio Difficilior 1/2010. Online: http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/10_1/ilan.html. Ilan, Zvi. 1973. “Jehoshaphat’s Battle with Amon and Moab.” Beit Mikra 18 (53): 205–11 (Hebrew with English abstract). Ishida, Tomoo. 1975. “‘The People of the Land’ and the Political Crises in Judah.” Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 1: 23–38. Jackson, Bernard S. 2007. “Law in the Ninth Century: Jehoshaphat’s ‘Judicial Reform’.” Pages 369–97 in Understanding the History of Ancient Israel. Edited by H. G. M. Williamson. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Japhet, Sara. 1993. I & II Chronicles – A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. ———. 1997. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought. 2nd ed. Translated by A. Barber. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Jarick, John. 2007. 2 Chronicles. Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. ———. 2012. “The Two Ahabs of the South: Joash and Josiah.” Pages 307–16 in Let Us Go Up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of His SixtyFifth Birthday. Edited by Iain Provan and Mark J. Boda. Leiden: Brill. Jepsen, Alfred. 1959. “Karmel, eine vergessene Landschaft?” ZDPV 75: 74–75. Johnstone, William. 1997. 1 & 2 Chronicles. 2 vols. JSOTSup 253–54. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Jones, Gwilym H. 1994. “From Abijam to Abijah.” ZAW 106: 420–34. Jonker, Louis C. 2002. “Completing the Temple with the Celebration of Josiah’s Passover?” OTE 15: 381–97. ———. 2006. “The Cushites in the Chronicler’s Version of Asa’s Reign: A Secondary Audience in Chronicles?” OTE 19: 863–81. ———. 2007. “The Exile as Sabbath Rest: The Chronicler’s Interpretation of the Exile.” OTE 20: 703–19. ———. 2008. “The Disappearing Nehushtan: The Chronicler’s Reinterpretation of Hezekiah’s Reformation Measures.” Pages 116–40 in “From Ebla to Stellenbosch”: Syro-Palestinian Religions and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Izak Cornelius and Louis Jonker. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Joosten, Jan. 2012. “Textual History and Linguistic Developments: The Doublet in 2 Kgs 8:28–29 // 9:15–16 in Light of 2 Chr 22:5–6.” Pages 133–45 in Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera. Edited by Andres Piqer Otero and Pablo A. Torijano Morales. Leiden: Brill. Kahn, Dan’el. 2007. “The Kingdom of Arpad (Bit Agusi) and ‘All Aram’: International Relations in Northern Syria in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries BCE.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 44: 66–89.

482 Bibliography ———. 2013. “Revisiting the Date of King Josiah’s Death.” Pages 255–64 in In the Shadow of Bezalel: Aramaic, Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten. Edited by Alejandro F. Botta. Leiden: Brill. Kalimi, Isaac. 1995. “Paronomasia in the Book of Chronicles.” JSOT 67: 27–41. ———. 2005. An Ancient Israelite Historian: Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place and Writing. Assen: Van Gorcum. ———. 2009a. The Retelling of Chronicles in Jewish Tradition and Literature: A Historical Journey. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2009b. “The Story About the Murder of the Prophet Zechariah in the Gospels and Its Relation to Chronicles.” RB 116: 246–61. ———. 2010. “Murder in Jerusalem Temple – The Chronicler’s Story of Zechariah: Literary and Theological Features, Historical Credibility and Impact.” RB 117: 200–209. ———. 2014. “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: The Chronicler’s View Compared with His ‘Biblical’ Sources.” Pages 11–50 in Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History and Historiography. Edited by Isaac Kalimi and Seth Richardson. Leiden: Brill. Kallai, Zecharia. 1960. The Northern Boundaries of Judah from the Settlement of the Tribes Until the Beginning of the Hasmonaean Period. Jerusalem: Magnes (Hebrew with English summary). ———. 1971. “The Kingdom of Rehoboam.” Eretz-Israel 10: 245–54 (Hebrew with English abstract). ———. 1986. Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Territories of Israel. Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill. Kartveit, Magnar. 1999. “2 Chronicles 36.20–23 as Literary and Theological ‘Interface’.” Pages 395–403 in The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture. Edited by M. Patrick Graham and Steven L. McKenzie. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Katzenstein, Hans Jacob. 1955. “Who Were the Parents of Athaliah?” IEJ 5: 194–97. Keel, Yehudah. 1986. The Book of Chronicles, vol. 1. Da’at Mikra. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook (Hebrew). ———. 1989. The Book of Kings, vol. 1. Da’at Mikra. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook (Hebrew). Keown, Gerald L., Pamela J. Scalise, and Thomas G. Smothers. 1995. Jeremiah 26–52. WBC 27. Dallas: Word Books. Kertai, David. 2013. “The Queens of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.” Altorientalische Forschungen 40: 108–24. Kitchen, Kenneth A. 1986. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.). 2nd ed. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Kittel, Rudolph. 1900. Die Bücher der Könige. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kleber, Kristin. 2013. “The Late Babylonian Temple: Economy, Politics and Cult.” Pages 167–77 in Tempel im Alten Orient. Edited by Kai Kaniuth et al. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Klein, Jacob. 2011–2012. “Leprosy and Lepers in Mesopotamian Literature.” Korot 21: 9*–24* (Hebrew with English abstract). Klein, Ralph W. 1983. “Abijah’s Campaign Against the North (2 Chr 13) – What Were the Chronicler’s Sources?” ZAW 95: 210–17.

Bibliography

483

———. 1995. “Reflections on Historiography in the Account of Jehoshaphat.” Pages 643–57 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. ———. 1997. “How Many in a Thousand?” Pages 270–82 in The Chronicler as Historian. Edited by M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund, and Steven L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 238. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 2000. “The Ironic End of Joash in Chronicles.” Pages 116–27 in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity. Edited by Randal A. Argall, Beverly A. Bow, and Rodney A. Werline. Harris­burg: Trinity Press International. ———. 2010. “The Chronicler’s Theological Rewriting of the Deuteronomistic History: Amaziah, a Test Case.” Pages 237–45 in Raising Up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson. Edited by K. L. Noll and Brooks Schramm. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2011. “The Rendering of 2 Chronicles 35–36 in 1 Esdras.” Pages 225–35 in Was 1 Esdras First? An Investigation of the Priority and Nature of 1 Esdras. Edited by Lisbeth S. Fried. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. ———. 2012. 2 Chronicles – A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Kletter, Raz, and Irit Ziffer. 2010. “Incense-Burning Rituals: From Philistine Fire Pans at Yavneh to the Improper Fire of Korah.” IEJ 60: 166–87. Klili, Ran. 2008. “From Azariah to Uzziah.” Ma’aliyot 27–28: 250–86. Knauf, Ernst Axel. 1985. “Mu’näer and Mëuniter.” Die Welt des Orients 16: 114–22. ———. 2000. “Kinneret and Naftali.” Pages 219–33 in Congress Volume: Oslo, 1998. Edited by A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø. VTSup 80. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2001. “The Mists of Ramthalon, or: How Ramoth-Gilead Disappeared from the Archaeological Record.” BN 110: 33–36. ———. 2002. “The Queens’ Story. Bathsheba, Maacah, Athaliah and the ‘Historia of Early Kings’.” Lectio Difficilior 2: 1–32. ———. 2005. “The Glorious Days of Manasseh.” Pages 164–88 in Good Kings and Bad Kings: The Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century BCE. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. London: T&T Clark International. Knoppers, Gary N. 1990. “Rehoboam in Chronicles: Villain or Victim?” JBL 109: 423–40. ———. 1991. “Reform and Regression: The Chronicler’s Presentation of Jehoshaphat.” Bib 72: 500–524. ———. 1993. “ ‘Battling Against Yahweh’: Israel’s War Against Judah in 2 Chr 13:2–20.” RB 100: 511–32. ———. 1994. “Jehoshaphat’s Judiciary and ‘The Scroll of YHWH’s Torah’.” JBL 113: 59–80. ———. 1997. “History and Historiography: The Royal Reforms.” Pages 178–203 in The Chronicler as Historian. Edited by M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund, and Steven L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 238. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 1999. “Jerusalem at War in Chronicles.” Pages 57–76 in Zion, City of Our God. Edited by Richard S. Hess and Gordon J. Wenham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2011. “Saint or Sinner? Manasseh in Chronicles.” Pages 211–29 in Rewriting Biblical History – Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honour of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol. Berlin: de Gruyter.

484 Bibliography Kochavi, Moshe. 1972. “The Land of Judah.” Pages 17–89 in Judaea, Samaria and the Golan, Archaeological Survey 1967–1968. Edited by Moshe Kochavi. Jerusalem: The Archaeological Survey of Israel – Carta (Hebrew). Kooij, Arie van der. 1998. “The Death of Josiah According to 1 Esdras.” Textus 19: 97–109. Kriger, Ben-Zion. 1997. “The Thirty-Sixth Year of Asa’s Reign.” Merhavim 6: 107–15 (Hebrew). Layton, Scott C. 1990. “The Steward in Ancient Israel: A Study of Hebrew (Ašer) Al-Habbayit in Its Near Eastern Setting.” JBL 109: 633–49. Lehmann, Gunnar. 2012. “Survival and Reconstruction of Judah in the Time of Manasseh.” Pages 289–309 in Disaster and Relief Management - Katastrophen und ihre Bewältigung. Edited by Angelika Berlejung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Lemaire, André. 2000. “Tarshish-Tarsisi: Problème de topographie historique biblique et assyrienne.” Pages 44–62 in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kallai. Edited by Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2010. “Hazor in the Second Half of the Tenth Century B.C.E.: Historiography, Archaeology and History.” Pages 55–72 in The Historian and the Bible: Essays in Honour of Lester L. Grabbe. Edited by Philip R. Davies and Diana V. Edelman. New York: T&T Clark International. Lemche, Niels Peter. 2010. “Did a Reform Like Josiah’s Happen?” Pages 11–19 in The Historian and the Bible – Essays in Honour of Lester L. Grabbe. Edited by Philip R. Davies and Diana V. Edelman. New York: T&T Clark International. Leuchter, Mark. 2004. “Jeremiah’s 70-Year Prophecy and the ‫ששך‬/‫ לב קמי‬Atbash Codes.” Bib 85: 503–22. ———. 2009. “ ‘The Prophets’ and ‘The Levites’ in Josiah’s Covenant Ceremony.” ZAW 121: 31–47. ———. 2011. “Rethinking the ‘Jeremiah’ Doublet in Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles.” Pages 183–200 in What Was Authoritative for Chronicles? Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Diana V. Edelman. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2013. “Remembering Jeremiah in the Persian Period.” Pages 384–414 in Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods: Social Memory and Imagination. Edited by Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levin, Christoph. 1982. Der Sturz der Konigin Atalja: Ein Kapital zur Geschichte Judas im 9. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 1984. “Joschija im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk.” ZAW 96: 351–71. Levin, Yigal. 2002. “The Search for Moresheth-Gath: A New Proposal.” PEQ 134: 28–36. ———. 2003a. “Chisloth-tabor, Rimmon, The Brook That Is Before Jokneam and the Valley of Yiphtah-el: The Border of the Allotment of Zebulun” Cathedra 108: 5–36 (Hebrew with English abstract). ———. 2003b. “Who Was the Chronicler’s Audience? – A Hint from His Genealogies.” JBL 122: 229–45. ———. 2004. “Joseph, Judah and the ‘Benjamin Conundrum’.” ZAW 116: 223–41. ———. 2006. “Numbers 34:2–12, The Boundaries of the Land of Canaan and the Empire of Necho.” JANES 30: 55–76.

Bibliography

485

———. 2007. “The Southern Frontier of Yehud and the Creation of Idumea.” Pages 239–52 in A Time of Change: Judah and Its Neighbours in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Period. Edited by Yigal Levin. London: T&T Clark International. ———. 2010. “Sheshonq I and the Negev Ḥaṣerim.” Maarav 17: 189–215. ———. 2011a. “Baal-Hazor.” Columns 215–216 in vol. 3 of Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception. Edited by Hans-Josef Klauck et al. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2011b. “The Status of Gath in Micah’s Lament for the Cities of Judah.” Pages 223–37 in Studies in Bible and Exegesis 10, Presented to Shmuel Vargon. Edited by M. Garsiel, R. Kasher, A. Frisch, and D. Elgavish. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press (Hebrew). ———. 2012a. “Philistine Gath in the Biblical Record.” Pages 141–52 in Tell es-Safi/Gath I: The 1996–2005 Seasons. Edited by Aren M. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2012b. “The Identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa: A New Suggestion.” BASOR 367: 73–86. ———. 2013. “Bi-Directional Forced Deportations in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the Origins of the Samaritans: Colonialism and Hybridity.” Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28, no. 1: 213–36. ———. 2015a. “The Formation of Idumean Identity.” ARAM 27: 191–206. ———. 2015b. “How Did Rabshakeh Know the Language of Judah?” Pages 323–37 in Marbeh Ḥokmah: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East in Loving Memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz. Edited by Shamir Yonah, Ed Greenstein, Mayer Gruber, Peter Machinist, and Shalom Paul. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Levin, Yigal, and Avraham Faust. 1998. “The Ties Between the Tribes Asher and Benjamin.” Pages 225–31 in Judea and Samaria Research Studies: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting 1997. Edited by Yaakov Eshel. Kedumin – Ariel: College of Judea and Samaria Research Institute (Hebrew with English Abstract). Levine Gera, Deborah. 2014. Judith. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin: de Gruyter. Levy, Shalom. 1971. “The Ancient Synagogue of Ma’on (Nirim).” Pages 206–10 in Roman Frontier Studies 1967: Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress Held at Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv: Student’s Organization of Tel Aviv University. Linssen, Marc J. H. 2004. The Cults of Uruk and Babylon: The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practices. Leiden: Brill. Boston: Styx. Lipschits, Oded. 2002. “ ‘Jehoiakim Slept with His Fathers’ (II Kings 24:6) – Did He?” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 4, no. 1: 1–33 ———. 2004. “ ‘From Geba to Beersheba’: A Further Consideration.” RB 111: 345–61. Lipschits, Oded, Omer Sergi, and Ido Koch. 2010. “Royal Judahite Jar Handles: Reconsidering the Chronology of the lmlk Stamp Impressions.” TA 37: 3–32. Long, Burke O. 1983. “The Form and Significance of 1 Kings 22:1–38.” Pages 193–208 in vol. 3 of Isac Leo Seeligmann Volume – Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World. Edited by Alexander Rofé and Yair Zakovitch. Jerusalem: Rubinstein’s Publishing House. López-Ruiz, Carolina. 2009. “Tarshish and Tartessos Revisited: Textual Problems and Historical Implications.” Pages 255–80 in Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous Relations. Edited by M. Dietler and C. López-Ruiz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

486 Bibliography Lundbom, Jack R. 1978. “The Lawbook of the Josianic Reform.” CBQ 38: 293–302. MacDonald, Nathan. 2011. “Edom and Seir in the Narratives and Itineraries of Numbers 20–21 and Deuteronomy 1–3.” Pages 83–103 in Deuteronomium – Tora für eine neue Generation. Edited by Georg Fischer, Dominik Markl, and Simone Paganini. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Machinist, Peter. 1995. “The Transfer of Kingship: A Divine Turning.” Pages 105–20 in Fortunate the Eyes That See – Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Astrid B. Beck et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Macy, Howard Ray. 1975. “The Sources of the Books of Chronicles: A Reassessment.” Unpublished PhD diss. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Maeir, Aren M. 2004. “The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An Archaeological Perspective from Tell Es-Safi/Gath.” VT 54: 319–34. ———, ed. 2012a. Tell es-Safi/Gath I: The 1996–2005 Seasons. Ägypten und Altes Testament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2012b. “Philistia and the Judean Shephelah after Hazael and the ‘Uzziah Earthquake’: The Power Play Between the Philistines, Judahites and Assyrians in the 8th Century BCE in Light of the Excavations at Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath.” Pages 241–62 in Disaster and Relief Management / Katastrophen und ihre Bewältigung. Edited by Angelika Berlejung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Magness, Jodi. 1987. “The Pottery from the 1980 Excavations at Ma‘on (Nirim).” EretzIsrael 19 (Avi-Yonah Volume): 216–24 (Hebrew with English abstract). Malamat, Abraham. 1953. “The Historical Background of the Assassination of Amon, King of Judah.” IEJ 3: 26–29. ———. 1963a. “Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon.” JNES 22: 1–17. ———. 1963b. “Kingship and Council in Israel and Sumer: A Parallel.” JNES 22: 247–53. ———. 1973. “Josiah’s Bid for Armageddon: The Background of the Judean–Egyptian Encounter in 609 B.C.” The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5: 267–79. ———. 1999. “Naamah, the Ammonite Princess, King Solomon’s Wife.” RB 106: 35–40. Mazar, Amihai. 1990. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000–586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday. Mazar, Amihai, and Nava Panitz-Cohen. 2007. “It Is the Land of Honey: Beekeeping at Tel Rehov.” Near Eastern Archaeology 70: 202–19. Mazar (Maisler), Benjamin. 1952–53. “Beth She‘arim, Gaba, and Harosheth of the Peoples.” Hebrew Union College Annual 24: 75–84. Mazar, Benjamin. 1954. “Gath and Gittaim.” IEJ 4: 227–35. ———. 1975. “From Geba to Beersheba.” Pages 84–87 in Cities and Districts in EretzIsrael. Edited by B. Mazar. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik (Hebrew). ———. 1986. “Lebo-hamath and the Northern Border of Canaan.” Pages 189–202 in The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies. Edited by Shmuel Aḥituv and Baruch A. Levine. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society (translated from the 1975 Hebrew). McCarter, P. Kyle. 1980. I Samuel – A New Translation with Introduction, Notes & Commentary. AB 8. Garden City: Doubleday. McEntire, Mark Harold. 1993. The Function of Sacrifice in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen. McKay, John William. 1973. Religion in Judah Under the Assyrians 732–609 BC. London: SCM.

Bibliography

487

McKenzie, Steven L. 1984. The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ———. 2004. 1–2 Chronicles. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon. ———. 2007. “The Trouble with King Jehoshaphat.” Pages 299–314 in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld. Edited by Robert Rezetko et al. Leiden: Brill. Milgrom, Jacob. 1985. “Hezekiah’s Sacrifices at the Dedication Services of the Purified Temple (2 Chr 29:21–24).” Pages 159–61 in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry. Edited by Ann Kort and Scott Morschauser. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. ———. 1991. Leviticus 1–16 – A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday. ———. 2001. Leviticus 23–27 – A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3B. New York: Doubleday. Miller, Daniel R. 2006. “The Shadow of the Overlord: Revisiting the Question of Neo-Assyrian Imposition on the Judaean Cult during the Eighth-Seventh Centuries BCE.” Pages 146–68 in From Babel to Babylon: Essays on Biblical History and Literature in Honour of Brian Peckham. Edited by Joyce Rilett Wood, John E. Harvey, and Mark Leuchter. New York: T&T Clark International. Miller, J. Maxwell. 1987. “Rehoboam’s Cities of Defense and the Levitical City List.” Pages 273–86 in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Memory of D. Glenn Rose. Edited by Leo G. Perdue, Lawrence E. Toombs, and Gary L. Johnson. Atlanta: John Knox Press. Mirelman, Sam. 2014. “The Ala-Instrument: Its Identification and Role.” Pages 148–71 in Music in Antiquity: The Near East and the Mediterranean. Edited by Joan Goodnick Westinholz, Yossi Maurey, and Edwin Seroussi. Berlin: de Gruyter. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, Magnes. Mitchell, Christine. 2006. “The Ironic Death of Josiah in 2 Chronicles.” CBQ 68: 421–35. Mizrahi, Noam. 2001. “The History and Linguistic Background of Two Hebrew Titles for the High Priest.” JBL 130: 687–705. Moberly, R. Walter L. 2003. “Does God Lie to His Prophets? The Story of Micaiah ben Imlah as a Test Case.” HTR 96: 1–23. Möhlenbrink, Kurt. 1934. “Die levitischen Überlieferungen des Alten Testaments.” ZAW 52: 184–231. Montgomery, J. A. 1941. “Soul Gods.” HTR 34: 321–22. Moran, William L. 1963. “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 25: 77–87. Moriarty, Frederick L. 1965. “The Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah’s Reform.” CBQ 27: 399–406. Morrow, William S. 2013. “Were there Neo-Assyrian Influences in Manasseh’s Temple? Comparative Evidence from Tel-Miqne/Ekron.” CBQ 75: 53–73. Morschauser, Scott. 2010. “A ‘Diagnostic’ Note on the ‘Great Wrath Upon Israel’ in 2 Kings 3:27.” JBL 129: 299–302. Mosis, Rudolf. 1973. Untersuchungen Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes, Freiburg: Herder. Mulder, Martin J. 1998. 1 Kings. Vol. 1, 1 Kings 1–11. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters.

488 Bibliography Münnich, Maciej M. 2006. “What Did the Biblical Goat-Demons Look Like?” UF 38: 525–35. Musil, Alois. 1926. The Northern Ḥeğâz – A Topographical Itinerary. New York: Czech Academy of Sciences and Arts. Myers, Jacob M. 1965. II Chronicles. AB 13. Garden City: Doubleday. Na’aman, Nadav. 1974. “Sennacherib’s ‘Letter to God’ on His Campaign to Judah.” BASOR 214: 25–39. ———. 1979. “The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt.” TA 6: 68–90. ———. 1985. “The Historical Background of the Battle Between Amaziah and Jehoash.” Shnaton – An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 9 (ed. Moshe Weinfeld): 211–17 (Hebrew with English abstract). ———. 1986a. “Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps.” BASOR 261: 5–21. ———. 1986b. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography: Seven Studies in Biblical Geographical Lists. Jerusalem: Simor. ———. 1986c. “Historical and Chronological Notes on the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the Eighth Century B.C.” VT 36: 71–92. ———. 1987. “Pastoral Nomads in the Southwestern Periphery of the Kingdom of Judah in the 9th–8th Centuries B.C.E.” Zion 52: 261–78 (Hebrew). ———. 1988. “The Date of 2 Chronicles 11:5–10 – A Reply to Y. Garfinkel.” BASOR 271: 74–77. ———. 1991. “The Kingdom of Judah Under Josiah.” TA 18: 3–71. ———. 1993. “Azariah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel.” VT 43: 227–34. ———. 1995. “The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform in the Light of Historical and Archaeological Research.” ZAW 107: 179–95. ———. 1998a. “Shishak’s Campaign to Palestine as Reflected by the Epigraphic, Biblical and Archaeological Evidence.” Zion 63: 247–76 (Hebrew with English abstract). ———. 1998b. “Royal Inscriptions and the Histories of Joash and Ahaz, Kings of Judah.” VT 48: 333–49. ———. 2003. “In Search of Reality Behind the Account of the Philistine Assault on Ahaz in the Book of Chronicles.” Transeuphratène 26: 47–63. ———. 2004. “Death Formulae and the Burial Place of the Kings of the House of David.” Bib 85: 245–54. ———. 2007. “When and How Did Jerusalem Become a Great City? The Rise of Jerusalem as Judah’s Premier City in the Eighth–Seventh Centuries B.C.E.” BASOR 347: 21–56. ———. 2011a. “The Inscriptions of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud Through the Lens of Historical Research.” UF 43: 299–324. ———. 2011b. “The ‘Discovered Book’ and the Legitimation of Josiah’s Reform.” JBL 130: 47–62. ———. 2013. “A ‫ ניר‬for David in Jerusalem.” JNSL 39: 21–57. Nakhai, Beth Alpert. 1994. “What’s a Bamah? How Sacred Space Functioned in Ancient Israel.” BAR 20: 18–29, 77–78. Nelson, Richard D. 2002. Deuteronomy – A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. ———. 2005. “The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History: The Case Is Still Compelling.” JSOT 29: 319–37.

Bibliography

489

Neusner, Jacob. 1988. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press. Newman, Judith H. 2007. “The Form and Settings of the Prayer of Manasseh.” Pages 105–25 in Seeking the Favor of God. Vol. 2, The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Mark J. Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and Rodney A. Werline. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Niehr, Herbert. 1995. “Die Reform de Joschija. Methodische, historische und religions­ gechichtliche Aspekte.” Pages 33–55 in Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung.” Edited by Walter Gross. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum. Nielsen, Eduard. 1983. Law, History and Tradition: Selected Essays by Eduard Nielson. Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gads Forlag. Noll, Kurt Lesher. 2012. “The Deconstruction of Deuteronomism in the Former Prophets: Micaiah ben Imlah as Example.” Pages 325–34 in Far from Minimal: Celebrating the Work and Influence of Philip R. Davies. Edited by Duncan Burns and J. W. Rogerson. London: T&T Clark International. North, Robert SJ. 1974. “Does Archeology Prove Chronicles Sources?” Pages 375–401 in A Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers. Edited by Howard N. Bream, Ralph D. Heim, and Carey A. Moore. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Noth, Martin. 1930. Das System der Zwölf Stamme Israels. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. ———. 1938. “Die Wege der Pharaonenheere in Palästina und Syrien, IV. Die Schoschenk­ liste.” ZDPV 61: 277–304. ———. 1943. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien I: Die sammelnden und bear­ beitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament. Halle: M. Niemeyer. ———. 1945. “Eine palästinische Lokalüberlieferung in 2. Chr. 20.” ZDPV 67: 45–71. Notley, R. Steven, and Ze’ev Safrai. 2005. Eusebius, Onomasticon: The Place Names of Divine Scripture, Including the Latin Edition of Jerome. Boston: Brill. Oded, Bustenay. 1972. “The Historical Background of the Syro-Ephraimite War Recon­ sidered.” CBQ 34: 153–65. Olley, John W. 2003. “2 Chr. XXVI 22: Isaiah ben Amoz or Isshiah the Prophet.” VT 53: 553–58. Olmstead, Albert Ten Eyck. 1923. History of Assyria. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Oppenheim, A. Leo. 1947. “A Fiscal Practice of the Ancient Near East.” JNES 6: 116–20. Oren, Eliezer D., Martha A. Morrison, and Itzhak Gilead. 1986. “Land of Gerar Expedition: Preliminary Reports for the Seasons of 1982 and 1983.” Pages 57–87 in Preliminary Reports of ASOR-Sponsored Excavations. 1980–84. Edited by Walter E. Rast. BASOR Supplement 24. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Organ, Barbara E. 2006. “ ‘The Man Who Would Be King’: Irony in the Story of Rehoboam.” Pages 124–32 in From Babel to Babylon – Essays on Biblical History and Literature in Honour of Brian Peckham. Edited by Joyce Rilett Wood, John E. Harvey, and Mark Leuchter. New York: T&T Clark International. Pajunen, Mika S. 2012. “The Prayer of Manasseh in 4Q381 and the Account of Manasseh in 2 Chronicles 33.” Pages 143–61 in The Scrolls and Biblical Traditions. Edited by George J. Brooke, Daniel K. Falk, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Molly M. Zahn. Leiden: Brill.

490 Bibliography Pakkala, Juha. 2010. “Why the Cult Reforms in Judah Probably Did Not Happen.” Pages 201–23 in One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2012. “Selective Transmission of the Past in Chronicles: Jehoiada’s Rebellion in 2 Kings 11 and 2 Chronicles 22:10–23:21.” Pages 239–56 in Remembering and Forgetting in Early Second Temple Judah. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Pardee, Dennis. 1978. “The Judicial Plea from Meṣad Ḥashavyahu (Yavneh-Yam): A New Philological Study.” Maarav 1: 33–66. Park, Sung Jin. 2011. “The Cultic Identity of Asherah in Deuteronomistic Ideology of Israel.” ZAW 123: 553–64. Petersen, David L. 1977. Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles. Missoula: Scholars Press. Pintore, Franco. 1983. “Seren, Tarwanis, Tyrannos.” Pages 285–322 in Studio Orientalistici in Recordo di Franco Pintore. Edited by Onofrio Carruba, Mario Liverani, and Carlo Zaccagnini. Pavia: GJES. Pitard, Wayne T. 1987. Ancient Damascus: A Historical Study of the Syrian City-State from Earliest Times Until Its Fall to the Assyrians in 732 B.C.E. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. ———. 1988. “The Identity of the Bir-Hadad of the Melqart Stele.” BASOR 272: 3–21. Porten, Bezalel, and Ada Yardeni. 2007. “Makkedah and the Storehouse in the Idumean Ostraca.” Pages 125–70 in A Time of Change: Judah and its Neighbors in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Period. Edited by Yigal Levin. London: T&T Clark International. Portugali, Yuval. 1984. “ ‘Arim, Banot, Migrashim and Haserim: The Spatial Organization of Eretz-Israel in the 12th–10th Centuries B.C.E. According to the Bible.” Eretz Israel 17: 282–90 (Hebrew with English abstract). Pratico, Gary D. 1993. Nelson Glueck’s 1938–1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifah: A Reappraisal. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Priest, John F. 1980. “Huldah’s Oracle.” VT 30: 366–68. Prosic, Tamara. 2004. The Development and Symbolism of Passover Until 70 CE. London: T&T Clark International. Pruin, Dagmar. 2007. “What Is in a Text? – Searching for Jezebel.” Pages 209–35 in Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. London: T&T Clark International. Puech, Émile. 1992. “La stèle de Bar-Hadad à Melqart et les rois d’Arpad.” RB 99: 311–34. Rad, Gerhard von. 1934. “The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles.” Reprinted and translated in 1965 by Trueman Dicken as pages 267–80 in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. ———. 1966. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. OTL. Translated from the 1964 German by Dorothea Barton. London: SCM. Rainey, Anson F. 1975. “The Identification of Philistine Gath – A Problem in Source Analysis for Historical Geography.” Eretz Israel 12: 63*–76*. ———. 1981. “Toponymic Problems (cont.).” TA 8: 146–51. ———. 1982. “Wine from the Royal Vineyards.” BASOR 245: 57–62. ———. 1983a. “The Biblical Shephelah of Judah.” BASOR 251: 1–22. ———. 1983b. “Toponymic Problems (cont.): Harosheth–Hagoiim.” TA 10: 46–48.

Bibliography

491

———. 1993. “Manasseh, King of Judah, in the Whirlpool of the Seventh Century B.C.E.” Pages 147–64 in Kinattūtu ša Dārâti: Raphael Kutscher Memorial Volume. Edited by Anson F. Rainey. Tel Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology. ———. 1994. “Hezekiah’s Reform and the Altars at Beersheba and Arad.” Pages 333–54 in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Edited by M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, and L. E. Stager. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. ———. 1997. “The Chronicler and His Sources – Historical and Geographical.” Pages 30–72 in The Chronicler as Historian. Edited by M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund, and Steven L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 238. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 2000. “Mesha’s Attempt to Invade Judah (2 Chron 20).” Pages 174–76 in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kallai. Edited by Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld. Leiden: Brill. Rainey, Anson F., and R. Steven Notley. 2006. The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World. Jerusalem: Carta. Rehm, Martin. 1937. Textkritische Untersuchungen zu den Parallelstellen der SamuelKönigsbücher und der Chronik. Münster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlags­buch­ handlung. Reich, Ronny. 2011. Excavating the City of David: Where Jerusalem’s History Began. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Reich, Ronny, and Eli Shukron. 2003. “The Urban Development of Jerusalem in the Late Eighth Century B.C.E.” Pages 209–18 in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period. Edited by Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Rendsburg, Gary. 1981. “A Reconstruction of Moabite–Israelite History.” JANES 13: 67–73. ———. 2014. “What We Can Learn About Other Northwest Semitic Dialects from Reading the Bible.” Pages 160–78 in Discourse, Dialogue, and Debate in the Bible: Essays in Honour of Frank H. Polak. Edited by Athalya Brenner-Idan. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. Rendsburg, Gary, and William M. Schniedewind. 2010. “The Siloam Tunnel Inscription: Historical and Linguistic Perspectives.” IEJ 60: 188–203. Rendtorff, Rolf. 1996. “Chronicles and the Priestly Torah.” Pages 259–66 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Edited by Michael V. Fox et al. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Rinaldi, G. 1963. “Quelques Remarques sur la Politique d’Azarias (Ozias) de Juda en Philistie (2 Chron. 26: 6 ss.).” Pages 225–35 in Congress Volume: Bonn, 1962. Edited by Martin Noth. VTSup 9. Leiden: Brill. Ristau, Kenneth A. 2009. “Reading and Rereading Josiah: The Chronicler’s Representation of Josiah for the Postexilic Community.” Pages 219–47 in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Kenneth A. Ristau. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Robertson, David. 1982. “Micaiah ben Imlah: A Literary View.” Pages 139–46 in The Biblical Mosaic: Changing Perspectives. Edited by Robert Polzin and Eugene Rothman. Philadelphia: Fortress. Chico: Scholars Press.

492 Bibliography Rofé, Alexander. 1976. “The Story of Micaiah ben Imlah and the Question of Classes of Prophetic Stories.” Pages 233–44 in vol. 2 of Reflections on the Bible: Selected Studies of the Bible Circle in Memory of Yishai Ron. Edited by M. I. Haim. Tel Aviv: The Israel Society for Biblical Research (Hebrew). ———. 2001. “The Organization of the Judiciary in Deuteronomy (Deut. 16.18–20; 17.8–13; 19.15; 21.22–23; 24.16; 25.1–3).” Pages 92–112 in vol. 1 of The World of the Aramaeans. Edited by P. M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers, and Michael Weigl. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Rogerson, John, and Philip R. Davies. 1996. “Was the Siloam Tunnel Built by Hezekiah?” BA 59: 138–49. Römer, Thomas C. 1997. “Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historio­ graphy: On ‘Book-Finding’ and Other Literary Strategies.” ZAW 109: 1–11. ———. 2013. “From Prophet to Scribe: Jeremiah, Huldah and the Invention of the Book.” Pages 86–96 in Writing the Bible: Scribes, Scribalism and Script. Edited by Philip R. Davies and Thomas C. Römer. Durham: Acumen. Rooke, Deborah W. 1998. “Kingship as Priesthood: The Relationship Between the High Priesthood and the Monarchy.” Pages 187–208 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Roth, Wolfgang. 1982. “The Story of the Prophet Micaiah (1 Kings 22) in HistoricalCritical Interpretation 1876–1976.” Pages 105–37 in The Biblical Mosaic: Changing Perspectives. Edited by Robert Polzin and Eugene Rothman. Philadelphia: Fortress. Chico: Scholars Press. Rozenfeld, Ben Tsiyon. 1999–2000. “Nahum Ish Gamzu – Teacher of Rabbi Akiba.” Talpiot 11: 62–94 (Hebrew). Rudman, Dominic. 2000. “A Note on the Personal Name Amon (2 Kings 21,19–26 – 2 Chr 33,21–25).” Bib 81: 403–405. Rudolph, Wilhelm. 1955. Chronikbücher. HAT 21. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr – Paul Siebeck. Safrai, Ze’ev. 2013. Mishnat Eretz Israel, Tractate Avot (Neziqin 7) With Historical and Sociological Commentary. Jerusalem, Keter Press (Hebrew). Sagrillo, Troy Leiland. 2012. “Šîšaq’s Army: 2 Chronicles 12:2–3 from an Egyptological Perspective.” Pages 425–50 in The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History. Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the University of Haifa, 2–5 May, 2010. Edited by Gershon Galil, Ayelet Gilboa, Aren M. Maeir, and Dan’el Kahn. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Sambursky, Shmuel. 1978. “On the Origin and Significance of the Term Gemaṭria.” Journal of Jewish Studies 29: 35–38. Sapir, Edward. 1937. “Hebrew ‘Helmet’, a Loanword, and Its Bearing on Indo-European Phonology.” JAOS 57: 73–77. Sasson, Jack M. 2014. Judges 1–12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven: Yale University Press. Schipper, Jeremy. 2009. “Deuteronomy 24:5 and King Asa’s Foot Disease in 1 Kings 15:23b.” JBL 128: 643–48. Schniedewind, William M. 1991. “The Source Citations of Manasseh: King Manasseh in History and Homily.” VT 61: 450–61.

Bibliography

493

———. 1996. “A Qumran Fragment of the Ancient ‘Prayer of Manasseh’?” ZAW 108: 105–107. ———. 1997. “Prophets and Prophecy in Chronicles.” Pages 204–24 in The Chronicler as Historian. Edited by M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund, and Steven L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 238. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Seeligmann, Isaac Leo. 1955. “Studies in the History of the Biblical Text.” Tarbiz 25: 118–39 (Hebrew). ———. 1961. “Indications of Editorial Alteration and Adaptation in the Massoretic Text and the Septuagint.” VT 11: 201–21. Segal, Judah Benzion. 1963. The Hebrew Passover: From the Earliest Times to A.D. 70. London: Oxford University Press. Shai, Itzhaq. 2006. “The Political Organization of the Philistines.” Pages 347–59 in vol. 1 of “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Aren M. Maeir and Pierre de Miroschedji. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Shanks, Hershel. 2003a. “Is It or Isn’t It? King Jehoash Inscription Captivates Archaeological World.” BAR 29, no. 2: 22–23, 69. ———. 2003b. “First Person.” BAR 29, no. 3: 6–8, 68. Shanks, Hershel, and Edward L. Greenstein. 2003. “Assessing the Jehoash Inscription.” BAR 29, no. 3: 26–30. Shapira, Amnon. 2009. Democratic Values in the Hebrew Bible. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad (Hebrew). Shaver, Judson R. 1989. Torah and the Chronicler’s History Work: An Inquiry into the Chronicler’s Reference to Laws, Festivals, and Cultic Institutions in Relationship to Pentateuchal Legislation. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Shinan, Avigdor, and Yair Zakovitch. 1986. “Midrash on Scripture and Midrash within Scripture.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 31: 259–77. Shoham, Yair. 2000. “Hebrew Bullae.” Pages 29–57 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh VI – Inscriptions. Edited by Donald T. Ariel. Qedem 41. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Siddall, Luis Robert. 2009. “Tiglath-Pileser III’s Aid to Ahaz: A New Look at the Problems of the Biblical Accounts in Light of the Assyrian Sources.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 46: 93–106. Smelik, Klaas Antonius Donato. 1997. “The New Altar of King Ahaz (2 Kings 16): Deuteronomistic Re-Interpretation of a Cult Reform.” Pages 263–78 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans. Edited by M. Vervenne and J. Lust. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters. ———. 1998. “The Representation of King Ahaz in 2 Kings 16 and 2 Chronicles 28.” Pages 143–85 in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel. Edited by Johannes C. de Moor. OTS 40. Leiden: Brill. Smit, E. J. 1994. “So How Did Jehoiakim Die?” JS 6: 46–56. Smith, Carol. 1998. “‘Queenship’ in Israel? The Cases of Bathsheba, Jezebel and Athaliah.” Pages 142–62 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by John Day. JSOTSup 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Snaith, Norman Henry. 1975. “The Meaning of ‫שעירים‬.” VT 25: 115–18.

494 Bibliography Snyman, Gerrie. 2011. “Why Asa Was Not Deemed Good Enough: A Decolonial Reading of 2 Chronicles 14–16.” Pages 241–68 in Texts, Contexts and Readings in Postexilic Literature: Explorations into Historiography and Identity Negotiation in Hebrew Bible and Related Texts. Edited by Louis Jonker. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Soggin, J. Alberto. 1981. Judges: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster. Spanier, Ktziah. 1998. “The Northern Israelite Queen Mother in the Judaean Court: Athalia and Abi.” Pages 136–49 in Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon. Edited by Meir Lubetski, Claire Gottlieb, and Sharon Keller. JSOTSup 273. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Speiser, Ephraim Avigdor. 1950. “On Some Articles of Armor and Their Names.” JAOS 70: 47–49. Stacey, W. David. 1990. Prophetic Drama in the Old Testament. London: Epworth. Stavrakopoulou, Francesca. 2006. “Exploring the Garden of Uzza: Death, Burial and Ideologies of Kingship.” Bib 87: 1–21. ———. 2012–13. “The Jerusalem Tophet – Ideological Dispute and Religious Transformation.” Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 29–30: 137–58. Stott, Katherine. 2005. “Finding the Lost Book of the Law: Re-reading the Story of ‘the Book of the Law’ (Deuteronomy–2 Kings) in Light of Classical Literature,” JSOT 30: 153–69. Strange, J. 1975. “Joram, King of Israel and Judah.” VT 25: 191–201. Suriano, Matthew J. 2007. “The Apology of Hazael: A Literary and Historical Analysis of the Tel Dan Inscription.” JNES 66: 163–76. Suriano, Matthew J., Joe Uziel, and Itzhak Shai. Forthcoming. “In Search of Libnah.” JANES. Sweeney, Marvin A. 2001. King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2007. I & II Kings – A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Tadmor, Hayim. 1961. “Azriyau of Yaudi.” Pages 232–71 in Studies in the Bible. Edited by Chaim Rabin. Scripta Hierosolymitana 8. Jerusalem: Magnes. ———. 1971. “The Me‘unites in the Book of Chronicles in the Light of an Assyrian Document.” Pages 222–30 in Bible and Jewish History: Studies in Bible and Jewish History Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver. Edited by Benjamin Uffenheimer. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University (Hebrew with English abstract). ———. 1973. “The Historical Inscriptions of Adad-Nirari III.” Iraq 35: 141–50. ———. 1982. “Traditional Institutions and the Monarchy: Social and Political Tensions in the Time of David and Solomon.” Pages 239–57 in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Edited by Tomoo Ishida. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Talmon, Shemaryahu. 1958. “Divergences in Calendar-Reckoning in Ephraim and Judah.” VT 8: 48–74. Talshir, Zipora. 1996. “The Three Deaths of Josiah and the Strata of Biblical Historiography (2 Kings XXIII 29–30: 2 Chronicles XXXV 20–5; 1 Esdras I 23–31).” VT 46: 213–36. ———. 1999. I Esdras: From Origin to Translation. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. ———. 2001. I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Bibliography

495

Tatum, Lynn. 2003. “Jerusalem in Conflict: The Evidence for the Seventh-Century B.C.E. Religious Struggle Over Jerusalem.” Pages 291–306 in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period. Edited by Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Tawil, Hayim ben Yosef. 2009. An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew. New York: Ktav. Tetley, M. Christine. 2005. The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Thames, John Tracy, Jr. 2011. “A New Discussion of the Meaning of the Phrase am hāāreṣ in the Hebrew Bible.” JBL 130: 109–25. Thiele, Edwin R. 1983. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Academie-Zondervan. Thompson, John Alexander. 1974. “The Significance of the Verb Love in the David– Jonathan Narratives in I Samuel.” VT 24: 334–38. ———. 1979. “Israel’s ‘Haters’.” VT 29: 200–205. Throntveit, Mark A. 1988. “Hezekiah in the Books of Chronicles.” Society of Biblical Literature: Seminar Papers 27: 302–11. Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996. Deuteronomy. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society. ———. 2011. “The Role of the Elders in the Laws of Deuteronomy.” Pages 89–96 in A Common Cultural Heritage: Studies on Mesopotamia and the Biblical World in Honor of Barry L. Eichler. Edited by Grant Frame et al. Bethesda: CDL. Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. 1992. “Edition préliminaire de 4QChroniques.” Revue de Qumran 15: 523–29. Tsumura, David Toshio. 2007. The First Book of Samuel. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Uehlinger, Christoph. 2007. “Was There a Cult Reform Under Josiah? The Case for a Well-Grounded Minimum.” Pages 279–316 in Good Kings and Bad Kings: The Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century BCE. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. London: T&T Clark International. Ussishkin, David. 1980. “The ‘Lachish Reliefs’ and the City of Lachish.” IEJ 30: 174–95. ———. 1993. The Village of Silwan: The Necropolis from the Period of the Judean Kingdom. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. ———. 2014. “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: The Archaeological Perspective with an Emphasis on Lachish and Jerusalem.” Pages 75–103 in Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History and Historiography. Edited by Isaac Kalimi and Seth Richardson. Leiden: Brill. Valve, Lotta. 2011. “The Case of Messenger-Elijah: The Origins of the Final Appendix to Malachi (3:23–24).” Pages 93–103 in “My Spirit at Rest in the North Country” (Zechariah 6.8): Collected Communications to the XXth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Helsinki 2010. Edited by Hermann Michael Niemann and Matthias Augustine. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Van den Boorn, G. P. F. 1985, “Wḏ-ryt and Justice at the Gate.” JNES 44: 1–25. van Loon, Hanneke. 2012. “The Variational Use of the Particle ‫ את‬with Subject and Direct Object.” JNSL 38: 93–114.

496 Bibliography Vater Solomon, Ann M. 1985a. “Fable.” Pages 114–25 in Saga Legend Tale Novella Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature. Edited by George W. Coats. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 1985b. “Jehoash’s Fable of the Thistle and the Cedar (2 Kings 14.8–14 and 2 Chronicles 25.17–24).” Pages 126–32 in Saga Legend Tale Novella Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature. Edited by George W. Coats. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Vaughn, Andrew G. 1999. Theology, History and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s View of Hezekiah. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Viezel, Eran. 2007. “A Medieval Jewish Precedent for De Witte: The Scroll Found by Hilkiah in the Temple in Pseudo-Rashi’s Commentary on Chronicles.” Shnaton – An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 17 (ed. Sara Japhet): 103–12 (Hebrew with English abstract). Vogelstein, Max. 1945. Jeroboam II: The Rise and Fall of His Empire. Cincinnati: [N.P.]. Wachsmann, Shelley. 1990. “Ships of Tarshish to the Land of Ophir.” Oceanus 33: 70–82. Wagenaar, Jan A. 2005. “The Priestly Festival Calendar and the Babylonian New Year Festivals: Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Year.” Pages 218–52 in The Old Testament in Its World: Papers Read at the Winter Meeting, January 2003, the Society for Old Testament Study. Edited by Robert P. Gordon and Johannes C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill. Walzer, Michael. 2008. “Biblical Politics: Where Were the Elders?” Hebraic Political Studies 3: 225–38. Warhurst, Amber K. 2011. “The Chronicler’s Use of the Prophets.” Pages 165–81 in What Was Authoritative for Chronicles? Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Diana V. Edelman. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Watson, Wilfred G. E. 1972. “Archaic Elements in the Language of Chronicles.” Bib 53. 191–207. Watts, James W. 2011, “Using Ezra’s Time as a Methodological Pivot for Understanding the Rhetoric and Functions of the Pentateuch.” Pages 489–506 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dezeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. Weinfeld, Moshe. 1964. “Cult Centralization in Israel in the Light of a Neo-Babylonian Analogy.” JNES 23: 202–12. ———. 1972. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1977. “Judge and Officer in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East.” Israel Oriental Studies 7: 65–88. ———. 1978. “Pentecost as Festival of the Giving of the Law.” Immanuel 8: 7–18. ———. 1982. “The Counsel of the ‘Elders’ to Rehoboam and Its Implications.” Maarav 3: 27–53. ———. 1991. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 5A. New York: Doubleday. Wellhausen, Julius. 1957. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. Translated from 1883 German original. Cleveland, OH: Meridian. Wells, Bruce. 2010. “Competing or Complementary? Judges and Elders in Biblical and Neo-Babylonian Law.” Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 16: 77–104.

Bibliography

497

Welten, Peter. 1973. Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in der Chronikbuchern. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Wette, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht, de. 1830. Opuscula Theologica. Berlin: G. Reimerum. Whitelam, Keith W. 1979. The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel. Sheffield: JSOT. Wightman, G. J. 1990. “The Myth of Solomon.” BASOR 277: 5–22. Wildberger, Hans. 2002. Isaiah 28–39: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress. Willi, Thomas. 1972. Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1995. Juda – Jehud – Israel: Studien zum Selbsverständnis des Judentums in persischer Zeit. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck. Williamson, H. G. M. 1977. Israel in the Books of Chronicles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1982. 1 and 2 Chronicles. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott. ———. 2010. “Prophetesses in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 65–80 in Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. New York: T&T Clark International. Wilson, Robert R. 1983. “Israel’s Judicial System in the Preexilic Period.” Jewish Quarterly Review 84: 229–48. Wimmer, Stefan Jakob. 2007. “ ‘The Prince of Safit?’ A Late Bronze Age Hieratic Inscription from Tell es-Sāfi/Gath.” ZDPV 123: 37–48. Winkler, Hugo. 1903. “Geschichte und Geographie.” Pages 1–342 in part 3 of Die keilinschriften und das Alte Testament. Edited by Eberhard Schrader. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard. Wiseman, Donald John. 1951. “Two Historical Inscriptions from Nimrud.” Iraq 13: 21–26. Wright, J. Edward. 2004. “Whither Elijah? The Ascension of Elijah in Biblical and Extrabiblical Traditions.” Pages 123–38 in Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone. Edited by Esther G. Chazon, David Satran, and Ruth A. Clements. Leiden: Brill. Wunsch, Cornelia. 2013. “Glimpses on the Lives of Deportees in Rural Babylonia.” Pages 247–60 in Arameans, Chaldeans and Arabs in Mesopotamia and Palestine. Edited by A. Berlejung and M. P. Streck. Leipziger Altorientalische Studien 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Yadin, Yigael. 1963. The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study. 2 vols. New York: McGraw-Hill. ———. 1972. Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms. London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Yeivin, Shmuel. 1948. “The Sepulchers of the Kings of the House of David.” JNES 7: 30–45. ———. “Rehoboam.” Pages 347–52 in vol. 7 of Encyclopaedia Biblica. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik (Hebrew).

498 Bibliography Younger, K. Lawson, Jr. 2005. “ ‘Hazael, Son of a Nobody’: Some Reflections in Light of Recent Study.” Pages 245–70 in Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society: Papers in Honour of Alan R. Millard. Edited by Piotr Bienkowski, Christopher Mee, and Elizabeth Slater. London: T&T Clark International. ———. 2007. “Neo-Assyrian and Israelite History in the Ninth Century: The Role of Shalmaneser III.” Pages 243–77 in Understanding the History of Ancient Israel.” Edited by H. G. M Williamson. Proceedings of the British Academy 143. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2007. ———. 2015. “The Assyrian Economic Impact on the Southern Levant in the Light of Recent Study.” IEJ 65: 179–204. Zadok, Ran. 1998. “On the Reliability of the Genealogical and Prosopographical Lists of the Israelites in the Old Testament.” TA 25: 228–54. ———. 2014. “Judeans in Babylonia – Updating the Dossier.” Pages 109–29 in Encounters by the Rivers of Babylon: Scholarly Conversations Between Jews, Iranians and Babylonians in Antiquity. Edited by Uri Gabbay and Shai Secunda. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Zimran, Yisca. 2014. “ ‘The Covenant Made with David’: The King and the Kingdom in 2 Chronicles 21.” VT 64: 305–25. Zorn, Jeffrey R. 1993. Tell en-Nasbeh: A Re-Evaluation of the Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age and Later Periods, vol. 1. Ann Arbor: U.M.I. ———. 1997. “An Inner and Outer Gate Complex at Tell en-Nasbeh.” BASOR 307: 53–66. ———. 2012. “Is T1 David’s Tomb?” BAR 38, no. 6: 45–52, 78. Zucker, David J. 2013. “The Prophet Micaiah in Kings and Chronicles.” JBQ 41: 156–62.

I n d ex of N a m es a n d P lace s Aaron (high priest), 39, 45, 182, 194, 209, 242, 260, 297, 302, 304, 331, 338–40, 401, 423 Abdi, 294 Abdimilkutti (king of Sidon), 377 Abdon (son of Micah), 109, 397 Abel (son of Adam), 211, 212 Abel-beth-maacah, 55, 276 Abi (mother of Hezekiah), 42, 291 Abib (month), 68 Abigail (wife of David), 256, 312 Abihail (daughter of Eliab), 16 Abihu, 42, 302 Abijah (king of Judah), 16, 18, 26, 27, 34, 35, 38–50, 57–62, 65, 66, 70, 76, 82, 91, 126, 204, 223, 284 Abijah (wife of Hezekiah), 291 Abijam, 18, 26, 35, 38, 41, 42, 48, 50, 70, 170 Abimelech (son of Gideon), 8, 98, Abimelech (king of Philistines), 97, 251 Abisalom (father of Maacah), 26, 38, 43, 50, 70 Abishai (brother of Joab), 226 Abner (son of Ner), 75 Abrabanel, 10 Abraham, 10, 96, 137, 144, 153, 154, 290, 309, 322, 324, 351, 359, 465 Absalom (son of David), 8, 16, 26, 70, 73 (see also Abisalom) Achaemenid, 95, 466 Achbor, 109, 397, 398 Achish (king of Gath), 21 Achish/Akhayus, (king of Ekron), 98 Adad-idri (king of Damascus), 104, 213 (see also Ben-hadad/Hadad-Idri)

Adad-Nirari (king of Assyria), 95, 213 Adaiah (father of Maaseiah), 182, 195 Adaiah (father of Jedidah), 391 Adar (month), 458 Adnah, 88 Adonijah (Levite), 86, 92 Adoniram (son of Abda), 5, 9 Adora, 21 Adoram, 5, 12 (see also Adoniram) Adrammelech (son of Sennacherib), 346 Adullam, 15, 22 Ahab (king of Israel), 76, 84, 89, 99–111, 113, 115–18, 121, 135, 141, 143, 147, 152, 157, 159, 161–63, 165, 167–69, 171, 173, 175, 177, 179–81, 187–91, 193, 231, 275, 364, 365, 372, 374, 375, 426, 427, 439, 441 Ahaz (king of Judah), 73, 90, 113, 114, 156, 235, 244, 249, 263, 266, 270–86, 290–92, 296, 300, 301, 303, 322, 333, 334, 336, 354, 359, 365, 370, 371, 374, 375, 382, 439 Ahaziah (king of Judah), 71, 99, 104, 141, 166–69, 178–83, 185, 187–93, 195, 198, 212, 216, 220, 374, 382, 439 Ahaziah (king of Israel), 104, 140, 141, 152, 159, 161, 275, 365 Ahijah (the Shilonite), 2, 5, 9, 11–12, 44, 114, 170 Ahijah (priest), 107 Ahikam, 397, 398, 406, 413 Ahimoth, 42 Ahitub (priest), 125 Aijalon, 15, 22, 30, 32, 229, 30, 233, 273, 279, 282 Aila, 148

500

Index of Names and Places

‘Ain Ḥuṣb/‘En Ḥaṣeva, 148 ‘Ain Sinia, 47 Akedah, 351, 359 Akko, 384 Akrabah, 67 Akrabbim (ascent of), 67 Aleppo, 76, 77, 212 Amalek, 144, 445 Amariah (chief priests), 120, 121, 124– 26, 330, 339 Amasa, 272 Amasai (David’s general), 12 Amasai (Levite), 294 Amasiah (son of Zichri), 88 Amaziah (king of Judah), 28, 62, 99, 204, 216–38, 244, 246, 247, 249, 253, 257, 258, 367, 380, 442 Ammon, sons of/Ammonite, 18, 33–35, 136–39, 143–45, 151–53, 156, 203, 215, 239, 252, 265, 268, 277, 447, 456 Amon (governor of the city), 102, 112 Amon (king of Judah), 112, 262, 365, 367, 369–71, 373–75, 377, 379–85, 387, 391, 402, 407, 457 Amoz (father of Isaiah), 244, 263, 345, 350, 359 Amun (Egyptian deity), 384 Anab, 257 Anatolia, 337 Aqaba (city in Jordan), 148, 244 Aqhat (Ugaritic epic), 107 Arabah, Sea of, 252 Arabah (region), 254 Arabia, 95–97, 145, 160 Arad/Tel Arad, 30, 226, 332, 333, 412 Aram/Aramean, 55, 56, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 99–100, 102–105, 110, 117, 118, 136, 146, 147, 180, 191, 202, 203, 210, 212–216, 226, 244, 254, 265, 266, 271, 272, 274, 276, 279, 280, 282–284, 301, 447, 449, 451, 456 Aramaic (language) 64, 69, 78, 81, 82, 87, 128, 136, 140, 144, 170, 191, 243, 245, 262, 276, 294, 296, 308, 350, 352, 367, 383, 394, 418, 447 Ararat, 346 Aristeas, Letter of, 28

Artaxerxes (king of Persia), 93 Aruna (the Jebusite), 295 Asa (king of Judah), 26, 40, 41, 48–67, 69–85, 87, 90, 91, 94, 96, 98, 99, 105, 111, 121, 139, 140, 155, 157, 158, 164, 165, 167, 171, 175, 176, 223, 224, 229, 257, 258, 279, 295, 326, 370, 380, 405 Asahel (Levites), 86, 330 Asaiah, 397, 398 Asaph (Levitical musician and clan), 138, 154, 155, 294, 299, 302, 305, 306, 369, 406, 423, 435 Asarelah, 154 Ashdod (Philistine city), 238, 251, 287 Asher (tribe), 66, 230, 291, 310, 319–22 Asherah (deity/object of worship), 42, 50, 54, 58, 59, 70, 72, 73, 107, 201, 366, 372–75, 392, 402, 403, 417 Asherim, 50, 201 Asherot, 59, 122, 160, 364, 373, 403 Ashkelon (Philistine city), 287, 456 Ashtoreth (deity), 403 Ashur (Assyrian god), 283 Ashur (Assyrian city), 213, 387 Ashurbanipal (king of Assyria), 371, 376, 377, 384, 387 Assur-ubalit (king of Assyria), 387 Assyria/Assyrian, 68, 72, 93–95, 98, 104, 110, 165, 213, 245, 251, 253, 273, 274, 276, 277, 279, 282–84, 287, 287–90, 300, 309, 320–22, 333–35, 341–46, 351–54, 356–58, 361, 367, 371, 374, 376–77, 383, 384, 387–89, 401, 410, 413, 425, 437–40, 451 Ataroth (city in Moab), 143 Athaliah (queen of Judah), 72, 99, 104, 128, 163, 167–69, 179, 181–83, 185, 187–89, 191–96, 198, 204–206, 208, 209, 211, 214, 235, 246, 276, 364, 375, 385, 431 Athaliahu, 188 Attai (son of Rehoboam), 16 Avvim (town in Benjamin), 45 Azaliah, 393, 406 Azariah (son of Oded), 52, 53, 64, 65, 69, 70, 80, 155



Index of Names and Places

Azariah/Azarias (name of several priests and other characters), 125–27, 182, 195, 201, 212, 242–43, 259–260, 272, 294, 329, 330, 338, 339 Azariah (king of Judah, see also Uzziah), 180, 187, 234–38, 244–47, 262, 278, 382 Azariah and Azariahu (sons of Jehoshaphat), 162, 167 Azaziah, 330 Azekah (city in Judah), 15, 22, 287 Azrikam, 272, 277 Azriyahu (king of Yaudi), 245 Azubah (mother of Jehoshaphat), 139 Baal (deity), 70, 73, 79, 85, 107, 115 (Baalism), 186, 188, 189, 192, 196, 199, 243, 270, 276, 364, 372–75, 398, 402, 403 Baal (king of Tyre), 367, 377 Baalim/Baals, 85, 270, 392, 403, 404 Baal-hazor, 46 Baal-meon (city in Moab, also Beth-baalmeon), 145 Baal-zubub (god of Ekron), 282 Baasha (king of Israel), 45, 54, 56, 58, 66, 75–81, 118, 120, 158, 275, 365 Babylon, 42, 71, 242, 264, 287, 300, 349, 354, 357, 358, 367, 376, 377, 382, 387, 388, 408, 425, 438, 440, 447–52, 456–64, 466 Babylonia/Babylonian, 68, 95, 166, 176, 208, 222, 308, 337, 349, 355–358, 377, 413, 437, 439, 440, 451, 454–56, 458–61, 466 Balaam son of Beor, 110 Barachiah (father of Zechariah in NT), 211–12 Bathsheba, 27, 72 Beer-sheba/Beersheba, 63, 70, 97, 119, 122, 130, 173, 197, 226, 251, 253, 288, 289, 309, 319, 322, 332, 333, 389, 402, 404, 412 Belial, sons/children of, 39, 44 Ben-hadad/Bir-hadad (king of Aram), 55, 76–80, 102, 104, 108, 198, 279

501

Ben-Hinnom (valley), 73, 271, 276, 365, 374, 402, 403 Benaiah, 138, 154, 194, 330, 422 Benjamin/Benjaminite (tribe/region), 14–16, 18, 20, 23, 42–47, 51–53, 62, 66, 78, 88, 98, 99, 122, 127, 128, 165, 217, 223, 224, 229, 233, 234, 256–58, 262, 266, 322, 326, 332, 334, 340, 348, 364, 389, 394, 400, 405, 407, 417 Beracah (valley of), 139, 150 Berechiah (several characters), 212, 272 Beth-arabah (city in Judah), 45 Beth-baal-meon (city in Moab), 145 Beth-horon (city in Benjamin), 218, 227–30 Beth-shean (city in Manasseh), 30, 220 Beth-shemesh (city in Judah), 233, 234, 273, 279, 288, 289 Beth-zur (city in Judah), 15, 22, 23 Bethel (city in Benjamin/Ephraim), 16, 34, 40, 45–47, 70, 73, 122, 388, 389, 392, 402–404, 411, 417, 429 Bethlehem (city in Judah), 15, 22, 149, 150 Bethul/Bethuel (town in Judah), 67 Bethuliah (town in Jezreel/Dothan Valley), 67 Bezalel (artisan), 241 Bezek (town in north), 67 Bozkath (town in Judah), 391 Buz (nomadic tribe), 96 Canaan/Canaanite, 98, 108, 145, 148, 172, 239, 254, 270, 415 Carchemish (city in northern Syria), 387, 425, 439, 454 Carmel (in Judah), 240, 253, 255–57 Carmel (mount) 256, 321, 322 Chedorlaomer (king of Elam), 147 Chemosh (Moabite deity), 73, 143, 402, 403 Chenaanah (father of Zedekiah the prophet), 100, 102, 108 Chenaniah (Levite), 129 Chinneroth, 56 Choniah, 458 (see also Jechoniah) Cilicia, 160

502

Index of Names and Places

City of David, 2, 6, 18, 32, 41, 50, 57, 82, 140, 161, 162, 166, 176, 181, 190, 201, 203, 209, 215, 221, 222, 239, 244, 246, 253, 261–62, 266–67, 269, 275, 284, 288, 342, 349, 356, 361, 368, 377, 378, 382, 406, 415, 430, 457 Col-Hozeh, 369 Conaniah (several Levites), 127, 330, 339, 422 Cush, 440 (see also Kush) Cyrus (king of Persia), 165, 174, 309, 418, 452, 453, 463, 464, 466, 467 Damascus (city in Aram), 2, 43, 55, 78, 82, 95, 104, 213, 214, 234, 244, 250, 272, 274, 276, 283, 284, 439 Darmascus (alternative spelling of Damascus), 55, 203, 214, 272, 274, 277, 284 Dan (city in north, also Tel Dan), 16, 55, 77, 78, 107, 122, 130, 191, 213, 309, 319, 322 Dan’il (Ugaritic character), 107 Daniel (biblical character and book), 107, 296, 430, 451, 459 David (king of Israel, also Davidic dynasty), 1, 5, 8–10, 12, 13, 16, 23, 25–27, 33, 34, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 57–60, 62, 65, 66, 68, 70, 73, 75, 79, 83, 85, 88–91, 94, 98, 103, 105, 110, 116, 126, 127, 129, 132, 136, 137, 154–57, 159, 161–63, 165–71, 174–77, 179, 183–87, 191, 194–96, 203–205, 211, 216, 221–24, 226, 232, 235, 237, 244–46, 252–54, 256–58, 260–62, 265, 270, 285, 291, 297–300, 302, 303, 305–307, 310, 313, 322, 325, 330, 331, 336, 338, 340, 346, 350, 360–63, 366, 375, 378, 382, 384, 385, 387, 389, 391, 401, 409, 412, 420, 421, 423, 426, 429–33, 435–37, 444, 458–61 Deborah (prophetess), 398, 414, 415 Dedan (nomadic tribe), 96 Dibon (city in Moab), 143, 267 Dumah (nomadic tribe), 96

Eden (several Levites), 294, 330, 423 Edom/Edomite (kingdom), 2, 6, 136, 143–47, 152, 158, 159, 163, 164, 171, 172, 218–20, 223, 226–28, 230–32, 244, 247, 249, 255, 277–81, 456 Egypt/Egyptian, 1–3, 9, 11, 17, 29–32, 63, 65, 68, 76, 80, 87, 92, 98, 112, 129, 130, 133, 160, 137, 144–46, 162, 181, 239, 252, 255, 261, 280, 282, 287, 314, 325, 337, 353, 382, 384, 387, 389, 411, 423, 425, 426, 437–41, 445–48, 454–56, 458, 460, 461, 465 Ekron (Philistine city), 98, 251, 282, 287, 289, 374 El-paran (place in south), 147 Elath/Eloth, 159, 160, 171, 237, 244, 246, 247, 276, 279 (see also Aila) Eliab (son of Jesse), 16 Eliada (hero of Benjamin), 88 Eliakim (king of Judah, also Jehoiakim), 389, 446, 455 Eliel (Levite), 330 Eliezer (son of Dodavahu), 104, 140, 159, 262 Elijah (prophet), 90, 104, 106–109, 111, 114, 116–18, 161, 162, 165–67, 169, 173–77, 213, 322 Eliphelet (son of David), 168 Elisha (prophet), 114, 116, 157, 161, 190, 279 Elishama (priest), 86 Elishama (son of David), 168 Elishaphat, 182, 195 Elisheba/Elizabeth (wife of Aaron), 182 Elishua (son of David), 168 Elizaphan (Levites), 294, 302 Elkanah (second to the king), 272, 277 Eltekeh (town in Dan), 287 En-gedi (oasis/town in Judean Desert), 136, 146, 150 En-Ḥaṣeva (fortress in desert), 148 Enkidu (Sumerian deity), 262 Enunnu temple in Ur, 408 Ephah (nomadic tribe), 96 Ephraim (tribe and region)/Ephraimite, 8, 9, 38, 45, 46, 53, 66, 67, 74, 85, 90, 119, 122, 218, 221, 224, 227–30,



Index of Names and Places

233, 234, 253, 256, 265, 266, 272, 276, 284, 285, 291, 308–11, 316, 317, 319–22, 326, 332, 334, 335, 341, 348, 364, 388, 389, 394, 404–405, 407 Ephrain/Ephron (city, by-form of Ophra), 40–47 Esarhaddon (king of Assyria), 94, 300, 346, 367, 371, 376, 413, 464 Esau (brother of Jacob; Edom), 71, 143, 144 Eshbaal (son of Saul), 42 Etam (town in Judah), 15, 22 Ethan (Levitical clan), 294, 302 Ethiopia (country, see also Kush), 51, 165 Euphrates (river), 387, 388, 425, 437, 439, 448, 454, 456 Evil-Moradach (king of Babylon), 459 Ezion-geber (see also Elath/Eloth), 140, 159, 160, 171, 247 Gad/Gadite (Transjordanian tribe), 105, 254 Gad (David’s seer), 297, 298, 306, 369 Galilee (region), 67, 68, 79, 147, 254, 276, 316, 320, 321, 383, 388, 389, 405 Gamzo (town in Benjamin), 280 Gath (Philistine city), 15, 21, 22, 52, 148, 203, 212, 213, 238, 250, 287 Gaza (Philistine city), 97, 146, 251, 280, 456 Geba (town in Benjamin), 46, 56, 61, 66, 77, 82, 107, 389, 402, 404, 415 Gedaliah, 406, 461 Gederoth (town in Judah), 273, 279 Gedor (town in Judah), 52, 251 Gerar (place in Negeb), 52, 63, 97, 239, 251 Gerizim (mount), 8 Gershom/Gershon/Gershonites (Levite clan and other Levites), 127, 154, 294, 302, 407 Gersonides (Levi ben Gershon, Ralbag), 313 Geshem (“the Arab”), 95 Geshur (kingdom), 26 Gezer (city in Shephelah), 22, 63, 233 Ghor-eṣ-Ṣâfi (site in Jordan), 164

503

Gibeah (town in Benjamin), 26, 38, 43, 46 Gibeon (town in Benjamin), 15, 16, 28, 30, 46, 229, 253, 302 Gideon (judge), 8, 201 Gihon (spring in Jerusalem), 73, 267, 288, 348, 349, 356, 357, 368, 377, 378 Gilead (region in Transjordan), 276, 277 Gilgal (place by Jericho), 70, 122 Gilgamesh (legendary king), 262 Gindabu (“the Arab”), 95 Gittaim (town in Benjamin), 22 Goliath, 21, 103, 241, 450 Gomorrah (city by Dead Sea), 289 Greece, 337 Gudea (king of Ur), 408 Gur-baal (place in Negeb), 96, 97, 144, 239, 251 Hadad (deity), 5 Hadad-ezer (king of Aram), 184, 213 (see also Ben-Hadad) Hadoram, 5, 12 (see also Adoniram/ Adoram) Hagar (Abraham’s concubine), 71, 367 Hagarites (nomadic tribe), 96 Haifa (modern city), 256 Hamath (city in Syria), 64, 148, 239, 454, 445, 454, 456 Hamutal (wife of Josiah), 401, 445, 449, 454, 460 Hananel (tower in Jerusalem), 234 Hanani (the seer, father of Jehu), 56, 79–82, 90, 104, 111, 118, 120, 121, 140, 158, 360 Hananiah (commander), 130, 241, 258 Hannah (mother of Samuel), 202 Hanon (son of Nahash), 34 Hashabiah, 422 Hazael (king of Aram), 78, 180, 189, 191, 203, 212–14, 244, 250 Hazazon-tamar (near Dead Sea), 136, 138, 146–49 Hazor (city in Naphtali), 46, 78, 79, 213, 276 Hebron, 8, 15, 22, 126, 148, 256, 257, 289, 302

504

Index of Names and Places

Hebron (Levitical clan), 129 Heman (Levitical musician and clan), 154, 155, 294, 302, 305, 306, 369, 423, 435 Hephzibah (mother of Manasseh), 364, 372 Herod (king of Judah), 47 Herodotus (Greek historian), 160 Hezro (the Carmelite), 256 Hezron (descendant of Judah), 42 Hilkiah (high priest), 73, 393, 395–98, 401, 402, 406, 407, 409, 413, 414, 421, 424 Hophra (king of Egypt), 460 Horeb, 173 (see also Sinai) Horemheb (king of Egypt), 133, 134 Huldah (prophetess), 388, 398, 409, 413–17, 432, 442 Huram-abi (artisan), 241 Ibleam (city in Manasseh), 190 Iddo (prophet), 18, 34, 40, 48, 212, 294, 369 Idumea (region)/Idumeans, 24, 159, 231, 382 Ijon (town in north of Israel), 55, 276 Ikausu, 98 (see also Achish king of Ekron) Imlah (father of Micaiah), 100, 105, 108, 109, 113, 114 India, 260 Isaac, 10, 71, 144, 150, 290, 309, 322, 351, 368, 465 Ish-bosheth (son of Saul), 8, 127 Ishiah (conjectural prophet), 263 Ishmael (sons of, nomadic tribes), 96 Ishmael (several characters), 120, 121, 124, 125, 127, 128, 182, 195, 339 Ismachiah (official), 330 Israel, 1–3, 5–6, 8–10, 12–20, 25, 27–30, 32, 33, 36–38, 40, 43, 45, 48, 50, 52–57, 62, 64–66, 69, 70, 72, 74–76, 78–81, 85, 88–92, 94, 98–107, 109, 110, 113, 114, 116–20, 122, 124, 126– 29, 131, 135, 137–41, 143–45, 147, 152, 153, 158, 160–71, 173, 175, 177, 179, 180, 182, 183, 190–94, 197–99,

201, 209, 213, 216–21, 223, 224, 230–32, 235, 237, 239, 244, 245, 247, 249, 250, 252, 254, 256, 258, 262–68, 270–82, 284, 285, 289–91, 293, 297, 298, 304, 305, 308, 309, 311, 313, 314, 316–19, 321, 322, 324–26, 328, 329, 332, 334, 335, 337, 340, 341, 344, 345, 350, 353, 354, 359, 360, 362, 364, 369, 371, 373, 375, 377, 380, 381, 386–88, 391–94, 397–400, 402, 405–407, 414, 417, 418, 420, 421, 424, 426–33, 435–37, 439, 440, 443, 448, 450, 453, 455, 456, 459, 461, 465–67 Israelite/Israelites/Israelean, 9, 10, 14, 27, 36, 39, 42, 44, 55, 59, 65–68, 71, 87, 92, 104, 110, 124, 129, 131, 133, 135, 141, 143, 144, 148, 152, 153, 155–56, 167, 168, 193, 194, 228, 245, 252, 254, 268, 270, 271, 280, 288, 290, 301, 305, 309, 312, 313, 322, 325–28, 337, 339, 348, 352, 383, 396, 410, 423, 429, 433, 435, 450, 465 Issachar (tribe and region), 233, 311, 319–22 Izharite (Levitical clan), 129 Jabneh/Jabneel/Jamnia (city in Philistia), 238, 251 Jacob, 10, 71, 144, 404, 465 Jaffa (coastal city), 388 Jahath (Levite), 395 Jahaziel (prophet), 138, 154, 155, 296 Janoah (city in North), 276 Jashub (clan of Issachar), 321 Je‘eddo (prophet), 2 Jechoniah/Jeconiah (king of Judah), 71, 166, 330, 445, 449, 458, 459, 461, 464 (see also Jehoiachin) Jecoliah (mother of Uzziah), 237 Jedidah (mother of Josiah), 391 Jeduthun (Levitical musician and clan), 154, 155, 294, 302, 305, 306, 435 Jehiel/Jehuel (several characters), 162, 294, 330, 421 Jehizkiah (Ephraimite), 272



Index of Names and Places

Jehoadan/Jehoadin (mother of Amaziah), 216 Jehoahaz (=Ahaziah, son of Jehoram king of Judah), 166, 175–77, 187 Jehoahaz (son of Josiah, king of Judah), 187, 220, 235, 382, 401, 427, 428, 445, 446, 453–56, 460 Jehoahaz (son of Jehu, king of Israel), 219–21, 224 Jehoahaz (=Ahaz, son of Jotham king of Judah), 276 Jehoash (see Joash) Jehohanan (several characters), 88, 182, 195 Jehoiachin (king of Judah), 166, 235, 382, 448, 449, 455, 456, 458–61, 464, 467 (see also Jechoniah/Jeconiah) Jehoiada (priest in the days of David), 126, 194 Jehoiada (chief priest), 182–86, 189, 192–212, 214, 215, 238, 249, 250 Jehoiakim (king of Judah), 235, 376, 382, 389, 428, 446–49, 453–58, 460 Jehoiakin (king of Judah), 446, 457 Jehonathan (Levite), 86 Jehoram/Joram (son of Ahab, king of Israel), 92, 99, 121, 141, 143, 146, 152, 162, 171, 173, 180, 181, 188, 190, 191 Jehoram/Joram (son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah), 83, 90, 92, 94, 96, 99, 140, 141, 159, 161–80, 182, 187–92, 198, 199, 202, 212, 247, 291, 370, 382 Jehoram (priest), 86 Jehoshabeath (wife of Jehoiada), 182, 192–94, 202, 209 Jehoshaphat (king of Judah), 28, 45, 47, 57, 60, 62, 66, 79, 84–111, 113–29, 131–43, 145–62, 164, 165, 167–69, 171, 173, 175, 181, 182, 187, 189, 191, 212, 223, 224, 229, 231, 245, 247, 250, 254, 257, 258, 262, 265, 275, 276, 296, 309, 360, 362, 426, 430, 431, 442 Jehozabad (different characters), 88, 203 Jehu (king of Israel), 71, 166, 169, 173, 180, 181, 190–93, 197, 213, 219, 291

505

Jehu (son of Hanani the seer), 79, 104, 118, 120–22, 140, 158, 360, 369 Jeiel (several characters), 129, 138, 154, 240, 258, 294, 422 Jephthah (judge), 443 Jericho (city in Benjamin), 147, 148, 273, 278, 281, 461 Jerimoth (several characters), 16, 330 Jeroboam (son of Nebat, king of Israel), 2–5, 9, 11–16, 18–20, 25, 29, 33–36, 38–46, 48, 50, 65, 66, 70, 77, 170, 223, 275, 284, 318, 340, 365 Jeroboam (II, son of Joash, king of Israel), 237, 245, 246, 249, 250, 252, 255, 262, 268, 291 Jerome, 147, 211, 212 Jeruel (wilderness of), 138, 150, 152 Jerusalem, 1, 2, 6, 8–10, 12–19, 22, 23, 25, 29–33, 35, 38, 40, 42, 45, 47, 50, 52–55, 59, 64, 65, 70, 71, 73, 74, 78, 82–84, 88, 93, 98, 105, 118–21, 124, 125, 128, 130–34, 136, 138, 139, 146, 147, 149, 150, 153, 155, 156, 163–66, 171, 175, 176, 178, 179, 181, 183, 187, 188, 190, 195, 197–99, 201, 203, 208, 212–14, 216, 217, 220–22, 227– 29, 232, 234, 236–39, 241, 245, 249, 250, 252, 253, 259, 262, 264, 266, 267, 270–72, 275–77, 280, 283–85, 287–93, 296, 302, 308–13, 316–19, 322, 325, 326, 328, 332–34, 336, 340, 341, 343–47, 350, 352–56, 359–61, 364–68, 370, 372, 374, 376, 378, 380, 384, 385, 387, 391–94, 398–404, 406– 407, 411, 412, 415, 417, 420, 424, 427–30, 435–37, 440, 442, 445–53, 458–60, 462, 463, 466 Jerushah (mother of king Jotham), 264 Jeshanah (town in Benjamin), 40, 46, 47 Jeshua (Levite), 330 Jesus, 211, 212 Jethro (father-in-law of Moses), 131 Jetur (nomadic tribe), 96 Jeush (son of Rehoboam), 16 Jezebel (wife of Ahab), 72, 107, 173, 181, 188, 189, 192, 193

506

Index of Names and Places

Jezreel (city and valley), 67, 169, 180, 190, 193, 213, 320, 322, 405 Joab (son of Zeruiah, chief of David’s army), 43, 75, 98, 226, 258, 309 Joah (several characters), 294, 393, 406 Joahaz (several characters), 393, 406, 453 Joash/Jehoash (son of Ahaziah, king of Judah), 182, 185, 187, 192–94, 196–99, 201–16, 221–22, 224, 231, 235–37, 249, 250, 252, 275, 380, 382, 385, 394, 408, 431, 454 Joash/Jehoash (son of Jehoahaz, king of Israel), 78, 216, 219–21, 224, 237–39, 244, 245, 247, 250, 367, 380 Joash (“the kings son”) 102, 112 John Hyrcanus I (Hasmonean ruler), 24 Joktheel (city in Edom), 218, 223, 226 Joram (see Jehoram) Jordan (river), 10, 46, 129, 143, 147, 148, 226, 244, 252, 254 Joseph (house of, tribe), 2, 9, 404 Joseph (Levite), 154, Joseph (son of Jacob), 312, 367, 371, 427 Josephus (historian), 26, 34, 47, 108, 212, 259, 262, 437, 439, 441, 458 Josiah (king of Judah), 23, 24, 28, 60, 67, 73, 90, 92, 130, 166, 187, 208, 235, 263, 270, 285, 295, 299–300, 308, 314, 315, 319, 320, 326, 332, 333, 335, 340, 350, 359, 363, 370, 374, 379, 382, 384–97, 399–407, 409–47, 449, 453–55, 457, 458, 460, 463 Jotbah/Jotapta (town in Galilee), 370, 383 Jotbathah (place in southern desert), 383 Jotham (king of Judah), 87, 113, 114, 235, 237, 242, 244, 252, 255, 259, 263–69, 275, 277, 278, 359, 378 Jotham (son of Gideon), 233 Jozabad (official), 330, 422 Judah (tribe/kingdom/region), 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12–20, 22–26, 28–36, 38, 40, 42–48, 50–58, 60–64, 66–68, 70–74, 76–78, 80–82, 84–88, 90–92, 94, 96– 100, 102–104, 106, 108, 110, 112–14, 116–28, 130–32, 134–36, 138–48, 150–60, 162–84, 186–94, 196–204, 206, 208–10, 212, 214–24, 226–38,

240, 242, 244–48, 250–52, 254–58, 260, 262–66, 268, 272–90, 292–94, 296–98, 300, 302–306, 308–10, 312– 20, 322, 324–26, 328–44, 346–48, 350–62, 364–74, 376–88, 390–92, 394–408, 410–14, 416–18, 420, 422, 424–30, 432–40, 442, 444–50, 452–64, 466 Judahite(s), 25, 32, 62, 71, 83, 87, 98, 102, 114, 132, 141, 143, 166, 168, 176, 194, 222, 226, 229, 234, 250, 256, 268, 276–78, 282, 284, 285, 332, 333, 345, 352, 357, 372, 375, 383, 389, 412, 455, 466 Judea, 87, 240, 256 Judean, 22, 27, 30, 59, 73, 84, 146, 149, 151, 152, 229, 240, 254, 319, 345, 379, 383 Juttah (town in Judah), 383 Kadesh (place in southern wilderness), 147 Karnak (in Egypt), 30, 32, 46 Kedesh (on the Orontes, in Syria), 276 Kefar Othnai (in Jezreel Valley), 67 Keturah, son of (nomadic tribes), 96 Kh. Rabud, 289 Khirbet el-Kôm, 59 (see also Makkedah) Khirbet Ma‘in, 146 Khirbet Tequa‘, 150 Kidron (valley in Jerusalem), 54, 73, 74, 186, 262, 288, 295, 302, 310, 322, 323, 349, 356, 357, 378, 392, 402–404, 415 Kish (different characters), 75, 294 Kishi, 294 Kislev (month), 458 Kohath (Levitical clan), 155, 294, 302, 338, 407 Korah (Levite), 155, 260 Kore (son of Imnah the Levite), 330, 340 Korhites (Levitical clan), 127, 155 Kuntillet Ajrud (in southern wilderness), 59, 375 Kurnub (in southern wilderness), 147, 148 Kush/Kushite, 51, 61–63, 96, 165, 367



Index of Names and Places

Lachish (city in Judah), 15, 22, 23, 130, 172, 221, 235, 236, 259, 288, 289, 333, 341, 343, 352, 357 Lebanon (mountain range), 9, 219, 230, 232, 233 Lebo-hamath (city in Syria), 148, 239, 252 Levant (region), 30, 63, 213, 245, 287, 387, 389, 451, 454 Levi (tribe), 67, 154, 301, 302, 313, 327, 338 Levite(s), 15, 19, 23, 25, 35, 39, 45, 65, 86, 89, 92, 93, 119–21, 123, 124, 126– 32, 135, 138, 154–56, 165, 172, 183, 184, 186, 195–99, 205–207, 292, 294, 295, 297–308, 310–13, 315, 323–24, 327–31, 336, 338–43, 394, 395, 399, 407–409, 420–24, 430–37, 444 Levitical, 15, 23, 25, 43, 60, 93, 105, 120, 125, 129, 130, 156, 172, 186, 196, 205, 232, 261, 297, 298, 301, 302, 305, 310, 313, 324, 326, 331, 336, 340, 395, 398, 399, 407, 408, 431, 433, 440 Libnah (city in Judah), 6, 164, 171, 172, 401, 445, 449 Lod (city), 230, 280 Luli (king of Sidon), 287 Lybia/Lybian, 29, 31, 63, 160 Ma‘in (town in Arabia), 145, 146 Maacah (various women), 16, 26, 27, 38, 42, 43, 50, 54, 55, 58, 60, 70–73, 82, 295 Maaseiah (various characters), 129, 182, 195, 241, 258, 272, 277, 278, 291, 393, 406 Madaba/Medaba (city in Transjordan), 143, 148, 255 Mageddon (plain), 426 (see also Megiddo) Mahalath (wife of Rehoboam), 16, 26 Mahath (Levite), 294, 330 Makkedah (town in Judah), 59, 87 Maktesh (area of Jerusalem), 415 Malbim, 448

507

Manasseh (tribe/region), 8, 9, 53, 66, 67, 228, 256, 291, 308, 310, 311, 316, 317, 319–22, 326, 332–35, 341, 364, 371, 388, 391, 392, 394, 404, 405 Manasseh (king of Judah), 73, 125, 262, 267, 275, 285, 333, 350, 360, 364–85, 387, 402, 407, 410, 412, 415, 416, 424, 431, 437, 441, 447, 456, 457 Maon (towns in south), 144, 145, 146, 253 268 Marduk (deity), 346, 357, 361, 459, 464, 466 Mareshah/Marisa (town in Judah), 15, 22, 51, 67, 96, 140, 159 Marheshvan (month), 466 Massa (nomadic tribe), 96 Mattan (priest of Baal), 186, 403 Mattaniah (several characters), 138, 154, 155, 294, 449 Mattaniah (king of Judah) 455 (see also Zedekiah) Medes (kingdom), 387, 452, 454, 466 Mediterranean Sea, 160, 254 Megiddo (city in Jezreel Valley), 30, 67, 181, 190, 213, 388, 389, 405, 425–28, 437–38, 442, 445, 454 Melqart (deity), 76, 77 Meon, 145 Merari (Levitical clan), 294, 302, 395, 407 Merib-baal (som of Saul), 109 Merodach-baladan/Berodach-baladan (king of Babylon), 349, 354, 357, 358, 361 Mesha (king of Moab), 141, 143, 152, 171, 265, 267 Meshullam (Levite), 393, 395 Meshullemeth (mother of Amon), 370, 383 Mesopotamia, 112, 376, 408, 451 Messiah, 386 Micah (several prophets), 22, 100, 102, 109, 113, 114, 250, 267, 397 Micaiah (several prophets), 26, 38, 43, 70, 86, 92, 100, 102, 105–18, 120, 231, 426

508

Index of Names and Places

Michael (son of Jehoshaphat), 162 Michaiah, 101, 112, 113, 397 Midian (nomadic tribe), 63 Midrash, 63, 267, 355 Midrashic, 151 Migron (town in Benjamin), 107, 229 Milcom (deity), 70, 402, 403 Millo (structure in Jerusalem), 214, 342, 356, 362 Miriam (sister of Moses), 243, 260, 261 Mishor (region in Transjordan), 143, 240 Mizpah (town in Benjamin), 46, 56, 61, 66, 78, 82, 122 Moab (kingdom), 6, 34, 121, 136–39, 141, 143–47, 149, 152, 153, 156, 157, 226, 255, 267, 447, 456 Molech (deity), 73, 271, 402, 403 Mordecai, 278 Moresheth-gath (city in Judah), 22, 109, 114, 148 Moriah (mount), 10, 150 Moses, 28, 34, 63, 68, 69, 93, 125, 127, 129, 131, 155, 186, 196, 198, 199, 206, 209, 210, 217, 222, 254, 260, 268, 275, 293, 296, 306, 310, 318, 323, 326, 332, 334, 336, 341, 362, 365, 366, 375, 386, 392, 393, 395, 404, 409–12, 421, 423, 424, 429, 433, 435, 464, 465 Mozah (town in Judah), 348 Naamah (Rehoboam’s mother), 18, 33–35 Nabal (Carmelite), 256 Nabonidus/Nabû-Naid, 413, 466 Naboth (of Jezreel), 104, 115, 118, 173, 211, 372 Nabupolassar (king of Babylon), 387, 451 Nadab (several characters), 19, 275, 302, 365 Nahash (king of Ammon), 34 Naphish (nomadic tribe), 96 Naphtali (tribe and region), 56, 66, 67, 233, 276, 320, 388, 389, 392, 404, 405 Nathan (prophet), 2, 73, 116, 298, 306 Nebaioth (nomadic tribe), 96

Nebuchadnezzar/Nebuchadrezzar (king of Babylon), 235, 242, 264, 432, 447–51, 455–61, 463 Nebuzaradan (Babylonian officer), 461 Necho/Neco (king of Egypt), 160, 235, 387, 388, 424–26, 437–41, 443, 445– 48, 454–56 Negeb (region), 22, 23, 30, 63, 97, 122, 145–47, 239, 251, 252, 254, 273, 279, 282, 289, 379 Nimrod (ancient king), 440 Nimrud, 145 Nimshi (father of Jehu), 180, 190 Nineveh (city in Assyria), 287, 288, 346, 376, 387 Nisroch (deity), 346 Noah, 464 Nubia (region), 31, 51, 165 Omri (king of Israel), 84, 143, 169, 172, 179, 187–89, 191, 228, 275, 276, 365 Ono (town in Benjamin), 230 Ophel (area in Jerusalem), 264, 266, 267, 368, 377, 378 Ophir (country), 140, 159, 160 Ophrah (town in Benjamin), 40, 45–47 Orontes (river in Syria), 454 Osorkon (king of Egypt), 63 Othniel (judge), 67 Padi (king of Ekron), 287, 289 Pekah (king of Israel), 64, 264–66, 272, 276, 277, 285 Persia (kingdom), 165, 174, 452, 453, 463 Petra (city in Edom), 145, 226 Pharaoh, 63, 71, 87, 133, 425, 427, 431, 437, 445–47 Philistia (region), 87, 95, 97, 280–82 Psamtik/Psammetichus (king of Egypt), 460 Ptolemy (Greek Historian), 148 Pul (king of Assyria), 165, 273 Qarqar, 95, 104, 168 Qedarites (nomadic tribe), 96–97 Qumran, 68, 275, 285, 291, 292, 337, 383



Index of Names and Places

Rabshakeh (Assyrian official), 352, 353, 441 Ramah (town in Benjamin), 46, 54–56, 122, 180 Ramat Rahel, 289 Ramoth-gilead, 99–103, 105–106, 111, 117, 120, 121, 135, 141, 157, 160, 180 Rashi, 39, 235, 238, 242, 249, 267, 409 Rehob (city in north), 30 Rehoboam (king of Judah), 1–6, 8–27, 29–39, 41–44, 48, 51, 57, 59, 61, 62, 65, 76, 126–28, 150, 170, 171, 257, 260, 279, 380 Reuben (tribe and region), 145, 254 Rezin (king of Aram), 265, 266, 276, 277 Riblah (city in Syria), 425, 445, 446, 454, 455, 461 Rumah (town in Galilee), 389, 447 Samaria (city and region), 13, 24, 64, 67, 87, 99–100, 103, 105, 116, 118, 169, 181, 190, 218, 221, 227–30, 234, 235, 240, 261, 265, 267, 272, 273, 277, 278, 281, 288–90, 320, 321, 334, 335, 341, 351, 376, 381, 384, 388, 389, 392, 402–404, 417, 429 Sargon (II, king of Assyria), 93, 94, 287–89, 335, 357 Saul (king of Israel), 1, 8, 34, 66, 75, 103, 107, 109, 114, 127, 185, 256 Seir (Mount), 136, 137, 139, 144, 146, 153, 156, 164, 171, 218, 219, 226, 227, 230 Sela (in Edom), 226, 227 Sennacherib (king of Assyria), 24, 94, 165, 245, 253, 259, 287–90, 332–34, 341, 343, 344, 346, 350–57, 359–62, 372, 374, 377–79, 412, 440 Shallum (several characters), 272, 398, 453–55 Shalmaneser (kings of Assyria), 95, 104, 213, 287, 289, 335, 341 Shamir (town in Ephraim), 321 Shaphan (scribe), 109, 393, 394, 396–98, 401, 406–407, 412, 413, 416 Sheba (son of Bichri), 8, 12, 13 Sheba (who is over the household), 83

509

Shechem (city in Manasseh), 3, 6, 8–10, 12, 35, 45, 55, 67, 234 Shemaiah (prophet), 14, 17–20, 32, 34– 36, 86, 127, 279, 294, 330, 422 Shephelah (region in Judah), 30, 59, 172, 213, 233, 236, 240, 253–55, 273, 279, 282, 289, 379 Sheshonq/Shoshenq (king of Egypt), 29–30, 32, 46, 63 (see also Shishak) Shihor (brook), 252 Shiloh (town in Ephraim), 12–13, 293, 378, 406 Shim‘on (town in Jezreel Valley), 67, 405 (see also Shimron) Shimron (town in Jezreel Valley), 67, 321, 357, 405 Shishak (king of Egypt), 2–3, 9, 17, 19–20, 23, 29–37, 63, 67 Shunem (town in Jezreel Valley), 30 Sidon (Phoenician city), 287, 321, 377 Siloam (tunnel and pool in Jerusalem), 288, 348, 356, 357, 361 Simeon (tribe and region), 53, 66, 67, 144, 251, 340, 388, 392, 404, 405 Simeonites, 67, 405 Sinai (southern wilderness), 10, 59, 68, 69, 125, 145, 146, 252, 253, 375 Soco/Socoh, 15, 22, 273, 279 Sodom (destroyed city), 289 Solomon (king of Israel), 1–14, 16–17, 20, 23, 24, 27, 30, 33–35, 39, 42, 58–60, 63, 68, 73, 87, 95, 125, 126, 137, 154, 156, 159, 160, 170, 171, 174, 184, 201, 204, 232, 233, 242, 247, 252, 264, 300, 303, 307, 308, 310, 313, 314, 322–25, 328, 336, 338, 346–48, 350, 362, 366, 370, 375, 403, 420, 421, 429–34, 436, 454, 459 Susa (city in Persia), 466 Syria (country), 56, 136, 147, 213, 239, 245, 337, 451 Tabor (mount), 256 Talmai (king of Geshur), 26 Tamar (several characters), 26, 147, 148 Tekoa (town in Judah), 15, 22, 138, 147, 149, 150, 152, 253, 296

510

Index of Names and Places

Tel Batash, 289 Tel Burna, 172 Tel Dan, 77 Tel Goded, 289 Tel Halif, 289 Tel Harasim, 22 Tel Kinrot, 79 Tel Malhata, 289 Tel Rehov, 337 Tell Eitun, 22 Tell el-Judeideh, 22 Tell el-Kheleifah, 244 Tell el-‘Oreme, 79 Tema (tribe in Arabia), 96 Thamara/Tamar (fortress in southern desert), 147 Thebes/No-Amon (city in Egypt), 384 Tiglath-pileser (king of Assyria), 67, 78, 94, 95, 145–46, 245, 274, 276, 277, 279, 280, 283, 320, 383 Tilgath-pilneser (king of Assyria), 273, 274 Tiharkah (king of Kush), 367 Tirzah (city in Manasseh), 56, 77 Tola (judge from Issachar), 321 Topheth, 402–404 Transjordan, 67, 144, 146, 226, 252, 255, 268, 388 Tyre (Phoenician city), 184, 239, 367, 377, 464 Ugarit, 72 Umm el-Biyāra, 226 Uriah (priest), 283, 446 Uriel, 26, 38, 43, 70 Ushu (city by Tyre), 384 Uzza (garden of), 262, 370, 381, 382, 457 Uzziah (king of Judah), 62, 96, 99, 129, 144, 167, 180, 187, 223, 224, 234–66, 268, 269, 275, 276, 280, 282, 288, 291, 338, 359, 380, 382, 385, 442 Uzziel, 294, 302

Wadi Daliyeh, 87 Yahweh, 1, 3, 5, 15, 18, 25, 27, 28, 32, 36, 41, 43, 44, 54, 59–60, 64, 72, 74, 84, 85, 90–93, 100, 102, 107–109, 111, 115, 116, 119–21, 134, 140, 153, 159, 162, 174, 177, 182, 184, 189, 201, 202, 213, 214, 216, 218, 222, 228, 230, 237, 238, 242, 249, 260, 266, 277, 279, 282–84, 291, 298, 311, 312, 326, 328, 332, 335, 343, 344, 351, 361, 367, 373, 375, 379, 386, 392, 397, 416, 425, 435, 448, 449 Yehud, 67, 116, 151, 282, 380 Zebadiah (official), 86, 120, 121, 124–28, 339 Zebulun (tribe and region), 291, 310, 311, 319–22 Zedekiah (king of Judah), 83, 176, 382, 449–51, 453, 455, 460, 461 Zedekiah (prophet in Samaria), 100, 102, 108, 111, 112, 114, Zemaraim (mount and town in Ephraim), 38, 45–47 Zephath/ Zephathah (valley of Mareshah), 51 Zerah (Kushite), 51, 61–63, 66, 69, 70, 75, 76, 96, 98, 165 Zerubbabel (leader of restoration), 165, 418 Zeruiah (mother of Joab), 75 Zibiah (mother of Joash), 197 Zichri (several characters), 88, 154, 195, 272, 277 Ziklag (southern town), 62, 66 Zion (Jerusalem), 239, 253, 267 Ziph (town in Judah), 15, 22, 253, 265 Ziz (ascent of, near Dead Sea), 138, 149 Zoar (city near Dead Sea), 148, 164 Zorah (town in Judah), 15, 22

I n d ex of A u t h or s Abadie, P. 375, 380 Abel, F.-M. 55, 146, 211, 212, 239, 276 Abramson, S. 166 Aharoni, Y. 22, 30, 45–47, 78, 104, 147– 49, 164, 171, 213, 226, 228, 234, 239, 245, 255, 268, 332, 383, 388, 438 Aḥituv, S. 59, 375 Albright, W. F. 42, 47, 63, 76, 77, 93, 133, 134, 243, 244, 366 Allam, S. 134 Allen, L. C. 162, 166, 178, 201, 218, 221, 273, 293–95, 299, 309, 312, 326, 328, 393, 397, 425, 451 Alt, A. 23, 45, 148, 239, 388, 289 Amit, Y. 32 Andreasen, N.-E. A. 72 Ap-Thomas, D. R. 367 Arbeli, S. 26, 72 Arie, E. 78 Ariel, D. T. 379 Assis, E. 175 Avigad, N. 244, 253, 277, 278, 356, 415 Avioz, M. 437 Avishur, Y. 459 Bahat, D. 378 Baines, S. E. 372, 443 Ball, E. 113–14 Barrick, W. B. 189 Barstad, H. M. 64, 462 Bartlett, J. R. 227 Béatrice, A.-S. 408 Becking, B. 363, 382, 461, 463 Beentjes, P. C. 18, 137, 153–55, 259, 260 Begg, C. T. 173, 177, 263, 432, 439, 458 Ben-Ami, D. 124 Ben Dor Evian, S. 30

Ben-Dov, J. 411 Ben-Eliahu, E. Ben Gal, M. 262 Ben-Shem, I. 80, 90 Ben-Tor, A. 78, 79 Ben Zvi, E. 5, 9, 20, 35, 106, 116, 170, 171, 179, 220, 224, 227, 228, 230, 368, 376, 380 Berman, J. A. 104, 106 Beyer, G. 22 Bianchi, F. 259 Bickerman, E. J. 174, 317 Biran, A. 77, 78, 191 Blenkinsopp, J. 386, 426, 427, 439, 442–44 Bloch-Smith, E. 83 Bodner, K. 102, 113 Boer, R. 11 Boling, R. G. 9, 85 Borger, R. 145 Borowski, O. 332, 337 Brenner, A. Brin, G. 72, 188, 193 Broshi, M. 253 Brummitt, M. 451 Bunimovitz, S. 83, 234 Burrows, M. 47 Buttenwieser, M. 298, 311 Campbell, E. F., Jr. 9 Carasik, M. A. 452, 453 Carroll, R. 115 Catron, J. E. 16 Christensen, D. L. 328 Clifford, R. J. 384 Cogan, Mordechai 95, 106, 114, 158, 160, 170, 182, 184, 208, 213, 226,

512

Index of Authors

227, 233, 235, 236, 243, 245, 247, 300, 301, 346, 351, 361, 374, 375, 394, 446, 454, 456 Cogan, Morton 283 Coggins, R. J. 43 Cohen, C. 209, 261 Cohen, R. 148 Cross, F. M., Jr. 45, 70, 73, 76, 77, 147, 386, 401 Curtis, E. L. 22, 23, 43, 44, 46, 53, 61, 63, 66, 74, 76, 97, 114, 132, 133, 137, 145, 147, 149–51, 164, 167, 178, 198, 203, 204, 215, 220, 223, 233, 247, 255, 268, 278, 280, 311, 313, 314, 328, 358, 377, 393, 408, 432 Davies, P. R. 151, 357, 411 De Groot, A. 379 Deboys, D. G. 43, 48 Delamarter, S. 446, 447, 458 Demsky, A. 131, 216, 230, 322 De Vaux, R. 315 Dever, W. G. 59, 375 De Vries, S. J. 44, 65, 79, 106 Dietrich, M. 451 Dillard, R. B. 4, 5, 20, 24, 25, 32, 42, 44, 56, 58, 65, 70, 71, 75, 76, 85, 86, 88, 89, 101, 102, 113, 114, 118–20, 127, 133, 137–40, 146, 147, 149, 151, 154, 162, 164–68, 172, 173, 178–85, 187, 88, 190, 194, 198–203, 206, 207, 211, 216–22, 224, 227, 228, 232, 233, 235, 237–43, 245, 252, 258–59, 263, 265, 270, 272–74, 280, 292, 293, 296, 299, 300, 308–13, 315, 317, 318, 327–31, 337, 338, 341–51, 355, 358, 362, 364–65, 367–71, 373, 374, 377, 381, 382, 385, 391, 393–96, 398–400, 408, 409, 419–22, 425–26, 428, 431–32, 436, 446, 448–49, 455, 457 Dion, P.-E. 158, 279 DiVito, R. A. 244 Dothan, M. 251 Dothan, T. 98 Dutcher-Walls, P. 192 Dvorjetski, E. 261

Eaton, M. R. 45 Edelman, D. 322, 333, 417 Eitan, A. 274 Elgavish, D. 78 Ellington, J. 369 Eph‘al, I. 95–97, 146, 259 Eskenazi, T. C. 419 Etz, D. V. 189, 277, 285 Evans, P. S. 282, 361 Fales, F. M. 387 Fantalkin, A. 83, 389, 456 Faust, A. 83, 131, 253, 289, 322, 379, 462 Feldstein, A. 230 Finkelstein, I. 1, 24, 78, 105, 251, 253, 289, 333, 379, 412 Firth, D. G. 251 Fischer, M. 251 Fishbane, M. 318 Forti, T. 337 Fox, N. S. 10, 11, 98, 112, 129, 384 Frame, G. 10, 33, 36, 144, 304, 451 Franklin, N. 268 Freedman, D. N. 401 Fried, L. S. 16, 333, 412, 419 Friedman, R. E. 315 Frisch, A. 12, 13, 20, 44 Fritz, V. 23, 24 Frumkin, A. 357 Gafni, R. 261 Gal, Z. 148, 320, 447 Galil, G. 244, 288, 290, 371, 389 Gallagher, E. L. 211, 212 Galling, K. 241 Garfinkel, Y. 24 Geva, H. 415, 416 Gevaryahu, H. M. I. 113 Gilders, W. K. 297 Gilead, I. 63, 97, 99–101, 103, 105, 106, 111, 117, 120, 121, 135, 141, 157, 160, 180, 251, 276, 277 Gilmour, G. H. 59 Ginsberg, H. L. 229, 383 Gitin, S. 98 Glatt-Gilad, D. A. 417



Index of Authors

Gnirs, A. 134 Goldenberg, R. 115 Graham, M. P. 222 Graham, J. M. 257 Gray, J. 382 Greenspahn, F. E. 429 Greenstein, E. L. 209 Grintz, Y. M. 67, 405 Grossman, J. 107 Gruber, M. I. 306 Gunkel, H. 150 Hadley, J. M. 356, 357 Hagelia, H. 78 Haller, E. 106 Halpern, B. 16, 127 Handy, L. K. 376, 378, 381, 383, 390, 409, 411, 413 Hanson, P. D. 170 Haran, M. 387, 431, 432, 454 Hardy, H. H., II. 16 Harel, M. 149 Hedner-Zetterholm, K. 175 Heller, J. 132 Heltzer, M. 459 Henige, D. P. 411 Henshke, D. 68 Herrmann, S. 24 Herzog, Z. 332, 333, 412 Hobbs, T. R. 23 Hobson, R. 361 Hognesius, K. 4, 55, 56, 203, 272 Ilan, T. 414 Ilan, Z. 146, 149–51, Ishida, T. 187, 188, 192, 193, 246, 384, 454 Jackson, B. S. 94, 123, 130–32, 134, 135 Japhet, S. 4, 5, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17–20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 42, 43, 47, 48, 51–54, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63–67, 69, 70, 74–76, 79–81, 83, 85, 86, 89–94, 98, 99, 104, 105, 107, 109, 111, 114, 115, 118, 121, 123, 125, 131, 133, 134, 137, 146, 147, 150, 151, 153–58, 163, 164, 166, 167, 171, 172,

513

175, 176, 178, 179, 188, 190, 197, 199, 204, 206–209, 215, 221–24, 227, 229, 231–35, 239, 241, 242, 249, 252, 255–59, 268, 269, 271, 273, 274, 278, 280, 296, 298, 299, 301, 303, 306, 310–12, 315, 317–19, 322, 324, 327, 328, 331, 333, 334, 336, 338, 340, 342, 345, 348–52, 355, 358, 359, 362, 366, 370, 374, 375, 377, 379, 381, 391–93, 396, 397, 399–401, 405–408, 413, 416, 417, 422, 425, 426, 429, 430, 432–37, 446–48, 450, 452–55, 457, 460, 461, 463 Jarick, J. 3, 11, 19, 43, 48, 81, 91, 105, 121, 147, 167, 168, 171, 172, 197, 232, 235, 237, 238, 277, 278, 291, 306, 320, 351, 371, 384 Jepsen, A. 256 Johnstone, W. 12, 25, 27, 29, 38, 46, 79, 105, 179, 193, 274, 302, 307, 312, 317, 371, 385, 440 Jones, G. H. 42, 44 Jonker, L. C. 64, 334, 439, 463 Joosten, J. 190 Kahn, D. 213, 388 Kalimi, I. 134, 202, 210–12, 222, 227, 345, 352, 354, 362 Kallai, Z. 22, 23, 45, 46, 66 Kartveit, M. 467 Katzenstein, H. J. 189 Keel, Y. 6, 10, 18, 22, 26, 33-, 34, 40, 43, 46, 52, 53, 55, 56, 61, 63, 65, 66, 69–71, 74–76, 79–81, 85–87, 90, 93, 95, 99, 107, 108, 110, 111, 113, 119, 121, 124, 126, 127, 131, 132, 138, 140, 144, 147, 148, 150, 155, 162, 164, 166, 167, 179, 180, 182, 185, 187, 190, 199–203, 205, 207, 211, 216–17, 220, 223, 227, 229, 232, 234–35, 238, 240, 242, 243, 247, 249, 255, 256, 259, 60, 264–66, 272–74, 291, 293–97, 299, 301, 305, 311–13, 317, 319, 323, 324, 329–31, 337–39, 342, 346, 348, 349, 355, 358, 359, 365, 367–70, 383, 392–94, 396, 405,

514

Index of Authors

410, 414, 421–23, 426–28, 432–34, 446, 448, 449, 452, 457 Keown, G. L. 464 Kertai, D. 72 Kitchen, K. A. 30, 63 Kittel, R. 47, 283 Kleber, K. 208 Klein, J. 5, 9–12, 26, 31, 43, 47, 51, 58, 59, 72, 76, 80, 82, 85–88, 91, 93, 94, 101–103, 108, 111, 116, 117, 119, 120, 123, 132, 134, 137–40, 147, 149–51, 154, 158, 163, 165, 166, 172, 176, 178, 180, 181, 183–85, 187, 188, 194, 197–203, 206, 207, 209, 212, 214, 216, 218–21, 223, 224, 226–28, 235, 237–43, 247, 249, 252, 255, 256, 258–60, 264, 265, 268, 270–74, 292– 300, 303, 306, 308–13, 315–19, 323, 327, 328, 330, 331, 334, 337–40, 342, 344–52, 355, 358, 359, 362, 367–70, 377, 379, 381–83, 392–96, 398–400, 406, 416, 419–23, 425–28, 430, 432, 435–36, 440–43, 445–48, 451, 452, 454, 462 Klein, R. W. 261, 262 Kletter, R. 251 Klili, R. 237, 238 Knauf, E. A. 79, 105, 146, 193, 378–79 Knoppers, G. N. 9, 44, 84, 89, 92, 134, 135, 154, 257, 380 Koch, I. 357 Kochavi, M. 21 Kooij, A. van der 439, 442 Kriger, B.-Z. 76 Layton, S. C. 278 Lederman, Z. 234 Lehmann, G. 379 Lemaire, A. 79, 160 Lemche, N. P. 411 Leuchter, M. 399, 441, 443, 461, 464, 467 Levin, C. 183, 412 Levin, Y. 21, 22, 30, 46, 52, 78, 96, 146, 148, 213, 231, 239, 250, 287, 320, 322, 352 Levine Gera, D. 67

Levy, S. 2, 9, 146 Linssen, M. J. H. 408 Lipschits, O. 105, 357, 389, 456, 457 Long, B. O. 8, 13, 25, 31, 57, 62, 64, 78, 82, 106, 126, 141, 143, 160, 176, 192, 199, 204, 208, 213, 224, 228, 230, 234, 236–38, 244–46, 250, 259, 260, 262, 263, 317, 318, 335, 353, 356, 371, 376, 379, 391, 408, 417–19, 424, 430, 443, 449, 464 López-Ruiz, C. 160 Lundbom, J. R. 411 MacDonald, N. 227 Machinist, P. 5, 10, 11 Macy, H. R. 372 Madsen, A. A. 22, 23, 43, 44, 46, 53, 61, 63, 66, 74, 76, 97, 114, 132–33, 137, 145, 147, 149–51, 164, 167, 178, 198, 203, 204, 215, 220, 223, 233, 247, 255, 268, 278, 280, 311, 313, 314, 328, 358, 377, 393, 408, 432 Maeir, A. M. 22–23, 43, 44, 46, 53, 61, 63, 66, 74, 76, 97, 114, 132, 133, 137, 145, 147, 149–51, 164, 167, 178, 198, 203, 204, 215, 220, 223, 233, 247, 255, 268, 278, 280, 311, 313, 314, 328, 358, 377, 393, 408, 432 Magness, J. 146 Malamat, A. 10, 33, 42, 384, 389, 425, 438 Mayfield, T. 451 Mazar, A. 337 Mazar (Maisler), B. 22, 148, 213, 239, 265, 357, 389 McCarter, P. K. 47, 107, 230, 241 McEntire, M. H. 303 McKay, J. W. 372, 374, 382, 383 McKenzie, S L. 2, 12, 17, 20, 24, 25, 44, 48, 58, 89, 91, 134, 151, 160, 172, 182, 185, 189, 190, 199, 212, 249, 264, 282, 372, 373, 377, 405, 464 Milgrom, J. 297, 305, 328, 337 Miller, D. R. 283, 374 Miller, J. M. 8, 23 Mirelman, S. 408 Mitchell, C. 442



Index of Authors

Mizrahi, N. 126, 339 Moberly, R. W. L. 106, 116 Möhlenbrink, K. 408 Montgomery, J. A. 243 Moran, W. L. 121 Moriarty, F. L. 315, 319 Morrison, M. A. 63, 97, 251 Morrow, W. S. 374 Morschauser, S. 143 Mosis, R. 44, 362 Mulder, M. J. 95 Münnich, M. M. 16 Musil, A. 145 Myers, J. M. 22, 43, 56, 61, 65, 66, 74, 75, 86, 88, 94, 103, 113, 119, 132–34, 137, 145, 147, 166, 177, 178, 182, 187, 190, 197, 199–203, 215, 216, 218–21, 226, 229, 238, 239, 241, 243, 252, 265, 274, 294, 298, 300, 311, 327, 329, 342, 344, 346, 348–50, 358, 363, 366–69, 376, 389, 394, 396, 421, 425, 428, 436, 449 Na’aman, N. 24, 30, 63, 146, 171, 208, 232, 245, 247, 252, 253, 262, 278, 281, 282, 287, 289, 290, 332, 335, 340, 361, 362, 375, 382, 388, 389, 411, 438, 439 Nakhai, B. A. 16 Naveh, J. 98, 191 Nelson, R. D. 125, 244, 315, 386, 410 Neusner, J. 174 Newman, J. H. 383 Niehr, H. 412 Nielsen, E. 368, 372, 379, 384 Noll, K. L. 108 North, R., SJ. Noth, M. 30, 62, 67, 149, 151, 268, 386, 405 Notley, R. S. 67, 76, 143, 148, 213, 226, 227, 234, 245, 276, 277, 287, 288, 371, 372, 377, 387, 454, 456, 458, 459, 466 Oded, B. 52, 53, 64, 65, 155, 272, 276– 78, 284, 285 Olley, J. W. 263

515

Olmstead, A. T. E. 283 Oppenheim, A. L. 208 Oren, E. D. 63, 97, 251 Organ, B. E. 9, 11 Pajunen, M. S. 383 Pakkala, J. 182, 194, 195, 333, 411 Panitz-Cohen, N. 337 Pardee, D. 389 Park, S. J. 59 Petersen, D. L. 138, 153 Pintore, F. 94 Pitard, W. T. 76, 78, 213 Porten, B. 87 Portugali, Y. 15, 331 Pratico, G. D. 244 Priest, J. F. 35, 39, 42, 52, 65, 73, 93, 107, 120, 121, 124–27, 132, 135, 174, 182, 184, 186, 189, 192–201, 203– 205, 207, 209–12, 215, 238, 242, 249, 259–61, 264, 283, 302, 304, 307, 313, 329, 338–40, 393, 395–98, 401, 403, 407, 408, 415, 417, 421, 424, 430–31 Prosic, T. 315 Pruin, D. 188 Puech, É. 76 Rad, G. von. 410 Rainey, A. F. 22, 23, 63, 67, 76, 143, 146, 147, 151, 152, 172, 204, 213, 226, 227, 229, 234, 236, 245, 254, 257, 263, 265, 276–80, 287, 288, 332, 371, 372, 377, 381, 387, 401, 405, 412, 454, 456, 458, 459, 466 Rehm, M. 221 Reich, R. 356, 378, 379 Rendsburg, G. 151, 152, 288, 348 Rendtorff, R. 304 Rinaldi, G. 239 Ristau, K. A. 440 Robertson, D. 117 Rofé, A. 108, 111, 114, 125, 128 Rogerson, J. 357 Römer, T. C. 411, 414 Rooke, D. W. 126 Rosenbaum, J. 357 Rossoni, G. 259

516

Index of Authors

Roth, W. 115 Rozenfeld, B. Ts. 280 Rudman, D. 384 Rudolph, W. 20, 22, 44, 55, 58, 65, 66, 74, 76, 86, 87, 132, 149, 151, 155, 157, 178, 180, 189, 201, 215, 220, 221, 229, 230, 232, 238, 239, 243, 297, 298, 305, 306, 310, 312, 313, 317, 327, 328, 334, 377, 406, 408, 425, 432, 434, 436, 446 Safrai, Z. 148, 174 Sagrillo, T. L. 31 Sambursky, S. 179 Sapir, E. 241 Sasson, J. M. 85 Scalise, P. J. 464 Schipper, J. 82 Schniedewind, W. M. 288, 348, 369, 381, 383 Seeligmann, I. L. 311, 393 Segal, J. B. 314 Sergi, O. 105, 357 Shai, I. 95, 172 Shanks, H. 209 Shapira, A. 135 Shaver, J. R. 28, 222 Shimron, A. 67, 321, 357, 405 Shinan, A. 114, 134, 358, 359 Silberman, N. A. 333, 412 Singer-Avitz, L. 251 Shukron, E. 378, 379 Shoham, Y. 406 Siddall, L. R. 276, 280 Smelik, K. A. D. 272, 276, 279, 283–85 Smit, E. J. 456 Smith, C. 83, 194 Smothers, T. G. 464 Snaith, N. H. 16 Snyman, G. 83 Soggin, J. A. 85 Spanier, K. 27, 193, 291 Speiser, E. A. 241 Stacey, W. D. 108 Stavrakopoulou, F. 271, 375, 382 Stott, K. 411

Strange, J. 47, 86, 107, 121, 156, 168, 169, 188, 203, 217, 221, 235, 247, 268, 274, 296, 301, 307, 311, 323, 341, 348, 408, 431, 442, 453, 461 Suriano, M. J. 172, 191 Sweeney, M. A. 114, 116, 386, 443 Tadmor, H. 8, 95, 145, 146, 170, 182, 184, 208, 213, 226, 227, 233, 235, 236, 243, 245, 247, 346, 375, 394, 446, 454, 456 Talmon, S. 318–19 Talshir, Z. 418–20, 422–27, 432, 439–41, 443, 445–51 Tatum, L. 379 Tawil, H. b. Y. 292 Taxel, I. 251 Tetley, M. C. 76 Thames, J. T., Jr. 187, 385 Thiele, E. R. 76, 141, 152, 232, 235, 244, 290, 371 Thomas, B. D. 16, 367 Thompson, J. A. 121 Throntveit, M. A. 362 Tigay, J. H. 10, 366, 409, 10 Trebolle Barrera, J. C. 275, 286, 291, 292 Tsumura, D. T. 230, 241 Uehlinger, C. 412 Ussishkin, D. 74, 82, 236, 288, 289, 357 Uziel, J. 172 Valve, L. 175 Van den Boorn, G. P. F. 130 van Loon, H. 395 Vater Solomon, A. M. 232, 233 Vaughn, A. G. 289, 357 Viezel, E. 409 Vogelstein, M. 245 Wachsmann, S. 160 Wagenaar, J. A. 68 Walzer, M. 10, 11 Warhurst, A. K. 360 Watson, W. G. E. 181 Watts, J. W. 28



Index of Authors

Wazana, N. 124 Weinfeld, M. 4, 11, 68, 69, 93, 128, 130, 332, 410 Wellhausen, J. 93, 133, 134 Wells, B. 10 Welten, P. 44, 62, 151, 259, 268 Wette, W. M. L., de. 386 Whitelam, K. W. 133 Wightman, G. J. 78 Wildberger, H. 174 Willi, T. 158, 463 Williamson, H. G. M. 5, 6, 18, 20, 22, 31, 34, 42–44, 51, 53, 58, 61, 62, 65, 69, 70, 74–76, 80, 81, 89, 90, 94, 99, 121, 131–34, 137, 146, 147, 150, 151, 154, 158, 167, 177, 181, 187, 190, 194, 198, 204, 206–208, 210, 215, 221, 224, 228, 229, 232, 235, 238, 255, 256, 259, 268, 280, 284, 285, 305, 306, 315, 317, 319, 323, 328, 331, 332, 338, 346, 347, 352, 355, 362, 372–74, 377, 381, 392, 401, 406, 412, 415, 429, 432, 436, 439, 440, 442, 449, 455, 457

517

Wilson, R. R. 121, 134 Wimmer, S. J. 52 Winkler, H. 23 Wiseman, D. J. 145 Wright, G. E. 45 Wright, J. E. 175 Wunsch, C. 222 Yadin, Y. 78, 259 Yardeni, A. 87 Yeivin, S. 23, 382 Yisrael, Y. 148 Younger, K. L., Jr. 42, 69, 92, 104, 167, 213, 249, 285, 387, 404 Zakovitch, Y. 114, 134, 358, 359 Zadok, R. 24, 28, 159, 166, 176, 264, 329, 338, 339 Ziffer, I. 251 Zimran, Y. 171, 176 Zorn, J. R. 78, 82 Zucker, D. J. 109