T he D ebated H istoricity ٠ ‫ ؛‬H ezek iah ’s R eform in the

Light of H istorical and A rchaeological Research

By N adav N a ’am an

(D e p a r tm e n t o f J e w is h H is to ry‫׳‬, Tel Aviv U n iv ersity )

H ezekiah’s cultic reform is m entioned in the Books o f Kings in tw o

separated verses: once in the introduction to the description of his reign
(II Reg 18,4) and again in the w ords o f the Rab-shakeh (18,22). Some
scholars have accepted its historicity and have suggested various expia-
nations for this early reform, w hich antedated the reform o f ]osiah by
alm ost a century.’ Other scholars have doubted its historicity, regarding
it as an artificial projection o f ‫ ﻫﺮ‬$‫’ س‬$ reform and suggesting historio-
graphic and theological explanations for the author’s attribution o f such
reform to Hezekiah.2 The silence o f the prophets Isaiah and M icah,
contem poraries o f H ezekiah, concerning the reform has som etim es been
regarded as added evidence for the non-historical character o f the refer-
enees in K ings.3

‫ ا‬See the extensive literature cited by H . Spieckerm ann, Juda unter Assur in der SargDni-
denzeit, 1982, 174, n. 34. See also M . H aran, Tem ples and Tem ple-Service in Ancient
Israel — An Inquiry into the Character o f Cult P henom ena and the H istorical Setting
o f the Priestly S ch ool, 1978, 1 3 2 —142; G. w. A hlström , Royal A dm inistration and
N ational Religion in A ncient Palestine, 1982, 65 —68; j . M . M iller and ‫ ر‬. H . H ayes, A
H istory o f A ncient Israel a n d J u d a fo 1986, 356 —357; P .‫ ا‬. G on çalves, L’exp éd ition de
Settnachérib en Palestine dans la littérature hébraique ancienne, 1986, 73 —88, 1 0 0 —
101, w ith earlier literature; M . C ogan and H . Tadm or, 11 Kings: A N ew Translation
with Introduction and Com m entary, AB 11, 1988, 218 —220; B. H alpern, Jerusalem
and the Lineages in the Seventh Century BC£: Kinship and the Rise o f Individual
M oral Liability, in B. H alpern and D. w . H ob son (eds.). Law and Ideology in M on-
archie Israel, JSO TSup 124, 1991, 4 7 —48, 6 5 —70; M . W einfeld, T he Reform o f H eze-
kiah, Prom Joshua to ]osiah: Turning Points in the H istory o f Israel from the C onquest
o f the Land Until the Pall o f Judah, 1992, 1 5 6 —162 (H ebrew ).
2 Por the list o f literature, see Spieckerm ann, Juda unter Assur, 174, n. 34; H .-D . H off-
m ann. Reform und Reform en. U ntersuchungen zu einem G rundthem a der deuterono-
m istischen G eschichtsschreibung, A T h A N T 66, 1980, 1 4 6 —155; G onçalves, L’expédi-
tion de Sennachérib, 74, nn. 83, 85 —86; E. W ürthw ein, D ie Bücher der Könige: 1. Kön
17—2. Kön 25, A TD 11,2, 1984, 411 —412; L. K. Handy, H ezek iah ’s Unlikely Reform ,
ZAW 100 (1988), 1 1 1 - 1 1 5 .
١ For the suggestion that the prophecy in M ic 5, 9 —14 w as delivered in order to stim u-
lam or prom ote the religious reform o f H ezek iah , see j . T W illis, L he A uthenticity

ZAW 107. Bd., S. 179-19‫؟‬

© Walter de Gruyter 1995
180 N adav N a ’am an

M any m ore details O‫ ؛‬H ezekiah’s cultic activity are m entioned in

the Books ٠‫ ؛‬Chronicles (11 Chr 29 —31). $om e scholars have suggested
that the C hroniclers narrative concerning H ezekiah corroborates and
supplem ents the data found in Kings, and they reconstruct the reform
by com bining the tw o sources.4 But Chronicles is a problem atic source
for the reconstruction o f history. It seems that the work is based m ainly
on the Books o f Samuel and Kings and that the Chronicler had at his
disposal a very limited number o f pre-exilic sources.‫ ؤ‬Furthermore, as
described in Chronicles, H ezekiah’s involvem ent in the affairs o f the
newly founded Assyrian province o f Samaria is highly unlikely. Samaria
was conquered by Sargon 11 in 720 BCE and turned into an Assyrian
province. Sargon im plem ented »tw o-w ay« population transfer, relocat-
ing thousands o f inhabitants from Samaria in various parts o f the Assyr-
ian empire and bringing in their place various groups from Babylonia
and from the Syro-Arabian desert.٤H e rebuilt the city of Samaria, estab-
lished his ow n adm inistration in the new province and im posed a trib-
Ute.7 The inhabitants o f Samaria became Assyrian citizens. Any involve-
ment o f H ezekiah in the affairs o f the newly founded province w ould
have been seen as interference in internal Assyrian affairs and w ould
have been severely punished by the energetic and powerful king o f As-

and M eaning ‫ ﺀه‬M icah 5 ,9 —‫ل‬4 ‫ م‬ZAW 81 (1969), 353 —368. H ow ever, the prophecy
$hould certainly he dated to the exilic period, as suggested by W illis h im self (ibid.,
357). H is reconstruction o f the p rop h ecy’s historical background and the tradition
upon w hich it rested is highly speculative.
4 See for exam ple: E. w. Todd, T he Reform s o f H ezekiah and Josiah, SJT 9 (1956),
288 — 293; ‫ر‬. Bright, A H istory o f Israel, 1962, 265 — 267; ٧ . F. A lbright, T h e Biblical
Feriod from Abraham to Ezra, 1963, 7 6 —77; ‫ر‬. M. M yers, 1 Chronicles: Introduction,
Translation and N o tes, AB 12, 1965, lxi; E. N ich o lso n , T he C entralisation o f the Cult
in D euteronom y, V T 13 (1963), 3 8 3 —386; F. L. M oriarty, T h e C hronicler’s A ccount of
H ezek iah ’s R eform , CBQ 27 (1965), 3 9 9 —406; ‫ ر‬. McKay, R eligion in ]u d ah Under the
‫ر‬
A ssyrians, 1973, 1 5 —17; B. O ded, Judah and the Exile, in . H . H ayes and . M . M iller ‫ر‬
(e d s .), Is ra e lite a n d J u d a e a n H is to r y , 1977, 4 4 2 —4 4 4‫ ؛‬H . R ev iv , T h e H is to r y o f J u d a h
from H ezekiah to Josiah, in A. M alam at (ed.). T h e A ge o f the M onarchies: Folitical
H istory, T he World H istory o f the Jew ish Feople, 1979, 193 —195‫ ؛‬j . R osenbaum ,
H ezek iah ’s Reform and the D eu teron om istic Tradition, H T R 72 (1979), 23 —43;
H . G. M . W illiam son, 1 and 2 C hronicles, N C B , 1982, 361, 3 7 1 —373; z . H erzog, M.
A haroni, A. F. Rainey and s. M oshk ovitz, T he Israelite Fortress at Arad, BASO R 254
(1984), 21 —22; G. H . Jones, 1 and 2 Kings N C B , 1984, 5 5 9 - 5 6 1 .
5 T. W illi, D ie C hronik als A uslegung. Untersuchungen zur literarischen G estaltung der
historischen Überlieferung Israels, F R E A N T 106, 1972‫ ؛‬P. W elten, G eschichte und Ge-
Schichtsdarstellung in den C hronikbüchern, W M A N T 42, 1973.
6 N . N a ’am an and R. Z ad ok , Sargon II’s D ep ortation s to Israel and Phihstia (7 1 0 —708
B .C .),J C S 4 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ), 3 6 - 4 6 .
7 S. Dalley, Foreign Chariotry and Cavalry in the Arm ies o f Tiglath-Pileser III and Sar-
gon II, Iraq 47 (1985), 3 1 —36.
 H ezekiah’s Reform in the Light o f H istorical and A rchaeological Research 181

Syria. It seems to me that the Chronicler had no source other than Kings
for his account of H ezekiah’s reform, and that the description in II Chr
29 —31 is not historically reliable. His description w ould best me om itted
from the historical discussion.‫ﺀ‬
In this article I will first discuss the literary problem o f II Reg
1 8 ,4 .2 2 and then exam ine the results o f recent archaeological and histor-
ical research and their possible contribution to the long debate on the
historicity of H ezekiah’s reform.

1. The Literary Problem o f II Reg 18,4.22

A. II Reg 18,4 summarizes the act o f reform thus:
H e rem oved the high-places (bâ m ô t), and broke the sacred pillars (;m a sseb ô t), and
cut d ow n the a serim 9 and sm ashed in pieces the bronze serpent that M oses had
made, for until these days the Israelites were burning food offering (m eq a tterim ) to
it. Is w as called N ehushtan.

The Deuteronom ic law o f extirpating the Canaanite cult objects

runs thus:
But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break d ow n their altars, and dash in
pieces their sacred pillars, and hew d ow n their Asherim and burn their graven im ages
w ith fire (Dtn ? ,‫ رث‬.
You shall tear d ow n their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn
their Asherim w ith fire and hew d ow n the graven im ages o f their gods ... (Dtn 12,‫ رد‬.

When comparing the law o f D euteronom y with the text describing

H ezekiah’s reform, it is clear that the latter fulfilled the law in every
detail. Bämäh is the D euteronom istic (henceforth Dtr.) appellation for
forbidden open cult place and bêt b â m ô t is the designation for a forbid-
den temple. These negative appellations and their référants are
counterposed in Dtr. literature to the tem ple o f Jerusalem, the sole legiti-
mate place o f worship, which is referred to by >positive< appellations
such as m iq ed d ä s , hêkâl, bêt Y H W H and bêt ’e lö h tm .10 The interchange
of high-place {bâmôt) and altars (m iz b eh ô t) in similar contexts in the
D euteronom ic and Dtr. literature is due to the fact that the altar was
the major element in all non-tem ple cult places.
The bronze serpent occupies exactly the same place in II Reg 18,4
as the graven image (pesel) in the passages o f D euteronom y cited above.
That the serpent was regarded by the author o f Kings as an image is
further indicated by the words m eq a tter 1m lo (»offering sacrifices to it«).

٠٠ For sim ilar conclusions based on different argum ents, see recently G onçalves, L’expèdi-
tion de Sennachérib, 88 —99, w ith earlier literature.
‫ و‬See BHS.
٠٠٠H aran, Tem ples and Tem ple-Service, 13 —25.
18 2 N adav N a ’aman

Q itter ipi'el) has a distinctly pejorative connotation in the Dtr. litera-

ture, it appears mainly in descriptions ‫ ﺀه‬the burning o‫ ؛‬food olferings
to >foreign< d eities.11 N otew orthy also is the form ulation »burning food
offerings to it«, i.e ., to the image rather than to Y H W H , to w hom the
image was dedicated.
Some scholars have suggested that only the record o f the destruc-
tion o f the Nehushtan is original and that V. 4a is an editorial expansion
which was borrowed ffom the description o f ]o sia h ’s reform .٧ In light
o f the above discussion it seems more plausible to assume that the entire
verse was form ulated by the historian according to the pattern o f the
Deuteronom ic law. H e apparently com bined ^ ra ta ctica lly the Deuter-
onom ic triad o f the altars (= b ä m ö t)-sacred pillars-Asherim w ith the
archival note o f the removal o f the Nehushtan. The integration o f the
tw o sources w ould explain the use o f the w a w with the perfect ( w ekittat)
(in place o f the expected ^،?*¿/-consecutive) after V. 4 a .13
O ne may further note the similarity in the execution o f the reforms
o f Asa and H ezekiah as described in the Books o f Kings (1 Reg
15,12 —13; 11 Reg 18,4): both kings removed (hiph'il of swr) the >forbid-
den< cults and then destroyed a specific cult object (m ip eleset made for
Asherah; N ehushtan). One may assum e that for both kings the author
had an isolated archival note, around which he w ove a description o f
reform form ulated in similar pattern and with lexicon borrowed ffom
the Dtr. literature.
Finally, w e may note the deeds o f M anasseh which partly reversed
the reform o f H ezekiah (11 Reg 21,3):
H e rebuilt the high-places {bäm öt) w hieh H ezekiah his father had destroyed; and he
erected altars for B a'al, and m ade an Asherah ... and w orshipped all the host o f
heaven, and served them .

H ezekiah’s cultic centralization was reversed according to 11 Reg

21,3 by the rebuilding o f the destroyed high-places {bämöt), a deed
which is historically im probable since at that time m ost o f the fodean
sites lay in ruins (see below ). The rest o f M anasseh’s recidivism as de-
scribed in 11 Kings refers to his cultic arrangements in the tem ple o f
]erusalem .
In conclusion, there is a firm basis for the claim that the Dtr. histo-
rian com posed his account o f H ezekiah’s reform in 11 Reg 18,4 by com-

1‫ ا‬See H aran, ibid., 23 —24, 233 —234; D. hdelm an, M eaning o f Qitter, V T 35 (1985),
4 0 1 —4 0 4 , w ith earlier literature.
12 McKay, R eligion in Judah, 84, n. 5.
13 For this problem , see the discussion in McKay, R eligion in Judah, 8 4 —85, n. 5, with
earlier literature. For sim ilar suggestions, see H offm an n, Reform and R eform en, 151 —
155; Spieckerm ann, Juda unter Assur, 1 7 4 —175, 420.
 H ezek iah ’s R eform in the Light o f H istorical and A rch aeological Research 18 3

bitting an archival n©te ‫ ﺀه‬the removal ‫ ه‬£ the N ehushtan with the l^w
©‫ ؛‬Dtn 7,5 and 1 2 ,3 .14 The assumpti©n that the text ٥‫ ؛‬II Reg 18,4 is a
unitary excerpt from a pre-exilic archival source is quite unlikely in light
o f the considerations reviewed above.

B. There is scholarly controversy about the originality of II Reg

18,22 (and ]es 36,7) within the speech o f the Rab-shakeh. Some regard
it as an integral part of the speech and others suggest that it is a gloss
or a part o f the Dtr. redaction. ٧ It seems to me that the latter alternative
is better founded, since in several ways the verse departs from the inner
structure o f the first speech o f the Rab-shakeh (II Reg 18,19—25):

(a) All passages open with the time adverb >now< ('attäh) except for
V. 22.
(b) All other passages address H ezekiah in the second person singular
whereas V. 22 addresses the delegation in the second person plural.
(c) Whereas the other passages address H ezekiah in the second person,
this passage refers to him in the third person.
It seem s to me that V. 22 was inserted by the Dtr. historian when
he integrated the narrative o f the siege and the miraculous deliverance
o f ]erusalem into his work and that it did not form part o f the Rab-
shakeh’s speech in the pre-Dtr. w o r k -

c . We may note in passing ]er 26,17—19, w hich som e scholars

have considered a reference to H ezekiah’s reform under the impact of
M icah’s preaching.‫ ئ‬In this passage, H ezekiah is m entioned in connec-
tion with the prophet M icah (instead o f Isaiah), and M ic 3,12 is quoted.
From M ic 3,11 it is clear that the prophet is refuting those w ho have
put their trust in the divine inviolability o f ]erusalem (»Is not YH W H
in the midst o f us? H o evil shall com e upon us«), ]erem iah has a similar
message: divine com m itm ent to Jerusalem notw ithstanding, w ithout re-
pentance the city will be destroyed (]er 26,2—6.12—13). For the author
o f Jer 26, Hezekiah serves as the model o f true repentance: he heeds the
prophet’s word, beseeches Y H W H , and his city is saved (٧٠ 19).
The fact that it is H ezekiah’s response to the prophecy of the de-
struction o f ]erusalem which is invoked here implies that the author of

١٠ There is no textual evidence for H aran’s suggestion (Tem ples and Tem ple-Service,
132—148) that H ezek iah ’s reform w as based on the id eology o f the Priestly source.
١‫ ؟‬G on çalves, E’e^pddition de Sennachdrib, 74, nn. 85 —88, 3 9 0 —392; E. B en-Z vi, W ho
Wrote the Speech o f Rabshakeh and W hen?, JBL 109 (1990), 8 4 - 8 5 , 91.
16 W illiam son, 1 and 2 C hronicles, 372; J o n e s , 1 and 2 K ings, 561.
184 N adav N a ’aman

Jer 26 is referring not to the short note on H ezekiah’s cultic reform but
rather to the king’s repentance in face o f a threat to Jerusalem. Instead
o f trusting in the city’s inviolability, he applied to the prophet, repented,
entered the temple and prayed to Y H W H (11 Reg 1 9 ,1 —4 .1 4 —19). It is
evident that in order to teach his readers a lesson, the author o f Jer 26
com bined M icah’s warnings against relying on the divine inviolability of
Jerusalem with the narrative o f H ezekiah’s reaction to the Assyrian
threat as expressed in the w ords o f the R ab-shakeh.^ We may conclude
that the narrative in Jer 2 6 ,1 7 —19 refers to the story o f the Assyrian
campaign against Jerusalem and has nothing to do with the short note
٨‫ ؛‬H ezekiah’s cultic reform.
In conclusion, 11 Reg 18,4 and 22 appear to have been formulated
by the historian. N o pre-Dtr. written source referring to a large scale
cultic reform can be discovered in the history of H ezekiah. O ne may
assum e, o f course, that H ezekiah did carry out a cultic reform in his
kingdom and that its m emory w as still alive in the time o f the historian.
Whether this is the m ost reasonable assum ption is another matter and
will be discussed below.

2. Archaeological Research and Cultic R eforms

For many years archaeologists have been trying to find evidence for
the reforms m entioned in the Books o f Kings. The assum ption has been
that destroying cult places (b a m ô t), dem olishing altars and smashing
sacred pillars — as the reforms are described in the Bible — w ould leave
traces which archaeologists w ould easily be able to identify in the exca-
vated sites. So far, however, these efforts have had no success. Neither
at the late eighth century BCE strata nor at those o f the late seventh
century BCE are there signs o f a drastic change in the cult. Nor is there
archaeological evidence for iconoclasm o f the kind described in the his-
tories o f H ezekiah and Josiah. Controversial data were uncovered in the
excavations o f Tel Arad and Tel Beer-sheba and will be presented in the
follow ing tw o sections:
(a) A small shrine with a courtyard and altar was unearthed at
Tel Arad and was published in preliminary reports.‫ ئ‬The dates of its
foundations and end are debated am ong scholars. Aharoni attributed its

17 ٨١‫؛‬$ ‫؛‬$ on‫داه ؛ه ؛‬

contrary to K. A. D . Sm elik, D i$tort -Te$tam ent ?rophccy: T he Pur
po$e o ‫ ؛‬Isaiah XXXV‫؛‬ and
XXXV ‫؛؛‬,
٠٢$ n ,9 2 ,86 ,) 1986 ( 924
4 ..
١‫*؛‬ on$ at Tel Arad. Preliminary Report on the $econd $ea$on,
Y. EAxcavat
h aron
IEJ‫؛؛‬,
dem
on$ ,and
Arad:
Temlt$
ple,
ln$cr‫؛‬
1968)
1967)
2BA‫؛‬
18
232—
p31
44t‫؛‬
7‫؛‬9—
(,1‫(؛‬,?
dem , A rad‫؛‬
‫؛‬٨, Yonah (ed.), Encyclopedia o f A rchaeological E M
xcavat‫؛‬-
. Av
o n‫؛‬
‫؛‬٨$ the
H oly Land
H erzog
(henceforth
et al., BA
EAEH
1$©
1975
-228589—
R24L
1.,‫؛‬, (,
 H ezek iah ’s Reform 0‫؛‬ the Light o f H istorical and A rchaeological Research 185

inception to the SoJomonie period (Stratum XI) and dated the termina-
tion of the altar to the end o f the eighth century (Stratum VIII), and of
the shrine to the lam seventh century BCE (Stratum V II). ‫ و؛‬H e concluded
the discussion thus:
Arad seem s to elncidate the tw o stages in the centralization o f w orship carried out
by H ezekiah and Josiah, respectively. Its first stage, in the days o f H ezekiah, w as
the prohibition o f sacrifice, w hile only its second stage, in the days o f Josiah, brought
about the com plete ab olition o f w orship ou tsid e Jeru salem .20

In a later article published by the members o f the Arad publication

team , the termination o f both the shrine and the altar was dated to the
late eighth century BCE (Stratum VIII).‫ ال‬This date contradicts Ahar-
o n i’s conclusions according to which the shrine was abolished only in
the late seventh century BCE.
M any scholars have expressed doubts concerning the chronology
and interpretation o f the findings both as suggested by Aharoni and by
his team .‫ ال‬Recently Ussishkin suggested dating the foundation o f the
tem ple either to the later part o f the eighth century or to the seventh
century, and its end to the lam seventh or early sixth century BCE. He
further suggested that the shrine was destroyed by fire at the same time
as the final destruction o f the ]udean fort, at the end o f Stratum VI. He
concluded the discussion thus:
The dating o f the $htine ... m eans that its construction and destruction can hardly
be related in any w ay to the religious reform s conducted in Judah by H ezekiah and
Jo sia h .‫أة‬

In light of the many controversies and am biguities concerning the

dating o f both the foundation and the end o f the sanctuary, the empirical
data uncovered at the shrine o f Arad do not establish the claim o f a
reform conducted at the site by the kings o f ]udah.
(b) Fragments o f a large-ashlar built horned altar were found in
the course of the excavations at Tel Beer-sheba. Four stones wem found
sealed under the Stratum II rampart, and many others were incorporated
into the rebuilding o f the Stratum II Pillared Storehouse.24 Aharoni as-

١٠ A harnni, I£J 17, 248 —249; idem , BA 31, 26 —27; idem , EAEHL I, 85 —86.
20 A h aron i, BA 31, 26.
21 H erzog et al., BASOR 254, 19 —22.
22 Eor a list o f critical notes, see j. s. H olladay, R eligion in Israel and Judah Under the
M onarchy: An Explicitly A rchaeological A pproach, in p. D. M iller, p. D. H anson and
S. D . M cBride (eds.). Ancient Israelite R eligion. Essays in H on or o f Frank M oore
C ross, 1987, 285, >٦. 39; D. U ssishkin, T he D ate o f the Judaean sh rin e at Arad, IEJ 38
(1988), p. 151, nn. 21, 22, 25 and p. 156, n. 45.
2‫ آ‬U ssishkin, ibid., 1 4 2 —157 (cited from p. 156).
24 Y. A haroni, T he H orned Altar o f Beer-sheba, BA 37 (1974), 2 —6; idem . E xcavations
at Tel Beer-sheba, Preliminary Report o f the Fifth and Sixth Seasons, 1973 —1974, Tel
18 6 N adav N a ’am an

.sumed that the big altar must have been associated with a sanctuary
-This suited his hypothesis that the place is identical with biblical Beer
sheba and his long search .‫؛‬or a tem ple at the site
the large scale excavations conducted at theIn site, spitenoo ‫؛‬
<sanctuary was discovered. Aharoni cam e to the conclusion that the >lost
temple must have been situated under Building 32. The latter was built
in Stratum II,its
‫ ؛‬builders dug a huge pit upon which the new building
with its deep foundations and basem ents, was erected. According to
A haroni’s interpretation, the big pitorwas thethe
dug
sakenew
not
o‫؛؛‬
building, but in order to obliterate all signs ٠‫ ؛‬the sanctuary that‫ آه ؛‬-
merly stood ٠٨ the site. Aharoni dated the Stratum
foundation II ato ‫؛‬
Tel Beer-sheba to the early years ٠‫ ؛‬H ezekiah and its destruction to the
Assyrian campaign ٠٤BCE. He thus concluded that the horned altar 701
was dism antled and the sanctuary razed to its foundations when King
.Hezekiah conducted his cultic reform
This highly hypothetical reconstruction suffers ffom many .‫؛‬la w s
First, it is questionable whether Tel Beer-sheba should be identified with
biblical Beer-sheba; the latter should best be located at Bir es-Seba', as
was suggested long ago by A lt.^ Second, it is not necessary to look ٤٠٢
a sanctuary at the site. As observed by Yadin, the big altar might have
been part ٠‫ ؛‬an open cult place rather than a tem ple 27.
Third, the theory ٠٤a tem ple that w as com pletely uprooted as part
a cultic reform is highly unlikely. It seems that Building 32 was erectedo ‫؛‬
as part ٠‫؛‬ ensive construction the at the
Assyrian
the
site
ace de in‫؛‬
o‫؛؛‬
threat in the late eighth century BCE. It is located ocal point‫؛‬
at the ٥‫؛‬
the to w n ’s urban plan and must have served as the seat ٠‫ ؛‬its military
governor. The deep basem ents served‫ آه ؛‬storing arms and supplies, and
-the deep foundations indicate that the building rose high above its sur
theroundings.
building areThese
wellremarkable
explained
eatures o‫؛؛‬
unction;
fom
by inistrative^-‫؛‬
itsthere
m ihtis‫ ؛‬٨٠ need‫ ؛‬٠٢ arfotched‫؛‬
theories to interpret the building’s structure unction‫؛‬
and.

Aviv 2 (156
‫ ول‬75
154
‫—ر؛‬ , z . H erzog, A. F. Rainey and s. M oshk ovitz, T h e Stratigraphy
at Beer-sheba and the Location o f the Sanctuary, BASO R 225 (1977), 53—58.
25 A haroni, Tel Aviv 2, 1 5 4 —156. T he m em bers o f the Tel Beer-sheba publication team
adopted A h aron i’s view s about the sanctuary and the altar. See H erzog et al., BASOR
225, 5 3 - 5 8 .
26 A. A lt, Beiträge zur historischen G eographie und T opographie des N egeb , JPOS 15
(1935), 3 2 0 —3 2 1‫ ؛‬F. M . A bel, G éographie de la Falestine, 11, 1938, 263; M . N o th , Das
Buch Josua, H A T 1 7, 1953, 9 3‫ ؛‬N . N a ’am an, T he Inheritance o f the Sons o f Sim eon,
Z D P V 96 (1980), 149 —151‫ ؛‬M . D . Fowler, T he F xcavation ٠ ۴ Tell Beer-sheba and the
Biblical Record, P £Q 114 (1982), 7 —11.
27 Y. Yadin, Beer-sheba: T he H igh Place D estroyed by King ‫ ر‬0 ‫ﻫﺔ‬ , BASO R 222 (1976),
 Hezekiah’s Reharm in the Light of H istorical and A rchaeological Research 187

^©urffo the date o f the destruction o f the altar and its historical
background remain unknow n. All that can legitim ately be inferred is
that it preceded the building o f Stratum 11. Since the original location of
the (possibly desecrated) altar remains unknow n, it is not even clear
w hether (or not) another altar w as built to replace it. Ascribing the
destruction o f the altar to H ezekiah’s cultic reform is entirely hypotheti-
cal. In the present state of our know ledge, we should best leave the Tel
Beer-sheba altar outside the discussion o f H ezekiah’s religious policy.
So far 1 have discussed the archaeological evidence suggested by
scholars for cultic reforms. Yet, there are other cult places that were
destroyed or abandoned during Iron Age H but never discussed in refer-
ence to the problem o f reforms. The reason for ignoring them is clear:
they do not fall into the time o f biblical reformer kings. In other words,
it is the biblical history and the assum ption o f its fundamental correct-
ness which has dictated the interpretation o f the archaeological evidence
thus far.
To illustrate the problem , let me present a specific case. Ussishkin
has recently suggested that Budding 338 at M egiddo was a temple and
was deliberately buried at the end o f the tenth century BCE.‫ ئ‬He further
suggests that Building 2081 at M egiddo w as also a shrine and was partly
buried at the same tim e.‫ ال‬Another cultic structure was unearthed at
nearby fo il Taanach, although its plan remains unclear.^ p. Beck has
suggested that the tw o cult stands unearthed at the site were used as
seats for the statues of the god and goddess o f the shrine‫ ^־‬. It seems
that, like the shrines o f M egiddo, the cultic site at Taanach and its sacred
objects were buried follow ing its destruction in the late tenth century
BCE.
A small shrine was possibly unearthed at Tel 'A m al, east of Beth-
shean, and was published in a preliminary report.‫ ال‬The identification

2íf D. U ssishkin, Schum acher’s sh rin e in Building 8‫ﺗﺖ‬ ar M egiddn, 1£1 49 ,(1989) 39 ‫—ل‬
172. For criticism o f the suggestion, see E. S tem , Schum acher’s Shrine in Building 338
at M egiddo: A Rejoinder, 107- 1 0 2 , ‫ل‬£ ‫ل‬ 40
1)‫ رﻫﻮو‬.
24 U ssishkin, I£J 39, 170—172.
١٠٠ E. Sellin, f e ll Ta'annek, 1904, 75; p. w. Lapp, T he 1963 £xcavation s at Tell T a'annek,
BASO R 173 (1964) 26 —32; idem , Taanach by the Waters o f M egiddo, BA 30 (1967),
19 —23; idem . T he 1968 £ x ca v a t‫؛‬ons at Tell T a'annek, BA^CR 195 (1969) 4 2 —44;
E. A. G lock, Taanach, in M . Avi-Yonah (ed.), EAEHL, ١٧, 1978, 113 8 —1147. M . D.
Eow ler’s claim (Concerning the >Cult‫؛‬c Structure، at Taanach, ZD PV 100 [1984 ‫ إ‬,
3 0 —34) that there is no p roof for the cultic nature o f the structure unearthed at f e ll
Taanach is, in my o p in ion, hardly convincing.
١١ P. Beck, T he fe a n a c h Cult Stands: Iconographie Traditions in the Iron 1 Cult Vessels,
in N . N a ’aman and 1. F in k e ls te in (eds.), Erom N om ad ism to M onarchy. A rchaeological
،and H istorical A spects o f Early Israel, 1990, 4 1 7 —446 (esp. 445 —446) (H ebrew).
32 S. Lewy and E. Edelstein, C in‫ ؟‬années de fouilles ‫ ف‬f e i 'A m al (Nir D avid ), RB 79
( ‫ وا‬7 2 ‫ﻣﺮ‬ 334342180-
93-,‫ ل‬6 2 - ‫دةق‬ and Pis. X IX , XXI.
188 N adav N a ’am an

o f the structure as >cultic< is due to the density o f artifacts w ith cultic

associations (stone >trepoid< full o f ashes, basins, chalíes, bow ls, etc.). It
was destroyed in the late tenth century BC£ and its artifacts buried
under the ruins o f the building.
A small shrine and a neighbouring »high place« were discovered at
L achish.^ The shrine w as found with its altar and cult vessels. A large
block o f lim estone {massebäh) and possibly the remains of an Asherah
were discovered in a nearby »high place«. Aharoni has suggested that
the shrine w as destroyed and covered over in the late tenth century BCE
and that the »high place« remained in use in Strata IV —III.‫ *د‬One may
alternatively suggest that both the shrine and the »high-place« were bur-
ied in the late tenth century BCE and that, at a later time, a pile o f
broken pillars (m a sse b o t?) and a »favissa« were dug in and buried within
the sacred place.
The above data indicate that sev era l shrines in northern Israel
(M egiddo, Taanach and possibly Tell 'Amal) and in the south (Lachish)
were destroyed and buried, with their sacred objects, in the late tenth
century BCE. The burial may have been intended to prevent a possible
future desecration o f the sacred sites (compare II Reg 10,27). The de-
struction o f the northern shrines is linked by scholars to the campaign
o f Pharaoh Shishak against ]eroboam I. The background of the destruc-
tion o f the Lachish shrine remains u n k n ow n .^
The evidence for the destruction o f the four/five shrines and their
burial in the late tenth century BCE is quite impressive, certainly more
impressive than the >evidence< for reforms in the late monarchial period.
Is it possible that the shrines were buried and not restored in conse-
quence o f an official decision? Since nothing is said in the Bible o f cultic
reforms at that tim e, this attractive possibility has never been exam ined.
Biblical archaeologists are mainly concerned w ith corroborating and au-
thenticating the scriptures by extra-biblical evidence. Such efforts are
perfectly legitim ate, as long as the lim itations o f the biblical data are
taken into account, as long as the archaeological evidence is not
»squeezed« in order to fit it into the scriptures, and as long as additional
archaeological data, not directly related to the Bible, are also given ap-
propriate consideration.

١١ Y. A haroni, Investigations at Lachish. T he Sanctuary and the R esidency (Lachish V),

1 .3 2 ‫ و‬7 ‫ﻣﻚ‬
- 26
4‫ ل‬A haroni, ibid., 3 0 —31, 4 1 —42.
‫־‬١‫ ؟‬A h aron i’s assum ption that Lachish Stratum ٧ w as destroyed by Shishak in the course
o‫ ؛‬his cam paign (ibid., 41) is unlikely. Shishak’s cam paign never reached the Shephelah
o‫] ؛‬u d a h . See recently: N . N a ’am an, Israel, £d om and Egypt in the 10th Century
b . c . E., Tel Aviv 19 (1992), 7 9 - 8 6 .
 H ezek ia h ’s Reform ¡0 the Light o f H istorical and A rch aeological Research 1 89

In conclusion, there is as yet no clear archaeological evidence ‫؛‬or

any ٠‫ ؛‬the cultic reforms m entioned in the Bible. W hile lack of positive
evidence does not indicate that reforms did not take place, w e must
remember that the Bible is our only source for both H ezekiah’s and
Josiah’s reforms and that textual, literary and historical analysis are our
main tools for establishing the authenticity o f the scriptures.

3. The Break between the Eighth and Seventh Centuries BCE

Sennacherib’s campaign o f 701 BCE marks a ma]or break in the

settlem ent history and econom y o f the kingdom o f ]udah. D ozens o f its
cities were destroyed and many thousands o f its inhabitants deported.
Vast districts were grievously damaged or even totally abandoned. This
is particularly true of the Shephelah. According to a recent archaeologi-
cal survey, all settlements in the area were destroyed and many sites
abandoned for hundreds o f years. By the end o f the seventh century
BCE, a century after the 701 cam paign, only about 25% of the former
inhabited area in the Shephelah had been resettled.‫ ﺀد‬Parts of the low-
lands were transferred to the Philistine kingdom s.37 The kingdom of
Ekron took the place o f ^ d a h in the northern Shephelah, expanding its
territory and gaining considerable political and econom ic p ow er.^ De-
tails o f the population decrease in the hill country of ]udah and the
district of Benjamin are still missing, but there seems to have been a

١ ‫؛׳‬٧ . D agan, T h e Shephelah during the Period o f the M onarchy in Light o f A rchaeological
L xcavations and Survey (Tel Aviv Univ., M A thesis), 1992, 2 5 9 - 2 6 2 (H ebrew).
7‫ آ‬T he suggestion o f scholars that Sennacherib transferred districts in the hill country o f
Judah and in the N egeb to Judah’s neighbours is arbitrary. Even the assum ption that
the Philistine kingdom s had effective control over the entire Shephelah region during
the first h alf o f the seventh century BCE is uncertain. T h e long settlem ent gap in the
low lands is m ainly the result o f lack o f m anp ow er follow in g the m assive Assyrian
deportation o f 701 BCE. T he Philistines were thus able to use the deserted territories
as grazing fields for their sheep. H ow ever, Philistine settlem ents were found only
around the city o f Ekron, and the rest o f the sh ep h elah rem ained unsettled until the
recovery o f the kingdom o f Judah in the second h alf o f the seventh century BCE. For
the problem , see A. Alt, N ach w ort über die T erritorialgeschichthche Bedeutung von
Sanheribs Eingriff in PaH stina, PJb 25 (1929), 8 0 —8 8‫ ؛‬K. Eiliger, D ie H eim at des
Propheten M ich a, Z D PV 57 (1954), 140 —148‫ ؛‬E. Junge, Der W iederaufbau des Heer-
Wesens des Reiches Juda unter Josia, B W A N T ١٧ 23, 1937, 2 4 —2 7‫ ؛‬H . L. G insberg,
Judah and the Transjordan States ffom 734 to 582 B. C. E., in A lexander M arx Jubilee
Volume, 1950, 3 4 9 - 3 5 1 , nn. 1 2 - 1 3‫ ؛‬H alpern, Jerusalem and the Lineages, 60.
١‫ ؛؛‬S. G itin, Tel M‫ ؟؛‬ne-Ekron: A Type Site for the Inner C oastal Plain in the Iron Age II
Period, A A SG R 49 (1989), 23 —5 8‫ ؛‬N . N a'am an , T h e K ingdom o f Judah Under Josiah,
Tel Aviv 18 (1991), 49.
19 0 N adav N a ’aman

decline o f population in these ateas in the seventh century BCE, though

not on the same scale as in the Shephelah.
S n a c h e r i b ’s cam paign greatly increased the extent o f Judah’s sub-
jugation to Assyria. M anasseh, A m on, and Josiah, the latter in his early
years, were Assyrian vassals w ho paid tribute and were obliged to obey
the orders o f the overlord and his officials. Only in the eighth decade o f
the seventh century, about 70 —75 years after the 701 cam paign, did the
Assyrians retreat from Syro-Palestine.^‫؟‬
During the long period o f subjection to Assyria, Judah slow ly and
gradually recovered ftom the heavy destruction of 701 BCE, restored
som e o f its settlem ents and strengthened its econom y. With the pax As-
syriaca, borders were opened and m anifold contacts with various re-
gions within the Assyrian empire became possible. The penetration of
>non-Yahwistic< cult practices to the tem ple o f Jerusalem (11 Reg 21,3 —7;
2 3 ,4 —12) is an indication o f the political and cultural clim ate o f this
period. Yet it must be emphasized that in all matters relating to the
extent o f its borders, its strength o f settlem ent and its econom ic power
Josiah’s kingdom was considerably weaker than the kingdom w hich had
existed in the eighth century BCE.40
We may conclude that the Assyrian cam paign o f 701 BCE marks a
turning point in the history o f Judah and breaks a continuity of more
than 200 years that began with the division o f the m onarchies of Israel
and Judah ca. 931 BCE. There must have been considerable differences
in many aspects o f public and private lift between the eighth century
kingdom o f Hezekiah and the seventh century kingdom o f Josiah.4‫ل‬
These conclusions are significant for the debate over H ezekiah’s
cultic reform. Scholars w ho have accepted the historicity o f this early
reform em phasize the close connection between H ezekiah’s and Josiah’s
reforms and assume a linear developm ent linking the tw o kings. Eor
exam ple, Weinfeld has suggested a continuity in the political and cul-
tural clim ate between the reigns o f H ezekiah and Josiah w hich brought
about the emergence o f the D euteronom ic laws and m ovem ent. H e refers
to this time span as »the Hezekianic-Josianic period« and suggests a
close connection between the cultic centralization of the tw o k in g s.^ 1

39 N a ’am an, ibid., 3 3 —41.

٠١ N a ’am an, ibid., 5 7 —58.
lu n g e, Der W ied€raufbau, 2 8 —9 ‫ ; و‬A. Rn‫؛‬é, T h e O rganization o f Justice in the b ooh
o‫ ؛‬D eu teron om y (16:18 —20; 17:8 —13), Beit M iqra 21 (1976), 2 0 7 —209 (Hebrew);
H alpern, Jerusalem and the Lineages, 59 —77. Various suggestions raised by Halpern
in his pioneering w ork require ‫؛‬urther study and elaboration.
42 M . W einfeld, T he £m ergence o f the D eu teron om ic M ovem ent — T he H istorical Ante-
cedents, in N . Lohfink (ed.), D as D euteronom ium : £n tsteh u n g. G estalt und Botschaft,
1985, 89 —95. T he continuity betw een H ezekiah and Josiah w as em phasized by Wein-
feld in his early works; see Cult C entralization in Israel in the Light o f a N eo-B abylo-
nian Analogy, J N £ S 23 (1964), 211 —212.
 H ezek iah ’s Reform in the Light o f H istorical and A rchaeological Research 191

believe that the opposite is true and that one must em phasize the break
rather (or, at least, no less) than the continuity between the reigns ٠‫ ؛‬the
tw o kings.
The idea ٠‫ ؛‬a miraculous deliverance o f Jerusalem during the cam-
paign o f 701 BC£ and of the city’s divine inviolability may well have
played an important role in the centralization o f the cult under Josiah.43
But this idea must have developed long after the cam paign, when memo-
ries of its disastrous results had faded considerably.44 The destruction
o f many cult places in the course o f the Assyrian campaign o f 701 BC£
w ould have facilitated the com pletion o f the lam reform. The fall o f the
northern kingdom , the destruction o f vast areas o f the kingdom of Ju-
dah, and the long subjection to foreign pow er may have been regarded
as the fulfilment o f the warnings o f the eighth century prophets. Deep
spiritual reckoning must have follow ed these events and would have
played an important role in the grow th o f the D euteronom ic movem ent.
It is clear that a better understanding o f Sennachrib’s campaign of 701
and its disastrous results may help us explain the emergence o f the Deu-
teronom ic school and the reform o f Josiah. But Josiah’s reform does not
help in understanding the background o f H ezekiah’s debated reform.
The latter must be analysed in its ow n right; the variegated factors that
played an important role in the developm ent and im plem entation of the
lam seventh century reform can hardly be applied to the conditions that
prevailed a century before.٧

4. The Lachish Reliefs

Sennacherib’s attack on the city o f £ a ch‫؛‬sh is portrayed in detail on

a series of stone reliefs erected in his royal palace at Nineveh. The reliefs
were discovered and published by L ayard,^ re-drawn by Dekel and
studied afresh by H ssishkin.^

4 ‫ أ‬٧ . M aag, £rw ägungen zur d eu ter© n u m‫؛‬S€hen K ultzentralisation, V T 6 (1956), 10—18.
44 R. E. Clem ents, Isaiah and the D e liv e ra n e e o f Jerusalem , JSO TSup 15, 1980, 5 2 —108.
45 M . W einfeld (Cult C entralization, 2 0 2 —212) put forward the suggestion that H ezeki-
a h ’s cult reform w as a m ove to increase the k in g’s authority by strengthening the link
betw een the king, the Temple and the provincial tow n s at the tim e o f his rebellion
against Assyria. H e found an analogy in the act o f N ab on id us, w h o gathered the
statues from provincial cities into Babylon on the eve o f the Persian attack in 559
BCE. ?or a refutation o f the analogy and d issociation o f H ezek iah ’s reform b o m the
policy tow ard A ssyria, see Cogan and Tadm or, 11 Kings, 219. As they observe: »At at
tim e when efforts were being directed tow ard the physical fortification and provi-
sioning for war, w ise counsel w ou ld not have recom m ended cult reforms.«
46 A. H . Layard, D iscoveries ‫؛‬١٦ the Ruins o f N ineveh and Babylon, 1855, Pis. X X —XXIV.
47 D. Ussishkin, T he C onquest o f Lachish by Sennacherib, 1982.
19 2 N adav N a ’aman

Figure

1 w ould like to draw attention to the spoils 0 ‫ ؛‬the eity as depicted

in the relie£s.^ To the right 0 ‫ ؛‬the city are seen tw o colum ns of people
m oving to the right and approaching the king sitting on his throne. A
line o f captives and deportees and their escorting Assyrian soldiers ap-
pears in the upper colum n. The last soldier holds a short sword, its
sharpened end threatening the captives w ho w alk before h im .^ At the
rear o f the colum n appear eight Assyrian soldiers carrying the booty.

4« Us$‫؛‬$hk‫؛‬n, ،10 ,105 ,8 4 ,. ‫? س‬.

49 Ussishkin (ibid., 105) suggested that this soldier carries a cerem onial spoil o‫ ؛‬a sceptre
or a m ace and heads the b ooty carriers. For other scenes o£ captives or deportees
escorted by soldiers h olding a short sw ord w h ose sharpened edge is pointed upwards,
see Layard, D iscoveries in the Ruins o£ N in eveh , Fis. X IX , X X V I, XXX111, XXXIV,
X X X V II, XLII.
 H ezek iah ’s Reform in the Light o f H istorical and A rchaeological Research 193

The first and sec©nd soldiers bear large incense burners that in
general resemble smaller Iron Age clay incense burners.‫ص‬The cult ves-
sels must have been made o f bronze as indicated by their placement at
the head o f the spoils procession. The third soldier holds a chair with
armrest (Akkadian nêmedu), and the fourth and fifth soldiers pull a
cerem onial chariot. The last three soldiers bear weapons: three spears,
tw o shields and six swords. The relief depicts three kinds o f objects
w hich are mentioned many times in Assyrian royal inscription booty
lists: cult vessels, the treasures o f the palace and w eapons.
Aharoni has pointed out that the cult vessels on the Lachish reliefs
m ust have com e ftom a cult place. This was regarded by him as support
for his assum ption o f a continuous tradition o f worship at Lachish ftom
the tenth century until the H ellenistic period.1 Whether ٠٢ not one ac-
cepts his hypothesis, it is clear that there was a cult place in Lachish in
the late eighth century BCE. ft was destroyed by Sennacherib, and the
Assyrian relief depicts the m ost extravagant booty taken ftom the site:
a pair of bronze incense burners.
In the eighth century BCE, the city o f Lachish w as second in impor-
tance only to Jerusalem and served as the major ]udean centre in the
Shephelah. A considerable part o f the city w as occupied by the gover-
nor’s palace-fort, with its storehouses, stables and broad courtyard.^
Lachish was under direct royal control, and one w ould assum e that had
there been an extensive cult reform in the kingdom o f Judah, Lachish
w ould have been the first place to be purged. The fact is that its cult
place apparently remained intact until the to w n ’s conquest by Sennach-
erib. This is an indication o f the non-reliability o f the text o f II Reg
18,4.22, according to which H ezekiah removed the cult places from all
the tow ns o f J»jdah.

Conclusions
The com bination o f textual, archaeological, historical and pictorial
evidence sheds new light on the long debated problem o f the cult reform
assigned to Hezekiah in biblical tradition. An analysis of the text of
II Reg 18,4.22 indicates that the tw o verses were com posed by the Dtr.
historian and that he had before him ٨٠ written source referring to

‫؟‬٠١ See Y. Aharoni, Trial £ x ca v a t‫؛‬on in the »Solar Shrine« at Lachish — Preliminary Re-
port, 1£164 ,(1968) 8 ‫ ; ا ل‬idem . Investigations at Lachish, 42; H olladay, R eligion in
Israel and Judah, 288, n. 86 and 290, n. 104.
·‫ ’ ؟‬A haroni, Investigations at Lachish, 4 2 —43.
52 D. U ssishkin, £ x ca v a tio n s at Tel Lachish 1978 —1983, Second Preliminary Report, Tel
Aviv 10 (1983), 103, 1 4 7 —154‫ ؛‬idem , £ ١، Assyrian Attack on Lachish: T h e Archaeo-
logical £ v‫؛‬dence ‫؛‬rom the Sou th w est C orner o‫ ؛‬the Site, Tel Aviv 17 (1990), 81 —84.
19 4 N ad av N a ’am an

reform, except for a note o f the removal o f the bronze serpent. N o

unequivocal evidence o f cultic reform either in the days of H ezekiah or
in the days o f Josiah has been discovered in the many excavations con-
ducted so far in the area o f the kingdom o f ]udah. Rather, there are
indications o f the destruction and the closing o f shrines during the late
tenth century BCE, incidents that are not m entioned in the Bible. This
is an exam ple o f the enorm ous gap that separates the biblical descrip-
tions o f the past from the archaeological evidence. Establishing the rela-
tions o f these ‫ ؛‬١٧© entirely different kinds o f source is alw ays com ph-
cated. In general, it w ould seem w ise to study and evaluate the biblical
text on its ow n before applying it to archaeological research and histori-
cal reconstruction.
Sennacherib’s campaign o f 701 BCE marks a break in the history
o f ^ d a h . The destructive Assyrian conquests and mass deportations o f
the last third o f the eighty century BCE, the words o f the late eighth
century prophets, the long subjection o f )udah to Assyria, and the >for-
eign< influences infiltrating the kingdom — the com bination of these
factors explains, at least p a r tly , the emergence o f the Dtr. school in the
seventh century BCE. H ow ever, there is no evidence for the emergence
o f the Dtr. m ovem ent as early as the late eighth century. H ezekiah’s
reform has som etim es been regarded as the first concrete test o f the
program o f this m ovem ent and thus as evidence for its emergence at
that time. But since the execution o f a wide-ranging reform by H ezekiah
is doubtful, there remains no evidence for activity of the Dtr. m ovem ent
prior to the seventh century.
Finally, there is evidence for the persistence o f a cult place at Lach-
ish, Judah’s major royal city in the Shephelah in the eighth century, until
the Assyrian conquest o f 701. This fits well with all the other evidence
presented above and leads me to conclude that a com prehensive cultic
reform did not take place in the time o f H ezekiah.
Why then was such a reform ascribed to H ezekiah in the Dtr. his-
tory? The answer may be found in the description of the king in the
story o f II Reg 1 8 ,1 7 —19,37. H ezekiah’s depiction as a righteous king,
w ho trusted Y H W H , turned to his prophet and prayed in his temple at
a time o f crisis, was interpreted by the historian as an indication of
utm ost devotion to Y H W H . Accordingly, he integrated H ezekiah within
his schem e o f four kings (bad-good-bad-good) w ho spanned the period
ffom Ahaz to Josiah (Amon does not flt this pattern and is treated as
an appendage to M anasseh’s period).53 H ezekiah is presented in this
scheme as the antithesis o f Ahaz and as the prototype o f Josiah. A ccord­

53 For the $chem atic nature o ‫ ؛‬the evaluative com m ents in the Books o f K ings, see recently
E. Ben Z vi, T he A ccount o f the Reign o f M anasseh in 11 Reg 21,1 —18 and the Redac-
tional H istory o f the Book o f Kings, ZAW 103 (1991), 3 5 9 —361.
 H ezek iah ’s R eform in the Light o f H istorical and A rchaeological Research 19 5

ing to the historian’s w r i t t e n source, H ezekiah had removed the bronze

image ©‫ ؛‬the serpent, w h eth er there were som e other oral traditions 0 ‫؛‬
the kings’s deeds is not clear. The historian thus portrayed the righteous
king as the first to carry out the Dtr. program and as forerunner of
]osiah , the king w ho fulfilled the D euteronom ic law in every detail.

The article exam ines the textual, arch aeological, historical and pictorial evidence o£
the cult reform assigned to H ezekiah ‫!؛‬١ ‫ ﻃﻨﻂ‬1‫اﺣﺂن‬ tradition. An analysis o f 11 Reg 18,4.22
indicates that the author had before him no written source referring to reform , except for
a note o f the rem oval o f the bronze serpent. N o unequivocal evidence o f cu b ic reform has
been discovered in the archaeological excavation s; but there is evidence for the persistence
o f a cult place at Lachish until the Assyrian con q u est o f 7 0 f . It is evident that a com prehen-
sive cu b ic reform did not take place in the tim e o f H ezekiah. Since the execu tion o f a
w ide-ranging reform by H ezekiah is d ou b tfu l, there rem ains no evidence for the activity
o f the Dtr. m ovem ent prior to the seventh century BCE.
 ‫آلﻣﺂورلم؛‬

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥ ۴ ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use ‫ آس‬covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia‫ ؛‬funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.