Nadav Na'aman on Hezekiah
King Sargon II (right) and his crown prince Sennacherib (left) on a relief from Khorsabad, now in the Louvre, Paris
Photo source: Livius website
Nadav Na'aman lectured yesterday on Hezekiah in view of the Biblical and archaeological sources in an evening in memory of Hayim Tadmor. He suggested that the recent trend to view Hezekiah as a powerful king is misplaced. Hezekiah received a very strong kingdom. However, Sargon II very quickly conquered both Israel and Ashdod and made them Assyrian provinces. Hezekiah found himself bordering the terrifying Assyrian empire on the northern and western border. Assyrian troops stationed at both provinces to put down revolts could easily have been used as a military force against his own kingdom. Thus, so long as Sargon II was in power, Hezekiah was careful not to do any move that might cause his own kingdom to become an Assyrian province. The uncertain future of Judah, however, eventually caused Hezekiah to join a revolt against Assyria when Sennacherib replaced Sargon II. The result was a devastating blow to Judah, coupled with a heavy tax, from which Judah did not recover for many years. The author of Chronicles, writing hundreds of years later, is totally oblivious to this reality and does not understand the threat that Assyria posed to Judah. Building upon the information in the book of Kings, Hezekiah is portrayed as a great builder and king, during whose time Judah witnessed a golden age. In fact, Hezekiah took a powerful kingdom, and led it to a devastating military blow from the Assyrian empire that now bordered his kingdom. It would be wrong for us as historians to take this utopian picture painted by the author of Chronicles and view it as historical reality.
posted by Yitzhak Sapir | 10:14 AM
4 Comments:
NICE to see you back!!!!!!
Yes, welcome back! It's difficult to tell which part of your post represents Na'aman, & which represents your own view, so I'll assume you were merely reporting (to keep you innocent). I commented on Na'aman's lack of popularity this morning on Aren Maier's Gath blog. Aside from 3 top-notch scholars in 1 week, the archeological record, as viewed through LMLK jars, tends to disagree with Na'aman too.
True, Assyria devastated western parts of Judah; but false, "coupled with a heavy tax, from which Judah did not recover for many years." Aside from the 1-time heavy tribute paid by King Hezekiah recorded in 2Kings & Sennacherib's prisms, I'm not aware of any evidence--archeological or historical--to support the view that Judah paid any Assyrian taxes during the final years of Hezekiah's reign. The surviving Judeans (of which there were apparently many) merely shifted eastward & built up new sites away from the destruction. It's likely that a significant portion of the population avoided the battle, & rapidly rebuilt after Sennacherib retreated from his Jerusalem failure.
Based on my research, there were just as many LMLK jars manufactured after the Assyrian destruction as before; & they stayed in Judah/Israel. That they are found in northern territory not controlled by Assyrians seems to indicate that the conquest of Samaria did not encompass all of Israel (as you suggested in your post), & it's unlikely that King Hezekiah was terrified by their presence. Na'aman has been reading too many Neo-Assyrian bedtime stories.
Your statement (presumably Na'aman's), "Hezekiah was careful not to do any move that might cause his own kingdom to become an Assyrian province" is unfounded. Pure speculation contradicted by numerous building projects & seals/bullae attributed to him. 2Chronicles records him boldly soliciting support from the Israelites before the fall of Samaria, & as far as I know, none of the northern jar fragments were stratified under any destruction levels. Either Sennacherib did not destroy these sites, or Israelites still loyal to Hezekiah established them following the Jerusalem victory. It's doubtful they were intimidated by the Assyrian presence in Samaria or Philistia.
According to the abundance of such jars found at early-7th-century sites, Hezekiah's kingdom remained strong--not because of his military might, but because "the LORD saved Hezekiah & the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib the king of Assyria, & from the hand of all others, & guided them on every side. And many brought gifts to the LORD at Jerusalem, & presents to Hezekiah king of Judah, so that he was exalted in the sight of all nations thereafter" (2Chronicles 32:22-3).
Minimalists are "totally oblivious to this reality." I'm unaware of any competent, non-Minimalist scholar who views Judah as a more powerful kingdom prior to Hezekiah's inauguration. If so, I'd like to see their evidence.
It would be wrong for historians to take this picture painted by Na'aman & view it as historical reality.
My post attempts to be a summary of things Naaman said. I hope I am accurately representing his opinions. Naaman also covered archaeological evidence. I have my own disagreements here and there. For example, while Chronicles mentions things that are not said in the book of Kings, this may not be the result of an overly imaginative Persian or Hellenistic period writer, but rather the use of a common source that did not survive -- the Hezekiah Narrative theory, for example.
Some specific points about your comments:
* "That they are found in northern territory not controlled by Assyrians seems to indicate that the conquest of Samaria did not encompass all of Israel" - I don't remember if Na'aman covered LMLK jars in his presentation (I was able to follow much more the non-archaeological part of his lecture). However, I would be wary of using LMLK jars as an indication that Assyria did not control territory. It seems to be assuming ahead of time that LMLK jars indicates autonomy. I may suggest Hazor as an example, where during the Late Bronze age, one of the Amarna letters from Hazor calls the governor "king". This is taken to imply that in their own territory the Amarna city-state governors were considered "king" but in dealings with the Egyptians, they were just governors. Also, assuming ahead of time that LMLK jars indicates autonomy seems to lead to circular reasoning. Maybe they did not. I haven't read your book, but I'm sure you'll agree that one should keep his mind open at all times to new possibilities.
* Your entire post includes only quotes from Chronicles -- a book written hundreds of years after the fact in a different political reality. At that time, Judah was a province in a Persian or Greek empire. However, Assyria durings its day was a terrifying empire. Look at Ezekiel 31, not usually taken to be a Neo-Assyrian bedtime story: "Assyria was a cedar in Lebanon ... All the great nations dwelt in its shadow ... The cedars in the garden of God could not hide it." The fall of the Assyrian empire in the course of little more than a decade shocked the entire world. No one anticipated the fall. It would be like the United States disintegrating into thin air within a decade. I must agree with Na'aman: Hezekiah's court had much to fear with the Assyrian power surrounding and bordering the kingdom.
* As for Na'aman's statement regarding Hezekiah's initially careful policy towards Assyria, Na'aman is not talking about seals or bullae or even building projects. Building a tunnel or sending a letter is not something that would provoke an Assyrian offensive. Mounting a revolt is totally different matter.
* Na'aman is not "unpopular" because some top-notch scholars disagree with him. First, as I noted, Jodi Magness does not disagree with him. She simply attended a SBL session in his honor which she says was very interesting and I obviously can't comment on what Dr. Christoph Uehlinger said because I haven't heard it. But, more importantly, scholars disagree on minor and major details all the time. So if Aren Maier says one thing and Nadav Na'aman says another, that does not mean that eitehr Maier or Na'aman is "unpopular". Scholarship is not a popularity contest, but if respect and esteem are any consideration, the SBL session in his honor and the recently announced Landau prize speak to the great esteem he enjoys amongst scholars. Finally, I doubt most scholars will consider Nadav Na'aman very "minimalist."
"...assuming ahead of time that LMLK jars indicates autonomy seems to lead to circular reasoning. Maybe they did not."
I do agree that one should keep his mind open at all times to new possibilities. I'm unaware of anybody in recent years who believes that LMLK jars indicate submission to any government outside of Judah.
(Sidebar: Kurt Galling promoted this idea in the "Krugstempel" entry of the 1937 edition of "Biblisches Reallexikon" [I quoted his German text on p. 156 of my book]. He based it on the assumption that they were made after Assyria conquered & combined Judah & Philistia. Nobody could uphold this idea after better excavation techniques revealed LMLK jars under the Assyrian destruction layer. Regarding the 2 icons, Yohanan Aharoni in 1967 ["The Land of the Bible"] tried "to explain the change in insignia by the abject submission to Assyrian domination which took place either at the end of Hezekiah's or the beginning of Manasseh's reign." However, this too became invalid with the discovery of both types of icons under the Assyrian destruction layer.)
That LMLK jars indicate autonomy is not circular because the inscriptions (including those on the Personal seals that sometimes accompany LMLKs) are strictly Judean. They're only found in Judean & Israelite territory, & they only contain Paleo-Hebrew inscriptions (no hieroglyphs, no cuneiform). Since many hieroglyphic scarabs & cuneiform tablets have been found in Judah & Israel, it is not a circular assumption to state unequivocally that LMLK seals indicate autonomy. It may be wrong--we may one day discover a text that says Judeans made these jars for Assyrians, but it is not circular today; it's founded on scientific evidence. It's far more circular to state that God doesn't exist, therefore everything must've evolved by itself over billions of years. That's also founded on scientific evidence, but it'll be tossed out the window when/if Jesus returns & says, "Whassup homies!"
"I must agree with Na'aman: Hezekiah's court had much to fear with the Assyrian power surrounding and bordering the kingdom.
This deviates a bit from your original post. I never said Hezekiah had nothing to fear; his building projects & his LMLK jars in northern territory testify to his not being intimidated by the Assyrians. We daily face fears & either cower to or overcome them.
"Building a tunnel or sending a letter is not something that would provoke an Assyrian offensive."
I respectfully disagree. I could use harsh/foul language, but I would not want to provoke you. If you're a tax agent for the IRS planning to audit me in 2007, please be sure to bring a blanket & plenty of bottled water; I've routed all the water supplies into my apartment building & posted armed guards at its source. I'm not revolting against the U.S. Government; I just don't feel like paying any more taxes. Can't we all just get along?
(Sidebar to federal law enforcement agents: I love you guys--I was just jokin'.)
"Na'aman is not "unpopular" because ... I doubt most scholars will consider Nadav Na'aman very 'minimalist.'"
I stand corrected on the Gath blog regarding Jodi Magness, & I stand corrected here on Nadav Na'aman's popularity (though his Amazon ranking is only slightly above my own today, & I'm a complete nobody; compare to truly popular scholars such as Amihai Mazar & William Dever). I'll continue to wait for somebody to correct me on the above points regarding his interpretation of King Hezekiah as reported by you & Aren Maeir. If Nadav Na'aman ain't a minimalist, Gabriel Barkay ain't a maximalist.
Post a Comment
<< Home